Discussion in 'Nuttin' but Net' started by harnettgator, May 30, 2018.
It's easily the most cliche and boring talking point in sports. You either have enough talent surrounding you to win a championship or you don't. Especially when we're talking about going up against one of the greatest NBA teams ever, a Golden State Warriors team with 3 (maybe 4 or 5 if you count their coach) future Hall of Fame players in their primes.
Boston Celtics had 3 hall of famers in their prime too back in 2010 (Pierce, Garnett, Allen) plus a borderline hall of famer Rondo in his prime. Kobe Bryant won game 7. Playing with borderline scrubs minus Gasol.
Rondo, a borderline HOFer? You're being very kind. He had a couple of good yrs, but not even in the discussion for me. Agree on other 3.
Yea, maybe. Point being that he was an all-star and all-defensive first team that season. Certain things happened to his career later on that will keep him out of the HOF but had he been in Boston this entire time and not had those injuries there’s no doubt that he’d eventually be in the HOF. 11th in NBA history in triple doubles despite wasting almost half his career on garbage teams.
Has a ref ever been elected to the HOF?
And, it's even more amazing that Kobe won that game 7 while shooting 6 of 24 from the field!!! (not to mention adding 2 assists and 4 turnovers to his series-clinching performance!!!) No doubt that performance would have brought the current Golden State team to its knees.
I always thought the Lakers won the 2010 championship despite Kobe who IMHO was at his absolute worst "take terrible shot after terrible shot" self during that series. And, that was after what I thought was the best I'd ever seen Kobe play in the playoffs that season before the championship series. In the first 3 playoff rounds, Kobe had played IMHO magnificently in taking good shots (and hardly ever missing it seemed) and passing the ball to teammates for assists when he was well guarded and/or double-teamed. Before the finals started, I was thinking that if Kobe had played his whole career like that, I would have agreed he was one of the best players (say, top 10) of all time.
It was quite irksome to me to see Kobe on the verge of cementing a Jordan-like legacy due to getting that 5th ring (One ring to go! ) when I didn't consider him to be worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as the great Jordan (or any of the other players I consider to be in the discussion for GOAT as well as quite a few other great players I would take long before Kobe).
Fortunately, Kobe didn't singlehandedly win another ring (to get his 6th) or I'm sure his consensus coronation as the 2nd Jordan would have been complete and permanently enshrined in the public consciousness.
You neglected to mention that little stat called rebounding I see, where he got 15 boards. Kobe affected the game in more ways than shooting evidently, unlike the King who usually quits on his teammates when things aren't working out for him. But the stats argument isn't even in your favor considering he led all scorers in 6 out of 7 games that series. His shooting percentage was lower because he had to carry his team on his shoulders and make something out of nothing on a majority of possessions. He took contested shot after contested shot because he didn't have any scorers around him. Odom was valuable because of his versatility but no one would ever describe him as a good shooter. Ron Artest was a flatout terrible scorer. Derrick Fisher could knock down an open shot but creating something wasn't in his game. Gasol and Bynum were good on the glass, but they couldn't consistently take on Garnett and Perkins. Kobe looked like Superman when Shaq was there because it's obviously easier playing with the most powerful athlete I've ever seen, and his critics thought once Shaq left, he'd never win another one. I think his competitiveness and will earned him that title. You saying the Lakers won that title despite Kobe shows how off your mind is regarding basketball.
Agree to disagree on Kobe.
But, I remember people taking about LeBron quitting in a game against the Celtics where I think he pulled down 19 rebounds. I was traveling at the time and never got to see that game, but it always seemed odd to me that a guy who had quit somehow pulled down 19 rebounds.
He can still stuff the stat sheet when he quits because he's 6'9 250 with a ridiculous vertical. They're talking about the hustle plays and killer instinct that would make him the GOAT in most peoples eyes if he consistently gave 100%. I don't think I've ever seen Lebron visibly exhausted, he chooses to conserve energy at the wrong moments to me. If you make a bad pass, hustle back even if you might not make the play. Hustling back means more than just the immediate result, it sends the message to the entire team to play hard every second.
Garnett was a shell of his former self after tearing his knee, Paul Pierce was 32 and Ray Allen was 34. None of them were in their primes, but you knew that already.
Rondo ended up on garbage teams due to his own cancerous attitude, no contender wanted his selfish attitude in the locker room. Hilarious to see someone rip Lebron for stat-padding then try to give Rondo props when the guy used to pass up wide open layups just to add to his assist totals.
Gasol/Bynum/Odom formed the best frontline in basketball. Their length gave opposing teams nightmares, since they couldn’t penetrate the lane and couldn’t crash the boards. Also had the best perimeter defender in the league in a Artest. All of these players allowed Kobe to roam around and cover up for the multiple mistakes he used to make gambling on defense. The fact that Kobe could shoot 6-24 in a game 7 and the Lakers still win tells you there’s no way his teammates were borderline scrubs.
You can ignore facts all you want. All of them were all-stars. Garnett was stronger than he ever was. Pierce being 32 had no effect on him. Allen was doing just fine. Of course they averaged more stats being on crap teams. A ton of players enter their prime in their early 30s, even though stats might suggest otherwise. Give me higher basketball IQ over fresher legs.
I didn’t know you had access to the Celtics locker room, do tell more.
You said they were in their primes, not that they were all-stars. Those are 2 completely different things. Shaq was an all-star at age 37 when he was a shell of his former self on Phoenix, does that mean he was in his prime?
A guy playing for 5 different teams in a span of 3 years tells you all you need to know. That doesn’t sound like a “Hall of Famer” to me, sounds more like a “malcontent journeyman.”
Not to mention Miami’s strategy to beat Boston two years in a row was to not cover Rondo. Back off him, fill his passing lanes and force him to shoot mid range jump shots.
Pretty much. The 2010 Lakers employed the same strategy. They focused on locking up Pierce and Ray Allen and dared Rondo to beat them shooting, and of course he couldn't.
Was Magic Johnson in his prime when he was in his last all-star game? You're asking a stupid question. Eyeball test says they were still in the prime of their careers or else they wouldn't have been in the finals.