Kobe's NBA Finals Stats

[B]Lets Get Thins Straight 1st.

Kobe is a Good Scorer. NOT A GREAT SCORER. :no:

These Are GREAT SCORERS:

[url]http://hoops-nation.com/community/topic/89245-most-efficient-volume-scorers-in-league-history/[/url]

A scoring title in itself isn't that special. Any top 50 scorer given enough shots could score 30+ ppg (ex. Allen Iverson). Likewise a FG% title on its own isn't that impressive either. It's rather easy to shoot a high FG% if the scorer in question takes few shots (ex. late career Wilt Chamberlain or Tyson Chandler). It's clear that there is a trade-off between volume (ppg) and efficiency (FG%). The more shots a player takes the more difficult shots he has to take and his FG% drops. There is only so many uncontested lay-ups, offensive rebounds, fast-break run-outs etc. available in a single game.



The real measure of scoring ability is the combination of high volume and high efficiency. The golden standard for such an achievement would be 30+ ppg and 60+ %eFG (FG% that includes extra value of 3pt shots). Nobody has ever achieved this feat over an entire season but Kareem, Shaq, and Dantley have come very very close.



30+ ppg and 55+ %eFG:



70-71 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (31.7 ppg on 57.7%)

71-72 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (34.8 ppg on 57.4%)

72-73 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (30.2 ppg on 55.4%)

80-81 Adrian Dantley (30.7 ppg on 55.9%)

81-82 Adrian Dantley (30.3 ppg on 57.0%)

82-83 Adrian Dantley (30.7 ppg on 58.0%)

83-84 Adrian Dantley (30.6 ppg on 55.8%)

89-90 Karl Malone (31.0 ppg on 56.7%)

13-14 Kevin Durant (32.0 ppg on 56.0%)



27.5+ ppg and 57.5+ %eFG:



70-71 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (31.7 ppg on 57.7%)

79-80 Adrian Dantley (28.0 ppg on 58.0%)

82-83 Adrian Dantley (30.7 ppg on 58.0%)

87-88 Charles Barkley (28.3 ppg on 60.4%)

90-91 Charles Barkley (27.6 ppg on 58.9%)

93-94 Shaquille O'Neal (29.3 ppg on 59.9%)

95-95 Shaquille O'Neal (29.3 ppg on 58.3%)

97-98 Shaquille O'Neal (28.3 ppg on 58.4%)





25+ ppg and 60+ %eFG:



86-87 Kevin McHale (26.1 ppg on 60.4%)

87-88 Charles Barkley (28.3 ppg on 60.4%)

89-90 Charles Barkley (25.2 ppg on 60.8%)

12-13 Lebron James (26.8 ppg on 60.3%)

13-14 Lebron James (27.1 ppg on 61.0%)



Three seasons that don't make any of the above criteria but deserve a special shutout:



66-67 Wilt Chamberlain (24.1 ppg on 68.3%)

87-88 Larry Bird (29.9 ppg on 55.6%)

89-90 Michael Jordan (33.6 ppg on 54.99%)



Total number of games with 30+ ppg and 60+ %FG (only 100+ games):



1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 242 (possibly as many as 257)

2. Karl Malone - 192

3. Shaquille O'Neal - 191

4. Wilt Chamberlain - 143 (possibly as many as 197)

5. Michael Jordan - 138

6. Charles Barkley - 132



Karl Malone totally surprised me when I did this research...



It's worth noting that Dantley has just 95 but all of the data prior to the 82-83 season is missing. He's definitely at 100+ and likely as high as 150+.



Lebron James has 96 of these games already and is well on the way to joining the 30+/60+ club.



Hakeem Olajuwon just misses the list at 98 games.



Therefore the top 8 most dominant scorers of all time (no order):



- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

- Karl Malone

- Shaquille O'Neal

- Wilt Chamberlain

- Michael Jordan

- Charles Barkley

- Adrian Dantley

- Lebron James[/B]

:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=navy]5/7 doe[/QUOTE]
Number if time he failed to shoot over 42%?

[QUOTE=JohnMax]2000 NBA Finals

[B]Shaq- 38 PPG, 17 RPG, 2.5 APG, 2.7 BPG, 61% FG 96/157[/B]----6 games
[/QUOTE]

That'll do.

[QUOTE=Nowitness]kobe: 0 rings as total winshare leader of his team
pau gasol: 2[/QUOTE]

You're a ****ing idiot

Kobe led the 01 Lakers in Winshares at 22 years old in the Playoffs
He also led the 2009 Lakers in Winshares in the Playoffs

research your shit first you dumb fk

Kobe led as many title teams in WS as Shaq.

[QUOTE=JohnMax]2000 NBA Finals

Shaq- 38 PPG, 17 RPG, 2.5 APG, 2.7 BPG, 61% FG 96/157----6 games
Kobe-16 PPG, 5 RPG, 4 APG, 1.4 BPG, [B]36%[/B] FG%, 33/90----5 games

2001 NBA Finals

Shaq- 33 PPG, 16 RPG, 5 APG, 3.5 BPG, 63/110 57% FG-----5 games
Kobe- 24 PPG, 8 RPG, 6 APG, 1.4 BPG, 44/106 [B]41%[/B] FG------5 games

2002 NBA Finals

Shaq- 37 PPG, 12.25 RPG, 4 APG, 2.75 BPG, 50/84 60% FG----4 games
Kobe-26 PPG, 5.75 RPG, 5 APG, .75 BPG, 36/70 [B]51%[/B] FG-------4 games

2004 NBA finals 5 games loss
Shaq= 27 PPG, 11 RPG, 2 APG, .6 BPG, 53/84 63% FG
Kobe=22 PPG, 3 RPG, 4 APG, .6 BPG, 43/113 [B]38%[/B] FG

2008 NBA finals 6 games loss
Kobe= 25 PPG, 4.5 RPG, 5 APG, .16 BPG, 53/131 [B]40%[/B] FG

2009 NBA finals 5 games win
Kobe= 32 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 7.4 AGP, 58/135, [B]42%[/B] FG

2010 NBA Finals 7 games
28.5 PPG [B]40%[/B] FG (66-163 shooting)[/QUOTE]

Shaq's numbers are just outrageous.

Also considering the 2001 series was against the DPOY Dikembe Mutombo. And when the NBA actually was strong at the center position, a 23 year old Shaq still put up excellent numbers in the finals against a peak Hakeem Olajuwon.

[B]kobe actually averaged 19ppg in the 2000 finals

you cant really count the game he left with 2 points due to an injury in the first few minutes [/B]
[SIZE="6"]
and there isnt a 2000 nba finals without kobes game 7 WCF vs portland[/SIZE]

[B]its funny how people count tim duncans 2005 nba finals where he averaged 20 points on 40%

or they count his non finals mvp in 2007

or the 15ppg 4th option ring in 2014


but nobody counts kobes 25/5/5 three peat with shaq




















































:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
[/B]

[QUOTE=kennethgriffin][B]its funny how people count tim duncans 2005 nba finals where he averaged 20 points on 40%

or they count his non finals mvp in 2007

or the 15ppg 4th option ring in 2014


but nobody counts kobes 25/5/5 three peat with shaq


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
[/B][/QUOTE]

Only stupid trolls don't.

In Tim's case, you can't just look at his scoring efficiency like it's all he brings to the game. He's the defensive anchor for the Spurs. Obviously, his Playoff runs past 2003 haven't been that impressive, and in many cases, his teammates or the collective team (Pop's system) have carried the Spurs to championships.

2005, Manu had A LOT to do with Spurs winning the Finals against a tough Pistons squad (Duncan shot 10-27 in Game 7). 2007, meh, the Cavs were a joke of a team coming out of one of the least competitive Eastern Conferences I've ever seen, Duncan didn't have to do much as Parker was on fire that series, Bowen shutting down Lebron obviously helped a lot, too :oldlol:.

2014 championship was pure team effort, only other year I've seen something like this was the Pistons in 2004. Duncan's 5th championship really did not impress me at all, because he got a ton of rest in the regular season and he was the 3rd/4th option throughout the Playoffs. Obviously gotta give him credit for the consistency at such an old age though (getting a lot of rest throughout the RS obviously helped).

those are pretty decent stats. But for a superstar/all time great that some Kobe fans claim that he is, on the par of MJ, Kareem, Magic and Bird, is definitely ludicrous.

[QUOTE=kennethgriffin][B]its funny how people count tim duncans 2005 nba finals where he averaged 20 points on 40%

or they count his non finals mvp in 2007

or the 15ppg 4th option ring in 2014


but nobody counts kobes 25/5/5 three peat with shaq

[/B][/QUOTE]



It's okay we equally don't count Kobe's 2000-2002 or Duncan's 2007 and 2014


Objectively Kobe has 2 and Duncan has 3 rings

[QUOTE=dubeta]It's okay we equally don't count Kobe's 2000-2002 or Duncan's 2007 and 2014


Objectively Kobe has 2 and Duncan has 3 rings[/QUOTE]


lol why does duncans 2005 count?... he played worse than kobe did in 4 of his 5 finals

[QUOTE=riseagainst]those are pretty decent stats. But for a superstar/all time great that some Kobe fans claim that he is, on the par of MJ, Kareem, Magic and Bird, is definitely ludicrous.[/QUOTE]

Kobe not on par with Bird as a player??? Numbers and eye test tell us otherwise. Higher career ppg on near identical TS%, higher career PER, better peak PER in both the RS and the POs, longetivity, consistency.... How is he not on par with Bird?

There are two main things Bird has on Kobe, one is his rebounding (Bird was a 6-9 forward, so obviously he should get more rpg) and other thing is Bird having 2 more RS MVPs. And you can't say that Kobe had more help for his titles, either.

Both won 2 FMVPs with Kobe winning 2 more rings while also leading the 01 Lakers in Winshares over a prime Shaq on the most dominant PO team ever. How can you not put him in the same tier as Bird?

Surprised it took 7 posts before we saw:

[QUOTE]And I don't get what OP is trying to say really, [B]roll up the numbers against the WCF during the Finals runs[/B][/QUOTE]

Kobe stans love to talk about LeBron's 2007 and 2011 Finals performances, but when it comes to Kobe, all we see is "look what he did [B]before[/B] the Finals"

[QUOTE=Hey Yo]Surprised it took 7 posts before we saw:



Kobe stans love to talk about LeBron's 2007 and 2011 Finals performances, but when it comes to Kobe, all we see is "look what he did [B]before[/B] the Finals"[/QUOTE]

Because the Eastern Conference in 2007 was weak as shit, 2011 was better, but the Mavs were by far the best team in the Playoffs that year, torching everybody. Lebron faced the best teams in the Finals in 07, 2011 & 2014. Kobe faced the best teams in the WC from 00-02.

[QUOTE=ImKobe]Kobe not on par with Bird as a player??? Numbers and eye test tell us otherwise. Higher career ppg on near identical TS%, higher career PER, better peak PER in both the RS and the POs, longetivity, consistency.... How is he not on par with Bird?

There are two main things Bird has on Kobe, one is his rebounding (Bird was a 6-9 forward, so obviously he should get more rpg) and other thing is Bird having 2 more RS MVPs. And you can't say that Kobe had more help for his titles, either.

Both won 2 FMVPs with Kobe winning 2 more rings while also leading the 01 Lakers in Winshares over a prime Shaq on the most dominant PO team ever. How can you not put him in the same tier as Bird?[/QUOTE]

he's not as good of a finals performer as the others. And numbers wise, he's not as good as them either.