Reply With Quote
Apparently, MJ wasn't impressed by picking Kobe over LeBron. LeBron, predictably, lied through his teeth by saying it doesn't faze him:
robinson teams were mainly 1man teams, alot of 1man teams were never successful anyway
Apparently, MJ wasn't impressed by picking Kobe over LeBron. LeBron, predictably, lied through his teeth by saying it doesn't faze him:
Picked Kirby's "career" over Lebron. The question wasn't about who he would take if he was starting a team or had the better peak.Apparently, MJ wasn't impressed by picking Kobe over LeBron. LeBron, predictably, lied through his teeth by saying it doesn't faze him:
And MJ is right, can't argue with 3 second banana and 2 lead dog rings vs. 1 lead dog ring.
That said, Kobe ain't never been as good as Kang has this year.
All of this is your Laker and Kobe hating opinions. Let you guys tell it, LBJ is already in the running for GOAT and is a bonafide top 10 player right now despite winning once on a stacked team.
And all of that is your Heat and Kang hating opinion. Let you tell it, Lebron is a poor man's Nique who only won because Wade and Bosh carried him kicking-and-screaming to the le.
If Bron can punctuate his amazing year with a great playoff run and championship, he definitely deserves top 10 consideration. He's already a top 10 great talent wise, but doesn't quite yet have the career accomplishments to knock Kobe (the 10th best player of all-time) off the list.
Slam Magazine's top 10 players of all-time:
1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Bill Russell
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Oscar Robertson
6. Magic Johnson
7. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
8. Tim Duncan
9. Larry Bird
10. Kobe Bryant
And yeah, I disagree with it. Kobe's placement is right on, but they need to exchange Wilt with Kareem, Bird with Oscar, and Magic with Shaq.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 02-15-2013 at 11:29 PM.
Keep in mind 06-07 was the year Kobe was pretty much the only focus of every defense unlike Lebron who had a much easier way to the basket because of the quality of his teammates.
The streak however doesn't show who was the better player. Its obvious Lebron is above and beyond Kobe then and especially now, but in terms of scoring, Kobe has bragging rights.
That being said, this will not end well.
Lol entertaining magazine but journalistic powerhouse its not ...besides iirc they did those rankings a few years back IIRC, pretty sure they would update the ranks if they did it today ...but who cares its SLAm stopped reading that mag in college there are posters here and on LG that write better pieces on the NBA now I just peruse when I'm waiting for a connecting flight ...
I used to love it as a kid though especially the HS coverage that made Telfair, sea cotton, and Starbury stars ...LOL
No Moses Malone in top 10 = stupid list.
Fact that an entertainment oriented magazine that loves hero ball can on put Duncan at 10 tells you Kobe is not top 10.
Kareem's placement alone makes that list horr ...no way Shaq is a greater player than Jabbar not in HS, college, or pros
ESPN INSIDERIt seems at first glance that Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point night in 1962 is far superior to Kobe Bryant's 81-point game Sunday. After all, Bryant still needed 19 more points -- roughly Pau Gasol's average -- just to catch the Dipper.
But if you stack the two games side by side, you'll come to the startling realization that Bryant's performance was actually far superior. Breaking the two games down by the numbers, it quickly becomes apparent what a dominant night Kobe had. Consider the facts:
Bryant was more efficient. Bryant needed 46 shot attempts and 20 free throws to get 81 points. Chamberlain needed 63 field-goal attempts and 32 free-throw tries to get his 100. Bryant's true shooting percentage for the night was 73.9 percent; Chamberlain's was only 63.9 percent.
Bryant's performance was more real. In Chamberlain's game, the Warriors intentionally fouled the Knicks in the final minute of play to get the ball back for another Chamberlain try at the century mark. Only on his third try did he get to 100. At the time, his team was comfortably ahead, as it was for the entire second half, and it won 169-147. Bryant, on the other hand, got almost all his points when they were desperately needed, as his team trailed by 18 early in the third quarter.
Bryant needed fewer minutes. If you want to really be amazed, consider the fact that Kobe sat out for six minutes in the second quarter. So Bryant scored his 81 points in only 42 minutes, while Wilt played the full 48 in his 100-point effort. Had he played for an additional six minutes and scored at the same rate (hardly an unreasonable assumption, given how much gas he appeared to have at the end), Kobe would have finished with 93 points. Yes, 93.
The game was different. Of all the differences between Bryant's game and Chamberlain's, this one is perhaps the biggest. Chamberlain's game ended up 169-147, Bryant's 122-104. Obviously, there was a huge difference in the speed of play, and that meant Chamberlain had far more opportunities to score than Bryant did.
Chamberlain's game featured 233 field-goal attempts versus 164 for Bryant's, and 93 free-throw attempts to 60 for Bryant's. We have no data on turnovers and offensive rebounds for Chamberlain's game, but based on the numbers I just mentioned, we can estimate there were 46 percent more possessions in the Chamberlain game than in the Kobe game.
If that's the case, we need to inflate Kobe's numbers by 46 percent to get an accurate idea of what it equates to in Chamberlain's era. The answer? An unbelievable 118 points. And if we add in six extra minutes for Bryant, we end up with the mind-boggling total of 135. By one player. In one game.
Another way to look at it is by deflating Chamberlain's numbers by a similar amount. If we change his currency into "2006 points," so to speak, the Stilt ends up with 68 points -- still an awesome performance, but clearly not on a level with Kobe's 81-point outburst. And once you adjust for the 48 minutes Chamberlain played vs. Kobe's 42, you end up with 60 points for Wilt -- or just a bit more than Kobe rang up in the second half.
So when our Marc Stein says this is the most amazing performance ever, believe it. Once you adjust for the differences in pace between the two eras and the fact that Bryant sat out for six minutes, even Chamberlain's monumental 100-point game pales by comparison. For basketball historians, Bryant's effort is now the scoring effort against which all others should be measured.
Just a microcosm of that historic season for which he inexplicably did not win MVP as the clear cut best player in the game. Colorado destroyed his image and ruined what should have been an even better legacy.
Wilt didn't win the MVP the year he scored 100 either. Most people who watched the game understand that scoring is not the only aspect of the game, and one game does not a season make.
Was Wilt the clear cut best player in the game when he scored 100 - because Kobe clearly was. And he was legitimately an all NBA defender that year too, so I don't get your point.
But it's ironic that you posted that garbage because Nash won it and he played NO defense.
Last edited by LkrFan; 02-17-2013 at 12:10 PM.
You used one single game as evidence of Kobe being the "clear cut" best player that season and contrasting Wilt's 100 point game. I told you that wilt didn't win it either; meaning your example was unapt and flawed.Was Wilt the clear cut best player in the game when he scored 100 - because Kobe clearly was. And he was legitimately an all NBA defender that year too, so I don't get your point.
But it's ironic that you posted that garbage because Nash won it and he played NO defense.
You could have used other examples comparing kobe to other players in 06, but you didn't. You compared him to a player who played in 62, and used one game as an example at that.
So what is your argument for Kobe being the "clear cut" best player that year? He was 3rd in per, and4th in both offensive win share and win share.
Btw. Kobe wasn't even in the top 20 in defensive rating or defensive win share that year. Kobe was certainly better than Nash on d, but he was most definitely not legit all nba d team that year. He was running on reputation that year, as he had been since around 2004
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
