A Rookie 1984 Michael Jordan or a Current Kobe Bryant?

[QUOTE]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]
extra 2 fga? where did you get this from? shaq shoots the ball about 20 times per game, so take this out and kobe would shoot the ball atleast 5-7 times more, and even with a slight drop in % this would mean he averages 27-28ppg. in games where shaq was absent in 2000 kobe averaged 30ppg, 9rpg, and 6apg against tough defensive teams san antonio and seattle.
[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 19 shots.[/QUOTE]
he stepped up in terms of being aggressive, getting to the free throw line, being active defensively, rebounding the basketball, and getting his teammates involved.
[QUOTE]He didn't have Shaq in game 5 either.[/QUOTE]
so he didn't have to share the ball with a man who wanted 20 shots per game and played with jason kidd instead. he should've been alot better statistically for this reason.
[QUOTE]That wasn't the case of those 31 games prove it. [/QUOTE]
regular season games. lakers went 5-3 without shaq in '01. this proves the lakers would've won 51 games without shaq that year, only 5 less games than what they won over the course of that season, and shaq is only slightly better than greg foster :bowdown:
[QUOTE]Of course the improvement was expected but that shows how valuable Shaq was.[/QUOTE]
its called logic. trading a top 3 player for a top 12 power forward..one of the most lopsided trades in nba history..there's a reason why the lakers lost 22 less games with odom and butler in shaq's place you know
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
nash wasn't top 7 most valuable that year and is tied for second spot in nba history when talking about the worst mvp decisions ever.

[QUOTE=Shep]extra 2 fga? where did you get this from? shaq shoots the ball about 20 times per game, so take this out and kobe would shoot the ball atleast 5-7 times more[/QUOTE]

Kobe was already shooting 18 shots per game so if you think a coach would let a 21 year old who had never even averaged 20 ppg in a season shoot 23-25 shots per game then you're crazy.

[QUOTE]in games where shaq was absent in 2000 kobe averaged 30ppg, 9rpg, and 6apg against tough defensive teams san antonio and seattle.[/QUOTE]

That's 2 games. You'd need atleast 10 games as an example to prove a point.

[QUOTE]he stepped up in terms of being aggressive[/QUOTE]

He was just chucking

[QUOTE]getting to the free throw line[/QUOTE]

9 FTA isn't that good when you consider he took 27 Field Goals

[QUOTE]getting his teammates involved.[/QUOTE]

Only 4 assists.

[QUOTE]so he didn't have to share the ball with a man who wanted 20 shots per game and played with jason kidd instead. he should've been alot better statistically for this reason.[/QUOTE]

No because Penny was a natural point guard so he would have been more comfortable not playing with someone who played the same position as him.

[QUOTE]regular season games. lakers went 5-3 without shaq in '01. this proves the lakers would've won 51 games without shaq that year, only 5 less games than what they won over the course of that season, and shaq is only slightly better than greg foster :bowdown: [/QUOTE]

:roll: 8 games is not the same as 31! :oldlol:

[QUOTE]its called logic. trading a top 3 player for a top 12 power forward..one of the most lopsided trades in nba history..there's a reason why the lakers lost 22 less games with odom and butler in shaq's place you know[/QUOTE]

Yeah I know but that proves how good Shaq was even at 33, a top 3 player.

[QUOTE]nash wasn't top 7 most valuable that year and is tied for second spot in nba history when talking about the worst mvp decisions ever.[/QUOTE]

I agree he was undeserving but what are your other choices for worst MVP decisions. I assume Bill Walton has to be up there.

Kwame Brown. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]Kobe was already shooting 18 shots per game so if you think a coach would let a 21 year old who had never even averaged 20 ppg in a season shoot 23-25 shots per game then you're crazy.[/QUOTE]
who else was going to make up for the 21 shot gap o'neal had? ac green? glen rice could not create his own shot, neither could ron harper, or derek fisher. bryant would be getting the nod.
[QUOTE]That's 2 games. You'd need atleast 10 games as an example to prove a point.[/QUOTE]
:roll: why? because thats all you got?
[QUOTE]He was just chucking[/QUOTE]
all those shots were in the offense
[QUOTE]9 FTA isn't that good when you consider he took 27 Field Goals[/QUOTE]
its a relatively good number for that number of fga, besides, any more than that and it starts to get boring :D
[QUOTE]Only 4 assists.[/QUOTE]
third best in the game
[QUOTE]No because Penny was a natural point guard so he would have been more comfortable not playing with someone who played the same position as him.[/QUOTE]
penny was not a natural point guard, if you watched him you'd know this. the magic moved him to shooting guard in the '97 playoffs against miami and he responded with 31ppg.. he was much more of a shooting guard than a point guard, even in orlando they had natural point guards come in off the bench so penny could move to the 2
[QUOTE]8 games is not the same as 31![/QUOTE]
31 is not the same as 246
[QUOTE]Yeah I know but that proves how good Shaq was even at 33, a top 3 player.[/QUOTE]
no, i'm talking about shaq's last year in LA when he was 31, and still a top 3 player.
[QUOTE]I agree he was undeserving but what are your other choices for worst MVP decisions. I assume Bill Walton has to be up there.[/QUOTE]
worst ever is nash over duncan and 10 other players in '06
second worst is unseld over chamberlain and 7 other players in '69
third worst is nash over marion and 7 other players in '05
fourth worst is malone over bird and 5 other players in '82
fifth worst is iverson over o'neal and 4 other players in '01
sixth worst is pettit over johnston and 3 other players in '56

walton was third most deserving out of all players in '78, so that would be next along with 6 other times the third most deserving player has won the actual award.

[QUOTE=Shep]who else was going to make up for the 21 shot gap o'neal had? ac green? glen rice could not create his own shot, neither could ron harper, or derek fisher. bryant would be getting the nod.[/QUOTE]

23-25 shots isn't realistic for a 21 year old who had never averaged 20 ppg before. Think about it.

[QUOTE]:roll: why? because thats all you got?[/QUOTE]

No actually I pointed to Shaq's 12-3 record w/o Kobe in 2000. 15>>>>>>2

[QUOTE]all those shots were in the offense[/QUOTE]

:roll:

[QUOTE]its a relatively good number for that number of fga, besides, any more than that and it starts to get boring :D[/QUOTE]

Yeah it does start to get boring but still a 3/1 FGA to FTA ratio isn't that good. It's not bad but not what you'd call good.

[QUOTE]third best in the game[/QUOTE]

And?

[QUOTE]penny was not a natural point guard, if you watched him you'd know this. the magic moved him to shooting guard in the '97 playoffs against miami and he responded with 31ppg.. he was much more of a shooting guard than a point guard, even in orlando they had natural point guards come in off the bench so penny could move to the 2[/QUOTE]

I did watch Penny and he was a PG. It makes no difference that he's 6'6" or that he was also proficient at SG. He was better as the primary ball handler/facilitator

[QUOTE]no, i'm talking about shaq's last year in LA when he was 31, and still a top 3 player.[/QUOTE]

Shaq was 32 that year.

[QUOTE]worst ever is nash over duncan and 10 other players in '06
second worst is unseld over chamberlain and 7 other players in '69
third worst is nash over marion and 7 other players in '05
fourth worst is malone over bird and 5 other players in '82
fifth worst is iverson over o'neal and 4 other players in '01
sixth worst is pettit over johnston and 3 other players in '56[/QUOTE]

Glad to see you included 2001, that still pisses me off that Shaq was robbed. Now as a result Steve Nash has twice as many MVP's as Shaq. :hammerhead:

[QUOTE]walton was third most deserving out of all players in '78, so that would be next along with 6 other times the third most deserving player has won the actual award.[/QUOTE]

The biggest problem I had with Walton's choice was that he missed 24 games.

The 2008 NBA Finals is certainly showing the gap may not be as wide as some thought. Kobe does not know how to manage a game. He's a spectacular scorer and that's pretty much it.

Are you [I]sure[/I] Rookie MJ would be this badly outplayed? Even if he was, at least MJ would play some defense. Even at that age, he had enough pride not to let PP consistently outplay him. And he would at least take it to the rack and consistently put pressure on that Celtics defense. He may or may not shoot a high percentage as a rookie, but he would shoot no lower than the 42% Kobe is shooting right now.

Kobe's a 12 year vet and has played in 25 NBA Finals games and yet he just cannot manage a game.

[QUOTE]23-25 shots isn't realistic for a 21 year old who had never averaged 20 ppg before. Think about it.[/QUOTE]
:sleeping . [I]you [/I]think about [I]this[/I]. only year later kobe averaged 22fga per game and averaged 28.5ppg WITH SHAQ STILL ON THE ROSTER. now take the same shaq out of this team a year earlier and ask yourself the same question. kobe would be shooting atleast this amount of shots in 2000 with no shaq.
[QUOTE]No actually I pointed to Shaq's 12-3 record w/o Kobe in 2000. 15>>>>>>2[/QUOTE]
15 games is what 2 games is = not 82 games. if you want to use small sample sizes of regular season basketball then i can use 2 game as an example
[QUOTE]Yeah it does start to get boring but still a 3/1 FGA to FTA ratio isn't that good. It's not bad but not what you'd call good.[/QUOTE]
i'd definately call it good.
[QUOTE]And?[/QUOTE]
third best, meaning only 2 players recorded more assists, which means kobe is good.
[QUOTE]I did watch Penny and he was a PG. It makes no difference that he's 6'6" or that he was also proficient at SG. He was better as the primary ball handler/facilitator[/QUOTE]
penny never averaged over 7apg when he was a point guard, which is not good, especially when you're averaging close to 40mpg, this proves that he wasn't the natural playmaker point guards were, and that he looked for his shot more than point guards usually do. he was a natural scorer, and he had the all round game that resembled that of a shooting guard more than a point guard. keep arguing against this point and i'll accept that you have not watched any games with penny hardaway involved, or simply can't remember how the man played.
[QUOTE]Shaq was 32 that year.[/QUOTE]
no, he was 31
[QUOTE]Glad to see you included 2001, that still pisses me off that Shaq was robbed. Now as a result Steve Nash has twice as many MVP's as Shaq.[/QUOTE]
nash also has twice as many mvp's as david robinson :oldlol:
[QUOTE]The biggest problem I had with Walton's choice was that he missed 24 games.[/QUOTE]
george gervin and bob mcadoo both deserved it more than walton

[QUOTE=Shep]:sleeping . [I]you [/I]think about [I]this[/I]. only year later kobe averaged 22fga per game and averaged 28.5ppg WITH SHAQ STILL ON THE ROSTER. now take the same shaq out of this team a year earlier and ask yourself the same question. kobe would be shooting atleast this amount of shots in 2000 with no shaq.[/QUOTE]

First of all Kobe improved a lot of the summer after the first championship.

Second of all Kobe was often playing out of the offense that season hence the teams inconsistent start.

When Kobe was playing within the offense in the second half, he averaged 25.3 ppg.

[QUOTE]15 games is what 2 games is = not 82 games. if you want to use small sample sizes of regular season basketball then i can use 2 game as an example[/QUOTE]

2 is not large enough, period.

[QUOTE]third best, meaning only 2 players recorded more assists, which means kobe is good.[/QUOTE]

Who cares about third best. Who was his competition besides Mark Jackson? Jalen Rose?

[QUOTE]penny never averaged over 7apg when he was a point guard, which is not good, especially when you're averaging close to 40mpg, this proves that he wasn't the natural playmaker point guards were, and that he looked for his shot more than point guards usually do.[/QUOTE]

:roll:

Penny averaged 7.2 apg with 20.9 ppg in under 38 mpg during his sophomore season and 21.7/7.1 in under 37 mpg the next season.


[QUOTE]no, he was 31[/QUOTE]

Shaq was born in March, 1972 so in the 2003-2004 season he turned 32.

[QUOTE]nash also has twice as many mvp's as david robinson :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Yeah another travesty plus twice as many as KG, Hakeem and Kobe.

[QUOTE=Shep]george gervin and bob mcadoo both deserved it more than walton[/QUOTE]

Right but Gervin was the clear choice since he won 9 more games than McAdoo and won the scoring title.

[QUOTE]First of all Kobe improved a lot of the summer after the first championship.

Second of all Kobe was often playing out of the offense that season hence the teams inconsistent start.

When Kobe was playing within the offense in the second half, he averaged 25.3 ppg.[/QUOTE]
kobe didn't improve much in 2001, he was only slightly better than the 2000 version.
the team didn't start inconsistent, they kept at a steady 2 win, 1 loss pace throughout the season
the only reason why kobe's scoring decreased over the second half of the season was because he had injuries, and had to constantly take games off.
[QUOTE]2 is not large enough, period.[/QUOTE]
then 15 isn't
[QUOTE]Who cares about third best. Who was his competition besides Mark Jackson? Jalen Rose?[/QUOTE]
apparently ron harper
[QUOTE]Penny averaged 7.2 apg with 20.9 ppg in under 38 mpg during his sophomore season and 21.7/7.1 in under 37 mpg the next season.[/QUOTE]
when i said he never averaged more than 7 i meant it as in he never averaged 8 assists per game, which is the minimum if you want to be seen as an elite point guard
[QUOTE]Shaq was born in March, 1972 so in the 2003-2004 season he turned 32.[/QUOTE]
yeh, but at the start he was 31. he also played the majority of the season as a 31 year old.
[QUOTE]Yeah another travesty plus twice as many as KG, Hakeem and Kobe.[/QUOTE]
twice as many as oscar robertson, bob cousy, julius erving
[QUOTE]Right but Gervin was the clear choice since he won 9 more games than McAdoo and won the scoring title.[/QUOTE]
he also played all 82 games

[QUOTE=Shep]kobe didn't improve much in 2001, he was only slightly better than the 2000 version.
the team didn't start inconsistent, they kept at a steady 2 win, 1 loss pace throughout the season[/QUOTE]

Compare that to the 11-3 record without Kobe and the record they had post all-star break. Or compare that to their 67-15 record the year before.

[QUOTE]the only reason why kobe's scoring decreased over the second half of the season was because he had injuries, and had to constantly take games off.[/QUOTE]

No he was playing better team ball like he did in 2000. Kobe while playing team basketball in 2001 was a 25.3 ppg scorer but in 2000 he was a 22.5 ppg scorer while playing team basketball.

[QUOTE]then 15 isn't[/QUOTE]

15 is a large enough stretch to get an idea of what a team can do.

[QUOTE]apparently ron harper[/QUOTE]

Exactly

[QUOTE]when i said he never averaged more than 7 i meant it as in he never averaged 8 assists per game, which is the minimum if you want to be seen as an elite point guard[/QUOTE]

Never heard of this minimum, you must have made it up.

[QUOTE]yeh, but at the start he was 31. he also played the majority of the season as a 31 year old.[/QUOTE]

Pointless argument. I consider him 32 that season and you say 31, doesn't make a big difference either way.

[QUOTE]twice as many as oscar robertson, bob cousy, julius erving[/QUOTE]

2 more than Jason Kidd, Isiah Thomas and John Stockton combined who were superior players to Nash aswell.

[QUOTE]he also played all 82 games[/QUOTE]

And he shot 54% from the field/84% from the line, superior to McAdoo who shot 52% from the field and 73% from the line.

[size="7"]how Come You People Don't Understand There Is A Kobe Topic For This???????????????????????[/size]

[QUOTE=crisoner][size="7"]how Come You People Don't Understand There Is A Kobe Topic For This???????????????????????[/size][/QUOTE]
The Kobe topic is not enough.
Jeff HAS to create a Kobe forum, for God's sake, the Celtics won and people bash Kobe instead of congratulating the champions. Haters are obsessive fools...

[QUOTE]Compare that to the 11-3 record without Kobe and the record they had post all-star break. Or compare that to their 67-15 record the year before.[/QUOTE]
the lakers lost more in 2001 for 3 reasons: shaq wasn't as good as he was a year before, shaq missed more games than the year before, and glen rice and his 16ppg were no longer there
[QUOTE]No he was playing better team ball like he did in 2000. Kobe while playing team basketball in 2001 was a 25.3 ppg scorer but in 2000 he was a 22.5 ppg scorer while playing team basketball.[/QUOTE]
no. kobe had an injury interrupted second half of the regular season and only got back into a groove once the playoffs started, in which he averaged 29.4ppg, 7.3rpg, and 6.1apg including 35ppg in the sweep of the kings and 33.5ppg against the spurs.
[QUOTE]15 is a large enough stretch to get an idea of what a team can do.[/QUOTE]
15 isn't even a quarter of a regular season so no, it can't be used in this instance
[QUOTE]Exactly[/QUOTE]
:confusedshrug:
[QUOTE]Never heard of this minimum, you must have made it up.[/QUOTE]
if a point guard is not averaging atleast 8apg in 36+mpg then he is not a natural point guard and he is more suited to playing the two - where he can concentrate on his natural scoring abilities.
[QUOTE]Pointless argument. I consider him 32 that season and you say 31, doesn't make a big difference either way.[/QUOTE]
don't bring it up then
[QUOTE]2 more than Jason Kidd, Isiah Thomas and John Stockton combined who were superior players to Nash aswell.[/QUOTE]
2 more than scottie pippen, patrick ewing, elvin hayes, gary payton, and elgin baylor
[QUOTE]And he shot 54% from the field/84% from the line, superior to McAdoo who shot 52% from the field and 73% from the line.[/QUOTE]
all in over 5 less minutes per game, making it an even more impressive stat line

[QUOTE=Shep]the lakers lost more in 2001 for 3 reasons: shaq wasn't as good as he was a year before, shaq missed more games than the year before, and glen rice and his 16ppg were no longer there[/QUOTE]

You forgot the last reason. Kobe played selfish basketball at the start of the year. Shaq called him out on it.

[QUOTE]no. kobe had an injury interrupted second half of the regular season and only got back into a groove once the playoffs started, in which he averaged 29.4ppg, 7.3rpg, and 6.1apg including 35ppg in the sweep of the kings and 33.5ppg against the spurs.[/QUOTE]

The playoffs are irrelevant because the team played at a higher level than they were capable of in the regular season anyway so those numbers are meaningless.

The team had a 15-1 record(.938 winning %) against the elite teams in the league and Shaq averaged 30.4 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.4 apg and 2.4 bpg.

[QUOTE]15 isn't even a quarter of a regular season so no, it can't be used in this instance[/QUOTE]

Yes it can because it proved the team could play at a very high well for an extended period of time without Kobe. Shaq also kept that up the next few years without Kobe with a 25-6 record combined.

[QUOTE]if a point guard is not averaging atleast 8apg in 36+mpg then he is not a natural point guard and he is more suited to playing the two - where he can concentrate on his natural scoring abilities.[/QUOTE]

You just made that up

[QUOTE]2 more than scottie pippen, patrick ewing, elvin hayes, gary payton, and elgin baylor[/QUOTE]

2 more than Nate Thurmond, John Havlicek aswell. The list goes on.

It's just a disgrace to the history of professional basketball and makes the award look like a joke.

[QUOTE]all in over 5 less minutes per game, making it an even more impressive stat line[/QUOTE]

Seems like a pretty clear MVP to me, I can't see how the voters got it wrong. How anyone can be awarded MVP while missing 24 games is beyond me.

Gimme rookie Jordan!