Kobe 1 50 point game away from 3rd place

[Jon_Vilma]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Mar 24 2007, 08:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Mar 24 2007, 09:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Mar 24 2007, 07:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But there is a difference. All these players involved their teammates in the game. Kobe doesn't. That is the main reason why. Jordan involved his team. The Mailman involved his team. Nash and Dirk involve their team. Kobe doesn't, which is why when his teammates get a chance, they do good. Remember the 62 point game?? No assists. The 81 point game?? 2</div>They win when he has these high scoring games. And the games when he has high assists they lose. After he go critisized last year for his high scoring game (61 I think) he had a double digit assist day and the team lost by 20. You can not fault him for using the only strategy that will let them win. Involving Smush and Lamar isn't the same as involving Pippen and Marion.</div>But then why do the Lakers play good w/o him and the Suns play like shit w/o Nash? I've seen the Lakers play perfectly good when Kobe is on the bench. When Nash rests, I don't see the Suns playing very good. I was at the Bulls-Suns game in January, Nash sat on the bench for 5 minutes of game play, the Bulls opened a 16-point lead with about 9 minutes to play in the game. Nash he comes in, with 2 minutes to play, the deficit is 9. Suns end up winning. Nash is like the quarterback of the Suns.</div>Why did the Knicks seemingly play better without Ewing? Did Ewing hold the team back?

 

[Brooksie5]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Mar 24 2007, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MLibid @ Mar 24 2007, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Chamberlain's records are so gay. They shouldn't evne count them. They had totally different rules than they do now...</div>Not really they didn't. What different rules? Shot clock? Wait... that increases scoring.....And even so, you don't take away Ruth's records, you wait until someone beats them! You don't drop Jim Brown's rushing record, you wait until someone beats it.You're just pissed because it's not likely anyone will ever dominate like that again. Sorry. But that's no reason to essentially strip the record from him. That's like stripping Johnny U's name from the NFL record books.</div>He was like 7-1 or whatever. How tall were the people up against him? 6-5 max probably. He'd still be a top center if he were in todays game, but no chance in hell he'd score 100 in a game, or have even half of his 119 career 50+ point games.

 

[Jon_Vilma]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brooksie5 @ Mar 24 2007, 10:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jon_Vilma @ Mar 24 2007, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MLibid @ Mar 24 2007, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Chamberlain's records are so gay. They shouldn't evne count them. They had totally different rules than they do now...</div>Not really they didn't. What different rules? Shot clock? Wait... that increases scoring.....And even so, you don't take away Ruth's records, you wait until someone beats them! You don't drop Jim Brown's rushing record, you wait until someone beats it.You're just pissed because it's not likely anyone will ever dominate like that again. Sorry. But that's no reason to essentially strip the record from him. That's like stripping Johnny U's name from the NFL record books.</div>He was like 7-1 or whatever. How tall were the people up against him? 6-5 max probably. He'd still be a top center if he were in todays game, but no chance in hell he'd score 100 in a game, or have even half of his 119 career 50+ point games.</div>So because he was better physically than the 6-10 and 6-11 centers back in the day, that means his records are homosexual, and should not be counted. Right.Tiger Woods is a physically fit, cut, athletic man in a field of mostly out of shape old white men. So in 30 years when the field of Golf is dominated by younger athletic guys, should we then remove Tiger's records and call them homosexual?

 

[CrimsonClown]

His records should be counted. Because he did accomplish it. BUT it should be in a different catogory. Sorry, but we will NEVER EVER see a regular time NBA game with the score of 169-147, EVER, EVER, EVER again. It's impossible. Which I find is unfair. Your arguement with Tiger is false, because someone onday could be better than Tiger. Everyone said "No one will ever match Jack Nicklaus" Well guess what? Tiger came along. Everyones saying "No one will be better then Gretzky" But now Crosby is rising. etc, etc. Records were made to be broken, but Chamberlins scoring record will never be broken.

 

[Brooksie5]

[quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='87890' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:58 AM'][quote name='Brooksie5' post='87888' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:45 PM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='87877' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:10 PM'][quote name='MLibid' post='87873' date='Mar 24 2007, 07:47 PM']Chamberlain's records are so gay. They shouldn't evne count them. They had totally different rules than they do now...[/quote]Not really they didn't. What different rules? Shot clock? Wait... that increases scoring.....And even so, you don't take away Ruth's records, you wait until someone beats them! You don't drop Jim Brown's rushing record, you wait until someone beats it.You're just pissed because it's not likely anyone will ever dominate like that again. Sorry. But that's no reason to essentially strip the record from him. That's like stripping Johnny U's name from the NFL record books.[/quote]He was like 7-1 or whatever. How tall were the people up against him? 6-5 max probably. He'd still be a top center if he were in todays game, but no chance in hell he'd score 100 in a game, or have even half of his 119 career 50+ point games.[/quote]So because he was better physically than the 6-10 and 6-11 centers back in the day, that means his records are homosexual, and should not be counted. Right.Tiger Woods is a physically fit, cut, athletic man in a field of mostly out of shape old white men. So in 30 years when the field of Golf is dominated by younger athletic guys, should we then remove Tiger's records and call them homosexual?[/quote]There weren't many 6-10, 6-11 centers back when he played. I never said they were homosexual, so don't freak out at me about that.

 

[DevinHester23]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Knightz @ Mar 25 2007, 10:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His records should be counted. Because he did accomplish it. BUT it should be in a different catogory. Sorry, but we will NEVER EVER see a regular time NBA game with the score of 169-147, EVER, EVER, EVER again. It's impossible. Which I find is unfair. Your arguement with Tiger is false, because someone onday could be better than Tiger. Everyone said "No one will ever match Jack Nicklaus" Well guess what? Tiger came along. Everyones saying "No one will be better then Gretzky" But now Crosby is rising. etc, etc. Records were made to be broken, but Chamberlins scoring record will never be broken.</div>People said that when Ruth hit his 714 HR's, then again when Aaron hit 755, and now Bonds is chasing Aaron. B/c someone accomplishes something in an era where he dominates b/c everyone else is medicore, it doesn't count?? I guess Jordan's titles in the 90's shouldn't count, b/c no one dominated like Mike

 

[Jon_Vilma]

[quote name='Knightz' post='87902' date='Mar 25 2007, 08:07 AM']His records should be counted. Because he did accomplish it. BUT it should be in a different catogory. Sorry, but we will NEVER EVER see a regular time NBA game with the score of 169-147, EVER, EVER, EVER again. It's impossible. Which I find is unfair. Your arguement with Tiger is false, because someone onday could be better than Tiger. Everyone said "No one will ever match Jack Nicklaus" Well guess what? Tiger came along. Everyones saying "No one will be better then Gretzky" But now Crosby is rising. etc, etc. Records were made to be broken, but Chamberlins scoring record will never be broken.[/quote]And now you are saying "No one will ever match Wilt Chamberlin." So thank you for proving my argument.[quote name='Brooksie5' post='87921' date='Mar 25 2007, 11:35 AM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='87890' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:58 AM'][quote name='Brooksie5' post='87888' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:45 PM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='87877' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:10 PM'][quote name='MLibid' post='87873' date='Mar 24 2007, 07:47 PM']Chamberlain's records are so gay. They shouldn't evne count them. They had totally different rules than they do now...[/quote]Not really they didn't. What different rules? Shot clock? Wait... that increases scoring.....And even so, you don't take away Ruth's records, you wait until someone beats them! You don't drop Jim Brown's rushing record, you wait until someone beats it.You're just pissed because it's not likely anyone will ever dominate like that again. Sorry. But that's no reason to essentially strip the record from him. That's like stripping Johnny U's name from the NFL record books.[/quote]He was like 7-1 or whatever. How tall were the people up against him? 6-5 max probably. He'd still be a top center if he were in todays game, but no chance in hell he'd score 100 in a game, or have even half of his 119 career 50+ point games.[/quote]So because he was better physically than the 6-10 and 6-11 centers back in the day, that means his records are homosexual, and should not be counted. Right.Tiger Woods is a physically fit, cut, athletic man in a field of mostly out of shape old white men. So in 30 years when the field of Golf is dominated by younger athletic guys, should we then remove Tiger's records and call them homosexual?[/quote]There weren't many 6-10, 6-11 centers back when he played. I never said they were homosexual, so don't freak out at me about that.[/quote]You called the records "gay" the posts were just edited.

 

[Jon_Vilma]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Mar 25 2007, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Knightz @ Mar 25 2007, 10:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His records should be counted. Because he did accomplish it. BUT it should be in a different catogory. Sorry, but we will NEVER EVER see a regular time NBA game with the score of 169-147, EVER, EVER, EVER again. It's impossible. Which I find is unfair. Your arguement with Tiger is false, because someone onday could be better than Tiger. Everyone said "No one will ever match Jack Nicklaus" Well guess what? Tiger came along. Everyones saying "No one will be better then Gretzky" But now Crosby is rising. etc, etc. Records were made to be broken, but Chamberlins scoring record will never be broken.</div>People said that when Ruth hit his 714 HR's, then again when Aaron hit 755, and now Bonds is chasing Aaron. B/c someone accomplishes something in an era where he dominates b/c everyone else is medicore, it doesn't count?? I guess Jordan's titles in the 90's shouldn't count, b/c no one dominated like Mike</div>Exactly. No one will ever dominate like Wilt, until someone does.

 

[DevinHester23]

And another thing: Wilt isn't #1 on the all-time scoring list. It's Kareem Abdul-Jabar

 

[Brooksie5]

[quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='87947' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:53 PM'][quote name='Knightz' post='87902' date='Mar 25 2007, 08:07 AM']His records should be counted. Because he did accomplish it. BUT it should be in a different catogory. Sorry, but we will NEVER EVER see a regular time NBA game with the score of 169-147, EVER, EVER, EVER again. It's impossible. Which I find is unfair. Your arguement with Tiger is false, because someone onday could be better than Tiger. Everyone said "No one will ever match Jack Nicklaus" Well guess what? Tiger came along. Everyones saying "No one will be better then Gretzky" But now Crosby is rising. etc, etc. Records were made to be broken, but Chamberlins scoring record will never be broken.[/quote]And now you are saying "No one will ever match Wilt Chamberlin." So thank you for proving my argument.[quote name='Brooksie5' post='87921' date='Mar 25 2007, 11:35 AM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='87890' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:58 AM'][quote name='Brooksie5' post='87888' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:45 PM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='87877' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:10 PM'][quote name='MLibid' post='87873' date='Mar 24 2007, 07:47 PM']Chamberlain's records are so gay. They shouldn't evne count them. They had totally different rules than they do now...[/quote]Not really they didn't. What different rules? Shot clock? Wait... that increases scoring.....And even so, you don't take away Ruth's records, you wait until someone beats them! You don't drop Jim Brown's rushing record, you wait until someone beats it.You're just pissed because it's not likely anyone will ever dominate like that again. Sorry. But that's no reason to essentially strip the record from him. That's like stripping Johnny U's name from the NFL record books.[/quote]He was like 7-1 or whatever. How tall were the people up against him? 6-5 max probably. He'd still be a top center if he were in todays game, but no chance in hell he'd score 100 in a game, or have even half of his 119 career 50+ point games.[/quote]So because he was better physically than the 6-10 and 6-11 centers back in the day, that means his records are homosexual, and should not be counted. Right.Tiger Woods is a physically fit, cut, athletic man in a field of mostly out of shape old white men. So in 30 years when the field of Golf is dominated by younger athletic guys, should we then remove Tiger's records and call them homosexual?[/quote]There weren't many 6-10, 6-11 centers back when he played. I never said they were homosexual, so don't freak out at me about that.[/quote]You called the records "gay" the posts were just edited.[/quote]No I didn't. That was MLBid. Thanks for trying though.

 

[CrimsonClown]

[quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='87947' date='Mar 25 2007, 03:53 PM'][quote name='Knightz' post='87902' date='Mar 25 2007, 08:07 AM']His records should be counted. Because he did accomplish it. BUT it should be in a different catogory. Sorry, but we will NEVER EVER see a regular time NBA game with the score of 169-147, EVER, EVER, EVER again. It's impossible. Which I find is unfair. Your arguement with Tiger is false, because someone onday could be better than Tiger. Everyone said "No one will ever match Jack Nicklaus" Well guess what? Tiger came along. Everyones saying "No one will be better then Gretzky" But now Crosby is rising. etc, etc. Records were made to be broken, but Chamberlins scoring record will never be broken.[/quote]And now you are saying "No one will ever match Wilt Chamberlin." So thank you for proving my argument.[quote name='Brooksie5' post='87921' date='Mar 25 2007, 11:35 AM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='87890' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:58 AM'][quote name='Brooksie5' post='87888' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:45 PM'][quote name='Jon_Vilma' post='87877' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:10 PM'][quote name='MLibid' post='87873' date='Mar 24 2007, 07:47 PM']Chamberlain's records are so gay. They shouldn't evne count them. They had totally different rules than they do now...[/quote]Not really they didn't. What different rules? Shot clock? Wait... that increases scoring.....And even so, you don't take away Ruth's records, you wait until someone beats them! You don't drop Jim Brown's rushing record, you wait until someone beats it.You're just pissed because it's not likely anyone will ever dominate like that again. Sorry. But that's no reason to essentially strip the record from him. That's like stripping Johnny U's name from the NFL record books.[/quote]He was like 7-1 or whatever. How tall were the people up against him? 6-5 max probably. He'd still be a top center if he were in todays game, but no chance in hell he'd score 100 in a game, or have even half of his 119 career 50+ point games.[/quote]So because he was better physically than the 6-10 and 6-11 centers back in the day, that means his records are homosexual, and should not be counted. Right.Tiger Woods is a physically fit, cut, athletic man in a field of mostly out of shape old white men. So in 30 years when the field of Golf is dominated by younger athletic guys, should we then remove Tiger's records and call them homosexual?[/quote]There weren't many 6-10, 6-11 centers back when he played. I never said they were homosexual, so don't freak out at me about that.[/quote]You called the records "gay" the posts were just edited.[/quote]But no one will ever match Chamberlin. You honestly believe an NBA game will have both teams scoring 140+ points? You actually think an NBA player would get 100 points? Sorry, but there is a screw loose in your head. The only way that's possible is if a player goes something rediculous like 50/62 from the field. It's impossible in this day of age where you can't "Cherry Pick". And players now adays are guardable. Everyone on the floor is an athlete. It's a team game for a reason. You just can't seem to comprehend the simple fact that you sir are wrong. And that's fine, I can't change your mind and you can't mine. But inside your tiny peanut sized brain you know I'm right and you are wrong.Have a good night, I am off to bed. I'll get at you people tomorrow. Later. :yess:

 

[DevinHester23]

Did the NBA ban cherry-picking? And say Shaq was the height of Yao Ming with the size he has, he could, b/c he'd be taller than everyone, and bigger than everyone. He'd just catch the ball, and jam it. But yeah, unless you cherry-pick, you can't score 100 points.And one more thing about Kobe not having any assists b/c his cast sucks, well LeBron's sucks too, and he is a league leader in assists

 

[Jon_Vilma]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Mar 25 2007, 07:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Did the NBA ban cherry-picking? And say Shaq was the height of Yao Ming with the size he has, he could, b/c he'd be taller than everyone, and bigger than everyone. He'd just catch the ball, and jam it. But yeah, unless you cherry-pick, you can't score 100 points.And one more thing about Kobe not having any assists b/c his cast sucks, well LeBron's sucks too, and he is a league leader in assists</div>Lebron has a legit center to dump to, and a good shooting guard that can take shots with him. Kobe doesn't have that.Ilgauskas might not be Shaq, but he's certainly not Kwame / Bynum (whomever they start that night).And I'll take Larry Hughes over the sporadic Lamar Odom any day of the week.In fact, I'd trade every player on the Lakers' starting lineup straight across for the Cavs' starting lineup aside from the stars.Snow > SmushHughes > OdomGooden/Marshall > CookIlgauskas > Kwame/Bynum

 

[chang]

100 points can be matched.Kobe had 81 points and didn't even play all 48 minutes (benched for 6 minutes). His performance was 28-46 from the field 7-13 from 3 18-20 from the stripe. You'd basically have to have a perfect game to get 100 but Kobe missed 18 shots, 7 from 3. If he made all his 3s, that's 39 points by itself. Plus the 18 would make 57 points. There's about 88 shot attempts per game so if he took more shot attempts as well, he could have matched 100.That being said, Wilt did it without a 3 point line.

 

[DevinHester23]

So he scores 43 points today. He has 268 points his last 5 games. In that same time, he has only 11 assists

 

[Jon_Vilma]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DevinHester23 @ Mar 25 2007, 09:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So he scores 43 points today. He has 268 points his last 5 games. In that same time, he has only 11 assists</div>And they won their last 5 games.... :thumbsuprevious 5 games Kobe played in....151 points.36 assists.5 losses.