Correct, and I am probably at fault for making certain statements in a factual sense when I didn't have the facts to stand behind (which you provided). I should be more careful not to do such things. Most of us are guilty on speaking from the eye test at times especially when we don't have the related data easily available to us.
If I discover untrue claims being made, I will dock points. It will also make me skeptical of future claims and cause me to look more closely at them.
That seems like a smart and logical way to do it.
I want to be fair.
I just want to commend you for your response and the fact that you didn't get mad and make ad hominem attacks or respond emotionally. A lot of posters on the internet could learn from the way you handled this.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
Of course Kobe was going to have more playoff success than Shaq post-breakup. Shaq was 32, Kobe was 26. If you look at what Kobe did in the playoffs from age 32 on he averaged 26-4-4, .529 TS%, 108 O rating and just 2 playoff series win.
colts18 wrote:Of course Kobe was going to have more playoff success than Shaq post-breakup. Shaq was 32, Kobe was 26. If you look at what Kobe did in the playoffs from age 32 on he averaged 26-4-4, .529 TS%, 108 O rating and just 2 playoff series win.
Shaq played 7 seasons before Kobe was a full-time starter in 2000. What about those years? Or was Shaq only great from 00-04(coincidentally when playing with Prime Kobe)? All those teams outside his rookie year were talented.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
microfib4thewin wrote: I think a player's maturity is very important when it comes to working with a rookie head coach. Pop was not a coach who could work with meager talent and bring out great results as '97 showed so it is important for Pop to have a superstar that can play at a high level as well as get his willingness to buy into the coaching. It may sound simple or maybe you don't really think it's that important, but I do. I think Duncan not putting himself above his teammates as well as his coaches is a big part of why the Spurs have been so stable from top to bottom, and it wasn't something that we saw in the Pre-Duncan Spurs. I don't know if Duncan will be able to bring relevance to Cleveland, but Lebron managed to make the Cavs look like a respectable franchise and some even believed Mo Williams was a legitimate second option. It was only after Lebron left that more people realized that Cleveland is nothing without Lebron, whereas everyone knew Minnesota is a crappy place to be in even when KG was in his prime.
The more I think about this the more I think it's a travesty that Lebron is not getting more serious consideration.
Ok, you can believe in what you want bro, but at least drop this '97 stuff. I already told you what happened. The Spurs had key injures all over the roster including their primary star Robinson. Pop adopted this crippled roster one quart into the season when they were 3-15 and just rode the season out, because there wasn't anything he could realistically do. Using that as any sort of evidence against Pop is just ludicrous. That's like trying to make a case against Riley using the '03 Heat.
Duncan didn't put himself over his teammates. Cool. Neither did D-Rob, Parker, Ginobili, and any of the guys that played for Pop. You know why? Because Pop made it a' staple' that he wasn't having none of that since day 1 and Duncan didn't effect that philosophy one iota.
Yea, the difference is LeBron is actually a better player than Duncan, who would've known?
colts18 wrote:Of course Kobe was going to have more playoff success than Shaq post-breakup. Shaq was 32, Kobe was 26. If you look at what Kobe did in the playoffs from age 32 on he averaged 26-4-4, .529 TS%, 108 O rating and just 2 playoff series win.
Shaq played 7 seasons before Kobe was a full-time starter in 2000. What about those years? Or was Shaq only great from 00-04(coincidentally when playing with Prime Kobe)? All those teams outside his rookie year were talented.
Do you think that Kobe made Shaq an elite player in 2000-2004 because that is what you are implying.
Shaq was still the better postseason performer than Kobe.
Baller2014 wrote:The 76 Nets are a better example. Dr J was basically leading them in every category and carrying them.
I talked about the 01-03 Spurs in my OP on this thread, it's on page 2, please read it. While 28mpg D.Rob in 01 still played at a pretty high level, he was it as far as help went. The Spurs sucked everywhere else. In 02 D.Rob got substantially worse (and was hurt in the playoffs), while the rest of the team wasn't really better. In 03 D.Rob was worse still (and hurt), and the rest of the support cast (while stronger than 01 and 02) was still grossly below what it should have been to win a title.
So I can't find where someone responded to me saying that we've seen guys succeed with crap teammates to rebut my Garnett arguments but there couldn't be a better example to focus on as the Archetype here than Erving's Nets so I'll build from here.
What ERving did was GOATworthy...and yet you'll see people fixate on his inability to do more with plenty of individual talent in Philly. Similarly see LeBron in Cleveland vs Miami. What does it mean?
That there's the difference between being able to have earh shattering impact in a unipolar scheme laced with good fitting teammates with good attitudes and being able to achieve such impact in all settings. The former exists, the latter doesn't, and hence trying to prove what someone can't do based on their all too human limitations in a particular context is pure fallacy.
Of course with Garnett were not even honestly talking about a failure this acute. His impact in Minny isn't quite up there with LeBron in Cleveland or probably Erving in Nee York but the objective data still says his pact is huge which is a central point.
And then If course Boston happened. For anyone doubting whether he could knock it out if the park with the right leverage, that should have been ball game. I can't say it enough: if you think his Boston supporting cast was something so amazing that titles were given, then you are using revisionist thinking. People did not See that coming.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Well most did think Boston would win the East along with Chicago.
Either way why do predictions matter and not their play? They still went 9-2 without KG and they'd probably still make it out the East without KG.
Now that season is why I hold KG in such high regard but look at what Duncan/Olajuwon did with some weak supporting casts. Those two at their best would take the 04 Wolves to a ring.
@UBF I think most people agree that Peak Shaq > Peak Kobe. So let us remove 00-04 Shaq and 06-10 Kobe. Same number of years with one year where both had probably declined to some extent (04/10).
Now let us compare 90's Shaq to early 00's Kobe. (Playoffs) 00-04 Kobe = (21.4 PER) 26 / 5 / 5apg / 1.5spg on 52%TS (108-ORTG) 95-99 Shaq = (28.1 PER) 27 / 11 / 3apg / 2.0bpg on 58%TS (114-ORTG)
So... Shaq had the better Peak and a vastly superior Prime statistically. Even in terms of Rings (which I don't care so much about) I would give Shaq the edge since he won 3 Rings as the man compared to Kobe who won 2 and his 3 title runs were much more impressive individually then Kobe's 08-10 runs.
Shaq even has a higher number of quality years (14) compared to Kobe who has 11. I didn't think Kobe was a quality player from 11-12 and he got injured in 13. Even if I gave him 11-12 he still doesn't match Shaq's 14 years.
Rudy was a good coach, but lets not make him out to be a genius or HOF coach. All his innovation tapered off as Olajuwon declined. He had health problems towards the end but became mediocre before that.
Spoiler:
Coacing Record
Season Age Lg Tm G W L W/L% W .500 Finish G W L W/L% Notes
1991-92 43 NBA HOU 30 16 14 .533 1.0 3 1992-93 44 NBA HOU 82 55 27 .671 14.0 1 12 6 6 .500 1993-94 45 NBA HOU 82 58 24 .707 17.0 1 23 15 8 .652 NBA Champions 1994-95 46 NBA HOU 82 47 35 .573 6.0 3 22 15 7 .682 NBA Champions 1995-96 47 NBA HOU 82 48 34 .585 7.0 3 8 3 5 .375 1996-97 48 NBA HOU 82 57 25 .695 16.0 2 16 9 7 .563 1997-98 49 NBA HOU 82 41 41 .500 0.0 4 5 2 3 .400 1998-99 50 NBA HOU 50 31 19 .620 6.0 3 4 1 3 .250 1999-00 51 NBA HOU 82 34 48 .415 -7.0 6 2000-01 52 NBA HOU 82 45 37 .549 4.0 5 2001-02 53 NBA HOU 82 28 54 .341 -13.0 5 2002-03 54 NBA HOU 82 43 39 .524 2.0 5 2004-05 56 NBA LAL 43 24 19 .558 2.5 4 Career NBA 943 527 416 .559 55.5 90 51 39 .567 http://www.basketball-reference.com/coa ... ru01c.html
LAKER REPORT Tomjanovich Open to Suggestions January 07, 2005|Ben Bolch | Times Staff Writer
Class was in session Thursday afternoon at the Lakers' HealthSouth practice center in El Segundo, with Coach Rudy Tomjanovich alternating as mentor and pupil.
The Lakers appeared in need of a radical shift in philosophy after sloppy showings against the San Antonio Spurs and Dallas Mavericks on consecutive nights in Texas, and the Laker coach was open to ideas.
"I told the guys I'm going to keep teaching and I'm going keep an open mind," Tomjanovich said. "I listened to some of the suggestions that they had, and I'm going to try those things, because we need everyone feeling confident."
Forward Lamar Odom conceded that the Lakers lacked the will to be strong defenders after giving up an average of 109 points over the last two games, "but I think we can get there. We want to win, and we know what we have to do."
Tonight at Staples Center, the Lakers (16-14) play a Houston team that has made an impressive push since the beginning of December, winning 10 of 15 games to move back into postseason contention in the tightly bunched Western Conference. At 16-16, the Rockets are a half-game behind the Clippers for the eighth and final playoff berth.
The Lakers are tied with the Minnesota Timberwolves for sixth place.
Spoiler:
"We're right there in that group of teams, and we can't slack off," Odom said. "Every game is going to be like a playoff game from now on."
Kobe Bryant said the Lakers were "antsy" to get back to work after two consecutive substandard outings, which he considered an aberration for a team that is seventh in the league in defensive field-goal percentage.
"It would seem that way, because we had been playing pretty good defense all season long," Bryant said. "San Antonio and Dallas just cut us up. [Tonight] we're looking for a better showing."
Tomjanovich said his players simply needed to do a better job executing such basketball basics as contesting guards who dribble into the paint.
"I went over about five or six different situations that are just common, everyday stuff that we had slippage on," Tomjanovich said. "What was good was that the things we can improve upon are very fixable."
*
Vlade Divac underwent lumbar disk microsurgery to repair a herniated disk in his back and is expected to sit out 12 weeks. The surgery, which took slightly more than an hour, was performed by William Dillin of the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic at Little Company of Mary Hospital in Torrance.
Divac, who initially hurt his back while trying to make a spin move during a workout in September before reinjuring the area two weeks ago, could return in the first few days of April at the earliest. The Lakers' regular season ends April 20.
*
The Lakers are matching the proceeds from silent auctions during three games at Staples Center and donating the money to UNICEF tsunami relief efforts in South Asia. The games are Jan. 2 against Denver, tonight against Houston and Thursday against Cleveland.
The team is also matching the donation of Bryant, who will give $1,000 for every point he scores tonight. "A hundred. Two hundred," Bryant said when asked how many points he'd like to score. "Wilt Chamberlain numbers."
*
Shaquille O'Neal, in his latest not-so-subtle dig at Bryant, told Miami-area reporters that Heat guard Dwyane Wade was "definitely my best second-year pupil, from Little League to college to the pros.... Finally, I have someone that's like me. My other two pupils [Bryant and Penny Hardaway] were the opposite sides of the moon. But this guy is on the same side of the moon, is on the same planet that I'm on."
Is Phil Jackson the best coach in NBA history? July 04, 2010|By Four Corners | Four views on today's issues
Smug? Yes. Best? Yes.
Brian Schmitz, Orlando Sentinel
Is Phil Jackson the greatest NBA coach who ever lived? Or has he lived the greatest life of any coach?
Yes and yes -- plus, he also gets the girl (Jeannie Buss).
We never seem to assign a sarcastic asterisk to Red Auerbach, John Wooden, Don Shula, Joe Paterno or Joe Torre, each of whom prospered on the backs of stars.
Deal me a Shaq and Kobe for Phil's hand, and I'll raise you Russell and Cousy for Red's. I'll see your Jordan and Pippen for Phil with Jeter and Rivera for Joe.
Jackson's 11 titles often come with a disclaimer. What is it that turns us off? Oh yeah ... his smugness.
But if coaching is about collecting stars, Larry Brown wouldn't have lost the '04 Olympics.
The genuis of Jackson is that he can extract the best from the best and manage head cases. I mean, he's won with Dennis Rodman and Ron Artest. Case closed.
He gets best out of best
K.C. Johnson, Chicago Tribune
Those who claim Phil Jackson merely has benefitted from great players forgets a simple fact: Neither Michael Jordan nor Kobe Bryant had won a championship before the Zen Master applied his masterful touch.
He's the best coach in NBA history for reasons that go beyond his staggering 11 titles. His unique ability to meld players in the most equal-opportunity offense there is -- the triangle -- and empower them by exuding calm in stressful moments sets him apart.
And don't bring up the great Red Auerbach. This is a different era, with more teams and more competition than what those great Celtics teams faced. Phil has had great players. He's also made them greater.
Melds teams with ease
Baxter Holmes, Los Angeles Times
The only reason Phil Jackson's fingers are loaded with rings: He coached some of the greatest players of all time  MJ, Pippen, Kobe and Shaq.
Yeah, and meanwhile back on planet EarthÂ
Why, oh why, does that load-of-malarkey line get overused on Phil?
Sure, he had the goods, but lots of teams did and still didn't win. (Here's looking at you, Stockton, Malone, and Barkley  even though it was PJ and MJ who kept you title-less.)
And sure, if you took Lew Alcindor and Bill Walton from John Wooden, UCLA probably doesn't have as many banners. Same with taking Bill Russell from Red Auerbach, Derek Jeter from Joe Torre and Tom Brady from Bill Belichick.
But if stars always won, no matter who coached them, the term "upset" wouldn't exist, the U.S. Olympic men's basketball team would never lose, and teams like the 2004 Lakers wouldn't get hammered by Detroit even though it put four potential Hall of Famers on the floor  Kobe, Shaq, Malone and Gary Payton.
Great coaches can get everyone to put their egos and issues aside and put forth their best effort toward the shared goal of winning. It's tough, but Phil makes it look easy.
2nd to none, even Red
Paul Doyle, Hartford Courant
It's one of those absolutes ingrained into every New England sports fans -- Ted Williams was the greatest hitter who ever lived, Bobby Orr was the best hockey player to ever lace up the skates, and Red Auerbach is better than any coach in NBA history.
End of discussion, right?
Wrong. Old Red needs to put down his victory cigar and make room for Phil Jackson on his throne. Hard as it may be for Celtics Nation to hear, Red has been eclipsed by the Zen Master.
Forget the argument that Jackson's only won with stars (Michael and Kobe). Auerbach's rosters included a Hall of Fame wing (Cousy, Russell, Havlicek, etc.), so we can say the same things about Red's titles.
Jackson has won titles in an era of free agency, during a time when wealthy stars probably had more power and security than a coach. Sorry, but winning multiple titles in the modern era is more impressive than piecing together a dynasty in the NBA's dark ages.
Auerbach should be credited for pulling off some the greatest one-sided trades in league history. He built title teams in the '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s, securing his place as perhaps the greatest executive in league history.
Jerry West: “I’ve never seen a better coach than Gregg Popovich” Kurt Helin Jun 18, 2014, 8:01 PM EDT 47 Comments
Spoiler:
Jerry West is the trusted voice of experience in the NBA — he’s a Top 50 player, a former coach, the GM that built the Showtime Lakers, drafted Kobe Bryant, and a guy who since he came in as consultant and owner in Golden State has seen that team take off. (He did a better job in Memphis than he gets credit for, but he was not exactly perfect there.)
West has seen it all — and he thinks Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich is as good as anyone he’s ever seen.
West was on ESPN Radio’s Colin Cowherd show Tuesday, part of his interview transcribed by Dan McCarney on the Express-News’ Spurs blog.
“I’ve never seen a better coach than Gregg Popovich. He does less than more. But having said that, when he gets less, he develops it into something really good. They have a great development program down there.
“For a coach coming into this league, if they don’t hire people who are really competent, to take these young kids who haven’t made it somewhere but have talent and build a system they can prosper in, but more importantly to get these kids shoot the ball. When they got Kawhi Leonard, he was not a shooter. It tells you the significance of what they’ve done internally to improve their team.”
The point about system and development is huge. In a league where you are drafting 19 and 20 year olds, the ability of a staff to develop talent means a lot, it’s how you sustain success. Remove the Heat’s one-off building method out of the equation and look at the NBA’s Final Four — the Spurs, Pacers and Thunder all have drafted well and developed well. They have found talented guys not in the top handful in the draft and developed them well. They’ve built wisely. It’s the model for every small and mid-market team.
But nobody may every do it as well as Popovich.
Gregg Popovich, greatest coach ever? Title would help
Spoiler:
SAN ANTONIO — In those rare times when Larry Brown can get San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich to talk about himself during their almost-daily conversations, there's one story that never gets any less painful no matter how many times they tell it.
It's the overlooked what-if sequence from the infamous Game 6 of the 2013 NBA Finals, the moment just after Ray Allen's miraculous three-pointer with five seconds left in regulation that tied it 95-95 and before the overtime that gave the Miami Heat the win and, eventually, the series. As Popovich swung his arms like a wild man and implored his team to respond with a quick-hitting fast break, the officials stopped the action in order to review video and make sure Allen's feet were behind the line.
"A stupid rule," Brown, now Southern Methodist's men's basketball coach after a long NBA career, told USA TODAY Sports. "Pop and I have talked about it all the time. You're down one, or you're tied or you're down two, you rush it right away."
LEBRON: Dislikes 'stupid' legacy talk
DUNCAN: Not yet thinking retirement
The Heat set their defense and took a proverbial deep breath during the break. Tony Parker airballed a falling jumper out of the timeout when LeBron James nudged him toward the baseline. And Miami survived in the most dramatic of ways. The legacies of James, Dwyane Wade and the rest of the Heat would be buoyed by their second consecutive title just two days later, while this Spurs group that was universally seen as special would fall short for the sixth consecutive season.
"But they weathered that storm, and now they're back with another chance," said Brown, the former Spurs coach who gave Popovich his first NBA job as an assistant in 1988. "I think it's just remarkable."
VIDEO: Popovich's undeniable legacy
Eddie Johnson breaks down Gregg Popovich's legacy and how he ranks among the greatest coaches ever.
Ask members of both teams, and they'll say that all this talk of legacies is plain silly. But there are only so many ways to measure the meaningfulness of one's time in the NBA, and the ability to win it all is indisputably relevant when it comes to quantifying all these wondrous careers.
Yet as Brown pointed out, Popovich may be the only key member of this Spurs' group whose place in hoops history could change significantly by winning another title. Duncan is already regarded by most as the best power forward to ever play the game, a distinction that won't change if he can't win his fifth championship. Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili are tremendous talents and unforgettable supporting stars regardless of what happens in these next three weeks.
LEBRON: Likes Jordan comparisons
LEBRON, PARKER: On All-NBA teams
But if Popovich can win a fifth championship, thereby tying Heat architect Pat Riley (Los Angeles Lakers, Heat) and John Kundla (Minneapolis Lakers) for third on the all-time list, his already-exalted status undoubtedly would reach a whole new level.
"I hear people so many times (say) that '(Duncan is) the best power forward to ever play,'" Brown said. "But I don't hear people say enough that (Popovich) is maybe the best coach to ever coach."
L.A. notably collapsed COMPLETELY when Rudy T abruptly retired, just throwing that out there. If he'd been able to stay, they would have made the playoffs that season.
colts18 wrote:Of course Kobe was going to have more playoff success than Shaq post-breakup. Shaq was 32, Kobe was 26. If you look at what Kobe did in the playoffs from age 32 on he averaged 26-4-4, .529 TS%, 108 O rating and just 2 playoff series win.
Shaq played 7 seasons before Kobe was a full-time starter in 2000. What about those years? Or was Shaq only great from 00-04(coincidentally when playing with Prime Kobe)? All those teams outside his rookie year were talented.
Do you think that Kobe made Shaq an elite player in 2000-2004 because that is what you are implying.
Shaq was still the better postseason performer than Kobe.
I never said Shaq was an elite player because of Kobe. The whole context of that post is about playoff success.
RayBan-Sematra wrote:@UBF I think most people agree that Peak Shaq > Peak Kobe. So let us remove 00-04 Shaq and 06-10 Kobe. Same number of years with one year where both had probably declined to some extent (04/10).
Now let us compare 90's Shaq to early 00's Kobe. (Playoffs) 00-04 Kobe = (21.4 PER) 26 / 5 / 5apg / 1.5spg on 52%TS (108-ORTG) 95-99 Shaq = (28.1 PER) 27 / 11 / 3apg / 2.0bpg on 58%TS (114-ORTG)
So... Shaq had the better Peak and a vastly superior Prime statistically.
I don't' see the point of extracting Peak Kobe, and then comparing his numbers in a tough West to to 95-99 Shaq. Its already been posted that Kobe faced the toughest defense differential of any star.
And no doubt Shaq has the better numbers anyway. The problem....is that they're just numbers, and that impact is more than a box score.
What happened to Shaq's teams from 95-99? You set this up in a way that if I bring up Kobe's success from 00-04, then you can just mention Shaq, which makes this criteria pointless.
But hey, give me 2001 Playoff Kobe over any version of 95-99 Shaq in the playoffs.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
But next season they get Phil Jackson back and are a 45 win team, the highest mark Rudy had during Hakeem's decline. After Hakeem left they were a 28 win ballclub from 45. Losing you main star naturally affects teams though. I'll post a comparison with Shaq later.
So... here's where I'm at as far as Shaq. I'll be the one to actually put my thought processes out there.
I agree with the posts by O_6 and therealbig3. Shaq is an offensive force, and the way he warps an opposing defense is a resounding plus. Shaq, Kareem and Hakeem are spoken of as the GOAT offensive centers on this board, but Hakeem isn't in that category to me. Despite how many post moves he had and how aesthetic he looked while doing it, he wasn't as efficient as Shaq and didn't cause the same problem for opposing teams that Shaq did offensively. And he had Rudy Tomjanovich, who was ahead of his time as far as spacing. Looking back at my criteria:
ThaRegul8r wrote:The means by which a player helps his team are inconsequential. What is important is the end. The player in question should use whatever skills he brings to the table to help his team win. As different players have different abilities, the means employed will vary. The only thing that matters are results. No one way of helping one’s team is inherently valued more than another.
I don't care how a player does it, I only care about the results. The results say that Shaq was a more effective offensive player than Hakeem. That he knew his strengths and capitalized them is a plus.
On the cons, I looked back at how contemporaries at the time commented on the lack of competition at his position. Before Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing declined, he didn't separate himself from them. As TrueLAfan has elucidated on in the past. The assumption is that since Shaq handled himself well against them pre-peak, he would have done just fine during his absolute peak. That isn't what did it for me, though. I'm looking at what ShaqAttack3234 said about team defenses, and ElGee's post about the quality of defenses Shaq faced. Then I look at what fatal9 said in the last project:
Spoiler:
fatal9 wrote:Shaq rarely played any center one on one. In his prime he was the most doubled player I've ever seen (followed maybe by prime Hakeem). Team defense matters more than the opposing center sometimes. The team that was most effective at slowing down Hakeem to me was the Sonics (had no all-time great center) because of their quick doubles, their ability to quickly collapse on/trap him, front him and make post passes extremely difficult (got away with illegal D a lot too). It's amazing how hard Hakeem had to work against them. But overall, I agree with you and respect Hakeem's competition both team wise and at his position much more than either of Shaq/Duncan's. But in the end, they are about even as players, Shaq just ended up with the better resume. Still haven't ruled out voting for Hakeem though.
For all the talk of what Hakeem did to Ewing, Robinson and Shaq, the team that owned him was Seattle, who didn't have a center of consequence compared to the ones he went through during his title run. Showing that it wasn't so much about who the opposing center was, but about the team defense. So I've finally put aside that reservation.
The fact that he was able to win a title while being the league's leading scorer is a plus. It showed his scoring didn't come at the detriment of the team. If it doesn't help your team win, it doesn't matter. But his efficient scoring helped his team win.
I don't like his durability, but after reading ElGee's post on the matter, I begrudgingly accept the fact that he's going to miss games every year so long as it won't hurt the bottom line.
This I don't like, though:
ThaRegul8r wrote:4. The ability to block out distractions and anything irrelevant to the maximization of the team’s chances of victory.
Shaq falls short in this, as does Kobe (which will dock him in comparison to certain others). You have posters talking about "team support" and coaching, and yet Shaq had a top ten all-time player at his side making them the only duo in NBA history with that caliber of talent and still young—Magic was a rookie when he got to the Lakers, and Kareem had his last MVP season and he declined as Magic rose (there was talk of them being the GOAT duo), and the man many call the GOAT coach, yet he couldn't make it work (same goes for Kobe). That's a big "black mark," and it resulted in the premature ending of a dynasty. If both of them truly cared about winning, they'd make it work. They both had the coaching and they had the help, but they threw it all away because of ego.
I don't like the fact that Shaq showed the kind of defensive player he could be in the '99-00 season and '01 postseason, but didn't do it outside those instances. He doesn't have to be Russell/Hakeem/Robinson/Garnett/etc. He didn't play to his own demonstrated abilities, and that's a minus. Some people try to pretend this doesn't exist, when teammates who were actually on the floor with him and his coach who was actually on the sidelines attest to it.
ThaRegul8r wrote:2. The ability to both identify what the team needs at any given moment in order to realize the ultimate object of winning and provide it.
If defense is what the team needs from you, then you play it. Especially when you're the big man, and big men affect a team defense to a greater extent that is possible for any other player on the court. I don't know when defense from your big man isn't necessary in order to help your team win.
Spoiler:
Phil Jackson wrote:I once asked him: “What would be more important, that you play defense and rebound or that you play offense?” His answer was most telling: “I’ve always been an offensive player. I’ve never been a defensive player.” To understand his mind-set, one has to remember that from the time he became dominant in grade school, Shaq was told over and over by his coaches: “Do not foul! Do not foul!” Fouling out meant then, as it does today, that he would squander the opportunity to help his team the way he feels is best, on offense. Without denigrating Shaq’s contributions in that department, especially in the playoffs, when he has consistently deflated the opposition with thirty-point, twenty-rebound nights, the simple truth is that big men affect the outcome of the game more on defense than offense. The elite centers in the game’s past—Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon—made it extremely difficult for other teams to score in the paint. I constantly have to remind Shaq: “If the other players are playing pressure defense, you have to play pressure defense. Because if your man steps up and receives the pass, it takes all the pressure off the ball. Everyone’s on the ball, and now your man steps into the gap, you don’t go out with him, and our defense is compromised.” Four active defenders isn’t enough. Each of the Bulls’ centers during our reign was extremely active. I will say this: when Shaq wants to elevate his game, he can play defense as well as anyone. Although he has paid more attention to his conditioning, it remains to be seen how hard he’s prepared to work at that end of the floor.
I don't like how he'd half-*** it out there during the regular season. When you talk about greatest players of all time, you've got players out there who didn't, yet still turned it up during the postseason. Shaq isn't unique in the ability to play well during the playoffs. I'll stop it right here, as I don't wish it to get too long. But the minuses he has might cost him as far as I'm concerned against some of the competition he has here.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
The Infamous1 wrote:Kobe overall in the playoffs post shaq
Kobe(2006-2012, Didn't play in 2013) 29/5/5 55%TS Series W/L: 13-5 72% Record With HCA: 13-1 92% Against 50 win teams: 10-4/71% Finals: W/L 2-1 67%
How did Kobe fare when facing elite defenses in that span? His numbers plummeted when he didn't get to face the Nuggets and Suns.
In 08 he killed San Antonio (3rd ranked defense) and was locked down by the Celtics (like everyone else) surprisingly outside of Rip Hamilton no one had a good series against that team.
Overall he averaged 27.3/5.1/4.5 on 54 TS against those 2 teams.
In 09 against the 4th ranked Rockets defense with both Shane Battier and Ron Artest to guard him he went crazy and then he went crazy against the number one ranked Orlando defense (who did get killed by perimeter stars often).
In 2010 he was good against Boston. Not the greatest but not bad.
Overall against those teams Kobe put up 28.5/5.8/4.7 on 53.3 TS (10.1 TOV%). He did great against all defenses aside from Boston.
Mutnt wrote:Yea, the difference is LeBron is actually a better player than Duncan, who would've known?
Lebron is a better player than Duncan. Duncan's only argument left is longevity which is legitimate but if this was simply prime v prime Lebron wins hands down.
Mutnt wrote:This 'alternate universe' isn't as alternate anymore since Duncan isn't anywhere close to replicating his former impact yet the Spurs are playing the best basketball I've ever seen them play. What does that say? People are acting like if you removed Duncan from the Spurs they'd fall completely apart.
Oh, and stop with this 'exhibiting HOF coaching prior to Duncan'. Pop barely coached before Duncan came into the NBA. And yes, his coaching 15 years ago obviously wasn't as good as now (doesn't also mean he was trash). It's called experience.
Doesn't the italicized portion partly answer the underlined question? It seems contradictory to argue that Popovich has improved as a coach since he began and to dismiss the view without consideration that the Spurs would fall apart without Duncan during his prime years.
By fall apart, I mean fall from title contention to playoff team not worse in the league.
He consistently fell off when he faced good defenses (ie: teams other than the Suns).
Like I said, people come up with criteria for Kobe that is applied to no one else. Why not focus on impact instead of these obscure tangents.
Peak Kobe was 30/6/5 57% TS in the playoffs, and that's going through a tough West. Point blank, Kobe did better than Shaq when they had similar support. You keep dancing around that fact. A bigman who plays mediocre defense, is not as impactful as a versatile elite wing.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
He consistently fell off when he faced good defenses (ie: teams other than the Suns).
Not true. His numbers plummeted in elimination games against everyone and outside of the 08 Finals you can't point to one bad series Kobe had at his peak. I already posted the numbers but 29/6/5 are not bad at all especially when for the sample I only took top 5 defenses and the sample includes 3 #1 defenses.
