IS KOBE BRYANT...OVERRATED?

[frink85]

SPro, the guys you mentioned as contemporaries of Kobe may not have had all-nba teammates, but they had good teams built around them. TP/Manu, Nash/Finley, Hakeem might've had the least talent but Thorpe and Jet weren't terrible. Hell Nash even had amare/matrix and an entire offensive system built around him. Point being, every winning team needs great players/stars. Those guys had their trios, Kobe had shaq then pau.

But I will contend to the death your last point about his failure seasons. The lord Jesus himself wouldn't have been able to take kwame brown, brian cook and Luke Walton anywhere

 

[mister friendly]

TP/Manu, Nash/Finley, Hakeem might've had the least talent but Thorpe and Jet weren't terrible. Hell Nash even had amare/matrix and an entire offensive system built around him.

Dont forget David Robinson for the Spurs. Duncan won 2 championships with him......Dont forget Hakeem had Clyde Drexler who was All NBA the year they won.....People always forget about Clyde....remember they were a 6th seed that year and Clyde gave them a push to the championship.

Dont forget Nash had Joe Johnson too....whos gone on to play in 6 all star games

 

[frink85]

Dont forget David Robinson for the Spurs. Duncan won 2 championships with him......Dont forget Hakeem had Clyde Drexler who was All NBA the year they won.....People always forget about Clyde....remember they were a 6th seed that year and Clyde gave them a push to the championship.

Dont forget Nash had Joe Johnson too....whos gone on to play in 6 all star games

Thanks dude, I can never remember when Clyde joined the rockets...during the championship run or later on with Charles in the late 90s. Repped

 

[mertonhanks]

Clyde joined midway in the 94-95 season.

Hakeem had just won a championship the prior to Glide going to Houston.

Duncan had Robinson but by second championship run, Admiral was Done. He was only averaging 8 and 8 if I recall correctly, and not even that in the playoffs.

 

[frink85]

Clyde joined midway in the 94-95 season.

Hakeem had just won a championship the prior to Glide going to Houston.

Duncan had Robinson but by second championship run, Admiral was Done. He was only averaging 8 and 8 if I recall correctly, and not even that in the playoffs.

True on admiral. I wanted to focus on Manu/tp and Nash/Finley to keep it within the same timeframe as Kobe and shaq. Also why I mentioned Nash with amare/matrix. My point being is that you need a team to win. And even though Kobe had 12 seasons alongside an all-NBA player (singular) these same stars had plenty of seasons with all-stars (plural) who weren't all-NBA. And just like one man isn't going to win a game by himself, no man can lose a game by himself. I'm a laker fan and I yell at the TV when Kobe starts throwing up crap, but that won't lose a game. It'll screw up a game for sure, but I don't believe in singlehandedly losing a game.

/rant

 

[SneakerProSr.]

In Kobe Bryant's 17 years in the league he has played with another member of the all NBA team 12 times.

If you add up the times Tim Duncan, Hakeem Ojauwon and Dirk Nowitzki has played with another member of the all NBA team it comes to 8. Combined.

Kobe Bryant has had the most success of this generation because he has played with the most talent of this generation.

The times he didn't were his biggest failures.

Edit-

There is a decent chance Dwight Howard makes the team this year so it will actually be 13.

Whats your point?

Magic played 8 seasons with another all NBA member and they didn't have a 3rd team back then or he would've had more seasons with another all NBA member

Russell played all 13 seasons with another all NBA team remember

Shaq played 14 seasons with another all NBA member

Kobe played with Shaq and Shaq got to play with Kobe, its what happens with have a dynamic duo

But yet Kobe has less seasons with another all NBA member than Shaq but has more rings....hmmm

Try again

When I did mention Magic, Shaq, or Russell?



I can't find those dudes anywhere in my post.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

In a league where good centers have become extremely rare its interesting that Kobe Bryant has played with one of the 3 best in the entire NBA for 76% of his career.

No all time great that has been in the NBA during Kobe's time in the league can say well I always played with a top 3 at his position player damn near every year except for Shaq.

A big to people bringing up David Robinson winning 2 rings with Tim Duncan. David Robinson was in still good in 99 but in 03 he put up less than Omer Asik numbers.

Clyde was still good in 95 but he wasn't the best of the best.

Kobe has always played with other elite players which has greatly increased his success.


This is why I think Tim Duncan is the greatest player of this generation so when people say Kobe Bryant is the best it proves to me that he's overrated.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

SPro, the guys you mentioned as contemporaries of Kobe may not have had all-nba teammates, but they had good teams built around them. TP/Manu, Nash/Finley, Hakeem might've had the least talent but Thorpe and Jet weren't terrible. Hell Nash even had amare/matrix and an entire offensive system built around him. Point being, every winning team needs great players/stars. Those guys had their trios, Kobe had shaq then pau.

But I will contend to the death your last point about his failure seasons. The lord Jesus himself wouldn't have been able to take kwame brown, brian cook and Luke Walton anywhere

I know man but other all time greats have had teams like that around them for half their careers and we label them as losers.

 

[frink85]

I know man but other all time greats have had teams like that around them for half their careers and we label them as losers.

IMO the guys who deserve the loser label are the ones who had the talent but didn't win. I wouldn't consider iverson a loser, he wasn't a winner, but he was a great player. He played with Luke-quality crap and took them to a finals in the weak east. Great, not a winner, not a loser

Someone like mailman who played with a HoFer Stockton and some pretty good teams, you can call him a loser. Granted he ran into MJ but he was known to shrink. Plus as a laker fan I hated him so loser!

T-Mac may be an exception to me...he really only had yao for two seasons at best, but just for prematurely being relieved for getting out of the first round....loser

And you said before that you didnt mention the guys Friendly brought up...your point was that kobe played and won with all time greats right? so did the guys he mentioned, and I doubt that would cause them to be considered overrated. now if you wanna narrow the criteria down to the kobes playing era, we can discuss that, but its late here. Hopefully when I get up this thread is still civil

 

[sea manup]

In a league where good centers have become extremely rare its interesting that Kobe Bryant has played with one of the 3 best in the entire NBA for 76% of his career.

No all time great that has been in the NBA during Kobe's time in the league can say well I always played with a top 3 at his position player damn near every year except for Shaq.

A big

to people bringing up David Robinson winning 2 rings with Tim Duncan. David Robinson was in still good in 99 but in 03 he put up less than Omer Asik numbers.

Clyde was still good in 95 but he wasn't the best of the best.

Kobe has always played with other elite players which has greatly increased his success.


This is why I think Tim Duncan is the greatest player of this generation so when people say Kobe Bryant is the best it proves to me that he's overrated.

being the best center in the nba today is not the same as it was before, having a bynum/howard on your team is not the same as having best center in the league AND top 10 all time great shaq or kareem or wilt. In kobe's career the only years he has played with a top 5 nba player is when he was running with shaq. MJ always had a top 5 player in pippin but i dont think that takes away from anything he has done. 

the reason why i think kobe is better than duncan is because he has won more (teammates aside, 5>4), kobe's teams have dominated the spurs in the playoffs. kobe is more marketable and more of a household name (not a pure basketball reason but it does play a factor, jordan would not be considered the GOAT if he was as "boring" as duncan)

timmy is having a great season this year though and i really enjoy actually watching a center with post moves

 

[mister friendly]

Clyde joined midway in the 94-95 season.

Hakeem had just won a championship the prior to Glide going to Houston.

Duncan had Robinson but by second championship run, Admiral was Done. He was only averaging 8 and 8 if I recall correctly, and not even that in the playoffs.

Hakeem wasnt gonna win again without Clyde

Robinson wasnt done at all in 2003....we still contributed, he had the 2nd highest player efficency on the team...try again

In Kobe Bryant's 17 years in the league he has played with another member of the all NBA team 12 times.

If you add up the times Tim Duncan, Hakeem Ojauwon and Dirk Nowitzki has played with another member of the all NBA team it comes to 8. Combined.

Kobe Bryant has had the most success of this generation because he has played with the most talent of this generation.

The times he didn't were his biggest failures.

Edit-

There is a decent chance Dwight Howard makes the team this year so it will actually be 13.

Whats your point?

Magic played 8 seasons with another all NBA member and they didn't have a 3rd team back then or he would've had more seasons with another all NBA member

Russell played all 13 seasons with another all NBA team remember

Shaq played 14 seasons with another all NBA member

Kobe played with Shaq and Shaq got to play with Kobe, its what happens with have a dynamic duo

But yet Kobe has less seasons with another all NBA member than Shaq but has more rings....hmmm

Try again

When I did mention Magic, Shaq, or Russell?



I can't find those dudes anywhere in my post.

I'm mentioning them as other guys who played with an all NBA member,

Dirk isn't in Kobe's league, he got his ring because Lebron choked.

Kobe has more rings,all NBA selections, All Star selections, All Defensive selections and points than Hakeem

Same with Duncan,Kobe has more rings,all NBA selections, All Star selections and points than him.

 

[darthska]

this response is going to go over 99% of your heads, so I don't even know why I'm bothering.

Ball dominating scorer.

Chucker.

Volume shooter.

whatever label you want to actually call Kobe's style of play, I hate it. I hate seeing it from others, and aside from my personal feelings, it's just not a winning style. (there's the first thing I expect to be misquoted and laughed at. "Not a winning style? Gold medals, championships... man, whatever." Go for it. Prove me right. )

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

I should just leave my reply at that, but like an idiot, I'm going to say more and give you guys more to laugh at later and not consider.

Kobe's style of play is not conducive to winning. before you respond with championships and gold medals, I am going to ask that you respond without anything about stats and accomplishments, which will be near impossible for a lot of you. reason I ask that: stats and championships and accomplishments can be twisted to say whatever you want.

three recent contemporaries who have the same style of play as Kobe... no, not EXACTLY... are McGrady, Melo, and Iverson. (there's another one. "Kobe = Melo? Tmac? " Do it. )

Yep, I know I just lost a bunch of you by mentioning those names, which you will now laugh at and say that they are nothing like Kobe... but the only reason you can say that is because their resumes pale in comparison to his. but IN SPORTS, YOUR RESUME IS NEVER JUST YOUR OWN DOING. We all know this, and this is why I'm making an argument that has nothing to do with stats and accomplishments and championship.

McGrady, Iverson, MJ, and Melo have also been accused of the same three things I began my reply with: ball dominating scorer, chucker, volume shooter.

let me switch gears for a second. does Jason Kidd play like Wilt Chamberlain? No, different styles.

Does Andre Miller play like Karl Malone? No, different styles.

Does Reggie Miller play like Chris Paul? No, different styles.

so without mentioning resumes, we understand just talking about a simple style of play, right?

'Style of play' is not just about position. the reason Jason Kidd doesn't play like Wilt Chamberlain is not just because Kidd is a PG and Chamberlain was a C. Yes, that was their position on the court, but that's not what I'm getting at. Jason Kidd is a PG and Russell Westbrook is a PG, and they play nothing alike. I'm not talking about positions or responsibilities.

so whatever you want to label Kobe's style, it's a style. I understand if you take offense to the labels 'ball dominating scorer', 'chucker', and 'volume shooter', so call it whatever you want, but it is a certain style. Right?

its a style that I feel was ushered in by Jordan, and emulated by the likes of TMac, Iverson, Melo, and Kobe, among others. and the most successful of all who have played this style are Jordan and Kobe. but for me, the reason for the success was/is NOT their style of play; it was their experience, work ethic, and talent.

ok, switching gears again. We have already understood that style of play is different among different players, right? Pretty simple. Well, players have different experiences, also. Tracy McGrady's experience in the NBA is now over, and it was way different than Kobe Bryant's experience, right? Now, before you get all offended and answer defensively, just answer the question. His experience was different than Kobe's, right?

the two most successful people at this style of play have been successful not because of this style of play, but because they experienced a career that supported and worked with this style of play. I once said in a debate with CP a couple years ago that we won despite Kobe Bryant, and 'despite' wasn't quite the right word. my intention was simply to get away from 'because of', saying we won 'because of' Kobe. I don't agree with that, but I also don't agree with the word 'despite'; I shouldn't have said that. 'With' is fine; we have won 'with' Kobe.

and the reason the resumes of Iverson & Tmac & Melo pale in comparison to the resumes of Kobe and MJ are because...
... those first 3 never were put in environments that worked with them. no Phil Jackson, no Shaq/Pippen, no perfectly complimentary players, none of that.
... 2 of those 3 (Mac & Iverson) don't approach the game with the same level of seriousness and work ethic as Kobe & MJ

so am I saying that Tracy could have been substituted for Jordan in some sort of alternate universe and it would have proved just as successful as those 90 Bulls? No, because there are other elements besides 'style of play' and 'the experience they go through'; there is 'talent level', and 'work ethic'. Tracy is not as talented as MJ, and DAMN sure not as hard working.

so do I think a more hard working and talented scorer than Tracy could have been substituted for a successful combination? yes. would it have been 6-0 successful? hell, I don't know, and I think that's being too specific with this hypothetical.

and that sort of interchangeability is why I do think that we would have experienced some success if we had a Kidd. he has always worked hard, obviously has a very high talent level, and in my opinion, his style of play... whatever you want to label it... is more team oriented than the style of play that we see from Kobe, MJ, Tracy, Melo, and Tmac.

there should be plenty of fodder for you guys to be disgusted with, quote and laugh at, and refuse to intellectually consider. have fun.

 

[sea manup]

this response is going to go over 99% of your heads, so I don't even know why I'm bothering.

Ball dominating scorer.

Chucker.

Volume shooter.

whatever label you want to actually call Kobe's style of play, I hate it. I hate seeing it from others, and aside from my personal feelings, it's just not a winning style. (there's the first thing I expect to be misquoted and laughed at. "Not a winning style? Gold medals, championships...

man, whatever." Go for it. Prove me right.

)

---

I should just leave my reply at that, but like an idiot, I'm going to say more and give you guys more to laugh at later and not consider.

Kobe's style of play is not conducive to winning. before you respond with championships and gold medals, I am going to ask that you respond without anything about stats and accomplishments, which will be near impossible for a lot of you. reason I ask that: stats and championships and accomplishments can be twisted to say whatever you want.

three recent contemporaries who have the same style of play as Kobe... no, not EXACTLY... are McGrady, Melo, and Iverson. (there's another one. "Kobe = Melo? Tmac?

" Do it.

)

Yep, I know I just lost a bunch of you by mentioning those names, which you will now laugh at and say that they are nothing like Kobe... but the only reason you can say that is because their resumes pale in comparison to his. but IN SPORTS, YOUR RESUME IS NEVER JUST YOUR OWN DOING. We all know this, and this is why I'm making an argument that has nothing to do with stats and accomplishments and championship.

McGrady, Iverson, MJ, and Melo have also been accused of the same three things I began my reply with: ball dominating scorer, chucker,volume shooter.

let me switch gears for a second. does Jason Kidd play like Wilt Chamberlain? No, different styles.

Does Andre Miller play like Karl Malone? No, different styles.

Does Reggie Miller play like Chris Paul? No, different styles.

so without mentioning resumes, we understand just talking about a simple style of play, right?

'Style of play' is not just about position. the reason Jason Kidd doesn't play like Wilt Chamberlain is not just because Kidd is a PG and Chamberlain was a C. Yes, that was their position on the court, but that's not what I'm getting at. Jason Kidd is a PG and Russell Westbrook is a PG, and they play nothing alike.

so whatever you want to label Kobe's style, it's a style. I understand if you take offense to the labels 'ball dominating scorer', 'chucker', and 'volume shooter', so call it whatever you want, but it is a certain style. Right?

its a style that I feel was ushered in by Jordan, and emulated by the likes of TMac, Iverson, and Kobe, among others. and the most successful of all who have played this style are Jordan and Kobe. but for me, the reason for the success was/is NOT their style of play; it was their experience.

ok, switching gears again. We have already understood that style of play is different among different players, right? Pretty simple. Well, players have different experiences, also. Tracy McGrady's experience in the NBA is now over, and it was way different than Kobe Bryant's experience, right? Now, before you get all offended and answer defensively, just answer the question. His experience was different than Kobe's, right?

the two most successful people at this style of play have been successful not because of this style of play, but because they experienced a career that supported and worked with this style of play. I once said in a debate with CP a couple years ago that we won despite Kobe Bryant, and 'despite' wasn't quite the right word. my intention was simply to get away from 'because of', saying we won 'because of' Kobe. I don't agree with that, but I also don't agree with the word 'despite'; I shouldn't have said that. 'With' is fine; we have won 'with' Kobe.

and the reason the resumes of Iverson & Tmac & Melo pale in comparison to the resumes of Kobe and MJ are because those first 3 never were put in environments that worked with them. no Phil Jackson, no Shaq/Pippen, no perfectly complimentary players, none of that.

so am I saying that Tracy could have been substituted for Jordan in some sort of alternate universe and it would have proved just as successful as those 90 Bulls? No, because there's other elements besides 'a player's style of play' and 'the experience they go through'; there is 'talent level', and 'work ethic'. Tracy is not as talented as MJ, and DAMN sure not as hard working.

so do I think a more hard working and talented scorer than Tracy could have been substituted for a successful combination? yes. would it have been 6-0 successful? hell, I don't know, and I think that's being too specific with this hypothetical.

and that sort of interchangeability is why I do think that we would have experienced some success if we had a Kidd. he has always worked hard, obviously has a very high talent level, and in my opinion, his style of play... whatever you want to label it... is more team oriented than the style of play that we see from Kobe, MJ, Tracy, Melo, and Tmac.

there should be plenty of fodder for you guys to be disgusted with, quote and laugh at, and refuse to intellectually consider. have fun.

just wondering, if you dont want to bring up gold medals, chips ect. how do you figure out if one style of play is a winning style or not? 

the way i see it, it doesnt matter what style of play a great player uses, championships and winning basketball games in general are about 1. great teammates 2. having a superstar player 3. tailoring your teams style to fit your superstars style of play.

when we won our last two, we built a team around kobe and tailored our team to fit kobes style of play. this is what mjs teams did too. when miami lost the first year (apart from all that lebron not showing up stuff) it was because the miami game plan didnt fit lebrons style of play, half the game he was standing around watching wade. the next year they make lebron the #1 guy and build a team around lebron (not lebron and wade) and they end up winning. same with the early lakers teams, we build a team around shaq's style of play boom 3 titles. when we faced detroit, kobe tries to be the man, doesnt fit our superstar (shaq) style of play, we dont win. i really dont think its about style A is better than style B (if you are making this argument, its kind of hard not to bring out stats about titles and what not) but rather its about knowing what style of play your superstar plays with and building a team around that. i mean, if we are looking for a correlation between winning (championships) and style of play it could be argued that having a elite PG is not the way to build a championship team (last nba champ with a top 3 PG was the bad boy pistons)

 

[darthska]

I covered that very first question in the last part of my reply. It's not just about style of play, and style of play is not always why a player wins. I think Magic's success was largely because of his style of play (have fun, keep everyone involved, be talented), and Shaq's success was largely because of his style (be tall and wide, be extremely confident, play smart), but 'style of play' is not ALWAYS why a player succeeds. and I think the reason Kobe has the resume he has is not because of his style of play, but because of other factors I mentioned in my reply.

if those other factors were still in place during his entire career and he had a style of play that was more team oriented, yes, I'm saying I think he would have been even more successful. "MORE successful?!¿!" More successful.

Less points, though.

 

[sea manup]

I covered that very first question in the last part of my reply. It's not just about style of play, and style of play is not always why a player wins. I think Magic's success was largely because of his style of play (have fun, keep everyone involved, be talented), and Shaq's success was largely because of his style (be tall and wide, be extremely confident, play smart), but 'style of play' is not ALWAYS why a player succeeds. and I think the reason Kobe has the resume he has is not because of his style of play, but because of other factors I mentioned in my reply.

if those other factors were still in place during his entire career and he had a style of play that was more team oriented, yes, I'm saying I think he would have been even more successful. "MORE successful?!¿!" More successful.

Less points, though.

but why is it that when shaq wins its his style of play, and when magic wins its style of play (as if they didnt have some of the greatest supporting casts ever) but when kobe does it its because of every other factor not named "kobe's style of play". 

 

[darthska]

because other people who play with his style of play are also successful. People who are big and play smart are successful.

Other people who play with Magic's style of play are also successful. People who have fun and are talented and keep the other team involved are also successful.

People who are ball dominating scorers are not also successful; there needs to be other factors in order for them to experience success.

 

[sea manup]

because other people who play with his style of play are also successful. People who are big and play smart are successful.

Other people who play with Magic's style of play are also successful. People who have fun and are talented and keep the other team involved are also successful.

People who are ball dominating scorers are not also successful; there needs to be other factors in order for them to experience success.

so then lets look at all the top PGs in the past 10 years

kidd nash CP3 to name a few, why dont they have any rings (kidd does but not as a dominant PG)

this is where you say "because they dont have the same amazing teammates that kobe did"

so if any of these players replaced kobe and won the same amount of championships wouldnt that mean that they also only would have won these rings because of great teammates, because as we all have seen, with sub par teammates these great players have done nothing.

the two MOST successful players in the past 40 years have been mj and kobe, so just because tmac was unlucky and had to play in orlando we are going to say that kobe's style doesnt result in wins?

 

[mertonhanks]

Hakeem wasnt gonna win again without Clyde

And Kobe wasnt gonna win a 4th or 5th without Pau. Where you going with this?

Robinson wasnt done at all in 2003....we still contributed, he had the 2nd highest player efficency on the team...try again

In 2003 Robinson put up 8 and 8 during the regular season. 8 and 7 in the postseason.

During Kobes 4th and 5th championships, Lamar ****** Odom put up better than 8 and 8 as the sixth man, Playing behind Bynum and Gasol.

You're comparing the help Kobe had to a 37 year old David Robinson. Kobe's 4th option was better than Robinson at 37.

 

[darthska]

kidd has a championship and before that, went to back-to-back finals. look at his triple double numbers

done nothing you say?

yes, I would contend that his style of play and work ethic has given him the success he has had, from the finals to the amount of triple doubles he has to never losing a game when he wore a USA Jersey. The major missing piece take his career in comparison to Kobe's is absolutely 'supporting cast'.

if his style of play was more like Kobe's, he wouldn't have been as successful. If he had the supporting cast Kobe has had, he would have been more successful. his style of play is team oriented, and as long as you are team oriented, talented, and you work hard, you will experience success. As much success as someone who works hard, is talented, and has a strong supporting cast? no, and that's my point.

of course, the only thing you're going to take from what I'm saying is 'supporting cast'.

 

[sea manup]

kidd has a championship and before that, went to back-to-back finals. look at his triple double numbers

done nothing you say?

yes, I would contend that his style of play and work ethic has given him the success he has had, from the finals to the amount of triple doubles he has to never losing a game when he wore a USA Jersey. The major missing piece take his career in comparison to Kobe's is absolutely 'supporting cast'.

if his style of play was more like Kobe's, he wouldn't have been as successful. If he had the supporting cast Kobe has had, he would have been more successful. his style of play is team oriented, and as long as you are team oriented, talented, and you work hard, you will experience success. As much success as someone who works hard, is talented, and has a strong supporting cast? no, and that's my point.

of course, the only thing you're going to take from what I'm saying is 'supporting cast'.

kobe has 5 championships been to the finals 7 times and has never lost a game in a USA jersey. my point is you say that kidd would have done as well as kobe with those lakers teams, what is the difference between kidd winning 5 rings in imagination land wiht the lakers and the kidd we know now? the supporting cast, so wouldnt the supporting cast be the reason that kidd has won these 5 imaginary titles? of course not, if kidd does it then its because of his style of play. but when kobe does it its because of every other factor thats not kobe related.

its really not that hard to understand. im going to take "supporting cast" from what you're saying because that is what we are talking about. 

 

[darthska]

I'm going to go back to a point that I already mentioned and you ignored: when evaluating a player's style, look at the success of other players who also play that style.

if Kobe's style is the reason... TTHHHEEEE REEEAAASON... for our success, meaning there is no other reason, because 'the' implies 'one' (whereas 'a' implies 'multiple'), then why was Tracy McGrady not successful?

Kobe has had a successful career because he has a strong work ethic and has had a strong supporting cast. If his style of play was ALL IT TAKES to win championships, Tracy would have been a champion, and we wouldn't be fighting for the playoffs. The end.

once you understand that, then you can understand the rest of what I'm saying, which you're nowhere close to doing, so there's really no point in me continuing this.

if a magical shoelace is all it takes to win a championship, then anyone who has that magical shoelace will win a championship, right? If someone else has that magical shoelace and doesn't win a championship, then that means that maybe the magical shoelace was not the reason for the championship.

ok, secondly, if there are other players who have won championships WITHOUT that magical shoelace, then that further reinforces the idea that the magical shoelace is NOT the reason for championships.

similarly, if there are other players who have that magical shoelace and actually experience failure, then maybe the magical shoelace is fools gold.

lastly, if a player has the same magical shoelace he had when he won championships, but now he's nowhere near as successful, then maybe the reason for his prior success with something other than the magical shoelace. Because he still has that magical shoelace, but some other factors have changed and now the success level is far below what it was before. But he still has the magical shoelace.

make sense, right? now insert 'style of play' for 'magical shoelace'.

 

[darthska]

[quote name="sea manup"]im going to take "supporting cast" from what you're saying because that is what we are talking about.[/quote] I'm not going to tell you why I think that's what you're going to take from what I'm saying, but no, that is not "what we are talking about." that's all your current understanding will allow you to interpret from what I'm saying, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I have clearly, explicitly, and succinctly talked about work ethic, supporting cast, talent level, and style of play.

I have no idea why you bothered responding if you're not going to try to understand the totality of what I was saying as opposed to just reducing it to one concept that alerted your senses.

 

[jsindaa]

All that's fine but you can't reference people who haven't won as much or at all as playing winning ball. The style of play has worked to the tune of 11 rings and 14 appearances. Other styles have won absolutely but clearly the most successful has been Jordan/Kobe

 

[jsindaa]

In the past 25 years that is.

 

[sea manup]

I'm going to go back to a point that I already mentioned and you ignored: when evaluating a player's style, look at the success of other players who also play that style.

if Kobe style is the reason... TTHHHEEEE REEEAAASON... for our success, meaning there is no other reason, because 'the' implies 'one' ( whereas 'a' implies 'multiple'), then why was Tracy McGrady not successful?

Kobw has had a successful career because he has a strong work ethic and has had a strong supporting cast. If his style of play was ALL IT TAKES to win championships, Tracy would be a champion. The end.

once you understand that, then you can understand the rest of what I'm saying, which you're nowhere close to doing, so there's really no point in me continuing this.

if a magical shoelace is all it takes to win a championship, then anyone who has that magical shoelace will win a championship. If someone else has that magical shoelace and doesn't win a championship, then that means that maybe the magical shoelace was not the reason for the championship.

similarly, if there are other players who have won championships without that magical shoelace, then that further reinforces the idea that the magical shoelace is NOT the reason for the championship.

lastly, if there are other players who have that magical shoelace and actually experience failure, then maybe the magical shoelace is fools gold.

make sense, right? now insert 'a style of play' for ' magical shoelace'

so why is jason kidd's style more successful? 
if his style was THEEEE REASON for his teams success, then why wasnt he successful? and no, when we are talking about all time greats making the finals to be swept twice is not successful. maybe this "magical shoelace" is one way to win a championship, while others have won with their mystical socks and lucky underwear. but if someone wins because of his magical shoelace and someone else wins with his lucky underwhere, maybe they both won because of their respective accessories. but you dont like watching someone play with magical shoelaces so you are going to say that the shoelaces are fools gold but the lucky underwear? now THATS a real reason for being successful. 

once you understand this, you will understand the rest of what i'm saying.