Can Kobe become Player of TWO Decades???? [Archive] - Page 2

kingmalaki

11-08-2009, 10:14 PM

Pippen wasn't All-NBA 1st team nearly every year like Kobe. You analogy is pretty off.

When it come to All-NBA/All-D 1st teams, it's basically Kobe & TD on one tier above everyone else for the decade. The tiebreaker is how Kobe has outperformed Duncan in the playoffs. Let's be real, you act like Kobe didn't go into SA and dunk allover the Twin Towers and destroy you guys in 01'. You act like Kobe didn't drop 3 10+ 4th quarters in 02' to beat the Spurs. You act like he didn't fly in from Colorado to drop 40+ on SA and lead LA over them in 04'. You act like he wasn't "doin work" on SA in 08' to prevent TD once again from repeating.

This is beyind silly. There are 3 clear cut candidates for the best on the 2000's...Shaq, Kobe and Timmy. You are basing Kobe being better than Timmy off playoff wins in 01, 02 and 04 when 2 of the 3 guys were on the same damn team???

I don't care if you want to quibble about who was the man on those 3 peat teams, but to use those rings or playoff victories to elevate Kobe over Timmy is dumb since it was Shaq and Kobe vs Timmy and whoever. Not to mention Timmy did manage to go through both of those dudes twice, which is pretty damn amazing.

So harp on about 2008 and 2009, even though it's evident that Kobe's team in 08 was healthy and Tim's wasn't.

Edit: And as far as the Pippen analogy, in the timeframe that you are giving Kobe props for (99/00 - 03/04), he made an All-NBA team 5 times (1st team 3 times, but only once during the 3peat). During the Bulls 6 titles, Pippen made an All-NBA team 5 times (1st team 1 time). He also made the 1st team in the two years when MJ wasn't there, and carried his team to the semis even though they replaced MJ with no one. Compare that to Kobe, who lost Shaq, went lotto and dropped from 1st team to 3rd until more help came in. I'm not trying to say Pippen = Kobe, but the analogy was spot on.

Allanon

11-09-2009, 12:29 AM

Hey I have nothing against you if you're gay or not gay. I just prefer you keep your homo erotic comments to yourself. Or is that asking to much of you?

You obviously look for gay undertones. I personally prefer to look for your mom's snatch.

Actually, I provided fact. Thanks for FAILING, again. You do that very well.

Actually, you provided opinion. No matter how many times you repeat your opinion, it's still opinion. FAIL.

Just like the bet keep spinning and maybe everyone will forget. hahaha

Hey if you like to spin around, feel free to.

I already posted where you didn't say it dumb ass, and so no I don't need you to repost what you didn't say in the first place. Maybe it would help you to go look up implied in the dictionary? I doubt it, but maybe.

Nope you dumb bitch. You posted where to look. I'm not doing your homework for you. Sorry.

More and more I get the impression you were in the Navy.
Wrong again. I never shed blood but sweat and tears yes.

Like I said it is nice that you try and dream about leaving the ghetto, but it wouldn't happen with my mom. That is just a statement of fact. But you know what, no one can take your dreams. So if you want to put my mom on that pedestal alongside your dream of being a McDonald's fries cook then you just do that.

Hey your mom has ghetto standards. I didn't come looking for her, she saw my black dick and was stuck on it. She likes the bonus gas station beef jerky I bring her too. We eat those instead of smoking a cigarette after I'm done pumping her.

Oh look, you didn't reply to what was said, again. Shocking.
Oh look, you didn't ask a question. Shocking.

Oh your confused again. I'm sorry. No, you see I was using a example to reference your total retreat to juvenile your momma comments b/c you can't handle the heat of the conversation. I'll try not use such a difficult concept for you next time.

Hey, you were the one to bring up momma's, don't be a hypocrite. Besides, don't be butt hurt now that I'm fucking that ho, it's a public service. :lol

Mitch Kupchak

11-09-2009, 12:30 AM

During the July 2003 interview with investigators, Bryant stated that the sex was consensual.[/URL] Bryant said he checked into Room 35 of the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera on June 28, and then the alleged victim gave him a tour of the hotel on July 1. After the tour he claims they went to his room and were kissing. He said Faber showed him a tattoo on her lower back that had music and instruments on it, and told him she wanted to be a singer. He said Faber then gave him oral sex for a few seconds before bending over a chair and pulling up her skirt. Bryant said he stopped having intercourse with her after he asked if he could "cum on her face", and she said no.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case#cite_note-1"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case#cite_note-0) He said Faber asked him to sign autographs and then left his room once the intercourse ended. He also told investigators that he didn’t ejaculate during the intercourse and instead masturbated in his room after she left. He expressed fear that his wife would leave him if she found out that he cheated on her and suggested that Faber must be after money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case)

Disappointing

Culburn369

11-09-2009, 12:49 AM

I'll give Kobe's wife credit...she stood stock still right next to him the entire ordeal. It do not get better than that.

Mavs_man_41

11-09-2009, 02:32 AM

I'll give Kobe's wife credit...she stood stock still right next to him the entire ordeal. It do not get better than that.

I give you credit for standing your ground and continuing your dumbass posts no matter how badly you're ridiculed or exposed as a molester

cobbler

11-09-2009, 03:00 AM

I give you credit for standing your ground and continuing your dumbass posts no matter how badly you're ridiculed or exposed as a molester

What is absolutely classic is.... Culburn is who he is... he comes right out and says he's a flamer and trolling...

...and you idiots keep getting sucked right in, get your vaginas all pushed out of shape, and just fuel the fire. It's a masterful job that only shows how each and everyone of you who get upset and fuel the "flames" is a complete and utter MORON.

...and there are a lot of you here! :lmao

Mavs_man_41

11-09-2009, 03:03 AM

What is absolutely classic is.... Culburn is who he is... he comes right out and says he's a flamer and trolling...

...and you idiots keep getting sucked right in, get your vaginas all pushed out of shape, and just fuel the fire. It's a masterful job that only shows how each and everyone of you who get upset and fuel the "flames" is a complete and utter MORON.

...and there are a lot of you here! :lmao

Lol upset

cobbler

11-09-2009, 03:08 AM

Lol upset

LOL at YOU and your pathetic team.

usdane

11-09-2009, 03:19 AM

Well, At least Kobe and his wife could work it out giving their kids a good childhood with a mother and dad around.

To many people just selfishly give up leaving the kids to pay the price for a broken up family.

To bad Michael Jordan's indiscretions caused his marriage to fall apart and eventually let to a divorce.

Culburn369

11-09-2009, 05:46 AM

I give you credit for standing your ground and continuing your dumbass posts no matter how badly you're ridiculed or exposed as a molester

I ain't here to garner support nor praise.

Let us proceed...

Culburn369

11-09-2009, 05:48 AM

Well, At least Kobe and his wife could work it out giving their kids a good childhood with a mother and dad around.

To many people just selfishly give up leaving the kids to pay the price for a broken up family.

Grand sentiments, Us. Divorce is easy. & Americans love easy.

LnGrrrR

11-09-2009, 08:15 AM

OK Mogro, here's the bet. If you still stand by your words that this is luck let's see you put your sig where your mouth is.

Your graph says that quality of team doesn't factor in much in win/losses. They project 60% win total in close games.

The Bet is:
The graph shows 60%. I'll spot you 5% and give you 65%.

I will take Over 65% Laker wins in close games, you take UNDER 65% Laker wins in close close games. 65% exactly results in a tie.

Close wins defined by the Article with the graph says 5pts or less. At the end of the season, we count up all the Laker 5pt games and figure out the win/losse percentage based on all of them.

Loser puts what the winner wants in loser's sig.

Do you accept this SIG bet?

Bumping in case Mogro missed it.

wanggi

11-09-2009, 08:58 AM

Grand sentiments, Us. Divorce is easy. & Americans love easy.

So some of Americans are easy to be in love, even with a Colorado Rapist.

:rollin

Finperro

11-09-2009, 09:05 AM

clearly Kobe shouldn't be considered player of the past decade with names like Dream, Jordan, or even Shaq. At finest Kobe is just player of this decade, given that Duncan is always too timid to chase such vanities. And Kobe will have no spot in the best range of next decade, since he's getting older year by year as the young guys grow better and stronger.

Culburn369

11-09-2009, 09:09 AM

So some of Americans are easy to be in love, even with a Colorado Rapist.

:rollin

She got inside the wire with him, found a wall, got their backs up against it. Then you just take 'em one at-a-time as they come thru.

Like shaved pussy.

Finperro

11-09-2009, 09:13 AM

So some of Americans are easy to be in love, even with a Colorado Rapist.

:rollin
Even a rapist is loath to fuck you though. Actually you can hardly get attractive enough to draw a fuck with two smelly dumb holes located in your face and crotch respectively, even your anus isn't so dumb since it sometimes does make sounds by farting.

Culburn369

11-09-2009, 09:16 AM

even a rapist is loath to fuck you though. Actually you can hardly get attractive enough to draw a fuck with two smelly dumb holes located in your face and crotch respectively, even your anus isn't so dumb since it sometimes does make sounds by farting.

woot!

mingus

11-09-2009, 11:49 AM

Kobe was too late in his efforts to get Shaq to leave, the damage had already been done - Shaq was "da man" in lala land for those three 'chips, successfully excluding Kobe Bryant entirely from the player of the decade discussion for the last decade. he's was really fucked either way, though, because if he'd tried to get him to leave earlier, he wouldn't have won anything. it was a no-win situation for Mr. Kobe.

maybe this decade, but we shall see. he'll be 35 by the time it hits mid-point. he'll have to do a helleva lot in the first five years of this decade becuse he'll be up there in age halfway through.

:hat

SpursDynasty

11-09-2009, 11:56 AM

Kobe only led his team to 1 championship.

Shaolin-Style

11-09-2009, 11:57 AM

Weren't the lakers a terrible team for a year or two there who had the fairweather la fans hating kobe's guts until Pau Gasol showed up to save him?

And how quickly so many people with Shaq's decline forget his dominance in those 3 championships.

Aside from injuries Duncan has sustained hes always been a championship contender this decade, kobe was out of the picture for a while there so no, Kobe isn't the best of this decade, and certainly not the last decade.

Culburn369

11-09-2009, 11:57 AM

Without Kobe in Portland in the 2000 Playoffs, we don't make the initial strike of the 3-peat. God only knows what would've happened if we hadn't gotten that first one. Media was all over Daddy already over his "being a champion at every level" malarkey. Kobe stopped it there and it didn't come back until Daddy rang/sans Kobe in '06. It then took Kobe 3 years to get it stopped again by ringin'/sans Daddy a few months back.

Culburn369

11-09-2009, 11:57 AM

Kobe only led his team to 1 championship.

Yes, the 2000 NBA Championship.

Culburn369

11-09-2009, 11:59 AM

Aside from injuries Duncan has sustained hes always been a championship contender this decade

His chronological inability to repeat leaves a stain upon his steps.

Laker-fan-in-SanAnto

11-09-2009, 01:59 PM

His chronological inability to repeat leaves a stain upon his steps.

And first round exit 4-1 against the Mavs

MaNu4Tres

11-09-2009, 01:59 PM

1 Finals MVP in 6 tries.

Enough said.

Allanon

11-09-2009, 02:07 PM

Come to think of it. after "ringing sans Daddy", Kobe's transcended the decade discussion. Kobe will leave the decade discussion for the other guys to battle out.

Right now, Kobe's looking at a couple more Rings, MVP's and a shot at GOAT or #2 GOAT.

Stand

11-09-2009, 02:44 PM

You obviously look for gay undertones. I personally prefer to look for your mom's snatch.

Actually I don't have to go looking for them. Yours are so just glaringly obvious they can't be ignored. So again is it to much to ask for you to keep those comments to yourself and your boyfriends?

Actually, you provided opinion. No matter how many times you repeat your opinion, it's still opinion. FAIL.

Actually, I provided fact. Thanks for FAILING, again. You do it so well that maybe you should try and make a career of it. Oh wait...

Hey if you like to spin around, feel free to.

You can spin it, dance away from it, weasel out of it, or just plain dick tuck. The fact of the matter is the question was asked and you are doing everything in your power to not answer it.

Nope you dumb bitch. You posted where to look. I'm not doing your homework for you. Sorry.

God damn you are a whole other level of stupid. You have said so much dumb ass shit that you can't even keep up with it. So again, I already posted what you said. And once again I will have to ask you to try and keep up with the conversation. I mean how many times am I going to have to stop and wait for you to catch up?

Wrong again. I never shed blood but sweat and tears yes.

Oh I bet you shed plenty of tears.

Hey your mom has ghetto standards. I didn't come looking for her, she saw my black dick and was stuck on it. She likes the bonus gas station beef jerky I bring her too. We eat those instead of smoking a cigarette after I'm done pumping her.

Really it is cute that my momma is what you dream about. I think you might be aiming to high though.

Oh look, you didn't ask a question. Shocking.

It's sad that Koko the sign language talking gorilla has better comprehension than you.

Hey, you were the one to bring up momma's, don't be a hypocrite. Besides, don't be butt hurt now that I'm fucking that ho, it's a public service. :lol

Hypocrite...hahahaha...I swear you are about as dumb as box of rocks.

Allanon

11-09-2009, 03:10 PM

Actually I don't have to go looking for them. Yours are so just glaringly obvious they can't be ignored. So again is it to much to ask for you to keep those comments to yourself and your boyfriends?

You were the only one that brought up the comments being "gay". Don't deny your looking for them. I had only brought up fucking your mom, not your dad.

Actually, I provided fact. Thanks for FAILING, again. You do it so well that maybe you should try and make a career of it. Oh wait...

Actually you provided opinion. Thanks for FAILING again. You do so well, that probably is your career.

You can spin it, dance away from it, weasel out of it, or just plain dick tuck. The fact of the matter is the question was asked and you are doing everything in your power to not answer it.

I am not going to ask a stupid question. Learn to write a question or spin away.

God damn you are a whole other level of stupid. You have said so much dumb ass shit that you can't even keep up with it. So again, I already posted what you said. And once again I will have to ask you to try and keep up with the conversation. I mean how many times am I going to have to stop and wait for you to catch up?

Don't be this stupid. I am not going to do your homework for you. Quote it or keep making excuses.

Oh I bet you shed plenty of tears.
More of your misguided opinion? Hahah how typical of you

Really it is cute that my momma is what you dream about. I think you might be aiming to high though.

Nah, you said it yourself. Your mom's the filthy ho aiming for the "special kids". You have conveniently "forgotten" this eh? :lol

It's sad that Koko the sign language talking gorilla has better comprehension than you.
It's so sad you have your head so far up your ass you can't smell the pwnage.

Hypocrite...hahahaha...I swear you are about as dumb as box of rocks.

Don't cry to momma after YOU talked about my momma and I started fuckin' yo momma.

Simple as that; hypocrite. I swear you're as dumb as a box of tampons.

Stand

11-10-2009, 08:24 AM

You were the only one that brought up the comments being "gay". Don't deny your looking for them. I had only brought up fucking your mom, not your dad.

Fella, if you are walking around wearing a pink speedo and a feather boa it's going to be pretty hard not to notice. I'd have to be blind not to see what your flaunting. But whenever you are ready to come out of the closet I am sure you will have lots of Rapist fans there waiting to support you.

Actually you provided opinion. Thanks for FAILING again. You do so well, that probably is your career.

Actually, I provided fact. Thanks for FAILING, again. I'm starting to think you won the Mega Power Ball Fail jackpot.

I am not going to ask a stupid question. Learn to write a question or spin away.

You lack the ability to ask any other type. But regardless it isn't about you asking a question you clueless fuck. It is about you ANSWERING the question that has already been asked.

Don't be this stupid. I am not going to do your homework for you. Quote it or keep making excuses.

:lmao I love it that you bring up pwnage when you clearly no longer know what you are trying to argue about. What exactly would I need to quote?

More of your misguided opinion? Hahah how typical of you

The truth might hurt, but it is still the truth. Now go cry yourself to sleep.

Nah, you said it yourself. Your mom's the filthy ho aiming for the "special kids". You have conveniently "forgotten" this eh? :lol

I haven't forgotten what I said or changed what I said. The only difference is that I have gotten the full picture now, and know that this is one of your crack induced pipe dreams. Again it is cute that you are aiming so high.

It's so sad you have your head so far up your ass you can't smell the pwnage.

:lol If not knowing about the subject you are talking about, being unable to support your bunk information with anything remotely like a legit source, blatantly ignoring facts that shoot down said bunk information, avoiding questions at all cost, not being able to keep up with the conversation at multiple points, and just being an in general dumb MF is pwnage. Then yes indeed, you are doing a fine job. Might fine. :lmao

Don't cry to momma after YOU talked about my momma and I started fuckin' yo momma.

Where did I talk about your momma? Quote it or it doesn't exist.

Simple as that; hypocrite. I swear you're as dumb as a box of tampons.

Please do us all a favor and stop using words you clearly don't understand the meaning of.

Allanon

11-10-2009, 08:39 AM

Fella, if you are walking around wearing a pink speedo and a feather boa it's going to be pretty hard not to notice. I'd have to be blind not to see what your flaunting. But whenever you are ready to come out of the closet I am sure you will have lots of Rapist fans there waiting to support you.

Now you're fantasizing about me wearing a feather boa? Sorry little fella, but I ain't into dudes...I'm into skanky ho's like your momma.

Actually, I provided fact. Thanks for FAILING, again. I'm starting to think you won the Mega Power Ball Fail jackpot.

Actually, you provided opinion. Thanks for FAILING again. Check back with me when you get some facts.

[quote]
You lack the ability to ask any other type. But regardless it isn't about you asking a question you clueless fuck. It is about you ANSWERING the question that has already been asked.

You stupid bitch, you have to ask a question to get an answer. Basic logic, duh.

:lmao I love it that you bring up pwnage when you clearly no longer know what you are trying to argue about. What exactly would I need to quote?
You never had a clue to begin with, it's been pure pwnage. :lol

The truth might hurt, but it is still the truth. Now go cry yourself to sleep.
The only thing that hurts is your mom's asshole when it gets puckered by the dark meat.

I haven't forgotten what I said or changed what I said. The only difference is that I have gotten the full picture now, and know that this is one of your crack induced pipe dreams. Again it is cute that you are aiming so high.
Actually, I'm fucking your mom, so that's aiming pretty low. But like I said, it's nice of her to give her time and ass to us "special kids".

:lol If not knowing about the subject you are talking about, being unable to support your bunk information with anything remotely like a legit source, blatantly ignoring facts that shoot down said bunk information, avoiding questions at all cost, not being able to keep up with the conversation at multiple points, and just being an in general dumb MF is pwnage. Then yes indeed, you are doing a fine job. Might fine. :lmao
Stop Bull-shitting me. You have provided nothing but opinion on Kobe. Don't come in here with your weak-ass opinions. Provide some facts or leave me alone with your mom.

Where did I talk about your momma? Quote it or it doesn't exist.
You quoted it yourself a few posts ago. I ain't doing your homework for you. Find it yourself, buddy; I'm too busy porkin' mommy.

Please do us all a favor and stop using words you clearly don't understand the meaning of.

Please do us all a favor and stop being stupid. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. BTW, be a good son and buy your momma a box of condoms, she's run out. :lol

Stand

11-11-2009, 09:10 AM

Now you're fantasizing about me wearing a feather boa? Sorry little fella, but I ain't into dudes...I'm into skanky ho's like your momma.

It seems like the half of you that is fighting to bust out of that closet is harming you overall continued mental state. Just embrace what you are man.

Actually, you provided opinion. Thanks for FAILING again. Check back with me when you get some facts.

Actually, I provided fact. Much like your ability to use the quote function you FAIL, again. Thanks for playing.

You stupid bitch, you have to ask a question to get an answer. Basic logic, duh.

:lol Well usually that is how it works. Of course with you I ask you a question and then you spend the next 10 pages alternating between out right avoiding and then denying a question was asked. So clearly when it comes to basic logic, you FAIL.

You never had a clue to begin with, it's been pure pwnage. :lol

So what do I need to quote again? FAIL.

The only thing that hurts is your mom's asshole when it gets puckered by the dark meat.

There you go crying those Kobe and Fisher crocodile tears.

Actually, I'm fucking your mom, so that's aiming pretty low. But like I said, it's nice of her to give her time and ass to us "special kids".

Exactly, you are aiming for my mom and so you are aiming high. Hell if you were aiming for the guy, who going by your other comments you would probably prefer, who washes my car you would be aiming. Sorry son, but it isn't about them it is about you.

Stop Bull-shitting me. You have provided nothing but opinion on Kobe. Don't come in here with your weak-ass opinions. Provide some facts or leave me alone with your mom.

And that is exactly why you have been PWNED son. You can't address one single one of your multiple FAILS.

You quoted it yourself a few posts ago. I ain't doing your homework for you. Find it yourself, buddy; I'm too busy porkin' mommy.

Much like I thought. You can't quote it b/c it doesn't exist. FAIL.

Please do us all a favor and stop being stupid. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. BTW, be a good son and buy your momma a box of condoms, she's run out. :lol

Damn son, the FAILS are starting to add up. I'm raping you worse than a poor white girl locked in a room with Kobe. Your turning out to be a real glutton for punishment, but then that is probably your pillow biter side.

Allanon

11-11-2009, 10:39 AM

It seems like the half of you that is fighting to bust out of that closet is harming you overall continued mental state. Just embrace what you are man.
Don't put your gay tendencies on me. Like I said, nothing personal, I just like fucking that ho momma of yours.

Actually, I provided fact. Much like your ability to use the quote function you FAIL, again. Thanks for playing.
Actually you provided OPINION. Repeating your opinion doesn't make it fact. Try again.

:lol Well usually that is how it works. Of course with you I ask you a question and then you spend the next 10 pages alternating between out right avoiding and then denying a question was asked. So clearly when it comes to basic logic, you FAIL.
:lol No usually that isn't how it works. You haven't disproven shit. Go get some facts and get back to me. Until then, it is opinion.

So what do I need to quote again? FAIL.
I dunno, you can find some quotes about your mom leaving no hole unexplored if that's your thing. SUCCESS!

There you go crying those Kobe and Fisher crocodile tears.
Nah, those are yo momma's pussy is stank tears. Don't get them confused.

Exactly, you are aiming for my mom and so you are aiming high. Hell if you were aiming for the guy, who going by your other comments you would probably prefer, who washes my car you would be aiming. Sorry son, but it isn't about them it is about you.

Sorry son, there you go with the gay comments again. How many times have I told you I like that skanky ass bitch of yours.

And that is exactly why you have been PWNED son. You can't address one single one of your multiple FAILS.

Son, get out of here with that. You've been constantly pwned and don't even realize it. :lol

Much like I thought. You can't quote it b/c it doesn't exist. FAIL.
:lmao. Try again, son.

Damn son, the FAILS are starting to add up. I'm raping you worse than a poor white girl locked in a room with Kobe. Your turning out to be a real glutton for punishment, but then that is probably your pillow biter side.

The only FAILure here is you son. But that's ok I've been tearing up your mom's piehole in more ways than you count. I'm thinking about going to Colorado and bringing that bitch along. This is FUN, Son! :lol

Obstructed_View

11-11-2009, 03:01 PM

Kobe is already the undisputed player of the 2000's decade(4 rings, 6 Finals, 4-1 gainst TD in the playoffs, etc.).

By that criteria, Robert Horry is the undisputed player of the 2000's decade.

An Unbiased Fan

11-11-2009, 03:10 PM

By that criteria, Robert Horry is the undisputed player of the 2000's decade.
Horry doesn't have multiple All-NBA/All-D 1st team selections like Kobe.

Chucho

11-11-2009, 03:49 PM

Duncan: 3 Titles, 2 MVPS, 2 Finals MVPs, highest winning percentage in over twenty years, never missed playoffs

Kobe: 4 titles, 1 MVP, 1 Finals, missed playoffs once

Shaq: 4 titles, 1 MVP, 3 Finals MVPs, missed playoffs once

I'd go Duncan, Shaq, Kobe based on accomplishments. Kobe, Shaq, Duncan in star power.

mavs>spurs2

11-11-2009, 03:59 PM

Stand

11-12-2009, 10:54 AM

Don't put your gay tendencies on me. Like I said, nothing personal, I just like fucking that ho momma of yours.

Actually I do take it personal when you come on to me. Really though it is perfectly fine that you want to act like you are keeping your pillow biting firmly in the closet, but it is also clear that you don't understand the "don't tell" part in "don't ask, don't tell". Keep it between you and your daddy. Wait my bad, you probably don't know who your dad is. FAIL at life, son.

Actually you provided OPINION. Repeating your opinion doesn't make it fact. Try again.

I actually I provided FACT. Repeatedly ignoring facts doesn't make it opinion. Try again.

:lol No usually that isn't how it works. You haven't disproven shit. Go get some facts and get back to me. Until then, it is opinion.

If that usually isn't how it works then why did you say otherwise? Are you so far lost that you can't even remember what you said from your very last post? But anyway, ignoring you confused ramblings and getting back on topic, answer the question. Oh yeah, that is a double FAIL, son.

I dunno, you can find some quotes about your mom leaving no hole unexplored if that's your thing. SUCCESS!

I already quoted where you said my mom explored all of your holes. So actually that's a....wait for it.....FAIL, son.

Nah, those are yo momma's pussy is stank tears. Don't get them confused.

My Ebonics translation book tells me that you just said you got your pussy hurt and that is why you have been crying for the last ten pages.

Sorry son, there you go with the gay comments again. How many times have I told you I like that skanky ass bitch of yours.

Didn't you hear that mentally unstable peoples opinions don't count? So really you can say it till you are blue in the face.

Son, get out of here with that. You've been constantly pwned and don't even realize it. :lol

:lmao And once AGAIN that is exactly why you have been PWNED, son. You can't address one single one of your multiple FAILS.

:lmao. Try again, son.

As some in the closet douche said, "quote it or it doesn't exist." So try again with your FAIL, son.

The only FAILure here is you son. But that's ok I've been tearing up your mom's piehole in more ways than you count. I'm thinking about going to Colorado and bringing that bitch along. This is FUN, Son! :lol

Oh, but of course you find it fun to get repeatedly raped. :lol So while in reality this is just another FAIL, in your case you can probably call that one a success. :lmao

Allanon

11-12-2009, 01:34 PM

Actually I do take it personal when you come on to me. Really though it is perfectly fine that you want to act like you are keeping your pillow biting firmly in the closet, but it is also clear that you don't understand the "don't tell" part in "don't ask, don't tell". Keep it between you and your daddy. Wait my bad, you probably don't know who your dad is. FAIL at life, son.

Hahah, even after this long, your mongo brain can't realize that you're the one finding the gay situations. Look, don't blame me if your mom likes letting black guys fuck her. That bitch likes it rough and hard; that's why she came looking for me.

I actually I provided FACT. Repeatedly ignoring facts doesn't make it opinion. Try again.
Actually, you provided opinion. Repeating your opinion over and over again doesn't make make it a fact. Thanks for playing.

If that usually isn't how it works then why did you say otherwise? Are you so far lost that you can't even remember what you said from your very last post? But anyway, ignoring you confused ramblings and getting back on topic, answer the question. Oh yeah, that is a double FAIL, son.
Hahah, what a delusional little bitch you are. You still have done nothing but provide opinions. Get back to me when you have some FACTS, son. Fail.

I already quoted where you said my mom explored all of your holes. So actually that's a....wait for it.....FAIL, son.
Delusional yet again. You never quoted that. God you're so stupid you can't even remember what you wrote. :lmao

My Ebonics translation book tells me that you just said you got your pussy hurt and that is why you have been crying for the last ten pages.
Not at all Masta', we's black peoples gots the thick skinz and big dicks to poke them holes in yo momma's snatchies. :lol

Didn't you hear that mentally unstable peoples opinions don't count? So really you can say it till you are blue in the face.
Hey if you'd like to come out of the closet that's fine by me. I never brought up the gay stuff, you repeatedly tried to bring up gay talk. Nothing against gays and homosexuals, but I only like putting the meat to your mom.

:lmao And once AGAIN that is exactly why you have been PWNED, son. You can't address one single one of your multiple FAILS.
:lmao And once again, you have failed to do anything but provide opinion. Your heads so mixed up in your delusions of grandeurs that you haven't come up with anything pwn worthy.

As some in the closet douche said, "quote it or it doesn't exist." So try again with your FAIL, son.
Sorry bitch, I ain't doing your homework. Don't be lazy.

Oh, but of course you find it fun to get repeatedly raped. :lol So while in reality this is just another FAIL, in your case you can probably call that one a success. :lmao
No, no son, you're confused. It's your mom that likes to play the rape game; how do you think you were born? She let's me tie her up and start slapping her around with mah dick. Maybe that's where you're getting this from. She told me she wants be like Kate. SUCCESS! :lmao

Obstructed_View

11-12-2009, 01:58 PM

Horry doesn't have multiple All-NBA/All-D 1st team selections like Kobe.

That wasn't in the criteria you listed. And if you're going to add those to the list, Kobe just got curbstomped by Tim Duncan.

mogrovejo

11-12-2009, 02:05 PM

Kobe only led his team to 1 championship.

When he wasn't even the best player in the league, he just had a terrific supporting cast.

Weren't the lakers a terrible team for a year or two there who had the fairweather la fans hating kobe's guts until Pau Gasol showed up to save him?

Yeps.

Mogrove....your a FUCKING idiot...

There are so many variables in your idea that close games are won out of luck. What is a close game? The definition varies for each person. A good team can battle back from 20 points and might come up a short....a bad team will rarely battle back from 20 so there is no loss counting against their close games record. East/West talent ratio. West has a higher quantity of quality teams.

Bottom line...the team with more talent and the better team will win FAR more close games than a shitty team. If you don't want to fucking believe this than God help you. No graph can fucking prove me wrong either....

The article defines what a close game is.

Bottom line, the history proves you wrong. Saying that teams with more talent win far more close games than a shitty team is like saying that the Lakers record versus the C's in finals is not 2-9 or that the Spurs didn't beat the Mavs 92-83 yesterday. That graph isn't just made up, it isn't a speculation or an hypothesis. It's hard data: the scores of NBA games. You're basically saying that you don't believe in the scores of past NBA games. Can you understand how dumb, nonsensical and bizarre that is? Not as dumb as saying that Kobe was the player of the decade, but still...

75% is too high, that's obviously alot more wins than losses and would prove the quality of a team is very important in determining close games.

The Graph says 60% is the correlation so that's the line for the bet.

I take 60% and over. Mogro says 60% and under.

We'll test this correlation graph. :lol

Deal Mogro?

OK Mogro, here's the bet. If you still stand by your words that this is luck let's see you put your sig where your mouth is.

Your graph says that quality of team doesn't factor in much in win/losses. They project 60% win total in close games.

The Bet is:
The graph shows 60%. I'll spot you 5% and give you 65%.

I will take Over 65% Laker wins in close games, you take UNDER 65% Laker wins in close close games. 65% exactly results in a tie.

Close wins defined by the Article with the graph says 5pts or less. At the end of the season, we count up all the Laker 5pt games and figure out the win/losse percentage based on all of them.

Loser puts what the winner wants in loser's sig.

Do you accept this SIG bet?

Uh? It's amazing: you still haven't understood the graph. If you are so statistically illiterate, why don't you ask for explanations?

Do you even know what a correlation is? It's a relationship between 2 or more variables or set of data. Which are those variables here? Winning % in close games and winning % in non-close games. Unlike you dumbly seem to think, the graph isn't supposed to be a predictor of how many close games teams are going to win. They don't project 60% of wins in close games or anything of that kind. Btw, if you knew how to read the graph, you'd see that it points out a correlation around 0.45. So, what you're saying is simply nonsensical. Even if it wasn't, we don't even know what is going to be the Lakers winning % on non-close games, so how could we make a bet on the dependant variable value? And if my point is that close games are decided by luck, why would I take such a stupid bet, like % of close games won? Luck is, by definition, not controllable, and such a bet would simply be won by the luckiest guy. I don't like bets based only on luck. If you could read the graph, you'd see some teams win almost 90% of their close games - and it isn't because they're any good, because some of those have losing records.

"Your graph says that quality of team doesn't factor in much in win/losses" - no it doesn't. It says that the importance of quality in close games is grossly mitigated - the reason teams have superior records is because they win lots of blow-out games - obviously because they have quality. I don't know how can I explain this better. You're a lost cause.

"OK Mogro, here's the bet. If you still stand by your words that this is luck let's see you put your sig where your mouth is."

Agreed. I say the Lakers winning so many close games is luck and they won't keep it up - I've been saying that since the first post. If you disagree, put your sig where your mouth is: accept the bet that they will keep winning close games at this pace or that they'll keep this overall winning %. This is the only bet that makes sense considering our positions (unless you're once again backing out).

I can't keep this conversation going on forever. 2 or 3 days have passed. Accept the bet like a man or my bet with Lakaluva will take effect.

Allanon

11-12-2009, 02:25 PM

The article defines what a close game is.

Bottom line, the history proves you wrong. Saying that teams with more talent win far more close games than a shitty team is like saying that the Lakers record versus the C's in finals is not 2-9 or that the Spurs didn't beat the Mavs 92-83 yesterday. That graph isn't just made up, it isn't a speculation or an hypothesis. It's hard data: the scores of NBA games. You're basically saying that you don't believe in the scores of past NBA games. Can you understand how dumb, nonsensical and bizarre that is? Not as dumb as saying that Kobe was the player of the decade, but still...

Don't be stupid. Where does that graph contradict what I was saying. I said QUALITY teams such as the Lakers. You're trying to push the failures of other teams on me. What I say applies to the LAKERS; prove that wrong.

Uh? It's amazing: you still haven't understood the graph. If you are so statistically illiterate, why don't you ask for explanations?
I can understand the graph just fine. I see the correlation for OTHER teams included in with the Lakers. I say this correlation does not apply to a quality team like the Lakers.

Do you even know what a correlation is? It's a relationship between 2 or more variables or set of data. Which are those variables here? Winning % in close games and winning % in non-close games. Unlike you dumbly seem to think, the graph isn't supposed to be a predictor of how many close games teams are going to win. They don't project 60% of wins in close games or anything of that kind. Btw, if you knew how to read the graph, you'd see that it points out a correlation around 0.45. So, what you're saying is simply nonsensical. Even if it wasn't, we don't even know what is going to be the Lakers winning % on non-close games, so how could we make a bet on the dependant variable value? And if my point is that close games are decided by luck, why would I take such a stupid bet, like % of close games won? Luck is, by definition, not controllable, and such a bet would simply be won by the luckiest guy. I don't like bets based only on luck. If you could read the graph, you'd see some teams win almost 90% of their close games - and it isn't because they're any good, because some of those have losing records.

Again, how does any of this contradict what I was saying? How does this apply to the Lakers?

"Your graph says that quality of team doesn't factor in much in win/losses" - no it doesn't. It says that the importance of quality in close games is grossly mitigated - the reason teams have superior records is because they win lots of blow-out games - obviously because they have quality. I don't know how can I explain this better. You're a lost cause.

So WTF are you arguing about. This is exactly what I am saying minus the "blow out games" qualifying factor.

"OK Mogro, here's the bet. If you still stand by your words that this is luck let's see you put your sig where your mouth is."

Agreed. I say the Lakers winning so many close games is luck and they won't keep it up - I've been saying that since the first post. If you disagree, put your sig where your mouth is: accept the bet that they will keep winning close games at this pace or that they'll keep this overall winning %. This is the only bet that makes sense considering our positions (unless you're once again backing out).

Don't be stupid. The Lakers are on a 100% close game winning percent. Why would I take your bet at 100%? That's idiotic. I never once said the Lakers would win 100% of their close games. If you can quote where I said this, I'll take your 100% bet. But you won't find it.

On the other hand you presented a graph that says the correlation is minor between quality of team and wins in close games. It says it's about 60% which would indeed mean that quality doesn't really matter.

I think the Lakers are beyond the scope of your graph.

I will give you an extra 5% so the line is drawn at 65%.

Even your fellow Boston Celtic fan says 65% would be fair. I get over 65% and you get under 65%

Either stand by your words or back out like a pussy, it's up to you.

Darrin

11-12-2009, 05:21 PM

Kobe is already the undisputed player of the 2000's decade(4 rings, 6 Finals, 4-1 gainst TD in the playoffs, etc.).

So the question must be asked, can he repeat this feat for the 10's?? LA is posed to win 3-6 titles with the current team, and Kobe is even better than before. The Prince may have something to say about this, but turthfully, he's not on Kobe's level yet.

Can Kobe become the only player in history to dominate TWO decades?

Discuss

I think that Kobe Bryant has been the best player of the last part of this decade. We have to remember Shaq and Tim Duncan when we talk about the best of the decade, however.

I think that he'll straddle the last five years of the previous decade and the first five years of the next for 10 of the best seasons from an individual we have ever seen. Seriously, I think Dwyane Wade will probably be the best player of the next decade (if he stays healthy).

Obstructed_View

11-12-2009, 05:57 PM

It's really too bad that Lakerfan wastes all the accolades that Kobe Bryant legitimately deserves as a first ballot hall of famer and top-tier scoring talent by trying to include him in conversations in which he doesn't belong.

RsxPiimp

11-12-2009, 07:14 PM

all you niggas need to stop hatin. this is the final year of the decade and duncan has declined tremendously. despite having a stacked team his spurs are barely 500 in the win column.

kobe's the troof. nigga is leading the league in scoring shooting 49% and leading the lakers in a 6-1 record with no gasol and bynum missin time too.

if duncan fails again in the playoffs and kobe wins a 5th title this year, you bitches need to start respecting motherfucking kobe bean bryant

An Unbiased Fan

11-12-2009, 08:32 PM

That wasn't in the criteria you listed. And if you're going to add those to the list, Kobe just got curbstomped by Tim Duncan.
Huh?

Kobe = 7 All-NBA 1st teams
Duncan = 7 All-NBA 1st teams

Kobe = 7 All-D 1st teams
Duncan = 7 All-D 1st teams

Kobe = 6 Finals
Duncan = 3 Finals

Kobe = 4 Ttitles
Duncan = 3 Titles

Kobe = 4-1 against Duncan in playoffs

game.set.match :wakeup

TheSullyMonster

11-12-2009, 09:22 PM

Some people take into account team winning percentage in that time, as well.

Along with 2 finals mvp>1.

RsxPiimp

11-12-2009, 10:37 PM

Racist? :rolleyes

You should be aware that when the N-Word trickles out of your mouth, the president is also involved in your insult.

u stupid? u need to get out more. thats not racial.

mogrovejo

11-13-2009, 06:10 PM

Don't be stupid. Where does that graph contradict what I was saying. I said QUALITY teams such as the Lakers. You're trying to push the failures of other teams on me. What I say applies to the LAKERS; prove that wrong.

Unbelievable. Learn to read, Lakers fan. That reply was to another poster, not to you.

I can understand the graph just fine. I see the correlation for OTHER teams included in with the Lakers. I say this correlation does not apply to a quality team like the Lakers.

No, you obviously can't understand the graph. The graph includes every freaking team in the NBA - including the Lakers - for the past 8 years. 240 teams.

Again, how does any of this contradict what I was saying? How does this apply to the Lakers?

Not even you know anymore what the you're saying. You're just babbling some incoherent rants.

So WTF are you arguing about. This is exactly what I am saying minus the "blow out games" qualifying factor.

Can't you see the stupidity of this point? How can you agree with the first point without accepting the one about the blow out games? It's not a qualifying factor, it's a fucking corollary.

I mean, if historically teams have similar records in close games, no matter their final standings, what exactly caused the difference in the final W/L record?

I never meet an adult person who was unable to understand this kind of simple things.

Don't be stupid. The Lakers are on a 100% close game winning percent. Why would I take your bet at 100%? That's idiotic. I never once said the Lakers would win 100% of their close games. If you can quote where I said this, I'll take your 100% bet. But you won't find it.

Try to follow me: I said the Lakers record was due to luck - their point differential isn't good enough to sustain this pace, because they have won all their close games, that are generally decided by luck, not quality.

You disagreed.

So, if you disagree, then you must believe that this record is emblematic of the Lakers quality - therefore you should take the bet I proposed - or that they can keep winning close games at the current percentage - therefore you should accept the bet that they'll keep winning close games at the current percentage. There's no other thing at stake here. Stop producing that verbal diarrhea in vain attempts to confuse matters.

Capisce?

On the other hand you presented a graph that says the correlation is minor between quality of team and wins in close games. It says it's about 60% which would indeed mean that quality doesn't really matter.

No it doesn't. Where exactly do you identify those 60% on the graph. The correlation is about 0.45, don't you see the inclination of the curve? Fucking statistical illiterate.

I think the Lakers are beyond the scope of your graph.

I will give you an extra 5% so the line is drawn at 65%.

Even your fellow Boston Celtic fan says 65% would be fair. I get over 65% and you get under 65%

Either stand by your words or back out like a pussy, it's up to you.

The Lakers are part of the graph, just like any other franchise. My fellow fan is as clueless as you - maybe not as much, but he's not a mathematical genius either.

And stop trying to pull that childish "ah, now I come with a different bet that you don't take, you're the chicken now, hahaah" card. Nobody falls for it, except maybe yourself. I'll try to find an apt analogy that even a mental midget like you can understand:

Me - If you toss a coin, you can get heads or tails. It's random. Betting on a coin flip is just a matter of luck.

You - Nonsense. You're stupid, it's nothing like that. Let's make a bet: we toss a coin, if it's heads I win, if it's tails you win.

Me - :downspin::lmao

Can you understand the nonsense of what you're saying? Stop with it already. Accept any of the bets that make sense:

So, if you disagree, then you must believe that this record is emblematic of the Lakers quality - therefore you should take the bet I proposed - or that they can keep winning close games at the current percentage - therefore you should accept the bet that they'll keep winning close games at the current percentage. There's no other thing at stake here. Stop producing that verbal diarrheain vain attempts to confuse matters.

Your strategy of proposing some random, nonsensical bet to escape yourself from the shame of backing out from the reasonable bets that you were too coward to accept isn't going to take you nowhere. Be a man for once and take the bet.

Allanon

11-13-2009, 06:30 PM

Unbelievable. Learn to read, Lakers fan. That reply was to another poster, not to you.

Wrong Bostonfan. You're incredibly stupid. You asked me DIRECTLY if I thought QUALITY of team was the most important aspect in winning close games. I said yes. What was your point in asking me this?

No, you obviously can't understand the graph. The graph includes every freaking team in the NBA - including the Lakers - for the past 8 years. 240 teams.

Of course it includes the Lakers. But it also includes the failures of 29 other teams. Don't try pushing the failures of OTHER teams on the Lakers. A quality team like the Lakers buck the averages, learn something.

Not even you know anymore what the you're saying. You're just babbling some incoherent rants.
I'm not the one making shit up like you have been. Just read backwards. :lol

Can't you see the stupidity of this point? How can you agree with the first point without accepting the one about the blow out games? It's not a qualifying factor, it's a fucking corollary.

I already pointed out the stupidity of this argument. Last year, the Celtics were on a 19 game winning streak. Their margin of victory during that streak was 14 points. Yet they got busted up by the Lakers who had something like a 6 point margin of victory in that same 19 game winning streak.

I mean, if historically teams have similar records in close games, no matter their final standings, what exactly caused the difference in the final W/L record?

History does not determine the future.

I never meet an adult person who was unable to understand this kind of simple things.
I never met such an adult person who cannot interpret; rather he chooses to just read like an animal and regurgitate.

Try to follow me: I said the Lakers record was due to luck - their point differential isn't good enough to sustain this pace, because they have won all their close games, that are generally decided by luck, not quality.

You disagreed.

You never said this and I never disagreed. Stop making shit up. You didn't even know they won "ALL" of their close games. Now you are adding in "generally" decided by luck? Hahah. Pathetic.

I never said the Lakers would win 100% of their games.

So, if you disagree, then you must believe that this record is emblematic of the Lakers quality - therefore you should take the bet I proposed - or that they can keep winning close games at the current percentage - therefore you should accept the bet that they'll keep winning close games at the current percentage. There's no other thing at stake here. Stop producing that verbal diarrhea in vain attempts to confuse matters.

Capisce?

Stop trying to trick me into taking a 100% bet. You put up a graph that says 60%. I'm being nice and giving you 65%.

What's the point of putting up a graph that says 60% and you won't even take 65%?

Thank god most of the Celtic fans here are knowlegable, you embarrass them.

No it doesn't. Where exactly do you identify those 60% on the graph. The correlation is about 0.45, don't you see the inclination of the curve? Fucking statistical illiterate.

Even your fellow Boston fan says 60%.

But OK, I see where you are going with this, I'll play your game.

Let's interpret your graph together and match it up to what you've said. Once I have your agreement on the points you state, we'll make a bet of it.

1) You say the correlation is only .45. Which means there is only a slight correlation between quality of team and winning close games.

Is this correct? Yes or no answer.