Actually Wade was far and away the best player of that game, but go ahead and rewrite history if it helps you sleep at night.
You claimed Cavs wouldn't win more than 20 games just yesterday, now increase to 25 already after they just had a loss? You are really lack of confidence, bro.
Wow, you must really admire Lebron if you don't think the Cavs will win 25. I mean, this team won 66 and 61 games the last two years. Surely Lebron isn't worth that much, is he?
It's not that I can't bet on 25 games. But a man with some dignity should at least stick to his own words.
they won 66 games last yr. winning 25 games would be a 30% win rate. 20 games would be a 25% win rate. but hey, we can do that. i'll put down 50 if they win over 20 then. i put up 25 b/c the cavs suck so bad that a lot of teams will take a rain check when they play them like boston did. but hey, 20 is fine.
Sounds to me like you are a chicken*****. For the record, I think the Cavs will win between 25-30 games. Lebron is worth about 30 games (which puts the Heat around the high 60s).
From your article: "but let the record note that Team USA outscored Spain 93-68 when Wade was in the game, 73-71 when Bryant was in the game, 73-71 when James was in the game and 25-22 when Kidd was in the game" But stats don't mean anything unless they push your agenda, right, goodbug?
It's well known when it counts, you defer to the best player in the team, and live with the result. Kobe did just that and delivered.
That's not true. Otherwise no big men would be considered best players. When you need a big shot against pressure, you go to players who are capable of creating their own shots. Kobe is very good at this and he did hit big shots in the 4th. However, a game is decided throughout 4 quarters, not 1. It is just a nicer story to say games are won & lost in crunchtime. Wade had a better game because without him they would have been way behind in the 4th (he also delivered in the 4th but that is not so relevant). Lebron, too, had a good game. But just as importantly, these guys showed up throughout the whole Olympics. You can believe what you want, or buy into media hype or whatever. While stats don't tell 100% of the story, they are far less biased than what we remember. And the stats show that Wade was the MVP of this game and arguably the MVP of the Olympics (possibly sharing with Lebron, who was spectacular... Kobe, not so much).
It's not like Wade and Lebron are bigmen to begin with. And Hakeem went through those big possessions. And it's Olympics. Barkley had better Olympics than Jordan when they didn't have worthy opponent. The difference though, without Kobe, LeBron'd still be LeBronze today. They couldn't deliver for 2 consecutive tournaments and Kobe's there for rescue.
"Lebronze" barely even played in 2004 (he was coming off his rookie year). Maybe they would have lost without Kobe, but they certainly would have lost without Wade or Lebron. I'm not sure what your point is. If your argument is that Lebron is not a good player, I don't think you'll find anyone on the planet (outside of nutjob Kobe fans) who will agree with you.
Kobe shot USA out of several games, including the Gold Medal game. It would have been a 30 point blowout If Kobe was not there... Of course, no one remembers that...