It's a testament to how much of a load those guys had to carry. Only way the Spurs were winning games in the 90's was if a young DRob played ALL WORLDLY. He has an off night, those Spurs teams were gonna lose.
You could see it with guys like Barkley, Dirk, and Lebron too. When they were on the floor, their teams were dominant, but the instant they went to the bench, they became average at best.
Look at the Mavs w/out Dirk recently. What did they go? 2-6? Dirk is the 2000's version of the 90's David Robinson, in a sense. No REAL 2nd scoring option, so he's gotta carry the load EVERY night.
I should not of included David TBH ... he was not only legit like Dirk, barkley but he also won a le. BUT I do think he is too high ...but again stats have always loved David even more than Duncan. No way Davis is a better winner than tim ...winshare = bull .
Win shares are not the same thing as being on championship-winning teams.
Win shares quantify an individual's contributions to a single team winning games.
Kobe nut huggers want to arbitrarily attribute L.A.'s 5 recent championships to Kobe. You do realize that you literally have no argument, right?
Nobody outside of Kobe-trons believe that Kobe was ever top dog on at least 4 out of 5 of his championships, and the statistics certainly don't deny that.
Nobody except Kobe fans ...OK. I guess Coaches, players, former players dont count? LOL who is this guy? All i am saying is that win shres much like PER loves guys that put up great stats. But unless you win the le I dont give a hit about stats ..dont need them to tell me who the best players are ...
and for the most part my eyeball tests is backed by your "stats" EXCEPT i place a heavier emphasis on winning les.
@ this guy.
Kobe's not higher because he too often takes 25+ shots per game but only scores 25 points on those shots. He's a 3 quarter inefficient chucker who makes it up (sometimes) with 4th quarter heroics.
If you want to talk about clutch players, that's an entirely different story, of course. Kobe is top 4 or 5 last time I checked, depending on how you want to define clutch situations, of course.
Maybe if Kobe had more 7-12, 3-7 3PT, 6-6 FT [23 points] games instead of 11-24, 2-9 3PT, 5-7 FT [29 points] games he'd be higher.
Kobe-trons see the second stat line with Kobe-goggles and see 29 points. Everybody else sees the first stat line as infinitely superior as far as scoring goes.
Ok, then I submit that Robert Horry with 7 rings is a better player than Kobe.
Kobe has better stats, but you aren't a stat guy so you shouldn't care. Robert Horry is a better winner plain and simple. 7 rings > 5. Horry > Kobe.
Looks like I'm going to have to forcefully spoon feed your own stupidity to you in order to get you to understand.
The robert horry corollary ...what does robert horry have to do with the all time greatest players? I know you are new here ...but les is used to rank players all-time. the Kerrs, horry and fisher's have no merit in this discusion.
BTW if you actually read around here the two cr icisms I do not defend Kobe:
1. shot selection (which you are right does hurt his advanced stats)
2. snitching on Shaq
and by submitting this post and name calling, only your intelligence is shown to be lacking here ...sport.
The shot selection of Kobe is to me the most valid crticism of Kobe's game. i dont mind guys that take a lot of shots ...it's the quality of the shots they take. For example even if his stats are down a bit i think Lebron is playing better because he is taking far less of the heat check 3's he took in cleveland ...dont get me wrong he still takes some fall away 3's but he is playing smarter on offense IMHO ...
It's not circular ... stats of any kind without context are useless. that is why when clinical research is done they give you the data pool or smaple sized used ...and give you the conditions in which the research was done.
By using Horry who was agreat clutch player you are saying that his contributions are on par with kobe's which invalidates win share inthe first place. I dont like stats but see their value when provided with context.
Your genius post ...used winshare as an argument without providing the context of actually wining a le, which is the desired end result. then you threw in Horry without including his contributions to those les ...
Ok I applaud that you are one of the few Kobe fans who actually admits that Kobe's shot selection is sometimes ill-advised.
That said,
To determine who the best players are, you "don't give a about stats" and you place greater emphasis on "winning les."
To determine who deserves to be even considered to be ranked among the greatest players using les, you rely on some hodgepodge "eye test."
The only reason I brought up Horry was to demonstrate that even you don't really believe what you're saying. Even you must give strong merit to stats at some point when considering the best players.
Horry isn't an all time great because you just "feel" he isn't or because it's somehow "obvious" to people who watch the game. He isn't an all time great because he didn't truly excel in any one given statistical category. He was never a prolific scorer, prolific rebounder, stealer, blocker, etc. He made clutch shots throughout his career to gain much notiriety, but nobody considers him to be an all time great because he didn't put up stats. That was my point.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You deny the usefullness of stats when it's convenient to bolstering Kobe's status, and then to protect yourself you refuse to admit when you are subconsciously using stats primarily to determine that Horry isn't even close to being an all time great. No argument there, I wasn't seriously trying to say Horry is better than Kobe. I was trying to demonstrate that you're choosing to use/ignore stats when it's convenient.
Good post. But you are making a huge assumption here. you are right I do look at stats to a degree but i dont value them more than les, and you dont usually see me posts stats in any basketball debate. And as many on here can tell you i was wrong about what pick Kobe got drafted, so far form a kobetron or whatever term you use.
When Dwill vs. Chris Paul was STILL a debate ...many on here cited win share and PER as the reasons why Paul was better than williams. Then this year many hornets fans started to get frustrated with the fact Despite paul leading the NBA in PER he was not shooting enough or taking over inthe 4th quarter. this is a prime example of why stats lie when used without context. I didnt use stats i pointed to head to head matchup and Dwill taking his team to the WCF ...But did use them (one of the few time i used stats) his superior scoring and assist numbers over a better spur team in the WCF (common opponent) ...i
I dont use stats when it's convienent only when it makes sense and with context. another reason i dislike them is people on here read a boxscore and make the jusgement that a plyer was "chucking" ...again if it is a good shot i dont care if a great scorer takes 25 shots ...but i hate when kobe or any great player does a fall away 3 over 2 defenders ...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
