Can Kobe become Player of TWO Decades????

[Darrin]

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

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

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

Discuss

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

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

[Obstructed_View]

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

[RsxPiimp]

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



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


if duncan fails again in the playoffs and kobe wins a 5th le this year, you es need to start respecting mother ing kobe bean bryant

[An Unbiased Fan]

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

Huh?

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

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

Kobe = 6 Finals
Duncan = 3 Finals

Kobe = 4 T les
Duncan = 3 les

Kobe = 4-1 against Duncan in playoffs

game.set.match

[TheSullyMonster]

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

Along with 2 finals mvp>1.

[RsxPiimp]

Racist?

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

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

[mogrovejo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You disagreed.

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

Capisce?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me -

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

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

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

[Allanon]

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not the one making up like you have been. Just read backwards.

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

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

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

History does not determine the future.

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

I never met such an adult person who cannot interpret; rather he chooses to just read like an animal and regurgitate.

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

You disagreed.

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

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

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

Capisce?

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

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

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

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

Even your fellow Boston fan says 60%.

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

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

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

Is this correct? Yes or no answer.