Why even if Spurs win in '13, Lakers dynasty > Spurs, Kobe > Duncan, but Duncan > Shaq
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KobeIsTheOne
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 1476

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Chronicle
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 31930
Location: Manhattan

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
silkwilkes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 6937
Location: searching for the mojo of Dr. Buss

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Klone_dd
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Mar 2002
Posts: 7330

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
OshadowO
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 7356

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
omzzzzz
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Dec 2002
Posts: 1740
Location: Dana Point, CA

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
Chronicle
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 31930
Location: Manhattan

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Spool
Rookie
Rookie


Joined: 10 Jun 2013
Posts: 3

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ForrestHump
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Mar 2012
Posts: 8713

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KBH
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Posts: 12171

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tagurt
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 03 Jun 2012
Posts: 739

PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:59 pm    Post subject:

Lakers > Spurs as an organization

Shaq > Duncan > Kobe as players
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Brandon98
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 20351
Location: Are you a bad enough dude to read my posts?

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeIsTheOne
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 1476

PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:38 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.


Oh yeah, for sure. I would too.

Peaking at a certain level vs. overall career impressiveness are two different things.

For example, in football I'd take a prime Bo Jackson over a prime almost any other RB, but other RBs have had much more impressive careers.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
doughboy90650
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 15294
Location: Southern California

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
postandpivot
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 36822

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
nevitt_smrek
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 2800

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ArminNBA
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 2162

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Shadow King
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Apr 2011
Posts: 4363
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
nevitt_smrek
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 2800

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
67ShelbyGT
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 4048

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB