Except Jordan's advanced metrics are quite fine tbh
On the rest who cares about the barber perception of Kobe vs. MJ ?
And even if YOU (DMC) feel he was set after #3 Spur fan wont be the only one debating/arguing his legacy. Like it or not media and general NBA fans as well as players of his era that will all tell that tale along with his awards, metrics and accomplishments nothing will speak louder than 6. Outside of spurstalk, where we have to qualify rings with trivial bull .
Especially because there is no question he was the mvp of the 5. On the last one, it is more a team stuff than an individual performance ala Detroit but he was still the most consistent spur of this run.
I wasnt saying I argued Kobe/MJ I said when debated. That would be foolish. My point was that no one does that EVEN though he has good advanced metrics. People usually start with 6 les and 3 back to backs that is my point. Duncan getting 6 is where I would start as well.Except Jordan's advanced metrics are quite fine tbh
On the rest who cares about the barber perception of Kobe vs. MJ ?
I didnt say barbershops should matter to anyone and really it's a urban culture thing. Barbershops traditionally have lots of great sports debates ... that is why the parody of that in Coming to America was so hilarious to me. All barbershops I have been to in NY La and even DFW and SA are like that. I have heard politics, Nas vs. Jay Jordan vs Lebron debated with more passion than Amb vs Wekko(?) in the Hakeem vs. duncan thread tbh.
I am not very familiar of the american barber shop culture so I trust you on this one...in France you find these experts in the "cafe du coin".
Thing is there are so many parameters when discussing greatests, why don't use the most advanced ones as part of the argumentation. ST community is pretty much well educated in terms of bb to see the big picture behind the rings count, average dude and new age mainstream fans (who say the 80's suck because the chicken players eat today is better or spend their time glorifying individuals vs. team) opinion don't matter tbh
Yeah you could easily argue that Tim was the most consistently important player to last year's le run. Obviously Kawhi took over in the Finals (also had a great series against Portland), but he wasn't that good against Dallas/OKC. Tim didn't play very well against Portland, but in every other series he was great.
The people who try to use Parker winning FMVP over him in '07 as a knock aren't even worth discussing with. Tim carried us through the first 3 rounds (where we faced our toughest opponents), and then Parker took advantage of a mismatch in the Finals against a team that had a terrible backcourt. While it's generally true, FMVP =/= best player on the team. Parker was nowhere close to Tim in the '07 playoffs.
As for Killakobe81 's take about IRL discussions - the majority of fans I've come across IRL (and even on the internet) are far too enamored with scoring. You can deride analytics all you want, but the other arguments you hear are just as stupid. I've heard people argue AI as a top 10 player of all-time. In 2012-2013, I heard people claiming Melo was the best scorer in the league and wasn't far behind LeBron as an overall player. The average NBA fan watches their hometown team, and then catches highlights on Sports Center. That's not enough to form an informed basketball opinion about players all around the league. They see a few stats here and there, "Melo is averaging 25 ppg, 3rd in the league!" and then they run with it. If you asked someone at your barber shop who Rudy Gobert was, how many people would be able to answer? How many people would tell you the sort of defensive impact he's having this year?
As for whether things will change regarding Kobe...I'm not sure. When he retires, what are you going to see? Highlights. And in the end, that's the sort of thing that makes Kobe seem so amazing. I mean obviously he is an all-time great player, but if you're comparing highlight reels, he's probably top 5 all-time. 81 points, 62 points in 3 quarters, game-winners, etc etc...fans eat that up, and I don't see that changing. So if you're arguing that those sort of arguments aren't necessarily good, but that they'll continue anyways, I agree. But I don't think the way many fans judge players is smart. Too much emphasis on cliche bull like "clutch moments" and rings. Do those things matter? Sure. But not to the extent people argue.
but they do. You can say you dont care but arguing duncan is great on Spurstalk where half the posters are trolls and the other half are pro duncan is different than discussing in other parts of society was my point. I appreciate metrics (unlike Charles) and you can see the shift in the media with guys like Lowe and Pelton writing for Grantland and ESPN. And some guys here like Amb and plenty of others really have a good grasp on most metrics. But acting as though this site is reflective of most hoops fans is naive. Most fans do not get that deep and there are more fans that fit in that category whether you value their opinion or not. My point is I dont see a big changei n the way Kobe is viewed because those that truly value metrics and undervalue them most already downgrade Kobe. that wont change. My other is rings do absolutely matter when discussing Tim (point of OP) and though he may not pass MJ it definitely helps put him closer imho.I am not very familiar of the american barber shop culture so I trust you on this one...
Thing is there are so many parameters when discussing greatests, why don't use the most advanced ones as part of the argumentation. ST community is pretty much well educated in terms of bb to see the big picture behind the rings count, average dude and new age mainstream fans (who say the 80's suck because the chicken players eat today is better or spend their time glorifying individuals vs. team) opinion don't matter tbh
Last edited by Killakobe81; 02-17-2015 at 11:25 AM.
Two things:
1st agree with a bunch of what you said. right or wrong that is the way most fans think. I did not say I did not like metrics I do ... especially when they back up my argument ...same for most of us ...which again is why I do have a issue most stats are used for EXACTLY that purpose. People juke stats. All the time. School rezoning is a prime example of this outside of sports.Same with crime stats. (now I sound like Prezbo on "The Wire")
2nd: you are right highlights will be kind to Kobe in some regards but the clips people have made of him jacking up contested shots over three people make or miss will also be part of the story too ... film doesn't lie.
Killakobe, you are right that most barbershop/watercooler talk will not be done by people using extensively win shares and plus-minus. But more and more articles on the internet and eventually in the media will be written by informed people, and in most of the advanced metrics stuff Kobe comes out not great. Eventually a lot of people will read some of this stuff in their life to be reminded in the back of their head that Kobe's numbers are not as great as Jordan or LeBron's. Or at least I think so. And then the barbershop talk might evolve to smth along the lines of "Kobe scored a lot of points cause he kept chucking those shots" and "Duncan did a lot more things well than Kobe ever did, he rebounded and played defense much better".
I feel there is a storm close to brewing around Kobe's career, as most stat guys clearly disagree with the praise he has gotten and you can tell that by how little they write about him. But they won't go out in a limb and say it on the open, or at least don't want to be the first to say it because they know the storm it will create. Hollinger for example would drop a lot of hints that he never saw Kobe as highly as he did Duncan or LeBron. Sooner or later that talk will be held.
There are people out there who hate Kobe for irrational reasons (Shaq, Colorado) and that creates a whole perception that everyone that disagrees with Kobe's evaluation is somehow a "Kobe-hater". I don't hate the guy, he doesn't seem like the greatest teammate, but whatever. I think there are greater Lakers than him. I think he's close to the Top 10 to ever play, maybe in or maybe out, but somewhere in there. I just think he's a step below Duncan-Shaq-LeBron, and compared to the next two of his generation, Dirk and KG, he probably benefited too much from the stacked teams he played on. I don't think that's very irrational but I know Kobe fans would get angry at that.
Ill keep it short and again I agree with most of what you said but there are still plenty of people who dont get deep with metrics that rate Jordan over Kobe and even Lebron over Kobe. Jordan it's a open and shut case. The Lebron one is different if you value rings scoring fundamentals. but i think in the end as long as he wins some more that will be closed down too .. that is not a big shock and no knock on Kobe. MJ and jordan are two of the best to ever do it ...Same with Dirk and KG tbh. I expect that you would argue Kobe played with stacked teams (that has always been a rgument for players that dont win it, no offense) and I agre the 3 peat was stacked with great role players plus Shaqobe. But the last two rings those teams were not that great. in fact, I would easily take the 2011 Mavs or 2014 Spurs over them. Same with the repeat Heat.
Yeah, you would get torn apart IRL if you said Kobe wasn't top 10 all-time...but it's a legitimate argument to be made. He's definitely a tier below guys like Duncan/Shaq/LeBron, but again, saying that IRL would probably get you laughed at. My friends legitimately thought I was kidding one day when I said I would take Duncan over Kobe without hesitation. I explained my reasoning (defense/rebounding, how he fits alongside anyone you put him next to, his longevity, etc.), but they still just kind of shrugged it off and assumed I was being a homer since they know I'm from SA.
I guess I would say that I rate 2008-10 Bynum quite high, and therefore his combination with Gasol was a monster of a frontline. I know most Laker fans often blamed everything on Bynum and weren't very fond of him but I disagree. Before the constant injuries clearly destroyed his body, he was to me the 2nd best center in the league and only because a fully healthy, uber athletic, Howard was the first. To me that cast was better than what Dirk had in '11 or the one KG had in 2010, when the Celtics seemed to have lost a step. I would agree though that KG's 2008 Celtics were probably an even better cast, with guys like Posey and PJ Brown playing some great basketball of the bench as well along the great starters they had.
Always said, Kobe contrary the first 3 was the main guy of last two. The MVPau stuff is nice and all but despite the fact MVPau contributed greatly the weather man of the team was clearly kobe imho.
And you yes you take 2014 Spurs over them and it's not even close
Due to his boring style of play and low stats... rings don't really do anything for Jim. Notice when people talk about great players, Bill Russell never is mentioned, yet he has 12... two of which he coached and played. Duncan will never be mentioned once he retires. Think I'm just ing with you... go to nba.com and see who dominates the conversation... Jim or Kobe. Jim can win another two rings, but he still has to live with the fact that there is one player out there that owned is ass head to head... and that's Kobe.Already by far the best player of his era, where would a 6th put Duncan in relation to the all time legit greats?
You'd get a ton of Duncan vs Jordan media comparisons.
It would put more distance between he and Shaq as far as career.
Dirk and Gasol had a nice run but only for a few years, Finals wise.
Also would further Ginobilis distance over Kirby Bryant as best sidekick of era. Also put GNob in the discussion with Pippen as best sidekick all time.
Altho his choke of 6 and earlier foul on Dork in 2006 are major subtractors.
It's gonna be tough, but if the Spurs can get healthy and their coach can return to 90% of how he coached last year.......6th is possible.
http://www.nba.com/
Despite what Laker fans like to think, the media loves Kobe. Whenever someone on ESPN dares criticize him, he is often shot down immediately. They just don't love him as much as LeBron, which to me is correct because he is not as good a player.
I agree on Bynum, his contribution has been key between 08-10 he was dominant
No, the player that sometime owned his ass was Shaq. Sans Shaq, Tim is 5-4 vs. Kobe in the playoffs.
now we have some barber shop take
thanks we needed that for our demonstration
Please don't tell me this includes 2012
2008 and 2013 , the series where Kobe played without Shaq against the Spurs, 4-1 and 0-4
Kobe played how many games in that series?
None. That was the one where Pau & Nash were gonna show everybody.
tee, hee.
It remains 4-2, Kobe over Jim. Kobe didn't play in the last meeting. If he had the Lakers would have easily beat Jim like they always do. And why are you talking... you got half a ing ring over there... with a leading honky that married a goat herding, cow blood drinking Kenyan.
First the got cold called into marriage by this tranny...
Then he pays some African a thousand cows for this goat herder.
I wonder how Dirk felt when his baby came out black...
Touche!
Still, it seems very reasonable to think that given what both teams had shown even with healthy Kobe, the Spurs would have walked all over them.
I have no doubts the Spurs would win the series, I just find it odd when people brings in the 2013 playoff series. Plus that was Pau's team from my understanding.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
