PDA

View Full Version : If we had a playoff mvp....



PinnacleFlash
10-09-2011, 05:50 PM
.....who would they be? Lets start with the post-Jordan era.

2000 - Shaquille O'Neal
2001 - Shaquille O'Neal
2002 - Shaquille O'Neal
2003 - Tim Duncan
2004 - I really don't know.
2005 - Tim Duncan
2006 - Dwyane Wade
2007 - Tim Duncan
2008 - Kobe Bryant
2009 - Kobe Bryant
2010 - Kobe Bryant
2011 - Dirk Nowitzki

beliges
10-09-2011, 05:57 PM
01 or 02 would be Kobe over Shaq. 04 should just be Detroit D. One of the best defensive teams of all time.

PinnacleFlash
10-09-2011, 06:17 PM
01 or 02 would be Kobe over Shaq. 04 should just be Detroit D. One of the best defensive teams of all time.

:facepalm:

beliges
10-09-2011, 06:22 PM
:facepalm:

Most certainly. Its no surprise to any NBA fan that Kobe carried the Lakers to a large degree during the post season in 01 and 02. Obviously he was their #1 go to guy during crunch time, and he delivered time and time again. Shaq absolutely dominated the Finals but if youre talking about a playoff MVP, then Kobe would have won either in 01 or 02.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 06:24 PM
2000 - Shaquille O'Neal
2001 - Shaquille O'Neal
2002 - Shaquille O'Neal
2003 - Tim Duncan
2004 - Shaquille O'Neal
2005 - Tim Duncan or Ginobili
2006 - Dwyane Wade
2007 - Tim Duncan
2008 - Kevin Garnett
2009 - Kobe Bryant
2010 - Pau Gasol
2011 - Dirk Nowitzki

----------------------------------------------------------

@Beliges : Shaq was light years better then Kobe from 00-02

2002 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 28.4 --- 3.8
Kobe Bryant : 20.5 --- 2.6

2001 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 28.7 --- 3.7 (WSP48 - .260)
Kobe Bryant : 25 --- 3.8 (WSP48 - .260)

2000 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 30.5 --- 4.7
Kobe Bryant : 19.3 --- 2.1

This doesn't even take into account the fact that every team in that time span was focused on stopping Shaq especially in 01 after the incredible Dominance of his 00 season.

This made it much easier on Kobe who could get into the lane or create shots for himself much easier thanks to Shaq downlow acting like a giant blackhole on the opposing teams defense.

KnicksorBust
10-09-2011, 06:28 PM
2000 - Shaquille O'Neal
2001 - Shaquille O'Neal
2002 - Shaquille O'Neal
2003 - Tim Duncan
2004 - Shaquille O'Neal
2005 - Tim Duncan or Ginobili
2006 - Dwyane Wade
2007 - Tim Duncan
2008 - Kevin Garnett
2009 - Kobe Bryant
2010 - Pau Gasol
2011 - Dirk Nowitzki

----------------------------------------------------------

@Beliges : Shaq was light years better then Kobe from 00-02

2002 :
Post Season PER/WShares=
Shaquille Oneal : 28.4 --- 3.8
Kobe Bryant : 20.5 --- 2.6

2001 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 28.7 --- 3.7 (WSP48 - .260)
Kobe Bryant : 25 --- 3.8 (WSP48 - .260)

2000 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 30.5 --- 4.7
Kobe Bryant : 19.3 --- 2.1

Thist list is pretty good. I'd probably go with Ben Wallace. Definately tough with Rip leading the scoring and Chauncey earning his "Mr. Big Shot" nickname that year.

PinnacleFlash
10-09-2011, 06:29 PM
Yeah Shaq was not that good in 2004, but if you are just judging by boxscores, maybe, but he wasn't that good. Kevin Garnett was better than Shaq in 2004 playoffs, IMO.

beliges
10-09-2011, 06:32 PM
2000 - Shaquille O'Neal
2001 - Shaquille O'Neal
2002 - Shaquille O'Neal
2003 - Tim Duncan
2004 - Shaquille O'Neal
2005 - Tim Duncan or Ginobili
2006 - Dwyane Wade
2007 - Tim Duncan
2008 - Kevin Garnett
2009 - Kobe Bryant
2010 - Pau Gasol
2011 - Dirk Nowitzki

----------------------------------------------------------

@Beliges : Shaq was light years better then Kobe from 00-02

2002 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 28.4 --- 3.8
Kobe Bryant : 20.5 --- 2.6

2001 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 28.7 --- 3.7 (WSP48 - .260)
Kobe Bryant : 25 --- 3.8 (WSP48 - .260)

2000 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 30.5 --- 4.7
Kobe Bryant : 19.3 --- 2.1

Im not saying Kobe was light years ahead of Shaq or anything but in the 01 and 02 playoffs excluding the Finals, Kobe was arguably the MVP of that team. And may i just remind you that youre using things such as PER and WS and other completely fabricated statistics that are substantially inaccurate and largely irrelevant.

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 06:33 PM
2000 - Shaquille O'Neal
2001 - Shaquille O'Neal
2002 - Shaquille O'Neal
2003 - Tim Duncan
2004 - Shaquille O'Neal
2005 - Tim Duncan or Ginobili
2006 - Dwyane Wade
2007 - Tim Duncan
2008 - Kevin Garnett
2009 - Kobe Bryant
2010 - Pau Gasol
2011 - Dirk Nowitzki

----------------------------------------------------------

@Beliges : Shaq was light years better then Kobe from 00-02

2002 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 28.4 --- 3.8
Kobe Bryant : 20.5 --- 2.6

2001 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 28.7 --- 3.7 (WSP48 - .260)
Kobe Bryant : 25 --- 3.8 (WSP48 - .260)

2000 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 30.5 --- 4.7
Kobe Bryant : 19.3 --- 2.1

This doesn't even take into account the fact that every team in that time span was focused on stopping Shaq especially in 01 after the incredible Dominance of his 00 season.

This made it much easier on Kobe who could get into the lane or create shots for himself much easier thanks to Shaq downlow acting like a giant blackhole on the opposing teams defense.

:facepalm:

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 06:33 PM
I dunno, I specifically remember Shaq beasting in 04 against the Spurs and severely outplaying Duncan and even against Detroit he looked scary Dominant at times.

I am not sure there was a MVPlayer over the course of the 04 playoffs then Shaq was.

He had lost weight since the 03 season and looked great to me.

If anything he was worse statistically in the other series because Kobe was taking over the offense and not running it through the post as much.

G4 VS Pistons : 36 / 20 on 76%FG :surrender: (Cant believe they lost that game)

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 06:35 PM
Shaq was not light years better

2001 Postseason
29.4 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 6.1 APG average
33.3 PPG, 7 RPG, 7 APG in the 2001 WCF
35 PPG, 9 RPG, 4.3 APG in the 2001 WCSF

Phil Jackson said "Kobe led the Lakers to the finals" in 2001

beliges
10-09-2011, 06:36 PM
2000 - Shaquille O'Neal
2001 - Shaquille O'Neal
2002 - Shaquille O'Neal
2003 - Tim Duncan
2004 - Shaquille O'Neal
2005 - Tim Duncan or Ginobili
2006 - Dwyane Wade
2007 - Tim Duncan
2008 - Kevin Garnett
2009 - Kobe Bryant
2010 - Pau Gasol
2011 - Dirk Nowitzki

----------------------------------------------------------

@Beliges : Shaq was light years better then Kobe from 00-02

2002 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 28.4 --- 3.8
Kobe Bryant : 20.5 --- 2.6

2001 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 28.7 --- 3.7 (WSP48 - .260)
Kobe Bryant : 25 --- 3.8 (WSP48 - .260)

2000 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 30.5 --- 4.7
Kobe Bryant : 19.3 --- 2.1

This doesn't even take into account the fact that every team in that time span was focused on stopping Shaq especially in 01 after the incredible Dominance of his 00 season.

This made it much easier on Kobe who could get into the lane or create shots for himself much easier thanks to Shaq downlow acting like a giant blackhole on the opposing teams defense.

You do realize that Kobe has won more titles without Shaq than Shaq has without Kobe right? Certainly Shaq made it easier on Kobe but at the same time Kobe made it that much easier on Shaq. But when it was all said and done and Shaq retired, Kobe winning two titles without Shaq vs Shaq's one without Kobe should tell you who made what more easier for who.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 06:37 PM
Shaq was not light years better

2001 Postseason
29.4 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 6.1 APG average
33.3 PPG, 7 RPG, 7 APG in the 2001 WCF
35 PPG, 9 RPG, 4.3 APG in the 2001 WCSF

Phil Jackson said "Kobe led the Lakers to the finals" in 2001

Great Numbers but Shaq's were better.

Plus he was the teams defensive anchor and had to deal with constant double/triple teams which Kobe did not.

Plus his production was just far better then Bryants... I mean its not even remotely close.

Not to be immature but Prime Shaq >>>>>>>>>> Kobe.

Kobe was a great player in the early 00's but he wasnt close to Shaq.

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 06:37 PM
2000 - Shaq
2001 - Kobe/Shaq
2002 - Shaq
2003 - Duncan
2004 - Kobe/Shaq
2005 - Duncan/Ginobili
2006 - Wade
2007 - Lebron
2008 - Kobe
2009 - Kobe/Lebron
2010 - Kobe
2011 - Dirk

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 06:40 PM
You do realize that Kobe has won more titles without Shaq than Shaq has without Kobe right? Certainly Shaq made it easier on Kobe but at the same time Kobe made it that much easier on Shaq. But when it was all said and done and Shaq retired, Kobe winning two titles without Shaq vs Shaq's one without Kobe should tell you who made what more easier for who.

:clap:

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 06:45 PM
You do realize that Kobe has won more titles without Shaq than Shaq has without Kobe right? Certainly Shaq made it easier on Kobe but at the same time Kobe made it that much easier on Shaq. But when it was all said and done and Shaq retired, Kobe winning two titles without Shaq vs Shaq's one without Kobe should tell you who made what more easier for who.

You do realize Derek Fisher has won more titles without Shaq then Shaq has won without D.Fish?

That logic is ******** at best.

Shaq was at the end of his Prime when him and Kobe broke up and Kobe was just entering his. Winning titles is more about luck/supporting Casts then anything else and if not for an extreme amount of Luck (Stealing Gasol, Winning in 2010 Despite Kobe's poor play in the LA wins) Kobe would have 0 Rings post Shaq.

What matters when judging players is.

production/performances and impact

impact is generally a mix of production and intagibals.

for example with Shaq you have points/rebounds/assists/blocks etc.. the "production" then you have intagibals like his GOAT ability to attract defensive attention downlow and make the game easier for his teammates and his elite defensive anchoring/shot blocking etc and m2m defense.

any player can get lucky and play at the right time with the right supporting casts and end up with a pile of rings but that doesnt make him a better player invididually.

Shaq has 10+ seasons better then Kobe's absolute best season.

I mean do you really wanna do a comparison? Lets compare their best post seasons (playoffs) followed by their best 5 and 7 year stretch of post seasons.

Shaq : Post Season - PER / WShares
Peak : 31 / 4.7
Top 5 : 30 / 3.9
Top 7 : 29.56 / 3.5

Kobe : Post Season - PER / WShares
Peak : 26.8 / 4.7
Top 5 : 24 / 2.5
Top 7 : 23 / 2.4

Kobe is a GOAT player but he is far from being in Shaq's Tier.

Shaq = Top 3
Kobe = 9-15

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 06:53 PM
Shaq had Wade, Nash, Lebron, and Cs Big 3 after leaving LA
Kobe had Smush, Kwame, Odom, then Gasol

2 rings to 1

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 06:57 PM
Shaq was a shell of himself after the 05 RS and he still managed to lead Miami to a title in 06 with a supporting Cast far weaker then the late 00 Lakers. Kobe meanwhile struggled to win a title with the best cast in the league despite being in his Prime. Imagine if you put 93-04 Shaq on the 06 Miami?? they destroy everyone.

Kobe had
Gasol - Star (Top 3 Big)
Bynum/Odom/Artest/Ariza and imo (Barnes) "Elite Roleplayers"
Walton/Jordan/Shannon/Vuja "decent to average role players"

Gasol matched Bryants Production in the 2010 Playoffs and had more WShares.

Again, Shaq's best 7 Post Seasons absolute embarass Kobe's best PS.

There is no comparison here Shaq was a much much better player.

naps
10-09-2011, 06:57 PM
Shaq had Wade, Nash, Lebron, and Cs Big 3 after leaving LA
Kobe had Smush, Kwame, Odom, then Gasol

2 rings to 1

Shaq was 36 when he got Nash, 37 when he got LeBron, 38 when he got big three. What is your point? Had a prime Shaq played with any of these guys for 8 years, he would have won 6 titles, but instead he had to settle for only 3. Because...hmmm.

Shaq won a title when he was 34. Let's see if Kobe can do it next year. Kobe didn't win any shyt from 2004 to 2007. To make sure he win next time he had to be provided with the hands down best team in the league.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 07:00 PM
People really forget just how good Young and Prime Shaq was, far better then any other player we've seen in the 00's.

Its embarrassing that some people really think Kobe was close to him in the early 00's even though he had far better production every year they were together and was the teams defensive anchor and attracted more defensive attention then any player in the history of the game.

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 07:02 PM
People really forget just how good Young and Prime Shaq was, far better then any other player we've seen in the 00's.

Its embarrassing that some people really think Kobe was close to him in the early 00's even though he had far better production every year they were together and was the teams defensive anchor and attracted more defensive attention then any player in the history of the game.

:facepalm:

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 07:03 PM
Knightstemplar, I know you like Kobe but he simply couldnt and didnt match Shaqs production those years.

And before you blame that on Shaq Kobe never came close to matching Shaqs production/impact in the PS even after he had the team to himself.

Kobe was and is a great player but he was never close to being as good or impactful as young and prime Shaq.

if you think he was then lets just agree to disagree.

By your logic Kobe has a strong case for GOAT also.. and you may possibly believe this.

The best players produce, thats why Jordan/Shaq/Kareem have the best production all time.

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 07:06 PM
Post Kobe's and Shaq's Playoff numbers in 2001 and 2002
how can you say that its embarrassing to think that it was close

Hangtime
10-09-2011, 07:10 PM
Shaq and Kobe greatly benefited from having each other. Two very important pieces to the success of that team. And they both greatly benefited from having Phil Jackson and that system. They both played two distinctive roles that enabled each other to flourish. It's an unstoppable dynamic when you have a dominant inside presence and a athletic perimeter oriented shooter who can penetrate lanes and create his own shot. They go hand in hand. Stop making these ill fated arguments that only one of them benefited from the other guy.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 07:11 PM
2002 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 28.4 --- 3.8
Kobe Bryant : 20.5 --- 2.6

2001 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 28.7 --- 3.7 (WSP48 - .260)
Kobe Bryant : 25 --- 3.8 (WSP48 - .260)

2000 :
Post Season PER/WShares
Shaquille Oneal : 30.5 --- 4.7
Kobe Bryant : 19.3 --- 2.1

Enormous difference in overall production in 00 and 02.

01 Kobe was great but you also have to take into account that after Shaqs legendary 00 season teams were focused on stopping him and this made it much easier for Kobe
(who was still relatively under the radar) to go to work on teams.

Then you add the fact that Shaq still had far better production and was the teams defensive anchor and I dont think the comparison is all that close

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 07:12 PM
not PER and winshares lmao

points, rebounds, assists, steals, you know real stats that matter

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 07:13 PM
PER takes into account points, rebounds, assists and steals. :confused:

Its the best Stat I know of to compare overall production and most people who understand it would agree.

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 07:14 PM
You Are Here > Basketball-Reference.com > About > Calculating PER
AdChoices
Quantcast
Calculating PER

The Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is a per-minute rating developed by ESPN.com columnist John Hollinger. In John's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." It appears from his books that John's database only goes back to the 1988-89 season. I decided to expand on John's work and calculate PER for all players since minutes played were first recorded (1951-52).

All calculations begin with what I am calling unadjusted PER (uPER). The formula is:

uPER = (1 / MP) *
[ 3P
+ (2/3) * AST
+ (2 - factor * (team_AST / team_FG)) * FG
+ (FT *0.5 * (1 + (1 - (team_AST / team_FG)) + (2/3) * (team_AST / team_FG)))
- VOP * TOV
- VOP * DRB% * (FGA - FG)
- VOP * 0.44 * (0.44 + (0.56 * DRB%)) * (FTA - FT)
+ VOP * (1 - DRB%) * (TRB - ORB)
+ VOP * DRB% * ORB
+ VOP * STL
+ VOP * DRB% * BLK
- PF * ((lg_FT / lg_PF) - 0.44 * (lg_FTA / lg_PF) * VOP) ]

Most of the terms in the formula above should be clear, but let me define the less obvious ones:

factor = (2 / 3) - (0.5 * (lg_AST / lg_FG)) / (2 * (lg_FG / lg_FT))
VOP = lg_PTS / (lg_FGA - lg_ORB + lg_TOV + 0.44 * lg_FTA)
DRB% = (lg_TRB - lg_ORB) / lg_TRB

I am not going to go into details about what each component of the PER is measuring; that's why John writes and sells books.

Problems arise for seasons prior to 1979-80:

* 1979-80 — debut of 3-point shot in NBA
* 1977-78 — player turnovers first recorded in NBA
* 1973-74 — player offensive rebounds, steals, and blocked shots first recorded in NBA

The calcuation of uPER obviously depends on these statistics, so here are my solutions for years when the data are missing:

* Zero out three-point field goals, turnovers, blocked shots, and steals.
* Set the league value of possession (VOP) equal to 1.
* Set the defensive rebound percentage (DRB%) equal to 0.7.
* Set player offensive rebounds (ORB) equal to 0.3 * TRB.

Some of these solutions may not be elegant, but I think they are reasonable. After uPER is calculated, an adjustment must be made for the team's pace. The pace adjustment is:

pace adjustment = lg_Pace / team_Pace

League and team pace factors cannot be computed for seasons prior to 1973-74, so I estimate the above using:

estimated pace adjustment = 2 * lg_PPG / (team_PPG + opp_PPG)

To give you an idea of the accuracy of these estimates, here are the actual pace adjustments and the estimated pace adjustments for teams from the Eastern Conference in 2002-03:

Tm Act Est

ATL 1.00 0.99
BOS 1.00 1.02
CHI 0.97 0.98
CLE 0.97 0.99
DET 1.05 1.06
IND 0.99 1.00
MIA 1.04 1.08
MIL 1.01 0.96
NJN 0.99 1.03
NOH 1.01 1.02
NYK 1.00 0.98
ORL 0.98 0.97
PHI 1.00 0.99
TOR 1.01 1.01
WAS 1.03 1.03

For all seasons where actual pace adjustments can be computed, the root mean square error of the estimates is 0.01967.

Now the pace adjustment is made to uPER (I will call this aPER):

aPER = (pace adjustment) * uPER

The final step is to standardize aPER. First, calculate league average aPER (lg_aPER) using player minutes played as the weights. Then, do the following:

PER = aPER * (15 / lg_aPER)

The step above sets the league average to 15 for all seasons.

Those are the gory details. If you have any comments or questions, please send me some feedback.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 07:15 PM
^ thats PER

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 07:16 PM
I know what PER is and unless you dont understand it you'd know it takes into account things like points, rebounds, assists and steals.

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 07:20 PM
2001 Playoffs
Shaq - 30.4 PPG, 15.4 RPG, 3.2 APG, 55.5 FG%, 56.4 TS%
Kobe - 29.4 PPG, 7.3 APG, 6.1 APG, 46.9 FG%, 55.5 TS%

2002 Playoffs
Shaq - 28.5 PPG, 12.6 RPG, 2.8 APG, 52.9 FG%, 56.9 TS%
Kobe - 26.6 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 4.6 APG, 43.4 FG%, 51.1 TS%

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 07:23 PM
It wasn't even remotely close in 00 or 02 so I'll ignore those years.

Even in 01 if you wanna ignore PER, Shaq still had far better numbers and he was the teams defensive anchor and had to deal with constant double/triple teams which opened up the court for Kobe and the rest of the cast.

Then you add his GOAT Finals performance against the DPOY Mutombo and this comparison just seems silly.

2001 :
Shaq - 30.5 / 15.5 / 3.2 / 2.5 BPG --- 55%FG
Kobe - 29 / 7 / 6 --- 47%FG

beliges
10-09-2011, 07:34 PM
First and foremost if you want to use PER or WS or any other fabricated statistical formula for your own amusement then more power to you. But when youre trying to have an educated debate please dont throw in these irrelevant and inaccurate stats. These are fabricated formulas. They hold no weight. And my final point, yes Shaq's postseason #s overall were a little better than Kobe's in 01 and 02, but take into consideration their #s excluding the Finals. Lastly, the reason why im arguing Kobe would have won an NBA Playoffs MVP award (if such an award existed) is because not only were his numbers very similar to Shaq's, but he was the guy down the stretch that made clutch plays happen. He was the guy with the ball in his hands, and he was the guy who made the clutch plays happen. It wasnt Shaq, but it was Kobe. While you can argue Kobe did not deserve a potential NBA Playoffs MVP award, one can easily counter that argument and state that he did.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 08:32 PM
His numbers really werent even remotely close to Shaq's in 00 and 02 and Shaq actually led LA in 4th Quarter Scoring from 00-02 and closed out more games and series.

So no that is an absolutely terrible argument.

The offense was usually run through Shaq in the final minutes of most games despite what you may believe.

Shaq was the main closer for LA in 00 and they basically swept everyone in 01.

Shaq was the closer in the Portland and Sacramento series in 02 (The Season where he shot almost 70% from the line). Kobe was the closer vs the Spurs and that's about it.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 08:37 PM
Most Points Per 4th Quarter
NBA Finals Past 20 Seasons

1995 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5
2000 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5
1997 Michael Jordan 10.7
2011 Dirk Nowitzki 10.3
1993 Michael Jordan 10.3

02 CNFinalz VS SAC 4QScoring
Shaq
G6: 12
G7 + OT : 15

Kobe
G6: 11
G7 + 0T : 6

02 First-Round VS POR 4QScoring
Shaq
G2: 8
G3: 8

Kobe
G2: 1
G3: 6

BTW : PER is the best stat we have for taking into account overall production.

Kobe's production was mediocre compared to Shaq's and it reflects that way in the forumula.

Players like Jordan and Kareem who produced on a similar level to Shaq had similar PER's.

Stop making excuses for your favorite player he just simply wasn't as good as the Shaq/Jordan/Kareems and I dont think that's a diss on him.

Being a top 9-15 player all-time is an extraordinary accomplishment.

beliges
10-09-2011, 08:45 PM
Most Points Per 4th Quarter
NBA Finals Past 20 Seasons

1995 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5
2000 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5
1997 Michael Jordan 10.7
2011 Dirk Nowitzki 10.3
1993 Michael Jordan 10.3

02 CNFinalz VS SAC 4QScoring
Shaq
G6: 12
G7 + OT : 15

Kobe
G6: 11
G7 + 0T : 6

02 First-Round VS POR 4QScoring
Shaq
G2: 8
G3: 8

Kobe
G2: 1
G3: 6

BTW : PER is the best stat we have for taking into account overall production.

Kobe's production was mediocre compared to Shaq's and it reflects that way in the forumula.

Players like Jordan and Kareem who produced on a similar level to Shaq had similar PER's.

Stop making excuses for your favorite player he just simply wasn't as good as the Shaq/Jordan/Kareems and I dont think that's a diss on him.

Being a top 9-15 player all-time is an extraordinary accomplishment.

I think theres a reason why no knowldgeable NBA personell every takes PER into consideration. Its a fabricated formula from an ESPN employee. Its not consistent and it has an enormous margin of error. Like I said you can use it for kicks and giggles if you want, but if youre trying to have a serious debate about the NBA, PER is not something that holds much credibility.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 08:48 PM
I dont see what the problem with using it is.

It does a good job of showing who had the best overall production.
It is very consistent since it uses the same formula for every player.
Why exactly is it a useless fabricated statistic?

If you understood it better I doubt you'd take the stand that its a useless Stat that was fabricated to try and make your favorite player look bad.

I think its a very useful stat and does a wonderful job at showing who produced the most for their teams but if you think its worthless you dont have to pay any attention to it.

beliges
10-09-2011, 08:48 PM
According to PER, LBJ is the 2nd greatest player ever, Bob Petit is better than Duncan and Hakeem, D Wade and Chris Paul are better than Kareem and Magic, and Yao Ming is better than Jerry West. Catch my drift? PER = fun, silly irrelevant stat.

If PER was consistent and not full of illogical outcomes I would give it a chance. But the fact that it is completely inaccurate is the main reason why no real NBA personell ever use it and why it holds no weight in a debate.

Furthermore, the reason why I take the stand that its a fabricated stat is because it is a fabricated stat by an ESPN employee. I mean that part is pretty simple.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 08:51 PM
LBJ production wise is probably one of the greatest players ever.

However using Career PER to judge players is (stupid) because it takes into account early/developmental years and later past prime years.

Its best to compare Prime/Peak PER and 5/7 year stretches of a players best years.

PER is less accurate when going far back in history due to the league not tracking all forms of statistics but if judging players from similar Era's its fine.

beliges
10-09-2011, 09:02 PM
LBJ production wise is probably one of the greatest players ever.

However using Career PER to judge players is (stupid) because it takes into account early/developmental years and later past prime years.

Its best to compare Prime/Peak PER and 5/7 year stretches of a players best years.

PER is less accurate when going far back in history due to the league not tracking all forms of statistics but if judging players from similar Era's its fine.

Ahhh I see, so using PER in and of itslef is stupid but using it to compare players' peak 5/7 years is the best way to compare two players. Hmmm, ok. Sounds like you just keep adding more and more exceptions to try and make PER look relevant.

And no, LBJ PER wise is the 2nd greatest player to ever play in the NBA. Thats what PER says. LBJ production wise puts up great numbers but what you along with most other fans that have annointed LBJ fail to realize is that putting up great numbers means nothing when yo cant translate that into Ws. If LBJ was truly the 2nd greatest player to ever play the game as your trusted PER states, he would not have choked in the Finals last season, he would not have choked against the Celtics in an elimination game a few years back and he would have a couple of titles at this point in his career. Unfortunately for you and your argument however, Lebron has done none of those things and he is nowhere near the 2nd greatest player ever as your beloved PER states he is.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 09:08 PM
Lebrons incredible production allowed him to take a team of scrubs not much better then what Kobe had in the
mid 00's deep into the playoffs multiple times and even to the Finals itself.

Lebrons incredible production was one of the biggest reasons Miami made it to the Finals.

The only thing you can really call him out is his production in the Finals.

LBJ is probably top 5# All-Time in production.

However going by PER Shaq, Jordan, Kareem are all far higher and theres a few others with Career PER's around 26,27 if you remove their last few years of mediocrity.

beliges
10-09-2011, 09:13 PM
What does all time production have to do with anything? Who cares where he stands in ALL TIME PRODUCTION. A player's individual numbers can come as a detriment to their team. LBJ has won nothing thus far in his career. And yes, while his incredible production was one of the main reasons Miami made it to the finals, his incredible lack of clutchness and ability to elevate his game when it mattered the most was the main reason they lost to the Mavs.

And no, going by PER LBJ is the 2nd greatest player ever. Going by PER Neil Johnson, Chris Paul, Bob Petit and D Wade are better than Kareem. Once again, theres a reason why the only people who discuss PER are internet forum dudes. No person involved in the game ever makes decisions regarding players or makes an all time list of greats with PER in mind.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 09:17 PM
No point talking to you if you cant read or understand simple things.

Judging PER over a (Career) is stupid because a players final years, especially players like Shaq and Kareem who saw enormous (enormous) dips in production in their final years will skew the overall result.

If you judge a player by his best 5 or 7 years or even best 10 years if they were a player with great longevity you get a much clearer picture of how well that player produced over his Career.

What else is a player supposed to do other then Produce? The whole point of playing is to score, defend etc.. which will show up on the stat sheet in Points, Rebounds, Assists etc..

A players all time production is a good measure of how good that player was, if you produce more your a better player period. Theres a reason why the GOAT players usually have the highest overall production like Jordan/Shaq/Kareem who are top #3.

Do you want the player who gives u 30/10/10 or the player who gives you 25/5/5... duh?

beliges
10-09-2011, 09:22 PM
No point talking to you if you cant read or understand simple things.

Judging PER over a (Career) is stupid because a players final years, especially players like Shaq and Kareem who saw enormous (enormous) dips in production in their final years will skew the overall result.

If you judge a player by his best 5 or 7 years or even best 10 years if they were a player with great longevity you get a much clearer picture of how well that player produced over his Career.

What else is a player supposed to do other then Produce? The whole point of playing is to score, defend etc.. which will show up on the stat sheet in Points, Rebounds, Assists etc..

A players all time production is a good measure of how good that player was, if you produce more your a better player period. Do you want the player who gives u 30/10/10 or the player who gives you 25/5/5... duh?

Well unfortunately you cannot just take bits and pieces of a player's career and judge them based on that. A players career is one single entity. THe fact that PER doesnt work when judging a player's entire career but only works best when you have to cut bits and pieces of a player's career into the fabricated formula is more than enough evidence to discredit it as a credible way of debating. If PER was a legitimate stat, NBA personell would use it; but the fact that nobody has really adopted the formula as a legitimate way of judging a player should tell you that its not credible.

And if the 25/5/5 player will lead me to multiple championships while the 30/10/10 player will constantly fail when my team goes deep into the playoffs, give me the 25/5/5 player all day.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 09:26 PM
What are you smoking?

You cant take a 5, 7, 12 or 14 straight year stretch of years after a players development seasons and before his decline to judge a player?

Let me make it simpler for you to understand.

Player A has a 40 PER for 12 Seasons and then has a 20 PER for another 12 Seasons.
Player B has a 32 PER for 12 Seasons and then retires.

Career PER
Player A : 30
Player B : 32

Players Career stats often nose dive if they play well past their prime that doesn't change the quality of the seasons they had for the majority of their career before that point.

beliges
10-09-2011, 09:34 PM
[QUOTE=Andrew32;19438360]What are you smoking?

You cant take a 5, 7, 12 or 14 straight year stretch of years after a players development seasons and before his decline to judge a player?

Let me make it simpler for you to understand.

Player A has a 40 PER for 12 Seasons and then has a 20 PER for another 12 Seasons.
Player B has a 32 PER for 12 Seasons and then retires.

Career PER
Player A : 30
Player B : 32

Players Career stats often nose dive if they play well past their prime that doesn't change the quality of the seasons they had for the majority of their career before that point.[/QUOTE

Regardless of how you want backtrack or qualify it, PER as it is is simply an inaccurate way of judging players. I showed you that by giving you an example of what the all time list looks like according to PER and that was completely inaccurate as compared to what a realistic all time list looks like.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 09:35 PM
PER = Reflects overall production.

Better Production = Better Player.

It isn't inaccurate unless improperly used.

Comparing two players in the same year in a similar amount of games/minutes could not be a more accurate or better use of the statistic which is what I did with Shaq and Kobe.

beliges
10-09-2011, 09:39 PM
PER = Reflects overall production.

Better Production = Better Player.

It isn't inaccurate unless improperly used.

Comparing two players in the same year in a similar amount of games/minutes could not be a more accurate or better use of the statistic which is what I did with Shaq and Kobe.

Right, I understand you keep stating this but according to your theory then LBJ is the 2nd greatest player ever, Neil Johnson, Chris Paul and Bob Petit are all better than Duncan, Kareem, and Hakeem and Yao is better than Jerry West. Therefore, your theory, no matter how much you believe in it is simply wrong. Thats all Im saying.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 09:41 PM
No, if you adjust for players with long Careers who still had 12-14 year periods of Dominance LBJ is probably somewhere between 5-10 all time in PER and overall Production.

And rightfully so, if he can match up his production with good Finals performances these next few years and win a few titles he may retire in the 5-10 range all time.

beliges
10-09-2011, 09:48 PM
No, if you adjust for players with long Careers who still had 12-14 year periods of Dominance LBJ is probably somewhere between 5-10 all time in PER and overall Production.

And rightfully so, if he can match up his production with good Finals performances these next few years and win a few titles he may retire in the 5-10 range all time.

Well ya, if LBJ could win 3-5 titles and get a few finals MVPs and have some clutch performances in the post season and will his team to championships then surely he will be somewhere in the top 10. I have no doubt of that. But his PER has nothing to do with that. Its what he ACTUALLY does, not what some fabricated formula tells us.

And I dont care what happens when you adjust an already fabricated formula. The fact that you have to adjust PER in order to get a more accurate finding should tell you that PER is a novelty stat. ONce again, theres a reason why no NBA personell take PER into consideration. Because PER is for internet posters like yourself that like to discuss and debate players in a fun and game-like fashion. But when it comes to committing millions upon millions of dollars to a player for a certain number of years, PER is not taken into consideration.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 09:52 PM
Most stats need to be slightly adjusted to give an accurate picture of how good a player was in his better years.

This Applys to PPG/RPG/APG or really any stat in existence.

beliges
10-09-2011, 10:20 PM
Most stats need to be slightly adjusted to give an accurate picture of how good a player was in his better years.

This Applys to PPG/RPG/APG or really any stat in existence.

Most stats dont need to be adjusted because most stats are actual, raw numbers from a player's performance; not fabricated, make believe formulas.

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 10:22 PM
you cant take a person seriously when they think that Pau Gasol was the best player in the 2010 Playoffs, dont even bother with that guy

beliges
10-09-2011, 10:25 PM
you cant take a person seriously when they think that Pau Gasol was the best player in the 2010 Playoffs, dont even bother with that guy

Believe me i know. I read these forums for some time before i posted. Its just fun toying with him.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 10:47 PM
PER uses the same formula no matter which player your using it on and it directly uses those
"actual raw numbers" from a players performance that you keep referring to.

The player who produces better and has better numbers will have the higher PER... its pretty simple.

BTW : You can easily make a logical and statistical argument for Gasol being MVP of the 2010 Playoffs.

Just because you love Kobe and dont want to acknowledge another players greatness
(Neither does Stern) doesn't change that Fact.

Gasol outperformed Kobe in Round 1 was equally Dominant if not moreso against Utah and was significantly better then Kobe in the 4 Finals Winz.

Not saying you cant make a fair argument for Bryant also but to make it sound like its ridiculous to make a case for Gasol that year is just pure homerism.

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 10:50 PM
PER uses the same formula no matter which player your using it on and it directly uses those actual raw numbers from a player's performance that you keep referring to.

The player who produces better and has better numbers will have the higher PER... its pretty simple.

And you can easily make a logical and statistical argument that Gasol was MVP of the 2010 Playoffs, just because you love Kobe and dont want to acnkowledge another players greatness doesnt change that Gasol outperformed Kobe in Round 1 was equally Dominant if not moreso against Utah and was significantly better then Kobe in the 4 Finals Winz.

Not saying you cant make a fair argument for Bryant also but to make it sound like its ridiculous to make a case for Gasol that year is just pure homerism.

2010 WCF
Kobe - 33.7 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 8.3 apg, 1.2 bpg, 0.8 apg. 52%fg
Pau - 19.7 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 3.7 apg, 1.8 bpg, 0.2 apg, 57%fg

Game 6 clincher
Kobe - 37/6/2
Pau - 9/7/2

:laugh:

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 10:54 PM
When did I ever say Gasol was better in the WCF?

Gasol better in
Round 1
Equal to Kobe in the 2nd Round if not slightly better.
Finals

Kobe better in
WCF


#2.
Lets look at how both Gasol and Kobe performed in the 4 Laker Wins (2010 Finalz)

Kobe
26.5 PPG
10 RPG
3.75 APG
37%FG
2 SPG

Gasol
19 PPG
14 RPG (6 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
5 APG
46%FG
2.5 BPG

In the Games the Lakers won Kobe played poorly and Gasol played well.

Gasol was also much better in the WCF in comparison to Kobes play vs OKC.

beliges
10-09-2011, 10:54 PM
PER uses the same formula no matter which player your using it on and it directly uses those
"actual raw numbers" from a players performance that you keep referring to.

The player who produces better and has better numbers will have the higher PER... its pretty simple.

BTW : You can easily make a logical and statistical argument for Gasol being MVP of the 2010 Playoffs.

Just because you love Kobe and dont want to acknowledge another players greatness doesn't change that Fact.

Gasol outperformed Kobe in Round 1 was equally Dominant if not moreso against Utah and was significantly better then Kobe in the 4 Finals Winz.

Not saying you cant make a fair argument for Bryant also but to make it sound like its ridiculous to make a case for Gasol that year is just pure homerism.

Ya PER takes those "actual, raw numbers" and plugs them in a fabricated formula which in turn generates new, inaccurate and illogical stats.

And ya, you can make a logical argument for Kobe being the MVP of the 01 or 02 playoffs also. Just because you hate Kobe and dont want to acknowledge his greatness doesnt change that fact.

Not saying you cant make a fair argument for Shaq also, but to make it sound like its rediculous to make a case for Kobe one of those two years is just pure hate.

:)

wjmoffatt
10-09-2011, 10:55 PM
Win or Lose the MVP is the most Valuable Player, can't help it if they didn't get the help the other did.


2000- Shaq
2001- Allen Iverson
2002- Shaq
2003- Duncan
2004- No one, was Bryant through game 2 of the finals but when it went to Detriot for games3-5 he lost it.
2005- Manu Ginobali
2006- Wade No contest
2007- Tony Parker
2008- Kobe
2009- Melo (know they lost in the West Finals but Melo out played Kobe in that series, only difference was Pau dominating their bigs and some key turnovers at the end of the games by Billups).
2010- Kobe/Pierce
2011- Dirk
2012- Durant......
2011-

beliges
10-09-2011, 10:56 PM
When did I ever say Gasol was better in the WCF?

Gasol better in
Round 1
Equal to Kobe in the 2nd Round if not slightly better.
Finals

Kobe better in
WCF



Gasol was also much better in the WCF in comparison to Kobes play vs OKC.

clearly :D

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 10:57 PM
When did I ever say Gasol was better in the WCF?

Gasol better in
Round 1
Equal to Kobe in the 2nd Round if not slightly better.
Finals

Kobe better in
WCF



Gasol was also much better in the WCF in comparison to Kobes play vs OKC.

Oh man your hilarious :up:

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 10:57 PM
Ya PER takes those "actual, raw numbers" and plugs them in a fabricated formula which in turn generates new, inaccurate and illogical stats.

And ya, you can make a logical argument for Kobe being the MVP of the 01 or 02 playoffs also. Just because you hate Kobe and dont want to acknowledge his greatness doesnt change that fact.

Not saying you cant make a fair argument for Shaq also, but to make it sound like its rediculous to make a case for Kobe one of those two years is just pure hate.

:)

Actually no you cant.

Gasol was equal to Kobe in PER (Production) in the 2010 Playoffs and led the team in WShares by a significant amount.

Shaq had an enormous lead over Kobe in PER (Production) from 00-04 and a massive lead in WShares over those years.

See the difference? If Kobe had matched Shaqs production I would probably agree with you but he didnt and except for one year (01) he wasnt even within striking distance.

ouch... slammed.

Not to mention Shaq was an Elite Defensice C who anchored the teams defense and in doing so had 10x the impact of Bryant on that end + you must consider he was always the focus of the opposing teams defensive strategys and had to work through double and triple teams while Bryant feasted on mostly single coverage those years (especially 00 and 01).

beliges
10-09-2011, 11:03 PM
Actually no you cant.

Gasol was equal to Kobe in PER (Production) in the 2010 Playoffs and led the team in WShares by a significant amount.

Shaq had an enormous lead over Kobe in PER (Production) from 00-04 and a massive lead in WShares over those years.

See the difference? If Kobe had matched Shaqs production I would probably agree with you but he didnt and except for one year (01) he wasnt even within striking distance.

ouch... slammed.

Well, whats interesting in this argument of yours is the fact that Kobe's #s in the 01 and 02 playoffs were closer to Shaq's than Pau's #s from 09-10 were to Kobe's.

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 11:04 PM
this guy has to be trollin

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 11:14 PM
Well, whats interesting in this argument of yours is the fact that Kobe's #s in the 01 and 02 playoffs were closer to Shaq's than Pau's #s from 09-10 were to Kobe's.

Funny how wrong you are.

Shaq was light years better then Kobe from 00-02

Kobe and Gasol were pretty much neck and neck in 2010.

Lets compare the numbers quick.

PER ||| WShares
Shaq/Kobe 00-02
Shaq : 29.2 /// 4
Kobe : 21.6 /// 2.8

Gasol/Kobe 2010
Gasol : 24 /// 4.3
Kobe : 24.7 /// 3.6

They were pretty much a wash statistically over the course of the playoffs but Gasols clutch play in the Finals combined with his much greater impact on the defensive end is why Gasol was the 2010 Playoff and Finals MVP.

beliges
10-09-2011, 11:29 PM
Funny how wrong you are.

Shaq was light years better then Kobe from 00-02

Kobe and Gasol were pretty much neck and neck in 2010.

Lets compare the numbers quick.

PER ||| WShares
Shaq/Kobe 00-02
Shaq : 29.2 /// 4
Kobe : 21.6 /// 2.8

Gasol/Kobe 2010
Gasol : 24 /// 4.3
Kobe : 24.7 /// 3.6

They were pretty much a wash statistically over the course of the playoffs but Gasols clutch play in the Finals combined with his much greater impact on the defensive end is why Gasol was the 2010 Playoff and Finals MVP.

Wrong? During 01 playoffs Kobe averaged 29-7-6. During the 02 Playoffs he averaged 26-6-5. During the 09 playoffs Pau averaged 18-11-2 while Kobe got 30-5-6. in 10 Pau averaged 19-11-4 while Kobe got 30-6-6.

You see how I didnt use PER or WS or other fabricated stats? I used actual stats.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 11:37 PM
PER = Overall Production (Not PPG)

Gasol equaled Kobe in overall production in the 2010 Playoffs and was better in the Clutch vs their toughest opponent.

Add to that the fact that Gasol was 10x more impactful on the defensive end and its an easy choice to name Gasol MVP of that year.

You can always spot a Homer when they refuse to acknowledge stats that ruin their arguments.

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 11:40 PM
Wrong? During 01 playoffs Kobe averaged 29-7-6. During the 02 Playoffs he averaged 26-6-5. During the 09 playoffs Pau averaged 18-11-2 while Kobe got 30-5-6. in 10 Pau averaged 19-11-4 while Kobe got 30-6-6.

You see how I didnt use PER or WS or other fabricated stats? I used actual stats.

:clap:

2010 Playoffs
Kobe - 29.2 PPG, 6.0 RPG, 5.5 APG
Pau - 19.6 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 3.5 APG

actual stats

beliges
10-09-2011, 11:41 PM
lol whatever, the truth is Gasol equaled Kobe in overall production in the 2010 Playoffs and was better in the Clutch vs their toughest opponent.

Add to that the fact that Gasol was 10x more impactful on the defensive end and its an easy choice to name Gasol MVP of that year.

Uh huh. Actually the truth is up there in the numbers I showed you which clearly show Gasol did not equal Kobe in overall production in the 2010 playoffs. Kobe's numbers clearly show why he was the best player in the playoffs that year and why he willed his team to a championship.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 11:43 PM
Funny because Gasol was better in Round 1, arguably better in the Semi's and was better in the Finals... so why exactly is Kobe the better player?

Lets look at how both Gasol and Kobe performed in the 4 Laker Wins (2010 Finalz)


Kobe
26.5 PPG
10 RPG
3.75 APG
37%FG
2 SPG

Gasol
19 PPG
14 RPG (6 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
5 APG
46%FG
2.5 BPG

In the Games the Lakers won Kobe played poorly and Gasol played well.

PER = Production, Kobe over the course of the playoffs "barely" outproduced Gasol, and Gasol had a huge edge in overall WShares.

When you take into account Gasols far superior offensive efficiency, offensive rebounding, and defense its clear he was the reason LA won in 2010 taking the Lakers onto his back in countless games and series when Kobe couldnt produce.

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 11:45 PM
Kobe
FINALS STATS
Points per game: 28.6
Boards per game: 8.0
Assists per game: 3.9
PER: 26.3

Gasol
FINALS STATS
Points per game: 18.6
Boards per game: 11.6
Blocks per game: 2.6
PER: 25.5

and I can cherrypick too


On the Road (@ Boston) 3 games

Kobe
33.3 PPG
6.3 RPG
3.3 APG
42.3%FG

Gasol
15.3 PPG
9.3 PPG
2.3 APG
44.4%FG

knightstemplar
10-09-2011, 11:45 PM
and the WC Semis
prove that gasol was better LOL

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 11:48 PM
Too bad Kobe only significantly outplayed Gasol in 1 Road Game (G5).

They were Equal in G4, both sucked in G3.

Meanwhile Gasol was better in G1, wayyyyyy better in G2, better in G6 and wayyyyy better in G7.

Key stat : Gasol was better in 3/4 Games they won and both sucked in the other game.

MTar786
10-09-2011, 11:49 PM
lol andrew stop being a filthy hater. kobe was the playoff mvp in 01. and id say they were equally mvps in 2002. but shaq was finals mvp in every threepeat championsip. thats for sure.

in 01 kobe RAPED the kings and spurs.

beliges
10-09-2011, 11:51 PM
Too bad Kobe only significantly outplayed Gasol in 1 Road Game (G5).

They were Equal in G4, both sucked in G3.

Meanwhile Gasol was better in G1, wayyyyyy better in G2, better in G6 and wayyyyy better in G7.

Key stat : Gasol was better in 3/4 Games they won and both sucked in the other game.

Thats great that you have an opinion and everything but I already posted the real numbers above. Your opinion holds no weight against actual numbers. What you think Pau did or how he played means nothing because we have actual numbers that give us the best insight as to who played how.

Andrew32
10-09-2011, 11:52 PM
lol andrew stop being a filthy hater. kobe was the playoff mvp in 01. and id say they were equally mvps in 2002. but shaq was finals mvp in every threepeat championsip. thats for sure.

in 01 kobe RAPED the kings and spurs.

I dont get that.

I agree Kobe raped those teams.

However Shaq "ultra raped" those teams and put up better numbers in doing so and was light years better in the Finals.

So why exactly would Kobe be Playoffs MVP? (Finals are part of the playoffs BTW)

Dont forget Shaq dropped two 40/20 Games on the Kings and was ridiculous against the Spurs.. Kobe was great in those series but your forgetting how ridiculously dominant he was that year and the fact that Shaq had to deal with the bulk of the defensive attention and anchor his teams defense.

I have no problem saying that Shaq was far more valuable in every single series in that years playoffs.

MTar786
10-10-2011, 12:00 AM
Funny because Gasol was better in Round 1, arguably better in the Semi's and was better in the Finals... so why exactly is Kobe the better player?

Lets look at how both Gasol and Kobe performed in the 4 Laker Wins (2010 Finalz)


PER = Production, Kobe over the course of the playoffs "barely" outproduced Gasol, and Gasol had a huge edge in overall WShares.

When you take into account Gasols far superior offensive efficiency, offensive rebounding, and defense its clear he was the reason LA won in 2010 taking the Lakers onto his back in countless games and series when Kobe couldnt produce.

Pau?? Is that you?? if so, how much did mark cuban pay you to play like horse **** in the second round?

knightstemplar
10-10-2011, 12:01 AM
Too bad Kobe only significantly outplayed Gasol in 1 Road Game (G5).

They were Equal in G4, both sucked in G3.

Meanwhile Gasol was better in G1, wayyyyyy better in G2, better in G6 and wayyyyy better in G7.

Key stat : Gasol was better in 3/4 Games they won and both sucked in the other game.

equal in game 4? :laugh:

game 4, Kobe better
Kobe - 33pts, 6 rebs, 2 assts 2 stls
Pau - 21pts, 6 rebs, 3 assts, 2 blks

game 3, even tho they werent that great, Kobe was still better
Kobe - 29pts, 7 rebs, 4 assts, 2 sts, 3 blks
Pau - 13 pts, 10 rebs, 4 assts

Game 1, Kobe did this in 38 minutes, pau played 8 more and Kobe still had the better game
Kobe - 30 pts, 6 assts, 7 rebs, 1 blk shot.
Pau - 23 pts, 14 rebs, 3 assts, 3 blks.

game 6, was a blow-out, I give gasol the edge
Kobe - 26 pts, 11 rebs, 3 assts, 4 stls
Pau - 17 pts, 13 rebs, 9 assts, 3 blks

Game 7, gasol was not way better :facepalm:
Kobe - 23 pts, 15 rebs, 4 assts, 1 steal
Pau - 19 pts, 18 rebs, 4 assts, 2 blks
kobe had 10 4th quarter points, Pau 9
gm 7 was equal

game 5
Kobe - 38 pts, 5rebs, 4 assts 1 steal, 1 blk
Pau - 12 pts, 12 rebs, 2 stls, 0 blks, 1 stl

Andrew32
10-10-2011, 12:01 AM
2,000,000$

MTar786
10-10-2011, 12:03 AM
I dont get that.

I agree Kobe raped those teams.

However Shaq "ultra raped" those teams and put up better numbers in doing so and was light years better in the Finals.

So why exactly would Kobe be Playoffs MVP? (Finals are part of the playoffs BTW)

Dont forget Shaq dropped two 40/20 Games on the Kings and was ridiculous against the Spurs.. Kobe was great in those series but your forgetting how ridiculously dominant he was that year and the fact that Shaq had to deal with the bulk of the defensive attention and anchor his teams defense.

I have no problem saying that Shaq was far more valuable in every single series in that years playoffs.

oh if you are counting the finals then shaq was the mvp all three years.
but kobe gets an honorable mention for the kings series and san antonio too. and no, shaq didnt unltra rape them in those 2 series. kobe was better against the kings and spurs. but those are the only 2 series in 3 championship years kobe was the better performer. and who cares because LA swept both anyway

knightstemplar
10-10-2011, 12:04 AM
now can you shut up about the finals, Kobe was the MVP

MTar786
10-10-2011, 12:06 AM
equal in game 4? :laugh:

game 4, Kobe better
Kobe - 33pts, 6 rebs, 2 assts 2 stls
Pau - 21pts, 6 rebs, 3 assts, 2 blks

game 3, even tho they werent that great, Kobe was still better
Kobe - 29pts, 7 rebs, 4 assts, 2 sts, 3 blks
Pau - 13 pts, 10 rebs, 4 assts

Game 1, Kobe did this in 38 minutes, pau played 8 more and Kobe still had the better game
Kobe - 30 pts, 6 assts, 7 rebs, 1 blk shot.
Pau - 23 pts, 14 rebs, 3 assts, 3 blks.

game 6, was a blow-out, I give gasol the edge
Kobe - 26 pts, 11 rebs, 3 assts, 4 stls
Pau - 17 pts, 13 rebs, 9 assts, 3 blks

Game 7, gasol was not way better :facepalm:
Kobe - 23 pts, 15 rebs, 4 assts, 1 steal
Pau - 19 pts, 18 rebs, 4 assts, 2 blks
kobe had 10 4th quarter points, Pau 9
gm 7 was equal

game 5
Kobe - 38 pts, 5rebs, 4 assts 1 steal, 1 blk
Pau - 12 pts, 12 rebs, 2 stls, 0 blks, 1 stl

you cannot convince him kobe was better.. even though its clear kobe was better.. how can you convince him. He is pau gasol

Andrew32
10-10-2011, 12:07 AM
G1 :
Gasol : 23/14/3 - 8 0ffensive Rebounds - 3 Blocks - 58%FG
Kobe : 30/6/6 - 45%FG

Gasol >>> Kobe

G2 :
Gasol : 25/8/3 - 6 Blocks 70%FG 11-13%FT
Kobe : 21/5/6 - 5 Turnovers 40%FG

Gasol >>> Kobe

You Agreed that Gasol >>> Kobe in G6

G7 :
Kobe - 23 pts, 15 rebs, 4 assts, 1 steal ||| 25%FG
Pau - 19 pts, 18 rebs, 4 assts, 2 blks ||| 38%FG ||| 9 0ffensive Rebound

Gasol Scores 8 Points, 3 Boards, 1 Huge Block on Pierce in Final 3 Minutes and an Assist to Kobe

Kobe Scores 2 Points off a Gasol Assist in the Final 3 Minutes and does nothing else.

Gasol >>>>>>> Kobe in G7.

MTar786
10-10-2011, 12:07 AM
2,000,000$

thats it?.. u little ****

knightstemplar
10-10-2011, 12:10 AM
G1 :
Gasol : 23/14/3 - 8 0ffensive Rebounds - 3 Blocks - 58%FG
Kobe : 30/6/6 - 45%FG

Gasol >>> Kobe

G2 :
Gasol : 25/8/3 - 6 Blocks 70%FG 11-13%FT
Kobe : 21/5/6 - 5 Turnovers 40%FG

Gasol >>> Kobe

You Agreed that Gasol >>> Kobe in G6

G7 :
Kobe - 23 pts, 15 rebs, 4 assts, 1 steal ||| 25%FG
Pau - 19 pts, 18 rebs, 4 assts, 2 blks ||| 38%FG ||| 9 0ffensive Rebound

Gasol Scores 8 Points, 3 Boards, 1 Huge Block on Pierce in Final 3 Minutes and an Assist to Kobe

Kobe Scores 2 Points off a Gasol Assist in the Final 3 Minutes and does nothing else.

Gasol >>>>>>> Kobe in G7.

game 1
30/7/6 in 38 min > 23/14/3 in 46 min

knightstemplar
10-10-2011, 12:11 AM
and Gasol did not score 8 points in the last 3 min LOL

4th quarter - Kobe 10 pts, Pau 9 pts

PinnacleFlash
10-10-2011, 12:12 AM
This Andrew32 guy is a thread killer.

beliges
10-10-2011, 12:12 AM
Kobe = 2 Finals MVPs

Gasol = 0 Finals MVPs

MTar786
10-10-2011, 12:12 AM
kobe was better in games 1,3,4 and 5
gasol was better in game 2, 6 and 7

note: gasol was garbage in g7.. just less garbage than kobe.
gasol also COMPLETELY no showed game 5 and kobe almost won us that game all by himself.

game1 mvp: kobe
game2 mvp: gasol
game3 mvp: kobe
game4 mvp: kobe
game5 mvp: kobe
game6 mvp: gasol
game7 mvp: ron artest

Andrew32
10-10-2011, 12:13 AM
BTW @ MTar

Shaq vs Kings 2002.

First 3 Games He Averaged.
36/20 (8 0ffensive) / 2.5 / 3.7 BPG on like 65%FG

followed by G4 where he had 25/10/2/2 on 56%FG

So yes, he "ultra raped" them and had better numbers then Kobe.

beliges
10-10-2011, 12:14 AM
Ron Ron was better than both Kobe and Pau in G7.

knightstemplar
10-10-2011, 12:15 AM
kobe was better in games 1,3,4 and 5
gasol was better in game 2, 6 and 7

note: gasol was garbage in g7.. just less garbage than kobe.
gasol also COMPLETELY no showed game 5 and kobe almost won us that game all by himself.

game1 mvp: kobe
game2 mvp: gasol
game3 mvp: kobe
game4 mvp: kobe
game5 mvp: kobe
game6 mvp: gasol
game7 mvp: ron artest

:clap:

2010 Finals MVP - Kobe

MTar786
10-10-2011, 12:16 AM
BTW @ MTar

Shaq vs Kings 2002.

First 3 Games He Averaged.
36/20 (8 0ffensive) / 2.5 / 3.7 BPG on like 65%FG

followed by G4 where he had 25/10/2/2 on 56%FG

So yes, he "ultra raped" them and had better numbers then Kobe.

im talking about 2001. ur not so bright are you? lol
the sweep of san antonio and sac town was in 01

knightstemplar
10-10-2011, 12:16 AM
BTW @ MTar

Shaq vs Kings 2002.

First 3 Games He Averaged.
36/20 (8 0ffensive) / 2.5 / 3.7 BPG on like 65%FG

followed by G4 where he had 25/10/2/2 on 56%FG

So yes, he "ultra raped" them and had better numbers then Kobe.

Kobe last 2 games vs the Kings in 2001 WCSF
36/7/4
48/16/3

35/9/4 for the series >

Andrew32
10-10-2011, 12:17 AM
im talking about 2001. ur not so bright are you? lol

So am I, that was a typo my friend.

Those numbers are from the 2001 playoffs.

Andrew32
10-10-2011, 12:18 AM
Kobe last 2 games vs the Kings in 2001 WCSF
36/7/4
48/16/3

Kobe was great in that series, Shaq was significantly better.

beliges
10-10-2011, 12:18 AM
Dont forget game 7 of the 2000 WCF. Kobe was the MVP of that game and that was the beginning of the dynasty. Shaq on the other hand, was second fiddle to Kobe in that game.

Andrew32
10-10-2011, 12:20 AM
Dont forget game 7 of the 2000 WCF. Kobe was the MVP of that game and that was the beginning of the dynasty. Shaq on the other hand, was second fiddle to Kobe in that game.

Kobe wasnt even worthy of shining Shaq's shoes in 2000.

He did have a better game but it was Shaq who scored 9 straight points in the 4th who brought them back into the game and his amazing alley oop catch to finish it off.

He was the MVP and Closer in that game.

knightstemplar
10-10-2011, 12:21 AM
Dont forget game 7 of the 2000 WCF. Kobe was the MVP of that game and that was the beginning of the dynasty. Shaq on the other hand, was second fiddle to Kobe in that game.

In that game, Kobe had more points, rebounds, assists, and blocks than SHaq
25/11/7/4
18/9/5/1
very awesome game by Kobe

ALDAVIS>NFL
10-10-2011, 12:21 AM
:facepalm:

Why facepalm 01' Kobe carried the lakers to the finals no doubt about it and arguably 02' as well

Andrew32
10-10-2011, 12:25 AM
Why facepalm 01' Kobe carried the lakers to the finals no doubt about it and arguably 02' as well

Shaq had better production and put up better numbers in 01 and 02 in every single series, most of them by huge margins. Shaq was the Closer vs Sacramento and Portland in 02.

How exactly was Kobe carrying them?

Shaqs dominance is what carried those teams, Kobe was the sidekick who's scoring put them over the top.

Good God... Prime Shaq was light years better then any version of Kobe, gotta love fools thinking Kobe was better those years.

Shaqs production and numbers are so far superior especially in 00 and 01, trying to say Kobe was better or equal is just ********.

beliges
10-10-2011, 12:25 AM
Kobe wasnt even worthy of shining Shaq's shoes in 2000.

He did have a better game but it was Shaq who scored 9 straight points in the 4th who brought them back into the game and his amazing alley oop catch to finish it off.

He was the MVP and Closer in that game.

Actually Kobe took over that game when Shaq was being handled by the Blazers D and led the team to its biggest win in over a decade en route to a 3 peat dynasty. The numbers prove Kobe was the man in that game (which was the biggest and most clutch game in that year's playoff).

MTar786
10-10-2011, 12:26 AM
Kobe was great in that series, Shaq was significantly better.

you can look at the numbers all you want.. go watch the game tape.. kobe was easily mvp of that series. and kobe was EVEN MORE SO mvp of spurs vs lakers in 01.
do you want to argue that with me too.. because you're in for disappointment if you feel you could win that argument

MTar786
10-10-2011, 12:27 AM
Shaq had better production and put up better numbers in 01 and 02 in every single series, most of them by huge margins. Shaq was the Closer vs Sacramento and Portland in 02.

How exactly was Kobe carrying them?

Shaqs dominance is what carried those teams, Kobe was the sidekick who's scoring put them over the top.

so you honestly think shaq was better than kobe against the spurs in the wcf in 01? hahahahah you are so full of it dude

knightstemplar
10-10-2011, 12:29 AM
Shaq had better production and put up better numbers in 01 and 02 in every single series, most of them by huge margins. Shaq was the Closer vs Sacramento and Portland in 02.

How exactly was Kobe carrying them?

Shaqs dominance is what carried those teams, Kobe was the sidekick who's scoring put them over the top.

:facepalm:
no he did not

2001 WCF
Kobe - 33.3 PPG, 7 RPG, 7 APG
Shaq - 27 PPG, 13.5 RPG, 2.8 APG

Andrew32
10-10-2011, 12:44 AM
Meh, even if you really think Kobe was more valuable in one or two series in that 3 year period Shaq was still the MVP of the playoffs every single year and ofc FMVP so I could care less, it doesn't change a thing.

Even if Kobe was slightly better statistically in 1 or (2?) series those years Shaq was still the won getting the constant double/triple/sometimes more teams while Kobe feasted on easy baskets or single coverage, + Shaq anchored the teams defense so I doubt Kobe was ever close to being as Valuable as Shaq even in those Spurs series.

MTar786
10-10-2011, 01:23 AM
Meh, even if you really think Kobe was more valuable in one or two series in that 3 year period Shaq was still the MVP of the playoffs every single year and ofc FMVP so I could care less, it doesn't change a thing.

Even if Kobe was slightly better statistically in 1 or (2?) series those years Shaq was still the won getting the constant double/triple/sometimes more teams while Kobe feasted on easy baskets or single coverage, + Shaq anchored the teams defense so I doubt Kobe was ever close to being as Valuable as Shaq even in those Spurs series.


single coverage? i assume you didnt watch any of the lakers 3peat years?

Andrew32
10-10-2011, 01:25 AM
Yea my bad, I forgot it was Kobe dealing with the double/triple/quadruple teams while Shaq feasted on single coverage.

Kobe was better every year in every series except for the Finals where Shaq after not playing for 3 playoff series came in and Dominated (but only barely outplaying Kobe)

Thanks for setting me straight. :facepalm:

basketfan4life
10-10-2011, 03:53 AM
Even if Kobe was slightly better statistically in 1 or (2?) series those years Shaq was still the won getting the constant double/triple/sometimes more teams while Kobe feasted on easy baskets or single coverage, + Shaq anchored the teams defense so I doubt Kobe was ever close to being as Valuable as Shaq even in those Spurs series.

Everything you say here is the same with Kobe-Pau 2010 as Kobe being the man, yet you stubbornly claim Pau was the '10 finals MVP,while Kobe scoring 10 ppgs more...i love you.

wjmoffatt
10-10-2011, 08:58 AM
Pau Gasol had to step it up in 2010 finals, He got absolutely embarrassed by KG in the 08 finals. But still they wouldn't have been there without Kobe, sure Pau's number might have been comparable but look at who he went up against in the playoffs compared to Kobe.
Round 1
Kobe- Durrant and Westbrook
Pau- Nick Collison

Round 2-
Kobe- Derron Williams
Pau- Boozer (garbage)

Round 3
Kobe- Nash and JRich
Pau- Amare (Harder

Finals

Kobe- Pierce, Ray Allan, and Rondo
Pau- KG