Jump to content

shaq needed kobe, period


Recommended Posts

Hakeem was probably the best all around center in the game during the 90s if not ever. He was able to win with a bunch of CBA players and straight up dominated shaq. We always hear about how shaq has such a high percentage all the time..Well half of his shots are dunks so what do u expect? probably the worst thing he did was to lose all that fat he had. its the one thing hes got going for him. As he has aged he can no longer play a full game and i think thats why they tend to go away from him at times. He just cant do it anymore like he used to

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll call Kirilenko a superstar!I work for a sports radio station and get press passes to NBA games (that's the good news) in Orlando (that's the bad news), so I've seen most of these guys play live. The reason Ben Wallace is a superstar is mainly because it's impossible to stop watching him during a game, regardless of what he's doing. Almost without exception, Ben upstages everyone on the court through a combination of his unusual look and non-stop energy. That said, very few players can take over and dominate a game like Ben can without scoring many points. And, for the record, his offense has improved dramatically and the Magic were ignorant in letting him go.Kirilenko is very similar in that when he's playing with a lot of energy (which is pretty much every game), he affects every play on the court. It seems like there are multiple AK's on the court.No player can win a championship on their own. The Houston team from 1993-94 was more than just Olajuwon (who, by the way, was playing better basketball from the center position than anyone in my lifetime at that point). Otis Thorpe was a fantastic player. Vernon Maxwell and Kenny Smith could both score in big spurts Robert Horry was seen at the time as a future star. Plus, you had Mario Elie hitting clutch shots and a rookie Sam Cassell proving to be a big time playoff performer. That was a very good team with depth and players willing to play a role. On the rare night where Olajuwon wasn't playing well, there were multiple guys that could and would step it up. The following season, they added Clyde Drexler, too.There have been other teams that won through depth and teamwork, namely all three Pistons championship teams and the Spurs teams. As for Shaq and Kobe. Both guys needed the other to win, but Kobe was clearly more replaceable than Shaq. In fact, I think if you put Tracy McGrady or Vince Carter (assuming he was willing to try) with the big guy early in their careers, they would be head and shoulders above Kobe today. I'm sure the Kobe fans won't agree, and that's fine, but he's just too selfish a player and he relies way too much on his bad, fading jumpers than his teammates. I think T-Mac is clearly the most talented player and gifted athlete. Early in his career, I thought the same about Carter, but over the years I just assumed I was wrong...until he was traded to Jersey and started trying again. I will say this about Kobe...he has more heart than Carter, but so does my dog, Otis the Pug.The only thing Kobe has on either of them is defense, and two factors have even swayed my opinion on that. 1) In Phil's book, he said that Kobe's defensive reputation is based on past achievement more than current production. I started paying more attention to him on the defensive end and the effort just isn't consistently there, although when it is, he's a great defensive player, and 2) McGrady's standout defensive performance in this year's playoffs. I'm not sure if T-Mac can put forth that kind of effort consistently, but if so, he'll be better defensively than Kobe.Oh, and for the record, I wouldn't trade Lebron for any of them. When all is said and done, he'll be the one we're talking about fifty years from now. That guy is unreal.So I rank them ("them" being the swing guard, small forward hybrids that they all are) in this order (based on talent): 1) T-Mac, 2) Carter, 3) Kobe, 4) Lebron, 5) Wade and 1) Lebron, 2) Wade, 3) T-Mac, 4) Kobe, 5) Carter based on who I would take if I was allowed to draft players to build a team around. :)God, I love this game.(EDIT: The "players to build a team around" list was only comprised of players from the previous list of five, otherwise Vince Carter wouldn't be anywhere near it. I'd much rather have a guy like Ginobli, who, by the way, is incredible.)Peace,JayP.S. For all time centers:1) Russell2) Olajuwon3) Shaq4) Wilt5) Kareem

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet it all, comparing Ben wallace's numbers to Amare's is stupidity.....for one, amare's numbers are grossly inflated due to the ridiculous offense he is in.....dont get me wrong, amare is a manchild and will be killing for years..... but no one claims wallace would be scoring like that in the same system, but i bet you he would average 16/game instead of the 10/game he does now because of how hard and fast he runs the floor and fills the lanes...he'd have clear dunks just like amare gets....and my mind cannot fathom how many rebounds ben would have with the suns....his average would be rodman-like (16-17/game).....how can you make a baseless comparison like that.....Fatmanguitar is right on this one.....peace

Link to post
Share on other sites

Naismith, great post.I agree about T-Mac. The man is awesome, is the coolest under pressure and can raise the level of his defensive game when needed (he averaged close to 2 BPG a few years back!). LeBron is superhuman.For some reason, Pierce's reputation has been tarnished the past couple of years but I would slate him above VC in a heartbeat for his toughness, better D, and ability to get to the FT line.Only other thing - Wade is a hybrid PG/SG so I don't know if he belongs on that list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bet it all, comparing Ben wallace's numbers to Amare's is stupidity.....for one, amare's numbers are grossly inflated due to the ridiculous offense he is in.....dont get me wrong, amare is a manchild and will be killing for years..... but no one claims wallace would be scoring like that in the same system, but i bet you he would average 16/game instead of the 10/game he does now because of how hard and fast he runs the floor and fills the lanes...he'd have clear dunks just like amare gets....and my mind cannot fathom how many rebounds ben would have with the suns....his average would be rodman-like (16-17/game).....how can you make a baseless comparison like that.....Fatmanguitar is right on this one.....peace
This is all speculation. My point was that I don't consider Ben Wallace an NBA superstar on any grounds other than (maybe) marketability. It all depends on how you define a superstar. My "superstar" list may be more exclusive than some others, but I apply that distinction to the top 5-10 players in the league. If there's an NBA draft tomorrow, Ben Wallace does not go in the top 50.Simple as that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't recall (this is in complete seriousness) the Spurs team when they won their last championship? If you can recall the other star besides Duncan, I'll be happy... I can't remember.
David Robinson. (on NBA's list of 50 all-time greatest players and a lock future H.O.F.er)
I agree that when the Spurs won there first title in 1999, you could say that Duncan and Robinson were both stars.However, when they beat the Nets in 2003, Duncan was the only star on the team. Parker was fairly young and Robinson was at the end of his career. Both strong players, but neither of them was really a star at the time.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't recall (this is in complete seriousness) the Spurs team when they won their last championship? If you can recall the other star besides Duncan, I'll be happy... I can't remember.
David Robinson. (on NBA's list of 50 all-time greatest players and a lock future H.O.F.er)
I agree that when the Spurs won there first title in 1999, you could say that Duncan and Robinson were both stars.However, when they beat the Nets in 2003, Duncan was the only star on the team. Parker was fairly young and Robinson was at the end of his career. Both strong players, but neither of them was really a star at the time.
Robinson averaged about 8ppg that year, if I remember correctly. Definitely not a star.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Shaq's out!!!!!! And I'm a happy camper. Wade was hurt and couldn't perform at his best,...........and that's why miami did not advance. I predicted this before the playoffs started. And you can check my archives on this site. Bottom line is shaq needs a star guard/foward or he'll never get another ring. Wade is a very good player. And I believe he carried the team just as much as Shaq did. And so did Kobe when he was with the Lakers.
The heat will roll next season.Wade is unbelievable.If he was healthy they would have won
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Shaq's out!!!!!! And I'm a happy camper. Wade was hurt and couldn't perform at his best,...........and that's why miami did not advance. I predicted this before the playoffs started. And you can check my archives on this site. Bottom line is shaq needs a star guard/foward or he'll never get another ring. Wade is a very good player. And I believe he carried the team just as much as Shaq did. And so did Kobe when he was with the Lakers.
Brilliant.Name the last NBA superstar to win a title without a star player helping him.Take your time.
TIMOTHY DUNCAN,2 years ago.Parker and Ginobs were rooks I believe.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Naismith, great post.I agree about T-Mac. The man is awesome, is the coolest under pressure and can raise the level of his defensive game when needed (he averaged close to 2 BPG a few years back!). LeBron is superhuman.For some reason, Pierce's reputation has been tarnished the past couple of years but I would slate him above VC in a heartbeat for his toughness, better D, and ability to get to the FT line.Only other thing - Wade is a hybrid PG/SG so I don't know if he belongs on that list.
Thanks for the compliment.I agree that Wade plays a different position, but they're all the same type of player...the slashing, create-their-own opportunity guard type. I think any of the guys I mentioned could play the 1, 2 or 3 with the possible exception of Carter. Hell, Wade's better at all the things a small forward needs to do than Eddie Jones right now. Pierce's reputation has been tarnished for the same reason that Carter's has been. He's been dogging it. I think Antoine Walker really helped keep Pierce motivated, or else it's an incredible coincidence that his intensity disappeared after they traded Walker and returned when they traded back for him.Also, I think the casual fan has a harder time getting into Pierce because his game is so unorthodox and not necessarily all that pretty. That, combined with the constant in-game-whining and lack of effort over the last season and a half (before getting Walker back) has hurt his stock. I think if he had T-Mac or Kobe's natural ability or if they had his game around the hoop, you'd have one helluva player, though.Peace,Jay
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Shaq's out!!!!!! And I'm a happy camper. Wade was hurt and couldn't perform at his best,...........and that's why miami did not advance. I predicted this before the playoffs started. And you can check my archives on this site. Bottom line is shaq needs a star guard/foward or he'll never get another ring. Wade is a very good player. And I believe he carried the team just as much as Shaq did. And so did Kobe when he was with the Lakers.
Brilliant.Name the last NBA superstar to win a title without a star player helping him.Take your time.
TIMOTHY DUNCAN,2 years ago.Parker and Ginobs were rooks I believe.
I might be wrong, but I think that was Parker's third year and Manu's second. Parker played better two years ago than he has in this season's playoffs, but Manu is currently on a whole new level.That Spurs team was pretty solid, though. Like I said above, Parker had his best run as a pro during the playoffs that year. It's hard to believe now after what happened this year, but Stephen Jackson enjoyed a lot of positive reviews for not only his play but his character. I think he was their third leading scorer on the season and had a great playoff run, too. Malik Rose had a career year that season and they had Steve Smith and Bruce Bowen coming off the bench.Sure, Duncan was the only superstar on that team, but he was still getting 27 points per game out of Parker and Jackson, so it's not like he was playing by himself. :)Peace,Jay
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Wallace wouldnt be taken in the top 50?? That's enough to prove you know NOTHING about basketball at all.
I don't know....start a list...you will be surprised at how many great players there are......Ben Wallace is really overrated...SHAQ made him his beotch....and do not start with the "He is too small" crap.....Hakeem Olajuwon guarded SHAQ one on one effectively.If you play 42 minutes a night...and score 4 points regularly....as a starting center...that is embarrassing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Shaq's out!!!!!! And I'm a happy camper. Wade was hurt and couldn't perform at his best,...........and that's why miami did not advance. I predicted this before the playoffs started. And you can check my archives on this site. Bottom line is shaq needs a star guard/foward or he'll never get another ring. Wade is a very good player. And I believe he carried the team just as much as Shaq did. And so did Kobe when he was with the Lakers.
hahahhaa where is kobe htis year they lose shaq and they are out of the playoffs end of story
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Wallace is an all-star and a great player, but "Superstar" implies a greatness on both ends of the floor that he doesn't have.Many people are arguing that Nash isn't a superstar because of his lack of defensive presence. The reverse case can be more easily made for Wallace.I agree that he's the best player on his team, a winner and an asset almost any team would love to have. But superstar status should be reserved for players like Duncan and Jordan, who dominate both ends of the floor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Wallace is an all-star and a great player, but "Superstar" implies a greatness on both ends of the floor that he doesn't have.Many people are arguing that Nash isn't a superstar because of his lack of defensive presence. The reverse case can be more easily made for Wallace.I agree that he's the best player on his team, a winner and an asset almost any team would love to have. But superstar status should be reserved for players like Duncan and Jordan, who dominate both ends of the floor.
To play Devil's advocate...Magic was a notoriously poor defensive player. Was he not a superstar? Dominique Wilkins and Bernard King were each considered bad defensively. Were they not both superstars? On a level below them, what about Reggie Miller and Glen Rice? Dirk is currently a defensive liability. What about him? Conversely, did you consider Dennis Rodman to be a superstar? He was more limited offensively than Wallace. What about Jason Kidd? He's always been a poor shooter/scorer.I think it goes without saying that the Pistons wouldn't be defending champions and vying for their second straight title without Ben Wallace. Does that make him a superstar? Who cares. :)Peace,Jay
Link to post
Share on other sites
i HATE the pistons and ben wallace but i'm smart enough to realize his value....so therefore, alf you know NOTHING either.
How can you say I know nothing about basketball? You don't know me.I have probably forgotten more basketball than you have ever known.The guy is a good starter...but if you think he is a superstar...you are nuts.The guy regularly has 2 pt. 8 rebound games as a 40 minute starter......If you look at his game by game stats....He averaged around 16 rebounds a game in about 40 games.....in the other games he had those invisible nights.The guy is good...but not great....and if you had a draft....you would be surprised at how low he would go.....THERE ARE ALOT OF GOOD PLAYERS in the NBA.
Link to post
Share on other sites

first off, take all the knowledge you EVER knew and multiply it times 5 and you might be relatively close to my basketball knowledge.Secondly, obviously you are a stats whore. Ben Wallace can have 3 rebounds and 0 points in a game, yet be a MAJOR factor in the game. He alters almost any shot taken in the lane and most of the rebounds others get come from his defensive pressure and presence. He is not an All-Star starter, All-NBA selection, and Def. POY for no reason. Basically, if you say Ben Wallace is not a superstar, then you are saying Dennis Rodman or any other great defensive player was not a superstar. If you really knew so much about basketball, you'd realize 12-14 rebounds plus 8 altered shots plus a couple blocks is as important as some guy scoring 24 points. Defense is just as important, if not more, than offensive. Keep crackin and pumpin out those stats. You do not know how to apply them anyway. Get real son. I'm done with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think you guys are using the term "Superstar" too loosely. Superstar, by my definition, should be reserved for the elite among the stars. Wallace is a great player, but nobody would dream of arguing that he is as good as Shaq or Duncan. He's great, but he's not in the true upper echelon of NBA stars.And no, I wouldn't call Nowitski or Rodman superstars either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point moose and I do not necessarily disagree....i was just pointing out to this guy that he obviously does not know what he is talking about.....the term superstar depends on your philosophy of basketball really....but no one should be saying that ben wallace would not be picked in the first 50 of a pooled NBA draft....you seem knowlegeable and I guarantee u will agree with me on that...and hopefully, you would agree that this guy has NO CLUE what he is talking about...peace

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand your point moose and I do not necessarily disagree....i was just pointing out to this guy that he obviously does not know what he is talking about.....the term superstar depends on your philosophy of basketball really....but no one should be saying that ben wallace would not be picked in the first 50 of a pooled NBA draft....you seem knowlegeable and I guarantee u will agree with me on that...and hopefully, you would agree that this guy has NO CLUE what he is talking about...peace
Well, here's the point. I said that I reserve this superstar status for the top 5-10 players in the league. As Moose noted it denotes a star among stars. Since Ben isn't in that top 10, he's not a superstar to me. He might be in the top 50, but it's probably close. Here's the quick list (in no particular order) 1. Shaq2. Kobe3. Lebron4. Iverson5. T-Mac6. Jermaine O'neal7. Yao8. Paul Pierce9. Ray Allen10. Tim Duncan Ben Wallace is officially eliminated11. Manu Ginobli12. Amare Stoudemire13. Steve Nash14. Jason Kidd15. Dwyane Wade16. Vince Carter17. Dirk Nowitski18. Carmelo Anthony19. Mike Bibby20. Shawn Marion21. Rasheed Wallace22. Rip Hamilton23. Chauncey Billups24. Tayshaun Prince25. Pau Gasol26. Baron Davis27. Ben Gordon28. Chris Weber (perhaps not after the knee injury)29. Peja30. Artest (suspension notwithstanding)And now we move on to guys that I would still pick before Wallace, but these are subject to debate:31. Gilbert Arenas32. Tony Parker33. Emeka Okafor34. Dwight Howard35. Richard Jefferson (healthy)We're getting close to Ben Wallace territory because I really have to think now. Here's some Ben Wallace level picks36. Jamison37. Antoine Walker38. Lamar Odom39. Zach Randolph40. Larry Hughes41. Hinrich42. Jason Richardson43. Finley44. Joe Johnson45. Elton Brand 46. Quentin Richardson47. Rashard Lewis48. Cory Maggette49. Stephen Jackson50. Ilgauskus51. Kirilenko should be higher52. Kenyon Martin53. Steve Francis 54. KG should obviously be higher55. Stephon Marbury Here are some guys that I would consider taking before Ben, though I'm probably in the minority here.Ricky DavisChris BoshJason TerryAndre MillerAnd a few years ago, I might've taken these guys before BenSprewellCassellReggie MillerGrant Hill (if he could ever stay healthy)The fact is that hustle guys are more easily replaceable than skill guys. I can go get Bo Outlaw to chase down loose balls if I need a poor man's Ben Wallace. Sure, Ben is a great rebounder and good defender, but you can't tell me that there are 50 superstars in this league.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Wallace is an all-star and a great player, but "Superstar" implies a greatness on both ends of the floor that he doesn't have.Many people are arguing that Nash isn't a superstar because of his lack of defensive presence.   The reverse case can be more easily made for Wallace.I agree that he's the best player on his team, a winner and an asset almost any team would love to have.  But superstar status should be reserved for players like Duncan and Jordan, who  dominate both ends of the floor.
To play Devil's advocate...Magic was a notoriously poor defensive player. Was he not a superstar? Dominique Wilkins and Bernard King were each considered bad defensively. Were they not both superstars? On a level below them, what about Reggie Miller and Glen Rice? Dirk is currently a defensive liability. What about him? Conversely, did you consider Dennis Rodman to be a superstar? He was more limited offensively than Wallace. What about Jason Kidd? He's always been a poor shooter/scorer.I think it goes without saying that the Pistons wouldn't be defending champions and vying for their second straight title without Ben Wallace. Does that make him a superstar? Who cares. :)Peace,Jay
Magic was clearly a superstar, and while he may have been an average defender, I don't recall him being a "notoriously poor" defender. I grew up watching Magic and Larry in their prime... I even have many of the games on vhs and DVD, and I just don't remember Magic's defense being singled out as bad. Anyways, the overall standard of defense in the NBA was much lower then. When you are the best player on 5 NBA Championship teams, you are a superstar. If you're a role-player on 1 title team, you might not be. Heck,even if you have rings on every finger like Robert Horry, you might not be. For the definitive argument on why Reggie Miller is not a superstar, see Bill Simmons column on Espn page 2. Apply those same standards to Glen Rice. Rodman is actually a very good comparison to Ben... better rebounder, better passer, equal defender, though it won't show up in the blocks column, equally limited on offense. (same fg%, Wallace just takes more shots) And the fact remains, Rodman wasn't a superstar either.The pistons might not have won the title without Ben, but there are plenty of guys you could plug in to that spot and win with. I'm not sure Elden Campbell, Mehmet Okur, and Corliss couldn't have gotten the job done. Ben's production is partially a product of the system and his teammates. In Orlando in 2000 Ben started 81 games and averaged 8 boards and less than 5 points. This does not a superstar make.
Link to post
Share on other sites
first off, take all the knowledge you EVER knew and multiply it times 5 and you might be relatively close to my basketball knowledge.Secondly, obviously you are a stats censored. Ben Wallace can have 3 rebounds and 0 points in a game, yet be a MAJOR factor in the game. He alters almost any shot taken in the lane and most of the rebounds others get come from his defensive pressure and presence. He is not an All-Star starter, All-NBA selection, and Def. POY for no reason. Basically, if you say Ben Wallace is not a superstar, then you are saying Dennis Rodman or any other great defensive player was not a superstar. If you really knew so much about basketball, you'd realize 12-14 rebounds plus 8 altered shots plus a couple blocks is as important as some guy scoring 24 points.  Defense is just as important, if not more, than offensive. Keep crackin and pumpin out those stats. You do not know how to apply them anyway. Get real son. I'm done with you.
You don't know a damn thing about what you are talking about.Do a list of 6-10 players and up and see where Wallace falls in......Ben Wallace is a good defensive player....but we are talking about superstars...and if you mention this guy as a superstar...then you needed to mention DIkembe Mutombo as a superstar...hell...then Theo Ratliff in his best days was a superstar.You are clueless.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...