PDA

View Full Version : Definition of "the best player" - How do you define it?



JordansBulls
11-29-2009, 03:27 PM
How does everyone here define "the best player in the nba" , there are many ways

does it mean "most effective" to you , which basically means helps his team succeed more effectively then anyone.

does it mean "most skilled" , which means most talented , but not exactly most effective.

does it mean "most work" , like a person who does more for his team then anyone else

does it mean "most efficient", which means his numbers and PER is high.


So if you could only select one of them, which one is the most important to you when u decide on who's the best player in the nba?

ink
11-29-2009, 03:39 PM
Most effective.

Kakaroach
11-29-2009, 03:48 PM
Most effective. Effectiveness = Wins.

BALLER71
11-29-2009, 03:53 PM
I define it Lebron James.

Jamiecballer
11-29-2009, 04:01 PM
i agree with all of the above, so far.

ko8e24
11-29-2009, 04:03 PM
I define it as the player who has "perfected" the game of basketball and is as close as you can get to being "flawless". Aka, Kobe Bean Bryant, aka The Black Mamba, aka Kid Skillz, aka The Doberman, aka Mr. 81, aka The Champ, aka THE MVP, aka The Very Best

Raph12
11-29-2009, 04:31 PM
Most effective.

Lil Rhody
11-29-2009, 04:46 PM
I was gonna say the most rings that is still playing at a high level.....

iggypop123
11-29-2009, 04:55 PM
the definition is kobe

Lakersfan2483
11-29-2009, 07:45 PM
Most effective

Storch
11-29-2009, 10:27 PM
most likely to win a ring

Bashna
11-29-2009, 11:51 PM
Well, its actually all of these....But to pick one, i'd make a new one and put :

Carries the team with as little help as possible. And that my friends, is the sentence right next to LBJ'S picture in the dictionary...Also, lol @ kobe homer. Jump off the junk, man.

Chronz
11-29-2009, 11:51 PM
popularity and winning

madiaz3
11-30-2009, 01:48 AM
I feel like most effective can include players like Dirk that are elite but would never be considered the best in the league.

ldc62
11-30-2009, 01:48 AM
The best player is Kobe.

_KB24_
11-30-2009, 01:52 AM
While I agree with you, I was just wondering if you actually allow Kobe to take his dong out of your mouth when he needs to take a piss....or do you just let him piss in it?

Well either Wade like to poke you in "certain" places or you are just a weird guy. Why would you even say that?

philab
11-30-2009, 01:55 AM
Some of you still think Kobe is the best player in the league? Wow.

"Most effective" by the way.

nipo10847
11-30-2009, 02:05 AM
Lebron James=Best on the planet bcz he is the most effective. PERIOD.

MTar786
11-30-2009, 02:36 AM
How does everyone here define "the best player in the nba" , there are many ways

does it mean "most effective" to you , which basically means helps his team succeed more effectively then anyone.

does it mean "most skilled" , which means most talented , but not exactly most effective.

does it mean "most work" , like a person who does more for his team then anyone else

does it mean "most efficient", which means his numbers and PER is high.


So if you could only select one of them, which one is the most important to you when u decide on who's the best player in the nba?



most effective (kobe bryant)

most skilled (dwight howard)

most work (D-wade)

Most efficient (lebron James)


now refer to the polls and see who people have voted the best in the game :)

i voted most effective btw..which means another vote for kobe

madiaz3
11-30-2009, 03:00 AM
Some of you still think Kobe is the best player in the league? Wow.


You're delusional if you think its not worthy of a debate.

LA_Raiders
11-30-2009, 03:02 AM
skilled & effective = The Best In The World...Kobe...

_KB24_
11-30-2009, 03:17 AM
Some of you still think Kobe is the best player in the league? Wow.

"Most effective" by the way.

:facepalm: You care to explain or do you just like acting like a clown?

Kyben36
11-30-2009, 03:18 AM
This is the definition of Greatness (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greatness)

Gambeezy
11-30-2009, 03:45 AM
Well either Wade like to poke you in "certain" places or you are just a weird guy. Why would you even say that?

Well, my post was rather obvious I thought. It was a sarcastic burn in response to his ridiculously over-the-top Kobe homerism. I like and respect Kobe's game as much as the next guy, but when you tote him around and throw him in everyone's face 24/7, it gets old. Some people on PSD can't even make a post without mentioning Kobe's name.

Your post on the other hand has me utterly baffled. Not only does your odd attempt at a burn make no sense whatsoever, I'm confused as to why you even mentioned Wade. I said nothing about Wade nor did I hate on Kobe in any way. In fact, I agreed with the guy about Kobe's greatness. My only slight against the poster was for his extremely tacky and obnoxious Kobe post. Have you ever heard the saying, "Get off his junk, man?" Well, I merely altered it a bit and asked a plainly sarcastic and unrealistic question to the poster. Don't over-analyze these things.

loveofthegame87
11-30-2009, 04:14 AM
The best player is define by all of these things categories couple together and winning over time. You just can't give a player the label best and their resume is not long enough.

i.got.the.nutz
11-30-2009, 05:28 AM
most effective (kobe bryant)

most skilled (dwight howard)

most work (D-wade)

Most efficient (lebron James)


now refer to the polls and see who people have voted the best in the game :)

i voted most effective btw..which means another vote for kobe

No

MTar786
11-30-2009, 06:38 AM
No

howard, cp3 doesnt make a difference.. ur not getting the whole point of my post :facepalm:

bolts4ever
11-30-2009, 07:13 AM
I define THE BEST PLAYER as the player you most dread to see on the other side of the ball the player that strikes the most fear in oppossion.

Let me paint a picture 4 u.


Game 7 NBA Finals on the ROAD who is the 1player u want on ur team to win the RING and the answer is allways the BEST PLAYER. KOBE BRYANT.

stawka
11-30-2009, 07:28 AM
Effectiveness - LeBron

Skillset - Kobe

Most work - Wade

Efficiency - LeBron

philab
11-30-2009, 01:39 PM
You're delusional if you think its not worthy of a debate.

Nope, not delusional. James is pretty clearly the best player in the NBA right now. It's really not even debatable.


:facepalm: You care to explain or do you just like acting like a clown?

Cute facepalm.

I need to explain why LeBron is the best when every statistic and nearly every expert sides with me? No, I think you're the one who needs to explain something.

Just in case, though:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html

Take a look there. Notice LeBron's higher FG% (52-49%), higher TS% (62-57%), higher 3PT% (35-28%), higher eFG% (56-51%), higher assists (DOUBLE: 8.0-4.0 pg), higher rebounds (6.7-5.4 pg), higher AST% (over DOUBLE: 42.5-20.5%), and nearly similar points (29.2-29.5). Kobe also uses more possessions.

Oh, and there's PER, which LeBron leads for the third year in a row (31.1-26.2, even a greater discrepancy last year). And how about win shares? LeBron=4.0; Kobe=2.9. LeBron leads the league there too and led last year with 20.3 WS (Kobe at 12.7).

And if you want to talk "clutch" or 4th quarter effectiveness or anything of that, check www.82games.com because LeBron leads Kobe (and the league, for the most part) in every statistic there too.



So, please, shut up. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Frantico
11-30-2009, 01:59 PM
Simple... Game on the line, who's the player you'd want to have the ball... Kobe, lebron, Wade.

philab
11-30-2009, 02:11 PM
Simple... Game on the line, who's the player you'd want to have the ball... Kobe, lebron, Wade.

Well, then Carmelo needs to be considered. Of those three, it's LeBron though.

http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM
Notice the minutes, FG%'s, rebounds, assists, etc.

4th quarter stats:
http://www.82games.com/0809/QTR4S11.HTM

Game-winning shots:
http://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm
Notice how Kobe is LESS LIKELY to hit a game-winning shot than the league average (.250 to .298).

arkanian215
11-30-2009, 02:17 PM
eh everyone has their own man crush. for most fans it's kobe.

i prefer an efficient player. he doesnt need to be the most skilled as long as he maximizes what he has. guys like najera and dwight howard appeal to me as well as battier, brook lopez, aaron brooks, tim duncan, luis scola, mike miller, caron butler, prince and rip.

USMCLaker
11-30-2009, 02:45 PM
Nope, not delusional. James is pretty clearly the best player in the NBA right now. It's really not even debatable.



Cute facepalm.

I need to explain why LeBron is the best when every statistic and nearly every expert sides with me? No, I think you're the one who needs to explain something.

Just in case, though:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html

Take a look there. Notice LeBron's higher FG% (52-49%), higher TS% (62-57%), higher 3PT% (35-28%), higher eFG% (56-51%), higher assists (DOUBLE: 8.0-4.0 pg), higher rebounds (6.7-5.4 pg), higher AST% (over DOUBLE: 42.5-20.5%), and nearly similar points (29.2-29.5). Kobe also uses more possessions.

Oh, and there's PER, which LeBron leads for the third year in a row (31.1-26.2, even a greater discrepancy last year). And how about win shares? LeBron=4.0; Kobe=2.9. LeBron leads the league there too and led last year with 20.3 WS (Kobe at 12.7).

And if you want to talk "clutch" or 4th quarter effectiveness or anything of that, check www.82games.com because LeBron leads Kobe (and the league, for the most part) in every statistic there too.



So, please, shut up. You have no clue what you're talking about.

This is easy for me to chime in on because I am not a fan of Kobe's anymore after his childish attitude on the court in the finals against Dwight Howard.

That being said I am glad he is on our team, I wouldn't take anyone over him and your stats speak a convincing argument however, I think the one thing that trumpets those stats is that most of the best players in the league including Lebron James has publicly stated that Kobe is the best player on the planet and these are people who are aware of the stats and know the game the most. And yes I can relate to those non Laker fans that get tired of the obsessive Kobe fans; its one thing to respect the mans game buts its another to act like he is the second coming of Christ.

DODGERS&LAKERS
11-30-2009, 02:47 PM
I dont look at stats when as much as I look at weaknesses. A player with a very visible weakness, can have that weakness exploited in a 7 game series by a good team. Any great player can put up ridiculous stats against some of the crap teams out there in the league. I like to see what they can do vs the best of the best. Regular season stats mean absolute diddle squat to me.

USMCLaker
11-30-2009, 02:50 PM
I dont look at stats when as much as I look at weaknesses. A player with a very visible weakness, can have that weakness exploited in a 7 game series by a good team. Any great player can put up ridiculous stats against some of the crap teams out there in the league. I like to see what they can do vs the best of the best. Regular season stats mean absolute diddle squat to me.

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=430696

^Kind of supports what your saying.

Ray_R
11-30-2009, 03:00 PM
effective is best quality

philab
11-30-2009, 03:01 PM
This is easy for me to chime in on because I am not a fan of Kobe's anymore after his childish attitude on the court in the finals against Dwight Howard.

That being said I am glad he is on our team, I wouldn't take anyone over him and your stats speak a convincing argument however, I think the one thing that trumpets those stats is that most of the best players in the league including Lebron James has publicly stated that Kobe is the best player on the planet and these are people who are aware of the stats and know the game the most. And yes I can relate to those non Laker fans that get tired of the obsessive Kobe fans; its one thing to respect the mans game buts its another to act like he is the second coming of Christ.

Fair enough. I'm not saying you'd have to trade Kobe for LeBron or anything like that. And the opinion of players, including LeBron (although you're referring to something said nearly a year ago), certainly counts. That said, all the statistics and all the experts say LeBron. When my own two eyes say LeBron as well, you're going to have to make a pretty damn convincing argument on the other side. Truthfully, that convincing argument doesn't exist, hence the disdain for those stubbornly asserting that Kobe is still the best.

Fun stat: Kobe has never led the league in PER or win shares. Never.

philab
11-30-2009, 03:01 PM
I dont look at stats when as much as I look at weaknesses. A player with a very visible weakness, can have that weakness exploited in a 7 game series by a good team. Any great player can put up ridiculous stats against some of the crap teams out there in the league. I like to see what they can do vs the best of the best. Regular season stats mean absolute diddle squat to me.

Right, because LeBron didn't put up the highest playoff PER EVER last season.

What exactly is LeBron's weakness -- keeping in mind his better shooting %'s across the board this season (except FT%) when compared to Kobe -- and how exactly was that "weakness" exploited last playoffs?


Kobe has a very visible weakness anyway. The guy has been relegated to the post and mid-range games. He has lots of trouble getting to the basket these days.

NBAfan4life
11-30-2009, 03:03 PM
I knew this thread would be a Kobe Lebron debate for the most part with a few other players thrown in from the few.

My favorite player Kobe Bryant

IMO best player Lebron James

Kobe still should get mvp because he will get the better record and has a better chance at a title :D

DODGERS&LAKERS
11-30-2009, 03:11 PM
Nope, not delusional. James is pretty clearly the best player in the NBA right now. It's really not even debatable.



Cute facepalm.

I need to explain why LeBron is the best when every statistic and nearly every expert sides with me? No, I think you're the one who needs to explain something.

Just in case, though:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html

Take a look there. Notice LeBron's higher FG% (52-49%), higher TS% (62-57%), higher 3PT% (35-28%), higher eFG% (56-51%), higher assists (DOUBLE: 8.0-4.0 pg), higher rebounds (6.7-5.4 pg), higher AST% (over DOUBLE: 42.5-20.5%), and nearly similar points (29.2-29.5). Kobe also uses more possessions.

Oh, and there's PER, which LeBron leads for the third year in a row (31.1-26.2, even a greater discrepancy last year). And how about win shares? LeBron=4.0; Kobe=2.9. LeBron leads the league there too and led last year with 20.3 WS (Kobe at 12.7).

And if you want to talk "clutch" or 4th quarter effectiveness or anything of that, check www.82games.com because LeBron leads Kobe (and the league, for the most part) in every statistic there too.



So, please, shut up. You have no clue what you're talking about.

The problem with looking at regular season stats like you do is because they are very misleading. Should I have you believe Andrew Bynum is just as good a player as Tim Duncan is and twice the player that Kevin Garnett is now? Because the stats would say yes, he is.

Bynum
18.3 pts
10.3 rbs
1.1 ast
1.9 blk
.567 fg%
.607 TS%

Duncan
18.5 pts
10.8 rbs
3.7 ast
2.0 blk
540 fg%
.586 TS%

Garnett
14.1 pts
7.4 rbs
2.4 ast
.08 blk
.525 fg%
.555 TS%

philab
11-30-2009, 03:16 PM
The problem with looking at regular season stats like you do is because they are very misleading. Should I have you believe Andrew Bynum is just as good a player as Tim Duncan is and twice the player that Kevin Garnett is now? Because the stats would say yes, he is.

Bynum
18.3 pts
10.3 rbs
1.1 ast
1.9 blk
.567 fg%
.607 TS%

Duncan
18.5 pts
10.8 rbs
3.7 ast
2.0 blk
540 fg%
.586 TS%

Garnett
14.1 pts
7.4 rbs
2.4 ast
.08 blk
.525 fg%
.555 TS%

Except for the fact that Duncan is SECOND in PER this season, behind only LeBron. And if you want to call Bynum better than Garnett, I won't argue too hard.

Duncan's higher in Win Shares too.


This is pretty stupid anyway. Just because you can find a stat that tends to negate a popular belief, we're supposed to throw out stats altogether? I find it troubling that you side with popular belief over objective data.

DODGERS&LAKERS
11-30-2009, 03:25 PM
Right, because LeBron didn't put up the highest playoff PER EVER last season.

What exactly is LeBron's weakness -- keeping in mind his better shooting %'s across the board this season (except FT%) when compared to Kobe -- and how exactly was that "weakness" exploited last playoffs?


Kobe has a very visible weakness anyway. The guy has been relegated to the post and mid-range games. He has lots of trouble getting to the basket these days.

Exactly what caliber defense did Lebron play? The Pistons were ranked 16th out of 30 teams defensively. The Hawks were ranked 12th. Two middle of the road defensive teams. Both he and Kobe played the number 1 defensive team in the league, and both tore them up. Kobe on the other hand played the Jazz who were ranked 6th, the Rockets who were ranked 4th, the Nuggets who were ranked 8th, plus the fore mentioned Magic. Its a lot easier to put up good stats against teams who would not have even made the playoffs in the West.

And no matter what 13 games into a season say, Lebron is not a good jump shooter. And when a good defensive team, like the Celtics or Lakers, pack the paint with their long and athletic bigs, Lebron is going to have to hit a jump shot with regularity. I have seen Kobe do it over his 14 year career. I have yet to see Lebron adjust his game successfully. When he played the Spurs in the finals who packed the paint, Lebron shot 35% and averaged 6 turnovers a game. When the Celtics did it 2 years ago, he once again shot 35% as his team lost.

Also, Kobe playing in the post is just as good as getting to the rim. He is shooting 49% from the post and mid range. Which is great for a 2 guard. And as I said before, in the playoffs, when you face the best of the best, you're going to need to be able to play in the post, or hit a mid range jumper with regularity, or your team is going to get bounced.

Turtle55
11-30-2009, 03:32 PM
How about the one player you would choose if you were starting a team from scratch. The one guy you were the most certain you could build a champion around. His skills include dominating and leading his team to wins. I don't care if a guy can avg 60 ppg if he can't lead his teams to wins. At the same time a guy who plays for winners but can't take over a game when his team needs it is disqualified.

So to put it short none of these categories can completely describe "the best".

DODGERS&LAKERS
11-30-2009, 03:32 PM
Except for the fact that Duncan is SECOND in PER this season, behind only LeBron. And if you want to call Bynum better than Garnett, I won't argue too hard.

Duncan's higher in Win Shares too.


This is pretty stupid anyway. Just because you can find a stat that tends to negate a popular belief, we're supposed to throw out stats altogether? I find it troubling that you side with popular belief over objective data.

This is the problem with looking at stats over a 14 game span. Bynum is not as good as Duncan or Garnett. If teams wanted to take Bynum out of the game, they could. Either by sagging on him or doubling him as soon as he gets the ball. He is not the best of passers and is kind of a black hole in the post, give me the players that can adapt their games in the playoffs. If you double Duncan, he kills you with the pass, if you play him one on one, he is effective in the post, he can spread the defense with his mid range. Garnett is the same exact way. Excellent passer, great defender and spreads the floor. These attributes are most important come playoff time. Averages against the Nets, Wolves, Kings, Knicks, do not impress me at all.

DODGERS&LAKERS
11-30-2009, 03:38 PM
How about the one player you would choose if you were starting a team from scratch. The one guy you were the most certain you could build a champion around. His skills include dominating and leading his team to wins. I don't care if a guy can avg 60 ppg if he can't lead his teams to wins. At the same time a guy who plays for winners but can't take over a game when his team needs it is disqualified.

So to put it short none of these categories can completely describe "the best".

Well, if you do it that way, Kobe had a team built around him from scratch, and he has gotten his teams to the finals twice won a championship in a 5 year span. Lebron had a team built around him from scratch, and we're still waiting to crown the King 7 years later

ko8e24
11-30-2009, 03:40 PM
Exactly what caliber defense did Lebron play? The Pistons were ranked 16th out of 30 teams defensively. The Hawks were ranked 12th. Two middle of the road defensive teams. Both he and Kobe played the number 1 defensive team in the league, and both tore them up. Kobe on the other hand played the Jazz who were ranked 6th, the Rockets who were ranked 4th, the Nuggets who were ranked 8th, plus the fore mentioned Magic. Its a lot easier to put up good stats against teams who would not have even made the playoffs in the West.

And no matter what 13 games into a season say, Lebron is not a good jump shooter. And when a good defensive team, like the Celtics or Lakers, pack the paint with their long and athletic bigs, Lebron is going to have to hit a jump shot with regularity. I have seen Kobe do it over his 14 year career. I have yet to see Lebron adjust his game successfully. When he played the Spurs in the finals who packed the paint, Lebron shot 35% and averaged 6 turnovers a game. When the Celtics did it 2 years ago, he once again shot 35% as his team lost.

Also, Kobe playing in the post is just as good as getting to the rim. He is shooting 49% from the post and mid range. Which is great for a 2 guard. And as I said before, in the playoffs, when you face the best of the best, you're going to need to be able to play in the post, or hit a mid range jumper with regularity, or your team is going to get bounced.


this

philab
11-30-2009, 03:46 PM
Exactly what caliber defense did Lebron play? The Pistons were ranked 16th out of 30 teams defensively. The Hawks were ranked 12th. Two middle of the road defensive teams. Both he and Kobe played the number 1 defensive team in the league, and both tore them up. Kobe on the other hand played the Jazz who were ranked 6th, the Rockets who were ranked 4th, the Nuggets who were ranked 8th, plus the fore mentioned Magic. Its a lot easier to put up good stats against teams who would not have even made the playoffs in the West.

Win Shares take into account defense as well. LeBron had more WS in the playoffs last year than Kobe had (4.8-4.7) despite playing NINE less games.

And yeah, the West was harder. Still LeBron led by huge margins. And Kobe's supporting cast (Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Ariza >>> Z, Mo, AV, West) skews stats his way as well.



And no matter what 13 games into a season say, Lebron is not a good jump shooter. And when a good defensive team, like the Celtics or Lakers, pack the paint with their long and athletic bigs, Lebron is going to have to hit a jump shot with regularity. I have seen Kobe do it over his 14 year career. I have yet to see Lebron adjust his game successfully. When he played the Spurs in the finals who packed the paint, Lebron shot 35% and averaged 6 turnovers a game. When the Celtics did it 2 years ago, he once again shot 35% as his team lost.

See, this is where you've completely lost it. LeBron led Kobe in TS% last year (59-56%), eFG% (56-51%), FG% (49-47%), and was just .007 (0.7%) behind in 3PT% despite shooting under 20% from 3PT the first month or so (making up for it with 40% last two months).

And some playoff statistic from TWO YEARS AGO (we're talking NOW) isn't all that relevant. Kobe shot 42% against the Celtics also. And please don't tell me that the Cavs (without Mo at this point and with three new starters on offense from the monster trade two months earlier) were better around LeBron than the Lakers were around Kobe.

Not like this matters anyway. Shaq's not a good jump shooter and he's one of the best ever. LeBron is AMAZING at getting to the hoop and uses that to his advantage. Kobe is not as good at getting to the hoop but relies more on his shot. There's more than one way to skin a cat, you know. And now that LeBron is actually a better shooter too, well, it's no contest.



Also, Kobe playing in the post is just as good as getting to the rim. He is shooting 49% from the post and mid range. Which is great for a 2 guard. And as I said before, in the playoffs, when you face the best of the best, you're going to need to be able to play in the post, or hit a mid range jumper with regularity, or your team is going to get bounced.

Fine, call it just as good. It's still not as good as LeBron. If we're equating post with getting to the rim, then you have to accept all FG attempts. LeBron is shooting 52%; Kobe 49%.

And LeBron can hit a mid-range jumper. Have you seen him this year? He's been unbelievably good (although a few too many TOs).

philab
11-30-2009, 03:47 PM
Well, if you do it that way, Kobe had a team built around him from scratch, and he has gotten his teams to the finals twice won a championship in a 5 year span. Lebron had a team built around him from scratch, and we're still waiting to crown the King 7 years later

That has more to do with the quality of GMs than anything else.

philab
11-30-2009, 03:48 PM
This is the problem with looking at stats over a 14 game span. Bynum is not as good as Duncan or Garnett. If teams wanted to take Bynum out of the game, they could. Either by sagging on him or doubling him as soon as he gets the ball. He is not the best of passers and is kind of a black hole in the post, give me the players that can adapt their games in the playoffs. If you double Duncan, he kills you with the pass, if you play him one on one, he is effective in the post, he can spread the defense with his mid range. Garnett is the same exact way. Excellent passer, great defender and spreads the floor. These attributes are most important come playoff time. Averages against the Nets, Wolves, Kings, Knicks, do not impress me at all.


Right, and the PER and WS statistics prove what you just wrote about Duncan. Your arguments are getting worse.

USMCLaker
11-30-2009, 03:54 PM
Fair enough. I'm not saying you'd have to trade Kobe for LeBron or anything like that. And the opinion of players, including LeBron (although you're referring to something said nearly a year ago), certainly counts. That said, all the statistics and all the experts say LeBron. When my own two eyes say LeBron as well, you're going to have to make a pretty damn convincing argument on the other side. Truthfully, that convincing argument doesn't exist, hence the disdain for those stubbornly asserting that Kobe is still the best.

Fun stat: Kobe has never led the league in PER or win shares. Never.

I am not going to hate on you for your admiration of LBJ or Kobe fans who feel Kobe is the best (though I don't care for those who treat him like he is god). Personally for me its kind of a stale argument which has yet to be determined because both careers are still in effect.

However, back to the original topic of this thread and as much as it pains me to say this Bill Russell has got to be the model of how you would define "The best player." As impressive as many legends have been such as: MJ, Magic, Bird, Kobe, LBJ, Shaq, Wilt, Isiah Thomas, Pistol Pete, Oscar Robertson and so forth only one player in the history of the game can claim to have had 11 rings and its Bill Russell. And what have all the legends and hall of famers valued the most? Answer: Championship rings.

Does Bill Russell lead the NBA in points scored? No.
Do any of his teams have records like the 72-10 record held by the Bulls? No. Or the 33 game winning streak held by the Lakers? No.
He holds the record that presumptuously I think that most fans would value the most and that is Championship Banners hanging from the rafters of their respective stadiums.

Therefore, within a team sport and concept effectiveness has my vote of which Bill Russell was a model of.
Now after touting the horn of a Celtic great I feel the need to puke.
:puke:

USMCLaker
11-30-2009, 03:58 PM
Man, I really feel like I'm going to puke!!!

abe_froman
11-30-2009, 04:06 PM
I am not going to hate on you for your admiration of LBJ or Kobe fans who feel Kobe is the best (though I don't care for those who treat him like he is god). Personally for me its kind of a stale argument which has yet to be determined because both careers are still in effect.

However, back to the original topic of this thread and as much as it pains me to say this Bill Russell has got to be the model of how you would define "The best player." As impressive as many legends have been such as: MJ, Magic, Bird, Kobe, LBJ, Shaq, Wilt, Isiah Thomas, Pistol Pete, Oscar Robertson and so forth only one player in the history of the game can claim to have had 11 rings and its Bill Russell. And what have all the legends and hall of famers valued the most? Answer: Championship rings.

Does Bill Russell lead the NBA in points scored? No.
Do any of his teams have records like the 72-10 record held by the Bulls? No. Or the 33 game winning streak held by the Lakers? No.
He holds the record that presumptuously I think that most fans would value the most and that is Championship Banners hanging from the rafters of their respective stadiums.

Therefore, within a team sport and concept effectiveness has my vote of which Bill Russell was a model of.
Now after touting the horn of a Celtic great I feel the need to puke.
:puke:

but who have to play with has something to do with that,no? or you assume russell did it alone?

USMCLaker
11-30-2009, 04:07 PM
but who have to play with has something to do with that,no? or you assume russell did it alone?

No, but that's my point he was the consummate team player hence the 11 rings.

abe_froman
11-30-2009, 04:08 PM
No, but that's my point he was the consummate team player hence the 11 rings.

not really

USMCLaker
11-30-2009, 04:09 PM
not really

How so?

abe_froman
11-30-2009, 04:12 PM
How so?

there the not practicing with the rest of the team,red allowing him to just go out there and "do your thing",because he was so great/important he was allowed to be as a separate thing within the team

just because his offensive numbers arent eye popping doesnt mean he was a sharer,he did get his just on defense

and if you want personal thing side from on the court,he hated his teammates(except for cousy)

DODGERS&LAKERS
11-30-2009, 04:13 PM
Win Shares take into account defense as well. LeBron had more WS in the playoffs last year than Kobe had (4.8-4.7) despite playing NINE less games.

And yeah, the West was harder. Still LeBron led by huge margins. And Kobe's supporting cast (Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Ariza >>> Z, Mo, AV, West) skews stats his way as well.


See, this is where you've completely lost it. LeBron led Kobe in TS% last year (59-56%), eFG% (56-51%), FG% (49-47%), and was just .007 (0.7%) behind in 3PT% despite shooting under 20% from 3PT the first month or so (making up for it with 40% last two months).

And some playoff statistic from TWO YEARS AGO (we're talking NOW) isn't all that relevant. Kobe shot 42% against the Celtics also. And please don't tell me that the Cavs (without Mo at this point and with three new starters on offense from the monster trade two months earlier) were better around LeBron than the Lakers were around Kobe.

Not like this matters anyway. Shaq's not a good jump shooter and he's one of the best ever. LeBron is AMAZING at getting to the hoop and uses that to his advantage. Kobe is not as good at getting to the hoop but relies more on his shot. There's more than one way to skin a cat, you know. And now that LeBron is actually a better shooter too, well, it's no contest.



Fine, call it just as good. It's still not as good as LeBron. If we're equating post with getting to the rim, then you have to accept all FG attempts. LeBron is shooting 52%; Kobe 49%.

And LeBron can hit a mid-range jumper. Have you seen him this year? He's been unbelievably good (although a few too many TOs).

Are you saying that Kobe, playing with Bynum, Gasol, Odom and Ariza, actually helps his stats? Or are you saying the opposite? I hope you are saying the opposite. When you have a lot of talented players, all the players on the team, have their stats go down. Kobe played on some 500 teams and was putting up 35 5 and 5. But as soon as he got talent, he went back to 30 6 and 5.

Also, take into account the teams offense. Phil berated Kobe against the Jazz after the 3rd quarter of last years playoffs. Kobe put up 13 points and had 5 assist in that quarter. Phil said Kobe was being to selfish with the ball and needed to run the offense as opposed to the pick and role he ran all quarter with Gasol.

Kobe may touch the ball a lot, but a lot of the time its just the first motion of the offense, he has to wait for the double, the next step is to pass it out and swing the ball around to the weak side. Does he get an assist for drawing a double? No. But it leads to wins and the Lakers being number 1 in assist with its highest assist man being Odom with 4.6 per game

Now, if Lebron would have had that same quarter, Mike Brown would have jizzed himself talking about Lebrons play. That is the difference. The Cavs offense is to have Lebron dominate the ball and make a play. Does it work? To an extent. It has not won a ring. But it does get them a lot of regular season wins. Does Lebron have to be a special player to be able to pull that offense off, you bet your @$$. But pick and roll offenses have a way of making one or two players seem irreplaceable, and all the other players on the team as dead weight. IE; Utah Jazz with Karl Malone and John Stockton. They ran the pick and roll to death. Did it make Malone second leading point scorer of all time? Yes. Did it lead to Stockton leading the NBA in assist all time? Yes. Did they ever win a ring that way? NO! Same thing when I see Chris Paul, and Lebron James. Their offenses give them all the stats. Thus giving them all the credit and adulation. But it does not win rings. Jordan played in that offense for his first seven years as well, put up some mind boggling numbers, but never won a ring. Then what do you know, Phil comes in, Jordan's numbers go down, but his teams are now winning with regularity.

So my question to you would be this, would you rather have your star player, be put in an offense, that demands that he be responsible for any made basket by your team, either via the shot or pass, or would you want your star to sacrifice some stats, sharing the glory, and making players like Bynum, Odom, and Ariza seem like they too are big parts of the team, and win rings. I want my star to sacrifice some stats for the sake of winning. I'm not saying Lebron would not do that, I'm just saying we have not see him do that yet.

philab
11-30-2009, 04:15 PM
I am not going to hate on you for your admiration of LBJ or Kobe fans who feel Kobe is the best (though I don't care for those who treat him like he is god). Personally for me its kind of a stale argument which has yet to be determined because both careers are still in effect.

However, back to the original topic of this thread and as much as it pains me to say this Bill Russell has got to be the model of how you would define "The best player." As impressive as many legends have been such as: MJ, Magic, Bird, Kobe, LBJ, Shaq, Wilt, Isiah Thomas, Pistol Pete, Oscar Robertson and so forth only one player in the history of the game can claim to have had 11 rings and its Bill Russell. And what have all the legends and hall of famers valued the most? Answer: Championship rings.

Does Bill Russell lead the NBA in points scored? No.
Do any of his teams have records like the 72-10 record held by the Bulls? No. Or the 33 game winning streak held by the Lakers? No.
He holds the record that presumptuously I think that most fans would value the most and that is Championship Banners hanging from the rafters of their respective stadiums.

Therefore, within a team sport and concept effectiveness has my vote of which Bill Russell was a model of.
Now after touting the horn of a Celtic great I feel the need to puke.
:puke:

We're talking about right now and not careers, by the way. Kobe has definitely had a better career than LeBron at this point.

And I don't think Russell can be called the best player ever based on rings alone. There's so many factors that go into winning a ring -- much more than just greatness of the #1 player. Sure, 11 rings helps out Russell's cause, but it's not conclusive IMO. There were less teams back then, he played with other HOFers, etc.

Bird's three rings with the Celtics are every bit as impressive as Shaq's four rings, for instance. The league was fairly weak in the early 2000s and was as strong as ever in the '80s. You have to look past simply the number of rings.

USMCLaker
11-30-2009, 04:16 PM
there the not practicing with the rest of the team,red allowing him to just go out there and "do your thing"

and if you want personal thing side from on the court,he hated his teammates(except for cousy)

I guess I have never heard of any of that I am not old enough to have watched him in his day however, my comments have been based off of what I have heard in documentaries on NBA TV so I am more than willing to hear from others on their respective opinions on how he got his 11 rings.

tr4shb0t
11-30-2009, 04:25 PM
Don't compare stats of players in different positions and with different supporting casts. SF should have good FG% especially if they dunk all day and their team does less. Dunking is not clutch by the way. Stats are overrated.

Anyway, I say the "best" is based on the overall values you offer the team. Inside game, mid-range game, outside game, passing, defense, reading the opposition, seeing weaknesses, iq, fundamentals, focus, heart, elevating teammates, etc. The more a player can offer the better they are. I look at all these as skills, and experience has a lot to do with it.

abe_froman
11-30-2009, 04:26 PM
I guess I have never heard of any of that I am not old enough to have watched him in his day however, my comments have been based off of what I have heard in documentaries on NBA TV so I am more than willing to hear from others on their respective opinions on how he got his 11 rings.

you probably wont hear on nba tv(kinda dont want to highlight the "negative side" of their players),but you should read up on him,its actually very interesting.i use to think he was the ultimate good guy/player to,but he was quite the ******* up until even the early 90's..thats when he changed to the lovable guy that you see now,he mellowed a lot

philab
11-30-2009, 04:26 PM
Are you saying that Kobe, playing with Bynum, Gasol, Odom and Ariza, actually helps his stats? Or are you saying the opposite? I hope you are saying the opposite. When you have a lot of talented players, all the players on the team, have their stats go down. Kobe played on some 500 teams and was putting up 35 5 and 5. But as soon as he got talent, he went back to 30 6 and 5.

Also, take into account the teams offense. Phil berated Kobe against the Jazz after the 3rd quarter of last years playoffs. Kobe put up 13 points and had 5 assist in that quarter. Phil said Kobe was being to selfish with the ball and needed to run the offense as opposed to the pick and role he ran all quarter with Gasol.

Kobe may touch the ball a lot, but a lot of the time its just the first motion of the offense, he has to wait for the double, the next step is to pass it out and swing the ball around to the weak side. Does he get an assist for drawing a double? No. But it leads to wins and the Lakers being number 1 in assist.

Now, if Lebron would have had that same quarter, Mike Brown would have jizzed himself talking about Lebrons play. That is the difference. The Cavs offense is to have Lebron dominate the ball and make a play. Does it work? To an extent. It has not won a ring. But it does get them a lot of regular season wins. Does Lebron have to be a special player to be able to pull that offense off, you bet your @$$. But pick and roll offenses have a way of making one or two players seem irreplaceable, and all the other players on the team as dead weight. IE; Utah Jazz with Karl Malone and John Stockton. They ran the pick and roll to death. Did it make Malone second leading point scorer of all time? Yes. Did it lead to Stockton leading the NBA in assist all time? Yes. Did they ever win a ring that way? NO! Same thing when I see Chris Paul, and Lebron James. Their offenses give them all the stats. Thus giving them all the credit and adulation. But it does not win rings. Jordan played than offense for his first seven years as well, put up some mind boggling numbers, but never won a ring. Then what do you know, Phil comes in, Jordan's numbers go down, but his teams are now winning with regularity.

So my question to you would be this, would you rather have your star player, be put in an offense, that demands that he be responsible for any made basket by your team, either via the shot or pass, or would you want your star to sacrifice some stats, sharing the glory, and making players like Bynum, Odom, and Ariza seem like they too are big parts of the team, and win rings. I want my star to sacrifice some stats for the sake of winning. I'm not saying Lebron would not do that, I'm just saying we have not see him do that yet.

Anecdotes are worthless, first off.

Anyway, this is why I look past counting stats. Yes, great supporting players CAN hurt you PPG and RPG (although I believe it can also help). But great supporting players should help your FG%'s. I can't really think of a scenario where a great supporting cast would make FG%'s go down unless there's two players sharing space down low. As such, Kobe's FG%'s have likely been buoyed by Gasol, Odom, Ariza, Bynum, Artest, etc.

And with a better supporting cast, one could easily make the argument that LeBron's APG would have been much higher in years past (at least up until last year).


And Kobe uses more possession than LeBron anyway! His USG% is 34.3 compared to LeBron's 33.9. This is actual possessions USED also; it has nothing to do with starting the offense in motion.



I don't really have much more to say. You've made no good arguments whatsoever. You've only tried to refute my arguments, and you've failed in a number of regards there. If I say Coke is the best soda because of X, Y, and Z, and you counter by showing that X, Y, and Z are flawed (something you haven't done anyway, but for the sake of argument), you have NOT proved that Pepsi is the best soda. You've offered no arguments for Kobe being the best except anecdotes. I'm sorry, but I've clearly got the better argument between the two of us.

USMCLaker
11-30-2009, 04:27 PM
We're talking about right now and not careers, by the way. Kobe has definitely had a better career than LeBron at this point.

And I don't think Russell can be called the best player ever based on rings alone. There's so many factors that go into winning a ring -- much more than just greatness of the #1 player. Sure, 11 rings helps out Russell's cause, but it's not conclusive IMO. There were less teams back then, he played with other HOFers, etc.

Bird's three rings with the Celtics are every bit as impressive as Shaq's four rings, for instance. The league was fairly weak in the early 2000s and was as strong as ever in the '80s. You have to look past simply the number of rings.

Very valid points, the 80's were a great time to be alive and watch basketball excellence.

I didn't see in the initial thread post anything isolating the current NBA however, taking that into account that we are discussing the current players I think that this questions is really hard to answer because today's great players pattern their games after players from the past, including recent past. Therefore, you can clearly see how LBJ's game has improved since playing alongside Kobe in the Olympics along with many of today's greats who have again publicly acknowledged that their game has improved after playing with Kobe learning from his dedication and work ethic. Does that make Kobe "the best player" idk, I'd like to think that the character of a player would be included in this conversation but since its doubtful that will happen again I don't think that these questions can be answered until we see the whole of each players career.

USMCLaker
11-30-2009, 04:30 PM
you probably wont hear on nba tv(kinda dont want to highlight the "negative side" of their players),but you should read up on him,its actually very interesting.i use to think he was the ultimate good guy/player to,but he was quite the ******* up until even the early 90's..thats when he changed to the lovable guy that you see now,he mellowed a lot

I probably shouldn't say that I'm glad to hear this but I am after all he is a Celtic but I'm sure Celtic fans have their perspective too.

Btw, I feel a little less like puking thanks.

abe_froman
11-30-2009, 04:33 PM
I probably shouldn't say that I'm glad to hear this but I am after all he is a Celtic but I'm sure Celtic fans have their perspective too.

Btw, I feel a little less like puking thanks.

i dunno,he talked alot of trash about boston(both city and fans) for a very long time.those that are old enough to remember might not.

DODGERS&LAKERS
11-30-2009, 04:48 PM
Anecdotes are worthless, first off.

Anyway, this is why I look past counting stats. Yes, great supporting players CAN hurt you PPG and RPG (although I believe it can also help). But great supporting players should help your FG%'s. I can't really think of a scenario where a great supporting cast would make FG%'s go down unless there's two players sharing space down low. As such, Kobe's FG%'s have likely been buoyed by Gasol, Odom, Ariza, Bynum, Artest, etc.

And with a better supporting cast, one could easily make the argument that LeBron's APG would have been much higher in years past (at least up until last year).


And Kobe uses more possession than LeBron anyway! His USG% is 34.3 compared to LeBron's 33.9. This is actual possessions USED also; it has nothing to do with starting the offense in motion.



I don't really have much more to say. You've made no good arguments whatsoever. You've only tried to refute my arguments, and you've failed in a number of regards there. If I say Coke is the best soda because of X, Y, and Z, and you counter by showing that X, Y, and Z are flawed (something you haven't done anyway, but for the sake of argument), you have NOT proved that Pepsi is the best soda. You've offered no arguments for Kobe being the best except anecdotes. I'm sorry, but I've clearly got the better argument between the two of us.

Fine, have it your way, Lebron is better than Kobe, Stockton was better than Magic, David Robinson was better than Tim Duncan, Tracy Mcgrady is better than Jerry West, Artis Gilmore was better than Shaq, and so and and so on. Its obvious that you take PER and win shares over winning. So if thats your stance, there is no use in talking sense into you.

Should stats tell some of the story? Yes. But definatly not all of it. The way you make it seem, they are the end all be all. Some players put up stats in the context of winning. Some players put up stats while never winning anything. If you like Wilt over Shaq or Kareem, thats a judgemental flaw on your part. If you like Oscar Robertson over a player like Magic, thats your problem. If you like a player to have big huge win shares, and high PER'S, and have them never win a ring, thats not my fault.

Ill judge like this, vs the Celtics, do I want Lebron or Kobe. Ill take Kobe and hope his jump shots on. You can take Lebron and pray its on. Then, when the Lakers are holding another trophy, you can comfort yourself with Lebrons stat sheet. Im sure it will be quite nice. But it will once again have one thing missing from it, a title.

philab
11-30-2009, 04:56 PM
Fine, have it your way, Lebron is better than Kobe, Stockton was better than Magic, David Robinson was better than Tim Duncan, Tracy Mcgrady is better than Jerry West, Artis Gilmore was better than Shaq, and so and and so on. Its obvious that you take PER and win shares over winning. So if thats your stance, there is no use in talking sense into you.

Should stats tell some of the story? Yes. But definatly not all of it. The way you make it seem, they are the end all be all. Some players put up stats in the context of winning. Some players put up stats while never winning anything. If you like Wilt over Shaq or Kareem, thats a judgemental flaw on your part. If you like Oscar Robertson over a player like Magic, thats your problem. If you like a player to have big huge win shares, and high PER'S, and have them never win a ring, thats not my fault.

Ill judge like this, vs the Celtics, do I want Lebron or Kobe. Ill take Kobe and hope his jump shots on. You can take Lebron and pray its on. Then, when the Lakers are holding another trophy, you can comfort yourself with Lebrons stat sheet. Im sure it will be quite nice. But it will once again have one thing missing from it, a title.

I never said stats were an end-all, be-all. They are, however, OBJECTIVE and thus one of the better tools for comparing players. They need to be taken with a grain salt -- and trust me, they are here -- but they also need to be given some weight too. You've given no weight to any stats and have instead relied on your perception. Stats can be fiddled with to make almost any argument, but you've been unable to do so with Kobe because it's a very difficult argument to make. LeBron's stats are better across the board.

I also referred to "experts" who declare LeBron the best. And yes, I rely IN PART on my own two eyes.



Seriously, you can't really expect someone to see all the stats, see all the expert opinions, and watch the games with an unbiased eye and decide that Kobe is the best, can you? Maybe, somehow, Kobe is the best, but until I'm given a good argument as to why, I find it a ridiculous notion.

And we're talking about NOW. Rings don't mean a whole lot. I'm willing to give Kobe substantial credit for last year's ring, but that's in no way conclusive.

kArSoN RyDaH
11-30-2009, 05:01 PM
Anecdotes are worthless, first off.

Anyway, this is why I look past counting stats. Yes, great supporting players CAN hurt you PPG and RPG (although I believe it can also help). But great supporting players should help your FG%'s. I can't really think of a scenario where a great supporting cast would make FG%'s go down unless there's two players sharing space down low. As such, Kobe's FG%'s have likely been buoyed by Gasol, Odom, Ariza, Bynum, Artest, etc.

And with a better supporting cast, one could easily make the argument that LeBron's APG would have been much higher in years past (at least up until last year).


And Kobe uses more possession than LeBron anyway! His USG% is 34.3 compared to LeBron's 33.9. This is actual possessions USED also; it has nothing to do with starting the offense in motion.



I don't really have much more to say. You've made no good arguments whatsoever. You've only tried to refute my arguments, and you've failed in a number of regards there. If I say Coke is the best soda because of X, Y, and Z, and you counter by showing that X, Y, and Z are flawed (something you haven't done anyway, but for the sake of argument), you have NOT proved that Pepsi is the best soda. You've offered no arguments for Kobe being the best except anecdotes. I'm sorry, but I've clearly got the better argument between the two of us.

okay so a .4 % difference in kobe and lebrons possesions used is ur argument? nice. verry well thought. i dont think he is trying to put kobe on a pedestol but rather he is telling what is essentially looked for in a BEST player type.

G-Funk
11-30-2009, 05:03 PM
Kobe is the best cause he has all of the above

kArSoN RyDaH
11-30-2009, 05:07 PM
Kobe is the best cause he has all of the above

true, :clap: also kobe is the best because all players use him as a measuring stick for themselves. people dont say i want to be as good as lebron. they compare themselves to kobe. they want to accomplish what hes accomplished. just like the lakers. every nba team is making moves to be better than the lakers. every player tries to better their game so they can be better than kobe not lebron.

prash
11-30-2009, 05:14 PM
wheres the all of the above option

kArSoN RyDaH
11-30-2009, 05:15 PM
Win Shares take into account defense as well. LeBron had more WS in the playoffs last year than Kobe had (4.8-4.7) despite playing NINE less games.

And yeah, the West was harder. Still LeBron led by huge margins. And Kobe's supporting cast (Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Ariza >>> Z, Mo, AV, West) skews stats his way as well.



See, this is where you've completely lost it. LeBron led Kobe in TS% last year (59-56%), eFG% (56-51%), FG% (49-47%), and was just .007 (0.7%) behind in 3PT% despite shooting under 20% from 3PT the first month or so (making up for it with 40% last two months).

And some playoff statistic from TWO YEARS AGO (we're talking NOW) isn't all that relevant. Kobe shot 42% against the Celtics also. And please don't tell me that the Cavs (without Mo at this point and with three new starters on offense from the monster trade two months earlier) were better around LeBron than the Lakers were around Kobe.

Not like this matters anyway. Shaq's not a good jump shooter and he's one of the best ever. LeBron is AMAZING at getting to the hoop and uses that to his advantage. Kobe is not as good at getting to the hoop but relies more on his shot. There's more than one way to skin a cat, you know. And now that LeBron is actually a better shooter too, well, it's no contest.



Fine, call it just as good. It's still not as good as LeBron. If we're equating post with getting to the rim, then you have to accept all FG attempts. LeBron is shooting 52%; Kobe 49%.

And LeBron can hit a mid-range jumper. Have you seen him this year? He's been unbelievably good (although a few too many TOs).

okay shaq is a center. centers jobs are to stay in the middle and dunk and power their way to the basket.

philab
11-30-2009, 05:21 PM
okay so a .4 % difference in kobe and lebrons possesions used is ur argument? nice. verry well thought. i dont think he is trying to put kobe on a pedestol but rather he is telling what is essentially looked for in a BEST player type.

No, he was arguing that Kobe gets less opportunities (and thus his stats are lower) because he has to share with Gasol, Bynum, Artest, etc. whereas LeBron is the focus of the Cavs' entire offense. I responded by showing that Kobe uses MORE POSSESSIONS and thus does not get less opportunities (and thus his stats are lower for other reasons).

philab
11-30-2009, 05:24 PM
okay shaq is a center. centers jobs are to stay in the middle and dunk and power their way to the basket.

Right, he's found a way to be amazing without a good jump shot. He's had a better career than all but 5 or 10 players and without a jump shot. Thus, a jump shot is not conclusive of one's greatness.

Along those lines, Kobe's great jump shot does necessarily make him better than LeBron, especially when that jump shot does not appear to be better than LeBron's any longer.

kArSoN RyDaH
11-30-2009, 05:30 PM
No, he was arguing that Kobe gets less opportunities (and thus his stats are lower) because he has to share with Gasol, Bynum, Artest, etc. whereas LeBron is the focus of the Cavs' entire offense. I responded by showing that Kobe uses MORE POSSESSIONS and thus does not get less opportunities (and thus his stats are lower for other reasons).

ohhhhh okay. yeah true. but i do think kobes stats are lower now than if it would be him on the cavs n lebron in la. kobe shoots more than lebron. lebron doesnt really shooot he drives to the hole.

kArSoN RyDaH
11-30-2009, 05:35 PM
Right, he's found a way to be amazing without a good jump shot. He's had a better career than all but 5 or 10 players and without a jump shot. Thus, a jump shot is not conclusive of one's greatness.

Along those lines, Kobe's great jump shot does necessarily make him better than LeBron, especially when that jump shot does not appear to be better than LeBron's any longer.

lebrons jump shot is better than kobes? are you serious? cmon now :facepalm: that is why this thread was created to see what it is a player needs to be the BEST player. to me i think its being able to do it all. drive, shoot, pass,rebound. and of course the main thing is make the other players around you better. things i think kobe possesses and lebron has a few of these. now also i look at it like this. if you put lebrons skill set in a 6'6 kobe body and kobes skill set in lebrons body then lebron is no where near the player he is. he doesnt really contain any special shoooting abilities although he has improved his shoooting game over the years it still isnt up to par with kobes ability to shoot the ball. thus making kobe the better players. IMO.

Mikeleafs
11-30-2009, 05:40 PM
Clutch!
Any player who's able to put a team on his back and win the game with a shot or a play to me defines the best player.

ie) Kobe, LBJ, Wade, Pierce, R. Allen etc

philab
11-30-2009, 06:00 PM
lebrons jump shot is better than kobes? are you serious? cmon now :facepalm: that is why this thread was created to see what it is a player needs to be the BEST player. to me i think its being able to do it all. drive, shoot, pass,rebound. and of course the main thing is make the other players around you better. things i think kobe possesses and lebron has a few of these. now also i look at it like this. if you put lebrons skill set in a 6'6 kobe body and kobes skill set in lebrons body then lebron is no where near the player he is. he doesnt really contain any special shoooting abilities although he has improved his shoooting game over the years it still isnt up to par with kobes ability to shoot the ball. thus making kobe the better players. IMO.

Look back at the shooting stats I posted.

And this switching bodies thing is ridiculous. If you put Allen Iverson's skill set in Shaq's body, he'd be literally unstoppable. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet in human history.

And your argument actually says that Kobe's skill set isn't that great (although I believe you misspoke).

And again, this is irrelevant. We're talking BEST player, not most skilled (unless that's your definition, but it's clearly a dumb one).

madiaz3
11-30-2009, 08:42 PM
Look back at the shooting stats I posted.


Considering one can overtake the other in the matter of two games for each, the stat debate is premature. There hasn't been enough games. I don't understand how you believe higher % means better shooter. Is it not possible that Kobe draws more defensive attention on his jumpshots? Better shooters do. Stats won't prove this, only watching the games will, which is the most valid analysis.

philab
11-30-2009, 08:58 PM
Considering one can overtake the other in the matter of two games for each, the stat debate is premature. There hasn't been enough games. I don't understand how you believe higher % means better shooter. Is it not possible that Kobe draws more defensive attention on his jumpshots? Better shooters do. Stats won't prove this, only watching the games will, which is the most valid analysis.

All right, but is it not more valid that LeBron draws more attention down low then? If they come out on him, he'll put up the numbers near the basket. Any way you look at it, you want LeBron with the ball. We've heard for years that "once LeBron develops a jumper . . ." and no one seems to notice that he finally has.

And yeah, it's early. I was referring to last season's stats at times too though.


And watching the games isn't the most valid analysis. There's no valid analysis besides a COMPLETE analysis, including firsthand observation, stats, and the like. Perceptions can be deceiving -- that's a pretty well-established idea.

I'm watching the games too, by the way. At the very least, it's a wash when it comes to personal observation as I pick LeBron and he picks Kobe. That's where stats are valuable because anecdotes aren't likely to be persuasive.

Hawkeye15
11-30-2009, 09:03 PM
without even reading this thread, I will assume it becomes about Kobe.

fresh prince
11-30-2009, 09:27 PM
Fair enough. I'm not saying you'd have to trade Kobe
Fun stat: Kobe has never led the league in PER or win shares. Never.

That fact tells you more about how flawed PER and Win Shares are as valid metrics for gauging a players overall effectiveness .. than it does about Kobe..

fresh prince
11-30-2009, 09:30 PM
without even reading this thread, I will assume it becomes about Kobe.

HA.. You've been here for a while man....... Its always about Kobe..

philab
11-30-2009, 09:54 PM
That fact tells you more about how flawed PER and Win Shares are as valid metrics for gauging a players overall effectiveness .. than it does about Kobe..

Really, though? Kobe's reign as the best player in the league was two, three years tops -- after Shaq and Duncan began to decline and before LeBron got to this level. And in all but maybe one of those years, the Lakers were horrible and Kobe was forced to be selfish. He used almost 39% of possessions the year he averaged 35 ppg and his assists were significantly lower. Plus, the fact that he was consistently double- and triple-teamed probably hurt his FG% some.

And on top of that, it could just be bad luck. Roy Halladay, for instance, has pretty clearly been the best pitcher in the AL since about 2003 but only has one Cy Young to show for it. Every year a Greinke, a Lee, or a Sabathia shows up and steals it from (and probably rightfully so). Just because he missed the awards in those years doesn't mean he wasn't ever the best after 2003 (with some help from Santana and Lee switching leagues). Likewise, Kobe was the best for a few years in there but Dirk, Garnett, and McGrady put up some good years.

Hawkeye15
11-30-2009, 10:10 PM
HA.. You've been here for a while man....... Its always about Kobe..

touche

Hawkeye15
11-30-2009, 10:12 PM
That fact tells you more about how flawed PER and Win Shares are as valid metrics for gauging a players overall effectiveness .. than it does about Kobe..

while PER isn't perfect, it does measure effectiveness. And Kobe has never been a threat to lead. While he is an unreal player, he isnt the most efficient star. Nothing wrong with that. Isnt it curious the MJ's PER was higher than anyone ever? It seems a pretty decent gauge to me, although I dont think its the end all telling of a players ability at all.

fresh prince
11-30-2009, 10:13 PM
Really, though? Kobe's reign as the best player in the league was two, three years tops -- after Shaq and Duncan began to decline and before LeBron got to this level. And in all but maybe one of those years, the Lakers were horrible and Kobe was forced to be selfish. He used almost 39% of possessions the year he averaged 35 ppg and his assists were significantly lower. Plus, the fact that he was consistently double- and triple-teamed probably hurt his FG% some.

And on top of that, it could just be bad luck. Roy Halladay, for instance, has pretty clearly been the best pitcher in the AL since about 2003 but only has one Cy Young to show for it. Every year a Greinke, a Lee, or a Sabathia shows up and steals it from (and probably rightfully so). Just because he missed the awards in those years doesn't mean he wasn't ever the best after 2003 (with some help from Santana and Lee switching leagues). Likewise, Kobe was the best for a few years in there but Dirk, Garnett, and McGrady put up some good years.

True but as with Kobe... Roy has been the best despite the numbers IMO.. For about the same time period as Kobe (2002/ 2003 - PRESENT).. Other dudes have had great years but at the end of the day with a game 7 on the line I want the ball in Halladay's or Kobe's hands and to me that is JUST ONE of the things makes them the best..

Unfortunately for Halladay he hasnt got to show what he can do in those big playoFf spots yet..But he will when he comes to my Angels :D

philab
11-30-2009, 10:36 PM
True but as with Kobe... Roy has been the best despite the numbers IMO.. For about the same time period as Kobe (2002/ 2003 - PRESENT).. Other dudes have had great years but at the end of the day with a game 7 on the line I want the ball in Halladay's or Kobe's hands and to me that is JUST ONE of the things makes them the best..

Unfortunately for Halladay he hasnt got to show what he can do in those big playoFf spots yet..But he will when he comes to my Angels :D

Your timeline is pretty crazy. Duncan wasn't better despite winning rings in 2003, '05, and '07? Duncan and Shaq were both clearly better through at least '05. LeBron was clearly, unequivocally the best last year and remains there this year. That gives Kobe three years at best. I'd argue two, but I'll give three. Please do not elevate Kobe to the point of Jordan. Not many players are capable of being the best for longer than two years or so. Kobe is not one of them.



And if you want the ball in Kobe's hands, you're clearly not paying attention to the stats. Kobe shoots 25% there; the league as a whole shoots almost 30%.

kArSoN RyDaH
11-30-2009, 10:52 PM
Your timeline is pretty crazy. Duncan wasn't better despite winning rings in 2003, '05, and '07? Duncan and Shaq were both clearly better through at least '05. LeBron was clearly, unequivocally the best last year and remains there this year. That gives Kobe three years at best. I'd argue two, but I'll give three. Please do not elevate Kobe to the point of Jordan. Not many players are capable of being the best for longer than two years or so. Kobe is not one of them.



And if you want the ball in Kobe's hands, you're clearly not paying attention to the stats. Kobe shoots 25% there; the league as a whole shoots almost 30%.

your clearly an idiot if you dont want the ball in kobes hands at the end of the game. kobe is constantly double and triple teamed. also the stats dont show how much kobe is fouled and how many calls he doesnt get. and on a majority of the shots he misses he is fouled and he does go to the free throw line a lot. stats are bs man. now if you think being the best player is having a 100% fg percentage then just get outta here.(excuse my exaggeration) but theres a lot more that goes into judging how goood a player is. does the stats take into consideration how kobe locks down his opponents? do they show how much influence he has on his teammates and how much of a leader he is? just because these attributes dont show up in statbooks does that mean he doesnt have them? no. the fact that you keep arguing against kobe with percentages and per's is jss pointless. kobe is the best player in the nba and lebron is up there as well but to go by stats is stupid because of what players contribute to a team and how things that they do do that arent in statbooks cant be measured. just because a center doesnt get all the blocks in the world doesnt mean he isnt good. does the league have a stat for altered shots? no. i believe there was a poll last year im not sure but it was a coaches poll and it asked coaches if you had to choose a player to take the last shot in a game who would you take? kobe i believe got 29/30 or maybe even the whole 30. and also can stats measure basketball IQ? nope. a poll given to nba PLAYERS (these are the guys that play the game) asked who has the highest bball IQ? who was it? KOBE. i mean if players and coaches are chooosing this guy your telling me hes not the best? that ridiculous.

Gibby23
11-30-2009, 11:01 PM
Your timeline is pretty crazy. Duncan wasn't better despite winning rings in 2003, '05, and '07? Duncan and Shaq were both clearly better through at least '05. LeBron was clearly, unequivocally the best last year and remains there this year. That gives Kobe three years at best. I'd argue two, but I'll give three. Please do not elevate Kobe to the point of Jordan. Not many players are capable of being the best for longer than two years or so. Kobe is not one of them.



And if you want the ball in Kobe's hands, you're clearly not paying attention to the stats. Kobe shoots 25% there; the league as a whole shoots almost 30%.

Kobe won the title in 09, went to the finals in 08 and was MVP. He is probabbly going to win another title this year.

Kobe did ok with the ball in his hands when he was taking the Lakers to through the playoffs and on to winning the championship.

MackSnackWrap
11-30-2009, 11:16 PM
effective

philab
12-01-2009, 12:11 AM
Kobe won the title in 09, went to the finals in 08 and was MVP. He is probabbly going to win another title this year.

Kobe did ok with the ball in his hands when he was taking the Lakers to through the playoffs and on to winning the championship.

Ball in his hands at the end of the game. Don't just jump into conversations without reading everything.

philab
12-01-2009, 12:14 AM
your clearly an idiot if you dont want the ball in kobes hands at the end of the game. kobe is constantly double and triple teamed. also the stats dont show how much kobe is fouled and how many calls he doesnt get. and on a majority of the shots he misses he is fouled and he does go to the free throw line a lot. stats are bs man. now if you think being the best player is having a 100% fg percentage then just get outta here.(excuse my exaggeration) but theres a lot more that goes into judging how goood a player is. does the stats take into consideration how kobe locks down his opponents? do they show how much influence he has on his teammates and how much of a leader he is? just because these attributes dont show up in statbooks does that mean he doesnt have them? no. the fact that you keep arguing against kobe with percentages and per's is jss pointless. kobe is the best player in the nba and lebron is up there as well but to go by stats is stupid because of what players contribute to a team and how things that they do do that arent in statbooks cant be measured. just because a center doesnt get all the blocks in the world doesnt mean he isnt good. does the league have a stat for altered shots? no. i believe there was a poll last year im not sure but it was a coaches poll and it asked coaches if you had to choose a player to take the last shot in a game who would you take? kobe i believe got 29/30 or maybe even the whole 30. and also can stats measure basketball IQ? nope. a poll given to nba PLAYERS (these are the guys that play the game) asked who has the highest bball IQ? who was it? KOBE. i mean if players and coaches are chooosing this guy your telling me hes not the best? that ridiculous.

A lot of this is just rambling idiocy -- seriously, stats are BS?!? -- but here are the FTs at the end of the game that the stats DO show:

http://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

Notice Kobe is 12-15. Not bad. For reference, LeBron is 14-20.

NetsPaint
12-01-2009, 12:17 AM
The best is a combination of individual dominance and making his teammates play at a higher level than anyone else could.

fresh prince
12-01-2009, 01:26 AM
Your timeline is pretty crazy. Duncan wasn't better despite winning rings in 2003, '05, and '07? Duncan and Shaq were both clearly better through at least '05. LeBron was clearly, unequivocally the best last year and remains there this year. That gives Kobe three years at best. I'd argue two, but I'll give three. Please do not elevate Kobe to the point of Jordan. Not many players are capable of being the best for longer than two years or so. Kobe is not one of them.

And if you want the ball in Kobe's hands, you're clearly not paying attention to the stats. Kobe shoots 25% there; the league as a whole shoots almost 30%.

Oh man... I was respecting your argument til this one. Last I checked Lebron has never won a ring. Based on your post that makes him inelgible to be considered the best in the game!

In reality the best player's team doesn't always win.. To me Kobe has been # 1 since 02 he had an off year in 03 but every since he's been the best player in the NBA... The 82 game pct. Stat is also extremely flawed.. It only counts shots in the last 24 seconds with your team tied or behind.... That's hardly the full extent of clucth..and too small a sample size to proclaim "clutchness". A shot made here or there and they are both shooting 60 pct. Just think about it man... By the 82 games metric Kobe is a below league average clutch player... Just say that to yourself for a while and then go to a local bar and share that stat with a few folks. Once those steps have been passed tell that same thing to the NBA players.. GM's and coaches... After all of child please! and come on man's! you get.. I think maybe you'll add 82games.com to your blocked sites list.

philab
12-01-2009, 01:42 AM
Oh man... I was respecting your argument til this one. Last I checked Lebron has never won a ring. Based on your post that makes him inelgible to be considered the best in the game!

In reality the best player's team doesn't always win.. To me Kobe has been # 1 since 02 he had an off year in 03 but every since he's been the best player in the NBA... The 82 game pct. Stat is also extremely flawed.. It only counts shots in the last 24 seconds with your team tied or behind.... That's hardly the full extent of clucth..and too small a sample size to proclaim "clutchness". A shot made here or there and they are both shooting 60 pct. Just think about it man... By the 82 games metric Kobe is a below league average clutch player... Just say that to yourself for a while and then go to a local bar and share that stat with a few folks. Once those steps have been passed tell that same thing to the NBA players.. GM's and coaches... After all of child please! and come on man's! you get.. I think maybe you'll add 82games.com to your blocked sites list.

"Clutch" stats:
http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM
Notice LeBron's better/equal numbers despite substantially less minutes played.

4th quarter stats:
http://www.82games.com/0809/QTR4S11.HTM


I never said you need to have won a ring in any particular year to be considered best. Kobe didn't win a ring in any of the years I consider him the best. The reference to Duncan's rings was merely to show that he must have been pretty damn good, at the very least. Rings aren't conclusive of anything, but they are evidence.

And your "clutch" hypothetical is worthless. I give you OBJECTIVE data and you think a valid response is some garbage about surveying people at a local bar? I'm sorry the stats disagree with you, but I didn't make them up.

Gibby23
12-01-2009, 01:48 AM
"Clutch" stats:
http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM
Notice LeBron's better/equal numbers despite substantially less minutes played.

4th quarter stats:
http://www.82games.com/0809/QTR4S11.HTM


I never said you need to have won a ring in any particular year to be considered best. Kobe didn't win a ring in any of the years I consider him the best. The reference to Duncan's rings was merely to show that he must have been pretty damn good, at the very least. Rings aren't conclusive of anything, but they are evidence.

And your "clutch" hypothetical is worthless. I give you OBJECTIVE data and you think a valid response is some garbage about surveying people at a local bar? I'm sorry the stats disagree with you, but I didn't make them up.
Good job. Lebron will never be labled the "best" until he wings a ring. He has shown he can get close enough to fail. I know you like him,but there is a reason most NBA GM's voted that they would want Kobe to take the last shot, and I don't think they care about 82 games.com. They also voted Kobe the best player, but that is because they like players that do whatever it takes to win, and to win a championship.

Kobe adds something new to his game every year and is a better Defender. Lebron can't even play with his back to the basket and kobe is one of the best at it.

philab
12-01-2009, 01:53 AM
Good job. Lebron will never be labled the "best" until he wings a ring. He has shown he can get close enough to fail. I know you like him,but there is a reason most NBA GM's voted that they would want Kobe to take the last shot, and I don't think they care about 82 games.com. They also voted Kobe the best player, but that is because they like players that do whatever it takes to win, and to win a championship.

Kobe adds something new to his game every year and is a better Defender. Lebron can't even play with his back to the basket and kobe is one of the best at it.

And Kobe will never be the best until he leads the league in PER.


Those arguments are equally flawed.

philab
12-01-2009, 01:56 AM
Good job. Lebron will never be labled the "best" until he wings a ring. He has shown he can get close enough to fail. I know you like him,but there is a reason most NBA GM's voted that they would want Kobe to take the last shot, and I don't think they care about 82 games.com. They also voted Kobe the best player, but that is because they like players that do whatever it takes to win, and to win a championship.

Kobe adds something new to his game every year and is a better Defender. Lebron can't even play with his back to the basket and kobe is one of the best at it.

And what is that reason? I don't see it and the stats don't show it. It seems to me to be simply one of perception. Kobe has taken a lot of last-second shots and thus has hit more than most. LeBron has actually hit more since he entered the league, but his often come as layups which aren't quite as memorable.

It's really hard to say that someone who shoots 25% in GW shots is clutch when the league shoots almost 30%.

Gibby23
12-01-2009, 01:57 AM
And Kobe will never be the best until he leads the league in PER.


Those arguments are equally flawed.

Im not arguing anything, im going with what most NBA GM's and players think. I don't care if he is number 1 or not, as long as he is #1 on the Lakers when they are winning another 2 or 3 championships. Kobe will hit 6 rings before Lebron gets 1.

Gibby23
12-01-2009, 02:00 AM
And what is that reason? I don't see it and the stats don't show it. It seems to me to be simply one of perception. Kobe has taken a lot of last-second shots and thus has hit more than most. LeBron has actually hit more since he entered the league, but his often come as layups which aren't quite as memorable.

It's really hard to say that someone who shoots 25% in GW shots is clutch when the league shoots almost 30%.

Like I said, you have to be a clutch player to win a championship, Lebron hit a game winner against the Magic, but still couldn't beat them with home court. Kobe and the Lakers beat them in 5. I would rather have Fisher shoot the last shot instead of Lebron.

philab
12-01-2009, 02:01 AM
Im not arguing anything, im going with what most NBA GM's and players think. I don't care if he is number 1 or not, as long as he is #1 on the Lakers when they are winning another 2 or 3 championships. Kobe will hit 6 rings before Lebron gets 1.

And Robert Horry has seven rings.

Rings aren't conclusive of anything.

philab
12-01-2009, 02:03 AM
Like I said, you have to be a clutch player to win a championship, Lebron hit a game winner against the Magic, but still couldn't beat them with home court. Kobe and the Lakers beat them in 5. I would rather have Fisher shoot the last shot instead of Lebron.

Well that's just stupid. You are clearly just a raving homer. Take a look at those stats again.

I'm done now. You're incorrigible.

Gibby23
12-01-2009, 02:03 AM
And Robert Horry has seven rings.

Rings aren't conclusive of anything.

Robert Horry was never one of the top 5 players in the NBA at any time,he was a role player. I would also take Horry to shoot the last shot over Lebron.

Gibby23
12-01-2009, 02:05 AM
Well that's just stupid. You are clearly just a raving homer. Take a look at those stats again.

I'm done now. You're incorrigible.

I don't care much about stats. I like watching my team play the last game of the NBA season in June and getting new rings the first game of the season. That is why they play the game,not for stats.

ko8e24
12-01-2009, 02:18 AM
for the sake of stopping this wild argument, lets just say kobe is the best, and let's leave it at that. :)

/thread

_KB24_
12-01-2009, 02:30 AM
Some of these arguments are just getting stupid. I don't really care what the answer is, I would be glad to have a player with any one of those qualities.

JJ_JKidd
12-01-2009, 09:32 AM
Definition of the best player (of a team), (in the League?)

JDizzle
12-01-2009, 09:54 AM
the best player can make his teammates better by just him being on the floor without them there not as effective... also hustle and heart....hmmmmmmm guy with 6 rings sounds like this o0o0h yahhhhh michael jordan

cf11
12-01-2009, 09:46 PM
I define it as the player who has "perfected" the game of basketball and is as close as you can get to being "flawless". Aka, Kobe Bean Bryant, aka The Black Mamba, aka Kid Skillz, aka The Doberman, aka Mr. 81, aka The Champ, aka THE MVP, aka The Very Best

aka the mvp SHUT UP he has the same amount of mvps as LeBron and LeBron has played 6 years and Kobe 13 years ONE MVP and Shaq was better with Kobe when he won it all and he needs people around him to win look at LeBron's team

_KB24_
12-01-2009, 10:26 PM
aka the mvp SHUT UP he has the same amount of mvps as LeBron and LeBron has played 6 years and Kobe 13 years ONE MVP and Shaq was better with Kobe when he won it all and he needs people around him to win look at LeBron's team

Wow, never heard such a convincing argument.... :rolleyes:

ko8e24
12-01-2009, 10:49 PM
aka the mvp SHUT UP he has the same amount of mvps as LeBron and LeBron has played 6 years and Kobe 13 years ONE MVP and Shaq was better with Kobe when he won it all and he needs people around him to win look at LeBron's team

seems like ur time here on PSD is gonna be short-lived :pity:

Ethix11
12-01-2009, 10:50 PM
Most Efficient
The best player is the one who does more positives to help their team win. Those who get that crucial block at the end and convert that last minute jumper or find the perfect pass for the final points. So i chose most efficient. Obviously im not talking Jason Terry because he doesnt put up superstar numbers while he does score alot in limited play. But what else does he really do constantly and does he get to play at the end of close games when his team is either up or down by a point or two to ensure the W? Most effective could be the player who scored the most points that game because everyone else sucked but contributed in other ways. Or everyone played well but that player had more points and a high number of rebound or assists thus being the most effective at changing the game. But to me most efficient is the right answer when you look at the superstars of the game today. Those who can do it all on Offense or Defense to put the game away. They are the best player because they will WIN you the game when it is on the line. They are the go-to-guy on any team.

Raph12
12-01-2009, 10:52 PM
aka the mvp SHUT UP he has the same amount of mvps as LeBron and LeBron has played 6 years and Kobe 13 years ONE MVP and Shaq was better with Kobe when he won it all and he needs people around him to win look at LeBron's team

Lebron has always had complete freedom to do what he wants on the court, Kobe didn't have that until 2004, so technically, Kobe got his MVP in 4 seasons with complete control of his team, in comparison, Lebron needed 6 seasons...

See how easy it is to manipulate stats to make them work in your favor?... seriously, get a life dude and stop hating on the game's best player.

kArSoN RyDaH
12-02-2009, 06:33 AM
Lebron has always had complete freedom to do what he wants on the court, Kobe didn't have that until 2004, so technically, Kobe got his MVP in 4 seasons with complete control of his team, in comparison, Lebron needed 6 seasons...

See how easy it is to manipulate stats to make them work in your favor?... seriously, get a life dude and stop hating on the game's best player.

thank you. well said. man people dont understand that stats are decieving. basically you can go back and forth all day making arguments using any stats you want because there are so many its ridiculous.

JordansBulls
12-02-2009, 12:39 PM
Lebron has always had complete freedom to do what he wants on the court, Kobe didn't have that until 2004, so technically, Kobe got his MVP in 4 seasons with complete control of his team, in comparison, Lebron needed 6 seasons...

See how easy it is to manipulate stats to make them work in your favor?... seriously, get a life dude and stop hating on the game's best player.

True, however Kobe was already in his prime by that time as well. Lebron was not until at least his 3rd season.

JordansBulls
12-25-2009, 05:17 PM
There are only 2 ways to determine who the best player in the league is.


1) Winning a Title/MVP/Finals MVP as the best player on the team

or

2) Having the Best Stats in the League (PER, Win Shares (Those are cumulative and based on all players production in the league))



That is the most fair and unbiased way to judge who was the best in the league.

DCB/LAL
12-25-2009, 05:29 PM
Thats an easy question.


Kobe Bryant thats how you define it. :D

Best player- Kobe Bryant

Sox Appeal
12-25-2009, 06:43 PM
I define it by LeBron James.

Sox Appeal
12-25-2009, 06:44 PM
True, however Kobe was already in his prime by that time as well. Lebron was not until at least his 3rd season.

Do we even know for sure if LeBron is in his prime? Most players start to peak at age 25-26, LeBron was only 21 in his 3rd season.

Tony_Starks
12-25-2009, 06:45 PM
See Kobe Bryant.

JayAllDay
12-25-2009, 07:05 PM
None of the above

It's intuition

cHi8DaL5LA420
12-25-2009, 07:25 PM
one that makes everyone around him better

theuuord
12-25-2009, 07:40 PM
I'm not even going to read this post. I'm just going to assume it's dissolved into yet another Kobe vs. LeBron debate and just say "again, guys?"

AI4MVP
12-25-2009, 07:42 PM
i dont thikn u can say the defintion of "best player" is one that is best at making players around him better because if that was the case then Steve Nash would be known as the best player in the NBA right now but thats not the case.

jimbobjarree
12-25-2009, 07:47 PM
the one thats better than all other players

IRUAM #21
12-25-2009, 08:15 PM
Mark Blount

jim51990
12-25-2009, 08:43 PM
lebron james

Phat Pat 94
12-25-2009, 08:45 PM
I think its really a mix, but most effective would be it for me.

TheKing23
12-25-2009, 09:43 PM
LeBron James

JordansBulls
12-28-2009, 11:17 AM
There are 2 ways to define who is the best player in the NBA.


1.) Player with the Best Stats/Production (Leading the League in PER and/or Win Shares)

or

2) Player who is winning at least 2 of these. (MVP, Finals MVP, Title)



IF a player isn't winning a title, then they need to have the best stats in the league to be considered the best.

If a player doesn't have the best stats in the league then they need to have at least 2 of these the same season (Season MVP, Finals MVP, Title )

Robbw241
12-28-2009, 11:42 AM
Whoever wants the most candy, therefore Brook wins.



Most effective

MaHaRaJaH
12-28-2009, 12:42 PM
I define it Lebron James.

Yes, most definitely.