# Kobe's Decision Is Selfless, But Is It Smart?



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

> Tuesday on his website kb24.com, Bryant addressed the topic of the damaged ligament in his right pinkie finger that has needed surgery since Feb. 5. Doctors told him it will take up to three months to heal, so Bryant has opted again not to have it repaired — just as he did more than seven months ago and after the Lakers lost to the Boston Celtics in the Finals in June.
> 
> Wrote Bryant, "When the doctors told me recovery from a procedure could be 12 weeks, I just decided now was not the time to have surgery. What it really came down to for me is that I just didn't want to miss any time 'punching the clock' for the Lakers, given all we are trying to accomplish as a team this NBA season."
> 
> ...


http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8543628/Kobe's-decision-is-selfless,-but-is-it-smart?


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

He's no doubt committed, but I don't see this as the smart move.


----------



## sonicFLAME6 (Dec 19, 2006)

NewAgeBaller said:


> He's no doubt committed, but I don't see this as the smart move.


I agree 1000%


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

I disagree 127% 

I dont think he would have chose this path unless he knew for certain this particular injury could not take him out of action in the future. Playoffs seeding matter.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

I'm kind of with you, Rizzle. I think the doctors had to have told him that it's not going to get any worse at this point, and he'll spend the time from now until the season starts adjusting to it better than he did before and he'll be fine. While I would have loved for him to get the surgery done, I also don't want him missing the first month of the season, especially in the Western Conference.


----------



## sonicFLAME6 (Dec 19, 2006)

Well they do have the best doctors money can buy. I guess I just reacted with the first thing that popped into my head about it. I thought it was a bad decision to not only lag the procedure but to not have it done. But I trust Kobe and I'm sure he is making the right decision and it wont harm our team in the long-run.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

I don't like it at all... We need his jumper moreso than any other season in the past.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

It's a mistake IMO. His jumper has been off and we don't need him shooting 40% this season. I'd rather have a healthy Kobe going at a 45-47% fg rate in the playoffs then winning 3 or 4 more games in the regular season.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

^^He shot 47% after the injury and over 52% in the first 3 rounds of the Playoffs. I don't know what you're trying to say, really.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> I disagree 127%
> 
> I dont think he would have chose this path unless he knew for certain this particular injury could not take him out of action in the future. Playoffs seeding matter.


playoff seedings don't matter. If you are the best team you can win if you are the 8th or 1 seed. Kobe is being SELFISH, not selfless. Dude is petrified because L.A. will succeed in his absence.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Undefeated82 said:


> Well they do have the best doctors money can buy. I guess I just reacted with the first thing that popped into my head about it. I thought it was a bad decision to not only lag the procedure but to not have it done. But I trust Kobe and I'm sure he is making the right decision and it wont harm our team in the long-run.


This is kinda what I went through. I had a total knee-jerk reaction.

Kobe needs surgery - Kobe waiting on surgery - Kobe not having surgery- God dammit Kobe get the ****ing surgery- Kobe and his doctors probably know what they're doing.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

King George said:


> *playoff seedings don't matter.* If you are the best team you can win if you are the 8th or 1 seed. Kobe is being SELFISH, not selfless. Dude is petrified because L.A. will succeed in his absence.


Tell that to the Celtics...Jesus Christ man...like I already said, go to the NBA forum and voice your awesome opinion over there. You are obviously baiting and trolling no matter what you say you are doing.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> Tell that to the Celtics...Jesus Christ man...like I already said, go to the NBA forum and voice your awesome opinion over there. You are obviously baiting and trolling no matter what you say you are doing.


Thats why they beat L.A. in 6 in a 2 3 2 format. Home court sure did play a significant role in that one, same as in the Detroit series. Boston won on the road when they needed too. What happened in the first two rounds is moot.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

yeah the first two rounds dont matter to you because...well because then you would be wrong, god forbid


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

King George said:


> What happened in the first two rounds is moot.


Why? It seems to be directly contradictory to what you are saying. The first two rounds were more than 50% of their playoff games.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> yeah the first two rounds dont matter to you because...well because then you would be wrong, god forbid


I wouldn't be wrong. There's no guarantee Boston would've lost if they didn't have home court. If you want to switch roles, tehn Boston would be the hunters, not teh hunted and thus they'd play harder and stomp on the foes. You see how these scenarios work?


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

King George said:


> I wouldn't be wrong. There's no guarantee Boston would've lost if they didn't have home court. If you want to switch roles, tehn Boston would be the hunters, not teh hunted and thus they'd play harder and stomp on the foes. You see how these scenarios work?


So we are just gonna ignore the fact that they couldnt win a single road game for the first two rounds...Instead *you* are gonna tell us what *their* mindset would be if they hadnt had HCA....please keep going, this is entertaining


----------



## sonicFLAME6 (Dec 19, 2006)

DaRizzle said:


> So we are just gonna ignore the fact that they couldnt win a single road game for the first two rounds...Instead *you* are gonna tell us what *their* mindset would be if they hadnt had HCA....please keep going, this is entertaining


That and Ray Allen decided to wake up after being asleep the beginning rounds.


----------



## theflyballa (Aug 8, 2006)

It's good he doesn't do the surgery. He'll be a DPOY and MVP candidate this year. And he will win the scoring title. If he doesn't play enough games or if the Lakers actually play well without him (I don't think they will), the voters are gonna write him off. Kobe only has 6 or 7 years left to cement his legacy as the greatest to ever play. I already think he's the GOAT, but in a few years so will everyone else.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

NewAgeBaller said:


> He's no doubt committed, but I don't see this as the smart move.


I agree 100 percent.

If there's any risk of long term effects at all, than it should be dealt with right now. The Lakers are good enough to play well for a few weeks without him. 

And lets face it, it's not like Kobe is a slow healer... He'd be back sooner than expected.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> So we are just gonna ignore the fact that they couldnt win a single road game for the first two rounds...Instead *you* are gonna tell us what *their* mindset would be if they hadnt had HCA....please keep going, this is entertaining


It doesn't matter if they wer 0-6 on the road the first two rounds. You still can't say it's guaranteed they'd lose in 7 without HCA. For them to not have HCA they'd have be like a 5-8 seed and then would they be expected to win anything anyway? No! So it wouldn't even matter. Youc an';t just change one dynamic to suit your idea. It still doesn't explain how they won their next two series without even utilizing HCA. Seeding doesn't matter.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

King George said:


> It doesn't matter if they wer 0-6 on the road the first two rounds. You still can't say it's guaranteed they'd lose in 7 without HCA. For them to not have HCA they'd have be like a 5-8 seed and then would they be expected to win anything anyway? No! So it wouldn't even matter. Youc an';t just change one dynamic to suit your idea. It still doesn't explain how they won their next two series without even utilizing HCA. Seeding doesn't matter.


How can you say it doesnt matter that they had home court advantage when they didnt win on the road in the first two series. Its not guaranteed they would have lost on the road, but it is a huge advantage to have home court in game 7.

If they were a 5-8 seed, and so NOT expected to win anything, isnt that saying that you would expect them to lose the series? Then you are saying that seeding DOES matter.

You are the only one changing one dynamic. By saying HCA doesnt matter, then saying HCA doesnt matter in the first round. How does winning the first TWO games at HOME of the NBA finals not constitute utilizing HCA?


You are so confused you cant even follow your own logic. Congratulations, you are the first person ever to grace my ignore list. Peace out.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

^what he said


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

elcap15 said:


> How can you say it doesnt matter that they had home court advantage when they didnt win on the road in the first two series. Its not guaranteed they would have lost on the road, but it is a huge advantage to have home court in game 7.
> 
> If they were a 5-8 seed, and so NOT expected to win anything, isnt that saying that you would expect them to lose the series? Then you are saying that seeding DOES matter.
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter. Home court advantage means nothing. the best will usually win no matter what. Do you honestly think ATL oor Cleveland was better than Boston? FOH.


Seeeding doesn't matter. If Boston were the better team they would win anyway, but 5-8 are the lower seeds corrects and thus the sop callled underdogs.

HCA doesn't matter. the best team will always win, HCA or no HCA. You guys act as if it's a givin that if game 7 was played in ATL they would've lost, not very likely. Lakers went into the other buildings and won on the road if they were the better team they should've won in boston, they lost in Boston and lost in LA. NO HCA.


----------



## sonicFLAME6 (Dec 19, 2006)

King George said:


> It doesn't matter. Home court advantage means nothing. the best will usually win no matter what. Do you honestly think ATL oor Cleveland was better than Boston? FOH.
> 
> 
> Seeeding doesn't matter. If Boston were the better team they would win anyway, but 5-8 are the lower seeds corrects and thus the sop callled underdogs.
> ...


HCA can play a pivotal role in which way a series swings momentum. Usually the better team has HCA. Every team aside from the NO choke job vs SA (NO was the better team) won their series. That was the only upset based on NO incompetence. To say HC means nothing is s sheer lie.
Ask PO if HC didn't matter on that comeback in L.A. in 2000 and they will slap you like a red headed step-child.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

Undefeated82 said:


> HCA can play a pivotal role in which way a series swings momentum. Usually the better team has HCA. Every team aside from the NO choke job vs SA (NO was the better team) won their series. That was the only upset based on NO incompetence. To say HC means nothing is s sheer lie.
> Ask PO if HC didn't matter on that comeback in L.A. in 2000 and they will slap you like a red headed step-child.


NO was not the better team. SA was better. HCA means nothing.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

How many times did Boston beat the Cavs in CLE all of last year?

Why do playoff teams have a higher win % at home?


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

elcap15 said:


> How many times did Boston beat the Cavs in CLE all of last year?
> 
> Why do playoff teams have a higher win % at home?


Doesn't matter. They played ATL first and they had won on ATL's court before. So i guess now it's they needed HCA to beat cleveland?


----------



## sonicFLAME6 (Dec 19, 2006)

King George said:


> Doesn't matter. They played ATL first and they had won on ATL's court before. So i guess now it's they needed HCA to beat cleveland?


The fact of the matter is, that we saw them play with HCA not without it. You can't base on if's, at the end of the day it's still your opinion which I never take serious.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

Undefeated82 said:


> The fact of the matter is, that we saw them play with HCA not without it. You can't base on if's, at the end of the day it's still your opinion which I never take serious.


You guys are the ones on the if crap. if if we had Bynum, if if Boston didn't have HCA, if if if if........ Fact is boston won the title. Nonsensical assumption = boston would have lost to ATL if they didn't have HCA.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

Anyway seeding doesn't matter. Without Kobe, Bynum, Gasol, Odom etc would be the top team in the west, no less than the 3rd seed by the time he returned. Kobe's decision not to have surgery is for selfish reasons. The Lakers went 7 games as the 8th seed just a few years ago with far less talent to think they couldn't win a championship or get a high seed with Kobe missing a few months is idiotic and goes against the Bynum is a beast, gasol is this and that argument.

**Lets keep this discussion consistent with its topic, no need to insult people that have different opinions.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Sweet, hope that gets you a infraction/suspension....back to the "discussion".

So does the FACT that 100% of NBA teams had a better home than road record mean anything to you?

LINK

You do know Kobe plays basketball rather well don't you? Just because you're used to him being awesome doesn't make it any less special.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

<font color="purple">**Issues with moderators and posters should be dealt with via Private Message, not in forum threads.**

-BH</font>


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

King George said:


> CDRacing you are a hypocrite. DaRizzle called* my post *retarded first, erase his post. Attacking my opinion is an attack on me. Be fair hear.


Big difference... attacking a post is not attacking a poster :bananallama:


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> Sweet, hope that gets you a infraction/suspension....back to the "discussion".
> 
> So does the FACT that 100% of NBA teams had a better home than road record mean anything to you?
> 
> ...


It's not a fact because 100% of teams did not have a better record at home than on the road.

Kobe is still seeking his respect. He can't get that with Lakers succeeding with Bynum and Gasol exceling while he's out.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

If he feels your opinion is retarded, that doesn't mean he feels you are retarded. 

Just like if you say it's idiotic to think a certain way, especially when you know that the person does in fact think that way, doesn't necessarily mean you are calling them an idiot.

To be "fair" if people got in trouble for attacking opinions on this website, most of the posters would have been banned. On the flipside, people do get banned for calling people personal names. Attack the opinion, not the person.

If you have further disagreements, feel free to PM or any of the mods "about" me.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> Big difference... attacking a post is not attacking a poster :bananallama:


It most certainly is.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Oops, Orlando...97%...my point is still very much valid


----------



## sonicFLAME6 (Dec 19, 2006)

King George said:


> You guys are the ones on the if crap. if if we had Bynum, if if Boston didn't have HCA, if if if if........ Fact is boston won the title. Nonsensical assumption = boston would have lost to ATL if they didn't have HCA.


I'm not arguing if's. You are arguing that HCA doesn't matter (with me), I'm debating that it does. It's called home court *ADVANTAGE* for a reason. NO choked game 7, they were a better team then the Spurs.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

Undefeated82 said:


> I'm not arguing if's. You are arguing that HCA doesn't matter (with me), I'm debating that it does. It's called home court *ADVANTAGE* for a reason. NO choked game 7, they were a better team then the Spurs.


NO lost in 7, if NO was the clear cut better team it wouldn't have went 7 to begin with. SA was better. HCA is crap.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

CDRacingZX6R said:


> If he feels your opinion is retarded, that doesn't mean he feels you are retarded.
> 
> Just like if you say it's idiotic to think a certain way, especially when you know that the person does in fact think that way, doesn't necessarily mean you are calling them an idiot.
> 
> ...


My opinions come from me. If my opinions are "retarded" that means they come from the mind of a retard. Making idiotic statements and retarded statements are not the same thing.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Get back on topic or this thread closes with more infractions dealt out.


----------

