By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - So who's going to win The NBA Finals?

Pyramid Head on 07 June 2009

Shaq > Kobe

The reason becomes clearer as time goes on, you will see a lot more kobe's than you will shaq's.

Don't get me wrong Kobe is a GREAT player.

Shaq though is a once in a generation player.



Last year's game of the year turned out to be Silent Hill : Shattered Memories (online GOTY was COD 6).  This year's GOTY leader to me is Heavy Rain.

Wii Friend Code: 4094-4604-1880-6889

Around the Network
supermario128 on 07 June 2009

Shaq is the type pf player you want to build around. Shaq in his prime > Kobe in his prime always. There's no arguing over it, its true. You need a dominant big man to lead a team.




Nintendo still doomed?
Feel free to add me on 3DS or Switch! (PM me if you do ^-^)
Nintendo ID: Mako91                  3DS code: 4167-4543-6089

Baddman on 07 June 2009

lakers in 5 already up 2-0
kobe=best player on the planet



Kasz216 on 08 June 2009
Baddman said:
lakers in 5 already up 2-0
kobe=best player on the planet

Even Jerry West disagrees with that.  The life long laker who drafted Kobe Bryant and is a personal friend of his.



rocketpig on 08 June 2009
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, if big men are more valuable... they're better players. If when building a team you would rather have Shaq in his prime then Kobe.... Shaq is the better player.

If you judged how good they were by adjusting for position some Place Kicker might be the best kicker in the NFL... or you could make an arguement that Spud Webb was the greatest ever because he did so well being so short.

Guys like Shaq are rarer, not necessarily better. The point is that you can find a "good enough" shooting guard to go alongside a big man while it's harder to find an effective center to go with a great guard.

You have to adjust for position. Removing position from the argument makes no sense whatsover. You can't judge a player without considering position, length of time played, and his contemporaries.

Guys like Shaq are rarer?  No.  They're just more valuable.  Great Shooting Guards are rarer.

There are more great Centers then there are Shooting Guards.

You've got Jordan in one tier.  West and Byrant in a second tier... then George Gervin in a third... then who?  Allen Iverson? 

Now great Centers... you can name tons.  Kareem, Shaq, Russel, Wilt, Olajuwan....

There are tons of Centers at the top of their game in comparison.

You would take Shaq over Kobe.  You would not take Shaq over MJ though.

If a shooting guard isn't as important as a center then the shooting guard is going to have to be a hell of a lot better then the center to be considered a better player.

Nobody is going to argue that Adam Vinatari is more valuable then Tom Brady because Vinatari is better at his position then Tom Brady is as it his.

This is where I really disagree. How many centers have put up Shaq's numbers? 2? 3? And the rest aren't even close to his dominance during his prime. With centers, you pretty much have to eliminate anyone who played pre-1970 because they simply wouldn't cut it as a center in today's game. Hell, many would have a hard time playing power forward in today's NBA. It's almost like comparing a deadball player to a modern MLB hitter. It just doesn't make sense given the huge differences in the game.

Whereas when you look at shooting guards, there are loads of them who put up great numbers not that far behind guys like Kobe and Jordan. Just today, you have guys like Wade and McGrady who are just close enough talent-wise to make the difference negligible. Back in the day, you had guys like Drexler who filled the same role. Which is why I'd take the center first over almost any guard, even some of the best guards ever like Kobe.

Even Jordan had a hard time winning without a competent big man.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
Pyramid Head on 08 June 2009
Baddman said:
lakers in 5 already up 2-0
kobe=best player on the planet

i wonder if its easier to make predictions, two games into a seven game series



Last year's game of the year turned out to be Silent Hill : Shattered Memories (online GOTY was COD 6).  This year's GOTY leader to me is Heavy Rain.

Wii Friend Code: 4094-4604-1880-6889

Baddman on 08 June 2009
Kasz216 said:
Baddman said:
lakers in 5 already up 2-0
kobe=best player on the planet

Even Jerry West disagrees with that.  The life long laker who drafted Kobe Bryant and is a personal friend of his.

meh I honestly think he said that to motivate Kobe

@Pyramid Head yeh lol it may seem that way but I only just found this thread last night so I couldn't make my prediction earlier



rocketpig on 08 June 2009

I think Kobe is probably the best "player" on the planet right now but LeBron is a dominant talent. Give LeBron a few more years to learn every nasty trick in the book and he'll probably be considered a better player than Kobe ever was. Despite his monster numbers, James is still learning the game. As long as he stays healthy, he'll be phenomenal and probably be considered an MJ-esque player when all is said and done.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Baddman on 08 June 2009

I agree, if Lebron ever develops a consistent jump shot and that killer instinct in the clutch it will be lights out for the NBA dude is a freak of nature, but as of right now I would prefer to have Kobe and Dwyane Wade over Lebron



Kasz216 on 08 June 2009
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, if big men are more valuable... they're better players. If when building a team you would rather have Shaq in his prime then Kobe.... Shaq is the better player.

If you judged how good they were by adjusting for position some Place Kicker might be the best kicker in the NFL... or you could make an arguement that Spud Webb was the greatest ever because he did so well being so short.

Guys like Shaq are rarer, not necessarily better. The point is that you can find a "good enough" shooting guard to go alongside a big man while it's harder to find an effective center to go with a great guard.

You have to adjust for position. Removing position from the argument makes no sense whatsover. You can't judge a player without considering position, length of time played, and his contemporaries.

Guys like Shaq are rarer?  No.  They're just more valuable.  Great Shooting Guards are rarer.

There are more great Centers then there are Shooting Guards.

You've got Jordan in one tier.  West and Byrant in a second tier... then George Gervin in a third... then who?  Allen Iverson? 

Now great Centers... you can name tons.  Kareem, Shaq, Russel, Wilt, Olajuwan....

There are tons of Centers at the top of their game in comparison.

You would take Shaq over Kobe.  You would not take Shaq over MJ though.

If a shooting guard isn't as important as a center then the shooting guard is going to have to be a hell of a lot better then the center to be considered a better player.

Nobody is going to argue that Adam Vinatari is more valuable then Tom Brady because Vinatari is better at his position then Tom Brady is as it his.

This is where I really disagree. How many centers have put up Shaq's numbers? 2? 3? And the rest aren't even close to his dominance during his prime. With centers, you pretty much have to eliminate anyone who played pre-1970 because they simply wouldn't cut it as a center in today's game. Hell, many would have a hard time playing power forward in today's NBA. It's almost like comparing a deadball player to a modern MLB hitter. It just doesn't make sense given the huge differences in the game.

Whereas when you look at shooting guards, there are loads of them who put up great numbers not that far behind guys like Kobe and Jordan. Just today, you have guys like Wade and McGrady who are just close enough talent-wise to make the difference negligible. Back in the day, you had guys like Drexler who filled the same role. Which is why I'd take the center first over almost any guard, even some of the best guards ever like Kobe.

Even Jordan had a hard time winning without a competent big man.

Isn't that going against your argument?

I mean... lets look at it.


A guy like Shaq is...

A) More valuable to his team then a guy like Kobe.

B) A better player in terms of VORP.  (Value Over Replacement)

C) Better in stats.

 

So... under what metric is Kobe considered better then Shaq?