so I base my views on conclusions drawn while following Magic's career from Day 1 and Kobe's career from Day 1. It's not nostalgia for me. As AV pointed out, your argument is largely based on longevity and raw scoring and popularity contest considerations, without very much regard to the other areas of the game.
Longevity matters, so let's not take that out of the equation because it puts Magic at a disadvantage, Kobe was at the top of his game for 18 years before that Achillies injury. That counts.
the association wrote:
It also neglects to recognize the areas where Magic clearly outperformed Kobe ... rebounds, assists, steals, scoring efficiency (FG and FT %age), all of the relevant advanced statistics
Let's put Kobe in an era where there's nare a three point shot and NO ZONE DEFENSE and watch just much that efficiency soars over Magic's.
The difference between 85% and 84% free throw? Are we really gonna go there?
And Kobe drew more defensive attention away from the ball than anyone not named Wilt or Shaq, and for a wing player that is pretty evident. The fact he was triple teamed OFF ball and was still as efficient as he was says a lot about his scoring ability.
The era Kobe played in was statistically the best defensive era the NBA ever saw in the past 30 years. Magic's was one of the worst. So let's put that into perspective as well.
Kobe's efficiency against zone is something that needs to be accounted for, as well as Magic never having to deal with zone and playing in an era where there was nary a three point shot.
Take away zone defense against Kobe and make it so that you MUST single cover him or someone would have to fully commit to a double team thus leaving another player open, and watch what happens. Kobe already has more assists than any non point guard in NBA history (till LeBron gets it) so imagine what they'd look like then.
Just some things you should be putting into perspective if you're gonna argue eras. And for the record, thanks to my dad being a life long Lakers fan, yes I got to see plenty of Magic and was lucky enough to watch many a Lakers games in my dad's VHS collection. One with which was closest to his heart was the 87 Finals because that was the year I was born.
So yeah, I've seen plenty of Magic, he's also the one that signed my basketball nickname on my throwback jersey of his back when I would play and gave me advice when I was finding myself as a basketball player.
So yeah, I know plenty about Magic, and am one of his biggest fans and supporters, not just for what he did for the game, but what he did outside of it.
That however doesn't take away from the fact Kobe was the greater player.
the association wrote:
... and then there's the more esoteric concepts like leadership, poise in stepping up to deliver legendary performances on the biggest stage (the NBA Finals), and the even broader concept of being "a winner"
Kobe's 3 straight finals with that roster he carried in 2007-2010 is enough to tell me how much of a "winner" Kobe was. Give Kobe, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Wilkes in an era with no zone defense and watch what happens.
the association wrote:
... Magic never played on an NBA team that won less than 53 games.
Magic never had Smush Parker as his 2nd/3rd option.
the association wrote:
His teams never failed to qualify for the postseason.
The only time that happened to Kobe was a season he was injured throughout(2005) and post-Achillies injury.
So yeah. Again, trying to use that as a knock on Kobe is silly.
the association wrote:
He didn't struggle to co-exist with other all time greats on his teams,
Tell that to Norm Nixon.
the association wrote:
those he might have otherwise deemed to have been "stealing" some of "his" spotlight.
Kobe didn't give a crap about someone 'stealing his spotlight' he cared about winning and applying yourself. He didn't care that Shaq had the spotlight, he cared that Shaq wasn't applying himself fully as hard as he could have, or to the level Kobe did. You think Jordan would have liked Shaq's "company time" mentality? Please.
the association wrote:
Magic played one year of college basketball ... and he was an NCAA champion.
And Kobe matched and surpassed his basketball accomplishments coming out of high school with no college grooming. So that's more a point for Kobe than against him.
the association wrote:
He played perhaps the greatest game in NBA history (factoring in all of the conditions and the results I posted upstream) in leading the Lakers to the NBA championship in his rookie season.
And Kobe dropped 81 in a game his team absolutely needed, not due to selfishness but because of necessity, and lead a roster like he had in 2007-2010 to the Finals 3 times.
Also Kareem deserved finals MVP that year, and that one performance by Magic seems to make people forget how good Kareem was that series.
the association wrote:
He played 13 seasons, but the final one was a throwaway because he played less than 3% of his career minutes in the 1995/96 season when he returned after four years of retirement ... so in the 12 full seasons of his career, he guided his team to the NBA Finals nine times.
Kobe won 5 Finals in 7 attempts, Magic won 5 in 9. Which means Kobe's win percentage higher in the finals than Magic's.
And before you say "well Kobe had Shaq and Shaq did the work." Magic had Kareem, and Kareem deserved Finals MVP in the finals Magic got it. So 2 should have went to Kareem, while one did go to Worthy. So in essence Magic would have 2 Finals MVPs as well. Something to think about.
the association wrote:
This final detail means that 75% of the time, he played a crucial role in positioning our franchise to compete for an NBA title.
To be honest, it's not close ...
Let's look at the Lakers once Kobe was 21 , the same age Magic was when he came into the league.
So in 11 seasons the Lakers went to the Finals 7 times
That INCLUDES losing a championship roster and needing to rebuild it from the ground up again.
Take away the prime Kareem, Worthy, and Scott from Magic after his 5th year and put the team in rebuild mode and watch how long it takes for them to get to a Finals again.
We went to 4 finals and had to rebuild and within 3 seasons that same franchise went to 3 more Finals. That's unprecedented.
Kobe surpassed him. You can agree to disagree but it's pretty clear to me. You may disagree. So agree to disagree then.
I prioritize winning too. How many lottery seasons with Magic? How many Finals appearances? I'm guessing his regular season winning percentages are off the chart.
Take away Worthy, Scott, Kareem and Riley in the middle of Magic's prime and you'd see your fair share.
Mike@LG wrote:
You want to go by efficiency in terms of championships and finals appearances? Fine. I'll still think the 80's were the most competitive Final 2-3 teams of the decade.
It's also known as one of the worst defensive eras in NBA history. The era Kobe played in and destroyed the Spurs in? Was statistically the best in 30 years.
Mike@LG wrote:
I'd also argue, 5 championships, in half of Kobe's career span.
Take away Magic's rookie Finals MVP if you'd like. Magic didn't need a triangle offense to win. He just won from the get-go. When the Lakers got lottery picks and traded vets for rookies? Didn't matter. Still won. When an arguable GOAT on major decline (Kareem) left and the Lakers had a rookie/2nd year Yugoslavian C who was perceived as soft? Still made the Finals.
Ah so it was the triangle offense that is the reason Kobe won How often has the triangle offense won in the NBA when Kobe or Jordan wasn't at the helm?
And Magic won from the get go because he was drafted to a team that had Kareem, Cooper, Wilkes and Nixon aka a team that already had 4 hall of famers.
Aside from Shaq, there was no one else on that Lakers team to the kind of quality Magic was drafted into.
But if you want to play the game of winning and quality and biggest stage of them all and how many lottery seasons was Magic in, when if you took Wilkes, Cooper, Nixon and Kareem away from Magic and give him Smush Parker he would be too..
But since we're going that route.
Let me ask you one question....
How often were the Lakers swept in the Finals when Kobe was there? Cause it happened to Magic twice.
Now were there circumstances around it? Sure, but there was also major circumstances around Kobe's lone lottery trip (aside from post-achillies injury). So if we're gonna ignore that with one, we can with the other as well.
But if we're not gonna ignore it, than we shouldn't
Let's put Kobe in an era where there's nare a three point shot and NO ZONE DEFENSE and watch just much that efficiency soars over Magic's.
Ah, zone defense. Sooner or later, this one pops up in any discussion of players from different eras. This was perhaps the most misunderstood rule change of all time in any sport.
I think you could make a great case for either Kobe or Magic.
At the end of the day, I think the objective data all kind of cancels itself out. Magic played on a superteam, but he faced superteams. And really, I don’t think that stuff is how people pick. I think that’s how they justify their pick after the fact.
When it comes to Magic vs. Kobe, it’s mostly:
1. Which style of play do you like better?
2. Who had the bigger X factor for you?
3. Who was more responsible for their team’s success?
4. Who do you get more excited about?
In this case, it’s more about how you feel than what you think.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:14 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Take away Worthy, Scott, Kareem and Riley in the middle of Magic's prime and you'd see your fair share.
I don't buy that. Like I said, most competitive era of basketball. Otherwise, Magic would have a better success rate in the Finals.
Quote:
It's also known as one of the worst defensive eras in NBA history. The era Kobe played in and destroyed the Spurs in? Was statistically the best in 30 years.
Like I said, matter of values/priorities. The bottom line is always winning.
Quote:
Ah so it was the triangle offense that is the reason Kobe won How often has the triangle offense won in the NBA when Kobe or Jordan wasn't at the helm?
Let's see. Early 70s Knicks. 72 Lakers. 6 championships for the Bulls. 5 for the Lakers. People always forget the triangle during the 70s. Why else did Wilt lead the league in assists back then?
Quote:
And Magic won from the get go because he was drafted to a team that had Kareem, Cooper, Wilkes and Nixon aka a team that already had 4 hall of famers.
That's like telling me, LeBron joined up with Wade and Bosh. Didn't win automatically.
I don't even think it's guaranteed Durant wins it this year. How many HOFers on his team? In either case, Durant and LeBron weren't exactly rookies when they won championships on loaded teams. Magic was.
Quote:
How often were the Lakers swept in the Finals when Kobe was there? Cause it happened to Magic twice.
How often was Kobe swept with Shaq, NVE, and Eddie Jones and not even making the Finals? 3? At least one of Magic's Finals, he didn't even play. Neither did Byron Scott. The backcourt was injured. Kobe doesn't have that excuse.
This is also why I don't buy the "Magic was on a loaded team" argument. Yeah, and like I said, the Lakers traded veteran All Stars (Wilkes/Nixon) for lottery rookie players (Worthy/Scott). Still Finals. Still won. Then when Kareem was gone and replaced by a soft 2nd year Euro center? Still Finals.
Quote:
In this case, it’s more about how you feel than what you think.
Take away Worthy, Scott, Kareem and Riley in the middle of Magic's prime and you'd see your fair share.
I don't buy that. Like I said, most competitive era of basketball. Otherwise, Magic would have a better success rate in the Finals.
Yep.
In no world does Magic lead that Lakers team to the playoffs in the most competitive era in your opinion, with Scott, Worthy, Kareem, Nixon and Riley replaced by Smush Parker, Kwame Brown and any other random coach.
Take away Worthy, Scott, Kareem and Riley in the middle of Magic's prime and you'd see your fair share.
I don't buy that. Like I said, most competitive era of basketball. Otherwise, Magic would have a better success rate in the Finals.
Yep.
In no world does Magic lead that Lakers team to the playoffs in the most competitive era in your opinion, with Scott, Worthy, Kareem, Nixon and Riley replaced by Smush Parker, Kwame Brown and any other random coach.
First of all, put some respect on Lamar Odom's, Caron Butler's, Andrew Bynum's, Derek Fisher's, and Phil Jackson's names (among others) ... Kobe's supporting cast in the 2005 - 2007 timeframe wasn't just Smush Parker and Kwame Brown, FFS ...
Regardless, I continue to think you don't appreciate just how impactful Magic Johnson was as a leader of men on the basketball court ... there's little doubt in my mind that he would have not only found a way to take that 2005 - 2007 supporting cast to the postseason during his timeframe, but he would have similarly done the same in the actual 2005 - 2007 timeframe.
As I've said repeatedly, Magic had a very unusual, very special communion with the game of basketball. Again, he never played a season where the Lakers fell below 53 wins. Give sober thought to that fact. So no, there's no credible argument that I can imagine where Magic wouldn't have been able to take a team with Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Derek Fisher and Andrew Bynum (along with Ariza or Artest, and one of the best benches in basketball) to three straight NBA Finals appearances (and winning at least two of them along the way) ... if you want to get down to brass tacks, I also think there's no way Boston pummels us by 39 points in a closeout NBA Finals game with Magic Johnson on the floor. He never allowed his team to be run off the court like that on the biggest stage, or really at any time. Meanwhile, for better or worse, Kobe was at the focal point for five or six 25+ point postseason closeout game losses in his career. That's an abomination. Period, full stop.
Bottom line: leadership isn't about talking a big game and crafting a narrative that sells ... with few exceptions, Magic Johnson was an extraordinary leader on and off the court for our team during his career. So subordinating Kobe Bryant to Magic Johnson isn't nearly the slight you appear to believe it to be ...
Lakers traded veteran All Stars (Wilkes/Nixon) for lottery rookie players (Worthy/Scott).
We didn't trade Wilkes for Worthy. Wilkes came here as a free agent from the Warriors and remained here the rest of his career, except for his final season when he joined the Clippers as a free agent.
We did trade Nixon for Scott and won a ring in his second season. But he averaged 16 ppg. with great 3-point shooting so it wasn't like that represented a huge downgrade in performance.
Take away Worthy, Scott, Kareem and Riley in the middle of Magic's prime and you'd see your fair share.
I don't buy that. Like I said, most competitive era of basketball. Otherwise, Magic would have a better success rate in the Finals.
Yep.
In no world does Magic lead that Lakers team to the playoffs in the most competitive era in your opinion, with Scott, Worthy, Kareem, Nixon and Riley replaced by Smush Parker, Kwame Brown and any other random coach.
First of all, put some respect on Lamar Odom's, Caron Butler's, Andrew Bynum's, Derek Fisher's, and Phil Jackson's names (among others) ... Kobe's supporting cast in the 2005 - 2007 timeframe wasn't just Smush Parker and Kwame Brown, FFS ...
Regardless, I continue to think you don't appreciate just how impactful Magic Johnson was as a leader of men on the basketball court ... there's little doubt in my mind that he would have not only found a way to take that 2005 - 2007 supporting cast to the postseason during his timeframe, but he would have similarly done the same in the actual 2005 - 2007 timeframe.
As I've said repeatedly, Magic had a very unusual, very special communion with the game of basketball. Again, he never played a season where the Lakers fell below 53 wins. Give sober thought to that fact. So no, there's no credible argument that I can imagine where Magic wouldn't have been able to take a team with Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Derek Fisher and Andrew Bynum (along with Ariza or Artest, and one of the best benches in basketball) to three straight NBA Finals appearances (and winning at least two of them along the way) ... if you want to get down to brass tacks, I also think there's no way Boston pummels us by 39 points in a closeout NBA Finals game with Magic Johnson on the floor. He never allowed his team to be run off the court like that on the biggest stage, or really at any time. Meanwhile, for better or worse, Kobe was at the focal point for five or six 25+ point postseason closeout game losses in his career. That's an abomination. Period, full stop.
Bottom line: leadership isn't about talking a big game and crafting a narrative that sells ... with few exceptions, Magic Johnson was an extraordinary leader on and off the court for our team during his career. So subordinating Kobe Bryant to Magic Johnson isn't nearly the slight you appear to believe it to be ...
assoc, i dont know what youre arguing, but it doesnt make sense (*and why are you demanding tha mgst stop?! what he said was perfectly reasopable? what are you disagreeing with? lol). the 80s laker team was very high in firepower. just take kareem and worthy...kareem is like a GOAT level player, playing with Magic another GOAT level player. and Worthy, a #1 overall pick that the Lakers got the RIGHT AFtTER they win their 2nd championship in like 3 years.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:10 pm Post subject:
MJST wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
Take away Worthy, Scott, Kareem and Riley in the middle of Magic's prime and you'd see your fair share.
I don't buy that. Like I said, most competitive era of basketball. Otherwise, Magic would have a better success rate in the Finals.
Yep.
In no world does Magic lead that Lakers team to the playoffs in the most competitive era in your opinion, with Scott, Worthy, Kareem, Nixon and Riley replaced by Smush Parker, Kwame Brown and any other random coach.
No. But I doubt Magic would severe ties with Shaq so badly.
That's the problem with hypotheticals.
I don't know what else to tell you. People have different ideas of what the GOAT really means. Won as a rookie on a talented roster from the get go. Won with multiple roster changes, from All Stars to elite draft picks. Won with multiple head coaches. Won against elite level talent on both sides.
This isn't like Bill Russell, where there were 4-7 HOFs vs 3 on the Lakers or whatever team. That's ridiculously stacked. No wonder why they won all the time. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:13 pm Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Lakers traded veteran All Stars (Wilkes/Nixon) for lottery rookie players (Worthy/Scott).
We didn't trade Wilkes for Worthy. Wilkes came here as a free agent from the Warriors and remained here the rest of his career, except for his final season when he joined the Clippers as a free agent.
We did trade Nixon for Scott and won a ring in his second season. But he averaged 16 ppg. with great 3-point shooting so it wasn't like that represented a huge downgrade in performance.
Appreciate the clarification.
But it's still, declining All-Stars. Gone. Used rookie lottery draft picks. Still Finals. Good thing the Lakers drafted wisely. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Lakers traded veteran All Stars (Wilkes/Nixon) for lottery rookie players (Worthy/Scott).
We didn't trade Wilkes for Worthy. Wilkes came here as a free agent from the Warriors and remained here the rest of his career, except for his final season when he joined the Clippers as a free agent.
We did trade Nixon for Scott and won a ring in his second season. But he averaged 16 ppg. with great 3-point shooting so it wasn't like that represented a huge downgrade in performance.
Appreciate the clarification.
But it's still, declining All-Stars. Gone. Used rookie lottery draft picks. Still Finals. Good thing the Lakers drafted wisely.
Yeah, during his time here Magic was surrounded by the perfect complement of talent. He and Bird got dealt great hands in the 90s.
Oh, and I wouldn't call Norm Nixon a declining all-star. He was only 27 and after the trade would be an all-star for the Clippers. This trade was really about getting rid of the point guard, so Magic could have the job, and replacing him with a shooting guard.
He didn't struggle to co-exist with other all time greats on his teams,
Tell that to Norm Nixon.
He and Nixon worked together surprisingly well considering the overlap of skillset. He started next to Magic for 3 yrs and change if you account for an ACL injury to Magic in 81. Winning 2 titles with two guys sharing so many of the basic PG roles is pretty unusual, I'd say, especially when it's a new player of Magic's magnitude being told this is how it's gonna be for your first 4 seasons. I've never seen anything to lead me to believe that that relationship was truly dysfunctional. Even if you can dredge up a quote or two, you'll have a hard time selling to me that Magic had toxic issues with teammates. I'm not in here with the purpose of bashing Kobe, and I don't desire to either, but he has a more obvious history in that dept.
You compared a RS gm against the Raptors against a championship clinching game without Kareem. I'm trying to figure that one out. Was that meant to be serious? I don't understand why you wouldn't use 2000 Gm 4 with Shaq fouled out as the game to compare to 1980 Gm 6. _________________ GOAT MAGIC REEL SEDALE TRIBUTE EDDIE DONX!
Again, we have an era issue. In the current NBA, Jordan and Magic are the only players on that list who I might take over Lebron. I'm not saying that a great center couldn't have a big impact on the game. I'm saying that it's hard to build around a center right now.
Disagree on the bolded. There are no centers in the league like the ones on that list, or like Shaq. The Grizz have done just fine in this era building around Gasol, and he ain't in the realm of any center above. Duncan was still making a great impact at an advanced age just a few seasons ago.
I actually think Hakeem and Robinson would be better suited for this era, considering how athletic and quick they were.
Kobe's 3 straight finals with that roster he carried in 2007-2010 is enough to tell me how much of a "winner" Kobe was. Give Kobe, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Wilkes in an era with no zone defense and watch what happens.
That 2007-2010 roster was arguably the most talented roster in all of basketball. The only rosters with arguably as much talent were the Celtics and Spurs.
MJST wrote:
We went to 4 finals and had to rebuild and within 3 seasons that same franchise went to 3 more Finals. That's unprecedented.
No it's not. The Bulls won 3 in a row, rebuilt, and won 3 more in a row two years later. The Spurs rebuilt title teams around Duncan at least 3 times.
07-10 Lakers had two of the best 10 players in the world (Kobe/Gasol)
A Top 2 6th man at the time (LO)
A brilliant but injury prone center pitching in from time to time (Bynum)
A second unit that's decent on their night but also equally capable of dropping a stinker (Shannon, Sasha, Luke, Powell, Mbenga)
A solid defensive stopper with limited offensive game (Ariza, then Artest)
I'd say that the Spurs and Celtics of the time were a lot more balanced, while talent wise, the Mavs and Nuggets of that era were very close
The difference were Phil and Kobe's masterclasses - plus that team's veteran smarts made them so difficult to put to the sword in a close game
Let's take the late 80s Showtime Lakers for example: they had Magic, KAJ, Worthy, Scott, Klay's dad, Green, Cooper, Rambis and Riley. Late 80s Lakers were the definition of stacked.
Joined: 09 Jul 2010 Posts: 7844 Location: Orange County
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:11 pm Post subject:
Watching those 80s games on NBATV, I'm sorry but it was just bad basketball. While we can't compare eras 80s basket is just no aesthetically pleasing. With that being said I'm taking Lebron and Kobe over Magic. 80s basketball was literally 2 modern day GSWs in terms of talent facing off in the finals each year. It only took age to dethrone the two teams. _________________ Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35854 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:07 am Post subject:
MorrissYe wrote:
07-10 Lakers had two of the best 10 players in the world (Kobe/Gasol)
A Top 2 6th man at the time (LO)
A brilliant but injury prone center pitching in from time to time (Bynum)
A second unit that's decent on their night but also equally capable of dropping a stinker (Shannon, Sasha, Luke, Powell, Mbenga)
A solid defensive stopper with limited offensive game (Ariza, then Artest)
I'd say that the Spurs and Celtics of the time were a lot more balanced, while talent wise, the Mavs and Nuggets of that era were very close
The difference were Phil and Kobe's masterclasses - plus that team's veteran smarts made them so difficult to put to the sword in a close game
Let's take the late 80s Showtime Lakers for example: they had Magic, KAJ, Worthy, Scott, Klay's dad, Green, Cooper, Rambis and Riley. Late 80s Lakers were the definition of stacked.
Gasol was definitely not a top ten player in the world. He was a one-time All-Star who was 0-16 in playoff games before coming to the Lakers. His current reputation is largely a product of having played with Kobe. An equal caliber player like Elton Brand would have similar recognition had he played next to Kobe. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
pretty disgusting that people here actually fall for the ESPN narrative and got LeBron ranked so high. If anyone remembers how much better prime Kobe was compared to the media darling child, OP would be banned on GP.
07-10 Lakers had two of the best 10 players in the world (Kobe/Gasol)
A Top 2 6th man at the time (LO)
A brilliant but injury prone center pitching in from time to time (Bynum)
A second unit that's decent on their night but also equally capable of dropping a stinker (Shannon, Sasha, Luke, Powell, Mbenga)
A solid defensive stopper with limited offensive game (Ariza, then Artest)
I'd say that the Spurs and Celtics of the time were a lot more balanced, while talent wise, the Mavs and Nuggets of that era were very close
The difference were Phil and Kobe's masterclasses - plus that team's veteran smarts made them so difficult to put to the sword in a close game
Let's take the late 80s Showtime Lakers for example: they had Magic, KAJ, Worthy, Scott, Klay's dad, Green, Cooper, Rambis and Riley. Late 80s Lakers were the definition of stacked.
Gasol was definitely not a top ten player in the world. He was a one-time All-Star who was 0-16 in playoff games before coming to the Lakers. His current reputation is largely a product of having played with Kobe. An equal caliber player like Elton Brand would have similar recognition had he played next to Kobe.
It's really hard to determine the quality of a player's teammates with enough specificity to compare them to the quality of another player's teammates.
Like any of these attempts, it has flaws, but at least it has a methodology, not just an opinion. It ranks the supporting casts of teams that reached the finals.
By this system, the 09 and 10 Lakers rank as the 15th and 18th best supporting casts over the 30 years, which is probably about average for a ring team (if you take out all the finalists who didn't win)
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:52 am Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Lakers traded veteran All Stars (Wilkes/Nixon) for lottery rookie players (Worthy/Scott).
We didn't trade Wilkes for Worthy. Wilkes came here as a free agent from the Warriors and remained here the rest of his career, except for his final season when he joined the Clippers as a free agent.
We did trade Nixon for Scott and won a ring in his second season. But he averaged 16 ppg. with great 3-point shooting so it wasn't like that represented a huge downgrade in performance.
Appreciate the clarification.
But it's still, declining All-Stars. Gone. Used rookie lottery draft picks. Still Finals. Good thing the Lakers drafted wisely.
Yeah, during his time here Magic was surrounded by the perfect complement of talent. He and Bird got dealt great hands in the 90s.
Oh, and I wouldn't call Norm Nixon a declining all-star. He was only 27 and after the trade would be an all-star for the Clippers. This trade was really about getting rid of the point guard, so Magic could have the job, and replacing him with a shooting guard.
Further proves my point. So, lose an All-Star talent near prime for a lottery pick. Still winning games.
I get the "Magic had loaded teams" argument, but the competition was loaded too. That's why I don't buy it so much. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Lakers traded veteran All Stars (Wilkes/Nixon) for lottery rookie players (Worthy/Scott).
We didn't trade Wilkes for Worthy. Wilkes came here as a free agent from the Warriors and remained here the rest of his career, except for his final season when he joined the Clippers as a free agent.
We did trade Nixon for Scott and won a ring in his second season. But he averaged 16 ppg. with great 3-point shooting so it wasn't like that represented a huge downgrade in performance.
Appreciate the clarification.
But it's still, declining All-Stars. Gone. Used rookie lottery draft picks. Still Finals. Good thing the Lakers drafted wisely.
Yeah, during his time here Magic was surrounded by the perfect complement of talent. He and Bird got dealt great hands in the 90s.
Oh, and I wouldn't call Norm Nixon a declining all-star. He was only 27 and after the trade would be an all-star for the Clippers. This trade was really about getting rid of the point guard, so Magic could have the job, and replacing him with a shooting guard.
Further proves my point. So, lose an All-Star talent near prime for a lottery pick. Still winning games.
I get the "Magic had loaded teams" argument, but the competition was loaded too. That's why I don't buy it so much.
If your point is that the Lakers lost a ton of talent overall but still won because of Magic, that's a stretch.
They lost Nixon.
But they gained a good rookie in Scott; Worthy improved from his rookie to his second year; and Bob McAdoo was there for a whole season, after missing half of the previous year.
Which of those teams was better overall? Heck if I know.
That's in no way to discount Magic. He was a great player on an amazing superteam who faced other amazing superteams in that era.
But if your point, hey, he was so good he could lose an all-star teammate and not lose a step that is not really the whole story to me.
pretty disgusting that people here actually fall for the ESPN narrative and got LeBron ranked so high. If anyone remembers how much better prime Kobe was compared to the media darling child, OP would be banned on GP.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
How often has the triangle offense won in the NBA when Kobe or Jordan wasn't at the helm?
