A Rookie 1984 Michael Jordan or a Current Kobe Bryant?

[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]
:lol energy. shut up. he was a bonifide superstar in 1987 so more shots should've atleast equaled his ratio from 1985
[QUOTE] 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]
28ppg is very reasonable. no fat guy in the middle clogging lanes, freeing up 20+ shots per game, you'd be a retard to think he wouldn't be capable of doing so..oh wait
[QUOTE]Kobe had 2 good games in the entire series. Game 1 and Game 4.[/QUOTE]
in the most important game of the season he was spectacular, leading the lakers to an overtime victory (game 4) with the fat guy fouled out. he only played 9 minutes in game 2 due to injury, did not play in game 3 due to this injury (the game in which miller located his shot and found some momentum). the only game in which he played below par was game 5.
[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]
why not?
[QUOTE]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]
this has got nothing to do with what you responded to
[QUOTE]How far does an 80 winning % get you? 66 wins.[/QUOTE]
66 games out of 15 games? how is that possible? :roll:
[QUOTE]Not one fact yet.[/QUOTE]
go back and read from post 1
[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]
kobe only guarded iverson once or twice, fisher and lue guarded iverson in that series. go watch the series then come back and pass judgement..because until you've done that your opinions are worthless..come to think of it they'd still probably be worthless after you had studied the tape for 20 hours, knowing your brain capacity.
[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?[/QUOTE]
:roll: you think it was shaq that made wade better statistically?
[QUOTE]Give it up the other posters in this thread are laughing at your stupidity.[/QUOTE]
who's laughing? that juju loser can't even construct a simple sentence..probably the type of person you'd get along with knowing your propensity to have retarded friends :roll:

[QUOTE=Da_Realist]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.[/QUOTE]


Do you have any links to where Tiger boldly stated that he wants to be the best ever? Also, do you have any links where Kobe states he wants to be the best ever? Though, in your post you mentioned it is by [I]intent[/I] that Kobe wants to be the best ever. How can you be so sure?

Kobe

[QUOTE=Shep]:lol energy. shut up. he was a bonifide superstar in 1987 so more shots should've atleast equaled his ratio from 1985[/QUOTE]

You aren't making any sense as usual.

[QUOTE]28ppg is very reasonable. no fat guy in the middle clogging lanes, freeing up 20+ shots per game, you'd be a retard to think he wouldn't be capable of doing so..oh wait[/QUOTE]

Without Shaq defenses would have been able to double and triple Kobe as much as they want. He'd have to take tougher shots and he'd have to work harder for his shots. I have my doubts he'd even average 25 points in 2000.

[QUOTE]in the most important game of the season he was spectacular, leading the lakers to an overtime victory (game 4) with the fat guy fouled out. he only played 9 minutes in game 2 due to injury, did not play in game 3 due to this injury (the game in which miller located his shot and found some momentum). the only game in which he played below par was game 5.[/QUOTE]

Kobe was also terrible(8-27) in game 6. So 2 out of 4 games he played like sh*t.

[QUOTE]why not?[/QUOTE]

Because they are already playing so far above their usual level.

[QUOTE]66 games out of 15 games? how is that possible? :roll: [/QUOTE]

I'm talking about the pace they were playing at. Makes more sense then you talking out of your ass with that stupid **** "12 wins is a lottery team".

[QUOTE]kobe only guarded iverson once or twice, fisher and lue guarded iverson in that series. go watch the series then come back and pass judgement..because until you've done that your opinions are worthless..come to think of it they'd still probably be worthless after you had studied the tape for 20 hours, knowing your brain capacity.[/QUOTE]

Coming from the retard who said Shawn Marion was better than Tim Duncan and Marcus Camby is better than Dwight Howard.

[QUOTE]:roll: you think it was shaq that made wade better statistically? [/QUOTE]

First of all I never said that. I said if they could play together then why not rookie Jordan and 2000 Shaq? 2000 Shaq>>>2004-2006 Shaq

Second of all yes he did make Wade better.

In 2003-2004 Wade averaged 16.2 ppg and 4.5 apg
In 2004-2005 Wade averaged 24.1 ppg and 6.8 apg

[QUOTE]who's laughing? that juju loser can't even construct a simple sentence..probably the type of person you'd get along with knowing your propensity to have retarded friends :roll:[/QUOTE]

A few other posters were laughing at you when you said you can remember watching basketball at 2 years old.

[QUOTE]You aren't making any sense as usual.[/QUOTE]
:confusedshrug:
[QUOTE]Without Shaq defenses would have been able to double and triple Kobe as much as they want. He'd have to take tougher shots and he'd have to work harder for his shots. I have my doubts he'd even average 25 points in 2000.[/QUOTE]
:roll: yes, he would only average 2 more points per game without a guy who would usually score 30 a night on the roster :roll: this makes perfect sense
[QUOTE]Kobe was also terrible(8-27) in game 6. So 2 out of 4 games he played like sh*t. [/QUOTE]
26 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal, 2 blocks, and 1 turnover think otherwise
[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]
for someone to average what he did for the first four games, you'd expect a better performance in a win or go home game than a 1-9
[QUOTE]I'm talking about the pace they were playing at. Makes more sense then you talking out of your ass with that stupid **** "12 wins is a lottery team".[/QUOTE]
you think taking a 15 game w/l ratio and making it into an 82 game season is ****in logical? so teams that go 14-1 during the first 15 games of the season would be expected to be the greatest single season team in the history of the game? get the **** out, and don't come back.
[QUOTE]Coming from the retard who said Shawn Marion was better than Tim Duncan and Marcus Camby is better than Dwight Howard.[/QUOTE]
= admitting you've got nothing. moving on..
[QUOTE]First of all I never said that. I said if they could play together then why not rookie Jordan and 2000 Shaq? 2000 Shaq>>>2004-2006 Shaq

Second of all yes he did make Wade better.

In 2003-2004 Wade averaged 16.2 ppg and 4.5 apg
In 2004-2005 Wade averaged 24.1 ppg and 6.8 apg[/QUOTE]
he didn't make wade nothing. wade was young, and if you had watched him in the '04 playoffs you'd know that he was a star on the rise
[QUOTE]A few other posters were laughing at you when you said you can remember watching basketball at 2 years old.[/QUOTE]
not my fault they can't believe something happened that actually did :D

[QUOTE=Shep]
:roll: yes, he would only average 2 more points per game without a guy who would usually score 30 a night on the roster :roll: this makes perfect sense[/QUOTE]

Yeah and his FG% would drop. He'd be the main focus of the defense and average 25 ppg max.

[QUOTE]26 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal, 2 blocks, and 1 turnover think otherwise[/QUOTE]

:roll: He had more shot attempts than points scored and he shot [B]29.6%[/B]. :roll: :roll:

[QUOTE]for someone to average what he did for the first four games, you'd expect a better performance in a win or go home game than a 1-9[/QUOTE]

He was already playing above his usual level at that point in his career so he was due to have a bad game. If this was 1995 Penny then I'd expect him to average over 20 ppg with good assist numbers on good shooting numbers but by 2000 Penny had declined quite a bit. He was still a good player but 16, 6 and 5 isn't that unusual.

[QUOTE]you think taking a 15 game w/l ratio and making it into an 82 game season is ****in logical? so teams that go 14-1 during the first 15 games of the season would be expected to be the greatest single season team in the history of the game? get the **** out, and don't come back.[/QUOTE]

I use that stretch as an example because they did pretty much keep up that pace the next few years with Kobe out. The team was 25-6 without Kobe during the 3peat. You base the 2000 Lakers needing Kobe to win the title on nothing. I have proof of what they did without Kobe and they were playing at a very high level.

[QUOTE]he didn't make wade nothing. wade was young, and if you had watched him in the '04 playoffs you'd know that he was a star on the rise[/QUOTE]

Yes everyone knew Wade was going to be a star which is why Shaq wanted to go there in the first place but there is a huge difference between 16 ppg/4 apg and 24 ppg/7 apg. Not to mention Miami won 17 more games despite losing arguably their best player from 2003-2004 Lamar Odom and another key player in Caron Butler.

[QUOTE]not my fault they can't believe something happened that actually did :D[/QUOTE]

It's not hard to believe that you watched games at 2 years old because they were on but there is no way in hell you can remember watching them.

[QUOTE]Yeah and his FG% would drop. He'd be the main focus of the defense and average 25 ppg max.[/QUOTE]
being easily the best player on his team, his number of touches and the time the ball was in his hand would increase dramatically, and there is no doubt he would've scored atleast 2 more field goals per game
[QUOTE]He had more shot attempts than points scored and he shot 29.6%.[/QUOTE]
so what? coaches always tell scorers to keep shooting, even if they are having an off night, you'd rather kobe went 8-27 than 3-10, especially in a close game. atleast he was still being aggressive, he went to the line 9 times and made 8, while recording 4 assists and only 1 turnover so offensively he made a huge contribution regardless of shooting percentages
[QUOTE]He was already playing above his usual level at that point in his career so he was due to have a bad game.[/QUOTE]
he was due to have a bad game? :lol i'm sure coach scott skiles would've sat back after being eliminated and thought to himself "well, he played good throughout games 1-4, so i expected him to play like a chump in game 5" :roll:
[QUOTE]I use that stretch as an example because they did pretty much keep up that pace the next few years with Kobe out. The team was 25-6 without Kobe during the 3peat. You base the 2000 Lakers needing Kobe to win the title on nothing. I have proof of what they did without Kobe and they were playing at a very high level.[/QUOTE]
that three year regular season record means nothing. if portland pushed la to 7 games with both shaq and kobe there is no way in hell they are losing to them without kobe. kobe even outplayed shaq in 3 or 4 games that series :oldlol:
[QUOTE]Yes everyone knew Wade was going to be a star which is why Shaq wanted to go there in the first place [/QUOTE]
yes, its the story of shaq's career - when the going gets tough bolt to another team with an up and coming superstar
[QUOTE]but there is a huge difference between 16 ppg/4 apg and 24 ppg/7 apg. Not to mention Miami won 17 more games despite losing arguably their best player from 2003-2004 Lamar Odom and another key player in Caron Butler.[/QUOTE]
yeh they won 17 more games - that will happen when you give away a guy who isn't even top 11 at his position and another guy who barely averages 9 points per game for a top 3 player. wade also had alot more of the ball due to not having odom around anymore and had significant increases in fga, fta, and turnovers.
[QUOTE]It's not hard to believe that you watched games at 2 years old because they were on but there is no way in hell you can remember watching them.[/QUOTE]
i'm not saying i can remember individual games, but i do remember doing it..it was like a family tradition :D

Anyone who takes rookie Jordan over this Kobe is beyond retarded.

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]Anyone who takes rookie Jordan over this Kobe is beyond retarded.[/QUOTE]

Why not ask about a rookie Kobe vs. prime Michael? :)

[QUOTE=Loki]They were different types of players. Rookie Jordan could most likely equal current Kobe's production, but Kobe's game management and the general polish of his game is more than what rookie Jordan's was. Rookie Jordan was also more of an energy/intensity player than current Kobe, so he could provide a spark that way.

I'd probably take current Kobe. I would take '87 and later Jordan over any version of Kobe, however.[/QUOTE]

Even Washington Wizards' MJ? :confusedshrug:

As an objective Jordan watcher, I'd say his best years were between 1990 - 1998.

[QUOTE=chopchop20]Even Washington Wizards' MJ? :confusedshrug:

As an objective Jordan watcher, I'd say his best years were between 1990 - 1998.[/QUOTE]
I would say 87-93prime years.

[QUOTE=Silverbullit]Why not ask about a rookie Kobe vs. prime Michael? :)[/QUOTE]

That isn't even close. Didn't you see Kobe take it to MJ as a rookie? Imagine him going up against an MJ that has 5 less years experience.

[QUOTE=juju151111]I would say 87-93prime years.[/QUOTE]

He didn't develop the consistent outside shot and fadeaway until the 90's

[QUOTE=chopchop20]He didn't develop the consistent outside shot and fadeaway until the 90's[/QUOTE]
MJ in the 80s had a great mid range gm.What are u talking about?He always had a 18 ft or in gm.

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]That isn't even close. Didn't you see Kobe take it to MJ as a rookie? Imagine him going up against an MJ that has 5 less years experience.[/QUOTE]

I only want to show how ridiculous those comparisons are :D

As much as I like Kobe, I still think a rookie MJ would be smart enough considering his college experience under Smith and his experience in the Olympics with Knight to be almost as basketball intelligent as prime Kobe. And his physical abilities were so amazing, that they might outweigh Kobe's years of honed skill. MJ would get to the bucket at will.

I refuse to read the original post. Who would take rookie Jordan over prime Kobe???

[QUOTE=chopchop20]Even Washington Wizards' MJ? :confusedshrug:
[/QUOTE]

Of course not Wizards Jordan. You know what I meant. :oldlol:

As for the common misconceptions and myths about Jordan's jumper, well, when Sports Illustrated in 1991 calls him "the best shooter in the league from 21 feet and in," then that didn't happen overnight. He didn't wake up in '91 and have a jumper. Here's how the progression of his jumper went in terms of range:

Rookie year: consistent from 17-18 feet and in
'87/'88: Consistent from 19-20 feet and in
'89/'90: Consistent from 21 feet and in plus range (38% on threes in '90)
'91-onward: 22 feet and in.

And when I say "consistent" I don't mean like Lebron or Wade, I mean much more than them. No way could SA play off even a 23 year old Jordan the way they did Lebron last year in the Finals not not get lit up for 40+ consistently. Jordan could hit those shots [i]very[/i] consistently. All anyone has to do is go watch some old games and not swallow the common misconceptions about his game.

[QUOTE=Loki]Of course not Wizards Jordan. You know what I meant. :oldlol:

As for the common misconceptions and myths about Jordan's jumper, well, when Sports Illustrated in 1991 calls him "the best shooter in the league from 21 feet and in," then that didn't happen overnight. He didn't wake up in '91 and have a jumper. Here's how the progression of his jumper went in terms of range:

Rookie year: consistent from 17-18 feet and in
'87/'88: Consistent from 19-20 feet and in
'89/'90: Consistent from 21 feet and in plus range (38% on threes in '90)
'91-onward: 22 feet and in.

And when I say "consistent" I don't mean like Lebron or Wade, I mean much more than them. No way could SA play off even a 23 year old Jordan the way they did Lebron last year in the Finals not not get lit up for 40+ consistently. Jordan could hit those shots [i]very[/i] consistently. All anyone has to do is go watch some old games and not swallow the common misconceptions about his game.[/QUOTE]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL now LOCO is trying to convince us that he can track the distance on MJ's progression on his jumpshot down to A FOOT EVERY YEAR:roll: Almost as bad as him telling an inch difference in height with his naked eye:oldlol:

[QUOTE=eliteballer]LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL now LOCO is trying to convince us that he can track the distance on MJ's progression on his jumpshot down to A FOOT EVERY YEAR:roll: Almost as bad as him telling an inch difference in height with his naked eye:oldlol:[/QUOTE]

When you have 300 games on tape, you can spot trends. :pimp: :violin:

Get the F outta here, your ridiculous assertions have gone too far. Tracking a foot difference in jumpshot distance with the naked eye year by year, absurd and dilusional as it gets:oldlol:

[QUOTE=Loki]When you have 300 games on tape, you can spot trends. :pimp: :violin:[/QUOTE]
:roll:

[QUOTE=Loki]When you have 300 games on tape, you can spot trends. :pimp: :violin:[/QUOTE]

You shouldn't be bragging about something like this. Ever heard of a "woman" or a "social life?" :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=eliteballer]Get the F outta here, your ridiculous assertions have gone too far. Tracking a foot difference in jumpshot distance with the naked eye year by year, absurd and dilusional as it gets:oldlol:[/QUOTE]

It's called an estimate, and was meant to illustrate the progression of his jumper. Deal. :pimp:

[QUOTE=Shep]being easily the best player on his team, his number of touches and the time the ball was in his hand would increase dramatically, and there is no doubt he would've scored atleast 2 more field goals per game[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's not where my argument is. My argument is that he'd have to work harder to score as the first option without Shaq and so while he'd score more because of the extra FGA but he'd be less efficient. And that's why while I could see him scoring more I couldn't see 2000 Kobe averaging over 24-25 ppg.

[QUOTE]so what? coaches always tell scorers to keep shooting, even if they are having an off night, you'd rather kobe went 8-27 than 3-10, especially in a close game. atleast he was still being aggressive, he went to the line 9 times and made 8, while recording 4 assists and only 1 turnover so offensively he made a huge contribution regardless of shooting percentages[/QUOTE]

Yeah 8-27 is better than 3-10 but neither is good. 8-27 is a bad night and I bet Kobe would admit that.

[QUOTE]he was due to have a bad game? :lol i'm sure coach scott skiles would've sat back after being eliminated and thought to himself "well, he played good throughout games 1-4, so i expected him to play like a chump in game 5" :roll:[/QUOTE]

Even with the bad game his numbers were still far above his season averages.

[QUOTE]that three year regular season record means nothing. if portland pushed la to 7 games with both shaq and kobe there is no way in hell they are losing to them without kobe. kobe even outplayed shaq in 3 or 4 games that series :oldlol: [/QUOTE]

But without Kobe who knows if Glen Rice steps up in the games that Shaq is struggling or how much Horry, Fisher, Fox ect. step up.

One of the reasons the Lakers won without Kobe in 2000 was because Rice stepped up too. Look up Rice's numbers without Kobe in 2000, they were better than his season numbers. Glen Rice was a great fit next to Shaq.

[QUOTE]yes, its the story of shaq's career - when the going gets tough bolt to another team with an up and coming superstar[/QUOTE]

Can't argue with the results.

[QUOTE]yeh they won 17 more games - that will happen when you give away a guy who isn't even top 11 at his position and another guy who barely averages 9 points per game for a top 3 player. wade also had alot more of the ball due to not having odom around anymore and had significant increases in fga, fta, and turnovers.[/QUOTE]

Odom had a great season with Miami. He averaged 17 ppg, 10 rpg, 4 apg, 1 spg and 1 bpg while playing multiple positions, running the offense at times and causing matchup problems.

[QUOTE]i'm not saying i can remember individual games, but i do remember doing it..it was like a family tradition :D[/QUOTE]

Ok well when do you first remember watching individual games?

[QUOTE=bokes15]I refuse to read the original post. Who would take rookie Jordan over prime Kobe???[/QUOTE]

i agree

this thread is a joke. of course PRIME kobe you got to be kidding.

people are just to far up MJ's *** to accept the fact kobe is closing the gap between the two, not saying he will ever catch up.

[QUOTE]Yeah, that's not where my argument is. My argument is that he'd have to work harder to score as the first option without Shaq and so while he'd score more because of the extra FGA but he'd be less efficient. And that's why while I could see him scoring more I couldn't see 2000 Kobe averaging over 24-25 ppg.[/QUOTE]
yes he'd be less efficient but only 1-2 more ppg? :roll: he'd average atleast 28 ppg.
[QUOTE]Yeah 8-27 is better than 3-10 but neither is good. 8-27 is a bad night and I bet Kobe would admit that.[/QUOTE]
its a bad shooting night, overall he had a fantastic game and he still had the second best game out of everyone on the court
[QUOTE]Even with the bad game his numbers were still far above his season averages.[/QUOTE]
numbers don't mean **** if you can't win a game, and if you don't show up in the most important game of the season you really aren't worth much
[QUOTE]But without Kobe who knows if Glen Rice steps up in the games that Shaq is struggling or how much Horry, Fisher, Fox ect. step up.

One of the reasons the Lakers won without Kobe in 2000 was because Rice stepped up too. Look up Rice's numbers without Kobe in 2000, they were better than his season numbers. Glen Rice was a great fit next to Shaq.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: you're talking about replacing a superstar with a bunch of role players. glen rice in kobe bryants place? :roll: c'mon now. kobe created offense through penetration, the lakers had nobody on that team who could consistantly do that. kobe was one of the best perimiter defenders in the league, the lakers had nobody else close to that level.
[QUOTE]Can't argue with the results.[/QUOTE]
going through the tough times with your team is part of growing up as a basketball player, shaq never wanted to grow up.
[QUOTE]Odom had a great season with Miami. He averaged 17 ppg, 10 rpg, 4 apg, 1 spg and 1 bpg while playing multiple positions, running the offense at times and causing matchup problems.[/QUOTE]
he had an ok season, but like i said he was nowhere near the top power forwards in the game where as shaq was still top 3 overall
[QUOTE]Ok well when do you first remember watching individual games?[/QUOTE]
probably the pistons/lakers finals

[QUOTE=Shep]yes he'd be less efficient but only 1-2 more ppg? :roll: he'd average atleast 28 ppg.[/QUOTE]

:roll: 28 ppg? Not even close.

[QUOTE]its a bad shooting night, overall he had a fantastic game and he still had the second best game out of everyone on the court[/QUOTE]

A horrendous shooting night, he didn't have a good game but Shaq dominated so it didn't matter.

[QUOTE]numbers don't mean **** if you can't win a game, and if you don't show up in the most important game of the season you really aren't worth much[/QUOTE]

Once again Penny didn't have Shaq that season who was playing at a higher level than anyone ever not named Michael Jordan that season

[QUOTE]:oldlol: you're talking about replacing a superstar with a bunch of role players. glen rice in kobe bryants place? :roll: c'mon now. kobe created offense through penetration, the lakers had nobody on that team who could consistantly do that. kobe was one of the best perimiter defenders in the league, the lakers had nobody else close to that level.[/QUOTE]

Shaq was so dominant that he may have been better not having to share the ball with another star and I think that with the double teams he draws you'd see a huge rise in everyone elses production if Kobe wasn't there.

Without Kobe 2000-2002(not including a game he left after 15 minutes)
25-6 record
31.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.9 bpg, 59.5 FG%

[QUOTE]he had an ok season, but like i said he was nowhere near the top power forwards in the game where as shaq was still top 3 overall[/QUOTE]

Yeah I know but my point was that they lost quite a bit of talent but still improved 17 games with Shaq.

[QUOTE]probably the pistons/lakers finals[/QUOTE]

That's reasonable since you would have been like 4-5 years old. I remember the Bulls vs Knicks ECF and the Bulls vs Suns Finals clearly in 1993 clearly at 6 years old so that's not uncommon.

[QUOTE] 28 ppg? Not even close.[/QUOTE]
yeh you're probably right, it'd be closer to 30
[QUOTE]A horrendous shooting night, he didn't have a good game but Shaq dominated so it didn't matter.[/QUOTE]
there was only 5 points in it at the end of the night so obviously shaq still needed help from his teammates even if he does go off for 40, kobe stepped up big with his 26
[QUOTE]Once again Penny didn't have Shaq that season who was playing at a higher level than anyone ever not named Michael Jordan that season[/QUOTE]
i'm not talking about the season, i'm talking about game 5 - the most important game of the year for his team, and he goes misssing
[QUOTE]Shaq was so dominant that he may have been better not having to share the ball with another star and I think that with the double teams he draws you'd see a huge rise in everyone elses production if Kobe wasn't there.[/QUOTE]
with nobody to create offense and the only play being to throw the ball to shaq the lakers don't succeed. kobe handled all the late game situations aswell - you need a game winning shot? give kobe the ball. without kobe? give shaq the ball, he gets fouled, misses both free throws, lakers lose.
[QUOTE]Without Kobe 2000-2002(not including a game he left after 15 minutes)
25-6 record
31.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.9 bpg, 59.5 FG%[/QUOTE]
:roll: this **** again? 8 wins a year? that'll get you a #1 pick for sure
[QUOTE]Yeah I know but my point was that they lost quite a bit of talent but still improved 17 games with Shaq.[/QUOTE]
:hammerhead: you lose a top 12 power forward, you pick up a top 3 player. what will you do next year? win more or lose more? :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Shep]yeh you're probably right, it'd be closer to 30[/QUOTE]

:roll:

Care to back that up? Kobe as the first option would have to face far more double teams and had a tougher time scoring. The extra 2 FGA wouldn't make up for it that much. 24-25 ppg and 5-6 apg on 45% shooting is realistic.

[QUOTE]there was only 5 points in it at the end of the night so obviously shaq still needed help from his teammates even if he does go off for 40, kobe stepped up big with his 26[/QUOTE]

No he didn't step up big. When you take 27 shots you should score more than 26 points. He nearly wasted Shaq's dominant performance. He missed [B]19[/B] shots.

[QUOTE]i'm not talking about the season, i'm talking about game 5 - the most important game of the year for his team, and he goes misssing[/QUOTE]

He didn't have Shaq in game 5 either.

[QUOTE]with nobody to create offense and the only play being to throw the ball to shaq the lakers don't succeed. kobe handled all the late game situations aswell - you need a game winning shot? give kobe the ball. without kobe? give shaq the ball, he gets fouled, misses both free throws, lakers lose.[/QUOTE]

That wasn't the case of those 31 games prove it.

[QUOTE]:roll: this **** again? 8 wins a year? that'll get you a #1 pick for sure[/QUOTE]

You don't seem to get it, 31 games is enough games to show that team could win without Kobe.

[QUOTE]:hammerhead: you lose a top 12 power forward, you pick up a top 3 player. what will you do next year? win more or lose more? :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

Of course the improvement was expected but that shows how valuable Shaq was.

For example people use the Suns improvement in that same season as a reason why he was the MVP but that is horrible logic.

Phoenix improved 33 games but they didn't have to give up all star level talent to get Steve Nash, Amare had missed 27 games the previous season and he also was entering his 3rd season so he still had room for a lot of improvement. So when you factor in their leading scorer playing 25 more games and Phoenix giving up nothing to get Nash then their 33 game improvement is less impressive for Nash than Miami's improvement is for Shaq.

[QUOTE]Care to back that up? Kobe as the first option would have to face far more double teams and had a tougher time scoring. The extra 2 FGA wouldn't make up for it that much. 24-25 ppg and 5-6 apg on 45% shooting is realistic.[/QUOTE]
extra 2 fga? where did you get this from? shaq shoots the ball about 20 times per game, so take this out and kobe would shoot the ball atleast 5-7 times more, and even with a slight drop in % this would mean he averages 27-28ppg. in games where shaq was absent in 2000 kobe averaged 30ppg, 9rpg, and 6apg against tough defensive teams san antonio and seattle.
[QUOTE]No he didn't step up big. When you take 27 shots you should score more than 26 points. He nearly wasted Shaq's dominant performance. He missed 19 shots.[/QUOTE]
he stepped up in terms of being aggressive, getting to the free throw line, being active defensively, rebounding the basketball, and getting his teammates involved.
[QUOTE]He didn't have Shaq in game 5 either.[/QUOTE]
so he didn't have to share the ball with a man who wanted 20 shots per game and played with jason kidd instead. he should've been alot better statistically for this reason.
[QUOTE]That wasn't the case of those 31 games prove it. [/QUOTE]
regular season games. lakers went 5-3 without shaq in '01. this proves the lakers would've won 51 games without shaq that year, only 5 less games than what they won over the course of that season, and shaq is only slightly better than greg foster :bowdown:
[QUOTE]Of course the improvement was expected but that shows how valuable Shaq was.[/QUOTE]
its called logic. trading a top 3 player for a top 12 power forward..one of the most lopsided trades in nba history..there's a reason why the lakers lost 22 less games with odom and butler in shaq's place you know
[QUOTE]For example people use the Suns improvement in that same season as a reason why he was the MVP but that is horrible logic.

Phoenix improved 33 games but they didn't have to give up all star level talent to get Steve Nash, Amare had missed 27 games the previous season and he also was entering his 3rd season so he still had room for a lot of improvement. So when you factor in their leading scorer playing 25 more games and Phoenix giving up nothing to get Nash then their 33 game improvement is less impressive for Nash than Miami's improvement is for Shaq.[/QUOTE]
nash wasn't top 7 most valuable that year and is tied for second spot in nba history when talking about the worst mvp decisions ever.

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

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

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

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

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

He was just chucking

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

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

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

Only 4 assists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kwame Brown. :rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:roll:

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

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

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

And?

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

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

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

Shaq was 32 that year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 is not large enough, period.

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

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

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

:roll:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE]apparently ron harper[/QUOTE]

Exactly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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