David Robinson or Kobe Bryant, the greater player

[Piercethetruth]

Who was better?

David Robinson is 4th all time in efficiency behind Jordan, Shaq and Wilt and he was putting up 24 and 12 even as a rookie.

[EricForman]

based on impact on the court, early 90s DRob matches anything Kobe can do, if not surpass it.

But Kobe's killer instinct and desire to dominate puts him over DRob.

[lilojmayo]

Robinson

[plowking]

I take Robinson. Very underrated and often has his career defined on ISH as the guy who got owned by Hakeem in his MVP year in the playoffs.

The guy was a brilliant center in the 90's, though never really had the stars that Tim Duncan his counterpart had in his prime. In my eyes David Robinson is a better player then Duncan, though Duncan has simply achieved more.

[Meticode]

atleast compare them with another big man and SG idiot

They're both NBA players, that's all you need to compare.

[Valliant13]

Centers are inherently more valuable then 2 guards (Jordan aside), so I'd take Robinson over Kobe for impact...but relative to other at their position I'd say they are close to the same level (dominate at times...but not able to be the best player on a championship team).

[Piercethetruth]

atleast compare them with another big man and SG idiot


Why compare to another of the same position? If he is better than someone else it should be evident.

[KINGK]

Prime or career?

[plowking]

Centers are inherently more valuable then 2 guards (Jordan aside), so I'd take Robinson over Kobe for impact...but relative to other at their position I'd say they are close to the same level (dominate at times...but not able to be the best player on a championship team).

I disagree. Both players could be (or could have been in David's case) the best player on a championship team.
Kobe was stuck playing with the greatest center ever, while David never got the cast around him until he was falling off, and then got Timmy D.

Kobe has shown he can get to the finals now and lead his team, though had a little trouble in the final against a brilliant Celtics team. Though now he will have plenty of oppurtunities for a championship these coming years.

[worldbefree]

David Robinson.

[Resurrection]

David Robinson.

Idiot.

[worldbefree]

Idiot.

Canadian.

[plowking]

Idiot.

MJ or Kobe?

[ShowTime LA]

Canadian.

Knick.

[Valliant13]

I disagree. Both players could be (or could have been in David's case) the best player on a championship team.
Kobe was stuck playing with the greatest center ever, while David never got the cast around him until he was falling off, and then got Timmy D.

Kobe has shown he can get to the finals now and lead his team, though had a little trouble in the final against a brilliant Celtics team. Though now he will have plenty of oppurtunities for a championship these coming years.

Good points, and quite reasonable. Personally though, I feel both have personality defects that would (and in Kobes case will) keep them from winning as the #1 guy :

Kobe: It's more important to him to be the MVP, and clear lead dog, than it is for the team to win. This makes him chuck bad shots in crucial moments, and burn himself out by the end of a long post season.

Robinson: The guy had all the talent in the world, but lacked the killer instinct to get that big block/rebound/shot. Amazing 2nd option, but a flawed lead guy.

Their flaws actually oddly mirror each other.

[plowking]

Knick.

You're sticking up for a guy who thinks Kobe is the best ever?

[TmacsRockets]

MJ or Kobe?

You can't compare a guy with 6 finals mvp's to a guy who was a role player on championship teams.

[Kobe24]

What a stupid question. Whoever picks Robinson over inarguably one of the greatest sgs to ever live and a scoring machine which is Kobe Bryant should fill their bath tub with Patron and drink it t'ill their liver melts.

[plowking]

Good points, and quite reasonable. Personally though, I feel both have personality defects that would (and in Kobes case will) keep them from winning as the #1 guy :

Kobe: It's more important to him to be the MVP, and clear lead dog, than it is for the team to win. This makes him chuck bad shots in crucial moments, and burn himself out by the end of a long post season.

Robinson: The guy had all the talent in the world, but lacked the killer instinct to get that big block/rebound/shot. Amazing 2nd option, but a flawed lead guy.

Their flaws actually oddly mirror each other.

Fair enough.

Though like I said, Robinson is often defined by that because of his play against Hakeem.

And as for Kobe, we just have to wait and see if he changes.

[plowking]

You can't compare a guy with 6 finals mvp's to a guy who was a role player on championship teams.

It's Posiedon. If we were to select any player over Kobe, he'd come back with the same response. Just trying to show how much he is infatuated by Kobe.

[Valliant13]

What a stupid question. Whoever picks Robinson over inarguably one of the greatest sgs to ever live and a scoring machine which is Kobe Bryant should fill their bath tub with Patron and drink it t'ill their liver melts.

Kobe is amazing...but I think people forget just how good Robinson was.

Robinson achievments:

# NBA Champion (1999, 2003)
# NBA MVP (1995)
# NBA Defensive Player of the Year (1992)
# NBA Rookie of the Year (1990)
# All-NBA First Team (1991, '92, '95, '96)
# All-NBA Second Team (1994, '98)
# All-NBA Third Team (1990, '93, 2000, '01)
# All-Defensive First Team (1991, '92, '95, '96)
# All-Defensive Second Team (1990, '93, '94, '98)
# 10-time NBA All-Star
# Only player in NBA history to win the Rebounding, Blocked Shots, and Scoring Titles and Rookie of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year and MVP
# One of only four players to have recorded a quadruple-double
# NBA Sportsmanship Award (2001)
# Third player in NBA history to rank among the league's top 10 in five categories (7th in scoring (23.2 ppg), 4th in rebounding (12.2 rpg), 1st in blocks (4.49 per game), 5th in steals (2.32 per game) and 7th in field-goal percentage (.551))
# First player in NBA history to rank among the top five in rebounding, blocks and steals (per game) in a single season[6]
# Fourth player ever to score 70+ in an NBA game
# 3-time Olympian (1988, '92, '96)
# One of 50 Greatest Players in NBA History (1996)
# Led NBA in Scoring (1993

[Kobe24]

Kobe's acheivements are greater.

[KINGK]

You can't compare a guy with 6 finals mvp's to a guy who was a role player on championship teams.
:roll:

[The Judge]

Kobe is better. David Robinson was a career underachiever until Tim came around. He was getting dunked on by Sabonis (GOAT euro).

Kobe was winning rings and leading his team to the finals.

In a nice man contest, DRob shakes Kobe's hand and accepts his award, though.

[KINGK]

I find it hilarious that people still don't think Kobe can win as '' the man''. The guy was 2 wins away from the championship last year without his starting center.2! .:rolleyes:

[Valliant13]

I find it hilarious that people still don't think Kobe can win as '' the man''. The guy was 2 wins away from the championship last year without his starting center.2! One of those wins was a 24 point comeback.:rolleyes:

When he does it, I will believe it. Though the way Bynum is progressing he might not be "the man" in LA for too many more seasons.

[ShowTime LA]

You're sticking up for a guy who thinks Kobe is the best ever?

It was a joke

[plowking]

Kobe is better. David Robinson was a career underachiever until Tim came around. He was getting dunked on by Sabonis (GOAT euro).

Kobe was winning rings and leading his team to the finals.

In a nice man contest, DRob shakes Kobe's hand and accepts his award, though.

How can you say that David Robinson was an underachiever when Kobe needed Shaq probably more then Robinson needed Duncan?

Take Shaq away from L.A. and they have no shot at a title. Take Kobe away from that L.A. team and they still have a shot at the title.

While D-Rob always led his team to the playoffs, even with bad supporting casts.

[Meticode]

Why compare to another of the same position? If he is better than someone else it should be evident.

Well, I guess if people's minds can't comprehend or even imagine comparing two different positional players I guess it's too difficult for them then. No hurt done.

[plowking]

:roll:

Are you laughing at the great discrepancy between the players? Because it is kind of funny how far apart they are and Kobe fans still have the nerve to compare the two.

[KINGK]

When he does it, I will believe it. Though the way Bynum is progressing he might not be "the man" in LA for too many more seasons.
Yes, I'm sure Bynum is going to overtake one of the 3 best players in the game soon enough.:lol

[KINGK]

Are you laughing at the great discrepancy between the players? Because it is kind of funny how far apart they are and Kobe fans still have the nerve to compare the two.
No, I was laughing at how he called Kobe a "roleplayer''. JordanBulls is a idiot.

[Resurrection]

Canadian.

a) I'm not even Canadian. :oldlol:

b) Canada > United States

c) only an "idiot" (or Kobe hater which is basically the same as being an idiot) would ever say that Robinson is a better player than KB24.

[Scott Pippen]

prime Kobe is > Robinson because of clutch abilities and instinct to put away team at game's end:applause:

[plowking]

No, I was laughing at how he called Kobe a "roleplayer''. JordanBulls is a idiot.

Second option is a better term.

[Resurrection]

BTW, why did MJ enter this conversation? :confusedshrug:

Damn insecure Jordan groupies. :oldlol:

[plowking]

BTW, why did MJ enter this conversation? :confusedshrug:

Damn insecure Jordan groupies. :oldlol:

Jordan groupie? I like Kobe more then Jordan. I'm just trying to show how bias you are.

[Resurrection]

Jordan groupie? I like Kobe more then Jordan. I'm just trying to show how bias you are.

Bias? I think that Jordan is a better player than Bryant. I think you have me confused with someone else.

[KINGK]

Second option is a better term.
Yes. No way is a 25+/5+/5+/2 guy a ''roleplayer'' even if he was a 2nd option. But who wouldn't be a 2nd option next to prime Shaq.:rolleyes:

[plowking]

Yes. No way is a 25+/5+/5+/2 guy a ''roleplayer'' even if he was a 2nd option. But who wouldn't be a 2nd option next to prime Shaq.:rolleyes:

Agreed, prime Shaq is one of the greatest players ever, and most would be a 2nd option.

Kobe was a solid contributor.

[plowking]

Bias? I think that Jordan is a better player than Bryant. I think you have me confused with someone else.

No you are Poseidon.

[KINGK]

Agreed, prime Shaq is one of the greatest players ever, and most would be a 2nd option.

Kobe was a solid contributor.
I think he was more then just "solid" but whatever.:confusedshrug:

[plowking]

I think he was more then just "solid" but whatever.:confusedshrug:

Well that is what I meant, he was a big part of the championship team, he was the second option, and he did a solid job.

[Scott Pippen]

I think he was more then just "solid" but whatever.:confusedshrug:

2001 he reached physical prime abilities and great energy on defense. Skills not developed as later years but great in 2001 playoffs.:applause: In 2002 I think he was close to equal sidekick especially against Kings. And in his best career season in 2003 he was in physical prime (including skills and athletics) and he would be best player on winning team if they won championship. But as we know Tim Duncan was unstoppable force that year:applause:

[Resurrection]

Kobe was a solid contributor.

Rick Fox was a solid contributor. Robert Horry was a solid contributer. Saying that about Kobe Bryant is an insult.

[KINGK]

2001 he reached physical prime abilities and great energy on defense. Skills not developed as later years but great in 2001 playoffs.:applause: In 2002 I think he was close to equal sidekick especially against Kings. And in his best career season in 2003 he was in physical prime (including skills and athletics) and he would be best player on winning team if they won championship. But as we know Tim Duncan was unstoppable force that year:applause:
True, but whats up with all the clapping.:confusedshrug:

[KINGK]

Rick Fox was a solid contributor. Robert Horry was a solid contributer. Saying that about Kobe Bryant is an insult.
yup

[FashionIssues]

can kobe just play the rest of his career before all these damn new comparisons come up? it's plentiful and just plain dumb and unwarranted. you guys keep brigning up legends, retired cats. that's a high bar but if that's where he must be put, that's props for an active player still playing.

seriously if kobe wins another championship it's a simple wrap. the two are not even breathable on the same breath. no diss to the admiral but damn. it's like the 3 rings have no merit on kobe's resume? all-star selections? defensive selections? gold? i mean damn let him play at least.

pick on other dudes like AI, t-mac, VC, all them dudes. why always kobe?

[worldbefree]

can kobe just play the rest of his career before all these damn new comparisons come up? it's plentiful and just plain dumb and unwarranted. you guys keep brigning up legends, retired cats. that's a high bar but if that's where he must be put, that's props for an active player still playing.

seriously if kobe wins another championship it's a simple wrap. the two are not even breathable on the same breath. no diss to the admiral but damn. it's like the 3 rings have no merit on kobe's resume? all-star selections? defensive selections? gold? i mean damn let him play at least.

pick on other dudes like AI, t-mac, VC, all them dudes. why always kobe?


Kobe is the best right now, that's why he is focused on.

BTW, get off Kobe's nuts.

[FashionIssues]

Kobe is the best right now, that's why he is focused on.

BTW, get off Kobe's nuts.
i don't make kobe threads here so i must not be on the nuts. we have haters doing that

[gmoney1983]

Take Shaq away from L.A. and they have no shot at a title. Take Kobe away from that L.A. team and they still have a shot at the title.

Wow, that is just wrong. Go back and take a look at Kobe's contribution on that three-peat squad. Shaq was definitely more valuable because of his sheer dominance, but Kobe was just as important to those championships (Even the coaching staff has said that Kobe's contributions were invaluable to those championship runs). You are delusional if you think that those Lakers teams would still contend without an outside threat like Kobe (not to mention, where would his 25+ pts/night have come from otherwise; Horry, Fisher, George? I don't think so)


While D-Rob always led his team to the playoffs, even with bad supporting casts.

And was Kobe not doing the same thing (minus one season) with bad supporting casts of Smush Parker, Luke Walton, Kwame Brown, Vladimir Radmonovic & the rest of those bums?

Anyway, these lame ass threads of x vs y are exactly the reason this board has collapsed into this pathetic teenage forum of pointless arguments. Does anyone even discuss real basketball around here anymore? :wtf:

[Human Error]

David Robinson. A lot easier to build around, there's a reason why you don't take small over big.

[Artillery]

http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2008/09/my-21-gun-salute-to-admiral.html

If there's one truly great player that never seems to get his due, it's David Robinson. That lack of appreciation always seems to come down to two sticking points. First, he never won a championship without Tim Duncan. (So what? Magic never won one without Kareem, Larry never won without Parish and McHale, Michael never won without Scotty, Kobe never won without Shaq, etc.) Second, and even more damning, Hakeem Olajuwon dominated him during the 1995 Western Conference Finals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4uXlRGAF0)...right after Robinson received the regular season MVP award.

I hate that so much of the general perception about Robinson and his place in history is defined by his performance in a single playoff series. Yes, Olajuwon thorougly outplayed him, but Hakeem was absolutely on fire throughout those playoffs. (He also had his way in the Finals against Shaq, who it should be noted was second in MVP voting that season (http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1995.html#mvp).) Moreover, the Rockets were peaking as a team at the same time: They rolled over a 60-win team (the Jazz), a 59-win team (the Suns), a 60-win team (the Spurs) and a 57-win team (the Magic). That was their "Never underestimate the heart of a champion" season, and what happened that May was much bigger than Olajuwon versus Robinson. And as well as Hakeem played, it's not like The Admiral just rolled over and died; he averaged nearly 24 points, 12 rebounds and over 2 blocks per game in what was considererd his most infamous playoff failure. I don't know abouat you, but I wish I could fail that well.

And anyway, the Hakeem comparisons are unfair. Playoff performances, however good or bad, are only one small sample of a much larger career experiment. After all, that wasn't the first or last time an MVP has been gunned down in a one-on-one matchup during the playoffs. Larry Bird outplayed Dr. J (the MVP) in the 1981 Eastern Conference Finals. Kevin Johnson upended Magic Johnson (the MVP) in the 1990 Western Conference Semifinals. Paul Pierce outperformed Kobe Bryant (the MVP) in this year's Finals. Those losses have to be put into perspective. As such, take a look at the Olajuwon versus Robinson head-to-head numbers (http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=olajuha01&p2=robinda01) during their 42 regular season meetings: The stats are nearly identical. Except the most important stat, that is: Robinson's team won 30 of those games compared to 12 for Hakeem's team. That's a pretty overwhelming margin.

I also don't think that Robinson should be defined solely by his performances against Hakeem. This guy's accomplishments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Robinson_(basketball)#Career_awards.2Faccomp lishments) can stand beside all but a few players in NBA history. The man could put the ball in the hole: He led the league in scoring in 1993-94 and is one of only five players to have ever scored more than 70 points in a single game (with 71 points against the Los Angeles Clippers on April 24, 1994 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199404240LAC.html). He is one of only four players to have recorded a quadruple-double (with 34 points, 10 rebounds, 10 assists and 10 blocks against the Detroit Pistons on February 17, 1994 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199402170SAS.html)). In 1991-92, he became just the third player to have ever ranked among the league's top 10 in five statistical categories (http://www.nba.com/history/players/robinson_bio.html), joining Cliff Hagan (1959-60) and Larry Bird (1985-86) -- Robinson was seventh in scoring (23.2 ppg), fourth in rebounding (12.2 rpg), first in blocks (4.49 per game), fifth in steals (2.32 per game) and seventh in field-goal percentage (.551). That achievement also made him the first player to ever rank among the top five in rebounding, blocks and steals in a single season. And finally, he's also the only player in NBA history to win the Rebounding, Blocked Shots, and Scoring Titles and Rookie of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year and MVP.

And that's the thing about Robinson: His basketball existence wasn't defined by any one thing. He did it all. No, he didn't have the killer instinct that's associated with many of the all-time greats. He wasn't the type of player who could (or was inclined to) take over offensively whenever and against whomever he wanted (he relied mostly on drives to the hoop and face-up jumpers). But in terms of playing the game to the best of his abilities and contributing in every possible phase of the game, Robinson has few peers. This fact is highlighted by his Player Efficiency Ranking (PER) numbers. He is currently third all-time (http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_career.html) (behind Michael Jordan and Shaq) with a career number of 26.18...despite his last few "off" seasons when he willingly deferred to Tim Duncan. He led the league in PER for three consecutive seasons, 1993-94 (30.7), 1994-95 (29.1) and 1995-96 (29.4). He also ranked second in 1991-92 (27.5), and third in 1990-91 (27.4), 1997-98 (27.8) and 1998-99 (24.9). He was still ranked as high as tenth in 2000-01 (23.7). To provide you with a little perspective, Kobe Bryant -- who is widely considered the most well-rounded player in the game today -- currently ranks 17th on the all-time list (23.57), and he has never finished higher than third in PER for a single season.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting PER is a definitive indicator of individual greatness. However, it does seem to genuinely reflect a player's overall contributions in several different areas. So I guess the point I'm trying to make about Robinson is that his greatness wasn't about winning one-on-one matchups, or scoring at will in clutch situations. He was about playing the game the way it's supposed to be played, on both ends of the court. And, based on how he did that, The Admiral truly should be considered one of the greatest of all time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FInsapjeY_M

[Shep]

kobe is 15 spots behind robinson, so this isn't close. kind of like saying who was better between kobe bryant and bob lanier

[mattreis62]

Kobe's still got a lot of basketball left in him, and he's going to be playing with Pau and Bynum for several more years. I think it's a little too soon to be saying that Kobe can't lead a team to a championship as "the man."

[west]

David robinson all day,just a simple fact that great C >great SG

[1000yearsofPAIN]

I think that it is pretty clearly David Robinson. Kobe played with the most dominant player of all time, and that's where his championships have come from. Kobe hasn't proven that he can be the number one option of a championship winning team, until he does, I will always rank the Admiral higher. Kobe's weakness is he always starts jacking up shots in the end to try to be the hero, and always gets iso plays everytime down the court in the last 5 minutes, sometimes it works and it looks good, but I don't understand why the whole team offense should change in the last 5 minutes for Kobe to go 1v5 when the team ball movement was working just fine.

[brandonislegend]

David Robinson. A lot easier to build around, there's a reason why you don't take small over big.

in that case ill take kwame over michael jordan

[plowking]

Wow, that is just wrong. Go back and take a look at Kobe's contribution on that three-peat squad. Shaq was definitely more valuable because of his sheer dominance, but Kobe was just as important to those championships (Even the coaching staff has said that Kobe's contributions were invaluable to those championship runs). You are delusional if you think that those Lakers teams would still contend without an outside threat like Kobe (not to mention, where would his 25+ pts/night have come from otherwise; Horry, Fisher, George? I don't think so)



And was Kobe not doing the same thing (minus one season) with bad supporting casts of Smush Parker, Luke Walton, Kwame Brown, Vladimir Radmonovic & the rest of those bums?

Anyway, these lame ass threads of x vs y are exactly the reason this board has collapsed into this pathetic teenage forum of pointless arguments. Does anyone even discuss real basketball around here anymore? :wtf:

No, its really not wrong. They had a better record when Kobe was injured and not playing, then when he was. They won approximately 10% more of the time. That is a fairly big improvement even though it was taken from a small sample of about 25 games.

If you don't think that team was good enough for finals even without Kobe then you are delusional.

[HANNIBAL SMITH]

:oldlol: I find it funny that people are saying that Kobe couldn't/needed Shaq to win championships, yet David Robinson never won JACKSHIT Till Tim Duncan came to San Antonio. Robinson started his career as " The Franchise Player", a far cry from a 17 year Kobe coming to a Lakers team with A Young Superstar Shaq O'neal as the man. Robinson started off his career as "the man" and he never got it done. Robinson never led San Antonio to the Finals as the main man for goodness sakes. Kobe had to wait 8 years for him to become the man of the Lakers, and rightfully so, Shaq was just that good/dominate of a player. Anybody would've of played "second fiddle" the a prime diesel. No shame in that.

And :roll: @ Kobe being a "Solid Contributor" and "Role Player" during the Lakers championship year. Did you guys even watch the Lakers back then? Role players don't score over 29-30 ppg in playoff series. You guys make it sound like teams were giving Kobe the Derek Fisher treatment, Leaving him Wide open shot after shot. :oldlol: Kobe and Shaq were a hell of a 1-2 punch.

[HANNIBAL SMITH]

:oldlol: The Lakers don't make it out the western conference during those championship years without Kobe, point blank. He Dominated the San Antonio's, the Sacramento's and etc.

[plowking]

:oldlol: The Lakers don't make it out the western conference during those championship years without Kobe, point blank. He Dominated the San Antonio's, the Sacramento's and etc.

:rolleyes:

You bring up the time where Shaq was off due to fouls.

Fact is without Kobe they still would have beaten those teams. The game would not have played out exactly as it did if Kobe wasn't there. :rolleyes:

Kobe was a good second option, though you Lakers fan could never admit that the Lakers would have won back then without Kobe, because he is your hometown hero now.

[HANNIBAL SMITH]

:rolleyes:

You bring up the time where Shaq was off due to fouls.

Fact is without Kobe they still would have beaten those teams. The game would not have played out exactly as it did if Kobe wasn't there. :rolleyes:

Kobe was a good second option, though you Lakers fan could never admit that the Lakers would have won back then without Kobe, because he is your hometown hero now.



Magic Johnson is the hometown hero out here, get it right. Fact is, what you just typed was nothing but pure BULLSHIT. Kobe only dominated those teams because Shaq was in foul trouble? Stop son, just stop. You mean to tell me that the Lakers go 15-1 in 2001, or three peat without Kobe? Without any other Superstar guard in his place? get the ****outta here. Other than the 2000 team, the Lakers had one of the lesser talented teams in the NBA, they won because Shaq and Kobe were just that damn dominate.

No way in hell Shaq and the Lakers would win rings if we had Brian Shaw starting at the 2. ****** make like Shaq could of won rings if he had a College roster starting beside him in the league. :oldlol:

[1000yearsofPAIN]

Kobe always dominates in the playoffs, with or without Shaq, it's just the finals that are his problem.

And yes, Magic is our hometown hero over Kobe, and I even like Shaq more, even though he supposedly "betrayed us"

[plowking]

Magic Johnson is the hometown hero out here, get it right. Fact is, what you just typed was nothing but pure BULLSHIT. Kobe only dominated those teams because Shaq was in foul trouble? Stop son, just stop. You mean to tell me that the Lakers go 15-1 in 2001, or three peat without Kobe? Without any other Superstar guard in his place? get the ****outta here. Other than the 2000 team, the Lakers had one of the lesser talented teams in the NBA, they won because Shaq and Kobe were just that damn dominate.

No way in hell Shaq and the Lakers would win rings if we had Brian Shaw starting at the 2. ****** make like Shaq could of won rings if he had a College roster starting beside him in the league. :oldlol:

Where did I ever say they go on to win?

I said they have more of a title shot with just Shaq on the team then just Kobe on the team. Also that Lakers team did have a shot to win the title even without Kobe. They were good enough, but whos to know if they would have gone on to win.

[HANNIBAL SMITH]

Where did I ever say they go on to win?

I said they have more of a title shot with just Shaq on the team then just Kobe on the team. Also that Lakers team did have a shot to win the title even without Kobe. They were good enough, but whos to know if they would have gone on to win.


:oldlol: Duh Captain ****ing obvious. I already said, Shaq in his prime was possibly the most dominate player to ever play this game. That still doesn't mean that they get past Tim Duncan and company, the Blazers, or the Sacramento Kings in the playoffs.

Of course the Lakers would have a better chance in the playoffs with Shaq instead of Kobe, the Lakers were BUILT towards Shaq's strengths, Like it's been said, it's easier to build a team around a dominate Big Man than it is around an dominate guard. The Lakers were a team put together for Shaq, add Kobe's brilliance, that made them DOMINATE. Point blank, the Lakers don't three peat without either one, people with common sense will agree.

[plowking]

:oldlol: Duh Captain ****ing obvious. I already said, Shaq in his prime was possibly the most dominate player to ever play this game. That still doesn't mean that they get past Tim Duncan and company, the Blazers, or the Sacramento Kings in the playoffs.

Of course the Lakers would have a better chance in the playoffs with Shaq instead of Kobe, the Lakers were BUILT towards Shaq's strengths, Like it's been said, it's easier to build a team around a dominate Big Man than it is around an dominate guard. The Lakers were a team put together for Shaq, add Kobe's brilliance, that made them DOMINATE. Point blank, the Lakers don't three peat without either one, people with common sense will agree.

Are you talking about the triangle offense? In reference to your "Built around Shaq's strengths" line.

I never said they three peat, but they most likely win one title during that time even without Kobe.

[Psileas]

Anyway, these lame ass threads of x vs y are exactly the reason this board has collapsed into this pathetic teenage forum of pointless arguments. Does anyone even discuss real basketball around here anymore?

Not, really. X vs Y threads are fun if people know how to argue and don't resort to stupid emoticons (things would be much easier if these missed--> ":lol " ":roll: " ":violin: " ":sleeping ") and personal attacks after 2-3 posts in the same thread. There are boards with wonderful X vs Y threads, because threads there are actually moderated, garbage posts are deleted and most people can hold their nerves, anyway.

[Junny]

in that case ill take kwame over michael jordan

Don't be ridiculous you know exactly what he's talking about.

I'm not a Kobe fan, but he's still got a few good years in him, and I say let's wait and see what he does. For the moment though, I'm convinced I'll take David Robinson. This could all change when Kobe proves me wrong by winning a championship (which by the way I hope he doesn't coz I hate the Lakers). Career-wise, that is.

I also think people shouldn't undermine Kobe's contribution to the 3 championships. "Role player" shouldn't be used to describe him, "2nd option", yes. Furthermore, he does have the rings. Some people here say it like he absolutely does not deserve them. He does

[TmacsRockets]

Yes. No way is a 25+/5+/5+/2 guy a ''roleplayer'' even if he was a 2nd option. But who wouldn't be a 2nd option next to prime Shaq.:rolleyes:

Dwyane Wade carried the team to the finals with a historic finals. Kobe could only win because Shaq was in his prime. Once Shaq left his prime the Lakers couldn't win anymore.

And yes a guy who averages 16 ppg on 37% is a role player.

[TmacsRockets]

Kobe always dominates in the playoffs, with or without Shaq, it's just the finals that are his problem.

And yes, Magic is our hometown hero over Kobe, and I even like Shaq more, even though he supposedly "betrayed us"

:roll: :roll:

You mean when he shot 25% in the 2nd half of the 1st round against Phoenix in the games combined? He shot that bad against a team allergic to defense.
:roll:

[Diesel J]

Kobe is better. David Robinson was a career underachiever until Tim came around. He was getting dunked on by Sabonis (GOAT euro).

Kobe was winning rings and leading his team to the finals.

In a nice man contest, DRob shakes Kobe's hand and accepts his award, though.


Shaq did that..not Kobe:oldlol:

[Piercethetruth]

:oldlol: The Lakers don't make it out the western conference during those championship years without Kobe, point blank. He Dominated the San Antonio's, the Sacramento's and etc.

You put David Robinson on the Lakers instead of Shaq in Robinson's prime and the Lakers don't make it out of round 1.

[EricForman]

surprise i'm the only non-idiot Kobe homer picking Kobe.

I dunno guys, DRob lacks the killer instinct. Kobe has at least had killer/memorable playoff moments, what does DRob have?

Hell, what significant thing did Drob do in the post season before Duncan came around?

Generally, you don't pick small over big. But Kobe's the second greatest shooting guard of all time behind only the GOAT (although it is a huge gap) while Drob is a full tier below the all time great Cs like Kareem/Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem/Russell.

Throw around Drobs stats all you want. But you know if you had $1000 on a game and it's tied with 37 seconds to go, you're alot more fearful against a Kobe Bryant team than a David Robinson team.

[big baller]

It was a joke

guess he cant take a joke........

[JellyBean]

Kobe

[JtotheIzzo]

Who was better?

David Robinson is 4th all time in efficiency behind Jordan, Shaq and Wilt and he was putting up 24 and 12 even as a rookie.

its Kobe and it really isn't close.

[Allstar24]

its Kobe and it really isn't close.
:wtf: Are you serious?

[JtotheIzzo]

:wtf: Are you serious?

yes

[Allstar24]

yes
Okay just checking because it seems like people here find it hard to believe that a sane person could pick Kobe over Robinson, unless that person happens to be a "Kobe homer".

[JtotheIzzo]

Okay just checking because it seems like people here find it hard to believe that a sane person could pick Kobe over Robinson, unless that person happens to be a "Kobe homer".

personally I am not a Kobe fan. But this one is easy. Kobe is a couple of tiers ahead Robinson all time.

[stephanieg]

You always take an elite big man over a two guard unless that two guard is named Michael Jordan. Even then...

As for "greatness" it's obviously Kobe. The same way Cousy is "greater" than, say, Mitch Richmond, even though we all understand who'd we actually take when making a team and we have the pick.

[Jordan80]

why do people always start these stupid threads just to bash kobe bryant? god.

[poeticism707]

I take Robinson. Very underrated and often has his career defined on ISH as the guy who got owned by Hakeem in his MVP year in the playoffs.

The guy was a brilliant center in the 90's, though never really had the stars that Tim Duncan his counterpart had in his prime. In my eyes David Robinson is a better player then Duncan, though Duncan has simply achieved more.

There is NO SUCH THING as "so on so is better, but so and just achieved more!" Achievement is the proof that all-time great players are greater than lesser players.

Dominique Wilkins or Jordan? Easy. Both had the stats, jaw-dropping, athleticism- but one has has done it all in the game about 6 times or more, the other never advanced past the first round.

My point? Achievement is what separates great players from lesser ones. Duncan accomplished more than Robinson? He's greater. Jordan more than Wilkins? He's greater.

Put simply, don't get so smart that you're stupid.

[JtotheIzzo]

:roll:

How so? Kobe has never lead in PER.

Who the f*ck cares about PER?

At least Kobe has gotten to a final without Shaq.

Robinson never got a sniff before Duncan came along.

This is a stupid comparison.

[catzhernandez]

There is NO SUCH THING as "so on so is better, but so and just achieved more!" Achievement is the proof that all-time great players are greater than lesser players.

Dominique Wilkins or Jordan? Easy. Both had the stats, jaw-dropping, athleticism- but one has has done it all in the game about 6 times or more, the other never advanced past the first round.

My point? Achievement is what separates great players from lesser ones. Duncan accomplished more than Robinson? He's greater. Jordan more than Wilkins? He's greater.

Put simply, don't get so smart that you're stupid.
Great post. This thread is filled with some of the stupidest posts I think I've ever read on ISH. 15 year old kids wanting to bank on meaningless stats, and though they've probably never seen many of the players they want to opine on, they feel the need to talk out of their asses anyway.

[stephanieg]

There is NO SUCH THING as "so on so is better, but so and just achieved more!" Achievement is the proof that all-time great players are greater than lesser players.

Actually, yes there is. You see, teams win championships and advance deep into the playoffs, not players. You can put the best player on a terrible team and they're not going to do anything.



Dominique Wilkins or Jordan? Easy. Both had the stats, jaw-dropping, athleticism- but one has has done it all in the game about 6 times or more, the other never advanced past the first round.

It's easy to make a case for Jordan > Wilkins without ever referencing what their teams did. It was generally understood that Jordan was much better even when Jordan was on .500 teams.



My point? Achievement is what separates great players from lesser ones. Duncan accomplished more than Robinson? He's greater. Jordan more than Wilkins? He's greater.

Actually...I agree. Rajon Rondo is greater than Gary Payton. Although we all understand who is actually a better player and who we would take as a PG of our fantasy team.

[catzhernandez]

Actually, yes there is. You see, teams win championships and advance deep into the playoffs, not players. You can put the best player on a terrible team and they're not going to do anything.



It's easy to make a case for Jordan > Wilkins without ever referencing what their teams did. It was generally understood that Jordan was much better even when Jordan was on .500 teams.



Actually...I agree. Rajon Rondo is greater than Gary Payton. Although we all understand who is actually a better player and who we would take as a PG of our fantasy team.
I think it's safe to say you're splitting hairs here.

I mean, I know what you're saying, but achievements is what separates the very good players from the great players, and separates All-Star careers, and Hall-of-Fame careers.

[stephanieg]

I think it's safe to say you're splitting hairs here.

No. I'm just tired of people ranking players by what their teams do. Put Larry Bird on the 1980 Warriors or some other awful team and people would laugh at the idea that he's the best small forward ever...but he still would be.

[poeticism707]

Actually, yes there is. You see, teams win championships and advance deep into the playoffs, not players. You can put the best player on a terrible team and they're not going to do anything.



It's easy to make a case for Jordan > Wilkins without ever referencing what their teams did. It was generally understood that Jordan was much better even when Jordan was on .500 teams.



Actually...I agree. Rajon Rondo is greater than Gary Payton. Although we all understand who is actually a better player and who we would take as a PG of our fantasy team.

This is isn't football or baseblall, where one individual, even a pitcher or quaterback, aren't the end all and the be all.

THIS IS BASKETBALL. ONE GREAT PLAYER CAN COMPLETELY CHANGE A TEAM AND IT'S FORTUNES, BECAUSE A GREAT PLAYER WILL IMPACT BOTH OFFENSE AND DEFENSE.

Also, Jordan is Jordan BECAUSE OF WHAT HE ACCOMPLISHED- NOT IN SPITE OF IT!!!

This is like ABC's, very simple.

[catzhernandez]

No. I'm just tired of people ranking players by what their teams do. Put Larry Bird on the 1980 Warriors or some other awful team and people would laugh at the idea that he's the best small forward ever...but he still would be.
And the Warriors would have wons championships, bank on it.

Man, the Bird/Magic rivalry would have been taken to another level had that happened.

[poeticism707]

And the Warriors would have wons championships, bank on it.

Man, the Bird/Magic rivalry would have been taken to another level had that happened.

Agreed.

Great players will flourish no matter where they land.

[stephanieg]

THIS IS BASKETBALL. ONE GREAT PLAYER CAN COMPLETELY CHANGE A TEAM AND IT'S FORTUNES, BECAUSE A GREAT PLAYER WILL IMPACT BOTH OFFENSE AND DEFENSE.


No, they can't. Jordan on those 80s Bulls teams, despite his all time greatness, just went to complete waste. Those teams were awful.

Similarly, Kevin Garnett on the wolves. Great player. Terrible team. There are numerous examples.



Also, Jordan is Jordan BECAUSE OF WHAT HE ACCOMPLISHED- NOT IN SPITE OF IT!!!

If Jordan was unlucky and never found a good team and he never won a ring people like you would be calling him a loser.

[catzhernandez]

Agreed.

Great players will flourish no matter where they land.
No doubt.

Remember how the Celtics just knew they were gonna land Timmy D? You know why their fans were so sad when he didn't? Because they knew they just lost 4 or 5 championships.

[catzhernandez]

No, they can't. Jordan on those 80s Bulls teams, despite his all time greatness, just went to complete waste. Those teams were awful.

Similarly, Kevin Garnett on the wolves. Great player. Terrible team. There are numerous examples.



If Jordan was unlucky and never found a good team and he never won a ring people like you would be calling him a loser.
Did you see the teams KG was facing back in his hey days in Minny? The Shaq-led Lakers, the incredibly deep Kings... Get real. Sure MJ had great teams, but do you know what truly great players do?

They make their teammates better, which is what Jordan did.

'Nuff said.

[TmacsRockets]

David Robinson is simply the more efficient and more productive player.

[poeticism707]

No, they can't. Jordan on those 80s Bulls teams, despite his all time greatness, just went to complete waste. Those teams were awful.

Similarly, Kevin Garnett on the wolves. Great player. Terrible team. There are numerous examples.



If Jordan was unlucky and never found a good team and he never won a ring people like you would be calling him a loser.

It's not that other players are losers, just not in the same stratosphere as the all time greats.

Take KG, for example. His team was not nearly bad as everyone billed it to be- but that is neither here nor there. If KG wanted to win so badly, he would've gone down on the block (he has all the ability) and played like a BIG MAN, instead of taking 72% (actual statistic) of his shots OUTSIDE THE PAINT.

Jordan was the one who molded Pippen into the great player he became. Duncan molded the Spurs (were long considered soft, now "dirty") and their entire basketball culture. Same with Bird, Magic, Kareem, Russel, Wilt, etc. These all All-Time Greats, and KG will probably never be one (unless he wins AT LEAST 4 more rings and 3-4 finals mvps).

KG is a great player. But NOT on that level.

[stephanieg]

Did you see the team KG was facing back in his hey days in Minny? The Shaq-led Lakers, the incredibly deep Kings... Get real.

Yes, I did. Despite KG's incredible production the Wolves had zero chance. People called KG a loser though. It's all about getting lucky. KG was really lucky to get traded to Boston this year, lucky to have Ray Allen and Pierce, lucky to have a nice bench, lucky to not have injuries...

If he was still on the Wolves, and never won a ring or even got out of the first round, he's still an elite, all time player. Others would disagree, but KG is still KG no matter what the situation. You can tell just by watching him that's he's amazing.


Sure MJ had great teams, but do you know what truly great players do?

They make their teammates better, which is what Jordan did.

Why didn't he make his team mates better in the 80s and win a chip or two?

Because his team mates were GODAWFUL. And there were way better teams.

You need good team mates to win titles.

What if Jordan was unlucky? I know, it's crazy to think, but try to imagine an alternate universe somewhere. What if the Bulls didn't get Pippen from Seattle? What if Grant blew out a knee? What if they didn't rape the Spurs for Rodman? Does Jordan suck now? Or is he still the greatest SG ever and we can tell just by watching him? Is your alternate universe self right now arguing that Jordan is a loser because his team never did anything and Patrick Ewing (or whoever succeeded in the vacuum) is the GOAT?

[stephanieg]

KG is a great player. But NOT on that level.

Yeah, KG is a modern version of Elvin Hayes. But it's a timely example. People call him a loser when he's on a bad team, then he gets traded to a good team and people watch him more and OMG he's amazing! etc. Ditto for Pierce too.

[catzhernandez]

Yes, I did. Despite KG's incredible production the Wolves had zero chance. People called KG a loser though. It's all about getting lucky. KG was really lucky to get traded to Boston this year, lucky to have Ray Allen and Pierce, lucky to have a nice bench, lucky to not have injuries...

If he was still on the Wolves, and never won a ring or even got out of the first round, he's still an elite, all time player. Others would disagree, but KG is still KG no matter what the situation. You can tell just by watching him that's he's amazing.



Why didn't he make his team mates better in the 80s and win a chip or two?

Because his team mates were GODAWFUL. And there were way better teams.

You need good team mates to win titles.

What if Jordan was unlucky? I know, it's crazy to think, but try to imagine an alternate universe somewhere. What if the Bulls didn't get Pippen from Seattle? What if Grant blew out a knee? What if they didn't rape the Spurs for Rodman? Does Jordan suck now? Or is he still the greatest SG ever and we can tell just by watching him? Is your alternate universe self right now arguing that Jordan is a loser because his team never did anything and Patrick Ewing (or whoever succeeded in the vacuum) is the GOAT?
Ahhh, I get it now... It's all luck. No skill.

Smoke and mirrors... magic, right? Man, Chris Angel should play in the NBA, he's good with magic.

[stephanieg]

Ahhh, I get it now... It's all luck. No skill.

No, that's a strawman.

[catzhernandez]

Yeah, KG is a modern version of Elvin Hayes. But it's a timely example. People call him a loser when he's on a bad team, then he gets traded to a good team and people watch him more and OMG he's amazing! etc. Ditto for Pierce too.
You're answering yourself.

You just don't get it. KG and Pierce aren't on the same level as a Michael Jordan, or a Hakeem Olajuwan or Timmy D. Neither is David Robinson.

You know why?? Because they don't make their teammates better, they couldn't lead a franchise by themselves.

Michael could lead a team by himself... so could Hakeem. So can Duncan, so can LeBron, and so did Bird. It takes a special talent to be considered an all-time great, and as good as Garnett, Robinson, and Pierce are/were, they couldn't do it by themselves, they're more of a co-leader, unlike the other true greats.

[poeticism707]

Yes, I did. Despite KG's incredible production the Wolves had zero chance. People called KG a loser though. It's all about getting lucky. KG was really lucky to get traded to Boston this year, lucky to have Ray Allen and Pierce, lucky to have a nice bench, lucky to not have injuries...

If he was still on the Wolves, and never won a ring or even got out of the first round, he's still an elite, all time player. Others would disagree, but KG is still KG no matter what the situation. You can tell just by watching him that's he's amazing.



Why didn't he make his team mates better in the 80s and win a chip or two?

Because his team mates were GODAWFUL. And there were way better teams.

You need good team mates to win titles.

What if Jordan was unlucky? I know, it's crazy to think, but try to imagine an alternate universe somewhere. What if the Bulls didn't get Pippen from Seattle? What if Grant blew out a knee? What if they didn't rape the Spurs for Rodman? Does Jordan suck now? Or is he still the greatest SG ever and we can tell just by watching him? Is your alternate universe self right now arguing that Jordan is a loser because his team never did anything and Patrick Ewing (or whoever succeeded in the vacuum) is the GOAT?

Everyone is blessed one way or another. What if Shaq and Duncan were 6'0 instead of 7'0?

What if KG decided to play baseball?

What if Bill Russel's mother decided to the get a then illegal abortion?

What if all day long and into eternity.

And you still wouldn't have advanced one, single, solitary step towards ranking NBA greats (or anything else, mind you).

Ultimately, "what if" is irrelevant.

"What IS, what WAS, and what IS TO COME," will ultimately (and always has), rule the roost.

[catzhernandez]

No, that's a strawman.
You rely too much on luck, I think you've been watching the Pacers too long. lol

[catzhernandez]

Everyone is blessed one way or another. What if Shaq and Duncan were 6'0 instead of 7'0?

What if KG decided to play baseball?

What if Bill Russel's mother decided to the get a then illegal abortion?

What if all day long and into eternity.

And you still wouldn't have advanced one, single, solitary step towards ranking NBA greats (or anything else, mind you).

Ultimately, "what if" is irrelevant.

"What IS, what WAS, and what IS TO COME," will ultimately (and always has), rule the roost.
:applause:

God couldn't have said it better himself.

Thank you.

[Showtime]

I find it hilarious that people still don't think Kobe can win as '' the man''. The guy was 2 wins away from the championship last year without his starting center.2! .:rolleyes:
More excuses and hypotheticals. It doesn't matter if Bynum was out, because Kobe still struggled and quit in the deciding game 6. I don't care if he had Luc Longley at center, it doesn't matter. When Kobe wins one, then you can talk. Stop acting as if another championship is an inevitability.

As for the topic at hand, I would personally chose Robinson because his skills and position effect the game regardless of the climate of the league. For example, today's NBA game clearly favors perimeter players and makes it easier for them to put up points, and so I wouldn't rely on Kobe unless the league stayed that way. However with Robinson at center, he would effect the game regardless of the times, because his athleticism and defense would transcend that. He played against much better post players than we have in today's game, and I can only imagine what he would be able to do in today's NBA.

[poeticism707]

:applause:

God couldn't have said it better himself.

Thank you.

Thanks, but He has already said it.

I am only repeating His Word (both one and another).

But perhaps that is a Story for another time, another place.

[poeticism707]

More excuses and hypotheticals. It doesn't matter if Bynum was out, because Kobe still struggled and quit in the deciding game 6. I don't care if he had Luc Longley at center, it doesn't matter. When Kobe wins one, then you can talk. Stop acting as if another championship is an inevitability.

As for the topic at hand, I would personally chose Robinson because his skills and position effect the game regardless of the climate of the league. For example, today's NBA game clearly favors perimeter players and makes it easier for them to put up points, and so I wouldn't rely on Kobe unless the league stayed that way. However with Robinson at center, he would effect the game regardless of the times, because his athleticism and defense would transcend that. He played against much better post players than we have in today's game, and I can only imagine what he would be able to do in today's NBA.

Strongly agree! However, I think the league will not sleep nor rest easy until Kobe is crying amidst champaigne, cradling the NBA trophy exactly as Jordan did after his first title in '91. Like father, like son.

[stephanieg]

You just don't get it. KG and Pierce aren't on the same level as a Michael Jordan, or a Hakeem Olajuwan or Timmy D. Neither is David Robinson.

You know why?? Because they don't make their teammates better, they couldn't lead a franchise by themselves.

Oscar Robertson led his team to four first round exits and straight to the lottery another four times. I guess Oscar Robertson doesn't make his team mates better.

Seriously, watching ESPN and taking what they say seriously is not a good idea.


Michael could lead a team by himself... so could Hakeem.

Hakeem is the most absurdly skilled center I've ever seen and his stats are out of this world but he "led" his team to:

Eliminated in the first round three times in a row (3-1, 3-1, 3-0).
Lottery

Michael Jordan is easily the best SG ever. He "led" his teams to two first round sweeps and a 3-1 beatdown.

Kobe Bryant, some call him the the best player in the world. What did he do leading the team?

Didn't make the playoffs
Two first round eliminations in a row

Funny, once all these players start to get better team mates their teams get WAY better for some reason. And then people like you heap praise on the star players.

The 96 Bulls won 72 games -- in part -- because they had this blonde haired guy who averaged 10 ppg.

[Showtime]

Strongly agree! However, I think the league will not sleep nor rest easy until Kobe is crying amidst champaigne, cradling the NBA trophy exactly as Jordan did after his first title in '91. Like father, like son.
I'm not saying he can't win another one, I'm just saying to his fans to stop acting as if it's only a matter of time.

Let's not put the cart before the horse. They act as if fate conspired against Kobe with Bynum's injury, and fail to acknowledge his own responsibility for his play. Kobe is a great player, and when he EARNS another championship, then we can start some more discussions about it. Until then Kobe fans: I don't want to hear it.

[poeticism707]

I'm not saying he can't win another one, I'm just saying to his fans to stop acting as if it's only a matter of time.

Let's not put the cart before the horse. They act as if fate conspired against Kobe with Bynum's injury, and fail to acknowledge his own responsibility for his play. Kobe is a great player, and when he EARNS another championship, then we can start some more discussions about it. Until then Kobe fans: I don't want to hear it.

I understand and agree!

Kobe's a great player, but like anyone else, great or otherwise, in any occupation, don't get too caught up in what might or could, or SHOULD happen!

Accomplishment ends in the present tense, then dreams begin.

[catzhernandez]

Oscar Robertson led his team to four first round exits and straight to the lottery another four times. I guess Oscar Robertson doesn't make his team mates better.

Seriously, watching ESPN and taking what they say seriously is not a good idea.



Hakeem is the most absurdly skilled center I've ever seen and his stats are out of this world but he "led" his team to:

Eliminated in the first round three times in a row (3-1, 3-1, 3-0).
Lottery

Michael Jordan is easily the best SG ever. He "led" his teams to two first round sweeps and a 3-1 beatdown.

Kobe Bryant, some call him the the best player in the world. What did he do leading the team?

Didn't make the playoffs
Two first round eliminations in a row

Funny, once all these players start to get better team mates their teams get WAY better for some reason. And then they heap praise on the star players.

The 96 Bulls won 72 games -- in part -- because they had this blonde haired guy who averaged 10 ppg.
I'm sorry, did I miss something?

Didn't know we were talking about Kobe. But again, somebody wants to turn this into a Kobe topic. :rolleyes:

I'm done here.

[stephanieg]

I'm sorry, did I miss something?

You did. It's a Kobe vs. D-Rob topic and you're trying to argue that star players and not a collection of good players are responsible for team success. Or something.

EDIT: BTW, I pick D-Rob, if you forgot. I'm definitely not a Kobe fan.

[catzhernandez]

You did. It's a Kobe vs. D-Rob topic and you're trying to argue that star players and not a collection of good players are responsible for team success. Or something.

EDIT: BTW, I pick D-Rob, if you forgot. I'm definitely not a Kobe fan.
I'm talking about all-time great players who can lead a team by himself.

Kobe clearly isn't capable of doing that either, and I've never said he is.

I just find it humorous to see how vastly overrated David Robinson is.

EDIT: BTW, I pick Kobe.

[stephanieg]

I'm talking about all-time great players who can lead a team by himself.

Kobe clearly isn't capable of doing that either, and I've never said he is.

I just find it humorous to see how vastly overrated David Robinson is.

EDIT: BTW, I pick Kobe.

I guess it just comes down to the fact I tend to take elite big men over SGs. Sure, Kobe will give you 30 or more if he gets hot, but he can also shoot you out of the game, he won't bring down 10-15 boards or control the paint. It's not really his fault he won't do that, he's just playing his position. But D-Rob will do those things and D-Rob won't shoot you out of a game either. Or any other elite center, for that matter.

Yesterday I watched game 6 of the 93 WCSF. That's the one where Barkley hits the game winner over D-Rob to eliminate the Spurs. One could argue that D-Rob's passivity on offense for most of the game cost them the series. But he still put up 22 ppg / 11 rpg / 3 apg / 3 blocks / 50% etc. and played elite defense. To my knowledge, D-Rob has never been completely shut down except when he ran into the Dream and he shot like 40%. Well, hey, that sucks for the Spurs but it's the Dream. He tends to do that (what he did to Ewing was just...wrong).

BTW, in that game 6 the announcers kept mentioning how bad Barkley was shooting. At one point he was like 7-22 or something. The Spurs lost because their guards couldn't stop Kevin Johnson on the pick and roll to save their lives.

[Allstar24]

personally I am not a Kobe fan. But this one is easy. Kobe is a couple of tiers ahead Robinson all time.
:cheers:

Repped! Not because you picked Kobe but because you're able to put aside your dislike for Kobe and answer the question without any bias.

[Showtime]

:cheers:

Repped! Not because you picked Kobe but because you're mature enough to put aside your dislike for Kobe and answer the question without any bias.
So what you are basically saying is that any answer that doesn't coincide with your opinion is biased and can't possibly be a reasonable viewpoint? This is why I dislike fanboys.

[amfirst]

Is this the sam David Robinson that played for the Spurs, the dude is overated. All u need is put a decent defender against him and he'll be useless. As to Kobe, u need a good team defense to stop him. :lol

[picc84]

What a stupid question. Whoever picks Robinson over inarguably one of the greatest sgs to ever live and a scoring machine which is Kobe Bryant should fill their bath tub with Patron and drink it t'ill their liver melts.

People don't have that kind of money.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

I'm talking about all-time great players who can lead a team by himself.

Kobe clearly isn't capable of doing that either, and I've never said he is.

I just find it humorous to see how vastly overrated David Robinson is.

EDIT: BTW, I pick Kobe.

Just curious ...do you find the following to be indicative of someone "leading a team by himself":
making the playoffs, in the very tough West Conference, two years in a row, with these as your starting teammates: Smush Parker, Kwame Brown, Luke Walton.

seriously: Smush, Kwame & Luke. yikes! two years in a row!
yes, they lost both times to the Suns which had 3 legit all-stars, which is certainly no disgrace.

and just as soon as they gave him some decent talent (DFish & Gasol)...BOOM...they make it all the way to the championship.

[Allstar24]

So what you are basically saying is that any answer that doesn't coincide with your opinion is biased and can't possibly be a reasonable viewpoint? This is why I dislike fanboys.
I find it amusing how people like you who could care less about David Robinson, suddenly behave as if you're a long-time Spur fan to whom he is the greatest player of all time, as if Robinson>>>>Kobe is the obvious answer here when its clearly not. I don't see any Spurs fans in here defending him, maybe because they know better? Besides you just proved my point. Labeling someone as a fanboy just because the person doesn't have the same opinion as you is supposed to be reasonable? Yeah okay.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

I was disappointed how rapidly Robinson eroded away after they drafted TD.

[dynasty1978]

I find it amusing how people like you who could care less about David Robinson, suddenly behave as if you're a long-time Spur fan to whom he is the greatest player of all time, as if Robinson>>>>Kobe is the obvious answer here when its clearly not. I don't see any Spurs fans in here defending him, maybe because they know better? Besides you just proved my point. Labeling someone as a fanboy just because the person doesn't have the same opinion as you is supposed to be reasonable? Yeah okay.

This Showtime's usual response to all things Kobe. blah blah blah...fanboys...blah blah. Player X > Kobe.

I love Drob, but it's Kobe...both players were vital cogs to their teams championship runs and both can point to their MVPs and individual stats. In the end, I'll take the better closer and the guy who led his team to the finals as option 1.

[AItheAnswer3]

Kobe Bryant>David Robinson

[catzhernandez]

Just curious ...do you find the following to be indicative of someone "leading a team by himself":
making the playoffs, in the very tough West Conference, two years in a row, with these as your starting teammates: Smush Parker, Kwame Brown, Luke Walton.

seriously: Smush, Kwame & Luke. yikes! two years in a row!
yes, they lost both times to the Suns which had 3 legit all-stars, which is certainly no disgrace.

and just as soon as they gave him some decent talent (DFish & Gasol)...BOOM...they make it all the way to the championship.
okay, that came out wrong.

I meant, rise above and lead a team to a chip. of course i can recognize what kobe did for this team those years, that's why i chose him over robinson.

[Maniak]

OJ Mayo>them both

HE IS THAT RAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you dont understand im sarcastic go kill yourself

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

okay, that came out wrong.

I meant, rise above and lead a team to a chip. of course i can recognize what kobe did for this team those years, that's why i chose him over robinson.

OK. fair enuf.
hopefully, this season, Kobe can "lead a team to a chip".

[AItheAnswer3]

OJ Mayo>them both

HE IS THAT RAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you dont understand im sarcastic go kill yourself

True that

[mjbulls23]

Robinson was damn good and underrated in his prime years, and while he might be easier to build a team around, he just is not the player Kobe Bryant is, especially as a closer in late game situations.

[stephanieg]

Moses Malone was damn good and underrated in his prime years, and while he might be easier to build a team around, he just is not the player Kobe Bryant is, especially as a closer in late game situations.

Or not.

[Godfather]

Kobe is better. David Robinson was a career underachiever until Tim came around. He was getting dunked on by Sabonis (GOAT euro).

Kobe was winning rings and leading his team to the finals.

In a nice man contest, DRob shakes Kobe's hand and accepts his award, though.

He has led one team into the Finals...and lost.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

BETTER QUESTION:

David Robinson or Patrick Ewing?? who you got?

[AItheAnswer3]

BETTER QUESTION:

David Robinson or Patrick Ewing?? who you got?

D-Rob

[poeticism707]

Moses Malone was damn good and underrated in his prime years, and while he might be easier to build a team around, he just is not the player Kobe Bryant is, especially as a closer in late game situations.

Or not.

With all due respect, Kobe hasn't lead his team to ANY TITLES, same as Robinson, so...why should Kobe's "game closing abilities" place him head and shoulders above Robinson, when neither can/could finish a season???

Of course, Kobe might win the next 5 titles, that's very possible, but until he does, he certainly hasn't accomplished enough to place him over Robinson.

One MVP and a few scoring titles does NOT OVERSHADOW Robinson's career of greatness.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

D-Rob

me, too. but its very close. splitting hairs really.

[stephanieg]

me, too. but its very close. splitting hairs really.

Yeah I guess it's close if you don't mind your center shooting 45% in the playoffs.

[Showtime]

I find it amusing how people like you who could care less about David Robinson, suddenly behave as if you're a long-time Spur fan to whom he is the greatest player of all time, as if Robinson>>>>Kobe is the obvious answer here when its clearly not.

I have never acted like a Spur/D-rob fanboy with my response to this thread. I was simply laying out the reasons why I would pick D-Rob. It's a combination of A: his position (which effects the game more than a guard), and B: his skills. It has nothing to do with me acting like a D-Rob fanboy.


I don't see any Spurs fans in here defending him, maybe because they know better? Besides you just proved my point. Labeling someone as a fanboy just because the person doesn't have the same opinion as you is supposed to be reasonable? Yeah okay.
You totally missed the point. I wasn't throwing out the fanboy label because Kobe was picked. I said that because that post insinuated that anybody who didn't pick Kobe is biased. It's not that anybody who disagrees with me is a fanboy.

[Showtime]

This Showtime's usual response to all things Kobe. blah blah blah...fanboys...blah blah. Player X > Kobe.

Wrong dumbass.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Yeah I guess it's close if you don't mind your center shooting 45% in the playoffs.

good point

[Showtime]

Yeah I guess it's close if you don't mind your center shooting 45% in the playoffs.
Do you really want to start the playoff FG% debate?

[AItheAnswer3]

Their career playoff FG% is close
Ewing - .469 %
Robinson - .479%

[starface]

based on impact on the court, early 90s DRob matches anything Kobe can do, if not surpass it.

But Kobe's killer instinct and desire to dominate puts him over DRob.


What does that mean????

David Robinson has the same if not more "IMPACT ON THE COURT" in your words

but Kobe's "killer instinct and desire" (media created phrase to put a positive spin on ballhogging) makes him better???


That makes no sense. Does Stuart Scott write your posts for you?

[Jimmy2k8]

I don't know which is more funny. The OP's name that says "PiercetheTruth", who has been proven to be TmacsRockets and Kgisbigticket or the comparison between David Robinson and Kobe Bryant.

[Jordan80]

Honestly all i've heard about since I got an ISH account is how bad Kobe fanboys are... but really, the people who dislike kobe bryant are even worse.

[Showtime]

Honestly all i've heard about since I got an ISH account is how bad Kobe fanboys are... but really, the people who dislike kobe bryant are even worse.
I haven't read any posts in this thread yet that say they picked D-Rob because of a dislike for Kobe.

[eliteballer]

Kevin Garnett and David Robinson are on pretty much the same level in my eyes so I confidently pick Kobe.

[Sir Charles]

Robinson in his Prime > Bryant till now

but I prefer Bryant because he is clutch

Robison = Zero Clutch Player:confusedshrug:

[EricForman]

What does that mean????

David Robinson has the same if not more "IMPACT ON THE COURT" in your words

but Kobe's "killer instinct and desire" (media created phrase to put a positive spin on ballhogging) makes him better???


That makes no sense. Does Stuart Scott write your posts for you?


There are lots of players who are more efficient/impactful throughout the course of the game but because of lack of killer instinct come up short when it matters.

On paper, someone like a Yao or Elton Brand are more efficient than a Manu or Kobe. But you know if your life was on the line in game 7. You'd want Manu or Kobe on your team over Yao or Brand.

Sorry you don't understand the logic because all you care about are numbers. And you're a fool if you think killer instinct doesn't exist and or matter in the game and its just a media propaganda made up to put a spin on ballhogging.

[KINGK]

More excuses and hypotheticals. It doesn't matter if Bynum was out, because Kobe still struggled and quit in the deciding game 6. I don't care if he had Luc Longley at center, it doesn't matter. When Kobe wins one, then you can talk. Stop acting as if another championship is an inevitability.

As for the topic at hand, I would personally chose Robinson because his skills and position effect the game regardless of the climate of the league. For example, today's NBA game clearly favors perimeter players and makes it easier for them to put up points, and so I wouldn't rely on Kobe unless the league stayed that way. However with Robinson at center, he would effect the game regardless of the times, because his athleticism and defense would transcend that. He played against much better post players than we have in today's game, and I can only imagine what he would be able to do in today's NBA.
How the hell does it not matter if Bynum was out? WTF. Only a fool would say such a thing. Before 07-08 I said if you give Kobe talent, he'll take you far and I was proven right. And he din't " quit'' in Game 6.:rolleyes:

[TmacsRockets]

I don't know which is more funny. The OP's name that says "PiercetheTruth", who has been proven to be TmacsRockets and Kgisbigticket or the comparison between David Robinson and Kobe Bryant.

Not sure whose those other 2 posters are.

[Showtime]

How the hell does it not matter if Bynum was out? WTF. Only a fool would say such a thing. Before 07-08 I said if you give Kobe talent, he'll take you far and I was proven right. And he din't " quit'' in Game 6.:rolleyes:
"The guy was 2 wins away from the championship last year without his starting center."

2 wins away isn't the same thing as winning a championship. That comment was the one I was responding to when I said it didn't matter. It doesn't matter if he had Bynum or not, because 2 wins away is still 2 wins away, and just because Andrew wasn't there doesn't give a pass to Kobe's own play. He struggled, and he quit in game 6. That's not Bynum's fault. And how can you say he didn't quit in 6? He looked like he totally lost all interest in competing, and that game was over by halftime. You could see he didn't even want to be there. LA had lost their heart. It was really pathetic.

[KINGK]

"The guy was 2 wins away from the championship last year without his starting center."

2 wins away isn't the same thing as winning a championship. That comment was the one I was responding to when I said it didn't matter. It doesn't matter if he had Bynum or not, because 2 wins away is still 2 wins away, and just because Andrew wasn't there doesn't give a pass to Kobe's own play. He struggled, and he quit in game 6. That's not Bynum's fault. And how can you say he didn't quit in 6? He looked like he totally lost all interest in competing, and that game was over by halftime. You could see he didn't even want to be there. LA had lost their heart. It was really pathetic.
Of course it matters. That would have been a totally different series had Bynum been there. He didnt lose interest in Game 6, he played almost exactly the same way in that Game as he did in Game 5 ( a game the Lakers won). That is to say, he trusted his teammates too much. What's pathetic is people getting on a guy for leading a very young team, without their starting center, all the way to the NBA Finals. And then blasting him for losing to a team with 3 HOF and the greatest defense in history. Thats really pathetic.

[poeticism707]

Of course it matters. That would have been a totally different series had Bynum been there. He didnt lose interest in Game 6, he played almost exactly the same way in that Game as he did in Game 5 ( a game the Lakers won). That is to say, he trusted his teammates too much. What's pathetic is people getting on a guy for leading a very young team, without their starting center, all the way to the NBA Finals. And then blasting him for losing to a team with 3 HOF and the greatest defense in history. Thats really pathetic.

How many excuses can one player get in a career?

Kobe "lost interest" against the Suns, in the playoffs no less to prove a point! What was that point, exactly? That whatever he does, the fanbase had better climb all over itself to justify it!

How many playoff games does Kobe have to come up small in before he loses this perch atop everyone's imagination? He's is approaching Karl Malone as another great player as a consistent, epic failure in the playoffs. You can set your watch to it.

Now that he has Gasol, Bynum, Fisher, the Zen Master, a very good team, what excuses does he have left? None. Well, he's already in negative territory, but he there are NO EXCUSES LEFT NOT TO DELIVER.

[plowking]

There is NO SUCH THING as "so on so is better, but so and just achieved more!" Achievement is the proof that all-time great players are greater than lesser players.

Dominique Wilkins or Jordan? Easy. Both had the stats, jaw-dropping, athleticism- but one has has done it all in the game about 6 times or more, the other never advanced past the first round.

My point? Achievement is what separates great players from lesser ones. Duncan accomplished more than Robinson? He's greater. Jordan more than Wilkins? He's greater.

Put simply, don't get so smart that you're stupid.

So Bill Russel is the greatest player ever?

And no one has Jordans stats, Nique isn't even close in terms of stats either. D Rob had far better stats then Duncan in his prime. Was a better defender, scorer, rebounder.

Name me one thing Duncan was better then Robinson at.

[poeticism707]

So Bill Russel is the greatest player ever?

And no one has Jordans stats, Nique isn't even close in terms of stats either. D Rob had far better stats then Duncan in his prime. Was a better defender, scorer, rebounder.

Name me one thing Duncan was better then Robinson at.

First of all:

Yes, Bill Russel is the GOAT.

Secondly, stats aren't the only criteria to judge: mvps, first team all nba, first team all defense, dpoys, but here's the clincher: LEAD THEIR TEAM TO TITLES, FINALS MVPs.

No contest. Duncan is greater than Robinson.

[Showtime]

Of course it matters. That would have been a totally different series had Bynum been there. He didnt lose interest in Game 6, he played almost exactly the same way in that Game as he did in Game 5 ( a game the Lakers won). That is to say, he trusted his teammates too much. What's pathetic is people getting on a guy for leading a very young team, without their starting center, all the way to the NBA Finals. And then blasting him for losing to a team with 3 HOF and the greatest defense in history. Thats really pathetic.
LOL how am I "blasting" him for losing? I simply said, in response to a post that criticized Kobe's critics, that he still lost. That's not attacking Kobe. That's telling the truth. His fans may not like that some people out there think he can't win as the #1 guy, but he HAS TO PROVE THEM WRONG FIRST. That was the whole point.

[plowking]

First of all:

Yes, Bill Russel is the GOAT.

Secondly, stats aren't the only criteria to judge: mvps, first team all nba, first team all defense, dpoys, but here's the clincher: LEAD THEIR TEAM TO TITLES, FINALS MVPs.

No contest. Duncan is greater than Robinson.

Stats usually determine who is the better player. Robinson was better at every facet of the game.

Name one thing Duncan is better then Robinson at.

Duncan came into a situation any rookie of his caliber would dream of. Placed on a 50 win team already with one of the best centers of all time. They only got that draft pick because Duncan was injured for the whole season.

Duncan has always had star caliber around him. Such is not the case with Duncan.

[poeticism707]

Stats usually determine who is the better player. Robinson was better at every facet of the game.

Name one thing Duncan is better then Robinson at.

Duncan came into a situation any rookie of his caliber would dream of. Placed on a 50 win team already with one of the best centers of all time. They only got that draft pick because Duncan was injured for the whole season.

Duncan has always had star caliber around him. Such is not the case with Duncan.

I could name post all the previous rosters for the Spurs, which show Tim Duncan has not only played with little talent, he has QUITE LITERALLY won titles with LESS TALENT THAN ANY OTHER PLAYER IN NBA HISTORY.

And not only that, in 2003, Tim Duncan lead his band of scrubs and castoffs and unproven rookies (Parker and Manu) against the THREE TIME DEFENDING CHAMPION SHAQ AND KOBE LAKES- AND BEAT THEM, SEALING THE SERIES IN GAME-6 WITH HIS 37 POINT AND 16 REBOUND EFFORT. Oh and by the way, DAVID ROBINSON AVERAGED 8 POINTS AND 7 REBOUNDS THAT YEAR, AND A MERE 14 POINTS AND 10 REBOUNDS IN THE TITLE SEASON TOGETHER IN '99.

NEWSFLASH: KG HAD A BETTER TEAM WITH SAM CASSELL (CLUTCH!) AND LATRELL, GOING UP AGAINST THE SHAQ-KOBE LAKERS IN THE WESTERN FINALS IN 2004 THAN THE SPURS HAD IN 2003. BUT WHO DELIVERED? DUNCAN. WHY? BECAUSE DUNCAN IS GREATER, BECAUSE HE DOES MORE WITH LESS.

Again, this argument is so ridiculous, you should be ashamed to even state it.

[biisak]

Stats usually determine who is the better player. Robinson was better at every facet of the game.

Name one thing Duncan is better then Robinson at.

Duncan came into a situation any rookie of his caliber would dream of. Placed on a 50 win team already with one of the best centers of all time. They only got that draft pick because Duncan was injured for the whole season.

Duncan has always had star caliber around him. Such is not the case with Duncan.

Duncan is more clutch, a better passer out of the double team and a grand motivator.

To say Duncan has always had star caliber around him, have you seen the teams he

[poeticism707]

[QUOTE=biisak]Duncan is more clutch, a better passer out of the double team and a grand motivator.

To say Duncan has always had star caliber around him, have you seen the teams he

[plowking]

I could name post all the previous rosters for the Spurs, which show Tim Duncan has not only played with little talent, he has QUITE LITERALLY won titles with LESS TALENT THAN ANY OTHER PLAYER IN NBA HISTORY.

And not only that, in 2003, Tim Duncan lead his band of scrubs and castoffs and unproven rookies (Parker and Manu) against the THREE TIME DEFENDING CHAMPION SHAQ AND KOBE LAKES- AND BEAT THEM, SEALING THE SERIES IN GAME-6 WITH HIS 37 POINT AND 16 REBOUND EFFORT. Oh and by the way, DAVID ROBINSON AVERAGED 8 POINTS AND 7 REBOUNDS THAT YEAR, AND A MERE 14 POINTS AND 10 REBOUNDS IN THE TITLE SEASON TOGETHER IN '99.

NEWSFLASH: KG HAD A BETTER TEAM WITH SAM CASSELL (CLUTCH!) AND LATRELL, GOING UP AGAINST THE SHAQ-KOBE LAKERS IN THE WESTERN FINALS IN 2004 THAN THE SPURS HAD IN 2003. BUT WHO DELIVERED? DUNCAN. WHY? BECAUSE DUNCAN IS GREATER, BECAUSE HE DOES MORE WITH LESS.

Again, this argument is so ridiculous, you should be ashamed to even state it.

Wouldn't have to do with Robinson being in his 30's and already declined would it? No, I bet you think he was still in his prime then.

Duncan had Manu, Robinson, Parker, Bruce Bowen and Stephen Jackson as his supporting cast in 2003.

Furthermore in 2005 he had even more help, and he shot a disguisting 42% from the field, while guards like Parker shot 50% and Manu shot 47%. He didn't even deserve a finals MVP that year. Parker again was the better player.

Even against the Cavs, he shot a mere 44%. He also had 2 all star level guards on his team then as well.

[biisak]

Wouldn't have to do with Robinson being in his 30's and already declined would it? No, I bet you think he was still in his prime then.

Duncan had Manu, Robinson, Parker, Bruce Bowen and Stephen Jackson as his supporting cast in 2003.

Furthermore in 2005 he had even more help, and he shot a disguisting 42% from the field, while guards like Parker shot 50% and Manu shot 47%. He didn't even deserve a finals MVP that year. Parker again was the better player.

Even against the Cavs, he shot a mere 44%. He also had 2 all star level guards on his team then as well.

Stats stats stats, watch some actual games from time to time will ya?

[poeticism707]

Wouldn't have to do with Robinson being in his 30's and already declined would it? No, I bet you think he was still in his prime then.

Duncan had Manu, Robinson, Parker, Bruce Bowen and Stephen Jackson as his supporting cast in 2003.

Furthermore in 2005 he had even more help, and he shot a disguisting 42% from the field, while guards like Parker shot 50% and Manu shot 47%. He didn't even deserve a finals MVP that year. Parker again was the better player.

Even against the Cavs, he shot a mere 44%. He also had 2 all star level guards on his team then as well.

2003: Manu and Parker were unproven, turnover prone ROOKIES. Servicable, but very good, or even great? Please.

2003: Stephen Jackson was BARELY STILL IN THE LEAGUE WHEN THE SPURS SIGNED HIM. HE BENEFITED FROM PLAYING WITH DUNCAN, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

2003: Bruce Bowen? The WORST OFFENSIVE LIABILITY IN MAYBE THE HISTORY OF THE GAME? Don't even MENTION Bowen, it helps my case IMMENSELY, and destroys yours.

2005: You want to complain about Duncan's FG% against the defending champion Detroit Pistons, who featured Ben and Rasheed Wallace, one of the top-defensive front courts IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME? THE SAME DUO THAT HELD SHAQ FIRMLY IN CHECK, THE SAME DUO THAT "SWEPT" THE LAKERS 4-1 IN THE FINALS, WHERE KOBE WAS LOCKED DOWN BY PRINCE? AND YOU WANT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT DUNCAN'S FG%, WHEN HE AND ONLY HE STEPPED UP THROUGH 7 TOUGH GAMES, AND DELIVERED THE GOODS, THE VERY SAME GOODS THAT SHAQ AND KOBE COULDN'T DELIVER?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Seriously, I see no point in this continued discussion. If you don't know the game, which is obvious, don't front. Better to be an honest fool than a dishonest thief/liar.

PS My compliments to you sir (or madam), and may you have a fun time exploring the depths and heights and breadth of my Ignore List! Only children allowed!

[biisak]

2003: Manu and Parker were unproven, turnover prone ROOKIES. Servicable, but very good, or even great? Please.

2003: Stephen Jackson was BARELY STILL IN THE LEAGUE WHEN THE SPURS SIGNED HIM. HE BENEFITED FROM PLAYING WITH DUNCAN, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

2003: Bruce Bowen? The WORST OFFENSIVE LIABILITY IN MAYBE THE HISTORY OF THE GAME? Don't even MENTION Bowen, it helps my case IMMENSELY, and destroys yours.

2005: You want to complain about Duncan's FG% against the defending champion Detroit Pistons, who featured Ben and Rasheed Wallace, one of the top-defensive front courts IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME? THE SAME DUO THAT HELD SHAQ FIRMLY IN CHECK, THE SAME DUO THAT "SWEPT" THE LAKERS 4-1 IN THE FINALS, WHERE KOBE WAS LOCKED DOWN BY PRINCE? AND YOU WANT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT DUNCAN'S FG%, WHEN HE AND ONLY HE STEPPED UP THROUGH 7 TOUGH GAMES, AND DELIVERED THE GOODS, THE VERY SAME GOODS THAT SHAQ AND KOBE COULDN'T DELIVER?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Seriously, I see no point in this continued discussion. If you don't know the game, which is obvious, don't front. Better to be an honest fool than a dishonest thief/liar.


Don

[poeticism707]

[QUOTE=biisak]Don

[plowking]

[QUOTE=biisak]Don

[Showtime]

[QUOTE=biisak]Don

[plowking]

2003: Manu and Parker were unproven, turnover prone ROOKIES. Servicable, but very good, or even great? Please.

2003: Stephen Jackson was BARELY STILL IN THE LEAGUE WHEN THE SPURS SIGNED HIM. HE BENEFITED FROM PLAYING WITH DUNCAN, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

2003: Bruce Bowen? The WORST OFFENSIVE LIABILITY IN MAYBE THE HISTORY OF THE GAME? Don't even MENTION Bowen, it helps my case IMMENSELY, and destroys yours.

2005: You want to complain about Duncan's FG% against the defending champion Detroit Pistons, who featured Ben and Rasheed Wallace, one of the top-defensive front courts IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME? THE SAME DUO THAT HELD SHAQ FIRMLY IN CHECK, THE SAME DUO THAT "SWEPT" THE LAKERS 4-1 IN THE FINALS, WHERE KOBE WAS LOCKED DOWN BY PRINCE? AND YOU WANT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT DUNCAN'S FG%, WHEN HE AND ONLY HE STEPPED UP THROUGH 7 TOUGH GAMES, AND DELIVERED THE GOODS, THE VERY SAME GOODS THAT SHAQ AND KOBE COULDN'T DELIVER?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Seriously, I see no point in this continued discussion. If you don't know the game, which is obvious, don't front. Better to be an honest fool than a dishonest thief/liar.

PS My compliments to you sir (or madam), and may you have a fun time exploring the depths and heights and breadth of my Ignore List! Only children allowed!

Shaq shot above 55% against those Pistons.

Btw who do you consider the greater player out of Shaq and Tim Duncan.

Also if you say that achievements such as championships and such determine how good a player is, does that mean you consider Wade a better player then Lebron?

[plowking]

I could have told you that as soon as he listed young TP and Manu as good supporting casts in 03.

I'm arguing that Robinson never had nearly the amount of support that Duncan had. They were efficient and scored quickly, they were useful.

[plowking]

I could have told you that as soon as he listed young TP and Manu as good supporting casts in 03.

So you think that Duncan had less to work with then Robinson?

[biisak]

So you think that Duncan had less to work with then Robinson?


He certainly didn

[plowking]

[QUOTE=biisak]He certainly didn

[poeticism707]

I could have told you that as soon as he listed young TP and Manu as good supporting casts in 03.
:applause:

Agreed!

[rzp]

huh im watched those LAL vs SAS series (the real final) in 2003 , and im pretty sure Manu destroyed the Lakers , i dnt even care about the stats ,and Parker vs Fisher IS A HUGE MISMATCH ,every1 knows fisher always got pwned by small and fast pgs ; that team was build for the Lakers ,it was Parker running like crazy and pick nd roll all day long ! Duncan wasnt alone ! 2005 and 2007 are here to prove

[Showtime]

So you think that Duncan had less to work with then Robinson?
I think his 95 team was a better supporting cast than Duncan's 03 team.

[plowking]

I think his 95 team was a better supporting cast than Duncan's 03 team.

Sure a list of players will make it seem so.

Though the Spurs of 03 were a top 5 offensive and defensive team in the league, while also running one of the slowest offenses in the league.

[poeticism707]

huh im watched those LAL vs SAS series (the real final) in 2003 , and im pretty sure Manu destroyed the Lakers , i dnt even care about the stats ,and Parker vs Fisher IS A HUGE MISMATCH ,every1 knows fisher always got pwned by small and fast pgs ; that team was build for the Lakers ,it was Parker running like crazy and pick nd roll all day long ! Duncan wasnt alone ! 2005 and 2007 are here to prove

My old Pal, RZP!!:cheers: Here's to you!!!

Back to basketball! Manu and Parker were so erratic as rookies, it was not even funny. Brilliant play, turnover! Otherwise the Spurs would have run the Lakers out of the gym (which they did in Game 6, 2003, due to Duncan's 37 point-17 rebound explosion).

Need proof? In 2004, A FULL YEAR LATER Tony Parker had great games in the West Semis in Games 1 and 2 to help the Spurs grab a 2-0 lead over the Lakers. After that? Disappeared, and couple that with Fisher's miracle, you have the Spurs losing that series 4-2.

In 2005, 2 FULL YEARS LATER IN THE FINALS AGAINST THE PISTONS, Tony Parker was benched for the likes of the third PG on the Spurs, Speedy Claxton!

Need I say more???:confusedshrug:

[plowking]

My old Pal, RZP!!:cheers: Here's to you!!!

Back to basketball! Manu and Parker were so erratic as rookies, it was not even funny. Brilliant play, turnover! Otherwise the Spurs would have run the Lakers out of the gym (which they did in Game 6, 2003, due to Duncan's 37 point-17 rebound explosion).

Need proof? In 2004, A FULL YEAR LATER Tony Parker had great games in the West Semis in Games 1 and 2 to help the Spurs grab a 2-0 lead over the Lakers. After that? Disappeared, and couple that with Fisher's miracle, you have the Spurs losing that series 4-2.

In 2005, 2 FULL YEARS LATER IN THE FINALS AGAINST THE PISTONS, Tony Parker was benched for the likes of the third PG on the Spurs, Speedy Claxton!

Need I say more???:confusedshrug:

Just out of interest, who do you consider better?

Wade or Lebron?

Shaq or Duncan?

[Showtime]

Three actually, and in my opinion should be two.
That's another debate entirely. Despite Parker's finals MVP, they wouldn't have won without Duncan's post defense and key rebounding, which made up for his offensive struggles.

[Showtime]

My old Pal, RZP!!:cheers: Here's to you!!!

Back to basketball! Manu and Parker were so erratic as rookies, it was not even funny. Brilliant play, turnover! Otherwise the Spurs would have run the Lakers out of the gym (which they did in Game 6, 2003, due to Duncan's 37 point-17 rebound explosion).

Need proof? In 2004, A FULL YEAR LATER Tony Parker had great games in the West Semis in Games 1 and 2 to help the Spurs grab a 2-0 lead over the Lakers. After that? Disappeared, and couple that with Fisher's miracle, you have the Spurs losing that series 4-2.

In 2005, 2 FULL YEARS LATER IN THE FINALS AGAINST THE PISTONS, Tony Parker was benched for the likes of the third PG on the Spurs, Speedy Claxton!

Need I say more???:confusedshrug:
Parker's jumpshot was so inconsistent too, and he didn't have 3 point range either. That limited his offense considerably compared to what he has done the past few years.

[poeticism707]

Parker's jumpshot was so inconsistent too, and he didn't have 3 point range either. That limited his offense considerably compared to what he has done the past few years.

Oh, Parker is a legit top point guard in the league now.

However(as you know), he was NO WHERE CLOSE THEN.

[rzp]

My old Pal, RZP!!:cheers: Here's to you!!!

Back to basketball! Manu and Parker were so erratic as rookies, it was not even funny. Brilliant play, turnover! Otherwise the Spurs would have run the Lakers out of the gym (which they did in Game 6, 2003, due to Duncan's 37 point-17 rebound explosion).



LMAO u are talking about game 6 ...Lakers were so dead in the game 6 ,they just gave up, its normal , just like Spurs gave up after lose the game 5 in 2004, its not like TD decided the game and kicked Lakers ass in the game 6,TD just kicked a dead dog...Lakers lost this series in game 5 by 2 points ,just watch that game again and look a$$ TD face :eek: when Horry shoot that 3-point ball; no manu , no parker , LaL would destroy SaS as always, TD was the best player , but they were the key .

[plowking]

That's another debate entirely. Despite Parker's finals MVP, they wouldn't have won without Duncan's post defense and key rebounding, which made up for his offensive struggles.

Look I rank Duncan in my top 10 players all time. He is the greater player between Robinson and him. Though I think that Robinson was the better player in his prime, just in a worse off position in terms of being able to win.

[rzp]

Oh, Parker is a legit top point guard in the league now.

However(as you know), he was NO WHERE CLOSE THEN.

its not like Parker was a scrub then turn into a all star...he was a fast and skilled player since his first day in nba, just not polished .

[poeticism707]

its not like Parker was a scrub then turn into a all star...he was a fast and skilled player since his first day in nba, just not polished .

Read about two posts back and HOW LONG it took Parker to develop. Don't worry, I posted specifics.

[rzp]

Read about two posts back and HOW LONG it took Parker to develop. Don't worry, I posted specifics.

thats only your opinion, not facts , care to explain why Pop rejected freakin JASON KIDD ? o wait , becuz he has a scrub pg who will take years to develop :rolleyes:

[poeticism707]

thats only your opinion, not facts , care to explain why Pop rejected freakin JASON KIDD ? o wait , becuz he has a scrub pg who will take years to develop :rolleyes:

Still ignoring the actual words on page, are we???

Somethings never change!!!

:hammerhead:

[KINGK]

LOL how am I "blasting" him for losing? I simply said, in response to a post that criticized Kobe's critics, that he still lost. That's not attacking Kobe. That's telling the truth. His fans may not like that some people out there think he can't win as the #1 guy, but he HAS TO PROVE THEM WRONG FIRST. That was the whole point.
Except he just about did prove them wrong. The idiotic kobe haters were always going on about him not trusting his teammates and not being able to be the #1 guy. Both were proved wrong in 07-08. What a bunch of idiots.:oldlol:

[biisak]

Except he just about did prove them wrong. The idiotic kobe haters were always going on about him not trusting his teammates and not being able to be the #1 guy. Both were proved wrong in 07-08. What a bunch of idiots.:oldlol:


Or it could be that 10 years of acting like a diva, losing a title for his team trying to be the man, quiting on his teammate in a game 7, ratting on a teammate in a police hearing, chucking for an entire season and so on has people questioning his motives and one postseason isnt enough to make people change their minds.

[KINGK]

Or it could be that 10 years of acting like a diva, losing a title for his team trying to be the man, quiting on his teammate in a game 7, ratting on a teammate in a police hearing, chucking for an entire season and so on has people questioning his motives and one postseason isnt enough to make people change their minds.
Typical Kobe hater, bringing up **** outside of the court. I guess the 07-08 season+ already being one of the greatest players ever+ 3 NBA Championships and 5 Finals trips isn't enough to convince these idiots.:oldlol:

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Well that is what I meant, he was a big part of the championship team, he was the second option, and he did a solid job.
he was the guy with ball in his hands in the final moments, abd then he was the first option.
Just like Ginobili is the first option for the Spurs when the game is on the line, not Duncan.

That's very different compared to Pippen's role, who was never asked to be the leader in the final minutes.

[2LeTTeRS]

I might be Robinson's biggest fan here, but I think this comparison tilts toward him. Both players don't have the mindstate of a prototypical #1, so honestly I'm not going there, and will only focus on the court. Both are unstopable on offense, but I take the impact of D Rob, over Bryant and his oftentimes questionable shot selection. Defensively, while Bryant is good, Robinson is A) a big and B) one of the best defensive players in league history. He's much easier to build a good defensive team around than Kobe.

As of right now these players rank at about the same place in all-time rankings, so basically it comes down to personal preference. To me I say going the traditional route makes the most sense. Both have shown that they are unable to win titles with sub-par supporting casts, but when given good teams have come through to win multiple titles as 2nd options. I think in prime if both were given a real chance to win, they would. Think about it, if you put them last year's Celtic team (say D Rob in KG's place beside Pierce and Allen, or Kobe in Pierce's place with KG and Ray Ray) both would give you titles. Both these players are champions, and I hate the way people try to downplay them for wining as "2nd options."

[biisak]

he was the guy with ball in his hands in the final moments, abd then he was the first option.
Just like Ginobili is the first option for the Spurs when the game is on the line, not Duncan.

That's very different compared to Pippen's role, who was never asked to be the leader in the final minutes.

No, no and no. Yes, Ginobili sometimes takes the final shot but if you

[Carbine]

Robinson was never better than prime Garnett, and at the time Garnett was at his peak Kobe was generally regarded as an equal player - at that time Kobe was not in his prime.

Nowadays, after what Kobe has done.... the scoring sprees, the finals appearance (I was on record as saying making the finals isn't something that should be valued, but this was the toughest conference in league history and making it out of there, while playing extremley well deserves some credit) and he's still rather young, so he has quite a bit left to his story/career.

Kobe, with a few titles as the best player will be entering the top 7 or 8 players of all time.... while David is in the top 20. Kobe is on another teer of greatness once it's all said and done.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

[QUOTE=biisak]No, no and no. Yes, Ginobili sometimes takes the final shot but if you

[2LeTTeRS]

Robinson was never better than prime Garnett, and at the time Garnett was at his peak Kobe was generally regarded as an equal player - at that time Kobe was not in his prime.

Thats a lie. D Rob was at least making the playoffs every year while KG sat at home his last 2 or 3 in Minnesota. D Rob was also a much better scorer than the sometimes offensively hesitant KG.


Nowadays, after what Kobe has done.... the scoring sprees, the finals appearance (I was on record as saying making the finals isn't something that should be valued, but this was the toughest conference in league history and making it out of there, while playing extremley well deserves some credit) and he's still rather young, so he has quite a bit left to his story/career

Robinson had his own scoring sprees and also had historic playoff performances. Don't let the Hakeem series fool you, he was a bad boy he just basically had a team that could rival the 05 or 06 Lakers his whole prime.


Kobe, with a few titles as the best player will be entering the top 7 or 8 players of all time.... while David is in the top 20. Kobe is on another teer of greatness once it's all said and done.

So wait, now you're assuming Kobe will win more titles that he hasn't even won yet? Come on man let the biasness go, as of now Kobe has done nothing to prove himself better than D Rob.

[Carbine]

Bias? I'm clearly not a supporter of Kobe. It's also funny how Garnett gets the "his team was terrible" excuse when in debates titled Duncan vs Garnett, but it's all of a sudden the exact opposite "he sat at home the last two or three years" to try and make Garnett out to be inferior when it makes your argument stronger.

[Killer_Instinct]

David robinson all day,just a simple fact that great C >great SG


Yes, because Kareem>Jordan.

[Killer_Instinct]

Robinson had his own scoring sprees .



None close to the streaks Kobe has put up throughout his career.

[TmacsRockets]

Yes, because Kareem>Jordan.

Doesn't apply when you win more finals mvp's than anyone and by double the amount.

[Loki]

Robinson was never better than prime Garnett

Uhh, he certainly was, and by a fair amount.

[Younggrease]

Uhh, he certainly was, and by a fair amount.

co-signed and it was truly a significant amount.

[Renfield]

Who was better?

David Robinson is 4th all time in efficiency behind Jordan, Shaq and Wilt and he was putting up 24 and 12 even as a rookie.
Because he's playing center. Kobe's the better player. His career is already better and when he retires no one will be ableto ask if he could do it without Shaq.

[Carbine]

You're kidding, right Loki? Garnett was equal or better than Robinson at total defense (pick and roll coverage, rotations, protecting the hoop, etc) and Garnett' passing is also better than Robinsons. Garnett is also a better rebounder.

I hate to say it, but Garnetts high post/low post combination is a bit better than what Robinson provided as well, and passing from those spits is critical, which Garnett has the edge in.

Robinson was better on the break. Better around the hoop. Just a better scorer overall but he wasn't the dominant scorer that he would've had to have been in order to cover up the spots where he's not as good as Garnett.

This version of Garnett may cloud some peoples judgement, but from 01-04 he was clearly as impactful as Robinson ever was.

[miles berg]

Another example of just how overrated Kevin Garnett is on this board. But, carbine is one of the best and smartest posters here, so I will just sit back & watch this one. But, no, KG has never been close to David Robinson.

[Loki]

You're kidding, right Loki?

No, I'm not. DRob in his prime was quite a bit better than KG. KG a better rebounder? Perhaps, but not by much as much as a look at his mid-90's numbers would indicate; DRob was pulling down ~11 rpg with Rodman grabbing 17 rpg. In KG's big rebounding years he never even had a competent rebounder on his team alongside him.


Garnett was equal or better than Robinson at total defense (pick and roll coverage, rotations, protecting the hoop, etc)

Garnett does not have a larger defensive impact than prime Robinson. Period. That is, virtually any team will be better defensively with Robinson as opposed to Garnett -- including last year's Celtics..


Robinson was better on the break. Better around the hoop. Just a better scorer overall but he wasn't the dominant scorer that he would've had to have been in order to cover up the spots where he's not as good as Garnett.

The only area where he's not as good as KG is passing. Rebounding may be a slight edge to KG, but it's negligible (~1 extra rpg under equal circumstances). DRob is a more dominant defender and scorer than KG, which are the two areas that matter most.


This version of Garnett may cloud some peoples judgement, but from 01-04 he was clearly as impactful as Robinson ever was.

All the numbers (PER/EFF, offensive/defensive Win Shares, DRtg/ORtg etc.) say otherwise, as do most of the people who have seen both of their primes. I wouldn't even hesitate to take '91-'95 DRob on my team before '03-'06 KG, and I'd win ~70% of games between otherwise equal teams thus constituted.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

I would take prime Admiral over prime KG any day, any time.
What a great defender he was, both man and help. Solid scorer too.

My only disappointment in DRob was his rapid decline...but I suppose that happens. KG seems to have better health/longevity.

[Carbine]

Garnett is one of this generations top two defensive forces, alongside Tim Duncan. TMac has said Garnett guarded him the best out of anyone in the league. That's strong. Garnett does not guard the rim as well as Robinson but he's equal in pretty much everything else defensive wise, and has an edge on pick and roll defense (which is huge) and versatility, as evident by the Tmac comment.

And there is no question Garnett was the better rebounder. He's one of the best defensive rebounders I've ever seen in my lifetime while he was in his prime years with Minnesota.

Passing is a big part of the game. If it weren't Dwight Howard may be the best big in the league, but he's not.. so he can't control a game from the post. The better passer you are the more impact you have. Simple.

Robinson is a great, great player. I remember watching him do things that were unreal. So graceful. I just feel like he's getting a tad overrated (a trend that happens with old-timers) in this here comparison.

Just isn't that big of a difference, if any, between Robinson & Garnett. I'm not even a Garnett supporter, I believe he's generally overrated but his prime was something to see, just as Robinsons.

[2LeTTeRS]

Bias? I'm clearly not a supporter of Kobe. It's also funny how Garnett gets the "his team was terrible" excuse when in debates titled Duncan vs Garnett, but it's all of a sudden the exact opposite "he sat at home the last two or three years" to try and make Garnett out to be inferior when it makes your argument stronger.

Maybe because I'm comparing KG to other players in Kobe and D Rob during stretches when they also had terrible supporting casts. In that situation Kobe made the playoffs 2 out of 3 times, and D Rob made it basically every season of his career until the injury the year before drafting Tim Duncan.

And whether you want to say it or not, you're argument from the post I quoted which credited Kobe for championships he might win in the future was biased a bit toward Kobe, whether you consider yourself a fan of his or not.


You're kidding, right Loki? Garnett was equal or better than Robinson at total defense (pick and roll coverage, rotations, protecting the hoop, etc) and Garnett' passing is also better than Robinsons. Garnett is also a better rebounder.

I hate to say it, but Garnetts high post/low post combination is a bit better than what Robinson provided as well, and passing from those spits is critical, which Garnett has the edge in.

Robinson was better on the break. Better around the hoop. Just a better scorer overall but he wasn't the dominant scorer that he would've had to have been in order to cover up the spots where he's not as good as Garnett.

This version of Garnett may cloud some peoples judgement, but from 01-04 he was clearly as impactful as Robinson ever was.

D Rob's strengths are more the typical big man qualities, and most would say are more important for the positions they play than KG. His advantages as a shot blocker and scorer trump KG's superior man defense and passing. D Rob from 93-97 is better than prime KG by a nice little bit.

[Carbine]

The only big man super quality that Robinson had was his defense. I don't believe he had the knack to control a game from the post such as Shaq had, or Duncan has, or Hakeem had....

That's huge. That's such a huge asset to have. You look back at the past numerous championship teams and they all have that one player with that quality. Hakeem had it. Jordan had it (second three peat more so) Shaq had it, Duncan has it, Kareem had it, Bird/Mchale had it....

The teams that didn't have that one quality were teams with some of the greatest team defenses ever (celtics, pistons) and one with the goat player playing in his prime in Jordan.

That quality is what makes a big man special or just great.

Basically what I'm saying is, since Robinson never controlled the game from the post as the truly great bigs did.... his offensive edge over Garnett doesn't outweigh the difference in rebounding and passing... and they both are superb defensivly so... I'm just not seeing it.

[Showtime]

Did some forget when Robinson was at his peak? Robinson's level of opposition was greater than KG's.

[TmacsRockets]

Did some forget when Robinson was at his peak? Robinson's level of opposition was greater than KG's.

He had to deal with Hakeem and Prime Shaq who would easily be the best players in the league nowadays.

[allball]

If I had to take one of them in their prime I would go with the center. I like Kobe but Robinson was a two way guy in the post. a true 7 footer with athletic ability. you just cant pass that up. even on the downside of his career he defended the post well.

I like Kobe but great centers are the cornerstone of success.

as for who's greater I'd have to go with Robinson as far as talent and overall game. he just couldnt overcome his competition in his prime.

[Carbine]

See I'm not buying that whole theory of dominant big men over guards here. David Robinson did not control the game from the post, so the one huge advantage, and the reason why that theory works in the big mans favor doesn't apply here. If we're talking about Kobe or Shaq, or Hakeem, or someone like that it's a different story - they controlled the game from the post - but Robinson lacked that quality.

The only big time advantage Robinson has over Kobe is interior defense and rebounding, but Kobe is no slouch either... he's shown the ability to be great defender when the time/role calls for it.

Bryant has a big advantage in scoring and overall play-making ability. He plays the pick and roll game well, he's efficient from the post, he's great off the dribble, finishing around the hoop... and he's improved his willingness to pass the basketball as he's always been a good/very good passer.

Kobe will be remembered as a better player than Robinson, no question.

[drza44]

Re: DRob vs. Kobe. I'd take Robinson, for many of the reasons stated by others. His defensive impact as a dominant center is much greater than any Kobe could have on that end of the court, and on offense their impacts were similar. Each were outstanding on the offensive end, with strengths related to their position (Kobe the better pure scorer and ball-handler, DRob the more efficient scorer that the team could play off of).

As I read this thread, I think that many are confusing "best player" with "most similar style to Jordan". Kobe's style of play is similar to Jordan, and he is elite as a perimeter player. Things like scoring sprees and late-game shots are under the province of the wing player. Just because Robinson's strengths were more in-line with being a big man than a wing, doesn't mean that Kobe's strengths are greater. There is a reason that NBA history is riddled with legendary big men while only a few perimeter players are on the very upper tier...generally speaking, a big is more valuable than a small of similar caliber. There are some exceptions, but I don't think this is one of them. Robinson.

[drza44]

See I'm not buying that whole theory of dominant big men over guards here. David Robinson did not control the game from the post, so the one huge advantage, and the reason why that theory works in the big mans favor doesn't apply here. If we're talking about Kobe or Shaq, or Hakeem, or someone like that it's a different story - they controlled the game from the post - but Robinson lacked that quality.

The only big time advantage Robinson has over Kobe is interior defense and rebounding, but Kobe is no slouch either... he's shown the ability to be great defender when the time/role calls for it.

Bryant has a big advantage in scoring and overall play-making ability. He plays the pick and roll game well, he's efficient from the post, he's great off the dribble, finishing around the hoop... and he's improved his willingness to pass the basketball as he's always been a good/very good passer.

Kobe will be remembered as a better player than Robinson, no question.

This thread has spawned some interesting debates in the last few pages, and I hope I'm not too late to get involved in some of them. Here, you mention a basketball "truism" that I'm not sure is entirely true, especially in the last 25 years or so. That truism is that the reason that dominant big men lead to titles is due to their post offense, and that if a big man does not operate primarily out of the post on offense that they don't fit that dominant big mold. The more I look at it, I wonder if the truth is a bit more complex.

The reason that post offense is so crucial is that it leads to 1) highly efficient individual scoring (stands to reason, shooting closer to the rim), 2) defensive double-teams that force the defense to break down and leads to easier shots for teammates (i.e. a more efficient team offense), and 3) generally more fouls, which means more fouls shots and opposing-team foul trouble. The rub is, that you can get all 3 of these things at a dominant level without necessarily playing entirely from the post. In this comparison, Robinson still was significantly more efficient than Bryant, qualitatively drew more doubles over his career (I WISH that someone kept track of this, as without stats there's no way to really prove my hunch that Robinson saw more doubles), and drew more fouls/shot more FTs than Kobe. So despite Robinson's game being more face-up/quickness/jumper than the text-book big man, on offense I think he still generates the "great big man effect" over Kobe.

And actually, looking at the champions of the last few decades, I wonder if the more important aspect of the "dominant big man" is not what he does at the defensive end. There have been plenty of champions over the last few decades without dominant big men interior scorers...but there have been very few (if any) champs that didn't have a very strong interior presence on defense. This post is getting long and to support that argument would be it's own topic, so I'll leave it at that for now, but based on that theory I think the fact that Robinson enjoys a huge advantage on overall defensive impact, especially interior defense and rebounding, is a major component of why I would pick him over Kobe...which again comes back to the "Big over small of similar caliber" theme...

[Carbine]

If that's the case, Shaq would be no question a more dominant player than Jordan. The same things being said in this thread to support Robinson over Kobe are the same things that would be said in a Shaq vs. Jordan thread, except that Shaq had that dominant overall low post game to boot.

But we all know who would come out on top in that debate.

Even Hakeem, perhaps the best overall defender ever and one of the most dominant low post players as well, would have to be the "logical" choice over Jordan because

A) He dominanted the game from a defensive stand-point that no guard ever emulated.

B) He was a more dominant low post player than Jordan, thus creating more oppurtunities for his teammates and generally making things easier.

The rule makes sense in theory, but Jordan would come out on top of both debates, as he should.

[TmacsRockets]

There was not a player more efficient than Jordan. That is why he has the highest Player Efficiency Rating ever in the Season and the Playoffs.

David Robinson is 4th all time in Efficiency Rating and that is why you take him over Kobe.

No matter how could Kobe is, he will always need an elite top 3 player or top big man in the league to win the title or 2 very good all star type big men to win titles.

[drza44]

No, I'm not. DRob in his prime was quite a bit better than KG. KG a better rebounder? Perhaps, but not by much as much as a look at his mid-90's numbers would indicate; DRob was pulling down ~11 rpg with Rodman grabbing 17 rpg. In KG's big rebounding years he never even had a competent rebounder on his team alongside him.

I can see the logic of this argument, but to me it fails under greater scrutiny. The crux of your point is that were it not for Rodman, Robinson would have rebounded at an equal level to Garnett. I understand this argument and often use it myself in other circumstances (i.e.that without Shaq Kobe could still lead a championship team or, that given similar supporting talent to what other great champions has enjoyed Garnett could also lead his team to titles).

The problem is, in order for that argument to have impact, it has to stand up once the circumstances change. This season, though they didn't win, Kobe and the Lakers laid the first evidence that he MAY be able to lead a championship team without Shaq. KG DID show that, given a similar caliber supporting cast he can lead a champ. But where your point is weakened is that, without Rodman, Robinson still never rebounded at the level that KG has. Robinson only played with Rodman for two seasons, but KG has three seasons with more boards than Robinson's career-high and five seasons with more boards than Robinson's 2nd best season. KG has four seasons where he had a higher rebounding percentage than Robinson's best year, and nine seasons where he had a higher defensive rebounding percentage than Robinson's best year. In other words, the "Rodman is the reason" that DRob didn't rebound at KG's level reasoning doesn't stand up IMO.


Garnett does not have a larger defensive impact than prime Robinson. Period. That is, virtually any team will be better defensively with Robinson as opposed to Garnett -- including last year's Celtics..

This is entirely an opinion statement, and thus not one that I can effectively argue.


The only area where he's not as good as KG is passing. Rebounding may be a slight edge to KG, but it's negligible (~1 extra rpg under equal circumstances). DRob is a more dominant defender and scorer than KG, which are the two areas that matter most.

If the rebounding edge for KG is negligible, then the scoring edge for DRob is as well. Because if you're going to use the Rodman effect to explain Robinsons' decreased rebounding from '93-95 (the effect is there, I just don't think it completely makes up the gap in rebounding between KG and DRob), then you also have to look at the flip side of the coin: when Rodman was in San Antonio, DRob enjoyed the two best scoring and assist seasons of his career by a good margin. Just like it's not a coincidence that playing next to a dominant rebounder hurt Robinson's rebounding totals, it's also not a coincidence that playing next to a dominant defender/rebounder freed up Robinson to produce more at the offensive end.

So if you include the Rodman years, for Robinson from '89 - 96 you're talking about 25.5 points, 11.8 boards, 3.1 assists, and 2.9 turnovers per game. Without the Rodman year's, DRob gave you 24.3 points, 12.2 boards, 2.8 assists, and 2.9 TOs. For KG from '02 - '06 you're talking about 22.7 points, 13.3 boards, 5.0 assists, and 2.6 TOs per game. As you can see, points and rebounds are relatively close in either direction, so if KG's rebounding advantage is negligible then so is DRob's scoring. On the other hand, KG's assist and assist/TO advantages over Robinson were NOT negligible...he was significantly better than Robinson in both, by a larger margin than either the scoring or rebounding differences.



All the numbers (PER/EFF, offensive/defensive Win Shares, DRtg/ORtg etc.) say otherwise, as do most of the people who have seen both of their primes. I wouldn't even hesitate to take '91-'95 DRob on my team before '03-'06 KG, and I'd win ~70% of games between otherwise equal teams thus constituted.

Not really true. I don't love PER as a measure, because it doesn't measure for defense very well. And both Win Shares and DRtg/ORtg are strongly correlated to the caliber of your team and teammates. I like looking at numbers like Berri's Wins Produced or the Roland Rating from 82games.com, because each try as much as possible to isolate the player's production from the team's and each account for both offense and defense. And according to wins produced, KG from '02 - '06 was consistently as good as/better than Robinson ever was in any year pre-Duncan.

Robinson: http://www.wagesofwins.com/RobinsonShaqWP.html.
Garnett: http://www.wagesofwins.com/GarnettDuncan.html

I don't know how the two would have compared in Roland Rating, since 82games.com doesn't have data for the Robinson era, but KG has always been right at the top of the league so I'm confident that it would tell a similar story as the Wins Produced.

Numbers are definitely not the be-all and end-all of a comparison such as this. But if you specifically say that ALL of the numbers support Robinson over Garnett in that stretch, then I have to point out when that isn't true. And as someone that watched quite a bit of both of them since their career's began (with DRob back to his Navy days), I also disagree with your qualitative portion of this last point. I don't think it is at all clear that Robinson was better, and in fact I would take Garnett for my team and feel good that I'd beat yours more than 30% of the time.

[drza44]

If that's the case, Shaq would be no question a more dominant player than Jordan. The same things being said in this thread to support Robinson over Kobe are the same things that would be said in a Shaq vs. Jordan thread, except that Shaq had that dominant overall low post game to boot.

But we all know who would come out on top in that debate.

Even Hakeem, perhaps the best overall defender ever and one of the most dominant low post players as well, would have to be the "logical" choice over Jordan because

A) He dominanted the game from a defensive stand-point that no guard ever emulated.

B) He was a more dominant low post player than Jordan, thus creating more oppurtunities for his teammates and generally making things easier.

The rule makes sense in theory, but Jordan would come out on top of both debates, as he should.

The last section of my original post in this thread stated: "there is a reason that NBA history is riddled with legendary big men while only a few perimeter players are on the very upper tier...generally speaking, a big is more valuable than a small of similar caliber. There are some exceptions, but I don't think this is one of them."

Jordan vs. Shaq or Olajuwon would fit into that purview, as Jordan was an exception to most rules. Actually, as I look at the numbers, your comparisons don't hold up to the 3 "offensive advantages" of the big man that I stated that showed areas where DRob had the advantage over Kobe. Because 1) Jordan actually had higher true shooting percentages than Shaq for most of their respective primes, and 2) Jordan drew similar numbers of fouls/similar FTs to Shaq in their respective primes. Which one was doubled more/broke down opposing defenses more is up for debate, but in the quantitative portion of my "big man advantage" theory which DRob had as an advantage over Kobe, Jordan actually has the advantage over Shaq. Thus, your analogy actually strengthens my theory instead of countering it.

And as for the defensive advantages of the big man, Jordan played with some of the best defensive frontlines of all-time in his championship runs. Both Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman would likely be members of the All-time defensive team among forwards, and even Horace Grant/Cartright were good frontcourt defenders. Put this in conjunction with Jordan's outstanding perimeter defense, and you had a team where Jordan didn't NEED to be a dominant defensive interior player to have a historically good defense...he had teammates to do it for him. It'd be like if Kobe had won several titles on a team featuring Ron Artest and Ben Wallace...for the team, it would have negated DRob's big man defense, and in All-time rankings Kobe would be much higher on the list if he were clearly the main option on a champ so in that circumstance we wouldn't even be seeing a "DRob or Kobe?" thread.

[Loki]

If that's the case, Shaq would be no question a more dominant player than Jordan. The same things being said in this thread to support Robinson over Kobe are the same things that would be said in a Shaq vs. Jordan thread, except that Shaq had that dominant overall low post game to boot.

But we all know who would come out on top in that debate.

There are some important differences there:

1) Jordan's production, in both the regular and postseasons, was equal to or greater than Shaq's (prime vs. prime). Kobe's production isn't equal to Robinson's.

2) Jordan had a much larger defensive impact than Kobe, and Shaq had less of a defensive impact than Robinson, making the overall defensive gap between them smaller than it is for Kobe/DRob.

3) Jordan was a (significantly, imo) better big game player than Kobe, and had better intangibles. He was much more able to have a great game on command than Kobe is.


This is to say nothing of the fact that Jordan was a better rebounder, passer/playmaker, and more efficient scorer than Kobe. In general, for a perimeter player to be equal or greater in value than an all-time great big man, they need to have:

- All-world defensive impact (Jordan did; Kobe doesn't despite first team nods -- I'm talking about the ability to change games on defense)

- The ability to match the production of the great big men from an overall and efficiency standpoint (Jordan does; Kobe's not close to doing so)

- Be enough of a leader, clutch/big game player, and possess enough other intangibles to overcome the other advantages big men have (Jordan has these more than Kobe does).


This is why Jordan is the only perimeter player who is ranked where he is.

[drza44]

There are some important differences there:

1) Jordan's production, in both the regular and postseasons, was equal to or greater than Shaq's (prime vs. prime). Kobe's production isn't equal to Robinson's.

2) Jordan had a much larger defensive impact than Kobe, and Shaq had less of a defensive impact than Robinson, making the overall defensive gap between them smaller than it is for Kobe/DRob.

3) Jordan was a (significantly, imo) better big game player than Kobe, and had better intangibles. He was much more able to have a great game on command than Kobe is.


This is to say nothing of the fact that Jordan was a better rebounder, passer/playmaker, and more efficient scorer than Kobe. In general, for a perimeter player to be equal or greater in value than an all-time great big man, they need to have:

- All-world defensive impact (Jordan did; Kobe doesn't despite first team nods -- I'm talking about the ability to change games on defense)

- The ability to match the production of the great big men from an overall and efficiency standpoint (Jordan does; Kobe's not close to doing so)

- Be enough of a leader, clutch/big game player, and possess enough other intangibles to overcome the other advantages big men have (Jordan has these more than Kobe does).


This is why Jordan is the only perimeter player who is ranked where he is.

This was a better, more concise way of saying much of what I tried to in my last post on the subject. I agree.

[allball]

to hell with efficiency, you build teams from the inside out whenever possible. no matter how good Jordan or Kobe was/is, they both had strong interiors. The Bulls always had a big man by committee approach which was essential to the Bulls ships. they also never had to face a HOF center in the finals and only twice in the East with Ewing and a young Shaq. Keep in mind also that almost every great HOF center has at least taken his team to the finals.

Now I wouldn't take Robinson over Jordan. that's just silly. but Jordan was extremely unique in his dominance from the SG position. Kobe however doesn't dominate from that position to the same extent. Robinson in his prime years was an absolute monster. his competition in the West was brutal and Robinson did not really have a "Pippen" he had "Pippen-lites" and that was never enough in the early 90's West.

There is really only one center I would consider over Jordan and that's Hakeem. Kareem maybe if I have another HOF (or near) caliber player already.

[Carbine]

Shaq was the most physically imposing defensive presence ever. He was worlds better at guarding his man straight up in the post as he could not be moved. He still guards Timmy the best out of anyone in the league. His only weakness on defense was/is pick and roll defense, which is important, but towards the latter end of his career is when teams started to take advantage of it, or in other words when he became slower on his feet.

His advantage of being a far better post defender, and being the most physically imposing presence ever down in the paint offsets the advantage Robinson had in help side defense and pick and roll. I believe them to be of the same level of impact on that side of the floor.

Let's move on to a different comparison that sheds some perspective on my point. Magic Johnson vs. Shaq or Hakeem.

Magic is generally regarded as being greater than those two players. But why? He's certainly a few tiers below both in defense. Kobe is quite a bit closer to Drob than Magic is to either of those two players in this area.

He wasn't a dominant (though he was very good) post player and I don't regard him as being more impactful than Shaq or Hakeem on offense. Magic was a better post player than Kobe, but in terms of comparison here... Kobe is closer to Drob in the post then Magic was to Shaq & Hakeem.

I guess the bottom line here is I don't buy the whole Robinson bringing what the great big men do on the offensive side of the ball - and thats why I regard Kobe to be greater than him. He's more Chris Bosh (face up, blow by dunks, fade aways, occasional hook shot) than Shaq or Hakeem.

[Sir Charles]

Did some forget when Robinson was at his peak? Robinson's level of opposition was greater than KG's.

Robinson > Garnett Peak or Not Peak :rolleyes:

If Robinson had some balls he would have been the 5th Greatest Ceter Ever but his unclutchness made him drop to around 7th

[Showtime]

Robinson > Garnett Peak or Not Peak :rolleyes:
My point was that Robinson was still a top center while competing against HOF players. When you are one of the best in a better crop of players, it's more impressive.

[Carbine]

Garnett has had some tough competition as well. Perhaps not as top heavy, though even in that department the competition more than holds it's own (prime duncan, prime shaq, webber, prime dirk, prime amare, etc)

[drza44]

Let's move on to a different comparison that sheds some perspective on my point. Magic Johnson vs. Shaq or Hakeem.

Magic is generally regarded as being greater than those two players. But why? He's certainly a few tiers below both in defense. Kobe is quite a bit closer to Drob than Magic is to either of those two players in this area.

He wasn't a dominant (though he was very good) post player and I don't regard him as being more impactful than Shaq or Hakeem on offense. Magic was a better post player than Kobe, but in terms of comparison here... Kobe is closer to Drob in the post then Magic was to Shaq & Hakeem.

I guess the bottom line here is I don't buy the whole Robinson bringing what the great big men do on the offensive side of the ball - and thats why I regard Kobe to be greater than him. He's more Chris Bosh (face up, blow by dunks, fade aways, occasional hook shot) than Shaq or Hakeem.

But this comp runs into the same issues as the Jordan comp, namely that Magic out-bigs the bigs on offense (without even getting into all of the other things that Magic does better). Like Jordan, Magic scored more efficiently than either Shaq or Olajuwon. Magic had 7 seasons with a true shooting percentage higher than Shaq's career-high, and Magic's career-LOW TS% was higher than Hakeem's career-HIGH. Also, the second "Big" advantage is that they create mismatches that forces defenses to double them and causes the defense to breakdown. As a 6-9 PG, Magic was arguably the biggest mismatch in NBA history and could at-will cause defenses to break down due to sheer size mismatch as much as any center ever.

I guess my point is, if you choose two of the most efficient scoring/offensive mismatches among guards in NBA history in Magic and Mike, then yes, the "big man advantage" breaks down on offense because they can perform with the best big men even at what is supposed to be the big guys' strengths. And in such cases you can normally see exactly why this is true by looking at the numbers and circumstances, as we've now seen with both Magic and Mike vs. Hakeem and Shaq. But as I pointed out before, Kobe doesn't fit that criteria vs. DRob. DRob measurably outperformed Bryant on offense in all of the ways you'd expect from a big guy, so to me whether he did that from the post or by facing up his opponent is irrelevant. It's the result that matters, and DRob's offensive results fit the Great Big Man mold whether his actual game subscribes to a preconceived style or not.

[driecken]

There are some important differences there:

1) Jordan's production, in both the regular and postseasons, was equal to or greater than Shaq's (prime vs. prime). Kobe's production isn't equal to Robinson's.

2) Jordan had a much larger defensive impact than Kobe, and Shaq had less of a defensive impact than Robinson, making the overall defensive gap between them smaller than it is for Kobe/DRob.

3) Jordan was a (significantly, imo) better big game player than Kobe, and had better intangibles. He was much more able to have a great game on command than Kobe is.


This is to say nothing of the fact that Jordan was a better rebounder, passer/playmaker, and more efficient scorer than Kobe. In general, for a perimeter player to be equal or greater in value than an all-time great big man, they need to have:

- All-world defensive impact (Jordan did; Kobe doesn't despite first team nods -- I'm talking about the ability to change games on defense)

- The ability to match the production of the great big men from an overall and efficiency standpoint (Jordan does; Kobe's not close to doing so)

- Be enough of a leader, clutch/big game player, and possess enough other intangibles to overcome the other advantages big men have (Jordan has these more than Kobe does).


This is why Jordan is the only perimeter player who is ranked where he is.

Funny, Phil Jackson would disagree.

[Carbine]

Magic being a mis-match is generally overrated. He wasn't getting an extraordinary amount of assits in the half court due to his size advantage and he wasn't scoring at a huge clip either.

I just don't understand how you can dismiss the fact that Hakeem & Shaq were worlds better at overall defense while being just as, if not more effective in the half court (where playoff basketball is usally won or lost, ask the Suns)

Magic can have a true shooting percentage that's higher but that doesn't change the fact that Shaq was creating havoc on offense just as much as Magic if not more. Same for Hakeem. They were instant doubles or they score on you, just the way it was. Shaq having a lower TS percentage means little to me because he was in my opinion the most disruptive offensive force the league has ever seen in the modern era for quite some time (when he learned to control the game from the post, or in other words when his passing game caught up with the rest of his game)

Shaq & Hakeem have to be better than Magic if we're going to play by this theory. Magic is not an exception to this rule.

[Loki]

Funny, Phil Jackson would disagree.

Actually no, he wouldn't, because you can't disagree with facts (about Jordan being far more productive and efficient than Kobe; about Jordan having a larger defensive impact than Kobe). And regardless, no one cares what someone else says, they care about what they can see with their own eyes and what's supported by the evidence.

[Loki]

I love the "if one all-time great big man is better than Kobe, then other all-time great big men have to be better than other all-time great perimeter players who are clearly better than Kobe" argument. :oldlol:

[Loki]

Funny, Phil Jackson would disagree.

I just wanted to address this clear groupie-ism with some facts. Phil Jackson cannot "disagree" with facts, my friend, because Phil Jackson doesn't create reality. Like I said, Jordan matched or exceeded the production and efficiency of all-time great big men in the regular and postseasons while Kobe does not. Jordan was far more productive than Kobe by every single metric that exists (you will literally find no aggregate metric for production or impact on wins that has Kobe anywhere near Jordan). Let's a take a look at the enormous gulf between them from a production standpoint through age 30, starting with the 2000 season for Kobe (age 21) in the interest of fairness:


Average EFF through age 30: Jordan 32.9, Kobe 25.4


EFF Seasonal Ranking through age 30:

Jordan - 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3; Average ranking: 1.9

Kobe - 12, 5, 10, 5, 9, 9, 5, 2, 5; Average ranking: 6.9


Average PER through age 30: Jordan 29.8, Kobe 24.5


PER Seasonal Ranking through age 30:

Jordan - 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1; Average ranking: 1.1

Kobe - 12, 6, 8, 5, 5, 7, 3, 3, 8; Average ranking: 6.3


Win Shares through age 30 (league rank in parentheses):

Jordan:

13.6 (2)
16.1 (1)
20.3 (1)
19.1 (1)
18.7 (1)
19.8 (1)
17.3 (1)
16.5 (1)

Average: 17.7 (average rank: 1.1)


Kobe:

10.6 (12)
11.4 (13)
12.9 (6)
15.1 (5)
11.0 (9)
15.4 (4)
13.3 (3)
14.3 (4)

Average: 11.6 (average rank: 6.2)


Average/Best ORtg through age 30: Jordan (121.3 / 125.4), Kobe (112.4 / 115.0)

Average Playoff PER through age 30: Jordan 29.6, Kobe 22.1



But yeah, tell me again what "Phil Jackson would say." :rolleyes: I'm sure Phil Jackson can say 2+2 = 5, too.

.

[stephanieg]

Even Hakeem, perhaps the best overall defender ever and one of the most dominant low post players as well, would have to be the "logical" choice over Jordan because

A) He dominanted the game from a defensive stand-point that no guard ever emulated.

B) He was a more dominant low post player than Jordan, thus creating more oppurtunities for his teammates and generally making things easier.

The rule makes sense in theory, but Jordan would come out on top of both debates, as he should.

The truth shall set you free.

[hardcore (fan)]

Both are great players, but I would rather have Kobe Bryant. Yeah, Kobe is no Jordan, but he still won 3 championships and the Lakers would not have been able to three-peat without him.

[juju151111]

Funny, Phil Jackson would disagree.
About wat??Phil never talked about who had the better defense or who was more clutcher.He said Kobe has better range and MJ had better post moves and bigger hands.(could drive better).Also going by the stats Mj was better in stls,blks,asts etc...

[hardcore (fan)]

The game was also much faster during the years Michael Jordan played. More opportunities to score, defend, etc... It doesn't really matter though because Michael Jordan would dominate today's competition just like he did throughout the 90's.

[drza44]

Magic being a mis-match is generally overrated. He wasn't getting an extraordinary amount of assits in the half court due to his size advantage and he wasn't scoring at a huge clip either.

I just don't understand how you can dismiss the fact that Hakeem & Shaq were worlds better at overall defense while being just as, if not more effective in the half court (where playoff basketball is usally won or lost, ask the Suns)

Magic can have a true shooting percentage that's higher but that doesn't change the fact that Shaq was creating havoc on offense just as much as Magic if not more. Same for Hakeem. They were instant doubles or they score on you, just the way it was. Shaq having a lower TS percentage means little to me because he was in my opinion the most disruptive offensive force the league has ever seen in the modern era for quite some time (when he learned to control the game from the post, or in other words when his passing game caught up with the rest of his game)

Shaq & Hakeem have to be better than Magic if we're going to play by this theory. Magic is not an exception to this rule.

Again, your last statement just isn't true. The "theory" that I laid out was that the "Big Man advantage" on offense comes from individual scoring efficiency, being a mismatch that helps the team offense be more efficient, and drawing extra fouls down low. And as I pointed out, the numbers suggest that Magic was better than Shaq and Hakeem at at least one of these things, and I guess we can debate on Magic's level of creating mismatches. But it's not a matter of opinion that Magic was the more efficient scorer than they were, it's a fact.

And our discussion has actually veered a bit, because we've focused only on the big man advantage areas on offense. As I said way back in my original post on the subject, there are perimeter-player advantages as well. My original point was that Kobe was better than DRob at perimeter player stuff while DRob was better than him at big man stuff, and that they were of similar caliber (extremely high) at their strengths. And that given similar caliber, I tend to side with the big man. Since then the discussion has changed to whether or not DRob was a true big man on offense, and whether or not Jordan or Magic would fit into an analogy with a classic big like Kobe does.

But my point now is still the same: Magic and Mike aren't good comps to Kobe, because not only are they ridiculously good at the perimeter player stuff (better, in fact, than Kobe) but they are also better than many of the best Bigs in history at the things that are supposed to be the Big Man advantage (which Kobe is not). My so-called "theory" wasn't laid out to be a cookie-cutter plug in stats and stir formula, it was just a way of quantifying strengths and weaknesses for big guys that seem to lead to positive results.

As for the defense part of your post, I agree, both Hakeem and Shaq were better on defense than Magic or even Mike just because good defensive big men have that effect. And the reason that Magic and Mike would be considered better overall is because of the other non-big man traits that they bring to the table. IMO they are the best point guard and best shooting guard of all time, respectively, with attributes that have never been matched before and are unlikely to be matched in the future. As I said, it's not just a plug-and-play formula that bigs are better than ALL perimeter players...there are exceptions. Jordan and Magic most certainly are exceptions, even to this loose formula, because they were just phenoms. I just don't see Kobe being on their level, and the numbers tend to back that up, which is why I don't think the analogies really work.

[Loki]

The game was also much faster during the years Michael Jordan played. More opportunities to score, defend, etc...

That's why you have stats like PER, which normalize for pace and league averages. To say nothing of the fact that Jordan's Bulls were always a slow-paced team relative to the league. The Bulls' average pace during the first three-peat was 94.1, while the Lakers' pace the last three seasons has been 93.0 -- a difference of one possession per game (which is distributed among all players on a team, obviously -- it's not like Jordan himself necessarily got one extra possession every game).

What's interesting is that Kobe and Jordan were also basically the same ages during these three year spans (not exactly, since Jordan's birthday is in February and Kobe's is in August, so Jordan was a half year older in each of the three seasons than Kobe was in his three. Still, close enough. Here's what they each averaged during those three seasons (Jordan's edge in parentheses):


Jordan:

29.7 PER (+3.6)
29.8 Playoff PER (+6.8)
31.8 EFF (+4.5)
17.9 Win Shares (+3.6)
121.7 ORtg (+7.0)


Kobe:

26.1 PER
23.0 Playoff PER
27.3 EFF
14.3 Win Shares
114.7 ORtg


So..yeah. And again, that's at roughly the same pace. Playing under the same coach and system, too.


It doesn't really matter though because Michael Jordan would dominate today's competition just like he did throughout the 90's.

At least you acknowledge this much.

[hardcore (fan)]

That's why you have stats like PER, which normalize for pace and league averages. To say nothing of the fact that Jordan's Bulls were always a slow-paced team relative to the league. The Bulls' average pace during the first three-peat was 94.1, while the Lakers' pace the last three seasons has been 93.0 -- a difference of one possession per game (which is distributed among all players on a team, obviously -- it's not like Jordan himself necessarily got one extra possession every game).

What's interesting is that Kobe and Jordan were also basically the same ages during these three year spans (not exactly, since Jordan's birthday is in February and Kobe's is in August, so Jordan was a half year older in each of the three seasons than Kobe was in his three. Still, close enough. Here's what they each averaged during those three seasons (Jordan's edge in parentheses):


Jordan:

29.7 PER (+3.6)
29.8 Playoff PER (+6.8)
31.8 EFF (+4.5)
17.9 Win Shares (+3.6)
121.7 ORtg (+7.0)


Kobe:

26.1 PER
23.0 Playoff PER
27.3 EFF
14.3 Win Shares
114.7 ORtg


So..yeah. And again, that's at roughly the same pace. Playing under the same coach and system, too.



At least you acknowledge this much.

I'm not a Kobe fanboy, so stop acting like I posted some ridiculous bull**** which supported him. He's a great player, but like everyone can see, he's no Michael Jordan.

[Loki]

I'm not a Kobe fanboy, so stop acting like I posted some ridiculous bull**** which supported him. He's a great player, but like everyone can see, he's no Michael Jordan.

I didn't act like you posted ridiculous BS, but I wanted to address your claim that the game (for Jordan, at least) was "much faster" back then, which is incorrect. As you can see, the Bulls (not Jordan, but the Bulls) had one extra possession per game to work with during the years in question. I thought it would be instructive to see how each of these players performed during these three year spans given that the pace and their ages were roughly equal.

[hardcore (fan)]

I didn't act like you posted ridiculous BS, but I wanted to address your claim that the game (for Jordan, at least) was "much faster" back then, which is incorrect. As you can see, the Bulls (not Jordan, but the Bulls) had one extra possession per game to work with during the years in question. I thought it would be instructive to see how each of these players performed during these three year spans given that the pace and their ages were roughly equal.

Aight, lol.