i'd switch the ranking for "Fo-Fo-Fo" and Kobe. 3 rings vs. 1 ring. Dawkins doesn't belong in the top ten---lack of production---i'd replace him with either Rasad Lewis or Al Harrington I too like "Fo-Fo-Fo" a lot; absolutely love his yeoman-like work ethics and "i-goes-to-the-rack" mentality.
Mo - 3 MVP's The Rapist - 0 MVP's Robert Horry has 5 more rings than Charles Barkley, but that doesn't make him a better PF.
invalid comparision. Barkley was a starter, the go-to guy for his team. Horry is a role play---never a starter---a very clutch role player.
I hate this argument. Players don't fall into discrete categories. Barkley is better than Horry because he did more to help his team win. If you could choose either player to be on your team, without knowing who the rest of the teammates are, most sane people would take Barkley over Horry. That's the only criteria that matters. If you could choose between starting your franchise with Moses or Kobe, without knowing the rest of the makeup of your team ... who do you take? I don't care how many championships Kobe won (with Shaq, by the way), I'm going to take Moses. If Kobe can remain at his current superstar level for another 5 or 6 years, then perhaps his career will have surpassed Malone's.
Kobe, hands down. Kobe is the most talent baller in the NBA, has been for a while. Moses was less talented; but no one works harder than him on the court.
That was half the point I was making. Kobe was the second banana to Shaq on the championship teams, and has done squat since Shaq left. The other point is that teams win rings, not players. Just because Kobe happened to be on 3 championship teams while Moses was on one means nothing. Moses was a better player and could do more for his team.
Actually, during crunch time, owing to the Hack-a-Shaq defense thrown against the Lakers, it was all Kobe. let's take a look at Moses; during his first 2 years w the Utah Stars, he first, at best, 3rd banana behind G Gervin. Then, at Portland, he didn't even make the starting line-up, before they jettisoned him off the the Rox. Moses really didn't make any meaningful impact on the NBA scene until his 5th or 6th year out of high school. By his 3rd year out of high school, Kobe was an all-star, by year 4, making game-winning baskets in WC towards winning the ring. Moses couldn't do squat (using your meaning) until he left the Rox to team up with superior talents
So Kobe was the #1 option for 2 minutes per game, that doesn't really counter the point. That was Shaq's team, and everyone knew it. That is why Kobe had such a hissy fit and made them drive Shaq outta town. Kobe was most certainly the #2 option overall for those Laker teams. On the other hand Moses Malone won 3 MVP awards. That means that 3 times not only was he the best player on his team, he was the best in the NBA. Kobe has been the best player on his team 2 seasons, leading them to a sub-.500 record overall. Oh, and in his first season with the Utah Stars, Mo averaged 18.8 and 14.6 with a block and a half for good measure. Kobe put up 7.6 and 1.9 off the bench, so let's not go crazy using their early accoplishments to put Kobe over Moses. The fact that G Gervin wasn't even on his team doesn't help your argument. Kobe was an all-star by year 3, Mo was an all-star by year 2.
Moses carried a team of Mike Dunleavy, Calvin Murphy, Allen Leavell, Robert Reid and Rudy Tomjanovich to the Finals in 81. I never knew leadiung your team to the Finals counted as not doing squat. Wake me up when Kobe leads a team out of the first round as option #1....
does crunch time mean anything to you. that's when the great one rises to the top; the defense knows that cluth players like MJ, Kobe are going to get the ball, yet great ones score anyway. MVP doesn't = the best player. Shaq has never won a MVP; K Malone has won two and Barkley one. But you'll agree that both the Mailman & Barkley were on a notch below Shaq. All of Moses teammates were never all-star caliber; Kobe's teammates included future Hall of Famer Shaq, Mailman, Glove. u need to keep it in perspective.
To be fair, Kobe couldn't even make it into the starting line up of his own team in his third year. He started in the all-star game because the fans loved him so much, but he played behind Eddie Jones and Rick Fox (?) that season.
Jordan was the number one option the whole game. The only reason Kobe was ever the #1 option on a team with Shaq is that Shaq can't hit FTs. It isn't like Phil said, "You know Kobe is way better than Shaq, but I think I'll run the offense through Shaq so Kobe will have more energy in 'crunch time'." If you can't even admit that Kobe was not as good as Shaq on the championship teams, there is no point in discussing basketball with you. Most MVP voters vote for the player they felt had the best season that year. In 1993 he scored more, rebounded almost as much, and had 2.5 times as many assists as Shaq, not to mention leading his team to the best record in the NBA. Barkley was not a notch below anyone in '93. Karl Malone's numbers were comparable to Shaq's as well, and again, he led his team to first place in his MVP seasons. Shaq's team was 9th in the EC in '93, 7th in '97 and 2nd in '99 (though still 4 games back of the Jazz). Part of being the best player in the eyes of the voters is leading your team to the top of the standings. As for teammates, Malone played with first ballot HoFer John Stockton when he won both of his MVP awards. When Moses won his, he played with guys like Calvin Murphy, Rudy T, Rick Barry, Elvin Hayes, Mo Cheeks, and Dr. J, many of whom are HoF bound, so that argument doesn't mean very much either. You can make up all of the excuses you want, but Kobe has never led a team to any success, and his best results came playing second fiddle to Shaq on three title teams. Moses Malone led the '83 Sixers to a title and won 3 MVP awards. It is pretty clear to me that he has had a better career thus far than Kobe Bryant.
So winning championships while playing with superior teammates does make you the best player? Exactly.
