Is LeBron more clutch than Kobe? [INTRIGUING GRAPHIC INSIDE]

[Professor Emeritus]

Jesus Christ.

This is going to be my last post in this thread, so don't even bother responding or quoting me.

That was four hours ago, and not only was it a weak as hell thing to say (Give me the last word please!), but you're still rolling?

So you can finally grasp 35% is greater than 33%. Good.

You're rolling with your math struggles in this whole thread, and now you're trying to talk about my math.

Now notice I got you bragging that Kobe's winning % INCLUDING Shaq is barely better than Lebron's.

Take out the 4 for 7 in the Shaq years, and 35% drops to 23%.

Of course, I'll let you take out Kobe's rookie year too, because unlike rookie Lebron, rookie Kobe wasn't remotely the best player on his team.

So Kobe gets a 25% success rate beating the West when it's "his" team.

And you say my narrative is bad while you compare Kobe Bryant to Scottie Pippen and Sam Jones.

2000 Kobe was nothing compared to peak Scottie. And Sam Jones is in the HOF, which a career of 2000 Kobe will never get you.

I didn't compare anyone to peak Kobe. But if you're counting "5-2!" like it's an end-all argument, then you have to defend 2000 Kobe as mattering more than any of Scottie's seasons. And you can't.



Here's another good question. When was Kobe's "peak" three seasons? That kills any "rings" argument.

 

[Codeine Bryant]

That was four hours ago, and not only was it a weak as hell thing to say (Give me the last word please!), but you're still rolling?

Nah, I was trying to save you the embarrassment of looking like an idiot repeatedly, but since you're still taking the bait, let me indulge you one last time.

In your own words:

And yes, when Kobe got injured at the moment the Lakers were sitting in the 9th seed...at which point the non-Kobe Lakers won three straight and pulled into the 8th seed only to be embarrassed by the Spurs...I think we can count that as a "loss". Sorry, Kobestan, that sorry Lakers team wasn't coming out of the West that year. You really, really have to reach.

You do realize that making an argument like, "But maybe we were about to win the Finals from the 9th seed so you can't count that year!" makes you look embarrassingly homerish to everyone who doesn't live in Kobestan?

With that being said, why don't you count LeBron not making it out of the East and into the Finals against him?

You do realize that making an argument like, "But maybe we were about to win the Finals without even winning the East so you can't count that year!" makes you look embarrassingly homerish to everyone who doesn't live in LeBronville?

LeBron didn't beat the best team in the West in 2004.
LeBron didn't beat the best team in the West in 2005.
LeBron didn't beat the best team in the West in 2006.
LeBron didn't beat the best team in the West in 2007.
LeBron didn't beat the best team in the West in 2008.
LeBron didn't beat the best team in the West in 2009.
LeBron didn't beat the best team in the West in 2010.
LeBron didn't beat the best team in the West in 2011.
LeBron didn't beat the best team in the West in 2014.
LeBron didn't beat the best team in the West in 2015.

But your math tells you that he's only 2 for 6.
Then again, you're same guy that thinks 33% is better than 35%

The crux of your argument revolves around penalizing Kobe for not winning 3 series and making it out of his own conference.
But you don't penalize LeBron for not winning 3 series and making it out of his conference.




What happens when LeBron loses ANOTHER Finals this year (assuming he even makes it)?
What crazy skewed sample size and biased parameters statistic will you trot out then?

This is the kind of idiocy I'm dealing with here. You have to desperately try and exclude Kobe's best postseason runs and at the same time exclude LeBron's worst postseason runs and then and only then can you make any sort of comparison between the two.

You thought you were slick trying to say LeBron only failed to beat the best in the West 4 times, but really you just exposed yourself as a biased stan who gets off comparing apples to prime rib and calling it a "fair" comparison.

1999-2000: 22.5ppg, 6.3rpg, 4.9apg on 46.8% FG%
2000-2001: 28.5ppg, 5.9rpg, 5.0apg on 46.4% FG%
2001-2002: 25.2ppg, 5.5rpg, 5.5apg on 46.9% FG%

These are the Championship years you're trying to discount cause he wasn't Scottie Pippen or Sam Jone status?

2000 Kobe was nothing compared to peak Scottie. And Sam Jones is in the HOF, which a career of 2000 Kobe will never get you.

Kobe's 99-2000 season avgs are better than Sam Jones CAREER avgs. And Kobe was just starting to reach superstardom.
Sam Jones' peak was 25.9, 5.1, 2.8 on 45.2%
Scottie Pippen's peak was 22.0, 8.7, 5.6 on 49.1%

Do you even research or actually know half the shyt you say, or did you think you could just make up some more statistics in your head?

After doing my googles, it turns out you're a bigger idiot than I previously thought.