DaKidFromNoWhere
Superstar
Reading through this got me ready to throw social media in the bushes
Once a player proves to be generationally great and has not only the physical but also the mental fortitude to endure and battle through the competition then the potential of a dynasty takes form, chemistry develops at an all time high, teammates start believing and playing to make history.Who builds the dynasty? And how long are great player required to stay in situations that show minimal to no traction towards being perennial contenders?
I would like you to answer these questions, please. Because hopefully, if you're an honest person, you see how subjective any answer to them are. There's no line on how long guys owe the team to build the optimal roster for them. You could put a number on it and 10 other people could have a different length of time, what makes yours or mine or anyone else's opinion the right answer?
Wait, not the goggles....did they really uncork the champagne celebration after winning that shyt?
Where's this fourth finals run of Kobe's as a #1 that I don't remember? 08-10. Three.There is no legitimate case for Kobe as GOAT. Or BOAT or whatever term you wanna use:
•he didn't come in tearing The League up instantly (Mike, Bron, Bird, Kareem, Wilt, Duncan, Shaq all did)
•his game as a #1 only translated to two championships and four Finals runs, which in and of itself is outstanding, but that's not GOAT production as a #1
•he won most, 3 outta 5, of his rings as a #2. Nobody else in the conversation won MOST of their rings as a #2, and let's be honest, if he was That Guy on a "man this the best I ever seen level", he wasn't ever have been anyone's #2. His game would've outright proven he was the best player on championship teams, there would be no 1a/1b qualifiers between he abd Shaq
•his postseason resume really isn't that great. A bunch of lesser players have better postseason resumes---->Kawhi has a much more consistent record of tearing thru shyt in the playoffs than Kobe, but is obviously a lesser player than Kobe historically. Kawhi isn't the only one either
•his best Finals performance came vs a Magic team that wasn't ready for that stage. Not a ringing endorsement for a player who's the greatest ever, when your teammate put up more consistently dominant performances (Shaq) at that round, you were not the best player in either series vs the rival C's, etc.
I can keeping going. There is no objective reason to call Kobe the greatest ever---->though subjectively it satisfies the senses, and agendas, to say he was the "closest thing to Mike"....
And therein is the root problem, you nikkas watch basketball comparing nikkas to Mike. I watch basketball comparing great players to the collective standard of All-Time greatness...
Why you cryingFifth Column in every Lebron thread, fighting hard to downplay Lebron's greatness at every turn.
He's got Kobe-levels of determination at hating.
My man, you got 15 comments in this thread. Fifteen comments in all the Lebron threads.Why you crying
Who is a more skilled offensive player Kobe or Lebron?Where's this fourth finals run of Kobe's as a #1 that I don't remember? 08-10. Three.
Saw this today too
What am I crying about? I like watching Lebron play How comes I don’t know how many comments you postcause idgafMy man, you got 15 comments in this thread. Fifteen comments in all the Lebron threads.
You been crying for months.
This doesn't make sense bc if you put Jordan on the cavs instead of the wizards and given him any other coach aside from Phil Jackson the outcome is different..
You speak of a dynasty as if Jordan drafted the whole bulls team, hired the coach and trainers and developed players and came up with the plays.
Once again a dynasty is a function of a complete organization - not a single player. Which makes Op's question null and void
I’m pretty sure if he didn’t have Jerry Krause making moves he wouldn’t be in the position he was in. Yall acting like hes LeGM . I’m pretty sure if Jordan didnt have Phil they wouldn’t have the triangle offense that Tex winter was preaching. MJ is a great player but stop acting like he didn’t have the best of the best going against weaker opposition.The Bulls were the Cavs in the 1980s. Phil wasn't Phil either. Just some 6"8 goofy white boy that acted like Steve Jobs.
Jordan made the Bulls. The Bulls didn't make Jordan.
I think he was the best player on the '04 Lakers who choked to Detroit...Where's this fourth finals run of Kobe's as a #1 that I don't remember? 08-10. Three.
Saw this today too
Who cares if a player scores 30+ or score more during a playoff run, you are majoring in the minors. What’s important is the impact of the scoring, did it lead to the chip which is the ultimate end goal.I think he was the best player on the '04 Lakers who choked to Detroit...
But this graphic is correct in its premise...
Kobe had 15 playoff appearances, averaged 30 4x. One of those times was a Rd1 out so you almost can't even count that...
Out of 7 Finals appearances, only one of those runs did he average 30, 2008...
In 16 playoff runs, Bron averaged 30 6x, including his very first playoff run. 4 of his 10 Finals runs, he had a 30pt playoff average...
There's a clear gap in, who scores more the longer the postseason wears on. And its objective, not hypothetical shyt. The gap widens when we add Finals-only scoring, and widens more when we look at scoring vs elite defenses faced in the playoffs...
I watched both these nikkas whole careers. So did everyone else but too many of these guys base their basketball views on who can win a cone drill or who has the prettiest game in an empty gym show me the guy who was better vs elite defense in the playoffs, show me the guy who was better in the later rounds of the playoffs, and I'll show you the better basketball player...
It's never gonna be the guy who scores less vs tougher comp or scores less in later rounds...
I'm a Kobe fan, always have been, always will be. He was not a better basketball player than LeBron, and the widely held notion that he was a better scorer than LeBron, really doesn't hold up under scrutiny, you gotta view it with surface binoculars to maintain that position...