Blasphemous OFF TOPIC

I have a L*ker off topic discussion. I know, I know.......

I think it was the 1st and 10 crew on ESPN2 that were discussing the possibility of Kobe being the best L*ker ever. Two talking heads arguing the merits of this particular topic. Whatever.

At one point they were talking about the supporting cast of Kobe and Magic. And how Magic had the better supporting cast. Naming Byron Scott as one of Magic's elite supporting members. And I would definitely agree with that. Scott broke my heart many times as a Blazer fan.

So it got me thinking. These guys were so fast to name Byron Scott for Magic's era, but no one named Derek Fisher for Kobe's era. So I have to ask. Really. If you want to talk playoff basketball, smarts, toughness, and clutch shots, who would you rather have? Byron Scott or Derek Fisher?

Even if you choose Scott, doesn't Fisher deserve a shit ton of credit for what he's done for the L*kers over and over and over again?

 

no, that bitch-ass can burn in hell. fisher is a bitch-ass through and through. he helped the lakers, he also disappears on them and is a key part of why the lakers have an achillies heel. He cannot defend fast point guards.

 

^^^ agreed. Along with Byron Scott, Magic and Kobe.

 

Trying to be objective here, and I know - that shit ain't easy. It's hard.

 

Derek Fisher is a coattail riding ass clown. And that's me being objective.

 

You can replace Derek Fisher with Steve Blake and you'll get the same result, maybe even better. he's an overrated bitch who does hit some good clutch shots, but he also fucks up alot with stupid fouls. he's not as good as people think he is. Shows up for a few playoff games here and there, and people who don't follow the League think he's fucking awesome because he does hit a long 3.

 

Some? He's hit some seriously memorable clutch shots. Big time shit, man. I'm just saying......the L*kers would not have as many titles as they have if it wasn't for Fisher's toughness, smarts, and late game heroics. I'd shit to have a guy like him on the Blazers.

 

No, the titles are all about Kobe, Shaq, Gasol and PhilJax. That's it. While he is servicable, he is not as good as people would think. He's hit like 3 or 4 game winners throughout his career. He's also fucked up a lot of late posessions and stretches of time where he gets absolutely owned by younger, faster point guards.

If Fisher was on the Blazers, I would still hate his sorry ass. Dude is a piece of shit. After Garnett, he's the player I hate the most in the L.

 

I don't think Fisher was ever a good player. Yes, he's hit some memorable shots for excellent teams, which gives him a nice trivia niche in NBA history, but he wasn't a good player. I watched a ton of Lakers games when I lived in Southern California, including all of the Shaq/Kobe years when Fisher was significantly younger. He didn't do anything well except hustle. I'd compare him more to a guard-sized version of Mark Madsen (if cross-racial sports comparisons were allowed ) than anything else.

He was better than Madsen but, like Madsen, his best attribute was motor. He wasn't a good passer, wasn't an efficient scorer and, despite the mythologizing press' attempts, he wasn't a good defender. He's just one of those sub-average NBA players who happens into a great situation and gains stature from being part of a winner. You could plug in a lot of below average players in place of Fisher and the Lakers would have done just as well.

So to me, this is easy. I'd take Byron Scott. He was an above average player through his prime and had a few seasons where he was very good.

 

Spurs fans will probably disagree with you... 15 of 20 on 3's for a series is a lot more than just hustle.

But, I would have listed Worthy way ahead of Scott for impact on Magic's supporting cast. I always felt Worthy was the toughest player on that team to counter.

 

I was talking about a career standpoint. Even a bad or mediocre player can have a nice game or series.

And Fisher was a solid three-point shooter, but that's simply one component of scoring...and as a scorer, he wasn't efficient, despite shooting three-pointers reasonably well.

 

1. Kareem
2. Magic
3. Wilt
4. Kobe

If Kobe wins this he solidifies himself as a top 4 of all time. You still have Shaq and West behind him, but with another title, I think the lowest Kobe will finish is 4th.

Lakers have had some amazing players.

 

You said, "I don't think Fisher was ever a good player." He has been consistently excellent in the playoffs, much better than "not good" or "solid"... His reputation is based on playoff accomplishments, not regular season mundaneness. By that measure, he most definitely has been a good player. All the Laker fans that wanted him gone this year probably aren't saying much now that Fisher is back to winning them playoff games...

 

Fisher has not played well in each game of the Finals. He's not a good defender and he's inconsistent.

He was a nice role player for about 7 years. Now he's past his prime and we should replace him. I certainly root for him though, and wish him well.

 

Off course you take Scott for his career and regular season play. But, I just looked up the stats as I was curious. Funny stuff in there.

Fisher WS per48 regular season: .096
Fisher WS per48 playoffs: .107

Scott WS per48 regular season: .120
Scott WS per48 playoffs: .106

Isn't that curious. Looks like Fisher's rep as a guy that coasts in the regular season and steps up in the playoffs is more or less true. And it looks like Scott's non-existant reputation as a prime-time playoff performer is also true. Scott was the better player - though not dramatically so - but on average did not perform as well in the many playoffs he was in. Fisher on average was better in the playoffs and their career playoff effectiveness converge on the same number. Fancy that.

More info:

Fisher Career Regular Season / Playoff Offensive Rating: 108 / 113
Scott Career Regular Season / Playoff Offensive Rating: 112 / 113

Fisher Career Regular Season / Playoff Defensive Rating: 107 / 107
Scott Career Regular Season / Playoff Defensive Rating: 109 / 111

 

Yes, I don't think at any point in his career, he's been a good player. Looking at Masbee's stats, he's definitely been better in the playoffs, but not "excellent" and not by enough to make him a "good player" when the entire sample (regular season included) is taken into account.

It's interesting, but doesn't change the conclusion: Byron Scott is the easy pick. He was significantly better in the regular season and just as effective in the playoffs.

 

Ah of course, that's a different debate. The league average is .099 so neither was a knockout.

I know for sure though, that Fisher was never a good player but he was adequate in his prime, within his role.

 

Except my intuition says that though Scott was the better player that Fisher is a better backcourt mate to Kobe Bryant.

Kobe is an egotistical ball-hog. Fisher doesn't step on his toes.

Scott, on the other hand, demanded - and deserved - to be a part of the offense, have plays called for him, etc. He was a great fit on a team run by Magic, who, unlike Kobe, could give a rat's behind about his shots per game.

Scott wouldn't have lasted on a Kobe team in the same way Eddie Jones did not.