Printable View
[QUOTE=Emile]...[/QUOTE]
I think for the most part people answered the topic question without being too inflammatory. Just stating their opinion and giving reasons why. I don't know if I read every single post, but from what I read more people (including me) said they would choose current Kobe over rookie MJ. Even for the few that choose MJ, it's still just their opinion.
I'm not talking about the thread question but how things are generally. Comparing a rookie Jordan to a 12 year vet Kobe is ridiculous IMO but it just really proves my point. And on top of that, you still had dozens of "Kobe will never be Jordan/Kobe was never better than Jordan replies".
I think it's ridiculous, always have.
It just proves though, people will not give Kobe an ounce more credit than they absolutely have to. Whereas for Jordan, they"ll melt and decorate everything nicely. Therefore, it's extremely hard for Kobe to win really anything. It's hard to even give Kobe props without digressing with a but...but this...but that...
It's really like Milton said, the mind is it's own place and in itself, can make heaven out of hell or hell out of heaven.
It is why the comparison of Kobe vs Jordan is incredibly unfair to Kobe. You may not think so, all the anti Kobe reasons may actually be legitimate to the Kobe detractors, you've convinced yourself of it but some of the reasons were beyond absurd and illogical. While for Jordan, everything still ends up so much more sugarcoated and gets that legendary feel to it when a legend is told and it's so amazing, flawless, perfect..
Not saying it's wrong or that people don't have right to feel or think however they want however, personally...I feel these comparisons come incredibly unfair to hm and common tendencies always make him look worse.
What I want to say is that if I wanted to put a negative twist to many things Jordan, I certainly could. And believe it, too. Jordan always wins his could-should-would's though..trait of love. As opposed to Kobe.
What tendencies I'm speaking of? Legend of Jordan, sugarcoating and putting the negative twist to all that's Kobe.
For example, when the Bulls win 55 games, it's ignored. When Kobe finally has good teammates, he's crucified for it. Not to mention the Shaq factor.
When Jordan would have huge scoring games he was the king and it was so hard at the time. When Kobe has them, it's a weak era, it's a bad team, he got too many FT's, didn't have enough assists.. There are so many things, it's not even funny.
Everything Kobe does, a negative twist it put to it. Everything Jordan got was celebrated. Just like Jalen Rose said.
It's just a lot of those natural tendencies. Comparisons are unfair to Kobe simply because the Jordan bias is too strong. I'm not calling out anyone, we're all just people after all. And fans at that.
[QUOTE=Emile]...[/QUOTE]
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.
^ Great post, I definitely see what you mean. Hopefully you also got what I was trying to say.
[QUOTE=Shep]but i did start watching it alot earlier than you did, and have far greater knowledge than that of yours about anything nba related
i never said he got to the line because of the refs, i said he recieved atleast the same number of favourable calls in '85 as he did when he was a superstar and the numbers provided back that statement up.
hill does not have a clear advantage. he does have an advantage, but it is only a slight advantage
once again :oldlol:..wins don't come into account because you're playing with a great player? that must mean scottie pippen was a nobody, guys like kevin mchale and robert parish were nobody's, kareem was a nobody..infact any player who is the second best player on a championship team is a nobody..this theory makes total sense :hammerhead: . as for the 12-4 record without kobe? 12 wins will get you the first pick in the lottery
who clearly led that team nowhere
sixth man of the year, 2nd team all-defense team member, top 6 small forward, top 5 shooting guard, top 2 point guard? yes
:roll:
18.8 compared with 16.2 per 36 by penny vs the lakers is getting torched? did you even watch the finals? kobe guarded miller in that series, and shut him down. jones got lit up for 40 against allen iverson in a game 1 loss that set the trend for an easy round 1 victory for the less talented sixers.
who cares? [B]you [/B]should care considering it does nothing to your argument that he was a better defender. so far you haven't said anything that backs that statement up..i won't hold my breath
nobody knows what iverson would've done with the talent the lakers had
you must have missed it
:oldlol: the idea is a pathetic one. kukoc would've averaged 25ppg if he was a first option. lynch would've averaged 15/10, ratliff 12/8/3..argument is as weak as your frame
its slang, so there is no official spelling - get the **** over it
never said it'd be bad..it'd be a good team..maybe even a contender..but not a 67 win championship team
16 games :lol . this team was almost beaten in the first round by sacramento with shaq, kobe, and glen rice in the line up :roll:
where i get this ****? what do you mean? where do i get plain to see facts from?
jordan took it to the rim more because he had no jump shot. once he developed his game more and worked on his jumpshot he became a superstar, bryant already had a three point shot in '00, a year in which he became the youngest player ever to make the 1st team all-defense.[/QUOTE]
Don't put too much stock into that all defense thing.Tmac got screwed in 02-03 and Mj got the samething in 87.I have watched kobe all this year and i don't understand how he gets it this year.Most of the time they just keep giving u itevery year like the all-star gm.LMAO off Mj had 20ft jumper from his rookie season.WTH are u talking about??All he did was take 20ft,16ft jumpers early in his career.If he didn't have those jumpers everyone would of backed off of him so he couldn't drive. [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=wP-EIeGW4lk&feature=related[/url] He had a jumper from 20ft in FACT don't get it twisted.
[QUOTE=Emile]^ Great post, I definitely see what you mean. Hopefully you also got what I was trying to say.[/QUOTE]
No...I understand. That's why I've made a conscience decision to only state opinions I can back up instead of some of the inflammatory things I said when I first joined this board.
[QUOTE]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...[/QUOTE]
Regrettably, in this board, when it comes to retired players, Jordan is where the knowledge of the average fan starts and ends.
As for the comparison, let's get real. That's not prime Jordan. This is inexperienced, 28/6/6 Jordan who was selected 2nd all-NBA team, was not selected in an all-D team, led his team to 38 wins and finished 6th in MVP voting. And he's compared to a 12-year veteran, who's won MVP, led his team to 57 wins and is 2 wins away from the NBA finals. It's not a crime to believe/admit that Kobe at his absolute peak is not worse than [B]all [/B]Bulls' versions of Jordan.
[QUOTE=Emile]I pretty much see one common response/phrase here and not only here but pretty much wherever the topic at hand is brought up.
It's..
[B]Kobe will never be Michael Jordan[/b]
[B]Kobe will never be like Michael Jordan[/B]
[B]Kobe will never be another Michael Jordan. [/B]
[B]Kobe will never be better than Michael Jordan[/B]
And I think it's funny. There's a whole saga of youtube videos dedicated to that one premise, Kobe never being better than Michael Jordan. Not just that, countless of websites are being dedicated to that one theme, Kobe never being Michael Jordan.
I think it's ridiculous. But in a way understandable since Kobe is such a direct threat/competition to Jordan. Exact same style, mannerisms, even appearance. Take someone like LeBron or Shaq for example and they can be appreciated because they don't mimic Jordan as much.
But for Kobe, there's this huge Jordan barrier that prevents him from being appreciated. It's like, when people are finally ready to appreciate and celebrate Kobe, they just can't do it. Because the minute you praise Kobe, the question comes up, how does he stack against Jordan? And most just aren't ready to answer favorably for Kobe. They can't because the Jordan love is stronger so immediately they restore to sayings like "Kobe will never be Jordan". And go from there.
It's ridiculous and it's why Kobe gets taken for granted so much. Why is it to hard to accept him.
I remember someone in the media saying "falling in love with Kobe doesn't mean you're breaking up with Michael". I'd just like to add Doc Rivers' statement to that when he said that he wishes more people celebrated Kobe because we're all missing on how great he really is. And that is true.
Like my friend, watched the game last night, rabid Kobe hater, can't stand him and every time Kobe did something, he was impressed but held it back, his wow's were kind of wow's you see in the movies when people are frightened after being threatened at gun point.
It's silly. But is reality. People are missing out however. Players like Michael and Kobe come once a lifetime. We've been fortunate enough to live in the time when both played. One still is. And you're missing out.
Kobe's biggest mistake was breaking out just after Michael. When he memory still was fresh, when the emotions still were strong. And so on.
In a way, I do understand why Kobe has to go through so much to get his respect. But in a way I don't. So many of his feats have been undermined because people like to put a negative twist to everything he does.
" Had Shaq, did it against bad defense, didn't win, can't do this, can't do that" He really had to work harder than anyone to earn his respect IMO because people just didn't/ don't want to give it to him.
I don't expect any of this to really change, regardless of Kobe's success. Michael will still be the people's champion and a basketball icon. While Kobe will be that great player that a lot of people don't like. But at least, they"ll admit he's great.
i just think the MJ barrier is too much for many to overcome and give Kobe his props. And for one to really be celebrated, he has to be liked. Will Kobe ever get there? I dunno.
If he slips just once, commits one error, lot of people you don't see now will be back in full force. I'm not talking like it's a matter of life and death. It's just sports, fans take sides, root for players, root against players. Nothing big.
But I don't see a majority embracing Kobe and putting an extra positive twist to everything he does as was the case with Jordan, they will still try to nitpick and focus on the negative, no matter how small it is. In a way it's shame. I think only Laker fans fully understand and semi appreciate Kobe's greatness. As for the rest...they will think of this post as groupiesm, not because they necessarily disagree with the content but because they"ll be too annoyed by it to rationalize it.
Either way, respect or no respect, love or no love, whatever. It doesn't matter. Kobe just gotta keep going strong. His best is only yet to come and the window is open for quite a while.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but it doesn't help when u have people who grow up with Kobe saying MJ was noting compared to Kobe.I think kobe is great, but he just does so many things like MJ.Why is he shaking head and wagging his fingers??I think i saw a vid where he tapped the floor too.I understand kobe tho.If i was a Nba player i would do everything Mj did.I would probably pump fist after every shot.LOL
[QUOTE=Emile]I'm not talking about the thread question but how things are generally. Comparing a rookie Jordan to a 12 year vet Kobe is ridiculous IMO but it just really proves my point. And on top of that, you still had dozens of "Kobe will never be Jordan/Kobe was never better than Jordan replies".
I think it's ridiculous, always have.
It just proves though, people will not give Kobe an ounce more credit than they absolutely have to. Whereas for Jordan, they"ll melt and decorate everything nicely. Therefore, it's extremely hard for Kobe to win really anything. It's hard to even give Kobe props without digressing with a but...but this...but that...
It's really like Milton said, the mind is it's own place and in itself, can make heaven out of hell or hell out of heaven.
It is why the comparison of Kobe vs Jordan is incredibly unfair to Kobe. You may not think so, all the anti Kobe reasons may actually be legitimate to the Kobe detractors, you've convinced yourself of it but some of the reasons were beyond absurd and illogical. While for Jordan, everything still ends up so much more sugarcoated and gets that legendary feel to it when a legend is told and it's so amazing, flawless, perfect..
Not saying it's wrong or that people don't have right to feel or think however they want however, personally...I feel these comparisons come incredibly unfair to hm and common tendencies always make him look worse.
What I want to say is that if I wanted to put a negative twist to many things Jordan, I certainly could. And believe it, too. Jordan always wins his could-should-would's though..trait of love. As opposed to Kobe.
What tendencies I'm speaking of? Legend of Jordan, sugarcoating and putting the negative twist to all that's Kobe.
For example, when the Bulls win 55 games, it's ignored. When Kobe finally has good teammates, he's crucified for it. Not to mention the Shaq factor.
When Jordan would have huge scoring games he was the king and it was so hard at the time. When Kobe has them, it's a weak era, it's a bad team, he got too many FT's, didn't have enough assists.. There are so many things, it's not even funny.
Everything Kobe does, a negative twist it put to it. Everything Jordan got was celebrated. Just like Jalen Rose said.
It's just a lot of those natural tendencies. Comparisons are unfair to Kobe simply because the Jordan bias is too strong. I'm not calling out anyone, we're all just people after all. And fans at that.[/QUOTE]
LOL wats with the 55 win season.U guys like to point out that in 93 they had less.Let me tell u how the 93 season went.In the summer of 92 pippen and Mj played for the Dream team which wore them out and Mj had a wrist problem the whole season.The arguement is also flawed because in 1992 they had a 60 win season.The 94 team was an experience team led by scootie in his prime.87-92 Scottie didn't really help in the playoffs series.Go look at his stats.u will see alot of 6-22.Scottie helped in the most improtant part tho was his defense.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist][B]2007/08 Kobe[/B] -- [B]28.3 pts[/B], 6.3 rbs, 5.4 asts, 1.8 stls, 0.5 blks, 45.9%
[B]1984/85 MJ[/B] -- 28.2 pts, [B]6.5 rbs, 5.9 asts, 2.4 stls, 0.8 blks, 51.5%[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not sure you can base your argument simply on numbers. We're trying to compare 2008 to 1985, a 23 year span. A lot of changes have occured and there are a lot of differences between the two eras.
For example, teams in 1984-1985 game up 110.8 points per game on average. Teams today give up 99.9 points per game on average. The pace was much different with more fast break basketball and more possessions per game. You cannot accurately support an argument with stats without taking into account the various factors that serve to influence those stats.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]I'm not sure you can base your argument simply on numbers. We're trying to compare 2008 to 1985, a 23 year span. A lot of changes have occured and there are a lot of differences between the two eras.
For example, teams in 1984-1985 game up 110.8 points per game on average. Teams today give up 99.9 points per game on average. The pace was much different with more fast break basketball and more possessions per game. You cannot accurately support an argument with stats without taking into account the various factors that serve to influence those stats.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but the asts,blks,rebs stay the same.The PPg has been decreasing since the 80s.The 90s had like 100PPG averge i think.I don't know why because the only thing that was changed from the 80s and 90s was the flagrant fouls 3 second rules.
[QUOTE=Emile]I pretty much see one common response/phrase here and not only here but pretty much wherever the topic at hand is brought up.
It's..
[B]Kobe will never be Michael Jordan[/b]
[B]Kobe will never be like Michael Jordan[/B]
[B]Kobe will never be another Michael Jordan. [/B]
[B]Kobe will never be better than Michael Jordan[/B]
And I think it's funny. There's a whole saga of youtube videos dedicated to that one premise, Kobe never being better than Michael Jordan. Not just that, countless of websites are being dedicated to that one theme, Kobe never being Michael Jordan.
I think it's ridiculous. But in a way understandable since Kobe is such a direct threat/competition to Jordan. Exact same style, mannerisms, even appearance. Take someone like LeBron or Shaq for example and they can be appreciated because they don't mimic Jordan as much.
But for Kobe, there's this huge Jordan barrier that prevents him from being appreciated. It's like, when people are finally ready to appreciate and celebrate Kobe, they just can't do it. Because the minute you praise Kobe, the question comes up, how does he stack against Jordan? And most just aren't ready to answer favorably for Kobe. They can't because the Jordan love is stronger so immediately they restore to sayings like "Kobe will never be Jordan". And go from there.
It's ridiculous and it's why Kobe gets taken for granted so much. Why is it to hard to accept him.
I remember someone in the media saying "falling in love with Kobe doesn't mean you're breaking up with Michael". I'd just like to add Doc Rivers' statement to that when he said that he wishes more people celebrated Kobe because we're all missing on how great he really is. And that is true.
Like my friend, watched the game last night, rabid Kobe hater, can't stand him and every time Kobe did something, he was impressed but held it back, his wow's were kind of wow's you see in the movies when people are frightened after being threatened at gun point.
It's silly. But is reality. People are missing out however. Players like Michael and Kobe come once a lifetime. We've been fortunate enough to live in the time when both played. One still is. And you're missing out.
Kobe's biggest mistake was breaking out just after Michael. When he memory still was fresh, when the emotions still were strong. And so on.
In a way, I do understand why Kobe has to go through so much to get his respect. But in a way I don't. So many of his feats have been undermined because people like to put a negative twist to everything he does.
" Had Shaq, did it against bad defense, didn't win, can't do this, can't do that" He really had to work harder than anyone to earn his respect IMO because people just didn't/ don't want to give it to him.
I don't expect any of this to really change, regardless of Kobe's success. Michael will still be the people's champion and a basketball icon. While Kobe will be that great player that a lot of people don't like. But at least, they"ll admit he's great.
i just think the MJ barrier is too much for many to overcome and give Kobe his props. And for one to really be celebrated, he has to be liked. Will Kobe ever get there? I dunno.
If he slips just once, commits one error, lot of people you don't see now will be back in full force. I'm not talking like it's a matter of life and death. It's just sports, fans take sides, root for players, root against players. Nothing big.
But I don't see a majority embracing Kobe and putting an extra positive twist to everything he does as was the case with Jordan, they will still try to nitpick and focus on the negative, no matter how small it is. In a way it's shame. I think only Laker fans fully understand and semi appreciate Kobe's greatness. As for the rest...they will think of this post as groupiesm, not because they necessarily disagree with the content but because they"ll be too annoyed by it to rationalize it.
Either way, respect or no respect, love or no love, whatever. It doesn't matter. Kobe just gotta keep going strong. His best is only yet to come and the window is open for quite a while.[/QUOTE]
I don't love Jordan, I don't like Jordan, I was never a fan of his and I never rooted for the Bulls.
Like, dislike, love, hate... none of these matter.
Nobody to be taken seriously compares the two in the sense of actually thinking Kobe might be at that level or better.
Jordan was better. [B][U][I]By far.[/I][/U][/B] Get the **** over it.
[QUOTE=juju151111]LOL wats with the 55 win season.U guys like to point out that in 93 they had less.Let me tell u how the 93 season went.In the summer of 92 pippen and Mj played for the Dream team which wore them out and Mj had a wrist problem the whole season.The arguement is also flawed because in 1992 they had a 60 win season.The 94 team was an experience team led by scootie in his prime.87-92 Scottie didn't really help in the playoffs series.Go look at his stats.u will see alot of 6-22.Scottie helped in the most improtant part tho was his defense.[/QUOTE]
My point exactly. I don't care. Don't need to get all defensive. I'm not trying to dethrone MJ. Just wanted to illustrate that there's plenty of good, bad and whatever you want to make it look like in everything. Therefore, if you'd put a negative twist to everything about Jordan, decide to focus on the negative, decide to highlight each bad thing, you very well could make him look worse.
That 94 season is one thing I don't get. Why being so defensive about it and unable to admit that it happened? Doesn't take anything away from Jordan. That simply was a great Bulls team with a great coach. Basketball is a team sport. No one can win by themselves. Wilt couldn't do it. Neither could Jordan. Neither could Kobe. Neither could Shaq. Neither could Duncan. No one. It's 5 on 5 plus benches plus coaching.
In contrast to Kobe, 94 season is ignored or debated. But a few years ago, perhaps even now, it was a fact that Shaq could've won titles win just about everyone, basically to take credit away from Kobe. And it grew from a perception to reality. Even though 2 seasons before, Shaq would get swept, with other all star players on his team as well.
But slowly, credit from Kobe was taken away. On counterfactual.
It's like everything with him, there's a way to put a negative twist to all he does. And since people generally want to believe that more than the Bulls actually being great even without Jordan, they do. While the 94 Bulls is rarely brought up. Only by Kobe fans, basically. And is still considered a blasphemy to bring it up.
So basically, like Jalen Rose said....when Kobe does something, everyone are like ummmm "did they win, how many assists he had", basically trying to take away while Jordan would just get celebrated. And I do think that's more of a general thing, not just MJ/Kobe thing. Everyone is a MJ fan after all.
LeBron fans, VC fans, T Mac fans..whoever. But Kobe is that connection between the past, recent past, present and the future, being compared to all from Jordan to LeBron, thus automatically almost being disliked by them. And generally had a bad image for quite a while.
I realize how you guys get annoyed by people saying Kobe > MJ. Those however are kids, kids who don't know better. But other than a few of them claiming that, I do think generally the bias for Jordan is so strong that it's unfair to Kobe. Not a whole lot of people I think can be counted on for being level headed about it.
I personally am a Kobe fan but I feel MJ was a better and more talented individual. Not by as much many would like to think though. I feel if MJ is 99, Kobe is 95. However, in terms of accomplishments it isn't even close. Who knows though, I hope it will be some day.
[QUOTE=Emile]I personally am a Kobe fan but I feel MJ was a better and more talented individual. [B]Not by as much many would like to think though.[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh for ****'s sake. It has nothing to do with "would like to think" and it has everything to do with reality. The reality is that it's not some small gap in difference. It's rather large. Just like every other perimeter player in history has a large gap between them and Jordan.
[QUOTE=Vendetta]I don't love Jordan, I don't like Jordan, I was never a fan of his and I never rooted for the Bulls.
Like, dislike, love, hate... none of these matter.
Nobody to be taken seriously compares the two in the sense of actually thinking Kobe might be at that level or better.
Jordan was better. [B][U][I]By far.[/I][/U][/B] Get the **** over it.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, you're the one to be a voice of reason here.
[QUOTE=Emile]My point exactly. I don't care. Don't need to get all defensive. I'm not trying to dethrone MJ. Just wanted to illustrate that there's plenty of good, bad and whatever you want to make it look like in everything. Therefore, if you'd put a negative twist to everything about Jordan, decide to focus on the negative, decide to highlight each bad thing, you very well could make him look worse.
That 94 season is one thing I don't get. Why being so defensive about it and unable to admit that it happened? Doesn't take anything away from Jordan. That simply was a great Bulls team with a great coach. Basketball is a team sport. No one can win by themselves. Wilt couldn't do it. Neither could Jordan. Neither could Kobe. Neither could Shaq. Neither could Duncan. No one. It's 5 on 5 plus benches plus coaching.
In contrast to Kobe, 94 season is ignored or debated. But a few years ago, perhaps even now, it was a fact that Shaq could've won titles win just about everyone, basically to take credit away from Kobe. And it grew from a perception to reality. Even though 2 seasons before, Shaq would get swept, with other all star players on his team as well.
But slowly, credit from Kobe was taken away. On counterfactual.
It's like everything with him, there's a way to put a negative twist to all he does. And since people generally want to believe that more than the Bulls actually being great even without Jordan, they do. While the 94 Bulls is rarely brought up. Only by Kobe fans, basically. And is still considered a blasphemy to bring it up.
So basically, like Jalen Rose said....when Kobe does something, everyone are like ummmm "did they win, how many assists he had", basically trying to take away while Jordan would just get celebrated. And I do think that's more of a general thing, not just MJ/Kobe thing. Everyone is a MJ fan after all.
LeBron fans, VC fans, T Mac fans..whoever. But Kobe is that connection between the past, recent past, present and the future, being compared to all from Jordan to LeBron, thus automatically almost being disliked by them. And generally had a bad image for quite a while.
I realize how you guys get annoyed by people saying Kobe > MJ. Those however are kids, kids who don't know better. But other than a few of them claiming that, I do think generally the bias for Jordan is so strong that it's unfair to Kobe. Not a whole lot of people I think can be counted on for being level headed about it.
I personally am a Kobe fan but I feel MJ was a better and more talented individual. Not by as much many would like to think though. I feel if MJ is 99, Kobe is 95. However, in terms of accomplishments it isn't even close. Who knows though, I hope it will be some day.[/QUOTE]
I am sorry i sounded defensive.U and a few other people are the only one who post things that make sense.I ushally get Mj era was soft,kobe more athlethic etc...I do think it's unfair for kobe because he doesn't really compare his self to mj.The media does most of that.When was the last time u seen Kobe do something amazing without one commentator saying mj name.They did it yesterday too.
Thanks for the compliment.
Well, the way I see it, I don't see anything wrong with commentators bringing up MJ because they're right IMO. Let's face it, those things that Kobe can do and does them, only MJ could, they're amazing from will to degree of difficulty to the amazement factor. So I guess it's natural for them to be reminded of MJ in an instant. It's not a bad thing IMO. It's just incredible skill that in all years of the league has only been seen perhaps in those two players and a few more but those two happen to play the same style.
I don't generally see a problem with that, I think it's just fan sensitivity. I remember when Gilbert Arenas got on fire last year. scored a lot of 3's and commentators were saying it reminded them of Kobe, in fact he was doing it against Kobe. They went nuts at lakersground calling it a fluke and luck and marking days until Kobe can pay him back. Arenas did score like 60 points that game and that's rare. So really, instead of giving props, they hated it and put a bad twist to it.
It's silly IMO. We're witnessing greatness yet can't enjoy it and get annoyed for those silly things and side taking. Takes away the beauty of basketball.
I mean, as a Kobe fan I definitely do want him to accomplish more than anyone when it's all said and done but it's pretty obvious what a longshot that is and how long it will take. I'm hoping though.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]I'm not sure you can base your argument simply on numbers. We're trying to compare 2008 to 1985, a 23 year span. A lot of changes have occured and there are a lot of differences between the two eras.
For example, teams in 1984-1985 game up 110.8 points per game on average. Teams today give up 99.9 points per game on average. The pace was much different with more fast break basketball and more possessions per game. You cannot accurately support an argument with stats without taking into account the various factors that serve to influence those stats.[/QUOTE]
yeah..you can....MJ took less shots to get his points than Kobe did even in the higher scoring era and shot a higher percentage...even Wade and Tony Parker can shoot over 50%..why can't Kobe ??...this era is high scoring as well considering what teams like the Nuggets did this year...
[QUOTE=deion2123]yeah..you can....MJ took less shots to get his points than Kobe did even in the higher scoring era and shot a higher percentage...even Wade and Tony Parker can shoot over 50%..why can't Kobe ??...this era is high scoring as well considering what teams like the Nuggets did this year...[/QUOTE]
The answer is wade and parker drive the ball and take mid range shots.
[QUOTE]yeah..you can....MJ took less shots to get his points than Kobe did even in the higher scoring era and shot a higher percentage...even Wade and Tony Parker can shoot over 50%..why can't Kobe ??...this era is high scoring as well considering what teams like the Nuggets did this year...[/QUOTE]
I accept the first part, but, about percentages:
-Wade and Parker take very few long range shots. Parker was taking quite a few 3's more in the beginning of his career and his percentage never got as high as when he stopped. Kobe last year shot 49.7% in 2-point shots.
-Wade and Parker are quicker when driving to the basket.
-Parker never had to score as much as Kobe and wouldn't shoot 50% if he did.
-Technically, Wade never shot 50%.
-Similarly to your argument, Magic in 1985 shot 56%, Bernard King shot 53% and Dantley 53.1%. So why didn't Jordan?
[QUOTE=juju151111]I agree, but the asts,blks,rebs stay the same.[/QUOTE]
False. Less shots = less rebounds, less assists, less blocks.
[QUOTE=juju151111]I agree, but the asts,blks,rebs stay the same.The PPg has been decreasing since the 80s.The 90s had like 100PPG averge i think.I don't know why because the only thing that was changed from the 80s and 90s was the flagrant fouls 3 second rules.[/QUOTE]
Team points per game have decreased overall because the game had become increasingly defense oriented with coaches opting to slow down the game in order to limit opponent fast break scoring opportunities and get defenses back to defend the basket. If a team can slow the tempo of the game, they can decrease the number of possessions the opposing teams have to score and can do a better job of preventing them from attacking the basket before their defense is back and has been set up.
As a result, the pace of the game has decreased. There are fewer possessions in the average game today than there were in 1984-1985. Fewer possessions generally means fewer points, as well as fewer rebound, assists, blocks and freethrows. Obviously the situation isn't linear and conditions change based on specific teams, but the change is pace makes it difficult to do a blanket comparison of stats from different eras as so many people are wont to do.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Team points per game have decreased overall because the game had become increasingly defense oriented with coaches opting to slow down the game in order to limit opponent fast break scoring opportunities and get defenses back to defend the basket. If a team can slow the tempo of the game, they can decrease the number of possessions the opposing teams have to score and can do a better job of preventing them from attacking the basket before their defense is back and has been set up.
As a result, the pace of the game has decreased. There are fewer possessions in the average game today than there were in 1984-1985. Fewer possessions generally means fewer points, as well as fewer rebound, assists, blocks and freethrows. Obviously the situation isn't linear and conditions change based on specific teams, but the change is pace makes it difficult to do a blanket comparison of stats from different eras as so many people are wont to do.[/QUOTE]
Good points i did notice the game slowing down when i watch 90s games.Mj dominated in the 90s too.he just couldn't be stopped.
One thing i notice about Mj is his defense.I think he was the only one who stls the ball when people are trying to get it to the post player.I mean when they lob it up in the air for the post player he jumps and catches it.I have only seen that like 10 times in the last 13 years.
[QUOTE=deion2123]yeah..you can....MJ took less shots to get his points than Kobe did even in the higher scoring era and shot a higher percentage...even Wade and Tony Parker can shoot over 50%..why can't Kobe ??...this era is high scoring as well considering what teams like the Nuggets did this year...[/QUOTE]
Again, we're talking about a different era. Higher tempo, more fast break points, more scoring against defenses that aren't set, play closer to the basket... Wade and Parker shoot above or close to 50% because they score in the paint. What do you think D. Wade would do in 1985 with a more fast paced oriented game?
Relative to some of the years in the 90s, this era is indeed high scoring. You mentioned the Nuggets. The Nuggets this year scored 110.7 points per game and gave up 107 points per game. Basically, the Nuggets, which were [B]second[/B] in the league in points per game this year managed to score just as much points as the league [B]average[/B] in 1984-1985. In comparison, the second highest scoring team in 1984-1985 averaged 118 points per game that season.
This year, the Warriors were the team that have up the most points per game, allowing opponents to score 108.8 points per game on average this year. So the team that gave up the most points this year of all the teams in the league still managed to give up 2 fewer points than the league average in 1984-1985.
The obvious point here is that this era is not as high scoring as that era, and it's not even comparable to the point where we can say, "well... this era is high scoring too..." :confusedshrug:
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Again, we're talking about a different era. Higher tempo, more fast break points, more scoring against defenses that aren't set, play closer to the basket... Wade and Parker shoot above or close to 50% because they score in the paint. What do you think D. Wade would do in 1985 with a more fast paced oriented game?
Relative to some of the years in the 90s, this era is indeed high scoring. You mentioned the Nuggets. The Nuggets this year scored 110.7 points per game and gave up 107 points per game. Basically, the Nuggets, which were [B]second[/B] in the league in points per game this year managed to score just as much points as the league [B]average[/B] in 1984-1985. In comparison, the second highest scoring team in 1984-1985 averaged 118 points per game that season.
This year, the Warriors were the team that have up the most points per game, allowing opponents to score 108.8 points per game on average this year. So the team that gave up the most points this year of all the teams in the league still managed to give up 2 fewer points than the league average in 1984-1985.
The obvious point here is that this era is not as high scoring as that era, and it's not even comparable to the point where we can say, "well... this era is high scoring too..." :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
what was the FG % for the 1984-1985 ?? I bet it was higher than it was now...
[QUOTE=juju151111]Good points i did notice the game slowing down when i watch 90s games.Mj dominated in the 90s too.he just couldn't be stopped.[/QUOTE]
Also, remember... other factors affect numbers as well. Look at the minor controversy recently over the types on assists Chris Paul has been getting. We don't know how widespead that problem may be, so the way statitians record assists may very well may be inflating assist numbers in this era... or rebounds for all we know. The point I'm hoping to make is that people should avoid comparing stats so linearly between two such disparate eras.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Also, remember... other factors affect numbers as well. Look at the minor controversy recently over the types on assists Chris Paul has been getting. We don't know how widespead that problem may be, so the way statitians record assists may very well may be inflating assist numbers in this era... or rebounds for all we know. The point I'm hoping to make is that people should avoid comparing stats so linearly between two such disparate eras.[/QUOTE]
yep, but cp3 was the same on the road with 11 asts.I dont know about the rebounding tho
[QUOTE=deion2123]what was the FG % for the 1984-1985 ?? I bet it was higher than it was now...[/QUOTE]
Oh, it most certainly was. In 1984-1985, the FG% for the league, on average, was 49.1% and the average fg% in today's league is 45.7%.
Now before guys are quick to say, "See, guys shot better and were better scorers back then," we have to take into account the fact that teams today shoot a little more than 5 and a half times as many threes as teams shot back then, and that three point shooting will drag FG% down. Looking at points per field goal attempt is a better indication of scoring efficiency considering the large disparity in the number of three pointers shot. In 1984-1985, the league average was 1.24 points per FGA. In 2007-2008, the league average was 1.23 points per FGA. There isn't a large disparity.
[QUOTE=juju151111]yep, but cp3 was the same on the road with 11 asts.I dont know about the rebounding tho[/QUOTE]
That's why I don't think the problem, if there really is one (i'm not sure there is), would have to do with the home statitians as some people are saying, but rather the ways statitians today, in general, regard what an assist is. The way statitians are interpreting what is and isn't an asssit could be inflating today's assists stats in comparison to those of the past. That possibility is no where near proven... it's just a possibility that has presented itself recently. I'm just using it to indicate that it's not easy and probably not wise to compare stats across eras in a blanket manner since there are so many factors involved. :confusedshrug:
[QUOTE=MaxFly]I'm not sure you can base your argument simply on numbers. We're trying to compare 2008 to 1985, a 23 year span. A lot of changes have occured and there are a lot of differences between the two eras.
For example, teams in 1984-1985 game up 110.8 points per game on average. Teams today give up 99.9 points per game on average. The pace was much different with more fast break basketball and more possessions per game. You cannot accurately support an argument with stats without taking into account the various factors that serve to influence those stats.[/QUOTE]
I agree up to a point. I don't think stats should be the end-all to every comparison due to a lot of different factors you mentioned in your posts. They do, however, provide some sort of basis when making comparisons. And when they represent a pattern over a large number of years, that provides [I]some[/I] context.
For example, Larry Bird shot a lot of jumpshots in his career. His career fg% is 50%. Taken over the length of his career, I would put credence into the thought that he was a very efficient scorer. I don't need to measure the pace of the games or the heat index in each specific arena to believe that. FG% doesn't say everything, but taken over a 13 year career...I would confidently use that stat to back my argument.
You can't really make comparisons between different players that play(ed) in different eras fairly, but we do anyway. Especially on ISH. Therefore we have to use stats to, in part, justify what we believe. Otherwise, everyone on this board would just state opinions without ever being able to back them up.
"Michael was better than Kobe"
"Why?"
"Because."
It's up to us to provide the context of the stats within our arguments. That's when things get interesting here. And that's why I keep reading and posting here.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]I agree up to a point. I don't think stats should be the end-all to every comparison due to a lot of different factors you mentioned in your posts. They do, however, provide some sort of basis when making comparisons. And when they represent a pattern over a large number of years, that provides [I]some[/I] context. [/QUOTE]
Indeed... the point I'm making is that the stats themselves need context.
Earlier, you said:
[QUOTE]You can even argue that MJ had a better rookie year than Kobe did this year, therefore if you slide rookie MJ into this year he may have won the MVP!
[B]2007/08 Kobe[/B] -- [B]28.3 pts[/B], 6.3 rbs, 5.4 asts, 1.8 stls, 0.5 blks, 45.9%
[B]1984/85 MJ[/B] -- 28.2 pts, [B]6.5 rbs, 5.9 asts, 2.4 stls, 0.8 blks, 51.5%[/B]
[/QUOTE]
You bolded a few to indicate which stats Jordan won and which Bryant won, furthering the argument that it's arguably that Jordan's rookie season was better than Bryant's present season. Unfortunately, you're comparing stats that have 23 years between, so I'm just providing the context. Someone looking at those stats would say that 28.2 points is 28.2 points, or 6.5 rebounds is 6.5 rebounds and that there's no difference between eras where as that's not the case at all.
[QUOTE]For example, Larry Bird shot a lot of jumpshots in his career. His career fg% is 50%. Taken over the length of his career, I would put credence into the thought that he was a very efficient scorer. I don't need to measure the pace of the games or the heat index in each specific arena to believe that. FG% doesn't say everything, but taken over a 13 year career...I would confidently use that stat to back my argument.[/QUOTE]
Well we're comparing two players at specific times during their careers. Here's an illustration of what I'm talking about.
In 1987-1988, Larry Bird shot 52.7% from the field. Michael Jordan shot 53.5% from the field. Now just looking at those numbers, some would conclude that Larry and Michael shot at a similar efficiency, and some would even conclude that Michael Jordan was a little more efficient. The problem is that Larry took a little more than 4 times as many threes as Jordan did that season. Larry's eFG%, taking into account three point shooting, was 55.6%. Jordan's eFG% was 53.7%. This illustrates why we should try to look at stats while taking context into consideration... even more so when we're comparing stats across eras where different styles were played.
[QUOTE]You can't really make comparisons between different players that play(ed) in different eras fairly, but we do anyway. Especially on ISH. Therefore we have to use stats to, in part, justify what we believe.
It's up to us to provide the context of the stats within our arguments. That's when things get interesting here. And that's why I keep reading and posting here.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, that's why I've brought up the point that Jordan's stats in 1984-1985 in comparison to Bryant's stats this past year don't necessarily indicate that Jordan had a better season.
[QUOTE=Shep]but i did start watching it alot earlier than you did[/QUOTE]
I started watching in 1993, I doubt you watched it much earlier than that.
[QUOTE], and have far greater knowledge than that of yours about anything nba related[/QUOTE]
:roll: Thanks for the laugh.
[QUOTE]i never said he got to the line because of the refs, i said he recieved atleast the same number of favourable calls in '85 as he did when he was a superstar and the numbers provided back that statement up.[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't. You're forgetting that taking shots uses a lot of energy. The more shots he took the less energy had so he couldn't go to the basket as much per shot. Not to mention his jumper improved a lot from his rookie season to his thread season. He took 8 more shots per game in his 3rd year than he did in his rookie season.
[QUOTE]hill does not have a clear advantage. he does have an advantage, but it is only a slight advantage[/QUOTE]
Pointless argument.
[QUOTE]once again :oldlol:..wins don't come into account because you're playing with a great player? that must mean scottie pippen was a nobody, guys like kevin mchale and robert parish were nobody's, kareem was a nobody..infact any player who is the second best player on a championship team is a nobody..this theory makes total sense :hammerhead:[/QUOTE]
You're an idiot. My point is you can't compare a second options wins to a firrst options wins. You can't hold it against Grant Hill that Kobe won more games because if Kobe and Hill trade places then that laker team probably wins 70 games.
[QUOTE] . as for the 12-4 record without kobe? 12 wins will get you the first pick in the lottery[/QUOTE]
12 wins and 70 losses will but when did they lose 70 games without Kobe? :roll: In fact for the entire 3peat I think the Lakers were 31-6 or 31-7 without Kobe.
[QUOTE]who clearly led that team nowhere[/QUOTE]
And how do you know Kobe could have even led a team to the playoffs at that point in his career?
[QUOTE]18.8 compared with 16.2 per 36 by penny vs the lakers is getting torched? did you even watch the finals? kobe guarded miller in that series, and shut him down. jones got lit up for 40 against allen iverson in a game 1 loss that set the trend for an easy round 1 victory for the less talented sixers.[/QUOTE]
Penny averaged 21.4 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 5.6 apg on 48.7% shooting.
Much higher than his season averages.
Kobe averaged 21.0 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 3.4 apg on 45.2% shooting
Well below his season averages
[QUOTE]who cares? [B]you [/B]should care considering it does nothing to your argument that he was a better defender. so far you haven't said anything that backs that statement up..i won't hold my breath[/QUOTE]
I keep backing up my arguments but you are in denial and convinced you are right whcih is really funny. :oldlol:
[QUOTE]What is your argument? How is all-defensive first team better than finishing higher in DPOY voting?[/QUOTE]
Yes
[QUOTE]:oldlol: the idea is a pathetic one. kukoc would've averaged 25ppg if he was a first option.[/QUOTE]
No he wouldn't have. He was the first option on a horrible team right after Jordan retired and he didn't even average 20 ppg. :oldlol:
[QUOTE]its slang, so there is no official spelling - get the **** over it[/QUOTE]
What the f*ck is the point of cutting one f8cking letter out of the word?
[QUOTE]never said it'd be bad..it'd be a good team..maybe even a contender..but not a 67 win championship team[/QUOTE]
And you base that on nothing.
[QUOTE]16 games :lol . this team was almost beaten in the first round by sacramento with shaq, kobe, and glen rice in the line up :roll:[/QUOTE]
And your point is? A lot of teams take a while to get going in the playoffs. The Lakers had homecourt and in reality weren't going to lose that series.
[QUOTE]where i get this ****? what do you mean? where do i get plain to see facts from?[/QUOTE]
:roll:
[QUOTE]jordan took it to the rim more because he had no jump shot. once he developed his game more and worked on his jumpshot he became a superstar, bryant already had a three point shot in '00, a year in which he became the youngest player ever to make the 1st team all-defense.[/QUOTE]
His 1st team all-defense selection wasn't even deserved.
Kobe's 3 point shot wasn't even that good in 2000 either.
Incidentally, the conversation between Da_Realist and me is what all these conversations should look like. No one's calling anyone names, getting upset, or making ridiculous claims. We're having a reasoned and respectful discussion about ball without the added drama.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Incidentally, the conversation between Da_Realist and me is what all these conversations should look like. No one's calling anyone names, getting upset, or making ridiculous claims. We're having a reasoned and respectful discussion about ball without the added drama.[/QUOTE]
I agree completly.Do you know how hard it is to talk about Mj vs Kobe on any forum without someone just saying nonsense.Anyways i have a question mcfly.Why didn't rebounding decrease for centers in the 90s and 80s?If the game started using more set offense which resulted in less shots wouldn't players rebounding drop?Hakeem and Shaq rebounded the same in 80s,90s,00s.Well they could just be Great rebounders no matter what, but the less shots would of indicate a drop in rebounding right?The same thing can be argued with stls,asts,blks etc...In What ever era Mj was still getting the same amount of stls.This is the reason i think people put too much stack in eras.The only eras that were not advance was the 50s and 60s.You still have to put the basket in the hoop.Also U could just look at Mj shots per gm in his rookie year and Kobe shots per game in his MVP year.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Indeed... the point I'm making is that the stats themselves need context.
Earlier, you said:
You bolded a few to indicate which stats Jordan won and which Bryant won, furthering the argument that it's arguably that Jordan's rookie season was better than Bryant's present season. Unfortunately, you're comparing stats that have 23 years between, so I'm just providing the context. Someone looking at those stats would say that 28.2 points is 28.2 points, or 6.5 rebounds is 6.5 rebounds and that there's no difference between eras where as that's not the case at all.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this. In fact, I even said I would take Kobe over the rookie MJ because of the experience factor -- something you can't measure by stats.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Well we're comparing two players at specific times during their careers. Here's an illustration of what I'm talking about.
In 1987-1988, Larry Bird shot 52.7% from the field. Michael Jordan shot 53.5% from the field. Now just looking at those numbers, some would conclude that Larry and Michael shot at a similar efficiency, and some would even conclude that Michael Jordan was a little more efficient. The problem is that Larry took a little more than 4 times as many threes as Jordan did that season. Larry's eFG%, taking into account three point shooting, was 55.6%. Jordan's eFG% was 53.7%. This illustrates why we should try to look at stats while taking context into consideration... even more so when we're comparing stats across eras where different styles were played.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't really comparing Larry to MJ...(2 different positions and all that). But if i [I]were[/I] to make a point arguing for MJ I [I]could[/I] point out that [I]some people[/I] would be more impressed that a 6-6 shooting guard who slashed to the basket and upheld the bulk of the team's offense on his shoulders while also doing a damn good job anchoring the defense could shoot a higher percentage than a world-class player and champion with multiple titles playing on a team that shared the offensive load and wasn't "as much" of a defensive presence. I could argue that. :)
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Agreed, that's why I've brought up the point that Jordan's stats in 1984-1985 in comparison to Bryant's stats this past year don't necessarily indicate that Jordan had a better season.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. It doesn't necessarily say MJ had a better season. It also doesn't necessarily say Kobe had a better season. I'm really just impressed that the guy put up those numbers fresh out of college. Numbers that...taken at face value...could have put him in serious consideration of the MVP this past year. And I'm even more impressed that...in 1985, he didn't and [I]shouldn't[/I] have won. Larry Bird's numbers were ridiculous that year. I started watching in 87 (and since have collected dvds of many games prior), so researching the 84/85 season surprised me a little.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Incidentally, the conversation between Da_Realist and me is what all these conversations should look like. No one's calling anyone names, getting upset, or making ridiculous claims. We're having a reasoned and respectful discussion about ball without the added drama.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. :cheers:
[QUOTE]Don't put too much stock into that all defense thing.Tmac got screwed in 02-03 and Mj got the samething in 87.I have watched kobe all this year and i don't understand how he gets it this year.Most of the time they just keep giving u itevery year like the all-star gm[/QUOTE]
what the hell are you rambling on about? we are talking about 2000 kobe here, and kobe hadn't ever been selected in an all-nba defense team before that season so your argument is mute. and tmac has never been deserving of an all-nba defense birth
[QUOTE]LMAO off Mj had 20ft jumper from his rookie season.WTH are u talking about??All he did was take 20ft,16ft jumpers early in his career.If he didn't have those jumpers everyone would of backed off of him so he couldn't drive. [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=wP-EIeGW4lk&feature=related[/url] He had a jumper from 20ft in FACT don't get it twisted.[/QUOTE]
yes, because 1 game full of jordan highlights is going to accurately show what type of game he had :applause: . i can play this game too: [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=K-vRqz36iOU[/url] 2000 kobe abusing 2nd team all nba defender scottie pippen
[QUOTE]I started watching in 1993, I doubt you watched it much earlier than that.[/QUOTE]
what you doubt doesn't matter
[QUOTE] Thanks for the laugh.[/QUOTE]
you're laughing because of that one quote? i'm in tears with laughter at every word of every response you make
[QUOTE]No it doesn't. You're forgetting that taking shots uses a lot of energy. The more shots he took the less energy had so he couldn't go to the basket as much per shot. Not to mention his jumper improved a lot from his rookie season to his thread season. He took 8 more shots per game in his 3rd year than he did in his rookie season.[/QUOTE]
easily the worst "argument" yet. if getting tired was a factor he wouldn't have played more minutes in the years after his rookie season, but he did
[QUOTE]Pointless argument.[/QUOTE]
:lol
[QUOTE]You're an idiot. My point is you can't compare a second options wins to a firrst options wins. You can't hold it against Grant Hill that Kobe won more games because if Kobe and Hill trade places then that laker team probably wins 70 games.[/QUOTE]
if thats how it is then you also can't compare first option stats to second option stats. you can't hold it against kobe that he only averaged 22ppg because if hill was on the kobe and hill trade places then hill probably averaged 18 ppg
[QUOTE]12 wins and 70 losses will but when did they lose 70 games without Kobe?[/QUOTE]
they only won 12 games without kobe, what would've happened if kobe missed the whole season is heresay
[QUOTE]In fact for the entire 3peat I think the Lakers were 31-6 or 31-7 without Kobe.[/QUOTE]
:roll: another pathetic argument. example of this argument: say in the entire 18 years in utah when they didn't have karl malone they went 1-0. omg this equals 100% win record :roll: ..pathetic
[QUOTE]And how do you know Kobe could have even led a team to the playoffs at that point in his career?[/QUOTE]
because he was a better player
[QUOTE]Penny averaged 21.4 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 5.6 apg on 48.7% shooting.
Much higher than his season averages.[/QUOTE]
his minutes were up, he averages 2 points per 36 better than what he did in the regular season. torched? not exactly :rolleyes:
[QUOTE]Kobe averaged 21.0 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 3.4 apg on 45.2% shooting
Well below his season averages[/QUOTE]
+ a game winning shot. game 5 was a blowout lakers victory, so kobe didn't really need to contribute as much as he had the previous games. first four games: 22ppg, 4.5rpg, 3.5apg, 2.25spg, 1.75bpg on 47% shooting - better than his regular reason numbers. not to mention the lakers would've been 1-1 going into 2 straight away games if it wasn't for kobe.
[QUOTE]I keep backing up my arguments but you are in denial and convinced you are right whcih is really funny.[/QUOTE]
its funny getting clowned post after post? you're a strange individual
[QUOTE]Yes[/QUOTE]
:lol
[QUOTE]No he wouldn't have. He was the first option on a horrible team right after Jordan retired and he didn't even average 20 ppg.[/QUOTE]
you missed the point
[QUOTE]What the f*ck is the point of cutting one f8cking letter out of the word?[/QUOTE]
its one less letter i have to press? what the **** is the point of having the letter "a" in the word "yeah"? dumb ****
[QUOTE]And you base that on nothing.[/QUOTE]
except facts
[QUOTE]And your point is? A lot of teams take a while to get going in the playoffs. The Lakers had homecourt and in reality weren't going to lose that series.[/QUOTE]
:roll: more pathetic statements. the lakers weren't going to lose that series? easy to ****in say 8 years after it happened
[QUOTE] :roll: [/QUOTE]
:lol
[QUOTE]His 1st team all-defense selection wasn't even deserved.[/QUOTE]
who was more deserving and why?
[QUOTE]Kobe's 3 point shot wasn't even that good in 2000 either.[/QUOTE]
it was twice that of michael jordans..you're not doing yourself any favors by saying stupid **** like that
[QUOTE=Shep]what you doubt doesn't matter[/QUOTE]
Well then state your age and tell me when you started watching the NBA.
[QUOTE]you're laughing because of that one quote? i'm in tears with laughter at every word of every response you make[/QUOTE]
Thanks again. :roll:
[QUOTE]easily the worst "argument" yet. if getting tired was a factor he wouldn't have played more minutes in the years after his rookie season, but he did[/QUOTE]
You just backed up my argument. With playing more minutes and taking far more shots it's obvious he'd lose some of the energy necessary to drive to the basket.
[QUOTE]if thats how it is then you also can't compare first option stats to second option stats. you can't hold it against kobe that he only averaged 22ppg because if hill was on the kobe and hill trade places then hill probably averaged 18 ppg[/QUOTE]
You aren't factoring in that as a first option without Shaq Kobe would have faced far more double teams. We don't know how 2000 Kobe would have handled those double teams. Hill's assists also may have gone up with Shaq although his rebounds probably would have been slightly down.
[QUOTE]they only won 12 games without kobe, what would've happened if kobe missed the whole season is heresay[/QUOTE]
Well all the information available points to the team still being very good.
[QUOTE]:roll: another pathetic argument. example of this argument: say in the entire 18 years in utah when they didn't have karl malone they went 1-0. omg this equals 100% win record :roll: ..pathetic[/QUOTE]
Comparing 1 game to 37 or 38? :roll: That's nearly half an NBA season while 1 game means nothing considering there are 81 more and you can get lucky in 1 game.
[QUOTE]because he was a better player[/QUOTE]
Nice complete argument! :roll: Even if he was the better player(which he wasn't) that still doesn't mean he was the better leader. The fact is Kobe at 21 may have not been mature enough to lead a team for 82 games.
[QUOTE]his minutes were up, he averages 2 points per 36 better than what he did in the regular season. torched? not exactly :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
I don't care about per 36, I care about the points in the boxscore after the game. Penny averaged nearly 6 points over his season average against Kobe while outscoring Bryant so yes he torched him.
[QUOTE]+ a game winning shot. game 5 was a blowout lakers victory, so kobe didn't really need to contribute as much as he had the previous games. first four games: 22ppg, 4.5rpg, 3.5apg, 2.25spg, 1.75bpg on 47% shooting - better than his regular reason numbers. not to mention the lakers would've been 1-1 going into 2 straight away games if it wasn't for kobe.[/QUOTE]
A gamewinning shot is nice and that was in game 2 I believe so that really changed the series because if he misses the series is tied and that shot put the Lakers up 2-0. However one shot doesn't decide who the better player is.
Not to mention Kobe averaged 22.5 ppg over the 22 ppg he averaged those first 4 games, he averaged 6.3 rpg in the regular season which is much better than the 4.5 he averaged in those 4 games, he averaged 4.9 assists in the regular seaosn much better than the 3.5 in those 4 games and he shot 47% in the regular season matching his shooting % from those games.
If you are going by the first 4 games then these are Penny's averages
24.8 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 6.5 apg, 1.8 spg, 1.0 bpg on 53.7% shooting
Those destroy Penny's seaosn averages.
[QUOTE]its funny getting clowned post after post? you're a strange individual[/QUOTE]
I guess if I were you I wouldn't want to face reality either.
[QUOTE]you missed the point[/QUOTE]
Your point was a weak one because Kukoc had a chance to be the first option and averaged 5-6 ppg below what you used as an example on a horrible team.
[QUOTE]its one less letter i have to press? what the **** is the point of having the letter "a" in the word "yeah"? dumb ****[/QUOTE]
Because "yeh" sounds f*cking retarted.
[QUOTE]except facts[/QUOTE]
What facts? The fact is that the Lakers went 12-3 without Kobe with Shaq in the lineup. So the fairly small sample we have of the 2000 Lakers without Kobe shows they were a good team during that stretch. That is the only thing to base how good they would ahve been without Kobe, everything else is just guessing.
[QUOTE]:roll: more pathetic statements. the lakers weren't going to lose that series? easy to ****in say 8 years after it happened[/QUOTE]
It was obvious. The Lakers were at home with the best player and they had the much better team. Didn't Shaq have a 30-20 game and the Lakers won easily?
[QUOTE]who was more deserving and why?[/QUOTE]
Eddie Jones because he was easily the best perimeter defender back then and his only competition for that title was Scottie Pippen. Jones could shut down a good scorer much more often than Kobe. Kobe got torched by several players who weren't exactly Allen Iverson.
[QUOTE=Shep]it was twice that of michael jordans..you're not doing yourself any favors by saying stupid **** like that[/QUOTE]
And Jordan's driving game was more than twice that of Kobe's.
[QUOTE=Shep]what the hell are you rambling on about? we are talking about 2000 kobe here, and kobe hadn't ever been selected in an all-nba defense team before that season so your argument is mute. and tmac has never been deserving of an all-nba defense birth
yes, because 1 game full of jordan highlights is going to accurately show what type of game he had :applause: . i can play this game too: [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=K-vRqz36iOU[/url] 2000 kobe abusing 2nd team all nba defender scottie pippen
what you doubt doesn't matter
you're laughing because of that one quote? i'm in tears with laughter at every word of every response you make
easily the worst "argument" yet. if getting tired was a factor he wouldn't have played more minutes in the years after his rookie season, but he did
:lol
if thats how it is then you also can't compare first option stats to second option stats. you can't hold it against kobe that he only averaged 22ppg because if hill was on the kobe and hill trade places then hill probably averaged 18 ppg
they only won 12 games without kobe, what would've happened if kobe missed the whole season is heresay
:roll: another pathetic argument. example of this argument: say in the entire 18 years in utah when they didn't have karl malone they went 1-0. omg this equals 100% win record :roll: ..pathetic
because he was a better player
his minutes were up, he averages 2 points per 36 better than what he did in the regular season. torched? not exactly :rolleyes:
+ a game winning shot. game 5 was a blowout lakers victory, so kobe didn't really need to contribute as much as he had the previous games. first four games: 22ppg, 4.5rpg, 3.5apg, 2.25spg, 1.75bpg on 47% shooting - better than his regular reason numbers. not to mention the lakers would've been 1-1 going into 2 straight away games if it wasn't for kobe.
its funny getting clowned post after post? you're a strange individual
:lol
you missed the point
its one less letter i have to press? what the **** is the point of having the letter "a" in the word "yeah"? dumb ****
except facts
:roll: more pathetic statements. the lakers weren't going to lose that series? easy to ****in say 8 years after it happened
:lol
who was more deserving and why?
it was twice that of michael jordans..you're not doing yourself any favors by saying stupid **** like that[/QUOTE]
LOL I was talking about Kobe this year.I said people make the all defense team because they made it the year before.U obviously never watched tmac in 03.He played the best one on one defense while getting 100 blks and 100 stls.
I wasn't posting the highlights to show off MJ rookie season.I was posting it to show u he had a jumper from 20ft since his rookie year.If he didn't people would of just backed off him so he couldn't drive.