Tuesday, June 15th, 2010 at 1:24 pm  |  223 responses

Stakes Is High?

Me, Myself and I. And Russ. And Ryan. And Jake. And Mutoni. And Kobe……

by Myles Brown / @mdotbrown

A meth addict gave me some good advice once. Or at least I thought it was.

“Image is everything.”

Similar adages, such as “a man lives by his reputation” or “perception is reality” had long existed, but for some reason the junkies resonated with me more. Probably because I saw it on television. Regardless, I heeded the advice because it made sense to me; since so much of your life is left to the control of others, who you believe yourself to be doesn’t matter as much as who others believe you are. The relationships, opportunities, privileges and epitaphs bestowed upon us are all based on who we are perceived to be. So live accordingly.

It wasn’t until later in life that I learned not to take advice from junkies. Image isn’t everything, because image-or perception-is purely subjective. Our thoughts and deeds are left to the interpretation of those who have been shaped by their own experiences. Everyone has their own biases, everyone doesn’t forgive-or forget, for that matter-and it’s simply impossible to please them all. We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.

Which brings us to Kobe Bryant.

This is his 14th season, one which has shown the effects of more than 35,000 minutes of basketball. He’s battled broken fingers, aging knees, a sprained ankle and an ailing back to the cusp of yet another championship, though he may fall short. Again. But no matter the result of this evenings contest-or Thursday’s, if necessary-the most impressive injury Bryant has overcome is one which he suffered quite some time ago. His psyche.

From the moment he slid those sunglasses off and announced his decision to go pro, he was perceived as a spoon fed primadonna. From the moment he entered the league alongside a man who would turn the marketing model on its ear, his racial identity has been questioned. From the moment he dared to question the work ethic of an established, but complacent superstar and the authority of a well decorated, but manipulative coach, he’s been deemed too ambitious. And from the moment he exited that hotel room, he surrendered the benefit of the doubt.

A series of moments, spliced into his highlight reel and the collective consciousness, the effects of which have left us with the man who stands here today, jaw jutted and eyes narrowed. A man who pretends not to give a fuck what you think while making it quite evident that he plays for your approval. Such is the dichotomy of being Kobe Bryant. For there is a distinct difference between being the one in the history book and being the one who writes it.

There are some who will tell you that this evenings events will ultimately shape his “legacy”, another subjective term. You won’t find them here. But alas, Kobe doesn’t give a fuck what we think. Right? Maybe you will.

After all, it’s not like we’re on drugs or anything…..

**************

by Marcel Mutoni / @marcel_mutoni

Kobe Bryant continues to have what is arguably the most fascinating, enthralling, frustrating, and bizarre career of any NBA Hall of Famer.

Things started off so promisingly, then disaster struck, and then he somehow pulled it all back together and redeemed himself in the court of public (and athletic) opinion.

Tonight — and potentially, Thursday night — he gets yet another opportunity to rewrite his story. His own brilliant, divisive, twisted, convoluted, and endlessly fascinating story.

A loss to Boston this summer provides his critics with plenty of ammunition: he’s no Jordan and never will be; he’s not the greatest Laker; the ’09 title was a “fluke”; he can’t make his teammates tougher and better; etc.

(Key thing to remember in all of this: Magic Johnson won five NBA championships. Along the way, Johnson and his Lakers lost in the title round FOUR times. And last time I checked, no one considers his career a let down in any way.)

A win, an improbable comeback against this determined, defensively-great Boston Celtics team validates what Kobe Bryant’s defenders have always known: he’s right up there with the G.O.A.T.; five titles in seven trips to the championship round can’t be denied; there’s plenty of time left to gobble up more gold trophies; he’s the best player on the planet, and has been for years.

In the end, none of that really matters. And then again, it all matters. Every twist, turn, triumph and defeat.

The man has had — and continues to have — an amazing run. Though his place in today’s game, and in the grand history of the League will continue to be debated breathlessly and endlessly, Bryant’s body of work will stand alone, without need for comparison to other greats.

When we look back on his career, no intelligent person is going to think to themselves, “Kobe was a great player. Could’ve been one of the greatest if only he found a way to beat those Boston teams in either 2008 or 2010.”

Bryant’s story won’t come to an end tonight, or even later on this week. This series — with all of its history, nostalgia, andgrainy video clips — will not define his legacy. It will serve as an important chapter in the grand book of his career and life.

There is plenty of basketball left for Kobe Bryant, many more chapters yet to be written.

*******************

by Ryan Jones / @thefarmerjones

A win would help (a little), and a loss would hurt (a bit), but no matter the outcome of this year’s NBA Finals, Kobe Bryant’s legacy is pretty well set. Short of him winning at LEAST two more championships in L.A., Bean will be remembered in 10 or 20 years for what he was (or, I guess, is): A wonderful basketball player whose athleticism and competitiveness and F-U knack for late-game heroics brought him closer than anyone has ever been to Michael Jordan. We can argue scoring averages and nitpicks stats, but nobody who has actually watched both of them in their prime could argue that Kobe couldn’t do pretty much everything Mike did. He bit the style like a true method actor, Jamie Foxx in Ray, thoroughly believable and nearly as effective.

But again, only nearly.

In the legacy stakes, Kobe’s gate opened too late to ever really give him a chance. Dude didn’t have his own team until almost a decade into his career. Those first three rings will never be his, not in the way all six of the Bulls’ belong to Mike. Those Finals MVP statues will always belong to Shaq, now matter how clumsily he has stumbled to the finish, no matter how insecure he’s been, no matter that he wouldn’t have won them without Kobe. When Kobe got his fourth, it was, in a sense, only his first. It’s not fair, except that it is, and nothing he can do now will change it.

Two wins in the next three days would help, of course. Somehow making it a three-peat next year would help a lot. He’s in that top-10 conversation, maybe even nudging his way into the top half, but even then, he’s not Mike. Not quite. He’d need to top Jordan, do one thing clearly better than the guy whose game he has aped since Day 1. Can you see him winning three MORE? With that mileage, on those knees?

And if the Celtics close this out, and Kobe never wins another ring? He’s still got four. Rare air. Ridiculous totals and averages. Player of the ’00s, by a mile. Best player in what might be the best Draft class ever. Legendary. Either way.

Just not Mike.

Even if he is as good as Jordan, he’ll never be as good as Jordan. I long ago stopped trying to figure the dude out, so I don’t know if he can be content with that reality. For his sake, I hope so.

***********************

by Jake Appleman / @JakeAppleman

According to Basketball-Reference.com, Kobe Bryant has played 1,217 total games in his career up to this point. According to the law of averages–or the average NBA career–that’s already a lot of basketball games. According to the Ed Rooney’s secretary, Kobe Bryant has never taken a day off from school. According to a lot of people–at least according to this email sent to me by Myles Brown–Kobe Bryant’s legacy can be defined, or significantly altered, by what he does in the next one or two games in Los Angeles. According to me, that might be one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard.

Kobe Bryant will still be Kobe Bryant–one of the greatest basketball players of all-time, and a man that occasionally struggles with a protruding jaw–regardless of the outcome of the 2010 NBA Finals. If the Lakers do what the ’94 Houston Rockets did and win games 1,3,6 and 7 of a rugged series against a phenomenal defensive outfit, it will be one more remarkable thing Kobe Bryant has done in his already remarkable career. If he fails, well, he put up a valiant effort–with some single-handed gunslinging for the ages–against a starting five that still hasn’t lost a series when healthy.

The reason we want what happens to Kobe to mean something in the annals of NBA history is because it gives us–the media and fans–the illusion of control over something we have no control of.

Basketball is a team game. If the Lakers lose, it means, in a seven-game series, the Lakers–the team that Kobe Bryant plays for and leads into battle–lost to the Boston Celtics. It means the team with four All-Star caliber players beat the team with two superstars and a fantastic supporting cast. And it means, finally, that you, the beholder, have the choice to place uncredited, irrelevant *importance* on the legacy of a single player because that’s your prerogative as an American in this wonderfully corrupt democracy. Nothing more. Nothing less. You won’t be deciding anything that hasn’t already been decided. You’ll just be talking; something that can, admittedly, be very fun.

Win, lose or draw (brought upon by some sort of awful land oil spill fire apocalypse) Kobe Bean Bryant will still be the NBA’sDexter: the basketball player that kills basketball players.

With maybe twelve exceptions.

***************

by Russ Bengtson / @russbengtson

Kobe Bryant has played 45,092 NBA minutes in his career. He’s played in 196 playoff games, appeared in seven NBA Finals, won four titles. He’s failed over and over and over again in his… whoops, wrong line. Anyway, he’s done all that, accomplished so much, yet we’re supposed to believe that the next game – or possibly two — will be the ones that define his entire legacy?

Please.

If he wins, what of it? He still has fewer rings than Jordan, only ties Magic (who, by the way, won his five rings in nine Finals appearances. I’m not so good at math, but I think that means he lost in the Finals four times). Either way, win or lose, Kobe winds up with the vague distinction of being “in the discussion” with Jordan as the greatest ever. For your convenience, I’ve transcribed that discussion here:

“You know, Kobe Bryant is every bit as good a player as Michael Jordan was. Jordan always talked about how he wouldn’t have gotten to where he did if he wasn’t able to stand on the shoulders of guys like Doc and David Thompson. Can’t Kobe say the same thing? He built his game off Jordan’s blueprint, and Magic’s, and Bird’s. I know he only has four/five rings, I know he’s lost in the Finals, I know he didn’t win them all as the undisputed alpha dog, but it’s a different era, with different competition. Right? Is it so unreasonable to consider Kobe the best player of all time?”

“Yes.”

“But why? Jordan had Scottie Pippen, who was his near-perfect complement in every way. He had the benefit of playing for Phil Jackson before everyone in the League knew what his methods were. And his opponents were all fatally flawed in some way. Who was the best team the Jordan-era Bulls ever beat? The Jazz? The Sonics? Do any of those teams even make the Finals in the current West? Isn’t it entirely possible that Jordan’s perfect record in the Finals had as much to do with luck as it did with his oft-cited – and Nike reinforced – indomitable will?”

“No.”

“F*ck it, let’s order a pizza.”

Let’s say that the Celtics go on to win one of these final two games. Does that mean Paul Pierce – or Kevin Garnett – is better than Kobe Bryant? Does it mean they want it more? Of course not. All it means is that the 2010 Celtics were better than the 2010 Lakers for two weeks in June.

What if the Lakers win? After all, all they need to do is protect home court. This is what they played all season for. And in order to do that, they need more from Kobe’s alleged supporting cast. He can’t rebound for them, or hit free throws for them, or stop them from taking ill-advised threes. (Well, he could do that, but it would be unprecedented.) Either way, a team will win this Finals.

As for Kobe’s legacy, well, that’s already been determined in the hearts and minds of journalists and fans and Hall of Fame voters everywhere. Is it possible that these next 48 minutes negate the past 45,000? As Kobe himself, might say: No. Not at all.

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: , , ,

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Philosopher
    Lebron wouldn’t have started as a rookie, but other than that, I agree.

  • The Philosopher

    Allen, who would have started over LeBron on that Laker team?

  • http://Slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    T-Money…of course Kobe got love at the Rucker! Why wouldn’t he get love out there? They love when NBA superstars come thru. That’s an awful counter-point to my initial statement. Clearly you’re not that connected to the “hood” to say that my reference to him ratting on Shaq made no sense. In reality, it doesn’t but at the same time, ask anybody from the streets why they hate Kob and see if you don’t get that reason more often than not. Essentially, the hood is a single entity. Yes people can think for themselves, but if you’ve spent any time at all with peole from the block, you’d know that they all tend to agree on and like and dislike the same things. The hood is very “trendy” like that. I’m not telling you what I heard, I’m telling you what I know.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    I’m guessing Cedric Ceballos.
    Kobe didn’t start his first two years, but he was playing behind Eddie Jones. He shouldn’t have been starting. It’s amazing he put up 15 his second year in the league while only playing 26 minutes. Fresh out of high school.

  • peter

    Tzvi, it’s hard to say tonight ‘defines’ anything if all of the players continue playing for a few more years. In that respect its probably bigger for KG than Pau…what if Pau loses tonight and the Lakers win the next 3 titles?

  • The Philosopher

    Cedric Ceballos? Do you honestly AND truly believe that Cedric Ceballos would have started over LeBron James?

  • http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000580635564 Bryan

    T-money I dunno it’s a little more exceptional than say NOT making the finals at all.. Or 22 and 7 on sub 40% shooting. Just saying.

  • http://www.reboundghana.com mtee2686

    nice piece of work there…quite insightful and entertaining to read

  • http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000580635564 Bryan

    Also , I don’t understand someone’s legacy being defined on losing in the finals. Guess what? The man got there. 7 times. Half of the season’s he played he took it to the finish line. That’s big time ,regardless of what you have heard. Before you can win the big , you have to play in the big one. That’s like saying silver medals don’t mean sh*t. Medal count means something in the olympics so finishing second should NOT hurt someone’s legacy. The fact that he’s even in the position playing for a championship is an accomplishment in itself.

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Philosopher
    What do you know about Cedric Ceballos? Did you know that the year before Kobe’s rookie year Ceballos put up 22 and 8 on 50 percent shooting?
    Are you saying that on the lakers, with the talent they had, they would have started Lebron fresh out of high school over a proven vet putting up those types of numbers the year before? He still put up 14 and 8 the next year before getting traded to the Suns.
    I think your comment was off base and clearly you don’t remember Lebron’s rookie year. Yes, he averaged 20 a game fresh out of high school and was impressive, but that doesn’t mean he would have been a starter for the Lakers at small forward over Ceballos, or at point guard over Van Exel. Or shooting guard over Eddie JOnes.
    What more can I say if you disagree with that?

  • http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:OzhW3M1GBSKkgM:http://fashionsensei.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/jackie-moon.jpg Jackie Moon

    Stating “FACT” after stating your opinion does not magically turn it into a fact.

  • The Philosopher

    Allen, if you’ve seen Cedric Ceballos play, you would know that his shooting % AND rebounding numbers were inflated due to what I call ‘Larry Smith Syndrome’, where a player purposely misses shots close to the rim to inflate rebounding numbers. Now, the next year, as you said, his numbers were lower. No coincidence. LeBron would have started over Ceballos OR Eddie Jones.

  • http://facebook joe

    Wonderful stories……way to stroke a already huge ego. Last I checked….there a lot more than one future hall of famer playing in this final series. Not sure why so much ball juggling when it comes to kobe. Its almost like you want to force us to love the guy. Great as a player he is he will never ever be jordan. I hate that comparison….he probably does too! Kobe was born kobe and will forever be kobe bryant! The self centered phenom!

  • http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000580635564 Bryan

    Do you even remember how great Eddie Jones was at one time? Also aside from that , 1996 was a different time. High school jumping wasn’t IN like it was in 2003. Think Kobe, who routinely destroyed nba players in workouts and in practice would be sitting on the bench if he came out in 2003? I doubt it. His talent was never in question but Del Harris didn’t want to overplay his hand , and damage Eddie Jones. If Lebron was only the second player to jump to the pros out of high school since Moses Malone did it , than I’m sure he would have met the bench behind a proven nba vet. Of course there is no way to prove those this so it’s a moot point, but I think you forgot what the climate was for high school to pro players was in the 90′s.

  • loaf

    good articles, enjoyed the read

    also the comments where interesting too

    Loaf likes, keep filling my head with all this basketball information….

  • http://slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    @Allenp… A lot of SLAM commenters are younger and they’ve only seen at most, two eras of NBA basketball. I have to remind myself of that and understand that LeBron is their MJ. Still, I have to agree with The Philosopher, Bron probably would’ve started in LA over Ced Ceballos coming out of St. V regardless of the numbers Ced put up. And if he didn’t start from Day 1, it wouldn’t have been long before he did.

  • T-Money

    Allenp and Bryan: Bron was physically ready when he came out of high school, Kobe was a scrawny kid with outstanding skills. There’s a difference. I’ve seen Ceballos play, he was good, nothing more. I think Bron would have started all 82 from the get go in that Lakers team. It’s not about skills but physicality. I don’t care enough to argue that point tho so I’ll agree to disagree / Bryan Crawford: Leggo. I’ve lived in the hood, grew up in the hood and am glad that I could make my way out the “hood”. There goes your assumptions based on nothing at all. Ask people what they think of Kobe and people will tell you that he’s a killer on the court. Nobody cares about his street cred or hoodness or blackness, that’s played out and irrelevant. You’re reaching for an angle that’s not there.

  • The Philosopher

    And, I totally understand the deal with Eddie Jones. This is why I say LeBron would have started over him, also.

  • http://slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    “A wise man told me don’t argue with fools…”
    As always T-Money, you’re right and nobody else knows what they’re talking about. I mean, what could I possibly know about basketball? Or “the hood.” You win…

  • http://www.stuffwhitepeoplelike.com Tarzan Cooper

    An 11 yr old lebron would have started over cedric and eddie? Is that what this has come to?

  • http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000580635564 Bryan

    I disagree. It might be about physicality now but in 1996 it was about paying your dues. Kobe was a jaw dropping athlete when he came in and if he was born 6 years later he would have been more physically prepared because the precedent would have already been set.

  • The Philosopher

    If Kobe was THAT good back then, like The King was, then he would have started. Period.

  • http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:OzhW3M1GBSKkgM:http://fashionsensei.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/jackie-moon.jpg Jackie Moon

    You don’t have to write “period” at the end if you actually use one.

  • The Philosopher

    ^^^But I do, so…^^^

  • http://www.bulls.com Enigmatic

    Wow. The comments on here might end up being more entertaining than tonight’s game.

  • http://www.realcavsfans.com Anton

    Steve Nash.

  • T-Money

    Bryan, I see where you’re coming from. But Kobe wasn’t that much of a sure thing back then and I’m not sure it has to do with precedents. He didn’t dominate the HS ranks like Bron did (taking a team out of nowhere with local kids and destroying super-teams full of D1 guys like Oak Hill). Their respective situation coming into the league were vastly different: Bron was #1, Kobe was late lottery. 18 year old Kobe was not ready at all. I vividly remember his rookie season and, to me, he was nowhere near LeBron’s (or even Melo for that matter) rookie season. The skills were there but he wasn’t ready to produce. / Bryan Crawford: I mostly disagree with you. And only when you say things that don’t make sense to me.

  • http://www.realcavsfans.com Anton
  • The Philosopher

    Further indication that LeBron is better than Kobe.

  • http://slamonline.com tealish

    Good pieces. I like Jones’. Not much to add on this topic because my thoughts are very similar to the SLAMheads.
    -
    But in response to someone’s contention about Shaq vs Kobe. During their 3 peat, Shaq was more important to LA’s success than Kobe. I’m not sure if he could’ve done it without #8, but I don’t think it’s even disputable that Shaq was the man on that team.
    In regards to their careers, however, Kobe trumps Shaq. Post 3-peat, Kobe became that much better. Showed us that much more in his arsenal. Made believers out of haters (myself included(
    Win or lose this year, when it’s all said and done, Kobe should go down /comfortably/ as a top 5 player of all-time.

  • Pingback: SLAM ONLINE | » NBA Finals: Game 6 Live Blog

  • http://slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    T-Money, if you were really from the “hood” like you say are (which I don’t believe for one second), then what I said would’ve made perfect sense to you. Why? Because you would’ve heard the Shaq/Kobe/snitch thing before. Of course it’s irrelevant in the big picture, but it is what is is in the streets when it comes to that. Your Rucker comment that you tried to use as validation was a major FAIL. It cemented for me that you have absolutely no clue about anything street related. So…I don’t believe you, you need more people young’n.

  • Pingback: SLAM ONLINE | » Hot Topics

  • http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000580635564 Bryan

    Nobody from high school was a sure thing out of high school back then, especially since he was the first guard ever selected from hs. I mean he was 6’6 and 190, if other guards had done it or if the fad had started earlier and it was an actual goal of his, I’m fairly positive considering his work habits that he would have put in the work to sculpt his body into what a productive nba player’s body was supposed to be. If you want more info look at the quotes from Jerry West about him and how he was athletically dominating everyone who came in his way in pre draft work outs, in practices, in pre season and everywhere else. His skills were ready , he wasn’t mentally prepared. Lebron had 8 years of high school kids setting a bar for him to reach. He knew what to work for, he knew what to work on (body). Kobe did not. That to me is essentially the only difference. Allan Houston one of the best 2 guards in the league back then was 6’6 200 and Eddie Jones was 6’6 190 also so the physical part wasn’t as important IMO. Like I said before at that time it was all about paying his dues, respecting the game and making him work for his spot. Lebron has been handed just about everything so far in his career. Not to say he didn’t deserve to start on the cavs ,but we really can’t compare 1996 and 2003. And if we could transpose hypothetically I think Kobe as a rookie in 2003 would have been selected higher than he was and started and been a 20 plus scorer right out of the gate.

  • The Philosopher

    Bryan, the only player in history that was a sure thing out of high school WAS LeBron.

  • http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000580635564 Bryan

    If you say so. Obviously we won’t agree. I disagree wholeheartedly.

  • The Philosopher

    ^^ Not to try to bait you, but LeBron was the most hyped prospect of all time. He has exceeded the hype… even if he never wins a ring. He was a sure thing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000580635564 Bryan

    My argument is that he wouldn’t have been as hyped in 96. He is product of the system that was in place in 2003.

  • http://www.stuffwhitepeoplelike.com Tarzan Cooper

    Tealish, what about shaq pre threepeat?. And phil, long ago there was a man named moses

  • The Philosopher

    My bad, Bryan. But… LeBron was STILL better than that whole 96′ class. Even if he wouldn’t have been hyped like that.

  • http://Www.lacuevacrosscountry.com Slick Nick Da Ruler

    The write ups were great, better than anything I’ve read on the subject. The comments have been equally awesome. Thanks Slam.

  • T-Money

    Bryan Crawford: you’re getting cuter and cuter. Where did I say that I didn’t know about Kobe ratting on Shaq? You can actually look up some of my posts saying just that. What I’m saying is that it’s completely irrelevant in a discussion about Kobe’s hoodness or blackness or whatever you call it. You don’t believe I grew up in a “hood”? Fine. Nothing more to add. Stop derailing interesting conversations about things that matter (i.e., basketball) with things that don’t matter (i.e., hoodness). / Bryan: you can’t sculpt a body coming out of high school (unless you play football). You are who you are at that age. Bron is a beast naturally, and Kobe is scrawny naturally. That wouldn’t have changed in 96, 2006 or 2016. LeBron was flat out better as a rookie than Kobe. So was Melo. And a lot of other cats. It’s after a couple of years in the L that Kobe really separated himself from his peers. I remember him making the ADG as the Lakers’ 6th man and people saying that it was all hype. We know better now.

  • http://slamonline.com Bryan Crawford

    @T-Money how is snitching irrelevant in a conversation about “hoodness” or “blackness”? In the “hood” where you’re from, snitching is OK? Seriously dude, you need to stop. Need I remind you, YOU brought the subject of Kobe and the hood up: “Kobe’s cultural/racial identity issues are played out. Blacks love Kobe. The hood loves Kobe.” I didn’t derail anything, you did. I just told you that you were wrong. Because you are. That’s your problem T-Money, you come here to argue and try and throw slick insults at people who 1) Have a better understanding of basketball than you do, and 2) Remember every stupid thing that you say. I have no problem throwing it back at you though because I like to watch you squirm and backtrack.

  • http://www.hibachi20.blogspot.com Hursty

    This was great. So were the comments.
    Appreciated.

  • http://submedia.tv/index.htm CommissionerPalpatine

    Lakeshow.

  • pharoah

    damn this comment section WAS better than the game tonite and alsoo bryan crawford is the man. dudes becoming one of my fav ppl on the site

  • showtimeizback

    Concerning Kobe vs Tim Duncan for player of the decade. in 05 when kobe issed the playoffs, he was injured, his teammates were trash and the coch quit mid year. Tim duncans supporting class has NEVER been as bad as that 05/06/07 teams. odom was the 2nd best player. we started smush walton and kwame.

    Also in player of the decade, look at the head to head. the lakers have dominated the spurs in the playoffs. with the higher or lower seed.

  • showtimeizback

    Concerning kobes 3 championships with shaq.

    Just because shaq won finals MVP in all 3 doesnt mean that kobe wasnt equally as important. As a big man shaq is going to always be more effecient and the focus of the offense, just as it is now with these lakers. but when the game is up for grabs or when the offense is/was sputtering, it was always kobes time to shine.

    i have always thought that if you took the shaq kobe 3 peat as a whole, kobe definitely deserves one of those finals MVPs. If you considered the playoffs in the decision he would def have one. Kobe dominated game 7 vs Portland. KObe dominated the spurs in all the times we beat them in the playoffs.

    Also, make no mistake, Shaq being the lazy stud he was knew what was at stake in the finals and played his best to get the finals MVP. Also the competition he faced in the finals was alot less then he did in the playoffs. The east offered super guards (whom kobe guarded), kidd, miller, iverson. in the playoffs vs Duncan, Robinson, Garnett, Sabonis, and Divacs, Webber, he didnt do as well.

    Not to say he wasnt important, or even the most important, but to act like kobe was just a role player on those teams is asinine. if you awarded credit to lakers in the 3peat, i would say shaq gets 40 percent, Kobe gets 35% and the rest of the lakers get the rest.

  • http://www.slamonline.com J

    its not about where you started its where you finish..

  • Jessdogg

    I still just can’t understand how people are making comparisons to Jordan.. 32.5, 8 and 8 in a season as a guard, MVP and Defensive player of the year in the same season (let alone career), average 43 points in a FINALS series, 6 FINALS MVP’s.. this is just the beginning. Yes we can all argue that they have a identical skill set.. but the results (of what counts) are the difference. Thats what sets these 2 apart.. not who could did what better.. but what the result, of who did what better, was.

Advertisement