If they're better one on one scorers, how arent they better scorers?
Because basketball is played five-on-five, not one-on-one?
Iso Joe is the greatest scorer in the NBA in your world, right?
And you must have been a huge J.R. Rider stan.
Shaq got his buckets because he was stronger/faster/bigger than everyone else. While Hakeem got his buckets based on his actual game. Nobody at the rec is going to say the guy using a screen everytime down the court or having plays called for him that utilize him running off screens is a better scorer than a guy who does it all (drive/post/shoot) on his own even if at a lesser percentage.. Geeks come in after the game and look for stat sheets
First off, as I mentioned before, this is only true for over-30 Hakeem. In the 1980s Hakeem was basically scoring off of his athleticism.
And Jordan mostly scored off his superior height and athleticism for the first half of his career, so was Jordan not a great scorer then either?
Strength/speed/size IS part of the actual game. Do you ever hear anyone say, "Steve Nash is a better shooter than Jordan, he just didn't have Jordan's height and speed and athleticism, therefore he's really the better scorer"??? No, that would be stupid as hell.
A HUGE part of why Jordan was so good was because he was a 6'6" guard who was more athletic than everyone else. I have NEVER heard anyone claim that that Jordan shouldn't be considered a great scorer because he relied on his height and athleticism so much. Anyone would look at you like an idiot if you said that the fact that Jordan was a tall athletic guard should count against him.
Then go to Nash and Marbury. As a SCORER, you're taking Nash?
I don't understand what you think passes for logic in your world.
Marbury scored a lot more points than Nash, but on worse efficiency.
Lebron scores more points than Kobe, AND on better efficiency.
It's not the same comparison because Nash, unlike Lebron, doesn't score a ton of points.
The guy who scores more points, more efficiently, is the better scorer.
Why is is so hard to understand?
The argument is that the guy that can score on his own (iso ball) is a better scorer than the guy that needs help (screens/plays) at simply scoring the ball. INDIVIDUALLY, the iso baller is better but for team success, the guy that needs help is better. Whats so hard about this concept for brehs that allegedly hoop?
You were talking about Hakeem and Shaq. Shaq needs help to score? Shaq scores off of screens? Hakeem is a greater scorer because he's better at iso, but Shaq's better for team success because...why? Your arguments are getting really, really stupid.
And what the hell does this have to do with Lebron? You trying to argue that Lebron "needs help" to score? His best scoring years were when he had no help at all.
Not to mention that Kobe spent virtually his entire career in the offensive scheme of an elite coach. Lebron spent half his career in the offensive schemes of Mike Brown and most of the rest with Eric Spolstra.
So one one hand you play tough to defense to stop a player, another hand you allow a player to shoot
They didn't "play tough to defense", whatever that means, to stop Kobe. They used his own selfish nature against him:
"Chauncey Billups: Our game plan was very calculated. We knew we were going to play Shaq straight-up. We knew there was no way we could stop Shaq straight-up. And there was also no way we could stop Kobe straight-up. But, if we’re going to play Shaq straight-up, [the Lakers'] eyes are going to get big, which means they’re going to keep throwing it down there. We’re telling Ben the whole time, "Take fouls when you need to, but don’t get yourself into foul trouble. You need to give up a layup, cool, we’re going to get what we want on the other side." But what’s going to happen is Mr. Bryant is going to get a little discouraged with getting no touches and now the second half comes around…now he’s pressing. He’s going to start coming down and just breaking the offense. When you do that, you’re done—you’re playing right into our hands. Even if you start making those shots, you’re finished."
And that's how Kobe finished with 22-3-4 on 38% shooting and the Lakers lost in 5 in the series despite being overwhelming favorites.
This is Kobe's Finals resume: 24.7ppg, 5.6rpg, 4.9apg, 41.2% shooting, most of his titles playing 2nd-fiddle to Shaq or getting bailed out by the most complete frontcourt in basketball.
2000: 15-4-4 on 36.7% shooting being guarded by Reggie Miller and Jalen Rose
2001: 25-8-6 on 41.5% shooting being guarded by Allen Iverson, Eric Snow, and Aaron McKie
2002: 27-6-5 on 51.4% shooting being guarded by Kerry Kittles, Richard Jefferson, and Jason Kidd
2004: 23-3-4 on 38.1% shooting being guarded by Rip Hamilton, Chauncey Billups, and Tayshaun Prince
2008: 26-5-5 on 40.5% shooting being guarded by Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo, and Sam Cassell
2009: 32-6-7 on 43.0% shooting being guarded by Courtney Lee, J.J. Redikk, and Michael Pietrus
2010: 29-8-4 on 40.5% shooting being guarded by Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo, and Tony Allen
Kobe’s Finals Chapter | Forum Blue And Gold
Those performances sucked, and it wasn't like he was even manned up by great defenders most of the time. Lebron's been guarded in his Finals career by Kawhi Leonard (twice), Andre Iguodala (twice), Durant, Marion/Stevenson and Finley/Bowen, not to mention the entire defensive scheme centered around him each year because he never had a Shaq to draw attention like Kobe usually did, and Lebron STILL far outperformed Kobe on the offensive end during the Finals.
You going by Finals performances, Lebron kills Kobe as a scorer, and it's not even close.
I beg to differ. Maybe you have some stats to back up what you say because I dont. But as I remember it, Kobe always took his teams bailout shots while Lebron seemingly passes it off to his teammates.
Check out 82games.com for shot clock stats for every year.
For example, in
2012 Kobe took 18% of his shots in the final 3 seconds of the shot clock, and made 36% of them.
However, in
2012 Lebron took 21% of his shots in the final 3 seconds of the shot clock, and made 40% of them.
In
2010 Kobe took 14% of his shots in the final 3 seconds of the shot clock, and made 50% of them.
In
2010 Lebron took 24% of his shots in the final 3 seconds of the shot clock, and made 48% of them.
In
2007 Kobe took 13% of his shots in the final 3 seconds of the shot clock, and made 41% of them.
In
2007 Lebron took 16% of his shots in the final 3 seconds of the shot clock, and made 42% of them.
Those were literally the only three years I tried, so I think it's a very good bet that trend continues for just about every year and their career averages.
This is why "as I remember it" is a stupid way to grade players. You're biased, so you were wrong. Lebron has his numbers hurt MORE by having to take shots at the end of the shot clock than Kobe ever has, and there's numbers to prove it.
Unless you think doing more no look passes makes one a better passer, I dont see how Bron was a better passer than Kobe. More willing? Absolutely. But when Kobe chose to be a pass first player (look at the end of the Dwight Howard season) he was up there with anyone as far as SG's/SF's is concerned..
Kobe was a good passer in short 5-6 game stretches when he decided to be pass-first. (See also, the first 4 games of the 2006 Suns-Lakers series.) The team was much better when he was doing that too. He was a selfish idiot for not doing that more often.
But Kobe was NEVER in Lebron's league as far as passing goes. Not even close. I'm not just talking about numbers - Lebron has so much better court vision than Kobe, and can complete so many more types of passes than him, it's not even close. I can't imagine anyone other than a Kobestan would even entertain this notion.
[/QUOTE]
, Lebron > Bean > AI. The one caveat I would put is Kobe is clearly the most skilled he just took too many bad shots. One guy to get a bucket regardless of time/score Kobe > LeBron > AI
Is someone in here arguing Reggie Miller or Rip Hamilton >>> Kobe?
