therealbig3 wrote:using their career numbers when both of them were asked to be the primary scorer is a valid comparison imo, because it shows, on average, what both guys brought to the table with their backs against the wall. And Malone was slightly better, but didn't hold too much of an advantage anywhere.
"Valid?" For what? I want to know how good these guys were when we're talking about how good they were, not 1997 for Bryant or 2003 for Malone. Malone's last few playoff runs he was older, out of gas and not nearly as good of a player. Being asked to still carry unipolar responsibilities cripples players of that age (see what happened to KG after his big game in the PS this year).
And I've also addressed your point about Malone's efficiency dropping...Kobe's been in the same situation himself numerous times. So it seems weird to me that you're willing to use one standard for Malone, and excuse him for not being up to par as the only scoring option, when Kobe was also on many occasions the only guy consistently capable of creating a shot for himself, and you don't seem to excuse him for that.
Hmmm. I feel like maybe you aren't following these points then. It's not merely about "hey, everyone stats drop when they are in a certain position." Kobe played 12 playoff games on bad teams out of over 200 playoff games in his career. 12. Karl Malone was shouldering the load for years. It's not really comparable.
As for Robinson, his game fell off consistently. Malone's didn't. The whole crux of the Malone issue is that he still tried to Iverson his team, and his shooting fell off from that, and it also fell off because he isn't Hakeem Olajuwon. Robinson, as I've showed, didn't play well against good teams *all the time.* Robinson basically just reverted to a jump shooting center who did little else. Utah calls many big plays for Malone. Rarely see that for Rob. Malone has numerous playoff explosions. Rarely see that for Rob. Malone has big shots and comebacks. Rarely see that for Rob. Just because there's a statistical similarity doesn't mean they are similar. (And I don't have Rob's peak too far below Malone's btw.)
And yes, some of those Spurs teams had plenty capable offensive guys, that's why they ran little for Robinson. Many of the Jazz teams were built more like Dallas this year...Stockton just rarely had big scoring nights and they never really a second creator/self-scorer.
With Kobe's back against the wall, it's a mixed bag, as the career stats in elimination games show. And similar to how Malone played well in games 5 and 6 against Seattle, but then didn't play well in game 7, people rip Kobe for "quitting" in game 7 against Phoenix in 06, but then they fail to mention that he dropped 50 points in game 6, and they were one box-out away from upsetting the #2 seed. And for the first 5 games of that series, Kobe was scoring and distributing very well, and was the primary reason why his team was in a position to win, whether the stats showed it or not.
Kobe's back wasn't against the wall in G6. I, nor a single person in this project, has criticized his series...because we all understand despite a big statistical decline how he played.
My point is, neither Malone nor Kobe are good in elimination situations...
Malone actually looks plenty good in his best years:
http://www.backpicks.com/2010/12/20/clu ... ion-games/And against great defenses, I thought he played quite well in 08 and 10 against Boston. He had the 6-24 game in 2010 in game 7, but for the sake of argument, let's look at how he did through the first 6 games:
29.5 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 4.2 apg, .557 TS%
Now we're looking at, considering the strength of the defense, what looks like one of the all-time great Finals performances. Maybe not top 5, maybe not top 10, but it's great.
Actually, Kobe shows no brilliant play against great defenses, certainly compared to his rivals Wade and James. That said, his 2008 series v Boston wasn't very good. His 2010 series was definitely better - it was a good performance. But the 6-24 happened, and in G7, and that's what you guys like to point to for big games. :shrug:
Look for example what ElGee (!) or drza did, but it doesn't matter. Kobe still will won and his supporters argumentation was really weak or nonexistent. Most people who vote Kobe just post vote without explanation and often if there was any explanation it used arguments which was shown as untrue before. So I wonder is there any sense in "wasting" time in research when it will not change anything in most peoples minds.
