Whenever we mention that ONE GAME you comment on how it wasn't a bad game because Kobe got a lot of boards. So using your logic, that 42% game by Bynum was a good game because he grabbed 30 boards, right? I'm only talking about that ONE GAME. Your ending comments just show that Allen and PP had bad games as well, but doesn't discount that Kobe did too.
Bynum shot 42% over 4 games. Idiot. He shot 7-20 in that 30 boards game for 35%. And yes, it's OK to shot bad when the oppositions are shooting as bad, as long as you won by dominating glass and getting more possessions.
He's a secondary star like Gasol. Hes a borderline top 15 player in this league. You can't run an offense through him for extended stretches. Can't figure out double teams, can't pass out of double teams and has trouble guarding the pick and roll.
Matt Barnes (w/ Kobe): 56.3 TS% Matt Barnes (w/o Kobe): 52.8 TS% Ron Artest (w/ Kobe): 47.5 TS% Ron Artest (w/o Kobe): 46.7 TS%
Lakers without Kobe: 3-1. Kobe will sit for the rest of the year. Look for the Lakers to keep WINNING. You'll have a bigger sample size to judge from.
My bad, I thought he shot 42% for that game. But he shot 35%, but still got 30 boards. So using your logic he had a GOOD GAME, right? Anything is ok when your team wins in the end, but that doesn't mean that you had a GOOD GAME. In other words, Kobe had a bad game but the team won anyway. What's idiotic is pointing to a bad game by an opposing player to highlight how your player had a good one, as if folks can't play poorly in a victory. It would be easier to just admit that the dude had a bad game. but that would require you to take his nuts out of your mouth.
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/fandom/post/_/id/767/junk-mail-tackles-the-kobe-bryant-situation Most of these fans are from LA, as well.
