Is Kobe is still exciting to watch?

[IATT]

for those talking about watching an "all-time" great player, what are your views on duncan?


cause dude has never been exciting to watch, but in the views of most ppl he is the greatest PF of all-time

 

[IATT]

for those talking about watching an "all-time" great player, what are your views on duncan?


cause dude has never been exciting to watch, but in the views of most ppl he is the greatest PF of all-time

 

[deuce king]

for those talking about watching an "all-time" great player, what are your views on duncan?
You already answered your own question champ.......

he is the greatest PF of all-time
  

 That's the thing with the Kobe stans on here.  They don't get that.  They think ANYTHING that isn't PRO-Kobe or anything that can be perceived as being "negative" is all Kobe hate and that you're dissing their hero. 
There it is.

 

[deuce king]

for those talking about watching an "all-time" great player, what are your views on duncan?
You already answered your own question champ.......

he is the greatest PF of all-time
  

 That's the thing with the Kobe stans on here.  They don't get that.  They think ANYTHING that isn't PRO-Kobe or anything that can be perceived as being "negative" is all Kobe hate and that you're dissing their hero. 
There it is.

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by CP1708

This will probably ruin my day, but ahhh what the hell.

You people that say he is overrated and all that do realize that his career is not finished, correct?  While not exciting anymore, he still plays in the NBA, for the LA Lakers. 

Now, given his decline, and the decline we saw in a player that he is "similar" too, we can just look ahead a bit, and round some numbers off. 

Say he goes this year, and 2 more years.  He finishes this year just under 28K points.  1800-2000 next year, 1500 the next.  Somewhere in that mid 31,500 career points mark, like 4th all time or so. 

Say, this postseason, let's goooooo 15 games or so.  Say he's out in the WCF.  Go 20-25 points a game for those 15.  That's about 350-400 if he has a couple 30's left in him.  Now, if he makes another run to the Finals, and we go 20-22 games, add another 100-150 points.  Know where that gets you?  5,500 or so, maybe 5,600, 3rd all time playoff scoring. 

Next year, he gets 10-14 playoff games and the Lakers as we know them now, are done by that time.  Still gonna go for 20-25 a night, mix in a 30 here or there possibly, you get another 200-250 points.  IF they find a way to get a few extra games, make an extra series or whatever, he is well within range to hit the 6,000 point mark good for, you guessed it, the most playoff points in NBA history. 

Even if he comes up short, if they still make the playoffs in his third and "final" season, he can score some points and what not in there as well, possibly making up the difference to end his career the all time leading scorer. 

Now for those of you that want to cry about scoring only, one more thing, he will also finish with over 1,000+ playoff rebounds and assists.  The list of players to do that along with at least 3,000 plus points?  Magic, Mike, Bird, Scottie.  If you go to the 5,000, 1,000 and 1,000 club.  One member, Mike.  And soon to be Kobe. 

 

Factor in a decade of All NBA teams, 7 trips to the finals (so far) the 5 rings, some other crap, all stars and what not, his final numbers/achievements will be good for EASY top 5 all time.  And this is IF we kill him off after 3 years.  Imagine if he went harder for a 4th year, or even a 5th.  Kareem didn't get all those stats/accolades of his stopping at age 34 now did he? 

What I'm sayin is, he's playing with house money right now.  He's done his big boy stuff.  30 points a game seasons, an MVP, some chips, etc etc.  Now he's old and he can finish his career with whatever numbers he can muster.  If they add anything in terms of another title, or at worst a trip to the finals, you're adding to a resume that not many people can EVER match in this game. 

I haven't even SPOKEN yet on what if he did go out and win a 6th?  What if that happened?  What if he went nuts and got BIG numbers in this postseason, and added all kinds of stuff to his resume, then what?  Bottom of the top 10 still? 

 

At this point, right now, this second, I still have Magic in the top 5 all time, and GLOAT.  (Greatest Laker of al......)  But like I said, one guy is still playing, the other is not.  If Kobe wraps this career up with a nice little bow made out of Championship Laker banner, pardon my french, but you all can kiss our @#$ when we say dude is legit top 3-4 all time, now safely ahead of one Magic Johnson and with an eye towards working on KAJ, Russell, and MJ's resumes. 

If he fails to win that #6, but has some more shining moments here and there?  Then I tuck him somewhere in that 5-7 range, and call it good until we see what Bron and Durant and next superstar A comes thru with in the next 15 years. 

But overrated? 

*forgive me father for I have sinned, I spoke Kobe's name on Niketalk.........*

One, cumulative statistics is the most flawed measurement of player production. They're decent to tell you longevity, but they tell you NOTHING else. An in-depth look at production requires much more than that. Two, you're using championships to compare players. In team sports, it is completely invalid to do - not because winning isn't of prime importance, but because winning ANYTHING (even single games) is heavily reliant on team production. Assigning "rings" to a player is really giving too much credit to an individual, even to the best of players.

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by CP1708

This will probably ruin my day, but ahhh what the hell.

You people that say he is overrated and all that do realize that his career is not finished, correct?  While not exciting anymore, he still plays in the NBA, for the LA Lakers. 

Now, given his decline, and the decline we saw in a player that he is "similar" too, we can just look ahead a bit, and round some numbers off. 

Say he goes this year, and 2 more years.  He finishes this year just under 28K points.  1800-2000 next year, 1500 the next.  Somewhere in that mid 31,500 career points mark, like 4th all time or so. 

Say, this postseason, let's goooooo 15 games or so.  Say he's out in the WCF.  Go 20-25 points a game for those 15.  That's about 350-400 if he has a couple 30's left in him.  Now, if he makes another run to the Finals, and we go 20-22 games, add another 100-150 points.  Know where that gets you?  5,500 or so, maybe 5,600, 3rd all time playoff scoring. 

Next year, he gets 10-14 playoff games and the Lakers as we know them now, are done by that time.  Still gonna go for 20-25 a night, mix in a 30 here or there possibly, you get another 200-250 points.  IF they find a way to get a few extra games, make an extra series or whatever, he is well within range to hit the 6,000 point mark good for, you guessed it, the most playoff points in NBA history. 

Even if he comes up short, if they still make the playoffs in his third and "final" season, he can score some points and what not in there as well, possibly making up the difference to end his career the all time leading scorer. 

Now for those of you that want to cry about scoring only, one more thing, he will also finish with over 1,000+ playoff rebounds and assists.  The list of players to do that along with at least 3,000 plus points?  Magic, Mike, Bird, Scottie.  If you go to the 5,000, 1,000 and 1,000 club.  One member, Mike.  And soon to be Kobe. 

 

Factor in a decade of All NBA teams, 7 trips to the finals (so far) the 5 rings, some other crap, all stars and what not, his final numbers/achievements will be good for EASY top 5 all time.  And this is IF we kill him off after 3 years.  Imagine if he went harder for a 4th year, or even a 5th.  Kareem didn't get all those stats/accolades of his stopping at age 34 now did he? 

What I'm sayin is, he's playing with house money right now.  He's done his big boy stuff.  30 points a game seasons, an MVP, some chips, etc etc.  Now he's old and he can finish his career with whatever numbers he can muster.  If they add anything in terms of another title, or at worst a trip to the finals, you're adding to a resume that not many people can EVER match in this game. 

I haven't even SPOKEN yet on what if he did go out and win a 6th?  What if that happened?  What if he went nuts and got BIG numbers in this postseason, and added all kinds of stuff to his resume, then what?  Bottom of the top 10 still? 

 

At this point, right now, this second, I still have Magic in the top 5 all time, and GLOAT.  (Greatest Laker of al......)  But like I said, one guy is still playing, the other is not.  If Kobe wraps this career up with a nice little bow made out of Championship Laker banner, pardon my french, but you all can kiss our @#$ when we say dude is legit top 3-4 all time, now safely ahead of one Magic Johnson and with an eye towards working on KAJ, Russell, and MJ's resumes. 

If he fails to win that #6, but has some more shining moments here and there?  Then I tuck him somewhere in that 5-7 range, and call it good until we see what Bron and Durant and next superstar A comes thru with in the next 15 years. 

But overrated? 

*forgive me father for I have sinned, I spoke Kobe's name on Niketalk.........*

One, cumulative statistics is the most flawed measurement of player production. They're decent to tell you longevity, but they tell you NOTHING else. An in-depth look at production requires much more than that. Two, you're using championships to compare players. In team sports, it is completely invalid to do - not because winning isn't of prime importance, but because winning ANYTHING (even single games) is heavily reliant on team production. Assigning "rings" to a player is really giving too much credit to an individual, even to the best of players.

 

[ZKO_24_7]

Kobe is a top 10 all time imo and is still exciting to watch although he doesn't have the same explosiveness he once had..

my rankings:
MJ
Magic
Russell
Wilt
Larry
Kareem
Kobe
Duncan
Shaq
Oscar
West

 

[ZKO_24_7]

Kobe is a top 10 all time imo and is still exciting to watch although he doesn't have the same explosiveness he once had..

my rankings:
MJ
Magic
Russell
Wilt
Larry
Kareem
Kobe
Duncan
Shaq
Oscar
West

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

Originally Posted by CP1708

This will probably ruin my day, but ahhh what the hell.

You people that say he is overrated and all that do realize that his career is not finished, correct?  While not exciting anymore, he still plays in the NBA, for the LA Lakers. 

Now, given his decline, and the decline we saw in a player that he is "similar" too, we can just look ahead a bit, and round some numbers off. 

Say he goes this year, and 2 more years.  He finishes this year just under 28K points.  1800-2000 next year, 1500 the next.  Somewhere in that mid 31,500 career points mark, like 4th all time or so. 

Say, this postseason, let's goooooo 15 games or so.  Say he's out in the WCF.  Go 20-25 points a game for those 15.  That's about 350-400 if he has a couple 30's left in him.  Now, if he makes another run to the Finals, and we go 20-22 games, add another 100-150 points.  Know where that gets you?  5,500 or so, maybe 5,600, 3rd all time playoff scoring. 

Next year, he gets 10-14 playoff games and the Lakers as we know them now, are done by that time.  Still gonna go for 20-25 a night, mix in a 30 here or there possibly, you get another 200-250 points.  IF they find a way to get a few extra games, make an extra series or whatever, he is well within range to hit the 6,000 point mark good for, you guessed it, the most playoff points in NBA history. 

Even if he comes up short, if they still make the playoffs in his third and "final" season, he can score some points and what not in there as well, possibly making up the difference to end his career the all time leading scorer. 

Now for those of you that want to cry about scoring only, one more thing, he will also finish with over 1,000+ playoff rebounds and assists.  The list of players to do that along with at least 3,000 plus points?  Magic, Mike, Bird, Scottie.  If you go to the 5,000, 1,000 and 1,000 club.  One member, Mike.  And soon to be Kobe. 

 

Factor in a decade of All NBA teams, 7 trips to the finals (so far) the 5 rings, some other crap, all stars and what not, his final numbers/achievements will be good for EASY top 5 all time.  And this is IF we kill him off after 3 years.  Imagine if he went harder for a 4th year, or even a 5th.  Kareem didn't get all those stats/accolades of his stopping at age 34 now did he? 

What I'm sayin is, he's playing with house money right now.  He's done his big boy stuff.  30 points a game seasons, an MVP, some chips, etc etc.  Now he's old and he can finish his career with whatever numbers he can muster.  If they add anything in terms of another title, or at worst a trip to the finals, you're adding to a resume that not many people can EVER match in this game. 

I haven't even SPOKEN yet on what if he did go out and win a 6th?  What if that happened?  What if he went nuts and got BIG numbers in this postseason, and added all kinds of stuff to his resume, then what?  Bottom of the top 10 still? 

 

At this point, right now, this second, I still have Magic in the top 5 all time, and GLOAT.  (Greatest Laker of al......)  But like I said, one guy is still playing, the other is not.  If Kobe wraps this career up with a nice little bow made out of Championship Laker banner, pardon my french, but you all can kiss our @#$ when we say dude is legit top 3-4 all time, now safely ahead of one Magic Johnson and with an eye towards working on KAJ, Russell, and MJ's resumes. 

If he fails to win that #6, but has some more shining moments here and there?  Then I tuck him somewhere in that 5-7 range, and call it good until we see what Bron and Durant and next superstar A comes thru with in the next 15 years. 

But overrated? 

*forgive me father for I have sinned, I spoke Kobe's name on Niketalk.........*

One, cumulative statistics is the most flawed measurement of player production. They're decent to tell you longevity, but they tell you NOTHING else. An in-depth look at production requires much more than that. Two, you're using championships to compare players. In team sports, it is completely invalid to do - not because winning isn't of prime importance, but because winning ANYTHING (even single games) is heavily reliant on team production. Assigning "rings" to a player is really giving too much credit to an individual, even to the best of players.

Right, because when there have been thousands and thousands of players and you join a list that includes like 2 or 3 all time, that tells you nothing.........

You advanced math folk are funny creatures. 

Those 6 rings Mike got mean nothing, that was a team thing. 

  

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

Originally Posted by CP1708

This will probably ruin my day, but ahhh what the hell.

You people that say he is overrated and all that do realize that his career is not finished, correct?  While not exciting anymore, he still plays in the NBA, for the LA Lakers. 

Now, given his decline, and the decline we saw in a player that he is "similar" too, we can just look ahead a bit, and round some numbers off. 

Say he goes this year, and 2 more years.  He finishes this year just under 28K points.  1800-2000 next year, 1500 the next.  Somewhere in that mid 31,500 career points mark, like 4th all time or so. 

Say, this postseason, let's goooooo 15 games or so.  Say he's out in the WCF.  Go 20-25 points a game for those 15.  That's about 350-400 if he has a couple 30's left in him.  Now, if he makes another run to the Finals, and we go 20-22 games, add another 100-150 points.  Know where that gets you?  5,500 or so, maybe 5,600, 3rd all time playoff scoring. 

Next year, he gets 10-14 playoff games and the Lakers as we know them now, are done by that time.  Still gonna go for 20-25 a night, mix in a 30 here or there possibly, you get another 200-250 points.  IF they find a way to get a few extra games, make an extra series or whatever, he is well within range to hit the 6,000 point mark good for, you guessed it, the most playoff points in NBA history. 

Even if he comes up short, if they still make the playoffs in his third and "final" season, he can score some points and what not in there as well, possibly making up the difference to end his career the all time leading scorer. 

Now for those of you that want to cry about scoring only, one more thing, he will also finish with over 1,000+ playoff rebounds and assists.  The list of players to do that along with at least 3,000 plus points?  Magic, Mike, Bird, Scottie.  If you go to the 5,000, 1,000 and 1,000 club.  One member, Mike.  And soon to be Kobe. 

 

Factor in a decade of All NBA teams, 7 trips to the finals (so far) the 5 rings, some other crap, all stars and what not, his final numbers/achievements will be good for EASY top 5 all time.  And this is IF we kill him off after 3 years.  Imagine if he went harder for a 4th year, or even a 5th.  Kareem didn't get all those stats/accolades of his stopping at age 34 now did he? 

What I'm sayin is, he's playing with house money right now.  He's done his big boy stuff.  30 points a game seasons, an MVP, some chips, etc etc.  Now he's old and he can finish his career with whatever numbers he can muster.  If they add anything in terms of another title, or at worst a trip to the finals, you're adding to a resume that not many people can EVER match in this game. 

I haven't even SPOKEN yet on what if he did go out and win a 6th?  What if that happened?  What if he went nuts and got BIG numbers in this postseason, and added all kinds of stuff to his resume, then what?  Bottom of the top 10 still? 

 

At this point, right now, this second, I still have Magic in the top 5 all time, and GLOAT.  (Greatest Laker of al......)  But like I said, one guy is still playing, the other is not.  If Kobe wraps this career up with a nice little bow made out of Championship Laker banner, pardon my french, but you all can kiss our @#$ when we say dude is legit top 3-4 all time, now safely ahead of one Magic Johnson and with an eye towards working on KAJ, Russell, and MJ's resumes. 

If he fails to win that #6, but has some more shining moments here and there?  Then I tuck him somewhere in that 5-7 range, and call it good until we see what Bron and Durant and next superstar A comes thru with in the next 15 years. 

But overrated? 

*forgive me father for I have sinned, I spoke Kobe's name on Niketalk.........*

One, cumulative statistics is the most flawed measurement of player production. They're decent to tell you longevity, but they tell you NOTHING else. An in-depth look at production requires much more than that. Two, you're using championships to compare players. In team sports, it is completely invalid to do - not because winning isn't of prime importance, but because winning ANYTHING (even single games) is heavily reliant on team production. Assigning "rings" to a player is really giving too much credit to an individual, even to the best of players.

Right, because when there have been thousands and thousands of players and you join a list that includes like 2 or 3 all time, that tells you nothing.........

You advanced math folk are funny creatures. 

Those 6 rings Mike got mean nothing, that was a team thing. 

  

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by HybridSoldier23

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

clutch shooting is among the most overrated aspects of basketball (and also sports in general)

The problem is that there was no tracking of "clutch" numbers in MJ's era, so we only remember the makes. Chalk this up to perception bias - and I'm saying this as an MJ fan.

It's also a bit irrelvant anyway. Statistics that deal with just the last few seconds of games involve such a small sample size that it makes it silly to look at a player's "clutch" production anyway. If you even take the aggregate of NBA players and look at production over many seasons, there's no evidence of players producing better "in the clutch".

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by HybridSoldier23

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

clutch shooting is among the most overrated aspects of basketball (and also sports in general)

The problem is that there was no tracking of "clutch" numbers in MJ's era, so we only remember the makes. Chalk this up to perception bias - and I'm saying this as an MJ fan.

It's also a bit irrelvant anyway. Statistics that deal with just the last few seconds of games involve such a small sample size that it makes it silly to look at a player's "clutch" production anyway. If you even take the aggregate of NBA players and look at production over many seasons, there's no evidence of players producing better "in the clutch".

 

[CP1708]

So you don't know if Michael Jordan was clutch because there are no advanced statistics from that era to show you? 

Is this a Jedi mind trick or something? 

 

[CP1708]

So you don't know if Michael Jordan was clutch because there are no advanced statistics from that era to show you? 

Is this a Jedi mind trick or something? 

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

Originally Posted by CP1708

This will probably ruin my day, but ahhh what the hell.

You people that say he is overrated and all that do realize that his career is not finished, correct?  While not exciting anymore, he still plays in the NBA, for the LA Lakers. 

Now, given his decline, and the decline we saw in a player that he is "similar" too, we can just look ahead a bit, and round some numbers off. 

Say he goes this year, and 2 more years.  He finishes this year just under 28K points.  1800-2000 next year, 1500 the next.  Somewhere in that mid 31,500 career points mark, like 4th all time or so. 

Say, this postseason, let's goooooo 15 games or so.  Say he's out in the WCF.  Go 20-25 points a game for those 15.  That's about 350-400 if he has a couple 30's left in him.  Now, if he makes another run to the Finals, and we go 20-22 games, add another 100-150 points.  Know where that gets you?  5,500 or so, maybe 5,600, 3rd all time playoff scoring. 

Next year, he gets 10-14 playoff games and the Lakers as we know them now, are done by that time.  Still gonna go for 20-25 a night, mix in a 30 here or there possibly, you get another 200-250 points.  IF they find a way to get a few extra games, make an extra series or whatever, he is well within range to hit the 6,000 point mark good for, you guessed it, the most playoff points in NBA history. 

Even if he comes up short, if they still make the playoffs in his third and "final" season, he can score some points and what not in there as well, possibly making up the difference to end his career the all time leading scorer. 

Now for those of you that want to cry about scoring only, one more thing, he will also finish with over 1,000+ playoff rebounds and assists.  The list of players to do that along with at least 3,000 plus points?  Magic, Mike, Bird, Scottie.  If you go to the 5,000, 1,000 and 1,000 club.  One member, Mike.  And soon to be Kobe. 

 

Factor in a decade of All NBA teams, 7 trips to the finals (so far) the 5 rings, some other crap, all stars and what not, his final numbers/achievements will be good for EASY top 5 all time.  And this is IF we kill him off after 3 years.  Imagine if he went harder for a 4th year, or even a 5th.  Kareem didn't get all those stats/accolades of his stopping at age 34 now did he? 

What I'm sayin is, he's playing with house money right now.  He's done his big boy stuff.  30 points a game seasons, an MVP, some chips, etc etc.  Now he's old and he can finish his career with whatever numbers he can muster.  If they add anything in terms of another title, or at worst a trip to the finals, you're adding to a resume that not many people can EVER match in this game. 

I haven't even SPOKEN yet on what if he did go out and win a 6th?  What if that happened?  What if he went nuts and got BIG numbers in this postseason, and added all kinds of stuff to his resume, then what?  Bottom of the top 10 still? 

 

At this point, right now, this second, I still have Magic in the top 5 all time, and GLOAT.  (Greatest Laker of al......)  But like I said, one guy is still playing, the other is not.  If Kobe wraps this career up with a nice little bow made out of Championship Laker banner, pardon my french, but you all can kiss our @#$ when we say dude is legit top 3-4 all time, now safely ahead of one Magic Johnson and with an eye towards working on KAJ, Russell, and MJ's resumes. 

If he fails to win that #6, but has some more shining moments here and there?  Then I tuck him somewhere in that 5-7 range, and call it good until we see what Bron and Durant and next superstar A comes thru with in the next 15 years. 

But overrated? 

*forgive me father for I have sinned, I spoke Kobe's name on Niketalk.........*

One, cumulative statistics is the most flawed measurement of player production. They're decent to tell you longevity, but they tell you NOTHING else. An in-depth look at production requires much more than that. Two, you're using championships to compare players. In team sports, it is completely invalid to do - not because winning isn't of prime importance, but because winning ANYTHING (even single games) is heavily reliant on team production. Assigning "rings" to a player is really giving too much credit to an individual, even to the best of players.

Right, because when there have been thousands and thousands of players and you join a list that includes like 2 or 3 all time, that tells you nothing.........

You advanced math folk are funny creatures. 

Those 6 rings Mike got mean nothing, that was a team thing. 

  

You lack reading comprehension. I didn't say cumulative statistics told you nothing - they just don't tell a LOT. It overrates longevity, and doesn't tell you anything else that is relevant to production, such as averages, peak production, context of production, etc. Even a little kid knows that merely COUNTING things is not always the best thing to do. Why do you think they even bother teaching things like arithmetic mean in school?

Glad to know you figured out that the "rings Mike got" was a team thing though. It was.

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

Originally Posted by CP1708

This will probably ruin my day, but ahhh what the hell.

You people that say he is overrated and all that do realize that his career is not finished, correct?  While not exciting anymore, he still plays in the NBA, for the LA Lakers. 

Now, given his decline, and the decline we saw in a player that he is "similar" too, we can just look ahead a bit, and round some numbers off. 

Say he goes this year, and 2 more years.  He finishes this year just under 28K points.  1800-2000 next year, 1500 the next.  Somewhere in that mid 31,500 career points mark, like 4th all time or so. 

Say, this postseason, let's goooooo 15 games or so.  Say he's out in the WCF.  Go 20-25 points a game for those 15.  That's about 350-400 if he has a couple 30's left in him.  Now, if he makes another run to the Finals, and we go 20-22 games, add another 100-150 points.  Know where that gets you?  5,500 or so, maybe 5,600, 3rd all time playoff scoring. 

Next year, he gets 10-14 playoff games and the Lakers as we know them now, are done by that time.  Still gonna go for 20-25 a night, mix in a 30 here or there possibly, you get another 200-250 points.  IF they find a way to get a few extra games, make an extra series or whatever, he is well within range to hit the 6,000 point mark good for, you guessed it, the most playoff points in NBA history. 

Even if he comes up short, if they still make the playoffs in his third and "final" season, he can score some points and what not in there as well, possibly making up the difference to end his career the all time leading scorer. 

Now for those of you that want to cry about scoring only, one more thing, he will also finish with over 1,000+ playoff rebounds and assists.  The list of players to do that along with at least 3,000 plus points?  Magic, Mike, Bird, Scottie.  If you go to the 5,000, 1,000 and 1,000 club.  One member, Mike.  And soon to be Kobe. 

 

Factor in a decade of All NBA teams, 7 trips to the finals (so far) the 5 rings, some other crap, all stars and what not, his final numbers/achievements will be good for EASY top 5 all time.  And this is IF we kill him off after 3 years.  Imagine if he went harder for a 4th year, or even a 5th.  Kareem didn't get all those stats/accolades of his stopping at age 34 now did he? 

What I'm sayin is, he's playing with house money right now.  He's done his big boy stuff.  30 points a game seasons, an MVP, some chips, etc etc.  Now he's old and he can finish his career with whatever numbers he can muster.  If they add anything in terms of another title, or at worst a trip to the finals, you're adding to a resume that not many people can EVER match in this game. 

I haven't even SPOKEN yet on what if he did go out and win a 6th?  What if that happened?  What if he went nuts and got BIG numbers in this postseason, and added all kinds of stuff to his resume, then what?  Bottom of the top 10 still? 

 

At this point, right now, this second, I still have Magic in the top 5 all time, and GLOAT.  (Greatest Laker of al......)  But like I said, one guy is still playing, the other is not.  If Kobe wraps this career up with a nice little bow made out of Championship Laker banner, pardon my french, but you all can kiss our @#$ when we say dude is legit top 3-4 all time, now safely ahead of one Magic Johnson and with an eye towards working on KAJ, Russell, and MJ's resumes. 

If he fails to win that #6, but has some more shining moments here and there?  Then I tuck him somewhere in that 5-7 range, and call it good until we see what Bron and Durant and next superstar A comes thru with in the next 15 years. 

But overrated? 

*forgive me father for I have sinned, I spoke Kobe's name on Niketalk.........*

One, cumulative statistics is the most flawed measurement of player production. They're decent to tell you longevity, but they tell you NOTHING else. An in-depth look at production requires much more than that. Two, you're using championships to compare players. In team sports, it is completely invalid to do - not because winning isn't of prime importance, but because winning ANYTHING (even single games) is heavily reliant on team production. Assigning "rings" to a player is really giving too much credit to an individual, even to the best of players.

Right, because when there have been thousands and thousands of players and you join a list that includes like 2 or 3 all time, that tells you nothing.........

You advanced math folk are funny creatures. 

Those 6 rings Mike got mean nothing, that was a team thing. 

  

You lack reading comprehension. I didn't say cumulative statistics told you nothing - they just don't tell a LOT. It overrates longevity, and doesn't tell you anything else that is relevant to production, such as averages, peak production, context of production, etc. Even a little kid knows that merely COUNTING things is not always the best thing to do. Why do you think they even bother teaching things like arithmetic mean in school?

Glad to know you figured out that the "rings Mike got" was a team thing though. It was.

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by CP1708

So you don't know if Michael Jordan was clutch because there are no advanced statistics from that era to show you? 

Is this a Jedi mind trick or something? 

I'm not asking if Mike is clutch. I'm asking if the term "clutch" even describes an actual phenemenon. Hitting a shot in a tight game to help you team win is often described as "clutch", but some people go as far as to say that the player has some ability to "shoot better" than they usually do in these situations. MJ played a 17 year career and took tens of thousands of shots. We remember the makes only, and not the misses - this doesn't help you answer this question. Are you clutch if you make 10 shots that are played over and over on the highlight reels, but you missed 20 of those shots when you usually shoot 50% from the field? Does this even necessarily mean you are "unclutch"?

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by CP1708

So you don't know if Michael Jordan was clutch because there are no advanced statistics from that era to show you? 

Is this a Jedi mind trick or something? 

I'm not asking if Mike is clutch. I'm asking if the term "clutch" even describes an actual phenemenon. Hitting a shot in a tight game to help you team win is often described as "clutch", but some people go as far as to say that the player has some ability to "shoot better" than they usually do in these situations. MJ played a 17 year career and took tens of thousands of shots. We remember the makes only, and not the misses - this doesn't help you answer this question. Are you clutch if you make 10 shots that are played over and over on the highlight reels, but you missed 20 of those shots when you usually shoot 50% from the field? Does this even necessarily mean you are "unclutch"?

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

Originally Posted by CP1708

So you don't know if Michael Jordan was clutch because there are no advanced statistics from that era to show you? 

Is this a Jedi mind trick or something? 

I'm not asking if Mike is clutch. I'm asking if the term "clutch" even describes an actual phenemenon. Hitting a shot in a tight game to help you team win is often described as "clutch", but some people go as far as to say that the player has some ability to "shoot better" than they usually do in these situations. MJ played a 15 year career and took thousands of shots. We remember the makes only, and not the misses - this doesn't help you answer this question. Are you clutch if you make 10 shots that are played over and over on the highlight reels but you missed 20 of them when you usually shoot 50% fr the field?

This is an excellent point and I thought that was where you were going with the initial comment. Good post. I have always wondered if clutch even existed, but this is what I take clutch as.

Nobody is denying that Jordan didn't make (and take) many shots in tight situations, but maybe JUST MAYBE  we as sports fans are too quick to label it as some sort of special case . Almost similar to players being "on fire."

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

Originally Posted by CP1708

So you don't know if Michael Jordan was clutch because there are no advanced statistics from that era to show you? 

Is this a Jedi mind trick or something? 

I'm not asking if Mike is clutch. I'm asking if the term "clutch" even describes an actual phenemenon. Hitting a shot in a tight game to help you team win is often described as "clutch", but some people go as far as to say that the player has some ability to "shoot better" than they usually do in these situations. MJ played a 15 year career and took thousands of shots. We remember the makes only, and not the misses - this doesn't help you answer this question. Are you clutch if you make 10 shots that are played over and over on the highlight reels but you missed 20 of them when you usually shoot 50% fr the field?

This is an excellent point and I thought that was where you were going with the initial comment. Good post. I have always wondered if clutch even existed, but this is what I take clutch as.

Nobody is denying that Jordan didn't make (and take) many shots in tight situations, but maybe JUST MAYBE  we as sports fans are too quick to label it as some sort of special case . Almost similar to players being "on fire."

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

Originally Posted by CP1708

So you don't know if Michael Jordan was clutch because there are no advanced statistics from that era to show you? 

Is this a Jedi mind trick or something? 

I'm not asking if Mike is clutch. I'm asking if the term "clutch" even describes an actual phenemenon. Hitting a shot in a tight game to help you team win is often described as "clutch", but some people go as far as to say that the player has some ability to "shoot better" than they usually do in these situations. MJ played a 15 year career and took thousands of shots. We remember the makes only, and not the misses - this doesn't help you answer this question. Are you clutch if you make 10 shots that are played over and over on the highlight reels but you missed 20 of them when you usually shoot 50% fr the field?

This is an excellent point and I thought that was where you were going with the initial comment. Good post. I have always wondered if clutch even existed, but this is what I take clutch as.

Nobody is denying that Jordan didn't make (and take) many shots in tight situations, but maybe JUST MAYBE  we as sports fans are too quick to label it as some sort of special case . Almost similar to players being "on fire."

They have entire studies on the "clutch" and the "hot hand" in sports. Not just basketball, but hitting in baseball, field goal kicking in football, etc. The issue is that for ANY genuine claim to have strong evidence, you need to have a good sample size. You don't have that with "clutch statistics".

 

[lukethejediknight]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by LuketheJediKnight

Originally Posted by CP1708

So you don't know if Michael Jordan was clutch because there are no advanced statistics from that era to show you? 

Is this a Jedi mind trick or something? 

I'm not asking if Mike is clutch. I'm asking if the term "clutch" even describes an actual phenemenon. Hitting a shot in a tight game to help you team win is often described as "clutch", but some people go as far as to say that the player has some ability to "shoot better" than they usually do in these situations. MJ played a 15 year career and took thousands of shots. We remember the makes only, and not the misses - this doesn't help you answer this question. Are you clutch if you make 10 shots that are played over and over on the highlight reels but you missed 20 of them when you usually shoot 50% fr the field?

This is an excellent point and I thought that was where you were going with the initial comment. Good post. I have always wondered if clutch even existed, but this is what I take clutch as.

Nobody is denying that Jordan didn't make (and take) many shots in tight situations, but maybe JUST MAYBE  we as sports fans are too quick to label it as some sort of special case . Almost similar to players being "on fire."

They have entire studies on the "clutch" and the "hot hand" in sports. Not just basketball, but hitting in baseball, field goal kicking in football, etc. The issue is that for ANY genuine claim to have strong evidence, you need to have a good sample size. You don't have that with "clutch statistics".

 

[westcoastsfinest]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by westcoastsfinest

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by westcoastsfinest

Originally Posted by Deuce King

among the most overrated players in history.

There it is. 

you guys are obviously blinded with hate.

Not at all champ.  As I have stated on here many times before...........Kobe is great, but when you got dudes on here talking about Kobe is the GOAT or the second GOAT that's when you know dudes either don't know basketball, too young to know the history and players of the game, diehard Kobe lovers to the end, or a combination of all 3.  Hence the "most overrated player" statement in regards to those individuals.
  

i see what you mean. but if youre going to call him overrated due what the kobe stans say then youre stooping just as low as they are. 

  

How am I stooping as low as them by CORRECTING them??  That's part of the problem nowadays, folks just say whatever they want to then nobody corrects that person/people that are mis-speaking.  For most of these Kobe lovers out here they will tell you that 2+2=3........that's when I explain to them how and why 2+2=4.  That's when they get upset at you for helping them out when they need so much help to begin with.
  
you're determining that hes overrated from what the obvious kobe stans say. thats not correcting them thats just as bad as them. for example if an obvious celtic fan says that the celtics are the greatest sports team of all time then someone comes out and claims the celtics are mainly because of what this particular celtic fan said. its the same way with you and kobe. of course a kobe stan will say hes the GOAT. you even said it yourself that he's overrated because of what the kobe stans who dont know basketball, too young to know the history and diehard kobe fans till the end.

 

[westcoastsfinest]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by westcoastsfinest

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Originally Posted by westcoastsfinest

Originally Posted by Deuce King

among the most overrated players in history.

There it is. 

you guys are obviously blinded with hate.

Not at all champ.  As I have stated on here many times before...........Kobe is great, but when you got dudes on here talking about Kobe is the GOAT or the second GOAT that's when you know dudes either don't know basketball, too young to know the history and players of the game, diehard Kobe lovers to the end, or a combination of all 3.  Hence the "most overrated player" statement in regards to those individuals.
  

i see what you mean. but if youre going to call him overrated due what the kobe stans say then youre stooping just as low as they are. 

  

How am I stooping as low as them by CORRECTING them??  That's part of the problem nowadays, folks just say whatever they want to then nobody corrects that person/people that are mis-speaking.  For most of these Kobe lovers out here they will tell you that 2+2=3........that's when I explain to them how and why 2+2=4.  That's when they get upset at you for helping them out when they need so much help to begin with.
  
you're determining that hes overrated from what the obvious kobe stans say. thats not correcting them thats just as bad as them. for example if an obvious celtic fan says that the celtics are the greatest sports team of all time then someone comes out and claims the celtics are mainly because of what this particular celtic fan said. its the same way with you and kobe. of course a kobe stan will say hes the GOAT. you even said it yourself that he's overrated because of what the kobe stans who dont know basketball, too young to know the history and diehard kobe fans till the end.

 

[CP1708]

You guys have got to be kidding me with this garbage. 

Great, wonderful, extra stats, that's terrific, I am sure they serve some purpose, but NONE of that crap means a God damn thing. 

If a guy on a team is deemed "worthy" enough by his teammates, coaches to take the final shot, in a do or die situation, and the other team knows it, the crowd knows it, the announcers know it, and still, with all that "pressure" he can go out and take, and make a given shot, even if it's one damn time in his life, then that is a clutch moment. 

I don't care how many stupid lame @#$ stats you come up with, if a guy does that 10 times, that's good.  And if he does it 25 times, now we're talking.  Of course, he is going to miss some.  Of course, there is going to be failures.  If Mike takes 100 shots at the buzzer, and only makes 25, he's still clutch.  Clutch isn't a percentage or even any tangible thing you can hold in your hands.  It's the feeling of a team being given to one guy, to finish the game/series.  Mike asks for the shot.  Even if he fails, he'll still ask for it again. 

Someone show me that Vince Carter gif when he about to shoot them late free throws.  Look at his eyes.  THAT is a man that is not clutch, I don't care about his @#$%^& percentages, that is a guy that is afraid of the moment, plain and simple.  You don't need advanced calculus to see with your own eyes what that guy is all about.  Mike, is the opposite of Vince.  His eyes, are focused and he is ready to take the shot.  Hit or miss, don't matter, he has the guts to do it. 

You guys are freaking ridiculous trying to analyze every single attempt by breaking it down level after level.  Some things in life simply come down to heart, will and desire.  Anybody with half a brain will tell you that if a building is burning, you don't go in there.  But firemen do it every single day because of their heart, and dedication.  You can't come up with some stupid percentage to quantify it.  This is the same thing.  (though of course, less important then saving a life)  You think other teams live in fear of a final shot by Luke Walton?  The whole crowd murmurs in anticipation of a final shot by Jud Buecheler?  @#$% no.  But those other teams, those fans, those crowds and announcers, they sure get up out their seats when Mike walks on the court with 5 seconds left.  People sure got a kick out of watching Kobe go out there make or miss in those games. 

That's why those guys are who they are.  For those moments, they take the franchise on their back, and they have the guts to take that shot.  Their a helluva alot of other guys that don't want no part of that final shot. 

Ya'll remember when Kobe was 18 shooting airballs?  Why he have to take those shots?  Why coach call the shots for an 18 year old rookie?  Know why?  Nobody else on that team wanted the ball.  Coach looked at em all, and they all sat there.  The kid stepped up, I'll take the shots, I'll take em.  And he missed.  Miserably.  3 times even.  Never even touched the rim. 
2 years later, bigger stage, NBA finals, same kid, 4 buckets STRAIGHT, in OT.  That's how a guy gets a rep.  Make mistakes, learn, come back, and succeed.  Nobody ever gonna be perfect, people that get that, do well. 

These clowns that go 5 for 8 in "clutch" moments and have advanced stat people all giddy and @#$% should be asking why they only get the ball 8 times for these "clutch" shots. 


I can't beleive NT these days.  People tryna sell me that MJ isn't clutch cuz they can't find it on a calculator. 

  @#$%^& kiddin me right here.