"Heck, there were many arguments I've made that you haven't responded to either. I guess I should harp, for instance, on the inability of a Duncan or a Garnett to make his own shot or to take over a critical game - at least one explanation for their relatively sorry playoff records. Duncan's strike season championship may have proved that, when surrounded by the right other players and not challenged by any teams of dynasty caliber, Duncan is good enough - and I don't deride Duncan's play: I just think he lacks charisma, and I think he's more the kind of player who can make a fair team into a good one. Kobe's the kind of player who can make a good team great - come to think of it he HAS made a good team great 3 years in a row." You give Kobe credit for the championships and greatness of the Lakers? So Shaq and Jackson were not needed? How well did Kobe do when Shaq was out of the lineup in the beginning of the year?
Kobe will always be "Jordan-esque." Jordan was Jordan, Jordon was not: not Dr. J-esque, Not Dominique-esque, not Mr. Clutch-esque, Not Bird-esque, Not Magic-esque, Not Wilt-esque, Not-Ice Man esque, Not Pistol Pete-esque, Not Earl the Pearl-esque, Not Zeke-esque, Not Connie Hawkins-esque, Not David Thompson-esque, Not Havlicek-esque. That is the differnce. Kobe is a wanna be MJ, not the man, not the real deal. Hell, he even tries to sound like MJ in interviews. Kobe probably has a shrine in his house to MJ. I bet he even wears Hanes underwear to try to be like Mike. When he carries a team on his back to multiple championships, without a dominant center, then let's talk about his greatness.
"As for the Lakers-Queens, if you went through the whole series, you could argue that the Lakers did not get preferential treatment overall. As for the final game and the final outcome, I maintain that the supposed disequality has been exaggerated by whining losers, a not infrequent occurence in hard-fought, close playoff match-ups, especially ones between reigning champs and upstart chokers. The Kings could have won that series, but to dethrone the champs they should have knocked 'em out, not hope for favorable scoring from the judges. That's just the way it is, whether it should be or not. Even the way it played out, the Kings had their chances, but they didn't have anyone who could get them over the hump during the last crunch. " I don't know what series you were watching. Maybe you could argue the Lakers were not given preferential treatment, but you would not be able to make a case to objective parties who watched the series. Objective parties, who favored neither the Lakers or the Kings, in great majority saw preferential treatment by the Refs. True, being forced to a seventh game by preferential treatment by the Refs, the Kings had their chance for victory, and they did not sack up, and Predrag Stojakovic was never right, and shouldn't have come back at all. They were so emotionally wrecked after the 6th game debacle, that they thought they were never going to beat the Lakers when the Refs were in the Laker's pockets. That was their immaturity. We will see if they outgrow it, that is assuming the Lakers make the playoffs, and even get past the 1st round. It is different this time. 7 game series from day one of the playoffs, and Shaq daddy ain't gonna like that one bit. Lakers had better hire a staff of trainers to keep the wounded Lakers going. The Kings are still leading their conference with a rash of injuries this year. Bibby did not play the first part of the year, then Bobby Jackson went down and Pollard is out, and their best player, Webber who was on an MVP pace, is out....yet they prevail. New players like Keon Clark and Jimmy Jackson are stepping up. How many "new" Lakers are stepping up this year? Can the Lakers win consistently without their best player on the court? Sacramento is one year older, one year wiser, one year better, one year hungrier. Can we say the same for the Geriatric Fakers and Kobe?
Nope. It's a team game. No way the Lakers get anywhere interesting without any one of those three - though they probably at least make the playoffs, and probably contend, with any two of them plus whoever else they pay for instead of the one you leave out. Um, how many times do we have to go over this? Just thought I'd check before we start again...
So we are in full agreement, when Kobe had his chance to take over the Lakers without Shaq, he failed miserably.
We'll have to disagree about how big a role the officials played. Otherwise, you essentially concede my point. I agree that the Kings probably should take it from the Lakers this year. If the Kings can't do it with the Lakers wounded and self-doubting, then they may go into a "dammit we suck when it counts" Trailblazer-like decline - and you'll be forced to admit that the gods (and their earthly instruments) just favor the Lakers, just like the Celtics back in the '60s. On the other hand, if next year the Lakers return in decent health and with a couple new contributors, they'll probably be the favorites again.
The Lakers would be favorites right now if Shaq were 100%. Shaq is the Lakers, Kobe is supporting cast.
Uh, no. You apparently read my posts with the same objectivity you apply to statistics and last year's playoffs. I'm shocked and devastated, or maybe it's just not my year...
I read your "excuses" for the Lakers poor start. Kobe couldn't get the team on his back, could he? I've watched MJ, a shadow of his former greatness, take a bunch of losers in Washington farther than Kobe took the Lakers when he had his "shot." MJ at his peak, would be leading the east with his current supporting cast.
Agree with the first part, and maybe the second, at least during the playoffs. The Lakers do, too: Jackson's already saying that they've got to get back to running things through Shaq. Shaq at 100% is (was?) possibly the most indomitable playoff performer ever, or anyway he's up there with MJ. And I even agree that Kobe has yet to prove that he can be the difference - that he belongs up there with MJ, Bird, Magic, Shaq, and Russel as championship-makers. I still think he's the best all-around player right now, and deserving of the MVP, and I believe he has it in him to rise to the last challenge. He may not and probably won't do it this year. On the other hand, if someone had asked me whether he or anyone else was likely to go for 40 in eight straight games, I would have said probably not.