So you started out claiming it was only 7. Then you claimed it was now 8. Now you're all the way up to 10, and claiming that you're "in my feelings" because it's 10 instead of 9. (Even though I never got when you claimed 9 - I think you made that up.)
You're only 1 step away from getting your final correction in and upping it to 11! But then you can at least say that you were "only off by 1"....for the fourth time in a row.
Show me where you claimed it was "9", and that it's not "7" or "8" that you were claiming, and I'll take back my accusations of your idiocy.
So Lebron has 11 in 13 years, and Kobe has 10 in the 13 years he played without Shaq.
Magic only has 10 such wins as well in his entire 12-year career. So Lebron has already caught more 50-win bodies as the main guy than Kobe OR Magic.
Kobe ONLY has more if you forget that he played 7 more seasons than Lebron and count all the seasons where he was the second-fiddle on the team.
And if you go to beating. 48-win teams, 55-win teams, or 60-win teams, Lebron's advantage is massive.
No, but every one of those 20 years, he either played the best team in the West, or got beat by another Western team that was inferior to the best team.
I don't even know what you're trying to argue at this point.
Who the hell ever said that the question is HOF teammates? You're the only one who has ever said that.
If HOF teammates were the issue, we'd be talking about Kobe in 2013.
The issue is how the hell you get credit for carrying your team to a championship when YOU'RE NOT EVEN THE BEST PLAYER ON THE TEAM.
You ain't giving that credit to Scottie Pippen or Sam Jones.
Either the best player can single-handedly determine whether the team wins a ring, and therefore the "RINGS!" argument and out-of-context Finals records matter....or the 2nd-fiddle is actually relevant, and Finals records aren't enough to tell you what's happening.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the #1 guy should be able to will the team to victory by himself AND that the 2nd-fiddle matters just as much as the #1 guy. It's idiocy, and of all the fanbases in the world, ONLY Kobestan ever makes that argument.
No one ever says, "Wade's three rings are just as good as Bird's!" Everyone knows that Bird was the #1 guy for 3 championships, and Wade for only 1.
Until you explain how Kobe's 2000 run was better than all of Pippen's and Jones's 2nd-fiddle runs, then you have to explain why he gets to count 5 and they don't. And no, claiming "something he did a decade later makes what happened in 2000 matter!" is way too stupid to count.
No one is "penalizing" Kobe for playing with Shaq. No one is criticizing him for playing with Shaq. He gets ALL the credit that a second-fiddle gets.
It's like "penalizing" Biden for not giving him credit for Obama's presidency.
You have massive, massive
Dunning–Kruger effect issue going on here.
Considering your basic math errors that you've made over and over, your basic logic errors you've made over and over, your completely inability to understand other people's arguments and the statement you just made right there, I'm pretty sure the 4th-grade version of me would have ran intellectual circles around you before giving up in frustration.
Jesus Christ you're an idiot.
You repeatedly bring up "2000 Kobe" as if that's all he ever was. Like there was no 2001 Kobe. Or 2002 Kobe.
And you literally just discuss his 2000 Finals performance and extrapolate that to be his entire career from the day he was drafted until he won in 2009 and 2010.
Question, do you actually watch basketball?
2001 Semis: Lakers 4 - Kings 0
Kobe: 35ppg, 9rpg, 4.3apg, 1.3spg, 0.5bpg on 47.3% shooting
Shaq: 33.3ppg, 17.3rpg, 2.3apg, 0.5spg, 3.3bpg on 59.8% shooting
2001 WCF: Lakers 4 - Spurs 0
Kobe: 33.3ppg, 7rpg, 7apg, 1.5spg, 0.8bpg on 51% shooting
Shaq: 27ppg, 13rbpg, 2.5apg, 0.8spg, 1.3bpg on 54% shooting
Sooooo... Kobe was getting CARRIED those series? Oh, that's right. This doesn't fit your narrative.
Let me guess, your dumbass thinks he's not touching Sam Jones or Scottie Pippen...
2001 NBA Finals: Lakers 4 - 76ers 1
Kobe: 24.6, 7.8, 5.8, 1.4, 1.4 on 41.5%
Shaq: 33, 15.8, 4.8, 0.4, 3.4 on 57.3%
2002 Semis: Lakers 4 - Spurs 1
Kobe: 26.2, 5.4, 4.8, 1.0, 0.2 on 45.5%
Shaq: 21.4, 12.2, 3.2, 0.6, 3.0 on 44.7%
2002 WCF: Lakers 4 - Kings 3
Kobe: 27.1, 6.3, 3.9, 1.4, 1.1 on 41.9%
Shaq: 30.0, 13.6, 1.6, 0.4, 2.4 on 53.2%
2002 Finals: Lakers 4 - Nets 0
Kobe: 26.8, 5.8, 5.3, 1.5, 0.8 on 51.4%
Shaq: 36.3, 12.3, 3.8, 0.5, 2.8 on 59.5%
Let's go ahead and take it back to 2000, since that's the only year you apparently think Kobe played in before he won back to back in 2009 and 2010.
2000 First Round: Lakers 3 - Kings 2
Kobe: 27.8, 4.4, 3.6, 1.2, 0.6 on 49.6%
Shaq: 29.4, 17.4, 2.8, 0.8, 2.6 on 54.3%
2000 Semis: Lakers 4 - Suns 1
Kobe: 21, 3.8, 3.4, 2, 1.4 on 45.2%
Shaq: 30.2, 16.2, 2.6, 0.4, 2.6 on 55.9%
2000 WCF: Lakers 4 - Blazers 3
Kobe: 20.4, 4.9, 5.9, 1.6, 2.1 on 43.9%
Shaq: 25.9, 12.4, 4.3, 0.1, 1.9 on 53.7%
2000 Finals aka Your Favorite Series aka The Only Series You Ever Refer To aka The Only Series Kobe Has Ever Played aka The Crux Of Your Entire Dumbass Argument: Lakers 4 - Pacers 2
Kobe: 15.6, 4.6, 4.2, 1.0, 1.4 on 36.7%
Shaq: 38, 16.7, 2.3, 1.0, 2.7 on 61.1%
So there you have it. Since you don't actually watch, follow, and/or remember basketball, I went ahead and laid out his title runs for you. I didn't include the 1st rounds of 2001 and 2002 but you can go ahead and look those up on your own if you want. I'm sure your'e DYING to find a 3-5 game sample size to extrapolate for 10+ years of his career in order to continue your LeBron stanning.
I went ahead and bolded the ones where Kobe seemingly was the better player than Shaq. There's not a lot, but what do you honestly expect given that Shaq was one of the most dominant big men to EVER play the game in his PRIME at the time, and Kobe was still not even 25 years old?
You telling me Sam Jones would have ever outplayed prime Shaq as his teammate in those series?
You telling me Scottie Pippen would have ever outplayed prime Shaq as his teammate in those series?
Go ahead and discount his ring from 2000 if you want since you seem to think only 1 playoff series was played that year and Kobe's performance wasn't to your liking.
He would still have 4 rings at that point. 2 more than Bron. And no, I just showed your dumbass that he wasn't merely a "sidekick" for those 2001 and 2002 rings. He was a budding superstar in the league putting up superstar numbers in the playoffs.
Please, when you get done reading this and decide to quote me, explain how exactly his 2001 and 2002 years and rings don't count in this LeBron vs. Kobe discussion you have going on in your head.
Also, I look forward to you nitpicking my post and finding semantics to argue about since that's all you seem to be able to do. The point of that 50 win image was to delineate just how shytty the Eastern Conference is compared to the West and how LeBron struggles when he plays against the West, whereas Kobe has always faced better competition in his postseason career consistently. Apparently all of that went over your head because you were too confused with what his actual number of wins was when it's merely a fraction of Kobe's and doesn't change the point of the image at all.
Also, every year LeBron has had the opportunity to either play the team that would then face the best team in the West, a team that would later go on and challenge to play the best team in the West, or play the best team in the West himself. He's only come out on top 2 times.
Funny how you use the transitive property on Kobe, but it seemingly doesn't apply to LeBron. What a genius argument you have constructed.
No wonder people in this thread are clowning on you. You've been using one playoff series from 2001 to define Kobe over a 3-5 year period.
You're a real intelligent guy
for those selective stats
You quoted me for no reason other than to make some sassy ass comments
