PDA

View Full Version : If every "Current Player" was in their prime, and you had a choice of whom to take ..



JordansBulls
11-09-2012, 11:31 AM
If every "Current Player" was in there prime, and you had a choice of whom to take what order would you draft them?

Here are the guys on the list I would imagine (25 players)

Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Lebron James
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
Kevin Durant
Dwyane Wade
Jason Kidd
Steve Nash
Grant Hill
Dwight Howard
Derrick Rose
Vince Carter
Chris Paul
Deron Williams
Amare Stoudemire
Chris Bosh
Pau Gasol
Blake Griffin
Carmelo Anthony
Paul Pierce
Ray Allen
Russell Westbrook
Kevin Love
James Harden
Joe Johnson

Money_23
11-09-2012, 11:37 AM
1. Duncan
2. Lebron
3. KG
4. Dwight
5. Kobe
6. Dirk
7. Wade
8. Chris paul
9. Nash
...
...

CB29
11-09-2012, 11:40 AM
1. Duncan
2. Lebron
3. Kobe
4. KG
5. Dwight
6. Nash
7. Dirk
8. Durant
9. Rose
10. Pau

blystr2002
11-09-2012, 11:43 AM
Kobe, Duncan, and Lebron are above the rest as all time players and a few others are above D. Howard to, but in an actual draft to build a team he would probably go 1st as dominant centers are a premium.

Andrew32
11-09-2012, 11:45 AM
1. Duncan
2. Lebron
3. Wade
4. KG
5. Kobe / Paul
5b. Dirk / Durant

thenaj17
11-09-2012, 12:03 PM
LeBron
Kobe
Garnett
Chris Paul
Duncan

Im_in_Mia_bish
11-09-2012, 12:05 PM
1. Duncan
2. LeBron
3. Wade
4. kobe
5. KG
6. Dirk
7. CP3
8. Durant
9. Dwight
10. Paul Pierce

:drool:

JordansBulls
11-09-2012, 12:09 PM
LeBron
Kobe
Garnett
Chris Paul
Duncan

Duncan 5th??? :confused:

Baller1
11-09-2012, 12:12 PM
Duncan
Lebron
Garnett

I don't think I would even consider anyone else.

Raphael
11-09-2012, 12:16 PM
Garnett.

kobebabe
11-09-2012, 12:21 PM
Duncan
Kobe
Lebron
Garnett/Gasol
Howard
Dirk
CP3
Durant
Wade
Nash
Melo

FraziersKnicks
11-09-2012, 12:22 PM
Duncan
Lebron
Garnett

I don't think I would even consider anyone else.

This, in this order. Although I think an argument can be made for LeBron over Duncan. LeBron's in his prime now and is potentially gonna have one of the most dominating primes in NBA history.

JasonJohnHorn
11-09-2012, 12:25 PM
I'd want a big I could build around, so Duncan and Garnett would be at the top of my list. Then Howard, and I might be alone in this, but Love and Gasol (I think people underappreciate Pau for what he did in Memphis, getting a very weak roster into the post season in a very deep western conference) would follow. Then I'd take LBJ follow by Griffen. I'm not so sure Bosh and Amare would be able to provide the rebounding expected of a big that is your franchise player, so I don't have them as high despite the fact that they are both so good offensively.

As for the guards, Kobe and CP3 would be at the top of my list, followed by Wade. After that it's a crap shoot that depends on how some of these young players pan out.

I do believe that LeBron is the best player in the league, but I just believe it would be easier to build around the bigs, which is why I have several guys ahead of James.

xxplayerxx23
11-09-2012, 12:27 PM
1-Duncan
2-Lebron
3-Kobe
4-KG
5-Dirk
6-Wade

Baller1
11-09-2012, 12:29 PM
This, in this order. Although I think an argument can be made for LeBron over Duncan. LeBron's in his prime now and is potentially gonna have one of the most dominating primes in NBA history.

Yeah, I almost had Lebron on top as well. It's hard to argue against Duncan's success though... But I mean, if you're getting either one in their prime, it's a win-win.

nickdymez
11-09-2012, 12:47 PM
Duncan
Kobe
Garnett
Wade
Lebron
Kidd
Nash
Dirk

HowFit
11-09-2012, 12:48 PM
Duncan
Lebron
Garnett
Paul
Wade
Dirk

xXx J0SE 21 xXx
11-09-2012, 12:56 PM
Kind of surprised noone chose j-Kidd in his prime in their top 5

mightybosstone
11-09-2012, 01:10 PM
This is another decent idea, JB (although the lack of T-Mac was disappointing). Looking at these players, I see an easy way to break them down into clean categories that makes sense to me...

The Cream of the Crop
1. Lebron James
2. Tim Duncan
3. Kevin Garnett
4. Kobe Bryant
These guys are the best of the best. I'd take Lebron first because he has shown that he can make a team with absolutely nothing else a legitimate contender, he is the most statistically dominant in his prime and he affects the game in the most ways. I'd take Duncan and Garnett next because they were dominant on both ends of the floor and I value their post defense more than Kobe's perimeter D. I know it's blasphemy and I'll take crap from the Kobephiles, but his prime just isn't as good Lebron or Duncan's prime, and I value KG's defense more. Still, I think these guys are the obvious top four.

Phenomenal Franchise Starters
5. Kevin Durant
6. Dirk Nowitzki
7. Chris Paul
8. Dwyane Wade
9. Paul Pierce
10. Dwight Howard
You can't go wrong with anyone on this list for various reasons. Durant at 5 might seem high, but I don't think we've quite touched his true potential, which should be scary. Dirk is still unguardable, Paul is an insanely efficient, do everything point guard, Wade was unstoppable in 05-06, Pierce was a ridiculous scorer in his prime and Howard is the best big of his generation. Some people will say Wade is a little low, but he was never a particularly talented shooter, and I would just prefer Durant, Nowitzki or Paul if I could get someone who could score, shoot and affect the game in other areas.

Possible Hall of Fame Point Guards
11. Steve Nash
12. Jason Kidd
13. Deron Williams
14. Derrick Rose
Nash and Kidd are locks to be in the Hall some day and both D-Will and Rose have decent shots if they continue similar production. The problem with these guys is that each one has their weaknesses and none of them could carry a terrible team to a deep playoff run. Nash can't defend, Kidd was never a great scorer, Williams can't shoot and has been really inefficient the last few years and Rose can't stay healthy (plus he's still really young and not the greatest distributor). But I'd definitely take them over the next three groups.

The "Not Quite Rights"
15. Carmelo Anthony
16. Ray Allen
17. Pau Gasol
Each one of these guys has been the No. 1 on mediocre playoff teams and both Pau and Ray have played secondary roles on championship teams. But all three of these guys have proven they cannot carry a team on their own. Although Allen and Pau both have more refined individual skills (Allen's shooting and Pau's post game), Anthony is clearly the most talented of the three. Some people will say that Pierce belongs below Anthony or that Pierce should be in this list, but his prime numbers dwarf Melo's and Pierce was a No. 1 on some mediocre teams he took deep into the playoffs early in his career (01-02 especially). I think all three of these guys can be No. 1 players on a very good. 4-6 seed, but not on a No. 1-2 seed.

I Need to See More
18. Kevin Love
19. Russell Westbrook
20. James Harden
All three of these guys is insanely talented and by the end of the season, I think they'll all be among the top 10-15 players in the league. But there just isn't enough evidence to put them higher up. Can Love become a better defensive player and perform in the playoffs? Can Westbrook either improve his outside shot or learn to defer more? And can Harden be a legit No. 1 for a full NBA season on a playoff team?

The Bottom Feeders
21. Vince Carter
22. Chris Bosh
23. Amare Stoudemire
24. Blake Griffin
25. Joe Johnson
People will argue with me on a lot of these picks, but I would not want any of these five guys over the 20 players listed above them. For starters, VC and Stoudemire have both put up some very sexy numbers in their primes. But Vinsanity has always been more of a highlight reel than a postseason No. 1 and he plays no defense. And Stoudemire is a soft big man whose numbers were clearly inflated by playing with Nash. Bosh is an odd case in that I think he can carry a team to the playoffs, but not very far, and I think he's just much more suited for a secondary role. I place him above Amare because he's a much better defensive player. Blake could potentially go in the above category, but I just don't trust him, and I'm not sure he'll get much better. He has no mid range game, he can't hit a free throw, he doesn't block shots and he doesn't play defense. That scares me. And JJ is easily the worst player on this entire list, IMO.

Dade County
11-09-2012, 01:15 PM
Timmy
Lbj
Wade
KD
Kobe
Garnett
Rose/Cp3
Howard
Jason Kid

Edit**

Timmy has proven to much for me not to pick him in his Prime.

Lbj is just getting started, so I don't even no, if he has even reached his prime.

Young D Wade was unstoppable, we haven't seen anyone that can drive to the rim like that, since Jordan ( to bad injuries got to him, and wasted years with out really having help every year to contend ... Until now).


I would have put KD in front of Wade, but I just went back to Wade prime years, KD didn't have a finals impact like Wade did back in 06.

And I place KD in front of Kobe, because I see KD as a better scorer then Kobe "reason i did this" ... Kobe always prides himself as a scorer, but he has missed the most shots in NBA history. Yes Kobe in his prime could drive to the basket better then KD and was a better man to man defender, but I am just judging Kobe on how he see's himself... His a scorer in his mind.

But Yes If I was drafting and I had a choice between Young Prime Kobe and KD, I would have to take the 6"11 guy that can't be stopped ( but both are good choices ).

Who wouldn't want 10 years of KG

Dade County
11-09-2012, 01:17 PM
A mightybosstone's

Vince Carter ***** all over harden in his prime.

JasonJohnHorn
11-09-2012, 01:25 PM
Kind of surprised noone chose j-Kidd in his prime in their top 5

I think it's because he was such a horrid shooter in his prime. At the end of the day, while Kidd is amazing, one of the best all-around PGs of all time, it is harder to build around a PG than it is a big. If you notice, Kobe isn't first on anybody's list (there may be a kobe-nut-hugger I missed). Duncan is the consensus first pick it seems, and I think had Garnett been blessed with the kind of front office that Duncan had, he'd be as high as Duncan for most people.


Kidd is great, but really, he is a complimentary player. He compliments other players. He makes people better, but if he is the best player on your team, then chances are you will not be winning a title.

mightybosstone
11-09-2012, 01:34 PM
A mightybosstone's

Vince Carter ***** all over harden in his prime.

Two things. 1. You clearly did not read what I said and just freaked out when you saw that I had Harden ranked over VC. If you had read it, then you would see I'm rating Harden high simply because we have so little to go on and he has to much potential. I know what Carter has done in his prime and I'm unimpressed by it.

2. Statistically, you're quite wrong. Carter averaged a career 20.4 PER and .144 WS/48. In Harden's first season as a legitimate contributor (last year), he put up a 21.1 PER and .230 WS/48 (Carter never posted a WS/48 higher than .208 his whole career). Also, Carter was never a particular efficient scorer and Harden is just now getting his first NBA season as a No. 1 scoring option of a franchise. It took Carter 20 attempts to achieve 25 PPG (his most ever) in his third season. Harden's averaging 30.3 on 20.8 attempts so far this year and his 3-point shooting has been awful. What happens when his shooting improves and he gets the hang of Houston's offense?

Mark my words. Harden's 2012-2013 season could easily surpass any season statistically that Vince Carter had in his entire NBA career.

LakersEaglesLA
11-09-2012, 01:38 PM
Im gonna go with the player Michael Jordan said was so closest Thing to him "Kobe Bryant" .. 2nd would be Tim Duncan 4 rings........3rd Dwayne Wade great player 2 rings...

ClearSoulForce
11-09-2012, 01:44 PM
I think it's because he was such a horrid shooter in his prime. At the end of the day, while Kidd is amazing, one of the best all-around PGs of all time, it is harder to build around a PG than it is a big. If you notice, Kobe isn't first on anybody's list (there may be a kobe-nut-hugger I missed). Duncan is the consensus first pick it seems, and I think had Garnett been blessed with the kind of front office that Duncan had, he'd be as high as Duncan for most people.


Kidd is great, but really, he is a complimentary player. He compliments other players. He makes people better, but if he is the best player on your team, then chances are you will not be winning a title.

He carried the Nets to consecutive Finals appearances. Outside of Kidd, Jefferson was solid and role players like Kittles and Harris were solid. He had an average team.

alexander_37
11-09-2012, 01:49 PM
Give me KG, I want to see what he could do in his Twolves days but with a good team around him.

It would be scary.

mightybosstone
11-09-2012, 01:49 PM
Im gonna go with the player Michael Jordan said was so closest Thing to him "Kobe Bryant" .. 2nd would be Tim Duncan 4 rings........3rd Dwayne Wade great player 2 rings...
Wade over Lebron over Garnett? Based on what?


He carried the Nets to consecutive Finals appearances. Outside of Kidd, Jefferson was solid and role players like Kittles and Harris were solid. He had an average team.
Kidd's prime was phenomenal and he did so many things well and made his teammates so much better (similar to Nash). But he was a horribly inefficient scorer who was never close to being a No. 1 in his best season. On this list, he doesn't deserve to crack the top 10 over players who could carry a team offensively while providing production in other areas.

Hellcrooner
11-09-2012, 01:58 PM
Can lead you to several rings
1Tim Duncan
2Lebron James
3Kevin Garnett
4Kevin Durant
5Kobe Bryant
6Jason Kidd
7Dwight Howard

can lead you to a ring with a VERY VERY DEEP roster ( pistons 04/mavs 06/rockets 94 like) and are crazy second options
8Steve Nash
9Dwyane Wade
10Pau Gasol
11Ray Allen
12Dirk Nowitzki
13Chris Paul
14Derrick Rose

very good second options on a ring team (deep enough team)
15Kevin Love
16Carmelo Anthony
17Vince Carter
18Chris Bosh
19Paul Pierce

i either need to see more of them, or consider them not good enough to win a ring as a top 2 option.
20Deron Williams
21Blake Griffin
22James Harden
23Russell Westbrook
24Joe Johnson
25Amare Stoudemire

Jetsguy
11-09-2012, 01:58 PM
Lebron
Duncan

HesterJordan23
11-09-2012, 02:07 PM
vince carter in his prime...mmm tasty

pacofunk64
11-09-2012, 02:22 PM
MJ

/thread :D

Mile High Champ
11-09-2012, 02:28 PM
Duncan
Lebron
Kobe
KG

JordansBulls
11-09-2012, 02:30 PM
Wade over Lebron over Garnett? Based on what?




A great playoff performer and lead a franchise to a title that never won anything prior to him arriving.

Hellcrooner
11-09-2012, 02:53 PM
A great playoff performer and lead a franchise to a title that never won anything prior to him arriving.

That point is absurd.

Celtics had not won since 86 and 0 players from that roster were there in 08.

So, there is 0 thing to say against garnett in that regard.

Another example IF/when someone leads the Knicks or warriors to a tilte, he shouldnt be looked as any less than a wade or dirk, because of teh team having already rings..........................40 years ago!!!!!!!!!!

MetsLegacy
11-09-2012, 03:12 PM
Jeffries
Turk
Marbury

lakerboy
11-09-2012, 03:17 PM
People writing Lebron James as their top choice don't remember how good KG, Duncan and Kobe were 8 years ago.

I'd have

1. Kobe
2. Duncan
3. KG
4. Lebron
5. Steve Nash
6. Dwight Howard

mightybosstone
11-09-2012, 03:30 PM
A great playoff performer and lead a franchise to a title that never won anything prior to him arriving.

So? Wade and Lebron are in their primes right now and Lebron clearly is a much better basketball player than Wade. I don't even know how this point is debatable. It's like trying to argue Pippen as better than Jordan or McHale better than Bird.

Hellcrooner
11-09-2012, 03:38 PM
So? Wade and Lebron are in their primes right now and Lebron clearly is a much better basketball player than Wade. I don't even know how this point is debatable. It's like trying to argue Pippen as better than Jordan or McHale better than Bird.


urg............................. i think i have finally accepted this fact, but in the 80s i would always tell celts fans that Mchale was the real man, and god did i hate him ( laker fan) but i still respect him like crazy and would pick him as 3rd PF all time after Duncan and Kg.

Chill_Will_24
11-09-2012, 03:39 PM
Duncan for me

DreamShaker
11-09-2012, 03:42 PM
My top 10

Duncan
Lebron
KG
Dirk
Kobe
Wade
Chris Paul
Jason Kidd
Durant
Howard

Im_in_Mia_bish
11-09-2012, 04:24 PM
how is paul pierce not on ppls top 10? LOL

seriously..

Heediot
11-09-2012, 04:31 PM
1. Duncan
2. James
3. Howard
4. Cp3
5. Durant
6. Kobe
7. Wade
8. Garnett
9. Dirk
10 Kidd

TheNumber37
11-09-2012, 04:35 PM
I'd still take Kobe over LeBron. lebron's prime hasnt been defined yet. Kobe has 3 rings from his prime years.

also, this list is missing grant hill.

b@llhog24
11-09-2012, 04:38 PM
how is paul pierce not on ppls top 10? LOL

seriously..

Because:

LeBron
Cp3
Wade
Kobe
Duncan
KG
Dirk
Dwight Howard
Kevin Durant
Steve Nash
Jason Kidd
are all current players.

DreamShaker
11-09-2012, 04:39 PM
how is paul pierce not on ppls top 10? LOL

seriously..

I thought about him...but I don't see him as a sure-fire top 10.

TheNumber37
11-09-2012, 04:41 PM
wow, I'm not even a kobe fan, but anything outside the top 3 is insane. do you guys know what prime means. Duncan you can make a case for and perhaps kg.

no one who has played less than 10 years should be ranked because they havent had their primes defined.

example, I would take a prime Irving over a prime Jason Kidd. how can someone make that statement?

Andrew32
11-09-2012, 04:42 PM
wow, I'm not even a kobe fan, but anything outside the top 3 is insane. do you guys know what prime means. Duncan you can make a case for and perhaps kg.

no one who has played less than 10 years should be ranked because they havent had their primes defined.

Prime Wade > Prime Kobe
Also you are forgetting Lebron?
:eyebrow:

JordansBulls
11-09-2012, 05:04 PM
Can lead you to several rings
1Tim Duncan
2Lebron James
3Kevin Garnett
4Kevin Durant
5Kobe Bryant
6Jason Kidd
7Dwight Howard

can lead you to a ring with a VERY VERY DEEP roster ( pistons 04/mavs 06/rockets 94 like) and are crazy second options
8Steve Nash
9Dwyane Wade
10Pau Gasol
11Ray Allen
12Dirk Nowitzki
13Chris Paul
14Derrick Rose

very good second options on a ring team (deep enough team)
15Kevin Love
16Carmelo Anthony
17Vince Carter
18Chris Bosh
19Paul Pierce

i either need to see more of them, or consider them not good enough to win a ring as a top 2 option.
20Deron Williams
21Blake Griffin
22James Harden
23Russell Westbrook
24Joe Johnson
25Amare Stoudemire


How are Kidd and Garnett and Dwight in the first group while Wade and Dirk are in the 2nd group when those guys in the 2nd group won rings as the top dog no contest on there teams for franchises that never even won before?

JordansBulls
11-09-2012, 05:07 PM
So? Wade and Lebron are in their primes right now and Lebron clearly is a much better basketball player than Wade. I don't even know how this point is debatable. It's like trying to argue Pippen as better than Jordan or McHale better than Bird.

I'm not saying Wade is still better, but he was better. In fact thru there first 3 seasons it was Wade. Also in 2010 and 2011 you can say Wade was better as well.

Also once you compare them there numbers are relatively close and Wade is better in the finals. And it doesn't change the point which was made that Wade led a franchise to a title as did Dirk and also you know they will stay with your franchise and not leave.

lebron = 23 pts / 8 reb / 7 ast on 44% shooting

wade instead: 28 pts / 7 reb / 5 ast on 48% shooting

dh144498
11-09-2012, 05:08 PM
Prime Wade > Prime KobeAlso you are forgetting Lebron?
:eyebrow:

uh.... no.

Lake_Show2416
11-09-2012, 05:09 PM
Duncan
KG
Kobe
Lebron

Bruno
11-09-2012, 05:17 PM
This is another decent idea, JB (although the lack of T-Mac was disappointing). Looking at these players, I see an easy way to break them down into clean categories that makes sense to me...

The Cream of the Crop
1. Lebron James
2. Tim Duncan
3. Kevin Garnett
4. Kobe Bryant
These guys are the best of the best. I'd take Lebron first because he has shown that he can make a team with absolutely nothing else a legitimate contender, he is the most statistically dominant in his prime and he affects the game in the most ways. I'd take Duncan and Garnett next because they were dominant on both ends of the floor and I value their post defense more than Kobe's perimeter D. I know it's blasphemy and I'll take crap from the Kobephiles, but his prime just isn't as good Lebron or Duncan's prime, and I value KG's defense more. Still, I think these guys are the obvious top four.

Phenomenal Franchise Starters
5. Kevin Durant
6. Dirk Nowitzki
7. Chris Paul
8. Dwyane Wade
9. Paul Pierce
10. Dwight Howard
You can't go wrong with anyone on this list for various reasons. Durant at 5 might seem high, but I don't think we've quite touched his true potential, which should be scary. Dirk is still unguardable, Paul is an insanely efficient, do everything point guard, Wade was unstoppable in 05-06, Pierce was a ridiculous scorer in his prime and Howard is the best big of his generation. Some people will say Wade is a little low, but he was never a particularly talented shooter, and I would just prefer Durant, Nowitzki or Paul if I could get someone who could score, shoot and affect the game in other areas.

Possible Hall of Fame Point Guards
11. Steve Nash
12. Jason Kidd
13. Deron Williams
14. Derrick Rose
Nash and Kidd are locks to be in the Hall some day and both D-Will and Rose have decent shots if they continue similar production. The problem with these guys is that each one has their weaknesses and none of them could carry a terrible team to a deep playoff run. Nash can't defend, Kidd was never a great scorer, Williams can't shoot and has been really inefficient the last few years and Rose can't stay healthy (plus he's still really young and not the greatest distributor). But I'd definitely take them over the next three groups.

The "Not Quite Rights"
15. Carmelo Anthony
16. Ray Allen
17. Pau Gasol
Each one of these guys has been the No. 1 on mediocre playoff teams and both Pau and Ray have played secondary roles on championship teams. But all three of these guys have proven they cannot carry a team on their own. Although Allen and Pau both have more refined individual skills (Allen's shooting and Pau's post game), Anthony is clearly the most talented of the three. Some people will say that Pierce belongs below Anthony or that Pierce should be in this list, but his prime numbers dwarf Melo's and Pierce was a No. 1 on some mediocre teams he took deep into the playoffs early in his career (01-02 especially). I think all three of these guys can be No. 1 players on a very good. 4-6 seed, but not on a No. 1-2 seed.

I Need to See More
18. Kevin Love
19. Russell Westbrook
20. James Harden
All three of these guys is insanely talented and by the end of the season, I think they'll all be among the top 10-15 players in the league. But there just isn't enough evidence to put them higher up. Can Love become a better defensive player and perform in the playoffs? Can Westbrook either improve his outside shot or learn to defer more? And can Harden be a legit No. 1 for a full NBA season on a playoff team?

The Bottom Feeders
21. Vince Carter
22. Chris Bosh
23. Amare Stoudemire
24. Blake Griffin
25. Joe Johnson
People will argue with me on a lot of these picks, but I would not want any of these five guys over the 20 players listed above them. For starters, VC and Stoudemire have both put up some very sexy numbers in their primes. But Vinsanity has always been more of a highlight reel than a postseason No. 1 and he plays no defense. And Stoudemire is a soft big man whose numbers were clearly inflated by playing with Nash. Bosh is an odd case in that I think he can carry a team to the playoffs, but not very far, and I think he's just much more suited for a secondary role. I place him above Amare because he's a much better defensive player. Blake could potentially go in the above category, but I just don't trust him, and I'm not sure he'll get much better. He has no mid range game, he can't hit a free throw, he doesn't block shots and he doesn't play defense. That scares me. And JJ is easily the worst player on this entire list, IMO.

i like this post a lot.

i only would have done one thing differently. I would have gotten rid of your HOF PG category, and I would have placed Nash, Kidd, and Rose in the phenomenal franchise starters category. I would have placed Williams in the "Not Quite Rights".

Maybe I would have changed the specifics of the numbering here and there, maybe I would have included the likes of Bynum, Billups, Rasheed, Ginobli, ect but that'd just be nit-picking. conceptually, i like your post a lot.

Carey
11-09-2012, 05:25 PM
Scary thing is KD has to get to his prime first

Hellcrooner
11-09-2012, 05:25 PM
How are Kidd and Garnett and Dwight in the first group while Wade and Dirk are in the 2nd group when those guys in the 2nd group won rings as the top dog no contest on there teams for franchises that never even won before?

Kidd lead a team filled with crap to the finals twice, if at his prime he woudl have had a solid second man alongisde the crap, they woudl ahv ewon more than 1.

Garnet lead a bunch of crap as far as he cood in 2004, and had they gone trough they could ahve defeated the pistons.

wade and dirk won with STACKED TEAMS.

thats why.


And your " first ring ever " argument i have talked bout it earlier in the thread it holds no value to anyone but you ( cause its convenient for your boy Mj).

STL Don
11-09-2012, 05:30 PM
Jason Kidd-Steve Nash
Kobe Bryant-Vince Carter
Shane Battier-Danny Granger
Kevin Love-Ryan Anderson
Dwight Howard-Andrew Bogut

ManRam
11-09-2012, 05:32 PM
Totally off the top of my head.


Tier 1:
Tim Duncan
LeBon James

Tier 2:
Kevin Garnett
Chris Paul
Kobe Bryant
Dwyane Wade

Tier 3:
Dirk Nowitzki
Kevin Durant
Jason Kidd

Tier 4:
Dwight Howard
Paul Pierce
Steve Nash

Then the rest.

Only reason Duncan is over LeBron is because I think a big man is slightly more important than a wing.

mngopher35
11-09-2012, 05:39 PM
Lebron
Duncan (Its close but I just think Lebron is a little more dominant)
KG
Kobe
Wade

TheLegend
11-09-2012, 05:44 PM
Lebron
Kobe
Duncan
KG
D.Rose
Howard
Durant
Dirk
Wade

JordansBulls
11-09-2012, 05:55 PM
Kidd lead a team filled with crap to the finals twice, if at his prime he woudl have had a solid second man alongisde the crap, they woudl ahv ewon more than 1.

Garnet lead a bunch of crap as far as he cood in 2004, and had they gone trough they could ahve defeated the pistons.

wade and dirk won with STACKED TEAMS.

thats why.


And your " first ring ever " argument i have talked bout it earlier in the thread it holds no value to anyone but you ( cause its convenient for your boy Mj).

How did Wade or Dirk win with stacked teams and Garnett led crap when he had Sprewell as well on his team. And Kidd played with Dirk in his prime as well and they never went anywhere, so how can you say if he had another 2nd option he would win and he also had Penny on his team in Phoenix.

IversonIsKrazy
11-09-2012, 06:00 PM
1-Duncan
2-Kobe
3-Garnett
4-LeBron
5-Dirk

Im_in_Mia_bish
11-09-2012, 06:09 PM
have we even seen kevin love, lebrons, or durants prime yet?

Im_in_Mia_bish
11-09-2012, 06:11 PM
Because:

LeBron
Cp3
Wade
Kobe
Duncan
KG
Dirk
Dwight Howard
Kevin Durant
Steve Nash
Jason Kidd
are all current players.
i would take pierce over jkidd prime and coin toss over cp3 prime.

Im_in_Mia_bish
11-09-2012, 06:12 PM
I'd still take Kobe over LeBron. lebron's prime hasnt been defined yet. Kobe has 3 rings from his prime years.

also, this list is missing grant hill.

.....
this makes absolutely no sense.
:facepalm:

how the ******* did he win 3 rings from his prime years?

jesus christ, and ur using a team accomplishment?

smh

jericho
11-09-2012, 06:13 PM
1st pick would be between timmy bron kobe & kg. but all in their primes i would build a team like this:
pg jkidd
sg carter
sf josh smith
pf griffin
c deandre jordan
i know its not a championship team but that team would be making me a lot of money with all the highlights they would put them on tv all the time lol

Lake_Show2416
11-09-2012, 06:15 PM
have we even seen kevin love, lebrons, or durants prime yet?

Nope

jericho
11-09-2012, 06:23 PM
i would take pierce over jkidd prime and coin toss over cp3 prime.

naw i like more jkidd in his prime he was a triple double threat night in and night out. he didnt need the ball to make an impact on the game, all you needed was him on the floor and you knew you had a chance to win the game. with pierce b4 kg and allen got there he didnt do a thing all he did was score and avg decent numbers but his team was still on the losing end

not to mention that kidd made everyone around him better pierce was never able to do that

Bruno
11-09-2012, 06:25 PM
have we even seen kevin love, lebrons, or durants prime yet?

we have seen LeBrons peak. he might sustain this level of play well into his 30's, but he isn't getting better than he is today (or last season, or since 2009). He's 28 next month. If there's ever been a single number that represents prime in NBA years, it's 28.

Love, Durant? no.

mightybosstone
11-09-2012, 06:45 PM
wow, I'm not even a kobe fan, but anything outside the top 3 is insane. do you guys know what prime means. Duncan you can make a case for and perhaps kg.

no one who has played less than 10 years should be ranked because they havent had their primes defined.

example, I would take a prime Irving over a prime Jason Kidd. how can someone make that statement?

This makes no sense. You don't have to play 10 years to have your prime defined. In fact, most players hit their prime after three or four years and start to decline after eight or nine. And some guys start out their careers strong and decline quickly due to injuries.


I'm not saying Wade is still better, but he was better. In fact thru there first 3 seasons it was Wade. Also in 2010 and 2011 you can say Wade was better as well.

Also once you compare them there numbers are relatively close and Wade is better in the finals. And it doesn't change the point which was made that Wade led a franchise to a title as did Dirk and also you know they will stay with your franchise and not leave.

lebron = 23 pts / 8 reb / 7 ast on 44% shooting

wade instead: 28 pts / 7 reb / 5 ast on 48% shooting
The only seasons you could make a case for Wade being better than Lebron are their rookie seasons, 05-06 and 06-07 (although Wade missed a huge chunk of that year due to injury). But Lebron was easily better in every other season, IMO.

Also, I think if you look at their numbers, you could argue Wade hit his prime first and has been more consistent, averaging fairly similar numbers from 05-06 through last season. HOWEVER, Lebron really hit his stride in 07-08 and has been the superior player ever since by a wide, wide margin. So if they're both still in their prime (I'd say Wade is slightly on a decline), then Lebron's prime is clearly stronger than Wade's, and it's not close.

topdog
11-09-2012, 06:49 PM
1. Lebron James
2. KD (height over Hill)
3. Hill
4. D12 (built like no other)
5. Duncan
6. Kidd
7. Kobe
8. Ray
9. Wade (shooting drops him)
10. Paul
11. Rose
12. KG
13. Dirk
14. Vinsanity
15. Westbrook
16. Love
17. Harden (not in prime yet)
18. Amaré (before surgery)
19. Pierce
20. Nash (I love his offensive game, but defense does it)
21. Melo
22. Gasol
23. Bosh
24. Griffin (not in prime yet)
25. Williams
26. Johnson

mightybosstone
11-09-2012, 06:51 PM
i like this post a lot.

i only would have done one thing differently. I would have gotten rid of your HOF PG category, and I would have placed Nash, Kidd, and Rose in the phenomenal franchise starters category. I would have placed Williams in the "Not Quite Rights".

Maybe I would have changed the specifics of the numbering here and there, maybe I would have included the likes of Bynum, Billups, Rasheed, Ginobli, ect but that'd just be nit-picking. conceptually, i like your post a lot.

Thank you, sir. :) That's not a bad idea, but I kind of liked that all four players were grouped together in terms of ranking on my list, and they all had significant flaws in their game.

StarvingKnick22
11-09-2012, 06:54 PM
1.Bron Bron
2.Garnett
3. Kobe
4. Chris PAUL

diu9leilomo
11-09-2012, 06:57 PM
wheres tmac and AI????

mightybosstone
11-09-2012, 06:57 PM
One thing that surprises me is how many people ranked Kidd above Nash. I realize they're very close on an all-time list and with players like that, sometimes it's just personal preference. But I would easily take Nash over Kidd. While both players are among the greatest distributors in NBA history, I've always felt like Nash was the better floor general than Kidd and did a better job of making those around him better. Nash was also the superior postseason player, shooter and shooter. And so what if he played no defense? Point guard defense is completely overrated.

I expect many people will bring up the Nets two championship appearances in the 2000s, but those teams only got that far because the East was a joke and the Pistons hadn't hit their stride yet. Nash, on the other hand, played in the same conference as Kobe, Shaq, Duncan and Garnett in their primes.

diu9leilomo
11-09-2012, 06:57 PM
lebron
Kobe
ai
kg
dwight

mightybosstone
11-09-2012, 06:58 PM
1.Bron Bron
2.Garnett
3. Kobe
4. Chris PAUL

Wow dude... No Duncan in your top four? You're kidding me right?

topdog
11-09-2012, 07:01 PM
One thing that surprises me is how many people ranked Kidd above Nash. I realize they're very close on an all-time list and with players like that, sometimes it's just personal preference. But I would easily take Nash over Kidd. While both players are among the greatest distributors in NBA history, I've always felt like Nash was the better floor general than Kidd and did a better job of making those around him better. Nash was also the superior postseason player, shooter and shooter. And so what if he played no defense? Point guard defense is completely overrated.

I expect many people will bring up the Nets two championship appearances in the 2000s, but those teams only got that far because the East was a joke and the Pistons hadn't hit their stride yet. Nash, on the other hand, played in the same conference as Kobe, Shaq, Duncan and Garnett in their primes.

I love watching Nash play, but if we're talking about all these guys in their prime, we're talking about facing the Roses and Westbrooks of the world who simply blow past Nash.

Im_in_Mia_bish
11-09-2012, 07:02 PM
One thing that surprises me is how many people ranked Kidd above Nash. I realize they're very close on an all-time list and with players like that, sometimes it's just personal preference. But I would easily take Nash over Kidd. While both players are among the greatest distributors in NBA history, I've always felt like Nash was the better floor general than Kidd and did a better job of making those around him better. Nash was also the superior postseason player, shooter and shooter. And so what if he played no defense? Point guard defense is completely overrated.

I expect many people will bring up the Nets two championship appearances in the 2000s, but those teams only got that far because the East was a joke and the Pistons hadn't hit their stride yet. Nash, on the other hand, played in the same conference as Kobe, Shaq, Duncan and Garnett in their primes.

absolutely, and the nets had carter, jefferson and martin.

i feel kidd gets a little more credit than he deserves, but he was a walkign triple double machine, that is no question and he did make his teammates better..

i would personally choose pierce over them.. imo, i wouldnt blame anyone else for pickin kidd or nash, but imo i feel the truth's prime was just too good.

KingPosey
11-09-2012, 07:03 PM
I bet it KILLED you that you couldnt put TMAC on this list finally lol

KingPosey
11-09-2012, 07:05 PM
Nash turned into an amazing player, but what strengthens Kidd's argument is that he was good on both ends of the floor in his prime. Im not saying I would take Kidd for sure, but thats whats being overlooked.

KingPosey
11-09-2012, 07:07 PM
i would take pierce over jkidd prime and coin toss over cp3 prime.

I wouldnt, I would say Pierce played his best basketball by far AFTER his prime. Him and AWalk were chuck masters in Boston during their primes. It was so hard to watch at times, it was like ****** pick up games. WHoever gets the ball first is not passing and is chucking up the first open look they get from 25 feet in.

mightybosstone
11-09-2012, 07:08 PM
I love watching Nash play, but if we're talking about all these guys in their prime, we're talking about facing the Roses and Westbrooks of the world who simply blow past Nash.
I get that argument, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Because point guard defense is overrated, and because any impact that Kidd had defensively was almost negated by his lack of scoring offensively. Nash might give up the occasional big play, but he has hit some unbelievably clutch 3-pointers in his day and put teams on his back when they needed him to.

absolutely, and the nets had carter, jefferson and martin.

i feel kidd gets a little more credit than he deserves, but he was a walkign triple double machine, that is no question and he did make his teammates better..

i would personally choose pierce over them.. imo, i wouldnt blame anyone else for pickin kidd or nash, but imo i feel the truth's prime was just too good.
Lol. Why are you comparing Pierce to Nash and Kidd? Personally, I would probably take Pierce over them too if I'm taking a player in their prime, although I wouldn't rank him higher on an all-time list. But you're comparing a wing player to two point guards, and I was talking specifically about the comparison between Nash and Kidd.

Im_in_Mia_bish
11-09-2012, 07:09 PM
Lol. Why are you comparing Pierce to Nash and Kidd? Personally, I would probably take Pierce over them too if I'm taking a player in their prime, although I wouldn't rank him higher on an all-time list. But you're comparing a wing player to two point guards, and I was talking specifically about the comparison between Nash and Kidd.

oh i know you were comparing the two, i was just saying that i would choose pierce's prime over those 2 prime.

mightybosstone
11-09-2012, 07:10 PM
Nash turned into an amazing player, but what strengthens Kidd's argument is that he was good on both ends of the floor in his prime. Im not saying I would take Kidd for sure, but thats whats being overlooked.
But Nash wasn't completely good on both ends of the floor. That's the point I'm trying to make. He was like a much better version of Rajon Rondo. His shot and scoring was certainly better than Rondo's, but he was nowhere near the scorer or shooter that Nash was and Kidd was always a highly inefficient scorer.

Skizzik
11-09-2012, 07:11 PM
This is a fun thread after you get past the top three or four, which are obvious (as we can see from everyone's lists). I like the love Dirk is getting. Also, lol at the guy who said Dirk won with a stacked roster.

For the Kidd/Nash debate, I'd take Kidd. I love what Nash does, but I think Kidd likely has the highest BBIQ in the game. I think Kidd's impact isn't always something you can put in stats. He's a great leader and will be a great coach one day I'm sure.

It's way too early for some of these guys though. Durant, for example, turned 24 just before the season started. He's 2 years or so from the start of his prime. Before we try to rank him against Duncan and KG and Kobe, we should at least wait until we see him in his prime.

Skizzik
11-09-2012, 07:15 PM
It should also be noted Kidd has guarded more than just point guards. During our title run and his years with the Mavs leading to it, he guarded Kobe a number of times and others with some success.

jericho
11-09-2012, 07:22 PM
But Nash wasn't completely good on both ends of the floor. That's the point I'm trying to make. He was like a much better version of Rajon Rondo. His shot and scoring was certainly better than Rondo's, but he was nowhere near the scorer or shooter that Nash was and Kidd was always a highly inefficient scorer.

kidd was ineficient shooter but he was 1 of the only players that could impact the game without scoring at all he could have 0 points and still get you the W everything else he did he was good at it. we all know the east was weak but compare kidds nets team to nash suns team. his best players were kmart keith van horn and a rookie richard jeferson nash had stat marion joe johnson barbosa diaw among others. nash had way better options to pass the ball to.

and again what pierce over kidd i know is different positions but plz pierce didnt do a thing until kg and allen got there yeah he knows how to score but he didnt know how to get you the W you can even say that he didnt play D back then. hell you can even say that he was melo b4. would you take melo in his prime over kidd??? ofcourse not its the same with pierce. and btw i hate melo but at least his teams were always in the playoffs unlike pierce that needed 2 more players to be there

jericho
11-09-2012, 07:23 PM
damn how can we forget bout grant hill

b@llhog24
11-09-2012, 07:40 PM
i would take pierce over jkidd prime and coin toss over cp3 prime.

I could stomach Jkidd but you're smoking that good kush if you think Paul is anywhere near as good as a prime Cp3.

mightybosstone
11-09-2012, 07:50 PM
kidd was ineficient shooter but he was 1 of the only players that could impact the game without scoring at all he could have 0 points and still get you the W everything else he did he was good at it. we all know the east was weak but compare kidds nets team to nash suns team. his best players were kmart keith van horn and a rookie richard jeferson nash had stat marion joe johnson barbosa diaw among others. nash had way better options to pass the ball to.
But Nash was still the better player in his prime and the stats prove that. Also, Nash faced a MUCH harder level of competition in the West than Kidd's Nets did in the East. And it's not debatable. If you switch the teams, the Suns would have made the finals just as much as the Nets if not more.


and again what pierce over kidd i know is different positions but plz pierce didnt do a thing until kg and allen got there yeah he knows how to score but he didnt know how to get you the W you can even say that he didnt play D back then. hell you can even say that he was melo b4. would you take melo in his prime over kidd??? ofcourse not its the same with pierce. and btw i hate melo but at least his teams were always in the playoffs unlike pierce that needed 2 more players to be there
This isn't true. Pierce made the playoffs four straight years from 2002-2005 and even led them to the conference finals in 2002 despite mediocre teammates. And the reason I said I would take prime Pierce over those two is because he's an elite scorer and scoring comes at a premium in the NBA. But if I were ranking all three players on an all-time list, I would take Nash and Kidd ahead of Pierce.

Bruno
11-09-2012, 08:00 PM
Tier One: Kobe/Duncan/LBJ.

Tier Two: Kidd/KG/Nash/McGrady/Pierce/Dirk/Wade/Cp3/Howard/Durant.

Tier Three: G. Hill/R. Wallace/R. Allen/Billups/V. Carter/P. Gasol/Ginobli/Parker/Amare/Melo/Bosh/D. Williams/Roy/Westbrook/K. Love/Harden.

Tier Four: S. Marion/E. Brand/R. Hamilton/R. Gay/Boozer/J. Smith/Bynum/R. Rondo/M. Gasol/Griffin/Irving.

I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody...

this is my list without running the numbers.

topdog
11-09-2012, 08:04 PM
I get that argument, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Because point guard defense is overrated, and because any impact that Kidd had defensively was almost negated by his lack of scoring offensively. Nash might give up the occasional big play, but he has hit some unbelievably clutch 3-pointers in his day and put teams on his back when they needed him to.

The other part here is a matter of who else is on your team. Quite frankly, even if many games don't come down to a duel of PGs, there still is the matter of team culture and the point guard leading you on both ends of the floor.

Believe me, it was a hard choice and I had to go with my gut, but Mr. Triple Double trumps Run'N'Gun. Sidenote: I loved watching Nash drive to the rim and make that perfect decision every time to rear up and shoot or dish to the big an at the rim.

jericho
11-09-2012, 08:21 PM
But Nash was still the better player in his prime and the stats prove that. Also, Nash faced a MUCH harder level of competition in the West than Kidd's Nets did in the East. And it's not debatable. If you switch the teams, the Suns would have made the finals just as much as the Nets if not more.


This isn't true. Pierce made the playoffs four straight years from 2002-2005 and even led them to the conference finals in 2002 despite mediocre teammates. And the reason I said I would take prime Pierce over those two is because he's an elite scorer and scoring comes at a premium in the NBA. But if I were ranking all three players on an all-time list, I would take Nash and Kidd ahead of Pierce.

ill agree to disagree with you on the first part i would take kidd over nash any day again kidd didnt need to score to get you a W so of course his numbers were lower than nash in terms of points cuz he didnt shoot that much and of course if you switch teams the result would have been different cuz the west back then was stacked how bout just switch kidd and nash instead.

for the bottom part if that was true why havent players like monta ellis jennings ben gordon david lee jim jackson allen iverson anthony mo williams michael finley leandro barbosa havent been valued as much
i know some of them dont make sense cuz pierce can score but iverson anthony ellis could go for 20 to 30 any night i forgot to add crawford and there is plenty of more players that are good scorers

like you said b4 the east was weak as hell back then that pierce made it to the playoffs doesnt surprise me the yr that he went to the eastern conference finals i think antoine walker was with that team and it was stacked again

another thingcorrect me if i am mistaken but didnt teams with 37 wins got in to the playoffs back then 2

VinceCarter
11-09-2012, 10:20 PM
*their prime

Sactown
11-09-2012, 10:49 PM
So? Wade and Lebron are in their primes right now and Lebron clearly is a much better basketball player than Wade. I don't even know how this point is debatable. It's like trying to argue Pippen as better than Jordan or McHale better than Bird.

He has to bash Lebron to protect MJ's legacy, so he tries to make him comparable to Wade

ohreally
11-10-2012, 12:26 AM
1. Duncan
2. LeBron
3. Wade
4. kobe
5. KG
6. Dirk
7. CP3
8. Durant
9. Dwight
10. Paul Pierce

:drool:

Duncan
LeBron
Kobe
KG
Pierce
Dirk
Howard
Nash
Wade
Kidd
Allen
Ginobli
CP3
Durant
Camby

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 12:30 AM
Duncan
LeBron
Kobe
KG
Pierce
Dirk
Howard
Nash
Wade
Kidd
Allen
Ginobli
CP3
Durant
Camby

Duncan
LeBron
Kobe
Wade
CP3
KG
Durant
Dirk
Manu
Kidd
Howard
Nash
Manu
Allen
Camby

I'm diggin this last. Hate me if you ain't me we gonna brawl to do it all.

LakersEaglesLA
11-10-2012, 01:17 AM
.....
this makes absolutely no sense.
:facepalm:

how the ******* did he win 3 rings from his prime years?

jesus christ, and ur using a team accomplishment?

smh

What do you mean how did he win 3 Chope in his prime..By kickin everyones butt!! Kobe's prime includes 7 finals appearances and 5 rings.. and dont give me that lame Shaq was this reason bs.. google the state of those playoff runa. Kobe and Shaq were dominant.. actually Kobe closed all the 4th quarters in the Fijaos because Shaq couldnt shoot free throws.. Lebrons terrified of the 4th quarter always have been and has LED his team to 1 chip in his whole career. Cp3, kg, Wade, dwight, are you guys dumb or haters Kobe is best since Jordan which even Jordan said. It took LeBron 7 years to get a jumper lol Tim Duncan is the Only other Active player whose prime is even in the conversation with KOBE'S!! The gm's and players in this league have already said it and I think They know basketball.

Jarvo
11-10-2012, 01:24 AM
Duncan
Wade
Kobe
Lebron *Isn't he in his prime now?*

LBJ6
11-10-2012, 06:07 AM
Lebron
KG
Dirk
Wade
CP3
Duncan
Kobe

LBJ6
11-10-2012, 06:10 AM
What do you mean how did he win 3 Chope in his prime..By kickin everyones butt!! Kobe's prime includes 7 finals appearances and 5 rings.. and dont give me that lame Shaq was this reason bs.. google the state of those playoff runa. Kobe and Shaq were dominant.. actually Kobe closed all the 4th quarters in the Fijaos because Shaq couldnt shoot free throws.. Lebrons terrified of the 4th quarter always have been and has LED his team to 1 chip in his whole career. Cp3, kg, Wade, dwight, are you guys dumb or haters Kobe is best since Jordan which even Jordan said. It took LeBron 7 years to get a jumper lol Tim Duncan is the Only other Active player whose prime is even in the conversation with KOBE'S!! The gm's and players in this league have already said it and I think They know basketball.

No.. you're overrating Kobe..

SirSkyHook
11-10-2012, 06:38 AM
No.. you're overrating Kobe..


No your underrating Kobe. Lebron with Wade and Bosh 1-1 in the finals. Only ring so far is there lockout season accomplishment where no surprize the teams that were together prior went the furthest while teams like the Lakers with a new coach and no preseaon and half of the roster changed suffered :eyebrow: .

Kobe with Pau = to Bosh in a tougher West with injured Kobe and Bynum and statisticaly worst bench in the league are 2-1 are the finals.

Anyone rating Lebron as a top tier if all were in their prime player is stuck in the hype. **** his regular season stats, theres no way the Mavs should have beat them in the finals lol

bigbeardaboss
11-10-2012, 06:38 AM
Duncan, Kobe or Grant Hill

IKnowHoops
11-10-2012, 06:53 AM
1. Lebron
2. Duncan
3. KG
4. Kobe
5. Wade
6. Durant
7. Grant Hill
8. CP3
9. Vince Carter
10. Dirk
11. Rasheed Wallace
12. Dwight Howard

JayW_1023
11-10-2012, 08:31 AM
Duncan....and then the rest.

Dade County
11-10-2012, 09:17 AM
Mark my words. Harden's 2012-2013 season could easily surpass any season statistically that Vince Carter had in his entire NBA career.

Do you still think so...?

We will see, and if Harden does end up being better then Carter, ( not just by the damn numbers )... that will be good for us NBA fans.

Dade County
11-10-2012, 09:34 AM
What do you mean how did he win 3 Chope in his prime..By kickin everyones butt!! Kobe's prime includes 7 finals appearances and 5 rings.. and dont give me that lame Shaq was this reason bs.. google the state of those playoff runa. Kobe and Shaq were dominant.. actually Kobe closed all the 4th quarters in the Fijaos because Shaq couldnt shoot free throws.. Lebrons terrified of the 4th quarter always have been and has LED his team to 1 chip in his whole career. Cp3, kg, Wade, dwight, are you guys dumb or haters .

A quick question... How many rings do you think Kobe would have won, if he never played with Shaq and or for the Lakers (lets say a small market team.. Maybe the team that original drafted him (even though the Lakers told them to draft him) )?

2nd Question... Does Shaq still win rings if he had another side kick in their prime like... KD, Lbj, Wade, Tmac...etc

3rd question... Do you think Kobe on that small market team could have gotten past the Spurs, Sacramento,Portland or Minnesota (that one good year they had with Kg & C0), lets say with a Bynum type of center and the same skill level shooters the Lakers had in their 3 peat? ( Wade had a broken down Shaq and know where near the same level of shooters )



Kobe is best since Jordan which even Jordan said. It took LeBron 7 years to get a jumper lol Tim Duncan is the Only other Active player whose prime is even in the conversation with KOBE'S!! The gm's and players in this league have already said it and I think They know basketball.

Everyone has their on opinion, I am not the type to let someones opinion dictate my opinion. Kobe was a very skilled player, But to me I would take other players before him.

Prime Healthy Wade
Prime Healthy Lbj
KD ( I haven't even seen his prime ... that's sooo F'in scary )
Timmy

( Please answer the questions respectfully, or don't answer them at all )

akia83
11-10-2012, 09:37 AM
Kobe had the best career, he was a top 5 player each year for a decade, he's a top 10 ever, but he never was as dominant as these guys.


LBJ
CP3 in 2009
Garnett
Duncan
Wade in 2009
Durant in 2011
Howard in 2010

Lakers211221
11-10-2012, 09:40 AM
I'm not doing the whole list, but here are my top 10:

1)Kobe
2)Lebron
3)Duncan
4)Dwight
5)Garnett
6)Durant
7)Wade
8)CP3
9)Dirk
10)Nash

Lakers211221
11-10-2012, 09:41 AM
Kobe had the best career, he was a top 5 player each year for a decade, he's a top 10 ever, but he never was as dominant as these guys.


LBJ
CP3 in 2009
Garnett
Duncan
Wade in 2009
Durant in 2011
Howard in 2010

This is a joke, right?

Lakers211221
11-10-2012, 09:43 AM
A quick question... How many rings do you think Kobe would have won, if he never played with Shaq and or for the Lakers (lets say a small market team.. Maybe the team that original drafted him (even though the Lakers told them to draft him) )?

2nd Question... Does Shaq still win rings if he had another side kick in their prime like... KD, Lbj, Wade, Tmac...etc

3rd question... Do you think Kobe on that small market team could have gotten past the Spurs, Sacramento,Portland or Minnesota (that one good year they had with Kg & C0), lets say with a Bynum type of center and the same skill level shooters the Lakers had in their 3 peat? ( Wade had a broken down Shaq and know where near the same level of shooters )



Everyone has their on opinion, I am not the type to let someones opinion dictate my opinion. Kobe was a very skilled player, But to me I would take other players before him.

Prime Healthy Wade
Prime Healthy Lbj
KD ( I haven't even seen his prime ... that's sooo F'in scary )
Timmy

( Please answer the questions respectfully, or don't answer them at all )

A broken down Shaq? Wasn't Shaq the MVP that year? LOL

Dade County
11-10-2012, 10:08 AM
Shaq avg 20 points a game and he had a drop in all major stat's in 2005-2006 season

This is what Sahq avg in the 2005-2006 playoffs for the HEAT "during the 2006 Playoffs for Miami, the NBA Champions…averaged 18.4 points, 9.8 rebounds and 1.5 blocks"

Could Kobe have Won a title with that same center production ( in that era of the Lakers 3 peat)?

monty77
11-10-2012, 10:40 AM
I would choose in first position to Tim Duncan because he is the shot of player who spread his ethic work to everyone. There are other player who maybe score more points, but there are no player who works harder than Tim.

He is (arguably) the best PF in the NBA history because is able to convert a plain team in a championship team. Yeah, Popovic, Parker and Ginobili also have merit but Duncan even surpassed them.

At second position I would choose Kobe Bryant, because this is a winner and enjoy playing the hotter moments when anyone wants to have the ball in his hands. Besides he have a very athletic body which allow him play like a young guy.

Maybe Lebron and Durant reach Kobe's level in the future but I will prefer Garnett and Nowitzki over them because they stayed on a high level for more than 15 years. Both finally got the ring and they will be considered top 5 PF in the NBA history along with Duncan and Karl Malone.

lakerboy
11-10-2012, 11:06 AM
Kobe has been better than LBJ, Wade and KD.

We are talking 7 finals appearances in the past 14 years, 5 championships

Let me say that again.. Kobe has been to the finals 7 times in the last 14 years. Thats +3 more than the San Antonio Spurs.


Tell me, how dominant has the Lakers been the past 14 years because of this guy?

By the way, Kobes won without Shaq. Lebron couldnt do it without Wade, and Wade couldnt win it without Shaq or Lebron. LOL


A quick question... How many rings do you think Kobe would have won, if he never played with Shaq and or for the Lakers (lets say a small market team.. Maybe the team that original drafted him (even though the Lakers told them to draft him) )?

2nd Question... Does Shaq still win rings if he had another side kick in their prime like... KD, Lbj, Wade, Tmac...etc

3rd question... Do you think Kobe on that small market team could have gotten past the Spurs, Sacramento,Portland or Minnesota (that one good year they had with Kg & C0), lets say with a Bynum type of center and the same skill level shooters the Lakers had in their 3 peat? ( Wade had a broken down Shaq and know where near the same level of shooters )



Everyone has their on opinion, I am not the type to let someones opinion dictate my opinion. Kobe was a very skilled player, But to me I would take other players before him.

Prime Healthy Wade
Prime Healthy Lbj
KD ( I haven't even seen his prime ... that's sooo F'in scary )
Timmy

( Please answer the questions respectfully, or don't answer them at all )

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 11:11 AM
Shaq avg 20 points a game and he had a drop in all major stat's in 2005-2006 season

This is what Sahq avg in the 2005-2006 playoffs for the HEAT "during the 2006 Playoffs for Miami, the NBA Champions…averaged 18.4 points, 9.8 rebounds and 1.5 blocks"

Could Kobe have Won a title with that same center production ( in that era of the Lakers 3 peat)?

Maybe not in 2000 but every year after that yes.

heattiltheend94
11-10-2012, 11:17 AM
1 Lebron
2 Duncan
3 Kobe Bryant
4 wade (people on this site seem to forget how unstoppable he was back in 06, 09)
5 Kevin Garnett

Im_in_Mia_bish
11-10-2012, 11:22 AM
why is it that only laker fans or lebron haters say kobe is better than lebron, but every other fan base says the total opposite?

:catfight:

Im_in_Mia_bish
11-10-2012, 11:23 AM
top 5 should def contain Duncan, Bron, Wade, Kobe, and KG.

dont really care which order you do it in, cos majority of the picks are biased.

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 11:41 AM
top 5 should def contain Duncan, Bron, Wade, Kobe, and KG.

dont really care which order you do it in, cos majority of the picks are biased.

I'd rather have prime CP3 instead of KG.

Dade County
11-10-2012, 12:11 PM
Kobe has been better than LBJ, Wade and KD.

We are talking 7 finals appearances in the past 14 years, 5 championships

Let me say that again.. Kobe has been to the finals 7 times in the last 14 years. Thats +3 more than the San Antonio Spurs.


Tell me, how dominant has the Lakers been the past 14 years because of this guy?


The question wasn't for you...:facepalm:

And I guess you ignored that I wrote that in this scenario, Kobe was not on the Lakers (so he is not protected/helped by the biggest market/(league) ).

And you are trying to tell me that from the years 2001 to whatever, Kobe would have won all the rings with a center that averaged 18.4 points, 9.8 rebounds and 1.5 blocks, against so many good teams.

So Kobe would not have the help of the refs, he would have had to dell with players not wanting to come to a small market team and all that other crap. He would have been almost like Lbj in Cleveland.

OK, I believe you:facepalm:




By the way, Kobes won without Shaq. Lebron couldnt do it without Wade, and Wade couldnt win it without Shaq or Lebron. LOL

If Wade or Lbj had Paul & Bynum, they would have won 2 to 4 titles, so I really don't understand your logic.

If Kobe had to play with not prime shaq, he would not have had a finals Like Wade...

And I really don't care what you have to say about Lbj, so have fun with that one:p.

mightybosstone
11-10-2012, 12:15 PM
ill agree to disagree with you on the first part i would take kidd over nash any day again kidd didnt need to score to get you a W so of course his numbers were lower than nash in terms of points cuz he didnt shoot that much and of course if you switch teams the result would have been different cuz the west back then was stacked how bout just switch kidd and nash instead.
Nash's numbers go beyond just scoring. His assist numbers and percentage are superior, as well as his win shares and PER numbers. It's not close.


for the bottom part if that was true why havent players like monta ellis jennings ben gordon david lee jim jackson allen iverson anthony mo williams michael finley leandro barbosa havent been valued as much
i know some of them dont make sense cuz pierce can score but iverson anthony ellis could go for 20 to 30 any night i forgot to add crawford and there is plenty of more players that are good scorers

I fail to see your point here, because you're comparing players with a HUGE talent gap between them. Are you really trying to tell me that Jim Jackson, Mo Williams and Leandro Barbosa should be spoken in the same conversation at Pierce and Iverson?

And Iverson does get the credit he deserves. He was a great scorer and competitor who was arguably one of the 50-75 greatest players of all time. However, he was insanely inefficient and more of a ball hog than any player I've ever seen, which keeps him from the top 30-40, IMO.

Melo will probably go down as a top 100 all-time guy, but aside from he and Iverson, no one on that list deserves to be spoken in the same sentence as Pierce. Pierce was a superior defender to most of those players, far more efficient and a much better ball handler and rebounder. It's not close, and your point makes no sense.


like you said b4 the east was weak as hell back then that pierce made it to the playoffs doesnt surprise me the yr that he went to the eastern conference finals i think antoine walker was with that team and it was stacked again. another thingcorrect me if i am mistaken but didnt teams with 37 wins got in to the playoffs back then
The year they went to the conference finals, they were 49-33. And to say a team was "stacked" with Antoine Walker is an absolute joke. You called them both chuckers, but Walker averaged 1 more 3-pointer a game and only 34% compared to 40% for Pierce. Walker also averaged a pitiful .490 TS% and .094 WS/48 that season (which are well below average). If you really look at that team, aside from Pierce, it was awful. The dude gets no credit for keeping that team competitive for the better part of a decade before Allen and KG got there.


Duncan
LeBron
Kobe
Wade
CP3
KG
Durant
Dirk
Manu
Kidd
Howard
Nash
Manu
Allen
Camby

I'm diggin this last. Hate me if you ain't me we gonna brawl to do it all.
What's up with your KG hate? Is that your Knicks fandom getting the better of you? ;)

Dade County
11-10-2012, 12:17 PM
Maybe not in 2000 but every year after that yes.

Kobe would not have gotten pass Spurs, Portland, Sacramento, Minnesota...etc; With Out Shaq dominating.

Doesn't matter if Kobe was in the East or West, whenever his team would have matched up with those teams, game over.

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 12:52 PM
What's up with your KG hate? Is that your Knicks fandom getting the better of you? ;)

Is it really hate to prefer CP3? :confused:


Kobe would not have gotten pass Spurs, Portland, Sacramento, Minnesota...etc; With Out Shaq dominating.

Doesn't matter if Kobe was in the East or West, whenever his team would have matched up with those teams, game over.

Under the premise that we're replacing Shaq with an all-star big, I don't see why not. Also they'd have a ton more cap space so they could have had a lot of different options at the PF and C spot.

mightybosstone
11-10-2012, 12:56 PM
Is it really hate to prefer CP3? :confused:
If we're talking all-time lists, I'd take him over Wade and CP3 easily. If we're talking about this thread, I'd take him over Kobe, CP3 and Wade. I just think you're seriously underrating his defensive impact. And that's coming from a guy who loves him some CP3.

Andrew32
11-10-2012, 01:01 PM
Under the premise that we're replacing Shaq with an all-star big, I don't see why not. Also they'd have a ton more cap space so they could have had a lot of different options at the PF and C spot.

Shaq was the best player in the league in 00 and 02.
They barely squeezed by and won those two years.

Replace Shaq with any other player and they don't win period.

Kobe wasn't even better then Prime Pippen in 00 and 02... quit overrating him.

Shaq was the primary force and reason behind those teams success.

Kobe was a supporting player.

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 01:04 PM
If we're talking all-time lists, I'd take him over Wade and CP3 easily. If we're talking about this thread, I'd take him over Kobe, CP3 and Wade. I just think you're seriously underrating his defensive impact. And that's coming from a guy who loves him some CP3.

1. I think now you're underrating prime CP3's defensive impact.
2. I think you're underrating prime CP3's offensive impact.
3. I think you're overrating KG's offensive impact.
4. I think you're ignoring KG's drastically embarassing decline in production from regular season to playoffs.
5. I think you're ignoring CP3's impressive playoff production.
6. I think you're also choosing player whose style creates problems. He relies on his mid-range game more than any star big man ever should and it's ruined his effeciency and his production. I also hate the idea of a PF/C focusing that much time and energy on creating for teammates.

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 01:07 PM
Shaq was the best player in the league in 00 and 02.
They barely squeezed by and won those two years.

Replace Shaq with any other player and they don't win period.

Kobe wasn't even better then Prime Pippen in 00 and 02... quit overrating him.

Shaq was the primary force and reason behind those teams success.

Kobe was a supporting player.

:laugh: Does putting things in bold make them MORE true?

So let me get this straight... a player who averages 25-28ppg/5-6rpg/5-6apg is a supporting player?

I've never argued Kobe was MORE important than Shaq but how can you honestly justify calling him a supporting player?

Andrew32
11-10-2012, 01:12 PM
I've never argued Kobe was MORE important than Shaq but how can you honestly justify calling him a supporting player?

Because Kobe's production and impact in 2002 was comparable to Prime Pippen's while Shaq's production and impact in 2002 was comparable to Prime Jordan's.

Also Kobe was clearly in the role of supporting player as the offense and defense were both clearly anchored by and built around O'neal.

1992 Pippen : 20 / 9 / 7apg on 54%TS
2002 Kobe : 26 / 6 / 4.5apg on 51%TS

Pippen also had a far greater defensive impact.

The gap between Shaq / Kobe in 2002 was the same gap that existed between Jordan / Pippen.

Yes Kobe and Pip were still amazing players those years but they were still clearly in a supporting role to a vastly superior player.
Take your revisionist history and junk it.



Playoff PER

A's (Main Star) :
Shaq (00-02) : 29
Jordan (91-93 + 96-98) : 28.53

B's (Side-Kicks) :
Kobe (00-02) : 21
Pippen (91-93 + 96-98) : 19.5

b@llhog24
11-10-2012, 01:36 PM
I'd rather have prime CP3 instead of KG.

Maybe not over KG but I think he has a case over Wade.

JollyRanch
11-10-2012, 01:43 PM
Kobe wasn't even better then Prime Pippen in 00 and 02... quit overrating him.



What is wrong with you???

The most PPG Scottie ever averaged was 22. Kobe averages more than that for his ENTIRE career.

RLundi
11-10-2012, 01:45 PM
Easy, LeBron, and he might not even be there yet.

Andrew32
11-10-2012, 01:46 PM
What is wrong with you???

The most PPG Scottie ever averaged was 22. Kobe averages more than that for his ENTIRE career.

That is fine and dandy but the "More PPG = More Better" method of judging players is not one I hitch my wagon too or agree with.

92 Pippen scored less then Kobe but he was more efficient, created more for his teammates (apg), rebounded better and was much more impactful defensively.

1992 Pippen : 20 / 9 / 7apg on 54%TS
2002 Kobe : 26 / 6 / 4.5apg on 51%TS

92 Pippen > 02 Kobe

RLundi
11-10-2012, 01:50 PM
Tier One: Kobe/Duncan/LBJ.

Tier Two: Kidd/KG/Nash/McGrady/Pierce/Dirk/Wade/Cp3/Howard/Durant.

Tier Three: G. Hill/R. Wallace/R. Allen/Billups/V. Carter/P. Gasol/Ginobli/Parker/Amare/Melo/Bosh/D. Williams/Roy/Westbrook/K. Love/Harden.

Tier Four: S. Marion/E. Brand/R. Hamilton/R. Gay/Boozer/J. Smith/Bynum/R. Rondo/M. Gasol/Griffin/Irving.

I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody...

this is my list without running the numbers.

McGrady's prime is RIGHT up there with Kobe's when T-Mac was in Orlando. If we're simply talking about player ability and statistics (excluding rings) I have no idea why'd you label Kobe tier 1 but not McGrady.

DodgerB24
11-10-2012, 01:57 PM
1. Duncan
2. LeBron
3. Kobe
4. Wade
5. Dirk
6. Durant
7. Nash
8. Howard
9. KG
10. K. Love

JollyRanch
11-10-2012, 02:02 PM
That is fine and dandy but the "More PPG = More Better" method of judging players is not one I hitch my wagon too or agree with.

92 Pippen scored less then Kobe but he was more efficient, created more for his teammates (apg), rebounded better and was much more impactful defensively.

1992 Pippen : 20 / 9 / 7apg on 54%TS
2002 Kobe : 26 / 6 / 4.5apg on 51%TS

92 Pippen > 02 Kobe

Scottie Pippen created more because he was a point forward for Chicago. No one ever claimed "creating for his teammates" is one of Kobe's strongest attributes but he's not bad at it. I LOVE Scottie Pippen but Kobe Bryant is a top five/top ten player of all time.

Pippen only averaged 9 RPG once in his career and it wasn't in 1992...it was his '93-'94 season.

'91-'92 Pippen: 21/8/7 on 51% FG

'01-'02 Kobe: 25/6/6 on 47% FG

Andrew32
11-10-2012, 02:06 PM
I LOVE Scottie Pippen but Kobe Bryant is a top five/top ten player of all time.
Kobe is most certainly not a Top 5 player of All-Time or anything close to that.

He currently is a Top 9-15 All-Time player who's "arguable" ceiling is unlikely to get higher then 6-7 and the greatness of his career as a whole has nothing to do with the fact that in 2002 he was not a better player then 92 Pippen.

Also I was using playoff numbers and Pippen did average 9rpg (or 8.8 to be exact) in the 92 playoffs.

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 02:21 PM
Because Kobe's production and impact in 2002 was comparable to Prime Pippen's while Shaq's production and impact in 2002 was comparable to Prime Jordan's.

Also Kobe was clearly in the role of supporting player as the offense and defense were both clearly anchored by and built around O'neal.

1992 Pippen : 20 / 9 / 7apg on 54%TS
2002 Kobe : 26 / 6 / 4.5apg on 51%TS

Pippen also had a far greater defensive impact.

The gap between Shaq / Kobe in 2002 was the same gap that existed between Jordan / Pippen.

Yes Kobe and Pip were still amazing players those years but they were still clearly in a supporting role to a vastly superior player.
Take your revisionist history and junk it.

Just to clarify, anyone who is not the team's best player is a supporting player? For example, Wade was a supporting player to LeBron in that championship.

Andrew32
11-10-2012, 02:23 PM
Just to clarify, anyone who is not the team's best player is a supporting player? For example, Wade was a supporting player to LeBron in that championship.
It depends on how great the gap is between the #1 guy and the #2 guy and also some other factors.

The fact that Kobe was a supporting player in 2002 doesn't take away from the fact that he was also a borderline Top 5 player that year and a solid high level All-Star.

He gets credit for his individual play but he was still clearly in a supporting role to a vastly superior player.

I haven't thought about it but yeah I am pretty sure Wade was a supporting player to Lebron last year.

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 02:26 PM
It depends on how great the gap is between the #1 guy and the #2 guy and also some other factors.

The fact that Kobe was a supporting player in 2002 doesn't take away from the fact that he was also a borderline Top 5 player that year and a solid high level All-Star.
He gets credit for his individual play but he was still clearly in a supporting role to a vastly superior player.

I haven't thought about it but yeah I am pretty sure Wade was a supporting player to Lebron last year.

Okay. See now at least I understand your perspective. Personally, I can't fathom calling a top 5 player a "supporting" player but we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Chavacano
11-10-2012, 02:45 PM
@Andrew32: You should compile all those stuff disproving Kobe and make a blog about it here in PSD so you'll just be linking instead of writing it over and over again. llullz

Andrew32
11-10-2012, 02:48 PM
nvm - lol

mngopher35
11-10-2012, 02:51 PM
Scottie Pippen created more because he was a point forward for Chicago. No one ever claimed "creating for his teammates" is one of Kobe's strongest attributes but he's not bad at it. I LOVE Scottie Pippen but Kobe Bryant is a top five/top ten player of all time.

Pippen only averaged 9 RPG once in his career and it wasn't in 1992...it was his '93-'94 season.

'91-'92 Pippen: 21/8/7 on 51% FG

'01-'02 Kobe: 25/6/6 on 47% FG

4 less points but better efficiency, more rpg and apg. Then you take into account defensively Pippen definitely has the advantage. Kobe was a great defender at this time but still wasn't nearly as good as pippen on that end. I don't see why saying Kobe was a little worse or comparable to a prime pippen in 02 and 00 (his worst playing of his 5 titles) is an insult at all. It's true but Pippen was a great player so its not insulting in any way.

ManRam
11-10-2012, 02:52 PM
Kobe had the best career, he was a top 5 player each year for a decade, he's a top 10 ever, but he never was as dominant as these guys.


LBJ
CP3 in 2009
Garnett
Duncan
Wade in 2009
Durant in 2011
Howard in 2010

I agree with this post as much as I can ever agree with anything. The sentence is something I always say, and those players were indeed all better than Kobe ever was during their best seasons.

However, we're taking players in their prime. Kobe's prime lasted the longest. That's why he's an all time great. I can understand people taking him first. I wouldn't, but I get it.

mightybosstone
11-10-2012, 03:04 PM
1. I think now you're underrating prime CP3's defensive impact.
:eyebrow: Are you really gonna debate a point guard's impact versus one of the best defensive bigs of the past decade? Really?


2. I think you're underrating prime CP3's offensive impact. I think you're overrating KG's offensive impact.
How am I doing these things? Look at Paul's peak and Garnett's peak and you'll see similar figures. Garnett averaged 21+/10+ for nine straight seasons, with a 22+ PER for 10 straight years and a WS/48 over .170 for 12 straight years. That's remarkable, and while they are not as good as Paul's, Paul also have never made it past the second round of the playoffs and is much younger than KG


4. I think you're ignoring KG's drastically embarassing decline in production from regular season to playoffs.
5. I think you're ignoring CP3's impressive playoff production.
Okay, this argument is a really terrible one, and I have no clue where you're getting this from. KG's career playoff numbers 19.5/11.0/3.5/1.4 are nearly identical to his career regular season numbers: 19.3/10.6/4.0/1.5. Did his efficiency drop a bit? Of course, but that happens to everybody and his 23.3 to 21.5 PER drop or .190 to .151 WS/48 drop aren't as severe as a lot of NBA superstars. Hell, Paul's career WS/48 drops from .239 to .174. That drop is far more drastic than anything in KG's numbers. Also, you completely failed to mention Paul's pedestrian performance in last season's playoffs (20.0 PER and .103 in 11 games).

I can buy someone saying that Paul has been a slightly better postseason player than KG, but I can't comprehend someone trying to say he has been significantly better when Paul has played in only 34 career playoff games compared to 125, two finals appearances and a championship for KG. Seriously, this is so much of a reach, you must have had to stand on a latter for it...


6. I think you're also choosing player whose style creates problems. He relies on his mid-range game more than any star big man ever should and it's ruined his effeciency and his production. I also hate the idea of a PF/C focusing that much time and energy on creating for teammates.
This is total ********, also. His career TS% (.549) is similar to a lot of other elite all-time big men who also utilized their midrange game a lot. Hakeem (.549) and Duncan (.552) are great examples. And look at today's elite big men and tell me that Dirk, Love, Bosh, Gasol, Aldridge, Amare, etc. don't use their midrange game. Look up those players on 82games and you'll be shocked how much of their attempts are jump shots.

KoB, I have a lot of respect for your, but you're just speaking in vague generalizations with no data to back up your arguments.

Sandman
11-10-2012, 03:06 PM
25 no particular order:
Duncan
LeBron
Kobe
Dirk
Garnett
Nash
CP3
Derrick Rose
Shawn Marion
Rasheed Wallace
Dwight Howard
Grant Hill
Ray Allen
Pau Gasol
Bynum ("in his prime" means "healthy" right?)
Carmelo Anthony
Amare Stoudemire
Wade
Marcus Camby
Jason Kidd (embarassed it took me this long to mention him)
Jerry Stackhouse
Deron Williams
Vince Carter
Elton Brand
Tony Parker

feel free to blast me if I made any glaring omissions

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 04:12 PM
:eyebrow: [QUOTE]Are you really gonna debate a point guard's impact versus one of the best defensive bigs of the past decade? Really?

I think KG is a better defender than Chris Paul but in comparison to other point guards Chris Paul was elite.


How am I doing these things? Look at Paul's peak and Garnett's peak and you'll see similar figures. Garnett averaged 21+/10+ for nine straight seasons, with a 22+ PER for 10 straight years and a WS/48 over .170 for 12 straight years. That's remarkable, and while they are not as good as Paul's, Paul also have never made it past the second round of the playoffs and is much younger than KG

Thank you.


Okay, this argument is a really terrible one, and I have no clue where you're getting this from. KG's career playoff numbers 19.5/11.0/3.5/1.4 are nearly identical to his career regular season numbers: 19.3/10.6/4.0/1.5. Did his efficiency drop a bit? Of course, but that happens to everybody and his 23.3 to 21.5 PER drop or .190 to .151 WS/48 drop aren't as severe as a lot of NBA superstars. Hell, Paul's career WS/48 drops from .239 to .174. That drop is far more drastic than anything in KG's numbers. Also, you completely failed to mention Paul's pedestrian performance in last season's playoffs (20.0 PER and .103 in 11 games).

I can buy someone saying that Paul has been a slightly better postseason player than KG, but I can't comprehend someone trying to say he has been significantly better when Paul has played in only 34 career playoff games compared to 125, two finals appearances and a championship for KG. Seriously, this is so much of a reach, you must have had to stand on a latter for it...

KG didn't start thriving in the playoffs until he joined the Celtics. As a franchise player for the Timberwolves 75% of his postseasons are an overwhelming disappointment with some embarassingly pitiful performances from Garnett. He was especially futile in close-out games with his season on the line where I believe he never once had a game shooting 50% from the field or better.



This is total ********, also. His career TS% (.549) is similar to a lot of other elite all-time big men who also utilized their midrange game a lot. Hakeem (.549) and Duncan (.552) are great examples. And look at today's elite big men and tell me that Dirk, Love, Bosh, Gasol, Aldridge, Amare, etc. don't use their midrange game. Look up those players on 82games and you'll be shocked how much of their attempts are jump shots.
KoB, I have a lot of respect for your, but you're just speaking in vague generalizations with no data to back up your arguments.

Two things:

1. I don't have time to check but I would guess that Garnett takes a higher percentage of mid-range shots than all of those players. I can say for a fact that he shoots a TON more than Duncan and Hakeem and that he never drew fouls at the rate Duncan did. Not even close.

2. Look at the big men you are comparing him too. You've brought Garnett's legacy down by comparing him to the likes of Bosh-Aldridge-Amar'e.

mightybosstone
11-10-2012, 04:42 PM
I think KG is a better defender than Chris Paul but in comparison to other point guards Chris Paul was elite.
But comparing point guard defense to power forward defense is completely different. That's like comparing a power forward's passing ability to a point guard's passing ability.


Thank you.
Advanced numbers don't tell the whole story. As I've said, Garnett's been more consistent over a longer period of time, has had a superior impact on the defensive end of the floor and has played in four times the number of postseason games at Paul.


KG didn't start thriving in the playoffs until he joined the Celtics. As a franchise player for the Timberwolves 75% of his postseasons are an overwhelming disappointment with some embarassingly pitiful performances from Garnett. He was especially futile in close-out games with his season on the line where I believe he never once had a game shooting 50% from the field or better.
I'm looking at his playoff numbers right now and I don't see "embarrassingly pitiful" anything. His first two playoff performances were poor, but those were also at age 20 and 21, so it's not exactly a fair argument. And he clearly got better in the playoffs as he got older. Look at his numbers in 01, 02, 03 and 04 and explain to me how those are in any way "embarrassing". His numbers in 04 were particularly ridiculous, when he averaged 24/15/5/2/1 over 18 games and took Shaq and Kobe's Lakers to 6 games.

I've never heard the statistic about close out games, but considering how bad those teams were in Minnesota, I don't think that would be a necessarily telling statistic. And I think you're looking a much smaller sample size than his overall numbers and the massive success he's had in Boston since 2008.


1. I don't have time to check but I would guess that Garnett takes a higher percentage of mid-range shots than all of those players. I can say for a fact that he shoots a TON more than Duncan and Hakeem and that he never drew fouls at the rate Duncan did. Not even close.
You think he takes more mid-range shots than Dirk Nowitzki? You really want to make that argument? And the foul rate thing with Duncan is a completely moot point, because Duncan is a historically terrible free throw shooter. Dwight and Shaq also have higher foul rates. You want to bring them up, too?


2. Look at the big men you are comparing him too. You've brought Garnett's legacy down by comparing him to the likes of Bosh-Aldridge-Amar'e.
You're completely missing my point, dude. I'm trying to say that the best offensive PFs in the NBA today ALL shoot the midrange jump shot and do it quite often. And I wouldn't knock Amare's prime. Although he played with Nash, his prime numbers are among the greatest offensive bigs in NBA history.

Tkais9009
11-10-2012, 05:02 PM
Duncan
Kobe
Lebron

LakersEaglesLA
11-10-2012, 05:03 PM
A quick question... How many rings do you think Kobe would have won, if he never played with Shaq and or for the Lakers (lets say a small market team.. Maybe the team that original drafted him (even though the Lakers told them to draft him) )?

2nd Question... Does Shaq still win rings if he had another side kick in their prime like... KD, Lbj, Wade, Tmac...etc

3rd question... Do you think Kobe on that small market team could have gotten past the Spurs, Sacramento,Portland or Minnesota (that one good year they had with Kg & C0), lets say with a Bynum type of center and the same skill level shooters the Lakers had in their 3 peat? ( Wade had a broken down Shaq and know where near the same level of shooters )



Everyone has their on opinion, I am not the type to let someones opinion dictate my opinion. Kobe was a very skilled player, But to me I would take other players before him.

Prime Healthy Wade
Prime Healthy Lbj
KD ( I haven't even seen his prime ... that's sooo F'in scary )
Timmy

( Please answer the questions respectfully, or don't answer them at all )
Wow your Logic is ALL twisted. What if Bird was drafted By milwaukee, what if Jordan was drafted By Sacramento, or magic By Denver. No one ever ask these questions because its a terrible arguement. #2 NO shaq dosent win those 3 chips with another sidekick he had more talent in Orlando but no chips without Kobe because Kobe carried the Lakers at times just ás much ás shaq did If you actually watched the games ...#3 I give Wade credit for his chip withh shaq, but thats 1 kobe did It 5 t imes... 2 without shaq... you guys are So disresctful to kobe Its really Sad

LakersEaglesLA
11-10-2012, 05:12 PM
Just to clarify, anyone who is not the team's best player is a supporting player? For example, Wade was a supporting player to LeBron in that championship.
Man you got to be crazy to put Kobe and pippen in the same comparison, Im a laker fan and watched Kobe save us countless times in PLAYOFFS.. while shaq was bricking free throws and in foul trouble. This is FACT we had 2 great players no sidekicks!

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 05:15 PM
But comparing point guard defense to power forward defense is completely different. That's like comparing a power forward's passing ability to a point guard's passing ability.

To avoid extending this part of the discussion, I already conceded that Garnett is the more valuable defensive player. All I'm saying is that in his prime CP3 is a valuable defensive player in a perimeter driven league.


Advanced numbers don't tell the whole story. As I've said, Garnett's been more consistent over a longer period of time, has had a superior impact on the defensive end of the floor and has played in four times the number of postseason games at Paul.

Longevity is irrelevant here. It's "prime."


I'm looking at his playoff numbers right now and I don't see "embarrassingly pitiful" anything. His first two playoff performances were poor, but those were also at age 20 and 21, so it's not exactly a fair argument. And he clearly got better in the playoffs as he got older. Look at his numbers in 01, 02, 03 and 04 and explain to me how those are in any way "embarrassing". His numbers in 04 were particularly ridiculous, when he averaged 24/15/5/2/1 over 18 games and took Shaq and Kobe's Lakers to 6 games.

It's embarassingly pitiful to lose in the 1st round for 7 straight seasons as a "star" player. Think of the abuse guys like Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, and Carmelo Anthony received. It's like those first 7 seasons have been erased and no one counts them anymore. He didn't even earn 1 win share in any of those seasons and even have negative win shares in two seasons. His TS% was only over 54% once. And his close-out game performances were terrible.


I've never heard the statistic about close out games, but considering how bad those teams were in Minnesota, I don't think that would be a necessarily telling statistic. And I think you're looking a much smaller sample size than his overall numbers and the massive success he's had in Boston since 2008.

Massive success? Using PER, his 4 best post-seasons seasons came in Minnesota. He was successful because he had Paul Pierce and Ray Allen to pick him up when he needed it. Which offensively happened more than people remember or want to remember.


You think he takes more mid-range shots than Dirk Nowitzki? You really want to make that argument? And the foul rate thing with Duncan is a completely moot point, because Duncan is a historically terrible free throw shooter. Dwight and Shaq also have higher foul rates. You want to bring them up, too?

Getting to the free throw line is arguably the most underrated aspect of games. Putting the other team's big men in foul trouble effects a game in so many ways. That player has to back off or risk ending up on the bench. It also makes finishing at the rim easier for guards. AND it produces free throws for teammates once the team reaches the bonus.



You're completely missing my point, dude. I'm trying to say that the best offensive PFs in the NBA today ALL shoot the midrange jump shot and do it quite often. And I wouldn't knock Amare's prime. Although he played with Nash, his prime numbers are among the greatest offensive bigs in NBA history.

That doesn't make it an effecient shot. Honest question, would you rather have a PF who posted-up more or that took more mid-range jumpshots?

John Walls Era
11-10-2012, 05:15 PM
Tmac. Ok happy?

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 05:18 PM
Man you got to be crazy to put Kobe and pippen in the same comparison, Im a laker fan and watched Kobe save us countless times in PLAYOFFS.. while shaq was bricking free throws and in foul trouble. This is FACT we had 2 great players no sidekicks!

:laugh: I never did. You are either quoting the wrong person or totally misinterpretting my posts.

TornadoOfSouls
11-10-2012, 05:31 PM
This is total ********, also. His career TS% (.549) is similar to a lot of other elite all-time big men who also utilized their midrange game a lot. Hakeem (.549) and Duncan (.552) are great examples. And look at today's elite big men and tell me that Dirk, Love, Bosh, Gasol, Aldridge, Amare, etc. don't use their midrange game. Look up those players on 82games and you'll be shocked how much of their attempts are jump shots.

KoB, I have a lot of respect for your, but you're just speaking in vague generalizations with no data to back up your arguments.

Look at KG's career TS% in the playoffs:

.523(compared to .549 for his season averages).

Compare that to:
Duncan (.549 in the playoffs and .552 in the season)
Hakeem (.569 in the playoff and .553 in the season).

KG's TS% drops pretty hard come playoff time. Duncan's stays relatively the same and Hakeem's actually increases. Garnett's offensive style just isn't suited for a first option player. Duncan and Hakeem have both had long playoff runs carrying their teams to championships thanks to their back-to-the-basket style. Garnett never has. Garnett falls more in line with the Robinsons and Malones - Great players whose offense failed them in the post-season. There's a reason why these three never won a ring as a first option.

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 05:34 PM
Look at KG's career TS% in the playoffs:

.523(compared to .549 for his season averages).

Compare that to:
Duncan (.549 in the playoffs and .552 in the season)
Hakeem (.569 in the playoff and .553 in the season).

KG's TS% drops pretty hard come playoff time. Duncan's stays relatively the same and Hakeem's actually increases. Garnett's offensive style just isn't suited for a first option player. Duncan and Hakeem have both had long playoff runs carrying their teams to championships thanks to their back-to-the-basket style. Garnett never has. Garnett falls more in line with the Robinsons and Malones - Great players whose offense failed them in the post-season. There's a reason why these three never won a ring as a first option.

Finally someone else who recognizes the KG that existed in the beginning of this decade. His gaudy rebound numbers and assist numbers just mask the fact that they had no other big-time rebounder and that he over-passed.

LakersEaglesLA
11-10-2012, 05:39 PM
:laugh: I never did. You are either quoting the wrong person or totally misinterpretting my posts.

Ok good, but just for the récord all you non laker fans need to stop saying Kobe was a sidekick, yal didnt watch every game like us. Your not qualified to have a non biased opinion. Kobe won with shaq, not because of him proof 2009 and 2010. They needed each other to win, just like Jordan needed pippen Grant and Rodman, magic needed worthy. Hall of famers are NOT sidekicks!

Andrew32
11-10-2012, 05:45 PM
Proof = 2009 and 2010.
Kobe was a completely different player in 2009-2010, was in a different role, faced different competition and had completely different casts.
That doesn't "prove" anything.


They needed each other to win, just like Jordan needed pippen Grant and Rodman, magic needed worthy. Hall of famers are NOT sidekicks!

While I agree they needed each-other to win I disagree with the bolded.
Hofamers can still be sidekicks/supporting players.

Shaq needed Kobe in 00 and 02.
Jordan needed Pippen in 91-93 and from 96-98.

Doesn't change the fact that Shaq and Jordan were vastly superior players and the engines/anchors of those teams while Kobe and Pippen were fantastic sidekicks / supporting stars.

They were not close to being equals... Get over it and stop pushing revisionist history.

mngopher35
11-10-2012, 05:53 PM
Ok good, but just for the récord all you non laker fans need to stop saying Kobe was a sidekick, yal didnt watch every game like us. Your not qualified to have a non biased opinion. Kobe won with shaq, not because of him proof 2009 and 2010. They needed each other to win, just like Jordan needed pippen Grant and Rodman, magic needed worthy. Hall of famers are NOT sidekicks!

All lakers fans fall under the bolded statement. So your saying all lakers fans cant be taken seriously on the subject because they are bias right? I hate when peoples main argument is that they watched all the games and other people didn't. You don't know what other people watched, its so weak. In 2000 and 2002 Kobe was affecting games about the same as a prime pippen did for the bulls. That's the point people are trying to make, not comparing them all time or anything else.

Andrew32
11-10-2012, 05:54 PM
I have always been a big Shaq fan and I watched every single Lakers playoff game in the early 00's.
Believe it or not I was rooting for Kobe back then also.

I am qualified to speak on those games/players just as much as any Laker fan.

TornadoOfSouls
11-10-2012, 05:55 PM
Ok good, but just for the récord all you non laker fans need to stop saying Kobe was a sidekick, yal didnt watch every game like us. Your not qualified to have a non biased opinion. Kobe won with shaq, not because of him proof 2009 and 2010. They needed each other to win, just like Jordan needed pippen Grant and Rodman, magic needed worthy. Hall of famers are NOT sidekicks!

It's amusing to see the retroactive rewriting of history from Kobe fans. Shaq was clearly on a different level from Bryant. I understand you guys want Kobe's five rings to all be weighed equally(most likely in an attempt to compare him to MJ or boost his all-time ratings) but it doesn't work that way. Shaq was undeniably the top dog if you look at playoff PER:

1996 Bulls
Jordan---------26.7
Pippen---------19.4

1997 Bulls
Jordan----------- 27.1
Pippen----------- 18.1

1998 Bulls
Jordan---------28.1
Pippen---------19.5
---------------------------------------
2000 Lakers
Shaq-----------30.5
Kobe------------19.3

2001 Lakers
Shaq------------29.7
Kobe------------23.8

2002 Lakers
Shaq------------28.3
Kobe-------------20.5

Kobe clearly has the production of a second banana player.

D2theJ
11-10-2012, 05:56 PM
Lebron, easily. Other than 3 point shooting the guy plays every aspect of the game at an elite level. No one else can dominate at every part of the game like Lebron.

Miltstar
11-10-2012, 06:03 PM
1. Tim Duncan
2. Lebron James
3. Kevin Garnett
4. Kevin Durant
5. Dwight Howard
6. Kobe Bryant
7. Dirk Nowitzki
8. Dwayne Wade
9. Vince Carter
10. Steve Nash

YEDN90
11-10-2012, 06:04 PM
Duncan
Garnett
Kobe
Dwight
LeBron

Hawkeye15
11-10-2012, 06:07 PM
why is it that only laker fans or lebron haters say kobe is better than lebron, but every other fan base says the total opposite?

:catfight:

rhetorical question dude, you know this.

Hawkeye15
11-10-2012, 06:08 PM
Duncan and LeBron are tier 1, throw Kobe in there if you want, there is no way I am taking him ahead of these two however.

KB-Pau-DH2012
11-10-2012, 06:12 PM
@Andrew32: You should compile all those stuff disproving Kobe and make a blog about it here in PSD so you'll just be linking instead of writing it over and over again. llullz

Agree! :nod:

jericho
11-10-2012, 06:31 PM
Nash's numbers go beyond just scoring. His assist numbers and percentage are superior, as well as his win shares and PER numbers. It's not close.


I fail to see your point here, because you're comparing players with a HUGE talent gap between them. Are you really trying to tell me that Jim Jackson, Mo Williams and Leandro Barbosa should be spoken in the same conversation at Pierce and Iverson?

And Iverson does get the credit he deserves. He was a great scorer and competitor who was arguably one of the 50-75 greatest players of all time. However, he was insanely inefficient and more of a ball hog than any player I've ever seen, which keeps him from the top 30-40, IMO.

Melo will probably go down as a top 100 all-time guy, but aside from he and Iverson, no one on that list deserves to be spoken in the same sentence as Pierce. Pierce was a superior defender to most of those players, far more efficient and a much better ball handler and rebounder. It's not close, and your point makes no sense.


The year they went to the conference finals, they were 49-33. And to say a team was "stacked" with Antoine Walker is an absolute joke. You called them both chuckers, but Walker averaged 1 more 3-pointer a game and only 34% compared to 40% for Pierce. Walker also averaged a pitiful .490 TS% and .094 WS/48 that season (which are well below average). If you really look at that team, aside from Pierce, it was awful. The dude gets no credit for keeping that team competitive for the better part of a decade before Allen and KG got there.


What's up with your KG hate? Is that your Knicks fandom getting the better of you? ;)

1.
lol superior on assists naw now your tripping they are pretty much even with that. and there is a reason why jason kidd is 2nd all time in assists 2 just sayin. percentege i give you nash but guess what you still talking bout scoring with that. i know you dont like to talk bout it cuz by your standards suppsoedly D is overrated for pg but kidd is waayyyyy better deffender than nash. like i keep on saying with kidd on your team you know you have a chance to win anygame his value doesnt show that on the stats line

2.
you said that scoring was more valuable so i gave you scoring options while they dont deserve to be in the same convo with them you said again scoring was more valuable so i gave you some names. and since when was pirce known for his D? the answer is never again it all came down to when kg and allen got there but pierce was never good on the D side b4 that.
i wasnt comparing those players with him for their all around game i was comparing their scoring part which again comes to what you said.

3.
walker while he was a chucker (which i dont remember saying that if i did i forgot lol) he was a good player and a unique 1 at that he was able to score over 20 ppg almost 9 rpg and 5 asp he was an allstar back then. then rodney rogers was a good player of the bench you also had tony delk erick strickland kenny anderson tony battie was a decent big as well. so yeah that team was stacked. remember we didnt have super teams back then. the only other team more stacked than the celtics were the pistons that had a good all around team. and who did they lose 2 the nets team run by kidd ( and that team sucked)

mightybosstone
11-10-2012, 06:37 PM
It's embarassingly pitiful to lose in the 1st round for 7 straight seasons as a "star" player. Think of the abuse guys like Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, and Carmelo Anthony received. It's like those first 7 seasons have been erased and no one counts them anymore. He didn't even earn 1 win share in any of those seasons and even have negative win shares in two seasons. His TS% was only over 54% once. And his close-out game performances were terrible.
I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument, IMO. McGrady was still a phenomenal player regardless of whether he could get out of the first round. And if you want to use that as an excuse, look at how bad his supporting cast was and then consider he played in the era of Kobe/Shaq, Duncan's Spurs, Nash's Suns and Adelman's Kings. Which of those teams would expect Garnett and a team of scrubs to get past in the first round? Were his numbers phenomenal early in his career? No. But they improved significantly as he got older, and you're completely ignoring his dominance in Boston as if it never happened.


Massive success? Using PER, his 4 best post-seasons seasons came in Minnesota. He was successful because he had Paul Pierce and Ray Allen to pick him up when he needed it. Which offensively happened more than people remember or want to remember.
I remember that first season well, and if it wasn't for Garnett's defense, that team would never have gotten past the second round. He was the heart and soul of that team and if there had been a playoffs MVP, it would have definitely gone to KG. Also, you mentioned PER, but failed to mention WS/48. Four of his best five WS/48 postseasons came in Boston.


Getting to the free throw line is arguably the most underrated aspect of games. Putting the other team's big men in foul trouble effects a game in so many ways. That player has to back off or risk ending up on the bench. It also makes finishing at the rim easier for guards. AND it produces free throws for teammates once the team reaches the bonus.
You don't have to explain this to me, bro. I'm aware of how free throws work, and KG got the line on average 4.7 times per game in his career. At his peak, he was going to the line more than 6 times per game. You know who went to the line fewer times than KG in his prime? Chris Paul. Somehow this argument got out of the original discussion, which is Paul vs. KG.


That doesn't make it an effecient shot. Honest question, would you rather have a PF who posted-up more or that took more mid-range jumpshots?
That depends on a lot of things. How often is he making the mid range jumper, how effective is he in the post, how does it benefit the rest of my team in terms of spacing, etc.? Some guys utilize their mid range game to get the majority of their offense and some guys score more in the paint, but both types of players can be effective. Dirk is a great example of a big who shoots from distance far more than he does working with his back to the basket.

And you're acting as if KG was an inefficient player over the course of his career offensively. He clearly wasn't, so it's a moot point.

mightybosstone
11-10-2012, 06:44 PM
1. lol superior on assists naw now your tripping they are pretty much even with that. and there is a reason why jason kidd is 2nd all time in assists 2 just sayin. percentege i give you nash but guess what you still talking bout scoring with that. i know you dont like to talk bout it cuz by your standards suppsoedly D is overrated for pg but kidd is waayyyyy better deffender than nash. like i keep on saying with kidd on your team you know you have a chance to win anygame his value doesnt show that on the stats line
Kidd has also played far more game than Nash has, so he has a huge advantage in terms of career assists. But Nash averaged more assists per game over his career and posts a higher AST% than Kidd over their careers. And I'm not saying defense is useless, but I'm saying that Nash's effect offensively in scoring makes up for Kidd's defensive superiority.


2.
you said that scoring was more valuable so i gave you scoring options while they dont deserve to be in the same convo with them you said again scoring was more valuable so i gave you some names. and since when was pirce known for his D? the answer is never again it all came down to when kg and allen got there but pierce was never good on the D side b4 that.
i wasnt comparing those players with him for their all around game i was comparing their scoring part which again comes to what you said.
Those players are inferior to Pierce and don't deserve to be compared to him. And if you don't think Pierce was a good defender in his prime, then you clearly never watched the guy play and have no idea what you're talking about. He was never elite, but always very good. He gave Lebron fits early in his career.


walker while he was a chucker (which i dont remember saying that if i did i forgot lol) he was a good player and a unique 1 at that he was able to score over 20 ppg almost 9 rpg and 5 asp he was an allstar back then. then rodney rogers was a good player of the bench you also had tony delk erick strickland kenny anderson tony battie was a decent big as well. so yeah that team was stacked. remember we didnt have super teams back then. the only other team more stacked than the celtics were the pistons that had a good all around team. and who did they lose 2 the nets team run by kidd ( and that team sucked)
That was a terrible team, period. Kidd's supporting cast was superior in every way, especially when he got Jefferson, Martin and Carter. And Walker may have been an All-Star, but he certainly didn't deserve it.

You've gotta work on your grammar, though, dude. This **** was really hard to read.

mightybosstone
11-10-2012, 06:51 PM
Look at KG's career TS% in the playoffs:

.523(compared to .549 for his season averages).

Compare that to:
Duncan (.549 in the playoffs and .552 in the season)
Hakeem (.569 in the playoff and .553 in the season).

KG's TS% drops pretty hard come playoff time. Duncan's stays relatively the same and Hakeem's actually increases. Garnett's offensive style just isn't suited for a first option player. Duncan and Hakeem have both had long playoff runs carrying their teams to championships thanks to their back-to-the-basket style. Garnett never has. Garnett falls more in line with the Robinsons and Malones - Great players whose offense failed them in the post-season. There's a reason why these three never won a ring as a first option.

This is an insanely unfair comparison, because Hakeem and Duncan are two of the 10 greatest players in NBA history and I never once said I thought KG was as good as either of them. There's a reason why those guys are among the greats, because they stepped their games up in the playoffs. But they're anomalies, not the norm. My point was simply that both guys utilize mid range games as a good portion of their offensive game and both guys averaged similar TS% during the regular season.

Also as far as your "never won a ring as a No.1" option, I disagree, because KG did. Look at his numbers in 07-08 and try to tell me he wasn't the best player on that team. Because he was, and there wasn't a close second. AND your comparison to Malone and Robinson was unfair, as those players' dropoffs from the regular season to the postseason are historically bad. KG's is about what you'd expect from a player's numbers.

Kobe is another great example. Look at his postseason numbers (22.4 PER, .541 TS%, .157 WS/48) and compare them to the regular season (23.5 PER, .555 TS%, .184 WS/48). Did his "offense fail him" during the playoffs? No. The dude just faced harder competition and naturally there is a dropoff in his numbers. It's the same argument for KG.

KnicksorBust
11-10-2012, 07:05 PM
This is an insanely unfair comparison, because Hakeem and Duncan are two of the 10 greatest players in NBA history and I never once said I thought KG was as good as either of them. There's a reason why those guys are among the greats, because they stepped their games up in the playoffs. But they're anomalies, not the norm. My point was simply that both guys utilize mid range games as a good portion of their offensive game and both guys averaged similar TS% during the regular season.

Also as far as your "never won a ring as a No.1" option, I disagree, because KG did. Look at his numbers in 07-08 and try to tell me he wasn't the best player on that team. Because he was, and there wasn't a close second. AND your comparison to Malone and Robinson was unfair, as those players' dropoffs from the regular season to the postseason are historically bad. KG's is about what you'd expect from a player's numbers.

Kobe is another great example. Look at his postseason numbers (22.4 PER, .541 TS%, .157 WS/48) and compare them to the regular season (23.5 PER, .555 TS%, .184 WS/48). Did his "offense fail him" during the playoffs? No. The dude just faced harder competition and naturally there is a dropoff in his numbers. It's the same argument for KG.

You underestimate the scoring aspect of being a #1 option so much... There's a difference between being a team's best player and being their #1 option. KG never proved he could handle that role... Pierce carried that offensively to the title by getting to the line and hitting big 3's. In addition, he spent a lot of time guarding the two best offensive players on the planet LeBron and Kobe. Pierce was the #1 option of that team. Do you despute that?

jericho
11-10-2012, 07:12 PM
Kidd has also played far more game than Nash has, so he has a huge advantage in terms of career assists. But Nash averaged more assists per game over his career and posts a higher AST% than Kidd over their careers. And I'm not saying defense is useless, but I'm saying that Nash's effect offensively in scoring makes up for Kidd's defensive superiority.


Those players are inferior to Pierce and don't deserve to be compared to him. And if you don't think Pierce was a good defender in his prime, then you clearly never watched the guy play and have no idea what you're talking about. He was never elite, but always very good. He gave Lebron fits early in his career.


That was a terrible team, period. Kidd's supporting cast was superior in every way, especially when he got Jefferson, Martin and Carter. And Walker may have been an All-Star, but he certainly didn't deserve it.

You've gotta work on your grammar, though, dude. This **** was really hard to read.

Jason Kidd - 11,842
Steve Nash - 9,916
and the difference in game is bout 160 to 180
sure nash is better in assists and no nash scoring impact aint better than kidds deffensive impact you are trying to convince yourself with that

yeah does players are infirior to him i know that but again you were saying that scoring has a higher value in the nba so i gave you good players that were known for their scoring and to compare melo with pierce is really not that bad lol. i know he gave lebron fits i saw the playoffs but guess again that happen when kg was in town b4 that pierce wasnt known for Defense just for scoring

lmao when did kidd had carter martin and jefferson on the same team never kmart left way b4 carter got theredont try to pull that 1
kmart ok player no offensive game what so over
jefferson was a rookie
the only good offensive option was keith van horn and he played no D

22 ppg 8 rpg 5 asp is not enough to be an allstar wth i know he was a chucker but he also was a good player back then rodney rogers was also a good player back then kenny anderson also a good player tony delk decent erick strickland okish battie decent role playing big man that team was better than the nets

and yes i know my grammar sux im just way to lazy to go thru my hole post and fix the mistakes

Bruno
11-10-2012, 07:16 PM
McGrady's prime is RIGHT up there with Kobe's when T-Mac was in Orlando. If we're simply talking about player ability and statistics (excluding rings) I have no idea why'd you label Kobe tier 1 but not McGrady.

because prime is more than one single season in my book. when you look at mcgradys top three or top five seasons arch, he isn't right up there with kobe.

if we are discussing "peak" then yes, McGradys one season in 2003 is just as dominant, if not more dominant than Bryants best.

thread is asking prime, not peak.

Bruno
11-10-2012, 07:22 PM
also, this thread is asking who i'd take in their prime. even if they were total equals, it's kobe over mcgrady without question. kobes prime has lasted for over a decade, mcgradys lasted a few seasons.

or are we supposed to put together our lists as if we're ignorant to the injury risks involved with each player? that's an important disclaimer.

ManRam
11-10-2012, 07:22 PM
Yeah... I love T-Mac, and while he might have had the best single season between the two of them, his peak didn't last terribly long. There are a good 5-6 players who have had better individual seasons that Kobe's best, but what makes Kobe great is that he has been a top 3-5 player for so long. Few players can say that about their NBA careers. HE might have never been the clear best player in the NBA, but he's on of probably 5-10 players ever who has played at such a high level for so long.

That's why you take him over Wade, T-Mac and so on.

Bruno
11-10-2012, 07:30 PM
Yeah... I love T-Mac, and while he might have had the best single season between the two of them, his peak didn't last terribly long. There are a good 5-6 players who have had better individual seasons that Kobe's best, but what makes Kobe great is that he has been a top 3-5 player for so long. Few players can say that about their NBA careers. HE might have never been the clear best player in the NBA, but he's on of probably 5-10 players ever who has played at such a high level for so long.

That's why you take him over Wade, T-Mac and so on.

T-Macs awesome. I just can't give him the slight edge over Kobe for one brilliant season. If this were 'peak' id entertain the argument because of the language of the question. But this is prime. Kobe has eleven seasons where he's posted a PER above 23.0. He's put up double-digit win shares in ten separate seasons. He's posted above .196 in WS/48 ten times. TMacs and Kobes TS% isn't comparable.

It just doesn't make sense to ignore that kind of sustained dominance just because a guy beat him out in PER by a few percentage points, that one time.

ManRam
11-10-2012, 07:36 PM
T-Macs awesome. I just can't give him the slight edge over Kobe for one brilliant season. If this were 'peak' id entertain the argument because of the language of the question. But this is prime. Kobe has eleven seasons where he's posted a PER above 23.0. He's put up double-digit win shares in ten separate seasons. He's posted above .196 in WS/48 ten times. TMacs and Kobes TS% isn't comparable.

It just doesn't make sense to ignore that kind of sustained dominance just because a guy beat him out in PER by a few percentage points, that one time.

That's why I don't get why Lakers fans get so upset when I argue that Kobe never was the clear best player in the NBA, but it's his sustained greatness rather that makes him an all time GOAT.

Sustaining the level of play that he has for as long as he has is nearly unprecedented. Being a top 5 player for 10 years isn't something many players can say. That's why Kobe is an all time great...and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not saying he didn't have truly amazing seasons, because he has, but I truly do believe that he was never clearly the best player in the NBA for a single season. But that doesn't matter... give me 10+ years of elite play over anything.

Andrew32
11-10-2012, 07:37 PM
because prime is more than one single season in my book. when you look at mcgradys top three or top five seasons arch, he isn't right up there with kobe.
Eh...

I think T-Mac's 01-05 stretch is probably comparable to any 5 year stretch by Kobe.

Depends how you define Prime though.
Some people think Kobe's Prime was from 06-09 while some think it was from 01-10.

ManRam
11-10-2012, 07:39 PM
T-Mac never had Kobe's team success...and while I can't knock him at all for that in Orlando, he certainly could have done more in Houston. Thing is, Houston wasn't quite his prime.

T-Mac's best 5 years might stack up to Kobe's best 5 years...but after you widen the scope it's absolutely and positively no contest.

Bruno
11-10-2012, 07:55 PM
Eh...

I think T-Mac's 01-05 stretch is probably comparable to any 5 year stretch by Kobe.

Depends how you define Prime though.
Some people think Kobe's Prime was from 06-09 while some think it was from 01-10.

2001-2005? I'm looking at the numbers right now, Kobe has McGrady in any five year metric. McGrady has comparable numbers if you isolate their top three runs, it's not as close when you expand it to five seasons.

McGrady posted a TS% under .530 during three of those five seasons. In his prime, McGrady wasn't as efficient as Kobe was. In 2004, McGrady posted a WS/48 of .151 (a huge drop off from the brilliance of his 2003 campaign). Five year PER, five year WS, and five year WS/48 all favor Kobe.



That's why I don't get why Lakers fans get so upset when I argue that Kobe never was the clear best player in the NBA, but it's his sustained greatness rather that makes him an all time GOAT.

Sustaining the level of play that he has for as long as he has is nearly unprecedented. Being a top 5 player for 10 years isn't something many players can say. That's why Kobe is an all time great...and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not saying he didn't have truly amazing seasons, because he has, but I truly do believe that he was never clearly the best player in the NBA for a single season. But that doesn't matter... give me 10+ years of elite play over anything.

It can be argued that he was never the best at any given point in time, it could be argued that he was the best at one given time. That is, if we were to bust out all the numbers and get nerdy with it. In the NBA reputation is everything. Even if he was never the best, he was certainly perceived to be, and if you ask me that carries more clout than a stricter reality.

what i always tell my buddies in regards to this one is- who cares? who cares if he was actually the best any one point in a time, for any one season. Being dominant throughout the bulk of a 17 year career is far more important than short-lived invincibility.


T-Mac never had Kobe's team success...and while I can't knock him at all for that in Orlando, he certainly could have done more in Houston. Thing is, Houston wasn't quite his prime.

T-Mac's best 5 years might stack up to Kobe's best 5 years...but after you widen the scope it's absolutely and positively no contest.

T-Mac and kobe are very close though three. and pretty close though five, still. (just not as close as it looks when you isolate three seasons). this is of course, analyzing strictly though the numbers (not taking accolades or team success into the equation).

Raps08-09 Champ
11-10-2012, 07:57 PM
My top 3.

1. Lebron
2. Duncan
3/4. Kobe
3/4. Garnett

An advantage to Kobe though over Garnett.

mightybosstone
11-10-2012, 08:05 PM
You underestimate the scoring aspect of being a #1 option so much... There's a difference between being a team's best player and being their #1 option. KG never proved he could handle that role... Pierce carried that offensively to the title by getting to the line and hitting big 3's. In addition, he spent a lot of time guarding the two best offensive players on the planet LeBron and Kobe. Pierce was the #1 option of that team. Do you despute that?
A team's No. 1 scorer is not always its No. 1 player. So, yes, I would dispute that Pierce was that team's No. 1. He was the best at terms of manufacturing points, but in terms of overall impact, KG was undoubtedly the best player on that team. And Pierce may have guarded Kobe and Lebron at times one-on-one, but who had to keep them out of the paint and who had to deal with Gasol/Bynum in the Finals?

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this. I love CP3, but he's got to proves he can sustain this kind of production over a longer period of time and he has to have more postseason success before I'm willing to place him above KG. I realize this is a "prime" discussion, but I think the length of someone's prime and their postseason success should matter to some extent.

RLundi
11-10-2012, 10:58 PM
because prime is more than one single season in my book. when you look at mcgradys top three or top five seasons arch, he isn't right up there with kobe.

if we are discussing "peak" then yes, McGradys one season in 2003 is just as dominant, if not more dominant than Bryants best.

thread is asking prime, not peak.

Could you be exaggerating? You seem to be suggesting that McGrady was elite for a single season. It may not have been as sustained as Kobe's but T-Mac's 2000-2005 stretch was stellar, with a PER over 30- which Kobe has never achieved- and 3 straight years of plus-25 PER, again, which Kobe has never achieved. In fact, T-Mac's 2000-2005 seasons are better than any consecutive stretch of Kobe's career. McGrady averaged a 25.7 PER for those seasons. Kobe's best 5 year mark? 25.5 from 2002-2007.

When you mention peak, I assume you're talking about a pinnacle of a career, which could refer to T-Mac's 30-PER season. That was the peak of his prime. But I don't see how you can discount 5 seasons of elite play. That seems long enough to be considered 'prime,' and in that case, McGrady's prime is right up there with Kobe's.

LakersEaglesLA
11-10-2012, 11:06 PM
All lakers fans fall under the bolded statement. So your saying all lakers fans cant be taken seriously on the subject because they are bias right? I hate when peoples main argument is that they watched all the games and other people didn't. You don't know what other people watched, its so weak. In 2000 and 2002 Kobe was affecting games about the same as a prime pippen did for the bulls. That's the point people are trying to make, not comparing them all time or anything else.

You obviously didnt watch those games. Yes shaq had slighly larger numbers but numbers are arent the answer to winning games. The ball was in kobes hands when the games were on the line. Not once in pippens hands you have no arguement.

joshhorvath
11-10-2012, 11:07 PM
Anthony davis

LakersEaglesLA
11-10-2012, 11:21 PM
It's amusing to see the retroactive rewriting of history from Kobe fans. Shaq was clearly on a different level from Bryant. I understand you guys want Kobe's five rings to all be weighed equally(most likely in an attempt to compare him to MJ or boost his all-time ratings) but it doesn't work that way. Shaq was undeniably the top dog if you look at playoff PER:

1996 Bulls
Jordan---------26.7
Pippen---------19.4

1997 Bulls
Jordan----------- 27.1
Pippen----------- 18.1

1998 Bulls
Jordan---------28.1
Pippen---------19.5
---------------------------------------
2000 Lakers
Shaq-----------30.5
Kobe------------19.3

2001 Lakers
Shaq------------29.7
Kobe------------23.8

2002 Lakers
Shaq------------28.3
Kobe-------------20.5

Kobe clearly has the production of a second banana player.

Your a numbers cruncher. Not much basketball knowledge. You should watch the actual games. Kobe dominated playoffs games as much as shaq.. and was the go to player when playoff games were on The line.

D Blue987
11-10-2012, 11:35 PM
Prime Wade > Prime Kobe
Also you are forgetting Lebron?
:eyebrow:

Ya you obviously never watched the Lakers with Kobe in his prime. Hmmm...81 points? Almost beat an entire team by himself in scoring. lol. After 3 quarter Kobe scored 63 points vs. Dallas with Dirk and Dallas scored 62 points. lol lol. That is what he was capable of. lol. 1 on 1 vs anybody in the NBA including Lebron, they get absolutely owned with him in his prime. (Current players assuming)

LBJ6
11-11-2012, 01:51 AM
No your underrating Kobe. Lebron with Wade and Bosh 1-1 in the finals. Only ring so far is there lockout season accomplishment where no surprize the teams that were together prior went the furthest while teams like the Lakers with a new coach and no preseaon and half of the roster changed suffered :eyebrow: .

Kobe with Pau = to Bosh in a tougher West with injured Kobe and Bynum and statisticaly worst bench in the league are 2-1 are the finals.

Anyone rating Lebron as a top tier if all were in their prime player is stuck in the hype. **** his regular season stats, theres no way the Mavs should have beat them in the finals lol

Having Kobe as my no. 7 is not underrating, it's actually quite high to be honest.

Alayla
11-11-2012, 01:55 AM
Id have to go eather Duncan Nash or KG

DeyAce
11-11-2012, 02:14 AM
lebron
kobe
duncan

b@llhog24
11-11-2012, 10:49 AM
Your a numbers cruncher. Not much basketball knowledge. You should watch the actual games. Kobe dominated playoffs games as much as shaq.. and was the go to player when playoff games were on The line.

Based on what?

KnicksorBust
11-11-2012, 12:24 PM
A team's No. 1 scorer is not always its No. 1 player. So, yes, I would dispute that Pierce was that team's No. 1. He was the best at terms of manufacturing points, but in terms of overall impact, KG was undoubtedly the best player on that team. And Pierce may have guarded Kobe and Lebron at times one-on-one, but who had to keep them out of the paint and who had to deal with Gasol/Bynum in the Finals?

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this. I love CP3, but he's got to proves he can sustain this kind of production over a longer period of time and he has to have more postseason success before I'm willing to place him above KG. I realize this is a "prime" discussion, but I think the length of someone's prime and their postseason success should matter to some extent.

First you are mis-remembering that Finals. When the Celtics won, that was the year Bynum was on the shelf. It was Odom-Gasol. Second, I think we just fundamentally disagree. Teams don't win titles without players stepping up in clutch situations to either hit a big shot or draw the attention of the defense and set someone else up. Garnett has incredible talent and skill but he has never been that guy. In that Finals he started the series with 3 bad games and through the first 5 was shooting below 50% and scoring in the teens. With as many turnovers as assists! Luckily, he salvaged his legacy with a huge Game 6 to put the series away.

The point I'm trying to make is if you look back at that very same playoffs in close-out games:

Game 7 vs. Cavs = 13 points on 5/13 FG (3/4 FT) with 4 turnovers
Game 6 vs. Pistons = 16 points on 7/16 FG (2/4 FT) with only 6 rebounds

He was giving his classic KG choke jobs but this time around he had Paul Pierce to save him. Paul Pierce in those games:

Game 7 vs. Cavs = 41 points on 13/26 FG (11/12 FT)
Game 6 vs. Pistons = 27 points on 8/12 FG (10/13 FT)

I remember those games vividly and I refuse to look back on that season and give Kevin Garnett more credit for that title than the player that truly carried them and won Finals MVP. And that was Paul Pierce.

Chronz
11-11-2012, 01:22 PM
I remember those games vividly and I refuse to look back on that season and give Kevin Garnett more credit for that title than the player that truly carried them and won Finals MVP. And that was Paul Pierce.

Why is it that you look at closing games and not the entirety of the actual playoff run? If your trying to make Pierce look clutch then save it because the reality is many of those series shouldn't have gotten that far if he would have showed up. Hell maybe even make a perimeter jumper in the clutch would have helped because according to clutchdata(last 5 minutes withing 5PTS) Pierce has an average of 1 make per 16 attempts. What a closer.


Secondly The Celtics weren't a great offensive team, they were definitely a great shooting team but they were a HISTORICALLY great defensive team and you see fit to discount KG's contributions based on his boxscore stats in isolated games? Yea that doesnt fly with the reigning DPOY. The Celtics dropped off defensively to an absurd degree without KG. Looking at the lineups they trotted its easy to see who out of Pierce/KG meant more to his teams efficiency. Pierce was the offensive playmaker but KG was the outlet option that enhances his game while completely anchoring the other side of the floor your statistics ignore.

You made a comment about KG reverting to his usual choker self and there may be some truth in that but the fact is that Pierce was also reverting to his inconsistent self, the only reason he wasn't getting swept was because he had the DPOY behind him.

Chronz
11-11-2012, 01:26 PM
Its a good list croon but what is this?


can lead you to a ring with a VERY VERY DEEP roster ( pistons 04/mavs 06/rockets 94 like)
8Steve Nash
9Dwyane Wade
10Pau Gasol
11Ray Allen
12Dirk Nowitzki
13Chris Paul
14Derrick Rose

KnicksorBust
11-11-2012, 02:06 PM
Why is it that you look at closing games and not the entirety of the actual playoff run? If your trying to make Pierce look clutch then save it because the reality is many of those series shouldn't have gotten that far if he would have showed up. Hell maybe even make a perimeter jumper in the clutch would have helped because according to clutchdata(last 5 minutes withing 5PTS) Pierce has an average of 1 make per 16 attempts. What a closer.


Secondly The Celtics weren't a great offensive team, they were definitely a great shooting team but they were a HISTORICALLY great defensive team and you see fit to discount KG's contributions based on his boxscore stats in isolated games? Yea that doesnt fly with the reigning DPOY. The Celtics dropped off defensively to an absurd degree without KG. Looking at the lineups they trotted its easy to see who out of Pierce/KG meant more to his teams efficiency. Pierce was the offensive playmaker but KG was the outlet option that enhances his game while completely anchoring the other side of the floor your statistics ignore.

You made a comment about KG reverting to his usual choker self and there may be some truth in that but the fact is that Pierce was also reverting to his inconsistent self, the only reason he wasn't getting swept was because he had the DPOY behind him.

I'm not discounting anything. All I'm saying is that I want my franchise player to be able to score in the most important games of the season. In most seasons, the team that wins the championship could have been changed had 1-2 games gone differently. What is Pierce didn't score 41 points in Game 7 vs. the Cavs? Then they don't even make the ECF! Think about the historical ramifications of that?

The original debate betwen myself and MBT stemmed around Garnett vs. CP3 in their prime. Talent of teammates being equal, my choice would be Chris Paul because he is elite defensively and elevates the offense of his teammates to a higher degree than Garnett. The main purpose of my post was to prove how untrustworthy Garnett is in big games.

Chronz
11-11-2012, 02:43 PM
I'm not discounting anything. All I'm saying is that I want my franchise player to be able to score in the most important games of the season.
What about defend? Rebound? What about closing moments of every game? What about the games leading up to that specific (aka smaller) span of time? Your discounting KG if your surmising his statistical worth the way you have, it completely ignores what he meant to his team on the other end.



In most seasons, the team that wins the championship could have been changed had 1-2 games gone differently. What is Pierce didn't score 41 points in Game 7 vs. the Cavs? Then they don't even make the ECF! Think about the historical ramifications of that?
Think about how differently those Celtics are thought of if Pierce actually sustains his regular season efficiency/consistency. As it stands the Celtics are either first or 2nd in most amount of games needed to win a championship. Something you wouldn't have expected from a team with such a dominant regular season record. And the main reason for that is Pierce and to a lesser extent Ray. They wouldn't have needed 7 games to dispose of sub.500 teams if Pierce shows up. His offensive contributions VS the Cavs were laughable aside from G.7

He was averaging 15.8PPG with a fg% of .36 (26% from 3). Bron was clamping down on that ***. The ONLY reason the Celtics were able to go 7 despite Pierce being a non-factor offensively was because the games were low scoring aka thanks to their defense. And who was the teams most important defender?

Pierce was tremendous from there on out and KG did suffer abit in the Finals, but its sorta like when people talk about the 04 Celtics. Chauncey had a mediocre playoff run up until the Finals, KG is like a suped up version of Ben Wallace. Even if you feel KG didn't produce offensively, his defensive contributions are still unmatched. Even if you dont agree you have to know how close it is. I personally think KG wins it in a landslide but Im willing to meet in the middle.



The original debate betwen myself and MBT stemmed around Garnett vs. CP3 in their prime. Talent of teammates being equal, my choice would be Chris Paul because he is elite defensively and elevates the offense of his teammates to a higher degree than Garnett. The main purpose of my post was to prove how untrustworthy Garnett is in big games.
I've always felt abit of that in KG but I didn't want to touch on that. My point was just that a team as dominant as those Celtics needed alot of games because both Pierce AND KG are those kind of players to me. With KG choking in certain points and Pierce choking overall throughout long stretches of the playoffs.

Andrew32
11-11-2012, 03:03 PM
1 on 1 vs anybody in the NBA including Lebron, they get absolutely owned with him in his prime. (Current players assuming)

But Lebron played better then Kobe did in their h2h matchups over their careers and Young Wade used to regularly outplay and even at times dominate Kobe back in the mid 00's (05-06).

If what you were saying is true then that wouldn't have happened.

JordansBulls
11-11-2012, 04:55 PM
McGrady's prime is RIGHT up there with Kobe's when T-Mac was in Orlando. If we're simply talking about player ability and statistics (excluding rings) I have no idea why'd you label Kobe tier 1 but not McGrady.

Mcgrady wasn't on the list.

RLundi
11-11-2012, 05:17 PM
Mcgrady wasn't on the list.

I was referring to Bruno's post where he labeled Kobe's prime 'tier 1' and McGrady's prime 'tier 2.'

LakersEaglesLA
11-11-2012, 09:15 PM
Based on what?

I dont know why Im arguing abt a player WHO has been the best player (KOBE) in the 2000's and is in convo with Jordan and Magic for best ever!! The Lakers had to go through Portland, Sacramento, san Antonio, Phoenix all those championship years and Kobe was awesome. Shaq did NOT close those tuff series in 4th quarters of games, it was Kobe everytime.. They were 50% partners youtube the games if you forgot. If shaq was so great why is 3 of his 4 chips with KOBE. Common sense would tell he needed Kobe whet more than Kob needed. him. Kobe won 2 without shaq and lost 1 without shaq.. thats 3 appearences without shaq. I dont mine you hating Kobe, but Please RESPECT him!!

mngopher35
11-12-2012, 12:07 AM
You obviously didnt watch those games. Yes shaq had slighly larger numbers but numbers are arent the answer to winning games. The ball was in kobes hands when the games were on the line. Not once in pippens hands you have no arguement.

Keep going with the you never watch games, because you know much better than I do... Are you trying to say Kobe was more important or just as important as Shaq in 2000/2002? I really hope your not. I never said Kobe didn't have the ball more late in games those years, he also didn't have MJ on his team. Pippen had better defense, was a great point forward (more assists than Kobe), and was a pretty solid rebounder (as was Kobe for his position). I can understand that you think young Kobe made more of an impact than prime Pippen, but its close and I disagree with you. I think the Impact Pippen had defensively is being a little overlooked, as was his ability as a point forward. Lastly I don't blame pippen for not having the ball late in games because he had the GOAT on his team it would just be dumb. When Jordan left he was the go-to man and although the team didn't perform as good as when Jordan played (obviously) he still proved to be a solid first option leading his team to the second round in the playoffs. You obviously never watched Pippen play though (see what I did there?)

JordansBulls
11-12-2012, 01:22 AM
I was referring to Bruno's post where he labeled Kobe's prime 'tier 1' and McGrady's prime 'tier 2.'

I gotcha, was just saying in the debate here.

Bishnoff
11-12-2012, 01:51 AM
Duncan
Lebron
Garnett

I don't think I would even consider anyone else.

This.

b@llhog24
11-12-2012, 01:53 AM
I dont know why Im arguing abt a player WHO has been the best player (KOBE) in the 2000's and is in convo with Jordan and Magic for best ever!!

No. I disagree, he's probably closer to Magic seeing as Magic gets overrated on these boards a **** load but Jordan was an entirely different animal.


The Lakers had to go through Portland, Sacramento, san Antonio, Phoenix all those championship years and Kobe was awesome. Shaq did NOT close those tuff series in 4th quarters of games, it was Kobe everytime.. They were 50% partners youtube the games if you forgot.

I didn't forget, But what I seem to remember is Shaq looking like the most dominant player since MJ during that title run. Funny how subjectivity works huh? Maybe if you provided some facts then this would be an interesting debate.


If shaq was so great why is 3 of his 4 chips with KOBE.

Because he played his prime years with the Lakers? :shrug:


Common sense would tell he needed Kobe whet more than Kob needed. him

Nah I disagree, Shaq has proven that he doesn't need as much talent to make an impact/win rings as Kobe does.


Kobe won 2 without shaq and lost 1 without shaq.. thats 3 appearences without shaq.

Noted.


I dont mine you hating Kobe, but Please RESPECT him!!

I don't hate him, closer to a semi intense dislike. And I do respect him. I respect just about all skilled players.

Andrew32
11-12-2012, 02:16 AM
Shaq did NOT close those tuff series in 4th quarters of games, it was Kobe.
Guess what?

Shaq led the Lakers in 4th-Q playoff scoring from 00-02.

Lakers ran the ball through Shaq in the post even late in games.
Don't believe me? Take your own advice and watch some games on YTube.

Also pts scored in the 4th-Q aren't more valuable then pts scored in the 1st-Q.

Mr. LA
11-12-2012, 02:39 AM
If every "Current Player" was in there prime, and you had a choice of whom to take what order would you draft them?

Here are the guys on the list I would imagine (25 players)

Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Lebron James
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitzki
Kevin Durant
Dwyane Wade
Jason Kidd
Steve Nash
Grant Hill
Dwight Howard
Derrick Rose
Vince Carter
Chris Paul
Deron Williams
Amare Stoudemire
Chris Bosh
Pau Gasol
Blake Griffin
Carmelo Anthony
Paul Pierce
Ray Allen
Russell Westbrook
Kevin Love
James Harden
Joe Johnson


Why even bother putting these guys?

SportsFanatic10
11-12-2012, 02:50 AM
i'd take lebron. duncan would be tempting but lebron has the total package and its not just because i'm a heat fan. truthfully lebron is only like my 5th favourite player behind wade/nash/haslem/bosh. but he can play practically every position, his defense is elite, and he loves to set up his teammates. the guy is just a straght up beast.

pedrofan45
11-12-2012, 02:58 AM
I'd take Lebron first without a doubt. Duncan or Garnett next, would be content with both.

The_Pharouh
11-12-2012, 03:25 AM
Lebron
Kobe
Duncan

JordansBulls
11-16-2012, 12:10 PM
Why even bother putting these guys?

What do you mean why bother putting them? Some of those guys were superstars as well.

nickdymez
11-16-2012, 01:35 PM
Based on what?

Based on the people who actually watched the games. You clearly didn't :facepalm:

b@llhog24
11-16-2012, 06:41 PM
Based on the people who actually watched the games. You clearly didn't :facepalm:

Except I did. :facepalm:

TrueFan420
11-16-2012, 06:52 PM
Duncan then Lebron. Close very close but ill take Duncan's size.

nickdymez
11-16-2012, 07:09 PM
Except I did. :facepalm:

No, obviously you didnt. Or your a tremendous hater and troll.. :facepalm:

Chronz
11-16-2012, 07:32 PM
PSD/ The Internet

Where telling people how much basketball they watch is considered a popular rebuttal

JordansBulls
11-20-2012, 03:59 PM
PSD/ The Internet

Where telling people how much basketball they watch is considered a popular rebuttal

:) It's amazing. Also the fact people say you didn't watch so and so in there prime as the rebuttal.

Ebbs
11-20-2012, 05:04 PM
@domefavors


Kidd in his prime was better than Kevin Durant? I dont think so and Tmac doesnt play. And no Paul Pierce or Dirk?

Garnett
LeBron
Duncan
Pierce
Kobe
Jermaine
Dirk
Kidd
Wade
Nash

Jermaine? J Oneal is over Dirk/Kidd/Wade/Nash? lol

MeLaPelan!
11-20-2012, 08:21 PM
Totally off the top of my head.


Tier 1:
Tim Duncan
LeBon James

Tier 2:
Kevin Garnett
Chris Paul
Kobe Bryant
Dwyane Wade

Tier 3:
Dirk Nowitzki
Kevin Durant
Jason Kidd


lol at Kobe Bryant tier 2, f*cking people haha


my list would be:
1.Kobe
2.Duncan
3.Lebron
4.KG

b@llhog24
11-20-2012, 09:02 PM
No, obviously you didnt. Or your a tremendous hater and troll.. :facepalm:

Ad hominem.

b@llhog24
11-20-2012, 09:05 PM
PSD/ The Internet

Where telling people how much basketball they watch is considered a popular rebuttal

+1. I LOVED Shaq back then, he was my second favorite player after C-Webb during those 3 peat years.

JordansBulls
12-07-2012, 01:37 AM
@domefavors



Jermaine? J Oneal is over Dirk/Kidd/Wade/Nash? lol

I agree that Jermaine shouldn't be over those guys, but Jermaine was awesome back in the day.

bklynny67
12-07-2012, 04:41 AM
.

ManRam
12-07-2012, 09:50 AM
lol at Kobe Bryant tier 2, f*cking people haha


my list would be:
1.Kobe
2.Duncan
3.Lebron
4.KG

In his prime, he wasn't as good as LeBron or Duncan :shrug: As a career, he can hold a torch to just about anyone who's ever played, but if I'm taking people in their primes, no one has been as dominant during theirs as LeBron. It's not an insult to anyone else.

"Tier 2" is just an arbitrary label...it means nothing. Deep breaths!

I actually would revise it and put Kobe ahead of Paul. Paul has had the single best individual season between the 2, but Kobe has sustained it a bit longer. I can't knock Paul for not winning because he's never had a team capable of winning, but still.

bagwell368
12-07-2012, 10:30 AM
Toughie. Top 8:

LeBron
Duncan
Durant
KG
Dirk
Wade
Paul
Nash

Heediot
12-07-2012, 10:55 AM
Tim Duncan
Lebron James
Chris Paul
Kevin Durant
Kobe Bryant
Kevin Garnett
Dwight Howard
Dwyane Wade
Dirk Nowitzki
Jason Kidd
Derrick Rose
Steve Nash
Grant Hill
Pau Gasol
Blake Griffin
Carmelo Anthony
Kevin Love
Paul Pierce
Deron Williams
Ray Allen
James Harden
Russell Westbrook
Vince Carter
Chris Bosh
Amare Stoudemire
Joe Johnson

sp1derm00
12-07-2012, 01:24 PM
Kobe, Duncan, and Lebron are above the rest as all time players and a few others are above D. Howard to, but in an actual draft to build a team he would probably go 1st as dominant centers are a premium.

Duncan plays C and is better than Dwight.

beliges
12-07-2012, 05:20 PM
In his prime, he wasn't as good as LeBron or Duncan :shrug: As a career, he can hold a torch to just about anyone who's ever played, but if I'm taking people in their primes, no one has been as dominant during theirs as LeBron. It's not an insult to anyone else.

"Tier 2" is just an arbitrary label...it means nothing. Deep breaths!

I actually would revise it and put Kobe ahead of Paul. Paul has had the single best individual season between the 2, but Kobe has sustained it a bit longer. I can't knock Paul for not winning because he's never had a team capable of winning, but still.

Not understanding this. In his Prime, Kobe's offensive game was beyond comparison to Lebron's or Duncan's. Furthermore, his perimeter defense was just as good, if not, better than Lebron's and on par with Duncan's (although Duncan was a big). Regardless though, Kobe's prime on offense was probably better than any other player that has ever played. This argument that Kobe's prime wasnt as good or dominant as Lebron's or anyone else's is just plain silly.

Money_23
12-07-2012, 05:33 PM
Not understanding this. In his Prime, Kobe's offensive game was beyond comparison to Lebron's or Duncan's. Furthermore, his perimeter defense was just as good, if not, better than Lebron's and on par with Duncan's (although Duncan was a big). Regardless though, Kobe's prime on offense was probably better than any other player that has ever played. This argument that Kobe's prime wasnt as good or dominant as Lebron's or anyone else's is just plain silly.

statistically it reallly doesn't hold true and I can understand why some people don't see Kobe's prime to be as good as Lebron's.
I personally think they are neck to neck as primes, unless Lebron can get even better, which would be just incredible. Kobe really did put fear into opponents' eyes when he stepped on the court because how much of a threat he was offensively just by himself.

It's also simple, ideally, to shut down the Lakers because of the fact that Kobe was really only a standout individual player. Not that he wasn't a good facilitator, his play style post-Shaq just wasn't doing it. Since he often does force up shots even when double or triple teamed, he would cost his team the game as well. His 2 absolute individual seasons came in 2006 and 2007 that was when he was almost completely unstoppable even when double teamed. That's really the only bad thing I find in Kobe, forcing shots he shouldn't be taking.

jayjay33
12-07-2012, 07:09 PM
Well I know some people on here will just rank by advance stats. But I feel the best player is the one "MOST LIKELY" to be the last man standing, when it's al said and done. So thats how I will rank them. If I am starting a team, and everyone is in there prime who is "most likely" to win me the ship. heart, will, talent and skill.........



1. Kobe/Ducan
3. Durant
4. wade
5. lebron
6. d.12
7. KG
8. Paul Pierce
9. g.hill
10. cp3