Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 389 of 451 FirstFirst ... 289339379387388389390391399439 ... LastLast
Results 5,821 to 5,835 of 6757
  1. #5821
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Anyone can be a #1, just make sure their teammates are worse. Could he be a good #1? Well people have posted the Lakers wins/Losses with/without Shaq and Kobe before and they only dropped off one way. We don't actually know because he never was one for his team until later on he benefited greatly from having one of the most dominant #1's ever in taking the attention of a defense.

    I am not backing up things I wasn't saying nor re posting all the stats/data/analysis/accolades and so on covered that you couldn't refute at the time.
    Oh you explicitly said that "Pippen showed he could be the man". That's fine though we don't have to rehash it. I absolutely refuted those silly comparisons you brought up. The accolades argument was really absurd because the same points could be made to support that Pippen was on par to someone like LBJ, Bird, or just about anyone else. That's how you ended up talking about the 94 season, because those comparisons didn't really hold mustard. Pippen wasn't a true #1 the same way Gasol wasn't a true #1. Kobe was absolutely a true #1 so yes, he could be a good #1 that's what it means to be a true #1. Pippen was NEVER a true #1. Not with MJ and not when MJ left.

  2. #5822
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Great basketball analysis I would expect from someone with no bias. Not at all a fanboy whining that everyone else thinks his opinions are crazy.

    Timberwolves fans aren't lesser people or not get to have opinions on things just because the team we root for is worse. Same with Portland fans. It is amazing I have to explain that on a forum but I guess all you have is bashing the team I root for.
    No, but it's ironic that you're arguing against championships mattering. It's like a short person saying being tall is overrated. If a tall person wants to make that argument that's fine, but the optics aren't great when it's a short person arguing it. Same principle here. If a Boston fan, Spurs fan, or Bulls fan wants to argue that then so be it. Being a timberwolves fan though, it comes off a little strange. Titles are the point of the game. Guaranteed that if LBJ put up all the numbers he's put up and never won a title in LA and he had a good team, there would be a lot of fans clamoring for him to be traded, because it's about winning titles not about putting up great numbers. It's only recently that this idea has started to shift, unsurprisingly because it's the only way to justify putting LBJ in the top 5. If LBJ had 7 titles I doubt very many of you would be making this argument.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-29-2020 at 06:00 PM.

  3. #5823
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,795
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Except Drexler was never gonna be in the conversation for top 10.

    Who is the highest rated player you have with no rings?
    But the better question would be which star with 2+ rings do we rate the lowest?

    Apart from ancient Celtics and Lakers, I guess Pippen would qualify here for me. Or perhaps Tony Parker. Manu Ginobili I rated very high from Europe so it wasn't unexpected for me that he'd thrive in San Antonio (but I feel he'd struggle playing for around 20/30 teams and possibly would have moved back to Europe straight away).

    Another nominee here would be Jamaal Wilkes.

    There's a decent sized list of players that don't get much love despite having 2-4 rings, whether they were legit stars or simply starters. Bench guys are ineligible for the discussion.

    And it's basketball, a great player has more gravitational force, so his team is more likely to succeed as long as it isn't made up of liabilities. If it's made up of other stars, that's even better.
    But I cannot hold it against players for not winning championships as long as it wasn't their fault. Giving your opponent a run for his money with an inferior team is worthy enough. But failing to win with a vastly superior team should be held against all parties involved.

  4. #5824
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    AGAIN...I never said he was THE #1, I said he was a #1, meaning that he was a true #1 but was on a team with a better player. If shaq joined mj, shaq would be the second best player but he would still be a true #1, same with Kobe. Getting better doesn't take away from being an elite superstar during that time.

    At the time, I said I was leaving the thread. I had very little trouble arguing the absurd point you made right before I left "that Pippen showed he could be the man". I'm assuming you realize how silly of an idea this was since you aren't picking this back up, so I will drop it.
    That’s a great point. If Jordan is drafted out of high school to the Lakers he will be on Shaq’s team. Shaq and Jordan is what we would call them. No way you can justify going to young Jordan over Superman. Jordan would clearly be a #1 talent playing behind or playing #2 to Superman.

    When Jordan played college he played on Worthy’s team. Jordan hit the game winner but Worthy was the best player in college let alone NC. #1 pick in draft after his championship. Even Jordan started off as a #2. Just like his little brother Kobe at the same age.

  5. #5825
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Oh you explicitly said that "Pippen showed he could be the man". That's fine though we don't have to rehash it. I absolutely refuted those silly comparisons you brought up. The accolades argument was really absurd because the same points could be made to support that Pippen was on par to someone like LBJ, Bird, or just about anyone else. That's how you ended up talking about the 94 season, because those comparisons didn't really hold mustard. Pippen wasn't a true #1 the same way Gasol wasn't a true #1. Kobe was absolutely a true #1 so yes, he could be a good #1 that's what it means to be a true #1. Pippen was NEVER a true #1. Not with MJ and not when MJ left.
    He did moreso than Kevin Love or that Kobe had at that time as a young player, as shown he actually lead a team on a playoff run with MJ gone.

    No it can't, only if you look at certain parts individually and not the context of the whole. Unless you are saying he has as many MVP's etc and just are unaware of history.

    Pippen was the #1 on a playoff team when MJ left we have been through this, it is actual history. That's what I have been saying and the others referenced like Klove/Cousins/young Kobe did not have that so it separates him some in that sense. You were making him seem worse than he actually is because he isn't a volume scorer when his impact on the game is clearly more than just that look.

  6. #5826
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    No, but it's ironic that you're arguing against championships mattering. It's like a short person saying being tall is overrated. If a tall person wants to make that argument that's fine, but the optics aren't great when it's a short person arguing it. Same principle here. If a Boston fan, Spurs fan, or Bulls fan wants to argue that then so be it. Being a timberwolves fan though, it comes off a little strange. Titles are the point of the game. Guaranteed that if LBJ put up all the numbers he's put up and never won a title in LA and he had a good team, there would be a lot of fans clamoring for him to be traded, because it's about winning titles not about putting up great numbers. It's only recently that this idea has started to shift, unsurprisingly because it's the only way to justify putting LBJ in the top 5. If LBJ had 7 titles I doubt very many of you would be making this argument.
    I am saying context matters most, you are the one picking and choosing randomly when rings are counted as we covered. I am just adding context into you randomly deciding when they count.

    I am not saying rings are overrated, I am saying Pippen has more rings than Kobe. It doesn't make him better. Common sense.

    Horry has more than both. Also not better. Common sense.

    You just need to twist things to fit a narrative while trying to bash others teams and laughably pretend others are the biased ones when it's been clear as day from the start this is just more insane Kobe/Laker fanboy homerism. You are just trying to twist my argument to defend going at other teams like that but the reality is you are clearly a troll fanboy incapable of actually discussing topics.

  7. #5827
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostonjorge View Post
    That’s a great point. If Jordan is drafted out of high school to the Lakers he will be on Shaq’s team. Shaq and Jordan is what we would call them. No way you can justify going to young Jordan over Superman. Jordan would clearly be a #1 talent playing behind or playing #2 to Superman.

    When Jordan played college he played on Worthy’s team. Jordan hit the game winner but Worthy was the best player in college let alone NC. #1 pick in draft after his championship. Even Jordan started off as a #2. Just like his little brother Kobe at the same age.
    Yep, to me what matters when a title is won is whether the player is a true #1, whether they're an elite superstar. I don't think Pippen ever came that close to reaching that level of talent. He was a true#2 and that's why I don't think it is appraise to call Kobe a robin, it was 1A (shaq) and 1B (Kobe), whereas with Pippen he was always a #2

  8. #5828
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I am saying context matters most, you are the one picking and choosing randomly when rings are counted as we covered. I am just adding context into you randomly deciding when they count.

    I am not saying rings are overrated, I am saying Pippen has more rings than Kobe. It doesn't make him better. Common sense.

    Horry has more than both. Also not better. Common sense.

    You just need to twist things to fit a narrative while trying to bash others teams and laughably pretend others are the biased ones when it's been clear as day from the start this is just more insane Kobe/Laker fanboy homerism. You are just trying to twist my argument to defend going at other teams like that but the reality is you are clearly a troll fanboy incapable of actually discussing topics.
    This issue has already been addressed dude. Of course Horry's 7 titles aren't relevant here. He was never a star. Pippen, while he was a great player, was never a true superstar. Kobe was both with and without shaq. So yes, Kobe's titles carry a lot more weight than Pippen's. That's what this debate has been about.

  9. #5829
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Yep, to me what matters when a title is won is whether the player is a true #1, whether they're an elite superstar. I don't think Pippen ever came that close to reaching that level of talent. He was a true#2 and that's why I don't think it is appraise to call Kobe a robin, it was 1A (shaq) and 1B (Kobe), whereas with Pippen he was always a #2
    Kobe was Batman to Superman.

  10. #5830
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostonjorge View Post
    Kobe was Batman to Superman.
    EXACTLY! That's the point in all of this, whereas Pippen was a true Robin. Nothing wrong with that, he was a great player, but it's disingenuous for these guys to try and put Kobe and Pippen in the same category.

  11. #5831
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    This issue has already been addressed dude. Of course Horry's 7 titles aren't relevant here. He was never a star. Pippen, while he was a great player, was never a true superstar. Kobe was both with and without shaq. So yes, Kobe's titles carry a lot more weight than Pippen's. That's what this debate has been about.
    My point has always been that arbitrary semantics don't matter. You saying star doesn't matter Kobe was still developing and not the #1 on his team in that way yet. Impact wise Prime Pippen was impacting games as much as 2000 I think in the end you even agreed to this? So why does one count but the other not?

    I never said they didn't carry more weight than Pippen or that he overall can't be considered better, what I noted was that he was closer to that than the best player on his team/best in league/best in world and so on yet like Shaq (or MJ/Lebron when they won their titles). They aren't the same thing either.

  12. #5832
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    My point has always been that arbitrary semantics don't matter. You saying star doesn't matter Kobe was still developing and not the #1 on his team in that way yet. Impact wise Prime Pippen was impacting games as much as 2000 I think in the end you even agreed to this? So why does one count but the other not?

    I never said they didn't carry more weight than Pippen or that he overall can't be considered better, what I noted was that he was closer to that than the best player on his team/best in league/best in world and so on yet like Shaq (or MJ/Lebron when they won their titles). They aren't the same thing either.
    I never argued against 2000 Kobe having a similar impact. I said that in 01 and 02, Kobe was an elite superstar and that it doesn't matter whether or not someone who is at that level is the best player on his team if they win a title it counts just the same. AD is arguably better than LBJ right now, but LBJ is still an elite superstar. If LBJ wins a title with AD, I'm not going to say well, he's not the best player on his team so it doesn't count the same.

  13. #5833
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I never argued against 2000 Kobe having a similar impact. I said that in 01 and 02, Kobe was an elite superstar and that it doesn't matter whether or not someone who is at that level is the best player on his team if they win a title it counts just the same. AD is arguably better than LBJ right now, but LBJ is still an elite superstar. If LBJ wins a title with AD, I'm not going to say well, he's not the best player on his team so it doesn't count the same.
    Well then we already are taking off a ring and that is not me it is your own standard. So why in the world be mad at others when this is your standard and also takes rings away from so many players?

    The point is this if the context matters then the rings compared to each other should have that similar context. That's only true for the last 2 of Kobe's rings when it comes to comparing them to Shaq/MJ/Lebron. If you want to say you can only compare one of early Kobe's rings to Pippens then I think you get this idea of his context not matching those greats at their peak either.

  14. #5834
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,912
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    But the better question would be which star with 2+ rings do we rate the lowest?
    Whoever someone considers the 2nd best Bad Boy is probably a good candidate too (either Laimbeer or Dumars). Maybe Dennis Johnson as the #2 to Sikma early (very arguably DJ was the #1) and the #2 to Bird in the 84 championship team. Gasol obviously is a candidate (maybe someone said that already).

    Maybe Dr. J if we count his 2 ABA titles as equivalent to 1 NBA ring as a #2, though that's some mental gymnastics that I generally don't like to engage in considering I didn't watch any ABA live. I'm not sure Manu qualifies since he was only a #2 for the 05 ring, and a #3 in 07 and a role player in 2003 and 2014.

  15. #5835
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Well then we already are taking off a ring and that is not me it is your own standard. So why in the world be mad at others when this is your standard and also takes rings away from so many players?

    The point is this if the context matters then the rings compared to each other should have that similar context. That's only true for the last 2 of Kobe's rings when it comes to comparing them to Shaq/MJ/Lebron. If you want to say you can only compare one of early Kobe's rings to Pippens then I think you get this idea of his context not matching those greats at their peak either.
    I agree that one of Kobe's rings is on par with Pippen's but I would say that the other two are on par with LBJ's rings.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •