Kobe gets lucky with jacking up shots

[VolsFan4Ever-11]

After missing 18 straight shots, yes you read that right, 18 straight missed shots, then he hits the go ahead 3

[Yankee_Vol]

Kobe = best player in the NBA

[Thrasher865]

Clutch.

[TBrown]

Underrated

[n_huffhines]

Clutch, indeed.

Gasol and Bynum combined for 40 and 20. Why anybody would think Kobe is "carrying" this team is beyond me.

He did have a very nice game, yesterday.

[TBrown]

Mvp

[milohimself]

I can probably count on one hand the guys in NBA history who can go 2-20 in a game then be allowed to take the game winning shot.

[2ironVol]

Kobe is one of the top 5 players of all time.

[milohimself]

Not sure he cracks my top 5.

[n_huffhines]

Kobe has shot less than 40% 19 times in 53 games (once every 2.9 games)!!! Below 33% 12 times (once every 4.4 games). As you can see, there have been plenty of contests were Kobe was the worst player on the floor. Bolded when he shot less than 33%:

6/18
6/28
7/22
8/21
7/23
6/16
11/29
9/23
5/18
4/15
7/24
8/26
9/31
3/20
10/27
5/17
9/24
7/25
3/21

[005]

From Bill Simmons article today. Telling stuff. You'll appreciate it, nhuff

Who should raise the MVP award over his head? - Grantland

Player A: 30.7 PPG, 42.4% FG, 30.8% 3FG, 24.2 FGA, 10.5 FTA, 4.6 TO, 23.2 PER, 42.3 MPG.
Player B: 28.1 PPG, 42.4% FG, 29.1% 3FG, 23.5 FGA, 8.0 FTA, 3.7 TO, 22.1 PER, 38.6 MPG
Player C: 26.4 PPG, 45.8% FG, 34.5% 3FG, 19.0 FGA, 9.7 FTA, 3.0 TO, 20.9 PER, 41.8 MPG.

Player A: Allen Iverson's 2004-05 season, which happened right during the height of the whole "You can't win with Iverson, he monopolizes the ball!" craze.12

Player B: Kobe this season.

Player C: Iverson's 2007-08 season, which doubled as his last relevant season as an NBA player.

[005]

More:

Look, I don't care if you're anti-Iverson or pro-2012 Kobe … but you can't be both. You can't defend Kobe's current season as "He's a warrior, he's doing what it takes to win, he's only shooting so much because they don't have anyone else" while also dismissing the entirety of Iverson's career (which people love to do now, especially the statheads). You want to talk about a crummy supporting cast? In 2005, Philly's top five scorers for much of the season were Iverson, Marc Jackson, Kyle Korver, Kenny Thomas and Corliss Williamson. Not a misprint. They finished 43-39. Also not a misprint. The truth is, Kobe turned into a taller Iverson last season and it's staying that way. He's a 42 percent volume shooter who plays an ungodly number of minutes, shakes off every injury, fills the box score (good and bad), keeps coming and coming, and fervently believes he's always the best guy on the floor (even when it's not true).

[n_huffhines]

Good stuff. Kobe is a better version of Iverson. Iverson was my 2nd fave of all-time (next to Chuck) until I found out my eyes lied to me and all those times Iverson missed shots in spectacular fashion were not helping his team win.

Simmons points to the 2004-05 Sixers and claims they weren't capable of scoring. Kyle Korver, Andre Iguodala , Marc Jackson, and Samuel Dalembert all scored with very good efficiency. They combined for 40.5 ppg. The 76ers were scoring almost half their points at a very efficient rate.

Let's put this in perspective. Compare them to Jordan's 1993 championship Bulls...he had 3 teammates that scored efficiently (Tucker, Perdue, and Armstrong). They combined for 22.2 ppg, and he won a championship with that. So Iverson going 43-29 with teammates scoring 40.5 ppg efficiently does not move the meter for me.

[005]

I think the real comparison he is making is to Kobe's current Lakers teammates.

They sure as hell wouldn't have gone 43-29 without Iverson.

[n_huffhines]

Originally Posted by Dbake005

I think the real comparison he is making is to Kobe's current Lakers teammates.

They sure as hell wouldn't have gone 43-29 without Iverson.

That's the thing I don't understand the comparison. Kobe is the 3rd best player on his team. You have two bigs who are putting up big numbers in terms of points, rebounds, and shooting efficiency, and then you have a scorer who isn't scoring efficiently. Who is carrying this team, again?

Yeah, they wouldn't have gone 43-29 without AI, but they wouldn't have gone 29-43 either. AI shooting 24 times per game means the other AI was getting about 6 shots per game. That's not a good outcome.