Rapists vs Mormons Game 3

[midnightpulp]

You know a troll is butthurt when he admits he is "trolling" so he doesnt seem butthurt.

It's all good.

Nothing will be more soothing than to see the Lakers lose in the Finals once again.

Just hope you stick around for the party.

[TheMACHINE]

It's all good.

Nothing will be more soothing than to see the Lakers lose in the Finals once again.

Just hope you stick around for the party.

Of course...like you said, Lakers are going to the Finals. WHy wouldnt we be sticking around Captain Obvious?

[TheMACHINE]

btw..nothing is more soothing then seeing the SPurs FAIL again. Oh wait...that'll be tomorrow! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

[midnightpulp]

Of course...like you said, Lakers are going to the Finals. WHy wouldnt we be sticking around Captain Obvious?

So you're looking forward to the prospect of getting to the Finals just to receive yet another beat down?

Guess you guys are used to it, that is your MO. Get to the Finals, then it's a flip of the coin whether you'll win it or not.

[Killakobe81]

This was his best game so far. Could he do it again. I certainly hope so!

This one is for D Fish

I NEVER wanted 2 trade him dont think hes a starter but he is one of my all-time favorite Lakers behind only Magic, Kobe, Worthy ...and just above Cooper and Horry

[TheMACHINE]

So you're looking forward to the prospect of getting to the Finals just to receive yet another beat down?

LOL....your only insult to the Lakers is that they will make the FINALS and lose. HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

Tha Lakers must be THAT GOOD if that was your insult. HAHAHHAHAHA

[Killakobe81]

You're a frontrunner. It's easy to talk when your team in winning. I find that somewhat chicken . Try bringing it when your team is getting their ass kicked or is a bottom feeder.

I just never felt the Celtics or Lakers. Always hated the Lakers primarily because of their fans. I really am indifferent to the Celtics. If I lived in Boston, I'd probably loathe them.

les really are meaningless in why a person becomes a fan. Spurs 0 les when I became a fan, Lakers 6 les. Didn't care.

You will have plenty of time for this soon ...

I have been with the Lakers when Magic was our best player, Ced ceballos, Nick the quick, Shaq and now Kobe ...Ill still be here after Kobe.

[midnightpulp]

LOL....your only insult to the Lakers is that they will make the FINALS and lose. HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

Tha Lakers must be THAT GOOD if that was your insult. HAHAHHAHAHA

I just thought Laker fans have higher standards. 50% Finals winning percentage is pretty mediocre. Out of all those appearances, all the Franchise could muster was ten championships?

Wouldn't expect a post-Gasol trade Laker fan to understand their history though.

All that matters in the end is the ring. No one remembers or cares about who came in second.

[midnightpulp]

You will have plenty of time for this soon ...

I have been with the Lakers when Magic was our best player, Ced ceballos, Nick the quick, Shaq and now Kobe ...Ill still be here after Kobe.

You don't like it when people talk about your Lakers, do you?

[TheMACHINE]

I just thought Laker fans have higher standards. 50% Finals winning percentage is pretty mediocre. Out of all those appearances, all the Franchise could muster was ten championships?

Wouldn't expect a post-Gasol trade Laker fan to understand their history though.

All that matters in the end is the ring. No one remembers or cares about who came in second.

lol 4 rings...but congrats in your 100% finals record.

[midnightpulp]

lol 4 rings...but congrats in your 100% finals record.

Hey, we can't all be fans of a franchise that existed before cars were invented.

But still, 50% is pretty pathetic. And if you don't count those bull Minny les, it's like 40%.

[TheMACHINE]

Hey, we can't all be fans of a franchise that existed before cars were invented.

But still, 50% is pretty pathetic. And if you don't count those bull Minny les, it's like 40%.

4 les in 37 years. COngrats!

[TheMACHINE]

lol sweep

lol first round exit

lol 2nd round exit by the Lakers

[midnightpulp]

4 les in 37 years. COngrats!

After the 37 years (the Spurs franchise is 34 years old, btw) the LA Lakers had 6.

I'll take the Spurs 4 any day of the week. Not too bad for a small market team.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Another attempt at a rewrite of history.

One of the great fallacies surrounding the inflated myth of Kobe Bryant is his status as this cold blooded Spur killer.

Take your 2001 example. I hope a top 5 perimeter player would have a stellar series against the likes of Terry Porter, Danny Ferry, Steve Smith, etc. Once Bowen joined the team, Kobe was usually held below or right at his season averages (aside from 2008 when Bowen was on his last legs and couldn't do much to contain Kobe). Not taking anything away from that, but he was far from transcendent in most of those series. Neither was Shaq for that matter. Most of those games were ugly, low scoring affairs.

Kobe had his moments, a lot of moments during the 3 peat, just like Ginobili had his, Parker had his, Billups had his. Just seems that every time Kobe has a "moment" it's catapulted to some kind of legendary status when it's totally undeserving of such. I attribute this to the media's insatiable appe e for the next Jordan and the selective memory bias of sound bite analysis, like that on ESPN.

Shaq's impact was far greater in those days than what Kobe brought to the table and I don't agree that those les Kobe won with Shaq as the CLEAR second best player on the team are deserving of the same status as rings won as the first option.

No one says Pippen 6> Magic 5.

And no Pippen, no 6 les for Jordan.

Totally avoiding the meat of the issue. Kobe was better than Shaq in 2001 against the Spurs. That was the series for the le. Yet you still place Shaq miles above Kobe and dimiinish what he did. You are the one who is attempting revisionist history. I repeat, if Kobe doesn't play well in the 2000-02 WCF's, no les for Shaq. The gap between Kobe and Shaq is much closer than the gap between Duncan and his 2nd option.

I just thought Laker fans have higher standards. 50% Finals winning percentage is pretty mediocre. Out of all those appearances, all the Franchise could muster was ten championships?

Wouldn't expect a post-Gasol trade Laker fan to understand their history though.

All that matters in the end is the ring. No one remembers or cares about who came in second.

Umm... You know more than NBA.com? They, and every other reputable source says they have 15. Oh, I pointed this out already and you ignored it.

Hey, we can't all be fans of a franchise that existed before cars were invented.

But still, 50% is pretty pathetic. And if you don't count those bull Minny les, it's like 40%.

It's been pointed out before, if you don't play in the finals, you can't win them. You contradict your last post when you say no one cares who comes in second and yet make a big deal about the Lakers having a 50% finals record. You are criticizing a team who came in second! Let me now expose your bias and hatred:

Look at it this way. If no one cares who came in second, these are the real championship records of teams:

Celtics: 17-46, 27%
Lakers: 15-46, 24.6%
Bulls: 6-37, 14%
Spurs: 4-29, 12%

Logically we can assume if the Spurs had 10 more finals appearances, which they don't because they weren't good enough, their finals record would be 4-10. That would have been 10 more chances at a le, and probably have cost the Lakers a few opportunities! People would talk more about how great the Spurs were over the years! Instead, only Duncan could get them past the WCF. See, there is no dominant champion in the NBA. Boston is behind the Lakers by 10 finals appearances. They have 11 losses in the ECF. 7 of those were seasons the Lakers won the chip beating the team that ousted Boston. Golden State did it in 1975. Boston's other 3 ECF losses resulted in an eastern champion. One was in the 50's before Bill Russell. The other two teams were ones for the ages, Wilt's 1967 Sixers, and Reed/Fraziers 1973 Knicks. So, we can safely assume if somehow Boston had 10 more finals appearances, they would likely be 17-13.

It all comes down to how many les a team has, not how many times they lost the finals.

Congratulations, you have joined my club.

[midnightpulp]

Totally avoiding the meat of the issue. Kobe was better than Shaq in 2001 against the Spurs. That was the series for the le. Yet you still place Shaq miles above Kobe and dimiinish what he did. You are the one who is attempting revisionist history. I repeat, if Kobe doesn't play well in the 2000-02 WCF's, no les for Shaq. The gap between Kobe and Shaq is much closer than the gap between Duncan and his 2nd option.



Umm... You know more than NBA.com? They, and every other reputable source says they have 15. Oh, I pointed this out already and you ignored it.

It's been pointed out before, if you don't play in the finals, you can't win them. You contradict your last post when you say no one cares who comes in second and yet make a big deal about the Lakers having a 50% finals record. You are criticizing a team who came in second! Let me now expose your bias and hatred:

Look at it this way. If no one cares who came in second, these are the real championship records of teams:

Celtics: 17-46
Lakers: 15-46
Bulls: 6-37
Spurs: 4-29

Logically we can assume if the Spurs had 10 more finals appearances, which they don't because they weren't good enough, their finals record would be 4-10. That would have been 10 more chances at a le, and probably have cost the Lakers a few opportunities! People would talk more about how great the Spurs were over the years! Instead, only Duncan could get them past the WCF. See, there is no dominant champion in the NBA. Boston is behind the Lakers by 10 finals appearances. They have 11 losses in the ECF. 7 of those were seasons the Lakers won the chip beating the team that ousted Boston. Golden State did it in 1975. Boston's other 3 ECF losses resulted in an eastern champion. One was in the 50's before Bill Russell. The other two teams were ones for the ages, Wilt's 1967 Sixers, and Reed/Fraziers 1973 Knicks. So, we can safely assume if somehow Boston had 10 more finals appearances, they would likely be 17-13.

It all comes down to how many les a team has, not how many times they lost the finals.

Congratulations, you have joined my club.

Your club is one of the most laughable things on this forum. Even worse than Namlook's ignore club. Have any more Carlin routines you can rip off?

in A. Which is the point I try to drive home to these Laker fan morons who are always pounding their chest about the Lakers multiple Finals appearances. Also, learn to understand the difference between trolling and a legitimate basketball discussion, got. You weren't even involved in that conversation in the first place. My in with Lakers fans about their Finals winning pct and the Minny les is akin to them in with Spurs fans about the asterisk nonsense.

Our discussion was about Kobe's impact during the 3 peat, which I think you seriously overrate. Sure Kobe may have been better than Shaq in some instances during those runs, but for the huge majority of the 3 peat, Shaq's impact was greater. You also want to talk about the eggs Kobe laid in 03 and 04, performances for all intents and purposes COST the Lakers two more les? The logic you're applying works both ways, son.

Also, quit building strawmen out of obvious troll jobs.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Your club is one of the most laughable things on this forum. Even worse than Namlook's ignore club. Have any more Carlin routines you can rip off?

in A. Which is the point I try to drive home to these Laker fan morons who are always pounding their chest about the Lakers multiple Finals appearances. Also, learn to understand the difference between trolling and a legitimate basketball discussion, got. You weren't even involved in that conversation in the first place. My in with Lakers fans about their Finals winning pct and the Minny les is akin to them in with Spurs fans about the asterisk nonsense.

Our discussion was about Kobe's impact during the 3 peat, which I think you seriously overrate. Sure Kobe may have been better than Shaq in some instances during those runs, but for the huge majority of the 3 peat, Shaq's impact was greater. You also want to talk about the eggs Kobe laid in 03 and 04, performances for all intents and purposes COST the Lakers two more les? The logic you're applying works both ways, son.

Also, quit building strawmen out of obvious troll jobs.

Looks like someone is butt hurt. I trolled you and won. Your logic got exposed and we can all laugh at you. Stealing Carlin's joke? From my ownage of lakaluva? I heard it in first grade over 25 years ago. My grandpa heard it years before that. When was Carlin's TV show where he told the joke? I missed it.

Anyway, you shouldn't let the Lakers fans get to you. After Kobe is gone and the Lakers are rebuilding, they'll all be gone from the internet for awhile. You have a fine team, arguably the third or fourth best in NBA history. Duncan may not win another crown, but the Spurs usually field a compe ive team. History shows the Spurs and the Lakers are the NBA's 2 most consistent teams. That's something Celtics and Bulls can't say.

Me, I have no team to cheer for, mine sucks. I do enjoy basketball and bandwagon whoever comes out of the west. You should do the same. I keep hoping if the west wins, maybe the champ will get complacent and my team can sneak in there....

[midnightpulp]

Comparing Shaq and Kobe during the 3 peat:

Shaq PER:

00: 30.5
01: 28.7
02: 28.3

Kobe PER:

00: 19.3
01: 25.0
02: 20.5

For comparisons sake:

Jordan:

91: 32.0
92: 27.2
93: 30.1

Pippen:

91: 22.0
92: 20.1
93: 16.9

Aside from Kobe's breakout 01 performance, the disparities are very similar. Obviously, the gap between Jordan and Pippen is a little larger than the one between Shaq and Kobe, but not by much, and add in Pippen's great defensive skills, which Kobe has never been anywhere near, and you could very well call the respective gaps between Shaq/Kobe, MJ/Pippen just about even.

But no one, not sportswriters, so called experts, fans, characterizes those les Pippen won with Jordan on equal footing as say the les Bird won with the Celtics. The reasons should be obvious to you. Pippen was not a first option. He wasn't the best player on the team. And neither was Kobe from 00-02. The stats don't show it, popular opinion doesn't agree with it, and if we went back and looked at the games, reality wouldn't show it either, despite Kobe's moments of brilliance.

Why should we rewrite the rules for Kobe? Because he had a couple of great series and was a key component during the 3 peat? That they never would've beaten so and so without him? You can say that for multiple players on past championship teams.

Pippen, James Worthy, Manu, Kevin McHale. All had breakout performances one time or another and were vital parts of their team's championship success, and if not for them, the outcome would've likely changed. Doesn't mean they were the MOST important, however, and when comparing legacies, you just can't arbitrarily assign their successes the same value as the consensus team leader. It's why Bird is in the top ten and Pippen isn't, and why Duncan's legacy is still greater than Kobe's.

[midnightpulp]

Looks like someone is butt hurt. I trolled you and won. Your logic got exposed and we can all laugh at you. Stealing Carlin's joke? From my ownage of lakaluva? I heard it in first grade over 25 years ago. My grandpa heard it years before that. When was Carlin's TV show where he told the joke? I missed it.

Anyway, you shouldn't let the Lakers fans get to you. After Kobe is gone and the Lakers are rebuilding, they'll all be gone from the internet for awhile. You have a fine team, arguably the third or fourth best in NBA history. Duncan may not win another crown, but the Spurs usually field a compe ive team. History shows the Spurs and the Lakers are the NBA's 2 most consistent teams. That's something Celtics and Bulls can't say.

Me, I have no team to cheer for, mine sucks. I do enjoy basketball and bandwagon whoever comes out of the west. You should do the same. I keep hoping if the west wins, maybe the champ will get complacent and my team can sneak in there....

What logic got exposed?

When trolling and bantering, logic doesn't usually apply. Laker fans with us, we with them. They tell us about the asterisk, we tell them we swept them that year. I with them about the Minny les, they laugh about our measly 4 championships.

I know what gets a reaction out of them, just like the asterisk will always get a reaction out of Spur fan.

Ultimately, it's all in fun. Laker fans really don't bother me.

[Bob Lanier]

God, you sound butt-hurt.

[midnightpulp]

God, you sound butt-hurt.

Nah. The only thing I get truly butthurt about is bad beats in online poker.

That will have me raging.

[TampaDude]

Also; How do we all like our crow about Fisher, fellow Laker fans? I can't think of anyone who supported this guy. There are still two more series after this one, but he's been ing clutch.

Yeah...I was watching the game last night from a bar in Ybor, and when Kobe passed the ball to Fish for the GW 3, I KNEW that shot was going in...there was no doubt in my mind. I'm not a Lakers fan, but damn, that boy is clutch.

[Giuseppe]

and when Kobe passed the ball to Fish for the GW 3, I KNEW that shot was going in...there was no doubt in my mind.

That made it unanimous, cuz Kobe & Fish had nary a doubt either.

[milkshakeballa]

Nah. The only thing I get truly butthurt about is bad beats in online poker.

That will have me raging.

[milkshakeballa]

That made it unanimous, cuz Kobe & Fish had nary a doubt either.