NBA Legacy Thread, Update Resumes

On Kobe...

Kobe is one of the most difficult athletes to have a rational discussion about in large part due to the ever present pack of raging Laker fans who lie in wait ready to turn every argument into complete chaos, but in spite of that I'll try anyways. 

Nobody can deny his greatness, but debate about his place among the elite still lies in question. Nobody since Micheal has ever displayed such a maniacal desire to compete and claim victory over who dare challenged them, the desire to utterly destroy anything that stood in his path to victory. The man is killer in every sense of the word and you cannot ask any more of him as far as his devotion to his craft (as evidence by the late career transformation to his game) and his willingness to take big shots.

Unfortunately with Kobe's greatest trait, the trait that his admirers love to praise, all of that comes one gigantic qualifier and the reason why, in my opinion I can never put him in my top 10, and why there are players who played in his era who I would rather have. Kobe has a manically desire to compete...on his own terms, Kobe wishes to destroy his challengers...on his own terms and within his greatest strength lies his greatest flaw. Kobe has the tendency to cannibalize his teammates in the pursuit of his own personal glory, the sneering at teammates, the hero shots at the buzzer, the constant need to validate his own greatness to the critics real and imaginary. The Shaq-Kobe duo was bound to implode because simply winning was not enough and would never be, so he sabotaged it, whether consciously or unconsciously. Fortunately the Lakers have been have strong usually has a Pau or a Shaq to save him from himself, but when he doesn't have that; a player who's ability he respects then you are in for a long season of sneering, pouting and cannibalism. Kobe's devotion is to winning in a vaccum but winning in the way that most credits him with glory.

If you have a healthy prime Shaq, Duncan, or Dirk you almost gureteed to win 50 games, I can't say the same about Kobe and thus why I would take those guys over him.

Disclaimer: Please remember that we are splitting hairs, that while I may say that I would rather have Dirk you must remember we are dealing on a scale of greatness, this does not mean I hate Kobe or think he sucks, and neither does it mean I think the two players I mentioned previously are some significant amount better. The way I look at basketball and the way I think it should be played simply dictates to me that I would rather have Dirk, this does not mean I think there is some gigantic difference between the two..IMO the difference is minimal...


On comparisons to Micheal....

They are not valid, no matter how many championship he wins, no matter how many other awards an accolades he gets, It's blasphemy it's unholy so please stop. Micheal while similar to Kobe in demeanor, attitude, competitiveness, skill set, style of play but Micheal was simply better, in every measurable way. There is no plausible argument to make that Kobe is Micheal's  equal argument, Micheal operates in a rarefied air with the likes of Russel, Wilt, Magic, Oscar, Bird...but Kobe? no. no. no. Not now not ever, so please let it go. 
 
On Kobe...

Kobe is one of the most difficult athletes to have a rational discussion about in large part due to the ever present pack of raging Laker fans who lie in wait ready to turn every argument into complete chaos, but in spite of that I'll try anyways. 

Nobody can deny his greatness, but debate about his place among the elite still lies in question. Nobody since Micheal has ever displayed such a maniacal desire to compete and claim victory over who dare challenged them, the desire to utterly destroy anything that stood in his path to victory. The man is killer in every sense of the word and you cannot ask any more of him as far as his devotion to his craft (as evidence by the late career transformation to his game) and his willingness to take big shots.

Unfortunately with Kobe's greatest trait, the trait that his admirers love to praise, all of that comes one gigantic qualifier and the reason why, in my opinion I can never put him in my top 10, and why there are players who played in his era who I would rather have. Kobe has a manically desire to compete...on his own terms, Kobe wishes to destroy his challengers...on his own terms and within his greatest strength lies his greatest flaw. Kobe has the tendency to cannibalize his teammates in the pursuit of his own personal glory, the sneering at teammates, the hero shots at the buzzer, the constant need to validate his own greatness to the critics real and imaginary. The Shaq-Kobe duo was bound to implode because simply winning was not enough and would never be, so he sabotaged it, whether consciously or unconsciously. Fortunately the Lakers have been have strong usually has a Pau or a Shaq to save him from himself, but when he doesn't have that; a player who's ability he respects then you are in for a long season of sneering, pouting and cannibalism. Kobe's devotion is to winning in a vaccum but winning in the way that most credits him with glory.

If you have a healthy prime Shaq, Duncan, or Dirk you almost gureteed to win 50 games, I can't say the same about Kobe and thus why I would take those guys over him.

Disclaimer: Please remember that we are splitting hairs, that while I may say that I would rather have Dirk you must remember we are dealing on a scale of greatness, this does not mean I hate Kobe or think he sucks, and neither does it mean I think the two players I mentioned previously are some significant amount better. The way I look at basketball and the way I think it should be played simply dictates to me that I would rather have Dirk, this does not mean I think there is some gigantic difference between the two..IMO the difference is minimal...


On comparisons to Micheal....

They are not valid, no matter how many championship he wins, no matter how many other awards an accolades he gets, It's blasphemy it's unholy so please stop. Micheal while similar to Kobe in demeanor, attitude, competitiveness, skill set, style of play but Micheal was simply better, in every measurable way. There is no plausible argument to make that Kobe is Micheal's  equal argument, Micheal operates in a rarefied air with the likes of Russel, Wilt, Magic, Oscar, Bird...but Kobe? no. no. no. Not now not ever, so please let it go. 
 
OKB, well put. But the winning on his own terms is what separates him from this generation of stars. He wants to be THE MAN and the win as well. I think a lot of it fuels from people saying that he couldn't do it as the guy after Shaq left and he did prove them wrong.

I personally think he's already ahead of Larry and Oscar and right behind Magic/Kareem/Wilt/Russ.

He still has at least 2 ELITE years left and by the time he's hung 'em up, his resume' is going to be pretty hard to debate against as not being one of the top 5 players ever to lace them up.
 
OKB, well put. But the winning on his own terms is what separates him from this generation of stars. He wants to be THE MAN and the win as well. I think a lot of it fuels from people saying that he couldn't do it as the guy after Shaq left and he did prove them wrong.

I personally think he's already ahead of Larry and Oscar and right behind Magic/Kareem/Wilt/Russ.

He still has at least 2 ELITE years left and by the time he's hung 'em up, his resume' is going to be pretty hard to debate against as not being one of the top 5 players ever to lace them up.
 
Originally Posted by JapanAir21

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

I know people don't like this, but I would prefer to see a position based ranking system. Instead of grouping everyone together, I think it makes more sense. Like how do we say that Tim Duncan is a better PF than Kobe is a SG?

Good discussion though, I go out of town for a day and come back with 5 new pages. I hate playing catch up.
Absolutely agree, it makes it much easier to rank guys like Dirk too. If you're going to go ahead and rank the top 10 players ever, that's a little easier, but for someone in the 20s/30s, it makes it really hard for guys who aren't in the same position.
Completely agree.  We are comparing apples with oranges when trying to rank TD vs Kobe, Shaq vs Kobe, etc.
 
Originally Posted by JapanAir21

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

I know people don't like this, but I would prefer to see a position based ranking system. Instead of grouping everyone together, I think it makes more sense. Like how do we say that Tim Duncan is a better PF than Kobe is a SG?

Good discussion though, I go out of town for a day and come back with 5 new pages. I hate playing catch up.
Absolutely agree, it makes it much easier to rank guys like Dirk too. If you're going to go ahead and rank the top 10 players ever, that's a little easier, but for someone in the 20s/30s, it makes it really hard for guys who aren't in the same position.
Completely agree.  We are comparing apples with oranges when trying to rank TD vs Kobe, Shaq vs Kobe, etc.
 
OKB not trying to pick on your post or anything, but..
If you have a healthy prime Shaq, Duncan, or Dirk you almost gureteed to win 50 games, I can't say the same about Kobe and thus why I would take those guys over him.



What is the difference between those three guys you named and Kobe? Kobe is a shooting guard... are there ANY shooting guards in NBA history you could "say the same" about? Before you jump and say Jordan, remember that Jordan had the fortune of playing alongside Scottie Pippen for every 50-win season he was involved in.

I think you get my point. You're making a fallacious argument. All you're saying, in essence, is that it's easier for a franchise to build a good team around big men than shooting guards.. well no %#!*. But easier to build around =/= better player. 

I have to agree with people saying we're doing apples to oranges comparisons in here. Not that we can't try to rank guys across positions, but we have to eliminate arguments like the one above. I think a better way of going about it would be to judge a player's mastery of his own position relative to the best they could be. The NBA game inherently favors certain positions, so we have to correct for that somewhat if we're going to make these rankings. 
 
OKB not trying to pick on your post or anything, but..
If you have a healthy prime Shaq, Duncan, or Dirk you almost gureteed to win 50 games, I can't say the same about Kobe and thus why I would take those guys over him.



What is the difference between those three guys you named and Kobe? Kobe is a shooting guard... are there ANY shooting guards in NBA history you could "say the same" about? Before you jump and say Jordan, remember that Jordan had the fortune of playing alongside Scottie Pippen for every 50-win season he was involved in.

I think you get my point. You're making a fallacious argument. All you're saying, in essence, is that it's easier for a franchise to build a good team around big men than shooting guards.. well no %#!*. But easier to build around =/= better player. 

I have to agree with people saying we're doing apples to oranges comparisons in here. Not that we can't try to rank guys across positions, but we have to eliminate arguments like the one above. I think a better way of going about it would be to judge a player's mastery of his own position relative to the best they could be. The NBA game inherently favors certain positions, so we have to correct for that somewhat if we're going to make these rankings. 
 
Originally Posted by mogzz04

Originally Posted by itsaboutthattime


maybe i'm just overvaluing how good those lakers teams really were and how dominate shaq was back then..

again remember, all i am saying is that i think it would be harder for the spurs to win any of those 4 championships without duncan than it would be for LA to win any of those 3 without kobe

and if i was starting a team today and given the choice of drafting kobe's career to date or duncan's career to date.. i go with duncan, hence why i rate him higher all-time to date (i think both are top 10 all-time)
Completely agree with your post above here....I have TD over Kobe in my all-time list as well.
All i was disputing before was the fact that some folks believe you can easily replace Kobe with any Star SG from that era and the 3peat happens all the same...not that im saying it's impossible, but it's not as easy as some make it sound to be. There's a reason why 3peats are extremely rare...but i think i've said enough about this subject, and i guess people can just agree to disagree...moving along.....


QFT.

you gotta have the right people to do a 3peat/
 
Originally Posted by mogzz04

Originally Posted by itsaboutthattime


maybe i'm just overvaluing how good those lakers teams really were and how dominate shaq was back then..

again remember, all i am saying is that i think it would be harder for the spurs to win any of those 4 championships without duncan than it would be for LA to win any of those 3 without kobe

and if i was starting a team today and given the choice of drafting kobe's career to date or duncan's career to date.. i go with duncan, hence why i rate him higher all-time to date (i think both are top 10 all-time)
Completely agree with your post above here....I have TD over Kobe in my all-time list as well.
All i was disputing before was the fact that some folks believe you can easily replace Kobe with any Star SG from that era and the 3peat happens all the same...not that im saying it's impossible, but it's not as easy as some make it sound to be. There's a reason why 3peats are extremely rare...but i think i've said enough about this subject, and i guess people can just agree to disagree...moving along.....


QFT.

you gotta have the right people to do a 3peat/
 
Originally Posted by DT43

OKB not trying to pick on your post or anything, but..
If you have a healthy prime Shaq, Duncan, or Dirk you almost gureteed to win 50 games, I can't say the same about Kobe and thus why I would take those guys over him.
I think you get my point. You're making a fallacious argument. All you're saying, in essence, is that it's easier for a franchise to build a good team around big men than shooting guards.. well no !#$+. But easier to build around =/= better player. 

uh Magic, uh Bird.

It is true that C>any position but I don't give concelation because you weren't a center, should I give concelation points to Issiah Thomas...make him the best player ever? That be silly, rankings are based on your impact on winning, you weren't a tall enought to be c tough *+!#.
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by DT43

OKB not trying to pick on your post or anything, but..
If you have a healthy prime Shaq, Duncan, or Dirk you almost gureteed to win 50 games, I can't say the same about Kobe and thus why I would take those guys over him.
I think you get my point. You're making a fallacious argument. All you're saying, in essence, is that it's easier for a franchise to build a good team around big men than shooting guards.. well no !#$+. But easier to build around =/= better player. 

uh Magic, uh Bird.

It is true that C>any position but I don't give concelation because you weren't a center, should I give concelation points to Issiah Thomas...make him the best player ever? That be silly, rankings are based on your impact on winning, you weren't a tall enought to be c tough *+!#.
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by DT43

OKB not trying to pick on your post or anything, but..
If you have a healthy prime Shaq, Duncan, or Dirk you almost gureteed to win 50 games, I can't say the same about Kobe and thus why I would take those guys over him.
I think you get my point. You're making a fallacious argument. All you're saying, in essence, is that it's easier for a franchise to build a good team around big men than shooting guards.. well no !#$+. But easier to build around =/= better player. 
uh Magic, uh Bird.

It is true that C>any position but I don't give concelation because you weren't a center, should I give concelation points to Issiah Thomas...make him the best player ever? That be silly, rankings are based on your impact on winning, you weren't a tall enought to be c tough *+!#.
laugh.gif



First off, I'm going to point out to everyone in the thread that you just said Magic and Bird were shooting guards. Bird wasn't even a guard.
laugh.gif

And I wasn't saying we should make concessions for non-big men. My point was that in the NBA, it's easier for franchises to build around a great big man as opposed to a great guard, so more great big men have been in winning situations than guards. It doesn't necessarily mean they're better players, only that teams can more easily see the pieces they need to add around them.

But just for fun, what is your all time top 10 then?
nerd.gif
 Go to 15 if you want.
 
Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by DT43

OKB not trying to pick on your post or anything, but..
If you have a healthy prime Shaq, Duncan, or Dirk you almost gureteed to win 50 games, I can't say the same about Kobe and thus why I would take those guys over him.
I think you get my point. You're making a fallacious argument. All you're saying, in essence, is that it's easier for a franchise to build a good team around big men than shooting guards.. well no !#$+. But easier to build around =/= better player. 
uh Magic, uh Bird.

It is true that C>any position but I don't give concelation because you weren't a center, should I give concelation points to Issiah Thomas...make him the best player ever? That be silly, rankings are based on your impact on winning, you weren't a tall enought to be c tough *+!#.
laugh.gif



First off, I'm going to point out to everyone in the thread that you just said Magic and Bird were shooting guards. Bird wasn't even a guard.
laugh.gif

And I wasn't saying we should make concessions for non-big men. My point was that in the NBA, it's easier for franchises to build around a great big man as opposed to a great guard, so more great big men have been in winning situations than guards. It doesn't necessarily mean they're better players, only that teams can more easily see the pieces they need to add around them.

But just for fun, what is your all time top 10 then?
nerd.gif
 Go to 15 if you want.
 
Excellent post Osh, that will go under Kobe's resume in the morning. We can certainly do top 5's by position if you guys want. I have no problem trying to put something like that together. I've been updating everything I can think of as we been goin along. Like All Star games, projected years left, etc. JA, thanks for that list, I will use it in the AM for comparison sake.
 
Excellent post Osh, that will go under Kobe's resume in the morning. We can certainly do top 5's by position if you guys want. I have no problem trying to put something like that together. I've been updating everything I can think of as we been goin along. Like All Star games, projected years left, etc. JA, thanks for that list, I will use it in the AM for comparison sake.
 
This is a good thread. I have a question and my apologies if I overlooked it.  What is projected years based on?  Are we talking about years left period or years left where the player is still effective.  Could someone please clarify that for me?  Again my apologies if I overlooked it.  A lot of great info and opinions in here.
 
This is a good thread. I have a question and my apologies if I overlooked it.  What is projected years based on?  Are we talking about years left period or years left where the player is still effective.  Could someone please clarify that for me?  Again my apologies if I overlooked it.  A lot of great info and opinions in here.
 
CP, I'll do mine for the sport of it..

PG
1-Magic
2-Big O
3-JKidd
4-Stockton
5-Isiah/Cousy (Can't decide)

SG-
1-Mike
2-Kobe
3-Jerry West
4-DWade
5-George Gervin

SF
1-Bird
2-Elgin
3-Havlicek
4/5-Bron/Scottie (either or spot)

PF
1-Duncan
2-Malone
3-Dirk
4-Barkley
5-KG

C-
1-Wilt
2-Russell
3-Shaq
4-Kareem
5-Hakeem
 
CP, I'll do mine for the sport of it..

PG
1-Magic
2-Big O
3-JKidd
4-Stockton
5-Isiah/Cousy (Can't decide)

SG-
1-Mike
2-Kobe
3-Jerry West
4-DWade
5-George Gervin

SF
1-Bird
2-Elgin
3-Havlicek
4/5-Bron/Scottie (either or spot)

PF
1-Duncan
2-Malone
3-Dirk
4-Barkley
5-KG

C-
1-Wilt
2-Russell
3-Shaq
4-Kareem
5-Hakeem
 
Originally Posted by lynchpin33

This is a good thread. I have a question and my apologies if I overlooked it.  What is projected years based on?  Are we talking about years left period or years left where the player is still effective.  Could someone please clarify that for me?  Again my apologies if I overlooked it.  A lot of great info and opinions in here.
It's just me giving a gut feeling/guessing is all, nothing scientific.  I can envision each player maybe getting an extra season more than what I gave them, but those seasons would be a lot like what Shaq gave us last year.  I went by age, mileage, and even some contract guess work.  I can't imagine being all that far off on too many tho.  Even if all these guys minus Bron and Wade played 3 years each, that's pretty close to what I gave them all. 


I'll update some of the stuff here in a bit.  I already have Osh's Kobe quote updates, and I put the Simmons list under a spoiler.  I'll get the Slam one up shortly. 

Esential, I thought Gervin was a SF?  Am I off on that? 
nerd.gif


  
 
Originally Posted by lynchpin33

This is a good thread. I have a question and my apologies if I overlooked it.  What is projected years based on?  Are we talking about years left period or years left where the player is still effective.  Could someone please clarify that for me?  Again my apologies if I overlooked it.  A lot of great info and opinions in here.
It's just me giving a gut feeling/guessing is all, nothing scientific.  I can envision each player maybe getting an extra season more than what I gave them, but those seasons would be a lot like what Shaq gave us last year.  I went by age, mileage, and even some contract guess work.  I can't imagine being all that far off on too many tho.  Even if all these guys minus Bron and Wade played 3 years each, that's pretty close to what I gave them all. 


I'll update some of the stuff here in a bit.  I already have Osh's Kobe quote updates, and I put the Simmons list under a spoiler.  I'll get the Slam one up shortly. 

Esential, I thought Gervin was a SF?  Am I off on that? 
nerd.gif


  
 
is it crazy that as i think about it more and more, i would take KG and dirk over malone?

would prob take mchale over him too




sure off of numbers alone you obviously take malone.. but if i'm picking a team and want to win, i would rather have one of those 3 guys
 
is it crazy that as i think about it more and more, i would take KG and dirk over malone?

would prob take mchale over him too




sure off of numbers alone you obviously take malone.. but if i'm picking a team and want to win, i would rather have one of those 3 guys
 
and further more to that point on numbers..

when talking overall totals, number of games played has to be factored in (also roll on their respective team).. for example, mchale only played in 971 games, while malone played in 1476 (also i'm pretty sure if he was asked to be the no. 1 scorng option, like malone was, his total points scored would have been higher)


but then again, you have to take the total numbers of games played into consideration because it proves longevity (which is why i prob rate stockton no. 2 or 3 for PGs.. because it would come down to the type of team you had when picking between him or isiah for me)  





EDIT:
on the kobe almost being 4th on the all-time playoffs total assists list, he's played 208 playoffs games..

to put that into perspective, stockton played 182

magic 190

kidd 142
 
Back
Top Bottom