Best player in their respective sports? [Archive]

TheTerror

02-02-2009, 06:07 PM

Marcus Naslund? No. Far from it. VERY VERY VERY far.

Yeah I havent watched Hockey in quite some time, but like 4-7 years ago he was always on the all-star team and from what I read he had the leagues best scoring numbers, but that was a while ago, i'm sure it's someone else now....

Regular season PlayoffsSeasonTeamLeagueGPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_(ice_hockey))A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assist_(ice_hockey))Pts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(ice_hockey))PIM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_(ice_hockey))GPGAPtsPIM1988–89Järveds IFSEL-31476130–––––1989–90MODO Hockey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MODO_Hockey)J20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J20_SuperElit)3343357820–––––1990–91MODO HockeySEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitserien)321091914–––––1991–92MODO HockeySEL3922173952–––––1992–93MODO HockeyJ2024152–––––1992–93MODO HockeySEL3922173967332501993–94 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993%E2%80%9394_NHL_season)Pittsburgh Penguins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Penguins)NHL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Hockey_League)71471127–––––1993–94Cleveland Lumberjacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Lumberjacks)IHL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Hockey_League_(1945%E2%80%932001))51674–––––1994–95 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994%E2%80%9395_NHL_season)Pittsburgh PenguinsNHL142242–––––1994–95Cleveland LumberjacksIHL73476413481995–96 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995%E2%80%9396_NHL_season)Pittsburgh PenguinsNHL6619335236–––––1995–96Vancouver Canucks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Canucks)NHL103036612381996–97 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996%E2%80%9397_NHL_season)Vancouver CanucksNHL7821204130–––––1997–98 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997%E2%80%9398_NHL_season)Vancouver CanucksNHL7614203456–––––1998–99 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998%E2%80%9399_NHL_season)Vancouver CanucksNHL8036306674–––––1999–00 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999%E2%80%9300_NHL_season)Vancouver CanucksNHL8227386564–––––2000–01 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%9301_NHL_season)Vancouver CanucksNHL7241347558–––––2001–02 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001%E2%80%9302_NHL_season)Vancouver CanucksNHL8140509050611222002–03 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002%E2%80%9303_NHL_season)Vancouver CanucksNHL82485610452145914182003–04 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003%E2%80%9304_NHL_season)Vancouver CanucksNHL7835498458727922004–05MODO HockeySEL13891786011102005–06 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%9306_NHL_season)Vancouver CanucksNHL8132477966–––––2006–07 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006%E2%80%9307_NHL_season)Vancouver CanucksNHL822436605412415162007–08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_NHL_season)Vancouver CanucksNHL8225305546----------NHL totals10353714528236794513203346

Wonderwall

02-02-2009, 06:13 PM

Even during his peak Naslund still wasn't the best player, I remember when he was in the race for the league scoring title but he ultimately lost it to Jarome Iginla I believe. He was also a supreme choke artist in the playoffs along with the rest of the Canucks during the West Coast Express years.

Leaping Larry Jojo

02-02-2009, 06:37 PM

So, who is in your mind the BEST player in their respective sport currently? Not your favorite, but instead the best.

Basketball - Kobe Bryant (All around)
Baseball - A-Rod (for hitting)
Football - Tom Brady (for passing)
Hocky - Marcus Nasland ???SP???

Lebron's probably a better all-around player today than Kobe. Kobe may still have a slight defensive edge, but Lebron is closing the gap. He's also a better rebounder and passer than Kobe ever was. And I say this as someone who likes Kobe better than Lebron.

Agree about A-Rod (who's both overrated AND underrated by fans), not confident enough about NFL to say, and hockey, well..it's hard to deny the talent of Crosby and Ovechkin (although I think Crosby's numbers are inflated more because of great teammates--he's more of a creator than a scorer)

TheTerror

02-02-2009, 06:45 PM

Lebron's probably a better all-around player today than Kobe. Kobe may still have a slight defensive edge, but Lebron is closing the gap. He's also a better rebounder and passer than Kobe ever was. And I say this as someone who likes Kobe better than Lebron.

Agree about A-Rod (who's both overrated AND underrated by fans), not confident enough about NFL to say, and hockey, well..it's hard to deny the talent of Crosby and Ovechkin.

Kobe has been a passing machine this season, the past 8 games he has averaged 10 or more assists and had 12 two games in a row with 28 points or higher scored, but as a whole Lebron outsines Kobe as a whole in those catagory's. I have seen Kobe do some amazing things, hes been the best player in the NBA now for at least the past 4 or 5 years, Lebron in a better rebounder, but all in all Kobe is the better player and he isn't willing to give that up just yet. Lebron will DEFINATLY be the player to take up the mantle of the NBA's best player though, he has MANY good years ahead of him. It's an exciting league right now.

About A-Rod, he is WAY overrated by the media, but hes a great hitter, and a great october choker, lol.

Kobe Clips, very good stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNxPfsezN5o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK600X9-RGA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezuJfQXROOk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ORr6wsQskk

Leaping Larry Jojo

02-02-2009, 06:57 PM

A-Rod is definitely not worth his contract, but there is a strong case for him as the best "all-around" player in the MLB. Most great hitters are not good defensive players, but A-Rod is pretty solid all around. He's just a genetically gifted baseball player.

Still, his playoff choking ways means he will never be considered truly great, and allows me to laugh at him as I don't like him. But I can't deny his talent.

TheTerror

02-02-2009, 07:00 PM

A-Rod is definitely not worth his contract, but there is a strong case for him as the best "all-around" player in the MLB. Some hitters are not good defensive players, but A-Rod is pretty solid all around.

Still, his playoff choking ways means he will never be considered truly great.

Alex goes through these humps where he screws up some defensive plays and will do so for like 2 weeks during the regular season, but he gets back on track and becomes a defensive player again, hitting he is almost always on, but a player should not garner massive contracts if they can prove themselves in the post season.

A player like A-Rod should get maybe $15M for what he can do, not $25M or whatever he is getting. Another player like Pujols is maybe as good if not better than A-Rod too.

TheTerror

02-02-2009, 08:51 PM

Just thought i'd mention, Kobe has 34 points at halftime tonight........wow.

The Cartoon

02-02-2009, 09:19 PM

Tapout

02-02-2009, 09:48 PM

Fedor Emelianenko.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v706/dirtbag666/thumbnail_cropphp.jpg

Hint: He's not the guy on the ground.

Ace Goodheart

02-02-2009, 09:52 PM

^^^
Lmao

TheTerror

02-02-2009, 11:50 PM

Awesome, something I really know about

Baseball:
A-Rod is the best all-around player. He is great at batting, baserunning, and fielding. As for pitching, I'd say Jake Peavy currently. Tim Lincecum, K-Rod, and Cliff Lee deserve recognition for their performance this year. There are the greats who were great at their prime but are beat out by a couple pitchers.
Baseketball:
Kobe Bryant, not much of a contest there.
Football:
Peyton Manning, it's a tough competition here, but I'll give it to this year's MVP.
Hockey:
Sidney Crosby, Ovechcin makes a great case, but I think Crosby edges him out.

Great list! I will side with you on Peyton, but if Tom Brady didn't get injured I am sure it would have been him. Bryant is a lock, lol, 61 points tonight and it came with ease. He beat Jordans visiting points record in MSG and Bernard Kings MSG NBA record for points scored and came within 3 of the all time free throw record, but Coach Jackson sat him with 3 minutes left in the game.

Ajax

02-03-2009, 03:20 AM

So, who is in your mind the BEST player in their respective sport currently? Not your favorite, but instead the best.

Basketball - Kobe Bryant (All around)
Baseball - A-Rod (for hitting)
Football - Tom Brady (for passing)
Hocky - Marcus Nasland ???SP???Id have to give you Kobe, cause if anybody was alive to watch that USA vs Spain gold medal game, never was the debate of who was the "best player alive" decided so quickly.

If your gonna just say hitting for baseball, Id go with Manny Rameriz, easily. In terms of hitting, A-Rod cant even hold his jock strap. When Manny got traded to the Dodgers, he made them relevant again, as opposed to A-Rod, who career in terms of winning, has been a failure.

For football in terms of passing, you'd have to with Big Ben right now. Manning isnt in the discussion because his postseason success has been credulous. and you cant go with Tom Brady because he was hurt all year, and he may not be the same player he was when he does return.

I dont know crap about hockey, but im going with Sid the Kid. Ive seen the SC highlights, amazing.

TheTerror

02-03-2009, 08:09 AM

Id have to give you Kobe, cause if anybody was alive to watch that USA vs Spain gold medal game, never was the debate of who was the "best player alive" decided so quickly.

If your gonna just say hitting for baseball, Id go with Manny Rameriz, easily. In terms of hitting, A-Rod cant even hold his jock strap. When Manny got traded to the Dodgers, he made them relevant again, as opposed to A-Rod, who career in terms of winning, has been a failure.

For football in terms of passing, you'd have to with Big Ben right now. Manning isnt in the discussion because his postseason success has been credulous. and you cant go with Tom Brady because he was hurt all year, and he may not be the same player he was when he does return.

I dont know crap about hockey, but im going with Sid the Kid. Ive seen the SC highlights, amazing.

Ramirez is a good argument, he stunk up in Boston last year but that was mainly because he was fed up there and wanted out. Once he went to LA he was unstoppable, hes definatly up there. Howard, Pujols, A-Rod and Ramierez are tremendous hitters.

I saw that game between Spain and the U.S, Kobe was amazing, he was amazing last night......come to think about it..........he's amazing almost every night. It's scary.

Leaping Larry Jojo

02-03-2009, 02:32 PM

Kobe was pretty mediocre up until the gold medal game. As I recall, Dwyane Wade was the best player for USA for most of the Olympics.

Anyway, Kobe must have read my post because his 60 gazillion points is typical of his "I'll prove it to you" nature. :sweat:

But I still think overall LeBron is the more well-rounded player, and does more for his team. Who are his sidekicks? Mo Williams? Big Z? LMAO. Kobe is no doubt the offensive player of his generation, though, but right now he has guys like Pau Gasol, and Bynum (when he's healthy). Hell, the Lakers are so deep they have Lamar Odom coming off the bench! And if you were going to go strictly by winning titles these past 4-5 years, then Tim Duncan has to be in the discussion (although he is declining now).

DarkAngel

02-03-2009, 02:58 PM

But I still think overall LeBron is the more well-rounded player, and does more for his team.
Lebron's finally getting close to what I've wanted to see from him for awhile. But he's not at Kobe's level yet. Getting close, but he's not there yet.

Who are his sidekicks? Mo Williams? Big Z? LMAO. Kobe is no doubt the offensive player of his generation, though, but right now he has guys like Pau Gasol, and Bynum (when he's healthy). Hell, the Lakers are so deep they have Lamar Odom coming off the bench!
The Cavs are a deep team. There's a lot of talent there. No longer just Lebron showing up.

Leaping Larry Jojo

02-03-2009, 03:19 PM

Lebron's finally getting close to what I've wanted to see from him for awhile. But he's not at Kobe's level yet. Getting close, but he's not there yet.

Well, what do you mean? For all the praise Kobe has gotten for his scoring outputs and great playoff plays, it's not like he's won anything without a prime Shaq. Now, LeBron hasn't won anything either, but that's the point. I don't see how Kobe is THAT much better than his peers, except for the fact that he plays in LA and thus gets more pimping from ESPN and SI because of the spotlight. It's like people only focus on his great games and forget about his bad ones (and he's had quite a few them in big moments).

Even statistically, I see Kobe is a great, great scorer, but his other career stats hover around 5-6 rebounds and 4-6 assists. That isn't that much better than most top swingmen. So as an all-around player, I'm not seeing it. Terror mentioned that Kobe got 10 assists or so the occasional game. Okay, great. But it's not something LeBron, Wade or even Vince Carter can't do every now and again. The bottom line is that as a creator for others, Kobe is good, but he is not "head and shoulders" above everyone else. As a rebounder, he's par for the course for his position. Steals and blocks? Good but unspectacular for his position.

He's a very good one on one defender though, and probably is still the best at his position. I'll certainly give him that. But this thread makes him out to be some career 35-10-10 guy who's won 10 straight titles which he most assuredly has not.

I'm not doubting he's a clutch player, or one of the greatest players of his generations (definitely top 3), I just have issues with this "best all around player" business when the stats don't say he is, and the number of titles don't say he is.

Don't get me wrong, I like Kobe a lot, and probably better than almost every wing player in the NBA, but to say he's the best player in the NBA NO CONTEST, well, I have a problem with that. At the very least, we should say that it is arguable. It is definitely not "hands down". There are so many great players in the NBA now breaking all kinds of records. Aside from Lebron, Chris Paul may end up one of the greatest PGs of all time, being a combination of all the strengths of Isiah, Stockton, and Nash. Dwight Howard looks like he's channeling Shaq, David Robinson and Hakeem, what with his numerous 20-20 nights and his 3 blocks a game average. We'd be wrong to ignore them. And if we're doing so simply because they're young players, well, why should we ignore Tim Duncan, who's anchored the winningest team since the end of the Lakers dynasty?

Ajax

02-03-2009, 04:49 PM

Well, what do you mean? For all the praise Kobe has gotten for his scoring outputs and great playoff plays, it's not like he's won anything without a prime Shaq.I've really never understood that point tbh. Name me a player in basketball who has won multiple championships by himself? Russel didnt win those by himself, the Big O didnt win until he hooked up with Kareem. Dr. J didnt win until he got Moses with him, Bird could of never won those titles without Mchale, Parish and co, Magic could of never ran showtime without Worthy and Karrem. And of course the great one himself could of never won without Pippen. I could proally go on forever. The point is, you cant hold that against Kobe, cause in reality even if Kobe does win a title without Shaq, he still would of had Gasol and that great team behind him. You cant win in Basketball unless you have a great player(s) around you. Thats whats holding Lebron back. So I say again, I dont see that point holding any water when disscussing who the best player in the NBA is right now. Im a big Lebron fan but right now Kobe is miles ahead of him.

Now, LeBron hasn't won anything either, but that's the point. I don't see how Kobe is THAT much better than his peers, except for the fact that he plays in LA and thus gets more pimping from ESPN and SI because of the spotlight. It's like people only focus on his great games and forget about his bad ones (and he's had quite a few them in big moments). Kobe is better in the clutch, way better. His FT shooting is also better, Lebron doesnt have "it", that killer instinct that Kobe and Jordan had. Not to mention there competely different players, Lebron is more like a Magic or Oscar type player.

I'm not doubting he's a clutch player, or one of the greatest players of his generations (definitely top 3), I just have issues with this "best all around player" business when the stats don't say he is, and the number of titles don't say he is. Look im not saying i disagree with you, but i look at it this way. If you were chosing teams for a pick up basketball game, and you had the first pick, who would you take? Would you take Kobe or would you take Lebron? I myself would take Kobe, why....because if you didnt take Kobe first, he would spend the whole game making sure you regretted it. And Lebron, well he wouldn't care if he went first or second. Thats the difference between those two guys, and why Kobe in the end I think, is the better player...right now. Lebron doesn't mind differing to other players, kobe wants to alwasys be the man. It isnt about stats because both of them are great players, both of them have the ability to acsend to a level no one else in the NBA can dream of reaching. In end, its who would you want taking the last shot to win the game...Kobe or Lebron, and as of right know, i would have to say Kobe. At least that's my opinion

Leaping Larry Jojo

02-03-2009, 05:14 PM

I've really never understood that point tbh. Name me a player in basketball who has won multiple championships by himself? Russel didnt win those by himself, the Big O didnt win until he hooked up with Kareem. Dr. J didnt win until he got Moses with him, Bird could of never won those titles without Mchale, Parish and co, Magic could of never ran showtime without Worthy and Karrem. And of course the great one himself could of never won without Pippen. I could proally go on forever. The point is, you cant hold that against Kobe, cause in reality even if Kobe does win a title without Shaq, he still would of had Gasol and that great team behind him. You cant win in Basketball unless you have a great player(s) around you. Thats whats holding Lebron back. So I say again, I dont see that point holding any water when disscussing who the best player in the NBA is right now. Im a big Lebron fan but right now Kobe is miles ahead of him.

Kobe is better in the clutch, way better. His FT shooting is also better, Lebron doesnt have "it", that killer instinct that Kobe and Jordan had. Not to mention there competely different players, Lebron is more like a Magic or Oscar type player.

Look im not saying i disagree with you, but i look at it this way. If you were chosing teams for a pick up basketball game, and you had the first pick, who would you take? Would you take Kobe or would you take Lebron? I myself would take Kobe, why....because if you didnt take Kobe first, he would spend the whole game making sure you regretted it. And Lebron, well he wouldn't care if he went first or second. Thats the difference between those two guys, and why Kobe in the end I think, is the better player...right now. Lebron doesn't mind differing to other players, kobe wants to alwasys be the man. It isnt about stats because both of them are great players, both of them have the ability to acsend to a level no one else in the NBA can dream of reaching. In end, its who would you want taking the last shot to win the game...Kobe or Lebron, and as of right know, i would have to say Kobe. At least that's my opinion

All fine points. I wasn't "blaming" Kobe for not winning titles without help, I just fail to see you proving to me that Kobe is "miles" better than, say, LeBron. And as for your last point, basketball, unfortunately, is a 5 on 5 game and not a pickup game. Rafer Alston could beat a number of people in a pickup game but that doesn't mean he's great.

If you think Kobe is better, fine. But MILES better? I'm not sure even BonyT would say that. I can accept that people think Kobe is slightly better than everyone, but the gap, or even position, is certainly arguable. All this "killer instinct" and stuff is fine, but it doesn't separate players by leagues. Shaq spent much of his prime years eating and playing the season into shape, yet he's one of the greatest big men of all time.

Kobe is human. He is certainly "containable". As I recall, he wasn't exactly killing it in the NBA Finals last year (though he was good, but I would have expected better from the best player in the league). He wasn't the best I've ever seen against Detroit in 2004 (though that year could be excused because of his problems). One could argue that Cleveland gave Boston a bigger scare than the Lakers last year, and this despite not having another "star" with LeBron (who also struggled at times, but not much worse than Kobe).

Sure, there are valid excuses. Pau and Lamar playing poorly didn't open things up for Kobe. The Lakers not making shots, etc,. But if he's the GOAT, the margin for excuses narrows.

What I like about Kobe is that he tries so hard. But, there are plenty of people who "try hard" and aren't as good as others who try less.

My point is, I feel like people are judging Kobe vs LeBron from a pure character standpoint. And if that's the case, Kobe definitely wins. He works his butt off, doesn't take plays off, killer instinct, etc,. But this is a thread about the integrated abilities of a player--skills, talent, character. And while LeBron fails to Kobe in the character department, he's more naturally talented and skilled in other areas of the game than Kobe, and that counts for a lot. And you can't say LeBron is a loser like, say, McGrady either since he gets deep into the playoffs year after year.

Ajax

02-03-2009, 07:21 PM

All fine points. I wasn't "blaming" Kobe for not winning titles without help, I just fail to see you proving to me that Kobe is "miles" better than, say, LeBron. And as for your last point, basketball, unfortunately, is a 5 on 5 game and not a pickup game. Rafer Alston could beat a number of people in a pickup game but that doesn't mean he's great.Lol not really trying to prove anything tbh. I dont think you understood exactly what I was trying to say. Im not talking about a pick up game, im not talking about 5 on 5, or starting a franchise, or even staring an NBA team, it doesnt matter...the point I was trying to make was who would you pick? Kobe or Lebron. The point was, if you picked Lebron, Kobe would spend the rest of his days making sure you regretted not taking him first, Lebron would be cool either way. Thats the difference between both of them and why Kobe in the end, is the better player.

If you think Kobe is better, fine. But MILES better? I'm not sure even BonyT would say that. I can accept that people think Kobe is slightly better than everyone, but the gap, or even position, is certainly arguable. All this "killer instinct" and stuff is fine, but it doesn't separate players by leagues. Shaq spent much of his prime years eating and playing the season into shape, yet he's one of the greatest big men of all time.Shaq lost interest in basketball after 01, hence why he will never be in the discussion of greatest big man ever. That killer instinct is what has Jordan sitting on 6 rings instead of just 5 or 4. Your wrong in that aspect, it does separate players by leagues. We can argue wether Kobe or Lebron is better, but you cant argue that.

But this is a thread about the integrated abilities of a player--skills, talent, character. And while LeBron fails to Kobe in the character department, he's more naturally talented and skilled in other areas of the game than Kobe, and that counts for a lot. Uh................what? Kobe is a better jump shooter, 3 pt shooter, ft shooter and scorer (81 points anyone) then Lebron. He's also better at dribbling. Lebron is the better passer and because of his body naturally a better rebounder. In terms of driving to the basket, you couldnt really say one is better then the other. So like...wtf are you talking about?:anime: (Btw, im actually a Cavs fan and big Lebron fan so there is no bias in all this).

mr.happy

02-03-2009, 07:43 PM

DarkAngel

02-03-2009, 07:49 PM

Uh................what? Kobe is a better jump shooter, 3 pt shooter, ft shooter and scorer (81 points anyone) then Lebron.
:D That's pretty much it. LBJ has greatly, greatly closed the gap because of what he's been doing this season. But Kobe's been doing what he does for years now and has it perfected. In past seasons, there was never a sense of LBJ being able to completely takeover a game at will the way Kobe could and so often did. I'm starting to see it more with James now, but he's not reached Kobe's level yet. If you look at the sheer number of ways that Kobe can score, pretty much from anywhere with anyone on him, and the consistency with which he's able to bring that level...James can't quite do all that. I mean, he has games like that, but hasn't seemed able to do it as often as Bryant does.

In previous seasons, Bryant was heads and shoulders above James as a player. I'm not going to say that now. But there's still a difference. With Kobe, it just flows so effortlessly and he's better able to flip that switch when he needs to. This recent game is a perfect example. The only other player I've seen that can perform like that was MJ. Kobe well beyond proving that he can have that kind of game again and again and again. What Lebron has to prove is that he can elevate his game like that and do it when he wants to. As much as is humanly possible, of course.

James is just amazing me, though, with the way he's playing right now. I had been wondering if he was ever going to get there, and now finally I feel like we're seeing a James who could establish himself as one of the greatest ever. I'd been so frustrated with his free throw shooting and he stepped that up. His defense has been stellar. And I'm finally feeling like I can say, yeah, he's a really good shooter. In the past, yeah he'd hit some big shots, but then he'd have some serious clunkers. There were times when he needed to go Kobe on his opponents and lift his teammates, and he wouldn't and seemingly couldn't. But now, he's clearly a much different and better player than he was previously. Last year, I didn't feel he'd shown much improvement from the year before. Now, that's clearly not the case. He's much better than last year. I mean, he finally got a buzzer beater in! That was long overdue!

So like...wtf are you talking about?:anime: (Btw, im actually a Cavs fan and big Lebron fan so there is no bias in all this).
Yeah, same here. Born in Cleveland, have lived in Ohio my whole life, so the Cavs are definitely the focus for me when I watch/consider the NBA. Definitely following them more closely than most other teams. So, obviously, I'm a huge fan of both LBJ and the Cavs. Gotta call it as it is, though. :)

DA

DarkAngel

02-03-2009, 08:02 PM

Tennis: Roger Federer. He holds 13 slams, 1 short of the all-time record, and has made 14 of the last 15 slam finals, which is a mind-boggling feat. His current no.2 ranking is merely a reflection of playing much of last year with mono, where he still made 3 slam finals and won one of them. Tennis historians will refer to this as the Roger Federer era.
Federer didn't have mono the previous year when he was losing all kinds of matches he didn't ordinarily lose. All the signs were there in 2007. Nadal should have beat him at Wimbledon when he had multiple opportunities in the 5th (and realized as much, as he apparantly wept afterward telling his Uncle he'd lost his chance), Djokovic should have beaten him at the US Open where he choked in both the first and second sets when he had opportunities to take them.

Nadal's been beating Fed since he first appeared, and that wasn't only on clay but on hard courts as well. This is for real. He's been making steady, obvious improvements on all surfaces with each year. Staggeringly, even on clay, where you'd think he was good enough and could afford to stay where he was. After beating Federer again, this time in their first meeting at a hardcourt major, Nadal's the undisputed tennis #1.

And its getting harder to seriously consider Federer the GOAT.

mr.happy

02-03-2009, 08:36 PM

Federer didn't have mono the previous year when he was losing all kinds of matches he didn't ordinarily lose.Last year? Anyone who knows the first thing about mono will tell you how long it can linger and affect you. He was clearly hampered by it at least through June.

All the signs were there in 2007. Nadal should have beat him at Wimbledon when he had multiple opportunities in the 5th (and realized as much, as he apparantly wept afterward telling his Uncle he'd lost his chance), Djokovic should have beaten him at the US Open where he choked in both the first and second sets when he had opportunities to take them.Woulda, shoulda. If you're playing that game, Federer was a break up in every set against Nadal on Sunday, so by your reasoning, he should have taken those chances and won the match. It doesn't work like that.

Nadal's been beating Fed since he first appeared, and that wasn't only on clay but on hard courts as well.And he's been losing to mid-range journeymen throughout that period as well. Sampras had a losing record against players like Safin, Stich, Krajicek, and even lowly players like Ferreira, Ulirach and others who regularly beat him in his prime, but nobody in their right mind would actually rate them above Sampras. Nadal's game is a bad match-up for Federer's, but Nadal can lose to anybody on a non-clay court. I mean, the AO was the first title the guy claimed since becoming no.1 last summer.

This is for real. He's been making steady, obvious improvements on all surfaces with each year. Staggeringly, even on clay, where you'd think he was good enough and could afford to stay where he was. After beating Federer again, this time in their first meeting at a hardcourt major, Nadal's the undisputed tennis #1.Heh, sure, and Jankovic and Ivanovic were the "undisputed tennis #1s" for a period recently, while Serena was supposedly all washed up and over the hill. Btw, Serena is the best player on the women's side, and by a considerable margin with Henin retired.

And its getting harder to seriously consider Federer the GOAT.Which would make it impossible with Nadal, and that's assuming he isn't exposed as a roid user, which many people strongly suspect.

DarkAngel

02-03-2009, 09:40 PM

Last year?
No, 2007. All the signs were there that things were changing. That was before his mono.

He was clearly hampered by it at least through June.
It's now January 2009 and Federer's lost to Nadal again.

Sampras had a losing record against players like Safin, Stich, Krajicek, and even lowly players like Ferreira, Ulirach and others who regularly beat him in his prime, but nobody in their right mind would actually rate them above Sampras.
Don't be ridiculous. This goes beyond just being 13-6 against Federer. Anyone with eyes who's watching these tournaments and matches can see that Nadal's not just great against Federer but is dominating the sport. He's been in 8 slam finals already, has won 6, has 32 career titles, and an Olympic gold medal, so he's clearing kicking butt against many others.

Heh, sure, and Jankovic and Ivanovic were the "undisputed tennis #1s" for a period recently...
I'm saying undisputed #1 because he's beaten Federer again.

Nadal's the best in the sport right now.

mr.happy

02-03-2009, 10:06 PM

No, 2007. All the signs were there that things were changing. That was before his mono.What did he lose in 2007, 6 or 7 matches? By that logic, Nadal should have retired with a worse record having lost to guys like Mahut, Youzhny and Monaco.

It's now January 2009 and Federer's lost to Nadal again.Bad matchup. Not unexpected. It's a testiment to Federer's greatness how many times he's managed to overcome Nadal. And remember,the vast majority of their head-to-head was compiled on clay. Would have looked very different on grass or hard courts, but Federer being the great all-round, all-court player he is makes finals on all surfaces, while Nadal is routinely beaten on hard and grass, when he doesn't get a cakewalk draw.

Don't be ridiculous. This goes beyond just being 13-6 against Federer. Anyone with eyes who's watching these tournaments and matches can see that Nadal's not just great against Federer but is dominating the sport.Nadal is a good player, but he's got more weaknesses than Federer, which is why it took the guy so long to pick up a single title after becoming no.1, and which is why he can't be considered the best. Nadal himself has stated this in several occassions, and even Nadal's coach and uncle said the same thing after the AO final.

"Federer is better than Rafa, better than any player. Rafa is a good player, winning this trophy and five other [Slams]. But there is still a big gap."

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/aus09/columns/story?columnist=tandon_kamakshi&id=3876885

Case closed.

I'm saying undisputed #1 because he's beaten Federer again.Heh, right, then. We'll have to seriously upgrade Ferreira, Ulirach, Stich, Krajicek and tons of other players to GOAT contenders based on this flawed head-to-head logic of yours.

Nadal's the best in the sport right now.No, Federer is. Nadal says so, Uncle Toni says so, and anyone who knows the first thing about the game and isn't blinded by biased fanboy worship says so.

Ajax

02-03-2009, 10:22 PM

No, Federer is. Nadal says so, Uncle Toni says so, and anyone who knows the first thing about the game and isn't blinded by biased fanboy worship says so.Right because you saying Federer is the best tennis player in the world and coming off as a hostile elitist jerk isnt anywhere near biased fanboy worship. Ok I got it, just wanted to make sure we had that cleared up.

mr.happy

02-03-2009, 10:26 PM

Right because you saying Federer is the best tennis player in the world and coming off as a hostile elitist jerk isnt anywhere near biased fanboy worship. Ok I got it, just wanted to make sure we had that cleared up.I'm giving you an informed, objective assessment, which is supported by both Nadal and his coach. You're welcome to think otherwise, of course, but if it's all the same to you, I'll side with the pros.

TheTerror

02-03-2009, 11:44 PM

TheTerror

02-03-2009, 11:49 PM

All fine points. I wasn't "blaming" Kobe for not winning titles without help, I just fail to see you proving to me that Kobe is "miles" better than, say, LeBron. And as for your last point, basketball, unfortunately, is a 5 on 5 game and not a pickup game. Rafer Alston could beat a number of people in a pickup game but that doesn't mean he's great.

If you think Kobe is better, fine. But MILES better? I'm not sure even BonyT would say that. I can accept that people think Kobe is slightly better than everyone, but the gap, or even position, is certainly arguable. All this "killer instinct" and stuff is fine, but it doesn't separate players by leagues. Shaq spent much of his prime years eating and playing the season into shape, yet he's one of the greatest big men of all time.

Kobe is human. He is certainly "containable". As I recall, he wasn't exactly killing it in the NBA Finals last year (though he was good, but I would have expected better from the best player in the league). He wasn't the best I've ever seen against Detroit in 2004 (though that year could be excused because of his problems). One could argue that Cleveland gave Boston a bigger scare than the Lakers last year, and this despite not having another "star" with LeBron (who also struggled at times, but not much worse than Kobe).

Sure, there are valid excuses. Pau and Lamar playing poorly didn't open things up for Kobe. The Lakers not making shots, etc,. But if he's the GOAT, the margin for excuses narrows.

What I like about Kobe is that he tries so hard. But, there are plenty of people who "try hard" and aren't as good as others who try less.

My point is, I feel like people are judging Kobe vs LeBron from a pure character standpoint. And if that's the case, Kobe definitely wins. He works his butt off, doesn't take plays off, killer instinct, etc,. But this is a thread about the integrated abilities of a player--skills, talent, character. And while LeBron fails to Kobe in the character department, he's more naturally talented and skilled in other areas of the game than Kobe, and that counts for a lot. And you can't say LeBron is a loser like, say, McGrady either since he gets deep into the playoffs year after year.

Miles better than Lebron? No, but he is slightly better. I would say that it may not be common to see to the casual fan who reads the papers or see's the plays on SportsCenter, but its noticible to the hardcore NBA fan. But like I said, I can definatly see your point and the others person point, but I still think Kobe is just a shade better. I do love Lebron though, while he has "it", Kobe has "IT".

Ajax

02-04-2009, 02:49 AM

I'm giving you an informed, objective assessment, which is supported by both Nadal and his coach.From what I was reading so was Darkangle. Just because he says Nadal is the best tennis player in the world doesnt make him a "blind biased fanboy"?

You know, and this makes me question how naïve you really are. OMG Nadal's coach and his Uncle said Federer was better then Nadal, after Nadal just got through beating Federer, of course there gonna say that with the camera's and microphones around. Like thats never happened before right? Yeah they say it, but do you really think they believe that? The color of the sky in your world must be orange too huh.

mr.happy

02-04-2009, 08:03 AM

From what I was reading so was Darkangle. Just because he says Nadal is the best tennis player in the world doesnt make him a "blind biased fanboy"?I thought that sounded like a less offensive assessment than what I first had in mind. Either way, if you look at the facts objectively and hold everyone to the same standards, it's clear that Federer comes out on top. You need to make excuses for Nadal to put him ahead. Like I already mentioned, DarkAngel used Federer's win-loss record against him, but Nadal's was worse. He used the head-to-head, but when we look at Nadal's head-to-head against lesser players, he regularly loses to mediocre players on surfaces other than clay. If Nadal is better than Federer by virtue of their head-to-head, we can take any number of players, like James Blake, who have winning records against Nadal, and claim they're the best. Except Federer has a winning record against Blake, which puts him back on top. You see, the head-to-head logic doesn't work on big picture stuff. Unless you go a couple of years back in time, where Nalbandian had winning records against both Federer and Nadal, and you could have declared him the best for a brief period. That would be the only way to legitimize the head-to-head system, assuming you were ready to retroactively propel the journeymen who regularly beat Sampras to GOAT contender status as well.

You know, and this makes me question how naïve you really are. OMG Nadal's coach and his Uncle said Federer was better then Nadal, after Nadal just got through beating Federer, of course there gonna say that with the camera's and microphones around. Like thats never happened before right? Yeah they say it, but do you really think they believe that?Of course, they do. They actually know what they're talking about, and are honest enough to admit the way things really are. Does it seem to you like professional athletes and their coaches are usually too polite or shy to declare their own greatness, when it's really the case? Who's being naive now? When Thomas Muster snuck through the backdoor and took over the top spot for a while during the peak of the Sampras - Agassi rivalry, by way of an impressive record in small clay events, even he didn't claim he was really the best, and nobody had any doubts it was between the two Americans. And like I already mentioned, nobody in their right mind would have claimed Ivanovic or Jankovic on the women's side were anything other than "filler" no.1's. Everyone knew Serena was the best, despite a recent loss of motivation, which appears to be over. You have to look at the bigger picture to make an objective assessment.

I suppose putting Nadal ahead is an easy mistake to make, if you don't really understand how the ranking system works, and if you don't follow the game on a regular basis. To the casual observer, the head-to-head would surely be enough to make up their minds, but the only "professionals" I've been able to find that would argue Nadal is top dog are senile clowns like Bud Collins, who similarly relied on the head-to-head argument to make his case. This was easily dismissed, of course, for the reasons I've already mentioned.

The color of the sky in your world must be orange too huh.Sunsets tend to have a orange hue, yes, but I'm a big picture guy, so I assess its color over a longer period of time, rather than just those few, golden minutes.

DarkAngel

02-04-2009, 09:53 AM

I suppose putting Nadal ahead is an easy mistake to make, if you don't really understand how the ranking system works, and if you don't follow the game on a regular basis.
Fortunately, I follow the game on much more than a regular basis, as its easily the sport I'm most passionate about, so I don't make the easy mistakes. I'm going to step out of this debate now and I think this is another case where we'll allow the future to demonstrate how high my MC count is. ;)

We're butting heads here too much recently, H. We're gonna have to find something to bring us together like Nadal and Federer at the trophy presentation ceremony. :)

mr.happy

02-04-2009, 09:57 AM

We're gonna have to find something to bring us together like Nadal and Federer at the trophy presentation ceremony. :)Alright, you start weeping in defeat, and I'll give you a comforting hug. :p

Burgundy Ranger

02-04-2009, 10:59 AM

Alright, you start weeping in defeat, and I'll give you a comforting hug. :p
There's no win-or-lose, right-or-wrong in this discussion. You can't ignore the 13-6 head-to-head record. If you take out the clay matches, Fed is up by only 5-4.

Rafa is closer to the career Slam than Fed and, most importantly, Rafa is in Fed's head. It's not just an on-court, physical thing anymore. Roger has finally come against someone where talent alone isn't enough -- like he had it against anyone not named Nadal. It's mental now.

He needs someone -- a coach, advisor, sports psychogist, anyone -- to deal with "the Nadal factor." The skill is still there. Fed was only 52 percent on first serves and still took the match to five sets. As was posted today on SI.com -- http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_wertheim/02/03/federer.nadal/?eref=sircrc -- Fed needs to "team up" in order to deal with this gremlin he can't beat right now.

Oh, and in hockey, as you might guess, Ovechkin is the sickest thing on skates.

DarkAngel

02-04-2009, 11:10 AM

Alright, you start weeping in defeat, and I'll give you a comforting hug. :p
:D Not sure that's what I had in mind, but if I'm reduced to that, we'll give it a go.

mr.happy

02-04-2009, 11:15 AM

There's no win-or-lose, right-or-wrong in this discussion.I disagree. You certainly lose the argument, if you don't hold both players to the same standards. Misrepresenting the relevance of a head-to-head record is not a winning tactic.

Rafa is closer to the career Slam than FedNope. Federer has made numerous finals at all 4 slams, and won them all except the French. Nadal just made his first AO final and has never made the US Open final. Now, you can speculate about who might get closer in the future, but if you look at the current facts, Federer has on a few occasions been just one match away from the career slam, which in some cases would likely have lead to the calender year Grand Slam.

and, most importantly, Rafa is in Fed's head. It's not just an on-court, physical thing anymore. Roger has finally come against someone where talent alone isn't enough -- like he had it against anyone not named Nadal. It's mental now.I'm certainly not disputing that Nadal has Federer's number in terms of head-to-head, but like I said, Nadal is regularly beaten by much lesser players than himself, and Sampras had any number of opponents, both top players and journeymen, which he just couldn't get the better off as well, but who in their right mind would have claimed that Krajicek, Stich, Safin, Ferreira or Ulirach were better players?

He needs someone -- a coach, advisor, sports psychogist, anyone -- to deal with "the Nadal factor." The skill is still there. Fed was only 52 percent on first serves and still took the match to five sets.And won more points than Nadal.

Fed needs to "team up" in order to deal with this gremlin he can't beat right now.I agree that Federer could benefit from having a regular coach to help him make that final push for the 14th slam. It's another testiment to his greatness how he's managed to achieve as much as he has without a coach for long periods of time.

Ajax

02-04-2009, 11:30 AM

Miles better than Lebron? No, but he is slightly better. I would say that it may not be common to see to the casual fan who reads the papers or see's the plays on SportsCenter, but its noticible to the hardcore NBA fan. But like I said, I can definatly see your point and the others person point, but I still think Kobe is just a shade better. I do love Lebron though, while he has "it", Kobe has "IT".Did you watch that first head to head match up like a couple of weeks ago between Lebron and Kobe? Kobe destroyed him in the 4th quarter. That pretty much told me everything I needed to know, Kobe is still miles ahead of Lebron. Remember that if Lebron had been playing in the west, he proally be like Carmelo, barely making the playoffs and losing in the first round. Lebron has been forunate to be playing when the east was soft, it contributed to a lot of his postseason success.
Remember Game one of the 2nd round last year in Boston, Lebron had a chance to steal the game, but he choked. I have seen nothing from Lebron in the postseason that would lead me to believe hes on Kobe's level. Not just yet anyways.

TheTerror

02-04-2009, 11:32 AM

Did you watch that first head to head match up like a couple of weeks ago between Lebron and Kobe? Kobe destroyed him in the 4th quarter. That pretty much told me everything I needed to know, Kobe is still miles ahead of Lebron. Remember that if Lebron had been playing in the west, he proally be like Carmelo, barely making the playoffs and losing in the first round. Lebron has been forunate to be playing when the east was soft, it contributed to a lot of his postseason success.
Remember Game one of the 2nd round last year in Boston, Lebron had a chance to steal the game, but he choked. I have seen nothing from Lebron in the postseason that would lead me to believe hes on Kobe's level. Not just yet anyways.

I saw that, they beat the Cavs by 17 and Kobe was awesome in the 4th, it showed me a lot as well. They play this Sunday live on ABC too, and I am sure this is going to be no different, Cavs will stay competitive, and maybe even get up on the Lakers by a few, but it will be the Kobe show come the 4th and the Lakers will win.

The West is SO much better than the east, minus Cavs, Boston and Orlando.

Leaping Larry Jojo

02-04-2009, 03:38 PM

Lol not really trying to prove anything tbh. I dont think you understood exactly what I was trying to say. Im not talking about a pick up game, im not talking about 5 on 5, or starting a franchise, or even staring an NBA team, it doesnt matter...the point I was trying to make was who would you pick? Kobe or Lebron. The point was, if you picked Lebron, Kobe would spend the rest of his days making sure you regretted not taking him first, Lebron would be cool either way. Thats the difference between both of them and why Kobe in the end, is the better player.

Shaq lost interest in basketball after 01, hence why he will never be in the discussion of greatest big man ever. That killer instinct is what has Jordan sitting on 6 rings instead of just 5 or 4. Your wrong in that aspect, it does separate players by leagues. We can argue wether Kobe or Lebron is better, but you cant argue that.

Uh................what? Kobe is a better jump shooter, 3 pt shooter, ft shooter and scorer (81 points anyone) then Lebron. He's also better at dribbling. Lebron is the better passer and because of his body naturally a better rebounder. In terms of driving to the basket, you couldnt really say one is better then the other. So like...wtf are you talking about?:anime: (Btw, im actually a Cavs fan and big Lebron fan so there is no bias in all this).

Kobe is having a great season and he did "show up" LeBron in the recent head to head matchup, but on the other hand, last year LeBron "showed up" Kobe in LA. I'm sure it will continue to go back and forth for the next few years.

You keep mentioning Kobe's offence, and that's fine and good, but LeBron gets 30 points off of basically a few moves only. That's how scary he is. Yes, he doesn't have the variety that Kobe has, but he often doesn't need it.

Put it this way, would you say Hakeem is MILES better than Shaq? To me it's 50-50. Hakeem had like 20 offensive moves and Shaq had about 3. That said, they're still pretty close and it would be difficult for me to choose between them.

The bottom line is this:

1. Kobe's career stats are not "miles" better than LeBron's. He has big games, but in the end, it's what you do overall an entire season that matters.

2. Lebron hasn't won a ring yet, but Kobe has 3 with a HOF centre playing beside him, but none without (yet). LeBron has yet to have another legit star with him. And no, Mo Williams does not count.

3. Both players have gotten out of the first round multiple times.

Hell, when it comes down to it, it's about stats and wins and losses. You can talk about "it" factors all you want, but while some of you fans do that year after year, guys like Tim Duncan have been quietly racking up titles. I used to be into that "me versus you" stuff, but let's face, the point of the NBA is winning titles and being the best player on your team that wins titles.

The fact that Kobe doesn't definitively win these 3 points, the door is open. People keep talking about the two as if this is a one on one game, I'm talking about who is the more important player to his team, and his impact on W/L for his team. I really don't understand the point of this if you're not talking about who you'd start a franchise, because the point of the best player in the league is pretty close to who you'd start your franchise with.

As for Kobe making you "regret" underrating him, why did he not drop 40+ on Paul Pierce even once last year in the NBA Finals? Paul Pierce! I'm not slagging the guy, but he's not even a top 5 player. Hearing you talk, I would think he could easily show up the best defence in the NBA. But I guess this isn't what you're talking about, you're still going on about 1 on 1 games, which I simply have a problem with when people talk about best players in basketball.

Again, I'm no LeBron fan. But I've SEEN and ANALYZED both players close up. I would know both players well, cuz I've seen them light up MY team numerous times. Kobe dropped 81 on MY team! Lebron's career high is *still* versus MY team! So, as the recipient of numerous butt kickings from both guys, I think I would be pretty unbiased when it comes to talking about the importance of these guys to their team, and where they would place in the NBA. I don't want to make it sound like I'm backing LeBron, because really all I'm saying is that the gap is not far between the two-- it's basically a hair's difference--and it would take me a long time to decide between the two.

Btw, LA's coming to my town this week, so here's to Kobe scoring 100 on us! Tank Tank Tank...(Boo, I hate my team...)

laactor101

02-04-2009, 04:35 PM

When did this turn into a Kobe Vs LeBron topic? In speaking of which PT 2 of this matchup is this Sunday. Just pointing it out there.

Burgundy Ranger

02-04-2009, 04:44 PM

Nope. Federer has made numerous finals at all 4 slams, and won them all except the French.
And here's where I say he probably never will. Not only does Nadal own Federer -- and most of the rest of the ATP Tour -- on the red clay, but Roger is showing more vulnerability to the other clay-court specialists.

Nadal is showing an improved all-around game that bodes well for success on all surfaces and the chances of him winning the U.S. Open are probably better than Federer winning the French.

mr.happy

02-04-2009, 04:50 PM

Nadal is showing an improved all-around game that bodes well for success on all surfaces and the chances of him winning the U.S. Open are probably better than Federer winning the French.But it remains a hypothetical, while Federer at this point in time has made the finals of all four, hence his record is far better.

Burgundy Ranger

02-04-2009, 05:34 PM

But it remains a hypothetical, while Federer at this point in time has made the finals of all four, hence his record is far better.
Having the better overall record doesn't necessarily make you the better player today.

mr.happy

02-04-2009, 05:43 PM

Having the better overall record doesn't necessarily make you the better player today.Not having the better record certainly doesn't. Look, the only reason Federer is no.2 in the rankings is because they reflect his mono-induced slump from last year, but most experts will tell you that, when he's fit and healthy, Federer is still the better player of the two. Even Nadal and Uncle Toni say so. Toni wasn't just being polite, he specifically said "... there is still a big gap". And there is. I'm not saying Nadal won't eventually close that gap, Federer isn't going to be the best forever, and Nadal is still very young, but for the moment, there's really no question who the better player is.

Spideyzilla

02-04-2009, 09:35 PM

I like Crosby, but Ovechkin is king. Proof can be found here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eorWhtV9Aqk) I saw him live recently, when he came to Ottawa. I've been to a lot of games and seen a lot of amazing players. But to see this man skate... was unreal. TV can't show it. Washington fans know what I mean. It was amazing, he could just glide without effort down the ice like a bullet. He's fast but amazingly graceful. I can't describe it anymore.

TheTerror

02-04-2009, 09:53 PM

Kobe is having a great season and he did "show up" LeBron in the recent head to head matchup, but on the other hand, last year LeBron "showed up" Kobe in LA. I'm sure it will continue to go back and forth for the next few years.

You keep mentioning Kobe's offence, and that's fine and good, but LeBron gets 30 points off of basically a few moves only. That's how scary he is. Yes, he doesn't have the variety that Kobe has, but he often doesn't need it.

Put it this way, would you say Hakeem is MILES better than Shaq? To me it's 50-50. Hakeem had like 20 offensive moves and Shaq had about 3. That said, they're still pretty close and it would be difficult for me to choose between them.

The bottom line is this:

1. Kobe's career stats are not "miles" better than LeBron's. He has big games, but in the end, it's what you do overall an entire season that matters.

2. Lebron hasn't won a ring yet, but Kobe has 3 with a HOF centre playing beside him, but none without (yet). LeBron has yet to have another legit star with him. And no, Mo Williams does not count.

3. Both players have gotten out of the first round multiple times.

Hell, when it comes down to it, it's about stats and wins and losses. You can talk about "it" factors all you want, but while some of you fans do that year after year, guys like Tim Duncan have been quietly racking up titles. I used to be into that "me versus you" stuff, but let's face, the point of the NBA is winning titles and being the best player on your team that wins titles.

The fact that Kobe doesn't definitively win these 3 points, the door is open. People keep talking about the two as if this is a one on one game, I'm talking about who is the more important player to his team, and his impact on W/L for his team. I really don't understand the point of this if you're not talking about who you'd start a franchise, because the point of the best player in the league is pretty close to who you'd start your franchise with.

As for Kobe making you "regret" underrating him, why did he not drop 40+ on Paul Pierce even once last year in the NBA Finals? Paul Pierce! I'm not slagging the guy, but he's not even a top 5 player. Hearing you talk, I would think he could easily show up the best defence in the NBA. But I guess this isn't what you're talking about, you're still going on about 1 on 1 games, which I simply have a problem with when people talk about best players in basketball.

Again, I'm no LeBron fan. But I've SEEN and ANALYZED both players close up. I would know both players well, cuz I've seen them light up MY team numerous times. Kobe dropped 81 on MY team! Lebron's career high is *still* versus MY team! So, as the recipient of numerous butt kickings from both guys, I think I would be pretty unbiased when it comes to talking about the importance of these guys to their team, and where they would place in the NBA. I don't want to make it sound like I'm backing LeBron, because really all I'm saying is that the gap is not far between the two-- it's basically a hair's difference--and it would take me a long time to decide between the two.

Btw, LA's coming to my town this week, so here's to Kobe scoring 100 on us! Tank Tank Tank...(Boo, I hate my team...)

It would be more like 101 because Kobe would have the undying need to beat Chamberlan, which he could possibly do someday, but it most likely will not happen, too different of a game these days then back then.

Ajax

02-04-2009, 11:40 PM

You keep mentioning Kobe's offence, and that's fine and good, but LeBron gets 30 points off of basically a few moves only. That's how scary he is. Yes, he doesn't have the variety that Kobe has, but he often doesn't need it. Preaching to the choir, Lebron is such an unfinished product, he doesnt even have a low post game to speak of. Dude, I swear to god that Lebron will average a triple double one season.

The bottom line is this:

1. Kobe's career stats are not "miles" better than LeBron's. He has big games, but in the end, it's what you do overall an entire season that matters.Well take into consideration that Kobe didnt play 80 games until 01, and that he wasnt the first option until Shaq left LA, unlike Lebron. Kobe scoring average since Shaq left is at 30 ppg, but the point is, career wise, stats dont tell the whole story, especially since Kobe is 30 and Lebron is 24. Plus by using the Stats logic, Peyton Manning is better or on the same lvl as Tom Brady because Manning has the better stats and more of the records (obviously not true, in the least bit).

2. Lebron hasn't won a ring yet, but Kobe has 3 with a HOF centre playing beside him, but none without (yet). LeBron has yet to have another legit star with him. And no, Mo Williams does not count.
So if Lebron nabs himself a HOF running mate, will that put him in the same boat as Kobe? Do we put a * over his accomplishments if Lebron only wins with a HOF caliber player? This point doesnt really make any sense, adding the " but none without" part. Its obvious Lebron wont ever be able to win a championship by himself (he got swept in his only finals appearance) so this really is a moot point, isnt it?

Hell, when it comes down to it, it's about stats and wins and losses. You can talk about "it" factors all you want, but while some of you fans do that year after year, guys like Tim Duncan have been quietly racking up titles. I used to be into that "me versus you" stuff, but let's face, the point of the NBA is winning titles and being the best player on your team that wins titles.
I like how you added the "you fans" in there. Tim Duncan argueably was not the best player in any of those teams that won titles. Plus, look at Kobes playoff career scoring avg compared to Shaq when they were winning those titles. Its pretty similar, its not like Shaq was clearly the best player and Kobe was just lucky to be there. Plus you could agrue that Shaq was lucky enough to always be paried with an incredible shooting guard. He had Penny Hardaway, Kobe, and D-Wade. It works both ways. I can talk about Timmy too, hes lucky he had David Robinson, and Manu and Tony and Robert Horry.

As for Kobe making you "regret" underrating him, why did he not drop 40+ on Paul Pierce even once last year in the NBA Finals? Paul Pierce! I'm not slagging the guy, but he's not even a top 5 player. Hearing you talk, I would think he could easily show up the best defence in the NBA. But I guess this isn't what you're talking about, you're still going on about 1 on 1 games, which I simply have a problem with when people talk about best players in basketball. The reason i only mention Kobe and Lebron when talking about the top players in the NBA is because those two guys in particular are the only ones in the NBA that can acsend there play to another level. Its a level that when reached it makes them unstoppable. Nobody else in the NBA can reach that level, not D-wade or carmelo, not Dwight Howard, not even chris paul. Thats what im talking about, its not a matter of "why didnt he drop 40 on the Celtics". That finals match up, in the end the Lakers just didnt match up well against the C's, but did you see what Kobe did in the playoffs, he was unstoppable, and he did it against a much tougher western conference.

Look, this miles ahead thing I keep saying. In the skills and talent department, you couldnt really say one over the other. Kobe is more refined but Lebron hasnt even scratched the surface of his talent. But in terms of work ethic, in terms of accomplisments, rings, all-stars, MVPs, all NBA first teams, All NBA first defensive teams, scoring records (since you love de stats), Kobe is miles and miles ahead of Lebron. Obviously because Kobe has been here longer hence why this little discussion is rubbish on both are parts. We can have this discussion in 13 years when Lebron proally retires......but as of right now, its Kobe, and if it isnt Kobe, then its def not Lebron.