PDA

View Full Version : PSD's Official #7 Player of All Time



JordansBulls
07-10-2011, 06:38 PM
Voting for #6 has concluded and PSD's Official #6 Player of all time is....

Larry Bird


24.3 PPG | 10.3 RPG | 6.3 AST | .496% FG | 23.50 PER


Achievements:

12 time All-Star
3 NBA Championships
3 Time MVP
2 Time Finals MVP
9 Time All-NBA First Teamer
Rookie of the Year
Led in PER 1x



Larry Bird = 93 votes
Kobe Bryant = 45 votes
Shaquille O'Neal = 42 votes
Hakeem Olajuwon = 8 votes
Oscar Robertson = 6 votes
Tim Duncan = 5 votes
Jerry West = 2 votes
Julius Erving = 2 votes
Karl Malone = 1 vote
John Stockton = 1 vote


The List:
1. Michael Jordan (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=631361)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=631585)
3. Wilt Chamberlain (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=632046)
4. Magic Johnson (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=632690)
5. Bill Russell (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=632852)
6. Larry Bird (http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=633428)




NOTE:

Need you guys to start nominating so that we can do a top 25 or even top 50.

Requirement for nomination is: Player had to be an allstar at least 3+ times as a minimum or have won League MVP or an allstar 2+ times with finals MVP.
Doing it this way gets rid of posters who would put guys like Cedric Maxwell who although he has a finals mvp never was an allstar.

Cano4prez
07-10-2011, 06:42 PM
Shaq

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 06:42 PM
I'll wait and aid the player that will beat Kobe. It'll be a disgrace if Kobe gets picked here over Shaq, Oscar, Hakeem, Duncan, Erving, Moses and Jerry West

Chacarron
07-10-2011, 06:51 PM
The Diesel. He dominated the league for a long time, won only 1 MVP but surely deserved more. Three straight Finals MVP, 4 championships.

I nominate Gary Payton.

LAKERMANIA
07-10-2011, 06:59 PM
I honestly think its a toss up, I went with Kobe, I wont be upset if Shaq gets it, he deserves this spot too

I nominate Walt Frazier

naps
07-10-2011, 07:11 PM
Shaq deserves this spot. He can't be lower than any of the guys left on the board. It's sad that lakers fans don't vote for Shaq. How quick they forget those golden days led by the Big Fella.

Hawkeye15
07-10-2011, 07:14 PM
Shaq here

Ovratd1up
07-10-2011, 07:23 PM
Shaq for sure.

I nominate Kevin Garnett

sofa_king_great
07-10-2011, 07:23 PM
I'll wait and aid the player that will beat Kobe. It'll be a disgrace if Kobe gets picked here over Shaq, Oscar, Hakeem, Duncan, Erving, Moses and Jerry West

how exactly is that a disgrace again?



anyways i was debating shaq or kobe and went with shaq cause he was a dominant force

Geargo Wallace
07-10-2011, 07:26 PM
Shaqtus!

GoPacers33
07-10-2011, 07:28 PM
Kobe

Swashcuff
07-10-2011, 07:29 PM
Shaquille O'Neal here for me.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
07-10-2011, 07:31 PM
Shaq. Nominate Cousy.

Geargo Wallace
07-10-2011, 07:32 PM
I'd take Barkley over Kobe.

shep33
07-10-2011, 07:37 PM
I'd take Barkley over Kobe.

Wow...

I'm pretty sure Barkley would take Kobe over himself.

alencp3
07-10-2011, 07:48 PM
shaq,wilt>russell,kareem
titles are overrated , dominance is underrated
plus russell and kareem played on stacked teams

_KB24_
07-10-2011, 07:52 PM
I'm giving it to Shaq only because he should have been 6th. I won't make that much of an issue because Kobe is still active and it's only time before he surpasses Shaq and/has Bird.

MTar786
07-10-2011, 07:59 PM
not surprised at all so far.

i nominate kevin garnett and gary payton

MTar786
07-10-2011, 08:01 PM
i feel shaq should have been number 6.

kobe will end his career top 3 or 5

naps
07-10-2011, 08:02 PM
I'm giving it to Shaq only because he should have been 6th. I won't make that much of an issue because Kobe is still active and it's only time before he surpasses Shaq and/has Bird.

lol..You are giving it to Shaq and you thought Shaq should have been the 6th, yet you voted Kobe? Funny...

NYMetros
07-10-2011, 08:03 PM
shaq,wilt>russell,kareem
titles are overrated , dominance is underrated
plus russell and kareem played on stacked teams

Kareem was pretty dominant bro, not sure why you think he wasn't. And he didn't play on a stacked team until 1980, which was 10 years into his career. He got Oscar at the tail end of his career in Milwaukee, but he wasn't nearly the player he used to be. When he went to LA, his teams were pretty mediocre until they got Magic.

naps
07-10-2011, 08:04 PM
i feel shaq should have been number 6.

kobe will end his career top 3 or 5

Sure if he wins 2/3 more Championships as the man. Why not...

LakersMaster24
07-10-2011, 08:06 PM
I'll wait and aid the player that will beat Kobe. It'll be a disgrace if Kobe gets picked here over Shaq, Oscar, Hakeem, Duncan, Erving, Moses and Jerry West

Kobe > Erving
Kobe > Hakeem
Kobe > Oscar
Kobe > Duncan
KObe > Moses Malone
Kobe > Jery West

Stop Hating.

Swashcuff
07-10-2011, 08:09 PM
Kobe > Erving
Kobe > Hakeem
Kobe > Oscar
Kobe > Duncan
KObe > Moses Malone
Kobe > Jery West

Stop Hating.

Statistically a case can be made for all of them over Kobe.

Kobe will only be ranked higher than them all because of the fact that he has more championships than them all.

IMO the Jerry West vs Kobe debate is MUCH closer than many make it out to be.

LakersMaster24
07-10-2011, 08:11 PM
Statistically a case can be made for all of them over Kobe.

Kobe will only be ranked higher than them all because of the fact that he has more championships than them all.

IMO the Jerry West vs Kobe debate is MUCH closer than many make it out to be.

We are not talking "Statistics" we are talking skill. Who is a BETTER player. Kobe has MUCH better skills and is MUCH better player overall, than West or any of the above.

naps
07-10-2011, 08:13 PM
Statistically a case can be made for all of them over Kobe.

Kobe will only be ranked higher than them all because of the fact that he has more championships than them all.

IMO the Jerry West vs Kobe debate is MUCH closer than many make it out to be.

Jerry West, Duncan, Hakeem, and Moses are better than Kobe in my book.

CHANGO
07-10-2011, 08:14 PM
Shaq...

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 08:18 PM
Kobe > Erving
Kobe > Hakeem
Kobe > Oscar
Kobe > Duncan
KObe > Moses Malone
Kobe > Jery West

Stop Hating.

cool story man

Swashcuff
07-10-2011, 08:19 PM
We are not talking "Statistics" we are talking skill. Who is a BETTER player. Kobe has MUCH better skills and is MUCH better player overall, than West or any of the above.

Well that too can also be debated with arguably the most skilled big man (Hakeem Olajuwon) of his generation is up there. As well as the most fundamentally sound player of the past decade in Tim Duncan.

IMO LeBron James is more skilled than Shaquille O'Neal but that doesn't mean he's a better player.

If you talk just skill you are obviously going to have a never ending debate because there is no possible solid measure for evaluating skill. Especially when we are talking about players from completely different generations.

$KnicksAndKobe$
07-10-2011, 08:32 PM
Shaq. Next up, Kobe.

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 08:32 PM
If we're talking JUST ABOUT SKILLS then I nominate Mugsy Bogues

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 08:33 PM
Shaq. Next up, Kobe.

Shaq...

next Hakeem Olajuwon...
Drexler>Kobe ;)

DR_1
07-10-2011, 08:48 PM
Shaq

I nominate Dirk Nowitzki

LakersMaster24
07-10-2011, 09:00 PM
Shaq...

next Hakeem Olajuwon...
Drexler>Kobe ;)

:laugh::laugh:

RealistFan
07-10-2011, 09:06 PM
Good to see Bird get voted in.

For me, this is a toss up between Hakeem and Shaq. Hakeem peaked higher but Shaq sustained his prime longer. But seeing as Shaq has dominated the poll so far and Hakeem is likely to get voted in below Duncan and Kobe (which is a travesty), I think me voting for Hakeem isn't going to change anything so Shaq gets my vote.

RealistFan
07-10-2011, 09:07 PM
Also I forgot to nominate Kevin Garnett. He is right up there with Chuck and Malone.

theheatles
07-10-2011, 09:12 PM
it's the big aristotles time

theheatles
07-10-2011, 09:18 PM
i nominate lebron, gary payton, dwade, mitch richmond, allen iverson, dirk nowitzki and kg

Geargo Wallace
07-10-2011, 09:20 PM
i nominate lebron, gary payton, dwade, mitch richmond, allen iverson, dirk nowitzki and kg

richmond is a little silly on your part.

Lloyd Christmas
07-10-2011, 09:30 PM
I love Shaq but I honestly feel that Duncan was the better player. Can you imagine if Duncan had Kobe or Wade playing with him?

Khalifa21
07-10-2011, 09:32 PM
Kobe > Erving
Kobe > Hakeem
Kobe > Oscar
Kobe > Duncan
KObe > Moses Malone
Kobe > Jery West

Stop Hating.

Not the bolded ones... The other ones are close.

Khalifa21
07-10-2011, 09:32 PM
Also.. I go with Shaq here.

Then Timmy, then The Dream, then Big O or Kobe.

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 09:34 PM
Drexler got similar stats to Kobe (Kobe's are inflated coz after MJs retirement they begun a serious "star treatment" plus they changed the rules in 2005 making it easier for slashers... too many FTs and clear lanes)
Kobe also took 3 FGs more per game and played 2 minutes more per game

Yet only thing he's got on Drexler is PPG, with FTA and.. Turnovers per game. It's kinda easy to see why he has more PPG as explained above. Any serious NBA fan who followed since before 1999 knows that it's easier in Kobe's era than in Clyde's era.

Advanced stats.... I don't really rate them that much, just personal taste.
I consider Win Shares as a team rating. If you got better teammates, it's easier to win. Period. Of course Kobe who was 2nd to Shaq for many years will have more WS than Drexler who played most of his career as #1 guy with #2 being Porter and Buck Williams...

I am not saying Kobe sucks, but claiming he's on the NBA pantheon when clearly he is not is an exaggeration. Kobe is Top 20-30 NBA player of all time, not 5 or 10 or even 15... And I'd take Drexler over him any day of the week. Kobe wasn't even better than Tracy McGrady or Iverson during his first three rings (with Shaq)

Jewelz0376
07-10-2011, 09:43 PM
Drexler got similar stats to Kobe (Kobe's are inflated coz after MJs retirement they begun a serious "star treatment" plus they changed the rules in 2005 making it easier for slashers... too many FTs and clear lanes)
Kobe also took 3 FGs more per game and played 2 minutes more per game

Yet only thing he's got on Drexler is PPG, with FTA and.. Turnovers per game. It's kinda easy to see why he has more PPG as explained above. Any serious NBA fan who followed since before 1999 knows that it's easier in Kobe's era than in Clyde's era.

Advanced stats.... I don't really rate them that much, just personal taste.
I consider Win Shares as a team rating. If you got better teammates, it's easier to win. Period. Of course Kobe who was 2nd to Shaq for many years will have more WS than Drexler who played most of his career as #1 guy with #2 being Porter and Buck Williams...

I am not saying Kobe sucks, but claiming he's on the NBA pantheon when clearly he is not is an exaggeration. Kobe is Top 20-30 NBA player of all time, not 5 or 10 or even 15... And I'd take Drexler over him any day of the week. Kobe wasn't even better than Tracy McGrady or Iverson during his first three rings (with Shaq)

:laugh2:

Swashcuff
07-10-2011, 09:48 PM
Drexler got similar stats to Kobe (Kobe's are inflated coz after MJs retirement they begun a serious "star treatment" plus they changed the rules in 2005 making it easier for slashers... too many FTs and clear lanes)
Kobe also took 3 FGs more per game and played 2 minutes more per game

Yet only thing he's got on Drexler is PPG, with FTA and.. Turnovers per game. It's kinda easy to see why he has more PPG as explained above. Any serious NBA fan who followed since before 1999 knows that it's easier in Kobe's era than in Clyde's era.

Advanced stats.... I don't really rate them that much, just personal taste.
I consider Win Shares as a team rating. If you got better teammates, it's easier to win. Period. Of course Kobe who was 2nd to Shaq for many years will have more WS than Drexler who played most of his career as #1 guy with #2 being Porter and Buck Williams...

I am not saying Kobe sucks, but claiming he's on the NBA pantheon when clearly he is not is an exaggeration. Kobe is Top 20-30 NBA player of all time, not 5 or 10 or even 15... And I'd take Drexler over him any day of the week. Kobe wasn't even better than Tracy McGrady or Iverson during his first three rings (with Shaq)

What on God's green earth are you smoking?

This is EASILY the most misinformed post I've seen all day. SMH. I can't believe you actually took the time out of your day to type this. :crazy:

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 09:50 PM
:laugh2:

laugh all you want...

I'm sure someone will mention how many all star appearances Kobe has, not knowing the fact that the only decent SG during his prime in the West was Michael Finley :facepalm:

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 09:52 PM
What on God's green earth are you smoking?

This is EASILY the most misinformed post I've seen all day. SMH. I can't believe you actually took the time out of your day to type this. :crazy:

:crazy: isn't it?

You haven't really came back with a factual statement have you?

Swashcuff
07-10-2011, 09:53 PM
laugh all you want...

I'm sure someone will mention how many all star appearances Kobe has, not knowing the fact that the only decent SG during his prime in the West was Michael Finley :facepalm:

Why even click "submit reply"? :confused:

Chacarron
07-10-2011, 09:55 PM
Drexler got similar stats to Kobe (Kobe's are inflated coz after MJs retirement they begun a serious "star treatment" plus they changed the rules in 2005 making it easier for slashers... too many FTs and clear lanes)
Kobe also took 3 FGs more per game and played 2 minutes more per game

Yet only thing he's got on Drexler is PPG, with FTA and.. Turnovers per game. It's kinda easy to see why he has more PPG as explained above. Any serious NBA fan who followed since before 1999 knows that it's easier in Kobe's era than in Clyde's era.

Advanced stats.... I don't really rate them that much, just personal taste.
I consider Win Shares as a team rating. If you got better teammates, it's easier to win. Period. Of course Kobe who was 2nd to Shaq for many years will have more WS than Drexler who played most of his career as #1 guy with #2 being Porter and Buck Williams...

I am not saying Kobe sucks, but claiming he's on the NBA pantheon when clearly he is not is an exaggeration. Kobe is Top 20-30 NBA player of all time, not 5 or 10 or even 15... And I'd take Drexler over him any day of the week. Kobe wasn't even better than Tracy McGrady or Iverson during his first three rings (with Shaq)

You must really dislike Kobe.

Bruno
07-10-2011, 09:56 PM
Shaq. Had the highest peak out of any player left. Had the longevity, the titles and the stats.

GREATNESS ONE
07-10-2011, 09:56 PM
I'm giving it to Shaq only because he should have been 6th. I won't make that much of an issue because Kobe is still active and it's only time before he surpasses Shaq and/has Bird.

:clap: BOOM.

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 09:57 PM
Why even click "submit reply"? :confused:



So wait....

Someone who says that the 2nd best SG after Michael Jordan during MJ's prime is better than Kobe who was the only superstar SG for the most of his NBA career (Wade's prime started in 2006, Kobe became a superstar in 1998, till 2006 there was barely no superstar SG) and also played in a much much weaker era with tweaked rules that made the game so much easier for him.... is crazy and is an idiot to click "submit reply"

How old are you? Have you actually seen Clyde Drexler before his 35th birthday?:facepalm:

GREATNESS ONE
07-10-2011, 09:57 PM
You must really dislike Kobe.

:p Let him be, if he wants to disrespect one of the greatest players of all time let him be.

Swashcuff
07-10-2011, 09:57 PM
:crazy: isn't it?

You haven't really came back with a factual statement have you?

Tell me something.

Did Kobe not have GREAT seasons before 05?

Also do you understand anything about WS. If you do then tell me why Kevin Love finished 8th in the league last season when he had such great teammates.

Do you even know how to rate a player?

Why even mention stats if you are going to nit pick?

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 09:58 PM
You must really dislike Kobe.

no, I really dislike 2000s, specially post-2005 (aka handchecking rule change) ;)

RealistFan
07-10-2011, 09:58 PM
The only year I think you can argue TMac was better than Kobe was 2003 and I would certainly do so but that's more of an outlier in his career. He never really came close to playing at that level again for whatever reason (injuries, lack of motivation or whatever it may be).

He was probably better in 2004 and 2005 although I feel that is more circumstantial than due to TMac's actual superiority. Iverson is not better than a prime Kobe though he was better early on in his career.

Drexler is also not as good as Kobe. Drexler is overrated, if anything. Terry Porter was more feared in the clutch than Drexler and he was often hitting big shots for the Blazer teams that went to the finals. Drexler was often accused of not giving his max effort, being a coach killer (drove Schuler out of town). He was a great all around player but not anywhere near the scorer Kobe was due to his awkward handle, average jumpshot and inability to go left. He also didn't maximize his ability to dominate in the low-post since he had a size edge on most 2 guards. Kobe is also a better man defender when focused. Drexler is a better passer and rebounder but it's not enough to overcome the gap between their offensive dominance mostly related to their scoring prowess. Kobe is also a better playmaker due to their virtue of the defensive attention they receive(d).

GREATNESS ONE
07-10-2011, 10:00 PM
laugh all you want...

I'm sure someone will mention how many all star appearances Kobe has, not knowing the fact that the only decent SG during his prime in the West was Michael Finley :facepalm:

:punish

shep33
07-10-2011, 10:00 PM
laugh all you want...

I'm sure someone will mention how many all star appearances Kobe has, not knowing the fact that the only decent SG during his prime in the West was Michael Finley :facepalm:

Well if you voted for Shaq here or ahead of Kobe, you'd be contradicting yourself in this statement. When Shaq was dominant and winning championships with Kobe, there were no good centers in the league... heck the 2nd best big might have been Divac.

Jewelz0376
07-10-2011, 10:01 PM
So wait....

Someone who says that the 2nd best SG after Michael Jordan during MJ's prime is better than Kobe who was the only superstar SG for the most of his NBA career (Wade's prime started in 2006, Kobe became a superstar in 1998, till 2006 there was barely no superstar SG) and also played in a much much weaker era with tweaked rules that made the game so much easier for him.... is crazy and is an idiot to click "submit reply"

How old are you? Have you actually seen Clyde Drexler before his 35th birthday?:facepalm:

What does that have to do with anything?? When Shaq was in his prime during the Laker title runs he didn't have to battle any great C's...because Hakeem and Robinson were well past their primes...Does that mean we should discredit what shaq did with the Lakers during his title runs??

Swashcuff
07-10-2011, 10:02 PM
So wait....

Someone who says that the 2nd best SG after Michael Jordan during MJ's prime is better than Kobe who was the only superstar SG for the most of his NBA career (Wade's prime started in 2006, Kobe became a superstar in 1998, till 2006 there was barely no superstar SG) and also played in a much much weaker era with tweaked rules that made the game so much easier for him.... is crazy and is an idiot to click "submit reply"

How old are you? Have you actually seen Clyde Drexler before his 35th birthday?:facepalm:

Allen Iverson, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Ray Allen, Jerry Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas?

At various points in all those players respective careers (between 98-06) they were viewed as superstar calibre SGs.

Those rules was tweaked in 05 were they not? Before 05 Kobe had already averaged 30 points per game. Stop with the rubbish it makes you sound real foolish.

Bruno
07-10-2011, 10:02 PM
I'll wait and aid the player that will beat Kobe. It'll be a disgrace if Kobe gets picked here over Shaq, Oscar, Hakeem, Duncan, Erving, Moses and Jerry West

Present the statistical argument for Oscar, Erving, Moses, or Jerry West over Kobe. Or do you have zero interest in statistics? You make bold claims, which is fine. But do you care to back them up with the stat sheet? With the given players accolades?

You talk a lot of smack about the post Jordan era. Were you aware of the fact that the 4-5 years immediately after Jordans retirement have gone down as the toughest defensive era in NBA history, according to the stat sheet? Again, those are the stats; but do you have any interest in them?


Shaq. Next up, Kobe.

x2.


If we're talking JUST ABOUT SKILLS then I nominate Mugsy Bogues

That's not what were talking about. ;)

Swashcuff
07-10-2011, 10:04 PM
no, I really dislike 2000s, specially post-2005 (aka handchecking rule change) ;)

ok then. We shall now disregard all players who had their best years this past decade.

Lets take Kobe, Shaq and Duncan off the list.

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 10:04 PM
Tell me something.

Did Kobe not have GREAT seasons before 05?

Also do you understand anything about WS. If you do then tell me why Kevin Love finished 8th in the league last season when he had such great teammates.

Do you even know how to rate a player?

Why even mention stats if you are going to nit pick?


4. Calculate marginal points per win. Marginal points per win reduces to 0.32 * (league points per game) * ((team pace) / (league pace)).

5. Credit Offensive Win Shares to the players. Offensive Win Shares are credited using the following formula: (marginal offense) / (marginal points per win).

I guess this makes it quite of a team stat regardless of you liking it or not.

I'm going to nit pick? I used ACTUAL STATS, not advanced stats... The normal stat line that the whole world uses.

Where did I say Kobe is not great or did not have great seasons? Do you really NEED a superstar in your livelihood just coz the older generations had proper superstars in Michael Jordan, Magic, Larry Bird, Kareem etc? :rolleyes: Kobe is a great basketball player, the best player of the last 5 years (for decade I'd nominate Duncan or Shaq) and top 3-5 in the league right now... Does that make him Top 10 of all time? Seriously... You need to realize how great of a history the NBA has. You're not that big a part of it at the moment.

Chacarron
07-10-2011, 10:05 PM
How many All-Defensive Teams did Drexler make?

Swashcuff
07-10-2011, 10:05 PM
Present the statistical argument for Oscar, Erving, Moses, or Jerry West over Kobe. Or do you have zero interest in statistics?


Don't you think Jerry has Kobe beat statistically?

Bruno
07-10-2011, 10:05 PM
:crazy: isn't it?

You haven't really came back with a factual statement have you?

Not to be a jerk, but what factual statements or arguments have you presented? I haven't seen any, only posts of 100% commentary and opinion.

GREATNESS ONE
07-10-2011, 10:06 PM
Allen Iverson, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Ray Allen, Jerry Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas?

At various points in all those players respective careers (between 98-06) they were viewed as superstar calibre SGs.

Those rules was tweaked in 05 were they not? Before 05 Kobe had already averaged 30 points per game. Stop with the rubbish it makes you sound real foolish.

:clap: Boom.

smith&wesson
07-10-2011, 10:07 PM
ummm kobe by a ring.

Bruno
07-10-2011, 10:13 PM
Don't you think Jerry has Kobe beat statistically?

It's very close. But the poster I was quoting is making it seem like it isn't even a discussion, or as if the stats aren't in fact very close. He's been mocking Bryant as a candidate on these polls since the first thread; which I just dont understand when you compare his career stats, with those who were not voted into our top 5, or Shaqs. He's right in the same ball park statistically as anybody else.

Bryant and West are very close on the stat sheet. Kobe edges him in career PER and TS%, West edges Kobe in WS. For their careers on the whole I'd consider their statistical comparison to be nearly equal. But Bryants got him in PEAK years, by a bit. West had less ups and downs though (Bryant 04-05).

I don't know about you, but when two players are that close to eachother on the stat-sheet, I tend to shift the discussion to accolades.

Jerry West has one less Finals MVP, one less regular season MVP, one less scoring championship, much less all-nba team selections, and less all-star game selection. Those are facts.

And thats not even bringing championships into the discussion.

naps
07-10-2011, 10:13 PM
Funny how some Lakers fans picking Kobe in the poll even though they claim they are giving it to Shaq over Kobe.

Cano4prez
07-10-2011, 10:14 PM
ummm kobe by a ring.

He can thank Shaq for 3 of them

Swashcuff
07-10-2011, 10:17 PM
It's very close. But the poster I was quoting is making it seem like it isn't even a discussion, or as if the stats aren't in fact very close. He's been mocking Bryant as a candidate on these polls since the first thread; which I just dont understand when you compare his career stats, with those who were not voted into our top 5, or Shaqs. He's right in the same ball park statistically as anybody else.

Bryant and West are very close on the stat sheet. Kobe edges him in career PER and TS%, West edges Kobe in WS. For their careers on the whole I'd consider their statistical comparison to be nearly equal. But Bryants got him in PEAK years, by a bit. West had less ups and downs though (Bryant 04-05).

I don't know about you, but when two players are that close to eachother on the stat-sheet, I tend to shift the discussion to accolades.

Jerry West has one less Finals MVP, one less regular season MVP, one less scoring championship, much less all-nba team selections, and less all-star game selection. Those are facts.

And thats not even bringing championships into the discussion.

I fully agree on everything here bro. I was just asking your thoughts in terms of stats. I too have Kobe ahead of West but based solely on stats IMO West edges him by the slightest of margins.

theheatles
07-10-2011, 10:17 PM
shaq got this
kobe is going to win next because kobe is going to get his usual fan boys and every1 else will get divided between duncan and olaujuwon

Bruno
07-10-2011, 10:19 PM
The only year I think you can argue TMac was better than Kobe was 2003 and I would certainly do so but that's more of an outlier in his career. He never really came close to playing at that level again for whatever reason (injuries, lack of motivation or whatever it may be).

He was probably better in 2004 and 2005 although I feel that is more circumstantial than due to TMac's actual superiority. Iverson is not better than a prime Kobe though he was better early on in his career.

Drexler is also not as good as Kobe. Drexler is overrated, if anything. Terry Porter was more feared in the clutch than Drexler and he was often hitting big shots for the Blazer teams that went to the finals. Drexler was often accused of not giving his max effort, being a coach killer (drove Schuler out of town). He was a great all around player but not anywhere near the scorer Kobe was due to his awkward handle, average jumpshot and inability to go left. He also didn't maximize his ability to dominate in the low-post since he had a size edge on most 2 guards. Kobe is also a better man defender when focused. Drexler is a better passer and rebounder but it's not enough to overcome the gap between their offensive dominance mostly related to their scoring prowess. Kobe is also a better playmaker due to their virtue of the defensive attention they receive(d).

T-Mac was better than Kobe in 2003; or had a better year, at the very least. T-Mac was a moster in 2003- he posted one of the best individual seasons of all-time. His health holding him back is such a shame for the league; we lost a huge talent too soon.

Claiming Drexler over Bryant is laughable. The stats aren't that close, nor are the accolades, or the titles, or their peaks. It's not even a discussion, IMO.

Bruno
07-10-2011, 10:21 PM
I fully agree on everything here bro. I was just asking your thoughts in terms of stats. I too have Kobe ahead of West but based solely on stats IMO West edges him by the slightest of margins.

I got ya. I think theyre near equals on the stat sheet. (along with Larry Bird, who's carrer stats are shockingly close to Bryants, and Wests).

Swashcuff
07-10-2011, 10:22 PM
I guess this makes it quite of a team stat regardless of you liking it or not.

I'm going to nit pick? I used ACTUAL STATS, not advanced stats... The normal stat line that the whole world uses.

You really don't understand it don't you? While affected by your team success that is not the deciding nor most important factor.


Where did I say Kobe is not great or did not have great seasons? Do you really NEED a superstar in your livelihood just coz the older generations had proper superstars in Michael Jordan, Magic, Larry Bird, Kareem etc? :rolleyes: Kobe is a great basketball player, the best player of the last 5 years (for decade I'd nominate Duncan or Shaq) and top 3-5 in the league right now... Does that make him Top 10 of all time? Seriously... You need to realize how great of a history the NBA has. You're not that big a part of it at the moment.

I need to realize. I am willing to bet I have a greater understanding and appreciation for the history of the game than you. You however don't like the 00s so obviously all players who play in it you'd be biased against. Thus the reason why you refuse to embrace the advances in technology statistics and viewpoints, those tend to discredit all what you deemed to be so great.

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 10:26 PM
1) Jerry West. Mr. Clutch. 27ppg(Kobe has 25.3ppg)... no handchecking rules, also hit a lot of free throws, better FG% with more FGA than Kobe. More assists than Kobe. Not much stats available... Averaged 2.7 steals per game in his last season, so we can assume he had more in general (or is that irrational too?? :crazy: ) Kobe averages 1.5 steals per game

2) Julius Erving. Dr. J. Can't argue much with his ABA career and 3 mvp titles there, but I don't hold that competition in high regard but the fact that he played for the best championship team ever and was an integral part of it puts him very high on my list. Not as many PPG as Kobe but has 2 FTA less per game and also took 2 less shots. I give Dr. J slight advantage over Kobe

3) Moses Malone. Most dominant big man with Kareem in the 80s. Also part of that 83 Sixers team which puts him higher on my list than David Robinson and Patrick Ewing. I'd take the big man who averaged 20/12 (more than Kareem mind you) over Kobe anyday

4) Oscar Robertson... Few can argue here as not many had the luck to watch him play. I'm taking their word for it when I see claims that he was better than Magic Johnson, Kareem, Wilt or Bird... He probably was the Monta Ellis of his era with his 22 FGA per game in his prime but at the end of the day, he still has less FGA than Kobe and more PPG. You can "blame" the free throw for that.


As for championships, don't fool yourselves. A championship is won with teamwork, not selfishness. It was this that made Jordan the GOAT. During his early years, he was a selfish player, when Pippen came along he learned how to share and that helped him win and become the best. Kobe winning with Shaq does not increase his historic value. It improves his present value. Same as Kobe without Pau and Kobe with Pau. Different Lakers team. From obscurity to back-to-back championship wins.
I don't see people saying Joe Dumars and his two rings being called a top 10-15 player ever. Had Dumars joined Jordan though he'd be winning more rings as a core player, would that mean he suddenly is a better player in history?

Kobe is a great player for our era, one of the best these young kids have seen, but calling him top 10 over basketball legends is too much. Next thing we'll have Lebron as a top 20 player....

theheatles
07-10-2011, 10:28 PM
^jerry west - mr clutch going 1 for 9 in NBA Finals <-- worst. nickname. ever

JustBringIt
07-10-2011, 10:30 PM
Psd is getting worse and worse everyday, shaq beating out Kobe by this much is a disgrace, I guess it just goes to show you how much someones hate for a player really makes them naive and can't even say something with 100% honesty

Id rather have The hardest worker probably ever, he has dedicated his life to this games since day 1, he has been through the good and the bad, and wants to be the best he can be. And while shaq was great he was also a lazy unmotivated guy who used his size to overpower everyone! Shaq will probably win this poll but I remember about a month ago before I registered here that there was a thread that said where does shaq rank all-time and mostly everyone said top 8-10 so idk why he's so high right now? And I bet after this poll as well people will still find a way to not vote for Kobe, it is what it is though, it's alright though at least the experts and analyst already have Kobe in their top 5

Bruno
07-10-2011, 10:33 PM
1) Jerry West. Mr. Clutch. 27ppg(Kobe has 25.3ppg)... no handchecking rules, also hit a lot of free throws, better FG% with more FGA than Kobe. More assists than Kobe. Not much stats available... Averaged 2.7 steals per game in his last season, so we can assume he had more in general (or is that irrational too?? :crazy: ) Kobe averages 1.5 steals per game

2) Julius Erving. Dr. J. Can't argue much with his ABA career and 3 mvp titles there, but I don't hold that competition in high regard but the fact that he played for the best championship team ever and was an integral part of it puts him very high on my list. Not as many PPG as Kobe but has 2 FTA less per game and also took 2 less shots. I give Dr. J slight advantage over Kobe

3) Moses Malone. Most dominant big man with Kareem in the 80s. Also part of that 83 Sixers team which puts him higher on my list than David Robinson and Patrick Ewing. I'd take the big man who averaged 20/12 (more than Kareem mind you) over Kobe anyday

4) Oscar Robertson... Few can argue here as not many had the luck to watch him play. I'm taking their word for it when I see claims that he was better than Magic Johnson, Kareem, Wilt or Bird... He probably was the Monta Ellis of his era with his 22 FGA per game in his prime but at the end of the day, he still has less FGA than Kobe and more PPG. You can "blame" the free throw for that.


As for championships, don't fool yourselves. A championship is won with teamwork, not selfishness. It was this that made Jordan the GOAT. During his early years, he was a selfish player, when Pippen came along he learned how to share and that helped him win and become the best. Kobe winning with Shaq does not increase his historic value. It improves his present value. Same as Kobe without Pau and Kobe with Pau. Different Lakers team. From obscurity to back-to-back championship wins.
I don't see people saying Joe Dumars and his two rings being called a top 10-15 player ever. Had Dumars joined Jordan though he'd be winning more rings as a core player, would that mean he suddenly is a better player in history?

Kobe is a great player for our era, one of the best these young kids have seen, but calling him top 10 over basketball legends is too much. Next thing we'll have Lebron as a top 20 player....

This isn't a statistical break down.

JustBringIt
07-10-2011, 10:35 PM
He can thank Shaq for 3 of them

Or shaq can thank Kobe for his 3 rings as well
IMO the 2001 finals MVP should've been kobes
He defended the other teams best player day in and day out and was doing all the dirty work, not to mention he was to busy being clutch while shaq was on the bench because he was either in foul trouble or because he couldn't make free throws

Sadds The Gr8
07-10-2011, 10:36 PM
The Big Aristotle

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 10:38 PM
How many All-Defensive Teams did Drexler make?

Do the names Michael Jordan, Joe Dumars, Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson, Gary Payton, Mookie Blaylock, John Starks mean anything to you? You know how great defensive players those were?

Compare that to what? Tmac, Iverson and Vince Carter who were all famous for their offense and famous for sucking at D??
Kobe only had Doug Christie and Jason Kidd to battle against, and they had the chance to get 4 of them (that means there's space for 1 more) on defensive teams... :eyebrow:

edit: Not to say that Kobe wasn't a better defender than Drexler, but this "defensive team" is bogus as it gets as different eras have different players. You can't say that Ewing or Mourning are not good enough to be compared to someone like Bogut or Horford at center just coz they didn't get into NBA first or second teams when they had Hakeem, Moses, Kareem and Shaq during their careers as better centers.. ;)

NYKalltheway
07-10-2011, 10:39 PM
This isn't a statistical break down.

I'd love to see you do your statistical break downs at 5:40 in the morning in your 4th language :)

Geargo Wallace
07-10-2011, 10:40 PM
I just couldn't see myself drafting Kobe top 15 in an all-time draft lottery. I rarely got that feeling of Kobe being extremely great or dominant when I watch him play. I'd take guys like Shaq, Timmy D, and KG any day over Kobe.

Chacarron
07-10-2011, 10:41 PM
Do the names Michael Jordan, Joe Dumars, Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson, Gary Payton, Mookie Blaylock, John Starks mean anything to you? You know how great defensive players those were?

Compare that to what? Tmac, Iverson and Vince Carter who were all famous for their offense and famous for sucking at D??
Kobe only had Doug Christie and Jason Kidd to battle against, and they had the chance to get 4 of them (that means there's space for 1 more) on defensive teams... :eyebrow:

The answer I was looking for is 0.

shep33
07-10-2011, 10:42 PM
shaq got this
kobe is going to win next because kobe is going to get his usual fan boys and every1 else will get divided between duncan and olaujuwon

I disagree, Kobe has just as many if not more accolades then Timmy and Hakeem.

We underestimate what Kobe has done in his career because a lot of fans just hate him, and the unfair comparisons to Jordan lower his stature in the eyes of the viewer.

Names aside if I put these numbers and accolades up, attempt to just envision a player, not Kobe Bryant, just a player in NBA history:

5 NBA Champion (2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010)
2 NBA Finals MVP (2009–2010)
NBA Most Valuable Player (2008)
13 NBA All-Star (1998, 2000–2011)
2 NBA scoring champion (2006–2007)
9 All-NBA First Team (2002–2004, 2006–2011)
2 All-NBA Second Team (2000–2001)
2 All-NBA Third Team (1999, 2005)
9 All-Defensive First Team (2000, 2003–2004, 2006–2011)
2 All-Defensive Second Team (2001–2002)
NBA All-Rookie Second Team (1997)
4 NBA All-Star Game MVP (2002, 2007, 2009, 2011)
NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion (1997)

-Averaged 35.4 ppg, which is the most since MJ's 37.1 ppg almost 25 years ago.
-7 NBA Finals appearances
-The greatest scoring performance in NBA history... Wilt's 100, obviously shows a larger point total, but what if i said the defense in that game was one of the worst ever... the final score was 169-147, and Wilt shot the ball 63 times only making 36 of his attempts (57%... to player X's 61%, who happens to be a guard).
-the leading scorer in the history of the Lakers
-6th all-time in scoring with a strong possibility to move into the top 3
-3rd all-time in playoff points
-9th all-time in playoff assists
-7th all-time in playoff steals
-Most points scored in Madison Square Garden at 61


Now add these in....

Most All-Star Game MVP awards won, career: 4 (tied with Bob Pettit)
Most All-Defensive First Team honors won, career: 9 (tied with Michael Jordan, Gary Payton, and Kevin Garnett)
Most three-point field goals made, one game: 12 (on January 7, 2003 vs. Seattle SuperSonics; shared with Donyell Marshall)[34]
Most three-point field goals made, one half: 8 (on March 28, 2003 vs. Washington Wizards; shared with 5 other players)[34][35]
Career three-point field goal attempts, playoffs: 822[36]
Most free throws made, four-game playoff series: 51 (second round vs. Sacramento Kings, 2001)[37]
Youngest player to score 18,000 points: (28 years, 156 days)[38]
Youngest player to score 20,000 points: (29 years, 122 days)[39]
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record[39]
Became one of only three players to reach the milestone under the age of 30. The other two are Chamberlain (29 years, 134 days)[39] and Michael Jordan (29 years, 326 days).[40]
Youngest player to score 23,000 points: (30 years, 171 days)[41]
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record[41]
Youngest player to score 24,000 points: (31 years, 76 days)[42]
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record[42]
Youngest player to score 25,000 points: (31 years, 151 days)[43]
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record[43]
Youngest player to score 26,000 points: (32 years, 80 days)[44]
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record
Youngest player to score 27,000 points: (32 years, 160 days)[45]
Surpassed Wilt Chamberlain, the previous holder of the record
Youngest player to be named to the NBA All-Rookie Team: (1996–97)[46]
Youngest player to be named to the NBA All-Defensive Team: (1999–00)[46]
Youngest player to start a game: 18 years, &0000000000000158000000158 days)[1]
Youngest player to start an All-Star game[46]
Only player in NBA history to score at least 600 points in the postseason for three consecutive years.[47]
633 (2008), 695 (2009), 671 (2010)[47]


Those accomplishments are pretty amazing. That player is easily a top 10 player in history on stats alone.

NBAfan4life
07-10-2011, 10:42 PM
Shaq here for sure. Kobe is next though.

I also nominate Garnett also

Chronz
07-10-2011, 10:47 PM
LOL the guy with 16 posts thinks he has a handle on the IQ of this board, let me guess another kobephile back from the village of the banned?

Also why do you guys bother arguing against someone who ranks drexler ahead of kobe? A guy who thinks what the whole world uses (aka those who aren't paying attention to the statistical revolution) is more valid than the stats used by..... you know, actual statisticians.

His statistical analysis is laughable, no context, no pace adjustments, no clue.

Bruno
07-10-2011, 10:50 PM
I'd love to see you do your statistical break downs at 5:40 in the morning in your 4th language :)

haha, fair enough.

But Kobes gotta be better than Drexler.

Chronz
07-10-2011, 10:56 PM
Or shaq can thank Kobe for his 3 rings as well
IMO the 2001 finals MVP should've been kobes
He defended the other teams best player day in and day out and was doing all the dirty work, not to mention he was to busy being clutch while shaq was on the bench because he was either in foul trouble or because he couldn't make free throws
Hows this, both of them can thank phil jackson for their rings and we can just vote him as the 7/8th best players.

Also why are you giving Kobe credit for defending AI. AI had his best series against the lakers, now you can say he did most of his damage against Lue and co but that just proves he didn't defend him night in, night out as you claim.

JustBringIt
07-10-2011, 11:06 PM
I just couldn't see myself drafting Kobe top 15 in an all-time draft lottery. I rarely got that feeling of Kobe being extremely great or dominant when I watch him play. I'd take guys like Shaq, Timmy D, and KG any day over Kobe.

And your the definition of a true hater? So you never had the sense that Kobe was a great player when he averaged 35-5-5? 81 points in a game? 62 in 3 quarters 10+ 50+ games in a season etc. Then he even had a stretch of 4 game with 50+ points including 60&65 point games! Yeah that not great at all, hater.

juno10
07-10-2011, 11:10 PM
We are not talking "Statistics" we are talking skill. Who is a BETTER player. Kobe has MUCH better skills and is MUCH better player overall, than West or any of the above.

oh than i guess both bron and wade will be ahead of kobe when its all said and done.

Chrisstyles
07-10-2011, 11:15 PM
And your the definition of a true hater? So you never had the sense that Kobe was a great players when he averaged 35-5-5? 81 points in a game? 62 in 3 quarters 10+ 50+ games in a season etc. Then he even had a stretch of 4 game with 50+ points including 60&65 point games! Yeah that not great at all, hater.

Shaq and Kobe definitely deserve the next wo spots. Tim Duncan was overrated big time. Garnett was better than him for most of his career and Kevin McHale is also better than him, I no I will get hate for it but its true and I cant stand Kobe.

Chrisstyles
07-10-2011, 11:16 PM
o and by the way i nominate.........bob petit, look it up if you never heard of him

Lloyd Christmas
07-10-2011, 11:22 PM
I forgot to nominate Rick Barry again

JustBringIt
07-10-2011, 11:24 PM
Hows this, both of them can thank phil jackson for their rings and we can just vote him as the 7/8th best players.

Also why are you giving Kobe credit for defending AI. AI had his best series against the lakers, now you can say he did most of his damage against Lue and co but that just proves he didn't defend him night in, night out as you claim.

And what I meant by he defended the best player on the other team wasn't just for the finals I meant overall throughout all the playoff games both played together

Geargo Wallace
07-10-2011, 11:30 PM
And your the definition of a true hater? So you never had the sense that Kobe was a great player when he averaged 35-5-5? 81 points in a game? 62 in 3 quarters 10+ 50+ games in a season etc. Then he even had a stretch of 4 game with 50+ points including 60&65 point games! Yeah that not great at all, hater.

lol I did say "rarely." He had a number of great individual scoring games. Thx for the information.

knightstemplar
07-10-2011, 11:34 PM
no, I really dislike 2000s, specially post-2005 (aka handchecking rule change) ;)

before the "new" rules in 05, kobe had great seasons

2002-03 season - 30.0 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 5.9 apg
2001-02 playoffs - 29.4 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 6.1 apg

kobe averaged 30.0 ppg with shaq on his team for the season before the new rules

drexler never averaged over 27.3 ppg

and in the 80s and early 90s, the pace was higher than it was in the 2000s to now

ill just pick a season and compare it to now

league average
1988-89 season: 89.0 FGA per game, 109.2 PPG (Drexler's highest PPG season)
2005-06 season: 79.0 FGA per game, 97.0 PPG (Kobe's highest PPG season)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

Antbanks21
07-10-2011, 11:57 PM
I am not saying Kobe sucks, but claiming he's on the NBA pantheon when clearly he is not is an exaggeration. Kobe is Top 20-30 NBA player of all time, not 5 or 10 or even 15... And I'd take Drexler over him any day of the week. Kobe wasn't even better than Tracy McGrady or Iverson during his first three rings (with Shaq)

I guess we are all entitled to give our opinions even if they are well...^^^ need I say more?
anyway, Kobe's accolades+ his impact on the NBA should be enough to give him the next spot, while IMO he should've been listed higher. Keep in mind that there have been Kobe vs MJ (considered the GOAT) comparisons throughout the past couple of years. If that's not enough, then take a look at some of Kobe's accomplishments on post #87 courtesy of shep33.
Here are a few (again):

5 NBA Champion (2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010)
2 NBA Finals MVP (20092010)
NBA Most Valuable Player (2008)
13 NBA All-Star (1998, 20002011)
9 All-NBA First Team (20022004, 20062011)
9 All-Defensive First Team (2000, 20032004, 20062011)
-Averaged 35.4 ppg one season
-7 NBA Finals appearances
-81 points 2nd highest scoring performance in NBA history
-the leading scorer in the history of the Lakers
-6th all-time in scoring
-3rd all-time in playoff points
-9th all-time in playoff assists
-7th all-time in playoff steals

Chronz
07-11-2011, 12:05 AM
And what I meant by he defended the best player on the other team wasn't just for the finals I meant overall throughout all the playoff games both played together
Well you can't use that as justification for a Finals MVP, but I can see that point I just don't agree with it. I want to revisit Kobes earlier runs but who exactly do you remember him locking up? To me his best playoff run was 02.

JustBringIt
07-11-2011, 12:09 AM
I didn't say he locked them up but I'm pretty sure he did a good job the times he did guard the best players on the other team

Avenged
07-11-2011, 12:16 AM
Kobe is a 20-30 player all-time? :confused:

What in the world am I reading here?

LakersMaster24
07-11-2011, 12:38 AM
Drexler got similar stats to Kobe (Kobe's are inflated coz after MJs retirement they begun a serious "star treatment" plus they changed the rules in 2005 making it easier for slashers... too many FTs and clear lanes)
Kobe also took 3 FGs more per game and played 2 minutes more per game

Yet only thing he's got on Drexler is PPG, with FTA and.. Turnovers per game. It's kinda easy to see why he has more PPG as explained above. Any serious NBA fan who followed since before 1999 knows that it's easier in Kobe's era than in Clyde's era.

Advanced stats.... I don't really rate them that much, just personal taste.
I consider Win Shares as a team rating. If you got better teammates, it's easier to win. Period. Of course Kobe who was 2nd to Shaq for many years will have more WS than Drexler who played most of his career as #1 guy with #2 being Porter and Buck Williams...

I am not saying Kobe sucks, but claiming he's on the NBA pantheon when clearly he is not is an exaggeration. Kobe is Top 20-30 NBA player of all time, not 5 or 10 or even 15... And I'd take Drexler over him any day of the week. Kobe wasn't even better than Tracy McGrady or Iverson during his first three rings (with Shaq)

Someone didnt get his gyro this morning.

JustBringIt
07-11-2011, 01:05 AM
Can we move on to #8 now please it's clear shaq will win this, which is debatable, now if Kobe doesn't get the #8th spot I'll be shocked, he slipped way too much already

Chronz
07-11-2011, 01:23 AM
The fact that you would be shocked if Duncan came up next is a testament to your homerism.

JLynn943
07-11-2011, 01:40 AM
I can't believe Kobe is going to go top 10 :facepalm:

GREATNESS ONE
07-11-2011, 01:44 AM
I can't believe Kobe is going to go top 10 :facepalm:

Get Used to it, He's only moving up the list.:clap:

Master Mind
07-11-2011, 01:45 AM
Voted the Big O

Cano4prez
07-11-2011, 01:59 AM
Can we move on to #8 now please it's clear shaq will win this, which is debatable, now if Kobe doesn't get the #8th spot I'll be shocked, he slipped way too much already

Lolwut

Chacarron
07-11-2011, 02:19 AM
#8 is going to be tough. I still haven't decided between Hakeem or Duncan.

BillyHoyle35
07-11-2011, 02:50 AM
Duncan deserves it.

He has been so great at his team, has been the leader for one of the winningest stretches anywhere (win percentage)
was the undisputed man on all of his teams that won titles (might not of got the finals MVP in 07 but he got them there and was the man.
Back to back MVPs
and a purely elite defender throughout.
never had issues with sharing the spotlight with teammates and never traded or wanted out.

ticks all the boxes for me

JustBringIt
07-11-2011, 03:05 AM
#8 is going to be tough. I still haven't decided between Hakeem or Duncan.

Now I get that your a big magic fan and all but you wont even vote for the #2nd greatest laker yet? Hmm it seems like your one of those laker fans that doesn't appreciate Kobe for what he has done for the lakers franchise

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 04:37 AM
#8 is going to be tough. I still haven't decided between Hakeem or Duncan.

Hakeem for me. Only player to win a championship without a decent supporting cast. Duncan and Oscar complete the top 10 for PSD... Unless of course everyone is split on Duncan/Hakeem. You can argue Duncan's supporting cast wasn't as good, but better coach, and Parker/Ginobili have become league stars. Can't say the same about Hakeem's teammates in that first championship.


As for the Drexler laughs, I'm not gonna waste my time facepalming. Just going to point the obvious.

1) He played during Michael Jordan's era. The so called GOLDEN ERA of the NBA.

2) He was the 2nd best SG behind Michael Jordan. It's like people claiming that Dominique Wilkins is not good enough because he never won a ring and was under Larry Bird's shadow while in fact he was almost alone and scored over 40 in playoff nights on Bird and crew :eyebrow:

3) It's tough to get selected in 1st all NBA teams when the two guard spots are LOCKED for two TOP 3 players OF ALL TIME. Magic and Jordan... Then you got guys like Isaiah Thomas, John Stockton, Joe Dumars and Kevin Johnson during his prime along with Richmond, Hardaway and Payton competing while Drexler was getting older. Yet Drexler made the teams more than enough times.

4) No one said that Kobe is not a great player. But giving him the edge over other greats is as laughable to me as to you is Drexler>Kobe, who probably haven't seen anything but a tiny clip of Drexler in his prime,
And yes, I'd take #2 SG during Jordan's era than one that wasn't considered unanimously the top SG post-Jordan until 2005 :rolleyes:

Ebbs
07-11-2011, 04:38 AM
Shaq daddy. Nominate Dirk

alencp3
07-11-2011, 05:31 AM
Hakeem 8
Timmy 9
10 is debatable

John Walls Era
07-11-2011, 05:55 AM
I went Shaq, but I also considered Stockton and Hakeem. Arguably Hakeem had the most skill and Stockton is the greatest PG, but a prime Shaq would have dominated in every single era.

EDIT: Considered Duncan too, arguably the greatest PF of all time. Had fundamentals and played the game with high IQ.

shep33
07-11-2011, 05:55 AM
Hakeem 8
Timmy 9
10 is debatable

I love Timmy and Hakeem, but numbers wise you can make a case for Kobe over them pretty easily. If people say Kobe had Shaq and whatever, well Duncan had a ridiculous supporting cast. David Robinson, Sean Elliot, Glen Robinson, Tony Parker, Manu, Stephen Jackson, Hedo, Steve Smith, Bruce Bowen, Steve Kerr, Brent Barry, Robert Horry, Malik Rose, Michael Finley.

Yeah some of those guys were old, but overall that's a pretty good roster. I think Timmy, Kobe and Hakeem are interchangeable.

todu82
07-11-2011, 07:56 AM
Shaquille O'neal

Geargo Wallace
07-11-2011, 10:44 AM
I'm scared that Kobe will take the next spot because ppl will have trouble choosing between Duncan and Hakeem.

Da Knicks
07-11-2011, 11:11 AM
Shaq gets my vote here next it has to be Timmy, anybody not choosing Timmy is too young or does not have any basketball knowledge. The dream is the only other player who can be in a conversation with Timmy at this point. Oh yeah i nominate my all time fav-Big Pat Ewing.

JustBringIt
07-11-2011, 12:18 PM
Shaq gets my vote here next it has to be Timmy, anybody not choosing Timmy is too young or does not have any basketball knowledge. The dream is the only other player who can be in a conversation with Timmy at this point. Oh yeah i nominate my all time fav-Big Pat Ewing.

And why not Kobe?

JustBringIt
07-11-2011, 12:22 PM
I'm scared that Kobe will take the next spot because ppl will have trouble choosing between Duncan and Hakeem.

Or maybe he actually deserves to be off the board already, he should've been off the list by 6 already, but damn it's just sad to see that people actually hate a player so much that they can't really seem to open their eyes and realize Kobe is a top 5 talent ever and he will be in the top 5 when it's all said and done.

Da Knicks
07-11-2011, 12:43 PM
And why not Kobe?

Tim is the best pf of all time imo, he plays team basketball and dominated more than Kobe in his prime. Tim had the total package of defense, offense all the fundemantels that make a great player. Kobe over the years got better at team basketball and finally became the man on his team. Tim took the spurs from Robinson in his first year and never looked back. The dream took perhaps the sorriest teamates ever and won a chip against my knicks. The offense and defense both came from him. Kobe is a great player but not above these two and a couple of more players who did not have the great teamates to win.

Not bashing Kobe at all but Timmy and the dream are above Kobe in what they brought to the spurs and rockets. Kobe with the same squads would not of being able to sniff the finals.

Geargo Wallace
07-11-2011, 12:45 PM
Or maybe he actually deserves to be off the board already, he should've been off the list by 6 already, but damn it's just sad to see that people actually hate a player so much that they can't really seem to open their eyes and realize Kobe is a top 5 talent ever and he will be in the top 5 when it's all said and done.

I don't care about all the talent Kobe has. He doesn't have half the impact on the defensive end that guys like Timmy D and Hakeem have.

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 12:49 PM
I don't care about all the talent Kobe has. He doesn't have half the impact on the defensive end that guys like Timmy D and Hakeem have.

That's only logical however. Hakeem and Timmy play the interior. They are OBVIOUSLY going to have a greater impact on D.

JustBringIt
07-11-2011, 12:50 PM
Tim is the best pf of all time imo, he plays team basketball and dominated more than Kobe in his prime. Tim had the total package of defense, offense all the fundemantels that make a great player. Kobe over the years got better at team basketball and finally became the man on his team. Tim took the spurs from Robinson in his first year and never looked back. The dream took perhaps the sorriest teamates ever and won a chip against my knicks. The offense and defense both came from him. Kobe is a great player but not above these two and a couple of more players who did not have the great teamates to win.

Not bashing Kobe at all but Timmy and the dream are above Kobe in what they brought to the spurs and rockets. Kobe with the same squads would not of being able to sniff the finals.
Lol your really think Kobe wouldn't win next to David Robinson and the Spurs supporting cast haha I'm not saying he would but there is a really good chance they would have, and as for Hakeem when you have Clyde drextler as a teammate how is that a sorry team? Sam cassell,Kenny smith, etc.
Don't overrate players just to leave Kobe off your list, and btw Tim Duncan has had stacked teams for all his championships their 1-8 man rotation has always been one of the best! Sure Tim Duncan may be the best PF ever, but Kobe is the 2nd best Sg ever only behind MJ. Kobe beats Duncan out in every statistical category besides rebounds and blocks, same with hakeem, Kobe edges out both of them on nearly everything

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 01:00 PM
Picking Shaq over Hakeem is a joke. Dream dominated Shaq in their only Finals matchup and regularly outplayed him when they matched up. Hakeem was a better defensive player, more versatile offensively, could ACTUALLY be counted on in clutch moments and brought his game to another level in the playoffs.

Hakeem is my pick here and will be my pick until he is selected...

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 01:04 PM
Lol your really think Kobe wouldn't win next to David Robinson and the Spurs supporting cast haha I'm not saying he would but there is a really good chance they would have, and as for Hakeem when you have Clyde drextler as a teammate how is that a sorry team? Sam cassell,Kenny smith, etc.
Don't overrate players just to leave Kobe off your list, and btw Tim Duncan has had stacked teams for all his championships their 1-8 man rotation has always been one of the best! Sure Tim Duncan may be the best PF ever, but Kobe is the 2nd best Sg ever only behind MJ. Kobe beats Duncan out in every statistical category besides rebounds and blocks, same with hakeem, Kobe edges out both of them on nearly everything

Hakeem played with inferior players for much of his career until he got an over the hill Clyde Drexler (who was only around for the second title), Barkley and Pippen.

The second leading scorers on that first championship team were Otis Thorpe and Vernon freakin' Maxwell. Kenny Smith was an average PG and both Horry and Cassell were babies in the league at the time. You give Kobe that same roster and he doesn't do jack with it...

Chacarron
07-11-2011, 01:05 PM
Now I get that your a big magic fan and all but you wont even vote for the #2nd greatest laker yet? Hmm it seems like your one of those laker fans that doesn't appreciate Kobe for what he has done for the lakers franchise

I just think Kobe right now should be placed at #10.

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 01:06 PM
Picking Shaq over Hakeem is a joke. Dream dominated Shaq in their only Finals matchup and regularly outplayed him when they matched up. Hakeem was a better defensive player, more versatile offensively, could ACTUALLY be counted on in clutch moments and brought his game to another level in the playoffs.

Hakeem is my pick here and will be my pick until he is selected...

Skill wise Hakeem was indeed better than Shaq there is no debating that but in terms of productivity, overall impact and accolades Shaq has him beat.

As for Hakeem outplaying and dominating Shaq I point this out to you.

Regular Season


Player G W L GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Shaquille O'Neal 20 14 6 20 38.7 9.3 17.0 .544 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.6 .474 3.9 8.5 12.4 3.6 0.9 1.8 3.6 3.5 22.1
Hakeem Olajuwon 20 6 14 19 34.9 7.4 16.5 .447 0.1 0.1 .500 3.7 4.9 .753 2.7 6.5 9.1 2.9 1.4 2.4 1.9 3.8 18.4

Playoffs


Player G W L GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Hakeem Olajuwon 8 5 3 8 37.8 9.9 21.3 .465 0.1 0.1 1.000 3.1 4.3 .735 2.0 7.4 9.4 3.0 1.6 1.4 2.0 4.5 23.0
Shaquille O'Neal 8 3 5 8 42.4 11.3 20.3 .556 0.0 0.0 6.3 12.4 .505 3.6 7.8 11.4 5.1 0.5 3.3 3.8 3.8 28.8

IMO Skill wise and defensively Hakeem is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better player than Shaq but in terms of productivity and overall impact on the league Shaq is the superior player.

KnicksR4Real
07-11-2011, 01:09 PM
where is clyde? he should be on this list

kobelakersnba
07-11-2011, 01:11 PM
kobe for sure, without him on the lakers, they wouldn't have won 5 titles..shaq should be next, he goes after kobe just because he became a ring chaser at the end of his career and that hurt his career :facepalm:

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 01:18 PM
Skill wise Hakeem was indeed better than Shaq there is no debating that but in terms of productivity, overall impact and accolades Shaq has him beat.

As for Hakeem outplaying and dominating Shaq I point this out to you.
I don't think it's necessarily fair to look at their head to head matchups once Shaq joined LA, as Hakeem was a shell of his former self at that point. When the two met in the finals, Hakeem dominated Shaq, as he did other dominant big men (Ewing, Robinson) in the postseason.


IMO Skill wise and defensively Hakeem is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better player than Shaq but in terms of productivity and overall impact on the league Shaq is the superior player.
I don't understand how statisics necessarily make you the better player. If statistics are the sole argument then Wilt should be No. 1 and Russell shouldn't be so high (I think Russell should have been MUCH higher than Wilt, but that's just me). Bottom line, Hakeem was the better player, and if you had given him the same supporting cast as Shaq, would have won more titles.

Another thing that no one is considering is that Shaq jumped around several times in an attempt to win more titles. Hakeem played for the same team for (basically) his entire career, despite the fact that his supporting cast was nowhere near as talented as other teams in the league.

Da Knicks
07-11-2011, 01:21 PM
Lol your really think Kobe wouldn't win next to David Robinson and the Spurs supporting cast haha I'm not saying he would but there is a really good chance they would have, and as for Hakeem when you have Clyde drextler as a teammate how is that a sorry team? Sam cassell,Kenny smith, etc.
Don't overrate players just to leave Kobe off your list, and btw Tim Duncan has had stacked teams for all his championships their 1-8 man rotation has always been one of the best! Sure Tim Duncan may be the best PF ever, but Kobe is the 2nd best Sg ever only behind MJ. Kobe beats Duncan out in every statistical category besides rebounds and blocks, same with hakeem, Kobe edges out both of them on nearly everything

Drexler was not on the Hakeems team when they beat the knicks, Horry and Cassel where rookies and ended up being good bench players for other teams. Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell along with Otis Thorpe and Mario Elie made up the starters. Not exactly- Payton, Bryant, Fox, Malone, O'neal you know the team of 04 that couldnt win against the pistons.

Tim beat the knicks as well, so these are not guys that i like very much in case you think im just putting them up there because i like them. This two guys did not have very good teams Timmy won his first ring with freaking Avery Johnson as his pg need i say more? Elliott and Robinson in 99 are not Shaq or Gasol by any means, having Phil Jackson as a coach is not a bad thing either. You could research some stuff so you can know exactly why some of us can see past espn in the way we rank players.

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 01:22 PM
7. Shaq
8. Hakeem
9. Duncan
10. Oscar
11. Dr J
12. Moses Malone
13. Jerry West
14. Havlicek
15. Karl Malone
16. Garnett
17. Barkley
18. David Robinson
19. Ewing
20. Stockton
21. McHale
22. Isaiah
23. Drexler
24. Kobe

there, said it. (not my complete list, but sort of right)
And some guys like Mikan, English, Baylor, Wilkins, Pippen, Hayes, Gervin, Kidd, Dantley, McAdoo, Archibald, Worthy and Reggie Miller should be named before Kobe... Kobe is severely overrated in here. He was never THE most dominant player during his era. A top 10-15 guy MUST be the most dominant player of his era, at least in his position. Kobe was only considered unanimously* the best SG in the league for like 2-3 seasons in his entire career.

*where unanimously = people could not even dare mention another name, while they even mentioned guys like Vince Carter and nobody laughed...

Gibby23
07-11-2011, 01:25 PM
I don't think it's necessarily fair to look at their head to head matchups once Shaq joined LA, as Hakeem was a shell of his former self at that point. When the two met in the finals, Hakeem dominated Shaq, as he did other dominant big men (Ewing, Robinson) in the postseason.


I don't understand how statisics necessarily make you the better player. If statistics are the sole argument then Wilt should be No. 1 and Russell shouldn't be so high (I think Russell should have been MUCH higher than Wilt, but that's just me). Bottom line, Hakeem was the better player, and if you had given him the same supporting cast as Shaq, would have won more titles.

Another thing that no one is considering is that Shaq jumped around several times in an attempt to win more titles. Hakeem played for the same team for (basically) his entire career, despite the fact that his supporting cast was nowhere near as talented as other teams in the league.


To bad we never got to see the PPV Taco bell sponsored 1 on 1 matchup.

Stuckey#3
07-11-2011, 01:28 PM
Kobe...

Also want to nominate George Gervin and Allen Iverson. People forget how dominant AI was ten years ago. It's funny how public opinion can change how talent is remembered.

Stuckey#3
07-11-2011, 01:29 PM
Gervin is easily top 25. And if we are talking all time what about Archibald, McAdou and Dantley?

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 01:32 PM
I don't think it's necessarily fair to look at their head to head matchups once Shaq joined LA, as Hakeem was a shell of his former self at that point. When the two met in the finals, Hakeem dominated Shaq, as he did other dominant big men (Ewing, Robinson) in the postseason.

I guess I should have posted their #s when Shaq was just entering his prime and Hakeem was exiting his. They basically were even in terms of productivity with Shaq having a much higher FG%, TS%, TRB%, BLK% and AST%. In both playoffs and regular season play Shaq held his own very well against Hakeem. Ewing and DRob on the other hand were indeed DOMINATED when playing against The Dream.


I don't understand how statisics necessarily make you the better player. If statistics are the sole argument then Wilt should be No. 1 and Russell shouldn't be so high (I think Russell should have been MUCH higher than Wilt, but that's just me). Bottom line, Hakeem was the better player, and if you had given him the same supporting cast as Shaq, would have won more titles.

I never said statistics alone make Shaq a better player. I said overall impact, productivity and accolades. Shaq has 2 more championships (we can disect this however we choose but in terms of legacy Shaq does indeed have more Hakeem however won 2 championships with an extremely weak supporting cast), 1 more finals MVP, he won 2 scoring titles among other things.

There is no question that Hakeem was the better defensive player than Shaq.


Another thing that no one is considering is that Shaq jumped around several times in an attempt to win more titles. Hakeem played for the same team for (basically) his entire career, despite the fact that his supporting cast was nowhere near as talented as other teams in the league.

What does this have to do with anything. That hurt Shaq's legacy more so than anything. He didn't "jump" to Mia. He was basically forced out of LA. Players should not get credit for loyalty because there is no loyalty from franchises in return, they do what they see as best for their franchise.

kobelakersnba
07-11-2011, 01:33 PM
7. Shaq
8. Hakeem
9. Duncan
10. Oscar
11. Dr J
12. Moses Malone
13. Jerry West
14. Havlicek
15. Karl Malone
16. Garnett
17. Barkley
18. David Robinson
19. Ewing
20. Stockton
21. McHale
22. Isaiah
23. Drexler
24. Kobe

there, said it. (not my complete list, but sort of right)
And some guys like Mikan, English, Baylor, Wilkins, Pippen, Hayes, Gervin, Kidd, Dantley, McAdoo, Archibald, Worthy and Reggie Miller should be named before Kobe... Kobe is severely overrated in here. He was never THE most dominant player during his era. A top 10-15 guy MUST be the most dominant player of his era, at least in his position. Kobe was only considered unanimously* the best SG in the league for like 2-3 seasons in his entire career.

*where unanimously = people could not even dare mention another name, while they even mentioned guys like Vince Carter and nobody laughed...

:facepalm: FAIL

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 01:38 PM
:facepalm: FAIL

yes, you've changed my mind now thank you for showing me the light

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 01:38 PM
7. Shaq
8. Hakeem
9. Duncan
10. Oscar
11. Dr J
12. Moses Malone
13. Jerry West
14. Havlicek
15. Karl Malone
16. Garnett
17. Barkley
18. David Robinson
19. Ewing
20. Stockton
21. McHale
22. Isaiah
23. Drexler
24. Kobe

there, said it. (not my complete list, but sort of right)
And some guys like Mikan, English, Baylor, Wilkins, Pippen, Hayes, Gervin, Kidd, Dantley, McAdoo, Archibald, Worthy and Reggie Miller should be named before Kobe... Kobe is severely overrated in here. He was never THE most dominant player during his era. A top 10-15 guy MUST be the most dominant player of his era, at least in his position. Kobe was only considered unanimously* the best SG in the league for like 2-3 seasons in his entire career.

If you told me this four or five seasons ago, I'd agree with you, but Kobe has earned his dues and earned the right to be in the top 10 discussion. If I'm making the list, I'd go:

7. Hakeem
8. Duncan
9. Kobe
10. Oscar
11. Moses
12. West
13. Shaq

And I think your "top player of his era" argument is SERIOUSLY flawed. Wilt and Russell played in the same time period. MJ and Hakeem played in the same time period and Shaq, Duncan and Kobe were right behind them.

Also, if I had to pick the most dominant player of the last five years, I don't know how you don't pick Kobe Bryant. Lebron has the stats, but Kobe has the rings and the postseason success. For the record, this is coming from someone who completely loathes Kobe and the Lakers, but you have to give respect where respect is due...

Law25
07-11-2011, 01:39 PM
Its funny how the people who say Timmy or the Dream over Kobe present nothing to back it up. In the playoffs Kobe vs Duncan an total of 30 games Kobe 18 Duncan 12

Kobe
28.2 pts 4.7 asst 5.9 rebs 1.4stls 3.3 tov with an FG% 47.3

Dunacn
25.2 pts 4.2 ast 13.6 rebs 2.3 blks 3.7 tov with an FG% 47.3

For those saying Kobe had Shaq than without Shaq he's 1-0 vs Duncan adding an pt more. I understand Kobe is disliked by many but after reading all the posts from the top five and sixth alltime and seeing all the stats the proves he's better and hearing all the reasoning behind it, and to see the vast majority still rank him despite being proved otherwise as barley an top ten player and to some he's not even cracking the list is
just wrong. Bird ahead of him is wrong, Shaq is debatable and Russell is also wrong. If your gonna place Russell so high than Cousy or Havilcek should be right behind him right? Cousy was their points and assits leader than that became Havlicek. Russell was just their rebound leader. Its also said they played on super stacked teams surounded by weak teams. Like the East allstar team of today vs the Lakers. I admittly only seen highlights of their play not full games, and only heard their stories. But off stats and what ive heard from older gents its not been enough to place Russell so high.

Cousy with Celtics

18.4 pts 7.5 ast 5.2 rebs. Playoffs - 18.5 pts 5 rebs 8.6 ast

Russell with Celtics

15.1 pts 4.3 ast 22.5 rebs. Playoffs - 16.2 pts 24.9 rebs 4.7 ast

Than later came Havlicek came later

John Havilcek 62 - 69 with Russell

19.2pts 6.1 rebs 3.4 ast. Playoff - 21.1pts 7.4 rebs 3.9 ast


Points being Russell is ranked to high as well as Bird.

kobelakersnba
07-11-2011, 01:44 PM
yes, you've changed my mind now thank you for showing me the light

lol too easy

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 01:51 PM
I never said statistics alone make Shaq a better player. I said overall impact, productivity and accolades. Shaq has 2 more championships (we can disect this however we choose but in terms of legacy Shaq does indeed have more Hakeem however won 2 championships with an extremely weak supporting cast), 1 more finals MVP, he won 2 scoring titles among other things.

There is no question that Hakeem was the better defensive player than Shaq.
I realize there is not "right answer" when it comes to discussions like this (which is why they're fun) and everyone has their own way of judging players, but this statement right here is exactly the kind of thing that would allow me to pick Hakeem over Shaq. Also consider Shaq's complete uselessness in the last few minutes of a game and "hack a shack", the fact that Hakeem was obviously the more skilled player and I don't understand how you can take Shaq over him.

Obviously you have to take statistics into consideration, but if you have relatively close players statistically like Dream and Shaq, then you have to ask yourself two questions: 1. If I'm building a team, which player would I rather have? and 2. Which player would I rather have on the floor with two minutes left in the postseason?

Personally, I take Dream as my answer to both questions...


What does this have to do with anything. That hurt Shaq's legacy more so than anything. He didn't "jump" to Mia. He was basically forced out of LA. Players should not get credit for loyalty because there is no loyalty from franchises in return, they do what they see as best for their franchise.I'm aware he was traded to Miami, but my point is that he either left when he was unhappy or his team's dealt him as soon as they stopped winning titles. He could have stayed in Orlando and tried to win there, but he left. And both LA and Miami dealt him despite their success which doesn't bode well for his legacy either.

And the guy played with unbelievable young wing players (Penny, Kobe, Wade) his entire career, while Hakeem was stuck with cokeheads, Vernon Maxwell and aging veterns for his entire career. I don't think you can overlook that...

Da Knicks
07-11-2011, 01:51 PM
For those saying Kobe had Shaq than without Shaq he's 1-0 vs Duncan adding an pt more. I understand Kobe is disliked by many but after reading all the posts from the top five and sixth alltime and seeing all the stats the proves he's better and hearing all the reasoning behind it, and to see the vast majority still rank him despite being proved otherwise as barley an top ten player and to some he's not even cracking the list is
just wrong. Bird ahead of him is wrong, Shaq is debatable and Russell is also wrong. If your gonna place Russell so high than Cousy or Havilcek should be right behind him right? Cousy was their points and assits leader than that became Havlicek. Russell was just their rebound leader. Its also said they played on super stacked teams surounded by weak teams. Like the East allstar team of today vs the Lakers. I admittly only seen highlights of their play not full games, and only heard their stories. But off stats and what ive heard from older gents its not been enough to place Russell so high.

This is the problem, most youngsters will point to Kobe because they have seen him play. If most youngsters would of actually seen the older guys play Kobe could fall off to almost 12-15 best ever. Ill give Kobe his credit he makes the 10 guy on my list but just barely too many good players have played in this league. The league didnt just start yesterday, Kobe may some day reach was far as 8th if he continues to put up numbers without hurting his teamates in the process.

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 01:54 PM
Its funny how the people who say Timmy or the Dream over Kobe present nothing to back it up. In the playoffs Kobe vs Duncan an total of 30 games Kobe 18 Duncan 12

Kobe
28.2 pts 4.7 asst 5.9 rebs 1.4stls 3.3 tov with an FG% 47.3

Dunacn
25.2 pts 4.2 ast 13.6 rebs 2.3 blks 3.7 tov with an FG% 47.3

For those saying Kobe had Shaq than without Shaq he's 1-0 vs Duncan adding an pt more. I understand Kobe is disliked by many but after reading all the posts from the top five and sixth alltime and seeing all the stats the proves he's better and hearing all the reasoning behind it, and to see the vast majority still rank him despite being proved otherwise as barley an top ten player and to some he's not even cracking the list is
just wrong. Bird ahead of him is wrong, Shaq is debatable and Russell is also wrong. If your gonna place Russell so high than Cousy or Havilcek should be right behind him right? Cousy was their points and assits leader than that became Havlicek. Russell was just their rebound leader. Its also said they played on super stacked teams surounded by weak teams. Like the East allstar team of today vs the Lakers. I admittly only seen highlights of their play not full games, and only heard their stories. But off stats and what ive heard from older gents its not been enough to place Russell so high.

Cousy with Celtics

18.4 pts 7.5 ast 5.2 rebs. Playoffs - 18.5 pts 5 rebs 8.6 ast

Russell with Celtics

15.1 pts 4.3 ast 22.5 rebs. Playoffs - 16.2 pts 24.9 rebs 4.7 ast

Than later came Havlicek came later

John Havilcek 62 - 69 with Russell

19.2pts 6.1 rebs 3.4 ast. Playoff - 21.1pts 7.4 rebs 3.9 ast


Points being Russell is ranked to high as well as Bird.

Horrible argument. Every point of your argument is based entirely on statistics, not on logic. Russell was the most dominant defensive player of his era and was the centerpiece of the most successful franchise in the history of the NBA, while regularly dominating Wilt Chamberlin (who is supposedly a better player?). If you put Kobe ahead of Bird and Russell, than you're clearly a homer who has no business throwing his hat in this discussion.

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 01:54 PM
And I think your "top player of his era" argument is SERIOUSLY flawed. Wilt and Russell played in the same time period. MJ and Hakeem played in the same time period and Shaq, Duncan and Kobe were right behind them.

Also, if I had to pick the most dominant player of the last five years, I don't know how you don't pick Kobe Bryant. Lebron has the stats, but Kobe has the rings and the postseason success. For the record, this is coming from someone who completely loathes Kobe and the Lakers, but you have to give respect where respect is due...


Thank you for your serious approach that does not involve yellow bubbleheads.

Top player of era is an important criterion, while I also mentioned top player in position, or at least during Wilt and Russell, it was obvious that they were by far the best back then so they were also top players of their era, it can be2-3 guys like Bird, Magic, Isaiah(not as good but he was great even if I'm not a huge fan of his game, his GM skill is a different story) while there was also Moses & Kareem during that time for most part, then MJ appeared... It's not easy to define era.
Season-by-season, Kobe was rarely considered the top player in the game unanimously. Yes, he was the best of the last 5 years and I've also mentioned that in a previous post. But in this watered down era, with rules that inflate stats, that does not say much to me. I've seen Kobe play, I watch Kobe play, and I love his game.

Top 25 is "respect where is due" when we talk about Kobe. Rings should not be the top argument. Rings are won by teams. Even Michael Jordan needed a team in order to become the GOAT. While alone, he just jacked 50-60-70(almost) points a night with nothing to show for at the end of the day.

Also the claim for Kobe-Jordan comparison is as lame as it gets.
Iverson also had that comparison and fanboys said he surpassed MJ
Vince Carter also was in that argument for a few seasons.
T-Mac was also in that argument...
Even Wade was also in such an argument!! Wade winning 4 championships in the future will not make him a top 10 player... It could make him top 20-25, but not a top 10 player. Lebron has the potential to become a top 10 player but he is awful in clutch moments. I doubt he'd make most people's top 20 lists when it's all said and done.
Same way people said Moses and Kareem were better than Wilt or Russell in the 80s.
Comparisons are always there.


We are talking about a history of around 60 years with amazing players during that time, and people say that Top 25 is not good enough for Kobe?? Seriously guys... get over the fanboyism

Chacarron
07-11-2011, 01:59 PM
Then why isn't Lebron in your top 25 NYK? He certainly has dominated the league for some time now.

LAKERMANIA
07-11-2011, 02:05 PM
7. Shaq
8. Hakeem
9. Duncan
10. Oscar
11. Dr J
12. Moses Malone
13. Jerry West
14. Havlicek
15. Karl Malone
16. Garnett
17. Barkley
18. David Robinson
19. Ewing
20. Stockton
21. McHale
22. Isaiah
23. Drexler
24. Kobe

there, said it. (not my complete list, but sort of right)
And some guys like Mikan, English, Baylor, Wilkins, Pippen, Hayes, Gervin, Kidd, Dantley, McAdoo, Archibald, Worthy and Reggie Miller should be named before Kobe... Kobe is severely overrated in here. He was never THE most dominant player during his era. A top 10-15 guy MUST be the most dominant player of his era, at least in his position. Kobe was only considered unanimously* the best SG in the league for like 2-3 seasons in his entire career.

*where unanimously = people could not even dare mention another name, while they even mentioned guys like Vince Carter and nobody laughed...
:laugh: :laugh:

Man do I love the nba forum sometimes

Law25
07-11-2011, 02:05 PM
Dream is great and top ten but his two year stint of greatness when Jordan left isnt enough to put him ahead of Kobe. Kobe was way more dominat in his era than Dream was in his, and in an Decade that featured Ducan and Shaq, Kobe was viewed as the best in that decade. Thats prof enough on where he belongs but i know thats means nothing also right.

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 02:11 PM
:laugh: :laugh:

Man do I love the nba forum sometimes

sure laugh... more people are laughing at Kobe being a Top 10 player than not...

We've been seeing people voting for Kobe since #1... same guys... Just desperate to get their 'man' in the top 10. Guess what? PSD will give him a top 10 #. Mostly because after Hakeem/Duncan/Oscar people won't be picking consensually. Kobe does not deserve to be called a top 10 player and will never be called a top 10 player by people who actually know NBA history.

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 02:19 PM
I realize there is not "right answer" when it comes to discussions like this (which is why they're fun) and everyone has their own way of judging players, but this statement right here is exactly the kind of thing that would allow me to pick Hakeem over Shaq. Also consider Shaq's complete uselessness in the last few minutes of a game and "hack a shack", the fact that Hakeem was obviously the more skilled player and I don't understand how you can take Shaq over him.

Well the counter argument to this is the fact that Shaq got to the line at a considerably higher rate that The Dream. This fact meant he had a greater impact on the opposing team defensive scheme game in game out due to the fact that in most cases the men who were assigned to him had to be very careful so as not to pick up costly fouls. This in itself time and time again gave his team the advantage.

I value defense as much as the other guy. IMO had Shaq been a liability on that end of the floor there wouldn't even be a debate for me even if he won more chips than The Dream but Shaq was indeed very capable on that end of the floor. Shaq's overall impact and dominance was game winning on its own which IMO negates the effect of Hakeem's superior D. Shaq almost never gave opposing Cs an easy time thus the reason why I would say he was never dominated, he actually played better against some of the better Cs of the 90s than Hakeem.


Obviously you have to take statistics into consideration, but if you have relatively close players statistically like Dream and Shaq, then you have to ask yourself two questions: 1. If I'm building a team, which player would I rather have? and 2. Which player would I rather have on the floor with two minutes left in the postseason?

Personally, I take Dream as my answer to both questions...

To this question I look at their performances on the biggest stage of them all the finals and their best finals performances.

Hakeem in 94 against the Knicks in 7 games averaged 26.9 PPG, 9.1 RPG, 3.9 BPG and a 27.1 PER on 50% from the field and 86% from the line absolutely dominating Patrick Ewing.

95 he averaged 32.0 PPG, 11 RPG.0 and 5.5 APG with a 22.0 PER against Shaq but IMO he played better in 94. Shaq was in his 2nd year in the league while Hakeem had just come off the best offensive season of his career but despite this Shaq arguably equal and in some ways even better series than Hakeem despite being swept he averaged 28.0 PPG, 12.5 RPG, 6.0 APG and a 27.3 PER.

Shaq in 00 against the Pacers in 6 games averaged 38.0 PPG, 16.7 RPG, 2.7 BPG and a 31.1 PER on 65% from the field and 40% from the line simply obliterating Ric Smits and Dale Davis.

IMO the only thing that really hurts Shaq is his FT% but the fact that he got to the line at a MUCH higher rate than Hakeem only proved his worth. Hakeem had 6.1 attempts per game as compared to Shaq's 15.5, Shaq made 6 FTs per game. This is something that is a recurring trend throughout their entire career.

IMO in Shaq's 3 finals appearances he put on the 3 most dominant finals performances ever by a C in NBA history the only thing that discredits it is the fact that for two of them he didn't match up against elite defensive Cs.

Last 2 minutes because of the fact that Shaq was a liability at the line, I'd take Hakeem but to build my team around I'd go Shaq.


I'm aware he was traded to Miami, but my point is that he either left when he was unhappy or his team's dealt him as soon as they stopped winning titles. He could have stayed in Orlando and tried to win there, but he left. And both LA and Miami dealt him despite their success which doesn't bode well for his legacy either.

And the guy played with unbelievable young wing players (Penny, Kobe, Wade) his entire career, while Hakeem was stuck with cokeheads, Vernon Maxwell and aging veterns for his entire career. I don't think you can overlook that...

Shaq's reasons for being traded wasn't as simple as you make it out to be and you and I both know that. Despite success those teams were looking to go in different directions. Shaq was in the twilight of his career when he was traded from Mia and was a constant injury risk and we all know of the LA fiasco with him and Kobe.

He could have stayed in Orlando but he didn't. IMO that does not hurt him. They didn't seem to have a very positive future without Shaq there. I mean he did what was best for his career. Penny was often injured as well. I wouldn't fault Shaq for playing alongside great wing players either. Whether or not he played alongside them he would have been an all time great C regardless. Many believe that had he actually have a less selfish sidekick (young Kobe) he would have had an even better career.

I have a question why exactly do you have Oscar, West and Moses ahead of Shaq?

Oh and to your point of Shaq and Hakeem being close statistically, the margin is actually much larger than you are making it out to be.

Law25
07-11-2011, 02:21 PM
Horrible argument. Every point of your argument is based entirely on statistics, not on logic. Russell was the most dominant defensive player of his era and was the centerpiece of the most successful franchise in the history of the NBA, while regularly dominating Wilt Chamberlin (who is supposedly a better player?). If you put Kobe ahead of Bird and Russell, than you're clearly a homer who has no business throwing his hat in this discussion.

Are you serious? Im an homer. I actualy looked these guys up and i,ve spoke to older gents who saw them play that lived in there day and ive watched highlights, which led me an conclusion that dosent agree with you and im an homer? Get the hell out of hear with that. I was told that Havilcek was more dominat in some games and his stats reflect that, same with Cousy. I was told even though Russell was great he never single handed shut down Wilt and couldnt really handel him one on one no one could. They said he did the best job, but it was more the team that crowded Wilt. So thats what i based my opinion on.

Law25
07-11-2011, 02:44 PM
For those saying Kobe had Shaq than without Shaq he's 1-0 vs Duncan adding an pt more. I understand Kobe is disliked by many but after reading all the posts from the top five and sixth alltime and seeing all the stats the proves he's better and hearing all the reasoning behind it, and to see the vast majority still rank him despite being proved otherwise as barley an top ten player and to some he's not even cracking the list is
just wrong. Bird ahead of him is wrong, Shaq is debatable and Russell is also wrong. If your gonna place Russell so high than Cousy or Havilcek should be right behind him right? Cousy was their points and assits leader than that became Havlicek. Russell was just their rebound leader. Its also said they played on super stacked teams surounded by weak teams. Like the East allstar team of today vs the Lakers. I admittly only seen highlights of their play not full games, and only heard their stories. But off stats and what ive heard from older gents its not been enough to place Russell so high.

This is the problem, most youngsters will point to Kobe because they have seen him play. If most youngsters would of actually seen the older guys play Kobe could fall off to almost 12-15 best ever. Ill give Kobe his credit he makes the 10 guy on my list but just barely too many good players have played in this league. The league didnt just start yesterday, Kobe may some day reach was far as 8th if he continues to put up numbers without hurting his teamates in the process.

So you seen them play? You would have to be 55 to 60 years old, but this is the internet where people can pretend to be whoever they want to be. So i'll just take the word of the people who i know grew up watching them play as i grew up with the 80's 90's and present, and ill stick with tapes, youtube, nba tv, and stats to base my opinion. I say Kobe an top 5 players based on those things. Agree or not is your business.

LAKERMANIA
07-11-2011, 02:45 PM
sure laugh... more people are laughing at Kobe being a Top 10 player than not...

We've been seeing people voting for Kobe since #1... same guys... Just desperate to get their 'man' in the top 10. Guess what? PSD will give him a top 10 #. Mostly because after Hakeem/Duncan/Oscar people won't be picking consensually. Kobe does not deserve to be called a top 10 player and will never be called a top 10 player by people who actually know NBA history.

You are entitled to your own opinion but consider this, Kobe has been on the list since #1, and there are more Laker fans on these boards than all other nba teams fans put together, and he hasnt been picked until now, doesnt that show that Laker fans arent as homer as you think? If that were the case we all would have joined together and voted for Kobe at the #1 just for the hell of it..

Ask any nba analyst, ask 100 nba analysts, professional analysts, are you telling me that 100 out of 100 of those analysts who know a lot more about nba history will tell me that Kobe is not in the top 10 of all time?

Quite the contrary they will tell you he is, go do research of your own, you wont find many analysts at the present day who believe that Kobe is not even top 20 of all time..

I have met a lot of people who have admittedly outright told me they hate Kobe with a passion which is fine with me, but even counting those people, not one of them told me he isn't top 10 player of all time..

Geargo Wallace
07-11-2011, 02:49 PM
Dream is great and top ten but his two year stint of greatness when Jordan left isnt enough to put him ahead of Kobe. Kobe was way more dominat in his era than Dream was in his, and in an Decade that featured Ducan and Shaq, Kobe was viewed as the best in that decade. Thats prof enough on where he belongs but i know thats means nothing also right.

To be fair, Shaq came in the league in 1992, and was 37 by the end of the decade you speak of. Tim made his debut in 1997 and was 33 by the end of the decade. Kobe made his in 1996, was only 31 by the end of the decade.

I'd say Duncan was the best in the 2000-2010 decade. It's bit of an arbitrary argument. If you take a 10 year stretch of any of the 3, Shaq would come out on top no doubt.

Law25
07-11-2011, 02:59 PM
To be fair, Shaq came in the league in 1992, and was 37 by the end of the decade you speak of. Tim made his debut in 1997 and was 33 by the end of the decade. Kobe made his in 1996, was only 31 by the end of the decade.

I'd say Duncan was the best in the 2000-2010 decade. It's bit of an arbitrary argument. If you take a 10 year stretch of any of the 3, Shaq would come out on top no doubt.

Shaq is very debatable to me, but Duncan not so much. I think Kobe has so far had the overall better career than Duncan. When playing against each other in the playoffs Kobe's overall played better than Duncan. I aslo take into consideration that Kobe has overcame stiffer competition at his position than Duncan and he holds more league records in regular saeson and playoffs than Duncan despite Duncan having an faster start. Just my opinion.

Lake_Show2416
07-11-2011, 03:30 PM
Lakers own top 10

PatsSoxKnicks
07-11-2011, 03:32 PM
Oh and to your point of Shaq and Hakeem being close statistically, the margin is actually much larger than you are making it out to be.

Two great articles over at Basketball Prospectus look at the Centers of the 90s and the players of the 90s. Pelton outlines a method (idea originated from Bill James) for evaluating the better player using his stat WARP.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1196
http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=415

There is one BIG issue with the two articles though. It doesn't look at playoff performance. DRob was a better Center than Hakeem in the regular season, no questions asked. But in the postseason, Hakeem was better and that was on display in that 1 series.

However, when talking about Shaq and Hakeem, Shaq has had some outright dominant postseasons. And he's been better in the regular season. So really, it is no contest as you alluded too.

Squad13
07-11-2011, 03:36 PM
:laugh: :laugh:

Man do I love the nba forum sometimes

That guy is one of the most ridiculous posters on this site. You should see some of the theories he believes :laugh:

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 03:42 PM
That guy is one of the most ridiculous posters on this site. You should see some of the theories he believes :laugh:

Yeah... specially all that about USA funding Pakistan all these years. What load of bull... oh wait :facepalm::facepalm:

PatsSoxKnicks
07-11-2011, 03:47 PM
You are entitled to your own opinion but consider this, Kobe has been on the list since #1, and there are more Laker fans on these boards than all other nba teams fans put together, and he hasnt been picked until now, doesnt that show that Laker fans arent as homer as you think? If that were the case we all would have joined together and voted for Kobe at the #1 just for the hell of it..

He's been getting votes since #1. And there's a LOT of Laker fans who STILL think he's better than Wade right now. I'm not saying you all are homers, I'm saying it seems like there are a ton of Kobe homers, who don't accurately rank him.



Ask any nba analyst, ask 100 nba analysts, professional analysts, are you telling me that 100 out of 100 of those analysts who know a lot more about nba history will tell me that Kobe is not in the top 10 of all time?

Quite the contrary they will tell you he is, go do research of your own, you wont find many analysts at the present day who believe that Kobe is not even top 20 of all time..

I have met a lot of people who have admittedly outright told me they hate Kobe with a passion which is fine with me, but even counting those people, not one of them told me he isn't top 10 player of all time..

Why do you have to ask analysts? Can't you form your own opinion on these things. I don't think its so outrageous to rank Kobe out of the top 10. In fact, I would have him outside of my top 10. The people who vote him inside the top 10 only vote him inside because of awards and rings, they don't bother to take a look at any efficiency/advanced stats.

But I suppose its a matter of preference. I tend to put a lot of stock into peak and while I do factor in longevity, peak is probably more important for me. And Kobe's peak isn't as good as a lot of other guys. His peak is imo slightly worse than Wade's peak. (I'm not saying his career isn't better than Wade's, it is). Anyways, I think there are quite a few players who've had better peaks.

And even when you factor in longevity, I think there's a great case that could be made that he's behind the 6 guys on this list, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan and KG/Barkley. It's not all about rings. Just because Kobe has been fortunate enough to play on some very talented teams with one of the best coaches of all-time, it doesn't mean he's better than some of these other guys.

For as great as you think Kobe is, he's never led the league in WS, WS/48 or PER. In fact, he's never led the league in any efficiency stats. Frankly, I don't think there's that much of a difference between him and Clyde Drexler. Kobe's better but their efficiency numbers are remarkably similar.

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 03:49 PM
He's been getting votes since #1. And there's a LOT of Laker fans who STILL think he's better than Wade right now. I'm not saying you all are homers, I'm saying it seems like there are a ton of Kobe homers, who don't accurately rank him.



Why do you have to ask analysts? Can't you form your own opinion on these things. I don't think its so outrageous to rank Kobe out of the top 10. In fact, I would have him outside of my top 10. The people who vote him inside the top 10 only vote him inside because of awards and rings, they don't bother to take a look at any efficiency/advanced stats.

But I suppose its a matter of preference. I tend to put a lot of stock into peak and while I do factor in longevity, peak is probably more important for me. And Kobe's peak isn't as good as a lot of other guys. His peak is imo slightly worse than Wade's peak. (I'm not saying his career isn't better than Wade's, it is). Anyways, I think there are quite a few players who've had better peaks.

And even when you factor in longevity, I think there's a great case that could be made that he's behind the 6 guys on this list, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan and KG/Barkley. It's not all about rings. Just because Kobe has been fortunate enough to play on some very talented teams with one of the best coaches of all-time, it doesn't mean he's better than some of these other guys.

For as great as you think Kobe is, he's never led the league in WS, WS/48 or PER. In fact, he's never led the league in any efficiency stats. Frankly, I don't think there's that much of a difference between him and Clyde Drexler. Kobe's better but their efficiency numbers are remarkably similar.

Finally. A voice of reason in here

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 03:53 PM
Finally. A voice of reason in here

A voice of reason. He based his reasoning LARGELY on advanced stats and a proven theory. You base your reasoning on the fact that you hate any perimeter player post Jordan era and that's why Kobe doesn't deserve to be there. You provide no facts but rather opinion. At least he used common sense and facts in his arguments. You even said that Reggie Miller should be ahead of Kobe, I mean really? SMH.

Earlier you BASHED advanced stats he used and in proper perspective.

naps
07-11-2011, 03:56 PM
Kobe should have been the goat not Jordan because Kobe dropped 81, Jordan didn't.

Geargo Wallace
07-11-2011, 04:01 PM
Kobe should have been the goat not Jordan because Kobe dropped 81, Jordan didn't.

lol

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 04:01 PM
A voice of reason. He based his reasoning LARGELY on advanced stats and a proven theory. You base your reasoning on the fact that you hate any perimeter player post Jordan era and that's why Kobe doesn't deserve to be there. You provide no facts but rather opinion. At least he used common sense and facts in his arguments.

Earlier you BASHED advanced stats he used and in proper perspective.


ermmmm... I said I don't take them into account that much. Plus, it just happened that I was in this conversation at 5am and while I was replying we got a major black out(40% of country's electricity is down and every few hours we got long blackouts)

I do not HATE all perimeter players post Jordan era. It just happens that none of them is on that level. If Kobe is a top 10 player, then Wade and Iverson go in top 20.

And I don't take advanced stats because I trust my own eyes better. Not sure why you feel the need to ask others to explain what you saw... That's not how I like to be, I wanna form my own opinion and in basketball I happen to have a great memory and an even greater NBA playoffs archive and too much free time... Drexler>Kobe for me and only way Kobe can overtake Drexler is well... nothing. It's done. Unless of course he goes to average over 32 PPG till he retires which won't happen. Kobe's on the dusk of his career, he's been judged and what is left is for people to clearly review his career. I can't see Kobe climbing any more in terms of rankings. And Barkley not winning a rink means jackshit when I compare him to Kobe as a player. I'll take Barkley any day of the week. Same as Dr J and Moses, or the Admiral or Stockton...

And I'm not a Kobe hater. If you look at older posts of mine (before the all time Kobe frenzy) you'd see that I'm actually very pro-Kobe...

LAKERMANIA
07-11-2011, 04:04 PM
He's been getting votes since #1. And there's a LOT of Laker fans who STILL think he's better than Wade right now. I'm not saying you all are homers, I'm saying it seems like there are a ton of Kobe homers, who don't accurately rank him.



Why do you have to ask analysts? Can't you form your own opinion on these things. I don't think its so outrageous to rank Kobe out of the top 10. In fact, I would have him outside of my top 10. The people who vote him inside the top 10 only vote him inside because of awards and rings, they don't bother to take a look at any efficiency/advanced stats.

But I suppose its a matter of preference. I tend to put a lot of stock into peak and while I do factor in longevity, peak is probably more important for me. And Kobe's peak isn't as good as a lot of other guys. His peak is imo slightly worse than Wade's peak. (I'm not saying his career isn't better than Wade's, it is). Anyways, I think there are quite a few players who've had better peaks.

And even when you factor in longevity, I think there's a great case that could be made that he's behind the 6 guys on this list, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan and KG/Barkley. It's not all about rings. Just because Kobe has been fortunate enough to play on some very talented teams with one of the best coaches of all-time, it doesn't mean he's better than some of these other guys.

For as great as you think Kobe is, he's never led the league in WS, WS/48 or PER. In fact, he's never led the league in any efficiency stats. Frankly, I don't think there's that much of a difference between him and Clyde Drexler. Kobe's better but their efficiency numbers are remarkably similar.

I said ask any nba analyst because NYK guy said "Most people who know a lot about nba history would agree with me" or something like that, so I said, if thats the case ask nba analysts and they would disagree with you

Squad13
07-11-2011, 04:08 PM
sure laugh... more people are laughing at Kobe being a Top 10 player than not...

We've been seeing people voting for Kobe since #1... same guys... Just desperate to get their 'man' in the top 10. Guess what? PSD will give him a top 10 #. Mostly because after Hakeem/Duncan/Oscar people won't be picking consensually. Kobe does not deserve to be called a top 10 player and will never be called a top 10 player by people who actually know NBA history.

:laugh:

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 04:09 PM
ermmmm... I said I don't take them into account that much. Plus, it just happened that I was in this conversation at 5am and while I was replying we got a major black out(40% of country's electricity is down and every few hours we got long blackouts)

I do not HATE all perimeter players post Jordan era. It just happens that none of them is on that level. If Kobe is a top 10 player, then Wade and Iverson go in top 20.

And I don't take advanced stats because I trust my own eyes better. Not sure why you feel the need to ask others to explain what you saw... That's not how I like to be, I wanna form my own opinion and in basketball I happen to have a great memory and an even greater NBA playoffs archive and too much free time... Drexler>Kobe for me and only way Kobe can overtake Drexler is well... nothing. It's done. Unless of course he goes to average over 32 PPG till he retires which won't happen. Kobe's on the dusk of his career, he's been judged and what is left is for people to clearly review his career. I can't see Kobe climbing any more in terms of rankings. And Barkley not winning a rink means jackshit when I compare him to Kobe as a player. I'll take Barkley any day of the week. Same as Dr J and Moses, or the Admiral or Stockton...

And I'm not a Kobe hater. If you look at older posts of mine (before the all time Kobe frenzy) you'd see that I'm actually very pro-Kobe...

Your eyes is the worst argument you can use.

Your eyes don't tell you the same things that anyone else eyes say.

That's why we use stats (the advancement in statistics has given us a greater appreciation and deeper understand of a player's true worth), articles, accolades etc.

Your eyes are subjective, your eyes don't tell you half the story (stats also don't tell the whole story but they tell much more than your eyes do) your eyes are biased stats are not (well for the most part).

Tell me something about your eyes, do they see the same thing as every one else or do you view things differently?

also

How old are you? You seem like you're one of those older individuals who refuse to accept the advancements in sports because you believe what came before was better and what we see now and in the future is watered down.

Avenged
07-11-2011, 04:12 PM
I voted Kobe because he's not going to win it anyways but I really feel Shaq deserves this spot. Can't forget the dominance in his early years and what he accomplished as a Laker. The whole Kobe only winning because of Shaq is bogus though. Kobe was a huge factor during those years as well.

Timmy or Kobe for the next one.

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 04:13 PM
:laugh:

if you got issues see a therapist, don't force them on other people :rolleyes:

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 04:13 PM
One more thing NYKalltheway

What exactly did your eyes tell you when you came to the conclusion that Reggie Miller and Nate Archibald should be ahead of Kobe Bryant?

Squad13
07-11-2011, 04:14 PM
To say he isnt' top 10 is fine. I don't agree, but that fine. To put him 24th is idiotic.

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 04:17 PM
One more thing NYKalltheway

What exactly did your eyes tell you when you came to the conclusion that Reggie Miller and Nate Archibald should be ahead of Kobe Bryant?

I meant SHOULD BE CONSIDERED in the equation as well. My bad.. I think it was a bit obvious since I didn't put neither guys ahead of Kobe on that list I posted earlier and I don't see why I should support the argument that they are ahead of Kobe ;)

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 04:21 PM
To say he isnt' top 10 is fine. I don't agree, but that fine. To put him 24th is idiotic.

Same here. I could see a case for others ahead of Kobe in the top 10 but to say that Reggie Miller, Nate Archibald, Jason Kidd, Adrian Dantley, James Worthy, Patick Ewing, John Stockton, Kevin Mchale etc should all be ahead of Kobe is extremely ignorant if you ask me.

The amount of double standards he has in his arguments are beyond funny. He says Kobe should not be credited for having good supporting casts but then proceed to say Worthy and Mchale should be ahead of Kobe.

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 04:22 PM
I meant SHOULD BE CONSIDERED in the equation as well. My bad.. I think it was a bit obvious since I didn't put neither guys ahead of Kobe on that list I posted earlier and I don't see why I should support the argument that they are ahead of Kobe ;)

I want you to tell me a bit about your eyes.

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 04:24 PM
I want you to tell me a bit about your eyes.

they're blue... :rolleyes:

I wanna see your list of top 25 players... :eyebrow:

Avenged
07-11-2011, 04:27 PM
Kobe did avg 21, 29, and 26 points during the 3 peat years with 4, 7, and 5 rebounds. Those look like #1 option numbers on any other team to me.

His PER was 19, 25, and 20. His best postseason performance during the 3-peat years came in 2000-01, where he avg. 29ppg, 7 rebounds, and lead the team in assists. All of this while posting up a PER of 25 and a TS% of .555. He also had a higher ORtg, OWS than Shaq, and lead the team in Win Shares and WS/48.

I'm not saying Kobe was better because he wasn't. Shaq was still more dominant, but the Lakers basically had two #1 guys on their team rather than a "Kobe couldn't win without Shaq" when you can say the same thing vice versa.

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 04:34 PM
they're blue... :rolleyes:

I wanna see your list of top 25 players... :eyebrow:

The complexity of such a list will take some time and a lot of consideration for me. I already have an understanding of who would be where but I shall take that challenge on another time. I promise you however that I will get in onto to you.

Seriously thought I want to know about your eyes. IMO the eye test is the worst tool one can possibly use (by itself) to evaluate a player. Everyone's eyes are different and they tell them different things. Not because your eyes tell you Kobe is not a top 20 player that mean you are right. I am willing to be that you haven't seen every great player actually play neither were you able to view each era of basketball first hand.

Your eyes are subjective and hold certain biases and when used independently can be extremely inaccurate.

You see the basketball world different from anyone else, as I see it different from anyone else as well, we all see it differently.

What makes your a better judge of a player's worth than anyone elses?

NYKalltheway
07-11-2011, 04:44 PM
I'm not saying I'm a better judge. But as I said, after watching almost all playoff series from 1978 till this day (some of them watched them 5-6 times, let's go Knicks 94, 97, 99 :D ), I believe that I'm entitled to an opinion where advanced stats mean nothing to me as I hardly use them. That doesn't mean I'm calling them useless, but basketball is a team sport, where teams win, not individuals. And being part of a group while making it much better is a greater accomplishment imo than scoring 81 points and barely making playoffs. That hardly translates in stats.

As for the list I made, it's same as yours. It was quite a rushed list with many interchangeable names, and I didn't even put Bob Cousy there who I'd say was better than Kobe or almost all players in the history of the game (making him a top 20 guy). Kobe's game is great, effective in this era, but to say with boldness that he's a top 10 for sure and laugh at someone who has some of the greatest NBA legends ever ahead of him... well that's laughable for me as well. As I said numerous times, back to Drexler, he was on a not so great team (his team picked Sam Bowie over MJ :rolleyes: ) which he made way better. Same as Barkley who was better than the Glide. Though sir Chuck never won a ring. Does that mean he's worse AS AN INDIVIDUAL than Kobe? Last I remember, it's Lakers, not Kobe that won the rings. Kobe is just part of the Lakers. It's not as if you're talking Mohammed Ali, Mike Tyson or Tiger Woods here, it's a team sport. And the person in a better team has an advantage over another. There are many examples of amazing players that didn't have the luck to be in a situation Kobe was, in their entire career. Jerry West is one of them. I consider Kobe the best player of the last 5 years, but if you'd ask me to rank Laker players, I'd hesitate to give him a top 4 spot.

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 04:51 PM
Well the counter argument to this is the fact that Shaq got to the line at a considerably higher rate that The Dream. This fact meant he had a greater impact on the opposing team defensive scheme game in game out due to the fact that in most cases the men who were assigned to him had to be very careful so as not to pick up costly fouls. This in itself time and time again gave his team the advantage.
I call total BS on this argument. If you're on the floor in the last two minutes and the other team fouls you and you do not make both free throws, than you are a liability and you are wasting a possession. Just because you go to the line a lot does not make you valuable. If anything, if you aren't making the majority of your free throws, you're just constantly wasting possessions. This hole in Shaq's game (that and his inability to score from outside 10 feet in general) is the reason I will always take Hakeem over Shaq. Hakeem's game had no holes and Shaq has several gaping ones


To this question I look at their performances on the biggest stage of them all the finals and their best finals performances.
Again, I don't think you can look solely at statistics, and you even made my point for me, that Shaq was playing against inferior defensive centers. Hakeem's performances were against Ewing and Shaq, himself, two of the 10 greatest centers in NBA history.


IMO the only thing that really hurts Shaq is his FT% but the fact that he got to the line at a MUCH higher rate than Hakeem only proved his worth. Hakeem had 6.1 attempts per game as compared to Shaq's 15.5, Shaq made 6 FTs per game. This is something that is a recurring trend throughout their entire career.
I don't care if a guy makes 10 free throws a game. If he's going to the line 20 times to do it, and he's missing them late in the game, then it's a waste of a possession.


Shaq was in the twilight of his career when he was traded from Mia and was a constant injury risk and we all know of the LA fiasco with him and Kobe.
The Miami trade I get, but, personally, I think the whole Shaq vs. Kobe drama should hurt both of their careers to an extent. Think about it... If they could have gotten along, they could have become the most dominant franchise in the history of the NBA. Instead of 4 or 5 titles for each, we could be taking about 9 or 10. If you can't get along with your teammates to the point where one of you gets dealt, then I think that says something about you as a person and as a teammate.


I have a question why exactly do you have Oscar, West and Moses ahead of Shaq?
Part of it is personal preference. Oscar was the Lebron James of the 60s and he did absolutely everything for his team, West was an unbelievable player on both ends of the floor and one the greatest scorers in NBA history and Moses Malone is the greatest offensive rebounder in NBA history (and there isn't a close second) and a 3-time MVP.

Apart from that, Shaq will always be a "what if" player to me. If the guy dedicated himself to the game the way other players did, we could be talking about him as top 2-3 instead of top 10. As a personality, I love the guy. He's not just a basketball player, he's a global icon and I can't wait for him to get into a broadcast booth. But this isn't a "best sports personalities of all time" list, it's a "best players of all time" list.


Oh and to your point of Shaq and Hakeem being close statistically, the margin is actually much larger than you are making it out to be.It evens out, in my opinion, because of Shaq's miserable free throw shooting and Hakeem's superior defense.

Chacarron
07-11-2011, 04:52 PM
What do you base your rankings on NYK? Do you just prefer older players because you were able to watch them live while others in this forum weren't? I don't understand your rationale.

bigA9331
07-11-2011, 04:55 PM
Shaq

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 04:57 PM
Are you serious? Im an homer. I actualy looked these guys up and i,ve spoke to older gents who saw them play that lived in there day and ive watched highlights, which led me an conclusion that dosent agree with you and im an homer? Get the hell out of hear with that. I was told that Havilcek was more dominat in some games and his stats reflect that, same with Cousy. I was told even though Russell was great he never single handed shut down Wilt and couldnt really handel him one on one no one could. They said he did the best job, but it was more the team that crowded Wilt. So thats what i based my opinion on.

Statistics do not make a player better than another. That's your problem. You think you can watch some highlights and run some numbers and make a decision without considering other factors. Wilt was considered a poor teammate by a lot of people who cared more about statistical dominance than the team's success. Would you rather have that guy on your team or Bill Russell, an unbelievable teammate, a defensive juggernaut and the only person to play AND coach a team to an NBA championship at the same time?

I'm taking Russell. Period.

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 04:59 PM
What do you base your rankings on NYK? Do you just prefer older players because you were able to watch them live while others in this forum weren't? I don't understand your rationale.
I'm not quite sure I understand your rationale for having a Sasha Vujacic sig. Are you related to the guy? Is your next door neighbor? Or are you doing it to be ironic? These are the only three things I would consider as legitimate reasons for making him your sig.

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 05:00 PM
I'm not saying I'm a better judge. But as I said, after watching almost all playoff series from 1978 till this day (some of them watched them 5-6 times, let's go Knicks 94, 97, 99 :D ), I believe that I'm entitled to an opinion where advanced stats mean nothing to me as I hardly use them. That doesn't mean I'm calling them useless, but basketball is a team sport, where teams win, not individuals. And being part of a group while making it much better is a greater accomplishment imo than scoring 81 points and barely making playoffs. That hardly translates in stats.

As for the list I made, it's same as yours. It was quite a rushed list with many interchangeable names, and I didn't even put Bob Cousy there who I'd say was better than Kobe or almost all players in the history of the game (making him a top 20 guy). Kobe's game is great, effective in this era, but to say with boldness that he's a top 10 for sure and laugh at someone who has some of the greatest NBA legends ever ahead of him... well that's laughable for me as well. As I said numerous times, back to Drexler, he was on a not so great team (his team picked Sam Bowie over MJ :rolleyes: ) which he made way better. Same as Barkley who was better than the Glide. Though sir Chuck never won a ring. Does that mean he's worse AS AN INDIVIDUAL than Kobe? Last I remember, it's Lakers, not Kobe that won the rings. Kobe is just part of the Lakers. It's not as if you're talking Mohammed Ali, Mike Tyson or Tiger Woods here, it's a team sport. And the person in a better team has an advantage over another. There are many examples of amazing players that didn't have the luck to be in a situation Kobe was, in their entire career. Jerry West is one of them. I consider Kobe the best player of the last 5 years, but if you'd ask me to rank Laker players, I'd hesitate to give him a top 4 spot.

IMO a lot of what you said here is personal opinion.

What I see when debating Kobe is to compare his years with help to his years where he was undisputedly "The Man" (post Shaq-Pre Pau). As "The Man" IMO he was better individually than KG, Chuck, Clyde, Baylor, Robinson, Thomas, Mikan, Erving, Malones etc.

Individually he was not better however than Jerry West IMO. The only reason I have Kobe above west is because of his accolades but that's something in which I take into consideration when rating players. I could fully understand why someone would take West over Kobe.

I can't understand why put Mchale ahead of Kobe and then talk about championships being a team accomplishment.

One more point to what you said earlier about Kobe vs Drexler. You said the ONLY reason why Kobe was a better player is because he shot more. IMO that's like saying the only reason Wilt is better than Russell (at least according to PSD) is because he also shot more. Shooting more shots isn't as simple as you make it out to be. As you very well know there is a LOT more that go into being a true #1 option and leading shot taker than just throwing more shots up. You have to be able to convert at a high rate which will help your team and disrupt the other teams in countless ways.

Chacarron
07-11-2011, 05:01 PM
I'm not quite sure I understand your rationale for having a Sasha Vujacic sig. Are you related to the guy? Is your next door neighbor? Or are you doing it to be ironic? These are the only three things I would consider as legitimate reasons for making him your sig.

What's wrong with liking The Machine? :shrug:

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 05:06 PM
What's wrong with liking The Machine? :shrug:
I dunno... It would be like making your sig of Quentin Richardson. He's not good enough to be anyone's favorite player and not bad enough to be a sig ironically. If you made a Kobe sig or an Adam Morrison sig (two players on complete opposite sides of the spectrum), I'd understand your motivations for either, but why Vujacic? He's a decent (but incredibly annoying) defender and a solid shooter, but nothing more. On a good team, he'd be your 8th or 9th guy at best...

Chacarron
07-11-2011, 05:08 PM
I dunno... It would be like making your sig of Quentin Richardson. He's not good enough to be anyone's favorite player and not bad enough to be a sig ironically. If you made a Kobe sig or an Adam Morrison sig (two players on complete opposite sides of the spectrum), I'd understand your motivations for either, but why Vujacic? He's a decent (but incredibly annoying) defender and a solid shooter, but nothing more. On a good team, he'd be your 8th or 9th guy at best...

He was always my favorite player while he was on the Lakers. Personal choice I guess.

LakersMaster24
07-11-2011, 05:11 PM
I dunno... It would be like making your sig of Quentin Richardson. He's not good enough to be anyone's favorite player and not bad enough to be a sig ironically. If you made a Kobe sig or an Adam Morrison sig (two players on complete opposite sides of the spectrum), I'd understand your motivations for either, but why Vujacic? He's a decent (but incredibly annoying) defender and a solid shooter, but nothing more. On a good team, he'd be your 8th or 9th guy at best...

Says the guy with "University of Texas in Austin" sig.

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 05:15 PM
Says the guy with "University of Texas in Austin" sig.

Your point? How does UT being arguably the best university in the state and one of the best in the country, having maybe the best overall sports programs in the country and having one of the best journalism programs (what I got a degree in) place them in the same discussion as Vujacic?

What college did you go to, exactly?

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 05:17 PM
I call total BS on this argument. If you're on the floor in the last two minutes and the other team fouls you and you do not make both free throws, than you are a liability and you are wasting a possession. Just because you go to the line a lot does not make you valuable. If anything, if you aren't making the majority of your free throws, you're just constantly wasting possessions. This hole in Shaq's game (that and his inability to score from outside 10 feet in general) is the reason I will always take Hakeem over Shaq. Hakeem's game had no holes and Shaq has several gaping ones

So wait you mean to tell me the fact that opposing teams had no choice but to defend Shaq in a different way from any other C because of the fact that he was so dominate and capable at getting to the line at a high rate is BS? Wow! Wasting possessions? Don't you look at the grand scheme of the basketball game/series/season/career or are you just looking at possessions.

Tell me this Shaq shot a considerably higher % from the field than Hakeem could it also be said that Hakeem "wasted" possessions as well?

And outside of free throw shooting what were these gaping holes in Shaq's game?


Again, I don't think you can look solely at statistics, and you even made my point for me, that Shaq was playing against inferior defensive centers. Hakeem's performances were against Ewing and Shaq, himself, two of the 10 greatest centers in NBA history.

Shaq's 2nd greatest performance (which was better than any of Hakeem's if you ask me) came against Dikembe Mutombo. One of the 5 greatest defensive Cs in NBA history.

If I can't look at production then what can I look at? I mean what else is there? Shaq's impact was undeniable he was constantly tripled teamed and no one could do anything to put a stop to his dominance.


I don't care if a guy makes 10 free throws a game. If he's going to the line 20 times to do it, and he's missing them late in the game, then it's a waste of a possession.

So what if a guy takes 20 FG attempts per game but makes 10, and another takes the same 20 but makes 12 are the two misses by the first player "waste" of possessions as well?


The Miami trade I get, but, personally, I think the whole Shaq vs. Kobe drama should hurt both of their careers to an extent. Think about it... If they could have gotten along, they could have become the most dominant franchise in the history of the NBA. Instead of 4 or 5 titles for each, we could be taking about 9 or 10. If you can't get along with your teammates to the point where one of you gets dealt, then I think that says something about you as a person and as a teammate.

Who's fault is that? Kobe basically said him or me because he wanted to be "The Man". You are going to hold that against Shaq? This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. NOTHING.


Part of it is personal preference. Oscar was the Lebron James of the 60s and he did absolutely everything for his team, West was an unbelievable player on both ends of the floor and one the greatest scorers in NBA history and Moses Malone is the greatest offensive rebounder in NBA history (and there isn't a close second) and a 3-time MVP.

IMO those still aren't enough to put them ahead of Shaq. Despite all their #s they still aren't better than Shaq's or Duncan's and as far as MVP I don't value it as highly as Finals MVP when debating the greatest of the greats who qualify for it. A lot of different aspects featured in Moses' MVPs. Moses didn't have to deal with Michael Jordan or with the fact that he had another top 10 player at the time on his team which hurt his chances.


Apart from that, Shaq will always be a "what if" player to me. If the guy dedicated himself to the game the way other players did, we could be talking about him as top 2-3 instead of top 10. As a personality, I love the guy. He's not just a basketball player, he's a global icon and I can't wait for him to get into a broadcast booth. But this isn't a "best sports personalities of all time" list, it's a "best players of all time" list.

to you. Same can be said about Wilt. What if Wilt had Shaq's killer instinct? Where would he rank? What if Wilt wanted to take a royal dump on you every time down the floor instead of taking 17 foot jumpers. With every player there will always have what ifs in the argument but we are not dealing with that we are dealing with facts.


It evens out, in my opinion, because of Shaq's miserable free throw shooting and Hakeem's superior defense.

No it doesn't Shaq is better statistically despite his bad free throw shooting and Hakeem's D. Try again.

LakersMaster24
07-11-2011, 05:19 PM
Your point? How does UT being arguably the best university in the state and one of the best in the country, having maybe the best overall sports programs in the country and having one of the best journalism programs (what I got a degree in) place them in the same discussion as Vujacic?

What college did you go to, exactly?

(I am a sophomore in HS :p)Wait wait wait, did you say journalism program? I am really interested in that dude! I was thinking Syracuse, because of the "New House" department, you know? Which one would you recommend Syracuse or UT? (I am being serious)

Bruno
07-11-2011, 05:20 PM
The people who vote him inside the top 10 only vote him inside because of awards and rings, they don't bother to take a look at any efficiency/advanced stats.

Sure they do. Aside from Shaq (who will be voted 7th) who's peak, advanced stats top Kobes? You make it sound like Bryants advanced stats can't hold their own against Duncan, or Hakeem, or whoever else left that you'd want to put infront of him. You mention that you prefer peak over longevity; which is cool. Lets observe some of their peaks then:

Bryant: PER-28.0 ('06), WS- 15.3 ('06), WS/48- 0.224 ('06), TS%- .580 ('07)
Drexler: PER-23.6 ('92), WS- 12.9 ('92), WS/48-0.223 ('92), TS%-.560 ('92).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/drexlcl01.html

As a fan of "peak advanced stats" how do you support your argument? Claiming that Drexlers peak efficiency and production matches Bryants? Not according to the numbers above. Drexlers peak stats don't match Bryants, and in the case of PER, it's not even close. (4.4 point difference).Bryant edges Drexler in every key, peak advanced statistic. Not only is Bryants peak higher than Drexler in never every respect, but he has sustained a greater longevity, and has the better career numbers to show for it. For their careers, on the whole:

Bryant- PER- 23.5, WS- 156.3, WS/48- 0.187, TS%- .556
Drexler- PER- 21.1, WS- 135.6, WS/48- 0.173, TS%- .547

So, as presented- the statistical debate between Kobe and Drexler is pretty one sided. Bryant tops him in all key peak advanced stats, and all key career advanced stats. Anyone who has a decent grasp on advanced statistics will recognize that. Then you bring in accolades, awards, and championships into the debate, and it's not even a discussion. Drexler over Bryant is laughable- Bryant has him in peak stats, career stats, accolades, awards, and titles.

What of the peak production of the other darlings on the list, Duncan and Dream:

Hakeem: PER- 26.0 ('95), WS- 15.8 ('93), WS/48- 0.234 ('93), TS% .577 ('93).
Duncan: PER- 27.0 ('02), WS-17.8 ('02), WS/48- 0.257 ('02), TS%- .579 ('07).

Bryant: PER-28.0 ('06), WS- 15.3 ('06), WS/48- 0.224 ('06), TS%- .580 ('07)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html

Bryant has Dream and Duncan in peak PER and TS%. They've got him in peak WS and WS/48. Things are very debatable between these three, from the perspective of peak advanced stats.

Again, I'm just presenting the fact that Bryant is close to the rest of these players in terms of peak production. I do think that Duncan and Dream are in the debate, and won't flame anyone who thinks that they are. They are both have multiple champions, with dominant statistics to back up their claims, unlike Drexler. Timmy, Dream, and Kobe round out the top 10; the order is up for debate.


For as great as you think Kobe is, he's never led the league in WS, WS/48 or PER. In fact, he's never led the league in any efficiency stats. Frankly, I don't think there's that much of a difference between him and Clyde Drexler. Kobe's better but their efficiency numbers are remarkably similar.

You conveniently leave out the fact that Bryant led the 2001 LA Lakers in playoff win-shares. The team that went 15-1 on the way to the title, remember? He has in fact led the league in an efficiency stats, and when it mattered most as well- playoffs.

Bruno
07-11-2011, 05:41 PM
I'm not saying I'm a better judge. But as I said, after watching almost all playoff series from 1978 till this day (some of them watched them 5-6 times, let's go Knicks 94, 97, 99 :D ), I believe that I'm entitled to an opinion where advanced stats mean nothing to me as I hardly use them. That doesn't mean I'm calling them useless, but basketball is a team sport, where teams win, not individuals. And being part of a group while making it much better is a greater accomplishment imo than scoring 81 points and barely making playoffs. That hardly translates in stats.

As for the list I made, it's same as yours. It was quite a rushed list with many interchangeable names, and I didn't even put Bob Cousy there who I'd say was better than Kobe or almost all players in the history of the game (making him a top 20 guy). Kobe's game is great, effective in this era, but to say with boldness that he's a top 10 for sure and laugh at someone who has some of the greatest NBA legends ever ahead of him... well that's laughable for me as well. As I said numerous times, back to Drexler, he was on a not so great team (his team picked Sam Bowie over MJ :rolleyes: ) which he made way better. Same as Barkley who was better than the Glide. Though sir Chuck never won a ring. Does that mean he's worse AS AN INDIVIDUAL than Kobe? Last I remember, it's Lakers, not Kobe that won the rings. Kobe is just part of the Lakers. It's not as if you're talking Mohammed Ali, Mike Tyson or Tiger Woods here, it's a team sport. And the person in a better team has an advantage over another. There are many examples of amazing players that didn't have the luck to be in a situation Kobe was, in their entire career. Jerry West is one of them. I consider Kobe the best player of the last 5 years, but if you'd ask me to rank Laker players, I'd hesitate to give him a top 4 spot.

Zero statistics back up your claims on Bryant. Until you present something other than your opinion, your posts on him will continue to get flamed. It's great that you watched it all happen live, I'm jealous.

Feel free to present the statistical argument for Bryant being kept out of your top 20. You don't have to do it in English, present it in your first language. Numbers are a universal language NYKalltheway.

A debate of numbers transcend the potential for communication breakdown.

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 05:41 PM
So wait you mean to tell me the fact that opposing teams had no choice but to defend Shaq in a different way from any other C because of the fact that he was so dominate and capable at getting to the line at a high rate is BS? Wow! Wasting possessions? Don't you look at the grand scheme of the basketball game/series/season/career or are you just looking at possessions.
I'm not talking about early in games, I'm talking later on. When games are on the line, you shouldn't be on the floor if you can't hit a free throw. But, frankly, if you can't hit a free throw and a team has enough players to constantly foul you all game, than you're useless offensively.


And outside of free throw shooting what were these gaping holes in Shaq's game?How about the fact that he was completely useless outside of five feet? I think that if referees were serious about making consistent calls, that Shaq would have gotten A LOT more offensive fouls over his career and I think it would have seriously limited his offensive game. He didn't so much have post moves as he did just bulldoze through everybody....


Shaq's 2nd greatest performance (which was better than any of Hakeem's if you ask me) came against Dikembe Mutombo. One of the 5 greatest defensive Cs in NBA history. And Hakeem beat Shaq in the finals. See how by comparing how centers perform in the finals I've just proved your argument wrong?


If I can't look at production then what can I look at? I mean what else is there? Shaq's impact was undeniable he was constantly tripled teamed and no one could do anything to put a stop to his dominance. Except for in the last two minutes of a game, of course. I'm sorry, but I don't think you should be a top 10 player of all time if someone can say "he was great for 46 out of those 48 minutes, but kinda useless in the last two."


So what if a guy takes 20 FG attempts per game but makes 10, and another takes the same 20 but makes 12 are the two misses by the first player "waste" of possessions as well?
If you get a good shot, nothing is a waste of a possession. You can't be expected to make every single shot you take. But missing free throws consistently is a waste because a good player should be able to make AT LEAST 60-65 percent of his free throws. That's why they're called "free" and not "50-50" throws.


Who's fault is that? Kobe basically said him or me because he wanted to be "The Man". You are going to hold that against Shaq? This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. NOTHING.
It kinda does. When you're considering everything about a player, you have to consider what he meant to the franchise and what they did to keep him. In the end, they chose Kobe and they probably made the right decision. That, alone, hurts Shaq's career to some extent.


IMO those still aren't enough to put them ahead of Shaq. Despite all their #s they still aren't better than Shaq's or Duncan's and as far as MVP I don't value it as highly as Finals MVP when debating the greatest of the greats who qualify for it. A lot of different aspects featured in Moses' MVPs. Moses didn't have to deal with Michael Jordan or with the fact that he had another top 10 player at the time on his team which hurt his chances.
But Shaq's career came at the perfect time, as well. By the time he joined the Lakers, MJ's reign was over and the other centers had become shells for their former selves. As far as big men go, only Duncan was in Shaq's class in the early 2000s. Yao didn't become great until 05-06 and Dwight was a year or two behind him.


Same can be said about Wilt. What if Wilt had Shaq's killer instinct? Where would he rank? What if Wilt wanted to take a royal dump on you every time down the floor instead of taking 17 foot jumpers. With every player there will always have what ifs in the argument but we are not dealing with that we are dealing with facts.
If you didn't notice, I've been bashing Wilt quite a bit in this thread. I don't think he should have been nearly as high as he was picked. In fact, I don't know that he's in my top 5 (it'd be close).


No it doesn't Shaq is better statistically despite his bad free throw shooting and Hakeem's D. Try again.
This isn't even really an argument. And it's clear that you're beginning to take this personally. Calm down, man.... At the end of the day, I'm not going to convince you and you won't convince me. It's fine. It's personal preference, and there is no right or wrong answer. I will note that Bill Simmons agrees with me, and that dude clearly has more knowledge about basketball than everyone in this thread combined.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-11-2011, 05:45 PM
Same here. I could see a case for others ahead of Kobe in the top 10 but to say that Reggie Miller, Nate Archibald, Jason Kidd, Adrian Dantley, James Worthy, Patick Ewing, John Stockton, Kevin Mchale etc should all be ahead of Kobe is extremely ignorant if you ask me.

The amount of double standards he has in his arguments are beyond funny. He says Kobe should not be credited for having good supporting casts but then proceed to say Worthy and Mchale should be ahead of Kobe.

I think you've unfairly lumped Stockton in this group. It's my opinion that he might be one of the most underrated players of all-time. In any case, here's the argument I would try to make for Stockton over Kobe, which may sound ridiculous but hear me out first:

I'm not sure if you saw those Basketball Prospectus articles I linked to earlier but I'll re-post them again.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=415

^In that article, Pelton outlines a method he uses to evaluate a player. The following is his method (or actually Bill James'):


James uses six factors to determine his final rating:

1. Career Win Shares total
2. Win Shares in three best seasons
3. Win Shares in five best consecutive seasons
4. Career Win Shares per season
5. Timeline adjustment
6. The subjective element

Here are the two other articles:
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1196
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=728

One of the articles has Kobe's career WARP numbers and the other article has Stockton's career WARP numbers in context with his fellow 90s players (he came out 2nd behind MJ). One of the issues might be that I believe the Stockton article uses WARP2 while the other one might use WARP but I'm not sure. In any case, I don't think it would make a difference (maybe it would though, I don't know)

Anyways, I'll use Pelton's WARP and Win Shares to compare the two.

Stockton accumulated 301.8 WARP in his career. In his best 3 seasons, he accumulated 66.0 WARP and in his best 5 consecutive seasons, he had 107.8 WARP.

Kobe on the other hand has accumulated 58 WARP in his best 3 seasons. And in his best 5 consecutive seasons, he had 82.3 WARP. Now unfortunately, this article was written a couple years ago, so it doesn't include his 09-10 or 10-11 WARP numbers. However, I think we can both agree that neither of those totals would affect his best 3 seasons or his best 5 consecutive seasons that much.

Edit: Actually, I have his 09-10 totals from the Basketball Prospectus book. He finished with 10.5 WARP in 09-10. And from the thread in the NBA Stats forum and the MVP article, he finished with around 12.4 WARP in 10-11.

So using those numbers, for his career, Kobe has 194 WARP.

As you can see, he falls short in WARP compared to Stockton in terms of peak and longevity.

Using this same method for Win Shares which are the more popular stat, we can calculate those totals.

Stockton has a career Win Shares total of 207.7. In his best 3 seasons, he had 44.1 win shares and in his best 5 consecutive seasons, he had 71.5 win shares. His WS per season was 10.93.

For Kobe, he has a career Win Shares total of 156.3. In his best 3 seasons, he had 44.0 win shares and in his best 5 consecutive seasons, he had 64.2 win shares. His career WS per season is 10.42.

Again, Stockton has him beat.

I guess the real question is how does the playoffs affect all of this. Stockton has a higher WS/48 in the playoffs, although his PER is lower (as it was in the regular season). But Stockton does seem to lose a greater % of his regular season performance come playoff time. Kobe also has more WS, although in more minutes and games.

The big differences between the 2 comes in their USG%. Kobe is a high usage player whereas Stockton was a below average player in terms of USG. However, he distributed the ball so well. And he was great at stealing the ball away from opponents. He was also the more efficient shooter. Kobe had all world defense but Stockton's D was pretty good for a PG too. Obviously, they had different roles. Kobe was supposed to be the scorer. Stockton was supposed to be the distributor. I do think Stockton was a better distributor than Kobe was a scorer.

Anyways, I'm not necessarily saying Stockton was better but there's an argument that can be made to say that he was. The big knock on him is that he lost a large % of his regular season performance in the playoffs, which maybe would lead you to Kobe being better.

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 05:46 PM
(I am a sophomore in HS :p)Wait wait wait, did you say journalism program? I am really interested in that dude! I was thinking Syracuse, because of the "New House" department, you know? Which one would you recommend Syracuse or UT? (I am being serious)

Well, I've heard that Syracuse has an excellent communications department, but I'm not sure about their journalism program. A guy who works at the paper I write for went to Mizzou and I've heard there's is supposedly the best in the country (although I'm not sure what they base that on).

I can tell you that UT's paper "The Daily Texan" was the only remaining daily college newspaper in the country when I graduated a couple of years ago and the largest, as it staffed like 300 students. If you try out, they'll give you a chance and it's the best experience I got when I was in college. Also, Austin is an unbelievable city. Great night life, great food and an awesome college atmosphere.

RealistFan
07-11-2011, 05:49 PM
Bruno87, there's a few things you need to consider between Duncan, Hakeem and Kobe.

I don't really care about advanced stats and have never bothered using them as an argument but I don't mind discussing them with others.

Regarding Kobe's PER and WS in 2006, you have to rememeber that's the year where the refs were extremely whistle-heavy and several players statistically peaked that year. There's a reason Kobe never came close to matching his PER in 2006, same with guys like Allen Iverson and Paul Pierce. 2005-06 was the first season where the top 5 players in FTA all took 800+ FTs.

Another factor is PER and WS don't take defense into account besides blocks and steals. They are mainly offensive stats and do a good job of capturing offensive impact. Duncan and Hakeem are all-time great defenders capable of anchoring great defensive teams while Kobe, as a wing, simply can't do so.

Next, we move on to playoff performance which should be weighted heavily in such a discussion since playoffs are where legends are made. You can use statistics such as playoff PER and Win Shares and you'll see Kobe doesn't really hold a candle to Hakeem or Duncan who both step their game up come playoff time despite facing better defenses on average.

Hakeem in in the top 5 all time for playoff PER and Duncan follows him right after while Kobe is 20th on the list and likely to move down once his career is over. And remember, PER is an offensive stat, once you account for defense, it isn't really close.

mightybosstone
07-11-2011, 05:56 PM
Anyways, I'm not necessarily saying Stockton was better but there's an argument that can be made to say that he was.

I won't quote all of this because it's incredibly long and I don't want to individually break down each argument. I do want to say that, while I do understand win shares, I don't think you can use any single statistic to compare two players. I don't care if it's PER or WARP or rings or usage or TS %...

I think you have to have to just make an educated guess at the end of the day based on a combination of everything.

As I've said before, I'm not a Kobe fan (in fact I hate the Lakers' more than every franchise OTHER than the Jazz), but I have respect for the guy and the way he plays the game. And I don't understand how you could have watched both he and Stockton play in their careers and still think Stockton was a better player.

Bryant isn't the greatest scorer in NBA history, or shooter, or defender or really anything that can be measured statistically, whereas Stockton may be the greatest point guard ever (debatable). But Bryant consistently leads the league in the "I don't care how close your hand is to my face, how many shots I've made tonight or how much time is left on the clock, I'm going to make this ****ing shot" category. I've been watching the NBA since 1994 and Kobe is clearly the best I've seen at that since Michael Jordan.

Does that alone qualify him for the "best ever" discussion? No. But I certainly thinks it makes him better than John Stockton. And if I've got three seconds left on the clock or I just absolutely have to get two points right now, I'd take Kobe over Stockton 10/10 times.

Bruno
07-11-2011, 05:57 PM
7. Shaq
8. Hakeem
9. Duncan
10. Oscar
11. Dr J
12. Moses Malone
13. Jerry West
14. Havlicek
15. Karl Malone
16. Garnett
17. Barkley
18. David Robinson
19. Ewing
20. Stockton
21. McHale
22. Isaiah
23. Drexler
24. Kobe

there, said it. (not my complete list, but sort of right)
And some guys like Mikan, English, Baylor, Wilkins, Pippen, Hayes, Gervin, Kidd, Dantley, McAdoo, Archibald, Worthy and Reggie Miller should be named before Kobe... Kobe is severely overrated in here. He was never THE most dominant player during his era. A top 10-15 guy MUST be the most dominant player of his era, at least in his position. Kobe was only considered unanimously* the best SG in the league for like 2-3 seasons in his entire career.

*where unanimously = people could not even dare mention another name, while they even mentioned guys like Vince Carter and nobody laughed...

You don't take account for context, at all.

"Kobe was only considered Unanimously the best SG in the league for 2-3 seasons". Is that why he finished top five in MVP voting eight out of nine times from 2002-2011. Kobe Bryant was top five in MVP voting eight out of nine years in a row...He has finished top 3 in MVP voting five times since 2003. Yet he was never the best at his position for any more than 2-3 years you say?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html

Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, Manu Ginobli, Dwyane Wade, and Brandon Roy have all popped in an out of the never-ending debate of "who's better than Kobe at the SG this year" for over a decade. Who's been spearheading the debate the entire time? Kobe Bryant. The names on the list come and go, Bryant has remained the anchor.


Bryant played in an era of great SG's. Wade, T-Mac, Carter, Ginobli, Roy, Ray Allen, Allen Iverson. This is where you tell me that Jordan played against a tougher crop of SGs, right? Wade 100% no debate is greater than any SG from the Jordan era, other than Jordan. Are you really going to penalize Bryant for having to face superior talent at his position?

naps
07-11-2011, 05:58 PM
Bruno87, there's a few things you need to consider between Duncan, Hakeem and Kobe.

I don't really care about advanced stats and have never bothered using them as an argument but I don't mind discussing them with others.

Regarding Kobe's PER and WS in 2006, you have to rememeber that's the year where the refs were extremely whistle-heavy and several players statistically peaked that year. There's a reason Kobe never came close to matching his PER in 2006, same with guys like Allen Iverson and Paul Pierce. 2005-06 was the first season where the top 5 players in FTA all took 800+ FTs.

Another factor is PER and WS don't take defense into account besides blocks and steals. They are mainly offensive stats and do a good job of capturing offensive impact. Duncan and Hakeem are all-time great defenders capable of anchoring great defensive teams while Kobe, as a wing, simply can't do so.

Next, we move on to playoff performance which should be weighted heavily in such a discussion since playoffs are where legends are made. You can use statistics such as playoff PER and Win Shares and you'll see Kobe doesn't really hold a candle to Hakeem or Duncan who both step their game up come playoff time despite facing better defenses on average.

Hakeem in in the top 5 all time for playoff PER and Duncan follows him right after while Kobe is 20th on the list and likely to move down once his career is over. And remember, PER is an offensive stat, once you account for defense, it isn't really close.


Great post. Kobe is a great player but he's been overrated since the "#2 player all of time" thread.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-11-2011, 06:02 PM
Sure they do. Aside from Shaq (who will be voted 7th) who's peak, advanced stats top Kobes? You make it sound like Bryants advanced stats can't hold their own against Duncan, or Hakeem, or whoever else left that you'd want to put infront of him. You mention that you prefer peak over longevity; which is cool. Lets observe some of their peaks then:

Bryant: PER-28.0 ('06), WS- 15.3 ('06), WS/48- 0.224 ('06), TS%- .580 ('07)
Drexler: PER-23.6 ('92), WS- 12.9 ('92), WS/48-0.223 ('92), TS%-.560 ('92).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/drexlcl01.html

As a fan of "peak advanced stats" how do you support your argument? Claiming that Drexlers peak efficiency and production matches Bryants? Not according to the numbers above. Drexlers peak stats don't match Bryants, and in the case of PER, it's not even close. (4.4 point difference).Bryant edges Drexler in every key, peak advanced statistic. Not only is Bryants peak higher than Drexler in never every respect, but he has sustained a greater longevity, and has the better career numbers to show for it. For their careers, on the whole:

Bryant- PER- 23.5, WS- 156.3, WS/48- 0.187, TS%- .556
Drexler- PER- 21.1, WS- 135.6, WS/48- 0.173, TS%- .547

So, as presented- the statistical debate between Kobe and Drexler is pretty one sided. Bryant tops him in all key peak advanced stats, and all key career advanced stats. Anyone who has a decent grasp on advanced statistics will recognize that. Then you bring in accolades, awards, and championships into the debate, and it's not even a discussion. Drexler over Bryant is laughable- Bryant has him in peak stats, career stats, accolades, awards, and titles.

I don't think I actually said Drexler was better than Kobe. But in terms of their career numbers, it's similar. I think what I said is that Kobe's a better version of Drexler.

And when I mean peak, I usually look at 2 different measures: the best 3 seasons and the 5 best consecutive seasons. Anyone can have a great YEAR but looking at 3 great years gives you more of an idea of their abilities during a longer stretch. Perhaps I should've made that more clear in my post.

Also, I do prefer WARP vs. PER. And if you look at Drexler's WARP numbers vs. Kobe's, it's not that much different. Drexler is inferior in best 3 seasons but better with the 5 consecutive seasons. I'm sure Kobe's best season is better than Clyde's though. Again, I said Kobe is better. I just don't think its by an outrageous margin.

The playoffs definitely give the edge to Kobe though.



What of the peak production of the other darlings on the list, Duncan and Dream:

Hakeem: PER- 26.0 ('95), WS- 15.8 ('93), WS/48- 0.234 ('93), TS% .577 ('93).
Duncan: PER- 27.0 ('02), WS-17.8 ('02), WS/48- 0.257 ('02), TS%- .579 ('07).

Bryant: PER-28.0 ('06), WS- 15.3 ('06), WS/48- 0.224 ('06), TS%- .580 ('07)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/olajuha01.html

Bryant has Dream and Duncan in peak PER and TS%. They've got him in peak WS and WS/48. Things are very debatable between these three, from the perspective of peak advanced stats.

Again, I'm just presenting the fact that Bryant is close to the rest of these players in terms of peak production. I do think that Duncan and Dream are in the debate, and won't flame anyone who thinks that they are. They are both have multiple champions, with dominant statistics to back up their claims, unlike Drexler. Timmy, Dream, and Kobe round out the top 10; the order is up for debate.



You conveniently leave out the fact that Bryant led the 2001 LA Lakers in playoff win-shares. The team that went 15-1 on the way to the title, remember? He has in fact led the league in an efficiency stats, and when it mattered most as well- playoffs.

Again, I guess I wasn't really clear on my definition of peak. But I think if you do look at that, Kobe falls short of Dream and Duncan.

FYI, there's many more advanced stats out there then the ones you listed. I personally think WARP is a very nice stat, even if it is less well known.

Unfortunately, most of the great new advanced stats aren't tracked before this past decade, so you can't use stats like APM or any other "error corrected" +/- stats.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-11-2011, 06:13 PM
I won't quote all of this because it's incredibly long and I don't want to individually break down each argument. I do want to say that, while I do understand win shares, I don't think you can use any single statistic to compare two players. I don't care if it's PER or WARP or rings or usage or TS %...

I think you have to have to just make an educated guess at the end of the day based on a combination of everything.

As I've said before, I'm not a Kobe fan (in fact I hate the Lakers' more than every franchise OTHER than the Jazz), but I have respect for the guy and the way he plays the game. And I don't understand how you could have watched both he and Stockton play in their careers and still think Stockton was a better player.

Bryant isn't the greatest scorer in NBA history, or shooter, or defender or really anything that can be measured statistically, whereas Stockton may be the greatest point guard ever (debatable). But Bryant consistently leads the league in the "I don't care how close your hand is to my face, how many shots I've made tonight or how much time is left on the clock, I'm going to make this ****ing shot" category. I've been watching the NBA since 1994 and Kobe is clearly the best I've seen at that since Michael Jordan.

Does that alone qualify him for the "best ever" discussion? No. But I certainly thinks it makes him better than John Stockton. And if I've got three seconds left on the clock or I just absolutely have to get two points right now, I'd take Kobe over Stockton 10/10 times.

I was attempting to make an argument for Stockton over Kobe but I won't necessarily agree with it. But I don't think its an outrageous comparison either.

The biggest advantage Kobe has is that he doesn't lose a high % of his performance from the regular season. That's the reason those Jazz teams ultimately failed. Both Malone and Stockton lost a decent % of their reg season performance when it came playoff time.

However, the numbers are still pretty close in the regular season. And I looked at 2 different stats that attempt to take into account the all around game. PER mostly misses defense with the exception of blocks and steals. Admittedly, win shares and WARPs defensive ratings are affected by the team but it's still better than ignoring it.

LAKERMANIA
07-11-2011, 06:40 PM
Okay a few distinctions

There is a difference between Favorite Player, and Greatest Player...You cannot go to a Greatest players of all time list and say "I like Player X because he was my favorite player, I loved watching him play growing up".. Also, you cant go to a Your favorite players ever thread and say "Sasha Vujacic? How can he be your favorite? He's not even that good"

You cannot believe your opinion is of greater value just because you saw a player play live when no one else today has..

You cannot say that a certain player is better solely on the fact that you saw him live and used the games you remember watching and comparing them to a player today and saying "I remember that player was much more dynamic than today's superstar", well here's why, because you were more emotionally attached to that player growing up! :rolleyes:

Statistics and Individual/Team achievements are the only things we can use when arguing about greatest players of all time, since you can compare statistics and an individual's accomplishments to each other. You cannot compare how you felt when you were 8 watching Jerry West to how you watch Kobe now, and tell other people that stats dont matter..

Bruno
07-11-2011, 06:42 PM
Bruno87, there's a few things you need to consider between Duncan, Hakeem and Kobe.

I don't really care about advanced stats and have never bothered using them as an argument but I don't mind discussing them with others.

Regarding Kobe's PER and WS in 2006, you have to rememeber that's the year where the refs were extremely whistle-heavy and several players statistically peaked that year. There's a reason Kobe never came close to matching his PER in 2006, same with guys like Allen Iverson and Paul Pierce. 2005-06 was the first season where the top 5 players in FTA all took 800+ FTs.

Another factor is PER and WS don't take defense into account besides blocks and steals. They are mainly offensive stats and do a good job of capturing offensive impact. Duncan and Hakeem are all-time great defenders capable of anchoring great defensive teams while Kobe, as a wing, simply can't do so.

Next, we move on to playoff performance which should be weighted heavily in such a discussion since playoffs are where legends are made. You can use statistics such as playoff PER and Win Shares and you'll see Kobe doesn't really hold a candle to Hakeem or Duncan who both step their game up come playoff time despite facing better defenses on average.

Hakeem in in the top 5 all time for playoff PER and Duncan follows him right after while Kobe is 20th on the list and likely to move down once his career is over. And remember, PER is an offensive stat, once you account for defense, it isn't really close.

First off let me say that I like your style Realist. You're a good informed poster. But allow me to retort:

Regarding your FT analysis from Bryants 2006 campaign. His FTA per game is not the reason why his PER of 28.0 was never matched, before or after. Look at the below figures. Bryants FTA per game only changed by one tenth of a point from 2005 to 2006. Yet, his PER is drastically different; from 23.3 all the way up to 28.0.

Average FT attempts per game:
2005: 10.1
2006: 10.2
2007: 10.0

PlayerEfficiencyRating:
2005: 23.3
2006: 28.0
2007: 26.1
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html

His PER was the highest in 2006 because of his over-all production, not because of how often he was getting to the line. I don't buy into your argument that his PER was only so high because the refs suddenly started sending players to the line more. He got to the line just as much per game in 2005, yet his PER was nearly 5.0 full points lower than it was the next year in 2006. His PER was @28 large in part because he was averagnig 35-5-5, on a TS% of .56.

I agree with you that Duncan and Hakeem were fantastic defensive anchors. Given their size and position, they were able to do something that Bryant could not. But would you agree that Bryant was in fact fantastic on the wing, in his prime as a defender? Tim Duncan has eight defensive first teams, Hakeem has five defensive first teams, Bryant has nine. And trust me, I take these selections with a grain of salt; I know Duncan and Hakeem had greater impact as defensive players- but lets not sell prime Bryant short as en elite wing defender. I concede this point to you.

*I acknowledge that Duncan and Dream take the cake as defensive anchors.

You mentioned the playoff defense- and I applaud you for presenting it. You made clear that Bryant didn't have the same impact as Dream or Duncan on the defensive end in the playoffs- but let me present the argument for Bryant as the offensively superior player to both in the playoffs:

Kobe Bryant is 6th all time in offensive-win shares in the playoffs (@19.6):
--Duncan is 11th w/ 15.5
--Dream is 17th w/ 11.9.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ows_career_p.html

Kobe Bryant is the 3rd highest scorer in the history of the NBA playoffs. He trailed only MJ and KAJ with 5,280 total playoff points:
--Duncan is 8th w/ 3,990 total playoff points
Dream is 11th w/ 3,755 total playoff points
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/pts_career_p.html


How about total playoff win-shares?

Kobe- 9th place w/ 26.85 total playoff WS.
Duncan- 6th place w/ 28.84 total playoff WS.
Dream- 14th place w/ 22.60 total playoff WS.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career_p.html

To me these numbers suggest that Duncan and Dream hold the edge defensively as you mentioned, and that Bryant edges both of them offensively in the playoffs.

Take a look at the overall playoff WS, Duncan holds the slight edge, with Kobe 2.0 full WS behind him. Dream is back a bit more. Again, I'll never flame anyone who takes Dream or especially Duncan over Kobe, but the statistical argument is there; they are all right there together- it really comes down to a matter of preference. Again, Duncan, Kobe and Dream need to close out the top 10; the order is debatable.

..And please tell me you agree that Bryant had a better peak, and a better overall career than Clyde Drexler. :laugh2:

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 06:42 PM
I'm not talking about early in games, I'm talking later on. When games are on the line, you shouldn't be on the floor if you can't hit a free throw. But, frankly, if you can't hit a free throw and a team has enough players to constantly foul you all game, than you're useless offensively.

Shaq was put in many late game scenarios and was very effective as a decoy late. Yes in many instances he hurt his team but to say useless is somewhat ignorant to say.


How about the fact that he was completely useless outside of five feet? I think that if referees were serious about making consistent calls, that Shaq would have gotten A LOT more offensive fouls over his career and I think it would have seriously limited his offensive game. He didn't so much have post moves as he did just bulldoze through everybody....

IF the referee was more serious about calls? Shaq virtually got murdered every single game by opposing defenses. Had referees been more serious about making calls so many Flagrant calls would have been called on against Shaq it wouldn't even be funny. For as many "non calls" that were made on Shaq there were at least twice as much that were made against him.


And Hakeem beat Shaq in the finals. See how by comparing how centers perform in the finals I've just proved your argument wrong?

The Houston Rockets defeated the Orlando Magic with a 2nd year Shaquille O'Neal at the head. You proved nothing wrong. I made an argument of dominance vs howsoever the opponent was and despite whatever you may say Shaq dominated damn near everyone he played against. You said earlier that Hakeem dominated Shaq something which I proved wrong. Shaq and Hakeem were virtual equals but a second season Shaq was no match for a veteran Hakeem and an a well oiled unit that were the Rockets. Though Hakeem had one of the weakest supporting casts of any championship teams his teammates came up HUGE when it mattered night it night out. Shaq's well not so much.


Except for in the last two minutes of a game, of course. I'm sorry, but I don't think you should be a top 10 player of all time if someone can say "he was great for 46 out of those 48 minutes, but kinda useless in the last two."

Tell me something. Is Wilt Chamberlain in your top 10? Wilt has an even worst career regular and post season FT% than Shaq. He often played all 48 minutes a game that never seemed to affect his top 3 ranking by most knowledgeable basketball minds.


If you get a good shot, nothing is a waste of a possession. You can't be expected to make every single shot you take. But missing free throws consistently is a waste because a good player should be able to make AT LEAST 60-65 percent of his free throws. That's why they're called "free" and not "50-50" throws.

Well this doesn't make any sense what soever. Getting to the line, slowing the game down and putting the opposing team in a confused defensive state is a waste of a possession. Thank you bro. Thank you. I think a just about anyone would take a foul on the opposing team's best interior defender (some cases also offensive player) than a miss and defensive rebound. Good shot or not.


It kinda does. When you're considering everything about a player, you have to consider what he meant to the franchise and what they did to keep him. In the end, they chose Kobe and they probably made the right decision. That, alone, hurts Shaq's career to some extent.

It kinda does not. When talking legacy with a franchise of course it does but overall it doesn't not hurt Shaq's legacy to be traded in the manner and under the circumstances under which he was.


But Shaq's career came at the perfect time, as well. By the time he joined the Lakers, MJ's reign was over and the other centers had become shells for their former selves. As far as big men go, only Duncan was in Shaq's class in the early 2000s. Yao didn't become great until 05-06 and Dwight was a year or two behind him.

Perfect time with the wrong man at his side. None of those players you just mentioned had to play alongside another top 10 player in the league when Shaq was in his prime. That alone hurt his chances more so than anything else


If you didn't notice, I've been bashing Wilt quite a bit in this thread. I don't think he should have been nearly as high as he was picked. In fact, I don't know that he's in my top 5 (it'd be close).

Bashing Wilt. I am not going to get into that argument right now.


This isn't even really an argument. And it's clear that you're beginning to take this personally. Calm down, man.... At the end of the day, I'm not going to convince you and you won't convince me. It's fine. It's personal preference, and there is no right or wrong answer. I will note that Bill Simmons agrees with me, and that dude clearly has more knowledge about basketball than everyone in this thread combined.

I am getting personal bro

:laugh:

Not quite bro. I am not the one who's getting personal, I think the resident of Texas is the one who may be getting a lil personal. I am quite calm brother. I am just telling you that it is indeed a fact that Shaq's #s are better than that of Hakeem's.

Bill Simmons agrees with you. Tell me does that make you right? Because I can tell you about at least 20 other analysts who agree with those who say that Shaq is better.

I am not saying you are wrong for picking Hakeem but IMO your arguments all have double standards and you attempt to nit pick certain facts and statistics in your favour.

I have NO problem admitting that I too have biases (obviously with my favourite player Allen Iverson). I would like to ask you something. Do you hold any bias with Hakeem given that you are from Texas? Again there is nothing wrong with that I am just asking. Bias or no bias I can understand your reasoning. I don't particularly 100% agree but I can certain see your POV.

Bruno
07-11-2011, 06:53 PM
I don't think I actually said Drexler was better than Kobe. But in terms of their career numbers, it's similar. I think what I said is that Kobe's a better version of Drexler.

You said you think Kobe is better, but that Drexlexs peak was close to him on the stat sheet. That's why I presented their highest individual peaks, and their over-all career averages; both of which Bryant takes by a large margin. Bryants got Drexler in peak and in longevity (career).


And when I mean peak, I usually look at 2 different measures: the best 3 seasons and the 5 best consecutive seasons. Anyone can have a great YEAR but looking at 3 great years gives you more of an idea of their abilities during a longer stretch. Perhaps I should've made that more clear in my post.

Fair enough criteria, but if you do the work and present those numbers you'll find that Bryants still got him.


Also, I do prefer WARP vs. PER. And if you look at Drexler's WARP numbers vs. Kobe's, it's not that much different. Drexler is inferior in best 3 seasons but better with the 5 consecutive seasons. I'm sure Kobe's best season is better than Clyde's though. Again, I said Kobe is better. I just don't think its by an outrageous margin.

I've never heard of WARP. Can you show me, link? I'd be open to learning more about it. Maybe it's great, but PER, WS, and especially TS% have become pretty predominant, well known advanced stats that Gm's and scouts look at.


The playoffs definitely give the edge to Kobe though.

I'd consider that to be a big distinction. I think that matters a lot when weighing the comparison.



Again, I guess I wasn't really clear on my definition of peak. But I think if you do look at that, Kobe falls short of Dream and Duncan.

FYI, there's many more advanced stats out there then the ones you listed. I personally think WARP is a very nice stat, even if it is less well known.

Unfortunately, most of the great new advanced stats aren't tracked before this past decade, so you can't use stats like APM or any other "error corrected" +/- stats.

Bryants peak PER and TS% top that of Duncan and Dreams. Duncan and Dream top Kobe in WS and WS/48, based off their peak year of production. I know there are many other advanced statistics, but PER-WS-WS/48- and TS% are some big ones.

NBAfan4life
07-11-2011, 06:53 PM
Bruno87 has been killing it in his debate on Kobe. Good work my man =D

LAKERMANIA
07-11-2011, 06:56 PM
Bruno87 has been killing it in his debate on Kobe. Good work my man =D

:nod:

Bruno
07-11-2011, 06:57 PM
Okay a few distinctions

There is a difference between Favorite Player, and Greatest Player...You cannot go to a Greatest players of all time list and say "I like Player X because he was my favorite player, I loved watching him play growing up".. Also, you cant go to a Your favorite players ever thread and say "Sasha Vujacic? How can he be your favorite? He's not even that good"

You cannot believe your opinion is of greater value just because you saw a player play live when no one else today has..

You cannot say that a certain player is better solely on the fact that you saw him live and used the games you remember watching and comparing them to a player today and saying "I remember that player was much more dynamic than today's superstar", well here's why, because you were more emotionally attached to that player growing up! :rolleyes:

Statistics and Individual/Team achievements are the only things we can use when arguing about greatest players of all time, since you can compare statistics and an individual's accomplishments to each other. You cannot compare how you felt when you were 8 watching Jerry West to how you watch Kobe now, and tell other people that stats dont matter..

We're all slaves to this, some more so than others. I agree 100% that it needs to be left out of the debate.

Geargo Wallace
07-11-2011, 07:02 PM
well this is a wrap... let it be known that next round I'm going with my idol - the greatest PF to ever play the game - Mr. Timmothy Duncan!!!!!!!!!! WU-TANG!!!

rickshaw
07-11-2011, 07:04 PM
I voted Kobe because he's not going to win it anyways but I really feel Shaq deserves this spot.

why do people do this?

Bruno
07-11-2011, 07:05 PM
Bruno87 has been killing it in his debate on Kobe. Good work my man =D


:nod:

haha no, this is where Chronz comes and exposes all and any flaws in my arguments :laugh2:

but I'm happy to present it :cheers:

Bruno
07-11-2011, 07:07 PM
well this is a wrap... let it be known that next round I'm going with my idol - the greatest PF to ever play the game - Mr. Timmothy Duncan!!!!!!!!!! WU-TANG!!!

Can't go wrong with the big fundamental. I'll be voting for Bryant, but I hope he doesn't win the poll in a landslide. Is that weird? :facepalm:

Geargo Wallace
07-11-2011, 07:08 PM
haha no, this is where Chronz comes and exposes all and any flaws in my arguments :laugh2:

but I'm happy to present it :cheers:

Chronz is such a Debbie Downer :)

LAKERMANIA
07-11-2011, 07:09 PM
Kobe should be next, but you cant go wrong with either Hakeem and TD, but if Oscar Robertson wins #8 I swear this list is officially ruined

Geargo Wallace
07-11-2011, 07:09 PM
Can't go wrong with the big fundamental. I'll be voting for Bryant, but I hope he doesn't win the poll in a landslide. Is that weird? :facepalm:

Kobe will have slightly more votes than he has in this poll I believe. It could get interesting if there is a huge split between Duncan and Hakeem. I know a lot of ppl don't appreciate the Big Fundamental so we'll see if that overcrowds Kobe hate.

Bruno
07-11-2011, 07:17 PM
Kobe should be next, but you cant go wrong with either Hakeem and TD, but if Oscar Robertson wins #8 I swear this list is officially ruined

Call me crazy but I feel like the drop off from #10 to #11 is somewhat substantial. No way does Oscar get voted ahead of Kobe this time. Last time, it was a debate. This time Kobe has two more titles and two finals MVps under his belt. He has surpassed Oscar Robertson. It took 15 years, but he's got him at this point, IMO.

Bruno
07-11-2011, 07:18 PM
Kobe will have slightly more votes than he has in this poll I believe. It could get interesting if there is a huge split between Duncan and Hakeem. I know a lot of ppl don't appreciate the Big Fundamental so we'll see if that overcrowds Kobe hate.

I think the Dunca/Dream votes will be split too. And I don't think the bulk of those given posters hate Kobe enough to combine forces just for the sake of dropping Kobe to 10th. Maybe if his contemporary hate was at LeBron level it would happen, maybe a few years ago- but not today.

JordansBulls
07-11-2011, 07:26 PM
I took Shaq here because his accolades are just as much as anyone here, but had the greater peak and prime, but really any of Kobe, Hakeem, Shaq and Duncan have a case here. Hell even where Bird won #6 all 5 guys had a case from that spot onward.

JordansBulls
07-11-2011, 07:28 PM
Kobe should be next, but you cant go wrong with either Hakeem and TD, but if Oscar Robertson wins #8 I swear this list is officially ruined

Yeah there is no way in hell Oscar should be in the top 10 here. His accolades, titles don't measure up and once you account for pace his numbers are pretty much normal of stars today.

Swashcuff
07-11-2011, 07:30 PM
I think you've unfairly lumped Stockton in this group. It's my opinion that he might be one of the most underrated players of all-time. In any case, here's the argument I would try to make for Stockton over Kobe, which may sound ridiculous but hear me out first:

I completely concur IMO Stockton is vastly underrated and extremely disrespected in forums such as these. I guess many view him as a sidekick who never won a championship and don't really appreciate his true value as a player.


I'm not sure if you saw those Basketball Prospectus articles I linked to earlier but I'll re-post them again.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=415

^In that article, Pelton outlines a method he uses to evaluate a player. The following is his method (or actually Bill James'):



Here are the two other articles:
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1196
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=728

One of the articles has Kobe's career WARP numbers and the other article has Stockton's career WARP numbers in context with his fellow 90s players (he came out 2nd behind MJ). One of the issues might be that I believe the Stockton article uses WARP2 while the other one might use WARP but I'm not sure. In any case, I don't think it would make a difference (maybe it would though, I don't know)

Anyways, I'll use Pelton's WARP and Win Shares to compare the two.

Stockton accumulated 301.8 WARP in his career. In his best 3 seasons, he accumulated 66.0 WARP and in his best 5 consecutive seasons, he had 107.8 WARP.

Kobe on the other hand has accumulated 58 WARP in his best 3 seasons. And in his best 5 consecutive seasons, he had 82.3 WARP. Now unfortunately, this article was written a couple years ago, so it doesn't include his 09-10 or 10-11 WARP numbers. However, I think we can both agree that neither of those totals would affect his best 3 seasons or his best 5 consecutive seasons that much.

Edit: Actually, I have his 09-10 totals from the Basketball Prospectus book. He finished with 10.5 WARP in 09-10. And from the thread in the NBA Stats forum and the MVP article, he finished with around 12.4 WARP in 10-11.

So using those numbers, for his career, Kobe has 194 WARP.

As you can see, he falls short in WARP compared to Stockton in terms of peak and longevity.

Using this same method for Win Shares which are the more popular stat, we can calculate those totals.

Stockton has a career Win Shares total of 207.7. In his best 3 seasons, he had 44.1 win shares and in his best 5 consecutive seasons, he had 71.5 win shares. His WS per season was 10.93.

For Kobe, he has a career Win Shares total of 156.3. In his best 3 seasons, he had 44.0 win shares and in his best 5 consecutive seasons, he had 64.2 win shares. His career WS per season is 10.42.

Again, Stockton has him beat.

I guess the real question is how does the playoffs affect all of this. Stockton has a higher WS/48 in the playoffs, although his PER is lower (as it was in the regular season). But Stockton does seem to lose a greater % of his regular season performance come playoff time. Kobe also has more WS, although in more minutes and games.

The big differences between the 2 comes in their USG%. Kobe is a high usage player whereas Stockton was a below average player in terms of USG. However, he distributed the ball so well. And he was great at stealing the ball away from opponents. He was also the more efficient shooter. Kobe had all world defense but Stockton's D was pretty good for a PG too. Obviously, they had different roles. Kobe was supposed to be the scorer. Stockton was supposed to be the distributor. I do think Stockton was a better distributor than Kobe was a scorer.

Anyways, I'm not necessarily saying Stockton was better but there's an argument that can be made to say that he was. The big knock on him is that he lost a large % of his regular season performance in the playoffs, which maybe would lead you to Kobe being better.

Firstly let me say thanks for posting this (I skimmed through the other two when you posted them earlier) because I was not aware of them prior to you posting them. I also took a little time to respond since I was reading through them and attempting to put them into perspective.

It is indeed a different outlook to Stockton's (among others) case in threads such as these. Their respective worth on offense is undeniable with Kobe being a better defensive player than Stockton but IMO PG defense is not as important as SG/SF defense and this was especially true in Stockton's era.

I saw earlier in your case against Kobe you said something to the extent of playing for a great coach and having a great supporting cast. IMO that should not be forgotten when speaking of Stockton.

Playing his entire career (excluding his rookie season) with Malone under Sloan has helped him greatly in many different aspects. IMO Malone and Stockton helped each other to actually be better players. The fact that Stockton played a system which maximized his offensive skill set with a player who was basically molded to his strong suits really has a great impact in Stockton's overall production especially be a PG.

IMO my deciding factor between Kobe and John is the question of who was better at their peak, who would I rather build my team around. In terms of peak IMO Kobe still has him beat but it isn't by THAT great of a margin it's actually smaller than most would think.

Just looking at what can be viewed as Kobe's and John's best statistical season both at the age of 27


Rk Player Season Age G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48
1 Kobe Bryant 2005-06 27 80 3277 28.0 .559 .491 2.6 12.7 7.6 24.1 2.4 0.7 9.0 38.7 114 105 11.6 3.7 15.3 0.224
2 John Stockton 1989-90 27 78 2915 23.9 .607 .540 2.5 5.6 4.1 57.4 3.5 0.4 19.7 20.6 124 105 10.4 4.0 14.4 0.238

If you ask me which player is better or who I would rather between them 2 I would say Kobe but it would be after a little deliberation.

I see your POV and I must say you do have very valid points.

Bruno
07-11-2011, 07:33 PM
I will note that Bill Simmons agrees with me, and that dude clearly has more knowledge about basketball than everyone in this thread combined.

I think Chronz could box Simmons into a corner, personally. :shrug:

You take away his fame and make him defend his points on the forum and I think it'd be pretty interesting.

I don't hate Simmons like most Laker fans, but I think you're putting him on a pedestal.

Bruno
07-11-2011, 07:35 PM
I took Shaq here because his accolades are just as much as anyone here, but had the greater peak and prime, but really any of Kobe, Hakeem, Shaq and Duncan have a case here. Hell even where Bird won #6 all 5 guys had a case from that spot onward.

Agreed. I think Shaq should have been ahead of Bird. In which case I'd then consider Bird-Bryant-Duncan and Dream to all be in the same boat, give or take.

Bruno
07-11-2011, 07:35 PM
Yeah there is no way in hell Oscar should be in the top 10 here. His accolades, titles don't measure up and once you account for pace his numbers are pretty much normal of stars today.

x2.

naps
07-11-2011, 07:43 PM
I think the Dunca/Dream votes will be split too. And I don't think the bulk of those given posters hate Kobe enough to combine forces just for the sake of dropping Kobe to 10th. Maybe if his contemporary hate was at LeBron level it would happen, maybe a few years ago- but not today.

OK. So not voting Kobe into the top 10 is because people hate Kobe?

Avenged
07-11-2011, 07:56 PM
why do people do this?

Because 1 vote won't change a thing considering how much of a lead Shaq has.

NBAfan4life
07-11-2011, 08:01 PM
Lets open the next poll please.

Bruno
07-11-2011, 08:02 PM
OK. So not voting Kobe into the top 10 is because people hate Kobe?

That's not what I said.

PatsSoxKnicks
07-11-2011, 08:05 PM
You said you think Kobe is better, but that Drexlexs peak was close to him on the stat sheet. That's why I presented their highest individual peaks, and their over-all career averages; both of which Bryant takes by a large margin. Bryants got Drexler in peak and in longevity (career).

I do agree but using the criteria I laid out, I don't think it's a landslide. Admittedly, I just took a glance at the numbers. I didn't actually do it out. :shrug:



Fair enough criteria, but if you do the work and present those numbers you'll find that Bryants still got him.

I didn't do it out for Win Shares or Estimated Wins Added (PER's cousin). However, using WARP, I believe Kobe's best 5 consecutive seasons was inferior to Clyde's, although barely. He's better in the other categories (best 3 seasons, career totals) though.

And I'm sure using WS or EWA, would lead to Kobe being better. Again, I just think Clyde's peak isn't that far off. That's from an eyeball glance though. Maybe I'm wrong but considering we both agree Kobe's better, I don't feel like doing it out :laugh2:



I've never heard of WARP. Can you show me, link? I'd be open to learning more about it. Maybe it's great, but PER, WS, and especially TS% have become pretty predominant, well known advanced stats that Gm's and scouts look at.

http://sonicscentral.com/warp.html

That link explains the whole calculation/thought process step by step. It's very easy to understand and thats one of the reasons I love it.

Pelton has also come out with an updated version (WARP2). He explains his changes in this article: http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1209

If you start reading that article and you're wondering what adjusted +/- is, here's the link for that stat (beware, it's very long): http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm

WARP's creator, Kevin Pelton actually consults for the Pacers. And the creator of Adjusted +/- consults for the Cavs and another one for the Mavs. So yeah, these guys are all over the place. In fact, the Mavs winning the championship is looked at as a big win for the APBR community. Roland Beech, creator of 82games.com, sits on the bench during the games. He's the first and only stathead to do that (be on the bench).



I'd consider that to be a big distinction. I think that matters a lot when weighing the comparison.

Sure. Maybe I do need to back off my initial statement a bit. However, in regards to the guys I listed like Dream, Duncan and KG or Barkley, I'm pretty sure their numbers come out better if I did my criteria out. And in regards to all of those guys, I think playoff numbers are similar. I think a similar criteria could be used for the playoffs too.

But so as to not make myself look like a fool, I'll do it out and post the results later. Maybe I am wrong.



Bryants peak PER and TS% top that of Duncan and Dreams. Duncan and Dream top Kobe in WS and WS/48, based off their peak year of production. I know there are many other advanced statistics, but PER-WS-WS/48- and TS% are some big ones.

The problem with PER and TS% is they're almost useless for defense, unless you're looking at counterpart PER numbers. I don't think 82 games keeps track of those numbers for the playoffs though. Anyways, I think Duncan and Dream are significantly better defensively, whereas I think the difference in offense isn't that much, if there even is one.

Again, I'll do out my criteria later and see where I arrive with that.

And yes, those 4 are obviously the most popular. What's unfortunate is that the NBA doesn't have plus-minus/lineup data for the 90s. I think it'd be interesting to see how guys like the Dream, MJ, etc. do in Adjusted +/- (which by the way, is something that is used in the NBA by the Mavs, Cavs and a lot of other organizations.) which would sort of measure that intangible aspect of basketball (like setting screens, diving for balls, etc.)

PatsSoxKnicks
07-11-2011, 08:13 PM
Swash, I read your response and I'll reply to it a little later (got some stuff to do). But I'll be back later with a response.

JordansBulls
07-11-2011, 08:29 PM
I leave the thread open for 2 days to give more people an opportunity and so that we don't get too bored in case the season doesn't start up next season.

If everyone wants to move on, then we can start #8 up in an hour or so.

RealistFan
07-11-2011, 08:32 PM
First off let me say that I like your style Realist. You're a good informed poster.
Thanks. I enjoy your posts as well. Always like getting to know more factual stuff.



Regarding your FT analysis from Bryants 2006 campaign. His FTA per game is not the reason why his PER of 28.0 was never matched, before or after. Look at the below figures. Bryants FTA per game only changed by one tenth of a point from 2005 to 2006. Yet, his PER is drastically different; from 23.3 all the way up to 28.0.

Average FT attempts per game:
2005: 10.1
2006: 10.2
2007: 10.0

PlayerEfficiencyRating:
2005: 23.3
2006: 28.0
2007: 26.1
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html

His PER was the highest in 2006 because of his over-all production, not because of how often he was getting to the line. I don't buy into your argument that his PER was only so high because the refs suddenly started sending players to the line more. He got to the line just as much per game in 2005, yet his PER was nearly 5.0 full points lower than it was the next year in 2006. His PER was @28 large in part because he was averagnig 35-5-5, on a TS% of .56.

Hmm. My mistake then. I just said that off the top of my head and I remember 2006 being the year where the league was trying to get away from all the defensive battles and trying to make it a more free flowing game.

I think his PER was rather low in 2005 because of injuries and the coaching change.


I agree with you that Duncan and Hakeem were fantastic defensive anchors. Given their size and position, they were able to do something that Bryant could not. But would you agree that Bryant was in fact fantastic on the wing, in his prime as a defender? Tim Duncan has eight defensive first teams, Hakeem has five defensive first teams, Bryant has nine. And trust me, I take these selections with a grain of salt; I know Duncan and Hakeem had greater impact as defensive players- but lets not sell prime Bryant short as en elite wing defender. I concede this point to you.
I wasn't really selling Bryant short on the defensive end although I feel some of his recent All-Defense selections are largely based on rep. He doesn't give a consistent effort on man defense but hey Jordan was making All-Defense 1st Teams in the second three-peat years as well. Nonetheless, he's definitely one of the better perimeter defenders the game has seen.

It's jus that great defensive bigs just naturally impact the game more than great defensive wings due to their ability to be the last line of defense, protecting the rim, altering shots etc.


*I acknowledge that Duncan and Dream take the cake as defensive anchors.

You mentioned the playoff defense- and I applaud you for presenting it. You made clear that Bryant didn't have the same impact as Dream or Duncan on the defensive end in the playoffs- but let me present the argument for Bryant as the offensively superior player to both in the playoffs:

Kobe Bryant is 6th all time in offensive-win shares in the playoffs (@19.6):
--Duncan is 11th w/ 15.5
--Dream is 17th w/ 11.9.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ows_career_p.html

Kobe Bryant is the 3rd highest scorer in the history of the NBA playoffs. He trailed only MJ and KAJ with 5,280 total playoff points:
--Duncan is 8th w/ 3,990 total playoff points
Dream is 11th w/ 3,755 total playoff points
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/pts_career_p.html


How about total playoff win-shares?

Kobe- 9th place w/ 26.85 total playoff WS.
Duncan- 6th place w/ 28.84 total playoff WS.
Dream- 14th place w/ 22.60 total playoff WS.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career_p.html

To me these numbers suggest that Duncan and Dream hold the edge defensively as you mentioned, and that Bryant edges both of them offensively in the playoffs.

Take a look at the overall playoff WS, Duncan holds the slight edge, with Kobe 2.0 full WS behind him. Dream is back a bit more. Again, I'll never flame anyone who takes Dream or especially Duncan over Kobe, but the statistical argument is there; they are all right there together- it really comes down to a matter of preference. Again, Duncan, Kobe and Dream need to close out the top 10; the order is debatable.
I think looking at total playoff WS and points scored is a bit flawed since it depends on total number of games played. Obviously, it's not Kobe's fault but compared to a guy like Hakeem who was stuck on some ridiculously bad teams for many years (1987-1992), it matters. Think of Kobe's situation in the '05-07 years. If you look at Hakeem's averages instead of totals, I think you can make the case Hakeem was a superior offensive player in the playoffs. If you look at playoff WS/48 which is more accurate in this case, Duncan and Hakeem both come out on top even if you ignore Kobe's early years.


..And please tell me you agree that Bryant had a better peak, and a better overall career than Clyde Drexler. :laugh2:

Oh definitely. Kobe is a much superior player than Drexler, I actually said that earlier in the thread. I agree that Kobe is in the top 10, I just don't think he was ever a more impactful player than Hakeem and Duncan, especially Dream who peaked ridiculously high though you may not get that feeling from his stats.

iKnick
07-11-2011, 08:34 PM
SpecSHAQular

knightstemplar
07-11-2011, 08:48 PM
The Big AARP is running away with it

Geargo Wallace
07-11-2011, 08:58 PM
i say we move on. this is a wrap.

JordansBulls
07-11-2011, 09:10 PM
i say we move on. this is a wrap.

If we move on, then I'll leave the next one open for 3 days. What do you think?

MTar786
07-11-2011, 09:16 PM
open the next poll now

Chacarron
07-11-2011, 09:20 PM
Next poll will be interesting.

NYMetros
07-11-2011, 09:29 PM
Nomination: John Havlicek
13x All-star
1974 Finals MVP
11x All-NBA (4x 1st team, 7x 2nd team)
8x All-NBA defensive team (4x 1st team)
8 Championships

SteBO
07-11-2011, 09:36 PM
Closed per OP request. The #8 player of all time thread will be up in a bit.

Thanks for voting........:)