#NBArank 6: Kobe Bryant

Re: #NBArank 6: Kobe Bryant

Postby therealdeal on Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:26 am

JGC wrote:First off, I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, but I'm not an anti-Kobe anything. Kobe is my favorite player and the reason I became a Laker fan. You can look back through my entire post history. Never have I ever said Kobe sucks, or that I don't like Kobe, or anything disparaging about Kobe as a person or a player.
Really? :man10:
We'll just have to ask Doc Brown about that, that's his specialty on this site.

JGC wrote:That's the problem around here. You cannot criticize the guy without being a "hater".

That's patently false. Rooscooter and I disagree about almost everything to do with the Lakers. He's frequently down on guys like Ebanks or Jordan Hill and while I call him surly or a downer, I don't call him a "hater" because he's clearly not. He is concerned for the team and he sees potential weakness where I see potential strength. Call me an optimist (I mean you'd have to since I'm responding to this right?).

The point is, if you disagree on this site but do it with concise thoughts that aren't disparaging to a poster or to the site, you're welcome here. Unfortunately, you are not Rooscooter. You excel at making snide comments, baiting people (your favorite is making wide sweeping comments that you know will upset certain posters), and at saying things you know will make the forum disagree with you. Rooscooter disagrees with much of the board, but he is respectful, tactful, and presents clear arguments about the position and not about the people making the point. Something you could learn from.

JGC wrote: I will freely admit that I criticize Kobe however. And I will freely admit that I am more critical of Kobe than I am of any other Laker or NBA player. But that's precisely because he's my favorite player and my expectations for him are higher than they are for anyone else. I am more likely to shrug off a bad game from Steve Blake, than I am from Kobe Bryant.
KB24 is the biggest Kobe fan in the world as far as I know and he is openly critical of Kobe constantly, but he also gives him the respect that he's earned. KB24 is also around when Kobe has a great game and says something about it. He's here whether Kobe is playing well or whether Kobe has an off game. If you're going to be critical of Kobe, that's fine. Many posters here are critical when he's struggling.

But when Kobe plays well you're not around to say anything about it. You're not here when Kobe drops 40 points or when he has a 25-8-8 game. You wait until he has a 12 point game and shoots inefficiently and then you decide to post something. Not exactly someone I would say is as great a fan of Kobe as you indicate.

JGC wrote:When the Lakers lose, and Kobe has a bad game, I will generally be one of the first to imply that the loss was primarily (not entirely) on Kobe's shoulders. Meanwhile, most of this board is looking to blame any Laker not named Kobe. To me, that doesn't make any sense. If you're the best player on the team, and you're the leader of the team, and you're the captain, and you're the highest paid player on the team and in the league, then why shouldn't you be held accountable more than any other player on your team when the team loses? That's just how I am. Believe me, when Kobe is gone and D12 is leading the team and if he plays poorly and we lose, I will be doing the same thing with him. I'm sure everyone will gasp and call me a D12-hater too.

Well at least you admitted my previous point. Unfortunately you forgot the next part where you're rarely around to say what a great job Kobe did or anything constructive. You're right, when Kobe plays poorly you're definitely the first one posting. Of that we're all well aware.

JGC wrote:Go look at some of the threads about clutch play. Everyone and their mother in here has a million and one excuses as to why Kobe wasn't clutch last season. Too many minutes. He's tired. Bad finger. Blah blah blah. Has everyone forgotten the very definition of clutch? Rising above ALL obstacles to get the job done. That's clutch. Since when has being tired been an excuse for not being clutch? Wow. I don't care if you're Kobe, Lebron, MJ or Horry, if you don't get the job done in the clutch, then it wasn't clutch. Period. It doesn't matter why. It doesn't matter who. Clutch doesn't care why or who.

Blah blah blah... :man10: That is something of a theme with you it seems.

Excuses? Maybe. But it's not as if any of those things are wrong. He WAS tired. Was he clutch last season? He was better than most people give him credit for (I mean he IS Kobe Bryant), but overall he was sub-par by his standards. However, in games like the last one versus Oklahoma he DID come up clutch even though he was tired, so I don't quite see your point. No one is going to make every late shot, not Jordan, not Kareem, not Kobe. Last season he was asked to do too much which made him tired, which lead him to struggle mightily in the 4th quarter of most games. The statistics support that statement. 38 minutes a game, he started off games shooting 46% and ended games shooting 42% or something like that. I think tired fits that mold.
JGC wrote:I find it annoying and unfortunate, that most people in here, including seasoned posters with many posts under their belt, appear to give Kobe a free pass when he doesn't perform but are quick to bash on role players making 10% of what Kobe makes for not performing. To me, that makes no sense. When we win and he plays well, Kobe should get most (not all) but most of the credit. But the same needs to be true when we lose and he plays poorly and it just isn't around here.

I find it annoying and unfortunate that some people in here, including posters that haven't been here very long and have a poor reputation already, appear to give Kobe a hard time every single time he doesn't perform up to some ridiculous expectation and are quick to bash him at every single opportunity. To me, that makes no sense. When we win and he plays well, they don't come around much to give Kobe any credit. But when he plays poorly you bet your bottom dollar they're here, and it just shouldn't be that way.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
CL Global Moderator
Posts: 40322
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: #NBArank 6: Kobe Bryant

Postby therealdeal on Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:49 am

JGC wrote:
Yeah, I disagree. It's a perception thing. Comments like "elitism" usually stem from some form of sour grapes.

No comments like "elitism" usually stem from someone who speaks or communicates with an overbearing attitude. A comment that stems from sour grapes is this:
JGC wrote:
therealdeal wrote:I don’t care about you having your opinion on this, that’s your right. I care about the way you’re saying it, which is wrong.

Since you don't care about my opinion, then our exchange can stop here.

Or this:
JGC wrote:^ Blah blah blah. I'm sorry but I'm not interested in playing the semantics game you seem to love playing. It's always a poster's last resort and I don't like it.

Sour grapes is someone who can't take their short comings or in this case, can't take the argument presented against them so they become "sour" or surly much like the two posts above.

JGC wrote: I mean, come on, the truly elite never accuse others of elitism! Haha.

This is a pretty awful attempt at subtlety. :man10:

So I am not elite because I recognized elitism in yours and some others posts? Do you know what elitism is? It has NOTHING to do with being "elite" which doesn't even make sense on an internet forum... but anyway here's the definition of elitism:
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (-ltzm, -l-)
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

In this case, you frequently break the site into a group of people that say or think something, a group that you of course are not a part of and disagree with. You frequently break posters into groups of people and post disparaging comments about those groups of people like these ones:
I love Kobe. He's my favorite Laker and by a long shot. But he is far from flawless (even if he might be the closest thing to it). He has a LOT of flaws. Most people don't see them, or don't want to see them.

If you're looking for objectivity in here, you're not going to get it no matter how many people claim to watch other games.
it is predictably going to be met with much ... resistance. I mean didn't you know, all the impartial observers post at ClubLakers! Haha.

JGC wrote:In either case, I'm kind of surprised you'd mention elitism, but condone the use of name-calling such as "Anti-Kobe Homer" around here. Does that mean using terms like "Kobe Sack Hugger" is encouraged so long as one doesn't act elitist?

Those are two completely separate and independent thoughts. How does using the term "Kobe Sack Hugger" have anything to do with having an elitist attitude? Saying that someone shows signs of elitism is akin to saying someone shows signs of shyness in their posting style. Yours is wrought with elitism, some others shows ceaseless optimism, some show realism. However, if any of those posters attempted to call someone a "Kobe Sack Hugger" they'd receive a warning.
JGC wrote:I really have faith that we are better than this! (Oops, there's that elitism again -- haha).
You might want to read that definition up there ^ again.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
CL Global Moderator
Posts: 40322
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: #NBArank 6: Kobe Bryant

Postby Finwë on Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:05 pm

V1n5anity wrote:

Definition of skill: "competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity"

LeBron is more skilled than Durant at everything except shooting. It's really that simple. That includes rebounding, defense (laughable you even compared the two in this category), ball handling, passing, etc.

We are talking about skills in SPORTS. There's a common understanding about what they are among sports fans.
Definition of skill from the Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine:

A movement dependent on practice and experience for its execution, as opposed to being genetically defined. It is a learned movement and is an essential component of sport. Skill enables athletes to produce predetermined results with maximum certainty, often with the minimum expenditure of energy. Three important components of skill are effectiveness, consistency (the ability to reproduce the skill), and efficiency.

Did you notice it says "as opposed to being genetically defined"? IMO freakish athleticism is kind of "genetically defined", don't you think?... especially in LeBron's case, who's been reported to have NEVER been a "gym" guy in terms of doing a lot of weight lifting and stuff.
There's a book about NBA basketball by Chris Ballard called "The Art of a Beautiful Game", and there's a chapter about LeBron's physical ability. In the book the author writes:
That James has gained weight each year is as much a mystery to him as to anyone else. He doesn't gulp protein shakes, instead eating three low-fat meals daily, prepared by his chef (oatmeal, chicken, salmon), with the occasional candy snack in between. "Honestly, this past off-season, I wanted to lose some pounds, and I ended up gaining some", he told me. "I worked out as hard as I ever did. It's kind of crazy. My body's like reversed. So I was like, 'O.K., well, let me stop working out for a little bit before I gain 20 pounds'." (...)
When I asked Danny Ferry, the Cavs' G.M., the "steroid question", he seemed shocked. "Honestly, you are the first person who has ever asked me that", he said. Ferry's logic: First: LeBron has never needed performance enhancers, as he's always been physically imposing, dating back to high school. Second, it's not necessarily to his advantage to add muscle mass. (...) Finally, LeBron showed neither the interest nor the dedication to the lifting required to take advantage of steroids.

SO, according to this book, LeBron has ALWAYS been physically imposing, he's tried to lose weight and instead has GAINED weight (muscle btw, very little body fat), and he doesn't even try to lift much. Would you characterize his physical ability as an acquired skill (remember, we're talking sports definition) or as something that is "genetically defined"?

The reason I went to that extent to get you to see that LeBron's physical ability is purely genetically defined is that it's that freakish body of his that happens to be his main advantage as a player.
We were comparing LeBron to Durant. LeBron's the better defender, says most people. I agree. But we're not talking "who's better" result-wise, we were talking "who's more skilled?". Is LeBron a more skilled defender than Durant? Well, if his physical advantage, the one that allows him to "defend 1 through 5" (he's big and strong enough to guard 5s and he's fast and agile enough to guard 1s. His footwork is good but it's not elite. The same with his "hands" steal-wise. Most of his steals are interceptions -fast, long-, not strips -technical skill-.) and be a very imposing defensive player, ISN'T a skill, as I think I demonstrated earlier, then the answer is NO. His defensive SKILLS, sports-wise, you know, fundamentals, technique, etc, are great, but they are not better than Durant's. Durant's defensive footwork is just as good at LeBron, he's very good at stripping the ball, he's smart, doesn't bite on fakes much... I'm being fair, because I'm disregarding Durant's physical advantages too (his crazy length for example, which leads to easy blocks and steals).
The same argument can be made for rebounding the ball, and for finishing around the rim.

So what do we have left (that we were discussing, there's actually more stuff we could get into)? Passing? LeBron, unquestionably. Shooting? Durant, unquestionably.
Ball-handling? Wash IMO. You said LeBron's the more skilled ball-handler, but didn't say what makes him so. IMO Durant is an amazing ball-handler especially considering his height and length. I would go as far as saying Durant's actually better at crossing people over. LeBron is a bit more secure with the ball, though that's easier for him since he's at least 2 inches shorter.
Post game. YOU say LeBron's post game >>>>> Durant's. I don't see it that way from a SKILLS point of view, which is what we're discussing. Again, take away the advantage that being a freak physically gives him. Is he a more skilled post player? No. Durant's obviously the better shooter in the post. Neither have elite footwork. Durant has a couple of nice moves, he's got a little one-handed shot / hook that's effective and he's great at fading away from the post, especially after a face-up move / doing a "Dirk" one-legged fade. LeBron has some good moves too, he's getting better at that "dream shake" fade, and he too has a hook shot that's effective. Overall, I'd say SKILL-WISE Durant's the better post player, he relies less on his physical atributes than LeBron and rather uses more technical SKILLS.

Genetically defined attributes aside, I'm taking Durant.

If you're gonna reply, don't just say "oh and LeBron is obviously the more skilled post player", try to prove it.
"The first time I ever saw my uniform hanging in the locker I put it on right away, and it just felt like I was putting on golden armour. From that day forward, I just called it 'the golden armour', it just felt like there was something mystical and magical about it" - Kobe Bryant.
User avatar

Posts: 8078
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:32 pm


Return to Lakers Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, VincentTH and 14 guests

Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.