PDA

View Full Version : The NBA's Greatest Shooting Guards



Lakersfan2483
08-02-2008, 06:41 PM
1. Michael Jordan-"Air"

Teams: Chicago Bulls (1984-93, 1995-98), Washington Wizards (2001-03)

Titles: 6 (1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998)

Honors: 14-time All-Star, 5-time MVP (1988, 1991, 1992, 1996, 1998), 6-time Finals MVP, Rookie of the Year (1985), Defensive Player of the Year (1988)

The player: The standard by which all other players are measured.


2. Kobe Bryant-"The Black Mamba"

Team: Los Angeles Lakers ('96-present)

Titles: 3 (2000, 2001, 2002)

Honors: 10-time All-Star, MVP, 5 finals appearances, Fastest to reach 20,000 points, 6 time All-NBA first team, 6 time all-NBA Defensive first team

One of the greatest competitors the game has ever seen, with an uncanny ability to score points and an incredible desire to win, it's by know accident, that the guy has accomplished so much all before the age of 30.

3. Jerry West-"Mr. Clutch"

Team: Los Angeles Lakers (1960-74)

Titles: 1 (1972)

Honors: 14-time All-Star, Finals MVP (1969), Hall of Fame

The player: One of the toughest and most competitive players ever; there was nothing he couldn't do with the ball in his hands -- he could drive, make plays and shoot with range.

4. George Gervin- "The Iceman"

Teams: Virginia Squires (1972-74), San Antonio Spurs (1974-85), Chicago Bulls (1985-86)

Honors: 12-time All-Star (9 in NBA, 3 in ABA), Hall of Fame

The Iceman revolutionized the guard position, a true artist at 6 foot 8. He could score from anywhere and could score at anytime.

5. Allen Iverson- "The Answer"

Teams: Philadelphia 76ers (1996-2006), Denver Nuggets (2006-present)

Honors: 9-time All-Star, MVP (2001), Rookie of the Year (1997)

The Answer is, pound for pound, the toughest player ever. He has won four scoring titles and is third behind Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain in career scoring average.

6. Clyde Drexler- "The Glyde"

Teams: Portland Trail Blazers (1983-95), Houston Rockets (1995-98)

Titles: 1 (1995)

Honors: 10-time All-Star, Hall of Fame

Drexler was as gifted athletically as any guard, and was explosive offensively.

7. Reggie Miller

Team: Indiana Pacers (1987-2005)

Honors: 5-time All-Star

The most prolific 3-point shooter in league history, and had the ability to hit clutch shots during crucial games.

8. Joe Dumars

Team: Detroit Pistons (1985-99)

Titles: 2 (1989, 1990)

Honors: 6-time All-Star, Finals MVP (1989), Hall of Fame

Dumars was a lockdown defender and one of the most underrated players of his generation.

9. Pete Maravich

Teams: Atlanta Hawks (1970-74), New Orleans/Utah Jazz (1974-80), Boston Celtics (1980)

Honors: 5-time All-Star, Hall of Fame

In his era, Pistol Pete was the greatest basketball show on Earth. There was nothing he couldn't do with a ball.

10. Tracy McGrady -T-Mac

Teams: Toronto Raptors, Orlando Magic, Houston Rockets

Honors:7 time all-star, Career Average of 22.4ppg, 6.2rpg, 4.7apg, Ranked in the top 5 in playoff scoring averages (28.5ppg)

One of the most electrifying guards of all-time, T-Mac can score at will and with his long arms, he's a nightmare to guard in the post.

Honorable Mention: Earl Monroe, Mitch Richmond, Dwayne Wade (Will soon be on this list if he stays healthy), Dave Bing, Ray Allen

Westbrook36
08-02-2008, 06:42 PM
Allen Iverson is my Booii

Premier
08-02-2008, 06:45 PM
Jerry West > Kobe Bryant.
Clyde Drexler > Allen Iverson.
Pete Maravich > Reggie Miller.
You forgot #8.

Other than that, it's fine.

madiaz3
08-02-2008, 06:54 PM
edit

mamba24
08-02-2008, 06:56 PM
edit

agreed... t-mac does not belong on this list...

BALLER71
08-02-2008, 07:00 PM
Tracy McGrady? You have got to be kidding me.

GregOden#1
08-02-2008, 07:08 PM
Jerry West > Kobe Bryant.
Clyde Drexler > Allen Iverson.
Pete Maravich > Reggie Miller.
You forgot #8.

Other than that, it's fine.

Yeah, make those changes and it'l be close to perfect.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-02-2008, 07:31 PM
Yeah, make those changes and it'l be close to perfect.

Im watching the Lakers play the Celtics in 1966 on NBA t.v. right now. West is not as good as Bryant. I have seen 10 games that West has played. He is not the focus of the defense. He is not a defensive force. He accumulated some nice stats in an era where points, rebounds and assist came a lot easier than todays game due to the up and down game every team played. Each team looks like the Phx Suns. Their goal looks as if they want to get a shot off in under 7 seconds. West is going one on one against Sam Baker and is getting dominated in game 7. You are very nostalgic towards the older player but West is not in Kobe's class. He could not go left. If there was a zone defense that looked to keep the ball out of West hands like Kobe has to face now, he would be a non factor. West lost 9 times in the NBA finals playing with Baylor, Wilt and Gale Goodrich. NBA's 50 greatest players. Kobe played with one dominant player and was able to squeeze 3 rings out of him as opposed to West's 1. Its no contest.

MiamiHeat
08-02-2008, 07:38 PM
wade will be on this list soon, but he doesn't deserve it just yet because of the injuries and hasn't been available to achieve much, but just wait this year :D

Premier
08-02-2008, 07:41 PM
Im watching the Lakers play the Celtics in 1966 on NBA t.v. right now. West is not as good as Bryant. I have seen 10 games that West has played. He is not the focus of the defense. He is not a defensive force. He accumulated some nice stats in an era where points, rebounds and assist came a lot easier than todays game due to the up and down game every team played. Each team looks like the Phx Suns. Their goal looks as if they want to get a shot off in under 7 seconds. West is going one on one against Sam Baker and is getting dominated in game 7. You are very nostalgic towards the older player but West is not in Kobe's class. He could not go left. If there was a zone defense that looked to keep the ball out of West hands like Kobe has to face now, he would be a non factor. West lost 9 times in the NBA finals playing with Baylor, Wilt and Gale Goodrich. NBA's 50 greatest players. Kobe played with one dominant player and was able to squeeze 3 rings out of him as opposed to West's 1. Its no contest.
That's where I stopped taking what you were saying seriously. 10 Games is not enough to judge how good a player is compared to another.

Jerry West was a great defender. He's More Clutch than Kobe. He has a Final's MVP. I could go on and on.

If Kobe Bryant retired today, there is no way that you could label him over West. In the future, it's very possilbe, but now? No.

JIDsanity
08-02-2008, 07:50 PM
T-Mac? Really?

GregOden#1
08-02-2008, 08:04 PM
Im watching the Lakers play the Celtics in 1966 on NBA t.v. right now. West is not as good as Bryant. I have seen 10 games that West has played. He is not the focus of the defense. He is not a defensive force. He accumulated some nice stats in an era where points, rebounds and assist came a lot easier than todays game due to the up and down game every team played. Each team looks like the Phx Suns. Their goal looks as if they want to get a shot off in under 7 seconds. West is going one on one against Sam Baker and is getting dominated in game 7. You are very nostalgic towards the older player but West is not in Kobe's class. He could not go left. If there was a zone defense that looked to keep the ball out of West hands like Kobe has to face now, he would be a non factor. West lost 9 times in the NBA finals playing with Baylor, Wilt and Gale Goodrich. NBA's 50 greatest players. Kobe played with one dominant player and was able to squeeze 3 rings out of him as opposed to West's 1. Its no contest.

The Lakers won 45 games that year and you're trying to spin it as if Jerry West failed. We're not talking about a 59 win Laker team losing to a 66 win Celtics team in 6 games, we're talking about a 45 win team beating back a 7 time in a row defending champion and stretching a series to the final moments of game 7. If it hadn't been for Jerry West averaging 34 points, 6 assists and 6 rebounds and playing DPOY level defense they would have never even gotten half that far.

Antbanks21
08-02-2008, 08:29 PM
:pity::crazy:


i bet you think Wade is a better shooting guard huh...what a homer:moon::no:

MiamiHeat
08-02-2008, 08:35 PM
i bet you think Wade is a better shooting guard huh...what a homer:moon::no:

did i mention wade anywhere of being number1? nope:rolleyes:
but your crazy if you think kobe should be number 1 over MJ

CaleX(RR)MIA™
08-02-2008, 08:59 PM
i bet you think Wade is a better shooting guard huh...what a homer:moon::no:

y would u say that if he clearly said that he thinks Wade will make the list after this year?! your the one being homer thinking Kobe is better than MJ :mad::mad:

READ before you post next time!


wade will be on this list soon, but he doesn't deserve it just yet because of the injuries and hasn't been available to achieve much, but just wait this year :D

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-02-2008, 09:22 PM
That's where I stopped taking what you were saying seriously. 10 Games is not enough to judge how good a player is compared to another.

Jerry West was a great defender. He's More Clutch than Kobe. He has a Final's MVP. I could go on and on.

If Kobe Bryant retired today, there is no way that you could label him over West. In the future, it's very possilbe, but now? No.

He has a finals MVP in a series that his team lost. In the first year that award was ever given out. They did not know any better. In todays game, a player will never be given the MVP for the losing team. How many games did you see West play to know for sure he is so much better than Kobe? Were you at least 15 years old from 1960 to 1974 to kind of rationalize what you were seeing on the floor? If you were not, you probably just looked at Jerry's stats and said, "Well, that does it. Jerry's numbers are better than Kobe's. Obviously he is the better player." But you would be ignoring the up and down tempo every team played. Allowing guys to have ridiculous numbers such as rebounds, points, assist etc.... Wilt would dominate todays players but he would not average 50 points 25 rebounds. Jerry's stat line is not too different from Kobe's and he got them in an era where stats like those were not hard to obtain. I'm not a big stat guy. I like to see what happens on the floor and make my judgment. And just looking at a game to game basis watching each players every move on offense and defense, it is my opinion that Kobe is the far better player.

JordansBulls
08-02-2008, 09:28 PM
He has a finals MVP in a series that his team lost. In the first year that award was ever given out. They did not know any better. In todays game, a player will never be given the MVP for the losing team. How many games did you see West play to know for sure he is so much better than Kobe? Were you at least 15 years old from 1960 to 1974 to kind of rationalize what you were seeing on the floor? If you were not, you probably just looked at Jerry's stats and said, "Well, that does it. Jerry's numbers are better than Kobe's. Obviously he is the better player." But you would be ignoring the up and down tempo every team played. Allowing guys to have ridiculous numbers such as rebounds, points, assist etc.... Wilt would dominate todays players but he would not average 50 points 25 rebounds. Jerry's stat line is not too different from Kobe's and he got them in an era where stats like those were not hard to obtain. I'm not a big stat guy. I like to see what happens on the floor and make my judgment. And just looking at a game to game basis watching each players every move on offense and defense, it is my opinion that Kobe is the far better player.

I think people get too caught up in the black and white tv games and how the players were at that time instead of analyzing the impact of the players on the game at the time.
It would be like me saying a Movie in the 2000's is much better than Casablanca or Gone With the Wind because of the graphics, special effects, etc.
I'm not making a case for West or Kobe here, I'm just trying to help others see how people view things relative to what we may note nowadays in movies.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-02-2008, 09:38 PM
The Lakers won 45 games that year and you're trying to spin it as if Jerry West failed. We're not talking about a 59 win Laker team losing to a 66 win Celtics team in 6 games, we're talking about a 45 win team beating back a 7 time in a row defending champion and stretching a series to the final moments of game 7. If it hadn't been for Jerry West averaging 34 points, 6 assists and 6 rebounds and playing DPOY level defense they would have never even gotten half that far.

First off, the Celtics only won 54 games in 1966. The Lakers did win 45. Which is a differance of 9

Secondly, this years Lakers won only 57 games compared to 66 for the Celtics. Which for you math maticians is also a difference of 9.

Seems to me is that you are the one trying to do the spinning.

And with West supposedly playing "DPOY level defense" the Celtics some how averaged 119.85 points for the seven game series. Does not seem like he nor anyone else played a lick of defense.

GregOden#1
08-02-2008, 09:41 PM
He has a finals MVP in a series that his team lost. In the first year that award was ever given out. They did not know any better. In todays game, a player will never be given the MVP for the losing team. How many games did you see West play to know for sure he is so much better than Kobe? Were you at least 15 years old from 1960 to 1974 to kind of rationalize what you were seeing on the floor? If you were not, you probably just looked at Jerry's stats and said, "Well, that does it. Jerry's numbers are better than Kobe's. Obviously he is the better player." But you would be ignoring the up and down tempo every team played. Allowing guys to have ridiculous numbers such as rebounds, points, assist etc.... Wilt would dominate todays players but he would not average 50 points 25 rebounds. Jerry's stat line is not too different from Kobe's and he got them in an era where stats like those were not hard to obtain. I'm not a big stat guy.

That's why you have to adjust for pace/era differences. Also account for him playing with Elgin most of his career.


I like to see what happens on the floor and make my judgment. And just looking at a game to game basis watching each players every move on offense and defense, it is my opinion that Kobe is the far better player.

You've only watched 10 games as you said, that's not enough to compare to a player you probably grew up watching. I know you're trying, but its not like you can watch 3 hours of a player and then say "well he's good but he's not better than my favorite player".

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-02-2008, 09:45 PM
I think people get too caught up in the black and white tv games and how the players were at that time instead of analyzing the impact of the players on the game at the time.
It would be like me saying a Movie in the 2000's is much better than Casablanca or Gone With the Wind because of the graphics, special effects, etc.
I'm not making a case for West or Kobe here, I'm just trying to help others see how people view things relative to what we may note nowadays in movies.

I dont think that is the case with me though. I really liked John "Hondo" Havlicek's game. He had good size and length and never seemed to get tired. He was one of the few guys I actually thought tried to play defense. His game would translate across all eras. As well as Russel. He seemed to be every where. I watch those games cause I want to see what I missed. I love Jerry West from what I see of him as a person. He was a great GM and I love what he did for the Lakers. But when I tuned in to watch the games I wanted to see how great he was, not tear down his game. Maybe I just watched bad examples, but I was not as impressed with him as others seem to be.

GregOden#1
08-02-2008, 09:51 PM
First off, the Celtics only won 54 games in 1966. The Lakers did win 45. Which is a differance of 9

Secondly, this years Lakers won only 57 games compared to 66 for the Celtics. Which for you math maticians is also a difference of 9.

I thought it was 59. But, a 45 win team is alot more common than a 57 win team. A 45 win team is an average team, a 54 win team is an elite team. A 57 win team and a 66 win team are elite teams. The difference between the four teams may be the same, but the difference in skill level is not. Not to mention the 08 Lakers were favorites going into the series.


And with West supposedly playing "DPOY level defense" the Celtics some how averaged 119.85 points for the seven game series. Does not seem like he nor anyone else played a lick of defense.

They also shot like 38% for the series.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-02-2008, 09:56 PM
That's why you have to adjust for pace/era differences. Also account for him playing with Elgin most of his career.

I know. He did have to play with all time greats. He might of had even better stats if he was not so humble and unselfish. He had to play with a great scorer in Elgin so it did cut his numbers. But Kobe did have to play with Shaq for 8 years as well. But while he sacrificed his stat line, he was able to obtain three championships. Jerry might sacrificed his stats, but he only did it for 1 championship.

You've only watched 10 games as you said, that's not enough to compare to a player you probably grew up watching. I know you're trying, but its not like you can watch 3 hours of a player and then say "well he's good but he's not better than my favorite player".

Like I said in the post above, I agree. 10 games is a real small example of his career. But its hard to find footage of those days. So that is why I try to watch him specifically and see his ball handling skills, shooting touch (amazing) and defensive prowess.

P.S. Kobe is not my favorite player. Magic Man is. Followed by Kareem, Jordan, Hakeem, then Kobe.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-02-2008, 10:01 PM
I thought it was 59. But, a 45 win team is alot more common than a 57 win team. A 45 win team is an average team, a 54 win team is an elite team. A 57 win team and a 66 win team are elite teams. The difference between the four teams may be the same, but the difference in skill level is not. Not to mention the 08 Lakers were favorites going into the series.



They also shot like 38% for the series.

That 45 win team was number 1 in the west though. So I guess thats one of the elite teams in those days. And the this years Lakers were only favored by ESPN when they saw the Lakers go through the west with ease and the Celtics struggle the first two rounds. I never liked our match up with them. Not to mention the fact they whooped the Lakers twice and they had home court advantage. And Radmonivich guarding Peirce. They should never have been favorites in my opinion.

GregOden#1
08-02-2008, 10:22 PM
That 45 win team was number 1 in the west though. So I guess thats one of the elite teams in those days. And the this years Lakers were only favored by ESPN when they saw the Lakers go through the west with ease and the Celtics struggle the first two rounds. I never liked our match up with them. Not to mention the fact they whooped the Lakers twice and they had home court advantage. And Radmonivich guarding Peirce. They should never have been favorites in my opinion.

It doesn't change the fact that the Lakers were an average team in 66 (and they were, 45 wins today is the same as 45 wins then) and the Lakers of 08 were favored.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-03-2008, 12:09 PM
It doesn't change the fact that the Lakers were an average team in 66 (and they were, 45 wins today is the same as 45 wins then) and the Lakers of 08 were favored.

In 1966 they had the 3rd most victories in the league. Just like this years Lakers. It was the exact same scenario. If this years team was elite, so was that years team. And with 3 all time great players on the Lakers in 1966 in West, Baylor, and Goodrich, maybe they should have been favored. Cause this years Laker team was Kobe and some roll players / semi stars.

Stop trying to make it seem as if West some how pulled off a miracle to get them to the finals. The Lakers back then were a first seed. Which means they got a first round bye. Then they beat one team in the playoffs, and were in the finals. I'm taking any championship/stat with a grain of salt in that era. Two rounds and your a champion????? Playing at a break neck pace while everyone got fat on stats.

Skill wise, Kobe is more athletic, quicker, a better ball handler and better on defense than West was. West is a better pure shooter.

Its time to get over the nostalgia of the old days. Some of those players were comparable to todays players, but most were living off a time when basketball was in its beginning and learning stages. The players and the game have evolved.

GregOden#1
08-03-2008, 04:21 PM
In 1966 they had the 3rd most victories in the league. Just like this years Lakers. It was the exact same scenario. If this years team was elite, so was that years team. And with 3 all time great players on the Lakers in 1966 in West, Baylor, and Goodrich, maybe they should have been favored. Cause this years Laker team was Kobe and some roll players / semi stars.

Wow. Goodrich was a rookie that season. They were not an elite level team. They won 45 games that season. You cannot claim they were an elite level team that is just ridiculous.


Stop trying to make it seem as if West some how pulled off a miracle to get them to the finals. The Lakers back then were a first seed. Which means they got a first round bye. Then they beat one team in the playoffs, and were in the finals. I'm taking any championship/stat with a grain of salt in that era. Two rounds and your a champion????? Playing at a break neck pace while everyone got fat on stats.

Um. They got to game 7 of the NBA finals vs. a team that was way way better than they were, it came down to the final shot where the Celtics again got a break winning by 2. Its a miracle that Jerry West could've carried them that far.


Skill wise, Kobe is more athletic, quicker, a better ball handler and better on defense than West was. West is a better pure shooter.

Its time to get over the nostalgia of the old days. Some of those players were comparable to todays players, but most were living off a time when basketball was in its beginning and learning stages. The players and the game have evolved.

The game was almost 70 years old at that point, the game had changed as much as it was ever going to change. There are era differences, but to suggest that one era is better than another is ridiculous and I'm getting really tired of your ignorance and that you keep trying to spin things to suit your argument.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-03-2008, 07:03 PM
Wow. Goodrich was a rookie that season. They were not an elite level team. They won 45 games that season. You cannot claim they were an elite level team that is just ridiculous.



Um. They got to game 7 of the NBA finals vs. a team that was way way better than they were, it came down to the final shot where the Celtics again got a break winning by 2. Its a miracle that Jerry West could've carried them that far.



The game was almost 70 years old at that point, the game had changed as much as it was ever going to change. There are era differences, but to suggest that one era is better than another is ridiculous and I'm getting really tired of your ignorance and that you keep trying to spin things to suit your argument.

Ignorance? How is it an ignorant statement to say the difference between a team that wins 9 more games against one team in 1966 is the same difference in a team that wins 9 more games over another team in 2008? The value of the dollar has gone down since then, but the value of the number 9 has not. This years Celtics were 9 games better than this years Lakers. 1966 Celtics were 9 games better than the 1966 Lakers. What is so hard to understand about that.

So a 54 win team should be compared to a 66 win team? This years Celtics had one of the best records in the history of the NBA. But you are saying that the 57 win Laker team should have beat them. But a 45 win team was lucky to even get to game 7 with a team with a mediocre record of 54 wins. That mediocre 54 win Celtic team should have been easier to beat than an all time great team with 66 wins in this years Celtics.

This year, the Jazz had 54 wins and had the 6th most wins in the west alone. Are they an elite team? The Cavs had 45 wins. If they made it to the finals it would be the same exact scenario, as 1966. Would you say it was a miracle that the Cavs were able to take the "Mighty" Jazz to a seventh game? And say Lebron is the best player in the world cause he was able to lead a crappy 45 win team to a 7 game fall at the hands of the Mighty Utah Jazz.

Its sad that you result to personal insults when its obvious your argument has been defeated. Trying to use an argument that West was able to pull off a miracle by getting to game 7, is silly in itself. But when you try to use that as an example of why he is better than Kobe is even more confusing. According to you. Kobe should have beaten one of the all time great teams with 66 wins. But West should have been happy to get to a game 7 with a team with 54 wins:rolleyes:

Keep throwing $h1t against the wall, maybe one day, something will stick

GregOden#1
08-03-2008, 09:02 PM
Ignorance? How is it an ignorant statement to say the difference between a team that wins 9 more games against one team in 1966 is the same difference in a team that wins 9 more games over another team in 2008? The value of the dollar has gone down since then, but the value of the number 9 has not. This years Celtics were 9 games better than this years Lakers. 1966 Celtics were 9 games better than the 1966 Lakers. What is so hard to understand about that.

So a 54 win team should be compared to a 66 win team? This years Celtics had one of the best records in the history of the NBA. But you are saying that the 57 win Laker team should have beat them. But a 45 win team was lucky to even get to game 7 with a team with a mediocre record of 54 wins. That mediocre 54 win Celtic team should have been easier to beat than an all time great team with 66 wins in this years Celtics.

This year, the Jazz had 54 wins and had the 6th most wins in the west alone. Are they an elite team? The Cavs had 45 wins. If they made it to the finals it would be the same exact scenario, as 1966. Would you say it was a miracle that the Cavs were able to take the "Mighty" Jazz to a seventh game? And say Lebron is the best player in the world cause he was able to lead a crappy 45 win team to a 7 game fall at the hands of the Mighty Utah Jazz.

Its sad that you result to personal insults when its obvious your argument has been defeated. Trying to use an argument that West was able to pull off a miracle by getting to game 7, is silly in itself. But when you try to use that as an example of why he is better than Kobe is even more confusing. According to you. Kobe should have beaten one of the all time great teams with 66 wins. But West should have been happy to get to a game 7 with a team with 54 wins:rolleyes:

Keep throwing $h1t against the wall, maybe one day, something will stick

I'm not going to bother responding to you if you dont stop arguing the way you do. You keep spinning things to make it easier for you to argue as you've completely changed my argument.

I've bolded what you need to change. I also indented the irony where you said I shoudn't use personal insults, then proceeded to insult me.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-03-2008, 09:46 PM
I'm not going to bother responding to you if you dont stop arguing the way you do. You keep spinning things to make it easier for you to argue as you've completely changed my argument.

I've bolded what you need to change. I also indented the irony where you said I shoudn't use personal insults, then proceeded to insult me.

Change my argument? Would you like me to change it so that your argument would seem rational? I'm not spinning anything.

You said West got a 45 win team to the finals. And they were able to take the Celtics to 7 games. You failed to mention that the Lakers that year had the 3rd best record in the league. You failed to mention they only had to beat one team to get to the finals. You failed to mention the Celtics only won 54 games that year. You failed to mention the difference between wins and losses for the 1966 Celtics and Lakers was the same as this years Lakers and Celtic teams. You incorrectly mentioned the Lakers having 59 wins this year ( Maybe to help your argument a little bit ) You have failed to mention once why you think West is better than Kobe. In every possible facet of this discussion you have FAILED!

I know you seen my thread about the stats between Kobe and Jordans era. I was initially going to do the differences in eras between West and Kobe. But that would be too easy. The numbers are mind boggling. West time was a break neck pace. Thus he was able to play in an era where defenses were a one on one side show. They played defense like the Phx Suns do. They didn't'! They wanted to get the ball back on the offensive end as fast as they could to get a shot off. West numbers are not better than MJ's while West played in a era where a 6"4 guard could average a triple double for a season. A players career stats in the 1960's should be subtracted by 5 points 2 rebounds and 2 assist per game if you are going to argue those stats with stats of todays players. And how hard would it be to shoot a high percentage with one man guarding you at all time's. No doubles, no zones. Just elementary defenses set to grab a rebound and get back on offense.

So what is your argument for West? Do you think he was bigger, faster, stronger? Do you think he was better offensively, defensively? Do you think he was better cause his stats look prettier? Do you think he was better cause he got to the finals 9 times while losing 8? What is your argument? And please come with something better than " Well, he got to game 7"

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-03-2008, 09:52 PM
I'm not going to bother responding to you if you dont stop arguing the way you do. You keep spinning things to make it easier for you to argue as you've completely changed my argument.

I've bolded what you need to change. I also indented the irony where you said I shoudn't use personal insults, then proceeded to insult me.

I'm sorry, I just read your post again. It is hilarious. Essentially you are asking me to get off you. Your like my little brother. When I used to beat him at hoops when we were little, he used to tell me that I should not be able to shoot so close to the rim.

I'm sorry. Ill dumb down my argument for you so you can win like I'm sure your more accustomed to doing..................... KOBE>West.... Dumb enough for you

Quote from Gregoden#1 I'm not going to bother responding to you if you dont stop arguing the way you do. You keep spinning things to make it easier for you to argue...........I've bolded what you need to change :laugh:

GregOden#1
08-03-2008, 10:05 PM
Is this even an argument anymore? I dont even have to bring up anything new, I can just repeat what I said originally:


You said West got a 45 win team to the finals. And they were able to take the Celtics to 7 games. You failed to mention that the Lakers that year had the 3rd best record in the league. You failed to mention they only had to beat one team to get to the finals. You failed to mention the Celtics only won 54 games that year. You failed to mention the difference between wins and losses for the 1966 Celtics and Lakers was the same as this years Lakers and Celtic teams.

Answer:


I thought it was 59. But, a 45 win team is alot more common than a 57 win team. A 45 win team is an average team, a 54 win team is an elite team. A 57 win team and a 66 win team are elite teams. The difference between the four teams may be the same, but the difference in skill level is not. Not to mention the 08 Lakers were favorites going into the series.


I know you seen my thread about the stats between Kobe and Jordans era. I was initially going to do the differences in eras between West and Kobe. But that would be too easy. The numbers are mind boggling. West time was a break neck pace. Thus he was able to play in an era where defenses were a one on one side show. They played defense like the Phx Suns do. They didn't'! They wanted to get the ball back on the offensive end as fast as they could to get a shot off. West numbers are not better than MJ's while West played in a era where a 6"4 guard could average a triple double for a season. A players career stats in the 1960's should be subtracted by 5 points 2 rebounds and 2 assist per game if you are going to argue those stats with stats of todays players. And how hard would it be to shoot a high percentage with one man guarding you at all time's. No doubles, no zones. Just elementary defenses set to grab a rebound and get back on offense.

I love this post. Its so ignorant it isn't funny.

Look at this post again:


That's why you have to adjust for pace/era differences. Also account for him playing with Elgin most of his career.

This too:


They also shot like 38% for the series.

Man guys must've been ******** back then if they could only shoot 38% playing with that bad of defense.

And what 6'4 guard averaged a triple double in the 60's? Oscar Robertson? He's 6'4 barefoot, Jordan is 6'3 barefoot should we assume the 90s was weak as hell too?


So what is your argument for West? Do you think he was bigger, faster, stronger? Do you think he was better offensively, defensively? Do you think he was better cause his stats look prettier? Do you think he was better cause he got to the finals 9 times while losing 8? What is your argument? And please come with something better than " Well, he got to game 7"

:pity:


I'm not going to bother responding to you if you dont stop arguing the way you do. You keep spinning things to make it easier for you to argue as you've completely changed my argument.

I've bolded what you need to change. I also indented the irony where you said I shoudn't use personal insults, then proceeded to insult me.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-03-2008, 10:27 PM
Is this even an argument anymore? I dont even have to bring up anything new, I can just repeat what I said originally:



Answer:





I love this post. Its so ignorant it isn't funny.

Look at this post again:



This too:



Man guys must've been ******** back then if they could only shoot 38% playing with that bad of defense.

And what 6'4 guard averaged a triple double in the 60's? Oscar Robertson? He's 6'4 barefoot, Jordan is 6'3 barefoot should we assume the 90s was weak as hell too?



:pity:

How about this. Instead of going to the little blue man shaking his head. Why dont you try and answer the question. Very simple. Why is West better than Kobe? Then we can have a discussion. I have told you why I think Kobe is better. I have asked you why West is better 3 times. I explained any stat argument gets eliminated when you take the era's into account. We all know West failures and triumphs in the finals. We all know Kobe's failures and triumphs in the finals. Do think West was a better individual player, team player? WHAT? You have yet to say anything besides "he got the Lakers to lose in 7 games. I know you are implying Kobe and this years Lakers only got to game 6. So is that your argument? 7>6? Please give me something and we can progress this discussion and not have to live the 1966 finals anymore. I feel like I was there myself.

P.S. How old are you? You seem to talk as if you are over 60 years old and you lived in the old days. But I have also seen you post numerous times about play station or x box games. Just want to make sure I'm not arguing with some kid who thinks he knows more about history than me with the exact same amount of experience I have with those days. ZERO! If this is the case I would prefer not to continue this discussion. Cause you obviously would be a stat guy, and I wont take anything you have to say seriously.

GregOden#1
08-03-2008, 10:37 PM
How about this. Instead of going to the little blue man shaking his head. Why dont you try and answer the question. Very simple. Why is West better than Kobe? Then we can have a discussion. I have told you why I think Kobe is better. I have asked you why West is better 3 times. I explained any stat argument gets eliminated when you take the era's into account. We all know West failures and triumphs in the finals. We all know Kobe's failures and triumphs in the finals. Do think West was a better individual player, team player? WHAT? You have yet to say anything besides "he got the Lakers to lose in 7 games. I know you are implying Kobe and this years Lakers only got to game 6. So is that your argument? 7>6? Please give me something and we can progress this discussion and not have to live the 1966 finals anymore. I feel like I was there myself.

P.S. How old are you? You seem to talk as if you are over 60 years old and you lived in the old days. But I have also seen you post numerous times about play station or x box games. Just want to make sure I'm not arguing with some kid who thinks he knows more about history than me with the exact same amount of experience I have with those days. ZERO! If this is the case I would prefer not to continue this discussion. Cause you obviously would be a stat guy, and I wont take anything you have to say seriously.

I'm not even arguing about West and Kobe, I'm just clearing up all the inconsistencies with your arguments and ending all the misconceptions. I dont care what you think I just dont want you to keep repeating the same crap over and over again, because others will then think its true.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-03-2008, 11:29 PM
I'm not even arguing about West and Kobe, I'm just clearing up all the inconsistencies with your arguments and ending all the misconceptions. I dont care what you think I just dont want you to keep repeating the same crap over and over again, because others will then think its true. My friend. Please tell me what I have said that is factually wrong. I have said that the stats in the 60's and 70's are inflatted. I corrected you on the number of victories this years Lakers had. When you tried to use the argument for West that he got a 45 win team to the finals, I just pointed out they only played one round in the playoffs to get there. Then you tried to make it seem like some miracle that they went 7 games with the Celtics. I just showed you that the Celtics only won 54 games that year. So it was not a great feat that they pulled off by going 7 games. Seems to me that I have been correcting your eroneous statements. Some kid early on in the thread did the old West > Kobe arguement. You chimed in and agreed with him. I tried to explain why I feel Kobe is better. All you have done is tell me I'm ignorant with no rebuttle. So...... my arguement > your rebuttle

GregOden#1
08-04-2008, 01:02 PM
My friend. Please tell me what I have said that is factually wrong. I have said that the stats in the 60's and 70's are inflatted. I corrected you on the number of victories this years Lakers had. When you tried to use the argument for West that he got a 45 win team to the finals, I just pointed out they only played one round in the playoffs to get there. Then you tried to make it seem like some miracle that they went 7 games with the Celtics. I just showed you that the Celtics only won 54 games that year. So it was not a great feat that they pulled off by going 7 games. Seems to me that I have been correcting your eroneous statements. Some kid early on in the thread did the old West > Kobe arguement. You chimed in and agreed with him. I tried to explain why I feel Kobe is better. All you have done is tell me I'm ignorant with no rebuttle. So...... my arguement > your rebuttle

I absolutely love how you try to make it seem like me saying the Lakers won 59 games was some huge massive erroneous error that completely changed the argument. Give it up.

Your errors? Here:


He is not the focus of the defense. He is not a defensive force.


West is going one on one against Sam Baker and is getting dominated in game 7.


He could not go left


West lost 9 times in the NBA finals playing with Baylor, Wilt and Gale Goodrich.


Kobe played with one dominant player and was able to squeeze 3 rings out of him as opposed to West's 1.(this one makes me laugh)


He has a finals MVP in a series that his team lost. In the first year that award was ever given out. They did not know any better. In todays game, a player will never be given the MVP for the losing team. :laugh:


Does not seem like he nor anyone else played a lick of defense.



So I guess thats one of the elite teams in those days.


And with 3 all time great players on the Lakers in 1966 in West, Baylor, and Goodrich, maybe they should have been favored


Some of those players were comparable to todays players, but most were living off a time when basketball was in its beginning and learning stages. The players and the game have evolved.



They played defense like the Phx Suns do. They didn't'!


in a era where a 6"4 guard could average a triple double for a season.


And how hard would it be to shoot a high percentage with one man guarding you at all time's. No doubles, no zones.:laugh:

Everything here is factually (as you so put it) wrong. Verifiable using stats and just plain logic. That isn't even going through all the logical fallacies, strawman arguments, and the rest of the flaws in your argument, and believe me I could find a hell of alot more wrong if I didn't choose to ignore those.

MassoDio
08-04-2008, 03:13 PM
I'm not even arguing about West and Kobe, I'm just clearing up all the inconsistencies with your arguments and ending all the misconceptions. I dont care what you think I just dont want you to keep repeating the same crap over and over again, because others will then think its true.

This statement coming from someone who the post before this said that Jordan was 6'3 barefoot. Laughable.

GregOden#1
08-04-2008, 03:25 PM
This statement coming from someone who the post before this said that Jordan was 6'3 barefoot. Laughable.

He's 6'5 in shoes, 6'3.5 barefoot. So I didn't round up, I dont care.

Edit: Actually, Jordan is 6'6 in shoes. The error came in when he said Oscar was 6'4. Oscar is an inch taller than Jordan so I assume that if 6'4 barefoot was right, then 6'6 in shoes is also correct, which would make Jordan 6'5 and 6'3.5 with shoes and without, but Oscar is 6'5 barefoot not 6'4. So he made the error and I didn't catch it, my bad.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-04-2008, 06:06 PM
I absolutely love how you try to make it seem like me saying the Lakers won 59 games was some huge massive erroneous error that completely changed the argument. Give it up.

Your errors? Here:









(this one makes me laugh)

:laugh:













:laugh:

Everything here is factually (as you so put it) wrong. Verifiable using stats and just plain logic. That isn't even going through all the logical fallacies, strawman arguments, and the rest of the flaws in your argument, and believe me I could find a hell of alot more wrong if I didn't choose to ignore those. Once again you give me nothing. All you do is quote my opinions and say "wrong, wrong wrong" without giving any type of reasoning behind your opinion on why you think your right and I'm wrong. Tell me why you think I'm wrong instead of sitting up on your high horse telling me I'm wrong.

I'm sick of you avoiding questions. All you do is go around the issue of the thread. Its greatest point guards. I think Kobe is second. I have given many reasons why I believe this to be true. How about you?

GregOden#1
08-04-2008, 06:28 PM
Once again you give me nothing. All you do is quote my opinions and say "wrong, wrong wrong" without giving any type of reasoning behind your opinion on why you think your right and I'm wrong. Tell me why you think I'm wrong instead of sitting up on your high horse telling me I'm wrong.

I'm not avoiding any questions, nor is it my opinion that you are wrong, its factually incorrect. Oscar Robertson is LISTED at 6'5 barefoot. West did not lose 9 finals. West could obviously go left, I could go left when I was 6, the reason most players dont cross over is because crossing over was considered a carry back then. West did not get dominated in the finals when he was averaged 35 points for the series and scored 40 points twice during the series. I cant believe you'd even suggest that the voters didn't know any better in the 60s but to give tje finals MVP to a player on a losing team, as if your trying to hold it against West. You say nobody played any defense yet the Celtics shot below 40% for the series. Then you go on and say how hard could it be to shoot a high %, how bad must people have been if they were shooting 42% on average. My god man fact check before you call someone out for making a tiny tiny mistake where he thought a team won 59 games instead of 56.

GregOden#1
08-04-2008, 06:28 PM
I'm sick of you avoiding questions. All you do is go around the issue of the thread. Its greatest point guards. I think Kobe is second. I have given many reasons why I believe this to be true. How about you?

Here's another mistake, we're talking about shooting guards!!

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-04-2008, 07:04 PM
I'm not avoiding any questions, nor is it my opinion that you are wrong, its factually incorrect. Oscar Robertson is LISTED at 6'5 barefoot. West did not lose 9 finals. West could obviously go left, I could go left when I was 6, the reason most players dont cross over is because crossing over was considered a carry back then. West did not get dominated in the finals when he was averaged 35 points for the series and scored 40 points twice during the series. I cant believe you'd even suggest that the voters didn't know any better in the 60s but to give tje finals MVP to a player on a losing team, as if your trying to hold it against West. You say nobody played any defense yet the Celtics shot below 40% for the series. Then you go on and say how hard could it be to shoot a high %, how bad must people have been if they were shooting 42% on average. My god man fact check before you call someone out for making a tiny tiny mistake where he thought a team won 59 games instead of 56.
I was not reffering to West shooting percentage in the finals. I was refering to his career shooting percentage. When I say they played no defense, its more of a shot at the offensive scheme. They did not have to play defense for that long of a period due to the quick shot offense every team played. Once the 24 second clock was instulled, on average a team was taking 95 shots per game. Compared to now a days where a team takes about 77 shots per game. A team now is forced to play zone, pick and roll, pick and pop, back picks. I simply did not see any of that in the old games I have watched.
If you are not going to make an argument for west, ill just asume you agree with me that Kobe is better. Nice chatting with you.

GregOden#1
08-04-2008, 07:12 PM
I was not reffering to West shooting percentage in the finals. I was refering to his career shooting percentage. When I say they played no defense, its more of a shot at the offensive scheme. They did not have to play defense for that long of a period due to the quick shot offense every team played. Once the 24 second clock was instulled, on average a team was taking 95 shots per game. Compared to now a days where a team takes about 77 shots per game. A team now is forced to play zone, pick and roll, pick and pop, back picks. I simply did not see any of that in the old games I have watched.

So? Its different, doesn't mean its better or worse. The increased speed is a product of the rules. A defender back then was allowed to hack and swipe at you, far worse than any other era. In the finals San Fran Warriors vs. the Celtics Chamberlain knocked out Lovelette with a punch to the face and didn't even get ejected. It was a normal foul call. Dunking back then was considered showboating, and if you did you'd get a big elbow to the face on the next possession. The violence back then was unprecedented, I think its funner to watch now, if I wanted to watch hockey I'd watch hockey. Even so you cant tell me one era was superior to another, different yes, better? That's ridiculous.

If you are not going to make an argument for west, ill just asume you agree with me that Kobe is better. Nice chatting with you

I dont need to make an argument for West. It should be self explanatory, its you who is trying to use misconceptions and faulty logic to go against what many believe to be the truth. Maybe after this you'll have learned something and you'll be able to formulate an educated and informed opinion instead of doing what you've been doing.

madiaz3
08-04-2008, 07:16 PM
Here's another mistake, we're talking about shooting guards!!

HAHAHAHA LMFAO XMFD

Oh wait, all of those little quips you make are always unrelated to the argument. You obviously knew what he was talking about.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-04-2008, 08:00 PM
So? Its different, doesn't mean its better or worse. The increased speed is a product of the rules. A defender back then was allowed to hack and swipe at you, far worse than any other era. In the finals San Fran Warriors vs. the Celtics Chamberlain knocked out Lovelette with a punch to the face and didn't even get ejected. It was a normal foul call. Dunking back then was considered showboating, and if you did you'd get a big elbow to the face on the next possession. The violence back then was unprecedented, I think its funner to watch now, if I wanted to watch hockey I'd watch hockey. Even so you cant tell me one era was superior to another, different yes, better? That's ridiculous.


I dont need to make an argument for West. It should be self explanatory, its you who is trying to use misconceptions and faulty logic to go against what many believe to be the truth. Maybe after this you'll have learned something and you'll be able to formulate an educated and informed opinion instead of doing what you've been doing.

How in the world would you say it should be self explanatory? Do you mean we should just look at the stats and that should end all discussions. Are we not supposed to take into account on how it just might be scewed in the favor of a player who plays in a faster pace era? So to me, stats do in fact lie. So if we look at the accolades, its almost a wash. Plus most accolades are based on peoples biases. Such as MVP voting or All star games. If we see if each player was considered the best in the game in their era, it might be scewed in Kobe's favor cause he did not have to play at the same time as Russell, Wilt, Kareem, the Big O or Hondo. So the best way to judge a player in my opinion is to look at each individual skill a player has. And if that is the fairest way to judge two players from two complete different eras, I think it is self explanatory that Kobe Bryant is in fact a better player than Jerry West.

GregOden#1
08-04-2008, 09:05 PM
How in the world would you say it should be self explanatory? Do you mean we should just look at the stats and that should end all discussions. Are we not supposed to take into account on how it just might be scewed in the favor of a player who plays in a faster pace era? So to me, stats do in fact lie. So if we look at the accolades, its almost a watch. Plus most accolades are based on peoples biases. Such as MVP voting or All star games. If we see if each player was considered the best in the game in their era, it might be scewed in Kobe's favor cause he did not have to play at the same time as Russell, Wilt, Kareem, the Big O or Hondo. So the best way to judge a player in my opinion is to look at each individual skill a player has. And if that is the fairest way to judge two players from two complete different eras, I think it is self explanatory that Kobe Bryant is in fact a better player than Jerry West.

There's more to a debate than just your opinion, which is all your basing this on. And dont think you're bringing anything new to the table, its not as if I've never argued West vs. Kobe, I've done it a million times and most people agree that West was the superior player. But fine, I'l argue with you.

For one, you're talking about adjusting for era's like it will completely favor Kobe, and that the stats are widely disproportionate to what West really was. Well fine, I will show you the adjustments.

Take 05-06 and 69-70 for Kobe and West's years. This is many peoples eyes Kobe's "best" season and this was the year Chamberlain was injured for all but 12 games, Elgin for all but 54 and Hairston for 55. Both teams shot league average and league average at the time was roughly the same between the two years, one side just shot alot more. In 69-70 the Lakers took 7952 and the 05-06 Lakers 6607 so the factor is roughly 83%. Meaning whatever West's stats are you have to take off 83%. You also have to account for a few other things. For one, assists werent handed out nearly as much as they are today, around 30% more today. So whatever West's assists were you add 30%. Also, blocks and steals were not recorded then, but they were in his final season, in which he averaged 2.7 steals per game in only 31 minutes. Now just to be fair I think since West was at the very tail end of his career, he was injured for 51 games and was obviously not in his prime, so I think that we should add .5 steals to that total, and .2 to his blocks (he averaged 0.7 blocks per game). Which would bring him to 3.2 steals per game and .9 blocks per game, in 31.2 minutes, brought up to the 42 minutes he was playing in 69-70 is 4.3 steals per game and 1.2 blocks per game. Adjusting for pace it comes out to 3.5 and 1 steals/blocks per game respectively. That's more than fair. Now adjusting for assists like I said I'd do before it is 8.1 assists per game and 3.8 rebounds per game.

Points now, this is kind of complicated because we have to adjust for 3 pointers along with pace. Jerry West averaged 31.2 points per game, adjusted it is 26. But, West took a hell of alot of 3 pointers. I'd wager around the 10-11 mark. He was probably making about 43-45 % of them too. If we adjust the amount of 3 pointers to today its about 8.7 3's a game, which is about Ray Allen level. And saying he was making 44% of them, which is about Rip Hamilton level, it'd add on 3.8 points to his average, giving him an average of 30.

So his averages come out:


PPG / APG / RPG / SPG / BPG / FG%
30 8.1 3.8 4.3 1.0 50% - West (69-70)
35.4 4.5 5.3 1.8 0.4 45% - Kobe (05-06)

West wins easy IMO. Also, West made all league and all league D this year, all league with Frazier and over Oscar and Havlicek. And on D along with Frazier and over Havlicek and Jerry Sloan. Kobe made it with Nash and over Chauncey and Wade. And on D with Kidd and over Chauncey and Tayshaun. Its worth nothing because the guys Kobe beat out were nothing compared to the guys West beat out. Its also worth nothing, and this may be just my opinion, but it seems alot of people felt Kobe didn't deserve defensive first team that year. I think it goes without saying that West was better defensively that year.

So there you have it.

Now this is just one season, and Kobe's career isn't done yet, but as of now you'd have to be crazy to think Kobe has had the better career or that his best season matches up with West. West is a top 10 NBA player of all-time, he's on my list at #7, behind only the "immortal 6" and ahead of Oscar, Shaq, Hakeem, Erving and Duncan, and I have plenty reason to believe it too.

ARMIN12NBA
08-04-2008, 09:13 PM
How in the world would you say it should be self explanatory? Do you mean we should just look at the stats and that should end all discussions. Are we not supposed to take into account on how it just might be scewed in the favor of a player who plays in a faster pace era? So to me, stats do in fact lie. So if we look at the accolades, its almost a watch. Plus most accolades are based on peoples biases. Such as MVP voting or All star games. If we see if each player was considered the best in the game in their era, it might be scewed in Kobe's favor cause he did not have to play at the same time as Russell, Wilt, Kareem, the Big O or Hondo. So the best way to judge a player in my opinion is to look at each individual skill a player has. And if that is the fairest way to judge two players from two complete different eras, I think it is self explanatory that Kobe Bryant is in fact a better player than Jerry West.

Great points. GregOden#1 just got dominated in this argument, which didn't even seem like an argument. DODGERS&LAKERS was making points and using facts while GregOden#1 just said everything was wrong and said everything was self-explanatory.

Great points DODGERS&LAKERS! Keep up the good work.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-04-2008, 11:06 PM
Great points. GregOden#1 just got dominated in this argument, which didn't even seem like an argument. DODGERS&LAKERS was making points and using facts while GregOden#1 just said everything was wrong and said everything was self-explanatory.

Great points DODGERS&LAKERS! Keep up the good work.

Thank you very much. I thought I was the only one who noticed.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-04-2008, 11:46 PM
He's 6'5 in shoes, 6'3.5 barefoot. So I didn't round up, I dont care.

Edit: Actually, Jordan is 6'6 in shoes. The error came in when he said Oscar was 6'4. Oscar is an inch taller than Jordan so I assume that if 6'4 barefoot was right, then 6'6 in shoes is also correct, which would make Jordan 6'5 and 6'3.5 with shoes and without, but Oscar is 6'5 barefoot not 6'4. So he made the error and I didn't catch it, my bad.
So are you going to say Oscar is a better player than MJ cause Oscars best season beats MJ's best season. My point with Oscar being able to average a triple double for an entire season at his size, would point to the fact stats were supper inflatted back then. His stats were infated. Wilts stats were inflated, Russells rebounds were inflated, and Jerry West's stats were inflated compared to todays stats. You brought up Jordan and his height. Do you think MJ would not have been able to average those numbers playing in that fast break era? Kobe would be able to average those numbers, Lebron would absolutely average those numbers.
Just because they filled up the box score in a era where you were supposed to, did not make them greater players than the guys who play today.

Chronz
08-05-2008, 01:50 AM
Wow seems like some great debating going on here, it'll take me awhile to sort through it all so I wont add my 2 cents but of the ones Ive read these are some well thought out points on both sides.


Great points. GregOden#1 just got dominated in this argument, which didn't even seem like an argument. DODGERS&LAKERS was making points and using facts while GregOden#1 just said everything was wrong and said everything was self-explanatory.

Great points DODGERS&LAKERS! Keep up the good work.

I doubt thats the case and Ive only seen one of his posts. Have you contributed at all to this discussion or are you just cheer-leading?


So are you going to say Oscar is a better player than MJ cause Oscars best season beats MJ's best season. My point with Oscar being able to average a triple double for an entire season at his size, would point to the fact stats were supper inflatted back then. His stats were infated. Wilts stats were inflated, Russells rebounds were inflated, and Jerry West's stats were inflated compared to todays stats. You brought up Jordan and his height. Do you think MJ would not have been able to average those numbers playing in that fast break era? Kobe would be able to average those numbers, Lebron would absolutely average those numbers.
Just because they filled up the box score in a era where you were supposed to, did not make them greater players than the guys who play today.

Ill reiterate a point Im sure GO has made, the era's are just different. The only way the stats are inflated is if your way of analyzing them are flawed. Of course you account for things that can have a direct influence on a players stats but you do that for every player who has ever played. And when you do you'll realize Big O's best season was NOT better than MJ's best.

ARMIN12NBA
08-05-2008, 03:11 AM
I doubt thats the case and Ive only seen one of his posts. Have you contributed at all to this discussion or are you just cheer-leading?


I have contributed to this discussion in a few other threads and even debating with GregOden#1. I just don't feel like getting into the action since DODGERS&LAKERS is making many of the same points that I would have made myself...So yes, I am cheer-leading. Anyways, I also thought it was hilarious that only one side was arguing and the other was simply saying, "wrong," and, "this is self-explanatory" all the time without even backing up their ideas.

LakerzDQ
08-05-2008, 04:41 AM
I think people get too caught up in the black and white tv games and how the players were at that time instead of analyzing the impact of the players on the game at the time.
It would be like me saying a Movie in the 2000's is much better than Casablanca or Gone With the Wind because of the graphics, special effects, etc.
I'm not making a case for West or Kobe here, I'm just trying to help others see how people view things relative to what we may note nowadays in movies.

people get caught up with the "old times" and think that everything in the 60's, 70's, and the 80's were great, and that the 21st century is garbage.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-05-2008, 04:41 PM
[QUOTE=GregOden#1;6150445]There's more to a debate than just your opinion, which is all your basing this on. And dont think you're bringing anything new to the table, its not as if I've never argued West vs. Kobe, I've done it a million times and most people agree that West was the superior player. But fine, I'l argue with you.

For one, you're talking about adjusting for era's like it will completely favor Kobe, and that the stats are widely disproportionate to what West really was. Well fine, I will show you the adjustments.

Take 05-06 and 69-70 for Kobe and West's years. This is many peoples eyes Kobe's "best" season and this was the year Chamberlain was injured for all but 12 games, All right GregOden#1. You forced me to play your stupid stat game. But first I wanted to let you know you took Kobes second best season. His best was in 01/02. He averaged 30 points. 6.9 rebounds, 5.9 assist, .8 blocks, 2.2 steals. Shooting .469 % and .383 from 3. But that's not my point. You tried to take the stats from one season from each player and use that as your reasoning behind West. I know why you didn't take their career averages though. Cause Kobe's numers trump West's. I took the averages of the number of field goals the Laker opponents took in the 14 years West played. Because that is a better indication of the actual opportunities the Lakers had for a defensive rebound or to take the ball back down court after a made basket. Their opponents took on average 111.76 shots per game. In Kobe's 12 years, opponents took 79.68 shots. That is 29 % more chances for West to score, rebound, get an assist, steal or block a shot. So if you take away 29 % of West's career stats, his numbers are now 19.17 points per game. 4.11 reb., 4.75 assist. If you want to give Kobe the same amount of opportunities as West, add 29 % to all his stats and his career line is 32.25 points per game, 6.8 reb, 5.9 assist 1.8 steals and .64 blocks. Kobe' PER 23.6 vs West 22.9 CHECKMATE

GregOden#1
08-05-2008, 04:51 PM
There's more to a debate than just your opinion, which is all your basing this on. And dont think you're bringing anything new to the table, its not as if I've never argued West vs. Kobe, I've done it a million times and most people agree that West was the superior player. But fine, I'l argue with you.

For one, you're talking about adjusting for era's like it will completely favor Kobe, and that the stats are widely disproportionate to what West really was. Well fine, I will show you the adjustments.

Take 05-06 and 69-70 for Kobe and West's years. This is many peoples eyes Kobe's "best" season and this was the year Chamberlain was injured for all but 12 games, All right GregOden#1. You forced me to play your stupid stat game. But first I wanted to let you know you took Kobes second best season. His best was in 01/02. He averaged 30 points. 6.9 rebounds, 5.9 assist, .8 blocks, 2.2 steals. Shooting .469 % and .383 from 3. But that's not my point. You tried to take the stats from one season from each player and use that as your reasoning behind West. I know why you didn't take their career averages though. Cause Kobe's numers trump West's. I took the averages of the number of field goals the Laker opponents took in the 14 years West played. Because that is a better indication of the actual opportunities the Lakers had for a defensive rebound or to take the ball back down court after a made basket. Their opponents took on average 111.76 shots per game. In Kobe's 12 years, opponents took 79.68 shots. That is 29 % more chances for West to score, rebound, get an assist, steal or block a shot. So if you take away 29 % of West's career stats, his numbers are now 19.17 points per game. 4.11 reb., 4.75 assist. If you want to give Kobe the same amount of opportunities as West, add 29 % to all his stats and his career line is 32.25 points per game, 6.8 reb, 5.9 assist 1.8 steals and .64 blocks. Kobe' PER 23.6 vs West 22.9 CHECKMATE

That is by far the worst formatted post I have ever seen.

And check your math bud, they didn't take 112 shots per game.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-05-2008, 06:51 PM
That is by far the worst formatted post I have ever seen.

And check your math bud, they didn't take 112 shots per game.
Check for yourself. In the 60/61 season. Lakers opponents took 9,010 shots for the whole season. They played 79 games that season. Grab a calculator and do the math with me. Divide 9,010 by 79. You can see for yourself they took 114.05 shots per game that year alone. Now, what happens when an opposing team shoots the ball. Option A: They make it and you take the ball back down court. Option B: They miss it and you have a chance at a defensive rebound and you still get to go down with an offensive posession. Option C they get an offensive rebound where you would continue to have opportunities to get a steal, block and wait for another chance to get another defensive rebound. All these scenarios end up with the old day Lakers having 112 offensive opportunities compared to the 79 attempts these Lakers get on average. That is 33 more offensive and defensive trips up and down the floor for West's 14 year career compared to Kobe's 12 years in the league. I know you don't like that math cause its craps on the 60's infatted stats

GregOden#1
08-05-2008, 06:59 PM
Check for yourself. In the 60/61 season. Lakers opponents took 9,010 shots for the whole season. They played 79 games that season. Grab a calculator and do the math with me. Divide 9,010 by 79. You can see for yourself they took 114.05 shots per game that year alone. Now, what happens when an opposing team shoots the ball. Option A: They make it and you take the ball back down court. Option B: They miss it and you have a chance at a defensive rebound and you still get to go down with an offensive posession. Option C they get an offensive rebound where you would continue to have opportunities to get a steal, block and wait for another chance to get another defensive rebound. All these scenarios end up with the old day Lakers having 112 offensive opportunities compared to the 79 attempts these Lakers get on average. That is 33 more offensive and defensive trips up and down the floor for West's 14 year career compared to Kobe's 12 years in the league. I know you don't like that math cause its craps on the 60's infatted stats

Fact check buddy. Fact check. They dont have most opponents statistics for the 60-61 season.

Second, the Lakers took 8430 shots that entire season, if you are trying to suggest the other teams took 600 more shots for the entire season then you need to rethink that.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-05-2008, 08:06 PM
Fact check buddy. Fact check. They dont have most opponents statistics for the 60-61 season.

Second, the Lakers took 8430 shots that entire season, if you are trying to suggest the other teams took 600 more shots for the entire season then you need to rethink that.

Again I have to prove you wrong? This is becoming a full time job. The difference between the 60 Lakers and their opponents in field goal attempts was 580. Divide that by 79 games and its only 7.34 more shots. Offensive rebounds and foul calls create the difference. You are right that they did not keep ALL opponent stats in his early career. But they did keep field goal attempts and points per game in those days. And if you want, you can check the 73/74 season. You know, the year every stat was accounted for along with 2 new ones being steals and blocks. Check the field goal attempt difference between the Lakers and their opponents. It was a difference of 561 in favor of the opposission. I'm doing all this on my phone at work. When I get home in a week Ill give you the web address so you can see

GregOden#1
08-05-2008, 08:16 PM
Again I have to prove you wrong? This is becoming a full time job. The difference between the 60 Lakers and their opponents in field goal attempts was 580. Divide that by 79 games and its only 7.34 more shots. Offensive rebounds and foul calls create the difference. You are right that they did not keep ALL opponent stats in his early career. But they did keep field goal attempts and points per game in those days. And if you want, you can check the 73/74 season. You know, the year every stat was accounted for along with 2 new ones being steals and blocks. Check the field goal attempt difference between the Lakers and their opponents. It was a difference of 561 in favor of the opposission. I'm doing all this on my phone at work. When I get home in a week Ill give you the web address so you can see

Man you got to admit your wrong sometimes, its not healthy being this arrogant. All the stuff before, now this? You cant admit to anything can you.

You also realize that there is no opponent FGA's for the 60-61 season. Instead you took points instead of FGA's when FGA's is empty and points is clearly indicated by PTS. I was hoping you'd admit to that yourself so I woudn't have to make you look like someone who doesn't know what they're doing.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-05-2008, 10:00 PM
Man you got to admit your wrong sometimes, its not healthy being this arrogant. All the stuff before, now this? You cant admit to anything can you.

You also realize that there is no opponent FGA's for the 60-61 season. Instead you took points instead of FGA's when FGA's is empty and points is clearly indicated by PTS. I was hoping you'd admit to that yourself so I woudn't have to make you look like someone who doesn't know what they're doing.
You are right. I'm sorry. Like I said I'm doing this on my phone so it does not show the complete web page. The points looked like they were on the FGA column. But my arguement stays the same. Just now with the correct numbers. In West's career, his teams shot a total of 111,414 times. AVG out to 99.47 shots a game. Kobes Lakers have shot 77,743 times. AVG out to 80.26 shots per game. A 20 % difference for West. West new career stats without taking into account the 3 pt. formula you used cause I don't know how you did it, are 21.6 ppg, 4.64 rpg, 5.36 apg. .474 fg % with a P.E.R. of 22.9 Kobe's stats in West time would be 30 ppg, 6.39 rpg, 5.52 apg, .453 fg % with a career P.E.R. of 23.6. You can use your formula to give West credit for 3's and take away points from Kobe for not having the 3 pointer. Keep in mind, West played 39.2 min per game where as Kobe only played 36.5 mpg. West's shots per game was 20.4. for his career. Kobe's career avg is 18.99 shots per game. Like I said, I hate the stat argument, even though it favors my argument. I just know I would rather have a 6'6 205 pounder with Kobes skills and athletisism. Over a 6'2, 175 pounder in West.

GregOden#1
08-05-2008, 11:49 PM
You are right. I'm sorry. Like I said I'm doing this on my phone so it does not show the complete web page. The points looked like they were on the FGA column. But my arguement stays the same. Just now with the correct numbers. In West's career, his teams shot a total of 111,414 times. AVG out to 99.47 shots a game. Kobes Lakers have shot 77,743 times. AVG out to 80.26 shots per game. A 20 % difference for West. West new career stats without taking into account the 3 pt. formula you used cause I don't know how you did it, are 21.6 ppg, 4.64 rpg, 5.36 apg. .474 fg % with a P.E.R. of 22.9 Kobe's stats in West time would be 30 ppg, 6.39 rpg, 5.52 apg, .453 fg % with a career P.E.R. of 23.6. You can use your formula to give West credit for 3's and take away points from Kobe for not having the 3 pointer. Keep in mind, West played 39.2 min per game where as Kobe only played 36.5 mpg. West's shots per game was 20.4. for his career. Kobe's career avg is 18.99 shots per game. Like I said, I hate the stat argument, even though it favors my argument. I just know I would rather have a 6'6 205 pounder with Kobes skills and athletisism. Over a 6'2, 175 pounder in West.

West wasn't 6'2 nor was he 175. That's barefoot and college weights while Kobe is listed in shoes, Kobe probably isn't 205 anymore either.

The stats adjustments your using are completely bogus too. West did not average 20 shots per game once you adjust them, he took alot less shots than Kobe did, around 16 to the 19 Kobe averages. The career averages are also bogus, West improved his stats as the game slowed down, and that's screwing with the averages too. You're also not giving him the adjusted assists by adding 30% to them, or accounting for the 3 point shots. AND you havent added steals or blocks to his stats, even though in his final year, despite playing limited minutes he averaged more steals and almost more blocks than Kobe has ever averaged. I bet he probably peaked at 5-6 steals per game, and probably 2 blocks per game, and that is not a joke. You're also including West's final years when he was declining, while only taking Kobe up to now. You are ALSO not factoring in the league average FG%, which in 60-61 was 41.5%, which would also raise West's FG%, not to mention centers took more shots back then than now, so the FG% is actually misrepresenting what West's true increase in FG% would be.

So...even when you give Kobe every single possible advantage you can think of, even when you take everything that could possibly help West, EVEN THEN West is only behind by .7 points in PER.

I think you've lost the "stats argument".

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-06-2008, 11:21 AM
West wasn't 6'2 nor was he 175. That's barefoot and college weights while Kobe is listed in shoes, Kobe probably isn't 205 anymore either.

The stats adjustments your using are completely bogus too. West did not average 20 shots per game once you adjust them, he took alot less shots than Kobe did, around 16 to the 19 Kobe averages. The career averages are also bogus, West improved his stats as the game slowed down, and that's screwing with the averages too. You're also not giving him the adjusted assists by adding 30% to them, or accounting for the 3 point shots. AND you havent added steals or blocks to his stats, even though in his final year, despite playing limited minutes he averaged more steals and almost more blocks than Kobe has ever averaged. I bet he probably peaked at 5-6 steals per game, and probably 2 blocks per game, and that is not a joke. You're also including West's final years when he was declining, while only taking Kobe up to now. You are ALSO not factoring in the league average FG%, which in 60-61 was 41.5%, which would also raise West's FG%, not to mention centers took more shots back then than now, so the FG% is actually misrepresenting what West's true increase in FG% would be.

So...even when you give Kobe every single possible advantage you can think of, even when you take everything that could possibly help West, EVEN THEN West is only behind by .7 points in PER.
I think you've lost the "stats argument".
Okay fine, West was 6'3 1/2 185 pound monster getting 6 steals a game along with 2 blocks. That didn't feel silly just typing that? I know athletes were a lot shorter on average in those days but I didn't know Mugsey Boges and Spudd Webb were playing against Jerry on a consistant basis. So in your words Jerry West blocks just as much as Shaq. And if you don't like my formula, do it for yourself. But why stop at 30 % more assisit, add 50 %. Please use your own formula that you feel comfortable with for each players entire career. Kobes will be better.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-06-2008, 11:38 AM
Also GO#1 Don't forget West' opponents also took 20 more shot that Kobes opponents. So all together its 40 shots a game more for West. So while your giving West 9 three pointers a game making 4 of them and saying they were jipping him on assisit, don't forget to take away his 40 more shots while taking into account about 18 of them were probably made leaving a total of 22 available rebounds more for west. And don't forget to subtract 20 % from West's 6 steals and 2 blocks per game..... LOL... And to make it fair, all stats should be given at a 36 minute per game average to be able to really judge what each players impact on the game really was. P.S. I did not calculate the PER. for each player. They were listed. I don't think the PER would be affected by pace.

GregOden#1
08-06-2008, 04:55 PM
Also GO#1 Don't forget West' opponents also took 20 more shot that Kobes opponents. So all together its 40 shots a game more for West. So while your giving West 9 three pointers a game making 4 of them and saying they were jipping him on assisit, don't forget to take away his 40 more shots while taking into account about 18 of them were probably made leaving a total of 22 available rebounds more for west. And don't forget to subtract 20 % from West's 6 steals and 2 blocks per game..... LOL... And to make it fair, all stats should be given at a 36 minute per game average to be able to really judge what each players impact on the game really was. P.S. I did not calculate the PER. for each player. They were listed. I don't think the PER would be affected by pace.

You do not take away 40 shot attempts away from West, it might affect his rebound total but he didn't rebound well offensively, so the difference is moot.

And yes, PER is affected by the era changes. If a player gets a lot more steals than the average, then his PER will be much higher. Same goes for blocks, and when the 30%+ assists are taken into account that also adds to it. Jerry West's PER was not 22.9, it was much much higher then that.


Okay fine, West was 6'3 1/2 185 pound monster getting 6 steals a game along with 2 blocks. That didn't feel silly just typing that? I know athletes were a lot shorter on average in those days but I didn't know Mugsey Boges and Spudd Webb were playing against Jerry on a consistant basis. So in your words Jerry West blocks just as much as Shaq. And if you don't like my formula, do it for yourself. But why stop at 30 % more assisit, add 50 %. Please use your own formula that you feel comfortable with for each players entire career. Kobes will be better.

Players were not shorter back then, they were measured barefoot compared to today in shoes. Even so, Spudd Webb and Mugsey are terrific ball handlers, most short people are. If Jerry West played them every game it would make his steals total that much impressive.

And Shaquille O'Neal blocked 2.4 per game on average, I said West probably approached 2.0 blocks per game in some seasons and thats before you adjust for the era's. Way to stretch what I said.

Also, the 30% more assists is verifiable, assists were handed out 30% less than today because you werent awarded an assists if a player took steps with the ball, only spot up jumpers. So you add 30% assists to anyone who played then.

Once you make these changes, and all you have to do is check Kobe's best season (PER wise, so statistically its his best) vs. West's best season (IMO, not PER wise as he has a season tied with it and a season above it), West comes out ahead.

mikeyvee
08-06-2008, 08:41 PM
i pretty much agree with that whole list

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-06-2008, 11:38 PM
You do not take away 40 shot attempts away from West, it might affect his rebound total but he didn't rebound well offensively, so the difference is moot.

And yes, PER is affected by the era changes. If a player gets a lot more steals than the average, then his PER will be much higher. Same goes for blocks, and when the 30%+ assists are taken into account that also adds to it. Jerry West's PER was not 22.9, it was much much higher then that.



Players were not shorter back then, they were measured barefoot compared to today in shoes. Even so, Spudd Webb and Mugsey are terrific ball handlers, most short people are. If Jerry West played them every game it would make his steals total that much impressive.

And Shaquille O'Neal blocked 2.4 per game on average, I said West probably approached 2.0 blocks per game in some seasons and thats before you adjust for the era's. Way to stretch what I said.

Also, the 30% more assists is verifiable, assists were handed out 30% less than today because you werent awarded an assists if a player took steps with the ball, only spot up jumpers. So you add 30% assists to anyone who played then.

Once you make these changes, and all you have to do is check Kobe's best season (PER wise, so statistically its his best) vs. West's best season (IMO, not PER wise as he has a season tied with it and a season above it), West comes out ahead.

When I mentioned Mugsey and Spudd, it was more of a snide remark referring to West's blocks. Not his steals. I don't doubt his steals. As you said earlier, you could not cross over. And back then they actually had to dribble. I would imagine it might be easier to swipe the ball.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-07-2008, 12:27 AM
Also, if your going to go to the extremes of adding 30 % assist, 4 points for 3 pointers that you assume he made, at least one season of averaging 6 steals and 2 blocks a game. Saying he actually shot a better % because the league shot a bad percentage and the centers took a lot of shots back in the 60-61 season???? And all the other things you tried to add for West's sake, are you going to tell me you won't take into account the huge amount of extra rebounding opportunities West had because Quote " West was not a good offensive rebounder anyways"???? You also never mention free throw shooting % either cause it goes to Kobe. But I must ask you, how did a small player like West average 9.4 free throws per game for his entire career while Kobe has only averaged 7.7? Especially as you said they never called fouls in those days. They must have been butchering poor little West. Also, you keep taking averages from one season. Why exclude both players full body of work? There is so much to judge from I find it silly to just let it go by the waist side. Do your stat skewing for each players entire career. Also it should be taken at 36 minutes per game to see each players actual impact. Its not fair to compare West's vs Kobe's stats while West averaged 3 more minutes a game. After all your adjustments, Kobe will have the better stats, more acculades, more championships, all at the age of 29. Plus the fact that Kobe is the bigger, stronger player. Known as a defensive stopper. With no offensive weakness. Plus your lucky to do this arguement right now. Kobe is going to be adding to his per game stats, accolades, and quite possibly rings in the coming years. Now, in your reply. Please don't skip all that I have posted about their career stats to go to that last point I made about him having more years left in him. I already know what your going to say about that. So please, for me, and especially for yourself. Do their career stats. And we can finally end this debate. I'm tired of sniffing Kobe's jock

GregOden#1
08-07-2008, 01:52 AM
When I mentioned Mugsey and Spudd, it was more of a snide remark referring to West's blocks. Not his steals. I don't doubt his steals. As you said earlier, you could not cross over. And back then they actually had to dribble. I would imagine it might be easier to swipe the ball.

He had the same wingspan as Wilt Chamberlain, or at least close to it.


Also, if your going to go to the extremes of adding 30 % assist, 4 points for 3 pointers that you assume he made, at least one season of averaging 6 steals and 2 blocks a game.

That isn't extreme at all.


Saying he actually shot a better % because the league shot a bad percentage and the centers took a lot of shots back in the 60-61 season????

So you're going to use the argument that the lead shoots worse in Kobe's era to compare him to Jordan but wont do the same for West?

And all the other things you tried to add for West's sake, are you going to tell me you won't take into account the huge amount of extra rebounding opportunities West had because Quote " West was not a good offensive rebounder anyways"???? [/QUOTE]

I dont think you understand. West was not a good offensive rebounder because he shot from mostly outside. You are trying to argue that you take all 40 shots into account as if it would make a big difference. It doesn't even matter anyway because rebounding isn't important for shooting guards / point guards. So its not as if someone's opinion would be swayed because West has an extra .2 rebounds per game where he shoudn't.


You also never mention free throw shooting % either cause it goes to Kobe.
Its factored into PER/TS%. It doesn't really make a difference, as Kobe averages a whopping 2.5% more than West.

But I must ask you, how did a small player like West average 9.4 free throws per game for his entire career while Kobe has only averaged 7.7? Especially as you said they never called fouls in those days.[/QUOTE]
Apply pace and I wont be that high. I also never said they never called fouls back then, I said they were alot looser on the fouls, doesn't mean less were called, as players take advantage of relaxed rules.


They must have been butchering poor little West.

Yeah, he broke his nose 9 times in his career, among other injuries.


Also, you keep taking averages from one season. Why exclude both players full body of work?

Because Kobe's isn't done yet and we havent seen his decline, comparing Kobe and West's full career would be pretty stupid. If we're going to compare them, we'd take their prime years. I didn't feel like doing that, so instead I just took their best season, I mean really you'd think with Kobe having an "historic NBA season" in 05-06 he'd have been able to beat West's third best season right?


There is so much to judge from I find it silly to just let it go by the waist side. Do your stat skewing for each players entire career. Also it should be taken at 36 minutes per game to see each players actual impact. Its not fair to compare West's vs Kobe's stats while West averaged 3 more minutes a game.

Its not my fault Kobe was on the bench his first two years. Its also going to end up helping West because if I was to only take into account their prime years Kobe will have played more MPG than he has.


Known as a defensive stopper.

West was better.


Plus your lucky to do this arguement right now. Kobe is going to be adding to his per game stats, accolades, and quite possibly rings in the coming years. Now, in your reply. Please don't skip all that I have posted about their career stats to go to that last point I made about him having more years left in him. I already know what your going to say about that. So please, for me, and especially for yourself. Do their career stats. And we can finally end this debate. I'm tired of sniffing Kobe's jock

Okely Dokely.

Gonna use his career average of 3.3 steals and 0.9 blocks (per 39), that's really alot under what it should be but whatever.


PPG RPG APG SPG BPG FG%
24.2 4.4 6.6 2.5 0.649 48%
24.6 5.2 4.5 1.5 0.59 45%
West wins easy. More efficient, more assists, more steals/blocks. And I doubt he turns it over as much as Kobe.

So. Even with giving Kobe several advantages like giving West substantially less steals and blocks, taking West's declining years and giving them both per 36 numbers, West comes out on top.

Combine that with the DPOY level defense, excellent leadership, arguably the most clutch ever and the heroic efforts in the playoffs, you'd have to be crazy to pick Kobe over West.

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-07-2008, 10:31 PM
He had the same wingspan as Wilt Chamberlain, or at least close to it.



That isn't extreme at all.



So you're going to use the argument that the lead shoots worse in Kobe's era to compare him to Jordan but wont do the same for West?

And all the other things you tried to add for West's sake, are you going to tell me you won't take into account the huge amount of extra rebounding opportunities West had because Quote " West was not a good offensive rebounder anyways"????

I dont think you understand. West was not a good offensive rebounder because he shot from mostly outside. You are trying to argue that you take all 40 shots into account as if it would make a big difference. It doesn't even matter anyway because rebounding isn't important for shooting guards / point guards. So its not as if someone's opinion would be swayed because West has an extra .2 rebounds per game where he shoudn't.


Its factored into PER/TS%. It doesn't really make a difference, as Kobe averages a whopping 2.5% more than West.

But I must ask you, how did a small player like West average 9.4 free throws per game for his entire career while Kobe has only averaged 7.7? Especially as you said they never called fouls in those days.[/QUOTE]
Apply pace and I wont be that high. I also never said they never called fouls back then, I said they were alot looser on the fouls, doesn't mean less were called, as players take advantage of relaxed rules.



Yeah, he broke his nose 9 times in his career, among other injuries.



Because Kobe's isn't done yet and we havent seen his decline, comparing Kobe and West's full career would be pretty stupid. If we're going to compare them, we'd take their prime years. I didn't feel like doing that, so instead I just took their best season, I mean really you'd think with Kobe having an "historic NBA season" in 05-06 he'd have been able to beat West's third best season right?



Its not my fault Kobe was on the bench his first two years. Its also going to end up helping West because if I was to only take into account their prime years Kobe will have played more MPG than he has.



West was better.



Okely Dokely.

Gonna use his career average of 3.3 steals and 0.9 blocks (per 39), that's really alot under what it should be but whatever.


PPG RPG APG SPG BPG FG%
24.2 4.4 6.6 2.5 0.649 48%
24.6 5.2 4.5 1.5 0.59 45%
West wins easy. More efficient, more assists, more steals/blocks. And I doubt he turns it over as much as Kobe.

So. Even with giving Kobe several advantages like giving West substantially less steals and blocks, taking West's declining years and giving them both per 36 numbers, West comes out on top.

Combine that with the DPOY level defense, excellent leadership, arguably the most clutch ever and the heroic efforts in the playoffs, you'd have to be crazy to pick Kobe over West.[/QUOTE]

Talk about skewing stats. Kobe's is just about right. But West's are off.

Bryants per 36 min stats:

24.7 pts, 5.2 reb. 4.6 assist,1.5 steals .06 blocks. Per 23.6 True shooting .557

West's per 36 min stats: Before Era adjustment

24.8 pts, 5.3 reb., 6.1 assist 3.3 steals, 1 block

After Era adjustment ( Which I took away 20 % of all West's stats due to the extra possessions his teams had due to the era. I also added your 30% extra assist already plus I took your advise and and used Ray Allen's 3 point attempt average. He like West after you do the era adjustment has taken 16.5 shots per game for his 12 year career. He has averaged 6.1 three point shots for his career. But at a 36 min average he has taken 5.9 3 point shots per game. I will give you your requested average of 44% made which would make him the 4th highest in NBA history. Which will give him an extra 3.304 points per game.

So West estimated stats for today's era would be

23.14 points 4.24 rebounds 6.34 assist 2.5 steals .7 blocks with a true shooting % of .550 We dont know he PER cause as you pointed out, his per of 22.9 was without steals or blocks. But after the era adjustments of his career stats being dropped, and adding the 2.5 steals and .7 blocks to his PER it might even back out to the same average. I really dont know how they calculate that stuff.

But the overall end of the stat discussion has Kobe averaging 1.56 more points, 1 rebound (which I'm still protesting due to the 40 extra opportunities West had)

West averaging 1.7 more assist, 1 steal and .01 blocks.

Kobe has the higher PER 23.6 TO 22.9 and the higher true shooting %

So in my opinion the stat argument will go to the eye of the beholder. It depends on what you like your Shooting guards to do. Make more baskets or dish more assist. The steals average never really tells me how good a defender a person is. A.I averages 2.3 steals a game for his career and to me and most people he is a horrible defender. Kobe is taller than West so he should get more rebounds. And they both average roughly the same amount of blocks.

I have to admit that I thought Kobe would be a lot more ahead in stats once you did the era adjustments. But totally forgot about West not having a three point line and adding 30 % more assist ( has that been documented or is that just an opinion)

So that is the stats argument which could go either way I guess:rolleyes: I guess we will have to wait till Kobe's career is over in 5 or 6 years to do the accolades and rings argument. ( Kobe is already winning those categories but in six years it wont be close :)) Nice debating with you.

GregOden#1
08-07-2008, 11:30 PM
Talk about skewing stats. Kobe's is just about right. But West's are off.

I calculated Kobe's averages myself. That's why there's a difference, they had access to more digits. It doesn't make a difference.


Bryants per 36 min stats:

24.7 pts, 5.2 reb. 4.6 assist,1.5 steals .06 blocks. Per 23.6 True shooting .557

West's per 36 min stats: Before Era adjustment

24.8 pts, 5.3 reb., 6.1 assist 3.3 steals, 1 block

After Era adjustment ( Which I took away 20 % of all West's stats due to the extra possessions his teams had due to the era. I also added your 30% extra assist already plus I took your advise and and used Ray Allen's 3 point attempt average. He like West after you do the era adjustment has taken 16.5 shots per game for his 12 year career. He has averaged 6.1 three point shots for his career. But at a 36 min average he has taken 5.9 3 point shots per game. I will give you your requested average of 44% made which would make him the 4th highest in NBA history. Which will give him an extra 3.304 points per game.

I did the math fine. There's a roughly 17% difference between the amount of possessions career wise.


So West estimated stats for today's era would be

23.14 points 4.24 rebounds 6.34 assist 2.5 steals .7 blocks with a true shooting % of .550 We dont know he PER cause as you pointed out, his per of 22.9 was without steals or blocks. But after the era adjustments of his career stats being dropped, and adding the 2.5 steals and .7 blocks to his PER it might even back out to the same average. I really dont know how they calculate that stuff.

No. His PER is guaranteed to go up, I'd say 10-15% at least. PER uses league averages, if nobody averages any blocks or steals everyone is equal in that department. But West wasn't average, he was way above the average, which would make his PER go up. Same with the assists.


But the overall end of the stat discussion has Kobe averaging 1.56 more points, 1 rebound (which I'm still protesting due to the 40 extra opportunities West had)

West averaging 1.7 more assist, 1 steal and .01 blocks.

But you did the math wrong.


Kobe has the higher PER 23.6 TO 22.9 and the higher true shooting %

TS% factors in 3 point shooting, which you didn't re-calculate after we added it in for West's stats, the difference between him and Kobe unadjusted is .006, its guaranteed to go much higher once we adjust.


So in my opinion the stat argument will go to the eye of the beholder. It depends on what you like your Shooting guards to do. Make more baskets or dish more assist. The steals average never really tells me how good a defender a person is. A.I averages 2.3 steals a game for his career and to me and most people he is a horrible defender. Kobe is taller than West so he should get more rebounds. And they both average roughly the same amount of blocks.

I gave Kobe the benefit of lowering West's career average to what his average was in his final year, same with his steals. The fact that a 35 year old Jerry West is a comparable shot blocker (and better stealer) to a Kobe Bryant who not only has that advantage over West but also because he's never declined, and that is more telling than anything.


I have to admit that I thought Kobe would be a lot more ahead in stats once you did the era adjustments. But totally forgot about West not having a three point line and adding 30 % more assist ( has that been documented or is that just an opinion)

I forget the math behind it, which is strange because its pretty simply if I remember correctly. But the fact that only 5 different players are in the top 100 in assists per game for a season that also played before 1975 should be enough evidence that assists werent handed out nearly as much, and I remember that number being 30% less.

In the end, keeping in mind my math was correct apart from the margin of error in Kobe's per36 stats, and that I forgot to mention TS% I'd say West is a clear winner in the stats department.

Besides, this argument is moot anyway, because Jerry West was and always has been a point guard. He's mislabeled, that's why in the ESPN GOAT polls he got votes for the point guard spot (funny though, if you take those points and add them to West at SG, he beats Kobe, so even ESPN, ie the media, doesn't agree that Kobe is better)

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-08-2008, 12:22 AM
I calculated Kobe's averages myself. That's why there's a difference, they had access to more digits. It doesn't make a difference.



I did the math fine. There's a roughly 17% difference between the amount of possessions career wise.



No. His PER is guaranteed to go up, I'd say 10-15% at least. PER uses league averages, if nobody averages any blocks or steals everyone is equal in that department. But West wasn't average, he was way above the average, which would make his PER go up. Same with the assists.



But you did the math wrong.



TS% factors in 3 point shooting, which you didn't re-calculate after we added it in for West's stats, the difference between him and Kobe unadjusted is .006, its guaranteed to go much higher once we adjust.



I gave Kobe the benefit of lowering West's career average to what his average was in his final year, same with his steals. The fact that a 35 year old Jerry West is a comparable shot blocker (and better stealer) to a Kobe Bryant who not only has that advantage over West but also because he's never declined, and that is more telling than anything.



I forget the math behind it, which is strange because its pretty simply if I remember correctly. But the fact that only 5 different players are in the top 100 in assists per game for a season that also played before 1975 should be enough evidence that assists werent handed out nearly as much, and I remember that number being 30% less.

In the end, keeping in mind my math was correct apart from the margin of error in Kobe's per36 stats, and that I forgot to mention TS% I'd say West is a clear winner in the stats department.

Besides, this argument is moot anyway, because Jerry West was and always has been a point guard. He's mislabeled, that's why in the ESPN GOAT polls he got votes for the point guard spot (funny though, if you take those points and add them to West at SG, he beats Kobe, so even ESPN, ie the media, doesn't agree that Kobe is better)

But the difference in the careers for West teams FGA and Kobe's teams field goal average is 99.47 for West and 79.68 for Kobe. Its not 17 percent. Its 20 percent. Your still calculating from the 69-70 season for West vs the 05-06 season for Kobe where the difference was 17% more possessions for West. So, I'm pretty sure my averages are right. Of course this is just speculation. We dont know how West would truly do against todays players and we dont know how Kobe would have done in West's era. Just happy we are talking about 2 Lakers fighting for such a great honor.

Like I said about steals averages for players. They dont tell me how great a defender a player is or was. I'm not doubting West ability to defend. But Iverson averages 2.3 steals a game also. But he is a horrible defender. Kobe never gets steals, but I have seen him guard some of this generations best scorers and have some success against them. He is this team USA's best parameter defender. His height, quickness, athleticism along with his willingness to take the challenge make him a great defender (when he wants to be) Not how many steals he gets. MJ averaged more steals than Pippen but Pippen was the defensive stopper on that team.

Oh, and by the way, I forgot to reply to your response to my questioning you saying West shooting percentage was actually higher because the league shot 41%. When I made the Bryant VS Jordan thread, and posted how MJ's % was a little above the league average for his 14 year career. Then when I posted Kobe's shooting % is above the league average during his 12 years, I was not saying Kobe's would be higher. I was just saying just looking at 49 percent to 45 % does not tell the whole story. Their average vs the league average at the time is what tells more about a player than just seeing big numbers under a stat line where everyone in that era had big numbers. West shot well above the League average for his ERA which is really impressive.

In the end, after studying all of West's achievements, I have a greater respect for his career. I know I wont change your mind about this, and you wont change mine, but I did learn some things if it makes you feel better. I have never had a debate over two players before. It was fun. Talk to you later.