Minus the rings and MVP's

[kingfish]

How many hall of famers do you think are on this years Lakers championship team? Excluding the coaches. Just curious.

 

How many hall of famers did Magic have on his team when he led a team to a championship. Just curious.

Edited September 11, 2009 by kingfish

[Sky]

Magic played in nine NBA finals. They weren't all with Kareem and Worthy at his side. Kobe played with Shaq, Payton and Malone - and lost. I don't see a need to denigrate either one, or overload a question or a point to take the other down. Kobe is more skilled and more balanced overall, Magic is the better leader and game manager. I prefer the latter but I certainly appreciate both and am very grateful they're Lakers for life.

[Diesel]

Do you know how many rings Jordan won before Pippen? None.

 

How many rings Shaq won before Kobe? None.

 

How many rings Garnett won before Pierce? None.

 

And he had ONE GREAT GAME that nobody will forget. Good for him. I'm talking 1983, when Cheeks and Erving locked him up. What happened there? Here, I'll quote it once again for you, just in case you didn't read it all...

 

That 1980 series was against virtually the same Sixer team as in 83 plus Moses Malone of course who wouldn't be assigned to Magic in any matchups anyway.

 

Maybe you should ask Kareem how Moses dick felt all the way up his [expletive] as Moses averaed 26 PP and 18 RPG winnin Finals MVP. Kareem averaed only 7.5 RPG in that series as Moses continously beat him on the glass and threw him around like a rag doll. And it's funny how you say Magic was so bad in that series as he got more RPG than Kareem LOOL. 19.0 PPG 7.8 RPG 12.5 APG were certainly more valuable to the Lakers than anything Kareem offered that series. Magic was still his teams MVP in that series and made a positive contribution to the team all over the court.

 

And to be fair that Sixers team is one of the most talented teams of all-time and would own any Lakers team.

The question is specifically designed to force Kobe as an answer. Bryant is the more skilled player overall, particularly given Magic's defense. However, Magic is the clearly superior leader and game manager. I'd take Magic over Kobe every time without hesitation.

 

Yeah especially when it says "Minus the rings and the MVP's" lmao

Magic 5 time NBA Champion

3 time MVP

3 time Finals MVPs

 

All numbers that own Kobe's. It's a shame that Magic's career was cut short. He did all that in only 12 NBA seasons. Kobe has played 13 NBA seasons so he's already played more than Magic and his accomplishments don't even come close.

 

How many hall of famers do you think are on this years Lakers championship team? Excluding the coaches. Just curious.

 

How many hall of famers did Magic have on his team when he led a team to a championship. Just curious.

 

Lmao at excluding the coaches for Kobe's team, but not Magic's. It's a different era. With all the expansion teams now, team's arn't as stacked anymore as they were in those days. The Celtics(and Sixers at a certain point) had just as much talent on their teams.

 

So I guess Kobe's current championship Laker team would have a chance against Magic's Lakers?

 

C- Andrew Bynum

F- Pau Gasol

F- Trevor Ariza

G- Kobe Bryant

G- Derek Fisher

 

vs

 

C- Kareem Abdul Jabbar

F- AC Green

F- James Worthy

G- Michael Cooper/Byron Scott

G- Magic Johnson

 

Please this anal rape would be worse than the 2007 finals between the Spurs-Cavaliers.

[kingfish]

I think you just proved my point. Kobe had 0 hall of fame teammates and led a team to a championship last year. Magic had a handful of them.

Edited September 12, 2009 by kingfish

[Diesel]

I think you just proved my point. Kobe had 0 hall of fame teammates and led a team to a championship last year. Magic had a handful of them.

 

Dude you completely missed my point at all.

 

It was a different league then. Before the expansion teams came into the league teams were more stacked with talent. Any of the top 4-5 teams in the league would kill the champion of today's league with all the talent on those top dogs. The only team that's ever come close to having 3+ HOF near the prime of their career since the 80s has been Boston Celtics as of now, but even their getting really old and their window was really short. You can't add up talent now like you could back in the day.

 

Now I'm sure you've played "fantasy football". What league is your team more likely to be better in, a 8 team league or a 12 team league? Your 8 team league squad is going to be way better. There are less teams for the top talent to be on meaning more talent for your team overall.

[kingfish]

Doesnt that make Kobes title(s) more impressive then, because he didnt need a hall of fame teammate to win?

[Sky]

kingfish - Not really because the competition is watered down also. Look at the teams Magic and Showtime had to beat. Stacked. Bird, McHale, Parish and DJ. The Dr. J Sixers with Toney and Cheeks. Isiah, Dumars and the Pistons. Who did Shaq and Kobe beat? Indiana with Reggie and Jalen Rose, Philly with Iverson and role players, New Jersey with Kidd. In the 80s with fewer teams and no cap teams were loaded, made it tougher to get through the conference and when you got to the Finals you played a complete team. Cuts both ways. And again, Kobe played on a team with three other first ballot hall of famers and lost.

 

Magic made the finals nine times in 12 years in an era when the competition was much tougher.

 

Shaq was a hall of fame teammate. Last year Kobe is the only hall of famer, but the competition was lighter than what Magic faced. Different eras.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Sky

[kingfish]

Nahh there are multiple teams around the league with multiple hall of famers on them. The Celtics for one, the Spurs, the Mavericks, possibly the Nuggets. Kobe went through all of these teams, by himself. Himself meaning he had no hall of fame teammates, like the teams I listed above.

[Riot]

Nahh there are multiple teams around the league with multiple hall of famers on them. The Celtics for one, the Spurs, the Mavericks, possibly the Nuggets. Kobe went through all of these teams, by himself. Himself meaning he had no hall of fame teammates, like the teams I listed above.

But what do you mean he "went through" them? The only team he faced in the playoffs were the Nuggets, and I'm not sure they had more than one hall of famer.

[Real Deal]

So, if Kobe's titles are watered down...then can we say the same for Shaq's championships? I really need this. This will be wonderful for future debates.

[Diesel]

So, if Kobe's titles are watered down...then can we say the same for Shaq's championships? I really need this. This will be wonderful for future debates.

 

Who said the titles were watered down? Only that the championship teams in the 80's had more talent on them.

 

Nahh there are multiple teams around the league with multiple hall of famers on them. The Celtics for one, the Spurs, the Mavericks, possibly the Nuggets. Kobe went through all of these teams, by himself. Himself meaning he had no hall of fame teammates, like the teams I listed above.

 

lol

 

-Tony Parker and Manu arn't HOF players. If it wasn't for the Spurs being the best team of the decade they wouldn't even be in the discussion.

-Jason Kidd is washed up and way past his prime. I said HOF players in or around their prime.

-Billups isn't a HOF player and Melo has the potential to be, but no as of now.

 

If you don't consider Gasol a HOF player I don't see how you can consider guys like Manu or Billups.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Diesel

[kingfish]

Parker and Kidd will probably be hall of famers.

[Sky]

kingfish - In the west the no D Mavs? The no brains Nuggets? San Antonio when DRob had a back is the only one.

 

As for finals teams. Boston with the big three was solid, and LA lost.

 

Now take who both beat and compare.

 

Kobe

IND Mark Jackson, Reggie Miller, Jalen Rose, Dale Davis, Rik Smits

PHI Eric Snow, Allen Iverson, Aaron McKie, Tyronne Hill, Dikembe Mutombo

NJ Jason Kidd, Kerry Kittles, Richard Jefferson, Kenyon Martin, Jason Collins

ORL Rafer Alston, Courtney Lee, Hedo Turkoglu, Rashard Lewis, Dwight Howard

 

Total number of Hall of Famers: 5 IF Mutombo makes it and he was well past prime in Philly.

Best by position: Kidd, Iverson, Turkoglu, Lewis, Howard with Reggie, Jefferson, Deke and KMart off the bench.

 

Magic

PHI 80 Mo Cheeks, Bobby Jones, Julius Erving, Daryl Dawkins, Caldwell Jones

PHI 82 Andrew Toney instead of Jones

BOS Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish

DET Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Adrian Dantley, Dennis Rodman, Bill Laimbeer

 

Total number of Hall of Famers: 8, off three teams. 9 if DJ gets in and he deserves to as a finals MVP and all-D player.

Best by position: Isiah, Dumars, Bird, McHale, Parish with Dr. J, Dennis Johnson, AD and Rodman off the bench.

 

You honestly going to claim Kobe's competition was remotely comparable?? You can't.

 

Different eras.

[Sky]

Real - Kobe's titles are only watered down comparatively. No one is going to confuse Reggie's Pacers, Iverson's Sixers, Kidd's Nets and last year's Magic with the Bird Celtics, the Bad Boys, or Philly with Dr. J and Toney. The teams Magic faced would wipe the floor with the teams Kobe beat. Function of the times. Fewer clubs, no cap, more talent, more depth.

[kingfish]

Either way, im still not wrong. He still was the only hall of famer on his own team, so regardless of competition thats still pretty remarkable. My final argument

 

81, 62 in 3 quarters, outscoring an entire team by himself after 3 quarters, 50 in 4 straight, most game winners in NBA history, 40 in 9 straight, 35 PPG in a season.

 

Not even MJ has done some of these things people. Kobe was also a greater defender then Magic. So yeah, Kobe > Magic.

[Sky]

Kobe 1-on-1, on defense, scorer, better player. He's more talented physically. But here's the thing, better leader and game manager is more important. Nine finals appearances in 12 years in a more competitive era proves it.

 

Kobe was the only hall of famer for one of his four titles. Unless you somehow think Shaq isn't making the Hall.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Sky

[Real Deal]

That's fine to say Magic has better leadership/management. I've always said that (best leader in the game, better than Jordan in that department).

 

But all I'm simply asking is who the better overall player is. Bryant is the better offensive player, better defensive player.

 

As far as eras go, the 80's had four truly dominant teams: Lakers, Celtics, Sixers and Pistons. Three of them are in the East.

 

Kobe and Shaq had to plow through the likes of the Spurs, Kings and Blazers to pull off their dynasty. Granted two of them aren't among the greatest teams assembled, it was always the firs three sets of games that were the toughest for the Lakers, with an easy Finals, while it was almost smooth-sailing for Los Angeles through three (most of the time, minus Houston), then a tough Finals match-up.

 

It may have took two HOF'ers to defeat the 2000-2002 contenders, and probably three or four to beat the likes of Bird's Celtics, but technically, that has no effect on the load carried by both Bryant and Magic. Early in his career, Magic had his 25-30 PPG center, while Kobe had his. Eventually, Magic became that scorer (not to that extent, though) while Bryant took Gasol with him on his successful quest.

 

My point is, I can see Kobe having just as much success with Kareem, Worthy, Cooper, Scott, Green, Nixon and Wilkes as Magic could have with Shaq, Gasol, and Fisher...and I'm willing to bet more, by a ring or two...which is what Magic has over Bryant.

[Sky]

Kobe is the more skilled player physically, but not mentally. And mentally doesn't get the attention it deserves, imo it's more important.

 

Basketball is a team sport and team leader is where Magic excels. Removing that from the equation is forcing the Kobe answer you prefer. Disagree on Bryant getting more rings than Magic did if you switched them in time. Kobe is supremely talented but if I want to win rings I prefer Magic. Purpose of the game is rings.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Sky

[Real Deal]

Kobe is the more skilled player physically, but not mentally. And mentally doesn't get the attention it deserves, imo it's more important.

 

Basketball is a team sport and team leader is where Magic excels. Removing that from the equation is forcing the Kobe answer you prefer. Disagree on Bryant getting more rings than Magic did if you switched them in time. Kobe is supremely talented but if I want to win rings I prefer Magic. Purpose of the game is rings.

I disagree with Kobe not being as mentally tough. 2003 is a great example of this, not to mention all the media has unloaded on him since his rookie days.

 

I'm not removing the team leadership from the equation. I'm removing MVP's and rings...two different things. To me, leadership is not always synonymous with championships. But we can add championships, if you wish...they will be even by July 2010, anyways.

 

However, the MVP award doesn't tell us much about the player. We saw Steve Nash get two consecutive MVP's. Great, great team player. One of the worst defenders at the point guard position, though, and just a 20 PPG scorer, and a career high of 39, I believe. By the end of his career, people will rank him up there with the top 6-7 point guards in the history of the game because of those two MVP's.

 

When Bryant gets his fifth title, second as a leader, that will close the debate for me (if indeed we are including championships), because the last two titles Magic won, he was the clear-cut leader...but I can't say that for the first three.

[Real Deal]

By the way, welcome to the best. Nice to see you show your face.

[Sky]

Thanks, good to be here.

 

Kobe is mentally tough, I just don't think he's that great as a game manager. Tends to be wax on/wax off for predetermined blocks. This quarter I'll lay back, next quarter I'll start shooting, etc. It's about what the moment requires, what the team needs, what matchups need to be worked. I put Magic way ahead of Kobe in game management. Leadership Kobe is improving but it took him a while to get there. He may equal or surpass Magic in ring count, but I think Magic will always be the better leader, in part because his game management is so superior.

[Real Deal]

So in the end, I think we agree for the most part...that Kobe is the better overall player (in regards to abilities, should I say?) and that Magic is the better leader.

 

As for building a team around one or the other, that's probably for another topic. I would rather take the player that has proven to give me 30 points a night, exceptional defense...because the truth is, I just can't see Magic doing any more with a starting five including Odom, Kwame, Smush and Walton or Mihm.

[Diesel]

It may have took two HOF'ers to defeat the 2000-2002 contenders, and probably three or four to beat the likes of Bird's Celtics, but technically, that has no effect on the load carried by both Bryant and Magic. Early in his career, Magic had his 25-30 PPG center, while Kobe had his. Eventually, Magic became that scorer (not to that extent, though) while Bryant took Gasol with him on his successful quest.

 

Exactly, it was something that kingfish was arguing saying Kobe had to do so much more than Magic because he played with less HOF. Glad to see you agree with us.

 

However, the MVP award doesn't tell us much about the player. We saw Steve Nash get two consecutive MVP's. Great, great team player. One of the worst defenders at the point guard position, though, and just a 20 PPG scorer, and a career high of 39, I believe. By the end of his career, people will rank him up there with the top 6-7 point guards in the history of the game because of those two MVP's.

 

Yeah but you see I guarantee you Steve Nash isn't rated higher than any other player with two MVP's in the all-time rankings by those that know the game. Probably not even though with one MVP. Magic didn't have those deficiencies that Nash has such as being piss-poor on defense. Despite his two MVP's I don't think your going to see anyone rank him over Stockton/Kidd/Payton who have a combined 0 MVP's. The MVP is a great award to have on your resume seeing as how you were more vital than anyone else to one of the best teams in the league. For the first half of Kobe's career though he wasn't even the MVP of his own team while I believe Magic was from the get-go even with Kareem.

As for building a team around one or the other, that's probably for another topic. I would rather take the player that has proven to give me 30 points a night, exceptional defense...because the truth is, I just can't see Magic doing any more with a starting five including Odom, Kwame, Smush and Walton or Mihm.

 

Kobe would do better with that team seeing as how it lacks a true scorer and it was actually a team that was built around. It would be tough to find many players other than Kobe who would be better suited for that lineup in the history of the game(MJ and the prime bigmen are the only obvious choices). Doesn't mean Kobe is better though.

[Real Deal]

So you don't think Bryant could've racked up 60-win seasons with Kareem, Worthy, Coop, Scott and Green? No titles?

 

I assume you now realize why I removed the MVP awards from the discussion, at least.

[Sky]

If you switch Magic and Kobe in time I think Magic doesn't do any more with Kobe's lesser teams, but I'd give Magic more of a shot at a title in 2004. Kobe was crowded and somewhat negated as a result. I don't think they would have had similar success vs. Magic, he could have thrown over the top of Chauncey and Rip to find teammates and force the defense to react.

 

Kobe with Showtime they have enough talent to keep winning but you have to substitute Norm Nixon for Magic and that makes it harder. Kareem and Worthy are less effective.