It's true in the literal sense. That's all I meant. Obviously he's a talented player. But so are Rudy Gay and OJ Mayo.
There is not a good sample. Kobe hasn't missed enough games post Shaq to come to any real conclusion on whether or not the Lakers are just as good without him.
These games occured mostly during the regular season, where the defensive intensity isn't nearly as great and players are perhaps less inclined to let role players get wide open shots. It also doesn't hurt to have Shaq (who was fully capable of scoring 40 a game) picking up the slack while you're gone.
Yes. I am not saying they are individually as talented as Kobe (they aren't), but they are players in the same mold, who many to be considered very good, who are a net negative to their teams. And Kobe would be the same way if he were traded away-- addition by subtraction. We can already see this when he sits; just imagine if they could get something for him.
Ehhh, I don't really buy the "playoffs are a different beast" stuff. It's the same game. Shaq got doubles and triples and any competent swingman could take advantage of that. Replace Kobe with AI, Allen, VC, TMac, etc. and they would have been fine. Replace him with the next tier, I say they are also fine. His ability to iso and get a shot off on traffic may help for game winning situations but those are few and far between-- and points in the first three quarters are the same as points in the 4th. The most important players in the NBA are bigmen who demand doubles in the post. The second most are playmakers who don't necessarily need to dominate the ball (think: Larry Bird). Scoring swingmen are further down the list. And yes, I think MJ was hella overrated too, but at least he was extremely efficient and played in the system way better than Kobe.
The Heat have a 74% win percentage in games he has played in over the past three years. In the 8 games he has missed they have a 75% win percentage. Using Clippy logic, LeBron has no impact on wins. Using common sense, stacked teams win even when their best player is out because they are stacked.
You say replace him with allen, AI, TMac, VC, etc. like such men are easy to find. High volume scorers on mid to high efficiency are exceedingly rare not least because the next tier (high volume on low efficiency) palpably hurt the team as a whole. In any case, I'm still not convinced of your argument. I'm one of the few that believe Kobe was never the best player on any of his championship teams, but I still think that there is inherent value in high volume, mid-high efficiency scorers for a given NBA offense that isn't always readily apparent in the box score.
1) It's hard to take you argument seriously when your stats are wrong. In the last three years, LeBron has missed 13 games. The Heat record during that time is 7-6, which is considerably worse than their record with him during that time. 2) 13 games is not a very good sample. 80 games is. 3) If you want a better sample, look at the record of LeBron on his Cavs teams. These teams were contenders so they were considered "very good". 4) If you want an even better metric, look at what happened to the Cavs when LeBron left. Look at what happened to the Lakers when Shaq left. Look at what happened to the Heat when Shaq joined. Etc.
Well the reason I brought up AI, TMac, VC, etc is that they are considered a tier below Kobe because they didn't win. But if you put them on teams with Shaq, they too would have won. So it really comes down to teams. It's the same way I felt about Dominique Wilkins during the 80s... great player, considered a loser because his teams were shyte his whole career. But as far as these types of players go (and I really hesitate to group Allen in there because he's the rare example of a dominant all-around player who was excellent off the ball too)-- they are replaceable en masse by role players. If you have a great post player, you can surround him by lesser talent and have a winning team. It may not win all the time, but it will eventually win as a system. Look at Howard in Orlando-- that team was awful outside of Howard, but got to the Finals (to face a better team). In some years, it would have won. Now upgrade Howard to Shaq and you can see that the "superstar" perimeter talent isn't really needed to win titles.
Damn it I thought there were only 62 games last year. I will chalk that up as a loss. However, I am glad you brought up the Cavs. That team was terrible so to compare LeBron with and without him while comparing stacked Lakers teams with and without Kobe is a ridiculous way to judge things. What were the winning percentages for those pre Gasol teams with and without Kobe? If I remember correctly they were much worse when Kobe was out. The Heat were 5-1 this year without LeBron because they still had Bosh, Allen, etc. to pick up the slack. Kobe's effect on winning with those scrub Lakers team is a much better indicator of how valuable he is than to look at how well a team full of all stars was able to do without him.
Kobe took a crappy team to become merely mediocre. But LeBron took a crappy team to be a contender. That is why LeBron is a much better player than Kobe. A lot of decent players can take crappy talent to the playoffs. Eg, look at Gasol. Those Grizzlies teams he were on were nothing to write home about but he carried them to a couple of 50-win, first round exits, which is roughly what Kobe did after Shaq left. Same with Ray Allen, TMac, and so forth. Kobe is just like those guys except for 14/17 years he's been blessed with great teammates. LeBron has had great teammates for 3 years so far and this year is going to make it three straight Finals trips and probably two straight titles.
My argument has always been when Kobe was on a team that had a chance to win the title; this is where the 80 game sample comes from. That's why I don't include the three seasons post-Shaq in that sample because that team wasn't going to win with anyone in the league in Kobe's place. Although they probably would have at least gotten to the 2nd round with LeBron. This is actually the whole point. It's not efficient to build a team around Kobe-- that's what 2005-2007 was about-- because he's an inefficient perimeter scorer. Now you might say, well Kobe was "man" on the recent title teams but that isn't true. The "man" on those teams was the frontcourt, because that's what the other team had to worry about the most. That's where the mismatches were, and where the Laker advantage was. You could have plugged in any number of players for Kobe and that team would have won. Obviously this is somewhat speculative but it does come as no surprise to me that that team ran off some very good victories against playoff teams when Kobe sat-- what we saw then was just other players picking up his slack. Similarly, this current Laker team would be very good if Kobe didn't play-- and we'll see this next year. Contrast that to a guy like LeBron. Although his teams are built around him, they are very good when he is the "man". Taking that godawful Cleveland team to the Finals was one of the greatest individual accomplishments in NBA history and now that he actually has talent on his team, we're seeing that he can operate in a true winning environment too. It's not like LeBron needed _this_ much talent-- this is kind of unfair to the league-- but if he had, say, just Bosh, or just Gasol, that would have been enough to take those Cleveland teams over the top.
If Kobe Bryant is an efficient scorer/offensive player than so is almost every other shooting guard in the NBA over the past decade. Kobe has been top 3 in PER every year over the past 10 years. You are entitled to your opinion but I'd be willing to bet a majority of NBA coaches would have chosen Kobe to be on the bench before any other Laker during those championship years. [/QUOTE] That's where the mismatches were, and where the Laker advantage was. You could have plugged in any number of players for Kobe and that team would have won. [/QUOTE] If by any number you mean about 3-5. [/QUOTE] Obviously this is somewhat speculative but it does come as no surprise to me that that team ran off some very good victories against playoff teams when Kobe sat-- what we saw then was just other players picking up his slack. Similarly, this current Laker team would be very good if Kobe didn't play-- and we'll see this next year.[/QUOTE] Six month recovery time has him ready for the season opener. Kobe will likely be back before Christmas. [/QUOTE] It's not like LeBron needed _this_ much talent-- this is kind of unfair to the league-- but if he had, say, just Bosh, or just Gasol, that would have been enough to take those Cleveland teams over the top.[/QUOTE] He sure needed that and more in 2010. He had more than Bosh and Gasol in 2010 and still lost to an inferior team so that statement is very debatable.
I think it's very revealing how everyone rails on LeBron for 2011. It's actually very insulting to Dallas. Keep in mind that Dallas SWEPT the Phil Jackson led, 2-time defending Lakers (whom they didn't even have HCA against). Then they killed OKC. But no, they only beat the Heat because "LeBron choked". How about a little credit? The fact that everyone expects the Heat to win the title every year now just means they agree with LeBron when he made his "6, 7, 8" claim. And yet these same people will argue that Kobe is on the same level as LeBron, or, god forbid, even better. It's just nonsensical. I am getting tired of repeating this, but my argument is purely fact based. All I've done is taken contending teams and looked at their records with and without these "star" players. Looking at LeBron, his teams (and mind you, these are all high 50s-60s winning teams) have always been much worse without him. Same with Shaq. Same with Magic. Same with Bird. Not the same with Kobe. So one of these things is different than the rest. That's all I'm saying. I don't think you can put a player in a tier of legends when his team historically does great without him.
They did only beat the Heat because LeBron nutted up. You can check the stats/facts on that one. They won it and were the champions but I can't give them credit for LeBron being passive and unaggressive because that was on LeBron. LeBron and people that knew basketball all knew there was a real good chance that team would run through the league for years to come. They stacked the deck in a watered down league. Anything less than 3 is a failure minus a serious injury. Bad fact because it isn't using long periods of time and is only based on the regular season. What site are you using btw to see the wins with and without players?
LeBron didn't play great against Dallas, but a lot of that was how Dallas defended him, and no one ever brings that up. They also defended Kobe & Durant well BTW. LeBron also terrorized the Celtics & Bulls (two teams many here favored) in the previous rounds. I just think it's funny that his all-time failure is considered "only" getting to the Finals in his first year with a good team. And then he won the title the next year, will most likely win the title this year, and who knows after that. That's a pretty damn good run no matter who you are. The league is hardly watered down. OKC is a force and most favored them last year (they also had HCA)-- yet the Heat destroyed them. The Spurs are always dangerous. The Clippers and Grizz have upset potential. Compare this to what the Bulls had as competition in that expansion joke of an era. You can check numbers on basketball-reference. And 80 games isn't a bad sample. But also, just go by the eyeball test. Watch the Lakers when Kobe doesn't play. They are a good team. I guess you could point to the playoffs so far and argue otherwise, but I'd say, let's give it a few more games (and hopefully the Lakers have a backcourt for the next game). The Spurs, now that they are mostly intact, are one of the best teams in the league too.
You should take your own advice and you use the eyeball test for that series. Dallas might have played him well but he allowed them to take him out of the game. Any criticism that he gets for that series is well deserved and him winning the next year doesn't mean 2011 didn't happen. The league is most definitely watered down from what is used to be in the 80s and early 90s It went from 23 to 30 teams which has a huge effect on team depth. The expansion era is still going on and will unless the league contracts. All this extra time has just allowed for teams to become more and more diluted. Where in the hell is that tool on BR. I can't seem to find it. And I have used the eyeball test plenty when it comes to the Lakers (and your clippers) because i lived in LA for 4 years and watched a lot of those teams. I didn't see what you saw.
