Kobe played with two Hall of Famers. Not counting Glove and Mailman who were here for just a year and past their HoF primes. Duncan played with 3, could be 4 as jury is still out on Kawhi.
Shaq, Gasol and and Howard are going to the HOF.
Either way, no GM would trade the post 00 versions of Robinson AND either version of Manu and Parker for Shaq. You are talking about an arguable top 10 player ever. Duncan never had a teammate like that. You gut rosters to get players like that. If prime Shaq were a free agent then and willing to go to SA they would have dumped Robinson, Manu, Parker and anyone else not named Duncan to get him.
Gasol and Odom were better players from 08-10 than any other Spur in 03. The narrative of Kobe playing with less help or doing more with less needs to die.
James Harden... That guy... Do you want to talk about him? You have plenty to say about Kobe. What about Dwight Howard not working out for you? What about Morey being a constant failure?
Why is a Rocket fan allowed to troll bash Kobe in favor of a Spurs legend in the Lakers Lounge? This is trolling at its finest man.
He has done it for the last 15 years : he has tried to elevate every single player who was comparable with Kobe since Ray Allen, Iverson, Tmac, Vince Carter, Pierce, James... long time posters know him well enough... and he never stops...
He should be banned... We ain't playing the Rockets right now. We no longer have Jeremy Lin. There are no relevant issues linking the Rockets and Lakers right now. This dude is just trolling and looking to start trouble. Ban him! _________________ “There are no limits. There are plateaus, but you must not stay there, you must go beyond them. If it kills you, it kills you. A man must constantly exceed his level.” ―Bruce Lee
What folks need to do is distinguish between career and player. Evaluating a career ignores context. Evaluating a player factors in context.
If you construct a list of the most "successful" bands of all time, it's going to look, in some if not many cases, different than if you construct a list of the "best" bands of all time.
Taking it back to basketball, guys like Allen Iverson and Chris Paul are better basketball players (I think most of us would agree) than a guy like Tony Parker. But Tony Parker had the better career. There may be a number of reasons as to WHY that is, but while we can discuss those reasons, they are irrelevant since it won't change the fact that he had the better career.
When you have two players with the same number of rings, how is it that the guy who has NEVER missed the playoffs, has more MVP awards, more Finals MVP awards, has the same All-NBA selections, has a ROY award while the other does not, has more All-NBA defensive selections than any player in NBA history, won more regular season games, won more playoff games, won a higher percentage of their games, had a WORSE career?
Because of 81?
Performances like 81 (among other ridiculous scoring feats) is what makes Kobe the better player. He just wasn't blessed with the same great fortune in terms of consistently having good teammates and coaching like Duncan was. With Kobe being, IMO, the better player, you give him that same consistency that Duncan had, and he would, IMO, have turned out the better career.
Kobe played with two Hall of Famers. Not counting Glove and Mailman who were here for just a year and past their HoF primes. Duncan played with 3, could be 4 as jury is still out on Kawhi.
Shaq, Gasol and and Howard are going to the HOF.
Either way, no GM would trade the post 00 versions of Robinson AND either version of Manu and Parker for Shaq. You are talking about an arguable top 10 player ever. Duncan never had a teammate like that. You gut rosters to get players like that. If prime Shaq were a free agent then and willing to go to SA they would have dumped Robinson, Manu, Parker and anyone else not named Duncan to get him.
Gasol and Odom were better players from 08-10 than any other Spur in 03. The narrative of Kobe playing with less help or doing more with less needs to die.
James Harden... That guy... Do you want to talk about him? You have plenty to say about Kobe. What about Dwight Howard not working out for you? What about Morey being a constant failure?
Why is a Rocket fan allowed to troll bash Kobe in favor of a Spurs legend in the Lakers Lounge? This is trolling at its finest man.
He has done it for the last 15 years : he has tried to elevate every single player who was comparable with Kobe since Ray Allen, Iverson, Tmac, Vince Carter, Pierce, James... long time posters know him well enough... and he never stops...
He should be banned... We ain't playing the Rockets right now. We no longer have Jeremy Lin. There are no relevant issues linking the Rockets and Lakers right now. This dude is just trolling and looking to start trouble. Ban him!
Its amazing how he's allowed to spew garbage on a daily basis, dude would have been suspended/banned long ago if he was anyone else
I never see him in any other threads other than Kobe threads either, clearly he is here for only one reason _________________ DISGUSTING:
Big Game James wrote:
I'm Kwame Brown and every one of my posts seem to be moved. I find this perplexing because I've never had a post move before!
Joined: 09 Jul 2010 Posts: 7844 Location: Orange County
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:29 am Post subject:
How dare you question Kobe our God?!
In all seriousness its not asinine to think Duncan had the better career(I'm still taking Kobe).
Kobe obviously had the higher peaks.
With that being said I'm done with Kobe vs anything threads. Half the posters on this forum can't be rational at all when it comes to Kobe vs his peers. _________________ Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
James Harden... That guy... Do you want to talk about him? You have plenty to say about Kobe. What about Dwight Howard not working out for you? What about Morey being a constant failure?
Why is a Rocket fan allowed to troll bash Kobe in favor of a Spurs legend in the Lakers Lounge? This is trolling at its finest man.
You can find my Rockets related comments in threads about the Rockets. Most are in the General Board. You can also find some in the free agency thread when Rockets players are mentioned.
There is no 1A and 1B for that season. Shaq was by far the better player. If you still assert that Kobe is 1B then Gasol must be option 1.1 during the 2 peat, because Gasol's numbers are closer to Kobe than Kobe is to Shaq in 2000.
You seem hell-bent on creating more of a separation between Shaq and Kobe, as if it's an insult if anyone bridges the gap and claims that Kobe was nearly as important to the Lakers as Shaq. Whatevers. I still assert that 2000 was the beginning of Kobe's ascent into a franchise-level talent, and his arrival as a championship-caliber player signaled the beginning of the Lakers dynasty. I also assert and have acknowledged in this thread that Shaq was at his most dominant stage as a player during the 1999-2000 season. He was the best player on the team. He was the focal point of the offense — by design, to take advantage of his obvious physical gifts. As a result, his numbers were absolutely mind-blowing that season and his play was arguably as dominant as any player, ever.
Still, it doesn't change the fact that Kobe had to grow up and make that sizeable leap into a championship-caliber player before the Lakers could start counting the chips. Kobe's role was obviously different than Shaq's, but nevertheless, it was just as vital to the success of the team that season and beyond. He had to orchestrate the offense, feed Shaq like no other player before (yes, Penny) and after (yes, Wade), and others while suppressing his own instincts as a scorer for much of the games. And yet he was still incredibly productive in the postseason:
• In the first round against Sacramento, he averaged 27.8 ppg/4.4 rpg/3.6 assists.
• In the second round against Phoenix, he averaged 21/3.8/3.4 (plus the game-winning shot in Game 2).
• In the third round against Portland, he averaged 20.4/4.9/5.9 (highlighted by his game-saving block against Sabonis in Game 3 and his previously mentioned and critical all-around play in Game 7).
• In the NBA Finals against Indiana, his scoring averaged dipped considerably to 13.0, but that's mainly a result of him injuring his ankle early in Game 2 and having to sit out the rest of that contest AND Game 3. Despite that, he still posted a 28-4-5 line in Game 4, when he took over the overtime period after Shaq fouled out and scored most of the team's points, including the game-winning tip. He also helped close out the Pacers in Game 6 with a 26-10-4 line.
And yes, I find no offense in anyone saying Gasol was 1B to Kobe's 1A.
umanasibo wrote:
both he and Kobe had equally important roles to fill in order for the Lakers to be successful.
Spin the narrative however you want. There is absolute proof that Shaq was much more productive than Kobe was. Both stats and eyetest confirms this. The only ones that aren't convinced are delusional about Kobe's greatness.
I'm not into spinning, but I am always interested in looking beyond numbers and viewing things within what I consider their proper context. Certainly, there is a surplus of evidence that Shaq was incredibly productive during the 1999-2000 season. That's indisputable, and you'd have to be blind to argue otherwise. But numbers don't tell the entire story and the eye test is always highly subjective. You seem to be quite anti-Kobe, as if anyone who posits that Kobe was great is "delusional." Funny, most people seem to have him and Shaq pretty close in the all-time rankings (usually between 8-12). Maybe I'm not the one with delusions? Maybe you need to get your eyes checked?
umanasibo wrote:
So you want to diminish Kobe's obvious impact on that game (25 points, 11 rebounds, 7 assists, 4 blocks) by spreading the praise around? OK, sure. Rice had 11 points, 6 rebounds and 4 assists; Harper had 9 points and 4 assists; Fisher had 2 points; Fox didn't score, but he did have 3 assists and four fouls. So, yeah, my point stands: The Lakers would have lost that game without Kobe.
The Lakers only won by 5. They would have lost that game if we take out any player's contribution. Besides, you certainly have no problem diminishing what Shaq did which is far more ridiculous as he was better when we look at the entire playoff instead of a single game.
The Lakers had to come from 16 down in the second half, and you're being dismissive because they "only won by 5"? Seriously?! And stop with this "they would have lost that game if we take out any player's contribution." I mean that could be said about every NBA game ever played, right? So why point out the obvious? Makes me wonder what you said after Jordan scored 69 against Boston in the playoffs — "that without his teammates, the Bulls wouldn't have had a chance to beat the Celtics"? Or when Kobe scored 81 — "that his teammates were critical to the Lakers victory"? Yeesh.
As for Shaq, I didn't dismiss his importance or impact at any point in this thread. All I said was that Kobe's play in Game 7 was absolutely necessary for the win. That doesn't mean Shaq's play wasn't, but if you watched the game, you would see that Portland had somewhat neutralized Shaq and that the Lakers were reeling, choking even, because they were about to blow a 3-1 lead in the series. Shaq wasn't dominant in the game, IMO, but he played well (18 points, 9 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 block). Other players also contributed — namely Horry and Shaw with timely three-pointers. But it was Kobe's all-around brilliance and overall stabilizing presence that made the victory possible, IMO.
umanasibo wrote:
You're making excuses. Every team plays with the hand it's dealt — period. And I don't deal in fantasy scenarios, only in what actually happens. Duncan was great. So was Kobe. And in the end, Kobe's playoff teams beat Duncan's teams 4-2. Deal with it.
What actually happened is that Kobe had two of the worst finals performance for an all-time great, unable to deliver when he had two superteams, missed the playoffs in what is considered the peak prime age of 26 followed by two more years of padding stats on mediocre teams. Then when he was forcing the team to trade him to a better place the Lakers miraculously got Gasol for nothing, thus once again making the Lakers the best place for him. Yet whenever Kobe's failures get pointed out we start seeing excuses and fantasy scenarios that you accuse people of.
And Kobe is only 4-3 vs Duncan. I know people don't like to associate Kobe with how the 2013 Lakers performed, but he is still a part of the team. Just because he's lucky he dodged the Spurs right before playoffs it doesn't mean the loss shouldn't count. The Lakers would have lost with Kobe anyhow.
Yes, Kobe failed in 2004. So did Shaq. So did Gary Payton — two other all-time greats. Thus proving that superteams don't always work. Right, LeBron? Right, D Wade? I acknowledge that Kobe's play — other than his game-tying three at the end of Game 2 — was subpar against Detroit. So what? It wasn't the first time an all-time great stunk it up on the biggest stage. Or do you not remember Magic laying an egg against the Celtics in 1984? Or West, Baylor and Chamberlain always coming up short against the Celtic teams of the 1960s?
Kobe is 4-2 against Duncan in the postseason. Only a die-hard Kobe hater would try to make him at least partially responsible for playing in a series (2013) IN WHICH HE ACTUALLY DIDN'T PLAY! And thank you for your omniscient "The Lakers would have lost with Kobe anyhow" comment. Nostradamus would be proud of you.
You seem hell-bent on creating more of a separation between Shaq and Kobe, as if it's an insult if anyone bridges the gap and claims that Kobe was nearly as important to the Lakers as Shaq. Whatevers. I still assert that 2000 was the beginning of Kobe's ascent into a franchise-level talent, and his arrival as a championship-caliber player signaled the beginning of the Lakers dynasty. I also assert and have acknowledged in this thread that Shaq was at his most dominant stage as a player during the 1999-2000 season. He was the best player on the team. He was the focal point of the offense — by design, to take advantage of his obvious physical gifts. As a result, his numbers were absolutely mind-blowing that season and his play was arguably as dominant as any player, ever.
... redacted for the sake of readers ...
Kobe is 4-2 against Duncan in the postseason. Only a die-hard Kobe hater would try to make him at least partially responsible for playing in a series (2013) IN WHICH HE ACTUALLY DIDN'T PLAY! And thank you for your omniscient "The Lakers would have lost with Kobe anyhow" comment. Nostradamus would be proud of you.[/b]
[/quote]
While I don't agree with all of your arguments, esp. the one where you posit an equivalency between Kobe's performance and Shaq's performance in the 2004 NBA Finals, I nevertheless believe you deserve kudos for posting a very thorough, well-written response. There are not enough posters that do so ...
Kobe played with two Hall of Famers. Not counting Glove and Mailman who were here for just a year and past their HoF primes. Duncan played with 3, could be 4 as jury is still out on Kawhi.
Shaq, Gasol and and Howard are going to the HOF.
Either way, no GM would trade the post 00 versions of Robinson AND either version of Manu and Parker for Shaq. You are talking about an arguable top 10 player ever. Duncan never had a teammate like that. You gut rosters to get players like that. If prime Shaq were a free agent then and willing to go to SA they would have dumped Robinson, Manu, Parker and anyone else not named Duncan to get him.
Gasol and Odom were better players from 08-10 than any other Spur in 03. The narrative of Kobe playing with less help or doing more with less needs to die.
I feel you Dream, Kobe had Shaq. Together they nuked Timmy's Spurs, with Kobe having the more dominant performances. However, the beauty of the truth and the facts is that I don't need to create hypotheticals or false narratives to show Kobe still outright dominated Duncan without Shaq. In 08 Kobe had one of the most efficient series of his career and took down the defending champion Spurs 4-1, without Shaq. So let's recap, with Shaq, Lakers win. Without Shaq, Lakers still win. "But... but... y'all still had Derek Fisher!!!". Ok you get my point.
Oh and Dwight ... I really hope you enjoyed your bootleg Kobe/Shaq 1-2 punch the last 4 years. Please don't go and burn his jersey. Change the 1 to a 4 and just pretend it's a Nene jersey .
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:25 am Post subject:
Darth Los Angeles wrote:
Dreamshake wrote:
The Grind wrote:
Kobe played with two Hall of Famers. Not counting Glove and Mailman who were here for just a year and past their HoF primes. Duncan played with 3, could be 4 as jury is still out on Kawhi.
Shaq, Gasol and and Howard are going to the HOF.
Either way, no GM would trade the post 00 versions of Robinson AND either version of Manu and Parker for Shaq. You are talking about an arguable top 10 player ever. Duncan never had a teammate like that. You gut rosters to get players like that. If prime Shaq were a free agent then and willing to go to SA they would have dumped Robinson, Manu, Parker and anyone else not named Duncan to get him.
Gasol and Odom were better players from 08-10 than any other Spur in 03. The narrative of Kobe playing with less help or doing more with less needs to die.
James Harden... That guy... Do you want to talk about him? You have plenty to say about Kobe. What about Dwight Howard not working out for you? What about Morey being a constant failure?
Why is a Rocket fan allowed to troll bash Kobe in favor of a Spurs legend in the Lakers Lounge? This is trolling at its finest man.
Actually Dream is responding to the topic of the thread, you are the one who is trolling. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:28 am Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
What folks need to do is distinguish between career and player. Evaluating a career ignores context. Evaluating a player factors in context.
If you construct a list of the most "successful" bands of all time, it's going to look, in some if not many cases, different than if you construct a list of the "best" bands of all time.
Taking it back to basketball, guys like Allen Iverson and Chris Paul are better basketball players (I think most of us would agree) than a guy like Tony Parker. But Tony Parker had the better career. There may be a number of reasons as to WHY that is, but while we can discuss those reasons, they are irrelevant since it won't change the fact that he had the better career.
When you have two players with the same number of rings, how is it that the guy who has NEVER missed the playoffs, has more MVP awards, more Finals MVP awards, has the same All-NBA selections, has a ROY award while the other does not, has more All-NBA defensive selections than any player in NBA history, won more regular season games, won more playoff games, won a higher percentage of their games, had a WORSE career?
Because of 81?
Performances like 81 (among other ridiculous scoring feats) is what makes Kobe the better player. He just wasn't blessed with the same great fortune in terms of consistently having good teammates and coaching like Duncan was. With Kobe being, IMO, the better player, you give him that same consistency that Duncan had, and he would, IMO, have turned out the better career.
The answer lies in the middle, both had great HOF careers. Anything beyond that is a **** measuring contest that brings out personal absurdities. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
You seem hell-bent on creating more of a separation between Shaq and Kobe, as if it's an insult if anyone bridges the gap and claims that Kobe was nearly as important to the Lakers as Shaq. Whatevers. I still assert that 2000 was the beginning of Kobe's ascent into a franchise-level talent, and his arrival as a championship-caliber player signaled the beginning of the Lakers dynasty. I also assert and have acknowledged in this thread that Shaq was at his most dominant stage as a player during the 1999-2000 season. He was the best player on the team. He was the focal point of the offense — by design, to take advantage of his obvious physical gifts. As a result, his numbers were absolutely mind-blowing that season and his play was arguably as dominant as any player, ever.
... redacted for the sake of readers ...
Kobe is 4-2 against Duncan in the postseason. Only a die-hard Kobe hater would try to make him at least partially responsible for playing in a series (2013) IN WHICH HE ACTUALLY DIDN'T PLAY! And thank you for your omniscient "The Lakers would have lost with Kobe anyhow" comment. Nostradamus would be proud of you.[/b]
While I don't agree with all of your arguments, esp. the one where you posit an equivalency between Kobe's performance and Shaq's performance in the 2004 NBA Finals, I nevertheless believe you deserve kudos for posting a very thorough, well-written response. There are not enough posters that do so ...[/quote]
Thanks, the association. Your comment is much appreciated.
Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was making a statement on Kobe and Shaq's play in the 2004 NBA Finals. I was simply saying that the Lakers had several all-time greats in that series, and they all failed — not just Kobe. Obviously, Kobe played like a knucklehead against the Pistons. He kept trying to force the issue offensively, bricking shots — particularly from 3-point land — and turning the ball over. But Shaq's play was disappointing as well, IMO. I mean how many FTs can you miss and how many times can you be called for an opening-tip, jump-ball violation in a series?
Anyway, I'm OK with people saying Kobe was more to blame than any other Laker in that series. In the end, it was a miracle that that superteam made it that far, given all the behind-the-scenes drama going on.
What folks need to do is distinguish between career and player. Evaluating a career ignores context. Evaluating a player factors in context.
If you construct a list of the most "successful" bands of all time, it's going to look, in some if not many cases, different than if you construct a list of the "best" bands of all time.
Taking it back to basketball, guys like Allen Iverson and Chris Paul are better basketball players (I think most of us would agree) than a guy like Tony Parker. But Tony Parker had the better career. There may be a number of reasons as to WHY that is, but while we can discuss those reasons, they are irrelevant since it won't change the fact that he had the better career.
When you have two players with the same number of rings, how is it that the guy who has NEVER missed the playoffs, has more MVP awards, more Finals MVP awards, has the same All-NBA selections, has a ROY award while the other does not, has more All-NBA defensive selections than any player in NBA history, won more regular season games, won more playoff games, won a higher percentage of their games, had a WORSE career?
Because of 81?
Performances like 81 (among other ridiculous scoring feats) is what makes Kobe the better player. He just wasn't blessed with the same great fortune in terms of consistently having good teammates and coaching like Duncan was. With Kobe being, IMO, the better player, you give him that same consistency that Duncan had, and he would, IMO, have turned out the better career.
I don't look at it like that. I don't rank players as "better" in terms of their intrinsic basketball skills; I rank them by the accomplishments that those skills bring about.
When I evaluate players careers I include both their personal and team accomplishments. Kobe's great scoring achievements like the 81 point game would definitely be a factor in how I evaluate his career; it's in the mix along with rings, awards, stats, and everything else.
It's not really clear to me where you draw the line between career and player accomplishments. You seem to suggest team accomplishments go into the career, but not player category, but you put individual honors like all-NBA teams in career as well. So I don't really understand how you differentiate between player and career here.
What folks need to do is distinguish between career and player. Evaluating a career ignores context. Evaluating a player factors in context.
If you construct a list of the most "successful" bands of all time, it's going to look, in some if not many cases, different than if you construct a list of the "best" bands of all time.
Taking it back to basketball, guys like Allen Iverson and Chris Paul are better basketball players (I think most of us would agree) than a guy like Tony Parker. But Tony Parker had the better career. There may be a number of reasons as to WHY that is, but while we can discuss those reasons, they are irrelevant since it won't change the fact that he had the better career.
When you have two players with the same number of rings, how is it that the guy who has NEVER missed the playoffs, has more MVP awards, more Finals MVP awards, has the same All-NBA selections, has a ROY award while the other does not, has more All-NBA defensive selections than any player in NBA history, won more regular season games, won more playoff games, won a higher percentage of their games, had a WORSE career?
Because of 81?
Performances like 81 (among other ridiculous scoring feats) is what makes Kobe the better player. He just wasn't blessed with the same great fortune in terms of consistently having good teammates and coaching like Duncan was. With Kobe being, IMO, the better player, you give him that same consistency that Duncan had, and he would, IMO, have turned out the better career.
I don't look at it like that. I don't rank players as "better" in terms of their intrinsic basketball skills; I rank them by the accomplishments that those skills bring about.
When I evaluate players careers I include both their personal and team accomplishments. Kobe's great scoring achievements like the 81 point game would definitely be a factor in how I evaluate his career; it's in the mix along with rings, awards, stats, and everything else.
It's not really clear to me where you draw the line between career and player accomplishments. You seem to suggest team accomplishments go into the career, but not player category, but you put individual honors like all-NBA teams in career as well. So I don't really understand how you differentiate between player and career here.
Here's where I draw the line. And I'll admit, the line isn't explicitly clear. It's one of those things where if you ask me, I can tell you yes or no.
But the difference, for me, in comparing a career versus comparing a player, is that in a career, I'm looking at the things that a typical player would set out to try and do as they embark on that career. So those things would include (but aren't necessarily limited to):
- Win championships
- Make the playoffs
- Win a lot of games
- Be an all-star
- Make a lot of all-NBA teams
- Win ROY
- Win DPOY
- Win a scoring title
Stuff like that. That's what I measure a career on.
With regards to player comparison, you might look at things like FG%, PER, whatever other measures to break down differences.
And yes, I find no offense in anyone saying Gasol was 1B to Kobe's 1A.
You are consistent in your standard so I won't pursue the 2000 discussion any further. Just one thing.
umanasibo wrote:
The Lakers had to come from 16 down in the second half, and you're being dismissive because they "only won by 5"? Seriously?! And stop with this "they would have lost that game if we take out any player's contribution." I mean that could be said about every NBA game ever played, right? So why point out the obvious? Makes me wonder what you said after Jordan scored 69 against Boston in the playoffs — "that without his teammates, the Bulls wouldn't have had a chance to beat the Celtics"? Or when Kobe scored 81 — "that his teammates were critical to the Lakers victory"? Yeesh.
Kobe did not vastly outperform his team in a way where you can dismiss everyone else's contributions. 25 points is actually below what you expect a superstar to average in the playoffs. There is nothing about Kobe's 25 where you can compare it to extraordinary performances like MJ's 69 unless you just want to give Kobe special treatments for the heck of it.
umanasibo wrote:
Yes, Kobe failed in 2004. So did Shaq. So did Gary Payton — two other all-time greats. Thus proving that superteams don't always work. Right, LeBron? Right, D Wade? I acknowledge that Kobe's play — other than his game-tying three at the end of Game 2 — was subpar against Detroit. So what? It wasn't the first time an all-time great stunk it up on the biggest stage. Or do you not remember Magic laying an egg against the Celtics in 1984? Or West, Baylor and Chamberlain always coming up short against the Celtic teams of the 1960s?
Shaq did great in 2004. The Lakers losing largely from Kobe being a trainwreck should not be held against him. Payton does not have the legacy of being a top 10 player to defend and he was 35. Kobe was 25, he has largely played under Shaq's shadow, and he needs to prove that he can be the leading player. Kobe carries a much greater expectation than anyone in the Finals and his performance was so bad it is considered one of the greatest disappointments in NBA history. If Kobe wishes to be considered the best, then he has to take the blame when he does not meet expectation. That's the burden that comes with greatness.
umanasibo wrote:
Kobe is 4-2 against Duncan in the postseason. Only a die-hard Kobe hater would try to make him at least partially responsible for playing in a series (2013) IN WHICH HE ACTUALLY DIDN'T PLAY! And thank you for your omniscient "The Lakers would have lost with Kobe anyhow" comment. Nostradamus would be proud of you.
The Spurs blew out the Lakers in route to a sweep. Having Kobe there would not have resulted in a Laker win. No one could.
Kobe did not vastly outperform his team in a way where you can dismiss everyone else's contributions. 25 points is actually below what you expect a superstar to average in the playoffs. There is nothing about Kobe's 25 where you can compare it to extraordinary performances like MJ's 69 unless you just want to give Kobe special treatments for the heck of it.
Kobe did not average 25 points in the 2000 playoffs. In fact, his overall averages (21.1 ppg / 4.5 rpg / 4.4 assists / 1.5 steals / 1.5 blocks) were modest compared to what he would do in subsequent postseasons. Of course, those numbers are somewhat skewed because, in part, he only scored 2 points in Game 2 of the Finals after being injured early in the contest. Who knows what he would have done had his ankle not been twisted, or what he might have accomplished had he been available to play Game 3?
But as I said previously, I don't play "what-if scenarios." The numbers are what they are. You don't find them impressive, fine. But as I also said before, the numbers — or in this case, the overall averages — only tell part of the story. More importantly, we know that in big moments of the playoffs, Kobe came up large: Game 2 against Phoenix, game-winning jumper; Game 3 at Portland, game-winning assist and game-saving block shot on Sabonis; Game 7 against Portland, all-around effort with 25 points, 11 boards, 7 assists, 4 blocks; and Game 4 at Indiana, 28 points, 4 rebounds, 5 assists — and the game-winning tip-in in overtime. Beyond that, he scored plenty against Sacramento in the first round (32 points in Game 2, 35 points in Game 3 and 32 points in Game 4) and dropped 33 points in a loss at Portland in Game 6.
Kobe's brilliance in the 2000 playoffs came in his measured calmness throughout the postseason, a sign of maturity that was quite remarkable for a 21-year-old. He did what was needed, rarely stepping on The Big Fella's toes when it came to scoring and usually delivered a key pass, a key block or a key last-minute shot when the games were hanging in the balance. You seem to associate greatness with arbitrary numbers. I see greatness in those who play brilliantly in key moments and on big stages.
Quote:
Shaq did great in 2004. The Lakers losing largely from Kobe being a trainwreck should not be held against him. Payton does not have the legacy of being a top 10 player to defend and he was 35. Kobe was 25, he has largely played under Shaq's shadow, and he needs to prove that he can be the leading player. Kobe carries a much greater expectation than anyone in the Finals and his performance was so bad it is considered one of the greatest disappointments in NBA history. If Kobe wishes to be considered the best, then he has to take the blame when he does not meet expectation. That's the burden that comes with greatness.
How can Shaq have done great when his team lost? When he was getting outworked and outhustled by the Pistons' frontline? When he continued to brick his FTs? When he kept getting called for jump-ball violations? Yeah, Kobe played like crap, but don't his teammates deserve part of the blame for the series loss? Or does it only feed your narrative that when Kobe plays great, as he did against Portland in Game 7, his teammates deserve the credit, but when he loses badly to the Pistons, his teammates deserve none of the blame? Sounds like you're doing some spinning here.
And for the record, I've never claimed that Kobe was "the best." Personally, I don't believe there is a "best." But I do think Kobe is among the greatest. He's certainly among the most successful, most accomplished, most honored, most revered and most exciting players to have ever graced an NBA court.
Quote:
The Spurs blew out the Lakers in route to a sweep. Having Kobe there would not have resulted in a Laker win. No one could.
Hey, I can briefly play this "what-if game" too!!! Consider this: Back in 2003, Game 5 of the Western Conference Finals, the series between the Lakers and Spurs is knotted up at 2. The Lakers are on the road and trailing in this pivotal game. Kobe hits a 3, then Shaq follows up with a 3-point play. Suddenly, the Spurs' 25-point lead is down to 96-94, and the home team is looking shaky. The Lakers defense forces the Spurs into a bad shot and the good guys have the ball with only seconds remaining in the game. Kobe is carrying the team with 36 points, 7 rebounds, 6 assists, 2 steals against the favored Spurs. O'Neal is described in the next day's AP writeup as "looking sluggish." Kobe gets the ball, drives and sees Robert Horry alone behind the 3-point line. He passes — yes, passes — the ball to Big Shot Rob and Horry lets it fly. Kobe raises his arm in victory — THE LAKERS ARE GOING TO PULL OFF AN AMAZING COME-FROM-BEHIND STUNNER!
But the ball goes in, then comes out.
Game. Spurs win and take a 3-2 lead.
Horry is now 0-for-15 behind the arc in the series.
Actually, the above is all true.
But, man, "what if" Robert Friggin' Horry makes that shot? Well, the Lakers would have won, and likely would have wrapped up the series at home in Game 6. And history would have been rewritten. Lakers would have 4-peated. Kobe and Shaq would have had their faces added to Mount Rushmore. Duncan would have had one less ring.
And tagurt would have one less reason to keep bashing Kobe.
Last edited by umanasibo on Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
What folks need to do is distinguish between career and player. Evaluating a career ignores context. Evaluating a player factors in context.
If you construct a list of the most "successful" bands of all time, it's going to look, in some if not many cases, different than if you construct a list of the "best" bands of all time.
Taking it back to basketball, guys like Allen Iverson and Chris Paul are better basketball players (I think most of us would agree) than a guy like Tony Parker. But Tony Parker had the better career. There may be a number of reasons as to WHY that is, but while we can discuss those reasons, they are irrelevant since it won't change the fact that he had the better career.
When you have two players with the same number of rings, how is it that the guy who has NEVER missed the playoffs, has more MVP awards, more Finals MVP awards, has the same All-NBA selections, has a ROY award while the other does not, has more All-NBA defensive selections than any player in NBA history, won more regular season games, won more playoff games, won a higher percentage of their games, had a WORSE career?
Because of 81?
Performances like 81 (among other ridiculous scoring feats) is what makes Kobe the better player. He just wasn't blessed with the same great fortune in terms of consistently having good teammates and coaching like Duncan was. With Kobe being, IMO, the better player, you give him that same consistency that Duncan had, and he would, IMO, have turned out the better career.
I don't look at it like that. I don't rank players as "better" in terms of their intrinsic basketball skills; I rank them by the accomplishments that those skills bring about.
When I evaluate players careers I include both their personal and team accomplishments. Kobe's great scoring achievements like the 81 point game would definitely be a factor in how I evaluate his career; it's in the mix along with rings, awards, stats, and everything else.
It's not really clear to me where you draw the line between career and player accomplishments. You seem to suggest team accomplishments go into the career, but not player category, but you put individual honors like all-NBA teams in career as well. So I don't really understand how you differentiate between player and career here.
Here's where I draw the line. And I'll admit, the line isn't explicitly clear. It's one of those things where if you ask me, I can tell you yes or no.
But the difference, for me, in comparing a career versus comparing a player, is that in a career, I'm looking at the things that a typical player would set out to try and do as they embark on that career. So those things would include (but aren't necessarily limited to):
- Win championships
- Make the playoffs
- Win a lot of games
- Be an all-star
- Make a lot of all-NBA teams
- Win ROY
- Win DPOY
- Win a scoring title
Stuff like that. That's what I measure a career on.
With regards to player comparison, you might look at things like FG%, PER, whatever other measures to break down differences.
So you judge careers by awards, scoring titles, and team accomplishments, but you judge players by their stats?
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but cool if it works for you.
Kobe did not average 25 points in the 2000 playoffs. In fact, his overall averages (21.1 ppg / 4.5 rpg / 4.4 assists / 1.5 steals / 1.5 blocks) were modest compared to what he would do in subsequent postseasons. Of course, those numbers are somewhat skewed because, in part, he only scored 2 points in Game 2 of the Finals after being injured early in the contest. Who knows what he would have done had his ankle not been twisted, or what he might have accomplished had he been available to play Game 3?
So because Kobe was a regular allstar that put up lower-than-superstar scoring numbers in game 7 you decide that it is some extraordinary feat in conversation with MJ's 69? Players score 25 all the time, how many scored 69 in the playoffs?
You can write pages to describe how well Kobe did. The reality is Kobe was a 20/5/5 player that didn't have any historic performance in the 2000 playoffs. What he did in 2000 has been done numerous times by every other greats.
umanasibo wrote:
How can Shaq have done great when his team lost?
Because it's a team game? It's possible for stars to do great and the team still lose. People talk about the Lakers not showing up to beat the Suns in 06, and Kobe wasn't anywhere close to the supernova that he was in the regular season. If Kobe had a performance of the ages for the whole series and the Lakers lose would you say Kobe did bad? No.
umanasibo wrote:
Yeah, Kobe played like crap, but don't his teammates deserve part of the blame for the series loss?
I don't blame Kobe for the 2004 loss. I blame him for playing terrible and making it difficult for the Lakers to win. The 04 Pistons was not an invincible team. They got pushed to the edge by the Pacers and the Nets with Kidd on one leg. If Kobe had played even below average than his norm then the series could be salvagable.
umanasibo wrote:
Hey, I can briefly play this "what-if game" too!!!
You are playing a what if game just like me. The only difference is, it's more realistic to believe that a single player would not have reversed the result of a sweep with a winning margin of 20 points. You believe that having Kobe would have been enough to beat the 2013 Spurs. I don't. End of story.
The thing I am curious about is why people like to make Kobe's playoff career like some epic tale. He plays close to what he does in the regular season that he coasts through, and everyone wets their pants as if he put on a superman cape. When he doesn't, then instead of pointing out Kobe's limitation people start to blame his teammates and the circumstances. Granted he did have a few spectacular playoff series, but that's far and few inbetween the average and the bad. A part of greatness is about overcoming unfavorable circumstances, and frankly, Kobe has never been in an uncomfortable situation and manage to cross the hurdle. We can go back to 04 and 08 when he faced great defensive teams where he completely wets the bed, and it nearly happened again in 10 with his 6-24 in game 7, and in 11 against what is supposed to be an underdog team in the Mavs. The Mavs had good defenders, but none of them are so great that they would be able to shut down Kobe. Honorable mention to 12 for choking away game 2 by going 0-1 with two TOs in the last two minutes of a 7 point lead and game 4 by going 0-5 in the last 5 minutes of a 10 point lead. The only time that Kobe had a monster performance as the underdog was the 01 Spurs, and Shaq was a monster there as well.
The thing I am curious about is why people like to make Kobe's playoff career like some epic tale. He plays close to what he does in the regular season that he coasts through, and everyone wets their pants as if he put on a superman cape. When he doesn't, then instead of pointing out Kobe's limitation people start to blame his teammates and the circumstances. Granted he did have a few spectacular playoff series, but that's far and few inbetween the average and the bad. A part of greatness is about overcoming unfavorable circumstances, and frankly, Kobe has never been in an uncomfortable situation and manage to cross the hurdle. We can go back to 04 and 08 when he faced great defensive teams where he completely wets the bed, and it nearly happened again in 10 with his 6-24 in game 7, and in 11 against what is supposed to be an underdog team in the Mavs. The Mavs had good defenders, but none of them are so great that they would be able to shut down Kobe. Honorable mention to 12 for choking away game 2 by going 0-1 with two TOs in the last two minutes of a 7 point lead and game 4 by going 0-5 in the last 5 minutes of a 10 point lead. The only time that Kobe had a monster performance as the underdog was the 01 Spurs, and Shaq was a monster there as well.
FWIW, I think both of you have raised compelling points and done what I think is a great job of posting supportive details for your respective positions.
More of this, please and thank you (elsewhere, though, since this topic area has probably run its course)...
This discussion is going nowhere and I've grown weary. We obviously live in different realities. So, I'm going to post one last exchange and call it the end. Feel free to have the final word.
Quote:
So because Kobe was a regular allstar that put up lower-than-superstar scoring numbers in game 7 you decide that it is some extraordinary feat in conversation with MJ's 69? Players score 25 all the time, how many scored 69 in the playoffs?
You're twisting my words. Go back and read what I wrote and try to follow along.
The reference to MJ's playoff outburst against the Celtics was simply to point out the ridiculousness of your argument: that you would prefer I acknowledge the contributions — however meager or minuscule — of Kobe's teammates in that game rather than focus on Kobe's all-around brilliant play. My counter was, of course everyone contributes in some form, positively or negatively; that's obvious since there have to be five players on the court at all times. But Kobe was the catalyst against the Blazers — thanks to his 25-11-7-4 line — and the main reason for the Lakers pulling out that win, IMO. And then came the MJ reference: Would you spend time crediting Jordan's teammates for their contributions in the playoff loss to Boston? Or would you be like most people and focus on the brilliant scoring and overall play of Jordan?
Capiche?
Quote:
You can write pages to describe how well Kobe did. The reality is Kobe was a 20/5/5 player that didn't have any historic performance in the 2000 playoffs. What he did in 2000 has been done numerous times by every other greats.
I believe I've been crystal clear about Kobe's performance throughout the 2000 playoffs — that he played big in the biggest moments (see Game 4 against Indiana). That is far more important to me in defining greatness than someone who posts awesome numbers, awesome averages, but wilts in the game's biggest moments and comes up empty.
Quote:
Because it's a team game? It's possible for stars to do great and the team still lose. People talk about the Lakers not showing up to beat the Suns in 06, and Kobe wasn't anywhere close to the supernova that he was in the regular season. If Kobe had a performance of the ages for the whole series and the Lakers lose would you say Kobe did bad? No.
See my definition for "great" above. (Here are the cliff notes: If you don't win, and you don't play big in the biggest moments, then you didn't play great.)
Quote:
You are playing a what if game just like me. The only difference is, it's more realistic to believe that a single player would not have reversed the result of a sweep with a winning margin of 20 points. You believe that having Kobe would have been enough to beat the 2013 Spurs. I don't. End of story.
Did anyone outside of Detroit believe the Pistons would upset the favored Lakers in the 2004 NBA Finals? Did people really believe Cleveland would come back from being down 3-1 and dethrone Golden State in this year's Finals? Did anyone foresee Buster Douglas beating Iron Mike Tyson? Did anyone ever imagine Ronda Rousey losing in the Octagon?
My point was simple: You. Don't. Know. The. Future.
Unless you're Nostradamus, of course.
Quote:
The thing I am curious about is why people like to make Kobe's playoff career like some epic tale. He plays close to what he does in the regular season that he coasts through, and everyone wets their pants as if he put on a superman cape. When he doesn't, then instead of pointing out Kobe's limitation people start to blame his teammates and the circumstances. Granted he did have a few spectacular playoff series, but that's far and few inbetween the average and the bad. A part of greatness is about overcoming unfavorable circumstances, and frankly, Kobe has never been in an uncomfortable situation and manage to cross the hurdle. We can go back to 04 and 08 when he faced great defensive teams where he completely wets the bed, and it nearly happened again in 10 with his 6-24 in game 7, and in 11 against what is supposed to be an underdog team in the Mavs. The Mavs had good defenders, but none of them are so great that they would be able to shut down Kobe. Honorable mention to 12 for choking away game 2 by going 0-1 with two TOs in the last two minutes of a 7 point lead and game 4 by going 0-5 in the last 5 minutes of a 10 point lead. The only time that Kobe had a monster performance as the underdog was the 01 Spurs, and Shaq was a monster there as well.
I see your hatred for Kobe knows no bounds.
Here are a few memorable playoff performances to chew on:
• Kobe scores 35 points, grabs 10 rebounds against Denver in the 2009 Western Conference Finals series-clinching Game 6 victory.
• Kobe scores 48, snags 16 boards in Game 4 on the road as the Lakers sweep Sacramento in the Western Conference semifinals.
• Kobe scores 40 points and single-handedly dominates the Orlando Magic in Game 1 of the NBA Finals.
• Kobe scores 37, including converting on two late-game, impossible fade-away jumpers over Grant Hill, as the Lakers close out Phoenix in the 2010 Western Conference Finals.
• Kobe scores 28 and has the game-winning tip-in in overtime, as LA defeats Indiana in Game 4 of the 2000 NBA Finals.
• Kobe scores a billion points, hits the game-typing runner and the game-winning 20-footer jumper in overtime as the Lakers beat Phoenix in Game 3 of the Western Conference first round playoffs.
There were other memorable performances, but if you're still unimpressed, you'll be pleased to know that Kobe has since retired. And so have I from this thread.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
Page 11 of 11
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
