Skip always wants to be on the cover. He wants to suprise you and shock you, I wouldn't even be suprised if he didn't think those were 10 best. But he wants to say something different. That's all.
Because Gasol and Bynum ain't good 1on1 players and they can't get that many shots off. Geez, it's easy to shoot high % with mostly putback, layup and 16 feet open jumpers, like Gasol's doing. But it's hard to find 20 shots like that in a game. If Gasol can do that, he's prime Shaq and he wouldn't win 0 playoff game without Kobe.
There are enough examples of Gasol/Bynum sitting out for an extended stretch and the Lakers did just fine. The Lakers before Bynum's injured in 07-08 were the best team in the west. It means Kobe needs a good big man to win. In fact, Gasol never made all NBA team before joining Lakers. And was only 3rd team in 2 championships year. MJ had Pippen, Shaq had Kobe. Both Pippen and Kobe were much better player than Gasol is. Kobe wins with less. That proves how good he is.
The Lakers lost to Portland on the road earlier that year and Roy played in that game so no that Blazers team was not equally as depleted. The current Lakers team without Kobe is about as good as the Blazers are without Roy. Sure you could plug in Shannon Brown and they would be fine but they would be 5th/6th seed fine just like the Blazers are. A team that is good enough to beat anyone on any give night but not a real contender. I will further show you how this works in my next response. First of all this line of reasoning sucks. The Chicago Bulls went 57-25 the year before Jordan left and went 55-27 the year he was gone. According to your logic Jordan wasn't that integral a part of that team. Winning regular season games and winning championships is very different. There are lots of bad and mediocre teams in the league and very few great teams. If you have a pretty good team you can beat any team on any given night and the Bulls proved that without Jordan. However, come playoff time things change and you need that real superstar to win it all and that is why you can't base a players greatness on regular season wins.
even if they won 25 games, you know how bad that still is? that's historically bad from a team who won 60+ games 2 straight years. that's a team where you and a few posters proclaimed would make hte playoffs EASILY without lebron since lebron is so overrated. he doesn't make his team or teammates better you know now, let's see the lakers lose kobe for a year. . i'll make a bet with you that the lakers would easily win 45 games
I know the Cavs lost more than just Lebron, but I think it's still worth noting that they had a worse season-to-season dropoff than the Bulls did after losing MJ, Pippen, Rodman, and Phil Jackson after the 1997-98 season.
ppl like to hate on skip, but hes veryaccurate with his sports knowledge, hes the only unbiased down the line espn anchor, everyone else is all about new york, LA and boston smh.. the list is spot on to me, lebron is the most talented perhaps, but not the best player by a long shot
The people that think this list is so accurate please explain to me how Kevin Durant is better than LeBron James. Also Rose 9th best player?
Durant scores and rebounds just as well as Lebron. Some people value the player with the better shot and would rather have a point guard like Westbrook setting up the offense and getting the assists. Not saying that I'd rather have Durant but I'm guessing that is why somebody would see Durant as the better player.
Bron is the better playmaker. I honestly don't see how anyone can watch the two at this stage of their careers and come to the conclusion that Durant is better than LeBron. I just don't see it. If Durant actually lived up to his potential last year in the playoffs I guess peopl would have him as the best player in the NBA.
