The truth about Kobe Bryant

[Jram]

IF I could be the mod just for 1 second. i would Bannish you into the abyss my friend. this thread has demonic written all over it.
just because you tell a lie a thousand times. doesnt make it true.

the moment the guy had the worse supporting case out of his peers(that includes, ray allen, vince carter, tmac, A.I., iggy, dwade t0 an extent, etc.)
kwame, cook. luke walton. smush parker. odom, chris mihm.

WOW. and he drug them clowns into the playoffs in the BEST conference(the western conf). and almost stung the #2 team. and that has been duplicated by which one of those peers?

magic as cold as he is. and to me is still the best hooper of all time because unlike anyone else. he had the height and the ability to play all 5 positions. which he did at times.

but with that said. magic was a laker his entire career. and that means he's on a team with other HOFers. which = he will beat most of the other HOFers on other teams.

truth is, MJ didnt win anything until detroit got to old. and his boys grew up and became a 50 greatest(pip).

kobe doesnt have 5 rings like how fisher has 5 rings or horry has 5 rings. as a nice role guy. he was the #1 reason or the 1b reason why the lakers won those years.

anyone saying otherwise is on their hate game hard.

When anyone disagrees with you, banish them? Isn't this a forum for people to express opinions.

A few folks out here got me wrong. I appear to be a deviant on this forum for my articles and opinions, but to be fair, when do I not support what I say with large sample sizes of data and when do I not place it in context?

I don't have all the answers. I can be wrong. But disagree or not, I back up my arguments. Let's not act like I'm making things up or spewing fictitous things.

 

[mastermind]

Gasol's numbers in Memphis were about what they have been in L.A, numbers that indicate he is a All star big man.

great, and Pau Gasol is not a dominant big man

Kobe Bryant has not won a playoff series without Shaquille O'Neal or Pau Gasol. That is fact, not sure why it disgusts you to hear a fact.

how many playoff games did Gasol win in Memphis? That is what my problem is with using Gasol to downgrade Kobe, not what you tried to shift the argument towards..

Winning titles is mostly due to great circumstances (A great team around the best player), so naturally Kobe hasn't won anything without another star.

never said anything against that.

 

[Jram]

great, and Pau Gasol is not a dominant big man


how many playoff games did Gasol win in Memphis? That is what my problem is with using Gasol to downgrade Kobe, not what you tried to shift the argument towards..


never said anything against that.

Did Kobe win in L.A without Gasol or Shaq? NO. Zero playoff series wins without them.



It's not downgrading Kobe. Stop taking it defensively. I'm simply putting the Lakers titles in context.

This is because the argument when comparing bryant to other indivuals eventually always comes down to his rings, because his actual production doesn't seperate him from the elite players on his generation.

This is why we apply context to those rings to be more objective and fair.

 

[mastermind]

Did Kobe win in L.A without Gasol or Shaq? NO. Zero playoff series wins without them.

why would you repeat this after I already said it?

Now I ask again, how many playoff GAMES did Gasol win before he got to LA?

It's not downgrading Kobe. Stop taking it defensively. I'm simply putting the Lakers titles in context.

you arent, when no one has disagreed with you. You keep repeating something that no one has said is wrong.

This is because the argument when comparing bryant to other indivuals eventually always comes down to his rings, because his actual production doesn't seperate him from the elite players on his generation.

This is why we apply context to those rings to be more objective and fair.

and this is nonsensical because no great player has won without a star/hof type, with the exception Barry in 1976, Hakeem in 1994, and Duncan in 2003. THere is no context to add because its obvious. The reason why people want to harp on it with Kobe is to attempt to take him down a peg.

 

[Jram]

why would you repeat this after I already said it?

Now I ask again, how many playoff GAMES did Gasol win before he got to LA?


you arent, when no one has disagreed with you. You keep repeating something that no one has said is wrong.


and this is nonsensical because no great player has won without a star/hof type, with the exception Barry in 1976, Hakeem in 1994, and Duncan in 2003. THere is no context to add because its obvious. The reason why people want to harp on it with Kobe is to attempt to take him down a peg.

If I'm just repeating myself, than your just repeating the conspiracy that a group of people are going after Kobe to 'take him down a peg"

I'm glad you agree with the obvious.

But to your point about Gasol.....he was actually the leader of a 50, 45 and 49 win teams in the Western Conference. He got bounced in the first round everytime, because...you guessed it...didn't play with another star.

Gasol has been a No. 2 option and Star on two title teams. I could say picking on him for not going deep in the playoffs with Memphis is an attempt to put him down to accentuate Bryant's reputation.

If we can just detach ourselves from rings, and judge players by the fairest and most objective way, production in context, we can see than nobody here has said anything false or unfair abour Bryant.

 

[Jplaya2023]

jordan - pippen = first round bounce

pippen - jordan = eastern conference finals bounce

Why do nikkas keep perpetusting this lie?
The bulls lost in the second round in 1994

 

[FTBS]

i had a 3 day debate with some people who want to claim that Pau Gasol was a dominant player in Memphis and that Kobe could only win with a dominant post player. They genuinely believe this. Its the most disgusting thing ever.

I dont get why people dont want to give Kobe his due. I didnt even shyt on Gasol, I just dont think he was a great player before he went to the Lakers.

Gasol in LA is the same thing he was in Memphis. I wouldn't say he was necessarily ever a truly dominant player but he is an immensely skilled big man without whom the Lakers don't win those back to back titles. If you wanna talk about somebody not getting his due it's Pau. He was the main guy on a consistent 50 win team out west and came to LA and proved to be the perfect compliment to Kobe. When they win the rings it's all about Kobe's ring total and Kobe vs. Shaq and Kobe vs. Mike. Then when they lose with he and Kobe experiencing pretty much the same drop off in production he gets all the blame. I'm not saying he set the world on fire the last two seasons but since when do secondary guys take all the heat when a team loses in the playoffs especially after the main guy exhibits some slippage?

Pau is basically used by both sides of the debate to try to make their case (Pau got Kobe two more rings, Pau cost Kobe rings the last two years). The reality is that Pau along with Bynum and Odom made up the best front line rotation in the league and there was no team in the league that could deal with them as well as a more efficient Kobe. Kobe was great during the title runs and his front line was as well. One doesn't take away from the other. The problem is people's need to oversimplify and get everything to fit into a certain narrative rather that just calling it how it is.

Ok. What has Shaq won without an elite wing (Kobe or Wade)? nothing
What has Jordan won without Pippen? nothing
What has Lebron won without Bosh or Wade? nothing

Instead of focusing on the players AROUND kobe, think about what he did. If i didn't know any better and i just read all yall haters posts, i'd think he was the 10th man off the bench only playing garbage minutes. I'd think he didn't contribute nothing in any of his titles cause that's what yall making it seem like. Yall make it sound like Kobe has had the only good team ever in the history of the league? Were the Heat this year not stacked? Were the bulls not stacked? Were the early 2000s lakers not stacked? Were the 08 Celtics not stacked? But with Kobe, it's like a fukkin sin that he had good players around him.

The problem is lazy analysis. Too many people throw out ring totals when comparing two individuals. The result of that is people responding by pointing to teammates. People then go back and forth trying to diminish and hype up those teammates based on which side of the argument they fall on. Kobe is great. He's been in great situations also. Both can be true and neither takes away from the other however people are more interested in maintaining their agendas then they are calling it how it is.

 

[superunknown23]

Why do nikkas keep perpetusting this lie?
The bulls lost in the second round in 1994

probably because they weren't even born back then

 

[mastermind]

But to your point about Gasol.....he was actually the leader of a 50, 45 and 49 win teams in the Western Conference. He got bounced in the first round everytime, because...you guessed it...didn't play with another star.

here is the thing, Gasol was on teams in Memphis that had 7 guys score 10 points a game. The talent he had on those Memphis teams was more than Kobe had the years in between Shaq leaving and his next finals appearance.

The playing with another star is a nonsensical thing because teams with only one star (or even no star) have at least won ONE playoff game in 3 different tries. Gasol did not.

but its cool tho, you used the "Gasol had no other star with him" line to prop up Gasol while using that against Kobe.

Gasol has been a No. 2 option and Star on two title teams. I could say picking on him for not going deep in the playoffs with Memphis is an attempt to put him down to accentuate Bryant's reputation.

its not accentuating Kobe's accomplishments, its putting Gasol in his rightful place. A guy who was a fringe 2nd tier player/3rd tier player in the NBA before he arrived in LA and won rings. A guy who was never seen as a great player before he arrived in LA. A guy who only made one all star team and never made an All Star team before he arrived in LA. Its not a diss against Gasol to point that out, just like its not a diss against Kobe to point out that he never won a playoff series without another star player. That is true for most players, but in Gasol's case he didnt even win a playoff game.

You expect a great player to at least win one game for you in the postseason and Gasol never did that in Memphis. Gasol was not a great player in Memphis.

If we can just detach ourselves from rings, and judge players by the fairest and most objective way, production in context, we can see than nobody here has said anything false or unfair abour Bryant.

 

[mastermind]

Gasol in LA is the same thing he was in Memphis. I wouldn't say he was necessarily ever a truly dominant player but he is an immensely skilled big man without whom the Lakers don't win those back to back titles. If you wanna talk about somebody not getting his due it's Pau. He was the main guy on a consistent 50 win team out west and came to LA and proved to be the perfect compliment to Kobe. When they win the rings it's all about Kobe's ring total and Kobe vs. Shaq and Kobe vs. Mike. Then when they lose with he and Kobe experiencing pretty much the same drop off in production he gets all the blame. I'm not saying he set the world on fire the last two seasons but since when do secondary guys take all the heat when a team loses in the playoffs especially after the main guy exhibits some slippage?

Pau is basically used by both sides of the debate to try to make their case (Pau got Kobe two more rings, Pau cost Kobe rings the last two years). The reality is that Pau along with Bynum and Odom made up the best front line rotation in the league and there was no team in the league that could deal with them as well as a more efficient Kobe. Kobe was great during the title runs and his front line was as well. One doesn't take away from the other. The problem is people's need to oversimplify and get everything to fit into a certain narrative rather that just calling it how it is.

Gasol won 50 games one time in Memphis, but that is ancillary to the point.

And I dont diss Gasol at all. I agree that the Lakers dont win back to back titles without Gasol. I agree that the Lakers dont make it to 3 straight finals without Gasol. And I think me and you agree about how Gasol was before he was in LA and when he got to LA. He was a very good, low tier star player. A great 2nd option to the #1 option, but not a guy you could win a title as the #1 player. ANd nothing is wrong with that. Thats not a diss of Gasol but just keeping his place accurate, and he is probably going to the HOF because of him being a great #2 option.

My only problem was when folks started to say Gasol was a dominant player in Memphis and in LA. He never was.

 

[FTBS]

and this is nonsensical because no great player has won without a star/hof type, with the exception Barry in 1976, Hakeem in 1994, and Duncan in 2003. THere is no context to add because its obvious. The reason why people want to harp on it with Kobe is to attempt to take him down a peg.

Which is why it is silly to compare individuals based upon their ring totals. You clearly need help to get rings and if you don't get that help why should that be held against you? Some do harp on it to take Kobe down a peg but the main reason the argument was made was people's insistence on being lazy and pointing to ring totals rather than individual production when comparing Kobe to others. I know you remember the Kobe is better than MJ at this age debates of the early 2000s. Kobe and T-Mac were doing the same things then but Kobe was put over him purely because of the rings. Kobe has since distanced himself from T-Mac as well as all of his peers but it's not because of the rings. nikkas can't complain about lazy agenda-driven analysis when lazy agenda-driven analysis on their part begat it.

 

[FTBS]

Gasol won 50 games one time in Memphis, but that is ancillary to the point.

And I dont diss Gasol at all. I agree that the Lakers dont win back to back titles without Gasol. I agree that the Lakers dont make it to 3 straight finals without Gasol. And I think me and you agree about how Gasol was before he was in LA and when he got to LA. He was a very good, low tier star player. A great 2nd option to the #1 option, but not a guy you could win a title as the #1 player. ANd nothing is wrong with that. Thats not a diss of Gasol but just keeping his place accurate, and he is probably going to the HOF because of him being a great #2 option.

My only problem was when folks started to say Gasol was a dominant player in Memphis and in LA. He never was.

Of course he wasn't. Anybody saying that has an agenda. Just like anybody acting like he's some soft scrub that Kobe carried to two titles has an agenda as well.

 

[mastermind]

Of course he wasn't. Anybody saying that has an agenda. Just like anybody acting like he's some soft scrub that Kobe carried to two titles has an agenda as well.

I agree completely.

I never diss Gasol's accomplishments towards the Lakers winning two titles because there is no chance they win without him. Those who do are clowns with biases.

And when folks start calling him dominant in Memphis and LA, I call them out because they have a clear agenda as well.

 

[Jram]

here is the thing, Gasol was on teams in Memphis that had 7 guys score 10 points a game. The talent he had on those Memphis teams was more than Kobe had the years in between Shaq leaving and his next finals appearance.

The playing with another star is a nonsensical thing because teams with only one star (or even no star) have at least won ONE playoff game in 3 different tries. Gasol did not.

but its cool tho, you used the "Gasol had no other star with him" line to prop up Gasol while using that against Kobe.


its not accentuating Kobe's accomplishments, its putting Gasol in his rightful place. A guy who was a fringe 2nd tier player/3rd tier player in the NBA before he arrived in LA and won rings. A guy who was never seen as a great player before he arrived in LA. A guy who only made one all star team and never made an All Star team before he arrived in LA. Its not a diss against Gasol to point that out, just like its not a diss against Kobe to point out that he never won a playoff series without another star player. That is true for most players, but in Gasol's case he didnt even win a playoff game.

You expect a great player to at least win one game for you in the postseason and Gasol never did that in Memphis. Gasol was not a great player in Memphis.

Yes, and Kobe is a better player than Gasol. Nobody is saying Gasol would of won in Kobe's situation in the mid 00's either. I'm not going by All star games here, I'm going to individual production. He was an All star caliber nearly every year he's been in the league.

You keep insisting that I'm trying to prop up Gasol and we're going in circles. His rightful place is what he is. An All star player.

Let the individual production speak for itself to defend the point of the thread.

 

[Jram]

Gasol won 50 games one time in Memphis, but that is ancillary to the point.

And I dont diss Gasol at all. I agree that the Lakers dont win back to back titles without Gasol. I agree that the Lakers dont make it to 3 straight finals without Gasol. And I think me and you agree about how Gasol was before he was in LA and when he got to LA. He was a very good, low tier star player. A great 2nd option to the #1 option, but not a guy you could win a title as the #1 player. ANd nothing is wrong with that. Thats not a diss of Gasol but just keeping his place accurate, and he is probably going to the HOF because of him being a great #2 option.

My only problem was when folks started to say Gasol was a dominant player in Memphis and in LA. He never was.

Wait, wait....wait wait wait....

Who said anything on here than suggests anything other than what you said that caused you to go in circles with me on here?

You just paraphrased what I said.