# Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.[merged]



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

*Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*

This guy has been waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy over the top lately.

Anyone who has seen this guy play in the last several games cannot deny that he has been the league's best player...if he keeps it up, no one can take away the MVP from him this year.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

Tracy McGrady is the best player in the league. Got it?


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

You clearly have not been watching the Lakers lately. Kobe is not only scoring mad, he is also getting his teammates involved (I believe you will find him in 9th place in assists. Tracy McGrady? 22nd! :laugh: ).

Did someone say rebounds? Kobe 28th. Tracy 48th. :rotf:

How about steals? Kobe 5th, Tracy 17th. :laugh:


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Hmmm....Last time i checked, LA were 3 and a half games behind the 8th spot. Last time i checked, LA were also a sorry 3-9 w/o some 350 pounder. 

No doubt Kobe is having a great season, but MVP? Puhlease! The MVP's team should atleast be among the top 4 teams(record wise) in its conference. Lakers aren't even in the playoffs if it started today, forget abt even coming remotely close to being top 4.

Best player in the game? T-mac. Night in and night out, this guy carries a pathetic bunch to .500 ball. His numbers are 31, 7 and 5.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

The season isn't over yet. When the season does end, the Lakers will be right there, and Orlando will not be (or they will have another first round exit).

Plus, one reason why McGrady has such a "sorry" bunch around him is that he doesn't get his teammates involved nearly as much as Kobe does.

31, 7, and 5 doesn't cut it.

28, 8, and 8 works much better.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

So a few good games makes you the best? That must be the case if you refer to "lately" the way you do. Assists are harder to come by when you play with the scrubs that T-Mac plays with, but hey you knew that already. Correct? And what side are you on exactly? First the Lakers don't have the horses, now they are on their way to a 4th straight championship? Which is it? Hold up.....



















(Ahhhh-ha!)

I just got a mask for your other face. :laugh: j/k

No fears though, as long as Kobe keeps it up, you don't have to wear that "other" mask again. Seriously, if they can't keep it up, we can always bump the "Horse" thread. :|


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

The horses are coming, apparently.

Nothing ever remains static, KC.

Check out the stats I listed above. Do you have an answer to them?

Kobe is literally carrying the team at times...40, 38, and 42 in the last three, plus some film for ESPN to keep them busy for a month.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

3-9 w/out Shaq. Do you have answer for that Ron? Honestly, I don't need to ask, because I already know.

I want my DAT back!
Where's mt DAT at?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> Assists are harder to come by when you play with the scrubs that T-Mac plays with, but hey you knew that already.


Biggest misnomer among most basketball fans. When you play with the scrubs you get the ball more and more attention from the D= more assists. Don't believe me look at the assist numbers of the guy in your avatar compared to last year. Or look at Bibbys dime totals in Vancouver.

I think Kobe is at the point where it's not even worth me making an arguement for him being the best. They just believe what they want. He is so good that he did not even amaze me tonight, just another Kobe game. And he had 3-4 plays that would be season highlights for 90% of the players in the league, that's not even hyperbole.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

> 31, 7, and 5 doesn't cut it.
> 
> 28, 8, and 8 works much better.


22-23 doesn't cut much either. Neither does 3-9 w/o the 350 pound security blanket.

btw, last time i checked, Kobe was averagin' slightly below 7 asts per game, where did 8 come from?

AND u do understand that its easier to rack up asts in LA then in Orlando?

Besides, Kobe involving his teammates has led LA to 3 games behind the 8th spot with 50 games already played. Not to forget that elusive 3-9 beginning also.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

KC, I understand you are having a tough time with this. That's fine, you continue to hate, and I will continue to shine the nine trophies.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> Besides, Kobe involving his teammates has led LA to 3 games behind the 8th spot with 50 games already played.


22 + 23 = 50? 

Must be that new math.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> Biggest misnomer among most basketball fans. When you play with the scrubs you get the ball more and more attention from the D= more assists. Don't believe me look at the assist numbers of the guy in your avatar compared to last year. Or look at Bibbys dime totals in Vancouver.
> ...


Another misnomer.

Last time I checked, T-Mac wasn't a PG. It isn't his job to create for them. He isn't asked to. You can spit out 2 examples of guys who had higher assist numbers on bad teams, but to be blunt, it is comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between a SG trying to score and create for worthless teammates and a PG trying to create. It is the job of a PG to create.

What's funny is that 5-6 games ago, Lakers fans were complaining that Kobe must be injured because he was playing so poorly. Now...


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> AND u do understand that its easier to rack up asts in LA then in Orlando?


Sure it is, since Kobe knows how to spell "pass." I've seen McGrady at work...he's a shooter first, a shooter second, and a shooter third.

He's a passer fourth.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> KC, I understand you are having a tough time with this. That's fine, you continue to hate, and I will continue to shine the nine trophies.


That's fine. I'll "hate," and you can continue to play hopscotch. Where did the bean bag land today? Obviously in the square of overconfidence.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> Another misnomer.
> ...


Last I checked Kobe was a PG. 

He's the only creator on this team.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> You're comment was that assists are eaiser to come by on good teams.
> ...


Actually, that wasn't my comment. My comment was that it is harder to get assists with worthless teammates, which is true. Hey, if you want to close your eyes, cough, and turn your shoulder, that's fine. I keep my eyes open, and when I watch McGrady, I see someone who tries to pass and his teammates brick shot after shot. Is there any fruit, coke, or popcorn stand where I can pick up some of that purple and yellow kool-aid down here in So-Cal? :sour:


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

By the way KC can you tell me which poster said this-

"Who cares about Kobe's numbers, they are barely .500!"

Care to tell me the Magics winning percentage?

Like I said, believe what you want to believe.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> That's fine. I'll "hate," and you can continue to play hopscotch. Where did the bean bag land today? Obviously in the square of overconfidence.


It's all about *EFFORT*, KC. I will post according to what I perceive as a *LACK OF EFFORT*, and you continue to post negatively at every turn you get.

Just which team do you root for, anyway? First, it was the Kings...now, you have a Clipper avatar.  Or do you just hate on the Lakers, and that is the life force of your basketball passion? :|


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> By the way KC can you tell me which community moderator said this-
> 
> "Who cares about Kobe's numbers, they are barely .500!"
> ...


That's why I don't come in here touting statistics. I fail to recognize your point.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

I really haven't been checking this board lately, but someone mentioned all the Kobe hate on this board, so I thought I would post and see if I can get dem "haters" out of the woodwork.

There are only two right now, but I'm expecting more when the Sun comes up.


----------



## Stojakovic16 (Jan 12, 2003)

Not another Kobe worshipping page :sigh: 
There really should be a whole forum so people that believe he is Godlike can waste their own time. The Lakers are a losing team, and Kobe is selfish. Without Shaq he would be nothing, just like the Lakers. 
T-Mac for MVP!


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> That's why I don't come in here touting statistics. I fail to recognize your point.


Of course not, KC. Because the stats are against your position. You still haven't addressed the statistics I ran up the flagpole earlier in this very active thread.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> 
> 
> It's all about *EFFORT*, KC. I will post according to what I perceive as a *LACK OF EFFORT*, and you continue to post negatively at every turn you get.
> ...


Hey, not to get off-topic, but I don't think I post negatively at all. I don't think Kobe is the best player in the league. Is that a crime? Should I be beheaded or executed? I guess. I root for the Bulls and I have explained that many times. I have an Andre Miller avatar because I like it.

You have a Lakers avatar split in half. Do you hate the Lakers? I guess, since we are judging preference based on avatars.


----------



## Stojakovic16 (Jan 12, 2003)

PS Props to KC for keepin the "hate" alive while the others aren't here!


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course not, KC. Because the stats are against your position. You still haven't addressed the statistics I ran up the flagpole earlier in this very active thread.


And you still haven't addressed my question. Statistics aren't against me at all. I could easily argue that points are more imprtant. Hey, as long as we are playing ring around the rosie, why not respond to my post with an answer to my question before throwing the same one back at me? :yes:


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Stojakovic16</b>!
> Not another Kobe worshipping page :sigh:
> There really should be a whole forum so people that believe he is Godlike can waste their own time. The Lakers are a losing team, and Kobe is selfish. Without Shaq he would be nothing, just like the Lakers.
> T-Mac for MVP!


Sounds like —

<img src='http://www.basketballboards.net/images/sourgrapes50.jpg' alt='Sounds like sour grapes to me!'>


— to me!


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Stojakovic16</b>!
> The Lakers are a losing team, and Kobe is selfish. Without Shaq he would be nothing, just like the Lakers.
> T-Mac for MVP!


Without Shaq T-Mac would never win a playoff series and the Magic wouldn't be a winning team. Just like they are right now.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

Hey, the Lakers won 3 of 12 games without Shaq. McGrady, without Shaq, has managed a more impressive record.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

He'll get player of the week...but of course, if haters like you were voting, that wouldn't happen at all.

Bottom line, you can't make an argument with statistics and without statistics. That's all there is to it.

You might as well make as much hay as you can right now, because they are still under .500 as we speak. That will probably change in a week.

But knock yourself out. Meanwhile, if you are good, I'll let you shine trophy no. 9.


----------



## Stojakovic16 (Jan 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> Without Shaq T-Mac would never win a playoff series and the Magic wouldn't be a winning team. Just like they are right now.


But would they be over 500, YES! You don't get it do you? 21-23(Lakers) isn't a winning team.....


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> Hey, the Lakers won 3 of 12 games without Shaq. McGrady, without Shaq, has managed a more impressive record.


Too small of a sample. Do you realize that Kobe has a winning record in games Shaq hasn't played in during his career?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Stojakovic16</b>!
> 
> But would they be over 500, YES! You don't get it do you? 21-23(Lakers) isn't a winning team.....


Sorry but 24 wins and 24 losses is not over 500.


----------



## Stojakovic16 (Jan 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry but 24 wins and 24 losses is not over 500.



I said IF they had Shaq. They clearly don't.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> Biggest misnomer among most basketball fans. When you play with the scrubs you get the ball more and more attention from the D= more assists. Don't believe me look at the assist numbers of the guy in your avatar compared to last year. Or look at Bibbys dime totals in Vancouver.
> ...


This post here has shut KC down . Specifically the point about Andre Miller and the assists. KC's retort TMac isn't a pg. KC was the one who said when arguing Jay Williams was better than Wagner that assists are worth more than points. Than why make Kobes assists seem irrelevanbt by saying Tmac isn't apg. 

Anyway. Kobe has more triple doubles which displays better overall play than TMac and He has more 40 pt games which signals if he wanted to he can't flat out do the damn thing better than TMac. Lately I don't think so Kobe's been crushing all year long.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> Hey, the Lakers won 3 of 12 games without Shaq. McGrady, without Shaq, has managed a more impressive record.


Lets see the Lakers played 7 games or was it 6 without Fox also thats 2 starters down. The Lakers struggled for the most part with Shaq back so what does that mean his impact wasn't as heavly weighted as some think. Another Bubble burster is Kobe's leading the charge not the diesel it would be something if it were reversed. TMac just isn't bringing the consistent all around greatness that Kobe is he's carrying the Lakers just about.


This thread dedicated to Grizzoistight.


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*



> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> This guy has been waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy over the top lately.
> 
> Anyone who has seen this guy play in the last several games cannot deny that he has been the league's best player...if he keeps it up, no one can take away the MVP from him this year.



OHH YEAHH!!!
KOBE is the best player in the L right now, No doubt about that.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*



> Originally posted by <b><<<D>>></b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is true. TMac was in the beginning of the season but Kobe is right now.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> Hey, the Lakers won 3 of 12 games without Shaq. McGrady, without Shaq, has managed a more impressive record.


You fail to mention that McGrady has Armstrong, Miller, Hill, Garrity, and Kemp.


----------



## FrozenIceCube (Jan 17, 2003)

Firstly I like to say that I enjoy and respect Kobe’s game a lot, I think he is one of the most entertaining and exciting Basketball player ever played in the league.

Now to all the Laker or Kobe fans, I like to ask some questions. Some of these question are very difficult to answer, but that is not important, I am not looking for fact, I just want to know what you “believe” in. Hopefully from this we can all better understand what the LA fans think about Kobe.

Please answer Yes, No or don’t know. 

1.Without Shaq can Kobe lead the Lakers to the playoff?
2.Without Shaq can Kobe and the Lakers win a championship?
3.Without Kobe can Shaq lead the Lakers to the playoff?
4.Without Kobe can Shaq and the Lakers win a championship?
5.Can Kobe and the Magic supporting cast (not including T-mac) go to the playoff?
6.Can Shaq, T-mac and the Laker’s supporting cast win a championship?
7.Is Kobe a leader? (I am not talking about being a scoring leader, but more like a floor general, i.e. like Kidd, Magic, and MJ)
8.Is Kobe at this moment better than Jordan when he was in his prime? (go to question 9 if your answer is NO)
9.Kobe will be better than Jordan in the future?
10.One day when Shaq retires, Kobe will lead a team to win a championship?
11.Is Kobe the best player in the league?

Note: these questions are for Lakers and Kobe fans only.

Btw I am new here, please look after me…..
:shy:


----------



## steadyeddy (Jan 2, 2003)

*Invalid questionaire*

many of these questions are non-sensical because they ignore the fact that the Lakers have been constructed AROUND SHAQ....and most of us don't have a crystal ball to answer the others.

The Lakers would have performed much better when Shaq was hurt if they had any kind of center to replace him, but you knew that already. And it would have helped when Bryant passed out of the double or triple teams if SOMEONE could make a jump shot or layup.

The fact that he leads the league in triple doubles is some kind of minor miracle given the way his teamates looked until just recently.

He has done everything that one man can do to keep these guys in the hunt.

You guys can continue to look at the record without Shaq and ignore the fact that Shaq gets about 40% of the teams salary if you want to.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Kobe is the MVP, hands down. He can pass like Kidd, rebound better than any guard, score better than T-Mac, and all this on a team built for Shaq. He is the second option and he is still putting up crazy numbers. And as for the winning argument, with Fox and Shaq out-that's almost half the teams payroll-and the offense needing Shaq-and several very close games-can you see why their record was misleading???


----------



## Mulk (Jun 25, 2002)

Last 5 games if yall want stats:



Kobe:42.6 54-114 9-17 37-43 1.8 0.8 3.2 2.6 1.2 3.4 4.6 5.0 30.8 

T-Mac:41.0 44-95 6-20 36-47 1.8 0.2 2.2 2.2 1.8 5.8 7.5 7.5 32.5

KOBE T-MAC

Points : 30.8 32.5
Assists : 5.0 7.5
Reb : 4.6 7.5
FG% : 47% 41%

Hmm, Kobe's been hotter than most players and guards over the past 5 games but not qutie as hot as T-Mac. Take a look at their averages for January over on ESPN and they are pretty much identical. Face it, there is barely anything between these two.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

it's amazing how these discussions go. it's always black and white, with no shades of gray. it's like right wing conservatives against the most liberal of liberal dems. we end up at the extremes.

it's hard to reconcile the lakers 3-9 start and 22-23 record with a above .500 record without shaq in years past and 3 straight championships. unless you want to argue that kobe has gotten worse, if you can't reconcile the 2, then don't bring it up as an end-all in the discussion. 

tmac has done a great job of keeping the magic competitive in the wake of grant hill's departure. he's been pretty awesome all season, and does alot to help his team win.

they are the 2 most dynamic players in the league, 2 of the most complete, and both are having great years and progressing as players, at the same time still finding their way.

kobe's clearly, imo, the more accomplished overall (that's not the discussion though). tmac is arguably having a better season, and arguably had a better (regular) season last year as well. it comes down to personal preference after that. kobe probably has the greater overall intensity, tmac more comfortable as a leader overall (although the team makeup has alot to do with that).

recognize that these guys are both incredible players, among the greats who ever played. it's when the extremes and definitive statements are made (kobe ain't this or that without shaq, tmac will never..) that these discussions go nowhere.

kobe's in a better position to succeed, and he has produced. there's no way to trivialize the success and sound objective. tmac hasn't had the same privilage, and that should also be recognized when discussing postseason failures.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

97-98 MIN 8.6 17.7 
98-99 MIN 9.3 17.7 
98-99 NJN 8.7 23.4 
99-00 NJN 8.4 22.2 
00-01 NJN 7.6 23.9 

Ron, I'm not going to disagree with you regarding Kobe because I can't really think of a valid argument either way. He's damn good and I'd love to have either Tmac or Kobe on the Blazers.

My only point here is that just because a player averages a large number of assists doesn't mean he's a great team player. These are Marbury's stats and he has always been considered a selfish player. When a player has the ball as often as Marbury or Kobe does, they're bound to have a decent stat line.

Another thought that doesn't really change what I just said is what are Kobe's assist totals when Shaq doesn't play? I would think that having Shaq on the floor would significantly increase the # of assists.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> kobe's in a better position to succeed, and he has produced. there's no way to trivialize the success and sound objective. tmac hasn't had the same privilage, and that should also be recognized when discussing postseason failures.


Oh I agree, my comments were just in response to the people that use the "Kobe wouldn't take the Lakers without Shaq anywhere" arguement. McGrady hasn't taken the Magic anywhere either. Some people feel that leading a crap team to nowhere is more impressive than playing on a championship team with talented teamates (when you are obviously a key player, so save the Steve Kerr refrences). I'm not even going to debate that logic. But then the funny thing is that when Kobe puts up great numbers on a crap team (this years Lakers to this point) people say it should be thrown out because of the team record.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

The fact is, Kobe isn't the best player in the league.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Fact is, when you lose Shaq/or rather 50 to 60% of your cap space, it does hurt your team alot if you lose him. He takes up lots of the money, leaving the other areas of the team not as talented or well balanced.

Apparlently people don't understand that part too well. Shaq's salary is the equivlent of two very good players (an allstar and another solid player combined). If another team loses that there in just as much trouble.

If you arguing that Shaq stuff, look at shaq's numbers, he's good, but not even close to best player in the game right now.

Kobe on the other hand.


----------



## Mulk (Jun 25, 2002)

^^^^^^^^ Yeah true but Hill has been out for 3 seasons pretty much and T-Mac has been able to lead the team with no frontcourt whatsoever to the posteseason. Granted, its been in the East, but its still an acomplishment.

People dog on Kobe for the 3-9 because all Laker and Kobe fans were saying how he was going to prove it was his team and lead the Lakers but when this did not happen they all claim it was impossible to lead that team. 

Kobe is definately top 5 in the league but i can't see how anyone can say "he is number 1 period" even if they did make the site!


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> The fact is, Kobe isn't the best player in the league.


I see that you are now reduced to making all-encompassing statements without argument. 

The case has been made. Deal wiff it.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mulk</b>!
> Kobe is definately top 5 in the league but i can't see how anyone can say "he is number 1 period" even if they did make the site!


I made my case that he is the best in the league, and I didn't even play the "I made the site, so my opinion stands!" card. 

Seriously, if you can make a case for a better player out there, I'd like to see it. Bring it on.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

_"Kobe is the best player in the league. Period."_- Ron Benzino

I don't wanna be like this
I don't really want to hurt no feelings
But I'm only bein' real when I say, 'Nobody wants to hear their grandfather rap' (Nope)
And old men have heart attacks
And I don't wanna be responsible for that
So, put the mouse down and walk away
You can still have a little bit of dignity


----------



## hunterb14 (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't even play the "I made the site, so my opinion stands!" card.



Well even if you did you arent the owner of the site anymore 

Also is it wrong for KC to have his opinion without you considering it is total BS? I mean we all have different opinions thats what makes it a great board.

YOu will support Kobe even if he sucks because he plays for your favorite team. And is it wrong ot have more than one team that you support?


----------



## Mulk (Jun 25, 2002)

Ok, for evidence that he isn't the best player in the league is that players like T-Mac, KG and Duncan lead their teams to the playoffs with no help.

Kobe could not lead his DEFENDING CHAMPS to .500 record.

Second, he puts up great stats, but they are going down gradually (apart from scoring) as Shaq gets back into form and shape.

I appreciate he is one of the top players in the game but i jus don't think he is THE best player. The annoying thing is that it is only Laker's fans who get annoyed about this, Magic fans do not grumble when people say Duncan is better than T-mac or T-Mac is not the number one player. WHy does it matter to Laker fans that Kobe is not considered number 1 by everyone? 

There is nothing that seperates Kobe from the other top SG so i cannot see how u can say he is the best period.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Got my last name wrong, of course. 

And if you are resulting to elementary poems which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, I would suppose that you are spent on the subject.


----------



## hunterb14 (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> Got my last name wrong, of course.
> 
> And if you are resulting to elementary poems which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, I would suppose that you are spent on the subject.


You obviously didnt get the message of the poem because if you understand the message you wuld know how it relates to this


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mulk</b>!
> There is nothing that seperates Kobe from the other top SG so i cannot see how u can say he is the best period.


That's because you don't watch him on a night-by-night basis.

My jaw has dropped repeatedly from his exploits on the court...reverse lay-ups that seem impossible, reverse dunks that no one in this league can do, quite frankly, a much better shooting percentage from outside, a revived three-point shooter, assists from passes coming out of nowhere...

...he is even more improved than last year or even last month. The guy is a phenomenom; I have never seen anything like him.

I've watched all of the greats: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Dr. J, Michael Jordan, etc. I will say this about Kobe Bryant: he will be at or near the top of many all-time lists when he is done with the game, and he will be the greatest scorer in the history of this game when all is said and done, and none of you will be able to refute it.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> Got my last name wrong, of course.
> 
> And if you are resulting to elementary poems which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, I would suppose that you are spent on the subject.


The aren't poems, sir.  

Would you like to hear more?  

I would never claim to be no, Ron Benzino
An 83 year old, fake Pagino
So how could you hold me over some balcony, without throwin' out your back as soon as you go to lift me?
Please don't, you'll probably fall with me, then we'll both be history!


j/k Ron. Haha


----------



## hunterb14 (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> 
> 
> ...he is even more improved than last year or even last month. The guy is a phenomenom; I have never seen anything like him.
> ...





> The guy is a phenomenom; I have never seen anything like him.


Does Jordan in his prime ring a bell?

Greatest scorer- C'mon man. I dont think he could surpass Wilt, Kareem or Jordan.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

It's hard to win when the rest of your team can't make wide open jump shots and can't create their own shot.

Magic players can make wide open shots more often Lakers for most of the season.


----------



## Mulk (Jun 25, 2002)

> That's because you don't watch him on a night-by-night basis.


Same can be said about you and T-Mac







> ...he is even more improved than last year or even last month. The guy is a phenomenom; I have never seen anything like him.


So what your saying is that he has gone from a top 5 player to now definate number one in a month? I know he's your on your team and all but he isn't any better than T-Mac at his own position and no better than Shaq when healthy or Duncan. Whats your case for saying hes better than Duncan?


----------



## Mulk (Jun 25, 2002)

> It's hard to win when the rest of your team can't make wide open jump shots and can't create their own shot.


They really cant. Several players are shooting under 40%. A couple under 30% and the "hot shooter" Garrity shoots 40%. THe misconception is that T-Mac has great shooters surrounding him. This is not true, he has Miller who can shoot but is really inconsistent, Pat Garrity who can shoot the 3 but nothing else and then you have Armstrong who takes a lot of shots but is not that great a shooter. T-Mac has the highest FG% on the team at 46%.

In reality, the team has one decent shooter in Miller, a 3 point specialist in Garrity and no other shooters other than T-Mac. Then when you add the fact that NONE of the Magic players other than Tracy (and Hill when healthy) can defend, rebound, create a shot, set decent picks or pass you see pretty clearly that the Lakers have a better supportin cast.


----------



## Lakers_32_4ever (Dec 30, 2002)

a LOT of the argument has turned into supporting casts.

Take a look.

LAKERS
http://www.nba.com/lakers/stats/ 

MAGIC
http://www.nba.com/magic/stats/ 

I would take the Magic any day. They do not suck at all compared to the lakers


----------



## Lakers_32_4ever (Dec 30, 2002)

Also, this is the best player in the league, not the best for team-record player.


----------



## Mulk (Jun 25, 2002)

I can't see how you would rather take the Magic scrubs than the Lakers'. At least you guys have players that can defend and rebound (at least they could last year). 

The Magic aren't a great shooting team which is what people who do not know the team believe. And please look at the frontcourt!!!! You cannot win with Garrity starting at power forward. Kemp can play about 20 mins and is far and away the best magic post player.

Also, you gotta add the intagibles when evaluating the Lakers, they aren't 3x champs for nothing


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

Am I the only one who finds the bi-polar attitudes of Laker fans this season to be hilarious? Seriously, the Lakers lose two in a row and they're calling for wholesale change and charting their future lottery pick. They win a few in a row and it's four-peat time again and Kobe is the MVP.

BTW, Kobe might be hot in this last 3 game stretch but MVP is an award for the season as a whole. It's easy to make a post like this after Bryant has had 3 great games in a row, but you can't forget that the Lakers lost 3 of their previous 4 games, including a 5-21 for Kobe at Houston (with Mobley and Francis dropped 73) where he missed a game-clinching FT and an 11 point game vs. NJ where he fell down giving Kerry Kittles an open look for what turned out to be the game clincher. There's a reason why it is ludicrous for a player on a sub .500 team (who plays with the actual best player in the NBA in Shaq) to be considered for MVP - if Bryant was having a true MVP season (and not just intermittent streaks of MVP caliber play) the Lakers would be over .500.


----------



## Lakers_32_4ever (Dec 30, 2002)

We only think what if. We dont hate the lakers, we just ponder what if they don't win. I still hope they win no 4 , but dont logically think it will. Also, regardless we think kobe is mvp anyway.

so we aint bipolar allright.


----------



## Mulk (Jun 25, 2002)

> Am I the only one who finds the bi-polar attitudes of Laker fans this season to be hilarious?


nah i find it amusing too! :yes: :yes: 

They're just like Manchester Utd fans back in England. Not very loyal and quick to hate on the team after a bad game, but then quick to love the team when things go there way


----------



## Mulk (Jun 25, 2002)

I just don't see how Kobe is MVP when in all likelyhood they are gonna finish no higher than the 5th seed (if that) in the west even tho they have 2 definate top 10, most probably top 5 players on there roster.

Then when you add in the fact that altho Kobe has the better stats, they are only winning now because Shaq is healthier than he was earlier on in the season. This is pretty obvious as Kobe's stats have pretty much stayed the same all season ,though they are dropping slightly, but now Shaq is getting his game back the Lakers are winning more.

Its not even as if he is averaging numbers that no one else has come close to in the history of the game like what happend in baseball when A-rod was gettin mvp consideration


----------



## k^2 (Jun 11, 2002)

The best player in the league does reside in LA. And that would be Shaq. It shouldn't be a kobe/t-mac argument it should be: Who will be the best when Shaq leaves. As anybody who they would rather have on their team Shaq/kobe/t-mac and anybody in their right mind would say Shaq. Dont give that baloney "most dominant not best" crap because he is the best player. I hate the guy but I sure as hell wish he played for the Kings.


----------



## Stojakovic16 (Jan 12, 2003)

*Do Your Kobe Worshipping Here!!!!*

Just to spare me and others from reading endless posts about how athletic/talented/smart/good-looking Kobe is......


----------



## tenkev (Jun 12, 2002)

Tim Duncan is the best player in the league IMO.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tenkev</b>!
> Tim Duncan is the best player in the league IMO.


When healthy it is Shaq in my opinion. He's not the most skilled but he's the most dominant. He changes the complexion of a basketball game more than anyone else.


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

*why does kobe average more rebounds than tmac*

mcgrady is taller longer .. and has no front court help.. ( until stephen hunter gets healthy) it just seems like the only time he works is on the offensive end.. tmac should be averaging 9+ rebounds a game


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

T-mac cast has hit a new low against the Hawks today. Magic trail 47-36 at halftime. T-mac has half of the teams fgs and half of their pts. 18 pts(7-17 FG), 4 rebs and 1 ast. Rest of the team: 7-26 FG, 18 pts. Magic as usual, getting outrebounded big, 30-21.

T-mac has by far the worst supporting cast in this league. No two ways abt that. They r abt as 1 dimensional as it gets. ZERO multiple skills. Apart from shooting, none can effectively perform any other aspect of the game. By the end of the season, T-mac will most likely become the first player in the nba history to lead his team in pts, rbs, asts, stls, blks, and fg%.


----------



## Sangha (Jul 24, 2002)

Most people forget the MVP award *isn't for the best player* in the league, it's for the player most valuable to his teams success.


I think Kobe is overrated since having Shaq increases his assist total and results in him getting less double teams than guys like McGrady, Iverson and Duncan.

I think Duncan is by far the MVP, without him the Spurs would probably have less than 5 wins, at least without Kobe the Lakers would have Shaq carrying them to a decent record.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> 
> 
> Sure it is, since Kobe knows how to spell "pass." I've seen McGrady at work...he's a shooter first, a shooter second, and a shooter third.
> ...


I disagree 100%. Look at these stats:

1/31 vs. San Antonio - 6 assists
1/29 vs. Cleveland - 6 assists
1/24 vs. Phoenix - 11 assists
1/22 vs. Chicago - 7 assists
1/21 vs. Cleveland - 6 assists


I can continue, but I don't want to waste my time because I've already proven the fact that McGrady is a better passer and makes more passes than Kobe over the last week or so. And given the fact that Bryant has O'Neal, while McGrady has no one to take the pressure off him, makes it even more clear that even though McGrady doesn't play with All Stars on his team, he still gets the job done with sharing the ball.


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

*their gonna have to*

ice down tmac after this game.. he hoisted up 16 threes..
37 shots..
he only had 3 assits tonight but his teammates were off.. but tmac normally is shoot first shoot second pass third


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Loyalty4Life</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree 100%. Look at these stats:
> ...


You haven't proven anything. You selectively chose to stop at January 21!  Here, let me select a few games in January. :laugh:

Jan. 3 - 4 assists
Jan. 8 - 2 assists  :laugh:
Jan. 13 - 4 assists
Jan. 15 - 5 assists

Today, in the first half, he as a grand total of *1* assist. 

Come on, I can play the statistics game with you as well. This year, Kobe has five triple-doubles and *20* double-doubles, indicating an his all-around game is improving...

How many does T-Mac have? :uhoh: I thought so. Zippo, and only 9 double-doubles.

:no:


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> You haven't proven anything. You selectively chose to stop at January 21!


I did not choose to stop on the 21st selectively, Ron.  I don't enjoy debating or participating in a heated discussion, so I stopped there. There is no hidden motive behind the date I chose to stop at.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

"Am I the only one who finds the bi-polar attitudes of Laker fans this season to be hilarious? Seriously, the Lakers lose two in a row and they're calling for wholesale change and charting their future lottery pick. They win a few in a row and it's four-peat time again and Kobe is the MVP."

Not exactly. I argued for dumping off shaq and building the team around Kobe if they can't make the playoffs this year.

I haven't heard ANY laker fan talking about trading Kobe, only everyone else, including shaq occasionally.

In fact, the only consistant positive posts this year have been about Kobe. Shaq's delay of surgery pissed off alot of Laker fans.


----------



## Mike_BF (Jan 25, 2003)

I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that the MVP award isn't about the who the best player is. By definition the best player in the league has the most value. Especially in basketball where an inidivdual can have a greater impact than any player in team sports. The award is the "least valuable teammates" award. It's the most valuable player award and IMHO it should go to the best player in the league.

And for the record, that player is Shaq.


----------



## beautifulkobe (Jun 24, 2002)

People who dont watch laker games on a daily basis have no idea how amazing kobe has been playing.Its not just 3 games.This whole season he has played amazing basketball except for one bad little stetch when he was extremely passive.But since the first game in 2003 this guy has been outstanding in every way and has taken his game up another notch.That whole month of january he was just incredible.When the lakers went on a 5 game winning streak it was kobe who led them there.The whole month he had 3 bad games golden state the nets and houston. Golden state and nets he was seroulsy hurting horrible tendenitus so he coudlnt help the team when they needed him to.In just january he set an nba record for 3s,had a triple double,double doubles.He moved into second in scoring.The last 3 games he has been on this 40 point barage and has led the lakers to 3 straight victories over 3 of the best teams in the league.Granted Shaq had a huge impact on the kings game but it has been kobe who has just burned teams.


The difference is with kobe and tmac.Tmac is scoring over 30 a game but they arent wins.That is the most important.Today at atlanta,the spurs,suns etc.Kobe is scoring more and its leading to wins not losses.Ya I know tmac has no help but he wants it that way he said he is happy hill isnt there so he could score whenever he wants and lead the team(he said that on firday in an interview with amad rashad) but it all equals up to losses.


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

*i couldnt have said it better myself*

beautifulkobe your right
I watched the whole hawks game..
tmac would come down the court do his little crossover and pull up from three time after time.. He didnt pass it, he didnt look to get into the offense he just hoisted threes .. 16 to be exact..
and he got abs torched by dion glover and big dog robinson..
the only time he tries is on offense,
Who cares if you lead the league in scoring.. if your team isnt making the playoffs.. then its all for none,
Now it looks like kobes offseason training is really paying off, i mean the kid deserves a lot of praise for his work ethic and his will to win.. somethin mcgrady needs to work on.. thats why he never played in toronto, he was selfish and had a crappy work ethic


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

To all people who think Kobe shouldn't be MVP because of Laker's record but think T-Mac should be MVP:

MAGIC HAVE A LOSING RECORD ALSO!!!

Some people didn't seem too know.


----------



## k^2 (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>beautifulkobe</b>!
> People who dont watch laker games on a daily basis have no idea how amazing kobe has been playing.Its not just 3 games.
> The difference is with kobe and tmac.Tmac is scoring over 30 a game but they arent wins.That is the most important.Today at atlanta,the spurs,suns etc.Kobe is scoring more and its leading to wins not losses.Ya I know tmac has no help but he wants it that way he said he is happy hill isnt there so he could score whenever he wants and lead the team(he said that on firday in an interview with amad rashad) but it all equals up to losses.


1. Do you watch Magic games to see T-mac on a daily basis. Ask Magic fans, I bet he's been pretty damn amazing himself.

2. Shaq is leading the Lakers to wins.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

"2. Shaq is leading the Lakers to wins."

Please don't make comments like this unless you've seen Lakers play recently


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

*saying shaq is leading the lakers right now*

is like saying allen iverson will lead the league in shooting %
or tmac will lead in assits..:shy:


----------



## Lope31 (Jun 11, 2002)

It's good to see you back behind your team Ron. As for Kobe Bryant. HE IS AMAZING!!!


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

I love soap operas.... ANYWAY...why does it matter? Kobe and Tracy are both GREAT players, who cares about some of the things you guys are arguing about when they both put up MAGNIFICENT stats?


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

*Re: saying shaq is leading the lakers right now*



> Originally posted by <b>grizzoistight</b>!
> saying shaq is leading the lakers right now
> 
> is like saying allen iverson will lead the league in shooting %
> or tmac will lead in assits..:shy:


25% games won without him and 58% won with him is indication enough of WHO exactly is the catalyst of the Laker's improved play. 

Kobe's play has been a major part of the Lakers recent success. Their hopes still ride on the shoulders of the Big Aristotle, though. 

Let me put it this way -- no Shaq, no Lakers. Well, you'll still have the Lakers but without Shaq they're pretty similar (but worse) to the Magic.


----------



## Crossword (Jun 7, 2002)

As much as I'd hate to see the Lakers win again, you can't blame T-Mac for no supporting cast. He had his chance in Toronto, and he completely blew it because he wanted to go close to home.

It's not a bad thing, and I don't blame him... but if he wanted to win, he should have stayed in Toronto.


----------



## steadyeddy (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mduke</b>!
> I love soap operas.... ANYWAY...why does it matter? Kobe and Tracy are both GREAT players, who cares about some of the things you guys are arguing about when they both put up MAGNIFICENT stats?


And THIS would be the final word on this subject if I had my say.....I'm a Laker fan by the way.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Budweiser_Boy</b>!
> As much as I'd hate to see the Lakers win again, you can't blame T-Mac for no supporting cast. He had his chance in Toronto, and he completely blew it because he wanted to go close to home.
> 
> It's not a bad thing, and I don't blame him... but if he wanted to win, he should have stayed in Toronto.


Why should he have stayed in Toronto? He had no reason to believe Hill would never return to 100%. And a healthy Grant Hill is ten times the player that Vince will ever be.

If I had the choice, I would have easily chosen to play with Hill over Carter.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: saying shaq is leading the lakers right now*



> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> 
> 
> 25% games won without him and 58% won with him is indication enough of WHO exactly is the catalyst of the Laker's improved play.
> ...


Kobe hasn't missed a game all year. Let me put it like this, if he were to have missed 12 games in the begining instead of Shaq I doubt Diesel could have led them to a better record. Especially if he was without Fox and George (2nd leading scorer at the start of the year) for most of the games. D-Fish was horrid to start the year as well. 

Up until a couple of weeks ago I still felt Shaq was the best and the Lakers hopes rested on him, my opinion has changed recently. Kobe is doing things that aren't humanly possible.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

"Kobe can really unify this team. He can bring this team up to another level. He can certainly do that." *-Phil Jackson after the Utah game* 

Thats the final word.


----------



## Absynth (Oct 1, 2002)

man....i wish i were kobe...he is so cool. i am thinking about changing my name to kobe, what u guys think?


----------



## steadyeddy (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: saying shaq is leading the lakers right now*



> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> 
> 
> 25% games won without him and 58% won with him is indication enough of WHO exactly is the catalyst of the Laker's improved play.
> ...


The Lakers would be pretty bad if Shaq didn't have Kobe to help get him the ball and run the offense. It should be obvious to anyone that watches the Lakers with any regularity that the Lakers are both of these guys not one over the other.:yes:


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

*quit blaming kobe for the lakers horrid start*

Rick fox yea he averaged more points (11 compared to 9 now)
he also shot 26% from three for the month..
Horry shot 27% from three and is still only shootin 28% from three
devean george after signing that huge contract shot 20% from three for the month
samaki shot 39% from the floor

Kobe shot 45% from the floor averaged 29 a game.. 9 boards and 7 assits ( he also had 3 tripple doubles)

oh yea and the guy who was replacing shaq - soumale samake he isnt even in the nba right now, this dominant center is averaging a whopping 7 points and 6 boards for the greenville groove

Yea the team lost but is it kobes fault because the teams shots werent falling ??:clap:


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: saying shaq is leading the lakers right now*



> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> 
> 
> Kobe hasn't missed a game all year. Let me put it like this, if he were to have missed 12 games in the begining instead of Shaq I doubt Diesel could have led them to a better record. Especially if he was without Fox and George (2nd leading scorer at the start of the year) for most of the games. D-Fish was horrid to start the year as well.
> ...


Good points. Fox has to play well for them to win, and George hasn't been playing well all year. However, the facets of the game that Shaq effects outweigh those that Kobe does. For every basket but one Kobe has this year, Shaq has one. The defensive presence is undeniable, and the mindset of the players on both teams is different when the big guy is in the game.

However, I will concede that Kobe is doing amazing things as of late and the Lakers would not be winning many games without his contributions on both ends of the court. 

But please, please, please, don't declare Messiah and forget that the most dominant athlete in professional sports plays for the same team. It's all (or any basketball fan for that matter) can ask for.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

Merged all 3 threads together


----------



## Lope31 (Jun 11, 2002)

Lakers fans turning there back on the Lakers when they struggle bother me but you can't do anything about it...


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

> "Kobe can really unify this team. He can bring this team up to another level. He can certainly do that." -Phil Jackson after the Utah game


Gr8 for Kobe, but some of u kobe fans r acting as if no star player recieves positive comments like those from their coach.

U should read some of Doc's comments after a Magic win, dude is literally drooling all over t-mac most of the time. Coaches kiss up, or in other words, give major props to their superstar players all the time. 

Sometimes do check out what Saunders has to say abt Garnett, or Adelman abt C-Webb, or Popvich abt TD. Their appreciation is along the same lines as PJ.


----------



## Hamid (Jan 13, 2003)

Kobe carried that Lakers team in the playoffs last season, without him they would of never made it out the west last year.


----------



## k^2 (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hamid</b>!
> Kobe carried that Lakers team in the playoffs last season, without him they would of never made it out the west last year.


And without Shaq they wouldn't have made the playoffs, or the previous 2 championships.


----------



## Sleeperz (Feb 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>k^2</b>!
> 
> 
> And without Shaq they wouldn't have made the playoffs, or the previous 2 championships.


without kobe, they wouldnt have either. theyre both integral parts of the championship teams.


----------



## FrozenIceCube (Jan 17, 2003)

It is interesting that when MJ was with the Bulls and winning multiple championships. He was hailed as the best basketball player of all time, and most people seem to agree. 

And I don't remember there were many Bulls or MJ haters when they were winning. Even nowadays people still show respect towards MJ.

But the same doesn't apply with Kobe? I wonder if the Lakers fans know why.......


----------



## Stojakovic16 (Jan 12, 2003)

The Bulls (and Jordan), were not arrogant like the Lakers are right now. I still don't see why Kobe is being compared to Jordan...


----------



## FrozenIceCube (Jan 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Stojakovic16</b>!
> The Bulls (and Jordan), were not arrogant like the Lakers are right now. I still don't see why Kobe is being compared to Jordan...


I am not trying to compare Kobe with MJ, what I am trying to say is when everyone hailed MJ as the best player in the league, everyone agreed. But when someone said that Kobe is the best, you always get doubters.


----------



## Sleeperz (Feb 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Stojakovic16</b>!
> The Bulls (and Jordan), were not arrogant like the Lakers are right now. I still don't see why Kobe is being compared to Jordan...


many people didnt like jordan early in his career because he was outlandish and showy. he changed his attitude and people started liking him more.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

*Kobe/TMac*

I know what you are thinking...not another Kobe vs. Tmac tread. But I am actually not going to compare the two, just their supprting cast minus Shaq and Hill. The reason why I am doing this is because many people argue that TMac has a horrendous supporting cast when compared to Kobe's. That Kobe leading the Lakers to a 3-9 record without Shaq is horrible and that it shows he is not MVP material. That TMac being able to lead a team of nobodies shows he is better and can lead better. Well let's take a look at their supporting cast:

L.A Lakers (minus Shaq)

Derek Fisher
Rick Fox
Robert Horry
Devean George
Samaki Walker
Mark Madsen
Tracy Murray
Kareem Rush
Medvedenko
Brian Shaw
Jannero Pargo

Orlando Magic (minus Hill)

Darrell Armstrong
Mike Miller
Pat Garrity
Pat Burke
DeClercq
Shawn Kemp
Steve Hunter
Olumide Oyedeji
Jeryl Sasser
Ryan Humphrey
Jacque Vaughn

Let's see if they were to match up the starting lineups would presumably be:

L.A
C Medvedenko
PF Walker
SF Horry
SG Fox
PG Fisher

ORL
C Kemp
PF Burke
SF Garrity
SG Miller
PG Armstrong

It would be an ugly game but I believe Orlando would easily win. Don't get me wrong I am a TMac and Kobe fan but I believe Kobe is a much better player. It is true that Kobe led the Lakers to a 
3-9 record to start the season but remember he plays in the West and last I checked the West is much better than the East. Also let's see their opponents:

SA L 82-87
POR L 90-102
LAC W 108-93
POR W 98-95
CLE L 70-89
BOS L 95-98
WAS L 99-100
ATL L 83-95
GS W 96-89
HOU L 89-93
DAL L 72-98
SA L 88-95

The Lakers played 6 playoff bound teams which included Dallas, San Antonio, and Portland...teams which will probably end up with over 50 wins. They had some bad losses like against Cleveland but they also lost 3 games of 5 points or fewer and could have easily ended up 6-6. Honestly I doubt that TMac could have led Kobe's supporting cast to a .500 record against those teams. So instead of looking at their team records because I find it unfair that a lot of people hold that 3-9 against Kobe so much when comparing against TMac let's see their head to head stats:

Nov. 27

ORL 112
LA 102

Kobe: 46 mins, 14/31 FG, 10/13 FT, 10 Reb, 4 Ast, 1 Stl, 2 Blk, 
38 Pts.

TMac: 42 mins, 12/28 FG, 12/16 FT, 6 Reb, 9 Ast, 2 Stl, 1 Blk,
38 Pts.

Dec. 15

LA 107
ORL 84

Kobe: 34 mins, 6/15 FG, 9/9 FT, 6 Reb, 8 Ast, 2 Blk, 21 Pts.

TMac: 23 mins, 8/15 FG, 3/6 FT, 3 Reb, 0 Ast, 3 Blk, 21 Pts.


Total:

Record 1-1 

Kobe: 2 G, 40 mpg, .435 FGP, .864 FTP, 8 rpg, 6 apg, .5 spg, 
2 bpg, 29.5 ppg.

TMac: 2 G, 32.5 mpg, .465 FGP, .682 FTP, 4.5 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1 spg,
2 bpg, 29.5 ppg.

Pretty even to me. Is TMac better or is Kobe better? I still believe that Kobe is because he has a more complete game offensively (scoring and passing) and defensively. TMac in this season has been on an offensive tear (30.5 ppg) and should end up with the scoring crown unless he goes into a slump and Kobe continues the way he has been scoring lately. TMac is a better 3 point shooter than Kobe (even tho he hit 12 of them in a game) and could be a better scoring weapon than Kobe but few would dispute who has more of a complete package. Both these are great players and probably future hall of famers. They will have a great rivalry like Nique vs. Jordan and if Orlando starts contending for championships it could become a Bird vs. Magic. What I am trying to say is everybody has their own opinion on who is better but before comparing them let's stop judging Kobe on that 3-9 record and more on their one on one matchups. Both players are crucial for their team and TMac plays in the East and Kobe plays in the West...oh this argument could go on forever but hey thats what great rivalry among players do...they grab our attention.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

Yea, I like em both, but I think Kobe has a sizeable edge on Tmac. Plus I find him loads more fun to watch. I think he needs to develop a little more consistency with his long distance jumpers, then he'd end up being one of the best ever probably. Tmac's developed a very nice, consistent outside game. Not a 3pt champion or anything, but when he elevates to take a shot, you can be confident that it'll go in. Kobe goes on tears where he cannot miss (see the Seattle game where he dropped 12 bombs in), but at times he can seem very rusty from 20 ft. on out. I'd like to see him get more consistency, he's been shooting well the last few games though.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

Well, there weren't any other players like Jordan back in his Chicago days. Nowadays, Kobe has guys like Tmac and Vince that are both athletic swingmen, not to mention guys like Pierce and Iverson who aren't dunkaholics but are both as effective as anyone in the league. The reason people compare Kobe to Jordan is because Kobe has a similar game to Jordans, and he's (IMO) the best player in the NBA. I don't think it's far off at all to compare him to MJ, what I get pissed about is when people say Shaq's better than Wilt. These guys have to be dumb as hell or kissing up to Shaq when they say stuff like that. Why don't people get more objective to that, that's a much more atrocious comparison than Jordan and Kobe.


----------



## HEATLUNATIC (May 27, 2002)

This BS again?!?! 

T-Mac is GOD!!!


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Stojakovic16</b>!
> The Bulls (and Jordan), were not arrogant like the Lakers are right now. I still don't see why Kobe is being compared to Jordan...


Shaq is the Arrogant one, not kobe.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> Well, there weren't any other players like Jordan back in his Chicago days. Nowadays, Kobe has guys like Tmac and Vince that are both athletic swingmen, not to mention guys like Pierce and Iverson who aren't dunkaholics but are both as effective as anyone in the league. The reason people compare Kobe to Jordan is because Kobe has a similar game to Jordans, and he's (IMO) the best player in the NBA. I don't think it's far off at all to compare him to MJ, what I get pissed about is when people say Shaq's better than Wilt. These guys have to be dumb as hell or kissing up to Shaq when they say stuff like that. Why don't people get more objective to that, that's a much more atrocious comparison than Jordan and Kobe.


they both seem like valid comparisons to me.


----------



## Wink (May 30, 2002)

I'm not a Lakers fan, although I am a Mav's fan so I am supposed to be a Lakers hater but I am not.

I didn't read all 8 pages so I might be saying something that someone already said, but back on page 3 or 4 someone asked if Kobe could take his team to the play-offs, or to a championship without Shaq. Well if he didn't have Shaq, he would have 1 maybe even 2 skilled players instead(cap room) so that is not a fair or even reasonable reply. 

T-mac is with a bunch of overpaid players and one cripple, is that Kobe's fault. NO, maybe T-mac should ask for a trade to an organization that doesn't throw max contracts to injured players, or at least put in a clause that they have to pass a physical.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Clangk!*



> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> Tracy McGrady is the best player in the league. Got it?


Did you see the game Friday against the Spurs? That was a nice *BRICK* Tmac threw up at the buzzer. :laugh:

NO CLUTCH!!!!


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Don't forget*

Rick Fox(Fox missed 6 of the 12 games)
Robert Horry(playing hurt with an ailing wrist which make him useless because he a shooter)
Devean George(missed a few games because of injury)

&

they went 6-6 over the next twelve games. It's not like Shaq came back and everything fell back into place. The team was completely out of sync.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

prior to winning the title in 91 (his 7th season), jordan had plenty of doubters, and many still thought magic and bird were the 2 best players in the world (well, bird until '89). jordan was thought of (by some) as a me player, stats oriented, who wasn't going to win.

jordan ultimately was fortunate enough to have some talent develop around him, and he had the proper opportunity to prove he's the best. kobe has many doubters because some resent that he's had it easier, with the opportunity to succeed right away (similar to how magic had it early in his career). he's seen as not street enough by some, he doesn't have to carry a weak supporting cast (like some mistakenly believe jordan had to do when he was winning). 

there are unanswered questions with everyone. noone has the perfect resume, even jordan. so there will be amunition agaisnt everyone. as careers progress, the amunition either lessens or gets greater. we'll see with all of these guys.

and i agree that no discussion of best players can exclude shaq and duncan.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Kobe, outside of the court is one of the least flamboyent stars of all players. He rarely goes out other then time with his family, the only thing he does is work on b-ball game as a hobby. He's a lot better of a role model then alot of other players for success.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Then again, maybe that's why people hate him, because he doesn't conform to stupidity of most athletes today getting in trouble and such...


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*the thing about Tmac*

It's an understandable arguement. Tmac doesn't have the help around him *now* that Kobe has. Keyword being "now"
They are both the same age. While Kobe was winning his first championship in 2000. Tmac was a part of a team that had the talent to go far in the playoffs. 

Just look at this roster:

Vince Carter 
Antonio Davis 
Alvin Williams 
Charles Oakley 
Keon Clark 
Dell Curry 
Tracy McGrady 
Doug Christie
Mugsy Bogues
Kevin Willis

They drafted Mo Pete the following year, and got Jerome Williams, and Chris Childs

The Raptors in 2000 with Vince & Tmac were a good team, I personally think Kobe at that time was much better than Tmac and could have made some noise in the East. Imagine if he never left.
the point....
Tmac doesnt have alot to complain about and neither do his fans. He chose to leave a team with talent and go elsewhere for money. Had he stayed in Toronto they would be the best team in the East. or maybe Tracy's ability to shine in the presence of other superstars presents a decline in his overall performance. Who knows? Bottomline..... Tracy made his own bed, now he has to lay in it.


----------



## 33 (Nov 18, 2002)

*Re: the thing about Tmac*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> It's an understandable arguement. Tmac doesn't have the help around him *now* that Kobe has. Keyword being "now"
> They are both the same age. While Kobe was winning his first championship in 2000. Tmac was a part of a team that had the talent to go far in the playoffs.
> 
> ...



Tmac was 2nd fiddle to Vince back then


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: the thing about Tmac*



> Originally posted by <b>33</b>!
> Tmac was 2nd fiddle to Vince back then


what's the point? Kobe was second fiddle to Shaq back then and they won. If tmac had stayed and overcame some adversity, Vince would be second fiddle to him. Not to say they would have won a championship, they could have, but Tmac would have a much better team around him than he does now.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

*Re: Kobe/TMac*



> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> It is true that Kobe led the Lakers to a
> 3-9 record to start the season but remember he plays in the West and last I checked the West is much better than the East. Also let's see their opponents:
> 
> ...


I agree that the 3-9 record is not Kobe's fault but you kind of contradicted yourself when you said that Kobe plays in a much tougher conference in the West. You were implying that the East is easier than the West, yet the Lakers were 0-4 against the East.
But I agree that 12 games isn't enough to gauge a player's greatness. Besides the team is built around Shaq not Kobe. Guys like Fisher, Fox, Horry, and Shaw are spot up shooters who thrive off of Shaq's kickouts on double and triple teams. Also, Phil Jackson knew that Shaq was going to come back soon so he didn't alter the offense at all. Without Shaq this team absolutely can not run the triangle and win games. But they also can't play any other way because they are built around Shaq. Kobe is in a no win situation.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

Yeah the Cleveland and Atlanta losses were mind boggling. But the losses to Boston and Washington make sense:

vs. Boston

C Walker
PF Horry
SF George
SG Kobe
PG Fisher

C Battie
PF Walker
SF Williams
SG Pierce
PG Delk

vs. Washington

C Haywood
PF Brown
SF Russell
SG Stackhouse
PG Huges
6th Man Jordan

Those losses make sense...you are right Kobe was in a no win situation...and I don't think that the team is clearly built for him if they can't keep up with him half the time.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

*Re: Clangk!*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Did you see the game Friday against the Spurs? That was a nice *BRICK* Tmac threw up at the buzzer. :laugh:
> ...


Kobe has missed quite a few GW shots as well.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> Yeah the Cleveland and Atlanta losses were mind boggling. But the losses to Boston and Washington make sense:
> 
> vs. Boston
> ...


Plus that Washington game was just plain ridiculous. Stackhouse being left alone for a dunk at the buzzer.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Clangk!*



> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> Kobe has missed quite a few GW shots as well.


Yeah...... but that's sort of typical for Tracy. You should have seen the Tmac lovers I was watching the game with. They were all on the edge of there seats hoping:laugh:, praying:laugh: that Mac & cheese would make that shot so they could let me hear it. The shot hit the backboard and nothing else. :laugh: From my perspective it was funny because I knew it was going to happen.

But I will give it to him, he made a nice play the play before that with a dish to Declerq and he made a jump shot earlier that period, but I'm still waiting for Tmac's moment at the buzzer. He just never comes through.

But seriously the last time I remember Kobe missing at the buzzer and I can't think of the time before it was in game 5 of the WCF last year. Bobby Jackson was guarding him and he took a turn around jumpers that roled out.


----------



## 33 (Nov 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Clangk!*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah...... but that's sort of typical for Tracy. You should have seen the Tmac lovers I was watching the game with. They were all on the edge of there seats hoping:laugh:, praying:laugh: that Mac & cheese would make that shot so they could let me hear it. The shot hit the backboard and nothing else. :laugh: From my perspective it was funny because I knew it was going to happen.
> ...





IV, don't hype it up!!! It really went down like this.....T-Mac was killing the whole game and you were pretty quiet, not really paying attention to the game until late in the fourth. I guess that's what T-Mac haters do when he is bussin' tail. You did give respects to the clutch plays he did late in the game, but when he missed the final shot, you were relieved like the feds didn't find nothing in your car. Then you started talking smack about how he never hits GW shots.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Clangk!*



> Originally posted by <b>33</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very poor shot by TMac. I knew it was bad from the start. He can get off a much better shot than that.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Clangk!*



> Originally posted by <b>33</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good quote about the feds not finding anything in the car!:laugh:

Now back to Tmac!

First of all, you didn't even see the whole game. you showed up at halftime. Second, tMAC was not killing the whole game. He went off in spurts, and he was *heisting(translation ballhogging)* the whole game. You know what I always say, if you take 20 shots you at least score 20 points. tMAC shot the ball 36 times and scored 35. That's exactly killing! And Third, I was watching the game..... THE WHOLE GAME. Its true that my attention was distracted having to listen to the #1 Kobe haters yappin about who is better because Tracy drops of a couple baskets in a row. Ya'll aint have nothing to say when his tail went ice cold. 

Dont get mad. You knew Tracy would blown it. He was just as nervous as you were. Face it, he's got some work to do.

_"We fought them as hard as we could fight and all it boils down to is who got the last stop, and they got the last stop." --Tracy McGrady"_


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

Both Kobe and T-Mac are both amazing players, but I have to give Kobe the edge over T-Mac only because McGrady has yet to make it past the first round of the playoffs. If he can't win he'll be just another Dominque Wilkans, a great player to watch but don't count on him to lead your team to the finals.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

since this has become a kobe vs. t-mac discussion, lets make the comparison:

the only reason more people say kobe is better than t-mac is because kobe has three rings but lets be real if kobe had to work with the players t-mac has in orlando, kobe would be ringless just like him.

so its a tie.....


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*The rings dont have much to do with it eventhough Tmac says the same thing.*



> Originally posted by <b>t_blazer03'</b>!
> since this has become a kobe vs. t-mac discussion, lets make the comparison:
> 
> the only reason more people say kobe is better than t-mac is because kobe has three rings but lets be real if kobe had to work with the players t-mac has in orlando, kobe would be ringless just like him.
> ...


They are equal is a lot of ways but Kobe excels on defensive, in crutch time, he's a better playmaker, and has been doing it for longer than Tmac.


----------



## 33 (Nov 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clangk!*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Good quote about the feds not finding anything in the car!:laugh:
> ...


All scorers do a little heisting, but from what I saw (most of the 1st and the whole 2nd half) T-Mac was ballin'. He did shoot a lot but who else was gonna put points on the board, Grant Hill


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> Plus that Washington game was just plain ridiculous. Stackhouse being left alone for a dunk at the buzzer.



Hehe, that was funny. Great D. Anyway, Merged by aqua


----------



## BillWalton (Jan 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, that wasn't my comment. My comment was that it is harder to get assists with worthless teammates, which is true. Hey, if you want to close your eyes, cough, and turn your shoulder, that's fine. I keep my eyes open, and when I watch McGrady, I see someone who tries to pass and his teammates brick shot after shot. Is there any fruit, coke, or popcorn stand where I can pick up some of that purple and yellow kool-aid down here in So-Cal? :sour:



Kobe owns T-mac. Period. Maybe you haven't been watching the NBA but uh, T-mac isn't exactly leading his team right now with Grant Hill out. T-slac has had some bad games and stretches! You say McGrady is surrounded by worthless players, yet at the same time you say the Laker role players suck. When the Lakers went 3-9 they could have easily gone 6-6 but the Lakers lost close games to the Wizards for example. Kobe isn't used to playing a long stretch of games without Shaq(after all- the offense is built for Shaq) Kobe averages more assists and rebounds, he could average just as many points, if Kobe played on the Magic he would average 32 ppg, I guarantee it. :yes:


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

I think Bill Walton (the poster that is) made Tmac look worse than he really is. But, he was mainly right. He does average more assists and boards, and is in the top 5 in steals as well. The thing I think that sets Kobe away from Tmac, is that he's such a great playmaker. He's the closest thing we've seen to Magic since Magic himself. He's about 6'7 but can run the team as good as most PG's can. I love seeing him bring the ball down and make things happen, he's just a joy to watch. If you like him that is, if you're a die-hard Tmac fan or Kobe hater, than it's probably hell to watch him on a good night.


----------



## BillWalton (Jan 13, 2003)

Kobe 

-2nd in scoring only because Shaq is on his team
-Better rebounder
-More assists
-Better free throw shooter
-3 NBA title rings
-All-Star MVP
-Slam dunk champ
-More wins in career
-2 NBA records for 3 pointers
-Yes, the closest to Magic and MJ we have seen 

What does T-mac have on Kobe? Better record this season? Puh. Spare me.....


----------



## BillWalton (Jan 13, 2003)

Kobe=Also was voted to all-star game as rookie and won the rookie game MVP with most pts. ever scored in that game! WOW!


----------



## Stojakovic16 (Jan 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BillWalton</b>!
> Kobe
> 
> -2nd in scoring only because Shaq is on his team
> ...


-excuse
-maybe
-"only because Shaq is on his team"
-not in high pressure situations this season
-so what? he plays for the Lakers, I suppose Madsen is also a better player than T-Mac
-valid
-you think Kobe can jam better than T-Mac?
-he plays for the Lakers, if T-Mac played for the Lakers he'd have just as many
-valid
-not even applicable

You had 2 maybe 3 good points.


----------



## BillWalton (Jan 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Stojakovic16</b>!
> 
> 
> -excuse
> ...


Kobe had a BIG part in those 3 titles...

Kobe can jam just as good as T-slac
Kobe is a better rebounder, he is smaller and still AVERAGES MORE
excuse? bull crap...its the truth


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

*the one thing tmac has on kobe..*

kobe wasnt stripped by a point guard in game 5 in the final seconds and then complained about how bad is back hurt..
Haha if tmac does make the playoffs this year.. theyll get smashed by the nets and or pacers.. Tmac = Dominique wilkins
just cuz u score a lot of points doesnt mean your a great player, ricky davis is puttin up like 24 i think hes very close to what mcgrady is.. A BALL HOG!!!


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

The hilarious thing that Kobe haters (not everyone who doesn't feel Kobe is the best, just those that obviously hate) don't realize that Kobe averaged more assists in the first 12 games minus Shaq than he does now.

But then again these guys don't like facts messing up their logic.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Stojakovic16</b>!
> 
> 
> -excuse
> ...


-Kobe would be right there with McGrady as far as scoring goes
-Kobe is more aggressive going after boards
-Kobe averaged more assists WITHOUT Shaq if I'm not mistaken
-He's missed some FTs true
-lets not compare apples and oranges here. you're comparing a superstar to an ordinary role player. i usually throw the ring argument out because TMac would win rings in LA too
-All Star MVP and Slam Dunk champ really mean nothing. The MVP is alright but dunkiing is meaningless in this argument
-again I agree that TMac could win as many with LA
-Tmac IS a better 3pt shooter but Kobe does hold the record


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Sure. That's why Lakers are still below .500 and Kobe was shooting 42% during Shaqless period when he had his chance to prove how good he really is. 

Shaq is the most dominant and Kobe is the best. Then how do you explain their record. How do you explain they have to get championships handed to them by the NBA through referees.
( as we all saw last summer )

Divac and Stojakovic won the real world championship last summer. They also won the NBA championship last june. Only morons wuld dispute that.

Therefore the best player in the league is probably Stojakovic.

Kobe and Shaq are like Britney or 'N Sync. Get the most hype and fame, but they aren't really good at all at what they do.


----------



## Stojakovic16 (Jan 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> -Kobe would be right there with McGrady as far as scoring goes
> ...


Finally an opinion that doesn't scream bias! You actually have some good points.....


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> Sure. That's why Lakers are still below .500 and Kobe was shooting 42% during Shaqless period when he had his chance to prove how good he really is.
> 
> Shaq is the most dominant and Kobe is the best. Then how do you explain their record. How do you explain they have to get championships handed to them by the NBA through referees.
> ...


Great way to introduce yourself. :laugh:


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

Seriously, this is the most ridiculous argument for Kobe I've ever seen. There's about 1/2 a cogent point here and the rest is either incorrect, an unsupported assumption, or completely irrelvant.



> Originally posted by <b>BillWalton</b>!
> -2nd in scoring only because Shaq is on his team


Huge assumption - evidence would seem to point to false considering that Kobe didn't lead the league in scoring when Shaq was out.



> Originally posted by <b>BillWalton</b>!
> -Better rebounder


Nope. This year Bryant is averaging .9 reb per game more, but in the prior 2 seasons McGrady averaged almost 2 reb per game more (~7.5 for McGrady, ~5.5 for Bryant Until Bryant outrebounds McGrady for 2 seasons, T-Mac is the superior rebounder.



> Originally posted by <b>BillWalton</b>!
> -More assists


True, but McGrady's AST/TO ratio is actually better (2.08 - McGrady to 1.86 for Bryant). 



> Originally posted by <b>BillWalton</b>!
> -Better free throw shooter


80% for McGrady, 83% for Bryant. That difference projects to a .243 point per game difference (i.e. if McGrady shot 83%, he'd score .243 PPG more). Practically irrelevant.



> Originally posted by <b>BillWalton</b>!
> -3 NBA title rings


Steve Kerr has 4 title rings. Therefore, by your logic, Steve Kerr > Kobe.



> Originally posted by <b>BillWalton</b>!
> -All-Star MVP


Completely meaningless; it's an exhibition. The player who hogs the ball and shoots the most on the winning team almost always wins.



> Originally posted by <b>BillWalton</b>!
> -Slam dunk champ


Once again, completely meaningless. Also, Bryant only even made it into the 2nd round because the judges absolutely screwed Darvin Ham on his behalf.



> Originally posted by <b>BillWalton</b>!
> -More wins in career


Completely irrelevant. 100's of players have more wins than Kobe as well. 12th men on great teams can rack up the wins.



> Originally posted by <b>BillWalton</b>!
> -2 NBA records for 3 pointers


The former record holders were Dennis Scott and Brian Shaw. The current record holders for consecutive 3-ptrs made across consecutive games are Brent Price and Terry Mills. I think that shows pretty succinctly how ultimately meaningless those records are when determining overall worth.



> Originally posted by <b>BillWalton</b>!
> -Yes, the closest to Magic and MJ we have seen


Completely subjective.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

:rock: 

RangerC hit the nail on the head 100%. Good post!


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Thew world championship was held in Indy this summer

Did Stojakovic win? YES

Did Sacramento beat LA last june? 

With all of the tapes available to review the series only a complete idiot would agree that LA won and it wasn't fixed.

Look at Sacramento's record right now then look at LA record right now. Look at Stojakovic's stats for the past 15 or so games when he finally got healthy ( about 54% from 2 point land , about
45% from 3 point land, averaging almost the same as Kobe )

It's not even close between these two. One is the real deal, the other is Britney Spears of basketball. And as we all know NBA is a business first and foremost, so it's hype and marketing before talent and skill.

By the way the only difference between LA being a lottery team and champions is refs calling fouls on Shaq the way they do on everybody else. Call all that charging and elbow throwing and they may as well relocate to play in Istanbul or Athens. They could make the playoffs there providing Fisher and Horry pick it up a bit.

And why are you guys comparing Kobe to t-Mac. Milwaukee has 3-4 guys who are as good or better than either Kobe or T-Mac. If they could just make up their mind and get along, well, let's just say relocate Ray Allen , Cassell, Redd to a team like Orlando where you can shoot as much as you like, any one of them would average 35 a game. The trick is averaging that and being 30 -10 not below .500 like both LA and Orlando.

This is exactly what happened to T-Mac, they moved him to a team where he can do as he pleases. 

A truly great player gets results for his team. He averages whatever is necessary to win and makes everybody around him play better. He always shoots at least around 50% or better.

Kobe and T-Mac don't have any of those qualities or stats.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> Thew world championship was held in Indy this summer
> 
> Did Stojakovic win? YES
> ...


You're comparing Stojakovich to Kobe in one area because that is the only area that he compares. Who is the better passer? Better rebounder? Better defender? Better scorer? Better athlete? Kobe wins and it isn't even close. Please save yourself the embarassment of continuing this thread. Even die hard Sac fans will admit that this comparison isn't even close.


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Stojakovic does what is necessary to win.

He has the world championship ( the real one )

Sacramento is a much better team than LA mostly due to Stojakovic ( check where they were a few years ago before he and Divac showed up )

That's the only stat that really matters.

Now for a logic test:

If Kobe is the best and Shaq is the most dominant, then surely they should have a much better record than they do now and surely they wouldn't need refs help to win.

Can you see how stupid your logic is. A team with 2 best players in the league is 21 - 22 at the all star break? Doesn't make much sense does it?

Stojakovic has been playing with more serious injuries than Kobe and Shaq put together in case you want to use that as an excuse.


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Kobe is a better passer?

Is that why he averages 3 turnovers more than Stojakovic?

Kobe is a better Scorer?

Is that why he shot only 42% while Shaq was out and he had a chance to finally prove how good he really is?
I thought better scorer meant scoring a lot of points while shooting high percentage ( something Stojakovic has been doing sice his ankle healed ).

Kobe is a better defender and athlete?

Is that why Stockton and limping Jeff Hornacek run circles around him when Utah beat LA 4-0 and 4-1 two years in a row, then San Antonio beat them 4-0 the following year, with SAntonio guards fast breaking around Kobe at a level unseen since Magic and Nixon in the early to mid 80s. 

Until it came time to renegotiate a TV contract and Stern needed a big market team to win a championship, so they gave it to LA.
Crap, I can put together a team and win like that.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

Whoa, are you seriously saying Stojacovich is better than Kobe and Tmac? Are you saying it with a straight face? I've heard some very unintelligent and very biased remarks on this board, but man, this may just take the cake.


----------



## Sangha (Jul 24, 2002)

Since Stojakovic has become healthy I think he is right up there with Kobe and T-Mac and Peja is a much better team player than the other two.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> Stojakovic does what is necessary to win.
> 
> He has the world championship ( the real one )
> ...


I warned you but since you seem undeterred lets do this. First, Shaq also has won World Championship rings and Olympic rings. The only reason Yugoslavia won it all is because Shaq, Kobe, TMac, Iverson..etc and all of the best players weren't there. They still deserve props but lets see who wins it all in 2004 when the stars actually do play? 
Next with Sac being a better team with Stojakovich, that is obvious. But remember that the Kings were leading the series with LA last year before Peja played. They never won a game with him. Also, I remember a healthy Peja being shut down by Rick Fox 2 years before that. He's had his chances against the Lakers but he hasn't capitalized.
About the Lakers record this year it does suck. But who has 3 championships and who doesn't? I hope that makes sense to you. 3 rings my friend. End of story!
This is an argument that you are never going to win. Keep coming at me if you'd like but your twisted logic isn't going to help your credibility with this board.


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Kobe and T-Mac are nothing special.

Check their teams' records and please explain how a team like LA with suposedly 2 of the very best players in the game still has a losing record.

These past years when Sacramento played for long stretches without Webber and Bibby and many others, as long as Stojakovic was healthy they maintained about the same winning ( and I emphasise winning, WAY ABOVE .500 ) percentage.

Can you say the same for LA?

No! Therefore surely Kobe isn't really all that.

Lakers championships have exactly as much value as Hulk Hogan's or Rock's. ( if you are a Laker fan, maybe you should ask somebody to explain what I mean, I understand that these days you guys are about as sharp as Shaq's free throw skills )

Kobe, T-Mac and Shaq ( or whoever ) would not have made any difference in the World Championships, just like they aren't making any difference in the NBA today. AGAIN CHECK THEIR TEAMS' RECORDS. You can't take NBA refs to the world championships to fix games for you ( at least not yet )


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> Kobe is a better passer?
> 
> Is that why he averages 3 turnovers more than Stojakovic?
> ...


Yes Kobe is a better passer. First of all, Stojakovich is a catch and shoot player. He averages like 1 or 2 assists a game. Kobe is the PG for the Lakers. His job is to create and he is much better passer as evidenced by the number of assists. BTW twisted logic man, what the hell does turning the ball over have to do with being a good passer? Turnovers aren't just the result of bad passes. Offensive fouls, travelling violations, stepping out of bounds, double dribbling, ..etc all count as turnovers. It's not just bad passes.

Yes Kobe is also a better scorer. He shot only 42% from the field w/o Shaq but he averaged 30 pts a game. Since you're using injuries as an excuse for Peja I'll do the same for Kobe. He was injured at the beginning of the season as well. But since then his numbers have gone up across the board. He's shooting 45% from the field and averaging 28 points per game. He's the better scorer.

With the last line about Utah and SA running circles around Kobe I think you should chill with the hyberbole. "SA fast breaking at levels unseen since Magic"? Who the hell are you Bill Walton? The fact is the Lakers were a young team and got schooled by a team full of cagey vets. Kobe was only 18-19 at the time. People do get better you know? And Kobe did get better, much better. Now he's the one running circles around opposing Vets, like Doug Christie. BTW all the evidence you need is that Kobe won a slam dunk contest and Peja hasn't. Kobe is also a better athlete. I'm telling you to quit while you're behind.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> Whoa, are you seriously saying Stojacovich is better than Kobe and Tmac? Are you saying it with a straight face? I've heard some very unintelligent and very biased remarks on this board, but man, this may just take the cake.


This guy is


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> Kobe, T-Mac and Shaq ( or whoever ) would not have made any difference in the World Championships, just like they aren't making any difference in the NBA today. AGAIN CHECK THEIR TEAMS' RECORDS. You can't take NBA refs to the world championships to fix games for you ( at least not yet )


Uh ok? I guess Peja and the Kings like being "paper champs" because that is all they are. I seriously don't give a damn what Sac's record is in the regular season. All I know is that Sac and Peja have ZERO championships and Shaq and Kobe have THREE! THREE championships! I'd call that making a difference in your teams' record. The one that actually counts that is. Also I sincerely hope you never become an NBA GM. I mean Peja over Shaq, Kobe, and TMac!


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sangha</b>!
> Since Stojakovic has become healthy I think he is right up there with Kobe and T-Mac and Peja is a much better team player than the other two.


How would you define a team player?


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Lakers were a young team?

Kobe was 3 years in the league by the time SAntonio slapped them 4 - 0 .

Shaq about 9years, Horry already had 2 rings, Fox or whoever they had. Not young at all. That and what you see now record wise is the real LA.

Don't use age as an excuse ( Magic Johnson won the final game and championship singlehandedly his rookie year )
He should have gone to college then. No whining please.

Shaq being allowed to get away with murder. That is the only reason LA wins anything. Call the game the way it's supposed to be called they don't make the playoffs.

That's the truth, everybody with an IQ higher than Shaq's free throw % knows it.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> Lakers were a young team?
> 
> Kobe was 3 years in the league by the time SAntonio slapped them 4 - 0 .
> ...


Actually the Lakers were very young when they played the Jazz the first 2 times. Kobe was 18, Shaq was 24, Van Exel was 24, Jones was 23, Fisher was 22. Horry was the only player with rings. Also they weren't particularly well coached. Del Harris didn't have a clue out there and the Lakers looked absolutely lost. 
Regarding Shaq, he doesn't do anything differently than any other player in the league. The fact is that he's 7-1 350 so it looks alot worse. He is without question the hardest player in the league to officiate. Everything he does is legal but because of his size it looks alot worse than it is. He may get some calls in his favor but he also gets penalized because of his size. Who in the league gets hacked more than Shaq? People hit him in the head, on the hands, on the wrists and yet it is never called because of his size. He also gets penalized on the defensive end because of his size.


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Don't forget to mention that Utah was already a very old crappy team which made it to the finals simply because there were no other good teams left.

Stockton, Malone and Hornacek were already 35 or older.
Hornacek was limping around like he was doing some kind of square dance. Jazz had no other decent players and no center.

All this makes it all the more embarassing for the young Lakers ( I think their age should have been an advantage at that point )

Shaq and Kobe are an embarassment to all true Laker fans like I used to be and an embarassment to the game of basketball.

Your other part proves how influenced by hype you are since it's all basically word for word what NBA and TV comentators say ( about Shaq's size making it difficult to referee and other crap )

Nobody else in the league slams directly into defenders on purpose the way he does and nobody else throws elbows into people's faces on purpose the way he does.

It is very easy to call, but they don't and we know why.
What about defense? How about when Smith went in a Shaq slammed him with his body 3 years ago, or when Penny went in and got thrown by a body slam all the way to the bench. No call and then Kobe scores over Kidd and they beat Phoenix. This happens all the time, these are just examples.
Matt Geiger that same month got thrown out for doing the exact same thing on Reggie Miller (called for flagrant twice and thrown out )

How many times do we have to see Shaq throw elbows into Sabonis' face and they call fouls on Sabonis who is just standing there holding his position.

They even invented this ridiculous circle under the basket so they can justify calling fouls on defenders even when run over by Shaq
Have any of you bothered to ask what the ^%#*& was that when that new circle appeared under the basket. It's proposterous. Sole purpose of that was to quiet people complaining about this very thing. Now Shaq can empty an uzi into your forehead all they have to say is: "defender's
foot was inside the circle"

WHAT ^%&$# ING DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE!!!!!!!

The only reason Shaq gets hacked ( and they call it all the time ) is because defenders are given no choice. If you just stand there you know they aren't going to get a call even if Shaq punches you in the face. So what are you supposed to do.
Shaq isn't difficult to guard at all if they called by the rules.
He can't shoot over anybody, he can't go around most people, he is a helpless pig unless he can shove you out of his way.

He didn't win &^*$# in college because there he didn't have David Stern on his side even though he was playing against kids 1/2 his size.


----------



## Joker (Aug 7, 2002)

and i bet i think divac is better than shaq, right?


----------



## Joker (Aug 7, 2002)

dont get me wrong, i am a laker hater too.
but ur kobe peja arguments are ridiculous.
for shaq u may be right that he has a lot in his favor. but though kobe is a punk and is still as arrogant and whiny, hes got the talent and is a top 5 player int he lague along with KG Tmac Shaq and Duncan. sorry, but peja is not there. he would fall in the ray allen and allen houston category. a pure shooter. period.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*C'mon RangerC......*



> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> Huge assumption - evidence would seem to point to false considering that Kobe didn't lead the league in scoring when Shaq was out.


You're right this is an assumption, but rightfully so. Kobe's numbers have declined since the return of Oneal. So you would think that playing by himself he would average better numbers because he did, but it is an assumption to say that he would be leading the league eventhough he was a point behind Tmac in PPGs.



> Nope. This year Bryant is averaging .9 reb per game more, but in the prior 2 seasons McGrady averaged almost 2 reb per game more (~7.5 for McGrady, ~5.5 for Bryant Until Bryant outrebounds McGrady for 2 seasons, T-Mac is the superior rebounder.


Actually Kobe is averaging 2 rebounds more this season. last year he averaged 5.5 this year he averages 7.4. Where'd you get .9 from? Anyhow, I think you have overstated Tmac being the superior rebounder. He plays on a team where there are no big men. He's going to grab more rebounds. Just like when Kobe played without Shaq, he was averaging 11 rebounds a game. So who's really the superior rebounder?




> True, but McGrady's AST/TO ratio is actually better (2.08 - McGrady to 1.86 for Bryant).


I dont think .22 is anything to brag about; you're struglling with this one.:yes:



> 80% for McGrady, 83% for Bryant. That difference projects to a .243 point per game difference (i.e. if McGrady shot 83%, he'd score .243 PPG more). Practically irrelevant.


Just as irrelevant as the quote above.:yes:



> Steve Kerr has 4 title rings. Therefore, by your logic, Steve Kerr > Kobe.


Steve Kerr has played an entire NBA career. 
And has in no way contributed to his team success the way Kobe has. The point is not the rings makes you better than the guy who has none. The point is I'm a step ahead. I've earned my rings, and you've got some catching up to do.



> Completely meaningless; it's an exhibition. The player who hogs the ball and shoots the most on the winning team almost always wins.


*Here's a list of other meaningless awards in the NBA:*
Wilt Chamberlains 100 pts in a game.
Kobe all time most 3pointers in a game.
The last time a player posted a quadruple double, I think it was David Robinson.
Jordan scoarches the Celtics for 63 in the playoffs i the Garden.
Magic comes back to win the Allstar MVP.
Jordan hits 6 threes in a game against the Portland Blazers.
Scott Skiles 30 assist in one game.
Kobe wins the allstar MVP while being boooed everytime he touches the ball.

*These performances may be meanless to you, but there not to the NBA record books.*




> Once again, completely meaningless. Also, Bryant only even made it into the 2nd round because the judges absolutely screwed Darvin Ham on his behalf.


I thought you weren't big on assumptions? Screwed Ham????? How about facts......Kobe won!



> Completely irrelevant. 100's of players have more wins than Kobe as well. 12th men on great teams can rack up the wins.


The wins are irrelavant because no one man can win at a team sport.



> The former record holders were Dennis Scott and Brian Shaw. The current record holders for consecutive 3-ptrs made across consecutive games are Brent Price and Terry Mills. I think that shows pretty succinctly how ultimately meaningless those records are when determining overall worth.


Why? Dennis Scott, Brian Shaw, Terry Mills, & Brent Price are all known as three point shooters. You would expect to see a "3pt shooter" hold a record for 3 pointers. Just like you'd expect to see Dennis rodman name on a list for alltime rebounding, or Scottie Pippen's name on a list for all time defenders. But of course there are exceptions. Like when a guy who's weakest part of his game is 3pt shooting and he breaks a record.





> Completely subjective.


:no:


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

*great post !!!*

Everyone is saying kobe isnt that great of shooter.. check out the great MJ.. see what his career three point percentage is..
the reason he has so many turnovers, is becuz the ball is always in his hand and hes always tryin to make plays...
Mcgrady when his career is over will be the equivilant to dominique, great dunker and scorer.. but not one of the best.. 
50 years from now, their going to look at who has the rings and kobes got 3!!! im really lookin forward to watchin him tonight put it on the pacers..
By the way the top turnover people in the game
are 
Franchise Big dog Kobe pierce kidd iverson ricky davis and marburry..
Just becuz they have a lot of turnovers your tellin me you wouldnt want these guys on your team?? last time i checked all but ricky davis got out of the first round at least..


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> Thew world championship was held in Indy this summer
> 
> Did Stojakovic win? YES
> ...


Hillarious, if your hero Peja doesn't choke and hits that 3 instead of hitting only oxygen the Kings win the "fixed" series. Maybe Peja was in on the fix?

By the way Vlade for Kobe was the biggest rip off of all time. Kobe has won 3 rings for the Lakers and all Vlade has done is lead his team to 3 straight losses to Kobe.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*CLASSIC!*



> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> By the way Vlade for Kobe was the biggest rip off of all time. Kobe has won 3 rings for the Lakers and all Vlade has done is lead his team to 3 straight losses to Kobe.


Great line


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: great post !!!*



> Originally posted by <b>grizzoistight</b>!
> Everyone is saying kobe isnt that great of shooter.. check out the great MJ.. see what his career three point percentage is..
> the reason he has so many turnovers, is becuz the ball is always in his hand and hes always tryin to make plays...
> Mcgrady when his career is over will be the equivilant to dominique, great dunker and scorer.. but not one of the best..
> ...


I wouldn't want the Big Dog on my team, I have always insisted that he was a walking turnover. If he doesn't turn it over, he shoots the ball. He, "Franchise" and Ricky Davis are pretty dumb when it comes to turnovers. As much as I hate giving any sort of respect to Kobe, his turnovers nowadays are mostly within the offense, save for Kidd, he has the most valid reason for turning the ball over at a high rate.

STuart


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

Of course Divac is better than Shaq.

He can pass, he can shoot from the outside, what can Shaq do other than commit an offensive fouls, travel in the process and dunk? Even while playing against Shaq and 3 refs Divac had outplayed Shaq in a few games last June

I don't have 3 sixpacks or smoke crack while watching basketball, if you people didn't maybe you'd see it clearly.

Sacramento - LA series was over after 4 , at most 5 games.

Never should have come to the 7th or 6th game

Horry's 3 pointer in that game should have been irrelevant if the whole LA team weren't allowed to play football the second half.
Sacramento should have won that game by 30, same with most of those games. That 3 pointer would have cut Sac's lead from 30 to 27 , that's all

Same was true of Portland - LA series 3 years ago. Shaq couldn't handle Sabonis so every game they got Sabonis in foul trouble as soon as they could. Most of the time Sabonis is holding his ground with his hands up in the air, not moving at all, Shaq turns and hits Sabonis with an elbow ( on purpose ), and they call foul on Sabonis, over and over again, every game.
Same with Grant and Davis. 

Shaq was called for only 2 fouls during a 3 game span, while Davis, Sabonis and Grant were called for about 45. 
I can show you a tape of a single quarter where Shaq commits at least 7-8 obvious, elbow to the head type of fouls which aren't called ( pick any game that series )

As for Kobe he was shooting 42% during Shaqless period when he was running things. He is usually about 45% ( count only 2 pointers, not much better )

Michael Jordan was at his peak about 53% shooter . This is an enormous difference with these guys taking so many shots. That's about 7-8 points per game in MJ's favor on the same number of shots. Consider how many games are decided by that margin or less and you'll see that could be a difference between winning 60 games or being the dead last team in the NBA.

That is why Lakers couldn't win this year. Kobe is a crap player. 
Good for a few highlights and nothing more.

Less crack and beer people. That's what NBA wants, get you drugged up so you don't notice the crap they pull off on you.

Their last three championships and the entire Shaq's career are as real as Hulk Hogan's championships and career in the WWF


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*I think he is serious*



> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> Of course Divac is better than Shaq.
> 
> He can pass, he can shoot from the outside, what can Shaq do other than commit an offensive fouls, travel in the process and dunk? Even while playing against Shaq and 3 refs Divac had outplayed Shaq in a few games last June
> ...


He really is serious. Maybe he's on crack and drinking too much beer. Sober up dude. You're starting to lose your mind.


----------



## Mulk (Jun 25, 2002)

Lol u gotta love loyalty to the extreme


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Kobe was just named WC player of the month for January.

Kobe-haters, you can go ahead and cry in your beer now. 

http://www.nba.com/news/potm_030203.html


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: C'mon RangerC......*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> You're right this is an assumption, but rightfully so. Kobe's numbers have declined since the return of Oneal. So you would think that playing by himself he would average better numbers because he did, but it is an assumption to say that he would be leading the league eventhough he was a point behind Tmac in PPGs.


I'm terribly confused as to the point you're trying to make here, but my point was that there's no concrete evidence Kobe would lead the league in scoring without Shaq - that's why it's an unfounded assumption.



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> Actually Kobe is averaging 2 rebounds more this season. last year he averaged 5.5 this year he averages 7.4. Where'd you get .9 from? Anyhow, I think you have overstated Tmac being the superior rebounder. He plays on a team where there are no big men. He's going to grab more rebounds. Just like when Kobe played without Shaq, he was averaging 11 rebounds a game. So who's really the superior rebounder?


.9 is the difference between Bryant and McGrady this year. ~2 was the difference between Bryant and McGrady the two years prior in McGrady's favor. As far as Kobe's 11 rebounds per game without Shaq - 1) It was 8.3 (the numbers are readily available at any major sports site) 2) It's a 12 game sample, and less significant than two full seasons of rebounding numbers.



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> I dont think .22 is anything to brag about; you're struglling with this one.:yes:


I never said it was a significant advantage for McGrady, just that it isn't an advantage for Bryant.



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> Just as irrelevant as the quote above.:yes:


Once again, I never said it was an advantage for McGrady, just that it is a nearly insignificant advantage for Bryant. I'm NOT arguing that McGrady is the superior player; my argument is simply that this list of 'advantages' for Bryant are either irrelevant or invalid.



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> Steve Kerr has played an entire NBA career.
> And has in no way contributed to his team success the way Kobe has. The point is not the rings makes you better than the guy who has none. The point is I'm a step ahead. I've earned my rings, and you've got some catching up to do.


No, the point is that championship rings are a function of the team as much as the player (BTW, if having rings isn't an advantage, as you stated above - why are you arguing this point?).



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> *Here's a list of other meaningless awards in the NBA:*
> Wilt Chamberlains 100 pts in a game.
> Kobe all time most 3pointers in a game.
> ...


No, the All-Star game is meaningless. It's an exhibition. Exhibitions by nature are meaningless. 



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> I thought you weren't big on assumptions? Screwed Ham????? How about facts......Kobe won!


It's a judged event. Did you actually see it? Bryant was in third (after an extremely sorry set of initial dunks), with Ham the final competitor. Ham busted out a nasty set of dunks (including one never seen before or since where he slapped the ball against the backboard, spin a 180, and threw it down in an awkward position) and mysteriously received a score just low enough to get Bryant into the final round over him. Besides, it's the Dunk Contest. Harold Miner and Terrance Stansbury have won it. Winning a dunk contest has no bearing on a players actual worth.




> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> Why? Dennis Scott, Brian Shaw, Terry Mills, & Brent Price are all known as three point shooters. You would expect to see a "3pt shooter" hold a record for 3 pointers. Just like you'd expect to see Dennis rodman name on a list for alltime rebounding, or Scottie Pippen's name on a list for all time defenders. But of course there are exceptions. Like when a guy who's weakest part of his game is 3pt shooting and he breaks a record.


I think you've lost the gist of my argument again. It's a nice achievement for Bryant to hold this record - but it's absolutely ridiculous to say that it's an advantage for him over McGrady considering that holders of those types of records have carved no significant niche in NBA history.

Here's the funny thing: I actually think that Bryant is better than McGrady (not significantly, though)! It's just that that list of arguments for Kobe's superiority were full of poor logic, lacked evidence, and/or were unfounded assumptions.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

I wouldn't bet against Kobe leading the league in scoring without Shaq . He was what 1 point behind TMac when Shaq returned with all the big games he's having he may well have passed TMac for the scoring title. Ranger C so summarily dismissing Kobe about passing TMac is unfounded. Kobe may well pass him this year with Shaq but I doubt it. Kobe will probably finish the season averaging very close to 30ppg. 

Kobe is better than TMac for these reasons. ]

He can at the end of games create better shots off the dribble because he's a more creative ball handler, using spin dribbles ,cross overs and blow bys. TMac primarily uses the blow by which help defenders can anticipate and make the shots he takes in the clutch tougher. Kobe using cross overs and spins can avoid traffic alot better . TMac isn't as good changing direction so an opponent can aniticipate those moves. Baron Davis stole the ball in the clutch in the playoffs twice from TMac because of this. 

Kobe hits the medium range shot better than TMac, Tmac is the superior deep shooter but Kobe uses the floaters and pull ups alot better. Which are more effective shots especially in the clutch. 

Kobe is the better defender and better passer. He passes to set up teammates , Tmac passes because the lane to score is cut off. 

Kobe just has overall more court awareness of when to do things and when to turn his game up.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: C'mon RangerC......*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> You're right this is an assumption, but rightfully so. Kobe's numbers have declined since the return of Oneal. So you would think that playing by himself he would average better numbers because he did, but it is an assumption to say that he would be leading the league eventhough he was a point behind Tmac in PPGs.


Sorry dude, but you can't use those games without shaq to tout him as the better player, and then turn around and _dismiss the fact that they had a horrid record during that stretch_. That makes for a poorly constructed argument.




> Actually Kobe is averaging 2 rebounds more this season. last year he averaged 5.5 this year he averages 7.4. Where'd you get .9 from? Anyhow, I think you have overstated Tmac being the superior rebounder. He plays on a team where there are no big men. He's going to grab more rebounds. Just like when Kobe played without Shaq, he was averaging 11 rebounds a game. So who's really the superior rebounder?


Who knows? You are again arguing based on the same 12 games you seem so eager to throw out when it comes time to count wins. Are these games IN or OUT???




> *Here's a list of other meaningless awards in the NBA:*
> Wilt Chamberlains 100 pts in a game.
> Kobe all time most 3pointers in a game.
> The last time a player posted a quadruple double, I think it was David Robinson.
> ...


1) They lost
2) So what? One day someone will break that record.
3) Only1 ring, in a strike shortened season
4) IN a playoff game. It meant more
5) All star games are irrelavent--this is an incongruous comparison
6) See #4
7) Its just one game. Nobody is prepared to say that Skiles was better than Stockton
8) And he sure did "touch the ball alot". 



> The wins are irrelavant because no one man can win at a team sport.


Finally some sense. But then, so are stats, since a players ability to score effectively is so dependent on the respect his teammates get.



> Why? Dennis Scott, Brian Shaw, Terry Mills, & Brent Price are all known as three point shooters. You would expect to see a "3pt shooter" hold a record for 3 pointers. Just like you'd expect to see Dennis rodman name on a list for alltime rebounding, or Scottie Pippen's name on a list for all time defenders. But of course there are exceptions. Like when a guy who's weakest part of his game is 3pt shooting and he breaks a record.


Which is precisely why the record is almost completely irrelavent in terms of evaluating him as a player.

Aside from the Career Scoring position, MJ has records that Kobe is likely NEVER EVER gonna break, and there really is no need for me to spit them all out. That doesn't mean Kobe will never compare to MJ though (even though I don't think he'll quite catch MJ overall).


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: C'mon RangerC......*



> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> I'm terribly confused as to the point you're trying to make here, but my point was that there's no concrete evidence Kobe would lead the league in scoring without Shaq - that's why it's an unfounded assumption.


Let me clarify. I agree with you about making assumptions to prove one way or another. Statistically when two very good players are on the same team and one is out the other tends to improve numbers wise. You may not agree, but I do think that Shaq would average more ppg than he does now if he played without Kobe, and vice versa. But like you say, that doesn't prove anything because it is all specualtion. 





> .9 is the difference between Bryant and McGrady this year. ~2 was the difference between Bryant and McGrady the two years prior in McGrady's favor. As far as Kobe's 11 rebounds per game without Shaq - 1) It was 8.3 (the numbers are readily available at any major sports site) 2) It's a 12 game sample, and less significant than two full seasons of rebounding numbers.


I read your post wrong. The numbers were accurate. as far as the small population, yeah it was only 12 games and I was mistaken about the 11 boards per game just as you are mistaken about the 8.3 rpg. Its actually 8.83. Anyhow, you've taken a stats class so you should know that small populations dont always prove consistent over longer terms, but in Tmac case they did. He played in Toronto as a reserve who ended up starting towards the end of the year and posted good number which turned into great numbers when that small sample became a large sample. But here we go with assumptions again so throw that one out.




> I never said it was a significant advantage for McGrady, just that it isn't an advantage for Bryant.


irrelevant....... fair enough.



> Once again, I never said it was an advantage for McGrady, just that it is a nearly insignificant advantage for Bryant. I'm NOT arguing that McGrady is the superior player; my argument is simply that this list of 'advantages' for Bryant are either irrelevant or invalid.


Some people argue advantages while other argue acheivements. I think he was simply listing Kobe's acheivements basically saying Kobe has done all these things and Tmac hasn't. Whether that is an unfair assessment of who's better..... dont ask me.



> No, the point is that championship rings are a function of the team as much as the player (BTW, if having rings isn't an advantage, as you stated above - why are you arguing this point?).


The Steve Kerr > than Kobe argument is silly. Kobe's got those rings and Tmac doesn't. That's the reason why Tmac says Kobe is better than him so why not expect a Kobe fan to throw that in a Tmac fans face.





> No, the All-Star game is meaningless. It's an exhibition. Exhibitions by nature are meaningless.


Allstar games are not meaningless. Many players who have not made an allstar game but have had very good careers will be overlooked for hall of fame induction because they were never selected as the best of the best. 
When you set on the court with the best players in the world and at the end of that game you are voted the MVP that means something. 





> It's a judged event. Did you actually see it? Bryant was in third (after an extremely sorry set of initial dunks), with Ham the final competitor. Ham busted out a nasty set of dunks (including one never seen before or since where he slapped the ball against the backboard, spin a 180, and threw it down in an awkward position) and mysteriously received a score just low enough to get Bryant into the final round over him. Besides, it's the Dunk Contest. Harold Miner and Terrance Stansbury have won it. Winning a dunk contest has no bearing on a players actual worth.


Conspiracy theory? 

We like to talk about facts remember. Kobe won. Let's not whine about what should have happened. No assumptions.



> I think you've lost the gist of my argument again. It's a nice achievement for Bryant to hold this record - but it's absolutely ridiculous to say that it's an advantage for him over McGrady considering that holders of those types of records have carved no significant niche in NBA history.


The 3pts record is not a advantage for Kobe over Tmac. It is instead an acheivement to silence those who claim that Tmac has that edge over Kobe.



> Here's the funny thing: I actually think that Bryant is better than McGrady (not significantly, though)! It's just that that list of arguments for Kobe's superiority were full of poor logic, lacked evidence, and/or were unfounded assumptions.


I read them and they were. Being on the Kobe side of the argument I said understand what that person was trying to say, and further elaborate on the subject. 
I agree with alot of what you said in your post. I also disagreed with some. I didn't think assuming Kobe's numbers would improve without Shaq is an unfounded assumption. its acutally factual in the games he has played with Shaq. You also have some assumptions in your post that dont sit well with a Kobe fan like the judges unfairly giving Ham a low score just to get Kobe over into the final round. C'mon


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: C'mon RangerC......*



> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry dude, but you can't use those games without shaq to tout him as the better player, and then turn around and _dismiss the fact that they had a horrid record during that stretch_. That makes for a poorly constructed argument.


There wasn't anything in that quote about the Lakers record. We were talking about Kobe having better numbers without Shaq, which he does.




> Who knows? You are again arguing based on the same 12 games you seem so eager to throw out when it comes time to count wins. Are these games IN or OUT???


What is your point? Are you a anti Kobe guy who will stay stuck on the 3-9 record. The games are IN. Kobe was playing terrific basketball ball then, just like he's playing terrific basketball now. I guess that's why he was the player on the month during the 3-9 stretch and he's the player of the month again today. The record has nothing to do with how well Kobe performs.





> 1) They lost
> 2) So what? One day someone will break that record.
> 3) Only1 ring, in a strike shortened season
> 4) IN a playoff game. It meant more
> ...


I respect single game records just like I respect record that span over a season or a career. and since you 've made up all these ridiculous excuses as to why these records are meaningless. why dont you do the same thing for seasonal record or career records.
Here's what you'd sound like:
Kareem wasn't a great scorer. The only reason why he has the most points scored is because he played for so many years. Magic Johnson didnt deserve to win the finals MVP in his rookie season. It would have never happened if Karrem hadn't of got hurt. All these things may be true, but can't you see you can go on and on like this about every record ever. its BS man, BS.



> Which is precisely why the record is almost completely irrelavent in terms of evaluating him as a player.


I'm not following you here at all. The point is amazing players do amazing things. Sometimes they are so amazing that the people who dislike them the most discredit it because they can't believe it happened.



> Aside from the Career Scoring position, MJ has records that Kobe is likely NEVER EVER gonna break, and there really is no need for me to spit them all out. That doesn't mean Kobe will never compare to MJ though (even though I don't think he'll quite catch MJ overall).


at the age of 24 Kobe is sitting on top of the world. He's probably got 15 years left in his career. I wouldnt bet against him. No way!


----------



## 33 (Nov 18, 2002)

I would bet against him. Kobe fell into a grand situation, Shaq. Kobe does have 3 rings and he was a big part of the Fakers success, but Shaq is the foundation. I could put another star guard on the Fakers and they would be champs (with Phil Jackson coaching of course ). Kobe is a very good player ( not great yet) but he doesn't go through what A.I. or T-Mac goes through. He doesn't put up with the things KG or even J. Kidd puts up with. He doesn't have to carry a team to the promise land by himself. If he is having a bad night, Shaq can hold it down. But if KG, or T-Mac is having a bad night, they lose. Once Kobe is out there running the show without another star, then I will give him more props


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*33*

I have no idea what you consider a great player? 
Kobe, Tmac, AI, KG, Kidd.... they're all great players. Maybe you can further enlighten me on what a great player is.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

*Re: 33*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> I have no idea what you consider a great player?
> Kobe, Tmac, AI, KG, Kidd.... they're all great players. Maybe you can further enlighten me on what a great player is.


Really though? Kobe isn't great? He's a great player who also happens to play with another great player. That doesn't diminish what he does. The fact is teams still focus on Kobe and he usually goes up against the oppostion's best defender. Shaq makes his job a little bit easier but Kobe is a great player period.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: C'mon RangerC......*

Before I go further, let me first premise by suggesting that one not be so quick to assume anothers position on ANY subject matter without credible evidence to support such claims. For the record, I couldn't care less about Kobe, or Tmac for that matter, they are both fabulous players, but I am a bulls fan, and my concerns are centered around what it is gonna take to make them an effective TEAM.

Now then...


> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> There wasn't anything in that quote about the Lakers record. We were talking about Kobe having better numbers without Shaq, which he does.


There were quotes before that. Please don't make me look them up. I'd hate to backtrack through the thread. The fact is he DOES have better numbers without shaq, but he doesn't have a better record. It could be argued then that he wasn't as effective at helping his team win.....numbers or no numbers. If Wilt scored 100 in a game and his team lost, it could be argued that he would have been a more effective and thus, better player if he had only score 50 and contributed to a WIN. 




> What is your point? Are you a anti Kobe guy who will stay stuck on the 3-9 record. The games are IN. Kobe was playing terrific basketball ball then, just like he's playing terrific basketball now. I guess that's why he was the player on the month during the 3-9 stretch and he's the player of the month again today. The record has nothing to do with how well Kobe performs.


I could care less about kobe, as I stated above. I'm prolly one of the most objective posters on this entire subject. That being said, if the games are in, then the argument that he was not as effective in accomplishing WINNING BASKETBALL (which IS the overall objective...numbers be damned), is Fair play.



> I respect single game records just like I respect record that span over a season or a career. and since you 've made up all these ridiculous excuses as to why these records are meaningless.


First, its not a good idea to resort to Hyperbole and Conjecture to win an arguement. 

Secondly I never even remotely suggested that those records are meaning less. But I will not evaluate a player's entire career based on silly [edited] single game performances.



> why dont you do the same thing for seasonal record or career records.


1) Because I never did them for single game records to begin with

2) Seasonal Records and CAREER RECORDS ARE EXACTLY HOW PLAYERS ARE MEASURED WHEN IT IS ALL SAID AND DONE. WHich is precisely why those single game records are not nearly as significant as you make them out to be.




> Here's what you'd sound like:
> Kareem wasn't a great scorer. The only reason why he has the most points scored is because he played for so many years. Magic Johnson didnt deserve to win the finals MVP in his rookie season. It would have never happened if Karrem hadn't of got hurt. All these things may be true, but can't you see you can go on and on like this about every record ever. its BS man, BS.


I wouldn't sound like that, because I would never suggest any of those things. A players effectiveness and greatness is affected by his teammates. I find it ridiculous that any student of ANY team sport (especially basketball) cannot see this. That is why players such as Charles Barkley still catch fire for not having a ring. Great player, but not effective in achieving his ultimate goal. Is that all his fault, of course not, but that is how we measure them. Fact is Kobe has shown that he loses some of his effectiveness at team oriented goals (this is a team sport ya know), in the face of individual accomplishments when shaq is not there. Period.




> I'm not following you here at all. The point is amazing players do amazing things.


And so do average players. Or was the 3- point record not so amazing when it was held by dennis scott?? Scott was a great shooter, but overall an average talent at best.



> Sometimes they are so amazing that the people who dislike them the most discredit it because they can't believe it happened.


That wouldn't be me, because as I have said, I could care less about either player discussed in this debate.




> at the age of 24 Kobe is sitting on top of the world. He's probably got 15 years left in his career. I wouldnt bet against him. No way!


Please. His team is struggling, and they will not win it all this year. Yes he has three rings. Good for him. Great even. But what is his team doing right now?? 15 years? Not likely. Kobe has been playing pro ball for 6 years now, and it takes a toll unlike what he would have endured in college. I hope you aren't alluding to the fact that at 39 mike is still playing, becase the two situations are different on virtually every level fundamentally speaking. In fact the similarities between the two stars end with their work ethic, and style on the court.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: 33*



> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> Really though? Kobe isn't great? He's a great player who also happens to play with another great player. That doesn't diminish what he does. The fact is teams still focus on Kobe and he usually goes up against the oppostion's best defender. Shaq makes his job a little bit easier but Kobe is a great player period.


I think he may be getting great players mixed up with hall of famers


----------



## 33 (Nov 18, 2002)

*Well said*

Well said the Krakken:yes:


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: C'mon RangerC......*



> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> There were quotes before that.


I really dont know what quotes your talking about and it really doesnt matter. I just disagree with you.



> The fact is he DOES have better numbers without shaq, but he doesn't have a better record. It could be argued then that he wasn't as effective at helping his team win.....numbers or no numbers.


His effectiveness is not the question. The fact that Shaq is out is. With Shaq not being there the "Team" is missing a major part. It is the same if Kobe were not there, the "Team" would be without one of its best players therefore the "Team" would suffer.
Why can't you see that?



> I could care less about kobe, as I stated above. I'm prolly one of the most objective posters on this entire subject. That being said, if the games are in, then the argument that he was not as effective in accomplishing WINNING BASKETBALL (which IS the overall objective...numbers be damned), is Fair play.


The team not winning because of the team being at a disadvantage because of injuries because not relate to Kobe Bryant. Kobe is the guy who does his job with or without who ever may be on the court. Shaq not being there leaves a major void. 




> First, its not a good idea to resort to Hyperbole and Conjecture to win an arguement.
> 
> Secondly I never even remotely suggested that those records are meaning less. But I will not evaluate a player's entire career based on silly A$$ed single game performances.


No one is evaluting Kobe's entire career because of one game. He has proven countless times that he is a great player. He has broken many records, he has acheivement many individual as well as team awards. Dont be so smallminded.




> 1) Because I never did them for single game records to begin with
> 
> 2) Seasonal Records and CAREER RECORDS ARE EXACTLY HOW PLAYERS ARE MEASURED WHEN IT IS ALL SAID AND DONE. WHich is precisely why those single game records are not nearly as significant as you make them out to be.


You are the one making the single game records out to be more significant than they are. It's just another point on his resume.
When you look at a list of Kobe Bryants career acheivments, it will include the single game records. He did it and he gets commended for it.




> I wouldn't sound like that, because I would never suggest any of those things. A players effectiveness and greatness is affected by his teammates. I find it ridiculous that any student of ANY team sport (especially basketball) cannot see this.


Kobe makes Shaq a better players and Shaq makes Kobe a better player. Teamwork. When they are a part you cannot expect any other player in LA to be able to fill the void that will be missed.



> That is why players such as Charles Barkley still catch fire for not having a ring. Great player, but not effective in achieving his ultimate goal. Is that all his fault, of course not, but that is how we measure them.


Barkley's a great player one of the best, but his stubborness got the best of him. He would have won a title with Houston if he could have gotten along with Pip. Pip was the same way. Both of those guys were to eager to be the front runner and constantly bumped heads. That's the biggest reason why CB takes fire. He had his chance and went about it the wrong way.




> Fact is Kobe has shown that he loses some of his effectiveness at team oriented goals (this is a team sport ya know), in the face of individual accomplishments when shaq is not there. Period.


The fact is Kobe haters dont respect the team oriented goals Kobe has acheived. Its amazing how you can blindly write what you did, without considering the 3 team oriented championship rings Kobe has.






> do average players. Or was the 3- point record not so amazing when it was held by dennis scott?? Scott was a great shooter, but overall an average talent at best.


Which is why it would be incredible if Scott would break a record other than a shooting record. Kobe did. He's not average, he's outstanding!





> That wouldn't be me, because as I have said, I could care less about either player discussed in this debate.


:yes:






> Please. His team is struggling, and they will not win it all this year.


The biggest responsiblity with Kobe hating is you have to stay on top of current events. The Lakers are not struggling. They are playing excellent Bball right now. Turn on your radio, or TV to ESPN. They're talking about Kobe & the Lakers. I know how much this must upset you.



> Yes he has three rings. Good for him. Great even. But what is his team doing right now?? 15 years? Not likely. Kobe has been playing pro ball for 6 years now, and it takes a toll unlike what he would have endured in college. I hope you aren't alluding to the fact that at 39 mike is still playing, becase the two situations are different on virtually every level fundamentally speaking. In fact the similarities between the two stars end with their work ethic, and style on the court.


MJ is not the only great player to play as 39-40 year old_(stockton, malone, pippen, MJ, Kareem, Sabonis, Hakeem, and Kobe started at a younger age)_, and with the way advances in health research improve, Kobe should be around for a while. Yes 15 years. The only thing that could keep him from lasting that long is an injury(knock on wood).


----------



## 33 (Nov 18, 2002)

Pippen never wanted that spotlight. He gave the ball up to Barkley and Barkley would hold the ball for 12, 13 seconds then make his move (hence, the 5 second post rule). I believe Pip and Hakeem let Barkley take the role of the leader on that team because he was the hungriest for the title. It didn't work because Barkley couldn't adjust to having another star with him, let alone two stars. If that's not the case, then why haven't Pip and Hakeem have any problems. Barkley didn't have another star with him early on in his career and if you can name one, check and see how long he played with Barkley. When he went to the Suns, KJ was the closest to a star that he played with and that was his best chance of winning, but MJ and Pip wasn't having it.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

they were all on the downslope. it was a pipedream. hakeem was down to 10 ppg the next season, pippen hasn't come with 2 points of the 14.5 he averaged that season since, and barkley was out of basketball the next season.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: C'mon RangerC......*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> I really dont know what quotes your talking about and it really doesnt matter. I just disagree with you.


This sums up everything.

But just to refute some other nonsense....




> His effectiveness is not the question. The fact that Shaq is out is. With Shaq not being there the "Team" is missing a major part. It is the same if Kobe were not there, the "Team" would be without one of its best players therefore the "Team" would suffer.
> Why can't you see that?


His effectiveness is the ONLY question. Players are not paid to put up points rebounds and assists. They are paid to contribute to a Winning (ie Championship) Team. NOw Kobe has done that in the past (mostly due to the presence of shaq), but that isn't the issue today. Yes the team would suffer if Kobe was out, as I alluded to as much in my TEAM concept above. It seems it is you who is not seeing things clearly. Else you would notice that I really don't care whether Kobe is the best today or not. However your arguing tactics leave much to be desired.



> The team not winning because of the team being at a disadvantage because of injuries because not relate to Kobe Bryant.


It DIRECTLY relates to Kobe Bryant. When MJ retired, it put scottie pippen at a huge disadvantage vs having Michael there. He damn there led them right back to the finals. 



> Kobe is the guy who does his job with or without who ever may be on the court. Shaq not being there leaves a major void.


His job, as you put it is not merely to score points, but to contribute to the process of winning. He was no so successful at it without shaq. There have been many scorers rebounders and playmakers in this league, and quite a few that did it at least as effectively as Kobe, but they have no rings. Are oyu suggesting that they were as effective at doing their job because of what their stats were?



> No one is evaluting Kobe's entire career because of one game. He has proven countless times that he is a great player. He has broken many records, he has acheivement many individual as well as team awards. Dont be so smallminded.


I'll aproach this another way. If he had entered the league the same way that Mike Bibby entered the league (in vancouver), would the above statement still have been true,or would he have been the 2 guard version of Shareef Abdur Rahim???? think before you answer.........





> You are the one making the single game records out to be more significant than they are.


Now you are just lying.

THis is what I said about what YOU brought up:




> *YOU said THIS*
> Here's a list of other meaningless awards in the NBA:
> Wilt Chamberlains 100 pts in a game.
> Kobe all time most 3pointers in a game.
> ...


Now which one is it? Are they meaning less ot me, or am I making them out to be more than they are???

My response was



> 1) They lost
> 2) So what? One day someone will break that record.
> 3) Only1 ring, in a strike shortened season
> 4) IN a playoff game. It meant more
> ...


These records are exaclty what they are, footnotes on a persons career resume. Nice, but nothing more. At least not until they pile up (ala MJ).



> It's just another point on his resume.When you look at a list of Kobe Bryants career acheivments, it will include the single game records. He did it and he gets commended for it.


:yes:



> Kobe makes Shaq a better players and Shaq makes Kobe a better player. Teamwork. When they are a part you cannot expect any other player in LA to be able to fill the void that will be missed.


:yes:




> Barkley's a great player one of the best, but his stubborness got the best of him. He would have won a title with Houston if he could have gotten along with Pip. Pip was the same way. Both of those guys were to eager to be the front runner and constantly bumped heads. That's the biggest reason why CB takes fire. He had his chance and went about it the wrong way.


My point is that Barkley is more likely to be remembered 20 years from now for NOT winning a title. What you accomplish within the confines of the team is what ultimately defines you as a player in a TEAM SPORT. What is so hard about that??



> The fact is *Kobe haters*......


Does not apply to me. So the rest of the sentence and the proceeding context of the following sentences is irrelavent.



> Its amazing how you can blindly write what you did, without considering the 3 team oriented championship rings Kobe has.


Whats amazing is that you cannot see that I have given him his due. However unlike you I am not willing to worship him, like his name is YHWH. Why don't you just build a shrine and monastery while your are at it?



> Which is why it would be incredible if Scott would break a record other than a shooting record. Kobe did. He's not average, he's outstanding!


Nobody is disputing this. NOt once have I actually disputed this. Think I have?? Find me a quote of me disputing it?? What I am disputing is the idea that the record somehow validates his greatness: It doesn't. He is either great or he isn't, with or without that record.



> The biggest responsiblity with Kobe hating is......


Again, Does not apply to me. Makes the rest of your sentence irrelavent.



> You have to stay on top of current events. The Lakers are not struggling. They are playing excellent Bball right now. Turn on your radio, or TV to ESPN. They're talking about Kobe & the Lakers.


How ironic that it coincides with Shaq being back.



> I know how much this must upset you.


If you mean "NOT AT ALL" then you are right. I actually only to continue to respond because I enjoy ripping your arguments to shreds.



> MJ is not the only great player to play as 39-40 year old_(stockton, malone, pippen, MJ, Kareem, Sabonis, Hakeem, and Kobe started at a younger age)_,


That wasn't my point, but fair enough.....
I could attack that list of players from a productivity standpoint, but what would be the point.....



> and with the way *advances in health research* improve, Kobe should be around for a while. Yes 15 years. The only thing that could keep him from lasting that long is an injury(knock on wood).


Now you've just entered an area that is my absolute expertise. For the record, I have a Masters in Biochemistry, and am working on my PhD for Medical research in Biochemistry/genetics.

Advances are being made, but not in the areas that your post would suggest. Furthermore, if significant advances were made in such area in say 7-8 years (they won't), even then they would not reach the market in time to undo the damage that the NBA is currently causing his joints. Its too late for him already...even now.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

kobe's won, and he's proved that he can contribute great things to a winning environment. he's shown an ability to rise to the occassion, and to do what it took to win. he's a fill in the blanks type of player, able to contribute in many ways to lead to victory. that's what players strive to do, be major contributors to a winner. 1 11 game stretch, or even 1/2 a season now, doesn't discredit anything that's been accomplished before, by kobe or shaq or the lakers. that la struggled with shaq back doesn't prove that shaq can't win. that la's better with shaq than without him shouldn't really surprise anyone either.

nobody in nba history has won without help. it's how they perform when the pieces are in place that determines champions.

are there questions as to whether kobe can be the focus and still maintain his composure day in and day out without shaq there? sure. he hasn't faced that much adversity yet. is there another player that has proven the ability to rise to the occassion when put in the position to succeed better than kobe? i don't think so (other than his teammate). 

look, in prior years la has always been .500 or better with shaq out. this year they were bad. that doesn't mean it's kobe that's gotten worse. or that he no longer can contribute to a winner. it's ridiculous.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> kobe's won, and he's proved that he can contribute great things to a winning environment. he's shown an ability to rise to the occassion, and to do what it took to win. he's a fill in the blanks type of player, able to contribute in many ways to lead to victory. that's what players strive to do, be major contributors to a winner. 1 11 game stretch, or even 1/2 a season now, doesn't discredit anything that's been accomplished before, by kobe or shaq or the lakers. that la struggled with shaq back doesn't prove that shaq can't win. that la's better with shaq than without him shouldn't really surprise anyone either.


I completely agree. But I didn't inject that 11 game stretch into this argument. Rather, I commented on the hypocrisies of doing so to prove his greatness while ignoring his record during that time. Nothing more.




> nobody in nba history has won without help. it's how they perform when the pieces are in place that determines champions.


No arguement from me. I wholeheartedly agree. My assertion is that players are measured by championships, and in the context of whay YOU JUST POSTED, kobe certainly is not where he is all of his own accord.



> is there another player that has proven the ability to rise to the occassion when put in the position to succeed better than kobe? i don't think so (other than his teammate).


Could it be that the players that people most likeley compare Kobe to (TMAC), have NOT ever been put in the same "position to succeed as kobe has?



> look, in prior years la has always been .500 or better with shaq out. this year they were bad. that doesn't mean it's kobe that's gotten worse.


No it doesn't mean he has gotten worse. But his stats don't prove he has gotten better either.



> or that he *no longer can contribute to a winner.* it's ridiculous.


Yes it is. Especially since I never said that.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

winning answers the question - "can he win". 

performing at the highest level when the stakes are highest answers the question - "can he rise to the occassion".

other questions like "can he win without a dominant teammate" aren't answered. is that as important a question? i'm not sure. most players haven't won without at least another great player by their side.

the arguments aren't cut and dried, because no single player has a perfect resume. there are arguments against everyone.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

In many respects you are correct. Especially about it being cut and dried. Because if Winning answers the question can he win, then that makes steve Kerr the biggest winner of them all.


----------



## golgor (Feb 4, 2003)

All I know is that Stojakovic and Divac won the world championship and they won the NBA championship this past June.

They are on top of their division right now with the best record while Lakers are 23 and 23.

Knowing those facts I find it very difficult for anybody to argue that Kobe and Shaq are two of the best in the league at anything.

And I'm not even a Sacramento fan. I am a real Laker fan who stuck with them from 1980 until Shaq appeared.

I , as a Laker fan don't want the league to hand us the titles just because we are the biggest market in the country, NBA lost 33% of its viewership after MJ retired the second time and they can't financially afford to have Portland - Indiana or Sacramento - Milwaukee in the finals year after year ( marketwise all those cities put together don't amount to LA alone ).

Ask yourself : How much money would have they gotten from ABC / ESPN and TNT if all they had to show were 3 years of ratings from finals like Sacramento - Indiana. You think it's a coincidence that we have the most obvious onesided refereeing mistakes which give titles to the biggest market team in the country in the years just before the new negotiations are about to come up ( and that MJ unretires a year before this contract came up and plays for just one million - how much did he get under the table for the ratings boost ? )

This is not a conspiracy theory, this is Business 101

And as a real fan who loves the game I want to see people who can play, not retarded fat pigs without any skill whatsoever like Shaq, or a poser like Kobe.

I can always catch Magic and Nixon running something on ESPN classic and wait out the current charade. 

I will always remember Magic as a guy who took over as rookie and won the game by himself when Kareem went down with an Injury.

I will always remeber Kobe as guy who shot 3 airballs in the final minute of his rookie season and losing to Utah 4 - 0

I will always remember Magic as a guy who took us to the finals in 1991 when nobody expected it, after Kareem retired and others were either gone or playing with diminishing skills.

I will always remember Kobe as a guy who in his prime took Lakers to the bottom of the division and shot 42% while his big fat retard center and the three guys in stripes that work with him were unavailable.

I guess I will always remember Magic as the greatest player ever and Kobe as a piece of $hit who can't shoot close to 50% even
in this talentless charade of mentally impaired dorks they call the NBA today.


----------



## Pacer87 (Feb 6, 2003)

i like what you said golgor. great points made for laker fans to see and come to terms with


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i particularly liked the way the league put the invisible film over the hoops when sacto was shooting ft's in game 7, or when stern yelled "noonan" from the front row when peja had that wide open 3.

thanks for the objective take, golgor.


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

*do yall still think tmacs better than kobe..*

sorry im relly drunk..
but um i saw he scored 46 and won unlike tmac..
hes the best!!!!!!!!


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

I still remember that supposed championship over the last summer is viewed as insignificant by 90% of the people in the US, and that the US population only really cares about the Olympics, in terms of the world stage

Despite the bickering between shaq and kobe and phil, the Lakers still have the last 3 championships.

the Lakers, with it's players healthy could have destroyed the yugo team alone w/ shaq and kobe...


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>golgor</b>!
> All I know is that Stojakovic and Divac won the world championship and they won the NBA championship this past June.
> 
> They are on top of their division right now with the best record while Lakers are 23 and 23.
> ...


This post reeks of ignorance. I would dissect it, but I would be wasting my time. The real Laker fans who are still rooting for the team no what drivel this is.


----------



## philipm27 (Sep 26, 2002)

Just curious, but since Magic never won without a dominant force on the inside, i.e. Kareem, does that make him any less of a player??


Is Jerry West any less of a player because he won his only title with Wilt in the middle??

NO IT DOES NOT.

So, stop trying to take away from what Kobe has done just because he has Shaq on his team. Magic had Kareem and Jerry had Wilt, but neither one of them has EVER had their greatness questioned. Neither should Kobe.



:sigh:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>philipm27</b>!
> Just curious, but since Magic never won without a dominant force on the inside, i.e. Kareem, does that make him any less of a player??
> 
> 
> ...


All of these players had to evercome a personal adversity greater than that which Kobe has faced up to this point, save jerry and wilt. When he faces and conquers the challenges that magic, kareem, michael, et cetera face, the questions will go away....


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> All of these players had to evercome a personal adversity greater than that which Kobe has faced up to this point, save jerry and wilt. When he faces and conquers the challenges that magic, kareem, michael, et cetera face, the questions will go away....


I disagree. I have no idea what you are talking about, "personal adversity greater that which Kobe has faced."  Support your argument...or don't make one at all.


----------



## RichTheAxe (Feb 8, 2003)

he is definatley 1 of the best(if not the best) players in the nba his three throws are excellent and his dunks are good too.


----------



## philipm27 (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh, so losing, and being swept out of the Playoffs for THREE STRAIGHT years is not adversity?? Being a third year player and shooting 3 straight airballs to get your team knocked out of the playoffs is not adversity?? Having your HOMETOWN fans boo you, after winning the MVP trophy at the AS Game, not adversity?? Gimme a break, every player has had some sort of adversity, that is just crap to believe that Kobe has had it easy the entirety of his professional career.

Having to overcome a language, culture, and age difference between him and his teammates is not adversity?? Being an outcast in Italy AND America because of his upbringing is not adversity?? The kid has gone through more than enough adversity on the court and off it to show me that he is a good guy, a GREAT player, and I dont think that Magic had any adversity professionally speaking, considering he made the playoffs EVERY Year, went to the NBA Finals 9 times and won 5 rings. What kind of professional adversity did Magic have before he retired originally in 1991??? Other than his knees, none. Jerry West, Mr. Clutch, obviously had some professionally adversity, but nobody ever said that he was not a great player for not being able to beat the Celtics, the same team that beat Wilt all those times.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

Kobe is the best player in the league, face it, enjoy it, live with it.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> Kobe is the best player in the league, face it, enjoy it, live with it.


This is coming from a guy who hates Kobe too.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> Kobe is the best player in the league, face it, enjoy it, live with it.


That is your opinion, but considering the argument is usually about split, I dont think that your statement is as clear cut as you believe.


----------



## couchtomato (Aug 14, 2002)

Wow, the topic that won't end. I think Kobe's the best as well and the ASG showed why. He plays BOTH ends of the court. He missed two free throws that could have won the game... seems like people want to focus on that. Blocks on Jordan and Jermaine O'Neil? Stripping Jason Kidd and going in for the reverse jam? Alley oop pass to Francis? He and T-Mac going for a loose ball... T-Mac gave up on the play and Kobe chased it all the way down court, made a diving save for a three point opportunity for Nash. He did all this in the late fourth quarter and OTs with game on the line. Frankly the east had like a 7 point lead with just over a minute to play. They should have won it outright! The announcing crew already awarded the MVP award to T-Mac. But it ain't over until its over. Kobe's fierce competitive SPIRIT makes him a cut above! AI has it as well! as he would have won it had the east won because he took over the game down the stretch. T-Mac look and learn.

On another note:

ESPN ran Kobe's Sports Century last week - how that child came to greatness in LA is a testament to his strength. Personally I think people felt threatened by his drive and determination - that shot they showed of Shaq/Van Exel on the bench after Kobe made a spectacular play - the animosity was THICK. I can understand VanExcel and Eddie Jones predicament. This kid wanted their job. And he got it.

And then Dell Harris... I know he thought he was doing what was best for his team and Kobe (maybe he was - adversity builds character) but I can't believe that even in practice Kobe was not allowed to strut his stuff. Basically if he did anything fancy in practice, even if it went in, he wouldn't get the points.

And I've heard this before... that when Eddie Jones went down and Kobe took over his starting job for 3 gamesand averaged over 20 points a game, Harris thought this was a BAD thing.

Don't talk to me about how Kobe had no adversity. The isolation and alienation alone (and I'm not saying he wasn't to blame for a lot of it ) would have sent a lesser guy reeling.

When I watched the ASG this weekend -- I just can't believe how far Shaq and Kobe have come. Even up to a year and a half ago I wasn't convinced that a lot of what we saw between these two was real. But did you see how they greeted each other during ASG intros -- and the same thing during the practice session on Saturday (NBA-TV).


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Kobe is a winner!*



> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> This sums up everything.
> 
> But just to refute some other nonsense....


If it was nonsense you wouldnt even waste your time. And that was a good way to manipulate what I was saying. I disagree with what is in front of me. I can't somehow know what quotes your talking about with you posting the quote.




> His effectiveness is the ONLY question. Players are not paid to put up points rebounds and assists. They are paid to contribute to a Winning (ie Championship) Team. NOw Kobe has done that in the past (mostly due to the presence of shaq), but that isn't the issue today. Yes the team would suffer if Kobe was out, as I alluded to as much in my TEAM concept above. It seems it is you who is not seeing things clearly. Else you would notice that I really don't care whether Kobe is the best today or not. However your arguing tactics leave much to be desired.


Points, assist, & rebounds contribute to winning titles. You are so confused its funny. You think that Kobe isn't as effective today. Hello, LA is on a 5 game winning streak in which Kobe has averaged 40 ppg. he's the players of the month twice this year, inlcuding this past month the month that LA has started to win. Oh ignore his success now, but jump on him when the team is down for a few games. Quit hating. It's so old just read your post and then honest tell yourself that you dont hate, you dont care about Kobe being the best. Who's lying? You care because you know its true and it bothers you to the point that you make silly arguements like he doesn't contribute to his teams winning. How foolish can you be.





> It DIRECTLY relates to Kobe Bryant. When MJ retired, it put scottie pippen at a huge disadvantage vs having Michael there. He damn there led them right back to the finals.


That's unfair because Kobe hasn't had the chance to do that. If they had won all 12 of those games would you be commending Kobe for being able to lead his team to the finals or playoffs? No that 's just senseless 12 games means nothing.





> His job, as you put it is not merely to score points, but to contribute to the process of winning. He was no so successful at it without shaq. There have been many scorers rebounders and playmakers in this league, and quite a few that did it at least as effectively as Kobe, but they have no rings. Are oyu suggesting that they were as effective at doing their job because of what their stats were?


I'm suggesting that a 12 game skid with two of your starting five and no bench is a pretty harsh way to evaluate Kobe. 





> I'll aproach this another way. If he had entered the league the same way that Mike Bibby entered the league (in vancouver), would the above statement still have been true,or would he have been the 2 guard version of Shareef Abdur Rahim???? think before you answer.........


I'm working from the bottom up so trying to remember all of what was posted throughout us bickering back & forth is next to impossible. When I get a chance I'll go back and review it.

I checked it out. I think your saying if Kobe had entered the league on one of the worst teams would he still have accomplished as much as he has. 

my response:
a player gets credit for what he does not what he could have done.
alternate reponse:
(Kobe lover response)
He may not have won the rings, but he could have won a couple of scoring titles, been an allstar and still broken most if not all of the individual records he has.

*Bottomline*
Speculating could of, would of, should of is a pointless way to debate. Why can't you just give him his due for doing what's he's done. 



> These records are exaclty what they are, footnotes on a persons career resume. Nice, but nothing more. At least not until they pile up (ala MJ).


overcritical. I dont care if you just have one record, on that day or that year or that serious, if you did it then it deserves to be respected!




> My point is that Barkley is more likely to be remembered 20 years from now for NOT winning a title. What you accomplish within the confines of the team is what ultimately defines you as a player in a TEAM SPORT. What is so hard about that??


Nothing so get off Kobe's back because he's not even 25 and has already won rings, acheived personal ackolades, and broken records. The best is yet to come.




> Whats amazing is that you cannot see that I have given him his due. However unlike you I am not willing to worship him, like his name is YHWH. Why don't you just build a shrine and monastery while your are at it?


It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Just so you know, I've agreed with alot of what you've said. But you still come across as an a-hole when pointing fingers at Kobe's acheivements.
A Shrine? Sorry if you guy is the won sitting at the end of the bench or struggling to make the playoffs. My guys is a winner and I love it! Why wouldn't I rout for him, or get excited when he makes a big play. That's what fans do. You just can't stand it.




> Again, Does not apply to me. Makes the rest of your sentence irrelavent.


Nit picking to find the smallest means of discrediting a great players stature. Now that's irrelavent.




> How ironic that it coincides with Shaq being back.


No irony any objective sports fans know that missing one of two superstar is a disadvantage and bringing one back does nothing but help.





> If you mean "NOT AT ALL" then you are right. I actually only to continue to respond because I enjoy ripping your arguments to shreds.


You know what really rips arguments Kobe's success. So hate all you like, he'll still be on top.




> That wasn't my point, but fair enough.....
> I could attack that list of players from a productivity standpoint, but what would be the point.....


There would be no point nobody wants to hear your BS.




> Now you've just entered an area that is my absolute expertise. For the record, I have a Masters in Biochemistry, and am working on my PhD for Medical research in Biochemistry/genetics.
> 
> Advances are being made, but not in the areas that your post would suggest. Furthermore, if significant advances were made in such area in say 7-8 years (they won't), even then they would not reach the market in time to undo the damage that the NBA is currently causing his joints. Its too late for him already...even now.


Mark your words when Kobe is around as a 38 years vet remember how "objectively" you criticised him.


----------



## couchtomato (Aug 14, 2002)

If Kobe had gone to a lottery team he wouldn't have had to sit on the bench for a freaking year. He wouldn't have had to leap frog over two damn good guards in Eddie Jones and Nick VanExcel. And he wouldn't have been stuck in an offense that limits his natural rhythms. 

If Kobe had gone to the team that orignally wanted him, NEW JERSEY, then believe me that NY media market would have been almost as great for him as L.A. But even if it was Chicago, or Cleveland, Kobe Bryant would have evolved into a great player because of his work ethic and his thirst for the game. So maybe he would have been a ringless superstar like VC, AI or T-Mac, but you all seem to think it's greater to be a ringless superstar leading your own team than an important cog in a championship - excuse me - three time championship team anyway. 

I know it irks people to no end that Kobe went to a contender. But he was a 13th pick - in no way was he a guaranteed prime time player. If he was, he would have gone much higher. It's his success that's given high school players so much pull in recent drafts - no one wants to miss out on the next Kobe. Unfortunately many of these kids don't have the drive, the ambition or the work ethic of Kobe so they will NEVER reach his level. Kobe worked hard - and he tailored his game to fit the big guy. Nick Van Excel couldn't do it. Eddie Jones couldn't do it. The Kid did it and he deserves all the credit in the world for it. 

You think a three time champion - and probably more - will be forgotten? Sorry, it's regular season games that don't get shown on ESPN classic. These Lakers are part of history - and Shaq and Kobe are forever linked together - like Stockton and Malone. Kobe Bryant is a superstar adding defining moments to his resume every year. Damn, he has how many this season alone. The Dallas comeback? His three point record? Instant classics already. So go ahead and dream that in five years he'll be a forgotten man - you can't take away the images that people have already seen, the records he has already set, and the heights he has already reached.

And how old is he again?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Kobe is a winner!*

*EDIT:This back and forth is ridiclous. Much of what I initially posted as responses to your latest post, has been removed. Nothing good can come of continuing this.....but the pieces that I think are least likely to ellicit personal responses from you, much like the one you gave above....I left alone.*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> If it was nonsense you wouldnt even waste your time.


That is awefully presumptuous. And wrong to boot. I deal with other people's nonsense everyday. In my book, it is far from a waste of time. Its only a waste of time for those who think themselves above nonsense themselves. Perhaps some personal introspection is needed on your part.

Funny, I was just getting on someone else the other day for "hatin" (a word that I wish would just die), on Kobe, the night he lit up NYK. I watched the entire game and was amazed at the game he played. It does not change my opinion of him as a player though....especially since I never once said he wasn't gifted. BTW--Didn't I ask you to pull up even one quote of me stating that he wasn't gifted?? Did you not look, because you knew it wasn't there? If you did look you can stop now...... 



> That's unfair because Kobe hasn't had the chance to do that. If they had won all 12 of those games would you be commending Kobe for being able to lead his team to the finals or playoffs?


Its just as unfair for you to debunk the argument (which btw, I have no problem with, since I am merley playing devils advocate anyway) and then use the same argument to try to prove your own case. Remember this?



> Hello, LA is on a 5 game winning streak in which Kobe has averaged 40 ppg. he's the players of the month twice this year, inlcuding this past month the month that LA has started to win.


or this?



> Oh ignore his success now, but jump on him when the team is down for a few games. Quit hating.





> No that 's just senseless 12 games means nothing.


Ok, then....so does 5. Or so does a month.....or even two. You can't have it both ways.




> I'm suggesting that a 12 game skid with two of your starting five and no bench is a pretty harsh way to evaluate Kobe.


And so.....? A person once taught me that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. IN kobe's case he has not distiguished himself as the unequivocal leader of todays generation of players. Just as some would use 5 games, or even a couple of good months to state his dominance, one could easily talk about that month where he was filling up the stat sheet and his team wasn't winning.....



> I checked it out. I think your saying if Kobe had entered the league on one of the worst teams would he still have accomplished as much as he has.
> 
> my response:
> a player gets credit for what he does not what he could have done.
> ...


I could argue that I am a "what have you done for me lately kind of guy. What he does now, has no bearing on what he did. It isn't his previous exploits that make him a super player, its what he does now. Ever hear the phrase, "you're only as good as your last game"??

Even if that was the case (which it isn't), I am still waiting for that quote where I said he wasn't a great player..... 



> "I dont care if you just have one record, on that day or that year or that serious, if you did it then it deserves to be respected!


But that wasn't your initial implication now was it? When someone else implied that about the previous record holder, or Skiles' 30 assists, you placed more weight, on Kobe's achievement, because it was "out of the ordinary for him" He wasn't a 3 point specialist, so it made the achievement greater. That is a far, FAR CRY FROM:



> "I dont care if you just have one record, on that day or that year or that serious, if you did it then it deserves to be respected!


......isn't it?!



> The best is yet to come.


Speculation....didnt you say this earlier in the same post?



> Speculating could of, would of, should of is a pointless way to debate.


Its the same as speculating what he will do.


Its not a good idea to compare past achievement with MY GUY, as you put it. Kobe doesn't even stack up....yet. I doubt he will in the end either. But again, since I am not dwelling on the past achievements, Jordans 6 rings, numerous scoring titles, defensive player of the year honors, MVP's, Finals MVP's, etc, don't really matter where this discussion is concerned. But I can tell you this, I wouldn't be foolish enough to come here and argue that Jordan (operative word====>)TODAY is a great player because of his 6 rings a few years ago..... 



> Why wouldn't I rout for him, or get excited when he makes a big play. That's what fans do. You just can't stand it.


Please. I respect what the lakers have done....even if portland got cheated for the first ring, and Sacremento got straight jobbed for the third one....



> Mark your words when Kobe is around as a 38 years vet remember how "objectively" you criticised him.


I will. You seem to think that you know for sure that I am putting Kobe down. I am not. For the record, I think he is top 5 in the NBA (not #1), but that is me. I am not attacking his credibility as a player. So if that is what you thought, then you went about discussing this with me all wrong. What I am attacking are the reasons that people bring up for labveling him great. Is he a great player? Yes. But not for the reasons that many here would use......


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>couchtomato</b>!
> If Kobe had gone to a lottery team he wouldn't have had to sit on the bench for a freaking year. He wouldn't have had to leap frog over two damn good guards in Eddie Jones and Nick VanExcel. And he wouldn't have been stuck in an offense that limits his natural rhythms.
> 
> If Kobe had gone to the team that orignally wanted him, NEW JERSEY, then believe me that NY media market would have been almost as great for him as L.A. But even if it was Chicago, or Cleveland, Kobe Bryant would have evolved into a great player because of his work ethic and his thirst for the game. So maybe he would have been a ringless superstar like VC, AI or T-Mac, but you all seem to think it's greater to be a ringless superstar leading your own team than an important cog in a championship - excuse me - three time championship team anyway.
> ...


Extremely well put, couldn't agree with everything you said more.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>couchtomato</b>!
> If Kobe had gone to a lottery team he wouldn't have had to sit on the bench for a freaking year. He wouldn't have had to leap frog over two damn good guards in Eddie Jones and Nick VanExcel.


He wouldn't have had their help in his development. Not to mention the lakers trainers and coaching staff. The role they played in his development cannot be overstated....and he would be the first person to say so.



> And he wouldn't have been stuck in an offense that limits his natural rhythms.


Many players make that claim in todays NBA. 



> If Kobe had gone to the team that orignally wanted him, NEW JERSEY, then believe me that NY media market would have been almost as great for him as L.A.


Agreed.



> But even if it was Chicago, or Cleveland, Kobe Bryant would have evolved into a great player because of his work ethic and his thirst for the game.


It takes more than that. The converse position would state that players with as much talent haven't acheived as much because of work ethic or thirst for the game. There is way more to it than that.....

[quoteSo maybe he would have been a ringless superstar like VC, AI or T-Mac, but you all seem to think it's greater to be a ringless superstar leading your own team than an important cog in a championship - excuse me - three time championship team anyway.[/quote]

Nobody said that.



> I know it irks people to no end that Kobe went to a contender. But he was a 13th pick - in no way was he a guaranteed prime time player.


Not just a contender. But a place where he could develop and flourish. What if he had gone to the clippers?? Again, fortune smiled on Kobe. Not at all a bad thing, but don't try to make it look like he did this all by himself.



> It's his success that's given high school players so much pull in recent drafts - no one wants to miss out on the next Kobe.


Or the next Tmac, or the next KG, or the next Jermaine Oneil...etc.

BTW--HS players weren't picked so high in the lottery until some other HS kids besides Kobe bryant developed as well.....



> Unfortunately many of these kids don't have the drive, the ambition or the work ethic of Kobe so they will NEVER reach his level.


Its far too early to speculate like that.......and a ablanket statement doesn't help....



> Kobe worked hard - and he tailored his game to fit the big guy.


As anyone with half a brain would have done. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you are on a team with shaq, you give, not him, if you want to win a title.



> Nick Van Excel couldn't do it. Eddie Jones couldn't do it. The Kid did it and he deserves all the credit in the world for it.


Indeed. 



> You think a three time champion - and probably more - will be forgotten?


Not at all....



> These Lakers are part of history - and Shaq and Kobe are forever linked together - like Stockton and Malone.


It isn't the same though. Stockton and malone were together for 15+ seasons. The Shaq/Kobe lakers are already entering their twilight, after what, 5 seasons? 



> Kobe Bryant is a superstar adding defining moments to his resume every year. Damn, he has how many this season alone. The Dallas comeback? His three point record? Instant classics already.


Agreed. Though this has nothing to do with my points...



> So go ahead and dream that in five years he'll be a forgotten man - you can't take away the images that people have already seen, the records he has already set, and the heights he has already reached.


Why would I want to? You people make no sense to me sometimes. I am not out to "Get Kobe". I'm actually surprised how much attention I've given this thread, considering I have my own life to live.....


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Kobe is a winner!*



> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> manipulate


"I dont know what you said, I just disagree with you" You read that as I dont care what your saying, dont care to even hear you out, but I disagree. I ment it as you are referencing some miscellaneous quote and I have no idea what that is, but I disagree with your views on Kobe career.



> They also contribute to losing and landing in the lottery. Your point??


_"His effectiveness is the ONLY question. Players are not paid to put up points rebounds and assists. They are paid to contribute to a Winning (ie Championship) Team."_ --Krakken

My point. Kobe's job as a Laker is to do all of the things that he does so even if you dont think he is paid to do these things, he still contributes to winning. He can't do it all on his own he can only do his part.



> Stop trying to reroute my argument and look at what I'm saying.


This is what you said. _"His effectiveness is the ONLY question."_

There is no questioning Kobe's effectiveness. He's a great players the team struggled do to injury early this season. Everyone is healthy and now LA is on a roll. Kobe is doing now what he was doing then. You may not see how overcritical you are with that "I really don't care whether Kobe is the best today or not" attitude, but its true. . 
Why dont you lecture me on how MJ was not effective when he played on a team by himself, enlighten me on Tmac lack of effectiveness, how about AI, or KG. All dull points dude. How can you point out the best player on the team and say that he is ineffective because the team isn't winning. If you dont mind I'd like to quote you on this one -- _"Perhaps some personal introspection is needed on your part."_



> Yeah.....so? Players do have stretches like that. When he's back in the finals, you can have your say. Until then, I look at the standings and see a team that is 500. It is to his credit, that they are playing a bit better. I freely acknowldge that.....


Kobe has a played the major role in getting the team back to .500, but your still missing the point......... See below.




> Further, this wreaks of hypocrisy. So its to his credit that they are on a 5 game winning streak, but not to his credit that they started so poorly?? Which one is it? If you are gonna be the man when its good to you, then you have to be man enough to be that same man when it isn't so good.


No hypocrisy. Understand this. Kobe is leading the team with the best year of his career, but he is not the sole reason the Lakers have began winning. I contribute the teams success to everyone being healthy again which has made a dramatic change is the teams chemistry mainly in overall defense. I know its cliche but defense does win championships. There are other teams over the past three years that have had more talent than LA. When LA beat Portland in the 7th game of the WCF in 00, Portlands lack of defense lost the series for them. LA's lack of defense in the the games following a 3-1 advantage almost lost it for them. Don't overburden yourself with Kobe this and that. Kobe is the most popular player in the NBA. He has a strong fan following so your gonna hear alot of praise in his favor. Just dont get me wrong Kobe is clearly stnading out, but LA is winning because they have the team chemistry back mainly on the defensive side of the ball.



> You can always tell when a poster is runing out of effective points to prove their case. It alsways turns personal. ALWAYS.


Good point.

Here are a few of your personal attacks.
_"I wonder if you even know?"
"I enjoy ripping your arguments to shreds"
"Why don't you just build a shrine and monastery while your are at it?"
"unlike you I am not willing to worship him, like his name is YHWH."
"think before you answer........."_ -- The Krakken

Just a few from your last post. 
You could have left all of those quotes out of your post and your argument would have read the same way.



> BTW--Didn't I ask you to pull up even one quote of me stating that he wasn't gifted?? Did you not look, because you knew it wasn't there?


We are not going to find a direct quote where you said, "Kobe is not gifted." Instead implications and indirect criticism are just as noteworthy. Like these for example.
We are talking about the team winning and you say "How ironic that it coincides with Shaq being back." 
Or discredit Kobe's success with fiction. " If he had entered the league the same way that Mike Bibby entered the league (in vancouver), would the above statement still have been true,or would he have been the 2 guard version of Shareef Abdur Rahim????" Notice the how many "if's" are posted when arguing against Kobe.



> Ok, then....so does 5. Or so does a month.....or even two. You can't have it both ways.


I think you can see that this is a clear case of catch 22 if your arguing for Kobe. 12 games, 5 games, two months, three years of back to back to back titles. There will always be a reason to point fingers. 

Really this is all entertainment for me. I like going back and forth. But in our case its getting old, and we are both running out of space here. You're pointing out all the flaws in my arguments, and I'm doing the same. It's like we are two lawyers in a court room with no judge. 

I'm sure we can agree to disagree on this one. Like you say when LA gets back to the final then I can have my say. So lets wait until then. When LA wins its 4th, I'll send you a PM with one of those little smillies :yes:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Really this is all entertainment for me. I like going back and forth. But in our case its getting old, and we are both running out of space here. You're pointing out all the flaws in my arguments, and I'm doing the same. It's like we are two lawyers in a court room with no judge.
> 
> I'm sure we can agree to disagree on this one. Like you say when LA gets back to the final then I can have my say. So lets wait until then. When LA wins its 4th, I'll send you a PM with one of those little smillies


And I'll smile right back and congratulate you.

Great debate.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

"If there is any doubt who the overall best player in this league is, come see me." — Stu Lantz


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

"Donyell Marshall should be an all-star." --- Tom Dore


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

Kobe isnt even the best player on his team...


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Caron_Butler</b>!
> Kobe isnt even the best player on his team...


This year Kobe is clearly the best player on his team.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Caron_Butler</b>!
> Kobe isnt even the best player on his team...


You seen a Laker game lately? I doubt it.


----------



## rocken (Nov 5, 2002)

*Poor old Nuggets....kobe killing them again*

Kobe is killing them again..he has 30 with still 3 minutes left in the half:eek


----------



## DetBNyce (Jul 23, 2002)

I think we are going to have our first 50 point game of the season tonight. Kobe with 34 at halftime.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> Kobe is the best player in the league, face it, enjoy it, live with it.


dude speaks the truth.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

I think they added his face to Mount Rushmore!


----------



## Raptor Fan 42 (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> I think they added his face to Mount Rushmore!


:laugh:


----------



## BizzyRipsta (May 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> I think they added his face to Mount Rushmore!


<img src="http://pics.paulsonator.com/users/BizzyRipsta/MountRushmore.jpg">

yeah, i'm a photoshopaholic.


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

dude, can you put me up there too.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rynobot</b>!
> dude, can you put me up there too.


bizzy is a female


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> bizzy is a female


I know


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

KOBE IS NOT THE BEST ON HIS TEAM

KOBE WILL NEVER BE MJ

KOBE MIGHT NOT EVEN BE A HALL OF FAMER

*** EDITED ***--TAKE OFF THE LAKERS HAT AND LOOK AT HIM FROM AN UNBIASED OPINION--IF I HAD TO PICK ONE PLAYER TO BE ON MY TEAM, IT WOULDN'T BE KOBE


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Caron_Butler</b>!
> *** QUOTE EDITED ***


Do you even follow basketball?


----------



## philipm27 (Sep 26, 2002)

I agree Ron. Kobe has put himself in the driver's seat for the MVP trophy right now with his play. If he continues on a similar pace for the rest of the season, and Shaq plays his normal game, the Lakers will be TOUGH to beat the rest of the way. Of course, it helps to have a somewhat softer schedule this month, too.


Nothing like starting off with the Nuggets in back-to-back games after the AS Break:yes:


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Caron_Butler</b>!
> *** QUOTE EDITED ***


Why does Heat Lunatic get to have 2 handles and I don't?


----------



## CavemanDoctor (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Caron_Butler</b>!
> 
> 
> KOBE MIGHT NOT EVEN BE A HALL OF FAMER


You're kidding, right?


----------



## Ballin101 (Nov 4, 2002)

Agreed. Kobe Bryant is the best player in the league. I have never doubted that. So he couldn't get the Lakers to do very well without Shaq. So what? Take a look at that roster without Shaq and Kobe and tell me what ONE player could have given that team a winning record? Not even Jordan IMO. Kobe has greatness written all over him. Like MJ, I just love watching this guy play. And how old is he again? Oh and by the way, Caron_Butler, the real Caron Butler isn't even good enough to hold Kobe's jockstrap. Sorry.


----------



## BizzyRipsta (May 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rynobot</b>!
> dude, can you put me up there too.


lol...i bet i could.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Caron_Butler</b>!
> KOBE IS NOT THE BEST ON HIS TEAM
> 
> KOBE WILL NEVER BE MJ
> ...


What is unbias about your quote? It seems completely bias against #8. 

An unbias opinion would review stats. 
Kobe is on a tear! 51 last night in 3 quarters. averaging 40+ over the last 9 nine games. 29, 7, 7, 2! Broke the 3 pt record. Two Player of the month awards and he's working on his 3rd. These numbers speak for themselves. 

BTW, was I trippin when I watched Sportscenter this morning? Did they take time to post Kobe's top ten plays of the season so far in the middle of the show. RESPECT!


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Caron_Butler</b>!
> 
> 
> > KOBE IS NOT THE BEST ON HIS TEAM
> ...


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

1. KOBE WILL NEVER BE AN MVP UNTIL HE GETS OUT OF SHAQ'S SHADOW...ITS SHAQ'S TEAM...KOBE IS THE 2ND MAN IN LA...KOBE GETS ALOT OF ADVANTAGES B/C HE HAS THE SAME JERSEY AS SHAQ...IMAGINE T-MAC, A.I. OR K.G. WITH SHAQ ON THEIR TEAM...ITS THE SAME THING...KOBE BENEFITS FROM SHAQ BEING ON THE FLOOR WITH HIM


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

How pissed will you be when Kobe wins the MVP this year?


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

i honestly dont care...the lakers are a joke and so is shaq and kobe...they are billboards thats it


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

:nonono:


----------



## Home Court (Jun 9, 2002)

The last NBA player to score 35 or more in seven straight games, as Bryant now has, was Michael Jordan. That was in 1988, when Jordan was 25. Bryant is 24." -- Mike Monroe

Why even use a quote like this? What a dumb statement by Monroe. The last time anyone did this was when Jordan was 25, that sounds impressive. Until you actually think about it, Jordan actually averaged 35 ppg that year. At 24 he had a string of 9 straight games he scored over 40 and AVERAGED 37 ppg. 

And remember when Jordan was doing this all the Laker fans out there were screaming "Ball Hog" but now I guess it's different. 

When Kobe was draining 40 and nailing triple doubles earlier this year they were losing, now they are winning I guess he wasn't the reason for the losses but he is the reason for the wins.


----------



## philipm27 (Sep 26, 2002)

No, he was not the reason for the losses. Shaq's indifference to getting surgery in a timely manner, and the subpar play of everyone else around Kobe is the reason that the Lakers were losing. Now that Shaq is back and everyone else feels more comfortable in their roles, the Lakers are back to winning. But I would never really fault Kobe. He tries hard every game, and I guess he was trying TOO hard at the beginning of the season while everyone else was putting forth their usual effort....which would usually be good enough if Shaq were around, but it was not at the beginning of the season.


----------



## BillWalton (Jan 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Caron_Butler</b>!
> i honestly dont care...the lakers are a joke and so is shaq and kobe...they are billboards thats it


When people say- "Imagine AI or T-mac on Shaq's team...blah, blah...." they are false because Shaq wants nobody else on his team than Kobe, AI would not work, he would want to be the first option. KG wouldn't work, he has to be first option. T-slac wouldn't work, he left Toronto to be a first option. 

Just wait till Shaq retires. Kobe is going to be real scary!










Oh yeah- It don't mean a thing if you don't got a ring:


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

BillWalton - Nice pictures Man!!!


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

*does anyone have a pic*

of kobe when he postered maccolough in the finals..
that dunk was just amazing


----------



## BillWalton (Jan 13, 2003)

How bout this:










Wow.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Its been all over ESPN, and any sports talk radio or sports news anywhere.*



> Originally posted by <b>Home Court</b>!
> The last NBA player to score 35 or more in seven straight games, as Bryant now has, was Michael Jordan. That was in 1988, when Jordan was 25. Bryant is 24." -- Mike Monroe
> 
> Why even use a quote like this? What a dumb statement by Monroe. The last time anyone did this was when Jordan was 25, that sounds impressive. Until you actually think about it, Jordan actually averaged 35 ppg that year. At 24 he had a string of 9 straight games he scored over 40 and AVERAGED 37 ppg.


Dumb Statement? It's been 15 years since a player has accomplished this. Monroe is just doing his job by reporting the facts, I guess your doing your job too.... by hating.




> And remember when Jordan was doing this all the Laker fans out there were screaming "Ball Hog" but now I guess it's different.


Just as many people who thought Jordan was ball hogging think that Kobe is ball hogging now. You can't please everybody. 



> When Kobe was draining 40 and nailing triple doubles earlier this year they were losing, now they are winning I guess he wasn't the reason for the losses but he is the reason for the wins.


He definately wasn't the reason for the loses. Seriously what more can you do than drain 40, or nail triple doubles. Shaq rehabilitating himself on company time is the reason the Lakers lost 9 of 12. As far as the winning now, Kobe has played a major role. We should also credit a full roster and healthy members.


----------



## numlock (Feb 8, 2003)

i find the age thing the dumbest i just think theres no reason in putting that in there and hes gonna be 25 in what 3 months.

Where is it possible to find out that for instance mj scored 40+ in 9 straight? Does any site or book keep a record of every game in a players career.



didnt ai score 5 straight 40+ once too


----------



## Home Court (Jun 9, 2002)

http://players.nba.com/jordan/mj8687.html

You can find a reference there


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Noteworthy*



> Originally posted by <b>numlock</b>!
> i find the age thing the dumbest i just think theres no reason in putting that in there and hes gonna be 25 in what 3 months.


February, March, April, May, June, July, *August*.
6-7 months


----------



## numlock (Feb 8, 2003)

my mistake

i could have sworn it was may. But basically my point was that pointing out the age is dumb. Pointing out how long ago the last guy did it is ok and maybe thats what he was doing in a way


anyway according to the site home court pointed out mj did it in 86-87 (december) then being 23 and what 8-9months. not that it matters much



Im not kobes biggest fan but few can argue when he has performances like he has had this year


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

I entire MJ/Kobe comparision has completely been blown out of proportion. So in that sense I guess it is dumb, but pointing out Kobe accomplishing something that hasn't been done is 15 years is noteworthy. 

The wording is confusing in the article. I think MJ averaged 40+ over 9 games. in 87-88 MJ scored 35 or more in 8 straight games which is what Kobe has done.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> I entire MJ/Kobe comparision has completely been blown out of proportion. So in that sense I guess it is dumb, but pointing out Kobe accomplishing something that hasn't been done is 15 years is noteworthy.
> 
> The wording is confusing in the article. I think MJ averaged 40+ over 9 games. in 87-88 MJ scored 35 or more in 8 straight games which is what Kobe has done.


No MJ scored 40 or more points in 9 straight games not average 40 over 9 games. That is not hard to believe considering he averaged 37.1 ppg that season. Kobe is far from MJ's offensive dominance but he is getting close and over the last several games he IS Jordaneque. His 4 straight 40 point or more consecutive games is amazing. As is his 11 40 point or more performances this season. This is the best offensive dominance I have seen since AI in his MVP year (16 40 or more point performances, 4 50 point games - 2 in the playoffs, 38 ppg average in last 2 months). I have had the priviledge to watch Jordan in the 80's and his offensive dominance was something to behold. Like I said Kobe has ways to go to match that but his season has been amazing. To show all doubters how impressive of a season Kobe is having (11 40 or more point games, 4 straight 40 point games, 6 40 point games in last 8 games)...Clyde Drexler in all his days in Portland only had 17 40 point or more performances.


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

MVP
TIM DUNCAN

IF KOBE IS THE BEST PLAYER...WHY CANT THEY WIN WITHOUT SHAQ?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ballin101</b>!
> Agreed. Kobe Bryant is the best player in the league. I have never doubted that. So he couldn't get the Lakers to do very well without Shaq. So what? Take a look at that roster without Shaq and Kobe and tell me what ONE player could have given that team a winning record? Not even Jordan IMO. Kobe has greatness written all over him. Like MJ, I just love watching this guy play. And how old is he again? Oh and by the way, Caron_Butler, the real Caron Butler isn't even good enough to hold Kobe's jockstrap. Sorry.


Tim Duncan, without David Robinson, beat Portland, the Lakers, and Sacramento on the road. Could Kobe, without Shaq, ever do that?

Without Robinson, the Duncan-led Spurs still would win 50-55 games a year, perhaps even more than that.

Without Shaq, the Kobe-led Lakers would win 30-35 games a year, perhaps even less than that.

Are you trying to argue that Rose, Ginnobili, Bowen, Parker, etc. are about 20 wins per season better than Horry, Fox, Walker, and Fisher, etc?

Or is it simply the case that Duncan (like Shaq) is the kind of player that makes his teammates around him better, while Kobe (even with all of his assists) just isn't that kind of player.

Being league MVP is not the same thing as being a fantasy league MVP. Kobe is great at putting up stats, but Shaq and Duncan are far more valuable to making their teams win.

Kobe may be the "best" player in the league whatever that might mean, but he is far from being the most valuable.

I bet if the Bulls traded Jalen Rose for Kobe, the Bulls would only have a handful more wins (if any) than they do now. And Jalen Rose has never even been named to All-Star team.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

"IF KOBE IS THE BEST PLAYER...WHY CANT THEY WIN WITHOUT SHAQ?"

Because Shaq takes up 60% + of the Lakers salary and the Lakers have no talent outside of shaq and kobe.

Now take 20 million to 30 Million and sign 1 more all star, 2 or 3 role players that can actually shoot and Kobe would be leading the Lakers to alot of wins.
\
Give Kobe 25 million and 30 million additionally in talent with other players and Kobe w/ be winning alot even w/o shaq.

Is that so hard to understand?


----------



## Tenshi25 (Nov 27, 2002)

> Tim Duncan, without David Robinson, beat Portland, the Lakers, and Sacramento on the road. Could Kobe, without Shaq, ever do that?
> 
> Without Robinson, the Duncan-led Spurs still would win 50-55 games a year, perhaps even more than that.
> 
> ...


:clap: Great post, I could have written the same exactly word by word.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Tim Duncan, without David Robinson, beat Portland, the Lakers, and Sacramento on the road. Could Kobe, without Shaq, ever do that?
> ...


So now we're putting David Robinson in the same category as Shaq? LMAO.

Look at the players around Duncan (Minus Robinson)...

Tony Parker: 15.5ppg 5.4apg
Stephen Jackson: 11.9ppg 3.5rpg 
Malik Rose: 8.2ppg 5.9rpg
Steve Smith: 7.7ppg 2.1rpg
Bruce Bowen: 6.9ppg 3.0rpg
Emanuel Ginobili: 5.3ppg 1.8rpg
Kevin Willis: 4.5ppg 3.3rpg (Still a good player, and has been playing incredibly in place of David Robinson)


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Look at the players around Kobe (Minus Shaq)...

Derek Fisher: 10.5ppg 3.3apg
Rick Fox: 9.4ppg 4.8rpg
Robert Horry: 6.9ppg 6.9rpg
Devean George: 6.8ppg 4.3rpg
Samaki Walker: 6.3ppg 7.3rpg
Slava Medvedenko: 5.1ppg 2.8rpg
Brian Shaw: 4.3ppg 1.9rpg
Kareem Rush: 3.2ppg 1.4rpg


----------



## Tenshi25 (Nov 27, 2002)

> So now we're putting David Robinson in the same category as Shaq? LMAO.
> 
> Look at the players around Duncan (Minus Robinson)...
> 
> ...


Okay, so let's take a look at the stats of the players around Shaq:

Derek Fisher 10.5ppg 2.6rpg 3.3asp
Rick Fox 9.4ppg 4.8rpg 3.2asp
Robert Horry 6.9ppg 6.9rpg 2.9apg
Devean George 6.8ppg 4.3rpg
Samaki Walker 6.3 ppg 7.3rpg
Stanislav Medvedenko 5.1ppg 2.8rpg

And of course, there's this guy called Kobe, he puts up pretty decent numbers (don't think you'll find anybody like him San Antonio helping Duncan).

So what's your point with those numbers? that Duncan actually has lots of help from his teammates? I'd say their numbers aren't any better than the Lakers players.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

I was saying that the Lakers are built around Shaq and Kobe, and of course the Lakers will do poorly without Shaq...the Western Conference is made up of HUGE players. Without Shaq, the Lakers don't have one 7 footer on their team which puts them at an incredibly large disadvantage.

The Spurs have a way better supporting cast than the Lakers, Parker and Jackson are both better than any Laker other than Shaq and Kobe. 

Spurs - Robinson vs. Lakers - Shaq? Give me a break! It's hard to compare anything with the Lakers situation, but that's a horrible comparison.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tenshi25</b>!
> I'd say their numbers aren't any better than the Lakers players.


Parker, Jackson, Willis, Bowen, Rose, Smith, Ginobili: 60ppg

Fisher, Fox, Horry, George, Walker, Medvedenko, Shaq, Rush: 45ppg


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Damian:

Please read my post a little more carefully. I was not comparing Shaq and Robinson. I was comparing the Robinson-less Spurs to the Shaq-less Lakers.

Give Duncan the Lakers supporting cast (no Shaq and Kobe), and he would get that team in the playoffs. He is that good.

Give Kobe the Spurs supporting cast (no Robinson and Duncan), and Kobe would make that supporting cast look as poor as the Lakers' supporting cast looks now.

And yes, the Spurs' supporting cast is better than the Lakers' supporting cast, but it's not the difference between 3-10 (Kobe with just the supporting cast) and consecutively beating Portland, the Lakers, and Sacramento on the road (Duncan with just the supporting cast).

The difference is that Tim Duncan is a much, much more valuable player than Kobe Bryant.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Damian:
> 
> Please read my post a little more carefully. I was not comparing Shaq and Robinson. I was comparing the Robinson-less Spurs to the Shaq-less Lakers.
> ...


I agree that Duncan is more valuable because size matter and Duncan has it. Don't get me wrong, Shaq and Duncan are great players but that is partly attributed to the fact that they play in a "Center-less" league. It accentuates their value. A big man will make a bigger impact on the game than a little man in this era. Aside from that, I think you have to look closely at the Lakers situation. That team is built around Shaq, not Kobe. The triangle offense is based on Shaq's strengths and functions better when he is in. The role players complement Shaq much better than they do Kobe. For the most part they are stationary, spot up shooter who thrive off of Shaq's double and triple teams. Kobe is a great player and can play in any offense but if you watch the games he scores alot of his points in transition, on clearouts, and going one on one when Shaq is out. When Shaq takes breaks they run a completely different offense with Kobe. But for some reason the first 12 games when Shaq was out this year Phil insisted on running the triangle. The role players are best suited for the triangle but for it to work they need open shots and w/o Shaq they don't get open looks. Kobe draws attention but with Shaq and Kobe you are talking about 3 or 4 defenders on 2 players and lots of open shots for teammates. W/o Shaq and w/o open shots the role players are forced to do things that they aren't accustomed to doing. On offense they can't create their own shots and on defense they can't guard one on one. Basically, the Lakers are screwed. But they can't run and gun either because the role players are old, slow, and unathletic. This problem is compounded by the fact that Shaq makes $30 million and we can't replace him with one or two good players. We can't change the offense either because he usually only misses a game or two here and there. I'd like Kobe to lead his team to victory as well but if you watch the games you'll see that the man tries hard as hell. He scores, he defends, he passes to open teammates but they still lose. He's in a no win situation there.


----------



## philipm27 (Sep 26, 2002)

Exactly Pinball. Nice to see someone who knows what they are talking aboit in relation to the Lakers' situation.


----------



## Tenshi25 (Nov 27, 2002)

> Give Duncan the Lakers supporting cast (no Shaq and Kobe), and he would get that team in the playoffs. He is that good.
> 
> Give Kobe the Spurs supporting cast (no Robinson and Duncan), and Kobe would make that supporting cast look as poor as the Lakers' supporting cast looks now.
> 
> ...


Again, I completely agree with you.


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

big men are always more valuable to a team.


----------



## philipm27 (Sep 26, 2002)

That is what makes the kind of year that Kobe is havig so special. he is having and outstnanding year, and IF he leads LA to the playoffs and keeps playing this way, then he needs to be at least CONSIDERED for the award.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>philipm27</b>!
> That is what makes the kind of year that Kobe is havig so special. he is having and outstnanding year, and IF he leads LA to the playoffs and keeps playing this way, then he needs to be at least CONSIDERED for the award.


Yes, Kobe is having an outstanding fantasy league year, but without Shaq, he is 3-10, which is a winning percentage of 0.231.

Guess who the three teams in the NBA closest to that winning percentage: Cleveland (0.189), Denver (0.226), and Memphis (0.294). [And remember the Kobe-led Lakers got spanked by 19 by Cleveland, Cleveland's most lopsided victory of the season.]

Without Shaq, the Kobe-led Lakers are much worse than even my lowly Bulls (0.340), and certainly no MVP consideration should be given to a player that can't lead his team to a better winning percentage than the lowly Bulls.

If you don't agree with that statement, then I am starting my Jalen Rose for MVP campaign. Oh right, he didn't even make the All-Star Team, so that is going to be an uphill campaign.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Tim Duncan, without David Robinson, beat Portland, the Lakers, and Sacramento on the road. Could Kobe, without Shaq, ever do that?


Did you just compare David Robinson to Shaq?



> Without Robinson, the Duncan-led Spurs still would win 50-55 games a year, perhaps even more than that.


Again comparing Shaq to Robinson also keyword "would."



> Without Shaq, the Kobe-led Lakers would win 30-35 games a year, perhaps even less than that.


To be fair you could wait until that happens, instead of speculating.



> Are you trying to argue that Rose, Ginnobili, Bowen, Parker, etc. are about 20 wins per season better than Horry, Fox, Walker, and Fisher, etc?


Duncan's supporting cast is a good won, but we all know how this works. The Spurs are winning and its a good thing, if they were losing everyone would be quick to point out how the supporting cast sucks.



> Or is it simply the case that Duncan (like Shaq) is the kind of player that makes his teammates around him better, while Kobe (even with all of his assists) just isn't that kind of player.


:nonono:



> Being league MVP is not the same thing as being a fantasy league MVP. Kobe is great at putting up stats, but Shaq and Duncan are far more valuable to making their teams win.


Is Shaq more of an MVP to you than Bryant. If so, please have you head examined.



> Kobe may be the "best" player in the league whatever that might mean, but he is far from being the most valuable.


opinion



> I bet if the Bulls traded Jalen Rose for Kobe, the Bulls would only have a handful more wins (if any) than they do now. And Jalen Rose has never even been named to All-Star team.


opinion


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Caron_Butler</b>!
> IF KOBE IS THE BEST PLAYER...WHY CANT THEY WIN WITHOUT SHAQ?


Do you understand the difference between having a 12 man roster with Shaq and without compared to just not having Shaq on your team. The difference is the teammates that you could replace him with. Shaq takes up a major sum of the payroll, if he were not there somebody else would be, so criticize Kobe in the absence of Shaq, just know that he is at a major disadvantage when you do so.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> Yes, Kobe is having an outstanding fantasy league year, but without Shaq, he is 3-10, which is a winning percentage of 0.231.
> 
> ...


stuck on stupid.:nonono:


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

IV, thanks for all of your effort disecting my argument, but when somebody says the following:

A (without YY) is better than B (without ZZ), the comparison is between A and B and not between YY and ZZ. That is the whole purpose of using the word "without."

A is the Duncan-led Spurs, YY is Robinson, B is the Kobe-led Lakers, and ZZ is Shaq.

[I went back and clarified this just to make it 100% clear.]

So the comparison is between Duncan and Kobe, not Shaq and Robinson.

And if the 13 games this season are not enough evidence to argue that the Lakers would be lucky to win 30-35 games without Shaq, then I am puzzled to how we can use Kobe's last 13 games as an argument for his how good he is.

If 13 games is too small of a sample in the first case, then it is too small of a sample in the second case as well.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Read what you wrote. the quote compares Shaq to Robinson.*



> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Tim Duncan, without David Robinson, beat Portland, the Lakers, and Sacramento on the road. Could Kobe, without Shaq, ever do that?


This implies that David is on the same level as Shaq. 



> Without Robinson, the Duncan-led Spurs still would win 50-55 games a year, perhaps even more than that.


same thing. 

paraphrase: Duncan has won against the best teams in the NBA without his next best player, why can't Kobe. 

Missing David Robinson who is a year away from retirement is not comparable to missing Shaq the "most dominance player in the NBA."

Furthermore, there is no need to disect your arguments. Seems clear cut to me. Just read the following quote.


> Without Shaq, the Kobe-led Lakers are much worse than even my lowly Bulls (0.340), and certainly no MVP consideration should be given to a player that can't lead his team to a better winning percentage than the lowly Bulls.
> 
> If you don't agree with that statement, then *I am starting my Jalen Rose for MVP campaign.* Oh right, he didn't even make the All-Star Team, so that is going to be an uphill campaign.


First off, winning percentage is over an entire season not a select group of games that you have made bias against Kobe. The bulls winning percentage is terrible and LA's is much better. 
Then you go and start a campaign for Jalen Rose for MVP? What has Jalen Rose done that is even comes remotely close to what Kobe Bryant has done this season.

Here a list of Kobe's achievements so you can compare:
NBA allstar
Broke a three point record
11, 40+ games
10 games scoring over 35 in a row.
Leading the league in Triple doubles
2 player of the month awards
countless player of the week awards
30ppg second in the league
He ranks in the top ten in 22 statistical categories this year
All this and if LA makes the playoffs how can you deny him consideration.

Next time you want to make a case against Bryant review the year that he is having and please avoid comparisions to Jalen Rose.

Then you


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I just want to say that Magic Johnson without Kareem could take the Lakers farther than Jordan could take the Bulls without Dave Corzine. And if you gave Magic the Bulls without Corzine he could take them to the second round.

Magic was that much better than Jordan at making his teamates better.

FYI to NCBullsFan. Kobe has a winning record without Shaq in his 7 years. Now I see why you avoid those larger samples.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!I just want to say that Magic Johnson without Kareem could take the Lakers farther than Jordan could take the Bulls without Dave Corzine. And if you gave Magic the Bulls without Corzine he could take them to the second round.


Are you trying to say that Corzine is as good as Kareem? :laugh: Because we all know that if Corzine would have played as long as Kareem, he would have twice as many points and twice as many titles. :laugh:


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!FYI to NCBullsFan. Kobe has a winning record without Shaq in his 7 years. Now I see why you avoid those larger samples.


But Ron started the thread by arguing for Kobe for MVP this year. If the MVP was based upon career statistics, then MJ would be the runaway favorite.

By the way, for those worried about the "small sample" of Shaq-less games for the Lakers this year, here is the 95% confidence interval for the "true" winning percentage for the Shaq-less Lakers using only those 13 games.

3/13 +- 2.179 * [(3/13)*(10/13)/13]^0.5
= 0.231 +- 2.179 * 0.117
= 0.231 +- 0.255
= (0, 0.485)

In other words, what this says is that 95 out of every 100 times, we saw a team win only 3 out of 13 games, the "true" winning percentage for that team (what their winning percentage would be if they played an infinite number of games) would be less than 48.5 percent.

So the small sample size is not much of a problem in making the claim that without Shaq, the Kobe-led Lakers are not a playoff team.

And one last point about all of you who think 13 games is too few to draw any conclusions. Playoff series are not best-of-13 or best-of-25; they are best-of-7, so if 7 games are good enough to determine that the Lakers were better than the Kings last year, 13 games ought to be enough to determine that the Shaq-less Lakers are a bad team.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> But Ron started the thread by arguing for Kobe for MVP this year. If the MVP was based upon career statistics, then MJ would be the runaway favorite.
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I just want to say that Magic Johnson without Kareem could take the Lakers farther than Jordan could take the Bulls without Dave Corzine. And if you gave Magic the Bulls without Corzine he could take them to the second round.


Sorry, but that's just flat out wrong, IMO. Jordan made his teammates better too (he wasn't the assisst machine Magic was, but he still was an excellent playmaker), in addition to being a superior scorer and defender. There's a reason why Jordan is considered the greatest ever. I'd take Jordan and a bunch of scrubs over Magic and that same group any day.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Sorry, but that's just flat out wrong, IMO. Jordan made his teammates better too (he wasn't the assisst machine Magic was, but he still was an excellent playmaker), in addition to being a superior scorer and defender. There's a reason why Jordan is considered the greatest ever. I'd take Jordan and a bunch of scrubs over Magic and that same group any day.


I agree. He's wasn't the flashy passer that Magic was, nor did he have the gaudy assist totals like Magic. But he was a better shooter, scorer, and defender and an equal leader. Jordan was flat out better in my opinion. Magic is a top 10 player. MJ is a top 2 player.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Sorry, but that's just flat out wrong, IMO. Jordan made his teammates better too (he wasn't the assisst machine Magic was, but he still was an excellent playmaker), in addition to being a superior scorer and defender. There's a reason why Jordan is considered the greatest ever. I'd take Jordan and a bunch of scrubs over Magic and that same group any day.


The reason Jordan is considered the greatest ever doesn't even have everything to do with basketball. That guy is the most overhyped human in the history of the world.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

BTW...I have a friend who is about 25 years old, and MJ used to come into my home town every summer and do his Air Jordan Camp. He would bartend at the bars on weekends and he tried to pick up my friend (She's a woman though, so MJ isn't gay...I had you there for a sec, didn't I?). At this point, he was still married and wasn't separated from his wife.

So, while I was watching the All-Star Game this year, my other friend, who originally told me the story was calling MJ a male whore throughout the whole game. It was classic.:yes:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> I just want to say that Magic Johnson without Kareem could take the Lakers farther than Jordan could take the Bulls without Dave Corzine. And if you gave Magic the Bulls without Corzine he could take them to the second round.


Thats because magic still likely had Worthy, Cooper, Scott, ect.

There really is no comparison between the amount of talent on the showtime lakers and 90's bulls....even without kareem.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats because magic still likely had Worthy, Cooper, Scott, ect.
> ...


Exactly I was responding to a poster that compared Tony Parker, Ginobilli, Jackson, Bowen and Rose to Fisher, George, Fox, Shaw and Walker.


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

*Finally!!!!*

a sports writer with the same views as most of us..( or at least the people who understand hoops)
one of the greatest kobe articles of all time...

Yet Kobe still stands above them all. To me, it's not even a question of if he will find the open men once double-teams appear. The question is if the Laker with the open look makes the shot. NBA coaches are not fools. They know if it comes down to a choice of whether Kobe will beat you, or Derek Fisher, or Horry, or Fox, or Devean George will beat you, that's no choice. Last year, during their epic playoff series, Kings guard Bobby Jackson smiled ferally and said of these Lakers, "They're scared of us, man." He wasn't talking about Kobe. He was talking about Derek Fisher.


http://espn.go.com/page2/s/wiley/030218.html


----------



## grizzoistight (Jul 16, 2002)

*someone comment on this article!!*

i know its a long article but its worth it


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Just a suggestion grizzo, you should be more specific in your thread titles. Most of the times people have no idea what the thread is about.


----------



## QBF (Jul 22, 2002)

“Observing Kobe's most recent scoring jag -- 42.3 per in the last five, nine straight with 35 points or more, best scoring run-out the NBA has seen since the mid-'80s, when Mike Jordan was 24 and 25, the same age Kobe is now -- we may conclude Kobe is the greatest scoring force in the league.
Ever.”

Tell us why, Mr. Wiley. 

“First, any guy who can score 42.3 over five in the NBA, and reference Pinocchio's Gepetto at the same time, is a man to be watched, studied, and possibly feared.”

True.

“And what we've seen from Kobe in this scoring streak (not to mention coinciding with Shaq's new mortality; the first seven games of Kobe's 35-plus streak were wins; the last two, against the Spurs and Knicks, were losses) is new.”

New because it is new, and the old has been forgotten. This always happens. Therefore, Wiley's analysis is old. 

“Right. Last I looked, at 24, Kobe the Destroyer had won three NBA rings in a row, and now is currently looking for a fourth in a row.”

How many titles you win has nothing to do with how great a scorer you are, Mr. Wiley. Stick to the point of the article you are writing. It makes your argument more persuasive. Once you bring up how many titles Kobe has, you remind us how great Shaq was. 

“As yours truly pointed out in GQ last summer, days after the Lakes had won a third straight NBA title, if Kobe's hands were as big as Michael's, they'd have to shut down the league.”

And if Michael had been as tall as Wilt, you’d have to start the league back up and then shut it down again.

And while you’re at it, you’d have to make Kobe as fast, as quick, as explosive, and as good a leaper as Michael was, too.

“It will still be him who is expected to lift the Lakers, not Shaq, not Phil, not the spear-carriers; and when they lose -- not if, when, because Sacramento is better and deeper, and not even Jordan won them all -- it will all be brought back home to him. I saw it happen to Magic. It is what happens, in the short term, in the day-to-day coverage.”

Those are the breaks. Look at what happened to Pippen in 1993-94 and 1999-2000. Or at what has been happening to Garnett the last two years. 


“Especially when you are the greatest scoring weapon in basketball, and possibly the greatest scoring weapon in the history of basketball. He is the greatest because he is the latest. He is the greatest now.”

So that’s it? In the end, Mr. Wiley’s argument is that Kobe is the greatest because he is the latest? He is the greatest now? Then I guess Iverson was the greatest ever two seasons ago and McGrady was the greatest ever during the early part of this season. 

“None of the current three-time world champion Lakers, not Bob Horry, not Derek Fisher, not Samaki Walker, not Rick Fox, can generate his own shot. . . . The other Lakers are utterly dependent on Kobe and Shaq to get their open shots for them.”

Michael Jordan’s fellow starters when he scored averaged 35.0 ppg on 53.5% shooting when he was 24 were Dave Corzine, Charles Oakley, Brad Sellers, and Sam Vincent. Which of them created their own shot? Corzine? Kobe is averaging 30.2 ppg on 42.2% shooting this year without Shaq. 

“If the opponent doubles him, he's good for 30. If not ... he had 40s in back-to-back home losses to the Knicks and the Spurs. But if he takes 40 shots single-covered, he is going to have 50-, 60- and even 70-point games. He could've had 80 against Denver, without any exaggeration at all.
So, could Kobe average 50 a game, which Wilt did for one season? No. I don't believe he can do that. He could, but it would simply require too many shots, he would take too much of a physical beating, his arm might fall off, etc.
Could Kobe average 40? Oh, yes.

If teams continue to single-cover him, with Shaq out and the other Lakers limited, Kobe could average 40. But teams will not continue to single-cover him. ”

When Jordan was 23, he averaged 37.1 ppg while being double and triple-teamed constantly. If he were single-covered, he could have averaged 50. Oh, yes.

“During this jag when he has averaged 42.3 points over five, with the nine games in a row over 35 points, he has not drawn the double much.”

This hardly connotes the greatest scorer ever. 

“Iverson is a great player. McGrady is great player. Garnett, J-Kidd, Duncan, Shaq, all great. And there is the difference between this era and Jordan's, Bird's or Magic's, Wilt's. The physical skill altitude of the game is so much higher.
Yet Kobe still stands above them all.”

Kobe still stands above them all? At 3-10? In many ways, this situation pushes Kobe below Garnett, Kidd, and Duncan? And how could anyone, ever, say that Kobe stands above Shaq?

As far as the skill altitude of the game being so much higher, I will defer to the soccer-playing nations of Spain and Argentina. 


Sorry, grizzo. It may be one of the greatest Kobe articles ever, but it is not a very good basketball one.


----------



## numlock (Feb 8, 2003)

this article is so bad its like common sense was thrown out the window and he looked for inspiration in the wrritings of guys like JI here. Kobe is a great player doing fantastically well but some are obviously going a little too far in their statements


Btw how big are mjs hands i do own some white big mj book that shows his hands but i mean in comparison to other 6.6


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

Everybody is making a big deal of KOBE's offensive outburst the last 5 games avg. 45pts and people are saying hes the best scorer ever, but if I recall Allen Iverson scored 40 or more points 5 games in a row in his rookie season. So if AI did this in his rookie season doesnt that make him a better scorer than Kobe if its taken Kobe 6-7 years to get to this point while being at least 7 inches shorter???? Dont shoot me just a question I was posing


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Kobe is averaging 42 over the last 9 games. Its the best scoring streak since the mid 80's. Thats means Shaq, Iverson, Tmac, whoever didnt do it. No one is calling him the greatest scorer ever, just giving credit where credit is do.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> Kobe is averaging 42 over the last 9 games. Its the best scoring streak since the mid 80's. Thats means Shaq, Iverson, Tmac, whoever didnt do it. No one is calling him the greatest scorer ever, just giving credit where credit is do.


One of those Espn guys is


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> 
> 
> One of those Espn guys is


Well if the shoe fits wear it.

Seriously this may be a little prestated, but Kobe is a great scorer. He is finally able to showcase just how much he is in control when the focus is merely on him. He's lighting it up.


----------



## QBF (Jul 22, 2002)

I don't understand. Why didn't the guy just write that Kobe is the best scorer in the league? I would have agreed. Why did he have to go for the hyperbole and start bringing in the best scorer "ever" nonsense? Why write something just to be controversial when understatement is so much closer to the truth?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>QBF</b>!
> I don't understand. Why didn't the guy just write that Kobe is the best scorer in the league? I would have agreed. Why did he have to go for the hyperbole and start bringing in the best scorer "ever" nonsense? Why write something just to be controversial when understatement is so much closer to the truth?


The beauty of journalism.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

I think that Ruben Boumtje Boumtje is the best player in the leauge.

heh heh heh...


----------



## MiamiHeat03 (Mar 28, 2003)

u CAME BLAME TMAC FOR HAVING BAD ROLE PLAYERS.


----------



## dmilesai (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HearToTemptYou</b>!
> I think that Ruben Boumtje Boumtje is the best player in the leauge.
> 
> heh heh heh...


Yup. Georgetown centers are always the best, but Ruben is the best in the history of Georgetown centers.


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

Kobe has Shaq

Tmac has............................Drew Gooden


NUFF SAID

Kobe isnt even the best on his team


----------



## MiamiHeat03 (Mar 28, 2003)

yeah shaq is the best but kobe is the best in the final period as for sahq he is in the 1,2,3rd period hero.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Caron_Butler</b>!
> Kobe has Shaq
> 
> Tmac has............................Drew Gooden
> ...


:mrt:

Wake up man! Kobe is the best player on his team. Shaq says it all the time and its not just to hype Kobe; he says it because its true. Review the season, and rethink your position.


----------



## BallBiologist (Mar 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ron</b>!
> You clearly have not been watching the Lakers lately. Kobe is not only scoring mad, he is also getting his teammates involved (I believe you will find him in 9th place in assists. Tracy McGrady? 22nd! :laugh: ).
> 
> Did someone say rebounds? Kobe 28th. Tracy 48th. :rotf:
> ...


Thats because tracy's teammates miss every wide open look he gives them.. How is he suppose to get assists when he gets his teammates open like 20 times during the game and passes a wide open shot to them... OH yeah.. Kobe's assists are easy.. All he has to do is wait to get double teamed.. hand it off to shaq and have shaq dunk it..


----------



## buduan (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>courtside</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats because tracy's teammates miss every wide open look he gives them.. How is he suppose to get assists when he gets his teammates open like 20 times during the game and passes a wide open shot to them... OH yeah.. Kobe's assists are easy.. All he has to do is wait to get double teamed.. hand it off to shaq and have shaq dunk it..


O.K. now that we have heard your really bad excuse for why his assists are lower, please explain why his rebounds are lower. He plays in the smaller conference, he should blowing Kobe away in this category. He's 2 or 3 inches taller than him.
Let me guess, it's his teammates fault. They keep snatching it away from him after he blocks out the entire team.

Why are his steals lower? Are his teammates snatching those away also?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>courtside</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats because tracy's teammates miss every wide open look he gives them.. How is he suppose to get assists when he gets his teammates open like 20 times during the game and passes a wide open shot to them... OH yeah.. Kobe's assists are easy.. All he has to do is wait to get double teamed.. hand it off to shaq and have shaq dunk it..


I wish you would quit whinning about Tmac this and that. It's getting sad dude! very sad.........


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

All I have to say is...:laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Chris Bosh #4 (Feb 18, 2005)

Is Kobe still the best player in the league? :biggrin:


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Chris Bosh #4 said:


> Is Kobe still the best player in the league? :biggrin:


So, exactly why did you bring back a 2 year old thread?

BTW, why do the Toronto Raptors sucked then and suck now?

And why is Carter playing at his current level?


----------



## Chris Bosh #4 (Feb 18, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> So, exactly why did you bring back a 2 year old thread?
> 
> BTW, why do the Toronto Raptors sucked then and suck now?
> 
> And why is Carter playing at his current level?


I don't mind Raptors bashing  Bash em all you want it doesn't really matter to me.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Chris Bosh #4 said:


> I don't mind Raptors bashing  Bash em all you want it doesn't really matter to me.


That rules out question #2...

What about questions #1 and #3? :angel:


----------



## Pasha The Great (Apr 9, 2005)

Kobe sucks... if he had any skill his team would at least be in the playoffs. T-Mac kills kobe.. last year rockets barely held on to 8th spot.. now their 5th seed.


----------



## Meatwad (Feb 18, 2005)

and they traded 3 starters from that playoff team for him.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Pasha The Great said:


> Kobe sucks... if he had any skill his team would at least be in the playoffs. T-Mac kills kobe.. last year rockets barely held on to 8th spot.. now their 5th seed.


By barely hanging onto the 8th spot you mean staying solid at the 7th spot?


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> So, exactly why did you bring back a 2 year old thread?
> 
> BTW, why do the Toronto Raptors sucked then and suck now?
> 
> And why is Carter playing at his current level?


Raptors > Lakers

And Carter was tanking in Toronto, I think that was obvious.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Captain Obvious said:


> Raptors > Lakers


Since when?


----------



## GOT DA GAME ON LOCK (Apr 15, 2005)

:laugh: Kobe the best player in the NBA? Is this a joke? He was never, ever the best player in the NBA at no period of time. Hell, he was never the best player in Los Angeles. The only thing he's the best at is riding shaq coatails, snitching, rape, selling out, crying, getting beat up, getting punked. Thats the only thing he's the best at. He damn sure aint the best in basketball.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

:wave: Welcome Back Mack Ten


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

GOT DA GAME ON LOCK said:


> :laugh: Kobe the best player in the NBA? Is this a joke? He was never, ever the best player in the NBA at no period of time. Hell, he was never the best player in Los Angeles. The only thing he's the best at is riding shaq coatails, snitching, rape, selling out, crying, getting beat up, getting punked. Thats the only thing he's the best at. He damn sure aint the best in basketball.


You, MACK TEN, i'll give you props to your consistency... :angel:


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Since when?


Since the last few weeks when the Lakers have been one of the worse teams in the entire league. Didn't think I'd have to tell you that one.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Captain Obvious said:


> Since the last few weeks when the Lakers have been one of the worse teams in the entire league. Didn't think I'd have to tell you that one.


Oh Captain, my Captain... Inebriate yourself with this season's turmoil...

It won't happen again...


----------



## MiamiWade (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*



Ron said:
 

> This guy has been waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy over the top lately.
> 
> Anyone who has seen this guy play in the last several games cannot deny that he has been the league's best player...if he keeps it up, no one can take away the MVP from him this year.


What a joke


----------



## madskillz1_99 (Dec 5, 2004)

*Re: Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*



MiamiWade said:


> What a joke


the post is from two years ago *edited*


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*



madskillz1_99 said:


> the post is from two years ago *edited*


:yes:


----------



## bear23 (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*



madskillz1_99 said:


> the post is from two years ago *edited*


Yes and in todays context it is a big joke stupid.


----------



## madskillz1_99 (Dec 5, 2004)

*Re: Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*



bear23 said:


> Yes and in todays context it is a big joke stupid.


what's the point of purposely taking it out of context?


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*



madskillz1_99 said:


> what's the point of purposely taking it out of context?


Well, a better question should be asked like how that hell was some freaking kid allow to post?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*



Ron said:


> This guy has been waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy over the top lately.
> 
> Anyone who has seen this guy play in the last several games cannot deny that he has been the league's best player...if he keeps it up, no one can take away the MVP from him this year.


Wont waste my time reading 10 pages of what I'm sure consist of a gang of haters attacking your post, but I agree. Kobe is the best individual player in the NBA, tough break in LA this year, things haven't gone his way, but the best individual player in the NBA is Kobe, .............or Lebron. :bsmile:


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*



John said:


> Well, a better question should be asked like *how that hell was some freaking kid allow to post?*


public forum?


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*



IV said:


> public forum?


True, good post.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Kobe is the best player in the league. Period.*



John said:


> True, good post.


----------

