I don't think the Nuggets or Clippers or Grizz could beat the Spurs, but it's not out of the realm of possibility (unlike Miami). Actually the team I think that has the least chance against the Spurs would be GS because the Spurs are fundamentally very solid and it's a lot easier for fundamental teams to lockdown the perimeter than the interior (which requires physical matchups). At this point I'd say there's a 50% chance that the Spurs come out of the West. They looked very good against the Lakers but that could also just be the Lakers sucking so much with their entire backcourt in the injury ward.
If you honestly believe Kobe did not help the Lakers win 5 championships, get some serious help. I guess we also don't know if MJ helped the Bulls or if Tim Duncan helped the Spurs win their 6 and 4 titles either. Sure, taking a small sampling of games and blowing them up over Kobe's entire 17 year NBA career (including playoffs) makes sense if you want them to. Most sane people can watch basketball and see what happens. You should join the club. Oh, and we know you are wrong plenty of times. Don't have to remind us. This is just the stupidest example because you refuse to admit how utterly ridiculous your statement is. You remind me of another guy here about 3-4 years ago who tried to argue that basketball was not a global sport. His stubbornness made him look moronic, just like you.
I don't even think he's out of bounds calling Kobe the most overrated ever. If he wants to believe that, I may disagree, but certainly that's at least somewhat reasonable. It's the "no positive impact" that really is just laughable.
You seem to like to attack the poster instead of the argument. I get a lot of anger out of you. Relax man, it's just a game. Yes, I believe Kobe Bryant is very often a negative to his team and had he not existed in the league, the Lakers would have won roughly the same number of championships (maybe one or two more, maybe one or two less). I'm sorry if you don't share that opinion or think I'm crazy because of it. I like stats because they are objective and everything else is just one fan's opinion over what they saw. The stats don't put Kobe in the light that the media paints him in. The win/loss sample I have is not comprehensive but it is like 80 games which isn't nothing either. The individual advanced stats (which are always going to be flawed since the NBA is a team sport) also don't elevate Kobe to where the media would have you believe. And, my 'eyeball' test (which I think we should throw out since it is speculative) tells me that the guy misses an awful lot of shots, even big shots, yet has got this reputation for being a big time performer because he has hit a few spectacular ones. Compile the records for MJ and Duncan when they were out vs in and we can see how they stack up too. I happen to believe that MJ is also overrated but not nearly as much as Kobe because he played the game in a very efficient manner and was much more capable off the ball, which is a very important asset in team ball (Kobe is a terrible off ball player, which is one reason I didn't think the 2012 experiment would work, and why he's always so useless in the Olympics). You can rant and rave and call me nuts but you aren't bringing anything to the table. Give me a counter argument other than "5 rings"... or don't if you think it's stupid to even discuss. I don't really care.
I detest Kobe. VERY VERY MUCH! From day 1 of his Lakers career. I had to thoroughly wash my hands after that last post.
My "argument" was he won 5 championships as the best or 2nd best player on his team and I actually watched the games (like everyone else). Your "argument" is taking a small sample of regular season games and extrapolating them over his lengthy 1400 game, 17 year career. Do you have any clue about very small sample sizes and how they aren't necessarily representative of the whole? Let me guess: You hadn't even thought of that. Will you also please drop the nonsense about "the media" being responsible for Kobe's reputation as a player? People aren't media lapdogs just because they disagree with you. Also, there are a good many of us who feel Kobe is overrated (but not to the point of blindness because we dislike him). Nice dodge/diversion by calling me angry. Don't worry, I'm not.
Haha, it's not a dodge/diversion. Up until now all your posts are "you're stupid" which just adds nothing unless it's to make you feel better. If you think that my take on Kobe is stupid, then skip it and ignore. There's no reason to attack me personally since it is just a discussion, no matter how stupid you think it is. I'm not going to go on the Flat Earth Society boards and call them a bunch of idiots. The only people I'll personally attack here are obvious trolls or homers who are just trying to rub **** in, like GreatOne1978, goodbug, and our new favorite, 'what', and even then it is all in good fun unlike your anger-laced tirades. Now, as far as what you've said here, the argument is that Kobe has been the best or second best player on five championship teams. I have not denied that. Nor have I said he's a bad player. I think he's one of the most talented players in NBA history. However, I do not think he positively impacts his team, and this is borne out of both watching many games (I was at most of the Laker playof games in the 90s and early 00s) and from the available stats. Now the kneejerk reaction is that it is insane to say that a guy that is averaging 25+ ppg is not a positive impact to his team. But by that same token, one would not expect that taking him off the team would consistently result in quality wins against good opposition, whether that be during the Shaq years or the Gasol years. In 2010 (I think) the Lakers reeled off 5/6 wins against playoff teams, including one against a Portland team on the road they hadn't beaten in forever, and the only loss was a buzzer beater to the then, top East Celtics. I think your claim that a handful of games over many seasons is not statistically significant is incorrect. It doesn't matter if it was 1 game a season for 80 seasons.. if the data consistently shows a pattern, once you have enough data, it's significant. So the argument is really whether 80 games is significant, and I think it is. I'd say that if it were any player but I have yet to find a star that produces these same dramatic results as Kobe. Further, I watched how these Laker teams played and it's no fluke. If you look at how the triangle offense works, the whole idea is to have interchangeable pieces around a post option (often two post options). In the Chicago triangle, MJ was the primary option in the post and the most important player on the floor. But in the Laker triangles, that was Shaq and then later Gasol/Bynum. It's not that Kobe wasn't important, and didn't play his role well, but he was replaceable by the nature of the system, and that's why the team never suffered when he sat. Moreover, when Kobe chose (and still chooses) to dominate the ball, he took away from the efficiency of the system, and this is what happened in 2004 (and, I'd argue, this year as well even though we were looking at a whole new system). Kobe is a volume shooting swingman, much like a host of guys before him. He has a better reputation than them because he has been on a lot of very good teams and, to his credit, has had a long career. But if you look at it in a vacuum-- taking away the fortune of good teammates-- give me an argument why he is better than, say, Dominique Wilkins? And why the Lakers wouldn't have won without him (I'd assume they'd fill his salary with some adequate role players). Why was it that when an over-the-hill Shaq went to Miami-- a team that was ousted in the first round the year before and lost their second best player (Odom) in the trade-- they were immediate contenders and won the title the next year... and the Lakers, from the same trade, went from contenders to lotto. You may not be slaves to the media highlights, but I don't think most of you have really thought, objectively, about how teams would do without their alleged "stars", and I do think the media over-emphasizes their importance in the grand scheme of things. Some stars are more valuable than others, and some aren't valuable at all. Why is Denver suddenly a good team even though they lost their star? Why is Memphis so good even though they lost their two most hyped perimeter scorers (in the Kobe mold BTW)? I'm sure you'll just blow off these legitimate questions because, hey, it's crazy to question a guy who has such accolades and numbers. And I'm totally fine with it because I expect nothing more from most fans. But I don't appreciate being insulted because it makes you come off as a prick.
You are compiling wins from short stretches from the regular season. Teams can play well without players for short periods of time even if they aren't very good in the long term. You should be able to realize this because the Lakers just fooled you at the end of this season by winning against good teams without Kobe and then getting crushed in the playoffs. Thinking that missing one game a season for 80 seasons compared to missing 80 games in one season makes no difference is flat out terrible btw. You don't know how good data analysis is done if you don't see a huge distinction between the two. Also, you should know better than to use regular season success to determine how well a team would have done in the post season. I get that you have data to back up your point that Kobe has no positive impact on winning but you need to realize that the data that you are using is very flawed.
Basically your data shows that without Kobe the Gasol and Shaq Lakers can win a similar percentage of regular games in the short term that they could win with Kobe in the long term. However, it does not not prove that Kobe has no positive impact on winning.
The Lakers lost the top four players in their backcourt rotation by the time they came to Staples, so we had a few more variables than just Kobe being out. While I have no doubt that, in that situation, Kobe would have helped them (although I still see a sweep here), that's not really the point I was making. Kobe helped them in 2005-2006 too; my argument was always talking about Kobe's impact on contending teams, which is where the 80 games is from. To put it simply, if the Lakers were fully healthy this year, they would have been better without Kobe than with him, because they would have a better hierarchy and would have exploited offensive mismatches better. It is perfectly good statistics to look at one game a season for 80 seasons as long as the game is random. If there is a pattern, once you have enough data, it will show up. If you want to argue that 80 games isn't enough, that's fair. Anyway, I'm cool with people thinking however they want about this. I think he guy is overrated and easily replaceable, especially if you consider his salary. If emotions weren't involved in sports and fans, I'm sure the front office of theirs would agree with me too.
Sustainability is key and that is why the one game for 80 seasons is not a proper analysis. Teams would adjust a lot more in the 80 straight games than they would for just one game at a time. I agree that Kobe is no longer worth $30MM and the front office could put that money to better use.
Sound logic like this doesn't count. The salaries of Kobe and Pau will be millstones around the Lakers necks next season. They might be able to get some relief by trading Pau since it's only about $20MM and is expiring.
So trying to get this back on topic, what's the consensus for the game tonight? Sounds like Griffin will be out or extremely limited, which sucks. I would hope it would cause the coach to switch to the smaller lineup that has given the Grizz trouble all year long, but with Vinny I'm betting he'll just play Turiaf or Hollins more minutes, LOL. The only thing giving me any hope is that the Clippers have won pretty much every "must win" game against the Grizzlies in the last two years so there's that, but it's also clear that they are pretty outclassed by that the Grizz. Hopefully it'll be a good game. I assume most of you won't see it since the league schedule it the same time as the Rockets/OKC game.
[Obvious is obvious] With Griffin limited(if he plays), Paul will have to go off again and probably someone else too. I think Memphis will win but I guess LA could always surprise.
Its different this time man, Hollins has exposed Del Negro and the Clippers can't stop the number of counters the Grizz keeps coming up with
Cant believe the Clippers are in this given that half the team is in foul trouble already. Joey is just the worst.
I can't believe Vinny continues to give that fossil Billups minutes when we have Bledsoe and Green just waiting to get burn. And Matt Barnes is having the game of his life yet Vinny doesn't want to risk giving him a few more minutes in the most important game of the year.