[IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t1.0-9/10398048_1467855363459257_7635562019511494205_n.jpg[/IMG]
Printable View
[IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t1.0-9/10398048_1467855363459257_7635562019511494205_n.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=jstern]The main reason why Shaq only has one is because he pretty much miss too many games year after year after year.
Kobe 1 for 18
Kobe, Mr. Clutch is 2/7 in NBA Finals, the time when he should step it up. Instead his teammates bailed him out. It show how stack his team were.
Lebron passes the eye test of clearly being the best in the league every year, and his MVP is the product of that. Lets not get denial get the best of you. There's nothing being taken out of context there. Those MVPs show that.[/QUOTE]
Kobe actually has 5 rings, 4 being a HUGE contributor of (2 FMVP).
Lets not throw the term "denial" around and subsequently post garbage
lebron stans are the most retarded people on ISH....
Paul really should have won MVP in 2008. Not saying Kobe shouldn't have one, but it shouldn't be that one.
so OP would rather have MVPs than championships. What an idiot.
:oldlol:
Number of MVPs isn't really all that significant. I think of MVP winners as more like a club... if you're truly great, you'll more than likely get at least 1 MVP, but it's not really about how many you win. Not to mention the media tends to boycott those whom they don't like very much after that first MVP... or absolutely wait until the last second to give them one...and they will hand it out multiple times to people they like personally i.e. Steve Nash. Shaq, Kobe and Hakeem all only have 1 MVP but have multiple rings, which is part of why they're considered to be the top 10 greatest players in NBA history, while Moses Malone isn't despite having 3 MVPs, he only has 1 ring. Being an MVP winner + number of rings is what get's you recognition.
So while being an MVP is important, number of rings by MVP winners is the standard of which most are judged, not the other way around. Otherwise Moses's 3 MVPs, 1 title would be top 10 all time and he would be ranked ahead of Hakeem, Kobe, Shaq and on par with Magic and Bird. But he's not. In all number of MVPs is just pretty much a popularity vote decided by memeber a of the media. Of course no way of voting is ever going to be 100% perfect, but it was better when the players voted for MVP, as the media often voted for the "best story. If the media doesn't like you, good luck winning more than 1. But there is nothing the media can do to stop an MVP winner from winning multiple championships.
[QUOTE=LakersFan626]Kobe's 2 for 7? You're counting his sidekick rings as losses? Just say he's 2 for 3 if you aren't counting his Shaq years, but then again that would mean that he still has a better percentage than LeBron.[/QUOTE]
I'm simply using the simplistic Kobetard logic, and it is shocking to see a Kobe fan saying that Shaq rings shouldn't be used, when those rings are constantly used to talk about how Kobe is the GOAT, or top 5. I thought those rings were as valuable as his rings as the man, so why shouldn't they be used when saying 2/7? If a Kobe fan can say 2/5 for Lebron carrying his teams to the Finals and losing as the man to better, superior teams, then why should Kobe get a free ride for not having to carry that load?
[QUOTE=jstern]If a Kobe fan can say 2/5 for Lebron carrying his teams to the Finals and losing as the man to better, superior teams, then why should Kobe get a free ride for not having to carry that load?[/QUOTE]
Yep, Lebron had a shit team in 2011. He did his job, but his teammates let him down in the finals.
[QUOTE=Heavincent]Yep, Lebron had a shit team in 2011. He did his job, but his teammates let him down in the finals.[/QUOTE]
What about this year and 2007? I don't get it, why do you now completely ignore those year and have the one truly bad year represent his whole Finals career? So the Kobe stans should continuously say 2/5 based on just 2011?
[QUOTE=AnaheimLakers24]2/5[/QUOTE]
Kobe's FMVP's in championships.
40% Alpha
60% Sidekick
[QUOTE=jstern]I'm simply using the simplistic Kobetard logic, and it is shocking to see a Kobe fan saying that Shaq rings shouldn't be used, when those rings are constantly used to talk about how Kobe is the GOAT, or top 5. I thought those rings were as valuable as his rings as the man, so why shouldn't they be used when saying 2/7? If a Kobe fan can say 2/5 for Lebron carrying his teams to the Finals and losing as the man to better, superior teams, then why should Kobe get a free ride for not having to carry that load?[/QUOTE]
That's you like saying LeBron's 2 rings shouldn't count because without Wade and Bosh, he was a regular season warmonger.
Putting you and other silly posts aside, both Kobe and Lebron are great; Kobe has the advantage of having more rings (playing like a superstar in all but one), where LeBron has the advantage of MVPs, arguably the better peak player.
[QUOTE=jstern]What about this year and 2007? I don't get it, why do you now completely ignore those year and have the one truly bad year represent his whole Finals career? So the Kobe stans should continuously say 2/5 based on just 2011?[/QUOTE]
He shot 36% and averaged 6 turnovers in the 07 Finals. I don't think that helps your argument.
[QUOTE=Black and White][B]A regular season media award defines greatness? [/B]:biggums:
People forget context when it comes to LeBrons MVPs, what competition did he have?[/QUOTE]
People use total all-star appearances, "which is voted on by the fans" to prop up their favorite players resume'.
Media vote > Fan vote
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]That's you like saying LeBron's 2 rings shouldn't count because without Wade and Bosh, he was a regular season warmonger.
Putting you and other silly posts aside, both Kobe and Lebron are great; Kobe has the advantage of having more rings (playing like a superstar in all but one), where LeBron has the advantage of MVPs, arguably the better peak player.[/QUOTE]
Very interesting. I responded to a Kobe fan saying that I shouldn't say 2/7 because Shaq won Finals MVP 3 times, and then a Kobe stan in a different argument saying that those 3 rings matter as much as Lebron the man, because in this argument it benefits Kobe, while in the previous argument the Shaq rings didn't benefit him.
[QUOTE=Heavincent]He shot 36% and averaged 6 turnovers in the 07 Finals. I don't think that helps your argument.[/QUOTE]
He was 22, the Spurs completely overmatched his team, with him being the sole focus of the defense. It helps my argument more than any other year. Compare his lack of help, he being the sole focus, to Kobe's Finals career.
[QUOTE=jstern]What about this year and 2007? I don't get it, why do you now completely ignore those year and have the one truly bad year represent his whole Finals career? So the Kobe stans should continuously say 2/5 based on just 2011?[/QUOTE]
2007, it's not the fact that he lost so much, it's that he played so far below what you would have expected from him. If he played even a little bit better, the series would have been closer (would have been 2-2 going back to Cleveland) He gets somewhat of a pass because he wasn't in his prime yet and not many people expected the Cavs to beat the Spurs, but the reality is that his performance was horrendous for a player of his caliber so that's why it's a black mark in a way, not because he lost. This year? He was underwhelming and inconsistent for the vast majority of the series outside of that brilliant game 2 and he got clearly outplayed by a role player during the 2 biggest games of the series on his home court. It was very similar to Durant's 2012 Finals. Sure, his efficiency was great but the rest of his game just wasn't there. His defense was mediocre, playmaking wasn't same and he was a turnover machine. Kawai Leonard looked like an All-Star in games 3-5 with LeBron defending him. Although unlike LeBron, for Durant's performance, he has the explanation of not being in his prime yet and inexperience/still learning the playoff ropes. As I mentioned already, LeBron was just inconsistent throughout the series outside of that great game 2. His lack of a killer instinct and passiveness in moments when the team needed him to step up was clearly an issue. With all that said however San Antonio was just simply the better team than Miami.