2000 Finals is Kobe stans worst nightmare

[imdaman99]

He was still clutch, in the 1 moment when Shaq couldn't be. Shaq fouls out, and Kobe says ok. Mama there goes that man. Oh wait no, Mark Jackson was not in the booth, he was on the court. Hand down man down.

[Hey Yo]

This only makes sense if one ignored proper context.

Given their roles and expectations, LeBron had a worse series and choke. Kobe was a second option and playing with an injury to boot. I also mentioned in another thread that Kobe had a masterful Game 4 when Shaq fouled out, willing the Lakers in the 4th quarter and overtime (2011 LeBron was nowhere to be found in 4th quarters).

Above all else though, the Lakers won If anything, Kobe fans "worst nightmare" is the 2004 finals.

If Kobe's injury was a problem.... then he probably shouldn't have taken a combined 47fga (making only 12) in games 5 and 6, no?

Shaq fouled out with a couple minutes left in game 4 after putting up 36 and 20. Kobe made a few shots and some FT's in OT. Calling it "masterful" is a stretch.

[SouBeachTalents]

It should at minimum put an end to all 5 rangz talk, Kobe was already clear 2nd option to a guy having literally one of the most dominant peaks ever, the Finals makes it frankly embarrassing to include this title in all-time discussions.

[Tavr]

If Kobe's injury was a problem.... then he probably shouldn't have taken a combined 47fga (making only 12) in games 5 and 6, no?

Sure, but it definitely was an issue. Kobe essentially missed 2 full games in that finals. I don't think anybody denies Kobe's propensity to shotjack lol

Calling it "masterful" is a stretch.

As far as Game 4's concerned, a "sidekick" going more or less perfect in a Finals overtime is just that. If you prefer to call it something else, fine. But that sounds more like a personal problem than anything.

[Real Men Wear Green]

It would matter more if they had lost. Because they won it's just a footnote for haters to nitpick. Most fans won't and don't care. Brady once had a 0 TD/1 INT superbowl. Patriots won, no one cares.

[Lebron23]

It should at minimum put an end to all 5 rangz talk, Kobe was already clear 2nd option to a guy having literally one of the most dominant peaks ever, the Finals makes it frankly embarrassing to include this title in all-time discussions.

Goat sidekick. No problem with that.

[Soundwave]

Kobe did miss time, but that doesn't help your argument.

Kobe still shot chucked like a maniac games 4-6. Kobe wasn't good in game 1 nor was he good in the 8 minutes he played in game 2. Ironically the ONLY truly elite game Kobe had in the 2000 finals was game 4, after his "injury".

Shaq legit won game 2 alone which is insane.

What exactly is "insane" about that? A peak Shaq (2000) on any given day might the best player ever.

If you put all the top players in their prime in a gym together, there would certainly be days where that version of Shaq is better than Kobe, LeBron, and even Jordan.

Like that version of Shaq was a monster.

People really underrate Shaq nowadays, he has a case IMO to be above Magic, Bird, Russell, Wilt, and maybe even Kareem and when he was on his game, the "most dominant ever" nickname probably isn't an overstatement.

Game 4 was also an important game in that series, that could have been 2-2 which makes it a totally different series but instead the Lakers went up 3-1 and basically closed any chance the Pacers had, they weren't going to come back from 1-3 down, certainly not against a team like that Lakers squad.

[tpols]

Not really because he was purposely injured by Jalen Rose (he admitted it) and was playing on one leg essentially.

Still did this to close the series and dagger Indiana.

[SouBeachTalents]

It would matter more if they had lost. Because they won it's just a footnote for haters to nitpick. Most fans won't and don't care. Brady once had a 0 TD/1 INT superbowl. Patriots won, no one cares.

I disagree 100% with this viewpoint. The outcome of the game shouldn't change how we perceive the players performance. If the Heat had won in 2011 with LeBron having the same Finals, he doesn't automatically become absolved of how dreadful his performance was, esp in crunch time.

Brady doesn't get more credit for the Pats beating the Rams despite him doing virtually nothing all game than he does torching the Eagles for 500 yards because they lost.

You can't judge individual performance by team result, it's far more nuanced than that.

[3ba11]

.
.
Kobe's 8 ppg in clutch-time is an all-time record:





https://www.nba.com/stats/players/cl...dir=A&sort=PTS

[Tavr]

.
.
Kobe's 8 ppg in clutch-time is an all-time record:





https://www.nba.com/stats/players/cl...dir=A&sort=PTS

In this thread, LeBron fans want to remove Kobe's ring though. 2011 is so horrific they're forced to compare LeBron's performance to a hobbled section options. A more CLUTCH and hobbled section option, rather.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I disagree 100% with this viewpoint. The outcome of the game shouldn't change how we perceive the players performance. If the Heat had won in 2011 with LeBron having the same Finals, he doesn't automatically become absolved of how dreadful his performance was, esp in crunch time.

Brady doesn't get more credit for the Pats beating the Rams despite him doing virtually nothing all game than he does torching the Eagles for 500 yards because they lost.

You can't judge individual performance by team result, it's far more nuanced than that.

Whether you agree or not people discuss the accomplishments of greats like Brady and Kobe in terms of Championship volume. What do you think people actually think of more when they recall the first Kobe/Shaq ring, the alley-oop from Kobe to Shaq vs Portland or someone's fg %age? Regardless of how you do it there is nothing more important to sports history than winning.

[3ba11]

.

You can't judge individual performance by team result, it's far more nuanced than that.

A team with 3 all-stars and a goat candidate should win the title.. Period... It's bball 101 that a favored roster that fails to win failed at chemistry (since the roster was favored) - this failure of chemistry falls on the biggest impactor of chemistry, which is the 1st option - the guy scoring the most points.

In basketball, some skillsets get the most out of players and having great chemistry, while some skillsets turn everyone into spot-up shooter and the bad chemistry requires "more help" (the story of lebron's career - he's simply the worst ever at chemistry)

[ImKobe]

.
.
Kobe's 8 ppg in clutch-time is an all-time record:





https://www.nba.com/stats/players/cl...dir=A&sort=PTS

Kobe's clutch numbers in the POs in that 3-Peat are simply insane. 2000 was his worst year IIRC because Shaq was still the 1st option in the 4th at the time, Kobe elevated in '01.

[Axe]

I disagree 100% with this viewpoint. The outcome of the game shouldn't change how we perceive the players performance. If the Heat had won in 2011 with LeBron having the same Finals, he doesn't automatically become absolved of how dreadful his performance was, esp in crunch time.

Brady doesn't get more credit for the Pats beating the Rams despite him doing virtually nothing all game than he does torching the Eagles for 500 yards because they lost.

You can't judge individual performance by team result, it's far more nuanced than that.

Meanwhile, some people love to rave about 2018 lebron being a god and all due to being a true powerhouse in a team full of scrubs but still ended up being swept by the warriors in the finals. Though it may be justified, it looks a bit of a black mark but winning at least just a game there would make the series he lost look a lot more good imo.