Kobe Bryant's skill level was simply INSANE

Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
39,600
Reputation
-17,856
Daps
84,290
Reppin
NULL
You get destroyed on the facts, and THAT is all you got in reply?

Might as well be waving a white flag. :mjgrin:





By the way, speaking of dissertations, remind me who was it who was just out there spewing paragraph after paragraph about Lebron in a Kobe thread? :troll:














Yeah, tell me again who be writing dissertations. :mjgrin:

Its so funny to see the difference between LeBron stans like you and Kobe stans like me. To prove Kobe's greatness I post videos exhibiting his other-worldly skill. To try and retort, LeBron stans like yourself post random numbers.

Do you actually watch the basketball games as they happen? Or do you instead track what is happening by reading the box score on NBA.com?

If you watch the games like the rest of us, then post video evidence to support your claims. You should know by now that cherry picked stats are not credible. Tracy McGrady exposed that with the analytics cac I posted earlier.

If you don't have video to support your claims then STFU.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,331
Reputation
19,930
Daps
204,101
Reppin
the ether
Can you imagine this effeminate stuff in any other sport? :picard:


"Oh, I know he's only completed 50% of his passes, but look how beautiful that spiral is!"

"Maybe he's only averaging 3.8 yards/carry, but his footwork is incredible!"

"I don't care if he's only hitting .250, he has the purest swing in the sport."

"Yes his times are worse, but his running is so much more elegant than the guys with better times."

"Only nerds care that 60% of his serves are faults, the ones that go in are gorgeous."


The only other sport I can imagine it in is soccer. There's got to be legions of Latin American soccer fans saying things like, "No we didn't score when it mattered but our footwork and passing were so much more beautiful and elegant than those ugly Europeans or those physical Africans."

No coincidence that the same thing coming out of Los Angeles. :francis:
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
39,600
Reputation
-17,856
Daps
84,290
Reppin
NULL
Kobestans have completely given up on the idea that the point of taking a shot is to get the ball in the bucket. :skip:

Not how pretty the footwork was before the shot. :mjlol:


Ya'all sound like females. "It's how beautiful the art of the shot is, not whether the ball goes in or not. Field goal % is irrelevant." :heh:



Field goal percentage matters because the point of taking a shot is to have those shots go in. :snoop:




Kobestans actually waging a war against making your shots now. :mindblown:


5-2 >>> 3-5

The only number that matters actually supports Kobe's greatness.

You guys are the ones obsessing over the IRRELEVANT numbers.
 
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
39,600
Reputation
-17,856
Daps
84,290
Reppin
NULL
Can you imagine this effeminate stuff in any other sport? :picard:


"Oh, I know he's only completely 50% of his passes, but look how beautiful that spiral is!"

"Maybe he's only averaging 3.8 yards/carry, but his footwork is incredible!"

"I don't care if he's only hitting .250, he has the purest swing in the sport."

"Yes his times are worse, but his running is so much more elegant than the guys with better times."

"Only nerds care that 60% of his serves are faults, the ones that go in are gorgeous."


The only other sport I can imagine it in is soccer. There's got to be legions of Latin American soccer fans saying things like, "No we didn't score when it mattered but our footwork and passing were so much more beautiful and elegant than those ugly Europeans or those physical Africans."

No coincidence that the same thing coming out of Los Angeles. :francis:

And yet almost every NBA player past and present agree with us.

Now tell me, what do you know that the guys who actually compete with Kobe and LeBron don't?

This is something you Bron stans run away from like the plague. The fact even LeBron's best friend like D-Wade says Kobe is the best.

You got no answer for this.
 
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
39,600
Reputation
-17,856
Daps
84,290
Reppin
NULL
This one was funny.

giphy.gif


That reverse spin...seen LeBron attempt this with disastrous results. :mjlol:

giphy.gif



I can do this all day. Out of the triple threat, only dude close is MJ obviously.


And this is why Kobe's peers and anyone who has ever played basketball marvels at him.

UNPARALLELED MASTERY of the game.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,331
Reputation
19,930
Daps
204,101
Reppin
the ether
Its so funny to see the difference between LeBron stans like you and Kobe stans like me. To prove Kobe's greatness I post videos exhibiting his other-worldly skill. To try and retort, LeBron stans like yourself post random numbers.

Do you actually watch the basketball games as they happen? Or do you instead track what is happening by reading the box score on NBA.com?

If you watch the games like the rest of us, then post video evidence to support your claims. You should know by now that cherry picked stats are not credible. Tracy McGrady exposed that with the analytics cac I posted earlier.

If you don't have video to support your claims then STFU.

I love that posting statistics covering every shot for a player's entire career is "cherry-picked".

But post a video with a few dozen of your hero's favorite plays and it's "credible".


If you think that career stats are cherry-picked and highlight videos aren't, then you have no clue what "cherry-picked" means.


Kobe took 26,200 shots in his career. It is EASY to cherry-pick whatever plays you want to support your narrative. But the video is meaningless if you include the 50 shots he made and ignore the 250 shots he missed on the exact same move.

What matters is getting the ball in the bucket, not how "beautiful" it was on the way there. Jamal Crawford has a prettier game than Tim Duncan, but no one is EVER calling Crawford a better player than Tim Duncan. Are you going to elevate Pete Maravich over Kareem just because Maravich has a much more impressive highlight video?



5-2 >>> 3-5

The only number that matters actually supports Kobe's greatness.

You guys are the ones obsessing over the IRRELEVANT numbers.

So why do you have Hakeem above Magic and Kareem then?

And Kobe is 5-15, but only 2-10 as the team leader. Lebron is 3-11.

Unless you still think first round exits and sidekick rings are better than making it to the Finals as the man. :mjlol:



I judge players solely by the eye test. That is why my top 4 all-time is: Kobe, Jordan, Hakeem, and Shaq in that order.

Rings ain't got shyt to do with my rankings. Neither do stats. Nor do accolades.

You admitted that aesthetics is all that matters to you, then you go straight to "but RINGZ!" anytime someone legitimately clowns you.


You claimed that Kobe NEVER let other guys score the big shots in the clutch. I PROVED that you were full of crap. That shows how reliable your "eye test" is.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
39,600
Reputation
-17,856
Daps
84,290
Reppin
NULL
I love that posting statistics covering every shot for a player's entire career is "cherry-picked".

But post a video with a few dozen of your hero's favorite plays and it's "credible".


If you think that career stats are cherry-picked and highlight videos aren't, then you have no clue what "cherry-picked" means.


Kobe took 26,200 shots in his career. It is EASY to cherry-pick whatever plays you want to support your narrative. But the video is meaningless if you include the 50 shots he made and ignore the 250 shots he missed on the exact same move.

What matters is getting the ball in the bucket, not how "beautiful" it was on the way there. Jamal Crawford has a prettier game than Tim Duncan, but no one is EVER calling Crawford a better player than Tim Duncan. Are you going to elevate Pete Maravich over Kareem just because Maravich has a much more impressive highlight video?





So why do you have Hakeem above Magic and Kareem then?

And Kobe is 5-15, but only 2-10 as the team leader. Lebron is 3-11.

Unless you still think first round exits are better than making it to the Finals. :mjlol:





You straight up admitted that asthetics is all that matters to you, then you go straight to "but RINGZ!" anytime someone legitimately clowns you.


You claimed that Kobe NEVER let other guys score the big shots in the clutch. I PROVED that you were full of crap. That shows how reliable your "eye test" is.

When I say cherry pick, I mean the selective use of stats by people like you. For example, if stats are the end all then I'm guessing you were a big proponent of Russell Westbrook as the best player in the NBA last year over LeBron since he put up significantly better numbers? In fact he put up better numbers than LeBron ever did in his career? Does that make peak Westbrook better than peak LeBron? How about peak Harden >>> peak Lebron cause he also put up vastly better numbers?

Maybe the numbers/stats you post bother other dudes. It doesn't bother me cause I know the game is deeper than the box score. However, if you wanna reduce the game to just the box score I hope you will at least be CONSISTENT.

You should be the main guy here arguing that LeBron hasn't been the best player in the NBA since 2013 since that is the year he last led it in PER. You know the metric all the stats nerds love. You should also be shoving it down our throats that 2016 Westbrook is better than any version of LeBron since he averaged a triple double (something LeBron never came close to). And I could keep going. There are a myraid of other arguments that stats and analytics suggest that I never see from the likes of you. Instead you only use stats SELECTIVELY. When they help you in an argument of Kobe vs LeBron.

If its LeBron vs Westbrook or Durant, suddenly the numbers and stats don't matter. Now we get into more intangible things like leading a team to the finals and exactly how much help each other has.

I don't care if you want to take a numbers only approach. I only ask you be consistent. The problem with guys like you is you are not consistent. You contradict yourself at every turn.
 
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
39,600
Reputation
-17,856
Daps
84,290
Reppin
NULL
@The Dankster I just wanna see you argue that LeBron James hasn't been the best player in the NBA since 2013 because based on analytics he hasn't.

And then let me argue that he has because I use the eye test not stats. LeBron James was still the most dominant player in the NBA from 2013-2017 eventhough other players have out-performed him based solely on STATS.

But we never have this debate. We used to have it all the time with Kobe. I remember back in 2005-08 when he was considered far and away the best player in the NBA, vermin like you would come around and say no Kobe isn't the best because some other random player like Dirk or D-Wade was averaging a slightly higher PER. However, I don't recall any PER debates over the last 4 years regarding whether LeBron is still the best. The Bron stans like yourself have just gone along with the same arguments Kobe stans used 7 years earlier. A combination of the eye test, playoff/finals success, and the fact the rest of the basketball world has acknowledged LeBron is the best.

This is what I mean by cherry picking. You guys pick and choose when stats should matter (typically its when LeBron has nothing else to stand on. But when other players dominate him statistically over the last 4 years, I haven't heard a peep from Bron stans about numbers. Typically the argument for LeBron being the best since 2013 is simply media declaration.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,331
Reputation
19,930
Daps
204,101
Reppin
the ether
When I say cherry pick, I mean the selective use of stats by people like you. For example, if stats are the end all then I'm guessing you were a big proponent of Russell Westbrook as the best player in the NBA last year over LeBron since he put up significantly better numbers? In fact he put up better numbers than LeBron ever did in his career? Does that make peak Westbrook better than peak LeBron? How about peak Harden >>> peak Lebron cause he also put up vastly better numbers?

No he didn't. :mjlol:

Shooting 42% from the field with 6 turnovers a game while not even playing defense doesn't make you "vastly better" just because you got a lot of triple-doubles.

Russell is great, but simply scoring more points because you took more shots is not a "great stat". Simply getting more assists because you kept the ball in your hands all game and also had a ton of turnovers is not a "great stat". Getting your big men to avoid rebounds so you can pad your own numbers is not a "great stat".

Just because you only understand numbers at the level of a 3rd-grader doesn't mean I have to. :hubie:



You should be the main guy here arguing that LeBron hasn't been the best player in the NBA since 2013 since that is the year he last led it in PER. You know the metric all the stats nerds love. You should also be shoving it down our throats that 2016 Westbrook is better than any version of LeBron since he averaged a triple double (something LeBron never came close to). And I could keep going. There are a myraid of other arguments that stats and analytics suggest that I never see from the likes of you. Instead you only use stats SELECTIVELY. When they help you in an argument of Kobe vs LeBron.

If its LeBron vs Westbrook or Durant, suddenly the numbers and stats don't matter. Now we get into more intangible things like leading a team to the finals and exactly how much help each other has.

I don't care if you want to take a numbers only approach. I only ask you be consistent. The problem with guys like you is you are not consistent. You contradict yourself at every turn.

Wait, how often have you even seen me mention PER in any context at all? :gucci:

Because someone else uses a stat with serious limitations, I have to live and die by that stat too, or I'm "not being consistent"? :snoop:

I've used stats to compare Lebron and Westbrook and Durant. Claiming that I don't is an outright lie.

But you'd have to be dense to think that ppg and triple-doubles are the main stats that matter.

This goes back to the reading comprehension issue you were having earlier in the thread. I'm starting to wonder if Kobe stans simply aren't bright enough to carry out simple operations like "divide field goals made by field goals attempted to get field goal percentage", or even to begin to understand what matters and what doesn't, so they just have to throw all the numbers under the bus and go off highlight videos and media narratives.
:francis:



@The Dankster I just wanna see you argue that LeBron James hasn't been the best player in the NBA since 2013 because based on analytics he hasn't.

And then let me argue that he has because I use the eye test not stats. LeBron James was still the most dominant player in the NBA from 2013-2017 eventhough other players have out-performed him based solely on STATS.

But we never have this debate. We used to have it all the time with Kobe. I remember back in 2005-08 when he was considered far and away the best player in the NBA, vermin like you would come around and say no Kobe isn't the best because some other random player like Dirk or D-Wade was averaging a slightly higher PER. However, I don't recall any PER debates over the last 4 years regarding whether LeBron is still the best. The Bron stans like yourself have just gone along with the same arguments Kobe stans used 7 years earlier. A combination of the eye test, playoff/finals success, and the fact the rest of the basketball world has acknowledged LeBron is the best.

This is what I mean by cherry picking. You guys pick and choose when stats should matter (typically its when LeBron has nothing else to stand on. But when other players dominate him statistically over the last 4 years, I haven't heard a peep from Bron stans about numbers. Typically the argument for LeBron being the best since 2013 is simply media declaration.

PER is not analytics. :mjlol:

Please, stop using words in sentences if you don't know what they mean. :russ:

And no one was using "playoff/finals success" to call Kobe the best back in 2005-2007 when he was going three straight years without a single playoff win. :lolbron:
 

Rigby.

The #1 Rated Mixtape of all Time
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
51,869
Reputation
2,395
Daps
74,410
Reppin
JordanHareStadium
I honestly like Kobe's game but I wouldnt mind if he came back to this year and dropped 5/0/1 on 20% shooting and 14 FGA just so you nikkas could go back to hiding like most of his last season
 
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
39,600
Reputation
-17,856
Daps
84,290
Reppin
NULL
You admitted that aesthetics is all that matters to you, then you go straight to "but RINGZ!" anytime someone legitimately clowns you.


You claimed that Kobe NEVER let other guys score the big shots in the clutch. I PROVED that you were full of crap. That shows how reliable your "eye test" is.

No. Aesthetics matter only with regard for my enjoyment of the player. Just because a player is fun to watch doesn't mean he's automatically better than someone else with a more mechanical game. For example, I find Tracy McGrady's game to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing. I would not say he's better than LeBron. Even if LeBron is clunky and boring he was still more dominant than T-Mac and thus ranks higher on my all-time list.

When I say I only use the eye test, that is a combination of skill level, impact on the game, and dominance. Championship rings are kind of a shortcut but they are not the end all be all. Same with stats. Everything must be put in context. For example, Duncan has the rings over Hakeem. But when I watched both play, Hakeem was vastly more skilled, he impacted the game at a higher level, and was simply more dominant. That is why he's in my top 3 all-time while Duncan is outside the top 10. Similarly, Kobe's greatness wasn't simply that his game was pretty. His game was DOMINANT. Every time he stepped on the court he was an incredible difference maker. The best I've ever seen.

So don't get it twisted, Kobe's beautiful game is just a bonus. His dominance and impact is the #1 reason he's considered the best player of his era by almost everyone of his peers.
 

Rigby.

The #1 Rated Mixtape of all Time
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
51,869
Reputation
2,395
Daps
74,410
Reppin
JordanHareStadium
he is higher then 12 -15 thats just disrespectful. hes top 5 defiantily aint lower then top 10
There's no decision where putting a guy who isnt the best at scoring, and is potentially not top 3 in that facet, who isnt close to the best in passing, rebounding, or defense, shoots like ass and isnt very athletic can be supported. He's good as a fringe top 10 player. His story checks out to being a fringe top 10 player
 
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
39,600
Reputation
-17,856
Daps
84,290
Reppin
NULL
No he didn't. :mjlol:

Shooting 42% from the field with 6 turnovers a game while not even playing defense doesn't make you "vastly better" just because you got a lot of triple-doubles.

Russell is great, but simply scoring more points because you took more shots is not a "great stat". Simply getting more assists because you kept the ball in your hands all game and also had a ton of turnovers is not a "great stat". Getting your big men to avoid rebounds so you can pad your own numbers is not a "great stat".

Just because you only understand numbers at the level of a 3rd-grader doesn't mean I have to. :hubie:





Wait, how often have you even seen me mention PER in any context at all? :gucci:

Because someone else uses a stat with serious limitations, I have to live and die by that stat too, or I'm "not being consistent"? :snoop:

And I've repeatedly used stats to compare Lebron and Westbrook and Durant. Claiming that I don't is an outright lie.

But you'd have to be dense to think that ppg and triple-doubles are the main stats that matter.

This goes back to the reading comprehension issue you were having earlier in the thread. I'm starting to wonder if Kobe stans simply aren't bright enough to carry out simple operations like "divide field goals made by field goals attempted to get field goal percentage", or even to begin to understand what matters and what doesn't, so they just have to throw all the numbers under the bus and go off highlight videos and media narratives.
:francis:





PER is not analytics. :mjlol:

Please, stop using words in sentences if you don't know what they mean. :russ:

And no one was using "playoff/finals success" to call Kobe the best back in 2005-2007 when he was going three straight years without a single playoff win. :lolbron:

Here comes the backpedaling.

PER is an official stat now on basketball reference, ESPN.com, and NBA.com. Its widely cited even during TV broadcasts. Its widely known as the catch all box score metric cause it combines all the numbers. Now you're gonna say its not analytics? :mjlol:

Now you're just lying. Stop it. Cause I remember a time when that used to be the #1 Bron stan talking point when he was leading that metric. Now that he's been running behind the likes of Westbrook, Harden, and Durant for several years, it suddenly doesn't matter?

Since PER is no longer good, please cite a STAT (not media declaration or team success like a ring) that proves LeBron was the best player in the NBA from 2014-2017?

I'm waiting.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,331
Reputation
19,930
Daps
204,101
Reppin
the ether
Similarly, Kobe's greatness wasn't simply that his game was pretty. His game was DOMINANT. Every time he stepped on the court he was an incredible difference maker. The best I've ever seen.

So don't get it twisted, Kobe's beautiful game is just a bonus. His dominance and impact is the #1 reason he's considered the best player of his era by almost everyone of his peers.

So explain why, in twelve seasons as team leader, Kobe was only able to win two rings. Hell, only got past the first round like five times in twelve years, and immediately lost in the 2nd round two of hose years.

And when he DID get those two titles as team leader, why was it his teammates who were making the vast majority of the big shots in nearly every close game?

That was the exact opposite of what you claimed your eye test had told you. You claimed that Kobe had taken every big shot, that he had NEVER let his team do it.

So why can't you admit now that your "eye test" is selective and faulty?



2009 Game 2 against the Nuggets: Lakers down three with 5 seconds left in the game, and it's Fisher, not Kobe, who attempts the game-tying three.

2009 Game 2
against the Magic. Lakers down two with 33 seconds left in the game and it's Pau, not Kobe, who makes the game-tying bucket to send it into overtime. Kobe misses the potential game-winner with two seconds left. In overtime Kobe only scores 2 of the Lakers' 13 points, with Pau pouring in 7 to put away the game.

2009 Game 3 against the Magic. Kobe only scores 5 of the Lakers' 29 points in the fourth in a tight game (and two of those five are a meaningless layup with half a second left that only cuts the lead to two). Odom (8) and Pau (6) both outscore Kobe in the fourth.

2009 Game 4 against the Magic. Kobe doesn't score in the final 4:45 of regulation - instead it's a game-tying three by Ariza, a layup by Pau, and a game-tying three with 4 seconds left by Fisher that sends the game into overtime. Pau is once again the leading scorer in overtime with 5 points to Kobe's 4, but it's Fisher's game-winning three with 31 seconds left that gives the Lakers the 3-1 series lead.

2010 Game 3 against the Thunder, Kobe only scores 2 of the last 19 points in a tight game. Pau (4), MWP (4), Bynum (3), Odom (3) and Fisher (3) all outscore Kobe late. Kobe's only basket is a layup when the Lakers were down four with 13 seconds left and needed three, not two (Durant made both free throws and Farmar and MWP, not Kobe, tried to hit the threes to get it back).

2010 Game 6 against the Thunder, Kobe only scores 2 of the last 22 points in a tight game. MWP (5), Fisher (5), Walton (5) and Brown (3) all outscore Kobe late. When Kobe misses the potential game-winner with two seconds left, it's Pau that saves the game with a game-winning putback that keeps the series from going 7 and saves the Lakers from a potential first-round exit.

2010 Game 5 against the Suns, Kobe only scores 2 of the last 15 points in a tight game. Fisher (5) and Pau (4) both outscore Kobe late. When Kobe misses the potential game-winner with three seconds left, it's MWP that saves the game with a game-winning putback that keeps the Lakers from going down 3 to 2 heading into Game 6.

2010 Game 7 against the Celtics, Kobe only scores 3 of the last 15 points in a tight game, and those were on intentional fouls. Pau (7 points) is the Laker go-to man down the stretch. Once again it's MWP who makes the shot of the game, a huge three with a minute left that doubles the Laker lead.



And that's JUST those last two championships when Kobe was "the man". Game after game after game, when the going got tough it was Pau's dominance on offense, the Lakers' team defense, and Pau/Fisher/MWP's clutch shots that made the difference for the Lakers.

Kobe was literally FOURTH on his own team in huge playoff shots during that 2009-2010 run.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,331
Reputation
19,930
Daps
204,101
Reppin
the ether
Here comes the backpedaling.

PER is an official stat now on basketball reference, ESPN.com, and NBA.com. Its widely cited even during TV broadcasts. Its widely known as the catch all box score metric cause it combines all the numbers. Now you're gonna say its not analytics?


Triple-doubles are an official stat in all those places too. Are you going to claim that being on the internet makes "triple-doubles" analytics as well? :mjlol:


Please stop digging this hole for yourself. Being on an internet box score does NOT make something analytics.

You clearly don't have a clue what analytics means. :dead:
 
Top