Lakers become Sacramento road kill!

[jemagee]

The knicks have put 40+ up on the kings - in sacramento

in the first quarter

[JoMal]

Ok but you are already awarding Lebron titles he has not got yet. 

um......no.

I am not awarding titles to Kobe AND LeBron equally that they have not yet earned...on their own merits. Please pay attention.

You assume if he had help he would have already won and that is a 'crystal ball' comment.  The Celtics are pretty good right now.  Having another player with him does not give him the trophy automatically.  Us Laker fans thought that with Pau Gasol, we learned the hard way.  Nothing is 'for sure' in this league so I don't think you are on with this one. 

Again, I am more making the rather easier assumption that Kobe benefitted from HAVING that other player to help him win championships and that LeBron would be a pretty good complementary player to a dominant center as well and possibly would have had the same success Kobe enjoyed, if their situations had been reversed. You are making this more sinister and complicated then you should.

Also, and I am just throwing this one out there, until Jackson showed up, neither Kobe nor Shaq won as teammates.

How many has Shaq won with out a dominating player on the perimeter?

 

How many teams have won ANYTHING without a dominating player on the perimeter? What does that have to do with this? Except for the Jordan/Chicago years, which is probably why MJ is still and always will be put above Kobe in NBA lore, just about every championship team ever had a dominant center or forward as well. Especially recently, when big, mobile centers or quick forwards who dictate what happens in the lane are harder to find. Cleveland's current front line is good, but not great. Kobe and Gasol together would be considered superior. Once again, LeBron is doing more with less around him, and doing it with apparent ease.

W.O.W has already gone over this so I won't repeat it.  Without Kobe the Lakers do not win those championships.  With out Shaq they don't win them.  They needed BOTH players and BOTH players deserve credit.  If you really want to start breaking down regular season contributions and playoff contributions you will see it's a lot more even than people who don't watch the Lakers day in and day say.  Shaq's skills dropped from that first year and a half.  Yet the Lakers continued to win.  So it's easy to see Kobe benefitted from Shaq and that Shaq benefitted with Kobe.  That was a great and dominating team thanks in part to Kobe Bryant.

Yes, you are right. In other words, LeBron should rightfully be compared to Michael Jordon instead of Kobe, depending on whether James can win a championship without a complementary big player, while Kobe is behind them both, since he clearly cannot win or even compete for a championship unless he gets that dominant front line player to take the pressure off. I see your point completely now.

Just to throw this out there because you don't watch Laker games often....there have been many games where Shaq was not in the game due to foul trouble (so no QUADRUPLE TEAM cuz if we are going to exaggerate this happened often lets go all the way) that were won by Kobe.  Not all teams double teamed Shaq every single game.  The Spurs rarely doubled Shaq.  The Wolves did not double Shaq for parts of the series in the WCF.  By the time the 2nd and 3rd championships rolled around teams were not doubling him as much because of the improvement of Kobe Bryant.  Let's not re-write history that was only a handful of years ago.  It is still fresh in the minds of people who's minds are fresh

So you are saying that because Shaq had lost it by the time the Lakers played the Pistons that last year, Kobe could not win consistently without him, but before that year, Kobe could win with Shaq? Did Kobe start losing it as well? Gee, wk, that is an interesting thought.

  Maybe you should consider other things as well.  Take some of your own advice.  It looks like I've actually agreed with some of your points and did say I felt Lebron James would surpass Kobe eventually.  You dislike the guy so much you are not considering anything else. 

Sorry JoMaL but if you were trying your hardest to not give Kobe his props for what he has done for years now why makes you act like its crazy for someone not to just hand it to Lebron James after 20 games?  Yes he is doing well.  No one can deny that.  That title has best individual player in my mind spans a longer distance than just one fifth of a season. 

And I think I am agreeing with some of the points that you have made, and certainly have been thinking about the other points. As for hating Kobe, I don't hate him any more then you or some other Laker fans do, from the looks of things.

But Kobe's place in the overall NBA historical talent pool has been secured long before LeBron came along. He just is not "THE GUY" now as he once was because LeBron has passed him. That is not all that bad for Kobe, wk and it IS inevitable. I am just saying it looks like it has happened already, while you are saying it is still has not, but basing your arguement on the number of championships Kobe won, the last being, what, four years ago, hardly makes Kobe the best player in the NBA TODAY.   

As for catching passes, Kobe does not run his offense.  Lebron James does. 

This makes Kobe the better player how?

If you take a look at Pau Gasol's assists at the end of games you will see where some of them are going.  Or Lamar or some of the other better passers on this team.  With Pau Gasol's passing ability and Kobe trusting his teammates more he has a lesser role in the offense.  He doesn't have to create nearly as much.  They don't have to rely on him to create.

Why is it that part of your arguement for Kobe is always predicated on Kobe suddenly working to get his teammates more involved, while I never need to resort to that with LeBron, because he seemlessly does that already?

Why is that?

Yeah, about Gasol's assists taking them away from Kobe, on the Cavs, they do it the old fashioned way. Their point guard Mo Williams dishes out 4.3 assists per game, which would make that more then Gasol's 3.5 per game. Wonder how many assists LeBron would have it he also did not have other teammates taking them away from him? 

You watch the Lakers play, westkoast. A lot. You have made that point very clear and that I do not. You also make it abundantly clear from your observations that YOU don't watch much of any of the other teams in the NBA all that much either, unless they happen to be playing the Lakers. DUH!!! It might be of great insight, therefore, if I could point out that most NBA teams consist of five players on the court at all times - same as the Lakers. And often, but not always obvious to Laker fans who have grown up NBA-wise just watching games in which Kobe has played, these other teams allow other players around their "star" attraction to hold the ball, dribble the ball, and - pay attention now - PASS the ball to others so they can make shots.

Lebron is not a better scorer than Kobe Bryant.   There is a whole lot more stats than just the current PPG that proves that.  Kobe Bryant, when he gets hot, is still the deadliest scorer in this league.  I honestly feel that is not debatable.

How is it not debatable? They both take the exact number of shots per game this season - 19.0, yet LeBron hits 48.8 percent of his while Kobe hits 45.3. Careerwise, Kobe lags LeBron in shooting percentage 45.3 to 46.8 and LeBron shot MORE attempts per game prior to this season. Along with more rebounds and more assists during their careers, there can be only one reason for you to think Kobe is better then LeBron.

Kobe plays for the Lakers.

BAM!!!...... AND ONE......

Championships are the whole point teams play the regular season and the playoffs.  Stop trying to diminish the highest achievement in this league to try to add to your argument. 

Okay, when Kobe wins one on his own, I will allow that he is at least a good player.

Moments are small spots in time.  He had 3 entire years of getting things done in the playoffs.  The Lakers wouldn't have been as good as they were with out Kobe Bryant.

I would like to re-visit a famous play to prove my point.  What kicked off the Lakers 3-peat was a come back in Portland.  The Lakers were getting their butts kicked and made a push on the back of Shaq and Kobe.  The nail in the coffin or the breaking point was Kobe juking out 2 players to throw a lob to Shaq for a slam.  Now think about that for a second.......

Okay........still thinking........

Ah....got it. You are making a reference back to when Kobe was a good player and had a dominant player helping him win big games and before LeBron came into the League and outshown him. Got it!!!!!! Good point, westkoast, it does make my arguement look stronger.

Again so reluctant to give him props prior, so quick to give them to another.  This season is not over.  If you want to say he looks better than Kobe does in the first 20 games, I will agree.  Completely being better than Kobe, not yet.

It seems I have not been all that reluctant to give Kobe his prior year props. Far from it. He is just so last year anymore, as you clearly agree. That is what "Passing Him By" as the best player in the NBA today means, wk.  Today, not when Portland was the biggest challenge to a Laker championship.

[WayOutWest]

I was prepared to rip you apart again, like I did in my other detailed response to one of your posts, but you eff'd up the usage of the quote feature so bad that I'm not sure I can respond.

That is a very effective technique to counter my superior b-ball knowledge JoMal...touch'e

[WayOutWest]

Perhaps you can provide examples of ANY NBA team that won a championship without at least two dominant players somewhere on their rosters. Shaq and Kobe together made championships (okay, Jackson helped), but the Spurs had Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, and Bowen - all of whom were if not the best at what they did, close to it. I totally agree with you that Shaq requires a talented wing man to make championships.

I missed this one......

The Pistons teams of the 80's and 00's won titles without two dominant players, in fact both those teams won with out ONE SINGLE dominant player.  Isiah was the closets thing to a dominant player but he didn't dominate durring their runs except for game 6 in the 88 finals, which they lost.

The first Houston title only had ONE dominant player, I think the 2nd team was the same but you could make the argument about Dexler but I would not buy that one.

The Trailblazers title team only had one dominant player.

MJ had Pippen/Grant and Pippen/Rodman, that's more than any of those squads had and IMO Pippen was better than anything Kobe had to work with.  Same argument goes for MJ, he could not have won those titles without Pippen, no chance.  He may or may not have won titles with a dominant/solid center but I doubt they beat the Lakers for their first title because Magic would have torn the Bulls apart if they did not have Pippen.  The Lakers could have dealt with a tough center vs Pippen IMO.

Not to mention MJ won his titles in the most watered down league since the NBA/ABA days.

[JoMal]

I missed this one......

Really.....?? That was the only one you missed??

The Pistons teams of the 80's and 00's won titles without two dominant players, in fact both those teams won with out ONE SINGLE dominant player.  Isiah was the closets thing to a dominant player but he didn't dominate durring their runs except for game 6 in the 88 finals, which they lost.

The first Houston title only had ONE dominant player, I think the 2nd team was the same but you could make the argument about Dexler but I would not buy that one.

The Trailblazers title team only had one dominant player.

MJ had Pippen/Grant and Pippen/Rodman, that's more than any of those squads had and IMO Pippen was better than anything Kobe had to work with.  Same argument goes for MJ, he could not have won those titles without Pippen, no chance.  He may or may not have won titles with a dominant/solid center but I doubt they beat the Lakers for their first title because Magic would have torn the Bulls apart if they did not have Pippen.  The Lakers could have dealt with a tough center vs Pippen IMO.

Not to mention MJ won his titles in the most watered down league since the NBA/ABA days.

I disagree about those Piston teams. They had some superior guys on defense that put them on top of players on other teams. And Dumars and Isiah would both be HOF'ers would they not? Wasn't Dennis Rodman and Grant Hill (pre-ankle disaster) on those teams?

The Houston teams had that dominant player being a center, as did that Portland team, and the Blazers also had Maurice Lucas on their championship team that surely helped Walton out a bit.

Other then the Kings, you could say the Lakers won their recent championships while the League was certainly watered down as well, especially the Eastern Conference.

[JoMal]

I was prepared to rip you apart again, like I did in my other detailed response to one of your posts, but you eff'd up the usage of the quote feature so bad that I'm not sure I can respond.

That is a very effective technique to counter my superior b-ball knowledge JoMal...touch'e

Yeah.....that is a little trick I learned from Reality that seems to always bait you into resounding flummoxing.

[msc]

How much would that be?

Face is $147 ea. x 2 = $294.  They seem to be trading in the $700-$800 range for two in comparable section. 

[jemagee]

Thus why i can never get good tickets when the sixers come to town

[WayOutWest]

I disagree about those Piston teams. They had some superior guys on defense that put them on top of players on other teams. And Dumars and Isiah would both be HOF'ers would they not? Wasn't Dennis Rodman and Grant Hill (pre-ankle disaster) on those teams?

1st title had Zeke/Dumars/Aguire/Mahorn/Lambier with Vinny/Salley/Rodman/Edwards comming off the bench.  2nd title had Rodman, I think, moving into the starting line-up because Mahorn ended up in Philly.  That year Philly OWNED the Pistons, Barkley and Mahorn expecially destroyed the Pistons.  I was pissed that the up and comming wussy Bulls took out the Sixers and ruined an EC finals for the ages.

None of those players were "dominant", zeke came the closest.

The Houston teams had that dominant player being a center, as did that Portland team, and the Blazers also had Maurice Lucas on their championship team that surely helped Walton out a bit.

You asked for teams that won without at LEAST two dominant players Lurker...err...JoMal.  You got your answer.  FYI Lucas was not dominant unless you classify cheap shots and borderline dirty play as "dominant"

Other then the Kings, you could say the Lakers won their recent championships while the League was certainly watered down as well, especially the Eastern Conference.

I totally disagree, it's not even close.  The WC at the time was the best in all NBA history when the Lakers made their run(s).  You had the 8th seed in the WC winning at least 50 games.  That was the toughest competition in NBA history and the toughest I can remember since the 80's.  You had the Spurs/Blazers/Kings/Wolves in their primes and the Lakers destoyed them.  Only the recent WC compares but I agree that the EC was the weakest ever but the Lakers had to get through the WC in order the meet the soft bunny from the EC.  Only the EC of the 80's could even be compared to the WC of the 00's.

[JoMal]

1st title had Zeke/Dumars/Aguire/Mahorn/Lambier with Vinny/Salley/Rodman/Edwards comming off the bench.  2nd title had Rodman, I think, moving into the starting line-up because Mahorn ended up in Philly.  That year Philly OWNED the Pistons, Barkley and Mahorn expecially destroyed the Pistons.  I was pissed that the up and comming wussy Bulls took out the Sixers and ruined an EC finals for the ages.

None of those players were "dominant", zeke came the closest.

For that era, they certainly would be superior. Few teams could field a lineup as deep as the Pistons. And Dumas was woefully underrated during his time back then, but his defensive at the perimeter was better then anyone else's, which would make him the dominant player at his position during playoff runs. 

The Houston teams had that dominant player being a center, as did that Portland team, and the Blazers also had Maurice Lucas on their championship team that surely helped Walton out a bit.

You asked for teams that won without at LEAST two dominant players Lurker...err...JoMal.  You got your answer.  FYI Lucas was not dominant unless you classify cheap shots and borderline dirty play as "dominant"

Actually, back then that WOULD make him a dominant player during his era. It certainly worked well for those Piston teams as well. They beat the crap out of their competition.

Other then the Kings, you could say the Lakers won their recent championships while the League was certainly watered down as well, especially the Eastern Conference.

I totally disagree, it's not even close.  The WC at the time was the best in all NBA history when the Lakers made their run(s). You had the 8th seed in the WC winning at least 50 games.  That was the toughest competition in NBA history and the toughest I can remember since the 80's.  You had the Spurs/Blazers/Kings/Wolves in their primes and the Lakers destoyed them.  Only the recent WC compares but I agree that the EC was the weakest ever but the Lakers had to get through the WC in order the meet the soft bunny from the EC.  Only the EC of the 80's could even be compared to the WC of the 00's.

The 80's and the Laker/Celtic rivalry was better - and at a time when both conferences had a top team worthy of the name. Neither the Spurs nor the Lakers of more recent times had it over the Lakers or the Celtics of the eighties. As you say - it's not even close.

And do not forget the 2002 championship was very "tainted", so the Lakers did not dominate through those western conference series all the time.

Those WC teams blew through the Eastern Conference annually, pumping up their records. It made those times completely impossible to read for overall competition because all the talent was in the west.

[WayOutWest]

First off, I'll take the time to fix your "quote" errors, I know you are trying to destroy me with that tactic.....your best strategy yet!

For that era, they certainly would be superior. Few teams could field a lineup as deep as the Pistons.

 

You can NOT call ANY of those players dominant.  They may have been "deeper" but there was not one single "dominant" player on those teams Lurker.  Deeper does not equal players dominant.  Their team could dominate but they did it because, as you pointed out, they were deeper and complimented each other very well.

You had guys like Magic, MJ, Bird, Hakeem, Ewing, Nique, Barkley, Moses, Dr J, ect...durring the 80's, not one single guy on the Pistons could dominate the way those guys did, some on both ends of the court.  Zeke came the closest offensively but overall he could not dominate games like those guys could. 

And Dumas was woefully underrated during his time back then, but his defensive at the perimeter was better then anyone else's, which would make him the dominant player at his position during playoff runs.

Actually, back then that WOULD make him a dominant player during his era. It certainly worked well for those Piston teams as well. They beat the crap out of their competition.

FYI, Dumars was a title winning Piston, Dumas was a coke head Sun.   

I agree that Dumars was very under-rated but there were guys like Cooper that IMO were as good, if not better, a defender but I would not even think of calling them "dominant".

The 80's and the Laker/Celtic rivalry was better - and at a time when both conferences had a top team worthy of the name. Neither the Spurs nor the Lakers of more recent times had it over the Lakers or the Celtics of the eighties. As you say - it's not even close.

No argument there but that is not the point of this portion of the discussion.  Back in the 80's the EC was tough from 1 to 6 and they had to battle it out through the toughest competition I can remember and the Lakers had one maybe two teams that were tough in the WC.  That has flipped and when the Lakers made their run the WC was, IMO, just as tough as some of those 80's EC teams, the point being the Lakers had to actually beat those great teams and more of them so while the league overall may have been watered down, I highly disagree with that point, the Lakers had to face the toughest competition and more of it than any team in history.  As great as those Sixers/Pistons/Bucks/Hawks/Bulls teams where in the 80's, they didn't all peak at the same time so IMO the Lakers faced tougher competition than the Celtics/Pistons/Sixers/Bulls had to face durring their runs in the 80's and early 90's.

And do not forget the 2002 championship was very "tainted", so the Lakers did not dominate through those western conference series all the time.

The 2002 was the toughest run they had and it had as much to do with the drop off of the Lakers as it did with the competition.  I agree that it's possible that the WC finals were tinted based on some comments made by that one ref but it's not a proven fact.  A proven fact was the records those WC teams posted that made it in to the WC playoffs, those records were the best EVER.

Those WC teams blew through the Eastern Conference annually, pumping up their records. It made those times completely impossible to read for overall competition because all the talent was in the west.

You are totally missing the point, either by accident or on purpose.  The point is the competition in the WC was the best EVER, and that is the conference the Lakers had to go through.  The Lakers had to beat 3 50+ win teams to win the WC. That run through the WC was the toughest ever, the 80's being the only possible exception.  Even though the Finals was a walk in the park for the team comming from the WC, just getting there was harder than most, if not all, runs any team ever had to go through from any conference in any area.  Now if the Lakers came from the EC and won all those title I would agree that the Lakers path to the titles was easy, but the road to the finals was the toughest ever and the Lakers were the kings of the hill at the end.

[JoMal]

First off, I'll take the time to fix your "quote" errors, I know you are trying to destroy me with that tactic.....your best strategy yet!

Really wish I knew how I was doing it.

FYI, Dumars was a title winning Piston, Dumas was a coke head Sun.   

I agree that Dumars was very under-rated but there were guys like Cooper that IMO were as good, if not better, a defender but I would not even think of calling them "dominant".

Oh.....I forgot that Cooper is in the HOF just as Duma(r)s is. Of course he must have been his equal, then.

But since you must be referring to the ONLY Cooper currently in the HOF, "Tarzan" Cooper of the old Philadelphia teams and the New York Renaissance of the 1920's and 30's, I was wondering what HE had to do with comparisons to Joe Duma(r)s???

No argument there but that is not the point of this portion of the discussion.  Back in the 80's the EC was tough from 1 to 6 and they had to battle it out through the toughest competition I can remember and the Lakers had one maybe two teams that were tough in the WC.  That has flipped and when the Lakers made their run the WC was, IMO, just as tough as some of those 80's EC teams, the point being the Lakers had to actually beat those great teams and more of them so while the league overall may have been watered down, I highly disagree with that point, the Lakers had to face the toughest competition and more of it than any team in history.  As great as those Sixers/Pistons/Bucks/Hawks/Bulls teams where in the 80's, they didn't all peak at the same time so IMO the Lakers faced tougher competition than the Celtics/Pistons/Sixers/Bulls had to face durring their runs in the 80's and early 90's.

This is why arguements that try to compare teams of different eras always bog down.

The 2002 was the toughest run they had and it had as much to do with the drop off of the Lakers as it did with the competition.  I agree that it's possible that the WC finals were tinted based on some comments made by that one ref but it's not a proven fact.  A proven fact was the records those WC teams posted that made it in to the WC playoffs, those records were the best EVER.

How many games did the Lakers lose in that playoff year? Four?? Three of which were against just one team, I believe? Yeah, that was a really tough year of WC competition and that 4-0 sweep of the EC winners, the Nets, was just creepy it was so tough.

You are totally missing the point, either by accident or on purpose.  The point is the competition in the WC was the best EVER, and that is the conference the Lakers had to go through.  The Lakers had to beat 3 50+ win teams to win the WC. That run through the WC was the toughest ever, the 80's being the only possible exception.  Even though the Finals was a walk in the park for the team comming from the WC, just getting there was harder than most, if not all, runs any team ever had to go through from any conference in any area.  Now if the Lakers came from the EC and won all those title I would agree that the Lakers path to the titles was easy, but the road to the finals was the toughest ever and the Lakers were the kings of the hill at the end.

I certainly miss the accident on purpose, but otherwise......

It was good, but not easy to gauge because of the difference in talent between the conferences. I WOULD agree that discrepancy had to be the biggest ever in the NBA, but because it was, judging the competition the Lakers endured in the WC is really much harder to do. The top teams 1-7 all were in the west, but that did not mean they were all close to being as good as the Lakers once the playoffs started. If any of those teams were in the East, the records would have had to have been a lot different.

It did mean the NBA championship was always being decided in the WC finals, though.

[Reality]

westkoast:  Kobe has been doing this for 4 years Jomal.  Maybe your memory is slipping up here.  He has clearly been toying with teams for YEARS now.  There is no one in the league that has matched up with him in combination of drive, basketball iq, speed, clutch, and scoring ability.  Lebron is getting up there now.  Kobe has been there for a while now.  You may not think this but everyone else in the league has said the same thing.  Including Lebron James himself.

Bold quote is Jomal:   Let me make it simpler for you. Kobe WAS the best player in the League the prior four seasons. I completely agree with you. ....From my observations of BOTH players this year, the Best Player In The League banner has passed over to LeBron. Based on that fact you pointed out that neither has won a championship yet, then clearly Paul Pierce is better then either, right? Forgetting for the moment the contributions of Garnett and Allen in making last year possible, of course.

Jomal you are doing a fine job on this thread with the two Lakerees.  Beyond that, how on earth do you place Kobme above Timmy Duncar for all and any of 2003-7?

[WayOutWest]

Jomal you are doing a fine job on this thread with the two Lakerees.  Beyond that, how on earth do you place Kobme above Timmy Duncar for all and any of 2003-7?

The discussion is sooooooooooooooooooo over your boxscore head it's not even funny....oh wait...it is funny...

Reality strikes again...

[Reality]

Jomal,

Maybe you are waiting to extract a few free dinner n drinks off of WoW before posting about Kobme vs Timmy Dunkar.

After that could you explain how he is better then DWade?  Oh those 2004 and 2006 finals results.  Then about last night.....That Heat-Lakers game.