And if you call Lebron's 38-8-8 49% average over six games against Orlando "choking" then I would like to know how many single games Kobe had in his entire career when he did not choke according to that standard.

As for Kobe being better at making his teammates better:

LeBron James
548 Games Played
339 Games Won
LeBron James' Win Percentage = .618
Cavs win percentage without LeBron James = .384 (26 Games)
Difference = .234
--> huge difference

Kobe Bryant
1021 Games Played
676 Games Won
Kobe Bryant's Regular Season Win Percentage = .662
Lakers Win Percentage Without Kobe Bryant = .604 (95 games)
Difference = .058
--> barely a difference when Shannon Brown or whoever plays instead of Kobe

If that were the case, it would be reflected in his adjusted plus-minus rating, which isolates his impact on the team's point margin when he's on the floor, controlling for his teammates and the level of competition. Kobe's +/- in the 2010 playoffs was +6.12, which is impressive until you consider that LeBron James' was +17.61. The problem for LeBron is that only one of his teammates had a positive +/- in the playoffs -- Anderson Varejao. And this isn't just in the Celtics series, this includes the Chicago series as well. Also, let me restate that this metric uses no boxscore stats, it simply records the player's impact on team performance when he's on the floor, indirectly capturing all of those "little things" that Kobe supposedly does to make his teammates better.

Unfortunately, this means the idea that Bryant does so much beyond the boxscore to make up for James' enormous stat-sheet advantage is simply false. There's really no way to provide evidence that Bryant is better than James without either resorting to subjective nonsense or assigning his teammates' accomplishments to him (i.e., the championship argument).

You guys complained that Lebron's teammates was the root cause of Cav's downfall. But who comes to Kobe's defense when his team was flooded with a bunch of D-league standard first-team players like Kwame Brown and Smush Parker? God knows who and where they are playing for now. And you have Cavs, the team that holds the best record in the regular season, and you still complaint of Bron not having a good enough cast?

True enough, you may say that his teammates failed to step up when the moment came. But i consider that the Cav's have a more shallow bond to begin with. Kobe and most of his teammates went through the effort of going so far into the finals in 2008, yet having to undergo a humiliation defeat by the Celtics. It was one to never forget. With that determination to overcome the celtics in mind, fuelled by the soft image that was created by the media for the Lakers, who were vehemently criticised for their lack of toughness in the face of this great adversity, in particular Pau Gasol, how would the Lakers give up on the game when the moment mattered the most? Lakers would definitely want to prove themselves and everybody wrong. I don't expect the Cavs to make such an all out push base on what they have gone through in comparison to the Lakers. during crucial moments, it is not the skills nor the ability that differentiates the two teams, but the courage to surmount a final push for victory, the fearlessness, the bravery, thats the reason Lakers won against the Celtics in Game 7. And whats the reason for Cavs to lose out for 2 seasons in the playoffs? Leadership, to motivate everybody, to ensure everyone stays on the same page, to ensure nobody bleeps it up, to ensure everyone stays focused, to ensure everybody knew how much it matters. Leadership is the hallmark of a great player, something in which I saw in Kobe, but not Bron.

Neil. You seemed to be dealing with the team's production and player's production as separate entities when they seem to suggest causality over here. Assuming a team is under the lead of the superstar, we should also consider the superstar's ability to influence his teammates to play better. Instead, you are saying that should bron be surrounded by Kobe's teammates, he would stand a chance against the Celtics, based on the evidence from the "LeBron's team's efficiency differential was -5.8.
Kobe's team's efficiency differential was +4.0." stats. thus I would like to offer another perspective. That the reason Kobe's teammates are playing better is due to the influence of Kobe's game, be it things that are on the stats sheet or the things that cannot be measured by the stat-sheet alone. Your calculation of the efficiencies is a hasty generalisation becus you failed to consider the respective superstars' impact on the productive efficiencies of their counterparts'. According to Celtics' coach, Rivers, he mentioned that most people fail to realise how much Kobe has impact the game by setting up plays for his teammates especially when he's double/triple-teamed. Some people say base on the stat sheet, the number of assists, steals, blocks, rebounds, Bron impacts the game more. True, but only an individual basis. But if we were to consider game decisions, the setting up of plays, i believe Kobe would be a more complete player than Bron. Becos Kobe knows what to do to win, Bron doesn't.

Lebron James
23 of 47
48.9%

Kobe Bryant
21 of 69
30.4%

oops
nice rant though

"Kobe plays under the same coach in exactly the same system as Jordan and is constantly trying to imitate him down to his facial expressions and hand gestures.
Where his imitation falls short is that Jordan had 4 of the top 8 most efficient seasons in NBA history and Kobe has 1 in the top 100.
(Lebron has 2 in the top 10 while not in his prime yet)"

"I got a better question. Why is it when LeBron has to carry his team's offense because others can't put the ball into the basket he's "ballhogging", but when Kobe does the SAME thing he's "leading his team"? And when Kobe wasn't winning jack (beyond the 1st round of the playoffs at least) from 05-07, Kobe fans flip the script and play the SAME "his teammates didn't step up" card that everyone else is saying about LeBron right now?

You see, you can't have it both ways. You can pillage on LeBron all you want for not winning a championship while conveniently looking past the sewage-gross performances of his supporting cast in the playoffs, but you had better not be defending Kobe's lack of winning rings on the grounds that "his team sucked from 05-07" either.

Or...you can be like the rest of the rational basketball world, and simply say that these players weren't winning then (Kobe) and now (LeBron) because it takes teams that can perform in the regular season and playoffs to win titles. Your call, Kobe fans."

"well, conveniently Kobe did play in an offense less conductive to winning while Phil was gone in 2005. He was in his prime at age 26 and his best teammates back then were Odom and Butler - about the quality Lebron had all his career.
So what are Kobe's superhuman stats in this most fortunate of situations compared to Lebrons stats at the most similar age (25):
PER 23.3 (Lebron 31.1)
WS/48 0.145 (0.299)
Offensive rating 111 (121)
defensive rating 111 (102)
= way, way worse than Lebron in any except his rookie season (and even then Lebrons defense was not nearly as shitty)
sadly there are no playoff stats for Kobe that year"

"1989 was not even a top 3 season for Jordan in PER, win shares or WS/48.
He had better stats the next 2 seasons. Those stats were about as good as Lebrons stats the last 2 years so obviously Phil Jackson's system is no excuse for Kobe's mediocre stats.

number of times top 2 in the NBA in PER / win shares:

Michael Jordan
10 / 11 (in 15 seasons)

Lebron James
4 / 5 (in 7 seasons)

Kobe Bryant
0 / 0 (in 14 seasons)"

--> it's not the system that makes Kobe's stats look unspectacular, it's the player
Kobe is great but not all-time great
He got lucky by playing for a top franchise that wins about every 3rd NBA title, by playing for one of the best coaches ever, by playing with 2 of the best centers in their primes and by being a good-looking, articulate fellow sponsors and the media love to hype.
On a personal note I also appreciate Lebron for where he came from compared to Kobe's cushy middle-to-upper-class upbringing.