balla45 wrote:No.
thejoker wrote:For one, Scottie Pippen. I don't think he would have gone for near as many titles without the help of the other guy.
Also, and it's hard for me to say this because he's one of my favorite players of all-time. Pistol Pete
Put him in today's game and he world not have near the success.
balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:For one, Scottie Pippen. I don't think he would have gone for near as many titles without the help of the other guy.
Also, and it's hard for me to say this because he's one of my favorite players of all-time. Pistol Pete
Put him in today's game and he world not have near the success.
He isn't in today's game though, so that doesn't matter. If you put Kwame Brown into the 50's he would have averaged 30 a game. So you can't use that.
How many titles would Kobe have without Shaq? Same thing.
thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:For one, Scottie Pippen. I don't think he would have gone for near as many titles without the help of the other guy.
Also, and it's hard for me to say this because he's one of my favorite players of all-time. Pistol Pete
Put him in today's game and he world not have near the success.
He isn't in today's game though, so that doesn't matter. If you put Kwame Brown into the 50's he would have averaged 30 a game. So you can't use that.
How many titles would Kobe have without Shaq? Same thing.
Hold on.
You said best ever in the NBA. You never said best at his time. Compare the skills and you can see how much better players are today. And Kobe dang near had it this year. What happened when Jordan left.
balla45 wrote:You must compare a player against the people he played against.
thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:You must compare a player against the people he played against.
If I played against a bunch of third graders and scored 100 points, that doesn't mean I am better than Kobe, who only scored 81 against his opponents
balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:You must compare a player against the people he played against.
If I played against a bunch of third graders and scored 100 points, that doesn't mean I am better than Kobe, who only scored 81 against his opponents
My god. You took that completely out of context. When Wilt played basketball, he was playing against the best players in the world. Just as Kobe is. Thus, the same level of competition.
thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:You must compare a player against the people he played against.
If I played against a bunch of third graders and scored 100 points, that doesn't mean I am better than Kobe, who only scored 81 against his opponents
My god. You took that completely out of context. When Wilt played basketball, he was playing against the best players in the world. Just as Kobe is. Thus, the same level of competition.
No. The best players in the world in the 50's were not as good as the best players now. Period. You have to be better now to dominate the league than ever before.
balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:You must compare a player against the people he played against.
If I played against a bunch of third graders and scored 100 points, that doesn't mean I am better than Kobe, who only scored 81 against his opponents
My god. You took that completely out of context. When Wilt played basketball, he was playing against the best players in the world. Just as Kobe is. Thus, the same level of competition.
No. The best players in the world in the 50's were not as good as the best players now. Period. You have to be better now to dominate the league than ever before.
I know this. That isn't the point. The best players in the world are the highest competition in the world. Wilt did what he did against the best competition in the world. Unless you are one of the people who wants to say that every player I named is not one of the ten best all time, because under your logic, Wilt isn't a top 100 player.
thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:You must compare a player against the people he played against.
If I played against a bunch of third graders and scored 100 points, that doesn't mean I am better than Kobe, who only scored 81 against his opponents
My god. You took that completely out of context. When Wilt played basketball, he was playing against the best players in the world. Just as Kobe is. Thus, the same level of competition.
No. The best players in the world in the 50's were not as good as the best players now. Period. You have to be better now to dominate the league than ever before.
I know this. That isn't the point. The best players in the world are the highest competition in the world. Wilt did what he did against the best competition in the world. Unless you are one of the people who wants to say that every player I named is not one of the ten best all time, because under your logic, Wilt isn't a top 100 player.
Wilt is no doubt one of the top players of all time. But my point is still that he would not have been as dominant now as he was.
balla45 wrote:Under your logic, he isn't. Why does it matter how he would do now? He did great when he played. That is the only logical way to compare players. The way you are looking at it, Wilt Chamberlain and Kwame Brown are pretty much equal.
thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:Under your logic, he isn't. Why does it matter how he would do now? He did great when he played. That is the only logical way to compare players. The way you are looking at it, Wilt Chamberlain and Kwame Brown are pretty much equal.
Under my logic he is a great. I just said that.
Why does it matter how he would do now? Because there were not the amazingly athletic point guards, Micheal Redd-esque shooters, and Shaq sized big men when Wilt played. And if people now can beat them, Wilt would have to beat them too to be better than the current dominant big man. And I don't think he was suited to do that.
I do think, however, that Kobe would do just fine in the old days of the league.
balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:Under your logic, he isn't. Why does it matter how he would do now? He did great when he played. That is the only logical way to compare players. The way you are looking at it, Wilt Chamberlain and Kwame Brown are pretty much equal.
Under my logic he is a great. I just said that.
Why does it matter how he would do now? Because there were not the amazingly athletic point guards, Micheal Redd-esque shooters, and Shaq sized big men when Wilt played. And if people now can beat them, Wilt would have to beat them too to be better than the current dominant big man. And I don't think he was suited to do that.
I do think, however, that Kobe would do just fine in the old days of the league.
Just because you said it doesn't mean it follows your system of logic. Kwame is better in every aspect of the game that Wilt was. Thus, Wilt is not as good, and Kwame is not top 100 right now, thus Wilt isn't either.
You can't compare a player against a different era. There are so many things wrong with that. I don't know how you don't see this.
thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:Under your logic, he isn't. Why does it matter how he would do now? He did great when he played. That is the only logical way to compare players. The way you are looking at it, Wilt Chamberlain and Kwame Brown are pretty much equal.
Under my logic he is a great. I just said that.
Why does it matter how he would do now? Because there were not the amazingly athletic point guards, Micheal Redd-esque shooters, and Shaq sized big men when Wilt played. And if people now can beat them, Wilt would have to beat them too to be better than the current dominant big man. And I don't think he was suited to do that.
I do think, however, that Kobe would do just fine in the old days of the league.
Just because you said it doesn't mean it follows your system of logic. Kwame is better in every aspect of the game that Wilt was. Thus, Wilt is not as good, and Kwame is not top 100 right now, thus Wilt isn't either.
You can't compare a player against a different era. There are so many things wrong with that. I don't know how you don't see this.
You just double-crossed yourself. "You cant compare a player against a different era." So who are you to say that Wilt is so much better that Kwame.
balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:Under your logic, he isn't. Why does it matter how he would do now? He did great when he played. That is the only logical way to compare players. The way you are looking at it, Wilt Chamberlain and Kwame Brown are pretty much equal.
Under my logic he is a great. I just said that.
Why does it matter how he would do now? Because there were not the amazingly athletic point guards, Micheal Redd-esque shooters, and Shaq sized big men when Wilt played. And if people now can beat them, Wilt would have to beat them too to be better than the current dominant big man. And I don't think he was suited to do that.
I do think, however, that Kobe would do just fine in the old days of the league.
Just because you said it doesn't mean it follows your system of logic. Kwame is better in every aspect of the game that Wilt was. Thus, Wilt is not as good, and Kwame is not top 100 right now, thus Wilt isn't either.
You can't compare a player against a different era. There are so many things wrong with that. I don't know how you don't see this.
You just double-crossed yourself. "You cant compare a player against a different era." So who are you to say that Wilt is so much better that Kwame.
I didn't double cross myself. I will admit that if Wilt and Kwame played in the same era, Kwame would be better. However, Kwame isn't considered a better player, because he is an average player in his era, while Wilt was the best. Make sense?
thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:Under your logic, he isn't. Why does it matter how he would do now? He did great when he played. That is the only logical way to compare players. The way you are looking at it, Wilt Chamberlain and Kwame Brown are pretty much equal.
Under my logic he is a great. I just said that.
Why does it matter how he would do now? Because there were not the amazingly athletic point guards, Micheal Redd-esque shooters, and Shaq sized big men when Wilt played. And if people now can beat them, Wilt would have to beat them too to be better than the current dominant big man. And I don't think he was suited to do that.
I do think, however, that Kobe would do just fine in the old days of the league.
Just because you said it doesn't mean it follows your system of logic. Kwame is better in every aspect of the game that Wilt was. Thus, Wilt is not as good, and Kwame is not top 100 right now, thus Wilt isn't either.
You can't compare a player against a different era. There are so many things wrong with that. I don't know how you don't see this.
You just double-crossed yourself. "You cant compare a player against a different era." So who are you to say that Wilt is so much better that Kwame.
I didn't double cross myself. I will admit that if Wilt and Kwame played in the same era, Kwame would be better. However, Kwame isn't considered a better player, because he is an average player in his era, while Wilt was the best. Make sense?
I see where you're coming from but...
You just stated that "Kwame would be better."
How can Wilt be better if Kwame is the better player?
balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:Under your logic, he isn't. Why does it matter how he would do now? He did great when he played. That is the only logical way to compare players. The way you are looking at it, Wilt Chamberlain and Kwame Brown are pretty much equal.
Under my logic he is a great. I just said that.
Why does it matter how he would do now? Because there were not the amazingly athletic point guards, Micheal Redd-esque shooters, and Shaq sized big men when Wilt played. And if people now can beat them, Wilt would have to beat them too to be better than the current dominant big man. And I don't think he was suited to do that.
I do think, however, that Kobe would do just fine in the old days of the league.
Just because you said it doesn't mean it follows your system of logic. Kwame is better in every aspect of the game that Wilt was. Thus, Wilt is not as good, and Kwame is not top 100 right now, thus Wilt isn't either.
You can't compare a player against a different era. There are so many things wrong with that. I don't know how you don't see this.
You just double-crossed yourself. "You cant compare a player against a different era." So who are you to say that Wilt is so much better that Kwame.
I didn't double cross myself. I will admit that if Wilt and Kwame played in the same era, Kwame would be better. However, Kwame isn't considered a better player, because he is an average player in his era, while Wilt was the best. Make sense?
I see where you're coming from but...
You just stated that "Kwame would be better."
How can Wilt be better if Kwame is the better player?
Wilt was the best player IN HIS ERA.
Kwame is an average player IN HIS ERA.
Kwame WOULD dominate IN WILT'S ERA, but he isn't playing it it.
Understand yet?
thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:thejoker wrote:balla45 wrote:Under your logic, he isn't. Why does it matter how he would do now? He did great when he played. That is the only logical way to compare players. The way you are looking at it, Wilt Chamberlain and Kwame Brown are pretty much equal.
Under my logic he is a great. I just said that.
Why does it matter how he would do now? Because there were not the amazingly athletic point guards, Micheal Redd-esque shooters, and Shaq sized big men when Wilt played. And if people now can beat them, Wilt would have to beat them too to be better than the current dominant big man. And I don't think he was suited to do that.
I do think, however, that Kobe would do just fine in the old days of the league.
Just because you said it doesn't mean it follows your system of logic. Kwame is better in every aspect of the game that Wilt was. Thus, Wilt is not as good, and Kwame is not top 100 right now, thus Wilt isn't either.
You can't compare a player against a different era. There are so many things wrong with that. I don't know how you don't see this.
You just double-crossed yourself. "You cant compare a player against a different era." So who are you to say that Wilt is so much better that Kwame.
I didn't double cross myself. I will admit that if Wilt and Kwame played in the same era, Kwame would be better. However, Kwame isn't considered a better player, because he is an average player in his era, while Wilt was the best. Make sense?
I see where you're coming from but...
You just stated that "Kwame would be better."
How can Wilt be better if Kwame is the better player?
Wilt was the best player IN HIS ERA.
Kwame is an average player IN HIS ERA.
Kwame WOULD dominate IN WILT'S ERA, but he isn't playing it it.
Understand yet?
I know where you're coming from. I believe I just said that also.
But Best Players Ever. Not better than players who he had to play against.
Understand?
Return to Open Topics - Sports and other things
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest