From my observations of several Laker games, especially the playoffs, Kareem Rush has demonstrated shooting abilities comparable to those of Steve Kerr. I think Luke Walton is a quite talented player with unlimited potential -- his passing abilities and understanding of the game make him the smartest Laker. The greatest obstacle facing the Lakers' team chemistry will be Kobe himself - will Kobe involve his teammates in the offense or opt to score 40-50 points a game against double and triple teams? That remains to be seen. Back to topic: as an all-around player and offensive weapon, T-Mac, IMHO is better than Kobe Bryant. For one thing, although T-Mac's game bares some similarity's to Jordan, T-Mac is far more original than Kobe. Kobe has ripped Jordan off in so many ways (the way he posts up, shooting his free throws, getting up from the bench, the way he TALKS SOUNDS JUST LIKE JORDAN). T-Mac is a great shooting guard with great untapped potential to become the best player in this game, while Kobe to me, is a pale imitation of Jordan. The only area where T-Mac lacks is his defense; Kobe is a decent defender, but Kobe's defense is no match for Jordan's. I hope T-Mac buys into Van Gundy's philosphy and becomes as relentless on defense as he is on offense -- it could be similar to how Phil Jackson helped transform Shaq from a good defensive player to a GREAT ONE.
Parker could be inconsistent when his backup was as solid as Speedy Claxton or they could just bring in Steve Kerr. Last season they didn't have that solid backup and they had to play Parker even after the Lakers punked him out of the series. Stephen Jackson is not a journeyman, the only reason the guy didn't show anything before San Antonio was because he was in New Jersey with Marbury, he did fine in Atlanta and will be fine in Indiana. Bruce Bowen is only one of the top 3 perimeter defenders in the game, and one of the top 3 point shooters. Danny Ferry didn't even play much, David Robinson with a bad back was still better than every center they played during that run outside of Shaq. Lets not forget the other guys Duncan had on those teams like Avery Johnson, Mario Elie, Manu Ginobili, Steve Smith, Sean Elliot, Antonio Daniels. Shaq didn't win anything of worth before Bryant, didn't reach the Finals until he had the best quard in the NBA playing with him, didn't win until he had an even better guard playing with him. Look at Penny Hardaway's games played after Shaq left, he had surgeries every other month, but he wasn't picked 3rd in the draft because the Magic thought Shaq can MAKE him into the best guard in the league.
I think using the same logic, you can say Dream had a lot of help in the 94 title run. You can't bring out the bright side of those players and pretend them to be stars. They were very inconsistent(Parker), mistake prone(S. Jackson) or ready to retire(Robinson). Can I say Thorpe was better than any Spurs front court players not named Duncan? 14.1 pts 10.3 rbs. 'Nuff said. Mad Max, Horry and Cassell were no slouch. The Jet could be killing when he was feeling it. But they were still role players. At 25 Shaq was more proven than Bryant now. He dominated in the best era of the centers. In fact, a young Shaq matched up very well against Dream at his peak, who arguable had one of the most dominant playoff run ever. If you pull out their full stat in the finals, Dream didn't dominate Shaq. They were about even. It was the lack of experience and performance of the other players that killed the Magic. Bryant only proved he could get three titles with by far the most dominant player in his early career. Something Pippen, Mad Max and Clyde the Glide already proved. He also proved he could be shut down in a entire series and hurt his team with his selfish cockiness.
You gotta be kidding me, Kareem Rush canNOT shoot like Steve Kerr could, Steve Kerr was probably the best 3 point shooter of all time, Rush will NEVER be mentioned with guys like him. Luke Walton looks like he's going to be a fine player, but he only had one good game and then the Pistons took him out, much like they took out the red head on the Nets. So what? You act like Jordan didn't rip Dr. J off in so many ways, people need to stop using those kinds of comparisons, they really miss out on a lot. Instead of just watching guys like Bryant, Carter, Stackhouse, Finley, Lebron and other great SGs play they want to waste time saying that some of their moves look like Jordan's but they weren't as good as Jordan, so what? Watch them play their own game and don't worry about them not being as good as Jordan, and if one ever becomes better don't live in denial. BTW, you know who Jordan ripped off his speech patterns from? Phil Jackson. How many times does Bryant have to make the All Defensive FIRST team for people to see that he's not an average defender. There goes that Jordan comparison again, why does it matter if he's not as good? You're also missing out on the most important area where those two guys are apart on, clutch play, Bryant is the best in the league while Tracy isn't even in the conversation. I would of taken Yao Ming's defense as a rookie over any defense Shaq has played over the last 3 years. He played GREAT defense one season, and it was recognized with his only MVP award, after that he was back to old Shaq again. We'll see what happens with Tracy and Van Gundy, he obviously has the physical tools to be a great defensive player but some say his skills on defense need plenty of work, that's why he relies so much on his height and length.
best player does not have to be all historical, like Jordan is still the best, It should be who would you take given a choice. Pick TMac, I wouldn't trade him straight up for Kobe. No way. Kobe is great, but his arrogance takes points off, TMac is the man. no doubt about it.
I haven't seen anyone bring up Kobe's status as perhaps the best clutch player in the game today. Kobe has always been the closer for the Lakers, much like Jordan was for the Bulls. Remember those two insane 3's to clinch the division title on the last day of the season against Portland? That's is the type of take-the-last-shot mentality that I believe truly seperates the men from the boys. That is what made Larry, Jordan, Hakeem and all the other truly elite players special, and I am convinced Kobe has this quality. As for Tmac...he certainly has the potential. And he certainly has had his share of heroic moments...but not on the grand playoff stage Kobe has OWNED for the last half-decade. He will have his opportunity though; if not this year, certainly in those to come. Until then, it's Kobe. Their talents are almost identical...I consider it a regular-season wash. But when it counts the most, Kobe is usually at his best...hopefully we will be able to decisively say the same about McGrady after this season. Until then, it's Kobe.
Those kobe worshippers are really annoying. They take away ANY credits from others just to make sure their Saint Kobe looking great. Of course Shaq, Duncan and KG are nothing special. Even MJ, Magic and Bird were overrated. When things go wrong, it's his teammates', coaches', referees', medias' and even the fans' faults. So pls dont bother to argue with them and lets see how Saint Kobe win the championships next year. Of course when things go wrong they will cliam that the games are "fixed". Laker fans claim the games are fixed, really funny stuff!
Kobe worshippers should go back watch the LA vs Detroit game again. Shaq was destroying the Pistons, while Kobe was completely destroyed by Prince, except in game 2 when Hamilton let him open to shoot a 3. If Prince actually defended that shot, it would have less than 10% chance of going in, like rest of Kobe's 3 pointers in the series. Kobe was just experiencing other elite SGs like AI, Pierce, T-Mac regularly experience: actually being the focus of the defense. It makes a hell of a difference, doesn't it?
Nope. By Clutch's definition, YOF refers to those who wont follow rockets any more if Yao leave the team. I'm YOF but I'm no Yao worshipper. Personally I think Yao worshippers are also annoying as hell.
Have you been following, this was one of jumpman's key point. I counter the team has been on Shaq's back to even allow the the oppertunity for Kobe to make some plays at the end. Who is to say Tmac could not have closed most fo those games out after Shaq did the bulk of the lifting. The workhorse all game and all series is more important than just the guy you go to for the end stretches of the game. Jordan wasn't just the "closer" (like Kobe) but his primary role was the workhorse (like Shaq) in addition. The closer role doesn't matter if you don't have the beast to dominate the majority of the game/series. By this account Reggie Miller, Danny Ainge, John Stockton and Robert Horry were among the best players ever. I do give them a lot of credit for being clutch guys and hitting tons of big shots, but let's not put them with the true heavy lifters like the Jordans, Hakeems, Shaqs and Duncans of the world. For now Kobe belongs with the Pippen's, Drexler's, Ewing's, Robinson's, great players who nonetheless were not great enough to personally lead teams to titles. In fact I wouldn't put Kobe with Malones, Barkleys or Robinsons just yet (I reconsidered DR, as much as he is a giant soft weenie mermaid, Kobe does not have his resume yet)--who though they could not deliver titles as lead banana's got their teams pretty close and had monster MVP seasons (like 30-10, 26-12-6apg, 28-12-3bpg, type years, etc.) while leading their teams to the best records in their conferences if not the league. We will see for Kobe. I don't think his new team will be close to title contention personally, nor do I expect a league or especially playoff MVP to ever have Kobe's name on it.
How can you outscore Shaq over two full seasons consistently and not be the workhorse? Perhaps early Shaq was the man, but for the last 2-3 years, while Shaq misses his usual 15-20 games with various injuries and gives his usual 50% effort, Kobe gradually replaced him as the go-to scorer for the Lakers. If you don't agree with me, go ask Jerry Buss...he's already made his decision about who defines the Lakers and makes them go. As for Miller, Ainge, etc...the difference between those guys and Kobe is so readily apparent that I wonder if I should even continue this discussion. Since you normally make very valid arguments I will continue on the assumption that such obvious inferences will go unchallenged in the future. Please don't make me wrong. To even be considered in this class, we're talking multiple All-Star games, MVPs, First-Team All-NBA and the like. Again, I thought that was obvious. Anyway, my point about the 'separating' was that among those who have clearly established themselves as stars (like Kobe, not Ainge), the All-Time greats are those who are at their best when it counts the most. Kobe is one of those guys. In the last two minutes of a crucial game, Shaq becomes irrelevant because of his foul shooting. That is when Kobe does the heavy lifting. When it counts the most. Which is why he is one of the best ever.
Kobe outscores Shaq because he plays more than Shaq. You're right. Shaq has been missing chuncks of time, during which Kobe has not led the Lakers to a not-so-sparkling recored. But when Shaq plays, which includes all the oh-so-important playoff games, he is the workhorse as the offense does revolve around him. At least, when Kobe doesn't just start ignoring people and start to iso by himself. YOU are the one missing the point here. All "clutch" players have one thing in common. That is they play on great teams. You don't get to show off your clutchness unless you're consistently in games on national television. Opportunity has more say in determining how one's "clutch" than anything else. There's a reason why people here thinks Elie's 3s are clutch, yet would think you're smoking if you claim the same for Pike. The difference, of course, is that Elie spent his time on teams winning championships and going deep into the playoffs. Pike spent his career basically never showing up on national television. The idea is that Kobe, like Horry, Kerr, Miller, and many others before him, simply had the opportunity to be clutch. Even if a player hits only 40% of his shots in the clutch(a low %), but plays 40 times on national TV, gets into 30 close games, takes the important last-minute shot 20 times, he still gets to be "clutch" 8 times. A player(hint: T-Mac) playing a few TNT games in the regular season, in which his team is likely to go up against a superior team and therefore losing a lot, is never going to be labeled a clutch player no matter how good he is in the final minutes of a game.
The Lakers OVERALL record without Shaq is about as good as the Magic's record with McGrady, that's with teammates that work with Shaq's game a lot better than Bryant's. That makes no sense, players like Kobe can show how clutch they are more often because they are clutch to begin with, if they weren't they would lose more often. Tracy had his chances in the playoffs and he failed, other guys that he still thinks he's better than outperformed him when it counted. HUH??? Won't you see highlights of those shots even if they aren't on national TV, like Bryant's 3s against Portland? If you ask Jerry West or Michael Jordan about their missed last-minute shots they'll tell you they missed more than they made, so what? Why does it matter if he comes on TNT or not? If he hits a game winning/tieing shot the public will know about it. When the Magic were in the playoffs and on TNT he never showed off his clutch ability, Darrell Armstrong made more clutch plays than Tracy did and the star on the other team usually made more plays than Tracy. In the end what matters the most is coming out of close games with the win, some players can do that no matter who’s guarding him, how his teammates are playing or how good the opposing team is, some don’t.
Milos, have you seen the Lakers record when Shaq was out and Kobe had to do the heavy lifting. It wasn't pretty. [Actually jumpman put it real well, Kobe's record is about like Tmac's record, exactly!! That is why while I think Kobe is a great player, you are not talking about a guy who is so great he can make a whole team be elite with him has the primary talent. He could prove me wrong, but I doubt it, these kinds of player not only have to deliver their individual production but make their teammates better. And I think thats what seperates a tmac or Kobe from a Duncan or Shaq or Jordan or Magic--the latter two to prove I don't have a bias against guards] Have they got a ring with Kobe scoring more than Shaq. Nope. If Shaq was 20something like Kobe do you think they would have traded him and built the team around Kobe. Of course not. You set the criteria as hitting big shots at the end of games as what seperates the greatest players (similar line as Jumpman). That is why I brought up Reggie, Ainge, Stockton, etc. I said no, carrying teams on your back, earning MVPS (playoffs and season), and being floor dominanting lead horses on the way to titles defines the greatest players. Kobe has yet to get an MVP of any kind, Shaq has what 5 or so combined. For every championship Kobe has, there was no doubt Shaq was the lead banana, same with Pippen to Jordan. For the record Stockton has been 1st team, Reggie Miller probably has not but probably has been on 2nd or 3rd team. Reggie Miller is also universally noted for being one of the clutchest players ever. Not one fo the greatist, but one of the clutchest. Also, what is also common among Stockton, Pippen, Drexler, and Kobe? Yes they have been 1st teamers, but they have never even sniffed at playoff or league MVPs. There is a big difference between these guys, Kobe included, and multiple MVP, multiple championship on their back players like Jordan, Hakeems, Shaqs, Birds, Magics etc. No one in their right mind puts Kobe in these guys class. At least win 1 championship as a lead banana and get an MVP first. I guess if you have a really loose definition of best ever. Kobe is certainly a top 50 player--as other guys with comparable overal resumes are like Isiah, Stockton, Pippen, Drexler, etc--but you have a really hard case saying he is one of the top 20 players to ever play and it is ludicres to put him in the top 10 among the true giants of the game. In my mind he isn't even sniffing a title as "one of the best ever" players anymore than Pippen or Stockton are (they aren't, or at least shouldn't). Great player, yes, but lets not get carried away and make such declarations like "one of the best ever" lose meaningfullness by equating it merely with an all-nba 1st teamer.
I disagree completely... The definition of Clutch is performing at one's best in the most meaningful of circumstances. That is the major distinction. Anyone can hit a buzzer-beater or two throughout the course of a career. Moochie can even claim that distinction. TV coverage has nothing to do with it. It is consistently playing into late June, regardless of TV coverage, that gives a player the opportunity to get the reputation of a 'clutch' player. TV exposure is just an added bonus for consistently coming through in the 'clutch'; it does not define it. Plenty of players have been given TV exposure without garnering a 'clutch' reputation. Vince Carter comes to mind. This guy was the prima donna superstar darling of the league a few years back. He and his team peaked when he chocked in the playoffs a few years ago in the Eastern Conference Finals. Since then he has spiraled down amidst rumors of being soft, disinterested, and somenone who shirks responsibility and leadership. Now what is the difference between Carter and Bryant? Is one more talented than the other? If anything, I'd say Vince is the more athletically-gifted one. Is one more 'hyped' or 'exposed' than the other? Vince still leads the All-Star voting every year, and he has had his playoff chances in the pathetic East. NO! The difference is Kobe repeatedly seizes the moments he is given, as all the great ones do, while Vince has squandered them away. That is the definition of Clutch. When a player who has been given such an opportunity takes hold of the situation by the throat and consistently comes through for his team over multiple championship runs, you have the rare kind of player that Kobe is. Like many before him, he takes control of games as they become more important and crucial. Tmac has not had this same opportunity yet; I truly believe that is the only thing holding him back from Kobe-level greatness. Once he has that big stage, I am fully confident he will grab hold of it just like Kobe does. But until then Kobe is still the best 4th-quarter player in basketball.
And about the Shaq thing... I completely understand that Shaq WAS the lead dog, up until about 2-3 years ago. But he has since been old, out-of-shape, and basically disinterested. If anything, the Finals this year proved my point. Shaq was actually producing about the same thoughout every playoff series, and continued his excellent production in the Finals. Kobe, however, had his worst Finals ever, and subsequently lost in the Finals for the first time. Shaq has already lost in the Finals twice, proving that even Shaq at his best cannot carry a championship team. He needs help. And that is where Kobe comes in. He is the killer. And I don't see how it is a knock on him to suggest Shaq carries the team. Does the grace and consistency of Kareem overshadow the brilliance of Magic? What about the all-around dominance of a young Oscar Robertson? Does Karl Malone's low-block greatness in any way diminish the uncanny decision-making of Stockton? I don't see it as a hinderence to greatness to be surrounded by it. Kobe and Shaq were equally responsible for those championships. Whereas Shaq was the lead pony for the first three quarters, everyone always knew the 4th was Kobe's time to shine. And he almost always came through. When he didn't, the Lakers didn't win. It's as simple as that.
The Lakers without Shaq and outside of Bryant were about as average as the Magic oustide of Tracy, but they didn't get to play in the LEast and the team wasn't built to play off of Bryant. Anyway, show me a guard that make teams elite without great players around him, you can't, show me a Jordan team over .500 that didn't have Pippen, show me a Magic team that didn't have a Hall of Famer on it. Show me a Shaq team that accomplished anything in the playoffs without one of the NBA's First team guards, he had the NBA's best guard every year he went to the Finals. Duncan I might be wrong about, but to me he gets a lot of help and didn't carry a team nearly as much as Hakeem or Moses Malone did. It seems like you want Kobe Bryant to prove himself, he already has, yet you might want him to do it AGAIN? Let him prove that he can't carry a team like Jordan and Magic did, next season it's going to be pretty tough because his team isn't that good and everyone else in the West is. However, I can see the Lakers improving enough during the next offseason to jump back into the West's elite teams, he's 26 so he has more than enough time to prove himself (AGAIN) anyway.
1) First of all, this comparison, as previously stated, is incomplete. Comparing Kobe vs Tmac is, in a strange way, like comparing Kobe (at 25) vs MJ (at 25). Kobe currently is better than MJ was at the same age. He has a more rounded offensive game, he is already a better 3 point shooter than MJ ever was, and he has been winning championships, regardless of what he has "around him." Tmac has played with, basically, zilch throughout his career. So we'll see what he does with a "full" cast this year. 2) How many game winning shots does Kobe have to hit before people start realizing how great this guy. I, by the way, can't stand the guy, but if he had the personality of a Ray Allen, for example, he would be hailed as the next coming. Kobe, excluding his last finals, has consistently been the most reliable clutch player in the game. On top of that, he regularly shuts down his man and puts up 25-30 ppg (by the way, Pippen never got higher than 22 ppg playing with Jordan, so I think it safe to say he and Kobe are not equal players). When it comes to basketball talent and greatness, who cares that he is an arrogant SOB? That doesn't diminish what he's done on the court.
