PDA

View Full Version : What's more impressive: A 3-Peat+Back2Back or 5 in within 15 years?



numba1CHANGsta
06-17-2014, 03:34 PM
Ok so Kobe has a 3-Peat and won back2back championships(within a span of 11 years), while Duncan has won 5 championships in the span of 15 years. Just in general what's more difficult to accomplish? and will we ever see either one be accomplished again by a player? I already doubt we will ever see a player win 2 3-Peats again.

koreancabbage
06-17-2014, 03:48 PM
5 championships in 15 years. I don't even think the Spurs have even missed the playoffs during this stretch.

jerellh528
06-17-2014, 03:50 PM
Both are difficult as hell most franchises don't even have 5 titles. But what's harder? 3peat

xnick5757
06-17-2014, 03:51 PM
this is an odd comparison since Kobe has 5 in 11 years haha

Big Zo
06-17-2014, 03:51 PM
Winning consecutive championships is harder.

bucketss
06-17-2014, 03:59 PM
yeah but the spurs beat the most stacked team in nba histroy right.. while the lakers back 2 back was against orlando (LOL) and the old broken down celtics. so i will go with what ever the spurs did

Bostonjorge
06-17-2014, 04:02 PM
5 in 11 years with a three peat and a back to back. 7 finals appearance with 3 in a row twice. Kobe and the lakers are just amazing.

MrfadeawayJB
06-17-2014, 04:02 PM
I'd say a three peat is the most difficult but all are great accomplishments

koreancabbage
06-17-2014, 04:04 PM
But LOL at referring to Kobe as to having the three peat and the back to back.

Iron24th
06-17-2014, 04:05 PM
yeah but the spurs beat the most stacked team in nba histroy right.. while the lakers back 2 back was against orlando (LOL) and the old broken down celtics. so i will go with what ever the spurs did

Stacked with what? A washed up wade? A invisible bosh?

kblo247
06-17-2014, 04:07 PM
Defending your title. You know being hunted when you get to the top like in a King of the hill game and kicking the **** challengers off your mountain.

I'm sorry, its harder to defend your title than to win it. Kobe's laker teams were tougher mentally and physically to deal with the grind than the spurs, especially since they weren't on maintenance programs minutes wise unlike San Antonio

beyourself
06-17-2014, 04:09 PM
OP missed the most obvious and important ingredient.

SHAQ

jerellh528
06-17-2014, 04:10 PM
But LOL at referring to Kobe as to having the three peat and the back to back.

He does have a three peat and back to back

numba1CHANGsta
06-17-2014, 04:17 PM
OP missed the most obvious and important ingredient.

SHAQ

Shaq wouldn't have a 3-peat if it were for Kobe, so why does it matter?

numba1CHANGsta
06-17-2014, 04:18 PM
He does have a three peat and back to back

I guess he wanted me to use Fisher instead of Kobe LOL

D-Leethal
06-17-2014, 04:25 PM
Depends what happens in the other 10 years obviously. If they are all spent winning 50+ and having deep playoff runs with the same core ill take that over some of the horrible down years we've seen the Lakers go through between and ever since their title runs.

Jeffy25
06-17-2014, 04:27 PM
So you are asking which is more impressive:

5 in 11 years, or 5 in 15 years....

kdspurman
06-17-2014, 04:46 PM
Depends what happens in the other 10 years obviously. If they are all spent winning 50+ and having deep playoff runs with the same core ill take that over some of the horrible down years we've seen the Lakers go through between and ever since their title runs.

This. Over this a year stretch, I'd take this.

nickdymez
06-17-2014, 04:52 PM
So you are asking which is more impressive:

5 in 11 years, or 5 in 15 years....
Lol., pretty much.

numba1CHANGsta
06-17-2014, 05:06 PM
So you are asking which is more impressive:

5 in 11 years, or 5 in 15 years....

you're not getting the point :facepalm:

Jeffy25
06-17-2014, 05:10 PM
you're not getting the point :facepalm:

What is so special about winning back to back or three peating?

I don't see why people hype stuff like that up.

Duncan's spurs were consistently great. Kobe's lakers had two different good runs.

I don't see why winning a chip consecutively should mean anything.

5 in 11 years vs 5 in 15 years, that's all the OP is actually asking. That's the only actual differences.

koreancabbage
06-17-2014, 05:12 PM
First, we are talking about teams. So yes, in those years, Lakers have it harder. Which team has been the best in Kobe' and Duncan's time, we'll it has to be the Spurs.

Red_Pill
06-17-2014, 05:28 PM
Threepeat plus back to back.

But the sustained excellence of SA is truly impressive.

JasonJohnHorn
06-17-2014, 05:30 PM
I think you need to consider context. Kobe ad Duncan are two of the most amazing players ever, let me say that first.


That said, what Duncan has done is far more impressive to me. Staying at 50 wins of equivalent winning percentage every year, fostering a team-first mentality that has allowed teammates to flourish and keep teammates in town, and being a contender EVERY year. That is amazing, especially since outside of the 99 season, Duncan never had a player at the level of Shaq to play with like Kobe did, or a player as good as Gasol for that matter.


Duncan and the Spurs also have a hard time with officials. We all know that the Spurs in the finals = low ratings and the NBA does not want low ratings. Stern or Silver can say whatever they want, but the bottom line is when the Lakers are on the floor in the playoffs, the league WANTS them in the finals. They have gotten so many friendly calls from officials in the playoffs. It started with game-seven against Portland in 2000 where Portland was up by almost 20 in the fourth and then the officials just DESTROYED Portland for 10 straight minutes and refused to even let them drive or play any sort of defense without getting called for a foul. The Lakers shot 37 free-throws that game to 16 for Portland. Then tin 2002 they got the infamous game-six against the Kings. Frankly speaking, they shouldn't have even been in the finals either year. 2001 was the only year that the Kobe/Shaq Lakers won the title without any help. Those years it should have been Portland and Sac-town in the finals, so the 3 rings with Shaq are less impressive in my eyes than Ducan's first three rings.


Kobe last to championships were earned. I watched most of the games those years and I was pretty satisfied with the officiating. They were friendly to LA still, but it wasn't like the were overtly trying to make sure they won the game. Playing with two talented bigs like Gasol and Bynum was a big plus, no doubt, and I don't think Duncan has had two players playing at as high a level throughout the playoffs as Gasol and Bynum were those two years, and for the last title at least, Duncan was far older than Kobe was for his last title, so the fact we was able to pull that together makes it more impressive to me.

Duncan, adversely, was working against officials most seasons. In 99 the Spurs had the worst rating in like 15 or 20 years (I forget) for the finals. When they went against teams like LAL, officials were unkind to the Spurs to say the least, but they still managed to win 5 in that time.

So for me Duncan's 5 is way more impressive than Kobe's 5.

JasonJohnHorn
06-17-2014, 05:35 PM
So you are asking which is more impressive:

5 in 11 years, or 5 in 17 years....

You could frame it like that, or you could say


Duncan: 5 rings in 17years
Kobe: 5 rings in 18 years.


Duncan gets more rings per year than Kobe.

torocan
06-17-2014, 05:41 PM
Personally I think sustained excellence is MUCH harder than bursts of excellence.

It's why I think Kobe's and Duncan's careers are so highly lauded in spite of there being individual years or bunches of years where there were "better" players peaking for short periods.

Kobe and Duncan both evolved their games and bodies to sustain their excellence.

The Spurs evolved their team through multiple iterations and still posted 15 consecutive seasons of 50+ wins, 17 consecutive seasons of .610 or better (50+ win equivalent), 17 consecutive play off appearances, 6 conference titles, 9 WCF appearances, and 5 championships.

The Lakers "peaked" better (3 peat + 2 peat), but their "sustained" excellence was not nearly so impressive.

Additionally, both sets of Laker wins were done under the "triangle". The Spurs has run a slow post up inside game to titles (throw it in to Duncan), a PnR heavy offense to win titles (Parker+Manu), and most recently a Euro style motion offense (2014).

In that same period, the Lakers missed the play offs 2x, 7 seasons of sub 50 wins, and 2 seasons of sub 40 wins and 1 season with sub 30 wins (27 this year).

So yes, I consider it more impressive as an organization to win 5 titles over 15 years than 5 titles over that shorter span using the same "system" given the peaks and valleys.

SPURSFAN1
06-17-2014, 05:43 PM
Not making the playoffs in your prime is the worst of all.

NoahH
06-17-2014, 05:50 PM
this is an odd comparison since Kobe has 5 in 11 years haha

Well ya technically Kobe has 5 rings in 18 years lol

8kobe24
06-17-2014, 06:09 PM
What is so special about winning back to back or three peating?

I don't see why people hype stuff like that up.

Duncan's spurs were consistently great. Kobe's lakers had two different good runs.

I don't see why winning a chip consecutively should mean anything.

5 in 11 years vs 5 in 15 years, that's all the OP is actually asking. That's the only actual differences.

Because a 3 peat is that hard to pull off.

Jeffy25
06-17-2014, 06:10 PM
Because a 3 peat is that hard to pull off.

Just winning 5 times is hard to pull off

8kobe24
06-17-2014, 06:11 PM
Just winning 5 times is hard to pull off

Yah, imagine winning them in a row?:speechless:

Jeffy25
06-17-2014, 06:12 PM
Yah, imagine winning them in a row?:speechless:

I don't see why that's more impressive

Bruno
06-17-2014, 06:30 PM
I don't see why that's more impressive

the main reason why the threepeat is one of the most difficult things in sports is because of time, rest, and total games played over a three year period. Most of the league gets off in mid April, and gets many months rest before late October tip-off. when you play deep into June for three years in a row, the milage and exhaustion (especially in a playoff environment) catches up with you (it certainly happened to Maimi, who went FOUR years in a row, it takes it's toll). Look at the Heat, in the past three post seasons they've totaled 66 playoff games (87 games in total over their four years in a row going to the finals). Thats an entire seasons worth of extra games. Thats a lot of extra games that you have to fight through, and rest up after for. When you don't get a legitimate summers rest to recover and rehab, you're playing catchup.

repeating is an extremely difficult task, especially threepeating. if it wasn't don't you think a franchise as excellent as San Antonio would have done it by now?

time and pressure jeffy.

Sly Guy
06-17-2014, 06:40 PM
5/15.

Cuz to me it shows longevity as a player, which is the true mark of greatness. LeBron can still get there, but I'll be more impressed with him as a player if he goes 6/15.

Bostonjorge
06-17-2014, 07:04 PM
Kobes won with less and in more dominating fashion. With shaq a tree peat and 15-1 playoff run. Spurs can not say that.

Then with Gasol a back to back and 3 finals appearances in a row. Spurs can't not say that.

Ginobli, Parker and Leonard have all had a finals run better than Gasol. Yet the lakers were able to accomplish what the spurs never accomplished.

Also kobe beats Duncan in the playoffs more often. Even with shaq, kobe always leads in pts and asst every time.

kdspurman
06-17-2014, 07:08 PM
Kobes won with less and in more dominating fashion. With shaq a tree peat and 15-1 playoff run. Spurs can not say that.

Then with Gasol a back to back and 3 finals appearances in a row. Spurs can't not say that.

Ginobli, Parker and Leonard have all had a finals run better than Gasol. Yet the lakers were able to accomplish what the spurs never accomplished.

Also kobe beats Duncan in the playoffs more often. Even with shaq, kobe always leads in pts and asst every time.

Kobe has won with less? Even his first 3 for arguments sake? Well that's a first. And what do you mean in more dominating fashion?

kblo247
06-17-2014, 08:13 PM
You could frame it like that, or you could say

Duncan: 5 rings in 17years
Kobe: 5 rings in 18 years.


Duncan gets more rings per year than Kobe.

Kobe missed a damn year, lol

flea
06-17-2014, 08:28 PM
It depends on other circumstances. Kobe had a top 5 center, who was significantly better than he was, leading the 3peat. Duncan's Spurs went through 2 entirely different rebuilds - yet won 50 games every year during it. Kobe, on the other hand, was chasing teammates away, whining to the media, trying to get traded, and then lucking into one of the weirder trades in NBA history.

slashsnake
06-17-2014, 08:59 PM
the main reason why the threepeat is one of the most difficult things in sports is because of time, rest, and total games played over a three year period. Most of the league gets off in mid April, and gets many months rest before late October tip-off. when you play deep into June for three years in a row, the milage and exhaustion (especially in a playoff environment) catches up with you (it certainly happened to Maimi, who went FOUR years in a row, it takes it's toll). Look at the Heat, in the past three post seasons they've totaled 66 playoff games (87 games in total over their four years in a row going to the finals). Thats an entire seasons worth of extra games. Thats a lot of extra games that you have to fight through, and rest up after for. When you don't get a legitimate summers rest to recover and rehab, you're playing catchup.

repeating is an extremely difficult task, especially threepeating. if it wasn't don't you think a franchise as excellent as San Antonio would have done it by now?

time and pressure jeffy.

Some could say 16 years straight (and a record on pace for it in a strike year) of 50 win seasons is even more impressive. I mean.. teams have repeated. Teams have won a lot more than 3 in a row. But NONE but the spurs I believe have had that kind of year in year out greatness. You talk about the extra games, that is 17 years where in 14 of them they were going past the first round of the playoffs. I mean look at who has played more minutes in the playoffs than Tim Duncan... Oh wait. NOBODY.

Time and pressure for sure, and how are they coming to a close on it. Back to back finals appearances and a championship win. THey aren't shutting guys down to heal at the end of the year, they are fighting for playoff position. They aren't sitting at home in May recovering from the season, they are playing still. Every year.

jmaest
06-17-2014, 09:17 PM
Kobes won with less and in more dominating fashion. With shaq a tree peat and 15-1 playoff run. Spurs can not say that.

Then with Gasol a back to back and 3 finals appearances in a row. Spurs can't not say that.

Ginobli, Parker and Leonard have all had a finals run better than Gasol. Yet the lakers were able to accomplish what the spurs never accomplished.

Also kobe beats Duncan in the playoffs more often. Even with shaq, kobe always leads in pts and asst every time.

When did you start watching basketball? Sunday?

The Lakers first threepeat was a stacked team that was built and centered one of the top 3 most dominant players of all time. And it was a really good team, top to bottom. Great coach too. No way did Kobe ever win with "less" than the Spurs. He always had great coaching and really, really good players. Gasol, Odom, Fisher, Artest, etc. Just stop it...

jmaest
06-17-2014, 09:27 PM
I don't know which one is more impressive. Anytime wins multiple titles it's very, very impressive no matter how they did it. Thinking it through...

The Celtics run of 11 straight I believe is uber-impressive beyond belief. The Lakers of the 80's got 5 in a decade. Crazy impressive. Same decade, Celtics got 3 and the '86 team is widely considered to be the GOAT. In the 90's Chicago got 6 with 2 threepeats. Simply amazing. In between 80's & 90's Detroit got 2 and that was impressive. A sick defensive juggernaut that team. The 90's also saw Houston get 2 back-back and that was phenomenal.

Then the Spurs get two. Not back-back but still impressive.

Lakers 3-peat. Really impressive. Tarnished a little by the Western Conference finals against the Kings that was so horribly officiated but impressive nonetheless. Then the Spurs. Lakers go back-back. Then the Spurs again. Heat go back-back. Then the Spurs again.

The one thing that stands out in my mind as I went through that is that the only team that never had a bad year through all of that is the Spurs. It's not just 5 titles in 15 years, it's consistent championship caliber basketball every year for 15 years winning 5 out of 6 times. That's really, really impressive.

SteveZissou
06-17-2014, 09:45 PM
Ok so Kobe has a 3-Peat and won back2back championships(within a span of 11 years), while Duncan has won 5 championships in the span of 15 years. Just in general what's more difficult to accomplish? and will we ever see either one be accomplished again by a player? I already doubt we will ever see a player win 2 3-Peats again.

Which ever is more current.

Bostonjorge
06-17-2014, 10:14 PM
When did you start watching basketball? Sunday?

The Lakers first threepeat was a stacked team that was built and centered one of the top 3 most dominant players of all time. And it was a really good team, top to bottom. Great coach too. No way did Kobe ever win with "less" than the Spurs. He always had great coaching and really, really good players. Gasol, Odom, Fisher, Artest, etc. Just stop it...

In my original post I never said shaq and kobe were less. Even tho Duncan had a MVP, scoring champ, defensive player of the year, a blocks and reb leader award,10 time all nba team and 8 defensive teams in Robinson. I will still take shaq and kobe over them.

Kobe and Gasol is what I said was less. Parker, ginobli, and kawhi all had better finals series then Gasol's best let alone fisher and Artest. The numbers favor the spurs cast. Kobe was the difference.

Kobe eliminated Duncan more then any others player ever. Also led the team every single time.

nastynice
06-17-2014, 10:18 PM
So you are asking which is more impressive:

5 in 11 years, or 5 in 15 years....

wtf, kobe been in the league since 96, duncan since 97.

I'd say 3peat plus back to back is tougher, just cuz that means you're still winning them while you have the biggest target on your back. But winning the way duncan did is impressive in its own right, really shows the consistency.

Bostonjorge
06-17-2014, 10:22 PM
Kobe has won with less? Even his first 3 for arguments sake? Well that's a first. And what do you mean in more dominating fashion?

15-1 playoff run, 3peat, 3 strait finals appearance(twice) or back to back.

Spurs accomplished none so more dominating fashion.

LA_Raiders
06-17-2014, 10:27 PM
3peat no question.

SPURSFAN1
06-17-2014, 10:31 PM
Tim duncan>kobe

kdspurman
06-17-2014, 10:46 PM
15-1 playoff run, 3peat, 3 strait finals appearance(twice) or back to back.

Spurs accomplished none so more dominating fashion.

Duncan never had any player like Shaq's caliber during his runs. I'm still confused by the winning with less part.

And the Spurs just finished dominating in the finals. (most point differential I believe) The competition levels change year by year.

BTW, they did go 15-2 in 99 (while sweeping the Lakers) en route to their first title. And unfortunately for him, he missed that next post season when he tore his meniscus, so he didn't have the opportunity there to even repeat. Who knows what happens if he plays right?

sens#11fan
06-17-2014, 11:23 PM
More like a championship in 3 different decades.

Purch
06-18-2014, 01:19 AM
Doing it without a drop off period in between is more difficult IMO. The Spurs being able to never miss the playoffs for 16 years. Whiles not going through a rebuild, and not dropping below 50 wins is unreal

MickeyMgl
06-18-2014, 02:00 AM
Ok so Kobe has a 3-Peat and won back2back championships(within a span of 11 years), while Duncan has won 5 championships in the span of 15 years. Just in general what's more difficult to accomplish? and will we ever see either one be accomplished again by a player? I already doubt we will ever see a player win 2 3-Peats again.

Threepeats and repeats are far more taxing than 5 in 15 years. 5 championships in 11 years (and 7 Finals in 11 years) is more difficult than 5 championships in 15 years (and 6 Finals in that time)

MickeyMgl
06-18-2014, 02:08 AM
I don't see why that's more impressive

We've seen it every time a team goes to three straight Finals. Each year is more and more of a grind. The long seasons, the target on your back. The attention. The scrutiny. It's exhausting. So much so that Jordan chose to retire - twice - than even attempt a fourth.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-18-2014, 02:12 AM
Kobe did his in more years and could get more in a span of 15. Easily Kobe.

MickeyMgl
06-18-2014, 02:18 AM
Doing it without a drop off period in between is more difficult IMO. The Spurs being able to never miss the playoffs for 16 years. Whiles not going through a rebuild, and not dropping below 50 wins is unreal

So you think it's more impressive to do it in steady water with a stable front office situation and no locker room drama, than over turbulent seas, with an immature teammate and a front office in a state of flux?

magic0320
06-18-2014, 04:47 AM
rofl did tim win championships those years when they won 50 game? i don't care if they won 70 games if you didn't win the championship. your still loser. they both have 5 ships and only difference in those 5 ships is defending the champions, which kobe did and tim didn't.

eso
06-18-2014, 08:21 AM
Both impressive. And who cares respect and enjoy 2 of the greatest players ever to play the game while we can, may not see two dedicated to their franchise and ultimate professionals ever agin in today's nba

Purch
06-18-2014, 08:44 AM
So you think it's more impressive to do it in steady water with a stable front office situation and no locker room drama, than over turbulent seas, with an immature teammate and a front office in a state of flux?

I think it's easier to end an era with an aging star, and endure a couple years of mediocrity. And then wait for opportunities to trade and draft a new championship core. As, opposed to being able to make the adjustments and the transfer of responsibilities that it takes to maintain a 16 year span of consistency. When you have a Front office that is willing to spend the Lakers situation is easier imo

Purch
06-18-2014, 08:52 AM
rofl did tim win championships those years when they won 50 game? i don't care if they won 70 games if you didn't win the championship. your still loser. they both have 5 ships and only difference in those 5 ships is defending the champions, which kobe did and tim didn't.

Yes it does, If I had to choose between two guys who won the same amount of titles, I'm gonna choose the 38 year old who has gone to the playoffs every year of his career and had the longest stretch of 50 win seasons we've ever seen


The idea that success is only measured in championships is immature imo. Its new age fans who have this mentality that if you don't win the championship or get a lottery pick your season is a failure.

Daze9900
06-18-2014, 09:09 AM
Spurs run is more impressive because it was the same core and it's so unheard of to have a trio like that stick together and win at that age. Kobe & the Lakers run was impressive too but Kobe had Shaq arguably the most dominant center of all time and they were gifted Pau Gasol for the second run. Built vs. bought is always more impressive imo.

Miltstar
06-18-2014, 09:40 AM
all depends on your competition, it's most impressive when there is a solid opponent. Miami is one of the softest dynasty's I've ever seen, The Spurs showed them what a real championship team looks like

3ballbomber
06-18-2014, 09:40 AM
What Spurs did was impressive. Built the right way. Loyal & committed core players who never strayed. Sacrificed & rewarded. A great example & really glad they won. I'm still on cloud 9 that the Miami Cheats were humiliated like that. We will never see another team do what spurs did again in a long time, not w/ the way players are moving around regularly today.

a 3peat has got to be the most difficult though. To win 1 is tough, to defend it even harder but to do it for the 3rd time consecutive takes balls.

jmaest
06-18-2014, 10:10 AM
Is it possible for some of you to be impartial? Some of the comments are just so biased it's hard to make sense of it.

First, the title of this thread is "3peat/back-back" vs "5 in 15". I don't see where this is a "Kobe vs Duncan" thread. It's getting a little nauseating how every basketball thread is hijacked by Laker fans pro-Kobe propaganda.

Having said that, every title run is impressive. It's hard to quantify what's more impressive. Impossible really. BUT one does have to acknowledge the Spurs have maintained an unprecedented level of excellence. The 50+ wins a season *is* impressive. The Bulls sustained 10-12 years of that kind of excellence to two threepeats. The Lakers of this era did it a little more in bunches. Still impressive.

I think one has to admire what the Spurs did.

Personally, I've always felt the most impressive run is Magic's Lakers. In 11 years he had 9 Finals appearances. I know he was 5-4 BUT he played against a team that many analysts consider to be the greatest team of all time in the '86 Celtics and against probably the greatest defensive team of all time in the Bad Boys and then finally against Jordan's Bulls. So even his losses were only to other unbelievably great all-time teams.

I think if I could choose which one I would prefer as "more impressive" it would start with the Lakers of the 80's, then the Bulls of the 90's, then the Celtics of the 80's, then the Spurs decade & a half of excellence, followed by the Lakers of the 2000's. What puts the Spurs slightly ahead of the 2K era Lakers for me is winning a title in 3 different decades coupled with 50+ wins every season. It's not like any particular season was a fluke, either. They were literally one of the favorites every year.

Also, I have to say--and it's meaningless I know but I just want to throw it out there, I love that there's no stigma of favorable officiating associated with the Spurs.

jmaest
06-18-2014, 10:14 AM
What Spurs did was impressive. Built the right way. Loyal & committed core players who never strayed. Sacrificed & rewarded. A great example & really glad they won. I'm still on cloud 9 that the Miami Cheats were humiliated like that. We will never see another team do what spurs did again in a long time, not w/ the way players are moving around regularly today.

a 3peat has got to be the most difficult though. To win 1 is tough, to defend it even harder but to do it for the 3rd time consecutive takes balls.

I completely appreciate your opinion. Well said. I would love to offer a counter opinion.

What's more impressive? Muhammad Ali's title defenses or recapturing the title multiple times? I know it's a different sport but I think there's a parallel of comparisons to be made.

I love your signature quotes. I hadn't seen them before.

AIRMAR72
06-18-2014, 10:17 AM
defending your title. You know being hunted when you get to the top like in a king of the hill game and kicking the **** challengers off your mountain.

I'm sorry, its harder to defend your title than to win it. Kobe's laker teams were tougher mentally and physically to deal with the grind than the spurs, especially since they weren't on maintenance programs minutes wise unlike san antonio
rubbish!!

Tony_Starks
06-18-2014, 10:25 AM
3 peat. Only the greatest of the greats can do it.

The Captain
06-18-2014, 10:59 AM
you're not getting the point :facepalm:

The point is quite obvious: You're a Laker homer who can't stand to see people suggest that Duncan is better than Kobe so you're asking a loaded question to get people to reinforce your unabashed love for Kobe. That's all.

But screw it, I'll buy in. 5 rings in 11 years is obviously more impressive.

hidalgo
06-18-2014, 11:36 AM
Kobes won with less and in more dominating fashion. With shaq a tree peat and 15-1 playoff run. Spurs can not say that.

Then with Gasol a back to back and 3 finals appearances in a row. Spurs can't not say that.

Ginobli, Parker and Leonard have all had a finals run better than Gasol. Yet the lakers were able to accomplish what the spurs never accomplished.

Also kobe beats Duncan in the playoffs more often. Even with shaq, kobe always leads in pts and asst every time.highest total game scores for these players NBA finals

Gasol 18.6 (2010)
Gasol 17.6 (2009)
parker 16.2 (2007)
leonard 15.8 (2014)
Ginobli 14.1 (2005)

Gasol was incredible in his prime. Pau had the best finals of any of them in 2010, especially because how close a series it was(7 game series they barely won). he was huge for LA to say the least. 2009 finals he was great as well, better game score that year as well (i remember all to well how great Gasol was, it infuriated me watching him help Kobe win titles. he was masterful. HOFer without question)

Stinkyoutsider
06-18-2014, 12:15 PM
Probably just a little tougher to defend your title.

Really impressed at the longevity of the Spurs title run though. And they seem like the club is in prime position to compete for another title next year

In a league that's set up for balance, it's very impressive that the Spurs have been able to hang on and still win titles for this many years. It'll be interesting if they can get themselves another franchise player to go along with Parker and Leonard to continue the run.

ink
06-18-2014, 01:26 PM
Is it possible for some of you to be impartial? Some of the comments are just so biased it's hard to make sense of it.

First, the title of this thread is "3peat/back-back" vs "5 in 15". I don't see where this is a "Kobe vs Duncan" thread. It's getting a little nauseating how every basketball thread is hijacked by Laker fans pro-Kobe propaganda.

Having said that, every title run is impressive. It's hard to quantify what's more impressive. Impossible really. BUT one does have to acknowledge the Spurs have maintained an unprecedented level of excellence. The 50+ wins a season *is* impressive. The Bulls sustained 10-12 years of that kind of excellence to two threepeats. The Lakers of this era did it a little more in bunches. Still impressive.

I think one has to admire what the Spurs did.

Personally, I've always felt the most impressive run is Magic's Lakers. In 11 years he had 9 Finals appearances. I know he was 5-4 BUT he played against a team that many analysts consider to be the greatest team of all time in the '86 Celtics and against probably the greatest defensive team of all time in the Bad Boys and then finally against Jordan's Bulls. So even his losses were only to other unbelievably great all-time teams.

I think if I could choose which one I would prefer as "more impressive" it would start with the Lakers of the 80's, then the Bulls of the 90's, then the Celtics of the 80's, then the Spurs decade & a half of excellence, followed by the Lakers of the 2000's. What puts the Spurs slightly ahead of the 2K era Lakers for me is winning a title in 3 different decades coupled with 50+ wins every season. It's not like any particular season was a fluke, either. They were literally one of the favorites every year.

Also, I have to say--and it's meaningless I know but I just want to throw it out there, I love that there's no stigma of favorable officiating associated with the Spurs.

Nailed it.

FreeAgentZero
06-18-2014, 02:57 PM
Obviously all of them are impressive, but I'd go 5 titles in 15 years. As a fan, I'd prefer a sustained level of greatness than a great 2-3 year run with ups and downs before and after. Spurs fans are extremely lucky to witness what most fan bases will never experience.

www.freeagentzero.com

Jeffy25
06-18-2014, 03:00 PM
Is it possible for some of you to be impartial? Some of the comments are just so biased it's hard to make sense of it.

First, the title of this thread is "3peat/back-back" vs "5 in 15". I don't see where this is a "Kobe vs Duncan" thread. It's getting a little nauseating how every basketball thread is hijacked by Laker fans pro-Kobe propaganda.

Having said that, every title run is impressive. It's hard to quantify what's more impressive. Impossible really. BUT one does have to acknowledge the Spurs have maintained an unprecedented level of excellence. The 50+ wins a season *is* impressive. The Bulls sustained 10-12 years of that kind of excellence to two threepeats. The Lakers of this era did it a little more in bunches. Still impressive.

I think one has to admire what the Spurs did.

Personally, I've always felt the most impressive run is Magic's Lakers. In 11 years he had 9 Finals appearances. I know he was 5-4 BUT he played against a team that many analysts consider to be the greatest team of all time in the '86 Celtics and against probably the greatest defensive team of all time in the Bad Boys and then finally against Jordan's Bulls. So even his losses were only to other unbelievably great all-time teams.

I think if I could choose which one I would prefer as "more impressive" it would start with the Lakers of the 80's, then the Bulls of the 90's, then the Celtics of the 80's, then the Spurs decade & a half of excellence, followed by the Lakers of the 2000's. What puts the Spurs slightly ahead of the 2K era Lakers for me is winning a title in 3 different decades coupled with 50+ wins every season. It's not like any particular season was a fluke, either. They were literally one of the favorites every year.

Also, I have to say--and it's meaningless I know but I just want to throw it out there, I love that there's no stigma of favorable officiating associated with the Spurs.

This post is full of win

Bostonjorge
06-18-2014, 03:04 PM
highest total game scores for these players NBA finals

Gasol 18.6 (2010)
Gasol 17.6 (2009)
parker 16.2 (2007)
leonard 15.8 (2014)
Ginobli 14.1 (2005)

Gasol was incredible in his prime. Pau had the best finals of any of them in 2010, especially because how close a series it was(7 game series they barely won). he was huge for LA to say the least. 2009 finals he was great as well, better game score that year as well (i remember all to well how great Gasol was, it infuriated me watching him help Kobe win titles. he was masterful. HOFer without question)
Highest finals point averages

Gasol 18.6(2009 and 2010)
Parker 24.5(2007)
Ginobli 18.7(2005)
Kawhi 17.8(2014)

Kawhi did it on 61% shooting and playing amazing D on Lebron. Just like this year he will win many more nba defensive team awards.

Ginobli also played good D and averaged more assists then Gasol. Manu also only averaged 4 less Rebs in 2005 finals.

Parker was just amazing in 2007. Scoring at will at a high rate in a sweep.

Gasol was a good player but just that. He never was the best PF in the game at any point. Never won a all nba first team or any defensive team. No blocks or Rebs title. Never a rim protector. He was a scorer and passer and all 3 spurs guys listed had better finals.

Gasol could be led to play good. He never averaged 10 Rebs or won a single playoff game until he was led by kobe. Kobe even led gasol in eliminating the spurs agin.

Oefarmy2005
06-18-2014, 03:16 PM
3peat in my opinion. A poll would have been nice.

RaiderLakersA's
06-18-2014, 03:22 PM
3peat alone is impressive. Especially now that we're hearing the Heat players bemoan how much of a drain it is to go to 4 Finals. And we all know that Jordan did 3 and had to walk away for a minute.

I'm not an NBA player. Never have been. But I imagine if you ask the players who've actually accomplished 3+ back to back appearances in the Finals, they'd all agree that 5 in 15 is a cake walk.

jmaest
06-18-2014, 04:21 PM
3peat alone is impressive. Especially now that we're hearing the Heat players bemoan how much of a drain it is to go to 4 Finals. And we all know that Jordan did 3 and had to walk away for a minute.

I'm not an NBA player. Never have been. But I imagine if you ask the players who've actually accomplished 3+ back to back appearances in the Finals, they'd all agree that 5 in 15 is a cake walk.

How would they know?

None of those players sustained 15 years of excellence the way the Spurs have. They wouldn't be able to reference how easy or difficult that is to do.

MickeyMgl
06-20-2014, 01:34 AM
By the way, when you count it out, it's actually 5 titles in 16 seasons.

slashsnake
06-20-2014, 03:28 AM
We've seen it every time a team goes to three straight Finals. Each year is more and more of a grind. The long seasons, the target on your back. The attention. The scrutiny. It's exhausting. So much so that Jordan chose to retire - twice - than even attempt a fourth.

but what we don't see is players getting up to that level, again and again over and over through a career. We always see guys winning in spurts. Win a couple championships, be down for 5-6 years, win a couple more. Or get hot and win a pile.

Why can't guys win throughout their career like Duncan? We've seen repeats and threepeats. Wheres the player with the huge long career hitting the finals every few years, keeping that elite success again and again through roster turnover over and over?

3 peats are special. They happen about once a decade or so. What you see even less often is that player still being an integral part of his championship team 15 years after he won his first.

That continued success not just over a short span, but an entire career. That is tough. You have to go back to the 60's and a different league to find a guy who accomplished that. If you want to talk about which one's harder to do.. Obviously as far fewer people have been able to accomplish that, there you go.

Bostonjorge
06-20-2014, 03:38 AM
but what we don't see is players getting up to that level, again and again over and over through a career. We always see guys winning in spurts. Win a couple championships, be down for 5-6 years, win a couple more. Or get hot and win a pile.

Why can't guys win throughout their career like Duncan? We've seen repeats and threepeats. Wheres the player with the huge long career hitting the finals every few years, keeping that elite success again and again through roster turnover over and over?

3 peats are special. They happen about once a decade or so. What you see even less often is that player still being an integral part of his championship team 15 years after he won his first.

That continued success not just over a short span, but an entire career. That is tough. You have to go back to the 60's and a different league to find a guy who accomplished that. If you want to talk about which one's harder to do.. Obviously as far fewer people have been able to accomplish that, there you go.

Kobe and the lakers had the exact same gap between championships. So no need to look at other sports to find someone. Kobe did it first and also defended it the following year.

shep33
06-20-2014, 03:51 AM
I think 3-peating is something we'll rarely see ever again. Most likely just due to the disparity in the conferences. Elite teams out east will have an easy ride to the title, but then they run into a juggernaut out west, so they aren't really prepared for the step-up in competition.

Problem with the west is that there are so many stacked teams. Very hard to get through to the Finals year after year.

I personally consider Shaq and Kobe's Lakers to be the most impressive title run I had ever seen. The reason being is that they did it out west where most of the good teams were... and still are. 16-1 playoff run during that era while also winning 3 straight was insane. Don't think it'll ever be done again.

slashsnake
06-20-2014, 04:56 AM
Kobe and the lakers had the exact same gap between championships. So no need to look at other sports to find someone. Kobe did it first and also defended it the following year.

Yes the longest gap between a single championship was the same, but the gaps between first and last favor Duncan by what? A half Decade there?

torocan
06-20-2014, 07:50 AM
If you want to talk what's harder in practice, there are multiple teams that have repeated and 3-peated.

There's only TWO players in NBA history that have won a championship separated by a gap of 15+ years and that's Duncan and KAJ. And KAJ won his last championship as a BENCH player.

There's only ONE player who has won 2 Championships separated by a gap of 15+ years as a starter and that's Duncan.

There are NO teams that have won a championship with the SAME core (trio) with the same gap (10+ years) other than the Spurs.

We can talk about what's harder, but the reality is there's only ONE team, ONE trio, and ONE player that have done it.

3-peats are special. However, they've been done before by more than one team and more than one roster.

Duncan, Manu, Ginobili and the Spurs are Unique.

In this age of Salary Caps, Free Agency, endorsements and hair trigger owners , it's FAR more likely we'll see multiple teams 3-peat in our lifetime than EVER see the likes of Parker, Manu, Duncan and Pops again.

Want to see a 3-peat? Get together 3 x top 5 players, line up their Free Agency periods and add some role players and you've got a great chance.

Now tell me how you'll duplicate the success of the Spurs over 15 years... oh wait, you can't.

I think history is very clear about what is harder to achieve.

sammyvine
06-20-2014, 08:37 AM
why do people always say shaq won kobe those rings

its a team game and kobe was part of those teams.

quade36
06-20-2014, 09:25 AM
why do people always say shaq won kobe those rings

its a team game and kobe was part of those teams.

Agreed but Kobe was to Shaq as Pippen was to Jordan. Very valuable but Shaq was THE guy.

ink
06-20-2014, 10:34 AM
If you want to talk what's harder in practice, there are multiple teams that have repeated and 3-peated.

There's only TWO players in NBA history that have won a championship separated by a gap of 15+ years and that's Duncan and KAJ. And KAJ won his last championship as a BENCH player.

There's only ONE player who has won 2 Championships separated by a gap of 15+ years as a starter and that's Duncan.

There are NO teams that have won a championship with the SAME core (trio) with the same gap (10+ years) other than the Spurs.

We can talk about what's harder, but the reality is there's only ONE team, ONE trio, and ONE player that have done it.

3-peats are special. However, they've been done before by more than one team and more than one roster.

Duncan, Manu, Ginobili and the Spurs are Unique.

In this age of Salary Caps, Free Agency, endorsements and hair trigger owners , it's FAR more likely we'll see multiple teams 3-peat in our lifetime than EVER see the likes of Parker, Manu, Duncan and Pops again.

Want to see a 3-peat? Get together 3 x top 5 players, line up their Free Agency periods and add some role players and you've got a great chance.

Now tell me how you'll duplicate the success of the Spurs over 15 years... oh wait, you can't.

I think history is very clear about what is harder to achieve.

This.

ink
06-20-2014, 10:35 AM
why do people always say shaq won kobe those rings

its a team game and kobe was part of those teams.

That's why talk of rings as indicators of individual accomplishment means so little.

koreancabbage
06-20-2014, 10:56 AM
why do people always say shaq won kobe those rings

its a team game and kobe was part of those teams.

because Shaq was the man in the LA. Not Kobe. during those championships. Kobe helped for sure but that offense was centred (literally) around Shaq. Kobe was a star back then but he's not the main reason why they won, but he was a major part of it, as the second option.

anyone denying this is obviously blind. I thought everyone knew this.

And what you're saying is true, then people have to stop saying Kobe won 5 rings (as if by himself miraculously in GOAT discussions) and he has a winning record in the finals and stuff like that.

kdspurman
06-20-2014, 11:10 AM
If you want to talk what's harder in practice, there are multiple teams that have repeated and 3-peated.

There's only TWO players in NBA history that have won a championship separated by a gap of 15+ years and that's Duncan and KAJ. And KAJ won his last championship as a BENCH player.

There's only ONE player who has won 2 Championships separated by a gap of 15+ years as a starter and that's Duncan.

There are NO teams that have won a championship with the SAME core (trio) with the same gap (10+ years) other than the Spurs.

We can talk about what's harder, but the reality is there's only ONE team, ONE trio, and ONE player that have done it.

3-peats are special. However, they've been done before by more than one team and more than one roster.

Duncan, Manu, Ginobili and the Spurs are Unique.

In this age of Salary Caps, Free Agency, endorsements and hair trigger owners , it's FAR more likely we'll see multiple teams 3-peat in our lifetime than EVER see the likes of Parker, Manu, Duncan and Pops again.

Want to see a 3-peat? Get together 3 x top 5 players, line up their Free Agency periods and add some role players and you've got a great chance.

Now tell me how you'll duplicate the success of the Spurs over 15 years... oh wait, you can't.

I think history is very clear about what is harder to achieve.

Great post here.

I think both are obviously impressive. But when you factor in Duncan's tenure, the trio, same coach, etc... Something like that is very rare.

jmaest
06-20-2014, 12:11 PM
If you want to talk what's harder in practice, there are multiple teams that have repeated and 3-peated.

There's only TWO players in NBA history that have won a championship separated by a gap of 15+ years and that's Duncan and KAJ. And KAJ won his last championship as a BENCH player.

There's only ONE player who has won 2 Championships separated by a gap of 15+ years as a starter and that's Duncan.

There are NO teams that have won a championship with the SAME core (trio) with the same gap (10+ years) other than the Spurs.

We can talk about what's harder, but the reality is there's only ONE team, ONE trio, and ONE player that have done it.

3-peats are special. However, they've been done before by more than one team and more than one roster.

Duncan, Manu, Ginobili and the Spurs are Unique.

In this age of Salary Caps, Free Agency, endorsements and hair trigger owners , it's FAR more likely we'll see multiple teams 3-peat in our lifetime than EVER see the likes of Parker, Manu, Duncan and Pops again.

Want to see a 3-peat? Get together 3 x top 5 players, line up their Free Agency periods and add some role players and you've got a great chance.

Now tell me how you'll duplicate the success of the Spurs over 15 years... oh wait, you can't.

I think history is very clear about what is harder to achieve.

I'm not sure there's one single thing not to LOVE about this post. It's grammatically correct and everything.

Well done.

Bostonjorge
06-20-2014, 12:28 PM
Every champion in any kind of sports has always said its harder to defend your tile then win. U get a bullseye on your back and u get everyone's best shot.

Spurs and many other great teams have proven this over and over. The teams that defended it u can count on 1 hand. Defending it twice is even more special since only 3 teams have done this.

ILLUSIONIST^248
06-20-2014, 12:44 PM
Ok so Kobe has a 3-Peat and won back2back championships(within a span of 11 years), while Duncan has won 5 championships in the span of 15 years. Just in general what's more difficult to accomplish? and will we ever see either one be accomplished again by a player? I already doubt we will ever see a player win 2 3-Peats again. 3+2 close thread

jmaest
06-20-2014, 12:44 PM
Every champion in any kind of sports has always said its harder to defend your tile then win. U get a bullseye on your back and u get everyone's best shot.

Spurs and many other great teams have proven this over and over. The teams that defended it u can count on 1 hand. Defending it twice is even more special since only 3 teams have done this.

Technically you can only count one thing on one hand: teams that never lost in the Finals. That would be 2.

You need 6 fingers to count back-back teams:

Pistons, Rockets, Bulls, Lakers, Heat, & Celtics.

MickeyMgl
06-20-2014, 06:04 PM
but what we don't see is players getting up to that level, again and again over and over through a career. We always see guys winning in spurts. Win a couple championships, be down for 5-6 years, win a couple more. Or get hot and win a pile.

We see more of the former than of the latter.

MickeyMgl
06-20-2014, 06:09 PM
There's only TWO players in NBA history that have won a championship separated by a gap of 15+ years and that's Duncan and KAJ. And KAJ won his last championship as a BENCH player.

There's only ONE player who has won 2 Championships separated by a gap of 15+ years as a starter and that's Duncan.

This is false. Kareem was ALWAYS a starter. I don't think he came off the bench a single time in his career. Where did you get this misinformation, or did you just decide to make it up?

MickeyMgl
06-20-2014, 06:12 PM
Agreed but Kobe was to Shaq as Pippen was to Jordan.

No way. Pippen was not an Alpha. The Lakers had two alphas. Pippen was not the shot-maker when games were tight. Kobe was.

torocan
06-20-2014, 06:32 PM
This is false. Kareem was ALWAYS a starter. I don't think he came off the bench a single time in his career. Where did you get this misinformation, or did you just decide to make it up?

88-89 season he was effectively a bench player, playing 22mpg. He was listed as a starter, but playing 74 games at 22 games he was effectively a bench player in a starting spot. He went to the finals and didn't win (lost to Detroit).

Check BR. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1989.html

My mistake for not being clear. Longest gap between trips to the finals since KAJ. And the only other player to win a championship with a 15+ year gap other than KAJ.

And the only player to win a championship in 3 different decades that was NOT coming off the bench.

Condensed it and wasn't clear.


Winning another title would make Duncan the first to do so in three decades. His championships would have spanned 15 years, trailing only the 17-year gap between Abdul-Jabbar's first and final titles in 1971 and '88.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-heat-spurs-nba-finals-20140615-story.html

MickeyMgl
06-20-2014, 06:46 PM
88-89 season he was effectively a bench player, playing 22mpg. He was listed as a starter, but playing 74 games at 22 games he was effectively a bench player in a starting spot. He went to the finals and didn't win (lost to Detroit).

Check BR. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1989.html

My mistake for not being clear. Longest gap between trips to the finals since KAJ. And the only other player to win a championship with a 15+ year gap other than KAJ.

"Effectively" a bench player is subjective, and not worth debating, but FWIW, "Starter" is objective.

Also, not just the longest gap between trips to the Finals, but indeed the longest gap between championships, because he was of course also a starter in 1988, and playing 29 mpg, same as Duncan this year.

DODGERS&LAKERS
06-21-2014, 09:28 PM
I don't know why people try to diminish Kobe by saying he played with Shaq but say nothing about Duncan being a 28 minute roll player in these playoffs. Kobe was never so unimportant in any of his runs. Not to mention Pop calling Parker the Spurs best player since 2007.

ghettosean
06-21-2014, 09:47 PM
Is it possible for some of you to be impartial? Some of the comments are just so biased it's hard to make sense of it.

First, the title of this thread is "3peat/back-back" vs "5 in 15". I don't see where this is a "Kobe vs Duncan" thread. It's getting a little nauseating how every basketball thread is hijacked by Laker fans pro-Kobe propaganda.

Having said that, every title run is impressive. It's hard to quantify what's more impressive. Impossible really. BUT one does have to acknowledge the Spurs have maintained an unprecedented level of excellence. The 50+ wins a season *is* impressive. The Bulls sustained 10-12 years of that kind of excellence to two threepeats. The Lakers of this era did it a little more in bunches. Still impressive.

I think one has to admire what the Spurs did.

Personally, I've always felt the most impressive run is Magic's Lakers. In 11 years he had 9 Finals appearances. I know he was 5-4 BUT he played against a team that many analysts consider to be the greatest team of all time in the '86 Celtics and against probably the greatest defensive team of all time in the Bad Boys and then finally against Jordan's Bulls. So even his losses were only to other unbelievably great all-time teams.

I think if I could choose which one I would prefer as "more impressive" it would start with the Lakers of the 80's, then the Bulls of the 90's, then the Celtics of the 80's, then the Spurs decade & a half of excellence, followed by the Lakers of the 2000's. What puts the Spurs slightly ahead of the 2K era Lakers for me is winning a title in 3 different decades coupled with 50+ wins every season. It's not like any particular season was a fluke, either. They were literally one of the favorites every year.

Also, I have to say--and it's meaningless I know but I just want to throw it out there, I love that there's no stigma of favorable officiating associated with the Spurs.

Most meaningful and insightful post of the road thread.

NBA_Starter
06-21-2014, 09:51 PM
A 3-Peat is the most impressive to me.

quade36
06-22-2014, 07:54 AM
No way. Pippen was not an Alpha. The Lakers had two alphas. Pippen was not the shot-maker when games were tight. Kobe was.

Wow somebody couldn't be more wrong about Pippen not being an alpha. He is one of the top 50 players of all time. Pippen was clearly a shot-maker too when games were tight. Did you see him play?

kdspurman
06-22-2014, 12:37 PM
I don't know why people try to diminish Kobe by saying he played with Shaq but say nothing about Duncan being a 28 minute roll player in these playoffs. Kobe was never so unimportant in any of his runs. Not to mention Pop calling Parker the Spurs best player since 2007.

Calling Duncan unimportant is just insane. No one on the Spurs played 30mpg per game in the season. And not sure where you saw Duncan playing 28mpg in these playoffs considering he lead the team in minutes played per game at almost 33. (32.7)

You've got your numbers/facts incorrect.

DODGERS&LAKERS
06-22-2014, 01:13 PM
Calling Duncan unimportant is just insane. No one on the Spurs played 30mpg per game in the season. And not sure where you saw Duncan playing 28mpg in these playoffs considering he lead the team in minutes played per game at almost 33. (32.7)

You've got your numbers/facts incorrect.

I was referring to the finals for his minutes. But like I said, if Kobe would have averaged so few points, so few minutes, so few assist in his finals games, people wouldn't even count that as a ring for him. Shoot, They try to say three of them don't count even though he averaged 28, 6 and 5 in 40 minutes with great defense while being the best two way player in the game.

Its a double standard and only people who dislike Kobe don't see it.

kdspurman
06-22-2014, 02:02 PM
I was referring to the finals for his minutes. But like I said, if Kobe would have averaged so few points, so few minutes, so few assist in his finals games, people wouldn't even count that as a ring for him. Shoot, They try to say three of them don't count even though he averaged 28, 6 and 5 in 40 minutes with great defense while being the best two way player in the game.

Its a double standard and only people who dislike Kobe don't see it.

Even in the finals though, he played 33 MPG (tied with Kawhi), only Diaw & Parker were more @ 35.2. And he had a tremendous impact in the paint protecting the rim, and providing offense when needed. Great passing, defense, and scored efficiently.

I agree with you about a double standard, there are those who just argue against Kobe for arguments sake. I'm not taking away anything from Kobe here. I was just referring to the fact that you said Duncan was unimportant during this run.

DODGERS&LAKERS
06-22-2014, 02:16 PM
Even in the finals though, he played 33 MPG (tied with Kawhi), only Diaw & Parker were more @ 35.2. And he had a tremendous impact in the paint protecting the rim, and providing offense when needed. Great passing, defense, and scored efficiently.

I agree with you about a double standard, there are those who just argue against Kobe for arguments sake. I'm not taking away anything from Kobe here. I was just referring to the fact that you said Duncan was unimportant during this run.
I shouldn't post when I'm a little tipsy as I was yesterday. I never meant my post to imply Timmy was unimportant. I just meant if Kobe had the role as team player like Duncan had, people would use those numbers against him to say that he was carried, he is a 3rd option, look at his stats, bla bla bla.....
I understand why it happens. Tim is likeable, Kobe is not. But people let their biases say things about one player and not about the other just because they like them more and do not always go by what's happening on the court.

Do you agree that if Kobe had Tim's overall playoffs numbers this year, didn't win the finals MVP, and scored 16 points on 12 shots per game, people would be hammering him saying "yeah he was on a staked team that won but you could out any player in that spot and they would have won. "

kdspurman
06-22-2014, 02:44 PM
I shouldn't post when I'm a little tipsy as I was yesterday. I never meant my post to imply Timmy was unimportant. I just meant if Kobe had the role as team player like Duncan had, people would use those numbers against him to say that he was carried, he is a 3rd option, look at his stats, bla bla bla.....
I understand why it happens. Tim is likeable, Kobe is not. But people let their biases say things about one player and not about the other just because they like them more and do not always go by what's happening on the court.

Do you agree that if Kobe had Tim's overall playoffs numbers this year, didn't win the finals MVP, and scored 16 points on 12 shots per game, people would be hammering him saying "yeah he was on a staked team that won but you could out any player in that spot and they would have won. "

I think if Kobe had Tim's #'s this year, at age 38, most knowledgeable/level headed people would give him his respect. His durability and longevity has always been impressive. But as always, there would surely be those who will downplay what he did regardless of the scenario. You already know how it goes sometimes.

People definitely let their biases get in the way. And Tim being more likeable is definitely something people consider. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's how it goes.

todu82
06-22-2014, 03:16 PM
3peat.

valade16
06-22-2014, 03:40 PM
What a terrible question. It's basically "what is more impressive, winning 5 titles in less time or more?"

It's obviously the 5 in 11 seasons...

Hawkeye15
06-23-2014, 02:32 AM
Both are difficult as hell most franchises don't even have 5 titles. But what's harder? 3peat

yeah, this

MickeyMgl
06-23-2014, 03:07 AM
Wow somebody couldn't be more wrong about Pippen not being an alpha. He is one of the top 50 players of all time. Pippen was clearly a shot-maker too when games were tight. Did you see him play?

Yes, I saw his whole career. He was not an alpha, or else more plays would have been drawn up for him in clutch situations (as opposed to Jordan, or Kukoc). Not just that he hit big shots. Sorry, but it takes more than that to be an alpha.

alexander_37
06-23-2014, 03:11 AM
Shaq wouldn't have a 3-peat if it were for Kobe, so why does it matter?

Lmfao we have all seen what Kobe can do without a stacked team. Nothing.

Shlumpledink
06-23-2014, 04:31 AM
Easy call to make. "What have you done for me lately's" will say otherwise

thenaj17
06-23-2014, 04:58 AM
When did you start watching basketball? Sunday?

The Lakers first threepeat was a stacked team that was built and centered one of the top 3 most dominant players of all time. And it was a really good team, top to bottom. Great coach too. No way did Kobe ever win with "less" than the Spurs. He always had great coaching and really, really good players. Gasol, Odom, Fisher, Artest, etc. Just stop it...

Artest was pretty washed up by the time he was with Lakers. Fisher was borderline useless and Odom was the most inconsistent infuriating player i've ever watched in P&G. For Kobe's 5th, our outside shooting was terrible.

For comparison sake, Duncan has had Parker and Leonard both win Finals MVP's and outperformed him in the playoffs.

Kobe has only ever been outperformed by Shaq and it's not like Kobe didn't drag the Lakers through a few games when Shaq was in foul trouble/injured/suspended. Kobe was just as dominant as Shaq in '01 and '02 through the Western Conference before Shaq beat up on no-name Centres in the Finals.

Munkeysuit
06-23-2014, 07:34 AM
The 3 peat! that is definitely the hardest! the Spurs (even how great they are) couldn't win consecutive titles, that says a lot! I mean I am willing to bet there will be tons of teams that will match their perseverance and consistency, but winning 3 in a row? shoot, that is so much tougher by far.

quade36
06-23-2014, 07:34 AM
Yes, I saw his whole career. He was not an alpha, or else more plays would have been drawn up for him in clutch situations (as opposed to Jordan, or Kukoc). Not just that he hit big shots. Sorry, but it takes more than that to be an alpha.

Well I don't know what you saw. He was a notorious great scorer in the 4th quarter. He always guarded the best offensive player on the opposing team, yes over Jordan. Without him the Bulls don't win a single championship. If you want to talk clutch, Robert Horry is the greatest player ever. Based on your logic Robert Horry is better than Kobe and Jordan.

Pippen is probably one of the top 5-10 SF of all time. If he isn't alpha I don't know what is.

Munkeysuit
06-23-2014, 07:39 AM
Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn

Munkeysuit
06-23-2014, 07:41 AM
Well I don't know what you saw. He was a notorious great scorer in the 4th quarter. He always guarded the best offensive player on the opposing team, yes over Jordan. Without him the Bulls don't win a single championship. If you want to talk clutch, Robert Horry is the greatest player ever. Based on your logic Robert Horry is better than Kobe and Jordan.

Pippen is probably one of the top 5-10 SF of all time. If he isn't alpha I don't know what is.


Pippen is definitely alpha and I agree with your opinion on Horry < Jordan/ Kobe with the 7 rings he's accumulated. But I don't remember Pip being a great 4th quarter scorer, from what I recall, MJ was the go to guy in the 4th and like I feel everyone in the entire universe knew who'd get the ball in the 4th...did you mean, when Jordan retired? or? not tryna start an argument or anything...I could be wrong and you could be right, I just wana see facts.

Purch
06-23-2014, 08:18 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-stnYJ8P-xl8/U56fgmTVTlI/AAAAAAAAC-g/qamXrIgkdbI/s1600/14.jpg

Corey
06-23-2014, 08:42 AM
Im not going to read all of this nonsense, but when Shaq was in his prime he could have won titles with any top guard.

(I love Kobe, but prime Shaq could've won with a lot of players during that 3-peat)

kdspurman
06-23-2014, 09:22 AM
The 3 peat! that is definitely the hardest! the Spurs (even how great they are) couldn't win consecutive titles, that says a lot! I mean I am willing to bet there will be tons of teams that will match their perseverance and consistency, but winning 3 in a row? shoot, that is so much tougher by far.

I'd bet the exact opposite. Especially when you factor in their big 3 and coach have all been there for 4 of the 5 titles over a 15 year span. It's not just about perseverance and consistency. It's about keeping a core group of guys together and putting the right pieces around them to keep them in contention year after year. With the way players jump ship these days, and coaches getting fired left and right, I don't know if we'll ever see a similar run the Spurs have had factoring in their 3 main guys, coach, GM, all being there the whole time.

MickeyMgl
06-23-2014, 01:52 PM
Well I don't know what you saw. He was a notorious great scorer in the 4th quarter. He always guarded the best offensive player on the opposing team, yes over Jordan. Without him the Bulls don't win a single championship.

Alpha is about temperament, not ability. Pippen is underrated. Jordan doesn't win without him. In fact, the Bulls were better with him and without Jordan than vice versa. He was valuable. But he also was, by temperament, a Robin. He was in the sidecar when big possessions were being run through Jordan's hands. Those kind of important possessions were run through Kobe's hands on the Lakers, not Shaq... even if Shaq was the more valuable player overall. Having two players of that "lead dog" temperament was also part of what drove Shaq and Kobe apart.

Hotone1401
06-24-2014, 12:20 AM
Like any other thread that involves Kobe there is a consistent trend. Basically, vote against Kobe by any means.

The truth is, if you switch Kobe and Duncan's careers you would have all Kobe haters vote for having 5 rings in 11 years with repeats.

I really don't understand what the point of these threads is. All it does is reveal who the haters are. Same ****, different day. Get a life you ****ing losers.

bucketss
06-24-2014, 12:28 AM
considering the ref assistance the lakeshow got in 2010 and 2002(most obvious ones) i will go with the spurs.

Tony_Starks
06-24-2014, 12:36 AM
Like any other thread that involves Kobe there is a consistent trend. Basically, vote against Kobe by any means.

The truth is, if you switch Kobe and Duncan's careers you would have all Kobe haters vote for having 5 rings in 11 years with repeats.

I really don't understand what the point of these threads is. All it does is reveal who the haters are. Same ****, different day. Get a life you ****ing losers.

You already know how that song goes man. Let the haters tell it Kobe was basically Derrick Fisher for those rings, a decent role player just along for the ride...

jmaest
06-24-2014, 01:06 PM
Like any other thread that involves Kobe there is a consistent trend. Basically, vote against Kobe by any means.

The truth is, if you switch Kobe and Duncan's careers you would have all Kobe haters vote for having 5 rings in 11 years with repeats.

I really don't understand what the point of these threads is. All it does is reveal who the haters are. Same ****, different day. Get a life you ****ing losers.

By extension it also shows those who completely overstate Kobe's ranking as well?

I know I'm not 'anti-Laker' or 'anti-Kobe' in any way and yet trying to have rational discussions has only dragged me into incessant debates over trivialities only to have my opinion dismissed as "hater".

I would like to offer this: Hasn't it occurred to anyone that is a Kobe fan that the *only* people who defend Kobe's status as 'greatest of all time' or '2nd greatest' or 'greatest Laker', etc, are other Laker fans? And then anyone who disagrees is just a 'hater'?

Perspective:
- Laker fans see the one big shot Kobe makes and say "greatest ever".
- 'Haters', for lack of a better word, see the big shots Kobe misses and say "most overrated player ever".
- Myself, and others like me, see the number of shots Kobe takes and say "that's a problem".

I don't fault him for missing big shots. I do credit him for making big shots. BUT I don't ignore the amount of shots he's taken because that's part of the equation. There are a lot of players throughout history who could have produced very similar results with the same number of shots. There are many who would have produced better results. When having an "all-time" debate these things, among others, matter.

bucketss
06-24-2014, 01:19 PM
You already know how that song goes man. Let the haters tell it Kobe was basically Derrick Fisher for those rings, a decent role player just along for the ride...

i love the exaggerations, you're trying to make it seem we're underrating him smh

Greet
06-24-2014, 01:23 PM
More impressive? 5 in 11 > 5 in 15...

Better team? Spurs. 15 straight years of dominance, not missing the playoffs once in that span? That's incredible.

Tony_Starks
06-24-2014, 01:48 PM
By extension it also shows those who completely overstate Kobe's ranking as well?

I know I'm not 'anti-Laker' or 'anti-Kobe' in any way and yet trying to have rational discussions has only dragged me into incessant debates over trivialities only to have my opinion dismissed as "hater".

I would like to offer this: Hasn't it occurred to anyone that is a Kobe fan that the *only* people who defend Kobe's status as 'greatest of all time' or '2nd greatest' or 'greatest Laker', etc, are other Laker fans? And then anyone who disagrees is just a 'hater'?

Perspective:
- Laker fans see the one big shot Kobe makes and say "greatest ever".
- 'Haters', for lack of a better word, see the big shots Kobe misses and say "most overrated player ever".
- Myself, and others like me, see the number of shots Kobe takes and say "that's a problem".

I don't fault him for missing big shots. I do credit him for making big shots. BUT I don't ignore the amount of shots he's taken because that's part of the equation. There are a lot of players throughout history who could have produced very similar results with the same number of shots. There are many who would have produced better results. When having an "all-time" debate these things, among others, matter.


The problem I have with your argument is that the same people that discredit Kobe for shot attempts never do that to MJ who also could be called a volume shooter. 41 shot attempts vs Phoenix in a Finals in a loss. Took more shot attempts than Kobe did for the 81 point game but still scored like 65. Led the league in shot attempts multiple years.....etc. These things are rarely mentioned, if ever.

Now at the end of the day MJ had better shot selection and was a much smarter scorer but it just seems like a big double standard that Kobe gets this huge legacy hit because of the amount of shots he took but MJ gets a total pass.

Doesn't take into account intangible things like the stamina it takes to do that nightly, the fortitude to be able to take shots when people start running from the ball or are just not playing well, the willingness to not care if missing those key shots gives you all the blame and criticism. People love to say anybody could've did it but in reality how many players did?

Basically I praise the very same shot attempts that people hold against him because I'm looking at big picture and the results speak for themselves.

SirSkyHook
06-24-2014, 02:01 PM
Yes it does, If I had to choose between two guys who won the same amount of titles, I'm gonna choose the 38 year old who has gone to the playoffs every year of his career and had the longest stretch of 50 win seasons we've ever seen


The idea that success is only measured in championships is immature imo. Its new age fans who have this mentality that if you don't win the championship or get a lottery pick your season is a failure.

That's so untrue its not even funny. It's new age fans aka LeBron fans who downgrade championships and highlight stats. When did advance stats get hot? When LeBron wasn't delivering as the NBA's new golden boy. Than espn and other major networks started advance stats to convince New Age fans of his greatness.

Old school fans like myself have always measured greatness by the ultimate goal; the ring. Not just winning it but the greatness the superstar players displayed to get it. What's Jordan's method on weighing greatness? or Magic's ? or any other great player of old? It's rings!!! and what you did to get them.

jerellh528
06-24-2014, 02:18 PM
That's so untrue its not even funny. It's new age fans aka LeBron fans who downgrade championships and highlight stats. When did advance stats get hot? When LeBron wasn't delivering as the NBA's new golden boy. Than espn and other major networks started advance stats to convince New Age fans of his greatness.

Old school fans like myself have always measured greatness by the ultimate goal; the ring. Not just winning it but the greatness the superstar players displayed to get it. What's Jordan's method on weighing greatness? or Magic's ? or any other great player of old? It's rings!!! and what you did to get them.

So true. I'll always have an old school mentality when it comes to basketball, because basketball is too pure and gritty to try and be simplified by just reading StAtZ.

jmaest
06-24-2014, 02:45 PM
The problem I have with your argument is that the same people that discredit Kobe for shot attempts never do that to MJ who also could be called a volume shooter. 41 shot attempts vs Phoenix in a Finals in a loss. Took more shot attempts than Kobe did for the 81 point game but still scored like 65. Led the league in shot attempts multiple years.....etc. These things are rarely mentioned, if ever.

Didn't Kobe take 46 shot attempts in the 81 point game? And these things were always a criticism of Jordan. Always.


Now at the end of the day MJ had better shot selection and was a much smarter scorer but it just seems like a big double standard that Kobe gets this huge legacy hit because of the amount of shots he took but MJ gets a total pass.

You just answered why he gets a pass. He had much better shot selection, had a willingness to pass off the double/triple very, very often, and actually shot a higher percentage than Kobe did. He deserves the pass. You basically just said so yourself.


Doesn't take into account intangible things like the stamina it takes to do that nightly, the fortitude to be able to take shots when people start running from the ball or are just not playing well, the willingness to not care if missing those key shots gives you all the blame and criticism. People love to say anybody could've did it but in reality how many players did?

And here is why Kobe is criticized and deservedly so, IMO. It takes the same amount of stamina to dive on the floor for loose balls if not more so--if not more, it takes the same amount to move without the ball, it takes the same to create shots for your teammates and give your team a better chance at succeeding.

Using "stamina" as an argument makes zero sense. Zero. As for other players in history, they chose to expend stamina doing MORE things on the basketball court than just scoring. Larry Bird has been mentioned and as an example, would have easily averaged 30PPG if he took the amount of shots that Kobe took. He was also primarily a post-up, mid-range scorer and he shot to a higher percentage. He was also the very definition of clutch.

But he played within the team concept of basketball. And actually, so did Jordan. In the game you tried to reference above Jordan was 19 of 43 and scored 44 points but he was also in foul trouble the whole game. He got 9 rebounds 6 assists 3 steals and 2 blocks. So yeah, by Jordan standards he had an off night scoring and shot a lot BUT the Phoenix Suns did do a great job of controlling the tempo in that series. They forced the Bulls into a much faster pace of offense than the Bulls would have liked.

But most importantly, it's few and far between. With Kobe there are far too many examples of overshooting and horrible shot selection with little else to offer on the court.


Basically I praise the very same shot attempts that people hold against him because I'm looking at big picture and the results speak for themselves.

That's the problem, the big picture results do speak for themselves and it doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing.

ink
06-24-2014, 02:53 PM
That's so untrue its not even funny. It's new age fans aka LeBron fans who downgrade championships and highlight stats. When did advance stats get hot? When LeBron wasn't delivering as the NBA's new golden boy. Than espn and other major networks started advance stats to convince New Age fans of his greatness.

Old school fans like myself have always measured greatness by the ultimate goal; the ring. Not just winning it but the greatness the superstar players displayed to get it. What's Jordan's method on weighing greatness? or Magic's ? or any other great player of old? It's rings!!! and what you did to get them.

Counting rings is even worse than counting wins for a goalie or a pitcher. Team sport. Simple argument but no one player ever did it alone. The whole rings discussion is a bogus distraction. And trust me I'm not a Lebron fan.

SirSkyHook
06-24-2014, 02:54 PM
Lakers run was much more impressive, and Kobe's five is more impressive. Like it was stated earlier, who care about a 50 win year in and year out streak when your not winning anything. Also what I haven't seen anyone mention is Kobe had to go through Duncan to get to one of those Finals during his repeat and did it rather easily (4-1).

Threepeating is hard as hell to do that's why it's rare, and you cant just discount the rare factor. It's not just getting there, but it's fighting off the fresh competition when your legs are dragging from the ware and tare of playing all that extra ball, and the same can be said about repeating.

What the Spurs have done ( which is still impressive as hell) is rest Duncan almost every year since 06 with minute management (so much that it pissed Stern off a few times) and let Parker take the lead. Than they continued to build young solid players around them to also aid in sustaining there greatness, to the point that Kawhi Leonard emerges out of nowhere and gets FMVP.

If you wanna make this a Kobe vs Duncan debate than this is the way I see it. Kobe had a harder road to his five because day in and day out he had to be on the floor unless he was injured and half the time that didn't stop him. Duncan on the other hand was limited minute wise year in and year out and rode Pop, his bench ( because they also have one of the best bench play year in and out), and Parker the last eight years, and in that time frame with all that aid only won 2 titles and never defended his rings on the big stage

You can say what you want but even Phil while telling Kobe to rest/ share on offence expected him to do is job always on D ( which Kobe didn't always listen to), and didn't give Kobe the rest Duncan received nighlty. I mean seriously not only did Duncan get his rest during games, he didn't have to always play back to back either. For marketing reasons alone that crap didn't fly with Lakers and Kobe ( though I hope it does time).

Tony_Starks
06-24-2014, 03:26 PM
Didn't Kobe take 46 shot attempts in the 81 point game? And these things were always a criticism of Jordan. Always.



You just answered why he gets a pass. He had much better shot selection, had a willingness to pass off the double/triple very, very often, and actually shot a higher percentage than Kobe did. He deserves the pass. You basically just said so yourself.



And here is why Kobe is criticized and deservedly so, IMO. It takes the same amount of stamina to dive on the floor for loose balls if not more so--if not more, it takes the same amount to move without the ball, it takes the same to create shots for your teammates and give your team a better chance at succeeding.

Using "stamina" as an argument makes zero sense. Zero. As for other players in history, they chose to expend stamina doing MORE things on the basketball court than just scoring. Larry Bird has been mentioned and as an example, would have easily averaged 30PPG if he took the amount of shots that Kobe took. He was also primarily a post-up, mid-range scorer and he shot to a higher percentage. He was also the very definition of clutch.

But he played within the team concept of basketball. And actually, so did Jordan. In the game you tried to reference above Jordan was 19 of 43 and scored 44 points but he was also in foul trouble the whole game. He got 9 rebounds 6 assists 3 steals and 2 blocks. So yeah, by Jordan standards he had an off night scoring and shot a lot BUT the Phoenix Suns did do a great job of controlling the tempo in that series. They forced the Bulls into a much faster pace of offense than the Bulls would have liked.

But most importantly, it's few and far between. With Kobe there are far too many examples of overshooting and horrible shot selection with little else to offer on the court.



That's the problem, the big picture results do speak for themselves and it doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing.

To touch on one of your points in reference to Kobe stamina is a very big deal. When you have to switch to defending the best wing because they're torching Fish, when you have to switch to having the offense run through you because Shaq is hurt or taken out because of hack-a-Shaq.... and STILL drop 40 +? Mike Bibby, Damon Stoudamire, Tony Parker, switching between Chauncey Billips and Rip, switching between Rondo and Ray Allen.....what other superstar "scorer" did this? That's the definition of stamina.

Pippen was the Bulls primary defender, Kobe was. Offense ran through MJ, Kobe did that when asked. Jordan was the if the play breaks down just give him the ball guy, Kobe was. Played both roles. And as far as willing passer Kobe's assist have always been respectable when you take into account he's a SG playing in the triangle offense in which no one dominates in assist. His assist were always either at par with or better than the actual pg.

ink
06-24-2014, 03:34 PM
Like any other thread that involves Kobe there is a consistent trend. Basically, vote against Kobe by any means.

The truth is, if you switch Kobe and Duncan's careers you would have all Kobe haters vote for having 5 rings in 11 years with repeats.

I really don't understand what the point of these threads is. All it does is reveal who the haters are. Same ****, different day. Get a life you ****ing losers.

By extension it also shows those who completely overstate Kobe's ranking as well?

I know I'm not 'anti-Laker' or 'anti-Kobe' in any way and yet trying to have rational discussions has only dragged me into incessant debates over trivialities only to have my opinion dismissed as "hater".

I would like to offer this: Hasn't it occurred to anyone that is a Kobe fan that the *only* people who defend Kobe's status as 'greatest of all time' or '2nd greatest' or 'greatest Laker', etc, are other Laker fans? And then anyone who disagrees is just a 'hater'?

Perspective:
- Laker fans see the one big shot Kobe makes and say "greatest ever".
- 'Haters', for lack of a better word, see the big shots Kobe misses and say "most overrated player ever".
- Myself, and others like me, see the number of shots Kobe takes and say "that's a problem".

I don't fault him for missing big shots. I do credit him for making big shots. BUT I don't ignore the amount of shots he's taken because that's part of the equation. There are a lot of players throughout history who could have produced very similar results with the same number of shots. There are many who would have produced better results. When having an "all-time" debate these things, among others, matter.

Good post.

I'm not for or against the Lakers and don't care about them any more than any other team. Their greatest success IMHO didn't come with Shaq and Kobe but rather before with Kareem, Magic, Worthy & Co. The 2000's Lakers teams weren't even the franchises' high point so I don't get the fuss about them or their stars. That's the biggest irony about people clamouring all over each other in every thread to prove Kobe's the best. He's not even close to being the best Laker!

kdspurman
06-24-2014, 03:36 PM
Lakers run was much more impressive, and Kobe's five is more impressive. Like it was stated earlier, who care about a 50 win year in and year out streak when your not winning anything. Also what I haven't seen anyone mention is Kobe had to go through Duncan to get to one of those Finals during his repeat and did it rather easily (4-1).

Threepeating is hard as hell to do that's why it's rare, and you cant just discount the rare factor. It's not just getting there, but it's fighting off the fresh competition when your legs are dragging from the ware and tare of playing all that extra ball, and the same can be said about repeating.

What the Spurs have done ( which is still impressive as hell) is rest Duncan almost every year since 06 with minute management (so much that it pissed Stern off a few times) and let Parker take the lead. Than they continued to build young solid players around them to also aid in sustaining there greatness, to the point that Kawhi Leonard emerges out of nowhere and gets FMVP.

If you wanna make this a Kobe vs Duncan debate than this is the way I see it. Kobe had a harder road to his five because day in and day out he had to be on the floor unless he was injured and half the time that didn't stop him. Duncan on the other hand was limited minute wise year in and year out and rode Pop, his bench ( because they also have one of the best bench play year in and out), and Parker the last eight years, and in that time frame with all that aid only won 2 titles and never defended his rings on the big stage

You can say what you want but even Phil while telling Kobe to rest/ share on offence expected him to do is job always on D ( which Kobe didn't always listen to), and didn't give Kobe the rest Duncan received nighlty. I mean seriously not only did Duncan get his rest during games, he didn't have to always play back to back either. For marketing reasons alone that crap didn't fly with Lakers and Kobe ( though I hope it does time).

How can you even say that? (bolded) Duncan's first couple rings were tough because he had a larger load to carry for his team. He didn't have a dominant player next to him like Kobe did.

And BTW, Duncan's MPG vs Kobe during their title runs:

Regular Season:

Duncan 99 (22)- 39.3 Kobe 00(21)- 38.2
Duncan 03 (26)- 39.3 Kobe 01(22)- 40.9
Duncan 05 (28)- 33.4 Kobe 02(23)- 38.3
Duncan 07 (30)- 34.1 Kobe 09(30)- 36.1
Duncan 14 (37)- 29.2 Kobe 10(31)- 38.8

Total: 12,231 Total: 14,165


Though, keep in mind the 99 year was a lockout year. So Duncan played probably more than 1,000 less minutes than the previous year.

Playoffs:

Duncan 99 (22)- 43.1 Kobe 00(21)- 39.0
Duncan 03 (26)- 42.5 Kobe 01(22)- 43.4
Duncan 05 (28)- 37.8 Kobe 02(23)- 43.8
Duncan 07 (30)- 36.8 Kobe 09(30)- 40.9
Duncan 14 (37)- 32.7 Kobe 10(31)- 40.1

Total: 4,111 Total: 4,247

Now factor in there is an age difference and Duncan is 3 years older and is a 7 footer. Big guys tend to break down more than wing players do. So the numbers aren't too far off here. And this is why it's hard to compare a PF to a SG. They play 2 different styles, and positions, and are asked to do different things. Duncan's personal load was arguably bigger in his prime simply because he was the anchor defensively and the offense ran through him on the other end. But again, this is why you can't really compare the 2, because Kobe as a SG would not be asked to try and lock down the paint. He would do most his damage on the perimeter.

jmaest
06-24-2014, 03:38 PM
Lakers run was much more impressive, and Kobe's five is more impressive. Like it was stated earlier, who care about a 50 win year in and year out streak when your not winning anything. Also what I haven't seen anyone mention is Kobe had to go through Duncan to get to one of those Finals during his repeat and did it rather easily (4-1).

Threepeating is hard as hell to do that's why it's rare, and you cant just discount the rare factor. It's not just getting there, but it's fighting off the fresh competition when your legs are dragging from the ware and tare of playing all that extra ball, and the same can be said about repeating.

What the Spurs have done ( which is still impressive as hell) is rest Duncan almost every year since 06 with minute management (so much that it pissed Stern off a few times) and let Parker take the lead. Than they continued to build young solid players around them to also aid in sustaining there greatness, to the point that Kawhi Leonard emerges out of nowhere and gets FMVP.

If you wanna make this a Kobe vs Duncan debate than this is the way I see it. Kobe had a harder road to his five because day in and day out he had to be on the floor unless he was injured and half the time that didn't stop him. Duncan on the other hand was limited minute wise year in and year out and rode Pop, his bench ( because they also have one of the best bench play year in and out), and Parker the last eight years, and in that time frame with all that aid only won 2 titles and never defended his rings on the big stage

You can say what you want but even Phil while telling Kobe to rest/ share on offence expected him to do is job always on D ( which Kobe didn't always listen to), and didn't give Kobe the rest Duncan received nighlty. I mean seriously not only did Duncan get his rest during games, he didn't have to always play back to back either. For marketing reasons alone that crap didn't fly with Lakers and Kobe ( though I hope it does time).

This is the epitome of favorable opining.

First, 2 of the 3 most suspicious NBA officiating in a series event came during the Laker threepeat. There is no question the Lakers received favorable officiating vs Portland & vs Sacramento. So there's reason to tarnish a couple of those titles.

Second, Kobe while a major contributor, had a better player and someone who garnered more attention from the defense on the first 3peat in Shaq. Duncan never played with another player of that caliber ever. During that 3peat run the Lakers beat the Spurs twice, once 4-0 and the second time 4-1, as you stated. BUT both came at the hands of a team with Shaq on it.

Lastly, let's not give Kobe "credit" for being selfish and wanting to play all the time, and wanting to disrupt the offense, and wanting the ball, etc. It's like rewarding a thief for having the wherewithal to break into the jewelry store after they closed. Sure it's impressive but it's not what he was supposed to be doing.

SirSkyHook
06-24-2014, 03:43 PM
Counting rings is even worse than counting wins for a goalie or a pitcher. Team sport. Simple argument but no one player ever did it alone. The whole rings discussion is a bogus distraction. And trust me I'm not a Lebron fan.

Not accusing you of being an LeBron fan, just making a point. You are also right on rings being an team accomplishment, but so are assists. Should we get rid of assists because it's an helped stat? It's helped by the player who score and or the offensive play the coach designed to put the players in that position, No you wouldn't! because it's takes court vision and accuracy of a player to get a player in position to score. That's how championships should be counted. During the threepeat Kobe, and Shaq did the work, and all the other players had to do was hit the open shot. No way in hell do I count Fisher's importance as high as Shaq's or Kobe's, though he was important ya digg.

Also since in the large scheme of things basketball is just a team sport why are we trying to determine individual greatness. Lets say Grant and Kerr were just as important as Jordan and Pip because of rings earned together, Fisher with Kobe and Shaq, Chalmers with LeBron, Wade , and Bosh.

See the point im making? Even though rings are a teams accomplishment it's the stars that suppose to shine the brightest to get them, and we as fans pay our respect to there greatness. The 04 Pistons were a great starless team but how many times did they win it? and Billups became the star of that team after that finals so it goes back to my point.

jerellh528
06-24-2014, 03:47 PM
How can you even say that? (bolded) Duncan's first couple rings were tough because he had a larger load to carry for his team. He didn't have a dominant player next to him like Kobe did.

And BTW, Duncan's MPG vs Kobe during their title runs:

Regular Season:

Duncan 99 (22)- 39.3 Kobe 00(21)- 38.2
Duncan 03 (26)- 39.3 Kobe 01(22)- 40.9
Duncan 05 (28)- 33.4 Kobe 02(23)- 38.3
Duncan 07 (30)- 34.1 Kobe 09(30)- 36.1
Duncan 14 (37)- 29.2 Kobe 10(31)- 38.8

Total: 12,231 Total: 14,165


Though, keep in mind the 99 year was a lockout year. So Duncan played probably more than 1,000 less minutes than the previous year.

Playoffs:

Duncan 99 (22)- 43.1 Kobe 00(21)- 39.0
Duncan 03 (26)- 42.5 Kobe 01(22)- 43.4
Duncan 05 (28)- 37.8 Kobe 02(23)- 43.8
Duncan 07 (30)- 36.8 Kobe 09(30)- 40.9
Duncan 14 (37)- 32.7 Kobe 10(31)- 40.1

Total: 4,111 Total: 4,247

Now factor in there is an age difference and Duncan is 3 years older and is a 7 footer. Big guys tend to break down more than wing players do. So the numbers aren't too far off here. And this is why it's hard to compare a PF to a SG. They play 2 different styles, and positions, and are asked to do different things. Duncan's personal load was arguably bigger in his prime simply because he was the anchor defensively and the offense ran through him on the other end. But again, this is why you can't really compare the 2, because Kobe as a SG would not be asked to try and lock down the paint. He would do most his damage on the perimeter.


Yep it's a little silly to compare bigs to smalls when it comes to 2 way impact. That's the main job of a big, afterall. It's easier to compare them to their peers. Kobe for instance is one of few smalls in the convo, mj, magic, Kobe, that's the top. Whereas there have been so many great bigs, wilt, shaq, kaj, dream, Russell, Duncan, etc, etc. it's easier for a big to dominate the game, even though td's minutes have been almost 6th man worthy for about half his career.

ink
06-24-2014, 03:55 PM
Counting rings is even worse than counting wins for a goalie or a pitcher. Team sport. Simple argument but no one player ever did it alone. The whole rings discussion is a bogus distraction. And trust me I'm not a Lebron fan.

Not accusing you of being an LeBron fan, just making a point. You are also right on rings being an team accomplishment, but so are assists. Should we get rid of assists because it's an helped stat? It's helped by the player who score and or the offensive play the coach designed to put the players in that position, No you wouldn't! because it's takes court vision and accuracy of a player to get a player in position to score. That's how championships should be counted. During the threepeat Kobe, and Shaq did the work, and all the other players had to do was hit the open shot. No way in hell do I count Fisher's importance as high as Shaq's or Kobe's, though he was important ya digg.

Also since in the large scheme of things basketball is just a team sport why are we trying to determine individual greatness. Lets say Grant and Kerr were just as important as Jordan and Pip because of rings earned together, Fisher with Kobe and Shaq, Chalmers with LeBron, Wade , and Bosh.

See the point im making? Even though rings are a teams accomplishment it's the stars that suppose to shine the brightest to get them, and we as fans pay our respect to there greatness. The 04 Pistons were a great starless team but how many times did they win it? and Billups became the star of that team after that finals so it goes back to my point.

The assist example doesn't really work because there's a clear, direct connection between assist and score.

In answer to your question about why we are trying to determine individual greatness I'd answer, I have no idea why. It's irrelevant to the actual game. IMO it actually dumbs down the sport to the point where star laden teams struggle to evolve beyond ISO plays.

flea
06-24-2014, 03:56 PM
As one of the biggest guards in the league for most of his career, Kobe was perfectly capable of affecting the game defensively much more than he did. Pippen and Jordan are up there with some good bigs in defensive impact so let's not just give Kobe a pass on that. He didn't quite have the length of Pippen, but it's close and Kobe was certainly as athletic.

Now I'll agree it probably takes more energy for wings to be good 2-way players unless they're very clever in space. Bigs may have the length advantage that allows them to stay more stationary defensively but generally wings have the better hands (unless you're Hakeem).

Too often on PSD people just assume good offensive wings are also good defenders. Guys like Kobe and Lebron have had their moments, but their defense lags significantly behind their offense and they're noticeably less skilled on that end.

Big Z 1990
06-24-2014, 04:13 PM
I would say 3Peat plus B2B. The Lakers have been around longer than the Spurs, so that is saying something.

jmaest
06-24-2014, 04:15 PM
Yep it's a little silly to compare bigs to smalls when it comes to 2 way impact. That's the main job of a big, afterall. It's easier to compare them to their peers. Kobe for instance is one of few smalls in the convo, mj, magic, Kobe, that's the top. Whereas there have been so many great bigs, wilt, shaq, kaj, dream, Russell, Duncan, etc, etc. it's easier for a big to dominate the game, even though td's minutes have been almost 6th man worthy for about half his career.

I mostly agree with this. I agree in the sense that it is silly to compare different positions because in the scheme of a basketball game/on a team, each role is required to do different things. We should be comparing PG's, SG's, C's, SF's, and PF's individually by position.

Not every team is going to be stacked at all positions and so 'stars' are relied upon to do more than just the role defined by their position. By that logic it is impossible to answer the question the OP is asking because 5 titles are equally as impressive since only a handful of teams have ever won that many or more.

In addition, the length of time, or manner in which the titles were won has to be offset by the makeup of the team that won it. The Lakers, for example, had a combination of stars AND strong players at each position. The Spurs had one star and strong players at each position. And so the question of which is more impressive cannot be accurately answered. Some will say the Spurs won with less star power and others will say that the star power matters and that's why that is impressive.

We can, however, say with absolute certainty that the Lakers combination of star power AND strong players in the other positions allowed them to win more successively. On this point there can be no debate.

Now if we take that conversation and actually apply it to the Lakers & Spurs we find that the Spurs are clearly the more impressive "team". In fact I don't believe there's a debate to be had on this point either.

The Spurs won 5 titles with essentially the same nucleus while the Lakers won 5 titles with what ultimately amounts to 2 different teams. It is that point that is being ignored. The only common denominator in the Lakers 5 titles is Kobe Bryant. History has shown that Kobe had two different roles on the two title teams, and the numbers support this. So essentially we have 2 different Lakers teams. So in effect what we are comparing is one team's 3peat and yet another teams' back-back to the Spurs 15 year span of 5. Considering the years of contention and the end result, there is no plausible argument that can be made that shows that either one team's 3peat or another team's back-back is more impressive than 5 titles & 15 years of competitive superiority.

jerellh528
06-24-2014, 04:20 PM
I mostly agree with this. I agree in the sense that it is silly to compare different positions because in the scheme of a basketball game/on a team, each role is required to do different things. We should be comparing PG's, SG's, C's, SF's, and PF's individually by position.

Not every team is going to be stacked at all positions and so 'stars' are relied upon to do more than just the role defined by their position. By that logic it is impossible to answer the question the OP is asking because 5 titles are equally as impressive since only a handful of teams have ever won that many or more.

In addition, the length of time, or manner in which the titles were won has to be offset by the makeup of the team that won it. The Lakers, for example, had a combination of stars AND strong players at each position. The Spurs had one star and strong players at each position. And so the question of which is more impressive cannot be accurately answered. Some will say the Spurs won with less star power and others will say that the star power matters and that's why that is impressive.

We can, however, say with absolute certainty that the Lakers combination of star power AND strong players in the other positions allowed them to win more successively. On this point there can be no debate.

Now if we take that conversation and actually apply it to the Lakers & Spurs we find that the Spurs are clearly the more impressive "team". In fact I don't believe there's a debate to be had on this point either.

The Spurs won 5 titles with essentially the same nucleus while the Lakers won 5 titles with what ultimately amounts to 2 different teams. It is that point that is being ignored. The only common denominator in the Lakers 5 titles is Kobe Bryant. History has shown that Kobe had two different roles on the two title teams, and the numbers support this. So essentially we have 2 different Lakers teams.So in effect what we are comparing is one team's 3peat and yet another teams' back-back to the Spurs 15 year span of 5. Considering the years of contention and the end result, there is no plausible argument that can be made that shows that either one team's 3peat or another team's back-back is more impressive than 5 titles & 15 years of competitive superiority.

Yup, yet another reason I feel Kobe's ability to win titles is somewhat underrated. I can't think of many players or any really that have been able to win multiple titles on 2 drastically different teams as either the 1 or 1b option. Good point.

SirSkyHook
06-24-2014, 04:29 PM
this is the epitome of favorable opining.

First, 2 of the 3 most suspicious nba officiating in a series event came during the laker threepeat. There is no question the lakers received favorable officiating vs portland & vs sacramento. So there's reason to tarnish a couple of those titles.

i hate the conspiracy argument because people forget how bad it was on both ends. What about vlade's flopping all series long and getting away with it? Or webbers illegal screen on fisher to free up bibby for the win that was never looked into but even announcers spoke on? Or all the hacking on shaq in the post that players got away with which lead to shaq threatening to take it into his own hands. Theres so much that went on in those series let not listen to favorable reporting k.

second, kobe while a major contributor, had a better player and someone who garnered more attention from the defense on the first 3peat in shaq. Duncan never played with another player of that caliber ever. During that 3peat run the lakers beat the spurs twice, once 4-0 and the second time 4-1, as you stated. But both came at the hands of a team with shaq on it.

you can only use the shaq had more attention argument for the first ring, because after that ring teams learned to respect. The following year lakers went 15-1 because you couldn't double both shaq and kobe because you have three other players ready to hit the open shot. That's just fact, and are you telling me duncan didn't have it easier with parkers penetrating and manu's qorky play? And from 06 on it was parkers show so i don't get your point. Kobe also didn't have the benefit of rest like duncan as i stated in another post. Also the 4-1 i was reffering to didn't have shaq it was in 08 he had gasol, not even bum knees bynum. Also when you check the stats and youtube the games you see kobe not shaq lead the lakers pas the spurs.

lastly, let's not give kobe "credit" for being selfish and wanting to play all the time, and wanting to disrupt the offense, and wanting the ball, etc. It's like rewarding a thief for having the wherewithal to break into the jewelry store after they closed. Sure it's impressive but it's not what he was supposed to be doing.


don't get the point with this comment. I give kobe respect for taking his fate into his hands and not being like all the other players on the team and waiting for shaq to carry them. Are we talking about nick the quick? No. Are we talking about eddie jones? No. Were talking about kobe. You act as if kobe hurt his teams success. He went to 7 finals!!! More than jordan 6, duncan also 6, and shaq's 5!!! And shaq was constantly out of shape like me lol. When players weren't in shape or not focused on winning, or were over thinking there shot kobe did what he needed to get them over and it wasn't always the best decision but i don't blame him for stepping up.

js

SirSkyHook
06-24-2014, 04:45 PM
How can you even say that? (bolded) Duncan's first couple rings were tough because he had a larger load to carry for his team. He didn't have a dominant player next to him like Kobe did.

And BTW, Duncan's MPG vs Kobe during their title runs:

Regular Season:

Duncan 99 (22)- 39.3 Kobe 00(21)- 38.2
Duncan 03 (26)- 39.3 Kobe 01(22)- 40.9
Duncan 05 (28)- 33.4 Kobe 02(23)- 38.3
Duncan 07 (30)- 34.1 Kobe 09(30)- 36.1
Duncan 14 (37)- 29.2 Kobe 10(31)- 38.8

Total: 12,231 Total: 14,165


Though, keep in mind the 99 year was a lockout year. So Duncan played probably more than 1,000 less minutes than the previous year.

Playoffs:

Duncan 99 (22)- 43.1 Kobe 00(21)- 39.0
Duncan 03 (26)- 42.5 Kobe 01(22)- 43.4
Duncan 05 (28)- 37.8 Kobe 02(23)- 43.8
Duncan 07 (30)- 36.8 Kobe 09(30)- 40.9
Duncan 14 (37)- 32.7 Kobe 10(31)- 40.1

Total: 4,111 Total: 4,247

Now factor in there is an age difference and Duncan is 3 years older and is a 7 footer. Big guys tend to break down more than wing players do. So the numbers aren't too far off here. And this is why it's hard to compare a PF to a SG. They play 2 different styles, and positions, and are asked to do different things. Duncan's personal load was arguably bigger in his prime simply because he was the anchor defensively and the offense ran through him on the other end. But again, this is why you can't really compare the 2, because Kobe as a SG would not be asked to try and lock down the paint. He would do most his damage on the perimeter.

Nice breakdown but career minutes my friend. Because Duncan rest during every other season, while winning or not Kobe is relied upon more which takes more of a toll. You cant just pull up Minutes like that during championships because that's cheating lol. Kobe played a lot of those minutes all together with no seasonal breaks with minute management and exclusion from back to backs 00,01,02, than two year break 04, four years than 08,09,10. Duncan on the other hand on top of all his during the season breaks went 99 three year break, 03 two year break, 05 two year break 07 than a seven year break 14. Not really the same you get my point.

You can aslo factor in Kobe came a year earlier. What im saying is Kobe's rings mean more because of the overall toll it took on his body with minutes played vs Duncan's managed minutes. The toll it takes to get to the finals 3 consecutive times twice is way more impressive than every two years or so winning,

Also for those who say the Laker sgo and buy there titles buy getting Shaq and swindling Gasol, I say so do the Spurs they just spend differently. Instead of putting a effort in getting a new sidekick for Duncan, they keep the two he already has and use that money to buy a younger and hunger bench and fill in starters every year or so.

jmaest
06-24-2014, 05:03 PM
Yup, yet another reason I feel Kobe's ability to win titles is somewhat underrated. I can't think of many players or any really that have been able to win multiple titles on 2 drastically different teams as either the 1 or 1b option. Good point.

How do you attribute the first threepeat to Kobe's ability to win? He was not the 1 option on the first threepeat. No argument that he was the second option though.

There's no such thing as "1b". When Shaq was on the floor he was the first option. Always. If Kobe was on the floor and Shaq on the bench then, yes, Kobe would be the first option BUT it was the first option of the players on the floor. The team as a whole was still Shaq's team.

SirSkyHook
06-24-2014, 05:15 PM
How do you attribute the first threepeat to Kobe's ability to win? He was not the 1 option on the first threepeat. No argument that he was the second option though.

There's no such thing as "1b". When Shaq was on the floor he was the first option. Always. If Kobe was on the floor and Shaq on the bench then, yes, Kobe would be the first option BUT it was the first option of the players on the floor. The team as a whole was still Shaq's team.

Because as an glorified 1B or second option he average over 20 a game with 5ish rebounds and assists along with 1.5 steals and was the teams closer, and defensive stopper for the most part. Which made it Shaq and his team. Shaq was extremely dominate he put up numbers Jordan can only dream of 35pts and 15rebs with like 2 blks, against the easts weak *** centers. Aside from Mutumbo who was over 100lbs undersized and a fossil who did he actually have on him lol but that's another topic.

kickflip.master
06-24-2014, 05:18 PM
3peat + back-2-back

jmaest
06-24-2014, 05:26 PM
i hate the conspiracy argument because people forget how bad it was on both ends. What about vlade's flopping all series long and getting away with it? Or webbers illegal screen on fisher to free up bibby for the win that was never looked into but even announcers spoke on? Or all the hacking on shaq in the post that players got away with which lead to shaq threatening to take it into his own hands. Theres so much that went on in those series let not listen to favorable reporting k.

Look this is a crazy debate to get into but, seriously, come on. In Game 6 vs Sacramento the Lakers were getting blown out. Then the whistle starts blowing and they shoot 27 free throws?? You cannot seriously still deny the fix was in. At this point it's almost comical. Let's say it wasn't a "fix". Okay, no problem. The Lakers benefitted from the single worst officiated game in NBA history probably. Significantly benefitted. And I wouldn't mention flopping and all of that. Kobe flopped plenty, as did Horry, and a few other Lakers. The flopping was very much a two way street.


you can only use the shaq had more attention argument for the first ring, because after that ring teams learned to respect. The following year lakers went 15-1 because you couldn't double both shaq and kobe because you have three other players ready to hit the open shot. That's just fact, and are you telling me duncan didn't have it easier with parkers penetrating and manu's qorky play? And from 06 on it was parkers show so i don't get your point. Kobe also didn't have the benefit of rest like duncan as i stated in another post. Also the 4-1 i was reffering to didn't have shaq it was in 08 he had gasol, not even bum knees bynum. Also when you check the stats and youtube the games you see kobe not shaq lead the lakers pas the spurs.

The triangle offense revolved around Shaq. The 2nd title was a very easy run and I would be the first to admit that the Laker scoring was more balance, no question about it. But the FGA for the 3rd title run again shows a significant flow of the offense through the hands of Shaq. Fact is you ALWAYS had to double Shaq or he would just score. Kobe's value came late in close games when teams began employing the "hack-a-Shaq". You had to keep the ball out of Shaq's hands otherwise he'd get fouled and sent to the free throw line.

You're also kidding yourself if you don't think Shaq was the main attention focus of the Spurs and every other player the Lakers played against in those days. It doesn't matter who scored what, every time Shaq touched the ball he would score against any defender--and that includes Duncan. Although a young Duncan/Robinson combo were difficult for Shaq to deal with.

You're right about 2008 but one can argue that was the best Kobe we've ever seen. I personally think 2008 was his best all around season for sure. Did you know that Kobe shot just over 51% through the Western playoffs the best of his career and I believe the only time he's ever done that? Of course that San Antonio Team had Duncan & Parker and very little help from Manu who was not at his best and pretty much nothing else while the Lakers had a healthy Kobe, healthy Gaso, and very good contributions from their bench. Not trying to diminish the Lakers or Kobe in any way here. They were very much the better team and should have manhandled the Spurs and that Kobe shot 53% against Bowen says a lot. (Especially since Bowen did talk lots of trash before the series started.)


don't get the point with this comment. I give kobe respect for taking his fate into his hands and not being like all the other players on the team and waiting for shaq to carry them. Are we talking about nick the quick? No. Are we talking about eddie jones? No. Were talking about kobe. You act as if kobe hurt his teams success. He went to 7 finals!!! More than jordan 6, duncan also 6, and shaq's 5!!! And shaq was constantly out of shape like me lol. When players weren't in shape or not focused on winning, or were over thinking there shot kobe did what he needed to get them over and it wasn't always the best decision but i don't blame him for stepping up.

You're not making any sense. Phil Jackson stated this himself when he first left LA. Kobe's need to dominate the ball away from Shaq is what killed the team. I don't disagree with Kobe, by the way. At the point in which all of that occurred Shaq wasn't Shaq anymore. But during the threepeat it was very much Shaq's team.

When I made the comment about Kobe's selfishness I was talking about all the other years away from Shaq. As previously referenced, in 2008 he was less selfish during the playoff run had a fantastic post-season and lead his team to the Finals. But in the Finals he was exposed. He did revert to being the overwhelming shooter he is and hit on 40% of his shots, averaging 25PPG and getting dominated by the Celts in 6 games. And in that series his teammates were just begging to do more. He had 3 other players score in double figures.

Tony_Starks
06-24-2014, 05:43 PM
How do you attribute the first threepeat to Kobe's ability to win? He was not the 1 option on the first threepeat. No argument that he was the second option though.

There's no such thing as "1b". When Shaq was on the floor he was the first option. Always. If Kobe was on the floor and Shaq on the bench then, yes, Kobe would be the first option BUT it was the first option of the players on the floor. The team as a whole was still Shaq's team.

Correction: when Shaq was on the floor he was NOT always the first option. Which was a huge part of the reason him and Kobe fell out btw. As Kobe's game got better he starting being more assertive and Shaq couldn't take it. Then proceeded to go to Miami and publicly declare Wade as first option the very next season....

quade36
06-24-2014, 08:19 PM
Alpha is about temperament, not ability. Pippen is underrated. Jordan doesn't win without him. In fact, the Bulls were better with him and without Jordan than vice versa. He was valuable. But he also was, by temperament, a Robin. He was in the sidecar when big possessions were being run through Jordan's hands. Those kind of important possessions were run through Kobe's hands on the Lakers, not Shaq... even if Shaq was the more valuable player overall. Having two players of that "lead dog" temperament was also part of what drove Shaq and Kobe apart.

Well from what I saw Kobe was Shaq's robin. Shaq was not only the primary scorer, but the primary person the offense went through. Kobe was finally the batman for the two championships with Gasol.

quade36
06-24-2014, 08:20 PM
Pippen is definitely alpha and I agree with your opinion on Horry < Jordan/ Kobe with the 7 rings he's accumulated. But I don't remember Pip being a great 4th quarter scorer, from what I recall, MJ was the go to guy in the 4th and like I feel everyone in the entire universe knew who'd get the ball in the 4th...did you mean, when Jordan retired? or? not tryna start an argument or anything...I could be wrong and you could be right, I just wana see facts.

Just a quick look, this comes to mind

http://www.nba.com/bulls/history/pippen10_920614.html