Has the best player of every decade other than the 90's played for the Lakers?

[NotaHypeJob]

Kobe had more talent than Duncan, and he accomplished more, so he is clearly the best of 00's.

Neither of those statements is true.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Kobe definitely accomplished more in the 00's.
They have the same number of MVPs, same number of Finals MVP but 4 rings compared to 3 for Duncan. And 6 finals visits compared to 3.

[Capn'O]

Wilt wasn't on the Lakers until nearly the 70s.

The Lakers all time roster is bananas though. Second to none.

[dhsilv2]

Kobe had more talent than Duncan, and he accomplished more, so he is clearly the best of 00's.

Neither of those statements is true.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Kobe definitely accomplished more in the 00's.
They have the same number of MVPs, same number of Finals MVP but 4 rings compared to 3 for Duncan. And 6 finals visits compared to 3.

Duncan has 2 MVPs to Kobe's 1. Kobe missed the playoffs. Kobe had a worse record overall. Duncan made more 1st team all nba's. Duncan made more all nba defensive teams. Duncan has a higher regular season and playoff WS, VORP, and PER.

No....duncan just flat out was better than Kobe in the decade.

[KG Leonard]

Russell has no case for the 60s because his legendary team of Hall famers won more than Wilt.

Wilt is arguably the most dominant offensive player ever, the guy destroyed Russell vs individual in most of their playoff games. His playoff career was like Lebron in 2015 finals losing to better team but they couldnt slow him down


Duncan is best of 2000s but Wilt not being best player of 1960s is imo like saying Curry or Durant is the best of 2010 over Lebron. Because they won over him with those weaker Cavs. Rings are not everything,Wilt is potential GOAT with 13 seasons,Russell never had that level of offensive talent.

Skickat från min SM-N950F via Tapatalk

Russell is seen as the better player because he was the better basketball player, not because he won more. The winning lead people to taking more time to figure out why, where they discovered that while Wilt was a good offensive player, he's nowhere near one of the most dominate offensive players (he was far better defensive player than he was offensively) and that Russell had more impact on defense than anyone has ever had in nba history and by a margin.

The problem is that Russell gets way too much credit for 11 titles, he has no real case against the freak that has all records, could lead the league in assist, rebound like the best of them. I don't even give credit Wilt for his defense because even if Russell was goat defender he wasn't the better player overall. Sure Wilt might not have reached his potential, wasn't the best in all the playoffs. It scary he scored so much, has untouchable records when he wasn't all that great offensive player in your eyes. I have huge respect for Russell as all-time defender, player, leader but he wasn't MVP, best in the league for decade if Celtics didn't have all-time team. He was less talented than Wilt in half of the game. Scoring wise some of their match up was not in the same world.

This reminds if Green dismissing Barkley like being the best means winning finals.




Skickat från min SM-N950F via Tapatalk

[dhsilv2]

Russell has no case for the 60s because his legendary team of Hall famers won more than Wilt.

Wilt is arguably the most dominant offensive player ever, the guy destroyed Russell vs individual in most of their playoff games. His playoff career was like Lebron in 2015 finals losing to better team but they couldnt slow him down


Duncan is best of 2000s but Wilt not being best player of 1960s is imo like saying Curry or Durant is the best of 2010 over Lebron. Because they won over him with those weaker Cavs. Rings are not everything,Wilt is potential GOAT with 13 seasons,Russell never had that level of offensive talent.

Skickat från min SM-N950F via Tapatalk

Russell is seen as the better player because he was the better basketball player, not because he won more. The winning lead people to taking more time to figure out why, where they discovered that while Wilt was a good offensive player, he's nowhere near one of the most dominate offensive players (he was far better defensive player than he was offensively) and that Russell had more impact on defense than anyone has ever had in nba history and by a margin.

The problem is that Russell gets way too much credit for 11 titles, he has no real case against the freak that has all records, could lead the league in assist, rebound like the best of them. I don't even give credit Wilt for his defense because even if Russell was goat defender he wasn't the better player overall. Sure Wilt might not have reached his potential, wasn't the best in all the playoffs. It scary he scored so much, has untouchable records when he wasn't all that great offensive player in your eyes. I have huge respect for Russell as all-time defender, player, leader but he wasn't MVP, best in the league for decade if Celtics didn't have all-time team. He was less talented than Wilt in half of the game. Scoring wise some of their match up was not in the same world.

This reminds if Green dismissing Barkley like being the best means winning finals.




Skickat från min SM-N950F via Tapatalk

Russell was just better. Anyone who can turn off tapatalk signatures would know this!

But seriously, while the data isn't as large as we'd want, we have enough evidence on Russell's impact to make a legitimate case that he's the most impactful individual player in NBA history. He was simply that good on defense. Remember in that era, defense was far FAR more important than offense. Neither of these guys were going to come close to match West or Oscar in terms of offensive impact, but none the less they were the two best players in that era, almost completely on their defense. Wilt's teams simply didn't benefit from those record setting scoring feats like people want to make it out to be. That isn't to say he's a bad offensive player, but the impact on his team's scoring just doesn't seem to play out when we look at the data and the history.

[Myth]

1950's - George Mikan
1960's - Wilt Chamberlain
1970's Kareem Abdul Jabbar
1980's - Magic Johnson
1990's - Michael Jordan (Obviously did not play for the Lakers)
2000's - Kobe Bryant
2010's - Lebron James


Pretty insane that a case could be made one team had the best player of every decade other than one suit up for them.

Im not sure Kobe was the best player of that decade in the 2000's. Although I can see the argument considering the Lakers made the finals 7 times within that time frame. The first four finals trips (winning 3) included Shaquille O'Neal that many consider the franchise player. Kobe didnt breakthrough to win the chip as the defacto franchise player without Shaq until 2009 and 2010. I would put Duncan as the player of the decade before I would choose Kobe. Spurs won chips in 2003, 2005 and 2007 with Duncan as the franchise player. If you want to say Shaq that could be different argument.

6 times.

Looking at MVPs, rings and FMVPS of the 2000s only:
Kobe 1 MVP, 4 rings (1 FMVP)
Shaq 1 MVP, 4 rings (3 FMVPs)
Duncan 2 MVPs, 3 rings (3 FMVPs)

I think Kobe is clearly 3rd among those accolades (though that obviously isn't the full picture).

[BigtimeNBAfan]

Good discussion. Thanks for your input.

[SmashMouthRod]

1950's - George Mikan
1960's - Wilt Chamberlain
1970's Kareem Abdul Jabbar
1980's - Magic Johnson
1990's - Michael Jordan (Obviously did not play for the Lakers)
2000's - Kobe Bryant
2010's - Lebron James


Pretty insane that a case could be made one team had the best player of every decade other than one suit up for them.

Im not sure Kobe was the best player of that decade in the 2000's. Although I can see the argument considering the Lakers made the finals 7 times within that time frame. The first four finals trips (winning 3) included Shaquille O'Neal that many consider the franchise player. Kobe didnt breakthrough to win the chip as the defacto franchise player without Shaq until 2009 and 2010. I would put Duncan as the player of the decade before I would choose Kobe. Spurs won chips in 2003, 2005 and 2007 with Duncan as the franchise player. If you want to say Shaq that could be different argument.

6 times.

Looking at MVPs, rings and FMVPS of the 2000s only:
Kobe 1 MVP, 4 rings (1 FMVP)
Shaq 1 MVP, 4 rings (3 FMVPs)
Duncan 2 MVPs, 3 rings (3 FMVPs)

I think Kobe is clearly 3rd among those accolades (though that obviously isn't the full picture).

1. (2000) Lakers vs Pacers
2. (2001) Lakers vs 76ers
3. (2002) Lakers vs Nets
4. (2004) Lakers vs Pistons
5. (2008) Lakers vs Celtics
6. (2009) Lakers vs Magic
7. (2010) Lakers vs Celtics

[KG Leonard]

Russell is seen as the better player because he was the better basketball player, not because he won more. The winning lead people to taking more time to figure out why, where they discovered that while Wilt was a good offensive player, he's nowhere near one of the most dominate offensive players (he was far better defensive player than he was offensively) and that Russell had more impact on defense than anyone has ever had in nba history and by a margin.

The problem is that Russell gets way too much credit for 11 titles, he has no real case against the freak that has all records, could lead the league in assist, rebound like the best of them. I don't even give credit Wilt for his defense because even if Russell was goat defender he wasn't the better player overall. Sure Wilt might not have reached his potential, wasn't the best in all the playoffs. It scary he scored so much, has untouchable records when he wasn't all that great offensive player in your eyes. I have huge respect for Russell as all-time defender, player, leader but he wasn't MVP, best in the league for decade if Celtics didn't have all-time team. He was less talented than Wilt in half of the game. Scoring wise some of their match up was not in the same world.

This reminds if Green dismissing Barkley like being the best means winning finals.




Skickat från min SM-N950F via Tapatalk

Russell was just better. Anyone who can turn off tapatalk signatures would know this!

But seriously, while the data isn't as large as we'd want, we have enough evidence on Russell's impact to make a legitimate case that he's the mos impactful individual player in NBA history.
He was simply that good on defense. Remember in that era, defense was far FAR more important than offense.

You made a bad point about me not caring about taptalk signature but his defense is legendary we all know that. He was also limited in other parts of the game, which is why I think the decade belongs to Celtics as team but player wise Wilt easy.
You can't rate his defense so high and underrate the scoring of Wilt who only MJ can compare career ppg, all-time leader in other parts. Of course Russell's D was more important than his offence , he played with so many HOF scorers,shooters that he could score 6 ppg and win finals he failed to stop Wilt.

Would he win those titles in Bucks carrying decent teams.... I'm not dissing ATG player but winning teams are overrated in individual comps, match ups. It wasn't Wilt vs Russell in the finals.



Skickat från min SM-N950F via Tapatalk

[Myth]

Im not sure Kobe was the best player of that decade in the 2000's. Although I can see the argument considering the Lakers made the finals 7 times within that time frame. The first four finals trips (winning 3) included Shaquille O'Neal that many consider the franchise player. Kobe didnt breakthrough to win the chip as the defacto franchise player without Shaq until 2009 and 2010. I would put Duncan as the player of the decade before I would choose Kobe. Spurs won chips in 2003, 2005 and 2007 with Duncan as the franchise player. If you want to say Shaq that could be different argument.

6 times.

Looking at MVPs, rings and FMVPS of the 2000s only:
Kobe 1 MVP, 4 rings (1 FMVP)
Shaq 1 MVP, 4 rings (3 FMVPs)
Duncan 2 MVPs, 3 rings (3 FMVPs)

I think Kobe is clearly 3rd among those accolades (though that obviously isn't the full picture).

1. (2000) Lakers vs Pacers
2. (2001) Lakers vs 76ers
3. (2002) Lakers vs Nets
4. (2004) Lakers vs Pistons
5. (2008) Lakers vs Celtics
6. (2009) Lakers vs Magic
7. (2010) Lakers vs Celtics

2010 is part of the 2010s. This should be obvious. The 2000s decades is 2000-2009.

[JayMKE]

Kobe wasn't the best player of the early 2000s and Wilt was past his prime by the time he came to Los Angeles. Mikan played in Minnesota too, still the Lakers I guess but not exactly the same.

[Myth]

Kobe wasn't the best player of the early 2000s and Wilt was past his prime by the time he came to Los Angeles. Mikan played in Minnesota too, still the Lakers I guess but not exactly the same.

I think the point is more that the Lakers have had at least at some point had the top player of each decade (minus the 90s, and arguably not some of the other decades), even if they didn't have him throughout that time. Otherwise, LeBron would fit into the argument that the Lakers didn't have him most of the 2010s and they sucked the year they had him in the 2010s. But ultimately, LeBron was the best of the 2010s, and ultimately he did become a Laker.

[Lost Angel]

Kobe played in 7 of the 10 finals in the 00’s and won 5 of them. He’s the best player that decade.

[dhsilv2]

The problem is that Russell gets way too much credit for 11 titles, he has no real case against the freak that has all records, could lead the league in assist, rebound like the best of them. I don't even give credit Wilt for his defense because even if Russell was goat defender he wasn't the better player overall. Sure Wilt might not have reached his potential, wasn't the best in all the playoffs. It scary he scored so much, has untouchable records when he wasn't all that great offensive player in your eyes. I have huge respect for Russell as all-time defender, player, leader but he wasn't MVP, best in the league for decade if Celtics didn't have all-time team. He was less talented than Wilt in half of the game. Scoring wise some of their match up was not in the same world.

This reminds if Green dismissing Barkley like being the best means winning finals.




Skickat från min SM-N950F via Tapatalk

Russell was just better. Anyone who can turn off tapatalk signatures would know this!

But seriously, while the data isn't as large as we'd want, we have enough evidence on Russell's impact to make a legitimate case that he's the mos impactful individual player in NBA history.
He was simply that good on defense. Remember in that era, defense was far FAR more important than offense.

You made a bad point about me not caring about taptalk signature but his defense is legendary we all know that. He was also limited in other parts of the game, which is why I think the decade belongs to Celtics as team but player wise Wilt easy.
You can't rate his defense so high and underrate the scoring of Wilt who only MJ can compare career ppg, all-time leader in other parts. Of course Russell's D was more important than his offence , he played with so many HOF scorers,shooters that he could score 6 ppg and win finals he failed to stop Wilt.

Would he win those titles in Bucks carrying decent teams.... I'm not dissing ATG player but winning teams are overrated in individual comps, match ups. It wasn't Wilt vs Russell in the finals.



Skickat från min SM-N950F via Tapatalk

I'm just saying smart people don't have tapatalk sigs

I am not dismissing wilt's scoring, I"m pointing out that even with all that scoring he had at best allstar level offensive impact, not even all nba level, until his breaking super seasons in 67, but he never really got back to those peaks again. Otherwise we simply don't see the impact in his scoring leading to elite or actually for most of his career even average nba offense.

Comparing him to MJ is absurd. When MJ joined the bulls they went from 22nd of 23 teams in offense to 11th. A jordan lead bulls team even before he "figured it out" was always at least an average nba offense. Wilt on the other hand spent most of his major scoring years on well below average offenses (based on team ranking) and once he left his first team, with a rookie rick barry the team's scoring was right back to where it had been in the last full wilt season they had. Scoring points only matters if you're creating better offense....with wilt....he certainly wasn't a bad offensive player, but he simply didn't have star level offensive impact.

[dhsilv2]

Kobe played in 7 of the 10 finals in the 00’s and won 5 of them. He’s the best player that decade.

That's an argument for the laker's being the best franchise, not for kobe. It's also not true...

[dhsilv2]

1950's - George Mikan
1960's - Wilt Chamberlain
1970's Kareem Abdul Jabbar
1980's - Magic Johnson
1990's - Michael Jordan (Obviously did not play for the Lakers)
2000's - Kobe Bryant
2010's - Lebron James


Pretty insane that a case could be made one team had the best player of every decade other than one suit up for them.

Im not sure Kobe was the best player of that decade in the 2000's. Although I can see the argument considering the Lakers made the finals 7 times within that time frame. The first four finals trips (winning 3) included Shaquille O'Neal that many consider the franchise player. Kobe didnt breakthrough to win the chip as the defacto franchise player without Shaq until 2009 and 2010. I would put Duncan as the player of the decade before I would choose Kobe. Spurs won chips in 2003, 2005 and 2007 with Duncan as the franchise player. If you want to say Shaq that could be different argument.

6 times.

Looking at MVPs, rings and FMVPS of the 2000s only:
Kobe 1 MVP, 4 rings (1 FMVP)
Shaq 1 MVP, 4 rings (3 FMVPs)
Duncan 2 MVPs, 3 rings (3 FMVPs)

I think Kobe is clearly 3rd among those accolades (though that obviously isn't the full picture).

If you're being technical it's 2 FMVP's for Duncan (03 and 05) as Parker won it in 07 despite Duncan being the best player in the league that year (all due respect to lebron). Given Duncan won the finals MVP and ring in 99 and Kobe in 10...both have a title and finals MVP missing with this 10 year split.

[leolozon]

Kobe played in 7 of the 10 finals in the 00’s and won 5 of them. He’s the best player that decade.

That's an argument for the laker's beg the best franchise, not for kobe. It's also not true...

Yeah, some people don’t understand the concept of a decade... they think it’s 11 years.

[elBJ]

There is no way around Russel with 9/10 championships that decade, so a clear cut no!!!

Don’t mean to knock any individual player involved, but the Celtics had a better overall team than wilt and Jerry West so it wasn’t Russell above everyone else in the 60’s.

Sorry, but I'm not going to discuss, if the best player of the team that won 9/10 in the 60's is the decades best player.

[Myth]

Im not sure Kobe was the best player of that decade in the 2000's. Although I can see the argument considering the Lakers made the finals 7 times within that time frame. The first four finals trips (winning 3) included Shaquille O'Neal that many consider the franchise player. Kobe didnt breakthrough to win the chip as the defacto franchise player without Shaq until 2009 and 2010. I would put Duncan as the player of the decade before I would choose Kobe. Spurs won chips in 2003, 2005 and 2007 with Duncan as the franchise player. If you want to say Shaq that could be different argument.

6 times.

Looking at MVPs, rings and FMVPS of the 2000s only:
Kobe 1 MVP, 4 rings (1 FMVP)
Shaq 1 MVP, 4 rings (3 FMVPs)
Duncan 2 MVPs, 3 rings (3 FMVPs)

I think Kobe is clearly 3rd among those accolades (though that obviously isn't the full picture).

If you're being technical it's 2 FMVP's for Duncan (03 and 05) as Parker won it in 07 despite Duncan being the best player in the league that year (all due respect to lebron). Given Duncan won the finals MVP and ring in 99 and Kobe in 10...both have a title and finals MVP missing with this 10 year split.

You are correct. Totally forgot for a moment that Parker snuck away with one.

[Tiny ball]

I would give the 1960s to John Havlicek no one was beating him.