Says the guy who jumps into every threat to ramble about Kobe and LeBron
WHAT THREAD ARE WE IN SMH
Is LeBron more clutch than Kobe? [INTRIGUING GRAPHIC INSIDE]
- Thread starter KEEPITTRILLA
- Start date
WHAT THREAD ARE WE IN SMH
Is it 2011???
Kobestan is STILL sitting on "he played on Shaq's team, therefore he was better" as their argument.
But I thought that matchups against the weak East don't count?
How come you are always bragging about Kobe's Finals record when those games were against the East? Lebron had to face the much more powerful West in his Finals, so the matchups are incomparable, right?
Actual meaningful comparison? Since Kobe kicked Shaq out of town (which was when Lebron was still a teenager):
Kobe's team: Beat the best team in the West 3 times in 12 tries (25%), beat the best team in the East 2 times in 3 tries
Lebron's team: Beat the best team in the East 6 times in 11 tries, beat the best team in the West 2 times in 6 tries (33%)
Lebron's beat the best team in the West a higher % of his attempts than Kobe has.
But Kobestan will yell, "Losing in the first round is better than losing in the Finals!"
Mantis Toboggan M.D.
I’m here for the scraps
Keep in mind this is the same group of people that will try to argue he played great in game 7 against Boston. They'll rant and rave like James played poorly in 2014 against the Spurs and then try to prop up bean in 2010 against Boston. A schizophrenic woman going through a divorce and custody battle is more emotionally stable and reasonable than these people you're referring to.Kobestan is STILL sitting on "he played on Shaq's team, therefore he was better" as their argument.
But I thought that matchups against the weak East don't count?
How come you are always bragging about Kobe's Finals record when those games were against the East? Lebron had to face the much more powerful West in his Finals, so the matchups are incomparable, right?
Actual meaningful comparison? Since Kobe kicked Shaq out of town (which was when Lebron was still a teenager):
Kobe's team: Beat the best team in the West 3 times in 12 tries (25%), beat the best team in the East 2 times in 3 tries
Lebron's team: Beat the best team in the East 6 times in 11 tries, beat the best team in the West 2 times in 6 tries (33%)
Lebron's beat the best team in the West a higher % of his attempts than Kobe has.
But Kobestan will yell, "Losing in the first round is better than losing in the Finals!"
Kobestan is STILL sitting on "he played on Shaq's team, therefore he was better" as their argument.
But I thought that matchups against the weak East don't count?
How come you are always bragging about Kobe's Finals record when those games were against the East? Lebron had to face the much more powerful West in his Finals, so the matchups are incomparable, right?
Actual meaningful comparison? Since Kobe kicked Shaq out of town (which was when Lebron was still a teenager):
Kobe's team: Beat the best team in the West 3 times in 12 tries (25%), beat the best team in the East 2 times in 3 tries
Lebron's team: Beat the best team in the East 6 times in 11 tries, beat the best team in the West 2 times in 6 tries (33%)
Lebron's beat the best team in the West a higher % of his attempts than Kobe has.
But Kobestan will yell, "Losing in the first round is better than losing in the Finals!"
Why are you only using post-Shaq years? Does Kobe and Shaq not count? But let me guess, DWade, Chris Bosh, and LeBron counts. Okay.
I'm sure you got some bullshyt logic to discount the 3peat years, even though Kobe was averaging 25ppg+ in those series. Do you.
You do realize Kobe had to beat 3 West teams in order to get to the Finals and then beat an East team, yes? 5 separate occasions. And those West teams included beasts like the Blazers, Kings, and Spurs. Which Kobe has beaten. Repeatedly.
What about LeBron? Dude beating up on Hawks and Bobcats and flabbynsick Celtics who were probably his biggest competition (which Kobe beat, btw).
"LeBron's beat the best team in the West a higher % of his attemtps" Okay... fukk is that supposed to mean? Kobe has beaten NBA Finals opponents more often and at higher % and at an above .500 clip than LeBron. But hey, that's not convenient for your argument. Just like the Shaq years. So you're going to ignore that, which was the entire crux of my argument.
Good job, good effort.
Kobe and Shaq dominated. LeBron Wade and Bosh were going to 7 games with Paul George and Roy fukking Hibbert.
LeBron's record vs. Western Conference teams in playoff is 2-4.
What's Kobe's record vs. Western Conference teams in playoffs?
You yourself admitted Western Conference is superior. Pull up the stats.
Plus, your logic is flawed. How is Kobe supposed to beat the "best team in the West" when several of those years his Lakers team WAS the best team in the West? He's essentially getting penalized in your dumb statistic by being the 1 seed himself... Not to mention you probably included the year he didn't play in the playoffs due to injury (Dwight season). And you seemingly don't want to include the Shaq years because only LeBron is allowed to have All-Star teammates.
Kobe out here winning 3 consecutive Western Conference playoffs series 7 times in this career to get to the Finals. Meanwhile LeBron is 2-4 all time in his 6 series vs. the West. Think about that for a second. Yet you're in here trying to spin it as a positive for LeBron.
You out here jumping through hoops coming up with asinine ESPN stats with selective teams or years to justify whatever position you hold. What are you going to tell me next? LeBron has a better record against the 1st place Western Conference team on the 3rd Wednesday of December when he arrives to the arena in a green shirt?
Last edited:
Calm down.
Most of you LeBron/Heat fans do the same shyt you accuse Kobe stans of doing. You all swear LeBron wasn't getting shut down by Boris Diaw and outplayed by Danny fukking Green for 5-6 out of the 7 games vs. the Spurs in 2013.
Ray Allen hits that 3 and LeBron's jumper finally appears in Game 7 and all is forgiven.
Crucify Kobe for a game or two, hell even a series, but conveniently forget Pop employing a strategy of playing Boris Diaw 4 feet off LeBron and daring him to shoot and being 1 miracle shot away from actually winning the title.
Don't even get me started on getting checked by 38 year old Jason Kidd and being outplayed by Jason Terry.
Last edited:
fantabolous
smart usage of data plan
Because sometimes you have to throw caution to the wind in order to get wins. Kobe is CLEARLY more talented than his post shaq teammates. Sometimes him shooting a contested shot is a better choice than a pass. If for no other reason than he has extreme confidence under pressure. That comes along with the territory of being a superstar.
The same is true for LeBron, just he chooses to make the "smarter" but less individually aggressive play. Being a superstar you're gonna get critiqued for everything you do anyway, whether it's shooting too much or not shooting enough.
They're both all time greats, anything beyond that is baseless argument that cannot be proven either way, so it comes down to the style of player you prefer
I appreciate an actual reasoned response.
Thing is this is a comparison of both guys actually shooting in clutch situations. All the other stuff was added because certain folks didnt want to just address the numbers for what they were. If we are comparing based off actual data there is no argument for the less efficient option.
Its not really about talent because, as I said, role players and secondary stars hit big shots all the time. A wide open D. Fish or Horry or single covered Pau or Bynum in the post is a better option than a Kobe fadeway over multiple people.
For all the back and forth, they are really more similar than people realize. Bron has been aggressive plenty. Kobe has made plenty of smart passes. People have just decided that they are gonna put each guy in a certain box and ride accordingly, regardless of what actually happens.
Ignorance is so strong here, I'm going to have to break this one down into pieces.
No, in those years he only had to beat the SECOND best team in the West. He didn't get penalized at all. THOSE are the years that he has the wins from. You can't seriously be not understanding this yet.
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?
Lebron faces Western Conference teams in the Finals. Kobe faces Eastern Conference teams in the Finals. So they are not the same thing, right? You don't get that?
Lebron ONLY faces the Western Conference champ in the playoffs. You're not really this stupid, are you?
Lebron's record against the best in the West is better than Kobe's against the best in the West. You can't count every bit of 1st-round conference fodder that Lebron would never play.
2 out of 5 is better than 3 out of 12. We already clarified that.
Because Kobe wasn't even the best player on his own team.
I think that counting "ringz11!!" is a dumb argument anyways. But let's pretend for a second that it's not. For Finals records in isolation not to be a dumb argument:
1. The best player on the team has to be able to determine on his own whether the team wins or not.
2. Thus the 2nd-best player is irrelevant.
You CAN'T claim that Finals records can be compared without context, then claim that being the 2nd-best player on a Finals team matters.
If you don't understand that logic, I can't help you. Take it to your geometry teacher and he'll explain it for you. But either you only count the years where they were the best player on the team, or you can't compare the records in isolation at all. You can't have it both ways.
Kobe actually averaged 15-4-4 on 37% shooting in the 2000 Finals and was 5th in minutes on his own team. But that series "counts" as a win for Kobe, whereas Lebron's 35-13-9 series where the other team had the next 9 best players on the court counts as a "loss". You see how stupid your methodology is?
Those "beasts" you named were teams that the LAKERS beat when led by SHAQ. No one ever denied that. It was Shaq that anchored the defense, not Kobe. It was Shaq that the offense flowed around, not Kobe. It was Shaq who led Kobe in the MVP voting every year, Shaq who won Finals MVP every year, Shaq who other teams were scheming for every year, Shaq that was getting double-teamed and triple-teamed consistently, not Kobe. .
When Kobe was actually the best player on the team, the competition in the West was relatively weak (Nuggets, Suns, Jazz, Hornets and the Spurs with a hurt Ginobli were their toughest matchups, and a Rockets team with no Yao or McGrady took them to 7!). But that's neither here nor there.
Kobe's teams actually lost more games than they won against the Celtics. "Kobe" lost to a healthy Celtics team when he got embarrassed by 40 points in the deciding game in 2008, then "Kobe" barely beat a Celtics team by going 6-24 in a deciding game in 2010 after the Celtics lost their starting center and one of Kobe's teammates got the decisive rebound and putback. Guess it wasn't so easy for him, was it?
Lebron's teams beat the Celtics three times, a 60-win Bulls team (and a couple other tough Bulls teams), a stacked OKC team, a stacked Spurs team, a 60-win Hawks team with Love/Irving out, and a very good Pacers team multiple times (once with Bosh out). The teams that Lebron's teams matched up against when he was the team MVP where at least as good as the teams Kobe faced. But then again, it was the TEAM that did it, which you appear ignorant of.
You do realize you're using a tagline that was used to mock Lebron before he immediately turned in one of the most dominant ECF demolitions in history, right? Good memories. But I guess you have the sort of mind that thinks that repeating a cliche is a decisive argumentative turn, right?
Yes, when the Pacers were led by Paul George, Roy Hibbert (2nd in DPOY), David West, and Lance Stephenson, they were a GOOD team. Back in the era when the refs let Hibbert get away with everything and he was top-4 in the NBA in blocks 3 straight years, George/Hibbert were the best inside/out defensive combination in the NBA.
Hell, Kobe's Lakers went 7 games against a Rockets team led by Artest, Scola, Hayes, and Aaron Brooks! And even then only because Artest got ejected in a decisive moment.
But somehow taking 7 to beat George/Hibbert/West/Stephenson is embarassing, while taking 7 to beat Artest/Scola/Hayes/Brooks is normal?
If you really think that's what I did, it's not even worth acknowledging your argument. But I don't believe you're as stupid as you're pretending to be for argument's sake.
No, in those years he only had to beat the SECOND best team in the West. He didn't get penalized at all. THOSE are the years that he has the wins from. You can't seriously be not understanding this yet.
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?
Lebron faces Western Conference teams in the Finals. Kobe faces Eastern Conference teams in the Finals. So they are not the same thing, right? You don't get that?
Lebron ONLY faces the Western Conference champ in the playoffs. You're not really this stupid, are you?
Lebron's record against the best in the West is better than Kobe's against the best in the West. You can't count every bit of 1st-round conference fodder that Lebron would never play.
2 out of 5 is better than 3 out of 12. We already clarified that.
And you seemingly don't want to include the Shaq years because only LeBron is allowed to have All-Star teammates....
Why are you only using post-Shaq years? Does Kobe and Shaq not count? But let me guess, DWade, Chris Bosh, and LeBron counts. Okay.
Because Kobe wasn't even the best player on his own team.
I think that counting "ringz11!!" is a dumb argument anyways. But let's pretend for a second that it's not. For Finals records in isolation not to be a dumb argument:
1. The best player on the team has to be able to determine on his own whether the team wins or not.
2. Thus the 2nd-best player is irrelevant.
You CAN'T claim that Finals records can be compared without context, then claim that being the 2nd-best player on a Finals team matters.
If you don't understand that logic, I can't help you. Take it to your geometry teacher and he'll explain it for you. But either you only count the years where they were the best player on the team, or you can't compare the records in isolation at all. You can't have it both ways.
Kobe actually averaged 15-4-4 on 37% shooting in the 2000 Finals and was 5th in minutes on his own team. But that series "counts" as a win for Kobe, whereas Lebron's 35-13-9 series where the other team had the next 9 best players on the court counts as a "loss". You see how stupid your methodology is?
Those "beasts" you named were teams that the LAKERS beat when led by SHAQ. No one ever denied that. It was Shaq that anchored the defense, not Kobe. It was Shaq that the offense flowed around, not Kobe. It was Shaq who led Kobe in the MVP voting every year, Shaq who won Finals MVP every year, Shaq who other teams were scheming for every year, Shaq that was getting double-teamed and triple-teamed consistently, not Kobe. .
When Kobe was actually the best player on the team, the competition in the West was relatively weak (Nuggets, Suns, Jazz, Hornets and the Spurs with a hurt Ginobli were their toughest matchups, and a Rockets team with no Yao or McGrady took them to 7!). But that's neither here nor there.
Kobe's teams actually lost more games than they won against the Celtics. "Kobe" lost to a healthy Celtics team when he got embarrassed by 40 points in the deciding game in 2008, then "Kobe" barely beat a Celtics team by going 6-24 in a deciding game in 2010 after the Celtics lost their starting center and one of Kobe's teammates got the decisive rebound and putback. Guess it wasn't so easy for him, was it?
Lebron's teams beat the Celtics three times, a 60-win Bulls team (and a couple other tough Bulls teams), a stacked OKC team, a stacked Spurs team, a 60-win Hawks team with Love/Irving out, and a very good Pacers team multiple times (once with Bosh out). The teams that Lebron's teams matched up against when he was the team MVP where at least as good as the teams Kobe faced. But then again, it was the TEAM that did it, which you appear ignorant of.
You do realize you're using a tagline that was used to mock Lebron before he immediately turned in one of the most dominant ECF demolitions in history, right? Good memories. But I guess you have the sort of mind that thinks that repeating a cliche is a decisive argumentative turn, right?
Yes, when the Pacers were led by Paul George, Roy Hibbert (2nd in DPOY), David West, and Lance Stephenson, they were a GOOD team. Back in the era when the refs let Hibbert get away with everything and he was top-4 in the NBA in blocks 3 straight years, George/Hibbert were the best inside/out defensive combination in the NBA.
Hell, Kobe's Lakers went 7 games against a Rockets team led by Artest, Scola, Hayes, and Aaron Brooks! And even then only because Artest got ejected in a decisive moment.
But somehow taking 7 to beat George/Hibbert/West/Stephenson is embarassing, while taking 7 to beat Artest/Scola/Hayes/Brooks is normal?
If you really think that's what I did, it's not even worth acknowledging your argument. But I don't believe you're as stupid as you're pretending to be for argument's sake.
Jesus Christ.
This is going to be my last post in this thread, so don't even bother responding or quoting me.
Your entire argument revolves around "Let's compare LeBron vs. the Western Conference representative in the Finals vs. Kobe's record vs. the 1 seed in the West"
Those aren't the same thing. Were the Mavs the number 1 seed in 2011? Were the Thunder the 1 seed in 2012?
Why is 1 seed the standard and supposed "best team" for Kobe, but a 4 seed the standard and supposed "best team" for LeBron?
Yeah, I know, they play in different conferences. That's why this comparison is pointless. You're essentially using a statistic that finds when Kobe wasn't the 1 seed but needed to beat a 1 seed and use that as some sort of parameter of how he stacks up with LeBron, conveniently ignoring the years where he was actually good enough to acquire the 1 seed or perhaps beat a team the likes of the Spurs, Blazers, or Kings that were damn good in their own right and would have been a 1 seed if Kobe and his squad didn't exist. That in fact hurts Kobe because of how you keep trotting out your nitpicky statistic.
If the Lakers just fukk around and lose a couple more regular season games in 2008 or 2009 or 2010 and end up being a 2 seed in the West, and THEN get to the Finals, that somehow is a better accomplishment for your retarded logic and statistical comparison than just outright winning games and nabbing the 1 seed. Because then they would have been a 2 beating a 1 instead of a 1 beating a 2 and that means more to you. GTFOH with this bullshyt.
When LeBron, DWade, and Bosh beat the Spurs in 2013 it's all good and you're celebrating like it's a job well done. Put one down in the LeBron column.
When Kobe, Gasol, Bynum beat the Spurs in 2008 in the WCF to get to the Finals, it doesn't count. Because the Spurs were a 3 seed. Nevermind the fact that the Spurs were the defending champs and had just won 3 titles in the last 5 years.
But hey, let's not mind the fact that LeBron beat a non-1 seed in 2012 when he got his first ring vs, OKC.
Those early 2000 Kings teams, early 2000 Blazers teams, and all those Spurs teams that Kobe beat were damn good teams. They were more than capable of representing the West in the NBA Finals but Kobe beat them. That doesn't get factored into your dumb statistic. You could argue some of those teams were better than 2012 OKC or even 2011 Mavs. But hey, that doesn't fit this selective stat comparison you're trying to pull off. I guess it's Kobe's fault for the Lakers not purposely tanking and getting a 2 seed those years instead of the 1 seed and making your statistic look better.
You're essentially fishing for years where Kobe wasn't the 1 seed for whatever reason (injuries, not a good enough team to compete) and expecting him to pull off an upset and beat the 1 seed. Whoever that may be. But LeBron just needs to win 1 series. Against the Western Conference representative in the NBA Finals. Kobe can't have Shaq. LeBron can have DWade and Chris Bosh. Kobe can't be the 1 seed in his own conf going against damn good teams. LeBron can be the 1 seed every year in the East and lose in the Finals more than he wins.
Does this sound like a fair comparison?
So you're basically not using any of the Kobe and Shaq years. Because those "don't count" for you. And you're not using any of Kobe's years with Gasol and Bynum because he was the 1 seed himself and apparently that's a bad thing for you and your dumb statistic.
So basically you're comparing 2011 Lakers that were back to back and had a let down, 2004 Lakers that were loading up on old ass vets like GP and Karl Malone and had a let down, and then a bunch of flabbynsick teams that featured Javaris Crittenton and Luke Walton and Sasha Vujecic in the starting lineup to what LeBron's record is in the Finals? These are the ludicrous parameters you're trotting out here? "Let's see how Kobe did with Lamar Odom and Luke Walton as his best teammates vs the 1 seed in the West (assuming they even got matched up) compared to how LeBron did with DWade and Chris Bosh as his best teammates in the NBA Finals!!!!"
Those are all rhetorical questions, by the way. You don't need to answer them, I already know what you're doing here. And it's stupid.
Oh, and let me guess. 2000, 2001, and 2002 Kobe and Shaq years don't count.
But 2003 and 2004 Kobe and Shaq years DO count, right?!
Last edited:
Uh, no, I didn't compare Kobe's record to the 1 seed in the West. Who are you talking to?
I never once mentioned the #1 seed. Not anywhere. How did you end up defining your entire argument around THAT?
I listed how many times the Kobe-led Lakers had been the Western representative in the Finals, which tells you how often they'd managed to beat the best (or, if they won, next-best) team in their conference.
Kobe-led Lakers obviously haven't played a #1 WC seed in the playoffs 12 times. Anyone would know that.
How much time did it take you to write that 827-word rant against an argument that no one had made?
Reading comprehension, man. Reading comprehension.
Oh, and let me guess. 2000, 2001, and 2002 Kobe and Shaq years don't count.
But 2003 and 2004 Kobe and Shaq years DO count, right?!
If you can't read, at least do math. How could I say that Kobe's teams beat the East 2 times in 3 tries if I'd been including 2004? Then it would have been 2 times in 4 tries.
You made the entire #1 seed argument based on reading comprehension gone wrong, and are now trying to suggest that I unfairly count 2003-2004 against Kobe due to your inability to do math. You should probably stick to woodshop.
Last edited:
K, I misunderstood.
Uh, no, I didn't compare Kobe's record to the 1 seed in the West. Who are you talking to?
I never once mentioned the #1 seed. Not anywhere. How did you end up defining your entire argument around THAT?
I listed how many times the Kobe-led Lakers had been the Western representative in the Finals, which tells you how often they'd managed to beat the best (or, if they won, next-best) team in their conference.
Kobe-led Lakers obviously haven't played a #1 WC seed in the playoffs 12 times. Anyone would know that.
How much time did it take you to write that 827-word rant against an argument that no one had made?
Reading comprehension, man. Reading comprehension.
If you can't read, at least do math. How could I say that Kobe's teams beat the East 2 times in 3 tries if I'd been including 2004? Then it would have been 2 times in 4 tries.
You made the entire #1 seed argument based on reading comprehension gone wrong, and are now trying to suggest that I unfairly count 2003-2004 against Kobe due to your inability to do math. You should probably stick to woodshop.
So Kobe's made the Finals and been the best in the West 7 times.
Still better than LeBron's %.
Any way you spin this it doesn't work out. Until you try to discount his years playing with an All Time Great. Meanwhile you count LeBron's years playing alongside two All Time Greats.
Double standard.
Entire reason why he jumped ship and went to Miami in the first place was to play with ATGs the way Kobe had one in Shaq. So is it oochie wally or is it one mic?
I thought you were done posting?
Kobe has made the Finals and been the best in the West 7 times in 20 years, if you really want to count the Shaq years. That's 35%
Lebron has made the Finals and beaten the West team 2 times in 6 opportunities. That's 33%.
So the difference is basically down to rounding.
Of course, the comparison is idiocy, because why are we counting the years when a player wasn't even the best player on his own team?
Does anyone ever say, "Scottie Pippen won 6 Championships in 6 tries!" ???? Or brag about HOF Sam Jones's 8 rings?
And there was never a Finals where Scottie played as bad as Kobe did in 2000, or was 5th in minutes on his own team.
Kobe was not the best player on his own team.
Either the best player can singlehandedly bring his team a ring and therefore deserves all the credit, or he can't.
If the best player can't do it on his own, then you need to take context into account and can't just compare rings straight-up.
So the ONLY comparison of rings that matters is the one that is made between two players who were individually the best on their team in the years they won.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Chris Bosh, who has made ONE all-NBA team in his entire career, is now an "all-time great".
Pau has made 4 All-NBA teams playing the same position in the exact same time frame as Bosh....so if you're really making that argument, you lose all your rings. You Kobestans are something else.
This is dumb as hell too.
Lebron averaged 25-11-7 with 2 steals and a block on 45/35/80 shooting splits for that series. He wasn't outplayed by ANYONE.
Green averaged 14-4-0 for the series on 44% shooting. His ONLY contribution was shooting lights-out on open threes. (Green was actually 5-23 on two-point shots for the series.) He couldn't get his own shot and he couldn't set up anyone else's shot - he was a complete non-factor on offense other than getting set up on open threes by the Spurs offense. And he couldn't guard Lebron consistently either.
This is what the series actually look like for Lebron:
18-18-10 in Game 1 loss. Scored 6 points in the last 3 minutes and would have been considered the hero with a monster triple-double if Tony Parker hadn't abused Miami for the entire 4th quarter. Diaw didn't guard him and Green didn't outplay him.
17-8-7 with 3 steals and 3 blocks. Best player on the floor in an easy win. Scored 9 in the first half of the 4th to put the game away, then the starters sat the last 5 minutes.
15-11-5 with 2 steals in a blowout loss. The ONLY game where Green outplayed him. Diaw still isn't guarding him.
33-11-4 with 2 steals and 2 blocks in a big win. Diaw plays the most minutes he had all series so far (11) in this game, but Lebron shoots the lights out (15-25).
25-6-8 with 4 steals in a loss.
32-10-11 with 3 steals and a block in the huge turnaround win. Scores 16 in the 4th, including the three that cuts the lead to 2 with 14 seconds left in regulation, assists the first two shots of overtime then hits the go-ahead jumper with 1:43 left that puts the Heat in the series driving seat for good. Ties record for most triple-doubles in Finals.
37-12-4 with 2 steals in the clincher. Hits 5 threes and nails 3 long twos in the last 5 minutes of the game to hold off the Spurs, the last made with only a 2-point lead with 27 seconds left. The highest-scoring game by a winner in Finals Game 7 history. Also added to Lebron's record as the highest-scoring average in Game 7s in NBA history.
Lebron was the best player in the series from Game 1 to Game 7. You act like he finally woke up in Game 7 when he actually averaged 32-10-6 on almost 50% shooting over the last four games, three of them wins. Your narrative is just ridiculous.
So you can finally grasp 35% is greater than 33%. Good.I thought you were done posting?
Kobe has made the Finals and been the best in the West 7 times in 20 years, if you really want to count the Shaq years. That's 35%
Lebron has made the Finals and beaten the West team 2 times in 6 opportunities. That's 33%.
So the difference is basically down to rounding.
Of course, the comparison is idiocy, because why are we counting the years when a player wasn't even the best player on his own team?
Does anyone ever say, "Scottie Pippen won 6 Championships in 6 tries!" ???? Or brag about HOF Sam Jones's 8 rings?
And there was never a Finals where Scottie played as bad as Kobe did in 2000, or was 5th in minutes on his own team.
Kobe was not the best player on his own team.
Either the best player can singlehandedly bring his team a ring and therefore deserves all the credit, or he can't.
If the best player can't do it on his own, then you need to take context into account and can't just compare rings straight-up.
So the ONLY comparison of rings that matters is the one that is made between two players who were individually the best on their team in the years they won.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Chris Bosh, who has made ONE all-NBA team in his entire career, is now an "all-time great".
Pau has made 4 All-NBA teams playing the same position in the exact same time frame as Bosh....so if you're really making that argument, you lose all your rings. You Kobestans are something else.
And you say my narrative is bad while you compare Kobe Bryant to Scottie Pippen and Sam Jones.