Vote: Better All-Time, Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird?

[PlayTheGame]

Sly your biggest argument is baselessly calling me silly over and over and saying I didn't watch when I did. You're sounding silly.

 

[PlayTheGame]

Except for the fact that you are flat out lying, because you damn well know that my Mark Rypien/Terrell Davis example completely proved your theory wrong. You claim that you would dispute their importance...okay hotshot...dispute it. Go research the 1991, 1997 and 1998 seasons, and bring some evidence that either player was not incredibly important to their team's championships...then you have to argue why they should be considered better than Dan Marino and Barry Sanders because they won titles...

Because here is the thing...you know that you can't do it. You know that both players were very important to their team's championships, so you can't hide behind that bullshit excuse. You also know that neither player would ever be considered to be in the same league as Marino and Sanders. But to admit that would require you to admit that your theory is complete rubbish, so you refuse to answer the challenge directly.

Tell me Mark Rypien was a better QB than Dan Marino and Terrell Davis was a better RB than Barry Sanders because they won championships or shut the fuck up and admit you are full of shit.

Why are you getting so worked up? Holy shit calm down. I don't know why you're taking this all as a personal attack when it's not. I don't think your points put holes in my logic at all, I stand by my argument and by my overall views.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sly your biggest argument is baselessly calling me silly over and over and saying I didn't watch when I did. You're sounding silly.

You're making stupid statements, completely ignorant of what actually happened at the time. Maybe you did watch, but you obviously knew nothing about basketball at the time, or you know nothing now.

The Lakers offense ran through Shaq. Teams prepared strategy to stop Shaq. Ever heard of Hack-a-Kobe? No. Why? Because statistically speaking, it was a better defensive strategy to make Shaq shoot free throws than it was to let him catch the ball on offense. Everything revolved around Shaq. Why do you think Kobe kept pouting like a child all the time? Because Shaq was the man, not Kobe.

Kobe was jealous that Shaquille O'Neal was the number one option on the Lakers. Kobe was jealous that Shaq was "the man". Kobe was upset that people agreed Shaq should get the ball in clutch situations and not Kobe. That's why Shaq and Kobe didn't get along...because Kobe threw temper tantrums like a child because he WASN'T the man.

If you watched basketball at the time, and you actually knew anything about it, you'd know Shaq was the #1 Laker.


By the way, you never answered my question. What was the record of the Lakers the year before Shaq left and the year after?

 

[Davi323]

Why are you getting so worked up? Holy shit calm down. I don't know why you're taking this all as a personal attack when it's not. I don't think your points put holes in my logic at all, I stand by my argument and by my overall views.

Then stop obfuscating and answer the damn question...do you consider Mark Rypien and Terrell Davis to be better than Dan Marino and Barry Sanders or not? If yes, defend your position. If not, admit your logic is full of shit...it's really not that tough. Yet, this is what, the 4th time I have asked you, and you have yet to answer it...wonder why? If you don't see any holes in your logic that a key contributor (and not a backup just along for the ride) on a championship team > any player without a championship, this should be easy to answer. All am asking you to do is be consistent with the rules you laid out...
If your logic is sound, fine...prove it.

If Kobe > Bird because he has two more rings, then Rypien/Davis should clearly be better than Marino/Sanders. Yet, you have refused to acknowledge that multiple times...either you believe what you wrote, and they have to be better, or you don't, in which case using Kobe's 5 titles to Bird's 3 is stupid. Hell, I will make it even easier for you...does Eli's 2 rings make him a better QB than Peyton and his 1 ring?

Stop avoiding the question and answer it already.

 

[Slyfox696]

Then stop obfuscating and answer the damn question...do you consider Mark Rypien and Terrell Davis to be better than Dan Marino and Barry Sanders or not? If yes, defend your position. If not, admit your logic is full of shit...it's really not that tough. Yet, this is what, the 4th time I have asked you, and you have yet to answer it...wonder why? If you don't see any holes in your logic that a key contributor (and not a backup just along for the ride) on a championship team > any player without a championship, this should be easy to answer. All am asking you to do is be consistent with the rules you laid out...
If your logic is sound, fine...prove it.

If Kobe > Bird because he has two more rings, then Rypien/Davis should clearly be better than Marino/Sanders. Yet, you have refused to acknowledge that multiple times...either you believe what you wrote, and they have to be better, or you don't, in which case using Kobe's 5 titles to Bird's 3 is stupid. Hell, I will make it even easier for you...does Eli's 2 rings make him a better QB than Peyton and his 1 ring?

Stop avoiding the question and answer it already.

Even better than Rypien and Davis, how about Scottie Pippen and Wilt Chamberlain? Scottie had 6 and was a major player on the Bulls championship teams. Wilt only had 2 rings. Obviously Scottie was three times better than Wilt Chamberlain. Right?

 

[PlayTheGame]

I understand that the Lakers fell off the season after Shaq. I'm not downplaying Shaq's importance, I'm just trying to stress that Kobe was extremely important as well. Shaq's abscence hurt the Lakers, just as Kobe's addition to the team helped them after he was drafted and developed. Remember, those titles came before Kobe was in his prime, so it makes sense for Shaq to be the bigger part, but Kobe was averaging around 26 pts per game during those 3 title seasons. I think that's above a sidekick. A 26pt per game guy being a sidekick? I've never heard of anyone contributing that much being called a sidekick in NBA history.

As for my logic, I've said numerous times that there are exceptions, so I'm not dodging your criticism of it, I never claimed it to be bible. But I think it is fairly accurate, as long as you use some common sense. I think # of titles factored in along with how much they contributed can often give you a good bearing, and it helps me distinguish between Bird & Bryant. If you bring certain other examples in just for the hell of it, well there's exceptions to just about everything, so that's where common sense comes into say that this logic can't be used to compare pippen and chamberlain, because chamberlain is better. Kobe and Bird is so close that since Kobe has the wins and titles on his side, I'm inclined to give him the nod.

Not sure why you guys seem to be getting worked up about it though, this is really all opinion anyway. I'm doing my best to give my opinion and defend it, and if that's not good enough for you, or if my "ignorance" angers you, then why bother talking to an idiot like me, right?

Getting back to the main point of this thread, because we're going off on tangents, I've listened to both sides of the argument and learned some things about both guys that I wasn't aware of, which is good- that's the point of discussion. I've gained more respect for Bird especially. I'm still inclined to give the nod to Kobe because I think he can do just about everything on the court for a team, has titles and wins on his side, and has an MJ-like killer instinct that a lot of guys don't have, like Lebron. His work ethic is ridiculous and it shows on the court. He plays through injury like very few, and is a very respected basketball figure. I've seen both play, as I've seen Kobe live and I've seen some of Bird's best games on NBA Classics, and both are impressive and dominant. That being said, I think Kobe edges out Bird just by watching them both play. I believe Kobe can do more on the court, which is saying something, because Bird can do a hell of a lot. It's close, but I think Kobe will go down as the better of the two. Don't forget, Kobe's still got 5 years left.

 

[Slyfox696]

so it makes sense for Shaq to be the bigger part

And he was. Which was the point from the beginning, thank you for finally agreeing to it.

As for my logic, I've said numerous times that there are exceptions, so I'm not dodging your criticism of it, I never claimed it to be bible. But I think it is fairly accurate, as long as you use some common sense.

The fact there ARE exceptions renders your argument irrelevant. Your argument that Kobe is better than Bird because of # of championships is irrelevant, unless you're willing to say Scottie Pippen is a better player than Wilt Chamberlain.

so that's where common sense comes into say that this logic can't be used to compare pippen and chamberlain, because chamberlain is better.

Exactly. So the # of championships is an irrelevant argument, as long as both players have significant claim to championships.

Not sure why you guys seem to be getting worked up about it

I'm not worked up at all. But you said stupid things, and stupid things deserve to be mocked. Have you not read my quote in my sig?

 

[PlayTheGame]

I don't think my argument is deserving to be mocked Sly. I don't think viewing Kobe as better than Bird, which is my opinion, is outrageous. Many feel the same way.

I know you like to mock people with stupid opinions, which is fine, there's a lot of people on these forums that try to push ridiculous notions, but I respectfully don't believe I am one of them.

 

[Davi323]

I don't think my argument is deserving to be mocked Sly. I don't think viewing Kobe as better than Bird, which is my opinion, is outrageous. Many feel the same way.

I know you like to mock people with stupid opinions, which is fine, there's a lot of people on these forums that try to push ridiculous notions, but I respectfully don't believe I am one of them.

That's not why you were being mocked. You were beingmocked because you based it on ring count, claiming that K obe was better because he had 5 rings to Bird's 3. It was the poor logic of your reasoning that was being mocked, not the Kobe pick itself.

However, seeing how you are only 20, and never watched Larry Bird play, you have no frame of reference to look at other than numbers on a website, you really don't know how good Larry Bird was. I am old enough to remember Magic, Bird, Ewing, Dr. J, etc. It really is different when you can actually say "I remember seeing that guy play" compared to just having the stats. Stats don't tell the complete story, and you don't have the first hand knowledge to fill in the gaps. A debate comparing Kobe to LeBron? Absolutely...but Bird? You simply lack the perspective. Larry Bird was an amazing player, far beyond what his stats tell you.

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't think my argument is deserving to be mocked Sly. I don't think viewing Kobe as better than Bird, which is my opinion, is outrageous. Many feel the same way.

That's not what I was mocking you for. I was mocking you for saying Shaq wasn't the #1 guy in Los Angeles in the early 2000s.

That's not why you were being mocked. You were beingmocked because you based it on ring count, claiming that K obe was better because he had 5 rings to Bird's 3. It was the poor logic of your reasoning that was being mocked, not the Kobe pick itself.

Oh, and that too.

 

[PlayTheGame]

I never said Shaq wasn't #1.

 

[Alastor]

Anyone arguing that Kobe was more important than Shaq in the early 2000s championship teams is either a fool or didn't watch basketball during that time.

As for Bird or Kobe, I would go for Bird because I didn't get the chance to watch Bird play and so miss out on all the mistakes I got to watch Kobe made. I will always remember Kobe almost costing the Lakers their last title in game 7 at home due to him chucking shots after shots to try to be the hero.

 

[Khalifa]

It is almost as if you forgot the points Harthan made about Kobe being the sidekick to Shaq for three of his titles. Kobe Bryant might be a staple in the Lakers. But in no way, shape, or form is Kobe better than Bird. For his entire career, Bird was the man in Boston. He was the number one guy. Everyone else hoped to play up to his ability to be his side-kick. For the majority of Kobe's rings, he played second fiddle to Shaq. Which is no small feat in any meaning of the word.

Without Bird, Boston would be 3 rings short. Without Bryant, the Lakers would still have three rings. Although, it is undeniable that Kobe was the number one guy for the two titles the Lakers won without Shaq.

Shaq couldn't win a ring in Orlando with Penny. He couldn't win a ring in the first 3 years as a Laker when Kobe was coming off the bench so how would he of gotten those three rings without Kobe?

My argument that Shaq was the force behind the Lakers in the early 2000s is flawed? Again, you obviously weren't watching basketball then because you'd know how silly that sounds. Shaq was obviously the #1 guy in Los Angeles, everyone knew that (except for Kobe, he never really got that).


And I think if I were building a team, I'd rather have Bird.




I think the raw athleticism and potential is far greater now than it was in the 80s. But I think the pure skill and knowledge of how to play the game was far greater in the 80s than now. Too many guys in the NBA today don't have good fundamentals nor even a good understanding of how to play basketball, but they're able to cover it up with pure athleticism. The guys in the 80s were much better basketball players, but today's group are much better athletes.

However, I can't think of a single person who wouldn't like to see a game between the best of the 80s and the best of today. Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Moses Malone, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar vs. Dwayne Wade, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Kevin Durant and Dwight Howard? Sign me up.
No it isn't, it's just the truth.

Seriously, were you watching basketball back then?

We haven't said that, but what we HAVE said is that Shaq was more important to the Lakers winning those titles than Kobe was. Which is a fact. What's also a fact is that NO ONE was more important to the Celtics winning their three titles than Bird.

Agreed.

Agreed

Not really. You're probably talking from a pure athletic standpoint, but when you're talking about basketball explosiveness, Kobe wasn't really more explosive than Bird.

Not yet. Not until Kobe plays past the age of 35. You don't get credit for coming in early, when the cultures on high school players entering the draft was much different when Kobe came along than when Bird did.

Not because it doesn't work for us, but because it's a bullshit argument.

The whole point in using titles as an argument is as a judge as to whether someone is a winner or not. Both guys are winners, both guys are champions, so there's no advantage to be gained there. Scottie Pippen won 6 NBA titles but there's no way Scottie Pippen, who was Jordan's sidekick like Kobe was Shaq's, was a better basketball player than Wilt Chamberlain who only won 2.

It's a ridiculous argument. Since both guys have won multiple championships, there's no reason to compare anymore.

Put Shaquille O'Neal from the early 2000s on the Celtics in the 80s and they would have won 3 more.

No, Bryant has only been "the man" of LA since Shaq left. And they've only won TWO titles since then.

It's not wrong as much as it is conjecture. Without Kobe, the Lakers still would have been a damn good team.

I think he is talking about how Bird was out for a number of games for 3 or 4 seasons while Kobe has only had a max of 5 games out of a season before even though he has no cartlidge in his knee, gets back spasms all the time, plays with broken fingers in his shooting hand and has torn ligaments in his shooting wrist.

Anyone arguing that Kobe was more important than Shaq in the early 2000s championship teams is either a fool or didn't watch basketball during that time.

As for Bird or Kobe, I would go for Bird because I didn't get the chance to watch Bird play and so miss out on all the mistakes I got to watch Kobe made. I will always remember Kobe almost costing the Lakers their last title in game 7 at home due to him chucking shots after shots to try to be the hero.

So you would rather not have the best player in the game at that time to try and carry his team when his team was in an offensive drought? He did the right thing. If he didn't take a certain amount of shots to try and win the championship everyone would have had a go at him, but because he took 25 shots in a game that was the biggest of his career he is suddenly a bad player? I will admit he had a few questionable shots that game, but he does every game. Most of his shots were good looks, especially for Kobe.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Not yet. Not until Kobe plays past the age of 35. You don't get credit for coming in early, when the cultures on high school players entering the draft was much different when Kobe came along than when Bird did.

While I understand where you're going with this, and agree with the premise, it's actually not entirely correct.

Bird was drafted in 1978. In 1974, Moses Malone became the first player to go straight from high school to the pros. Malone is in the Hall of Fame. In 1975, Darryl Dawkins and Bill Willoughby both went straight from High School to the NBA. Neither were as successful as Malone, but the point remains that 3 players went straight to the pros out of High School during the time between Larry Bird finishing High School and entering the NBA.


Kobe Bryant was drafted in 1996. A year prior, Kevin Garnett went straight from High School to the NBA. Garnett became the first man since Dawkins/Willoughby to do so. So Kobe really only had 1 prior example of recent High School to NBA experience. Entering the NBA right out of High School became more common after Kobe Bryant, mainly because of the success of Kobe (and KG).

Basically, what I'm saying is that the culture wasn't at all different.

 

[Milkyway!]

I think it's silly to think that Kobe Bryant was the man in ANY of the 5 championships won by the Lakers during his stay in LA. In 1999-2003 Kobe clearly had Shaq. Without Shaq, Kobe didn't win another championship until 2009. Yet Shaq went onto win a 4th championship in Miami in 2005-2006 in which once again Shaq was the man.

Kobe has never truly been the man in my eyes. Seriously back in the day he had Shaq, and anyone to say Shaq wasn't the man back then is simply ridiculous. I was 6 years old back then, and everyone I knew talked about Shaq being their favorite player, yet I don't really ever remember Kobe's name being brought up until I was around 10 to 11 years old.

During the back-to-back victories he Pau Gasol and Bynum ruling the paint, Odom and Fisher playing very very very very important roles, and then you had Kobe the so-called leader of this team. There was no one leader on that team. Everyone was arguably playing some of the best basketball at their position during this time period in the entire NBA.

I dare say Pau Gasol was the #1 guy in LA during their recent 2 runs at championships. From what I see when it comes to Kobe, is he's a good player; but without a dominant player in the paint Kobe isn't a champion. If there's no one to catch all the lobs Mr Bryant throws in hopes to make a shot, it seems that Kobe simply cannot win.

I recall in 2009-2010 when Gasol played well the Lakers played well, and when Gasol played poorly the Lakers played poorly.

To me, Kobe may have been the figurehead in 2009-2010 however the team carried the team in 2009-2010 with Pau Gasol truly playing some of the best ball those years, whereas Shaq undeniably carried the team in 2000-2003.

 

[Big Sexy]

I think it's silly to think that Kobe Bryant was the man in ANY of the 5 championships won by the Lakers during his stay in LA. In 1999-2003 Kobe clearly had Shaq. Without Shaq, Kobe didn't win another championship until 2009.

If you don't think that Kobe was the main guy on those last two championship teams then you need your head examined.

Yet Shaq went onto win a 4th championship in Miami in 2005-2006 in which once again Shaq was the man.

No, Dwayne Wade was the man. Do you even watch basketball?

During the back-to-back victories he Pau Gasol and Bynum ruling the paint, Odom and Fisher playing very very very very important roles, and then you had Kobe the so-called leader of this team. There was no one leader on that team. Everyone was arguably playing some of the best basketball at their position during this time period in the entire NBA.

Bynum could never stay healthy, Odom was a very good 6th man but the guy isn't exactly a star, and Derek Fisher has never been any more then a role player.

I dare say Pau Gasol was the #1 guy in LA during their recent 2 runs at championships. From what I see when it comes to Kobe, is he's a good player; but without a dominant player in the paint Kobe isn't a champion. If there's no one to catch all the lobs Mr Bryant throws in hopes to make a shot, it seems that Kobe simply cannot win.

Pau Gasol is a great player and certainly important to the last two championships but to say he was the #1 guy borderlines on insanity. When his career is over Kobe Bryant is likely going to go down as the second greatest shooting guard of all time behind only Michael Jordan. I have no earthly idea how you could be making these statements because it's only showing that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

To me, Kobe may have been the figurehead in 2009-2010 however the team carried the team in 2009-2010 with Pau Gasol truly playing some of the best ball those years, whereas Shaq undeniably carried the team in 2000-2003.

Shaq was slightly more important to the first three championships but let's not forget that Kobe was aged 21-23 during those years. While most guys were just entering the NBA out of college or still getting their feet wet as rookies, Kobe already had three NBA titles and he played a huge co-starring role on all three of those teams. With these last two titles he was 100% the main guy. It would behoove you to stop posting in this thread.

 

[Slyfox696]

While I understand where you're going with this, and agree with the premise, it's actually not entirely correct.

Bird was drafted in 1978. In 1974, Moses Malone became the first player to go straight from high school to the pros. Malone is in the Hall of Fame. In 1975, Darryl Dawkins and Bill Willoughby both went straight from High School to the NBA. Neither were as successful as Malone, but the point remains that 3 players went straight to the pros out of High School during the time between Larry Bird finishing High School and entering the NBA.


Kobe Bryant was drafted in 1996. A year prior, Kevin Garnett went straight from High School to the NBA. Garnett became the first man since Dawkins/Willoughby to do so. So Kobe really only had 1 prior example of recent High School to NBA experience. Entering the NBA right out of High School became more common after Kobe Bryant, mainly because of the success of Kobe (and KG).

Basically, what I'm saying is that the culture wasn't at all different.

I knew someone would bring this up, which is why I said the culture was different. And it was. When Kobe came out, the attitudes amongst GMs and NBA teams was different than it was when Bird was drafted. You're looking only at number of high school players. I'm not. I'm talking about the mentality of NBA executives. Somewhere in the mid-90s, there became a mindset that the longer someone played in college, the less likely they were to become a great NBA player, a mentality which still exists today. Go look at that '96 draft. There was only one senior selected among the first 10 pics. ONE senior selected. In contrast, in the '78 draft the first five picks were ALL seniors, as were 8 of the first 10 picks (Bird and Reggie Theus were juniors).

Yes, I'm aware there were players who went to the NBA early before Bird, but they were the exception, not the rule. By 1996, getting into the NBA early was the rule, not the exception. And that filtered down from sophomores in college to high school players.

The cultures were just different.

I dare say Pau Gasol was the #1 guy in LA during their recent 2 runs at championships.

I dare say you deserve to be mocked for this comment.

Shaq was #1 for the first three titles, but Kobe was #1 for the last two.

If you don't think that Kobe was the main guy on those last two championship teams then you need your head examined.

Big Sexy and I agree. Milky, you know you're wrong when Big Sexy and I agree.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

EDIT: For now, anyway. LeBron will almost certainly outdo Bird and probably Jordan by the time he's through.

Everything was going pretty good until this statement. Maybe this argument ensued in the pages between here and there, but I had to comment. No man who has absolutely no competitive heart whatsoever will ever be ahead of Jordan, Bird, Magic, etc. Crunch all the damn numbers you want.

As for the OP, I would say Kobe Bryant is a better scorer, but Larry Bird is a more versatile scorer. Bird was one of the most versatile players of all time, along with Magic and Oscar Robertson. Not saying Kobe can't play defense very well or anything, but Bird was just better all around and that's why I'd take him over Kobe. Bird's like a Lebron James of today, except with a much better jumper and heart. Not quite as athletic though.

 

[Harthan]

No man who has absolutely no competitive heart whatsoever will ever be ahead of Jordan, Bird, Magic, etc. Crunch all the damn numbers you want.

This attitude is just silly and outdated. "No competitive heart"? What does that even mean? The man carried a mediocre team - I love the Cavaliers desperately, but it's the truth - to the playoffs what, five times? He abandoned more money and the adoration of his hometown just for a chance to win a title. You can call LeBron a lot of things, but uncompetitive? That isn't one of them. He's arguably the most competitive player in the sport today. And the best one, too.

 

[Milkyway!]

If you don't think that Kobe was the main guy on those last two championship teams then you need your head examined.

I clearly admitted Kobe was the #1 guy. The "I dare say Pau Gasol was the #1 guy" was a hyperbole that didn't exactly get across. My point in saying that was simple. Pau Gasol played a much much much bigger role in those championships than he's given credit for.

No, Dwayne Wade was the man. Do you even watch basketball?

Honestly I believe that while Wade was playing some damn good ball once again Shaq was the cornerstone of that team. Shooting at .600 and the sheer intensity that is and was Shaq is what led that team to a championship. We can't simply look over the intangibles that Shaq clearly brought to the table.

Bynum could never stay healthy, Odom was a very good 6th man but the guy isn't exactly a star, and Derek Fisher has never been any more then a role player.

Bynum was healthy in the playoffs. Odom was a DAMN good 6th man.

You're undermining a role player? That's silly. Role players contribute a huge portion to a team. Just because someone isn't a star, doesn't mean they didn't have a role in winning the championship. Fisher was always a very clutch 3 shot in the utmost necessary spots.

My point was simple, this was an all around team effort; not just Kobe throwing a team on his back like everyone so often makes it out to be. It's a view point on Kobe I simply hate.

Pau Gasol is a great player and certainly important to the last two championships but to say he was the #1 guy borderlines on insanity.

My point was meant to be taken as a hyperbole. I assume that didn't get across.

Shaq was slightly more important to the first three championships but let's not forget that Kobe was aged 21-23 during those years. While most guys were just entering the NBA out of college or still getting their feet wet as rookies, Kobe already had three NBA titles and he played a huge co-starring role on all three of those teams. With these last two titles he was 100% the main guy. It would behoove you to stop posting in this thread.

Of course he was the leader of the team. However I still stand by the statement of it was an overall team effort. Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Fisher, and yes mostly Kobe were all playing very very well. That's why I'm saying Kobe didn't carry that team on his back as if he were Atlas carrying the Lakers.

 

[Alastor]

So you would rather not have the best player in the game at that time to try and carry his team when his team was in an offensive drought? He did the right thing. If he didn't take a certain amount of shots to try and win the championship everyone would have had a go at him, but because he took 25 shots in a game that was the biggest of his career he is suddenly a bad player? I will admit he had a few questionable shots that game, but he does every game. Most of his shots were good looks, especially for Kobe.

Settling for tough shots overlooking teammates in better positions to make better plays was what nearly cost them the game. Not the fact that he took 25 shots. Only when he calmed down did Lakers made a run to close the gap in the 3rd quarter. It was not the right thing when you have Gasol to settle for easier baskets to get over the offensive drought.

 

[Khalifa]

Settling for tough shots overlooking teammates in better positions to make better plays was what nearly cost them the game. Not the fact that he took 25 shots. Only when he calmed down did Lakers made a run to close the gap in the 3rd quarter. It was not the right thing when you have Gasol to settle for easier baskets to get over the offensive drought.

But the thing you don't understand is that Kobe takes those shots on a regular basis. They aren't 'tough' for him because he makes them every day and every night. Sure he missed a few assist options but every single player does but because Kobe did it it is hell on Earth.

Also, the only reason why won the game was because Artest hit a few good shots and Rasheed Wallace was in foul trouble.

 

[Big Sexy]

I clearly admitted Kobe was the #1 guy. The "I dare say Pau Gasol was the #1 guy" was a hyperbole that didn't exactly get across. My point in saying that was simple. Pau Gasol played a much much much bigger role in those championships than he's given credit for.

Actually Pau Gasol gets plenty of credit and certainly has never been undervalued for his role in those championships.

Honestly I believe that while Wade was playing some damn good ball once again Shaq was the cornerstone of that team. Shooting at .600 and the sheer intensity that is and was Shaq is what led that team to a championship. We can't simply look over the intangibles that Shaq clearly brought to the table.

D Wade was 100% the number one guy on that title team and it isn't even close to debatable. Just look at the last 4 games in the NBA Finals after the Heat fell down 0-2. Wade put up 42, 36, 43, and 36 in those 4 wins.

Bynum was healthy in the playoffs. Odom was a DAMN good 6th man.

Bynum played but was no where near 100% and it showed with his numbers. Odom is great but at the end of the day it all comes down to how Kobe plays.

You're undermining a role player? That's silly. Role players contribute a huge portion to a team. Just because someone isn't a star, doesn't mean they didn't have a role in winning the championship. Fisher was always a very clutch 3 shot in the utmost necessary spots.

No one is undermining role players, you are just overplaying them. Every team that wins a fucking championship has some good role players. It doesn't change the fact that Kobe was the number one guy on those last two title teams and it wasn't even close. He had help but so does every superstar that wins a title.

My point was simple, this was an all around team effort; not just Kobe throwing a team on his back like everyone so often makes it out to be. It's a view point on Kobe I simply hate.

Jesus fucking Christ no one was stating otherwise. No team has ever or will ever win a championship with just one guy carrying a team.

Of course he was the leader of the team. However I still stand by the statement of it was an overall team effort. Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Fisher, and yes mostly Kobe were all playing very very well. That's why I'm saying Kobe didn't carry that team on his back as if he were Atlas carrying the Lakers.

Actually Bynum played no where near his abilities on either title team and Derek Fisher had a below average playoff run on the 2009 championship team. Kobe was the man and it wasn't even close.

 

[Alastor]

But the thing you don't understand is that Kobe takes those shots on a regular basis. They aren't 'tough' for him because he makes them every day and every night. Sure he missed a few assist options but every single player does but because Kobe did it it is hell on Earth.

Also, the only reason why won the game was because Artest hit a few good shots and Rasheed Wallace was in foul trouble.

Taking 'tough' shots over passing to the open man, or forcing a pass to prove a point to the coach to let him continue to shoot, others will pass judgement. Hey Kobe was the MVP of the series, but that last game almost lost the series and waste his earlier efforts. Not only Kobe get hell for anything, Lebron, Melo', Howard, all the top stars are under the microscope, especially if their team loses.

 

[Milkyway!]

Actually Pau Gasol gets plenty of credit and certainly has never been undervalued for his role in those championships.

Maybe around there he does, but around he most certainly not. All I hear is Kobe Bryant won 5 championships, Shaq won 4; that means Kobe is better. Kobe carried the Lakers to 5 championships blah blah blah blah blah.

Even on these boards there are people trying to debate on whether the fact Kobe Bryant carried the Lakers in 1999-2003. Which is simply false.

D Wade was 100% the number one guy on that title team and it isn't even close to debatable. Just look at the last 4 games in the NBA Finals after the Heat fell down 0-2. Wade put up 42, 36, 43, and 36 in those 4 wins.

I'm likely biased when it comes to this season. It was the first FULL season of basketball I watched, and I was quite fascinated with Shaq. Actually the most vivid basketball memory I have is whenever Shaq made an outstanding dunk the entire arena EXPLODED. I looked at my father and asked him to explain, and he simply answered "That's Shaq!"

Bynum played but was no where near 100% and it showed with his numbers. Odom is great but at the end of the day it all comes down to how Kobe plays.

I would disagree. That's exactly what makes Kobe a superstar you KNOW he's going to show up and play basketball. You know he's going to shoot a lot, you know he's going to miss about 55% of the time, and that's why you get players like Pau Gasol, Bynum, and Odom. With each of them averaging nearly 10 (Odom) and 10+ (Bynum and Gasol) rebounds a game, you've built your team around Kobe Bryant. BUT it's become obvious by the 2010-2011 season if Kobe's team doesn't play well around him, he cannot lift the team on his shoulders and carry them to victory.

Jesus fucking Christ no one was stating otherwise. No team has ever or will ever win a championship with just one guy carrying a team.

I never said that you said that. However a very large portions of debates, discussions, etc about Kobe Bryant I've been in quite often divulge into statements about Kobe Bryant "CARRYING" the Lakers to 5 titles when that perception simply isn't true.

Actually Bynum played no where near his abilities on either title team and Derek Fisher had a below average playoff run on the 2009 championship team. Kobe was the man and it wasn't even close.

It was clearly a team effort. Without Gasol, Odom, Fisher, Artest, and Bynum playing as well as they were there was simply no way Bryant would have won those championships alone. They barely won the championship in 2010, however due to an injury to Perkins that opened up the Lakers to have a monster game 7 dominating not in the points area (as proven by a low scoring game in 83-79 and Bryant's 23 point game 7) but with rebounds at 53-40.

Yet Bryant was the one carrying the team? No. As I've been saying all along, the team carried the team. Bryant may have been LEADING it (and leading it well) but the at the end of the day, it was a very solid team effort with no one player truly standing 10 foot in front of the rest. Kobe may have been standing 3-4 foot in front of the pack, but it certainly wasn't an outstanding margin was one may try to lead you to believe.