Truth be told, the Celtics & Lakers were regular participants in the NBA Finals in the early to mid '80s, and I think it was when those two teams played in 1984, 1985 or 1987 that the NBA adopted the 2-3-2 format to cut down on the travel because it was some 3,000 miles from Boston to Los Angeles, or vice versa. As for this year, a few random thoughts. The folks at ESPN/ABC Sports have got to be excited to see someone other than the San Antonio Spurs in the NBA Finals. The only thing sexy about the Spurs was the sight of Eva Longoria Parker sitting courtside...ESPN Classic has plenty of classic Celtics/Lakers' Finals games to replay leading up to Thursday night's Game 1. It'll be cool to hear Dick Stockton & Hubie Brown call those classic Finals again like they did for CBS Sports. As for this series, the casual fan will certainly want to tune in seeing Kobe Bryant & Kevin Garnett competing for the Larry O'Brien Trophy. ABC & ESPN are also hoping for a long series, but I don't see it, especially if the Lakers win at least one road game in Boston. Kobe and the guys in gold will win this series in 5 games, and will win MVP honors.

The Lakers first beat the Celtics in the finals in 85. The previous 8 times they played them in that series, including the 84 series, they lost all 8. That's got to be tough.

It's 2-3-2 right? If thats the case I got the Lakers in 5. If its 2-2-1-1-1 I got the Lakers in 6.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Its annoying how spread out this series is. They wait like 6 days to start the first game and then the series itself is spread out alot. I dont think it favors either team, but its very unnecessary to have a 7 game series spread through 17 days, with a 6 day break before it starts.

As a side note I will be TIVOing any and all NBA classic games shown ESPN classic. This is the best time of the year to catch games like that.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Since I was referenced in this thread, Kobe Bryant received 0 Finals MVP trophies because he was the second best player on the Lakers for the three titles.

Kobe is going to have to win at least 7 total titles for him to even be in the conversation with Jordan. If number of titles was the most important factor, then Bill Russell is clearly better.

This will be Kobe's first title as the best player on his team. Shaq was clearly the better player during that run and it wasn't some media conspiracy that Shaq kept on winning them.

Teams came in with the number one worry of stopping Shaq. Kobe was very good too, but teams feared Shaq. He was unstoppable at times. During that time, he was probably the most dominant player since Wilt Chamberlain.

Kobe may have been the better player at times. He was better in some of the fourth quarters. When the Lakers were down, Kobe was the better scorer.

I honestly don't understand how it's even a question. When the titles were being won, no one was saying that Kobe got screwed. It was fairly well established that Shaq was the most dominant player in the game, even with his lack of free throw shooting.

If you are going to use the criteria that Kobe was the player taking shots in the fourth quarter, then Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili are better than Tim Duncan, at least for the last title. Tim Duncan doesn't always take over in the fourth quarter. Brent Barry was the one with the ball in his hands at the end. It has to do with how post players affect the game. They have a huge impact over the whole game. They may be less effective at the very end.

Here are a list of players, and who was taking shots at the end of the game.
Karl Malone: Stockton and Hornacek
Tim Duncan: Parker and Ginobili
Charles Barkley: Kevin Johnson and Dan Majerle(?)
Patrick Ewing: John Starks(?)

Seems to be a pattern here. All the players on the left were clearly better and more valuable so the rationalization that who shoots at the end of the game doesn't match up.

Shaq was better than Kobe in every title run and this is the only place I've ever seen anyone think otherwise.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Parker and Ginobli dont always take the last shots, Duncan does too often. Also its not just that Shaq wasnt taking the shots, its that he was taken out of the game completely very often in close games because of his FT liability.



Am I missing something? Sounds like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth on that. And like it or not, Kobe is already in the discussion with Jordan. He'll never replace Jordan in the eyes of Chicagoans, but he has already established himself as being in the discussion. The next 7 years are gonna determine alot. Im pretty confident he'll be talked about as one of the two best players ever when he retires, Im just wondering which one he'll be.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Kobe has currently won 0 titles as the best player on his team. I call it the "Scottie Pippen theory". Scottie Pippen is one of the great players in NBA history, but because he never won a title as the best player on his team he doesn't make the discussion of the greatest players of all time. He's above players like Barkley and Malone, but below people like Duncan, Shaq, and pretty much anyone else with 2 titles as the best player on their team. It's still a slightly subjective criteria, as I still put Jordan over Russell, but he's an extreme example. I also think that if Lebron or Kobe win 4 titles(as the best player on the team which will be true for the rest of both of their careers) that they jump over Jordan. (Note: Lebron is clearly a more well rounded player than Jordan, which is why I give him the edge with less titles. Lebron will probably end up the most complete player in NBA history.)

The reason that I said 7 titles for Kobe, was that he would have 4 titles as the best player on his team. Add that into the fact that he was the second best player on three other titles and I think that's a bigger accomplishment than Jordan ever did.

If they both finish with 6 titles, I think the final tiebreaker ends up being that Jordan was the best player on 6 of them, and Kobe was the best on 3 of them.

I think Kobe ends up being talked about as one of the top 10 players of all time. I think he leapfrogs Shaq pretty soon.

I just think when talking about titles, you have to put a lot of weight into what they meant to the team. If you don't, players like Robert Horry start to leapfrog better players with less or no titles.

I've already made it clear that Kobe moves up a level of respect in my book if they win the title this year(similar to Peyton Manning).

I don't really think I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, but I admit that my criteria is slightly subjective. I just think that Jordan's six titles are more impressive than Kobe's hypothetical next three titles.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

You seem to be looking at it like people 50 years from now will. All you have to do is go to the eye test. Ive seen both players in their prime. Kobe is pretty much as good as Jordan. This year was really a turning point for him as a player. They are obviously slightly different, Kobe has a much more versatile offensive repetoire for example, but I dont know how you can say he has to win X number of titles to be as good, even though I do think he will meet your criteria.

Kobe and Peyton Manning are completely different players. Kobe has gotten it done in the Finals before. Forget the best player/2nd best player argument. Its irrelevant. Kobe led those teams when the game was on the line in the closing minutes. There was never a doubt about Kobe performing under pressure for the highest stakes. Theres always been that doubt about Peyton.

Lebron will probably be in the discussion but he still has a long way to go to become the player Kobe is right now. Im not sure he has the mental fortitude to be that good, we'll see.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

My criteria is slightly subjective. Yours is completely subjective.

I don't really see Kobe having a better offensive repetoire. Both players could score pretty much at will. Neither player was a great creator for other players, but did well enough to get the job done. It comes down to the fact that while neither player has or had a perfect offensive game, they both got the job done better than anyone else they were playing against.

You may not able to see how I can say "he has to win X number of titles" but I don't see how you can say that Kobe is pretty much as good as Jordan because of the "eye test". I need a little bit more rationale than I watch him play and he scores well. Pretty much every player who is the best in the world will look like Jordan because they are currently dominating.

You have to have some criteria for ranking players.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I agree you have to have some criteria but Kobe has all the individual accolades to qualify and has led a team to three titles. Thats why I dont think your Peyton Manning analogy is correct. Kobe got it done when the stakes were the highest. Alot of people considered Kobe to be the best player in the league in 2003 also, including Shaq.

As for the comparison to MJ, I think MJ was a better defender but I think Kobe without a doubt had the more versatile offensive game. Right now I consider MJ the GOAT, but I dont think he could have scored 81 in a game. Kobe can score from anywhere on the court at will from 25 feet. MJ could score at will from anywhere within 22 feet, and yes occasionally could hit threes, like the Portland game, but that wasnt part of his regular game. I think they both are much better passers than you give credit for. Kobe is one of the two or three best passers in the league right now.

I've never compared anyone to MJ before, and I dont like to. Its annoying how many people were gonna be "the next MJ." But Kobe is the first player, and this year is the first time, I think the comparison is valid. The Jordan Rules helped MJ make the leap to the next level, from being just a scorer to an all around great player. Kobe is making that same transition now.

Like I said, this is predicated on the next 5-7 years. I agree Kobe has a bit more work to do to be "considered" on MJ's level, but based on play alone I think he's at where Jordan was at in his prime. As long as no season ending injury happens to Kobe or the next best player on his team, I wouldnt be surprised if Kobe had another three peat before he's done.

As for you doubting the eye test, well I guess we just look at sports differently. Watching a player play is the best way to judge how good he is. Thats why I Tivo any NBA classic games on NBA TV or ESPN classic, I love watching those games from the 80's. You get a far better appreciation for how good Isiah, Larry, Magic, Moses, etc. were then just reading about their accomplishments and titles.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Will they bust out the nutters? Will Brian Scalabrine sport the Larry Bird dirty stache?

I concede that he was, but Shaq dominated the series. Kobe dominated sometimes in the fourth quarter when down.

That is why Kobe won 0 mvp's. Kobe had the role of catching them up by scoring late. Shaq had the role of dominating the whole game. Normally, they were up in the fourth quarter off of his shoulders.

I can't stress enough that in Shaq's prime, he was the most dominant player(including MJ) since Wilt Chamberlain. Shaq controlled a whole game. Kobe would take over in the fourth when the Lakers were down.

I didn't like Shaq on the Lakers but I warmed up to him once he got out of town. He dominated a whole game better than anyone I've seen. The fact that he couldn't hit free throws hurt but didn't change the fact that he was the player that the opposing team worried about and it's telling that the "Hack-A-Shaq" was the only counter to him and even that only found limited success.

Shaq deserved MVP of those three title runs, and I don't remember much of an outcry when Shaq won.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Good points and in a couple weeks we will be able to say just like how Kobe would not have won without Gasol or

how Pierce would not have won without Garnett

That's changing the discussion. Of course they played a key role. It's a team game. The Bulls probably don't win the last 3 titles without Rodman. They probably don't win the first three without Grant. They would have won a few of those, but no way do the Bulls win 6 titles without Rodman/Grant. My guess would be 4. The Lakers had similar players who filled their roles nicely.

Kobe was needed, but he was not the most important piece of the puzzle. Dwayne Wade stepped right into Kobe's role and filled it better with a Shaq that was already slightly on the decline.

I'm not arguing that Kobe wasn't very important. He was. He just wasn't the best player on his own team for any championship(until he wins it this year). Pretty much every award and accolade shows that. It pretty much drove Kobe Bryant crazy at the end.

I made my final determination that Shaq was the best player on that team when Shaq went to Miami and won the title. It turned out that Wade was a budding superstar, but Shaq once again almost won the MVP award. Nash barely beat him out for it. This was the third guard that Shaq had played with who became a superstar. Not a coincidence.

I have no problem giving Kobe Bryant his due, which he deserves for this season, but I can't go back and re-write history. Kobe Bryant is the best player in basketball, but that was not the case when they won the titles. He wasn't even the best player on his team.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

But no one will argue that Gasol is better than Kobe.
No one will argue that Pierce is better than Garnett.

That's why you can't say "he wouldn't have won without this guy". You can say that he was the best player on a championship team.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

This discussion has gone on long enough. If you want to go against pretty much everything that was said, awards won, and defensive gameplans and think that Kobe was on the same level of Shaq in the three title years that's fine. I understand that Kobe was great. Scottie Pippen was great too. It doesn't change the fact that most of the basketball world agreed that in those title years, Shaq was the more feared, more dominant, and better player. There was no media conspiracy to give Shaq regular season and Finals MVP awards. He was just flat out better.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Since you want to bring stats into play, here's another post I made about playoff stats.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I see no playoff season where Kobe outperformed Shaq. Never in scoring and in no category did he have a dominant number like Shaq did in rebounds. Statistics are also on my side.

Also, the fact that Parker won the MVP over Duncan doesn't help your case. If Tony Parker can win a finals MVP over Duncan, why couldn't Kobe win one over Shaq?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Slightly different situations because Wade was clearly the best player on that team.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

What are you talking about? I assume by 2001 finals you mean from the 2000-2001 season.
Here are Shaq and Kobe's game logs for those 5 games.
Shaq:
Pts Reb Assists
44 20 5
28 20 9
30 12 3
34 14 5
29 13 2

Kobe:
15 3 5
31 8 6
32 6 3
19 10 9
26 12 6

Kobe and Shaq both had one game where they missed a triple double by 1 assist. The rest they hovered with 6 or less assists. Shaq on the other hand had a double double in every game and two games where he put up 20 rebounds. By my rough estimate, Shaq would have averaged about 34 and 17 rebounds. That's all time great numbers for a finals.

I don't really see where you are coming from in this one. Shaq was putting up amazing numbers.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Plus Daniel Gibson didnt exactly make the degree of difficulty very high last year.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul