Reply With Quote
Mike was busy winning championships
T-Mac's 13 pts in 35 seconds
Kobe's 81 pt game
1. What Bell did is an aberration in today's NBA. That sort of takedown happened often in regular season NBA and ABA games thirty years ago. It wasn't even that newsworthy in Bird's days. Having all games televised ended a lot of that crap.
For the record, I'm not some sort of Cro Magnon in favor of laying people out on the court. However, it happened a LOT in the old NBA. I am only 37, and I have personally witnessed quite a few pro basketball "fights." That's why people didn't dunk in the '60s. Some people today act like those poor white stiffs in short-shorts just couldn't muster the effort. That's not why!
2. To a degree, Michael Jordan is a creation of the media and NBA machinery. I won't argue with that. Bryant benefits from the same hype the player mentality. Surely you wouldn't argue that, either.
Actually, MJ just accelerated the trend away from the "butcher's block" of the 1960's. Pretty much all rule changes in the NBA after the addition of the shot clock could be interpreted as directed against players like Chamberlain. Obviously, the same changes benefit perimeter and wing players. (I'm not saying that a lot of these weren't motivated by Jordan, but the league has been penalizing bigs for a long, long time.)
As I've discussed and analyzed here before, I think this was inevitable in any case. There just aren't nearly enough skilled big men to go around.
3. I am honestly glad that we agree on something.
.
Mike was busy winning championships
I never understood why everyone thought Kobe fans were the filth and s of the NBA fans. You guys are delusional and hoppers 24/7.
Everything Reggie M. said was true i feel incredibly sorry for you, look at the poll and decide what most of the people think. Just because every single person doesn't feel about it the same way you do doesn't give you the right to call them " s" or "haters", you are just incapable of formulating and argument because you drink Kobe's piss.
the more spectacular performance obviously has to be Bryant's. you can look at the box score or you can actually look at the game and see how one man literally had the game in his hands as evidenced by bringing his team back. i understand McGrady did the same thing, but that over a course of less than a minute, and he only hit four shots, cmon. impressive, but there is a little luck involved
BUMP said it best. There is no luck involved in scoring 81 ing points. That's downright domination and mastery of the game right there.
13 in 35 seconds with 4 shots. That involves way more luck than actual talent.
If you can't understand this you are either a Rocket fan or an idiot.
They are both great performances...and I would have given the nod to Kobe had he broken the Big Dipper's record. But T-Mac's performance over the eventual NBA champions was just amazing. One that you won't see ever again to pull out the win. Ask yourselves, what do most teams do down 7 pts with 33 seconds to go?
The guard dribbles out the ball and they shake hands end of game.
There is one other performance that I find amazing in this same vein.
Reggie Miller's
McGrady’s amazing display inevitably brought back memories of Reggie Miller’s career-defining moment against the New York Knicks in Game 1 of the Eastern Conference semifinals in 1995. Miller scored eight straight points in the final 8.9 seconds of Indiana’s 107-105 win.
The thread didn't say who was more lucky it said which was more spectacular. Please read and understand before you comment. Someone else has done what Kobe did. As a matter of fact he did it by 20 more points. No one has done what T mac did. It was more spectacular, and did take a little skill.
By your logic every clutch shot ever made was lucky.
To say that 4 consecutive 3s, including a near impossible and1 where duncan is slung over tmac is luck is some real bull .
Everything has to be right.
Lets say his 3pt% was around .3 that yr.
(.3) ^4 = .0081 or .81% chance of that happening.
Its not that he just made 4 threes. It was probably the greatest close to a game that anyone had ever seen, as the announcers put it.
Let it go through your mind, you score 10 pts and your down with like 10 secs to go. Devin Brown falls and you get the steal, just a couple of seconds left, all miraculous threes you made just before would be negated if you missed this shot...you run down the court pull up and drain it 1 sec before the buzzer.
That had people going WTF.
I would rather do what Kobe did, because that is what would be rmbrd more, but 13 in 33 is a lot harder to do. Proof...? Because 13 is what a star would score in a half/ overall 26 pts lets say, and he did in half a minute.
What someone can do when it matters most is what makes b-ball so much more entertaining.
MJ scoring the bull's last 4 pts to beat jazz in 98` in itself earns one of the most legendary performances.
By any metric you want to choose, scoring 81 points in a game is far and away more spectacular than scoring 13 in 35 seconds.
Scoring 81 points in a single game is HARDER to do than getting hot from 3pt land and nailing some 3's at the end of the game, which is exactly what T-Mac did. As JamStone pointed out earlier, Rodney Rogers hit three 3's in 9 seconds. Who the is Rodney Rogers? Nobody has scored 70-100 points that wasn't a first ballot HOF player. Proof positive that not only is it more difficult to score 80 points in one game, it can only be achieved by the best of the best.
If you can't understand how skilled of a player you have to be to score 81 points against NBA caliber players in a single game you are either an idiot or a Rockette fan. It takes way more than just being "ON". You have to be capable of defeating defenses all by yourself. You have to have that talent to even approach 80 points.
rodney rogers didn't hit them during the last 30 secs of a game.
Just like its a lot harder to drain a jumper at the buzzer. Someone has already scored a 100. Apart from Reggie's incredible performance where he had like 8 points in 10 secs this has never been done before.
That "someone" was Wilt Chamberlain you dumb , arguably the best big men to ever play in the NBA. Damn you Rockette fans are re ed.
Judging by your knowledge and your crappy insults I'm going to say you just started watching the NBA like 2 yrs ago and Kobe's was too much to resist, or Ron Artest's for that matter.
Wilt was not the best bigman to ever play in the NBA, you should seriously go shoot yourself right now kid. Your lack of knowledge of the NBA is comical.
Reading your responses to Reggie Mil it has already been concluded that you are a dumbass and the best responses you can come up with is that someone "Hater." Get your head out of your ass the NBA doesn't revolve around Kobe.
Btw its Rocket, not Rockette, don't they teach how to spell in your piss smelling LA school?
And just for your response, it doesn't matter who did it, its already been done. Thats why they have a record book and not 2nd or 3rd record book.
Last edited by sook; 09-07-2008 at 10:05 PM.
Yes he did. It was during the last 30 seconds of the game. He hit three 3-pointers in nine seconds. February 8, 1994, Denver Nuggets against Utah Jazz.
Rodney Rogers three threes in nine seconds was never done before, who remembers that ? they are cool to watch, but they involve a little luck and i wouldnt call them "spectacular performances"
How spectacular a performance is has no correlation with the likelihood or probability of it occurring again. Think about it.
Some schmuck may hit 4 half court shots in a game and that feat may never be repeated in all of the history. Does that make it more spectacular than someone who scored a triple double in that same game? I don't think so.
Kobe was the best player on a team, playing a tier team--that is not as impressive to me as 13 in 35 against a defensive force like the spurs...........
I dont really care who had more of the "epic" performace and what not..all i know is that Kobe is 100 times better than Tmac now and ever!! it'd be a huge accomplishment for tmac to get out of the first round as for now.
81 points is 81 points i dont care how you cut it. Tracy's doesnt even compare. all this talk about how it was against the champs is a desperate attempt to boost the accomplishment. it was only 13 points, 902376847682768974867863728 players have scored over 13 points in a game. only 1 has scored more than 81. i dont care if it was against the Champs, does that make Dirk Nowitski's performance against the Spurs in game 7 better than Kobe's 81? exactly.
[/thread]
I dunno, I think this is like saying who's more impressive, the guy who shot a 66 and 12 under at a major golf tournament and crushed the rest of the field or the guy who shot a hole in one at a major golf tournament to win in sudden death and by the way, shot another hole in one just to make the tournament into a sudden death contest.
Not a bad comparison but certainly not right on. Getting a hole in one is something like a million to one chance. Getting two in the same tournament might be something that may never, ever be done. There have been other players that have done something very similar to T-Mac's 13 point performance. If golf is the analogy, T-Mac's performance is more like a guy birdying three of the final four holes and a hole in one on the other hole (the 17th pin), and then getting an easy birdie putt to win it in sudden death.
The hole in one is more analogous to the four point play in that it's extremely rare. While T-Mac's other three pointers were difficult by varying degrees, they weren't one-in-a-million type shots, not even the one with Bowen on him at the top of the key. The last three pointer had a little more pressure involved, but still more like a great iron shot for an easy birdie on a par 3 than a hole in one shot.
At any rate, in your analogy, I would think the guy who shot 66 and crushed the field would be more impressive, more spectacular. The guy that makes two holes in one might have a more memorable, more exciting performance. But, the performance would certainly appear to have more luck involved. The sustaining high level and systematic disection of a full 18 (or all 72) holes of a golf tournament or a full 48 minute basketball game is more spectacular to me than two great shots on two golf holes or 30 seconds of hot, streak shooting.
Kobe >>> Tmac
And just like that the idiot Rockette roaches crawl back into their holes.
You are like the epitome of idiotic Kobe suckers
Kobe is better than tmac but that isn't what the poll is asking dumb so learn to read and answer questions based on the context, you know kind of like on an SAT?
Stupid fail fail fail logic.
342089732890472048230948 have scored 4 points also, but does that even compare to probably top 5 legendary performances ever + THE greatest close to a game ever?
MJ scored the last 4 points to give the bulls the le in 98 check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Jn_22_qgg
Now tell me if your philosophy on the matter makes sense at all?
How many points tmac scored is in direct correlation to how much time he spent doing it.
13 points in half a minute, it is mind boggling.
I'll say it again to all the Kobe suckers that seem to have his all over their eyes and ears...I WOULD RATHER DO 81 but 13 in 33 is more spectacular + 2nd best close to a game ive ever seen.
Which performance is better has nothing to do with which player is better so idiots please read the poll before you slip out of your mouth like the madhatter ^
Last edited by sook; 09-08-2008 at 08:19 PM.
Not once did I say Kobe being a better player than T-Mac has anything to do with the OP's question.
I refuse to accept that 35 seconds of brilliance outshines a full game's worth. I refuse to accept that scoring 13 in 35 requires more talent than scoring 81 in a game. Let's just agree to disagree
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
