One image that haters cant explain

[5 rings fan]

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg252/jorgepadilla23/SKnFQ.png

"Shaq is FMVP in 01" :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Perfect]

... This is from the 2nd round

[Chizdog]

FINALS MVP

[Bandito]

Shaq deserved his finals mvps as Kobe deserved his.

[TheMilkyBarKid]

Not only did the op most likely watch basketball at the time, or has bothered to watch footage of it since, but he misunderstands the difference between finals and playoffs in general. Low IQ trolling. You are the Russel Westbrook minus his talents of trolls. Give up.

[JohnFreeman]

FINALS mvp

[BoutPractice]

Who would you say performed the best between the two following players:

Player A
33 ppg
16 rpg
5 apg
3.5 bpg
57 FG%

Player B
24.5 ppg
8 rpg
6 apg
41 FG%

(Note: Player B's average dropped 4 ppg from the regular season, while player A's increased by 4 ppg.
Player B's decrease was an improvement from the previous year, where his ppg dropped by 7 and FG% by 10 percentage points.)

[Prometheus]

0/10

[f0und]

Who would you say performed the best between the two following players:

Player A
33 ppg
16 rpg
5 apg
3.5 bpg
57 FG%

Player B
24.5 ppg
8 rpg
6 apg
41 FG%

(Note: Player B's average dropped 4 ppg from the regular season, while player A's increased by 4 ppg.
Player B's decrease was an improvement from the previous year, where his ppg dropped by 7 and FG% by 10 percentage points.)

if player B made a few ridiculous ill advised fadeaways over 4 defenders, then thats who id definitely take.

[ArbitraryWater]

Who would you say performed the best between the two following players:

Player A
33 ppg
16 rpg
5 apg
3.5 bpg
57 FG%

Player B
24.5 ppg
8 rpg
6 apg
41 FG%

(Note: Player B's average dropped 4 ppg from the regular season, while player A's increased by 4 ppg.
Player B's decrease was an improvement from the previous year, where his ppg dropped by 7 and FG% by 10 percentage points.)


Hmmm. One scores about 9 more points a game, at a 16% higher rate, rebounds 2x as much, has more defensive impact, draws all the attention, while the other averages 1 more assist.....

pickle. take who you want, its personal preference really

[Prometheus]

This thread is why I'm so baffled by Kobe fans. I loved watching Kobe, he was a great player and very entertaining, but god dammit it's like his fans just want everyone else to hate him so they say the dumbest shit imaginable.

[imdaman99]

Shaq deserved all his Finals MVPs. If MJ or bran switched places with Kobe, Shaq would still get the FMVPs.

Shaq was that dominant. I think the East did well against swingmen, while the West had the big bodies to trouble bigmen.

[sd3035]

Finals MVP

http://oi61.tinypic.com/29ff1b6.jpg

[Mr Exlax]

Finals MVP

http://oi61.tinypic.com/29ff1b6.jpg


The OP won't respond anymore lol.

[JohnMax]

10 games x 30 ppg = 300 points

Shaq and Kobe played 10 games which is barely enough for 2 series.

[pegasus]

That's why they are called 1a and 1b and their rings are equally valuable.

[aj1987]

Kobe - 29.4/7.3/6.1/1.6/0.8 22.4 shots a game
Shaq - 30.4/15.4/3.2/0.4/2.4 on 21.5 shots a game

So, Kobe took 1 shot more per game and scored 1 point less than Shaq.

Those numbers are for the entire playoffs, BTW.

[Sakkreth]

That's why they are called 1a and 1b and their rings are equally valuable.

Nah kobe was 5th option after 3 refs and shaq.

[Derka]

... This is from the 2nd round

/thread

[nathanjizzle]

finals mvp, not rape mvp.

[BoutPractice]

That 1a and 1b thing is historical revisionism by fanatics. Back then most knowledgable, "moderate" fans saw it as a clear number first and second option arrangement (albeit a historically brilliant second option).

Here are the facts:

- In the 2000 and 2001 Finals, Kobe's youth and immaturity (completely understandable for his age) showed, and Shaq had to carry a tremendous load to finish the job. Kobe's ppg dropped by 7 in 2000, then 4 in 2001, compared to the regular season, while Shaq's ppg increased by 8 in 2000 and 4 in 2001. The ppg differential between Kobe and Shaq in 2000 and 2001 were -22 and -8, respectively. The Finals weren't particularly competitive and this was mainly due to Shaq's dominance.

- Kobe had his best Finals of the Shaq era in 2002... and still scored a full 10 ppg less than Shaq.

- Shaq's PPG, RPG, FG%, and PER were superior to Kobe's in 2000, 2001, and 2002, both in the regular season and in the playoffs. He placed higher in the MVP votes than Kobe every single year, winning the award in 2001 while the highest Kobe placed in that period was 5.

- ...Just watch the games, really.


On this particular matter, the case should have been closed a decade ago.

Kobe was one of the, if not the, best second option of all time in the Shaq era, and had his moment as "the man" later, where he impressively led the Lakers to back-to-back championships. But the early 2000s threepeat was Shaq-led.

[-Lebron23-]

OP is a Lebron stan trolling you guys :oldlol: :applause:

[red1]

sure I can

[red1]

http://slcwhblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/kobe.jpg

[T_L_P]

Literally everyone just explained it. :roll:

[red1]

That's why they are called 1a and 1b and their rings are equally valuable.
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6067/6081114162_eae14ba471_o.gif
http://cjzero.com/gifs/JetCWebbReactions.gif

[ArbitraryWater]

That's why they are called 1a and 1b and their rings are equally valuable.

http://www.epiclol.com/cdn/pictures/2012/03/shaq-trying-to-keep-_1332481830_epiclolcom.gif

[NugzFan]

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg252/jorgepadilla23/SKnFQ.png

"Shaq is FMVP in 01" :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Even if that's from the finals, what is your point? Why shouldn't shaq have been MVP?

[tpols]

That 1a and 1b thing is historical revisionism by fanatics. Back then most knowledgable, "moderate" fans saw it as a clear number first and second option arrangement (albeit a historically brilliant second option).

Here are the facts:

- In the 2000 and 2001 Finals, Kobe's youth and immaturity (completely understandable for his age) showed, and Shaq had to carry a tremendous load to finish the job. [B]Kobe's ppg dropped by 7 in 2000, then 4 in 2001, compared to the regular season, while Shaq's ppg increased by 8 in 2000 and 4 in 2001. The ppg differential between Kobe and Shaq in 2000 and 2001 were -22 and -8, respectively. The Finals weren't particularly competitive and this was mainly due to Shaq's dominance.



Carry a tremendous load to finish the job?? LA won their Finals 12-3 and faced very little resistance.

LA's Finals opponents in 2001 and 2002 had less wins than both their WCF opponents and their second round opponents.. Their toughest battles were always out west. Here's the real stats vs their best opponents

2001 WCF vs the spurs

Kobe 33/7/7 vs Shaq 27/13/2


2001 second round vs the Kings

Kobe 35/9/4 vs Shaq 33/17/2


2002 second round vs the spurs

Kobe 26/5/5 vs Shaq 21/12/3


2002 WCF vs the Kings

Kobe 27/6/4 vs Shaq 30/14/2


Home/Road production in 01 West

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BESnCrgCAAEHKku.jpg:large


Kobe also led all players in playoff fourth quarter scoring in 01 and 02, and was one of if not the most clutch player in the league those years while shaq was a liability closing tight games. It's not revisionist history... its all there for you to see. If Shaq was a 10/10 overall, Kobe was a 9.5/10 when it mattered.. miniscule difference.

[Solefade]

That's why they are called 1a and 1b and their rings are equally valuable.


never heard this before but who is this according to? kobetards? :roll: :roll:

[HoopsFanNumero1]

And once the Finals came around, this happened:

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/VS/z%20Crazy%20Stat%20n%20Record/Allen%20Iverson/-EC95A4EC8DA8EB8C80_ECBD94EBB984_EC.jpg

[ArbitraryWater]

And once the Finals came around, this happened:

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/VS/z%20Crazy%20Stat%20n%20Record/Allen%20Iverson/-EC95A4EC8DA8EB8C80_ECBD94EBB984_EC.jpg

insert pic of shaq carrying him into image

[tpols]

And once the Finals came around, this happened:

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/VS/z%20Crazy%20Stat%20n%20Record/Allen%20Iverson/-EC95A4EC8DA8EB8C80_ECBD94EBB984_EC.jpg

Spurs and Kings >>> Sixers.. that the cold reality for you bran stans.

[Solefade]

Spurs and Kings >>> Sixers.. that the cold reality for you bran stans.


except you had no business winning a game with .4 seconds left and when you play 5v8 against the kings, it's not that great of an accomplishment really.

you basically won a series cus of pure luck and the other cus of straight up rigging...hope you're proud :lol

[BoutPractice]

If Shaq was a 10/10 overall, Kobe was a 9.5/10 when it mattered..
if by "when it mattered" we mean the NBA Finals, then what do you make of 7 and 4 ppg drops (and this, by the way, applies to LeBron in 2011 too, I don't have any pro-LeBron agenda here just in case someone comes up with the predictable rebuttal...), or shooting percentages below 40% (this, again, applies to LeBron in 2007).

Looking at Shaq era Finals, Kobe was pretty bad in 2000 and 2004. No matter how you slice it, 15 ppg on 37% shooting for a player whose main value is scoring is pretty bad. To put things in perspective, over a similar number of games in the playoffs but in the first round, that scoring statline is comparable to Jameer Nelson in 2012, worse than Richard Jefferson in 2005.

And 22 ppg on 38% shooting is at best mediocre. In the same series Richard Hamilton had a comparable statline.

In 2001 and 2002, he was a fantastic second option (with production similar to this year's Westbrook with more emphasis on scoring), but again, the point differential with Shaq "when it mattered" was huge.

[tpols]

except you had no business winning a game with .4 seconds left and when you play 5v8 against the kings, it's not that great of an accomplishment really.

you basically won a series cus of pure luck and the other cus of straight up rigging...hope you're proud :lol

the .4 shot was in 2004 :facepalm you guys dont know shit.

[tpols]

if by "when it mattered" we mean the NBA Finals, .

Why would it matter more in the Finals when the teams LA faced were significantly weaker than what they faced in previous rounds?? Just arbitrarily because it happened to be the last round?

Please try to make sense.

[Solefade]

the .4 shot was in 2004 :facepalm you guys dont know shit.


oh right...but i was right about the kings series :confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

[HoopsFanNumero1]

Spurs and Kings >>> Sixers.. that the cold reality for you bran stans.

So Kobe couldn't dominate against the "weaker" competition? Let's face the facts. When it came to the Finals, Shaq was the difference maker in the series. There was no 1B anymore. Just Shaq and sidekicks.

[BoutPractice]

Why would it matter more in the Finals when the teams LA faced were significantly weaker than what they faced in previous rounds?? Just arbitrarily because it happened to be the last round?

Please try to make sense.

Well, generally when people talk about "when it matters" they're referring to the Finals. Otherwise the discussion tends to become speculative, based on what ifs (a great example would be 2006: surely the "real Finals "was San Antonio VS Dallas, right? the rest should be a cakewalk, right? except...)... So the burden of proof is on you to prove that this time it's the exception. But very well, I accept the argument.

However, although the Eastern teams could not match the Lakers overall, they had a great defense: Philadelphia, New Jersey (1st in defensive rating), etc. Because I was focusing here on offensive boxscore stats, it's logical to think that a Finals series against one of the best defenses in the league could be deemed a great test, perhaps even the ultimate test, of a player's offensive production. I'm simply pointing out that when faced with that test, Shaq raised his production to something almost historically unprecedented, whereas Kobe's was lowered, sometimes to very mediocre levels... and that when faced with that test, the point differential between the two was substantial.

But fine, let's look at the conference finals, and then I'll be done.

2000: advantage Shaq with a 5 ppg, 10 FG% points difference + more well rounded statistical production. Contested 7 game series.
2001: advantage Kobe with a 6 ppg differential + well rounded production.
But it has to be noted that of the 3 series, it was the least contested, which goes against your own argument: 2001 WCF were a sweep, unlike the Finals.
2002: advantage Shaq with a 3 ppg, 12 FG% points difference +more well rounded statistical production. Contested 7 game series.

If you consider everything, the regular season, the playoffs... Shaq was better in 2000, 2001, and 2002. Add in the eye test, and important elements not mentioned yet such as Lakers offense being based on Shaq drawing double teams, and the conclusion really shouldn't be that controversial.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Kobe stans still "discussing" this stuff? :rolleyes: :facepalm :oldlol:

[tpols]

So Kobe couldn't dominate against the "weaker" competition? Let's face the facts. When it came to the Finals, Shaq was the difference maker in the series. There was no 1B anymore. Just Shaq and sidekicks.

He got hurt in the two of them he played poorly in dude.. If Kobe had sprained his ankle in the middle of the Kings series he wouldnt have gone off on them either.

The way you make it out, Kobe just wilted under the pressure of the "Finals":eek: :eek: In reality, he was hurt for two of them but in previous series, when he was healthy, he was beasting against superior teams.

Do you really want to argue spurs and kings vs sixers and nets?

[Dresta]

Sixers were an elite defensive team. Kobe has shown time and again to be incapable of performing against the top defensive teams.

[tpols]

Sixers were an elite defensive team. Kobe has shown time and again to be incapable of performing against the top defensive teams.

2001 Sixers = 98.9 D-Rating, 5th in the league
2001 spurs = 98.0 D-Rating, 1st in the league


Kobe averaged 33/7/7 on 51% shooting versus the spurs.

Next.

[pegasus]

Carry a tremendous load to finish the job?? LA won their Finals 12-3 and faced very little resistance.

LA's Finals opponents in 2001 and 2002 had less wins than both their WCF opponents and their second round opponents.. Their toughest battles were always out west. Here's the real stats vs their best opponents

2001 WCF vs the spurs

Kobe 33/7/7 vs Shaq 27/13/2


2001 second round vs the Kings

Kobe 35/9/4 vs Shaq 33/17/2


2002 second round vs the spurs

Kobe 26/5/5 vs Shaq 21/12/3


2002 WCF vs the Kings

Kobe 27/6/4 vs Shaq 30/14/2


Home/Road production in 01 West

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BESnCrgCAAEHKku.jpg:large


Kobe also led all players in playoff fourth quarter scoring in 01 and 02, and was one of if not the most clutch player in the league those years while shaq was a liability closing tight games. It's not revisionist history... its all there for you to see. If Shaq was a 10/10 overall, Kobe was a 9.5/10 when it mattered.. miniscule difference.

Laugh at this post fa66ots

[Ne 1]

Anyone who watched the NBA in the early 00s knows this. The 3-peat Lakers relied HEAVILY on their two best players and it was far more a two headed monster in L.A. than just Shaq and his little Robin aka Kobe Bryant like Kobe detractors like to believe. Especially in 2001/2002 Kobe & Shaq were Co-MVP level. Much like Magic & Kareem. Speaking of that, why doesn't anybody discredit Magic for winning with Kareem? Lot of people rank him above Bird largely because he has 5 rings to Bird's 3. Even though he was only the clear best player for 2 of his rings. Hell Kobe was closer to Shaq in 2001 and 2002 than Magic was to Kareem in 1980, yet all 5 of his rings "count", but only 2 of Kobe's rings "count" (2009 and 2010)?

They won 3 straight championships, which is a rare feat. Who was the 3rd best player on those team? Glen Rice and Derek Fisher? Those team were not very talented outside of Shaq and Kobe, they had below average role players starting at each position outside of their center and shooting guard, and they had a weak bench. Yet they weren't just a championship caliber team, but they were a DYNASTY. In fact, out of all the dynasties in NBA history those Lakers were CLEARLY the least talented. That's why Shaq and Kobe BOTH deserve huge amounts of credit for those 3 championships.

[Rik Smits' Hair]

0/10

[GODbe]

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg252/jorgepadilla23/SKnFQ.png

"Shaq is FMVP in 01" :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
GOAT gonna GOAT. :applause:

[J Shuttlesworth]

Spurs and Kings >>> Sixers.. that the cold reality for you bran stans.
If thats the case, then Kobe should have gone berserk on the 76ers