Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-01-2012, 10:59 PM   #331
NumberSix
Big Booty Hoes!!
 
NumberSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Internets
Posts: 17,003
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iron Fist
Explain why its a valid argument for only Kobe then.
It depends what you mean by a valid argument. If you mean as a way to discredit Kobe, it's not valid.

I can understand someone saying Kobe's 2000 championship is tainted. That's fine. You can't say that about 2 and 3 though. He was a very crucial part of those championships. The finals MVP isn't the only person who gets credit.
NumberSix is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 11:04 PM   #332
oolalaa
I eat cheese
 
oolalaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 969
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iron Fist
No, he was just more vocal. But I guess its quite an achievement and telling of how great a player is when he wins fmvp at the age of 38. So if Magic is s o great, why didn't he win when Cap left? According to you, he was well past his prime since 81 which ISH logic dictates that Magic "carried him".

1. Magic was just more vocal? Are you trolling? Magic was the perhaps the greatest leader in NBA history. Kareem most certainly was not.

2. Parker won finals mvp over Duncan in '07. Anyone can have a great series.

3. Kareem was past his prime from '82 - '86 and well past his prime from '87 - '89. You could argue that Kareem was 1b in '82 but '85, '87 & '88 were Magic's teams.
oolalaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 11:27 PM   #333
oolalaa
I eat cheese
 
oolalaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 969
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DFish
No, what's absurd is your ludicrous claim that Kobe's championships are somehow "tainted" by circumstance. Championships are won by teams; not by individual players. But it's apparent that you have a tenuous understanding of the NBA at best.

The funny thing is, I can almost guarantee that you wouldn't have even bothered to respond to my post if I didn't start off by using the word "absurd". And I know that you wouldn't have ended with that "you have a tenuous understanding of the NBA at best" line.

I could easily claim that YOUR understanding of the NBA is irrational and sophomoric for disagreeing with me (Kobe's '00 ring is not tainted to you? Really? Do you even know what tainted means?). That, of course, doesn't make it so....
oolalaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 11:40 PM   #334
gengiskhan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,574
Lightbulb Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iron Fist
Magic is a pg, hes supposed to dictate the
Flow. Kobes a sg ,hes supposed to shoot the ball numerous times. Even now, you havent adrressed why Magic didnt win without Kareem nor did you address Magic losing in the finals more times than Kobe. And hou have yet to address Kareem carrykng Magic as a dominant big, skmething Magic never won without.

Nice double standard though.

Are you serious?

is that the real argument you are presenting about Magic?

You do understand that runner-up legit MVP Magic took much inferior 1991 Lakers (worhty injured. Kareem retired, no cooper, no Pat Riley)to NBA Finals & even gave 1-0 lead after beating much favorite Portland in WCF.

If MJ did not took it to another level in 1991 especially in OT of Game 3, Magic would've given Lakers a lead of 3-1 by game 5 in 1991 Finals.

Did you even see the Finalists Magic's Lakers lost to in NBA Finals? One of Finals loss is to Larry Bird's Celtics, the greatest defensive team & best starting 5 ever assembled in NBA history.

Another loss is to Dr. Js sixers, the best sixers team ever assembled in their franchise ever.

Another is to Pistons, the best pistons team ever essembled in franchise history.

compare that to Kobe.

2004 finals lost to Pistons with Shaq still in his prime. Neither the Pistons were that unbeatable. Kobe just forgot to pound the ball to shaq inside every play.

2008 finals loss to Celtics, not even 50% of the Bird's celtics. Kobe just choked.

You think Magic would've lost after being up 3-1 in PO series.

You think Magic would fail to make it to POs #8 seat in his peak prime.

There is a reason why Magic is still much better than Stockton despite loosing assist record to him.

There is a reason why Jason kidd is still inferior to Magic Man despite taking Nets to NBA Finals twice.

you put Magic in Nets line up, You'll see 1 championship with Nets in 2 consequetive finals appearances.

Thats how brilliant Magic was.

Kobe can "COLLECT" his 7th Ring as Lakers, Magic will still stay as the Greatest Laker ever. Even above Shaq.

How did we forget "rookie" magic collecting FMVP when rookie kobe was shooting "air balls" in the POs most important game.

Last edited by gengiskhan : 05-01-2012 at 11:44 PM.
gengiskhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 12:07 AM   #335
REACTION
HYRYSICPT?
 
REACTION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 661
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oolalaa
In a word, yes, if you aren't the best player on a championship team then your ring is tainted. But of course there are of course different degrees of tainting.

Don't get me wrong, Kobe deserves a tonne of credit for leading a team to a championship. Ignore that I said his '10 title was tainted. It is, very slightly in my mind (simply because of the issues Boston had in game 7 combined with the fact that Perk was the perfect type of player to sort them out!), but as you said, injuries occur throughout every series and he was only their 5th best player anyway.

'09 for example - he was great all year and proved he didn't need Shaq to win a title. But winning a ring when the DEFENDING CHAMPS best player doesn't play a single game in the post season takes the shine off the achievement. How about a ranking system to illustrate simply what I mean...

10/10
9/10
8/10

Any of the above grade means you lead a team to a championship.

7/10
6/10
5/10

Any of the above means you were the 2nd best player on a championship team.

4/10
3/10

Any of the above means you were 3rd best.


If Kobe led L.A past Boston in the '09 finals then I would have given him a 10/10. He didn't so I gave him an 8/10. Kobe in '00 = 5/10. Kobe in '01 = 7/10. Kobe in '02 = 7/10. Kobe in '10 = 9/10.

Pippen '91-'93 & '96-'98 = 6/10

Ginobili '03 = 2/10, '05 & '07 = 4/10

Gasol '09 = 5/10, '10 = 6/10

Kareem '71 = 8/10 (no Jerry West), '80 = 9/10, '82 = 6/10, '85 = 6/10, '87 = 4/10, '88 = 3/10

Jordan was 10/10 for every ring. Hakeem only had an 8/10 for his 2 rings (no MJ). Bird was an 8 and two 10s. Duncan was an 8, two 10s and a 9.

You get marked down for not beating the best of the best or for playing sub par or for any other dodgy circumstance. Magic was only a 9/10 in '87 for instance, not 10/10. Boston were decimated with injuries in the finals.


Of course, you will say that it is not as black and white as that. I agree, but you get the idea.....

It might just be the semantics that I disagree with then. Are you saying that any ring that isn't a 10/10 on your rankings is what you'd call tainted? I guess tainted just sounds... extreme to me. Like it's somehow a lesser accomplishment.

I'm also not sure you can really quantify a championship title like that for an individual player because, like another poster said, NBA championships are won by the collective efforts of the team rather than by any one star player alone. It's tempting but misleading to evaluate specific players on such a basis. (Whether they were the "best player" on the team during that season, the quality of the opposition, their injuries, etc.) But I think each player on a championship team had their own role to play, whether it be the man and clear-cut #1, the #2, or role players. If a role player performs his role with great efficiency and effectiveness, I think that's what matters in a championship win more than whether he was the best player on his team in an individual talent capacity.

If I can use an analogy to describe what I mean... Let's say you have a company that becomes really successful with a given management team. You can look at the CEO and say that he was a major part of that success. And you might look at the CFO or COO and say they contributed less. But I think it's more important to evaluate each person according to their role and execution of that role. For instance, instead of saying the CFO was less important because he wasn't CEO, I'd say that the CFO's importance is more dependent upon whether he was a good CFO. If that makes sense.

Last edited by REACTION : 05-02-2012 at 12:27 AM.
REACTION is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 08:44 AM   #336
oolalaa
I eat cheese
 
oolalaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 969
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by REACTION
It might just be the semantics that I disagree with then. Are you saying that any ring that isn't a 10/10 on your rankings is what you'd call tainted? I guess tainted just sounds... extreme to me. Like it's somehow a lesser accomplishment.

I'm also not sure you can really quantify a championship title like that for an individual player because, like another poster said, NBA championships are won by the collective efforts of the team rather than by any one star player alone. It's tempting but misleading to evaluate specific players on such a basis. (Whether they were the "best player" on the team during that season, the quality of the opposition, their injuries, etc.) But I think each player on a championship team had their own role to play, whether it be the man and clear-cut #1, the #2, or role players. If a role player performs his role with great efficiency and effectiveness, I think that's what matters in a championship win more than whether he was the best player on his team in an individual talent capacity.

If I can use an analogy to describe what I mean... Let's say you have a company that becomes really successful with a given management team. You can look at the CEO and say that he was a major part of that success. And you might look at the CFO or COO and say they contributed less. But I think it's more important to evaluate each person according to their role and execution of that role. For instance, instead of saying the CFO was less important because he wasn't CEO, I'd say that the CFO's importance is more dependent upon whether he was a good CFO. If that makes sense.

But I've done that. Kobe in '01 & and '02 gets a 7/10. Pippen in '91 - '93 and '96 - '98 gets a 6/10 (I could drop him to only 5/10. It's close. Let's say 5.5/10). Both Kobe and Pippen had the same role - i.e being the clear cut second best player on their teams - but Kobe was just better at his role, as the second best player, than Pippen.


And you say it's tempting and misleading to evaluate players, and their championships, by using, effectively, a ranking system? That is what we do, as human beings. It's ingrained into us. We order and rank things to make sense of them. It's a cop out to say that TEAMS win rings, rather than individual players. Yes, this is true, but some players are more responsible for winning than others.

I'm know you're not saying that someone like Andrew Toney was equally responsible for winning the sixers a ring as Moses Malone, right? After all, he and Moses were merely part of that '83 championship team. So therefore how much credit do we assign to Andrew Toney then? Of course, it's impossible to say for sure but we at least have to try!!!

When judging an individual player you also have to take into account the team that surrounds said player. Don't you think that Rick Barry's '75 ring or Jordan's '98 ring or Shaq's '00 ring or Dirk's '11 ring is a little more impressive than normal? When judging legacies, these things should be taken into account. Just like Lebron choking away the finals last year will be taken into account or Kobe not having to beat the Celtics in '09.

Using a ranking system is just a simple way of giving a little extra credit where it's due and taking some away where it's unwarranted.


Thanks for responding with some effort anyway

Last edited by oolalaa : 05-02-2012 at 09:26 AM.
oolalaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 12:47 PM   #337
REACTION
HYRYSICPT?
 
REACTION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 661
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oolalaa
But I've done that. Kobe in '01 & and '02 gets a 7/10. Pippen in '91 - '93 and '96 - '98 gets a 6/10 (I could drop him to only 5/10. It's close. Let's say 5.5/10). Both Kobe and Pippen had the same role - i.e being the clear cut second best player on their teams - but Kobe was just better at his role, as the second best player, than Pippen.

Oh, I thought you were docking them because they weren't the best players:

Quote:
Originally Posted by oolalaa
In a word, yes, if you aren't the best player on a championship team then your ring is tainted.

But if you're saying that Kobe was a 7/10 for his role, I think that's reasonable. In other words, as long as it's possible for a #2 or role player to theoretically get a perfect 10/10 in your ranking system if they performed their role flawlessly. As long as a 10/10 isn't reserved only for the #1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oolalaa
Using a ranking system is just a simple way of giving a little extra credit where it's due and taking some away where it's unwarranted.

Yeah, but I wouldn't say that the rings of every player who wasn't the best player on their team are tainted. Some players obviously contribute more to championship runs, but I don't think a player should be automatically docked for not being the #1. They should be docked/rewarded according to how well they stepped up to their role and contributed in their own capacity. That's all I'm saying.
REACTION is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 12:57 PM   #338
Coffee Black
I hit open layups
 
Coffee Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 171
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oolalaa
But I've done that. Kobe in '01 & and '02 gets a 7/10. Pippen in '91 - '93 and '96 - '98 gets a 6/10 (I could drop him to only 5/10. It's close. Let's say 5.5/10). Both Kobe and Pippen had the same role - i.e being the clear cut second best player on their teams - but Kobe was just better at his role, as the second best player, than Pippen.


And you say it's tempting and misleading to evaluate players, and their championships, by using, effectively, a ranking system? That is what we do, as human beings. It's ingrained into us. We order and rank things to make sense of them. It's a cop out to say that TEAMS win rings, rather than individual players. Yes, this is true, but some players are more responsible for winning than others.

I'm know you're not saying that someone like Andrew Toney was equally responsible for winning the sixers a ring as Moses Malone, right? After all, he and Moses were merely part of that '83 championship team. So therefore how much credit do we assign to Andrew Toney then? Of course, it's impossible to say for sure but we at least have to try!!!

When judging an individual player you also have to take into account the team that surrounds said player. Don't you think that Rick Barry's '75 ring or Jordan's '98 ring or Shaq's '00 ring or Dirk's '11 ring is a little more impressive than normal? When judging legacies, these things should be taken into account. Just like Lebron choking away the finals last year will be taken into account or Kobe not having to beat the Celtics in '09.

Using a ranking system is just a simple way of giving a little extra credit where it's due and taking some away where it's unwarranted.


Thanks for responding with some effort anyway

Do you seriously expect others to take your very subjective ratings and opinions as fact?
Coffee Black is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 01:01 PM   #339
Coffee Black
I hit open layups
 
Coffee Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 171
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

How is this thread still going? It's obvious that most of the posters here didn't watch the games throughout these players' careers by lack of in game evidence. What is the point?

On that note, there is a lot more Kobe discussion in this thread that Duncan. Isn't that a clue to the answer the main argument in this thread? Or is it insight on the type of posters taking part in this thread?
Coffee Black is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 01:02 PM   #340
DFish
Banned
 
DFish's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,729
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by REACTION
It might just be the semantics that I disagree with then. Are you saying that any ring that isn't a 10/10 on your rankings is what you'd call tainted? I guess tainted just sounds... extreme to me. Like it's somehow a lesser accomplishment.

I'm also not sure you can really quantify a championship title like that for an individual player because, like another poster said, NBA championships are won by the collective efforts of the team rather than by any one star player alone. It's tempting but misleading to evaluate specific players on such a basis. (Whether they were the "best player" on the team during that season, the quality of the opposition, their injuries, etc.) But I think each player on a championship team had their own role to play, whether it be the man and clear-cut #1, the #2, or role players. If a role player performs his role with great efficiency and effectiveness, I think that's what matters in a championship win more than whether he was the best player on his team in an individual talent capacity.

If I can use an analogy to describe what I mean... Let's say you have a company that becomes really successful with a given management team. You can look at the CEO and say that he was a major part of that success. And you might look at the CFO or COO and say they contributed less. But I think it's more important to evaluate each person according to their role and execution of that role. For instance, instead of saying the CFO was less important because he wasn't CEO, I'd say that the CFO's importance is more dependent upon whether he was a good CFO. If that makes sense.

Exactly.

I'm tired of this "hero ball" bullshit. Individual players don't win championships. Ever. Jordan didn't in 1998, Shaq didn't in 2000, Dirk didn't in 2011. You say it's a cop out to say that teams win rings, oolalaa? No. It's an acknowledgement of reality and statement of fact. Plucking out the "best player" on a championship team and saying that the rings of every other player on that teams are tainted and debased is an incredibly simplistic and fallacious way of looking at it.

Claiming that Kobe's 2009 and 2010 championships are tainted is downright fucking laughable. End of that story.
DFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 02:14 PM   #341
LakersReign
Banned
 
LakersReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: I Stand Alone
Posts: 4,426
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffee Black
How is this thread still going? It's obvious that most of the posters here didn't watch the games throughout these players' careers by lack of in game evidence. What is the point?

On that note, there is a lot more Kobe discussion in this thread that Duncan. Isn't that a clue to the answer the main argument in this thread? Or is it insight on the type of posters taking part in this thread?

It's really one idiotic poster, bwink23, agreeing with himself, trying to make it look like there's a majority of people on ISH, who rank Kobe below Duncan, like he does. The minute you don't agree, you're AUTOMATICALLY a Kobe tard or Kobe stan, or something hilariously stupid like that. He has to keep it going to try to get people other than himself to agree with him. Pretty sad.
LakersReign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 02:49 PM   #342
oolalaa
I eat cheese
 
oolalaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 969
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by REACTION
Oh, I thought you were docking them because they weren't the best players:



But if you're saying that Kobe was a 7/10 for his role, I think that's reasonable. In other words, as long as it's possible for a #2 or role player to theoretically get a perfect 10/10 in your ranking system if they performed their role flawlessly. As long as a 10/10 isn't reserved only for the #1.



Yeah, but I wouldn't say that the rings of every player who wasn't the best player on their team are tainted. Some players obviously contribute more to championship runs, but I don't think a player should be automatically docked for not being the #1. They should be docked/rewarded according to how well they stepped up to their role and contributed in their own capacity. That's all I'm saying.

No, In the ranking system I used (I literally just came up with it yesterday to illustrate what I meant) Kobe, or any other 2nd best player, could not get a perfect 10/10. Like I said, 8/10 and above are reserved for players who are the best player on their team.

However, if I was only rating the 2nd best players on championship teams then I would absolutely have to give Kobe a perfect 10/10 (for '01 & '02). He was probably the best 2nd option in league history between '01 and '03.

3rd best....Butch Beard in '75 = 3/10, Kareem in '87 = 9/10, Laimbeer in '90 = 6/10, Grant in '92 = 5/10, Rice in '00 = 5/10 etc


Anyway, I think we're just playing semantics now....
oolalaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 02:50 PM   #343
oolalaa
I eat cheese
 
oolalaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 969
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffee Black
Do you seriously expect others to take your very subjective ratings and opinions as fact?



No.
oolalaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 02:52 PM   #344
oolalaa
I eat cheese
 
oolalaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 969
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gengiskhan
oolalaa

Lakereign's real insecurity kicks in when he starts accusing you of multiple accounts & calls you bwink23.

Its coming up. just wait. Right now he is just going through heavy menstrual periods.

just wait till he hits PMS.

It's happened....

Quote:
It's really one idiotic poster, bwink23, agreeing with himself, trying to make it look like there's a majority of people on ISH, who rank Kobe below Duncan, like he does. The minute you don't agree, you're AUTOMATICALLY a Kobe tard or Kobe stan, or something hilariously stupid like that. He has to keep it going to try to get people other than himself to agree with him. Pretty sad.

You were right

oolalaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 02:57 PM   #345
LakersReign
Banned
 
LakersReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: I Stand Alone
Posts: 4,426
Default Re: If Tim Duncan gets title #5 this year, does he surpass Kobe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DFish
Exactly.

I'm tired of this "hero ball" bullshit. Individual players don't win championships. Ever. Jordan didn't in 1998, Shaq didn't in 2000, Dirk didn't in 2011. You say it's a cop out to say that teams win rings, oolalaa? No. It's an acknowledgement of reality and statement of fact. Plucking out the "best player" on a championship team and saying that the rings of every other player on that teams are tainted and debased is an incredibly simplistic and fallacious way of looking at it.

Claiming that Kobe's 2009 and 2010 championships are tainted is downright fucking laughable. End of that story.

Notice how bwink ignored this post? Hmmmm, I wonder why? Oh yeah, that's right, cuz dude didn't agree with him. Big surprise. Which is exactly why he'd rather come on here and have a g*y circle jerk session with himself, fantasizing about me,(that nobody on here really cares about, but he's way too pathetic and ret**ded to understand and accept), than talk about the NBA

Now watch as he suddenly feels this urgent need to respond to it now.

Last edited by LakersReign : 05-02-2012 at 03:24 PM.
LakersReign is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:30 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy