Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 348 of 452 FirstFirst ... 248298338346347348349350358398448 ... LastLast
Results 5,206 to 5,220 of 6768
  1. #5206
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You just said a back to back might put him top 5. So will it or wonít it?
    A back-to-back would. A 3rd title (as an elite player) would cement him in the top 2-3.

  2. #5207
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Pau was not a superstar ever. I'm not even sure Pau would agree with what you're saying. Do me a favor, go ahead and post this in the laker forum and see how many fans who actually were old enough to understand the game would agree with you that Pau was a superstar on the lakers. Pau never reached anywhere near the heights that Kobe reached in 01 and 02. He never reached the heights that Love reached in Minnesota. Pau was an excellent player, but he was only a good second option (not even a great second option). Kobe on the other hand was a great #1 while he was with Shaq (he just happened to not be the #1 on that team). No sense in debating this with me: go post this on the laker forum and lets see how many posters agree with you that Pau was a superstar on the lakers.
    Personally I donít consider fans in the Laker forum to be anymore knowledgeable about basketball than the average fan. More I am I saying he was a iconic star like Kobe I said he was a superstar. It have so many stars like that.

    I canít go into what qualify as a super but that he was
    https://www.basketball-reference.com.../all_star.html

  3. #5208
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Saddletramp View Post
    You donít know what mutually exclusive means. You also donít know what ďno excusesĒ means. And Kobe made up for it by winning only after Pau came in? Christ, if the roles were reversed youíd be saying Pau was top ten when he signed with the Heat and Bosh wasnít a star when he signed with the Lakers. Itís never****ingending.
    Yep you know the double standards.

  4. #5209
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    As I mentioned earlier, having a talented team is different than having a good team. The most talented team isn't always the best team. During the Shaq/Kobe lakers, the lakers didn't have the most talented team in the league. Same with some of the spurs teams that won titles (even before the 2014 title). You obviously need enough talent to be able to compete with the top teams, but once that's in place, it's much more about execution, decision making, game-planning, chemistry, etc. Those things take a lot of time and discipline and this is why the spurs are always competitive even when they aren't very talented, because the organization has an incredible coach staff with great structure and they know how to find guys who will fit into what they're doing and who will commit to playing the right way.

    I did expect OKC to lose to the spurs and I don't think OKC would've beaten the spurs in 2012 if it wasn't for the shortened season. The reason that I would pick those spurs over OKC was because OKC didn't play championship basketball and made far too many mistakes. It's not as thought the spurs sucked talent wise, but they also were far from stacked in terms of talent. OKC had guys who would eventually develop into excellent players, but they weren't that during 2012.
    Hahahaha then having a talented team is meaningless and I question how you judge top talent if you don't think Shaq/Kobe was the most talented team lol. This is why most people expected OKC to beat the Heat and they had the odds despite your ridiculous look at talent that ignores MVP caliber players when convenent because you call them too young. Lol like I said this isn't an actual look at basketball it is just you calling older Wade/Bosh super talented but Shaq/Kobe somehow was not compared to their competion (so young Kobe must not have been that good then since Shaq was best in league, Kobe doesn't get credit as a star these years does he?). The issue is the inconsistency in which you throw around the word talent with 0 context or apparently an understanding of how good certain players like Shaq/Kobe are if you don't think they were more talented than others as a top duo.

    You expected them to lose despite far more top talent? Why? The same reason everyone has pointed out that Spurs team is so good lol. You simply try and downgrade how good an elite team like that was by calling them less talented, again without context or understanding and often with seemingly inconsistent method to define it. Just whatever helps your narrative at the time, top talent matters most for heat but not Lakers etc. and that inconsistency is so obvious and biased that is probably why people constantly feel the need to call you out. It isn't hate to point out how obviously great those spurs teams were or that Shaq/Kobe was top talented duo at the time, it is just common sense to those who actually watched these teams.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 05-26-2020 at 01:16 PM.

  5. #5210
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Personally I donít consider fans in the Laker forum to be anymore knowledgeable about basketball than the average fan. More I am I saying he was a iconic star like Kobe I said he was a superstar. It have so many stars like that.

    I canít go into what qualify as a super but that he was
    https://www.basketball-reference.com.../all_star.html
    It's not that fans there are more knowledgable, it's that they saw him play as a laker on a nightly basis for maybe 95% of his games. They have a really good sense of the type of player he was. Great fit for Kobe, but he was not a superstar. There are very few superstars in the game at any one time and Pau was not one of them.

  6. #5211
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    He wasn't at his peak, but he also wasn't the only player on that team. As I've said, back in the 80s it was much easier to stack teams so a good team could really easily end up with 4-8 guys who are all all-star caliber players back then. That's a lot harder to do in today's NBA because there are far too many teams to concentrate that much talent in a single team. So when we look back on teams like the lakers and Celtics from the 80s and say they were stacked, we have to take into account that most of the good teams were also stacked and had a bunch of guys who were all-star caliber players (e.g., several of the 80s Bucks teams). As the league expanded though, that became a lot harder to do, which is why having a less stacked team in today's NBA could still net that team a much greater advantage in today's league than a more stacked team in the 80s would garner that team in that era.
    He was the best player on the team and multiple seasons less experience than KD, KD was also 2nd in MVP at the time himself in 2012 in his 5th season not 2nd.

    So who else on that team made it overly stacked that wasn't young themselves? Young Ralph Sampson in his 3rd season? Tell me who the other 7 guys are on this team that made them so stacked compared to Boston/LA given the experience and that you call KD etc. too young despite theirs.

    None of your arguments stay consistent. That team did not have the talent like Boston, especially when you consider how young/inexperienced and how you have used that on OKC teams etc. it just makes no sense. I would love a breakdown how players like Lewis Loyd put them over the top all time then.

  7. #5212
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    It's not that fans there are more knowledgable, it's that they saw him play as a laker on a nightly basis for maybe 95% of his games. They have a really good sense of the type of player he was. Great fit for Kobe, but he was not a superstar. There are very few superstars in the game at any one time and Pau was not one of them.
    Only laker fans got tv, internet, DVD player, etc? Or is all games played in La

    The Lakers won the first championship of the 2010s. And Pau Gasol, not Kobe Bryant, led that squad in postseason in box plus/minus. He tied Bryant for the team lead in playoff wins over replacement player.

    During those 23 games that culminated in the title win, Gasol averaged 19.6 points, 11.1 rebounds, 3.5 assists and 2.1 blocks with a 59.9 true shooting percentage.

    "The reality is: I don't win those championships without Pau," Kobe said at the Oscars in 2018. "The city of L.A. doesn't have those two championships without Pau Gasol. We know that. Everybody knows that."

    Obviously Kobe not everyone knows that.

    Over the next eight regular seasons, Gasol made three All-Star teams, earned two All-NBA nods and averaged 15.7 points, 9.8 rebounds, 3.3 assists and 1.5 blocks.

    He even developed into a legitimate three-point threat in his twilight years. Over the three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-18, Gasol took 1.4 threes a game and knocked them down at a 42 percent rate.

    Like many others on this list, his most prolific years came in the 2000s, but he remained one of the game's top players well into his 30s.

    Again I did not say he was a Kobe, Mj, Shaq, Kd, etc but he was a star. If Duncan only won with Kobe you would say the same about him.
    Last edited by ldawg; 05-26-2020 at 01:33 PM.

  8. #5213
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Hahahaha then having a talented team is meaningless and I question how you judge top talent if you don't think Shaq/Kobe was the most talented team lol. This is why most people expected OKC to beat the Heat and they had the odds despite your ridiculous look at talent that ignores MVP caliber players when convenent because you call them too young. Lol like I said this isn't an actual look at basketball it is just you calling older Wade/Bosh super talented but Shaq/Kobe somehow was not compared to their competion (so young Kobe must not have been that good then since Shaq was best in league, Kobe doesn't get credit as a star these years does he?). The issue is the inconsistency in which you throw around the word talent with 0 context or apparently an understanding of how good certain players like Shaq/Kobe are if you don't think they were more talented than others as a top duo.

    You expected them to lose despite far more top talent? Why? The same reason everyone has pointed out that Spurs team is so good lol. You simply try and downgrade how good an elite team like that was by calling them less talented, again without context or understanding and often with seemingly consistent method to define it. Just whatever helps your narrative at the time, top talent matters most for heat but not Lakers etc. and tha6t inconsistency is so obvious and biased that is probably why people constantly feel the need to call you out. It isn't hate to point out how obviously great those spurs teams were or that Shaq/Kobe was top talented duo at the time, it is just common sense to those who actually watched these teams.
    Talent is based on how good the players are at that given moment. How good a team is is based on how well they play together as a unit and how they execute. In 2000, the blazers had a super stacked team (one of the most stacked in the history of the league). They multiple all-star caliber players who were taking lesser roles because the team was so stacked. The lakers had shaq and Kobe (Kobe was a star in 2000 and a superstar thereafter) and that was it in terms of their all-star caliber players. In 2002, the kings had a bevy of all-star caliber players (were probably more talented than the 2000 blazers), the lakers once again had shaq and Kobe. Shaq and Kobe were the top talented duo in the league (you don't have to tell me, I watched about 99.9% of their games). The issue was that the rest of the team was not very talented, whereas there were a few teams who had a far greater number of all-star caliber talent. When looking at OKC, they had KD (who was a superstar) and Westbrook (who was a star) and that was about it in terms of their all-star caliber players. Harden was a very good player at the time, but not yet anywhere near what he became.

    Talent matters in terms of how good the team can be. How good the team is however, is a different thing. The talent of a team matters when assessing a player because it allows us to determine the type of opportunity they had going in.

  9. #5214
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    He was the best player on the team and multiple seasons less experience than KD, KD was also 2nd in MVP at the time himself in 2012 in his 5th season not 2nd.

    So who else on that team made it overly stacked that wasn't young themselves? Young Ralph Sampson in his 3rd season? Tell me who the other 7 guys are on this team that made them so stacked compared to Boston/LA given the experience and that you call KD etc. too young despite theirs.

    None of your arguments stay consistent. That team did not have the talent like Boston, especially when you consider how young/inexperienced and how you have used that on OKC teams etc. it just makes no sense. I would love a breakdown how players like Lewis Loyd put them over the top all time then.
    The question I was asked was not whether they compared to the lakers and Boston, it was whether they were better than the 12 okc team and the 13 spurs team. Sampson might have been in his 3rd year, but he was 25. Back then players were literally much more physically and mentally mature than players now so a player in his 3rd season today is A LOT different than a player in his 3rd season back then. Comparing some of those teams to teams today is like comparing boys to men. I also don't know why you're focusing on the rockets. I mentioned other teams as well, AND also said that the lakers and Celtics counted as the competition and so one of them can directly be compared to the other.

  10. #5215
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Talent is based on how good the players are at that given moment. How good a team is is based on how well they play together as a unit and how they execute. In 2000, the blazers had a super stacked team (one of the most stacked in the history of the league). They multiple all-star caliber players who were taking lesser roles because the team was so stacked. The lakers had shaq and Kobe (Kobe was a star in 2000 and a superstar thereafter) and that was it in terms of their all-star caliber players. In 2002, the kings had a bevy of all-star caliber players (were probably more talented than the 2000 blazers), the lakers once again had shaq and Kobe. Shaq and Kobe were the top talented duo in the league (you don't have to tell me, I watched about 99.9% of their games). The issue was that the rest of the team was not very talented, whereas there were a few teams who had a far greater number of all-star caliber talent. When looking at OKC, they had KD (who was a superstar) and Westbrook (who was a star) and that was about it in terms of their all-star caliber players. Harden was a very good player at the time, but not yet anywhere near what he became.

    Talent matters in terms of how good the team can be. How good the team is however, is a different thing. The talent of a team matters when assessing a player because it allows us to determine the type of opportunity they had going in.
    Shaq and Kobe were more talented though, their top duo isn't as talented. Pippen was 34 no longer getting awards. That was Sheed's first all star game that season and no one else was at the top of the league. This is what I mean though, you are never consistent in how you judge talent and it is an issue. The top talent is either far and away in favor of the Lakers here, Kobe wasn't even close to star level yet, or you simply will push whatever team being more talented you can to push this narrative. Which is it?

    I have noted this for Spurs too and how their overall talent was so great when you go 5 deep and so on but you said it doesn't matter. You said it was just top talent etc. but now when convenient you change.

    My issue is you are inconsistent in how you define talent, when it is top talent compared to team talent overall and an sort of meaningful gauge other than having wildly different standards over and over.

  11. #5216
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Only laker fans got tv, internet, DVD player, etc? Or is all games played in La

    The Lakers won the first championship of the 2010s. And Pau Gasol, not Kobe Bryant, led that squad in postseason in box plus/minus. He tied Bryant for the team lead in playoff wins over replacement player.

    During those 23 games that culminated in the title win, Gasol averaged 19.6 points, 11.1 rebounds, 3.5 assists and 2.1 blocks with a 59.9 true shooting percentage.

    "The reality is: I don't win those championships without Pau," Kobe said at the Oscars in 2018. "The city of L.A. doesn't have those two championships without Pau Gasol. We know that. Everybody knows that."

    Over the next eight regular seasons, Gasol made three All-Star teams, earned two All-NBA nods and averaged 15.7 points, 9.8 rebounds, 3.3 assists and 1.5 blocks.

    He even developed into a legitimate three-point threat in his twilight years. Over the three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-18, Gasol took 1.4 threes a game and knocked them down at a 42 percent rate.

    Like many others on this list, his most prolific years came in the 2000s, but he remained one of the game's top players well into his 30s.

    Again I did not say he was a Kobe, Mj, Shaq, Kd, etc but he was a star. If Duncan only won with Kobe you would say the same about him.
    Lakers won their first title with Pau in 2009 (were you even watching these) and the box/plus minus being the same shows exactly how poor of a measure this is, because Pau was nowhere near Kobe's level of impact. Again, go ahead and ask the laker forum if they thought Pau was a superstar.

  12. #5217
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Shaq and Kobe were more talented though, their top duo isn't as talented. Pippen was 34 no longer getting awards. That was Sheed's first all star game that season and no one else was at the top of the league. This is what I mean though, you are never consistent in how you judge talent and it is an issue. The top talent is either far and away in favor of the Lakers here, Kobe wasn't even close to star level yet, or you simply will push whatever team being more talented you can to push this narrative. Which is it?

    I have noted this for Spurs too and how their overall talent was so great when you go 5 deep and so on but you said it doesn't matter. You said it was just top talent etc. but now when convenient you change.

    My issue is you are inconsistent in how you define talent, when it is top talent compared to team talent overall and an sort of meaningful gauge other than having wildly different standards over and over.
    thats the circle of context that leans to a particular person no matter the situation.

  13. #5218
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    The question I was asked was not whether they compared to the lakers and Boston, it was whether they were better than the 12 okc team and the 13 spurs team. Sampson might have been in his 3rd year, but he was 25. Back then players were literally much more physically and mentally mature than players now so a player in his 3rd season today is A LOT different than a player in his 3rd season back then. Comparing some of those teams to teams today is like comparing boys to men. I also don't know why you're focusing on the rockets. I mentioned other teams as well, AND also said that the lakers and Celtics counted as the competition and so one of them can directly be compared to the other.
    How were they better then? KD was as old and more experienced and also a top 2 MVP voting at the time so if he is too young why isn't Hakeem?

    I am focusing on them because you talk about how talented teams are and so on with widlly different standards. KD/Hakeem clearly best players on the team same age with KD having multiple years more experience. Hakeem is now the young'n in the discussion. Westy/Harden/Ibaka may not have been 25 but they are more talented than the rest of that team pretty clearly given TALENT.

    I am focusing on areas where what you say is inconsistent and makes 0 sense given other arguments you have made. My issue is the inconsistency/double standards whenever convenient to push your narrative.

  14. #5219
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,390
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    thats the circle of context that leans to a particular person no matter the situation.
    Ya he creates a circular argument where if you don't agree with his arbitrary and ever changing standard for top talent then it will drastically change how you judge certain teams/players and so on without any actual context.

  15. #5220
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Lakers won their first title with Pau in 2009 (were you even watching these) and the box/plus minus being the same shows exactly how poor of a measure this is, because Pau was nowhere near Kobe's level of impact. Again, go ahead and ask the laker forum if they thought Pau was a superstar.
    Did Kobe man the paint? What do you mean he Did not have that level of impact?

Posting Permissions

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