LeBron Haters Call To Arms! (The Haters Unification Thread)

[mjsaver]

Only when it comes to Kobe do we go back and forth with this , we're they or weren't they equal crap.

I can admit they weren't equals but that surely doesn't mean Shaq could've won without him, just like Pipoen wasn't MJs equal or Wade wasnt Brons equal but they were beyond instrumental in winning and surely far from being carried anywhere.

Were magic and Kareem equals, when magic came to the Lakers Kareem was already an MVP and a CHAMPION so obviously he was the number 1 option but does that subtract from Magics greatness at all ?

Do we say Magics first ring don't count because Kareem was the MVP again that year and avg 33 and 13 in the finals, obviously Magic stepped up big in game 6 with an All Time performance but that was still Kareem's team and he was undoubtedly the #1 option.

So according to some folks silly logic magics first ring doesn't count as much because Kareem was the man and the #1 option , and remember NT only deals in extremes so if Magic wasnt THE MAN he must've been getting carried too.

it's hilarious how people come up with such crazy arguments to discredit players they don't like.....that's cool just be consistent and apply it to everyone please.

 

[fresh out dabox]

I'm giving Duncan the nod Kobe had Shaq and Duncan never quit on his team or missed the playoffs

Kobe's that dude tho I've always enjoyed watching him more than Duncan

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Not equal in terms of players or what they did, but equally needing each other.

Kobe wasn't winning those rings without Shaq, and same team.
Shaq wasn't winning those rings without Kobe, and same team.

This will always be a flawed logic, because ultimately you can say this about so many players on so many championship teams. Kobe probably wasn't winning his 4th and 5th rings, or at least one of them without Derek Fisher because Fish hit some clutch shots in both 2009 and 2010 finals.

The thing is that at that point Shaq was so unique and dominant that he simply could not be replaced by anyone else. Anyone who followed the NBA in those days and who isn't a blind Kobe stan knows just what an unstoppable force Shaq was in those days. There were so many more things that were special about Shaq than there were about Kobe:

- First of all, he was the only true, pure C (not a PF/C) in the league that could be considered dominant. But it's not so much he was simply a dominant dominant center, and not even that he was the most dominant center in the league, but that he was CLEARLY the most dominant PLAYER in the league.
- The only pure C who was a top 15 player in the league between 1999 and 2004 with the exception of Alonzo Mourning in the 1999-00 season. But he wasn't only top 15, he was quite simply the #1 player in the league between 99 and 04. That's how unique he was.
- Along with Tim Duncan the only dominant player who got his points from the low post, which was always a more reliable source of offensive production for championship teams throughout NBA history than perimeter scoring.

Kobe on the other hand simply by being a perimeter player wasn't as unstoppable as Shaq. But especially because he was a perimeter player with mediocre shooting percentages and not a 50%+ shooter like Jordan was. He had all these mini-rivalries with Vince Carter, with Tracy McGrady, with Allen Iverson. Who was Shaq's rival? Who could be considered Shaq's rival? Nobody! That's who. Because Shaq was like a kid in a candy store. He could do whatever he pleased with the rest of the league. Having him on the roster was simply unfair and I remember so many coaches saying this in post game interviews after having to witness Shaq bully any defenders they threw at him and being forced to see their game plan of containing Shaq torn into pieces. Replacing Kobe with any of these star perimeter players would result in at least two rings: Iverson, McGrady, Carter, Hill (healthy), Payton, Kidd, Pierce, Allen, Marbury, Francis. And with someone without an ego and who would accept his role like Jason Kidd, there would be at least 4 chips. On the other hand, what low post presence was there in the league that Kobe could've replaced Shaq with and still won? Tim Duncan, and that's it - even though Shaq + Kidd would still beat them. Not to mention that Kobe would've still played second fiddle to Duncan, grown insecure and chucked Duncan out of town like he did with Shaq in the 2004 finals.

Because of all of this, any desparate revisionist lobbying by the Kobe stan conglamerate to paint an unclear picture of the Lakers 3 peat and try to make it look as if they needed each other to win is bound to fail. Everyone knows that Jordan needed Pippen to win each and every one of his six rings - TWICE as many as Shaq and Kobe won together, yet where is Pippen's name next to Jordan's in GOAT discussions.

 

[ssjjfar]

This will always be a flawed logic, because ultimately you can say this about so many players on so many championship teams. Kobe probably wasn't winning his 4th and 5th rings, or at least one of them without Derek Fisher because Fish hit some clutch shots in both 2009 and 2010 finals.

The thing is that at that point Shaq was so unique and dominant that he simply could not be replaced by anyone else. Anyone who followed the NBA in those days and who isn't a blind Kobe stan knows just what an unstoppable force Shaq was in those days. There were so many more things that were special about Shaq than there were about Kobe:

- First of all, he was the only true, pure C (not a PF/C) in the league that could be considered dominant. But it's not so much he was simply a dominant dominant center, and not even that he was the most dominant center in the league, but that he was CLEARLY the most dominant PLAYER in the league.
- The only pure C who was a top 15 player in the league between 1999 and 2004 with the exception of Alonzo Mourning in the 1999-00 season. But he wasn't only top 15, he was quite simply the #1 player in the league between 99 and 04. That's how unique he was.
- Along with Tim Duncan the only dominant player who got his points from the low post, which was always a more reliable source of offensive production for championship teams throughout NBA history than perimeter scoring.

Kobe on the other hand simply by being a perimeter player wasn't as unstoppable as Shaq. But especially because he was a perimeter player with mediocre shooting percentages and not a 50%+ shooter like Jordan was. He had all these mini-rivalries with Vince Carter, with Tracy McGrady, with Allen Iverson. Who was Shaq's rival? Who could be considered Shaq's rival? Nobody! That's who. Because Shaq was like a kid in a candy store. He could do whatever he pleased with the rest of the league. Having him on the roster was simply unfair and I remember so many coaches saying this in post game interviews after having to witness Shaq bully any defenders they threw at him and being forced to see their game plan of containing Shaq torn into pieces. Replacing Kobe with any of these star perimeter players would result in at least two rings: Iverson, McGrady, Carter, Hill (healthy), Payton, Kidd, Pierce, Allen, Marbury, Francis. And with someone without an ego and who would accept his role like Jason Kidd, there would be at least 4 chips. On the other hand, what low post presence was there in the league that Kobe could've replaced Shaq with and still won? Tim Duncan, and that's it - even though Shaq + Kidd would still beat them. Not to mention that Kobe would've still played second fiddle to Duncan, grown insecure and chucked Duncan out of town like he did with Shaq in the 2004 finals.

Because of all of this, any desparate revisionist lobbying by the Kobe stan conglamerate to paint an unclear picture of the Lakers 3 peat and try to make it look as if they needed each other to win is bound to fail. Everyone knows that Jordan needed Pippen to win each and every one of his six rings - TWICE as many as Shaq and Kobe won together, yet where is Pippen's name next to Jordan's in GOAT discussions.

When I said that they needed each other I didn't mean they were bonded by some trait in their DNA and only could win with just each other.
I meant that if Shaq wasn't there Kobe wasn't winning those 3 rings with THAT lakers team.
If Kobe wasn't there Shaq wasn't winning those rings with THAT lakers team.
No matter what you say those Lakers teams won because both of them were there. Not soley because of one of them.


You put Duncan in place of Shaq or Kidd in place of Kobe, okay okay, but that is a completely different scenario.


And yeah other people contributed to the titles, Fisher made clutch shuts during Kobe's second runs, and he also had Gasol with him. Everyone knows the Heat wouldn't have won this ring without the Ray Allen shot in Game 6.

 

[Kimchi Papi]

I don't like a lot of sports journalists, but I do like Dan Le Batard... I don't always agree with him, but I like him. This was an epic rant from him after the Heat wrapped up the title. The beginning starts off with clips of sports writers saying negative stuff about the Heat... This is awesome...

 

[cedric ceballos]

This dude really said Marbury though.

 

[knightngale]

.

Now with Mr. LeBron James, his career is on the upswing, and when he is done, people aren't going to talk about Kobe at all, as he will be, as he already is, an afterthought.

Why do you need to talk **** about kobe if you are so confident in Lebron?

He is an afterthought yet you keep talking about him.

It is mostly the Lebron stans that have Kobe at the tip of their tongue.

It seems that Lebron stans still feel insecure about Lebron's acomplishments even after 2 titles. There is a lot of talk about what Lebron will still do yet they ignore that the players that he is more reliant on are aging and there is no guarantee that they will be replaced with something similar. MJ and Kobe are different. They did not need super teams to win championships. Lebron does and at some point he will go back to having a normal team and he will have to prove himself again. I bet that he wont be successful with that

5-2

 

[quik1987]

7 > 5

 

[ohmygosher]

^

That is true. But since Horry isn't on the same level as the other two, its irrelevant.

Horrys 7 rings does make him better than Fisher tho.

 

[quik1987]

But Kobe is not the same level as Lebron, so Kobe's rings are irrelevant.

Lebron has 4 mvps Kobe only has 1

4 > 1

 

[cedric ceballos]

But Kobe is not the same level as Lebron, so Kobe's rings are irrelevant.

Lebron has 4 mvps Kobe only has 1

4 > 1

But Kobe is not the same level as Lebron, so Kobe's rings are irrelevant.

Lebron has 4 mvps Kobe only has 1

4 > 1

Hard to see someone with your avatar posting from an unbiased point of view.

 

[mister friendly]

But Kobe is not the same level as Lebron, so Kobe's rings are irrelevant.

Lebron has 4 mvps Kobe only has 1

4 > 1

Yep and Steve Nash is at a higher level than Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Barkley,Dr.J, Dirk, KG, Wade etc etc because he has more MVPs then those all time greats

 

[ohmygosher]

^

You let your hate cloud your judgment way too often. Although Lebron is yet to surpass him, they are both on the same tier. The head guy on that tier has 6 rings. That is the bench mark.

The only reason Lebron fans try to dismiss the importance of rings is because he doesn't have many. Had this guy won 6 or 7 rings, there would never be this argument coming from his fans.

I mean, it wasn't not so long ago that his fans used imaginary rings to try and level the playing field. Now rings don't count? Lulz.

 

[ssjjfar]

People will use anything to dismiss or make their argument work.
Whether its rings, more help, different era, different position ect.

 

[quik1987]

Winning a championship is a team accomplishment, mvps and finals mvps are individual accomplishments.

So if we're talking about individual players and their individual accomplishments

Jordan > Lebron > Duncan > Kobe

 

[ssjjfar]

Winning a championship is a team accomplishment, mvps and finals mvps are individual accomplishments.

So if we're talking about individual players and their individual accomplishments

Jordan > Lebron > Duncan > Kobe

More often than not Leaque MVPs also go to best player on one of the best team.
Finals MVP is definitely individual award, but you have to win Finals as team before you can even get that award.

 

[mister friendly]

Winning a championship is a team accomplishment, mvps and finals mvps are individual accomplishments.

So if we're talking about individual players and their individual accomplishments

Jordan > Lebron > Duncan > Kobe

Then

Kareem>Russell>Jordan> Wiltr.J> Lebron Bird> Magic>Moses> Petitt,Nash, Malone, Duncan>Kobe, Shaq,Hakeem, Dirk.

 

[ohmygosher]

Winning a championship is a team accomplishment, mvps and finals mvps are individual accomplishments.

So if we're talking about individual players and their individual accomplishments

Jordan > Lebron > Duncan > Kobe

More often than not Leaque MVPs also go to best player on one of the best team.
Finals MVP is definitely individual award, but you have to win Finals as team before you can even get that award.

Valid point.

Will wait to see if he actually addresses this or ignores it.

 

[quik1987]

How is Kobe > Shaq

 

[cedric ceballos]

He'll ignore it.

A guy with an avatar with jermey Lin on Chris child's body punching Kobe isn't capable of having a rational conversation and seeing views aside from his flawed opinions on that matter.

He's on the same level of xtapoliti and acboyz84 which are 2 of the biggest Stans on this board

 

[do work son]

He'll ignore it.

A guy with an avatar with jermey Lin on Chris child's body punching Kobe isn't capable of having a rational conversation and seeing views aside from his flawed opinions on that matter.

He's on the same level of xtapoliti and acboyz84 which are 2 of the biggest Stans on this board

|I

can't even have logical discussions with dudes because their emotions get in the way

for the record, can someone explain why kobe or lebron has to be better than the other? they can't just be 2 great players during this generation of basketball?

 

[cedric ceballos]

|I

can't even have logical discussions with dudes because their emotions get in the way

for the record, can someone explain why kobe or lebron has to be better than the other? they can't just be 2 great players during this generation of basketball?

Because Stans will Stan on both ends of the spectrum. Notice I included a Kobe Stan in my last post because the stanning goes both ways and some members on here defenitely can't approach this subject from an unbiased standpoint.

This dude quick taking enjoyment in Kobe's injury a few months back though said everything that needs to be said about his basketball related opinions though.

 

[mjsaver]

I honestly think it's a generational thing, sports in general is so competitive it even trickles down to us fans.

Nobody wants their hero idol to pass the torch or have it snatched away no matter how good the new kid in the league is.

My pops used to talk about MJ like a dog before he went chip crazy, he'd me tell " he's a ball hog " or " he's a one man team ", " cant win titles " etc etc

Once someone new emerges and threatens Bron for the crown, just watch as most of his die hard fans come outta the woodwork to discredit said player.

It's a vicious cycle and all this social media has taken it to another level.

 

[acbboyz84]

Fam your just naming players and acting like all of them were all defensive team players. The only people on your list that could check Kobe at times were Christie, Bowen, and Patterson that you left out. Bell wasn't checking him until Shaq left.

Yeah and Shaq was clearly more dominating than the likes of Sabonis and Vlade but the way they defended him (flopping) caused him to be in foul trouble most of the game. An old Mutombo?? He was in the league 10 years and was the DPOY. Basketball is not only a perimeter game, the interior has to be defended and who do you think did that, along with scoring?

So does the Lakers 3 peat get discredited all of a sudden because of "lack of competition"? It's not a given that the Kings, Mavs, or Spurs would of won in that spot. Those Eastern teams could of matched better against the West. All we know is that the Lakers played whoever was in front of them and won. In 01 they were 16-1 in the playoffs so I guess the west lacked competition entirely because Philly was the only victor.

Lastly if Finals numbers don't matter if Kobe did all the heavy lifting in the playoffs what happened in 04? He was great during the Western playoffs but was a non factor against the Pistons. Chauncey, Rip, and Tayshaun should of been BBQ chicken for the best player on the team, or does he get bailed out for his Colorado incident??

Youre wrong bro if you think The lakers had to play at their top game for those 3 finals.
The real finals in term of competition for them was in the playoff.

Shaquille was being checked by Macculough, shremp, dale Davis, rik smith etc in the finals man lol.

They got cocky and let game 1 in 2001 slipped but they woke up soon after and the rest was history.

As far as 04. It wasn't just kobe fault. Karl Malone was hurt they had to rely on madevenko to guard sheed. he couldnt stop him. Gary Payton didn't know how to play under the triangle offense. The lakers didn't expect to play against one of the league best defensive team ever. That prime 04 piston team held various teams under 70 points for multiple stretches.

 

[acbboyz84]

Winning a championship is a team accomplishment, mvps and finals mvps are individual accomplishments.

So if we're talking about individual players and their individual accomplishments

Jordan > Lebron > Duncan > Kobe

Someone forgot to take their medication today.