Kobe Bryant has the 3rd leading PPG all time as a #1 option

[kennethgriffin]

kobe has been the lakers #1 option every year since 2001

shaq was actually #2 in shots per game for LA in his last 4 years with the team

kobe since 2001 ( 13 years ) has average

- 28.1ppg, 5.7 reb, 5.2 ast

this ranks 3rd behind

#1 michael jordan ( 30.12ppg )
#2 Wilt Chamberlain ( 30.07ppg )



this is why career averages favor guys who are drafted to bad teams. and shouldnt be used in all time rankings.

the real way to judge a career is sustained dominance, highest level of play and how long they stayed at that level

[dbk123]

too bad kobe will retire with only 5 rings

[cotdt]

yep pretty much.

[#number6ix#]

That's cool but more shot attempts don't make him the #1 option. Westbrook takes more shots than kd but is he the #1 option

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Shaq 93-94 - 99-00 = 28.2 ppg

[Jameerthefear]

too bad kobe will retire with only 5 rings
You say this like it's a bad thing..

[Deuce Bigalow]

too bad kobe will retire with only 5 rings
"Only"

Only more rings than 27 NBA Franchises, including Miami.

[tpols]

Shaq 93-94 - 99-00 = 28.2 ppg
He mightve just /threaded you here dude.:lol

[kennethgriffin]

Shaq 93-94 - 99-00 = 28.2 ppg


http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/cashforcards/gvrfew_zps4c66a28a.png

:oldlol:


you're such a failure roundmound




He mightve just /threaded you here dude.:lol



maybe... if roundmound knew what he was talking about


and lol@ excluding shaqs 1st year.. he averaged 17 shots per game. same as nick anderson. not nearly big enough of a difference to exclude that year

[LongLiveTheKing]

If only he was good enough to be a number 1 option from his rookie year like pretty much every other superstar ever.

[tpols]

Kenneth, why dont you use 05-current Kobe instead since he wasnt clear cut first option with Shaq there.. more 1a/1b.

28.6ppg for it.. even higher.

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/cashforcards/gvrfew_zps4c66a28a.png

:oldlol:


you're such a failure roundmound







maybe... if roundmound knew what he was talking about
1992-93 Orlando magic

Nick Anderson - 16.8 fga
Shaquille O'Neal - 16.1 fga

[kennethgriffin]

Kenneth, why dont you use 05-current Kobe instead since he wasnt clear cut first option with Shaq there.. more 1a/1b.

28.6ppg for it.. even higher.


because kobe was the real 1st option on 2 of those 3 championship teams

shaq was just more efficient due to being a center. and got those finals mvps from playing weak east competition in the finals

kobe was the lakers best all around player since 2001... #1 option for a reason

#1 play maker
#1 ball handler
#1 defensive player

#1 option on offense...

[RoundMoundOfReb]

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa280/cashforcards/gvrfew_zps4c66a28a.png

:oldlol:


you're such a failure roundmound







maybe... if roundmound knew what he was talking about


and lol@ excluding shaqs 1st year.. he averaged 17 shots per game. same as nick anderson. not nearly big enough of a difference to exclude that year

I said 93-94 since nick anderson shot more than shaq in his rookie year. I'm using your own logic.

[tpols]

because kobe was the real 1st option on 2 of those 3 championship teams

shaq was just more efficient due to being a center. and got those finals mvps from playing weak east competition in the finals

kobe was the lakers best all around player since 2001... #1 option for a reason

#1 play maker
#1 ball handler
#1 defensive player

#1 option on offense...
Yea but if were talking about 'ppg as first option' Kobe has a higher ppg when the team was fully his. So why wouldnt you use it?

[kennethgriffin]

1992-93 Orlando magic

Nick Anderson - 16.8 fga
Shaquille O'Neal - 16.1 fga


not nearly big enough of a gap to exclude that season from shaqs seasons

especially since shaq attempted 9 fta's per game to andersons 5 per game

which adjusts shaqs overall fga's from 16.1 to 20.6 fga's per game

andersons 16.8 to 19.3 fga's per game

:hammertime:

[nnn123]

:roll: Kenneth Griffin embarrassing himself as usual

And lol @

"this is why career averages favor guys who are drafted to bad teams. and shouldnt be used in all time rankings."

How about ring count? Doesn't that favor guys drafted to GOOD teams? You know, you guys and your constant "5 rings" bullsh!t. The standard response to EVERYTHING

[Deuce Bigalow]

not nearly big enough of a gap to exclude that season from shaqs seasons

especially since shaq attempted 9 fta's per game to andersons 5 per game

which adjusts shaqs overall fga's from 16.1 to 20.6 fga's per game

andersons 16.8 to 19.3 fga's per game

:hammertime:
2000-01 Lakers

Fga/fta/fga+fta
Kobe - 22.2/8.2/30.4
Shaq - 19.2/13.1/32.3

2001-02 Lakers

Kobe - 20/7.4/27.4
Shaq - 18.3/10.7/29

Kobe became first option in 2002-03.

[Djahjaga]

not nearly big enough of a gap to exclude that season from shaqs seasons

especially since shaq attempted 9 fta's per game to andersons 5 per game

which adjusts shaqs overall fga's from 16.1 to 20.6 fga's per game

andersons 16.8 to 19.3 fga's per game

:hammertime:

:roll:

[tazb]

2000-01 Lakers

Fga/fta/fga+fta
Kobe - 22.2/8.2/30.4
Shaq - 19.2/13.1/32.3

2001-02 Lakers

Kobe - 20/7.4/27.4
Shaq - 18.3/10.7/29

Kobe became first option in 2002-03.

:roll: kenneth****** racking up L's every post in this thread, might as well delete it while it's still only the first page.

[eurobum]

2000-01 Lakers

Fga/fta/fga+fta
Kobe - 22.2/8.2/30.4
Shaq - 19.2/13.1/32.3

2001-02 Lakers

Kobe - 20/7.4/27.4
Shaq - 18.3/10.7/29

Kobe became first option in 2002-03.

:oldlol: no reply.

[kennethgriffin]

2000-01 Lakers

Fga/fta/fga+fta
Kobe - 22.2/8.2/30.4
Shaq - 19.2/13.1/32.3

2001-02 Lakers

Kobe - 20/7.4/27.4
Shaq - 18.3/10.7/29

Kobe became first option in 2002-03.


allow me to re introduce myself my name is OH

:hammertime:


total free throw attempts is invalid since 1 free throw does not equal 1 shot

2 free throws equal 1 shot

like my equation in the shaq vs anderson total shots. i took total free throws per game and devided by 2. then added to total fga's

in 2001

kobe 8.2 divided by 2 = 4.1

22.2 + 4.1 = 26.3

shaq 13.1 divided by 2 = 6.5

19.2 + 6.5 = 25.7

---------------------------------

in 2002

kobe 7.4 divided by 2 = 3.7

20 + 3.7 = 23.7

shaq 10.7 divided by 2 = 5.3

18.3 + 5.3 = 23.6

:djparty

[funnystuff]

00'-02'

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4101/4920970629_7fb8758dbc.jpg



:bowdown:

[jstern]

You sound like ESPN always with a criteria. You can also say that Kobe became the man during his prime, unlike players like Lebron and Jordan that became the man while rookies.

[kennethgriffin]

You sound like ESPN with the criteria. You can also say that Kobe became the man during his prime, unlike players like Lebron and Jordan that became the man while rookies.


what criteria?

field goal attempts per game?

field goal attempts per game + adjusted free throws?


this isnt like espns made up bs to make someone look like the #1 option


kobe was the #1 option

shaqs minor advantages in ppg were due to shooting 2 foot layups and dunks all game. higher efficiency

shaq was more efficient. but kobe was the #1 option since 2001

[funnystuff]

what criteria?

field goal attempts per game?

field goal attempts per game + adjusted free throws?


this isnt like espns made up bs to make someone look like the #1 option


kobe was the #1 option

shaqs minor advantages in ppg were due to shooting 2 foot layups and dunks all game. higher efficiency

shaq was more efficient. but kobe was the #1 option since 2001
Most "real" superstars aren't complete and utter **** when coming into the league, just like your boy.

[kennethgriffin]

I said 93-94 since nick anderson shot more than shaq in his rookie year. I'm using your own logic.

not with his adjusted fga+ free throw to field goal conversion

shaq took more shots per game.. they just didnt record them

:lol

[Breezy]

#2 Wilt Chamberlain ( 30.07ppg )

That number is wrong. Going by your criteria. Wilt never lead a team in FGA after the 65-66 season. Also Jerry west only led his team in FGA in 4 seasons and his average for just those seasons is 29.9ppg

...Also if you are going to go so far out of your way to find specific things to elevate Kobe why don't you just say we should judge players based on the number of 81 point games.

Kobe is a ****ing amazing player, top 10 all time. He doesn't need this ridiculous number juggling for people to see it.

[theBIGjabroni]

00'-02'

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4101/4920970629_7fb8758dbc.jpg



:bowdown:
Amazing duo
Much better than those phags in miami who had to team up cause they couldn't get shit done in the east. Hands down, miami is thehome of the gayest duo ever

[funnystuff]

Amazing duo
Much better than those phags in miami who had to team up cause they couldn't get shit done in the east. Hands down, miami is thehome of the gayest duo ever
Seems like that photo sparked your emotions.

Stay salty. :cheers:

[HardwoodLegend]

allow me to re introduce myself my name is OH

:hammertime:


total free throw attempts is invalid since 1 free throw does not equal 1 shot

2 free throws equal 1 shot

like my equation in the shaq vs anderson total shots. i took total free throws per game and devided by 2. then added to total fga's

in 2001

kobe 8.2 divided by 2 = 4.1

22.2 + 4.1 = 26.3

shaq 13.1 divided by 2 = 6.5

19.2 + 6.5 = 25.7

---------------------------------

in 2002

kobe 7.4 divided by 2 = 3.7

20 + 3.7 = 23.7

shaq 10.7 divided by 2 = 5.3

18.3 + 5.3 = 23.6

:djparty

That doesn't take into account 3-point plays, which Shaq got a lot of.

So you're half-changing him a lot of attempts when you divide by 2.

[tpols]

That doesn't take into account 3-point plays, which Shaq got a lot of.

So you're half-changing him a lot of attempts when you divide by 2.
That would make FTs even less important since Shaq was then getting an FG attempt and an FT attempt on one possesion. Meaning he used even less possessions.

[kennethgriffin]

That doesn't take into account 3-point plays, which Shaq got a lot of.

So you're half-changing him a lot of attempts when you divide by 2.

:facepalm

are you insane?

if anything that makes shaqs overall adjusted fga's go down. not up

since you'd have to combine 1-2 of shaqs free throw attempts per game with 1-2 of shaqs actual fga's

[HardwoodLegend]

That would make FTs even less important since Shaq was then getting an FG attempt and an FT attempt on one possesion. Meaning he used even less possessions.

True.

It's a silly criteria anyway. Shaq was still the #1 option for longer than kenneth is giving him credit for. A lot of Kobe's attempts are ill-advised shots that he jacked up to disrupt the intended flow of the offense.

[tpols]

True.

It's a silly criteria anyway. Shaq was still the #1 option for longer than kenneth is giving him credit for. A lot of Kobe's attempts are ill-advised shots that he jacked up to disrupt the intended flow of the offense.
yup.. IDK why he doesnt use 05 to now since the ppg is higher.

Or just retitle it '3rd highest prime ppg'

[HardwoodLegend]

yup.. IDK why he doesnt use 05 to now since the ppg is higher.

Or just retitle it '3rd highest prime ppg'

I'd throw in 2003-04 because that's when Kobe's impatience was at its all-time high and he shot the Lakers out of a championship in the Finals.

That puts him at 28.2 PPG.

And, I'd take out LeBron's rookie season, because he was still learning the ropes and expected to play 2nd fiddle to Ricky Davis.

That puts LeBron at 28.3 PPG.

Kobe is 4th.

[Breezy]

Also .. Oscar Robertson 29.6ppg in seasons leading his team in FGA. And I haven't done the math but I'm willing to bet Elgin Baylor is higher than Kobe too.

[kennethgriffin]

True.

It's a silly criteria anyway. Shaq was still the #1 option for longer than kenneth is giving him credit for. A lot of Kobe's attempts are ill-advised shots that he jacked up to disrupt the intended flow of the offense.


kobe was verry under control with his shot attempts pre 2003

was much more within the offense

because before 2003 he wasnt fully confident in his 3 point shot

so.... wrong again

kobe was the legit 1st option in 2001 and 2002.

mainly because he brought the ball up the court and made himself the 1st option ( obviously )

i'm sure if they didnt have kobe as the main ball handler/play maker.. maybe shaq would have got more shots

but the fact is. kobe was the 1st option whether people like it or not

it also has allot to do with hackashaq and late games being close. kobe having to take over


i'm sure shaq was on average the #1 option for the 1st half of games. kobe was the clear 1st option in 2nd halfs... and it averaged out to more for kobe since he didnt have to take quarters off to avoid shooting ft's

[Simple Jack]

The first option is the person the other team game plans around (or thinks, **** it, we can stop him so we'll try to limit the other guys). Usually coincides with who plays better as well.

[kennethgriffin]

The first option is the person the other team game plans around (or thinks, **** it, we can stop him so we'll try to limit the other guys). Usually coincides with who plays better as well.


so steve nash was the 1st option on those phoenix teams?

the game plan was to stop him.

:lol


man just give up


everyone give up

[Ne 1]

I'd throw in 2003-04 because that's when Kobe's impatience was at its all-time high and he shot the Lakers out of a championship in the Finals.


Yeah, it was all Kobe's fault. The rest of the team outside of Shaq shooting 33%, Malone injured, Shaq's lazy play defensively and on the boards, Payton's atrocious play and having a weak bench had nothing to do with it. It's all Kobe's fault. Yup, he shot the Lakers out of a championship, that's why the biggest blow-out loss came in the game where he only had 13 shots, right?

What a moron. :oldlol:

Don't remake your own history by looking up some box scores. Anyone can do that.

Lakers assistant coach Tex Winter: "Shaq defeated himself against Detroit. He played way too passively. He had one big game ... He's always interested in being a scorer, but he hasn't had nearly enough concentration on defense and rebounding."

Now nobody would claim Kobe had a good, or even respectable series for a player of his caliber. His shot selection in particular was terrible (but at least he played good defense in that series) But it wasn't only that, Tex Winter criticized Shaq's play in that series for being lazy on defense and the glass, and not establishing position in the paint... and Shaq only had the one great game that series.

Shaq wasn't getting in position to get the ball. (when he did he was able to score though). But even if you look at the game where Kobe wasn't looking to score, Shaq still couldn't get off. That's why Phil made the comment about wasting Shaq's great game cause he knew Shaq couldn't bring that level of energy every game. Karl Malone was hurt. Gary Payton was a bad fit and even criticized the triangle offense that year. And the Lakers really had no one else to take those shots so of course it was left to Kobe to gun, it wasn't him all just forcing up bad shots.

The Lakers own coaches came out saying how Shaq wasn't working for position and wasn't working to get the ball. You can make the judgment on if that was just Shaq pouting cause he wasn't getting the ball enough or you can credit Detroit's defense. Shaq had some great offensive games but was slow defensively coming off the pick and Rip Hamilton and Chauncy got to the rim at will. Payton averaged 4 ppg on 32% shooting in that series and looked slow defensively as Billups torched him for 21 ppg on 51% shooting and 47% on 3s. Malone was limping around that whole series. He couldn't contribute due to his injury and was a non-factor. Neither played at any notable level that series. To completely blame Kobe for losing is absolutely ridiculous considering the level they were actually at during that series. Malone due to being a 40/41 year old playing through an injury, and Payton was just embarrassingly incompetent.

[HardwoodLegend]

so steve nash was the 1st option on those phoenix teams?

the game plan was to stop him.

:lol


man just give up


everyone give up

Naw bro. You gotta give up.

Kobe is 4th behind LeBron's 28.5 (I took out 2010-11 since LeBron and Wade struggled to see who was #1 that season).

[HorryIsMyMVP]

When it comes right down to it I'd rather have Robert Horry on my team. He makes the shot when it matters. And more rings.

[HardwoodLegend]

Yeah, it was all Kobe's fault. The rest of the team outside of Shaq shooting 33%, Malone injured, Shaq's lazy play defensively and on the boards, Payton's atrocious play and having a weak bench had nothing to do with it. It's all Kobe's fault. Yup, he shot the Lakers out of a championship, that's why the biggest blow-out loss came in the game where he only had 13 shots, right?

What a moron. :oldlol:

Don't remake your own history by looking up some box scores. Anyone can do that.

Lakers assistant coach Tex Winter: "Shaq defeated himself against Detroit. He played way too passively. He had one big game ... He's always interested in being a scorer, but he hasn't had nearly enough concentration on defense and rebounding."

Now nobody would claim Kobe had a good, or even respectable series for a player of his caliber. His shot selection in particular was terrible (but at least he played good defense in that series) But it wasn't only that, Tex Winter criticized Shaq's play in that series for being lazy on defense and the glass, and not establishing position in the paint... and Shaq only had the one great game that series.

Shaq wasn't getting in position to get the ball. (when he did he was able to score though). But even if you look at the game where Kobe wasn't looking to score, Shaq still couldn't get off. That's why Phil made the comment about wasting Shaq's great game cause he knew Shaq couldn't bring that level of energy every game. Karl Malone was hurt. Gary Payton was a bad fit and even criticized the triangle offense that year. And the Lakers really had no one else to take those shots so of course it was left to Kobe to gun, it wasn't him all just forcing up bad shots.

The Lakers own coaches came out saying how Shaq wasn't working for position and wasn't working to get the ball. You can make the judgment on if that was just Shaq pouting cause he wasn't getting the ball enough or you can credit Detroit's defense. Shaq had some great offensive games but was slow defensively coming off the pick and Rip Hamilton and Chauncy got to the rim at will. Payton averaged 4 ppg on 32% shooting in that series and looked slow defensively as Billups torched him for 21 ppg on 51% shooting and 47% on 3s. Malone was limping around that whole series. He couldn't contribute due to his injury and was a non-factor. Neither played at any notable level that series. To completely blame Kobe for losing is absolutely ridiculous considering the level they were actually at during that series. Malone due to being a 40/41 year old playing through an injury, and Payton was just embarrassingly incompetent.

Ya boy shot them out of the series as he desperately gunned for the Finals MVP.

Stop.

[Simple Jack]

so steve nash was the 1st option on those phoenix teams?

the game plan was to stop him.

:lol


man just give up


everyone give up

It wasn't always clear with that team. Wasn't as if they were throwing doubles at Nash to take him out of the game. Teams weren't watching tape, thinking about tailoring their defense around stopping Steve Nash. Plenty of times they would try to limit Amare or Marion (earlier). Hard to focus on one player when you had 5 guys who all spread the floor and could score prolifically.


It was clear with the Lakers who opposing defenses were trying to limit.

[Ne 1]

Ya boy shot them out of the series as he desperately gunned for the Finals MVP.

Stop.

Prove it.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

First option is over rated. If your big man always catch your misses and score that helps the team a lot.

[Deuce Bigalow]

When it comes right down to it I'd rather have Robert Horry on my team. He makes the shot when it matters. And more rings.
Robert Horry or Lebron in an NBA Finals series? Who do you take?

[9erempiree]

No surprise here.

Kobe as the #1 option is just a beast.

[Breezy]

Naw bro. You gotta give up.

Kobe is 4th behind LeBron's 28.5 (I took out 2010-11 since LeBron and Wade struggled to see who was #1 that season).

Here is a revised list of people who have a higher ppg average as the number 1 option on their team. These are the averages for seasons that these players led their team in Field Goal attempts.

Wilt 39.4ppg
Jordan 30.1ppg
West 29.9ppg
Robertson 29.6ppg
Baylor 29.1ppg

[HardwoodLegend]

Prove it.

Games 1 & 4.

[willds09]

I know kobe haters hate this thread:kobe: :lol ... o well:hammertime:

[ThunderStruk022]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

So much ownage of Griffey and so much backpedaling by Griffey in this thread. Dumbass OP getting exposed, AGAIN....nothing new here.

And the most FGA/game = 1st option? Huh, I guess that means Westbrook has been our first option the last 2 seasons, not Durant.

[nnn123]

Here is a revised list of people who have a higher ppg average as the number 1 option on their team. These are the averages for seasons that these players led their team in Field Goal attempts.

Wilt 39.4ppg
Jordan 30.1ppg
West 29.9ppg
Robertson 29.6ppg
Baylor 29.1ppg


:roll:


:applause:

[Pointguard]

this is why career averages favor guys who are drafted to bad teams. and shouldnt be used in all time rankings.

the real way to judge a career is sustained dominance, highest level of play and how long they stayed at that level


Why do you think its a big factor? AI, Dantley and Gervin are rarely seen in anybodies top 30. Scoring is an aspect of individual play. Kobe isn't going to move up on anybody's ranking because he's third PPG. People know he could score. His problem was that he seemed too entranced with it and at times played poorly because of this obsession. Kevin Durant is the highest scoring player right now and probably will be for five more years and has been for four years? And he's very efficient. TBH, I think he's going to be top one or two of the best scorers ever. Is he considered the best player the last four years??? Any of those years?

Tim Duncan, Magic, Russell, Akeem and Bird were never the leagues best scorers and they make up half of the top ten GOAT.

Nobody is going to say Kobe was the more impressive scorer than Shaq in their stay together, either. The impressive scorers of the GOAT were Wilt and Jordan. But both of them have other great qualities or attributes (Wilt was the leagues greatest rebounder ever as well). Kareem had his years of great scoring but he has a lot of other claims to fame. So I don't see ppg being something to move Kobe up or down. In fact, it sets him up to be moved down as Durant continues his work.

[kennethgriffin]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

So much ownage of Griffey and so much backpedaling by Griffey in this thread. Dumbass OP getting exposed, AGAIN....nothing new here.

And the most FGA/game = 1st option? Huh, I guess that means Westbrook has been our first option the last 2 seasons, not Durant.


not really. the whole point was to show kobes true average is much higher

done

and to show that kobe was the #1 option of 2 out of 3 titles with shaq

done

and that he would be 3rd all time compared to the current rankings

done


like i care if a few other guys had a higher average through around 6-8 years

kobes 28ppg average is over 13 years. a true careers worth of seasons

[kennethgriffin]

Here is a revised list of people who have a higher ppg average as the number 1 option on their team. These are the averages for seasons that these players led their team in Field Goal attempts.

Wilt 39.4ppg
Jordan 30.1ppg
West 29.9ppg
Robertson 29.6ppg
Baylor 29.1ppg


i think jordan and wilt are the only guys on that list with even close to a realistic pace average above kobes

adjusted pace for the other 3 of those guys would drop those averages to 23-24ppg.

[ThunderStruk022]

not really. the whole point was to show kobes true average is much higher

done
True average? So because he made the choice to skip college and go straight to the NBA, we're supposed to ignore the fact that he wasn't anywhere close to being ready to shoulder the load as a #1 option until about his 5th year in the league?

Not done


and to show that kobe was the #1 option of 2 out of 3 titles with shaq

done
More FGA does not mean he as the #1 option dumbass. I guess that means Russell Westbrook has been OKC's #1 option the last two seasons?

Not done



and that he would be 3rd all time compared to the current rankings

done
Not if you go by your stupid made up criteria of "#1 option = most FGA/game on the team" as has been clearly pointed out to you numerous times in this thread, yet you continue to backpedal. In fact, Kobe wouldn't even be top 5 all-time by your criteria.

Not done

[tpols]

Durant is better than westbrook..

But how can you automatically say Durant is the first option? Defenses don't double Durant anymore than they do westbrook.. Westbrook has the ball a lot more.. Westbrook takes just as many clutch shots down the stretches of games(though Durant usually gets the GW attempts)..

Overall though, they're 1a/1b. Durant puts up prettier scoring numbers because he's a better shooter and picks his spots/doesn't have to handle the ball or control the game the whole time. But westbrook has just as heavy an offensive burden as Durant does.

[ThunderStruk022]

Durant is better than westbrook..

But how can you automatically say Durant is the first option? Defenses don't double Durant anymore than they do westbrook.. Westbrook has the ball a lot more.. Westbrook takes just as many clutch shots down the stretches of games(though Durant usually gets the GW attempts)..

Overall though, they're 1a/1b. Durant puts up prettier scoring numbers because he's a better shooter and picks his spots/doesn't have to handle the ball or control the game the whole time. But westbrook has just as heavy an offensive burden as Durant does.
:facepalm

Stopped reading there.

[dh144498]

this is why Kobe is the GOAT. Can win as a 2nd option and as a 1st option. He is so versatile, I love him! :bowdown:

[dh144498]

When it comes right down to it I'd rather have Robert Horry on my team. He makes the shot when it matters. And more rings.

:roll:
how's this troll not banned yet?

:lol

[dh144498]

:facepalm

Stopped reading there.

LOL westbrook and Durant are 1a/1b dumb sh*T. :roll: :lol

[Myth]

K

Stopped reading right here.

[Lebron23]

http://fearless-assassins.com/uploads/1278874199/gallery_1410_30_19065.gif

[3peated]

too bad kobe will retire with only 5 rings


only ROFL:hammerhead:

[knicksman]

too bad kobe is not going to be credited with his first 3 rings coz shaq has proven he can win with 6th man kobe

[knicksman]

No surprise here.

Kobe as the #1 option is just a beast.

yup just 1 ring coz the other 1 was gifted by stern to pjax to retire as the winningest coach ever.

[Ne 1]

too bad kobe is not going to be credited with his first 3 rings coz shaq has proven he can win with 6th man kobe

I know this is a troll post, but I wonder if people 10, 15, or 20 years from now will care about this "#1" thing as much as we do today regarding the early 00's Lakers. I have seen this discussed regarding the 80's Lakers, but even then it was because it suited the agenda of fans of a certain retired player. Usually, though, people always say "Magic has 5 rings" without a qualifier, even though like Kobe, he won his first few with a superior player. Whenever Kobe's rings are mentioned here an immediate asterisk is attached. It is ironic. The asterisk is based on classification of "#1" and "#2.'

As to the topic, yeah, Shaq>Kobe each year but both were indispensable and I've never cared about this "#1" vs. "#2" thing. What I look at is indispensability. If you replaced Kobe with an average SG what would happen? Derek Fisher or Rick Fox for example, they were dispensable, but Kobe and Shaq were not. Even Kobe during the '01 run, played ball at a level that none of his contemporaries at the time would ever reach (Iverson, McGrady, Carter, Allen etc.) in the playoffs. He also provided better perimeter defense than any of those players ever did too. So anyone who says he was replaceable is kidding themselves (or hating). He was option 1B during the 2001 run in the first three rounds and the MVP of the championship deciding series (Spurs). Shaq>Kobe in 2001 and 2002 but in those seasons it was more of a Co-MVPs thing than a #1, #2 relationship as most people think it was. Only during the 2000 championship can he be fairly described as a "side-kick."

[dh144498]

"too bad Kobe only has 5 rings"

:roll:

[guy]

I know this is a troll post, but I wonder if people 10, 15, or 20 years from now will care about this "#1" thing as much as we do today regarding the early 00's Lakers. I have seen this discussed regarding the 80's Lakers, but even then it was because it suited the agenda of fans of a certain retired player. Usually, though, people always say "Magic has 5 rings" without a qualifier, even though like Kobe, he won his first few with a superior player. Whenever Kobe's rings are mentioned here an immediate asterisk is attached. It is ironic. The asterisk is based on classification of "#1" and "#2.'


I hear this Magic/Kareem and Kobe/Shaq comparison alot and it really shouldn't be used. First of all, out of their 5 rings, there's only 1 championship where Kareem was inarguably better then Magic, and in that championship Kareem had to miss a game and Magic led his team to the title with arguably the greatest playoff performance ever. Second of all, by their second championship year, Magic was ahead of Kareem in MVP voting every year, the team was being built more towards Magic's strengths, and Kareem was 35 and couldn't even average 10 boards per game. He was very arguably the best player by his 3rd year and their 2nd championship together, which is completely different from the Shaq/Kobe dynamic. The equivalent would be more like if Magic was playing with Kareem in the mid-70s when Kareem was clearly at his peak putting up the historical numbers he was putting up.

Also, the reason its brought up more with Kobe then it was with Magic is because people weren't really comparing Magic to anyone else based on ring count. Some would say Magic was better then Bird because of rings, but at least that was okay because in most people's eyes, Magic had won at least 3 as the best player, but even then, no one argues that its not even comparable and you find alot of people still saying Bird was better. And by the time Jordan won his 3rd, almost everyone was saying Jordan was still better despite having 2 less rings. On the other hand, today and in recent history, fans/media paint this picture of Kobe being so close to Jordan and being so far ahead of Lebron solely because of the rings while offering no other details, that alot of us feel like its such a weak argument lacking so much context.

[Ne 1]

1980 Lakers

Kareem 25 ppg/17 FGA
J. Wilkes 20 ppg/17 FGA
Magic 18 ppg/12 FGA
Nixon 18 ppg/15 FGA

Magic was arguably the fourth option in 1980. He scored 0.4 more points than Nixon but took less shots. He was more efficient but it was Nixon who the offense turned to for a bucket more often. That said, Magic did rank 3rd on the team in scoring during the playoffs, although he was again 4th in FGA's. Kareem led the team with 32 ppg in the playoffs, Magic contributed 18 points along with 10.5 boards and 9 assists. Sound familiar? One guy scoring 30 ppg and another guy at around 20 and getting close to a triple double (keep in mind the 80's pace was much faster than that of the 90's)...

1982 Lakers
Kareem 24 ppg/17 FGA
Wilkes 21 ppg/17 FGA
Magic 19 ppg/13 FGA
Nixon 18 ppg/15.5 FGA
Kupchak 14 ppg/10 FGA

Magic was third in scoring but again fourth in FGA's. In the playoffs his scoring slipped further.

1982 Lakers in the playoffs

Kareem 20 ppg
Nixon 20 ppg
Wilkes 20 ppg
Magic 17 ppg
McAdoo 17 ppg

Magic was fifth in FGA! Of course, Magic also averaged 11 boards (led the team) and 9 assists but since when is that relevant to option ranking? Pippen led the Bulls in assists every year, Kobe also led the Lakers in assists every year Pippen and even led the Bulls in rebounding three times in the playoffs from 1991-94 even with Horace Grant there. He twice ranked first among all players in playoff defensive rating (an amazing feat for a perimeter player) and thrice first in defensive win shares during Chicago's title runs. He led the Bulls in playoff defensive rating during four of their title runs (Jordan tied him once) and in the other two the only people who beat him were bench players who played limited, cherry picked minutes like Randy Brown or Scott Burrell. No one factors any of this in for Pippen. Why look at Magic's assists and boards when we ignore Pippen's assists, boards, and legendary defense?

1985 Lakers

Kareem 22 ppg/15 FGA
Magic 18 ppg/12 FGA (11.7)
Worthy 18 ppg/13 FGA
Scott 16 ppg/12 FGA (12.4)

Magic was second in scoring but fourth in FGA's. Still, with the gap so close it would be more accurate to describe Magic, Worthy, and Scott as options 2a through 2c rather than 2-4.

1987 Lakers

Magic 24 ppg/16 FGA
Worthy 19 ppg/15 FGA
Kareem 17.5 ppg/13 FGA
Scott 17 ppg/14 FGA

However, in the playoffs Worthy eclipsed Magic as the team's leading scorer. Magic never led a championship team in scoring in the playoffs.

1988 Lakers

Scott 22 ppg/17 FGA
Worthy 20 ppg/15.5 FGA
Magic 20 ppg/14 FGA
Kareem 15 ppg/11 FGA

In the playoffs it was again Worthy who led the team in scoring with Magic's 19.9 narrowly edging out Scott's 19.6.

Magic was obviously the best player on the 87' and 88' Lakers but was not the first option for the entire season. The one year he led the team in regular season scoring he was eclipsed in the playoffs. In 1988 he was the #3 option. If you want to include all the other stuff Magic did that is legitimate. Magic's value came from him being a 18-20 ppg guy who would also give you 11-12 assists and solid rebounding. However, you must do the same with Pippen and Kobe.


Compare the above to Kobe/Shaq.

Kobe/Shaq playoff scoring averages from 2000-2002

It has to be noted that starting from 2000-01 "#2 option" Kobe actually averaged more shots per game than #1 option Shaq. He averaged 3 more in 01' and 2 more in 2002. Here is a comparison between the playoff ppg's of Shaq and Kobe.

2000

Shaq 31 led league
Kobe 21

Difference: -10

2001

Shaq 30
Kobe 29

Difference: -1

2002

Shaq 29 (28.5)
Kobe 27

Difference: -1.5

Scoring 1-1.5 ppg more="carrying"?

[DMAVS41]

I hear this Magic/Kareem and Kobe/Shaq comparison alot and it really shouldn't be used. First of all, out of their 5 rings, there's only 1 championship where Kareem was inarguably better then Magic, and in that championship Kareem had to miss a game and Magic led his team to the title with arguably the greatest playoff performance ever. Second of all, by their second championship year, Magic was ahead of Kareem in MVP voting every year, the team was being built more towards Magic's strengths, and Kareem was 35 and couldn't even average 10 boards per game. He was very arguably the best player by his 3rd year and their 2nd championship together, which is completely different from the Shaq/Kobe dynamic. The equivalent would be more like if Magic was playing with Kareem in the mid-70s when Kareem was clearly at his peak putting up the historical numbers he was putting up.

Also, the reason its brought up more with Kobe then it was with Magic is because people weren't really comparing Magic to anyone else based on ring count. Some would say Magic was better then Bird because of rings, but at least that was okay because in most people's eyes, Magic had won at least 3 as the best player, but even then, no one argues that its not even comparable and you find alot of people still saying Bird was better. And by the time Jordan won his 3rd, almost everyone was saying Jordan was still better despite having 2 less rings. On the other hand, today and in recent history, fans/media paint this picture of Kobe being so close to Jordan and being so far ahead of Lebron solely because of the rings while offering no other details, that alot of us feel like its such a weak argument lacking so much context.


This.

It has gotten even worse lately because the Kobe "clutch" argument has been torn apart with actual evidence. So all the on the court and real basketball arguments go out the window. We watched Kobe miss the playoffs and lose in the first round twice with his "own" team...so the argument that he doesn't need a lot of help to win went out the window as well.

Kobe's a great scorer, but we see other guys scoring similarly on similar efficiency from the perimeter in this era. So that doesn't separate him much. Then we've seen the myth of him being a great defender shredded pretty much since the 03 season with actual evidence and data yet again.

So when you strip people of all their bs arguments...the one thing that can't be disputed is the fact that Kobe has won 5 rings...which is extremely impressive. But again, that needs to be broken down...his first ring he was good, but hardly elite. 2 more he was clearly the 2nd best player. Does that mean a lot? Not really, but when you use ring count as your main evidence...how those rings were won will of course be brought up. I mean, honestly, what is the over under on how many rings a Shaq/Iverson duo wins in 8 years? Or Dirk and Shaq? KG and Shaq? Wade and Shaq? Lebron and Shaq? I mean...I would set that at around 3 for most...with Lebron probably at 5.

So it really isn't taking away, but putting it into context. For those 8 years and then another 2 more...Shaq wast pretty damn out of this world good. Not to mention we saw Wade win with a much lesser version of Shaq in 06.

Winning any ring in the NBA is very impressive, and nobody should take away anything from that, certainly having prime/peak Shaq and Phil Jackson coaching made those rings easier to win than most.

[swag2011]

[/B]

This.

It has gotten even worse lately because the Kobe "clutch" argument has been torn apart with actual evidence. So all the on the court and real basketball arguments go out the window. We watched Kobe miss the playoffs and lose in the first round twice with his "own" team...so the argument that he doesn't need a lot of help to win went out the window as well.

Kobe's a great scorer, but we see other guys scoring similarly on similar efficiency from the perimeter in this era. So that doesn't separate him much. Then we've seen the myth of him being a great defender shredded pretty much since the 03 season with actual evidence and data yet again.

So when you strip people of all their bs arguments...the one thing that can't be disputed is the fact that Kobe has won 5 rings...which is extremely impressive. But again, that needs to be broken down...his first ring he was good, but hardly elite. 2 more he was clearly the 2nd best player. Does that mean a lot? Not really, but when you use ring count as your main evidence...how those rings were won will of course be brought up. I mean, honestly, what is the over under on how many rings a Shaq/Iverson duo wins in 8 years? Or Dirk and Shaq? KG and Shaq? Wade and Shaq? Lebron and Shaq? I mean...I would set that at around 3 for most...with Lebron probably at 5.

So it really isn't taking away, but putting it into context. For those 8 years and then another 2 more...Shaq wast pretty damn out of this world good. Not to mention we saw Wade win with a much lesser version of Shaq in 06.

Winning any ring in the NBA is very impressive, and nobody should take away anything from that, certainly having prime/peak Shaq and Phil Jackson coaching made those rings easier to win than most.


But you can say that about virtually ANYBODY in history. If so and so were paired together, or if x and y played for this team, or if he was the coach instead. It doesn't make sense that kobe is literally the ONLY player who gets penalized for being on great teams, when ALL of the consensus, top 10-15 have been at some point in time. I could easily say Kobe and Duncan would've won a couple, Kobe and KG. Shaq was absolutely out of this world great, no doubt. But kobe was amazing as well. People act like Kobe could be replaced by anyone, yet Shaq and Penny made the finals... What happened? :confusedshrug:

The kobe ain't clutch argument is dumb as well. How you can sit here and define clutch as down by 5, under 30 seconds left or whatever the hell it is? What if it's down by 6, with a minute left? Down by 8, with 34 seconds left? See how dumb it is to define clutch in this certain parameter? A clutch shot is a timely basket when your team needs it most. period. Doesn't have to be a buzzer beater. If kobe wasn't as clutch as those stats say, then opposing coaches/teams wouldn't fear him still when the lakers need someone to hit a crucial basket. They wouldn't try so hard to get the ball out of his hands in that moment. But they still do. So what does that really say about those "clutch stats"?

That being said, he hasn't been that great in those moments since about 09 maybe? he has his moments every now and then, but he was much better a few years ago.

In regards to his "own team", that team wasn't built around him. Lebron had a bad cast in Cleveland, but at least the team was somewhat built to his strengths. (Not trying to start a fan war here) Can we say the same about Kobe's team? Are those players even in the league anymore? Not to mention he played in the difficult western conference. What if the lakers actually BUILT a team around Kobe from the start? Doesn't mean he needs a bunch of stars, but solid role players around him. Who knows what would've happened.

[ShaqAttack3234]

This thread along with many others on the front page of the NBA forum is so agonizingly stupid it gave me a headache.