Kobe Bryant vs. Karl Malone: Elimination Games

[ronnymac2]

My problem is this be-all-end-all conclusion through stats that Bryant isn't good in elimination games. My problem isn't even what that says about a Bryant vs. Malone comparison; my problem is simply what that says about Bryant, period.

My problem is people concluding that the statistical information is a be-all-end-all. I'm not going to qualify every sentence I write down to the most rudimentary level. Heck, that's why I'm creating references on that blog to some of the more basic ideas of basketball analysis.

The idea is one I feel strongly about: individual performance is heavily conflated with team performance in sports. We have cognitive biases that remember more good ("clutch") performances in wins and wash away the ones in losses. Malone and Bryant are the two highest profile players that support that to me, and I'm throwing out a piece of information to challenge it.

So you're arguing that two perceived polar opposites in terms of clutch play (or at least, effectiveness in elimination games) aren't actually polar opposites at all, but are very close to each other in that regard (both are good-to-very good, not "one is AMAZING and the other a CHOKER"). And you've deconstructed the "Why?" question, positing that Malone was given that unfair,incorrect "Choker" label and Bryant was given that unfair, incorrect "Clutch killer assassin dominant awesome" label because of team result (Jazz usually lost, Lakers usually won).


If that's the case, then I fully agree with your deconstruction of those perceptions.

I do think a contributing factors are likability/team and overall stats in the playoffs. Malone's stats went down overall in the playoffs, and the media jumped in and nailed Karl with that, especially after he had a clunker as a controversial MVP winner against the one and only Michael Jordan in 1997. He also lost in two consecutive NBA Finals to a storybook, legendary Chicago team. The last minute of the 98 Finals doesn't help his case (in the public eye, that is).

Also, Bryant is the more exciting player, and his placement on a darling NBA team as its leader and exciting player gives him some additional backing/attention. In the media, Bryant is modeled as a Jordan-type player, meaning his clutch times and competitive streak and ballsy-ness get highlighted, and his failures probably don't get as much hype as Malone's.

Those are contributing factors. Like you posit, the main factor is the team result.


That said- and this might be nit-picking, but whatever- you need to take a more nuanced look at Bryant's individual elimination games. Like these.............

The only times I feel Bryant sucked were in 03 and 04. 03 wasn't even that bad, and he played pretty well for the whole series against SA, a series in which Bryant and O'neal had to do ALL the heavy lifting (and Bryant did it injured, too). 04, no excuse. He was awful the entire series. Other than that, win or lose, I think Bryant played to the best of his considerable abilities for each given game.

Check it out:

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/columns/story?id=5195953

Well, you're actually one of my favorite posters, but I find it hard to believe that you thought his play in 06, 08 (G6), or Game 7 last year was good. C'mon.

2006: He stands idly 27 times by my count in the second half. I've never seen a superstar do this. Watch the half again.

2008: Something like 16 of his 22 shots are deep jumpers. He doesn't create much. He gets burned on defense. He just doesn't play well. There's no other real way to describe it. The notion that the game became a blowout is independent of that.

2010: Frankly, one of the worst first half performances I've ever seen. Firing fadeaways while double-teamed off the side of the backboard? As a result, his overall game was just bad. 6-24 4 TOV and shady defense is just bad.

Kudos for glasswork in the second half -- really, love to see that -- but if that is boosting the performance in your mind, then what did LeBron do in his last Cavs game? Play the game of the century? Of the millenium?

[/quote]

I actually thought Lebron played pretty damn well in game six. He dominated the glass and brought his team within striking distance in the fourth. If Mo Williams makes an absolutely wide open jumper from the free throw line, we might be saying how Lebron led a fourth quarter comeback in that game six. His teammates failed him, but I saw him play pretty well. Not his best game, but pretty well. People wonder why James went to Miami........

Kobe was fortunate enough last year to have teammates who could save his ass when he only plays pretty well, and not exceptional. Artest and Fisher made huge plays in the fourth, and then Kobe came through with some big plays, and the Lakers won. The respective games by James and Bryant were comparable I'd say. Both played pretty well, though neither was at their best. Kobe WAS fortunate enough to have better support from his teammates. Still, Kobe should be credited with playing pretty well in a game 7- win or lose.


With regards to 08, yeah, that's another stinker. Put it as a stinker. His play wasn't the reason LA lost though, as Boston annihilated LA on all cylinders in that game. Still, a stinker for Bryant.


I still have a problem with counting 06 as bad. He just dropped 50 in game six, yet his team can't get a rebound and they lose again. Bryant would obviously be hesitant to try and score a million points on this team since it's clear the Lakers can't defeat PHX when Bryant goes off. Bryant kept them within striking distance (I guess) with a second quarter explosion. He then tried to make a mature decision and initiate, get his guys involved. He knew shooting six threes a quarter the rest of the way wasn't going to produce a comeback. He tried calling on his teammates for help, and they failed. He tried to be aggressive-Kobe is spurts, but it was too late by then. PHX's offense was clicking too well.

If Kobe's teammates had helped him pull off a comeback, we'd be saying how amazingly patient Kobe was, how he had finally grown up and matured as a leader in 2006 in THAT game 7. But they failed. Like Lebron's team failed him in game six in 2010.

You want to talk perception? Kobe WAS at his peak in 2006. He knew how to play team ball in that PHX series. Look how the Lakers even got the friggin series to seven games. That was the best I've ever seen Kobe play despite what the stats say, and I've been watching the dude for a decade now. All this talk about how 06 Kobe couldn't lead the current Lakers to titles is crap. Give 06 Bryant his current supporting cast and he would never score 81 or drop 35 ppg, but he'd have his team in the finals. That perception that Kobe matured when his team started winning is ludicrous.


Bryant's 06 and 10 elimination games were not clunkers. They weren't his greatest games, but he did his best. His team failed him once and helped him once. Individually, regardless of team result (or putting it out of the picture to the best of my ability), I'll take what he gave his team those nights.

[ElGee]

So you're arguing that two perceived polar opposites in terms of clutch play (or at least, effectiveness in elimination games) aren't actually polar opposites at all, but are very close to each other in that regard (both are good-to-very good, not "one is AMAZING and the other a CHOKER"). And you've deconstructed the "Why?" question, positing that Malone was given that unfair,incorrect "Choker" label and Bryant was given that unfair, incorrect "Clutch killer assassin dominant awesome" label because of team result (Jazz usually lost, Lakers usually won).


If that's the case, then I fully agree with your deconstruction of those perceptions.

I do think a contributing factors are likability/team and overall stats in the playoffs. Malone's stats went down overall in the playoffs, and the media jumped in and nailed Karl with that, especially after he had a clunker as a controversial MVP winner against the one and only Michael Jordan in 1997. He also lost in two consecutive NBA Finals to a storybook, legendary Chicago team. The last minute of the 98 Finals doesn't help his case (in the public eye, that is).

Also, Bryant is the more exciting player, and his placement on a darling NBA team as its leader and exciting player gives him some additional backing/attention. In the media, Bryant is modeled as a Jordan-type player, meaning his clutch times and competitive streak and ballsy-ness get highlighted, and his failures probably don't get as much hype as Malone's.

Yes. Well said.

Kobe was fortunate enough last year to have teammates who could save his ass when he only plays pretty well, and not exceptional. Artest and Fisher made huge plays in the fourth, and then Kobe came through with some big plays, and the Lakers won. The respective games by James and Bryant were comparable I'd say. Both played pretty well, though neither was at their best. Kobe WAS fortunate enough to have better support from his teammates. Still, Kobe should be credited with playing pretty well in a game 7- win or lose.

I don't see how they were comparable. I have LeBron's game grading out around All-Star level and Kobe's grading out really poorly - way below average player. LeBron was probably the second best player on the court that night in Boston (if not the best). Kobe was anywhere from the 6th to the 11th best player, depending on how one values shot attempts, minutes played and rebounding.

Celtics shot 29% against LeBron in guarding situations. LeBron's fouls led to 0 FTs.
Celtics shot 86% against Kobe in guarding situations. Kobe fouls led to 3 Boston FT's.

James had 3 steals and a block.
Bryant had 1 steals and 0 blocks.

They created a drew fouls comparably, and the defensive errors were a wash.

6-24 with 4 turnovers is dreadful. It's a lot worse than 3-12 or 1-6. And there aren't any misses in there from tips or blocks at the rim or whatnot. 16 of Bryant's shots were outside 16 feet! Most were contested (if not all) and some were double or triple-teamed. 37.6% TS is a serious problem for an offense when it involves 30.6 "attempts" (in 76 possessions, no less).

LeBron was 8-21 with 9 turnovers. That's not great, but the shooting wasn't a negative (26.3 attempts, 51.4% TS, 92 possessions). With a 4 or 5 turnover game this is bordering on a classic performance, if only because of the triple-double (which I don't give too much attention to).

I still have a problem with counting 06 as bad. He just dropped 50 in game six, yet his team can't get a rebound and they lose again. Bryant would obviously be hesitant to try and score a million points on this team since it's clear the Lakers can't defeat PHX when Bryant goes off. Bryant kept them within striking distance (I guess) with a second quarter explosion. He then tried to make a mature decision and initiate, get his guys involved. He knew shooting six threes a quarter the rest of the way wasn't going to produce a comeback. He tried calling on his teammates for help, and they failed. He tried to be aggressive-Kobe is spurts, but it was too late by then. PHX's offense was clicking too well.

I understand where you're coming from here, because the rest of the series he played quite well. We've discussed this before I believe. The issue is G6 wasn't an elimination game, so I don't see what it has to do with G7. I'm not saying bad elimination games = bad series. I'm not even saying that elimination games define clutch. I'm just looking at elimination games.

In the first half of that game, I don't really have an issue with his play. I can't even remember his numbers at halftime, but I thought he played fine. That's 50% of a game, though. HIs second half was ridiculous. I've never cared to ascribe labels, because it's moot to me. What did happen was a No. 1 player effectively played like an injured 35 year-old. He jogged down the court on most possessions and stood there. And that's it. I have no idea how that equates to a good game. (And Bryant happens to be extremely good and active off the ball.)

[ronnymac2]

Sorry for the delay....

As long as we agree on the first part, then OK. There isn't much to argue over. We'll just be arguing individual games. Like....


...the 6-24 game. I'll agree that Lebron's game was better individually. Maybe that comparison wasn't totally accurate. I just read the Kobe part in Bill Simmons's book, and he talks about how Bryant's game actually sucked, and through the first 75% of the game, he played like a guy who was just trying to play hero and was failing miserably. Thinking about on that night, I remember having a similar feeling myself at that point in the game.

However, even Simmons, who isn't exactly a Kobe fan, admits that Kobe went into -do what is best for the team mode, whether that be shoot or pass/initiate/spread floor- mode in the fourth quarter.

Understanding that the game was still in reach at that point, Bryant changed his style of play at an important point in game (hey, better late than never), and he helped his team. Especially in a game where nobody shot the ball particularly well (it was a slug-fest game, much like game 7 of the 2005 finals). Three people shot 50% from the field in the whole game. The tone of the game on both sides was scrappy. Not that that totally excuses Bryant's awful shooting, but it does provide more context for his overall performance for 48 minutes.

[ElGee]

But that's not a good game.

Take a step back, and replace Kobe's name with someone you don't think too highly of or dislike. Then ask yourself, at what point *suddenly* playing the 4th quarter in "do what is best for team" mode (after doing what exactly for 3 quarters) constitutes a good game. Then ask yourself, if that player did play that way in the quarter but shot 1-4 and didn't stand out defensively, how good would you even consider that quarter?

Yes it was an ugly game. Yes, Kobe helped hit the boards and his shot selection was way better in the 4th. But it was a 6-24 4 TOV *game.* It was by far his worst game of the series and the 2010 playoffs.

I'm only driving this home because the genesis of my post was cognitive bias, and I think that's in play here. When Semi writes:

The lack of analysis really bothers me

Then provides the following "analysis" on the game:

As for game 7, people love them some "6-24" in order to discredit Kobe, but that's a bunch of hogwash. He shot the ball poorly in the first half, but this was a very physical, grind it out type game where just about everyone shot poorly. His defense and rebounding were fantastic, and when the Lakers needed him to score in the 4th quarter he delivered. See, when guys like MJ have performances like this (and they did), all you here is talk about intangibles and how players elevate their games in other areas. This is one of those cases where Kobe picked it up in other areas to compensate for poor shooting, and the result was that he ended up with a 23/15 game to help secure the championship.

That's bias at its finest. His defense was decidedly NOT fantastic. The game was physical and grinding, but somehow Gasol, Allen and Artest all played well. And it's a bizarre argument because Bryant tookk 15 free throws...but Garnett and Pierce (12-28 combined) took 0. Fisher had his usual good contributions. Glen Davis 27 good bench minutes of defense and rebounding. Somehow because Bryant is claimed to have done "what it took to win" and thus he played well.

He didn't. That's the point in the first place.

[MCVince]

I just don't get why people have to say Kobe is that good.

He's one of the best today, but come on, people put him like the best of all times!!!! Really? :/

People say MJ also had bad shooting nights. Sure, everyone does. But MJ had seasons above 50% shooting... does Kobe have them?

The FG % is really important and Kobe fails it a lot usually (comparing to the greatest guys).

Comparing with LBJ game 6 vs Celtics... the difference is obvious: LeBron on a really bad night and injured can grab 19rebs, make 10 assists and score over 20 points with not a great FG %... and his team loses badly. When LeBron had a bad shooting night at the Cavs, the games weren't even close. When Kobe has it with LA... they can still beat top teams. Basketball is a team sports, get that. Kobe is really good, plays in a great teams and wins championships. This doesn't make him similar to MJ!

[ahonui06]

Particularly when there are games/series that are (rightfully) weighted differently in the court of public opinion, series' where you're the overwhelming favorite with HCA and a better roster being one of those examples.

This particular example shows the lack of knowledge more than anything else. The Warriors won all 3 regular season matches against the Mavericks. They had a huge matchup advantage in the BACKCOURT! Even if Nowitzki would have played as efficient as usual, the Mavericks would have lost due to their lack of perimeter and transition defense by their backcourt players. Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson and Jason Richardson made the majority of the points with a higher efficiency, because they overmatched Devin Harris, Jason Terry and Josh Howard in terms of size, strength and athleticism.
And that's not an outlier either. The Heat series was lost due to the same thing. Against the Suns in 2005 the backcourt was the problem, against the Kings one year before also. Go and watch the 2008 series against the Hornets, again the perimeter on defense is the problem, in 2009 against the Nuggets and 2010 against the Spurs it's the same.

Regarding the Heat series it should be noted that the Heat had a better SRS in games with Wade and Shaquille O'Neal than the Mavericks. Which means they were the better team. And in the end the Mavericks were one bad call (on the road) and two Howard and/or Terry mades (going 14 of 41 instead of 12 of 41 while a lot of those misses were wide open shots) away from winning a championship.

I'm not sure why you approached my post as if I were contending Dirk wasn't clutch either.

Why? Because those critiques are well known and I don't see the point of bringing them up in the way you did it. Especially with the comment, that sometimes the aggregated view would be misleading.

All evidence shows that Nowitzki was quite clutch during his career so far. He usually ranks in the top during clutch situations by 82games.com, he has numerous clutch performances in the playoffs including a 50 points outburst in which he completely outscored the Suns in the 4th quarter to secure a win in the WCF. He plays better in average in elimination games, the biggest pressure situations. And he even has a winning record in those games.
The Mavericks are usually getting more wins than expected due to the fact that they outscore their opponents in close games. His +/- per 48 minutes over the last couple of seasons during clutch situations is huge ever since 2004/05 when Nash left:

Code: Select all

2011: +41.9
2010: +28.7
2009: +16.3
2008: +16.5
2007: +29.5
2006: +16.6
2005: +22.0

In average the Mavericks outscore their opponents in close games by an margin of +22.7 while Nowitzki is on the court over a 7 year span (962 minutes sample). To understand that number better: In the remaining 24138 minutes the Mavericks outscored their opponents by +4.0 per 48 minutes.
Making the same thing for Bryant we get:

Code: Select all

2011: -16.8
2010:  +6.9
2009: +33.7
2008: +10.9
2007:  -0.6
2006:  -3.1
2005:  +1.0

During that time the Lakers outscored their opponents by an average margin of +5.9 per 48 minutes during close games (994 minutes sample) while they outscored their opponents by +3.3 per 48 minutes in the rest of the time.

There are also enough game winners and made late game shots. He has a way better conversation rate of those shots than Bryant for example.

As you can see the examples of the Heat series and the Warriors series are outliers. There is no indication overall that Nowitzki isn't at least as clutch as Bryant.

DIRK's clutch. Check out the clutch stats on 82games.com from last year if you don't believe me.

[ronnymac2]

But that's not a good game.

Take a step back, and replace Kobe's name with someone you don't think too highly of or dislike. Then ask yourself, at what point *suddenly* playing the 4th quarter in "do what is best for team" mode (after doing what exactly for 3 quarters) constitutes a good game. Then ask yourself, if that player did play that way in the quarter but shot 1-4 and didn't stand out defensively, how good would you even consider that quarter?

Yes it was an ugly game. Yes, Kobe helped hit the boards and his shot selection was way better in the 4th. But it was a 6-24 4 TOV *game.* It was by far his worst game of the series and the 2010 playoffs.

I'm only driving this home because the genesis of my post was cognitive bias, and I think that's in play here. When Semi writes:

The lack of analysis really bothers me

Then provides the following "analysis" on the game:

As for game 7, people love them some "6-24" in order to discredit Kobe, but that's a bunch of hogwash. He shot the ball poorly in the first half, but this was a very physical, grind it out type game where just about everyone shot poorly. His defense and rebounding were fantastic, and when the Lakers needed him to score in the 4th quarter he delivered. See, when guys like MJ have performances like this (and they did), all you here is talk about intangibles and how players elevate their games in other areas. This is one of those cases where Kobe picked it up in other areas to compensate for poor shooting, and the result was that he ended up with a 23/15 game to help secure the championship.

That's bias at its finest. His defense was decidedly NOT fantastic. The game was physical and grinding, but somehow Gasol, Allen and Artest all played well. And it's a bizarre argument because Bryant tookk 15 free throws...but Garnett and Pierce (12-28 combined) took 0. Fisher had his usual good contributions. Glen Davis 27 good bench minutes of defense and rebounding. Somehow because Bryant is claimed to have done "what it took to win" and thus he played well.

He didn't. That's the point in the first place.

It constitutes a good game when Kobe does it.


Nah, but seriously....Okay, here is my problem with you positing that Bryant played badly. You're essentially trying to say that if a lead player plays like that all the time (horrible shooting and shot selection, decent defense, great rebounding, decent initiating), his team will not win playoff games, or even REG SEA games, let alone game 7 of the NBA Finals. Because of this, therefore, Bryant's elimination game was awful and the only reason why his struggles aren't played up more is because the team won.

To an extent I agree.

The thing is, you can't prove that if Kobe played like this at all times, the Lakers would suck or that his team would struggle. It isn't a given that they wouldn't win the championship. It can't be proven.

Now, you'll probably respond by saying that I can't necessarily prove that Kobe playing that way does result in good play and in wins. You're right- I can't really. The only thing we have to go by is what happened in THIS game. THIS game 7 is all we have. That is all we have to come back to.

Did Kobe play well enough to win THIS game as a lead dog WITH sufficient help? Surely he did considering LAL winning the game actually happened.

I know you don't like that response because it MIGHT be giving Bryant credit that he doesn't deserve and serving to prove YOUR original point about how winning affects people's perceptions (in this case, my own).

But maybe Bryant does deserve that credit. You watch the game and you come away thinking that Kobe did enough as the lead dog at some crucial moments to win THIS GAME. THIS GAME'S instances and moments and situations. (That's a big reason why watching the game is still imo the best tool to evaluate what happened...it has its faults like any tool does, but its just as reliable/faulty as any stat)




I could be wrong here. Maybe Bryant sucked enough through the first 3 quarters that he can't be forgiven despite his penance (the fourth qt). I'm just arguing that when looking at Bryant's game 7 in 2010, or any game ever really, there is a fine line between having a good game and a bad game. On a stat sheet, you could technically switch possessions in the second quarter with possessions in the fourth quarter, and the end result will be exactly the same as long the result of each possession ended the same. Or you can move a player's made baskets all into one quarter and have him shoot "0 for his remaining shots (missed shots)".

You can't do that in real life, however. The game is more nuanced than that. At least that's how I feel. That's what guides me in my belief that Bryant didn't have an amazing game 7, but a pretty good game. Like I said, I could be wrong.

[ElGee]

Yes, as you said, you're making my point. It's veering off topic, but fundamentally speaking...

You're essentially trying to say that if a lead player plays like that all the time (horrible shooting and shot selection, decent defense, great rebounding, decent initiating), his team will not win playoff games, or even REG SEA games, let alone game 7 of the NBA Finals.

What I'm saying, IN ANY EVALUATION, is that his team will be less likely to win if he plays like that. The worse he plays, the less likely they are to win.

You're explanation is fudging that likelihood. It's a breakdown in Bayesian logic. It's the very bias I'm asserting when one guy's team wins and the other's loses.

Think about it this way. 5 players (at any time) on the court make up a team, and their collective performance results in how the team plays, leading to a win or loss. But the responsibility for that result can be distributed in a thousand different ways. On a normal night, Bryant may be responsible for 33% of the team's "goodness" that leads to a win. We call that a good game because he does stuff like play good defense and offense.

Sometimes, he plays like garbage, and by definition, gives his team a significantly smaller chance of winning or even hurts their chances of winning. But the team can still win! If they do, it doesn't change how Bryant played. At all. Even in the 4th quarter when the good plays "feel" more important because he's doing "enough" to help win. The game is only close by virtue of circumstances outside of Bryant's play.

I don't think I need to go further because you get the idea.

[Chicago76]

If you want evidence that “good Bryant” leads to more Laker wins than “bad Bryant”, it’s out there. Game Score isn’t perfect, but at least it gives us a consistent measuring stick of good vs. bad game to game. Looking at the 2009-10 season only (to avoid different supporting casts over the years) to analyze the Game 7 impact from last year:

Bryant’s game score that game was 9.9. Define bad game as anything with a game score of under 15, and an average to good game as anything 15 and above. From the regular season last year:
Bad game W-L = 14-12 and other games are 37-10. Throw out all of the game where Gasol didn’t play and bad game W-L = 10-7 while the record in other games is 30-9. Looking at all games where Bryant played 36+ minutes (presumably because the game was already easily won): Lakers record with Bad Bryant = 9-9, while in the other games, they were 26-10. Restrict the 36+ minute games to those only in which Gasol played and the Lakers were 8-6 when Bryant had a bad game and 21-9 in all other games. Coincidentally, when Bryant didn’t play, the Lakers were 6-3. Granted, that’s a very small sample size, but it could be said that the Lakers are better off without Bryant than when he puts up a stinker.

It's not exactly a scientific study, but the results are fairly obvious. If Bryant's play game to game doesn't really have an impact on the Lakers win/loss columns, then he's one of the most overpaid players in the league.

[ronnymac2]

Yes, as you said, you're making my point. It's veering off topic, but fundamentally speaking...

You're essentially trying to say that if a lead player plays like that all the time (horrible shooting and shot selection, decent defense, great rebounding, decent initiating), his team will not win playoff games, or even REG SEA games, let alone game 7 of the NBA Finals.

What I'm saying, IN ANY EVALUATION, is that his team will be less likely to win if he plays like that. The worse he plays, the less likely they are to win.

You're explanation is fudging that likelihood. It's a breakdown in Bayesian logic. It's the very bias I'm asserting when one guy's team wins and the other's loses.

Think about it this way. 5 players (at any time) on the court make up a team, and their collective performance results in how the team plays, leading to a win or loss. But the responsibility for that result can be distributed in a thousand different ways. On a normal night, Bryant may be responsible for 33% of the team's "goodness" that leads to a win. We call that a good game because he does stuff like play good defense and offense.

Sometimes, he plays like garbage, and by definition, gives his team a significantly smaller chance of winning or even hurts their chances of winning. But the team can still win! If they do, it doesn't change how Bryant played. At all. Even in the 4th quarter when the good plays "feel" more important because he's doing "enough" to help win. The game is only close by virtue of circumstances outside of Bryant's play.

I don't think I need to go further because you get the idea.

Yeah I get it.

I think one must look at everything on a case by case basis. Like you said, distribution of credit can go X amount of ways.

Regarding my argument about how some plays "feel" more important down the stretch.....I still contend that that is valid. It's definitely not as important as most make it out to be, but I think we get that feeling for a less important yet valid reason. Aside from glorifying a superstar, it's because in reality a superstar player is the only one on the team capable of making a certain play. In the fourth quarter of A game seven, if a Celtic-like defense keyed in on a Ron Artest and he tried to play pick-n-roll and made a play (a kick-out, a tough shot, whatever), is that a reasonable scenario? That couldn't happen. It COULD I guess, but it couldn't. With Kobe, it would. Because he's really the only one capable of doing it then.

It kind of goes back to what I talk about sometimes about a player being a CONSTANT for his team....even when Kobe's shot is off for the first three quarters and it's his team that is keeping them in the ball-game, they go to Kobe (or insert whatever superstar) to make the big plays. Why does this always happen? Because the game isn't played in a business notebook or a computer that can define Kobe as hurting the team and cutting him off accordingly- Kobe isn't going to get physically propelled/ejected off the court because he is hurting his team with his play in the first three quarters. He's still the one most capable of making something happen.

Yes, we remember those plays. Part of it is definitely because of the reason that you are rightfully exposing. But SOME of the reason why we remember is legitimate.

Kobe absolutely should not get praise heaped upon him for exquisite play in that game. I've already said this wasn't his best game. His team kept LA in it for 3 qts. And he's lucky Artest or Fisher or whoever hit that 3 that he created. He still deserves credit for being what he is and being his team's CONSTANT and enabling his team to do that IN THAT SPECIFIC GAME 7.

Kobe still deserves credit. The amount the media and others give him? Hell no. But he deserves credit for that game 7 for being what he is.

[flyinhigh99]

Dude that's really cool thanks for sharing that.