PDA

View Full Version : LeBron James Youngest to 24,000 Points



Pages : [1] 2

MetroMan
01-17-2015, 02:20 AM
https://twitter.com/ESPNNBA/status/556333250898325504/photo/1


JasonLloydABJ Jason Lloyd
LeBron James (30 years, 17 days) becomes youngest player in NBA history to reach 24,000 points. He passed Kobe Bryant (31 years, 75 days).




King James!! LeBron adds to his impressive resume, becomes youngest player in NBA history to reach 24,000 career Pts.

FlashBolt
01-17-2015, 02:23 AM
The dude isn't even known as a scorer..

ewing
01-17-2015, 02:25 AM
actually people know he can score

JV35
01-17-2015, 02:46 AM
Big deal. Kobe, basically, wasn't even a starter his first 2 years.

Kobe's first 2 years: 150 game (7 starts) MPG 15.5/26.0 -1759 points

LeBron's first 2 years : 159 games (159 starts) MPG 39.5/42.4 - 3829 points

It's only because Kobe wasn't starting in his first 2 years.

goingfor28
01-17-2015, 03:00 AM
Big deal. Kobe, basically, wasn't even a starter his first 2 years.

Kobe's first 2 years: 150 game (7 starts) MPG 15.5/26.0 -1759 points

LeBron's first 2 years : 159 games (159 starts) MPG 39.5/42.4 - 3829 points

It's only because Kobe wasn't starting in his first 2 years.
Bingo

TrueFan420
01-17-2015, 03:13 AM
https://twitter.com/ESPNNBA/status/556333250898325504/photo/1


JasonLloydABJ Jason Lloyd
LeBron James (30 years, 17 days) becomes youngest player in NBA history to reach 24,000 points. He passed Kobe Bryant (31 years, 75 days).




King James!! LeBron adds to his impressive resume, becomes youngest player in NBA history to reach 24,000 career Pts.
Impressive however age doesn't mean squat to me. Some stay longer than others;some leave earlier than others. Kobe and LBJ both jumped out of highschool now everyone must wait a year. Tell me this who was the quickest 24,000 points when we are counting by minutes not age.

PowerHouse
01-17-2015, 04:09 AM
The way Lebron's and Kobe's careers got started couldnt be any more different.

As already mentioned, if Kobe had the opportunity to be a starter right off the bat like instead of coming off the bench his first two years Lebron would not have this so called "record".

PowerHouse
01-17-2015, 04:15 AM
The dude isn't even known as a scorer..

Whatever you blazed up before posting this...pass it my way please.

cahawk
01-17-2015, 04:39 AM
Big deal. Kobe, basically, wasn't even a starter his first 2 years.

Kobe's first 2 years: 150 game (7 starts) MPG 15.5/26.0 -1759 points

LeBron's first 2 years : 159 games (159 starts) MPG 39.5/42.4 - 3829 points

It's only because Kobe wasn't starting in his first 2 years.

JV35 - reason kobe didn't start & score a lot was he just wasn't as good as Lebron.
Lebron went #1 in NA draft, kobe went #13. Lebron would have started for Lakers.
Also a reason kobe did not score as much is kobe never shot over 46%, Lebron has shot 57%.

IKnowHoops
01-17-2015, 07:21 AM
jv35 - reason kobe didn't start & score a lot was he just wasn't as good as lebron.
Lebron went #1 in na draft, kobe went #13. Lebron would have started for lakers.
Also a reason kobe did not score as much is kobe never shot over 46%, lebron has shot 57%.

bingo!

PhillyFaninLA
01-17-2015, 07:42 AM
Who would have thought a Kobe Lebron topic would be like this....hmmmm

SoxPatsCeltsBs
01-17-2015, 07:42 AM
/QUOTE]

JV35 - reason kobe didn't start & score a lot was he just wasn't as good as Lebron.
Lebron went #1 in NA draft, kobe went #13. Lebron would have started for Lakers.
Also a reason kobe did not score as much is kobe never shot over 46%, Lebron has shot 57%.[/QUOTE]

You have to take into consideration what teams each played on. A lot more talent on the Lakers than there was on the bottom feeding Cavaliers.

Lakers + Giants
01-17-2015, 07:50 AM
Very Impressive. KD and LBJ will bump kobe down to 5th all time in scoring.

PurpleLynch
01-17-2015, 08:20 AM
Very Impressive. KD and LBJ will bump kobe down to 5th all time in scoring.

We will see. They are surely potential all time scorers,but we have to see how their respective careers unfold.
KD and his kind of game could mean a good longevity(ala Nowitzki),while Lebron is just unbreakable,this guy is made of steel.
Kobe is the only one of the three who already showed extremely high longevity. 18 seasons and 15 playoff runs are amazing.

mightybosstone
01-17-2015, 08:48 AM
At the rate both players are going, I'd be a little surprised if Lebron doesn't surpass Kobe. Let's be generous and say Kobe finishes with 37,000 points, passing Karl Malone and finishing about 1,400 behind Kareem. Based on his health and inefficient play we've seen this season, I think it would take another 3-4 years to reach that goal, but he could feasibly do it.

That means Lebron would need another 13,000 points to reach Kobe. It seems like a lot, but it's easily doable. Suppose Lebron scores another 1,000 points this season. Given the injuries he was plagued with earlier in the season and the ground Cleveland needs to make up, that seems fair. So after this year, he'll have 12,000 points he needs to score. If he averages 25 points per game over the next five seasons and plays 75 games per season, that gives him another 9,375 points right there, leaving him with only 2,625 points he'll need to score to pass Kobe when he's 35. Averaging only 15.2 points per game in 60 games per season, he could reach that in only three seasons.

Lebron still has a long way to go, but I think he's got an excellent chance to not only surpass Kobe on the all-time scoring list, but to maybe even pass Kareem as well.

sjbirds
01-17-2015, 09:18 AM
Big deal. Kobe, basically, wasn't even a starter his first 2 years.

Kobe's first 2 years: 150 game (7 starts) MPG 15.5/26.0 -1759 points

LeBron's first 2 years : 159 games (159 starts) MPG 39.5/42.4 - 3829 points

It's only because Kobe wasn't starting in his first 2 years.
So by this quote neither is a big deal because back in the day players couldn't come from high school

jerellh528
01-17-2015, 11:28 AM
At the rate both players are going, I'd be a little surprised if Lebron doesn't surpass Kobe. Let's be generous and say Kobe finishes with 37,000 points, passing Karl Malone and finishing about 1,400 behind Kareem. Based on his health and inefficient play we've seen this season, I think it would take another 3-4 years to reach that goal, but he could feasibly do it.

That means Lebron would need another 13,000 points to reach Kobe. It seems like a lot, but it's easily doable. Suppose Lebron scores another 1,000 points this season. Given the injuries he was plagued with earlier in the season and the ground Cleveland needs to make up, that seems fair. So after this year, he'll have 12,000 points he needs to score. If he averages 25 points per game over the next five seasons and plays 75 games per season, that gives him another 9,375 points right there, leaving him with only 2,625 points he'll need to score to pass Kobe when he's 35. Averaging only 15.2 points per game in 60 games per season, he could reach that in only three seasons.

Lebron still has a long way to go, but I think he's got an excellent chance to not only surpass Kobe on the all-time scoring list, but to maybe even pass Kareem as well.

Thought he was closer than that and he'd pass kobe for sure, but you putting it like this makes it seem less likely. Hmm time will tell.

FraziersKnicks
01-17-2015, 12:37 PM
It's widely reported that Kobe probably won't play on past next season. Let's give him 30 more games this season at about 23 PPG. That's an extra 700.

Then say he can do the same next year (65 games, 23 PPG), that's another 1,500. Which means he'll likely finish his career at about 34,000.

Which means LeBron needs about 10K to pass Kobe. Say he gets another 1000 this season that puts him at 25K. 6 seasons averaging 75 games and 20 PPG would be enough for him to surpass Kobe which is more than doable.

bucketss
01-17-2015, 01:30 PM
Big deal. Kobe, basically, wasn't even a starter his first 2 years.

Kobe's first 2 years: 150 game (7 starts) MPG 15.5/26.0 -1759 points

LeBron's first 2 years : 159 games (159 starts) MPG 39.5/42.4 - 3829 points

It's only because Kobe wasn't starting in his first 2 years.

maybe if he was good enough, he would have started.

mightybosstone
01-17-2015, 02:02 PM
Thought he was closer than that and he'd pass kobe for sure, but you putting it like this makes it seem less likely. Hmm time will tell.

Well, there's just too many unknown variables to say one way or the other. That's why I think we don't see more superstar players score that many points. Kobe could retire after this season or play another 3-4 years and somehow pass Kareem. Lebron could play another 8-10 years and pass Kareem or he could win a title or two in Cleveland and retire in 5-6 years well short of either player. Or hell, both guys could suffer major knee or leg injuries this season that causes them to have surgery and have to retire much earlier than we expect.

Nobody really knows. But I was basing projections off what I see as a realistic expectation for both guys. If Lebron stays relatively healthy, those numbers are doable, and if Kobe sticks around a few more years, those numbers are doable as well.

jericho
01-17-2015, 02:07 PM
/QUOTE]

JV35 - reason kobe didn't start & score a lot was he just wasn't as good as Lebron.
Lebron went #1 in NA draft, kobe went #13. Lebron would have started for Lakers.
Also a reason kobe did not score as much is kobe never shot over 46%, Lebron has shot 57%.

You have to take into consideration what teams each played on. A lot more talent on the Lakers than there was on the bottom feeding Cavaliers.[/QUOTE]

Don't you think that Lebron would have benefited from having more talent around him? Like playing alongside Shaq would have made the game so much easier. And like another poster said before, Lebron would have started immediately for them.

Dade County
01-17-2015, 03:05 PM
Big deal. Kobe, basically, wasn't even a starter his first 2 years.

Kobe's first 2 years: 150 game (7 starts) MPG 15.5/26.0 -1759 points

LeBron's first 2 years : 159 games (159 starts) MPG 39.5/42.4 - 3829 points

It's only because Kobe wasn't starting in his first 2 years.


So he could have been the league leader in most shots missed, 2yrs earlier. lol

But for real, who cares.

PowerHouse
01-17-2015, 04:42 PM
JV35 - reason kobe didn't start & score a lot was he just wasn't as good as Lebron.
Lebron went #1 in NA draft, kobe went #13. Lebron would have started for Lakers.
Also a reason kobe did not score as much is kobe never shot over 46%, Lebron has shot 57%.

Sorry man but you're way off here. The main reason Kobe wasnt getting the minutes his first couple of years wasnt because he wasnt "good enough", everybody on that team and coaching staff knew the kid could ball. The reason was there was an all-star already filling that spot in Eddie Jones.

And Lebron too would not have been starting right away on that particular Laker team because of the 2 all-star veterans already filling the wing spots in Jones/Ceballos. Lebron wouldve paid his dues coming off the bench for 1 year at least.

PowerHouse
01-17-2015, 04:54 PM
maybe if he was good enough, he would have started.

Check out above post please.

basch152
01-17-2015, 05:08 PM
Bar any insanely good player coming along, these age records are likely going to stay for quite some time now that you have to wait a year after high school.

IKnowHoops
01-17-2015, 05:11 PM
Sorry man but you're way off here. The main reason Kobe wasnt getting the minutes his first couple of years wasnt because he wasnt "good enough", everybody on that team and coaching staff knew the kid could ball. The reason was there was an all-star already filling that spot in Eddie Jones.

And Lebron too would not have been starting right away on that particular Laker team because of the 2 all-star veterans already filling the wing spots in Jones/Ceballos. Lebron wouldve paid his dues coming off the bench for 1 year at least.

I think that is borderline laughable. Agree to disagree.

PowerHouse
01-17-2015, 05:18 PM
I think that is borderline laughable. Agree to disagree.

As usual you just throw out a meaningless opinion without any kind of intellectual rebuttal to back it up. Way to go, you made the Lebron community proud.

bucketss
01-17-2015, 05:25 PM
Check out above post please.

he had plenty opportunities in practice to prove he was superior to the starters.

mightybosstone
01-17-2015, 05:29 PM
Sorry man but you're way off here. The main reason Kobe wasnt getting the minutes his first couple of years wasnt because he wasnt "good enough", everybody on that team and coaching staff knew the kid could ball. The reason was there was an all-star already filling that spot in Eddie Jones.

And Lebron too would not have been starting right away on that particular Laker team because of the 2 all-star veterans already filling the wing spots in Jones/Ceballos. Lebron wouldve paid his dues coming off the bench for 1 year at least.

This just isn't accurate. Kobe Bryant has pretty much never been as good in his career as Lebron James was in his, and that was especially true their first two years in the league. Forget per game numbers. Compare their per 36 numbers and advanced stats those first two seasons and Lebron was just absolutely a much better basketball player than Kobe was.

jerellh528
01-17-2015, 05:36 PM
This just isn't accurate. Kobe Bryant has pretty much never been as good in his career as Lebron James was in his, and that was especially true their first two years in the league. Forget per game numbers. Compare their per 36 numbers and advanced stats those first two seasons and Lebron was just absolutely a much better basketball player than Kobe was.

I don't think you read his post right. He didn't say kobe was equal to or a better player than Lebron thier first years. He said kobe was a good yet green player that had an all star in front of him of course they wouldn't let a rook start over Eddie jones. He also said Lebron would've came off the bench as well that first season in la, maybe he's right about that, maybe he's wrong. Lebron has always been supremely talented, he probably could've played in the NBA at 16, kobe was a different type of guy, not quite gifted physically as Lebron but worked harder than anyone to get where he's at. It's like a self made guy vs old money spoon in mouth. Both are succesful but took different paths.

cmellofan15
01-17-2015, 05:37 PM
And Lebron too would not have been starting right away on that particular Laker team because of the 2 all-star veterans already filling the wing spots in Jones/Ceballos. Lebron wouldve paid his dues coming off the bench for 1 year at least.

Ceballos played 8 games for the Lakers Kobe's rookie season..you really think LeBron wouldn't have started that year over a washed up Jerome Kersey?

PowerHouse
01-17-2015, 05:47 PM
Ceballos played 8 games for the Lakers Kobe's rookie season..you really think LeBron wouldn't have started that year over a washed up Jerome Kersey?

Yes he would have started in that situation but the Lakers traded Ceballos to get Horry which may or may not (probably not) have occured had young Lebron been on the team.

Since Horry too was a skilled veteran with championship experience who could play the 3 or 4, Im not sure 19 year old Lebron starts over him either right away. But for sure Lebron starts over Kersey.

Gagan136
01-17-2015, 05:47 PM
Kobe comes off the bench for the first two years, then starts his third season in a 50 game lockout season. Not taking anything away from Bron but he didnt "shatter" the record when everything is taken into account. Also i would be very surprised if this reocrd, or any scoring record lebron goes on to break get broken again due to the fact that players need to play in college for atleast 1 year.

mightybosstone
01-17-2015, 05:55 PM
I don't think you read his post right. He didn't say kobe was equal to or a better player than Lebron thier first years. He said kobe was a good yet green player that had an all star in front of him of course they wouldn't let a rook start over Eddie jones. He also said Lebron would've came off the bench as well that first season in la, maybe he's right about that, maybe he's wrong. Lebron has always been supremely talented, he probably could've played in the NBA at 16, kobe was a different type of guy, not quite gifted physically as Lebron but worked harder than anyone to get where he's at. It's like a self made guy vs old money spoon in mouth. Both are succesful but took different paths.

I probably took it slightly differently than he intended, but it sort of insinuated that Lebron couldn't have started on that team as a rookie or that Kobe could have started on Cleveland as a rookie. So that's not exactly like saying Kobe = Lebron in their first two seasons, but it's damn close.

Also, as another poster has pointed out, it's questionable whether Lebron would have started on that Laker team or not, because Eddie Jones played SG, not SF, and he wouldn't have had a ton of competition at that position that year.

Tony_Starks
01-17-2015, 05:55 PM
Big deal. Kobe, basically, wasn't even a starter his first 2 years.

Kobe's first 2 years: 150 game (7 starts) MPG 15.5/26.0 -1759 points

LeBron's first 2 years : 159 games (159 starts) MPG 39.5/42.4 - 3829 points

It's only because Kobe wasn't starting in his first 2 years.
Bingo

So simple but so many people don't understand this.....

jericho
01-17-2015, 05:57 PM
Yes he would have started in that situation but the Lakers traded Ceballos to get Horry which may or may not (probably not) have occured had young Lebron been on the team.

Since Horry too was a skilled veteran with championship experience who could play the 3 or 4, Im not sure 19 year old Lebron starts over him either right away. But for sure Lebron starts over Kersey.

Mmmm they would have traded him even faster in that scenario. And while Horry could play the 3 Lakers used him as a 4 for the time he was there with them.

Tony_Starks
01-17-2015, 06:01 PM
I don't think you read his post right. He didn't say kobe was equal to or a better player than Lebron thier first years. He said kobe was a good yet green player that had an all star in front of him of course they wouldn't let a rook start over Eddie jones. He also said Lebron would've came off the bench as well that first season in la, maybe he's right about that, maybe he's wrong. Lebron has always been supremely talented, he probably could've played in the NBA at 16, kobe was a different type of guy, not quite gifted physically as Lebron but worked harder than anyone to get where he's at. It's like a self made guy vs old money spoon in mouth. Both are succesful but took different paths.

I probably took it slightly differently than he intended, but it sort of insinuated that Lebron couldn't have started on that team as a rookie or that Kobe could have started on Cleveland as a rookie. So that's not exactly like saying Kobe = Lebron in their first two seasons, but it's damn close.

Also, as another poster has pointed out, it's questionable whether Lebron would have started on that Laker team or not, because Eddie Jones played SG, not SF, and he wouldn't have had a ton of competition at that position that year.

Lebron wouldn't have started. They had this SF named Cedric Caballos who was pretty dog-gone good. They also had a coach that was from the old school of rookies don't get big time minutes, period. Lebron wouldn't have started.......

Gagan136
01-17-2015, 06:02 PM
So simple but so many people don't understand this.....

Even though it is "simple" Lebron is a scoring machine as well, what he lacked in footwork he made up for in efficiency. If someone totalled up the minutes it took each other to get to 24k pts it would be alot closer than people think. I would even give the slight edge to lebron cause of his continued rate of putting the ball in the hoop more times than not.

mightybosstone
01-17-2015, 06:08 PM
Lebron wouldn't have started. They had this SF named Cedric Caballos who was pretty dog-gone good. They also had a coach that was from the old school of rookies don't get big time minutes, period. Lebron wouldn't have started.......
Except, as another poster already pointed out, Ceballos played a total of 8 games in a Laker uniform that season. The majority of the SF minutes went to Kersey and Horry, both decent players but nowhere near the talent of a rookie Lebron James.

Tony_Starks
01-17-2015, 06:14 PM
Lebron wouldn't have started. They had this SF named Cedric Caballos who was pretty dog-gone good. They also had a coach that was from the old school of rookies don't get big time minutes, period. Lebron wouldn't have started.......
Except, as another poster already pointed out, Ceballos played a total of 8 games in a Laker uniform that season. The majority of the SF minutes went to Kersey and Horry, both decent players but nowhere near the talent of a rookie Lebron James.

The coach wasn't having it bro. Dell Harris actually got fired for not playing Kobe.

mightybosstone
01-17-2015, 07:03 PM
The coach wasn't having it bro. Dell Harris actually got fired for not playing Kobe.

But you're still operating under the assumption that Kobe would have started on another team. That's a total unknown. We have no idea if that's the case or not.

Another variable here that we haven't discussed is that Lebron had a much earlier birthday in school growing up, meaning he was older for his class and Kobe was younger. So Kobe actually had a 7-month advantage on Lebron. So even if Lebron was playing more minutes and getting more looks early in his career, Kobe had a head start in the age department.

mngopher35
01-17-2015, 07:16 PM
Even though it is "simple" Lebron is a scoring machine as well, what he lacked in footwork he made up for in efficiency. If someone totalled up the minutes it took each other to get to 24k pts it would be alot closer than people think. I would even give the slight edge to lebron cause of his continued rate of putting the ball in the hoop more times than not.

Yup. At the end of the 09 season Kobe had played 34531 minutes and had 23820 points.

Right now lebron is at 34481 minutes to pass the 24000 mark. Using minutes makes the edge much smaller than just looking at age but it would still slightly favor lebron.

More-Than-Most
01-17-2015, 07:18 PM
All them saying that 1700 points is the reason why... If James wanted to score as much as Kobe tries to score James would have done this a year plus ago.

Jamiecballer
01-17-2015, 07:50 PM
Big deal. Kobe, basically, wasn't even a starter his first 2 years.

Kobe's first 2 years: 150 game (7 starts) MPG 15.5/26.0 -1759 points

LeBron's first 2 years : 159 games (159 starts) MPG 39.5/42.4 - 3829 points

It's only because Kobe wasn't starting in his first 2 years.
How much earlier would he have reached this level though if he shot as much as kobe. That's what makes it impressive.

Jamiecballer
01-17-2015, 07:55 PM
So simple but so many people don't understand this.....
The corollary to this is if LeBron shot more like Kobe he would have got to this record a year or 2 earlier.

Tony_Starks
01-17-2015, 08:04 PM
The coach wasn't having it bro. Dell Harris actually got fired for not playing Kobe.

But you're still operating under the assumption that Kobe would have started on another team. That's a total unknown. We have no idea if that's the case or not.

Another variable here that we haven't discussed is that Lebron had a much earlier birthday in school growing up, meaning he was older for his class and Kobe was younger. So Kobe actually had a 7-month advantage on Lebron. So even if Lebron was playing more minutes and getting more looks early in his career, Kobe had a head start in the age department.

Had Kobe went to another team he would NOT have started. He was widely regarded as a young flashy kid that was supposed to be a burnout. Nice dunks and highlight reals but no substance, that's what everybody said about young Kobe.

Lebron had a total advantage on Kobe. His team tanked to get him, were a complete laughing stock as a franchise, and had no choice but to start him from day 1 out of desperation.

Tony_Starks
01-17-2015, 08:08 PM
So simple but so many people don't understand this.....
The corollary to this is if LeBron shot more like Kobe he would have got to this record a year or 2 earlier.

Lebrons not a shooter. He's actually a below average shooter. This is like comparing MJ and Magic Johnson. Lebron and Kobe should never be compared, they're two different players....

FraziersKnicks
01-17-2015, 08:14 PM
Lebrons not a shooter. He's actually a below average shooter. This is like comparing MJ and Magic Johnson. Lebron and Kobe should never be compared, they're two different players....

This is one of the biggest misconceptions about LeBron... Do you have proof?

Jamiecballer
01-17-2015, 08:22 PM
Lebrons not a shooter. He's actually a below average shooter. This is like comparing MJ and Magic Johnson. Lebron and Kobe should never be compared, they're two different players....
I didn't compare them as players. I implied that if LeBron played a little more selfishly he would have hit this number a long time ago.

Tony_Starks
01-17-2015, 08:31 PM
Lebrons not a shooter. He's actually a below average shooter. This is like comparing MJ and Magic Johnson. Lebron and Kobe should never be compared, they're two different players....
I didn't compare them as players. I implied that if LeBron played a little more selfishly he would have hit this number a long time ago.

What's playing "selfishly?" I've only witnessed one player in my lifetime that could score over 80 points in a game. I'm pretty sure if Lebron could score like that he would. He's a point forward, it's not in his makeup to get 40 and 50 a night.....

bucketss
01-17-2015, 08:35 PM
Had Kobe went to another team he would NOT have started. He was widely regarded as a young flashy kid that was supposed to be a burnout. Nice dunks and highlight reals but no substance, that's what everybody said about young Kobe.

Lebron had a total advantage on Kobe. His team tanked to get him, were a complete laughing stock as a franchise, and had no choice but to start him from day 1 out of desperation.

a rookie lebron would have started on the pistons

Jamiecballer
01-17-2015, 08:36 PM
What's playing "selfishly?" I've only witnessed one player in my lifetime that could score over 80 points in a game. I'm pretty sure if Lebron could score like that he would. He's a point forward, it's not in his makeup to get 40 and 50 a night.....
You know exactly what playing selfishly looks like. In fact you described it in your last sentence.

t_money25
01-18-2015, 12:25 AM
Lebrons not a shooter. He's actually a below average shooter. This is like comparing MJ and Magic Johnson. Lebron and Kobe should never be compared, they're two different players....

Below average shooter? Please post some evidence of this. I can't seem to find any.

Raps08-09 Champ
01-18-2015, 12:27 AM
Big deal. Kobe, basically, wasn't even a starter his first 2 years.

Kobe's first 2 years: 150 game (7 starts) MPG 15.5/26.0 -1759 points

LeBron's first 2 years : 159 games (159 starts) MPG 39.5/42.4 - 3829 points

It's only because Kobe wasn't starting in his first 2 years.

PRetty sure Kobe took more shots at the point they reached the mark.

Bruno
01-18-2015, 12:38 AM
At the rate both players are going, I'd be a little surprised if Lebron doesn't surpass Kobe. Let's be generous and say Kobe finishes with 37,000 points, passing Karl Malone and finishing about 1,400 behind Kareem. Based on his health and inefficient play we've seen this season, I think it would take another 3-4 years to reach that goal, but he could feasibly do it.

That means Lebron would need another 13,000 points to reach Kobe. It seems like a lot, but it's easily doable. Suppose Lebron scores another 1,000 points this season. Given the injuries he was plagued with earlier in the season and the ground Cleveland needs to make up, that seems fair. So after this year, he'll have 12,000 points he needs to score. If he averages 25 points per game over the next five seasons and plays 75 games per season, that gives him another 9,375 points right there, leaving him with only 2,625 points he'll need to score to pass Kobe when he's 35. Averaging only 15.2 points per game in 60 games per season, he could reach that in only three seasons.

Lebron still has a long way to go, but I think he's got an excellent chance to not only surpass Kobe on the all-time scoring list, but to maybe even pass Kareem as well.

LBJ can definitely pass Kobe. you're being generous giving Kobe 37K credit, he won't pass Karl unless he goes beyond this current contract.

LBJ deserves this recognition. he's been the best player on his team since day one, doing all the heaving lifting, records like this are the fruits of that labor. it might only take us ten or twelve years before the top five scorers in NBA history are KAJ, Durant, LeBron, Karl, Kobe.

At some point I think we need to say stuff like "retired as the #____ scorer of all time" to put into perspective where they stood in their moment, in their time. Look at Jason Kidd, he retired with the third most total 3's in NBA history. Terry and Pierce passed him this season and he's back to 5th.

mngopher35
01-18-2015, 12:38 AM
PRetty sure Kobe took more shots at the point they reached the mark.

When I looked up those minutes and points in my post above Kobe had taken about 800 more shots than lebron at that point (and 200 less fts).

Tony_Starks
01-18-2015, 01:09 AM
What's playing "selfishly?" I've only witnessed one player in my lifetime that could score over 80 points in a game. I'm pretty sure if Lebron could score like that he would. He's a point forward, it's not in his makeup to get 40 and 50 a night.....
You know exactly what playing selfishly looks like. In fact you described it in your last sentence.

Apparently you and I have a different definition of selfish. Kobe selfishly dropping 40's and 50's got him 5 rings. Anybody that helps bring multiple rings to my franchise I call that a great teammate. You may not have liked how he played but you can't dispute the end results.

Raps08-09 Champ
01-18-2015, 02:12 AM
When I looked up those minutes and points in my post above Kobe had taken about 800 more shots than lebron at that point (and 200 less fts).

If this is true, then there's no excuse when people bring up that Kobe didn't play as much his first 2 games considering he ended up taking more shots (which is the most important measure when looking at points scored).

Jamiecballer
01-18-2015, 11:55 AM
Below average shooter? Please post some evidence of this. I can't seem to find any.
It's a ridiculous holdover argument from like year 2 of Lebrons career

Jamiecballer
01-18-2015, 12:00 PM
Apparently you and I have a different definition of selfish. Kobe selfishly dropping 40's and 50's got him 5 rings. Anybody that helps bring multiple rings to my franchise I call that a great teammate. You may not have liked how he played but you can't dispute the end results.
A good result is not proof of anything. Iverson selfishly dropped 40 & 50 a night and it got him 0 rings. For some reason I thought you were a fan of his as well. Seems like a real disconnect there if true.

GodsSon
01-18-2015, 01:54 PM
Loved me some Kobe a few years ago, but it's clear that LeBron will have a better career and be a potentially better scorer when it's all said and done.

jericho
01-18-2015, 03:53 PM
Got bored at work and decided to do some homework. What i did was cut anything from before they were 21 and after 30. So I'm just basically using stats from their 21-30 career numbers. Now lets see how they stack up from that period of time.

Kobe Bryant

Games: 748
PTS: 21065
TRB: 4381
AST: 3921
STL: 1246
BLK: 431
FGA: 16048
FG: 7327
FG%: .46
3PA: 3071
3P: 1051
3P%: .34
FTA: 6352
FT: 5360
FT%: .84

Lebron James

Games: 715
PTS: 20173
TRB: 5242
AST: 4986
STL: 1182
BLK: 588
FGA: 14178
FG: 7199
FG%: .51
3PA: 2963
3P: 1023
3P%: .35
FTA:6374
FT: 4752
FT%: .75

The diference between Lebron and Kobe in raw stats is:
Pts: 892 (goes to Kobe)
Rb: 861 (goes to Lebron)
Ast: 1065 (goes to Lebron)
Stl: 64 (goes to Kobe)
Blk: 157 (goes to Lebron)

Now this is with Lebron 33 games behind Kobe. So if we use Lebrons avg for the rest of the 33 games which are:

Pts: 28.21
Rbs: 7.33
Ast: 6.97
Stl: 1.65
Blk: .82

He would get

Pts: 21104
Rbs: 5484
Ast: 5216
Stl: 1236
Blk: 615

The only category that Kobe would have Lebron beat on would be steals and thats only by 10.

FlashBolt
01-18-2015, 04:12 PM
Kobe comes off the bench for the first two years, then starts his third season in a 50 game lockout season. Not taking anything away from Bron but he didnt "shatter" the record when everything is taken into account. Also i would be very surprised if this reocrd, or any scoring record lebron goes on to break get broken again due to the fact that players need to play in college for atleast 1 year.

Uhh, he did shatter it. You're just trying to nitpick every single little thing towards Kobe. Are you going to count the days Kobe were injured or also the days Kobe was sick as well? The fact holds. LeBron is the youngest to score 240000. You can twist it however you want. Doesn't make it any less true.

Lebrons not a shooter. He's actually a below average shooter. This is like comparing MJ and Magic Johnson. Lebron and Kobe should never be compared, they're two different players....
It's funny that LeBron isn't a shooter.. yet, he's managed to score 24,000 points without being great at that aspect. So even if he is a below average shooter, isn't it AMAZING that he is ranked THIRD in PPG and if you exclude the ridiculous 50 PPG Wilt (which we know was just unbelievably stat stuffed), James would rank second in PPG? Don't tell me "Well, James isn't declining yet so when he does, his PPG will drop" crap. He's played the same amount of years as Magic Johnson/Larry.

What's playing "selfishly?" I've only witnessed one player in my lifetime that could score over 80 points in a game. I'm pretty sure if Lebron could score like that he would. He's a point forward, it's not in his makeup to get 40 and 50 a night.....

This is where you're showing how biased you are. To even refute and completely deny that Kobe doesn't play selfish? For Christ's sake, his teammates have called him out on numerous occasions... Including Jeremy Lin and Nick Young. How do you score points? By taking shots. LeBron hasn't taken anything close to the amount of shots Kobe has taken. Give him enough shots and I wouldn't say it would be impossible. No one is discrediting Kobe's 81 point game but stop pretending that 46 shots isn't playing selfish. There is NO way you can't be selfish and take 46 shots. You yourself stated that LeBron's style of game is different, yet, you're comparing him to Kobe as it is. Stop being contradictory and stay by your argument. Also, let's ignore LeBron James here in this particular subject. Are you telling me Kobe is a better scorer than MJ? Cause MJ never scored 81 but yet, 81 is what makes Kobe a better scorer? Lol. No, kiddo. Kobe just took more shots than his entire team combined.


Apparently you and I have a different definition of selfish. Kobe selfishly dropping 40's and 50's got him 5 rings. Anybody that helps bring multiple rings to my franchise I call that a great teammate. You may not have liked how he played but you can't dispute the end results.

When Kobe started dropping 40's/50's, those were the years he NEVER won a thing. Stop making crap up. Kobe's best scoring years never led him to a single thing. It was when a revamped team allowed him to win. Also, that guy Shaq? He's a top 10 player and has an argument for being a top 3 center in a league in which centers dominated.. So, John Stockton/Karl Malone aren't great teammates.. Right.


Got bored at work and decided to do some homework. What i did was cut anything from before they were 21 and after 30. So I'm just basically using stats from their 21-30 career numbers. Now lets see how they stack up from that period of time.

Kobe Bryant

Games: 748
PTS: 21065
TRB: 4381
AST: 3921
STL: 1246
BLK: 431
FGA: 16048
FG: 7327
FG%: .46
3PA: 3071
3P: 1051
3P%: .34
FTA: 6352
FT: 5360
FT%: .84

Lebron James

Games: 715
PTS: 20173
TRB: 5242
AST: 4986
STL: 1182
BLK: 588
FGA: 14178
FG: 7199
FG%: .51
3PA: 2963
3P: 1023
3P%: .35
FTA:6374
FT: 4752
FT%: .75

The diference between Lebron and Kobe in raw stats is:
Pts: 892 (goes to Kobe)
Rb: 861 (goes to Lebron)
Ast: 1065 (goes to Lebron)
Stl: 64 (goes to Kobe)
Blk: 157 (goes to Lebron)

Now this is with Lebron 33 games behind Kobe. So if we use Lebrons avg for the rest of the 33 games which are:

Pts: 28.21
Rbs: 7.33
Ast: 6.97
Stl: 1.65
Blk: .82

He would get

Pts: 21104
Rbs: 5484
Ast: 5216
Stl: 1236
Blk: 615

The only category that Kobe would have Lebron beat on would be steals and thats only by 10.

Annnnd once again, only proving that Kobe is overrated when matched up with LeBron. It's just not even CLOSE. Then you guys want to talk about rings when clearly, Kobe had Shaq. Do you want me to bring Shaq's Finals/Playoffs numbers? It's crazy what Shaq did. oh yeah, let's not forget that LeBron took less shots to score 24,000.. by a long mile.

Tony_Starks
01-18-2015, 04:32 PM
Kobe comes off the bench for the first two years, then starts his third season in a 50 game lockout season. Not taking anything away from Bron but he didnt "shatter" the record when everything is taken into account. Also i would be very surprised if this reocrd, or any scoring record lebron goes on to break get broken again due to the fact that players need to play in college for atleast 1 year.

Uhh, he did shatter it. You're just trying to nitpick every single little thing towards Kobe. Are you going to count the days Kobe were injured or also the days Kobe was sick as well? The fact holds. LeBron is the youngest to score 240000. You can twist it however you want. Doesn't make it any less true.

Lebrons not a shooter. He's actually a below average shooter. This is like comparing MJ and Magic Johnson. Lebron and Kobe should never be compared, they're two different players....
It's funny that LeBron isn't a shooter.. yet, he's managed to score 24,000 points without being great at that aspect. So even if he is a below average shooter, isn't it AMAZING that he is ranked THIRD in PPG and if you exclude the ridiculous 50 PPG Wilt (which we know was just unbelievably stat stuffed), James would rank second in PPG? Don't tell me "Well, James isn't declining yet so when he does, his PPG will drop" crap. He's played the same amount of years as Magic Johnson/Larry.

What's playing "selfishly?" I've only witnessed one player in my lifetime that could score over 80 points in a game. I'm pretty sure if Lebron could score like that he would. He's a point forward, it's not in his makeup to get 40 and 50 a night.....

This is where you're showing how biased you are. To even refute and completely deny that Kobe doesn't play selfish? For Christ's sake, his teammates have called him out on numerous occasions... Including Jeremy Lin and Nick Young. How do you score points? By taking shots. LeBron hasn't taken anything close to the amount of shots Kobe has taken. Give him enough shots and I wouldn't say it would be impossible. No one is discrediting Kobe's 81 point game but stop pretending that 46 shots isn't playing selfish. There is NO way you can't be selfish and take 46 shots. You yourself stated that LeBron's style of game is different, yet, you're comparing him to Kobe as it is. Stop being contradictory and stay by your argument. Also, let's ignore LeBron James here in this particular subject. Are you telling me Kobe is a better scorer than MJ? Cause MJ never scored 81 but yet, 81 is what makes Kobe a better scorer? Lol. No, kiddo. Kobe just took more shots than his entire team combined.


Apparently you and I have a different definition of selfish. Kobe selfishly dropping 40's and 50's got him 5 rings. Anybody that helps bring multiple rings to my franchise I call that a great teammate. You may not have liked how he played but you can't dispute the end results.

When Kobe started dropping 40's/50's, those were the years he NEVER won a thing. Stop making crap up. Kobe's best scoring years never led him to a single thing. It was when a revamped team allowed him to win. Also, that guy Shaq? He's a top 10 player and has an argument for being a top 3 center in a league in which centers dominated.. So, John Stockton/Karl Malone aren't great teammates.. Right.


Got bored at work and decided to do some homework. What i did was cut anything from before they were 21 and after 30. So I'm just basically using stats from their 21-30 career numbers. Now lets see how they stack up from that period of time.

Kobe Bryant

Games: 748
PTS: 21065
TRB: 4381
AST: 3921
STL: 1246
BLK: 431
FGA: 16048
FG: 7327
FG%: .46
3PA: 3071
3P: 1051
3P%: .34
FTA: 6352
FT: 5360
FT%: .84

Lebron James

Games: 715
PTS: 20173
TRB: 5242
AST: 4986
STL: 1182
BLK: 588
FGA: 14178
FG: 7199
FG%: .51
3PA: 2963
3P: 1023
3P%: .35
FTA:6374
FT: 4752
FT%: .75

The diference between Lebron and Kobe in raw stats is:
Pts: 892 (goes to Kobe)
Rb: 861 (goes to Lebron)
Ast: 1065 (goes to Lebron)
Stl: 64 (goes to Kobe)
Blk: 157 (goes to Lebron)

Now this is with Lebron 33 games behind Kobe. So if we use Lebrons avg for the rest of the 33 games which are:

Pts: 28.21
Rbs: 7.33
Ast: 6.97
Stl: 1.65
Blk: .82

He would get

Pts: 21104
Rbs: 5484
Ast: 5216
Stl: 1236
Blk: 615

The only category that Kobe would have Lebron beat on would be steals and thats only by 10.

Annnnd once again, only proving that Kobe is overrated when matched up with LeBron. It's just not even CLOSE. Then you guys want to talk about rings when clearly, Kobe had Shaq. Do you want me to bring Shaq's Finals/Playoffs numbers? It's crazy what Shaq did. oh yeah, let's not forget that LeBron took less shots to score 24,000.. by a long mile.


Kobe averaged 30 points in 2003, a championship year. So yeah you're wrong about that. Since Shaq was out of shape and took games off it was not an unusual sight to see Kobe drop 40 and win games doing it.

Tony_Starks
01-18-2015, 04:40 PM
Apparently you and I have a different definition of selfish. Kobe selfishly dropping 40's and 50's got him 5 rings. Anybody that helps bring multiple rings to my franchise I call that a great teammate. You may not have liked how he played but you can't dispute the end results.
A good result is not proof of anything. Iverson selfishly dropped 40 & 50 a night and it got him 0 rings. For some reason I thought you were a fan of his as well. Seems like a real disconnect there if true.

I love AI but my narrative is different than yours. My narrative is Allen Iverson singlehandedly made the Sixer's relevant again and carried them to a Finals on his "selfish" back. Had he faced anyone but Shaq and Kobe he may have actually got that horrible team a ring.

Iverson not getting a championship is most definitely not his fault....

FlashBolt
01-18-2015, 04:55 PM
Kobe averaged 30 points in 2003, a championship year. So yeah you're wrong about that. Since Shaq was out of shape and took games off it was not an unusual sight to see Kobe drop 40 and win games doing it.

Go to sleep. Kobe didn't win a ring in 2003.. lmao.

Tony_Starks
01-18-2015, 05:13 PM
Kobe averaged 30 points in 2003, a championship year. So yeah you're wrong about that. Since Shaq was out of shape and took games off it was not an unusual sight to see Kobe drop 40 and win games doing it.

Go to sleep. Kobe didn't win a ring in 2003.. lmao.

How young are you man? Its a matter of public record. Get your basketball knowledge up and your hate down.....

FlashBolt
01-18-2015, 05:31 PM
How young are you man? Its a matter of public record. Get your basketball knowledge up and your hate down.....

Kobe averaged exactly 30.0 PPG in one season of his career. That season was 2002-2003. Kobe won rings from 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. When the hell did he win in 2002-2003? They got bounced off by Spurs that season. I can't tell if you're serious or just a pathetic troll.

Tony_Starks
01-18-2015, 05:49 PM
How young are you man? Its a matter of public record. Get your basketball knowledge up and your hate down.....

Kobe averaged exactly 30.0 PPG in one season of his career. That season was 2002-2003. Kobe won rings from 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. When the hell did he win in 2002-2003? They got bounced off by Spurs that season. I can't tell if you're serious or just a pathetic troll.

I apologize, we have won so many titles I get confused. I do however stand by my statement that Kobe dropped plenty of 40+ games during those championship years you just mentioned.

Jamiecballer
01-18-2015, 05:51 PM
I love AI but my narrative is different than yours. My narrative is Allen Iverson singlehandedly made the Sixer's relevant again and carried them to a Finals on his "selfish" back. Had he faced anyone but Shaq and Kobe he may have actually got that horrible team a ring.

Iverson not getting a championship is most definitely not his fault....
Have you changed your mind or something? A couple posts ago Kobes 40-50 point nights led to championships and somehow the same didn't happen for Iverson. Ok. He ran into Shaq/Kobe that year. Iverson's career wasn't one year though so clearly you need a lot more than a single great but selfish scorer to win titles. I'm glad you recognize it's a narrative though.

Jamiecballer
01-18-2015, 05:54 PM
Kobe averaged exactly 30.0 PPG in one season of his career. That season was 2002-2003. Kobe won rings from 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. When the hell did he win in 2002-2003? They got bounced off by Spurs that season. I can't tell if you're serious or just a pathetic troll.
He's confused. Give him a break.

Goose17
01-18-2015, 05:56 PM
I apologize, we have won so many titles I get confused. I do however stand by my statement that Kobe dropped plenty of 40+ games during those championship years you just mentioned.

LOL, so how young are YOU?!

Funny you being all condescending and all, then getting called out.

FraziersKnicks
01-18-2015, 06:11 PM
:burn:

FlashBolt
01-18-2015, 06:26 PM
I apologize, we have won so many titles I get confused. I do however stand by my statement that Kobe dropped plenty of 40+ games during those championship years you just mentioned.

He's dropped +40 only 12 times in championship years. What does that tell you? Kobe doesn't win when he drops points. According to fanboy's Kobe's best year 2005-2006, he dropped 40+ 27 times. You have no idea what you're talking about. Judging by the quality of your post, people are only going to assume you're trolling. "They've won so many titles I get confused." Wtf? Didn't you yourself state that these were public records available within seconds of googling? You're confused, you got that right. Also, AI didn't carry crap. That Sixers team was elite defensively. They had numerous amount of All NBA defensive players/a DPOY in Dikembe.. AI won how many All NBA Defensive teams? ZERO. Dude jacked and jacked shots and relied on the defense to make up for his horrific mistakes. I never understood how AI carried Philadelphia when East was WEAK to begin with. Ray Allen/VC didn't have a better team than AI, yet, they were one game away from beating AI. AI shot 5-27 against Bucks and his team won. You don't win games when your best player shoots 5-27 unless you have some sort of help. Anyone out here will tell you that East was weak.. Also love how you give credit to AI for "carrying" the East, but if it were LeBron, (who carried a much weaker team in a tougher conference) to the Finals. That Detroit team would have shut down and HAMMERED Iverson..

Jeffy25
01-18-2015, 10:29 PM
Big deal. Kobe, basically, wasn't even a starter his first 2 years.

Kobe's first 2 years: 150 game (7 starts) MPG 15.5/26.0 -1759 points

LeBron's first 2 years : 159 games (159 starts) MPG 39.5/42.4 - 3829 points

It's only because Kobe wasn't starting in his first 2 years.

Number of field goal attempts:

LeBron - 17,534 FGA - 7470 FTA in 34,481 minutes
It took Kobe
Kobe - 18,318 FGA - 7332 FTA in 34,472 minutes

So Kobe did it in basically the same number of minutes played, so that excuse doesn't work. He also, managed to take 800 more field goal attempted.

LeBron isn't even a scorer first and foremost, but he is clearly a more efficient scorer than Kobe.


Depending how he ages, it's completely realistic that he passes Kareem one day in scoring.

Jeffy25
01-18-2015, 10:34 PM
Got bored at work and decided to do some homework. What i did was cut anything from before they were 21 and after 30. So I'm just basically using stats from their 21-30 career numbers. Now lets see how they stack up from that period of time.

Kobe Bryant

Games: 748
PTS: 21065
TRB: 4381
AST: 3921
STL: 1246
BLK: 431
FGA: 16048
FG: 7327
FG%: .46
3PA: 3071
3P: 1051
3P%: .34
FTA: 6352
FT: 5360
FT%: .84

Lebron James

Games: 715
PTS: 20173
TRB: 5242
AST: 4986
STL: 1182
BLK: 588
FGA: 14178
FG: 7199
FG%: .51
3PA: 2963
3P: 1023
3P%: .35
FTA:6374
FT: 4752
FT%: .75

The diference between Lebron and Kobe in raw stats is:
Pts: 892 (goes to Kobe)
Rb: 861 (goes to Lebron)
Ast: 1065 (goes to Lebron)
Stl: 64 (goes to Kobe)
Blk: 157 (goes to Lebron)

Now this is with Lebron 33 games behind Kobe. So if we use Lebrons avg for the rest of the 33 games which are:

Pts: 28.21
Rbs: 7.33
Ast: 6.97
Stl: 1.65
Blk: .82

He would get

Pts: 21104
Rbs: 5484
Ast: 5216
Stl: 1236
Blk: 615

The only category that Kobe would have Lebron beat on would be steals and thats only by 10.

LeBron is still of course, playing his age 30 season. He isn't done with this year, just to be fair.

jericho
01-18-2015, 11:03 PM
Got bored at work and decided to do some homework. What i did was cut anything from before they were 21 and after 30. So I'm just basically using stats from their 21-30 career numbers. Now lets see how they stack up from that period of time.

Kobe Bryant

Games: 748
PTS: 21065
TRB: 4381
AST: 3921
STL: 1246
BLK: 431
FGA: 16048
FG: 7327
FG%: .46
3PA: 3071
3P: 1051
3P%: .34
FTA: 6352
FT: 5360
FT%: .84

Lebron James

Games: 715
PTS: 20173
TRB: 5242
AST: 4986
STL: 1182
BLK: 588
FGA: 14178
FG: 7199
FG%: .51
3PA: 2963
3P: 1023
3P%: .35
FTA:6374
FT: 4752
FT%: .75

The diference between Lebron and Kobe in raw stats is:
Pts: 892 (goes to Kobe)
Rb: 861 (goes to Lebron)
Ast: 1065 (goes to Lebron)
Stl: 64 (goes to Kobe)
Blk: 157 (goes to Lebron)

Now this is with Lebron 33 games behind Kobe. So if we use Lebrons avg for the rest of the 33 games which are:

Pts: 28.21
Rbs: 7.33
Ast: 6.97
Stl: 1.65
Blk: .82

He would get

Pts: 21104
Rbs: 5484
Ast: 5216
Stl: 1236
Blk: 615

The only category that Kobe would have Lebron beat on would be steals and thats only by 10.

LeBron is still of course, playing his age 30 season. He isn't done with this year, just to be fair.

Oh I know. Another thing is that Kobe started playing in the league at 18 and Lebron at 19. So Kobe got another extra season on Lebron.

FlashBolt
01-18-2015, 11:06 PM
Number of field goal attempts:

LeBron - 17,534 FGA - 7470 FTA in 34,481 minutes
It took Kobe
Kobe - 18,318 FGA - 7332 FTA in 34,472 minutes

So Kobe did it in basically the same number of minutes played, so that excuse doesn't work. He also, managed to take 800 more field goal attempted.

LeBron isn't even a scorer first and foremost, but he is clearly a more efficient scorer than Kobe.


Depending how he ages, it's completely realistic that he passes Kareem one day in scoring.

I personally don't think James can pass Kareem. KD on the other hand.. This guy no doubt will and can IMO.

Chrisclover
01-18-2015, 11:34 PM
Thought he was closer than that and he'd pass kobe for sure, but you putting it like this makes it seem less likely. Hmm time will tell.
I wonder at what age Lebron will call it quits. He is a man of steel. I guess he will probably play until 40 just to rack up rings, or, to be more specific, chase rings.

Jeffy25
01-18-2015, 11:44 PM
I personally don't think James can pass Kareem. KD on the other hand.. This guy no doubt will and can IMO.

Durant through 25 (Durant's last full season was 25)
14,851

Lebron through 25:
15,251

In their age 26 season, LeBron didn't miss this much time either.

Kareem had just over 10,000 points through his age 25 season

It's very possible for LeBron to pass Kareem one day.

I'd say he is probably a 40% of catching Kareem. Completely depends how long he chooses to play and his health, but it's completely possible for LeBron, and I would guess that he is more likely than Durant today, simply because he has several years on Durant already accomplished (i.e. Durant could easily get hurt in the next few years, and then still has the same risks and liklihood of getting hurt/missing this as LeBron would today).

LeBron only needs another 15,000 points to clear himself ahead of Kareem. That's 8 more seasons of his peak self, and since he is probably declining, I would say if he chooses to play to 40 with expected and moderate decline, he can easily do it. Question is, does he choose to play until he is 40, and does he remain relatively healthy.

FlashBolt
01-19-2015, 12:35 AM
Durant through 25 (Durant's last full season was 25)
14,851

Lebron through 25:
15,251

In their age 26 season, LeBron didn't miss this much time either.

Kareem had just over 10,000 points through his age 25 season

It's very possible for LeBron to pass Kareem one day.

I'd say he is probably a 40% of catching Kareem. Completely depends how long he chooses to play and his health, but it's completely possible for LeBron, and I would guess that he is more likely than Durant today, simply because he has several years on Durant already accomplished (i.e. Durant could easily get hurt in the next few years, and then still has the same risks and liklihood of getting hurt/missing this as LeBron would today).

LeBron only needs another 15,000 points to clear himself ahead of Kareem. That's 8 more seasons of his peak self, and since he is probably declining, I would say if he chooses to play to 40 with expected and moderate decline, he can easily do it. Question is, does he choose to play until he is 40, and does he remain relatively healthy.

Well, it's true LeBron does rely on his athleticism and power for a bulk of his points. I don't see him being that effective on the offensive end as he goes older. KD on the other hand is a complete sniper. Dude can play till 40 and still be a threat just because of his length/range. KD also isn't far off. His career PPG is just .1 below James and had he not been injured, would probably be leading the league in scoring right now. I'm going with KD. I love Bron but KD's offensive game is just better. But yeah, these two guys (excluding Kobe), are probably the only two guys capable of breaking Kareem's record.

CavaliersFTW
01-19-2015, 12:44 AM
Number of games it took to reach 24,000 points (The most truthful record of a players scoring impact, as age restrictions on NBA play dropped over time from 4 years of college, down to none):

Wilt Chamberlain - 681
Michael Jordan - 749
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 848
Oscar Robertson - 865
Lebron James - 874
Jerry West - 876
Allen Iverson - 888
Shaquille O'Neal - 905
Dominique Wilkins - 906
Rick Barry - 913
George Gervin - 918
Julius Erving - 933
Kobe Bryant - 1021

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 12:48 AM
Number of games it took to reach 24,000 points (The most truthful record of a players scoring impact, as age restrictions on NBA play dropped over time from 4 years of college, down to none):

Wilt Chamberlain - 681
Michael Jordan - 749
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 848
Oscar Robertson - 865
Lebron James - 874
Jerry West - 876
Allen Iverson - 888
Shaquille O'Neal - 905
Dominique Wilkins - 906
Rick Barry - 913
George Gervin - 918
Julius Erving - 933
Kobe Bryant - 1021

Not that you are, but if we are to discuss who is most likely to end with the most of all-time, their age at accomplishing this is most relevant.

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 12:50 AM
Well, it's true LeBron does rely on his athleticism and power for a bulk of his points. I don't see him being that effective on the offensive end as he goes older. KD on the other hand is a complete sniper. Dude can play till 40 and still be a threat just because of his length/range. KD also isn't far off. His career PPG is just .1 below James and had he not been injured, would probably be leading the league in scoring right now. I'm going with KD. I love Bron but KD's offensive game is just better. But yeah, these two guys (excluding Kobe), are probably the only two guys capable of breaking Kareem's record.

I'd happily take the bet that Lebron break Kareem, but not KD

KD needs another 6 years just to get where LeBron currently is.

Chrisclover
01-19-2015, 01:36 AM
Number of games it took to reach 24,000 points (The most truthful record of a players scoring impact, as age restrictions on NBA play dropped over time from 4 years of college, down to none):

Wilt Chamberlain - 681
Michael Jordan - 749
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 848
Oscar Robertson - 865
Lebron James - 874
Jerry West - 876
Allen Iverson - 888
Shaquille O'Neal - 905
Dominique Wilkins - 906
Rick Barry - 913
George Gervin - 918
Julius Erving - 933
Kobe Bryant - 1021
it will be better if you use the minutes played. Players' playing time largely depends on the rotation of their respective team. Kobe got screwed here. If he had played in a bottom team, his time and PPG would have been a lot higher

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 01:50 AM
it will be better if you use the minutes played. Players' playing time largely depends on the rotation of their respective team. Kobe got screwed here. If he had played in a bottom team, his time and PPG would have been a lot higher

Wilt Chamberlain - 30,208 (estimated because of game log estimates)
Michael Jordan - 28,974
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - about 34,000 (estimated because of game logs)
Oscar Robertson - about 37,000 (estimated)
Lebron James - 34,480
Kobe Bryant - 34,772

Jordan took the fewest minutes to get there.

CavaliersFTW
01-19-2015, 01:55 AM
it will be better if you use the minutes played. Players' playing time largely depends on the rotation of their respective team. Kobe got screwed here. If he had played in a bottom team, his time and PPG would have been a lot higher

Well, that's not a perfect formula either as that unfairly penalizes guys who earned more playing time, or were gifted enough to stay on the floor longer with superior stamina. A guy like MJ may have put up as many points (or close) as Wilt did in say, 40 minutes... but so what? Wilt was in the game for 6-8 minutes longer, still pouring in points while a guy like MJ would be requiring rest.

Chrisclover
01-19-2015, 10:26 AM
Wilt Chamberlain - 30,208 (estimated because of game log estimates)
Michael Jordan - 28,974
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - about 34,000 (estimated because of game logs)
Oscar Robertson - about 37,000 (estimated)
Lebron James - 34,480
Kobe Bryant - 34,772

Jordan took the fewest minutes to get there.

In this case, Lebron is 300 minutes, which is about 10 games, faster than Kobe. That's pleasing to a Kobe fan.[emoji111] Lol.

andy2518
01-19-2015, 09:53 PM
Loved me some Kobe a few years ago, but it's clear that LeBron will have a better career and be a potentially better scorer when it's all said and done.

Not sure how people can possibly think Lebron's legacy compares to Kobe's. The only thing Lebron has on Kobe is advanced stats and regular season MVP's. If Lebron gets a ring in Cleveland then we can talk. Ya'll try to say that Kobe had a great franchise helping him along the way but don't take into account the stellar corporate sponsorship and PR campaign that Lebron had along the way.

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 09:56 PM
Not sure how people can possibly think Lebron's legacy compares to Kobe's. The only thing Lebron has on Kobe is advanced stats and regular season MVP's. If Lebron gets a ring in Cleveland then we can talk. Ya'll try to say that Kobe had a great franchise helping him along the way but don't take into account the stellar corporate sponsorship and PR campaign that Lebron had along the way.

PR campaign does what exactly for his legacy?

Hawkize31
01-19-2015, 09:56 PM
Big deal. Kobe, basically, wasn't even a starter his first 2 years.

Kobe's first 2 years: 150 game (7 starts) MPG 15.5/26.0 -1759 points

LeBron's first 2 years : 159 games (159 starts) MPG 39.5/42.4 - 3829 points

It's only because Kobe wasn't starting in his first 2 years.

Sorry Lebron was good immediately and it took Kobe awhile to figure things out. Lets strike this record from history because of it.

L8kers4life
01-19-2015, 10:12 PM
Sorry Lebron was good immediately and it took Kobe awhile to figure things out. Lets strike this record from history because of it.


That is not quit how it went Hawkize, first off, LeBron was a freak of Nature when he came out of hs, he was already 6 foot 8 240lbs, and he came to a team that was horrible.

Kobe on the other hand, was slightly built, lanky, and he played on a team with Shaq, Eddie Jones and Van excel that made the playoffs, and a coach who would not play him, and got fired because of it. Its not so easy to say Lebron was good immediately and Kobe wasn't. Kobe was on a better team and had a coach who did not like to play rookies. Also lets give some credit where credit is due, Kobe was the first wing to go straight to the pros from HS, he paved the way for Lebron. No disrespect to Lebron, he was handed the Keys from day 1 because he went to a horrible team that had done nothing in years. Kobe had nothing handed to him, and in fact his growth may have hindered a bit, because he was second fiddle to an all time great for many years. The fact that Kobe is only about a year off Lebrons pace says a lot considering Kobe was second fiddle from 96-00 which is a 5 year span and Lebron has never been a number 2.

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 10:19 PM
That is not quit how it went Hawkize, first off, LeBron was a freak of Nature when he came out of hs, he was already 6 foot 8 240lbs, and he came to a team that was horrible.

Kobe on the other hand, was slightly built, lanky, and he played on a team with Shaq, Eddie Jones and Van excel that made the playoffs, and a coach who would not play him, and got fired because of it. Its not so easy to say Lebron was good immediately and Kobe wasn't. Kobe was on a better team and had a coach who did not like to play rookies. Also lets give some credit where credit is due, Kobe was the first wing to go straight to the pros from HS, he paved the way for Lebron. No disrespect to Lebron, he was handed the Keys from day 1 because he went to a horrible team that had done nothing in years. Kobe had nothing handed to him, and in fact his growth may have hindered a bit, because he was second fiddle to an all time great for many years. The fact that Kobe is only about a year off Lebrons pace says a lot considering Kobe was second fiddle from 96-00 which is a 5 year span and Lebron has never been a number 2.

You are acting like Kobe didn't get the minutes.

It took LeBron 300 less minutes to get his 24,000th point, and 800 less shots.

L8kers4life
01-19-2015, 11:08 PM
You are acting like Kobe didn't get the minutes.

It took LeBron 300 less minutes to get his 24,000th point, and 800 less shots.

LOL, 300 minutes equates to 8 games if Lebron was playing 35 minutes a game. the question I have is, how many games did it take for each? I will bet that it took Kobe many more games, because he did not play much his first few years, it probably took Kobe much longer game wise than Lebron, but only 300 minutes more, that stat is kind of telling.

Anyway you proved my point, thanks.

andy2518
01-19-2015, 11:09 PM
PR campaign does what exactly for his legacy?

Same thing it does for politicians. Anything and everything.

L8kers4life
01-19-2015, 11:10 PM
You are acting like Kobe didn't get the minutes.

It took LeBron 300 less minutes to get his 24,000th point, and 800 less shots.



Also Lebron beating this record a year before Kobe did it, but doing it in 300 less minutes, means Lebron played much more than Kobe his first few years.

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 11:14 PM
LOL, 300 minutes equates to 8 games if Lebron was playing 35 minutes a game. the question I have is, how many games did it take for each? I will bet that it took Kobe many more games, because he did not play much his first few years, it probably took Kobe much longer game wise than Lebron, but only 300 minutes more, that stat is kind of telling.

Anyway you proved my point, thanks.

What?

No, that isn't at all how this works.

L8kers4life
01-19-2015, 11:14 PM
You are acting like Kobe didn't get the minutes.

It took LeBron 300 less minutes to get his 24,000th point, and 800 less shots.



This whole thing is a moot point, mainly because if Kobe played for the Cavs he would have had the ball more and scored more. That does not mean he would be efficient like Lebron, but it does mean he would have had much more opportunities. Vice versa, Lebron would not have got the ball as much his first few years in LA playing second fiddle to Kobe.

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 11:16 PM
This whole thing is a moot point, mainly because if Kobe played for the Cavs he would have had the ball more and scored more. That does not mean he would be efficient like Lebron, but it does mean he would have had much more opportunities. Vice versa, Lebron would not have got the ball as much his first few years in LA playing second fiddle to Kobe.

We aren't talking about what-ifs

L8kers4life
01-19-2015, 11:19 PM
What?

No, that isn't at all how this works.


What are you talking about? you just said it took Kobe 300 more minutes, 300 minutes divided by 8 games is like 36 minutes a game, that is how many minutes Lebron plays. It took Kobe 8 more games minutes wise than Lebron.

Answer my question, how many games did it take for both?

L8kers4life
01-19-2015, 11:21 PM
We aren't talking about what-ifs


I'm not either, my responses are to the previous poster who said simply stated, Lebron was good, and Kobe wasn't, there was more to it than that.

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 11:37 PM
What are you talking about? you just said it took Kobe 300 more minutes, 300 minutes divided by 8 games is like 36 minutes a game, that is how many minutes Lebron plays. It took Kobe 8 more games minutes wise than Lebron.

Answer my question, how many games did it take for both?

800 more field goal attempts


800!


The 300 minutes don't matter. You can't score without shooting, and Kobe took 800 more shots to get to the same scoring total. That's 40 games worth of shots, and LeBron still has all of this year, and half of next year before he is the same age that Kobe was when they each scored their 24,000th point.

That's how far ahead he is. Kobe coming off the bench for the first two years of his career doesn't make a lick of difference here. He still took almost 1000 more shots than LeBron to score the same amount of points, and he was a year older when he did it.

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 11:40 PM
I'm not either, my responses are to the previous poster who said simply stated, Lebron was good, and Kobe wasn't, there was more to it than that.

I quoted a post of yours where you lived in the hypothetical of 'if LeBron was a Laker coming off the bench, and if Kobe was a Cavalier being the main guy'

We aren't living in a world of hypothetical. If Jordan had come straight from high school and been a beast, he would have the record. That what if's don't matter.

Jamiecballer
01-19-2015, 11:41 PM
Also Lebron beating this record a year before Kobe did it, but doing it in 300 less minutes, means Lebron played much more than Kobe his first few years.
Haha I don't think you get it

andy2518
01-19-2015, 11:43 PM
I quoted a post of yours where you lived in the hypothetical of 'if LeBron was a Laker coming off the bench, and if Kobe was a Cavalier being the main guy'

We aren't living in a world of hypothetical. If Jordan had come straight from high school and been a beast, he would have the record. That what if's don't matter.

No, but context does. Oh and tell that to the next Lebrontard who says that Lebron would have won at least five rings with Shaq.

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 11:43 PM
and it's worth noting that Kobe's rookie season was his age 18 season, LeBron's was his age 19 season.

Not that it matters, what matters is the number of shots and age in which it was accomplished...considering that is the measuring stick we are using.

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 11:44 PM
No, but context does. Oh and tell that to the next Lebrontard who says that Lebron would have won at least five rings with Shaq.

Anyone would win 5 rings being Shaq's number 2.


And yeah, context matters.....Kobe was a year older, and took 800 more shots to score the same number of points.

Hawkize31
01-19-2015, 11:49 PM
This whole thing is a moot point, mainly because if Kobe played for the Cavs he would have had the ball more and scored more. That does not mean he would be efficient like Lebron, but it does mean he would have had much more opportunities. Vice versa, Lebron would not have got the ball as much his first few years in LA playing second fiddle to Kobe.

And if Lebron shot as much as Kobe, he'd have broken the record much sooner.

That's the amazing thing in all this, is Lebron shatters this record despite playing so much more as a facilitator and all around player.
He's 31st all time in assists, and will possibly finish as high as 3rd all time. When Lebron's career is over, his career stat lines and rankings will look unreal. Potentially 1st in points, 3rd in assists, and top 20 in rebounds.

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 11:55 PM
And if Lebron shot as much as Kobe, he'd have broken the record much sooner.

That's the amazing thing in all this, is Lebron shatters this record despite playing so much more as a facilitator and all around player.
He's 31st all time in assists, and will possibly finish as high as 3rd all time. When Lebron's career is over, his career stat lines and rankings will look unreal. Potentially 1st in points, 3rd in assists, and top 20 in rebounds.

Right, just as an example, Kobe has played 12,000 more minutes so far, and LeBron is inside 100 assists from him, and will probably catch him all-time in assists before the year is over.

L8kers4life
01-19-2015, 11:56 PM
Anyone would win 5 rings being Shaq's number 2.


And yeah, context matters.....Kobe was a year older, and took 800 more shots to score the same number of points.


Great point, except Shaq and Kobe only won 3 rings together and Shaq only won 1 without Kobe. Shaq doesn't even have 5 rings, so the fact you think Shaq could have won 5 rings with anyone being his number 2 is laughable. Shaq, 4 years in Orlando 0 rings, Shaw 10 years after kobe 1 ring. Nice try

And your right Context does matter, Lebron was the only good player on the team and had the ball in his hands 100% of the time, Kobe came off the bench and had to play 4th fiddle to Shaq, Eddie Jones and Van Excel. Why is it, there is always context when arguing for Kobe but you guys don't do the same for Lebron?

Jeffy25
01-19-2015, 11:59 PM
Great point, except Shaq and Kobe only won 3 rings together and Shaq only won 1 without Kobe. Shaq doesn't even have 5 rings, so the fact you think Shaq could have won 5 rings with anyone being his number 2 is laughable. Shaq, 4 years in Orlando 0 rings, Shaw 10 years after kobe 1 ring. Nice try

And your right Context does matter, Lebron was the only good player on the team and had the ball in his hands 100% of the time, Kobe came off the bench and had to play 4th fiddle to Shaq, Eddie Jones and Van Excel. Why is it, there is always context when arguing for Kobe but you guys don't do the same for Lebron?

So LeBron needs to be penalized because he was better at 18 than Kobe?

LeBron at 18 wouldn't have been 4th fiddle there.

Why is it that LeBron still got more assists and points while being the only player in Cleveland? How come kobe never had the assist rate as LeBron, despite LeBron needing to be a number one, and Kobe getting to not be?

LeBron at 18, would have been second in PER on the 96-97 Lakers team, behind only Shaq. He would have been a starter at 18, playing instead of Jerome kerseay

L8kers4life
01-20-2015, 12:01 AM
Right, just as an example, Kobe has played 12,000 more minutes so far, and LeBron is inside 100 assists from him, and will probably catch him all-time in assists before the year is over.

Who the f cares, Lebron has basically been a PG his whole career, KB was never a pg. Lebron is the dominate ball handler on every team he plays for. Kobe is a scorer and facilitates when called upon.

Here is a question, Lebron will catch Kobe this year in assists, when will he catch Kobe in rings? Here is another question and this one might be hard to answer. Which team will Lebron run to next? Man Lebron on Portland or Lebron on Memphis, or shoot Lebron on Chicago, those should give him a shot to win not 2, not 3, not 4.....

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 12:04 AM
Who the f cares, Lebron has basically been a PG his whole career, KB was never a pg. Lebron is the dominate ball handler on every team he plays for. Kobe is a scorer and facilitates when called upon.

Here is a question, Lebron will catch Kobe this year in assists, when will he catch Kobe in rings? Here is another question and this one might be hard to answer. Which team will Lebron run to next? Man Lebron on Portland or Lebron on Memphis, or shoot Lebron on Chicago, those should give him a shot to win not 2, not 3, not 4.....

And he scores at a worse rate!

That's the whole point he just made. That LeBron isn't even a scorer first. He is a facilitator. While Kobe's main game is to shoot, LeBron is better at Kobe's game than Kobe is.


Who the f cares, it's the response to the poster who made the point.


Rings....because it's up to one player to get those rings. If LeBron has played years with a prime Shaq, you can bet he would have more rings. Rings are a team accomplishment, not an individual accomplishment.....unless you want to make Horry or Russell two of the best of all time.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 12:06 AM
You don't have to like LeBron, but it's very evident he is sufficiently superior to Kobe, and is passing him all-time this year. When LeBron is done, his numbers next to Kobe won't even draw the comps. Only reason we are seeing them now is because LeBron is at Kobe's all time level, while being 6 years younger and having played 12,000 less minutes. LeBron isn't done like Kobe basically is. When it's done, nobody will even bother to compare Kobe to him.

L8kers4life
01-20-2015, 12:09 AM
So LeBron needs to be penalized because he was better at 18 than Kobe?

LeBron at 18 wouldn't have been 4th fiddle there.

Why is it that LeBron still got more assists and points while being the only player in Cleveland? How come kobe never had the assist rate as LeBron, despite LeBron needing to be a number one, and Kobe getting to not be?

LeBron at 18, would have been second in PER on the 96-97 Lakers team, behind only Shaq. He would have been a starter at 18, playing instead of Jerome kerseay


Are you kidding me? Lebron had more assists and points for the same reason I have said 8 times before. Lebron was the PG and Sg on his teams, everything goes through Lebron. Secondly Lebron was a year older and was built like a football player when he came in the league, he was bigger and stronger than Kobe and played on a terrible team that needed him to score and pass. Kobe came off the bench and had a coach that got fired for not playing him enough.

Who cares about Lebron's assists he is basically a pg. Here is a stat, Lebron has more assists than any wing player in League history.

This isn't a poising match of who is better of the two. I personally think Lebron is the better player, this argument is about why Lebron is a head of Kobe's pace.

Jamiecballer
01-20-2015, 12:14 AM
You don't have to like LeBron, but it's very evident he is sufficiently superior to Kobe, and is passing him all-time this year. When LeBron is done, his numbers next to Kobe won't even draw the comps. Only reason we are seeing them now is because LeBron is at Kobe's all time level, while being 6 years younger and having played 12,000 less minutes. LeBron isn't done like Kobe basically is. When it's done, nobody will even bother to compare Kobe to him.
Can we fast forward then please? because these delusional kobe fans are hard to take

L8kers4life
01-20-2015, 12:15 AM
You don't have to like LeBron, but it's very evident he is sufficiently superior to Kobe, and is passing him all-time this year. When LeBron is done, his numbers next to Kobe won't even draw the comps. Only reason we are seeing them now is because LeBron is at Kobe's all time level, while being 6 years younger and having played 12,000 less minutes. LeBron isn't done like Kobe basically is. When it's done, nobody will even bother to compare Kobe to him.


He is more efficient, right now he is 10000 points away and 3 rings from catching Kobe. I also love how you bring up the ring thing like it doesn't matter, you only do that because Lebron is 2-3 in his finals career. Kobe is 5-2 and only 3 of those came with Shaq. Lebron played for the Heat when the east was at it's all time worse. He won his Rings against a Thunder team that was young and not ready, and against Spurs team that was up by 6 point with less than a minute, and even the heat fans thought they lost. Rings matter, winning in the finals matters, and sticking with 1 team matters. those are things Kobe has done that Lebron will probably never match. And 10000 points is not a given buddy, Lebron could get hurt as well.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 12:17 AM
Are you kidding me? Lebron had more assists and points for the same reason I have said 8 times before. Lebron was the PG and Sg on his teams, everything goes through Lebron.
So why are you penalizing him for being so versatile and dominant?


Secondly Lebron was a year older and was built like a football player when he came in the league, he was bigger and stronger than Kobe
So why are you penalizing him for being bigger and stronger and better built for the NBA?



and played on a terrible team that needed him to score and pass. Kobe came off the bench and had a coach that got fired for not playing him enough.
and that same coach probably would have played LeBron on that Laker team, considering he would have been the teams second best player already, and would have started over the weakest player in the starting rotation. Kobe wasn't really that good in the 96-97 season yet. He played pretty well in 97-98 and should have started playing, but he was playing behind some good players. If Kobe's rookie year had on the same Cleveland team that LeBron had, he wouldn't have started there either. By his second year, he probably would have.


And all of this is a moot point, because LeBron, despite being a PG/SF, and being a better passer and player overall, manages to be better at the one thing that Kobe does, which is shoot. And this is why LeBron, has managed to score his 24,000th point at a year younger age than Kobe did it, while managing to take 800 less shots to even get there.


Who cares about Lebron's assists he is basically a pg. Here is a stat, Lebron has more assists than any wing player in League history.
The 'who cares' is that it's amazing that LeBron has done this, despite not being a shot first player, like Kobe and the others that he is catching in the all-time scoring ranks.


This isn't a poising match of who is better of the two. I personally think Lebron is the better player, this argument is about why Lebron is a head of Kobe's pace.
Because he is a better shooter.

LeBron - .496% on 17,354 career field goal attempts
Kobe - .455% on 18,318 career field goal attempts (at the time of his 24,000th point)

That is why LeBron did it faster. He is the better shooter.

L8kers4life
01-20-2015, 12:20 AM
Can we fast forward then please? because these delusional kobe fans are hard to take

Don't start this crap Jamiecballer, this whole argument all started because I'm trying to say, Kobe didn't have as much control over his situation like Lebron. There are no delusions of Granger here. Lebron is the better player.

My only point earlier was that it wasn't as simple as Lebron was good early, Kobe was not. That's all, this isn't about who is better. Lebron is the better player, but he had the luxury of having the ball in his hands all the time from the beginning and Kobe did not. Kobe played with some good players who didn't just let Kobe do what he wanted, he had to earn it. Lebron was handed the keys from day 1. If Lebron played on Shaqs team from the beginning he would not have started of as option 1. That's my only point.

Jamiecballer
01-20-2015, 12:24 AM
Don't start this crap Jamiecballer, this whole argument all started because I'm trying to say, Kobe didn't have as much control over his situation like Lebron. There are no delusions of Granger here. Lebron is the better player.

My only point earlier was that it wasn't as simple as Lebron was good early, Kobe was not. That's all, this isn't about who is better. Lebron is the better player, but he had the luxury of having the ball in his hands all the time from the beginning and Kobe did not. Kobe played with some good players who didn't just let Kobe do what he wanted, he had to earn it. Lebron was handed the keys from day 1. If Lebron played on Shaqs team from the beginning he would not have started of as option 1. That's my only point.
Gotta love auto correct LOL

That's fine, I agree with those points for the most part.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 12:26 AM
He is more efficient, right now he is 10000 points away and 3 rings from catching Kobe. I also love how you bring up the ring thing like it doesn't matter, you only do that because Lebron is 2-3 in his finals career.
No, I dismiss the rings argument because it's the stupidest argument I've ever seen, it's blasted around on here all the time. It drives me nuts.

This isn't an individual sport. Nobody wins a ring by themselves. You have to have sufficient help. Jordan couldn't win until Scottie improved. LeBron couldn't win until he got Wade and Bosh. Kobe couldn't win without Shaq and Gasol, Robinson couldn't win without Duncan, Magic needed Worthy and Kareem or Wilkes, Bird needed McHale and Parish, etc....the list goes on. NOBODY WINS RINGS BY THEMSELVES. You have to have help! So the idea that you want to compare Kobe all-time to LeBron all time by using rings as a barometer is so misleading and downright foolish it borderlines on lunacy.

Are you going to honestly tell me that a 21-23 year old LeBron wouldn't win those three rings with Shaq like Kobe did? Did Kobe do something so special for those teams? I remember Kobe not starting in some Finals games, and completely staying out of Shaq's way...I do remember that. I imagine a 21-23 year old LeBron would have won with one of the 5 best players of all-time, and one of the top big men in the game of all time posting 30 PER's.

No other sport does anyone use rings as the barometer for greatness. It's down right foolish and stupid. People know better in other sports, yet you see basketball fans do it sometimes, and it's just dumb. You can't win alone.

That is why I dismiss it. Because it's a ridiculous argument. Even if LeBron had 8 rings in 8 seasons, I would dismiss it. Because it's a horrible crutch.


Kobe is 5-2 and only 3 of those came with Shaq. Lebron played for the Heat when the east was at it's all time worse. He won his Rings against a Thunder team that was young and not ready, and against Spurs team that was up by 6 point with less than a minute, and even the heat fans thought they lost. Rings matter, winning in the finals matters, and sticking with 1 team matters. those are things Kobe has done that Lebron will probably never match. And 10000 points is not a given buddy, Lebron could get hurt as well.

In case you forgot, Kobe demanded he be traded until they got him Gasol....sticking with one team doesn't matter. You demand a player get rings, but Cleveland wasn't doing anything to help him. So he went and got his rings, that you demand he have to be an all-time great, and then you penalize him for leaving to get them, while expecting him to do something that nobody has ever done all-time any way. All the other all-time greats had help brought to them. That wasn't helping for LeBron in Cleveland.




You can drop the rings argument, it's useless. And what's even more enlightening is that you put up 5-2, as if not getting to the Finals and losing less is somehow a better thing. You are saying that LeBron would be better all-time if he got to the ECF 5 times, but lost 3 more times, and didn't lose in the Finals. That that is somehow better than losing in the ECF. I hope you realize how absolutely silly and brain dead that argument is.

mngopher35
01-20-2015, 12:28 AM
lakers4life you do realize that Kobe has a very similar usage rate to Lebron in the time period we are talking about, right?

Lebron got to this record at an earlier age, in less minutes, and less shots taken. Yes Kobe did have a different situation coming in but even just comparing minutes or shots (which factors in opportunity) Lebron still has the advantage. Context matters but any way you are looking at it here Lebron still reached the goal earlier.

L8kers4life
01-20-2015, 12:29 AM
So why are you penalizing him for being so versatile and dominant?


So why are you penalizing him for being bigger and stronger and better built for the NBA?



and that same coach probably would have played LeBron on that Laker team, considering he would have been the teams second best player already, and would have started over the weakest player in the starting rotation. Kobe wasn't really that good in the 96-97 season yet. He played pretty well in 97-98 and should have started playing, but he was playing behind some good players. If Kobe's rookie year had on the same Cleveland team that LeBron had, he wouldn't have started there either. By his second year, he probably would have.


And all of this is a moot point, because LeBron, despite being a PG/SF, and being a better passer and player overall, manages to be better at the one thing that Kobe does, which is shoot. And this is why LeBron, has managed to score his 24,000th point at a year younger age than Kobe did it, while managing to take 800 less shots to even get there.


The 'who cares' is that it's amazing that LeBron has done this, despite not being a shot first player, like Kobe and the others that he is catching in the all-time scoring ranks.


Because he is a better shooter.

LeBron - .496% on 17,354 career field goal attempts
Kobe - .455% on 18,318 career field goal attempts (at the time of his 24,000th point)

That is why LeBron did it faster. He is the better shooter.


Dude I'm not penalizing Lebron, why cant you get this through your head, I'm telling you some of the reasons that contributed to him getting that record before Kobe, Also at what point did I say Kobe was a better shooter? I never said that, I also never said Kobe was better than Lebron, all I said is, this argument is not as simple as Lebron was good, Kobe was not. That's it, quit arguing, your like a little kid who doesn't want anything remotely negative about his hero.

And in my previous post, I meant to say Kobe has the most assists of any wing of all time, and by wing I mean sg.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 12:31 AM
Don't start this crap Jamiecballer, this whole argument all started because I'm trying to say, Kobe didn't have as much control over his situation like Lebron. There are no delusions of Granger here. Lebron is the better player.

My only point earlier was that it wasn't as simple as Lebron was good early, Kobe was not. That's all, this isn't about who is better. Lebron is the better player, but he had the luxury of having the ball in his hands all the time from the beginning and Kobe did not. Kobe played with some good players who didn't just let Kobe do what he wanted, he had to earn it. Lebron was handed the keys from day 1. If Lebron played on Shaqs team from the beginning he would not have started of as option 1. That's my only point.

They had the same usage rate.

LeBron - 31.6%
Kobe - 31.2%

Same usage rate, Kobe had the ball in his hands too, and manged to take 800 more shots than LeBron to reach the same goal.

L8kers4life
01-20-2015, 12:33 AM
lakers4life you do realize that Kobe has a very similar usage rate to Lebron in the time period we are talking about, right?

Lebron got to this record at an earlier age, in less minutes, and less shots taken. Yes Kobe did have a different situation coming in but even just comparing minutes or shots (which factors in opportunity) Lebron still has the advantage. Context matters but any way you are looking at it here Lebron still reached the goal earlier.


This is a very good post and I do agree, but to that point, there usage name was not quit the same. At age 18 kobe was in the league, at 18 Lebron was playing in HS, so that is on year right there where there is no comparison. Also years 2 and 3 Kobe had no where near the usage Lebron had in years 2 and 3.

Fact of the matter is Lebron reached the goal earlier, I just took offense to a poster saying, Lebron was good, kobe sucked that is why Lebron reached it first.

L8kers4life
01-20-2015, 12:35 AM
They had the same usage rate.

LeBron - 31.6%
Kobe - 31.2%

Same usage rate, Kobe had the ball in his hands too, and manged to take 800 more shots than LeBron to reach the same goal.

Send me the link to that usage rate and make sure it shows Kobe's rookie year and the 2 years that followed, and then show me Lebron's first 3 years. I would like to see that usage rate with a link.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 12:37 AM
Dude I'm not penalizing Lebron, why cant you get this through your head,


Of course you are penalizing him, you brought up rings as an argument. Why else do that?


I'm telling you some of the reasons that contributed to him getting that record before Kobe, Also at what point did I say Kobe was a better shooter? I never said that,
I've never said you said that. I answered why LeBron did this faster than Kobe did. It's because while having similar opportunities, LeBron was the better shooter.


I also never said Kobe was better than Lebron, all I said is, this argument is not as simple as Lebron was good, Kobe was not.
Nobody has ever said that.

I could pull the same defensiveness and say what you just said. But that's pointless.


That's it, quit arguing, your like a little kid who doesn't want anything remotely negative about his hero.
For what it's worth, I don't like LeBron, and I hate his personality.

But some of this stuff is pretty obvious, and Kobe fans get awfully defensive about their boy.


And in my previous post, I meant to say Kobe has the most assists of any wing of all time, and by wing I mean sg.
Only Ray Allen and Reggie Miller are even close to him in minutes all time among shooting guards, of course he is going to have the most of all-time. He is about to pass Reggie in minutes too, and he's already ahead of Allen. Kind of easy to lead in a counting stat when you play more than anyone else.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 12:39 AM
Send me the link to that usage rate and make sure it shows Kobe's rookie year and the 2 years that followed, and then show me Lebron's first 3 years. I would like to see that usage rate with a link.

Not like it's hard to find....but okay....

Kobe
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html#1997-2009-sum:advanced

LeBron
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html#advanced::none

mngopher35
01-20-2015, 12:41 AM
He is more efficient, right now he is 10000 points away and 3 rings from catching Kobe. I also love how you bring up the ring thing like it doesn't matter, you only do that because Lebron is 2-3 in his finals career. Kobe is 5-2 and only 3 of those came with Shaq. Lebron played for the Heat when the east was at it's all time worse. He won his Rings against a Thunder team that was young and not ready, and against Spurs team that was up by 6 point with less than a minute, and even the heat fans thought they lost. Rings matter, winning in the finals matters, and sticking with 1 team matters. those are things Kobe has done that Lebron will probably never match. And 10000 points is not a given buddy, Lebron could get hurt as well.

So you want people to use context and then argue 2-3 in the finals vs. 5-2 without factoring in the context you are calling for in another argument?

I would take the 0-1 cavs version of Lebron over the 3-0 finals version of Kobe with Shaq (comparing the first 7 years of their career). Those records say a lot about their teams but not necessarily as much about the individual. This is why so many people actually do limit the amount the rings argument matters to them, context.

L8kers4life
01-20-2015, 12:44 AM
No, I dismiss the rings argument because it's the stupidest argument I've ever seen, it's blasted around on here all the time. It drives me nuts.

This isn't an individual sport. Nobody wins a ring by themselves. You have to have sufficient help. Jordan couldn't win until Scottie improved. LeBron couldn't win until he got Wade and Bosh. Kobe couldn't win without Shaq and Gasol, Robinson couldn't win without Duncan, Magic needed Worthy and Kareem or Wilkes, Bird needed McHale and Parish, etc....the list goes on. NOBODY WINS RINGS BY THEMSELVES. You have to have help! So the idea that you want to compare Kobe all-time to LeBron all time by using rings as a barometer is so misleading and downright foolish it borderlines on lunacy.

Are you going to honestly tell me that a 21-23 year old LeBron wouldn't win those three rings with Shaq like Kobe did? Did Kobe do something so special for those teams? I remember Kobe not starting in some Finals games, and completely staying out of Shaq's way...I do remember that. I imagine a 21-23 year old LeBron would have won with one of the 5 best players of all-time, and one of the top big men in the game of all time posting 30 PER's.

No other sport does anyone use rings as the barometer for greatness. It's down right foolish and stupid. People know better in other sports, yet you see basketball fans do it sometimes, and it's just dumb. You can't win alone.

That is why I dismiss it. Because it's a ridiculous argument. Even if LeBron had 8 rings in 8 seasons, I would dismiss it. Because it's a horrible crutch.



In case you forgot, Kobe demanded he be traded until they got him Gasol....sticking with one team doesn't matter. You demand a player get rings, but Cleveland wasn't doing anything to help him. So he went and got his rings, that you demand he have to be an all-time great, and then you penalize him for leaving to get them, while expecting him to do something that nobody has ever done all-time any way. All the other all-time greats had help brought to them. That wasn't helping for LeBron in Cleveland.




You can drop the rings argument, it's useless. And what's even more enlightening is that you put up 5-2, as if not getting to the Finals and losing less is somehow a better thing. You are saying that LeBron would be better all-time if he got to the ECF 5 times, but lost 3 more times, and didn't lose in the Finals. That that is somehow better than losing in the ECF. I hope you realize how absolutely silly and brain dead that argument is.



Fail every sport uses Championships, In football, Joe Montana and Tom Brady are widely considered the best QB's of all time because they have Won more super bowls and were great while doing so. Bill Russell and MJ are widely considered the best in basketball, sure Horry has 7 rings, but he is not considered in that argument because he is not an all time great.

Magic is great because of how many rings and finals he has been there. In baseball Jeter is considered the greatest shortstop to ever play, why because he was great and he has the rings to go along with it.

Don't make it out like it would be so easy for Lebron to win with Shaq, Kobe and Shaq pushed eachother and brought eachother to those levels. Lebron would not have rode Shaq the way Kobe did. And lets not discredit the most dominate 1-2 punch of all time. Lebron struggled to win with 3 great players and some of the best role players a team has ever had in the weakest eastern conference of all time, why would it be so easy for Lebron?
Lebron drove to the rim early in his career and it took several years for his J to develop. Lebron always drove to the basket and got easy buckets, with Shaq there those drives would not have been so easy with Shaq clogging the lane.

L8kers4life
01-20-2015, 12:49 AM
Not like it's hard to find....but okay....

Kobe
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html#1997-2009-sum:advanced

LeBron
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html#advanced::none



Nice try bro, I said usage rate their first 3 years. Heck lets do first 4 years.

Kobe usage 26%

Lebron usage 30.6%

nice try though

mngopher35
01-20-2015, 12:51 AM
This is a very good post and I do agree, but to that point, there usage name was not quit the same. At age 18 kobe was in the league, at 18 Lebron was playing in HS, so that is on year right there where there is no comparison. Also years 2 and 3 Kobe had no where near the usage Lebron had in years 2 and 3.

Fact of the matter is Lebron reached the goal earlier, I just took offense to a poster saying, Lebron was good, kobe sucked that is why Lebron reached it first.

Well a lot of the usage issue actually is because Kobe had a huge usage in his prime when the team was so bad after Shaq. So he had a lower usage to start his career but bigger one during his prime while Lebron has been somewhat consistent throughout comparatively.

I do agree though that saying Kobe sucks is ridiculous. Heck even the title is a bit uncalled for as crushes is an exaggeration (but that's common when it comes to these two here). I think it is fair to point out the circumstances were a bit different but any way you look at this Lebron has the advantage and was a better player to start their careers (a lot of this could be attributed to his insane physical attributes).

L8kers4life
01-20-2015, 12:53 AM
Not like it's hard to find....but okay....

Kobe
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html#1997-2009-sum:advanced

LeBron
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html#advanced::none


I'm done, I just proved your agenda. My point this whole time, was Lebron had the ball much more the first 3 years, in reality, it's the first 5 years. Stop trying to prove points if your not going to put true facts, you just made up the usage thing, and don't say you didn't know I meant the first 3 years. Cmon. This whole argument has been about Lebron having the ball much more than Kobe in the first few years and your reference just proved my point. Thank you

L8kers4life
01-20-2015, 12:54 AM
Well a lot of the usage issue actually is because Kobe had a huge usage in his prime when the team was so bad after Shaq. So he had a lower usage to start his career but bigger one during his prime while Lebron has been somewhat consistent throughout comparatively.

I do agree though that saying Kobe sucks is ridiculous. Heck even the title is a bit uncalled for as crushes is an exaggeration (but that's common when it comes to these two here). I think it is fair to point out the circumstances were a bit different but any way you look at this Lebron has the advantage and was a better player to start their careers (a lot of this could be attributed to his insane physical attributes).



Agreed

Jamiecballer
01-20-2015, 12:55 AM
Did you just say Jeter is considered the greatest shortstop to ever play?

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 12:59 AM
Fail every sport uses Championships, In football, Joe Montana and Tom Brady are widely considered the best QB's of all time because they have Won more super bowls and were great while doing so.
You will never see it in baseball, Bonds and Williams never won a ring, two of the best ever, easily.

Manning isn't considered an all-time great with his one ring?

Is Barry Sanders not arguably the best running back of all-time?

Dan Marino an all-time great? Tony Gonzalez?


Bill Russell and MJ are widely considered the best in basketball, sure Horry has 7 rings, but he is not considered in that argument because he is not an all time great.
Is it possible to have less substance to an argument?

Horry has 7 rings, but isn't considered in the argument because he isn't an all-time great

Maybe re-read what you just wrote. You can't pick and choose who you give the credit to.


Magic is great because of how many rings and finals he has been there.
Magic is great because he was the first of his kind, a point forward, who dished the ball at a hell of a rate and manged to be a great scorer in the process.



In baseball Jeter is considered the greatest shortstop to ever play,
No, no he is not. Jeter isn't even a top 5 shortstop of all-time to literally anybody who follows the sport. You are pretty poorly informed on this topic.

why because he was great and he has the rings to go along with it.
Jeter is one of the worst defensive shortstops of all-time, but one of the better offensive shortstops of all-time, and he played a damn long time.

Nobody cares about his rings in the sport, and nobody in baseball uses rings in their all-time ranking.

In fact, you can go to the MLB forum right now and read the all-time best players among pitchers and position players, and you won't see a single person who mentioned rings, anywhere. And Jeter isn't even on the list and we are 35 players deep now. Literally nobody has mentioned his name yet. He is going to be around the 70's or so before he will start getting named.


Don't make it out like it would be so easy for Lebron to win with Shaq, Kobe and Shaq pushed eachother and brought eachother to those levels. Lebron would not have rode Shaq the way Kobe did.
You have absolutely no way of knowing that at all.


And lets not discredit the most dominate 1-2 punch of all time. Lebron struggled to win with 3 great players and some of the best role players a team has ever had in the weakest eastern conference of all time, why would it be so easy for Lebron?
Because LeBron is that much better than Kobe and would have been easily the better defender, and would have scored at a better rate, while being the better passer. In fact, he probably would have taken a lot of the burden off of Shaq, allowing him to extend this prime. Kobe would have had the same struggles in Miami as LeBron did, no way Kobe pulls out additional rings or does anything LeBron didn't do.


Lebron drove to the rim early in his career and it took several years for his J to develop. Lebron always drove to the basket and got easy buckets, with Shaq there those drives would not have been so easy with Shaq clogging the lane.
Shaq in the lane would have easily helped. It's not like Shaq would have started guarding him lol

Shaq moved in and out of the post very well for a big man. He would have helped LeBron with this aspect of his game quite a bit.

But while we are at it, would a 26-29 year old Kobe win in Miami with Wade and Bosh?

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 01:03 AM
I'm done, I just proved your agenda. My point this whole time, was Lebron had the ball much more the first 3 years, in reality, it's the first 5 years. Stop trying to prove points if your not going to put true facts, you just made up the usage thing, and don't say you didn't know I meant the first 3 years. Cmon. This whole argument has been about Lebron having the ball much more than Kobe in the first few years and your reference just proved my point. Thank you



So you don't believe me about the stat, so I link it for you, and then your reply is 'I'm done'

Then you say you proved my agenda....which was???????

You have managed to change your argument in every single one of your posts. I imagine you are just so far gone on this that you are simply trying to cower back to wrap it up, and have realized that you can't....

Do you remember what your first three posts were?

Because they are entirely different then this post.




You have never said the first three years. We quoted your post where you said that LeBron had the ball in his hands, and Kobe didn't. Both of us told you that they had have the same usage through this point in their careers. You keep acting like Kobe didn't get the same opportunities as LeBron or something, even though he has managed to take 800 additional shots to reach the same total of points, and it took him a year longer and more minutes and games.

There is no way to slice this in Kobe's favor

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 01:05 AM
Well a lot of the usage issue actually is because Kobe had a huge usage in his prime when the team was so bad after Shaq. So he had a lower usage to start his career but bigger one during his prime while Lebron has been somewhat consistent throughout comparatively.
Then shouldn't have Kobe enjoyed years of just free scoring without limitations on how much he shot?

Because he was ending Laker possessions with a shot 35% of the time (most in a single season since Wilt) while still barely reaching 30 ppg.

And still took longer to reach 24,000 points.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 01:07 AM
Nice try bro, I said usage rate their first 3 years. Heck lets do first 4 years.

Kobe usage 26%

Lebron usage 30.6%

nice try though

No you didn't

You said


. Lebron is the better player, but he had the luxury of having the ball in his hands all the time from the beginning and Kobe did not.


And I replied that they had the same usage throughout.

You didn't say first three years until AFTER I posted the numbers.


This is an incredibly weak tactic of debate

IKnowHoops
01-20-2015, 01:17 AM
This is a very good post and I do agree, but to that point, there usage name was not quit the same. At age 18 kobe was in the league, at 18 Lebron was playing in HS, so that is on year right there where there is no comparison. Also years 2 and 3 Kobe had no where near the usage Lebron had in years 2 and 3.

Fact of the matter is Lebron reached the goal earlier, I just took offense to a poster saying, Lebron was good, kobe sucked that is why Lebron reached it first.

Can we agree then that Kobe was good, and Lebron was just better, and thats why he passed him.

Also, the first part I highlighted makes it harder for Lebron to score more points at a younger age too.

Yes Lebron was better from the start, and he got more opportunity earlier on, but thats a testament to Lebrons greatness. Secondly any advantage he had, is nullified by the fact that Kobe took 800 more shots over that same course of time. What if Bron fans started making excuses that the only reason Lebron didn't break it sooner was because he took 800 less shots? At the end of the day, both are great, but Lebron was a better, and more efficient scorer, who didn't need as many shots as Kobe to score the same amount of points. Thats pretty much the bottom line to who the better scorer is. Who can score the most points with the least amount of attempts.

mngopher35
01-20-2015, 01:21 AM
Then shouldn't have Kobe enjoyed years of just free scoring without limitations on how much he shot?

Because he was ending Laker possessions with a shot 35% of the time (most in a single season since Wilt) while still barely reaching 30 ppg.

And still took longer to reach 24,000 points.

Ya, that's why I responded to him in the first place. Each one of them had a time period where they were shooting more than the other which equals out to roughly the same usage over the 34,000+ minutes.

IKnowHoops
01-20-2015, 01:24 AM
And dude, if they have the same Usage rate up to the point of scoring 24,000 then why make the point about usage rate at particular times in there careers? If Lebrons usage rate was higher the first 3 years, then that just means Kobe's usage rate was higher the last 9 years. Its all even. One thing we know is that all things being equal, Lebron is the better scorer. The only way Kobe could of gotten there faster would of been for him to have a higher usage, and over 1300 more shot attempts. Thats the only way Kobe gets there faster.

FlashBolt
01-20-2015, 03:07 AM
Who the f cares, Lebron has basically been a PG his whole career, KB was never a pg. Lebron is the dominate ball handler on every team he plays for. Kobe is a scorer and facilitates when called upon.

Here is a question, Lebron will catch Kobe this year in assists, when will he catch Kobe in rings? Here is another question and this one might be hard to answer. Which team will Lebron run to next? Man Lebron on Portland or Lebron on Memphis, or shoot Lebron on Chicago, those should give him a shot to win not 2, not 3, not 4.....

Dude.. You sound like you're enraged. Kobe without Shaq would have only had two rings... Sorry, but playing for the Lakers franchise has given him a luxury no other franchise player would have. As good as the Celtics were, Lakers are regarded as the most storied franchise. You just said Bron was a PG but we're talking about points.. Kobe is a SG. Shouldn't he have more points? Yet, it's Bron who beats Kobe in APG and PPG. Stop it. You're reaching for something you can't grab.


Are you kidding me? Lebron had more assists and points for the same reason I have said 8 times before. Lebron was the PG and Sg on his teams, everything goes through Lebron. Secondly Lebron was a year older and was built like a football player when he came in the league, he was bigger and stronger than Kobe and played on a terrible team that needed him to score and pass. Kobe came off the bench and had a coach that got fired for not playing him enough.

Who cares about Lebron's assists he is basically a pg. Here is a stat, Lebron has more assists than any wing player in League history.

This isn't a poising match of who is better of the two. I personally think Lebron is the better player, this argument is about why Lebron is a head of Kobe's pace.

LeBron is ahead because LeBron is better. Your argument fails because for all we know, Kobe could have injured himself playing extra minutes. Stop fighting over something that no one can possibly know. It's a fact James is the youngest to score 24,000 points. Who cares what Kobe could have or should have done. LeBron tried to get into the NBA during his junior year at HS. Are we going to say "LeBron would have 26000 points by now?" No..


He is more efficient, right now he is 10000 points away and 3 rings from catching Kobe. I also love how you bring up the ring thing like it doesn't matter, you only do that because Lebron is 2-3 in his finals career. Kobe is 5-2 and only 3 of those came with Shaq. Lebron played for the Heat when the east was at it's all time worse. He won his Rings against a Thunder team that was young and not ready, and against Spurs team that was up by 6 point with less than a minute, and even the heat fans thought they lost. Rings matter, winning in the finals matters, and sticking with 1 team matters. those are things Kobe has done that Lebron will probably never match. And 10000 points is not a given buddy, Lebron could get hurt as well.

1) First off, LeBron didn't face an all time weak East.. Stop creating lies. I can also bring up that Lakers were saved by Robert Horry numerous times.. Also, let's not forget the SAC vs LAL game in which it was proven to be fixed.. 27 fourth quarter FTA in which Lakers couldn't hit a single field goal for such a long period of time? Give me a break. Jeffy wasn't lying. T-Mac, Vince Carter, AI.. Any of those guys could have won 3 rings with Shaq.
2) Only 3 rings? Let's not forget Kobe played with arguably the most dominating center and a top 3 center ever. Let's not forget that many people in PSD will select Shaq over Jordan and no one would bat an eye at that. Shaq is a legend. Wade/Bosh would be lucky to crack top 30. Know your place and understand that Shaq is a much better player than Wade/Bosh COMBINED.
3) A Thunder team that beat the Spurs -- who are the best team in the decade. SWEPT the defending champs in Mavericks. DESTROYED Kobe's Lakers. Yet, we're going to say "They were young?" That's true but how come Kobe couldn't stop them if they were so young? More excuses.
4) The same Kobe that was going to demand a trade when times were bad. The same Kobe who has consistently chased potential free agents away. Let's put Kobe in LeBron's shoe and you tell me if he could do what LeBron was doing. Let's put a PRIME LeBron with a PRIME Shaq.. Then tell me LeBron wouldn't have more than 5 rings right now. You yourself acknowledged that LeBron is better, yet, you are arguing that Kobe is better as well? Oh, yeah.. The 10000 points is not given because LeBron could get hurt, but Kobe could get hurt had he played more minutes during his first two years, no?


Don't start this crap Jamiecballer, this whole argument all started because I'm trying to say, Kobe didn't have as much control over his situation like Lebron. There are no delusions of Granger here. Lebron is the better player.

My only point earlier was that it wasn't as simple as Lebron was good early, Kobe was not. That's all, this isn't about who is better. Lebron is the better player, but he had the luxury of having the ball in his hands all the time from the beginning and Kobe did not. Kobe played with some good players who didn't just let Kobe do what he wanted, he had to earn it. Lebron was handed the keys from day 1. If Lebron played on Shaqs team from the beginning he would not have started of as option 1. That's my only point.

1) LeBron had the luxury because he was a better player. There is no way Lakers doesn't start LeBron. Kobe wasn't nearly as good as LeBron was. Anyone with a naked eye could see that. Kobe in his second year would NOT be putting up 27 points a game. If Kobe played on LeBron's team from the beginning, he would have been triple teamed. If LeBron played on Shaq's team, he would be option 2, would have had easier shots, would have had more rings, etc. You also consistently acknowledge that Kobe had a team that didn't require him to do much.. but doesn't that mean Kobe had more help than LeBron? So therefore, you just make empty assumptions everywhere. Your biased arguments/hypothetical only support Kobe.. not LeBron. And that is a clear indication of biased.

WaDe03
01-20-2015, 03:45 AM
LeBron > Wade > Kobe

Sean Moore
01-20-2015, 07:44 AM
Can't believe there has been ten pages of debate over such a meaningless record.

Sean Moore
01-20-2015, 07:53 AM
So you don't believe me about the stat, so I link it for you, and then your reply is 'I'm done'

Then you say you proved my agenda....which was???????

You have managed to change your argument in every single one of your posts. I imagine you are just so far gone on this that you are simply trying to cower back to wrap it up, and have realized that you can't....

Do you remember what your first three posts were?

Because they are entirely different then this post.




You have never said the first three years. We quoted your post where you said that LeBron had the ball in his hands, and Kobe didn't. Both of us told you that they had have the same usage through this point in their careers. You keep acting like Kobe didn't get the same opportunities as LeBron or something, even though he has managed to take 800 additional shots to reach the same total of points, and it took him a year longer and more minutes and games.

There is no way to slice this in Kobe's favor

I have been reading through some of the last few pages of this debate and the thing I have noticed is that the Laker fan you have been engaging with the most clearly asked you for Kobe's usage for his first few seasons in comparison to Lebron's to prove the point he was making about minutes played. To which you replied with a career usage stat. Talk about a red herring. Wow! Of all the people who have responded, you clearly have the most obvious agenda. Who cares about this record anyways. It proves next to nothing in the grand scheme. On paper Lebron has been the more efficient scorer than Kobe. We all know this to be true. Nothing you have said here has been all that groundbreaking. Basketball statistics are one of the most deceptive of all sports. You really need to watch the games more and stop relying so heavily on statistical analysis. If you wanna go by purely statistical analysis, than Samuel Dalembert and Tyson Chandler have nearly identical impact on the game. Yet when you watch the games actually, you can see that this couldn't be further from the truth. My pet peeve truly is people who use stats for like 90% of their argument and clearly don't watch enough games to have an insightful debate.

Sean Moore
01-20-2015, 08:14 AM
Anyone would win 5 rings being Shaq's number 2.


But while we are at it, would a 26-29 year old Kobe win in Miami with Wade and Bosh?

Are you kidding me!!!

You talk about how hypothetical arguments are weak and then you go and post this. You contradict yourself at every turn.

Do you actually believe that Kobe wouldn't have been able to at least match Lebron's record of 2/4 in the finals with Miami. You really are deluding yourself here. I base my opinions on facts rather than subjective statistical rhetoric and baseless hypotheticals. The fact is that Kobe has already proven to win rings with less talent than Lebron had in Miami and against greater opponents. If you truly believe that Kobe couldn't have won at least equal to Lebron with that scenario in Miami with all that talent at this side against primarily a weak eastern conference than I really don't know what to say to you. Kobe shattered the San Antonio Spurs and the Dallas Mavericks in his youth in far superior ways than did Lebron. To say that Kobe wouldn't have had at least similar success based on these facts is completely irresponsible.

I used to think that Kobe fans were bad back in the day, but now Lebron fans have definitely taken their place and then some. To think I actually used to defend Lebron against Kobe and Laker fans too. The contradictions and inconsistencies in your logic are just too much for me to keep silent on this one.

JasonJohnHorn
01-20-2015, 08:56 AM
Big deal. Kobe, basically, wasn't even a starter his first 2 years.

Kobe's first 2 years: 150 game (7 starts) MPG 15.5/26.0 -1759 points

LeBron's first 2 years : 159 games (159 starts) MPG 39.5/42.4 - 3829 points

It's only because Kobe wasn't starting in his first 2 years.

I find this to be flawed. People always point to Kobe ring count when comparing Kobe and LBJ, but these people don't take note that Kobe came out of the draft and went to a contender while LBJ got drafted by the worst team in the league.

They had different situations. Kobe was winning right away and playing behind and All-Star shooting guard; LBJ got drafted by the worst team that needed as much production out of their new franchise player as possible. One gets the rings, the other gets the stats.

That said... if Kobe wasn't good enough to take on a heavy load at 19 or 20 like LBJ was, then it's on Kobe for not being as much of a phenom at young age.

If you take them at 19... LBJ was the better player at that age. Looking at the per36 stats, they were about the same with steals, but LBJ was CLEARLY already a better playmaker and a better rebounder. LBJ also comitted less turnovers while getting more assists and far less fouls.

They shot the same. percentages their first season, but their second year LBJ brought his shooting up to .472, whilst Kobe was still at .428. LBJ gave his team a REASON to give him the ball earlier, which is why he was scoring so much more at a young age.


So... the reason LBJ has this record instead of Kobe is because he matrued faster as a player and had a better situation to socre more his first season. Kobe not being good enough to be a first or sedcond option his second season, that's onhim, not LBJ.

But this 'age' thing is pointless. Guys that came out of highschool will have this record over guys like WIlt and Kareem that weren't allowed in the league until they were 23. The real record shoudl be who got there in the fewest games. In which case, Kareem and Wilt blow Kobe and LBJ out of the water.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 09:00 AM
Are you kidding me!!!

You talk about how hypothetical arguments are weak and then you go and post this. You contradict yourself at every turn.

Do you actually believe that Kobe wouldn't have been able to at least match Lebron's record of 2/4 in the finals with Miami. You really are deluding yourself here. I base my opinions on facts rather than subjective statistical rhetoric and baseless hypotheticals. The fact is that Kobe has already proven to win rings with less talent than Lebron had in Miami and against greater opponents. If you truly believe that Kobe couldn't have won at least equal to Lebron with that scenario in Miami with all that talent at this side against primarily a weak eastern conference than I really don't know what to say to you. Kobe shattered the San Antonio Spurs and the Dallas Mavericks in his youth in far superior ways than did Lebron. To say that Kobe wouldn't have had at least similar success based on these facts is completely irresponsible.

I used to think that Kobe fans were bad back in the day, but now Lebron fans have definitely taken their place and then some. To think I actually used to defend Lebron against Kobe and Laker fans too. The contradictions and inconsistencies in your logic are just too much for me to keep silent on this one.

I never said he wouldn't match it.

I'm playing the same game he is, offering the same questions but the inverse.


I said we aren't talking hypotheticals pages ago, and then more hypotheticals continued to be presented, I would think it reasonable to ask one back.

And I never implied anything in that question, despite your insistence.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 09:06 AM
I have been reading through some of the last few pages of this debate and the thing I have noticed is that the Laker fan you have been engaging with the most clearly asked you for Kobe's usage for his first few seasons in comparison to Lebron's to prove the point he was making about minutes played. To which you replied with a career usage stat. Talk about a red herring. Wow! Of all the people who have responded, you clearly have the most obvious agenda. Who cares about this record anyways. It proves next to nothing in the grand scheme. On paper Lebron has been the more efficient scorer than Kobe. We all know this to be true. Nothing you have said here has been all that groundbreaking. Basketball statistics are one of the most deceptive of all sports. You really need to watch the games more and stop relying so heavily on statistical analysis. If you wanna go by purely statistical analysis, than Samuel Dalembert and Tyson Chandler have nearly identical impact on the game. Yet when you watch the games actually, you can see that this couldn't be further from the truth. My pet peeve truly is people who use stats for like 90% of their argument and clearly don't watch enough games to have an insightful debate.

It absolutely was not

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?883597-LeBron-James-Shatters-Kobe-Bryant-s-Record&p=29538224#post29538224

He never said anything about first three seasons until AFTER I posted the numbers. Re-read the exchange.


Your two posts are also, completely filled with strawman arguments, making assumptions about what I am arguing (statistics, that Kobe couldn't win in Miami, despite me never saying anything to the contrary, and then proceed to put down those arguments as if that shows a lacking in my posts or something).



This entire debate has been about the context needed for Kobe in his pursuit of his 24,000 points. You have had some people defending why it took him a year longer, citing his usage in his first three years, citing his minutes and games played in his first three years.

And none of that matters or helps Kobe, because despite all of that, LeBron managed to reach these points in less minutes with less shots. Doesn't matter what context you try to pull out here, nothing helps Kobe enough to make up the difference for Kobe fans to cling to a Kobe vs LeBron comparison. LeBron just simply has him here.


And again, not a LeBron fan, that's such a tired, useless portion of these discussions for people to assume.

Sean Moore
01-20-2015, 09:30 AM
I never said he wouldn't match it.

I'm playing the same game he is, offering the same questions but the inverse.


I said we aren't talking hypotheticals pages ago, and then more hypotheticals continued to be presented, I would think it reasonable to ask one back.

And I never implied anything in that question, despite your insistence.

Don't really see how the argument of "stooping to ones level" to show them up ever proves anything. If you say that hypotheticals are weak, then stick to your guns. It just can make you come off as a hypocrite otherwise. Also, I didn't notice him using similar hypotheticals to the ones you were using to warrant such a tit for tat to begin with. He was mainly taking about per minute production. Perhaps I am missing something though.

Again, this record doesn't really prove anything all that noteworthy to me as it just reiterates stuff we already knew. Lebron is the more efficient scorer on paper. He also shoots a lesser volume of shots and is far more careful in his shot selection which for the most part is conducive of somebody with a more efficient scoring rate. You can also make this comparison to MJ and Lebron would appear to come out ahead as the more efficient scorer on paper as well, which is exactly why I wouldn't read too much into this.

Additionally, I could argue back that Kobe produces far more match-up problems and adjustments for opposing defenses than does Lebron because of his wider array of ways to score the basketball. This in turn can be of greater benefit to his teams depending on the situation. These are the sort of things that don't show up on a stat sheet and why I prefer to watch the games than analyze a stat sheet.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 09:43 AM
Don't really see how the argument of "stooping to ones level" to show them up ever proves anything. If you say that hypotheticals are weak, then stick to your guns. It just can make you come off as a hypocrite otherwise. Also, I didn't notice him using similar hypotheticals to the ones you were using to warrant such a tit for tat to begin with. He was mainly taking about per minute production. Perhaps I am missing something though.

Again, this record doesn't really prove anything all that noteworthy to me as it just reiterates stuff we already knew. Lebron is the more efficient scorer on paper. He also shoots a lesser volume of shots and is far more careful in his shot selection which for the most part is conducive of somebody with a more efficient scoring rate. You can also make this comparison to MJ and Lebron would appear to come out ahead as the more efficient scorer on paper as well, which is exactly why I wouldn't read too much into this.

Additionally, I could argue back that Kobe produces far more match-up problems and adjustments for opposing defenses than does Lebron because of his wider array of ways to score the basketball. This in turn can be of greater benefit to his teams depending on the situation. These are the sort of things that don't show up on a stat sheet and why I prefer to watch the games than analyze a stat sheet.

I'm not stooping anywhere. He's talking about what LeBron would have done with Shaq. So its unreasonable to ask what Kobe would have done with LeBron's chip partners?

I find it odd to jump into a discussion and so feverishly fight about something so trivial.


If you don't find it noteworthy, then why bother to read pages of people discussing its merits? It's worthiness is that he is the youngest at this scoring pace, reasonable to imagine him becoming the top all-time top scorer.


And I would argue that LeBron creates more matchup problems, considering he can play all five positions, he can drive like a point guard, post up like a big, and shoot like a 2. You can't say any of this about Kobe anymore. But he used to shoot like a 2 who could drive like a point. Today, he does none of these things, and never could play under the basket like LeBron. But, I know this from watching games, not from a stat sheet.

You can drop this whole 'you don't watch the games' argument. It's useless, not true, and doesn't carry any weight.

Sean Moore
01-20-2015, 09:44 AM
It absolutely was not

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?883597-LeBron-James-Shatters-Kobe-Bryant-s-Record&p=29538224#post29538224

He never said anything about first three seasons until AFTER I posted the numbers. Re-read the exchange.


Your two posts are also, completely filled with strawman arguments, making assumptions about what I am arguing (statistics, that Kobe couldn't win in Miami, despite me never saying anything to the contrary, and then proceed to put down those arguments as if that shows a lacking in my posts or something).



This entire debate has been about the context needed for Kobe in his pursuit of his 24,000 points. You have had some people defending why it took him a year longer, citing his usage in his first three years, citing his minutes and games played in his first three years.

And none of that matters or helps Kobe, because despite all of that, LeBron managed to reach these points in less minutes with less shots. Doesn't matter what context you try to pull out here, nothing helps Kobe enough to make up the difference for Kobe fans to cling to a Kobe vs LeBron comparison. LeBron just simply has him here.


And again, not a LeBron fan, that's such a tired, useless portion of these discussions for people to assume.

The point he was making was that Kobe had the lesser usage in his first few seasons with the Laker than Lebron had with the Cavs which is true. Not sure what that proves anyways, but he was right about that. You then posted usage stats for multiple seasons that were completely out of context of the debate at hand which is why I called it a red herring. You say that I had multiple strawman arguments in my post. Can you point out one.

I agreed that Lebron was the more efficient scorer on paper already and this stat just further proves what most of us already know. Not sure why you had to reiterate all that again. I believe you. The other poster was just making a point about the time table it took to reach that milestone. Not sure what that proves either, as I think the whole milestone itself is rather meaningless in the grand scheme as I have already stated before. I believe he even admitted that Lebron was the more efficient scorer on paper as well and he even went further to say that he felt Lebron was the better player as well. It just seems like you are trying way too hard to discredit a certain player while at the same time propping up another. You claim not to be a Lebron fan, but you sure had me fooled. You seem to spend a great deal of effort on someone who you are not even a fan of. I find that kind of strange.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 09:52 AM
The point he was making was that Kobe had the lesser usage in his first few seasons with the Laker than Lebron had with the Cavs which is true. Not sure what that proves anyways, but he was right about that. You then posted usage stats for multiple seasons that were completely out of context of the debate at hand which is why I called it a red herring.
This is the first time that usage was brought up

lakers4life you do realize that Kobe has a very similar usage rate to Lebron in the time period we are talking about, right?



He is talking about through the time of scoring their 24,000th point. L8kers4life changed the discussion point. We brought up that they had equal touches in their careers to that point.

The debate at hand is what? Why LeBron scored 24,000 points faster than Kobe.


You say that I had multiple strawman arguments in my post. Can you point out one.
I already told you in that post, when I said "making assumptions about what I am arguing (statistics, that Kobe couldn't win in Miami, despite me never saying anything to the contrary, and then proceed to put down those arguments as if that shows a lacking in my posts or something)."

This


Do you actually believe that Kobe wouldn't have been able to at least match Lebron's record of 2/4 in the finals with Miami. You really are deluding yourself here. I base my opinions on facts rather than subjective statistical rhetoric and baseless hypotheticals. The fact is that Kobe has already proven to win rings with less talent than Lebron had in Miami and against greater opponents. If you truly believe that Kobe couldn't have won at least equal to Lebron with that scenario in Miami with all that talent at this side against primarily a weak eastern conference than I really don't know what to say to you. Kobe shattered the San Antonio Spurs and the Dallas Mavericks in his youth in far superior ways than did Lebron. To say that Kobe wouldn't have had at least similar success based on these facts is completely irresponsible.


Is one giant strawman, 'defeating' points that I never made.


I agreed that Lebron was the more efficient scorer on paper already and this stat just further proves what most of us already know. Not sure why you had to reiterate all that again. I believe you. The other poster was just making a point about the time table it took to reach that milestone. Not sure what that proves either, as I think the whole milestone itself is rather meaningless in the grand scheme as I have already stated before. I believe he even admitted that Lebron was the more efficient scorer on paper as well and he even went further to say that he felt Lebron was the better player as well. It just seems like you are trying way too hard to discredit a certain player while at the same time propping up another. You claim not to be a Lebron fan, but you sure had me fooled. You seem to spend a great deal of effort on someone who you are not even a fan of. I find that kind of strange.
This all comes from the first couple of pages of this discussion that attempted to provide 'context' for why Kobe reached his 24,000th point later than LeBron did. And the context doesn't matter nor does it help him. LeBron did it faster, in less minutes, and with less shots. The 'context' that some people have tried to argue for is that Kobe wasn't starting, while LeBron was (as rookies) and that is why Kobe couldn't have the point total.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 09:55 AM
It honestly seems like you are just arguing back at me for arguments sake now. I have stated my opinions on the matter and don't really have anything further to add to the matter. I do watch the games and from what I have ascertained by reading your many posts on this discussion, I would venture that you don't. Rather, you try to make vague comparisons to baseball and football in regards to overall statistical analysis.
So because I said that other sports know better than to use rings as an argument, you have 'ascertained' that I don't watch the games? I brought that up one time.


You tend not to focus on the schemes of what actually transpires on the court which is why I drew the conclusion that you don't really watch all that many games and are most likely a casual fan who is more into fantasy leagues than league passes. Just an educated guess.
I have never played fantasy basketball. Ever.

And what sort of schemes am I supposed to be aware of here? That others are, that I am unaware of?

Because I have yet to see anyone discuss anything remotely close to what you are describing.



I took a moment to skim through your 100 posts on PSD. Appears most of your posts are discrediting LeBron in some way or another.


What sort of situation is it acceptable to put your hands on your head coach and push him. I have never seen that done like ever literally. Lebron also has a past history of being physical with head coaches as well. He shoulder bumped Spo just last season.


This guys ego is completely out of control. Very disrespectful. Lebron has fallen in love with his own legend. The guy just can't accept any sort of fault without blaming others.

I also don't see any evidence of when you 'defended LeBron', ever. You have done that for Kobe plenty in your month and a half on here. When did you 'defend LeBron' on here?

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 10:12 AM
God damnit, that's amos.

jericho
01-20-2015, 11:21 AM
To all kobe fans

What about the numbers that I posted earlier in the thread. You guys want to talk about advance stats. Well those are raw stats there and from 21-30.

cmellofan15
01-20-2015, 12:03 PM
God damnit, that's amos.

hahahaha and he almost got away with it too.

if it weren't for (http://www.picgifs.com/clip-art/cartoons/scooby-doo/clip-art-scooby-doo-444288.jpg)....

JasonJohnHorn
01-20-2015, 12:25 PM
If you take away LBJ's first season and he stays on this pace, he would STILL eclipse Kobe for this record.

VERY impressive.

cmellofan15
01-20-2015, 12:40 PM
If you take away LBJ's first season and he stays on this pace, he would STILL eclipse Kobe for this record.

VERY impressive.

nah, that's not how it works here.

you have to: take away his best four seasons, discount any games that he played with any current or former all star, and take away any points where his team was up or down by more than eight because we all know lebron likes padding stats. also take away his conference games and all of his playoff points cuz the eastern conference is akin to middle school jv basketball.

sportsfanatic99
01-20-2015, 02:28 PM
nah, that's not how it works here.

you have to: take away his best four seasons, discount any games that he played with any current or former all star, and take away any points where his team was up or down by more than eight because we all know lebron likes padding stats. also take away his conference games and all of his playoff points cuz the eastern conference is akin to middle school jv basketball.

so you're saying that you take away all those things and he's still better than Kobe. damn.

IKnowHoops
01-20-2015, 03:38 PM
Don't really see how the argument of "stooping to ones level" to show them up ever proves anything. If you say that hypotheticals are weak, then stick to your guns. It just can make you come off as a hypocrite otherwise. Also, I didn't notice him using similar hypotheticals to the ones you were using to warrant such a tit for tat to begin with. He was mainly taking about per minute production. Perhaps I am missing something though.

Again, this record doesn't really prove anything all that noteworthy to me as it just reiterates stuff we already knew. Lebron is the more efficient scorer on paper. He also shoots a lesser volume of shots and is far more careful in his shot selection which for the most part is conducive of somebody with a more efficient scoring rate. You can also make this comparison to MJ and Lebron would appear to come out ahead as the more efficient scorer on paper as well, which is exactly why I wouldn't read too much into this.

Additionally, I could argue back that Kobe produces far more match-up problems and adjustments for opposing defenses than does Lebron because of his wider array of ways to score the basketball. This in turn can be of greater benefit to his teams depending on the situation. These are the sort of things that don't show up on a stat sheet and why I prefer to watch the games than analyze a stat sheet.

I would disagree with you on Kobe being a harder matchup. Lebron shoots from all the same spots as Kobe. He just doesn't do it with 3 guys on him. He would find the open man and get a guaranteed bucket. Furthermore I would argue Kobe severely hurts his team with very poor shot selection. It would be criminal to take a low percentage shot while being triple covered when you also have Shaq on your team. Lebron scored more points on less shots. That not just better shot selection, thats a superior ability to get the ball in the hoop. Kobe didn't have the ability to get in the lane and d finish at the rim like Lebron. Lebron was much better than Kobe at getting the highest percentage shot in the game. If Kobe was more selective, not only would he have had a better percentage, but he would have scored way way way less. Thats what your not realizing. Bron can be selective and outscore Kobe. Kobe needs to gun in order to score like he did. If Lebron didn't care about efficiency, then he could go out there and shoot at 44% too. He'd average closer to 40pts a game though.

IKnowHoops
01-20-2015, 03:48 PM
God damnit, that's amos.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL. No shame in his game.

FlashBolt
01-20-2015, 03:49 PM
Let's just stop with these pointless arguments. Kobe makes the tougher shots. That is unquestionable. However, James is just a more efficient player and scorer. Kobe can make all the fadeaway from halfcourt shots all he wants. The truth still holds. 24,000 points for a player who has the potential to hit top 20 in rebounding, top 3 in assists, and top 2 in scoring? Give me a break. Stop being a complete hater. We always talk about LeBron being more Magic than Jordan. Doesn't that make it that much more spectacular?

Jamiecballer
01-20-2015, 04:10 PM
i will say that for what Amos lacks in basketball judgement he more than makes up for in cunning. that white avatar was genius.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 05:44 PM
i will say that for what Amos lacks in basketball judgement he more than makes up for in cunning. that white avatar was genius.

I realized something was up that a poster only had 130 some odd posts, yet, acted like he had been here for years.

I also wondered why he went on a tirade against statistics, and used wild strawman tactics.

So I started looking into his history, it looked like amos.

Then I looked into the proxy IP address location, and bam. Same physical address as Amos.

It was him. Pretty good job I suppose. That's a ton of effort just to post on a sports forum though.

numba1CHANGsta
01-20-2015, 06:00 PM
Posting a thread whenever LeBron breaks some type of record is one thing, but the need to involve Kobe will just make things ugly up in here

Only stat you guys should worry about is:

LeBron-2 championships
Kobe-5 championships

/thread

Jamiecballer
01-20-2015, 06:01 PM
Posting a thread whenever LeBron breaks some type of record is one thing, but the need to involve Kobe will just make things ugly up in here

Only stat you guys should worry about is:

LeBron-2 championships
Kobe-5 championships

/thread

and here we were having a basketball conversation and apparently no basketball knowledge was even required

rocket
01-20-2015, 06:05 PM
JV35 - reason kobe didn't start & score a lot was he just wasn't as good as Lebron.
Lebron went #1 in NA draft, kobe went #13. Lebron would have started for Lakers.
Also a reason kobe did not score as much is kobe never shot over 46%, Lebron has shot 57%.

bang bang

IKnowHoops
01-20-2015, 06:58 PM
I realized something was up that a poster only had 130 some odd posts, yet, acted like he had been here for years.

I also wondered why he went on a tirade against statistics, and used wild strawman tactics.

So I started looking into his history, it looked like amos.

Then I looked into the proxy IP address location, and bam. Same physical address as Amos.

It was him. Pretty good job I suppose. That's a ton of effort just to post on a sports forum though.

I think you should just let him come back, but just continually ban him at the drop of a hat whenever he steps out of line. He brings a level of comedy that can be reproduced by no one.

IKnowHoops
01-20-2015, 06:59 PM
Posting a thread whenever LeBron breaks some type of record is one thing, but the need to involve Kobe will just make things ugly up in here

Only stat you guys should worry about is:

LeBron-2 championships
Kobe-5 championships

/thread

I think this stat is better because its more about the individual and not the team like rings are.

Lebron 4 MVPs
Kobe 1 MVP

numba1CHANGsta
01-20-2015, 07:17 PM
I think this stat is better because its more about the individual and not the team like rings are.

Lebron 4 MVPs
Kobe 1 MVP

Even LeBron himself will tell you that he would trade in all 4 MVP awards for rings.

Tony_Starks
01-20-2015, 07:23 PM
Posting a thread whenever LeBron breaks some type of record is one thing, but the need to involve Kobe will just make things ugly up in here

Only stat you guys should worry about is:

LeBron-2 championships
Kobe-5 championships

/thread

PSD believes championships achieved by superstars don't indicate how great a player is, even though ironically most of the players in everyone's top 10 have multiple rings. Except for one particular player.

Apparently having awesome efficiency stats are better than having rings. This stat theory became extremely popular upon the arrival and coronation of another particular player.

But I agree people disrespect Kobe fans yet apparently Lebron fans can't even make a title just acknowledging his achievements without taking jabs at Kobe...

Jamiecballer
01-20-2015, 07:35 PM
PSD believes championships achieved by superstars don't indicate how great a player is, even though ironically most of the players in everyone's top 10 have multiple rings. Except for one particular player.

Apparently having awesome efficiency stats are better than having rings. This stat theory became extremely popular upon the arrival and coronation of another particular player.

But I agree people disrespect Kobe fans yet apparently Lebron fans can't even make a title just acknowledging his achievements without taking jabs at Kobe...
You could look at it that way or you could acknowledge a major shift began around the same time that massive amounts of data started to become available at the tip of ones fingertips.

FraziersKnicks
01-20-2015, 07:49 PM
PSD believes championships achieved by superstars don't indicate how great a player is, even though ironically most of the players in everyone's top 10 have multiple rings. Except for one particular player.

Apparently having awesome efficiency stats are better than having rings. This stat theory became extremely popular upon the arrival and coronation of another particular player.

But I agree people disrespect Kobe fans yet apparently Lebron fans can't even make a title just acknowledging his achievements without taking jabs at Kobe...

But Bron has two rings doe? Last time I checked that's multiple... Step up your counting game bro

JasonJohnHorn
01-20-2015, 07:50 PM
Posting a thread whenever LeBron breaks some type of record is one thing, but the need to involve Kobe will just make things ugly up in here

Only stat you guys should worry about is:

LeBron-2 championships
Kobe-5 championships

/thread

Right. so it's LBJ's fault that he got brought in by the league's worst team while Kobe got drafted by a contender with the league's most dominant player?

So by your logic Russell is twice as good as Kobe and with some change left over?

IKnowHoops
01-20-2015, 07:57 PM
Even LeBron himself will tell you that he would trade in all 4 MVP awards for rings.

Not the point

Rings = team accomplishment

MVP = Individual accomplishment

IKnowHoops
01-20-2015, 08:00 PM
PSD believes championships achieved by superstars don't indicate how great a player is, even though ironically most of the players in everyone's top 10 have multiple rings. Except for one particular player.

Apparently having awesome efficiency stats are better than having rings. This stat theory became extremely popular upon the arrival and coronation of another particular player.

But I agree people disrespect Kobe fans yet apparently Lebron fans can't even make a title just acknowledging his achievements without taking jabs at Kobe...

Not going to mention Horry

So Mchale and Worthy over Wilt in your book right.

IKnowHoops
01-20-2015, 08:02 PM
PSD believes championships achieved by superstars don't indicate how great a player is, even though ironically most of the players in everyone's top 10 have multiple rings. Except for one particular player.

Apparently having awesome efficiency stats are better than having rings. This stat theory became extremely popular upon the arrival and coronation of another particular player.

But I agree people disrespect Kobe fans yet apparently Lebron fans can't even make a title just acknowledging his achievements without taking jabs at Kobe...

Or how about this. You make a team of the players with the most rings, and Ill make a team of players with the most MVP's and well see who's team is better.

mngopher35
01-20-2015, 08:06 PM
PSD believes championships achieved by superstars don't indicate how great a player is, even though ironically most of the players in everyone's top 10 have multiple rings. Except for one particular player.

Apparently having awesome efficiency stats are better than having rings. This stat theory became extremely popular upon the arrival and coronation of another particular player.

But I agree people disrespect Kobe fans yet apparently Lebron fans can't even make a title just acknowledging his achievements without taking jabs at Kobe...

Who do we think was a better player for their first 7 seasons, lebron or Kobe? I think this is a pretty easy answer as one came into the league ready to go while the other took some time to develop. During that time lebron went 0-1 in the finals while Kobe was 3-0. This has a lot less to do with the individuals than the teams around them.

Having "awesome efficiency stats" aren't better than rings for the actual player but context is important when evaluating said player. Some players just didn't get 8 years to start their careers playing next to shaq. Does Kobe deserve credit for those rings? Of course he does. Does it mean he is better than other greats because they didn't have that luxury and win right away? Definitely not. You have to learn to evaluate individuals otherwise Scottie pippen is ahead of larry bird because of rings.

I think many people have Wilt, Hakeem, and to a lesser extent Oscar in their top 10 and top 5 all time. Lebron has just as many rings as them yet I never see that as an argument to keep them off these lists. That's because it would be ridiculous as they were amazing players.

mngopher35
01-20-2015, 08:11 PM
Not the point

Rings = team accomplishment

MVP = Individual accomplishment

This isn't completely true as to get MVP you also need to be on one of the best teams. Also a storyline might allow a player to win a tight battle over someone having slightly more impact for their team etc.

In general though I do agree that if you list the top 15 in mvps and top 15 in rings the MVP list would be way better predictor of an individuals talent.

Tony_Starks
01-20-2015, 08:12 PM
PSD believes championships achieved by superstars don't indicate how great a player is, even though ironically most of the players in everyone's top 10 have multiple rings. Except for one particular player.

Apparently having awesome efficiency stats are better than having rings. This stat theory became extremely popular upon the arrival and coronation of another particular player.

But I agree people disrespect Kobe fans yet apparently Lebron fans can't even make a title just acknowledging his achievements without taking jabs at Kobe...

Not going to mention Horry

So Mchale and Worthy over Wilt in your book right.

Right because Horry was a superstar right? Dude that's the Oldest lame rebuttal in the book. "Derrick Fisher has 5 rings so he's better than Bird because rings are all that count!"

I'll keep it simple for: role players with multiple rings are not comparable to star players with rings....

FraziersKnicks
01-20-2015, 08:29 PM
Right because Horry was a superstar right? Dude that's the Oldest lame rebuttal in the book. "Derrick Fisher has 5 rings so he's better than Bird because rings are all that count!"

I'll keep it simple for: role players with multiple rings are not comparable to star players with rings....

Scottie wasn't a role player... 6 ringz > 5 ringz

Scottie > Kobe

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 08:34 PM
Scottie wasn't a role player... 6 ringz > 5 ringz

Scottie > Kobe

Haha

Tony_Starks
01-20-2015, 08:34 PM
PSD believes championships achieved by superstars don't indicate how great a player is, even though ironically most of the players in everyone's top 10 have multiple rings. Except for one particular player.

Apparently having awesome efficiency stats are better than having rings. This stat theory became extremely popular upon the arrival and coronation of another particular player.

But I agree people disrespect Kobe fans yet apparently Lebron fans can't even make a title just acknowledging his achievements without taking jabs at Kobe...

Who do we think was a better player for their first 7 seasons, lebron or Kobe? I think this is a pretty easy answer as one came into the league ready to go while the other took some time to develop. During that time lebron went 0-1 in the finals while Kobe was 3-0. This has a lot less to do with the individuals than the teams around them.

Having "awesome efficiency stats" aren't better than rings for the actual player but context is important when evaluating said player. Some players just didn't get 8 years to start their careers playing next to shaq. Does Kobe deserve credit for those rings? Of course he does. Does it mean he is better than other greats because they didn't have that luxury and win right away? Definitely not. You have to learn to evaluate individuals otherwise Scottie pippen is ahead of larry bird because of rings.

I think many people have Wilt, Hakeem, and to a lesser extent Oscar in their top 10 and top 5 all time. Lebron has just as many rings as them yet I never see that as an argument to keep them off these lists. That's because it would be ridiculous as they were amazing players.

The who was better the first 7 seasons isn't really a fair argument because as has been said before Lebron was a day one starter and Kobe had Eddie Jones in front of him who was a borderline allstar / all defense at the time. You say Kobe took time to develop but really it was just a matter of him getting minutes.

Also people act like Kobe was just gifted those rings and him and Shaq were contenders and winning "right away" they weren't. They were getting bounced by Utahs and Spurs of the world the first few years and for as dominant as people say Shaq was he was not even in the MVP discussion. It wasn't until Phil came along and gave them the system that they started dominating, just like MJ.

Pippen isn't in anyone's top 10 he's not relevant to this debate,I'm talking the best of the best. So when I compare my all time greats I definitely take rings into account along with stats but rings are what its about with a few exceptions...

Hawkeye15
01-20-2015, 08:37 PM
Right because Horry was a superstar right? Dude that's the Oldest lame rebuttal in the book. "Derrick Fisher has 5 rings so he's better than Bird because rings are all that count!"

I'll keep it simple for: role players with multiple rings are not comparable to star players with rings....

so Scottie, Cousy, and Russell are better than Kobe, right?

mngopher35
01-20-2015, 08:44 PM
The who was better the first 7 seasons isn't really a fair argument because as has been said before Lebron was a day one starter and Kobe had Eddie Jones in front of him who was a borderline allstar / all defense at the time. You say Kobe took time to develop but really it was just a matter of him getting minutes.

Also people act like Kobe was just gifted those rings and him and Shaq were contenders and winning "right away" they weren't. They were getting bounced by Utahs and Spurs of the world the first few years and for as dominant as people say Shaq was he was not even in the MVP discussion. It wasn't until Phil came along and gave them the system that they started dominating, just like MJ.

Pippen isn't in anyone's top 10 he's not relevant to this debate,I'm talking the best of the best. So when I compare my all time greats I definitely take rings into account along with stats but rings are what its about with a few exceptions...

Why isn't it fair to ask who was better? Lebron certainly was the better player even in the minutes each were given. It would be a very hard argument to say Kobe came into the league as ready as lebron (physical attributes helped lebron a lot). You want to punish lebron for getting extra minutes on a bad team yet give tons of credit to Kobe for winning rings on a far superior team? That is what I would call "unfair".

I agree Phil and Kobe had a lot to do with the rings (shaq being the driving force though). It doesn't make Kobe automatically better than players not afforded that opportunity is the point.

Kobe wasn't in anyone's top 10 all time for the years he played next to shaq either. The point is when you play with one of the most dominant players ever and you are a great yourself you are likely to get rings. That doesn't necessarily make you better than someone with more individual talent ala bird.

Jamiecballer
01-20-2015, 09:11 PM
Right because Horry was a superstar right? Dude that's the Oldest lame rebuttal in the book. "Derrick Fisher has 5 rings so he's better than Bird because rings are all that count!"

I'll keep it simple for: role players with multiple rings are not comparable to star players with rings....
You ignored what he actually said. Was that on purpose?

Tony_Starks
01-20-2015, 09:13 PM
The who was better the first 7 seasons isn't really a fair argument because as has been said before Lebron was a day one starter and Kobe had Eddie Jones in front of him who was a borderline allstar / all defense at the time. You say Kobe took time to develop but really it was just a matter of him getting minutes.

Also people act like Kobe was just gifted those rings and him and Shaq were contenders and winning "right away" they weren't. They were getting bounced by Utahs and Spurs of the world the first few years and for as dominant as people say Shaq was he was not even in the MVP discussion. It wasn't until Phil came along and gave them the system that they started dominating, just like MJ.

Pippen isn't in anyone's top 10 he's not relevant to this debate,I'm talking the best of the best. So when I compare my all time greats I definitely take rings into account along with stats but rings are what its about with a few exceptions...

Why isn't it fair to ask who was better? Lebron certainly was the better player even in the minutes each were given. It would be a very hard argument to say Kobe came into the league as ready as lebron (physical attributes helped lebron a lot). You want to punish lebron for getting extra minutes on a bad team yet give tons of credit to Kobe for winning rings on a far superior team? That is what I would call "unfair".

I agree Phil and Kobe had a lot to do with the rings (shaq being the driving force though). It doesn't make Kobe automatically better than players not afforded that opportunity is the point.

Kobe wasn't in anyone's top 10 all time for the years he played next to shaq either. The point is when you play with one of the most dominant players ever and you are a great yourself you are likely to get rings. That doesn't necessarily make you better than someone with more individual talent ala bird.


For me its not fair because its not apples to apples. We can speculate about would Kobe have been able to carry a sub par team from the start, or perhaps what would Lebrons numbers and impact have been had he came out west like Melo. Or would Lebron have been able to win next to Shaq in the "1b" role not dominating ball as he's done his whole career.....etc...But its just that speculation.

And to your point about Kobe's individual talent that debate went out the window when he went to 3 finals and got 2 finals MVPs without him, unless you want to say Gasol was as imposing as Shaq was.

But for me when I rank Lebron he's 2-5 in finals now. He's definitely going to at least one more Finals before its over because he's going to play with great talent even if he has to leave again. He already has all the individual accolades but if he finishes his career like 2 for 6 or 2 for 7 for the Finals I'm going to rank him accordingly. There's no more excuses, he's in the drivers seat.

Hawkeye15
01-20-2015, 09:23 PM
For me its not fair because its not apples to apples. We can speculate about would Kobe have been able to carry a sub par team from the start, or perhaps what would Lebrons numbers and impact have been had he came out west like Melo. Or would Lebron have been able to win next to Shaq in the "1b" role not dominating ball as he's done his whole career.....etc...But its just that speculation.

And to your point about Kobe's individual talent that debate went out the window when he went to 3 finals and got 2 finals MVPs without him, unless you want to say Gasol was as imposing as Shaq was.

But for me when I rank Lebron he's 2-5 in finals now. He's definitely going to at least one more Finals before its over because he's going to play with great talent even if he has to leave again. He already has all the individual accolades but if he finishes his career like 2 for 6 or 2 for 7 for the Finals I'm going to rank him accordingly. There's no more excuses, he's in the drivers seat.

well, speculation doesn't mean anything. Results do. LeBron has had a bunch of years, individually, better than Kobe has ever put up. It's a straight up fact dude. He was more ready than Kobe when he came in, that is why he was given the ball.

Jamiecballer
01-20-2015, 09:27 PM
Scottie wasn't a role player... 6 ringz > 5 ringz

Scottie > Kobe
Actually if I could pick between the 2 I'd take Pippen. There is no way to know which would play 20 years.

mngopher35
01-20-2015, 09:30 PM
For me its not fair because its not apples to apples. We can speculate about would Kobe have been able to carry a sub par team from the start, or perhaps what would Lebrons numbers and impact have been had he came out west like Melo. Or would Lebron have been able to win next to Shaq in the "1b" role not dominating ball as he's done his whole career.....etc...But its just that speculation.

And to your point about Kobe's individual talent that debate went out the window when he went to 3 finals and got 2 finals MVPs without him, unless you want to say Gasol was as imposing as Shaq was.

But for me when I rank Lebron he's 2-5 in finals now. He's definitely going to at least one more Finals before its over because he's going to play with great talent even if he has to leave again. He already has all the individual accolades but if he finishes his career like 2 for 6 or 2 for 7 for the Finals I'm going to rank him accordingly. There's no more excuses, he's in the drivers seat.

First of all making the finals and losing is not worse than losing in the first round.

The point earlier was that lebron came into the league as a better player due to his physical attributes and was the better player over that span. Yet when you use the 5 rings argument you are essentially saying Kobe was far far greater than lebron during that time (since he was 3-0 in the finals compared to 0-1). This makes absolutely no sense. Even if we were to say its hard to judge and call it even then why are you basing your argument on this time span?

I totally agree that Kobe winning those later finals definitely were big for his career and legacy. The reason he was able to win and be the leader is because he became a better overall player by working extremely hard. He was not as good in 2000 as he was in 09 and he was not the focal point of those earlier runs either. So what Kobe did to separate himself from a player like Scottie wasn't what he did next to shaq, but what he did after. That is why he is now in the top 10 and Scottie is not. At the time young kobe was next to shaq he wasn't drastically better than the prime pippen next to mj.

In the end just counting rings is just a horrible way to evaluate an individual. You absolutely need context which is never given by someone counting rings. It's why people always counter with Russell or horry etc. They aren't actually saying these guys are the best, just showing what type of arguments can be made if we ignore context and count rings.

L8kers4life
01-20-2015, 09:31 PM
well, speculation doesn't mean anything. Results do. LeBron has had a bunch of years, individually, better than Kobe has ever put up. It's a straight up fact dude. He was more ready than Kobe when he came in, that is why he was given the ball.

This whole thing is pointless, there is no sense in even defending Kobe, if anyone remotely contests anything said about Lebron it turns into a pissing contest.

This whole argument started when I stated this argument is not as simple as Lebron was good, Kobe was not. The only one who seems to have grasped that point is MPgopher. I already stated I think Lebron is more efficient and is the better player, this is is getting comical.

Hawkeye15
01-20-2015, 09:53 PM
This whole thing is pointless, there is no sense in even defending Kobe, if anyone remotely contests anything said about Lebron it turns into a pissing contest.

This whole argument started when I stated this argument is not as simple as Lebron was good, Kobe was not. The only one who seems to have grasped that point is MPgopher. I already stated I think Lebron is more efficient and is the better player, this is is getting comical.

I mean, don't all of these stupid debates get comical?

I apologize, I hopped in like 10 pages in haha. I am so sick of these debates.

jayjay33
01-20-2015, 10:11 PM
Posting a thread whenever LeBron breaks some type of record is one thing, but the need to involve Kobe will just make things ugly up in here

Only stat you guys should worry about is:

LeBron-2 championships
Kobe-5 championships

/thread


This.....

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 10:13 PM
The who was better the first 7 seasons isn't really a fair argument because as has been said before Lebron was a day one starter and Kobe had Eddie Jones in front of him who was a borderline allstar / all defense at the time. You say Kobe took time to develop but really it was just a matter of him getting minutes.
That's because LeBron was more polished. There is a reason he was the first overall pick. It's because he was already NBA ready. Kobe wasn't. He wouldn't have started in New Orleans as the 13th pick either.

It's not because of Jones.

LeBron would have started his rookie year on that Lakers roster over Kersay.

jayjay33
01-20-2015, 10:14 PM
Even LeBron himself will tell you that he would trade in all 4 MVP awards for rings.

Not the point

Rings = team accomplishment

MVP = Individual accomplishment


Not the point. Rings aren't decided by vote.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 10:15 PM
But for me when I rank Lebron he's 2-5 in finals now. He's definitely going to at least one more Finals before its over because he's going to play with great talent even if he has to leave again. He already has all the individual accolades but if he finishes his career like 2 for 6 or 2 for 7 for the Finals I'm going to rank him accordingly. There's no more excuses, he's in the drivers seat.

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone posts the losing record of the Finals appearances.

If he lost in the ECF in those 5 years instead, would he somehow be better to you?

jayjay33
01-20-2015, 10:16 PM
For me its not fair because its not apples to apples. We can speculate about would Kobe have been able to carry a sub par team from the start, or perhaps what would Lebrons numbers and impact have been had he came out west like Melo. Or would Lebron have been able to win next to Shaq in the "1b" role not dominating ball as he's done his whole career.....etc...But its just that speculation.

And to your point about Kobe's individual talent that debate went out the window when he went to 3 finals and got 2 finals MVPs without him, unless you want to say Gasol was as imposing as Shaq was.

But for me when I rank Lebron he's 2-5 in finals now. He's definitely going to at least one more Finals before its over because he's going to play with great talent even if he has to leave again. He already has all the individual accolades but if he finishes his career like 2 for 6 or 2 for 7 for the Finals I'm going to rank him accordingly. There's no more excuses, he's in the drivers seat.

well, speculation doesn't mean anything. Results do. LeBron has had a bunch of years, individually, better than Kobe has ever put up. It's a straight up fact dude. He was more ready than Kobe when he came in, that is why he was given the ball.


Results like 5 rings?

DemarDerozan
01-20-2015, 10:18 PM
I Know Hoops, Mighty Bosstone, other Lebron fans and Rockets fans. I apologize for making it personal. I still despise Lebron and think Kobe is better. But I shouldn't have made belligerent comments. Anyway. Go Raps!

jayjay33
01-20-2015, 10:20 PM
But for me when I rank Lebron he's 2-5 in finals now. He's definitely going to at least one more Finals before its over because he's going to play with great talent even if he has to leave again. He already has all the individual accolades but if he finishes his career like 2 for 6 or 2 for 7 for the Finals I'm going to rank him accordingly. There's no more excuses, he's in the drivers seat.

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone posts the losing record of the Finals appearances.

If he lost in the ECF in those 5 years instead, would he somehow be better to you?


So then going to the finals 10 times and never winning would be a good thing. Because you didn't lose earlier?

I don't know about that one. Lol

Jamiecballer
01-20-2015, 10:24 PM
So then going to the finals 10 times and never winning would be a good thing. Because you didn't lose earlier?

I don't know about that one. Lol
It would be an incredible accomplishment actually. Better than say 3 or 4 championships in 3 or 4 tries I'd say.

jayjay33
01-20-2015, 10:25 PM
The who was better the first 7 seasons isn't really a fair argument because as has been said before Lebron was a day one starter and Kobe had Eddie Jones in front of him who was a borderline allstar / all defense at the time. You say Kobe took time to develop but really it was just a matter of him getting minutes.
That's because LeBron was more polished. There is a reason he was the first overall pick. It's because he was already NBA ready. Kobe wasn't. He wouldn't have started in New Orleans as the 13th pick either.

It's not because of Jones.

LeBron would have started his rookie year on that Lakers roster over Kersay.



Wait what? Kobe was not a SF he didn't have the body to play SF. That has nothing to do with good or bad. The position he played had a much better guy in front of him. If the only way lebron could start was to beat out Eddie, lebron woulda had his azz on the bench just like kobe. Lol

Jamiecballer
01-20-2015, 10:27 PM
Somebody check this newcomers ip

jayjay33
01-20-2015, 10:29 PM
So then going to the finals 10 times and never winning would be a good thing. Because you didn't lose earlier?

I don't know about that one. Lol
It would be an incredible accomplishment actually. Better than say 3 or 4 championships in 3 or 4 tries I'd say.

Two question

1. You would rather be 0-10 in the finals, than lets say 3-0?

2. How many players do you think would take the 10 finals L's over 3 finals W's my guess would be zero.

jayjay33
01-20-2015, 10:31 PM
Somebody check this newcomers ip



If you mean me, I've been around a loooooong time. Lol

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 10:31 PM
Two question

1. You would rather be 0-10 in the finals, than lets say 3-0?
That is no where close to the discussion.

the idea that being 2-0 is somehow more successful than 2-5 is just flat out silly. You are essentially saying that if the player managed to lose his season sooner, then he would be better all-time.

It isn't the same as 0-10 and 3-0

Jamiecballer
01-20-2015, 10:32 PM
Two question

1. You would rather be 0-10 in the finals, than lets say 3-0?

2. How many players do you think would take the 10 finals L's over 3 finals W's my guess would be zero.
My mindset would be the same as the players - 3-0

But the better career accomplishment? 10 finals by far. Let's put it this way, if LeBron continues on his career arc and makes 10 finals I think he will have a pretty strong case for GOAT.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 10:38 PM
Wait what? Kobe was not a SF he didn't have the body to play SF. That has nothing to do with good or bad. The position he played had a much better guy in front of him. If the only way lebron could start was to beat out Eddie, lebron woulda had his azz on the bench just like kobe. Lol

Kobe wouldn't have started his rookie season on LeBron's Cavs team. He wouldn't have started on most rosters his rookie year. It has nothing to do with Jones.

Pretty well every team in the league would have started LeBron his rookie year.

This isn't about their positions. It's that LeBron was NBA ready and ready to produce already as a rookie at 18. Kobe simply wasn't. Kobe developed over his first three-five years and managed to improve over his career. LeBron, while he has developed, was much more polished when he entered the league.

LeBron wouldn't have probably sat behind Eddie Jones either.

Take a look at Eddie' per 36 numbers from the 96-97 season and what LeBron did his rookie year on a per 36 basis.....LeBron was better.

Per 36

Eddie - 96/97
16.5/3.9/3.2 - 17.7 PER
LeBron - 03/04
19.1/5.0/5.4 - 18.3 PER

I don't see LeBron sitting for Jones if that was the position he had to go through.





Not to mention, this point is moot. LeBron isn't forced to only play one position, he could play any one of the first four positions in the league as a starter, it's part of his value. So pick which of the four positions you are weakest at, and let him play it.

jayjay33
01-20-2015, 10:45 PM
Two question

1. You would rather be 0-10 in the finals, than lets say 3-0?
That is no where close to the discussion.

the idea that being 2-0 is somehow more successful than 2-5 is just flat out silly. You are essentially saying that if the player managed to lose his season sooner, then he would be better all-time.

It isn't the same as 0-10 and 3-0


I wasn't talking to you so how can you tell me what the discussion was. I asked him a question and he answered it.


But since you want to go there. They was NOT the discussion. You said don't know why anyone post the losing record in the finals. which was a silly question because losing at ANY stage matters.

And no 2-5 isn't worse than 2-0. But it's a hell of a lot worse then 5-2. Everybody Lebron is competing with in terms of legacy as been to about as many and won a lot more. So to say his loses Dont matter is absurd and reeks of fanboy rhetoric.

jayjay33
01-20-2015, 10:50 PM
Two question

1. You would rather be 0-10 in the finals, than lets say 3-0?

2. How many players do you think would take the 10 finals L's over 3 finals W's my guess would be zero.
My mindset would be the same as the players - 3-0

But the better career accomplishment? 10 finals by far. Let's put it this way, if LeBron continues on his career arc and makes 10 finals I think he will have a pretty strong case for GOAT.



No it isn't. Never wining a championship is not a better career accomplishment. It's not even close. I don't even understand the logic. Same amount of wins but more trips I get. Like say 3-10. But winning less rings is never a better career.

Jeffy25
01-20-2015, 10:51 PM
I wasn't talking to you so how can you tell me what the discussion was. I asked him a question and he answered it.


But since you want to go there. They was NOT the discussion. You said don't know why anyone post the losing record in the finals. which was a silly question because losing at ANY stage matters.

And no 2-5 isn't worse than 2-0. But it's a hell of a lot worse then 5-2. Everybody Lebron is competing with in terms of legacy as been to about as many and won a lot more. So to say his loses Dont matter is absurd and reeks of fanboy rhetoric.

They don't matter because no individual in the history of the game can win by themselves.

They don't matter for any other top 10 players either. Because they are dependent on other players helping them, and the timing of when they get there (Stockton and Malone would have at least one if their best chances weren't met against Jordan for example).

Jamiecballer
01-20-2015, 10:56 PM
No it isn't. Never wining a championship is not a better career accomplishment. It's not even close. I don't even understand the logic. Same amount of wins but more trips I get. Like say 3-10. But winning less rings is never a better career.
That's weird :shrugs:

jayjay33
01-20-2015, 11:14 PM
Wait what? Kobe was not a SF he didn't have the body to play SF. That has nothing to do with good or bad. The position he played had a much better guy in front of him. If the only way lebron could start was to beat out Eddie, lebron woulda had his azz on the bench just like kobe. Lol

Kobe wouldn't have started his rookie season on LeBron's Cavs team. He wouldn't have started on most rosters his rookie year. It has nothing to do with Jones.

Pretty well every team in the league would have started LeBron his rookie year.

This isn't about their positions. It's that LeBron was NBA ready and ready to produce already as a rookie at 18. Kobe simply wasn't. Kobe developed over his first three-five years and managed to improve over his career. LeBron, while he has developed, was much more polished when he entered the league.

LeBron wouldn't have probably sat behind Eddie Jones either.

Take a look at Eddie' per 36 numbers from the 96-97 season and what LeBron did his rookie year on a per 36 basis.....LeBron was better.

Per 36

Eddie - 96/97
16.5/3.9/3.2 - 17.7 PER
LeBron - 03/04
19.1/5.0/5.4 - 18.3 PER

I don't see LeBron sitting for Jones if that was the position he had to go through.





Not to mention, this point is moot. LeBron isn't forced to only play one position, he could play any one of the first four positions in the league as a starter, it's part of his value. So pick which of the four positions you are weakest at, and let him play it.


1. Your first point is just silly kobe would have started. Kobe destroyed the summer league his rookie year. The cavs sucked and had no hopes of playing for anything. I'd bet you my house Kobe would have started. In fact not starting him and letting him play through his growing pains woulda been a gross mismanagement of his talent by the coach. But really the coach would not have even had a choice. So let's just stop with that nonsense. It's absurd.


2. You do realize basketball is played at both ends right? In addition to being a 26 year old allstar, and ALL NBA caliber player and a 20 ppg scorer, who avg more like 25 when he finally got his chance to be the man. jones was also one of the best defenders in the NBA. And was second team all defense 3 strait years? Lebron on the other hand was a HORRRIBLE defender his first few years. Lebron was also a very bad spot up shooter. Where as Eddie was shooting like 38-39 % from 3. Huge when trying play with Shaq inside out. People woulda been doubling off Lebron all damn game.


There's not a snowball chance in hell lebron woulda beat out Eddie jones. Jones was a far better player. It's not even close.

cmellofan15
01-20-2015, 11:23 PM
hypothetical hypothetical hypothetical hypothetical.

none of these ridiculous imaginary situations matter whatsoever

jayjay33
01-20-2015, 11:26 PM
I wasn't talking to you so how can you tell me what the discussion was. I asked him a question and he answered it.


But since you want to go there. They was NOT the discussion. You said don't know why anyone post the losing record in the finals. which was a silly question because losing at ANY stage matters.

And no 2-5 isn't worse than 2-0. But it's a hell of a lot worse then 5-2. Everybody Lebron is competing with in terms of legacy as been to about as many and won a lot more. So to say his loses Dont matter is absurd and reeks of fanboy rhetoric.

They don't matter because no individual in the history of the game can win by themselves.

They don't matter for any other top 10 players either. Because they are dependent on other players helping them, and the timing of when they get there (Stockton and Malone would have at least one if their best chances weren't met against Jordan for example).


That argument makes zero sense. There's not a single thing in basketball that isn't dependent on other players helping.

First time I see a guy walk on the court by himself and play 1 on 5. I'll agree with you. But as of now. Winning rings is no more dependent on your teammates and anything else you accomplish. And that's a fact.

cmellofan15
01-20-2015, 11:37 PM
That argument makes zero sense. There's not a single thing in basketball that isn't dependent on other players helping.

First time I see a guy walk on the court by himself and play 1 on 5. I'll agree with you. But as of now. Winning rings is no more dependent on your teammates and anything else you accomplish. And that's a fact.

hahahahahaha you don't need a championship caliber team to do anything in the NBA aside from actually winning a championship and MAYBE winning an MVP. even then only 21 players have done both in the same season.

Hawkeye15
01-21-2015, 12:23 AM
Results like 5 rings?

those are team results bud

L8kers4life
01-21-2015, 12:29 AM
I mean, don't all of these stupid debates get comical?

I apologize, I hopped in like 10 pages in haha. I am so sick of these debates.

Me too. I only chimed in because I thought it was comical that the title of the post says Lebron Shatters Kobe's record, beating him by 1 year and just 300 minutes (8 games) , and knowing he played much more than Kobe in his first years does not spell Shatter. And my other point was this argument is not as simple as Lebron was good, Kobe was not, that is how this whole argument started.

I give up talking about Lebron or Kobe, it has become impossible to have a healthy conversation. I have just read the last 4 pages of Lebron fans really taking this thing way to personal.

Laker Legend42
01-21-2015, 12:30 AM
I hate this youngest ever crap. The number of games played to reach certain milestones is more impressive. Kobe didn't play much his first couple years but I think everyone knows that if bron bron wanted to score 40 he could.

jericho
01-21-2015, 12:45 AM
Damn kobe fans ignore all the statistical evidence. I mean every single one of them and just go with the ring count. Which is the lamest copout out of an argument.

L8kers4life
01-21-2015, 12:48 AM
LOL at Jeffy saying Kobe would not have started on the 96-97 Cavs.

Your right Jeffy, Bobby Phills, Bob Sura and Carl Thomas really would have never allowed Kobe to see the floor since they were so great. LOL your comedy...

dAngelo
01-21-2015, 12:58 AM
LOL at Jeffy saying Kobe would not have started on the 96-97 Cavs.

Your right Jeffy, Bobby Phills, Bob Sura and Carl Thomas really would have never allowed Kobe to see the floor since they were so great. LOL your comedy...

Can you quote where he specifically said 96-97 Cavs?

Hawkeye15
01-21-2015, 12:59 AM
Me too. I only chimed in because I thought it was comical that the title of the post says Lebron Shatters Kobe's record, beating him by 1 year and just 300 minutes (8 games) , and knowing he played much more than Kobe in his first years does not spell Shatter. And my other point was this argument is not as simple as Lebron was good, Kobe was not, that is how this whole argument started.

I give up talking about Lebron or Kobe, it has become impossible to have a healthy conversation. I have just read the last 4 pages of Lebron fans really taking this thing way to personal.

agreed dude. In 15 years, maybe it can be a conversation. But the last few years, ugh

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 01:13 AM
1. Your first point is just silly kobe would have started. Kobe destroyed the summer league his rookie year. The cavs sucked and had no hopes of playing for anything. I'd bet you my house Kobe would have started. In fact not starting him and letting him play through his growing pains woulda been a gross mismanagement of his talent by the coach. But really the coach would not have even had a choice. So let's just stop with that nonsense. It's absurd.


2. You do realize basketball is played at both ends right? In addition to being a 26 year old allstar, and ALL NBA caliber player and a 20 ppg scorer, who avg more like 25 when he finally got his chance to be the man. jones was also one of the best defenders in the NBA. And was second team all defense 3 strait years? Lebron on the other hand was a HORRRIBLE defender his first few years. Lebron was also a very bad spot up shooter. Where as Eddie was shooting like 38-39 % from 3. Huge when trying play with Shaq inside out. People woulda been doubling off Lebron all damn game.


There's not a snowball chance in hell lebron woulda beat out Eddie jones. Jones was a far better player. It's not even close.

Common man. Kobe stunk as a rookie. Bron balled as a rookie. Bron would of beat out Eddie Jones or Nick Van Exel at pg. Horrible defender? hahahahahahahahahahaha. Stop it.

jayjay33
01-21-2015, 01:21 AM
That argument makes zero sense. There's not a single thing in basketball that isn't dependent on other players helping.

First time I see a guy walk on the court by himself and play 1 on 5. I'll agree with you. But as of now. Winning rings is no more dependent on your teammates and anything else you accomplish. And that's a fact.

hahahahahaha you don't need a championship caliber team to do anything in the NBA aside from actually winning a championship and MAYBE winning an MVP. even then only 21 players have done both in the same season.


Hahahaha @ your reading comprehension.

1. Who said anything about "championship" caliber team? Where did you even get that from? lol

2. What I said was everything you accomplish in basketball is dependent on your "teammates". And that winning a ring is no more dependent on your "teammates" than anything else. That's not even close to the nonsense you just posted.

So either lebron doesn't need teammates or you can't read. I'll let you decide which one is true.

jayjay33
01-21-2015, 01:38 AM
Results like 5 rings?

those are team results bud


No bud, Kobe in fact has 5 rings. Those are his results as part of a team. Just like ANYTHING lebron has done. Your mistaking individual accomplishments as being individual accomplished. And you couldn't be more wrong. Just like if lebron has 30 and 10 on 70% shooting. Those would his his results as part of the team. Every single thing he did was with the help of his teammates.

cmellofan15
01-21-2015, 01:46 AM
Hahahaha @ your reading comprehension.

1. Who said anything about "championship" caliber team? Where did you even get that from? lol

2. What I said was everything you accomplish in basketball is dependent on your "teammates". And that winning a ring is no more dependent on your "teammates" than anything else. That's not even close to the nonsense you just posted.

So either lebron doesn't need teammates or you can't read. I'll let you decide which one is true.

1. wait, so winning a ring isn't winning a championship? oh man...how'd I ever figure that?

2. and you said "Winning rings is no more dependent on your teammates and anything else you accomplish"... (poorly worded if I might add, not sure why you used the word and). you're equating the amount of dependability required from a team that can win a ring (championship caliber, connections!), as there is to achieving any single thing in basketball and using that as an argument to defend against people being gifted good team mates (your response to, "Because they are dependent on other players helping them, and the timing of when they get there"). that seems like a bit of a stretch don't you think?

Tony_Starks
01-21-2015, 02:01 AM
Perfect example is Karl Malone is the second all time leading scorer, former MVP,went to 2 straight finals ,multiple all stars, efficient stats, highly regarded as on of the best PFs of all time. Do you EVER see him mentioned in top 10:discussions? Hell no!

Now ask yourself, had he got a ring or two out Magic, MJ, or both you think he'd still be ranked the same? Hell no!

Moral of the story: rings matter.

Tony_Starks
01-21-2015, 02:05 AM
Two question

1. You would rather be 0-10 in the finals, than lets say 3-0?

2. How many players do you think would take the 10 finals L's over 3 finals W's my guess would be zero.
My mindset would be the same as the players - 3-0

But the better career accomplishment? 10 finals by far. Let's put it this way, if LeBron continues on his career arc and makes 10 finals I think he will have a pretty strong case for GOAT.

So by that logic Magic is the GOAT then. MJ won 6 but Magic went 9 times in a career cut short.

Nice to know!

jayjay33
01-21-2015, 02:07 AM
1. Your first point is just silly kobe would have started. Kobe destroyed the summer league his rookie year. The cavs sucked and had no hopes of playing for anything. I'd bet you my house Kobe would have started. In fact not starting him and letting him play through his growing pains woulda been a gross mismanagement of his talent by the coach. But really the coach would not have even had a choice. So let's just stop with that nonsense. It's absurd.


2. You do realize basketball is played at both ends right? In addition to being a 26 year old allstar, and ALL NBA caliber player and a 20 ppg scorer, who avg more like 25 when he finally got his chance to be the man. jones was also one of the best defenders in the NBA. And was second team all defense 3 strait years? Lebron on the other hand was a HORRRIBLE defender his first few years. Lebron was also a very bad spot up shooter. Where as Eddie was shooting like 38-39 % from 3. Huge when trying play with Shaq inside out. People woulda been doubling off Lebron all damn game.


There's not a snowball chance in hell lebron woulda beat out Eddie jones. Jones was a far better player. It's not even close.

Common man. Kobe stunk as a rookie. Bron balled as a rookie. Bron would of beat out Eddie Jones or Nick Van Exel at pg. Horrible defender? hahahahahahahahahahaha. Stop it.



What? You have not got a single clue what your taking about. You should not be talking about this, if you know nothing about it. Just the fact that you don't even know how bad a defender lebron use to be excludes you from this convo you don't have the knowledge to be in it. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you clearly have no clue.

Beat out Eddie jones? You have no clue. Go do some research on Eddie jones. Bron balled? Did you watch Eddie jones. This dude was a 6'6 two way franchise caliber player in his Prime, like 26. Which he proved once he left lal and got his own team in cha. Bron as a rookiewas no were near the player jones was. Bron balled really? Lol


And how the hell way Bron gonna take the point from van-exel (who was awesome) when he couldn't even get the point from jeff mcinnis. You lebron fans really do have selective memory. He had a lot of problem earlier. Shooting, defense and this one will be a real shocker ball handing. Yes that's right as a rookie LBJ had trouble handling the ball against nba defenders. Especially pg's, hell Baron Davis damn near made him cry.

So no he didn't have a chance in hell of beating out Eddie jones. And he was not good enough to be a full time nba pg let alone beat out nick van-exel. You clearly have no idea what your talking about. And you should not just disrespect players you clearly did not see.

jericho
01-21-2015, 02:19 AM
Got bored at work and decided to do some homework. What i did was cut anything from before they were 21 and after 30. So I'm just basically using stats from their 21-30 career numbers. Now lets see how they stack up from that period of time.

Kobe Bryant

Games: 748
PTS: 21065
TRB: 4381
AST: 3921
STL: 1246
BLK: 431
FGA: 16048
FG: 7327
FG%: .46
3PA: 3071
3P: 1051
3P%: .34
FTA: 6352
FT: 5360
FT%: .84

Lebron James

Games: 715
PTS: 20173
TRB: 5242
AST: 4986
STL: 1182
BLK: 588
FGA: 14178
FG: 7199
FG%: .51
3PA: 2963
3P: 1023
3P%: .35
FTA:6374
FT: 4752
FT%: .75

The diference between Lebron and Kobe in raw stats is:
Pts: 892 (goes to Kobe)
Rb: 861 (goes to Lebron)
Ast: 1065 (goes to Lebron)
Stl: 64 (goes to Kobe)
Blk: 157 (goes to Lebron)

Now this is with Lebron 33 games behind Kobe. So if we use Lebrons avg for the rest of the 33 games which are:

Pts: 28.21
Rbs: 7.33
Ast: 6.97
Stl: 1.65
Blk: .82

He would get

Pts: 21104
Rbs: 5484
Ast: 5216
Stl: 1236
Blk: 615

The only category that Kobe would have Lebron beat on would be steals and thats only by 10.

Again can you guys reply to this?

mngopher35
01-21-2015, 02:23 AM
So by that logic Magic is the GOAT then. MJ won 6 but Magic went 9 times in a career cut short.

Nice to know!

No, because most people don't judge a player just based on rings and finals appearances.

I would love to hear your response in our conversation.

jayjay33
01-21-2015, 02:45 AM
Got bored at work and decided to do some homework. What i did was cut anything from before they were 21 and after 30. So I'm just basically using stats from their 21-30 career numbers. Now lets see how they stack up from that period of time.

Kobe Bryant

Games: 748
PTS: 21065
TRB: 4381
AST: 3921
STL: 1246
BLK: 431
FGA: 16048
FG: 7327
FG%: .46
3PA: 3071
3P: 1051
3P%: .34
FTA: 6352
FT: 5360
FT%: .84

Lebron James

Games: 715
PTS: 20173
TRB: 5242
AST: 4986
STL: 1182
BLK: 588
FGA: 14178
FG: 7199
FG%: .51
3PA: 2963
3P: 1023
3P%: .35
FTA:6374
FT: 4752
FT%: .75

The diference between Lebron and Kobe in raw stats is:
Pts: 892 (goes to Kobe)
Rb: 861 (goes to Lebron)
Ast: 1065 (goes to Lebron)
Stl: 64 (goes to Kobe)
Blk: 157 (goes to Lebron)

Now this is with Lebron 33 games behind Kobe. So if we use Lebrons avg for the rest of the 33 games which are:

Pts: 28.21
Rbs: 7.33
Ast: 6.97
Stl: 1.65
Blk: .82

He would get

Pts: 21104
Rbs: 5484
Ast: 5216
Stl: 1236
Blk: 615

The only category that Kobe would have Lebron beat on would be steals and thats only by 10.

Again can you guys reply to this?


No need. That post missed the 7'1, 350 pound elephant in the room. Lol

Tony_Starks
01-21-2015, 02:57 AM
So by that logic Magic is the GOAT then. MJ won 6 but Magic went 9 times in a career cut short.

Nice to know!

No, because most people don't judge a player just based on rings and finals appearances.

I would love to hear your response in our conversation.

I was responding to a comment he made that if Lebron appears in 10 finals before he retires, even if he doesn't win anymore he would be the GOAT, which is pretty absurd even for this place....

jericho
01-21-2015, 02:59 AM
Got bored at work and decided to do some homework. What i did was cut anything from before they were 21 and after 30. So I'm just basically using stats from their 21-30 career numbers. Now lets see how they stack up from that period of time.

Kobe Bryant

Games: 748
PTS: 21065
TRB: 4381
AST: 3921
STL: 1246
BLK: 431
FGA: 16048
FG: 7327
FG%: .46
3PA: 3071
3P: 1051
3P%: .34
FTA: 6352
FT: 5360
FT%: .84

Lebron James

Games: 715
PTS: 20173
TRB: 5242
AST: 4986
STL: 1182
BLK: 588
FGA: 14178
FG: 7199
FG%: .51
3PA: 2963
3P: 1023
3P%: .35
FTA:6374
FT: 4752
FT%: .75

The diference between Lebron and Kobe in raw stats is:
Pts: 892 (goes to Kobe)
Rb: 861 (goes to Lebron)
Ast: 1065 (goes to Lebron)
Stl: 64 (goes to Kobe)
Blk: 157 (goes to Lebron)

Now this is with Lebron 33 games behind Kobe. So if we use Lebrons avg for the rest of the 33 games which are:

Pts: 28.21
Rbs: 7.33
Ast: 6.97
Stl: 1.65
Blk: .82

He would get

Pts: 21104
Rbs: 5484
Ast: 5216
Stl: 1236
Blk: 615

The only category that Kobe would have Lebron beat on would be steals and thats only by 10.

Again can you guys reply to this?


No need. That post missed the 7'1, 350 pound elephant in the room. Lol

Mmmm first Kobe and Shaq team up stopped when Kobe was 26. Second it was a great benefit for Kobe to have Shaq with him. He got mostly guarded one on one because they couldn't risk doubling on him and letting Shaq get a single coverage. So there goes your 7'1" 350 pound elephant in the room. He did more benefit than damage to Kobe's career.

jericho
01-21-2015, 03:06 AM
Also Kobe had elite help on his teams. Great role players that knew how to get the job done. While Lebron only had elite help in this past couple of seasons. So how is it that lebron managed to get more assists(with mostly crappy teammates) while scoring almost the same amount of points as Kobe. Not to mention Rb and Blk. Yeah I forgot Kobe has more rings.

Jeffy25
01-21-2015, 03:09 AM
LOL at Jeffy saying Kobe would not have started on the 96-97 Cavs.

Your right Jeffy, Bobby Phills, Bob Sura and Carl Thomas really would have never allowed Kobe to see the floor since they were so great. LOL your comedy...

I didn't say 96-97 Cavs.

I was talking about the 03-04 Cavs team that LeBron started for in his rookie year.

And it's possible he could have started to start toward the end of the season over Eric Williams, it's not certainty by any means. Rookie Kobe had a lot of development work to go still.

Jeffy25
01-21-2015, 03:14 AM
Perfect example is Karl Malone is the second all time leading scorer, former MVP,went to 2 straight finals ,multiple all stars, efficient stats, highly regarded as on of the best PFs of all time. Do you EVER see him mentioned in top 10:discussions? Hell no!

Now ask yourself, had he got a ring or two out Magic, MJ, or both you think he'd still be ranked the same? Hell no!

Moral of the story: rings matter.

Is it's Malone's fault that he ran up against Jordan in the Finals? Malone is easily a top 20 player of all-time, I don't think many will deny that. That's where he ranks statistically any way, Barkley is up there with him without the rings.

I don't see this appeal really helping the argument.

Jeffy25
01-21-2015, 03:16 AM
What? You have not got a single clue what your taking about. You should not be talking about this, if you know nothing about it. Just the fact that you don't even know how bad a defender lebron use to be excludes you from this convo you don't have the knowledge to be in it. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you clearly have no clue.

Beat out Eddie jones? You have no clue. Go do some research on Eddie jones. Bron balled? Did you watch Eddie jones. This dude was a 6'6 two way franchise caliber player in his Prime, like 26. Which he proved once he left lal and got his own team in cha. Bron as a rookiewas no were near the player jones was. Bron balled really? Lol


And how the hell way Bron gonna take the point from van-exel (who was awesome) when he couldn't even get the point from jeff mcinnis. You lebron fans really do have selective memory. He had a lot of problem earlier. Shooting, defense and this one will be a real shocker ball handing. Yes that's right as a rookie LBJ had trouble handling the ball against nba defenders. Especially pg's, hell Baron Davis damn near made him cry.

So no he didn't have a chance in hell of beating out Eddie jones. And he was not good enough to be a full time nba pg let alone beat out nick van-exel. You clearly have no idea what your talking about. And you should not just disrespect players you clearly did not see.

Just got no clue....no clue at all! Haha, just funny.

LeBron has always been an excellent defender...at least when he cares to try.

And I already showed their numbers side by side, LeBron as a rookie was better than Jones was in the 96-97 season. Of course he would have beat him out.

He was the top overall pick. Most first overall picks start anyway. Magic started on a team with a couple of Hall of Famers. if the Lakers had a 19 year old LeBron in 96-97, he absolutely would have started on that team.

mngopher35
01-21-2015, 03:18 AM
I was responding to a comment he made that if Lebron appears in 10 finals before he retires, even if he doesn't win anymore he would be the GOAT, which is pretty absurd even for this place....

I am well aware of that but you decided to insert magic. I am telling you that not everyone just counts rings or finals appearances to judge a player. This means you can't just insert random player and their finals appearances and claim that is what he's saying.

He was saying if lebron added that to his current career arc he would have an argument. I don't necessarily agree but you can't just change his argument to another player.

Edit: still would like to hear your response to our other conversation.

FlashBolt
01-21-2015, 04:45 AM
PSD believes championships achieved by superstars don't indicate how great a player is, even though ironically most of the players in everyone's top 10 have multiple rings. Except for one particular player.

Apparently having awesome efficiency stats are better than having rings. This stat theory became extremely popular upon the arrival and coronation of another particular player.

But I agree people disrespect Kobe fans yet apparently Lebron fans can't even make a title just acknowledging his achievements without taking jabs at Kobe...

You're the same guy who thought Kobe won a ring in 2002-2003 and told others to "educate" themselves for not knowing that.. Your credibility is declining like crude oil prices. No one is saying rings don't matter. We're saying that rings are a team achievement more-so than an individual achievement. You cannot simply use rings as the end-all, be-all. It's certainly a factor, but are we really going to sit here and say Bill was better than Wilt/Kareem/Shaq/Jordan/Bird/Magic/Hakeem? Why is it we don't do that? Why is Bill not regarded as the GOAT but MJ? Can you please give me your explanation instead of running away from a thread when you're hit with a question that you can't answer and then returning while hoping PSD forgets your idiocy?


So then going to the finals 10 times and never winning would be a good thing. Because you didn't lose earlier?

I don't know about that one. Lol

Scenario: You're applying to become the new CEO of Apple and your competition is 99 other amazing candidates with spectacular resume's. You are one of the last two candidates but during the interview, the board did not select you, but the other candidate instead.

Question: Do you think it's better to have not been the final two, or do you believe that being the final two gave you prestige and was an accomplishment (to some degree) in itself?


Two question

1. You would rather be 0-10 in the finals, than lets say 3-0?

2. How many players do you think would take the 10 finals L's over 3 finals W's my guess would be zero.

1) You don't make sense. Is 3-0 better than 3-10? NO! Because, 3-10 meant you were able to go to the NBA Finals ten more times, whereas, 3-0 means you couldn't get to more than 3 NBA Finals. You completely misunderstood the context of the argument.

2) Again, this is irrelevant. You're bringing up questions that aren't even similar in comparison. Stop debating with yourself and creating silly questions.


Perfect example is Karl Malone is the second all time leading scorer, former MVP,went to 2 straight finals ,multiple all stars, efficient stats, highly regarded as on of the best PFs of all time. Do you EVER see him mentioned in top 10:discussions? Hell no!

Now ask yourself, had he got a ring or two out Magic, MJ, or both you think he'd still be ranked the same? Hell no!

Moral of the story: rings matter.

Moral of the story: MJ was really good. That Bulls team was a better team than Utah. Similarly, had MJ not retired, Hakeem would probably have zero rings as well. Does that mean Hakeem isn't great? I don't think anyone would take Malone over Hakeem.


I cannot for the life of me understand why these people blatantly ignore posts that completely shatter their argument. Jericho posted a well detailed reply that show LeBron would still be ahead with all things considered. Yet, it was ignored by Tony_Starks and Co., only to be completely forgotten. Then, Tony_Starks clearly ignores Pippen>Kobe ring debate... again, probably thinks no one knows he's dodging questions.

Try going to the park playing with 4 scrubs against 5 really great players. Then tell me it's not the same as in NBA, where an elite player is stuck with 4 scrubs against two elite players+three good players. If you've ever played basketball or a sport at ANY level, you know how it feels. Stop denying this. It holds true in every and any team sport. The best team wins 100% of the time.

Scenario: MJ has Kwame Brown, Chris Duhon, Adam Morrison, and Quincy Acy. They are against Magic Johnson, LeBron James, Hakeem, Tim Duncan, and Kobe Bryant. MJ's team loses. Is MJ not a great player still? Clearly a better team in team 2, yet, are we going to sit here and claim MJ wasn't good enough? This is no different from what LeBron went through for seven years. Kobe came into the league into the team of the best player and a coach whose stock skyrocketed because of his time at Chicago. Meanwhile, LeBron came into the opposite end of that spectrum.
Kobe's first six years: Three rings
Jordan's first six years: Zero rings

Let's say they both retired after these six years. Who would you take?

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:16 AM
Perfect example is Karl Malone is the second all time leading scorer, former MVP,went to 2 straight finals ,multiple all stars, efficient stats, highly regarded as on of the best PFs of all time. Do you EVER see him mentioned in top 10:discussions? Hell no!

Now ask yourself, had he got a ring or two out Magic, MJ, or both you think he'd still be ranked the same? Hell no!

Moral of the story: rings matter.

But he is still ahead of plenty of guys with more rings than him. Your example has plenty of holes. For example Kevin Mchale, James Worthy, Jerry West...how does that work in your ranking system?

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:19 AM
So by that logic Magic is the GOAT then. MJ won 6 but Magic went 9 times in a career cut short.

Nice to know!

No Russell is the Goat, by your logic right? You love to make points that only work for a single circumstance. Try making a point that is universal just one time...please, please please... I don't think you can.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:23 AM
What? You have not got a single clue what your taking about. You should not be talking about this, if you know nothing about it. Just the fact that you don't even know how bad a defender lebron use to be excludes you from this convo you don't have the knowledge to be in it. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you clearly have no clue.

Beat out Eddie jones? You have no clue. Go do some research on Eddie jones. Bron balled? Did you watch Eddie jones. This dude was a 6'6 two way franchise caliber player in his Prime, like 26. Which he proved once he left lal and got his own team in cha. Bron as a rookiewas no were near the player jones was. Bron balled really? Lol


And how the hell way Bron gonna take the point from van-exel (who was awesome) when he couldn't even get the point from jeff mcinnis. You lebron fans really do have selective memory. He had a lot of problem earlier. Shooting, defense and this one will be a real shocker ball handing. Yes that's right as a rookie LBJ had trouble handling the ball against nba defenders. Especially pg's, hell Baron Davis damn near made him cry.

So no he didn't have a chance in hell of beating out Eddie jones. And he was not good enough to be a full time nba pg let alone beat out nick van-exel. You clearly have no idea what your talking about. And you should not just disrespect players you clearly did not see.

So Nick was awesom, Eddie was awesome, and then they had the most dominant player maybe ever and oh yeah what did they do in the playoffs. Your the one that can't talk about it. Your so sprung its embarrassing. Ive already seen the per 36 numbers on Bron and Eddy. How can Eddie be so great, and Bron be so bad, yet Bron per 36 numbers are better. You taking this stance when the numbers say your wrong makes you look awful.

L8kers4life
01-21-2015, 05:27 AM
Top 10 all time

Jordan 6 chips
Kareem 6 chips
Bill Russell 11 chips
Magic 5 chips
Duncan 5 chips
Kobe 5 chips
Shaq 4 Chips
Wilt 2 chips
Lebron 2 Chips
Larry Bird 3 chips

That is my top 10 for now, and Lebron will move up, but not now, he still has work to do.

And for all you that say championships don't matter, these are all great players, who all have MVPs, finals MVPS and we're all time greats that won championships, notice there is no one with 0 rings, guess why, because rings matter. If there is someone with 0 rings that should be on here, let's see it, and go ahead and and put your order, so I can watch each Lebron fan exclude Kobe from the to 10.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:27 AM
No need. That post missed the 7'1, 350 pound elephant in the room. Lol

And Kobe still took more shots than Lebron during this time so your point is worthless.

L8kers4life
01-21-2015, 05:29 AM
So Nick was awesom, Eddie was awesome, and then they had the most dominant player maybe ever and oh yeah what did they do in the playoffs. Your the one that can't talk about it. Your so sprung its embarrassing. Ive already seen the per 36 numbers on Bron and Eddy. How can Eddie be so great, and Bron be so bad, yet Bron per 36 numbers are better. You taking this stance when the numbers say your wrong makes you look awful.

Hoops, Eddie was the 3rd option, LeBron as a rookie would have had to fall in line, his numbers would surely have taken a dip, considering he wouldn't eat first with Shaq, Eddie and van excel there. You would have to think his PER would be much lower as a 2nd, 3rd or 4th option on some nights.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:29 AM
No need. That post missed the 7'1, 350 pound elephant in the room. Lol

I remember when Shaq left, Kobe had his worst statistical year and averaged like 24 points a game. He was better with Shaq! Again your point is worthless.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:37 AM
Hoops, Eddie was the 3rd option, LeBron as a rookie would have had to fall in line, his numbers would surely have taken a dip, considering he wouldn't eat first with Shaq, Eddie and van excel there. You would have to think his PER would be much lower as a 2nd, 3rd or 4th option on some nights.

No doubt, I agree, but he would of started over Eddie is all Im saying. He may of had a higher PER seeing as how Shaq would of made things a lot easier for Bron. Bron would of been much more efficient playing with a guy who got as much attention as Shaq.