Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 162 of 192 FirstFirst ... 62112152160161162163164172 ... LastLast
Results 2,416 to 2,430 of 2874
  1. #2416
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Central VA
    Posts
    12,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    LBJ was more cautious with his shots so that's not surprising. As for the difference in minutes played, that can be more than accounted for by the minutes that came after the achilles injury and those that came while Kobe was playing off of the bench.
    Minutes played are minutes played, can't dispute it.

  2. #2417
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,770
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkieMark48 View Post
    Minutes played are minutes played, can't dispute it.
    Not at all. If a player is playing a far lesser role during one year and playing a far larger role in another year, the production in the latter case will likely be far greater than the previous year. Likewise, if a player is injured or is no longer the same player because of an injury, we can't just go by the minutes they've played. If LBJ was to tear his Achilles, his career as an elite player would be over. It wouldn't be appropriate to look at those minutes after the injury and just say "he's played a total x number of minutes". If we're going to make comparisons, we have to account for those types of differences (note we can't really fully account for them, but we at least need to take them into account and do the best we can to make an equal comparison).
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 12-08-2019 at 01:58 PM.

  3. #2418
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    45,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Hahahahaha, you are precious dude. You just told an expert on statistics that they don't understand statistics hahahahaha...You also clearly don't understand the Dunning Kruger effect (you are throwing around psychology terms to a cognitive scientist lol)...this is one area where one of us is an actual professional and is in the big leagues and the other is you.
    Yes yes, we all know how krugers act. Now, lets see if your job finally allows you the ability to actually rebuke anything. I KNOW you dont know jack **** about statistics, at least as far as they pertain to the NBA. Feel free to finally take your vacay and tell us all why we should believe someone who struggles remembering facts and has provided zilch in the way of quantifiable evidence.

    I'll address the part of your post that isn't completely laughable. So you're basing kobe hurting the team on a DVD and a few comments from teammates during the first title run? Gotcha.
    Incorrect, you struggle remembering because you are a simple kruger. It wasn't his first title run, if you had any semblance of reading comprehension you could have deduced this by Shaqs comments.

    As for Wade, he was widely acknowledged as the 3rd best player in the league going into 2011 and was only 29 years old...if he wasn't in his prime at that point, it begs the question of whether he ever had a prime lol. Anyone paying attention can see that Wade couldn't be Wade because of LBJ.
    Incorrect, show me some semblance of proof because everyone who saw Wade knew he was on the decline BEFORE Bron ever showed up. Wade was in his prime for about 2.5 years with Bron, he suffered numerous injuries throughout and didn't shed the weight until it was too late.

    At any rate, whether Wade was or wasn't in his prime, if he was more effective than Kobe (which you said he was; although anyone can see that's absurd),
    Nobody worth their salt would find that absurd, time to give supporting evidence Kruger.

    with LBJ and Bosh and a deep bench, he should have been able to help his team pull off the 3-peat (which shaq and kobe were able to do), especially since the heat had an easy path to the finals every year and didn't play particularly tough teams in the finals either. Clearly that didn't happen. Somehow though, that Wade would win a 3-peat with a less talented laker team while going up against vastly tougher competition?
    I've already explained this to you, feel free to go back and re-read the challenge. You are simply too inept to understand context of careers.


    Also, to be clear, in a previous post you said that the lakers didn't need kobe because they played better without him. If that's not what you believe, then don't overstate your case to try to push a narrative. It's not an outlandish position to argue that during the first year of the run Kobe's play would hurt the team some times, but eventually he got it worked out and was an enormous part of that first title and it was never really an issue after that. This doesn't support the narrative you're trying to push, but at least it's grounded in actual reality (which makes most of your critique on kobe insignificant, because the issue was short lived and never interfered with the title run).
    You cant even remember WHEN it happened. You cant even understand it despite the contextual clues given to you. You are simply too biased to approach this with any sort of objectivity. Please, WE BEG YOU, show us some form of objective evidence instead of the endless stream of fecal matter coming out your mouth. Its telling that you've taken this long to simply ignore simple requests. Heres hoping your job eventually grants you freedom enough to support the BS.

  4. #2419
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    45,584
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkieMark48 View Post
    Minutes played are minutes played, can't dispute it.
    Theres an efficiency baseline with regards to minutes, you cant overtax players just as much as you cant under(?)tax them.... Despite this sweet baseline, Kobe couldn't produce at the same efficient level at the same age as Bron. Bron would have gotten more minutes than puny 18 year old Kobe on ANY team. This is what you should argue against the layman like Kobephiles

  5. #2420
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    45,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Not at all. If a player is playing a far lesser role during one year and playing a far larger role in another year, the production in the latter case will likely be far greater than the previous year. Likewise, if a player is injured or is no longer the same player because of an injury, we can't just go by the minutes they've played. If LBJ was to tear his Achilles, his career as an elite player would be over. It wouldn't be appropriate to look at those minutes after the injury and just say "he's played a total x number of minutes". If we're going to make comparisons, we have to account for those types of differences (note we can't really fully account for them, but we at least need to take them into account and do the best we can to make an equal comparison).
    Why did that player struggle more despite his easier role? Production isn't exonerated by lack of minutes, this is partly how we can identify superstars on the come up before ever given larger roles (Harden/Kobe/Redd are prime examples of this). I also doubt he would suffer as much given Kobes injuries, his superior BBIQ, PASSING, REBOUNDING, SIZE would allow him to play at a higher level longer, as hes already proven. You havent accounted for ****, just given your worthless opinion. TRY HARDER

  6. #2421
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    45,584
    its the ****ing weekend, can you at least try this go around?

  7. #2422
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Yes yes, we all know how krugers act. Now, lets see if your job finally allows you the ability to actually rebuke anything. I KNOW you dont know jack **** about statistics, at least as far as they pertain to the NBA. Feel free to finally take your vacay and tell us all why we should believe someone who struggles remembering facts and has provided zilch in the way of quantifiable evidence.


    Incorrect, you struggle remembering because you are a simple kruger. It wasn't his first title run, if you had any semblance of reading comprehension you could have deduced this by Shaqs comments.


    Incorrect, show me some semblance of proof because everyone who saw Wade knew he was on the decline BEFORE Bron ever showed up. Wade was in his prime for about 2.5 years with Bron, he suffered numerous injuries throughout and didn't shed the weight until it was too late.


    Nobody worth their salt would find that absurd, time to give supporting evidence Kruger.


    I've already explained this to you, feel free to go back and re-read the challenge. You are simply too inept to understand context of careers.



    You cant even remember WHEN it happened. You cant even understand it despite the contextual clues given to you. You are simply too biased to approach this with any sort of objectivity. Please, WE BEG YOU, show us some form of objective evidence instead of the endless stream of fecal matter coming out your mouth. Its telling that you've taken this long to simply ignore simple requests. Heres hoping your job eventually grants you freedom enough to support the BS.
    Congrats, you've repeated the same nonsense you've been saying yet again. So by your own admission, Wade was in his prime for 2.5 years with LBJ (so he won 2 titles during that time, failing to procure a 3-peat despite being in his prime and having a 3rd star in bosh). You said that he was more productive with LBJ than Kobe was with Shaq so regardless of whether Wade was or wasn't in his prime, he still managed to WIN LESS with LBJ and Bosh (a 3rd star that was NOT available on the lakers), all while playing in a horrible conference and facing relatively weak competition in the finals. SO AGAIN, Wade would somehow win more with Shaq than Kobe did despite having a less talented team and playing vastly, vastly superior competition? Yeah okay dude, I'll stick with what actually happened and not your nonsense what ifs that are not supported by anything other than your clear hate for Kobe (who you harped on and on about how he would never LEAD a team to the title as the best player and were wrong about).
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 12-08-2019 at 04:20 PM.

  8. #2423
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Theres an efficiency baseline with regards to minutes, you cant overtax players just as much as you cant under(?)tax them.... Despite this sweet baseline, Kobe couldn't produce at the same efficient level at the same age as Bron. Bron would have gotten more minutes than puny 18 year old Kobe on ANY team. This is what you should argue against the layman like Kobephiles
    Maybe that's in part because LBJ was playing in the g league with more minutes and more friendly offensive rules than Kobe had when he was the same age.

  9. #2424
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    45,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Congrats, you've repeated the same nonsense you've been saying yet again.
    IF true, then it holds doubly true for you.

    So by your own admission, Wade was in his prime for 2.5 years with LBJ (so he won 2 titles during that time, failing to procure a 3-peat despite being in his prime and having a 3rd star in bosh).
    Yes, so if a hobbled Wade could win with Bron, why would a doubt an in his prime/peak Wade of doing the same? LOL, you cant even see how badly you failed here.

    You said that he was more productive with LBJ than Kobe was with Shaq so regardless of whether Wade was or wasn't in his prime, he still managed to WIN LESS with LBJ and Bosh (a 3rd star that was NOT available on the lakers), all while playing in a horrible conference and facing relatively weak competition in the finals. SO AGAIN, Wade would somehow win more with Shaq than Kobe did despite having a less talented team and playing vastly, vastly superior competition? Yeah okay dude, I'll stick with what actually happened and not your nonsense what ifs that are not supported by anything other than your clear hate for Kobe (who you harped on and on about how he would never LEAD a team to the title as the best player and were wrong about).
    Yes, Wade WAS more productive. He wasn't always alongside Bron. LEARN CONTEXT.

    You cant play the hypothetical game because you suck at it, what actually happened is that Wade was never on a team that could contend to such a degree without him. Its why his coaches never wanted to trade him, its why he was more unselfish as a sidekick. Its why he was more efficient and productive in ANY ROLE. Kobe has the longevity, stick to that kobephile

  10. #2425
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    45,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Maybe that's in part because LBJ was playing in the g league with more minutes and more friendly offensive rules than Kobe had when he was the same age.
    Maybe you should actually look up the statistical variances before regurtitating the same flawed opinions. Its really a non-factor if you knew anything about stats in the NBA. Again, Ill side with ACTUAL statisticians when it comes to this, if you want to save your stance, plz stop mentioning production. Its clearly beyond your realm of understanding, stick to DA RINGZ BRUH!!!1

  11. #2426
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    IF true, then it holds doubly true for you.


    Yes, so if a hobbled Wade could win with Bron, why would a doubt an in his prime/peak Wade of doing the same? LOL, you cant even see how badly you failed here.


    Yes, Wade WAS more productive. He wasn't always alongside Bron. LEARN CONTEXT.

    You cant play the hypothetical game because you suck at it, what actually happened is that Wade was never on a team that could contend to such a degree without him. Its why his coaches never wanted to trade him, its why he was more unselfish as a sidekick. Its why he was more efficient and productive in ANY ROLE. Kobe has the longevity, stick to that kobephile
    We already addressed how it's not appropriate to say a prime wade would do this or that with shaq, because Kobe was not in his prime with shaq. You said that wade was more productive as a 2nd option than kobe. Okay, well he WON LESS than Kobe in that role. That's what actually happened. Wade won less despite having a 3rd star and playing incredibly weaker competition. Somehow, Kobe managed to win more despite being further away from his prime (apparently producing less) and going up against vastly tougher competition (and having far tougher defense played on him because guys were still allowed to play defense in those days.

  12. #2427
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Maybe you should actually look up the statistical variances before regurtitating the same flawed opinions. Its really a non-factor if you knew anything about stats in the NBA. Again, Ill side with ACTUAL statisticians when it comes to this, if you want to save your stance, plz stop mentioning production. Its clearly beyond your realm of understanding, stick to DA RINGZ BRUH!!!1
    Everything I said holds true. I don't think you understand that those things cannot be mathematically accounted for because they have a systematic impact on performance (this isn't an opinion, it's factual). There are simply too many differences between the situation that Kobe and LBJ were in during their early years to make a reasonable comparison and no amount of mathematics can address this.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 12-08-2019 at 04:51 PM.

  13. #2428
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Central VA
    Posts
    12,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Theres an efficiency baseline with regards to minutes, you cant overtax players just as much as you cant under(?)tax them.... Despite this sweet baseline, Kobe couldn't produce at the same efficient level at the same age as Bron. Bron would have gotten more minutes than puny 18 year old Kobe on ANY team. This is what you should argue against the layman like Kobephiles
    Bingo.. its like criticizing LeBron for being ready to go at 18 when Kobe wasnt... not Lebrons fault.

  14. #2429
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,770
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkieMark48 View Post
    Bingo.. its like criticizing LeBron for being ready to go at 18 when Kobe wasnt... not Lebrons fault.
    Not true at all. In Kobe's time, guys just didn't get very much time out of HS, especially on a team that was expected to contend. Kobe actually played a decent amount for a player in that situation. If LBJ were on that team, I doubt he would've gotten too much playing time one way or the other either. Not because he wasn't ready, but because young players weren't trusted too much during that era.

  15. #2430
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    45,584
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkieMark48 View Post
    Bingo.. its like criticizing LeBron for being ready to go at 18 when Kobe wasnt... not Lebrons fault.
    Bron was a certified man child, he basically came into the league at the weight Kobe spent the majority of his career playing at , in large part because his knees could not handle the frame of a true athletic freak. No matter the era, no matter the circumstance, Bron is NBA ready day 1 and would handle more minutes that the twig that was Frobe.

    What makes it worse is the fact that the Lakers NEEDED a SF so Bron would have given them the exact kind of player they needed given the scoring around him. The GREATEST Point Forward of all-time would have won a **** load more titles than Kobe in that same situation.

Posting Permissions

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