Thank God Peyton Hillis beat that bitch Vick.....

Oh and MJ also had a ridiculous gambling problem that Stern covered up for the most part.

Kobe is the 2nd best player in NBA history? NO WAY... Not even top 5... What are you basing it on? Championships? Russell has most 11 in 13 years...Robert Horry has the most in NBA history for a player that did not play of Celtics... Points scored? Kobe has 4 scoring titles, MJ has 10, Gervin has 4, Wilt has 7... Look at Kobe shooting %, look at Kobe vs Jordan come playoff time, look at supporting cast around Kobe vs MJ.

Not sure how Kobe had more talent around him? MJ had 2 HOF Pippe and Rodman some really good role players in paxson, grant, cartwright, longley, Kukoc. Kobe had 1 HOF player Shaq only for 3 rings and a few role players, horry,fisher,artest,odom,i admit Gasol may be a future HOF player but that still means MJ had pippen longer than kobe had shaq and Gasol combined.

Shaq is a top 10 player of ALL time and probably is closer to top 5... Pippen is NO WHERE close to top 5 or top 10 all time in NBA... Gasol is as good as Pippen was/is... next, is Artest, Bynum, Odom, Horry, Fisher are all better than Grant, Paxon, Armstrong, Longley

I don't base it on championships alone...Championships are not a true indicator of player skill. Players like Steve Kerr have more championships than Karl Malone...would you say he's better? When I look at it, I also factor out bigs like Russell, Wilt, big Oscar, and Kareem because truth be told, their competition was little to none. Wilt was basically doing a layup drill for the majority of his career. Bill very rarely saw competition that could match his size, AND his teams were stacked enough where you couldn't rely to double him. On top of all that, because they were pretty much the first few bigs with size like that, there weren't as many defensive schemes invented yet to stop them. I already said Kobe is 2nd...compared to Jordan, so why would we compare his playoff shooting percentage (45) to Jordan's (49)...which is basically one more make per game for Jordan. Jordan also gets the edge because his teams were less talented...but people make it sound like he was playing with the Cleveland Cavaliers. He had Scottie (Hall of famer), Dennis Rodman (One of the best rebounders of all time, great defender at his position), steve kerr (lights out shooter), ron harper (good defender, above average pg), bj armstrong, john paxson, horace grant, bill cartwright, and the list goes on. Not all of his teammates are stars, but they were all damned good players. To say jordan and pippen, or jordan alone won all those rings is ridiculous. If you take out the bigs, who all pretty much dominated because of their size and lack of similar size during their respective time periods, you'd make a hard case to say Kobe isn't one of the top 3-4 skill players of all-time behind MJ.

I don't think that taking out the bigs is fair, because I think your analysis is flawed.

The list you give is a poor example of "bigs".

1. big Oscar? I assume you mean "the big O" Oscar Robinson? He was not a center! He was not even "big"! Dude was a 6'5" guard.
He shouldn't even be in the conversation unless you are talking about one of the greatest players of all time. If his first five seasons are strung together, Robertson averaged a triple-double over these 400+ games, averaging an incredible 30.3 points, 10.4 rebounds and 10.6 assists.

2. Bill Russell was definitely more than just tall. In fact he wasn't even that tall. He was only 6'9"!!!! Bill Russell dominated because he was one of the best to ever play the game.

3. Kareem was one of the 1st 7 footers, but his game as well relied on a tremendous skill set. His sky-hook was unstoppable, not because he was a hulking guy, but because he was tremendously skilled at it. In fact, I think many would describe his game as more finesse than anything...he hardly supports the argument that he was good because of rare size.

4. I will give you Wilt to a certain extent, but you have to realize that he was a gifted athlete, not just some tall dude. If height was the only factor in determining dominance, Manute Bol or George Muresan would have been dominant. Charles Barkley wouldn't have been able to lead the league in rebounds at 6'5".


more to come...

Though championships are (or at least should be) the ultimate goal of teams and players, consistent success is much more important in determining the quality of an individual's career than number of championships.

You guys act like Rodman was in Chicago for Jordans entire career... He played 3 seasons with the Bulls....One of the seasons he missed 1/3 of the year with injury.... Kobe making one more bucket per game does not make him a 49% shooter vs 45% and does not help his case of being the best all time or being a better playoff player.


So lets breakdown the players you mentions
Ron Harper played 4 seasons with Bulls.. You mention good defender, above average ppg... He scored 6.9, 7.4, 6.3, and 9.3 with the Bulls.. He never was close to above anything with Bulls

Steve Kerr- Great shooter.... Guy averaged 8.6 points per game... yep.. his 2 to 3 buckets per game where big shots.

Those numbers are equilivant to Shannon Brown, Jordan Farmer or Derek Fisher last season.

Jordan had Horace Grant and then Rodman.. Never those 2 together... Yes he had Pippen but Shaq is a top 5 player of all time... Something Kobe is not.... Kobe is not even the best Laker of all time.

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Wilt
4. Magic
5. Shaq
6. Kareem Abdul Jabbar

Then MAYBE Kobe can enter into the talks of top 10... NOTHING about Kobes game make him the 2nd best player of all time... I would agree he is best in the decade of 2000-2010 but not of all time.

mblammers wrote:I don't think that taking out the bigs is fair, because I think your analysis is flawed.

The list you give is a poor example of "bigs".

1. big Oscar? I assume you mean "the big O" Oscar Robinson? He was not a center! He was not even "big"! Dude was a 6'5" guard.
He shouldn't even be in the conversation unless you are talking about one of the greatest players of all time. If his first five seasons are strung together, Robertson averaged a triple-double over these 400+ games, averaging an incredible 30.3 points, 10.4 rebounds and 10.6 assists.

2. Bill Russell was definitely more than just tall. In fact he wasn't even that tall. He was only 6'9"!!!! Bill Russell dominated because he was one of the best to ever play the game.

3. Kareem was one of the 1st 7 footers, but his game as well relied on a tremendous skill set. His sky-hook was unstoppable, not because he was a hulking guy, but because he was tremendously skilled at it. In fact, I think many would describe his game as more finesse than anything...he hardly supports the argument that he was good because of rare size.

4. I will give you Wilt to a certain extent, but you have to realize that he was a gifted athlete, not just some tall dude. If height was the only factor in determining dominance, Manute Bol or George Muresan would have been dominant. Charles Barkley wouldn't have been able to lead the league in rebounds at 6'5".


more to come...

I didn't mean it to sound like I'm not giving credit to those players for being good. I know they weren't just tall (and for some reason I thought Oscar was like 6'10). I'm saying that, when you have the kind of height that Wilt and Kareem had in those days, you're advantage over the competition was tremendous compared to the advantage that you'd have these days. When you have the athleticism that those guys had in those days, you're advantage over the competition was tremendous compared to these days. Add their skills to that, and it's not even a question. Every analyst and basketball person doesn't say the game has changed for no reason. Every single team in the NBA has at least one 6'10-7'0 player who is at the very least above average athletically, and can bang on the block. You didn't see that back then. 6'5 - 6'9 wingmen who can jump out of the gym are a dime a dozen these days. I'm, not saying that if you took the old guys (Wilt, Kareem, Oscar, etc) and put them in today's game they wouldn't be as successful...Wilt probably would. I'm saying that I don't know if they would dominate like they did. Fact of the matter is, ever position NOW is bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic than they were THEN. Kobe absolutely DOMINATES games on the offensive end when he wants to. Defensively I think he's ridiculously overrated, but that's another story. For Kobe to do what he does, as consistently as he does it, has the hardware that so many people value, in the current time in my opinion puts him second to Jordan only.

Arguing that times have changed is a conversation killer. The premise destroys the argument.

You start by saying:

1. Kobe is one of the best OF ALL TIME. Doesn't this means that he is one of the best compared to other players in other eras?

then you say:

2. You can't compare guys from back in the day because times have changed

???!!!???

Those two sentences are not compatible. You can't claim best of ALL TIME and then reject a whole bunch of legendary players because of a different factors.
Or are you now saying that Kobe is one of the best players of all time but only if you are talking about non-centers in the modern era? How about, Kobe is the 2nd best 2 guard to ever play in the NBA over the height of 6'4" and under the height of 6'7" from 1991 to 2011?

I think in order to discuss it, you have to put ridiculous parameters on it or just judge each player IN THEIR OWN ERA.

bjcole26 wrote:You guys act like Rodman was in Chicago for Jordans entire career... He played 3 seasons with the Bulls....One of the seasons he missed 1/3 of the year with injury.... Kobe making one more bucket per game does not make him a 49% shooter vs 45% and does not help his case of being the best all time or being a better playoff player.


So lets breakdown the players you mentions
Ron Harper played 4 seasons with Bulls.. You mention good defender, above average ppg... He scored 6.9, 7.4, 6.3, and 9.3 with the Bulls.. He never was close to above anything with Bulls

Steve Kerr- Great shooter.... Guy averaged 8.6 points per game... yep.. his 2 to 3 buckets per game where big shots.

Those numbers are equilivant to Shannon Brown, Jordan Farmer or Derek Fisher last season.

Jordan had Horace Grant and then Rodman.. Never those 2 together... Yes he had Pippen but Shaq is a top 5 player of all time... Something Kobe is not.... Kobe is not even the best Laker of all time.

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Wilt
4. Magic
5. Shaq
6. Kareem Abdul Jabbar

Then MAYBE Kobe can enter into the talks of top 10... NOTHING about Kobes game make him the 2nd best player of all time... I would agree he is best in the decade of 2000-2010 but not of all time.

BJ, I don't understand where you're going with your argument here. A. Ron Harper was a PG...they're not meant to score. He DEFINTELY wasn't meant to score because they had all that. So his point totals are irrelevant. You can be a good or above average point guard without being a scorer. He did what was necessary. He didn't turn it over, ran the offense, got the ball to who needed to get it, and played good defense. Easily equivalent to Derek Fisher in terms of overall worth. He also was with the Bulls for 5 seasons I believe. Steve Kerr, was called in to shoot 3's. Obviously the guy isn't taking 10 shots a game, so why would you even bring his point totals into the equation? He was called in to make big shots, he made them, and everyone KNEW he was going to make his shots.

The point wasn't that he had all these guys together, the point was that the teams he had weren't TERRIBLE in comparison to Kobe's teams. NO ONE is arguing that his teams were equivalent to Kobe's. No one is arguing that Kobe is better than MJ.


As far as MY argument, I've already explained why I take the bigs out of the equation. So 4 of the 6 on your list I'm not considering. As far as Magic being better...you're argument of Kobe being on sick squads would then ruin your argument for Magic being so high. If you wanna talk about sick teams, Magic's teams were all-star squads, and he was a 6-9 player who could see the entire floor because of his height. When you're passing to the players he had to pass to, you're gonna have some huge numbers. Not saying he wasn't nasty, because he was, but he was on some pretty ridiculous teams, teams that I think are much better than Kobe's teams.

I also look at it like this: If you need a guy to score for you, the bigs (from a consistency standpoint) are pretty much restricted to a 16 foot radius around the rim. Kobe and MJ were not restricted (His range is deeper than MJ's was). If you needed a stop. Bigs are pretty much limited to covering other bigs (except nowadays). Kobe and MJ's restrictions are far less. They can cover 1-3...and some 4's. If you needed a guy to make a crazy shot, if you wouldn't put the ball in MJ or Kobe's hands, you're nuts. It's clear cut in my opinion that MJ is better than Kobe. But I'd def give Kobe the next spot.

I still don't understand why tall guys don't get respect in Cheddah's basketball world.
It is a vertical game. If you haven't noticed, the goals are placed 10 feet above the floor.

Not giving someone credit for being tall in basketball is like not giving a decathalete credit for being fast...."Well yeah, he won the 400 yard hurdles, but the guy is really fast, so I'm taking him out of the equation."

mblammers wrote:Arguing that times have changed is a conversation killer. The premise destroys the argument.

You start by saying:

1. Kobe is one of the best OF ALL TIME. Doesn't this means that he is one of the best compared to other players in other eras?

then you say:

2. You can't compare guys from back in the day because times have changed

???!!!???

Those two sentences are not compatible. You can't claim best of ALL TIME and then reject a whole bunch of legendary players because of a different factors.
Or are you now saying that Kobe is one of the best players of all time but only if you are talking about non-centers in the modern era? How about, Kobe is the 2nd best 2 guard to ever play in the NBA over the height of 6'4" and under the height of 6'7" from 1991 to 2011?

I think in order to discuss it, you have to put ridiculous parameters on it or just judge each player IN THEIR OWN ERA.

What I'm saying by that is, Kobe's game is dominant if you look at him now, or if you put his game in the eras of those other guys. This is because the competition in the league is FAR FAR FAR superior to what it was when most of those guys played. However, if you took those guys back then, and put them in the game now, chances are they wouldn't be as dominant because you have guys with similar or bigger size, and the same if not better athleticism. Their SKILL is the x-factor, and the reason I believe they'd still be some of the better guys in today's NBA...but I don't think they'd be as dominant now as they were then. ESPECIALLY the big men.

The point being, the parity and depth of height and athleticism in the NBA overall is much greater now than it was then, so the separating point in the best of the best is more skill than anything. Whereas back then, the parity and depth of height and athleticism was not nearly as close in the NBA overall, so those were the separating points more often than not...THEN when you add skill into it, you got the legends. I think now, those legends' only separating point would be skill, and I don't think that skill was so tremendous that it would make them completely dominate in today's league.

mblammers wrote:I still don't understand why tall guys don't get respect in Cheddah's basketball world.
It is a vertical game. If you haven't noticed, the goals are placed 10 feet above the floor.

Not giving someone credit for being tall in basketball is like not giving a decathalete credit for being fast...."Well yeah, he won the 400 yard hurdles, but the guy is really fast, so I'm taking him out of the equation."

You can work harder to get faster...you can't work harder to be taller.

um Chicago team was crazy good they went to the Eastern Conference Semifinals with out him. The Bulls had a almost perfect team put around Jordan. Everyone excelled at a specific thing and played there "Role" well.

Cheddah,

No offense to your arguements but stick to basketball from 2000 to present because not knowing Big O was only 6'5 or discounting 4 of the top 6 all time players because of the ERA is funny.

Next,
I certainly understand a role of a point guard and who plays point guard for a team... However, Ron Harper was NOT a PG.... He was a SG or Small Forward.... He has never averaged over 3.3 assists per game for the Bulls... He was not very good for the Bulls... Now in his prime... BEFORE the first knee injury when he was a shooting guard... he was 1 of the 2 players that was very similar to Jordan... the other died before ever playing in the NBA in Len Bias.


I am not saying Kobe Bryant is not a great because yes he is a one of the all time greats... Is he #2 imo.. nope... Shaq is higher up on the list IMO.

Finally, did you realize Kareeem played against many bigger players and was still dominate... Walton, Malone, Hayes, Cowens, etc.... It was not Kareem vs a bunch of 6'2 or shorter players

First of all, my argument for Kobe is #2 all time not including Bigs. Why can't I talk about that? Did I say #2 all time including bigs? No. I said #2 all-time and I'm not counting bigs. I can make that argument if I choose to. Secondly, Kareem is 7'2. Moses Malone was in the same conference for 1 year of Kareem's career. So how often did they meet? Oscar played in the 60's and 70's which was a good 15 years before I was born..sorry I'm capable of making mistakes. To suggest that Dave Cowen and Bill Walton matched Kareem's athelticism is a joke...and Hayes and Cowen were 5in shorter, and a good 40lbs lighter. Not even a discussion in terms of the size athleticism argument.

Ok who mentioned athleticism? Was Jabbar a great sprinter or pole vaulter that i did not know about.. How was Jabbar so much more athletic? I stated that he had many big guys he played against.. Next, again you are mistaken... who was 40 lbs lighter?... Jabbar was 7'2 225 lbs... Hayes was 6'9 230 lbs, Cowens 6'9 235 lbs... They were very similar is size.... Not sure if you realize that the match up with Elvin Hayes is what helped make college basketball as they played "The game of the century"... of course this is assuming you did realize Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Lew Alcindor are the same player.


Finally when we first started this agruement, you said "I think Jordan is better. But Kobe is the next best IMO"... No disclaimer to big men or certain eras.. No big deal... I do realize age plays a big part in knowledge about sports... Which is why i corrected you on Ron Harper and fact he never was a point guard.

I have been talking about athleticism since my first couple posts on the topic. And the difference in the athleticism found in a 7 footer and a 6 footer are obviously going to be different. Moreover, the 5" difference between those 6'9 players and Kareem is a HUGE advantage for him. Why do u think everytime jj barea gets matched up on someone they take him DIRECTLY to the block. So u named 3 players who were all 5" shorter than him, that weren't even in his conference for the most part as his biggest competition. That PROVES my point. There wasn't enough guys with equivalent size and athletic ability back then. He saw those guys a handful of times a season, where Kobe sees guys with the same size and athleticism daily.

In no way am I discounting those guys' games. But they really don't have anything to do with what I'm saying. If we're talking about most dominant players all time, Kobe doesn't crack the top 5, but when I say best players all time I'm talking all-around, every facet of the game, and I don't think bigs factor in to that argument.

For the record....Ron Harper wasnt half the player he was....once he left the Cavs...

When the Cavs had Price, Daugherty, Harper, Nance...they were actually a real solid squad...

after that, Harper turned to trash.

I didnt read the rest of the argument, so i'll stay out of it...

But, being that it concerns Basketball...I should read it

The era's are not even comparable.

Im not sure Wilt, Russell...etc have the same success they had then....NOW.

Centers/Power Forwards are 2X as athletic as they were in the 50's/60's/70's

If you transformed Serge Ibaka to that era...he would have dominated.

So, lets not try to place guys in certain eras...etc

Because the current era of NBA/College Basketball...the talent/ability far outweighs what they put out in the early ages/days.

Furthermore, Kobe Bryant has TWICE the legacy that Shaquille O'Neal has....and thats not just because of the OVERALL CHAMPIONSHIPS....

Shaq still wouldnt have won a title...if it wasn't for KOBE....or D-WADE

Get Shaq, the hell out of the top 5....because if Kobe isnt in it....Shaq is no where near it.

Basketball has been my life...since I was a kid....

I had season tickets for the Pistons in 87-96 thru all the bad-boys era (Yes, I was a little boy...but I still knew all the players/names/numbers/colleges...so I wasnt just attending...to attend. I already loved the sport)

But, that doesnt discredit my basketball knowledge or my opinion....

Shaq doesn't touch Kobe....

Kobe's talent and ability is every bit of MJ's if not MORE.

That doesnt mean that Kobe is better than MJ...because I dont believe that he is...

MJ didnt have the same advances in technology/weight lifting/off-season programs...that the BLACK MAMBA had to make advances in his career/ability.

But, lets not overreact....

If you know Basketball...Kobe Bryant is one of the top 3....ALL TIME GIFTED....BASKETBALL PLAYERS....EVER.

Russell, Wilt, keep those names coming....they dominated an area...with BASIC BASKETBALL TECHNIQUE (not to discredit them)

But, the game has advanced...simple drop steps with finger-rolls...doesn't float now a days...

Kobe Bryant is in my top 3....

Even at 28 years old (Tuesday) I've seen enough classic footage from my fathers tapes....and from my own personal collection to make an assumption about Oscar, Wilt, Russell, Kareem (Btw, BJ, did you really put Dave Cowens into this talk? Child PLEASE!!!! - Sure, Cowens was named one of the 50 greats...BACK IN THE DAY...But he's no where near the top 15-20 players of all-time.

You just cant compare the eras and thats what it boils down too....

Moses Malone...wouldn't be Moses Malone....if he plays TODAY. He was far too un-athletic and far too little post moves...for him to be THAT successful today.

MJ could make the transition...to today's game...and most likely Magic...but beyond that...there isn't a whole lot of individuals....that could just jump eras. Wilt/Russell's rebounding ability would transfer over...but the lack of "real" post moves back in the day....isn't going to help them in today's game.

"ibaka would have dominated " lol.. funniest shit ive heard in awhile..really??? ibaka ??? like the guys who played in earlier eras had no talent,, most absurd thing ive ever heard,,lol ,,

FINALLY!!!! I was beginning to think I was taking crazy pills...

That's all I was saying. I get that it's almost a disrespect thing to discount the big men from the old days. But there isn't a single analyst who'd say that those legends would all put up the same numbers and be held in the same regard today as they were back then. Yet lobe would've easily put up better numbers back then.

Also, to Discredit my knowledge of the basketball because I'm unfamiliar with guys 15-30 years before I was born is unfair. Especially when u won't acknowledge that a 5" difference in height TODAY is considered a huge advantage, so back then it was enormous.

The average height of an NBA player in the 60's was 6'2 from what I believe. Which means guys like Kareem and wilt had a good 7-12" advantages over guys. Today the average is 6'7.

This isn't an argument discrediting the old time legends, but I point those things out to explain why I don't include them in my argument. Which is because the time in which they played in, their skill was not necessarily the biggest reason they dominated. They were playing against much inferior competition from a physical/athletic standpoint whereas Kobe is playing against physical/athletic equals and it's his skill that sets him apart.

if i had the time this morning i could easily name 50 players from earlier "eras" that could thrive in todays game,,anybody seen the post moves in the nba game of today..lol..

I'd love to see that list