It's stickied for easy reference when Kobe gets #5 later this year and #6 next year to tie.
Even the mods realize the reality of Kobe's historical run for GOAT.
It's stickied for easy reference when Kobe gets #5 later this year and #6 next year to tie.
Even the mods realize the reality of Kobe's historical run for GOAT.
3 les as the team leader puts him in the same category as Bird. Even if he accomplishes that, he'll still be behind Duncan and Magic in that regard.
But I'm sure ESPN, which no doubt you accept as Gospel, will "seriously" consider putting him on equal footing with Jordan.
I give Kobe full credit for last year's win. He was the clear leader on the team last year. During the 3 peat? Not so much.
In the 00 playoffs: Team leaders and the most important player on the team don't shoot 44% from the field, averaging a shade under 20 game and then craps themselves in the Finals shooting something like 35% while the supposed second fiddle averages 31 and 15. Yep, Kobe was the "go-to guy".
01: 29, 7, 6 on 47%. Arguably Kobe's best playoff line ever. But Shaq still takes a on it, averaging 30 and 15. Kobe once again shriveled in the Finals shooting around 40% while Shaq destroyed that series to tune of something like 35 and 17, almost recording a quad double. Oh, but Kobe can hit a clutch shot and free-throws (something any good wing is capable of).
02: Do I really need to go on? Kobe shoots 43% in his playoff campaign while Shaq puts monster numbers once again.
There's no arbitrary criteria. It's just simple logic. Kobe was not the leader, best player, or as equally as important as Shaq in those days. The stats, opinions of "experts," and facts don't support that.
If there's any arbitrary criteria, it was created by the media hype machine and his idiot homer fans for giving Kobe leniency where accomplishments are concerned. No other consensus top ten player who has played in the modern age has only one Final's MVP, but Kobe's allowed in and even vaulted above those who have done more than him as a leader by his moron fans and certain sectors of the media. I'm sure idiots like your hero Mark Jackson would place Kobe above Olajuwon and maybe even Larry Bird and Tim Duncan. No doubt his fans do.
And on the same token, Lebron is receiving similar hype treatment. The difference is his fans aren't (for the most part) drooling sheep and are capable of thinking beyond highlights and sound bites.
Cleveland fans, for the dismal history they've had to endure, are infinitely more knowledgeable and appreciative of the game than your average Laker fan.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 01-15-2010 at 08:46 PM.
And then using your logic... nobody, not even Jordan, much less Magic, TD, or Bird can be considered the GOAT since clearly his 6 les dont even scratch the surface of Bill's 11 as the apha dog on his team.
Some do have Russell as the GOAT. In his era, Russell was just as dominant as anyone to play the game. The best passing and defensive big man of all time. He played within the team concept and didn't have a gaudy PPG, things that don't get much respect from modern fans weaned on Sportscenter.
Jordan is somewhat overrated as the GOAT anyhow. Good arguments can made for Kareem and Russell.
Classic! The opinions of the media and the "experts" matter when they vote for MVP's and those stats are used as criteria to bash Kobe and diminish his accomplishments. But when the very same people state that Kobe is "the guy" or that he's in the conversation for GOAT they are swept under the rug as hyperbole in some conspiricy to vault Kobe to some unworthy status.
Absolutely classic!
I personally have Wilt and Oscar as 1 & 2. WIth that said, it's impossible to compare eras.
Especially if one of the eras isn't over yet.
Why do you think I quoted "experts?" To imply that their opinions are suspect at best given the fact that their promotion agenda is more important than actually provided thoughtful basketball analysis.
And not one "expert" that I know of has ever suggested Kobe is anywhere near the GOAT.
But when we look at cold hard stats and the games themselves, it was very clear who the best player on the 3 peat Lakers was. No "expert" needed.
Why do you Laker fans see it as such a threat when people refuse to regard those 3 les that Kobe won alongside Shaq on the same level as les Bird, Duncan, Shaq, or Magic, or even Kobe won playing as the team leader (when people say Gasol is the best player, they're just trolling. Trust me on that)?
We saw what Kobe did as the main man from 05-07
Sure he was.
Sporting News didn't honor Kobe with player of the decade.
Nor did Sports Illustrated.
Only your gospel ESPN, specifically Mark Stein, honored Kobe with that (Hollinger went with Duncan). He even stated it wasn't necessarily for on the court performances but for media impact.
Players of the Decade shouldn't make the top ten all-time worst Finals performances as did your hero. Duncan made the all-time best list 4 times. Kobe? Not a one. It was Hollinger, who I know you Laker fans despise since Kobe's PER is never within range of truly great players like Shaq, Jordan, Duncan, and even Lebron.
But if you're going to use these idiot experts to validate your points, so am I.
Guess I got mixed up.
But that said you're still a moron who thinks Kobe's dismal shooting percentages and Finals chokejobs during the Shaq years equate to "letting Shaq shine."
I'm actually from SoCal. But nice try. Have you ever been? Or are you just another Lakers fan from Des Moines, Iowa who thought it would be cool to root for the Lakers?
Kind of like your inability to define the decade the two best Spurs players played in?
Intellectual lightweights usually focus on errors that aren't really important to the debate. "Oooh. I mistakenly thought the Sporting News..."
Doesn't change the fact that Kobe was a second fiddle during the 3 peat.
When did you move there and where from?
Becky Hammom > Kobe
25 > 24
You can't deny destiny.
Shaq = Man in the first 3 Quarters
Kobe = Man in the 4th quarter
Shaq wouldn't have won without Kobe. Kobe wouldn't have won without Shaq. Jordan wouldn't have won without Scottie. Duncan wouldn't have won without Tony.
If Shaq could make his free throws, he can be the main man. But his own iness as free throws breaks this argument and puts Kobe in position to earn his "Closer" reputation. What use is a superstar who becomes a liability in the 4th quarter due to his free throw shooting?
You can't use the main man logic to try to take rings away from players. Tony won the Finals MVP, does that mean Duncan should only be credited for 3 rings?
Gasol gone, Lakers lost to the Clippers.
Gasol back, Lakers beat the Clips by 40 freaking points.
Gasol is the Lakers TRUE MVP
No he's just an extremely important piece of the puzzle. He sets the rotations in order such that there is a quality 7 footer on the floor at all times. It makes a huge difference.
You take Kobe off this team and they struggle to make the playoffs.
You do realize Tony didn't play in 99, right?
You take Kobe off this team and you have players setting much higher career averages. Bynum might actually be worth a if Kobe wasn't there.
I am worth a , 16 and 9 on 56% shooting playing next to Pau Gasol. Suck it got.
You mean nipples?
I'm sorry, I forgot about him.
Corrected: Tim Duncan couldn't win without The Admiral or Tony or Manu. Maybe all 4 of his rings should be re-evaluated instead of just 1
And from what I recall, there was an asterisk * put on the 1999 season. Should that Ring even be counted?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)