Kobe Bryant has the 3rd leading PPG all time as a #1 option

[dh144498]

this is why Kobe is the GOAT. Can win as a 2nd option and as a 1st option. He is so versatile, I love him!

[dh144498]

When it comes right down to it I'd rather have Robert Horry on my team. He makes the shot when it matters. And more rings.

how's this troll not banned yet?

[dh144498]

Stopped reading there.

LOL westbrook and Durant are 1a/1b dumb sh*T.

[Myth]

[COLOR="White"]K[/COLOR]

Stopped reading right here.

[Lebron23]

[3peated]

too bad kobe will retire with only 5 rings

only ROFL

[knicksman]

too bad kobe is not going to be credited with his first 3 rings coz shaq has proven he can win with 6th man kobe

[knicksman]

No surprise here.

Kobe as the #1 option is just a beast.

yup just 1 ring coz the other 1 was gifted by stern to pjax to retire as the winningest coach ever.

[Ne 1]

too bad kobe is not going to be credited with his first 3 rings coz shaq has proven he can win with 6th man kobe

I know this is a troll post, but I wonder if people 10, 15, or 20 years from now will care about this "#1" thing as much as we do today regarding the early 00's Lakers. I have seen this discussed regarding the 80's Lakers, but even then it was because it suited the agenda of fans of a certain retired player. Usually, though, people always say "Magic has 5 rings" without a qualifier, even though like Kobe, he won his first few with a superior player. Whenever Kobe's rings are mentioned here an immediate asterisk is attached. It is ironic. The asterisk is based on classification of "#1" and "#2.'

As to the topic, yeah, Shaq>Kobe each year but both were indispensable and I've never cared about this "#1" vs. "#2" thing. What I look at is indispensability. If you replaced Kobe with an average SG what would happen? Derek Fisher or Rick Fox for example, they were dispensable, but Kobe and Shaq were not. Even Kobe during the '01 run, played ball at a level that none of his contemporaries at the time would ever reach (Iverson, McGrady, Carter, Allen etc.) in the playoffs. He also provided better perimeter defense than any of those players ever did too. So anyone who says he was replaceable is kidding themselves (or hating). He was option 1B during the 2001 run in the first three rounds and the MVP of the championship deciding series (Spurs). Shaq>Kobe in 2001 and 2002 but in those seasons it was more of a Co-MVPs thing than a #1, #2 relationship as most people think it was. Only during the 2000 championship can he be fairly described as a "side-kick."

[dh144498]

"too bad Kobe only has 5 rings"

[guy]

I know this is a troll post, but I wonder if people 10, 15, or 20 years from now will care about this "#1" thing as much as we do today regarding the early 00's Lakers. I have seen this discussed regarding the 80's Lakers, but even then it was because it suited the agenda of fans of a certain retired player. Usually, though, people always say "Magic has 5 rings" without a qualifier, even though like Kobe, he won his first few with a superior player. Whenever Kobe's rings are mentioned here an immediate asterisk is attached. It is ironic. The asterisk is based on classification of "#1" and "#2.'

I hear this Magic/Kareem and Kobe/Shaq comparison alot and it really shouldn't be used. First of all, out of their 5 rings, there's only 1 championship where Kareem was inarguably better then Magic, and in that championship Kareem had to miss a game and Magic led his team to the title with arguably the greatest playoff performance ever. Second of all, by their second championship year, Magic was ahead of Kareem in MVP voting every year, the team was being built more towards Magic's strengths, and Kareem was 35 and couldn't even average 10 boards per game. He was very arguably the best player by his 3rd year and their 2nd championship together, which is completely different from the Shaq/Kobe dynamic. The equivalent would be more like if Magic was playing with Kareem in the mid-70s when Kareem was clearly at his peak putting up the historical numbers he was putting up.

Also, the reason its brought up more with Kobe then it was with Magic is because people weren't really comparing Magic to anyone else based on ring count. Some would say Magic was better then Bird because of rings, but at least that was okay because in most people's eyes, Magic had won at least 3 as the best player, but even then, no one argues that its not even comparable and you find alot of people still saying Bird was better. And by the time Jordan won his 3rd, almost everyone was saying Jordan was still better despite having 2 less rings. On the other hand, today and in recent history, fans/media paint this picture of Kobe being so close to Jordan and being so far ahead of Lebron solely because of the rings while offering no other details, that alot of us feel like its such a weak argument lacking so much context.

[Ne 1]

1980 Lakers

Kareem 25 ppg/17 FGA
J. Wilkes 20 ppg/17 FGA
Magic 18 ppg/12 FGA
Nixon 18 ppg/15 FGA

Magic was arguably the fourth option in 1980. He scored 0.4 more points than Nixon but took less shots. He was more efficient but it was Nixon who the offense turned to for a bucket more often. That said, Magic did rank 3rd on the team in scoring during the playoffs, although he was again 4th in FGA's. Kareem led the team with 32 ppg in the playoffs, Magic contributed 18 points along with 10.5 boards and 9 assists. Sound familiar? One guy scoring 30 ppg and another guy at around 20 and getting close to a triple double (keep in mind the 80's pace was much faster than that of the 90's)...

1982 Lakers
Kareem 24 ppg/17 FGA
Wilkes 21 ppg/17 FGA
Magic 19 ppg/13 FGA
Nixon 18 ppg/15.5 FGA
Kupchak 14 ppg/10 FGA

Magic was third in scoring but again fourth in FGA's. In the playoffs his scoring slipped further.

1982 Lakers in the playoffs

Kareem 20 ppg
Nixon 20 ppg
Wilkes 20 ppg
Magic 17 ppg
McAdoo 17 ppg

Magic was fifth in FGA! Of course, Magic also averaged 11 boards (led the team) and 9 assists but since when is that relevant to option ranking? Pippen led the Bulls in assists every year, Kobe also led the Lakers in assists every year Pippen and even led the Bulls in rebounding three times in the playoffs from 1991-94 even with Horace Grant there. He twice ranked first among all players in playoff defensive rating (an amazing feat for a perimeter player) and thrice first in defensive win shares during Chicago's title runs. He led the Bulls in playoff defensive rating during four of their title runs (Jordan tied him once) and in the other two the only people who beat him were bench players who played limited, cherry picked minutes like Randy Brown or Scott Burrell. No one factors any of this in for Pippen. Why look at Magic's assists and boards when we ignore Pippen's assists, boards, and legendary defense?

1985 Lakers

Kareem 22 ppg/15 FGA
Magic 18 ppg/12 FGA (11.7)
Worthy 18 ppg/13 FGA
Scott 16 ppg/12 FGA (12.4)

Magic was second in scoring but fourth in FGA's. Still, with the gap so close it would be more accurate to describe Magic, Worthy, and Scott as options 2a through 2c rather than 2-4.

1987 Lakers

Magic 24 ppg/16 FGA
Worthy 19 ppg/15 FGA
Kareem 17.5 ppg/13 FGA
Scott 17 ppg/14 FGA

However, in the playoffs Worthy eclipsed Magic as the team's leading scorer. Magic never led a championship team in scoring in the playoffs.

1988 Lakers

Scott 22 ppg/17 FGA
Worthy 20 ppg/15.5 FGA
Magic 20 ppg/14 FGA
Kareem 15 ppg/11 FGA

In the playoffs it was again Worthy who led the team in scoring with Magic's 19.9 narrowly edging out Scott's 19.6.

Magic was obviously the best player on the 87' and 88' Lakers but was not the first option for the entire season. The one year he led the team in regular season scoring he was eclipsed in the playoffs. In 1988 he was the #3 option. If you want to include all the other stuff Magic did that is legitimate. Magic's value came from him being a 18-20 ppg guy who would also give you 11-12 assists and solid rebounding. However, you must do the same with Pippen and Kobe.


Compare the above to Kobe/Shaq.

Kobe/Shaq playoff scoring averages from 2000-2002

It has to be noted that starting from 2000-01 "#2 option" Kobe actually averaged more shots per game than #1 option Shaq. He averaged 3 more in 01' and 2 more in 2002. Here is a comparison between the playoff ppg's of Shaq and Kobe.

2000

Shaq 31 led league
Kobe 21

Difference: -10

2001

Shaq 30
Kobe 29

Difference: -1

2002

Shaq 29 (28.5)
Kobe 27

Difference: -1.5

Scoring 1-1.5 ppg more="carrying"?

[DMAVS41]

I hear this Magic/Kareem and Kobe/Shaq comparison alot and it really shouldn't be used. First of all, out of their 5 rings, there's only 1 championship where Kareem was inarguably better then Magic, and in that championship Kareem had to miss a game and Magic led his team to the title with arguably the greatest playoff performance ever. Second of all, by their second championship year, Magic was ahead of Kareem in MVP voting every year, the team was being built more towards Magic's strengths, and Kareem was 35 and couldn't even average 10 boards per game. He was very arguably the best player by his 3rd year and their 2nd championship together, which is completely different from the Shaq/Kobe dynamic. The equivalent would be more like if Magic was playing with Kareem in the mid-70s when Kareem was clearly at his peak putting up the historical numbers he was putting up.

Also, the reason its brought up more with Kobe then it was with Magic is because people weren't really comparing Magic to anyone else based on ring count. Some would say Magic was better then Bird because of rings, but at least that was okay because in most people's eyes, Magic had won at least 3 as the best player, but even then, no one argues that its not even comparable and you find alot of people still saying Bird was better. And by the time Jordan won his 3rd, almost everyone was saying Jordan was still better despite having 2 less rings. On the other hand, today and in recent history, fans/media paint this picture of Kobe being so close to Jordan and being so far ahead of Lebron solely because of the rings while offering no other details, that alot of us feel like its such a weak argument lacking so much context.

This.

It has gotten even worse lately because the Kobe "clutch" argument has been torn apart with actual evidence. So all the on the court and real basketball arguments go out the window. We watched Kobe miss the playoffs and lose in the first round twice with his "own" team...so the argument that he doesn't need a lot of help to win went out the window as well.

Kobe's a great scorer, but we see other guys scoring similarly on similar efficiency from the perimeter in this era. So that doesn't separate him much. Then we've seen the myth of him being a great defender shredded pretty much since the 03 season with actual evidence and data yet again.

So when you strip people of all their bs arguments...the one thing that can't be disputed is the fact that Kobe has won 5 rings...which is extremely impressive. But again, that needs to be broken down...his first ring he was good, but hardly elite. 2 more he was clearly the 2nd best player. Does that mean a lot? Not really, but when you use ring count as your main evidence...how those rings were won will of course be brought up. I mean, honestly, what is the over under on how many rings a Shaq/Iverson duo wins in 8 years? Or Dirk and Shaq? KG and Shaq? Wade and Shaq? Lebron and Shaq? I mean...I would set that at around 3 for most...with Lebron probably at 5.

So it really isn't taking away, but putting it into context. For those 8 years and then another 2 more...Shaq wast pretty damn out of this world good. Not to mention we saw Wade win with a much lesser version of Shaq in 06.

Winning any ring in the NBA is very impressive, and nobody should take away anything from that, certainly having prime/peak Shaq and Phil Jackson coaching made those rings easier to win than most.

[swag2011]

[/B]

This.

It has gotten even worse lately because the Kobe "clutch" argument has been torn apart with actual evidence. So all the on the court and real basketball arguments go out the window. We watched Kobe miss the playoffs and lose in the first round twice with his "own" team...so the argument that he doesn't need a lot of help to win went out the window as well.

Kobe's a great scorer, but we see other guys scoring similarly on similar efficiency from the perimeter in this era. So that doesn't separate him much. Then we've seen the myth of him being a great defender shredded pretty much since the 03 season with actual evidence and data yet again.

So when you strip people of all their bs arguments...the one thing that can't be disputed is the fact that Kobe has won 5 rings...which is extremely impressive. But again, that needs to be broken down...his first ring he was good, but hardly elite. 2 more he was clearly the 2nd best player. Does that mean a lot? Not really, but when you use ring count as your main evidence...how those rings were won will of course be brought up. I mean, honestly, what is the over under on how many rings a Shaq/Iverson duo wins in 8 years? Or Dirk and Shaq? KG and Shaq? Wade and Shaq? Lebron and Shaq? I mean...I would set that at around 3 for most...with Lebron probably at 5.

So it really isn't taking away, but putting it into context. For those 8 years and then another 2 more...Shaq wast pretty damn out of this world good. Not to mention we saw Wade win with a much lesser version of Shaq in 06.

Winning any ring in the NBA is very impressive, and nobody should take away anything from that, certainly having prime/peak Shaq and Phil Jackson coaching made those rings easier to win than most.

But you can say that about virtually ANYBODY in history. If so and so were paired together, or if x and y played for this team, or if he was the coach instead. It doesn't make sense that kobe is literally the ONLY player who gets penalized for being on great teams, when ALL of the consensus, top 10-15 have been at some point in time. I could easily say Kobe and Duncan would've won a couple, Kobe and KG. Shaq was absolutely out of this world great, no doubt. But kobe was amazing as well. People act like Kobe could be replaced by anyone, yet Shaq and Penny made the finals... What happened?

The kobe ain't clutch argument is dumb as well. How you can sit here and define clutch as down by 5, under 30 seconds left or whatever the hell it is? What if it's down by 6, with a minute left? Down by 8, with 34 seconds left? See how dumb it is to define clutch in this certain parameter? A clutch shot is a timely basket when your team needs it most. period. Doesn't have to be a buzzer beater. If kobe wasn't as clutch as those stats say, then opposing coaches/teams wouldn't fear him still when the lakers need someone to hit a crucial basket. They wouldn't try so hard to get the ball out of his hands in that moment. But they still do. So what does that really say about those "clutch stats"?

That being said, he hasn't been that great in those moments since about 09 maybe? he has his moments every now and then, but he was much better a few years ago.

In regards to his "own team", that team wasn't built around him. Lebron had a bad cast in Cleveland, but at least the team was somewhat built to his strengths. (Not trying to start a fan war here) Can we say the same about Kobe's team? Are those players even in the league anymore? Not to mention he played in the difficult western conference. What if the lakers actually BUILT a team around Kobe from the start? Doesn't mean he needs a bunch of stars, but solid role players around him. Who knows what would've happened.

[ShaqAttack3234]

This thread along with many others on the front page of the NBA forum is so agonizingly stupid it gave me a headache.