Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 326 of 451 FirstFirst ... 226276316324325326327328336376426 ... LastLast
Results 4,876 to 4,890 of 6764
  1. #4876
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,987
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Yeah, no. Shaq was the engine. Kobe had the ball to give it Shaq.

    Shaq out scores Kobe:

    26 to 20 2000 WCFs
    38 to 16 2000 Finals

    33 to 25 2001 Finals

    30 to 27 2002 WCFs
    36 to 27 2002 Finals


    Shaq was very clearly the Alpha
    I'm not disagreeing that Kobe was behind Shaq in those runs (but as I've stated, in 01 and 02 I think he was 1b to Shaq's 1a). However, when comparing what they did in those runs, the more appropriate comparison is the WCF, because in those days, that was the real championship. The finals against the East team was basically like a really competitive first round western conference series or a semi competitive 2nd round playoff series in the west (especially in 01 and 02.

    The one critical thing about the shaq-kobe comparisons that differed quite substantially from similar setups where there were two legitimate #1s was that in the 4th quarter, things usually ran through Kobe, because teams would resort to just fouling shaq as soon as he touched it. I'm going off of pure memory here (so I could definitely be wrong), but during those runs, it was usually Kobe who came up big in the big moments that determined whether the lakers ultimately advanced (e.g., 4th quarter of game 7 of the Portland series, 4th quarter and double OT of the 02 game 7 of the kings series).

  2. #4877
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    15,479
    So are we saying wins and losses in the NBA Finals donít matter? I just want to be clear on that.. Every other kind of stat is being used in this thread.

  3. #4878
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,987
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Why are you always saying that and that he just started playing the right way a few months ago? What player donít sacrifice? He did and they lost to Mavs. He let wade lead the first year. What more do you want you want him play the pippen role to Kyrie or Bosh? Then you will still say someone carried him. Who did MJ accommodate? What kind of player worked well with Shaq and Kobe is it not the same shooters standing in the corner? The last time I look is you find players to complement your star not the other way around. Lebron strength was not a shooting that not what you wanted him doing.
    You always fail to recognize what I mean by this. There is a difference from forming a synergy with player and sacrificing your numbers so that both end up being more effective than they would individually, versus taking turns being the guy. With LBJ is never seemed like it was LBJ AND Wade AND Bosh or LBJ AND Kyrie AND Love. It was always LBJ OR Wade OR Bosh, etc. I don't think the latter is a winning strategy. I think it leads to better individual numbers than the latter, but not more winning. I think Kobe and other greats have definitely done the former and put up far less impressive numbers as a result, but they won more because of it.

  4. #4879
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,987
    Quote Originally Posted by lakerfan85 View Post
    So are we saying wins and losses in the NBA Finals donít matter? I just want to be clear on that.. Every other kind of stat is being used in this thread.
    They sure matter to those who care about winning, but some posters don't like to account for that because it completely tanks their argument for LBJ.

  5. #4880
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostonjorge View Post
    Shaq was the engine. That Shaq ALPHAís any player in the history of the game. Canít knock a player for playing behind that.
    This is what I don't think a lot of people who say Kobe wasn't the best player on his team with Shaq fail to get. If shaq was with prime MJ, shaq would probably be #2, but that doesn't mean he's a true #2, he's a #1 who just happens to be paired with an all-time great. This is why I say that when a player is a true #1, that's all that should matter when factoring in titles.

  6. #4881
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,987
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Agreed. Itís not Kobeís fault he was drafted to the most dominant Center since Wilt. My point is to look at the circumstances. Itís bad luck to try to be an alpha and be drafted to Shaqís team. That being said, itís WAY more bad luck to be LeBron and not be drafted to a team with Shaq at all.
    Sure, but LBJ has made up for that over the last 10 years or so where he's been continually paired with stars of his choosing during his prime years. One thing to keep in mind is that Kobe was out of hs when he was paired with shaq. That pairing goes a lot different (and likely results in far more titles) if prime Kobe was paired with prime shaq.

    Stepping away from who the players are, if we're going to pick one of two situations as far as being optimal for winning, where one future top 10 all-time superstar out of hs is paired with a top 10 all-time superstar who is in his prime versus a top 10 all-time superstar who during his prime is paired with other 2 other players who are borderline between being a star and a superstar, I think the latter is going to be a better situation for winning, because in the former case, the guy isn't going to be ready to be an elite player for several years. When looking at shaq and Kobe, Kobe wasn't really a star until 2000 and shaq really only had another 3 years or so of peak prime basketball left in him at that point. In LBJ's case, he's bypassed the issue of his teammates getting older by selecting a new cast of star players to play with whenever that occurs and he's done that for over a decade now. So yes, Kobe was fortunate to be drafted to the lakers, but the better situation for winning is what LBJ has done, which is why he does it.

  7. #4882
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,460
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    He didn't plot his way to team up with Shaq. Shaq came later and he didn't even care who else was on the Lakers as long as Divac wasn't there to get his playing time.

    Kobe wanted to play for a franchise he loved. Growing up in Europe I'm pretty sure he was influenced by that since we all have our teams and we never change them (in every country/language there's a saying that you can change wives, political parties, religion, city, home etc but you can never change your team). Kobe grew up as a Laker and wanted to be a Laker, I don't see anything bad with that. He could have gone to college or play in Europe if he was drafted by someone else.

    P.S: What does that make his 3rd Lakers title? Alphabet?
    Iím not saying thereís anything wrong with that, Iím just pointing out how fortunate Kobe was to go to an organization that quickly got the best basketball player in the game, and that many other top players were no so fortunate.

  8. #4883
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Sure, but LBJ has made up for that over the last 10 years or so where he's been continually paired with stars of his choosing during his prime years. One thing to keep in mind is that Kobe was out of hs when he was paired with shaq. That pairing goes a lot different (and likely results in far more titles) if prime Kobe was paired with prime shaq.

    Stepping away from who the players are, if we're going to pick one of two situations as far as being optimal for winning, where one future top 10 all-time superstar out of hs is paired with a top 10 all-time superstar who is in his prime versus a top 10 all-time superstar who during his prime is paired with other 2 other players who are borderline between being a star and a superstar, I think the latter is going to be a better situation for winning, because in the former case, the guy isn't going to be ready to be an elite player for several years. When looking at shaq and Kobe, Kobe wasn't really a star until 2000 and shaq really only had another 3 years or so of peak prime basketball left in him at that point. In LBJ's case, he's bypassed the issue of his teammates getting older by selecting a new cast of star players to play with whenever that occurs and he's done that for over a decade now. So yes, Kobe was fortunate to be drafted to the lakers, but the better situation for winning is what LBJ has done, which is why he does it.
    Which is it doesnít make sense to knock LeBron for putting himself in a situation Kobe was handed from day 1. By doing so youíre basically saying the only way a top player can be in positions or their team to have enough talent to win a title is through random luck.

  9. #4884
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,183
    Quote Originally Posted by lakerfan85 View Post
    So are we saying wins and losses in the NBA Finals donít matter? I just want to be clear on that.. Every other kind of stat is being used in this thread.
    Most people are pointing out teams win/lose in finals and the overall context matters than just simple counting of numbers. Individually like just counting how many rings or wins/losses in a finals isn't overly meaningful but you can bring it up if you want.

    Don't be surprised to hear about random players on the 60's Celtics or Robert Horry though if you go to extremes ignoring context to push "finals wins" or something though.

    If you separate it to stars winning then don't be surprised to be asked about Hondo/Pippen.

    If you separate it to best player, focal point of the defense, MVP/FMVP best players in the league at the time and so on winning rings then the narrative is killed for most people wanting to push it. Making the finals is not worse than losing beforehand so that context often gets ignored as well. The key is are you trying to include all context and talk about winning/losing or ignore the context to push a stat you think favors your player? You can use rings/finals just like you should use statistics, within context.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 05-24-2020 at 12:36 PM.

  10. #4885
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,987
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Which is it doesnít make sense to knock LeBron for putting himself in a situation Kobe was handed from day 1. By doing so youíre basically saying the only way a top player can be in positions or their team to have enough talent to win a title is through random luck.
    I don't disagree with you, but I also only knock him on it as a competitor, but that doesn't really factor into my ranking of LBJ. Where it does factor in is that because he's done that I have a higher bar for him in terms of winning than I otherwise would had he not done that. My reasoning is basically that if LBJ is going to stack his team like that during his prime years than it's reasonable for us to hold him to a higher standard when it comes to winning than we hold others to or than we would hold him to had he not done that.

  11. #4886
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15,495
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Which is exactly why I think Melo would have been a better fit for Miami than Lebron in 2010 if that was possible.
    Yeah, you donít know hoops. When they lost to Dallas he was deferring...the exact opposite of what Big moves point was.

  12. #4887
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    They sure matter to those who care about winning, but some posters don't like to account for that because it completely tanks their argument for LBJ.
    I wouldnít say that. as soon as I bring up total wins, itís Kobe fans that say, ďtotal wins donít count only finals winsĒ. Because it tanks the argument for Kobe. Iím all about for counting for everything, to me it seems like Kobe fans want to put which wins to count and which wins not to count.

  13. #4888
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,796
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    Yeah, you donít know hoops. When they lost to Dallas he was deferring...the exact opposite of what Big moves point was.
    Coming from a guy who doesn't know hoops and also isn' able to read that well, I don't even know why I'm even bothering with such a guy in the first place

    I'm guessing:
    1) but I think he often sacrifices playing the right way for playing his way and getting his stats.

    2) I think his style of play is fine if he has a bunch of guys who are willing to be spot up shooters,

    3) The effect, I think is that it turns superstar players into glorified role players...

    4) LBJ puts up great numbers but its at the cost of never really forming a synergy with his other star teammates.

    BigMoves explicitly talks about how Lebron is deferring here

  14. #4889
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    This is what I don't think a lot of people who say Kobe wasn't the best player on his team with Shaq fail to get. If shaq was with prime MJ, shaq would probably be #2, but that doesn't mean he's a true #2, he's a #1 who just happens to be paired with an all-time great. This is why I say that when a player is a true #1, that's all that should matter when factoring in titles.
    I tend to think that prime MJ and Prime Shaq would be just like Prime Curry and Durant right now. Thatíll or even closer. Because both of them get it done at the same efficiency clip. For me thatís why Shaq was the clear #1 over Kobe, because when you run through Shaq you win, when you go through Kobe nobody touches the ball as he goes into iso mode for lowers pct shots. Jordan on the other hand was a more willing passer than Kobe and more efficient offensively so going through Mike or Shaq would yield fairly similar results.

  15. #4890
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15,495
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Coming from a guy who doesn't know hoops and also isn' able to read that well, I don't even know why I'm even bothering with such a guy in the first place

    I'm guessing:
    1) but I think he often sacrifices playing the right way for playing his way and getting his stats.

    2) I think his style of play is fine if he has a bunch of guys who are willing to be spot up shooters,

    3) The effect, I think is that it turns superstar players into glorified role players...

    4) LBJ puts up great numbers but its at the cost of never really forming a synergy with his other star teammates.

    BigMoves explicitly talks about how Lebron is deferring here
    Oh poor boy. You are the one who cannot read son. No big moves isnít talking about him deferring here.

    But...stay with me my son

    When Bron lost to Dallas

    He was deferring

    And they lost

    DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND MY YOUNG SON

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •