View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
KobeIsTheOne Star Player
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 Posts: 1476
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:44 am Post subject: Why even if Spurs win in '13, Lakers dynasty > Spurs, Kobe > Duncan, but Duncan > Shaq |
|
|
I have absolutely no problem rooting for the Spurs in this year's Finals.
The Spurs will have won 5 titles during the Duncan/Pop era, ostensibly equaling the Lakers dynasty in terms of overall greatness.
It becomes closer, for sure, but the Lakers still undeniably get the nod - for starters, they MADE IT to more NBA Finals, 7>5. They also managed to REPEAT as Champions, TWICE, and strung together a THREEPEAT for the first run. Defending your crown is much more difficult than taking a "breather" in between title defenses - it is indicative of sustained excellence, and being able to overcome all challengers and obstacles.
Secondly, the Lakers always got the best of the Spurs - Pop was sincerely upset when Shaq left because he knew he wouldn't get another shot at us. He compared Shaq leaving to the dissolving of the USSR.
Lastly, Kobe's individual numbers always outshined Duncan, particularly in head to head matchups. The biggest argument against Duncan's "legacy" this year is that it's universal that Parker is the best player on this squad now. Kobe's legacy as the best player of this generation is secure, regardless of what the outcome of the Finals are this year. However, I believe that Duncan (like Kobe) remaining with one team throughout his career, and also winning a 5th title would nudge him slightly over Shaq in the legacy department. _________________ "I'm like Neo out this m----- f-----," Bryant said."
http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/dime-130129/daily-dime
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/kobe-bryant-thinks-neo-matrix-could-ve-best-174850191--nba.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chronicle Retired Number
Joined: 21 Jul 2012 Posts: 31930 Location: Manhattan
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would still pick prime shaq over prime duncan. And I'm pretty sure most people would do the same. _________________ Kobe |
|
Back to top |
|
|
silkwilkes Star Player
Joined: 15 Jul 2002 Posts: 6937 Location: searching for the mojo of Dr. Buss
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Longevity and consistency of Spurs generation is better than the Lakers' though... they just keep going. Truly top professionals and no divas. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Listen, kudos to Spurs if they can beat the Heat. Equally impressive in getting 5 rings in the past 15 years if so.
However, I put more stock in repeats as being a hallmark of a dynasty. 3 peat and back to back to me is more impressive. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Klone_dd Star Player
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 Posts: 7330
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Winning a ring is hard. Winning multiple rings is harder. Winning multiple rings consecutively is the hardest. Seeing how SA never even made consecutive Finals appearances, LA defiinitely is the better dynasty. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
OshadowO Star Player
Joined: 22 Feb 2003 Posts: 7356
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well unless memory fails me they have only beaten Lakers once in the playoffs during the championship era. We have pretty much owned them head to head. That says something imo. That said I am rooting for them. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
omzzzzz Star Player
Joined: 25 Dec 2002 Posts: 1740 Location: Dana Point, CA
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Laker Dynasty is better than the Spurs dynasty because the Spurs didn't have a dynasty. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chronicle Retired Number
Joined: 21 Jul 2012 Posts: 31930 Location: Manhattan
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
omzzzzz wrote: | The Laker Dynasty is better than the Spurs dynasty because the Spurs didn't have a dynasty. |
would you call the late 80s early 90s pistons a dynasty?
or the early/mid 00s pistons a dynasty? _________________ Kobe |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Spool Rookie
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chronicle wrote: | I would still pick prime shaq over prime duncan. And I'm pretty sure most people would do the same. |
10,500+ posts in under a year... Yikes. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForrestHump Star Player
Joined: 05 Mar 2012 Posts: 8713
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spurs never repeated, much less threepeated, never had consecutive Finals appearances, kinda just hung around there and found their way back every couple years.
Lakers - 7 Finals in 13 years, Spurs 4 Finals, Lakers 5 titles, Spurs currently 3 titles. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
KBH Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 Posts: 12171
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One doesn't have to be harder or more impressive than the other, imo. A threepeat and a repeat is impressive, but so is (if the Spurs were to win) winning 5 championships spread 14 seasons apart with three to four different supporting casts. The longevity of both Kobe and Duncan is very impressive.
Last edited by KBH on Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tagurt Starting Rotation
Joined: 03 Jun 2012 Posts: 739
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lakers > Spurs as an organization
Shaq > Duncan > Kobe as players |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Brandon98 Franchise Player
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 Posts: 20351 Location: Are you a bad enough dude to read my posts?
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chronicle wrote: | I would still pick prime shaq over prime duncan. And I'm pretty sure most people would do the same. |
Yeah, no question.
Duncan has had the better career consistency, but Shaq had far better peak value (2000-2002). I've never seen anyone more dominant than Shaq was during those years. A damn shame that toe injury knocked him down several pegs.
Last edited by Brandon98 on Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144432 Location: The Gold Coast
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People get defensive pretty easily around here. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KobeIsTheOne Star Player
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 Posts: 1476
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
doughboy90650 Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Apr 2006 Posts: 15294 Location: Southern California
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chronicle wrote: | I would still pick prime shaq over prime duncan. And I'm pretty sure most people would do the same. |
agreed. when the fat man was in shape and healthy, it was a wrap. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012 Posts: 4083
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
doughboy90650 wrote: | Chronicle wrote: | I would still pick prime shaq over prime duncan. And I'm pretty sure most people would do the same. |
agreed. when the fat man was in shape and healthy, it was a wrap. |
yup. It would take something really unique, like an Hakeem, to stop a prime Shaq. And even he would probably not stop him if he weren't in his prime and shaq wasn't so green.
I miss prime Shaq. He was the real Lebron. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
postandpivot Retired Number
Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 36822
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:04 pm Post subject: Re: Why even if Spurs win in '13, Lakers dynasty > Spurs, Kobe > Duncan, but Duncan > Shaq |
|
|
KobeIsTheOne wrote: | I have absolutely no problem rooting for the Spurs in this year's Finals.
The Spurs will have won 5 titles during the Duncan/Pop era, ostensibly equaling the Lakers dynasty in terms of overall greatness.
It becomes closer, for sure, but the Lakers still undeniably get the nod - for starters, they MADE IT to more NBA Finals, 7>5. They also managed to REPEAT as Champions, TWICE, and strung together a THREEPEAT for the first run. Defending your crown is much more difficult than taking a "breather" in between title defenses - it is indicative of sustained excellence, and being able to overcome all challengers and obstacles.
Secondly, the Lakers always got the best of the Spurs - Pop was sincerely upset when Shaq left because he knew he wouldn't get another shot at us. He compared Shaq leaving to the dissolving of the USSR.
Lastly, Kobe's individual numbers always outshined Duncan, particularly in head to head matchups. The biggest argument against Duncan's "legacy" this year is that it's universal that Parker is the best player on this squad now. Kobe's legacy as the best player of this generation is secure, regardless of what the outcome of the Finals are this year. However, I believe that Duncan (like Kobe) remaining with one team throughout his career, and also winning a 5th title would nudge him slightly over Shaq in the legacy department. | stop with the duncan is better then shaq talk just because tim has a jumpshot. there's no need to shoot jumpers when 2 men cant stop you downlow. jumpers are for those who are not powerful enough to deal with a double team on the block and other really strong defenders. thats what a faceup game is for. its a counter to size and strength. but if you have the size, the strength and athleticism to trump all of that. no need for a faceup game. and thats what shaq was in his prime. _________________ LAL4K3RS wrote: He(Kobe) is the white haired kung fu master that you realize is older than dirt but can still kick your arse when in a sitting position drinking a nice herbal tea. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012 Posts: 4083
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: Why even if Spurs win in '13, Lakers dynasty > Spurs, Kobe > Duncan, but Duncan > Shaq |
|
|
postandpivot wrote: | KobeIsTheOne wrote: | I have absolutely no problem rooting for the Spurs in this year's Finals.
The Spurs will have won 5 titles during the Duncan/Pop era, ostensibly equaling the Lakers dynasty in terms of overall greatness.
It becomes closer, for sure, but the Lakers still undeniably get the nod - for starters, they MADE IT to more NBA Finals, 7>5. They also managed to REPEAT as Champions, TWICE, and strung together a THREEPEAT for the first run. Defending your crown is much more difficult than taking a "breather" in between title defenses - it is indicative of sustained excellence, and being able to overcome all challengers and obstacles.
Secondly, the Lakers always got the best of the Spurs - Pop was sincerely upset when Shaq left because he knew he wouldn't get another shot at us. He compared Shaq leaving to the dissolving of the USSR.
Lastly, Kobe's individual numbers always outshined Duncan, particularly in head to head matchups. The biggest argument against Duncan's "legacy" this year is that it's universal that Parker is the best player on this squad now. Kobe's legacy as the best player of this generation is secure, regardless of what the outcome of the Finals are this year. However, I believe that Duncan (like Kobe) remaining with one team throughout his career, and also winning a 5th title would nudge him slightly over Shaq in the legacy department. | stop with the duncan is better then shaq talk just because tim has a jumpshot. there's no need to shoot jumpers when 2 men cant stop you downlow. jumpers are for those who are not powerful enough to deal with a double team on the block and other really strong defenders. thats what a faceup game is for. its a counter to size and strength. but if you have the size, the strength and athleticism to trump all of that. no need for a faceup game. and thats what shaq was in his prime. |
yup yup.
Just look at rule changes. Rule changes were made to slow shaq down (pro-perimeter, zone). On the other hand, rule changes seemed to help Duncan. He who needs help is the lesser player.
And for Kobe, they don't even change the rules. They just temporarily disable them when he's on the court. Now that's real dominance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012 Posts: 4083
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also, half the time, Duncan wasn't even arguably the best player on his team. In the beginning, you could have said Robinson was better. In the middle, it was sometimes a tie between Ginobli and Duncan. In the latter half, Parker was the better one.
Very few years where Duncan was even the clear cut best on his team. I like that. And we're talking Robinson, Parker, Gibobli. These aren't even top 10 players.
At least with Shaq, towards the end of his Laker career, it took GOAT level Kobe to equal/surpass him. Plus all the rule changes of course. Shaq had (according to my count) at least 3 unstoppable years robbed from him by rule changes. And I don't mean Lebron type unstoppable years (i.e. fake and hyped). I mean the real deal, 1999-2000 type years. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nevitt_smrek Star Player
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 Posts: 2800
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It'd certainly be an interesting debate. Hopefully the Spurs win to allow the debate to materialize. I have my doubts. They haven't played well in either of the games, and this has a 1991 feel to it. _________________ Smrek 2, Nevitt 1, Barkley 0 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ArminNBA Star Player
Joined: 20 Sep 2008 Posts: 2162
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
silkwilkes wrote: | Longevity and consistency of Spurs generation is better than the Lakers' though... they just keep going. Truly top professionals and no divas. |
How much better are we talking about here? An extra year? Maybe two? The Lakers have still made two more NBA Finals, beaten the Spurs 4-2 in head to head matchups (which includes this season), and have accomplished multiple repeats, a feat that the Spurs have not even come close to considering their inability to even make the Finals in back to back years (Lakers went to three straight Finals two different times within 10 years). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
The Shadow King Star Player
Joined: 02 Apr 2011 Posts: 4363 Location: Dallas, Texas
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
at asking this question in a Lakers forum. _________________ Lakers, today. Lakers, tomorrow. Lakers, forever. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nevitt_smrek Star Player
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 Posts: 2800
|
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ArminNBA wrote: | silkwilkes wrote: | Longevity and consistency of Spurs generation is better than the Lakers' though... they just keep going. Truly top professionals and no divas. |
How much better are we talking about here? An extra year? Maybe two? The Lakers have still made two more NBA Finals, beaten the Spurs 4-2 in head to head matchups (which includes this season), and have accomplished multiple repeats, a feat that the Spurs have not even come close to considering their inability to even make the Finals in back to back years (Lakers went to three straight Finals two different times within 10 years). |
I firmly believe our best is better than (beats) their best. Spurs have never had a truly dominant season (65 wins + title), nor have they reached the championship round in consecutive years. Longevity and sustained run at the top, without any notable valleys, is Spur's trademark. Don't recall any seasons where they weren't a top three seed. Perhaps there was one mixed in there somewhere.
It depends on what stats and achievements people value. For example, some might value 15-years between finals appearances. If Spurs win this year, they might get a slight nod as the greater franchise in the past 10-15 years. Though Lakers could be argued as the top dog too. It'd be pretty close. But our best would beat their best in a 7-gm series.
Overall: Lakers come out ahead. Even if Spurs have slight edge in longevity/achievement, it's not enough to overcome Lakers advantage in dominance. _________________ Smrek 2, Nevitt 1, Barkley 0 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
67ShelbyGT Star Player
Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 4048
|
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
If Spurs get #5, only ONE thing spurs overtake from Lakers of the same era... Spurs FO > Lakers FO.
Nothing else. And that's not a slap the great doctor by any means. Just means during the era Buford/Pop managed talent better, found gems with same low picks where we may have swung for the fences one too many times taking shortcuts w FA. _________________ Alltime lineup: Magic | Kobe | MJ | Hakeem | KAJ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|