Ball Boy wrote:No one is going to say that.. The problem is us "Kobe supporters" hate hearing that Kobe wasnt the best player, therefore doesnt deserve any credit.
Well, saying that Bryant doesn't deserve any credit is also just plain wrong, you are right on this one. He was an important player, more important than just a 2nd option or sidekick. But in the end Duncan was more important to the 2007 Spurs title than Bryant to the 2000 or 2001 title. And that still leaves us with two finals MVP for Duncan and one for Bryant. You can't just say that Bryant has 4 titles and Duncan 3 during those 10 years and make that an argument for Bryant being better than Duncan.
D Nice wrote:So I'm a crazy fan who thinks Kobe is the best at everything because my opinion is different. Awesome.
No, that's not what I said. I only wanted to make a point with the stuff about James and Shaquille O'Neal. The things happened in 2008 or 2009 are more in people's mind than that what happened in 2000 or 2001. People seem to forget pretty fast.
D Nice wrote:Also, what Shaq comment are you referring to?
Your comment about Shaq wasn't a factor for 4 seasons. That is hardly true, because he got 7 All NBA 1st team awards.
D Nice wrote:And I'm not going to get into a statistical argument before, because I've had the exact same discussions with Bastillion regarding KG. Kobe's numbers were skewed playing with Shaq, and that translates into advanced metrics as well.
Well, you would lose this argument, that is the reason. Bryant scored 29.5 ppg on .527 ts% without Shaq, he played more minutes in those games and the Lakers played a little bit faster without Shaq. That pretty means that Bryant's PER wouldn't change. The Lakers also went 23-26 without Shaq, which means even with a higher percentage of the team's win shares the number would go down overall.
Bryant also would have less titles, less All Defense teams, less All NBA 1st teams. His overall resume would rather go down than up without Shaquille O'Neal.
D Nice wrote:If numbers were everything, Robinson would be > Duncan, and on Hakeem's level, but he isn't, and everybody can SEE it.
Actually, you can't just look at the numbers of the regular season in that case. Robinson is not on Duncan's or Olajuwon's level, because he failed to deliver in the playoffs. Duncan's and Olajuwon's PER and Win Shares in the playoffs are much better than Robinson's. That is the reason I included the playoff numbers. If Duncan would be worse in the playoffs, it would be a good argument for Bryant, but in fact it is the other way around. Duncan's numbers are going up in the playoffs, Bryant's are going down.
D Nice wrote:And you claim to have your opinion grounded in emprical data, yet you arbitrarily used random GM/player surveys to make your point.
Yes, I just used it to make a point, I didn't build my opinion on those surveys. But you got the point.
Quincy wrote:For the decade, Kobe>Shaq. Not career-wise, just for this decade.
Oh, yes, that is true. The only argument for Shaquille O'Neal ahead of Bryant is O'Neal's peak. But the difference is closer than most people think.