Question: Why is it always held against Kobe that he played with Shaq when Magic had Kareem?

[Yungin]

Ah, glad to see you expose yourself as someone who has no clue what they are talking about.

Bynum only played 95 minutes in the entire 2009 Finals. Who do you think was guarding Dwight the rest of that time? Not to mention that Pau was sometimes doubling onto Dwight even when Bynum was in there.

Tribute to Pau Gasol, NBA Champion



Kareem: Howard's play with Magic 'predictable'



Witness The Evolution Of Pau Gasol


Bynum was essential because he was a big body who could give Pau a break on that end and waste a bunch of fouls on Dwight, but he wasn't the main reason that Dwight was held to just 15ppg on 48% shooting for the series. It was because the Lakers had 3 big men who could mobile enough to guard or double onto Dwight, with Pau at the center of that. Lacking those bigs is the reason Cleveland lost to the Magic (with Dwight getting 25ppg on 65% shooting).




Bullshyt, this was already covered in a thread recently. Pierce was a scorer, Garnett was the crux of that team on both ends. There's a reason that Garnett was a top-3 MVP candidate in 2008. When healthy he scored damn near as much as Pierce did despite fewer minutes, plus he initiated a lot of the offense out of the post AND was the center of the defense.

Pierce couldn't do shyt against LeBron in the 2010 WCSF and the Celtics still won going away cause the Cavs had no answer for Rondo and Garnett.

But pierce was the finals mvp so shouldn’t that mean according to u he was by far the alpha clear cut best player that did it all by himself? Or do u only say that in the shaq/kobe scenario?

 

[R=G]

I’m not even saying Magic was a sidekick, I’m saying he had Kareem and an amazing cast but that isn’t held against him and Kareem played and won with Big O and Magic but some like to argue he’s the GOAT over MJ. But aren’t his rings no better than the rings people give Kobe shyt for?

If you watched Kobe during that run you know damn well you could’ve replaced Shaq with Duncan or KG and them nikkaz wouldn’t have missed a beat. All five of Kobe’s rings should be respected whether he was the focal point or shared the spotlight.

Magic wasnt no sidekick..he was the difference maker..like Jordan was. Kareem wasnt at his utmost prime. It's obvious who the more important piece was. Beyond obvious..its common sense.

You replace Shaq on the Lakers..the team Shaq goes to wins the championship because he OWNED Garnett. Lol.

 

[R=G]

0 playoff appearances in the West.

It wont last though

 

[Raw Lyrics]

Now, this has always been a bullshyt talking point to begin with but I don’t think anyone ever bothered to ask this question.

Everyone in here would say that Magic and Kareem are top 5 and Mt. Rushmore level players. However, if you bring up Kobe you hear this shyt about three of his rings being practically worthless. But Kobe never played with a top 5 OAT player like Magic or Kareem got to.

What does that then say about Magic and Kareem’s titles? I mean shyt, for all of Kareem’s greatness he was blessed to play with not only Oscar Robertson who is a HOFer, but he then ended up playing with the GOAT point guard in history. And Magic? Well shyt he not only had Kareem, but he also had an amazing team around him with guys like James Worthy, B Scott, Coop, etc. But no one dare question either Magic or Kareem, and rightfully so.

Now call me crazy, but those are insane advantages that they each had. Plus I’m sure most in here would agree that Kareem and Magic were both better than Shaq. Who was whose sidekick there? Nobody right? So why y’all claim Kobe was a sidekick when he very clearly wasn’t?

Why the selective use of this all important talking point? Somebody’s rings shouldn’t count in this according to the prevailing logic which seeks to devalue Kobe’s three titles during the Shaq years. Maybe it’s just time that this dead horse get buried and Kobe is respected as the five time champion that he is without the long since debunked espn talking points about sidekick rings.

I think because Shaq was so unbelievably dominant during those three titles. Moreso than Kareem. But overall I agree with you.

 

[Rakim Allah]

It wont last though

Lets hope not.

 

[Rakim Allah]

He would have had back-to-back in 13/14 if Bosh hadn't gotten that rebound and Ray hadn't hit that shot...but that was his fault how?

"Rebounds win Championships"
So yeah, it was was Duncan't's fault. If he grabs that rebound he has 13 and they win the ship. Then Duncan't and the Spurs choke trying to defend it the following year.

BTW, Kobe had 15 rebounds in Game 7 of the 2010 Finals. He defended his title. Tim Thomas gets rebound that wins Game 6 in 2006 1st Rnd. That was on Kobe. Thank the basketball gods, Kobe learned his lesson.

 

[NoHalfWay]

TD spent the entire second half of his career averaging like 15ppg whereas Kobe was elite until year 17. HISTORY tells us Kobe the only modern star win titles, get rid of the entire cast and completely rebuild from scratch to win even more titles. fukk outta here. REAL PROS SIDE WITH KOBE, DORKS ON THE NET DON'T - PERIOD.

He only did that because Jordan retired

Hakeem is great and he proved himself but he wouldnt be the champion he is today if Jordan's father never got killed. So I dont put him on the Shaq, Wilt level.

Could y’all tell the people at home who Hakeem faced in those post season matchups, and who had the more dominant performances in the playoffs between him and Kobe?

And I wouldn’t rush to the conclusion of Jordan retiring stopping Hakeem from winning. Rockets were a mismatch for the Bulls as reflected in their regular season matchups, and they had no answer for a dominant big like Hakeem

Nevertheless we’ll never know so it’s a moot argument

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Duncan't shot terribly, well below his normal shooting%. Yet no one EVER brings it up except for me and other unbias students of the game Manu saved Duncan't and the Spurs in Game 7. But again, Bronsexuals think 37% is a good percentage for a big man who normally shoots over 50%. Both Kobe and Duncan't had terrible shooting games. One gets acknowledged heavily while the other, not at all.

So Kobe gets graded on a curve now.

"LeBron/Duncan shooting 38% is even worse than Kobe shooting 25% cause Kobe's shooting is always worse!"

No it's not EXACTLY as good. Duncan't and the Spurs could only win playing under the radar.

Yeah, those 1999-2007 Spurs, all sneaky and under the radar.

The 2005 Spurs and the 2007 Spurs were the title favorite both years, Duncan was a 2-time MVP and 2/3-time NBA champion, but Kobestan revisionist history says they were "under the radar" those years.

Not to mention the 2014 Spurs who were one shot away from a title the previous year, totally under the radar.

Since you want to bring up 2004. Too bad Duncan't's performance wasn't better than Kobes in the 2004 West Semis. Where Duncan't and the Spurd choked off a 2-0 lead. Didn't the Spurs win the title year before? Choking on that pressure and media attention when defending a title. This would become a recurring theme in Duncan't's Hall of Fame career.

"Let's just ignore that Duncan's team lost 40% of its starting lineup and the Lakers added 40% of theirs."

The Spurs had to replace David Robinson with Rasho Nesterovic (6ppg on 39% shooting in the Laker series) and tried to replace Stephen Jackson with a raw Hedo Turkoglu (6ppg on 28% shooting in the Laker series). Those were their 4th and 5th options breh.

Call replacing a HOF player with a scrub "choking", coli brehs.

Just like Duncan "choked" by getting a season-ending injury in 2000, by having Ginobli get hurt in 2008, and by scoring 41-15-7 in Game 7 in 2006, right?

But pierce was the finals mvp so shouldn’t that mean according to u he was by far the alpha clear cut best player that did it all by himself? Or do u only say that in the shaq/kobe scenario?

Just like Iggy was the alpha clear cut best player on the Warriors who did it all himself too, right?

Shaq was obviously the best player on the 2000-2002 Lakers because Shaq was obviously the best player on the 2000-2002 Lakers. There are a LOT of ways to know that and the Finals MVP is only one of them.

 

[R=G]

Could y’all tell the people at home who Hakeem faced in those post season matchups, and who had the more dominant performances in the playoffs between him and Kobe?

And I wouldn’t rush to the conclusion of Jordan retiring stopping Hakeem from winning. Rockets were a mismatch for the Bulls as reflected in their regular season matchups, and they had no answer for a dominant big like Hakeem

Nevertheless we’ll never know so it’s a moot argument

Brings up a good point though..Shaq has beat Jordan in the Playoffs. Kobe is just a pretender.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

"Rebounds win Championships"
So yeah, it was was Duncan't's fault. If he grabs that rebound he has 13 and they win the ship. Then Duncan't and the Spurs choke trying to defend it the following year.

Duncan wasn't even in the game. Pop had pulled him for a switch-everything lineup because the Heat needed a three. A lot of people have called it one of the worst decisions of Pop's career.

You KEEP exposing that you know nothing about what actually went on in the games.

And if rebounds win championships, then it's Pau, not Kobe, who won 2010.

Plus lets note this is ANOTHER metric for comparing players which would put LeBron way over Kobe.

Could y’all tell the people at home who Hakeem faced in those post season matchups, and who had the more dominant performances in the playoffs between him and Kobe?

And I wouldn’t rush to the conclusion of Jordan retiring stopping Hakeem from winning. Rockets were a mismatch for the Bulls as reflected in their regular season matchups, and they had no answer for a dominant big like Hakeem

Nevertheless we’ll never know so it’s a moot argument

Hakeem was a FAR better playoff performer than Kobe was. His playoff performances shyt all over Kobe's. It's not even close.

Kobestans repeatedly take team accomplishments out of context and believe that's the end-all for measuring how good a player was.

I'm still waiting for them to explain why they don't think John Havlicek was a far more dominant player than Wilt Chamberlain.

 

[Rakim Allah]

So Kobe gets graded on a curve now.

"LeBron/Duncan shooting 38% is even worse than Kobe shooting 25% cause Kobe's shooting is always worse!"




Yeah, those 1999-2007 Spurs, all sneaky and under the radar.

The 2005 Spurs and the 2007 Spurs were the title favorite both years, Duncan was a 2-time MVP and 2/3-time NBA champion, but Kobestan revisionist history says they were "under the radar" those years.

Not to mention the 2014 Spurs who were one shot away from a title the previous year, totally under the




"Let's just ignore that Duncan's team lost 40% of its starting lineup and the Lakers added 40% of theirs."

The Spurs had to replace David Robinson with Rasho Nesterovic (6ppg on 39% shooting in the Laker series) and tried to replace Stephen Jackson with a raw Hedo Turkoglu (6ppg on 28% shooting in the Laker series). Those were their 4th and 5th options breh.

Call replacing a HOF player with a scrub "choking", coli brehs.

Just like Duncan "choked" by getting a season-ending injury in 2000, by having Ginobli get hurt in 2008, and by scoring 41-15-7 in Game 7 in 2006, right?




Just like Iggy was the alpha clear cut best player on the Warriors who did it all himself too, right?

Shaq was obviously the best player on the 2000-2002 Lakers because Shaq was obviously the best player on the 2000-2002 Lakers. There are a LOT of ways to know that and the Finals MVP is only one of them.

No need to grade Kobe on a curve when he provides 24pts 15rebs 10pts in the 4th and stellar defense. Kobe did what he had to in order to defend his title. CAN'T say the same for Duncan't.

Who said that quote? Why do you feel the need to create a strawman? Both shot terribly in Game 7s. Why is that so hard to understand?

I never mentioned 2000. Obviously he couldn't because of injury

Let's just ignore his terrible shooting in Game 7 of 2005 Finals, his lack of defending titles while winning 60 plus games and as #1 seed. Let's just ignore Duncan't and the Spurs losing to an 8th seed. Let's all CONTINUE to ignore all that while continuously dumping on other Great players for their basketball missteps. Nah, I'm good

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'm done here. Let's remember these Kobestan talking points for future reference.

* 38% is a horrible shooting percentage

* rebounds win championships

* if you win a title with a great coach then it shouldn't count for as much

* 22-9-8 with dominant defense (holding your all-star responsibility to 9-2-2) is "completely disappearing" because you shot 40% from the field

* Reigning MVPs and title favorites are playing "under the radar"


All claims Kobestans made in this thread to try to shyt on Duncan or LeBron.

Grade Kobe by those same standards.

Have fun continuing to defend a borderline top-ten player who hasn't been relevant in almost a decade. See how many pages you can keep it up.

 

[Street Knowledge]

Kobe in his prime played in a significantly tougher western conference than Magic Johnson. In 1987 Magic’s first mvp season he didn’t face one 50 win team to make it to the nba finals. In Kobe’s first MVP season in 2008 he faced a 50 win 8th seed in the first round

 

[Rakim Allah]

Duncan wasn't even in the game. Pop had pulled him for a switch-everything lineup because the Heat needed a three. A lot of people have called it one of the worst decisions of Pop's career.

You KEEP exposing that you know nothing about what actually went on in the games.

And if rebounds win championships, then it's Pau, not Kobe, who won 2010.

Plus lets note this is ANOTHER metric for comparing players which would put LeBron way over Kobe.








Hakeem was a FAR better playoff performer than Kobe was. His playoff performances shyt all over Kobe's. It's not even close.

Kobestans repeatedly take team accomplishments out of context and believe that's the end-all for measuring how good a player was.

I'm still waiting for them to explain why they don't think John Havlicek was a far more dominant player than Wilt Chamberlain.

They both did . Kobe got more than double his rebounds in Game 7. Pau upped his rebounding too.

Leonard more than doubled his rebounds for game 7 while Duncan't got his average. So Kobe, Pau and Leonard did everything possible to try win but Duncan't didn't. . You got to go that extra mile in order win ships and defend them. Unfortunately for Duncan't Stans and Kobe Haters, Duncan't didn't do it enough to defend his titles...not even once.
Damn shame Duncan't wasted some of those #1 seeds and 60 and 55 plus win years with Pop.

At least in Game 7 of 2005 Finals Duncan't went out shooting... and looky there, they won. I have no problem with him in that game. I just bring attention to his terrible shooting in a Game 7 like others have countlessly brought up about other great players.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how Duncan't couldn't even make the Finals, let alone defend his title after winning 63 games and having the 1 seed. I

Never mind, your a Bron. You'll just continue to make empty excuses for Duncan't since Bron couldn't make the Finals two years in row as the so called best player, 60 plus wins and the #1 seed, while Kobe was in his prime. Bron denied us that Finals matchup the World wanted to see. Kobe held up his end of the bargain but Bron was still a choke artist at the time. At least Bron defended his title once.

Why Havlicheck and Wilt?

 

[Rakim Allah]

I'm done here. Let's remember these Kobestan talking points for future reference.

* 38% is a horrible shooting percentage

* rebounds win championships

* if you win a title with a great coach then it shouldn't count for as much

* 22-9-8 with dominant defense (holding your all-star responsibility to 9-2-2) is "completely disappearing" because you shot 40% from the field

* Reigning MVPs and title favorites are playing "under the radar"


All claims Kobestans made in this thread to try to shyt on Duncan or LeBron.

Grade Kobe by those same standards.

Have fun continuing to defend a borderline top-ten player who hasn't been relevant in almost a decade. See how many pages you can keep it up.

Don't worry, I will remember my talking points.

Yes 37% is for a big man who regularly shots over 50%. There I gave your quote some context

Yes for the most part, rebounds win Championships. You have yet to debunk it.

Spurs like flying under the radar
Spurs flying under the radar, just like they like it

I grade Duncan't and Kobe by the same standards.

So why did you defend Duncan't for so many pages if you think he has been irrelevant for almost a decade?