indiefan23 wrote:Cept Kobe didn't really create, and if he did he was absolutely not consistent. But you're not dumb though, so I appriciate your input.
I meant create as in trying to create his own shot, when the defense heats up and they cannot create any mismatches via the triangle, naturally the ball should go to Kobe. Does it work all the time? No, but it beats having Odom trying to attack with 3 defenders in the middle or have Gasol flip a heavily contested shot.
indiefan23 wrote:There are those times but I really don't believe that Kobe tries to score lots in response to them. He just tries to score lots all the time.
Oh really? That's some lofty assumption with a proof of.... 4 games.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHtZIZ3-ORE (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh21KLjqo3Q (part 2)
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_y ... 2008011713 (boxscore)
This was the game against Phoenix in Jan 17 of last year. Bynum was injured two games ago after averaging 17/12 during the last 7 games, and no doubt the Lakers became much less capable of beating the Suns and defend the #1 spot in the division. Kobe didn't try to go off despite that with Kwame committing 7 TOs and made every mistake possible. After the game Kobe told the media the fans should not have booed Kwame, and there were no reports of Kobe chewing on Kwame for his performance.
Had he been the young Kobe the results would be very different. Does Kobe still play selfishly when he doesn't have to? Yes. Are there games where he plays under control? Yes. Are there games where Kobe absolutely have to take over in order to win? Yes.
indiefan23 wrote:Those games were just examples and honestly were chosen arbitrarily. I took his top 10 games and examined the two best and worst results.
And you happen to take the two losses where the opposing team shot 38 Freethrows, so Lebron's teammates not putting up a formidable defense should be mentioned like in the Magic series, while Kobe's teammates stinking up on D should be disregarded? How many 40+ games did he have? And how many of those games did you bother to 'analyze''? How many external factors aside from Kobe did you weigh in? I might as well say that Lebron's performance is irrelevant to his team's success because when he shot badly his team either wins or makes the series close, but when he shot well his team becomes less competitive. Just look at the numbers against the 07 Pistons, the 08 Celtics, and the 09 Magic.
Code: Select all
FGM FG% 3-PT FTM FT% REB AST PT
2007 8.83 45% 5-14 7.1 73% 9.1 8.5 25.6
2008 7.85 35% 10-39 9.7 75% 6.4 7.5 26.7
2009 12.5 48% 11-37 11.6 74% 8.3 8.0 38.5
Looking at this, it's obvious that when Lebron scores less and goes to the line less his team becomes more competitive. When he shoots 48% it's bad because his team got eliminated in 6 games. My sample size are much bigger than yours, yet the idea of Lebron hurting his team is just as inane as your 'Lakers can win more just by having Kobe shoot less' hypothesis. It's very easy to use data and make up a conclusion of your liking when you decide to ignore any facts or numbers that goes against your theory. All you have really gone over are a few games where Kobe scored alot and determined if he helped or hurt the team by a two sentence description. By ignoring what happened to the 19 other players and the situations that have occurred throughout the game there is basically insufficient evidence to judge if Kobe really helped or hurt the team. Until you can provide more than just pulling up a couple of numbers that favor your opinion the games you have mentioned are considered inconclusive.
Besides, like TLAF said, if Kobe's team wins 65% of times when he scored over 40 it's rightful to ask how much he hurt the team, if at all.
indiefan23 wrote:Smush is just an example and Kobe was pissed with LA for getting players who needed work like Smush. I think he took it out on him and it caused a rift.
Assumption without proof.
indiefan23 wrote:I was nto saying they were all stars, but they wern't terrible either.
Define 'not terrible'. Odom is still one of the main players, but the rest? Smush is in China, Kwame can't get much playing time on a Detroit team that has terrible frontcourt depth, Luke is only playing half his minutes from his breakout year of 07, then we get to the bench. Evans is in Atlanta with similar production, Cook is no longer a rotation player, Mihm is hampered by injuries, Turiaf is only getting slightly more playing time despite GSW having a severe lack in PF, Devean George is playing arguably his worst season since his sophomore year in 01, Radmanovic is playing more minutes with Charlotte, but his percentages all across the board has gone down with higher usage. I would wait until next year to see how much he can contribute, but I think the Bobcats will be very disappointed. Butler was the only one that improved since his departure, and he was no longer with the team in 06, so he was hardly a contributor in the rebuilding period.
So, outside of Bynum who has improved greatly from the mediocre years, everyone else is either playing backup on a team worse than the 05-07 Lakers or are no longer in the league. Is this what you call not terrible? Maybe if you are talking about the Clippers.
indiefan23 wrote:Over 3 years, they should not have been 3 games under .500. Its underachievement when you've got a guy who's arguably the best player in the league, and 1-2 top shelf players on your team.
Define 'top shelf' player.
indiefan23 wrote:And its not just Pippen. Jordan won with the same guys getting better each year on his team and then took them to 3 titles. Of course Smush had something to do with it but seriously, the guy got minutes and responded with good numbers and then his star player started to get down on him and his play went down. I'm not blaming the guy with way less talent for losing or for lacking the maturity. Everyone in LA seems to just get sick of it after a few years and tunes out.
Yes. I am quite sure Jordan won the title with the same team that struggled in the playoffs in his first five years.
As for Smush, good numbers for a scrub team or good numbers for a contending team? His best year of 06.
44% FG 36% 3PT 3.3 REB 3.7 AST 11.5 PT
Those are average number at best for a fringe playoff team, and it is absolutely terrible on a 3rd option when the team has championship aspiration. When the players you aren't blaming goes to a different team and has similar issues that limits or denies their playing time, is it really Kobe's fault or the fault of the players?
As I said, they aren't babies anymore, and Kobe is not their father. There is only so much blame you can assign on Kobe before it goes back to the player himself.
indiefan23 wrote:Those guys couldn't match up with the Magic. You explain to me how Z or Ben are going to stop either of them? Shard can easily shoot over them and Dwight can easily overpower them. Mo didn't play well either. I think its totally apt though... should that team be contending for a championship in the east finals? No. They probably squeak in without Bron and go out in the first round. He lifted them up.
But that goes back to your original point. Kobe is not able to make his teammates better so he should take responsibility. According to you, Lebron should also take responsibility for Mo shooting like he got possessed by Antoine Walker, Big Z and Big Ben playing like Dinosaurs, and West for not being able to guard someone 8 inches taller than him. If all you care about is the bottomline, then both Kobe and Lebron should take the blame for leading a team to a disappointing loss. If you are going to dig and talk about matchups, then you should also talk about Smush's inability to stay infront of his man who had to guard Nash and how Kwame's terrible help defense plays right into the hands of Amare's pick and roll plays.
You can't prove a point when you base it on unproven assumptions and vague terms that requires definition. The only thing you did prove is that Kobe converts assists at a lesser rate than the other greats, everything else is either questionable or requires more information to reach an objective conclusion.