NBA: Bill Simmons Trolling Lakers

[midnightpulp]

Deuce, after getting eviscerated by Midnight in the stats department, turns to player quotes as examples of his basketball knowledge.

He always does.

Quote mining and ring count are the only resources Kobe fans have these days.

[HI-FI]

How does this factor into improving his legacy?

can't make them all. some go 6/24 and still win because of lucky breaks.
also how does being a butt ing quitter improve Kobe's legacy?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Spurfan can't refute my posts

[Sybok]

Perhaps the biggest understatement in the history of Spurstalk.

Did you ever watch either of them play? I understand Wilt could dunk from the opponent's FT line, and that Bill Russell was so smart that he could coax the other team into shooting at the wrong basket. I mean, he had to be given he won all those rings consecutively. He must therefore be better than Michael Jordan. If Bill and Wilt aren't better than Mike, someone here is not taking into account the periods in which they played. Odd though that Mike is always atop the list, with 6 measly rings.

[Sybok]

Spurfan can't refute my posts

You already said you're just here for Kobe. What's to refute? You're an admitted sucker.

[Deuce Bigalow]

can't make them all. some go 6/24 and still win because of lucky breaks.
also how does being a butt ing quitter improve Kobe's legacy?

Speaking of efficiency...

.471 TS% in the 2005 Finals
.483 TS% in the 2007 Finals

Still wins because of lucky breaks

[midnightpulp]

Speaking of efficiency...

.478 TS% in the 2005 Finals
.481 TS% in the 2007 Finals

Still wins because of lucky breaks

Kobe .456 TS% against that same team.

[Sybok]

“I think Kobe is the best player in our league and I think he’s been the best player for a long time, not to take anything away from anybody else. You know, somebody told me the other day that [Kobe] hasn’t won an MVP trophy, and it sort of made me feel like I want to go throw mine away, so that’s how much respect I have for the guy.”

lol a Lakers fan using a Boston Celtic legend's words to support his case as if Larry's opinion means something to you suddenly.

As if Larry has a keen eye for talent. Show me one ex-superstar who does. Just one.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Kobe .456 TS% against that same team.

Not exactly...

10/27

[Deuce Bigalow]

lol a Lakers fan using a Boston Celtic legend's words to support his case as if Larry's opinion means something to you suddenly.

As if Larry has a keen eye for talent. Show me one ex-superstar who does. Just one.

Does no ones opinion except your guy's matter? Jesus

[Sybok]

Does no ones opinion except your guy's matter? Jesus

Which guy would that be?

[midnightpulp]

Kobe .456 TS% against that same team.

Let's examine further how each player did against that Pistons team.

Kobe' assignment Rip Hamilton: 21.0, 5.2rpg, 4.0 on on .500 TS%.

Kobe: 22, 2.8rpg, 4.4 on .456 TS%.

Kobe was outplayed by Rip in' Hamilton.

Duncan's assignment Rasheed Wallace: 10.9, 5.6rpg, 1.9apg, 2.4blk on .465 TS%

Duncan: 20.1, 14.1, 2.1apg, 2.1blk on .478 TS%

Also, he nearly out rebounded both Wallaces combined.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Which guy would that be?

Anyone that posted that players and media opinions dont matter.

[Sybok]

Anyone that posted that players and media opinions dont matter.

"Duncan is the best player of his generation" -Bill Simmons

That's what started all the butt hurt at LG and obviously here. It is what it is, and Tim is building on it while Kobe sits and collects a welfare check.

[midnightpulp]

Not exactly...

10/27

Kobe shot 10-27 in game 1, which was at home. So yes, "exactly."

Kobe also had a .386 TS% in a swing game (if the Lakers won, they would've tied the series) in a game they lost by 8.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Let's examine further how each player did against that Pistons team.

Kobe' assignment Rip Hamilton: 21.0, 5.2rpg, 4.0 on on .500 TS%.

Kobe: 22, 2.8rpg, 4.4 on .456 TS%.

Kobe was outplayed by Rip in' Hamilton.

Duncan's assignment Rasheed Wallace: 10.9, 5.6rpg, 1.9apg, 2.4blk on .465 TS%

Duncan: 20.1, 14.1, 2.1apg, 2.1blk on .478 TS%

Also, he nearly out rebounded both Wallaces combined.

04 =/= 05

BTW Shaq shot like 63%, Duncan's a big right so compare him to another big. Why did he shoot so bad when he plays in the post. Its embarrassing. Another big like Shaq had no problem but Duncan...eh he's never been a dominant offensive player anyway so i guess its not fair.

[Deuce Bigalow]

"Duncan is the best player of his generation" -Bill Simmons

That's what started all the butt hurt at LG and obviously here. It is what it is, and Tim is building on it while Kobe sits and collects a welfare check.

I posted a bunch of media guys voting for the greatest players of alltime and Kobe was ahead of Duncan comfortably.

[midnightpulp]

04 =/= 05

BTW Shaq shot like 63%, Duncan's a big right so compare him to another big. Why did he shoot so bad when he plays in the post. Its embarrassing. Another big like Shaq had no problem but Duncan...eh he's never been a dominant offensive player anyway so i guess its not fair.

Sheed has always defended Duncan the best out of anyone in NBA history. Throw in Ben Wallace, and it's a long night ahead.

BTW Manu shot like 56%. Kobe's a guard right? So compare him to another guard. Why did he shoot so bad? It's embarrassing. Another guard like Manu had no problem but Kobe...eh he's never been a efficient player anyway so I guess it's not fair.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Sheed has always defended Duncan the best out of anyone in NBA history. Throw in Ben Wallace, and it's a long night ahead.

BTW Manu shot like 56%. Kobe's a guard right? So compare him to another guard. Why did he shoot so bad? It's embarrassing. Another guard like Manu had no problem but Kobe...eh he's never been a efficient player anyway so I guess it's not fair.

Manu the MVP of the series tbh

05 Finals Manu was the MVP
07 Finals Parker was the MVP

[midnightpulp]

Manu the MVP of the series tbh

05 Finals Manu was the MVP
07 Finals Parker was the MVP

Nice deflection.

Manu was the MVP of the series if you only count the offensive end. He didn't even guard Hamilton that series (Bowen did) and was hidden on Prince. He played great, no doubt, but Duncan had the better all around series.

How was Parker the clear cut Finals MVP when Duncan averaged more assists, rebounds, steals, blocks, and was the last line of defense against Lebron penetration?

I have no problem with Parker getting the MVP, but he had a huge matchup advantage at the PG, going against Gibson/Damon Jones on both ends.

[Gummi Clutch]

can't make them all. some go 6/24 and still win because of lucky breaks.
also how does being a butt ing quitter improve Kobe's legacy?

Not sure about the quitter part, but but ing brings him out of the closet. It worked for Collins.

[ambchang]

Modern day scientists know more about science in general than Issac Newton knew. The argument isn't whether or not modern day ball players know more about the game. The argument is whether or not old timers, in their primes, would be as dominant in the league as they were in their day. Neither Wilt nor Bill would be even close, and I don't know that either of them would even be top 10 players today. That's not because they didn't understand the game of basketball, but that they just weren't nearly as impressive relative to today's crop as they were when it was just a small league. It has nothing to do with learning from each other. Kobe took Mike's moves, but Kobe isn't considered better than Mike. There were players from that era that were really good, but the Wilt/Russell thing is just about league imbalance, especially Wilt's stats.

Then we are not arguing the same subject. I rank players all time based on their contributions on the game and their impact based on the environment of their days. Players today certainly knew more about today's game than players back then. Defensive schemes were extremely complicated, and even 80s and 90s ball were completely different because of that. Defense got so complicated the team has to change the rules so that players can score in the early 00s, so yes, the league has certainly advanced based on the amount of knowledge around basketball.

Almost all big men wouldn't put up stats they would in today's game because of the shift into a perimeter offense and interior defense (due to offensive and defense rule changes), but I won't rank Kareem, Hakeem, or Moses lower because of that. They simply performed with their given set of rules and their compe ion. I am sure Wilt or Russell will not put up the stats they put up back in the day in today's game, but I am not sure if they will be top 10 players today (my guess is yes, because I am guessing they would be able to adapt), but that is another question.

You see some D-league guys score 30 a game. Those D-league teams would beat most of the NBA teams of Russell's era, maybe all of them, yet the D-league guy cannot average 7 a game in the NBA.

Because players today got more training, better medicine, and knowledge of the game. The game has advanced, the environment has changed, much like the Newton analogy. I think it is a stretch to say D-leaguers will beat all the teams in the 60s, but I get your point.

Why has no team won 4 consecutive championships since Russell did it? Why only the Lakers and Celtics for 10 years? Is it because there was no parity in the league? Of course. Had there been parity, we'd not be talking about Russell and Chamberlain. When a player can rise to the top and stay there for a long time in a somewhat balanced league, that says a lot more about that player than having one team win 9 les in 11.

There's huge parity, big money with the game enticed better scouting and such. League rule changes no longer allow one team to have 8 HoFers, and the talent is much well distributed over the entire league.

When one guy gets 50 rebounds in a game, that's not because he's the best rebounder the world has ever seen even today. It's because he's 3 feet taller than anyone else. 50 rebounds... 100 points... really? And you think that doesn't illustrate how imbalanced that era was?

Kobe scored 81, Robinson scored 71, Rodman had a string of 30+ rebound games, but they aren't 3 feet taller than anybody else. Wilt fought it out with other guys who weren't 7' tall, but they were a good 6'10, 6'11. Ben Wallace is 6'10", but he was one of the best defensive big man in the league for a long time, Duncan's 6'11". Will Wilt score 100 points or grab 55 rebounds in today's game? I doubt it, but he would be able to put up great stats because of his athleticism and general knowledge of the game.

What elite athlete today has scored 100 points in a game, or grabbed 50 rebounds? Without those gawdy stats, we don't even talk about Wilt.

I didn't say Larry was more athletic. I said I'd take him over either of them. Hasheem Thabeet in the 60's would have been a dominant force in the NBA.

Hasheem Thabeet was a stiff now, and he'd be a stiff back then. I think you are underestimating the importance of understanding of the game. Look at a guy like Stromile Swift, extremely athletic even by today's standards, but wasn't able to do anything, because he was dumb as a rock. Look at a guy like Larry Bird, not so athletic, but his knowledge of the game allowed him to dominate. Russell was a very smart player, and while he likely won't average 25 rpg and block 6 shots, he'd be able to be a defensive anchor and an offensive kickstarter.

[ambchang]

Kobe over Duncan
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/lists/T...in-NBA-history

http://www.hoopsmanifesto.com/articl...-all-time.html

http://www.interbasket.net/news/6831...kobe-bryant-8/

http://www.sportscity.com/whos-the-b...ry/2013/04/05/

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/...players?page=5

http://m.ranker.com/crowdranked-list...rs-of-all-time

http://www.clicktop10.com/2013/05/to...s-of-all-time/

http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/20...f-all-time/#45

http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/...rs-of-all-time

http://basketballjournalist.blogspot...story.html?m=1

http://www.celticslife.com/2013/01/r...story.html?m=1

http://waldersworldofsports.com/2011...n-nba-history/


Duncan over Kobe
http://www.basketball-reference.com/..._greatest.html

http://www.basesandbaskets.com/2012/...-time.html?m=1

bashing the MVP as a media award, then this.
self contradiction.

[Raven]

Modern day scientists know more about science in general than Issac Newton knew. The argument isn't whether or not modern day ball players know more about the game. The argument is whether or not old timers, in their primes, would be as dominant in the league as they were in their day. Neither Wilt nor Bill would be even close, and I don't know that either of them would even be top 10 players today. That's not because they didn't understand the game of basketball, but that they just weren't nearly as impressive relative to today's crop as they were when it was just a small league. It has nothing to do with learning from each other. Kobe took Mike's moves, but Kobe isn't considered better than Mike. There were players from that era that were really good, but the Wilt/Russell thing is just about league imbalance, especially Wilt's stats.

You see some D-league guys score 30 a game. Those D-league teams would beat most of the NBA teams of Russell's era, maybe all of them, yet the D-league guy cannot average 7 a game in the NBA.

Why has no team won 4 consecutive championships since Russell did it? Why only the Lakers and Celtics for 10 years? Is it because there was no parity in the league? Of course. Had there been parity, we'd not be talking about Russell and Chamberlain. When a player can rise to the top and stay there for a long time in a somewhat balanced league, that says a lot more about that player than having one team win 9 les in 11.

When one guy gets 50 rebounds in a game, that's not because he's the best rebounder the world has ever seen even today. It's because he's 3 feet taller than anyone else. 50 rebounds... 100 points... really? And you think that doesn't illustrate how imbalanced that era was?

What elite athlete today has scored 100 points in a game, or grabbed 50 rebounds? Without those gawdy stats, we don't even talk about Wilt.

I didn't say Larry was more athletic. I said I'd take him over either of them. Hasheem Thabeet in the 60's would have been a dominant force in the NBA.

saying that in the same week as the one where georgie dieng or whatever puts up like a 20-20 ...

[ambchang]

MVPs are team team based awards nowadays since the media started voting on it. When's the last time someone won it with a team record under 50 wins since the '80s? And how many times has that been done since then?

using the ring argument