"Looking back in the history books, in the Pacer series....."

So I won't get caught in the cross-fire again, I'll just make some random points of my own.

Shaq had a great finals against the Pacers no doubt...against "stellar defensive ace" Rik Smits(okay, a cheap shot). Kobe sprained his ankle in game 2 of the Pacer series (not gm 1) that's why he only played 9 mins., he was hampered most of the series. Plus it was Kobe's first finals after just getting "starters minutes" the previous year (wow, L.A. won the title that year shortly after young Kobe "started" and after Shaq teams had been swept about 4 times{3 in a row in Orlando}humm). Given Kobe's youth, finals inexperience andbum ankle, I don't think he did too bad. But it's true Shaq was Da Man that series.

But for laughs and giggles lets see what Kobe did the next2 title runs in the finals being injury free and having another year of experience.

Finals averages in2001 finals) Shaq- 30.4pts, 15.4rbs, 2,4blks.....Kobe- 29.4pts, 7.3rbs, 6.1assists

Finals averages in 2002 finals) Shaq- 28.5pts, 12.6rbs, 2.5blks.....Kobe- 26.6pts, 5.8rbs, 4.6assists

I think this strongly suggests Kobe was much more than a side-kick to Shaq, and more than what Pippen was to MJ as many say. Shaqdominated the post, Kobe dominated the perimeter.

But you gotta get to the finals, here's what Kobe did on the way to the 2001 finals:

VS Sac Kings: gm1- 29ts, 4rbs, 5 assists,... gm2- 27pts, 9rbs, 5 assists... gm3- 36pts, 7rbs, 4 assists,... gm4- 48pts, 16rbs, 3 assists

VS Spurs: gm1- 45pts, 10rbs, 3 assists,.... gm2- 28pts, 7rbs, 6 assists,.... gm3- 36pts, 9rbs, 8 assists,..... gm4- 24pts, 2rbs, 11 assists

Don't think Shaq was carrying Kobe to the title and those are not side kick numbers. Again, Kobe dominated the perimeter and fed Shaq pretty well also. Note how L.A. is now sweeping folks instead of getting swept, once Kobe got more experience. Kobe "slacked off" in the finals, he only had 15 and 19pts in 2 of the games. The others he had 31, 32 and 26 and pretty much kept up the rbs and assists.

In the 2002 finals Kobe averaged 26.6pts, 5.8rbs, 4.6 assists. Considering the circumstances that's pretty good. I don't really care about the Lebron/Kobe comparison because it's apples and oranges (as is the MJ comparison).But Kobe deserves much more credit for those 3 rings than he gets from most.

In 2003 the Lakers didn't make the finals and may not have made the playoffs had Kobe not "gone off". IMO Shaq got fat, lazy and jealous(of Kobe's rise) and they just couldn't co-exist much longer. I don't thinkMJ could have co-exsistedwith Shaq either, just my opinion.

see http://www.lakersuniverse.com/kobe/kobe_bryant_stats200203.htmLook at the Kobe game log to confirm my info during the 3 title years.

[QUOTE="-Halftime-"]

[QUOTE="andyboiii"]

really?

I know this isn't the finals but what about Game 7 against Portland in 2000 where Shaq disappeared and Kobe carried the load

O'Neal was unable to make a basket in the first 15 minutes and had only 9pts entering the 4th.
So young Kobe had to step up, and at 21, he wasn't afraid of anything or anyone. He did score 25pts but played awesome defense too. His rebounds, assists & Blocks often lead to big plays. He just outplayed NBA great Scottie Pippen, who shouldn't have critisized him at the beginning of the series, in the final two plays of the game.

This was all at age 21 btw

dodgerblue13

Okay, I'll admit that my wording was bad. I didn't mean to disregard anything that he did. I'm just trying to say that Kobe had much more around him that LeBron ever had. Those two games that andyboiii posted focus on game when Shaq didn't produce. Two game where Shaquille O'Neal didn't produce are a joke compared to LeBron's entire cast of this year--a pretty legit team--disappearing in the Eastern Conference Finals.

Looking back in the history books, in the Pacers series...before Shaq "disappeared," he threw up 43 points and 19 boards in Game 1 when Kobe was ailing from a sprained ankle. If LeBron had a sprained ankle, who is covering for him? Nobody. That's who.

Game 2 of that series, Kobe played nine minutes and scored two points. What's that there? Forty and nineteen more from Shaq? Glen Rice and Ron Harper each add 21?

Kobe sat out Game 3.

Now to Game 4. Shaq fouls out and Kobe just takes over. Never mind Shaq's 36 and 21 before fouling out and then Kobe "takes over" after basically three games of rest on a Pacers team in their fourth game of an NBA Finals series against Shaq. I'm sure they'd have figured out how to stop Shaq and Kobe would have taken over anyway...

What? Eight points in 37 minutes for Kobe in Game 5? Well, now. Stop the presses. Shaq had 35 and 11 by comparison.

Game 6, Kobe had 26 and 10. Very impressive. And guess what? Shaq played the sidekick to Kobe's greatness and went for 41 and 12. Hell, thanks for making me check some facts. I never realized how focused the Pacers were on stopping a youngster with a sprained ankle when they were staring down 40 and 15 on the post every night.

Thanks for the help. Do any of you have a link to a site that can show comparisons of how each look? I went to youtube but i couldn't find any comparison videos.

My question is for anybody who has older systems (by old i mean NES, SNES, Genesis, not PS2), do you play your games on newer Plasma/LCD type high definition TV's? I still don't have any of those type of TV's but i've heard bad things in relation to older games and newer TV's. I've heard that it makes the graphics of these older games so choppy that it's almost unbearable to play. Is this true? What are your thoughts on this issue? Would you recommend keeping the older systems on standard TV's or is it really not that big of a deal? thanks

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]I say Gasol was the player of the game, with Odom a close second.AlexSays

Anyone else think Gasol is above and beyond ugly?

Every time I see his face all sweaty with all his facial hair flying around I think of the "Geico caveman" commercials.

Just so this isn't perceived as a "Laker hate" type thing I'll also go ahead and say Turkoglu is ugly.

Not Gasol ugly but Turkoglu can definitely turn a few heads.. the other way.

I think a few people are missing my point here. Remember how the MGS2 PC (and XBox?) ports were broken because they really needed analog buttons to work? And don't gamepads for the PC FINALLY support this functionality? And to add to this PC ports have been made of every major console series release since MGS2 except for 3 and 4...

What I'm saying is that while a port of 3 seemed completely inplausible a port of 4 is seeming more and more possible.

they gave em a good run this game but you sorta had that feeling that when lee missed that alley oop at the buzzer that they weren't gonna win.

[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"][QUOTE="-Halftime-"]Kobe is better. LeBron is good but Kobe's game is fundamentally superior. Kobe's a better shooter, defender, and clutch player. Kobe has one of the most fundamentally sound games of all time. He's putting on a show in The Finals while LeBron sits at home. Kobe is better.dodgerblue13

I'll admit, Kobe is unreal. But with what LeBron has done (turned around an entire franchise with no help whatsoever) at his age, 24, is just as impressive as what Kobe has done seeing as how he's 30 and played with Shaq, Fox, Horry, et cetera, et cetera. When the Lakers had no other players, Kobe couldn't make them contenders. Even when he had Odom and Caron Butler, he couldn't make the Lakers a contender. LeBron has done that with far worse than Odom and Butler.

Oh, I forgot you like it short and sweet, and since I don't want to continue to take up these guys thread with this off topic discussion,I'll make it short. Kobe showed the ablility to domnate Dallas and lead the league in scoring, MJ showed no ability to get 71, let alone 81.My "coulda woulda" statement has more support.

Defense now and then, http://jonesonthenba.com/2008/10/video-proof-celtics-did-kobe-dirty.html , your thoughts.

I just knew it would happen, knew I'd get a MJ won 6 rings comment, even though I was just talking about this one thing. And I wasn't even saying that Kobe getting 81 meant he was better than MJ, or meant anything in particular except that it was an amazing, amazing, mind blowing feat worthy of sincere appreciation from any true B'ball fan. But you're all right with me sixringz;)

GAME TIME!

Yanks should never be on a list like this unless they are in last place. But to answer the question it is obviously the rangers. They do play in a weak division, with Anaheim as their only competition (and their pitching staff hasn't been 100% all yr), but none the less they are in first place. It's not their fault the division is weak. I like what they are doing w/ their pitching, and their biggest rbi man hasn't been healthy all year, and is currently on the DL as we speak. Personally i'm sick of seeing Anaheim in the playoffs every year. They win 100 games in the reg season than proceed to get waxed on a yearly basis by Boston in October. I hope Texas can keep it up