Scottie Pippen aint a top 50 player......

[gspieler]

If Pau is a HOF'er it's only because he played with Kobe

...or the fact that he's been a 20/10 guy, consistently, with four different teams, over ~15 seasons in the league. Just sayin.

 

[TheComebackKid]

...or the fact that he's been a 20/10 guy, consistently, with four different teams, over ~15 seasons in the league. Just sayin.

That doesn't get you into the hof tho. Being a 20/10 guy who also happened to be the #2 guy on back to back title teams might do it.

 

[TheComebackKid]

No one's denying Shaq had help through all his Finals appearances. Nobody can get their alone(though argument could be made for Hakeem).

Shaq had Kobe, a bunch of smart role players, and the Zenmaster. I'm simply stating the truth that Shaq meant more to their success than Kobe. If you take Shaq off that team, they're an 8 seed at best(in a stacked West). You take Kobe off that team, they win 50, and lose to the Jazz/Spurs/Kings in the second round.

If you take Kobe off the team after they traded away Jones & Van Exel Shaq is going to have a hard time getting to 50 wins. Shaq + Horry, Fox, Harper, Grant, and Fisher aren't winning many games lol.

Also, Kobe had Pau, Odom, some good role players, and Zenmaster during the second run. There's no doubt who's team that was, but it's a myth that Kobe somehow "got there on his own".

Agreed. No one gets there on their own. Kobe had a good cast and mix of teammates. But he didn't have an all time great. This push to devalue Kobe's titles is inconsistent and just some Kobe hate.

Magic won all his titles with arguably the greatest Center of all time. Kareem won his titles with the 1st and 2nd Pgs of all time. Shaq had the 2nd and 3rd greatest SGs of all time. Bird had a big 3. LeBron had superteams. Russell had had 4-6 hofers. Even Wilt won both of his titles with a big 3. Yet no one tries to sparse their titles.

 

[gspieler]

That doesn't get you into the hof tho. Being a 20/10 guy who also happened to be the #2 guy on back to back title teams might do it.

I think it's a safe bet if you retire with >20k points and >10k rebounds, you're getting into the HOF, rings or not. The fact Pau picked up a couple being Robin to Kobe's Batman is just the icing on the cake. Statistically, Pau's gonna retire with similar numbers to guys like Ewing, et al. Ewing was the man on his team for over a decade, never won a ring, and was notorious for choking in big games. There was never any doubt that no. 33 was going into the hall though. Granted, Ewing played in a huge market, and at his absolute peak, was probably held in higher regard as a player than Pau would be.

 

[gspieler]

If you take Kobe off the team after they traded away Jones & Van Exel Shaq is going to have a hard time getting to 50 wins. Shaq + Horry, Fox, Harper, Grant, and Fisher aren't winning many games lol.



Agreed. No one gets there on their own. Kobe had a good cast and mix of teammates. But he didn't have an all time great. This push to devalue Kobe's titles is inconsistent and just some Kobe hate.

Magic won all his titles with arguably the greatest Center of all time. Kareem won his titles with the 1st and 2nd Pgs of all time. Shaq had the 2nd and 3rd greatest SGs of all time. Bird had a big 3. LeBron had superteams. Russell had had 4-6 hofers. Even Wilt won both of his titles with a big 3. Yet no one tries to sparse their titles.

Due respect,I think you may be underestimating a few things, namely Shaq's value during his peak years, and the regard Pau is held in as a player.

Regarding your first point, I think Shaq during his prime years takes any team to 50+ wins. I don't think he was ever on a team that didn't win 50 games, other than his rookie season. Granted, he was alaways surrounded by an above-average back court. But the common theme that Shaq = a good regular season record, was consistent throughout his career. There's no reason to think without Kobe, he can't take what would be a 60-65 win team to 50 wins. This is particularly true in a league devoid of dominant big men. Hakeem, The Admiral, Ewing, Zo, etc were all either old or plagued with injuries.

As for Pau, I don't really get this whole discrediting of him to support an argument that others use him as a means to devalue Kobe's rings. Pau has been one of the premiere big men since very early on in his career, and most recognize that, as well that he was pivotal in helping win a couple of rings(which, isn't a detriment to Kobe, as it has been agreed that titles aren't won by a single player).

 

[TheComebackKid]

I think it's a safe bet if you retire with >20k points and >10k rebounds, you're getting into the HOF, rings or not. The fact Pau picked up a couple being Robin to Kobe's Batman is just the icing on the cake. Statistically, Pau's gonna retire with similar numbers to guys like Ewing, et al. Ewing was the man on his team for over a decade, never won a ring, and was notorious for choking in big games. There was never any doubt that no. 33 was going into the hall though. Granted, Ewing played in a huge market, and at his absolute peak, was probably held in higher regard as a player than Pau would be.

I will concede that Pau was a very good player may be able to qualify for the HOF even without the titles. But...he's no Patrick Ewing. Gasol peaked at about 20ppg and was never a serious playoff threat with the Grizzlies. Ewing peaked at 28ppg, won a conference title, and had the Knicks contending for about 5 yrs. Ewing is a more comparable to Shaq than Pau.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Due respect,I think you may be underestimating a few things, namely Shaq's value during his peak years, and the regard Pau is held in as a player.

Regarding your first point, I think Shaq during his prime years takes any team to 50+ wins. I don't think he was ever on a team that didn't win 50 games, other than his rookie season. Granted, he was alaways surrounded by an above-average back court. But the common theme that Shaq = a good regular season record, was consistent throughout his career. There's no reason to think without Kobe, he can't take what would be a 60-65 win team to 50 wins. This is particularly true in a league devoid of dominant big men. Hakeem, The Admiral, Ewing, Zo, etc were all either old or plagued with injuries.

I don't mean to diminish Shaq's value because I honestly don't think you can. I'm just attempting to add context and push back against this notion that Shaq needed Kobe more than Kobe needed him. Neither one were going to get past teams like the Spurs, Blazers, and Kings without another dominant, elite teammate. Nor do I think either one could have found a better option than each other.

As for Pau, I don't really get this whole discrediting of him to support an argument that others use him as a means to devalue Kobe's rings. Pau has been one of the premiere big men since very early on in his career, and most recognize that, as well that he was pivotal in helping win a couple of rings(which, isn't a detriment to Kobe, as it has been agreed that titles aren't won by a single player).

Again, don't mean to discredit Pau just putting things into context. When you talk about the all time greats Kobe seems to get penalized for having Shaq as a teammate. I think that is unfair considering that Kobe proved he can win titles without elite, all time greats helping him. When in reality Kobe was able to bring home titles with less help in terms of pure star quality than guys like Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Lebron, Bird, ect. Pau was a great player but as a championship teammate he is more comparable to Scottie Pippen than having teammates like Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Magic Johnson, Kareem, Kevin McHale, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, ect.

 

[gspieler]

I will concede that Pau was a very good player may be able to qualify for the HOF even without the titles. But...he's no Patrick Ewing. Gasol peaked at about 20ppg and was never a serious playoff threat with the Grizzlies. Ewing peaked at 28ppg, won a conference title, and had the Knicks contending for about 5 yrs. Ewing is a more comparable to Shaq than Pau.

I alluded to Ewing, peak for peak, being better in my previous post. Doesnt change Pau's, consistently All-Star level of play, his longevity, or his career numbers. Ewing is closer to Shaq in that he was "the man" on his team most of his career. But he also had tenure. Gasol spent his career going from one team to the next because it was the rigjt business move. In terms of actual value as a player, Ewing is closer to Pau IMO.

 

[gspieler]

I don't mean to diminish Shaq's value because I honestly don't think you can. I'm just attempting to add context and push back against this notion that Shaq needed Kobe more than Kobe needed him. Neither one were going to get past teams like the Spurs, Blazers, and Kings without another dominant, elite teammate. Nor do I think either one could have found a better option than each other.



Again, don't mean to discredit Pau just putting things into context. When you talk about the all time greats Kobe seems to get penalized for having Shaq as a teammate. I think that is unfair considering that Kobe proved he can win titles without elite, all time greats helping him. When in reality Kobe was able to bring home titles with less help in terms of pure star quality than guys like Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Lebron, Bird, ect. Pau was a great player but as a championship teammate he is more comparable to Scottie Pippen than having teammates like Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Magic Johnson, Kareem, Kevin McHale, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, ect.

Again, I'm not claiming that Shaq wouldve gotten there without a good/great second guy. Just that Shaq meant greater net wins for team during that period than Kobe did, and was a bigger reason for their success than Kobe was. You stick anyone at Stevie Franchise's level or above with Shaq at that time, and its a forgone conclusion theyll win at least win one ring.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Again, I'm not claiming that Shaq wouldve gotten there without a good/great second guy. Just that Shaq meant greater net wins for team during that period than Kobe did, and was a bigger reason for their success than Kobe was.

Disagree. You can say that about the first ring but not the other two.

You stick anyone at Stevie Franchise's level or above with Shaq at that time, and its a forgone conclusion theyll win at least win one ring.

If that's the case then how come Shaq didn't win when he had Nick Van Exel, Eddie Jones, and a teenage Kobe Bryant? That's 3 Steve Francis level players. How come he didn't win when he had an MVP caliber teammate in Penny Hardaway for 3 years?

What you are insisting is hypothetical. What actually happened is Shaq couldn't get over the hump without elite, all time greats on his team. Kobe could and did.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I alluded to Ewing, peak for peak, being better in my previous post. Doesnt change Pau's, consistently All-Star level of play, his longevity, or his career numbers. Ewing is closer to Shaq in that he was "the man" on his team most of his career. But he also had tenure. Gasol spent his career going from one team to the next because it was the rigjt business move. In terms of actual value as a player, Ewing is closer to Pau IMO.

Ewing is closer to Shaq peak for peak as well as consistency and longevity. Ewing was a perennial all nba, MVP candidate who competed for titles and almost won on his own. Top 10 player of the 1990s.

Pau never had one MVP caliber season.

 

[gspieler]

Disagree. You can say that about the first ring but not the other two.



If that's the case then how come Shaq didn't win when he had Nick Van Exel, Eddie Jones, and a teenage Kobe Bryant? That's 3 Steve Francis level players. How come he didn't win when he had an MVP caliber teammate in Penny Hardaway for 3 years?

What you are insisting is hypothetical. What actually happened is Shaq couldn't get over the hump without elite, all time greats on his team. Kobe could and did.

Winning championships in basketball requires chemistry. You stick a bunch of players like Shaq, rookie Kobe, Van Exel, etc together, is no guarantee of a ring. Especially when you have a guy like Kobe coming in, trying to establish what his role on the team is. They had the talent; it obviously took a few years to get the formula down right, which was Shaq as the dominant(this was considered a given in real time), and Kobe as his righthand man. Kobe was never the alpha there during Shaq's tenure. That's revisionist history.

I would, however, postulate that if replace Kobe with Francis during the years Kobe and Shaq played together, that the Lakes would have at least one, and likely more, rings. Comparing Franic to Van Exel in this context, is a bit disengenuous IMO. For starters, the years the Lakes were winning titles, Francis was clearly a notch above Nick IMO(Nick is still very good though). Also, as already mentioned, the years Shaq/Kobe/Nick played together were formative years. Nobody was used to playing with each other yet. Seems like it usually takes a few years to peak with any given collection of players.

 

[gspieler]

Ewing is closer to Shaq peak for peak as well as consistency and longevity. Ewing was a perennial all nba, MVP candidate who competed for titles and almost won on his own. Top 10 player of the 1990s.

Pau never had one MVP caliber season.

Yeah, I'm not arguing that Ewing's peak was a notch higher than Pau's. I'm stating resume vs resume, when both have long retired, will be similar. At least as close as Ewing's is to Shaq.

 

[ProBoxingInsidr]

...or the fact that he's been a 20/10 guy, consistently, with four different teams, over ~15 seasons in the league. Just sayin.

i dont think he is a hall of famer at all. hall of very good. i would like to see the hall in all sports be much tougher to get in to. lets be honest, nobody was buying tickets because OMG Pau Gasol is coming to town! Not a knock on him, just a knock on the halls becoming watered down

 

[gspieler]

i dont think he is a hall of famer at all. hall of very good. i would like to see the hall in all sports be much tougher to get in to. lets be honest, nobody was buying tickets because OMG Pau Gasol is coming to town! Not a knock on him, just a knock on the halls becoming watered down

Dude is all-time top 30 in rebounds and blocks, top 40 in scoring(a guy who spent 7 years with Kobe), 6x All-Star(surprisingly low number), 4x All-NBA teams, and picked up two rings. The guy has quietly become a fringe top-50 all time player.

What are your standards? I don't marketability is really a big factor. Timmeh is perhaps the best player in post-Jordan era, and he was never a big draw. I'm stating Pau is on Timmeh's level, but using as an example to illustrate a point.

 

[ProBoxingInsidr]

Dude is all-time top 30 in rebounds and blocks, top 40 in scoring(a guy who spent 7 years with Kobe), 6x All-Star(surprisingly low number), 4x All-NBA teams, and picked up two rings. The guy has quietly become a fringe top-50 all time player.

What are your standards? I don't marketability is really a big factor. Timmeh is perhaps the best player in post-Jordan era, and he was never a big draw. I'm stating Pau is on Timmeh's level, but using as an example to illustrate a point.

no, of course it isnt just marketablility. and a lot of your stuff is just because he has played a long time. he only BARELY averaged 20 points twice early in his career. blocks per game is good, but he is higher on the list because of how long he played. he was really good at rebounds.

like i said, he belongs in the hall of really good. for me, the hall is for legends.

IN: Jordan, Bird, Magic, Wilt, Russell, Lebron, Barkley, Olajuwon

Not in (but actually in): Petrovic, earl monroe, bill walton (based on pro career), sabonis, bill bradley

 

[gspieler]

no, of course it isnt just marketablility. and a lot of your stuff is just because he has played a long time. he only BARELY averaged 20 points twice early in his career. blocks per game is good, but he is higher on the list because of how long he played. he was really good at rebounds.

like i said, he belongs in the hall of really good. for me, the hall is for legends.

IN: Jordan, Bird, Magic, Wilt, Russell, Lebron, Barkley, Olajuwon

Not in (but actually in): Petrovic, earl monroe, bill walton (based on pro career), sabonis, bill bradley

Let's ignore Pau for the moment. Regarding the rest of your post...yes, I agree that guys who are among the top 20 all-time belong in the hall. I don't know the resumes of every guy you listed in "Not in" to generalize.

How about:

Tony Parker
Vince Carter
T-Mac
Alonzo Mourning
Chris Bosh
Steve Nash

 

[Partlow]

Pippen is top 50 and Pau is a HOF

 

[ProBoxingInsidr]

Let's ignore Pau for the moment. Regarding the rest of your post...yes, I agree that guys who are among the top 20 all-time belong in the hall. I don't know the resumes of every guy you listed in "Not in" to generalize.

How about:

Tony Parker
Vince Carter
T-Mac
Alonzo Mourning
Chris Bosh
Steve Nash

for me, i dont think any of them are sure bet hall of famers. vince to me would have the best case. bosh has no case. t-mac is interesting. he had great numbers for a few years. however, he is literally most remembered as being a loser. nash will get a lot of bonus points because he is white. parker will get a lot of bonus points because he was the leader of a great franchise for a long time.

ultimately, if i were in charge of the HoF, I put Carter in. I don't think at all about Bosh. He is like Pau, just with less years.

the rest I have an internal debate and ultimately put none of them in besides vince.

now, by the standards of the hall today, they all should probably go in (except bosh). but its not like it infuriates me. i just think there shouldnt be a debate if you are a hall of fame player. if you are, you are. was there a debate if wilt should be in? how about magic? olajuwon? going to baseball, griffey jr? greg maddux? hank aaron? thats the hall of fame i prefer.

i realized i somewhat contradicted myself by saying i debate with carter. he would be the absolute bottom of a hall of fame player for me

 

[gspieler]

for me, i dont think any of them are sure bet hall of famers. vince to me would have the best case. bosh has no case. t-mac is interesting. he had great numbers for a few years. however, he is literally most remembered as being a loser. nash will get a lot of bonus points because he is white. parker will get a lot of bonus points because he was the leader of a great franchise for a long time.

ultimately, if i were in charge of the HoF, I put Carter in. I don't think at all about Bosh. He is like Pau, just with less years.

the rest I have an internal debate and ultimately put none of them in besides vince.

now, by the standards of the hall today, they all should probably go in (except bosh). but its not like it infuriates me. i just think there shouldnt be a debate if you are a hall of fame player. if you are, you are. was there a debate if wilt should be in? how about magic? olajuwon? going to baseball, griffey jr? greg maddux? hank aaron? thats the hall of fame i prefer.

i realized i somewhat contradicted myself by saying i debate with carter. he would be the absolute bottom of a hall of fame player for me

No matter where you set the standards, theres always going to be a subjective area. You yourself are debating about several names I listed. I mean, who is the worst player that should be in? Ok, and whos the next guy after that that just misses out?