- Nov 5, 2007
- 19,391
- 899
What?! Your grandma would need more than wheels to be a car bro
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What?! Your grandma would need more than wheels to be a car bro
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.
Please go back and re-read what I said. I said look at the FULL resume of everyone.As an example, Deuce brought up multiple MVP's. Kobe only has 1. Someone mentioned Nash. I can do even better than that, Moses Malone. Moses has 3 MVP's, he won a title, points, rebounds, all kinds of stuff. We're 173 pages in, and I'm the first person to even say his name. And again, Moses, has 3, the logo of the NBA Jerry West has 0, Shaq has 1, Dream has 1, Wilt has 1 and Kobe has 1. So, is Moses better than all of them? Why?
So if you say no, just having 3 MVP's and 1 title is not enough, Shaq/Wilt etc have other stuff, then what counts, and what doesn't count?
Yeah, let's compare 0-10 to 1-21 and 1-35.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
No, people like CP or Nako or manup will most likely never get the perspective you and I have... but that doesn't make them clowns. Just makes their opinion different than ours.
CP, gonna go back&reread yesterday's novel. Apparently I misunderstood something.
No doubt.Deuce, I'm not bashing you there, I was using what you brought up as an example. I did not mean to say that you claimed MVP's to be the be all end all, just that it was a point you brought up.
Others used Finals MVP's. Still others brought up stats as a main point. All NBA, all star selections, etc. Which is what I was asking, what criteria does everyone use overall? I don't think everyone uses the same.
I used your example of MVP's. If you mentioned full body of work, then you and I were on the same page there.
i still think we are misunderstanding each other, i know that to win a championship you need work ethic, skill, good teammates, a good coach, luck. i agree with everything you said about the many factors you have written about. what i dont agree with is your claim that one style of play is better than the next style of play. thats it. i didnt address the many other parts of your posts because i dont have a problem with that stuff, i only have a problem with that one point. which is why im focusing on it in my posts.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..
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
Yeah, let's compare 0-10 to 1-21 and 1-35.
Yeah, let's compare 0-10 to 1-21 and 1-35.
I find that the people that say:
"Steve Nash has 2 MVPs! Steve Nash > Kobe?!?!"
Are the same people that won't acknowledge the:
"Robert Horry has 7 rings! Horry > Kobe!?!?"
Arguments.
How do you ignore his only 1 MVP trophy despite supposedly being a "top player" all these years?
How do you ignore his only 2 finals MVPs despite being in the finals so many times in the past 14 years?
How do you ignore his only 2 scoring titles despite leading the league in attempts for most of the past decade?
If Iverson is Bubba Chuck, Kobe is Chuck God.
I find that the people that say:
"Steve Nash has 2 MVPs! Steve Nash > Kobe?!?!"
Are the same people that won't acknowledge the:
"Robert Horry has 7 rings! Horry > Kobe!?!?"
Arguments.
How do you ignore his only 1 MVP trophy despite supposedly being a "top player" all these years?
How do you ignore his only 2 finals MVPs despite being in the finals so many times in the past 14 years?
How do you ignore his only 2 scoring titles despite leading the league in attempts for most of the past decade?
If Iverson is Bubba Chuck, Kobe is Chuck God.
Lets make this simple
To answer your questions.
Who are we comparing him to?
Since to be overrated, we have rate him against someone else.
Otherwise it just breaks down to the "why I hate Kobe Bryant" thread