U GOTA BE THE WORST POSTER HERE FAM....AND EVERYTIME I SON U, U END UP BOUNCIN FROM THE THREAD QUICKFAST IN A HURRY. DUCKIN MY ETHERING POINTS AT AN INCREDIBLE RATE N SHIIT SMFH.
There isn't anything remotely truthful about that claim. I tend not to spend extensive time arguing with you because you don't know basketball and everyone on here knows it. Even the other Kobestans don't support you. But I have no doubt you've been wrong every single time we've discussed anything.
Let's go backwards.
KOBE CONSISTENTLY OWNED THE SPURS N U MAD. KOBE BEEN HAD DUNCAN'S NUMBER....GET OVER IT WEIRDO. TRYNA RE-WRITE HISTORY TO YOUR LEISURE SMFH.. I ACTUALLY SHIITED ON YOU WHEN U TRIED PULLIN THIS DUMBASS BS IN THE OTHER THREAD, BUT U NEVER REPLIED N DUCKED ALL MY POINTS WIT THE QUICKNESS ONCE THEY GOT SHOT DOWN....FALL BACK BRODIE, U JUS GOT DOOKIE ALL OVER YA FACE.
How can Kobe "had Duncan's number" when they literally never guard each other? But if you mean team success....
In 52 regular season games, Duncan is 31-21 against Kobe.
Duncan averages 19-11-3 with 2 blocks/game on 46% shooting against Kobe's teams.
Kobe averages 24-5-5 with 1 steal/game on 43% shooting (28% from three) against Duncan's teams.
In 30 playoff games, Duncan is 12-18 against Kobe.
Duncan averages 25-14-4 with 2 blocks/game on 47% shooting against Kobe's teams.
Kobe averages 28-6-5 with 1 steal/game on 47% shooting (35% from three) against Duncan's teams.
Of course, 5 of the 6 playoff series in which they played each other took place when Shaq, not Kobe, was the leader of the Lakers and the complete focus of everything the Spurs did against the Lakers on defense. And in the 6th series, the Spurs leading scorer and primary defender against Kobe, Ginobli, was playing injured the whole series.
In the regular season, which more accurately reflects their whole careers and not that little slice of the Shaq years, Duncan has beaten Kobe a large majority of the time. Take away the Shaq years (both regular season and playoffs) and Duncan beats Kobe 70% of the time.
How can you say that Kobe "consistently owns" the Spurs when he's won the minority of the games he's played against them, and how can you say he's "had Duncan's number" when his total offensive/defensive contribution in both regular season and playoffs were inferior to Duncan's?
2008 NBA Western Conference Finals | Basketball-Reference.com
^^"INJURED GINOBLI", WHO PLAYED IN ALL 5 GAMES AND AVERAGED 32 MINS PER GAME
YES, Ginobli was injured,
as was established fact:
SAN ANTONIO --
San Antonio Spurs guard
Manu Ginobili says he needs arthroscopic surgery to repair a ligament injury to his left ankle.
"They're going to operate on me," the 31-year-old told Argentina's La Nacion newspaper Friday.
The Spurs had no additional comment, other than to say they will announce a timeline for Ginobili's return after he has surgery.
The injury hobbled Ginobili during the NBA playoffs, particularly during the Western Conference finals against the Los Angeles Lakers, when his signature explosiveness was visibly absent. Ginobili led the Spurs in scoring last season and won the league's sixth man award.
At the end of the season in late May, Ginobili had an injection in the ankle and said he expected it to improve quickly. Ginobili wore a walking boot for several weeks starting in June after an MRI exam showed a ligament to be five times the size of the one in his other foot.
Yes, of course he manned up and played in the series anyway, but he was terrible, unable to do anything on offense (12-3-3 on 36% shooting) and unable to guard Kobe on the other end. Having been their leader in scoring during the regular season and the primary defender on Kobe, it was a huge disadvantage.
I assume that you will admit you were wrong about Ginobli not being injured? Oh, wait, you never admit that, because you are unable to discern anything other than your Kobestan eyes.
EVERYONE on both teams knew that the series was first of all a battle between the two most dominant big men in the game. Since Shaq tends to make 60% of his shots and Kobe tends to make 45% of his, every shot that Pop could force from Shaq's hands into Kobe's was a net gain. That's why Pop single-guarded Kobe with Bowen, while Shaq was double-teamed every time he touched the ball. Regardless of stats, the coaching and strategy battle were centered around Shaq, the most dominant Laker on both sides of the ball, and Kobe was just taking advantage of that attention.
But what were the stats?
Kobe scored 26ppg on 46% shooting taking 22 shots/game.
Shaq scored 23ppg on 64% shooting taking 14 shots/game, plus dominated the boards and defense (15 rebounds and 4+ blocks a game).
If you watched the game its clear that Shaq was the more important focus...but in this case even the stats should have told you that. It's quite obvious that Pop WANTED Kobe to shoot, because Kobe shots were way less damaging than Shaq shots.
YES!
That was the year that Duncan and Shaq were #2 and #3 in MVP voting, sharing 25 1st-place votes between them. Kobe almost didn't make a single ballot at all.
You seem to be confusing "best player" with "got a good box score", which are not the same thing.
Kobe scored a ton of points that series because he took a ton of shots (33ppg on 26 shots/game) while Shaq was "only" 27-13-3 on 55% shooting. But that's because literally all the defensive attention was on Shaq. Kobe played very well in that series, but in 2001, Shaq was by far the dominant player compared to Kobe, and Kobe's scoring came in large part due to all the outsized attention which was devoted to Shaq at all times.
Actually, Duncan was by far the best player in that series. He averaged 29-17-5 with 3 blocks a game and helped hold Shaq to 45% shooting. That's disgusting.
Unfortunately, the 2nd-best player on the team was a teenage Tony Parker, and no one else on the team even averaged double-digits. When your 3rd-leading scorer is Bruce Bowen (9ppg on 45% shooting, 50% from three against Kobe's lackluster defense), you have problems.
That was the year that Duncan and Shaq were #1 and #3 in MVP voting, sharing 72 1st-place votes between them. Kobe was basically tied for distant 5th with Gary Payton, they each got 1 first-place vote.
You seem to be confusing "best player" with "got a good box score", which are not the same thing. Once again, Kobe played well (26-5-5 on 45% shooting) but Shaq was by far the better player
YES, Shaq was obviously the better player in 2001-2002, and to a lesser extent in 2004. Everyone in the league knew that Shaq was the leader of the Lakers and that he was the guy you had to scheme against on both ends of the floor. Everyone knew that Shaq was more important to the Laker defense by a mile, and that Shaq was the guy who was drawing the double-teams and triple-teams on offense.
I don't even think you're a Laker fan, and I'm guessing that you weren't even old enough to drive when those games were being played. You're just an obsessed Kobestan, and you can't even see the other players on your own team clearly through the stains on your goggles.
Agreed. Kobe was an absolute monster and was gonna handle business no matter what
Except in the playoffs.
Anyone making the "Kobe is the best player ever and rings tell all!" argument really has to explain why the 3 central years of Kobe's prime involve 4 first-round games won COMBINED.
Obviously, teammates matter, and rings alone is not an argument. If a supposedly all-time greatest player in his absolute prime can't even get his team past the first-round, then using team success as the main means to evaluate players is wrong.
just had a frontline of Gasol & Odom (who only put up a COMBINED 26 ppg a game in the series between the 2 of em)....while Kobe put 29 ppg on 53% FG in the series.
