Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 397 of 452 FirstFirst ... 297347387395396397398399407447 ... LastLast
Results 5,941 to 5,955 of 6768
  1. #5941
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    When did I deny that I said that? I've been saying it over and over again. I literally just said that in the previous post. It doesn't mean your opinion is less, it's just ironic to devalue championships given who you root for. I explicitly responded to you about this multiple times and said that it wasn't really something that should be all that offensive.

    And yes, you cited other things as well, but those things weren't the crux of your argument, because the difference in missed shots and turnovers wasn't all that drastic when we look at what they actually amount to in the game. I previously noted this pint and this was when you brought up the ORTG metric.
    You literally say "of course championships don't matter to these guys, they don't know what the heck one even is lol.". This is trolling and definitely trying to devalue the opinion due to our teams, there is no way you can explain your way out of what you said it is right there. I am not all that offended I am just showing how you trolled because you seem to be pretending you haven't been, I just have been responding in turn now. You keep playing the victim after doing stuff like this and I am just pointing it out not saying I am offended it just shows what type of poster you are.

    You never made any point about the turnovers and so on. They were drastic lol you think a 5 point game can't change on 5 turns and like 22 misses? We just don't see the game the same way, I know you can make 3 baskets out of that and win if more efficient. That's not ORTG based I just know the game and have common sense. I brought up ORTG as a basic look of his efficiency fall off but also provided the stats for the series, again, like more turnovers than assists and lower shooting efficiency. He was under 40% shooting against the Pistons on like 22 ppg. I covered all of this not just one stats lol again you just ignore everything mentioned to push your own narrative.

  2. #5942
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    You literally say "of course championships don't matter to these guys, they don't know what the heck one even is lol.". This is trolling and definitely trying to devalue the opinion due to our teams, there is no way you can explain your way out of what you said it is right there. I am not all that offended I am just showing how you trolled because you seem to be pretending you haven't been, I just have been responding in turn now. You keep playing the victim after doing stuff like this and I am just pointing it out not saying I am offended it just shows what type of poster you are.

    You never made any point about the turnovers and so on. They were drastic lol you think a 5 point game can't change on 5 turns and like 22 misses? We just don't see the game the same way, I know you can make 3 baskets out of that and win if more efficient. That's not ORTG based I just know the game and have common sense. I brought up ORTG as a basic look of his efficiency fall off but also provided the stats for the series, again, like more turnovers than assists and lower shooting efficiency. He was under 40% shooting against the Pistons on like 22 ppg. I covered all of this not just one stats lol again you just ignore everything mentioned to push your own narrative.
    This isn't trolling anymore than it is to repeatedly tell someone they dont understand something basic over and over again (also note the "lol" it's intended as a joke and you're the one responding like a victim). And how am I playing the victim?? You started complaining about me calling you a weenie lol. You can't start complaining about something so innocuous and then accuse someone of playing the victim (I only started bringing this up once you did and I did it to highlight how hypocritical this is). You literally just said "it shows what kind of poster you are". This isn't me playing the victim, this is you complaining about really small things and then being explicitly offensive and then accusing me of doing the same. If you're going to repeatedly accuse someone of not knowing what theyre talking about, maybe don't complain about them calling you a weenie lol.

    And I absolutely did make the point that the difference in his drop in efficiency wasn't a particularly major drop from years past in terms of looking at what impact that has on the actual game. I made this point over and over again today. In the spurs series in 03, the difference in his drop in efficiency from years past was pretty minimal in terms of what that translates to in the actual game. You might have ignored this because it didn't fit your narrative. In the Detroit series it was more notable, but that's also a single series (and it makes sense for there to be a drop in a losing effort). Overall, the difference in his performance was not particularly notable across the playoffs in either 03 or 04.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-31-2020 at 02:03 AM.

  3. #5943
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    This isn't trolling anymore than it is to repeatedly tell someone they dont understand something basic over and over again (also note the "lol" it's intended as a joke and you're the one responding like a victim). And how am I playing the victim?? You started complaining about me calling you a weenie lol. You can't start complaining about something so innocuous and then accuse someone of playing the victim (I only started bringing this up once you did and I did it to highlight how hypocritical this is). You literally just said "it shows what kind of poster you are". This isn't me playing the victim, this is you complaining about really small things and then being explicitly offensive and then accusing me of doing the same. If you're going to repeatedly accuse someone of not knowing what theyre talking about, maybe don't complain about them calling you a weenie lol.

    And I absolutely did make the point that the difference in his drop in efficiency wasn't a particularly major drop from years past in terms of looking at what impact that has on the actual game. I made this point over and over again today. In the spurs series in 03, the difference in his drop in efficiency from years past was pretty minimal in terms of what that translates to in the actual game. You might have ignored this because it didn't fit your narrative. In the Detroit series it was more notable, but that's also a single series (and it makes sense for there to be a drop in a losing effort). Overall, the difference in his performance was not particularly notable across the playoffs in either 03 or 04.
    I will try again as this is not a big deal to me. I am just pointing out how it isn't just like people are all ganging up relentlessly it is a back and forth and you are doing it too which brings some on. You can have opinions but when you are resorting to stuff like that don't also pretend to be under attack just for having player X in ____ spot when it is due to some of the rhetoric/arguments made more like that getting responses. If you didn't say things to me "I don't mock them for their choice nor do I dismiss it" or complain about the treatment some get/bias against them in the thread I wouldn't have brought it up just pointing out the reason it may happen to people. "anyone who doesn't agree gets dismissed as hater" and so on. Part of the reason say it is because people make it obvious by doing stuff like I highlighted. That's it, that was the point it is explaining something because of things you say that lack context. You trolling in that manner might lead to some of the responses is only point being made no other issues.

    You made that point without ever backing it up haha. It was though and that is the issue those series were a drop off in reality. You didn't actually ever back anything up is the issue you just keep saying things like this while ignoring my actual breakdowns. I didn't ignore anything I kept asking for you to provide anything consider I showed how obvious it is efficiency mattered since 22 shots missed and 5 turnovers occured in a game decided by 5 points. If you think he averaged 38% and 22 ppg in every series before then he was never superstar until like 06 and that's what it was against the Pistons so if that isn't noticeably different, yikes.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 05-31-2020 at 06:05 AM.

  4. #5944
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    bb doesn't support those post mj guys who threaten MJs place in history.

    he posted here a few times, couldn't hold his own really but hes entertaining sometimes
    I'm skimming through the comments.

    Several people post their own Top 10s. Seen a few without Lebron at the top 10 or barely making it as #9 or #10. No one is torching those guys in the section. And some comments on Lebron not being top 10 have tens of likes, not many disagreements below but just people saying they agree mostly, except a few nutcases who do what is done on PSD. Cry "hater" or "ignorant" despite having perfectly good explanations. For example a comment there:

    He's not in my top 10 either. His game is too limited. And it doesn't translate well in any era. You have to have a dominate mid range jumper which he lacks at. And he's too mentally weak to survive in the 60's-80's. He's a hall of famer and a great player but there's too many well rounded guys that had a better offensive game and could take over in the 4th more consistently to put him in the top 10.
    I agree with the pretext here though I'd elaborate more thoroughly.


    And too many people are sort of bashing him for having Lebron ahead of Russell (#11) and Magic (#10) so I'd say that there's a significant amount of people who disagree that Lebron is a top 10 player .

    Also haven't seen that many having Lebron in their top 5's either. Seen a lot have Kobe though.


    Don't think much of this, but it's just an observation as people think it's absurd to not rate Lebron as high as some regular PSD posters of this particular thread, which is limited to like 6-7 people out of dozens that post on PSD.

  5. #5945
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I will try again as this is not a big deal to me. I am just pointing out how it isn't just like people are all ganging up relentlessly it is a back and forth and you are doing it too which brings some on. You can have opinions but when you are resorting to stuff like that don't also pretend to be under attack just for having player X in ____ spot when it is due to some of the rhetoric/arguments made more like that getting responses. If you didn't say things to me "I don't mock them for their choice nor do I dismiss it" or complain about the treatment some get/bias against them in the thread I wouldn't have brought it up just pointing out the reason it may happen to people. "anyone who doesn't agree gets dismissed as hater" and so on. Part of the reason say it is because people make it obvious by doing stuff like I highlighted. That's it, that was the point it is explaining something because of things you say that lack context. You trolling in that manner might lead to some of the responses is only point being made no other issues.

    You made that point without ever backing it up haha. It was though and that is the issue those series were a drop off in reality. You didn't actually ever back anything up is the issue you just keep saying things like this while ignoring my actual breakdowns. I didn't ignore anything I kept asking for you to provide anything consider I showed how obvious it is efficiency mattered since 22 shots missed and 5 turnovers occured in a game decided by 5 points. If you think he averaged 38% and 22 ppg in every series before then he was never superstar until like 06 and that's what it was against the Pistons so if that isn't noticeably different, yikes.
    To be clear, I wasn't complaining about people doing that to me. I was pointing out that it was being done to other posters. I have very little trouble addressing that sort of thing directly with whoever is doing it to me. The topic came up because another poster asked why there weren't more people in here supporting Kobe (it might've even been you, I don't remember). My response was that there were a lot of people ganging up on anyone who comes in here and picks Kobe and sticks around to discuss it and that this was likely turning them away. This obviously isn't an issue for me.

    I also did back up my point (as I will do again here) and I showed what a minor difference something like a 5% difference in fg% can be when you translate that to an actual game. Pointing out a single game where a player is inefficient is not support for the idea that said player became notably inefficient. Here's the funny part, the difference between a relatively efficient game and an inefficient one is a whopping 1 shot, which would've put his fg% at about 45% for that game (also, make sure you at least don't distort the numbers when you post this stuff, he had 2 assists, not 0). Also, using the boxscore from a single game and saying "see, that player" is inefficient is inappropriate because without actually going back to watch the game we don't know how many of those shots were shots that said player had to take late in the clock or in which they were end of quarter shots...given that a single shot would be the difference between an "efficient" game and an "inefficient" one, this is necessary to do if we're going to look at a single game or even series. This type of practice is also selective sampling. Why focus on that one game or even that series? One could just as easily highlight a game or playoff series where he was efficient. You're selecting it because it's the one that you think best fits your narrative (and not even that well because he was just under the league average for the playoffs in fg% that game).

    Kobe also played 46 minutes that game (really 45, but it was 45:01 so technically 46). Maybe that accounts for some of why his shot total was high and he had 5 turnovers? Maybe if shaq would've been in better shape and was able to match that effort Kobe would've had a considerably more efficient night? Maybe if Rick Fox doesn't miss the game, that ends in an easy win for the lakers and Kobe doesn't need to play so many minutes? Maybe if Rick fox was playing the lakers win two of those close games and advance to a 4-peat? Surely fox could impact the game enough to swing a 5 and 2 pt game. The thing about those lakers teams was that they weren't very deep. There was shaq and Kobe and then they had good role players, but really there were only about 6-8 total rotation players who were going to be viable in a playoff series. If one of those became injured during a series, they were going to be in trouble and other guys were going to have to play a lot of minutes (that usually meant Kobe). You see how that context there works? Should I now accuse you of ignoring context and being a troll because you didn't include these very obvious factors that likely had a major influence on not just Kobe's efficiency, but on the outcome of the series? Or maybe you didn't do it on purpose, because you know, the real context gets completely lost when you go back and simply look at a boxscore.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-31-2020 at 10:31 AM.

  6. #5946
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    7,260
    Still waiting on all of these names of people that got bullied out of here.

  7. #5947
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,390

    Kobe vs Lebron: Who is the better player?

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    To be clear, I wasn't complaining about people doing that to me. I was pointing out that it was being done to other posters. I have very little trouble addressing that sort of thing directly with whoever is doing it to me. The topic came up because another poster asked why there weren't more people in here supporting Kobe (it might've even been you, I don't remember). My response was that there were a lot of people ganging up on anyone who comes in here and picks Kobe and sticks around to discuss it and that this was likely turning them away. This obviously isn't an issue for me.

    I also did back up my point (as I will do again here) and I showed what a minor difference something like a 5% difference in fg% can be when you translate that to an actual game. Pointing out a single game where a player is inefficient is not support for the idea that said player became notably inefficient. Here's the funny part, the difference between a relatively efficient game and an inefficient one is a whopping 1 shot, which would've put his fg% at about 45% for that game (also, make sure you at least don't distort the numbers when you post this stuff, he had 2 assists, not 0). Also, using the boxscore from a single game and saying "see, that player" is inefficient is inappropriate because without actually going back to watch the game we don't know how many of those shots were shots that said player had to take late in the clock or in which they were end of quarter shots...given that a single shot would be the difference between an "efficient" game and an "inefficient" one, this is necessary to do if we're going to look at a single game or even series. This type of practice is also selective sampling. Why focus on that one game or even that series? One could just as easily highlight a game or playoff series where he was efficient. You're selecting it because it's the one that you think best fits your narrative (and not even that well because he was just under the league average for the playoffs in fg% that game).

    Kobe also played 46 minutes that game (really 45, but it was 45:01 so technically 46). Maybe that accounts for some of why his shot total was high and he had 5 turnovers? Maybe if shaq would've been in better shape and was able to match that effort Kobe would've had a considerably more efficient night? Maybe if Rick Fox doesn't miss the game, that ends in an easy win for the lakers and Kobe doesn't need to play so many minutes? Maybe if Rick fox was playing the lakers win two of those close games and advance to a 4-peat? Surely fox could impact the game enough to swing a 5 and 2 pt game. The thing about those lakers teams was that they weren't very deep. There was shaq and Kobe and then they had good role players, but really there were only about 6-8 total rotation players who were going to be viable in a playoff series. If one of those became injured during a series, they were going to be in trouble and other guys were going to have to play a lot of minutes (that usually meant Kobe). You see how that context there works? Should I now accuse you of ignoring context and being a troll because you didn't include these very obvious factors that likely had a major influence on not just Kobe's efficiency, but on the outcome of the series? Or maybe you didn't do it on purpose, because you know, the real context gets completely lost when you go back and simply look at a boxscore.
    Who and give examples then otherwise it looks like what I was saying. It is very possible others are mocking/trolling or whatever leading to them getting responses too. I see it plenty in these threads so be specific and/or stop pretending to be victims in this generalized manner then when you specifically act the way you did/said you weren't. If you see something specific feel free to point it out otherwise it is fair to point out why that might happen to posters (using yourself as the specific example).

    Him making one more shot is still not efficient, even if he shot 50% (which wins them the game FYI) he still had 3 more turnovers than assists which hurts an offense too which makes it more mediocre still (but mediocre like that still wins). Also Kobe was 6/19 at half time so you using the time played is kinda ignoring a very inefficient start (and two turns). I apologize for missing the 2 assists. I am not only using this box score I have used the series and the Pistons one as well, this was brought up to show efficiency matters and can lead to a loss. The reason it all matters? Why did Dallas matter for Lebron? Lol this is what I mean you are just purposely playing dumb pretending on playoff series where a player is eliminated is me selective sampling given it's the discussion at hand winning as the #1... Sure just like anyone who has ever cared about playoff performances before I mean you are arguing about rings lol. These series matter because some made the claim his earlier rings he was a star etc. but this is showing he had issues when he actually became the #1 and was not that peak MJ/Lebron/Bird and so on level yet as a player multiple years earlier benefiting as the #2 with Shaq given all the context so most see it differently.

    You can blame everyone else all you want and I covered it but he was playing poorly even just looking at the first half so it isn't like he started hot then got tired and so on. You have been making the argument that in 021/02 he was capable of being that elite level guy carrying a team like peak MJ/Lebron/Bird but when the bigger series and so on came like this he did not step up in the same way and even played pretty bad to many. Again the Pistons series he shot 38% and had 22ppg you can blame anyone you want but this is a couple years more of growth later too. Kobe was a very good player in his first 3 titles but he was not the #1 focus of the defense taking attention he benefited off Shaq and as teams adjusted towards him/Shaq wasn't quite that best player anymore and falling off they stopped winning titles due to the series covered. You can say whatever you want about me trolling for pointing out context in the playoffs for Kobe individually, Fox being out doesn't change his own individual play that's been covered or the result you are just looking to make any excuse possible it seems.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 05-31-2020 at 01:21 PM.

  8. #5948
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Who and give examples then otherwise it looks like what I was saying. It is very possible others are mocking/trolling or whatever leading to them getting responses too. I see it plenty in these threads so be specific and/or stop pretending to be victims in this generalized manner then when you specifically act the way you did/said you weren't. If you see something specific feel free to point it out otherwise it is fair to point out why that might happen to posters (using yourself as the specific example).

    Him making one more shot is still not efficient, even if he shot 50% (which wins them the game FYI) he still had 3 more turnovers than assists which hurts an offense too which makes it more mediocre still (but mediocre like that still wins). Also Kobe was 6/19 at half time so you using the time played is kinda ignoring a very inefficient start (and two turns). I apologize for missing the 2 assists. I am not only using this box score I have used the series and the Pistons one as well, this was brought up to show efficiency matters and can lead to a loss. The reason it all matters? Why did Dallas matter for Lebron? Lol this is what I mean you are just purposely playing dumb pretending on playoff series where a player is eliminated is me selective sampling given it's the discussion at hand winning as the #1... Sure just like anyone who has ever cared about playoff performances before I mean you are arguing about rings lol. These series matter because some made the claim his earlier rings he was a star etc. but this is showing he had issues when he actually became the #1 and was not that peak MJ/Lebron/Bird and so on level yet as a player multiple years earlier benefiting as the #2 with Shaq given all the context so most see it differently.

    You can blame everyone else all you want and I covered it but he was playing poorly even just looking at the first half so it isn't like he started hot then got tired and so on. You have been making the argument that in 021/02 he was capable of being that elite level guy carrying a team like peak MJ/Lebron/Bird but when the bigger series and so on came like this he did not step up in the same way and even played pretty bad to many. Again the Pistons series he shot 38% and had 22ppg you can blame anyone you want but this is a couple years more of growth later too. Kobe was a very good player in his first 3 titles but he was not the #1 focus of the defense taking attention he benefited off Shaq and as teams adjusted towards him/Shaq wasn't quite that best player anymore and falling off they stopped winning titles due to the series covered. You can say whatever you want about me trolling for pointing out context in the playoffs for Kobe individually, Fox being out doesn't change his own individual play that's been covered or the result you are just looking to make any excuse possible it seems.
    That's a single game though and the Detroit series was a single series. And while yes, 5 turnovers to 2 assists isn't good, the turnovers were almost certainly related to his high amount of minutes (and simply making one more shot wouldve still given him a relatively efficiency shooting night). Also note that in the Detroit series, outside of Shaq, everyone else shot the ball pretty poorly almost every game so it wasn't like kobe was having a bad time and everyone else was lighting it up, Everyone else was bad as well, which reflects Detroits great defense just as much as it reflects Kobe's inability to figure out how to win this series (see, I never gave him a pass on this; he didn't come through but that doesn't mean anything beyond him not coming through that one time).

    I also never focused on LBJ's play in a single game or series or in the Dallas series. I did say he should've won the Dallas series given the talent disparity against Dallas, but I never singled out a specific game or series. Kobe's performance against the spurs wasn't all that different from his performance in the previous year when Shaq was still the #1, despite kobe playing a really high number of minutes. Yes they didn't win a title once shaq started falling off, just like they didn't win a title until kobe became a star, but one big difference is that once shaq started to decline, the lakers had critical injuries to starters. It's unfair to ignore that, especially given how shallow their depth was outside of 6-8 players or so. Kobe also didn't play poorly against the spurs. Even in that game you cited I would still say he played pretty well, he could've played better, sure but that's different from not playing well. Fox being out led to kobe having to play a lot more minutes, which im sure hurt both his and the teams performance relative to fox being available.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-31-2020 at 01:41 PM.

  9. #5949
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    That's a single game though and the Detroit series was a single series. And while yes, 5 turnovers to 2 assists isn't good, the turnovers were almost certainly related to his high amount of minutes (and simply making one more shot wouldve still given him a relatively efficiency shooting night). Also note that in the Detroit series, outside of Shaq, everyone else shot the ball pretty poorly almost every game so it wasn't like kobe was having a bad time and everyone else was lighting it up, Everyone else was bad as well, which reflects Detroits great defense just as much as it reflects Kobe's inability to figure out how to win this series (see, I never gave him a pass on this; he didn't come through but that doesn't mean anything beyond him not coming through that one time).

    I also never focused on LBJ's play in a single game or series or in the Dallas series. I did say he should've won the Dallas series given the talent disparity against Dallas, but I never singled out a specific game or series. Kobe's performance against the spurs series wasn't all that different from his performance in the previous year when Shaq was still the #1, despite kobe playing a really high number of minutes. Yes they didn't win a title once shaq started falling off, just like they didn't win a title until kobe became a star, but one big difference is that once shaq started to decline, the lakers had critical injuries to starters. It's unfair to ignore that, especially given how shallow their depth was outside of 6-8 players or so.
    They are important one's because in order to win a championship which is what has been talked about you need to win games/series in the playoffs. Detroit does have a great defense but part of the reason the team as a whole was more locked up is Kobe as the #1 was not making it as easy as when Shaq was #1 best player in the game and so on. Shaq was the only real efficient player and they should have played through him more forcing Det to adapt to him more for the benefit of the team.

    You have said you don't count him as best player at the time and so on that season due to it. Just like I am pointing out why people didn't consider young Kobe a #1 option winning rings and so on from 00-02 and how when he did become that guy he fell off and the team did and so on. The issue is he needed to do more if he was the #1 guy not fall off a bit from the year previous but again he simply was not quite ready to handle that load as we saw. He was capable of being a #1 but not at the all time great level others won their peak titles at which is why given the role/context and so on it is treated different (just like Horry's etc due to context being different obviously). If Kobe's play was better and so on then I maybe could see using that but this is also about individual level he was at. As you noted Kobe took a jump up in 03 RS statistically and so on signaling a better player to you given what you have said but that still wasn't enough to put them over the top or lift his performances once truly the #1 it still wasn't even enough given the improvements he was making year to year multiple years after 02 the last title won still having issues (so in 02 he simply was not that elite all time guy yet as has been said, amazing 2nd option on that team of course still).

  10. #5950
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    They are important one's because in order to win a championship which is what has been talked about you need to win games/series in the playoffs. Detroit does have a great defense but part of the reason the team as a whole was more locked up is Kobe as the #1 was not making it as easy as when Shaq was #1 best player in the game and so on. Shaq was the only real efficient player and they should have played through him more forcing Det to adapt to him more for the benefit of the team.

    You have said you don't count him as best player at the time and so on that season due to it. Just like I am pointing out why people didn't consider young Kobe a #1 option winning rings and so on from 00-02 and how when he did become that guy he fell off and the team did and so on. The issue is he needed to do more if he was the #1 guy not fall off a bit from the year previous but again he simply was not quite ready to handle that load as we saw. He was capable of being a #1 but not at the all time great level others won their peak titles at which is why given the role/context and so on it is treated different (just like Horry's etc due to context being different obviously). If Kobe's play was better and so on then I maybe could see using that but this is also about individual level he was at. As you noted Kobe took a jump up in 03 RS statistically and so on signaling a better player to you given what you have said but that still wasn't enough to put them over the top or lift his performances once truly the #1 it still wasn't even enough given the improvements he was making year to year multiple years after 02 the last title won still having issues (so in 02 he simply was not that elite all time guy yet as has been said, amazing 2nd option on that team of course still).
    The thing about the 04 series, was shaq simply wasn't active enough to really allow the team to play through him more consistently and it was because he was out of shape. He had one legitimate throwback game in that series. It wasn't as if Shaq was dominating the paint and Kobe was continually ignoring him and taking on the defense himself.

    I don't think your position is unreasonable to not weight Kobe's first 3 titles the same as his last 2, but I also don't think it's reasonable to put them in the same tier as what Pippen's titles were. For me, what this ultimately comes down to is that Kobe was at the time still capable of being a great #1. Yes, he wasn't on his own team and yes he did get better, but he was still at an all-time great level (I think it was top 10 all-time level, but I do acknowledge that this is a debatable point). At any rate though, I think he was still better at this point than a lot of other superstars who have won a title as their team's best player so I weight 4 of his 5 titles the same for this reason. The first one I agree that it's more on par with that of Pippen's titles.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-31-2020 at 02:46 PM.

  11. #5951
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    The thing about the 04 series, was shaq simply wasn't active enough to really allow the team to play through him more consistently and it was because he was out of shape. He had one legitimate throwback game in that series. It wasn't as if Shaq was dominating the paint and Kobe was continually ignoring him and taking on the defense himself.

    I don't think your position is unreasonable to not weight Kobe's first 3 titles the same as his last 2, but I also don't think it's reasonable to put them in the same tier as what Pippen's titles were. For me, what this ultimately comes down to is that Kobe was at the time still capable of being a great #1. Yes, he wasn't on his own team and yes he did get better, but he was still at an all-time great level (I think it was top 10 all-time level, but I do acknowledge that this is a debatable point). At any rate though, I think he was still better at this point than a lot of other superstars who have won a title as their team's best player so I weight 4 of his 5 titles the same for this reason. The first one I agree that it's more on par with that of Pippen's titles.
    You keep saying Shaq was out of shape as an excuse despite him being more efficient (and pretty productive) both years, the issue was Kobe needed to play as a team more and keep him involved but he was partially trying to prove he was the man by that point. He didn't take the RS as seriously sure/did have those issues and was dropping more by 04 but was still an amazing payer at the time and ready come playoffs both years. The thing is if Shaq was the #2 by then and Kobe was the #1 then it isn't on Shaq to carry everything but it would have been the better option for the team as we saw if he were used a bit more instead of relying so much on Kobe which hurt the team/he couldn't handle it yet.

    Well when people are comparing his rings to the other greats they won't be counted is the point, he has 2 rings in the same context as some of those others he would be compared to. He can have a few rings in a lesser role but people are gonna be more focused on how good he was in his peak and prime and so on than focusing on team awards when younger as #2 option (or a great winning at end of career on a team etc) it will be seen a bit different. It can have a little more value like I said but it won't be in the same league as the peak top 10 greats all time and so on with the context/him still growing not at peak himself and so on. You can have that opinion but most will disagree and there is a reason after Shaq left much of the narrative was "can kobe win without Shaq" for a couple years out there. Kobe was a good player but not that level until later in his career (even using your RS as a basis it wasn't until 03 he took off a bit more like you referenced then like 06 is when he had that insane scoring season). I think he was better than some individuals sure but it wasn't at the all time great peak level either, first one around Pippen level sure. It's just clearly different context overall for him is the point/issue given everything pointed out which is why they get treated different (just like you treat the Pippen titles different etc. due to context).

  12. #5952
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    You keep saying Shaq was out of shape as an excuse despite him being more efficient (and pretty productive) both years, the issue was Kobe needed to play as a team more and keep him involved but he was partially trying to prove he was the man by that point. He didn't take the RS as seriously sure/did have those issues and was dropping more by 04 but was still an amazing payer at the time and ready come playoffs both years. The thing is if Shaq was the #2 by then and Kobe was the #1 then it isn't on Shaq to carry everything but it would have been the better option for the team as we saw if he were used a bit more instead of relying so much on Kobe which hurt the team/he couldn't handle it yet.

    Well when people are comparing his rings to the other greats they won't be counted is the point, he has 2 rings in the same context as some of those others he would be compared to. He can have a few rings in a lesser role but people are gonna be more focused on how good he was in his peak and prime and so on than focusing on team awards when younger as #2 option (or a great winning at end of career on a team etc) it will be seen a bit different. It can have a little more value like I said but it won't be in the same league as the peak top 10 greats all time and so on with the context/him still growing not at peak himself and so on. You can have that opinion but most will disagree and there is a reason after Shaq left much of the narrative was "can kobe win without Shaq" for a couple years out there. Kobe was a good player but not that level until later in his career (even using your RS as a basis it wasn't until 03 he took off a bit more like you referenced then like 06 is when he had that insane scoring season). I think he was better than some individuals sure but it wasn't at the all time great peak level either, first one around Pippen level sure. It's just clearly different context overall for him is the point/issue given everything pointed out which is why they get treated different (just like you treat the Pippen titles different etc. due to context).
    It's not an excuse. Shaq was out of shape and he played better in the playoffs but he was nowhere near as active as one would expect from a star player. If you go back and watch those games, shaq is usually lumbering up and down the court and then will have a few possessions where he goes to work and then goes back to struggling up and down the court. It's not an excuse for Kobe, but that factors into the context just like everything else you noted. I agree that Kobe wasn't at his all-time peak level, but I think we disagree on how far away from that he was.

  13. #5953
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    It's not an excuse. Shaq was out of shape and he played better in the playoffs but he was nowhere near as active as one would expect from a star player. If you go back and watch those games, shaq is usually lumbering up and down the court and then will have a few possessions where he goes to work and then goes back to struggling up and down the court. It's not an excuse for Kobe, but that factors into the context just like everything else you noted. I agree that Kobe wasn't at his all-time peak level, but I think we disagree on how far away from that he was.
    He was still quite active and a beast overall, he had 25ppg and 14 rpg against the spurs that 03 series and we covered it was efficient too. 26/11 in the Detroit series where Kobe had his 22ppg on bad efficiency. He was still a dominant force on the court even if they were a bit closer in roles by then/Kobe starting to take over. I watched those games and he was still pretty active and dominant at that time I mean years later in 06 he won again with young Wade clearly having dropped off more (even if in shape for more of season not the same guy due to age/decline by then). He was a very good player even if not quite the best in the NBA anymore due to Duncan being better but Kobe had an incredible #2 if we call Kobe the #1 either way and wasn't able to get it done (SA didn't have another star near this level by then like LA).

    The point is he just clearly wasn't there yet and in a different role when he won. You can choose to ignore this or say it isn't enough to matter and count things the same but most others won't and it isn't disrespecting Kobe and so on it is based on context/reality of what was happening.

  14. #5954
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155

  15. #5955
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    He was still quite active and a beast overall, he had 25ppg and 14 rpg against the spurs that 03 series and we covered it was efficient too. 26/11 in the Detroit series where Kobe had his 22ppg on bad efficiency. He was still a dominant force on the court even if they were a bit closer in roles by then/Kobe starting to take over. I watched those games and he was still pretty active and dominant at that time I mean years later in 06 he won again with young Wade clearly having dropped off more (even if in shape for more of season not the same guy due to age/decline by then). He was a very good player even if not quite the best in the NBA anymore due to Duncan being better but Kobe had an incredible #2 if we call Kobe the #1 either way and wasn't able to get it done (SA didn't have another star near this level by then like LA).

    The point is he just clearly wasn't there yet and in a different role when he won. You can choose to ignore this or say it isn't enough to matter and count things the same but most others won't and it isn't disrespecting Kobe and so on it is based on context/reality of what was happening.
    Shaq was still a beast, yes, but he really wasn't all that active during that time. He was playing in spurts in most games. I also don't agree that most won't give kobe similar credit for the titles as me. Another poster came on here just a few days ago who was not a laker fan saying that he definitely deserves 4 of the 5 to be treated as they would for any superstar (which is in line with what I've been saying). In the end, the way you're interpreting this context boils down to your opinion, which I clearly disagree with. Kobe wasn't able to get it done as the #1 during that time, in large part because his team was going for a 4-peat, with a somewhat bare roster and a key injury to who was probably their 3rd best player (as Fox missed the entire series). A similar situation ensued in 04 with injuries derailing the team. That's as much a part of the context (if not more so) than then lakers not being able to win a title with kobe as the #1. Many on here might agree with you, but a lot of people will also disagree.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-31-2020 at 07:01 PM.

Posting Permissions

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