[joehoo]

Perfect example. Notice people... EVERY time someone has a Kobe argument, it's all based on speculation:

"IF you took Nash off the Suns they'd still be an 8 seed, if you took Kobe off the Lakers, they wouldn't be here."

First, thanks for telling us about a paralell universe in which you've witnessed EVERYTHING. Second, the rationale almost works, except, it doesn't:

The Suns are a TWO SEED NOW. If BOTH the Suns and the Lakers were low seeds, or high seeds, then that would qualify as an analogy. As it stands, you just said that the Suns would drop from 2 to 8 without Nash. That's a SIX SEED DROP IDIOT. Kobe's team would drop from 7 to not in the playoffs. About the same drop!

Next, "what if Kobe was on the Suns and Nash was on the Lakers." Okay, first, if Kobe did play with the Suns, and you presume they are better, would his stats be as high? Just as quick as you could say Kobe would be a 2 seed if he had the Suns, I could say "not unless he was averaging about 26 PPG."

What if Michael Jordan entered the league in Magic's shoes? How come I never here Laker fans (who are usually Kobe fans) bring that one up? Jordan with Worthy and Kareem? They'd have lost to Bird 0 times. But I don't bring that up except to illustrate the point that you can do a lot when your entire basis for everything is wild speculation.

[K-Dub]

Originally Posted by joehoo

Perfect example. Notice people... EVERY time someone has a Kobe argument, it's all based on speculation:

"IF you took Nash off the Suns they'd still be an 8 seed, if you took Kobe off the Lakers, they wouldn't be here."

First, thanks for telling us about a paralell universe in which you've witnessed EVERYTHING. Second, the rationale almost works, except, it doesn't:

The Suns are a TWO SEED NOW. If BOTH the Suns and the Lakers were low seeds, or high seeds, then that would qualify as an analogy. As it stands, you just said that the Suns would drop from 2 to 8 without Nash. That's a SIX SEED DROP IDIOT. Kobe's team would drop from 7 to not in the playoffs. About the same drop!

Next, "what if Kobe was on the Suns and Nash was on the Lakers." Okay, first, if Kobe did play with the Suns, and you presume they are better, would his stats be as high? Just as quick as you could say Kobe would be a 2 seed if he had the Suns, I could say "not unless he was averaging about 26 PPG."

What if Michael Jordan entered the league in Magic's shoes? How come I never here Laker fans (who are usually Kobe fans) bring that one up? Jordan with Worthy and Kareem? They'd have lost to Bird 0 times. But I don't bring that up except to illustrate the point that you can do a lot when your entire basis for everything is wild speculation.

It's called speculation and people use it in every thread on this site. However, that is particularly horrible speculation.

[Protein Data Bank]

Kobe Bryant, SG 42 28-46 7-13 18-20 2 4 6 2 3 1 3 1 81

[Mateo]

I agree, "what if" scenarios are speculative at best. It's so subjective that it's practically impossible for people to get anywhere with it. If you're going to compare players, why not just, you know, compare the players? Discuss their strengths and weaknesses. My guess is that sports writers spend most of their time talking to athletes and writing about athletes and very little time analyzing them. I seriously doubt any major sports writer can break down the games of even the most visible athletes. (except in vague cliches)

[Coatesvillain]

Methinks most people haven't discovered the playoff forum.

[Protein Data Bank]

Originally Posted by Mateo

If you're going to compare players, why not just, you know, compare the players? Discuss their strengths and weaknesses.

he was doing this. he was postulating that Kobe is more crucial to the Lakers' success than Nash is for the Suns.

many player comparisons are more abstract. otherwise all you could do is compare statistics.

[Mateo]

Originally Posted by Protein Data Bank

he was doing this. he was postulating that Kobe is more crucial to the Lakers' success than Nash is for the Suns.

many player comparisons are more abstract. otherwise all you could do is compare statistics.

I didn't see the pregame show, but I'm familiar with Wilbon's work and in my experience he never says anything very insightful. You don't have to choose between vague what-if scenarios and listing ppg and ast averages. You can actually break down their game and discuss why you think their particular strengths and weaknesses are more beneficial towards their teams. And no, saying "Kobe Bryant is an explosive scorer" or "Steve Nash sets up his teammates" doesn't count as breaking down their games.

For example, listen to Mark Jackson do the color commentary - who says a lot without actually saying anything at all - and then listen to Hubie Brown, a hall-of-famer who knows the game and is able to provide insight into strategies that most color guys haven't a clue about.

[joehoo]

Originally Posted by Coatesvillain

Methinks most people haven't discovered the playoff forum.

IT has nothing to do with what actually happened or the playoff series. The main topic is not even Kobe either. It's Wilbon being an idiot, and the fact that Kobe fans/pro Kobe analyzers always base their entire argument on wild speculation. Not "here is what Kobe has done and that's why he's better" but "If this this and that, Kobe would be better."

So Kobe has to face a team with a few players that are better than the Lakers best players? First, Odom was the 3rd best player I saw today. Second, Jordan was 2 years younger than Bryant in 89 and disposed of a Cavalier team that had four players who were better than the second best Bulls player at that time. It happens. Put MJ on the Cavs in place of Ron Harper in 89 and they probably beat Detroit. But MJ didn't so his fans had to shut their mouths.

[Protein Data Bank]

I'd hardly say Wilbon's point qualifies as "wild speculation."

[Coatesvillain]

Originally Posted by joehoo

IT has nothing to do with what actually happened or the playoff series. The main topic is not even Kobe either. It's Wilbon being an idiot, and the fact that Kobe fans/pro Kobe analyzers always base their entire argument on wild speculation. Not "here is what Kobe has done and that's why he's better" but "If this this and that, Kobe would be better."

So Kobe has to face a team with a few players that are better than the Lakers best players? First, Odom was the 3rd best player I saw today. Second, Jordan was 2 years younger than Bryant in 89 and disposed of a Cavalier team that had four players who were better than the second best Bulls player at that time. It happens. Put MJ on the Cavs in place of Ron Harper in 89 and they probably beat Detroit. But MJ didn't so his fans had to shut their mouths.

It was a comment made on a playoff telecast. Playoff forum.