<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.
Chamberlain's records are so gay. They shouldn't evne count them. They had totally different rules than they do now...
I agree, 100 points? The only way anyone in the NBA in this era could get that is if they had 3-4 Overtimes.
<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.
You wanna know why Kobe has to score a butt load of points? Because his supporting cast doesn't step up. If you watch the games you hear the commentators make comments about how the rest of the team is missing shots.So Kobe takes over games and gets the Lakers some Ws.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TCOF @ Mar 24 2007, 08:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You wanna know why Kobe has to score a butt load of points? Because his supporting cast doesn't step up. If you watch the games you hear the commentators make comments about how the rest of the team is missing shots.So Kobe takes over games and gets the Lakers some Ws.</div> :yeahthat:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TCOF @ Mar 24 2007, 10:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You wanna know why Kobe has to score a butt load of points? Because his supporting cast doesn't step up. If you watch the games you hear the commentators make comments about how the rest of the team is missing shots.So Kobe takes over games and gets the Lakers some Ws.</div>Still doesn't mean he's the MVP.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Knightz @ Mar 24 2007, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree, 100 points? The only way anyone in the NBA in this era could get that is if they had 3-4 Overtimes.</div>wilt was fed the ball all game. And when he got 100, there was about 1 minute left and the game was called. You could also have 100 if you cherry-pick while the rest of the team played d and got you the ball.
<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 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?
<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 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?
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 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.
<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
[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.
<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.
[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.
