Yeah, this guy is <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pAs6TDLuKgQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pAs6TDLuKgQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
wrong again? sorry pal, I know i watched basketball in the 80s and 90s, and it's VERY OBVIOUS you didn't.
Hakeem was also great in the 80's, the golden era of the NBA. That's not even mentioning the fact that he played when his position was the strongest it's ever been in the history of the league. Kobe had Shaq for his first eight years and Pau Gasol for the last 3+. Hakeem had a healthy Ralph Sampson for his first two and a slightly past his prime Glide nine years later. In between, it was just Hakeem. If Hakeem had ever had the luxury of being the clear-cut second best player on his team, that would have been flat out scary. This is what you Kobe fanboys don't seem to get. I'm not trying to discredit or "dillute" Kobe's 5 rings. He has five rings and he has earned them. He's been either the best or second best player on all of his teams. But you can't use the ring count alone to compare two players' greatness in a team sport, especially when those guys played in very different eras. The bottom line is that Hakeem was just as dominant on the offensive end as Kobe Bryant. However, because Hakeem was a center with both size and insane athleticism, he was able to dominate the other end of the floor in a way Kobe (or really almost any guard) could never dream of. That's what makes him the better player in my book.
Sorry fanboi, Kobe's already made his mark in history. Almost everybody puts Kobe ahead of Hakeem right now. 5 > 2 no matter how you cut it. This isn't what the topic was about. As I have said before, Hakeem is the most skilled Center of all time.
^ robert horry has more rings but does that mean he's better than kobe? no, you silly poster. shaq/hakeem was dominant, kobe is just dangerous.
Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, and John Havlicek are all better players than Kobe I guess. They won more titles. The Finals MVP award didn't even exist for all those titles, but Havlicek was the leading scorer for multiple Celtics championship teams and did win the Finals MVP award for one of the two titles he won when the award existed. Throw in the fact that he has more career points, assists, and rebounds than Kobe and it's clear that Havlicek has made a greater mark on history. Also, what exactly determines the relative importance of Titles vs. Finals MVP awards? Shaq has fewer titles, but more FMVPs. Is he the better player at this point? Does Kobe have to win another Finals MVP to pass him or is the extra championship enough? What if Shaq and the Celtics win this year? Where does Tim Duncan fit in? He's got more Finals MVP awards than Kobe, but one less championship. Does he surpass Kobe again if the Spurs win the title this year?
Havlicek steps forward as the only 1 with a FMVP. Now look at his MVP's. None. Both Kobe and Hakeem have 1 MVP as well. The MVP's and Finals MVP's separate the the good player to the great players. Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem all had their share of FMVPs, MVP and Rings. When you have all the requirements, it's up to Rings. 1. Kobe 5 2. Duncan 4 3. Shaq 4 4. Hakeem 2
I didn't think anybody would be silly enough to include role players. We're not talking about some role player like Horry and Tommy. Hopefully I don't have to spell it all out.
Fleshing out your argument to its full extent is actually a lot of fun. For example, I had no idea that Chauncey Billups and Tony Parker were all-time great point guards. Parker has three championships, which places him quite high on the all-time list, especially when you consider that he is one of only five or six point guards to ever win the Finals MVP award. James Worthy is another of the vastly underrated all-time greats using your brilliant argument that championships and Finals MVPs determine where a player ranks on the all-time list. With four championships and a Finals MVP award, Worthy is probably a top 10-15 player in league history.
This part I actually think is a pretty valid argument. This part is completely arbitrary. When you have all the requirements, why would the tie breaker be the team accomplishment rather than the individual accomplishment?
So Wes Unseld was a better player than Jerry West (no regular season MVP), Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett, Allen Iverson, David Robinson, Dr. J, and Oscar Robertson (all with no Finals MVPs)?
Because Great players make their teammates better. There has to be a base of talent in the first place, and it's up to the great teammates to elevate that talent. Jordan wasn't just great because of his basketball skills, he was great because he knew how to utilize his teammates. From Bird, Magic, Jordan, all of those guys knew when it was time to demand his teammates to step up.
He was one of the dominant rebounders of his day. He didn't have the point totals, but he had stats, if you look beyond just points.
And that is exactly what is wrong with using ring count as the tie breaker. There has to be a base of talent in the first place. Some great players just don't get to spend as many years with other players who can play at a championship level. If Fisher and Gasol hadn't come to LA three years ago, Kobe probably wouldn't have those extra two championships. That wouldn't make him any less of a player. Bringing the best out of your teammates and leading your teammates to a championship are not necessarily the same thing.
