Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 36 of 103 FirstFirst ... 2634353637384686 ... LastLast
Results 526 to 540 of 1538
  1. #526
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    30,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Nah completely disagree here. That argument can be made for his first title with shaq...the last 2 kobe was widely recognized as the 2nd best player. That was the explanation as to why the team was so dominant. The idea was that the other guys weren't all that good, but they had the two best players in the league. Pippen never reached the level that Kobe did in 2001, nor did Duncan or AI for that matter, especially when considering that that production was coming from being the second option (in this regard, the context between kobe and Pippen can be directly compared because both were the 2nd option in the triangle and with Phil as the coach and there are no seasons in which Pippen is close).

    This is clearly somewhat subjective, but I consider being a superstar (even if you are the 2nd best player on the team) to carry more weight if you win a title than in cases where you form a super team to win a title and you are the best player on that team.
    Can we all just admit we've been arguing against a big homer here? Duncan never hit the level Kobe did in 2001? Duncan was the NBA MVP in 2002...

  2. #527
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,039
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Well the moment Shaq left Kobe certainly dominated the ball to the extent LeBron did.
    He definitely dominated the ball a lot more, but in 06 Phil came back and so did the triangle. Kobe still dominated the ball a good amount, but the system just keeps a player from fully making it too ball dominant. Kobe did dominate the ball a lot though during those years and the numbers bear that out, but once Pau came in in 2008, Kobe went back to playing a lot within the triangle, maybe more than he did when he was with Shaq, although at this point he was the first option.

    To be clear here, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to pick LBJ over kobe. LBJ is a great, great player. I pick kobe myself, but the alternative is not unreasonable. I think it's unreasonable to think that it's not a debatable point and that it's easily LBJ. I think it's fairly close and that's actually why I bring up all these minor details. I wouldn't factor in context if we were comparing LBJ to Melo or Wade.

  3. #528
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,039
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Can we all just admit we've been arguing against a big homer here? Duncan never hit the level Kobe did in 2001? Duncan was the NBA MVP in 2002...
    Eh, I've always thought Duncan was a bit overrated and I don't think he reached the heights of Kobe's pinnacle (Kellerman has made a similar point). But I do acknowledge that this position is highly debatable.

  4. #529
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    30,289
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    no he wasn't
    True, but Kobe wasn't 2nd best in the league during their 3-peat either.

  5. #530
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    30,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Eh, I've always thought Duncan was a bit overrated and I don't think he reached the heights of Kobe's pinnacle (Kellerman has made a similar point). But I do acknowledge that this position is highly debatable.
    OK, but this is all personal opinion backed by nothing. During the actual period you claimed Kobe was 2nd best in the league, Duncan literally won the MVP over him and Shaq. So what evidence do you have that Kobe was the 2nd best player in the league?

  6. #531
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,039
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    OK, but this is all personal opinion backed by nothing. During the actual period you claimed Kobe was 2nd best in the league, Duncan literally won the MVP over him and Shaq. So what evidence do you have that Kobe was the 2nd best player in the league?
    The MVP race is more of popularity contest. Nash won the MVP in 2006 and 2007 and I don't think he ever cracked the top 5. Rose won it 2011 and he wasn't better than LBJ. There's a long list of these things happening. My position stems from the fact that the lakers had a team of role players and shaq and kobe and they beat far more talented teams on paper during that stretch that had far more well-rounded rosters (e.g., 2000 blazers, 2002 kings, 2004 spurs). Personally, I value the output and impact on the game that kobe (especially since he was the second option at the time) had more than that of Duncans. Even without kobe in the league, I wouldn't have considered Duncan the best player during that stretch or even the second or 3rd best player.

    Either way, even if you disagree that kobe wasn't the 2nd best player in the league during that stretch, he was clearly a superstar and an elite player.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 10-21-2019 at 02:59 PM.

  7. #532
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    30,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    The MVP race is more of popularity contest. Nash won the MVP in 2006 and 2007 and I don't think he ever cracked the top 5. Rose won it 2011 and he wasn't better than LBJ. There's a long list of these things happening. My position stems from the fact that the lakers had a team of role players and shaq and kobe and they beat far more talented teams on paper during that stretch that had far more well-rounded rosters (e.g., 2000 blazers, 2002 kings, 2004 spurs). Personally, I value the output and impact on the game that kobe (especially since he was the second option at the time) had more than that of Duncans. Even without kobe in the league, I wouldn't have considered Duncan the best player during that stretch or even the second or 3rd best player.
    So again, your argument boils down to "rings". It's a hollow one. By that measure, of being the 2nd best player on a championship team, Joe Dumars was the 2nd best player in the league during the Piston's 2 titles. or Pippen was 2nd best during the Bull's 6. Or McHale 2nd during the Celtic's titles... See where I'm going with this?

    Or I'll put it another way, the list of players who were 2nd best on championship teams who were not the 2nd best player in the league is FAR longer than the list of players who won MVP who were not the best in the league.

  8. #533
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    45,211
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Can we all just admit we've been arguing against a big homer here? Duncan never hit the level Kobe did in 2001? Duncan was the NBA MVP in 2002...
    Kobe didn't surpass Duncan until like what, 2008?

  9. #534
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,039
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    So again, your argument boils down to "rings". It's a hollow one. By that measure, of being the 2nd best player on a championship team, Joe Dumars was the 2nd best player in the league during the Piston's 2 titles. or Pippen was 2nd best during the Bull's 6. Or McHale 2nd during the Celtic's titles... See where I'm going with this?

    Or I'll put it another way, the list of players who were 2nd best on championship teams who were not the 2nd best player in the league is FAR longer than the list of players who won MVP who were not the best in the league.
    No, its not that he was the second best player on the championship team. It was that the championship team wasn't all that talented. You remove kobe or shaq and that team might not make the playoffs. Its that that team was beating teams that had multiple all-star caliber players at various positions. The blazers and kings were super teams as were the 2003 and 2004 spurs. The lakers were beating those teams (except for the 2003 spurs) with two stars and a bunch of role player veterans.

  10. #535
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Kobe didn't surpass Duncan until like what, 2008?
    We'll have to disagree. I would say they were about the same in 2000 and then Kobe surpassed him in 01, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

  11. #536
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    45,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    We'll have to disagree. I would say they were about the same in 2000 and then Kobe surpassed him in 01, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
    They werent even close in 2000. Kobe didn't hit his stride until the following year and it was still well beneath the impact of an anchor like Duncan. You take Kobe off those Lakers, they still win at an elite level, take Duncan off and the Spurs collapse. He was more productive, a better defender, had superior accolades. It wasn't until way late in the game that Duncan was seen beneath the likes of Kobe, you're talking about a guy who had already proven capable of winning a chip as the lead dog, Kobe was never in the realm.

    There is literally nothing in Kobe's favor to assert such a ridiculous notion, literally nothing. You can agree to disagree, I'll take my mountains of evidence over your baseless opinion.

  12. #537
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    45,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    No, its not that he was the second best player on the championship team. It was that the championship team wasn't all that talented. You remove kobe or shaq and that team might not make the playoffs. Its that that team was beating teams that had multiple all-star caliber players at various positions. The blazers and kings were super teams as were the 2003 and 2004 spurs. The lakers were beating those teams (except for the 2003 spurs) with two stars and a bunch of role player veterans.
    You take Shaq off that team they're likely a .500 team or worse depending on which years we're looking at. You take Kobe off and they maintain their winning ways. Its why their efficiency levels were vastly different depending on if they had the leagues alpha or a top-5/10 guy.

  13. #538
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    They werent even close in 2000. Kobe didn't hit his stride until the following year and it was still well beneath the impact of an anchor like Duncan. You take Kobe off those Lakers, they still win at an elite level, take Duncan off and the Spurs collapse. He was more productive, a better defender, had superior accolades. It wasn't until way late in the game that Duncan was seen beneath the likes of Kobe, you're talking about a guy who had already proven capable of winning a chip as the lead dog, Kobe was never in the realm.

    There is literally nothing in Kobe's favor to assert such a ridiculous notion, literally nothing. You can agree to disagree, I'll take my mountains of evidence over your baseless opinion.
    Those accolades wouldn't be quite what they were if Duncan was the 2nd option. He also won his first title on a shortened season, in which there was a massive fluke where the Knicks upset the heat in the first round, who were the favorites to win it that year (likely wouldn't have happened in a full season). Duncan didn't win a title again until he had a super stacked team in 03. I consider kobe's production in 01 to be greater than anything Duncan did at any point in his career (the closest season was his 02 season), but when you factor in the fact that kobe did what he did as the second option, I don't think Duncan's season quite stacks up (Duncan had a lot more help as well).

  14. #539
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    You take Shaq off that team they're likely a .500 team or worse depending on which years we're looking at. You take Kobe off and they maintain their winning ways. Its why their efficiency levels were vastly different depending on if they had the leagues alpha or a top-5/10 guy.
    If you take kobe off of that team they are likely missing the playoffs or are a going out in the first round.

  15. #540
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    41,948
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Kobe never needed to demand it, he just did it. When Shaq left the team was absolutely constructed (or their lack of construction facilitated) to allow him to do whatever he wanted.

    As for the difference, sure there's some difference but it's not as big as the difference between how much better LeBron was than Kobe, even playing his LeBron ball.
    I agree, I never said Kobe was better just that LeBron's #s are inflated- particularly since he left the Heat. The thing I agree with Moves most on is that some people cherry stats and that some just buy ESPN narrative. I remember when the majority on here thought KG was better Timmy.
    Last edited by ewing; 10-21-2019 at 03:25 PM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

Page 36 of 103 FirstFirst ... 2634353637384686 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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