PDA

View Full Version : Top-10 Players of the 2000s



Shammyguy3
09-08-2016, 07:04 PM
Give us your top 10 from the season 1999-2000 through 2008-2009

Here's mine
1. Duncan
2. Kobe
3. Shaq
4. Lebron
5. Nowitzki
6. Garnett
7. Nash
8. McGrady
9. Wade
10. Kidd



did i miss anyone? anyone have a different order?

More-Than-Most
09-08-2016, 08:49 PM
Give us your top 10 from the season 1999-2000 through 2008-2009

Here's mine
1. Duncan
2. Kobe
3. Shaq
4. Lebron
5. Nowitzki
6. Garnett
7. Nash
8. McGrady
9. Wade
10. Kidd



did i miss anyone? anyone have a different order?

Why Kobe ahead of bron? Asking honestly... Kobe has more years I guess but James was the better player from 04-09

That should more than make up for 3 extra seasons Kobe has over Lebron when Kobe became great.

warfelg
09-08-2016, 08:55 PM
Give us your top 10 from the season 1999-2000 through 2008-2009

Here's mine
1. Duncan
2. Kobe
3. Shaq
4. Lebron
5. Nowitzki
6. Garnett
7. Nash
8. McGrady
9. Wade
10. Kidd



did i miss anyone? anyone have a different order?

No Allen Iverson? 3 scoring titles, 2 all-star MVPs, 1 MVP, 2 NBA 1st teams, 3 NBA 2nd teams, 3 time steal leader, every all star game in that time period.

Bostonjorge
09-08-2016, 09:01 PM
In 1999-2000 Shaq and Kobe best 2 players in the league.

More-Than-Most
09-08-2016, 09:09 PM
In 1999-2000 Shaq and Kobe best 2 players in the league.

lol in what world was Kobe the best player in any year let alone that year? Maybe an argument for his MVP year but outside of that he was never the best player and that year he was good but not great

Lil Rhody
09-08-2016, 10:01 PM
Gotta give some love for Paul pierce. Maybe I'm a homer but he had a better span then tmac

hugepatsfan
09-08-2016, 10:55 PM
Shaq
Lebron
Duncan
Kobe
KG
Dirk
Wade
Kidd
T-Mac
Pierce

Shammyguy3
09-08-2016, 10:59 PM
Why Kobe ahead of bron? Asking honestly... Kobe has more years I guess but James was the better player from 04-09

That should more than make up for 3 extra seasons Kobe has over Lebron when Kobe became great.

i was conflicted with that, Lebron has a slight edge in certain statistics, but he only played in 472 games in the regular season and 60 in the playoffs. Kobe on the other hand played in 798 games and 155 playoff games. To me, that makes a big enough difference for Kobe to go ahead for the 2000s.

Regular Season
Kobe: 28.2/5.5/5.2 113 ORtg 55.8ts% 24.3 PER 0.196 WS/48 5.0 BPM 55.0 VORP
Lebron: 27.5/7.0/6.7 113 ORtg 55.5ts% 26.2 PER 0.213 WS/48 8.5 BPM 50.7 VORP

Playoffs
Kobe: 27.2/5.9/5.2 110 ORtg 54.0ts% 22.5 PER 0.163 WS/48 4.8 BPM 11.3 VORP
Lebron: 29.4/8.3/7.3 113 ORtg 55.3ts% 26.8 PER 0.226 WS/48 10.9 BPM 8.6 VORP

i don't think it's wrong putting Lebron ahead of Kobe, because he was the better player. However, he played in slightly more than half the games.



No Allen Iverson? 3 scoring titles, 2 all-star MVPs, 1 MVP, 2 NBA 1st teams, 3 NBA 2nd teams, 3 time steal leader, every all star game in that time period.

Scoring titles mean nothing to me if you jack your way to them. All-star MVPs mean less than nothing to me. It's an exhibition game that nobody cares about actually competing in until maybe the last quarter if that. His MVP was worse than Rose's 2011 MVP, there were a good deal number of players way superior to him. His NBA teams came in a time where we didn't know how bad scoring 32 points on 29 shots was.


Gotta give some love for Paul pierce. Maybe I'm a homer but he had a better span then tmac

Paul Pierce can definitely go up there you're right

KB24PG16
09-08-2016, 11:00 PM
Why Kobe ahead of bron? Asking honestly... Kobe has more years I guess but James was the better player from 04-09

That should more than make up for 3 extra seasons Kobe has over Lebron when Kobe became great.

you'll be hard pressed to find many people that believe a second year pro in lebron was better than a prime kobe in 04. an argument could be made later perhaps closer to 07

Shammyguy3
09-08-2016, 11:01 PM
Shaq
Lebron
Duncan
Kobe
KG
Dirk
Wade
Kidd
T-Mac
Pierce

Any reason why you don't have Nash?

kdspurman
09-08-2016, 11:04 PM
Shaq
Lebron
Duncan
Kobe
KG
Dirk
Wade
Kidd
T-Mac
Pierce

LeBron over Duncan even though he wasn't there for 3 of those years and still pretty raw early on?

hugepatsfan
09-08-2016, 11:17 PM
LeBron over Duncan even though he wasn't there for 3 of those years and still pretty raw early on?

I generally favor peak over longevity at the top. All these guys are HOFers and at the very top their legit all time greats. I don't care if a guy was good for 7 years instead of 5 or whatever. I went with all the guys that had enough longevity for me to feel they deserve being ranked and then went off peak. One exception was T-Mac - I dropped him behind Wade/Kidd because I of his injury issues. I just thought that was an extreme case.

hugepatsfan
09-08-2016, 11:18 PM
Any reason why you don't have Nash?

I just thought those other 10 HOFers were better. He had longevity on T-Mac but like I explained above I care more about peak. Pierce was a better 2-way player which is another big priority for me. You could put him ahead of those guys at 8 and I wouldn't mind though. He is my #11. But he was a great player of course. It's just not everyone could be included.

More-Than-Most
09-08-2016, 11:33 PM
you'll be hard pressed to find many people that believe a second year pro in lebron was better than a prime kobe in 04. an argument could be made later perhaps closer to 07

its because people are stupid... lebron was better on both sides of the ball and all around :shrug:

We are talking one of the best defenders in basketball.. Kobe at that time was also an ok defender but lebron his 2nd year in the league was already an all around monster and better than Kobe... The year Kobe won his MVP lebron should have been the one to win it as well. Its not hate... I have Kobe top 8 and fully understand where sammy is coming from now because of the Games played but what years were Kobe better than Lebron from 04 on?

Shammyguy3
09-08-2016, 11:39 PM
its because people are stupid... lebron was better on both sides of the ball and all around :shrug:

We are talking one of the best defenders in basketball.. Kobe at that time was also an ok defender but lebron his 2nd year in the league was already an all around monster and better than Kobe... The year Kobe won his MVP lebron should have been the one to win it as well. Its not hate... I have Kobe top 8 and fully understand where sammy is coming from now because of the Games played but what years were Kobe better than Lebron from 04 on?

Lebron did not become that good defensively until Miami actually. Kobe was always overrated defensively.
Also the year Kobe won, Chris Paul should have won the MVP in my opinion.

So that's another guy i kinda forgot, Chris Paul. However, he only played four seasons during this time frame so i can't put him ahead of everyone already mentioned (although i definitely take him ahead of Iverson)

Pfeifer
09-08-2016, 11:48 PM
I just thought those other 10 HOFers were better. He had longevity on T-Mac but like I explained above I care more about peak. Pierce was a better 2-way player which is another big priority for me. You could put him ahead of those guys at 8 and I wouldn't mind though. He is my #11. But he was a great player of course. It's just not everyone could be included.

All you care about is peak but Nash doesnt make it? Back to back MVP? Nash was near unstoppable for 3-4 years. Just my opinion.

More-Than-Most
09-09-2016, 12:54 AM
Lebron did not become that good defensively until Miami actually. Kobe was always overrated defensively.
Also the year Kobe won, Chris Paul should have won the MVP in my opinion.

So that's another guy i kinda forgot, Chris Paul. However, he only played four seasons during this time frame so i can't put him ahead of everyone already mentioned (although i definitely take him ahead of Iverson)

Lebrons defense became better with the heat because he finally got help... Early on with the cavs that team was horrid on both sides of the ball. CP3 could be argued for as MVP that year as well but the best player in basketball from a statistical stand point was lebron if I am not mistaken.

Dade County
09-09-2016, 01:05 AM
Shaq
Lebron
Duncan
Kobe
KG
Dirk
Wade
Kidd
T-Mac
Pierce

Nice...

Shaq
Timmy
Lbj
Kobe
KG
Wade
Dirk
Iverson
T Mac

Shammyguy3
09-09-2016, 01:06 AM
Lebrons defense became better with the heat because he finally got help... Early on with the cavs that team was horrid on both sides of the ball. CP3 could be argued for as MVP that year as well but the best player in basketball from a statistical stand point was lebron if I am not mistaken.

I'm not following the logic there. Just because someone's team defense is bad doesn't mean that a player gets a pass on not being good defensively. Now, Lebron was average to good defensively in Cleveland but he really didn't become the monster defensively until the years 2010-2013/14.

It helps if you have other offensive options, so Lebron can focus more energy on defense. Yes. But, i don't think Lebron realized his true potential defensively until Bosh moved to the 5 and Lebron could utilize his speed against 4s more than before.


Chris Paul was Lebron's equal that year statistically
Lebron: 10.1 VORP, 11.2 BPM, 0.242 WS/48, 29.1 PER ... 30.0/7.2/7.9 1.8 steals
C. Paul: 8.5 VORP, 9.2 BPM, 0.284 WS/48, 28.3 PER ... 21.1/11.6/4.0 2.7 steals

Lebron was best in VORP, BPM, PER and fifth best in WS/48.
CP3 was the best in WS/48 and second best in VORP, BPM, PER

considering what each player did with their teams,
CLE - 45-37 with Ilgauskas, Boobie Gibson, Devin Brown, Drew Gooden, and Larry Hughes/Ben Wallace as support
NOH - 56-26 with West, Chandler, Peja, Peterson, Pargo as support

they're on the same pedestal to me, but i would've given CP3 the edge for taking a similar team from 2007 and improving them by 17 wins. But yes you're right, Lebron overall was more or less the better player from a statistical standpoint

DanG
09-09-2016, 07:09 AM
Why Kobe ahead of bron? Asking honestly... Kobe has more years I guess but James was the better player from 04-09

That should more than make up for 3 extra seasons Kobe has over Lebron when Kobe became great.

You would take a 20 year old LeBron over a prime Kobe who has 3 championship experiences? Lol.

04-09 Kobe was just a killer. LeBron may have better stats, but that just isn't everything. Game 4 this years finals LeBron put up 25/13/9 on 52%, but he played BAD. Look what happened in 2010 against Dallas, LeBron just didn't have it. Kobe is the better player to have in the playoffs 2004-2009 and LeBron has been the best player since 2010.

DanG
09-09-2016, 07:29 AM
lol in what world was Kobe the best player in any year let alone that year? Maybe an argument for his MVP year but outside of that he was never the best player and that year he was good but not great

So Kobe has only one year where he has an argument for the best player in the game?

Again, stats don't tell you ****. Look what happened in the finals this year. Steph might have had the best regular season ever stat wise, but no one thinks he's the best player. LeBron was a kid compared to Kobe throughout 2004-2009. Kobe was a far more experienced and skilled player. 2005-2009 give me Kobe over any player

DanG
09-09-2016, 07:35 AM
Man all these VORPS and BPM and WS are just so funny.

Curry 15-16

PER 31.5
TS%. .669
WS/48 .318
ORtg 125

LeBron
PER 27.5
TS% .588
WS/48 .242
ORtg 116

Is Steph better than LeBron? No

Are these stats pretty meaningless? Yes

warfelg
09-09-2016, 08:39 AM
Nice...

Shaq
Timmy
Lbj
Kobe
KG
Wade
Dirk
Iverson
T Mac

Thank you. I dunno why he's so disrespected when it comes to "looking back". Pound for pound one of the best ever. If he was 6'4" rather than 5'10.5" he would have been held in much higher regard.

MJL80
09-09-2016, 09:45 AM
Thank you. I dunno why he's so disrespected when it comes to "looking back". Pound for pound one of the best ever. If he was 6'4" rather than 5'10.5" he would have been held in much higher regard.

Agreed. I went through all of the comments in here to see how long it took for someone to mention AI's name. He was awesome, and so much fun to watch.

warfelg
09-09-2016, 11:00 AM
Agreed. I went through all of the comments in here to see how long it took for someone to mention AI's name. He was awesome, and so much fun to watch.

I'm not even saying he's number 1 by any stretch. But to see him dismissed as one of the top 10 players of the 2000's (especially with the reasoning one person used) is disturbing.

Shammyguy3
09-09-2016, 11:54 AM
Thank you. I dunno why he's so disrespected when it comes to "looking back". Pound for pound one of the best ever. If he was 6'4" rather than 5'10.5" he would have been held in much higher regard.

Pound for pound, yeah he may be one of the best ever. But that doesn't mean anything to me because he wasn't that good. If he was 6'4" no doubt he probably would have been a lot better. That doesn't mean he gets a pass and should have his name on anyone's list though

cmellofan15
09-09-2016, 12:09 PM
Man all these VORPS and BPM and WS are just so funny.

Curry 15-16

PER 31.5
TS%. .669
WS/48 .318
ORtg 125

LeBron
PER 27.5
TS% .588
WS/48 .242
ORtg 116

Is Steph better than LeBron? No

Are these stats pretty meaningless? Yes

LMAO this is a joke right? the starts aren't meaningless, you just failed to put them in context.

those stats show Steph had one of the best regular seasons ever while lebron coasted. of course in the playoffs lebron showed his dominance, and guess what....the stats prove that Lebron was better. wow, it's crazy how stats can be meaningful!

warfelg
09-09-2016, 12:24 PM
Pound for pound, yeah he may be one of the best ever. But that doesn't mean anything to me because he wasn't that good. If he was 6'4" no doubt he probably would have been a lot better. That doesn't mean he gets a pass and should have his name on anyone's list though

Sucked so much he got in the hall of fame right?

Also your first two sentences negate each other. You can't say pound for pound one of the best but he wasn't that good.

Shammyguy3
09-09-2016, 12:34 PM
Sucked so much he got in the hall of fame right?

Also your first two sentences negate each other. You can't say pound for pound one of the best but he wasn't that good.

I think Iverson was a joy to watch for fans, and he really loved the game so him being in the hall of fame doesn't necessarily bother me, it's just that he's one of the most overrated hall of famers.

And they don't negate each other actually. I could say my 10 year old cousin is pound for pound the best 10 year old i've ever seen, but that doesn't make him good when comparing to everybody else that plays.

Vee-Rex
09-09-2016, 01:03 PM
its because people are stupid... lebron was better on both sides of the ball and all around :shrug:

We are talking one of the best defenders in basketball.. Kobe at that time was also an ok defender but lebron his 2nd year in the league was already an all around monster and better than Kobe... The year Kobe won his MVP lebron should have been the one to win it as well. Its not hate... I have Kobe top 8 and fully understand where sammy is coming from now because of the Games played but what years were Kobe better than Lebron from 04 on?

I'm gonna assume by '04 you are not talking about LeBron's rookie year, and instead talking about the '04-05 season.

Anyway, I think it's debatable. I'm not sure even LeBron thought he was better than Kobe at the time. LeBron's stats aren't that much better at all if you look at per36 numbers, because he was logging 42.5mpg at the time (23/6/6 vs. Kobe's 24/5/5 per36). LeBron's advanced statistics were also a bit better too, but not overwhelming so.

Idk if you were a basketball fan back then but the vast majority believed Kobe was better at the time, and understandably so. LeBron's scoring repertoire was a bit limited and his tendency to cause turnovers was much higher than Kobe's in that time period (though Kobe had a rough year in 04-05 in those regards), whereas Kobe was already a multiple champion and renowned for his ability to carry a team.

Lowry (as an example) had better regular season numbers than Irving, yet it seems Irving is preferred amongst the majority. It's just one of those situations where you think outside the stat box a little bit.

With all that said, I will reiterate that I think it's debatable on who was better, but I'd lean towards Kobe 'til like the 05-06 or 06-07 season minimally.

Tony_Starks
09-09-2016, 01:34 PM
Kobe
Shaq
Timmy
Lebron
KG
Wade
Dirk
Iverson
Ray Allen
T Mac

* honorable mention Jason Kidd, who may seem like a stretch from a stat sheet perspective, but was one of the best all around leaders in the game during that time.

mrblisterdundee
09-09-2016, 01:59 PM
I take into account usage rate in my rankings. All these guys were the most or second-most important players on their team. But depending on what their front offices and coaches did, they had greater or lesser chances to be prolific.

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaquille O'Neal
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Kevin Garnett
5. Steve Nash
6. Jason Kidd
7. LeBron James
8. Allen Iverson
9. Dwyane Wade
10. Dirk Nowitzki

Honorable Mentions: Paul Pierce, Tracy McGrady, Ben Wallace

Shammyguy3
09-09-2016, 02:26 PM
Kobe
Shaq
Timmy
Lebron
KG
Wade
Dirk
Iverson
Ray Allen
T Mac

* honorable mention Jason Kidd, who may seem like a stretch from a stat sheet perspective, but was one of the best all around leaders in the game during that time.


I take into account usage rate in my rankings. All these guys were the most or second-most important players on their team. But depending on what their front offices and coaches did, they had greater or lesser chances to be prolific.

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaquille O'Neal
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Kevin Garnett
5. Steve Nash
6. Jason Kidd
7. LeBron James
8. Allen Iverson
9. Dwyane Wade
10. Dirk Nowitzki

Honorable Mentions: Paul Pierce, Tracy McGrady, Ben Wallace


i was wondering if those two guys would be brought up

mrblisterdundee
09-09-2016, 03:34 PM
i was wondering if those two guys would be brought up

Wallace was such a defensive stalwart, I had to bring him into the picture. I should have also included Dwight Howard as an honorable mention. He was basically Wallace with more offense.

Tony_Starks
09-09-2016, 07:02 PM
i was wondering if those two guys would be brought up


I slept on Big Ben. Defensively he had a run of dominance for a while.

I'm surprised more didn't mention Ray. He proved it all from being a superstar, to fitting in amongst other stars, to being a "role player."

AND he lived for the playoffs, a big part of 2 championships.

Shammyguy3
09-09-2016, 07:22 PM
I slept on Big Ben. Defensively he had a run of dominance for a while.

I'm surprised more didn't mention Ray. He proved it all from being a superstar, to fitting in amongst other stars, to being a "role player."

AND he lived for the playoffs, a big part of 2 championships.

this is only about the 2000s though, so those don't really help

Chronz
09-09-2016, 07:26 PM
I hate how much you guys value longevity over actually being the better player

Shammyguy3
09-09-2016, 07:46 PM
I hate how much you guys value longevity over actually being the better player

at some point there is a line though, where an extended damn good prime and longevity overcome a short-lived one; take for instance, John Stockton and Chris Paul. CP3's prime is/was better, but Stockton's was close enough that his superior longevity takes the edge.

Not a perfect analogy because Paul is still playing, but whatevs

Bruno
09-09-2016, 09:24 PM
in terms of pure basketball impact over the ten seasons:

KG
Duncan
Kobe
Shaq
James
Dirk

Kidd
Pierce
Wallace

5-6 guys all have arguments around the 10 range.

Outside of 2008, he never had the right team. but if we strip away all team context, team success and make it about pure impact on the court KG is as an individual is almost untouchable. his prime took up the entire decade, missed no seasons in discussion and was probably the best two way player.

if you mix in team success Kobe, Duncan and Shaq are all ahead of him. I think it's these four then everybody else no matter what metrics you're using. James and Shaq are at the disadvantage because they are players whose primes crossed decades. Kobe, KG and Duncan had their entire primes during the decade, huge advantage in this comparison. If were talking about peak incarnation irrelevant of how long it was sustained, McGrady flys up the list, the only wing other than Kobe and James who can even challenge the bigs imo. Pierce was close.

JordansBulls
09-09-2016, 09:42 PM
When did VORP come out? It has to have been the past 2 years.

IKnowHoops
09-09-2016, 10:41 PM
Man all these VORPS and BPM and WS are just so funny.

Curry 15-16

PER 31.5
TS%. .669
WS/48 .318
ORtg 125

LeBron
PER 27.5
TS% .588
WS/48 .242
ORtg 116

Is Steph better than LeBron? No

Are these stats pretty meaningless? Yes

Well Lebron doesn't try in the regular season, and Steph did play out of his mind to get these stats. If both kept this up in the playoffs, we could say that Steph was better, but Steph on a stacked team got somewhat shut down against the Cavs, and Lebron was Lebron so...

IKnowHoops
09-09-2016, 10:43 PM
I take into account usage rate in my rankings. All these guys were the most or second-most important players on their team. But depending on what their front offices and coaches did, they had greater or lesser chances to be prolific.

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaquille O'Neal
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Kevin Garnett
5. Steve Nash
6. Jason Kidd
7. LeBron James
8. Allen Iverson
9. Dwyane Wade
10. Dirk Nowitzki

Honorable Mentions: Paul Pierce, Tracy McGrady, Ben Wallace

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::l augh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::la ugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::lau gh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laug h::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh ::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::l augh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::la ugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

IKnowHoops
09-09-2016, 10:55 PM
I think Iverson was a joy to watch for fans, and he really loved the game so him being in the hall of fame doesn't necessarily bother me, it's just that he's one of the most overrated hall of famers.

And they don't negate each other actually. I could say my 10 year old cousin is pound for pound the best 10 year old i've ever seen, but that doesn't make him good when comparing to everybody else that plays.


Iverson did more with the sixers than Nash did with a stacked Suns. From a PER perspective he got 2 years better than either Stockton or Nash. He's underrated and these two are overrated. Nash never should of won a d--- MVP. Shaq agrees with me on both fronts. If you asked Shaq, he'd say Iverson was better than both and he played against all of them.

IKnowHoops
09-09-2016, 11:00 PM
1. Lebron
2. Shaq
3. Duncan
4. KG
5. Wade
6. Tmac
7. Kobe
8. Iverson
9. Dirk
10. Pierce
11. Ray Allen

JordansBulls
09-09-2016, 11:02 PM
1. Lebron
2. Shaq
3. Duncan
4. KG
5. Wade
6. Tmac
7. Kobe
8. Iverson
9. Dirk
10. Pierce
11. Ray Allen

There is no way in hell Lebron was #1 thru 2009 when he had no titles and just got his 1st MVP. He has 4 less seasons than any of them.

Shaq, Duncan, Kobe and maybe even KG would be ahead of him for sure and probably even Wade who led a team to a title.

FlashBolt
09-09-2016, 11:06 PM
Tim Duncan is a clear #1 here IMO.

Duncan
Kobe
Shaq
LeBron
Dirk
Wade
Garnett
Nash
Melo
Kidd

There is zero chance LeBron stays over Kobe. His best years were 10-16. 03-09, he was a statistical genius but I think we can all agree he was still undeveloped.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shammyguy3
09-09-2016, 11:14 PM
Iverson did more with the sixers than Nash did with a stacked Suns. From a PER perspective he got 2 years better than either Stockton or Nash. He's underrated and these two are overrated. Nash never should of won a d--- MVP. Shaq agrees with me on both fronts. If you asked Shaq, he'd say Iverson was better than both and he played against all of them.


No he didn't. Steve Nash is a farrrrrrrrrrrrrrr superior player. Just because the 76ers made the Finals doesn't mean Iverson did more with them than Nash did.

PER favors high volume players, give me every single other statistical category that favors Nash.


I don't care what Shaq says, Jordan thought Adam Morrison and Kwame Brown were great picks.

europagnpilgrim
09-10-2016, 12:42 AM
i was conflicted with that, Lebron has a slight edge in certain statistics, but he only played in 472 games in the regular season and 60 in the playoffs. Kobe on the other hand played in 798 games and 155 playoff games. To me, that makes a big enough difference for Kobe to go ahead for the 2000s.

Regular Season
Kobe: 28.2/5.5/5.2 113 ORtg 55.8ts% 24.3 PER 0.196 WS/48 5.0 BPM 55.0 VORP
Lebron: 27.5/7.0/6.7 113 ORtg 55.5ts% 26.2 PER 0.213 WS/48 8.5 BPM 50.7 VORP

Playoffs
Kobe: 27.2/5.9/5.2 110 ORtg 54.0ts% 22.5 PER 0.163 WS/48 4.8 BPM 11.3 VORP
Lebron: 29.4/8.3/7.3 113 ORtg 55.3ts% 26.8 PER 0.226 WS/48 10.9 BPM 8.6 VORP

i don't think it's wrong putting Lebron ahead of Kobe, because he was the better player. However, he played in slightly more than half the games.




Scoring titles mean nothing to me if you jack your way to them. All-star MVPs mean less than nothing to me. It's an exhibition game that nobody cares about actually competing in until maybe the last quarter if that. His MVP was worse than Rose's 2011 MVP, there were a good deal number of players way superior to him. His NBA teams came in a time where we didn't know how bad scoring 32 points on 29 shots was.



Paul Pierce can definitely go up there you're right

The Answer jacked up shots for the sake of jacking up shots or because his core of Mckie/Snow were not capable of getting 20ppg each? or was Ratliff? true ball players knew(and highly respected him for that) he had to jack up 25 shots per game just to keep his team in contention, he wasn't taking shots away from all star/nba caliber players, he was making up the attempts by playing with guys who avg 3-5ppg prior to teaming up with him, Mckie won 6th man by avg. barely 12ppg so that should tell you something about the offensive makeup of that team, poor is a understatement

and from watching past all star games usually the top players from each era took mvp home or more, but I guess since its the Answer we have to make reasons why it doesn't matter

and his NBA mvp wasn't a fluke at all since he did finish I think runner up to Shaq in 00' season, and to even put that type of pressure on a PG to shoot that much is just stupid and shows the lack of offensive he had for his core years with Snow/Mckie as mates(7yrs out of his 10 1/2 seasons there), if anything they wasted his best years and he could have snagged a possible nba title and maybe one more league mvp had that Tmac for Hughes trade went through in 99' season, and had he jacked up 29 shots playing with Tmac then you would have a valid point to stand on

The Answer was easily top 10 of that era, from 96-08' he was top 10 on solo level rather you liked his style or not

europagnpilgrim
09-10-2016, 12:47 AM
No he didn't. Steve Nash is a farrrrrrrrrrrrrrr superior player. Just because the 76ers made the Finals doesn't mean Iverson did more with them than Nash did.

PER favors high volume players, give me every single other statistical category that favors Nash.


I don't care what Shaq says, Jordan thought Adam Morrison and Kwame Brown were great picks.

you wouldn't care what a player says who actually went to battle against those players and Shaq actually played with Nash so wouldn't that give Nash the bias favor treatment?

Shaq has The Answer in his top 6 players ever to do it, but it doesn't mean much since Jordan thought Morrison and Kwame were great picks which has nothing to do with what Shaq said

Morrison was good in college and I imagine Brown was good in HS
The Answer was special transcendent talent in college/HS/nba, big difference

europagnpilgrim
09-10-2016, 12:53 AM
at some point there is a line though, where an extended damn good prime and longevity overcome a short-lived one; take for instance, John Stockton and Chris Paul. CP3's prime is/was better, but Stockton's was close enough that his superior longevity takes the edge.

Not a perfect analogy because Paul is still playing, but whatevs

I'd take CP3 over Stockton and not even blink, CP3 is better player regardless of a prime or longevity

Shammyguy3
09-10-2016, 01:15 AM
The Answer jacked up shots for the sake of jacking up shots or because his core of Mckie/Snow were not capable of getting 20ppg each? or was Ratliff? true ball players knew(and highly respected him for that) he had to jack up 25 shots per game just to keep his team in contention

I contend against this. The 76ers front office knew the type of ball-dominant player Iverson. So while his teammates didn't help him, he was actually part of that problem.

And just because a player HAD to take all of those shots, doesn't mean that he gets a pass for being awful efficiency wise.

If you take Iverson off of that team, but put in
Ray Allen
Dwyane Wade
Steve Nash
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce

not only would those guys be more efficient than Iverson taking the same scoring load, they would make the offense as a whole more efficient too. Which is why Iverson is not in my top-10 list in this thread, and why he is so overrated.


he wasn't taking shots away from all star/nba caliber players, he was making up the attempts by playing with guys who avg 3-5ppg prior to teaming up with him, Mckie won 6th man by avg. barely 12ppg so that should tell you something about the offensive makeup of that team, poor is a understatement

It was a poorly constructed offensive unit, yes. But as I said above, a lot of stars of the 00s could be put in Iverson's place and they would produce better and the offense as a whole would be more efficient.


and from watching past all star games usually the top players from each era took mvp home or more, but I guess since its the Answer we have to make reasons why it doesn't matter

and his NBA mvp wasn't a fluke at all since he did finish I think runner up to Shaq in 00' season, and to even put that type of pressure on a PG to shoot that much is just stupid and shows the lack of offensive he had for his core years with Snow/Mckie as mates(7yrs out of his 10 1/2 seasons there), if anything they wasted his best years and he could have snagged a possible nba title and maybe one more league mvp had that Tmac for Hughes trade went through in 99' season, and had he jacked up 29 shots playing with Tmac then you would have a valid point to stand on

The Answer was easily top 10 of that era, from 96-08' he was top 10 on solo level rather you liked his style or not

All-star MVP does not matter. It is an exhibition game, a SINGLE game where nobody tries like they would if it was an actual game (or a playoff game for that matter).

I put literally zero stock in all-star game MVPs.

Iverson won the MVP in 2001, his next best outing was 4th place in 1999. And in that 1999 season, there were a lot more than 3 players that had better seasons
Robinson
Shaq
Malone
Mourning
Duncan
Hill
Kidd

just with a quick glance back to that season.

mrblisterdundee
09-10-2016, 01:29 AM
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::l augh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::la ugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::lau gh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laug h::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh ::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::l augh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::la ugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

?

More-Than-Most
09-10-2016, 02:28 AM
I'm gonna assume by '04 you are not talking about LeBron's rookie year, and instead talking about the '04-05 season.

Anyway, I think it's debatable. I'm not sure even LeBron thought he was better than Kobe at the time. LeBron's stats aren't that much better at all if you look at per36 numbers, because he was logging 42.5mpg at the time (23/6/6 vs. Kobe's 24/5/5 per36). LeBron's advanced statistics were also a bit better too, but not overwhelming so.

Idk if you were a basketball fan back then but the vast majority believed Kobe was better at the time, and understandably so. LeBron's scoring repertoire was a bit limited and his tendency to cause turnovers was much higher than Kobe's in that time period (though Kobe had a rough year in 04-05 in those regards), whereas Kobe was already a multiple champion and renowned for his ability to carry a team.

Lowry (as an example) had better regular season numbers than Irving, yet it seems Irving is preferred amongst the majority. It's just one of those situations where you think outside the stat box a little bit.

With all that said, I will reiterate that I think it's debatable on who was better, but I'd lean towards Kobe 'til like the 05-06 or 06-07 season minimally.

You mean that same time where everyone thought Iverson was the best basketball player in the world? Or fast forward a few years later where Nash/Wiiliams were the best PG in basketball ahead of CP3 who was a 2 way monster and the 2nd best player in basketball behind only Lebron but the vast majority would still have taken Kobe over him as well? How about now when the vast majority would take about 5-7 centers ahead of towns? Being the better 2 way player and being the more popular 2 way player are 2 very different things... From 04-05 on Lebron James was the better 2 way player over Kobe.... Kobes longevity is what makes him a top 8 player all time but Longevity is not enough to put him over Lebron in the 2000s because of how insanely rediculous lebron was on both sides of the floor with utter trash around him.

What team did Kobe exactly carry? He was a champion but again what did he carry? Until they got gifted Gasol in a horseshit trade that Kobe was trying to GTFO of town and get himself a contending team because he couldn't carry teams.

Kobe had 1 season where you can argue him as the best player in basketball and In that year Lebron and CP3 were in fact better and the actual MVPs. Why is so many people so wrapped up in longevity over this span? Kobe had a few more years over Lebron to help keep him in the argument but are we really going to settle for that when the other player was more of a force and all around better in lesser years and more than made up for those few years in a 6 year span?

IKnowHoops
09-10-2016, 04:30 AM
No he didn't. Steve Nash is a farrrrrrrrrrrrrrr superior player. Just because the 76ers made the Finals doesn't mean Iverson did more with them than Nash did.

PER favors high volume players, give me every single other statistical category that favors Nash.


I don't care what Shaq says, Jordan thought Adam Morrison and Kwame Brown were great picks.

Not after playing with them or seeing them play in the NBA. Comparing unproven draft pick guesses, to hindsight makes no sense at all. Shaq actually got to feel the effect both had on the game. Iverson could do more than either John or Nash.

IKnowHoops
09-10-2016, 04:39 AM
I contend against this. The 76ers front office knew the type of ball-dominant player Iverson. So while his teammates didn't help him, he was actually part of that problem.

And just because a player HAD to take all of those shots, doesn't mean that he gets a pass for being awful efficiency wise.

If you take Iverson off of that team, but put in
Ray Allen
Dwyane Wade
Steve Nash
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce

not only would those guys be more efficient than Iverson taking the same scoring load, they would make the offense as a whole more efficient too. Which is why Iverson is not in my top-10 list in this thread, and why he is so overrated.




It was a poorly constructed offensive unit, yes. But as I said above, a lot of stars of the 00s could be put in Iverson's place and they would produce better and the offense as a whole would be more efficient.



All-star MVP does not matter. It is an exhibition game, a SINGLE game where nobody tries like they would if it was an actual game (or a playoff game for that matter).

I put literally zero stock in all-star game MVPs.

Iverson won the MVP in 2001, his next best outing was 4th place in 1999. And in that 1999 season, there were a lot more than 3 players that had better seasons
Robinson
Shaq
Malone
Mourning
Duncan
Hill
Kidd

just with a quick glance back to that season.

Accept Wade is the only one of those players who could of willed that team to the finals, and probably not even Wade. Iverson had a motor that not even young Lebron had. That also counts for a lot. to be able to go 100% full tilt for a whole game.

YAALREADYKNO
09-10-2016, 09:31 AM
I contend against this. The 76ers front office knew the type of ball-dominant player Iverson. So while his teammates didn't help him, he was actually part of that problem.

And just because a player HAD to take all of those shots, doesn't mean that he gets a pass for being awful efficiency wise.

If you take Iverson off of that team, but put in
Ray Allen
Dwyane Wade
Steve Nash
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce

not only would those guys be more efficient than Iverson taking the same scoring load, they would make the offense as a whole more efficient too. Which is why Iverson is not in my top-10 list in this thread, and why he is so overrated.



It was a poorly constructed offensive unit, yes. But as I said above, a lot of stars of the 00s could be put in Iverson's place and they would produce better and the offense as a whole would be more efficient.



All-star MVP does not matter. It is an exhibition game, a SINGLE game where nobody tries like they would if it was an actual game (or a playoff game for that matter).

I put literally zero stock in all-star game MVPs.

Iverson won the MVP in 2001, his next best outing was 4th place in 1999. And in that 1999 season, there were a lot more than 3 players that had better seasons
Robinson
Shaq
Malone
Mourning
Duncan
Hill
Kidd

just with a quick glance back to that season.

Lol I would love to see those guys you named try and do what Iverson did with that Sixers team. They'd probably be more efficient but I guarantee you they Don't get to the 01 finals. Wade is probably the only guy you can say would've had a chance with that sixers team. Y'all look way too much into FG% and all that. It would be one thing if they were losing but they didn't. Iverson as the only threat to score for the sixers got them past Carter's raptors, Miller's pacers, and Allen's bucks and stole a game from the Lakers.

warfelg
09-10-2016, 09:57 AM
Lol I would love to see those guys you named try and do what Iverson did with that Sixers team. They'd probably be more efficient but I guarantee you they Don't get to the 01 finals. Wade is probably the only guy you can say would've had a chance with that sixers team. Y'all look way too much into FG% and all that. It would be one thing if they were losing but they didn't. Iverson as the only threat to score for the sixers got them past Carter's raptors, Miller's pacers, and Allen's bucks and stole a game from the Lakers.

Funny thing: AI was a 42%+ shooter for 8/10 seasons in the 2000's. Roughly a 33% 3pt Shooter. So he wasn't even that super inefficient.

And you kings hit a key point with AI. You knew you had to stop him, but still struggled to stop him.

He also said AIs 2000 MVP wasn't great. Here's the results:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2001.html
Apparently Duncan having 22/12/2blocks or Shaqs 29/13 wasn't that good either. Iverson was a 31 PPG, 5 apg, 4 RPG, 2.5 steals per game. Most years that Duncan or Shaq line would get the MVP but AI was just that awesome.

Shammyguy3
09-10-2016, 10:33 AM
Funny thing: AI was a 42%+ shooter for 8/10 seasons in the 2000's. Roughly a 33% 3pt Shooter. So he wasn't even that super inefficient.

And you kings hit a key point with AI. You knew you had to stop him, but still struggled to stop him.

He also said AIs 2000 MVP wasn't great. Here's the results:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2001.html
Apparently Duncan having 22/12/2blocks or Shaqs 29/13 wasn't that good either. Iverson was a 31 PPG, 5 apg, 4 RPG, 2.5 steals per game. Most years that Duncan or Shaq line would get the MVP but AI was just that awesome.

Iverson needed 25.5 shots and 10.1 free throws and 3.3 turnovers to score only 31.1 points. Something like 33 possessions. 106 ORtg. Which is good, not spectacular.


Duncan needed 17.1 shots and 8.1 free throws and 3.0 turnovers to score 22.2 points. Something like 24 possessions. 106 ORtg. Which is good, not spectacular. However, with Duncan he also gave you ELITE defense. Something Iverson could never do.


Shaq only needed 19.2 shots and 13.1 free throws and 2.9 turnovers to score 28.7 points. Something like, 28 possessions. 114 ORtg. Which is, spectacular. And he gave you very good defense too.


You know what's funny to me, is that many have claims that the games show you everything you need to know. Well, there are 82 games in a regular season. For all of the teams in the game, that means there are 1230 regular season games. 48 minutes a game, meaning to actually watch all of the games you are spending over 59,000 minutes on it.

And that's if you remember literally everything you've ever seen in the games, not just one player but watching all 10 guys on the court and how they feed off of each other's picks, how they cover pick & rolls and what their defense is supposed to do.

Not a single person has true, factual memories. Here's a link for a study done by Northwestern: (http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2012/09/your-memory-is-like-the-telephone-game.html)

"Every time you remember an event from the past, your brain networks change in ways that can alter the later recall of the event. Thus, the next time you remember it, you might recall not the original event but what you remembered the previous time. The Northwestern study is the first to show this.

“A memory is not simply an image produced by time traveling back to the original event -- it can be an image that is somewhat distorted because of the prior times you remembered it,” said Donna Bridge, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and lead author of the paper on the study recently published in the Journal of Neuroscience. “Your memory of an event can grow less precise even to the point of being totally false with each retrieval.

“Our findings show that incorrect recollection of the object’s location on day two influenced how people remembered the object’s location on day three,” Bridge explained. “Retrieving the memory didn’t simply reinforce the original association. Rather, it altered memory storage to reinforce the location that was recalled at session two.”

Bridge’s findings also were supported when she measured participants’ neural signals --the electrical activity of the brain -- during session two. She wanted to see if the neural signals during session two predicted anything about how people remembered the object’s location during session three.

The results revealed a particular electrical signal when people were recalling an object location during session two. This signal was greater when -- the next day -- the object was placed close to that location recalled during session two. When the electrical signal was weaker, recall of the object location was likely to be less distorted.

“The strong signal seems to indicate that a new memory was being laid down,” Bridge said, “and the new memory caused a bias to make the same mistake again.”





So, does anyone feel confident that watching even 150 TOTAL games in the NBA season, with zero distractions (no dogs barking, phone ringing, parents talking, girlfriend walking around naked, feeding a baby, cooking dinner), they have a good idea of what actually happened? If you have watched 150 games, which is a lot to be sure, you have only watched 7,200 minutes of NBA basketball. Which is only 12.2% of the entire NBA season.

So, go ahead and bet your money on your memory, which even perfect remembers only 12.2% of the NBA. Go ahead and double down on those faded, distorted, potentially completely inaccurate memories from 15 years ago (when some of you may have been in grammar school or high school like me)

I sure as heck will not.

Vee-Rex
09-10-2016, 10:39 AM
You mean that same time where everyone thought Iverson was the best basketball player in the world? Or fast forward a few years later where Nash/Wiiliams were the best PG in basketball ahead of CP3 who was a 2 way monster and the 2nd best player in basketball behind only Lebron but the vast majority would still have taken Kobe over him as well? How about now when the vast majority would take about 5-7 centers ahead of towns? Being the better 2 way player and being the more popular 2 way player are 2 very different things... From 04-05 on Lebron James was the better 2 way player over Kobe.... Kobes longevity is what makes him a top 8 player all time but Longevity is not enough to put him over Lebron in the 2000s because of how insanely rediculous lebron was on both sides of the floor with utter trash around him.

What team did Kobe exactly carry? He was a champion but again what did he carry? Until they got gifted Gasol in a horseshit trade that Kobe was trying to GTFO of town and get himself a contending team because he couldn't carry teams.

Kobe had 1 season where you can argue him as the best player in basketball and In that year Lebron and CP3 were in fact better and the actual MVPs. Why is so many people so wrapped up in longevity over this span? Kobe had a few more years over Lebron to help keep him in the argument but are we really going to settle for that when the other player was more of a force and all around better in lesser years and more than made up for those few years in a 6 year span?

I'm just saying the '04-05 season and perhaps the '05-06 season to a lesser extent were debatable on who was better, if you look at per36 numbers vs. raw averages. No need to get bent out of shape about it.

Your only argument are statistics and per36 shows two players that are closer than one would originally think. If you want to believe that LeBron was anywhere near the on/off-court leader in his 2nd year than Kobe was in his 8th/9th year then I don't know what to say.

There's a couple people on this site that are not worth responding to and it usually involves some sort of absurd, unconditional bias towards individual players. If you absolutely cannot accept that an argument can be made for Kobe being better than LeBron in the 2004-05 season then I'm done responding to you.

Anyway, Duncan should absolutely be the unanimous #1 choice in this thread here. Rings, stats, leadership, he excelled at all of it in the 2000's.

IKnowHoops
09-10-2016, 11:12 AM
Iverson needed 25.5 shots and 10.1 free throws and 3.3 turnovers to score only 31.1 points. Something like 33 possessions. 106 ORtg. Which is good, not spectacular.


Duncan needed 17.1 shots and 8.1 free throws and 3.0 turnovers to score 22.2 points. Something like 24 possessions. 106 ORtg. Which is good, not spectacular. However, with Duncan he also gave you ELITE defense. Something Iverson could never do.


Shaq only needed 19.2 shots and 13.1 free throws and 2.9 turnovers to score 28.7 points. Something like, 28 possessions. 114 ORtg. Which is, spectacular. And he gave you very good defense too.


You know what's funny to me, is that many have claims that the games show you everything you need to know. Well, there are 82 games in a regular season. For all of the teams in the game, that means there are 1230 regular season games. 48 minutes a game, meaning to actually watch all of the games you are spending over 59,000 minutes on it.

And that's if you remember literally everything you've ever seen in the games, not just one player but watching all 10 guys on the court and how they feed off of each other's picks, how they cover pick & rolls and what their defense is supposed to do.

Not a single person has true, factual memories. Here's a link for a study done by Northwestern: (http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2012/09/your-memory-is-like-the-telephone-game.html)

"Every time you remember an event from the past, your brain networks change in ways that can alter the later recall of the event. Thus, the next time you remember it, you might recall not the original event but what you remembered the previous time. The Northwestern study is the first to show this.

“A memory is not simply an image produced by time traveling back to the original event -- it can be an image that is somewhat distorted because of the prior times you remembered it,” said Donna Bridge, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and lead author of the paper on the study recently published in the Journal of Neuroscience. “Your memory of an event can grow less precise even to the point of being totally false with each retrieval.

“Our findings show that incorrect recollection of the object’s location on day two influenced how people remembered the object’s location on day three,” Bridge explained. “Retrieving the memory didn’t simply reinforce the original association. Rather, it altered memory storage to reinforce the location that was recalled at session two.”

Bridge’s findings also were supported when she measured participants’ neural signals --the electrical activity of the brain -- during session two. She wanted to see if the neural signals during session two predicted anything about how people remembered the object’s location during session three.

The results revealed a particular electrical signal when people were recalling an object location during session two. This signal was greater when -- the next day -- the object was placed close to that location recalled during session two. When the electrical signal was weaker, recall of the object location was likely to be less distorted.

“The strong signal seems to indicate that a new memory was being laid down,” Bridge said, “and the new memory caused a bias to make the same mistake again.”





So, does anyone feel confident that watching even 150 TOTAL games in the NBA season, with zero distractions (no dogs barking, phone ringing, parents talking, girlfriend walking around naked, feeding a baby, cooking dinner), they have a good idea of what actually happened? If you have watched 150 games, which is a lot to be sure, you have only watched 7,200 minutes of NBA basketball. Which is only 12.2% of the entire NBA season.

So, go ahead and bet your money on your memory, which even perfect remembers only 12.2% of the NBA. Go ahead and double down on those faded, distorted, potentially completely inaccurate memories from 15 years ago (when some of you may have been in grammar school or high school like me)

I sure as heck will not.

This is overkill. Its not just memory of game, but memory of the NBA landscape. Iverson scarred the opponent. Teams game planned to try and stop him and could not. He won a lot of games playing the way he did. Discounting that every single player in the NBA thought he was an MVP, and at the same time very few NBA players thought Nash deserved the NBA is way more telling than your opinion. If you look at game film, Iverson had one of the most ridiculous skillets in NBA history. The things he could do, nobody else could. Did he play the game efficiently...no, but did he have the skills to do things that Nash and Stockton would have no chance at doing, Yes! No way Nash or Stockton could take that sixers team to the finals. Furthermore, if Nash or Stockton tried to score as much as Iverson and they were game planned like Iverson was, they would be lucky to shoot 30% from the field. All I need to remember is the temperature of the NBA, and I know without a doubt that AI was held in higher regard league wide than either Nash or Stockton. Much higher. Just the other day Stephen Jackson said AI was harder to guard than Curry. If Iverson wanted to just take good shots, he could average 18pts on 55% shooting, but then his teams wouldn't win anything. See how that works.

europagnpilgrim
09-10-2016, 03:51 PM
I contend against this. The 76ers front office knew the type of ball-dominant player Iverson. So while his teammates didn't help him, he was actually part of that problem.

And just because a player HAD to take all of those shots, doesn't mean that he gets a pass for being awful efficiency wise.

If you take Iverson off of that team, but put in
Ray Allen
Dwyane Wade
Steve Nash
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce

not only would those guys be more efficient than Iverson taking the same scoring load, they would make the offense as a whole more efficient too. Which is why Iverson is not in my top-10 list in this thread, and why he is so overrated.



It was a poorly constructed offensive unit, yes. But as I said above, a lot of stars of the 00s could be put in Iverson's place and they would produce better and the offense as a whole would be more efficient.



All-star MVP does not matter. It is an exhibition game, a SINGLE game where nobody tries like they would if it was an actual game (or a playoff game for that matter).

I put literally zero stock in all-star game MVPs.

Iverson won the MVP in 2001, his next best outing was 4th place in 1999. And in that 1999 season, there were a lot more than 3 players that had better seasons
Robinson
Shaq
Malone
Mourning
Duncan
Hill
Kidd

just with a quick glance back to that season.

No the front office fell apart after that Croce guy left because he would have drafted/built a serious contender around The Answer and Stern wasn't going to let that happen, being ball dominant doesn't mean you cant build a contender or do you think Jordan/Lebron are not ball dominant? like I said had they drafted the right players in 97 and 98 draft with high picks it would have been easier for him to defer, they built that team according to L Brown all defense style and not because The Answer was ball dominant, you have to be more intelligent than that to think a under 6ft guy can carry a entire offensive load or do you think The Answer was that good

if you put any of those players you listed they wouldn't have made the Finals and they wouldn't have made any teammates more efficient, they just lacked any threat outside of The Answer

R Allen had way more sheer talent and lost to the Sixers that 01' season and The Answer missed a game in that series, Nash had 100x more talent from the Mavs to the Suns and didn't reach 1 Finals so how in the hell would he fare well with a team that has no go to scorers? you can only pass so much but passing to non scorers wont amount to the assists he accumulated playing with those other teams

Wade would have done the best but I don't think they reach a Finals that year as the team was constructed

All star games mean nothing but like I said usually the best/top players win those rather you count it at face value or with a grain of salt, now go through the list of past winners of each decade/era and see if that doesn't ring a bell, efficiency means nothing when you are the only option and under 6ft and forced to shoot 30x per game, I don't see how you guys who claim to play(or know) bball don't see that, unless you guys suck at playing the game and are only good for setting screens

Shaq won 00' mvp with the only other player getting a first place vote being the Answer, then won it the following season, he was battling Duncan/Shaq/KG and other big men for mvp so that should carry some weight regardless how you feel about NBA MVP or all star game mvp

like Jordan said about The Answer in his rookie season.. ''Reminds me of myself when I first came into the league''

and since you only count the playoffs then he never folded and always showed up with his ymca type support, outside of that 08' team he played with, his team relied on him to score 40-50pts a game just to keep it close, he wasn't doing it to hinder the team like you and others feel he was doing

Stern didn't want him to succeed by any means necessary so it was a reason why that team was built like a pile of **** offensively because he would have been a problem every year had a contender been built properly in his youth like Croce would have had it done

The Answer was a PG who could fill it up and dish it with the best, and using your analogy put The Answer on that Bucks team 01' or that Mavs/Suns team that Nash ran and I guarantee they would have reach at least 1 Finals, easily

give The Answer a Shaq/Lebron like Wade had and that's Finals trips every season

he was the little version of Big Dipper, nothing more no less

only players on that list who were on his level were Hill/Shaq/Duncan

europagnpilgrim
09-10-2016, 04:09 PM
This is overkill. Its not just memory of game, but memory of the NBA landscape. Iverson scarred the opponent. Teams game planned to try and stop him and could not. He won a lot of games playing the way he did. Discounting that every single player in the NBA thought he was an MVP, and at the same time very few NBA players thought Nash deserved the NBA is way more telling than your opinion. If you look at game film, Iverson had one of the most ridiculous skillets in NBA history. The things he could do, nobody else could. Did he play the game efficiently...no, but did he have the skills to do things that Nash and Stockton would have no chance at doing, Yes! No way Nash or Stockton could take that sixers team to the finals. Furthermore, if Nash or Stockton tried to score as much as Iverson and they were game planned like Iverson was, they would be lucky to shoot 30% from the field. All I need to remember is the temperature of the NBA, and I know without a doubt that AI was held in higher regard league wide than either Nash or Stockton. Much higher. Just the other day Stephen Jackson said AI was harder to guard than Curry. If Iverson wanted to just take good shots, he could average 18pts on 55% shooting, but then his teams wouldn't win anything. See how that works.

you definitely know about hoops/bball

I have been basically saying the same thing and they just don't understand it at all and just run off the trap about efficiency and don't look at the game plan and attention paid to certain players or the surrounding talent, teams even ran a box and 1 in college against the Answer, meaning he was just that damn good

Jeffy25
09-10-2016, 05:00 PM
Give us your top 10 from the season 1999-2000 through 2008-2009

Here's mine
1. Duncan
2. Kobe
3. Shaq
4. Lebron
5. Nowitzki
6. Garnett
7. Nash
8. McGrady
9. Wade
10. Kidd



did i miss anyone? anyone have a different order?

1. Shaq
2. LeBron
3. Duncan
4. Garnett
5. Kobe and Dirk split
7. Pierce
8. Allen
9. Wade
10. Nash

McGrady, Carter, Iverson, Gasol, Ming, Howard and Malone get some honorable mention


This is challenging because of the way the years cut some guys off. LeBron didn't get going yet at the beginning of the decade. Shaq ends early, Garnett and Duncan run through it but were never really the best at any point in the decade. McGrady, Ming, Malone etc all run short but the elite talent was there.

This is a really fluid list.

warfelg
09-10-2016, 05:11 PM
you definitely know about hoops/bball

I have been basically saying the same thing and they just don't understand it at all and just run off the trap about efficiency and don't look at the game plan and attention paid to certain players or the surrounding talent, teams even ran a box and 1 in college against the Answer, meaning he was just that damn good

I think they look purely at AI, and fail to look at some of his teammates and just how bad they were offensively. And that 01 Finals team might have been the worst team of the AI era.

The one that stumped was the 03-05 era with Coleman, Van Horn, Iggy, McCullaugh, Snow, McKie. That team should have been better, but we ran into some buzz saw teams.

More-Than-Most
09-10-2016, 05:50 PM
This topic brings up an interesting Debate... Which is more important Greatness over a smaller amount of time or being very good over a longer period of time? Not just Lebron but Shaq wasnt great some years in the 2000s.... A guy like Mcgrady was magical but again injuries and so on...

To me being great over 6 years-------------> Being very good over 10 years.

Jeffy25
09-10-2016, 06:14 PM
Man all these VORPS and BPM and WS are just so funny.

Curry 15-16

PER 31.5
TS%. .669
WS/48 .318
ORtg 125

LeBron
PER 27.5
TS% .588
WS/48 .242
ORtg 116

Is Steph better than LeBron? No

Are these stats pretty meaningless? Yes

All stats do is answer a question.

And considering those stats are for the regular season, it would show Curry as the better player in the 15-16 regular season

Curry
PER - 22.4
TS% - .603
WS/48 - .152
ORtg - 109

LeBron
PER - 30.0
TS% - .585
WS/48 - .274
ORtg - 118


If you are going to misuse statistics, of course you can say they are meaningless.

Stats aren't useless. You have to know how to use them and what questions they are answering.

You posted regular season 15-16 stats, and Curry was better than LeBron in the 15-16 regular season. And LeBron was better in the playoffs.

Shammyguy3
09-10-2016, 06:15 PM
1. Shaq
2. LeBron
3. Duncan
4. Garnett
5. Kobe and Dirk split
7. Pierce
8. Allen
9. Wade
10. Nash

McGrady, Carter, Iverson, Gasol, Ming, Howard and Malone get some honorable mention


This is challenging because of the way the years cut some guys off. LeBron didn't get going yet at the beginning of the decade. Shaq ends early, Garnett and Duncan run through it but were never really the best at any point in the decade. McGrady, Ming, Malone etc all run short but the elite talent was there.

This is a really fluid list.

Pau, Yao, Carter, Dwight yeah i could see an argument for them. Karl Malone though? He only played 5 years, i completely excluded him on purpose but now that you brought him up and i looked at his numbers, he was still a monster playing 35mpg over five seasons at age 36-40

flea
09-10-2016, 06:27 PM
Duncan
Shaq
Kobe
Dirk
Lebron
KG
Nash
T-Mac
Wade
Kidd

IMO saying Lebron was better than Shaq or Duncan from 00-09 is worse than saying Michael was better than Bird and Magic from 80-89. To me it says you didn't watch the games, or you only watched the games at the very end of the decade and have a giant bias towards the youthful player who didn't win anything.

I wouldn't even consider Lebron's argument against Kobe very strong. Kobe was an elite #2 scorer on 2 championship teams, an elite #1 scorer on 1 championship, and a very good young contributor on another. Lebron's decade was a tale of dominant defenses and not enough offensive talent.

Personally I think Dirk had a solidly better decade than KG, even if the latter is the only one with the ring in the decade (albeit with a superteam). I even take Lebron's work in the East in the 2nd half of the decade over the balance of KG's work, though I do think that's debatable.

As for the guards at the end, I think it can go a lot of ways. I just think the Nash Suns are the best team of the entire decade not to win a ring, on the whole (I do think the '06 Mavs and '02 Kings were better than some incarnations of the Suns though, but neither lasted long enough). Wade got Shaq and made the most of it, but he had a lot of mediocre teams and started late in the decade.

I picked Duncan #1 over Shaq because he is the only guy who was the best player on both ends of the floor for his team the entire decade of the choices. This was a team that never won less than 50, and a team that went through a rebuild at the beginning of the decade. Shaq's tenure with the Lakers were great, but he was a journeyman big by the end of the decade. I would consider it to come down to either one, and I picked Duncan because I'm obviously a fan.

Jeffy25
09-10-2016, 06:29 PM
Thank you. I dunno why he's so disrespected when it comes to "looking back". Pound for pound one of the best ever. If he was 6'4" rather than 5'10.5" he would have been held in much higher regard.

Because it requires that sort of logic to place him up here.

Pound for pound doesn't matter, and what if doesn't matter.

He was hyper inefficient and not a great compiler either.

During this time period selected he posted
28.1 PPG
6.2 APG
3.6 RPG
2.2 SPG
0.2 BPG

on .424 Shooting, .311 3 shooting

with 105 ORtg, 21.4 PER, .518 TS%, 78 WS

This targeted selection of years perfected overlap his peak, and he isn't even up there in the rankings

Of the 42 players that qualify

He is 38th out of 42 in TS%
17th in PER
40th in ORtg
17th in WS

This is why he isn't a top 10 for the best decade he could ever fall under

The only thing he has a ranking under is total points, second to Kobe with 19,154 in total

He doesn't belong because his overall game wasn't good enough. He shot plenty of course. And we can discuss that he need to shoot plenty. But that doesn't make him a great player either.

You gotta be at least top 10 in some of these things to warrant a top 10 selection here. Especially when there are 15 or so better choices of guys that did so many things well, other than shooting a lot and playing good perimeter defense.


If your argument requires a 'if he...' start to it, then it's not an argument worth having.

Jeffy25
09-10-2016, 06:32 PM
Sucked so much he got in the hall of fame right?

Also your first two sentences negate each other. You can't say pound for pound one of the best but he wasn't that good.
Fairly certain the basketball hall of fame is easily the worst hall of fame of the big four sports

Not saying Iverson shouldn't be in there, but come on.

Iverson is right next to guys like Bill Bradley, Drazen Petrovic, Dave Bing, Sabonis, etc

And his first two sentences don't contradict one another. If you weigh 40 pounds and are 60 times better than every one else 40 pounds, doesn't mean you are any good compared to someone who weighs 4 times as much at 160 pounds.

Iverson isn't better than Shaq, just because Iverson was probably better than 50% as good as Shaq

Shammyguy3
09-10-2016, 06:37 PM
Jeffy echoes my exact thoughts

Jeffy25
09-10-2016, 06:44 PM
Iverson did more with the sixers than Nash did with a stacked Suns. From a PER perspective he got 2 years better than either Stockton or Nash. He's underrated and these two are overrated. Nash never should of won a d--- MVP. Shaq agrees with me on both fronts. If you asked Shaq, he'd say Iverson was better than both and he played against all of them.

I hate when people say 'well so and so said' as if that matters even in the slightest. It's an appeal to authority that is so silly.

Just because you played the sport well doesn't mean you know much about the sport.

Joe Morgan and Dave Stewart might be two of the dumbest baseball people to ever live, but were fantastic players.

There is a reason former players don't do well in the front offices. Ask Jordan had Kwame Brown turned out.

Just because a player said someone was better than another player doesn't mean they were. Joe Morgan, for example, thought Ryne Sandberg was better than he was.....and he couldn't be more wrong.

It's just an example to highlight how meaningless it is when a player speaks about the game they are effective at playing, but not necessarily at analyzing.

Chronz
09-10-2016, 07:02 PM
at some point there is a line though, where an extended damn good prime and longevity overcome a short-lived one; take for instance, John Stockton and Chris Paul. CP3's prime is/was better, but Stockton's was close enough that his superior longevity takes the edge.

Not a perfect analogy because Paul is still playing, but whatevs

If a guy like Shaq (who has really only 5 years of dominance in this "era") is making the list, then that puts the lines clearly below the 50% threshold. Meaning, nobody should have Shaq that high and yet have someone like Ray Allen over a guy like Tmac for example (not sure if anyone did that, its been awhile since I posted that and I was having a drunken hissy fit).

Gimme 1 season of Bill Walton than an entire career of Robert Parish has always been my motto. I really dont value longevity that much tho, but thats why I've come to the conclusion that we need a legacy rank and an actuality rank. Longevity still matters but its a list we can freely name losers over winners without fear.

Chronz
09-10-2016, 07:09 PM
When did VORP come out? It has to have been the past 2 years.

Someones made a basketball variant since before the 90's. I think I have it somewhere in my library

Jeffy25
09-10-2016, 07:24 PM
Lol I would love to see those guys you named try and do what Iverson did with that Sixers team. They'd probably be more efficient but I guarantee you they Don't get to the 01 finals. Wade is probably the only guy you can say would've had a chance with that sixers team. Y'all look way too much into FG% and all that. It would be one thing if they were losing but they didn't. Iverson as the only threat to score for the sixers got them past Carter's raptors, Miller's pacers, and Allen's bucks and stole a game from the Lakers.

Do you remember the 01 playoffs?

Iverson show .389% in those playoffs....32 PPG on 30 shots per night with 9.5 free throw attempts

Indiana was an easy win, Iverson played well in that series, but they weren't hard to beat (28 year old Jalen Rose, 35 year old Reggie Miller and then Jermaine O'Neal was 22, with Al Harrington at 20.

Pacers were in a transition period from Miller's days to a team with Bender, Harrington, and O'Neal coming along.

They beat the Raptors in 7 games, and Iverson show .404% and had 33.7 PPG.

That Raptors team was relying on 24 year old Vince Carter to carry them.

Antonio Davis and Charles Oakley were helpful contributors of course....and some very old veterans like Mark Jackson, Kevin Willis, and Dell Curry coming off the bench

The Sixers won Game 7 with Iverson shooting .296% with 21 points and 4 turnovers.

Aaron Mckie threw in 22 points and Juamaine Jones added 16 and Eric Snow popped in 13 off the bench. In fact, Iverson almost shot them out of the game, they had a huge lead early (29-16 for example) before Iverson missed 3 in a row and Mutumbo missed one allowing the Raptors to get back into the game and make 27-31 a few minutes later.

Then the Bucks took them to 7 games. Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson and Sam Cassell probably should have been able to beat the Sixers. Iverson only shot .344% in this series taking 31 shots per night and scoring 30.5 PPG
The Sixers coasted in Game 7 and Iverson had a great game, no question.



But if his greatest accomplishment is beating this Bucks team in 7 games, I don't think that's much of an accomplishment.

Chronz
09-10-2016, 07:26 PM
?

Its a debate bro, thats how you debate

Jeffy25
09-10-2016, 07:31 PM
Iverson needed 25.5 shots and 10.1 free throws and 3.3 turnovers to score only 31.1 points. Something like 33 possessions. 106 ORtg. Which is good, not spectacular.


Duncan needed 17.1 shots and 8.1 free throws and 3.0 turnovers to score 22.2 points. Something like 24 possessions. 106 ORtg. Which is good, not spectacular. However, with Duncan he also gave you ELITE defense. Something Iverson could never do.


Shaq only needed 19.2 shots and 13.1 free throws and 2.9 turnovers to score 28.7 points. Something like, 28 possessions. 114 ORtg. Which is, spectacular. And he gave you very good defense too.


You know what's funny to me, is that many have claims that the games show you everything you need to know. Well, there are 82 games in a regular season. For all of the teams in the game, that means there are 1230 regular season games. 48 minutes a game, meaning to actually watch all of the games you are spending over 59,000 minutes on it.

And that's if you remember literally everything you've ever seen in the games, not just one player but watching all 10 guys on the court and how they feed off of each other's picks, how they cover pick & rolls and what their defense is supposed to do.

Not a single person has true, factual memories. Here's a link for a study done by Northwestern: (http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2012/09/your-memory-is-like-the-telephone-game.html)

"Every time you remember an event from the past, your brain networks change in ways that can alter the later recall of the event. Thus, the next time you remember it, you might recall not the original event but what you remembered the previous time. The Northwestern study is the first to show this.

“A memory is not simply an image produced by time traveling back to the original event -- it can be an image that is somewhat distorted because of the prior times you remembered it,” said Donna Bridge, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and lead author of the paper on the study recently published in the Journal of Neuroscience. “Your memory of an event can grow less precise even to the point of being totally false with each retrieval.

“Our findings show that incorrect recollection of the object’s location on day two influenced how people remembered the object’s location on day three,” Bridge explained. “Retrieving the memory didn’t simply reinforce the original association. Rather, it altered memory storage to reinforce the location that was recalled at session two.”

Bridge’s findings also were supported when she measured participants’ neural signals --the electrical activity of the brain -- during session two. She wanted to see if the neural signals during session two predicted anything about how people remembered the object’s location during session three.

The results revealed a particular electrical signal when people were recalling an object location during session two. This signal was greater when -- the next day -- the object was placed close to that location recalled during session two. When the electrical signal was weaker, recall of the object location was likely to be less distorted.

“The strong signal seems to indicate that a new memory was being laid down,” Bridge said, “and the new memory caused a bias to make the same mistake again.”





So, does anyone feel confident that watching even 150 TOTAL games in the NBA season, with zero distractions (no dogs barking, phone ringing, parents talking, girlfriend walking around naked, feeding a baby, cooking dinner), they have a good idea of what actually happened? If you have watched 150 games, which is a lot to be sure, you have only watched 7,200 minutes of NBA basketball. Which is only 12.2% of the entire NBA season.

So, go ahead and bet your money on your memory, which even perfect remembers only 12.2% of the NBA. Go ahead and double down on those faded, distorted, potentially completely inaccurate memories from 15 years ago (when some of you may have been in grammar school or high school like me)

I sure as heck will not.

:clap:

Chronz
09-10-2016, 07:34 PM
Thank you. I dunno why he's so disrespected when it comes to "looking back". Pound for pound one of the best ever. If he was 6'4" rather than 5'10.5" he would have been held in much higher regard.

Well yeah, thats like saying if Kobe were 6"9 with insane length, he would have been held in higher regard. It doesn't matter, the FACTS are that AI could not defend his own position (SG) and he didn't possess the skill/vision to play the 1 the way many of his coaches/teammates wanted to. What you're left with is a harder player to build around.

With Nash, IDGAF how often he shoots you know why(this isn't just directed to you, this is directed to all the misguided novices that use arguments like "if Nash had to shoot this much blah blah blah") its because I know Nash will get the most out of my TEAMS OFFENSE. I'd take AI 100x out of 100 if this were a 1v1 game.

Jeffy25
09-10-2016, 07:36 PM
This is overkill. Its not just memory of game, but memory of the NBA landscape. Iverson scarred the opponent.
So let's ignore that we don't have great memories, couldn't watch every game with a perfect memory, and jump all the way to knowing how the opponents felt....as if we could ever know. And even leap to a greater conclusion that we can establish what those feelings must mean on the court.

Chronz
09-10-2016, 07:41 PM
I think they look purely at AI, and fail to look at some of his teammates and just how bad they were offensively. And that 01 Finals team might have been the worst team of the AI era.
Whats funny is I think you're failing to look at his teammates and coming to the wrong conclusion just the same. Funny how that works, I honestly think that was the best team AI ever had. 2nd best coming in Denver and him not even impressing there (his own coaches wanted him to pass even more, poor Anthony Carter was forced into defending SG's because AI sucked as a distributor) and that was a developed Iverson, imagine young AI? LOL, he and Melo prolly end up feuding.


The one that stumped was the 03-05 era with Coleman, Van Horn, Iggy, McCullaugh, Snow, McKie. That team should have been better, but we ran into some buzz saw teams.

Rookie AI is worth mentioning to you? I hop-e you hold DPOY Mutombo in line.

Chronz
09-10-2016, 07:44 PM
So let's ignore that we don't have great memories, couldn't watch every game with a perfect memory, and jump all the way to knowing how the opponents felt....as if we could ever know. And even leap to a greater conclusion that we can establish what those feelings must mean on the court.

Agreed, gimme overkill over simplified cliche talk. Its funny how selective IKH is with stats, totally fits his agenda tho.

Jeffy25
09-10-2016, 07:46 PM
Jeffy echoes my exact thoughts

It's funny, I'm reading all of this later on, and then as I proceed, I see your posts basically saying what I just posted and I didn't have to in the first place :) We even both used Kwame Brown as an example haha

Chronz
09-10-2016, 07:47 PM
You mean that same time where everyone thought Iverson was the best basketball player in the world? Or fast forward a few years later where Nash/Wiiliams were the best PG in basketball ahead of CP3 who was a 2 way monster and the 2nd best player in basketball behind only Lebron but the vast majority would still have taken Kobe over him as well? How about now when the vast majority would take about 5-7 centers ahead of towns? Being the better 2 way player and being the more popular 2 way player are 2 very different things... From 04-05 on Lebron James was the better 2 way player over Kobe.... Kobes longevity is what makes him a top 8 player all time but Longevity is not enough to put him over Lebron in the 2000s because of how insanely rediculous lebron was on both sides of the floor with utter trash around him.

What team did Kobe exactly carry? He was a champion but again what did he carry? Until they got gifted Gasol in a horseshit trade that Kobe was trying to GTFO of town and get himself a contending team because he couldn't carry teams.

Kobe had 1 season where you can argue him as the best player in basketball and In that year Lebron and CP3 were in fact better and the actual MVPs. Why is so many people so wrapped up in longevity over this span? Kobe had a few more years over Lebron to help keep him in the argument but are we really going to settle for that when the other player was more of a force and all around better in lesser years and more than made up for those few years in a 6 year span?

I had this argument with him before, its telling how LeBron as a 2nd year man led his team FAR better than Kobe as an established veteran champion did.

warfelg
09-10-2016, 07:47 PM
Whats funny is I think you're failing to look at his teammates and coming to the wrong conclusion just the same. Funny how that works, I honestly think that was the best team AI ever had. 2nd best coming in Denver and him not even impressing there (his own coaches wanted him to pass even more, poor Anthony Carter was forced into defending SG's because AI sucked as a distributor) and that was a developed Iverson, imagine young AI? LOL, he and Melo prolly end up feuding.


Rookie AI is worth mentioning to you? I hop-e you hold DPOY Mutombo in line.

Mutombo was great. No denying that. But offensively I don't think he offered what AI needed. It's why I think that team with Coleman was great. It gave a threat in the post that was good enough that if you rotated off him with AI drove, you were coming off a legit scoring option. Iggy was included because, though raw, would take advantage of AIs steals and fast break chances in ways that other players with AI couldn't/wouldn't.

Either way. I think these guys either (1) were too young to really understand what AI did or (2) are too caught up in the analytics of the game to understand what AI did.

EDIT:
In those 01 Finals George Lynch, our second best offensive player that year, was out. I always felt funny about that season. I felt in some ways trading Kukoc, Nazr Mohummad, Theo Ratliff, Pepe Sanchez for Roshown McLeod and Dikembe Mutombo propelled us, but on the other hand, I felt like the loss of Kukoc offensively wasn't worth the gain defensively over Ratliff.

warfelg
09-10-2016, 07:52 PM
Well yeah, thats like saying if Kobe were 6"9 with insane length, he would have been held in higher regard. It doesn't matter, the FACTS are that AI could not defend his own position (SG) and he didn't possess the skill/vision to play the 1 the way many of his coaches/teammates wanted to. What you're left with is a harder player to build around.

With Nash, IDGAF how often he shoots you know why(this isn't just directed to you, this is directed to all the misguided novices that use arguments like "if Nash had to shoot this much blah blah blah") its because I know Nash will get the most out of my TEAMS OFFENSE. I'd take AI 100x out of 100 if this were a 1v1 game.

Doesn't take away from him as a player though. Did it limit and change the type of team you could build around him? Sure.

And I know this is a strange sliding scale to go on, but I look at how teams used to basically take away passing lanes from Nash and Kidd, let them score as much as they wanted, and you could win. AI...you could double him or spy double and he could still beat you with little to no offensive help. And I rather have a guy like that. Especially in that era of basketball we were in at that time.

Jeffy25
09-10-2016, 07:55 PM
Well yeah, thats like saying if Kobe were 6"9 with insane length, he would have been held in higher regard. It doesn't matter, the FACTS are that AI could not defend his own position (SG) and he didn't possess the skill/vision to play the 1 the way many of his coaches/teammates wanted to. What you're left with is a harder player to build around.

With Nash, IDGAF how often he shoots you know why(this isn't just directed to you, this is directed to all the misguided novices that use arguments like "if Nash had to shoot this much blah blah blah") its because I know Nash will get the most out of my TEAMS OFFENSE. I'd take AI 100x out of 100 if this were a 1v1 game.

I'm pretty sure if I was 7 foot, I would at least have had a shot at the NBA at some point in my lifetime.

Chronz
09-10-2016, 07:59 PM
But if his greatest accomplishment is beating this Bucks team in 7 games, I don't think that's much of an accomplishment.

This part really struck home for. Its funny how CP3 can be labeled a choker despite beating FAR superior teams than AI, but because he didn't face the dregs of his conference, people actually believed AI did MORE with less. LMFAO, I've never seen the best team in the conference almost lose it as often as those 01 Sixers did and its entirely because AI couldn't defend his position and he wasnt even that dominant offensively. In fact, guys like VC and Ray arguably outplayed him, heck even OLD Reggie deserves honorable mention here.

Chronz
09-10-2016, 08:00 PM
I'm pretty sure if I was 7 foot, I would at least have had a shot at the NBA at some point in my lifetime.

IIRC, you had a 50% shot of making the NBA back in the 90's strictly if you were 7ft tall. Now given how much better I am at basketballing than you, I would have made double the amount of shots you would have, HAD you been 7ft.

We're GOATs bro

Jeffy25
09-10-2016, 08:01 PM
Doesn't take away from him as a player though. Did it limit and change the type of team you could build around him? Sure.

And I know this is a strange sliding scale to go on, but I look at how teams used to basically take away passing lanes from Nash and Kidd, let them score as much as they wanted, and you could win. AI...you could double him or spy double and he could still beat you with little to no offensive help. And I rather have a guy like that. Especially in that era of basketball we were in at that time.

AI played on awesome defensive teams where scoring less per possession on offense didn't kill his teams.

Nash and Kidd never played on the defensive teams that AI had when he was a prime Sixer with Mutumbo down low.

Jeffy25
09-10-2016, 08:04 PM
IIRC, you had a 50% shot of making the NBA back in the 90's strictly if you were 7ft tall. Now given how much better I am at basketballing than you, I would have made double the amount of shots you would have, HAD you been 7ft.

We're GOATs bro

Well my guy in NBA 2K Prelude is a projected Lottery Pick....you gotta watch out for him!

Shammyguy3
09-10-2016, 08:18 PM
It's funny, I'm reading all of this later on, and then as I proceed, I see your posts basically saying what I just posted and I didn't have to in the first place :) We even both used Kwame Brown as an example haha

i liked your breakdown for the 2001 playoff series the 76ers had, and how poorly Iverson shot from the field.


If a guy like Shaq (who has really only 5 years of dominance in this "era") is making the list, then that puts the lines clearly below the 50% threshold. Meaning, nobody should have Shaq that high and yet have someone like Ray Allen over a guy like Tmac for example (not sure if anyone did that, its been awhile since I posted that and I was having a drunken hissy fit).

Gimme 1 season of Bill Walton than an entire career of Robert Parish has always been my motto. I really dont value longevity that much tho, but thats why I've come to the conclusion that we need a legacy rank and an actuality rank. Longevity still matters but its a list we can freely name losers over winners without fear.

Idk, that's overkill considering how long Parish was able to play. :laugh2:
As far as legacy rank vs actuality rank, i'm assuming the legacy rank will have players like Russell higher than they would be ranked in an actual ranking ?



So let's ignore that we don't have great memories, couldn't watch every game with a perfect memory, and jump all the way to knowing how the opponents felt....as if we could ever know. And even leap to a greater conclusion that we can establish what those feelings must mean on the court.

Yeah, i don't get it.

Could you watch 17 minutes of Inception, out of 145 minutes of screen time, and claim to know what you were watching and how good of a movie it is? Same goes for watching 15 minutes of Wedding Crashers. It doesn't do it justice.

And that's why we HAVE to use statistical analysis to make up for that gap.

Shammyguy3
09-10-2016, 08:21 PM
Doesn't take away from him as a player though. Did it limit and change the type of team you could build around him? Sure.

And I know this is a strange sliding scale to go on, but I look at how teams used to basically take away passing lanes from Nash and Kidd, let them score as much as they wanted, and you could win. AI...you could double him or spy double and he could still beat you with little to no offensive help. And I rather have a guy like that. Especially in that era of basketball we were in at that time.

It doesn't take away with how good he was able to me with his limited size and weight, but that doesn't mean we give him extra credit. We can only judge with what actually happened.



This part really struck home for. Its funny how CP3 can be labeled a choker despite beating FAR superior teams than AI, but because he didn't face the dregs of his conference, people actually believed AI did MORE with less. LMFAO, I've never seen the best team in the conference almost lose it as often as those 01 Sixers did and its entirely because AI couldn't defend his position and he wasnt even that dominant offensively. In fact, guys like VC and Ray arguably outplayed him, heck even OLD Reggie deserves honorable mention here.

Totally agree

FlashBolt
09-11-2016, 11:04 PM
Iverson was inefficient and had the green light to shoot any shot at will. I have a feeling some of you are mistaking heart and passion for greatness. Emotions has nothing to do with what the truth showed. He was inefficient, below average at other departments of the game, and you can't name an amazing accomplishment of his. East was incredibly weak back then which is why until Detroit came along, the NBA Finals was more about the Lakers winning, again. What did he accomplish? Scoring titles (default due to the absurd amount of shots he took)? Outside of his MVP, he's rather unaccomplished. Sorry but I don't care about how short or small he was. This is a ranking about the top 10 players of the 2000's and quite frankly, Allen Iverson should only be on your list if you're nostalgic.

valade16
09-11-2016, 11:13 PM
Kiki Vandeweghe > AI

Efficiency is the only thing that matters!!

FlashBolt
09-11-2016, 11:15 PM
Kiki Vandeweghe > AI

Efficiency is the only thing that matters!!

Scoring lotz of pointz while t@king 30 sh0tz iz all that matterz

valade16
09-11-2016, 11:19 PM
Scoring lotz of pointz while t@king 30 sh0tz iz all that matterz

Kiki did that too!

My point stands, Kiki > AI

Surely you agree?

FlashBolt
09-11-2016, 11:28 PM
Kiki did that too!

My point stands, Kiki > AI

Surely you agree?

You and I both know the difference. Different roles, positions, and status. AI was inefficient. Do you agree? What did AI do that warrants a top ten position? Did he beat a historically great team? Comparing AI to Kiki based on me saying that AI was inefficient doesn't really prove anything other than you being fixated on fg%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IKnowHoops
09-12-2016, 12:44 AM
So let's ignore that we don't have great memories, couldn't watch every game with a perfect memory, and jump all the way to knowing how the opponents felt....as if we could ever know. And even leap to a greater conclusion that we can establish what those feelings must mean on the court.

But we do know

"He's top 5 of all time" - Shaq
"He's harder to guard than Curry" - Stephen Jackson
"The best competitors I ever faced were Jordan and Iverson, Iverson always put you in jeopardy" - Kobe

IKnowHoops
09-12-2016, 12:47 AM
Agreed, gimme overkill over simplified cliche talk. Its funny how selective IKH is with stats, totally fits his agenda tho.

I think its funny how much you talk without giving a single stat. I can go through pages and pages of you talking about Drob and the closest you have come to a stat is "Robinson shrinks in the playoffs". And then ignore Mcgrady never won a playoff series. And then talk about agendas? Please.

Chronz
09-12-2016, 01:15 AM
I think its funny how much you talk without giving a single stat. I can go through pages and pages of you talking about Drob and the closest you have come to a stat is "Robinson shrinks in the playoffs". And then ignore Mcgrady never won a playoff series. And then talk about agendas? Please.
Thats cuz I already told you, I never expected D-Rob to win all the series he went ghost in, just that he show up ala Tmac.

Shammyguy3
09-12-2016, 01:19 AM
But we do know

"He's top 5 of all time" - Shaq
"He's harder to guard than Curry" - Stephen Jackson
"The best competitors I ever faced were Jordan and Iverson, Iverson always put you in jeopardy" - Kobe

Shaq is a moron. Stephen Jackson is an imbecile. And Kobe saying that doesn't really have anything to do with how good he is compared to other basketball players. You can be a great competitor but still be not an all-time great. Joakim Noah is probably the biggest competitor i've seen the last few years. He's definitely not a top-10 player of this decade.

valade16
09-12-2016, 01:19 AM
You and I both know the difference. Different roles, positions, and status. AI was inefficient. Do you agree? What did AI do that warrants a top ten position? Did he beat a historically great team? Comparing AI to Kiki based on me saying that AI was inefficient doesn't really prove anything other than you being fixated on fg%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A rather unfair standard to set for AI when the guys being talked about in comparison to him (T-Mac, Pierce, Vince, Ray Allen) don't have superior resumes as the leader of their team either.

Before you ask what AI does to deserve to be top 10, tell me what historical achievement they did to be top 10...

FlashBolt
09-12-2016, 11:12 AM
A rather unfair standard to set for AI when the guys being talked about in comparison to him (T-Mac, Pierce, Vince, Ray Allen) don't have superior resumes as the leader of their team either.

Before you ask what AI does to deserve to be top 10, tell me what historical achievement they did to be top 10...

This is my list:

Duncan
Kobe
Shaq
LeBron
Dirk
Wade
Garnett
Nash
Melo
Kidd


As you can see, I don't have T-Mac, Pierce, Vince, or Ray Allen.

Duncan is an easy one.
Kobe is an easy one.
Shaq is an easy one.
LeBron is easy.
Dirk is easy.
Wade is easy.
KG is easy.
Nash is easy.
Kidd is easy.
Melo is the only guy you can realistically substitute but I have him there because he was a much better scorer than Iverson. I don't see a case where Iverson was a better player than any of those guys above. Seriously, what's so good about Iverson? How do you take 27 shots and NOT score 30 points? Are we applauding him for that?

FlashBolt
09-12-2016, 11:14 AM
Shaq is a moron. Stephen Jackson is an imbecile. And Kobe saying that doesn't really have anything to do with how good he is compared to other basketball players. You can be a great competitor but still be not an all-time great. Joakim Noah is probably the biggest competitor i've seen the last few years. He's definitely not a top-10 player of this decade.

Nothing says "I have no argument" better than quoting players who have a reputation for saying stupid things.

Shaq is an idiot. He rates players according to their rings but then has Allen Iverson in his top 5? How many times did he say Kobe was better than Bron because he had five and five beats three? He's a great player but a terrible analyst.

Stephen Jackson? Who the hell cares?

Kobe's statement has nothing to do with how great a player is. Being competitive doesn't equate to being great.. as you mentioned perfectly with Noah.

valade16
09-12-2016, 12:37 PM
This is my list:

Duncan
Kobe
Shaq
LeBron
Dirk
Wade
Garnett
Nash
Melo
Kidd


As you can see, I don't have T-Mac, Pierce, Vince, or Ray Allen.

Duncan is an easy one.
Kobe is an easy one.
Shaq is an easy one.
LeBron is easy.
Dirk is easy.
Wade is easy.
KG is easy.
Nash is easy.
Kidd is easy.
Melo is the only guy you can realistically substitute but I have him there because he was a much better scorer than Iverson. I don't see a case where Iverson was a better player than any of those guys above. Seriously, what's so good about Iverson? How do you take 27 shots and NOT score 30 points? Are we applauding him for that?

Much better scorer than Iverson? For the 00's? Melo's TS% was .544. His pts per 100 were 34.2. His OBPM was 1.9.

AI from 00-08 w/Denver he was at .522 TS%. His pts per 100 were 35.3. His OBPM was 4.0.

Melo wasn't the most efficient scorer on the planet, he has a small edge over AI there sure but AI also passed way more (29.8 AST% to 15.7 AST%) and turned the ball over at the same rate (11.9 to 11.8), hence his higher Off WS and OBPM. It's not like Melo can close that gap on defense either, he wasn't very good at it.

I guess my question would be: what's so good about Carmelo Anthony?

FlashBolt
09-12-2016, 01:37 PM
Much better scorer than Iverson? For the 00's? Melo's TS% was .544. His pts per 100 were 34.2. His OBPM was 1.9.

AI from 00-08 w/Denver he was at .522 TS%. His pts per 100 were 35.3. His OBPM was 4.0.

Melo wasn't the most efficient scorer on the planet, he has a small edge over AI there sure but AI also passed way more (29.8 AST% to 15.7 AST%) and turned the ball over at the same rate (11.9 to 11.8), hence his higher Off WS and OBPM. It's not like Melo can close that gap on defense either, he wasn't very good at it.

I guess my question would be: what's so good about Carmelo Anthony?

Melo was a better scorer than Iverson in that Kobe is a better scorer than LeBron. Statistically, I don't really see a huge difference in how they played so that wasn't something I cared for. Again, Melo is a huge IF for me which is why I said you can substitute him out if you wanted to. In reality, Allen Iverson played upwards of 43 minutes per game with an insane USG%, had relatively minimal success, and he scored points. Really? We're comparing passing between two players who clearly had different roles in regards to playmaking? Why don't we compare their rebounding while we're at it? Wanna include the REBOUNDING %? Just to make things clear, do you agree or disagree that any of the players (outside of Melo if you want to) that AI was better than? If you want to make a case for AI, what's the case? Maybe I'm a homer but I look at what Westbrook was able to do with less (when KD was out) and he dominated across the board in ways that would make AI look irrelevant. And that was while playing TEN LESS MINUTES. Oh boy what would Westbrook's numbers be if he played 43 minutes on 40% USG% while having a team that closed opposing teams out defensively.

valade16
09-12-2016, 02:15 PM
Melo was a better scorer than Iverson in that Kobe is a better scorer than LeBron. Statistically, I don't really see a huge difference in how they played so that wasn't something I cared for. Again, Melo is a huge IF for me which is why I said you can substitute him out if you wanted to. In reality, Allen Iverson played upwards of 43 minutes per game with an insane USG%, had relatively minimal success, and he scored points. Really? We're comparing passing between two players who clearly had different roles in regards to playmaking? Why don't we compare their rebounding while we're
at it? Wanna include the REBOUNDING %? Just to make things clear, do you agree or disagree that any of the players (outside of Melo if you want to) that AI was better than? If you want to make a case for AI, what's the case? Maybe I'm a homer but I look at what Westbrook was able to do with less (when KD was out) and he dominated across the board in ways that would make AI look irrelevant. And that was while playing TEN LESS MINUTES. Oh boy what would Westbrook's numbers be if he played 43 minutes on 40% USG% while having a team that closed opposing teams out defensively.

First, pts per 100 is a rate stat, meaning if Melo played as many minutes as AI, he still wouldn't score as much.

Second, What would happen if Westy played 43 mpg? My guess is he would get tired and his efficiency would decrease. AI shouldn't be penalized for playing so many minutes, he should be commended for being able to play that hard that long every night.

Third, we know what Westy would do with AI's USG% because two years ago he had a higher USG than AI ever had. That season he had a .536 TS%, which is marginally better than AI. So if he got 10 more mpg I'd bet his efficiency would further drop.

Fourth, I'm sure Westy wishes he had a team as good defensively as AI did in Philly, but I'm sure AI would have loved to play with the offensive talent Westy did that season too.

I doubt the AI 76ers get appreciably better on offense with Westy instead of AI. Heck, Westy was accused of being a ballhog when he had Ibaka, Kanter and Reggie Jackson, Imagine how much more of a ballhog he'd be if he instead shared the court with Eric Snow, George Lynch and Dikembe Mutombo...

I also question the "very little success" as he led his team farther than either Melo or Westy (the players in question now) ever did and he won an MVP, something neither of them did either.

jerellh528
09-12-2016, 03:25 PM
1. Kobe
2. Shaq
3. Duncan
4. KG
5. Kidd
6. Lebron
7. nash
8. Iverson
9. Wade
10. Dirk

Top 4 are easy, last 6 is pretty difficult, Any order would do fine.

FlashBolt
09-12-2016, 03:26 PM
First, pts per 100 is a rate stat, meaning if Melo played as many minutes as AI, he still wouldn't score as much.

Second, What would happen if Westy played 43 mpg? My guess is he would get tired and his efficiency would decrease. AI shouldn't be penalized for playing so many minutes, he should be commended for being able to play that hard that long every night.

Third, we know what Westy would do with AI's USG% because two years ago he had a higher USG than AI ever had. That season he had a .536 TS%, which is marginally better than AI. So if he got 10 more mpg I'd bet his efficiency would further drop.

Fourth, I'm sure Westy wishes he had a team as good defensively as AI did in Philly, but I'm sure AI would have loved to play with the offensive talent Westy did that season too.

I doubt the AI 76ers get appreciably better on offense with Westy instead of AI. Heck, Westy was accused of being a ballhog when he had Ibaka, Kanter and Reggie Jackson, Imagine how much more of a ballhog he'd be if he instead shared the court with Eric Snow, George Lynch and Dikembe Mutombo...

I also question the "very little success" as he led his team farther than either Melo or Westy (the players in question now) ever did and he won an MVP, something neither of them did either.

1) That is not mutually exclusive as I pointed out that much of AI's production was through his minutes. That has nothing to do with Melo.
2) So he played that many minutes but put up only 4-6 APG? Check his T/O ratio as well. What does that tell you?
3) You mean when Russell put up crazy triple doubles and played all-around basketball? Let me know when AI did that. Also, being relied on to anchor his team's defense. Again, let me know when AI did that.
4) AI did have that. It's called the Nuggets.. and that team played better after they traded him for Billups while Detroit went to sucky sucky. Also, which one of Westbrook's teammates are you referring to? After KD went out, are you referring to Serge Ibaka?
5) I'm not sure what you're getting at with that.
6) He played in what was a very weak conference at that time. Hence, why the West mauled them and pretty much every Eastern Conference team in the NBA Finals. Do you think AI's Sixers make it that far in the WC during that time? Be serious; you're better than that. They would be lucky to even make it past the second round, truthfully.

Jeffy25
09-12-2016, 04:21 PM
Kiki Vandeweghe > AI

Efficiency is the only thing that matters!!

Kiki had better shooting percentages, but was less efficient overall

LA_Raiders
09-13-2016, 01:49 AM
1. Kobe
2. Shaq
3. Duncan
4. KG
5. AI
6. Lebron
7. Kidd
8. Nash
9. Wade
10. Dirk

NYKalltheway
09-13-2016, 04:35 AM
Assuming this means a decade by the playoff count, thus 1999-2000 to 2008-2009, here's mine:

1. Tim Duncan (mr consistent)
2. Shaquille O'Neal (most dominant but 3 seasons in decline included)
3. Kevin Garnett (consistent and two way)
4. Kobe Bryant (consistently top 5 through the decade)
5. Dirk Nowitzki (consistently top 10 through the decade)
6. Jason Kidd (best pg in the league during this period)
7. Allen Iverson (top 2-3 guard in the league for the first 6 seasons here)

8. Dwayne Wade (6 seasons into account)
9. Tracy McGrady (2.5 seasons of decline included)
10. Lebron James (just 5 seasons into account)

Honorable mentions that could have made the cut: Steve Nash, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Vince Carter.
Even guys like Chris Webber and Yao Ming deserve mention here but their inclusion in a top 10 is a stretch obviously .

hugepatsfan
09-13-2016, 10:56 AM
AI was an awesome player. All time great. But compared to other all time greats he was very inefficient so I knock him down on the lists for that. Efficiency isn't the only thing that matters. A guy who can get you such volume scoring is hugely valuable. But we're comparing him to other HOFers here. No one is putting scrubs or average players over him because their FG% was higher. No shame in being ranked behind some other all time greats, especially considering AI was just cursed with a size disadvantage compared to his peers.

smith&wesson
09-13-2016, 11:17 AM
Nash gotta be in there.. MVP in 2005-06

europagnpilgrim
09-13-2016, 12:11 PM
https://youtu.be/0RkZ8HRSHTg

When the nba takes away your patent move then you know you are a problem

I feel sorry for Stockton in this highlight reel

YAALREADYKNO
09-13-2016, 05:19 PM
First, pts per 100 is a rate stat, meaning if Melo played as many minutes as AI, he still wouldn't score as much.

Second, What would happen if Westy played 43 mpg? My guess is he would get tired and his efficiency would decrease. AI shouldn't be penalized for playing so many minutes, he should be commended for being able to play that hard that long every night.

Third, we know what Westy would do with AI's USG% because two years ago he had a higher USG than AI ever had. That season he had a .536 TS%, which is marginally better than AI. So if he got 10 more mpg I'd bet his efficiency would further drop.

Fourth, I'm sure Westy wishes he had a team as good defensively as AI did in Philly, but I'm sure AI would have loved to play with the offensive talent Westy did that season too.

I doubt the AI 76ers get appreciably better on offense with Westy instead of AI. Heck, Westy was accused of being a ballhog when he had Ibaka, Kanter and Reggie Jackson, Imagine how much more of a ballhog he'd be if he instead shared the court with Eric Snow, George Lynch and Dikembe Mutombo...

I also question the "very little success" as he led his team farther than either Melo or Westy (the players in question now) ever did and he won an MVP, something neither of them did either.

Agree with this

Chronz
09-13-2016, 06:37 PM
https://youtu.be/0RkZ8HRSHTg

When the nba takes away your patent move then you know you are a problem

I feel sorry for Stockton in this highlight reel

You should feel sorry for the players who grew up with strict palming rules, AI should be thankful he played in his era, he'd be more thankful in todays NBA tho.

rhymeratic
09-13-2016, 08:36 PM
Give us your top 10 from the season 1999-2000 through 2008-2009

Here's mine
1. Duncan
2. Kobe
3. Shaq
4. Lebron
5. Nowitzki
6. Garnett
7. Nash
8. McGrady
9. Wade
10. Kidd



did i miss anyone? anyone have a different order?

This list is invalid without Allen Iverson. I would take McGrady off the list. I'm not even sure McGrady was better than Vince Carter

Chronz
09-13-2016, 08:56 PM
This list is invalid without Allen Iverson. I would take McGrady off the list. I'm not even sure McGrady was better than Vince Carter

Im ok with people choosing longevity and durability with AI, but Vince? Ur crazy man

Shammyguy3
09-13-2016, 10:22 PM
This list is invalid without Allen Iverson. I would take McGrady off the list. I'm not even sure McGrady was better than Vince Carter

What ways was Vince his equal?

aman_13
09-13-2016, 11:38 PM
Why do some of you have Kobe ahead of Shaq?

Shammyguy3
09-13-2016, 11:46 PM
Why do some of you have Kobe ahead of Shaq?

i think it's because a lot of Shaq's prime was in the 90s, whereas Kobe's entire prime was in the 00s

Chronz
09-13-2016, 11:48 PM
Why do some of you have Kobe ahead of Shaq?

Prime run+raw titles matters more than peak run I suppose. Which makes the lists all sorts of crazy.

More-Than-Most
09-14-2016, 12:27 AM
I dont mind Kobe over Shaq... Its Kobe over Duncan/Lebron that bothers me

Chronz
09-14-2016, 12:47 AM
I dont mind Kobe over Shaq... Its Kobe over Duncan/Lebron that bothers me

Why? Its the same argument

rhymeratic
09-14-2016, 10:08 AM
Im ok with people choosing longevity and durability with AI, but Vince? Ur crazy man

McGrady had a two year period of being REALLY good on a bad team...
Vince CONSISTENTLY was REALLY good.

I feel like sometimes people are blinded by stats and not actual game play. If my life was on the line and I needed a player to win the game:

1. Allen Iverson
2. Vince Carter
3. Tracy McGrady

Chronz
09-14-2016, 11:36 AM
McGrady had a two year period of being REALLY good on a bad team...
Vince CONSISTENTLY was REALLY good.
Umm when? VC had really bad years if you count injuries, Tmac was making All-NBA first teams while Vince was missing the playoffs and putting up worse numbers on a worse team.


I feel like sometimes people are blinded by stats and not actual game play. If my life was on the line and I needed a player to win the game:

I feel like people are sometimes blinded by selective highlights and not the totality of their game play. With my life on the line I want Larry Bird taking the shot, 2kera alone, if its a 3 I want Ray Allen to take it. Doesn't mean **** as both are relatively low in my All-Time ranks.

aman_13
09-14-2016, 11:51 AM
i think it's because a lot of Shaq's prime was in the 90s, whereas Kobe's entire prime was in the 00s

Yeah but isn't measuring peak performance more important?

aman_13
09-14-2016, 11:54 AM
Prime run+raw titles matters more than peak run I suppose. Which makes the lists all sorts of crazy.

Exactly, Shaq had 3 of the most dominant seasons in NBA history during that decade.

Chronz
09-14-2016, 12:01 PM
I think the best way to do this is to include the entire career if he played and dominated in the 2K era but its an arbitrary ranking so its a fun trivia type game.

Vee-Rex
09-14-2016, 12:33 PM
Let me be clear:

Nobody in the 2000's tops 08-09 LeBron in terms of production. NOBODY. Not Shaq, not Duncan, not Kobe, not Wade, not Barack, not anybody. NOBODY tops 07-10 LeBron.

So going solely by PEAK is something we're just not doing here (something that gets the LeBron apologist(s) all riled up obviously)... it's a factor, but that's it. Prime-run, rings, leadership, talent, AND peak stretch all factor into this. It's why Duncan is, without a doubt, the top player in the 2000s.

I strongly question someone's agenda if they don't see that. And if you DO see that then there's absolutely no reason you should change your tune and only go by peak performance after Duncan.

FlashBolt
09-14-2016, 12:49 PM
I dont mind Kobe over Shaq... Its Kobe over Duncan/Lebron that bothers me

Kobe being #1 is completely fair. He's won four championships. Duncan has three.
As for LeBron? Sorry, but we're talking about five years of LeBron's career vs ten of Kobe's (0 rings vs 4 rings). LeBron's most success came in 11-16. If we're talking about who had the best career from 06-16, the answer is LeBron by a mile.

Same with Shaq. His best years were 95-05 so we're shorting him out 4 seasons of his elite years. 99-09 is pretty much Kobe's best years.

aman_13
09-14-2016, 01:05 PM
Kobe being #1 is completely fair. He's won four championships. Duncan has three.
As for LeBron? Sorry, but we're talking about five years of LeBron's career vs ten of Kobe's (0 rings vs 4 rings). LeBron's most success came in 11-16. If we're talking about who had the best career from 06-16, the answer is LeBron by a mile.

Same with Shaq. His best years were 95-05 so we're shorting him out 4 seasons of his elite years. 99-09 is pretty much Kobe's best years.

That's the thing, are we measuring career success in terms of accolades or on court dominance?

In some cases it goes hand in hand but not always.

Chronz
09-14-2016, 02:10 PM
Let me be clear:

Nobody in the 2000's tops 08-09 LeBron in terms of production. NOBODY. Not Shaq, not Duncan, not Kobe, not Wade, not Barack, not anybody. NOBODY tops 07-10 LeBron.

So going solely by PEAK is something we're just not doing here (something that gets the LeBron apologist(s) all riled up obviously)... it's a factor, but that's it. Prime-run, rings, leadership, talent, AND peak stretch all factor into this. It's why Duncan is, without a doubt, the top player in the 2000s.

I strongly question someone's agenda if they don't see that. And if you DO see that then there's absolutely no reason you should change your tune and only go by peak performance after Duncan.
Yeah but even in his first MVP season, you still had the argument that Kobe was the better player, no?

I dont know but Shaq in 00 was peer less. There was Shaq and everyone else, he dominated thoroughly, individually and team wise throughout the RS+PS.

Judging by the numbers heres how they compare: http://bkref.com/tiny/VGjBW

Bron demolishes in every facet its just that championship and arguably superior defensive impact that distinguish Shaq and the way I see it, there was still an argument that Kobe was at least on par with Bron despite a much larger gap in their productive value than Bron vs Shaq so Im comfortable with choosing him. TBH, Bron was insane that year but you gotta admit the prior 3 playoff runs and proceeding 2 to come were all far more humbling. I understand he got his teams to overachieve but I feel Shaq did the same, which is hard to do when you're sweeping multiple 50 win squads on route to a title but thats just how unprecedented his impact on the game was IMO.

If we compare solely their playoff numbers, which is a fair point because Shaq had gotten to the point where he needed to pace himself for the long haul but he had what had taken on what was deemed revving up the diesel time. He kicked it up a notch during 2nd half stretches of the season and carried that into the playoffs. If we look at his first 4 years of the 2K Era, he crushes any 4 year stretch Bron enjoyed in the 2k Era. Take Brons 5 playoff runs this decade and match them up with Shaq's best 5 (basically his LA career) and the dominance continues.

After that, Shaq gives you inconsistent health (L vs Detroit as a result) and a run to the Finals (Dominating Detroit in the process and drawing non-stop doubles vs Dallas) and some fairly decent role player showings in the playoffs thereafter.

FlashBolt
09-14-2016, 02:15 PM
That's the thing, are we measuring career success in terms of accolades or on court dominance?

In some cases it goes hand in hand but not always.

Why can't it be judged on both?

aman_13
09-14-2016, 03:06 PM
Why can't it be judged on both?

Because a great player can lose if he doesn't have the right supporting cast around him. LeBron faced that problem with the Cavs pre decision. Kobe faced the same problem as well.

Vee-Rex
09-14-2016, 04:31 PM
Yeah but even in his first MVP season, you still had the argument that Kobe was the better player, no?

I dont know but Shaq in 00 was peer less. There was Shaq and everyone else, he dominated thoroughly, individually and team wise throughout the RS+PS.

Judging by the numbers heres how they compare: http://bkref.com/tiny/VGjBW

Bron demolishes in every facet its just that championship and arguably superior defensive impact that distinguish Shaq and the way I see it, there was still an argument that Kobe was at least on par with Bron despite a much larger gap in their productive value than Bron vs Shaq so Im comfortable with choosing him. TBH, Bron was insane that year but you gotta admit the prior 3 playoff runs and proceeding 2 to come were all far more humbling. I understand he got his teams to overachieve but I feel Shaq did the same, which is hard to do when you're sweeping multiple 50 win squads on route to a title but thats just how unprecedented his impact on the game was IMO.

If we compare solely their playoff numbers, which is a fair point because Shaq had gotten to the point where he needed to pace himself for the long haul but he had what had taken on what was deemed revving up the diesel time. He kicked it up a notch during 2nd half stretches of the season and carried that into the playoffs. If we look at his first 4 years of the 2K Era, he crushes any 4 year stretch Bron enjoyed in the 2k Era. Take Brons 5 playoff runs this decade and match them up with Shaq's best 5 (basically his LA career) and the dominance continues.

After that, Shaq gives you inconsistent health (L vs Detroit as a result) and a run to the Finals (Dominating Detroit in the process and drawing non-stop doubles vs Dallas) and some fairly decent role player showings in the playoffs thereafter.

I'm perplexed as to the point you're arguing here.

The stats you provided only shows that no one in the 2000's (including Shaq) could match LeBron's 08-09 numbers.

My point, is that if we are to strictly go by peak performance alone, then LeBron would indisputably win this thread if peak performance was based on 1 year. If peak performance was based off 3 years, LeBron would win (or maybe Shaq comes close... I didn't look super closely at the stats).

Regardless of whether peak performance is 1 year or 3 or 4, LeBron and (to a lesser extent) Shaq should win this thread for people, right? It's automatically one of them if peak performance is the sole basis for determining the best player of the entire 2000's decade.

The problem is - if people agree that DUNCAN wins and is number 1, then they can't argue and act like Kobe doesn't have a case over LeBron/Shaq because of peak performance (or else they shouldn't have Duncan nor agree to Duncan being #1 at all).

That was my point. Not trying to go off on a tangent here.

Vee-Rex
09-14-2016, 04:40 PM
BTW, my top 5 looks close to the OP's

1. Duncan
2. Kobe
3. Shaq
4. LeBron
5. Garnett
Maybe Wade at 6 and then Dirk at 7, Idk.

(I don't care about the rest)

I feel like LeBron and Shaq could be a bit interchangeable, but give the edge to Shaq because of his 4 rings in the 2000's. Rings, leadership, prime-run, that stuff matters a lot to me in determining the best player of an entire decade. Peak performance is definitely why someone like LeBron for me is over people like Wade and KG despite the fact that they won rings in the 2000's and LeBron didn't. So PP is a factor in my view as well.

YAALREADYKNO
09-14-2016, 05:05 PM
I have Shaq over Duncan. i know Duncan was more consistent but Shaq's 3yr run was just too dominant for me to ignore

valade16
09-14-2016, 05:10 PM
I have Shaq over Duncan. i know Duncan was more consistent but Shaq's 3yr run was just too dominant for me to ignore

Duncan had one of the MVPs during that Shaq 3 year run didn't he?

YAALREADYKNO
09-14-2016, 05:21 PM
Duncan had one of the MVPs during that Shaq 3 year run didn't he?

Yeah and so did Iverson

mngopher35
09-14-2016, 05:43 PM
BTW, my top 5 looks close to the OP's

1. Duncan
2. Kobe
3. Shaq
4. LeBron
5. Garnett
Maybe Wade at 6 and then Dirk at 7, Idk.

(I don't care about the rest)

I feel like LeBron and Shaq could be a bit interchangeable, but give the edge to Shaq because of his 4 rings in the 2000's. Rings, leadership, prime-run, that stuff matters a lot to me in determining the best player of an entire decade. Peak performance is definitely why someone like LeBron for me is over people like Wade and KG despite the fact that they won rings in the 2000's and LeBron didn't. So PP is a factor in my view as well.

I was thinking a similar top 5 but I wanna take a look at KG/Kobe from a basic statistical perceptive over that stretch briefly. Consider that Kobe had the advantage of playing off of Shaq for 5 years and Gasol 1.5 as well.

Regular season:
KG: 25.5 PER, .216 ws/48, 7.3 BPM
Kobe: 24.6 PER, .201 ws/48, 5.1 BPM

Post season:
KG:23.9 PER, .175 ws/48, 6.4 BPM
Kobe:22.7 PER, .168 ws/48, BPM 4.9

If just talking peak for each of these KG's 04 RS trumps any of Kobe's across the 3 stats and in post season it is mixed but obviously sample each year is very small for KG on crap teams. Note: The two years where Kobe did not have Shaq/Gasol he had good regular season numbers but averaged 21.6 PER, .101 ws/48, 2.5 BPM so without great help his playoff numbers were down (like KG dealt with most of that time and Kobe's skill set should make him more equipped to deal with having that load too). +/- stats over this span would also favor KG (honestly he would be near the top probably, but that's due to his lack of help too not just individual).

Basically my point is I don't think it is fair to really separate Kobe/KG by a couple of people. I am fine taking Kobe for other reasons over KG despite his statistical advantage but I feel like having separation between the two is a little off. KG has an MVP, DPOY, and title as the best player while Kobe has MVP, title as the best player (with FMVP which KG did not get), and 3 titles as the second best player in the span so top level accolades aren't that far off considering the talent Kobe played with. This was mostly a statistical look but I just wanted to throw it out there and if someone disagrees they can point out other areas but I just feel like there wasn't much of a gap between them if just talking 00-09, KG has an argument from 00-05 as the better player probably so 6 of the years.

Hawkeye15
09-14-2016, 05:48 PM
I was thinking a similar top 5 but I wanna take a look at KG/Kobe from a basic statistical perceptive over that stretch briefly. Consider that Kobe had the advantage of playing off of Shaq for 5 years and Gasol 1.5 as well.

Regular season:
KG: 25.5 PER, .216 ws/48, 7.3 BPM
Kobe: 24.6 PER, .201 ws/48, 5.1 BPM

Post season:
KG:23.9 PER, .175 ws/48, 6.4 BPM
Kobe:22.7 PER, .168 ws/48, BPM 4.9

If just talking peak for each of these KG's 04 RS trumps any of Kobe's across the 3 stats and in post season it is mixed but obviously sample each year is very small for KG on crap teams. Note: The two years where Kobe did not have Shaq/Gasol he had good regular season numbers but averaged 21.6 PER, .101 ws/48, 2.5 BPM so without great help his playoff numbers were down (like KG dealt with most of that time and Kobe's skill set should make him more equipped to deal with having that load too). +/- stats over this span would also favor KG (honestly he would be near the top probably, but that's due to his lack of help too not just individual).

Basically my point is I don't think it is fair to really separate Kobe/KG by a couple of people. I am fine taking Kobe for other reasons over KG despite his statistical advantage but I feel like having separation between the two is a little off. KG has an MVP, DPOY, and title as the best player while Kobe has MVP, title as the best player (with FMVP which KG did not get), and 3 titles as the second best player in the span so top level accolades aren't that far off considering the talent Kobe played with. This was mostly a statistical look but I just wanted to throw it out there and if someone disagrees they can point out other areas but I just feel like there wasn't much of a gap between them if just talking 00-09, KG has an argument from 00-05 as the better player probably so 6 of the years.

KG in the playoffs, versus Kobe in the playoffs though...

mngopher35
09-14-2016, 05:55 PM
KG in the playoffs, versus Kobe in the playoffs though...

His stats are similar to Kobe's but Kobe had more team success. Shaq for 5 years might have something to do with that. When Kobe lacked help his numbers dropped and he didn't make it out of the first round either so why punish KG for similar results when he didn't have top level talent (again while matching up better statistically despite that fact)?

mngopher35
09-14-2016, 06:05 PM
Again I am totally fine with Kobe being higher on lists but there definitely isn't a gap like many have had at least imo.

Chronz
09-14-2016, 07:47 PM
I'm perplexed as to the point you're arguing here.
That Shaq was the superior player as evident by his superior peak playoff run on both a team and individual scale.


The stats you provided only shows that no one in the 2000's (including Shaq) could match LeBron's 08-09 numbers.

I agreed and gave my take on that supremacy. Again, there was an argument to be made for Kobe was there not? This despite the far greater disparity in their production whereas with Shaq, there was no argument to be made.


My point, is that if we are to strictly go by peak performance alone, then LeBron would indisputably win this thread if peak performance was based on 1 year. If peak performance was based off 3 years, LeBron would win (or maybe Shaq comes close... I didn't look super closely at the stats).
I disagree, I dont grade peak performance solely on RS statistics.


The problem is - if people agree that DUNCAN wins and is number 1, then they can't argue and act like Kobe doesn't have a case over LeBron/Shaq because of peak performance (or else they shouldn't have Duncan nor agree to Duncan being #1 at all).

That was my point. Not trying to go off on a tangent here.

I look at it like this, if Im given 10 years to compete and we all get to choose between these players for the next 10, I would want having the best player for half the decade than having the next best for 8 or the next best after him for 10. Because if we were comparing careers the way we do in legacy lists, we already take guys with shorter careers all the time. I admit that Shaq not really being Shaq for most of this decade makes it a hard decision tho.

If we went year by year, how often are these guys the best, the next best and so on?

More-Than-Most
09-14-2016, 08:20 PM
Why? Its the same argument

I honestly forgot Shaq was still that good for that long lol. Yea in the case my order would be

Lebron/Duncan
Shaq
Kobe
Everyone else.

Timmy and Lebron were incredible defensively for the majority of their play in the 2000s.... Shaq/Kobe werent... I dont mind an argument for Kobe but I think Lebron was a far far superior 2 way player from his 2nd year in the league and on.

kdspurman
09-14-2016, 08:34 PM
^I kinda disagree with that, LeBron didn't hit his defensive stride till his Miami days, give or take a year or 2 prior. I feel like he was pretty average in that regard. He had chase down blocks occasionally, but he really wasn't anything special. IMO at least

More-Than-Most
09-15-2016, 12:59 AM
^I kinda disagree with that, LeBron didn't hit his defensive stride till his Miami days, give or take a year or 2 prior. I feel like he was pretty average in that regard. He had chase down blocks occasionally, but he really wasn't anything special. IMO at least

I dunno... He didnt really have the help defensively until the Heat days though. Who really helped him in his cav days? I am not saying he was other worldly like he was during his heat years but I still think him and Duncan were far superior to Kobe/Shaq defensively... Lebron was a better defender from his 2nd year on the Kobe was... I get kobe has had the All NBA teams or whatever and my love for Kobe is his longevity and his work ethic but I never found him to be anything special on the defensive end... Lebron guards every position and did a ton with little to no help from 06-10

People dont really realize the Jump Lebron made from rookie to Sophomore where he averaged 27/7/7/2 on 47 percent from the field and 36 percent from 3... He literally became a top 5 player in all of basketball his 2nd year and by his 3rd year should have won the MVP.

Chronz
09-15-2016, 01:41 AM
I dunno... He didnt really have the help defensively until the Heat days though. Who really helped him in his cav days? I am not saying he was other worldly like he was during his heat years but I still think him and Duncan were far superior to Kobe/Shaq defensively... Lebron was a better defender from his 2nd year on the Kobe was... I get kobe has had the All NBA teams or whatever and my love for Kobe is his longevity and his work ethic but I never found him to be anything special on the defensive end... Lebron guards every position and did a ton with little to no help from 06-10

People dont really realize the Jump Lebron made from rookie to Sophomore where he averaged 27/7/7/2 on 47 percent from the field and 36 percent from 3... He literally became a top 5 player in all of basketball his 2nd year and by his 3rd year should have won the MVP.

I wish we got to see Bron in the early 2K era, I know 2nd year players improve but lots of guys skyrocked as a result of the rule changes. Look at a guy like AI, dude exploded too and he was already 30. There were articles of him being in the "Phental" State but the rules surely helped too. I mean, how often do guys who rely on their quickness as much as AI have a career year at 30?

Vee-Rex
09-15-2016, 09:34 AM
That Shaq was the superior player as evident by his superior peak playoff run on both a team and individual scale.

Alright, that's a fair take. I'm not sure where I disputed this, though. I even claimed they could be used interchangeably and I have Shaq higher than LeBron on my own list. If you're really hung up on my statement of LeBron having top claim on peak performance in the 2000's then I don't know what to say. I was trying to make a point. But I do value the playoffs, so I'm okay with your statement.



I agreed and gave my take on that supremacy. Again, there was an argument to be made for Kobe was there not? This despite the far greater disparity in their production whereas with Shaq, there was no argument to be made.
[/QUOTE

The thing is - Kobe had a great 10-year stretch in the 2000's. It was pretty much the best of his entire career. It's the only reason he's even in the conversation, because if we went strictly by peak performance then Shaq/LeBron would blow him away. Whereas LeBron didn't have a great year until '04-05, and Shaq started rapidly declining in the mid 2000's. 06-07 was a good year but nowhere near the others, and 07-08 wasn't great for him.



[QUOTE]
I look at it like this, if Im given 10 years to compete and we all get to choose between these players for the next 10, I would want having the best player for half the decade than having the next best for 8 or the next best after him for 10. Because if we were comparing careers the way we do in legacy lists, we already take guys with shorter careers all the time. I admit that Shaq not really being Shaq for most of this decade makes it a hard decision tho.

If we went year by year, how often are these guys the best, the next best and so on?

And here's the problem. You're looking at this from a - "Who would I take from the 2000's" kind of perspective. I'd agree with you in taking the 5-6 elite years over the 10 great years if I believed that was what the thread was supposed to be about.

I'm looking at this from a "Who had a better career in the 2000's" kind of perspective, which is why Duncan tops it all for me, which is why Kobe is my #2. I mean, if I looked at it from your perspective, there's no way I'd take KG over someone with a better peak performance.

If you wanna push Shaq over Kobe for me.... I won't be mad (I have Shaq #3). Shaq had a dominant peak performance in the 2000's along with 4 rings. But I'm taking Kobe and his 4 rings (or 5 if you wanna spare that extra year for 09-10) as having a better career in the 2000's over LeBron's 0 rings and better peak performance.

YAALREADYKNO
09-16-2016, 12:20 AM
Speaking of the 2000's...well this is the early 2000's 😢 Miss these days of the NBA. Get chills every time I watch it

https://youtu.be/lf3K-S9jDdY

Chronz
09-16-2016, 02:19 AM
Speaking of the 2000's...well this is the early 2000's 😢 Miss these days of the NBA. Get chills every time I watch it

https://youtu.be/lf3K-S9jDdY

Nice find

YAALREADYKNO
09-16-2016, 08:11 AM
Nice find

Thanks. And the music just gives you the feels even more lol