Reply With Quote
Ah, gotcha.
Actually, this one was better anyway:
"Send it in Jerome!"
Ho hum. Made up numbers unless you can cite the source.
Trying to make up more excuses for Jordan? When you count Kobe's career, it's going to be his entire career. Kobe's going to surpass Jordan in career points in the next 5 years or so.Oh yes, we ignore the fact that Kobe Bryant played way more games because he started at 18 instead of 23 like Jordan. Let us reward Kobe for living in an era where drafting high school players are common, instead of actual skills and ability.
At age 20, yes.At the age of 20, Andrew Bynum has more points than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell and Hakeem Olajuwon put together when they were 20. According to you, Bynum should be compared to those greats.
Yes, 2% and 4% like not much. But it depends on where that extra points come in at. Let's say in a 1 point game, that extra 1 point is huge.Do you know the margin difference of those teams are? 0.2 points and 0.4 points is miniscule no matter how you cut it.
It may be small to you, but in game situations, those 400 points may be crucial.And yes, 400 points over a 12 year career is extremely small.
Of course, Kobe could become a poor ass 3 point shooter. That's why I said at age 30. Anything more is speculation.So how does Kobe Bryant’s game work, they can improve if they are not to Jordan’s level, but they can’t get worse when they are ahead of Jordan? Kobe could become a terrible 3pt shooter in the last few years of his career, dragging his average to an awful 30% using your logic. It cuts both ways.
Yup, Kerr was the #1 3 point shooter in accuracy, he was also Jordan's helper.And thanks for showing that Kobe wasn’t as good a 3 point shooter as Kerr was at age 30. Really means something.
Why would I need to show stats for your vague generalization?Then show your stats. Where are they?
Because this accounts for Jordan's compe ion as opposed to Kobe's compe ion.But you only compare Jordan’s achievement up to age 30, why would you take other considerations now?
I dunno where you got yao, Manu from. LeBron, Duncan, Shaq.Manu is an all-time great? Yao is an all-time great? Maybe you should back it up with their accomplishments up to 30 years old. I fail to see how they are all-time greats.
None like Duncan, Shaq & LeBron.And Jordan didn’t have any all-time greats in his era?
When they were at the tail end of their careers.Why outside of Bird an Magic? Jordan competed against them directly in the playoffs.
Because he was a rookie in 92. Shaq didn't become a great player until 97.And Shaq was drafted in 92, right in the smack of Jordan’s dominance? Why is he all of a sudden a Kobe-era guy now? Duncan was drafted before Kobe got it and while Jordan was still winning rings. You came up with the standard of draft dates.
Yeah.And you would take LeBron over Hakeem? Great!
Open your eyes to the world outside the Spurs, there are other teams. Kobe last year "got it", even though he didn't win.What has Kobe “gotten”? Refusing to shoot in a playoff game, folding faster than superman on laundry day in the finals. Oh yeah, he really “got it”.
Nope, he won the MVP last year. He didn't get a ring (and thus lost ground on Jordan last year). But he finally got what it means to be a leader and a teammate.Kobe’s got it years has yet to come. He went into a nasty feud with Shaq (both responsible) and broke up a team in the middle of their dominance, he was recorded bad-mouthing Andrew Bynum in a video, he refused to shoot to show his coach who’s the boss, he led a team to a 40-point loss in an elimination game in the finals. The only thing he ever “got” was Shaq as his teammate.
Yes, we know about the expansions. You had only mentioned the recent expansions but did not mention the Jordan era expansions with your coloring.You mentioned something about the Grizzlies expanding in 95, wasn’t that the “tail-end” of Jordan’s career? And guess what? The league was even MORE watered-down, the Bobcats joined the Grizz and the Raptors in the league!
Yup, just like your #1 pick Derrick Coleman, a talented headcase.Yes he was, and the Pacers were one a contender. What’s the problem?
Players get injured every year, Yao?
[quote]
Such as taking the worse and compare them to the best, right? How about LeBron vs. Shaq, much more even now is it? And Duncan was drafted BEFORE Kobe got it (both drafted around the same time), so a better comparison would be Duncan vs. Hakeem (with Hakeem being drafted the same year as Jordan). The comparisons are closer now, huh?
[quote]
Yup, Kobe goes up against LeBron and Duncan all the time. In fact, he'll probably be fighting with the Greatest Power Forward of all time in the Playoffs again this year.
Nope, I don't answer your stupid vague answers.You don’t know what you said yourself? Even though it was quoted right underneath? You are dumber than I thought!
Hahah, you're more delusional than I thought if you don't think that playing in the West is quite a bit harder than the East.Wow, really, he played in the best conference for a decade now? That sounds really impressive, especially when there is a grand total of TWO conferences in the NBA.
Compe ion in the West vs Watered down NBA.Oh wait, so what? How does that factor into Jordan vs. Kobe comparisons?
That's 1/3 more games played within your conference. And if you happen to be in the West, like Kobe, you can see how much more difficult it is.But you were using regular season stats.
And MORE games doesn’t mean exclusive, does it?
You're stupider than I thought if you think playing in the West is not much more difficult than the East.
There were plenty of Eastern teams for Jordan to pick on and score 81. He didn't, again, stop making excuses for MJ, he doesn't need it.Jordan played against that Raptors team? What year was it that Kobe scored 81 again? I don’t remember.
Uhmm, sure you wouldI would remember them even after they were surpassed, just like I remember the final MVPs.
How many MVPs did Pippen get?So, Pippen got more rings than Jordan at the same age. So Kobe is comparable to Jordan, but not to Pippen?
Yes, and if Kobe has a ring in June, he'll have 4 rings at age 30 and 10 months. Jordan at 30 and 10 months had 3.Besides, Jordan won his 3rd ring at age 30 and 4 months and, Kobe will be 30 and 4 months by December. Given the fact that rings are not won until June, Kobe will have the same number of rings as Jordan at the same age of 30 years and 4 months.
I ain't going to waste my time responding to "What did you say earlier?". If you're going to make a point, make it. Don't be coy.You don’t know about something you are trying to make a point on? You don’t even know whether I made a point or not, and you are saying I did and tried to argue with me? Do your own work, dig up your own arguments, and stop wasting my time.
Where did I use 1 standard for 3p% and a different one for scoring?How so? Please explain. You DID use one standard for 3p%, and another for scoring when comparing the two players.
Excellent. You can have your wrong opinion and I can have my wrong opinion.I rest my case.
Yup, Kobe can't compare to Kerr's 3 pointers, that boy was bad. But Kobe was a greater 3 point shooter than Jordan.Kobe can compare to Jordan, but he doesn’t hold a candle to Kerr, gotcha.
Who are these guys? We're talking about Kobe and MJ, please stay on subject.So? Artis Gilmore is the all-time leader in FG%, Karl Malone never was the best at anything in the league, does that mean Gilmore is better than Malone?
Calvin Murphy hold the best ft% record, Dwayne Wade never led the league in anything, is Murphy better than Wade?
Or until Kobe gets the 4th ring and they hold a big parade and cool ceremonies.Yeah, because Jordan was better than Kobe. And what was so great about Kobe’s team last year? How they got totally embarrassed in the finals? Fortunately, this is one game like the 81 point game, every one will remember it until there was an even more embarrassing loss in the finals.
Sure, you can say Horry is the best player in the world. Doesn't make you right.Why are MVPs boolean functions? And why should you set the rules in accomplishments. I prefer my way, Horry is the greatest player of all-time.
Or how Kobe may have 4 rings at 30 years and 10 months and Jordan will have 3 rings at 30 years and 10 months. Pippen is in the Top 50 list of Greatest Players ever so I agree.You mean how both of them will have 3 rings when they are 30 years old and 4 months, but one of them didn’t have one of the greatest players to lean on?
Impressive, 1 game winner video in 17 years in the league, uh great? That SURE does prove Shaq's a 4th quarter clutcher and Hack a Shaq didn't happenBut you were making the case that Kobe’s Lakers can be contenders for the next 6 to 8 years.
Yah, they should have called it Hack a WiltBecause it rhymes, it was developed for Wilt Chamberlain, look it up.
Good save.Wow, you have a video! This is really amazing! It proves for a fact that things that never happened on a video never existed.
And while you are preaching, pull us some stats, rather than saying random things like Jordan played against smaller SGs than Kobe did, or how the 00’s are so much more scoring heavy than the late 80’s, early 90’s.I will try the youtube again.
[youtube]phM-QS6o8qc
Sure, if there were facts that actually proved them wrong which you have failed at repeatedly.Opinions COULD be wrong, especially when there are facts to refute them. Such as the scoring differential stated earlier.
Kobe and Jordan are not equal, I've said that before.Then what were you trying to say?
Ah, how about this stat? Kobe 3 rings, Jordan 2.Hey, I put up the stats in this thread, you didn’t. I guess that makes my arguments valid, and you are just a homer.
Uhm, sure you do. :winkAnd FYI, I like Kobe more than Jordan. I hated Jordan as a player, but I am not blind enough to say that Kobe is comparable to Jordan.
30 year old Kobe is comparable to 30 year old Jordan, but Jordan is still GOAT today and by a wide margin.
Ah, gotcha.
Actually, this one was better anyway:
"Send it in Jerome!"
Hahah, no. I give Jordan his props and he was obviously a great player. And no, I don't think Kobe's close to MJ now.
My whole point is let's not count out Kobe just yet.
Fair enough, but Kobe's going to have to develop something he's never had in order to become Jordanesque. Put Manu's heart in Kobe's body for the next several years and he might have a chance.
If I were as weak as not being able to easily find numbers like ppg and 3pa for teams in the last 20 years, I won’t be going around acting like a smart ass on the internet arguing basketball.
Look up basketball-reference.com, or do you need me to tell you exactly where to look?
You are just embarrassing yourself.
What are you talking about? You are the one who likes to quote averages. Now the averages are not important anymore, it’s total points. Well what do you know? Mark Jackson is a better passer than Magic, the Big-O, Jason Kidd, Isiah Thomas, Gary Payton, Steve Nash and Bob Cousy, because he got more total assists in his career. Idiot.
Continue your funneled, narrow-minded view of the world. There are other factors in judging a player’s potential than how many points he scored by 20.
1 point? Where is that one point? Oh you mean that 0.2 or 0.4 points! So on average, that one point could make a difference in a 1 point game every 5 games or every 2.5 games.
But that is assuming they all take 3-pointers in that situation, which is just plain stupid when you are down by one. You drive to a lane for the deuce. So to be more specific, Kobe Bryant could make 1 more 3 pointer for every 25 taken, so in other words, that extra 4 % could make a difference when the Lakers are down 2 (depending if Jackson wants a tie or a win) or 3 points once every 25 times. Given there were 82 games in the season, why don’t you look up the Lakers, and see how many games were decided by 2 or 3 points last season, with Kobe Bryant shooting a 3?
Oh I forgot, you CAN’T look up anything on the web, because that would be like a monumental task for you. Try nba.com, sports.espn.go.com/nba, or basketball-reference.com, they all give great information.
Example, which one?
Oh, so by age 30, despite Kobe Bryant having worse stats and accomplishments than Jordan despite playing 3 more seasons in the league, we are to assume that it is probable that Kobe would end up being a greater player than Jordan.
So? Any correlation that the league with the #1 3 point shooting leads to more wins? Want to look that up to prove your own point?
YOU said Jordan played against smaller SG than Kobe, I didn’t. If YOU want to prove YOUR own point, YOU look up the stats. If YOU can’t back it up with anything, YOU are generalizing.
I came up with average height and weight and players for the last 20 years, YOU did nothing except threw out irresponsible vague generalizations. (Nice attempt to copy what I wrote and throw it back at me, even though it makes no sense when applied to me, but we all know that not being able to look up anything on the net doesn’t stop you from spewing “points” that you can’t back up).
So because the West was stronger than the East in Kobe’s era, we know that the East in Jordan’s era is weaker than today’s West? What kind of logic is that?
With your logic.
If Kobe’s West = 6, and Kobe’s East = 4, and Jordan’s West = 3 and East = 10, your logic shows that Kobe’s West > Jordan’s East, which shows 6 > 10, which is incorrect. Your “logic” is hardly logical.
BTW, the East was so weak last year, an 8th seed took the Celtics to 7, while the West champs lost in 6 to the Celtics. Great point backing you up.
Go look it up yourself, now that I have empowered you with a website, you can cease to be ignorant. Of course, I am thinking that you willing choose to be.
You mean Duncan and Shaq being in Jordan’s era, right?
Magic and Bird wasn’t as great as LeBron? That is news to me. Hakeem wasn’t as great as Lebron? That is news to me too.
LOL! Bird won 3 straight MVPs and a ring, while Magic won 3 MVPs and 3 les while Jordan was in the league! Jordan competed against Magic in the finals the year Magic finished #2 in MVP voting! Do you know anything?
Where did that come from? Shaq led the Magic to the finals in 95, his team beat Jordan’s in the same year. He average 29.7 points in his second season. Shaq didn’t become a great player after he joined the Lakers, homer.
That’s it, you know nothing about basketball, because you would take a player who has less accomplishments than Kerr over Hakeem.
LOL, judging from your idiotic responses and general inep ude to basketball knowledge, you should open your eyes outside to Kobe, to which you don’t even know too much about.
Kobe “got it” last year by showing ZERO leadership abilities when the pressure was on.
This is about as vague as it gets. He won the MVP and didn’t get the ring, which means he was a leader? Did Dirk Nowitzki got it in 06, then lost it the following year?
With my colouring? What does that even mean? So why does the recent expansions not further water down the league? After all, YOU defined watering down the league as having expansion teams.
So Coleman is talented now? So why did you bring him up when you talked about players comparable to Olowakandi and Kwame Brown? You think the later two are talented?
By 27, Yao played 404 games, at the same age, Ellison played 327 games. HALF you say?
Jordan went up against Hakeem, Magic, Bird, Malone, Barkley, McHale, Drexler all the time. Did you watch the games?
First you don’t know, how you don’t answer? Which one was it?
And why do you have to answer answers? Why is quoting you directly a vague answer? Oh, I got it, you are saying that you give vague answers. I will try not quoting you.
So I will state this again. YOU refused to accept explanations for Jordan’s lower 3p%, calling those excuses and giving Jordan a free pass, and yet YOU gave a list of half a dozen “reasons” for Kobe’s lower ppg average. Care to explain why this inconsistency?
Quote me.
You mean how Kobe’s era has 30 teams vs. Jordan’s era, where they have 24, and then 27 teams? Why are you comparing Kobe to Kobe? I know in you are in love with him, but take off your pink Kobe jersey and open your eyes, there are more NBA players than Kobe.
Unfortunately, I don’t play in the NBA like you do, so I don’t know how much more difficult it is to score points.
Like how the West champs lost to the East champs? Great example!
And Kobe didn’t agree with you.
Last year, against MUCH tougher compe ion in the west, he had:
29.3 points (on 47 FG%, 36 3p%, and 82 FT%, 5.3 asts, 6.8 rebs, 0.46 blks, and 1.9 steals.
While vs. the weak weak east, he had:
26.7 points (on 43%, 36% , 88%), 5.6 assts, 5.5 rebs, 0.5 bls, and 1.7 stls.
Oh yes, the source; check out Nba.com, player profile.
Wow! All Eastern teams are created the same? Fantastic! I didn’t know that Jordan had to play against the same Raptors team that Kobe had to play against.
Also, nice to know that your view of a basketball player’s motivation is how many points he can score in one game, rather than scoring to help his team win.
Zero, so? How many did Kobe get? How many did Jordan get at the same age? The difference is the same to me.Uhmm, sure you would
How many MVPs did Pippen get?
If? What if? Has it happened yet? Why are we counting things that hasn’t happened yet? If Kobe Bryant retired tomorrow, or had a career ending injury. Just as likely.Yes, and if Kobe has a ring in June, he'll have 4 rings at age 30 and 10 months. Jordan at 30 and 10 months had 3.
I made it, it was quoted right underneath. If you can’t read it (or refused to read it because you can’t answer), it is your problem.
One you use averages, the other you used total.
What is wrong with mine?
Well duh! Sure showed how much greater Kerr was than Kobe and Jordan, doesn’t it?
Oh wait, you need points written straight out to you because you are admittedly not too bright, how about this? Being good in 3pt shooting has little to do with how great a player is.
[QUOTE=Allanon;2855050]Who are these guys? We're talking about Kobe and MJ, please stay on subject.
This is on the subject because they pertain to your illogical responses. If you don’t even know Artis Gilmore and Calvin Murphy, you really shouldn’t state anything on the web.
And talking about staying on the subject, why did you bring in Kerr and Rodman?
Has that happened? Heard of don’t count your chickens before they hatch? Or do you need a reference on this?
You mean opinions could be wrong? Really? Or do you mean opinions can be not right?
May have? May have?
Look it up on the web, look for the history of Hack-a-Shaq. Just because an animal is called a sea horse doesn’t mean that it’s a horse.
Quote me where I said it didn’t happen. But it shows your assertion that Kobe carried the team every time to be false. Shaq got the ball in the low post in the final seconds. Hack a Shaq sends a 50% FT to the line, who has the same yield as a 50% FG shooter, and that is mighty high.Impressive, 1 game winner video in 17 years in the league, uh great? That SURE does prove Shaq's a 4th quarter clutcher and Hack a Shaq didn't happen
Quote me. Don’t just say “you are wrong”, state what I said wrong. Like I have stated how you incorrectly stated scoring differentials between Jordan’s and Kobe’s era, or how you stated incorrectly about the 3P shooting, or how you think Kobe scored more vs. the East than he did vs. the West.
You mean Kobe 3, Jordan 3? 30 years old and 4 months, both have 3 rings.
Well duh!
And I repeat:
Pull us some stats, rather than saying random things like Jordan played against smaller SGs than Kobe did, or how the 00’s are so much more scoring heavy than the late 80’s, early 90’s.
Made up "stats" are the most embarrASSing of all.
When did I say BETTER? Learn to read, Idiot:What are you talking about? You are the one who likes to quote averages. Now the averages are not important anymore, it’s total points. Well what do you know? Mark Jackson is a better passer than Magic, the Big-O, Jason Kidd, Isiah Thomas, Gary Payton, Steve Nash and Bob Cousy, because he got more total assists in his career. Idiot.
"Kobe's going to surpass Jordan in career points in the next 5 years or so."
You brought up the idiocy at age 20, I was helping you out.Continue your funneled, narrow-minded view of the world. There are other factors in judging a player’s potential than how many points he scored by 20.
Why does it have to be at the end of a game? 3 points is 3 points. If you're up by 1 point at the end of a game, it could have been a 3 point shot during the game.1 point? Where is that one point? Oh you mean that 0.2 or 0.4 points! So on average, that one point could make a difference in a 1 point game every 5 games or every 2.5 games.
But that is assuming they all take 3-pointers in that situation, which is just plain stupid when you are down by one. You drive to a lane for the deuce. So to be more specific, Kobe Bryant could make 1 more 3 pointer for every 25 taken, so in other words, that extra 4 % could make a difference when the Lakers are down 2 (depending if Jackson wants a tie or a win) or 3 points once every 25 times. Given there were 82 games in the season, why don’t you look up the Lakers, and see how many games were decided by 2 or 3 points last season, with Kobe Bryant shooting a 3?
Don't act stupid, that extra 1 point is crucial in some games.
Getting angry now?Oh I forgot, you CAN’T look up anything on the web, because that would be like a monumental task for you.
Which one? You kidding me? Alright, I found one that shows that vital "3 pointer" and it even matches the sound of your posts as a bonusExample, which one?
Again, please READ my friend, when did I EVER say it was probable that Kobe would surpass Jordan? But you can continue ASSuming if you like.Oh, so by age 30, despite Kobe Bryant having worse stats and accomplishments than Jordan despite playing 3 more seasons in the league, we are to assume that it is probable that Kobe would end up being a greater player than Jordan.
No, you need to check your history. JORDAN won the rings with the help of Kerr, it wasn't the other way around.So? Any correlation that the league with the #1 3 point shooting leads to more wins? Want to look that up to prove your own point?
Sure, I'm generalizing, just like you. You didn't disprove my statement either so it's just opinion right now.YOU said Jordan played against smaller SG than Kobe, I didn’t. If YOU want to prove YOUR own point, YOU look up the stats. If YOU can’t back it up with anything, YOU are generalizing.
Quoting wrong stats, even if you're quoting them, is still wrong. Average height of NBA players has nothing to do with the height of Shooting Guards.I came up with average height and weight and players for the last 20 years, YOU did nothing except threw out irresponsible vague generalizations. (Nice attempt to copy what I wrote and throw it back at me, even though it makes no sense when applied to me, but we all know that not being able to look up anything on the net doesn’t stop you from spewing “points” that you can’t back up).
Yup, my point is the West is strong in this era, and the East was weak, if you disagree, prove it, otherwise you have no point.So because the West was stronger than the East in Kobe’s era, we know that the East in Jordan’s era is weaker than today’s West? What kind of logic is that?
What? Where are you making up these numbers from this time "6, 4, 3, 10"? I never said no "6,4,3,10", quote me where.With your logic.
If Kobe’s West = 6, and Kobe’s East = 4, and Jordan’s West = 3 and East = 10, your logic shows that Kobe’s West > Jordan’s East, which shows 6 > 10, which is incorrect. Your “logic” is hardly logical.
Explain your "logic"
BTW, you talking about that Hawks team with a whopping 37 wins last year? Hahahahahahah.BTW, the East was so weak last year, an 8th seed took the Celtics to 7, while the West champs lost in 6 to the Celtics. Great point backing you up.
Blah, blah, blah.Go look it up yourself, now that I have empowered you with a website, you can cease to be ignorant. Of course, I am thinking that you willing choose to be.
Nope, Duncan and Shaq being in Kobe's era.You mean Duncan and Shaq being in Jordan’s era, right?
Sorry, by the 90's Magic and Bird were no longer as good as LeBron. And yup, I take LeBron over Hakeem. Lot's of things are news to you it seems.Magic and Bird wasn’t as great as LeBron? That is news to me. Hakeem wasn’t as great as Lebron? That is news to me too.
The 80's were Bird and Magic. The 90's were Jordan's era. How many rings did Magic or Bird win in the 90s? How OLD were they in the 90s? Do you know anything?LOL! Bird won 3 straight MVPs and a ring, while Magic won 3 MVPs and 3 les while Jordan was in the league! Jordan competed against Magic in the finals the year Magic finished #2 in MVP voting! Do you know anything?
[quote
Where did that come from? Shaq led the Magic to the finals in 95, his team beat Jordan’s in the same year. He average 29.7 points in his second season. Shaq didn’t become a great player after he joined the Lakers, homer.[/quote]
Again, open your eyes up beyond stats, you sound like Hollinger. Shaq's rings with Orlando: 0 . Shaq's rings with the Lakers: 3. Big difference, Hollinger.
And you obviously know nothing about basketball as wellThat’s it, you know nothing about basketball, because you would take a player who has less accomplishments than Kerr over Hakeem.
LOL, judging from your idiotic responses and general inep ude to basketball knowledge, you should open your eyes outside to Jordan, to which you don’t even know too much about.LOL, judging from your idiotic responses and general inep ude to basketball knowledge, you should open your eyes outside to Kobe, to which you don’t even know too much about.
NOPE, Kobe lost because he was not good enough. His team was not good enough. It had nothing to do with leadership.Kobe “got it” last year by showing ZERO leadership abilities when the pressure was on.
Yup, you can lose and still be a leader.This is about as vague as it gets. He won the MVP and didn’t get the ring, which means he was a leader? Did Dirk Nowitzki got it in 06, then lost it the following year?
Colouring as in rose-tintedWith my colouring? What does that even mean? So why does the recent expansions not further water down the league? After all, YOU defined watering down the league as having expansion teams.
Nope, Jordan Era #1 pick Coleman was a waste of time just like the Kandi Man #1 pick in the Kobe era.So Coleman is talented now? So why did you bring him up when you talked about players comparable to Olowakandi and Kwame Brown? You think the later two are talented?
o? Yao's played 80% of his games compared to Ellison's 66%.By 27, Yao played 404 games, at the same age, Ellison played 327 games. HALF you say?
Tail end of Magic, McHale and Bird's career.Jordan went up against Hakeem, Magic, Bird, Malone, Barkley, McHale, Drexler all the time. Did you watch the games?
Malone, Barkley, Drexler, sure. If I we had a 3 on 3, I'd take LeBron, Shaq and Duncan or your 3 and we'd whup you.
I dunno, if you actually READ it you would know.First you don’t know, how you don’t answer? Which one was it?
Oh just like to answer ansers, vague or not.And why do you have to answer answers? Why is quoting you directly a vague answer? Oh, I got it, you are saying that you give vague answers. I will try not quoting you.
Hey, if you're gonna try to give Jordan a free pass, I'm gonna copy you and give Kobe a free pass tooSo I will state this again. YOU refused to accept explanations for Jordan’s lower 3p%, calling those excuses and giving Jordan a free pass, and yet YOU gave a list of half a dozen “reasons” for Kobe’s lower ppg average. Care to explain why this inconsistency?
Just checking. So do you think that playing in the West is significantly harder than the East?Quote me.
Yup, they both went through the expansion, so your original point to compare the two by bringing up the expansion is useless.You mean how Kobe’s era has 30 teams vs. Jordan’s era, where they have 24, and then 27 teams? Why are you comparing Kobe to Kobe? I know in you are in love with him, but take off your pink Kobe jersey and open your eyes, there are more NBA players than Kobe.
Sorry, I know you think Jordan was your daddy but take off your daddy's jersey and open your eyes.
Oh, it's hard.Unfortunately, I don’t play in the NBA like you do, so I don’t know how much more difficult it is to score points.
Are you saying the East is stronger than the West? If not, what ARE you saying?Like how the West champs lost to the East champs? Great example!
And Kobe didn’t agree with you.
Last year, against MUCH tougher compe ion in the west, he had:
29.3 points (on 47 FG%, 36 3p%, and 82 FT%, 5.3 asts, 6.8 rebs, 0.46 blks, and 1.9 steals.
While vs. the weak weak east, he had:
26.7 points (on 43%, 36% , 88%), 5.6 assts, 5.5 rebs, 0.5 bls, and 1.7 stls.
Wow! There were plenty of sucky teams during Jordan's era too.Wow! All Eastern teams are created the same? Fantastic! I didn’t know that Jordan had to play against the same Raptors team that Kobe had to play against.
You were the one that brought up scoring les, not I, genius.Also, nice to know that your view of a basketball player’s motivation is how many points he can score in one game, rather than scoring to help his team win.
Thankyou. Pippen can join the conversation when he gets an MVP with his rings.Zero, so? How many did Kobe get? How many did Jordan get at the same age? The difference is the same to me.
You were the idiot that jumped into the future, not I. If you can magically jump into the future, why can't I?If? What if? Has it happened yet? Why are we counting things that hasn’t happened yet? If Kobe Bryant retired tomorrow, or had a career ending injury. Just as likely.
"Besides, Jordan won his 3rd ring at age 30 and 4 months and, Kobe will be 30 and 4 months by December. Given the fact that rings are not won until June, Kobe will have the same number of rings as Jordan at the same age of 30 years and 4 months."
Quotes, links, proof?One you use averages, the other you used total.
Oh I saw you say my opinion was wrong, so I figured yours must be wrong too since you can't prove it.What is wrong with mine?
Yup, it sure must have been great for Kobe to have Kerr on his team....oh wait.Well duh! Sure showed how much greater Kerr was than Kobe and Jordan, doesn’t it?
Admittedly, oh no. Maybe you have admitted to not being too bright, but I haven't.Oh wait, you need points written straight out to you because you are admittedly not too bright, how about this?
Great job, you get a star, but I don't agree with your OPINION.Being good in 3pt shooting has little to do with how great a player is.
Sorry, I'm here to stay whether you think I should or shouldn't. We're talking about Kobe and Jordan and you're bringing up guys who have nothing to do with either one of them because you're out of your , uhm, "facts".
Uhm, perhaps because they were on Jordan's team?And talking about staying on the subject, why did you bring in Kerr and Rodman?
Heard of "Never say Never". Do you need a reference on this?Has that happened? Heard of don’t count your chickens before they hatch? Or do you need a reference on this?
I dunno, either way, it would only be my opinionYou mean opinions could be wrong? Really? Or do you mean opinions can be not right?
You have a writing impediment, why do you stutter? Look, if you can go into the future I can too. Stop trying to do this double-standard stuff, it's embarrassing.May have? May have?
Ok, so you're saying Hack-a-Shaq is named after Wilt. Nice logic my friend.Look it up on the web, look for the history of Hack-a-Shaq.
No, it's not a horse, you said it yourself, it's a "sea horse". Hahahahah, the great debater aren't you?Just because an animal is called a sea horse doesn’t mean that it’s a horse.
I'm glad you now agree upon Kobe's greatness in the 4th and Shaq's liability.Quote me where I said it didn’t happen. But it shows your assertion that Kobe carried the team every time to be false. Shaq got the ball in the low post in the final seconds.
Yeah, that 50% is so high that Pop used it repeatedly last year. Read your own Spurs threads, some of the REAL Spur fans thought it was great to Hack-a-Shaq to stop them from scoring.Hack a Shaq sends a 50% FT to the line, who has the same yield as a 50% FG shooter, and that is mighty high.
You are wrong because you THINK i incorrectly stated the scoring differrentials. You have no proof but say I am wrong. That IS wrong.Quote me. Don’t just say “you are wrong”, state what I said wrong. Like I have stated how you incorrectly stated scoring differentials between Jordan’s and Kobe’s era, or how you stated incorrectly about the 3P shooting, or how you think Kobe scored more vs. the East than he did vs. the West.
Yes, if you want to go into the Future instead of sticking into the present. Again one of your double standards. You can go into the future but I can't. Great debater you are my friend.You mean Kobe 3, Jordan 3? 30 years old and 4 months, both have 3 rings.
[quote
Well duh![/quote]
Well duh!
Sure, here's a stat for you.And I repeat:
Pull us some stats, rather than saying random things like Jordan played against smaller SGs than Kobe did, or how the 00’s are so much more scoring heavy than the late 80’s, early 90’s.
Kobe 3 rings at age 30, Jordan 2 rings at age 30 (with no time travelling into the future)
Last edited by Allanon; 10-29-2008 at 02:15 PM.
Bwhahahah! So I summarized it for you, and it was not enough, I gave you the website, and it is still not enough? I originally thought that you were just ignorant of NBA history, and how the game changed over the last 20 years, now I am just thinking that you like to lie your way out of things.
I will put the links for the stats for you, in MUCH more detail so that even you can read them. You don’t even have to find them in the site, and it would be great for someone who is as lazy as you are.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2008.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2007.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2006.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2005.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2004.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2003.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2002.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2001.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2000.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1999.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1999.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1999.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1998.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1997.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1996.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1995.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1994.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1993.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1992.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1991.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1990.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1989.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1988.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1987.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1986.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1985.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1984.html
Do you need more help in clicking these links?
Of course, it also said:
Oh yeah, you didn’t say that Kobe was better, my apologies, you implied that he was at least the same as Jordan in abilities and skills, and he need only to win more rings to surpass Jordan.
Then there is this gem:
You decide to take Kobe why? Because he is worse?
Practice what you preach, you kept going on and on about people should be prophets and predict the future. What are you doing right here again? You are predicting Kobe will pass Jordan in points in 5 years! As you always like to say, it is possible Kobe retires tomorrow. It’s possible.
Thank you for agreeing that it’s idiocy, comparing Kobe to Jordan with their age rather than years in the NBA is in fact idiocy.
Sure, then tell me how many games the Lakers won/loss within 3 points last year, and how many 3-point shots Kobe took in those games. He could only make a slight difference in 1 out of 25 of those shots.
When did I say it wasn’t? Just tell me now likely it is. Let me know the following:
In games where the Lakers were in a one point win/loss, Kobe’s 3pt % would mean a difference if Kobe shot 8 or more 3pters (expected value of 1).
In games where the Lakers were in a two point win/loss, Kobe’s 3pt % would mean a difference if Kobe shot 17 or more 3pters (expected value of 2).
In games where the Lakers were in a three point win/loss, Kobe’s 3pt % would mean a difference if Kobe shot 25 or more 3pters (expected value of 3).
I wonder how many games that happened like that last year.
? Well, can you look up anything on the web? You didn’t show that you have any ability to do so far. But like you said, it’s possible.Getting angry now?
What is the purpose of the video? What are you trying to argue?Which one? You kidding me? Alright, I found one that shows that vital "3 pointer" and it even matches the sound of your posts as a bonus
So it is not probable Kobe will catch Jordan, but you kept saying that Kobe is comparable to Jordan because he has 3 rings* at the same age when Jordan “only” had 2.
* Courtesy of Shaq.
Jordan WON the rings without Kerr as well. What is your point? Jordan also won the rings with the help of Bill Cartwright and Will Perdue. So?
Stating something as factual as saying Jordan played against smaller SG is not an opinion, it is either true or untrue. You stated this as a fact to back up your claims of why Kobe scored less than Jordan despite similar skills, you prove it. You can’t, then don’t cite it.
I cited the fact that players are smaller now than they were 20 years ago, that is a specific fact, it is not an opinion nor was it generalized. You stated that the players are smaller on average despite bigger SGs because centers are smaller now. Prove it.
The stats were right, and it came straight from an NBA site. You can argue that it does not represent what you are looking for, but it does have strong correlations. If you want to go more specific than this, you do your work. You are lazy and refused to do your own research, even though I have put in the specific website you can find the information.
You also had the inability to distinguish between opinions and facts. You can’t have an opinion and say that SGs are larger now than they were 20 years ago when there is a clear guideline of whether the statement is right or wrong. Stating Jordan scored 38.2 ppg in 88-89 is not an opinion, it is an incorrectly stated fact because there are clear statistics to back this up.
You asserted a statement, it is your onus to prove your own point. I have shown that you have done nothing but compared apples and oranges. The logic is not only flawed, it can’t even be categorized as logic. Kobe played in a strong West, therefore Jordan played in a weak East?
Explain your "logic"[/quote]
It is an example to prove your illogical “opinions”.
You are basically saying that A > B, therefore A > D (with A representing Kobe’s West, B, Kobe’s East, and D Jordan’s East), with no direct comparisons between A and D.
The same team that took the team that beat the Western Conference Champs in 6 games to 7 games, yes.
Very logical arguments, considering it came from you. This is actually a step up from your other points. BTW, this is an opinion.
How so? Why? They both played against Jordan and Kobe.
Jordan played from 84 on, he didn’t just play in the 90s.
I am not surprised that you would take LeBron over Hakeem, especially when you like to contradict yourself by saying that you would take Kobe over Jordan, despite saying Jordan > Kobe at this point.
Well duh! Still didn’t change the fact that Jordan played against both players, and had epic battles in the playoffs against both.
At least I know who Calvin Murphy and Artis Gilmore are.
[quote=allanon]Again, open your eyes up beyond stats, you sound like Hollinger. Shaq's rings with Orlando: 0 . Shaq's rings with the Lakers: 3. Big difference, Hollinger.
Rings is not a stat? How do you quantify Shaq being good? How about … having a better coach, a better team around him? A player could still be great without rings. Karl Malone was a great player, so was Barkley, so was Stockton, so was Nique.
… because.And you obviously know nothing about basketball as well
Is this an opinion?
He was not good enough as in what context? Would lacking leadership be one of them?
Of course! There are many great leaders on the losing front. Just that quitting on your team, or refusing to shoot to send a message is not exhibiting the qualities of a good leader.
[quote=allanon]Colouring as in rose-tinted
How so? And you still haven’t explained why the league is less watered-down now than it was in the 80’s and 90’s, where there were less teams.
Coleman led the Nets to the playoffs for 3 years in a row. The Nets couldn’t make the playoffs prior. He made the all-star team once, won RoY and was on the All-NBA 3rd team twice. How was that a waste of time?
Why are you going into percentages and averages now? Shouldn’t you go into totals? And which universe is 66% half of 80%?
A tail end in which Bird and Magic won 3 MVPs, in which McHale averaged 26+ ppg. Yes, that tail end.
Is this an opinion? And why is Shaq and Duncan on Kobe’s side? You have previously defined draft years. Shaq should, without a doubt, go into Jordan’s era by your own definition. Duncan could be either given that he was drafted when both players were playing. Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Stockton says o.
So if you read it you would know, and you don’t know. So you don’t even read what you write?
So you just like to answer answers? Maybe this explains your rationale so far, you just have no point.
So you can just throw your excuses of why Kobe can’t score as much as Jordan out the window.Hey, if you're gonna try to give Jordan a free pass, I'm gonna copy you and give Kobe a free pass too
How would I know? I never played in the league. And I would imagine this is different for different players, given their particular style and such. Kobe on the other hand, showed through his statistics that he does play better against teams in the West.
You brought up expansion by saying Jordan played in a watered-down league. Try to keep up with your own arguments.
Getting angry?
So you played in the NBA? Nice!
What I AM saying is that Kobe doesn’t agree with you that it is tougher to score on the West than it is on the East. In fact, he proved the opposite.
So? Are they the same as the Raptors? Was Jordan in a situation were he had to score 81 points to beat a lowly East team?
Scoring in one game = scoring le? How do you figure?
I disagree, it is my opinion. I believe Pippen is already better than Kobe can ever become, and this is my opinion.
BTW, based on your IQ, this is sarcasm.
So you are saying that Kobe can win a 4 ring by the time he is 30 years and 4 months old, despite the fact that Kobe will be 30 years and 4 months old December 2008, and it is impossible to win a 4th ring at that time?
You really showed how smart you are. You have zero abilities to come to conclusions even with rules clearly written out.
Are you trying to deny that you used averages for 3 point shooting, then used totals for scoring?
How about http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=445
It’s only a couple of posts above. Read your own post.
What have I not proven?
What does this have to do with the argument that Kerr is a great teammate to have?
The top 10 players in career 3pt %.
Jason Kapono
Steve Kerr
Hubert Davis
Drazen Petrovic
Steve Nash
Tim Legler
Anthony Parker
BJ Armstrong
Wesley Person
Ben Gordon.
How many great players do you see in there? Now ask yourself, if only a maximum of 2 out of 10 career 3pt shooting leaders can be considered great, is 3 pt shooting % a strong indicator of how good a 3 pt shooter is?
Also, players like Shaq and Duncan have horrible 3 pt shooting, and yet you have labeled them great. How does this work?
Those players are used to show your own contradictions.
And I brought in Gilmore and Murphy because they showed that shooting % has little to do with greatness.
Of course! I said Never when I said Never say Never, a contradiction on its own. Which based on your self-contradictory “arguments”, is a perfect motto for you.
Try to look up the difference between facts, opinions, and projections. You have poor understanding of any of them.I dunno, either way, it would only be my opinion
I went in the “future” after you did. I stated what Jordan has already accomplished, and stated what Kobe already has accomplished. You went into the future and say that they are comparable because of future possible events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq
Your lack of knowledge of NBA history never cease to amaze me.
Just because Hack a Shaq has the word Shaq on it doesn’t mean that it was developed specifically for Shaq. And thanks for agreeing with me that a sea horse is a sea horse and not a horse using the same logic I used.
How was saying “Shaq got the ball in the low post in the final seconds.” Agreeing with Shaq being a liability?
To disrupt the flow. I thought it was a great tactic, it messed with the Suns offense and stopped them from a free flow, forced D’antoni to yank Shaq. It doesn’t make Shaq a liability in the 4th quarter, because it was done in the 2nd.
You specifically said that scoring increased in Kobe’s era vs. Jordan’s era, it was PROVEN wrong. Check the links above.
But you already did, you specifically said that Kobe COULD be greater than Jordan. Could pertains to the future.
Jordan already won 6 rings. Kobe won 3 rings* after 12 NBA seasons, Jordan have 5 have 12 NBA seasons.
Last edited by ambchang; 10-30-2008 at 04:31 PM.
Why, thank you.
Looking at your links, there are two points for and against your argument:http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2008.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2007.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2006.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2005.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2004.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2003.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2002.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2001.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2000.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1999.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1999.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1999.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1998.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1997.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1996.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1995.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1994.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1993.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1992.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1991.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1990.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1989.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1988.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1987.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1986.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1985.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1984.html
1) More points were indeed scored in the 90's
2) The 90's had watered down teams.
I'll concede the more points in the 90's as the average points scored per team is much higher than the 00's.
At the same time, it also shows that it was much easier to score in that same period of time, thus proving my point of why Kobe scores less in a lower scoring period.
91 47 % FG average
92 47 %
93 47 %
94 47 %
95 47 %
96 46 %
97 46 %
98 45 %
Average FG% across 8 years: 46.5%
01 44 %
02 45 %
03 44 %
04 43 %
05 45 %
06 45 %
07 46 %
08 46 %
Average FG% across 8 years: 44.75%
So, in an era where it was easier to score on the watered down league, Jordan had a significantly worse 3 point shooting percent than Kobe.
No, but thank you for asking.Do you need more help in clicking these links?
You imply, means you assume and you know what they say about ASSuming.Oh yeah, you didn’t say that Kobe was better, my apologies, you implied that he was at least the same as Jordan in abilities and skills, and he need only to win more rings to surpass Jordan.
Nope, because Kobe had 1 more ring than Jordan at the same age.You decide to take Kobe why? Because he is worse?
I just wanted to say Kobe will surpass Jordan in points to see if you'd argue with that.Practice what you preach, you kept going on and on about people should be prophets and predict the future. What are you doing right here again? You are predicting Kobe will pass Jordan in points in 5 years! As you always like to say, it is possible Kobe retires tomorrow. It’s possible.
Nope, not agreeing that it's idiocy. Why should we go by years in the NBA when Jordan had the benefit of college? Jordan was able to hit the NBA running so he had better stats from the get go while Kobe was a rookie on the bench.Thank you for agreeing that it’s idiocy, comparing Kobe to Jordan with their age rather than years in the NBA is in fact idiocy.
Why could he only make a slight difference in 1 out of 25 of those shots? How do you know it wasn't the ulative effort of his 3's that won the game? Is that you Hollinger?Sure, then tell me how many games the Lakers won/loss within 3 points last year, and how many 3-point shots Kobe took in those games. He could only make a slight difference in 1 out of 25 of those shots.
Sorry Hollinger, you're trying to take a yearly % and break it down into a game by game analysis. It doesn't work that way, you should know that.When did I say it wasn’t? Just tell me now likely it is. Let me know the following:
In games where the Lakers were in a one point win/loss, Kobe’s 3pt % would mean a difference if Kobe shot 8 or more 3pters (expected value of 1).
In games where the Lakers were in a two point win/loss, Kobe’s 3pt % would mean a difference if Kobe shot 17 or more 3pters (expected value of 2).
In games where the Lakers were in a three point win/loss, Kobe’s 3pt % would mean a difference if Kobe shot 25 or more 3pters (expected value of 3).
I wonder how many games that happened like that last year.
You asked me for proof of Kobe winning games in the 4th quarter. I showed you a several minute video.What is the purpose of the video? What are you trying to argue?
Then I asked you for a video of Shaq's heroics in the 4th and you show me 1 play.
Thank you for illustrating with your silence that Shaq needed Kobe to win those games.
Nope, it's not probable that Kobe will catch Jordan, I never said that.So it is not probable Kobe will catch Jordan, but you kept saying that Kobe is comparable to Jordan because he has 3 rings at the same age when Jordan “only” had 2*.
* courtesy of Pippen
You had said "Jordan won 3 rings WITHOUT Kerr". I was just helping your 1 sided memory.Jordan WON the rings without Kerr as well. What is your point? Jordan also won the rings with the help of Bill Cartwright and Will Perdue. So?
"Stating something as factual as saying Jordan played against smaller SG is not an opinion, it is either true or untrue. You stated this as a fact to back up your claims of why Kobe scored less than Jordan despite similar skills, you prove it. You can’t, then don’t cite it."
Yes, it is EITHER true or untrue. So until proven otherwise, by your numbers, it's still unproven opinion. You can't prove me wrong.
Sorry, smaller players now IN GENERAL has no bearing on the size of SHOOTING GUARDS. There's nothing to prove or disprove. I stated that Shooting guards were smaller then. You have NOTHING to prove they weren't.I cited the fact that players are smaller now than they were 20 years ago, that is a specific fact, it is not an opinion nor was it generalized. You stated that the players are smaller on average despite bigger SGs because centers are smaller now. Prove it."
AVERAGE NBA PLAYER SIZE does not tell you anything about the size of Shooting Guards. Let's not try to make up any stats, shall we?The stats were right, and it came straight from an NBA site. You can argue that it does not represent what you are looking for, but it does have strong correlations. If you want to go more specific than this, you do your work. You are lazy and refused to do your own research, even though I have put in the specific website you can find the information.
Shooting guards were smaller back then is an opinion.You also had the inability to distinguish between opinions and facts. You can’t have an opinion and say that SGs are larger now than they were 20 years ago when there is a clear guideline of whether the statement is right or wrong. Stating Jordan scored 38.2 ppg in 88-89 is not an opinion, it is an incorrectly stated fact because there are clear statistics to back this up.
It's an opinion until proven right or wrong. You have done neither.
Thank you for not disagreeing. I knew I was right.You asserted a statement, it is your onus to prove your own point. I have shown that you have done nothing but compared apples and oranges. The logic is not only flawed, it can’t even be categorized as logic. Kobe played in a strong West, therefore Jordan played in a weak East?
Ah, so you made more stuff up, yah, I thought so.It is an example to prove your illogical “opinions”.
You are basically saying that A > B, therefore A > D (with A representing Kobe’s West, B, Kobe’s East, and D Jordan’s East), with no direct comparisons between A and D.
Yup, I thought it was those same 37 win Hawks.The same team that took the team that beat the Western Conference Champs in 6 games to 7 games, yes.
Why thank you. Yes, they are my opinions, just like yours.Very logical arguments, considering it came from you. This is actually a step up from your other points. BTW, this is an opinion.
If they played during Jordan's "era" they would be mentioned with Jordan. Jordan's rings came before Duncan even joined the NBA. Shaq was not Shaq until a few years after he joined the Lakers.How so? Why? They both played against Jordan and Kobe.
The 80's were the Celtics and the Lakers. Jordan was busy with the Pistons and just a bigger version of Allen Iverson at the time.Jordan played from 84 on, he didn’t just play in the 90s.
I am not surprised that you would take LeBron over Hakeem, especially when you like to contradict yourself by saying that you would take Kobe over Jordan, despite saying Jordan > Kobe at this point.
Wrong, READ it again. I said I would take 30 year old Kobe over 30 year old Jordan if we disregarded EVERYTHING else (accomplishments, team, future, etc). I didn't contradict myself, you just read what you wanted to read in your mind.I am not surprised that you would take LeBron over Hakeem, especially when you like to contradict yourself by saying that you would take Kobe over Jordan, despite saying Jordan > Kobe at this point.
Sorry, Jordan's epic battles were losing to the Pistons 3 years in a row.Well duh! Still didn’t change the fact that Jordan played against both players, and had epic battles in the playoffs against both.
You get another star...yippee. But it has nothing to do with Kobe and Jordan.At least I know who Calvin Murphy and Artis Gilmore are.
Ah yes, there are great players without Rings. But the Greater players are the ones with Rings. And Duncan and Shaq have 4 of 'em so he's far greater than Malone, Barkley, Stockton and Nique.Rings is not a stat? How do you quantify Shaq being good? How about … having a better coach, a better team around him? A player could still be great without rings. Karl Malone was a great player, so was Barkley, so was Stockton, so was Nique.
.... because I said so. Just like you said so.… because.
Yup. Do you disagree?Is this an opinion?
Nope, not leadership. Kobe's a great leader nowadays. He lacked toughness, his team lacked toughness.He was not good enough as in what context? Would lacking leadership be one of them?
Yes, Kobe used to be a . Now he's a great leader.Of course! There are many great leaders on the losing front. Just that quitting on your team, or refusing to shoot to send a message is not exhibiting the qualities of a good leader.
Look at the 90's and how many wins got you into the Playoffs.
35 wins for the Celtics, 38 for the Heat, 43 for the Lakers, 39 for the Lakers, 39 for the Kings, 36 for the Clippers.
Let's see. Jordan gets to go up against the likes of Coleman at #1 draft pick and Kobe goes up against the likes of LeBron at #1 draft pick. Hmmm....that's a hard one.Coleman led the Nets to the playoffs for 3 years in a row. The Nets couldn’t make the playoffs prior. He made the all-star team once, won RoY and was on the All-NBA 3rd team twice. How was that a waste of time?
Nope, I said percentages and YOU jumped into totals.Why are you going into percentages and averages now? Shouldn’t you go into totals? And which universe is 66% half of 80%?
Yup, Kobe got Jordan at the tail end of his career too in which Jordan won 2 rings and 2 MVPs. I don't count that stupid stuff, sorry.A tail end in which Bird and Magic won 3 MVPs, in which McHale averaged 26+ ppg. Yes, that tail end.
Shaq yes, he's in both eras as he is Kobe's compe ion as well as Jordan's. Duncan was never Jordan's real compe ion.Is this an opinion? And why is Shaq and Duncan on Kobe’s side? You have previously defined draft years. Shaq should, without a doubt, go into Jordan’s era by your own definition. Duncan could be either given that he was drafted when both players were playing. Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Stockton says o.
Nope, I'm not going to read it again if you have not even read it once.So if you read it you would know, and you don’t know. So you don’t even read what you write?
Nope, I'm just answering your answer answer. There's no real answer to silliness.So you just like to answer answers? Maybe this explains your rationale so far, you just have no point.
Sure, if you can throw out your excuses for Jordan's poor 3 point shooting.So you can just throw your excuses of why Kobe can’t score as much as Jordan out the window.
Ah, playing dumb again. You're about the only NBA "fan" that I know that "doesn't know" if the West is harder than the East.How would I know? I never played in the league. And I would imagine this is different for different players, given their particular style and such. Kobe on the other hand, showed through his statistics that he does play better against teams in the West.
Nope, look at your own posts, YOU brought up the expansion, not I.You brought up expansion by saying Jordan played in a watered-down league. Try to keep up with your own arguments.
Woohoo!So you played in the NBA? Nice!
That is why you bring up Kobe's 81 points..."against the Raptors". Gotcha.What I AM saying is that Kobe doesn’t agree with you that it is tougher to score on the West than it is on the East. In fact, he proved the opposite.
81 points is 81 points. Jordan never scored 81 so let's try not to take stuff away from Kobe's accomplishments.So? Are they the same as the Raptors? Was Jordan in a situation were he had to score 81 points to beat a lowly East team?
Nope, but it's a great accomplishment.Scoring in one game = scoring le? How do you figure?
Sure, you're en led to your own opinion.I disagree, it is my opinion. I believe Pippen is already better than Kobe can ever become, and this is my opinion.
Getting angry?BTW, based on your IQ, this is sarcasm.
Sorry, you're jumping into the future....this is October, not December. If you can jump into the future, then so can I. Talk about today or talk in the future but don't do your double-standards.So you are saying that Kobe can win a 4 ring by the time he is 30 years and 4 months old, despite the fact that Kobe will be 30 years and 4 months old December 2008, and it is impossible to win a 4th ring at that time?
You really showed how smart you are. You have zero abilities to come to conclusions even with rules clearly written out.
Sure, are you trying to deny that you didn't use mixed percentages and totals?How about http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=445
It’s only a couple of posts above. Read your own post.
Are you trying to deny that you used averages for 3 point shooting, then used totals for scoring?
You have not proven me wrong.What have I not proven?
Because you said Jordan won 3 without Kerr. I said he won 3 WITH Kerr. Just helping you from hiding the truth.What does this have to do with the argument that Kerr is a great teammate to have?
Yes, every one of those guys on that list are great 3 point shooters.The top 10 players in career 3pt %.
Jason Kapono
Steve Kerr
Hubert Davis
Drazen Petrovic
Steve Nash
Tim Legler
Anthony Parker
BJ Armstrong
Wesley Person
Ben Gordon.
How many great players do you see in there? Now ask yourself, if only a maximum of 2 out of 10 career 3pt shooting leaders can be considered great, is 3 pt shooting % a strong indicator of how good a 3 pt shooter is?
I never said Shaq or Duncan were better 3 point shooters than Kobe at Age 30. I said Kobe was a better 3 point shooter than Jordan. Making up more ridiculous stuff my friend?Also, players like Shaq and Duncan have horrible 3 pt shooting, and yet you have labeled them great. How does this work?
Off topic thread, you can post them there.Those players are used to show your own contradictions.
Off topic thread, you can post them there.And I brought in Gilmore and Murphy because they showed that shooting % has little to do with greatness.
Yawn. Try to come up with some more arguments, not just more insults when you lose a point.Of course! I said Never when I said Never say Never, a contradiction on its own. Which based on your self-contradictory “arguments”, is a perfect motto for you.
Is that an opinion?Try to look up the difference between facts, opinions, and projections. You have poor understanding of any of them.
Yes, because you were trying to make up an extra ring for His Airness.I went in the “future” after you did. I stated what Jordan has already accomplished, and stated what Kobe already has accomplished. You went into the future and say that they are comparable because of future possible events.
Yup, and that's why they call it "Hack-a-Shaq", because it's named after Wilt. Your lack of logic never ceases to amaze me.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq
Your lack of knowledge of NBA history never cease to amaze me.
Yes, and that's why it's called Hack-a-Shaq, because it's not named after Shaq. Great logic, A+Just because Hack a Shaq has the word Shaq on it doesn’t mean that it was developed specifically for Shaq.
You said a sea horse wasn't a horse. Of course it's not. A sea horse is a sea horse. What's your point?And thanks for agreeing with me that a sea horse is a sea horse and not a horse using the same logic I used.
Because you have 1 example of this. I say he's a liability and ask you to show me some videos. You came up with 1 video with 1 play while I came up with a several minute video with dozens of plays with Kobe finishing the 4th.How was saying “Shaq got the ball in the low post in the final seconds.” Agreeing with Shaq being a liability?
Shaq needed Kobe in the 4th quarters to win.
Let's see, you don't think Shaq's a 4th quarter liability. You don't think Kobe finished up the games for Shaq. You don't think Hack-a-Shaq was named after Shaq. That's good stuffTo disrupt the flow. I thought it was a great tactic, it messed with the Suns offense and stopped them from a free flow, forced D’antoni to yank Shaq. It doesn’t make Shaq a liability in the 4th quarter, because it was done in the 2nd.
That was wrong. But at the same time, it proved my point that the NBA was watered down in the 90s. +1 for you, +1 for me. Thankyou.You specifically said that scoring increased in Kobe’s era vs. Jordan’s era, it was PROVEN wrong. Check the links above.
I also said Kobe may not even be greater than Jordan. I'm not committed either way so I'm neither right or wrong in saying Kobe may be greater than Jordan and then again, he might not .But you already did, you specifically said that Kobe COULD be greater than Jordan. Could pertains to the future.
Let's make up some more excuses for His Airness shall we? It doesn't change the fact that at the same age, Kobe had 3 rings, Jordan had 2.Jordan already won 6 rings. Kobe won 3 rings* after 12 NBA seasons, Jordan have 5 have 12 NBA seasons.
2 points for and 2 against makes 4 points. You have three points below, I will try to make out what you are trying to say.
So you ARE finally admitting that teams were scoring more in Jordan’s era, with less 3 pters?
How so? Where did that come from?
How did you jump from FG% to 3 pt %? Jordan scored much better in FG% in an era of slightly higher FG%, what is wrong with that?
He also shot much less 3 pters and shot at a lower % when 3 pters were not used as much as a weapon as it is now. Sounds about consistent.
You implying doesn’t mean me assuming, it means me interpreting. Look up the dictionary.
So is Kobe better at the same age than Jordan? Is Kobe the same as Jordan at the same age? You take individual players based on team success, and when one was the leader winning rings, while the other is an obvious second wheel? Please explain your rationale in more details, if there is one.
So you are saying that you are trolling? Is that what you are saying?
You are saying that you don’t mean what you typed? I am having trouble understanding your constant flip-flopping.
Complete this sentence for me:
It is (acceptable/unacceptable) to factor in future accomplishments when evaluating players.
Why are you coming up with excuses for Kobe? Why should Kobe Bryant have the benefit of having the accomplishments (points scored namely) included for entering the league early, while not getting penalized for scoring less efficiently?
But I did! See below:
How should it work then? You claim that it happens enough for it to be significant, I say it doesn’t. The stats stand on my side. What do you have to back up your claim?
And no, it is not taking yearly and try to break it into a game by game situation, try to understand how it works. I am saying the probability of this happening. Out of a 4% in 3pt%, Kobe would make a difference in those situations, that’s it.
BTW, Hollinger’s mathematical “models” are so flawed that anyone who refers to him as some sort of statistician have little to no understanding of stats and basketball.
I showed you a video of Shaq scoring in the low blocks and flushing down an alley-oop in a close Game 7 vs. Portland after you claimed Shaq was a liability in the 4th. He wasn’t, and the video proved it.
If you want more proof: http://82games.com/comm3.htm
In 02-03 season, at the peak of Shaq-Kobe dominance, Kobe was #2 in points scored in the clutch, O’Neal was #3. O’Neal was #1 in effective FG% in the clutch, and #3 in points/possession while surprisingly, Kobe wasn’t even in the top 30. O’Neal was #1 in foul drawn, but that is expected given hack-a-shaq.
And I never asked you for proof of Kobe winning games in the 4th, I have seen it. In fact, I can recall it off the top of my head. I don’t need links to prove it, because I watch actual games.
It is not probable Kobe will catch Jordan, and yet you are saying people are whacked in saying that Kobe will not catch Jordan. Why is it wrong to say something that is not probable to happen not to happen? It sounds very consistent.
I thought it was Kerr! But then again, equating Pippen’s contributions to Shaq’s contribution is the best of all.
What is one-sided? You can’t even keep up with your own flip-flopping arguments. You insisted that Jordan won those 3 rings with the help of Kerr, but Jordan also won 3 rings WITHOUT Kerr, showing that Kerr is all but a complimentary player (most people with common sense would be able to note his 10 mpg as proof).
Let me repeat, YOU made the assertion that Jordan played against smaller SG, and the onus is on YOU to proof it.
If you want to go by your asinine logic, I will say Kobe Bryant won those 3 rings because he bribed the referees and David Stern, so none of them count. It is now YOUR onus to prove otherwise. See how it works?
You can’t just through out empty statements and treat them like facts. You have to prove them, and you have done NOTHING in this thread to do so. You can’t come up with anything and expect me to do the work to disprove you, and then expect me to come up with the work to prove my own work as well (see the 3pt shooting and average scoring part, I made the arguments, and I am happy to prove it. I just find it incredulous that you are as lazy as to not click on the first links I have provided an continuously question my integrity, then offered no apologies whatsoever and decided to say nothing to admit your own ignorance when direct links were provided).
Let me tell you how to do this:
Take random samples of years, say 1988, 1993, 1996, 2000, 2003, go to basketball-reference.com, look at all the SGs and note down their height, then do an average. If you are too lazy to do it, then don’t treat it as a fact.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion
Check the definition. Stating NBA guards were smaller in the early 90s is not an opinion. An opinion is a judgment call that was asserted under the cir stances of insufficient information. Information could be revealed in the future validating or invalidating said opinion, but the fact is SG sizes are readily available statistics. YOU look it up.
Not disagreeing = you are right? Your inability to grasp on any kind of logic, lack of general knowledge on the NBA, and ignorance on the definition of facts, assertions and opinions have forced you to randomly invent points to pad up your own self-esteem.
You also fail to understand the usage of examples. It was to illustrate your flawed logic.
And what have I made up? What have you done to explain your logic?
You specifically said Kobe’s West > Kobe’s East, Jordan played in the East (different era), therefore Kobe played in a tougher conference than Jordan. This makes absolutely no sense, and I have illustrated it fully, what was “made up”?
By your own logic, the Hawks only won 37 games because the East was extremely tough. A team as good as the Hawks, which took the champions that knocked off the Western champs in 6 games to 7 games, had trouble winning 40 games.
Blah blah blah is indeed a great opinion considering the source. It is in fact the only opinion that you came up with in this thread that doesn’t contain flawed logic.
Do you know anything? Duncan was drafted in 97. Jordan won his last ring in 98!
Shaq has been Shaq throughout. His legacy was more shining because he won those rings, and he won those rings because of a better team, not because he was significantly better.
Jordan played and lost to Bird. He scored 63 points vs. Bird and the Celtics. Please read up on NBA history. You have no grasp of a subject you are trying to argue.
I hope that you are not going to say that it is your opinion that Jordan didn’t play against Bird in the playoffs, refused to click on links and then call those lies.
No you didn’t, you never said anything in that post, or even alluding to anything in that post, that we should disregard everything else. And now that you said disregarding EVERYTHING other than rings, you would choose Pippen over Kobe because Pippen won more rings than Kobe by 30, wouldn’t you?
Losing is not a battle? Losing means that Jordan didn’t play in their era? Let me refresh your pitiful memory. YOU stated that Jordan scored more than Kobe because of weaker compe ion, then cited draft picks from a randomly chosen 88 to 93 era as proof. But of course, Jordan DID play against strong compe ion, and the Celtics, Lakers and Pistons were proof.
Then why did you ask who are they?
Of course it has everything to do with Kobe and Jordan, to which you cited Jordan needed “great” players like Kerr to win championships (since shown that Jordan won without him), citing Kerr is the single-season record holder for one statistical category (3-pt shooting) in NBA history as proof. I have since taken Calvin Murphy and Artis Gilmore (both better players than Kerr) as proof that your logic is flawed.
But it doesn’t mean that having a ring = a greater player. Bob McAdoo won a ring and an MVP, doesn’t make him greater than Barkley, or Malone, or Nique.
Since when have I stated something and not backed it up? State them, and I will happily answer them?
So lacking toughness would lead to him losing in the Finals. What is the evidence that Kobe has improved his toughness to a required level that he could win 4 more rings before his career ends? If there is none, why would you state that as a probability? Are you just counting on blind faith?
Evidenced by what? What has he done that would categorize him as a great leader?
Having great teams up top could also contribute to lower ranking teams with low win totals. It only shows a large disparity in the league, not teams that aren’t any good.
And you just quoted the Hawks winning 37 games and they got to the playoffs, it is still happening now.
Or Jordan goes up against Magic and Kareem, Bird, Barkley, Hakeem, Stockton and Malone, and Nique, while Kobe goes up against Lebron, Duncan, and a beaten down Shaq. Sounds much fairer now does it?
YOU used totals for points at a certain cut off age, and therefore I used totals for games played at a cut off age. I used methodologies that was consistent with yours. If you want to go with averages, sure, but I still fail to see how 66% is half of 80%, and I would love to see how Kobe’s average scoring at 30 compares to Jordan’s average at 30.
Yeah, Kobe played in Jordan’s era, you heard me arguing otherwise?
But YOU were the one who used year drafted as any indication. Shaq was Kobe’s “compe ion” after 2004, in which he was entering his 12th or 13th NBA season, same as Jordan when Duncan played against him.
You are not going to read what you wrote yourself? How is that possible? Although it does explain the crap you have been spewing all along.
Cool, you are resorting to mindless banter, not that this is any worse than your “opinions” earlier on.
Sure, Jordan shot worse than Kobe on 3 pt %, I never argued otherwise. Kobe scored less, have less rebounds, assists, FG%, FT%, wins, more fouls, less blocks, less steals, less awards. And yet you are saying that Kobe could be better than Jordan.
I never played in the league, I really don’t know. I am surprised you know. But I will repeat this for the 3rd time, Kobe scored more, at a higher %, when he played against the East than the West, and that is a fact. It directly contradicts to your assertion.
Why do you have to lie?
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=430
You cited the watered-down league as why Jordan scored more than Kobe, saying that expansion is the proof. I then said that, using your logic, there was further expansion in Kobe’s era because there was another expansion.
How is that going to factor into Kobe’s greatness? If you want to use how many points Kobe scored in one game as any sort of indicator that Kobe could be greater than Jordan, go ahead. That is your own, faulty definition.
So why did you say that I brought up scoring les when I said saying Kobe scoring 81 points is an insignificant accomplishment? You are continuously putting your own foot in your mouth, with no plan or reason as to what and why you are arguing.
And that is precisely the problem. Incorrect opinions should be dismissed. Pippen is not greater than Kobe, and to state that is an obvious reflection on your incorrect take. It is not OK to hind behind the cloak of opinion and take no responsibility of what was said.
And yet you are free to say that Kobe will pass Jordan in scoring in the next 5 years. Just to make it clear, YOU brought this up long before I stated the 3 rings by 30 years and 4 months argument.
BTW, Kobe NOT winning a ring by Dec 2008 is a certainty, it WILL happen. It is impossible to say that he will. Kobe surpassing Jordan in scoring in the next 5 years is not, it is NOT a certainty.
You mean this?
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...87#post2840687
You mean other than the fact that scoring decreased since Jordan’s era? You mean other than the fact that players are shorter now than they were 20 years ago? You mean other than the fact that 3 pt shooting is a bigger part of today’s offense?
Hiding from what truth? You said Jordan had Kerr to help him win championships, which is a fact, what I am arguing is that Kerr is a bit player that shouldn’t even go into the conversation, proven by the fact that Jordan won 3 without him. When did I ever say that Jordan never won 3 without Kerr? Get back down to earth, and follow the thread.
So how does this relate to Kobe having the potential to be better than Jordan?
Again, how does this relate to Jordan vs. Kobe? Yeah, Kobe shot a higher %, so?
Those players were used to show your own contradictions within this thread.
Those players were used to show your own contradictions within this thread.
Lose what point?
It is an observation.
Jordan DID win 3 rings by 30 years and 4 months, how is that making up an extra ring?
When did I say it was named after Wilt? You said that Shaq was a liability in the 4th and hack-a-shaq strategy was derived to do exactly that. I said the strategy was invented back I the Wilt days. Shaq merely was the most famous representative of this strategy.
You just seem to make things up as you go.
Did I say it wasn’t named after Shaq? I said “Because it rhymes, it was developed for Wilt Chamberlain, look it up.”
That Hack a Shaq is named after Shaq, but not because of him.
Only having 1 video means agreeing with you Shaq is not clutch. Find me videos of Jerry West’s clutch shots. He was named Mr. Clutch, but I fail to find more than 1 video.
And look up those stats.
I like to think Kobe needed Shaq’s presence to disrupt the defense.
Check out the stats above.
How was scoring level an indication of the league watering down? I can argue the league is so bad now, they struggle to score. How is that a point for you?
Points were even higher in the early 80’s, was the 80’s more watered down?
How do you indicate the league watering down? You first use the number of teams, that didn’t work since Kobe’s era has even more teams, you then used scoring, which also didn’t work because there was more scoring in the 80’s, and you have said the 90’s were watered down than the 80’s. What is it? Have a single point a stick to it. Don’t contradict yourself constantly, using the same argument to sometimes argue for, and something against your own arguments.
But that is STILL going into the future. Why are you predicting? Why are you saying Kobe will score more than Jordan in 5 years?
It doesn’t change the fact that Jordan have 5 rings after 12 years in the league, and Kobe “only” 3.
Last edited by ambchang; 10-31-2008 at 11:15 AM.
Yes, teams were scoring more in Jordan's era.So you ARE finally admitting that teams were scoring more in Jordan’s era, with less 3 pters?
Look at how many wins it required to make the Playoffs.How so? Where did that come from?
I made a statement on the ease of scoring during Jordan's era which you provided the links for. It was easier to score in Jordan's era.How did you jump from FG% to 3 pt %? Jordan scored much better in FG% in an era of slightly higher FG%, what is wrong with that?
He also shot much less 3 pters and shot at a lower % when 3 pters were not used as much as a weapon as it is now. Sounds about consistent.
In your case, yes it does mean you are ASSuming because I never said it.You implying doesn’t mean me assuming, it means me interpreting. Look up the dictionary.
3 rings to 2 rings. I've already proven that Shaq needed to have Kobe win 4th quarters. That is not "2nd wheel". You've tried, but failed to disprove that.So is Kobe better at the same age than Jordan? Is Kobe the same as Jordan at the same age? You take individual players based on team success, and when one was the leader winning rings, while the other is an obvious second wheel? Please explain your rationale in more details, if there is one.
Oh no, you like to hide, so I try to coax answers out of you.So you are saying that you are trolling? Is that what you are saying?
I DO mean what I said. I don't flip-flop like you.You are saying that you don’t mean what you typed? I am having trouble understanding your constant flip-flopping.
Read it again, if you like, I said:
Kobe will surpass Jordan in points. Complete this sentence for me:
Kobe will/will not surpass Jordan in points.
I am not evaluating Kobe and was not using it in an argument. I was stating my opionion.Complete this sentence for me:
It is (acceptable/unacceptable) to factor in future accomplishments when evaluating players.
He gets both actually. He gets penalized for his inefficiency in his rookie years and he also gets the benefit of it. It's there in his stats, look it up.Why are you coming up with excuses for Kobe? Why should Kobe Bryant have the benefit of having the accomplishments (points scored namely) included for entering the league early, while not getting penalized for scoring less efficiently?
Learn some English, that makes no sense:But I did! See below:
I Said: "Why could he only make a slight difference in 1 out of 25 of those shots? How do you know it wasn't the ulative effort of his 3's that won the game? Is that you Hollinger?"
But you did what?
Again, Hollinger, you're trying to apply a mathematical equation to a single game situation. Doesn't work that way.How should it work then? You claim that it happens enough for it to be significant, I say it doesn’t. The stats stand on my side. What do you have to back up your claim?
And no, it is not taking yearly and try to break it into a game by game situation, try to understand how it works. I am saying the probability of this happening. Out of a 4% in 3pt%, Kobe would make a difference in those situations, that’s it.
BTW, Hollinger’s mathematical “models” are so flawed that anyone who refers to him as some sort of statistician have little to no understanding of stats and basketball.
Are you saying that the 1 extra point from 3 pointers doesn't make that much difference?
You obviously pretend to know more than you do. Shaq-Kobe dominance was not at it's peak in 2003, Shaq-Kobe was heavily into the decline by 2003. Your own Spurs beat them in the 2nd round, look it up.I showed you a video of Shaq scoring in the low blocks and flushing down an alley-oop in a close Game 7 vs. Portland after you claimed Shaq was a liability in the 4th. He wasn’t, and the video proved it.
If you want more proof: http://82games.com/comm3.htm
In 02-03 season, at the peak of Shaq-Kobe dominance, Kobe was #2 in points scored in the clutch, O’Neal was #3.
You have 1 video of Shaq flushing down an alley oop in the 4th quarter in his 17 years in the NBA. You don't have anymore? I did a 10 second search on Youtube and there are litterally hundreds of Kobe's clutch performances.
You said Kobe was the "2nd wheel to Shaq", how come he is #2 and Shaq is #3 in your own list?
Your fantasy about Shaq not being a 4th quarter liability is stupid. Even your own team's coach exposes that liability. You have 1 video out of 16 years of Shaq's "Mr. Clutch" career...Gotcha.O’Neal was #1 in effective FG% in the clutch, and #3 in points/possession while surprisingly, Kobe wasn’t even in the top 30. O’Neal was #1 in foul drawn, but that is expected given hack-a-shaq.
BTW, Shaq-Kobe did not win a ring in 2003, so this doesn't help your case in stating that Kobe was "2nd wheel" to Shaq in the ring getting. Nice try but a FAIL as usual.
SHAQ should be thanking KOBE for winning those close games.
You obviously don't watch actual games because you said 2003 was the peak of the Shaq-Kobe era. That was the DECLINING year.And I never asked you for proof of Kobe winning games in the 4th, I have seen it. In fact, I can recall it off the top of my head. I don’t need links to prove it, because I watch actual games.
Your own coach of the Spurs does hack-a-Shaq because he's a liability. You should start by opening your eys to some Spurs games.
Because one is absolute, one is not. When you say "CANNOT" that means 100%, probable still has a chance. Is that so hard to understand?It is not probable Kobe will catch Jordan, and yet you are saying people are whacked in saying that Kobe will not catch Jordan. Why is it wrong to say something that is not probable to happen not to happen? It sounds very consistent.
Shaq couldn't win games by himself without Kobe, the video showed that. The video even shows Shaq sitting on the bench. Your "Mr. Clutch" Shaq sitting on the bench watching Kobe's heroics win the game.I thought it was Kerr! But then again, equating Pippen’s contributions to Shaq’s contribution is the best of all.
Yes, you like to state only 1 side of things, I'm getting to know your sneaky thinking the more we talk. You like to say only the positive side to help your arguments. "Jordan won 3 rings without Kerr".What is one-sided? You can’t even keep up with your own flip-flopping arguments. You insisted that Jordan won those 3 rings with the help of Kerr, but Jordan also won 3 rings WITHOUT Kerr, showing that Kerr is all but a complimentary player (most people with common sense would be able to note his 10 mpg as proof).
Nope, the ONUS is on YOU to prove it IF YOU DISAGREE. If you have NO PROOF, just let it go.Let me repeat, YOU made the assertion that Jordan played against smaller SG, and the onus is on YOU to proof it.
Obviously you feel like you're some basketball guru but have no proof. Nice.
Yah, I see how it works. You have some stupid logic, but it's all yours baby.If you want to go by your asinine logic, I will say Kobe Bryant won those 3 rings because he bribed the referees and David Stern, so none of them count. It is now YOUR onus to prove otherwise. See how it works?
You have proved that there was more scoring in the 90s in a watered down league. Yay!You can’t just through out empty statements and treat them like facts. You have to prove them, and you have done NOTHING in this thread to do so. You can’t come up with anything and expect me to do the work to disprove you, and then expect me to come up with the work to prove my own work as well (see the 3pt shooting and average scoring part, I made the arguments, and I am happy to prove it.
It's not hard to question your rose-colored integrity. You keep arguing the Kobe 3 rings to Jordan's 2 rings with some kind of crazy future jumping logic without conceding the fact.I just find it incredulous that you are as lazy as to not click on the first links I have provided an continuously question my integrity, then offered no apologies whatsoever and decided to say nothing to admit your own ignorance when direct links were provided).
Or that Shaq's some kind of great 4th quarter performer.
Or that "Hack - a - Shaq" was named after Wilt.
You are by far one of the rudest posters I've met here on ST who can't have a debate without throwing out insult.
You started the insults, don't wonder why you're not getting any respect. I have no problem with insults, keep 'em min' but make no mistake, your ignorance, rudeness, and bias deserves no respect or apologies.
I ain't going to do your work for you. If you want to disagree, come up with your own "facts".Let me tell you how to do this:
Take random samples of years, say 1988, 1993, 1996, 2000, 2003, go to basketball-reference.com, look at all the SGs and note down their height, then do an average. If you are too lazy to do it, then don’t treat it as a fact.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion
Check the definition. Stating NBA guards were smaller in the early 90s is not an opinion. An opinion is a judgment call that was asserted under the cir stances of insufficient information. Information could be revealed in the future validating or invalidating said opinion, but the fact is SG sizes are readily available statistics. YOU look it up.[/quote]
Yup, I looked it up. It's an opinion.
Shooting Guards were smaller in the early 90s.
"a personal view, at ude, or appraisal. "
Look it up, it's right there in your link.
As usual, you dodged the question yet again. I asked you outright if it was harder to play in the West or the East.Not disagreeing = you are right? Your inability to grasp on any kind of logic, lack of general knowledge on the NBA, and ignorance on the definition of facts, assertions and opinions have forced you to randomly invent points to pad up your own self-esteem.
"Oh I don't know, I'm not a player".
And now you hide behind the issue by throwing out more insults, niec
Hahah, you like to make up stuff, yo ueven make up stuff about not making up stuff.You also fail to understand the usage of examples. It was to illustrate your flawed logic.
And what have I made up? What have you done to explain your logic?
You specifically said Kobe’s West > Kobe’s East, Jordan played in the East (different era), therefore Kobe played in a tougher conference than Jordan. This makes absolutely no sense, and I have illustrated it fully, what was “made up”?
"With your logic.
If Kobe’s West = 6, and Kobe’s East = 4, and Jordan’s West = 3 and East = 10, your logic shows that Kobe’s West > Jordan’s East, which shows 6 > 10, which is incorrect. Your “logic” is hardly logical."
Sure, let's just pull up some #'s out of our ass and say that's "Allanon's logic"
Nope, that's your own crazy Hollinger logic that only looks at numbers to win games instead of looking at matchups.By your own logic, the Hawks only won 37 games because the East was extremely tough. A team as good as the Hawks, which took the champions that knocked off the Western champs in 6 games to 7 games, had trouble winning 40 games.
Great logic! Hahah, more insults, getting angry?Blah blah blah is indeed a great opinion considering the source. It is in fact the only opinion that you came up with in this thread that doesn’t contain flawed logic.
Do you know ANYTHING? Duncan was a rookie in 97. Even your "great Jordan" couldn't start contending for a ring until 5 seasons.Do you know anything? Duncan was drafted in 97. Jordan won his last ring in 98!
Shaq has been Shaq throughout. His legacy was more shining because he won those rings, and he won those rings because of a better team, not because he was significantly better.
Ditto for Shaq.
Of course Jordan lost to Bird, that was the Magic-Bird era, not the Jordan era. He got swept twice by the Celtics. But that is all understandable, it's much like the Kobe early years.Jordan played and lost to Bird. He scored 63 points vs. Bird and the Celtics. Please read up on NBA history. You have no grasp of a subject you are trying to argue.
I hope that you are not going to say that it is your opinion that Jordan didn’t play against Bird in the playoffs, refused to click on links and then call those lies.
And after he lost to Bird, he got his ass beat by the Pistons 3 years in a row. They called them the "Detroit Bad Boys". Look it up.
It took Jordan several years to become a conteder. By the time he was a contender, Magic/Bird were s s of their former selves.
Please learn to read:No you didn’t, you never said anything in that post, or even alluding to anything in that post, that we should disregard everything else. And now that you said disregarding EVERYTHING other than rings, you would choose Pippen over Kobe because Pippen won more rings than Kobe by 30, wouldn’t you?
" Originally Posted by DPG21920 View Post
DPG21920: Who was the better basketball player at age 30, do not talk about systems or teams or anything. "
Allanon: At age 30, I would say they're dead even and if forced to pick 1, I would take Kobe.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=191
Nope, Jordan was not ready to contend in those years. Jut like Kobe wasn't, LeBron isn't, etc. , Kobe battled David Robinson, doesn't mean he was part of DRob's era.Losing is not a battle? Losing means that Jordan didn’t play in their era? Let me refresh your pitiful memory. YOU stated that Jordan scored more than Kobe because of weaker compe ion, then cited draft picks from a randomly chosen 88 to 93 era as proof. But of course, Jordan DID play against strong compe ion, and the Celtics, Lakers and Pistons were proof.
Jordan's "era" is considered the 90's.
Because they have no relevance to Kobe and Jordan.Then why did you ask who are they?
Nope, I said Jordan needed Pippen to win. Where did I ever cite "Jordan needed 'great' players like Kerr to win championships'". Prove it? Links? Quotes?Of course it has everything to do with Kobe and Jordan, to which you cited Jordan needed “great” players like Kerr to win championships (since shown that Jordan won without him), citing Kerr is the single-season record holder for one statistical category (3-pt shooting) in NBA history as proof. I have since taken Calvin Murphy and Artis Gilmore (both better players than Kerr) as proof that your logic is flawed.
Stop making stuff up and saying that I said it.
Why can't you read? I said 3 rings and 1 MVP. 1 MVP and 1 ring does not equal 3 rings and 1 MVP. If "Bob McAdoo" had 3 rings and 1 MVP, he'd be greater than Barkley.But it doesn’t mean that having a ring = a greater player. Bob McAdoo won a ring and an MVP, doesn’t make him greater than Barkley, or Malone, or Nique.
Alright, since you're being so open:Since when have I stated something and not backed it up? State them, and I will happily answer them?
Was Shaq a liability in the 4th quarter?
Did Shaq often sit on the bench watching Kobe win the game.
Did Kobe have 3 rings to Jordan's 2 when they turned 30?
Yes or No, is it possible that Kobe may become GOAT?
There is no evidence that Kobe has improved his toughness, and I never stated that he had improved his toughness.So lacking toughness would lead to him losing in the Finals. What is the evidence that Kobe has improved his toughness to a required level that he could win 4 more rings before his career ends? If there is none, why would you state that as a probability? Are you just counting on blind faith?
Clarify your this statement, which probablility are you referring to? The probablility of what?
"If there is none, why would you state that as a probability?"
Again Hollinger, there are just some things that can't be explained by numbers.Evidenced by what? What has he done that would categorize him as a great leader?
There is no evidence of leadership other than what you perceive.
Jordan was a great team leader. I have no evidence of this but I know.
Nope, if you have great Top teams, there are more wins, it's the cellar dwellers that suffer from the top teams. No matter how great a Top team is, they're only going to play 2-4 games against you.Having great teams up top could also contribute to lower ranking teams with low win totals. It only shows a large disparity in the league, not teams that aren’t any good.
Come on, you're good with averages, look at the average # of wins needed in Jordan's watered down era.And you just quoted the Hawks winning 37 games and they got to the playoffs, it is still happening now.
"35 wins for the Celtics, 38 for the Heat, 43 for the Lakers, 39 for the Lakers, 39 for the Kings, 36 for the Clippers."
If you want to pull up such ridiculousness, Kobe goes up against:Or Jordan goes up against Magic and Kareem, Bird, Barkley, Hakeem, Stockton and Malone, and Nique, while Kobe goes up against Lebron, Duncan, and a beaten down Shaq. Sounds much fairer now does it?
Jordan
Pippen
Hakeem
Barkley
Stockton
Malone
LeBron
Shaq
Duncan
DRob
Ewing
Drexler
Sounds much less fair now doesn't it?
Thank you for admitting that you like to jump around and again trying to do it by asking for average when I stated that Kobe scored a ton more points than Jordan at the same age.YOU used totals for points at a certain cut off age, and therefore I used totals for games played at a cut off age. I used methodologies that was consistent with yours. If you want to go with averages, sure, but I still fail to see how 66% is half of 80%, and I would love to see how Kobe’s average scoring at 30 compares to Jordan’s average at 30.
OK, I added some more players that Kobe played in my list above. Thanks.Yeah, Kobe played in Jordan’s era, you heard me arguing otherwise?
Sure, given your "logic" I've expanded Kobe's list of "players he played against" for you.But YOU were the one who used year drafted as any indication. Shaq was Kobe’s “compe ion” after 2004, in which he was entering his 12th or 13th NBA season, same as Jordan when Duncan played against him.
More anger.You are not going to read what you wrote yourself? How is that possible? Although it does explain the crap you have been spewing all along.
[quote]
Cool, you are resorting to mindless banter, not that this is any worse than your “opinions” earlier on.[/qote]
More anger.
Nope, you just tried to make excuses and diminish Kobe's achievement even though I unquestionably gave Jordan the rest.Sure, Jordan shot worse than Kobe on 3 pt %, I never argued otherwise. Kobe scored less, have less rebounds, assists, FG%, FT%, wins, more fouls, less blocks, less steals, less awards. And yet you are saying that Kobe could be better than Jordan.
Yes, Kobe could be better than Jordan. It may happen, it may never happen but it's certainly a possibility.
How does that contradict my assertion?I never played in the league, I really don’t know. I am surprised you know. But I will repeat this for the 3rd time, Kobe scored more, at a higher %, when he played against the East than the West, and that is a fact. It directly contradicts to your assertion.
Are you blind or you can't read?Why do you have to lie?
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=430
You cited the watered-down league as why Jordan scored more than Kobe, saying that expansion is the proof. I then said that, using your logic, there was further expansion in Kobe’s era because there was another expansion.
WHERE in that post is the word EXPANSION?
Copy and paste a screenshot because I sure as don't see it and even was a good boy and did a word search
Ah yes, my faulty definition vs your faulty definition. I can live with that.How is that going to factor into Kobe’s greatness? If you want to use how many points Kobe scored in one game as any sort of indicator that Kobe could be greater than Jordan, go ahead. That is your own, faulty definition.
Sorry, I was putting my foot in your mouthSo why did you say that I brought up scoring les when I said saying Kobe scoring 81 points is an insignificant accomplishment? You are continuously putting your own foot in your mouth, with no plan or reason as to what and why you are arguing.I said Kobe's 81 points was a significant achievement. That's what I wanted to say, you can't regulate or censor what I want to say just because it doesn't meet YOUR "plan or reason"
Is there any way to prove that Pippen is not greater than Kobe? If so, prove it. Otherwise, it's just opinion.And that is precisely the problem. Incorrect opinions should be dismissed. Pippen is not greater than Kobe, and to state that is an obvious reflection on your incorrect take. It is not OK to hind behind the cloak of opinion and take no responsibility of what was said.
Again, I'm free to say it, if you disagree, then disagree. If you don't disagree, let it go. Simple as that.And yet you are free to say that Kobe will pass Jordan in scoring in the next 5 years. Just to make it clear, YOU brought this up long before I stated the 3 rings by 30 years and 4 months argument.
December 2008 is in the future. It is not today so yes, you are jumping into the future whether a certainty or not. Wait until December and you will be saying it in the present or does his Airness need a time traveller for his case?BTW, Kobe NOT winning a ring by Dec 2008 is a certainty, it WILL happen. It is impossible to say that he will. Kobe surpassing Jordan in scoring in the next 5 years is not, it is NOT a certainty.
Great, at least we're in agreement.You mean this?
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...87#post2840687
You mean other than the fact that FG% was higher in Jordan's watered down era?You mean other than the fact that scoring decreased since Jordan’s era? You mean other than the fact that players are shorter now than they were 20 years ago? You mean other than the fact that 3 pt shooting is a bigger part of today’s offense?
I'm used to your one sided "facts", carry on.Hiding from what truth? You said Jordan had Kerr to help him win championships, which is a fact, what I am arguing is that Kerr is a bit player that shouldn’t even go into the conversation, proven by the fact that Jordan won 3 without him. When did I ever say that Jordan never won 3 without Kerr? Get back down to earth, and follow the thread.
Kobe has 3 rings, Jordan had 2 at his age.So how does this relate to Kobe having the potential to be better than Jordan?
So it's an area where he's better than Jordan.Again, how does this relate to Jordan vs. Kobe? Yeah, Kobe shot a higher %, so?
You showed nothing other than going off topic.Those players were used to show your own contradictions within this thread.
You showed nothing other than going off topic.Those players were used to show your own contradictions within this thread.
Lose what point?
Great.It is an observation.
Because Kobe is not 30 years and 4 months? Does the Great Jordan need a couple extra months in time to give him the advantage over Kobe?Jordan DID win 3 rings by 30 years and 4 months, how is that making up an extra ring?
WHERE DID I EVER SAY THIS? You are making stuff up again? I never said this, show me, quotes, links?You said that Shaq was a liability in the 4th and hack-a-shaq strategy was derived to do exactly that.
I said the strategy was invented back I the Wilt days. Shaq merely was the most famous representative of this strategy.
Who cares about when it was invented, I never argued that point. It's called "Hack-a-Shaq". None of your bluster or changing the subject changes the fact that Shaq was a massive 4th quarter liability.
Funny, I thought that about you.You just seem to make things up as you go.
Who cares about when it was invented, I never argued that point. It's called "Hack-a-Shaq". None of your bluster or changing the subject changes the fact that Shaq was a massive 4th quarter liability.Did I say it wasn’t named after Shaq? I said “Because it rhymes, it was developed for Wilt Chamberlain, look it up.”
Great. Who cares? This ain't Jeopardy or Trivial pursuit.That Hack a Shaq is named after Shaq, but not because of him.
It's called "Hack-a-Shaq". None of your bluster or changing the subject changes the fact that Shaq was a massive 4th quarter liability.
Again, you can't prove your point so you're jumping to other players. You like to argue but then jump into different tangents.Only having 1 video means agreeing with you Shaq is not clutch. Find me videos of Jerry West’s clutch shots. He was named Mr. Clutch, but I fail to find more than 1 video.
And look up those stats.
This is about Shaq, come up with some Shaq videos or even Stats that proves he was clutch in winning those les. Bring up some stats that show he wasn't on the bench while Kobe did the scoring?
I showed you plenty of Kobe vids, you have 1 Shaq vid, we know about Hack-a-Shaq, we've seen Pop do it numerous times and yet you live in some fantasy world of Shaq not being a liability in the 4th.
I like to think they needed each other.I like to think Kobe needed Shaq’s presence to disrupt the defense.
Hahah, you can argue all you want but that doesn't change the fact that a reasonable person can see that it was much easier to score back in Jordan's watered down era.How was scoring level an indication of the league watering down? I can argue the league is so bad now, they struggle to score. How is that a point for you?
Yes, it was even more watered down in the 80's. You had the Lakers and Celtics and that was it. Classic case of the haves vs the have nots.Points were even higher in the early 80’s, was the 80’s more watered down?
How do you indicate the league watering down?
I never used the number of teams, stop making stuff up. Quotes, links?You first use the number of teams, that didn’t work since Kobe’s era has even more teams
Nope, I said there is LESS scoring in the 00's., you then used scoring, which also didn’t work because there was more scoring in the 80’s
I have never said this, you need to check your head.and you have said the 90’s were watered down than the 80’s.
hahah, you obviously have no clue as to what I've said and haven't said. Quote me from ANY Of the 4 points above, I've never said ANY of them. Hahahah, that was pure entertainment. Good one!What is it? Have a single point a stick to it. Don’t contradict yourself constantly, using the same argument to sometimes argue for, and something against your own arguments.
Cuz I felt like it. Disagree if you wish. Argue if you wish. But I can say anything I want, it's up to you if you wish to disagree, that's your choice but don't try to censor me.But that is STILL going into the future. Why are you predicting? Why are you saying Kobe will score more than Jordan in 5 years?
Yup, absolutely true, you can spin it however you like.It doesn’t change the fact that Jordan have 5 rings after 12 years in the league, and Kobe “only” 3.
It's also true that Kobe has 3 rings as opposed to Jordan's 2 when he turned 30.
Last edited by Allanon; 10-31-2008 at 02:47 PM.
Less wins in making a playoffs does not make teams weaker in general in different years, and especially different eras. It only speaks of higher disparity between teams. Throughout different years, the compe ion is different from one another, and you can only speak of them relative to each other by looking strictly at win totals.
No you didn’t, you were on the case of 3 pt shooting throughout this entire conversation around scoring in different eras. I said Kobe was a better 3 pt shooter because teams are using 3 pt shooting as a bigger weapon than during Jordan’s era, you countered by saying that Kobe simply shot and made more 3 pters because teams are scoring more, which is a re ed assertion in the first place because comparing 2008 to 1991, teams in 2008 shoots 153% more 3 pters than teams in 1991, and unless teams in 2008 scores 153% more (that is, if teams in 1991 scores 100ppg, teams in 2008 would have to score 253ppg), or anything around that general area, it would made your assumption moot. Anyone who managed to fact check would not have thrown out these ridiculous assertions, but of course, you never do.
On the other hand, Kobe scores at an 83% rate of Jordan, and yet teams in 2008 scores at 94.0% of the teams in 1991, and there remains a significant difference of 10% that has to be addressed.
You have said things that has directly implied Kobe is better than Jordan at the age of 30 BECAUSE you said you would take Kobe over Jordan. I fail to understand how anyone would ever say that they would take Kobe over Jordan because Kobe was worse.
How have you “proven” anything? You showed some video clips for pete’s sake. It proves that Kobe made clutch shots, it does not prove Shaq needed Kobe to win. In fact, the clutch factor calculation showed that not only was Shaq not a liability in the 4th in the 2002-03 season, he was in fact, an asset and a huge asset at that.
Besides, players making clutch shots COULD be second wheels, Robert Horry is a classic example of that.
Second, Kobe won 3 rings with Shaq, and he won 3 with 12 tries. Jordan won 5 in 12 tries.
Finally, you never answered why you would take Kobe over Jordan despite you said that Jordan is better in other spots. You contradict yourself frequently.
How is answering answers coaxing answers out of me? What were you trying to coax? Where was I hiding? Would you mind being more specific?
I don’t know, like you said, I am not a prophet, and I don’t want to peek into the future. He COULD surpass Jordan in points, but I don’t know if he would.
So did you mean what you wrote when you said people should not look into the future?
And on what subject have I flip-flopped? Care to quote me?
It does not matter whether you are stating an opinion or not. You said people should not predict the future to say that Kobe will never be as great as Jordan, and then you said Kobe will surpass Jordan in 5 years. The only difference in the two is that your prediction is much more precise, with timelines and absolute measurements, while the 1st assertion is subjective to some degree. If anything YOUR assertion was much more specific and “prophet-like”
I did look up stats, constantly. You were the one who despise using stats.
I admit “But I did! See below: “ is poor grammar, but I never realized I am going into grammar school, nor did I realize that you do not have the mental capacity to understand that sentence.
Do you know how statistics work? He COULD make a difference in 1 or 2 games, but the probability of that is low because of the way his shots were distributed. Learn how to use stats before you make wild assertions.
I applied it to a whole season of 82 games, with the likelihood of it making any difference in individual games because results do not carry over from game to game.
You either make or miss a three pointer, you have 3 points, not one. Throughout the season, the 4% difference in the two players translates to 0.4 pts if we uses Kobe’s 3PAs, and 0.2 pts if we uses Jordan’s 3PAs. But if you want to go over the course of the game, we have to take into account 2 pters and FTs as well instead of looking at 3 pters in a vacuum.
My mistake, I had it mixed up with the 01-02 season. But the point still stands, Shaq was NOT a liability in the 4th like you claimed.
Why do I have to show videos when the stats readily prove it? Other than the alley oop, there was videos showing Shaq catching and finishing in the low blocks in the very same video, look it up yourself.
LOL, Ginobili had a higher clutch factor than Duncan last year, but Duncan was clearly the main man, while Ginobili was the 2nd wheel. The offense was designed around Duncan, just like the offense was designed around O’Neal when he was a Laker. Fact that Shaq was #3 in the clutch factor shows that he was NOT a liability in the 4th quarter as you have claimed.
You just used Shaq being #3 in the league in performance in the clutch, and you are trying to disprove it because I didn’t take the time to search videos? So are you trying to dismiss the study?Your fantasy about Shaq not being a 4th quarter liability is stupid. Even your own team's coach exposes that liability. You have 1 video out of 16 years of Shaq's "Mr. Clutch" career...Gotcha.
As usual? Interesting, what are the fails you have witnessed?
The video you have shown showed Kurt Rambis as the head coach, did the Lakers win the championship with Rambis as the headcoach? It then showed a clear foul by Kobe on Sabonis? Was that a shot? It then showed Kobe’s shot against the Kings and one against Charlotte? Were those shots that allow the Lakers to win the championship?
I found a huge lot of videos of Horry making clutch shots, was he the lead man, or even the 2nd, or even 3rd wheel on those teams?
Shaq won 1 MVP and 3 finals MVP in those years, Kobe didn’t. Maybe that showed that Shaq was the main man?
He should also thank Horry too! What do we know, Horry was the main guy, because he made more clutch shots.
Wow! I got the years mixed up, ladeedada!
In 2008, sure. Shaq could no longer provide what he had on defense in 2008 as he did in 00 to 02. How does that relate to Shaq being a liability in 2000 to 2002?
And you said Kobe CAN be greater than Jordan, one is the negative of the other. How can one be absolute and the other not?
I would imagine saying something like Kobe WILL score more than Jordan in 5 years is absolute.
Mr. Clutch was talking about Jerry West, read will you?Shaq couldn't win games by himself without Kobe, the video showed that. The video even shows Shaq sitting on the bench. Your "Mr. Clutch" Shaq sitting on the bench watching Kobe's heroics win the game.
Horry for president! Horry was the man on all the teams he was at. It turned out Kobe and Shaq both owe it all to Horry! Because Horry made clutch shots!
What is sneaky? YOU stated Jordan won les with the help of Kerr first, I countered by saying Jordan won 3 rings without Kerr. YOU had one sided arguments. It’s on this very same page, just a few posts above, READ WHAT YOU WROTE, you weasel.
I state that Kobe bribed officials so that he could make 4th quarter clutch shots and les, therefore, his 3 rings should be discarded If you disagree, you have to disprove it, otherwise, it stays as a fact. That is using your logic.
I have shown that Jordan played in an era of athletes who were taller, but lighter, you have yet to show anything.
The proof is that NBA athletes were taller in 1988 than they were in 2008. If you want to be more granular, do your own work.
Why was it watered down? When specifically was it watered down?
Where have I ever said that?
He was, the numbers proved it.
Where did I say that? Quote me.
You haven’t been on this forum for too long. I am not above labeling an idiot an idiot.
I will have many sleepless nights without your respect. You continuously said that I threw out fake facts when I provided you with links. That is the definition of laziness and ignorance. You have done no work in this thread to prove your assertion, and threw out assertion after assertion with nothing to back them up, while putting all the onus on me to show the work. Why would your assertion be assumed correct until proven wrong, while my research be assumed fake even when links were shown?
I did, I have shown players were smaller in 2008. You disagree that this shows that this has a strong relation with SG size, you look things up.
Yup, I looked it up. It's an opinion.
Shooting Guards were smaller in the early 90s.
"a personal view, at ude, or appraisal. "
Look it up, it's right there in your link.
[/quote]
SG were smaller in the early 90s is not a personal view, at ude or appraisal, it is a stated fact. There are clear statistics to prove or disprove it, you are just too lazy to state anything.
Is saying Shaq is smaller than Spud Webb an opinion? If it isn’t, then why would having a larger group of people with the same readily available stats be one?
I really personally don’t know. How am I supposed to know? Different players would have different preferences based on style and pace of game. If I were to play in the East and the West, I would imagine it would be equally difficult for me, because I wouldn’t be able to compete with either group of athletes. However, I did state that with Kobe’s statistics showed that he scored more efficiently and at the higher rate in the West than in the East.As usual, you dodged the question yet again. I asked you outright if it was harder to play in the West or the East.
"Oh I don't know, I'm not a player".
And now you hide behind the issue by throwing out more insults, niec
It is called illustration. If you cannot understand that, it’s just another illustration of your subpar IQ.Hahah, you like to make up stuff, yo ueven make up stuff about not making up stuff.
"With your logic.
If Kobe’s West = 6, and Kobe’s East = 4, and Jordan’s West = 3 and East = 10, your logic shows that Kobe’s West > Jordan’s East, which shows 6 > 10, which is incorrect. Your “logic” is hardly logical."
Sure, let's just pull up some #'s out of our ass and say that's "Allanon's logic"
It is using numbers as examples of absolutes. YOU stated East vs. West as hard absolute comparisons, which I used numbers to illustrate your fault logic
I would say that this more frustration, like trying to explain simple logic to a deer.
Duncan was a rookie in 97-98, and he won a ring the next year. What’s the problem? He still competed with Jordan in the same era. But I didn’t come up with these standards, you did, you used draft years. Then Jordan played two more years in Washington, with little success (relatively)
Shaq was in his 6th year when Jordan won his last le. Then he went to the Lakers. Kobe didn’t even start competing with Shaq until 04-05.
Sure, so they competed, directly, head to head. Why was Bird not direct compe ion?
Yeah, so they competed, what is wrong with that? Jordan competed against Bird, Thomas and Magic, just like Kobe competed against Lebron and Duncan. What is the problem? You stated that Jordan’s compe ion should be defined by the drafted players from 88 to 93, which is a curious definition to exclude David Robinson. And yet Kobe’s compe ion should include Shaq (who was drafted 4 years before Kobe entered the league, and only competed head to head with Kobe after his 12th year), Duncan (who was drafted 2 years after Kobe), and Lebron.
Jordan won his first NBA le playing against Magic, the year which Magic finished #2 in MVP voting.
So you would take Kobe over Jordan at age 30 because ……
And you also said:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=459
So if we disregard everything else, would you pick Pippen over Kobe at age 30 because Pippen got more rings?
So if Lebron is not ready to contend, why would you include him in the conversation when comparing compe ion?
And I would include Robinson as part of Kobe’s compe ion, just that it was a hobbled Robinson.
However, if Kobe played against Robinson directly in the playoffs while Robinson won DPoY, MVPs, and all-nba first teams, yeah, I would say Kobe had great compe ion, just like Jordan had great compe ion when he played directly against a Bird who won 3 MVPs and a le, and a Magic who won 3 les and 3 MVPs.
Doesn’t mean that he didn’t have some great compe ion in the 80s as well, in which he played 6 years.
Because they do, as an example of your faulty logic.
Stop making stuff up and saying that I said it.[/quote]
Here:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=431
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=445
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=452
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=447
Barkley had 1 MVP and zero rings. Why does a player have to have exactly/at least 3 rings to elevate above the rest?
No, not during 2000-2002, the numbers proved it.
No, the numbers proved that as well.
Of course, just that it has no relevance.
Not from my point of view, because he lags Jordan significantly after 12 seasons in the league.
Since we have been talking about the probability of Kobe winning 4 more rings before his career ended, I would imagine anyone with the attention span of a mouse would know that we are talking about that very same subject, but since it was you, I was talking about the probability of Kobe winning 4 more rings before the end of his career with no evidence of his improved toughness.
Such as how many points were scored in the late 80s, or how teams shoot 3 pters in different eras, or the height and weight of SGs. Numbers certainly couldn’t explain those in your world.
And I perceive those of Kobe’s to be bad, because leaders don’t thrown teammates and GMs under the bus.
Because Jordan led his team to 6 les. He wouldn’t have been perceived as one if he didn’t.
And with 3 great teams at the top, that would translate to 6 to 12 losses for the middle tier teams, that is a huge difference, like a difference between a 38 win team and a 50 win team.
How was Jordan’s era watered down?
So?
Sounds about the same as Jordan’s compe ion, only that includes a broken down Hakeem, Barkley, Ewing and Drexler.
Because he had 3 more seasons?
You sure did, so?
Great! Remind me, did I ever say that Kobe’s compe ion was weaker than Jordan’s? I recalled me saying that the two equaled out. Which is now shown to be the case.
[QUOTE=Allanon;2862327]More anger.
You not being able to say anything = me being angry. Sure. And even if I was, so? Take your own advice stay on the topic, and let me know what answering answers mean.Cool, you are resorting to mindless banter, not that this is any worse than your “opinions” earlier on.[/qote]
More anger.
And you saying Jordan scored more because he was in a watered down league is unquestionably giving Jordan his due?
Why are you trying to foretell the future?
Kobe scored more against the West than the East, with higher efficiency, which was directly contradicting your assertion that it is easier to score against tougher compe ion (The west)
Here: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=437Are you blind or you can't read?
WHERE in that post is the word EXPANSION?
Copy and paste a screenshot because I sure as don't see it and even was a good boy and did a word search
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=452
What was my faulty definition?
So you knowingly mentioned something totally out of the blue when asked about scoring les?Sorry, I was putting my foot in your mouth
Kobe has more MVPs, better stats.
I am free to disagree with you. If you don’t like it, you are free to refute. But I would prefer some reason behind your constant barrage of opinions.
But that is not a prediction, that is deriving an answer based on current rules.
Hey, at least I just showed that you can’t do something as simple as deriving a certainty.
Me quoting a whole bunch of stats that didn’t mix %s and totals after you said I mixed %s and totals is agreeing?
Have I ever argued that Jordan had a lower FG%?
How was Jordan’s era watered down?
And you still haven’t answered, how were the following not proving you wrong:
“You mean other than the fact that scoring decreased since Jordan’s era? You mean other than the fact that players are shorter now than they were 20 years ago? You mean other than the fact that 3 pt shooting is a bigger part of today’s offense?”
Was Kerr not a bit player? Did Jordan not win 3 les without Kerr? YOU were the one who stated Jordan won with the help of Kerr and Rodman, not mentioning the fact that Jordan won 3 rings without either. You have presented 1-sided facts by your definition.
Pippen have more rings than Kobe at the same age.
Still does not show that Kobe could be greater than Jordan. Kerr has an area better than Kobe at the same age, is Kerr better than Kobe?
Showing your own contradiction within this thread is not going off topic, unless what you stated was off topic to begin with.
Idiocy at it’s purest form, penalizing Jordan for having his birthday in the middle of the season. FYI, Kobe is already 30, Jordan has 3 rings by 30, the same as Kobe.
Here: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=374
Despite the fact that statistics shows that Shaq was one of the most productive players in the clutch during his prime.
Despite the fact that statistics shows that Shaq was one of the most productive players in the clutch during his prime.
Despite the fact that statistics shows that Shaq was one of the most productive players in the clutch during his prime.
It shows that clutch players may not have videos of clutch Directly addressing your stance of having no videos of Shaq in the clutch means Shaq didn’t deliver in the clutch.
Stats were shown.
The stats have already shown the tale, but if you so insist:I showed you plenty of Kobe vids, you have 1 Shaq vid, we know about Hack-a-Shaq, we've seen Pop do it numerous times and yet you live in some fantasy world of Shaq not being a liability in the 4th.
With one being the clear #1, while the other a clear #2.
Except you, who first argued that scoring was less back in the day than it was now, and then flip-flopped.
Besides, top-10 scoring averages was as high now as ever.
You are speaking of disparity in the league with significant differences in top and bottom level compe ion. There is no question that was the case in the 80s before salary cap had its full effect on the league. But that does not speak to the league being watered-down.
The definition of watered-down is dilution of talent through increasing # of teams, it has NOTHING to do with disparity.
And btw, the 6ers, Pistons, Mavs, and Rockets were very good teams at one point or another in the 80s.
You said watered down. Something is watered down through dilution. The only way this could happen is the increase of teams and decrease of talent. And since we have shown that the talent remains relatively constant, the only option is the increase of teams.
Could you please stop lying?
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=437
You explicitly said that 3 pters and 2 pters were down in Jordan’s era compared to Kobe’s era.
Just like you claimed you have never said all the things you actually said.
Except that you did.hahah, you obviously have no clue as to what I've said and haven't said. Quote me from ANY Of the 4 points above, I've never said ANY of them. Hahahah, that was pure entertainment. Good one!
Have I tried to put you in prison? Have you been killed? Do you know what censorship means?
I question your predictions to the future, just like you have questioned those of others. Other people like to say what they said, why are you trying to censor them?
Kobe has 3 rings in 12 tries, Jordan has 5 rings in 12 tries. No spinning required.
Last edited by ambchang; 11-03-2008 at 04:02 PM.
^that was a good little bit of ownage right there
Hahahahah. WHERE, did I say Jordan NEEDED Kerr? I said Jordan NEEDED Pippen. It's nowhere in all those links you posted. FAIL!Says your opinion. Even though it takes fewer wins to make the Playoffs, you're saying the teams are just as tough. Great logic.Less wins in making a playoffs does not make teams weaker in general in different years, and especially different eras. It only speaks of higher disparity between teams. Throughout different years, the compe ion is different from one another, and you can only speak of them relative to each other by looking strictly at win totals.
I guess the 50 win Western teams from last year were just a bunch of pussies.
You never said Kobe was a better 3 point shooter, where did you say Kobe as a 3 point shooter, Mr Liar? Quote/links?No you didn’t, you were on the case of 3 pt shooting throughout this entire conversation around scoring in different eras. I said Kobe was a better 3 pt shooter
You are reading more into it than I say, it's ASSuming.You have said things that has directly implied Kobe is better than Jordan at the age of 30 BECAUSE you said you would take Kobe over Jordan. I fail to understand how anyone would ever say that they would take Kobe over Jordan because Kobe was worse.
Yes, how many rings did Shaq's clutchness win him in 2003?How have you “proven” anything? You showed some video clips for pete’s sake. It proves that Kobe made clutch shots, it does not prove Shaq needed Kobe to win. In fact, the clutch factor calculation showed that not only was Shaq not a liability in the 4th in the 2002-03 season, he was in fact, an asset and a huge asset at that.
Yes, clutch shots but not clutch QUARTERS. Kobe was the man during 4th quarters then and he is now.Besides, players making clutch shots COULD be second wheels, Robert Horry is a classic example of that.
Yes, and Kobe's 30 with 3 rings and Jordan's 30th birthday came with 2 rings and a bad-ass Scottie Pippen.Second, Kobe won 3 rings with Shaq, and he won 3 with 12 tries. Jordan won 5 in 12 tries.
I answered that question way back in the original post, look it up yourself and don't blame for your lack of reading skills.Finally, you never answered why you would take Kobe over Jordan despite you said that Jordan is better in other spots. You contradict yourself frequently.
Let's see, down below if you're hiding. Oh yeah, you're still hiding, I'll have to coax a few more answers from youHow is answering answers coaxing answers out of me? What were you trying to coax? Where was I hiding? Would you mind being more specific?
I gave you an example of your flip-flopping right above, about the East and the West, read it.I DO mean what I said. I don't flip-flop like you.
Read it again, if you like, I said:
Kobe will surpass Jordan in points. Complete this sentence for me:
Kobe will/will not surpass Jordan in points.
I don’t know, like you said, I am not a prophet, and I don’t want to peek into the future. He COULD surpass Jordan in points, but I don’t know if he would.
So did you mean what you wrote when you said people should not look into the future?
And on what subject have I flip-flopped? Care to quote me?
Like I said, what I say is my own business, not yours. If you wish to disagree then say so. But I can say whatever I want. You can choose to ignore it if you wish or come up with an argument. And you have done neither.It does not matter whether you are stating an opinion or not. You said people should not predict the future to say that Kobe will never be as great as Jordan, and then you said Kobe will surpass Jordan in 5 years. The only difference in the two is that your prediction is much more precise, with timelines and absolute measurements, while the 1st assertion is subjective to some degree. If anything YOUR assertion was much more specific and “prophet-like”
Yet, looking at the stats in front of you, you still tried to penalize Kobe while giving Jordan a free pass. Nice!I did look up stats, constantly. You were the one who despise using stats.
Uh, what were you saying? It makes no sense. You did what?I admit “But I did! See below: “ is poor grammar, but I never realized I am going into grammar school, nor did I realize that you do not have the mental capacity to understand that sentence.
Only a mental midget as yourself could understand that.
Yes, you are trying to take average statistics and apply it to single games. That's just stupid, anybody who ever took statistics knows it doesn't work that way.Do you know how statistics work? He COULD make a difference in 1 or 2 games, but the probability of that is low because of the way his shots were distributed. Learn how to use stats before you make wild assertions.
Nope, you applied it to a single game, read it again yourself Hollinger.I applied it to a whole season of 82 games, with the likelihood of it making any difference in individual games because results do not carry over from game to game.
Yes, Hollinger. Unfortunately, you can't score .4 pts in a game. That's why you can't apply averages to a single game.You either make or miss a three pointer, you have 3 points, not one. Throughout the season, the 4% difference in the two players translates to 0.4 pts if we uses Kobe’s 3PAs, and 0.2 pts if we uses Jordan’s 3PAs. But if you want to go over the course of the game, we have to take into account 2 pters and FTs as well instead of looking at 3 pters in a vacuum.
Then you have absolutely NO PROOF. You said Kobe/Shaq were peak in 2003 and showed 2003 stats. They LOST in 2003. Your stats did NOT include the 01-o2 season. Nice try.My mistake, I had it mixed up with the 01-02 season. But the point still stands, Shaq was NOT a liability in the 4th like you claimed.
Sure Shaq can catch and finish at the rim, what time was it when he made them? In all of Shaq's 16 years of clutchness, you have 1 video of him with a game winner. Great job proving your logic, A+!Why do I have to show videos when the stats readily prove it? Other than the alley oop, there was videos showing Shaq catching and finishing in the low blocks in the very same video, look it up yourself.
Where are your stats that readily prove it? Your stats were from "Kobe/Shaq's" dominant year, 2003. Yes, so dominant the Spurs won that year.
It was YOUR list, not mine. And your own Spurs won in 2003 despite your claims of "Kobe/Shaq's peak"LOL, Ginobili had a higher clutch factor than Duncan last year, but Duncan was clearly the main man, while Ginobili was the 2nd wheel. The offense was designed around Duncan, just like the offense was designed around O’Neal when he was a Laker. Fact that Shaq was #3 in the clutch factor shows that he was NOT a liability in the 4th quarter as you have claimed.
It was YOUR list, not mine. And your own Spurs won in 2003 despite your claims of "Kobe/Shaq's peak"You just used Shaq being #3 in the league in performance in the clutch, and you are trying to disprove it because I didn’t take the time to search videos? So are you trying to dismiss the study?
You just used Ginobili as an example of being higher than Duncan. You're contradicting yourself. This list is just stupid "LOL, Ginobili had a higher clutch factor than Duncan last year"
Yes, without those shots, the Lakers never would have gotten the rings. Another FAIL.As usual? Interesting, what are the fails you have witnessed?
The video you have shown showed Kurt Rambis as the head coach, did the Lakers win the championship with Rambis as the headcoach? It then showed a clear foul by Kobe on Sabonis? Was that a shot? It then showed Kobe’s shot against the Kings and one against Charlotte? Were those shots that allow the Lakers to win the championship?
No but he was much more clutch than Shaq. Why are you looking for Horry instead of Shaq? How come you can only come up with 1 game winner in Shaq's "Mr. Clutch" O'Neals 16 year history ?I found a huge lot of videos of Horry making clutch shots, was he the lead man, or even the 2nd, or even 3rd wheel on those teams?
This does not change the fact that Kobe made more clutch shots and that Kobe won games while Shaq watched.He should also thank Horry too! What do we know, Horry was the main guy, because he made more clutch shots.
Yup, useless.Wow! I got the years mixed up, ladeedada!
Hack-a-Shaq was used in 2000, 2002.In 2008, sure. Shaq could no longer provide what he had on defense in 2008 as he did in 00 to 02. How does that relate to Shaq being a liability in 2000 to 2002?
I said Kobe can possibly be better than Jordan which is either he will or he won't. There's no wrong answer when you leave the door open to possibility.And you said Kobe CAN be greater than Jordan, one is the negative of the other. How can one be absolute and the other not?
Yup, it is.I would imagine saying something like Kobe WILL score more than Jordan in 5 years is absolute.
According to you, Shaq was "Mr. Clutch".Mr. Clutch was talking about Jerry West, read will you?
Sure, if you wish, but I think your logic is stupid. Kobe was a 4th quarter performaer, Horry made some clutch shots. Shaq was a liability.Horry for president! Horry was the man on all the teams he was at. It turned out Kobe and Shaq both owe it all to Horry! Because Horry made clutch shots!
Nope, go back further, YOU said it first, you obviously can't read.What is sneaky? YOU stated Jordan won les with the help of Kerr first, I countered by saying Jordan won 3 rings without Kerr. YOU had one sided arguments. It’s on this very same page, just a few posts above, READ WHAT YOU WROTE, you weasel.
Sure, great.I state that Kobe bribed officials so that he could make 4th quarter clutch shots and les, therefore, his 3 rings should be discarded If you disagree, you have to disprove it, otherwise, it stays as a fact. That is using your logic.
Sure, but Jordan still played against smaller shooting guards.I have shown that Jordan played in an era of athletes who were taller, but lighter, you have yet to show anything.
Your "facts" have nothing to do with whether or not Shooting Guards were bigger or smaller. Another fail.The proof is that NBA athletes were taller in 1988 than they were in 2008. If you want to be more granular, do your own work.
"35 wins for the Celtics to make the Playoffs, 38 for the Heat, 43 for the Lakers, 39 for the Lakers, 39 for the Kings, 36 for the Clippers."Why was it watered down? When specifically was it watered down?
Exactly my point, you'll never concede any facts even when they're in front of you. When have you EVER stated that Kobe has 3 rings to Jordan's 2 without diminishing the accomplishment?Where have I ever said that?
And exactly what numbers proved that? Your 2003 list in which the Spurs won the championships or that Ginobili is more crunch than Duncan? Those numbers "proved" it? There's such thing as stupid statistics and you like to read them. Hahahhahah.He was, the numbers proved it.
If you didn't say it, then what are you trying to say?Where did I say that? Quote me.
Whatever, . You started out with the rudeness, don't ask for respect.You haven’t been on this forum for too long. I am not above labeling an idiot an idiot.
Hahah, obviously you did because you asked why you weren't getting any apologies. Aww, sand in your vagina hurting again?I will have many sleepless nights without your respect.
Smaller players does not show that Shooting Guards were smaller. You have prove nothing.I did, I have shown players were smaller in 2008. You disagree that this shows that this has a strong relation with SG size, you look things up.
Personal appraisal, view.
Shooting Guards were smaller in the early 90s.
"a personal view, at ude, or appraisal. "
Yes, Kobe has more points than Jordan at age 30.On the other hand, Kobe scores at an 83% rate of Jordan, and yet teams in 2008 scores at 94.0% of the teams in 1991, and there remains a significant difference of 10% that has to be addressed.
You are too stupid to disprove it. Fail.SG were smaller in the early 90s is not a personal view, at ude or appraisal, it is a stated fact. There are clear statistics to prove or disprove it, you are just too lazy to state anything.
It is an opinion until proving one way or another.Is saying Shaq is smaller than Spud Webb an opinion? If it isn’t, then why would having a larger group of people with the same readily available stats be one?
Make up your mind, why do you keep flip-flopping? Do you even know what you are saying? You said this:I really personally don’t know. How am I supposed to know? Different players would have different preferences based on style and pace of game. If I were to play in the East and the West, I would imagine it would be equally difficult for me, because I wouldn’t be able to compete with either group of athletes. However, I did state that with Kobe’s statistics showed that he scored more efficiently and at the higher rate in the West than in the East.
"Kobe scored more, at a higher %, when he played against the East than the West, and that is a fact. "
Or an excellent example of making things up that is "my logic" or what "I said". Stick with your own words and silly logic, don't try to make it sound like it came from me.It is called illustration. If you cannot understand that, it’s just another illustration of your subpar IQ.
Or an excellent example of making things up that is "my logic" or what "I said". Stick with your own words and silly logic, don't try to make it sound like it came from me.It is using numbers as examples of absolutes. YOU stated East vs. West as hard absolute comparisons, which I used numbers to illustrate your fault logic
Your logic is flawed but your insults are entertainingI would say that this more frustration, like trying to explain simple logic to a deer.
Let's see, was Jordan in the league when "rookie" Duncan won his ring?Duncan was a rookie in 97-98, and he won a ring the next year. What’s the problem? He still competed with Jordan in the same era. But I didn’t come up with these standards, you did, you used draft years. Then Jordan played two more years in Washington, with little success (relatively)
Yup, you sound desperate to find compe ion for Jordan in the 80s.Sure, so they competed, directly, head to head. Why was Bird not direct compe ion?
Then obviously, Kobe had much more compe ion. Look at Kobe's list versus Jordans. Kobe even had to compete with the Great Michael Jordan.Yeah, so they competed, what is wrong with that? Jordan competed against Bird, Thomas and Magic, just like Kobe competed against Lebron and Duncan. What is the problem? You stated that Jordan’s compe ion should be defined by the drafted players from 88 to 93, which is a curious definition to exclude David Robinson. And yet Kobe’s compe ion should include Shaq (who was drafted 4 years before Kobe entered the league, and only competed head to head with Kobe after his 12th year), Duncan (who was drafted 2 years after Kobe), and Lebron.
It was also the same year, 1991, that Magic retired. It's like Kobe winning a championship over Jordan's Wizards.Jordan won his first NBA le playing against Magic, the year which Magic finished #2 in MVP voting.
Yup I'd take Kobe over Jordan at age 30.So you would take Kobe over Jordan at age 30 because ……
I said alot of stuff in that post, which are you talking about?
Nope.So if we disregard everything else, would you pick Pippen over Kobe at age 30 because Pippen got more rings?
What are you talking about? Lebron played your very own Spurs in the Finals in 2007. Look it up.So if Lebron is not ready to contend, why would you include him in the conversation when comparing compe ion?
Stop making excuses, you keep trying to expand the number of "great players" Jordan competed with to get his rings.However, if Kobe played against Robinson directly in the playoffs while Robinson won DPoY, MVPs, and all-nba first teams, yeah, I would say Kobe had great compe ion, just like Jordan had great compe ion when he played directly against a Bird who won 3 MVPs and a le, and a Magic who won 3 les and 3 MVPs.
Yup, Jordan was just another bigger version of Allen Iverson back then. He was not ready to win championships.Doesn’t mean that he didn’t have some great compe ion in the 80s as well, in which he played 6 years.
You call it faulty logic, I say your logic is illogical. Same thing.Because they do, as an example of your faulty logic.
Here:Stop making stuff up and saying that I said it.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=431
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=445
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=452
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=447
Can you read?
Because Kobe has 3 rings. And Jordan has 6 so Kobe's the closest player, Barkley's nowhere near.Barkley had 1 MVP and zero rings. Why does a player have to have exactly/at least 3 rings to elevate above the rest?
The numbers didn't prove Jack. Your numbers are from 2003 (read it, it says so across the top) which was according to you "The Peak of Shaq/Kobe". In fact your own Spurs won in 2003, the Lakers were on the decline.No, not during 2000-2002, the numbers proved it.
Your own "numbers" have Ginobili as a better clutch player than Duncan hahahahah.
And on top of it all, you have only 1 video of Shaq's game winners in his 16 years. Great job Mr. Clutch.
Obviously you can't comprehend stats, just like to parrot them back. Let me help you. Kobe/Shaq did not win any rings in 2003, they were NOT at their peak. Spurs won in 2003, I can find you numbers for that if you wish.No, the numbers proved that as well.
Yet, you always seem to bring up irrelevant players, nice.Of course, just that it has no relevance.
Sure you can have your point of view. My point of view is he has 3 rings to Jordan's 2.Not from my point of view, because he lags Jordan significantly after 12 seasons in the league.
Sorry, not gonna timejump with you on this one. I don't know if Kobe will win 4 more or his probability to do so. You can be the prophet on this for all I care.Since we have been talking about the probability of Kobe winning 4 more rings before his career ended, I would imagine anyone with the attention span of a mouse would know that we are talking about that very same subject, but since it was you, I was talking about the probability of Kobe winning 4 more rings before the end of his career with no evidence of his improved toughness.
Obviously, numbers like 3 vs Jordan's 2 doesn't compute in your little calculator head either.Such as how many points were scored in the late 80s, or how teams shoot 3 pters in different eras, or the height and weight of SGs. Numbers certainly couldn’t explain those in your world.
Yes, he was a before but he's been a model citizen since then and the Laker's have turned it around. Jordan was a ballhog early in his career and a to his teammates as well.And I perceive those of Kobe’s to be bad, because leaders don’t thrown teammates and GMs under the bus.
You said: "Kobe scored more, at a higher %, when he played against the East than the West"Because Jordan led his team to 6 les. He wouldn’t have been perceived as one if he didn’t.[q/uote]
Ah, jumping into the future. We don't know what Kobe's final outcome will be.
Yup, there were 3 great teams at the top, and the rest were watered down. Thanks for proving my point.And with 3 great teams at the top, that would translate to 6 to 12 losses for the middle tier teams, that is a huge difference, like a difference between a 38 win team and a 50 win team.
And with 3 great teams at the top, that would translate to 6 to 12 losses for the middle tier teams, that is a huge differenceHow was Jordan’s era watered down?
So?So?
Yup Kobe had a much better list than Jordan did, including Jordan himself.Sounds about the same as Jordan’s compe ion, only that includes a broken down Hakeem, Barkley, Ewing and Drexler
Yup, 2 of those seasons on the bench while Jordan was getting experience in college so he could enter the NBA ready to go. Again, your one-sidedness tries to penalize Kobe.Because he had 3 more seasons?
So?You sure did, so?
Nope, Jordan had a watered down era to deal with. Superstars in their decline. That was why the 90's were not Magic's era or Bird's era, they were retired.Great! Remind me, did I ever say that Kobe’s compe ion was weaker than Jordan’s? I recalled me saying that the two equaled out. Which is now shown to be the case.
Hahah, you're cute when you're angry.
Yes, it's giving him his due. His numbers surpass Kobe. But that is the fault in comparing to players of different eras.And you saying Jordan scored more because he was in a watered down league is unquestionably giving Jordan his due?
How is that foretelling the future? More of your idiotic logic?Why are you trying to foretell the future?
What was my faulty definition?Kobe scored more against the West than the East, with higher efficiency, which was directly contradicting your assertion that it is easier to score against tougher compe ion (The west)
Ah, ok, that is your assertion? Never mind then. The East is obviously easier than the West as I have stated before.
Yup.So you knowingly mentioned something totally out of the blue when asked about scoring les?
Great.Kobe has more MVPs, better stats.
I feel like we're getting to know each other better and better.I am free to disagree with you. If you don’t like it, you are free to refute. But I would prefer some reason behind your constant barrage of opinions.
You haven't showed jack.But that is not a prediction, that is deriving an answer based on current rules.
Hey, at least I just showed that you can’t do something as simple as deriving a certainty.
But you did mix %s and totals, do you deny it?Me quoting a whole bunch of stats that didn’t mix %s and totals after you said I mixed %s and totals is agreeing?
Look at the number of wins it takes to make the Playoffs during Jordan's watered down era. You said it yourself, you have 3 top teams. Kobe's playing in an era with a ton of top teams.Have I ever argued that Jordan had a lower FG%?
How was Jordan’s era watered down?
FG% was way up during Jordan's era in general. It wasn't just Jordan.And you still haven’t answered, how were the following not proving you wrong:
“You mean other than the fact that scoring decreased since Jordan’s era? You mean other than the fact that players are shorter now than they were 20 years ago? You mean other than the fact that 3 pt shooting is a bigger part of today’s offense?”
Even though there are more 3 pointers shot today, it doesn't change the fact that Jordan had a crappy 3 point shooting percentage which was my point.
I was just following YOUR lead in telling half-sides of the story.Was Kerr not a bit player? Did Jordan not win 3 les without Kerr? YOU were the one who stated Jordan won with the help of Kerr and Rodman, not mentioning the fact that Jordan won 3 rings without either. You have presented 1-sided facts by your definition.
Yes, but no MVPs. Shame on him.Pippen have more rings than Kobe at the same age.
Once Kerr un-retires and gets an MVP, he can join the Kobe/Jordan conversation.Still does not show that Kobe could be greater than Jordan. Kerr has an area better than Kobe at the same age, is Kerr better than Kobe?
Nope, that is off-topic, , we might as well start bringing in the NFL, Obama and the elections if you'd like to continue going off-topic to make your case.Showing your own contradiction within this thread is not going off topic, unless what you stated was off topic to begin with.
Hey, why penalize Kobe for being born in the off-season? Jordan's so great you have to spot him 4 more months extra into the future?Idiocy at it’s purest form, penalizing Jordan for having his birthday in the middle of the season. FYI, Kobe is already 30, Jordan has 3 rings by 30, the same as Kobe.
FYI, if Kobe wins a ring this year, he will have 4 rings at 30 as opposed to Jordan's 3. Two can play at that game.
I never once brought into question of the origina of "Hack-A-Shaq". Learn to read or go make up some better quotes.
The numbers didn't prove Jack. Your numbers are from 2003 (read it, it says so across the top) which was according to you "The Peak of Shaq/Kobe". In fact your own Spurs won in 2003, the Lakers were on the decline.Despite the fact that statistics shows that Shaq was one of the most productive players in the clutch during his prime.
Your own "numbers" have Ginobili as a better clutch player than Duncan hahahahah.
And on top of it all, you have only 1 video of Shaq's game winners in his 16 years. Great job Mr. Clutch.
The numbers didn't prove Jack. Your numbers are from 2003 (read it, it says so across the top) which was according to you "The Peak of Shaq/Kobe". In fact your own Spurs won in 2003, the Lakers were on the decline.Despite the fact that statistics shows that Shaq was one of the most productive players in the clutch during his prime.
Your own "numbers" have Ginobili as a better clutch player than Duncan hahahahah.
And on top of it all, you have only 1 video of Shaq's game winners in his 16 years. Great job Mr. Clutch.
The numbers didn't prove Jack. Your numbers are from 2003 (read it, it says so across the top) which was according to you "The Peak of Shaq/Kobe". In fact your own Spurs won in 2003, the Lakers were on the decline.It shows that clutch players may not have videos of clutch Directly addressing your stance of having no videos of Shaq in the clutch means Shaq didn’t deliver in the clutch.
Your own "numbers" have Ginobili as a better clutch player than Duncan hahahahah.
And on top of it all, you have only 1 video of Shaq's game winners in his 16 years. Great job Mr. Clutch.
The numbers didn't prove Jack. Your numbers are from 2003 (read it, it says so across the top) which was according to you "The Peak of Shaq/Kobe". In fact your own Spurs won in 2003, the Lakers were on the decline.Stats were shown.
Your own "numbers" have Ginobili as a better clutch player than Duncan hahahahah.
And on top of it all, you have only 1 video of Shaq's game winners in his 16 years. Great job Mr. Clutch.
Ah great, 1 video of the great Mr. Clutch Shaq.The stats have already shown the tale, but if you so insist:
I give you 8 minutes of Kobe clutch and can show you a ton more. Enjoy!
Which one was #1 and which one was #2? Which one sat on the bench in the 4th quarter?With one being the clear #1, while the other a clear #2.
Nope, just admitting when I was wrong. Something you have no grasp of.Except you, who first argued that scoring was less back in the day than it was now, and then flip-flopped.
How is that NOT watered down? You have a couple of teams at the top wherease now, there are a grip of top teams. This is a much tougher league to play in now.You are speaking of disparity in the league with significant differences in top and bottom level compe ion. There is no question that was the case in the 80s before salary cap had its full effect on the league. But that does not speak to the league being watered-down.
So you are saying increasing # of teams has nothing and dissemination of talent has nothing to do with disparity?The definition of watered-down is dilution of talent through increasing # of teams, it has NOTHING to do with disparity.
Good for them. How many championships did they win in the 80s?And btw, the 6ers, Pistons, Mavs, and Rockets were very good teams at one point or another in the 80s.
Hey, you brought it up, not I. Learn your lesson and don't say I say things when I didn't. The dillution of talent can occur through expansion OR lack of talent.You said watered down. Something is watered down through dilution. The only way this could happen is the increase of teams and decrease of talent. And since we have shown that the talent remains relatively constant, the only option is the increase of teams.
Could you please learn to read?Could you please stop lying?
"Originally Posted by Allanon
1) More points were indeed scored in the 90's"
You need to check your eyes. All of your "quotes" of me were wrong...every single one. FAIL.Just like you claimed you have never said all the things you actually said.
Nope, trying to tell me what I CAN and CANNOT say is out of your jurisdiction sir. I'll say whatever I want to say and whenever I want to say it. You might think you're right but you're wrong if you think you can tell me what not to say.Have I tried to put you in prison? Have you killed? Do you know what censorship means?
Oh no, you can jump into the future if you like, I'll just jump into the future with you to even things up.I question your predictions to the future, just like you have questioned those of others. Other people like to say what they said, why are you trying to censor them?
Kobe has 3 rings, Jordan had 2 at the same age. No spinning required.Kobe has 3 rings in 12 tries, Jordan has 5 rings in 12 tries. No spinning required.
^and that's some pretty good failure.
^^ Hahah, whatever " face"
You have stated that Kobe led the Lakers in the 4th quarter while Shaq was a liability witnessed by his clutch shots. That has been proven false with statistics. While Kobe was #2 in clutch performance and Shaq was #3, this speaks highly of both players and does not indicate which one is the de facto go-to guy in the clutch. In fact, even IF Kobe was clutch and Shaq WAS a liability, so what? Ginobili was clutch, but he still wasn't the leader on the Spurs.
Your logic is faulty because you are comparing Kobe's West to Kobe's East, and this does not include anything from Jordan's East. Again, A>B != A>D, it has no relevance. I will admit that the disparity was larger in Jordan's East, and the proof is in the records, but you will be comparing apples and oranges by jumping to conclusions.
Even though you are piss poor in interpreting illustrations, I will have to draw one to talk down to the level of your abilities. In an exaggerated scenario. There are two leagues, one with a bunch of high school kids, and one in the professional leagues, having the same number of teams and same playoff seeding.
In the professional leagues, the disparity is low, thus it requires a 50% winning percentage to get into the playoffs. In the high school league, the disparity is high, with top teams dominating bad teams, and creating a top heavy standings. For the playoffs, a high school team needs 60% winning percentage to get into the playoffs. Are the teams in the high school league better than those in the professional leagues? In fact, we are seeing this in NCAA vs. NBA, or actual high school leagues vs. NBA.
I am not saying Kobe's West is as bad as a high school league, what I am saying is that the records to two entirely different leagues cannot be compared to each other to draw any conclusions of the quality of teams.
The Lakers (a 57-win team), beat the Nuggets (a 50-win team) in 4 games. New Orleans beat the Mavs in 5, the Spurs beat the Suns in 5, the only semi-compe ive 1st round series in the West was the Jazz over the Rockets.
It is another indication that regular season win totals does not speak to the quality of the teams.
In fact, I can make the argument that the West was terrible last year because the top seed only won 57 games. In comparison, the top team in Jordan’s East won 67 games in 1992. The argument cuts both ways.
Could you PLEASE do your own searches? It is getting tiresome. You are illogical and lazy. I at first thought you are just lazy and don’t do the required work, now I am believing that you are faking it to drag this conversation as long as possible.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=157
It’s as obvious as it could be, Kobe was better than Jordan in 3PA and 3PM, what else do you need?
So answer this, you are willing to take Kobe over Jordan at age 30 because Kobe is better/worse than Jordan.
If you answer better, then you have contradicted yourself when you said Jordan is better than Kobe, if you said worse, it just shows that you are illogical. Pick one.
And I saw how Kobe’s clutchness won him a ring in 2003 as well. Funny only clutch players can win rings, I guess Kobe was only clutch in 3 years of his career.
Your argument all along that Kobe is the man because he is clutch is that Kobe has a ton of videos. So do you have any Kobe performance throughout the whole 4th quarter? If not, Kobe is not clutch in the whole 4th by your own definition.
Besides, I am not arguing Kobe is not clutch, I am arguing Shaq is not a liability, he was the 3rd clutchest player based on statistics in 02-03. That is hardly a liability.
I am sure you would take Pippen over Shaq. Afterall, you would pick Kobe over Jordan.
Duncan got two MVPs and 4 rings by the time he was 30, but I wouldn’t pick him over Jordan. I wouldn’t even pick him over Jabbar, or Magic. So what if Kobe won 3 rings on his 30th birthday? So? He had a birthday that fell on a summer instead of the middle of an NBA season, that is why you picked him over Jordan? This is about as re ed as it could sound.
Because he won 1 more ring at the age of 30? What kind of idiotic response is that? It makes no logical sense. Robert Horry won two rings by the time he was 24. Would you take him over Jordan?
Oh wait, you had to throw in a random 1 MVP as the qualifier. Because you have to find illogical cut-off points that speak directly to Kobe’s accomplishments.
Do you even know what flip-flop means? I am surprised you don’t since you have it so often in this thread along. If I said Kobe could surpass Jordan in points, then said he can’t, that is flip flopping. If I said the league had higher lower scoring in the 90s, then later on said Jordan scored more in the 90s because somebody else pointed out to me that the 90’s had higher scoring, that would be flip flopping. If I said Jordan was better than Kobe, and then decide to pick Kobe over Jordan, that would be flip-flopping.
Saying I don’t know to questions I don’t know is not flip-flopping, it’s not knowing.
What about the East and the West? I don’t agree with you is not flip-flopping. I have been constantly saying that the Jordan’s East and Kobe’s West could not be compared based on regular season records alone. You can go into specifics and draw subjective arguments around quality of play and your own observations, though.
Then why are you in a forum? I have disagreed and said so profoundly throughout this conversation. I am disagreeing with your application of rules where you question other people’s methods in “predicting” the future.
Your whole premise throughout this thread is that people shouldn’t count Kobe out because he hasn’t finished his career, discounting methods that potentially goes into the future (however unlikely it is), and yet you say that Kobe could be greater than Jordan because he has more rings than Jordan at the same age, and project that this is possible that he would end up with more rings because of that. You also noted that Kobe WILL score more points than Jordan in 5 years. You are not applying your own logic and arguments to those who disagree with you. That is what flip-flopping is.
What free pass? I am still struggling to understand what kind of free pass you are talking about. Jordan was better than Kobe in every single statistical category by comparing their 9 prime years except 3PA and 3PM.
You yourself said “Learn some English, that makes no sense:” right after I said “But I did! See below:”. You comprehension ability is worse than I thought.
I applied it to a whole season of 82 games. You have the inability to understand how statistics work. 3pters, and points scored per game specifically, are not ulative, so 4% difference in 3 pters can only have an impact in close games where Kobe shot a significant number of 3 pters. Averaging out to a full season with a normal distribution, a 4% difference in 3 pters have little to no impact on the games. Do you finally understand?
Are you a math major? Have you ever taken statistics? Do you know how 3 pters work?
Which is why I said over the course of a season, he COULD make a difference, but that chance is small. If you do not understand, just say you do not understand. You understanding statistics doesn’t make you stupid, and it is perfectly fine that you don’t understand it. I won’t hold your lack of knowledge towards statistics against you, you have given me enough ammo with your stacks of idiotic, illogical responses.
Why do they have to show 02 stats in particular? Shaq and Kobe duo had similar output from 01 to 03, and Shaq had similar shooting %s. What does them losing in 03 have to do with Shaq being not clutch? Your stance was that Shaq was a liability in the 4th because of his awful FT%. His 03 FT numbers were as bad as ever, and yet it was shown that he was clutch. What is not proven?
You sure are putting a lot of weight at me saying 03 was the peak of Shaq and Kobe’s dominance. However, your pea-sized brain just let the main point fly over your head like so many other points. The point is, Shaq was clutch, and the number proved it.
You also stated that Kobe carried Shaq in the 4th quarters, and yet you showed him shooting last second shots. By your definition, you haven’t proven that Kobe carried Shaq in the 4th quarter because at least some of those shots were not in championship winning years (the first one comes to mind), and that they didn’t show the rest of the 4th quarter.
It was not my list, it was a study done by some statistics geek. If you disagree with the study, feel free to argue, although I question whether you have the ability to understand the study at all.
Finally, yeah, I made a mistake in saying that it was the peak of Shaq/Kobe dominance, so? Does it change the fact that Shaq was clutch? But if I was you, I would say that it was an opinion, and that dominance does not need to end in les, but I am not a weasel like you.
Are you re ed? I said exactly what I meant. Ginobili had a higher clutch factor than Duncan last year, and yet Duncan is the man, showing that even though Kobe was #2 and O’neal was #3 in clutch factor, it does not mean that Kobe is the man. Do you get it? I have seen donkeys that are smarter than you.
How so? When were those shots taken? How would a shot taken with Kurt Rambis behing the head coach allow the Lakers to win a championship? Care to explain?
Of course, there were two shots just in that one video, and then another in another video, but you just won’t bother watching it. The argument isn’t that Shaq is the clutchest player ever, it was that Shaq wasn’t a liability in the 4th. You asserted that Shaq was a liability, and it has been proven to be wrong, and sadly, the only thing you can come up with the counter is that I got the years mixed up, which has nothing to do with the point anyways.
So? Kobe shot an air ball against Utah in the playoffs when he was young. How does a bunch of videos show Kobe was the main guy on those Laker teams?
Not as useless as you who claimed teams scored more in Kobe’s era, then when your ignorance was shown, use the direct opposite to explain Kobe’s lower scoring average.
Just those two years? Not in 01? Not in 03? If it was used in 03, how did Shaq became one of the clutchest players in the league that year?
But Kobe WILL score more than Jordan, so that is an absolute, right? And why would you take Kobe at 30 over Jordan at 30? Because Kobe at 30 is already greater than Jordan at 30?
While I was searching some of your old quotes, I found these gems:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...6&postcount=12
“Kobe won't get as many MVPs as Jordan did. But I think he has a chance at beating him in rings.” – Why are you predicting the future? Why are you saying Kobe WON’T get as many MVPs as Jordan? How would you know?
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...2&postcount=19
“For Kobe haters, the ultimate nightmare would be if he got 3-4 more rings because he would probably take his place next to his Airness.” – So back to the basics, Kobe would NOT be next to Jordan even if he won 3 to 4 more rings. He had worse stats, lost twice in the finals in embarrassing fashion, failed to make the playoffs, have worse stats, have less Finals MVPs, and generally less accomplishments.
So why are you trying to predict the future? Is there a possibility that Kobe will not score more than Jordan in 5 years?
Where have I said that? I disagreed with your premise that Shaq was a liability in the 4th and needed Kobe to carry him through. It has been proven with numbers and videos.
But why? You didn’t have Kobe 4th quarters in videos do you? You only showed clutch shots? Why would those Horry clutch shot videos not translate into Horry going nuts in the 4th? In fact, he did go nuts in the 05 finals 4th quarter and overtime.
Why was Shaq a liability? He had great numbers in the final minutes of a close game, he played great!
Quote me.
You first mentioned Kerr in post 431.
“Oh yes, it's because Jordan had Pippen, a top50 Player, Rodman, the best rebounder ever and Steve Kerr, the best 3 point shooter ever (arguably with Bird).”
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=431
I first mentioned Kerr in post 432, directly quoting YOU.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=432
“You are putting in Steve Kerr? Are you serious? Steve Kerr?”
If you want to lie, at least lie on something that is not easily searchable.
Now that you agreed Kobe’s 3 rings should be dismissed, there is nothing more that Kobe is better than Jordan. Thank you.
And I continue to ask you to back up your assertions.
It does. Players were smaller in general, and Jordan played against all of them. Jordan didn’t play exclusively against SGs, and neither did Kobe.
What does this have to do with the league being watered-down? It shows that teams with lower than .500 records can make the playoffs, how is that watered-down? Watered-down speak specifically to the dilution of talent in the league, team records show NOTHING with regards to talent level.
Kobe DID win the 3 rings because of Shaq. Nobody with a right mind would argue that. Shaq won 1 MVP and 3 Finals MVP in those years, he was the centre of offense on those Lakers team. That is not diminishing his accomplishments, that is stating facts. Saying Shaq was a liability in the 4th an required Kobe to carry him through is diminishing someone’s accomplishments, saying Jordan scored more because he played against smaller SG is diminishing his accomplishments.
Ginobili WAS more clutch than Duncan, that is a fact. Kobe WAS more clutch than Shaq in 2003, that was a fact. We all know it, nobody would argue that. The numbers also showed that Shaq was NOT a liability in the 4th quarter.
I am supposed to have meant something that I haven’t said? What are you trying to say is the better question.
Oh mommy, he started it first. Grab a pacifier and suck on it, kid.
It showed players were smaller in general now than ever. Besides, Jordan didn’t play against SG, he played against other players as well.
SGs are smaller back then is not a personal view nor a personal appraisal. There are cold hard facts to back them up. You just refuse to do your own work.
Because he played 3 more seasons than Jordan? So? He scored more points because he played more games. How does that show that Kobe is a better scorer than Jordan?
You are not even making sense at this point. You just keep throwing out incorrect statements after incorrect statements with nothing to back up. You constantly flip-flop on your own points, you brought nothing of any quality to this thread, you have no understanding of terms you try to argue, and you straight out lie to drag on a conversation.
I will say this once more, if you want to prove Kobe played against bigger SGs, prove it. And even if you do, so? Doesn’t make Kobe’s scoring more difficult.
LOL, saying Shaq is smaller than Spud Webb is idiocy, it is not an opinion.
My mistake, I had a typo, I meant to say that Kobe scored more, at a higher %, when he played against the West than the East, and that is a fact. But then anyone with the IQ of a snail would know that I had a typo, because I had been consistently saying Kobe scored more against the West than the East, and I preceded this statement with “And for the 3rd time”. However, I am talking to you, so I am not surprised you didn’t get it.
When did I even start to make it sound like it came from you? It is a simple logic with illustrations, but you have failed to understand anything.
What is flawed about my logic? It irrevocably showed that your original train of thought was faulty.
I am not sure how to answer this. On one hand, Jordan was playing when Duncan was a rookie, on the other hand, Duncan won a ring in his 2nd season. What are you trying to say? That Jordan competed directly with Duncan, and they won championships one after the other?
Why was it desperate? Bird competed against Jordan head to head, what is the problem with that?
Kobe never competed against Bird, Magic, Jabbar, Moses Malone, Dr. J, McHale. How was Kobe’s list much better?
Jordan finished #2 in MVP voting with the Wizards? Jordan made the finals with the Wizards? When did that happen?
Why?
You really are re ed, the quote was right underneath, and I have to quote it again.
Why not? You said you would take Kobe over Jordan by disregarding everything other than the rings, why would you not take Pippen over Kobe disregarding everything but rings?
I didn’t define Lebron not ready to contend, you did:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=461
In case you weren’t able to read more than 3 lines in one reading, I have quoted what you said above, like I have done all the other times.
What expanded? Bird has been in the conversation from the get go.
So, still doesn’t change the fact that he had great compe ion in the 80s. What are you trying to say?
Why was my logic faulty? Care to come up with examples?
“Oh yes, it's because Jordan had Pippen, a top50 Player, Rodman, the best rebounder ever and Steve Kerr, the best 3 point shooter ever (arguably with Bird).”
Oh yeah, Jordan won BECAUSE of Kerr, that is MORE than needing Kerr. I am terribly sorry that I have understated the impact of Kerr in your eyes.
Duncan has 4, is Duncan > Kobe?
And yet they made the finals the next year.
Of course he is. Anybody who watch the Spurs knows that Ginobili is a better clutch player than Duncan, what is wrong with that?
You have zero videos of Kobe carrying the Lakers in the 4th quarter. Judging by your definition, you lied.
What does it matter that the Lakers didn’t win the championship in 03. It proves that Shaq was NOT a liability in the 4th, and that was the whole point of the argument.
Duncan have 4 rings and 2 MVPs, 3 Finals MVPs by 30, is he better than Jordan? Would you pick Duncan at 30 over Jordan at 30?
But you ARE able to tell that Kobe will score more than Jordan in 5 years.
Jordan have 6 rings, he didn’t have 2. I don’t put qualifiers around rings to make my favourite player more accomplished than he really is.
Jordan was terrible to his teammates even after he started winning rings, but he led them to les. Kobe never did.
How is saying Jordan not being perceived as a leader if he never won 6 rings jumping into the future? I deal with things that has already happened. Jordan already won 6 rings, Kobe won 3.
Have 3 great teams up top does not equal not having good teams underneath. You have no ability to understand any kind of scenarios.
How did you jump to that conclusion?
I stated my original analysis by removing the first 4 or 5 years of Kobe’s career to compare statistics. You insisted on added those years in with the comparisons with point totals and 3 les by 30 years old. Choose one standard, do you want to use totals or averages?
I will state this again, BIRD AND MAGIC WON MVPs AND LES WHILE JORDAN WAS PLAYING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Saying Jordan scored more than Kobe in a watered-down league is giving Kobe his due, got it.
That was definitely trying to foretell the future. You are prediciting the future based on events that has never happened yet.
That was a typo, and only someone as stupid as you would not understand it given my constant stance that Kobe scored more vs. the West than the East.
Keep grabbing on straws, things like a typo. Kobe scored more vs. the West than the East, and the numbers have consistently proved that.
Can’t fault me for not catching on to your sudden change of course in conversations.
Like Kobe and Jordan both have 3 rings when they are 30?
Where?
You don’t even know what watered-down means. You have meant less talented, and that is certainly debatable, but it was not watered-down because there was no dilution of talent.
It speaks of disparity, not quality.
By how much?
He had a 32.7% shooting percentage, how the was that crappy?
Once again, you brought up Kerr in the conversation, I have no idea how you would be following my lead. Again, you said Jordan won BECAUSE of Kerr.
Why does it matter? Pippen is better by your own definition.
It’s entirely possible in your world. Don’t count Kerr and Pippen out.
If it shows your own contradictions, it is staying on topic.
That’s why both won 3 rings when they were 30.
Why are you trying to foretell the future?
You said Shaq was a liability in the 4th because of the hack a shaq, which means that teams used the strategy specifically to stop shaq. That has been proven to be untrue, because Shaq was a top 3 performer in the clutch.
Already addressed.
Where are the videos of Kobe carrying the Lakers in the 4th? I don’t see those. Do you want Horry making clutch shots? Does that prove Horry carried his teams in the 4th?
Shaq sat on the bench in all the 4th quarters? What do you mean? Why was he able to finish off the Blazers when he was sitting on the bench?
So you WERE wrong on the scoring part. Now that you have finally admitted to it. Jordan still had a sizeable advantage on Kobe even when their scoring averages were normalized against team scoring averages.
That is called disparity. Watered down is dilution of talent. It has NOTHING to do with disparity.
Increasing # of teams does dilute talent, and thus a watered-down league. And through that definition, Kobe played in a watered-down league. However, Kobe era also brought in foreign talent, which increased the talent pool, thus offset the dilution. In other words, the talent in Jordan’s era and Kobe’s era is comparable.
I am sure you can check that out yourself.
Since when did Jordan’s era lack talent?
This was what I was referring to:
“Nope, there was less scoring back then. Not only were 3 point shots down, regular 2 point field goals were down too.”
I cut and pasted them, care to be more specific?
Why are you trying to tell me that I can’t tell you what to say? Why are you trying to suppress me man? I was merely using your own standards on you. I was merely saying that you can’t go on and predict the future, like you said people can’t be
Horry has 2 rings by the time he was 25, Jordan has zero. No spinning required.
I also noticed you dropped the expansion bit from the water-down arguments area. Why is that? Is it because you mentioned expansion afterall?
Wrong again. I said Shaq would not have won rings without Kobe taking over in the 4th. Your stats are from 2003
"If you want more proof: http://82games.com/comm3.htm
In 02-03 season, at the peak of Shaq-Kobe dominance, Kobe was #2 in points scored in the clutch, O’Neal was #3. "
Spurs in 2003, Baby!
Again, these are made up "statistics". Your statistics are from 2003, a year in which Kobe and Shaq did not win rings AND Manu was more "clutch" than Duncan.That has been proven false with statistics.
Let's post your laughable Statistics just to see who the "Clutch" NBA players were that year, hahahah. Ray Allen, Jalen Rose, Starbury, Paul Pierce and Mr Clutch Nowitzki ahead of Duncan with Earl "Iceman" Boykins rounding out the list of top "Clutch" NBA players? Hahahah, great stats Hollinger.
- McGrady
- Bryant
- O'Neal
- Billups
- Allen
- Rose
- Marbury
- Pierce
- Nowitzki
- Duncan
- Iverson
- Francis
- Arenas
- Houston
- Webber
- Garnett
- Jordan
- Allen
- Malone
- Mashburn
- Boykins
Hey, you compare Jordan's scoring to Kobe's scoring in this era. Why can't I do the same and compare Jordan's watered down league to today's 50 win West Playoff teams? Apples to Oranges is all you get when comparing two players from two eras. You've been obliging so far, let's not wuss out now.Your logic is faulty because you are comparing Kobe's West to Kobe's East, and this does not include anything from Jordan's East. Again, A>B != A>D, it has no relevance. I will admit that the disparity was larger in Jordan's East, and the proof is in the records, but you will be comparing apples and oranges by jumping to conclusions.
Nope, you're just piss poor at coming up with arguments so you have to make up about what "I'm thinking". You can add "Mind-Reader" to your resume as well nowEven though you are piss poor in interpreting illustrations, I will have to draw one to talk down to the level of your abilities. In an exaggerated scenario. There are two leagues, one with a bunch of high school kids, and one in the professional leagues, having the same number of teams and same playoff seeding.
Why are you comparing the NBA to the NCAA? What does the NCAA have anything to do with the NBA except provide it with draft prospects?In the professional leagues, the disparity is low, thus it requires a 50% winning percentage to get into the playoffs. In the high school league, the disparity is high, with top teams dominating bad teams, and creating a top heavy standings. For the playoffs, a high school team needs 60% winning percentage to get into the playoffs. Are the teams in the high school league better than those in the professional leagues? In fact, we are seeing this in NCAA vs. NBA, or actual high school leagues vs. NBA.
Fact remains that it takes 50 wins to make the Western Playoffs now and it it was much less in Jordan's watered down era.
Two entirely different leagues? I'm talking about the NBA. You are happy to quote stats with Jordan being better than Kobe's (in "different leagues"). Then when it doesn't suit your argument you say "the records to two entirely different leagues cannot be compared to each other to draw any conclusions".I am not saying Kobe's West is as bad as a high school league, what I am saying is that the records to two entirely different leagues cannot be compared to each other to draw any conclusions of the quality of teams.
Hahah, talk about Mr. Flip Flop!
Yes, that has been consistent throughout the NBA. 1st seeds are usually better than 8 seeds. No surprise there.The Lakers (a 57-win team), beat the Nuggets (a 50-win team) in 4 games. New Orleans beat the Mavs in 5, the Spurs beat the Suns in 5, the only semi-compe ive 1st round series in the West was the Jazz over the Rockets.
It is another indication that regular season win totals does not speak to the quality of the teams.
Now look at your second rounds and ALL ACROSS THE BOARD it was hot and heavy. There's your quality there.
Nope, that only shows how easy it was to win. The dominant team had 67 wins to make the playoffs. While even the crappy 30 something win teams still made the playoffs.In fact, I can make the argument that the West was terrible last year because the top seed only won 57 games. In comparison, the top team in Jordan’s East won 67 games in 1992. The argument cuts both ways.
Can you even read? 3PA (Attempts) and 3PM (Made). How does that equate to "Kobe is a better 3 point shooter"? You never said it, stop flip-flopping.Could you PLEASE do your own searches? It is getting tiresome. You are illogical and lazy. I at first thought you are just lazy and don’t do the required work, now I am believing that you are faking it to drag this conversation as long as possible.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=157
It’s as obvious as it could be, Kobe was better than Jordan in 3PA and 3PM, what else do you need?
You said it yourself that they're equal in your same quote"
"it seems like both are about equal during their prime years, and Jordan improved his 3P% dramatically as his career progresses, and had the highest 3P% in the years where he made most of his attempts (something about shot selection).
It comes as no surprise that Kobe made more 3pters as this is an era when 3pt shooting has matured into a serious weapon, while in the 80's, and even the early 90's, the shot was nothing more than a gimmick and an option for a team to come back in a high-risk/high-reward maner.[/quote]
WHERE have you stated that Kobe was a better 3 point shooter than Jordan? You're saying they were equal in their prime and that "it's no surprise" that Kobe shot more and made more. That does not say he's "better".
I'm going to take a page from your book of Dodging and "answer" this one:So answer this, you are willing to take Kobe over Jordan at age 30 because Kobe is better/worse than Jordan.
If you answer better, then you have contradicted yourself when you said Jordan is better than Kobe, if you said worse, it just shows that you are illogical. Pick one.
"Uh I don't know, I'm not an NBA owner so I can't answer that".
Look at your laughable list with Dirk Nowitzki more clutch than Duncan and you can throw those "statistics" into the trash Hollinger.And I saw how Kobe’s clutchness won him a ring in 2003 as well. Funny only clutch players can win rings, I guess Kobe was only clutch in 3 years of his career.
Sorry, don't avoid the subject. We've seen tons of Kobe footage as oppposed to "Mr Clutch" Shaq's 1 "game-winner". Nice try my friend.Your argument all along that Kobe is the man because he is clutch is that Kobe has a ton of videos. So do you have any Kobe performance throughout the whole 4th quarter? If not, Kobe is not clutch in the whole 4th by your own definition.
Besides, I am not arguing Kobe is not clutch, I am arguing Shaq is not a liability, he was the 3rd clutchest player based on statistics in 02-03. That is hardly a liability.
Who I pick is my business and none of yours, please stop trying to make picks for me, you have your own problemsI am sure you would take Pippen over Shaq. Afterall, you would pick Kobe over Jordan.
I'd pick Duncan over Jordan, Magic and Kareem at age 30 and not knowing what either would become. The only thing re ed is your sense of en lement to the only right opinion in the world.Duncan got two MVPs and 4 rings by the time he was 30, but I wouldn’t pick him over Jordan. I wouldn’t even pick him over Jabbar, or Magic. So what if Kobe won 3 rings on his 30th birthday? So? He had a birthday that fell on a summer instead of the middle of an NBA season, that is why you picked him over Jordan? This is about as re ed as it could sound.
Wake me up when Horry gets an MVP.Because he won 1 more ring at the age of 30? What kind of idiotic response is that? It makes no logical sense. Robert Horry won two rings by the time he was 24. Would you take him over Jordan?
We are directly speaking to Kobe and MJ's accomplishments are we not? What's so hard about finding another player like Kobe (in the NBA's 50 years) that you have to diminish his achievements to find a match?Oh wait, you had to throw in a random 1 MVP as the qualifier. Because you have to find illogical cut-off points that speak directly to Kobe’s accomplishments.
Yup, Mr. Flip-Flop says Hi up above.Do you even know what flip-flop means?
It's avoiding the question, I took a page from your book when I "answered" you above. I felt dirty but liberated at the same timeSaying I don’t know to questions I don’t know is not flip-flopping, it’s not knowing
I said nothing about disagreeing with me, you disagreed with yourself.What about the East and the West? I don’t agree with you is not flip-flopping. I have been constantly saying that the Jordan’s East and Kobe’s West could not be compared based on regular season records alone. You can go into specifics and draw subjective arguments around quality of play and your own observations, though.
Tell me, was Kobe's performance better against the East or the West? Answer either way and I'll quote you your two opinion "flip flop". Just answer it.
Hey, you're free to flip flop all you want, I'll point it out to you when you do. You obviously flip-flopped ion the Kobe's East/West performance.Then why are you in a forum? I have disagreed and said so profoundly throughout this conversation. I am disagreeing with your application of rules where you question other people’s methods in “predicting” the future.
Your whole premise throughout this thread is that people shouldn’t count Kobe out because he hasn’t finished his career, discounting methods that potentially goes into the future (however unlikely it is), and yet you say that Kobe could be greater than Jordan because he has more rings than Jordan at the same age, and project that this is possible that he would end up with more rings because of that. You also noted that Kobe WILL score more points than Jordan in 5 years. You are not applying your own logic and arguments to those who disagree with you. That is what flip-flopping is.
You don't understand because you refuse too, it's in front of your face.What free pass? I am still struggling to understand what kind of free pass you are talking about. Jordan was better than Kobe in every single statistical category by comparing their 9 prime years except 3PA and 3PM.
"But I did! See below" makes no sense. And while you're trying to point out my comprehension ability, it's not "You comprehension", it's "Your comprehension".You yourself said “Learn some English, that makes no sense:” right after I said “But I did! See below:”. You comprehension ability is worse than I thought.
Liar:I applied it to a whole season of 82 games.
Right there, applied it to "a game". Statistics don't work like that Hollinger.Jordan averaged 1.7 3pter a game, and if he shot 34% instead of 30% from 3, he will score an amazing 0.20 points a game. That really is a “vast margin” when I compared the differences, huh?
Are you a math major? Have you ever taken statistics? Do you know how 3 pters work?Are you a math major? Have you ever taken statistics? Do you know how 3 pters work?
Oh dont hold back, keep 'em insults coming to cover up your lack of statistical knowledge.If you do not understand, just say you do not understand. You understanding statistics doesn’t make you stupid, and it is perfectly fine that you don’t understand it. I won’t hold your lack of knowledge towards statistics against you, you have given me enough ammo with your stacks of idiotic, illogical responses.
I said Shaq needed Kobe to win his RINGS. Lakers did not win any rings in 2003, despite your saying Kobe/Shaq were at their Peak in 2003 even though your own Spurs won in 2003. Please learn to read and not throw out irrelevant stats. BTW, your junk "stats" say Dirk is more clutch than Duncan, nice!Why do they have to show 02 stats in particular? Shaq and Kobe duo had similar output from 01 to 03, and Shaq had similar shooting %s. What does them losing in 03 have to do with Shaq being not clutch? Your stance was that Shaq was a liability in the 4th because of his awful FT%. His 03 FT numbers were as bad as ever, and yet it was shown that he was clutch. What is not proven?
Hahah, more insults when you're wrong instead of admitting you're wrong. Your "proof" also said Earl Boykins was a top NBA clutch performer and Dirk Nowitzki was more "clutch" than Duncan. Hahahah.You sure are putting a lot of weight at me saying 03 was the peak of Shaq and Kobe’s dominance. However, your pea-sized brain just let the main point fly over your head like so many other points. The point is, Shaq was clutch, and the number proved it.
Even Diehard Mav fans would say you're crazy.
A parrot can read and repeat stats, but it takes a brain to comprehend them.
Ho hum, yeah, thanks providing your 1 video of "Mr Clutch" Shaq in 16 years of playing.You also stated that Kobe carried Shaq in the 4th quarters, and yet you showed him shooting last second shots. By your definition, you haven’t proven that Kobe carried Shaq in the 4th quarter because at least some of those shots were not in championship winning years (the first one comes to mind), and that they didn’t show the rest of the 4th quarter.
Getting angry? Hahah.although I question whether you have the ability to understand the study at all.
It has no relevance to our discussion. I said Shaq needed Kobe to win his Rings. True to form, you quote something irrelevant.Finally, yeah, I made a mistake in saying that it was the peak of Shaq/Kobe dominance, so? Does it change the fact that Shaq was clutch? But if I was you, I would say that it was an opinion, and that dominance does not need to end in les, but I am not a weasel like you.
Sure, I'll play your silly game. Let's see who your fellow Spur fans think is more clutch: Manu, Timmy or DirkAre you re ed? I said exactly what I meant. Ginobili had a higher clutch factor than Duncan last year, and yet Duncan is the man, showing that even though Kobe was #2 and O’neal was #3 in clutch factor, it does not mean that Kobe is the man. Do you get it? I have seen donkeys that are smarter than you.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108899
Hmm, was that the only thing you can pick out of that long ass video? If yes, I can live with that 1 error in the championship run as opposed to your "Shaq's Greatest Clutch Shots" videoHow so? When were those shots taken? How would a shot taken with Kurt Rambis behing the head coach allow the Lakers to win a championship? Care to explain?
Only you say Shaq is NOT a liability in the 4th quarter. But you're free to have your delusional opinions.Of course, there were two shots just in that one video, and then another in another video, but you just won’t bother watching it. The argument isn’t that Shaq is the clutchest player ever, it was that Shaq wasn’t a liability in the 4th. You asserted that Shaq was a liability, and it has been proven to be wrong, and sadly, the only thing you can come up with the counter is that I got the years mixed up, which has nothing to do with the point anyways.
Yup, it sure does show Kobe was young when he joined the league. Those videos show KOBE with the game winners, not Shaq. I never said Kobe was the main guy, I said Shaq needed Kobe to win games in the 4th quarter. When did I EVER say Kobe was "The Main Man". Again, you're making up.So? Kobe shot an air ball against Utah in the playoffs when he was young. How does a bunch of videos show Kobe was the main guy on those Laker teams?
Quotes, links?
Hey I can admit when I'm wrong, unlike you who is "infallible". But in my own correction, I found out I was wrong in a different area. But as usual, you won't concede that either. Not surprised.Not as useless as you who claimed teams scored more in Kobe’s era, then when your ignorance was shown, use the direct opposite to explain Kobe’s lower scoring average.
With silly statistics? Dirk is NOT more clutch than Duncan. Shaq is NOT more clutch than Duncan. But your list says he is.Just those two years? Not in 01? Not in 03? If it was used in 03, how did Shaq became one of the clutchest players in the league that year?
Nope, I said it was a matter of preference.But Kobe WILL score more than Jordan, so that is an absolute, right? And why would you take Kobe at 30 over Jordan at 30? Because Kobe at 30 is already greater than Jordan at 30?
Was I saying it to you? Why can't I say it? This was said to a different poster and we were openly talking about the future.While I was searching some of your old quotes, I found these gems:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...6&postcount=12
“Kobe won't get as many MVPs as Jordan did. But I think he has a chance at beating him in rings.” – Why are you predicting the future? Why are you saying Kobe WON’T get as many MVPs as Jordan? How would you know?
Trying to censor me again?
Hahah, you are so deperate you have to go to my conversations with other people? Hey that's your opinion, enjoy it.http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...2&postcount=19
“For Kobe haters, the ultimate nightmare would be if he got 3-4 more rings because he would probably take his place next to his Airness.” – So back to the basics, Kobe would NOT be next to Jordan even if he won 3 to 4 more rings. He had worse stats, lost twice in the finals in embarrassing fashion, failed to make the playoffs, have worse stats, have less Finals MVPs, and generally less accomplishments.
Sure, I try to predict stuff all the time, I just don't try to use it as proof for or against as you have. Those were not conversations between you and i, our talks are much more entertainingSo why are you trying to predict the future? Is there a possibility that Kobe will not score more than Jordan in 5 years?
Yawn, Kobe did not win a ring with Shaq in 2003, they were not in their Peak, your "proof" in 2003 is irrelevant to my statement of "Shaq needed Kobe to win rings".Where have I said that? I disagreed with your premise that Shaq was a liability in the 4th and needed Kobe to carry him through. It has been proven with numbers and videos.
Yes, Kobe shot the game winners for Shaq. Shaq needed Kobe to win those games.But why? You didn’t have Kobe 4th quarters in videos do you? You only showed clutch shots?
When Horry comes up with an MVP, we can talk Horry.Why would those Horry clutch shot videos not translate into Horry going nuts in the 4th? In fact, he did go nuts in the 05 finals 4th quarter and overtime.
Hack-a-Shaq. Shaq's still the same liability he was 10 years ago.Why was Shaq a liability? He had great numbers in the final minutes of a close game, he played great!
No lieing again, you can't read. You said I said "Jordan NEEDED" Kerr. I said Jordan HAD Kerr. I never said Jordan NEEDED Kerr. I did say Jordan NEEDED Pippen, you can quote me on that.You first mentioned Kerr in post 431.
“Oh yes, it's because Jordan had Pippen, a top50 Player, Rodman, the best rebounder ever and Steve Kerr, the best 3 point shooter ever (arguably with Bird).”
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=431
I first mentioned Kerr in post 432, directly quoting YOU.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=432
“You are putting in Steve Kerr? Are you serious? Steve Kerr?”
If you want to lie, at least lie on something that is not easily searchable.
So get your quotes right and stop making up.
Nope, I don't agree. Kobe's 3 rings are a part of his legacy. As were Jordan's 2 rings at that age.Now that you agreed Kobe’s 3 rings should be dismissed, there is nothing more that Kobe is better than Jordan. Thank you.
Hey if you want to disagree, then disagree. I don't have to prove my opinions. You have done nothing to prove my opinions wrong.And I continue to ask you to back up your assertions.
Really? Then what was the average size (feet/inches) of Shooting Guards? If you can answer that, then it does. Otherwise, it's more of your garbage stats.It does.
Because there's no challenge.What does this have to do with the league being watered-down? It shows that teams with lower than .500 records can make the playoffs, how is that watered-down? Watered-down speak specifically to the dilution of talent in the league, team records show NOTHING with regards to talent level.
Shaq DID win 3 rings because of Kobe. Nobody with a right mind would argue that.Kobe DID win the 3 rings because of Shaq. Nobody with a right mind would argue that.
Ho hum. You said "Shaq and Kobe were at their peak in 2003". In 2003, the Spurs won not Shaq, so you're obviously quite wrong.Ginobili WAS more clutch than Duncan, that is a fact. Kobe WAS more clutch than Shaq in 2003, that was a fact. We all know it, nobody would argue that. The numbers also showed that Shaq was NOT a liability in the 4th quarter.
And then you compound the idiocy by putting up a list that has Dirk Nowitzki as being more "Clutch" than Tim Duncan. Dirk is known for ANYTHING But being clutch.
Getting angry?Oh mommy, he started it first. Grab a pacifier and suck on it, kid.
Really? Then what was the average size (feet/inches) of Shooting Guards? If you can answer that, then it does. Otherwise, it's more of your garbage stats.It showed players were smaller in general now than ever. Besides, Jordan didn’t play against SG, he played against other players as well.
Hey, it's my own personal view and appraisal, exactly what it says in your Webster's dictionary link you posted. Look it up.SGs are smaller back then is not a personal view nor a personal appraisal. There are cold hard facts to back them up. You just refuse to do your own work.
Because he has done more scoring at the same age.Because he played 3 more seasons than Jordan? So? He scored more points because he played more games. How does that show that Kobe is a better scorer than Jordan?
Hahah, you lie, you quote me and even those quotes are wrong. You say I said things I never have. But it's all good, I won't hold it against you, let's continue.You are not even making sense at this point. You just keep throwing out incorrect statements after incorrect statements with nothing to back up. You constantly flip-flop on your own points, you brought nothing of any quality to this thread, you have no understanding of terms you try to argue, and you straight out lie to drag on a conversation.
No proof needed, it was my personal view and appraisal as per your "Webster's Dictionary" link. You have done nothing to prove me wrong.I will say this once more, if you want to prove Kobe played against bigger SGs, prove it. And even if you do, so? Doesn’t make Kobe’s scoring more difficult.
I won't argue your idiocy LOL!LOL, saying Shaq is smaller than Spud Webb is idiocy, it is not an opinion.
Sure, when I prove your "flip-flopping" which you say you DON'T do, you say it's a "typo". Not surprised, nice save.My mistake, I had a typo, I meant to say that Kobe scored more, at a higher %, when he played against the West than the East, and that is a fact. But then anyone with the IQ of a snail would know that I had a typo, because I had been consistently saying Kobe scored more against the West than the East, and I preceded this statement with “And for the 3rd time”. However, I am talking to you, so I am not surprised you didn’t get it.
You prefaced it "With YOUR logic". Don't try to back out and lie now. That was never my logic, you made that up and tried to pin it on me.When did I even start to make it sound like it came from you? It is a simple logic with illustrations, but you have failed to understand anything.
Hahah, more insults while the infallible "Ambchang" is always right even though proven wrong several times, but oh no, it's a "typo". Hahahah.What is flawed about my logic? It irrevocably showed that your original train of thought was faulty.
Finally, some truth out of you.I am not sure how to answer this.
By the time Jordan was ready to take on Bird for a championship, Bird was a s of Larry Legend.Why was it desperate? Bird competed against Jordan head to head, what is the problem with that?
Kobe had to compete against 1) The top shooting Guard of all time 2) The Greatest Power Foward of All time 3) And possibly the greatest Small Forward of All Time.Kobe never competed against Bird, Magic, Jabbar, Moses Malone, Dr. J, McHale. How was Kobe’s list much better?
Jordan played against Kobe.Jordan finished #2 in MVP voting with the Wizards? Jordan made the finals with the Wizards? When did that happen?
Why not?Why?
Getting angry?You really are re ed, the quote was right underneath, and I have to quote it again.
Sure if we are disregarding "EVERYTHING but RINGS", I'd take Pippen over Kobe. , give me Robert Horry in this "Everything but RINGS" conversation of yours.Why not? You said you would take Kobe over Jordan by disregarding everything other than the rings, why would you not take Pippen over Kobe disregarding everything but rings?
Nope, our original conversation had only the 90's draft years. You expanded it by going into the 80's. Read your own words, you added the 80's after you lost the original argument.What expanded? Bird has been in the conversation from the get go.
I'm trying to say you need to add more things to Jordan's resume to make him sound more impressive. Sad that you have to stoop to that level.So, still doesn’t change the fact that he had great compe ion in the 80s. What are you trying to say?
You said "Shaq and Kobe were in their peak in 2003". I said "Shaq Needed Kobe to Win Rings". Your logic came up with a list in 2003, year in which the Lakers did NOT win a RING and in their decline rather than their "Peak".Why was my logic faulty? Care to come up with examples?
That's your own faulty logic, not mines.
Can you read? Stop trying to change my quotes, is that the only kind of logic you have, to change quotes? I never said "Jordan won BECAUSE of Kerr",“Oh yes, it's because Jordan had Pippen, a top50 Player, Rodman, the best rebounder ever and Steve Kerr, the best 3 point shooter ever (arguably with Bird).”
Oh yeah, Jordan won BECAUSE of Kerr, that is MORE than needing Kerr. I am terribly sorry that I have understated the impact of Kerr in your eyes.
I said "Oh yes, it's because Jordan had Pippen, a top50 Player, Rodman, the best rebounder ever and Steve Kerr, the best 3 point shooter ever (arguably with Bird)."
Hands Down YES at this point.Duncan has 4, is Duncan > Kobe?
And yet, they didn't win a ring. I said "Shaq needed Kobe to win rings". Neither happened in 2003 or 2004. More of your "logic"?And yet they made the finals the next year.
Perhaps Manu is, but Dirk too (it's on your list)Of course he is. Anybody who watch the Spurs knows that Ginobili is a better clutch player than Duncan, what is wrong with that?
I have plenty of videos of Kobe winning games, you have 1 video of Shaq winning a game.You have zero videos of Kobe carrying the Lakers in the 4th quarter. Judging by your definition, you lied.
I said "Shaq needed Kobe to win Rings". Lakers did not win any rings in 2003, your Spurs did, look it up.What does it matter that the Lakers didn’t win the championship in 03. It proves that Shaq was NOT a liability in the 4th, and that was the whole point of the argument.
Yeah!Duncan have 4 rings and 2 MVPs, 3 Finals MVPs by 30, is he better than Jordan? Would you pick Duncan at 30 over Jordan at 30?
Yup, I said so, feel free to disagree if you like or ignore it if you wish.But you ARE able to tell that Kobe will score more than Jordan in 5 years.
Sure, let's compare end of career Jordan to Kobe at age 30, really fair. Unlike you I am fair and I'll take them at the same age.Jordan have 6 rings, he didn’t have 2. I don’t put qualifiers around rings to make my favourite player more accomplished than he really is.
Yet.Jordan was terrible to his teammates even after he started winning rings, but he led them to les. Kobe never did.
Yup, Kobe has several more years in the FUTURE before we figure out how many he will have.How is saying Jordan not being perceived as a leader if he never won 6 rings jumping into the future? I deal with things that has already happened. Jordan already won 6 rings, Kobe won 3.
Yes, that is why around 30 wins sometimes got you into the Playoffs in Jordan's era, gotcha.Have 3 great teams up top does not equal not having good teams underneath. You have no ability to understand any kind of scenarios.
I just did.How did you jump to that conclusion?
Why remove any years? Just take them at the same age which I did.I stated my original analysis by removing the first 4 or 5 years of Kobe’s career to compare statistics. You insisted on added those years in with the comparisons with point totals and 3 les by 30 years old. Choose one standard, do you want to use totals or averages?
Yes, Jordan was an oversized Allen Iverson back then. So?I will state this again, BIRD AND MAGIC WON MVPs AND LES WHILE JORDAN WAS PLAYING!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're welcome.Saying Jordan scored more than Kobe in a watered-down league is giving Kobe his due, got it.
Feel free to disagree, I encourage it, but don't try to stop me from saying it.That was definitely trying to foretell the future. You are prediciting the future based on events that has never happened yet.
So when you're proven wrong, more insults and a "typo", gotcha, my frinedThat was a typo, and only someone as stupid as you would not understand it given my constant stance that Kobe scored more vs. the West than the East.
So when you're proven wrong, it's a "typo", great logic!Keep grabbing on straws, things like a typo. Kobe scored more vs. the West than the East, and the numbers have consistently proved that.]
So when you're proven wrong, it's my fault, gotcha!Can’t fault me for not catching on to your sudden change of course in conversations.
Or like Kobe might have 4 rings to Jordan's 3 when they are 30?Like Kobe and Jordan both have 3 rings when they are 30?
So you're saying that dilution cannot happen due to lack of talent. Look at your own definition of "watered down" before you answer this.You don’t even know what watered-down means. You have meant less talented, and that is certainly debatable, but it was not watered-down because there was no dilution of talent.
So lack of talent does not speak of quality, gotcha.It speaks of disparity, not quality.
Enough.By how much?
32.7% at what age? 30?He had a 32.7% shooting percentage, how the was that crappy?
[quote]
Once again, you brought up Kerr in the conversation, I have no idea how you would be following my lead. Again, you said Jordan won BECAUSE of Kerr.[q/uote]
Nope, I never said "Jordan NEEDED Kerr", I addressed your twisting of my quotes above, nice try buddy.
Pippen has no MVP, talk to me when he gets one.Why does it matter? Pippen is better by your own definition.
I live in an MVP only world, Kerr and Pippen can stay out.It’s entirely possible in your world. Don’t count Kerr and Pippen out.
Nope. It shows that you like to go off topic.If it shows your own contradictions, it is staying on topic.
That's why Kobe might have 4 rings when he's 30 compared to Jordan's 3.That’s why both won 3 rings when they were 30.
It's not December yet, you're going into the future then so can I.Why are you trying to foretell the future?
I said "Shaq needed Kobe to win RINGS". Shaq and Kobe never won rings in the 2003. Already addressed.You said Shaq was a liability in the 4th because of the hack a shaq, which means that teams used the strategy specifically to stop shaq. That has been proven to be untrue, because Shaq was a top 3 performer in the clutch.
Kobe made Game-winners. Horry can join the conversation when he gets an MVP.Where are the videos of Kobe carrying the Lakers in the 4th? I don’t see those. Do you want Horry making clutch shots? Does that prove Horry carried his teams in the 4th?
1 video, great, where are the other videos in Mr. Clutch's 16 year career. Weak.Shaq sat on the bench in all the 4th quarters? What do you mean? Why was he able to finish off the Blazers when he was sitting on the bench?
Yes I was wrong about the scoring and admitted it. But your stats also showed that it was easier to score in Jordan's watered down era.So you WERE wrong on the scoring part. Now that you have finally admitted to it. Jordan still had a sizeable advantage on Kobe even when their scoring averages were normalized against team scoring averages.
So disparity cannot be a result of dilution of talent?That is called disparity. Watered down is dilution of talent. It has NOTHING to do with disparity.
Yup, the foreign talent has indeed increased the compe iveness in Kobe's era.Increasing # of teams does dilute talent, and thus a watered-down league. And through that definition, Kobe played in a watered-down league. However, Kobe era also brought in foreign talent, which increased the talent pool, thus offset the dilution. In other words, the talent in Jordan’s era and Kobe’s era is comparable.
Thank you for not disagreeing.I am sure you can check that out yourself.
You said it yourself, there were only 3 top teams. Kobe's era has around 10 top teams regularly.Since when did Jordan’s era lack talent?
Yes, I admitted that was wrong. Too bad you can't admit when you're wrong.This was what I was referring to:
“Nope, there was less scoring back then. Not only were 3 point shots down, regular 2 point field goals were down too.”
Yes, they're ALL of your quotes were wrong that you posted.I cut and pasted them, care to be more specific?
Nope, you can't tell me what I can't say or can say. I say what I want.Why are you trying to tell me that I can’t tell you what to say? Why are you trying to suppress me man? I was merely using your own standards on you. I was merely saying that you can’t go on and predict the future, like you said people can’t be
I believe Jordan had an MVP at 25. Let me know when Horry gets an MVP.Horry has 2 rings by the time he was 25, Jordan has zero. No spinning required.
Nope, I didn't start with the expansion bit, you did. You're free to try to disprove me on that.I also noticed you dropped the expansion bit from the water-down arguments area. Why is that? Is it because you mentioned expansion afterall?
that a boy allanon
You said Shaq was a liability in the 4th and that Kobe carried that team during which time. You have provided no evidence of either.
Shaq was NOT a liability in the 4th, and it has been shown.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...n-nba-analysis
In the 2001 finals:
Shaq played 52 minutes in Game 1
In game 2, he made the “Biggest Play of the game” according to Larry Brown (http://www.nba.com/finals2001/recap_...v=SiteFragment)
“Biggest play of the game was when he (Shaq) kicked it out to Fisher," Philadelphia coach Larry Brown said. "He's a tremendous passer. He made some unbelievable plays."
In game 3, O’Neal got into foul trouble.
In game 4, O’Neal scored 34 points in 42 minutes
In game 5, O’Neal scored 29 points on 45 minutes.
Do those look like he was a liability? Does a liability in the 4th make the biggest play of the game with 2 minutes left in the game?
So far in the thread, you found me with one typo and one mixup in the years, and you sure are riding those high. Too bad you ignore to address the fact that:
1) You based your whole argument on not being a prophet and tell future events, while you do it continuously.
2) You first used less scoring in the 90’s as your base of argument as to why Kobe shot better, then you used more scoring the 90s as your base of argument as to why Jordan scored more.
3) You said the league was watered-down, and yet showed nothing to back that up.
4) You said Jordan played against smaller SGs, yet had nothing to back that up.
5) You can’t understand the difference between an opinion, a fact and an assertion.
6) You can’t understand the difference between clutch and lead man of the team.
7) Using totals in scoring and les to compare Kobe and Jordan, while putting qualifiers around averages.
8) You said you would pick Kobe over Jordan at age 30, while saying that Jordan was better than Kobe is.
And these are just off the top of my head.
Of course Manu is more clutch than Duncan. It’s pretty well known. You didn’t know?
What is wrong with this list? Do you have other ways to disprove this other than your “fake” statistics routine? Do you have any real statistics that doesn’t just have “because I said so" as a backup?
But of course I normalized the scoring based on average scoring vs. individual scoring in their respective eras. My comparison is A:B compared to C
Just because you never think doesn’t mean that I can’t. And yes, you have demonstrated that you have no grasp of illustrations at all.Nope, you're just piss poor at coming up with arguments so you have to make up about what "I'm thinking". You can add "Mind-Reader" to your resume as well now
Another demonstration of your piss poor ability to draw conclusions. So why are you comparing the 90s to the 00s? What the records in the 00’s have to do with the quality of teams in the 90s?
Fact remains that it takes 67 wins to secure the best record in the East in the 90s, and that it was much less in Kobe’s era.
And pray tell, why is it watered down? You have nothing but your own words.
These are two entirely different leagues, just like the 90s were different than the 80s, the 80s from the 70s and the 70s from the 60s.
What have I flip-flopped on?
But it does show a huge difference in quality of teams despite such a narrow band of difference in wins.
That was the same in the 90s as well. Both Eastern conference series went 7 games.
It shows disparity. I am not sure if you really are that stupid, or you are pretending to be just so that you can make this argument as long and pointless as possible.
3PA and 3PM are not part of 3 point shooting? Which universe do you come from?
They were equal in their prime, but Kobe shot more, how is that not saying Kobe is a better 3 point shooter than Jordan was. And yes, it was no surprise for anyone who actually watched the game to know that the 00’s used the 3 point shot way more than the early 90s.
And of course, I also said this you weasel:
“I was shocked by the results, especially those around 3P%”.
But you ALREADY said you would pick Kobe over Jordan, you ALREADY played the role of an NBA owner. So why did you do that even though you said Jordan was better than Kobe is?
What is wrong with that? Nowitzki scored more in the clutch than Duncan did. The stats showed that, and it is tough to argue.
So can you come up with videos that showed Kobe carried the Lakers in the clutch? If you can’t, you are just blowing hot air by your own definition. And now, there were already 3 shots of Shaq scoring in the clutch. But who cares? We are talking about Shaq being a liability in the 4th quarter, not Shaq making last second game winning shots. Shaq finished #3 in clutch factor in 2002-03, and he played heavy minutes with great results in the 01 finals, coupled by the biggest play in the game in game 2. He was hardly a liability.
Of course it is your own business, have you heard me arguing otherwise? You chose Kobe over Jordan afterall, I won’t be surprised by any idiotic decisions by you.Who I pick is my business and none of yours, please stop trying to make picks for me, you have your own problems
I apologize for not taking re ed opinions from you. But I have trouble accepting decisions that are totally illogical.
It is possible he will get on a team this year and win one, he has the potential, don’t count him out!
Duncan?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flip-flop
Flip-flop means “A reversal, as of a stand or position”
Flip flop does not mean avoiding the question. Look it up. In fact, I DID answer your question, I SAID Kobe scored more efficiently and at a higher % against the West than the East. I simply do not know how I would do, but I did say that if forced to answer, I would imagine it is equally hard for me to score because I probably can’t score in either scenario because of lack of basketball abilities against professional athletes.It's avoiding the question, I took a page from your book when I "answered" you above. I felt dirty but liberated at the same time
You on the other hand, avoid to face a contradiction you have put up yourself. You say you would pick Kobe over Jordan at age 30, and yet said Jordan was better than Kobe is at different spots.
I said it was a typo, do you have anything more than semantics? Kobe scored better against the West than the East, and anyone with an ounce of brain would read the whole sentence and come to that conclusion. Of course, I am talking to you.
Bwahahaha, said the person who can’t tell a typo. You really are that ignorant and stupid.
What is right in front of my face? That Jordan beats Kobe in every single statistical category except 3 pt shooting? How is that giving Jordan a free pass?
Oh my Gosh! I have a typo! Do you want to dig up your own typos in this thread? But of course, it’s the oldest page in the book, when you can’t argue with logic, look for semantics and typos, because those irrefutably show that the opposition’s stance is incorrect.
And of course you fail to read the whole thread:
“And yes, 400 points over a 12 year career is extremely small.”
“But that is assuming they all take 3-pointers in that situation, which is just plain stupid when you are down by one. You drive to a lane for the deuce. So to be more specific, Kobe Bryant could make 1 more 3 pointer for every 25 taken, so in other words, that extra 4 % could make a difference when the Lakers are down 2 (depending if Jackson wants a tie or a win) or 3 points once every 25 times. Given there were 82 games in the season, why don’t you look up the Lakers, and see how many games were decided by 2 or 3 points last season, with Kobe Bryant shooting a 3?”
“When did I say it wasn’t? Just tell me now likely it is. Let me know the following:
In games where the Lakers were in a one point win/loss, Kobe’s 3pt % would mean a difference if Kobe shot 8 or more 3pters (expected value of 1).
In games where the Lakers were in a two point win/loss, Kobe’s 3pt % would mean a difference if Kobe shot 17 or more 3pters (expected value of 2).
In games where the Lakers were in a three point win/loss, Kobe’s 3pt % would mean a difference if Kobe shot 25 or more 3pters (expected value of 3).
I wonder how many games that happened like that last year.”
You weasel.
Yes, yes and yes.
So does the stats in 2000, 2001 and 2002 finals work for you? What about 3 Finals MVPs?
And you also said Shaq was a liability in the 4th. You never said Shaq was a liability in the 4th in les years and required Kobe to bail him out. I have shown that Shaq wasn’t.
Keep picking up semantics, because that is all you got.
What is wrong with that? Earl Boykins and Nowitzki DID perform better in the clutch in the 02-03 regular season. Is there a problem?
Nowitzki got the ball in crunch time when he was with the Mavs, it really isn’t that much of a surprised to anyone who watched the game. In fact, the same Nowitzki shredded the Spurs in the 06 playoffs time and again during crunch time.
You can do neither.
What is the significance of Shaq clutch shot videos?
Shaq won a ring with Dwayne Wade.
Ginobili got more votes than Duncan! What a surprise!
But how does that show Shaq is a liability in the 4th?Hmm, was that the only thing you can pick out of that long ass video? If yes, I can live with that 1 error in the championship run as opposed to your "Shaq's Greatest Clutch Shots" video
He wasn’t, the stats showed it, his minutes played showed it.
You said Kobe carried the Lakers in the 4th. Main guys carry the team.
I said I had a typo and I said I mixed up the years, in fact, those are two of things that you have been harping on the last 2 posts. You can’t read?
And what is wrong with that? If you are so damned sure, show me clutch shots by Duncan on video.
Where did you say that?
You do realize this is an open thread, right? On the other hand, you said it in a post that was a direct response to me:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=452
“Kobe's going to surpass Jordan in career points in the next 5 years or so.”
Just keep weaseling.
Where did I say you are censored?Trying to censor me again?
So you said it, right? What does it matter that you were talking to other people? It is an open thread. Everyone can read it. Why are you questioning my rights to read an open thread? Why are you trying to suppress me? What have I ever done to you?Hahah, you are so deperate you have to go to my conversations with other people? Hey that's your opinion, enjoy it.
And? Those are talks in a public forum, addressing the same subject in the same thread. If you are so ashamed of your own post, send it through private message.Sure, I try to predict stuff all the time, I just don't try to use it as proof for or against as you have. Those were not conversations between you and i, our talks are much more entertaining
Addressed ad nauseum. It was a mix up in year, the point that Shaq was NOT a liability in the 4th still stays.
Are those games in championship years? I am sure the first one wasn’t. Kurt Rambis never won a championship as a head coach.
Why, I want to talk Horry now! Why are you trying to censor me?
But Shaq was a great asset in crunch time 5 years ago.
You said Jordan won “because Jordan had Pippen, a top50 Player, Rodman, the best rebounder ever and Steve Kerr”
I didn’t
I don’t agree with your stance, you have to prove otherwise based on your definition.
Check, remind me that whatever you said is just made up stuff. You just like to express your opinions with nothing to back up. When they were wrong, they were still just an opinion and there is nothing anybody can do about it. Gotcha.
I will say the average height is 6’4 ¾” in 1992, and 6’4 ½” in 2008. Prove me wrong.
But that is not dilution of talent, it’s just that the Bulls were that much better than anybody else.
You mean Shaq win 3 rings with the help of Kobe, right? Shaq winning 3 rings because of Kobe means that Shaq would not have won those rings otherwise.
And I already said I got the years mixed up, but it still stays that Shaq was NOT a liability like you claimed.
No he wasn’t. He performed very well vs. the Spurs in 06. The stats of 02-03 showed that he performed great in crunch time.
See above.Getting angry?
Really? Then what was the average size (feet/inches) of Shooting Guards? If you can answer that, then it does. Otherwise, it's more of your garbage stats.
It isn’t anymore.
At a lower average over a huge range of games? Why did you say Kerr is a better 3 pt shooter than Kobe Bryant when Kerr only had 410 3PM at age 30, while Kobe had 1008? By your definition, Kobe should be more than twice the 3P shooter Kerr is.
I quoted them and you said what you said. You just continue to deny them.
As with all your other points. In other words, you have no points.
LOL, mixing up West and East was a typo. I have consistently said that Kobe scored more and at a higher efficiency against the West than the East to prove that players had a difficult time scoring against better compe ion (defined by better records by you) was incorrect. It is a shame that your below average IQ can’t pick that up, and that your only come back was a typo.
I was applying your logic to what I was going to say. I never said you said it.
LOL, mixing up East and West was indeed a typo. Try reading the whole thread.
But they still competed directly against each other, right?
Jordan had to compete against the four of the greatest center of all time(Kareem, Hakeem, Robinson and Shaq), the greatest power forward of all time (Duncan), the 2nd greatest PF of all time (Malone), the 3 greatest point guards of all time (Magic, Stockton and Thomas), and the greatest small forward of all time (Bird).
He sure did, so?
I need not be angry to note that you are re ed. It’s very apparent and I can note that under any emotions.
No wonder you chose Kobe over Jordan. Thanks for letting me finally understand your idiotic stance. It is really hard for me to shut off my brain and think like you.Sure if we are disregarding "EVERYTHING but RINGS", I'd take Pippen over Kobe. , give me Robert Horry in this "Everything but RINGS" conversation of yours.
That was your original definition, I never agreed to it and said it made no sense. But then you curiously added in Shaq as Kobe’s compe ion. Jordan competed head to head in some classic battles with people drafted outside of the 90s.
What original argument have I lost? This is just getting hilarious. You are just randomly saying that I lost arguments.
What have I added that didn’t exist? How about removing Jordan’s accomplishments like putting qualifiers around age? Sad that you have to stoop to that level.
That was a response to you saying Shaq was a liability in the 4th quarter, which was proven to be false. And 03 was not their decline, they made the finals the next year, with Kobe leading them to an embarrassing loss to the massive underdogs.
You said Jordan won because he had Pippen, Rodman and Kerr, it’s right in your quote!
Great to know.
I never disagreed, what I disagreed was when you said Shaq was a liability in the 4th and required Kobe to carry him. That was not the case, and has been shown.
Dirk did quite well in the clutch in 02-03.
So?
So Kobe didn’t step up in 03? What a shame!
But why are you trying to tell the future, when your original point was that people shouldn’t do that? Why do you violate your own definitions and rules?
And I like to look at the whole career instead. Jordan DID play on. Kobe COULD play on.
I am not trying to predict the future like you did, nor am I trying to predict the future like you asked people not to.
Yes, that is why around 30 wins sometimes got you into the Playoffs in Jordan's era, gotcha.[/quote]
Just like 37 wins got the Hawks in during Kobe’s era.
The question was how, not when.
I will compare the 1st 12 years in the league then. Why compare ages when one played significantly less years than the other?
So he still competed with some top-notch compe ion. Just like I won’t take off Kobe’s compe ion from 04 to 07 because he was an “oversized” Allen Iverson”.
About what? About acknowledging your own contracdiction?
How have I tried to stop you from saying anything? I never knew that you are so weak psychologically.
I feel sorry for you, I really do. Keep grabbing onto semantics, you have nothing else.So when you're proven wrong, more insults and a "typo", gotcha, my frined
And no, I won’t stoop to your level and go on and on about how you spelt “friend” incorrectly.
Read the original quote. I have consistently said that Kobe scored more vs. the West vs. the East. In fact, that was my sole point. The stats showed it. Too bad you have to grab onto that like it was some sort of saving grace.
When have I be proven wrong? You mean the typo? Yeah, it was my fault that I typed wrong and didn’t double check, but it takes someone as mentally handicapped as you to not see it as a typo.
Might? Why are you looking into the future again?
And the 80s didn’t have lack of talent, nor did the 90s.
Wide margins in records speak of disparity, not quality. We have been talking about that through out.
Throughout his career.
But you DID bring up Kerr, didn’t you? Your original quote said Jordan won because he had Pippen, Rodman and Kerr. If you meant otherwise, say what you originally meant.
I like to talk about Pippen, why are you trying to censor me?
I don’t.
I disagree, it is my opinion.
Stop jumping into the future.
Jordan had 3 rings at 30, Kobe has 3 rings at 30.
You also said Shaq was a liability in the 4th.
Horry made game-winners as well. I like to put in Horry in the conversation, why can’t I? You are free to go all over the place whenever you feel like, why are you trying censor me?
What do those videos show? Why should I care? How does not having videos show that a player is a liability in the 4th? Since when did Jerry West play 16 years in the league?
But Jordan still scored at a higher rate than Kobe did even when the eras were normalized. Jordan scored 10% better in fact.
It could be, of course.
The increase in teams negated that too.
In 2008, I counted the Lakers, Celtics, and the Spurs. Where are the other 7?
Too bad you can’t read.
I don’t really get what you are trying to say here. Could you please just post what you think I quoted you wrong on?
So why did you try to suppress people and stop them from “going into the future”?
He could get one in the future.
You started with watering down league, and I brought up expansion. You then brought up the Grizzlies as evidence to Jordan’s league being watered down.
Last edited by ambchang; 11-06-2008 at 02:14 PM.
[quote]
Exactly, and this is where you flip-flopped. You said:You said Shaq was a liability in the 4th and that Kobe carried that team during which time. You have provided no evidence of either.
Shaq was NOT a liability in the 4th, and it has been shown.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...n-nba-analysis
BleacherReport. Woo hoo!!!
Sure, you can be a liability and make the biggest play of the game. Noticed Shaq PASSED the ball, he couldn't go for a shot because he'd get fouled and get put on the line.In the 2001 finals:
Shaq played 52 minutes in Game 1
In game 2, he made the “Biggest Play of the game” according to Larry Brown (http://www.nba.com/finals2001/recap_...v=SiteFragment)
“Biggest play of the game was when he (Shaq) kicked it out to Fisher," Philadelphia coach Larry Brown said. "He's a tremendous passer. He made some unbelievable plays."
In game 3, O’Neal got into foul trouble.
In game 4, O’Neal scored 34 points in 42 minutes
In game 5, O’Neal scored 29 points on 45 minutes.
Do those look like he was a liability? Does a liability in the 4th make the biggest play of the game with 2 minutes left in the game?
Also excerpt from a Mavs game, Shaq went 6-14 from the line...that IS a liability:
" O'Neal was fouled seven times in a span of 3:36 on Sunday night starting with 7:02 remaining and the Lakers in command. A couple came in the backcourt away from the ball, but none was flagrant.
O'Neal went 6-of-14 from the line in that span, giving him 10-of-23 in the game and 20-of-51 this season. He left the game with 3:16 to play and the Lakers up 99-88.
"It's a shame he has to deal with that, going to the free throw line 23, 25 times a game," Fisher said. "There should be a limit on how many times they can foul a player."
Nelson smiled when asked about his strategy.
"typo" harhar and "a mixup". But you weren't wrong right? They were just typos and mixups! Hahahah, nice save.So far in the thread, you found me with one typo and one mixup in the years, and you sure are riding those high. Too bad you ignore to address the fact that:
When you time travel, I get to time travel.1) You based your whole argument on not being a prophet and tell future events, while you do it continuously.
I didn't bring up the 3 rings, YOU did.2) You cited Kerr first, and then claimed you didn’t
Just keeping you honest.Where did I say you are censored?
Hahah, you are so deperate you have to go to my conversations with other people? Hey that's your opinion, enjoy it.So you said it, right? What does it matter that you were talking to other people? It is an open thread. Everyone can read it. Why are you questioning my rights to read an open thread? Why are you trying to suppress me? What have I ever done to you?
Nothing wrong with my predictions, I say them all the time. So? What's your point?And? Those are talks in a public forum, addressing the same subject in the same thread. If you are so ashamed of your own post, send it through private message.
Alrighty then, when you're wrong and proven wrong, it was a "mixup", gotcha.Addressed ad nauseum. It was a mix up in year, the point that Shaq was NOT a liability in the 4th still stays.
Yes they were.Are those games in championship years? I am sure the first one wasn’t. Kurt Rambis never won a championship as a head coach.
You can talk about Horry all you like but he's not comparable to Jordan and Kobe because he has no MVP.Why, I want to talk Horry now! Why are you trying to censor me?
Says you.But Shaq was a great asset in crunch time 5 years ago.
So? What's your point? I never said "Jordan NEEDED Kerr" as you wrongfully quoted.You said Jordan won “because Jordan had Pippen, a top50 Player, Rodman, the best rebounder ever and Steve Kerr”
So? What's your point? I never said "Jordan NEEDED Kerr" as you wrongfully quoted. I've shown you the passages and you still say you "didn't". Is this another TYPO or MIXUP? HAHAHAHHAAH.I didn’t
There's nothing to prove, Kobe had 3 rings as opposed to Jordan's 2. That's a fact.I don’t agree with your stance, you have to prove otherwise based on your definition.
That's fine, if you don't agree, then disagree. Otherwise, let it go, nobody's forcing you to answer.Check, remind me that whatever you said is just made up stuff. You just like to express your opinions with nothing to back up. When they were wrong, they were still just an opinion and there is nothing anybody can do about it. Gotcha.
Great, we have two opinions now. You have proven NOTHING.I will say the average height is 6’4 ¾” in 1992, and 6’4 ½” in 2008. Prove me wrong.
More opinion.But that is not dilution of talent, it’s just that the Bulls were that much better than anybody else.
You mean Kobe win 3 rings with the help of Shaq, right? Kobe winning 3 rings because of Shaq means that Kobe would not have won those rings otherwise.You mean Shaq win 3 rings with the help of Kobe, right? Shaq winning 3 rings because of Kobe means that Shaq would not have won those rings otherwise.
Ah so when you're wrong, you claim it's a "mixup", gotcha.And I already said I got the years mixed up, but it still stays that Shaq was NOT a liability like you claimed.
Thank god your fellow Spur fans aren't as stupid as you:No he wasn’t. He performed very well vs. the Spurs in 06. The stats of 02-03 showed that he performed great in crunch time.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108899
Says you.It isn’t anymore.
Again, trying to put words into my mouth. I never said this. You know what they say about ASSuming.At a lower average over a huge range of games? Why did you say Kerr is a better 3 pt shooter than Kobe Bryant when Kerr only had 410 3PM at age 30, while Kobe had 1008? By your definition, Kobe should be more than twice the 3P shooter Kerr is.
ALL the QUOTES in your list were wrong, stop making up BS just because you lost.I quoted them and you said what you said. You just continue to deny them.
As with all your other points. In other words, you have no points.As with all your other points. In other words, you have no points.
I won't argue your idiocy LOL!I won't argue your idiocy LOL!
Ah yes, when you're wrong it's not because you're wrong, it's because:LOL, mixing up West and East was a typo. I have consistently said that Kobe scored more and at a higher efficiency against the West than the East to prove that players had a difficult time scoring against better compe ion (defined by better records by you) was incorrect. It is a shame that your below average IQ can’t pick that up, and that your only come back was a typo.
1) Typo
2) Mixup
3) Semantics
Gotcha!
Good, apply your logic to yourself, don't try to peddle that BS as mines.I was applying your logic to what I was going to say. I never said you said it.
Ah yes, when you're wrong it's not because you're wrong, it's because:LOL, mixing up East and West was indeed a typo. Try reading the whole thread.
1) Typo
2) Mixup
3) Semantics
Gotcha!
Yup, so? Kobe competed against Michael Jordan himself.But they still competed directly against each other, right?
Yup, Kobe had harder compe ion than Jordan's watered down era.Kobe had to compete against 1) The top shooting Guard of all time 2) The Greatest Power Foward of All time 3) And possibly the greatest Small Forward of All Time.
Jordan had to compete against the four of the greatest center of all time(Kareem, Hakeem, Robinson and Shaq), the greatest power forward of all time (Duncan), the 2nd greatest PF of all time (Malone), the 3 greatest point guards of all time (Magic, Stockton and Thomas), and the greatest small forward of all time (Bird).
Kobe's compe ion was > Jordan's.He sure did, so?
Hahahah, good stuff. Getting angry?I need not be angry to note that you are re ed. It’s very apparent and I can note that under any emotions.
You asked the IDIOT question, I answered in the same IDIOT MANNER. You said regardless of EVERYTHING but Rings. If we're just counting rings, Horry's one of the greatest, I choose him.No wonder you chose Kobe over Jordan. Thanks for letting me finally understand your idiotic stance. It is really hard for me to shut off my brain and think like you.
Read your own idiotic question, of course you're gonna get an idiotic answer
Yup, thus "original" versus add on. You added it on.That was your original definition, I never agreed to it and said it made no sense. But then you curiously added in Shaq as Kobe’s compe ion. Jordan competed head to head in some classic battles with people drafted outside of the 90s.
All of it. You've proven nothing. Hahah, hilarious, nah, entertaining, yes!What original argument have I lost? This is just getting hilarious. You are just randomly saying that I lost arguments.
Hey, Kobe was born in the Off-season, why penalize him for that? If he gets a ring in June, it will be 4 and he will be 30.What have I added that didn’t exist? How about removing Jordan’s accomplishments like putting qualifiers around age? Sad that you have to stoop to that level.
But right now, he has 3 compared to Jordan's 2 at the same age.
Regardless of what you say, the Kobe-Shaq duo did not win a ring again after 2002. If that is not decline, I have no idea what is. Make up all the stuff you want.That was a response to you saying Shaq was a liability in the 4th quarter, which was proven to be false. And 03 was not their decline, they made the finals the next year, with Kobe leading them to an embarrassing loss to the massive underdogs.
Stop your BS, you're wrong as usual. Where did I say "Jordan NEEDED Kerr" as in your original quote of me?" Point it out?You said Jordan won because he had Pippen, Rodman and Kerr, it’s right in your quote!
So? What's your point?Great to know.
You haven't shown anything. All you've shown are some stupid stats in a year when Kobe and Shaq won nothing. Fail.I never disagreed, what I disagreed was when you said Shaq was a liability in the 4th and required Kobe to carry him. That was not the case, and has been shown.
Great, at least you have agreed you have no proof.So?
So Shaq didn’t step up in 03? What a shame!So Kobe didn’t step up in 03? What a shame!
Hey, if you're going to do it, so will I, my friend.But why are you trying to tell the future, when your original point was that people shouldn’t do that? Why do you violate your own definitions and rules?
Sure you could. So? What's your point?And I like to look at the whole career instead. Jordan DID play on. Kobe COULD play on.
You already closed off the door for Kobe getting a 4th ring at age 30. That's predicting the future.I am not trying to predict the future like you did, nor am I trying to predict the future like you asked people not to.
Yup, I was wrong on the scoring but right on it being easier to score. Thankyou.3) You first used less scoring in the 90’s as your base of argument as to why Kobe shot better, then you used more scoring the 90s as your base of argument as to why Jordan scored more.
YOU talked about expansion, but you said you didn’t, nice try.4) You talked about expansion, but you said you didn’t.
I showed you, you just can't admit it when you're wrong. Look at FG% and look at how many wins it took to get into the Playoffs in Jordan's era. The stats are there in front of your face, you choose to ignore it.5) You said the league was watered-down, and yet showed nothing to back that up.
You have nothing to disprove it.6) You said Jordan played against smaller SGs, yet had nothing to back that up.
Is that your OPINION? hahahahah7) You can’t understand the difference between an opinion, a fact and an assertion.
Is that your OPINION? hahahahah8) You can’t understand the difference between clutch and lead man of the team.
Yes, you did a wonderful job of mixing the two together.9) Using totals in scoring and les to compare Kobe and Jordan, while putting qualifiers around averages.
Stop making up, I never said that.10) You said you would pick Kobe over Jordan at age 30, while saying that Jordan was better than Kobe is.
That's because they're all made up in yoru head.And a few other contradictions I can’t recall off the top of my head.
How about Dirk on your list being more clutch than Duncan? And Earl Boykins in the Top list of the NBA clutch? Ridiculous.Of course Manu is more clutch than Duncan. It’s pretty well known. You didn’t know?
A parrot can quote stats, it needs a mind to comprehend them.
How about Dirk on your list being more clutch than Duncan? And Earl Boykins in the Top list of the NBA clutch? Ridiculous.What is wrong with this list? Do you have other ways to disprove this other than your “fake” statistics routine? Do you have any real statistics that doesn’t even “because I said so?”
A parrot can quote stats, it needs a mind to comprehend them.
Your skull is thick and you make up to say that it's me saying it? I knew that alreadyBut of course I normalized the scoring based on average scoring vs. individual scoring in their respective eras. My comparison is A:B compared to C
Yes, you excel at making up for other people to make your arguments sound good. I never said any of that, illustrate your own thoughts, don't do it for others.Just because you never think doesn’t mean that I can’t. And yes, you have demonstrated that you have no grasp of illustrations at all.
Another demonstration of your double standards using the comparisons in one example and then saying you "can't" in a another.Another demonstration of your piss poor ability to draw conclusions. So why are you comparing the 90s to the 00s? What the records in the 00’s have to do with the quality of teams in the 90s?
Yes, Jordan's era sure was watered down wasn't it?Fact remains that it takes 67 wins to secure the best record in the East in the 90s, and that it was much less in Kobe’s era.
No, I have your words out of your big mouth, you said there wereAnd pray tell, why is it watered down? You have nothing but your own words.
"3 top teams". There are at least 8 top teams in Kobe's era.
Of course it's convenient for you to compare Jordan and Kobe then when you're shown wrong, "two entirely different leagues". How convenient as usual for you.These are two entirely different leagues, just like the 90s were different than the 80s, the 80s from the 70s and the 70s from the 60s.
You need to see it again? Ok, answer me this:What have I flip-flopped on?
Was it easier for Kobe to score on the East or the West? Answer the question and I'll show you your flip-flop statement.
Yes, Jordan's era was watered down, we know that.But it does show a huge difference in quality of teams despite such a narrow band of difference in wins.
It shows being watered down. So disparity is not watered down? If you have 3 top teams and a butch of ty teams, that's not a "watered" down league?It shows disparity. I am not sure if you really are that stupid, or you are pretending to be just so that you can make this argument as long and pointless as possible.
I am not sure if you really are that stupid, or you are pretending to be just so that you can make this argument as long and pointless as possible.
It is a part but it is not the same thing. You just pointed out that he shot more and made more. And then you go onto say you weren't surprised Kobe shot more and made more.3PA and 3PM are not part of 3 point shooting? Which universe do you come from?
Stop being a lieing flip-flop. You never said Kobe was a better 3 point shooter. Stop with your BS.
Where do you say "Kobe was a better 3 point shooter"? You never said it, stop your BS.They were equal in their prime, but Kobe shot more, how is that not saying Kobe is a better 3 point shooter than Jordan was. And yes, it was no surprise for anyone who actually watched the game to know that the 00’s used the 3 point shot way more than the early 90s.
Where do you say "Kobe was a better 3 point shooter"? You never said it, stop your BS.And of course, I also said this you weasel:
“I was shocked by the results, especially those around 3P%”.
I'm just answering with your kind of BS answer since you're not man enough to admit when you're wrong. "Oh, I don't know I don't play in the NBA". Hahahah.But you ALREADY said you would pick Kobe over Jordan, you ALREADY played the role of an NBA owner. So why did you do that even though you said Jordan was better than Kobe is?
Thank god your fellow Spur fans aren't stupid as you:What is wrong with that? Nowitzki scored more in the clutch than Duncan did. The stats showed that, and it is tough to argue.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108899
Hey I came up with a ton of clutch wins by Kobe. You came up with a couple for your Mr. Clutch "Shaq".So can you come up with videos that showed Kobe carried the Lakers in the clutch? If you can’t, you are just blowing hot air by your own definition. And now, there were already 3 shots of Shaq scoring in the clutch. But who cares? We are talking about Shaq being a liability in the 4th quarter, not Shaq making last second game winning shots. Shaq finished #3 in clutch factor in 2002-03, and he played heavy minutes with great results in the 01 finals, coupled by the biggest play in the game in game 2. He was hardly a liability.
Getting angry?Of course it is your own business, have you heard me arguing otherwise? You chose Kobe over Jordan afterall, I won’t be surprised by any idiotic decisions by you.
Getting angry?I apologize for not taking re ed opinions from you. But I have trouble accepting decisions that are totally illogical.
Sure, let me know when he does.It is possible he will get on a team this year and win one, he has the potential, don’t count him out!
Duncan?Duncan?
Flip flop does not mean avoiding the question. Look it up. In fact, I DID answer your question, I SAID Kobe scored more efficiently and at a higher % against the West than the East.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flip-flop
Flip-flop means “A reversal, as of a stand or position”
1) Kobe scored easier against the West
then you flip-flopped
2) Kobe scored easier against the East
Do you need me to quote you?
Yes, thanks for avoiding the question.I simply do not know how I would do, but I did say that if forced to answer, I would imagine it is equally hard for me to score because I probably can’t score in either scenario because of lack of basketball abilities against professional athletes.
I did answer the question your style. "I don't know, I'm not an NBA owner". What's wrong, can't take the same kind of weasel answer you give others? Har har.You on the other hand, avoid to face a contradiction you have put up yourself. You say you would pick Kobe over Jordan at age 30, and yet said Jordan was better than Kobe is at different spots.
Of course, when you're wrong it's a "typo", gotcha buddy.I said it was a typo, do you have anything more than semantics? Kobe scored better against the West than the East, and anyone with an ounce of brain would read the whole sentence and come to that conclusion. Of course, I am talking to you.
Of course, when you're wrong it's a "typo", gotcha buddy.Bwahahaha, said the person who can’t tell a typo. You really are that ignorant and stupid.
Yup, that's right in your face and you still can't say Kobe was a better 3 point shooter, hahah, weak. And Kobe has 3 rings to Jordan's 2.What is right in front of my face? That Jordan beats Kobe in every single statistical category except 3 pt shooting? How is that giving Jordan a free pass?
Of course, when you're wrong it's a "typo", gotcha buddy.Oh my Gosh! I have a typo! Do you want to dig up your own typos in this thread? But of course, it’s the oldest page in the book, when you can’t argue with logic, look for semantics and typos, because those irrefutably show that the opposition’s stance is incorrect.
Yup, and still you pointed out .20 IN A GAME which is stupid, you should know better than that Hollinger.And of course you fail to read the whole thread:
“And yes, 400 points over a 12 year career is extremely small.”
“But that is assuming they all take 3-pointers in that situation, which is just plain stupid when you are down by one. You drive to a lane for the deuce. So to be more specific, Kobe Bryant could make 1 more 3 pointer for every 25 taken, so in other words, that extra 4 % could make a difference when the Lakers are down 2 (depending if Jackson wants a tie or a win) or 3 points once every 25 times. Given there were 82 games in the season, why don’t you look up the Lakers, and see how many games were decided by 2 or 3 points last season, with Kobe Bryant shooting a 3?”
“When did I say it wasn’t? Just tell me now likely it is. Let me know the following:
In games where the Lakers were in a one point win/loss, Kobe’s 3pt % would mean a difference if Kobe shot 8 or more 3pters (expected value of 1).
In games where the Lakers were in a two point win/loss, Kobe’s 3pt % would mean a difference if Kobe shot 17 or more 3pters (expected value of 2).
In games where the Lakers were in a three point win/loss, Kobe’s 3pt % would mean a difference if Kobe shot 25 or more 3pters (expected value of 3).
I wonder how many games that happened like that last year.”
[QUOTE=Ambchang;2875968]Are you a math major? Have you ever taken statistics? Do you know how 3 pters work?[/quote
Yes, yes and yes.
I said Shaq need Kobe to win Rings, you have not proven otherwise. Your stats are from the wrong years.So does the stats in 2000, 2001 and 2002 finals work for you? What about 3 Finals MVPs?
And you also said Shaq was a liability in the 4th. You never said Shaq was a liability in the 4th in les years and required Kobe to bail him out. I have shown that Shaq wasn’t.
Of course, when you're wrong it's not wrong, it's "semantics", gotcha buddy.Keep picking up semantics, because that is all you got.
[quote]
What is wrong with that? Earl Boykins and Nowitzki DID perform better in the clutch in the 02-03 regular season. Is there a problem?[q/uote]
Thankfully, your fellow Spur fans aren't as stupid as you.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108899
Thankfully, your fellow Spur fans aren't as stupid as you.Nowitzki got the ball in crunch time when he was with the Mavs, it really isn’t that much of a surprised to anyone who watched the game. In fact, the same Nowitzki shredded the Spurs in the 06 playoffs time and again during crunch time.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108899
Good, you have no proof, Shooting Guards were smaller in Jordan's error.You can do neither.
It might show him winning a game instead of Kobe perhaps?What is the significance of Shaq clutch shot videos?
Yes he did, he also needed Kobe to win his other 3.Shaq won a ring with Dwayne Wade.
[QUOTE=Allanon;2875968]Sure, I'll play your silly game. Let's see who your fellow Spur fans think is more clutch: Manu, Timmy or Dirk
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108899
Ginobili got more votes than Duncan! What a surprise!
And Duncan got more than Nowitzki. Thank god your fellow Spur fans aren't as stupid as you.
Hack-a-Shaq.But how does that show Shaq is a liability in the 4th?
Alot of players can be on the court, that's the difference between being effective or not. Shaq was just on the court. Kobe took and made the game-winners.He wasn’t, the stats showed it, his minutes played showed it.
Yes, Kobe sure was awesome wasn't he?You said Kobe carried the Lakers in the 4th. Main guys carry the team.
Yes, when you're wrong, it's not because you're wrong, it's a "typo" or a "mixup", gotcha.I said I had a typo and I said I mixed up the years, in fact, those are two of things that you have been harping on the last 2 posts. You can’t read?
Thank god your fellow Spur fans aren't as stupido as you.And what is wrong with that? If you are so damned sure, show me clutch shots by Duncan on video.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108899
Are you saying I didn't say that?Where did you say that?
What are you talking about? I said Kobe's going to surpass Jordan in points, either agree or disagree or let it go. How's that weaseling?You do realize this is an open thread, right? On the other hand, you said it in a post that was a direct response to me:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=452
“Kobe's going to surpass Jordan in career points in the next 5 years or so.”
Just keep weaseling.
37 > 35Just like 37 wins got the Hawks in during Kobe’s era.
So?The question was how, not when.
Again you are penalizing Kobe for playing early but giving Jordan the benefits of college.I will compare the 1st 12 years in the league then. Why compare ages when one played significantly less years than the other?
Going on your expanded list theory, Kobe's played alot more harder tougher players than Jordan. And going by my compe ive years list, Kobe's played against more of the top players. Either way, you're wrong.So he still competed with some top-notch compe ion. Just like I won’t take off Kobe’s compe ion from 04 to 07 because he was an “oversized” Allen Iverson”.
About what? About acknowledging your own contracdiction?About what? About acknowledging your own contracdiction?
You told me I can't say it. That's your problem. I like you and all but that sure as didn't stop me. Sorry, you can't tell me what to say or doHow have I tried to stop you from saying anything? I never knew that you are so weak psychologically.
Yes, when you're wrong, you feel "sorry for me" and it's "semantics" or a "typo" or a "mixup", gotcha.I feel sorry for you, I really do. Keep grabbing onto semantics, you have nothing else.
And no, I won’t stoop to your level and go on and on about how you spelt “friend” incorrectly.
Nope you said Kobe scored more against the East when you flip-flopped, do you need me to quote it for you?Read the original quote. I have consistently said that Kobe scored more vs. the West vs. the East. In fact, that was my sole point. The stats showed it. Too bad you have to grab onto that like it was some sort of saving grace.
Yes, when you're wrong, you feel "sorry for me" and it's "semantics" or a "typo" or a "mixup", gotcha.When have I be proven wrong? You mean the typo? Yeah, it was my fault that I typed wrong and didn’t double check, but it takes someone as mentally handicapped as you to not see it as a typo.
I can look into the future when you look into the future. No sneaking in double-standards you weasel.Might? Why are you looking into the future again?
Neither did the 90s and the 2000s. Kobe got to play against more.And the 80s didn’t have lack of talent, nor did the 90s.
So disparity has nothing to do with quality?Wide margins in records speak of disparity, not quality. We have been talking about that through out.
Great, His Airness gets to pit his career #'s against Kobe's at age 30, great logic!Throughout his career.
Hahah, you little weasel. Where in there does it say "Jordan NEEDED Kerr"?But you DID bring up Kerr, didn’t you? Your original quote said Jordan won because he had Pippen, Rodman and Kerr. If you meant otherwise, say what you originally meant.
You like to twist my quotes and take parts out of it so it sounds like what you want to hear. Hear's what I said, stop lieing:
""Oh yes, it's because Jordan had Pippen, a top50 Player, Rodman, the best rebounder ever and Steve Kerr, the best 3 point shooter ever (arguably with Bird).""
Sure, keep on talking about Pippen if you like. But that won't make him win an MVP.I like to talk about Pippen, why are you trying to censor me?
That's too bad because Kobe got an MVP, it's really pretty.I don’t.
Great.I disagree, it is my opinion.
If you jump into the future, so will I.Stop jumping into the future.
Yes, and Kobe may have 4 rings at age 30 and Jordan would have 3.Jordan had 3 rings at 30, Kobe has 3 rings at 30.
Hack-a-ShaqYou also said Shaq was a liability in the 4th.
Sure, if you want to go off topic.Horry made game-winners as well. I like to put in Horry in the conversation, why can’t I? You are free to go all over the place whenever you feel like, why are you trying censor me?
Horry isn't in the conversation with Jordan and Kobe cuz he's got no MVPs.
Great that you have no argument then. Shaq needed Kobe to win his Rings.What do those videos show? Why should I care? How does not having videos show that a player is a liability in the 4th? Since when did Jerry West play 16 years in the league?
Sure he did, in a watered down league with a higher average FG% than Kobe's era.But Jordan still scored at a higher rate than Kobe did even when the eras were normalized. Jordan scored 10% better in fact.
Then there you have it. Thanks for agreeing.It could be, of course.
Nope, Jordan had his expansion too.The increase in teams negated that too.
Pistons, Suns, Hornets, Jazz, Rockets, Cavaliers, MavsIn 2008, I counted the Lakers, Celtics, and the Spurs. Where are the other 7?
Getting angry?Too bad you can’t read.
None of your quotes you listed in response to that were right. NONE, zippo, FAIL, try again, etc.I don’t really get what you are trying to say here. Could you please just post what you think I quoted you wrong on?
Sure you can, but as you go, so will I.So why did you try to suppress people and stop them from “going into the future”?
Let me know when he does.He could get one in the future.
Yes, I said watered down, YOU SAID expansion. Thankyou.You started with watering down league, and I brought up expansion. You then brought up the Grizzlies as evidence to Jordan’s league being watered down.
Tony Parker's now one step closer to Jordan than Kobe is.
Unfortunately, Tony took one step back last night, no pun intended.
LOL, I can't believe this thread is still going...
this is too tiring for me but ill give allanon his props. boy had too much time and energy to defend the undefendable.
Holy Rage Batman!!!!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
