Leaderboard

Why not include games he shot over 30 shots? vs. Cleveland 11-33 (.333), 35 points vs. Cleveland 12-31 (.387), 31 points vs. Portland 14-37 (.378), 32 points And here are when he attempts 20-24 shots... bold is over 46%. vs. Thunder 9-22 (.409), 31 points vs. Hornets 11-21 (.524), 28 points vs. Phoenix 13-21 (.619), 29 points vs. Houston 5-20 (.250), 18 points vs. Chicago 7-21 (.333), 21 points vs. Thunder 11-23 (.478), 26 points vs. Knicks 14-20 (.700), 34 points vs. Warriors 8-20 (.400), 20 points vs. Utah 7-24 (.292), 16 points vs. Nets 12-23 (.522), 29 points vs. Bucks 11-23 (.478), 28 points vs. Houston 9-23 (.391), 22 points vs. Bucks 4-21 (.190), 12 points vs. Clippers 10-20 (.500), 30 points vs. Knicks 8-24 (.333), 27 points vs. Raptors 11-24 (.458), 27 points vs. 76ers 10-22 (.455), 24 points vs. Celtics 8-20 (.400), 19 points vs. Nuggets 11-22 (.500), 33 points vs. Dallas 9-23 (.391), 20 points vs. Bobcats 9-21 (.429), 26 points vs. Raptors 11-20 (.550), 32 points vs. Atlanta 12-21 (.571), 28 points vs. Utah 5-23 (.217), 25 points vs. Spurs 8-24 (.333), 22 points vs. Blazers 8-23 (.348), 20 points Kobe shot over 46% in around 38.5% of games where he shot 20-24 shots. Kobe shot over 46% in around 66% of games where he shot over 25 shots. But only 25% of those games were against teams with over 50 wins. 41.6% of those games were against teams with over 45 wins.

Kobe has been chucking. But keep in mind how many of his shots are late in the 24 bail the team out jumpers. When nothing works the default late in the 24 is give it to Kobe and see what he can do, because no other Laker starter can create off the dribble. He's also hurt by having no point guard that can draw the defense and set him up. The vast majority of the time Bryant has to create his own looks. Fault for that rests with Kupchak, Jackson and Fisher/Farmar. Have a 1 that's at least competent instead of the pure crap they have and Kobe's chucking decreases and his fg% goes up.

Depends on the landscape/circumstances. 112k is a hell of a lot of people, probably wouldn't even need guns if the marines were bunched up in a group. Bullets would still kill a marine. Grenades/automatic guns would do a lot of damage, but 112k is simply too much if they were charging the marines. Now if it was 112k British soldiers vs 100 masterchiefs, that would be a different story. British soldiers gun would not be able to penetrate through materchiefs armor, throw a few plasma grenades, whip out a rocket launcher/flame thrower and gg. He also has a great track record vs the elites/brutes, im sure he could handle 112k British soldiers.

I know that I am usually pretty harsh on the Heat on here, mostly because I disagree with basically everything that Flash says and a fair amount of what Poe says , but I have to give them credit for a very gutsy performance tonight. I thought that they were going to pull it out at the end, but they were beat by a superior team on a last second shot. No harm in that. - Beasley played a very strong 4th quarter hitting some nice jumpers as well as grabbing a few tough rebounds in traffic. He had a nice shooting night, which is great to see if you are a Heat fan considering how poorly he played in the first two games of the series back in Boston. I still would like to see him be more aggressive on offense and not settle as much. I know that he isn't necessarily always utilized in a way that helps him get to the line or anything, but when he gets the ball and has players like Glen Davis on him and he doesn't look to attack him off of the dribble, well, lets just say that I can understand why some people get so frusturated with him. Luckily for the Heat his jumper was effective tonight so at least he was still scoring on these kinds of mismatches. - I thought that Chalmers played really well tonight from what I saw. He did a very good job of fighting through screens and keeping up with Allen off of the ball, which is definitely not an easy thing to do as Allen is superb at utilizing screens and getting open, whenever he was matched up with him. Allen did drop 25 points on 50% shooting, but I thought that the Heat, Chalmers in particular, did a really nice job of making him shoot tough shots. He only shot 4-11 from three and a majority of those misses were because of the defense that Chalmers played on him. - Haslem played well off of the bench as well. I didn't like that shot he took when the game was tied at 98 (I think it was 98) as he tried to do too much with the ball which resulted in an off balance jumper from him, which isn't exactly the kind of shot I would want to see from Haslem in a tied game. Outside of that though, I thought he did a good job of converting on his opportunities and providing the Heat with good hustle both offensively and defensively. - Wright played one of the best games I have seen from him. When I hear Poe and Flash rave about how good Wright is I always chalk it up to homerism on their part, and I still do somewhat, but I can see where they are coming from a bit more now (I still think that there is a fair amount of homerism involved though, haha). He did a good job of hitting open shots from the perimeter, but he wasn't just spotting up as he did a nice job of creating for his teamamtes with his 5 assists, which gave the Heat's offense more diversity rather than just relying on Wade to do anything. He got to the line a team high 5 times tonight, which is something that the Heat need to do more of. I thought he did a pretty good job on Pierce as well, despite the fact that Pierce scored 32 points tonight and there was only a couple times where I thought he played bad defense. Unfortunately for Miami, one of those times just happened to be on the final possession of the game. - Ironically enough, I thought that Wade played pretty poorly tonight. I know that he had 34 points and 8 assists tonight, but I wasn't really too impressed with his performance. I thought that he settled way too much tonight and was too passive on offense. There is absolutely no reason at all that Wade should attempt 11 three pointers in a game. When Wade is settling for long range jumpers not only is he taking a low percentage shot, considering his inconsistent 3 point shot, but he is making the Heat's offense easy to defend as nobody else is getting the great looks that they normally do off of his penetration. Don't get me wrong, he didn't have a terrible game, but I wasn't really all that impressed with the way that he played tonight. After watching the first 3 games of this series on and off, I know understand why the Heat were trying to throw that game against the Nets in order to fall to 6th and play the Hawks. The Celtics are just a terrible matchup for the Heat because of the style of play that they play is so similar to the way that the Heat play. All of the things that the Heat do well, the Celtics do almost all of those things better than the Heat do. I can definitely see why the Heat would've rathered to play the Hawks in the first round instead.

What a stupid shot by Wade. He had a decent look at it and all, but there is no reason why he should take a pull up three when Ray Allen is defending him, especially when you consider that you had Wright who had just knocked down a huge three earlier, Beasly who has been effective in the quarter and Haslem who has a very good short corner jumper. Add to the fact that Wade isn't really a great three point shooter either. He definitely should've attacked Allen off of the bounce and if the defense collapses, then you kick it out for a three pointer. EDIT: And Pierce hits a step back jumper from about 20 feet over Wright to give the Celtics the 100-98 victory and a commanding 3-0 series win. Wright can't let Pierce go to his right there. You have to force him left and take away that hard dribble to his right step back move that Pierce is so good at.

More complete ratings:

I think someone like Brandon Roy would've been a better, more distinguishable example for this topic. Both Anthony and Durant are chiefly scorers, and mostly any advantage either player has is arguable, and probably very narrow. To answer the question, it varies. All-around brilliance is preferred, but at the same time, efficient volume scorers like Durant are also absolute game-changers, so it's tough to evaluate. The importance is weighted, with scoring being the highest. For me, I believe players should be individually judged based on how impactful they are and how well they can carry their teams. And it's not that overall play is being neglected, scoring is just the most prominent aspect. So yes, individual scoring can trump overall play, but it also can't.

Obviously the whole point of posting pictures is so the casual voter doesn't have to spend time researching. When one side has full body shots while being higher quality, and the other has lower quality photos with a limited view, it's obviously going to sway the votes quite a bit. I'm not going to go any further into this. It's really not a big deal.

Honestly I am surprised it took Kobe until game 3 to shoot under 40% on over 25 shots. Also in reference the referee stuff, it is no secret the Cavaliers/Lakers are reffed differently than the Toronto Raptors or Milwaukee Bucks for example. Complaining about refs <.... most of the time it isn't even worth mentioning, I only say it to get people mad

Thats alright, when the Cavs lose Lebron wont talk to the media either.

http://nedroid.com/imagesb/partycat01.gif http://nedroid.com/imagesb/partycat02.gif http://nedroid.com/imagesb/partycat03.gif http://nedroid.com/imagesb/partycat04.gif http://nedroid.com/imagesb/partycat05.jpg http://nedroid.com/imagesb/partycat06.gif

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but I never suggested any restrictions on teaching kids about religion, nor am I telling anyone to drop their religion. Actually, I encourage all Christians, including you, to read the Bible and attend Church. It astounds me that so many people say they put their beliefs into a book they've never read. So please, if you haven't, read the Bible. I don't think too many atheists will deny the existence of Jesus. They will deny that he was the son of a god. When a child asks, in an unbiased way, present the Christian view of how things started and the scientific view. Then let them decide. If Christianity is truly the correct view, then you should have no problems. Atheism is a lack of a belief by definition. Actually, it's Chrisitians that normally make the claim that atheists have a belief, as if not believing in God somehow means that they have faith that there is no God. Atheists aren't the ones making any claims. We just choose to deny religious claims, and refuse to believe until presented with proof, just like anything else. Also, about how old the Earth is, your asking me questions about things that I simply don't know, and I accept that I don't know. No answer is better than a made up answer. Christians claim that the Earth is about 6 or so thousand years old. Do you have any proof of this? The fact that it's written in a book written a long time ago does not count as proof.

Sorry, but... huh? The only reason you don't have time for college is if you already have a job. Religion is way different from education. Christians believe that you need to practice the belief in order to go to Heaven when you die, which is eternal while life on earth is supposedly just a temporary part of your life. A test as a lot of Christians say. If part of this test is to be loyal to your religion, attend church, read the bible, pray to God, etc. There is no way you can't find time for it, since eternal life after death is a lot more important than anything else that would be in the way of your time. At least I would think so. Seriously, though. It's one book and one hour each week, while college obviously takes a much bigger chunk of your time and effort.

Sex is natural, alcohol is a drink not a teaching, science is all around you, and math.. well, I'm sure a caveman can figure out if a rock plus a rock equals two rocks. Point is, if someone was never taught that a god existed, or had any idea about religion whatsoever, and had him grow up in a normal environment. Chances are, he won't even have a clue what a god is. When introduced to it as an adult, he will probably be more questioning about it, and may even demand evidence. This is not related to my original idea, btw. I'm not suggesting that children should be kept completely away from religion by law. Can you learn about Islam, and perhaps read the Qur'an and such, without becoming Muslim? If you can, then I'm sure parents can expose their kids to their religion without officially naming them a Christian. Also, telling a child that he absolutely must be Christian only because his parents are is extremely unfair to the child, especially in his early developmental stages of his life when a child is basically programmed to believe anything that's told to him. A child should only be taught about religion, not unquestionably forced into believing it. This is why I want a rule like this in place, so children will learn religion is a choice not a must, hopefully giving them a more open minded point of view.

I never said a word about a child not being allowed in church, and I said specifically I don't want restrictions on parenting. A parent can take their kids to church and teach them all they want about Christian beliefs. The only rule I'm suggesting is that someone can't be named to a belief system until they are old enough to decide themselves. They can do whatever they want with the religion. Go to church, read the Bible, even pray to God if they want to. Just simply not officially named a Christian. I'm sure plenty of parents will influence their kids into saying "when I grow up, I wanna be a good Christian". Difference is, by the time they come of age, there's a little more pressure into deciding if they truly found the right religion. And that is what I'm aiming for. On a side note, I would also encourage schools to teach all the major religions in this world, including mythology. It would need to be taught in an unbiased perspective, of course. Well again, kids can be taught about Christianity (or Islam, etc) if their parents choose to teach it. There is no reason to ban that. And besides, if religion isn't important enough for people "to have time for it", then I guess there isn't really a need for it to be there in the first place. I'm glad you agree that if children actually aren't taught religion, then it probably wouldn't exist anymore. Science and religion are two completely different things. There is no reason not to teach something that is supported by evidence.

Personally, I don't think religion should be banned. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to ban it anyway, you'd have to control people's minds. If someone wants to have "faith" that something is there when it's not, there's not a whole lot you can do about it. There's not a whole lot of reason to care as long as it's kept as something personal and people don't act upon their religion, which isn't possible unfortunately since as long as religion is still there, people are going to try to spread it, and even worse, use it as a reason to torture and kill. One rule I think the US should make, though, is to ban naming a child into a religion until a certain age, preferably 18. Not banning parents from teaching Christianity - or whatever religion they have - to their kids, just banning the label until they are old enough to independently choose what religion they wish to be a part of, if any at all. The reason I say this rule should be made is many parents in the US will say their child is going to be a "Christian child", or whatever. Pretty much, many parents, if not most parents in the US and around the world, name their kids as a part of a certain religion before they are able to think for themselves. This is indoctrination. Though I don't think it would be a good idea to make rules against allowing parents to raise their children however they want, I do think a rule like this should be made. Again, it's not restricting what parents can teach their kids, just banning the label. I think this rule can help give kids the perspective that Christianity is a choice and not a must. And hopefully as an indirect result, more people that become of age and choose to be committed to their religion of choice may even consider routinely going to church, or actually reading the Bible. I read a statistic that nearly 90% of Christians around the world have never read the Bible cover to cover. That actually doesn't surprise me. As for all that government stuff, I don't have a particular stance yet. I honestly haven't put much thinking into it.