Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (10/13/14 - 10/19/14).
Forum News: The nomination phase of the Community Awards 2014 is live! Visit new sections for Nisekoi and Kingdom!
I know statistically Kobe has got MJ beat in some areas, but if we just went by stats, Jordan would be no where near considered the best player of all time. It isn't like he's the all time leader in any major statistical category outside of point per game.
And I'm not saying Kobe's surrounding cast is GREAT, but I think it's much better than Jordan's was pre 1987. And Jordan didn't have it easy back then, the Celtics, Pistons, Hawks, and Cavs all had great teams. Now do I think they measure up to some of the teams in the Western Conference? I think they could hold their own against them, yes.
Well, as much as it is fun comparing players and teams at different eras, I'll probably put this discussion on hold, for the time being.
In other news, the NBA playoffs is coming up. So, what do you guys think?
I admit, as a spectator, I haven't paid much attention to the NBA this season. But I heard the Western Conference elites are pretty darn good. So are some of the elites in the East, depending when Wade (not sure, did he come back yet?) returns to good shape, the Heats will be a handful even for the Western teams. Hmm...LeBron's Cavs might make noise this year, and I expect the Pistons to make a decent run in the playoffs as usual.
I think it's a no brainer in the East, it's between the Pistons and the Heats.
But in the West, hmm...Spurs/Mavs/Suns each have legitimate chances of making it to the finals, so it will be super competitive.
My Final picks: Heats vs. Suns, Suns win in 5 games. Heh, if this happens, Nash's 2 MVPs will be legitimized as well, and he'll be considered as one of the best PGs to ever play the game. And perhaps he'll win his third MVP, who knows.
Last edited by miyi; April 11, 2007 at 04:03 PM.
I think, we had a great chance to do something good, but instead we bent over, lubed up, took it, and died. I don't know what to think of us going into the playoffs right now.
Kobe can score, what he needs is to get a team of defenders and continue playing his role. He is not an MVP, because an MVP needs to show exemplary leadership which Kobe does not show.
By your logic, Allen Iverson should have been consecutive MVP the past ten years.
Dirk is an MVP, not because of how many points he can score, but because he raises his team into greatness, Nash does as well. You may consider Kobe "better" because he raises a lottery team to the playoffs, but the playoffs aren't considerably hard to get into in the west past 5th place. Without Nash and Dirk, their respective teams are only average if not below (especially in Nash's case where players seem to only play great games once every so often).
Unfortunately the top 5 are also the league's best five.
My picks for round 1 are: Suns, Rockets, Mavericks and Nuggets - Bulls, Cavaliers, Nets and Detroit
thank God someone besides Venom finally posted here (meaning, there's a lack of activity in this sub-forum).
Kobe does not show leadership skills? how exactly does one define "leadership"?Quote:
Let's first compare teams:
on Lakers, Odom is their second best player, not an All Star
on Denver Nuggets, Iverson is playing alongside Carmelo Anthony, definitely an All Star
on Phoenix Suns, Amare Stoudamire and Shawn Marion, both an All Star
Take out Kobe, Iverson, and Nash in their respective teams, without question the Lakers is a lottery team.
Now for the comparison of individual statistics:
46.3% (FG percent)
34.4% (Three point percent)
86.8% (Free throws percent)
31.6 points per game
45.4% (FG percent)
34.7% (Three point percent)
75.9% (Free throws percent)
24.8 points per game
53.2% (FG percent)
45.5% (Three point percent)
89.9% (Free throws percent)
(Note: significant statistics indicated in bold)
Between Kobe and Iverson, Kobe has a slightly higher Field Goal percentage. And for someone who touches the ball often, 46.3% field goal percentage is decent and respectable.
Between Kobe and A.I., Kobe is clearly better in almost all categories, so I don't understand your comparison.
Between Nash and Kobe, Nash obviously has better shooting percentage, as well as field goal percentage. As a point guard, of course his assists average is staggeringly high, even for a point guard. Kobe edges him out only in rebounding and point average, convincingly.
In addition, Kobe's defense is still better than Nash. Kobe plays on both ends of the floor (offense and defense), whereas Nash has been known in his entire career to lack any sort of defense, and he is basically an offense-only guy. A plus for Kobe.
You might say, well point average is insignificant. But 31.6 > 18.6 (points per game), is a HUGE gap. But so is 5.4 < 11.6 (assists per game). So I guess it's safe to say that in this sense, their strengths and weaknesses cancel/negate each other (Kobe is better in scoring, Nash in passing).
Now for some bias:
It might help to know that this year, Kobe has had ten 50 point games, making him only the second player in NBA history, behind Wilt Chamberlain, to do so in a single season. 4 consecutive 50+ point games is also recorded as only second best to Wilt's records. Moreover, Kobe's 31.6 points per game is this year's best, his second consecutive scoring title (he averaged 35.4 points per game last season).
Another factor you need to take into account is how many people guards Kobe, versus how many people guard Nash. On the basis of who faces more difficulty as an offensive player, without question, it's Kobe. He is the most dominant player in the league at his position, and the most heavily defended player, as opposed to Nash, who is less heavily defended.
Kobe finished his season pretty strong, at least individually, with his 50+ point games, and he needed to do this in order to demonstrate what it is like to show a "sense of urgency". He needed to perform at such a high level towards the end of the season, just to struggle for playoff position, in hopes he can encourage his teammates to work as equally hard. If this is not a demonstration of "leadership", then I don't know what is.
Having said all that, I am not suggesting Kobe should win this year's MVP, although he ought to be at least considered as a candidate. I think the MVP should ultimately go to the player who belongs to a team with a better winning record, because in basketball, "winning is everything". In other words, it means a lot.
It's unfortunate for Kobe that he is stuck in a crappy, mediocre team, and thus he doesn't deserve that MVP trophy.
Does Nash deserve the MVP title this year, probably.
But when was the last time you've seen a 2 consecutive reigning MVP, who can't get passed a Conference Semis?
Nash was good this year, but so did Dirk.
The Mavs has 67 wins out of 81 games. I agree, Dirk should win this year's MVP.
What are you kidding me using THIS YEARS statistics???
If you want to compate Iverson vs Kobe as gaurds, use last year, the year before and two years before for Iverson, as soon as he moved to Nuggets he was no longer the main scoring solution for his team, he was a second big man, much like Yao and Tracy complement each other in Houston. Even using career stats rather than this years statistics would make more sense, but don't use this year as an example of why Iverson is not as much of a scorer as Bryant. In fact, he wins more fouls than Kobe, forcing 5 foul periods, and opponents to sit down which is why his playstyle while different, is as useful as Kobe.
As for Nash vs Kobe.. you're comparing a Shooting guard to a Point guard, and most of your arguments are.. irrelevant..
Sorry, but look:
Shooting guard: Score points, drive to the hoop, defend the point guard at times (depending on the matchups)
Point guard: Lead the team, set up plays, get the ball to your teammates
The two positions are like water and oil, there are players that can play both, but in this case Kobe and Nash are the two best in the particular positions at the moment.
To compare the two statwise is irrelevant because their roles are different
If you want to show Kobe's leadership skills you have to use his strength, which is to get points in the basket. Ussually this is not the leadership role in a team, why? Because the scorer is meant to get the team moving, but he can't move the team.
Now oftentime, the leader IS also the scorer, but the difference is as a leader you are supposed to move your team. Nash got Barbossa moving by getting him involved against the Lakers, and look what happened. Kobe, does NOT get Luke Walton moving (for example), and thus he is dead weight. Odom doesn't need to be moved, he's a great player on his own, he doesn't need that push. All he needs is for Kobe to start scoring, and he'll follow along.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: There are two kinds of players on a team.
There are the guys who start playing on their own once the team scores a couple of points.
(This ussually happens in soccer/hockey/low scoring games more visibly)
And then there are the guys that need a leader to move the entire team.
I find it is easier for me to use national teams as an example, because I find it easier to see. For example, this summer in the world championships.
You had: Lebron, Carmelo and Wade.. at the same time. Needless to say, they scored a shitload.
However, despite how many points each of them individually amased, their team could not perform well enough to win the title. Why?
You look at Nash in the NBA, I look at Papaloukas both in the Euroleague (with CSSKA) and with Greece. Papaloukas does not score a lot most of the time, in fact he doesn't even break any insane records with his assists. He's not even a starter, he's actually a sixth man despite playing the most minutes of a point gaurd.
What he does is open up the court, and pass to his teammates during the right time.
There's passing to an open man, and then there's passing to the right player.
When Nash passes he doesn't just pass to the open player. When most gaurds pass, they'll pass to their respective teams Shaq/Duncun/sure scorer. Nash passes to the man that is either hot, or that will piss off/strategically attack the opponent.
Basketball isn't just about scoring, this is why Kobe doesn't qualify as an MVP for me, in basketball when you foul out Shaq, the Heat lose a huge part of their game. In basketball when you win 5 fouls, an Iverson/Ginobli will make your ass PAY for giving those 5 fouls up. In basketball, you can have a single player score, or 12 players score, it doesnt matter as long as you have more points than the opponent.
Nash and Dirk do this, they both mentally frustrate their opponents by making them hate them/their team. Kobe doesn't make you hate him (unless you're Jordan in the last All-Star game), he used to when he played with Shaq, but he doesn't alone. Kobe makes you guard him/doubleteam him and play defensively, it doesn't make you want to give up/sweat and not able to even dribble the ball anymore. Kobe with Shaq would make the defender sweat and force the coach to constantly keep the rotation on him, because he had to also worry about Shaq. Kobe alone does not worry coaches, it only makes them play more strategically/take a defender off one of the Lakers weak links (and they unfortunately have a LOT because Kobe does not motivate them for some reason).
A MVP mentally exhausts the opponent, that is what I think, and that is what an MVP candidate does for his team. Sorry for the long post, I find it difficult to sum up my points in fewer words, I hope you understand what I meant.
Last edited by Lohnt; April 24, 2007 at 07:53 PM.
I don't mind the long post.
It seems like we both have a different idea of what an MVP is.
This is my definition of an MVP:
A player who is not only dominant individually (which is Kobe), but also dominant as a team player (unfortunately, that is Nash). He is well rounded in all aspects of the game (good in almost all statistical categories), exceptional at both ends of the floor (both offense and defense), and most of all, he carries the biggest burden from his team.
In other words, you have such a valuable impact, that if you are physically removed from the team, your team would falter. In addition, you are such an asset to the team overall, that your team boasts a respectable winning record.
Note: Nash's defense suck, even compared to an average player, you cannot overlook this fact. Kobe, on the other hand, has been named in the ALL NBA defensive team, at least once in his career. Although this year he wasn't awarded this recognition, he is still overall a great defensive player, much better than your boy Nash.
Now, first of all, I was not the one to initiate the comparison between Iverson and Kobe, that was you. Second, I know what you were trying to say: Kobe, just like Iverson, attempts too many shots just to put up those big numbers. The reason I put up this season's statistic, and used both player's stats for comparison, is because they are relevant, and to show you that Kobe has taken less field goals than he used to, even for a player who is the primary go-to guy, and that his field goal percentage has gone up by a percent (than recent years). In sum, the claim that Kobe is forcing his shots just like Iverson has no merit.
Now, back on topic:
So what exactly are you saying here? That a shooting guard cannot become an MVP simply because his position involves shooting the ball more often, as opposed to being a passer? Hey guess what, Jordan is a 6 time MVP and he was a shooting guard, just like Kobe.
And since we love comparing players here, just as you compared Iverson and Kobe, let me spit it back at you a similar comparison:
Jason Kidd vs. Nash. Now, they are both point guards, so I guess by your standards we can compare them right?
Kidd in his career averaged 9.2 assists per game. He is probably, among active players, the most with triple doubles (usually, he puts up double digits on points, rebounds, and assists). That demonstrates well-roundedness.
And how many times did Kidd take his team to the Finals, and Eastern Finals? I'll tell you what, he did it more often than Nash (Nash has yet to reach the Finals). And did Kidd win a single MVP?
Look man, I'm giving you hard facts, which I thought is relevant.
I understand your reasoning that Nash makes his teammates better, but so does Kobe, except for one major difference: Kobe's teammates all suck, except Odom.
Nash won last year's MVP, presumably because nobody expected them to win so many games with their key player, Amare Stoudemire, injured. But people forget and underestimate that Shawn Marion is an awesome player, in fact he was an all star last year and this year. Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Barbossa, Tim Thomas, those guys were all having phenomenal years last season. I guess you can say part of the reason they were successful was a tribute to Nash's greatness, but on the other hand, they would have blossomed either way, with or without Nash.
When Nash was with the Dallas Mavericks, they were already a great team. When he left Dallas for Phoenix, did Dallas falter?
No. Why? Because Dallas was already a great team, with or without Nash.
I guess you can say that Nash is an extremely lucky guy to have had the chance to play in such good teams.
And this year, you can't really say, Nash should win the MVP, if you want to stay consistent. The fact is, Amare Stoudemire is back, and so is Shawn Marion. Nash did not make those two players better, they certainly don't need any of Nash's help, because they are good enough as it is.
What kind of counter-argument can you give me, with respect to Kobe? Can you tell me, with hard evidence, that Kobe's teammates would do well, with or without him? Is Odom such a good stand-alone player, that he would carry the Lakers all on his own, without Kobe? He's not even in the All stars!
So in sum, both Kobe and Nash don't deserve to win this year's MVP. As good as they both are, they are not as valuable to their team as a whole, as Dirk Nowitski. At least we agree on this one.
And I'm not saying Kobe is flawless. If anything, I wish he would pass the ball more like Nash. We already know he can score, now he should work on his passing game. And likewise, I wish Nash would work on his defense. You see, nobody is flawless.
Just to clarify, I don't think your arguments are completely irrelevant, I just don't feel statistics tell the real story of what the MVP candidates actually DO for the team, and thus are not valid indicators for who should win.
Also, I don't think Nash should win, I think Dirk should win. Kidd is an excellent point guard, but I would have to say Jefferson is their teams current MVP.
I don't believe shooters can't be MVP's, when Tracy plays a shooting guard, I think he is the Rockets MVP (likewise Jordan).
Finally, I'm fairly certain I've already mention how much respect I have for Kobe in this thread, if I haven't "I hate Kobe as a person because he is a jerk, however as a player I have absolutely no reason to deny he is incredible." That said, I don't think he is an MVP.
MVP's don't only bring their teams to their finals, they create incredible seasons for their teams. For example, I think Kevin should win an MVP before he retires (not sure if he's won one already), however until Kobe finds a decent team, I just don't see him as anything other than a force. And he is, he's an incredible force, he is the most offensive force in the NBA today, HOWEVER.. that doesn't change the fact that the Lakers may as well be Zidane's french national team. After Kobe, the lakers will be nothing, after Jordan both the Wizards and the Bulls were something, not what they used to be... but a respectable team.
That's an mvp to me.
btw go bulls! Big BEN!
And I disagree, I think in order to be considered an MVP, not only should your team boast an impressive regular season record, but also you perform impressively in the playoffs, because the playoffs is what it is all about.
Unfortunately, the MVP is decided before the playoff games are completed (I believe it is announced during round 2 of the playoffs). However, despite the premature MVP decision-making, historically, these MVPs have demonstrated, time and again, that they are capable of winning in the playoffs. Most importantly, those who have won 2 consecutive MVPs (i.e. Tim Duncan, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson), all of them have at least reached the Finals, and in fact, most of them won the championship.
Basically, winning in the playoffs matters a lot, because this determines whether you can play at a high level when it really counts. Otherwise, if you choke in big-time games, then your credibility as an MVP will most likely be questioned.
An ad hominem criticism on Kobe is commonplace, especially after his Colorado rape trial. I guess that is probably one of the main reasons that critics don't respect him as much as he deserves. Some judge him for his off-court issues, not as the player on-the-court. Then there are some who are stubborn to give Kobe enough credit, and they are so quick to point out the "negatives", but dismisses any "positives".
He is given the "dirty player" label, because he "elbowed" two players (Marco Jaric and Ginobli), this year.
Dirty plays happen all the time in basketball. It’s a competitive sport, where contact is a natural part of the game. Nowadays, the referees are so quick to blow the whistles for even the most harmless body contact. I hope basketball doesn’t turn into a contact-free sport.
Especially when Kobe is so heavily guarded, the fact that they don’t give him space to move around, is probably the reason why the elbow incidents happened. Whether it was intentional or unintentional, it hasn’t been fully proven.
And even if it was intentional, critics should not judge a player based on his personalities. Unfortunately, Kobe is a victim of this sort of criticism.
That said, it's great that you respect Kobe. Likewise, Nash is among my favorite players, probably he's in my top 5 right now.
And btw, Kevin Garnett has won an MVP once, when he took the TWolves to the Western Semis. Unfortunately for Garnett, he suffers the same curse as Kobe: being stuck in a less-than-mediocre team.
But if you look at his career stats, even up until now, he has been the most consistent player, aside from Tim Duncan, to have played the game. According to the efficiency ranking at NBA.com, he is almost always in the top ten most efficient players. He is basically putting up MVP numbers every season, but unfortunately, his team isn’t winning, which makes all the difference.
EDIT: I made some edits above
Last edited by miyi; April 24, 2007 at 10:53 PM.
I didn't see the first elbow, but I saw the one on Ginobli.
That was not accidental, nor "in the course of a game/unintentional." Also he cheated on his wife, stole Jordans final All-star game victory (rather than letting him retire in peace/respect) and cursed out Shaq who after 3 years of championships he decided he did not need any longer, neither as a teammate nor as a friend..
Guess he was wrong.
Besides, I shouldn't have to explain why I think someone is a jerk (despite the fact that I don't mind in this case), it's personal opinion. Again I think he's an incredible player though, especially after that 81 game.
As long as those personality judgements are kept outside in determining who the MVP is, then I guess they're harmless.
For example, I think OJ Simpson was an awesome football player, but whether or not he has commited those crime that he was accused of, does not make him any less of a football player. Maybe he is less of a human, but not as a football player.
But whether he belongs in the Hall of Fame, is another subject altogether, and besides, they have certain rules pertaining to that. I guess you get removed from the Hall of Fame if you did something terrible, so in this case, personality counts.
btw, I made some edit above.
I do think Kobe is an amazing player btw - used to follow the Lakers for a while - but I just don't like him as a person, lol. I think comparing NBA players can be pretty tricky, it's not like you can just put them in an one-on-one match and you can decide whoever wins is better. But I have to say nobody will ever be more exciting than MJ was for me - he MADE me like watching basketball in the first place. Nobody else has done that for me.
Anyway, sorry I'm not really talking a lot in the NBA thread. NBA just isn't my thing.
I've decided to stick the whole Kobe discussion out. That said I think Nash has to be MVP, no on improves their team more than Nash. Sure he won't score 30 a game, but he's not supposed too.
Like I said, Nash deserved the MVP last season because of the absence of their key player, Amare Stoudemire, who in previous seasons before his injury, was putting up MVP numbers in his own right. Perhaps one can argue that Nash can be credited to making all his teammates better, making Diaw, Barbossa, and Shawn Marion all have phenomenal years last season all thanks to Nash. But Shawn Marion has always been an All Star caliber player, and so was Amare Stoudemire.
Now, this year, Amare is back, and as usual, he is having a spectacular year. In fact, Barbosa has become the biggest surprise this season, and it would be an utter disregard of his abilities to say that he is good only because of Nash. Let’s look at the numbers:
Shawn marion: 17.5 PPG, 9.8 RPG, 1.5 BPG
Leandro Barbosa: 18.1 PPG, 4 APG, 1.2 SPG
Amare Stoudemire: 20.4 PPG, 9.6 RPG, 1.3 BPG
These three players are All Stars in my book. If you think about it, Nash has benefited by having these awesome players as teammates. It’s a two way street. In fact, I will take it a step further: Nash wouldn’t have the kind of season he has now, if it wasn’t for these guys.
So, no, Nash should not be the MVP this year.
You’re not making a strong case for yourself if the only counter argument you spit out is that Kobe does not make his teammates better. Let’s not forget that throughout the year, Kobe was without his starters due to multiple injuries on his team. Odom missed at least a dozen game, so did Luke Walton, and Kwame Brown. When they were healthy at the beginning of the season, Lakers were one of the premier teams in the West. And the Western Conference is still a difficult conference to be in, since the top 5 teams, as someone above already mentioned, are also the top 5 teams throughout the league (this is probably an exaggeration, but more or less, this is true).
And even with that said, I still will not give the MVP to Kobe on the basis of his team not winning enough games (despite being the league’s best scorer for 2 consecutive seasons, and being solid on almost all statistical categories, including having a career high in free throw percentage, 87%).
So without question, I think Dirk ought to win it. Here are his stats:
24.6 PPG, 8.9 RPG, 0.8 BPG
Dirk does not have the same luxury that Nash has, in that he doesn’t have an Amare Stoudemire or a Shawn Marion. Yet his team boasts a record of 67 wins, the best in the league, and last season he took his team to the NBA Finals. This indicates that he can win big games, whereas a major flaw in Nash is that he fails, consistently, to get his team passed the Western Semis. So unless your boy Nash can win in the West where it counts the most, then I will be convinced that he truly is the MVP this season. Never in the history of the league have we seen a 2-time consecutive MVP, fail to win a championship, or even reach the Finals. And yet you want him to win his third?
note: again, this is just friendly discussion, I was really passionate when I wrote this post.
oh yeah, belated happy birthday, btw.
Last edited by miyi; April 27, 2007 at 01:53 AM.
dont forget tmac. okay it's gonna be nowitzki for mvp but tmac deserves more love than them. yao was out for 1/4 of the season and he carried the rockets by himself in an un-kobe like way, more like his cousin's unselfishness (i still love kobe )
btw, why are we talking bout mvp? the playoffs matter! golden state-dallas is just too intriguing not to notice. plus the bulls are just phenomenal. i go for these two all the way