On June 02 2010 06:05 Ace wrote: It's not an empty challenge. Every one here knows I live in NYC. I've been balling all over the city since I was 8 years old. You made a pretty stupid claim that I've never played basketball if I don't agree with you and I'm willing to prove you wrong on your own merit.
sup?
It's a logical assumption when you say something as stupid as you did. To claim that playing back on someone makes it easier for them to blow by you, well that's just insane. It shows that you have no understanding of the game at all.
I'm aware you live in NYC, moron. Obviously you do if that's where you want the game to be played. My point was that I don't live there, as you should have assumed. I'm not going to travel to NYC so that I can destroy a newb in basketball.
The point is that you're entirely wrong, that's why everyone here has disagreed with you. It's common sense that playing back on someone makes it less likely and not more that they would drive by you. If you can't understand that then you're an idiot.
you seem to have a problem with rage. Now you assume that I'm a newb at ball and you'll destroy me. oh noes :/
Also by "everyone" do you mean 2 other people? Because of all the people that have "agreed" with you tonight is the only one who has been around for multiple years of you that has shown any credible knowledge. But have fun raging with your hollow win win win.
Because of all the people that have "agreed" with you tonight is the only one who has been around for multiple years of you that has shown any credible knowledge..
I'm no English major, but that sentence made no sense.
Ace is right on that defending thing. If you back off too much a fast guard will have a much easier time to blow by or draw a blocking foul. Rondo abuses this so much. Of course a slow center won't be able to stay in front and therefor should back off a bit and try to make him shoot the jump shot but we are talking about good on ball defense not about match up problems.
Well, arm defense is fine and all, but a quick guard has to just turn the corner and catch you reaching with that arm to draw a miserable touch call. You get a lot of ticky tacky calls like that with quicker guards turning the corner on other not so quick players and getting called for blocks. It happens a lot probably a lot more than it should.
Because of all the people that have "agreed" with you tonight is the only one who has been around for multiple years of you that has shown any credible knowledge..
I'm no English major, but that sentence made no sense.
Just missing a coma between you and tonight, and tonight refers to the user tonight, not I am banging your mom like Delonte West tonight.
On June 01 2010 14:14 OneOther wrote: It definitely makes sense to compare Kobe and MJ even at this point. If Kobe wins it all this year, then absolutely.
If the Lakers win this year, Kobe will have been the best player on 2 championship teams. How does this compare to being the best player on 6 championship teams? He's performing at an MJ-esque level at the moment (in my opinion this is his best postseason by FAR) but I think he'd need a couple more titles after this year to make the discussion legitimate. If total titles is all you judge by, then John Havlicek is beyond MJ too.
Unfortunately I think the Lakers will lose for the exact same reason as two years ago: Bynum's health. They really need him to get double digit rebounds, since Odom comes and goes at random and Gasol tends to fade against the physical Boston front line.
When did anyone say total titles is the only criteria? It's an important one, but not the only one. You have to obviously look at other numbers and intangibles as well such as leadership and just sheer performance. Also, I don't buy your "Kobe played with Shaq" argument. It doesn't matter anymore. He has proven to be able to win without him and this by no means should discredit what he has done. They needed each other to win. Kobe was the number one option against many teams, and they allowed each other to get open.
Seriously, nobody is saying that Kobe is better than MJ. But he absolutely has earned the right to be compared to Jordan. (I will just ignore your Havlicek argument since it's pretty irrelevant) In my eyes, he is already superior in terms of pure skill. Now he just has to go out there and start adding even more to his damn impressive resume. Kobe isn't as revered or doesn't represent this global icon of basketball as MJ did but he's getting pretty damn close. If he performs in the Finals as he has been this entire playoffs and pushes the Lakers for his fifth championship, then Kobe vs MJ will become a more serious discussion.
Fine, let's talk leadership. At the moment, Kobe's leadership is in that rarefied level with Jordan and a few others. But how long has it been that way? This is the same guy who threw temper tantrums and demanded a trade more than once, and did everything but quit on his team in the '06 playoffs when he refused to shoot the ball in the second half against Phoenix to show up the media. He played a major role in dismantling a team that could have won more titles. He decided that he would take over an elimination game against Utah in his first playoff series, even though he was still just a bench player and never made an all-NBA team up to that point, and threw up 3 crunch-time airballs. If Kupchak didn't fleece Memphis to get Gasol, this "leadership" we see would probably never have existed. Winning changes everything.
By comparison, MJ took a bunch of crappy playoff losses despite amazing individual efforts, and continued to work to improve both himself and the team, which was horrible until Pippen bacame an all-star level player. When they fired Collins and Phil Jackson told him he was going to implement the ball-sharing offense, he accepted it in the name of winning. MJ's Bulls teams never missed the playoffs, even when Orlando Woolridge was their second best player.
What other intangibles do you want to discuss?
You are disagreeing with me that Kobe doesn't deserve to be compared to Jordan? Because like I said, I was never arguing that Kobe has surpassed Jordan's greatness. But he's getting close and the discussion has its merits now. You can't pick out a dark page from Kobe's otherwise amazing career and conclude that he can't be compared to Jordan as a basketball player and a leader. And as for that Phoenix game, nobody but Kobe knows what he intended to do. Magic Johnson and his cast recently analyzed if Kobe threw away that game on purpose. They didn't think he did. Throughout that entire series, Kobe was taking a lot of shots and was his usual prolific scorer, but the Lakers were still losing. He knew they wouldn't win if his teammates did not get involved in the second half. You can't just assume that he refused to shoot or that he is responsible for breaking up that team. In my opinion, he did nearly everything he could do to make his team win, and you are simply laying down the hammer that he quit on his team. Kobe put up amazing individual efforts just like Jordan did and "took crappy playoff losses."
It's absurd that you bring up his airball against Utah Jazz. How old was he back then? How does that have to do anything with what Kobe's greatness will be compared to Jordan once his career ends? I don't even know why you think this even matters. Kobe has proven himself throughout this entire damn career. I mean, Kobe definitely had his ups and downs, went through his immature stages, but look at what he has grown into. You don't think Jordan never had his share of problems? Why should Kobe's few issues from the past determine that he can't be as great as Jordan? In my eyes, he is already near.
Jordan was not a perfect leader or player, either. He punched a teammate, got in feuds with them, and teammates made complaints about him. Even Phil Jackson said that he believes Kobe has developed into a better leader than Jordan. You can't take that away from him, no matter what he's done in the past. And he has more years left in his career. Why hasn't Kobe earned the right to be compared to Jordan?
You said that you hate Kobe-LeBron discussion because they are completely different basketball players. Kobe and Jordan are two of the greatest shooting guards we have ever seen. Both are fierce competitors and charismatic leaders. They play pretty similar games. Kobe is in his third straight final, seventh overall, and going for his fifth ring. He's not only breaking historic Laker records but the entire NBA's. He's really reaching another level of greatness. Why in the world shouldn't Kobe be compared to Jordan?
Nobody is saying that Kobe is greater than Jordan, but the argument is becoming more legitimate than ever. If Kobe keeps on playing anywhere near his level right now and pushes the Lakers towards winning for those years left in his gas tank, then he has a chance to be as great (or even greater?) than Jordan. Kobe's bumps in the past can't stop him from doing that forever. You are just blinded if you don't think Kobe hasn't earned the right to be compared to Jordan.
This is extremely long to respond to so forgive me if something gets omitted:
First of all, my last post didn't make any mention to him as a player. If I wanted to compare Kobe and Jordan as players, I would make reference to the 10 scoring titles, 5 MVPs, 6 finals MVPs, defensive POY, all time RS and playoff scoring averages, 6-0 finals record, etc. that Jordan has to his name. It's LEADERSHIP I was discussing, as I made clear in the first sentence.
The only teammates who complained about Jordan's behavior were benchwarmers. This is similar to Smush Parker bashing Kobe Bryant last year. Usually it's out of jealousy from the superstars getting preferential treatment. You might want to do a bit of research on Jordan punching Kerr before dismissing it as poor leadership. They were matched up in practice and were going at it fiercely. That sort of behavior is precisely what breeds winning. Chuck Daly used to instigate it by telling his players, "There's the ball, now play for your minutes." Conversely, Kobe demanding the Lakers to make an impossible trade does not breed winning. How, as a GM, can you plan for the team's future when you aren't sure whether your best player will be there? I think Kobe has finally realized that what he's done for the last 3 years is the right way to lead a team, but it took him 11 years to figure that out, which HAS to be taken into consideration when discussing his legacy.
Using a Phil Jackson comment to strengthen your argument is quite something. Phil is a tactician and uses the media as a vehicle to motivate his players. If we're going to take words at face value, then I'll make the assertion that Kobe didn't care about getting a ring without Shaq, just because he said so.
I have to break the leadership theme to discuss your comment about Kobe and Jordan playing similar games. What the hell? Their games are nothing alike. The only current player who has a game that even mildly resembles MJ's is Wade. MJ was a slasher first and his game only extended past midrange in the late years. Kobe has always taken most of his shots from 10+ feet from the basket, which is reflected in his far lower FG%. On the other side of the ball, Kobe has always been a better at help defense than at man-to-man, which is opposite to Jordan (although Jordan was excellent at trapping), and it's not even possible for him to play similar defense since the rules are different now. They're both off-guards and both got in fights with Reggie Miller, that's about it.
Long story short: Kobe Bryant is an awesome player. He's always had fierce competitiveness, which unfortunately is an increasingly rare attribute since players are a lot friendlier with each other now than they used to be. He's the best player in the NBA. I think it's fair to slot him above West as the second greatest off-guard of all time. However, there's simply not enough time for him to end up with a comparable career to that of Michael Jordan. Kobe has already played more NBA seasons than MJ did with the Bulls, and his body has been slowly wearing down since about 2007. The guy can't even practice during these playoffs (which also speaks to how amazing he's been in the actual games), so it's unfathomable to think he'll be able to maintain this level for much longer. If he loses this finals, his career finals record will be 4-3, and that will make the discussion impossible forever. If he pulls a threepeat and ends up 6-2, we can talk.
With what Kobe has been doing this postseason, combined with his upcoming third consecutive final for fifth ring, I think we can continue this discussion after the finals.
On June 02 2010 06:05 Ace wrote: It's not an empty challenge. Every one here knows I live in NYC. I've been balling all over the city since I was 8 years old. You made a pretty stupid claim that I've never played basketball if I don't agree with you and I'm willing to prove you wrong on your own merit.
sup?
Bone collector is that you?
I would pay money to see a 1v1 between ace and lefnui lol
On June 01 2010 14:14 OneOther wrote: It definitely makes sense to compare Kobe and MJ even at this point. If Kobe wins it all this year, then absolutely.
If the Lakers win this year, Kobe will have been the best player on 2 championship teams. How does this compare to being the best player on 6 championship teams? He's performing at an MJ-esque level at the moment (in my opinion this is his best postseason by FAR) but I think he'd need a couple more titles after this year to make the discussion legitimate. If total titles is all you judge by, then John Havlicek is beyond MJ too.
Unfortunately I think the Lakers will lose for the exact same reason as two years ago: Bynum's health. They really need him to get double digit rebounds, since Odom comes and goes at random and Gasol tends to fade against the physical Boston front line.
When did anyone say total titles is the only criteria? It's an important one, but not the only one. You have to obviously look at other numbers and intangibles as well such as leadership and just sheer performance. Also, I don't buy your "Kobe played with Shaq" argument. It doesn't matter anymore. He has proven to be able to win without him and this by no means should discredit what he has done. They needed each other to win. Kobe was the number one option against many teams, and they allowed each other to get open.
Seriously, nobody is saying that Kobe is better than MJ. But he absolutely has earned the right to be compared to Jordan. (I will just ignore your Havlicek argument since it's pretty irrelevant) In my eyes, he is already superior in terms of pure skill. Now he just has to go out there and start adding even more to his damn impressive resume. Kobe isn't as revered or doesn't represent this global icon of basketball as MJ did but he's getting pretty damn close. If he performs in the Finals as he has been this entire playoffs and pushes the Lakers for his fifth championship, then Kobe vs MJ will become a more serious discussion.
Fine, let's talk leadership. At the moment, Kobe's leadership is in that rarefied level with Jordan and a few others. But how long has it been that way? This is the same guy who threw temper tantrums and demanded a trade more than once, and did everything but quit on his team in the '06 playoffs when he refused to shoot the ball in the second half against Phoenix to show up the media. He played a major role in dismantling a team that could have won more titles. He decided that he would take over an elimination game against Utah in his first playoff series, even though he was still just a bench player and never made an all-NBA team up to that point, and threw up 3 crunch-time airballs. If Kupchak didn't fleece Memphis to get Gasol, this "leadership" we see would probably never have existed. Winning changes everything.
By comparison, MJ took a bunch of crappy playoff losses despite amazing individual efforts, and continued to work to improve both himself and the team, which was horrible until Pippen bacame an all-star level player. When they fired Collins and Phil Jackson told him he was going to implement the ball-sharing offense, he accepted it in the name of winning. MJ's Bulls teams never missed the playoffs, even when Orlando Woolridge was their second best player.
What other intangibles do you want to discuss?
You are disagreeing with me that Kobe doesn't deserve to be compared to Jordan? Because like I said, I was never arguing that Kobe has surpassed Jordan's greatness. But he's getting close and the discussion has its merits now. You can't pick out a dark page from Kobe's otherwise amazing career and conclude that he can't be compared to Jordan as a basketball player and a leader. And as for that Phoenix game, nobody but Kobe knows what he intended to do. Magic Johnson and his cast recently analyzed if Kobe threw away that game on purpose. They didn't think he did. Throughout that entire series, Kobe was taking a lot of shots and was his usual prolific scorer, but the Lakers were still losing. He knew they wouldn't win if his teammates did not get involved in the second half. You can't just assume that he refused to shoot or that he is responsible for breaking up that team. In my opinion, he did nearly everything he could do to make his team win, and you are simply laying down the hammer that he quit on his team. Kobe put up amazing individual efforts just like Jordan did and "took crappy playoff losses."
It's absurd that you bring up his airball against Utah Jazz. How old was he back then? How does that have to do anything with what Kobe's greatness will be compared to Jordan once his career ends? I don't even know why you think this even matters. Kobe has proven himself throughout this entire damn career. I mean, Kobe definitely had his ups and downs, went through his immature stages, but look at what he has grown into. You don't think Jordan never had his share of problems? Why should Kobe's few issues from the past determine that he can't be as great as Jordan? In my eyes, he is already near.
Jordan was not a perfect leader or player, either. He punched a teammate, got in feuds with them, and teammates made complaints about him. Even Phil Jackson said that he believes Kobe has developed into a better leader than Jordan. You can't take that away from him, no matter what he's done in the past. And he has more years left in his career. Why hasn't Kobe earned the right to be compared to Jordan?
You said that you hate Kobe-LeBron discussion because they are completely different basketball players. Kobe and Jordan are two of the greatest shooting guards we have ever seen. Both are fierce competitors and charismatic leaders. They play pretty similar games. Kobe is in his third straight final, seventh overall, and going for his fifth ring. He's not only breaking historic Laker records but the entire NBA's. He's really reaching another level of greatness. Why in the world shouldn't Kobe be compared to Jordan?
Nobody is saying that Kobe is greater than Jordan, but the argument is becoming more legitimate than ever. If Kobe keeps on playing anywhere near his level right now and pushes the Lakers towards winning for those years left in his gas tank, then he has a chance to be as great (or even greater?) than Jordan. Kobe's bumps in the past can't stop him from doing that forever. You are just blinded if you don't think Kobe hasn't earned the right to be compared to Jordan.
I have to break the leadership theme to discuss your comment about Kobe and Jordan playing similar games. What the hell? Their games are nothing alike. The only current player who has a game that even mildly resembles MJ's is Wade. MJ was a slasher first and his game only extended past midrange in the late years. Kobe has always taken most of his shots from 10+ feet from the basket, which is reflected in his far lower FG%. On the other side of the ball, Kobe has always been a better at help defense than at man-to-man, which is opposite to Jordan (although Jordan was excellent at trapping), and it's not even possible for him to play similar defense since the rules are different now. They're both off-guards and both got in fights with Reggie Miller, that's about it.
their game is very much alike.they both mastered the stop and pop so well it's damn near impossible to guard. both are excellent mid range shooters that shoot like no one is in front of them.
kobe in his younger days was a very good slasher. when i watched him take it to the hole back then, the way he would attack the rim reminds me so much of mj. I agree his body is starting to slow but he def can still take it to the hole, but you dont see it as much because his shot is just as deadly and you really only see him take it to the hole in the 4th when he needs to.
also kobe is a great man to man defender, Lebron is a good help defender. i would put kobe's defense just a notch lower than jordan's was.
There are currently two discussions (re: arguments?) going on right now that I would like to contriube my two cents to. Except that I don't see the Kobe/MJ argument going anywhere so I will abstain.
A) Defending a quick player Before I list my points I just want to say that Ace has a good case, you definitely don't want someone driving by your face.
1) Personally, I am not the quickest basketball player and I have had to guard many smaller quicker guards. If they suck at shooting (a lot) then I totally guard them from the key. However, if they are a good at both (driving and shooting) I find it the most useful to guard them as close as I can. I do this for two reasons: 1)They can't shoot and 2)I don't let them sweep the ball through me so they are forced to either withdraw or dribble in the direction that I choose for them.
2) I had the privilege of watching Kansas Jayhawks play against a local College team. What the Kansas players did was closely face guard all their opponents. This was very beneficial to them because then the college team couldn't shoot or drive (also they had only two 'players' on their team). In fact they could barely pass the ball away. I know this is an extreme example to support my case, but to me it raises a good point that closely guarding players who can't shoot has its advantages.
3a) In the basketball sense face guarding a driver makes some sense because you restrict their angles at which they can attack you at. They have to veer to the sides before they attack the hoop. As many of you know quick players are the most dangerous in the open floor because they have all the momentum behind them and their movements are directed at the hoop (re: Deron Williams!). By closely face guarding your opponent you restrict their options. Also by closely guarding someone you also give that player less angle to pass the ball.
3b) When you are face guarding someone you have to be careful for picks because you don't have the right angle to properly defend your man if the picker rolls and you get blocked. To do this you have to fight to get through the pick. Which could lead to the attacking player faking going through the screen and attacking the weak side.
Conclusion: Defending a quicker player closer has its advantages. Like in all things you want to change up your looks on defense so that the offense has to continually adjust to you (not the other way around).
if a team's guard can't shoot or drive then by all means play them close, but when you got a GOOD pg like rondo whose handles/drives are excellent, but whack shot, you give him the space because guarding a guy like rondo close up will result likely in being blown by, you fouling, help defense fouling, or easy assist.
giving him 3-4 ft of space won't make it easier to blow by you like he would on a face break.
EPT
