Quote from OPTIONAL777:
I see you failed to address Kobe's turnover problem, shots per game, etc.
Not surprising, there really is no defense for it. Compare Kobe's turnover ratio to Jerry West, or other great scorers historically. Flat out, Kobe doesn't rank with the best in that category.
Heck, there were many arguments I've made that you haven't responded to either. I guess I should harp, for instance, on the inability of a Duncan or a Garnett to make his own shot or to take over a critical game - at least one explanation for their relatively sorry playoff records. Duncan's strike season championship may have proved that, when surrounded by the right other players and not challenged by any teams of dynasty caliber, Duncan is good enough - and I don't deride Duncan's play: I just think he lacks charisma, and I think he's more the kind of player who can make a fair team into a good one. Kobe's the kind of player who can make a good team great - come to think of it he HAS made a good team great 3 years in a row.
To say the least, none of these judgments are or can be totally objective, even when supposedly backed up by objective statistics, and there are exceptions to every rule. Assist-to-turnover is one interesting statistic, but, if you thought it was the be-all and end-all, then you would have had to conclude that Derek Fisher (or maybe Stockton, guess I'd have to check those all-important stats) was the best guard in the NBA during AI's MVP year. I agree Kobe could probably stand some improvement on turnovers, but his particular role in Jackson's system along with his style almost guarantees that he'll have a higher turnover-to-assists ratio than most guards, who are more typically either playmakers or scorers. Yeah, yeah, yeah - I know there are exceptions. Everyone's different.
Defense? Unfortunately, to measure the defensive caliber of a player, the real statistic, the important statistic would be shooting percentage of those he covers during a game.
Then we could have some legitimate comparisons.
You'd have one set of comparisons, but not the be-all and end-all. Part of the problem is rather obvious, it seems to me: Even if you honestly believe that one or another statistical measure is definitive, it still can't make much sense when comparing an off-guard to a power-forward.
The inside players like Duncan play harder at both ends of the court than does Kobe.
They play differently. I don't think you often see anyone on the court playing "harder" than Kobe. The inside players obviously take more of a beating, but in terms of sheer continuous physical and mental effort being expended game after game, I think only AI compares with Kobe.
If we take three stats:
Scoring per touch
Rebounds
Turnovers per touch
You will see that the best players will have the best overall score in these three areas, a combined effort, not one dimensional. On that basis, Kobe is not the MVP. I would rank KG, then Duncan, then Kobe if I were 100% objective.
Proves my point above: If you believed that, you would never be able to give an MVP to a true point guard. You'd have to consider AI a mediocre player. If you include assists under "scoring per touch," then maybe you'd have to consider Kidd to be without question the best guard, though he might get too many touches to blow away Duncan and KG for Optional777's greatest. I'm not sure. I think it's just one narrow way of judging a player's contributions.
Kobe is a nice player, I'll grant you that, but not the best player in the league. Maybe in a few years, or when he proves he can win night in and night out with a mediocre supporting cast, the way MJ did. And let's not talk about the greatness of Scottie. Ho Grant? The triple headed monster of Bill Weddington and other also rans? Dennis the freak Rodman? Make me puke.
Go ahead and puke if you want - but Chicago had a deep team around MJ during its greatest years. It was even a playoff team when Michael decided to try baseball. Pippen was a complete player, maybe not deserving of his 50 greatest selection, but possibly the best
all-around small forward in the league during his prime, and perfect for Jackson's system. Rodman led the league in rebounding, usually by a wide margin, and was probably the top low-post defender at the forward position. A number of the other guys were also highly skilled in their limited roles - Kerr's a good example. You need an outside threat to complete your "mediocre" supporting cast - okay, here's one of the best ever 3-point shooters to go with your best-ever rebounder and most complete small forward.
Then you start rambling against yourself, describing how much support Magic and Bird had. Houston won a) because MJ retired, and b) Dream was unbelievably good and had a decent supporting cast. Would you really rather have Duncan than Hakeem in his prime?
I don't think any single player wins night-in-night-out with a mediocre supporting cast. The Sixers were maybe an exception during AI's MVP season - depends on how you define "mediocre" - but if Philly had been in the West, they might have had trouble making the playoffs, and AI might have been dead before the All-Star break.
Take Shaq out of the picture, and we saw what happens, at the beginning of this year, didn't we? Kobe was the man, and he lead the team to a losing record.
At the beginning of the season, Kobe didn't have a "mediocre" supporting cast, he had a HORRIBLE supporting cast. No one but Kobe was producing, and several players were injured or suspended. Even so, they lost a few very close games. Kobe's recent performance, with the other guys at least contributing, is more indicative.
Don't take my word for it, talk to those who play the game.
***
Who do they really fear? Shaq or Kobe? Duncan or Kobe? Pierce of Kobe? AI when he is right, or Kobe? KG or Kobe?
Now that's obviously very subjective, and also just one question. But I confess, I don't hang out with NBA players like you must. So who confided in you that he's afraid of Duncan, KG, and Pierce, but not Kobe? When did he say it? How high was he?
You defended the win by the Lakers last year, and poo pooed the consequences of the refs giving preferential treatment to the Lakers......yet you talked about the preferential treatment for MJ and the Bulls during their run.
Trying to have it both ways, are you?
You're taking quotes from different contexts. I think the refs arguably let the Bad Boys go too far (though it was kind of cool in an ugly way, too), and anyway I'm glad they protected Michael and others. Later in his career, Michael surely got the benefit of whatever doubt on whatever call, and I don't really know whether that's "impure" or the way things have to be or even the way things should be. There's certainly an argument that he earned it. Anyway, I was responding to the idea of Kobe/Lakers vs Bad Boys match-up: Either 1) the refs would have to have protected Kobe, 2) Laimbeer and the others would have backed down to Shaq, or 3) Shaq would have had to tear Laimbeer's head off - and hardly anyone would have blamed him.
As for the Lakers-Queens, if you went through the whole series, you could argue that the Lakers did not get preferential treatment overall. As for the final game and the final outcome, I maintain that the supposed disequality has been exaggerated by whining losers, a not infrequent occurence in hard-fought, close playoff match-ups, especially ones between reigning champs and upstart chokers. The Kings could have won that series, but to dethrone the champs they should have knocked 'em out, not hope for favorable scoring from the judges. That's just the way it is, whether it should be or not. Even the way it played out, the Kings had their chances, but they didn't have anyone who could get them over the hump during the last crunch.
Superstars usually win playoff games. The refs sometimes are part of it, and until we have super-intelligent robots that can't be influenced by charisma, fatigue, and other human qualities, they'll remain as much a part of the pro game as injuries, money, luck, and a lot of other complicating factors.
As an aside: One thing the Lakers lousy first half has done has probably ruined their image - the idea that, no matter what you did, they'd find a way to destroy you in the end. Everyone knows they're by far the thinnest of contenders. Everyone knows Shaq isn't what he was. There still may be enough time for the storyline to change again, but, add the unfinished business from last year, and I think they might be the ones who'd have to score a knockout in a re-match with the Kings.
As a hardcore Laker fan for decades, I can't root against them, and I'd be happy to see Kobe move his game up from Unreal to So-Miraculous-Even-the-O7's bow down, but, for the sake of the longer term, I'd almost be glad to seem them taken out. I could imagine worse things than Buss feeling forced to add at least two new quality players who might come to the Lakers with the idea of sharing credit for restoring the dynasty.
