# Kobe, MVP?



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Wow, that's all I have to say, Wow.
Take a look at this.
I knew that fans voting on things at Nba.com where dumb, but man, this is just hilarious. A while back over 75% of teh voters said Juan Dixon would be a top 5 pick, around 50% I think said he'd be #1. Dixon went way higher than he should've, and was in the mid to late 1st round. He was projected in the middle of the 2nd, and Washington probly could've got him there too. But his I think might be even worse. Will Kobe get a first place vote? I don't know how anybody could say he will. The little explanation under it says, "Even despite a slightly reduced role for the new-look Lakers, Bryant topped the 20-5-5 mark for the fourth straight year." OK, even despite a slightly reduced role fot the new-look Timberwolves, Garnett topped 20-10-5 for the fifth straight year. lol. I thought earlier that Garnett was way ahead of everybody else, but I guess that changed, somehow. Just thought I'd point this out, I thought it was kinda funny.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> Wow, that's all I have to say, Wow.
> Take a look at this.
> I knew that fans voting on things at Nba.com where dumb, but man, this is just hilarious. A while back over 75% of teh voters said Juan Dixon would be a top 5 pick, around 50% I think said he'd be #1. Dixon went way higher than he should've, and was in the mid to late 1st round. He was projected in the middle of the 2nd, and Washington probly could've got him there too. But his I think might be even worse. Will Kobe get a first place vote? I don't know how anybody could say he will. The little explanation under it says, "Even despite a slightly reduced role for the new-look Lakers, Bryant topped the 20-5-5 mark for the fourth straight year." OK, even despite a slightly reduced role fot the new-look Timberwolves, Garnett topped 20-10-5 for the fifth straight year. lol. I thought earlier that Garnett was way ahead of everybody else, but I guess that changed, somehow. Just thought I'd point this out, I thought it was kinda funny.


Garnett will win the MVP. There's not much of an arguement otherwise. However, give some credit to Kobe. He's arguably had a better second half to the season than any other player in the league including KG. He is the reason why LA finished 2nd in the West. He played through injury and was fantastic. I don't think there is any way he will win the MVP award, but he's definately a candidate.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Kobe, MVP?*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Garnett will win the MVP. There's not much of an arguement otherwise. However, give some credit to Kobe. He's arguably had a better second half to the season than any other player in the league including KG. He is the reason why LA finished 2nd in the West. He played through injury and was fantastic. I don't think there is any way he will win the MVP award, but he's definately a candidate.


Oh ya, he is a candidate. He's had one of the best 2nd halfs of the season. I'd still put KG's 2nd half above his, but he's definately been playing great, you're correct there. I just thought it was funny that 50% voted for him, and KG was 2nd with 30%. I'd like to point out that Kobe is also the reason why they almost weren't the #2 seed, with his performance in Sac, but that has nothing to do with this topic really.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

It's difficult to justify Kobe as the MVP of the league when he wasn't the MVP of his team. Shaquille O'Neal played in more games and minutes, as well as producing equally as well or more so than Bryant.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the poll was probably linked to the story of kobe hitting the 3's against portland.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

If those first 4 awards are any indication then Randolph for MIP isn't looking good.

As for Kobe/KG. Kobe was great in the 2nd half but KG was the man all year. He had career highs in PPG, RPG, and BPG while leading his team to 1st in the West. I think KG will win by a landslide.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> It's difficult to justify Kobe as the MVP of the league when he wasn't the MVP of his team. Shaquille O'Neal played in more games and minutes, as well as producing equally as well or more so than Bryant.


Which is the main reason neither Kobe or Shaq should win MVP. Having two MVP candidates on your team and still behind Duncan and Garnetts team. 

But anyways, Kobe is a fan favorite and people probably felt sympathy for his whole off the court situation and voted him in.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Epadfield</b>!
> If those first 4 awards are any indication then Randolph for MIP isn't looking good.


Well, look at the bright side, the fans voted Hubie the Coach of the Year and he won it.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Kobe, MVP?*



> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> I'd like to point out that Kobe is also the reason why they almost weren't the #2 seed, with his performance in Sac, but that has nothing to do with this topic really.


Well then I'd like to point out that Kobe was the reason that the Lakers got the second seed, with his two incredible buzzer-beaters in the last game of the season against the Blazers. lol


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Yeah, it's laughable to suggest Kobe has had an MVP season. He's been great the 2nd half, but has looked like a 17 year old again a few games this season. That is, being selfish or jacking up bad shots, which was believed to be true by idiot fans before this season anyway, but funnily enough is more true this year then it was at any previous point in Kobe's career since he became a starter for the Lakers.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Yeah, it's laughable to suggest Kobe has had an MVP season. He's been great the 2nd half, but has looked like a 17 year old again a few games this season. That is, being selfish or jacking up bad shots, which was believed to be true by idiot fans before this season anyway, but funnily enough is more true this year then it was at any previous point in Kobe's career since he became a starter for the Lakers.


Why do you think that is?


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

i'm a huge kobe fan, but it is obvious this is KG's year.

kobe is the MVP of the 2nd half, no doubt, but KG is the MVP of the entire year. it's as clear as night and day.

also, this is why fans should NOT vote for all-star starters.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Why do you think that is?


To be honest, I think it's the trial. It also could be the fact that he didn't have enough time to jell with Karl, Gary and Shaq because of all of the injuries this season, which may have made it hard for him to find the right role on offense. Though, it also could be the knee surgery last summer, that's certainly possible. Quite frankly, we may never know. This postseason will be telling, though.

Funnily enough, he has hit more big shots this season than any other season since he's become a starter. But it seems like every 8-10 games or so he comes up with a real stinker. He has been inconsistent this year, that's for sure.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

No one really has an arguement for the award other than KG. It's laughable to suggest Kobe has done enough to Warrant that consideration.

I don't even think Kobe is ahead of Duncan in terms of MVP candidacy.

And everyone is pretty much playing for second place to KG this year. KG's stats are mindblowing, AND his team finished with the best record. AND he didn't miss major portions of the season due to injury(Duncan and Kobe) or serve as a distraction to his teammates through sniping at his coach, at his center, and through his rape trial...

I think Kobe at times this season has been more trouble than he's worth for the Lakers. The Lakers would have been better off with Ray Allen this year.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> To be honest, I think it's the trial. It also could be the fact that he didn't have enough time to jell with Karl, Gary and Shaq because of all of the injuries this season, which may have made it hard for him to find the right role on offense. Though, it also could be the knee surgery last summer, that's certainly possible. Quite frankly, we may never know. This postseason will be telling, though.
> 
> Funnily enough, he has hit more big shots this season than any other season since he's become a starter. But it seems like every 8-10 games or so he comes up with a real stinker. He has been inconsistent this year, that's for sure.


Yea I think its a combination of both. I'm think Kobe is kind of confused on how Phil wants him to play, and maybe thats Phils fault. One day its "we need you to be a playmaker and distributor" and the next its "we need your scoring youre the leader" so Kobe has to find a medium. Thats really the only thing I fault Kobe for on the court, not being able to find a balance between being a scorer and playing within the offense. 

I also think hes become too obsessed with this 4th quarter surge thing, that shot he took against the Rockets in game 1 that Shaq rebounded was horrible. They need him in the 4th, but making it that obvious gives the other team the luxury of knowing hes going to shoot no matter what, and I dont care who you are, you're not going to make shots like that last one in game 1 very often.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> I also think hes become too obsessed with this 4th quarter surge thing, that shot he took against the Rockets in game 1 that Shaq rebounded was horrible.


Yup, but thankfully that was easily his worst clutch shot of the year. Normally he doesn't take a shot like that when he's double teamed unless he's on fire and knows it'll go in. And even when he's not doubled and misses a big shot, it's not a bad shot like that Game 1 air ball was. That was just horrible.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I think Kobe at times this season has been more trouble than he's worth for the Lakers. The Lakers would have been better off with Ray Allen this year.


that's very interesting. i've actually heard several kobe for ray allen rumors. it makes sense too.

1. kobe wants to opt out. everyone knows kobe wants to be the #1 option on a team, to prove how good he can really be. too many fools keep saying he is nothing without shaq. kobe wants to prove them wrong. i really can't blame him. the lakers are easily my favorite team, but i really wouldn't hold a grudge against kobe for wanting to prove all the naysayers wrong. i almost welcome it.

2. ray ray is having issues with that idiot mcmillan, who already made the mistake of driving out the best player in sonics history, and may now drive out a perennial all-star and top 4 SG. he is equating ray with GP, in terms of "mistakes" they've been making on the court. hey genius, did you ever think that the reason the sonics have been struggling is because of your horrid coaching and lack of an inside presence? don't blame your stars.

kobe for ray allen makes sense to me. it would be interesting watching ray play with a dominant inside presence, something he has never even come close to having (unless you count donyell marshall at UCONN).


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I think Kobe at times this season has been more trouble than he's worth for the Lakers. The Lakers would have been better off with Ray Allen this year.


Ray Allen huh? Please. Kobe is much better than Ray Allen. What makes anyone think that Ray Allen would step up and play great opposite Shaq. 

What has he done to make anyone believe he has that kind of mindset? Please stop the hyperbole.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Yup, but thankfully that was easily his worst clutch shot of the year. Normally he doesn't take a shot like that when he's double teamed unless he's on fire and knows it'll go in. And even when he's not doubled and misses a big shot, it's not a bad shot like that Game 1 air ball was. That was just horrible.


Yea, theres no problem with Kobe taking difficult shots like he did in Portland, because there really wasnt much of an option. There was very little time in both situations. Kobes at his best as a clutch player when he has to create something out of nothing. In those shots against Portland, those were the ones I was worried about him making. What I love to see (when I'm rooting for the Rockets) is Kobe putting up those same difficult shots when theres still time on the clock and the team still has an opportunity to create a high percentage shot.


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I think Kobe at times this season has been more trouble than he's worth for the Lakers. The Lakers would have been better off with Ray Allen this year.


A top four player in the league misses 17 games one year, and now the Lakers are better off with Ray Allen than Kobe?

I don't know if you noticed, but Ray Allen missed more games this year than Kobe.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> What I love to see (when I'm rooting for the Rockets) is Kobe putting up those same difficult shots when theres still time on the clock and the team still has an opportunity to create a high percentage shot.


There were five seconds left on the shot clock when he shot the airball in game 1. He didn't have much of a choice. It seems to me that everyone else is afraid to shoot with the clock running down, so Kobe always ends up taking difficult shots, and sometimes he ends up as the scapegoat, but honestly he has a better shot of making them than anyone in the league.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> There were five seconds left on the shot clock when he shot the airball in game 1.


There was also the 5 seconds prior to that where he was dribbling around even though he was double teamed.


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> i'm a huge kobe fan, but it is obvious this is KG's year.
> 
> kobe is the MVP of the 2nd half, no doubt, but KG is the MVP of the entire year. it's as clear as night and day.
> ...


Completely agree.


----------



## The MAgiC (Aug 3, 2003)

So getting 20-5-5 makes him an MVP candidate? Along with 20 other people? Any excuse they can make to give him more props than he deserves....


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The MAgiC</b>!
> So getting 20-5-5 makes him an MVP candidate? Along with 20 other people? Any excuse they can make to give him more props than he deserves....


No, leading his teams to wins makes him a MVP candidate. Kobe was clearly the leader of the Lakers in the second half of the season.

But like others stated, KG is the MVP OF THE WHOLE YEAR. No argument there.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Ray Allen huh? Please. Kobe is much better than Ray Allen. What makes anyone think that Ray Allen would step up and play great opposite Shaq.
> ...


Why wouldn't Ray Allen play great with Shaq? He would shut up and do his job without *****ing about it or pouting about it. That's a step up for team chemistry. Ray's a great shooter, a good passer. He would really stretch the defense, and he would have no problem sublimating his offense for Shaq and Gary and Karl.

I think you would just have much better team chemistry.

The Lakers literally fight every other week. That's not healthy.

Ray Allen just seems like a better fit with the team.


----------



## alpngso (May 23, 2003)

If Kobe is saying he's opting out.


Then Lakers wants to probably get something in return for kobe if they wanna trade him.

So... Ray for Kobe isn't really a bad deal, per se.


----------



## #1BucksFan (Apr 14, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> But anyways, Kobe is a fan favorite and people probably felt sympathy for his whole off the court situation and voted him in.


To Quote Bill Walton: "Self inflicted obsticles should not be a meadiating factor when determining the MVP."

Also, KG was closer to a 20-15-5 season then a 20-10-5 season.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Why wouldn't Ray Allen play great with Shaq? He would shut up and do his job without *****ing about it or pouting about it. That's a step up for team chemistry. Ray's a great shooter, a good passer. He would really stretch the defense, and he would have no problem sublimating his offense for Shaq and Gary and Karl.
> 
> I think you would just have much better team chemistry.
> 
> The Lakers literally fight every other week. That's not healthy.


Karl nor Gary have any beef (that the public knows about at least) with any Laker teammate. Gary complained about minutes once this season, and that's a Phil Jackson issue (Derek Fisher was playing minutes Gary should have been, so he had reason to be a little mad). It has always been Shaq and Kobe that have had the fued. But guess what; ever since Kobe and Shaq started games with each other in 1998-1999 (lockout), they have won *three* championships (in a row), in *five* seasons. And Kobe and Shaq didn't have Phil Jackson in 1998-1999, too. 

So really, their supposed "hate" (or whatever you'd like to call it) for each other has actually brought them tons of success. Heck, the only season that wasn't full of controversy with Kobe and Shaq since Phil Jackson came to town was last season, and that was the only time they *didn't* win a title with Phil Jackson. Please Lakers, fight some more, it usually brings you an NBA championship. 

That said, it's blatantly obvious Ray Allen isn't 1/10th of the player Kobe is. Not as good a scorer, defender, rebounder, clutch shooter....you name it. And there's certainly no proof Allen wouldn't clash with Shaq.


----------



## The MAgiC (Aug 3, 2003)

Kobe has not led the Lakers anywhere and he never will. The only "leading" is being done by one man: Shaq.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> That said, it's blatantly obvious Ray Allen isn't 1/10th of the player Kobe is. Not as good a scorer, defender, rebounder, clutch shooter....you name it. And there's certainly no proof Allen wouldn't clash with Shaq.


you are greatly over-exaggerating. 1/10th? please. ray allen has never come close to playing with a solid inside presence. he could potentially be a much improved player with someone like shaq in the paint. you never know.


----------



## OG (Aug 12, 2003)

can't say i'm much of a fan but kobe _is_ an amazing player, just not MVP over Garnett this year.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Kobe has not led the Lakers anywhere and he never will. The only "leading" is being done by one man: Shaq.


BS. Shaq hasn't performed consistently in a regular season since 2000. Kobe always performs much more consistently than Shaq during the regular seasons and has been just as impressive as Shaq in postseasons since 2001. Truth is that Shaq has no rings without Kobe, and vice versa. 

But I wouldn't expect someone who *edited: Obviously inappropriate* to understand simple concepts like that. 



> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> 
> 
> you are greatly over-exaggerating. 1/10th? please. ray allen has never come close to playing with a solid inside presence. he could potentially be a much improved player with someone like shaq in the paint. you never know.


Exaggerated a little, sure. But still, Kobe is without a doubt a Top 5 player. I wouldn't consider Ray Allen a Top 10 player.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Yeah, it's laughable to suggest Kobe has had an MVP season. He's been great the 2nd half, but has looked like a 17 year old again a few games this season. *That is, being selfish or jacking up bad shots*, which was believed to be true by idiot fans before this season anyway, but funnily enough is more true this year then it was at any previous point in Kobe's career since he became a starter for the Lakers.


That's the catch 22 for Kobe. Take shots outside of the offense, in an effort to lift the team, or you can play within the offense(ala the game against Sac) and not score. Either way, if the team loses, it's his fault.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Kobe, MVP?*



> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> I'd like to point out that Kobe is also the reason why they almost weren't the #2 seed, with his performance in Sac, but that has nothing to do with this topic really.


Almost only counts in horse shoes. Plus that doesn't really apply. Kobe did exactly what he's supposed to do, which was play within the offense. If his guys aren't hitting open shots, and his jumper is off in the second half, why does everything become Kobe's fault. They didn't play well as a team, and that is why they lost that game, not because Kobe played within the offense and the offense didn't production offense.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> It's difficult to justify Kobe as the MVP of the league when he wasn't the MVP of his team. Shaquille O'Neal played in more games and minutes, as well as producing equally as well or more so than Bryant.


That's very funny. I bet you didn't consider Kobe the MVP of the team when he led the team in games and minutes, each of the last 4 years. 

And by the way, Kobe played more minutes per game than Shaq this year as well, and only played in 2 less games.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The MAgiC</b>!
> Kobe has not led the Lakers anywhere and he never will. The only "leading" is being done by one man: Shaq.


:laugh:


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> That's the catch 22 for Kobe. Take shots outside of the offense, in an effort to lift the team, or you can play within the offense(ala the game against Sac) and not score. Either way, if the team loses, it's his fault.



1) Take shots outside of the offense coming from Kobe wont land you a championship, while not unknowledgeable fans like you imo dont see it, guys like me saw it all the way.

2) Why Jordan and Pippen able to present himself within the trinagle offense but not Kobe? That's saying something here. Thanks. Kobe is not as great as Jordan that's all we care here.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh:


Why are you laughing first of all? Yeah, at least The Magic will like other players but what u do is Kobe, Kobe and Freaking Kobe.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> Why are you laughing first of all? Yeah, at least The Magic will like other players but what u do is Kobe, Kobe and Freaking Kobe.


Was this ment to be comprehended? :laugh:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> That said, it's blatantly obvious Ray Allen isn't 1/10th of the player Kobe is.


That's funny because you wouldn't know it to look at their stats...which are almost identitical across the board. The biggest margin between the two players is Ray Allen's 7 point advantage in 3 point shooting percentage.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 1) Take shots outside of the offense coming from Kobe wont land you a championship, while not unknowledgeable fans like you imo dont see it, guys like me saw it all the way.


Well it has before. LA's offense is strict for 3 quarters. 4th quarter is Kobe time, if the team needs that. If not, they run the offense, & close the other team out.



> 2) Why Jordan and Pippen able to present himself within the trinagle offense but not Kobe? That's saying something here. Thanks. Kobe is not as great as Jordan that's all we care here.


:laugh:

He's won 3 rings within that offense, how much more effective should he be?

And why do you feel as though you have to constantly state that Kobe is not as great as Jordan. You make this point from no where. No one mentioned Jordan, or any comparision between the two at all. Not to mention no one is greater than Jordan, so what's your point? 

Cut the rocks out your diet and maybe you'll be able to keep up with thread topics. Seriously, you're not even for or against.... you're oblivious.


----------



## alpngso (May 23, 2003)

Considering what Kobe was going through with all that media **** about his sexual assault...

He had amazing 2nd half in my opinion.


I was always a fan of his, but I thought he surely would break down this season because of all that offseason stuff.


Great 2nd half but, KG is definitely the MVP and he deserves one. :grinning:


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Kobe, MVP?*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Almost only counts in horse shoes. Plus that doesn't really apply. Kobe did exactly what he's supposed to do, which was play within the offense. If his guys aren't hitting open shots, and his jumper is off in the second half, why does everything become Kobe's fault. They didn't play well as a team, and that is why they lost that game, not because Kobe played within the offense and the offense didn't production offense.


Please don't try to act like Kobe wasn't completely wrong in that game. I know he's a great player, and got his team into 2nd place with 2 amazing shots, but don't be foolish enough to actually say that he was playing within the offense. If nobody's hitting a shot, you should at least try to attempt more than 1 shot. Other superstars can get their teammates in teh game and also do something themselves. Either Kobe isn't a superstar, or he just wasn't playing that 1st half. 



> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> 
> 
> Well then I'd like to point out that Kobe was the reason that the Lakers got the second seed, with his two incredible buzzer-beaters in the last game of the season against the Blazers. lol


Those would likely not be necessary if he hadn't decided not to play in the 1st half against his most hated rivals. I won't doubt how great those shots were, but it shouldn't have come to that, and did come to that because Kobe decided to try to prove a point.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kobe, MVP?*



> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> Please don't try to act like Kobe wasn't completely wrong in that game. I know he's a great player, and got his team into 2nd place with 2 amazing shots, but don't be foolish enough to actually say that he was playing within the offense. If nobody's hitting a shot, you should at least try to attempt more than 1 shot. Other superstars can get their teammates in teh game and also do something themselves. Either Kobe isn't a superstar, or he just wasn't playing that 1st half.


I'll continue to address that game against Sacramento the same way Phil Jackson does. Kobe played within the offense and the offense didn't produce. How else could you explain that. You say Kobe was completely wrong by playing within the offense, so he would have been completely right had he played outside the offense? Where's the sense in that? In addition to that, it's not foolish to think he played within the offense. His coach relays the offensive skeme, right? His coach said, Kobe was doing exactly what he's supposed to, right? Where's the conflict? Maybe everyone just likes to blame Kobe when LA loses. Mind you, the same thing happened a week later when Kobe only took 1 or 2 shots in the first half against Houston. Was he completely wrong then too.... I don't think so.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kobe, MVP?*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll continue to address that game against Sacramento the same way Phil Jackson does. Kobe played within the offense and the offense didn't produce. How else could you explain that. You say Kobe was completely wrong by playing within the offense, so he would have been completely right had he played outside the offense? Where's the sense in that? In addition to that, it's not foolish to think he played within the offense. His coach relays the offensive skeme, right? His coach said, Kobe was doing exactly what he's supposed to, right? Where's the conflict? Maybe everyone just likes to blame Kobe when LA loses. Mind you, the same thing happened a week later when Kobe only took 1 or 2 shots in the first half against Houston. Was he completely wrong then too.... I don't think so.


If that's what happens when Kobe plays within the offense, how can you be a fan of his? Becasue he either doens't produce or plays outside of the offense, I don't know how you could be a fan of a guy like that, or even like him a bit as a basketball player.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kobe, MVP?*



> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> If that's what happens when Kobe plays within the offense, how can you be a fan of his? Becasue he either doens't produce or plays outside of the offense, I don't know how you could be a fan of a guy like that, or even like him a bit as a basketball player.


It's not black and white, q. Kobe doesn't have the reckognition he has, and the awards and accolades because he plays poorly within the system. Why are you overexagerrating one lose, that turned out to have no relavance on the outcome of the season considering he made up for it the final two games of the season. The offense works. LA runs that offense for 3 quarters. At that point in the game, if LA is still trailing Phil looks for Kobe to take over, just like they did in Chicago with Mike. He's not going to be able to be the saviour everytime, but sometimes he will. And it's not like passing to an open teammate is a reason to not like Kobe. The shots just weren't falling. His shots didn't fall in the second half, no one shots dropped in the whole game and we lost. Sometimes you lose. If you can show me a fool proof offense that produces a victory every game or never falls to a blow out, I show you a person who's full of it.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kobe, MVP?*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not black and white, q. Kobe doesn't have the reckognition he has, and the awards and accolades because he plays poorly within the system. Why are you overexagerrating one lose, that turned out to have no relavance on the outcome of the season considering he made up for it the final two games of the season. The offense works. LA runs that offense for 3 quarters. At that point in the game, if LA is still trailing Phil looks for Kobe to take over, just like they did in Chicago with Mike. He's not going to be able to be the saviour everytime, but sometimes he will. And it's not like passing to an open teammate is a reason to not like Kobe. The shots just weren't falling. His shots didn't fall in the second half, no one shots dropped in the whole game and we lost. Sometimes you lose. If you can show me a fool proof offense that produces a victory every game or never falls to a blow out, I show you a person who's full of it.


I'm using that game as an example of Kobe Bryant. He seems to me like a guy who isn't really a Laker, he's just on that team. By that I mean that he's not like other superstars I know, their game plan involves that player, but with Kobe, when he gets his, he gets his, when he doesn't, he's playing within the offense. His game is going one-on-one with people, and it seems that you can't, or Phil's not a good enough coach to run plays to get him the majority of his points. I guess I just don't understand why a superstar like Kobe can't get points in an offense. He doesn't play at 100% the whole time. When he passes the ball to teammates, he's usually just passing it, not making plays for them and making them better, it's just simply a pass, and that's it. Maybe it's becasue he's got Shaq, and maybe it's just hte player he is, but he doens't make his teammates better, and can't score, or at least doesn't score within an offense, which is why I don't like him.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> That's very funny. I bet you didn't consider Kobe the MVP of the team when he led the team in games and minutes, each of the last 4 years. But since you tempted me, I'll answer anyway.
> ...


Did I mention anything about the previous years? No. The topic was about this year, and I addressed the issue in the context of THIS YEAR. But since you tempted me, I'll respond. In general, Shaq has the greater impact on the Lakers when he is on the court. Over the course of a season though, that may change based on minutes and games played. 

And I'm not quite sure where you got your statistics from, but you might want to reconsider the source. O'Neal has played in more minutes this year than Kobe.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> That's funny because you wouldn't know it to look at their stats...which are almost identitical across the board. The biggest margin between the two players is Ray Allen's 7 point advantage in 3 point shooting percentage.


And since when do stats tell the whole story? :laugh:

Their roles on their respective teams are completely different. Give Kobe the green light on a team and he'll go for 30-6-6 on 45%+ shooting. Has Allen ever done that? No. 

Yet, that's only half the story. Allen still hasn't proven to be nearly as clutch as Kobe in the regular season, and definitely not in the playoffs. Allen hasn't proven he can defend with the best of them like Kobe has. Really, Allen hasn't proven jack compared to Kobe, except that he's a better 3 point shooter. Yipee.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> And since when do stats tell the whole story? :laugh:
> ...


This season certainly doesn't support your case. Allen has been the superior to Bryant this year in terms of clutch situtations. Using the defination that clutch situations are the following: 4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points, Allen has averaged 43 PPG on .553 eFG% when adjusted to per 48. Bryant has averaged 47.6 PPG on .445 eFG%. Allen is also much more comparable to Bryant on defense than you may believe. Allen held opposing SG's to a .438 eFG% this year, while Bryant held opposing SG"s to a .449 eFG%. I agree than in key moments with full defensive exertion, I would take Bryant for that stop, but it shows that on average, Allen is the more consistent defender.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> This season certainly doesn't support your case. Allen has been the superior to Bryant this year in terms of clutch situtations. Using the defination that clutch situations are the following: 4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points, Allen has averaged 43 PPG on .553 eFG% when adjusted to per 48. Bryant has averaged 47.6 PPG on .445 eFG%. Allen is also much more comparable to Bryant on defense than you may believe. Allen held opposing SG's to a .438 eFG% this year, while Bryant held opposing SG"s to a .449 eFG%. I agree than in key moments with full defensive exertion, I would take Bryant for that stop, but it shows that on average, Allen is the more consistent defender.


The problem here is that you're trying to use stats to define clutch. Plenty of people don't use eFG% or per 48 stats for a good reason; they don't actually measure much. How many game winners has Ray Allen hit this season? How many has Kobe hit? How many times has Allen hit a shot to take the lead with under 2 minutes remaining in the 4th quarter of regular season and playoff games compared to Kobe? 

And of course, using only this past regular season as an example is just dishonest. Ignoring his previous 7 seasons makes no sense whatsoever. 

Oh, and I just recently saw another worthless 82games stat that claimed that there are 13 SFs in the NBA that defend their man better than Artest based on PPG per 48. Context is always important, you know.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Well it has before. LA's offense is strict for 3 quarters. 4th quarter is Kobe time, if the team needs that. If not, they run the offense, & close the other team out.
> ...


Hi, good topics can be generated in a thread. I dont mind if you talk off topic when you have a good disscussion here.

And why cant I bring up Jordan here? There has to be someone bring up a new topic to allow posters to post. So by your logic, should bbb.net closed down the next day? 

Jordan is not my fav player but he is better than Kobe and I need to hold bakc what I wanted to say because of some unknowledgable fans like you here? Or you just come in to post when someone stepped on your tose? [strike]I feel ashamed that we are both 25 and I am smarter than you in so many ways. I thought Indians are all smart but .....[/strike]

John, please don't attack other members *Petey


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> I thought Indians are all smart but .....


Why do you keep calling IV an "Indian"? He's African American. He's said this many times before. Just look at his sig. He's a black man. 

PS: No reacists against black people!


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> Why do you keep calling IV an "Indian"? He's African American. He's said this many times before. Just look at his sig. He's a black man.
> ...


Is he? Sorry, sorry to put those type of person in the same brilliant face as you and Minstrel. I will pay you 2 for a drink someday I either go to your place or you come to HK..

Sorry, I dont speak great english but I dont speak stupid like some at least!


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> Is he? Sorry, sorry to put those type of person in the same brilliant face as you and Minstrel. I will pay you 2 for a drink someday I either go to your place or you come to HK..
> ...


I think I'll take you up on that offer. Next time I'm in Hong Kong I'll give you a ring. We can talk about Eddy Curry's body, Scottie Pippen's nose, Penny's handsomeness, or all of the freaking homers on this site. Deal?


----------



## The MAgiC (Aug 3, 2003)

> But I wouldn't expect someone who *edited* to understand simple concepts like that.


And of course the mods say nothing. If I had said this they'd be all over me. Typical.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The MAgiC</b>!
> 
> 
> And of course the mods say nothing. If I had said this they'd be all over me. Typical.


Difference is, the mods would be editing something that is true. Usually when *you* write something, people laugh and ignore it.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Difference is, the mods would be editing something that is true. Usually when *you* write something, people laugh and ignore it.


Are you aware of the playoff forum? I havent seen you posting in the game threads over there, and usually you're pretty active on this site about the Lakers and other western contenders.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The MAgiC</b>!
> 
> 
> And of course the mods say nothing. If I had said this they'd be all over me. Typical.


Sorry, I missed it, or else I *would* have edited (and now have which, I realize, is a bit late).

EHL, please refrain from such comments. Argue the points civilly and stay away from characterizing the other poster. That's how we like to do things here in our simple BBB.net town.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> And of course, using only this past regular season as an example is just dishonest. Ignoring his previous 7 seasons makes no sense whatsoever.


When I originally said that the Lakers would have been better off with Ray Allen, I was refering to this season, not any other seasons.

What I was saying is that Ray ray could have filled the role the Lakers needed from Kobe this season given the context of playing with 3 hall of famers, better than Kobe, because he is a better shooter and most importantly he would not snipe at Phil Jackson and Shaq every other week....nor would you have had the circus of the rape trial hanging over the team.

And at any rate, there's nothing for you to say that Kobe is 10 times the player that Ray is right now. That's just crazy talk. He's not even twice the player. he's better, yes, but not by that huge of a margin. Ray Allen is a very good player in his own right. Don't disrespect.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> And since when do stats tell the whole story? :laugh:
> ...


Woah, hey...I thought you were strenuously against arguing what a player *would* do, in a different role.

Shall we rehash the whole McGrady/Bryant, "roles are different, put McGrady as a partner to a dominant big man, like Kobe is, and you'll see McGrady go deep in the playoffs and make clutch plays"? 

No, we won't, here, because it would be a hijacking of a thread...but you can't say that it's invalid to argue what McGrady *would* do in another role, but then argue what Kobe would do in another role, to benefit him in a comparison with Ray Allen.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Shall we rehash the whole McGrady/Bryant, "roles are different, put McGrady as a partner to a dominant big man, like Kobe is, and you'll see McGrady go deep in the playoffs and make clutch plays"?
> 
> No, we won't, here, because it would be a hijacking of a thread...but you can't say that it's invalid to argue what McGrady *would* do in another role, but then argue what Kobe would do in another role, to benefit him in a comparison with Ray Allen.


I don't doubt that Tmac *could* make more clutch plays if he were somehow inserted in Kobe's place during the 3-peat years. My point before was that it hasn't happened for Tmac, and that there was every reason to believe Kobe was better based on his success in the playoffs. However, I *also* said (and this is important) that over the last several seasons, where Shaq has missed 56 games, that Kobe has proven he can put up gaudy stats without Shaq. 

So Kobe has proven himself in the playoffs and proven himself as a player without Shaq. Tmac, like Kobe, has proven himself as a player, but has not proven himself in the playoffs. It remains to be seen if Tmac will prove himself once he gets help.


----------



## Idunkonyou (Feb 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Tmac, like Kobe, has proven himself as a player, but has not proven himself in the playoffs. It remains to be seen if Tmac will prove himself once he gets help.


Sorry but McGrady has averaged 31.3 points, 6.8 rebounds, 5.1 assists, 1.3 steals and 1.3 blocks the last 2 years in the playoffs. 

In 2001, during the Bucks/Magic series, McGrady put up something like 34 points/6rebounds/8assists/2 steals/1block per game. 

I'd say McGrady has more then proved himself in the playoffs. Problem is his team has always been outmatched players wise, coaching wise and the Magic have never had home court advantage. 

Give McGrady the type of talent KG got this offseason and you get the same result I would guarantee you that.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> So Kobe has proven himself in the playoffs and proven himself as a player without Shaq. Tmac, like Kobe, has proven himself as a player, but has not proven himself in the playoffs.


I would say that McGrady has proven himself in the playoffs *as much as* Kobe has proven himself as a player without Shaq.

That is to say, neither has done it properly. Kobe has done it for short stretches, never a full season, and to mixed results. Sometimes the team does well with him as the main driving force, sometimes it does not.

McGrady has done it in first rounds, stepping up for the Raptors, against the Knicks, when Vince Carter struggled, and putting on dazzling displays for the Magic in the playoffs. He just hasn't gone deep in the playoffs to show it there.

Therefore, again, I'd say the two "unproven" aspects of the two players are highly analagous. Neither has shown it properly, but both have showcased it in limited opportunity, leading to the perfectly reasonable extrapolation that they each could do it properly if given the opportunity. You're making the extrapolation in this thread with Bryant, and I've made that extrapolation previously with McGrady.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Idunkonyou</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry but McGrady has averaged 31.3 points, 6.8 rebounds, 5.1 assists, 1.3 steals and 1.3 blocks the last 2 years in the playoffs.
> ...


Sorry, I meant in comparison to Kobe, not in general.



> That is to say, neither has done it properly. Kobe has done it for short stretches, never a full season, and to mixed results. Sometimes the team does well with him as the main driving force, sometimes it does not.


No one (well, no one smart) questions Tmac's skills just because the Magic don't win games (though, there is something to be said about players that put up great stats on bad teams, ala the Stackhouse of old, among others). The same applies to Kobe. Kobe's stats are better across the board without Shaq the last few seasons. This really isn't debatable, it's fact, look it up. "Short stretches" really doesn't prove anything, as Kobe has performed in those "short stretches" without Shaq a high percentage of the time. Kobe doesn't win as much in these situations because the Lakers (up until this season) have had very little depth outside of Shaq. Like Tmac, that fact (losing) shouldn't hurt Kobe's individual accomplishments. Losing with Shaq would be another story, but obviously Kobe has won more often than not with Shaq.

So really, they aren't analogous, and I think you know that.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Kobe without Shaq last year in the first 12 games averaged 29 points on like 43% FG, about the same assists as he did last year and a rebound or two more. So one point less on more shots, but more rebounds. I dont know if thats "doing better" without Shaq, I'd say its about the same.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> The same applies to Kobe. Kobe's stats are better across the board without Shaq the last few seasons. This really isn't debatable, it's fact, look it up. "Short stretches" really doesn't prove anything, as Kobe has performed in those "short stretches" without Shaq a high percentage of the time.


First of all, I didn't debate whether Kobe's stats go up. I know they do. But he has never had the weight of the franchise entirely upon his shoulders, because Shaq was always going to return. That's the point of "short stretches." Unlike McGrady, who knew it was him or no one who would entirely guide the fortunes of the franchise, Bryant has only served as trying to hold the course until his dominant partner returned to help determine the franchise's fortunes.



> So really, they aren't analogous, and I think you know that.


I'm not sure if you entirely understood my argument, because none of the above refuted it.

I said that Bryant was as unproven in being the "main man" as McGrady is at being a "playoff performer." Both have done it in an incomplete fashion.

Bryant has never been the main man for a season, he was always just making sure the team didn't crash without Shaq, waiting for Shaq to return so they could make a title run.

McGrady has never been a playoff performer right to the greatest stage, the Finals. He was always confined to the first round, due to team talent, but performed extremely well in that playoff experience.

So, they are very analagous. Both can likely do it in complete fashion, but neither have done it yet.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kobe, MVP?*



> Originally posted by <b>q</b>!
> 
> I'm using that game as an example of Kobe Bryant. He seems to me like a guy who isn't really a Laker, he's just on that team. By that I mean that he's not like other superstars I know, their game plan involves that player, but with Kobe, when he gets his, he gets his, when he doesn't, he's playing within the offense. His game is going one-on-one with people, and it seems that you can't, or Phil's not a good enough coach to run plays to get him the majority of his points.


I see what you're saying. The triangle is an intricate offense. Everyone knows the offense runs through Shaq. Basically because he's the perfect guy for the post position. But don't be fooled into thinking it only runs through Shaq. GP, Kobe and Maloe are also excellent on the block. Furthermore, running the offense through Shaq doesn't mean he'll score the most or have the most opportunity. His ablity to pass is the key to the offense. This means the offense give great scoring option to all on the court. THe cutters, the guys on the arc and the guy on the block. And then the part of Phils philosophy to have that stand out player who can take a game over is where Bryant is speciality for the 4th quarter.

Also q, don't ever make the mistake of thinking Phil Jackson isn't a good enough coach to do this or that..... because he is.



> I guess I just don't understand why a superstar like Kobe can't get points in an offense. He doesn't play at 100% the whole time. When he passes the ball to teammates, he's usually just passing it, not making plays for them and making them better, it's just simply a pass, and that's it. Maybe it's becasue he's got Shaq, and maybe it's just hte player he is, but he doens't make his teammates better, and can't score, or at least doesn't score within an offense, which is why I don't like him.


None of this is true. The player that you just described isn't worthy of any of Kobe Bryants accomplishments duruing his 8 year career. That's why you don't like Kobe. You've got him tagged as the wrong guy.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> Did I mention anything about the previous years? No. The topic was about this year, and I addressed the issue in the context of THIS YEAR. But since you tempted me, I'll respond. In general, Shaq has the greater impact on the Lakers when he is on the court. Over the course of a season though, that may change based on minutes and games played.


Someone posted a thread months back that proved the opposition of the popular belief that the Lakers have a greater impact with Shaq on the floor. The study was done on all nba players, and it was from a notable university. It showed that the team scored more and gave up less points with Kobe on the floor as opposed to with Shaq on the floor.

Back to the difference of years, maybe I misunderstood your post. I thought you said Shaq more valuable because his plays more minutes and more games. I just thought that was funny because Kobe generally plays more minutes and more games than Shaq and there have been past season where Shaq was clearly more valuble to the team than Bryant.



> And I'm not quite sure where you got your statistics from, but you might want to reconsider the source. O'Neal has played in more minutes this year than Kobe.


Minutes per game, my mistake.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

wow, kobe just can't win. if he doesn't pass to teammates and takes a lot of shots, he's selfish and not playing within the offense. if he passes to teammates, he's trying to "look good". if he doesn't shoot, he's sabotaging the lakers. if he shoots and passes he's padding his stats. oh, and let's not forget that kobe is useless without shaq, of course.

so many of you never give kobe the credit he truly deserves, and then you wonder why he wants to leave the lakers to be the #1 option?

i mean, what's the man have to do? win a title alone? even MJ couldn't accomplish that.

even shaq couldn't accomplish that.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> Hi, good topics can be generated in a thread. I dont mind if you talk off topic when you have a good disscussion here.


Neither do I. 



> And why cant I bring up Jordan here? There has to be someone bring up a new topic to allow posters to post. So by your logic, should bbb.net closed down the next day?


Wouldn't most agree that we should discuss the thread topic within it's respective thread. Meaning, if you want to change the subject and talking about Michael Jordan being greater than Kobe Bryant... you should start a thread about it. Not that there would be a point in that since everyone knows this.



> Jordan is not my fav player but he is better than Kobe and I need to hold bakc what I wanted to say because of some unknowledgable fans like you here?


You should hold back what you want to say because you make yourself look foolish when you speak.



> Or you just come in to post when someone stepped on your tose? [strike]I feel ashamed that we are both 25 and I am smarter than you in so many ways. I thought Indians are all smart but .....[/strike]
> 
> John, please don't attack other members *Petey


[/quote]

My tose? That's funny John. :laugh:
Btw, telling a person that you are smarter than he doesn't make you smarter. Don't ever forget that. And since you're so smart why would you make the assumption that a person is an Indian when that's not true? Wouldn't a smart person ask, "what is your ethinicity?" or "Are you an Indian?" before you continued to make improve your reputation as "the guy who never knows what he's talking about?" 

Then you go on to try and make friends with other poster here at my expense. What you think you're to form the anti-IV alliance or something? :laugh: 

Listen, Pinball is cool with me; we go back. Minstrel, while I don't always agree with him, he's does formulate his opinion and he can at least back it with why he feels that way. I respect Minstrel for that. You on the other hand don't speak english well, you don't understand half of what you read. Then you tell others that you're smarter than them because you don't agree with what they say..... Where's the sense in that? 

I don't have a problem within anyone on this site. We do not have to see everything eye to eye. I just enjoy talking a little trash on a daily basis with the boys. You really shouldn't take any of this to heart, but you apparently do. Lighten up, buddy... lighten up!


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> wow, kobe just can't win. if he doesn't pass to teammates and takes a lot of shots, he's selfish and not playing within the offense. if he passes to teammates, he's trying to "look good". if he doesn't shoot, he's sabotaging the lakers. if he shoots and passes he's padding his stats. oh, and let's not forget that kobe is useless without shaq, of course.
> 
> so many of you never give kobe the credit he truly deserves, and then you wonder why he wants to leave the lakers to be the #1 option?
> ...


I call it the Kobe double standard. None of these rules apply to anyone but Kobe. If he's gonna get respect from fans that don't like him, he's gotta do everything that gets him respect from the league itself, plus all the other impossible things haters list. 

Can you imagine if a hater actually took time to apply those rules to his favorite player. :nonono: As if!


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

Personally, I think that KG is the MVP of the league. He's got an impeccable resume. He's put up incredible statistics. He's lead his team to the most victories in the most difficult conference. Most importantly, he's been consistent. I think he's the MVP of the league this year. I still wouldn't consider him the best player in the league (I give the slight nod to Duncan) but he's accomplished the most so far. Kobe has played very well this year, considering the circumstances (mostly self-inflicted, I admit). He hasn't had the same season statistically that he had last year but his stats are still very impressive. FG% aside, he's put up very good numbers on a team with 4 terrific players. I think his fg% should be closer to 46% but his other numbers are fine. 24-5-5 on a team with that many options is still impressive. The only noticeable difference from last year is the reduction in ppg. However, he's only shooting the ball about 17 times per game so there's no way that he was going to score 30 points on 17 shots. He played very well in my opinion. I don't think that he deserves the MVP but it's not really a laughable notion if you think about it. He's been one of the 2-3 best players in the game during the second half of the season. He's had a positive impact in most of the games that he's played in. He's won several games during crunch time. He's played with a very high energy level throughout the season. He's just been incredibly valuable to the Lakers this year. I don't think that his off the court issues and his quarrels with Shaq and Phil Jackson have had much of an effect on the psyche of the team. I mean, the Lakers started off 20-5 after all of the drama that went on in the preseason. They won several games where Kobe flew in late to join th e team right before the game. To blame the Lakers inconsistent play on Kobe's off the court issues is just ridiculous.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> The problem here is that you're trying to use stats to define clutch. Plenty of people don't use eFG% or per 48 stats for a good reason; they don't actually measure much. How many game winners has Ray Allen hit this season? How many has Kobe hit? How many times has Allen hit a shot to take the lead with under 2 minutes remaining in the 4th quarter of regular season and playoff games compared to Kobe?
> ...


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. eFG% is just an extension of FG% that takes into account the added value of three pointers. It's much more accurate as a statistic than FG%. The reason it isn't as popular is simply that less people know about it. In baseball, BA was the more popularized statistic for around century, until people finally figured out that it was OBP that was the more valuable stat. The same context applies here. The statistics are merely in per 48 minutes form because each player plays in different amounts of "clutch" minutes. In order to normalize the numbers for all players, it only makes sense to convert all the numbers to per 48. Regarding game winners, I'm not going to lie. I don't know how many game winners Allen has exactly hit. I don't know how many Kobe has hit either. I don't think you do either, so I don't know how you can make a generalization on something you don't know. 

On the issue of providing the statistics of only one year, I'll go ahead and throw in last years numbers as well. I think two years is a signficant sample size when determining the current ability of a player. I'll throw in FG% as well, since you don't seem to trust eFG%. 

Kobe- 37.3 PTS, .424 eFG%, .396 FG%
Allen (Seattle)- 34.9 PTS, .585 eFG%, .508 FG%
Allen (Milwaukee)- 30.3 PTS, .432 eFG%, .360 FG%

So as you can see, Allen's numbers in Seattle trump Kobe's, while his Milwaukee numbers are fairly similar. There's no conclusive evidence to prove that Kobe is more "clutch". Still though, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't believe the ability to perform better than you normally do in pressure situations exist. You either maintain your normal performance or perform worse. 

About the Artest statistic, I think it may have been taken out of context. First, all 82games.com statistics are normalized to per 48 minutes. That in itself means that most likely a significant portion of the 13 higher ranked SF's were bench players. Secondly, PPG allowed per 48 minutes is deceiving by itself. Perhaps Artest's opponents took more FGA against him than the other defenders. Perhaps, Artest's opponent FG% was lower than the other defender's. These are all factors you have to consider, and you can't properly draw a conclusion without that information.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Someone posted a thread months back that proved the opposition of the popular belief that the Lakers have a greater impact with Shaq on the floor. The study was done on all nba players, and it was from a notable university. It showed that the team scored more and gave up less points with Kobe on the floor as opposed to with Shaq on the floor.


That's certainly interesting, and if you could somehow find that article, it would be great to read. The study seems to essentially discuss the plus/minus ratings of Shaq and Kobe, and over the past two years, Shaq has had a higher rating than Kobe, which contradicts that. Perhaps they weighed the plus/minus ratings, which would make sense in tilting the ratings toward Kobe's side, as in general Shaq has had worse backups than Kobe.


----------



## Jermaniac Fan (Jul 27, 2003)

he's candidate but he won't win that... It will be JO or Garnett


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> wow, kobe just can't win. if he doesn't pass to teammates and takes a lot of shots, he's selfish and not playing within the offense. if he passes to teammates, he's trying to "look good". if he doesn't shoot, he's sabotaging the lakers. if he shoots and passes he's padding his stats. oh, and let's not forget that kobe is useless without shaq, of course.
> 
> so many of you never give kobe the credit he truly deserves, and then you wonder why he wants to leave the lakers to be the #1 option?
> ...


The problem with Kobe is its all or nothing. He'll come out and shoot 25 shots one game, then purposely pass up open shots in the next game because hes "trying to get his teammates involved" 

The way he does it would make you think he has alterior motives other than whats best for the team. He always seems like hes trying to prove a point, hes by far the most dramatic player in the NBA. he does everything to the extreme and struggles to find a balance between being a good passer, scorer and playmaker. 

THATS why people hold him to such akward standards, because they see something strange in his actions. Theres a reason that the game against the Kings was blown up as him trying to prove a point, and the game against the Rockets wasnt even though the first half shot attempts were the same. Its because against the Kings he passed up open jumpers he'd usually take. Those kind of things make people think he has different motives other than to win. Then this whole adultery/rape thing didnt help to disprove that either, it kind of shows everyone he does have a shady side to him.

I dont see that many people not giving him his credit like you say, pretty much everyone agrees hes a top 5 player along with the other big 4.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you aware of the playoff forum? I havent seen you posting in the game threads over there, and usually you're pretty active on this site about the Lakers and other western contenders.


Sorry, didn't see this before, but I'll respond to it now. No, I wasn't aware there was a playoff forum here. Though, I'm not really sure what the relevance of this statement is? 



> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Kobe without Shaq last year in the first 12 games averaged 29 points on like 43% FG, about the same assists as he did last year and a rebound or two more. So one point less on more shots, but more rebounds. I dont know if thats "doing better" without Shaq, I'd say its about the same.


Notice that I said Kobe’s stats were up across the board over the last several years, not just last season. Oh, and you forgot to include Kobe’s stats without Shaq this season, which were better across the board and at worst equal in everything else. 


> First of all, I didn't debate whether Kobe's stats go up. I know they do. But he has never had the weight of the franchise entirely upon his shoulders, because Shaq was always going to return. That's the point of "short stretches." Unlike McGrady, who knew it was him or no one who would entirely guide the fortunes of the franchise, Bryant has only served as trying to hold the course until his dominant partner returned to help determine the franchise's fortunes.


Weight of the franchise? What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying Kobe’s on-court performance would suffer because he wouldn’t be psychologically ready to take over the Lakers if he knew Shaq weren’t coming back? If that's not what you meant, then can you explain exactly what "weight of the franchise" has to do with anything? 


> I said that Bryant was as unproven in being the "main man" as McGrady is at being a "playoff performer." Both have done it in an incomplete fashion.


Except that Kobe has done it much more completely in both categories, while Tmac has done it completely in one category (performances without help) and much less incompletely in the other category (performing deep in the playoffs). 


> Bryant has never been the main man for a season, he was always just making sure the team didn't crash without Shaq, waiting for Shaq to return so they could make a title run.


Again I ask, what does that have to do with anything. When Shaq is injured and Kobe plays, Kobe’s stats are usually up in several categories across the board or at worst stay the same without Shaq. Yet, people still claim Kobe’s game is vastly improved by having Shaq on the floor. I honestly wonder how anyone can logically argue that’s true. 


> McGrady has never been a playoff performer right to the greatest stage, the Finals. He was always confined to the first round, due to team talent, but performed extremely well in that playoff experience.


Yes, he did. But obviously the first round of the playoffs is nothing like the WCSF, WCF or Finals, is it? With much more on the line and much more pressure from the media, teammates, and coaches. 



> I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. eFG% is just an extension of FG% that takes into account the added value of three pointers. It's much more accurate as a statistic than FG%. The reason it isn't as popular is simply that less people know about it.


Explain to me why eFG% is more “accurate” than FG%? Really, I don’t understand how you can make an argument that eFG% is more useful than FG% in Kobe’s case.



> The statistics are merely in per 48 minutes form because each player plays in different amounts of "clutch" minutes. In order to normalize the numbers for all players, it only makes sense to convert all the numbers to per 48.


Except that normalizing numbers skews good performance and bad performances into something they’re not. Heck, if someone only plays 17 mpg and you use per 48 to prove their stats would be on par with MVP-level players, are you going to seriously tell us per 48 is a good way to measure a player’s ability as compared to careful observation? 



> Regarding game winners, I'm not going to lie. I don't know how many game winners Allen has exactly hit. I don't know how many Kobe has hit either. I don't think you do either, so I don't know how you can make a generalization on something you don't know.


How would you know if I don’t know how many game winners (or close to game winners) Kobe and/or Allen have hit? I watch NBA basketball every single day of the year. I catch at least one hour of sports recaps (SportsCenter, NBA.com recaps, etc.) each day to see what has happened around the league. During my careful observation, Kobe has certainly hit bigger shots and more of them in the waning minutes of a game than Allen has. 



> On the issue of providing the statistics of only one year, I'll go ahead and throw in last years numbers as well. I think two years is a signficant sample size when determining the current ability of a player. I'll throw in FG% as well, since you don't seem to trust eFG%.
> 
> Kobe- 37.3 PTS, .424 eFG%, .396 FG%
> Allen (Seattle)- 34.9 PTS, .585 eFG%, .508 FG%
> ...


Like I said before, I have studied the criteria that 82games.com deems significant for clutch performances and disagree with it. Providing per 48 statistics, eFG% and any other stat you can dig up doesn’t make them valid. 



> About the Artest statistic, I think it may have been taken out of context. First, all 82games.com statistics are normalized to per 48 minutes. That in itself means that most likely a significant portion of the 13 higher ranked SF's were bench players. Secondly, PPG allowed per 48 minutes is deceiving by itself. Perhaps Artest's opponents took more FGA against him than the other defenders. Perhaps, Artest's opponent FG% was lower than the other defender's. These are all factors you have to consider, and you can't properly draw a conclusion without that information.


The use of normalized per 48 and the inclusion of bench players is exactly why I usually ignore those 82game.com stats. They’re just not very useful. Heck, go onto 82games.com right now and look at their "Top 20 Super Clutch Offensive Players" list and tell me with a straight face that Kirilenko is a more potent offensive threat than Kobe in late game situations. Because we can stop this discussion right now if that's the case.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Explain to me why eFG% is more “accurate” than FG%? Really, I don’t understand how you can make an argument that eFG% is more useful than FG% in Kobe’s case.


FG% fails to take into account the additional value of a three pointer. A 2 PT FG is obviously less valuable than a 3 PT FG and eFG takes that into account.


> Except that normalizing numbers skews good performance and bad performances into something they’re not. Heck, if someone only plays 17 mpg and you use per 48 to prove their stats would be on par with MVP-level players, are you going to seriously tell us per 48 is a good way to measure a player’s ability as compared to careful observation?


How does normalizing numbers skew good and bad performances? Both Bryant's and Allen's numbers were adjusted to per 48 minute stats. Whatever effect it has, it has on both players. I don't know why you bring in the example of a 17 MPG player. It has nothing to relate to the topic. 



> How would you know if I don’t know how many game winners (or close to game winners) Kobe and/or Allen have hit? I watch NBA basketball every single day of the year. I catch at least one hour of sports recaps (SportsCenter, NBA.com recaps, etc.) each day to see what has happened around the league. During my careful observation, Kobe has certainly hit bigger shots and more of them in the waning minutes of a game than Allen has.


Fine. If you know then, please go ahead and give me the numbers. Tell me how many game winners Bryant has, and how many Allen has had. Just because something seems to you is more frequently occuring, doesn't mean its true. 


> Like I said before, I have studied the criteria that 82games.com deems significant for clutch performances and disagree with it. Providing per 48 statistics, eFG% and any other stat you can dig up doesn’t make them valid.


What do you disagree with the criteria? I'm very interested as it seems to me that it has a very solid basis. 




> The use of normalized per 48 and the inclusion of bench players is exactly why I usually ignore those 82game.com stats. They’re just not very useful. Heck, go onto 82games.com right now and look at their "Top 20 Super Clutch Offensive Players" list and tell me with a straight face that Kirilenko is a more potent offensive threat than Kobe in late game situations. Because we can stop this discussion right now if that's the case.


Up until the point of that report, yes, Kirilenko was clearly more productive in clutch situations. I don't know how you can even argue with that. A 72% eFG is astronomical.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> Weight of the franchise? What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying Kobe’s on-court performance would suffer because he wouldn’t be psychologically ready to take over the Lakers if he knew Shaq weren’t coming back?


Just as you are saying McGrady is unproven to handle the psychological element of being "clutch" in the playoffs, I'm saying Bryant is unproven to handle the psychological element of being solely responsible for winning, with no superstar help.

I think both players *would* be able to handle it, but both are "unproven" in doing it.


----------

