View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
BigBallerBrand Star Player
Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 5785 Location: LA
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:28 am Post subject: do you guys still consider kobe to be "Good"? |
|
|
serious question so serious answers only please. do you guys think he is still a "Good" player? like is he someone you still want on your team to win (ignoring his salary, past accomplishments as a laker) a ring. or would you guys prefer he doesn't take shots away from other players on your team? (let's ignore his salary here) _________________ Billions Billions Billions |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Define "good." _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Megaton Retired Number
Joined: 18 Feb 2015 Posts: 25624
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
BigBallerBrand Star Player
Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 5785 Location: LA
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | Define "good." |
i put "good" in quotations precisely due to the fact that it is subjective. that is also the reason why i am asking the very question. _________________ Billions Billions Billions |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would phrase it as,
"if he wasn't a Laker all-time great, HOFer, and we just had the Kobe from last season, would you want him as a primary player on your team today?" _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BigBallerBrand Star Player
Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 5785 Location: LA
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | I would phrase it as,
"if he wasn't a Laker all-time great, HOFer, and we just had the Kobe from last season, would you want him as a primary player on your team today?" |
that's not really what i want to know, and that is not what i am asking. all i want to know is, do you guys still think he is a "good" player? like if you name the top players in the world, is kobe still on your list? _________________ Billions Billions Billions |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
15 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | I would phrase it as,
"if he wasn't a Laker all-time great, HOFer, and we just had the Kobe from last season, would you want him as a primary player on your team today?" |
that's not really what i want to know, and that is not what i am asking. all i want to know is, do you guys still think he is a "good" player? like if you name the top players in the world, is kobe still on your list? |
Right now? No. 1 on 1 exhibition, sure, but not if you're trying to win a NBA championship. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dmorans1 Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Posts: 11669
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
15 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | I would phrase it as,
"if he wasn't a Laker all-time great, HOFer, and we just had the Kobe from last season, would you want him as a primary player on your team today?" |
that's not really what i want to know, and that is not what i am asking. all i want to know is, do you guys still think he is a "good" player? like if you name the top players in the world, is kobe still on your list? |
Wait, so only the top players in the world are "good" for you? Damn you're a tough guy to impress I guess. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
deal Franchise Player
Joined: 17 Aug 2008 Posts: 14900 Location: Earth
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
"good" responses.. _________________ Lakers need to build a freaking team ! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Without defining (in a meaningful way) "good," this post is not going anywhere. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002 Posts: 58318
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
He's definitely a good player. Based on last year, he was a good player, taking too many shots. If he tones down his shot taking and plays more team ball, he'll be an asset to the team. He needs to be kept playing 30 mpg, and needs to be told to move the ball more often.
There is no question in my mind Kobe is still a top 30 player when healthy. The only problem is I think Kobe still plays like he's the best player in the league. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
wolfpaclaker wrote: | He's definitely a good player. Based on last year, he was a good player, taking too many shots. If he tones down his shot taking and plays more team ball, he'll be an asset to the team. He needs to be kept playing 30 mpg, and needs to be told to move the ball more often.
There is no question in my mind Kobe is still a top 30 player when healthy. The only problem is I think Kobe still plays like he's the best player in the league. |
Health and role-mindset are the two reasons why it's hard for me to say that he's still "good" (as I define that as whether you want him as one of your top players, in an opportunity cost sense). Of course you could throw him as a player on the Warriors, but for me to test whether he's "good" is to ask whether you'd replace Curry with Kobe. If Kobe was still a top 5 guy, that wouldn't be much of a question. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PROPHET Star Player
Joined: 05 Jul 2001 Posts: 4356 Location: Oxnard, CA - The Nard
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kobe can be a good player still but he needs to change his game from volume scorer to more of a role player to not be detrimental to a team. His defense is atrocious right now at his age and he is a volume scorer who is not efficient, those are just the facts. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dmorans1 Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Posts: 11669
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He's definitely a good player. Based on last year, he was a good player, taking too many shots. If he tones down his shot taking and plays more team ball, he'll be an asset to the team. He needs to be kept playing 30 mpg, and needs to be told to move the ball more often.
There is no question in my mind Kobe is still a top 30 player when healthy. The only problem is I think Kobe still plays like he's the best player in the league. |
Health and role-mindset are the two reasons why it's hard for me to say that he's still "good" (as I define that as whether you want him as one of your top players, in an opportunity cost sense). Of course you could throw him as a player on the Warriors, but for me to test whether he's "good" is to ask whether you'd replace Curry with Kobe. If Kobe was still a top 5 guy, that wouldn't be much of a question. |
Great definition of a "good" player yinoma. Kobe is not a good player. Chris Paul is not a good player. Melo isn't. Griffin isn't. Kyrie isn't. I can go on and on listing all the players I wouldn't replace Curry with. What a dumb definition of "good". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kikanga Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29152 Location: La La Land
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When healthy, he's a top 5 SG in the league.
The Only guys I'd take over him are Harden, Klay, and Jimmy Butler (I don't consider Paul George a SG).
When healthy, I think Kobe is the same range as Derozan, Bradley Beal, and Wade overall. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He's definitely a good player. Based on last year, he was a good player, taking too many shots. If he tones down his shot taking and plays more team ball, he'll be an asset to the team. He needs to be kept playing 30 mpg, and needs to be told to move the ball more often.
There is no question in my mind Kobe is still a top 30 player when healthy. The only problem is I think Kobe still plays like he's the best player in the league. |
Health and role-mindset are the two reasons why it's hard for me to say that he's still "good" (as I define that as whether you want him as one of your top players, in an opportunity cost sense). Of course you could throw him as a player on the Warriors, but for me to test whether he's "good" is to ask whether you'd replace Curry with Kobe. If Kobe was still a top 5 guy, that wouldn't be much of a question. |
Great definition of a "good" player yinoma. Kobe is not a good player. Chris Paul is not a good player. Melo isn't. Griffin isn't. Kyrie isn't. I can go on and on listing all the players I wouldn't replace Curry with. What a dumb definition of "good". |
Not my fault that the original poster didn't include a definition of "good."
That can encompass anything. Cut it down with the insults. My definition of "good" may be different than yours, which is the basis of my problem with this post, and yours too.
As I said, it's a test. For me the test is to replace a team's best player and say would you replace current Kobe with that guy. Curry/GSW was an example.
So what's your definition of "good" then? _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dmorans1 Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Posts: 11669
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He's definitely a good player. Based on last year, he was a good player, taking too many shots. If he tones down his shot taking and plays more team ball, he'll be an asset to the team. He needs to be kept playing 30 mpg, and needs to be told to move the ball more often.
There is no question in my mind Kobe is still a top 30 player when healthy. The only problem is I think Kobe still plays like he's the best player in the league. |
Health and role-mindset are the two reasons why it's hard for me to say that he's still "good" (as I define that as whether you want him as one of your top players, in an opportunity cost sense). Of course you could throw him as a player on the Warriors, but for me to test whether he's "good" is to ask whether you'd replace Curry with Kobe. If Kobe was still a top 5 guy, that wouldn't be much of a question. |
Great definition of a "good" player yinoma. Kobe is not a good player. Chris Paul is not a good player. Melo isn't. Griffin isn't. Kyrie isn't. I can go on and on listing all the players I wouldn't replace Curry with. What a dumb definition of "good". |
Not my fault that the original poster didn't include a definition of "good."
That can encompass anything. Cut it down with the insults. My definition of "good" may be different than yours, which is the basis of my problem with this post, and yours too.
As I said, it's a test. For me the test is to replace a team's best player and say would you replace current Kobe with that guy. Curry/GSW was an example.
So what's your definition of "good" then? |
My definition isn't in question. Would you consider any player in the League a great player? Just truly a ridiculous statement by you. You go around in public saying anyone less talented than Curry is not a good player? So basically the Spurs suck, Houston sucks, Clippers suck, etc. Truly ridiculous. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He's definitely a good player. Based on last year, he was a good player, taking too many shots. If he tones down his shot taking and plays more team ball, he'll be an asset to the team. He needs to be kept playing 30 mpg, and needs to be told to move the ball more often.
There is no question in my mind Kobe is still a top 30 player when healthy. The only problem is I think Kobe still plays like he's the best player in the league. |
Health and role-mindset are the two reasons why it's hard for me to say that he's still "good" (as I define that as whether you want him as one of your top players, in an opportunity cost sense). Of course you could throw him as a player on the Warriors, but for me to test whether he's "good" is to ask whether you'd replace Curry with Kobe. If Kobe was still a top 5 guy, that wouldn't be much of a question. |
Great definition of a "good" player yinoma. Kobe is not a good player. Chris Paul is not a good player. Melo isn't. Griffin isn't. Kyrie isn't. I can go on and on listing all the players I wouldn't replace Curry with. What a dumb definition of "good". |
Not my fault that the original poster didn't include a definition of "good."
That can encompass anything. Cut it down with the insults. My definition of "good" may be different than yours, which is the basis of my problem with this post, and yours too.
As I said, it's a test. For me the test is to replace a team's best player and say would you replace current Kobe with that guy. Curry/GSW was an example.
So what's your definition of "good" then? |
My definition isn't in question. Would you consider any player in the League a great player? Just truly a ridiculous statement by you. You go around in public saying anyone less talented than Curry is not a good player? So basically the Spurs suck, Houston sucks, Clippers suck, etc. Truly ridiculous. |
Again, "my" test is one thing, and my question is, what's yours?
What's ridiculous is your comment on my subjective definition, when the OP makes no effort to define good. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
slavavov Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8288 Location: Santa Monica
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If we're going just by last season, there's no way we can consider Kobe a "good" player when he shot well under 40%. _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dmorans1 Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Posts: 11669
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He's definitely a good player. Based on last year, he was a good player, taking too many shots. If he tones down his shot taking and plays more team ball, he'll be an asset to the team. He needs to be kept playing 30 mpg, and needs to be told to move the ball more often.
There is no question in my mind Kobe is still a top 30 player when healthy. The only problem is I think Kobe still plays like he's the best player in the league. |
Health and role-mindset are the two reasons why it's hard for me to say that he's still "good" (as I define that as whether you want him as one of your top players, in an opportunity cost sense). Of course you could throw him as a player on the Warriors, but for me to test whether he's "good" is to ask whether you'd replace Curry with Kobe. If Kobe was still a top 5 guy, that wouldn't be much of a question. |
Great definition of a "good" player yinoma. Kobe is not a good player. Chris Paul is not a good player. Melo isn't. Griffin isn't. Kyrie isn't. I can go on and on listing all the players I wouldn't replace Curry with. What a dumb definition of "good". |
Not my fault that the original poster didn't include a definition of "good."
That can encompass anything. Cut it down with the insults. My definition of "good" may be different than yours, which is the basis of my problem with this post, and yours too.
As I said, it's a test. For me the test is to replace a team's best player and say would you replace current Kobe with that guy. Curry/GSW was an example.
So what's your definition of "good" then? |
My definition isn't in question. Would you consider any player in the League a great player? Just truly a ridiculous statement by you. You go around in public saying anyone less talented than Curry is not a good player? So basically the Spurs suck, Houston sucks, Clippers suck, etc. Truly ridiculous. |
Again, "my" test is one thing, and my question is, what's yours?
What's ridiculous is your comment on my subjective definition, when the OP makes no effort to define good. |
You're subjective definition is ridiculous, I can't believe you don't realize that.
I would consider most players who contribute positively to team succes a good player. I would consider guys like Barnes and Iggy good players, guys who you would not. The Finals MVP, you wouldn't consider him a good player. Beyond ridiculous. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BigBallerBrand Star Player
Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 5785 Location: LA
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He's definitely a good player. Based on last year, he was a good player, taking too many shots. If he tones down his shot taking and plays more team ball, he'll be an asset to the team. He needs to be kept playing 30 mpg, and needs to be told to move the ball more often.
There is no question in my mind Kobe is still a top 30 player when healthy. The only problem is I think Kobe still plays like he's the best player in the league. |
Health and role-mindset are the two reasons why it's hard for me to say that he's still "good" (as I define that as whether you want him as one of your top players, in an opportunity cost sense). Of course you could throw him as a player on the Warriors, but for me to test whether he's "good" is to ask whether you'd replace Curry with Kobe. If Kobe was still a top 5 guy, that wouldn't be much of a question. |
Great definition of a "good" player yinoma. Kobe is not a good player. Chris Paul is not a good player. Melo isn't. Griffin isn't. Kyrie isn't. I can go on and on listing all the players I wouldn't replace Curry with. What a dumb definition of "good". |
Not my fault that the original poster didn't include a definition of "good."
That can encompass anything. Cut it down with the insults. My definition of "good" may be different than yours, which is the basis of my problem with this post, and yours too.
As I said, it's a test. For me the test is to replace a team's best player and say would you replace current Kobe with that guy. Curry/GSW was an example.
So what's your definition of "good" then? |
My definition isn't in question. Would you consider any player in the League a great player? Just truly a ridiculous statement by you. You go around in public saying anyone less talented than Curry is not a good player? So basically the Spurs suck, Houston sucks, Clippers suck, etc. Truly ridiculous. |
Again, "my" test is one thing, and my question is, what's yours?
What's ridiculous is your comment on my subjective definition, when the OP makes no effort to define good. |
the word "good" is inherently subjective, and it depends on your frame of reference. i thought i made that clear above. so what i am asking is, "from what frame of reference are you considering kobe to be good or not?" are you comparing his performance last year to 10 years ago, or comparing his current performance to performance of his peer group as of today? etc. _________________ Billions Billions Billions |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He's definitely a good player. Based on last year, he was a good player, taking too many shots. If he tones down his shot taking and plays more team ball, he'll be an asset to the team. He needs to be kept playing 30 mpg, and needs to be told to move the ball more often.
There is no question in my mind Kobe is still a top 30 player when healthy. The only problem is I think Kobe still plays like he's the best player in the league. |
Health and role-mindset are the two reasons why it's hard for me to say that he's still "good" (as I define that as whether you want him as one of your top players, in an opportunity cost sense). Of course you could throw him as a player on the Warriors, but for me to test whether he's "good" is to ask whether you'd replace Curry with Kobe. If Kobe was still a top 5 guy, that wouldn't be much of a question. |
Great definition of a "good" player yinoma. Kobe is not a good player. Chris Paul is not a good player. Melo isn't. Griffin isn't. Kyrie isn't. I can go on and on listing all the players I wouldn't replace Curry with. What a dumb definition of "good". |
Not my fault that the original poster didn't include a definition of "good."
That can encompass anything. Cut it down with the insults. My definition of "good" may be different than yours, which is the basis of my problem with this post, and yours too.
As I said, it's a test. For me the test is to replace a team's best player and say would you replace current Kobe with that guy. Curry/GSW was an example.
So what's your definition of "good" then? |
My definition isn't in question. Would you consider any player in the League a great player? Just truly a ridiculous statement by you. You go around in public saying anyone less talented than Curry is not a good player? So basically the Spurs suck, Houston sucks, Clippers suck, etc. Truly ridiculous. |
Again, "my" test is one thing, and my question is, what's yours?
What's ridiculous is your comment on my subjective definition, when the OP makes no effort to define good. |
You're subjective definition is ridiculous, I can't believe you don't realize that.
I would consider most players who contribute positively to team succes a good player. I would consider guys like Barnes and Iggy good players, guys who you would not. The Finals MVP, you wouldn't consider him a good player. Beyond ridiculous. |
And that's fine. I have no problem with you defining "good" the way you want it. You could include Sacre to be "good" for all I care. You can literally make any argument for a player being "good."
If I want to define it as "would you replace your top player with said player" then why do you have a problem with it?
I don't understand it. Good luck. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Voices Star Player
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 8287 Location: Oxnard, Ca.
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kobe is still great..... for how many mins????? _________________ .....
.....
ALTHOUGH HE STANDS 6 FEET 2 INCHES, JIM BUSS ATTENDED JOCKEY SCHOOL WHEN HE WAS 20. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Simply put, what I think is "truly ridiculous" is that my subjective criteria (which the OP just said was what he wanted) is "truly ridiculous."
State your criteria and move on. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dmorans1 Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Sep 2012 Posts: 11669
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | dmorans1 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He's definitely a good player. Based on last year, he was a good player, taking too many shots. If he tones down his shot taking and plays more team ball, he'll be an asset to the team. He needs to be kept playing 30 mpg, and needs to be told to move the ball more often.
There is no question in my mind Kobe is still a top 30 player when healthy. The only problem is I think Kobe still plays like he's the best player in the league. |
Health and role-mindset are the two reasons why it's hard for me to say that he's still "good" (as I define that as whether you want him as one of your top players, in an opportunity cost sense). Of course you could throw him as a player on the Warriors, but for me to test whether he's "good" is to ask whether you'd replace Curry with Kobe. If Kobe was still a top 5 guy, that wouldn't be much of a question. |
Great definition of a "good" player yinoma. Kobe is not a good player. Chris Paul is not a good player. Melo isn't. Griffin isn't. Kyrie isn't. I can go on and on listing all the players I wouldn't replace Curry with. What a dumb definition of "good". |
Not my fault that the original poster didn't include a definition of "good."
That can encompass anything. Cut it down with the insults. My definition of "good" may be different than yours, which is the basis of my problem with this post, and yours too.
As I said, it's a test. For me the test is to replace a team's best player and say would you replace current Kobe with that guy. Curry/GSW was an example.
So what's your definition of "good" then? |
My definition isn't in question. Would you consider any player in the League a great player? Just truly a ridiculous statement by you. You go around in public saying anyone less talented than Curry is not a good player? So basically the Spurs suck, Houston sucks, Clippers suck, etc. Truly ridiculous. |
Again, "my" test is one thing, and my question is, what's yours?
What's ridiculous is your comment on my subjective definition, when the OP makes no effort to define good. |
You're subjective definition is ridiculous, I can't believe you don't realize that.
I would consider most players who contribute positively to team succes a good player. I would consider guys like Barnes and Iggy good players, guys who you would not. The Finals MVP, you wouldn't consider him a good player. Beyond ridiculous. |
And that's fine. I have no problem with you defining "good" the way you want it.
If I want to define it as "would you replace your top player with said player" then why do you have a problem with it?
I don't understand it. Good luck. |
Cause it's so extreme. Makes no sense. Basically everyone sucks/mediocre except the top 5 guys. Thought of you as one of the best posters but this is absurd. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|