The Black Bomb-a

[mlewinth]

** This thread discusses the content article: The Black Bomb-a **

 

[??? ??????]

I think the Lakers problem stems from their superstar not shining that bright. And I don't mean just in the playoffs, but he's just not as good as the other superstars.

Kobe in the regular season: 26.8 PPG on 56.1 TS%
Lebron James - 28.4 PPG on 59.1 TS%
Dwyane Wade - 30.2 PPG on 57.4 TS%
Dwight Howard - 20.6 PPG on 60.0 TS%
Chris Paul - 22.8 PPG on 59.9 TS%

Why is Kobe, the one guy with the most talent on his team outside himself, have the lowest TS%? That just doesn't make sense. James, Wade, Howard, and Paul are all clearly better players than Bryant right now.

I think that's the flaw of the Lakers. Everyone is talking about Kobe as if he is one of the best players in the league, among the NBA elite, when he is not. James, Wade, Howard, and Paul are the best players in basketball, Kobe Bryant's a star, yes, but he isn't one of the best players in the game like everyone wants to talk him up to be.

 

[MADman24]

??? ?????? wrote:

I think the Lakers problem stems from their superstar not shining that bright. And I don't mean just in the playoffs, but he's just not as good as the other superstars.

Kobe in the regular season: 26.8 PPG on 56.1 TS%
Lebron James - 28.4 PPG on 59.1 TS%
Dwyane Wade - 30.2 PPG on 57.4 TS%
Dwight Howard - 20.6 PPG on 60.0 TS%
Chris Paul - 22.8 PPG on 59.9 TS%

Why is Kobe, the one guy with the most talent on his team outside himself, have the lowest TS%? That just doesn't make sense. James, Wade, Howard, and Paul are all clearly better players than Bryant right now.

I think that's the flaw of the Lakers. Everyone is talking about Kobe as if he is one of the best players in the league, among the NBA elite, when he is not. James, Wade, Howard, and Paul are the best players in basketball, Kobe Bryant's a star, yes, but he isn't one of the best players in the game like everyone wants to talk him up to be.

Kobe is still one of the best in the league, he finished 10th in PER at 24.3 still averaging 26.5, 5 boards and nearly 5 assists. And I think this was simply a down year statstically as he hadn't finished below 5th since the 04-05 season.

While I must agree that the Lakers have no business losing to the Rockets I think it's far too convenient to blame Kobe. I place the blame squarely on Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol, they should be dominating Scola, Hayes, and Landry but in fact it has been quite the opposite. With no Yao and Mutumbo Houston doesn't have a center so LA's two should be dominating the inside I don't mean just scoring, more importantly they should both be putting up 13 or 14+ boards a game.

And I also agree that this Laker team has mini-dynasty potential but simply the best team doesn't always win and imo its debatable whether or not they are the most talented team in the league Cleavand's roster is tremendously deep, and the Nuggets don't have the same depth but their rotation is simply fantastic and obviously like you said Boston when KG was healthy.

Imo from an outsider's perspective little can truly be known about leadership but from my perspective Kobe is doing all he can, he can't make his force Gasol to toughen up or make Bynum to show up and with one of the best defenders in the league guarding him in Battier he could simply stand to get a little help from his teammates.

With that said I think he goes for 40 in game 7 and the Lakers blow the Rockets out the water.

 

[Rerisen]

The problem with Bryant is he takes too many jump shots for the amount of offensive talent he has. It doesn't facilitate offense for the team, doesn't generate fouls, and doesn't put the Lakers in an aggressive, competitive mindset. It's not good leading by example from your superstar.

Kobe is trapped into this ironically because of the very fact that he is such a good jump shooter and tough shot maker. He has won plenty of games merely by getting hot with his jumper, often from long range, such that the defense really can't do anything to stop him even with good defense.

We have seen some of this in the Rockets series, where Battier will play excellent defense all night and Kobe still finishes with a good percentage, and strong offensive game.

But long term, you cannot deny the effect that tough defense and hard shots is going to have on you. You are going to shoot worse taking them over and over no matter how good you are at tough shots.

Eventually, this is going to make your team's offense easier to defend, more predictable, and other players easier to minimize as we saw Thibodeau do to the Lakers in the Finals.

Kobe style of loving the J, tends to fall apart at times on the road as is common with shooting away from your home court, and if he doesn't double down and start getting easier baskets with post ups or driving the hole, his team isn't going to have a good chance.

 

[dougthonus]

??? ?????? wrote:

I think the Lakers problem stems from their superstar not shining that bright. And I don't mean just in the playoffs, but he's just not as good as the other superstars.

Kobe in the regular season: 26.8 PPG on 56.1 TS%
Lebron James - 28.4 PPG on 59.1 TS%
Dwyane Wade - 30.2 PPG on 57.4 TS%
Dwight Howard - 20.6 PPG on 60.0 TS%
Chris Paul - 22.8 PPG on 59.9 TS%

Why is Kobe, the one guy with the most talent on his team outside himself, have the lowest TS%? That just doesn't make sense. James, Wade, Howard, and Paul are all clearly better players than Bryant right now.

I think that's the flaw of the Lakers. Everyone is talking about Kobe as if he is one of the best players in the league, among the NBA elite, when he is not. James, Wade, Howard, and Paul are the best players in basketball, Kobe Bryant's a star, yes, but he isn't one of the best players in the game like everyone wants to talk him up to be.

I don't think you can say he's worse due to a lower TS%. That seems like a gross oversimplification to me.

 

[Dpauley23]

??? ?????? wrote:

I think the Lakers problem stems from their superstar not shining that bright. And I don't mean just in the playoffs, but he's just not as good as the other superstars.

Kobe in the regular season: 26.8 PPG on 56.1 TS%
Lebron James - 28.4 PPG on 59.1 TS%
Dwyane Wade - 30.2 PPG on 57.4 TS%
Dwight Howard - 20.6 PPG on 60.0 TS%
Chris Paul - 22.8 PPG on 59.9 TS%

Why is Kobe, the one guy with the most talent on his team outside himself, have the lowest TS%? That just doesn't make sense. James, Wade, Howard, and Paul are all clearly better players than Bryant right now.

I think that's the flaw of the Lakers. Everyone is talking about Kobe as if he is one of the best players in the league, among the NBA elite, when he is not. James, Wade, Howard, and Paul are the best players in basketball, Kobe Bryant's a star, yes, but he isn't one of the best players in the game like everyone wants to talk him up to be.

The Lakers have most talent in the league? You must of not watched them this year. All they have is Bryant and Gasol, which is pretty good, but not enough to win championship. The point guards are playing like absolute crap, none of guards are doing anything, and Odom and Bynum are playing like crap. How is this most talented team?€

 

[??? ??????]

dougthonus wrote:

??? ?????? wrote:

I think the Lakers problem stems from their superstar not shining that bright. And I don't mean just in the playoffs, but he's just not as good as the other superstars.

Kobe in the regular season: 26.8 PPG on 56.1 TS%
Lebron James - 28.4 PPG on 59.1 TS%
Dwyane Wade - 30.2 PPG on 57.4 TS%
Dwight Howard - 20.6 PPG on 60.0 TS%
Chris Paul - 22.8 PPG on 59.9 TS%

Why is Kobe, the one guy with the most talent on his team outside himself, have the lowest TS%? That just doesn't make sense. James, Wade, Howard, and Paul are all clearly better players than Bryant right now.

I think that's the flaw of the Lakers. Everyone is talking about Kobe as if he is one of the best players in the league, among the NBA elite, when he is not. James, Wade, Howard, and Paul are the best players in basketball, Kobe Bryant's a star, yes, but he isn't one of the best players in the game like everyone wants to talk him up to be.

I don't think you can say he's worse due to a lower TS%. That seems like a gross oversimplification to me.

I think it does,as that's where he is made as a player so to speak. Lebron, Wade, Howard, and Paul are all right there with Bryant as far as defense goes. Hoaward is a much better defender than Kobe, as he is a big man, and big defense is more important than perimeter defense. James, Wade, and Paul are all better at creating for teammates.

I think if you make a list, Kobe is probably in the top 10 still, which I guess makes him one of the best in the league. But the true class of this league, is Lebron, Wade, Howard, and Paul...and Kobe might just barely be hanging onto that elite group.

Next year will be Kobe's 14th season I believe, so it wouldn't be too shocking to see him start his decline now.

 

[Bullsman24]

let's match up the cavs and lakers:

PG: mo vs fish
ok, i'd take mo on this one, but the lakers have depth

SG-delonte vs kobe
do i need to explain?

SF-odom vs lebron
yes, i realize this

PF-gasol vs varejao
this is a joke, gasol mops the floor with him

C-bynum vs illgauskas
they're so different, but bynum at his best can dominate big z at his best

6th man-ariza vs gibson
ariza's a much more complete player

role shooter-szcerbiak vs vujacic
vujacic is a much better overall player, but i still hate him

bench big men-hickson, joe smith, wallace vs mbenga, powell
the lakers big men are never expected to do much because of the solid starters, so cavs win this

others-walton, brown vs wright, pavlovic
the lakers bench is ridiculously good

coach-jackson vs brown
brown might be coach of the year but jackson is one of the greatest ever

do i need to say more?

 

[MADman24]

Why does everyone assume Phil Jackson is the greatest coach ever? Winning the most championships does not equal best coach ever, especially considering the talent he has had on those championship teams. I personally think this is even more difficult to determine than best player and simply impossible to come to a solid answer. Theoretically it should be the coach who's got the most out of the least. Not saying he isn't in the discussion but I'm not sure he's the best in the league right now let alone ever.

But back to Kobe

??? ?????? wrote:

I think it does,as that's where he is made as a player so to speak.

He is made as a player by being the most offensively talented player perhaps ever. Few if any ever have possessed his combination of shooting, range when shooting, size and athleticism. And throw in his great defense: 7 times all-defensive team and 2 times on the second team. And you have why he is considered so great.

Next year will be Kobe's 14th season I believe, so it wouldn't be too shocking to see him start his decline now.

Kobe will be 31 next season so a decline isn't out of the realm of possibility but he hasn't lost much athletically or had injuries hold him out of games and that's usually what begins a player's decline so I personally don't think it will happen quite yet.

 

[dougthonus]

I think it does,as that's where he is made as a player so to speak. Lebron, Wade, Howard, and Paul are all right there with Bryant as far as defense goes. Hoaward is a much better defender than Kobe, as he is a big man, and big defense is more important than perimeter defense. James, Wade, and Paul are all better at creating for teammates.

I think if you make a list, Kobe is probably in the top 10 still, which I guess makes him one of the best in the league. But the true class of this league, is Lebron, Wade, Howard, and Paul...and Kobe might just barely be hanging onto that elite group.

Next year will be Kobe's 14th season I believe, so it wouldn't be too shocking to see him start his decline now.

Hmm, good point.

 

[dougthonus]

Why does everyone assume Phil Jackson is the greatest coach ever? Winning the most championships does not equal best coach ever, especially considering the talent he has had on those championship teams. I personally think this is even more difficult to determine than best player and simply impossible to come to a solid answer. Theoretically it should be the coach who's got the most out of the least. Not saying he isn't in the discussion but I'm not sure he's the best in the league right now let alone ever.

It's sort of a run around though. How great the players are is often largely determined by how well they win. If you have teams that consistently win by default they will be considered good/great players.

I think if Jackson could win a title with the Lakers this year that it'd be awfully hard to dispute him as greatest head coach of all time. He'd have won 10 rings (most ever) and won rings with two franchises (has anyone else besides Riley done that?), and he'd have won rings with three different best players.

He also was the first coach to consistently win titles without a dominant big man.

I think Jackson is clearly one of the best coaches ever. If you don't want to consider him the best, I don't see how you can't make him top five. It's actually pretty hard for me to come up with the argument that he isn't #1 overall given his massive edge in titles and the fact the other guy who has nine did it when there were 8 and 12 teams in the league and two rounds of playoffs instead of four.

Outside of Red, who's the next coach with the most titles and does anyone else even have more than four titles?

 

[MADman24]

dougthonus wrote:

It's sort of a run around though. How great the players are is often largely determined by how well they win. If you have teams that consistently win by default they will be considered good/great players.

I think if Jackson could win a title with the Lakers this year that it'd be awfully hard to dispute him as greatest head coach of all time. He'd have won 10 rings (most ever) and won rings with two franchises (has anyone else besides Riley done that?), and he'd have won rings with three different best players.

He also was the first coach to consistently win titles without a dominant big man.

I think Jackson is clearly one of the best coaches ever. If you don't want to consider him the best, I don't see how you can't make him top five. It's actually pretty hard for me to come up with the argument that he isn't #1 overall given his massive edge in titles and the fact the other guy who has nine did it when there were 8 and 12 teams in the league and two rounds of playoffs instead of four.

Outside of Red, who's the next coach with the most titles and does anyone else even have more than four titles?

I admit I had to look this up but behind Phil and Red, John Kundla and Pat Riley have 5 championships, Popovich with 4 and no one else has more than two. Alex Hannum has also won a championship with more than one team.

If Phil wins another championship then he will be the most accomplished coach ever but by that same logic Bill Russell is the best player ever or at least better than Wilt and Oscar Robertson because he is more accomplished.

My point is not that Phil is a not a fantastic coach who's been the first to accomplish a number of feats but rather that it is extremely difficult to judge head coaches and that I know of no fair way to do so as obviously every great coach has not had the same level of talent. For example Jerry Sloan has never won a championship and was twice denied by Phil and the Bulls in the finals but I feel he is one of the best coaches ever because he seems to get the most out of his talent but if judged by championships he is worse than every coach who's won a title.

Lastly I say every one of the coaches considered the best specifically Phil, have had not only multiple hall of famers on their team but top 10 or 15 players, and in Phil's case the best player in the league and arguably the best ever in Chicago and the best big man and best perimeter player, if not the best two players in the league in L.A.. I don't judge individual players greatness on championships and I don't judge coaches that way either as I feel it is unfair to the all-time great players and coaches who have not been fortunate enough to play alongside other great players and under great coaches.

 

[Dpauley23]

dougthonus wrote:

Why does everyone assume Phil Jackson is the greatest coach ever? Winning the most championships does not equal best coach ever, especially considering the talent he has had on those championship teams. I personally think this is even more difficult to determine than best player and simply impossible to come to a solid answer. Theoretically it should be the coach who's got the most out of the least. Not saying he isn't in the discussion but I'm not sure he's the best in the league right now let alone ever.

It's sort of a run around though. How great the players are is often largely determined by how well they win. If you have teams that consistently win by default they will be considered good/great players.

I think if Jackson could win a title with the Lakers this year that it'd be awfully hard to dispute him as greatest head coach of all time. He'd have won 10 rings (most ever) and won rings with two franchises (has anyone else besides Riley done that?), and he'd have won rings with three different best players.

He also was the first coach to consistently win titles without a dominant big man.

I think Jackson is clearly one of the best coaches ever. If you don't want to consider him the best, I don't see how you can't make him top five. It's actually pretty hard for me to come up with the argument that he isn't #1 overall given his massive edge in titles and the fact the other guy who has nine did it when there were 8 and 12 teams in the league and two rounds of playoffs instead of four.

Outside of Red, who's the next coach with the most titles and does anyone else even have more than four titles?

Did you forget that he Shaq averaging 35 and 15 a game. As for is Phil best of all time. I really think Adelman is up there. He's got less talented teams to finals and just has gotten screwed over by Phil having best players in the league

 

[Hendu0520]

Great stat P03, I agree, Kobay is not the best player in the league and only was for 1 year when he averaged 35 ppg and should have won his only MVP that year. Steve Nash got the MVP for the second time that year I think it was '04. Even then though he just doesn't seem to naturally do the right thing. He shoots when he should pass, drives when he should shoot, and passes when he should shoot or drive. He has always been overrated ever since the debacle of having him start in the all star game in NY '98 when he didn't even start on his own team, Eddie Jones started for the Lakers and came off the bench in the all star game.

The Lakers team this year is a bit overrated but they are still the best team in the league with KG injured. My point to people that argue he is better than Lebron is if you trade Lebron for Kobay straight up the Lakers absolutely dominate, probably winning 70 games and cruising to a few chips at least. Wade is better as well, after that I don't know, if you trade CP3 or DHoward for Kobay then they probably aren't as good so I would put him 3rd in the league individually.

 

[Shakes]

The sure sign that Kobe is declining is the amount of points he's scoring from the line. He's just not as athletic as he used to be, and that means he can't generate the number of free throw attempts he used to. He's down from 8.7 two years ago to just 5.9 this year.

If the Lakers dont win this year I think they need to do something drastic if they want to win with Kobe. He's got one, maybe two at most, years left where he'll be good enough to be "the man".

 

[Hendu0520]

I think that those same criticisms that people blast Gordon with should be applied to Kobe. He takes way more shots and way more difficult shots as well.

 

[dougthonus]

If Phil wins another championship then he will be the most accomplished coach ever but by that same logic Bill Russell is the best player ever or at least better than Wilt and Oscar Robertson because he is more accomplished.

It's not the same logic, because I specifically mentioned Jackson's ability to win titles with very distinct groups and different teams. Russell did not do that. I also mentioned the era in which he won was far more difficult than Russell's era due to the greater number of teams and playoff rounds.

I'm not at all saying 10 rings = best coach. I'm saying it's hard to dispute the guy who won so many rings with fundamentally different casts and on different teams. It's worth remembering he also has a CBA championship from prior to coming to the NBA as well.

Still I wavered enough to say I agree with your point that it's hard to judge for the same reasons you think.

For example Jerry Sloan has never won a championship and was twice denied by Phil and the Bulls in the finals but I feel he is one of the best coaches ever because he seems to get the most out of his talent but if judged by championships he is worse than every coach who's won a title.

First, again note, that I am not saying talent is only judged by championships.

Next, let me say this, what if Stockton and Malone won 6 titles under Jerry Sloan? Would you say "Wow Jerry Sloan won 6 titles with average talent" or would you instead say "Of course he won 6 titles, Stockton and Malone are the top players at their position in the history of the game"?

Again, this is the circular nature of "needing talent to win". If you win, then you are determined to have had talent. Stockton and Malone were definitely considered consensus top 5 guys at their position all time. So to say Jerry Sloan was great for not winning a title with 2 50 greatest players spending their whole career... Ehh.

 

[Shakes]

Here's the thing I find hard to reconcile about the idea Phil Jackson is a great coach.

If a coach got Michael Jordan in his prime and added only two wins, the coach would be blasted as being an incompetent idiot.

Phil Jackson did this in reverse. He lost Michael Jordan and yet the team only lost two more games. What is the difference between this and a team that gains Michael Jordan? Why isn't Phil Jackson known as the coach who can only get two wins out of the greatest player of all time?

I just think it's funny how the order of events alters the way we judge coaches.

 

[MADman24]

Doug, I simply forgot to acknowledge your agreement, I understand the paradox that occurs when assessing coaching skill and which is why I'm hesitant to call Phil the best ever despite his winning in different circumstances, because those situations have had tremendous talent but he has capitalized on them.

On Sloan not winning a title with two 50 best all-time on his team I'll admit isn't great for his resume, I mean it doesn't look good on paper, but it doesn't imo take away from his ability to coach or him.

I started by saying I'm not sure Jackson is the best ever or even right now but I have no problem with people arguing that he is the best but I think it's just that an argument which could be made for several coaches and not Phil and it's the same way I feel about Jordan being the accepted best ever, sure you can make a strong argument but it isn't a given.

 

[dougthonus]

MADman24 wrote:

Doug, I simply forgot to acknowledge your agreement, I understand the paradox that occurs when assessing coaching skill and which is why I'm hesitant to call Phil the best ever despite his winning in different circumstances, because those situations have had tremendous talent but he has capitalized on them.

On Sloan not winning a title with two 50 best all-time on his team I'll admit isn't great for his resume, I mean it doesn't look good on paper, but it doesn't imo take away from his ability to coach or him.

I started by saying I'm not sure Jackson is the best ever or even right now but I have no problem with people arguing that he is the best but I think it's just that an argument which could be made for several coaches and not Phil and it's the same way I feel about Jordan being the accepted best ever, sure you can make a strong argument but it isn't a given.

I like Sloan a lot as well, so don't get me wrong. I think we're on the same page overall on that coaching is subjective and you can't look at just rings, but there is little else to look at, and since all coaches never play with the same hand really it's hard to compare.

Anyway, I think the case for Jordan is a lot stronger than the case for Jackson because a coach's effect on the game is so much more subjective.