So the end result is all that matters? I guess Kobe was an inferior player to Steve Nash and a choke artist in 2006 and 2007 then.
Had Lakers won 60s and nowhere close to a borderline playoff team that year, you'd have a good argument.
You were baffled as to why Kobe was labeled the hero of a single game (not an entire series, or even a 7-game series). He played 52 minutes, had 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 7 assists, AND his team was victorious. How hard is that to understand? I recorded the series, and Shaq, not Kobe, was the MVP of that game, IMO. He dropped 35 and 13, surprisingly knocked down the majority of his FTs, and frustrated Webber down the stretch. IIRC, Webber was T'd up (his 3rd of the series) just minutes in to the 4th quarter for running his mouth -- the Kings were down by 1 at the time (a very critical juncture as they hadn't held a single lead throughout the first 3 quarters). Not the best time for the team's self-proclaimed leader to lose his cool... Try to overcome your deep-rooted hatred for Kobe, and use your head before you start talking out of your ***.
My point was that Webber also played an excellent all around game. He had 20/11/8 and his team was within one wide-open Stojakovich three-pointer of winning the game in regulation. And yet he "choked" in this game because he shot 43% from the field? Whether or not a player is a choker is largely independent of whether or not his team lost. In game 4 of that series, Kobe missed a layup that would have tied the game at the end. The ball was tapped out to Robert Horry for the game winning three. Is Kobe a choker in that situation? He's not remembered as one because his team won the game, but does Horry's three-pointer really change Kobe's performance at all?
To be fair, it was Webber's worst game of the series... a game that just so happened to be the most important in the history of the franchise. Doug Christie should be ashamed of his performance in Game 7... he got worse as the series progressed, and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn when it mattered most.
So LeBron is penalized for leading his team to wins in the regular season? Kobe would have been lucky to win 40 games with that team (which, as we see, is struggling to even win 15 games this year).
I just can't fathom how anyone would think Webber choked in the game or especially the series (where he was the 2nd best player only to Shaq). Webber made all of the key plays down the stretch, but unfortunately Christie and Peja couldn't buy a bucket and the Kings collapsed at the line.
More like hyperbole. Trust me, the "spin" wasn't needed here. I definitely wasn't the one backed into a corner in that regard. And you're not even pulling up the right numbers. I don't know what source you used but Horry went for 16 points in that game (16-12-5). Yeah, Webber had a better game despite the horrid shooting but again....hyperbole. Dude was like 5th best player on that Lakers team.
First of all, in the post right below that, I corrected my mistake. Just a typo. Second of all 9/21 isn't "horrid" shooting. 6/17 (Horry) is "horrid" as is 10/26 (Kobe). And don't even let me get started on the Kings that game. Finally, Webber had an excellent overall game and, again, was the only one besides Bibby doing anything down the stretch (not that I think "down the stretch" is particularly important). If you think this was the game of a choker, I honestly question whether you saw that. And not only that, Webber was sensational the entire series, which was by far the biggest series of his career. You are so determined to make your point that you are overlooking the facts. And that's what I don't like about fandom.
Anthony Parker is the only person from the Cavs starting lineup last year that has played any significant number of games for them this year, Shaq is gone, Varejao injured, Williams pre trade was injured for a long time.
They sucked at the beginning of the season, in the middle of the season, and at the end of the season. Heck, the sucked the last few years whenever LeBron didn't play. Contrast that with the Lakers who've always been great whenever Kobe has sat out.
If that's a question, yes, they were great. If that's a statement, then no, you're wrong. Aside from the years he was "the man" (05-07), they've always had an elite record when he was out. During the "the man" years they had a bad record whether he was in or out. During the threepeat, they had a better record without him than with him.
Because he was obviously important on those teams, and those teams weren't winning anything. I'm talking about his role when he has stars around him. For all his accolades the team does just as well without him. Anyone watching the games this year can see that the Lakers play better when Kobe goes out, because they actually move the ball. If they really need a chucker, Shannon Brown is more than happy to fill the role.
Kobe hit 6 winning shots last year and pushed them to 57 wins. Without those shots, they'd be 51 win team, No.6 seed and wouldn't have HCA in any round. Only Rox of 95 won in that situation. We are not talking about least conference where 50 wins got you No.2 seed, kid.
Since you are such a simpleton, you don't realize that if Kobe sat out the whole game, the entire course would change and it wouldn't even come down to a buzzer beater. They probably would have won those games by 10 instead with an actual team offense. They play so well when thrown together without Kobe; imagine what they'd do with actual practice.
Yeah, and you think if someone else takes the last shot, they'd miss them all. He made 6, how many he took?
I say Robert Horry delivered. He at least saved that rapist 3 times in playoff and got more bling bling than that rapist can imagine.
Kobe Bryant 1021 Games Played 676 Games Won Kobe Bryant's Regular Season Win Percentage = .662 Lakers Win Percentage Without Kobe Bryant = .604 (95 games) Difference = .058 LeBron James 548 Games Played 339 Games Won LeBron James' Win Percentage = .618 Cavs win percentage without LeBron James = .384 (26 Games) Difference = .234
