27 January 2006

81 Points in Perspective

81 points is a hell of a lot. But it doesn't mean nearly as much as the media would have you believe.

Sportswriter Michael Bradley has the proper perspective:

...hats off to Kobe for tormenting the listless Tronno players in a solo show worthy of his one-man-band personality. But let's be clear here: There is no way that this deserves consideration as one of the best performances of all time, no matter how much ESPN decides to hype the event. Gorging one's self at the buffet table does not make one a gourmand, and Kobe's 81 belongs in the All-You-Can-Eat Hall of Fame, rather than the pantheon of epic sporting accomplishments.


Andrew Warner said...

Kobe might as well change his name to "He Hate Me."

Kobe pulls his team back with an epic effort for a victory and he gets called selfish- the nerve of some sports writers.

All he did was pick up the slack for his teammates. He had an extremely good field goal percentage, and as mentioned a W.

What would constitute a great performance?

WestEnder said...

What would constitute a great performance is what the article says would constitute a great performance. Try reading it first, then come back and ask if you still don't understand.

Smitty said...

Indeed. A great performace would have been 81 points without holding-back the rest of his team in the process. The great performances on the list in that article all have 1 thing in common: personal glory came as a result, not as the reason for playing big. That's why Kobe is such a dick, regardless of his 81 points.

To answer your question on my post:

The Belgians usually come in individual 22-oz. bombers, corked-and-wired, not capped. Founders stuff is normally 12-oz bottles and usually comes in 4-packs and all the others (Bell's, Dragonmead, Anchor Steam) are 12-oz in 6-ers.

Interested in some? I can make some arrangements, if you wish.

Andrew Warner said...

Holding back the rest of the team? You guys don't know what you are talking about.

The Lakers were down 18 points and Kobe's "selfish perfomance" single-handedly brought them back to win. Had he been passing the ball to teammates who weren't shooting nearly as- well they would have lost.

Pitchers who throw no-hitters don't get their team involved, is that okay? Vince Young in his performance held on to the ball an awful lot during the Rose Bowl, do you have a problem with him scrambling when a pass play is called?

WestEnder said...

Your analogies do not work.

Does every member of a baseball team pitch? Or is there a division of labor? The pitcher's job is to pitch, and that is all. He is not depriving other members of his team the opportunity to pitch any more than a catcher deprives them the opportunity to catch a pitch.

This analogy would only work if it was Kobe's job to shoot the ball and nobody elses. But basketball doesn't have the division of labor that baseball does.

The Vince Young analogy is just ridiculous. I won't comment on it; I'll just assume you'll figure it out when you learn more about football (or someone else can respond).

Okay, fine, I'll respond: the analogy would work if Young called QB draws all day long. He didn't do that. He called pass plays and then scrambled when nobody was open. I have no idea why you think Young became one of the nation's best QBs by deliberately choosing short yardage runs over long yardage pass plays.

If you think scoring 81 points against a weak opponent in a game that doesn't matter is equivalent to Vince Young's Rose Bowl performance or a sick Michael Jordan in the NBA finals or a sick and puking Pete Sampras in the U.S. Open, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I, for one, think that performance under pressure and adversity is the ultimate mark of champions in any endeavor.

(And I'll bet every athlete I mentioned would agree)

Andrew Warner said...

Reggie Miller went on PTI to explain to the world just how remarkable the performance was. He said that those who called him selfish were merely jealous. He has had many performances that could be thrown on the list of the greatest.

How about this for an analogy? Achilles goes into battle with his troop of men and fights a victorious battle. Achilles manages to kill 12 men on that particular day while the other members of the squad only kill 1 or 2 a piece. Is Achilles selfish for killing more men or is it a mere display of excellence? Should he have stepped aside and let other men try, and perhaps die (miss the basket)? Or is he just taking the responsibility that naturally belongs to the greatest person on the battle field?

Had Kobe and the Lakers lost the game you may have a reasonable argument.

I'm sorry Kobe wasn't sick enough for it be a great performance- perhaps that is a credit to how well he takes care of himself off the court.

The Vince Young analogy is valid. When he tucks the ball under his shoulder on a pass play to run, he is doing it because it is the best thing to do to gain yards. When Kobe shoots and scores instead of passing he is doing it because it is the best way to put points on the board (as pertains to the game we are speaking of).

The only point you are right about (and like all your points you stole them from some bitter, Kobe-hating sports writer) is that the game wasn't of great significance. Of course it would have been a more memorable performance had it been game 7 of the NBA finals. But it wasn't. It was the regular season; wins still matter in the regular season. You are probably one of the ignorant sports fans who whine about the overpaid NBA players who slack in the regular season. Then when someone puts forth a great effort you say: "It doesn't matter, it's just some regular season game."

WestEnder said...

I'm jealous of Kobe and I don't know anything about sports, huh? Riiiiight...

If you have worthwhile and intelligent, insightful things to say, please do so. Everyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I know what I'm talking about, especially about sports. You've reduced yourself to the level of personal attacks (didn't you work for a Republican recently?), and I think we can leave others to judge for themselves who knows what he's talking about and who doesn't.

Andrew Warner said...

LOL, work for a Republican recently? That's clever (and relevant). If anything that shows I am a flexible thinker who doesn't bind himself to inflexible doctrines. You say I worked for a Republican (who is actually a Charterite) as if Republicans are the source of all things evil.

As for personal attacks:

" won't comment on it; I'll just assume you'll figure it out when you learn more about football (or someone else can respond)."

"Try reading it first, then come back and ask if you still don't understand."

Those are two backhanded comments. Any comments I made that you call "personal attacks" are simply complying with the decorum you were promoting on this thread.

WestEnder said...

Fair enough.

But in my defense, I knew you didn't read the article. I also knew you didn't understand ("appreciate" is probably a better word) the difference between playing with and without pressure. That's why I said to read the article and come back if you still don't understand.

Snarly, yes, but only because I don't like people who don't know what they're talking about telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.

At least there was a basis for my snarliness. Your insults are WHOLLY personal and can't be backed up by anything I've said, written, or done.

I'm jealous of Kobe?
I don't know about sports?
I'm "one of the ignorant sports fans who whines"?
Republicans are the source of all evil?

I've been blogging for about 9 months now. Feel free to go back and look at every post I've made and every comment I've made on every blog and see if you can find something to back up even one of your insults.

Andrew Warner said...

In regards to not reading the article: I do not come to your blog to read Michael Bradley,that is what CBS is for. I assumed the relevant passage was the one you cited.

Not that you actually said "Republicans are the source of all things evil," using the fact that I "worked for one" as a negative attack implies that they are innately bad.

WestEnder said...

Kobe Bryant's 81-pt performance was remarkable, and in my opinion it is more remarkable than Wilt's 100-pt performance. But it is not comparable to the big-game, big-pressure performances that become the stuff of legend.

That is my opinion, and it is based on my perspective of what constitutes greatness of human achievement.

If you believe there is no difference between a double-overtime championship game and a regular season game against a weak opponent, then that is your opinion and you are certainly welcome to have it.

But I think we can both agree that we agree more than we disagree on things that actually matter. And I think we can also agree that nothing good can come from continuing this thread.

Andrew Warner said...

Well said. I concur.