Kobe's ability as a "closer" needs to be called out

According to the stats, Landry is the best closer in the league!!! Damn!! I knew we should have traded Landry for Lebron or Kobe!!

I also always knew that Yao and Francis were better closers than T-mac.!!! according to the stats.

 

Dude I'm just posting stats to help out the discussion. Just wanted to point out how our fellow Rockets stacked up because this is a Houston Rockets forum after all.

 

The difference being as I said before, Kobe has many more Championship rings to prove it. All that matters when looking back in time. If Jordan had won only one championship, would we be asking if he was the best closer? Or What if Hakeem had won 6 championships? Would he have been the best closer ever??

The hardware matters. It's a fact. When Melo and Lebron beat Kobe head to head, and starts to close in on Kobe's rings then the tide will change. Until then the others are still trying to catch up.

 

I understand, I was just pointing out you can't always use "just" stats to crown the best closer in the league.

 

go back and find me the last Rockets Playoff CLOSER (aka winning the freaking series) and tell me who you find.

 

Yeah, you could tell the Lakers really owned the Celtics on the Celtics' floor. They ALMOST had that game #6, fo sho.

 

Hmm... Robert Horry has more rings. And I don't have time to check his stats, but I seem to remember him hitting quite a bit of game winning shots. So, Horry better than Kobe?

Ring-counting is THE most overrated way of measuring a player's greatness because the ring-counters fail to comprehend (no matter how many times you tell them) championship is a TEAM, not an individual, achievement.

 

So being the best closer means being the best players? Great logic.

 

That's right. Keep looking out the window at the Earth with your naked eyes and think it's flat and ignore what science tells you.

 

you're twisting it around, horry wasn't the leader of the team. It does take teams to win games, plain and simple, its a cohesive sport. It also takes a unique leader(not always verbal, but by example) to will yourself through this season and lead them to the championship. Jordan had off games, missed game winners, one way or another, when he was the leader, the cap of the ship, they ended up winning 6 championships. Even when kobe was with shaq, shaq was the best player, but kobe was also a star on that team and nother leader who was averaging over 20,25 so just as crucial. Its just like jordan who never won a title until pippen another top 50 player came in, doesnt take away from it, it takes a team to win, but as jordan was the leader they came through and got it done. Hardware matters, kobe has got it.

Once wade,lebron, melo start stacking up multiple rings one way or another, they aren't in the convo. until then they are more like donique wilkens(who at seasons averaged around 30-8-3-2, basically huge stats considered one of the best in the game at the time and can change a game, but nevver brought in the hardware is a leader, he wasn't the only reason, team matters, but thats the way it goes down and teh responsibility as a leader, you get the glory and you take the fall

 

Kobe was certainly a star in '01 and '02, but he wasn't even in the top 5 as far as leaders for the veteran Lakers squad. That is well-documented.

 

Simply, yes. The best players on your team are usually your closers. You don't bring a guy off the bench to be your closer.

As far as Horry, He was just a piece to the puzzle. He wasn't ever option 1. He was the guy left open when defenses collapse on your closer. No one person can win titles, but when your defense collapses on your closer, Horry was generally left open being a shooting power forward. He had the benefit of playing with Hakeem, Shaq and Horry. But if I remember right he still was crown with the nickname Mr. Clutch.

 

That's my point, Stats are not tell all be all. It matters most on what you do on the big stage and at big moments. When someone wins multiple rings and has been there done that and has the hardware, you can't just say "well so and so's numbers are better, so he must be best closer".

Going purely by stats without ever watching a game might take you to the conclusion that Horry or Landry are the best closers in today's game. When in fact kobe has been the goto guy on everyone of his teams. Mind you there was a power struggle between Shaq and Kobe and Shaq had to move on.

 

Horry had the benefit of playing with Horry?

 

What someone "sees" (and doesn't bother to quantify) means nothing. I watched Game 6 last night. I had a plate of tasty fries with me, and I imagine a lot of people snack during games as well. I "watched the game," but between my fries and Jeff Van Gundy's jokes, I failed to retain a lot of information about what happened on the court. Lots of people will probably remember Jordan Farmar's highlight dunk. How many people remember that he shot 2-6? There are ten players with numerous different interactions between them happening on each play. It's impossible to mentally record everything.

Actually, it is possible to watch the game and record everything. But that requires discipline, time, and effort. Watching the game in that way would bear no resemblance to the way most people casually enjoy the game. If I were analyzing this game as a job, I would be watching a recording of it with notebooks, charts, and a computer in front of me. I would take notes on every play (replaying each play more than once) and leave nothing out. It would probably take hours to do this. And when all is said and done, I will have written down a whole bunch of...stats.

 

I don't think you got my point. People who say, "Don't look at the stats, just watch the games" are like people who did not believe the earth was round because their eyes told them it was flat. The point is, your perception does not always tell you the truth. You have to rely on science, which is what advanced statistical metrics are.

Winning a championship means you are on the best team. Being the best player on the best team does NOT necessarily mean that you are the best player OF THE LEAGUE. You can be the 5th best player of the league and still be the best player on the best team. But you can also be the best player of the league and be on the 5th best team.

 

Really? Called into question? So who is exactly a closer acording to real GM? And how many game winners have they made? This is yet another pointless thread....

 

More championships prove that Kobe is a winner, not necessarily the better closer. Look at all the rings that Shaq has. Would you say he is one of the best closers ever? There are a lot of factors like teammates among others. Kobe also has the benefit of being in the league longer so he has a head start on Lebron or Melo if you're saying championships measures closing ability. Not saying Kobe isn't the best closer right now, but he's not the best because he has all those rings.

You say you can't just look at stats but you're main selling point in why Kobe is the best closer is a stat (# of titles).

Athletes lie, fans lie but numbers don't lie . Looking at the Clutch stats, the top 5 scorers during clutch time are Lebron, Kobe, Dirk, Carmello and Nash. Would it be safe to say those are the best closers in the game right now? I would agree with that list.

 

Robery Horry wasnt a creator or ball handler, foolish comparison

 

lol, that was beautiful