Printable View
however bad kobes all deffensive selection was this year it pales in comparisson to last year when he openely admitted publicly a number of times that he wasnt playing good deffense cause the offensive load was such that he needed to conserve energy on deffense.
kobe himself wouldnt have even selected himself to an all deffensive team last year, total proof that these things are done off reputation, an utter farce of the highest order....
[QUOTE=ukplayer4]however bad kobes all deffensive selection was this year it pales in comparisson to last year when he openely admitted publicly a number of times that he wasnt playing good deffense cause the offensive load was such that he needed to conserve energy on deffense.
kobe himself wouldnt have even selected himself to an all deffensive team last year, total proof that these things are done off reputation, an utter farce of the highest order....[/QUOTE]
exactly this guy shep things he should get it even if he isn't playing defense.Look shep is just a homer.Look how shaq almost gets voted in the all star game when he out of his prime.It's nonsense really.Mj didn't have a reputation of a defensive player in 87, but he played great defnse yet he was critized for scoring too much and not playing defense.The following year He did the same exact thing, but the media just started noticing and he got DPOTY.Thats BS.Why isn't Ron artest on the team every year.I watch him and he plays way better defense then even bowen, but because bowen is on the spurs he gets reconized.I gurentee u if artest was on the spurs and was winning chips he would be on the all-defensive team.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]
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]
You make a few good points. What I was saying was that someone who looks at stats without taking into account any additional context may inaccurately interpret those stats... but I think we agree on that point.
I think in the same way, when we compare stats from 85 and 2008 without looking at the style of basketball played in those eras and some of the other factors that may affect those stats, we may end up applying those stats inaccurately to our arguments. We may come to conclusions that we think those stats support though the stats themselves are skewed.
[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. [/QUOTE]
But here's the problem... How do we know that he would put up those numbers in this day and age. The stark numbers themselves translate well, but there are questions as to whether a rookie Jordan would be able to recreate them now. A player like Jordan is built to exploit that eras fast paced style of basketball, and I think his numbers from that era reflect that somewhat.
I would take current Kobe over rookie Jordan. Even though it could be argued that Michael was a better player, a superstar 11 years of NBA experience along with championship experience will beat out a superstar in the developing stages in the developing stages. There's no way to replace veteran leadership when you're that good of a player.
[QUOTE=juju151111]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?[/QUOTE]
This is a good question.
The reason rebounding didn't see a significant decrease for centers is that the number of rebounds available per game didn't see a significant decrease. Normally, you'd think... well, fewer shots taken per game would mean fewer rebounds available... but the answer lies in why there were fewer shots taken per game; defenses got better and made it more difficult to score, and especially to do so, quickly. As a result, though the number of shots decreased, the number of missed shots stayed relatively the same. In 1985, teams, on average, missed 3,718 shots per year. In 2008, teams, on average, missed 3627 shots a year. That's a difference of about 1.1 fewer missed shots a game per team. Also, remember that teams are taking more threes now than back then, and the three is, by it's very nature, a lower percentage shot.
I'd also add that because teams in the 80s played such a faster pace of basketball, centers didn't always get back to rebound fast break misses or quick shots.
[QUOTE]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]
If I told you that next season, Lebron would only play high scoring teams and teams that gave up a lot of points like the Suns, Nuggets, Warriors and Grizzlies, do you think there would be a good chance that that would affect his numbers?
[QUOTE=MaxFly]
But here's the problem... How do we know that he would put up those numbers in this day and age. The stark numbers themselves translate well, but there are questions as to whether a rookie Jordan would be able to recreate them now. A player like Jordan is built to exploit that eras fast paced style of basketball, and I think his numbers from that era reflect that somewhat.[/QUOTE]
My personal opinion is that it would be easier for the young slashing MJ to score with with the loss of handchecking and physicality along with the addition of the 3-second defensive rule. Here's an excerpt from an old Scottie Pippen article that gives his point of view on the differences in the eras (one that I agree with)...
[QUOTE=Scottie Pippen]
[URL="http://www.nba.com/blog/blog30.html"]NBA.com blog archive[/URL]
[B]Can't Compare Kobe and MJ[/B]
The eras in which they played are completely different
Kobe Bryant's 81-point performance the other night against Toronto was certainly incredible, but it is unfair to try and compare what Kobe did to what Michael Jordan did in his playing career or what he could have done for that matter.
In the era when Michael played, it was a physical game. Defense was promoted. Guys took pride in it. Today defense is no longer a part of the game. Guys are driving to the basket. There are rules where you can't step in front of them. To me, it is taking away from the game seeing a guy like Tony Parker taking advantage of the rules. He is shooting 55 percent from the field. That says something about the game itself. In the history of the NBA, I'm sure a point guard has never led the league in field goal percentage. It's a different game now. It's really not about being tough and physical because the NBA isn't a physical game anymore. When you talk about how the Knicks and Bulls used to battle in the early '90s, the Oakleys, and Pat Ewings, the Masons, and how they would have the ability to use their hands to put you in a trap position. There is no way you can even triple team a guy now and stop him. Any contact is a foul. I can't compare the two players because I see it as two different games. If I'm guarding Kobe Bryant in today's game, I couldn't be the defender I was known as.
The defensive rules, the hand checking, the ability to make contact on a guy in certain areas, the ability to come over in the lane to stop guys from getting to the basket, that's all been taken away from the game. There is no contact up on the floor. The way I played Magic Johnson in the '91 Finals, I would have fouled out the first time down court. To compare how someone would have played Michael Jordan, Chuck Daly would send someone to wear him down. Even though he may get 30 or 40 points, they're going to be a hard 30 points. But in today's game, you can't put that physical wear and tear on a guy. It's a free ball type of game. If you are shooting it well, you can score 80, as you've seen because you are going to get to the foul line.
Officials have very quick whistles now because they're promoting scoring. Let's not forget, three years ago, this league was trying to figure out how they could get the scoring back up, how they could drive the fans back into loving the game, and this is what they were building on. They changed the field of rules. Those rules are huge in the game today. They benefit the perimeter guy. Back in the day, you may get one guy to score 40 points in a month. When Michael Jordan scored 40, it was all over the front page of a newspaper. Now you can pretty much have 40 points at halftime. Until the league went and changed the rules and tried to get some of that bully ball out, you couldn't come out and perform like that every night. The game was too physical. You were too sore the next day and you were just tired and physically worn down. The game seems so fun and free now. Guys are making a living just standing out there shooting jumpers.
If you want to say that Kobe could get 100, I would say that Michael could get 100. If Kobe could get 81, I think Michael could get 100 in today's game. I think the psychological style that Michael was able to master in the game, puts him far beyond Kobe. But Kobe's youthfulness has put him in a position where it looks like he is overtaking Michael. Kobe has 10 years in this league. That is a lot of experience to have and still be a very youthful player.
I would love to see what would have happened the other night if the rules had been the same as in past years. Kobe is as close to being like Mike as anybody, but you can't make the comparisons anymore. Tracy McGrady can probably, from a numbers standpoint, put up the numbers Michael Jordan put up. He has that type of ability. Dirk Nowitzki can put up those kinds of numbers. The game is built for those guys to put those shots up. If they get touched, they get to the foul line. I would say Kobe is the most polished of all of them as far as being able to handle the ball and create his own shot and opportunity. But this is what the game is going to turn into. Guys are going to start to score 40 points regularly. It may become an average.
I don't think Kobe will get 100. What he did is what like Wilt did, a once in a lifetime experience. Given the fact that he shot a heck of a percentage it could have been better, but I don't think he still could have gotten to 100. It would almost have to be perfect and the game would have to go to overtime. I think a lot of things would have to come into play for him to get that.
With that said, I am sure Phil doesn't want to coach that type of game. It's not his style. I don't expect it to happen again. Phil will probably do everything in his power to make sure it doesn't. I don't think Phil is going to try to promote what Kobe has done more than anything because he has damaged his whole team. You just scored 81 points. Do you need your teammates? Are they going to step up when you need them or are you going to continue to pound them like you've been doing and be selfish just to get some individual accolades?
From a leadership perspective I think Kobe has taken a step back. Look at what he has to live up to now. You just scored 81 points. If you scored 81 points, your team should pretty much go out and win at least 75 percent of their games the rest of the year. Is that fair to say? You just compared yourself to Wilt. Can you go out with your team and do that or are you just going to go out and score tons of points every night? Are you going to get back to the point where you are shooting a lot of shots and you're teammates are not shooting and you're losing?
Right now, Kobe has willed the Lakers to a 22-19 record. It will be interesting to see what happens the rest of the way.
[B]Posted by Scottie Pippen - Jan 24 2006 4:28PM[/B][/QUOTE]
This thread is just going in circles. :oldlol:
I really don't see how you can compare the two at those points in their careers. Kobe of '08 vs Jordan from '92 or '93 would make much more sense in terms of age, game, and overall basketball intelligence.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]My personal opinion is that it would be easier for the young slashing MJ to score with with the loss of handchecking and physicality along with the addition of the 3-second defensive rule. Here's an excerpt from an old Scottie Pippen article that gives his point of view on the differences in the eras (one that I agree with)...[/QUOTE]
I think that with the slower game, prevalance of half court defenses and offenses, prevalance of shading, and the doing away of true isolation plays, young Jordan would not have put up the scoring numbers that he did his rookie season. Again, that fast paced full court era catered to players with Jordan's skill and talent.
As his career went on, Jordan improved his mid range game in order to adapt to the slower, half court style of play.
Notice how Scottie doesn't mention that the average team back in 1984 averaged 10 more points a game than teams do now. He doesn't mention that the game was faster... that it was easier for slashers to take advantage of the full court game, attacking defenses before they were set... basically, If I'm to take what Scottie said at face value, I have to believe that teams back in 1984 who gave up 110 points a game on average, made it more difficult to score than teams today that give up 100 points.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]This is a good question.
The reason rebounding didn't see a significant decrease for centers is that the number of rebounds available per game didn't see a significant decrease. Normally, you'd think... well, fewer shots taken per game would mean fewer rebounds available... but the answer lies in why there were fewer shots taken per game; defenses got better and made it more difficult to score, and especially to do so, quickly. As a result, though the number of shots decreased, the number of missed shots stayed relatively the same. In 1985, teams, on average, missed 3,718 shots per year. In 2008, teams, on average, missed 3627 shots a year. That's a difference of about 1.1 fewer missed shots a game per team. Also, remember that teams are taking more threes now than back then, and the three is, by it's very nature, a lower percentage shot.
I'd also add that because teams in the 80s played such a faster pace of basketball, centers didn't always get back to rebound fast break misses or quick shots.
If I told you that next season, Lebron would only play high scoring teams and teams that gave up a lot of points like the Suns, Nuggets, Warriors and Grizzlies, do you think there would be a good chance that that would affect his numbers?[/QUOTE]
I know it would affect his stats, but not everyone back then was a fast break team.Mj knew how to stl the ball in his era and he did the same thing in this era.When he was 40 he got 123 stls, but playing in only 67 games and was injured.My point was If u know how to rebound,stl,blk u still get the same stats in this era.My point is if u take Kobe and put him in the 80s and early 90s he won't start averging 2 stls a gm because he doesn't have the anticipation like say iverson does.How would players know play in that era??They complain about every touch foul on the perimeter and get calls for handchecking.I also think old skool players will have a hard time adjusting to the new rules and some defenders who were great back trhen would be subpar know.Dumars could move his feet good, but he relied on shoving Mj alot to tire him out.How would would Mj play if he doesn't get touched on the perimeter?
[QUOTE=MaxFly]I think that with the slower game, prevalance of half court defenses and offenses, prevalance of shading, and the doing away of true isolation plays, young Jordan would not have put up the scoring numbers that he did his rookie season. Again, that fast paced full court era catered to players with Jordan's skill and talent.
As his career went on, Jordan improved his mid range game in order to adapt to the slower, half court style of play.
Notice how Scottie doesn't mention that the average team back in 1984 averaged 10 more points a game than teams do now. He doesn't mention that the game was faster... that it was easier for slashers to take advantage of the full court game, attacking defenses before they were set... basically, If I'm to take what Scottie said at face value, I have to believe that teams back in 1984 who gave up 110 points a game on average, made it more difficult to score than teams today that give up 100 points.[/QUOTE]
Dwade put up 28ppg and could barley shoot from 16ft.Mj has a rookie had a game 18ft and in.Dwade in this era just like Mj did.Gong hard to the basket with no fear of getting hit to the ground.So u would believe wade can averge 28ppg playing this style, but Mj couldn't.Mj tried to improve his game every year.He didn't do it because he thought the way the game was played was going to change.The resason he worked on his jumpers so much after his first retirement is because he was not has explosive anymore.
[QUOTE=juju151111]I know it would affect his stats, but not everyone back then was a fast break team.[/QUOTE]
Granted, not every team back then was a fast break team by design, but the vast majority of them were... and even the stingiest teams back then, those that gave up the fewest number of points, still gave up a lot of points. In 1984 the Bucks were the team to allow the fewest number of points per game... they gave up 104 points per game.
[QUOTE]Mj knew how to stl the ball in his era and he did the same thing in this era.When he was 40 he got 123 stls, but playing in only 67 games and was injured.My point was If u know how to rebound,stl,blk u still get the same stats in this era.My point is if u take Kobe and put him in the 80s and early 90s he won't start averging 2 stls a gm because he doesn't have the anticipation like say iverson does.[/QUOTE]
I don't think he would necessarily average more steals, but he'd likely average slightly more rebounds a game playing closer to the basket and certainly more points on a better fg%.
[QUOTE]How would players know play in that era??They complain about every touch foul on the perimeter and get calls for handchecking.[/QUOTE]
How would Lebron react to a true iso where defenders couldn't roam and you either had to commit to the double or not... oh, and you couldn't double until you had the ball in your hands. Of course players argue now given the contact and the rules, but if the rules change, they'll adapt to the rules.
[QUOTE]I also think old skool players will have a hard time adjusting to the new rules and some defenders who were great back trhen would be subpar know.Dumars could move his feet good, but he relied on shoving Mj alot to tire him out.How would would Mj play if he doesn't get touched on the perimeter?[/QUOTE]
I think MJ would be great regardless... my question is how a rookie MJ would play in a half court defense where he could be doubled even without the ball, where there were fewer fast break opportunities, and where he couldn't run isolation plays.
[QUOTE=juju151111]Dwade put up 28ppg and could barley shoot from 16ft.Mj has a rookie had a game 18ft and in.Dwade in this era just like Mj did.Gong hard to the basket with no fear of getting hit to the ground.So u would believe wade can averge 28ppg playing this style, but Mj couldn't.Mj tried to improve his game every year.He didn't do it because he thought the way the game was played was going to change.The resason he worked on his jumpers so much after his first retirement is because he was not has explosive anymore.[/QUOTE]
D. Wade highest average was 27.4 points a game but he also saw a lot of single coverage because of Shaq and the great shooters he had on the team. Put D. Wade in a full court system in 1984 and he would have done even better because that kind of play caters to his strengths as a player.
[IMG]http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj135/JWA2_18/kobe.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Granted, not every team back then was a fast break team by design, but the vast majority of them were... and even the stingiest teams back then, those that gave up the fewest number of points, still gave up a lot of points. In 1984 the Bucks were the team to allow the fewest number of points per game... they gave up 104 points per game.
I don't think he would necessarily average more steals, but he'd likely average slightly more rebounds a game playing closer to the basket and certainly more points on a better fg%.
How would Lebron react to a true iso where defenders couldn't roam and you either had to commit to the double or not... oh, and you couldn't double until you had the ball in your hands. Of course players argue now given the contact and the rules, but if the rules change, they'll adapt to the rules.
I think MJ would be great regardless... my question is how a rookie MJ would play in a half court defense where he could be doubled even without the ball, where there were fewer fast break opportunities, and where he couldn't run isolation plays.[/QUOTE]
People know don't double until u have the ball.I have league pass and i watch alot of gms i don't see people getting doubled until they get the ball.I have seen it probably 3 or 4 times the whole season when a team went to some kind 1-2 zone.I never seen a team stay in zone defense for more then a Q.They always switch back cause it not that affective.The only time i seen somebody doubled somebody like that was when melo had 40pts and they doubled him before he had the ball so he couldn't get 50.
Kobe FG% would stay the same.Kobe will still be Kobe the guy who takes 3s in a bunch and jumpers in a bunch.players back then took mostly mid range or going to the basket.I was watchin nba classic and they had celtics vs someone(I forget) and it was the ECF and bird made a 3.The commentator said it was bird first 3 of the playoffs.I was shocked because he was one of the better 3 pt shooters.
Why do u keep saying people don't run isolation plays.Watch the end of a close BB.They do it every freaking time.LJ or Kobe gets the ball up top and his shooters stay in the corner.The only time they come double is if they drive whuch they did in the 80s and 90s too.Look at LJ in the finals last year when he missed the gm winner.I have seen plenty of iso.If a player is hot they do it like crazy.All u need was two guys who could take 3s so they don't double (paxton/pip).I don't see no double comin.Also if u know Mj u would know he would shoot way before the double comes.He freaking has some kind of spider sense.I have seen him back down someone a turnaround shot when he wasn't looking and in the post game interview he said he felt the double comin and in the replay he wasn't looking.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]D. Wade highest average was 27.4 points a game but he also saw a lot of single coverage because of Shaq and the great shooters he had on the team. Put D. Wade in a full court system in 1984 and he would have done even better because that kind of play caters to his strengths as a player.[/QUOTE]
he would of had to do that with handchecking rules and no 3 second rule with the centers.Also are u saying dwade can't averge 27ppg without shaq??Every player have great shooters around them so i don't count them, but u saying d wade can't averge 27ppg without shaq is interesting.Dwade will be injury free next season lets see if ur claim happens because i know for a fact Dwade can averge 27 ppg without shaq.
[QUOTE=Poseidon][IMG]http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj135/JWA2_18/kobe.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I know Kobe we all want to be LIKE MIKE [url]http://photobucket.com/image/kobe%20bulls/rceballos10/KobeBryant-Bulls.jpg?o=3[/url]
[QUOTE=InspiredLebowski]Jordan's walk-on at Illinois son Jeffrey or Kobe's wife. WHO WINS[/QUOTE]
Jeff's the man!!!!!!!
[IMG]http://www.illinoisloyalty.com/i/20071012/illini-basketball-madness-377.JPG[/IMG]
[IMG]http://bp0.blogger.com/_Cr3eftbZPZk/RzYS_P1I9HI/AAAAAAAABXc/TyyIn_WiYWk/s400/michaeljordan-1.jpg[/IMG]
Go Illini!!!
[QUOTE=juju151111]he would of had to do that with handchecking rules and no 3 second rule with the centers.Also are u saying dwade can't averge 27ppg without shaq??[/QUOTE]
He would also have had to do it in an era that catered to his strengths as a player... his quickness, his slashing ability. Handchecking isn't going to stop Dwyane Wade in the open court.
And yes, I think D. Wade would find it hard to average 27 a game on close to 50% shooting without Shaq, given the way he plays.
[QUOTE]Dwade will be injury free next season lets see if ur claim happens because i know for a fact Dwade can averge 27 ppg without shaq.[/QUOTE]
I think D. Wade can continue to average 27 without Shaq. I don't think he can do it at the efficiency he does it given the way he plays and how teams defend him. If he works on his mid-range game, we'll see. Keep in mind that D. Wade isn't a rookie. Would Jordan average 28 points a game on nearly 50% shooting in his rookie year?
[QUOTE=MaxFly]He would also have had to do it in an era that catered to his strengths as a player... his quickness, his slashing ability. Handchecking isn't going to stop Dwyane Wade in the open court.
And yes, I think D. Wade would find it hard to average 27 a game on close to 50% shooting without Shaq, given the way he plays.
I think D. Wade can continue to average 27 without Shaq. I don't think he can do it at the efficiency he does it given the way he plays and how teams defend him. If he works on his mid-range game, we'll see. Keep in mind that D. Wade isn't a rookie. Would Jordan average 28 points a game on nearly 50% shooting in his rookie year?[/QUOTE]
I think he can averge around the same thing.What are u talking about??They will rotate just like they do today and play off of him.
Once again MJ had a 18ft and 20ft jumper from his rookie season.D wade jumper in 06 was equal to mj jumper in his rookie season.Wade rookie season he couldn't shoot for crap.I think d wade will averge 26-8 ppg and 48-50% next season.
Are you happy, Kobe?
Happy to trick the little kids into believing you would be anything close to MJ?
Let them watch Naruto, and get the hell out of my TV.
Goodness gracious, to even compare them is laughable...:ohwell:
You can list stats and arguments all the way you want, but answer me one question:
How did MJ manage to give me goosebumps with his game, when Kobe brings nothing more than a bored look on my face?
And I`m not a MJ groupie. My vote for GOAT goes to Larry Bird.
Gosh, kids nowadays...
looks like you've had another productive weekend :oldlol:
[QUOTE]Well then state your age and tell me when you started watching the NBA.[/QUOTE]
23. 1987
[QUOTE]Thanks again.[/QUOTE]
:confusedshrug:
[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 he had energy to shoot alot more shots he would've had the energy to drive to the basket
[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]
kobe recently averaged 35.4ppg with no other offensive force on the team, i'm sure he'd be capable of 28 or even 30ppg on that piston team
[QUOTE]Well all the information available points to the team still being very good.[/QUOTE]
but not of championship caliber
[QUOTE]Comparing 1 game to 37 or 38? 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]
he missed 16 games one year. this is in no way something that would carry on for 82 games and into the playoffs. shaq needed kobe
[QUOTE]Nice complete argument![/QUOTE]
it wasn't an argument, it was a statement
[QUOTE]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]
well he couldn't possibly have done worse than what hill accomplished that year
[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]
obviously if someone plays more minutes than what they usually do they are going to average more points, which is obviously what happened in this situation, and he only averaged 2 points more than what he would've if he played his regular minutes..its not rocket science.
[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.[/QUOTE]
i know, i decide who is the better player
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
the 2.25spg over the 1.6spg and the 1.75bpg over the 0.9spg make his numbers better overall
[QUOTE]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]
the first four games weren't the suns most important games. in the most important game in the suns season (game 5 elimination game) penny went a disgusting 1-9 with only 3 rebounds and 2 assists in 40 minutes in a blowout loss
[QUOTE]I guess if I were you I wouldn't want to face reality either.[/QUOTE]
that didn't make any sense
[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]
all your points are weak/baseless. there is no point saying glen rice would've averaged this if he was the second option instead of the third
[QUOTE]Because "yeh" sounds f*cking retarted.[/QUOTE]
yeh sounds retarded? say "yeh", then say "yeah"..they sound the ****in same you dumb ****
[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]
these are the facts: shaq hadn't yet won a championship, the lakers went on 16 and 19 game win streaks with kobe and shaq both playing, and common sense playes a big role too. the lakers were obviously much stronger with kobe, and he proved to be huge at huge moments..game 7 of the portland series for example: he totally outplayed shaq and led the lakers into the finals with a line of 25/11/7 with 4 blocks.
[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]
what you thought was obvious was obviously thrown out the door when the eighth seed split the first two games with the 67 win lakers.
[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]
another baseless argument. "jones is easily the best perimiter defender" shut the **** up. give me reasons you little smelly boy
[QUOTE]And Jordan's driving game was more than twice that of Kobe's.[/QUOTE]
kobe's clutch game, defense, wins, and all-round smarts were all better than jordans
[QUOTE]Well then state your age and tell me when you started watching the NBA.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Shep] 23. 1987[/QUOTE]
You're 23? That means you were either born in 1984 or 1985. How the hell you start watching basketball (and know what you were looking at) when you were 2 or 3 years old?
That must be sarcasm. :confusedshrug:
[QUOTE=Shep]
23. 1987[/QUOTE]
So you remember watching the NBA at 2 years old? :roll:
[QUOTE]if he had energy to shoot alot more shots he would've had the energy to drive to the basket[/QUOTE]
Yes he was driving to the basket more getting to the free throw line 3 more times per game in 1987 than he was in his rookie year but because of all the extra shots the ratio might not be better.
[QUOTE]kobe recently averaged 35.4ppg with no other offensive force on the team, i'm sure he'd be capable of 28 or even 30ppg on that piston team[/QUOTE]
First of all 2006 Kobe was much more polished in every way. Look at the improvement in his 3 point shot, post game and he was even much stronger not to mention how the change in the handechking rule helped perimeter scorers so Kobe's 2005-2006 season is irrelevant to his 1999-2000 season.
[QUOTE]but not of championship caliber[/QUOTE]
What information points to that?
[QUOTE]he missed 16 games one year. this is in no way something that would carry on for 82 games and into the playoffs. shaq needed kobe[/QUOTE]
He needed him? That's why he kept winning at a great rate while he was out. Kobe was actually out to start that season so Shaq got the season started very strongly winning all of those games without Bryant. Shaq did need Kobe in 2002 to win the championship without a doubt and possibly 2001 but not 2000.
[QUOTE]it wasn't an argument, it was a statement[/QUOTE]
So you counter my argument with a statement? :oldlol:
[QUOTE]well he couldn't possibly have done worse than what hill accomplished that year[/QUOTE]
Yes he could have done far worse than 42-40. Kobe's Lakers finished what 34-48 in 2004-2005? Bryant was much better at that point than he was in 2000 and he missed the exact same amount of games.
[QUOTE]obviously if someone plays more minutes than what they usually do they are going to average more points, which is obviously what happened in this situation, and he only averaged 2 points more than what he would've if he played his regular minutes..its not rocket science.[/QUOTE]
However when you are a top 2 player on your team then playing more minutes is helping your team. Penny playing more minutes than Kobe shouldn't be held against him. The bottom line is he scored more and had better assist numbers while shooting a better %. That's being more productive.
[QUOTE]i know, i decide who is the better player[/QUOTE]
:roll:
[QUOTE]the 2.25spg over the 1.6spg and the 1.75bpg over the 0.9spg make his numbers better overall[/QUOTE]
No that doesn't make up for the 1.8 drop in rpg, the 1.4 drop in apg and the 0.5 drop in ppg.
[QUOTE]the first four games weren't the suns most important games. in the most important game in the suns season (game 5 elimination game) penny went a disgusting 1-9 with only 3 rebounds and 2 assists in 40 minutes in a blowout loss[/QUOTE]
Yeah and even with that terrible game it wasn't enough to bring his averages down below Kobe's.
[QUOTE]all your points are weak/baseless. there is no point saying glen rice would've averaged this if he was the second option instead of the third[/QUOTE]
Why not? You just said Kobe would've averaged 28 or 30 ppg as a first option on that Piston team.
[QUOTE]yeh sounds retarded? say "yeh", then say "yeah"..they sound the ****in same you dumb ****[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't sound the same you f*cking moron.
[QUOTE]these are the facts: shaq hadn't yet won a championship, the lakers went on 16 and 19 game win streaks with kobe and shaq both playing, and common sense playes a big role too. the lakers were obviously much stronger with kobe, and he proved to be huge at huge moments..game 7 of the portland series for example: he totally outplayed shaq and led the lakers into the finals with a line of 25/11/7 with 4 blocks.[/QUOTE]
I never said they'd be better without Kobe I just said they would still be a great team without him.
[QUOTE]what you thought was obvious was obviously thrown out the door when the eighth seed split the first two games with the 67 win lakers.[/QUOTE]
A weaker team can get a few fluke wins especially in a 5 game series but when it comes down to the deciding game at home and you have by far the best team, by far the best player and the best coach then there is no chance that they are losing that game.
[QUOTE]another baseless argument. "jones is easily the best perimiter defender" shut the **** up. give me reasons you little smelly boy[/QUOTE]
Little smelly boy???? wtf :roll: That was your worst insult yet.
I told you. Unlike Kobe, Jones could be counted on to shut down elite perimeter scorers while Kobe was lit up more often.
You give me reasons why Kobe was the better defender.
[QUOTE]kobe's clutch game, defense, wins, and all-round smarts were all better than jordans[/QUOTE]
Kobe looked better because of his role. He got to be the second option on a team with by far the best player in the league at the time and the best coach. Give Jordan that situation and I guarantee his smarts look better, defense and clutch game look better.
With Phil and Shaq, rookie Jordan would play with a dominant first option and he wouldn't face that many double teams meaning he'd have to do less and thus turn the ball over much less, force less poor shots and pass the ball more. Rookie Jordan's defense would also improve because he'd be playing under an elite defensive coach and with Shaq who finished 2nd in DPOY voting and was maybe the most intimidating player of all time. As for his clutch game well with the attention Shaq drew Jordan would have more space to make his move and less pressure considering he wasn't the first option. Not to mention a great coach like Phil can draw up plays that would help rookie Jordan more.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]You're 23? That means you were either born in 1984 or 1985. How the hell you start watching basketball (and know what you were looking at) when you were 2 or 3 years old?
That must be sarcasm. :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
Nothing Shep ever says is based on logic so I'm afraid he is probably serious as sad as that sounds.
[QUOTE]You're 23? That means you were either born in 1984 or 1985. How the hell you start watching basketball (and know what you were looking at) when you were 2 or 3 years old?
That must be sarcasm.[/QUOTE]
my older brother use to watch games all the time and i remember always being around him, whatever he did i did, so i watched nba
[QUOTE]So you remember watching the NBA at 2 years old?[/QUOTE]
yes
[QUOTE]Yes he was driving to the basket more getting to the free throw line 3 more times per game in 1987 than he was in his rookie year but because of all the extra shots the ratio might not be better.[/QUOTE]
all the extra shots should've led to a better free throw ratio than his rookie season, especially considering he was a superstar from his third year
[QUOTE]First of all 2006 Kobe was much more polished in every way. Look at the improvement in his 3 point shot, post game and he was even much stronger not to mention how the change in the handechking rule helped perimeter scorers so Kobe's 2005-2006 season is irrelevant to his 1999-2000 season.[/QUOTE]
2000 kobe was a much better rebounder, passer, and defender, and he also took better care of the ball. the shooting percentages were basically the same, and the only real statistic he had on 2000 kobe was ppg. kobe bryant was still kobe bryant.
[QUOTE]What information points to that?[/QUOTE]
common sense
[QUOTE]He needed him? That's why he kept winning at a great rate while he was out. Kobe was actually out to start that season so Shaq got the season started very strongly winning all of those games without Bryant. Shaq did need Kobe in 2002 to win the championship without a doubt and possibly 2001 but not 2000.[/QUOTE]
wow. you've just gone on record saying that the lakers would beat sacramento, portland, and indiana, all without kobe bryant in 2000. how do you feel? :roll:
[QUOTE]So you counter my argument with a statement?[/QUOTE]
argument? you never had an argument :roll:
[QUOTE]Yes he could have done far worse than 42-40. Kobe's Lakers finished what 34-48 in 2004-2005? Bryant was much better at that point than he was in 2000 and he missed the exact same amount of games.[/QUOTE]
2005 kobe was nowhere near the player he was in 2000
[QUOTE]However when you are a top 2 player on your team then playing more minutes is helping your team. Penny playing more minutes than Kobe shouldn't be held against him. The bottom line is he scored more and had better assist numbers while shooting a better %. That's being more productive.[/QUOTE]
no, it shouldn't be held against kobe 2 of the 4 victories were blowout wins so kobe didn't have to average 45mpg to be competitive..scott skiles obviously thought he needed penny out there almost every minute of the game..even when he's going 1-9 :roll:
[QUOTE]No that doesn't make up for the 1.8 drop in rpg, the 1.4 drop in apg and the 0.5 drop in ppg.[/QUOTE]
it does
[QUOTE]Yeah and even with that terrible game it wasn't enough to bring his averages down below Kobe's.[/QUOTE]
who cares? kobe just won the series 4-1 you think he gives a **** about who scored more points throughout the whole 5 games? the suns just got dominated in an elimination game thanks in part to the woeful display put on by their second best player, a top 5 shooting guard in the nba.
[QUOTE]Why not? You just said Kobe would've averaged 28 or 30 ppg as a first option on that Piston team.[/QUOTE]
i'm just beating you at your own game..simple
[QUOTE]No it doesn't sound the same you f*cking moron.[/QUOTE]
wait..you actually pronounce the "a" when saying "yeah"? no wonder you have no friends, you can't even ****in talk properly :roll:
[QUOTE]I never said they'd be better without Kobe I just said they would still be a great team without him.[/QUOTE]
no 'ship, no 67 wins
[QUOTE]A weaker team can get a few fluke wins especially in a 5 game series but when it comes down to the deciding game at home and you have by far the best team, by far the best player and the best coach then there is no chance that they are losing that game.[/QUOTE]
it was unlikely, but there would've been some very nervous laker fans before that game 5
[QUOTE]Little smelly boy???? wtf That was your worst insult yet.[/QUOTE]
:cry:
[QUOTE]I told you. Unlike Kobe, Jones could be counted on to shut down elite perimeter scorers while Kobe was lit up more often.[/QUOTE]
reggie miller was shut down in the finals by kobe. kobe held the league's second highest scorer allen iverson to 7-25 and 6-20 shooting in two regular season games for an average of 15.5ppg for 2 victories, down almost half of his 28.4ppg average..meanwhile the same iverson goes off for 40 on eddie jones and the charlotte hornets in a game 1 that set the tone for the rest of the series
[QUOTE]You give me reasons why Kobe was the better defender.[/QUOTE]
:lol
[QUOTE]Kobe looked better because of his role. He got to be the second option on a team with by far the best player in the league at the time and the best coach. Give Jordan that situation and I guarantee his smarts look better, defense and clutch game look better.[/QUOTE]
we'll never know
[QUOTE]With Phil and Shaq, rookie Jordan would play with a dominant first option and he wouldn't face that many double teams meaning he'd have to do less and thus turn the ball over much less, force less poor shots and pass the ball more. Rookie Jordan's defense would also improve because he'd be playing under an elite defensive coach and with Shaq who finished 2nd in DPOY voting and was maybe the most intimidating player of all time. As for his clutch game well with the attention Shaq drew Jordan would have more space to make his move and less pressure considering he wasn't the first option. Not to mention a great coach like Phil can draw up plays that would help rookie Jordan more.[/QUOTE]
no. rookie jordan had no range, therefore shaq would be clogging the lane for jordans pet move: the drive. kobe's outside game was the perfect match to shaq's inside game.
bryant for me
Wow. I would take the current Kobe over the '84 Jordan. The current Kobe is more polished, that '84 Jordan was still raw.
[QUOTE=Shep]my older brother use to watch games all the time and i remember always being around him, whatever he did i did, so i watched nba
yes
all the extra shots should've led to a better free throw ratio than his rookie season, especially considering he was a superstar from his third year
2000 kobe was a much better rebounder, passer, and defender, and he also took better care of the ball. the shooting percentages were basically the same, and the only real statistic he had on 2000 kobe was ppg. kobe bryant was still kobe bryant.
common sense
wow. you've just gone on record saying that the lakers would beat sacramento, portland, and indiana, all without kobe bryant in 2000. how do you feel? :roll:
argument? you never had an argument :roll:
2005 kobe was nowhere near the player he was in 2000
no, it shouldn't be held against kobe 2 of the 4 victories were blowout wins so kobe didn't have to average 45mpg to be competitive..scott skiles obviously thought he needed penny out there almost every minute of the game..even when he's going 1-9 :roll:
it does
who cares? kobe just won the series 4-1 you think he gives a **** about who scored more points throughout the whole 5 games? the suns just got dominated in an elimination game thanks in part to the woeful display put on by their second best player, a top 5 shooting guard in the nba.
i'm just beating you at your own game..simple
wait..you actually pronounce the "a" when saying "yeah"? no wonder you have no friends, you can't even ****in talk properly :roll:
no 'ship, no 67 wins
it was unlikely, but there would've been some very nervous laker fans before that game 5
:cry:
reggie miller was shut down in the finals by kobe. kobe held the league's second highest scorer allen iverson to 7-25 and 6-20 shooting in two regular season games for an average of 15.5ppg for 2 victories, down almost half of his 28.4ppg average..meanwhile the same iverson goes off for 40 on eddie jones and the charlotte hornets in a game 1 that set the tone for the rest of the series
:lol
we'll never know
no. rookie jordan had no range, therefore shaq would be clogging the lane for jordans pet move: the drive. kobe's outside game was the perfect match to shaq's inside game.[/QUOTE]
lol...unless you are extremely gifted ..you don't remember anything when you were 2
This is a joke right :wtf:
[QUOTE=Shep]
kobe's clutch game, defense, wins, and all-round smarts were all better than jordans[/QUOTE]
:roll: :lol :oldlol: :lol :oldlol: :roll: :roll: I can't stop laughing.Please tell another joke ur funny.
[QUOTE=Shep]
no. rookie jordan had no range, therefore shaq would be clogging the lane for jordans pet move: the drive. kobe's outside game was the perfect match to shaq's inside game.[/QUOTE]
:( This is the dumbest comment i have ever read in my life.No joke.:wtf:
Video spotlights a [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwyqE22CSyM&feature=PlayList&p=54E559C8CA83F25E&index=9"]game during MJ's rookie year[/URL].
He was an [I]athlete![/I] And he played defense even during his rookie year.
larry bird at the height of his powers said during the 84/85 season that michael jordon was the best player hes ever played against- that was mj as a rookie.
:roll: [QUOTE=Shep]all the extra shots should've led to a better free throw ratio than his rookie season, especially considering he was a superstar from his third year[/QUOTE]
No you f*cking idiot. The more shots you take, the more energy you use. The less energy you have, the harder it is to attack the rim and get to the line. Jordan took 8 more shots in 1987 than in his rookie season and he played 2 more minutes per game.
[QUOTE]2000 kobe was a much better rebounder, passer, and defender, and he also took better care of the ball. the shooting percentages were basically the same, and the only real statistic he had on 2000 kobe was ppg. kobe bryant was still kobe bryant.[/QUOTE]
Kobe averaged 13 more ppg in 2006 than he did in 2000. Kobe also carried a pretty sh*tty team to 45 wins and the playoffs.
[QUOTE]wow. you've just gone on record saying that the lakers would beat sacramento, portland, and indiana, all without kobe bryant in 2000. how do you feel? :roll:[/QUOTE]
Kobe wasn't even good for most of the Indiana series. :roll: 15.6 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 4.2 apg, 36.7 FG%
[QUOTE]2005 kobe was nowhere near the player he was in 2000[/QUOTE]
:roll:
[QUOTE]no, it shouldn't be held against kobe 2 of the 4 victories were blowout wins so kobe didn't have to average 45mpg to be competitive..scott skiles obviously thought he needed penny out there almost every minute of the game..even when he's going 1-9 :roll: [/QUOTE]
That's because Penny didn't have the benfit of playing with by far the best player in the league.
[QUOTE]who cares? kobe just won the series 4-1 you think he gives a **** about who scored more points throughout the whole 5 games? the suns just got dominated in an elimination game thanks in part to the woeful display put on by their second best player, a top 5 shooting guard in the nba.[/QUOTE]
Once again Penny didn't have the benfit of playing with by far the best player in the league. Switch Penny and Kobe and the Lakers still win in 5 if not 4.
[QUOTE]i'm just beating you at your own game..simple[/QUOTE]
:roll: how? You haven't made any sense yet.
[QUOTE]no 'ship, no 67 wins[/QUOTE]
You base this on nothing. the team was 12-3 without Kobe when Shaq was in the lineup.
[QUOTE]reggie miller was shut down in the finals by kobe. kobe held the league's second highest scorer allen iverson to 7-25 and 6-20 shooting in two regular season games for an average of 15.5ppg for 2 victories, down almost half of his 28.4ppg average..meanwhile the same iverson goes off for 40 on eddie jones and the charlotte hornets in a game 1 that set the tone for the rest of the series[/QUOTE]
Iverson is known to be streaky. He can go off on any given night or he can shoot 7-25 on any given night. Iverson also dropped 48 on Kobe in the 2001 Finals. He can off against anyone.
[QUOTE]no. rookie jordan had no range, therefore shaq would be clogging the lane for jordans pet move: the drive. kobe's outside game was the perfect match to shaq's inside game.[/QUOTE]
:roll: Shaq wouldn't make Jordan worse. Man now you're really talking out of your ass.
[QUOTE]No you f*cking idiot. The more shots you take, the more energy you use. The less energy you have, the harder it is to attack the rim and get to the line. Jordan took 8 more shots in 1987 than in his rookie season and he played 2 more minutes per game.[/QUOTE]
jordan was also a top 3 player in the nba in 1987, so he would be getting alot more superstar calls. more shots + more superstar calls = more free throws
[QUOTE]Kobe averaged 13 more ppg in 2006 than he did in 2000. Kobe also carried a pretty sh*tty team to 45 wins and the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
the increase of 13ppg was due to him having that same "pretty sh*tty team". lamar odom was a very good second option with his nightly 15/9/6/1/1.
[QUOTE]Kobe wasn't even good for most of the Indiana series. 15.6 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 4.2 apg, 36.7 FG%[/QUOTE]
stopping the other teams most dangerous offensive option isn't good to you? :roll: not to mention he played half of that series injured, and came up huge when that fat guy fouled out. kobe brings alot more than stats anyway, if you actually watched the 2000 playoffs you'd know this.
[QUOTE]:roll: [/QUOTE]
:oldlol: :roll: :roll: :oldlol:
[QUOTE]That's because Penny didn't have the benfit of playing with by far the best player in the league. [/QUOTE]
so he should've averaged alot more than what he did, especially playing with a top 2 point guard
[QUOTE]Once again Penny didn't have the benfit of playing with by far the best player in the league. Switch Penny and Kobe and the Lakers still win in 5 if not 4.[/QUOTE]
heresay bs. switch kobe with penny and shaq injures his left pinky and sits out the rest of the year while kobe leads the suns past the lakers.
[QUOTE] how? You haven't made any sense yet.[/QUOTE]
:roll: read from my first post on
[QUOTE]You base this on nothing. the team was 12-3 without Kobe when Shaq was in the lineup.[/QUOTE]
how far does 12 wins get you? the first draft pick?
[QUOTE]Iverson is known to be streaky. He can go off on any given night or he can shoot 7-25 on any given night.[/QUOTE]
:lol more excuses. i give you facts, you give excuses.
[QUOTE]Iverson also dropped 48 on Kobe in the 2001 Finals. He can off against anyone.[/QUOTE]
:roll: more proof you haven't seen a game of nba basketball in your life. kobe was guarded by derek fisher and ty lue you dumb ****
[QUOTE]Shaq wouldn't make Jordan worse. Man now you're really talking out of your ass.[/QUOTE]
jordan was a guard who had no range, shaq was a center who had no range. yes the team would win more games if it had shaq but rookie jordan would not be better statistically
[QUOTE=Shep]jordan was also a top 3 player in the nba in 1987, so he would be getting alot more superstar calls. more shots + more superstar calls = more free throws
the increase of 13ppg was due to him having that same "pretty sh*tty team". lamar odom was a very good second option with his nightly 15/9/6/1/1.
stopping the other teams most dangerous offensive option isn't good to you? :roll: not to mention he played half of that series injured, and came up huge when that fat guy fouled out. kobe brings alot more than stats anyway, if you actually watched the 2000 playoffs you'd know this.
:oldlol: :roll: :roll: :oldlol:
so he should've averaged alot more than what he did, especially playing with a top 2 point guard
heresay bs. switch kobe with penny and shaq injures his left pinky and sits out the rest of the year while kobe leads the suns past the lakers.
:roll: read from my first post on
how far does 12 wins get you? the first draft pick?
:lol more excuses. i give you facts, you give excuses.
:roll: more proof you haven't seen a game of nba basketball in your life. kobe was guarded by derek fisher and ty lue you dumb ****
jordan was a guard who had no range, shaq was a center who had no range. yes the team would win more games if it had shaq but rookie jordan would not be better statistically[/QUOTE]
LOl no range MJ could shoot from 20ft has a rookie retard and how does dwade who can't shoot like mj play with shaq then.ur a fing retard.u make lakers fans look dumb(even tho most of them are dumb)
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]Video spotlights a [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwyqE22CSyM&feature=PlayList&p=54E559C8CA83F25E&index=9"]game during MJ's rookie year[/URL].
He was an [I]athlete![/I] And he played defense even during his rookie year.[/QUOTE]
look ho3w far he took off from whilt doing rock the craddle:eek: :wtf: :wtf: :bowdown:
[QUOTE=Shep]jordan was also a top 3 player in the nba in 1987, so he would be getting alot more superstar calls. more shots + more superstar calls = more free throws[/QUOTE]
You're an idiot. Don't underestimate how much energy it takes to shoot an additional 8 shots every night and play an additional 2 minutes.
[QUOTE]the increase of 13ppg was due to him having that same "pretty sh*tty team". lamar odom was a very good second option with his nightly 15/9/6/1/1.[/QUOTE]
:roll: A 22.5 ppg scorer doesn't because anywhere near a 35.4 ppg scorer just by switching roles. Don't forget Kobe was a MUCH better 3 point shooter and much stronger in 2006.
[QUOTE]stopping the other teams most dangerous offensive option isn't good to you? :roll: not to mention he played half of that series injured, and came up huge when that fat guy fouled out. kobe brings alot more than stats anyway, if you actually watched the 2000 playoffs you'd know this.[/QUOTE]
I did watch the 2000 playoffs. One of many reasons I'm such a hug Shaq fan today. Kobe had 2 good games in the entire series. Game 1 and Game 4.
[QUOTE]so he should've averaged alot more than what he did, especially playing with a top 2 point guard[/QUOTE]
I posted the stats for the series, you can't expect a player who averaged 16, 6 and 5 to average much more than thta in a series.
[QUOTE]heresay bs. switch kobe with penny and shaq injures his left pinky and sits out the rest of the year while kobe leads the suns past the lakers.[/QUOTE]
:roll: What? Shaq carried the Lakers when kobe was injured. A 12-3 record sound familiar? And that was to start the season so the momentum from that start was very important. Your comment didn't make sense.
[QUOTE]how far does 12 wins get you? the first draft pick?[/QUOTE]
How far does an 80 winning % get you? 66 wins.
[QUOTE]:lol more excuses. i give you facts, you give excuses.[/QUOTE]
Not one fact yet.
[QUOTE]:roll: more proof you haven't seen a game of nba basketball in your life. kobe was guarded by derek fisher and ty lue you dumb ****[/QUOTE]
You f*cking idiot. They switched on and off but Kobe guarded Iverson quite a bit in the 2001 Finals. When Iverson was torching Kobe and Fisher they tried Lue on him which worked for a while. Iverson went cold in the 4th quarter.
[QUOTE]jordan was a guard who had no range, shaq was a center who had no range. yes the team would win more games if it had shaq but rookie jordan would not be better statistically[/QUOTE]
Once again as another poster pointed out look at Wade and Shaq in Shaq's first 2 seasons. That worked pretty well didn't it?
Give it up the other posters in this thread are laughing at your stupidity.
Kobe
[quote]Shep[/quote]:roll:
Interesting question, and of course it goes to Bryant. But of course you have to go with Bryant if you dont want to discredit Kobe vs Jordan completely.