# Tmac versus Kobe statistically



## JNice

Not meant to start another 2000 post thread on Kobe versus Tmac. I just thought these stats were interesting and wanted to share what I found.

Check this out:

Kobe born 8/23/78
Tmac born 5/24/79 (about 8 months younger)

Kobe's first season 96/97
Tmac's first season 97/98

Kobe career points: 8,197
Tmac's career points: 6,135

If you avg out Tmac's totals for the last two seasons to estimate his output next year, you get about 2000 points for the season.

Being 2/3 year younger and one season behind Kobe, Tmac's total if they had come in at the same time would be approx <b>8,135</b> to Kobe's <b>8,197</b>.

Not mention these stats:

Kobe's career rebounding total: 1,894
Tmac's career reb total (1 yr less): 2,225 (w/ avg yr about 2800)

Kobe's career assist total: 1,579
Tmac's career assist total: 1,226 (w/ 1 avg yr about 1600)

Kobe's career steals: 533
Tmac's career steals: 426 (w/ 1 avg yr about 530-540)

Kobe's career blocks: 253
Tmac's career blocks: 469 (w/ 1 avg year about 550-570)

Kobe career turnovers: 1,051
Tmac's career turnovers: 693 (w/ 1 avg year about 880-910)

Just found these stats interesting.


----------



## twolvefan11

not another thread with kobe vs. tmac


----------



## BizzyRipsta

interesting comparison.


----------



## FSH

But u got to think T-Mac first couple of year he avg like 4points a game and he really didnt get a chance to play and Kobe did..


----------



## JNice

Actually I didn't post minutes payed, but Tmac played more his first year than Kobe, but Kobe played more the second year. 

Their first 2 years avg out to be almost exactly same playing time.

It is amazing how almost dead-on most of their career stats are.


----------



## Chops

Kobe's average minutes per game (first 2 years)- 20.8
T-Mac's average minutes per game (first 2 years)- 20.5

Now, you say "Well, they have had an equal opportunity to show what they can do as far as minutes played". However, this is interesting IMO.

Kobe's mpg in 3rd year- 37.9
T-Mac's mpg in 3rd year- 31.2

Kobe got more of a chance in his 3rd season. So not only is he 1 year ahead as far as years in the league. He is also ahead in the number of seasons in which he was *allowed* to be a big-time contributor.


----------



## mindnsoul

McGrady's stats are a bit inflated now. If he had a good 2nd scoring option and good rebounders, his numbers would dip a bit. It's no wonder he has back problems. lol


----------



## JerryWest

if hill stays healthy watch tmac's numbers drop


----------



## couchtomato

I think it's great to have two such talented guys competing at the same time. Should be a fun next 10 years!


----------



## SLiM9287

I dont know if tmac #'s will drop because he is still the 1st scoring option he might jus get a couple more open looks with hill on the court.


----------



## TheRifleman

> Originally posted by <b>couchtomato</b>!
> I think it's great to have two such talented guys competing at the same time. Should be a fun next 10 years!


I agree - it makes it more fun to have 2 talented kids at the same position and at the same time and they are also very good friends off the court, which is another interesting aspect.


----------



## TerpSam

I think you guys are getting too caught up with McGrady's numbers. T-Mac only gets the numbers he does because he is the only scorer on his team, just like Iverson. If you dig deep into McGrady's numbers, he actually averaged about 24.8 ppg, 6.7 rpg, and 5 apg when Grant Hill was on the floor. These numbers are almost identical (minus the rebounding, which McGrady is definitely better at) to Kobe's. Then, you factor in that Shaq got much bigger numbers than Grant Hill. So, you can't tell me that having a second scorer actually helps Kobe's or McGrady's numbers, though it does help them win. If Kobe was on the Lakers without Shaq, he would get numbers that were as good if no tbetter than McGrady's, and would probably lead the lakers to at least the first round of the playoffs (which is what McGrady does with the Magic in the EAST). I am obviously a bigger Kobe fan than T-Mac fan, but I am willing to admit that these to guys are very similar in skill. I would still take Kobe over T-Mac because of his clutch shooting and how he actually plays with heart. This is unless I really needed a guy that could play both the 2 and 3 spots and could be one of my team's leading rebounders, which would give McGrady the nod.


----------



## JNice

> because of his clutch shooting and how he actually plays with heart.


I agree with you mostly. The point of the comparison is to show that McGrady is about on par and maybe ahead of Kobe as far as points in their careers.

As far as the above quote, again, I don't understand how people can question a person's heart. Especially a guy that carried a weak team to the playoffs and played exceptionally well in the playoffs even though he could barely walk in between games.


----------



## pharcyde

*This whole thread is stupid*

Statistics mean basically nothing. Karl Malone has a chance to own the record for career points scored in a few years, does that mean he's the best scorer? Obviously not. Stats are misleading, at best. There is absolutely NO WAY you can tell what these two players would do if you put them in eachother's shoes. Yeah, Tracy's stats are a bit better, but they are both great players. 

They are similar in a lot of ways, but they are also very different, which is probably a product of the systems they play for. Tracy is the man in Orlando, the sole scoring option, so obviously he's going to be a bit better 1 on 1, and a bit more of a scorer. But Kobe has always had to share the spotlight with Shaq in LA. The system he's in now requires him to pass the ball more than Tracy does, and it's a more team oriented offense. So his game is a bit different than Tracy's. 

It's obvious that these are two great players, why can't it just be left at that?


----------



## kflo

ultimately, this rivalry (hopefully it turns into one) will not be determined by a statsheet, or who scores more points. like all great rivalries, it'll be determined on the floor, head to head (hopefully again). who's going to outplay who?

at this point, mcgrady's career is slightly behind kobe's pace thus far, simply because kobe had an opportunity to showcase his skills on the biggest stage, and has risen to the task. when there careers are done, kobe's championships and his performance in helping win them will certainly be in his favor, regardless of what some think of his importance there. there's a long way to go to change things, and it certainly won't be as important if mcgrady's dominating the league in years to come. it'll be interesting, and we certainly can't discount many other stars around the league as well, who could throw many wrenches into this rivalry ever really taking off.


----------



## JNice

moTIGS:

To say stats mean absolutely nothing is ludicrous. Karl Malone probably will own the all-time scoring record, and what will that say about him.. well, he will probably be dabted as arguably the best PF of all-time, or at least the best scoring PF of all-time, including being considered one of the most durable, reliable, and consistent players of all-time.

I would argue that yes, Tracy is Orlando's <b>main</b> scoring option, but he was not their "only" scoring option. A team that avg'd the 4th best ppg in the NBA and Tmac was not scoring 80 ppg. Besides Shaq, who is considered a "scorer" on the Lakers? Almost nobody. On Orlando, many of Tmac's counterparts are strictly scorers.

And you say that Kobe in his system is made to pass the ball more, but wouldn't that lead you to believe he would have higher assists since all McGrady does is score? But he doesnt.

There is nothing else at this point to talk about in the NBA. And this is the first time that anyone has really ever argued this with real stats behind the argument. If you don't wanna read anymore about Tmac and Kobe, then dont read the thread.

kflo:

This will never be decided head to head. At least not for quite some time. Unless Orlando and LA were to matchup in the playoffs, and LA without Shaq, it would never be about Kobe vs Tmac.. as long as Shaq is around, it is his team. Not to mention it seems these days coaches won't put marquee players on each other until the end of games to avoid foul trouble.

You are right about not discounting other players.. Paul Pierce has a shot at being in this discussion if he keeps his pace up. If KG ever turns it up a notch, he could be as well. If Lebron James lives up to his hype, he is another.


----------



## truebluefan

this never ending argument may change this year. If Hill is 100% and Tracys stats go down. Will the discussion still be the same?


----------



## Dragnsmke1

Fellas...The whole point of team sports is that it is situational. Kobe is in a situation that makes him better than T-Mac. Dont get me wrong I love T-mac and I despise Kobe, but thats just opinion. Whenit comes down to it the hall of fame judges you by rings and then by stats.
Why do you think players like Charles Barkley shop themselves around at the end of thier careers trying to get that ring?


----------



## kflo

i agree that stats do mean something. they definitely support a players greatness. great players usually have the stats to back them up. but there's that extra something that separates the true greats. hakeem and robinson's stats were pretty comparable in their heydays. but hakeem just had that extra level robinson didn't have. it's not really something that was there in the stats.

on assists, jordan's assists went down with his scoring as his team got better. the more he was asked to share the ball, the more it affected his stats overall. but he too always had that extra level that the stats didn't necessarily show (although he was always leading the league in scoring).

as for head to head, we'll see. i do think that regardless of the surrounding circumstances, you tend to see alot in head-to-head matchups. it's guys on the court making plays. you can lose and still be making plays to give your team a chance. the player with the weaker team is at a bit of a disadvantage, although, like iverson in '01, he's got the opportunity to go down shooting.


----------



## JNice

Well, everyone is gonna hate me for constantly disagreeing, but that is what a discussion board is about..

Anyways, you can't possibly say stats aren't a driving force for hall of fame consideration and votes.

Do you envision Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Reggie Miller having a tough time getting into the Hall? 0 rings there.

Horace Grant has got a lot of rings, but I don't think he'll be a HOF'er.

Like you said, it is all situational.. Kobe is in a better situation to get himself rings, but that doesn't make him the better player. Just like Horace and Karl Malone. Who is the better PF? Obviously Malone. But Malone has never been in the situation to get himself a ring or two. Grant has. Doesnt make Grant better.


----------



## kflo

but you can't just eliminate performance in winning championships from the discussion. i think that's what's in kobe's favor, not necessarily the rings. all players are judged by what they do in the clutch, and in the biggest moments. the bigger the stage the bigger the moment. rising to that moment, that's some extra credit there. reggie's making the hall not on his stats or his individual awards. isiah's legacy is based more on his moments than his numbers.


----------



## Dragnsmke1

1st of all I didnt say stats were not a driving force to get onto the Hall. I know they are. What I am saying is your stats are made because of your situation. But if a person has never seen somebody play( ive never seen anyone from the 70's or before play) all we have to go on is rings and stats. That does not necesarily make one player better than the other but the whole point of the game is to win the big prize in the sky. Every year there are 28 teams that wasted the whole year. Same goes individually. If you dont win it all what were you playing for?

John Stockton and Karl Malone where in postion to get rings there was only one year in thier whole career when the did not make the playoffs. Theyll still be in the Hall but it will be incomplete.

Horace Grant will make the Hall because he was an intricate part of a team that dominated. Hes situation made him one of the best PF in the game at this time.


----------



## JNice

No, no, I definitely wasn't eliminating that. But I think stats are much more prominent factor in HOF.

Guys like Horace Grant and Robert Horry have been integral parts in a large number of rings, but will either guy be elected into the hall? It would seem doubtful for both. And Robert Horry has proven to be nearly as clutch as anyone in history.


----------



## Dragnsmke1

Oh yeah... I DO think t-mac is a better player than Kobe for that matter I also believe that Carter, Allen, Mac, and Finley would do a better job if they were in Kobes position but thats why they make video games.


----------



## Dragnsmke1

Horry has what 5 rings and you dont think hes going to the Hall?!


----------



## JNice

I wouldn't think so, but of course I am not sure. I don't think you will find many guys in the HOF with career avgs of 8 ppg, 5 rpg, 2 apg ...

I could be wrong.


----------



## Dragnsmke1

Then that would probably qualify him as the greatest role player of all time because he started on every squad he won a ring with. He is the common denominator in half of the last decades championships.


----------



## kflo

horace grant will not make the hall of fame. ever. horry won't either. they're not close to hof players. stats validate and support greatness, but they don't define it. the stats are part of the picture, the rest is just from watching them play. granted you need both, because if the stats aren't there, there likely wasn't the production to warrant a label of greatness. but there's more once you get past the stats. better stats is better than worse stats, that's pretty obvious. but it doesn't end there. that's part of why these discussions go round and round. there is no definitive measure. thankfully .


----------



## Chops

NBA HOF goes like this....

1. Popularity
2. Stats
3. Success


NFL HOF goes like this....

1. Popularity
.
.
.
.
2. The Rest


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>Dragnsmke1</b>!
> Oh yeah... I DO think t-mac is a better player than Kobe for that matter I also believe that Carter, Allen, Mac, and Finley would do a better job if they were in Kobes position but thats why they make video games.


i'm sorry, but your opinion here would be an extreme minority opinion. finley and allen (i assume that's ray and not iverson)? i can't imagine many around the league would concur with that one. i would certainly guarantee you that dallas and milwaukee would both, even if age wasn't an issue, trade either and throw in anther player or 2 to get kobe. guaranteed.


----------



## Chops

> Oh yeah... I DO think t-mac is a better player than Kobe for that matter I also believe that Carter, Allen, Mac, and Finley would do a better job if they were in Kobes position but thats why they make video games.


I'm sorry, but Ray Allen and Michael Finley would not have the same success as Kobe. AI probably wouldn't either, because his effectiveness is limited if he isn't chucking up 30 shots per game. T-mac and Vince would get the job done though....


----------



## Dragnsmke1

I am talking about Ray.
But it depends on what kind of game you like from a shooting gaurd. One who stays outsides and lights the D up and drives second, or an athletic driver who will shoot second?


----------



## kflo

from my shooting guard, i'll take the dominant one over the one who stays outside lighting up the d. you're missing the boat if you're trying to fit what you desire from a position over taking the clearly more dominant, better overall allaround, player.


----------



## Dragnsmke1

But too many dominant players on a squad leads to self destruction. You get what your team needs. The bulls didnt need a dominant center, the lakers dont need a dominant pf/sf. A role player is just as important as a superstar because they make the superstar. The superstar does not make the role player.


----------



## JNice

The Bulls did have two of the dominant players at that time and then were surrounded by role players.

Pippen was in some ways the ultimate role player, much like guys like Kobe or Tmac could be along side Shaquille.

Like the Bulls, Lakers have arguably top 2 players in basketball (arguably). If you put Allen or Finley or someone in there, that wouldn't be true anymore. At least not IMO. You could probably get away with Pierce or McGrady.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>Dragnsmke1</b>!
> But too many dominant players on a squad leads to self destruction. You get what your team needs. The bulls didnt need a dominant center, the lakers dont need a dominant pf/sf. A role player is just as important as a superstar because they make the superstar. The superstar does not make the role player.


the lakers are 3 time champions, and your saying that they'd be more successful with a less dominant player than kobe. does that make sense?

the superstar does make the role player.


----------



## Dragnsmke1

I dont believe any one of those four players is less dominate.
But they play the game according to what thier respective teams need them to do.

The role player does make the superstar:
Pippen-Jordan
Horry-Hakeem
Kobe-Shaq
Stockton-Malone
Finley-Dirk
Cassel-Allen

Just to name the 1st ones that popped in my head.

A role player makes a super star and if he does a good enough job at it he becomes a superstar himself.


----------



## kflo

if your point is that superstars can't win without other contributions, of course. but it's the superstars that are the essential component. the role players can be replaced much easier. the bulls, and russell's celts, had role players come and go, but the constants were the superstars. 

each team doesn't only have one superstar and everyone else is a role player. shaq and kobe are clearly 2 superstars, independently, with each other, any way you slice it.


----------



## Thrilla

> Originally posted by <b>Dragnsmke1</b>!
> I dont believe any one of those four players is less dominate.
> But they play the game according to what thier respective teams need them to do.
> 
> The role player does make the superstar:
> Pippen-Jordan
> Horry-Hakeem
> Kobe-Shaq
> Stockton-Malone
> Finley-Dirk
> Cassel-Allen
> 
> Just to name the 1st ones that popped in my head.
> 
> A role player makes a super star and if he does a good enough job at it he becomes a superstar himself.



You are absolutely right..............MJ is an average player without MJ. Pippen made MJ. 

And Pippen, Stockton, Bryant are roll players :laugh: 
Try HOFers.
Pippen and Stockton were both named to the greatest 50 list....roll players my @$$


----------



## couchtomato

> Originally posted by <b>Dee Bo</b>!
> 
> Pippen was in some ways the ultimate role player, much like guys like Kobe or Tmac could be along side Shaquille.


Kobe is not a role player. He is an All Star and a superstar by any definition of the word. 
Magic Johnson and James Worthy were not role players just because they played with superstar Kareem.

I don't understand this reasoning. Since when is there only one way to make up a team - one superstar and a bunch of role players?


----------



## shobe42

I think Scottie and Kobe are superstars who settle for a role. Which shows how good of teammates they are. If Kobe wanted to he could do so much more but Phil asks him to tone it down and play inside the team and do just what needs to be done. 
Think to LA's 2nd championship season Kobe led the league in scoring and wa taking over games, not in just the 4th like he does now, but at the beggining. The team and Phil got frustarated and finally Kobe agreed to play with in the system until it got late in the game and they'd ask Kobe to win it. You saw a lot of that this past playoff. 
*What seperates Kobe from Scottie * is that Kobe can take over a game and step into the superstar "MJ, Shaq, Kareem" role when the time calls for it. 
That ability to move back and forth between the "ultimate role" player and "ultimate champion" along with having all the tools is what makes*kobe the best in the league* 
You may remember a game against the Kings in the 2001 playoffs where Shaq got into foul trouble and Kobe came in scoring 49 pts. and approx. 16 boards including i believe 9 off. boards which was close to a playoff record. Earlier in the searies Shaq was tearing it up and Kobe just played within himself. He got his numbers didn't take many shots and played great defense. This years nets series was much like that aswell. That's why I feel Kobe is the best in the NBA. *When it is time for him to do his thing there is nobody close.*


----------



## Wiggum

> Originally posted by <b>Dragnsmke1</b>!
> Horry has what 5 rings and you dont think hes going to the Hall?!


Guys like Robert Horry are the reason I think stats should come before championships and that career role players, no matter how successful they are, shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. Yes, Robert Horry has been on five championship teams. But look at this guy's career stats.

8.1 PPG
5.2 RPG
2.5 APG
1.2 SPG
1.1 BPG
1.5 TPG
2.7 PF
.439 FG%
.344 3P%
.736 FT%

And you're gonna tell me those stats are good enough to be placed among the all-time greats just because he was fortunate enough to be on a teams with Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant...?


----------



## JNice

I agree totally.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt

I agree Wiggum-Horry is one of my favorite players-but you can't have role players going to the hall of fame. He isn't a star who could put up great numbers,so he will never be there.


----------



## Dragnsmke1

The only person in the League who has more rings than him right now is MJ. Why shouldnt he go to the hall. He has a strong chance of winning 1 more. He didnt ride pine on any of those teams. As a matter of fact there where many times his last second shots got them over the hump. How many times has he broken the heart of the other team in the bottom of the fourth quarter? We all know we fear him more than we fear Kobe or Shaq with 2 seconds on the clock and the Lakers are down. That makes hall of Fame material right there.


----------



## kflo

horry will not make the hall of fame. period. it's not so hard to figure out. horace grant won't make it. byron scott won't make it. michael cooper won't. hell, dj's not in yet, and neither is worthy (who will make it soon). ron harper's not making it. the hall of fame i believe is meant for great players, and horry doesn't come close. he's having a nice career, and he will certainly be remembered. the guys not close to making an all-star game, and you have him in the hall of fame? sorry. not gonna happen.


----------



## Wiggum

> Originally posted by <b>Dragnsmke1</b>!
> The only person in the League who has more rings than him right now is MJ. Why shouldnt he go to the hall. He has a strong chance of winning 1 more. He didnt ride pine on any of those teams. As a matter of fact there where many times his last second shots got them over the hump. How many times has he broken the heart of the other team in the bottom of the fourth quarter? We all know we fear him more than we fear Kobe or Shaq with 2 seconds on the clock and the Lakers are down. That makes hall of Fame material right there.


OK, I'm speaking not as a biased Kings fan here, so don't blast me as a Laker hater.

Really all that Robert Horry can attatch his name to is that he's good at making threes at the buzzer. He's an average SF/PF, and he's below average in the regular season. So, he's a clutch PF, a rarity in the league nowadays, that's all. I've always thought the Hall of Fame honors players who not only had a large impact on the league, but had a large impact over a long period of time. When trying to measure that, it really comes down, in my mind, to career stats and career accomplishments (i.e. league MVP, finals MVP, All-NBA first team, etc.) I've already posted Horry's stats, but here are his career accomplishments.

- NBA playoffs record for most 3-pt. made in a single game without a miss (7)
- NBA finals record for most steals in a game (7)
- Rockets record for most three pointers in a game (9)
- All-Rookie Second Team

He has some nice three point records...but not every player whose made a buzzer beater can be in the Hall of Fame. Dennis Rodman is more deserving of Hall of Fame status than Horry.


----------



## ChiBron

> What seperates Kobe from Scottie is that Kobe can take over a game and step into the superstar "MJ, Shaq, Kareem" role when the time calls for it.


Wait a minute now, when does kobe TRY to take over a game? Usually during the last 5-7 mins. of the 4th qtr. U know Y guyz like Scottie, Mchale and James Worthy never got that chance? Because the best players of their respective teams were also gr8 clutch gr8 players who could be relied on to hit the big basket down the stretch, and most importantly, THE BIG FT. See, the main reason LA does NOT go to Shaq down the stretch is because teams will put him on the line when he goes for the dunk or his usual power play. Scottie had MJ, who was the ultimate clutch player. Mchale had Bird, right up there with gr8's come crunch time. James had both Magic and Kareem who have hit their own share of clutch shots as well. All these guyz have something in common - GREAT FT SHOOTERS. 

The biggest reason(there r other reasons too, such as HYPE) y Kobe currently is being held in a much bigger light then the other "perfect roleplayers" is because he has gotten the chance to play the ultimate HERO down the stretch, and he has delivered. Something the other guyz have never had the chance to do so. I know it's not Kobe's fault but it has got to be considered. 

Despite Kobe's heroics down the stretch, if u add up all the major stats(pts, rbs, asts, blks, stls, FG%) of scottie in his days with chicago and compare them to kobe, there is basically no difference.




> That ability to move back and forth between the "ultimate role" player and "ultimate champion" along with having all the tools is what makeskobe the best in the league


Nothin' p*sses me off more then the "Shobe's" of the world saying Kobe is the best in the league. There is simply no way he is better then Shaq and Duncan. When a player is not the #1 option on his own team, how could he be the best in the league? Neither does he have the numbers or the responsibility a number #1 option goes through.


----------



## JNice

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> 
> Despite Kobe's heroics down the stretch, if u add up all the major stats(pts, rbs, asts, blks, stls, FG%) of scottie in his days with chicago and compare them to kobe, there is basically no difference.


I agree. And with the stats, as posted, same goes for Tmac right now.




> Nothin' p*sses me off more then the "Shobe's" of the world saying Kobe is the best in the league. There is simply no way he is better then Shaq and Duncan. When a player is not the #1 option on his own team, how could he be the best in the league? Neither does he have the numbers or the responsibility a number #1 option goes through.


I think the argument is more of a who the best all-around player in the league than who is the "best" .. Obviously as far as domination, Shaq and Duncan are 1,2 ..


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> 
> 
> Wait a minute now, when does kobe TRY to take over a game? Usually during the last 5-7 mins. of the 4th qtr. U know Y guyz like Scottie, Mchale and James Worthy never got that chance? Because the best players of their respective teams were also gr8 clutch gr8 players who could be relied on to hit the big basket down the stretch, and most importantly, THE BIG FT. See, the main reason LA does NOT go to Shaq down the stretch is because teams will put him on the line when he goes for the dunk or his usual power play. Scottie had MJ, who was the ultimate clutch player. Mchale had Bird, right up there with gr8's come crunch time. James had both Magic and Kareem who have hit their own share of clutch shots as well. All these guyz have something in common - GREAT FT SHOOTERS.
> 
> The biggest reason(there r other reasons too, such as HYPE) y Kobe currently is being held in a much bigger light then the other "perfect roleplayers" is because he has gotten the chance to play the ultimate HERO down the stretch, and he has delivered. Something the other guyz have never had the chance to do so. I know it's not Kobe's fault but it has got to be considered.
> 
> Despite Kobe's heroics down the stretch, if u add up all the major stats(pts, rbs, asts, blks, stls, FG%) of scottie in his days with chicago and compare them to kobe, there is basically no difference.


kobe's just a much better scorer than pippen ever was. 

kobe's a go to guy because he's a great offensive player. he's often his teams best option down the stretch. i don't know why that needs to be qualified. pippen and others don't (or shouldn't) get credit for things they never were. we can't just assume they would have come through if given the opportunity, especially when we've seen better offensive players than them not come through when the pressure was highest. if guys like malone, ewing and robinson were able to defer their entire careers we wouldn't know that they didn't handle the pressure as well as others did. why should we assume others would come through. better not to assume there, and to just credit those who actually do rise to the occassion. it's not that easy, and not that common.


----------



## shobe42

*SPMJ* 
sorry I wasn't clear I meant best all around. Shaq is clearly better than Kobe and everybody else. I feel Duncan is overrated. Tex Winter said that TDunc is so fundamental that he's predictable. Phil said he's too unselfish to be the leagues top player. 

I really don't know if Pip and those other role players could or could not take over a game, but the point is that they didn't and Kobe does. There have been lots of great players in the history and current in the league who can't take over a game like Kobe does. Tim Duncan is one of them in my eyes. TMac is also. Paul Pierce is not and Kidd does it in his own way. Shaq can take over but you can't count on his FT's.


----------



## Wiggum

> Originally posted by <b>shobe42</b>!
> *SPMJ*
> I feel Duncan is overrated.
> 
> Phil said he's too unselfish to be the leagues top player.


I'm not surprised the Lakers head coach doesn't have much good to say about a Spur...


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt

> Originally posted by <b>Wiggum</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised the Lakers head coach doesn't have much good to say about a Spur...


I agree somewhat-but Phil would know better than any of us..but I think Duncan is top three player...


----------



## shobe42

I think Jason Kidd is also better than Duncan but I am sure many many people disagree with me.


----------



## JNice

> Originally posted by <b>shobe42</b>!
> I think Jason Kidd is also better than Duncan but I am sure many many people disagree with me.


I strongly disagree with that one. Duncan is the most dominant player in the game not named Shaq at this point in time.

People can say he is methodical or whatever, but the double-double machine still gets it done over and over again.

Kidd is bar-none the best true PG in the league (or world) but he needs to have other good players around him to be effective.


----------



## shobe42

That all makes sense, but I guess I just like Kidds game much better and I don't like Duncan at all. I think hes scared in the playoffs. I am not a Duncan-hater(if that exists) but I really don't like the way he plays.


----------



## kflo

you realize duncan has carried the spurs to a championship, and averaged 30 and 17 in losing to the lakers this season. i don't really think that's the mark of someone who's scared come playoff time. i think he's struggled in the clutch, partly his own fault, alot his teammates inability to do anything. kidd never did anything in the playoffs till going east. then he's swept by the same team duncan lost to in 5.


----------



## shobe42

That's true, because when people were making a big deal about Kidd leading a team padt the second rd. I was thinkin if he was still in the west they wouldn't have gotten past the 2nd rd. anyway. Kidds awesome but I do agree that his leading of the Nets was overhyped. 

The reason I think that Duncan is scared in the playoffs is actually cause of something Shaw said. He said something like the Spurs became intimadated after 2k1 which is understandable and that this year they tried to physce themselves up by saying we can get our revenge, and 'we really wanted to play LA' but in all honesty they were just trying to convince themselves that they weren't scared. But maybe that's just a LAker speaking even though it seems like it could make sense.

Another reason that I think KB is better is cause I was a huge Mike fan and his game has so many similarities that it is freaky. He even friggin sounds like him when he talks. 

It's funny this started as a Kobe v. TMAC thread and now I am arguing that Kobes better than Duncan on this thread and the Kobe thread. But I'm glad I could bring Kidd into the argument


----------



## Wiggum

> Originally posted by <b>shobe42</b>!
> The reason I think that Duncan is scared in the playoffs is actually cause of something Shaw said. He said something like the Spurs became intimadated after 2k1 which is understandable and that this year they tried to physce themselves up by saying we can get our revenge, and 'we really wanted to play LA' but in all honesty they were just trying to convince themselves that they weren't scared. But maybe that's just a LAker speaking even though it seems like it could make sense.


You're right. That's just a Laker talking. I don't think Brian Shaw is a very reliable source on what the Spurs are thinking...  

You're making it sound like the Spurs are actually *scared* of the Lakers. Guys...it's BASKETBALL. These people are paid to play a game. They were outmanned, yes. And if they didn't know that, they're not seeing straight. But I doubt the Spurs were sitting in their locker room pissing their pants before the game. Come on.


----------



## Uncle Jesse

T-Mac's a far better player and the numbers at the begining of this thread proves it. Also, that "If Kobe was the #1 scoring option" or the "If T-Mac had another scorer on his team" excuse wont work. You see, Shaq helps Kobes numbers far more than he hurts them. Kobe and T-Mac take an equal amount of shots per game. Kobe has Shaq to share shots with, but T-Mac is more overall players to share scoring with. Shaq + Walker + Fisher + Foz equals up to about the same amount of scoring as Mike Miller + Armstrong + Hudson etc. so that ends those dumb "If Kobe was the #1 scoring option" excuses. Now how does Shaqs presence help Kobes numbers?:
1. Shaq gets double and triple teamed more than nyone in the NBA, leaving his teammates wide open often. This makes for easier shots. T-Mac is the #1 #2 and #3 priority for the opposing teams defenders. This means he is double and triple teamed far more than Kobe, and his teamates are rarely if ever doubled teamed rarely leaving T-Mac wide open. Yet T-Mac still has a higher FG%.
2. Shaq gives Kobe someone to pass to to rack up assists. Shaq shoots well over 50% from the field meaning you pass to him and theres well over a 50% chance that you're gonna get an assist. WHo does T-Mac have to pass to? Mike Miller? Mike Miller has a low shooting %. He is white. he sucks. T-Macs a better passer.
3. T-Macs better. The numbers prove it. I helped to prove it. Kobes good, but T-Macs better. Laker fans, will you please admit that T-Mac is better than Kobe? Thank you.


----------



## hobojoe

Nice thread :biggrin: 

Here's how these two stack up statistically last year and this season so far:

*Kobe* 
24.0 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.7 spg, 43.8% FG in 37.6 mpg
28.1 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 6.0 apg, 1.28 spg, 43.1% FG in 41.6 mpg

*T-Mac*
28.0 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.5 apg, 1.4 spg, 41.7% FG in 39.9 mpg
25.4 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 5.7 apg, 1.8 spg, 42.8% FG in 40.8 mpg


----------



## X-Factor

T-Mac has owned Kobe numberwise the last two years.


----------

