If Spurs win 2015 title
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:14 pm    Post subject:

Dreamshake wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
Of course Duncan was Duncan.


08 was only the 2nd time Duncan didn't make the 1st All-NBA team in his career. FWIW, Kobe made the 3rd team in the season you are downplaying for him (99).


3rd team NBA? Thanks for proving my point. Kobe wasn't Kobe.

And Duncan didn't make the first team because KG got more attention when he moved to Boston and Dwight was emerging as a star in the league.

Quote:


I didn't say he didn't have help. He didn't have say, another superstar next to him.


So? Kobe didn't have another superstar next to him in 2008-2010 and he made 3 straight finals and win it all twice in a row, which is something that Duncan has never done.



Quote:
I didn't say he didn't have help...

It was him and a bunch of role players.


Hmm. Looks like you're saying he didn't have help.



Quote:
How shocking that he lost in the postseason to a team with two superstars and good role players.


You keep bragging about these role players and the lack of productive role players were a big reason why the Lakers struggled against teams like San Antonio, Sacramento and Portland. That was also a reason why the team reloaded after 2003. The role players weren't giving the team enough.



Quote:
Or a team that stacked the deck in 04.


Yeah they added Gary Payton, who let Tony Parker run circles around him, and Malone who was injured. Great pickups there.




Quote:
The Spurs had more talent than most teams in the regular season since Duncan was arguably the game's best player. However, that's not the case in a playoff matchup against LA when the other team has TWO players that are both arguably better than him, along with solid help. Especially when one of those players is a pivot like him.


Was Kobe arguably better than Duncan in 99?

You are vastly overrating the Lakers supporting cast. You also make it sound like his team was outnumbered on the court. It wasn't 2 against 1. It was 5 against 5. And the Spurs had 3 star players compared to the Lakers 2.


Quote:

Steve007 wrote:
So you think Duncan won by himself. Parker and Ginobili aren't counted at all by you. Seems fair if you want to hold Duncan to a different standard.


I think it's no surprise that the team with two of the candidates for "the best since Jordan" beat the team with only one candidate more times than not. Hence me saying it's damn impressive that Duncan was able to beat that duo twice, especially once with no other star on the roster (03). Neither Parker or Manu were at a star level in 01, 02 or 04. Manu was injured in the 08 matchup. Why would I count either as a star prior to the 08 matchup? Should I count Glen Rice as a star for LA on the 99 team, using that logic?


No because Rice in 99 wasn't as good as Parker and Ginobili who were stars before 2008. There was a thread here asking if Ginobili deserved to be in the HOF and some people said yes, and he was the 3rd best player on the team. And you want to say that Parker and Ginobili weren't stars when they were winning titles? That's ridiculous.

Duncan never beat Shaq and Kobe at their peak. He beat a 4th seeded Lakers team in 99 (so much for your claim that Shaq and Kobe were great that year when they only got a 4th seed) because Kobe was too young, and the 2003 Lakers weren't seeded higher than 4th either and I thought Kobe was injured in that postseason. The Lakers were worn down after winning 3 straight titles and those role players you praise so much were missing games and injured. Robert Horry disappeared in that series.
Quote:

Quote:

Steve007 wrote:
And funny how you want to ignore Duncan in 2008 when his team got smashed by Kobe because Paul Gasol (not Shaq) was too much for him.


I acknowledge that he took a L. The person ignoring something would be you, noting a 4-1 record for Kobe and ignoring the 99 season.


The 99 season should be ignored when comparing the two. Kobe averaged at least 24 ppg in 13 straight seasons and you're talking about a year when he didn't even average 20 ppg (he was at 19.9). He was not the same player that he was 2 years later. How is this not obvious to you? You make it sound like Kobe was an MVP candidate in 99.

You get excited over Duncan beating a player who was nowhere near as good as the version we saw from 2001-2012. Who is ignoring something again?

Quote:
I think it's no surprise that the team with two of the candidates for "the best since Jordan" beat the team with only one candidate more times than not.


Funny how you completely ignore that the Spurs had 3 players who were arguably HOF players and the Lakers had 2.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:29 pm    Post subject:

Dreamshake wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
Next you're going to tell me that Malone>>>Kobe because Utah beat Shaq and Kobe in 97 and 98. The fact that Kobe was nowhere near as good as he was in his prime wasn't "created."

Maybe you rank Malone ahead of Duncan because Utah beat San Antonio in 98.


Where did I say Duncan >> Kobe because of beating him in playoff matchups? I believe I said it's amazing Duncan beat a team that had Kobe and Shaq on it twice, and that it's not surprising that the team with 2 superstars to one won most of the matchups.


Beating the 99 Lakers was not amazing. 8 other teams in the league won as many games as that Laker team. They had the same record as the Houston Rockets and Atlanta Hawks and were clearly inferior to teams like San Antonio, Utah and Portland.

Were you picking the Lakers to win it all in 99 when they were seeded 4th? Were you calling Kobe arguably the best player in the league? Nobody else was. Some even thought your Houston Rockets would beat LA in the first round because both teams had identical records and the Lakers had no answer for Barkley.

I think it's an insult to Duncan to get so giddy about his team beating the 99 team. The Spurs beat a Portland team that was better in the next round. Even New York was arguably better. Also the 99 Lakers were a horrible defensive team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:38 pm    Post subject:

Dreamshake wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
Next you're going to tell me that Malone>>>Kobe because Utah beat Shaq and Kobe in 97 and 98. The fact that Kobe was nowhere near as good as he was in his prime wasn't "created."

Maybe you rank Malone ahead of Duncan because Utah beat San Antonio in 98.


Where did I say Duncan >> Kobe because of beating him in playoff matchups? I believe I said it's amazing Duncan beat a team that had Kobe and Shaq on it twice, and that it's not surprising that the team with 2 superstars to one won most of the matchups.


Malone did it too. Are you impressed by that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13708

PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:02 pm    Post subject:

Steve007 wrote:
3rd team NBA? Thanks for proving my point. Kobe wasn't Kobe.


And Duncan didn't make the 1st team like he typically does. Thanks for proving my point.

Steve007 wrote:
So? Kobe didn't have another superstar next to him in 2008-2010 and he made 3 straight finals and win it all twice in a row, which is something that Duncan has never done.


What does that have to do with our discussion? I am not debating Duncan vs Kobe.

Steve007 wrote:
Hmm. Looks like you're saying he didn't have help.


It looks like I'm saying he didn't have the type of help that was on LA's roster, which is why it's not surprising that he routinely lost to them.

Steve007 wrote:
You keep bragging about these role players and the lack of productive role players were a big reason why the Lakers struggled against teams like San Antonio, Sacramento and Portland. That was also a reason why the team reloaded after 2003. The role players weren't giving the team enough.


I'm bragging on him being able to beat the dynamic duo twice even though he had role players and not another star. I do need to admit an error though, as Robinson was still at a star level in 99. The "nothing but roleplayers" argument really relates to 03.

Steve007 wrote:
Yeah they added Gary Payton, who let Tony Parker run circles around him, and Malone who was injured. Great pickups there.


They were great pickups that helped LA get back to the Finals.

Steve007 wrote:
Was Kobe arguably better than Duncan in 99?


Nope. Was Duncan arguably better than Kobe in 08 or as good as he was in the early 2000's?

Steve007 wrote:
You are vastly overrating the Lakers supporting cast.


No I'm not. However, you are vastly underrating the impact a Shaq or Kobe has on a team.

Steve007 wrote:
You also make it sound like his team was outnumbered on the court. It wasn't 2 against 1. It was 5 against 5. And the Spurs had 3 star players compared to the Lakers 2.


What other Spur was a star player from 01-04?

Steve007 wrote:
No because Rice in 99 wasn't as good as Parker and Ginobili who were stars before 2008.


Please support how Manu or Parker were playing at a star level from 01-04.

Steve007 wrote:
And you want to say that Parker and Ginobili weren't stars when they were winning titles? That's ridiculous.


Neither of them made an all-nba team or ASG in the years that we are talking about, aside from 08. It's ridiculous to say they were playing at a star level at that time.

Steve007 wrote:
Duncan never beat Shaq and Kobe at their peak.


I can list these same type of excuses for every year LA beat the Spurs.

Steve007 wrote:
The 99 season should be ignored when comparing the two.


No, it shouldn't. They had a matchup and the Spurs won. End of story.

Steve007 wrote:
You get excited over Duncan beating a player who was nowhere near as good as the version we saw from 2001-2012. Who is ignoring something again?


I get excited over Duncan beating the other two best players of his generation, when they were paired up, twice.

Steve007 wrote:
Funny how you completely ignore that the Spurs had 3 players who were arguably HOF players and the Lakers had 2.


Funny how you ignore neither was playing at a HOF level in the years that we are discussing, aside from 08.

Steve007 wrote:
Malone did it too. Are you impressed by that?


Was Kobe 3rd All-NBA when Malone beat LA twice? He avg 20/7/5 in those postseasons (like he did in 99), or was it closer to 9/2/2?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:46 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
Was Kobe 3rd All-NBA when Malone beat LA twice? He avg 20/7/5 in those postseasons (like he did in 99), or was it closer to 9/2/2?


You seem to be conceding my point, which is if Kobe was too young, then beating a team with Shaq and Kobe isn't anything to brag about. So why is beating the 99 Lakers such a huge accomplishment when they had just as much success as the Atlanta Hawks? Would you doubt the 99 Spurs ability to beat the Hawks and Rockets?

Who cares if Kobe was 3rd All-NBA when he couldn't win with Shaq? Even Eddie Jones accomplished making 3rd All-NBA. And Jones won more as a second scorer with Shaq before 2000. So maybe you should get giddy about Malone beating a team with Shaq and Eddie Jones.

Quote:
And Duncan didn't make the 1st team like he typically does. Thanks for proving my point.


Nope, I shot your point down when I explained why he didn't make it. You conveniently ignored that. Making the second team is not uncommon for an MVP candidate. Kobe did that in his prime. Furthermore, one can argue that a guy on the second team should be on the first team. Leave KG in Minnesota that year and I'm sure that Duncan would be on the first team. Duncan wasn't left off because he declined so much. He was left off because others emerged. HUGE difference.


Last edited by Steve007 on Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:00 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
Nope. Was Duncan arguably better than Kobe in 08 or as good as he was in the early 2000's?


Who was better? Duncan in 08 or Kobe in 99? I'd laugh at anyone who said Kobe. That's how clear I think the answer is.

Quote:
Funny how you ignore neither was playing at a HOF level in the years that we are discussing, aside from 08.


Nonsense. Tony Parker won the 2007 Finals MVP.

Quote:
I get excited over Duncan beating the other two best players of his generation, when they were paired up, twice.


Lol at this. So beating Kobe in 99 is exciting because he was good AFTER 99. He certainly wasn't one of the 3 best players of his generation yet.

Why not get excited about Duncan beating Kobe at his best? Oh wait, if you look he only did it once in 5 tries. No wonder why you keep going back to 99.


Last edited by Steve007 on Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:15 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
No, it shouldn't. They had a matchup and the Spurs won. End of story.


The Spurs beat a team that was tied with the 7th best record. So what? I'd argue that beating the 98 team would be far more impressive.

Quote:
I get excited over Duncan beating the other two best players of his generation, when they were paired up, twice.


But only one of those guys was playing at that high of a level in 99! I could name several teams San Antonio beat over the years that were much tougher. Why get giddy over beating the 99 Lakers and not get giddy over the Spurs beating tougher teams like Detroit in 05 or Phoenix in 07? Or even Portland in 99?

The 4-1 record Kobe has over Duncan since 2001 isn't just convenient. It's the truth. Ever since Kobe became one of the 3 best players of his generation, he is 4-1 against Duncan. Cry about 2008 all you want but try putting the 2007 version of Duncan on that Spurs team and see if you think the Spurs would have won.

Quote:
Manu was injured in the 08 matchup.


Yawn. So was Bynum and Ariza.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Telleris
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2371

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:25 am    Post subject:

Different team mates, different peaks, different team budgets, and due to vast physical differences never played on each other ever.

Honestly for all their titles, there's been little overlap between the teams being genuine contenders at the same time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13708

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:54 am    Post subject:

Steve007 wrote:
You seem to be conceding my point, which is if Kobe was too young, then beating a team with Shaq and Kobe isn't anything to brag about.


He wasn't too young to make 3rd All NBA.

Steve007 wrote:
Who cares if Kobe was 3rd All-NBA when he couldn't win with Shaq?


So Kobe was too young in 03 and 04 since he couldn't win with Shaq?

Steve007 wrote:
Nope, I shot your point down when I explained why he didn't make it.


He didn't make it because his game had declined to the point where he was no longer the best F in basketball. He wasn't "the same Duncan". He didn't make another 1st team until 2013 when he made it as a C, since those are nonexistent today.

Steve007 wrote:
Who was better? Duncan in 08 or Kobe in 99? I'd laugh at anyone who said Kobe. That's how clear I think the answer is.


I'm not arguing that 08 Duncan was worse than 99 Kobe.

Steve007 wrote:
Lol at this. So beating Kobe in 99 is exciting because he was good AFTER 99. He certainly wasn't one of the 3 best players of his generation yet.


Yes, beating arguably the best player in basketball along with another star in Kobe is something to get excited about. Beating them in 03 with nothing but role players is something to get more excited about. It's funny that you say Kobe was good after 99 yet he made an All NBA team in 99. I guess they have scrubs on those teams.

Steve007 wrote:
Why not get excited about Duncan beating Kobe at his best? Oh wait, if you look he only did it once in 5 tries. No wonder why you keep going back to 99.


I do. That's what happened in 03.

Steve007 wrote:
But only one of those guys was playing at that high of a level in 99!


So now you are arguing that Bryant was not playing at a high level in 99 even though he made an All NBA team?

Steve007 wrote:
The 4-1 record Kobe has over Duncan since 2001 isn't just convenient. It's the truth.


It's not the truth. We have actual facts for the truth, and those facts show in 6 matchups the Lakers beat the Spurs 4 times, with the Shaq/Kobe combo on 5 of those teams.

Steve007 wrote:
Yawn. So was Bynum and Ariza.


I'm not arguing about Bynum and Ariza being superstars. You are arguing that Manu was during those matchups. Since you conveniently ignored my questions about who was playing like stars in these matchups, I'll ask again. Were Manu and Parker playing at star levels prior to the 08 matchup? How were Manu and Parker stars in the matchups prior to 03, when neither made the ASG or an All-NBA team, yet Kobe wasn't playing at a high level until after 99 even though he did make the ASG and an All-NBA team that season?

Steve007 wrote:
Nonsense. Tony Parker won the 2007 Finals MVP.


But I am talking about years prior to the 08 matchup. I acknowledge that he was a star in 08. I don't believe they had a matchup in 07.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:50 am    Post subject:

Quote:
He wasn't too young to make 3rd All NBA.


So? Kobe has said that the teams before 2000 were not close to being a championship team. He also hadn't played for Phil Jackson yet, who taught him A LOT of what he knows. Kobe was still learning how to win in 99, and it was only his first year as a starter.

Put the 99 Kobe on the other Laker teams and I'm not sure they even win any titles. I don't think they could have beaten Portland in 2000 or Sacramento in 2002.

Quote:
So Kobe was too young in 03 and 04 since he couldn't win with Shaq?


He was a 3 time champion by then. What are you talking about?

I always thought those teams could win and both were hit hard by injuries. Also part of the problem was Shaq had declined and was more banged up. In 99 Shaq was younger and only missed 1 game the entire season. The 99 team was not banged up.

And the 99 team still suffered from the problem of being unable to beat Utah.


Quote:
He didn't make it because his game had declined to the point where he was no longer the best F in basketball. He wasn't "the same Duncan". He didn't make another 1st team until 2013 when he made it as a C, since those are nonexistent today
.

So beating Duncan in 08 wasn't a big deal because he wasn't the same player because because he didn't make 1st All NBA, but beating Kobe in 99 is a big deal because he made 3rd All NBA? Huh?

Quote:
I'm not arguing that 08 Duncan was worse than 99 Kobe.


Missing the point. In 08 Duncan was elite and a champion. In 99 Kobe was arguably not even as good as Eddie Jones.

Quote:
So now you are arguing that Bryant was not playing at a high level in 99 even though he made an All NBA team?


Missing the point again. Was Kobe good enough to win an MVP in 99? Was he good enough to make 1st All NBA? Was he good enough to carry a healthy team to 55+ wins and a championship? Was he even good enough to help the team win as much as Eddie Jones and Penny Hardaway? If not, then he wasn't Kobe yet.

Quote:
It's not the truth.


Kobe beat him in 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2008. That's 4 series wins. Duncan won in 2003. That's one series win. That's a 4-1 record. That's the truth. A 4-1 record since 2001. A 4-1 record with Phil. A 4-1 record since Kobe became a champion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:15 am    Post subject:

And of course Manu and Parker were playing like stars before 2008. They had won 3 championships by then. By 2004 they were clearly playing major roles on the team. And unlike Kobe in 99, they benefitted from being coached by a legend. Manu was an all-star in 2005.

One reason some people think they are HOF players is the titles they won, especially in 2005 and 2007.

Parker and Ginobili didn't become good after 2007. Besides you, who else thinks that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13708

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm    Post subject:

Last comment on it (going in circles).

Steve007 wrote:
So?


So stop trying to ignore the matchup. I could just as easily ignore the 08 matchup when Duncan "wasn't Duncan". But I'm not. Also stop trying to downplay Kobe as anything less than one of the games best players in 99, when he was recognized as one of the games best players. Especially if you are going to pawn off Manu and Parker as star players in years where they were not recognized as such (ie 02-04).

Steve007 wrote:
Put the 99 Kobe on the other Laker teams and I'm not sure they even win any titles. I don't think they could have beaten Portland in 2000 or Sacramento in 2002.


Put a star Robinson, Parker or Manu on the 01-04 teams and I can argue the same, since neither was at a star level then. Put the 03 Duncan on the 08 Spurs and I can argue the same. Again, we can make these type of excuses for any matchup.

Steve007 wrote:
He was a 3 time champion by then. What are you talking about?


You seemed to say a top notch Kobe and Shaq = title. Well they were top notch in 03 and 04, and didn't win titles. As far as your other excuses related to why the other teams lost, again, we can make these type of excuses for any matchup. From 01-04 the Spurs were in transition and had no star player alongside Duncan. See how easy that was? It's not a surprise that he routinely lost to a team with two star players and role players just as good as his. He still managed to get them to the postseason and win a title anyway.

Steve007 wrote:
So beating Duncan in 08 wasn't a big deal because he wasn't the same player because because he didn't make 1st All NBA, but beating Kobe in 99 is a big deal because he made 3rd All NBA? Huh?


The whole "a player wasn't at this level" excuse is your angle, not mine. I'm highlighting how I can use the same excuse you are using in 99 in 08. Stay consistent.

Steve007 wrote:
Missing the point. In 08 Duncan was elite and a champion. In 99 Kobe was arguably not even as good as Eddie Jones.


Eddie Jones was 3rd All-NBA in 99?

Steve007 wrote:
Missing the point again.


I'm actually not missing the point. You typed that Kobe was not playing at a high level in 99, did you not?

Steve007 wrote:
Was Kobe good enough to win an MVP in 99? Was he good enough to make 1st All NBA? Was he good enough to carry a healthy team to 55+ wins and a championship? Was he even good enough to help the team win as much as Eddie Jones and Penny Hardaway? If not, then he wasn't Kobe yet.


Duncan wasn't good enough to in a MVP in 08. He didn't make 1st team All-NBA and hasn't made it as a F since (ie arguably the best PF of all-time was no longer considered the best PF in basketball). He wasn't good enough to carry a team to a championship. He wasn't even good enough to dominate Pau Gasol in the postseason. Sounds like he wasn't "Duncan" anymore.

Steve007 wrote:
Kobe beat him in 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2008. That's 4 series wins. Duncan won in 2003. That's one series win. That's a 4-1 record. That's the truth. A 4-1 record since 2001. A 4-1 record with Phil. A 4-1 record since Kobe became a champion.


Shaq and Kobe beat him in 01, 02 and 04. He beat them in 99 and 03. Kobe beat him in 08. Those are the actual facts. Your excuses for 99 don't get in the way of actual facts.

Steve007 wrote:
And of course Manu and Parker were playing like stars before 2008.


They weren't playing like stars in 02, 03 or 04 and neither was on the team in 01. They were at a star level for one of those series (08). That's my point and maybe I have been doing a bad job of communicating it. It should be clear now though.

Steve007 wrote:
By 2004 they were clearly playing major roles on the team.


BUT NEITHER WAS AT A STAR LEVEL IN 04. Parsons had a major role for us last season. He's not a star player. Asik had a major role for us 2 seasons ago. He's not a star player either. Ariza and Artest had major roles for you on the 09 and 10 title teams. Was either a star player at those times?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2004.html

Steve007 wrote:
One reason some people think they are HOF players is the titles they won, especially in 2005 and 2007.


Aren't we discussing matchups that happened in 99, 01, 02, 03, 04 and 08? What do 05 and 07 have to do with this discussion?

Steve007 wrote:
Parker and Ginobili didn't become good after 2007. Besides you, who else thinks that?


Please highlight where I said that? I said they were only at a star level for one of those matchups.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:22 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
So stop trying to ignore the matchup. I could just as easily ignore the 08 matchup when Duncan "wasn't Duncan".


Except he was. He was a 4 time champion and an elite player. Just because he had declined a little, that didn't stop him from being Duncan. I'd consider Kobe to be Kobe in 2012 even though I thought he declined after 2008. The 1999 version of Kobe had no idea what it took to win a title. The 2008 version of Duncan did.

Quote:
But I'm not. Also stop trying to downplay Kobe as anything less than one of the games best players in 99, when he was recognized as one of the games best players. Especially if you are going to pawn off Manu and Parker as star players in years where they were not recognized as such (ie 02-04).


I didn't say they were all-stars before 2004.

I'm going to start a thread on Kobe because I'm curious what others think.

Quote:
Put a star Robinson, Parker or Manu on the 01-04 teams and I can argue the same, since neither was at a star level then.


Missing the point again. The point was that Duncan didn't beat the Kobe that was a champion in 99. Put the 2001 Kobe on the 99 Lakers and I'm not confident the Spurs win. Nice attempt at distracting from the issue though.

Quote:
Put the 03 Duncan on the 08 Spurs and I can argue the same


Not when they were basically the same player! You make it sound like Duncan had a sudden, massive decline after 2007.

Quote:
. Again, we can make these type of excuses for any matchup.


Missing the point again. You conceded that beating a young player before his prime isn't always a big deal. So it seems you're moving the goalposts for 99 so you can troll and act giddy about Duncan beating someone who was only starting for the first time in the league.

Quote:
You seemed to say a top notch Kobe and Shaq = title


Nope. But I was saying that they didn't become a championship duo until 2000. The 99 Lakers couldn't play defense and weren't close to winning a title. Duncan beat an average playoff team that year.

You brag about the 99 Lakers when they were no better than 4th in their own conference even though they were healthy. You act like Shaq and Kobe were tearing apart the league then. But they couldn't even win more games than the Atlanta Hawks.

Why should I be impressed with the 99 version of Kobe when he played with a young, healthy Shaq and was dominated by the elite teams in the league?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:38 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
From 01-04 the Spurs were in transition and had no star player alongside Duncan. See how easy that was?


It's easy to see how much fail there is in those statements because the Spurs had the best record in 2001 and won a championship in 2003. A team in transition? Are you kidding me? And you are vastly underrating Parker and Ginobili in 2004 just so you can say Duncan>>>Kobe.


Quote:
Duncan wasn't good enough to in a MVP in 08.

He wasn't good enough to carry a team to a championship.

Sounds like he wasn't "Duncan" anymore.


Wrong and wrong and wrong. Have Duncan switch places with KG in Boston and I think Duncan wins a title, makes 1st All NBA and maybe even wins the MVP. Take the Kwame for Gasol trade away from the Lakers and it looks like the Spurs are in the Finals again. Who else in the conference would beat that Spurs team? San Antonio had already beaten the #3 seed in the conference.

Just imagine what the Spurs chances look like if the Lakers weren't in the way and they were facing the 2007 Cavs in the Finals again. San Antonio faced tougher competition in 2008. That's why they didn't repeat. It wasn't because Duncan had a massive decline in his game.

Quote:
He didn't make 1st team All-NBA and hasn't made it as a F since (ie arguably the best PF of all-time was no longer considered the best PF in basketball).


You are overrating that honor. That's based on opinions and popularity. It's not proof that he was suddenly worse. Maybe he really was the best forward that year.

Quote:
He wasn't even good enough to dominate Pau Gasol in the postseason.


When was he ever good enough to dominate Paul Gasol? Never. You make it sound like Gasol was just some scrub.

Quote:
Eddie Jones was 3rd All-NBA in 99?


He was basically the same player he was in 2000. In any case, I don't care what others think. The Lakers season in 99 fell apart the moment Jones was traded. Jones was a better player than Kobe that year.


Last edited by Steve007 on Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:49 pm; edited 3 times in total
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: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:38 pm    Post subject:

You guys should get a room.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:55 pm    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
You guys should get a room.


This isn't really a serious discussion to me. The comments like "WOW DUNCAN BEAT KOBE IN 99" are really terrible though. Trollish too, which is why I can't take him seriously. He would give Duncan credit for beating Kobe if Kobe was 10 years old.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Telleris
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2371

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:39 pm    Post subject:

Steve007 wrote:
And of course Manu and Parker were playing like stars before 2008. They had won 3 championships by then. By 2004 they were clearly playing major roles on the team. And unlike Kobe in 99, they benefitted from being coached by a legend. Manu was an all-star in 2005.

One reason some people think they are HOF players is the titles they won, especially in 2005 and 2007.

Parker and Ginobili didn't become good after 2007. Besides you, who else thinks that?


Manu wouldn't be in the HoF for his nba career, but it's not the NBA Hall of Fame, 2 all star appearances, 2 nba third teams a hall of fame career is not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:05 pm    Post subject:

Telleris wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
And of course Manu and Parker were playing like stars before 2008. They had won 3 championships by then. By 2004 they were clearly playing major roles on the team. And unlike Kobe in 99, they benefitted from being coached by a legend. Manu was an all-star in 2005.

One reason some people think they are HOF players is the titles they won, especially in 2005 and 2007.

Parker and Ginobili didn't become good after 2007. Besides you, who else thinks that?


Manu wouldn't be in the HoF for his nba career, but it's not the NBA Hall of Fame, 2 all star appearances, 2 nba third teams a hall of fame career is not.


But he has 4 rings. I'm not a big fan of rings but I'm clearly in a small minority around here. Also, I think he would have put up bigger numbers if he played more minutes or didn't play with Duncan (or both). And Manu didn't join the league until he was 25.

When a thread came up about this before I thought he was a borderline case at best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LHQ
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 611

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:15 pm    Post subject:

How the Kobe fanbois jumped at the very start of this thread was amazing, lol. Yes, that contract sucked. Happy? The mods? Doubt they Kobe fabois, but bleh, bring it!

Now, back on topic, doubt the opinion on Duncan will change after another title, if it happens.
The guy is retiring, so there will be some noise, yes, but that aside nothing much will change (unless the guy goes ballistics and averages a 30/15 on a last hurrah).

Still... I'd love to see the Spurs kill the Lebron hype once again.
I say Spurs, 'cause they are the only team that can do it, mind you.

LandsbergerRules wrote:
Duncan is great, but if the Spurs had KG for his whole career and Duncan was stuck on the T-Wolves during his prime, we'd be talking about Garnett right now and Tim wouldn't even be mentioned as a Top 10 all-time player.


Bull. Duncan would have at least carried those Wolves teams to the 2nd round. That alone is a huge differance. No Duncan lover here, but let's not get ridiculous.
_________________
Hymn for the Red October
-Hans Zimmer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:02 pm    Post subject:

TD is an all time great. Kobe is legend. There is a big difference.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Telleris
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2371

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:30 pm    Post subject:

Steve007 wrote:
Telleris wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
And of course Manu and Parker were playing like stars before 2008. They had won 3 championships by then. By 2004 they were clearly playing major roles on the team. And unlike Kobe in 99, they benefitted from being coached by a legend. Manu was an all-star in 2005.

One reason some people think they are HOF players is the titles they won, especially in 2005 and 2007.

Parker and Ginobili didn't become good after 2007. Besides you, who else thinks that?


Manu wouldn't be in the HoF for his nba career, but it's not the NBA Hall of Fame, 2 all star appearances, 2 nba third teams a hall of fame career is not.


But he has 4 rings. I'm not a big fan of rings but I'm clearly in a small minority around here. Also, I think he would have put up bigger numbers if he played more minutes or didn't play with Duncan (or both). And Manu didn't join the league until he was 25.

When a thread came up about this before I thought he was a borderline case at best.


The only people in the Hall for rings are members of that ridiculous celtics dynasty.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LHQ
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 611

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:32 pm    Post subject:

TBH, All-Star appearances means (bleep).
_________________
Hymn for the Red October
-Hans Zimmer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Gwyn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 3499

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:13 pm    Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
TD is an all time great. Kobe is legend. There is a big difference.

_________________
Lakers win record when Kobe goes for 40+ points

God bless Kobe Bean Bryant and Gianna Maria Onore Bryant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13165

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:20 pm    Post subject:

Telleris wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
Telleris wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
And of course Manu and Parker were playing like stars before 2008. They had won 3 championships by then. By 2004 they were clearly playing major roles on the team. And unlike Kobe in 99, they benefitted from being coached by a legend. Manu was an all-star in 2005.

One reason some people think they are HOF players is the titles they won, especially in 2005 and 2007.

Parker and Ginobili didn't become good after 2007. Besides you, who else thinks that?


Manu wouldn't be in the HoF for his nba career, but it's not the NBA Hall of Fame, 2 all star appearances, 2 nba third teams a hall of fame career is not.


But he has 4 rings. I'm not a big fan of rings but I'm clearly in a small minority around here. Also, I think he would have put up bigger numbers if he played more minutes or didn't play with Duncan (or both). And Manu didn't join the league until he was 25.

When a thread came up about this before I thought he was a borderline case at best.


The only people in the Hall for rings are members of that ridiculous celtics dynasty.


I have a hard time believing that. People use rings around here to rank certain players higher than others all the time. People even use it to argue for who is the GOAT.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Telleris
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2371

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:25 pm    Post subject:

Steve007 wrote:
Telleris wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
Telleris wrote:
Steve007 wrote:
And of course Manu and Parker were playing like stars before 2008. They had won 3 championships by then. By 2004 they were clearly playing major roles on the team. And unlike Kobe in 99, they benefitted from being coached by a legend. Manu was an all-star in 2005.

One reason some people think they are HOF players is the titles they won, especially in 2005 and 2007.

Parker and Ginobili didn't become good after 2007. Besides you, who else thinks that?


Manu wouldn't be in the HoF for his nba career, but it's not the NBA Hall of Fame, 2 all star appearances, 2 nba third teams a hall of fame career is not.


But he has 4 rings. I'm not a big fan of rings but I'm clearly in a small minority around here. Also, I think he would have put up bigger numbers if he played more minutes or didn't play with Duncan (or both). And Manu didn't join the league until he was 25.

When a thread came up about this before I thought he was a borderline case at best.


The only people in the Hall for rings are members of that ridiculous celtics dynasty.


I have a hard time believing that. People use rings around here to rank certain players higher than others all the time. People even use it to argue for who is the GOAT.


Dumb people use rings, sure use them as a tie breaker, but ranking individual players using team awards is stupid.

But that's not even what i was talking about, can you think of people currently in the hall of fame, that are in there for rings (apart from that celtics team) ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4
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