The Official 2010 NBA Playoffs Thread

[Earl1972]

Because McGrady is a talented player who has never been a team leader.  He doesn't play defense.  He disappears in big games.  He has never been a winner.  He is not tough.  He is not durable.   

But what does this have to do with Kobe?  Just to recap, you said Kobe never went to the playofs without Phil/Shaq.  When I showed you that wasn't accurate and that he took some pretty marginal players to the playoffs, you then brought up McGrady.  Not sure how this relates to Kobe making the playoffs with Smush Parker and Kwame Brown?

but he still took marginal players to the playoffs, you don't think he would've had more success if he played with a prime shaq and had phil as his coach?

i said kobe didn't go to the playoffs when shaq and phil left, i didn't say he missed the playoffs every year, and like i said all average nba teams make the playoffs so it makes no difference

E

[Dos Equis]

he wasn't the best player on championship teams, which kills the "kobe is on jordan's level" argument

E

Earl you said he rode Shaq's coattails.  I just gave you to stats to show that simply wasn't true. 

Did you watch them play from 2000 to 2003? 

[Dos Equis]

but he still took marginal players to the playoffs, you don't think he would've had more success if he played with a prime shaq and had phil as his coach?

i said kobe didn't go to the playoffs when shaq and phil left, i didn't say he missed the playoffs every year, and like i said all average nba teams make the playoffs so it makes no difference

E

No, I don't think McGrady would have been any better than he is today for the reasons I already gave about his game. 

Here is what you said about Kobe:

kobe missed the playoffs without phil/shaq

E

That statement is not true.  At best, it is misleading. 

[Dos Equis]

Here is one take on the Kobe v. Jordan "argument":

Kobe Bryant vs. Michael Jordan argument is no longer heresy
By Mike Wise
Monday, May 31, 2010
PHOENIX

If we're going to have the conversation, we might as well go to one of the primary sources, no?

Greatest of all time, you or Michael?

"That's hard for me," Kobe Bryant said, walking to another team bus after another virtuoso performance in late May. "I'm still young. Our careers are so different."

But what if you win a championship this season and one or two more rings before you retire? That would equal or surpass Michael Jordan's haul of titles. Don't we have to start talking about it?

"You can, but I don't know if it's fair to anyone," Kobe said. "I mean, I came off the bench early in my career. We had such different beginnings, you know? And then I played with a much different team about halfway through my career. You almost have to judge my career in two phases."

He's right.

There was Kobe With Shaq and Kobe Without Shaq; Michael always had Scottie Pippen.

Kobe came straight from high school; Michael stayed three years at North Carolina. Kobe is working on his fifth title at 31 years old; Michael didn't win his fifth until he was 34 years old.

Yet for the bulk of their careers, they both also had Phil Jackson, the greatest coach in the game.

"He's comparable [to Jordan]," Jackson said of Bryant on Saturday night in the desert outside the coach's room at U.S. Airways Arena. "He's got the same drive and determination."

Jackson had just watched the game's most accomplished player pour in 37 points and two of the most jaw-dropping shots in the final two minutes of a close-out victory over the Phoenix Suns in the Western Conference finals, shots that pushed the Lakers into their third straight NBA Finals and seventh in the last 11 seasons.

So, he was essentially asked, what if Michael's surreal highlights start to be referred to as "Kobe-esque?" Or is that just heresy? Should we play the "Greatest of All Time" game?

"People are going to do it," Jackson replied.

What about you?

"I will hold back observation until that time."

Okay, that's a maybe. And raise your hand right now if you thought Phil would ever go there on any level?

We can play "Who Had More 40- and 50-point games?" and "Who Holds More NBA records?" and break down raw numbers forever. And it won't do anything but satisfy the people who calibrate the game instead of celebrate it.

But the entire debate is really immaterial in some ways, isn't it? Because in the G.O.A.T. argument, the problem for Bryant isn't about production -- it's about perception.

The unfortunate truth for Kobe is he can never be Michael because he isn't thought of as likable as Jordan, also the greatest commercial pitchman ever for an athlete. Even if he tied or surpassed Jordan in championships and postseason magical moments, Bryant's public missteps -- the prideful ego war with Shaquille O'Neal early in his career, the sexual assault charge eventually dropped in Colorado and his desire to leave the Lakers only a few years ago -- will always be held against him.

"Let's say he does get two more rings," Tim Legler, the former player and now an ESPN analyst, said recently in a telephone interview. "Even if he doesn't win any more MVP awards, he will probably approach Kareem Abdul-

Jabbar's all-time scoring record. You absolutely can make a valid argument for Kobe being the greatest ever when that happens.

"But he will never be revered like Michael Jordan will be revered," Legler added. "He's never been beloved like Michael has been beloved. Very little of that has to do with what happened in Vail [Colo.] or anything with Shaq.

"There's still something about him. So many people question how genuine Kobe is. He's chosen to not let people really get to know him."

Because we sadly convince ourselves that what we see on television equals who someone is, Kobe won't even go down as the greatest Laker in history. Magic Johnson wrapped that up for eternity a long time ago.

Purely based on his professional persona, I think Kobe gets shortchanged on the image issue. See, Michael was as cutthroat and undiplomatic and nasty as a champion ever was. By the time he put on the suit and tie, though, he was a much better actor. With his megawatt smile and disarming wink, he could conceal the shadow side of him in ways Kobe never really cared if he concealed.

When I ran that thought by Kobe late Saturday night in Phoenix, he didn't completely agree. "He wasn't better at hiding it," Kobe said of Michael. "I think there was just less media coverage."

Either way, it's time to stop ignoring the possibility there will ever be a player of Jordan's ilk -- and maybe better.

"Yeah, you can compare them," said Brian Shaw, the Lakers assistant coach who played with Kobe and against both players. "They're made of the same stuff. The difference: I think Michael had just bigger hands. He could palm the ball off the dribble. I don't think Kobe can do that."

I sought out Steve Kerr for the final say. He played with Michael and against Kobe. Kerr intimately felt the moments when Michael siphoned the soul from a team's season, no more than the night he shot down Utah on the road in Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals.

Flash forward to another Game 6, Western Conference finals, 12 years later. Thirty-five seconds left, game in the balance. The best player on the court squares and fires off-balance from the right wing with hands in his face. Good. Another visiting arena is crestfallen, its team's season over. Kerr, now the Phoenix Suns general manager, intimately felt that shot puncture more than a great year.


"He's the only guy you can legitimately say is right there with Michael," Kerr said. "Kobe actually has better shooting range than Michael. Now, Michael was more physical. The rules when he played allowed the Knicks to maul him. But in the end, they're both killers and the most incredible players of their eras."

It's easy to appreciate both for their talents and their triumphs this time of year.

It's harder to acknowledge the truth and just say it: If Kobe Bryant wins his fifth title in the next two weeks and wins two more championships before he retires to give him seven rings, he has to be given the nod as the greatest individual talent ever to play in the NBA.

As hard as that might be to hear for Michael and his legions, that's not heresy anymore.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/30/AR2010053003391.html

[Earl1972]

Earl you said he rode Shaq's coattails.  I just gave you to stats to show that simply wasn't true. 

Did you watch them play from 2000 to 2003? 

by saying that i was saying that shaq was clearly the best player, not saying he was adam morrison

yes in the playoffs when it counts

E

[Earl1972]

No, I don't think McGrady would have been any better than he is today for the reasons I already gave about his game. 

Here is what you said about Kobe:


That statement is not true.  At best, it is misleading. 

i could've sworn i saw jeannie buss at the lottery drawing after the 2005 season

E

[Dos Equis]

by saying that i was saying that shaq was clearly the best player, not saying he was adam morrison

yes in the playoffs when it counts

E

Understood. 

Amazing how people can watch the same thing and see something completely different.  That's one of the things that makes life interesting. 

In any event, what I saw during that playoff run was two dominant players.  Neither would have won without the other.  I don't think it really matters who the won the MVP.

[Dos Equis]

i could've sworn i saw jeannie buss at the lottery drawing after the 2005 season

E

I mentioned this earlier, but they did miss the playoffs once, which is how they got Bynum in the lottery. 

[UPINTHEMGUTS]

Here is one take on the Kobe v. Jordan "argument":

Kobe Bryant vs. Michael Jordan argument is no longer heresy
By Mike Wise
Monday, May 31, 2010
PHOENIX

If we're going to have the conversation, we might as well go to one of the primary sources, no?

Greatest of all time, you or Michael?

"That's hard for me," Kobe Bryant said, walking to another team bus after another virtuoso performance in late May. "I'm still young. Our careers are so different."

But what if you win a championship this season and one or two more rings before you retire? That would equal or surpass Michael Jordan's haul of titles. Don't we have to start talking about it?

"You can, but I don't know if it's fair to anyone," Kobe said. "I mean, I came off the bench early in my career. We had such different beginnings, you know? And then I played with a much different team about halfway through my career. You almost have to judge my career in two phases."

He's right.

There was Kobe With Shaq and Kobe Without Shaq; Michael always had Scottie Pippen.

Kobe came straight from high school; Michael stayed three years at North Carolina. Kobe is working on his fifth title at 31 years old; Michael didn't win his fifth until he was 34 years old.

Yet for the bulk of their careers, they both also had Phil Jackson, the greatest coach in the game.

"He's comparable [to Jordan]," Jackson said of Bryant on Saturday night in the desert outside the coach's room at U.S. Airways Arena. "He's got the same drive and determination."

Jackson had just watched the game's most accomplished player pour in 37 points and two of the most jaw-dropping shots in the final two minutes of a close-out victory over the Phoenix Suns in the Western Conference finals, shots that pushed the Lakers into their third straight NBA Finals and seventh in the last 11 seasons.

So, he was essentially asked, what if Michael's surreal highlights start to be referred to as "Kobe-esque?" Or is that just heresy? Should we play the "Greatest of All Time" game?

"People are going to do it," Jackson replied.

What about you?

"I will hold back observation until that time."

Okay, that's a maybe. And raise your hand right now if you thought Phil would ever go there on any level?

We can play "Who Had More 40- and 50-point games?" and "Who Holds More NBA records?" and break down raw numbers forever. And it won't do anything but satisfy the people who calibrate the game instead of celebrate it.

But the entire debate is really immaterial in some ways, isn't it? Because in the G.O.A.T. argument, the problem for Bryant isn't about production -- it's about perception.

The unfortunate truth for Kobe is he can never be Michael because he isn't thought of as likable as Jordan, also the greatest commercial pitchman ever for an athlete. Even if he tied or surpassed Jordan in championships and postseason magical moments, Bryant's public missteps -- the prideful ego war with Shaquille O'Neal early in his career, the sexual assault charge eventually dropped in Colorado and his desire to leave the Lakers only a few years ago -- will always be held against him.

"Let's say he does get two more rings," Tim Legler, the former player and now an ESPN analyst, said recently in a telephone interview. "Even if he doesn't win any more MVP awards, he will probably approach Kareem Abdul-

Jabbar's all-time scoring record. You absolutely can make a valid argument for Kobe being the greatest ever when that happens.

"But he will never be revered like Michael Jordan will be revered," Legler added. "He's never been beloved like Michael has been beloved. Very little of that has to do with what happened in Vail [Colo.] or anything with Shaq.

"There's still something about him. So many people question how genuine Kobe is. He's chosen to not let people really get to know him."

Because we sadly convince ourselves that what we see on television equals who someone is, Kobe won't even go down as the greatest Laker in history. Magic Johnson wrapped that up for eternity a long time ago.

Purely based on his professional persona, I think Kobe gets shortchanged on the image issue. See, Michael was as cutthroat and undiplomatic and nasty as a champion ever was. By the time he put on the suit and tie, though, he was a much better actor. With his megawatt smile and disarming wink, he could conceal the shadow side of him in ways Kobe never really cared if he concealed.

When I ran that thought by Kobe late Saturday night in Phoenix, he didn't completely agree. "He wasn't better at hiding it," Kobe said of Michael. "I think there was just less media coverage."

Either way, it's time to stop ignoring the possibility there will ever be a player of Jordan's ilk -- and maybe better.

"Yeah, you can compare them," said Brian Shaw, the Lakers assistant coach who played with Kobe and against both players. "They're made of the same stuff. The difference: I think Michael had just bigger hands. He could palm the ball off the dribble. I don't think Kobe can do that."

I sought out Steve Kerr for the final say. He played with Michael and against Kobe. Kerr intimately felt the moments when Michael siphoned the soul from a team's season, no more than the night he shot down Utah on the road in Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals.

Flash forward to another Game 6, Western Conference finals, 12 years later. Thirty-five seconds left, game in the balance. The best player on the court squares and fires off-balance from the right wing with hands in his face. Good. Another visiting arena is crestfallen, its team's season over. Kerr, now the Phoenix Suns general manager, intimately felt that shot puncture more than a great year.


"He's the only guy you can legitimately say is right there with Michael," Kerr said. "Kobe actually has better shooting range than Michael. Now, Michael was more physical. The rules when he played allowed the Knicks to maul him. But in the end, they're both killers and the most incredible players of their eras."

It's easy to appreciate both for their talents and their triumphs this time of year.

It's harder to acknowledge the truth and just say it: If Kobe Bryant wins his fifth title in the next two weeks and wins two more championships before he retires to give him seven rings, he has to be given the nod as the greatest individual talent ever to play in the NBA.

As hard as that might be to hear for Michael and his legions, that's not heresy anymore.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/30/AR2010053003391.html

Kobe is still only 31 years old. To compare Kobe to Jordan a this stage, it's not even close, IMO. The comparison that I see is both players will to win and competitiveness. Jordan would kill your child in order to win a game.

Jordan also never played with a dominant center or post player like Kobe did with Shaq. Steve Kerr makes a great point, too. Jordan was still dominant even when defenses were allowed to be much more physical. The Pistons and Knicks used to throw everything they had at Jordan and he still would drop 40 points, routinely.

Kobe has 4 rings while Jordan has six. Kobe still has some catching up to do.

[Dos Equis]

Kobe is still only 31 years old. To compare Kobe to Jordan a this stage, it's not even close, IMO. The comparison that I see is both players will to win and competitiveness. Jordan would kill your child in order to win a game.

Jordan also never played with a dominant center or post player like Kobe did with Shaq. Steve Kerr makes a great point, too. Jordan was still dominant even when defenses were allowed to be much more physical. The Pistons and Knicks used to throw everything they had at Jordan and he still would drop 40 points, routinely.

Kobe has 4 rings while Jordan has six. Kobe still has some catching up to do.

Good points.

Jordan never had a dominant center (and there have only been a handful the past 20 or so years anyway), but he wasn't facing dominant centers either for the most part.  He did, however, play with Pippin, supposedly one of the NBA's 50 greatest of all time.   

I also don't think the number of rings dictates how great a player was.  In other words, if Kobe "only" winds up with four or five, that doesn't mean he wasn't as good or better than Jordan.   

[UPINTHEMGUTS]

Good points.

Jordan never had a dominant center (and there have only been a handful the past 20 or so years anyway), but he wasn't facing dominant centers either for the most part.  He did, however, play with Pippin, supposedly one of the NBA's 50 greatest of all time.    

I also don't think the number of rings dictates how great a player was.  In other words, if Kobe "only" winds up with four or five, that doesn't mean he wasn't as good or better than Jordan.    

I agree. That being said, Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time, IMO. And Kobe IS NOT the 2nd greatest player of all time.

[Earl1972]

not even the best laker

magic
kareem
wilt
shaq
kobe

E

[Dos Equis]

I agree. That being said, Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time, IMO. And Kobe IS NOT the 2nd greatest player of all time.

All a matter of opinion.  You could make an argument for Kobe, Magic, Kareem, West, Shaq, Wilt, and even Worthy. 

[Mr Nobody]

not even the best laker

magic
kareem
wilt
shaq
kobe

E

I'm going with kareem all time best laker.

[2ND COMING]

Aren't you about 20 years old?  That means you weren't alive during the golden years of the NBA.  I asked about your age because of what I mentioned earlier:  people often have a generational "bias."  That is, they are more persuaded by what they see, not what they hear about.  

For example, because you're pretty young, "fo, fo, and fo" probably wouldn't mean anything to you (unless you Goggle it).  You probably didn't watch the Bad Boys play.  The LA Express is foreign.  The magic that Bird worked on the court wouldn't mean much.  If I were to tell you Dennis Rodman was pound-for-pound the best rebounder and defender I've ever seen, you wouldn't have a frame of reference.  Or if I said Malone was an absolute beast on the boards, you'd probably think I was talking about Karl and not Moses.  If said the Ice Man was one of the greatest scorers in NBA history, you likely wouldn't know anything about that.  

That's why I don't have players like Wilt, Russell, Robertson, etc. on my list.  I didn't see them play.  Because of this, I don't ridicule people who say Wilt is the greatest player of all time, when they actually watched him play.  

It has actually been pretty fun to introduce my kids to the players I grew up watching.  Youtube is a great thing.  

22  

I understand your POV, but i cant stand people (fans  ) who are of the notion that: "well, i never seen so and so play, so i have no right to speak on them"

its like oh..youre one of those types..    

Stats are a decent frame of reference not just word of word of mouth. You probably were a adolescent brat with no semblance of the sport when ali did most of his damage in the ring. Does it mean any less when you call him the greatest if not the greatest ever ? No..the accomplishments speak for themselves, grandpa  

[Dos Equis]

I'm going with kareem all time best laker.

Definitely in the conversation.  You get no argument from me.   

[Dos Equis]

22  

I understand your POV, but i cant stand people (fans  ) who are of the notion that: "well, i never seen so and so play, so i have no right to speak on them"

its like oh..youre one of those types..    

Stats are a decent frame of reference not just word of word of mouth. You probably were a adolescent brat with no semblance of the sport when ali did most of his damage in the ring. Does it mean any less when you call him the greatest if not the greatest ever ? No..the accomplishments speak for themselves, grandpa  

I didn't say you don't have a right to speak.  Just putting your opinion in context.  If you go back and read what I said, I included myself in your category, because, for example, I never saw Oscar Robertson play.  If I saw a player average a triple double for an entire season, I might be calling him the best I've ever seen.

You'll understand this more in about 15 or 20 years when all of the current players you watch now are retired, and some youngster starts talking about a young player being the "best ever," etc.   

I was a huge boxing fan before the sport went into the toilet (at least the heavyweight division).   

[body88]

22 

I understand your POV, but i cant stand people (fans  ) who are of the notion that: "well, i never seen so and so play, so i have no right to speak on them"

its like oh..youre one of those types..   

Stats are a decent frame of reference not just word of word of mouth. You probably were a adolescent brat with no semblance of the sport when ali did most of his damage in the ring. Does it mean any less when you call him the greatest if not the greatest ever ? No..the accomplishments speak for themselves, grandpa 

I buy this. It's the same for those who claim others cannot comment on something if they have never done it. Ex: insert dipstick pro athlete asking a fan if they've ever played a sport at a high level, and then acting as if the fans opinion is no good since they have not.

I guess none of us should vote for/have an opinion on a President, since we've never run a country before.

[regmac]

I'm going with kareem all time best laker.

No need to decide on "the best Laker"   they are a team from the assistant eqipment managers aid up to Jerry Buss!   Everyone all together makes them great.   Kobe is just a part of the organization.

[Mr Nobody]

No need to decide on "the best Laker"   they are a team from the assistant eqipment managers aid up to Jerry Buss!   Everyone all together makes them great.   Kobe is just a part of the organization.

Come on reg who do you think is the best laker all time?

[Dos Equis]

I agree with Jerry.   

West: Kobe is best Laker ever

When Jerry West talks, people listen. He spent his entire career in Los Angeles, then coached the team for three seasons and followed that up with a short stint as a Lakers scout before building the 1980s Lakers that won three titles. Jerry West is a Laker through and through, and when it comes to all-time Laker greats, if you said Jerry West was the greatest, a lot of people would agree with you. Except Jerry West. "[Kobe's] playing the best basketball I have ever seen him play to be honest with you. [...] There's no better player that I've ever seen than him... He's the greatest Laker player that we have ever seen."

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/193031-west-kobe-is-best-laker-ever?eref=sihp

[Earl1972]

maybe he's biased because he traded to get him when he was just in high school



when kobe was a junior in high school, his team lost in the Pa eastern finals to the team my high school beat in the state championship

E

[Dos Equis]

maybe he's biased because he traded to get him when he was just in high school



when kobe was a junior in high school, his team lost in the Pa eastern finals to the team my high school beat in the state championship

E

Perhaps.  Or maybe he has a more informed opinion because he has seen Kobe and other Laker greats play so much.  

[Earl1972]

nope

kobe is becoming the most overrated athlete ever

E

[Dos Equis]

nope

kobe is becoming the most overrated athlete ever

E

lol