NBA Thread 2013-2014

[witesoxfan]

Rings don't back it up. Yet. So I don't think it's indisputable.

 

Yes they do. Shaq won 4 rings and Kobe was lucky enough to tag along for 3 of them. It's the same reason I don't put Wade above LeBron despite having more rings.

[Rowand44]

It is indisputable that Steve Kerr is better than LeBron though.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes they do. Shaq won 4 rings and Kobe was lucky enough to tag along for 3 of them. It's the same reason I don't put Wade above LeBron despite having more rings.

 

Even if you assume Shaq was the only reason they won the first three (I don't necessarily) he still won 2 on his own with his best player being, who, Pau Gasol? Is it easier to win with a good, all-star level center or a hall of fame, probably 2nd best SG of all time player?

 

Not to mention Lebron is a greatest shot in the history of the sport (or close to it) away from having only one ring.

 

 

[SoxAce]

Yes they do. Shaq won 4 rings and Kobe was lucky enough to tag along for 3 of them.

 

More like they both were lucky the refs were too busy screwing the Kings over in a couple of those years in bets.

[witesoxfan]

Even if you assume Shaq was the only reason they won the first three (I don't necessarily) he still won 2 on his own with his best player being, who, Pau Gasol? Is it easier to win with a good, all-star level center or a hall of fame, probably 2nd best SG of all time player?

 

Not to mention Lebron is a greatest shot in the history of the sport (or close to it) away from having only one ring.

 

I was just pointing out that Kobe didn't do it alone or as the biggest dog. Shaq was definitely bigger and more important. I also think arguing rings is a pretty terrible way of determining who is the best. Do you really believe that Bob Cousy is as great as Michael Jordan?

 

Let the numbers do the talking.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think it's relevant when you're comparing franchise players that lead their teams. You don't compare Steve Kerr and Lebron James, but why not Kobe and Lebron?

 

edit: and how are numbers any better than rings? You can be on bad teams (like Lebron in Cleveland) and put up great stats. How is that a better way to compare players?

 

edit 2: btw, i'm not saying the number of rings is the ONLY measure, or that it's more important than others stats. But if Lebron doesn't win another title for the rest of his career, the fact that he has less than Kobe should matter.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[ZoomSlowik]

The rings argument is just asanine. So many things have to go in your favor to get one that are out of a guy's control. A lot of very good to great players only get one or two legit chances, and even then you might run into a far superior team. So much is determined by what franchise you land with.

 

Kobe ended up on the Lakers, one of the marquee franchises and a team that won 53 games the year before he got there. Lebron landed on the Cavs, a frequent doormat that won 17 games the year before he got there and never added a legitimate second star. They didn't have nearly the same opportunities to get rings. Kobe's teams were threats to make a deep playoff run from day 1 when he was still averaging 8 points a game and nearly every year after that. Lebron had to carry a s***ty roster to legitimacy for the first 7 years of his career before switching teams.

 

You're kidding yourself if you think Kobe has 5 rings if the Hornets never trade him.

[Jenksismyhero]

The rings argument is just asanine. So many things have to go in your favor to get one that are out of a guy's control. A lot of very good to great players only get one or two legit chances, and even then you might run into a far superior team. So much is determined by what franchise you land with.

 

Kobe ended up on the Lakers, one of the marquee franchises and a team that won 53 games the year before he got there. Lebron landed on the Cavs, a frequent doormat that won 17 games the year before he got there and never added a legitimate second star. They didn't have nearly the same opportunities to get rings. Kobe's teams were threats to make a deep playoff run from day 1 when he was still averaging 8 points a game and nearly every year after that. Lebron had to carry a s***ty roster to legitimacy for the first 7 years of his career before switching teams.

 

You're kidding yourself if you think Kobe has 5 rings if the Hornets never trade him.

 

I bet he still wins a championship (or multiple championships) if he's given some decent guys around him. He's one of the best offensive players ever to play. And I wouldn't call the 2008 and 2009 Laker rosters amazing. Again, you have Gasol, which fine, is better than anyone Lebron had, but then you're throwing out guys like Lamar Odom, the corpse of Derek Fisher, Ron Artest, etc.

 

What titles are more impressive to you - Kobe's 2 without Shaq or Lebron's with Wade and Bosh (and Ray Allen even)?

Edited January 20, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[ZoomSlowik]

I bet he still wins a championship (or multiple championships) if he's given some decent guys around him. He's one of the best offensive players ever to play. And I wouldn't call the 2008 and 2009 Laker rosters amazing. Again, you have Gasol, which fine, is better than anyone Lebron had, but then you're throwing out guys like Lamar Odom, the corpse of Derek Fisher, Ron Artest, etc.

 

What titles are more impressive to you - Kobe's 2 without Shaq or Lebron's with Wade and Bosh (and Ray Allen even)?

 

"A" championship is very different from 5, which is the whole argument you were trying to make. Much like with Lebron, it's far from a lock. Maybe you end up with a legit All-Star big, maybe you end up with Mo Williams and Zydrunas Ilgauskas. The latter is far more common. The Cavs lost a playoff series where Lebron averaged like 35-8-8. If Lebron wins one in Cleveland (or if Kobe hypothetically won one in Charlotte), that has a MUCH higher degree of difficulty.

 

The second part is arguing minor differences. You don't win two titles by yourself. The Lakers were still a very good team those 2 other rings. They had arguably the best frontcourt in the league between Gasol, Odom and Bynum (and MWP the second title) and Fisher wasn't anywhere near the corpse he is now at that point (not a great player, but still a 8-10 PPG game guy that hit some shots). The Heat's top-3 was stronger, but they've been hurt/bad for a lot of the last two runs and the Lakers didn't have a glaring lack of interior muscle. Their supporting players were also pretty terrible when they lost in the finals, they were starting a last-legs Mike Bibby and Joel Anthony.

Edited January 20, 2014 by ZoomSlowik

[Steve9347]

[Jenksismyhero]

"A" championship is very different from 5, which is the whole argument you were trying to make. Much like with Lebron, it's far from a lock. Maybe you end up with a legit All-Star big, maybe you end up with Mo Williams and Zydrunas Ilgauskas. The latter is far more common. The Cavs lost a playoff series where Lebron averaged like 35-8-8. If Lebron wins one in Cleveland (or if Kobe hypothetically won one in Charlotte), that has a MUCH higher degree of difficulty.

 

The second part is arguing minor differences. You don't win two titles by yourself. The Lakers were still a very good team those 2 other rings. They had arguably the best frontcourt in the league between Gasol, Odom and Bynum (and MWP the second title) and Fisher wasn't anywhere near the corpse he is now at that point (not a great player, but still a 8-10 PPG game guy that hit some shots). The Heat's top-3 was stronger, but they've been hurt/bad for a lot of the last two runs and the Lakers didn't have a glaring lack of interior muscle. Their supporting players were also pretty terrible when they lost in the finals, they were starting a last-legs Mike Bibby and Joel Anthony.

 

No, my argument is that as it stands now, one guy (Kobe) has a better overall record of performance, and while Lebron might be a more skilled/bigger/faster/whatever, at this point he hasn't achieved nearly as much and thus it's at least debatable (not indisputable) that Kobe would still be considered the better player.

 

If Lebron never wins another title but still puts up his normal numbers, would you consider him better than Kobe? I wouldn't.

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

No, my argument is that as it stands now, one guy (Kobe) has a better overall record of performance, and while Lebron might be a more skilled/bigger/faster/whatever, at this point he hasn't achieved nearly as much and thus it's at least debatable (not indisputable) that Kobe would still be considered the better player.

 

Kobe's career beats Lebron's in overall team success (in part to having played 6 more years), but Lebron has a far better overall record of personal performance. That's why he already has 4 MVPs and is likely to get at least a couple more while Kobe has 1 and has no chance of increasing that.

 

If you like advanced stats, Lebron's Win Shares per 48 minutes over his career is .243. Kobe has not had a single season that high.

 

If Lebron never wins another title but still puts up his normal numbers, would you consider him better than Kobe? I wouldn't.

 

Easily. If I was a GM in an imaginary world where I could have 15 years of Lebron or 15 years of Kobe, I'd take Lebron without hesitation.

[ZoomSlowik]

No, my argument is that as it stands now, one guy (Kobe) has a better overall record of performance, and while Lebron might be a more skilled/bigger/faster/whatever, at this point he hasn't achieved nearly as much and thus it's at least debatable (not indisputable) that Kobe would still be considered the better player.

 

If Lebron never wins another title but still puts up his normal numbers, would you consider him better than Kobe? I wouldn't.

 

The only reason he has a "better overall record of performance" is because he's played 6 extra seasons (well, 6 1/2 since this season isn't done and Kobe is barely playing due to injury), generally with much better teammates.

Edited January 20, 2014 by ZoomSlowik

[Rowand44]

Blah.

[fathom]

Blah.

 

What in the world were the Lakers doing on that last play? They left the lane almost completely open.

[bmags]

The only reason he has a "better overall record of performance" is because he's played 6 extra seasons (well, 6 1/2 since this season isn't done and Kobe is barely playing due to injury), generally with much better teammates.

Well frankly one of the traits of all of those all time players is how they kept their high play even when their athleticism went away. All of them provided nearly as many memorable moments after thirty as before. Bird was only one who really broke down quickly.

[soxsoxsoxsox]

Bulls 1 game behind the #3 seed

 

LOLEAST

 

 

[Chisoxfn]

Bulls 1 game behind the #3 seed

 

LOLEAST

Been saying it for a while. No f***ing way they were going to get a lotto pick with this roster.

[2nd_city_saint787]

Soooo a guy on my facebook said Rose participated in pre game warmups...Confirm or deny?

[Brian]

Soooo a guy on my facebook said Rose participated in pre game warmups...Confirm or deny?

 

Wouldn't surprise me. He's traveling with the team.

 

Not sure how I'd feel with him taking time from DJ though.

[Steve9347]

Soooo a guy on my facebook said Rose participated in pre game warmups...Confirm or deny?

I'm sure he put up some free throws. Thef*ck cares?

[Steve9347]

I would just like to say that I told everyone the Pistons would suck fat f***ing balls this year. So inefficient. Half the Bulls' preseason roster is still way better.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Steve9347

[witesoxfan]

#thereturn

[Chisoxfn]

Quietly I believe Rose plays this year. Bulls just know they have to be smart and toe the line of he won't play. Then if he does, its gravy.

[Kyyle23]

I would just like to say that I told everyone the Pistons would suck fat f***ing balls this year. So inefficient. Half the Bulls' preseason roster is still way better.

 

 

I would just like to say that I told everyone the Nets would be a big Hot mess this year. So inefficient. Half the Bulls' summer league roster is still way better.