Kobe's deepest team myth 2008/09 & 2009/10

[rhythmic]

Cleveland Cavaliers: 66-16
M. Williams, Ilgauskas, D. West & Varejao
51 PPG, 21.3 RPG, 9.6 APG, 48 FG%, 79 FT%, 31 MPG, 3.7 SPG, 2.4 BPG, 6 TO/G & 63.9 PER

Orlando Magic: 59-23
Lewis, Turkoglu, Nelson & Alston
63.2 PPG, 17.4 RPG, 18 APG, 44 FG%, 81 FT%, 33 MPG, 4.8 SPG, 1 BPG, 8.4 TO/G, 67.8 PER

Denver Nuggets: 54-28
Iverson, Billups, JR Smith & Nene
66.4 PPG, 17.2 RPG, 17.3 APG, 48 FG%, 78 FT%, 34 MPG, 4.4 SPG, 2 BPG, 9.3 TO/G, 69.6 PER

Portland Trail Blazers: 54-28
Aldridge, Outlaw, Blake & Fernandez
52.3 PPG, 16.8 RPG, 9.9 APG, 45 FG%, 80 FT%, 31 MPG, 3.5 SPG, 2 BPG, 5.4 TO/G & 64.1 PER

Utah Jazz: 48-34
Okur, Boozer, Brewer & Milsap
60.4 PPG, 30.4 RPG, 7.8 APG, 50 FG%, 73 FT%, 32 MPG, 4.6 SPG, 2.3 BPG, 7 TO/G & 69.4 PER

SA Spurs: 54-28
Parker, Ginobili, Mason & Gooden
59.1 PPG, 15.1 RPG, 12.8 APG, 47 FG%, 84 FT%, 27 MPG, 3.1 SPG, 0.8 BPG, 6.6 TO/G & 77 PER

Dallas Mavericks: 50-32
Terry, Howard, Kidd & Bass
55.1 PPG, 18.2 RPG, 14.2 APG, 46 FG%, 84 FT%, 30 MPG, 4.7 SPG, 2.1 BPG, 6.7 TO/G, 69.6 PER

LA Lakers: 65-17
Gasol, Bynum, Odom & Fisher
54.4 PPG, 28.1 RPG, 10.7 APG, 51 FG%, 74 FT%, 31 MPG, 3.2 SPG, 4.2 BPG, 6.3 TO/G, 70.9 PER

I didn't include Boston Celtics since they were injured in the playoffs.
So that's 8 contenders, lets see how the best 4 players Kobe had during his championship year & 65 win season compares to some of the other stars.

So Kobe's best four players led the group in FG% & BPG, they are also the only group that has 2 centers in the mix, so it is to be somewhat expected.

Points: 6th
Rebounds: 2nd
Assists: 5th
FG%: 1st
FT%: 7th
MPG: Tied for 4th highest
Steals: 7th
Blocks: 1st
TO/G: 3rd lowest
PER: 2nd

That year Tony Parker made 3rd team All-NBA (as well as the All-Star game), as well as Chauncey Billups. McGrady was pretty banged up; Delonte West is clearly not on Pau's level.

So it's safe to call Pau Gasol the 2nd best option, especially come playoff time. I have no problem with that.

But tell me this, why do some of you persist on calling LA by far the deepest team in the league? Bynum was a non-factor in 2008/09 playoffs either, so if I replaced Ariza with Bynum those numbers would go down and LA wouldn't be #1 in blocks or FG%.

Yet somehow other superstars don't have enough talent around them, only Kobe had all the help in the world. :rolleyes:

By the way, 2009/10 numbers are even less in favour of the so called "Kobe has the deepest team" myth. :oldlol:

I'll assemble those numbers later, too lazy right now.
Cheers!

PS - I promise DMAV and a few other posters that I was having an argument with yesterday that I will post these numbers.

[Doranku]

So basically Kobe's supporting cast was equal to or marginally better than 3 of the teams he faced in the playoffs...

DMavs got a lot of explaining to do. :oldlol:

[Legends66NBA7]

Only a healthy Celtics squad could truly compete with them come playoff time, IMO.

They were a well-rounded team.

[fpliii]

Only a healthy Celtics squad could truly compete with them come playoff time, IMO.

They were a well-rounded team.

This.

[tpols]

If you switched melo and kobe out in the 2009 WCF.. Denver wins. Kobe had a monster series on both ends in that series and was by faaar the best player on the court. And denver had a ton of firepower and some good defensive role players. And then they obviously still whoop the magic.

Switch Kobe out for Deron and the Jazz when Carlos Boozer was a legit 20/10 guy, with Paul Millsap, a bunch of great shooters, and AK47 arent just as likely to win?


All of the teams LA faced on their way to the finals, if you took the perimeter star off their team and Kobe off LA, the talent pool was very similar. And Kobe was>>>> than the other teams perimeter star.

[branslowski]

Inb4 Dmavs, Tony Montana, KG215, and Silk:oldlol:


Factual on point thread...Been exposing posters with this for a while.:applause:

[kurple]

Iverson AND Billups? :biggums:

[PickernRoller]

So basically Kobe's supporting cast was equal to or marginally better than 3 of the teams he faced in the playoffs...

DMavs got a lot of explaining to do. :oldlol:

DMAVs is Gino. That clown got banned for a reason. Dude is a straight retard and troll.

----------------------------
Anyway nothing new to us. We all know everything spewed out there is just hate and trollism.

[HurricaneKid]

The Lakers had the best 2nd option in 2010. Kobe.

Pau led the team in PER and WS in the regular season. Pau led the team in PER and WS in the Postseason. Pau led the team in PER and WS in the Finals.

But PPGz.

[Legends66NBA7]

DMAVs is Gino. That clown got banned for a reason.

Except he didn't get banned.

[rhythmic]

Iverson AND Billups? :biggums:

That was my bad, Iverson only played 3 games that year.
Replace Iverson with K.Martin, Denver actually improve in 6 categories.

[PickernRoller]

Except he didn't get banned.

Gino isn't banned?

[tpols]

If you look at these numbers.. basically ANY team Kobe could easily win with, would be said to have carried him with their big men.:oldlol:



Okur Boozer Millsap? New big three! Best big men trio in the league while Pau/Odom recieve little attention getting bounced in the first round at best as they are led by Derek Fisher, Jordan Farmar, and Ron Artest on the perimeter and Bynum on the bench playing nintendo. Denver nuggets? Nene! Camby! DPOY center and offensive juggernaut to save the day.... it can go on and on.

[KG215]

Gino isn't banned?
Why would he get banned?

[rhythmic]

The Lakers had the best 2nd option in 2010. Kobe.

Pau led the team in PER and WS in the regular season. Pau led the team in PER and WS in the Postseason. Pau led the team in PER and WS in the Finals.

But PPGz.

Pau also made 3rd team All-NBA in 2009 & 2010.
Best 2nd option alongside Tony Parker? Sure. Heck, I'll even crown him the best 2nd option in the league, but Kobe having this gigantic advantage depth wise...being on the deepest team in the league is a complete myth.

The biggest difference between the teams Kobe faced in the playoffs, is KOBE. Everything else is marginal at best between the rosters.

Is it so hard to give the man credit, ever?

[Legends66NBA7]

Gino isn't banned?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/member.php?u=89043

[PickernRoller]

Tony Montana type of troll back in the day. He was temp banned then. No matter.

[Heavincent]

If you look at these numbers.. basically ANY team Kobe could easily win with, would be said to have carried him with their big men.:oldlol:



Okur Boozer Millsap? New big three! Best big men trio in the league while Pau/Odom recieve little attention getting bounced in the first round at best as they are led by Derek Fisher, Jordan Farmar, and Ron Artest on the perimeter and Bynum on the bench playing nintendo. Denver nuggets? Nene! Camby! DPOY center and offensive juggernaut to save the day.... it can go on and on.

So true. The Lakers did run into some really talented and well rounded teams. The difference was they were being led by inferior perimeter stars such as Melo, Deron, etc.

Obviously the front court was important, but the two biggest reasons for the Lakers success were Kobe and Phil Jackson.

[fpliii]

Two questions OP:

1) I don't think I've heard the "deepest team" claim very often, just "best/deepest frontcourt".

2) Why did you decide on exactly 4 guys (instead of 3, or 5)? I would think that these would be their crunch-time lineups, but I don't think many teams played three bigs at a time that season. I think Fisher and a couple of other guys bring down their teams' numbers in this comparison.

Either way, both years were great runs by Kobe (and the Lakers). They went through 4 straight top 10 defenses in 09! Damn.

[SilkkTheShocker]

LeBron is a better player than Kobe ever was.

[Segatti]

Lakers wasn't going to pass the first round without Kobe, period.

[rhythmic]

Two questions OP:

1) I don't think I've heard the "deepest team" claim very often, just "best/deepest frontcourt".

2) Why did you decide on exactly 4 guys (instead of 3, or 5)? I would think that these would be their crunch-time lineups, but I don't think many teams played three bigs at a time that season. I think Fisher and a couple of other guys bring down their teams' numbers in this comparison.

1) Just yesterday a bunch of posters were saying Kobe had the deepest team in the league; saying how other stars (or contending teams) didn't have anywhere near the talent Kobe had.

2) I just picked the top 4 players. I was fair throughout, I didn't include Kirilenko for Utah for example. I picked top 4 because excluding their star player, it basically makes up the starting five. Plus the "leftovers" were primarily role players.

And if you or anyone else are thinking I'm skewing the numbers, go take a look at who Kobe had after the 4 I named. You'll understand, that I'm actually favoring LA by just picking Gasol, Bynum, Odom & Fisher. Their efficiency, rebounding and blocks are highlighted this way.

I used a spreadsheet to do this analysis, and it would have also taken me longer if I was to say pick 6-7 players. I don't see how the analysis would have a different result anyways.

[fpliii]

1) Just yesterday a bunch of posters were saying Kobe had the deepest team in the league; saying how other stars (or contending teams) didn't have anywhere near the talent Kobe had.

2) I just picked the top 4 players. I was fair throughout, I didn't include Kirilenko for Utah for example. I picked top 4 because excluding their star player, it basically makes up the starting five. Plus the "leftovers" were primarily role players.

And if you or anyone else are thinking I'm skewing the numbers, go take a look at who Kobe had after the 4 I named. You'll understand, that I'm actually favoring LA by just picking Gasol, Bynum, Odom & Fisher. Their efficiency, rebounding and blocks are highlighted this way.

I used a spreadsheet to do this analysis, and it would have also taken me longer if I was to say pick 6-7 players. I don't see how the analysis would have a different result anyways.

1) I think Boston was definitely deeper. Denver was pretty close too.

2) There are 5 guys on the court, but how often were those guys on the court together for each team (probably not very long)? Fisher causes the problem here since he's the 4th guy, and the worst of the bunch. Using any fewer players (excluding him) removes his impact on the stats, any more decreases his impact.

[rhythmic]

1) I think Boston was definitely deeper. Denver was pretty close too.

2) There are 5 guys on the court, but how often were those guys on the court together for each team (probably not very long)? Fisher causes the problem here since he's the 4th guy, and the worst of the bunch. Using any fewer players (excluding him) removes his impact on the stats, any more decreases his impact.

I decided to use 5 players (excluding their star player) to highlight that Kobe's top-heavy supporting cast isn't that much better then quite a few other teams that year. The discrepency between Kobe's supporting cast and say D.William's or Anthony's supporting cast would be heavily skewed in favour of Denver/Utah (if I was to include say 6 players instead of 4) because believe it or not Kobe's main help was Gasol, Fisher & Odom. Bynum was a non-factor in the playoffs.

Still point is; does LA look that significantly better then the rest of the league minus Kobe (and the other team's star)?

[guy]

Flawed thread. First of all, who was comparing Kobe to guys like Deron, Melo, Roy, past his prime Duncan at the time? Second of all, total stats are a function of style of play, strategy, etc. Lakers are obviously going to cater to Kobe more then the Jazz would do to Deron Williams for example. I'm not saying thats a bad thing, but that doesn't mean the Jazz 2-5 are better then the Lakers 2-5 just cause stats say so. And by the way, other then the obvious AI error, there's errors like that all over the place. Jameer Nelson, Carlos Boozer, Manu Ginobili missed like half the season for their teams. Thats obviously going to inflate the stats of their teammates, but isn't actually an accurate depiction of what all 4 of them do on the court together. By the way, I realize the same can be said for Bynum and the Lakers. But either way, this way of looking at it is clearly flawed.

[DMAVS41]

Who has ever claimed the deepest team? I don't think I did, but if I did...that is just wrong.

I don't see anything in those numbers that proves anything. Other than there were some good teams out there.

I agree with what tpols said when he said that switch out Kobe and Carmelo and the Nuggets win. Totally agree...I have never intimated that Melo and Kobe were at all similar. In fact...I've been a huge anti Melo guy here for a long time.

Now, the real test...and my point from the beginning....would be if Wade was on the Nuggets. First off...I'm not sure the Lakers win, but lets say they do...if you then played the same hypothetical and switched them out...I think the Wade led Lakers win. For example.

Heavincent just made my point for me. The difference was in the lower tiered stars they faced.

You guys need to distinguish between what people actually say. I never said Gasol was the MVP of the Lakers. Certainly at times he was, but Kobe was clearly the best and most valuable player on those teams. And Phil Jackson is part of Kobe's help. You can't remove the coach.

Basically this thread proves exactly what I've been saying. That the other true stars didn't have the teams to challenge the Lakers. Lebron, Wade, Dirk, and KG were all missing in 09 for example.

You win with stars. And I don't see any number 2 guy on any of those teams playing at the level 09 and 10 Gasol did. Coaching is hugely important...and other than Pop...who had a coach that equals Phil? Nobody. And again...Kobe is simply better than all the other guys he faced as a star. Only 09 Howard was even remotely close. And again...that is part the greatness of Kobe...and part the true elite players not having great teams.

[fpliii]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[LA_Showtime]

Gasol was a beast but inconsistent. Odom wasn't nearly as good as people make him out to be. Bynum... :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

There are two teams on there that I think anyone would be hard pressed to even consider taking over the Lakers.

Does anyone here think that Kobe wins with the 09 Cavs or 09 Mavs for example?

Please answer so I can see where you guys are coming from...

[rhythmic]

Who has ever claimed the deepest team? I don't think I did, but if I did...that is just wrong.

I don't see anything in those numbers that proves anything. Other than there were some good teams out there.

I agree with what tpols said when he said that switch out Kobe and Carmelo and the Nuggets win. Totally agree...I have never intimated that Melo and Kobe were at all similar. In fact...I've been a huge anti Melo guy here for a long time.

Now, the real test...and my point from the beginning....would be if Wade was on the Nuggets. First off...I'm not sure the Lakers win, but lets say they do...if you then played the same hypothetical and switched them out...I think the Wade led Lakers win. For example.

Heavincent just made my point for me. The difference was in the lower tiered stars they faced.

You guys need to distinguish between what people actually say. I never said Gasol was the MVP of the Lakers. Certainly at times he was, but Kobe was clearly the best and most valuable player on those teams. And Phil Jackson is part of Kobe's help. You can't remove the coach.

Basically this thread proves exactly what I've been saying. That the other true stars didn't have the teams to challenge the Lakers. Lebron, Wade, Dirk, and KG were all missing in 09 for example.
You win with stars. And I don't see any number 2 guy on any of those teams playing at the level 09 and 10 Gasol did. Coaching is hugely important...and other than Pop...who had a coach that equals Phil? Nobody. And again...Kobe is simply better than all the other guys he faced as a star. Only 09 Howard was even remotely close. And again...that is part the greatness of Kobe...and part the true elite players not having great teams.


What a load of crap, tell me buddy.
In 2006, who was Wade's competition? Dirk? I'm pretty sure he didn't have a 2nd option quite like Shaq.

LeBron? Who the hell did he beat? Durant? An inexperienced Thunder squad who choked away every game thanks to Harden? Oh the aging Spurs with Tim Duncan almost turning 40?

It's so funny to me just how many excuses you guys come up with when it comes to Kobe. Fact is, both LeBron & Wade (in 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013) won in probably a far easier league then Kobe did in 2009 & 2010.

There was parity in the league, and the west was very top heavy. Every team was good, I don't give a **** if your excuses is that LeBron/Garnett/Wade didn't have great teammates around them; GREAT teams won before, like the Pistons of 04' or Dallas of 11'.

Yet because it's Kobe, lets come up with more excuses to discredit the man.
Give it a rest people.

[DMAVS41]

Gasol was a beast but inconsistent. Odom wasn't nearly as good as people make him out to be. Bynum... :oldlol:

Which year are you talking about for Bynum? He made a solid impact in 10 and was honestly only marginally worse than a guy like Tyson Chandler in the 11 playoffs.

So if you laugh at Chandler's impact...I totally agree. But if you are trying to claim that Bynum was worthless or something in 10...I don't see the evidence for that.

[Heavincent]

Only 09 Howard was even remotely close.

http://www.kenoki.com/images/antonio-banderas-ooo.gif

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[rhythmic]

This is the problem. You get owned in one post...and start attacking me and brining up every other year. 06 has no impact on what happened in 09 or 10.

For example. The competition overall in 13 was incredibly weak. I've been saying it a lot. Worse than 09 for sure with Parker getting hurt in the finals.

Am I now anti Lebron for saying that?

Talk about the years you mention...It's not belittling Kobe. It's stating facts. The other true stars didn't have great teams or Kobe avoided playing them.

This stuff is only brought up when people use titles too much when talking about players....or Kobe's coaching and supporting cast is under-rated.

I think from 2008-2010, Kobe beat more 50+ win teams then any player in playoff history. Yet because those teams didn't have a superstar, they weren't contenders according to you.

When did I get owned jackass? I've completely owned you in this thread.
Did you not say just yesterday Kobe has the deepest team in the league?

Now you're backtracking? LOL

You shit for brains.

[DMAVS41]

I think from 2008-2010, Kobe beat more 50+ win teams then any player in playoff history. Yet because those teams didn't have a superstar, they weren't contenders according to you.

When did I get owned jackass? I've completely owned you in this post.
Did you not say just yesterday Kobe has the deepest team in the league?

You shit for brains.

Lets pause for a second and stop making shit up.

08 was never part of the conversation. So you can throw all of that out. The Lakers did not win in 08...and I hardly doubt you want to bring up the 08 collapse in the finals as the favorite.

So it's 09 and 10.

Sorry...I don't find the competition to be stiff. I think the Lakers had a very large margin of error. And the reasons are as follows;

- The greatness of Kobe
- Phil Jackson
- Pau Gasol
- Solid supporting cast with a proclivity to making huge shots
- Lack of playing other teams with true superstars like Wade, Lebron, Dirk, and KG (09)

[branslowski]

One thing though...While Dmavs and KG215 would take any opportunity to knock or discredit Kobe, they atleast do it not in a dumbass trolling way. I don't see those 2 saying dumb shit like "Stacked frontline" or "Frontline carried Kobe" or "Gasol real 2010 finals MVP" like others do...Do I expect them to give Kobe credit for stuff? No, just like I wouldn't go out of my way to credit LeBron...

It is wat it is though, If Kobe plays for the Nuggets, threads would be : "Is Kenyon Martin most underrated super star ever", "Marcus Camby carried Kobe" .."JR Smith true Finals MVP".....And Gasol wouldn't even be getting discussed.

You know how many times I've see "stacked FRONTLINE" posted? Yet facts show that 3 out of 4 of the frontline players Kobe played with has horrible to ok role player numbers? It's just trolling....

This is a haters world ppl, we have to accept it.

[DMAVS41]

One thing though...While Dmavs and KG215 would take any opportunity to knock or discredit Kobe, they atleast do it not in a dumbass trolling way. I don't see those 2 saying dumb shit like "Stacked frontline" or "Frontline carried Kobe" or "Gasol real 2010 finals MVP" like others do...Do I expect them to give Kobe credit for stuff? No, just like I wouldn't go out of my way to credit LeBron...

It is wat it is though, If Kobe plays for the Nuggets, threads would be : "Is Kenyon Martin most underrated super star ever", "Marcus Camby carried Kobe" .."JR Smith true Finals MVP".....And Gasol wouldn't even be getting discussed.

You know how many times I've see "stacked FRONTLINE" posted? Yet facts show that 3 out of 4 of the frontline players Kobe played with has horrible to ok role player numbers? It's just trolling....

This is a haters world ppl, we have to accept it.

I would depend on the circumstances, but I do agree that Kobe on the Nuggets definitely win the Western Conference. I'd be a little more nervous about the finals though. That series against the Magic could have gone a number of different ways...and I really think Gasol was very important against Howard in that series.

[tpols]

DMAVs agreed on your overall premise..

But.. I want you to apply that same logic to Michael Jordan.


Did Michael have a better supporting cast than his adversaries?

Who was ewing's second option in the early 90s? John Starks? Ewing had the equivalent of what 2011 Derrick Rose had.. a bunch of defensive role players and one offensive talent except Patrick was the one who made their defense and rebounding elite, on TOP of being the guy they leaned on offensively.

Ewings second option was basically JR Smith.


Charles Barkley? He had the pieces for 1 or 2 years and gave jordan one of his most competitive Finals series. Still never had a second option on Scotties level, nor the coaching, nor the overall teams over a signifigant time span

Hakeem? Not much even has to be said..

Shaq? Had some good talent, but again didnt have near the depth, as good a number two, or coaching to glue it all together.

David Robinson? Again nothing has to be said.




If you switch MJ out to the knicks and make him have to work with John Starks while Ewing gets pippen.. I dont see how the bulls with ewing lose there. Ewing had much less to work with but still led his team to wins and competitive series. You swap pieces and the odds are greatly in his favor.

And overall MJ had the best teams, second option, and coach of ANY other superstar in the 90s... yet no one seems to ever bring it up.

[DMAVS41]

DMAVs agreed on your overall premise..

But.. I want you to apply that same logic to Michael Jordan.


Did Michael have a better supporting cast than his adversaries?

Who was ewing's second option in the early 90s? John Starks? Ewing had the equivalent of what 2011 Derrick Rose had.. a bunch of defensive role players and one offensive talent except Patrick was the one who made their defense and rebounding elite, on TOP of being the guy they leaned on offensively.

Ewings second option was basically JR Smith.


Charles Barkley? He had the pieces for 1 or 2 years and gave jordan one of his most competitive Finals series. Still never had a second option on Scotties level, nor the coaching, nor the overall teams over a signifigant time span

Hakeem? Not much even has to be said..

Shaq? Had some good talent, but again didnt have near the depth, as good a number two, or coaching to glue it all together.

David Robinson? Again nothing has to be said.




If you switch MJ out to the knicks and make him have to work with John Starks while Ewing gets pippen.. I dont see how the knicks lose there. Ewing had much less to work with but still led his team to wins and competitive series. You swap pieces and the odds are greatly in his favor.


These are literally the points I've been trying to make since joining this site. Totally agree that in a lot of cases it's the team/coaching that is the most important.

But we have to distinguish between a guy like Kobe and Melo for example. That wouldn't work if you switched them...the Kobe led team would just almost always win unless the gap was just huge. But switch Kobe and Wade or Lebron...I think the guy with the better supporting cast and coaching wins most of the time.

Which is why I always defended Dirk for not winning. I never thought he had a team on par with the 10 Lakers or 11 Heat or 08 Celtics...etc. I still don't think he's ever had that.

So we agree. Glad it only took 4 years.

[tpols]

These are literally the points I've been trying to make since joining this site. Totally agree that in a lot of cases it's the team/coaching that is the most important.

But we have to distinguish between a guy like Kobe and Melo for example. That wouldn't work if you switched them...the Kobe led team would just almost always win unless the gap was just huge. But switch Kobe and Wade or Lebron...I think the guy with the better supporting cast and coaching wins most of the time.

Which is why I always defended Dirk for not winning. I never thought he had a team on par with the 10 Lakers or 11 Heat or 08 Celtics...etc. I still don't think he's ever had that.

So we agree. Glad it only took 4 years.
Kind of goes back to Kblazes thread about how players really arent that much better than each other when it comes to the greats.

[iamgine]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[Legends66NBA7]

So we agree. Glad it only took 4 years.

I guess it's a case of better late than never. :lol

[branslowski]

I would depend on the circumstances, but I do agree that Kobe on the Nuggets definitely win the Western Conference. I'd be a little more nervous about the finals though. That series against the Magic could have gone a number of different ways...and I really think Gasol was very important against Howard in that series.

Meh, it was more of the fact that Dwight wasn't a offensive powerhouse, and Bynum helped Also....Martin and Camby would of been even better defensively vs Dwight...Gasol was never known as a great defender...And Kobe took the Magics will away.

[rhythmic]

I thought "deep" means the whole team, not just the starting five. To say a team is deep, means their bench are also of quality.

Sasha, Ariza, Farmar, Powell, Walton, Radmanovic, Mbenga, A.Morrison were the remaining players on the roster.

Do I really need to list their numbers in comparison to other teams?
Those players were marginal impact players for LA besides Ariza, and most of those contenders I listed had a 6th man at the very least as good as Ariza.

[DMAVS41]

Kind of goes back to Kblazes thread about how players really arent that much better than each other when it comes to the greats.

I agree to some extent. But if you start talking about Kobe and Melo on the same tier...you lose me.

Same with Barkley and MJ. Bird and Nique...etc.

I agree, but not to the extent Kblaze does.

[branslowski]

Basically, it was Kobe, with Gasol as a solid sidekick, and role players...Nothing was stacked.

History will look like this:

Bird had Mchal and Parrish

Jordan had Pippen

Magic had Kareem

Kareem had Magic and Worthy

Kobe had Gasol

[iamgine]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[KG215]

Basically, it was Kobe, with Gasol as a solid sidekick, and role players...Nothing was stacked.

History will look like this:

Bird had Mchal and Parrish

Jordan had Pippen

Magic had Kareem

Kareem had Magic and Worthy

Kobe had Gasol
True, but when/if you use context, and look at the competition for each player, it doesn't necessarily make Kobe's titles more impressive than Bird, Jordan, and Magic's titles. Impressive, yes, but it's not just as simple as saying "Jordan won with Pippen, Bird won with McHale, Magic won with Kareem, and Kobe won with Gasol" and just leave it at that.

[rhythmic]

Well yeah if you want to analyze deepness.

Also, to just rank them like that is misleading. It doesn't count for the differing pace the team plays. For example, Portland played a very slow pace so their numbers are gonna look pretty bad but they were actually a really good offensive team. Perhaps the one statistic that counts for pace was PER and LA was 2nd so that actually indicates that LA had quite a deep roster.

Even PER doesn't really account for defense which was what having two excellent 7 footers would provide.

I completely agree, great point.
I wasn't trying to compare the teams as an "absolute" and only measure. I just tried to give people a rough idea that Kobe's best teammates were pretty comparable to other star's best teammates. Even if we consider pace, I don't think the difference would be significanty but of course there are a few adjustments I would need to make to the numbers to make it more accurate.

You're right, I should have included all 12 players to compare "deepness", but honestly it would have taken me so long to do...

[branslowski]

True, but when/if you use context, and look at the competition for each player, it doesn't necessarily make Kobe's titles more impressive than Bird, Jordan, and Magic's titles. Impressive, yes, but it's not just as simple as saying "Jordan won with Pippen, Bird won with McHale, Magic won with Kareem, and Kobe won with Gasol" and just leave it at that.

Yea but,...what I posted is the truth, and which will be remembered. Just like Jordan won, but put into context, the perimeter players of his winning Era wasn't at the level of the perimeter players during Kobe/LeBron era....Yet at the end of the day, no one cares and Jordan still the best.

[Doranku]

How is a 57 team win favorite w/o HCA favorite against a 66 win team in a 2-3-2 format? :roll:

[branslowski]

How is a 57 team win favorite w/o HCA favorite against a 66 win team in a 2-3-2 format? :roll:

Who said this dumb shit?

[rhythmic]

Who said this dumb shit?

ESPN "experts".
It was more to do with how LA & Boston played in the playoffs leading up to the match-up. LA looked more impressive against better teams then Boston did...

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[riseagainst]

The Lakers had the best 2nd option in 2010. Kobe.

Pau led the team in PER and WS in the regular season. Pau led the team in PER and WS in the Postseason. Pau led the team in PER and WS in the Finals.

But PPGz.

RG's aka TonyMontana's other alt?

:roll:

[DMAVS41]

Yea but,...what I posted is the truth, and which will be remembered. Just like Jordan won, but put into context, the perimeter players of his winning Era wasn't at the level of the perimeter players during Kobe/LeBron era....Yet at the end of the day, no one cares and Jordan still the best.

But you just touched on the difference....or at least the difference from my point of view.

I don't view Kobe as the clear cut best like MJ was when he was winning titles.

Which is why when you say "nobody cares"...it's a little misleading because certain players played at higher levels or perceived higher levels. Nobody cares about Lebron winning with a stacked team because he's clearly the best player in the game right now.

I think that is the difference Kobe fans fail to see...Kobe never separated himself from all the other players the way some of the guys he's compared to did...

[KG215]

How is a 57 team win favorite w/o HCA favorite against a 66 win team in a 2-3-2 format? :roll:
If you're referring to 2008, at least be smart enough to realize the Lakers were better than a 57 win team due to getting Gasol. After the Gasol trade, the Lakers went 22-5 (.815) which is roughly a 67 win pace. Not saying they should've necessarily been favored over the Celtics in 2008, but they were absolutely better than a 57 win team by the time the playoffs started.

[DMAVS41]

If you're referring to 2008, at least be smart enough to realize the Lakers were better than a 57 win team due to getting Gasol. After the Gasol trade, the Lakers went 22-5 (.815) which is roughly a 67 win pace. Not saying they should've necessarily been favored over the Celtics in 2008, but they were absolutely better than a 57 win team by the time the playoffs started.

And they tore through the western conference while the Celtics struggled to beat the Hawks and Cavs and Pistons...going 12-8...while the Lakers went 12-3

And the Lakers had Kobe...LOL

[branslowski]

But you just touched on the difference....or at least the difference from my point of view.

I don't view Kobe as the clear cut best like MJ was when he was winning titles.

Which is why when you say "nobody cares"...it's a little misleading because certain players played at higher levels or perceived higher levels. Nobody cares about Lebron winning with a stacked team because he's clearly the best player in the game right now.

I think that is the difference Kobe fans fail to see...Kobe never separated himself from all the other players the way some of the guys he's compared to did...

Well glad that's ur opinion....We can agree to disagree...Gotta get my work, brb..

[pegasus]

Basically, it was Kobe, with Gasol as a solid sidekick, and role players...Nothing was stacked.

History will look like this:

Bird had Mchal and Parrish

Jordan had Pippen

Magic had Kareem

Kareem had Magic and Worthy

Kobe had Gasol

And Lebron had Wade and Bosh, and much better role players. Plus, the competition was missing Rose, Deng, and Kirk; and Granger; and Parker got hurt early in the series. So, it's much more help, much less competition, and still came down to a miracle shot.:applause: :roll:

[PickernRoller]

And Lebron had Wade and Bosh, and much better role players. Plus, the competition was missing Rose, Deng, and Kirk; and Granger; and Parker got hurt early in the series. So, it's much more help, much less competition, and still came down to a miracle shot.:applause: :roll:

Lebrons fan logic never works bro. 3-peat Lakers, Barkley Suns, Malone Jazz would mop the floor with 2 peat Heat.

Comparable to today's competition the cHeat are the most stacked team in the league - a travesty really. Everything is relative as you mentioned.

[Doranku]

If you're referring to 2008, at least be smart enough to realize the Lakers were better than a 57 win team due to getting Gasol. After the Gasol trade, the Lakers went 22-5 (.815) which is roughly a 67 win pace. Not saying they should've necessarily been favored over the Celtics in 2008, but they were absolutely better than a 57 win team by the time the playoffs started.


At least be smart enough to... not make things up?

The Lakers were 27-9 (.750) which is roughly a 61 win pace. Which is still less than 66 wins. And the Lakers still didn't have HCA in a 2-3-2 format which heavily favors the team with HCA.

[KG215]

At least be smart enough to... not make things up?

The Lakers were 27-9 (.750) which is roughly a 61 win pace. Which is still less than 66 wins. And the Lakers still didn't have HCA in a 2-3-2 format which heavily favors the team with HCA.
:facepalm

I'm not making things up. Gasol missed 9 games after being traded to the Lakers.

Anyway, you do the math....

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/jdbudget/GasolwithLakers2008_zps064c742e.png

There it is: Gasol played 27 games with the Lakers in 2007-2008, and they went 22-5. Oh, and in those 9 games without Gasol, they went 5-4. Lost nearly as many games in 9 games without Gasol as they did in 27 games with Gasol.

[TonyMontana]

Yawn...

Kobe stans making the foundation of their argument stats.

I don't see any stat for interior defense(something the Lakers were elite at). Gasol, Bynum, and Odom were all VERY GOOD 7 footers that could play on both sides of the floor. Incredibly valuable. The top frontcourt trio since the 80s Celtics. You don't think the Cavs would trade Mo Williams Delonte West and Illgauskas for Gasol,Bynum, Odom?

:roll:

[KG215]

:facepalmhttp://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/jdbudget/GasolwithLakers2008_zps064c742e.png

You know, looking at this, Gasol actually/basically missed 10 games after being traded to LA. Played 2.5 minutes on March 14th, got hurt, and they went on to lose the game. So if I wanted to get real technical, I could say the Lakers went 22-4 with Gasol and 5-5 without Gasol.

[DMAVS41]

You know, looking at this, Gasol actually/basically missed 10 games after being traded to LA. Played 2.5 minutes on March 14th, got hurt, and they went on to lose the game. So if I wanted to get real technical, I could say the Lakers went 22-4 with Gasol and 5-5 without Gasol.

I was just about to point that. Doranku speechless....LOL

[guy]

DMAVs agreed on your overall premise..

But.. I want you to apply that same logic to Michael Jordan.


Did Michael have a better supporting cast than his adversaries?

Who was ewing's second option in the early 90s? John Starks? Ewing had the equivalent of what 2011 Derrick Rose had.. a bunch of defensive role players and one offensive talent except Patrick was the one who made their defense and rebounding elite, on TOP of being the guy they leaned on offensively.

Ewings second option was basically JR Smith.


First of all, you're really underrating those Knicks, second of all, Derrick Rose did have one of the best supporting casts in 2011. Jordan clearly had the better 2nd option, but the game isn't played 2 on 2. The top 3 players out of the two teams in 92 and 93 were clearly Jordan, Ewing, Pippen, but after that, in 92 you could argue that the Knicks had 5 of the next 6 best players in Starks, Jackson, Xavier, Oakley, and Mason and in 93 you could argue that they had 4 of the next 5 best players in Starks, Oakley, Mason, Rivers. All of those players I mentioned made all star games at some point of their career and at that time on the Knicks were in their mid-20s to early-30s, the most relevant ages for most players at the time. After the top 2 players, the Knicks were clearly a better and more talented team. Now obviously, having the more talented top 2 is much more impactful then having a more talented 4-5, but Patrick Ewing being completely outmatched as far as help goes is revisionist history. Ewing couldn't beat Jordan mainly cause Jordan was better.



Charles Barkley? He had the pieces for 1 or 2 years and gave jordan one of his most competitive Finals series. Still never had a second option on Scotties level, nor the coaching, nor the overall teams over a signifigant time span


Barkley also wasn't as good as Jordan at a younger age when he clearly had more help with teammates like Moses, Dr. J, and Cheeks or at an older age when he was playing with Hakeem and Clyde. If he was, I don't think people would ever argue that he didn't have the pieces.



Hakeem? Not much even has to be said..


Much of the same can be said for Hakeem that I said for Barkley, but I will admit not to the same extent.



Shaq? Had some good talent, but again didnt have near the depth, as good a number two, or coaching to glue it all together.

If Shaq was as good from 96-98 as he was from 00-02, where he was just as great or arguably better then Jordan was in the 2nd three-peat, I don't think anyone would argue that Shaq didn't have the help Jordan had, except for maybe 96 when Grant got injured.



David Robinson? Again nothing has to be said.


Won't argue here.



If you switch MJ out to the knicks and make him have to work with John Starks while Ewing gets pippen.. I dont see how the bulls with ewing lose there. Ewing had much less to work with but still led his team to wins and competitive series. You swap pieces and the odds are greatly in his favor.

If you switch Jordan and Ewing, Knicks might actually win those series since they were that close already. This is a flawed comparison anyway since both teams were built around each superstar. Lets say the Bulls also have a Bill Cartwright-level SG like Mario Elie and the Knicks have a John Starks-level center instead (not Bill Cartwright), like Hot Rod Williams, Rik Smits, Kevin Duckworth, Robert Parish, Moses Malone, etc. and I definitely would still bet on the Knicks.



And overall MJ had the best teams, second option, and coach of ANY other superstar in the 90s... yet no one seems to ever bring it up.

What are you talking about? Its brought up constantly. I've seen this post a million times.

I see what you're getting at. Kobe may have not had that much better of a supporting cast, if better at all, then alot of players. But no one was comparing him to dudes like Melo, Deron, Roy, etc. at the time. Wasn't even an argument that I recall. These weren't arguable top 20-30 players of all-time like everyone you mentioned in the Jordan comparison. There's really only a few players from 09 and 10 that people were comparing to Kobe and thats Wade and Lebron, and those two clearly didn't have the support in those years that he had. Thats why this argument comes up, fairly or unfairly.

[TonyMontana]

You know, looking at this, Gasol actually/basically missed 10 games after being traded to LA. Played 2.5 minutes on March 14th, got hurt, and they went on to lose the game. So if I wanted to get real technical, I could say the Lakers went 22-4 with Gasol and 5-5 without Gasol.

LOL

Doranku ethered. "at least be smart enough not to make stuff up"

22-4 with Gasol
5-5 without Gasol

In 2007-2008 as a whole, the Lakers were 46-15(.754) with two elite bigs(out of Gasol,Bynum,Odom) while with only one of them playing they were 11-10(.524).

Without that elite frontcourt player Kobe is only good enough for .500 ball. Lets check back when it was Shaqs team.

With Shaq AND Kobe: 261-101(.721)
With Shaq NO Kobe: 32-10(.762)
NO Shaq WITH KOBE: 23-25(.479)

below.500 ball without Shaq, team is elite with or without Kobe. :oldlol:

[TheMarkMadsen]

You know, looking at this, Gasol actually/basically missed 10 games after being traded to LA. Played 2.5 minutes on March 14th, got hurt, and they went on to lose the game. So if I wanted to get real technical, I could say the Lakers went 22-4 with Gasol and 5-5 without Gasol.

what was Memphis record at the time they traded Gasol?

[tpols]

LOL

Doranku ethered. "at least be smart enough not to make stuff up"

22-4 with Gasol
5-5 without Gasol

In 2007-2008 as a whole, the Lakers were 46-15(.754) with two elite bigs(out of Gasol,Bynum,Odom) while with only one of them playing they were 11-10(.524).

Without that elite frontcourt player Kobe is only good enough for .500 ball. Lets check back when it was Shaqs team.

With Shaq AND Kobe: 261-101(.721)
With Shaq NO Kobe: 32-10(.762)
NO Shaq WITH KOBE: 23-25(.479)

below.500 ball without Shaq, team is elite with or without Kobe. :oldlol:


Yawn...

Kobe stans making the foundation of their argument stats.
:

LOL

[DMAVS41]

LOL

Is winning now a stat? Not that I have a dog in the fight about stats...I like stats, but now "winning/losing" is just..."stats"???

[TonyMontana]

LOL

These are team records

Not comparing players entirely on PPG like your boy was doing. :roll:

[branslowski]

Yawn...

Kobe stans making the foundation of their argument stats.

I don't see any stat for interior defense(something the Lakers were elite at). Gasol, Bynum, and Odom were all VERY GOOD 7 footers that could play on both sides of the floor. Incredibly valuable. The top frontcourt trio since the 80s Celtics. You don't think the Cavs would trade Mo Williams Delonte West and Illgauskas for Gasol,Bynum, Odom?

:roll:

Stats don't matter now huh? How convient. :rolleyes:

Just like All NBA teams don't matter because the media votes, yet LeBron's MVPs matter that are also media votes.

Kobe was a top 6 player in the league on Shaqs Lakers and dominated in the playoffs exc....Got carried

The gap between Kobe and Gasol was bigger with Kobe being a top player, yet, Gasol carried Kobe?


That troll logic doe:lol

[KG215]

what was Memphis record at the time they traded Gasol?
I'm guessing pretty terrible since they only won 20-something games the whole season. But does it matter?

I wasn't trying to say Gasol was LA's most valuable player or anything. I was just pointing out Doranku's flawed logic that a 57 Laker team shouldn't have been favored over a 66 win Celtic team in the Finals, because the Lakers were noticeably better than a 57 win team with Gasol.

[DMAVS41]

Stats don't matter now huh? How convient. :rolleyes:

Just like All NBA teams don't matter because the media votes, yet LeBron's MVPs matter that are also media votes.

Kobe was a top 6 player in the league on Shaqs Lakers and dominated in the playoffs exc....Got carried

The gap between Kobe and Gasol was bigger with Kobe being a top player, yet, Gasol carried Kobe?


That troll logic doe:lol


It all depends. Of course Gasol did not carry Kobe.

But when a player (doesn't matter who) makes an all defensive team without evidence to back it up. The notion doesn't mean anything in reality in my opinion.

At some point...what is actually happening on the court and perception have to map. If not...I'll go with reality rather than confirmation bias.

[branslowski]

Inb4 Dmavs, Tony Montana, KG215, and Silk:oldlol:


Factual on point thread...Been exposing posters with this for a while.:applause:

Just missin one more poster...Silk cmon:lol

Did I call it or what?:oldlol:

[tpols]

Is winning now a stat? Not that I have a dog in the fight about stats...I like stats, but now "winning/losing" is just..."stats"???
Ok... if you want to play that game.

Pau Gasol playoff statistics without Kobe..

0-16.



Shaqs playoff success outside of Kobe<Kobes playoff success outside of Shaq


Jordan without Pippen in series is 1-9 if I recall correctly.

Jordan was rep[laced with pete myers and his team only lost 2 less games.


There are thousands of other examples. Using regular season win losses, with or without a certain player can be construed to manipulate arguments for any angle you wish to take. :confusedshrug:

[branslowski]

It all depends. Of course Gasol did not carry Kobe.

But when a player (doesn't matter who) makes an all defensive team without evidence to back it up. The notion doesn't mean anything in reality in my opinion.

At some point...what is actually happening on the court and perception have to map. If not...I'll go with reality rather than confirmation bias.

Soo....Media votes for MVP, that's legit....Media votes for All NBA its not legit...Actually Head coaches vote for All Defensive team, not legit?

Or is it just that some ppl don't like Kobe, so their agenda picks and chooses wats important?

[KG215]

Just missin one more poster...Silk cmon:lol

Did I call it or what?:oldlol:
Who, exactly, are you exposing?

And if you're lumping me and DMAVS in with silkk and Tony, you've got problems. There's a noticeable difference in our arguments/beliefs and their blatant trollish arguments.

[branslowski]

Ok... if you want to play that game.

Pau Gasol playoff statistics without Kobe..

0-16.



Shaqs playoff success outside of Kobe<Kobes playoff success outside of Shaq


Jordan without Pippen in series is 1-9 if I recall correctly.

Jordan was rep[laced with pete myers and his team only lost 2 less games.


There are thousands of other examples. Using regular season win losses, with or without a certain player can be construed to manipulate arguments for any angle you wish to take. :confusedshrug:

You posted Gasols playoff record without Kobe? :lol Inb4 "records don't count now cause its not passively aggressively dissing Kobe"

[DMAVS41]

Soo....Media votes for MVP, that's legit....Media votes for All NBA its not legit...Actually Head coaches vote for All Defensive team, not legit?

Or is it just that some ppl don't like Kobe, so their agenda picks and chooses wats important?

No. I don't think any of it is legit unless it maps with reality and what happens on the court.

I don't care if Phil Jackson says Dwight Howard is better than Lebron (which he kind of did in an interview with Dan Patrick when he said he'd take Howard over Lebron)....he's just objectively wrong and it doesn't map with reality and what happens on the court.

The evidence has to back the shit up. And, of course, Kobe's all defensive selections don't map with reality. That is the point.

But I've never been in favor of using such highly subjective things like that as more than just icing on the cake in arguments. They mean very little imo and that has nothing to do with Kobe. It has to do with the nature of the awards.

[DMAVS41]

Ok... if you want to play that game.

Pau Gasol playoff statistics without Kobe..

0-16.



Shaqs playoff success outside of Kobe<Kobes playoff success outside of Shaq


Jordan without Pippen in series is 1-9 if I recall correctly.

Jordan was rep[laced with pete myers and his team only lost 2 less games.


There are thousands of other examples. Using regular season win losses, with or without a certain player can be construed to manipulate arguments for any angle you wish to take. :confusedshrug:

Why are these responses directed towards me? Did I make the claim? Nope.

But even then...I think you are confusing arguments. But I dont' really care.

[branslowski]

Who, exactly, are you exposing?

And if you're lumping me and DMAVS in with silkk and Tony, you've got problems. There's a noticeable difference in our arguments/beliefs and their blatant trollish arguments.

Meh, not exposing nothin....I just know wats up....It is wat it is...

[DMAVS41]

Meh, not exposing nothin....I just know wats up....It is wat it is...

That would be like me saying;

Brans and tpols here defending Kobe...as usual...I just know wats up...It is wat it is...

:confusedshrug:

[branslowski]

That would be like me saying;

Brans and tpols here defending Kobe...as usual...I just know wats up...It is wat it is...

:confusedshrug:

Kobe fan in every Kobe thread defending the great one from haters vs You, a Dirk Mavs fan who is every Kobe thread?

Not really da same homie...

[Legends66NBA7]

Kobe fan in every Kobe thread defending the great one from haters vs You, a Dirk Mavs fan who is every Kobe thread?

Not really da same homie...

Heavincent and tpols are both Nets fans defending Kobe. As long as there on Kobe side, it's cool. If you root for another team and are against Kobe, something ain't right ?

[iamgine]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[juju151111]

Just missin one more poster...Silk cmon:lol

Did I call it or what?:oldlol:
You guys didn't expose anyone through.:wtf: what argument did you win?

[The Iron Fist]

Inb4 Dmavs, Tony Montana, KG215, and Silk:oldlol:


Factual on point thread...Been exposing posters with this for a while.:applause:
So, you mean Gino and his brothers?:biggums:

[SamuraiSWISH]

Gasol, Odom, Ariza, Bynum, and Fisher

Gasol, Odom, Artest, Bynum and Fisher

Was absolutely in 2009 and 2010 relative to competition a nice well rounded roster that fit their superstar, almost perfectly.

Are they considered stacked like the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Celtics? I don't think so.

Are they near as top heavy talented as the 2011 Heat? No.

Are they as talented and stacked as the 2012 and 2013 Heat? No.

But relative to the league in those seasons, they weren't some averaging supporting cast either.

[havoc33]

First of all, you're really underrating those Knicks, second of all, Derrick Rose did have one of the best supporting casts in 2011. Jordan clearly had the better 2nd option, but the game isn't played 2 on 2. The top 3 players out of the two teams in 92 and 93 were clearly Jordan, Ewing, Pippen, but after that, in 92 you could argue that the Knicks had 5 of the next 6 best players in Starks, Jackson, Xavier, Oakley, and Mason and in 93 you could argue that they had 4 of the next 5 best players in Starks, Oakley, Mason, Rivers. All of those players I mentioned made all star games at some point of their career and at that time on the Knicks were in their mid-20s to early-30s, the most relevant ages for most players at the time. After the top 2 players, the Knicks were clearly a better and more talented team. Now obviously, having the more talented top 2 is much more impactful then having a more talented 4-5, but Patrick Ewing being completely outmatched as far as help goes is revisionist history. Ewing couldn't beat Jordan mainly cause Jordan was better. I'd like to point out that Jordan had a very rough series overall vs the Knicks in '93. If Pippen didn't step up and play some superb allround basketball, the Knicks win that series. Pippen was the MVP of that series, not Jordan.

It is no coincidence that Jordan struggled against that team though. As soon as the Knicks started bulking up after the 91 season, Jordan started having much less success against them. Up until that point, he had dominated them both in the regular season and playoffs. The 92 and 93 version of the Knicks were the only team that could physically stand up to Jordan IMO in all their championship runs. They had (somewhat) athletic guards, and a great, intimidating frontline. Still, the Bulls supporting casts were no slouches either. Pippen, Horace Grant (allstar in 94), BJ Armstrong (also allstar in 94) and Bill Cartwright were quality players, not to mention their specialist crew of Levingston, Scott and Paxson.


But you just touched on the difference....or at least the difference from my point of view.

I don't view Kobe as the clear cut best like MJ was when he was winning titles.

Which is why when you say "nobody cares"...it's a little misleading because certain players played at higher levels or perceived higher levels. Nobody cares about Lebron winning with a stacked team because he's clearly the best player in the game right now.

I think that is the difference Kobe fans fail to see...Kobe never separated himself from all the other players the way some of the guys he's compared to did...

Look, what I think some Kobe fans are upset about is the fact that Kobe seems to be held to a double standard. You say that Kobe wasn't perceived as the clear cut best when he was winning titles, but then that only puts him in the same category as for example Magic Johnson. Magic won 5 titles, but only two as the arguably the best player in the league. Bird, not Magic, was considered the best player in the league in the mid 80s, as proven by his three straight MVP's. Magic on the other hand, got his infamous nickname Tragic Johnson during this time. Then Magic arguably took the best in the league crown in 87 to 90, before Jordan overtook him. Yet I don't hear much complaining from people that Magic, for the larger part of his career, was not considered the best in the league. The competition was tough, but still.

Now if we analyze the competition further, we see that Jordan faced considerably weaker opposition than Kobe did during the latter part of his career. Jordan never faced any team like Boston 08, even Boston 10, during his second threepeat. Not only was the level of competition in the West far toughter than the competition MJ faced in the East from 96-98, but the whole league was just more talented. Where are the quality perimeter players from Jordan's era? I can only think of a handful, and the best ones were too young or did not have teams to even make a little noise in the Playoffs. This is exactly what you hold against Kobe during his 08-10 run, yet it's perfectly fine for Jordan from 96-98? The only time Jordan faced a quality defensive guard in the Playoffs in this period, he struggled (Payton, 96 Finals). Yet all these things are ok for certain all time greats, while Kobe are being killed for having a bad game 7, while arguably facing a better team than Jordan ever did from 96-98.

[guy]

I'd like to point out that Jordan had a very rough series overall vs the Knicks in '93. If Pippen didn't step up and play some superb allround basketball, the Knicks win that series. Pippen was the MVP of that series, not Jordan.

Okay, thats one series against them. One series where he also had two of the best games of his career, including one of the greatest performances in playoff history, both which resulted in wins. Pippen was the MVP and Jordan did overall have a bad series. But good chance Pippen isn't having the same series without Jordan getting the Knicks attention, which was the case the next year where Pippen was much worse. This doesn't change what I said.



It is no coincidence that Jordan struggled against that team though. As soon as the Knicks started bulking up after the 91 season, Jordan started having much less success against them. Up until that point, he had dominated them both in the regular season and playoffs. The 92 and 93 version of the Knicks were the only team that could physically stand up to Jordan IMO in all their championship runs. They had (somewhat) athletic guards, and a great, intimidating frontline. Still, the Bulls supporting casts were no slouches either. Pippen, Horace Grant (allstar in 94), BJ Armstrong (also allstar in 94) and Bill Cartwright were quality players, not to mention their specialist crew of Levingston, Scott and Paxson.


Never said that Jordan's cast were slouches. But there's this myth that Ewing's cast was just cause he didn't have someone as good as Pippen, and that same myth is the case with numerous players from that era. While Jordan had the better best teammate, the rest of the Knicks were clearly better. The Bulls had the better #1-2 while the Knicks had the better #3-12.

[rhythmic]

guy; it's amusing to read your posts.
You always make good points but you also always find loopholes to praise a guy like Jordan and belittle Kobe. I mean, you're agenda driven; you could play the devils advocate for Kobe pretty well too. It's embedded in your brain to reply to threads that praise Kobe, and find faults in his game. At the same time, do the complete opposite for other players (like Jordan for instance). It doesn't make you a troll but it's hard for me to respect your opinion because you're clearly biased.

That's why I'm going to start staying out of these redundant conversations. It's the same crop of posters dissing Kobe; consistently changing criteria & circumstances in order to dismiss him as a great player. It's not just you who does it, but to your credit; at least you don't troll and bring forward great points. I just wish you were more neutral, I don't think I've ever seen you reply to trolls who consistently diss Kobe and shut them up. But you're very persistent on doing that to people who praise Kobe a lot.

[guy]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[rhythmic]

The f*ck are you talking about? Yea I'm a Jordan fan, not a Kobe fan. Do you praise Jordan when people criticize him? Every post I've seen you make is about Kobe and/or trying to argue that he's closer to Jordan then he is. And even though I can admit I'm biased, I'm not inconsistent with Kobe. In this thread I haven't said Kobe's teams were so much better then everyone else's. In fact, I agreed it wasn't. The only criticism I had about this thread was your flawed logic by using total stats.

I called you biased, and you admitted to it. :oldlol:
I've said countless times that Jordan is the G.O.A.T.!
I don't know how else I can praise the man, that's the ultimate praise I can give him. No? I am aware that Jordan is better then Kobe, but posters like you (and to the extreme, the other trolls on this forum) make it seem like Kobe isn't a legend in his own right. Which is why I tend to talk about him so much. I've watched the man play for 17 years in this league for my favorite team, so it's hard to sit back and listen to all the bullshit you guys spew about him.

On a sidenote, this thread wasn't created because of you. I know you never said Kobe's teammates were so much superior to everyone else. Other posters did, therefore I replied to them. Yes, Kobe's teammates were good when he won 2 titles and led them to 3 straight final appearances; but so were Jordan's, in fact Jordan had better teammates.

Pippen/Grant/Kokuc/Harper/Rodman or Odom/Gasol/Ariza/World Peace/Fisher.
Not a hard decision, to be honest.

Fact is, you pick and choose your arguments. You'll take opportunity to praise Jordan and diss Kobe. I've never even seen you talk about Kobe in a high regard. You just always reply in threads that are either pro or con Kobe, and simply highlight negative aspects of his career.

[pegasus]

Gasol, Odom, Ariza, Bynum, and Fisher

Gasol, Odom, Artest, Bynum and Fisher

Was absolutely in 2009 and 2010 relative to competition a nice well rounded roster that fit their superstar, almost perfectly.

Are they considered stacked like the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Celtics? I don't think so.

Are they near as top heavy talented as the 2011 Heat? No.

Are they as talented and stacked as the 2012 and 2013 Heat? No.

But relative to the league in those seasons, they weren't some averaging supporting cast either.

I agree with this, but let's not mention Bynum's name like he actually had an impact in 2009 where he was hurt for the most part, and averaged very pedestrian numbers in 2010. It was not the prime Bynum that he later became and stayed that way for almost one season(!) before getting hurt again.

Kobe had the supporting cast to win, but only because it was Kobe. I can name several other superstars that would definitely wet the bed if they had been in his shoes. LA surrounded him with just enough talent, and he did what a true superstar does and led them to back-to-back chips. He had no other superstar, no one else that could slash or create his own shot, or an elite shooter. He was the 90% of their perimeter offense and was still an elite defender during that time.

And some of you need to stop comparing Lebron's cast from his Cleveland years to the Lakers, because Lebron didn't even get close to winning a chip, so why bother comparing? His team had the best record and one of the best defenses in the league two years in a row, and they were heavily favored to at least win the East, but they didn't, so why pretend as if they'd gotten even close to reaching their goal and compare them to the actual champions? You might as well discuss Josh Smith's supporting cast too while you're at it.

[guy]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[rhythmic]

I admitted to it cause I'm not in denial about it. Are you telling me you're unbiased? There's not a poster here that doesn't have some sort of bias.

Where the hell have I said Kobe isn't a legend? I've had in my top 10 of all-time for years.

I pick and choose my arguments? Sure, what am I supposed to do? Respond to every thread in ISH? I'm obviously going to respond to threads that I have more of an interest in then others. And I at least actually respond to threads that have nothing to do with Jordan or Kobe. Do you? Cause I haven't noticed.

Sure I do, I post more in Off The Court & Video Game forum then I do here. And I do reply to a lot of non-Kobe threads but unfortunately 90% of threads created in the NBA forum is about Kobe. So it's kind of hard not to post in them.

[guy]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[rhythmic]

Oh like this thread and the numerous other Kobe threads you create on a regular basis? :oldlol:

By the way, I'm probably going to respond to the Kobe, Dirk, Durant vs Wade, Lebron, Bosh in the next hour or so. Just letting you know so you can follow my posts easier :oldlol:

Uhm, I created this thread and a couple of others to reply to posters who asked me the questions in other threads. I actually made an effort to talk basketball. Are my threads really biased and pro-Kobe, or are they highlighting facts about his career?

Search my ID and see how many threads I've created about Kobe since 2011. I'd be shocked if it's more then 5.

[rhythmic]

[QUOTE]2012-2013 Pick The Winner (Game) ( 1 2)
rhythmic

[guy]

Here are all the threads I created since joining this forum.
A total of four threads talking about Kobe, in the last 2 years.
3 of them (the past 2 weeks) was directly related to debates I had with other posters about Kobe.

So how do I create threads about Kobe on a regular basis again, champ?

:oldlol: The majority of those threads have something to do with the Lakers and you're trying to make it seem like Kobe wasn't part of the subject matter there? GTFOH.

Dude I could care less what you respond to and what you don't. Just no need to talk shit about who's bias and who's not and act like you're on some higher level thats completely unbiased. You say you just want to talk basketball, then talk basketball, even if the majority of it is about Kobe. He's one of best players ever, one of the greatest current athletes, and one of the more entertaining characters in the world to discuss. Its understandable, so do you. And if you don't think my posts are worth the time of day, then don't respond. But get that other shit out of here.