A Rookie 1984 Michael Jordan or a Current Kobe Bryant?

[QUOTE]You're an idiot. Don't underestimate how much energy it takes to shoot an additional 8 shots every night and play an additional 2 minutes.[/QUOTE]
:lol energy. shut up. he was a bonifide superstar in 1987 so more shots should've atleast equaled his ratio from 1985
[QUOTE] A 22.5 ppg scorer doesn't because anywhere near a 35.4 ppg scorer just by switching roles. Don't forget Kobe was a MUCH better 3 point shooter and much stronger in 2006.[/QUOTE]
28ppg is very reasonable. no fat guy in the middle clogging lanes, freeing up 20+ shots per game, you'd be a retard to think he wouldn't be capable of doing so..oh wait
[QUOTE]Kobe had 2 good games in the entire series. Game 1 and Game 4.[/QUOTE]
in the most important game of the season he was spectacular, leading the lakers to an overtime victory (game 4) with the fat guy fouled out. he only played 9 minutes in game 2 due to injury, did not play in game 3 due to this injury (the game in which miller located his shot and found some momentum). the only game in which he played below par was game 5.
[QUOTE]I posted the stats for the series, you can't expect a player who averaged 16, 6 and 5 to average much more than thta in a series.[/QUOTE]
why not?
[QUOTE]What? Shaq carried the Lakers when kobe was injured. A 12-3 record sound familiar? And that was to start the season so the momentum from that start was very important. Your comment didn't make sense.[/QUOTE]
this has got nothing to do with what you responded to
[QUOTE]How far does an 80 winning % get you? 66 wins.[/QUOTE]
66 games out of 15 games? how is that possible? :roll:
[QUOTE]Not one fact yet.[/QUOTE]
go back and read from post 1
[QUOTE]You f*cking idiot. They switched on and off but Kobe guarded Iverson quite a bit in the 2001 Finals. When Iverson was torching Kobe and Fisher they tried Lue on him which worked for a while. Iverson went cold in the 4th quarter.[/QUOTE]
kobe only guarded iverson once or twice, fisher and lue guarded iverson in that series. go watch the series then come back and pass judgement..because until you've done that your opinions are worthless..come to think of it they'd still probably be worthless after you had studied the tape for 20 hours, knowing your brain capacity.
[QUOTE]Once again as another poster pointed out look at Wade and Shaq in Shaq's first 2 seasons. That worked pretty well didn't it?[/QUOTE]
:roll: you think it was shaq that made wade better statistically?
[QUOTE]Give it up the other posters in this thread are laughing at your stupidity.[/QUOTE]
who's laughing? that juju loser can't even construct a simple sentence..probably the type of person you'd get along with knowing your propensity to have retarded friends :roll:

[QUOTE=Da_Realist]You gotta look at it from the other side, too. Kobe can't have a great game without half the world comparing him to MJ. He can't make a great shot without half the world comparing it to MJ. I don't see many Kobe fans complaining about the comparisons when it somehow favors Kobe (81 points, the **-consecutive 40 point games, 3 titles before MJ won his...), it's only when it doesn't work in Kobe's favor that fans of his complain about the comparisons.

This board loves the MJ-Kobe comparisons. I try to talk about Larry Bird or Isiah Thomas and I may get 2 or 3 responses. I post video of Hakeem Olajuwon, no one responds. But when there's a Kobe to MJ comparison...:rolleyes:

It's a catch-22. When Kobe does well, a lot of Kobe fans can't wait to find some way to put it on par with whatever MJ did back in the day. But when MJ fans point out some things that favor MJ, all of the comparisons are "unfair" and "no one appreciates Kobe".

It starts with Kobe himself. He modeled his game after MJ to a tee. And that's fine. He's wanted to chase MJ all along just like Tiger has always wanted to chase Jack Nicholas. That's fine, too, but you can't embrace the comparisons when Kobe does well or better than whatever MJ did, then complain about them when he falls a little short.

No different than Tiger. They both made it their mission to be better than what is considered the best. When Tiger wins 5 majors in a row, his fans love the favorable comparisons. When Tiger doesn't win a major in 6 tries, all of a sudden the comparisons are tough to deal with.

When you boldly state (by admission with Tiger, by intent with Kobe) that you want to better what's considered the best, you have to roll with the punches.

To prove my point, wait until (if) the Lakers win this year. There will be post after post proclaiming that Kobe is well on his way and has 4 rings by the age of 29 and MJ only had 1. Then every Laker fan will love the comparisons again.

Until MJ fans retort.

Let the games begin.[/QUOTE]


Do you have any links to where Tiger boldly stated that he wants to be the best ever? Also, do you have any links where Kobe states he wants to be the best ever? Though, in your post you mentioned it is by [I]intent[/I] that Kobe wants to be the best ever. How can you be so sure?

Kobe

[QUOTE=Shep]:lol energy. shut up. he was a bonifide superstar in 1987 so more shots should've atleast equaled his ratio from 1985[/QUOTE]

You aren't making any sense as usual.

[QUOTE]28ppg is very reasonable. no fat guy in the middle clogging lanes, freeing up 20+ shots per game, you'd be a retard to think he wouldn't be capable of doing so..oh wait[/QUOTE]

Without Shaq defenses would have been able to double and triple Kobe as much as they want. He'd have to take tougher shots and he'd have to work harder for his shots. I have my doubts he'd even average 25 points in 2000.

[QUOTE]in the most important game of the season he was spectacular, leading the lakers to an overtime victory (game 4) with the fat guy fouled out. he only played 9 minutes in game 2 due to injury, did not play in game 3 due to this injury (the game in which miller located his shot and found some momentum). the only game in which he played below par was game 5.[/QUOTE]

Kobe was also terrible(8-27) in game 6. So 2 out of 4 games he played like sh*t.

[QUOTE]why not?[/QUOTE]

Because they are already playing so far above their usual level.

[QUOTE]66 games out of 15 games? how is that possible? :roll: [/QUOTE]

I'm talking about the pace they were playing at. Makes more sense then you talking out of your ass with that stupid **** "12 wins is a lottery team".

[QUOTE]kobe only guarded iverson once or twice, fisher and lue guarded iverson in that series. go watch the series then come back and pass judgement..because until you've done that your opinions are worthless..come to think of it they'd still probably be worthless after you had studied the tape for 20 hours, knowing your brain capacity.[/QUOTE]

Coming from the retard who said Shawn Marion was better than Tim Duncan and Marcus Camby is better than Dwight Howard.

[QUOTE]:roll: you think it was shaq that made wade better statistically? [/QUOTE]

First of all I never said that. I said if they could play together then why not rookie Jordan and 2000 Shaq? 2000 Shaq>>>2004-2006 Shaq

Second of all yes he did make Wade better.

In 2003-2004 Wade averaged 16.2 ppg and 4.5 apg
In 2004-2005 Wade averaged 24.1 ppg and 6.8 apg

[QUOTE]who's laughing? that juju loser can't even construct a simple sentence..probably the type of person you'd get along with knowing your propensity to have retarded friends :roll:[/QUOTE]

A few other posters were laughing at you when you said you can remember watching basketball at 2 years old.

[QUOTE]You aren't making any sense as usual.[/QUOTE]
:confusedshrug:
[QUOTE]Without Shaq defenses would have been able to double and triple Kobe as much as they want. He'd have to take tougher shots and he'd have to work harder for his shots. I have my doubts he'd even average 25 points in 2000.[/QUOTE]
:roll: yes, he would only average 2 more points per game without a guy who would usually score 30 a night on the roster :roll: this makes perfect sense
[QUOTE]Kobe was also terrible(8-27) in game 6. So 2 out of 4 games he played like sh*t. [/QUOTE]
26 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal, 2 blocks, and 1 turnover think otherwise
[QUOTE]I posted the stats for the series, you can't expect a player who averaged 16, 6 and 5 to average much more than thta in a series.[/QUOTE]
for someone to average what he did for the first four games, you'd expect a better performance in a win or go home game than a 1-9
[QUOTE]I'm talking about the pace they were playing at. Makes more sense then you talking out of your ass with that stupid **** "12 wins is a lottery team".[/QUOTE]
you think taking a 15 game w/l ratio and making it into an 82 game season is ****in logical? so teams that go 14-1 during the first 15 games of the season would be expected to be the greatest single season team in the history of the game? get the **** out, and don't come back.
[QUOTE]Coming from the retard who said Shawn Marion was better than Tim Duncan and Marcus Camby is better than Dwight Howard.[/QUOTE]
= admitting you've got nothing. moving on..
[QUOTE]First of all I never said that. I said if they could play together then why not rookie Jordan and 2000 Shaq? 2000 Shaq>>>2004-2006 Shaq

Second of all yes he did make Wade better.

In 2003-2004 Wade averaged 16.2 ppg and 4.5 apg
In 2004-2005 Wade averaged 24.1 ppg and 6.8 apg[/QUOTE]
he didn't make wade nothing. wade was young, and if you had watched him in the '04 playoffs you'd know that he was a star on the rise
[QUOTE]A few other posters were laughing at you when you said you can remember watching basketball at 2 years old.[/QUOTE]
not my fault they can't believe something happened that actually did :D

[QUOTE=Shep]
:roll: yes, he would only average 2 more points per game without a guy who would usually score 30 a night on the roster :roll: this makes perfect sense[/QUOTE]

Yeah and his FG% would drop. He'd be the main focus of the defense and average 25 ppg max.

[QUOTE]26 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal, 2 blocks, and 1 turnover think otherwise[/QUOTE]

:roll: He had more shot attempts than points scored and he shot [B]29.6%[/B]. :roll: :roll:

[QUOTE]for someone to average what he did for the first four games, you'd expect a better performance in a win or go home game than a 1-9[/QUOTE]

He was already playing above his usual level at that point in his career so he was due to have a bad game. If this was 1995 Penny then I'd expect him to average over 20 ppg with good assist numbers on good shooting numbers but by 2000 Penny had declined quite a bit. He was still a good player but 16, 6 and 5 isn't that unusual.

[QUOTE]you think taking a 15 game w/l ratio and making it into an 82 game season is ****in logical? so teams that go 14-1 during the first 15 games of the season would be expected to be the greatest single season team in the history of the game? get the **** out, and don't come back.[/QUOTE]

I use that stretch as an example because they did pretty much keep up that pace the next few years with Kobe out. The team was 25-6 without Kobe during the 3peat. You base the 2000 Lakers needing Kobe to win the title on nothing. I have proof of what they did without Kobe and they were playing at a very high level.

[QUOTE]he didn't make wade nothing. wade was young, and if you had watched him in the '04 playoffs you'd know that he was a star on the rise[/QUOTE]

Yes everyone knew Wade was going to be a star which is why Shaq wanted to go there in the first place but there is a huge difference between 16 ppg/4 apg and 24 ppg/7 apg. Not to mention Miami won 17 more games despite losing arguably their best player from 2003-2004 Lamar Odom and another key player in Caron Butler.

[QUOTE]not my fault they can't believe something happened that actually did :D[/QUOTE]

It's not hard to believe that you watched games at 2 years old because they were on but there is no way in hell you can remember watching them.

[QUOTE]Yeah and his FG% would drop. He'd be the main focus of the defense and average 25 ppg max.[/QUOTE]
being easily the best player on his team, his number of touches and the time the ball was in his hand would increase dramatically, and there is no doubt he would've scored atleast 2 more field goals per game
[QUOTE]He had more shot attempts than points scored and he shot 29.6%.[/QUOTE]
so what? coaches always tell scorers to keep shooting, even if they are having an off night, you'd rather kobe went 8-27 than 3-10, especially in a close game. atleast he was still being aggressive, he went to the line 9 times and made 8, while recording 4 assists and only 1 turnover so offensively he made a huge contribution regardless of shooting percentages
[QUOTE]He was already playing above his usual level at that point in his career so he was due to have a bad game.[/QUOTE]
he was due to have a bad game? :lol i'm sure coach scott skiles would've sat back after being eliminated and thought to himself "well, he played good throughout games 1-4, so i expected him to play like a chump in game 5" :roll:
[QUOTE]I use that stretch as an example because they did pretty much keep up that pace the next few years with Kobe out. The team was 25-6 without Kobe during the 3peat. You base the 2000 Lakers needing Kobe to win the title on nothing. I have proof of what they did without Kobe and they were playing at a very high level.[/QUOTE]
that three year regular season record means nothing. if portland pushed la to 7 games with both shaq and kobe there is no way in hell they are losing to them without kobe. kobe even outplayed shaq in 3 or 4 games that series :oldlol:
[QUOTE]Yes everyone knew Wade was going to be a star which is why Shaq wanted to go there in the first place [/QUOTE]
yes, its the story of shaq's career - when the going gets tough bolt to another team with an up and coming superstar
[QUOTE]but there is a huge difference between 16 ppg/4 apg and 24 ppg/7 apg. Not to mention Miami won 17 more games despite losing arguably their best player from 2003-2004 Lamar Odom and another key player in Caron Butler.[/QUOTE]
yeh they won 17 more games - that will happen when you give away a guy who isn't even top 11 at his position and another guy who barely averages 9 points per game for a top 3 player. wade also had alot more of the ball due to not having odom around anymore and had significant increases in fga, fta, and turnovers.
[QUOTE]It's not hard to believe that you watched games at 2 years old because they were on but there is no way in hell you can remember watching them.[/QUOTE]
i'm not saying i can remember individual games, but i do remember doing it..it was like a family tradition :D

Anyone who takes rookie Jordan over this Kobe is beyond retarded.

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]Anyone who takes rookie Jordan over this Kobe is beyond retarded.[/QUOTE]

Why not ask about a rookie Kobe vs. prime Michael? :)

[QUOTE=Loki]They were different types of players. Rookie Jordan could most likely equal current Kobe's production, but Kobe's game management and the general polish of his game is more than what rookie Jordan's was. Rookie Jordan was also more of an energy/intensity player than current Kobe, so he could provide a spark that way.

I'd probably take current Kobe. I would take '87 and later Jordan over any version of Kobe, however.[/QUOTE]

Even Washington Wizards' MJ? :confusedshrug:

As an objective Jordan watcher, I'd say his best years were between 1990 - 1998.

[QUOTE=chopchop20]Even Washington Wizards' MJ? :confusedshrug:

As an objective Jordan watcher, I'd say his best years were between 1990 - 1998.[/QUOTE]
I would say 87-93prime years.

[QUOTE=Silverbullit]Why not ask about a rookie Kobe vs. prime Michael? :)[/QUOTE]

That isn't even close. Didn't you see Kobe take it to MJ as a rookie? Imagine him going up against an MJ that has 5 less years experience.

[QUOTE=juju151111]I would say 87-93prime years.[/QUOTE]

He didn't develop the consistent outside shot and fadeaway until the 90's

[QUOTE=chopchop20]He didn't develop the consistent outside shot and fadeaway until the 90's[/QUOTE]
MJ in the 80s had a great mid range gm.What are u talking about?He always had a 18 ft or in gm.

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]That isn't even close. Didn't you see Kobe take it to MJ as a rookie? Imagine him going up against an MJ that has 5 less years experience.[/QUOTE]

I only want to show how ridiculous those comparisons are :D