Nitro

But yeah, the ridiculous thing about his 62pts was literally every field goal except 2-3 were jumpers, most of them really difficult attempts.

Here is 82 games' sortable clutch stats from last season: http://www.82games.com/0910/CSORT10.HTM Overall, I'd say either Nash or Nowitzki out of the players who shoot a decent volume of FT's in the clutch.

Honestly I have no idea...they have so much versatility and depth that it could go so many different ways. I do think that they are gonna be one of those teams where the starting lineup will look different than the go-to 4th quarter lineup. I would not be surprised to see any of these 4 lineups: Chalmers/Wade/James/Bosh/Z Chalmers/Wade/James/Bosh/Anthony Wade/Miller/James/Bosh/Anthony House/Wade/James/Bosh/Anthony

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDzRvZcFn48 What a douche. Not as bad as Ricky Davis, though... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MezCclCSjNw

No one is really sure what they're gonna do with their lineup yet. I've head LeBron might be PG, House might be PG, Miller will start, Miller will not start, Big Z will start, Anthony will start, etc... Until the season starts the only sure-fire bet is Bron/Wade/Bosh will start.

Tryeke Evans. He's a much better scorer who's also more efficient from both the field and 3 (not saying he's a good 3pt shooter, but he's better than Westbrook). Evans is a legitimate go-to guy while Westbrook is more of a 2nd or 3rd option. That can be seen when you look at both player's stats in the clutch last year; Westbrook didn't score on volume and was inefficient as a scorer and playmaker. Evans was much more efficient, scored on higher volume and also handled the ball better. As for the other parts of their games, Westbrook is the better defender and maybe passer, while Evans is the better rebounder. Give me Evans. Love his playing style, and think he's going to end up being a less talented hybrid of Wade and LeBron.

The West is really tough. I'll just give my top 8... 1) Lakers 2) Mavericks (probably choke in playoffs, but they'll win a lot of regular season games) 3) Nuggets 4) Blazers 5) Thunder 6) Spurs 7) Jazz 8) Suns (I doubted them in 2005-2006 when they lost Amare...won't make that mistake again)

Again, it's really only grown from an athletic standpoint. Skill-wise it has regressed. It should be no surprise that Steve Nash, one of the least athletic PG's in the league, is also arguably the best offensive PG (I'd pick Paul, but it's debatable at least). For all the new technology and such, players don't know how to fully take advantage of it because they weren't taught many of the fundementals growing up because they were allowed to dominate in AAU leagues on pure athleticism. I mean, even if you look at the stars of the league today, so many of them are dumb as a brick when it comes to certain, simple philosophies. I agree with pretty much everything. There is no doubt the Spurs of a few seasons ago, Celtics and 2004-2005 Pistons are some of the greaest defensive teams in NBA history. However, I would say as a league, the mid-late '90's were more of a defensive league than today's NBA. If you look at the numbers, the defensive ratings, PPG, FG % and pace were all a bit lower during the mid-late '90's than in the NBA during the last 3 seasons. Also, I will say the one thing that Kobe doesn't have to face that Jordan did is the 3 second rule on defense. If you look at one of his other videos, he clearly shows plenty of instances where Kobe/LeBron get free paths to the basket because players are so weary of getting the 3 second call. In the '80's and '90's where there were so many great shot-blockers and defensive Centers, I do think that makes a difference.

Only listened to Let 'Em Know, which is a sick track (gotta love Premier). Definitely will take a listent to the rest of the album when I got the chance.

Real Deal, just a few things... -I really don't think using any more zone than what was allowed in Jordan's era makes any substantial difference to their offensive production. The zone is not hard to beat as long as you make the correct, efficient plays. Look at the way Wade sliced up the Celtics' defense this post-season, averaging 33/7/6 on over 56% shooting for the series. Besides his obvious 3pt outburst at the end of Game 4, he was making sharp decisions on how to attack the defense and he had the ability to weave through the help defense to get to the rim (much like MJ in the original video I posted where they show him dodging Rodman for the layup). There's a reason why they took away hand-checking and allowed zone...to increase offense league-wise. -Yes, Jordan in the '80's played in a more uptempo league. However, look at what Jordan did when he came back from essentially 2 years of retirement back at the start of the 2nd 3-peat- 30/7/4 on 50% shooting (43% from 3), and that was with him playing the 2nd lowest minutes of his career up until that point. During that season the league average for PPG and FG % were both lower than the 2010 NBA season. That post-season he dropped over 35pts in 3 of the 5 games against the Knicks. He gutted the GREAT Miami Heat defense in the post-season in 1997. As he did against the Bad Boy Pistons, where games were low-scoring for that decade. -Honestly, I think putting into effective defensive 3-second rules as well as taking out hand-checking is more beneficial to the defensive player than the eventual legality of the zone (which was less enforced than the current hand-checking and 3-second rule). IMO of course.

http://lakers.topbuzz.com/a-499.html Even though the dialogue is clearly cleaned up and probably far-fetched, the overall story is pretty fascinating. It isn't the best written piece ever, but it's just a fan article chronicling events that took place in the 2 books he referenced. Just thought ya'll would enjoy the read.

It's not the fact that you feel Kobe is better than MJ that is bothering me. You certainly have that right. But some of you're reasons are ridiculous, specifically how you undermine just how good the level of competition and defense was in the '80's and '90's. But it's whatever, don't get back to me, just do yourself a favor and study up on some classic NBA before making some of those statements.

Keeping the theme, here's is T-Mac's 62pt game... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnWZ1T7Gk4s That defense by Laetner at the 18 second mark is about as bad as you will ever see. Seriously, wtf is THAT? And at 2:08 is arguably the sickest pullup 3 ever.

Kobe's own words just a few days ago: “I believe that the system works best right now is not the US system, I believe it is the European system. Because they develop basketball players, and they teach them the skills. I think the European system has jumped over US system.” http://www.ballineurope.com/us-basketball/nba/kobe-bryant-on-european-basketball-player-development-4203/ The reason that started changing is largely because of none other than...MJ. I think that can be seen with how so many players of the late '90's/early '00's played. That's started to blow over, but what Kobe said in that quote is basically a simplified version of what I said in my last post. Another example is the 2002 WC's, 2004 Olympics and 2006 WC's where the US had far more talented, athletic team than any other country, and likely better equipment to prepare and such. They lost largely because team's schooled the US team using fundementals and skill. But, I won't bother arguing it either...just do me a favor and watch some Jordan videos against those elite '80's and '90's defenses, and take a look at the incredible stats he put up in those series'. Then get back to me.

As RD said and as the video shows with the floating zone, those rules weren't heavily enforced. And I really don't know how you can say defenses today are so much better when the '90's were the best defensive era in NBA history (not to mention the slowest paced which hurts stats). The video clearly shows just how physical the defenses could get, including a quote that says, "You couldn't guard MJ without putting your hands on him." If you take a look at his series' against the Bad Boy Pistons, where they threw a make-shift zone with one of the best perimeter defenders of all-time (Joe Dumars) hand-checking Jordan and playing physical, as well as Rodman and other hip-checking Jordan on every cut, and he STILL had unbelievable statistical series'...I mean, I don't know what to say if you discount what Jordan did against those types of defenses because of some belief that athletes today are SO much more advanced. Take a look at the video and the type of defense those Knicks and Pistons played against Jordan. They were relentless. Yeah, because Jordan's 37PPG season or 32/8/8 season or MVP/DPOY awards in the '80's was against inferior competition...right. You do know the '80's had the most stacked teams in NBA history, right? That was before expansion and the league started to get a little diluted in the '90's. The level of competition was the highest in league history during the '80's. And it's not like he was playing against a bunch of unathletic, unconditioned boys. You're drastically underrated the athletes the '80's and '90's had (not just the top guys like MJ and Nique, but the overall average player). Smarter... Really? Just because they have access to so much information doesn't mean many players take advantage of it. Generally speaking players today are less intelligent today than back in the '80's and '90's because there is far less emphasis on actual refined skill as opposed to athleticism when the players are in middle and high school (even in college to a degree). If you look at players back in the '80's and '90's, they were a lot more fundementally sound and were much better at understanding basic concepts of the game that many players today fail to grasp. This makes a HUGE difference to the quality of play as athleticism only gets you so far (see- Amare and his defense). As for being more well-trained, I agree...however, it's not like we're comparing today's NBA to 1950's or 1960's basketball. The '80's and '90's each had their fair share of freak athletes, and really the level of athleticism and conditioning wasn't much different than nowadays.

Lol I needed to smoke a cigarette before making this reply... Here's the relevance- From 1999-2003, the one post-season Kobe out-scored Shaq the team didn't win a championship, especially in the Spurs series where Kobe was inefficient while Shaq was extremely efficient. I used that to show that with Kobe getting the chance to really be "the man" the team lost. The relevance in bringing up what Shaq did in the Finals vs. Hakeem was to show that O'Neal could and did put up unbelievable production against arguably the greatest interior defender in NBA history. I used it to counter you saying Shaq didn't face great Centers in the 3-peat, which was your way of minimizing Shaq's ability. I agree Shaq wasn't the greatest defensive player in the world, but to say all he did was score and rebound well is really undermining his true impact. If you are going to use Kobe's shot selection as a way to account for his relatively low (or average) FG % as you have done in other arguements, then you have to say Shaq's assists aren't as high as Kobe's because he's a big man. What I am getting at is while Kobe facilitated the offense and did rack up more assists, Shaq's ability to effectively collapse an entire defense and consistently kick out to shooters and throw the defense off-balance was just as valuable. It is the same reason Pau Gasol is so effective in the triangle, although Shaq made it work much better for obvious reasons. Also, the attention Shaq drew made things so much easier for all his teammates, including Kobe (yes, Kobe also drew attention off Shaq, but not to the same extent). Really most of my arguement is geared towards what they did during the 3-peat and when they both played in the post-season, but I don't know what bringing up Shaq's gamelog before the 3-peat has anything to do with the arguement. I know Shaq had his injury problems before, during and after the 3-peat. But just because he missed games doesn't mean that when Shaq was playing (as he did during every post-season and final stretch of the regular season) he should have given the reigns of the team to Kobe just because Kobe had to pick up the slack when Shaq was injured. And what about Kobe's injury problems? He played in only 66 games in '99-'00, 68 games in '00-'01 and 65 games in '03-'04 (and all season he wasn't quite right). Can't account for his 1998 series against Malone or 1999 series against Duncan. But a few points...against the Jazz in 1998, Shaq scored 31, 39 and 38 points in those last 3 games, never shooting below 56.5% and he did out-rebound Malone half those games. Also, Corie Blount was hitting the boards hard for the Lakers that series, grabbing over 10 boards twice. Seems like your really nit-picking on Shaq that series (especially since that was the series where Kobe famously shot those clutch airballs). As for the 1999 series against Duncan, it isn't like Duncan killed him. Duncan shot over 48% only once while Shaq stayed efficient, it's just that they did an above average job of minimizing his shot attempts for the most part. Also, that was when Duncan was a surprisingly athletic PF, so I don't think you can really discount Shaq much for what Duncan did that series offensively. Honeslty, 2 average/below average and 2 above average series against one of the greatest defensive teams with the greatest PF in NBA history really shouldn't be much of a knock on Shaq. He proved throughout his career he could still a dominant force even against those defenders. Not completely unstoppable, but still about as good as one could do. And regardless, it doesn't change the fact that those "inferior" defenders during the 3-peat couldn't stop Shaq and he was close to unstoppable. He was a better, more dominant player during those seasons and post-seasons than Kobe, and was the emotional leader. Clear #1 and #2, even if it was the closest a 1-2 punch has ever been in terms of impact and ability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9UROqDUEFA Game Statline: 46pts (16-27 shooting), 13ast, 10reb, 2blk 2002-2003 Season Statline: 32.5PPG, 6.5RPG, 5.5APG, 45.7% FG, 38.6% 3PT, 79.3% FT, 1.7SPG For any of ya'll that forgot, this is T-Mac when he was at his absolute peak. That season he led the league in scoring, became one of the only guards in NBA history with a PER of over 30 (I believe only Jordan and Wade have accomplished that), and overall just dominated. Of course as we all know he failed to get the Magic out of the 1st round (despite averaging 32/7/5 on 45% shooting in the playoffs), but this season he was absolutely unbelievable. For all the hype about the potential Durant and other young players in the league currently have, T-Mac truly had the talent and skill to be the GOAT. His game was almost as polished and well-rounded as Kobe's, but he had greater size and IMO athleticism (his first step was the best I have ever seen). Unfortunately his heart and body just wouldn't allow him to meet that potential. Anyways, hope ya'll enjoy the video. PS- This came 2 days after he dropped 52pts on the Bulls.

+1 indeed.

Haha yeah I played Derrick Caracter when he was on St. Patricks. He isn't even on JR's level but it was still a helluva experience. When JR was drafted my aunt said she taught him in an English class in HS, but I always took her word with a grain of salt.

There will be players that are better than MJ, just like there were players that were better than Wilt/Russel/Magic/Bird/etc... However, the issue that all future players will have when being compared to MJ is his list of individual accolades, team accomplishments and the ability to change the game on a global level. It is going to be a near impossible feat for so many reasons, but eventually someone will come along and have a similar impact with possibly even more skill.

Tried for an hour last night searching the lyrics and could find NOTHING (except a Yahoo Answers page where some guy asked the same question and the guy responding gave the name of the wrong song).

I've been to so many NBA games, probably over 100 because I had Nets season tickets when they were the laughing stock in the NBA. Some notable games I've been to... Nets vs. Magic 2002 (Saw T-Mac for the first time, the game where he fought K-Mart and got ejected. From that day on T-Mac was my favorite player) Nets vs. Bulls w/Jordan (Don't remember the game, just remember MJ and his trainer being the only people on the court about 45min before tipoff, practicing one dribble fadeaways. I cherish this memory) Nets vs. Suns 161-157 (Kidd had a monster 42/14/14 type triple double and Nash went for like 44, his career points mark. Best game ever.) Nets vs. Raptors 2007 playoffs (Kidd had like 18/16/18, Nets won) Nets vs. Cavs 2003 (LeBron's first game in NJ) Nets vs. Pistons 2004 playoffs (One Rip Hamilton shot away from beating the eventual champs) Nets vs. Heat 2006 playoffs (Heat during their run to the championship) Nets vs. Nuggets 2007 (Only memorable because JR's from NJ and he was doing INSANE pre-game dunks) Nets vs. Celtics 2006 (2 days after the Suns game. Pierce hit the game-winner at the buzzer)

C'mon...Shaq led the league in scoring his 3rd season, and FG % his 2nd season. That was when the league was saturated with very good big men...Olajuwon, Ewing, Zo, Deke, Robinson, and the list goes on and on. Secondly, if you're leading the league in scoring (like Shaq did in 1999-2000) or in the top 5 while also leading the league in FG % and FTA is that not a huge indicator of pure dominance? As for the Finals, yes, Shaq didn't have to face the greatest big men. But back when Orlando made the Finals he did average 28PPG/ 12.5RPG/ 6.3APG/ 2.5BPG/ 59% shooting against Hakeem Olajuwon in his absolute prime, and that was before Shaq gained weight and became even more difficult to defend. Shaq also went through the Robinson/Duncan Spurs a number of times. And fact of the matter is even if he didn't have to go through the best Centers in NBA history during the 3-peat, it doesn't change just how dominating he was. I disagree with your assessment. The reason the Lakers lost was the offense was too Kobe-centric, and the defense. In the first game Kobe took 38(!!!) shot attempts while Shaq took 20. Loss. In 3 of the 4 losses Kobe had 5 TO's or more, which is inexcusible. Kobe never shot 50% or better once in the series, while Shaq shot below 50% only once. I mean, you can break it down all you want, but the answer to the riddle is fundemental and plain to see. You're absolutely right...the key to stopping the Lakers was Kobe because NO ONE COULD STOP SHAQ!!! That's the entire point of my arguement. You can't play the what-if game against Shaq. It's like me saying, "Well, if you put a prime Bowen on Kobe in the 2009 NBA Finals, Kobe wouldn't have averaged 30PPG," or, "If 2008 KG was defending Gasol in the 2010 Finals, the Lakers would've lost the series and Gasol wouldn't have did what he did." Fact of the matter is that Shaq was the best and most dominating player in the entire league during the 3-peat, while everyone else was a distant 2nd or 3rd (and I would argue Duncan, not Kobe, was the 2nd best player in the league those years). No one could defend Shaq 1 on 1 as he required more defensive attention than any player I have ever seen (including 2006 Kobe and including MJ). He was the centerpiece of the Lakers, he was the 1st option (yes, Kobe took more shot attempts some seasons, but Shaq led the team in FGM and FTA each 3-peat season), he was the guy defenses planned their defense around, he was the team's best player and he was generally regarded as the emotional leader (from what I seemed to gather during their run).

I lol'd at this quote from the RealGM board... No, Pat Riley is the guy who convinced God to sign for the vet minimum.