Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
Kobe retired?
Sccit:
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 06, 2015, 12:04:05 PM ---I could care less about West. I just know how America works. And my beef isn't saying West is better or worse. It's saying it's because of team wins and losses. Kobe without Shaq wouldn't have gotten to the finals to win in those years and Kareem without Magic wouldn't have either. But West on those trams doesn't either.
You want to debate why one player is better than the other debate the skill sets not the team accomplishments.
--- End quote ---
THAT DOESNT MATTER...U CAN SAY THE SAME ABOUT JORDAN WITHOUT PIPPEN, BIRD WITHOUT MCHALE, OSCAR WITHOUT KAREEM.......EVEN WITHOUT SHAQ, KOBE STILL HAS 2 RINGS, 1 MORE THAN WEST... AND WEST PLAYED WITH SUPER-TEAMS FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER, STRAIGHT UP. INDIVIDUAL SKILL SET FACTORS INTO TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ESPECIALLY IN BASKETBALL, WHERE ONE PLAYERS DRIVE CAN PUSH THE ENTIRE TEAM TO THE TOP. THATS WHY RING COUNT IS THE MAIN FACTOR IN DEBATING GREATS WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SPORT. IT'S 5-ON-5, BUT ONE PLAYER CAN DRIVE THE ENTIRE TEAM, MORE SO THAN ANY OTHET TEAM SPORT...IT'S NOT FOOTBALL OR BASEBALL. THATS WHY IM SAYING, U CLEARLY NOT COMIN OFF AS A BASKETBALL HEAD HERE, BUT RATHER AN NFL FAN WHO ENJOY SOME NBA ON THE SIDE...AM I RIGHT OR AM I RIGHT?
Shallow:
--- Quote from: Sccit on December 06, 2015, 12:08:53 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 06, 2015, 12:04:05 PM ---I could care less about West. I just know how America works. And my beef isn't saying West is better or worse. It's saying it's because of team wins and losses. Kobe without Shaq wouldn't have gotten to the finals to win in those years and Kareem without Magic wouldn't have either. But West on those trams doesn't either.
You want to debate why one player is better than the other debate the skill sets not the team accomplishments.
--- End quote ---
THAT DOESNT MATTER...U CAN SAY THE SAME ABOUT JORDAN WITHOUT PIPPEN, BIRD WITHOUT MCHALE, OSCAR WITHOUT KAREEM.......EVEN WITHOUT SHAQ, KOBE STILL HAS 2 RINGS, 1 MORE THAN WEST... AND WEST PLAYED WITH SUPER-TEAMS FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER, STRAIGHT UP. INDIVIDUAL SKILL SET FACTORS INTO TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ESPECIALLY IN BASKETBALL, WHERE ONE PLAYERS DRIVE CAN PUSH THE ENTIRE TEAM TO THE TOP. THATS WHY RING COUNT IS THE MAIN FACTOR IN DEBATING GREATS WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SPORT. IT'S 5-ON-5, BUT ONE PLAYER CAN DRIVE THE ENTIRE TEAM, MORE SO THAN ANY OTHET TEAM SPORT...IT'S NOT FOOTBALL OR BASEBALL. THATS WHY IM SAYING, U CLEARLY NOT COMIN OFF AS A BASKETBALL HEAD HERE, BUT RATHER AN NFL FAN WHO ENJOY SOME NBA ON THE SIDE...AM I RIGHT OR AM I RIGHT?
--- End quote ---
I'm a logic fan. There are plenty of factors of Kobe's game you could point to to say he's better than West. Rings are the last factor.
I played basketball most of my life. Coached it to. We won some titles and lost some. It was never because our best player was better than their best player because I played with the best player in the city and lost and coached the best player in the city and lost. And when we won it was because we outplayed them. Never because he outplayed him.
Sccit:
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 06, 2015, 12:48:03 PM ---
--- Quote from: Sccit on December 06, 2015, 12:08:53 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 06, 2015, 12:04:05 PM ---I could care less about West. I just know how America works. And my beef isn't saying West is better or worse. It's saying it's because of team wins and losses. Kobe without Shaq wouldn't have gotten to the finals to win in those years and Kareem without Magic wouldn't have either. But West on those trams doesn't either.
You want to debate why one player is better than the other debate the skill sets not the team accomplishments.
--- End quote ---
THAT DOESNT MATTER...U CAN SAY THE SAME ABOUT JORDAN WITHOUT PIPPEN, BIRD WITHOUT MCHALE, OSCAR WITHOUT KAREEM.......EVEN WITHOUT SHAQ, KOBE STILL HAS 2 RINGS, 1 MORE THAN WEST... AND WEST PLAYED WITH SUPER-TEAMS FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER, STRAIGHT UP. INDIVIDUAL SKILL SET FACTORS INTO TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ESPECIALLY IN BASKETBALL, WHERE ONE PLAYERS DRIVE CAN PUSH THE ENTIRE TEAM TO THE TOP. THATS WHY RING COUNT IS THE MAIN FACTOR IN DEBATING GREATS WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SPORT. IT'S 5-ON-5, BUT ONE PLAYER CAN DRIVE THE ENTIRE TEAM, MORE SO THAN ANY OTHET TEAM SPORT...IT'S NOT FOOTBALL OR BASEBALL. THATS WHY IM SAYING, U CLEARLY NOT COMIN OFF AS A BASKETBALL HEAD HERE, BUT RATHER AN NFL FAN WHO ENJOY SOME NBA ON THE SIDE...AM I RIGHT OR AM I RIGHT?
--- End quote ---
I'm a logic fan. There are plenty of factors of Kobe's game you could point to to say he's better than West. Rings are the last factor.
I played basketball most of my life. Coached it to. We won some titles and lost some. It was never because our best player was better than their best player because I played with the best player in the city and lost and coached the best player in the city and lost. And when we won it was because we outplayed them. Never because he outplayed him.
--- End quote ---
yes, basketball on any other level is not comparable to NBA basketball, where the star is ALWAYS the focal point...even college, it's a lot more of an equal opportunity league, compared to the NBA, which is 100% star driven. so no, ring factor is not the last thing we use to measure greatness when talking about superstars, because when youre one of 5 people on the court in such a star oriented league, 90% of the success or failure falls on u. always been like this in the NBA, especially when compared to other levels of basketball, and even more so when compared to any other team sport.
Shallow:
--- Quote from: Sccit on December 06, 2015, 07:33:24 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 06, 2015, 12:48:03 PM ---
--- Quote from: Sccit on December 06, 2015, 12:08:53 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 06, 2015, 12:04:05 PM ---I could care less about West. I just know how America works. And my beef isn't saying West is better or worse. It's saying it's because of team wins and losses. Kobe without Shaq wouldn't have gotten to the finals to win in those years and Kareem without Magic wouldn't have either. But West on those trams doesn't either.
You want to debate why one player is better than the other debate the skill sets not the team accomplishments.
--- End quote ---
THAT DOESNT MATTER...U CAN SAY THE SAME ABOUT JORDAN WITHOUT PIPPEN, BIRD WITHOUT MCHALE, OSCAR WITHOUT KAREEM.......EVEN WITHOUT SHAQ, KOBE STILL HAS 2 RINGS, 1 MORE THAN WEST... AND WEST PLAYED WITH SUPER-TEAMS FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER, STRAIGHT UP. INDIVIDUAL SKILL SET FACTORS INTO TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ESPECIALLY IN BASKETBALL, WHERE ONE PLAYERS DRIVE CAN PUSH THE ENTIRE TEAM TO THE TOP. THATS WHY RING COUNT IS THE MAIN FACTOR IN DEBATING GREATS WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SPORT. IT'S 5-ON-5, BUT ONE PLAYER CAN DRIVE THE ENTIRE TEAM, MORE SO THAN ANY OTHET TEAM SPORT...IT'S NOT FOOTBALL OR BASEBALL. THATS WHY IM SAYING, U CLEARLY NOT COMIN OFF AS A BASKETBALL HEAD HERE, BUT RATHER AN NFL FAN WHO ENJOY SOME NBA ON THE SIDE...AM I RIGHT OR AM I RIGHT?
--- End quote ---
I'm a logic fan. There are plenty of factors of Kobe's game you could point to to say he's better than West. Rings are the last factor.
I played basketball most of my life. Coached it to. We won some titles and lost some. It was never because our best player was better than their best player because I played with the best player in the city and lost and coached the best player in the city and lost. And when we won it was because we outplayed them. Never because he outplayed him.
--- End quote ---
yes, basketball on any other level is not comparable to NBA basketball, where the star is ALWAYS the focal point...even college, it's a lot more of an equal opportunity league, compared to the NBA, which is 100% star driven. so no, ring factor is not the last thing we use to measure greatness when talking about superstars, because when youre one of 5 people on the court in such a star oriented league, 90% of the success or failure falls on u. always been like this in the NBA, especially when compared to other levels of basketball, and even more so when compared to any other team sport.
--- End quote ---
If we're talking legacy vs legacy you're right, but talent vs talent you're wrong. Not about West. I'll gladly agree that Kobe was better, but because he was better, not because he has 5 rings to 1. That's why he'll be seen as greater. For example I don't think Bill Russell could have covered Shaq. I don't think Russell was big or strong enough to play against a big man that big and plays his game that well. So I might argue that Shaq was better than Russell, but I 'll never say greater.
Same for Iverson. There's a lot of greater point guards Iverson was better than.
We agree on West vs Kobe. I just think using rings to justify it is cheap. They never played against each other or against the same teams, or with the same players. If Kobe had been drafted by the Raptors his greatness would be a fraction of what ity is now, but his skills would have been the same.
My initial point about Russel as it pertains to West is that if Russell simply not existed West would have been much greater than he is, but not any better.
In closing, can you at least concede that you've never conceded anything ever in an argument?
Sccit:
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 06, 2015, 07:52:12 PM ---
--- Quote from: Sccit on December 06, 2015, 07:33:24 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 06, 2015, 12:48:03 PM ---
--- Quote from: Sccit on December 06, 2015, 12:08:53 PM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on December 06, 2015, 12:04:05 PM ---I could care less about West. I just know how America works. And my beef isn't saying West is better or worse. It's saying it's because of team wins and losses. Kobe without Shaq wouldn't have gotten to the finals to win in those years and Kareem without Magic wouldn't have either. But West on those trams doesn't either.
You want to debate why one player is better than the other debate the skill sets not the team accomplishments.
--- End quote ---
THAT DOESNT MATTER...U CAN SAY THE SAME ABOUT JORDAN WITHOUT PIPPEN, BIRD WITHOUT MCHALE, OSCAR WITHOUT KAREEM.......EVEN WITHOUT SHAQ, KOBE STILL HAS 2 RINGS, 1 MORE THAN WEST... AND WEST PLAYED WITH SUPER-TEAMS FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER, STRAIGHT UP. INDIVIDUAL SKILL SET FACTORS INTO TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ESPECIALLY IN BASKETBALL, WHERE ONE PLAYERS DRIVE CAN PUSH THE ENTIRE TEAM TO THE TOP. THATS WHY RING COUNT IS THE MAIN FACTOR IN DEBATING GREATS WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SPORT. IT'S 5-ON-5, BUT ONE PLAYER CAN DRIVE THE ENTIRE TEAM, MORE SO THAN ANY OTHET TEAM SPORT...IT'S NOT FOOTBALL OR BASEBALL. THATS WHY IM SAYING, U CLEARLY NOT COMIN OFF AS A BASKETBALL HEAD HERE, BUT RATHER AN NFL FAN WHO ENJOY SOME NBA ON THE SIDE...AM I RIGHT OR AM I RIGHT?
--- End quote ---
I'm a logic fan. There are plenty of factors of Kobe's game you could point to to say he's better than West. Rings are the last factor.
I played basketball most of my life. Coached it to. We won some titles and lost some. It was never because our best player was better than their best player because I played with the best player in the city and lost and coached the best player in the city and lost. And when we won it was because we outplayed them. Never because he outplayed him.
--- End quote ---
yes, basketball on any other level is not comparable to NBA basketball, where the star is ALWAYS the focal point...even college, it's a lot more of an equal opportunity league, compared to the NBA, which is 100% star driven. so no, ring factor is not the last thing we use to measure greatness when talking about superstars, because when youre one of 5 people on the court in such a star oriented league, 90% of the success or failure falls on u. always been like this in the NBA, especially when compared to other levels of basketball, and even more so when compared to any other team sport.
--- End quote ---
If we're talking legacy vs legacy you're right, but talent vs talent you're wrong. Not about West. I'll gladly agree that Kobe was better, but because he was better, not because he has 5 rings to 1. That's why he'll be seen as greater. For example I don't think Bill Russell could have covered Shaq. I don't think Russell was big or strong enough to play against a big man that big and plays his game that well. So I might argue that Shaq was better than Russell, but I 'll never say greater.
Same for Iverson. There's a lot of greater point guards Iverson was better than.
We agree on West vs Kobe. I just think using rings to justify it is cheap. They never played against each other or against the same teams, or with the same players. If Kobe had been drafted by the Raptors his greatness would be a fraction of what ity is now, but his skills would have been the same.
My initial point about Russel as it pertains to West is that if Russell simply not existed West would have been much greater than he is, but not any better.
In closing, can you at least concede that you've never conceded anything ever in an argument?
--- End quote ---
i think a little differently....i think if you're great, you're great, no matter what. if you're the best at what you do, you'll eventually find a way to get it done and get the best out of what u have. imo, if kobe was drafted by the raptors, he'd be just as great as he is now...probably with some even better individual accolades and some 40 ppg seasons under his belt, considering he'd be handed a franchise from day 1 ala michael jordan and the bulls.....tbh, it'd probably be even better for his individual legacy. the top-tier greats find a way to do it, no matter what...as for me not conceding anything, this is simply how i felt, even before we had this convo...so i dont know why u'd expect me to change my stance and concede anything? as i dont expect you will either.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version