IS KOBE BRYANT...OVERRATED?

[sea manup]

Originally Posted by sea manup  
im going to take "supporting cast" from what you're saying because that is what we are talking about.

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.

i understand that you have talked about all these factors, i am saying that different styles of play can all result in success. the MAIN factor is supporting cast, we are talking about all time greats here so we already know they have work ethic, talent level ect. the MAIN difference is supporting cast, which is what you are trying to say when you say "kidd would be as successful as kobe if he was on the lakers", in this situation THE ONLY VARIABLE between this fantasy world and real life is supporting cast. its like im talking to a brick wall here 

 

[sea manup]

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

no no you dont understand, when jordan and kobe win its because of other reasons, when magic or lebron or shaq win its because of their styles of play

 

[darthska]

you're not even trying, and just like a number of you have done, all you're doing now is looking for reasons to mock what I'm saying. I don't appreciate that or have time for it, so this will be my last reply to you for now, sea manup.

proof? I never said Jason Kidd's style of play is 'the reason' for his success. so trying to spin it back on me by asking well if Jason Kidd's style of play is the reason for his success' show that you're not paying attention at all, and that your only seeking to mock me and my opinion instead of understanding it.

First off, you said that Jason Kidd has done nothing. I contended that, and you ignored my reply.

Second, I named a number of factors that have contributed to Jason Kidd's success, but one of the major differences between him and Kobe is supporting cast. Kidd's work ethic, talent level, and style of play have contributed to his success; if he had a stronger supporting cast, he would have been more successful. Three things named regarding his success. Not one. 'The' means 'one', and I never named anything as 'the reason' for his success. I'm talking about a number of things, but you're not getting any of this.

 

[sea manup]

you're not even trying, and just like a number of you have done, all you're doing now is looking for reasons to mock what I'm saying. I don't appreciate that or have time for it, so this will be my last reply to you for now, sea manup.

proof? I never said Jason Kidd's style of play is 'the reason' for his success. so trying to spin it back on me by asking well if Jason Kidd's style of play is the reason for his success' show that you're not paying attention at all, and that your only seeking to mock me and my opinion instead of understanding it.

First off, you said that Jason Kidd has done nothing. I contended that, and you ignored my reply.

Second, I named a number of factors that have contributed to Jason Kidd's success, but one of the major differences between him and Kobe is supporting cast. Kidd's work ethic, talent level, and style of play have contributed to his success; if he had a stronger supporting cast, he would have been more successful. Three things named regarding his success. Not one. 'The' means 'one', and I never named anything as 'the reason' for his success. I'm talking about a number of things, but you're not getting any of this.

im not looking for reasons, im just trying to get you to understand how it is not logical to say if player X wins its because of his style of play but if player Y wins its because of other factors and not his style of play. i am not misunderstanding you here, this is something you have said. 

we are talking about the likes of magic jordan shaq and kobe here, compared to these guys jason kidd has done nothing. 

i agree and understand there there are a number of factors i have a problem with when you said taht kobe's style of play doesnt result in success while other players styles of play do. this is what i am saying you are wrong about, this is what we are talking about. i dont mention some other parts of your post because they have little to do with this. but of course you're going to find some tiny detail that i didnt address and try to twist that into meaning that i dont know what im talking about

 

[darthska]

actually, sea manup, I liked this, and missed it the first time around:

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. 

ok, so like I said, look at other players who have played with those things. have other players failed with those magical shoelaces? Yes? that lends evidence that maybe the shoelaces aren't the reason for the success. Ok, moving on, has that same player also experienced failure with those magical shoelaces? Yes? Then that would be a second piece of evidence that maybe the shoelaces aren't the reason for the success... and maybe other factors are the reason.

magical underwear? Same thing. Have other players succeeded with that same accessory? Yes? Then that lends a piece of evidence that maybe that is the successes. similarly, has the player who experienced success with that accessory in the past also experienced abysmal failure? if not, then maybe that accessory equates to success... and maybe also having other pieces along with that accessory would equate to even more success.

 

[sea manup]

actually, sea manup, I liked this, and missed it the first time around:

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. 

ok a, so like I said, look at other players who have played with those things. I have other players failed with those magical shoelaces? Yes comp that lens evidence that maybe the shoelaces are the reason for the success. Ok a, moving on kama has that aim player also experienced failure with those magical shoelaces? Yes? Then that would be a second piece of evidence that maybe the shoelaces aren't the reason for the success... and maybe other factors are the reason.

magical underwear? Same thing. Have other players succeeded with that same accessory? Yes? Then that lends a piece of evidence that maybe that is the successes. similarly, has the player who experienced success with that accessory in the past also experienced abysmal failure? if not, then maybe that accessory equates to success... and maybe also having other pieces along with that accessory wouldn't wait too even more success.

lets break it down into tiers of players using these accessories, so we have legends/all time greats like shaq/kobe/magic three different styles, all successful all with multiple rings. if we look at top players but not all time greats, the trend that there is no better style of play continues. for your jason kidd being unselfish and leading his scrub team to the finals you have iverson being a ballhog and leading his team to the finals. for tmac never doing anything in the playoffs you have chris paul being just as unsuccessful and not doing anything in the playoffs. you cant compare all the negative aspects of one thing to all the positive aspects of another thing and say thing A > thing B

 

[SneakerProSr.]

Im still tripping that somebody tried prop up 8 points and 8 rebounds a game talking about efficiency

 

[Jordan8]

31% from the field in a clutch game

 

[CP1708]

Ska, I can't quote all the different things you've typed, so I can only try and go from things you said and things you and I have talked about over the years. So if I misspeak, just correct me, don't take it as me ignoring your work in here or anything.

I get your reasoning for style, but I'm sorry, it makes almost zero sense. You not liking a STYLE of ball, is pointless. RESULTS are what matter.

You keep saying this year that you love THIS Kobe, dishing and diming, etc. But you miss the entire point, that's not HIS job. HIS job, is to be one of the best scorers in the history of the NBA. THEN, do whatever else he can do to add to the team. Very similar to what you like out of Kidd. You credit Kidd (and Ron Artest) for doing "whatever it takes" to win. You give THEM credit for winning, and flat out ignore Kobe for what he does, and just call him a volume shooter and nothing else. You, are, wrong.

(I won't get stats on you, you mentioned not using numbers, so I'll try to keep it to skill)

99 season, Kobe has improved his game so much, so fast, they have no choice but to start him now. But Eddie Jones is still there. So they move Kobe to SF. For the first part of the season, Kobe averages double digit rebounds at the SF spot. When they trade Jones for Glen Rice, then Kobe moves to SG, and stops getting double digit rebounds. Does he suck now? No, his role/job has changed. He is no longer under the hoop, or closer to the hoop at SF, he's up top, ie fewer rebounds, He still got 5 a game and what not, just as he has done for the past 15 years, but not the 10-11 a game he was getting at SF.

Couple years later, Shaq is not the same guy. Injured, playing slow, getting in shape, Phil, the best coach of all time, says Kobe, I need you to carry the offense more. I need you to turn it up and carry a heavier load for us. Kobe goes on that streak, 35+ a night, including 9 straight 40's, a couple 50's mixed in, etc. He goes OFF. Coach asked him to, he did. When Shaq was back in shape, coach then said ok Kobe, reign it back in now, run the offense. Kobe then does.

Kobe has ALWAYS been a gifted passer. He can do it, he just doesn't obviously, it's not his job. He's a scorer. Know that style you love so much? Steve Nash is statistically THE GREATEST SHOOTER IN THE HISTORY OF THE NBA, know what he does? He passes, ALL THE TIME. Do you knock Nash for passing too much when he is clearly the better shooting option than the guys he passes to? I bet you don't. Jason Kidd? He can't shoot. He can't do what Nash does, OR what Kobe does. IMAGINE, just IMAGINE if Phil said Kidd, I need YOU to be the scorer for the next 5-6 weeks while Shaq gets in shape. You Jason Kidd, and your limited as **** offensive skillset, YOU score the ball. Kidd would be unable to help his coach out. He can hit some spot up, nobody guarding him 3's, sure, but ask him to dribble one time and shoot, brick. Go in the post, brick. Shoot a 20 footer, brick. Shot clock shot, brick. IT'S NOT IN HIS GAME.

Back to that whole does whatever it takes. You mean like playing 45+ minutes game after game after game? Do you mean playing thru torn tendons in your shooting wrist, or shooting hand fingers, or knees that get surgery after the season, or a shoulder that is out of place, or an ankle that gives you no lift, and while you play thru those various injuries, you still are expected to get 25+ points, 5 dimes, 5 rebounds, play tough D, play heavy minutes, take pressure shots, face the other team's best defender, with the entire team's defense keyed in on you, yet, his "style" which you don't like is not condusive to winning, but ALL of that, all of that that he does do, to help his team win every single night rather than sitting out, or getting 32 minutes a night like other guys get, none of that helps. None of that is doing what it takes for his team to win, or least, give his best shot for his team to win. But Kidd, and Artest, THEY, get credit from you. THEY, play a style you like, and do their job the way it's meant, for teams to win. Interesting.

Remember me telling you that Artest never won a damn thing, or was a factor his entire career until he joined LA? Funny, huh? Remember Pau dominating the NBA in Memphis, and being such a "winner" before he got to LA? Me either. LO was just coasting thru life for the Clippers and Heat. Was he a "winner" before he got to the Lakers? Hmmmm Trevor Ariza, he was nobody before LA, then won a title, and since has disapeared. Is that not interesting to you? You meantioned "team" conducive players, like Kidd. What you don't credit is the impact Kobe has on those players. They ALL get sore, ankles tweaked, etc. They all need a night off. Then they see Kobe working nonstop and think, damn, I can't miss work, he's messed up more than I am. Are you giving Kobe, ANY credit for the way his teammates view him, and decide to play harder because of the way he plays? You see missed shots, I see a guy killing himself to get the team in position to succeed. One who won't give up, even when it's bleak as **** out there, and the other teams are hitting their shots, Kobe and his team KEEP FIGHTING. That's not conducive to team atmosphere?

Kidd has played with Jim Jackson, Jamal Mashburn, Stat, Penny, Vince, Jefferson, Van Horn, K-Mart, Dirk, Melo. He's had teammates his whole career that help his job get done. He passes, they score. Assists for Kidd. Yippee. Job well done Kidd. The fact he adds NOTHING on offense outside of passing and the occasional O rebound, and a few spot up wide open 3's, what exactly is the style you are seeing that's so special? He's very smart, moves well on his feet, plays smart defense, and passes a lot. No doubt about it. Had a great career, and is a great player. But that doesn't make him better, or more important than someobdy like Kobe who can be asked to do EVERY job on a court, and can oblige, whereas Kidd can not do that for his team/coach. But Kidd shouldn't be expected to,. His job is to pass, Kobe's job is to score. That's what they should be doing.

Do you want Bruce Bowen out there shooting 15 times a game, and passing the ball, and posting up? I bet you don't.
Should Tyson Chandler be out there running the point? Not his damn job.
How bout Rondo? You want him taking 20 shots a game like Kobe does?

Nope. Not their games. But they are GREAT in their role. Defend a guy in the perimeter. Tyson defends down low, and grabs boards. Rondo dishes and runs the team. 100% energy all over the court, getting rebounds, score where he can, set up his teammates. Know their role, do their job.

But you hate Kobe doing HIS job. Cuz YOU don't agree with his style, yet Phil Jackson, Mike Brown, and MDA all are fine with what Kobe does. They know, better than you or I do, that he is doing what he is supposed to be doing. Could he shave off a shot or two and make an extra pass once in a while? Absolutely. But taking that extra shot or two does not transform him from a selfish ballhog, to a team oriented Jason Kidd type player, sorry, no.

You mentioned Kidd never having incredible failure with his special shoestring. WHAT? He been knocked out the first round a billion times. He was swept the year after they won the title. He was swept in the Finals. He's missed the playoffs a few times. He's failed, more than he's won. Now you shift that blame to his teammates?

Kidd, Rondo, CP3, Nash. Examine their careers. They play the way Magic did. Nash, better shooter. CP3 better scorer. Rondo, more complete than Kidd. Kidd does a little of everything. Nash has had great teammates. Rondo, same thing. CP3 hasn't had as much early in his career, but doin better now. Kidd, some good, some solid, nothing special outside of Dirk. What we have here is about43-45 NBA seasons between these 4 men. 2 titles. One was Rondo as a child with KG, Pierce, and Ray Allen carrying him. The other, was Kidd as an old man, with Dirk going historic.

4 decades of NBA basketball, tons of solid teammates. Great leaders. Pass the ball all the time. Get teammates involved. MVP's won. Don't win the title in 95% of those seasons. The style you love.

Kobe however, played with a Laker team with Shaq that had NO offensive weapons outside of Kobe and Shaq themselves. Rick Fox, Shaw, Fisher, Horry, none of those guys were going to carry an offense, EVER. It was ALL on Kobe and Shaq. ALWAYS.
His later years, he played with Bynum ALWAYS hurt, Pau who never won a playoff game before he came to play with Kobe, Ariza, same, Fisher, LO, Ron Artest, etc. Those players, weren't going to carry an offense outside of Pau. Solid players, who played their roles. And Kobe played his. Early, he was asked to score, distribute, defend, get some boards, hit clutch shots late, and play 47 minutes.
Later he was asked to score, run pick and rolls with Pau/distribute, get some boards, play lesser defense with Ron/Ariza in hand, hit clutch shots, and play 44 minutes.

But you dislike his style, and point to him being 34 with a 7 man rotation battling for the playoffs, and then point to the year he had THREE below NBA level STARTERS on his team, struggling to make the playoffs. THOSE years, those are the ones you use to point out. The 45ish years of the 4 PG's I named, that had players MUCH BETTER than Smush, Walton, or Kwame, and certainly didn't have injuries ever year like LA has had this year, THAT style you enjoy, therefore they move up in how they are viewed in your eyes. The misses shots Kobe who plays every single game he can, injured or not, for 40+ minutes 17 years deep, doing whatever the coaches ask him to do to succeed, his style is overrated. *shrugs*


(uh-oh) This is long. ****. I didn't know guys, I'm sorry.

 

[mister friendly]

Great post CP

Theres no such thing as a right or wrong way to play( unless you're cheating)

It just matters about the results

WINNING OR LOSING

And Kobe has won alot

And Kobe has been uber succesful in his career. The only guys in the same breath as Kobe terms of individual and team success are MJ, Magic and Russell

The rings, gold medals, MVPS, All-NBA selections, All Defensive selections, the titles, the records, the other awards......He's got them all

All those other lesser players( Melo, KIdd,McGrady, Iverson, Pierce etc etc) weren't successful not because of their teammates or style of play its because they were lazy relative to Kobe and didn't want it as bad as Kobe did and still does.

 

[CP1708]

^
No, it's not just not working hard enough for those guys, there's other factors, and I think that's Ska's main point.

My contention is the "style". You don't like a "style" someone plays, doesn't mean he's less of a player than a guy that you do like. Sorry, but no.

That stuff I mentioned with Nash, CP3, Rondo, etc, there's plenty of other factors that caused them not to win, but to simply say this or that style makes or breaks a player is nonsensical.

Iverson was a chuck, and he carried/willed his team to the finals, and got the only win in the playoffs against a juggernaut team, in their gym, in OT. Not just Iverson, there was a ton of factors for us losing that game (Robert Horry) but he did it. He was every bit as successful that season as Steve Nash ever has been. And his "style" is way different than Nash. But Iverson also could not do what Kobe does in terms of playing lockdown D, rebounding, passing, scoring, play in the post, etc. Iverson gave his all, he tried as hard as Kobe did, but he was limited in how he did so. Saying Kobe is just a chuck, and ignoring the other things he can and has done in his career is kind of petty.

Just as I was asking last night about the other all time greats complimenting someone, or speaking about a player, that's what I refer to. They know, and see what a player does overall. Not just give praise cuz he scores, or shoots a lot. They know what else he does, and the people that claim all he does is shoot are narrow minded and missing the bigger picture.

Doesn't mean Kobe's "style" is more or less important than any other player, he just plays the game the way he knows, much like Larry played how he did, Shaq how he did, Karl Malone how he did. It's who they are as players. Style don't make one better than another. I don't understand that claim one bit. Picking 3-4 years out of 17 to say a style isn't responsible for success seems pick and choosy. Especially if the style preferred has an even worse track record of those 17 years. Makes no sense. But I suppose I'm missing an idea he's trying to get to, I don't mean to say you aren't smart or anything Ska, I know you believe it in your bones, and you present your case just fine, I just don't get some of the conclusions you come too.

 

[al3xis]

My contention is the "style". You don't like a "style" someone plays, doesn't mean he's less of a player than a guy that you do like. Sorry, but no.

I agree totally with this, but I do get what Ska says about a style being conducive to winning. Given 2 equally talented guys, you might want to lay out a blueprint for them to attempt the things Kobe has in his career - of course, the thing is Kobe's ability regardless of style sure as hell was conducive to winning. . And that's really all that matters.

 

[xx hpdv iii]

Great post CP

Theres no such thing as a right or wrong way to play( unless you're cheating)

It just matters about the results

WINNING OR LOSING

And Kobe has won alot

And Kobe has been uber succesful in his career. The only guys in the same breath as Kobe terms of individual and team success are MJ, Magic and Russell

The rings, gold medals, MVPS, All-NBA selections, All Defensive selections, the titles, the records, the other awards......He's got them all

All those other lesser players( Melo, KIdd,McGrady, Iverson, Pierce etc etc) weren't successful not because of their teammates or style of play its because they were lazy relative to Kobe and didn't want it as bad as Kobe did and still does.

Sure buddy.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

Great post CP

Theres no such thing as a right or wrong way to play( unless you're cheating)

It just matters about the results

WINNING OR LOSING

And Kobe has won alot

And Kobe has been uber succesful in his career. The only guys in the same breath as Kobe terms of individual and team success are MJ, Magic and Russell

The rings, gold medals, MVPS, All-NBA selections, All Defensive selections, the titles, the records, the other awards......He's got them all

All those other lesser players( Melo, KIdd,McGrady, Iverson, Pierce etc etc) weren't successful not because of their teammates or style of play its because they were lazy relative to Kobe and didn't want it as bad as Kobe did and still does.

So did you purposely leave out Kareem or are you just slow?

 

[mister friendly]

Great post CP


Theres no such thing as a right or wrong way to play( unless you're cheating)


It just matters about the results


WINNING OR LOSING


And Kobe has won alot

And Kobe has been uber succesful in his career. The only guys in the same breath as Kobe terms of individual and team success are MJ, Magic and Russell


The rings, gold medals, MVPS, All-NBA selections, All Defensive selections, the titles, the records, the other awards......He's got them all


All those other lesser players( Melo, KIdd,McGrady, Iverson, Pierce etc etc) weren't successful not because of their teammates or style of play its because they were lazy relative to Kobe and didn't want it as bad as Kobe did and still does.

Sure buddy.

I forgot Kareem.......Out of the over 3500 men to ever play in the NBA. About 4 men are in the same breath as him.

 

[xx hpdv iii]

What makes Kobe Bryant more successful than Duncan and Shaq?

 

[xx hpdv iii]

Kobe Bryant is currently in a stretch where he is 1-21 on 3-pointers.

Earlier this season, Kobe Bryant had a stretch where he went 1-35 on 3-pointers.

To have two terrible stretches like that in the same lifetime would be a tragedy.

He has done it in the same season.

What word can accurately describe how horrific those numbers are?

That word doesn't exist.

OVERRATED.

PATHETIC SHOOTER.

GOAT SHOT-MISSER.

 

[sea manup]

What makes Kobe Bryant more successful than Duncan and Shaq?

 

[mister friendly]

What makes Kobe Bryant more successful than Duncan and Shaq?

He has more more rings, medals, points, All NBA selections, All-Defensive selections, All Star selections, records and awards than both of them.

 

[darthska]

sea manup: iverson didn't lead a scrub team to the finals, first off. like someone mentioned before, kobe has had the fortune of playing with another top position player almost his whole career, and of course we all know MJ had Pippen, one of the 50 greatest. give Iverson a DPOY, and he goes to the finals. I don't call that 'his style of play leading a team of scrubs to the finals', and putting it that way is missguided, in my opinion. it was 'whatever style you want to call that', plus another solid player, plus a bunch of scrubs. We had 'whatever style you want to call that', plus one of the most dominant players ever (which is obviously better than their 'another solid player'), plus some other decent guys, plus some scrubs. result: 4-1

second, Tracy and CP3 play nothing alike, so saying "he did this while this other guy did that" is not comparing similarities.

and when I'm talking about similarities and factors, just to review, I'm talking about all of these very important things:
- talent; example, JR Smith plays whatever style we're saying MJ and and Iverson and Kobe play, but he's nowhere near as talented

- supporting cast; the easy thing to do when talking about this is to mention teammates, but that's not all there is to it. Front office, sideline coaching staff, trainers... and teammates.

- work ethic; this is obviously something that can be credited to the player, absolutely

- style of play

you guys keep coming with these narrow minded responses that consistently fail  to take ALL of those things into account.

--------

CP: no, my opinion is not what matters. yes, life is about results. However, saying that something is successful w/o examining all other factors that go into it and thinking it's just because of one thing is absolutely narrow minded and short sighted. Sometimes, could be borderline superstitious. "we won because of my lucky socks!" of course, someone saying that in jest is one thing, but if someone were actually saying that, how would you refute what they were saying if everytime we won, they were indeed wearing those lucky socks? You would bring other factors into it. "ummmm... have you ever stopped and considered that we won because our team is playing extremely well right now and we have an awesome coach?" You'd mention factors OTHER than the one someone is crediting for being THE reason.

but I feel like you (and others) are refusing to do that here. "No! We won because of this one thing: Kobe's style. Period."

what about the fact that other people who have a very similar style not only don't have championships, but aren't even close to the same level of success? if his style wins, how come it doesn't translate to other people who have a very similar style?

I'm obviously contending that the credit isn't his style, but many other factors. and those other players who play with that similar style, but lack those other factors... BAM, lack of success.

but I do want to say something else on one of the points that you made: you mentioned the possibility of Kidd having to do the bulk of the scoring when Shaq went down. Yes, it's rather convenient when Big Fella goes down to have such a capable scorer as Kobe, but if you think Phil would have turned to Kidd and said "Okay, you need to score in bunches and bunches and bunches now", you haven't paid attention to Phil, or Kidd, at all. there would have been another solution for Phil.


also, the whole analogy about magical shoelaces completely went over your head, I think. Well, not completely... But I don't think you grasped it fully, as evidenced by the fact that you were quick to point out Kidd's failures despite having magical shoelaces. Kidd has never had magical shoelaces, because I was equating that to Kobe's style of play... Which obviously is far different than Kidd's. Instead of trying to correct where I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, I'll just start over.

Kobe's style (ST). You say that ST is the reason for our success. I contend that it's not ST, but possibly the supporting cast (SC), talent/ability (TA), and work ethic (WE). You insist that it's just the ST.

I point out that when you are without WE, SC, & TA... but still have ST... you have experienced failure. I'm saying that maybe the ST is not the reason for the precious success.

I point out that other players who have a very similar ST have also experienced very limited success, but they are ALSO without WE, SC, & TA. maybe it's not ST.

so basically...
ST + WE + SC + TA = success
ST... all alone = failure

What about the possibility of teams that have no no one who plays w/ that ST, but do have someone who has the WE, SC, and TA? Just a different ST. Does WE + SC + TA = success, even if there's no one with that ST?

Why yes, yes it absolutely DOES yield successful results. Spurs, Pistons, Mavs, 90s Rockets... all successful w/o someone who has that same style of play, but there were people who had a high talent level and work ethic, and a strong supporting cast (which, again, is not limited to just teammates, the easy thing to point to).

Kidd never had the magical shoelaces... what I was equating to Kobe's style of play. you would say " nope kama he's never had Kobe style of play, and that's why his resume pales in comparison" and I would say... again... that while he has never had that style of play, he has also not had the luxury of (playing for a FO as committed to winning as us, or a single teammate as dominant as Shaq or as talented as Pau) for the bulk of his career. yes, he played under Mark Cuban and had Penny and Vince and Dirk... but they are not on Mitch's and Buss' and Shaq's and Phil's level, and he hasn't had a long stretch with any of them.

he doesn't have the ST, but also haven't had near as good of a SC. strong WE and TA, though, and thats were I would credit his success, despite not having the same ST you would contend might make him more successful. I would contend if he had the same WE and TA but a much more similar SC, the results would be a lot more similar.

--------

Mister Friendly: no, it's not right or wrong how a certain player plays, but we're not talking about ethics or morality, which is what 'right/wrong' is about. we're talking about preferences and standards..

 

[xx hpdv iii]

He has more more rings, medals, points, All NBA selections, All-Defensive selections, All Star selections, records and awards than both of them.

They have more Finals' MVPs.

Nobody cares about gold medals.

Nobody cares about points if they come via ballhogging. Kobe Bryant has the most missed shots in Earth's history. Factor that into the equation too.

All-Defensive selections? Half are phantom.

All-Star selections? A popularity contest? Why was Kobe Bryant an All-Star this year? Only because they allow Lakers' fans to vote. It was a phantom selection and his spot belonged to somebody who helped his team have a good record at that time, Steph Curry.

More awards? LoL. What are you talking about?

Oh let me guess, meaningless All-Star MVP's, the award that Kobe Bryant so highly covets, the award that other players don't care about.

Shaq and Duncan won Rookie Of The Year and have more Finals MVP's than Kobe, not to mention that half of Kobe's Finals' MVPs are phantom.

 

[mister friendly]

Kobe Bryant is currently in a stretch where he is 1-21 on 3-pointers.

Earlier this season, Kobe Bryant had a stretch where he went 1-35 on 3-pointers.


To have two terrible stretches like that in the same lifetime would be a tragedy.


He has done it in the same season.

What word can accurately describe how horrific those numbers are?


That word doesn't exist.


OVERRATED.

PATHETIC SHOOTER.

GOAT SHOT-MISSER.

I remember Lebron's cold slump in the playoffs when he went 8-42 and went 0-10 from 3 point range?

I guess he's.

OVERRATED.

PATHETIC SHOOTER.

GOAT SHOT-MISSER.

TOO

 

[mister friendly]

He has more more rings, medals, points, All NBA selections, All-Defensive selections, All Star selections, records and awards than both of them.

They have more Finals' MVPs.


Nobody cares about gold medals.

Nobody cares about points if they come via ballhogging. Kobe Bryant has the most missed shots in Earth's history. Factor that into the equation too.

All-Defensive selections? Half are phantom.

All-Star selections? A popularity contest? Why was Kobe Bryant an All-Star this year? Only because they allow Lakers' fans to vote. It was a phantom selection and his spot belonged to somebody who helped his team have a good record at that time, Steph Curry.

More awards? LoL. What are you talking about?
Oh let me guess, meaningless All-Star MVP's, the award that Kobe Bryant so highly covets, the award that other players don't care about.

Shaq and Duncan won Rookie Of The Year and have more Finals MVP's than Kobe, not to mention that half of Kobe's Finals' MVPs are phantom.

Nobody cares about gold medals? But then I hear about the Dream Team non-stop. When they mentioned Lebron's great year last year....they talked about the MVP, FMVP and.....the gold medal... but nobody cares about.

In the game of Basketball, who wins?...the team with the most points....so points do matter.

Kobe is popular for a reason because he's a all time great. I guess thousands of people are wrong but you're right

So wait !.......the voting for Finals MVPS are legit are when other players win that but phantom when Kobe wins them

Same with the All Defensive selections they are prestigious awards when Duncan and Shaq win them but phantom when Kobe wins them

 

[mister friendly]

sea manup: iverson didn't lead a scrub team to the finals, first off. like someone mentioned before, kobe has had the fortune of playing with another top position player almost his whole career, and of course we all know MJ had Pippen, one of the 50 greatest. give Iverson a DPOY, and he goes to the finals. I don't call that 'his style of play leading a team of scrubs to the finals', and putting it that way is missguided, in my opinion. it was 'whatever style you want to call that', plus another solid player, plus a bunch of scrubs. We had 'whatever style you want to call that', plus one of the most dominant players ever (which is obviously better than their 'another solid player'), plus some other decent guys, plus some scrubs. result: 4-1

--------

Mister Friendly: no, it's not right or wrong how a certain player plays, but we're not talking about ethics or morality, which is what 'right/wrong' is about. we're talking about preferences and standards..

Exactly!

Its a preference!

A preference is a personal choice

To my knowledge a preference cant be overrated

 

[mister friendly]

Also I just read Ska post to CP

I do get what Ska is saying.....I can understand the abstract way of thinking

But its like the saying....... If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a car but she doesn't have wheels so...... therefore she's not a car.

If Jason Kidd had Kobe's work ethic, he'd be Kobe but he doesn't have Kobe's work ethic, skill and determination..so therefore he's not as successful as Kobe

If Kobe had MJ's hand size and athletic ability, he could've be been MJ but guess what he doesn't

We have to live in reality not in abstracts

And in reality, Kobe Bryant has all time great level accomplishments therefore he's not overrated.