Wade/Tmac/Kobe

[Big Moves03]

https://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/20...Performances-1

For your first paragraph, which was obviously wrong.

They literally were career altering injuries, you’re just talking out of your *** at this point.

So with Wade being the only good player on his team, opposing teams werent game planning for him and focusing the entire defense on him? Lmao man you have got to be kidding me and of course you didn’t come with a legit argument.

Answer me this at least, what year do you consider Kobes peak? You can only pick one.

Well then kobe had a bunch of career altering injuries too. One just played through them and remained great and the other one didnt.

I didnt say that they werent focusing in on Wade, I said that they werent doing it to the extent that they did with kobe. If you're on a bad team, teams tend to not really get up for you, the game plan isnt going to be as intense, because the opposition isnt elite...also Wade was nowhere near the offensive threat as someone like kobe. If a team was lax on kobe, he could drop 30 in a quarter and not blink. They had to fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening. That was never the case with Wade (or even LBJ, but that's a different argument altogether).

Physically, Kobe's peak was probably 03. All around though it was probably 09. His 06 and 07 seasons were technically better, but again, I dont consider those nearly as meaningful because being on a bad team and producing at a high clip isnt the same as doing it on a contending team. On a better team, the production necessarily decreases, but that doesnt mean that they arent at their peak. The circumstance is just different.

[Iggie]

tbh, I dont like kobe in ultimate pressure vs wade. tmac is with young Kobe but not peak kobe. all 3 **** on harden

I would love to see those 3 at their peaks playing in this inflated numbers era surrounded by shooters like Harden.

[Iggie]

Well then kobe had a bunch of career altering injuries too. One just played through them and remained great and the other one didnt.

I didnt say that they werent focusing in on Wade, I said that they werent doing it to the extent that they did with kobe. If you're on a bad team, teams tend to not really get up for you, the game plan isnt going to be as intense, because the opposition isnt elite...also Wade was nowhere near the offensive threat as someone like kobe. If a team was lax on kobe, he could drop 30 in a quarter and not blink. They had to fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening. That was never the case with Wade (or even LBJ, but that's a different argument altogether).

Physically, Kobe's peak was probably 03. All around though it was probably 09. His 06 and 07 seasons were technically better, but again, I dont consider those nearly as meaningful because being on a bad team and producing at a high clip isnt the same as doing it on a contending team. On a better team, the production necessarily decreases, but that doesnt mean that they arent at their peak. The circumstance is just different.

No comment on the finals lol?

What career altering injuries did Kobe have? An injury that changes your shooting form and another that shortens your prime 3-5 years and probably even hampers your peak a little are career altering.

I’ll get back to you on the rest later but looking more into it the better peak is definitely Wade, it wasn’t as close as I thought.

[Big Moves03]

No comment on the finals lol?

What career altering injuries did Kobe have? An injury that changes your shooting form and another that shortens your prime 3-5 years and probably even hampers your peak a little are career altering.

I’ll get back to you on the rest later but looking more into it the better peak is definitely Wade, it wasn’t as close as I thought.

As I said, I dont consider Wade's finals performance to be top 5 because I doubt he could do anything close to do that if shaq wasnt there. Even though Shaq wasnt at his prime anymore, he still demanded triple teams, and that opened things up for Wade in a way that would not have been otherwise possible. I'm not saying it wasnt a great finals performance, but it was greatly facilitated by shaq's mere presence.

Kobe had a ton of knee surgeries, broke his wrist, and had shoulder issues, which were surgically repaired on more than one occasion. I don't necessarily consider these career altering, but theyre just as much career altering as Wade's shoulder injury, which is a very typical basketball injury. The meniscus thing shortened his prime because it led to other knee injuries, but kobe had a ton of knee injuries as well so not really much of a difference other than the surgery made wade more susceptible to those injuries, whereas kobe just acquired them through playing. The end result was still having a ton of knee injuries that required multiple surgeries so both players dealt with a ton of injuries throughout their careers.

Again, you're looking at the boxscore numbers to say that Wade had a better peak. I agree that Wade produced more during his peak. That doesnt mean he had a better peak. If you put Wade on a contending team with other solid players, his numbers wouldve likely dropped considerably, because you'd take the ball out of his hands a decent amount. With Kobe's peak, those numbers are coming with this scenario already being the case. This is why it's not appropriate to look at boxscores and then go back and say "you know, Player A was actually better than Player B". No he wasn't, Player A was simply in a situation where he could put up big numbers. Basketball is about winning not about who can put up the best numbers. If Wade was putting up those numbers on a contending team as the clearcut best player then there would at least be more of an argument to be had, but without that it's not really that close.

[Iggie]

As I said, I dont consider Wade's finals performance to be top 5 because I doubt he could do anything close to do that if shaq wasnt there. Even though Shaq wasnt at his prime anymore, he still demanded triple teams, and that opened things up for Wade in a way that would not have been otherwise possible. I'm not saying it wasnt a great finals performance, but it was greatly facilitated by shaq's mere presence.

Kobe had a ton of knee surgeries, broke his wrist, and had shoulder issues, which were surgically repaired on more than one occasion. I don't necessarily consider these career altering, but theyre just as much career altering as Wade's shoulder injury, which is a very typical basketball injury. The meniscus thing shortened his prime because it led to other knee injuries, but kobe had a ton of knee injuries as well so not really much of a difference other than the surgery made wade more susceptible to those injuries, whereas kobe just acquired them through playing. The end result was still having a ton of knee injuries that required multiple surgeries so both players dealt with a ton of injuries throughout their careers.

Again, you're looking at the boxscore numbers to say that Wade had a better peak. I agree that Wade produced more during his peak. That doesnt mean he had a better peak. If you put Wade on a contending team with other solid players, his numbers wouldve likely dropped considerably, because you'd take the ball out of his hands a decent amount. With Kobe's peak, those numbers are coming with this scenario already being the case. This is why it's not appropriate to look at boxscores and then go back and say "you know, Player A was actually better than Player B". No he wasn't, Player A was simply in a situation where he could put up big numbers. Basketball is about winning not about who can put up the best numbers. If Wade was putting up those numbers on a contending team as the clearcut best player then there would at least be more of an argument to be had, but without that it's not really that close.

That’s just like me saying the same for Kobe about Shaq and Pau, it’s dumb.

Lmao you do realize there are different severities with injuries right? Having your meniscus removed isn’t the same as anything kobe had done. Completely destroying your rotator cuff, not just tearing it is completely different that Kobes shoulder injury. You’re just being a homer at this point.

I was going to compare Wades 3rd season in 05-06 to Kobes 08-09 since you picked his best championship year. Both on a contender, Wades numbers both basic and advanced are better than Kobes, he’s much more efficient, and they both won rings (Wades was much more impressive). Keep in mind like I said that was only his 3RD year in the league, the next season was the year he lost MVP because of injury. So what’s your argument now with Wade having better numbers in a year they both led their teams to a championship?

[Chronz]

I would love to see those 3 at their peaks playing in this inflated numbers era surrounded by shooters like Harden.

there's a great podcast by thinking basketball where he makes the comparison stylistically and he admitted staying in front of Wade would've been impossible. Kobe really played his game and it prolly brings out the best in his teammates but its hard to argue.

[Big Moves03]

That’s just like me saying the same for Kobe about Shaq and Pau, it’s dumb.

Lmao you do realize there are different severities with injuries right? Having your meniscus removed isn’t the same as anything kobe had done. Completely destroying your rotator cuff, not just tearing it is completely different that Kobes shoulder injury. You’re just being a homer at this point.

I was going to compare Wades 3rd season in 05-06 to Kobes 08-09 since you picked his best championship year. Both on a contender, Wades numbers both basic and advanced are better than Kobes, he’s much more efficient, and they both won rings (Wades was much more impressive). Keep in mind like I said that was only his 3RD year in the league, the next season was the year he lost MVP because of injury. So what’s your argument now with Wade having better numbers in a year they both led their teams to a championship?

It's not dumb, because even though Wade was putting up the best numbers on the team, he wasnt the focal point of the defense and that makes all the difference. Replace Shaq with probably any other superstar at the time and no way does Wade put up those numbers. In those championship runs with Pau, kobe was the focal point. This also factors into Wade's numbers in 06, where shaq was still demanding in triple teams. Again, you're looking at the boxscore to literally revise history. There is a reason that people didn't rank Wade ahead of Kobe at the time.

It's also highly debatable that Wade had better numbers there. The difference in their fg% is negligible and kobe wins out in ft%, which basically cancels out any differences in shooting efficiency. However, Kobe shot a whopping almost 20% higher in 3 pt shots and averaged 1 fewer turnover, all while being the clear #1. Wade was not the clear #1 as defenses were still focused on shaq and Wade had yet to prove that he could be a true superstar. The fact is, Wade never led a contending team as an established super star. Once he showed that he was on the level, his team wasnt very good and then LBJ and bosh came over.

What I've been advocating for though is that the numbers themselves are not going to provide a good indicator of assessing which player had the better peak and that's why it's not appropriate to look at boxscores and revise history in this way, because what gets lost is the more important things that don't get recorded. As I've been saying, kobe required defensive attention to a level that Wade never did at any point in his career. This is the true indicator, at least in my book, of the impact a superstar has on the game, because it affects everything else.

[Iggie]

It's not dumb, because even though Wade was putting up the best numbers on the team, he wasnt the focal point of the defense and that makes all the difference. Replace Shaq with probably any other superstar at the time and no way does Wade put up those numbers. In those championship runs with Pau, kobe was the focal point. This also factors into Wade's numbers in 06, where shaq was still demanding in triple teams. Again, you're looking at the boxscore to literally revise history. There is a reason that people didn't rank Wade ahead of Kobe at the time.

It's also highly debatable that Wade had better numbers there. The difference in their fg% is negligible and kobe wins out in ft%, which basically cancels out any differences in shooting efficiency. However, Kobe shot a whopping almost 20% higher in 3 pt shots and averaged 1 fewer turnover, all while being the clear #1. Wade was not the clear #1 as defenses were still focused on shaq and Wade had yet to prove that he could be a true superstar. The fact is, Wade never led a contending team as an established super star. Once he showed that he was on the level, his team wasnt very good and then LBJ and bosh came over.

What I've been advocating for though is that the numbers themselves are not going to provide a good indicator of assessing which player had the better peak and that's why it's not appropriate to look at boxscores and revise history in this way, because what gets lost is the more important things that don't get recorded. As I've been saying, kobe required defensive attention to a level that Wade never did at any point in his career. This is the true indicator, at least in my book, of the impact a superstar has on the game, because it affects everything else.

Wade was clear cut Miami’s best player when they had shaq, it wasn’t even close so don’t start that narrative now to try and defend your stance. Shaq was better than Kobe their whole time together, wasn’t better than Wade when he was with Miami. This isn’t box score stuff lol. People at the time thought Wade was better and people at the time thought Kobe was better.

You still couldn’t be more far off about the focal point thing. Wade was so good they started comparing him to Jordan his 2nd year, he was a superstar right off the bat. As for scoring efficiency, Wade had a better TS% by a decent margin making him the more efficient scorer in the regular season and playoffs. His impact numbers are also both better in the regular season and playoffs in these seasons. He was also the better passer and defender. So not only do the basic stats back him being better in those seasons but so do the numbers measuring a players impact. It’s definitely Wade and again, this really isn’t even Wade best season.

If your final paragraph is true (it isn’t) back it up with anything of substance.

[Big Moves03]

Wade was clear cut Miami’s best player when they had shaq, it wasn’t even close so don’t start that narrative now to try and defend your stance. Shaq was better than Kobe their whole time together, wasn’t better than Wade when he was with Miami. This isn’t box score stuff lol. People at the time thought Wade was better and people at the time thought Kobe was better.

You still couldn’t be more far off about the focal point thing. Wade was so good they started comparing him to Jordan his 2nd year, he was a superstar right off the bat. As for scoring efficiency, Wade had a better TS% by a decent margin making him the more efficient scorer in the regular season and playoffs. His impact numbers are also both better in the regular season and playoffs in these seasons. He was also the better passer and defender. So not only do the basic stats back him being better in those seasons but so do the numbers measuring a players impact. It’s definitely Wade and again, this really isn’t even Wade best season.

If your final paragraph is true (it isn’t) back it up with anything of substance.

Again, you're using the boxscore to revise history. Go back and look at the player rankings during that time. It's hard to find too many that have Wade ahead of Kobe. Wade wasnt the better anything at that point. Wade was in a system that allowed him to produce slightly more than kobe, while not being the clear cut primary focal point. Shaq was still warping the floor far more than Wade and anyone who watched the games could see this. Without that, those numbers would be significantly lower.

You're basically looking at two players, one who was known as the best in the league in kobe and another who wasnt on too many people's radars in Wade. It was a great performance by Wade, but mostly because no one expected much out of him. Kobe from 01 onward was better than any version of Wade, which is the funny part.

It took Wade until 09 to finally make a first all NBA team and the only season he was picked ahead of kobe was in 05 when kobe played most of the season battling a multitude of injuries so yeah, no, most did not consider him the best sg in the game nor did they consider him better than kobe.

This is revisionist history based on boxscore numbers, which should never, ever be done. You're saying Wade was better than kobe at his peak, yet during Wade's peak, kobe was continually picked over Wade for the first team, which pretty much ends the debate right there. So no, people did not think Wade was better when they played nor was it debatable. This has only become a recent topic of debate, the idea was outright dismissed when they played, which speaks volumes.

[Iggie]

Again, you're using the boxscore to revise history. Go back and look at the player rankings during that time. It's hard to find too many that have Wade ahead of Kobe. Wade wasnt the better anything at that point. Wade was in a system that allowed him to produce slightly more than kobe, while not being the clear cut primary focal point. Shaq was still warping the floor far more than Wade and anyone who watched the games could see this. Without that, those numbers would be significantly lower.

You're basically looking at two players, one who was known as the best in the league in kobe and another who wasnt on too many people's radars in Wade. It was a great performance by Wade, but mostly because no one expected much out of him. Kobe from 01 onward was better than any version of Wade, which is the funny part.

It took Wade until 09 to finally make a first all NBA team and the only season he was picked ahead of kobe was in 05 when kobe played most of the season battling a multitude of injuries so yeah, no, most did not consider him the best sg in the game nor did they consider him better than kobe.

This is revisionist history based on boxscore numbers, which should never, ever be done. You're saying Wade was better than kobe at his peak, yet during Wade's peak, kobe was continually picked over Wade for the first team, which pretty much ends the debate right there. So no, people did not think Wade was better when they played nor was it debatable. This has only become a recent topic of debate, the idea was outright dismissed when they played, which speaks volumes.

Kobe got so many all nba and all defensive teams out of his name and popularity alone that it’s not even funny. You’re just talking out of your *** and not backing up a single thing you say with anything of substance or that proves the point you’re trying to make so I’m done with this convo. Looks like majority have picked Wade in here and rightfully so.

[ldawg]

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...rn-nba-history

Wade was definitely growing into a beast post injury. He put the league on notice. His ability to play point and his defense was top notch to go along with his knack for getting to the rim. If he had a Shaq early in his career it would have preserved his body and he would have won 4 to 5 rings

[Big Moves03]

Kobe got so many all nba and all defensive teams out of his name and popularity alone that it’s not even funny. You’re just talking out of your *** and not backing up a single thing you say with anything of substance or that proves the point you’re trying to make so I’m done with this convo. Looks like majority have picked Wade in here and rightfully so.

What do you mean I'm not backing it up? Almost every list during the time has kobe as either the best player or the the top 1-3. This is year after year...and what evidence do you have that kobe got those awards out of his name?? He was the freaken best player in the game for a while and was in the top 5 from 01-13. You're using a revisionist history based on a boxscore to revise literally what occurred. Also, how have the majority in here picked Wade?? It's about 8-4 in favor of kobe (by my quick count), with many posters saying it ain't close (most of those arent laker fans either). There is a majority in here, but it's not the one you think, which is the same as it was when they played.

[Iggie]

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...rn-nba-history

Perfect link for this debate since those Wade and Kobe years are the 2 we decided to debate. Wades postseason ranked at 15 with Kobe at 22. Just further proves my point, Wade was better in the regular season and playoffs in those seasons.

[smith&wesson]

Kobe/KG
Kobe/Dirk
Kobe/Duncan
Kobe/Allen
Kobe/Pierce
Kobe/Kid
Kobe/Nash (MVP years)

Honorable mentions - Tmac, Webber, Parker, Gino, Billups, R.Wallace, B.Wallace, Randolph

I tried to stick with guys that played during Bryants prime years..

[Iggie]

Ldwawg, just saw the remainder of your post and I think Wade is one of the biggest what if players ever because he’s so great as is but injuries absolutely robbed him of at least 1 nba and then 2 chances at a championship in the 05 and 07 seasons.