Has Kobe surpassed Hakeem?

Kobe8Player wrote:Hakeem had one of the best primes ever imo. In their primes Hakeem tops Kobe but Kobe will soon surpass him in overall career rankings. Both player belong to All Time Top 10 list.

Right now according to Hall of Fame Monitor he has.

coolnerd88 · Post #24 » by **coolnerd88** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:12 pm

I'm sorry but is he even ahead of Duncan?...lets not forget that Duncan had his own little mini Jordan era in which he was stopping capable teams from becoming champions due to the fact that he was just better than their star

Post #25 » by **Doctor MJ** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:11 pm

coolnerd88 wrote:I'm sorry but is he even ahead of Duncan?...lets not forget that Duncan had his own little mini Jordan era in which he was stopping capable teams from becoming champions due to the fact that he was just better than their star

Agreed, Hakeem vs Duncan is well within the realm of debate.

Post #26 » by **semi-sentient** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:20 pm

coolnerd88 wrote:I'm sorry but is he even ahead of Duncan?...lets not forget that Duncan had his own little mini Jordan era in which he was stopping capable teams from becoming champions due to the fact that he was just better than their star

You really think that the 49-win Nets and 50-win Cavs were capable teams, or do you mean the teams out West who would have surely become eventual champions had they made it that far?

Let's not act like Duncan prevented some great teams from getting a title the way Jordan's Bulls denied the Lakers, Suns, Blazers, Sonics, and Jazz their titles. All of those teams were considerably better than anything Duncan has gone against in the Finals.

Post #27 » by **Doctor MJ** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:45 pm

semi-sentient wrote:
coolnerd88 wrote:I'm sorry but is he even ahead of Duncan?...lets not forget that Duncan had his own little mini Jordan era in which he was stopping capable teams from becoming champions due to the fact that he was just better than their star

You really think that the 49-win Nets and 50-win Cavs were capable teams, or do you mean the teams out West who would have surely become eventual champions had they made it that far?

Let's not act like Duncan prevented some great teams from getting a title the way Jordan's Bulls denied the Lakers, Suns, Blazers, Sonics, and Jazz their titles. All of those teams were considerably better than anything Duncan has gone against in the Finals.

Be reasonable now - those two teams weren't even close to the best teams the Spurs beat. During the Shaq-Kobe run, the Lakers & Spurs faced off every year Duncan was healthy and the Spurs won 2 out of 5. When the Spurs won their first title, the only reason they didn't play the 2-time defending WC champs (the Jazz, who were still putting up the same elite record they'd had previously) was that they went up against an elite Blazer team instead who the next year almost beat the Shaq-Kobe Lakers.

Let's also not make this a Duncan vs Jordan argument. We're talking about Hakeem here. Yeah he beat some strong teams, but it's not like year in and year out the Rockets kept all those teams from getting to the finals. The Rockets managed to get past them all twice. They only managed to even get to the WCF one other time, where they lost to the Jazz just a couple years before the Spurs won their first ring.

An Unbiased Fan · Post #28 » by **An Unbiased Fan** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:45 pm

semi-sentient wrote:
coolnerd88 wrote:I'm sorry but is he even ahead of Duncan?...lets not forget that Duncan had his own little mini Jordan era in which he was stopping capable teams from becoming champions due to the fact that he was just better than their star

You really think that the 49-win Nets and 50-win Cavs were capable teams, or do you mean the teams out West who would have surely become eventual champions had they made it that far?

Let's not act like Duncan prevented some great teams from getting a title the way Jordan's Bulls denied the Lakers, Suns, Blazers, Sonics, and Jazz their titles. All of those teams were considerably better than anything Duncan has gone against in the Finals.

I would also add that Kobe had a major hand in stopping TD from repeating(outside of 00').
-In 2002, Kobe had 3 10+ 4th quarters, and led LA back from double digit 2nd half deficits each time.
-In 2004, SA had a 2-1 lead and Kobe explodes for 42 points, an hour after flying in from Colorado, and leads LA back to a 4-2 series win.
-In 2008, Kobe took them apart.

microfib4thewin · Post #29 » by **microfib4thewin** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:59 pm

D Nice wrote:So Duncan is irrefutably better than Bryant, but it is a question whether or not Bryant has surpassed Hakeem?

There is a difference between the two threads. On the Duncan-Kobe thread, it's about who you would build a team around, and the choice is obviously Duncan because he never threw a fit and make public trade demands like Kobe did. This thread is a regular comparison of peak and career. No one doubts Hakeem's peak is higher, but if Kobe can put up another great playoff run and winning the title I can see their career to be about equal.

NYK 455 · Post #30 » by **NYK 455** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:48 pm

In terms of accolades, it's close. But if we're talking about actual play this is Hakeem easily.

bastillon · Post #31 » by **bastillon** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:42 pm

Be reasonable now - those two teams weren't even close to the best teams the Spurs beat. During the Shaq-Kobe run, the Lakers & Spurs faced off every year Duncan was healthy and the Spurs won 2 out of 5. When the Spurs won their first title, the only reason they didn't play the 2-time defending WC champs (the Jazz, who were still putting up the same elite record they'd had previously) was that they went up against an elite Blazer team instead who the next year almost beat the Shaq-Kobe Lakers.

nice try of manipulating. "2 out of 5" my ass. in '99 Kobe wasn't as developed, Phil wasn't there, role players weren't as good either... they were a very good team, but nowhere near elite.

in '03:

Kobe injured his shoulder in 2003 first round against the Wolves and although he played a great series against Minnesota(having as bad defenders as Wally and Peeler on him helped), he couldn't flat out dominate the Spurs like he did previous years. Kobe averaged 32/5/3.7 that year but he shot only 43% and commited 4.5 TOs a game. Shaq played great with 25/14, too, but the Lakers had absolutely no help from other players. Rick Fox wasn't even playing, injured himself vs Wolves IIRC, George was playing through enormous pain and couldn't contribute to the team. with both Fox and George injured, there was nobody to play SF. Horry was playing terribly in that series. shot 26% from the field and didn't make one single three. Fisher was the only bright side for LA, as he had hot hand and shot 61.5% from 3s. the point is that Lakers had no depth whatsoever and with injuries bothering couple of players, they couldn't compete with the best teams.

they weren't a great team in either year as you're making them out to be. Lakers were borderline title contender during those years, kind of like Atlanta or Suns are now. and I'm not talking about how they were perceived but how they actually performed. lack of Phil + role players in '99 and injuries in '03 is what was missing from those teams. it was NOT Spurs greatness killing them.

that "elite" Blazer team (no Pippen, no Steve Smith, no Schrempf)... was nowhere close to '00 Blazers.

sp6r=underrated · Post #32 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:47 pm

Bastillon once again shows he will do anything to downgrade Duncan and the Spur's accomplishments. Its hilarious the way he tries to * everything Duncan and Spurs accomplished.

bastillon · Post #33 » by **bastillon** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:54 pm

I understand that you're a little upset because you're a big fan of Duncan... but there's no counterargument for that. Spurs competition in title years pretty much sucked... and when they faced a title caliber team, it was either very close or lost. they never won convincingly against a great team.

I respect Duncan as a player. I think he's right there with Bird and Magic. I rank him higher than most people so it's not the issue. the problem is when people are starting look at this as if he was dominating in the playoffs the way Hakeem or MJ did... but as great as he was, he never played at that level.

sp6r=underrated · Post #34 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:04 pm

bastillon wrote:I understand that you're a little upset because you're a big fan of Duncan... but there's no counterargument for that. Spurs competition in title years pretty much sucked... and when they faced a title caliber team, it was either very close or lost. they never won convincingly against a great team.

I respect Duncan as a player. I think he's right there with Bird and Magic. I rank him higher than most people so it's not the issue. the problem is when people are starting look at this as if he was dominating in the playoffs the way Hakeem or MJ did... but as great as he was, he never played at that level.

Uh no. First the Spurs went 8-3 vs the Suns whose average SRS those year was 7.17 which very much makes clear they were a title caliber club. The Spurs faced pretty normal competition.

Code: Select all

94/95 Rockets     0.726
79/80 Lakers      0.691
96/97 Bulls       0.689
01/02 Lakers      0.671
00/01 Lakers      0.668
92/93 Bulls       0.668
04/05 Spurs       0.662
05/06 Heat        0.653
75th PERCENTILE   0.65275
97/98 Bulls       0.652
95/96 Bulls       0.649
93/94 Rockets     0.649
99/00 Lakers      0.647
06/07 Spurs       0.631
03/04 Pistons     0.625
82/83 Sixers      0.622
MEDIAN            0.6205
91/92 Bulls       0.619
02/03 Spurs       0.619
81/82 Lakers      0.618
78/79 Sonics      0.614
89/90 Pistons     0.613
07/08 Celtics     0.604
80/81 Celtics     0.598
25th PERCENTILE   0.59575
88/89 Pistons     0.595
98/99 Spurs       0.59
84/85 Lakers      0.588
90/91 Bulls       0.583
85/86 Celtics     0.573
83/84 Celtics     0.567
87/88 Lakers      0.564
86/87 Lakers      0.54

and if you are going to play the injuries, bad officiating, easy road to a championship card that you always play.

Well then, I hope you * these champions as well

04 Pistons: injuries to Malone
02 Lakers: injuries to Peja and Robinson, plus officiating in game 6
89 Pistons: injuries to Bird, Magic, and Scott
88 Lakers: Phantom foul gift to Kareem
87 Lakers: West was a joke that year
86 Celtics: injuries to Moncrief

I'm sure other posters on realgm can come up with other reasons to * different champions.

And yea Duncan never consistently played at MJ's level save a random game or series. I've never said otherwise nor do I ever remember a consistent amount of posters claiming otherwise. But TD's playoff stats are nearly identical to your hero Hakeem once you factor in pace.

That Nicka · Post #35 » by **That Nicka** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:18 pm

I dunno, for me it goes

7) Shaq
8) Duncan/Hakeem
9) Hakeem/Duncan
10) Kobe

It's tough for me to separate Duncan/Hakeem because imo Hakeem was the better offensive and defensive player, but its not a considerable gap in either category and Duncan has twice as many rings.. Hakeem had a worse supporting cast though (imo) and Duncan had lesser competition in the years he won so I dunno... It's tough

Depending on how long Kobe plays, how long he plays at an All-NBA level, and how many more rings he wins will determine if he passes either of these two

Dr Positivity · Post #36 » by **Dr Positivity** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:21 pm

This thread is just asking for it, lol. Kobe fans AND Hakeem fans... DUEL!!!

bastillon · Post #37 » by **bastillon** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:25 pm

Uh no. First the Spurs went 8-3 vs the Suns whose average SRS those year was 7.17 which very much makes clear they were a title caliber club. The Spurs faced pretty normal competition.

* JJ's injury
** suspensions + Donaghy in G3

they only won a legit title in '05 but it was barely and Duncan wasn't their best player in the finals anyway.

Well then, I hope you * these champions as well

04 Pistons: injuries to Malone
02 Lakers: injuries to Peja and Robinson, plus officiating in game 6
89 Pistons: injuries to Bird, Magic, and Scott
88 Lakers: Phantom foul gift to Kareem
87 Lakers: West was a joke that year
86 Celtics: injuries to Moncrief

yeah, I do.

04 Pistons won because of injuries - they were last team standing. Lakers lost Malone and were generally bothered by injuries, Cassell and Hudson were injured from Wolves (KG was their damn PG), JO and Tinsley were injured for Pacers. I think healthy Wolves make the finals, and I doubt Pistons get past healthy Pacers... and even then you have Wolves waiting for them.

02 Lakers is a legit title, because they had to go through some really good competition, but I could see Kings' case as well... but it was more luck rather than Stern or whatever. Peja hit an airball on series winning shot (and title winning actually) when he was wide open in the corner. that's the reason they lost. no * here.

'89 Pistons would win anyway, no *. in '88 they should've won, no question. that's a * for the Lakers. '87 Lakers had to go through significant competition in the finals though. Celtics were banged up and injured but they were still a great team without a doubt. '86 Moncrief is a significant loss that wouldn't have changed the course of the series anyway. Celtics were a far better team than Milwaukee.

I'd put * on '71 Bucks. they had some really pathetic competition. '58 Hawks as well (Russell's injury). I think 70s Celtics are underrated and could've won like 5 titles easily, but they had some badluck, terrible timing in terms of injuries and some strong opposition too.

Post #38 » by **semi-sentient** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:26 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:Let's also not make this a Duncan vs Jordan argument.

I wasn't.

I was responding to someone how compared his "mini run" to that of Jordan's. In no way am I saying that what Duncan did wasn't impressive, but what Jordan did was pretty legendary and in a different league.

I'm usually always defending Duncan (think he's the best playoff performer of the 00's), but to me that was a bit extreme. Or maybe I was bored.

You're right, Kobe vs. Hakeem is the topic so let's focus on that.

Hakeem is still ahead in my book, but Kobe is closing in. It would take Kobe leading the Lakers to another title for him to surpass Hakeem, at a minimum.

Silver Bullet · Post #39 » by **Silver Bullet** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:37 pm

Kobe8Player wrote:Hakeem had one of the best primes ever imo. In their primes Hakeem tops Kobe but Kobe will soon surpass him in overall career rankings. Both player belong to All Time Top 10 list.

Are you out of your mind ? Please explain how Hakeem had one of the best primes of all time. I mean, let's stack up some of those seasons against Shaq, Wilt, Jordan, Lebron, Mcgrady, David Robinson.

Even I didn't think Hakeem was this over rated.

sp6r=underrated · Post #40 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:40 pm

bastillon wrote:02 Lakers is a legit title, because they had to go through some really good competition, but I could see Kings' case as well... but it was more luck rather than Stern or whatever. Peja hit an airball on series winning shot (and title winning actually) when he was wide open in the corner. that's the reason they lost. no * here.

I'll focus on this one, you can't * the 07 Spurs and not * the 02 Lakers. The lakers only played 2 (by your standards) legit teams, Sacramento and SA. The Spurs 2nd best player missed the first 2 games due to injury. The Kings 2nd best player, Peja, missed 4 games due to injuries and only was a part time player in the other games (played 62 minutes in a 7 game series). Game 6 was officiated just as questionably as the 07 Suns Spurs game that you love to complain about. I don't think the 02 Lakers (or any NBA champion) deserves an *, but if your gonna hit the Spurs with an * this Laker team also deserves an * and a lot of other NBA champions as well.