PDA

View Full Version : Using rings as an argument for which player is better



Bring The Heat
02-12-2013, 02:08 AM
Am I the only one who thinks using this as a basis of your argument as to which player is better individually is BOGUS?


I'm going to use 2 examples here....

LeBron plays for the Cleveland Cavaliers for 8 seasons and not once is put next to a LEGIT 2nd option his whole career there. No dominant center, wing player, or point guard to assist him.

Kobe enters the league and joins the Los Angeles Lakers who have arguably the most dominant center to EVER play the game in Shaquille O'Neal who was virtually unstoppable every time he touched the ball in the post.. also with others solid role players in Fischer, Horry etc.

How is it fair to say Kobe 5 rings "say hello" he's better? when he had the luxury/opportunity not many others star players have throughout his whole career?! Kobe wouldn't have won anything without Shaq... and vice versa Shaq would've been ringless w/o Kobe.


I just think it's ridiculous how people use that as their reason... NBA Championships are won by great teams not just ONE great player on a crappy team... Duncan the best PF to ever play the game wouldn't have won **** without great players in Parker & Ginoboli

jmoney85
02-12-2013, 02:11 AM
I think using rings in relation to comparing players is absolutely stupid... team accomplishments do not make 1 player better than the other

ThaDubs
02-12-2013, 02:13 AM
This is the biggest problem I have with Kobe homers. I destroy them by proving them wrong with advanced stats and **** and then they go all like KOBE HAS 5 RINGS AND IS THEREFORE MORE SKILLED.

GREATNESS ONE
02-12-2013, 02:17 AM
llullz destroy them :rolleyes:

Dade County
02-12-2013, 02:20 AM
You could have put any other player but Kobe, now your thread is going to be volume 2 of who is better Wade or Kobe...lmao

But yeah, I wish their always was a Hard Cap in the NBA from the beginning, just to see if free agents would have still went to big market cities cutting their salaries by a lot.

LakersIn5
02-12-2013, 02:21 AM
as a kobe fan i dont use the rings argument vs lebron because lebron with prime shaq would also win 3 or more championship and its just that lebrons teamates arent that great.

same with why how i think wilt is better than russell. put wilt in boston and have him play with 5+ HOF im pretty sure he wins alot of rings too

metsfan99999
02-12-2013, 02:23 AM
Rings are a supporting point, they can't be the meat of your argument. Yes, the goal is to win championships, but there are a lot of factors outside of an individual player's control that can lead him to fall short. When the stats aren't close, rings don't come into play. They can be useful as a tiebreaker between two players with similar production.

As for the Kobe/Lebron argument. The 5-ring argument is absurd. When Kobe was 28 he had 3 rings not 5, you cannot fault Lebron for simply being younger than Kobe. As for the 3 he won before age 28, Lebron had never played with players that are even close to a prime Shaq until he teamed up with Bosh and Wade. So applying the same standard as was applied to Kobe, Lebron should at most have 2 rings.

magic0320
02-12-2013, 02:30 AM
winning ring is winning Ring! you can always bring that up. it's not kobe's fault wade and lebron had bad team. also it is really hard to win rings even with good team just like 10-11 heat and 03-04 lakers couldnt win ring. also kobe would have won more rings if he still had shaq and didn't play with scrubs from 04 to 06. i just hate what ifs. kobe won rings and deal with it. just like lebron left cav to heat.

lakers4sho
02-12-2013, 02:30 AM
5 rings

Auseranami
02-12-2013, 02:37 AM
Bill Russell is the best player ever because he has the most chips

Hawkeye15
02-12-2013, 02:46 AM
Rings have no more weight than any of the multiple factors in rating a player.

Unless rings it the only argument a fan has for his boy over another, despite clear proof his guy doesn't stand up.

ThaDubs
02-12-2013, 02:49 AM
Derrick Fisher is just a little worse than MJ.

TRF929
02-12-2013, 03:05 AM
Am I the only one who thinks using this as a basis of your argument as to which player is better individually is BOGUS?


I'm going to use 2 examples here....

LeBron plays for the Cleveland Cavaliers for 8 seasons and not once is put next to a LEGIT 2nd option his whole career there. No dominant center, wing player, or point guard to assist him.

Kobe enters the league and joins the Los Angeles Lakers who have arguably the most dominant center to EVER play the game in Shaquille O'Neal who was virtually unstoppable every time he touched the ball in the post.. also with others solid role players in Fischer, Horry etc.

How is it fair to say Kobe 5 rings "say hello" he's better? when he had the luxury/opportunity not many others star players have throughout his whole career?! Kobe wouldn't have won anything without Shaq... and vice versa Shaq would've been ringless w/o Kobe.


I just think it's ridiculous how people use that as their reason... NBA Championships are won by great teams not just ONE great player on a crappy team... Duncan the best PF to ever play the game wouldn't have won **** without great players in Parker & Ginoboli

FYI, Parker and ginobili weren't great players in the beginning, Duncan carried the spurs in 01 behind an aging Robinson that retired afterwards and carried them in 03 with the other 2 avg maybe 25 pts combined.

LakersMaster24
02-12-2013, 03:18 AM
Derrick Fisher is just a little worse than MJ.

Derek*

samlo144
02-12-2013, 03:28 AM
Yes Bill Russell won 11 chips with all the hall of famers on his team, but you cant honestly say that all those players would have been hall of famers if the team never won anything.
people saying Stockton was better than Isiah Thomas, purely using stats is another one. Yea Stockton has better stats and everyone says pistons were stacked. But no way we look back at them and say they were stacked if they didnt beat Bird, Magic and Jordan. Dumars was a great player, and Rodman was a great player, but the rest of them are just role players. Stockton had a top 3 pf in Malone who had crazy stats and they didnt win anything. and people say its because of Jordan that they didnt win, but great players find a way to win
Same thing with LeBron and Kobe. Yes Kobe had a lot of great talent around him, and good coaches, but he found ways to win. Lebron had a contending team in Cleveland, with players that complimented his style of play from stretch 4's like Jamison, scorers like Mo Williams and knock down shooters. None of which are great individual players but still compliment his style of play perfectly.
Not saying Lebron isnt the best player in the world, just saying rings aren't just an on the court thing, its about elevating your teammates on and off the court and things that can't be quantified by stats.

mngopher35
02-12-2013, 03:49 AM
Most people who rely on the rings argument only are just trying to justify why their (homer) guy is better. There are so many factors that go into rings outside of one individual player, no player just wins a title by himself. Now when the argument is close between players it might mean a little more. Rings should be one of the many factors that go into a players legacy, but not an end all of where players rank.

Russell>Horry>MJ>Pippen>Kobe=fisher>Duncan>Bird>Wilt

thats just a little sample of what judging players only on rings gets you (just like you can't only judge a player on per or ws or points or assists, it all matters).

Kobe24MVP
02-12-2013, 04:12 AM
Robert Horry = GOAT

ShowtimeNo24
02-12-2013, 04:22 AM
Yes Bill Russell won 11 chips with all the hall of famers on his team, but you cant honestly say that all those players would have been hall of famers if the team never won anything.
people saying Stockton was better than Isiah Thomas, purely using stats is another one. Yea Stockton has better stats and everyone says pistons were stacked. But no way we look back at them and say they were stacked if they didnt beat Bird, Magic and Jordan. Dumars was a great player, and Rodman was a great player, but the rest of them are just role players. Stockton had a top 3 pf in Malone who had crazy stats and they didnt win anything. and people say its because of Jordan that they didnt win, but great players find a way to win
Same thing with LeBron and Kobe. Yes Kobe had a lot of great talent around him, and good coaches, but he found ways to win. Lebron had a contending team in Cleveland, with players that complimented his style of play from stretch 4's like Jamison, scorers like Mo Williams and knock down shooters. None of which are great individual players but still compliment his style of play perfectly.
Not saying Lebron isnt the best player in the world, just saying rings aren't just an on the court thing, its about elevating your teammates on and off the court and things that can't be quantified by stats.

I agree with this.

There is more to it than just having a good team. Winning one championship is not an easy task, doing it 5 times does add to the equation.

jaji10
02-12-2013, 05:07 AM
I agree with this.

There is more to it than just having a good team. Winning one championship is not an easy task, doing it 5 times does add to the equation.

true, rings add factor to ones greatness.. lebron had a chance to win it all before with the cavs and in 2011 he blew it big time against dallas, he could already have 3 or 2 now but just because he was so passive before, miami lost that series.. imagine lebron if he already had that killer instinct before in cleveland, kobe might not even win in 09 or 10 if they met the cavs in the finals.. hes always been great in regular season no doubt about that, but last years ECF and finals was the best lbj played in the playoffs..

lakers4sho
02-12-2013, 05:21 AM
Most people who rely on the rings argument only are just trying to justify why their (homer) guy is better. There are so many factors that go into rings outside of one individual player, no player just wins a title by himself. Now when the argument is close between players it might mean a little more. Rings should be one of the many factors that go into a players legacy, but not an end all of where players rank.

Russell>Horry>MJ>Pippen>Kobe=fisher>Duncan>Bird>Wilt

thats just a little sample of what judging players only on rings gets you (just like you can't only judge a player on per or ws or points or assists, it all matters).

lol

YashBoone
02-12-2013, 08:23 AM
No matter how you slice it, championships are a big deal. It's why your in the nba.

People always say "look at the bomb squad Jordan had." Lmao, WHAT BOMB SQUAD? He had a bunch of role players.

And oh yeah, by the way, Tim Duncan DOES have a ring without Manu and Parker. Know your history son.

Anyway, I'm a full believer that Lebron is one of the best players I've ever watched. It's amazing how good he is and how he keeps improving.

But that doesn't change that he had to join two of the top 5 players in arguably the best draft in nba history to win.

People love to say he didn't have a team in Cleveland???? His team had the best regular season record two years in a row, and made it to the Finals. That counts for nothing???? They fail in the finals and all they did to get there doesn't matter? Lol.

Like I said, Lebron is still the best, but stop making excuses for his punk ***.
It's always Miami fans, smh. 3 years ago you would all be singing a different tune.

kdspurman
02-12-2013, 08:44 AM
Am I the only one who thinks using this as a basis of your argument as to which player is better individually is BOGUS?


I'm going to use 2 examples here....

LeBron plays for the Cleveland Cavaliers for 8 seasons and not once is put next to a LEGIT 2nd option his whole career there. No dominant center, wing player, or point guard to assist him.

Kobe enters the league and joins the Los Angeles Lakers who have arguably the most dominant center to EVER play the game in Shaquille O'Neal who was virtually unstoppable every time he touched the ball in the post.. also with others solid role players in Fischer, Horry etc.

How is it fair to say Kobe 5 rings "say hello" he's better? when he had the luxury/opportunity not many others star players have throughout his whole career?! Kobe wouldn't have won anything without Shaq... and vice versa Shaq would've been ringless w/o Kobe.


I just think it's ridiculous how people use that as their reason... NBA Championships are won by great teams not just ONE great player on a crappy team... Duncan the best PF to ever play the game wouldn't have won **** without great players in Parker & Ginoboli

Not to totally nitpick, but Duncan did in 99....

And I agree, rings aren't everything but how you up your game in the post season and how you perform on the biggest stage should be noted.

LeperMessiah
02-12-2013, 11:54 AM
Lebron and Kobe proved one man can't do it alone.

Money_23
02-12-2013, 11:57 AM
Dirk won it with the least amount of star power around him, no all star teammates, and his second best player was Jason Terry (bench player).

Bring The Heat
02-12-2013, 12:09 PM
Not to totally nitpick, but Duncan did in 99....

And I agree, rings aren't everything but how you up your game in the post season and how you perform on the biggest stage should be noted.

Ok my bad lol... Regardless Duncan as great as he was, that team overall was good. He did lead the way, but by no means did it he do it by himself.

DITKA4GOV
02-12-2013, 12:12 PM
No matter how you slice it, championships are a big deal. It's why your in the nba.

People always say "look at the bomb squad Jordan had." Lmao, WHAT BOMB SQUAD? He had a bunch of role players.

And oh yeah, by the way, Tim Duncan DOES have a ring without Manu and Parker. Know your history son.

Anyway, I'm a full believer that Lebron is one of the best players I've ever watched. It's amazing how good he is and how he keeps improving.

But that doesn't change that he had to join two of the top 5 players in arguably the best draft in nba history to win.

People love to say he didn't have a team in Cleveland???? His team had the best regular season record two years in a row, and made it to the Finals. That counts for nothing???? They fail in the finals and all they did to get there doesn't matter? Lol.

Like I said, Lebron is still the best, but stop making excuses for his punk ***.
It's always Miami fans, smh. 3 years ago you would all be singing a different tune.

I agree with this. Rings shouldn't be the only argument for a player, but should hold weight. When you look at the group many feel are the top 5 players to play the game, they all have rings. It's not that Jordan won rings that matters, but that he elevated his game come playoff time to another level. Just look at his per game averages.

Comparing Horry to Jordan because or rings is ridiculous and bad argument material. That is getting away from what the main point is: Elite players and how they are judged.

LBJ had a team he could win with. The truth is in the pudding. Best reg season record and trip to the finals. Everyone has to stop saying he didn't have a team that could win. When he bolted for Miami to join forces with other future HOF'S, he definetely raised the bar on how we should perceive his accomplishments. 1 (or even 2) rings will not elevate him past some of the greats who won multiple times with the team they were surrounded with, not a team they helped create. We all know how great LBJ is, and his numbers this year are mind blowing. What matters is how Miami handles the post season that everyone will remember.

BigBlueCrew
02-12-2013, 12:12 PM
did I enter the NFL forum?

kdspurman
02-12-2013, 12:15 PM
Ok my bad lol... Regardless Duncan as great as he was, that team overall was good. He did lead the way, but by no means did it he do it by himself.

No one ever does, its a total team effort. But the star guys will always be judged how they perform on the biggest stage and in the playoffs.

SteBO
02-12-2013, 12:21 PM
No matter how you slice it, championships are a big deal. It's why your in the nba.

People always say "look at the bomb squad Jordan had." Lmao, WHAT BOMB SQUAD? He had a bunch of role players.

And oh yeah, by the way, Tim Duncan DOES have a ring without Manu and Parker. Know your history son.

Anyway, I'm a full believer that Lebron is one of the best players I've ever watched. It's amazing how good he is and how he keeps improving.

But that doesn't change that he had to join two of the top 5 players in arguably the best draft in nba history to win.

People love to say he didn't have a team in Cleveland???? His team had the best regular season record two years in a row, and made it to the Finals. That counts for nothing???? They fail in the finals and all they did to get there doesn't matter? Lol.

Like I said, Lebron is still the best, but stop making excuses for his punk ***.
It's always Miami fans, smh. 3 years ago you would all be singing a different tune.
I agree with you on the Jordan viewpoint to an extent. It speaks to just how great Jordan was, unless you consider Pippen a ďroleĒ player (which is flat out wrong, but whatever).

Let me ask you a question, do you think LeBron wouldíve had to leave Cleveland in the first place had he been fortunate enough to have a competent front office? I ask this because you point out those Cavs teamsí regular season records as if it meant anything. I continue to tell people, that ďregular season isnít indicative of postseason success or failureĒ. Itís a whole hell of a lot easier for those role players to play at higher level when guys arenít being completely honed in on, and the intensity in which the opposition (elite opposition) plays defense isnít at a playoff like intensity.

He had to join Wade to win because the best Cleveland could do to put talent around the guy was Mo freakiní Williams. If you donít like my choice there, I could choose Antawn Jamison. Larry Hughes? All these guys are far from being two-way players, and you need another two-way player around you to win championships now with the pool of talent being so shallow. Judge MJís supporting cast all you want to, but those guys proved capable of getting the job done when it mattered. Same canít be said for LeBronís support system. To even compare the two situations is unfair to LeBron, hence why the rings argument is overblown. Getting a ring is a team accomplishment, not individual. It matters, but itís not even close to the end all be all when comparing individual players.

da ThRONe
02-12-2013, 12:25 PM
Derrick Fisher is just a little worse than MJ.

Robert Horry>Michael Jordan?

da ThRONe
02-12-2013, 12:30 PM
I agree with you on the Jordan viewpoint to an extent. It speaks to just how great Jordan was, unless you consider Pippen a “role” player (which is flat out wrong, but whatever).

Let me ask you a question, do you think LeBron would’ve had to leave Cleveland in the first place had he been fortunate enough to have a competent front office? I ask this because you point out those Cavs teams’ regular season records as if it meant anything. I continue to tell people, that “regular season isn’t indicative of postseason success or failure”. It’s a whole hell of a lot easier for those role players to play at higher level when guys aren’t being completely honed in on, and the intensity in which the opposition (elite opposition) plays defense isn’t at a playoff like intensity.

He had to join Wade to win because the best Cleveland could do to put talent around the guy was Mo freakin’ Williams. If you don’t like my choice there, I could choose Antawn Jamison. Larry Hughes? All these guys are far from being two-way players, and you need another two-way player around you to win championships now with the pool of talent being so shallow. Judge MJ’s supporting cast all you want to, but those guys proved capable of getting the job done when it mattered. Same can’t be said for LeBron’s support system. To even compare the two situations is unfair to LeBron, hence why the rings argument is overblown. Getting a ring is a team accomplis,hment, not individual. It matters, but it’s not even close to the end all be all when comparing individual players.

There is clearly a huge gap between playoff basketball and regular season basketball. Because there's so little time between regular season games game planning is almost impossible to do. With so many games player don't go all out in the regular seaskn. Which is why I want the regular season reduced.

DITKA4GOV
02-12-2013, 12:34 PM
Really, are people in here still saying Cavs never had a team. How'd they win all those games in the regular season and make it to the finals again? LBJ play by himself? So we are saying what LBJ does in the regular season should be the measuring stick on how we judge his (and anyone elses) career/legacy? Yet, same argument to Bulls fans was regular season record last two season means nothing, its what you do in the playoffs. SMH

Flawed logic.... Make it to the Finals and win with the Cavs: LBJ is the Greatest Ever
Make it to the Finals and lose with the Cavs: The Cavs Front Office / Roster was terrible.

JiffyMix88
02-12-2013, 12:35 PM
Derek*

Who gives a sit*

LongIslandIcedZ
02-12-2013, 12:40 PM
Out of all the major sports, using rings as an argument to validate a player holds the most weight in basketball without a doubt.

Having said that, it is still a team sport and rings cannot be the be all end all.

CityofTreez
02-12-2013, 12:40 PM
This is the biggest problem I have with Kobe homers. I destroy them by proving them wrong with advanced stats and **** and then they go all like KOBE HAS 5 RINGS AND IS THEREFORE MORE SKILLED.


Derrick Fisher is just a little worse than MJ.

You're not destroying anything...

MaloDaw9
02-12-2013, 12:50 PM
This is the biggest problem I have with Kobe homers. I destroy them by proving them wrong with advanced stats and **** and then they go all like KOBE HAS 5 RINGS AND IS THEREFORE MORE SKILLED.

LoL@Advanced stats

Your hate for Kobe reminds me of a quote from George Bernard Shaw:
"hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated"

and buddy Kobe has been intimidating you for years..copy and paste that in your sig

ElChinoLatino
02-12-2013, 12:51 PM
Ok my bad lol... Regardless Duncan as great as he was, that team overall was good. He did lead the way, but by no means did it he do it by himself.

Duncan did it by himself in 99 and 03. Their #2 scorer in the 99 Finals was Robertson with 15.6 ppg and in 03 Finals was Parker with 14.7 ppg.

Money_23
02-12-2013, 12:55 PM
Really, are people in here still saying Cavs never had a team. How'd they win all those games in the regular season and make it to the finals again? LBJ play by himself? So we are saying what LBJ does in the regular season should be the measuring stick on how we judge his (and anyone elses) career/legacy? Yet, same argument to Bulls fans was regular season record last two season means nothing, its what you do in the playoffs. SMH

Flawed logic.... Make it to the Finals and win with the Cavs: LBJ is the Greatest Ever
Make it to the Finals and lose with the Cavs: The Cavs Front Office / Roster was terrible.

pretty much all lebron d1ckriders say this over and over again. "Winning is a team effort, but Lebron singlehandedly carried the Cavs to their first finals, so he is arguably greater than MJ because MJ was 1-10 in the playoffs before Pippen." :laugh2:

kdspurman
02-12-2013, 12:58 PM
Duncan did it by himself in 99 and 03. Their #2 scorer in the 03 Finals was Robertson with 15.6 ppg and in 99 Finals was Parker with 14.7 ppg.

In 1999 (parker wasn't there)

Robinson averaged 16.6 then Avery Johnson @ 11.6

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1999_finals.html

2003, Tim was just a man possessed.

ElChinoLatino
02-12-2013, 01:02 PM
In 1999 (parker wasn't there)

Robinson averaged 16.6 then Avery Johnson @ 11.6

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1999_finals.html

2003, Tim was just a man possessed.

My bad switched the years on both -__-

SteBO
02-12-2013, 01:05 PM
At least most LeBron jock riders are aware that winning championships is a team accomplishment, and at least know the difference between making excuses and living in reality as opposed to others who hold up rings as an end all be all argument because they’re either too lazy and too stubborn to look up the stats for themselves to see the other side of the coin. We’re comparing individual players, not the hardware quantity that holds too many factors to begin with when we’re simply comparing two players.

Plus, nobody said LeBron didn’t have a team. At least all I’m saying is that the role players LeBron carried to the Finals were trash. The years following were decent, but nowhere near good enough to win a championship, which is evident in the results.

Sactown
02-12-2013, 01:09 PM
In 1999 (parker wasn't there)

Robinson averaged 16.6 then Avery Johnson @ 11.6

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1999_finals.html

2003, Tim was just a man possessed.

That 1999 team was a defensive monster. So Tim Duncan single handedly held the Nets to 37% shooting and 27% from deep.... The team was a defensive monster still in 2003. Yes Tim did do a fantastic job averaging insane numbers, but still his team locked down the other team

ManRam
02-12-2013, 01:14 PM
Rings matter, but like everything else need to have some context to go with them. The team around you does matter...we can't always pretend like if Player A is as good as Player B then Player A needs as many rings as Player B. That's just stupid. Some players play with better players and more talent than others...and that should be taken into account.

Hawkeye15
02-12-2013, 01:32 PM
No matter how you slice it, championships are a big deal. It's why your in the nba.

People always say "look at the bomb squad Jordan had." Lmao, WHAT BOMB SQUAD? He had a bunch of role players.

And oh yeah, by the way, Tim Duncan DOES have a ring without Manu and Parker. Know your history son.

Anyway, I'm a full believer that Lebron is one of the best players I've ever watched. It's amazing how good he is and how he keeps improving.

But that doesn't change that he had to join two of the top 5 players in arguably the best draft in nba history to win.

People love to say he didn't have a team in Cleveland???? His team had the best regular season record two years in a row, and made it to the Finals. That counts for nothing???? They fail in the finals and all they did to get there doesn't matter? Lol.

Like I said, Lebron is still the best, but stop making excuses for his punk ***.
It's always Miami fans, smh. 3 years ago you would all be singing a different tune.

He was a kid when they went to the finals, and you saw how good his team was when the Spurs built a wall around him and let anyone else try and beat them. You also saw how good that team was when he left. I have no problem in saying I don't think there is a single player since possibly Jordan, that could get that team to win 60 games back to back. Usually, when you remove the best player from a true contender, they are still a middle of the pack playoff team. Can anyone tell me that if LeBron went down in game 17 for the year, Cleveland, any of those years, would have been a playoff team?

Anyways, back to the debate. Rings are important for a players career, but they are no more important than that players individual success. Its a team sport. Do you play it to win chips? Sure. But so much more goes into measuring a player in a team sport. Marino is a great example in football.

Duncan may have won without Manu and Parker, but he had that HOF'er, what's his name, oh right, David Robinson, and seasoned veterans, sharp shooters, and dirty workers all around him, along with Pops.

Sota4Ever
02-12-2013, 01:46 PM
That is because the Cav's were specifically built for Lebron. Of course they are going to blow once you take out there best player because they have no one to distribute the ball to them like Lebron is suppose to. The Cav's management put together a team that wasn't good on paper but the skills they have are brought out with Lebron. The perfect team and what Cleveland tried to do is put shooters around Lebron to drive and kick or hit in the corners when defenses cheated. That is why they got Mo and all the other "shooters". Without ever having Lebron we don't know what that team would look like or what that team would look like with another superstar. Some teams are built by the star player and some by the coach. Look at Orlando, they had dwight in the middle and 3 pt shooters all around. They tried to build around Dwight and they got to the finals but now look at their team. Albeit a lot better then I thought they would, but still not as good.

Chronz
02-12-2013, 01:58 PM
Really, are people in here still saying Cavs never had a team. How'd they win all those games in the regular season and make it to the finals again? LBJ play by himself?
Didn't they lose all 7 games Bron didn't play the year he took them to the Finals? LOL

Didn't they also see their production decrease to ridiculous levels when Bron wasn't on the floor during those years?

Didn't Bron have zero All-Stars in Cleveland (unless you think David Stern picking you to replace the injured midget in Orlando qualifies as an All-Star birth)

Chronz
02-12-2013, 02:01 PM
That is because the Cav's were specifically built for Lebron.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing. I cant tell from your post.

kdspurman
02-12-2013, 02:03 PM
That 1999 team was a defensive monster. So Tim Duncan single handedly held the Nets to 37% shooting and 27% from deep.... The team was a defensive monster still in 2003. Yes Tim did do a fantastic job averaging insane numbers, but still his team locked down the other team

Oh yea, no doubt. Those teams were great defensively. I never mentioned he single-handedly held the Nets to any sort of low shooting percentages. I do know he held Kenyon Martin to some crazy low percentages however during that series.

I was simply implying that Duncan during that playoff run played out of his mind.

kdspurman
02-12-2013, 02:05 PM
My bad switched the years on both -__-

no prob :hi5:

Sota4Ever
02-12-2013, 02:07 PM
Are you agreeing or disagreeing. I cant tell from your post.

Take it however you want to.

Chronz
02-12-2013, 02:12 PM
Take it however you want to.

Im just saying because I agreed with everything you said. Cleveland was deep and built for the regular season, but they lacked some serious contention pieces on top of never being healthy.

SteBO
02-12-2013, 02:14 PM
That is because the Cav's were specifically built for Lebron. Of course they are going to blow once you take out there best player because they have no one to distribute the ball to them like Lebron is suppose to. The Cav's management put together a team that wasn't good on paper but the skills they have are brought out with Lebron. The perfect team and what Cleveland tried to do is put shooters around Lebron to drive and kick or hit in the corners when defenses cheated. That is why they got Mo and all the other "shooters". Without ever having Lebron we don't know what that team would look like or what that team would look like with another superstar. Some teams are built by the star player and some by the coach. Look at Orlando, they had dwight in the middle and 3 pt shooters all around. They tried to build around Dwight and they got to the finals but now look at their team. Albeit a lot better then I thought they would, but still not as good.
If the bolded in reference to the team around LeBron, then this where a lot of people are going to disagree. Also, thereís more to the game than the offensive end of the floor. With the exception of maybe Anderson Varajeo and to an extent Delonte West, none of those guys could defend a lick either. Therefore, if their shots arenít falling, theyíre useless out there. LeBron did it all for them on both ends, and if there isnít enough relief out there in other aspects, you can forget about championships.

Matrix3132
02-12-2013, 02:18 PM
winning ring is winning Ring! you can always bring that up. it's not kobe's fault wade and lebron had bad team. also it is really hard to win rings even with good team just like 10-11 heat and 03-04 lakers couldnt win ring. also kobe would have won more rings if he still had shaq and didn't play with scrubs from 04 to 06. i just hate what ifs. kobe won rings and deal with it. just like lebron left cav to heat.

You hate "what ifs" but you provide one: "kobe would have won more rings if he still had shaq and didn't play with scrubs from 04-06"

Oh poor kobe, a whole 2 years with scrubs, he must be cursed, why does god hate him so much?

Stinkyoutsider
02-12-2013, 02:19 PM
No reason to use rings in the discussion when talking about player vs player, but it's fair game when comparing team vs team.

In the same way you can't penalize a player like Kobe for having the kind of teammates and being a part of an organization that got it right, you also can't penalize a player like Melo in the same way. We're talking about individual players, not teams...

Now, I wouldn't mind if we discussed impact as far as player vs player. But, imo a player can have more of an impact on his team qualitywise and not win a title. Just look at how much impact a guy like Chris Paul has on the teams he's been on? Is he a better player and had just as much or more impact than Rondo has had on the Celtics?

Sactown
02-12-2013, 02:24 PM
Oh yea, no doubt. Those teams were great defensively. I never mentioned he single-handedly held the Nets to any sort of low shooting percentages. I do know he held Kenyon Martin to some crazy low percentages however during that series.

I was simply implying that Duncan during that playoff run played out of his mind.
Yeah Duncan went beast mode in the playoffs and is the best PF to ever play, but his whole team as a unit was a defensive juggernaut and had a GOAT coach candidate.

Sota4Ever
02-12-2013, 02:24 PM
Im just saying because I agreed with everything you said. Cleveland was deep and built for the regular season, but they lacked some serious contention pieces on top of never being healthy.

I was mostly saying that the parts were around him. I hate when people say that he had a trash team and just look at what they did after he left. Well of course they did that because he was what they built around. They brought in a shooting point guard along with shooting big man because that was needed for Lebron.

Yes, their defense was susceptible and really wasn't made for the payoffs but with their offense they could over compensate for that. Also the perfect team isn't saying like building a big three or getting a couple star players on the team it was more saying putting the perfect components next to him. It created almost a perfect team for him because of the drive and kicks to open shooters who could hit the shots.

Sactown
02-12-2013, 02:29 PM
I was mostly saying that the parts were around him. I hate when people say that he had a trash team and just look at what they did after he left. Well of course they did that because he was what they built around. They brought in a shooting point guard along with shooting big man because that was needed for Lebron.

Yes, their defense was susceptible and really wasn't made for the payoffs but with their offense they could over compensate for that. Also the perfect team isn't saying like building a big three or getting a couple star players on the team it was more saying putting the perfect components next to him. It created almost a perfect team for him because of the drive and kicks to open shooters who could hit the shots.
An offense that showcases a 1-4 flat as their centerpiece to an offense isn't going to win a title. And all of Cleveland's "Shooters" went MIA during the playoffs.

mngopher35
02-12-2013, 02:31 PM
I was mostly saying that the parts were around him. I hate when people say that he had a trash team and just look at what they did after he left. Well of course they did that because he was what they built around. They brought in a shooting point guard along with shooting big man because that was needed for Lebron.

Yes, their defense was susceptible and really wasn't made for the payoffs but with their offense they could over compensate for that. Also the perfect team isn't saying like building a big three or getting a couple star players on the team it was more saying putting the perfect components next to him. It created almost a perfect team for him because of the drive and kicks to open shooters who could hit the shots.

I get what your saying and I kind of agree. They players around Lebron were the type of talent that fit very well around Lebron. The problem however wasin the playoffs they had no one to do any damage other than bron (players like williams dissapeared) and their depth wasn't as big of a factor in the playoffs. That supporting cast was not at the same level of a championship team. Name me other championship teams minus the best player that were worse than those cavs. Yes the players fit around lebron very nicely, but honestly there wasn't enough actual talent there.

Chronz
02-12-2013, 02:32 PM
I was mostly saying that the parts were around him. I hate when people say that he had a trash team and just look at what they did after he left. Well of course they did that because he was what they built around. They brought in a shooting point guard along with shooting big man because that was needed for Lebron.

Yes, their defense was susceptible and really wasn't made for the payoffs but with their offense they could over compensate for that. Also the perfect team isn't saying like building a big three or getting a couple star players on the team it was more saying putting the perfect components next to him. It created almost a perfect team for him because of the drive and kicks to open shooters who could hit the shots.

Yea but as it has been proven, its easier to build a flawed team around a transcendant player and win alot of regular season, than it is to surround him with talent that can support him even as he sits on the bench.

Your right about them not being trash, but if you look past the exaggerations, you should come to the same conclusion I did, which is that those were quite easily the least talented +60 win teams history. If not all-time then certainly of the modern era.

Thats usually what people mean when they rag on those Cavs. That they played so ****** without him isn't a quality championship teams tend to share, so by pointing it out, your pretty much reaffirming our original opinion of them.

Chronz
02-12-2013, 02:34 PM
I get what your saying and I kind of agree. They players around Lebron were the type of talent that fit very well around Lebron. The problem however wasin the playoffs they had no one to do any damage other than bron (players like williams dissapeared) and their depth wasn't as big of a factor in the playoffs. That supporting cast was not at the same level of a championship team. Name me other championship teams minus the best player that were worse than those cavs. Yes the players fit around lebron very nicely, but honestly there wasn't enough actual talent there.
Mike Brown was their 2nd biggest deficit IMO. Number 1 being of course that his best sidekick was Mo Williams for **** sake. But Mike Brown totally mismanaged his lineups, it got so bad that he actually started BigZ+Shaq for abit, lmfao what a ******.

mngopher35
02-12-2013, 02:48 PM
Mike Brown was their 2nd biggest deficit IMO. Number 1 being of course that his best sidekick was Mo Williams for **** sake. But Mike Brown totally mismanaged his lineups, it got so bad that he actually started BigZ+Shaq for abit, lmfao what a ******.

I couldn't believe he thought that would actually work, I was so mad. Also his entire offensive "scheme" was give the ball to Lebron and let him create. Not saying that doesn't work, but they had no sort of idea/plan to get players in the best position to score. In the playoffs teams just dared the other players to make plays and focused on Lebron and never had to worry about any adjustments from Brown.

ThaDubs
02-12-2013, 02:55 PM
lol

Typical Lakeboy response...

king4day
02-12-2013, 02:55 PM
Just like how so many people think Horry deserves to be in the Hall of Fame because he was a role player on a ton of title winning teams.

The argument of rings has to be dug into deeper than just the fact that they won a title.

Iron24th
02-12-2013, 02:59 PM
Derek*

llullz

LoveMeOrHateMe
02-12-2013, 03:05 PM
It's funny that the first person people always compare lebron to is Kobe lol why does it always turn into a Kobe vs lebron thread? I thought lebron is now by far the better player haha, it's funny how after all these years people are still comparing the to and hating on a player for having more rings then the other... Atleast when I grow older and have my grandchildren I can tell them that it took Kobe getting old and injured for lebron to surpass him as the best player in the game... Suck on it lebron lovers! Kobe>lebron just not at this point and time! Oh and rings do matter when it comes to comparing elite players not role players like horry,fisher etc.
They matter 10x more then ridiculous advanced stats!

LoveMeOrHateMe
02-12-2013, 03:13 PM
I love all the excuses being made for lebron haha

championships
02-12-2013, 03:27 PM
I love the jealousy in the NBA forum. If you don't have haters you ain't doing **** right.

All you Lebron dick riders know damn well if Bron had more rings, you would use it at an argument. Why must you all feel like you have to make a million excuses to validate lebrons greatness while discrediting Kobes accomplishments?

Money_23
02-12-2013, 03:33 PM
first, it's: "winning is a team effort, so we don't use that to compare players."

then, it's: "he's going to be greater than Jordan because he went to the finals in his early 20s by HIMSELF, something Jordan never was able to do."

then, it's: "multiple rings? Those were team efforts because he had stacked teams and your boy was carried to those chips. My golden boy is the only one who can flip flop between individual stats and team achievements whenever I feel like they can fit in my argument. If he loses, he is statistically superior anyway. If he wins, he did it all by himself, all of his teammates were crap."

:laugh2:

Fired-Up
02-12-2013, 03:37 PM
I take exception to the OP saying that Duncan wouldn't have won anything without Parker and Ginobli. Check out the 2003 season where Duncan took the biggest poo on the league in perhaps a generation. His 2nd best player was Stephen Jackson. By the way Duncan was Finals MVP that year.

Money_23
02-12-2013, 03:38 PM
I take exception to the OP saying that Duncan wouldn't have won anything without Parker and Ginobli. Check out the 2003 season where Duncan took the biggest poo on the league in perhaps a generation. His 2nd best player was Stephen Jackson. By the way Duncan was Finals MVP that year.

don't forget about 2011 Dirk. Took a huge dump on the Heat. Not comparing the two, because Duncan is better obviously. But just talking about the "winning with very little star-power" issue.

farren.louis
02-12-2013, 03:40 PM
You didnt mention Jordan. I will always use the 6championship in my argument when it comes to; who is better than michael jordan, because i know neither Le'bron Or Kobe will catch him . A Man name Farren Louis will! So REMEMBER ME :D

Fired-Up
02-12-2013, 03:42 PM
don't forget about 2011 Dirk. Took a huge dump on the Heat. Not comparing the two, because Duncan is better obviously. But just talking about the "winning with very little star-power" issue.

Tyson Chandler says hi. Best interior defender in the league.

farren.louis
02-12-2013, 03:44 PM
Not To mention the nba was a far more physical game when jordan played. If the rules were similiar to the rules today jordan might average 50ppg .

ManRam
02-12-2013, 03:47 PM
Sometimes "excuses" are true and are just valid points that need to be taken into consideration :shrug:

You can't just say "player A didn't win a ring that year so therefore he choked". It doesn't work like that. Context matters. These "excuses" are kind of just context.

If me saying "LeBron had less talent around him in Cleveland compared to each and every championship team Jordan and Kobe had" is an "excuse", so be it. It's true and it means something.

It's no different than anyone confronted by the question "why didn't Kobe win right after Shaq left?" and someone saying "because his team sucked". Is that an excuse? I guess...but it's the truth.

Players don't always have championship level talent around them. Pretending they do so is more wrong than coming up with these "excuses"...which are really just valid explanations.

Money_23
02-12-2013, 03:48 PM
Tyson Chandler says hi. Best interior defender in the league.

lmao. Dwight Howard says hi. Chandler was solid, but not all-star level in terms of his overall game.
Since you talking about strictly defense and using that for star-power, what about Bruce Bowen in 2003?

Fired-Up
02-12-2013, 03:52 PM
lmao. Dwight Howard says hi. Chandler was solid, but not all-star level in terms of his overall game.
Since you talking about strictly defense and using that for star-power, what about Bruce Bowen in 2003?

He's a great defender, but championship defense is played inside. AKA, Duncan. You mean the DPOY Chandler?

Money_23
02-12-2013, 03:58 PM
He's a great defender, but championship defense is played inside. AKA, Duncan. You mean the DPOY Chandler?

he won it with the Knicks, not the Mavs... but remember Duncan also had an offensive game. Chandler isn't exactly an offensive go-to guy.

mngopher35
02-12-2013, 04:11 PM
It's funny that the first person people always compare lebron to is Kobe lol why does it always turn into a Kobe vs lebron thread? I thought lebron is now by far the better player haha, it's funny how after all these years people are still comparing the to and hating on a player for having more rings then the other... Atleast when I grow older and have my grandchildren I can tell them that it took Kobe getting old and injured for lebron to surpass him as the best player in the game... Suck on it lebron lovers! Kobe>lebron just not at this point and time! Oh and rings do matter when it comes to comparing elite players not role players like horry,fisher etc.
They matter 10x more then ridiculous advanced stats!

Lebron is obviously the better player now, no one has been questioning that here. Hes been better since around 2009 (some say earlier some say later this is my opinion), I don't know what your getting at here. It just took kobe leaving his prime and lebron starting to enter his prime for them to switch places at the top. You expected rookie Lebron to be better than Prime Kobe?

Lastly yes rings do matter in the discussion where to rank players. They also are just a part of the argument, not the only measurement by any means. The context of how they won is just as important too (which is why horry having 7 is less important). Was pippen better than kobe because he had 6 rings and was an elite player? No, because he had great role players and JORDAN. Is dirk automatically better than malone because he has a ring and malone doesn't? Is Parker/Billups better than Stockton? Rings matter but they don't really tell us much without context.

ink
02-12-2013, 05:09 PM
If you've gotten to the ring counting stage you should have already realized how stupid making comparisons is. It's totally meaningless. Even those who fought over Bird and Magic, who went head to head constantly, can't come to a clear conclusion after all this time. What does it gain anyone to "decide" who's better? And how good does it feel to use irrelevant extraneous stuff like rings to make your point? Did they play on the same team? No. Did they play the same minutes? Start their careers at the same time? Were all circumstances in their careers absolute mirror images of the other? No. Well, then how can something as random as how many rings they won mean anything?

JasonJohnHorn
02-12-2013, 06:01 PM
I think most reasonable people will agree that rings shouldn't count for as much as some suggest they should.

Barkley and Malone were perhaps the two greatest PFs the league ever saw when they were playing and neither won a title, though Horace Grant won 4 throughout his career. Anybody who says Horace Grant is better than Malone and Barkley is not using reasoning skills, just as nobody in their right mind would suggest that Robert Horry is better than Jordan because he has more rings.

But when comparing players who have posted similar career stats and who have both played on competitive teams, rings can be the deciding factor. Comparing Bird and Magic for example, can be problematic because they played different positions, and have very different games, and Bird was drafted by a team that missed the playoffs before he was drafted whereas the Lakers were a playoff team when they drafted Magic. But that said, most people would cite the fact that Magic retired with more rings as the deciding factor, because the Lakers and the Celtics met up head-to-head so often, and were both contenders almost every season the two players were playing. Magic has more finals appearances and more rings, but Magic has a slight advantage in that he was drafted by a contender.


For Kobe and LBJ, the ONLY argument somebody could make for Kobe is that he has more rings. If you look at their stats LBJ is clearly the better player. LBJ lead an underwhelming roster to the NBA finals in 2004 and twice led the Cavs to the best record in the league despite never having a players as talented as prime Shaq or prime Gasol playing alongside him. The Lakers on the other hand, only once had the league's best record while Kobe was playing with them, so LBJ won more games with less. I would say comparing what each achieved with their respective teams and taking into consideration their stats, it is clear that LBJ is the better player, I mean, even when Kobe had Gasol, and Odom and Bynum (all of whom were better players than anybody LBJ played with in 2009, LBJ still lead the Cavs to more win than the Lakers, despite having an ifnerior coach and an inferior roster to Kobe that season. Gasol, Odom and Bynum all averaged more rebounds than anybody on the Cavs. Granted, Kobe won it all that year, but that was more a reflection of the talent he played with than an indication that he is a better individual player than James.

Bird, Magic, Duncan, Kobe... they were all lucky, because they played on rosters that had a lot of talent when they started and so they are in a position to win more titles than guys like Jordan and LBJ who had to play several season before they were in a position to win. I mean, in all honestly, if Jordan were drafted by the Lakers in place of Kobe, they would have won 10 titles since 1999.

Rings are a reflection of a team effort and are not always an indication of an individual's performance.

boateng
02-12-2013, 08:18 PM
I think most reasonable people will agree that rings shouldn't count for as much as some suggest they should.

Barkley and Malone were perhaps the two greatest PFs the league ever saw when they were playing and neither won a title, though Horace Grant won 4 throughout his career. Anybody who says Horace Grant is better than Malone and Barkley is not using reasoning skills, just as nobody in their right mind would suggest that Robert Horry is better than Jordan because he has more rings.

But when comparing players who have posted similar career stats and who have both played on competitive teams, rings can be the deciding factor. Comparing Bird and Magic for example, can be problematic because they played different positions, and have very different games, and Bird was drafted by a team that missed the playoffs before he was drafted whereas the Lakers were a playoff team when they drafted Magic. But that said, most people would cite the fact that Magic retired with more rings as the deciding factor, because the Lakers and the Celtics met up head-to-head so often, and were both contenders almost every season the two players were playing. Magic has more finals appearances and more rings, but Magic has a slight advantage in that he was drafted by a contender.


For Kobe and LBJ, the ONLY argument somebody could make for Kobe is that he has more rings. If you look at their stats LBJ is clearly the better player. LBJ lead an underwhelming roster to the NBA finals in 2004 and twice led the Cavs to the best record in the league despite never having a players as talented as prime Shaq or prime Gasol playing alongside him. The Lakers on the other hand, only once had the league's best record while Kobe was playing with them, so LBJ won more games with less. I would say comparing what each achieved with their respective teams and taking into consideration their stats, it is clear that LBJ is the better player, I mean, even when Kobe had Gasol, and Odom and Bynum (all of whom were better players than anybody LBJ played with in 2009, LBJ still lead the Cavs to more win than the Lakers, despite having an ifnerior coach and an inferior roster to Kobe that season. Gasol, Odom and Bynum all averaged more rebounds than anybody on the Cavs. Granted, Kobe won it all that year, but that was more a reflection of the talent he played with than an indication that he is a better individual player than James.

Bird, Magic, Duncan, Kobe... they were all lucky, because they played on rosters that had a lot of talent when they started and so they are in a position to win more titles than guys like Jordan and LBJ who had to play several season before they were in a position to win. I mean, in all honestly, if Jordan were drafted by the Lakers in place of Kobe, they would have won 10 titles since 1999.

Rings are a reflection of a team effort and are not always an indication of an individual's performance.

Meh ifs, buts, coulda's, woulda's.

no doubt jordan was a much better player but kobe is one of the greats. he has had a fantastic career and when he finally retires i am sure he would be happy to have won 5 chips, 2 as the main and 3 as a 2nd option.

texanmonstra011
02-12-2013, 09:25 PM
I think the most pathetic part about this ring argument is really the only people that use it are LAKER FANS.

they just can't accept the fact that Lebron is better than Kobe, so they use this pathetic joke of an excuse to make themselves feel better.


Newsflash for the laker fans: RINGS DONT MEAN YOURE BETTER. DJ MBENGA IS NOT BETTER THAN KARL MALONE. MARIO CHALMERS IS NOT BETTER THAN JOHN STOCKTON. LEON POWE IS NOT BETTER THAN CHARLES BARKLEY. And once and for all, kobe is not better than Lebron. When it's all said and done, Lebron will go down as a better player than Kobe.

ManRam
02-12-2013, 09:31 PM
Lakers fans aren't the only ones to use it, but they are pretty passionate/defensive about it because at the end of the day they know it's the only chance they have for Kobe to be "better" than Jordan (if he gets 7 let's say) and the only argument they'll have to keep him ahead of LeBron. Because besides rings - a team accomplishment - individually Kobe won't ever compare.

Sota4Ever
02-12-2013, 09:32 PM
Ha Lakers fans are the only one to use the ring argument...

Hawkeye15
02-12-2013, 10:01 PM
Mike Brown was their 2nd biggest deficit IMO. Number 1 being of course that his best sidekick was Mo Williams for **** sake. But Mike Brown totally mismanaged his lineups, it got so bad that he actually started BigZ+Shaq for abit, lmfao what a ******.

Watching him take away his single advantage up front against the Celtics (using athletic players), instead opting to play the slowest dudes alive in Shaq and Z, made me shake my head honestly.

Hawkeye15
02-12-2013, 10:04 PM
I was mostly saying that the parts were around him. I hate when people say that he had a trash team and just look at what they did after he left. Well of course they did that because he was what they built around. They brought in a shooting point guard along with shooting big man because that was needed for Lebron.

Yes, their defense was susceptible and really wasn't made for the payoffs but with their offense they could over compensate for that. Also the perfect team isn't saying like building a big three or getting a couple star players on the team it was more saying putting the perfect components next to him. It created almost a perfect team for him because of the drive and kicks to open shooters who could hit the shots.

That was the weakest 60 win team(s) I can think of in the modern era. Like I said, remove Bron from those teams early in the season with a major injury, I can't see them even sniffing playoffs. Real contenders lose a star and still poke their way in, because they have playoff talent.

I am convinced, no player outside maybe Jordan (and I struggle with that, only because he didn't get players involved like Bron does), could have taken those rosters to taking the #1 seed out east and deep into the playoffs.

Hawkeye15
02-12-2013, 10:07 PM
I couldn't believe he thought that would actually work, I was so mad. Also his entire offensive "scheme" was give the ball to Lebron and let him create. Not saying that doesn't work, but they had no sort of idea/plan to get players in the best position to score. In the playoffs teams just dared the other players to make plays and focused on Lebron and never had to worry about any adjustments from Brown.

I wrote that when the Lakers hired Brown. Nice offensive hire. All he did was say, "ok, lets iso Bron on the left side, when the figure it out, I will call a timeout, and wei will iso him on the right side".

I seriously think Brown has no business being a head coach, and should stick to being a defensive coordinator.

Hawkeye15
02-12-2013, 10:09 PM
Ha Lakers fans are the only one to use the ring argument...

Kobe fans as well. You fit the bill. Kobe, will never be able to compete with Jordan and LeBron all time, unless Bron gets hit by a truck or tears something right now.

Lakers + Giants
02-12-2013, 10:10 PM
Honestly, without rings I'm not sure if kobe is in the top 20 discussion.

Hawkeye15
02-12-2013, 10:12 PM
Honestly, without rings I'm not sure if kobe is in the top 20 discussion.

Not sure if you are being facetious or not, but man, even without those rings, I still have him top 15.

Sota4Ever
02-12-2013, 10:12 PM
Kobe fans as well. You fit the bill. Kobe, will never be able to compete with Jordan and LeBron all time, unless Bron gets hit by a truck or tears something right now.

When have I ever and I mean ever brought the ring argument up?? Or even compared Kobe to MJ? I stay away from those types of debates.

b@llhog24
02-12-2013, 10:14 PM
Duncan won with no help in 99? :confused:

Hawkeye15
02-12-2013, 10:15 PM
When have I ever and I mean ever brought the ring argument up??

off the top of my head, I don't know if you have. I mean, I can simply blow away Kobe with a numbers comparison against LeBron, but so many like to stick to Kobe's winning as their crutch, when LeBron has been better the past 2-3 seasons than Kobe ever has.

b@llhog24
02-12-2013, 10:15 PM
Honestly, without rings I'm not sure if kobe is in the top 20 discussion.

Nah he'd be firmly in the top 20, top 15ish area.

Hawkeye15
02-12-2013, 10:16 PM
Duncan won with no help in 99? :confused:

apparently people missed the Admiral, his vet shooters (Elliot, Kerr, Elie, etc), his vet PG, and his HOF coach that rivals Red and Phil for GOAT...

Sota4Ever
02-12-2013, 10:19 PM
off the top of my head, I don't know if you have. I mean, I can simply blow away Kobe with a numbers comparison against LeBron, but so many like to stick to Kobe's winning as their crutch, when LeBron has been better the past 2-3 seasons than Kobe ever has.

I stay away from the rings argument especially with you, and stay away from the comparison between Kobe and Lebron. Different players, different teams, and different skills.

Hawkeye15
02-12-2013, 10:24 PM
I stay away from the rings argument especially with you, and stay away from the comparison between Kobe and Lebron. Different players, different teams, and different skills.

sure, but one is better ;)

But yeah, we have had these convos. I think over the next 5 years, that comparison gets a bit more one sided anyways.

Sota4Ever
02-12-2013, 10:26 PM
sure, but one is better ;)

But yeah, we have had these convos. I think over the next 5 years, that comparison gets a bit more one sided anyways.

You're probably right, but I love watching Kobe play and will be a sad day once he is gone.

Lakers + Giants
02-12-2013, 10:28 PM
Not sure if you are being facetious or not, but man, even without those rings, I still have him top 15.

I was being serious. Maybe I exaggerated a bit but he's definitely out of the top 10 if that were the case. It's his prime's length that has him there though. He might be the only player on that list that isn't there because of the actual prime but the length of it.

boateng
02-13-2013, 07:50 AM
sure, but one is better ;)

But yeah, we have had these convos. I think over the next 5 years, that comparison gets a bit more one sided anyways.

Kobe has had a great career. May not be as good as lebron (depends on opinion) but he has had a great career.
Why do you hate Bryant so much?

Bring The Heat
02-13-2013, 12:22 PM
Sometimes "excuses" are true and are just valid points that need to be taken into consideration :shrug:

You can't just say "player A didn't win a ring that year so therefore he choked". It doesn't work like that. Context matters. These "excuses" are kind of just context.

If me saying "LeBron had less talent around him in Cleveland compared to each and every championship team Jordan and Kobe had" is an "excuse", so be it. It's true and it means something.

It's no different than anyone confronted by the question "why didn't Kobe win right after Shaq left?" and someone saying "because his team sucked". Is that an excuse? I guess...but it's the truth.

Players don't always have championship level talent around them. Pretending they do so is more wrong than coming up with these "excuses"...which are really just valid explanations.


Great post.....

Soon as Shaq left Kobe didn't win crap and finally got to see what it was like to have great stats but no ring and get bounced out of the first round... Cry and complain until he finally got pau gasol...At the end of the day its not an excuse its a FACT people.. You need great players around you to win, period.

hidalgo
02-13-2013, 12:57 PM
You're probably right, but I love watching Kobe play and will be a sad day once he is gone.no it'll be great to have him gone. too bad he'll stick around another 4 years after this year i bet

whitemamba33
02-13-2013, 01:00 PM
Rings aren't as important as the extremists think they are, but I'm not going to act like they don't matter. Ask any former superstar who has zero rings on their fingers and they'll you how badly they wanted one in their prime.

When I watch a player compete for a ring I'm seeing the culmination of all their talents all on the court at one time. It's the point where desire meets talent meets opportunity. If a player never goes through this journey, I'm left only able to make assumptions as to whether or not they could have played well in that situation. Why is this important? It's because I don't give a $#%$ how you play during the regular season, if you can't play well with the ring on the line than it's all for nothing.

To a lesser effect, the same is true for winning multiple championships. A lot of that desire and hunger goes away after the first, so it says a lot about a player when he's able to win multiple championships. Yes it also says a lot about the team he is on, but still - I need to see the player complete this journey before I can truly judge what they can do.

So no, it's not as simple as saying Player A has more rings than Player B, so Player A must be better. But if I've seen Player A compete successfully in the finals but I've never seen Player B compete past the first round of the playoffs, I'm left guessing as to how Player B would perform in the Finals. It sucks that not every letter of the alphabet gets to compete for a championship, but I still need to see it to believe it.

By the way, people failing to make the distinction between D-Fish and Kobe are just as bad as the rings extremists.

Celtics33
02-13-2013, 01:14 PM
Jalen Rose brought this point up today on "Mike and Mike." I think it's a point to take into consideration, especially when taking into account all of the other accomplishments players have won. This topic will always be a very opinionated subject, but I personally weigh a finals MVP as one of the top accomplishments, if not the top accomplishment a player can win.

xRipCity
02-13-2013, 02:18 PM
Adam Morrison is better than 95% of the league right?

ILLUSIONIST^248
02-13-2013, 02:51 PM
This is the biggest problem I have with Kobe homers. I destroy them by proving them wrong with advanced stats and **** and then they go all like KOBE HAS 5 RINGS AND IS THEREFORE MORE SKILLED.

Dubs, You don't destroy anyone.

THE MTL
02-13-2013, 03:05 PM
I hate when people use rings to discuss which players are better as well. It helps but overall it should NOT be the deciding factor.

Hawkeye15
02-13-2013, 03:48 PM
Kobe has had a great career. May not be as good as lebron (depends on opinion) but he has had a great career.
Why do you hate Bryant so much?

Kobe has had a legendary career. He is top 10 all time for me, if you remove his rings, still hovering around top 15ish. I simply think LeBron is a flat out better player, won't need as much team success, to pass him.

I have disliked Kobe for over a decade for various reasons. Doesn't mean I don't respect his basketball game and accomplishments.

DumDum
02-13-2013, 03:55 PM
nope

boateng
02-13-2013, 04:05 PM
Kobe has had a legendary career. He is top 10 all time for me, if you remove his rings, still hovering around top 15ish. I simply think LeBron is a flat out better player, won't need as much team success, to pass him.

I have disliked Kobe for over a decade for various reasons. Doesn't mean I don't respect his basketball game and accomplishments.

Ahh i see. Seems when you post about him, you have a strong dislike. TBH most players in the league have unlikeable things about then including Lebron.

Regarding who is a better player, i do think Lebron is the better all round player, can pass better, better defender etc...
I do think Kobe is better in the clutch, but i do agree i do think Lebron will suppress Kobe with 2 more rings.

Kobe had had a amazing career. Being top 10 of all time is not bad at all. I hate how people try and diminish him on this forum.

Shlumpledink
02-13-2013, 04:12 PM
The ring argument is a flawed one. You have to consider that the media has trumpeted this argument more than any other, and you have to realize that journalists want to dumb it down to the simplest formula so they can talk about it ad nauseum. Recycling news stories is how a lot of journalists make their money. It takes actual thought to talk about the pro's and cons of a player beyond simple statistics and ring count

Hawkeye15
02-13-2013, 04:16 PM
Ahh i see. Seems when you post about him, you have a strong dislike. TBH most players in the league have unlikeable things about then including Lebron.

Regarding who is a better player, i do think Lebron is the better all round player, can pass better, better defender etc...
I do think Kobe is better in the clutch, but i do agree i do think Lebron will suppress Kobe with 2 more rings.

Kobe had had a amazing career. Being top 10 of all time is not bad at all. I hate how people try and diminish him on this forum.

Oh, I do dislike him, but it doesn't stop me from understanding how great of a player I was watching, even if I don't like him.

You can dislike a player, and still respect his game. Many here are capable of that, many are not. Same in the real world. Oh well.

Haven't you ever seen the "clutch" numbers? Kobe is so overrated there man, but he will forever have the reputation of being clutch, even if the numbers say otherwise.

miller74
02-13-2013, 04:29 PM
Since this is all stemming from the LBJ for MJ debate.

The number of rings wasnt what made Jordan great, it was the simple fact of, if he played they won.

LoveMeOrHateMe
02-13-2013, 04:47 PM
off the top of my head, I don't know if you have. I mean, I can simply blow away Kobe with a numbers comparison against LeBron, but so many like to stick to Kobe's winning as their crutch, when LeBron has been better the past 2-3 seasons than Kobe ever has.

I can't take you seriously because your a known Kobe laker hater, so whatever you say is a mute point. Sure lebrons stats might be better then Kobe's ever, but what does that get him in the all-time rankings? Nothing!! The top 5 players ever have 5+ rings besides wilt, but wilts stats were amazing average 50 points in a year? Wow!
Lebron won't ever be in the top 5 without atleast 4-5 rings... The big O isn't in the top 10 for the same reason amazing stats, but very few titles!

seikou8
02-13-2013, 04:52 PM
I can't take you seriously because your a known Kobe laker hater, so whatever you say is a mute point. Sure lebrons stats might be better then Kobe's ever, but what does that get him in the all-time rankings? Nothing!! The top 5 players ever have 5+ rings besides wilt, but wilts stats were amazing average 50 points in a year? Wow!
Lebron won't ever be in the top 5 without atleast 4-5 rings... The big O isn't in the top 10 for the same reason amazing stats, but very few titles!

why is he a kobe hater because he does not kiss his *** like you

LoveMeOrHateMe
02-13-2013, 04:56 PM
People seem to forget how great Kobe was in his prime... Let me ask you this people how many 50+ point games have there been since Kobe last hit 50+? Maybe 5?
Kobe could score and would score 50+ on any given night if he wanted to and Laker fans even got used to see him hit 40+ on a regular basis for a good 2-3 year stretch! The man was a scoring maching and a better defender then lebron just because lebron has better stats doesn't mean he was a better player then Kobe. team player sure but a better individual player hell no! Kobe would eat lebron alive! As evidence by last Sundays game where Kobe posted lebron 2-4 times and faked him right out of his shoes they had to double and triple team him, now just imagine if Kobe was in his prime! It's ok though haters are gonna hate once lebron gets 4+ rings then ill even admit that he has passed Kobe on the all-time list but until then my point stands Kobe>lebron

LoveMeOrHateMe
02-13-2013, 04:56 PM
People seem to forget how great Kobe was in his prime... Let me ask you this people how many 50+ point games have there been since Kobe last hit 50+? Maybe 5?
Kobe could score and would score 50+ on any given night if he wanted to and Laker fans even got used to see him hit 40+ on a regular basis for a good 2-3 year stretch! The man was a scoring maching and a better defender then lebron just because lebron has better stats doesn't mean he was a better player then Kobe. team player sure but a better individual player hell no! Kobe would eat lebron alive! As evidence by last Sundays game where Kobe posted lebron 2-4 times and faked him right out of his shoes they had to double and triple team him, now just imagine if Kobe was in his prime! It's ok though haters are gonna hate once lebron gets 4+ rings then ill even admit that he has passed Kobe on the all-time list but until then my point stands Kobe>lebron

TheIlladelph16
02-13-2013, 05:12 PM
I can't take you seriously because your a known Kobe laker hater, so whatever you say is a mute point. Sure lebrons stats might be better then Kobe's ever, but what does that get him in the all-time rankings? Nothing!! The top 5 players ever have 5+ rings besides wilt, but wilts stats were amazing average 50 points in a year? Wow!
Lebron won't ever be in the top 5 without atleast 4-5 rings... The big O isn't in the top 10 for the same reason amazing stats, but very few titles!

A "mute" point is not a thing. I believe you were looking for moot there.

LoveMeOrHateMe
02-13-2013, 05:14 PM
A "mute" point is not a thing. I believe you were looking for moot there.

Is this English class?

mngopher35
02-13-2013, 05:31 PM
I can't take you seriously because your a known Kobe laker hater, so whatever you say is a mute point. Sure lebrons stats might be better then Kobe's ever, but what does that get him in the all-time rankings? Nothing!! The top 5 players ever have 5+ rings besides wilt, but wilts stats were amazing average 50 points in a year? Wow!
Lebron won't ever be in the top 5 without atleast 4-5 rings... The big O isn't in the top 10 for the same reason amazing stats, but very few titles!

So his points don't matter because he dislikes a player but yours matter even though your more bias? You just admitted that there is someone in the top 5 without 5 rings, and hes there with amazing stats. Guess what Lebron also has amazing stats and still has time to get rings (adjust wilts for pace and they aren't as amazing as your making them out to be). He also has many mvps and is racking up other accolades the top 5 have. Also he won't have to enter the top 5 to pass Kobe anyways. Right now we can be pretty certain Lebron will have better stats, better prime, and more MVPs. Kobe will have amazing longevity and currently has the rings and finals mvp advantage. I think most people believe Lebron has a good chance of passing Kobe despite what you think.

TheIlladelph16
02-13-2013, 05:32 PM
Is this English class?

If it was, you would have failed a long time ago. Look I understand the need to defend your favorite player here, and I even applaud it to a certain extent, but when you refuse to look at actual statistics in conjunction with the patented eye test, your argument loses credibility. He is a Top 10 player of all-time almost unanimously, so I'm not sure why some Lakers fans treat someone saying "Wade is the best SG right now" as utter blasphemy.

Kobe's career >>>> Wade
Wade's peak > Kobe's peak
/thread

8kobe24
02-13-2013, 05:40 PM
oh my god.

LoveMeOrHateMe
02-13-2013, 05:40 PM
So his points don't matter because he dislikes a player but yours matter even though your more bias? You just admitted that there is someone in the top 5 without 5 rings, and hes there with amazing stats. Guess what Lebron also has amazing stats and still has time to get rings (adjust wilts for pace and they aren't as amazing as your making them out to be). He also has many mvps and is racking up other accolades the top 5 have. Also he won't have to enter the top 5 to pass Kobe anyways. Right now we can be pretty certain Lebron will have better stats, better prime, and more MVPs. Kobe will have amazing longevity and currently has the rings and finals mvp advantage. I think most people believe Lebron has a good chance of passing Kobe despite what you think.

Don't matter, your aint changing my mind! Wilts stats>>>>lebrons!
Lebrons are similar to the big 0's and he's not in the top 10 due to championships!
Sure lebron may or may not eventually pass Kobe its just sad so many people are on his dick right now.
I remember Kobe scored 9 straight 40+ games and 4 straight 50+ point games (60,65) points included and I didn't see people sucking his dick as much as lebron!
Lebron is super efficient because he has so many fast break opportunities that all his shots come in the paint, his jumper is still suspect that's why I don't think this stretch is as impressive as other make it out to be

mngopher35
02-13-2013, 05:57 PM
Don't matter, your aint changing my mind! Wilts stats>>>>lebrons!
Lebrons are similar to the big 0's and he's not in the top 10 due to championships!
Sure lebron may or may not eventually pass Kobe its just sad so many people are on his dick right now.
I remember Kobe scored 9 straight 40+ games and 4 straight 50+ point games (60,65) points included and I didn't see people sucking his dick as much as lebron!
Lebron is super efficient because he has so many fast break opportunities that all his shots come in the paint, his jumper is still suspect that's why I don't think this stretch is as impressive as other make it out to be

That's fine, you don't need to change your mind. I'm just trying to point out that the statistics from that era need to be adjusted if you wan't to compare them to today game (and even then it isn't that great to compare them). You can decide to ignore stats, facts, and whatever other arguments are presented but don't discredit others by calling them haters or dick riders when your the exact same thing. Discrediting him by saying he gets his points in the fast break and the paint (as if that's a bad thing) isn't the best way to not seem biased. So your just mad because you wish your favorite player got as much love as Lebron when he was in his prime?

whitemamba33
02-13-2013, 06:57 PM
At the end of LeBron's career, if his only title was during a lockout shortened season...yes, I'll absolutely count that against him.

boateng
02-13-2013, 07:01 PM
Oh, I do dislike him, but it doesn't stop me from understanding how great of a player I was watching, even if I don't like him.

You can dislike a player, and still respect his game. Many here are capable of that, many are not. Same in the real world. Oh well.

Haven't you ever seen the "clutch" numbers? Kobe is so overrated there man, but he will forever have the reputation of being clutch, even if the numbers say otherwise.

Yeah but i remember one season he was insane in the clutch. He, Melo and Durant are the most clutch players imo?

Why do you dislike him though? Because of the whole rape thing? Arrogance - Nearly every NBA player is arrogant.

OceanSpray
02-13-2013, 07:52 PM
IMO, Finals MVP's are the only way to determine it. Even then, it's going on a limb. There is no way rings determine the better player. You can have a team like Denver Nuggets win the ring 3x in a row. Does that mean Gallinari is the best player? Just means they have a good team and he was the best on that team.

Hawkeye15
02-13-2013, 08:31 PM
I can't take you seriously because your a known Kobe laker hater, so whatever you say is a mute point. Sure lebrons stats might be better then Kobe's ever, but what does that get him in the all-time rankings? Nothing!! The top 5 players ever have 5+ rings besides wilt, but wilts stats were amazing average 50 points in a year? Wow!
Lebron won't ever be in the top 5 without atleast 4-5 rings... The big O isn't in the top 10 for the same reason amazing stats, but very few titles!

If you actually believe that, why even bother responding?

Hawkeye15
02-13-2013, 08:34 PM
Don't matter, your aint changing my mind! Wilts stats>>>>lebrons!
Lebrons are similar to the big 0's and he's not in the top 10 due to championships!
Sure lebron may or may not eventually pass Kobe its just sad so many people are on his dick right now.
I remember Kobe scored 9 straight 40+ games and 4 straight 50+ point games (60,65) points included and I didn't see people sucking his dick as much as lebron!
Lebron is super efficient because he has so many fast break opportunities that all his shots come in the paint, his jumper is still suspect that's why I don't think this stretch is as impressive as other make it out to be

please tell us why Wilt's stats are better, and I will give a quick math lesson on translating pace/mpg.

Hawkeye15
02-13-2013, 08:36 PM
Yeah but i remember one season he was insane in the clutch. He, Melo and Durant are the most clutch players imo?

Why do you dislike him though? Because of the whole rape thing? Arrogance - Nearly every NBA player is arrogant.

I am just saying, while Kobe has hit the most game winners of anyone in this generation, he has also taken WAY more than anyone. He hits around 30% of them at best, and the Lakers offense falls off a cliff the last 24 seconds of a one possession game, because everyone in the universe knows he will take an ill advised shot versus the Lakers running a play or Kobe deferring.

Many reasons man, and I just don't care to bring them all up again. He is a prick for one, and he rubbed me the wrong way even as a 1st time all star. I just think he is an arrogant douche, for so many reasons.

SwatTeam
02-13-2013, 09:11 PM
If you replace Kobe fans with religious zealots and Lebron fans with scientists or atheists, you have a nice summary of this thread.

ILLUSIONIST^248
02-13-2013, 09:34 PM
If it was, you would have failed a long time ago. Look I understand the need to defend your favorite player here, and I even applaud it to a certain extent, but when you refuse to look at actual statistics in conjunction with the patented eye test, your argument loses credibility. He is a Top 10 player of all-time almost unanimously, so I'm not sure why some Lakers fans treat someone saying "Wade is the best SG right now" as utter blasphemy.

Kobe's career >>>> Wade
Wade's peak > Kobe's peak
/thread

Kobe prime> Wade prime/thread

ILLUSIONIST^248
02-13-2013, 09:35 PM
IMO, Finals MVP's are the only way to determine it. Even then, it's going on a limb. There is no way rings determine the better player. You can have a team like Denver Nuggets win the ring 3x in a row. Does that mean Gallinari is the best player? Just means they have a good team and he was the best on that team.

Didn't you lose an account bet years ago?

firebryan!!
02-14-2013, 04:10 AM
Am I the only one who thinks using this as a basis of your argument as to which player is better individually is BOGUS?


I'm going to use 2 examples here....

LeBron plays for the Cleveland Cavaliers for 8 seasons and not once is put next to a LEGIT 2nd option his whole career there. No dominant center, wing player, or point guard to assist him.

Kobe enters the league and joins the Los Angeles Lakers who have arguably the most dominant center to EVER play the game in Shaquille O'Neal who was virtually unstoppable every time he touched the ball in the post.. also with others solid role players in Fischer, Horry etc.

How is it fair to say Kobe 5 rings "say hello" he's better? when he had the luxury/opportunity not many others star players have throughout his whole career?! Kobe wouldn't have won anything without Shaq... and vice versa Shaq would've been ringless w/o Kobe.


I just think it's ridiculous how people use that as their reason... NBA Championships are won by great teams not just ONE great player on a crappy team... Duncan the best PF to ever play the game wouldn't have won **** without great players in Parker & Ginoboli
duncan won his first title without both those guys!! lol

lakers4sho
02-14-2013, 05:01 AM
Colby Brian gratest

boateng
02-14-2013, 05:04 AM
I am just saying, while Kobe has hit the most game winners of anyone in this generation, he has also taken WAY more than anyone. He hits around 30% of them at best, and the Lakers offense falls off a cliff the last 24 seconds of a one possession game, because everyone in the universe knows he will take an ill advised shot versus the Lakers running a play or Kobe deferring.

Many reasons man, and I just don't care to bring them all up again. He is a prick for one, and he rubbed me the wrong way even as a 1st time all star. I just think he is an arrogant douche, for so many reasons.
And lebron isn't? All players are arrogant.
Doesn't lebron call himself in third person? For me that's arrogant. Kobe and lebron are as bad as each other IMO. Neither come across well

lakers4sho
02-14-2013, 05:16 AM
check my $tat$ bro

NFLNBA
02-14-2013, 06:17 AM
These convos are always fun! NBA players are judged on rings! Thats why they play the game people. They dont play the game to have great stats or a per 36 min lol. Yes you have to be smart enough to figure things out like Horry just being a role-player on ALL his rings. He was a great role-player that just found himself on the Rockets, Spurs, and Lakers.

Lets talk a little about the players everyone wants to talk about. Kobe, Mj, Lebron


MJ couldnt win a playoff game without Pippen but Pippen without MJ with same roster was able to win some games in the playoffs. Together they have 6 Rings. Yes MJ was the main guy on those teams but he couldnt do it without Pippen. MJ also had great role-players in Harper, Kerr, Rodman, Longley, Armstrong, Grant ect

Kobe won rings with Shaq and without Shaq. Kobe with Shaq had a better team around them in Fisher, Horry, Fox, Glen Rice, Shaw, Harper, AC Green than Kobe's team with Gasol who had a older Fisher, Odom, Ariza or Metta, Farmer, Sasha, id say Bynum but he was always hurt or played hurt in minimum time on court. Either way Kobe was able to get it done with or without the big fella. As the MAIN guy or the #2 guy.

Lebron no rings without Wade and Bosh. Had a good team around him that fit his style and carried them but couldnt finish it, need help so he bolted to help Wade where he would fail and disapear in the Finals then in his 2nd year with Wade and Bosh he gets his 1st ring.

This is a team sport. Its not easy getting to the Finals and winning a ring PERIOD no matter how many superstars you have. When comparing Superstars i look at there Rings first. Were they able to get it done! There is a reason THEIR teams are in the finals rregardless of who is around them.
When comparing Superstars
1. Rings
2. Finals appearances
3. Stats *Numbers, records, awards*

thenaj17
02-14-2013, 06:50 AM
Most people who rely on the rings argument only are just trying to justify why their (homer) guy is better. There are so many factors that go into rings outside of one individual player, no player just wins a title by himself. Now when the argument is close between players it might mean a little more. Rings should be one of the many factors that go into a players legacy, but not an end all of where players rank.

Russell>Horry>MJ>Pippen>Kobe=fisher>Duncan>Bird>Wilt

thats just a little sample of what judging players only on rings gets you (just like you can't only judge a player on per or ws or points or assists, it all matters).

A lot of people dismiss Kobe being better than LeBron and completely ignore the rings argument, which annoys the hell out of me because the majority of the same people rank Bill Russell higher than Wilt.

I agree that LeBron is a better player now than Kobe ever was, heck LeBron is better now than anyone not named Michael Jordan. Ok, he has a long way to go for his legacy to stack up against the best but judging him as a player for ability, he's top 2/3 all time.

It's the lack of consistency that a lot of guys argue about that peeves me.

NFLNBA
02-14-2013, 07:00 AM
Also lets talk a little about Stats per 36 min and PER.

Jordan in 1072 Games per 36 min

FG% .497 3 pt% .327 FT% .835 Reb 5.9 Ast 4.9 Stl 2.2 Blk 0.8 TO's 2.6 PPG 28.3
PER 27.9 WS/48 .250

Kobe in 1214 games per 36 min

FG% .453 3pt% .336 FT% .838 Reb 5.2 Ast 4.6 Stl 1.5 Blk 0.5 TO's 2.9 PPG 25.1

PER 23.4 WS/48 .183

Wade in 641 Games per 36 min

FG% .487 3pt% .291 FT% .769 Reb 4.9 Ast 5.9 Stl 1.7 Blk 1.0 TO's 3.4 PPG 24.2

PER 25.6
WS/48 .195

As you can see you cant put a lot in stats alone. Everyone knows Wade is not on the same level as either MJ and Kobe yet he statistically is on their levels besides his 3pt shooting and FT%. Also when your looking at these stats look at games played! Jordans stats per 36 Advanced stats all stats suffered when he declined. Kobe has around 200 more games and counting then Jordan obviously not playing in his prime so his stats are not getting any higher. Lets see what Wades 36 per looks like after 8 more years of basketball lol

In the clutch when the game matters and is on the line do you want a guy who shoots the 3 at a horrid % that shoots FT's at a medicore % and who turns the ball over at a high rate?

NFLNBA
02-14-2013, 07:17 AM
A lot of people dismiss Kobe being better than LeBron and completely ignore the rings argument, which annoys the hell out of me because the majority of the same people rank Bill Russell higher than Wilt.

I agree that LeBron is a better player now than Kobe ever was, heck LeBron is better now than anyone not named Michael Jordan. Ok, he has a long way to go for his legacy to stack up against the best but judging him as a player for ability, he's top 2/3 all time.

It's the lack of consistency that a lot of guys argue about that peeves me.

I agree. Durability and being able to play at a high level for YEARS is crucial. What happens to a player like Lebron who rely's on his quickness, strength, speed basically his athleticism when they get more games and mileage on them? Can he change his game and get a post game/become a better jump shooter? People said same thing about Kobe. What was he gonna do when he lost a step? How is it Kobe 17 years in the league is still considered the best player at his position? He evolved. Has one of the best post games and footwork you'll ever see and his jumper and ability to make tough contested shots is out of this world. Also the most important thing is not everyone has the determination and drive as others and that IMO is why Kobe after 17 years is able to do what he does still. While Lebron is arguably the best EVER to lace them up we have to wait and see if that means ANYTHING. If he tears his ACL and his game is changed and is never the same player then he wont even be remembered after 5 years. S. Kemp was a freak and IMO would be reconized as one of the BEST players ever but he wasnt able to have a long career. Y.Ming same thing.

Andrew32
02-14-2013, 08:36 AM
Shaq had a better team around him than Kobe's team
Uhh... what?
I disagree strongly with you here.

Kobe's 09 & 2010 casts were much stronger then Shaq's 00 & 02 casts.
Below is why.

#1.
2010 Gasol >>> 2002 Kobe
2009 Gasol >>> 2000 Kobe

#2.
Kobe had Prime Odom coming off the bench who was much better then the 3rd best player on Shaq's casts.

#3.
They both had a decent set of roleplayers.
Shaq with Young Fisher and Fox
Kobe with Experienced Fisher and Ariza/Artest

So Kobe had noticeably stronger casts and the late 00's West was much weaker then the early 00's West.
Plus the league changed its rules to make it harder on Shaq (01 Zone rules) while making it easier on Kobe (05 Hand checking rules)


Either way Kobe was able to get it done with or without the big fella. As the MAIN guy or the #2 guy.
True but it doesn't change the fact that 3 of his rings came as a supporting player on teams built around a player much better then himself.
AKA Pippen rings.


When comparing Superstars i look at there Rings first.
Rings are a team accomplishment.
So many factors outside of the play of an individual star player can determine if a team can go all the way or not.

I am a big Shaq fan but even I can admit if not for some luck against Portland in 00 and some shoddy officiating in 02 Shaq might have 1peated rather then 3peated.
Yes he ended up winning those 3 Rings but it could have so easily never happened.

Imagine if T-Mac was on the Lakers in the early 00's and Kobe was on the Magic.
I am pretty sure T-Mac would end up with some Rings while Kobe would at best only experience the mildest of playoff success and no Rings.

Would that necessarily make T-Mac the better player? No.
Hakeem was imo a better player than Kobe. I won't rank Kobe over him just because Kobe got much luckier in terms of career circumstances.
_____________________________________

Bottom line I judge players mostly by their playoff performances combined with their longevitiy and consistency.

Yes I think its necessary for a player to win 1 or 2 Rings as the man to prove they can do it and can perform well on any stage but if they accomplish that and they don't lose out in other years due to poor individual performances then I wont hold it against them.

If you put Jordan on the Bobcats his whole career he probably wouldn't win any Rings but he'd still be the same player, the GOAT.

AIRMAR72
02-14-2013, 09:23 AM
Sometimes "excuses" are true and are just valid points that need to be taken into consideration :shrug:

You can't just say "player A didn't win a ring that year so therefore he choked". It doesn't work like that. Context matters. These "excuses" are kind of just context.

If me saying "LeBron had less talent around him in Cleveland compared to each and every championship team Jordan and Kobe had" is an "excuse", so be it. It's true and it means something.

It's no different than anyone confronted by the question "why didn't Kobe win right after Shaq left?" and someone saying "because his team sucked". Is that an excuse? I guess...but it's the truth.

Players don't always have championship level talent around them. Pretending they do so is more wrong than coming up with these "excuses"...which are really just valid explanations.

pure RUBBISH in your post, but ring argument its a TEAM thing MVPs represent how dominate the player as been

Andrew32
02-14-2013, 09:29 AM
pure RUBBISH in your post, but ring argument its a TEAM thing MVPs represent how dominate the player as been

MVP's don't nessasarily hold any value.
When you break it down to its core an MVP is just an "opinion piece award" voted in by what a handful or 15-20? of random media people.
These people may be stupid, biased, have agendas or just be completely wrong in the way they go about voting for the award or judging players.

I mean Iverson won MVP in 2001 over Peak Shaq...
The point is media based awards while perhaps not worthy of being ignored should be taken with a grain of salt.

koreancabbage
02-14-2013, 09:32 AM
And lebron isn't? All players are arrogant.
Doesn't lebron call himself in third person? For me that's arrogant. Kobe and lebron are as bad as each other IMO. Neither come across well

judging anyone is arrogant.

AIRMAR72
02-14-2013, 09:45 AM
These convos are always fun! NBA players are judged on rings! Thats why they play the game people. They dont play the game to have great stats or a per 36 min lol. Yes you have to be smart enough to figure things out like Horry just being a role-player on ALL his rings. He was a great role-player that just found himself on the Rockets, Spurs, and Lakers.

Lets talk a little about the players everyone wants to talk about. Kobe, Mj, Lebron


MJ couldnt win a playoff game without Pippen but Pippen without MJ with same roster was able to win some games in the playoffs. Together they have 6 Rings. Yes MJ was the main guy on those teams but he couldnt do it without Pippen. MJ also had great role-players in Harper, Kerr, Rodman, Longley, Armstrong, Grant ect

Kobe won rings with Shaq and without Shaq. Kobe with Shaq had a better team around them in Fisher, Horry, Fox, Glen Rice, Shaw, Harper, AC Green than Kobe's team with Gasol who had a older Fisher, Odom, Ariza or Metta, Farmer, Sasha, id say Bynum but he was always hurt or played hurt in minimum time on court. Either way Kobe was able to get it done with or without the big fella. As the MAIN guy or the #2 guy.

Lebron no rings without Wade and Bosh. Had a good team around him that fit his style and carried them but couldnt finish it, need help so he bolted to help Wade where he would fail and disapear in the Finals then in his 2nd year with Wade and Bosh he gets his 1st ring.

This is a team sport. Its not easy getting to the Finals and winning a ring PERIOD no matter how many superstars you have. When comparing Superstars i look at there Rings first. Were they able to get it done! There is a reason THEIR teams are in the finals rregardless of who is around them.
When comparing Superstars
1. Rings
2. Finals appearances
3. Stats *Numbers, records, awards*

look scottie was NEVER any good his 1st couple yrs in the league he was SOFT,inconsistent,NO GAME,NO jumpSHOT poor IQ it took scottie a good 4yrs from working out with MJ to develop in the player your talking about Micheal Jeffery AIR Jordan is the ONLY SG to with BUMS at the center position MJ did all postNtoast while pippen handle the rock and lockdown man-up D kobe ALWAYS had help and NEVER oneday till now mkae anyone better around till couple wks ago BRON always make his teammates BETTER since he been in league playing with ROLE player put kobe cleveland team they be a lottery pick every yr BRON IQ,size,strength,speed makes him special

ElChinoLatino
02-14-2013, 11:53 AM
If you replace Kobe fans with religious zealots and Lebron fans with scientists or atheists, you have a nice summary of this thread.

LOL the bias is strong in these Laker homers. Its like discussing with theists, you can't win with these people no matter how many facts you throw at them.

ink
02-14-2013, 11:58 AM
Oh, I do dislike him, but it doesn't stop me from understanding how great of a player I was watching, even if I don't like him.

You can dislike a player, and still respect his game. Many here are capable of that, many are not. Same in the real world. Oh well.

Haven't you ever seen the "clutch" numbers? Kobe is so overrated there man, but he will forever have the reputation of being clutch, even if the numbers say otherwise.

Exactly. Half the players in the NBA are king-sized morons but I still love the game. Kobe is just one of the bigger morons. But there's no denying his accomplishments.

ink
02-14-2013, 12:01 PM
Lakers fans aren't the only ones to use it, but they are pretty passionate/defensive about it because at the end of the day they know it's the only chance they have for Kobe to be "better" than Jordan (if he gets 7 let's say) and the only argument they'll have to keep him ahead of LeBron. Because besides rings - a team accomplishment - individually Kobe won't ever compare.

I honestly don't think it's even close. At the end of his career it's possible Lebron will have a shot at being best ever but even that I doubt. Yes, I agree, without rings, Kobe wouldn't even be in the conversation, and rings are a team accomplishment.

ManRam
02-14-2013, 12:01 PM
If you replace Kobe fans with religious zealots and Lebron fans with scientists or atheists, you have a nice summary of this thread.

I like this!

ManRam
02-14-2013, 12:05 PM
pure RUBBISH in your post, but ring argument its a TEAM thing MVPs represent how dominate the player as been

Explain to me what is rubbish about what I said? What is incorrect?

3RDASYSTEM
02-14-2013, 12:35 PM
Really, are people in here still saying Cavs never had a team. How'd they win all those games in the regular season and make it to the finals again? LBJ play by himself? So we are saying what LBJ does in the regular season should be the measuring stick on how we judge his (and anyone elses) career/legacy? Yet, same argument to Bulls fans was regular season record last two season means nothing, its what you do in the playoffs. SMH

Flawed logic.... Make it to the Finals and win with the Cavs: LBJ is the Greatest Ever
Make it to the Finals and lose with the Cavs: The Cavs Front Office / Roster was terrible.

Its funny how when people make certain comparisons it pertains to basically every player, and in some case it can be made to defend that player

like BRON to me is like how J.MONTANA is in reverse mode...follow me here

MONTANA played with major skill talent in SAN FRAN and won big time right? then he as a oldman he goes to KC and leads them to AFC title game

so to me MONTANA didn't have to get to and win SB to be declared 'greatest ever' with KC, he already showed you what he was made of at ND,preNFL

same with BRON ,no way in the world he's 'greatest ever' in NBA history had he won a ship with CAVS(maybe in OHIO), he still would have been on pace individually as a top 10 easily of alltime anyhow, and winning rings now in MIA wont change my process on that either,because if so he wouldn't have been able to come back and win MVP/title because his 'game' would have dropped/fell off due to not winning a ring right in 11'? then how can it elevate his game if he wins? he already had his game..win or lose it doesn't knock or elevate his game or status just like it didn't in 07' after losing to SPURS, just like it hasn't elevated his game since hes won 3 of last 4 MVP's, its been there day1 21/6/6 rookie yr straight out of HS


and if any frontoffice cant build properly around KG/AI/BRON/BARKLEY and many others no sooner than 3yrs why would/should that player want to stay around? and by building properly I mean not listening to what players say they want, that should be the GM's job, how hard is it to build around those type of players? so the front office is a joke when you think about the talent level of a 'primed' KG/AI/BRON/BARKLEY ..its borderline travesty

how is giving BRON a 17-18yr vet in SHAQ, and relying on SNOW/HUGHES/MOWILL/VERAJAO to get it don showing you're a legit frontoffice? its like asking IVERSON to get it done with the younger 'psd primed' ERIC SNOW and MCKIE

and whats so damn funny they got to FINALS with that supporting cast and SNOW was involved with both BRON/AI, damn what an outstanding frontoffice

thephoenixson28
02-14-2013, 12:53 PM
Championships don't define a player, they define a team.

OceanSpray
02-14-2013, 04:21 PM
So tell me, is Robert Horry better than Kobe or not?

ink
02-14-2013, 06:19 PM
So tell me, is Robert Horry better than Kobe or not?

Much better. He has more rings.

SteBO
02-14-2013, 06:40 PM
Much better. He has more rings.
:nod: No doubt about it.

tapajafri
02-14-2013, 10:18 PM
only laker fans use rings as an argument for who the better player is because they know its their only crutch to lean on when they try to say kobe is better than lebron when deep down, they know he's not. it's their last resort excuse.....and it's played out. Everyone that isnt a laker fan knows that rings dont mean you're better. The ring argument is just non relevant.

tapajafri
02-14-2013, 10:20 PM
So tell me, is Robert Horry better than Kobe or not?

yes he is. he has TWO....count em... TWO more rings than Kobe. Therefore, by the logic of laker fans, Horry is better than Kobe.



Next question on the quiz: Is Derek Fisher better than John Stockton?

Extra credit question: Is DJ Mbenga better than Chris Webber and Charles Barkley?

ink
02-14-2013, 10:34 PM
:nod: No doubt about it.

Horry > MJ.

7 > 6.

Easy math. Done.

OceanSpray
02-14-2013, 10:36 PM
yes he is. he has TWO....count em... TWO more rings than Kobe. Therefore, by the logic of laker fans, Horry is better than Kobe.



Next question on the quiz: Is Derek Fisher better than John Stockton?

Extra credit question: Is DJ Mbenga better than Chris Webber and Charles Barkley?

My personal favorite:

Brian Scalabrine>Barkley/Stockton/Malone/Webber/Allen Iverson/T-Mac/Chris Paul/Vince Carter

NFLNBA
02-15-2013, 01:08 AM
Im pretty sure they mean SUPERSTARS and rings. Lets not be morons people. Everyone knows there are role players like Horry and Scrubs like Scal with rings. None of them were the #1 or #2 option.

When comparing SUPERSTARS that are debatable in who is better you go to RINGS because they got the job done! Everyone should read what Jordan said in his interview today about who has owned the league the generation and past decade.

The Flash
02-15-2013, 01:20 AM
LeBron is his team's best scorer, passer, rebounder, 3 point shooter, and defender. Jordan was his team's best scorer.

DumDum
02-15-2013, 03:12 AM
Only laker fans talk about Jewelry and other female like objects when the rest of the league fans are talking about basketball