Reminder Kobe has more rings than Bron

[Hey Yo]

My opinion of LeBron improved a lot after these finals, I just ****ing hate his stans for being hypocrites when it comes to this kind of thing unless they're trolling. They look at STATS THO or SIDEKICK RINGS and then turn around to completely ignore the stats when it suits their agenda.

But you posted stats from a conference series. James haters don't post his playoff record and stats, they post his Finals record and Finals stats.

The Finals is what matters

Kobe's Finals stats don't measure up to LeBron's. His 2 first option rings isn't better than LeBron's 3. 2FMVP's isn't better than 3FMVP's

you get the point....

[sammichoffate]

But you posted stats from a conference series. James haters don't post his playoff record and stats, they post his Finals record and Finals stats.

The Finals is what matters

Kobe's Finals stats don't measure up to LeBron's. His 2 first option rings isn't better than LeBron's 3. 2FMVP's isn't better than 3FMVP's

you get the point....

Unlike the posters without brain cells, I look at the big picture. Kobe wasn't a sidekick during the three-peat other than his first finals, it was literally as close to a 1a/1b as you can get. Shaq wouldn't have 3FMVPs w/o him.

[Hey Yo]

Unlike the posters without brain cells, I look at the big picture. Kobe wasn't a sidekick during the three-peat other than his first finals, it was literally as close to a 1a/1b as you can get. Shaq wouldn't have 3FMVPs w/o him.

And Kobe wouldn't have 3 rings w/o Shaq. We could do this all day.

But at the end of the day, Shaq performed better in the Finals than Kobe did, hence the 3 Finals MVP's. Shaq was first option and captain of the team. That's what's remembered. Finals performances are what you're judged by, not what you did in the second round.

Shaq had some epic Finals, while Kobe usually came up short. He was never close to winning a FMVP with Shaq. He tried to get his first FMVP against Detroit but that plan backfired immensely.

[sammichoffate]

And Kobe wouldn't have 3 rings w/o Shaq. We could do this all day.

But at the end of the day, Shaq performed better in the Finals than Kobe did, hence the 3 Finals MVP's. Shaq was first option and captain of the team. That's what's remembered. Finals performances are what you're judged by, not what you did in the second round.

Shaq had some epic Finals, while Kobe usually came up short. He was never close to winning a FMVP with Shaq. He tried to get his first FMVP against Detroit but that plan backfired immensely.

That's exactly what's wrong with people saying Kobe's contributions don't count. The West was loaded back then, every series mattered when you compare it to the East that Lebron regularly steamrolls through. Kyrie didn't get FMVP, should we discount what he did for Cleveland?

[clipps]

I'm surprised so many people post threads before doing any research. They just google "ringz" and post. It's odd to me. I guess there are a lot of new fans to the NBA?

I always find it funny when people like OP try to count Kobe's sidechick rings. If they want to do that they need to admit

Pippen > Kobe

Fisher = Kobe

Horry > Jordan

etc.

If you are truly going to measure a player, look at Finals MVPs, not side chick rings like Kobe has...

Way to piggy back on that one.

[Hoopz2332]

It's okay, he went 2/4 with Wade and Bosh to make up for it. He also got outscored by Tony Parker, who isn't a top 50 player, in 2007

[Bankaii]

That's exactly what's wrong with people saying Kobe's contributions don't count. The West was loaded back then, every series mattered when you compare it to the East that Lebron regularly steamrolls through. Kyrie didn't get FMVP, should we discount what he did for Cleveland?

No one is discrediting Kobe's play. He was a superstar in 2001 and 2002 and his impact reflected it throguhout the playoffs.

The problem arises when Kobe stans try to use rings to prop him up (specifically against Lebron) knowing full well that his 5 rings aren't the same as 5 of MJ's rings. At the end of the day, Kobe's 2000-02 rings don't hold a candle to Lebron's 2012, 13, 16.

It's the same with trying to say Kyrie>Iverson, becuase Kyrie has a ring. When we all know AI was leading trash to the Finals while Kyrie had Lebron having a GOAT level Finals.

[sammichoffate]

No one is discrediting Kobe's play. He was a superstar in 2001 and 2002 and his impact reflected it throguhout the playoffs.

The problem arises when Kobe stans try to use rings to prop him up (specifically against Lebron) knowing full well that his 5 rings aren't the same as 5 of MJ's rings. At the end of the day, Kobe's 2000-02 rings don't hold a candle to Lebron's 2012, 13, 16.

It's the same with trying to say Kyrie>Iverson, becuase Kyrie has a ring. When we all know AI was leading trash to the Finals while Kyrie had Lebron having a GOAT level Finals.

I'm not propping him up against Lebron, he's ahead of Kobe on my top 10 after his last finals. But to say that those rings don't hold a candle is ignoring context like competition and such.

Kobe went up against teams like San Antonio, Sacramento w/Webber, and Portland each postseason while Lebron's biggest challenge was Boston, Indy, and filler half the time. I concede that having Shaq equals it out quite a bit, but his rings are just as legitimate other than not being the first option. People like to point out that Lebron had that 45/15/5 game against Boston in 2012; Kobe basically did the same thing multiple times against the Kings and Spurs.

2001: 24.6/7.8/5.8/1.4/1.4 on 41.5%
2002: 27/5.8/5.3/1.5/0.8 on 51.4%
Js that it's unfair to criticize him for playing with MDE when he put up more than respectable numbers in the Finals for the last two of the three-peat.

[Mr Feeny]

I'm not propping him up against Lebron, he's ahead of Kobe on my top 10 after his last finals. But to say that those rings don't hold a candle is ignoring context like competition and such.

Kobe went up against teams like San Antonio, Sacramento w/Webber, and Portland each postseason while Lebron's biggest challenge was Boston, Indy, and filler half the time. I concede that having Shaq equals it out quite a bit, but his rings are just as legitimate other than not being the first option. People like to point out that Lebron had that 45/15/5 game against Boston in 2012; Kobe basically did the same thing multiple times against the Kings and Spurs.

2001: 24.6/7.8/5.8/1.4/1.4 on 41.5%
2002: 27/5.8/5.3/1.5/0.8 on 51.4%
Js that it's unfair to criticize him for playing with MDE when he put up more than respectable numbers in the Finals for the last two of the three-peat.

That's our point. Shooting 41% against single coverage against Eric Snow and then putting relatively inferior numbers against the Nets compared to the beast in the middle who swept the finals mvps during the run, doesn't hold a candle to what Lebron did during ANY of his title runs.


I'm glad you know your place and realize that the bran is 4 tiers above your hero, though

[sammichoffate]

That's our point. Shooting 41% against single coverage against Eric Snow and then putting relatively inferior numbers against the Nets compared to the beast in the middle who swept the finals mvps during the run, doesn't hold a candle to what Lebron did during ANY of his title runs.


I'm glad you know your place and realize that the bran is 4 tiers above your hero, though

I would acknowledge that you're right already if you weren't such an insufferable piece of garbage. You literally did not listen to ANYTHING I just said.

[SwayDizzle]

lj looks like magic's son

[Mr Feeny]

lj looks like magic's son

No he doesn't magic's soon looks like the phaggiest ph@g in the history of mankind

[SwayDizzle]

No he doesn't magic's soon looks like the phaggiest ph@g in the history of mankind

no, as in he could be magic's son

[Bankaii]

I'm not propping him up against Lebron, he's ahead of Kobe on my top 10 after his last finals. But to say that those rings don't hold a candle is ignoring context like competition and such.

Kobe went up against teams like San Antonio, Sacramento w/Webber, and Portland each postseason while Lebron's biggest challenge was Boston, Indy, and filler half the time. I concede that having Shaq equals it out quite a bit, but his rings are just as legitimate other than not being the first option. People like to point out that Lebron had that 45/15/5 game against Boston in 2012; Kobe basically did the same thing multiple times against the Kings and Spurs.

2001: 24.6/7.8/5.8/1.4/1.4 on 41.5%
2002: 27/5.8/5.3/1.5/0.8 on 51.4%
Js that it's unfair to criticize him for playing with MDE when he put up more than respectable numbers in the Finals for the last two of the three-peat.

Bot necessarily you, but a lot of Kobe fans post "5>3" which is where my post is coming from.

While Kobe played in a tougher conference for the most part, being 2nd fiddle to Shaq in most of those series hurts that argument.
On top of that these same EC teams that Lebron destroys, Kobe struggles heavily against.
I'd also put Boston, Indy, 2011 Bulls, early Pistons, etc on the same level as some of the teams you listed.

I don't discredit Kobe for playing with Shaq. Only maybe MJ and Lebron could win a FMVP next to him, and even that's debatable. I just don't agree with some Kobe fans acting like 5 rings is the end all when they aren't as meaningful as proposed.

[Steven Kerry]

Reminder: Sidekick rings don't count.