LeBron James deserves 99 overall

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by Babioso

This edited part is just insanity. The man won more rings. Just on that part of the argument alone you can't say he "wasn't even close" to LeBron. I get you're a LeBron fan but come on man. That's pure insanity. The guy just got swept out of the finals! Did Kobe? Did Jordan?

winning rings really only means you played on more championship teams, doesn't necessarily mean you're a better player. Both of those guys have been swept before the finals, so I'm not sure what you're arguing.

Again if we are talking 2k rating, or just Kobe/LeBron in general, I'm not sure what that has to do with the argument.

[3304Life]

Quote: Originally Posted by Babioso

The fact that you say that and quote stats shows you haven't watched the NBA long. In the early 2000s and late 90s 3 point shooting wasn't even the same as it is today. It was by no means the biggest part of the game. Also, the types of 3 pointers that Kobe took and the amount of contested shots he took at the end of games etc will have hurt his percentage. Honestly, anyone who has watched the NBA since late 90s/early 2000s would take Kobe over LeBron if they needed a shot to be hit. If you're younger I understand. You only know Kobe in his last few years, and you're basing the rest of your opinion based off of a stat sheet. There's nothing more to say on this anyway. We're never going to agree and were going massively off topic now.

No need to patronize me dude. I’m 27, I’ve been watching basketball for 23 years, I saw Kobe’s entire career and I know what he was.

Kobe was never somebody I wanted to put the ball in the hands of. This concept of clutch he has is based on little else than he hit a few shots in key moments. He also took over 20 shots per game for his entire career. He was bound to hit some buzzer beaters.

What you’ve just described is a dude with bad basketball IQ, which Kobe was. Or at least when it came to shooting. He was never useful if he wasn’t hitting his shots, which happened a lot as he got older and never adapted his game.

Give me LeBron, who is getting better as he gets older, is more reliable to make the right decision in the clutch, whether it’s shooting the ball or finding an open man to do it and, if I’m allowed to use a stat, has a career average PER almost as high as Kobe’s best season.

[3304Life]

Quote: Originally Posted by Babioso

This edited part is just insanity. The man won more rings. Just on that part of the argument alone you can't say he "wasn't even close" to LeBron. I get you're a LeBron fan but come on man. That's pure insanity. The guy just got swept out of the finals! Did Kobe? Did Jordan?

Robert Horry won more rings than both of them. James Jones has three rings.

If you want to talk Finals, then LeBron has more Finals MVPs, despite winning fewer rings. So what does that mean? That Kobe wasn’t even the best player for three of his championships?

[Babioso]

Quote: Originally Posted by 3304Life

No need to patronize me dude. I’m 27, I’ve been watching basketball for 23 years, I saw Kobe’s entire career and I know what he was. Kobe was never somebody I wanted to put the ball in the hands of. This concept of clutch he has is based on little else than he hit a few shots in key moments. He also took over 20 shots per game for his entire career. He was bound to hit some buzzer beaters. What you’ve just described is a dude with bad basketball IQ, which Kobe was. Or at least when it came to shooting. He was never useful if he wasn’t hitting his shots, which happened a lot as he got older and never adapted his game. Give me LeBron, who is getting better as he gets older, is more reliable to make the right decision in the clutch, whether it’s shooting the ball or finding an open man to do it and, if I’m allowed to use a stat, has a career average PER almost as high as Kobe’s best season.

I didn't mean to patronise you, I genuinely thought you were younger as 3 pt shooting has changed so much in the last 10 years alone that it wouldn't be fair to compare that to someone who spent the prime of his career in a different NBA landscape, one without the 3pt shot dominating most plays.

At this point I'll just respectfully agree to disagree so we can get back on topic. Personally I think that offensively Kobe should have better ratings. Defensively you could argue that, as the other poster did, but then the intangibles and clutch type attributes would bring him higher. In my opinion.

[Babioso]

Quote: Originally Posted by 3304Life

Robert Horry won more rings than both of them. James Jones has three rings. If you want to talk Finals, then LeBron has more Finals MVPs, despite winning fewer rings. So what does that mean? That Kobe wasn’t even the best player for three of his championships?

Just to answer this point before we move on, those players were role players in those championships. They weren't the focal point of the team. If you're the focal point of a team and you're taking most of the shots, especially in the 4th, and relied on for the win and you win more championships than someone else in the same spot you're a better player. Again, in my opinion.

[ojandpizza]

Kobe's game is just a bit shallow in comparison, I don't think there is anything unfair in saying that. He was a great player, great scorer, good perimeter defender at his peak, could handle the ball well, and had a real knack for hitting incredibly tough shots, could pass better than most give him credit for, relished the big moments. But when you start comparing him to guys like Jordan, or LeBron, Magic, Bird, even his teammate Shaq or a guy like Duncan, his game was overall just less impactful on a night to night basis. A lot of Kobe's success simply came down to how many of his shots he made. If he was off, he didn't really leave his imprint on the game in many other areas. Guys like Bron, Bird, Magic, Duncan in particular, they can score 15 points and still be the best, or most impactful, player on the floor.

It's not like we don't have ways to back those claims. Kobe has never led the league in any of the advanced overall game impact stats, not a single one of them for any season. PER already mentioned Kobe is like 24th all time, win shares he's 18th, box plus/minus he's 37th, Value over replacement player he's 17th. I understand we make the claim that he's a top 10 player all time, but in a comparison world his shots taken and points scored are the only things he actually ranks that highly in.

To me it's no surprise that on the last championship run Pau Gasol actually led that team in offensive win shares, defensive win shares, and total win shares, he led that team in value over replacement player, box plus minus, in PER as well. Kobe takes the shots, scores the points, but he's not always the most impactful player. Especially when you start comparing him to GOATs, in my opinion.

[turty11]

JR smith and nick young have rings...arguing rings in terms of "whos better" is a stupid debate in any sport.



This isnt a who's better than lebron or whos not thread..its a thread about how lebron may or may not be underated, and how terrible 2k's overall formula is.


go discuss that other, tired, insanely biased nonsense somewhere else.

[Blzer]

Quote: Originally Posted by turty11

JR smith and nick young have rings...arguing rings in terms of "whos better" is a stupid debate in any sport.

The debate never really is about who has rings, it's more about who doesn't have rings.

Also, it's supposed to be the last straw to be drawn, not the first. Compare Player A and Player B, who are identical in every which way but the number of rings; the player with more rings now wins the debate.

I'm not in the camp of James only being like 4 for 10 or whatever he is in the Finals, though. Not winning the Finals is not losing, that's placing 2nd out of 30. Yes, 1st place is a much larger gap from 2nd place than 2nd is from 3rd place (it's like perfect game vs. no-hitter versus one-hitter vs. shutout in baseball, where to me the perfect game is far and away the clear-cut winner), but I'm not going to diminish his greatness for not beating the Warriors three of the last four years. I am totally allowed to raise his greatness level if he beats them, though... because 2nd place is not losing.

Raising a rating shouldn't be done as a result of any of this though, and the rating does not raise the player's abilities in game. The OVR rating is the dependent variable, and there are dozens of independent variables in this game that determine OVR. Once again, OVR is the most overrated value in sports video games and really should be done away with.