Printable View
As much as I like Kobe, I still think a rookie MJ would be smart enough considering his college experience under Smith and his experience in the Olympics with Knight to be almost as basketball intelligent as prime Kobe. And his physical abilities were so amazing, that they might outweigh Kobe's years of honed skill. MJ would get to the bucket at will.
I refuse to read the original post. Who would take rookie Jordan over prime Kobe???
[QUOTE=chopchop20]Even Washington Wizards' MJ? :confusedshrug:
[/QUOTE]
Of course not Wizards Jordan. You know what I meant. :oldlol:
As for the common misconceptions and myths about Jordan's jumper, well, when Sports Illustrated in 1991 calls him "the best shooter in the league from 21 feet and in," then that didn't happen overnight. He didn't wake up in '91 and have a jumper. Here's how the progression of his jumper went in terms of range:
Rookie year: consistent from 17-18 feet and in
'87/'88: Consistent from 19-20 feet and in
'89/'90: Consistent from 21 feet and in plus range (38% on threes in '90)
'91-onward: 22 feet and in.
And when I say "consistent" I don't mean like Lebron or Wade, I mean much more than them. No way could SA play off even a 23 year old Jordan the way they did Lebron last year in the Finals not not get lit up for 40+ consistently. Jordan could hit those shots [i]very[/i] consistently. All anyone has to do is go watch some old games and not swallow the common misconceptions about his game.
[QUOTE=Loki]Of course not Wizards Jordan. You know what I meant. :oldlol:
As for the common misconceptions and myths about Jordan's jumper, well, when Sports Illustrated in 1991 calls him "the best shooter in the league from 21 feet and in," then that didn't happen overnight. He didn't wake up in '91 and have a jumper. Here's how the progression of his jumper went in terms of range:
Rookie year: consistent from 17-18 feet and in
'87/'88: Consistent from 19-20 feet and in
'89/'90: Consistent from 21 feet and in plus range (38% on threes in '90)
'91-onward: 22 feet and in.
And when I say "consistent" I don't mean like Lebron or Wade, I mean much more than them. No way could SA play off even a 23 year old Jordan the way they did Lebron last year in the Finals not not get lit up for 40+ consistently. Jordan could hit those shots [i]very[/i] consistently. All anyone has to do is go watch some old games and not swallow the common misconceptions about his game.[/QUOTE]
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL now LOCO is trying to convince us that he can track the distance on MJ's progression on his jumpshot down to A FOOT EVERY YEAR:roll: Almost as bad as him telling an inch difference in height with his naked eye:oldlol:
[QUOTE=eliteballer]LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL now LOCO is trying to convince us that he can track the distance on MJ's progression on his jumpshot down to A FOOT EVERY YEAR:roll: Almost as bad as him telling an inch difference in height with his naked eye:oldlol:[/QUOTE]
When you have 300 games on tape, you can spot trends. :pimp: :violin:
Get the F outta here, your ridiculous assertions have gone too far. Tracking a foot difference in jumpshot distance with the naked eye year by year, absurd and dilusional as it gets:oldlol:
[QUOTE=Loki]When you have 300 games on tape, you can spot trends. :pimp: :violin:[/QUOTE]
:roll:
[QUOTE=Loki]When you have 300 games on tape, you can spot trends. :pimp: :violin:[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't be bragging about something like this. Ever heard of a "woman" or a "social life?" :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=eliteballer]Get the F outta here, your ridiculous assertions have gone too far. Tracking a foot difference in jumpshot distance with the naked eye year by year, absurd and dilusional as it gets:oldlol:[/QUOTE]
It's called an estimate, and was meant to illustrate the progression of his jumper. Deal. :pimp:
[QUOTE=Shep]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]
Yeah, that's not where my argument is. My argument is that he'd have to work harder to score as the first option without Shaq and so while he'd score more because of the extra FGA but he'd be less efficient. And that's why while I could see him scoring more I couldn't see 2000 Kobe averaging over 24-25 ppg.
[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]
Yeah 8-27 is better than 3-10 but neither is good. 8-27 is a bad night and I bet Kobe would admit that.
[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]
Even with the bad game his numbers were still far above his season averages.
[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]
But without Kobe who knows if Glen Rice steps up in the games that Shaq is struggling or how much Horry, Fisher, Fox ect. step up.
One of the reasons the Lakers won without Kobe in 2000 was because Rice stepped up too. Look up Rice's numbers without Kobe in 2000, they were better than his season numbers. Glen Rice was a great fit next to Shaq.
[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]
Can't argue with the results.
[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]
Odom had a great season with Miami. He averaged 17 ppg, 10 rpg, 4 apg, 1 spg and 1 bpg while playing multiple positions, running the offense at times and causing matchup problems.
[QUOTE]i'm not saying i can remember individual games, but i do remember doing it..it was like a family tradition :D[/QUOTE]
Ok well when do you first remember watching individual games?
[QUOTE=bokes15]I refuse to read the original post. Who would take rookie Jordan over prime Kobe???[/QUOTE]
i agree
this thread is a joke. of course PRIME kobe you got to be kidding.
people are just to far up MJ's *** to accept the fact kobe is closing the gap between the two, not saying he will ever catch up.
[QUOTE]Yeah, that's not where my argument is. My argument is that he'd have to work harder to score as the first option without Shaq and so while he'd score more because of the extra FGA but he'd be less efficient. And that's why while I could see him scoring more I couldn't see 2000 Kobe averaging over 24-25 ppg.[/QUOTE]
yes he'd be less efficient but only 1-2 more ppg? :roll: he'd average atleast 28 ppg.
[QUOTE]Yeah 8-27 is better than 3-10 but neither is good. 8-27 is a bad night and I bet Kobe would admit that.[/QUOTE]
its a bad shooting night, overall he had a fantastic game and he still had the second best game out of everyone on the court
[QUOTE]Even with the bad game his numbers were still far above his season averages.[/QUOTE]
numbers don't mean **** if you can't win a game, and if you don't show up in the most important game of the season you really aren't worth much
[QUOTE]But without Kobe who knows if Glen Rice steps up in the games that Shaq is struggling or how much Horry, Fisher, Fox ect. step up.
One of the reasons the Lakers won without Kobe in 2000 was because Rice stepped up too. Look up Rice's numbers without Kobe in 2000, they were better than his season numbers. Glen Rice was a great fit next to Shaq.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: you're talking about replacing a superstar with a bunch of role players. glen rice in kobe bryants place? :roll: c'mon now. kobe created offense through penetration, the lakers had nobody on that team who could consistantly do that. kobe was one of the best perimiter defenders in the league, the lakers had nobody else close to that level.
[QUOTE]Can't argue with the results.[/QUOTE]
going through the tough times with your team is part of growing up as a basketball player, shaq never wanted to grow up.
[QUOTE]Odom had a great season with Miami. He averaged 17 ppg, 10 rpg, 4 apg, 1 spg and 1 bpg while playing multiple positions, running the offense at times and causing matchup problems.[/QUOTE]
he had an ok season, but like i said he was nowhere near the top power forwards in the game where as shaq was still top 3 overall
[QUOTE]Ok well when do you first remember watching individual games?[/QUOTE]
probably the pistons/lakers finals
[QUOTE=Shep]yes he'd be less efficient but only 1-2 more ppg? :roll: he'd average atleast 28 ppg.[/QUOTE]
:roll: 28 ppg? Not even close.
[QUOTE]its a bad shooting night, overall he had a fantastic game and he still had the second best game out of everyone on the court[/QUOTE]
A horrendous shooting night, he didn't have a good game but Shaq dominated so it didn't matter.
[QUOTE]numbers don't mean **** if you can't win a game, and if you don't show up in the most important game of the season you really aren't worth much[/QUOTE]
Once again Penny didn't have Shaq that season who was playing at a higher level than anyone ever not named Michael Jordan that season
[QUOTE]:oldlol: you're talking about replacing a superstar with a bunch of role players. glen rice in kobe bryants place? :roll: c'mon now. kobe created offense through penetration, the lakers had nobody on that team who could consistantly do that. kobe was one of the best perimiter defenders in the league, the lakers had nobody else close to that level.[/QUOTE]
Shaq was so dominant that he may have been better not having to share the ball with another star and I think that with the double teams he draws you'd see a huge rise in everyone elses production if Kobe wasn't there.
Without Kobe 2000-2002(not including a game he left after 15 minutes)
25-6 record
31.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.9 bpg, 59.5 FG%
[QUOTE]he had an ok season, but like i said he was nowhere near the top power forwards in the game where as shaq was still top 3 overall[/QUOTE]
Yeah I know but my point was that they lost quite a bit of talent but still improved 17 games with Shaq.
[QUOTE]probably the pistons/lakers finals[/QUOTE]
That's reasonable since you would have been like 4-5 years old. I remember the Bulls vs Knicks ECF and the Bulls vs Suns Finals clearly in 1993 clearly at 6 years old so that's not uncommon.
[QUOTE] 28 ppg? Not even close.[/QUOTE]
yeh you're probably right, it'd be closer to 30
[QUOTE]A horrendous shooting night, he didn't have a good game but Shaq dominated so it didn't matter.[/QUOTE]
there was only 5 points in it at the end of the night so obviously shaq still needed help from his teammates even if he does go off for 40, kobe stepped up big with his 26
[QUOTE]Once again Penny didn't have Shaq that season who was playing at a higher level than anyone ever not named Michael Jordan that season[/QUOTE]
i'm not talking about the season, i'm talking about game 5 - the most important game of the year for his team, and he goes misssing
[QUOTE]Shaq was so dominant that he may have been better not having to share the ball with another star and I think that with the double teams he draws you'd see a huge rise in everyone elses production if Kobe wasn't there.[/QUOTE]
with nobody to create offense and the only play being to throw the ball to shaq the lakers don't succeed. kobe handled all the late game situations aswell - you need a game winning shot? give kobe the ball. without kobe? give shaq the ball, he gets fouled, misses both free throws, lakers lose.
[QUOTE]Without Kobe 2000-2002(not including a game he left after 15 minutes)
25-6 record
31.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.9 bpg, 59.5 FG%[/QUOTE]
:roll: this **** again? 8 wins a year? that'll get you a #1 pick for sure
[QUOTE]Yeah I know but my point was that they lost quite a bit of talent but still improved 17 games with Shaq.[/QUOTE]
:hammerhead: you lose a top 12 power forward, you pick up a top 3 player. what will you do next year? win more or lose more? :confusedshrug:
[QUOTE=Shep]yeh you're probably right, it'd be closer to 30[/QUOTE]
:roll:
Care to back that up? Kobe as the first option would have to face far more double teams and had a tougher time scoring. The extra 2 FGA wouldn't make up for it that much. 24-25 ppg and 5-6 apg on 45% shooting is realistic.
[QUOTE]there was only 5 points in it at the end of the night so obviously shaq still needed help from his teammates even if he does go off for 40, kobe stepped up big with his 26[/QUOTE]
No he didn't step up big. When you take 27 shots you should score more than 26 points. He nearly wasted Shaq's dominant performance. He missed [B]19[/B] shots.
[QUOTE]i'm not talking about the season, i'm talking about game 5 - the most important game of the year for his team, and he goes misssing[/QUOTE]
He didn't have Shaq in game 5 either.
[QUOTE]with nobody to create offense and the only play being to throw the ball to shaq the lakers don't succeed. kobe handled all the late game situations aswell - you need a game winning shot? give kobe the ball. without kobe? give shaq the ball, he gets fouled, misses both free throws, lakers lose.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't the case of those 31 games prove it.
[QUOTE]:roll: this **** again? 8 wins a year? that'll get you a #1 pick for sure[/QUOTE]
You don't seem to get it, 31 games is enough games to show that team could win without Kobe.
[QUOTE]:hammerhead: you lose a top 12 power forward, you pick up a top 3 player. what will you do next year? win more or lose more? :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
Of course the improvement was expected but that shows how valuable Shaq was.
For example people use the Suns improvement in that same season as a reason why he was the MVP but that is horrible logic.
Phoenix improved 33 games but they didn't have to give up all star level talent to get Steve Nash, Amare had missed 27 games the previous season and he also was entering his 3rd season so he still had room for a lot of improvement. So when you factor in their leading scorer playing 25 more games and Phoenix giving up nothing to get Nash then their 33 game improvement is less impressive for Nash than Miami's improvement is for Shaq.