Who was more important?

[Multi-Billionaire]

You amaze me, I don't recall ever saying that truthfully.

 

I was pissed yes, but it had little to do with who beat us. I was pissed we sucked and got out of the first round again. I'm guessing you're taking it the wrong way again

 

I wouldn't be able to predict anything largely because I or other Nugget fans have no idea how well Afflalo and Lawson are going to be with their roles. Lawson especially could be anything from exceptional, to average to total bust. I can see him average as high as 15 ppg, or he can be total bust and when Karl gets tired of giving him minutes, he'd be overshadowed by Anthony Carter for the whole season and is a non factor. But if Lawson can be exceptional, it'd be huge because right now we abosulety have no offense off the bench.

 

Or how about Afflalo? He stepped in when Rip and AI got hurt and played nice... I believe he averaged something like 9+ ppg as a starter, is a deadly spot up corner three pt shooter and plays physical Bruce Bowen like defense. Can he be that, or even better, or be an afterthought?

 

We also would have a season high 7 road games (East coast trip) in a row in November. We will miss J.R. the first 7 games due to suspension (thanks Stern)... and who is going to be injured (knock on wood)??

 

 

We haven't signed a wing to complete our roster and may not be done with trades. Wark notes the Chauncey trade was done in November and he said he might very well do it again.

 

 

I'll keep in mind what you said about us losing in the second round though... It should be fun.

[Real Deal]

I wouldn't mind if you put my prediction (just the actual prediction line) in your signature. That would be great.

 

Make it a second round loss to anyone, even though I think they'll run right into San An.

 

Or we can just keep it in this topic. Whatever you wish.

[Multi-Billionaire]

Sticky this thread and no dramas

 

And maybe you can edit the title as "RD's predictions of Nuggets".

Edited September 11, 2009 by Snake

[Real Deal]

I'm not going to pin the topic. I'll remember it well when the time comes to bump it (as should you).

[Sun Tzu]

I don't see how Iverson was that important for the Nuggets in 2008... well compared to how important Billups was this recent season.

[Real Deal]

Just found out that Iverson's PER was higher in 2008 than Billups' PER in 2009, and the same goes for his win shares.

 

Iverson also had a higher eFG%.

 

In fact, Iverson's defensive win share was higher as well.

 

Pretty crazy all the things you find out using facts (stats).

 

So I guess we can conclude that Iverson was the better player for the Denver Nuggets for everything but leadership?

 

I'll definitely accept that conclusion. Thumbs up to Billups for his Derek Fisher role.

[Force]

You're using stats a little too much Brandon.

 

Gerald Wallace once averaged 2 spg, and 2 bpg...does that make him a better defender than prime-Bowen, or Battier?

[Multi-Billionaire]

^Thank you.

 

Keep going with stats, Brandon, that's why you get lost. You no longer have idea which players you should root for and which players truly deserve criticisms. Which players you should believe in.

 

Check the poll, it's 10 vs. 3. Until Camilo mentions the very "Gerald Wallace being an elite defender" debate I once had with HG, I just remember that stats are truly misleading. Heck, the Marcus Cambys, the Corey Maggettes, and Zach Randolphs. Go figure.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Snake

[Real Deal]

Ah. When did I mention that Allen Iverson was the better defensive player? Please, anyone, let me know by quoting it on any message board I've ever posted at.

 

In fact, go to RealGM, where I even stated in Snake's topic that Billups would more than likely teach the team to play better defense, as he's the better defensive player.

 

Gotta start reading the posts, guys.

[moeroadkill]

question for me is who is more likely going to take u into the NBA finals?

and who is willing to make a sacrifice for the team?

answer is obvious.

[Real Deal]

question for me is who is more likely going to take u into the NBA finals?

and who is willing to make a sacrifice for the team?

answer is obvious.

Strictly for the sake of discussion, who is more likely to get into the Finals:

 

Dwight Howard and Allen Iverson, or...

 

Dwight Howard and Chauncey Billups?

[moeroadkill]

i dont know what u mean by that or what point you are trying to make

but depends on their teams.

i guess dwight

[Real Deal]

i dont know what u mean by that or what point you are trying to make

but depends on their teams.

i guess dwight

Nah, out of the two duos two years ago (using 2008 because it goes with the topic).

 

So, in 2008, what duo would more than likely make the Finals?

 

a) Dwight Howard and Allen Iverson

b) Dwight Howard and Chauncey Billups

 

I'm putting my money on Iverson and Howard, while Iverson was dropping his 27-28 a game at 45-46% shooting, seven assists.

 

Would anyone like to make an argument that Billups is a better primary scoring option?

 

Yes, it most certainly does depend on the team. Billups is a better second-option scorer. Iverson is a better offensive leader.

 

Who would do better with the Charlotte Bobcats? Iverson. A Billups-led Bobcats team would fare just about as much as his past teams, before he was teamed up with Rip, Prince, Sheed and Big Ben.

 

It was Denver's frontcourt that won them four extra games, and put them into the WCF.

[Multi-Billionaire]

^Thing is this is not NBA JAM. 4 people on a court.

 

 

Ah. When did I mention that Allen Iverson was the better defensive player? Please, anyone, let me know by quoting it on any message board I've ever posted at.

 

In fact, go to RealGM, where I even stated in Snake's topic that Billups would more than likely teach the team to play better defense, as he's the better defensive player.

 

Gotta start reading the posts, guys.

 

What Camilo meant by bringing in Gerald Wallace is not to describe AI defensively. It's to point at the "stats" you have been using. Gerald Wallace's defensive stats are a good example to say stats often mislead, whether they are offensive or defensive stats.

[Real Deal]

^Thing is this is not NBA JAM. 4 people on a court.

Right. Is this another instance where I have to basically give you a full lineup of 14 players, so you know I'm talking about a real NBA game? Here, I'll do that, since I have to walk you through it.

 

Team 1: Allen Iverson, Dwight Howard, James Jones, Raja Bell, Chuck Hayes, Joey Dorsey, Fabricio Oberto, Shannon Brown, Michael Finley, Steve Novak, Beno Udrih, God Shammgod, Pavel Podkolzin, and Brian Scalabrine

 

Team 2: Chauncey Billups, Dwight Howard, James Jones, Raja Bell, Chuck Hayes, Joey Dorsey, Fabricio Oberto, Shannon Brown, Michael Finley, Steve Novak, Beno Udrih, God Shammgod, Pavel Podkolzin, and Brian Scalabrine

 

 

What Camilo meant by bringing in Gerald Wallace is not to describe AI defensively. It's to point at the "stats" you have been using. Gerald Wallace's defensive stats are a good example to say stats often mislead, whether they are offensive or defensive stats.

How are offensive stats misleading? If you score 30 PPG for your career, it means you're an excellent scorer, does it not? If you shoot 60% from the foul line, it means you suck at free throws. If you throw 12 assists per game, you must be an excellent passer and teammate. If someone hits 45% from three while taking at least 2-3 per game, that means they are a good three-point shooter. If a player turns the ball over an average of 5 times a game throughout a season, they may just be turnover prone? Jordan finished great, shot the ball great...and that's why he can put up 50% shooting.

 

There are no stats for holding your man on the defensive end, other than their own stats...and that's not definitive, either, because it doesn't represent a player's man defense (as it accounts for team defense as well).

 

But offensive stats are per player, and cannot be assumed they are anyone else's stats. When you score a bucket, it's your bucket. When you throw an assist, it's yours. However, when your man doesn't score, it may be because he just missed the shot, and you left him open...or it may have been your teammate defending him on a switch.

 

If I need to go more in-depth with that explanation also, just let me know.

[Multi-Billionaire]

Right. Is this another instance where I have to basically give you a full lineup of 14 players, so you know I'm talking about a real NBA game? Here, I'll do that, since I have to walk you through it.

 

Team 1: Allen Iverson, Dwight Howard, James Jones, Raja Bell, Chuck Hayes, Joey Dorsey, Fabricio Oberto, Shannon Brown, Michael Finley, Steve Novak, Beno Udrih, God Shammgod, Pavel Podkolzin, and Brian Scalabrine

 

Team 2: Chauncey Billups, Dwight Howard, James Jones, Raja Bell, Chuck Hayes, Joey Dorsey, Fabricio Oberto, Shannon Brown, Michael Finley, Steve Novak, Beno Udrih, God Shammgod, Pavel Podkolzin, and Brian Scalabrine

 

 

Very good, as I expected you put other players who are either total role players or former stars who are way past their prime (Raja Bell and Michael Finley). No duo can win titles without a third star.

- MJ and Pippen needed Rodman

- Kobe and Gasol needed Odom

- Duncan and Parker needed Ginobili, now they need Jefferson

- Big Three in Boston

 

 

You're assembling a 2001 76ers squad to suit AI's game. What if I give you another star on those teams that could take shots away from AI... someone like Vince Carter (replaces Pavel Podkolzin). After all, even with a trip to 2001 Finals, AI still complained the lack of supporting cast around him. That's why they tried Chris Webber, Glenn Robinson, who all failed.

 

I can start a thread comparing these two teams and people can vote on a poll, asking which team would have a better chance to win a championship.

 

 

How are offensive stats misleading? If you score 30 PPG for your career, it means you're an excellent scorer, does it not?

 

Not really, ask Zach Randolph and Corey Maggette that for being two of the biggest black holes in NBA history.

 

Many factors come in: the manner of how those points are scored, when those points are scored (some players are unstoppable in the first quarter but becomes a non factor in the fourth quarter), the efficiency of the player.

 

 

If you shoot 60% from the foul line, it means you suck at free throws.

 

Pretty much the same with the above, some players shooting 60% free throws knock the ones most important (at the end of tight game), e.g. Shaq .

 

 

If you throw 12 assists per game, you must be an excellent passer and teammate.

 

Not when you dominate the ball like AI. Any player with the most basic passing ability can be regarded as "excellent passer and teammate" then, using your logic, if they're allowed to ballhog the ball like AI has been in his career. Basically having the ball in his hands for almost every possession he is on the floor for at least 12 secs of the 24 secs in the shot clock.

 

 

If someone hits 45% from three while taking at least 2-3 per game, that means they are a good three-point shooter.

 

What if someone shoots 41% and takes 6 per game, are they a worse shooter?

 

 

 

 

If a player turns the ball over an average of 5 times a game throughout a season, they may just be turnover prone? Jordan finished great, shot the ball great...and that's why he can put up 50% shooting.

 

 

There are no stats for holding your man on the defensive end, other than their own stats...and that's not definitive, either, because it doesn't represent a player's man defense (as it accounts for team defense as well).

 

But offensive stats are per player, and cannot be assumed they are anyone else's stats. When you score a bucket, it's your bucket. When you throw an assist, it's yours. However, when your man doesn't score, it may be because he just missed the shot, and you left him open...or it may have been your teammate defending him on a switch.

 

If I need to go more in-depth with that explanation also, just let me know.

 

Again, offensive stats can be as misleading as defensive stats.

[Real Deal]

Who was the third star Denver had in 2008? Melo and Iverson were the only two 20+ PPG scorers. And Odom is a bench player. When did he become a star? My example was relating to the 2008 Nuggets, obviously.

 

But, either way...every team needs three to get it done?

 

Jordan and Pippen didn't need Rodman to win titles. They did it without him for three straight, 1991-93.

 

Ever seen Shaq and Kobe play? Who was the third star from the Lakers' dynasty?

 

Who was the third star when Hakeem and Drexler won their title?

 

Who was the third star when Shaq and Wade won theirs in 2006?

 

You're wrong again.

 

Not really, ask Zach Randolph and Corey Maggette that for being two of the biggest black holes in NBA history.

 

Many factors come in: the manner of how those points are scored, when those points are scored (some players are unstoppable in the first quarter but becomes a non factor in the fourth quarter), the efficiency of the player.

Both are good scorers. They just don't do ANYTHING else on the court, at all. Nothing. But even then, I don't remember those two ever averaging 30 a game, either, like I noted. There's a big difference between a good scorer, and an excellent one.

 

Moving on...

 

Pretty much the same with the above, some players shooting 60% free throws knock the ones most important (at the end of tight game), e.g. Shaq

Shaq stated that he made them when they counted, but that wasn't so true, and you know it. It also didn't help missing 10 free throws throughout the game, then making two in the fourth quarter, as if that's supposed to make up for it, after it was his teammates who had to do just that.

 

He's still a bad free throw shooter, either way you twist it. Doesn't matter. Stop splitting hairs again.

 

Not when you dominate the ball like AI. Any player with the most basic passing ability can be regarded as "excellent passer and teammate" then, using your logic, if they're allowed to ballhog the ball like AI has been in his career. Basically having the ball in his hands for almost every possession he is on the floor for at least 12 secs of the 24 secs in the shot clock.

Right...so why doesn't Kobe average over six assists per game (which is his career high, by the way) if it's all about ball domination and having basic passing skills? Don't bother explaining that one. Bryant has the ball in his hands just as much as Iverson, if not more.

 

What if someone shoots 41% and takes 6 per game, are they a worse shooter?

Not necessarily, because 41% is still very high from beyond the arc.

 

Plus, that's irrelevant to what I posted. There's nothing misleading about the stats. Both show you're an excellent shooter, yes?

 

Again, offensive stats can be as misleading as defensive stats.

Great, great reply there. I'm now convinced.

[Multi-Billionaire]

Who was the third star Denver had in 2008? Melo and Iverson were the only two 20+ PPG scorers. And Odom is a bench player. When did he become a star? My example was relating to the 2008 Nuggets, obviously.

 

But, either way...every team needs three to get it done?

 

Jordan and Pippen didn't need Rodman to win titles. They did it without him for three straight, 1991-93.

 

Ever seen Shaq and Kobe play? Who was the third star from the Lakers' dynasty?

 

Who was the third star when Hakeem and Drexler won their title?

 

Who was the third star when Shaq and Wade won theirs in 2006?

 

You're wrong again.

 

Did that Denver team win anything? A star who would be a difference maker, that's what Odom was. You can't deny his contribution in the WCF and Finals. Or he wouldn't have got that nice contract.

 

We're talking about a star who makes difference in NBA games (Finley and Bell used to be, but they have lost their thunder) and not some Pavel Podkolzin.

 

 

 

Both are good scorers. They just don't do ANYTHING else on the court, at all. Nothing. But even then, I don't remember those two ever averaging 30 a game, either, like I noted. There's a big difference between a good scorer, and an excellent one.

 

Moving on...

 

Does AI do anything else on the court? Did AI average 30 a game last season?

 

 

Shaq stated that he made them when they counted, but that wasn't so true, and you know it. It also didn't help missing 10 free throws throughout the game, then making two in the fourth quarter, as if that's supposed to make up for it, after it was his teammates who had to do just that.

 

He's still a bad free throw shooter, either way you twist it. Doesn't matter. Stop splitting hairs again.

 

Shaq was just an example and he was right, he had playoffs games with Lakers back then when he knocked down the most crucial ones. You know it.

 

 

 

Right...so why doesn't Kobe average over six assists per game (which is his career high, by the way) if it's all about ball domination and having basic passing skills? Don't bother explaining that one. Bryant has the ball in his hands just as much as Iverson, if not more.

 

When you ballhog a ball, you have more opportunities to generate stats with it, whether they are points or assists. I don't see why you can't see the logic. So this actually applies to Kobe too. But as I maintained, Kobe is a much more willing "non-assist" passer than AI. AI would only pass when he knows he would get an assist out of it, this means he would not swing or move the ball, he would just hold, hold, until someone is wide open or cuts to the basket... or if none of this happens, then he will shoot.

 

 

Not necessarily, because 41% is still very high from beyond the arc.

 

Plus, that's irrelevant to what I posted. There's nothing misleading about the stats. Both show you're an excellent shooter, yes?

 

Of course, these stats are not misleading. But I never said ALL offensive stats are misleading.

 

 

 

Great, great reply there. I'm now convinced.

 

You should be.

[Real Deal]

Dude, you aren't even making sense with anything you're saying now. Denver now has five stars on their roster (if you consider Odom a star) in Melo, Billups, Nene, Smith and Martin. How do you guys not win it all with five stars?

 

I took down your declaration that teams needed three stars to win it all by providing you with teams that didn't need them...but you ran past it.

 

You somehow twist the hell out of my post about Kobe being the "basic passer" and "ballhog" he is by saying that it's STILL different from Iverson, and you call Kobe a "more willing non-assist passer," which is a term never used in the history of the NBA, just to add a fourth dimension to the term "passing point guard" in hopes that it will support your wild theory on Iverson.

 

You then say that you never said all offensive stats are misleading. How about letting me know which ones are? Because the ones I gave all have been used in my argument for Iverson, and none of those stats are misleading, at all.

 

I'm not even trying anymore. This is the weirdest debate I've ever been in, because I get the feeling you know I'm right, but you hate it because you can't stand Iverson, mostly because of his partying and off-court attitude (which you already admitted to, so why are you debating on-court production with me?).

[Multi-Billionaire]

Like I have said many times, you like to generalize one small sample into all. So if one cat chases off a dog, you think cats are stronger than dogs.

 

I never said all teams who have three or more stars are guaranteed to win titles... you're the one who is twisting words. Dallas Mavericks in 1990s used to have trio J: Jason Kidd, Jamal Mashburn and Jim Jackson, but they not only were not contenders but was not even close to making playoffs. After making WCF, KG-Cassell-Sprewell failed to make playoffs altogether the next year. While it sounds like I am disproving my own point, this is not the case. I'm just saying you can't generalize, twist words and make your debate opposition seem like he has no clue what he's talking about disrespectfully like that (you said I have no respect anymore right, time to look in the mirror). Most teams that win a championship have three or more stars. That Lakers dynasty had Glen Rice who stepped up big when Kobe was injured in Game 3 Finals against Pacers, had Derek Fisher who played out of his mind and drained like 100 threes against Philly in Finals for their title#2, and Robert Horry without whom they wouldn't have got past Kings in title #3.

 

 

There's a term "non-assist" passing/ passer thrown around. That's used to describe player or a situation where a player willingly passes to their teammate, although they know that pass would not result in an assist, e.g. to initiate a triangle offense, the player bringing the ball upcourt will make a non-assist pass to a player in the post or in a wing. That's just logic, only stat stuffer like AI would hold the ball and wait until a situation presents where his teammates would receive his pass and immediately attempt for a basket, e.g. cutting to the basket or being wide open.

 

Take this example, AI would risk pass the ball crosscourt to a wide open teammate sitting at a corner three (say Rudy Gay), although from his perspective, there's a defender or two between him and Gay that could easily intercept the pass. A correct play would be (because his passing lane to Gay is blocked by defenders) to make a "non-assist" pass to another teammate (say OJ Mayo) who has a better passing lane to make a pass to Gay for the corner three. So, that also results in ball movement. But if you observe AI, everytime he plays, he tends to only be willing to give up the ball when he knows it will result in an assist. So in this case, he would risk his pass being intercepted by making a straight pass to Gay through defenders. There are so many possessions blown by this careless decision making. I'm sure Philly, Denver, and Detroit fans will agree with me. Too many times a costly turnover comes when we either make run to overcome a deficit, or in tight games in the fourth quarter.

 

 

You want to know which stats are misleading? I gave you the answer already but apparently you need to read and understand people's posts better in a debate... because you always end up blabbering about your own point again and again without really listening to the argument. AI's PPG and APG are inflated because he dominates the ball.

 

 

You got a feeling I know you're right? As I recall, it's not me who says,

 

Haha, okay, you win!

 

 

... in this AI debate. So why are you still in this debate when you already admitted the result?

Edited September 13, 2009 by Snake

[Real Deal]

I never said all teams who have three or more stars are guaranteed to win titles

Haha, no. You said that all champions need three or more stars. That's what I said you posted. Stop avoiding it.

 

No duo can win titles without a third star.

And I gave you duos that can. You're wrong again.

 

Don't make up "non-assist passer" abilities. This is funny, too...

 

he tends to only be willing to give up the ball when he knows it will result in an assist

Hahaha. Isn't that what all players do? So, in other words, Iverson gives up the ball if he knows it will result in a score? Well damn, sounds like he's not as selfish as you say, haha.

 

Kobe dominates the ball as much as Iverson, and so does Wade and LeBron, so their PPG and APG must be inflated as well. Inflated by, uh...domination? Good call. I agree. Now if we can get Renaldo Balkman to dominate the ball more, we can see him averaging 30 PPG and seven assists.

[Multi-Billionaire]

^I said championship teams need three or more stars, I did not say ALL teams with three or more stars are going to win a championship. The former is a small circle inside the latter which is a bigger circle.

 

Your duo teams also had a third star, MJ had Horace Grant in his prime, who was a beast in rebounding, and noone can forget John Paxson. Clyde and Hakeem had rookie hotshot Sam Cassell who nailed clutch shots, Kenny Smith and Robert Horry. They are not comparable with the role players you gave: an aging Michael Finley and a very much slowed down Raja Bell, who no longer had defensive ability (ask Phoenix Suns fans, Jammin, Sun Tzu, andreusito, they're all gonna agree).

 

Stat stuffers are always selfish does not matter how you spin it or look at it. When you have the ball, you can generate an assist, and when you don't, you can't. Simple as that. When you have 10 assists, you look good. But it does not always mean good because you dominate the ball.

 

Any team that moves the ball consists of players who are willing to make "non-assist passes". Otherwise, the ball movement is going to be stagnant. The Lakers, Cavs, and Heat all move the ball well. Kobe might have been like AI in his younger days, but he has seen the bigger picture and is a much more willing non-assist passer than AI. LeBron and Wade have never been selfish. But any team that AI is on, you have a problem with ball movement. It's no coincidence. Although AI might have 8 assist every night, the team does not move the ball well.

[Real Deal]

Kobe ran the offense in a DYNASTY. So the younger Kobe was selfish enough to do that?

 

Iverson is the only stat-stuffer in the league, then. Once again, good job singling him out and avoiding any given examples.

 

Wow man, words cannot express how ridiculous your post are when they are taking pot-shots at Iverson. We've already had a member consider leaving because he thinks you're racist towards him, bashing AI because of the way he dresses and talks. I'm starting to wonder if he's right in thinking that.

 

Get over it.

[Multi-Billionaire]

And I'm supposed to be blamed for someone leaving? It's their choice, it doesn't concern me as it shouldn't concern you. It's their choice. I'm not racist, this is very funny, racist towards... what? That he is black? Damn I hate the NBA. That's he's a thug? I don't really consider AI a thug, I'm not so judgmental as you think I am, even if I thought he's a thug, I wouldn't be racist towards thugs.

 

 

Why are you comparing your own favorite player to that ballhog beast AI? They are not the same, and not even close. I admire Kobe because he secretly liked Shaq and Phil Jackson (no homo) but for their truthfulness about the concept of winning. They told Kobe, for the Lakers to win, he can't be selfish. He acted defensive at first, but when it mattered (playoffs), he played the way they always asked him to. I remember in their second championship run (2000-01 season), Kobe was being selfish for the whole season, jacking every shot he could. As Kobe kept taking shots, the Lakers kept losing and they're doubted to repeat.

 

Then bam! Near the end of the season, he sprained his ankle in Milwaukee and was forced to miss 8 games or so. In those 8 games without him, the Lakers moved the ball while he watched from the sideline. They went perfect I think and Kobe could only admire the results. When he returned just in time for playoffs, he had a totally different mindset and unlike the version he displayed in the season, he became a very willing non-assist passer and the team in effect moved the ball really well. They marched to the Finals undefeated and ended Philly in 5 games, in one of the most dominant team performance in NBA Playoffs history.

 

 

You can tell for winning, he's willing to do anything. Michael Curry begged AI to take a bench role for the sake of the team, but instead of being patient, he complained about his role. Then instead of joining the real contenders, he chose "potential contender Memphis" as destination. You can't really say he has that will to win like Kobe, can you? And this is AI, a self proclaimed biggest heart in the L.

[Real Deal]

I'm comparing the two because I'm not biased. Iverson isn't the better overall player, not even close, but I'm not going to let you crush Iverson's scoring and passing abilities without doing the same to my favorite player. Imagine that.

 

Then bam! Near the end of the season, he sprained his ankle in Milwaukee and was forced to miss 8 games or so. In those 8 games without him, the Lakers moved the ball while he watched from the sideline. They went perfect I think and Kobe could only admire the results. When he returned just in time for playoffs, he had a totally different mindset and unlike the version he displayed in the season, he became a very willing non-assist passer and the team in effect moved the ball really well. They marched to the Finals undefeated and ended Philly in 5 games, in one of the most dominant team performance in NBA Playoffs history.

Perfect? Right after Bryant went down, the Lakers went 3-3 in that first six-game span. They averaged 88.5 PPG in those six games. It took Shaq to dominate every game after that to take out a couple of pathetic teams (the 15-win Bulls were one of them), and a Suns team that had Kidd sitting most of the game.

 

When Bryant returned, he attempted 24 and 21 shots against the Wolves and Blazers, before the season ended.

 

11 of the 16 games they played in the playoffs, Bryant attempted 20+ shots, eight games 23+ shots, two games 30+ shots.

 

He recorded double-digit assists in the playoffs just one game, Game 4 against the Spurs.

 

I have no idea what book you took that out of, but it's false.

 

And what do you expect, it's Michael Curry. It's the same guy that didn't play Iverson, Hamilton, Prince, Sheed and McDyess at the same time, not even once.