Barkley: I'm better than Malone

[Dragonyeuw]

No you are trying to lump 10 years together....rather than see that Barkley was better the first 3 years...and then they were about even....for the next several years and then Malone was flat out better....

Barkley was better through 1991, 92 was an off year, he was better in 93, then Malone was better from 94 onwards. Your list shows the latter point to be the case, which is what some have been saying here. General consensus was that in the late 80's after Jordan/Magic/Bird, Barkley was right underneath them, basically a top 5 player. I have never heard of anyone calling Karl Malone a top 5 player during the late 80's. Peak Barkley is more dominant than any version of Karl Malone.

[Shep]

Malone was clearly more impressive individually in the WCF and it's a joke to try to compare team success in these series, the teams are so far apart it's ridiculous.

malone was easily better in the WCQF

I don't care since Malone didn't perform better or even as well in the series to do it so this is not a valid argument for Malone's '97 run to me. Team success is what you play for, but to credit an individual for it, you have to evaluate his performance that led to the victory. Otherwise, you have to look beyond the team's best player, and in this case, Stockton was the major difference between the '92 and '97 WCF.

he did perform better, due to the jazz being successful and him being the best player.

Not in your wildest dreams.

delusional

A complete joke since I always describe additions to player's games and/or their maturation as a player as reasons for a particular season being their best. Unless a player's game and ability are virtually the same in multiple seasons. Then I look for a tiebreaker, either stats, team success or durability/consistency.

it actually looks like you take the best scorers, then try to make up bs to justify it, and most times it looks like you are trying to convince yourself rather than others.

Do you have ANY ability to apply context? Yeah...2 fewer games with his second best player missing 18 more games and also becoming significantly less productive. It's just too obvious.

2 different seasons. there are too many factors that come into play without pinpointing 1 18 game stretch. therefore we can only judge on facts, and that fact was that malone led the jazz to more victories in 1997.

Because they were healthy.

excuses

Kobe stepped up as much as Odom did. Neither were noticeably better than their regular season level to me, but both did their jobs. Though Odom did step up more than Kobe the previous season in their playoff series vs Phoenix, but Kobe was still the Lakers best player in each series, by a large margin in '07.

odom stepped up alot more than kobe in both years playoff losses.

You're comparing averages over 4 game to 17 games? I'd expect Odom's numbers to rise a bit going from a clear 2nd option with Kobe to a clear 1st option without him. And maintaining averages over 4 games is much, much easier than 17 games.

or it would be much harder considering the opposing defenses don't have to concentrate on bryant being out there?

Nope, just one wrong person ranking players.

oh, so now everybody ranked players the way i rank them except for you?

The Wizards didn't have their 2 best players Gilbert Arenas and the Nets big men were Mikki Moore, Jason Collins and Josh Boone. Plus, Lebron's job was made easier for him because Vince Carter was shut down, and New Jersey had relied heavily on his offense throughout the season and were still mediocre. Despite that, this was a 6 game series and several games were decided by other players. Pavlovic's chasedown block on Kidd late in game 1, Carter turning the ball over on the final possession of game 4 and Donyell Marshall's threes helping Cleveland pull away late in game 6 turning a 1 point game entering the 4th quarter into a blowout.

making up for the wizards missing players antawn jamison was huge with 32.0ppg, 9.8rpg, 1.3apg, 0.5spg, and 1.0bpg and antonio daniels played the best he has played in his entire career with 13.3ppg, 4.5rpg, 11.8apg, 1.3spg, and 0.25bpg. the nets big men were the same nets big men that defeated the 47 win raptors. who cares about these single plays being mentiond? it is just rediculous mentioning 1 play when a game is played over 4 quarters and lebron was their best player in every single game.

You mentioned numbers first as a case for T-Mac's '07 and even after I said T-Mac had put up better numbers I went on to state "regardless of numbers" before going into the reasons T-Mac was past his prime by '07.

the numbers contributed to zero. this season his numbers actually meant something

Watch the games instead of basketball-reference. It's obvious he had lost athleticism. Most players are at or near their peak at 27, but most don't have the injury problems T-Mac did. He was coming off a season that he had missed 35 games in, and ultimately, he was never quite the same. His decline continued in '08.

He simply didn't have the first step he did in '05, and definitely wasn't as good of a finisher. I don't care if his numbers were similar, I'm going with what I saw. T-Mac was also much better in the '05 playoffs than '07.

more watch the games arguments

who cares what he was coming off? 2005 was his peak so he obviously wasn't as good as he was in his peak, but he was better than almost every other season. he dropped off the next season but he was still better than most, finishing 12th amongst all players.

Kobe was by far the best scorer in the league in '07, and didn't really look to score that much himself until the last couple of months or so when he scored at a historic pace at his coaches request. Prior to that, he had been focusing more on playmaking while still scoring very efficiently.

so bryant was "by far" the best scorer, yet lebron (while he wasn't a natural scorer) scored at only 2.8%ts less and only 4.3 less ppg, while taking 2 less field goals per game. not "by far" by any stretch of the imagination. how was the lakers record while kobe decided to score at a historic pace? 8-9

Steamroll the competition? They beat 1 solid team in the playoffs. That key flaw greatly affected Lebron when he faced a great team. Lebron's Cavs making the finals isn'that impressive to me since that was one of the worst Eastern Conferences in recent years, and most importantly, I'm looking at his level of play by itself, which didn't put him above several other players. I don't just blindly raise a player's rankings for a team accomplishment. I look at the rest of the team and with Cleveland, I saw a Cavs team whose supporting players continually stepped up in huge moments, a great rebounding team and an elite defensive team. They didn't need as much offense as other teams because they were holding opponents to such low scores.

they finished second in the entire league. that is second out of 30 teams. beat all the eastern conferences best teams to get to the nba finals. the cavaliers rode lebron like no other team had rode a superstar in nba history. his second best player probably wasn't top 10 at his position. lebron played huge in the playoffs. while every single one of his top teammates dropped off in production, lebron increased his. having such poor teammates lebron faced defenses that had 1 goal of stopping lebron and he was still able to lead that team far beyond any expectations that had been placed on it.

His play was roughly what you'd expect.

i expected much, much more.

Kobe failed to play like a superstar even in the regular season and a scrub in the playoffs? You have a ridiculous agenda. He was widely considered the best player in the game. With the exception of defense, this was a time when his entire game was really coming together. This is a top 10 player of all-time, at or near his peak.

that was actually a top 15 player of all-time nowhere near his peak which was 2001, or 6 years prior.

Whatever he did, it seemed to make a difference because he went from a player whose level of play often dropped in the playoffs early in his career to a player who raised his game in the playoffs as much as virtually any superstar from '74-'80.

his peak was at a time when he "wasn't working out" so i don't know where this is comin from.

Kareem was in a free throw slump during the playoffs, I'll judge his free throw shooting by a full season of games when he shot 71%.

playoff is the true test of a players ability

You continue to set the standard for stat whores and prove your knowledge consists soley of what you read on basketball-reference. '71 is his peak? Yeah....Kareem peaked in just 2nd second season. That makes sense despite adding multiple moves such as a turnaround jumper and left-handed hook in later years as well as becoming smarter and stronger.

more jokes. you think just because he could make a turnaround jumper he was more effective and better overall? what about the raw facts of being able to demolish the competition to the effect of 31.7ppg, 16.0rpg, and 3.3apg on 58% during the regular season on a team that won the second most games in nba history for a season, and 26.6ppg, 17.0rpg, 2.5apg on 52% during the playoffs on a team that went 12-2 in the playoffs, including a 4-0 destroying of the baltimore bullets in the nba finals.

I can name so many examples why stats are deceptive in this case. Kareem helped a weak Laker team overachieve and get the best record in '77 and then raised his game to ridiculous heights with a playoff run far more impressive from an individual standpoint than '71.

both kareem's season and playoff were easily better in 1971 (amongst a number of other years) it isn't even debatable.

Not surprising you resort to these tactics when you're getting your ass handed to you in this debate.

you have it the wrong way around here in terms of who is handing ass to whom

[ShaqAttack3234]

it actually looks like you take the best scorers, then try to make up bs to justify it, and most times it looks like you are trying to convince yourself rather than others.

Nice try, you turned out to be very predictable. I call you out on something, you get offended and try to do the same thing to me. You've done this more than once in this thread alone.

Since '99, the best player in the league has only been the league's leading scorer 3 times. Shaq in 2000 and Kobe in '06 and '07.

or it would be much harder considering the opposing defenses don't have to concentrate on bryant being out there?

That's a valid argument, although it'd likely factor into efficiency more than anything. However, this an extreme case since he was left in a position where his second best player was Luke Walton, and again, it's a 4 game sample size. He was playing great in general to start that season.

making up for the wizards missing players antawn jamison was huge with 32.0ppg, 9.8rpg, 1.3apg, 0.5spg, and 1.0bpg and antonio daniels played the best he has played in his entire career with 13.3ppg, 4.5rpg, 11.8apg, 1.3spg, and 0.25bpg. the nets big men were the same nets big men that defeated the 47 win raptors. who cares about these single plays being mentiond? it is just rediculous mentioning 1 play when a game is played over 4 quarters and lebron was their best player in every single game.

That Wizards team would struggle to win 20 games with that lineup over a season. Yeah Antawn put up numbers, but why is that even notable? Putting up numbers for a few games when there's nobody else to do it and you lose all of them isn't notable. Antonio Daniels was playing 44 mpg. Of course he's going to put up the best numbers of his life. On any good team, Daniels will be playing roughly half those minutes.

The Nets were a .500 team, and their pathetic frontcourt is why they weren't better.

Cleveland outrebounded the Nets by 4 rpg in the series. They also held the Nets to 84.2 ppg. Are you telling me those things weren't a huge part of their success? Defense and rebounding were their greatest strengths.

the numbers contributed to zero. this season his numbers actually meant something

His wins in '05 were almost identical, and he lost in 7 games in the first round both years. The difference was he was much better in the '05 playoffs. And T-Mac led rosters as bad as a superstar has had in recent years to the playoffs in Orlando, especially '02 and '03. The only year T-Mac's numbers seemed empty was '04.

who cares what he was coming off? 2005 was his peak so he obviously wasn't as good as he was in his peak, but he was better than almost every other season. he dropped off the next season but he was still better than most, finishing 12th amongst all players.

2005 was not his peak, though it was a standout season for him, either his 2nd or 3rd best.

I don't have him ranked in 2006 because he didn't meet criteria for games played, but that's not the point. The point is that injuries around that time led to an early decline.

so bryant was "by far" the best scorer, yet lebron (while he wasn't a natural scorer) scored at only 2.8%ts less and only 4.3 less ppg, while taking 2 less field goals per game. not "by far" by any stretch of the imagination. how was the lakers record while kobe decided to score at a historic pace? 8-9

Kobe could beat you from long range, he'd kill you from mid-range, he'd drive to the basket, he'd finish strongand with either hand, he'd beat you in the post, his footwork was second to none and he made his free throws.

The only way Lebron beat teams consistently as a scorer was driving to the basket. Lebron was clearly the superior finisher and more unstoppable going to the basket. But he wasn't starting in the post so he had to get to the basket from the perimeter. This is why that jump shot is a problem and makes Kobe's advantage as a scorer so obvious. It's very difficult to drive when your defender backs off you and gives you the jump shot. Lebron was a poor 3 point shooter, didn't have a mid-range or post game and he wasn't a good free throw shooter. Kobe actually got to the line at a better rate and held a huge 87-70 FT% advantage.

Now there's passing and playmaking. I've always considered Lebron the better passer, and this year is no exception, but I consider the difference much smaller than scoring considering how well Kobe was setting up his teammates and playing within the offense resulting in Odom and Walton improving.

Rebounding and defense are negligible between these two in this season.

The Lakers went 9-8 actually after Phil told Kobe to shooting. Not great, but Phil told Kobe to start shooting more to snap a 7 game losing streak, and he did with 4 straight 50+ games immediately after(65, 50, 60, 50) and a 43 point game to finish a 5 game winning streak.

they finished second in the entire league. that is second out of 30 teams. beat all the eastern conferences best teams to get to the nba finals. the cavaliers rode lebron like no other team had rode a superstar in nba history. his second best player probably wasn't top 10 at his position. lebron played huge in the playoffs

The Cavs rode Lebron more than any other star in NBA history? Not even close. So many players have produced more than Lebron in the '07 playoffs for their teams. Too many to name. Lebron has done it several times himself.

Lebron wasn't huge in the playoffs either. The only thing that was really remarkable was game 5 vs Detroit. I can't even count how many playoff runs I've seen that were better.

And you can't judge Lebron's help just by looking at his cast on paper, He played on a top 4 defensive team that outrebounded opponents by 3.7 rpg. Are you telling me that's not going to help win games significantly? Lebron by that point was pretty much an offensive player, and Cleveland was a poor offensive team.

that was actually a top 15 player of all-time nowhere near his peak which was 2001, or 6 years prior.

at 2001 being Kobe's peak. How was that his peak when he expanded his range to become a 3 point shooter, greatly improved his post game, improved his moves, particularly his pump fake and footwork.

His play in the 2001 playoffs was remarkable, probably the best he's played from an all around standpoint along with 2008. But I also have to look at his regular season which was nowhere near his best and I have to look at his game, which I did before.

his peak was at a time when he "wasn't working out" so i don't know where this is comin from.

Well, yeah, based on an article I read from '80, he didn't lift weights yet when he peaked in '77, but he had gotten stronger by the time he was 29/30 than he was at 23/24.

playoff is the true test of a players ability

Defenses do get tighter, the competition now only includes good and great teams not bad teams, you face an opponent multiple times in a row so they can gameplan for your moves and tendencies better and there's a lot more pressure. So yeah, it is a lot harder to perform. But the only one of those things that could apply to free throw shooting is the pressure and considering Kareem's career FT% was higher in the playoffs than regular season, I see nothing to suggest Kareem's free throw shooting declined because of pressure.

more jokes. you think just because he could make a turnaround jumper he was more effective and better overall? what about the raw facts of being able to demolish the competition to the effect of 31.7ppg, 16.0rpg, and 3.3apg on 58% during the regular season on a team that won the second most games in nba history for a season, and 26.6ppg, 17.0rpg, 2.5apg on 52% during the playoffs on a team that went 12-2 in the playoffs, including a 4-0 destroying of the baltimore bullets in the nba finals.

How is he not better after adding moves, improving his passing and getting a bit stronger without losing anything?

Stats? Look at this quote from '77 where Kareem talks about how he was guarded 1 on 1 his first 4-5 seasons.

The first four or five years I was in the league, I was played basically one on one. There are 2 1/2 men on me all of the time now. One in back, one in front and a guard going for the ball. It's made it necessary for me to do other things."

That alone skews the numbers. And there's the difference between the NBA/ABA era of the early 70's and the post-merger era.

His team accomplishments were very impressive both years. You have to look at each relative to the team he played on. His '71 Bucks team had some very good players besides him while his '77 team wasn't very good to begin with. He had a historically dominant regular season in '71, while his team overachieved in '77 to get the best record. His team was made even worse in '77 with Kermit Washington and Lucius Allen injured in the playoffs. Nobody would have won a championship in that situation.

In '71, though, he faced a 41-41 Warrior team, a 48-34 Laker team without West or Baylor(though Baylor basically didn't play that season to begin with) and a 42-40 Bullet team. The Warriors did have more talent than their record suggests with one of the great centers of all-time Nate Thurmond, hall of famer Jerry Lucas and another all-star Jeff Mullins, but they were still a .500 team.

both kareem's season and playoff were easily better in 1971 (amongst a number of other years) it isn't even debatable.

How the hell was his playoff run better? His play in the '71 playoffs does not have a case over Kareem's play in the '77, '80 or '74 playoffs.

[Shep]

Nice try, you turned out to be very predictable. I call you out on something, you get offended and try to do the same thing to me. You've done this more than once in this thread alone.

lol get offended? i haven't taken offense once in my time on this site, let alone in this thread or a certain post. i'm just destroying you at your own game here, and i have done this more than once in this thread alone.

Since '99, the best player in the league has only been the league's leading scorer 3 times. Shaq in 2000 and Kobe in '06 and '07.

overrating scorers once again. shaq in 2000 is the only player since '99 to be the best player and the league's leading scorer.

That's a valid argument, although it'd likely factor into efficiency more than anything. However, this an extreme case since he was left in a position where his second best player was Luke Walton, and again, it's a 4 game sample size. He was playing great in general to start that season.

especially when bryant was out

That Wizards team would struggle to win 20 games with that lineup over a season. Yeah Antawn put up numbers, but why is that even notable? Putting up numbers for a few games when there's nobody else to do it and you lose all of them isn't notable. Antonio Daniels was playing 44 mpg. Of course he's going to put up the best numbers of his life. On any good team, Daniels will be playing roughly half those minutes.

jamison stepped up his production in the absence of those players, it is a notable fact. and if daniels was producing like that he wouldn't be playing half those minutes, he would be starting on 90% of teams.

The Nets were a .500 team, and their pathetic frontcourt is why they weren't better.

the nets were a very dangerout outfit who just got done upsetting the 47 win toronto raptors (who won only 3 less games than the cavs) and boasted top 4 overall and best point guard in the nba in jason kidd, top 5 shooting guard vince carter, and richard jefferson and his 16/4/3.

Cleveland outrebounded the Nets by 4 rpg in the series. They also held the Nets to 84.2 ppg. Are you telling me those things weren't a huge part of their success? Defense and rebounding were their greatest strengths.

lebron scored 30% of all cleveland points that series. if you take into consideration his assists, he accounted for around 50% of all cleveland's offense. the cavs went as far as lebron took them, sure team rebounding and defense is good, but when it comes down to it individuals make the difference.

His wins in '05 were almost identical, and he lost in 7 games in the first round both years. The difference was he was much better in the '05 playoffs. And T-Mac led rosters as bad as a superstar has had in recent years to the playoffs in Orlando, especially '02 and '03. The only year T-Mac's numbers seemed empty was '04.

'05 was his peak, mostly because he actually did something in the playoffs in terms of individual success. his other better years were 2003, and 2001.

2005 was not his peak, though it was a standout season for him, either his 2nd or 3rd best.

yes, i can assure you that 2005 was infact his peak.

I don't have him ranked in 2006 because he didn't meet criteria for games played, but that's not the point. The point is that injuries around that time led to an early decline.

i was talking about his '08 ranking which was #12, but in '06 he dropped to #18.

Kobe could beat you from long range, he'd kill you from mid-range, he'd drive to the basket, he'd finish strongand with either hand, he'd beat you in the post, his footwork was second to none and he made his free throws.

The only way Lebron beat teams consistently as a scorer was driving to the basket. Lebron was clearly the superior finisher and more unstoppable going to the basket. But he wasn't starting in the post so he had to get to the basket from the perimeter. This is why that jump shot is a problem and makes Kobe's advantage as a scorer so obvious. It's very difficult to drive when your defender backs off you and gives you the jump shot. Lebron was a poor 3 point shooter, didn't have a mid-range or post game and he wasn't a good free throw shooter. Kobe actually got to the line at a better rate and held a huge 87-70 FT% advantage.

Now there's passing and playmaking. I've always considered Lebron the better passer, and this year is no exception, but I consider the difference much smaller than scoring considering how well Kobe was setting up his teammates and playing within the offense resulting in Odom and Walton improving.

Rebounding and defense are negligible between these two in this season.

this is a pathetic argument. lebron (while he wasn't a natural scorer) scored at only 2.8%ts less and only 4.3 less ppg, while taking 2 less field goals per game. not "by far" by any stretch of the imagination. these are the facts. odom and walton both played better when kobe was out.

The Lakers went 9-8 actually after Phil told Kobe to shooting. Not great, but Phil told Kobe to start shooting more to snap a 7 game losing streak, and he did with 4 straight 50+ games immediately after(65, 50, 60, 50) and a 43 point game to finish a 5 game winning streak.

the laker never had a 7 game losing streak. and nice 5 game win streak against all losing teams . infact in the last month of the season when kome was in shot jack mode, the lakers lost every game they played against teams with winning records

The Cavs rode Lebron more than any other star in NBA history? Not even close. So many players have produced more than Lebron in the '07 playoffs for their teams. Too many to name. Lebron has done it several times himself.

i'm talking about riding a superstar to the point that nobody is anywhere in the vicinity of him on that roster

Lebron wasn't huge in the playoffs either. The only thing that was really remarkable was game 5 vs Detroit. I can't even count how many playoff runs I've seen that were better.

he was easily the second most impressive player out of all players that participated in the 2007 playoffs.

And you can't judge Lebron's help just by looking at his cast on paper, He played on a top 4 defensive team that outrebounded opponents by 3.7 rpg. Are you telling me that's not going to help win games significantly? Lebron by that point was pretty much an offensive player, and Cleveland was a poor offensive team.

so outrebounding teams by 0.9 rebounds per quarter will more than likely propel your team into the nba finals? or will a superstar who is the second best player in the entire league.

[Shep]

at 2001 being Kobe's peak. How was that his peak when he expanded his range to become a 3 point shooter, greatly improved his post game, improved his moves, particularly his pump fake and footwork.

more of this trash. how far did it get his team? was he able to make any noise at all in the playoffs, or was it his ppg that made you fall in love with him that year once again

His play in the 2001 playoffs was remarkable, probably the best he's played from an all around standpoint along with 2008. But I also have to look at his regular season which was nowhere near his best and I have to look at his game, which I did before.

he had a number of better regular seasons. but playoffs is where legends are made, and kobe made a name for himself in those playoffs. if you haven't seen them i definately recommend you try your hardest to pick up some game footage.

Well, yeah, based on an article I read from '80, he didn't lift weights yet when he peaked in '77, but he had gotten stronger by the time he was 29/30 than he was at 23/24.

well not lifting weights didn't stop him from maintaining his peak throughout the '71 season and playoffs

Defenses do get tighter, the competition now only includes good and great teams not bad teams, you face an opponent multiple times in a row so they can gameplan for your moves and tendencies better and there's a lot more pressure. So yeah, it is a lot harder to perform. But the only one of those things that could apply to free throw shooting is the pressure and considering Kareem's career FT% was higher in the playoffs than regular season, I see nothing to suggest Kareem's free throw shooting declined because of pressure.

we are talking about individual seasons here and in 1982 his ft shooting in the playoffs suffered dramatically.

How is he not better after adding moves, improving his passing and getting a bit stronger without losing anything?

because those moves did not help him win anymore, or be as productive in terms of contributing to a winning cause as he was in his peak of 1971

Stats? Look at this quote from '77 where Kareem talks about how he was guarded 1 on 1 his first 4-5 seasons.

That alone skews the numbers. And there's the difference between the NBA/ABA era of the early 70's and the post-merger era.

so he was able be shut down. ok, nice point.

His team accomplishments were very impressive both years. You have to look at each relative to the team he played on. His '71 Bucks team had some very good players besides him while his '77 team wasn't very good to begin with. He had a historically dominant regular season in '71, while his team overachieved in '77 to get the best record. His team was made even worse in '77 with Kermit Washington and Lucius Allen injured in the playoffs. Nobody would have won a championship in that situation.

excuses. i deal with raw facts, not with what if's and the facts are that kareem won at a historical rate in '71 and demolished the playoffs to the tune of a 12-2 record.

In '71, though, he faced a 41-41 Warrior team, a 48-34 Laker team without West or Baylor(though Baylor basically didn't play that season to begin with) and a 42-40 Bullet team. The Warriors did have more talent than their record suggests with one of the great centers of all-time Nate Thurmond, hall of famer Jerry Lucas and another all-star Jeff Mullins, but they were still a .500 team.

the lakers still had wilt chamberlain, who was the greatest playerof all time by that point, a top 2 shooting guard in gail goodrich. the bullets just finished off beating billy cunningham and the philadelphia 76ers, and then the walt frazier, willis reed led defending champion new york knicks.

How the hell was his playoff run better? His play in the '71 playoffs does not have a case over Kareem's play in the '77, '80 or '74 playoffs.

what is your argument here? let me guess..stats? points per game? gtfo

[ShaqAttack3234]

lol get offended? i haven't taken offense once in my time on this site, let alone in this thread or a certain post. i'm just destroying you at your own game here, and i have done this more than once in this thread alone.

Ah, delusion at it's finest. The only thing you've done in this thread is make outrageous statements that can't be backed up by any reasonable arguments.

overrating scorers once again. shaq in 2000 is the only player since '99 to be the best player and the league's leading scorer.

Nope, you're just underrating Kobe as usual.

the nets were a very dangerout outfit who just got done upsetting the 47 win toronto raptors (who won only 3 less games than the cavs) and boasted top 4 overall and best point guard in the nba in jason kidd, top 5 shooting guard vince carter, and richard jefferson and his 16/4/3.

at Kidd being the best point guard in '07.

lebron scored 30% of all cleveland points that series. if you take into consideration his assists, he accounted for around 50% of all cleveland's offense. the cavs went as far as lebron took them, sure team rebounding and defense is good, but when it comes down to it individuals make the difference.

Of course Lebron was their MVP, I'm just pointing out that there was a lot more to that Cleveland team than just the individuals on paper.

'05 was his peak, mostly because he actually did something in the playoffs in terms of individual success. his other better years were 2003, and 2001.

He did have his best playoff series in '05, but unbelievable play throughout the '03 season makes it an easy choice. And he did nearly upset a very good Piston team with perhaps the worst supporting cast a star has had in the playoffs in the last 20 years or so. 2002 was a better season than 2001, but 2001 was a better playoff series.

yes, i can assure you that 2005 was infact his peak.

No you can't. I watched him enough to assure you that 2003 is his peak, and it's not particularly close.

i was talking about his '08 ranking which was #12, but in '06 he dropped to #18.

12 is a bit high in '08, imo, but we're not that far off. I have him at 16.

this is a pathetic argument. lebron (while he wasn't a natural scorer) scored at only 2.8%ts less and only 4.3 less ppg, while taking 2 less field goals per game. not "by far" by any stretch of the imagination. these are the facts. odom and walton both played better when kobe was out.

No, it's a real argument that comes from more than looking at basketball-reference. By the way +4.3 ppg and 2.8 TS% is a big difference for season averages.

And the difference between them as scorers that year in reality was at least as big as the statistical difference, if not bigger.

the laker never had a 7 game losing streak. and nice 5 game win streak against all losing teams . infact in the last month of the season when kome was in shot jack mode, the lakers lost every game they played against teams with winning records

What do you mean the Lakers never had a 7 game losing streak? Look at March 2nd to March 15th.

The Lakers were lucky to not be a losing team themselves with such limited talent and all of those injuries. You can thank number 24 for that.

i'm talking about riding a superstar to the point that nobody is anywhere in the vicinity of him on that roster

Well that is absolutely meaningless to me. There's so much more that goes into a team.

he was easily the second most impressive player out of all players that participated in the 2007 playoffs.

Maybe, but that's not really saying much. The other elite players didn't set the standard too high outside of Tim Duncan.

so outrebounding teams by 0.9 rebounds per quarter will more than likely propel your team into the nba finals? or will a superstar who is the second best player in the entire league.

at trying to make it seem more insignificant by the per quarter nonsense. With how much you rely on stats, you should know that's not how season averages work. +3.7 rpg is excellent rebounding. Go check other teams to see.

Even Lebron in a subpar year obviously deserves a lot of credit for that success, but so is their defense and rebounding as well as the competition.

Lebron has no argument for being ranked any higher than 3rd that season, and even that's pushing it.

more of this trash. how far did it get his team? was he able to make any noise at all in the playoffs, or was it his ppg that made you fall in love with him that year once again

at comparing Kobe's success as a 2nd option to his success as a first option. Kobe scored 0.2 ppg LESS in '08 than '01, and just 0.7 ppg more in the playoffs, so this obviously isn't what I'm basing my decisions on.

Of course you only point out the ppg when it's convenient for you. Nice attempt to discredit my argument, but you overlooked that I consider '08 to be arguably Kobe's best season.

I shouldn't even have to explain to you why comparing Kobe's team success in '01 when he played with the best player in the league to '06 and '07 is idiotic.

In '08, Kobe LED his team to the finals. He not only matched his all around game from the '01 playoffs, but he now had a more diverse scoring skill set in addition to it, and he maintained it for an entire season, not just a playoff run.

he had a number of better regular seasons. but playoffs is where legends are made, and kobe made a name for himself in those playoffs. if you haven't seen them i definately recommend you try your hardest to pick up some game footage.

Of course I've seen them. In case you haven't noticed, I'm a Shaq fan. I used to watch him play whenever I got a chance.

Kobe's 2001 playoffs were up there with his best playoff runs, but he was simply not at his absolute best as a player yet. He also had great playoff runs in '08, '09 and '10. And in '06 and '07, he simply didn't have the same opportunity to match those playoff runs.

well not lifting weights didn't stop him from maintaining his peak throughout the '71 season and playoffs

Doesn't make much sense considering Kareem was years away from his peak.

we are talking about individual seasons here and in 1982 his ft shooting in the playoffs suffered dramatically.

Yes, and it's not enough for me to label him a poor foul shooter. I'll look at the much bigger sample size, the 76 games he played in the regular season to judge his free throw shooting.

because those moves did not help him win anymore, or be as productive in terms of contributing to a winning cause as he was in his peak of 1971

It didn't help him win more because he didn't have a team remotely comparable to the '71 Bucks in '77. Are you going to deny his team was MUCH worse in '77 than '71? The difference is night and day.

It's predictable, you'll start with your "excuses" garbage. You do it every time you're exposed for not applying context. And you'll dodge the question about Kareem's supporting cast in '77 vs '71. But hey, I don't expect anything less, it's your trademark.

What's the point in even ranking players if you don't use anything you learn from watching games to rank them?

so he was able be shut down. ok, nice point.

Shut down when? '77? No, however, he was able to be contained much more in the early 70's with Milwaukee.

excuses. i deal with raw facts, not with what if's and the facts are that kareem won at a historical rate in '71 and demolished the playoffs to the tune of a 12-2 record.

I'm stating facts, and applying context because I know basketball isn't as simple as you're trying to make it. If you're going to compare team success, you have to keep in mind their teams. And when rating players you should look at how the players performed to get the result, not just the result because there are other players and teams to influence the result, but the player's performance speaks for itself. Now these things are subjective, but basketball is subjective.

the lakers still had wilt chamberlain, who was the greatest playerof all time by that point, a top 2 shooting guard in gail goodrich. the bullets just finished off beating billy cunningham and the philadelphia 76ers, and then the walt frazier, willis reed led defending champion new york knicks.

First of all, Russell was the greatest player of all-time at that point, and more importantly, Wilt was 34 and had the knee surgery the year before. He remained great until he retired, but it wasn't the Wilt Chamberlain of the mid/late 60's, and his team was just overmatched. But he did by all accounts play Kareem to a standstill in the series.

And if you knew your NBA history, you'd know that Willis Reed was injured in the '71 playoffs. I've read a lot about the golden age of the Knicks and this is considered a major factor.

what is your argument here? let me guess..stats? points per game? gtfo

Coming from the biggest stat whore on this site. A man whose basketball knowledge consists solely of what he's read on basketball-reference.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Lebron's 07 Finals team was the least talented in NBA history.

[D.J.]

the laker never had a 7 game losing streak.

March 2(116-108 to the Kings)
March 4(99-94 to the Suns)
March 6(117-107 to the T-Wolves in 2 OT)
March 7(110-90 to the Bucks)
March 9(108-92 to the 76ers)
March 11(108-72 to the Mavs)
March 15(113-86 to the Nuggets)


And just before that, they had a 6 game losing streak. They were 30-19 before a 6 game losing streak, a 3 game win streak(Boston, Golden State, and Utah), and a 7 game losing streak. They lost 13 out of 16 at that point. They went from fighting for home court in the first round to needing to win both their final 2 games to be the 7th seed and at least 1 win just to make the playoffs. Quite the drop off considering they were on a 50 win pace through 50 games.

[Round Mound]

Barkley was better through 1991, 92 was an off year, he was better in 93, then Malone was better from 94 onwards. Your list shows the latter point to be the case, which is what some have been saying here. General consensus was that in the late 80's after Jordan/Magic/Bird, Barkley was right underneath them, basically a top 5 player. I have never heard of anyone calling Karl Malone a top 5 player during the late 80's. Peak Barkley is more dominant than any version of Karl Malone.

1995-96 Unwards Was When Malone was Better. The 1993-94 and 1994-95 Seasons Barkley was Still Better...See Play-Offs PER.

Malone Rarely Shot Over 50% FG in the Play-Offs "Only 3 Times Actually"

Barkley Was Called the 2nd Best Player in the League by Chuck Daily in 1992.

[barkleynash]

pretty safe to say that barkley had a better peak but malone def had the better career. Duncan is better then either of them so it doesn't really matter fighting over 2nd lol (unless some peeps put KG or Dirk ahead of them too)

[Round Mound]

Barkley from 1985 to 1995 was the Best PF. The Cream of All PFs

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Season Career[/COLOR]

Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]58.13%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 21.6 PPG on [COLOR="blue"]12.9...Two Point FGAs Pg [/COLOR](Season)

Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]51.9%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG FG at 24.7 PPG on [COLOR="red"]17.5...Two-Point FGAs PG PG [/COLOR](Season)

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Play-Offs Career: "Malone Shot Over 50% For Only 3 Play-Off Runs":[/COLOR]

Barkley shot [COLOR="Blue"]55.13%[/COLOR] FG at 22.5 PPG on [COLOR="Blue"]14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG [/COLOR](Play-Offs)

Malone shot [COLOR="Red"]46.6%[/COLOR] Two-Point FG at 24.6 PPG on [COLOR="red"]19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG[/COLOR] (Play-Offs)

Barkley was a Way Superior Scorer

[Shep]

Ah, delusion at it's finest. The only thing you've done in this thread is make outrageous statements that can't be backed up by any reasonable arguments.

irony at its best right here ladies and gentlemen

Nope, you're just underrating Kobe as usual.

i actually rate everyone correctly

at Kidd being the best point guard in '07.

nash was close. nobody else was anywhere near.

He did have his best playoff series in '05, but unbelievable play throughout the '03 season makes it an easy choice. And he did nearly upset a very good Piston team with perhaps the worst supporting cast a star has had in the playoffs in the last 20 years or so. 2002 was a better season than 2001, but 2001 was a better playoff series.

yes, his only better years than 2007 were 2005, 2003, and 2001

No you can't. I watched him enough to assure you that 2003 is his peak, and it's not particularly close.

lol what is the argument here? points per game? he was better in 2005 in the regular season, and playoffs.

No, it's a real argument that comes from more than looking at basketball-reference. By the way +4.3 ppg and 2.8 TS% is a big difference for season averages.

And the difference between them as scorers that year in reality was at least as big as the statistical difference, if not bigger.

bryant got his in a uptempo, top 6 paced team, while lebron's cavs were in the bottom half in the league in pace. pretty much all he did was get up more shots.

What do you mean the Lakers never had a 7 game losing streak? Look at March 2nd to March 15th.

i'm sorry i was just going by memory, where are you getting this information?

The Lakers were lucky to not be a losing team themselves with such limited talent and all of those injuries. You can thank number 24 for that.

trash rebuttal

Well that is absolutely meaningless to me. There's so much more that goes into a team.

how convenient it is for that to be meaningless to you.

Maybe, but that's not really saying much. The other elite players didn't set the standard too high outside of Tim Duncan.

more convenient statements . being the second most impressive playoff performer in a particular year is absolutely an achievement, especially for a young man just 22 years old.

at trying to make it seem more insignificant by the per quarter nonsense. With how much you rely on stats, you should know that's not how season averages work. +3.7 rpg is excellent rebounding. Go check other teams to see.

Even Lebron in a subpar year obviously deserves a lot of credit for that success, but so is their defense and rebounding as well as the competition.

Lebron has no argument for being ranked any higher than 3rd that season, and even that's pushing it.

more filth lebron was a huge part of that defense and rebounding. that team relied much more on 1 man than maybe any team in the history of the nba. besides, they may as well learn how to rebound when lebron was doing everything else imaginable.

at comparing Kobe's success as a 2nd option to his success as a first option. Kobe scored 0.2 ppg LESS in '08 than '01, and just 0.7 ppg more in the playoffs, so this obviously isn't what I'm basing my decisions on.

where are you getting this information

Of course you only point out the ppg when it's convenient for you. Nice attempt to discredit my argument, but you overlooked that I consider '08 to be arguably Kobe's best season.

i have no idea why you would rank '08 as his best season when the very next year he is quite clearly better.

I shouldn't even have to explain to you why comparing Kobe's team success in '01 when he played with the best player in the league to '06 and '07 is idiotic.

yeh he played with the best player in the league. so what? kobe was the secod best player in the league. playing with such a player who commands the ball like shaq did is expected to cause your production to fall off significantly. kobe's production did not drop off at all, and if you have seen the '01 playoffs you will understand why it is his peak, as he stepped up more than anyone else in the playoffs that year, including shaq in his second most peak season.

In '08, Kobe LED his team to the finals. He not only matched his all around game from the '01 playoffs, but he now had a more diverse scoring skill set in addition to it, and he maintained it for an entire season, not just a playoff run.

he had a nice regular season, but once again, the playoffs is where the difference is. if i was you i would do my best to pick up some footage of that 2001 playoff run.

Kobe's 2001 playoffs were up there with his best playoff runs, but he was simply not at his absolute best as a player yet. He also had great playoff runs in '08, '09 and '10. And in '06 and '07, he simply didn't have the same opportunity to match those playoff runs.

ofcourse he had great playoff runs, but unfortunately, they are nowhere near his 2001 run.

Doesn't make much sense considering Kareem was years away from his peak.

how is 1971 years away from 1971?

Yes, and it's not enough for me to label him a poor foul shooter. I'll look at the much bigger sample size, the 76 games he played in the regular season to judge his free throw shooting.

ok you can look at meaningless regular season games, i will look at important playoff games.

It didn't help him win more because he didn't have a team remotely comparable to the '71 Bucks in '77. Are you going to deny his team was MUCH worse in '77 than '71? The difference is night and day.

yes his team was better in 1971. but at the end of the day you play to win, kareem won a championship in '71, and he did not win a championship in '77 these are the cold hard truths.

the man won multiple championships and you want his peak to be remembered as one where he barely gets by the much inferior golden state warriors before getting swept out of the playoffs by bill walton?

It's predictable, you'll start with your "excuses" garbage. You do it every time you're exposed for not applying context. And you'll dodge the question about Kareem's supporting cast in '77 vs '71. But hey, I don't expect anything less, it's your trademark.

What's the point in even ranking players if you don't use anything you learn from watching games to rank them?

i definately use things like supporting casts when rank players. but it doesn't hold alot of ground. things like winning games of basketball holds more ground than going on about if this guy had those guys then they would be winning this amount. its trash.

Shut down when? '77? No, however, he was able to be contained much more in the early 70's with Milwaukee.

i'm sorry, how successful was the 1977 los angeles lakers?

I'm stating facts, and applying context because I know basketball isn't as simple as you're trying to make it. If you're going to compare team success, you have to keep in mind their teams. And when rating players you should look at how the players performed to get the result, not just the result because there are other players and teams to influence the result, but the player's performance speaks for itself. Now these things are subjective, but basketball is subjective.

you can only use context to a certain extent. players play games to be successful, and to win championships, which is why championships are a big factor in determining who is best because whoever wants it more will more than likely determine the great players from the legends.

First of all, Russell was the greatest player of all-time at that point, and more importantly, Wilt was 34 and had the knee surgery the year before. He remained great until he retired, but it wasn't the Wilt Chamberlain of the mid/late 60's, and his team was just overmatched. But he did by all accounts play Kareem to a standstill in the series.

russell was the second best player of all tim at that point. chamberlain was the greatest. chamberlain was still a top 4 player in the league, and goodrich was a top 2 shooting guard who had an outstanding playoff

And if you knew your NBA history, you'd know that Willis Reed was injured in the '71 playoffs. I've read a lot about the golden age of the Knicks and this is considered a major factor.

if you knew your history the new york knicks boasted 4 future hall of famers, were the defending champions, and were the best team in the eastern conference during the regular season. reed played fine, as did frazier and bradley, and the knicks had the bonus of having huge playoffs from dick barnett, and dave debusschere.

Coming from the biggest stat whore on this site. A man whose basketball knowledge consists solely of what he's read on basketball-reference.

coming from a man who only ranks players after he has checked the daily ppg leaders on nba.com

[ShaqAttack3234]

nash was close. nobody else was anywhere near.

Well, at least we're getting somewhere now, however, there's still a long way to go because the correct answer would be Nash was clearly better and both Gilbert Arenas and Baron Davis were also better than Kidd in '07.

yes, his only better years than 2007 were 2005, 2003, and 2001

All that's missing is 2002 and 2004.

lol what is the argument here? points per game? he was better in 2005 in the regular season, and playoffs.

He had a better playoff series in 2005, I'll give you that. But what's the argument against 2003? He was at his most dominant individually for a season, his most efficient, his most consistent and considering his pathetic roster, his team overachieved the most. Has a star ever gotten a worse team into the playoffs? If so, it's probably not been within the last 20 years. It seemed like T-Mac was having unbelievable games every night.

What didn't he have in his game then? He was in a bit more of a playmaker role in Houston, but he still had to do that and did it quite well in Orlando.

bryant got his in a uptempo, top 6 paced team, while lebron's cavs were in the bottom half in the league in pace. pretty much all he did was get up more shots.

His skill set allowed him to get more shots since he could create them in so many ways from so many spots. As I mentioned, Lebron didn't have the mid-range game or post game and he was a poor 3 point shooter. He also wasn't crafty with Kobe so you wouldn't see him create something out of nowhere with fakes.

Kobe wasn't even trying to score for most of the year and still averaged 32.

Pace is less relevant to me than ball-dominance. Kobe played in the triangle offense, while Lebron was in an extremely ball-dominant role.

i'm sorry i was just going by memory, where are you getting this information?

ESPN, basketball-reference, yahoo. Take your pick.

more filth lebron was a huge part of that defense and rebounding. that team relied much more on 1 man than maybe any team in the history of the nba. besides, they may as well learn how to rebound when lebron was doing everything else imaginable.

Lebron was an average defender in '07. He wasn't why they were a great defensive team. His rebounding was fine too, but also not why they excelled in that area. His team complemented him well.

where are you getting this information

It's not hard to look up how much Kobe scored in '08 and'01.

i have no idea why you would rank '08 as his best season when the very next year he is quite clearly better.

He was clearly not as good in '09. His defense wasn't as consistent as '08, though he stepped up his defense in the playoffs. He was more impressive as a facilitator, he was more athletic and explosive, he attacked the basket more and the Laker leaned on him to carry him more.

yeh he played with the best player in the league. so what? kobe was the secod best player in the league. playing with such a player who commands the ball like shaq did is expected to cause your production to fall off significantly. kobe's production did not drop off at all, and if you have seen the '01 playoffs you will understand why it is his peak, as he stepped up more than anyone else in the playoffs that year, including shaq in his second most peak season.

It doesn't necessarily mean you're production will fall off because the Lakers did not have a 3rd scoring option. Fisher was essentially a catch and shoot guy and a role player, Fox was also a role player.

But you did get Shaq's 2nd best season correct.

he had a nice regular season, but once again, the playoffs is where the difference is. if i was you i would do my best to pick up some footage of that 2001 playoff run.

I've seen the entire '01 playoffs. He was great, I was impressed by how much he matured and he did an excellent job as a facilitator, while also making the most of being the 2nd option by picking his spots driving to the basket more and capitalizing on transition and semi-transition opportunities. I have nothing but positive things to say about Kobe's '01 playoff run.

But because I've seen Kobe in '01 and after, I know that he added more to his game. '08 is the best example of the all around play from the '01 playoffs except over an entire season, but with a more diverse skill set. You know for a fact that if Kobe has a finals equal to his '01 finals in the '08 finals he loses anyway. And Kobe's '08 finals would be good enough to win on his '01 team.

Not only that, but Kobe may have not even made the playoffs if he had his '01 regular season on the '08 team, but Kobe's '08 season on the '01 team is enough for them to easily top 60 wins.

By the way, I've uploaded some '01 playoff footage myself, so of course, I've seen it. The only reason I haven't uploaded more is because everything except games 2 and 3 of the Sacramento series have been uploaded.

Game 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6xfzc5YmMM

Game 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7wmI...feature=relmfu

ofcourse he had great playoff runs, but unfortunately, they are nowhere near his 2001 run.

'09 was his most consistent run, '08 had the most great series(first 3) and '10 was like '01 in that he had 2 great series.

yes his team was better in 1971. but at the end of the day you play to win, kareem won a championship in '71, and he did not win a championship in '77 these are the cold hard truths.

Kareem did everything a reasonable person could expect him to do in '77. I respect champions, but Kareem played like a champion. I respect the fact that he had a great regular season that elevated his team to the best record, lost 2 of his 3 best players and then raised his game some more in the playoffs.

the man won multiple championships and you want his peak to be remembered as one where he barely gets by the much inferior golden state warriors before getting swept out of the playoffs by bill walton?

'
Yes because the man did win multiple championships. Before and after this proving he was a champion, but a champion on a bad team while his individual game peaked and he was the one player playing like a champion on the '77 even though there wasn't much of a point in doing so.

The Golden State series was memorable. Game 6 is available, go check it out. He had 43 points, 20 rebounds, 3 assists, 4 blocks in an elimination game. Part of game 7 is also available, and in that game he had 36 points and 26 rebounds.

i definately use things like supporting casts when rank players. but it doesn't hold alot of ground. things like winning games of basketball holds more ground than going on about if this guy had those guys then they would be winning this amount. its trash.

I agree that it's tough to guess what a player would do with certain supporting casts, and it's subjective, but that's why I look at the player's performance. Sometimes things are out of a player's control, which is why you can't even just look at the cast on paper, but how they performed in the series the team lost.

I agree that championships are the primary goal and the one thing you should play for, but it's not unheard of for a player to be the best in the league and not be fortunate enough to be in a good position for a championship. We've both ranked Jordan and Lebron as the best in the league when he wasn't on a championship team, as well as other players that we'd both agree on.

i'm sorry, how successful was the 1977 los angeles lakers?

Quite successful for essentially a 1 man team. Best record in the NBA and a Western Conference Finals Appearance

you can only use context to a certain extent. players play games to be successful, and to win championships, which is why championships are a big factor in determining who is best because whoever wants it more will more than likely determine the great players from the legends.

I think context must always be included no matter what. Even when a player is the best on a championship such as Isiah in '89 and '90, he still wasn't up there with Magic or Jordan.

if you knew your history the new york knicks boasted 4 future hall of famers, were the defending champions, and were the best team in the eastern conference during the regular season. reed played fine, as did frazier and bradley, and the knicks had the bonus of having huge playoffs from dick barnett, and dave debusschere.

Yes, the Knicks had a great team. DeBuscherre was one of the great forwards and Frazier one of the great guards, but having a limited Willis Reed definitely hurt them, and it was a reported fact that he had multiple injuries throughout the playoffs and his production clearly suffered compared to the regular season and his '70 season and playoffs.

coming from a man who only ranks players after he has checked the daily ppg leaders on nba.com

Already proved how ridiculous this claim is. A man who ranks players after checking the scoring leaders would have ranked the scoring champ as the best player more than 3 times in the last 14 seasons. In fact, if your claim was true, it'd be 14 of the last 14 times.

One of the '82 Laker games I promised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJQInRryTUo&feature=plcp

That's what I look at for ranking players.

[Shep]

Well, at least we're getting somewhere now, however, there's still a long way to go because the correct answer would be Nash was clearly better and both Gilbert Arenas and Baron Davis were also better than Kidd in '07.

lol we are getting close? nash was always close to kidd in '07, nothing has changed. the correct, and only answer is kidd is the best point guard in the league, nash was second, davis third, parker fourth, and arenas fifth.

All that's missing is 2002 and 2004.

the reason they are missing is because he wasn't better in those years

He had a better playoff series in 2005, I'll give you that. But what's the argument against 2003? He was at his most dominant individually for a season, his most efficient, his most consistent and considering his pathetic roster, his team overachieved the most. Has a star ever gotten a worse team into the playoffs? If so, it's probably not been within the last 20 years. It seemed like T-Mac was having unbelievable games every night.

What didn't he have in his game then? He was in a bit more of a playmaker role in Houston, but he still had to do that and did it quite well in Orlando.

the magic had a great bunch of role players that year. they were also one of the best long range bombers in the league and had a plethora of shooters in the league including pat garrity, mike miller, and darrell armstrong. they also had a great playoff from drew gooden who stepped much more than mcgrady. putting up empty stats on a team that is barely over .500 won't get you ranked with the best in the league. mcgrady was ranked 8th.

His skill set allowed him to get more shots since he could create them in so many ways from so many spots. As I mentioned, Lebron didn't have the mid-range game or post game and he was a poor 3 point shooter. He also wasn't crafty with Kobe so you wouldn't see him create something out of nowhere with fakes.

Kobe wasn't even trying to score for most of the year and still averaged 32.

Pace is less relevant to me than ball-dominance. Kobe played in the triangle offense, while Lebron was in an extremely ball-dominant role.

allen iverson was also abe to create more shots than lebron

being in a ball-dominant role is less relevant to me. the cavs needed the ball to be in lebron's hand to have the best chance to win games, so thats what happened.

ESPN, basketball-reference, yahoo. Take your pick.

but which one did you use?

Lebron was an average defender in '07. He wasn't why they were a great defensive team. His rebounding was fine too, but also not why they excelled in that area. His team complemented him well.

filth at its finest. lebron was top 2 at his position in terms of rebounds per game, and one of the best defenders at that spot too. his second best player from the regular season shot 35% in the playoffs.

It's not hard to look up how much Kobe scored in '08 and'01.

i am very interested

He was clearly not as good in '09. His defense wasn't as consistent as '08, though he stepped up his defense in the playoffs. He was more impressive as a facilitator, he was more athletic and explosive, he attacked the basket more and the Laker leaned on him to carry him more.

more impressive as a facilitator just say more apg you loser

once again your argument seems to be stats, which is not surprising in the least. bryant took on a bigger role and led the lakers to 65 wins, and stepped up alot more in the playoffs. things that are important, not apg.

It doesn't necessarily mean you're production will fall off because the Lakers did not have a 3rd scoring option. Fisher was essentially a catch and shoot guy and a role player, Fox was also a role player.

But you did get Shaq's 2nd best season correct.

more excuses. i get everything i say correct.

I've seen the entire '01 playoffs. He was great, I was impressed by how much he matured and he did an excellent job as a facilitator, while also making the most of being the 2nd option by picking his spots driving to the basket more and capitalizing on transition and semi-transition opportunities. I have nothing but positive things to say about Kobe's '01 playoff run.

But because I've seen Kobe in '01 and after, I know that he added more to his game. '08 is the best example of the all around play from the '01 playoffs except over an entire season, but with a more diverse skill set. You know for a fact that if Kobe has a finals equal to his '01 finals in the '08 finals he loses anyway. And Kobe's '08 finals would be good enough to win on his '01 team.

Not only that, but Kobe may have not even made the playoffs if he had his '01 regular season on the '08 team, but Kobe's '08 season on the '01 team is enough for them to easily top 60 wins.

By the way, I've uploaded some '01 playoff footage myself, so of course, I've seen it. The only reason I haven't uploaded more is because everything except games 2 and 3 of the Sacramento series have been uploaded.

more hearsay bs. once again i deal with what actually happened, where as you like to dabble in things such as what ifs.

'09 was his most consistent run, '08 had the most great series(first 3) and '10 was like '01 in that he had 2 great series.

bryant stepping up like he did was the main reason the lakers romped to a 15-1 win loss record. bryant was the most impressive playoff performer out of everyone who participated in the 2001 playoffs, including teammate shaquille o'neal in his second most peak season. no other playoff run came close.

Kareem did everything a reasonable person could expect him to do in '77. I respect champions, but Kareem played like a champion. I respect the fact that he had a great regular season that elevated his team to the best record, lost 2 of his 3 best players and then raised his game some more in the playoffs.

i respect that too, and i have him as the best player in the league in 1977, but unfortunately for your argument, champions hold alot of weight when official rankings take place, and kareem leading the bucks to the '71 championship (while losing only 2 games throughout the playoffs), after a 66-16 regular season is far too much to overcome.

Yes because the man did win multiple championships. Before and after this proving he was a champion, but a champion on a bad team while his individual game peaked and he was the one player playing like a champion on the '77 even though there wasn't much of a point in doing so.

The Golden State series was memorable. Game 6 is available, go check it out. He had 43 points, 20 rebounds, 3 assists, 4 blocks in an elimination game. Part of game 7 is also available, and in that game he had 36 points and 26 rebounds.

lol so he proved that he could win championships in the past so he gets a pass for getting swept out of the playoffs just because he puts up some points? . yes it was nice series vs golden state, good enough to contribute to being ranked as the best player in the league.

I agree that it's tough to guess what a player would do with certain supporting casts, and it's subjective, but that's why I look at the player's performance. Sometimes things are out of a player's control, which is why you can't even just look at the cast on paper, but how they performed in the series the team lost.

player performance is very important. but if you struggle to lead your team anywhere in the playoffs, which is the true test of greatness, no matter what numbers you put up you will more than likely not be ranked as the best player in the league.

I agree that championships are the primary goal and the one thing you should play for, but it's not unheard of for a player to be the best in the league and not be fortunate enough to be in a good position for a championship. We've both ranked Jordan and Lebron as the best in the league when he wasn't on a championship team, as well as other players that we'd both agree on.

definately. picking the best player on the championship team and naming him the best player is just silly.

Quite successful for essentially a 1 man team. Best record in the NBA and a Western Conference Finals Appearance

but compared to the 1971 bucks, not very successful at all.

I think context must always be included no matter what. Even when a player is the best on a championship such as Isiah in '89 and '90, he still wasn't up there with Magic or Jordan.

this is correct. but winning a championship elevated him to 4th overall in '89, and 6th in '90.

Already proved how ridiculous this claim is. A man who ranks players after checking the scoring leaders would have ranked the scoring champ as the best player more than 3 times in the last 14 seasons. In fact, if your claim was true, it'd be 14 of the last 14 times.

i didn't say that that man ranked the scoring leaders as the best player, i just said he only ranked players after checking the leaders.

One of the '82 Laker games I promised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJQInRryTUo&feature=plcp

That's what I look at for ranking players.

you look at youtube for ranking players?

[Remix]

ShaqAttack >>> Shep

The things Shep has said are obviously just trying to discredit Barkley. If I'm picking who had the highest peak, the player I'd build my team around for one season is Barkley, not Malone.