Kobe Bryant- 81 pts

at some points, its balled being a ball hog, and if the other team scores 108 points his defense must suck nuts. NBA doesn't have defense so if oyu are a decent shot then you will score alot. I mean come on he took over 50 shots he shoulda had more like 100 points
 
the only reason chamberlain back in the day did so well, is that he was WAYYYYY bigger then anyone else out there on the court. The first breed of big ass good ballers.

now-a-days everyone is he size.

still tho.

kobe is insane. they were double teaming him at the half line, and triple teaming him in the paint, and it didn't stop him.

Mind you the raps have some awful awful defence.
 
He took 46 shots actually and shot over 68% for true shooting %, that is almost 7 out of 10 guranteed. How can you say his defense sucks? He been named to several First Team All Defense in his career and if it was that easy to score that many points Iverson and T-Mac would be dropping that every other night.
 
Definetly agree with you on that with exception of few players and 2 teams. It's not like the players don't have the skill to play defense they just refuse to.
 
you dont average 50 points per game in a single season by just being way bigger than everyone else, bro, plus he was double and triple teamed almost every single time he got the ball, also he was about the same size as all of the other centers of that era, he was just stronger, and he fucking dominated, how can you even say something like that its like basketball sacrelige, wilt dominated like no other player in historty
 
and he claimed he fucked 20,0000 women, i mean come on, and you know if he could score 100 points in a game he probably could have fucked 20,000 women, and i believe him too
 
This might change your mind.

----------------------------

It seems at first glance that Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point night in 1962 is far superior to Kobe Bryant's 81-point game Sunday. After all, Bryant still needed 19 more points -- roughly Pau Gasol's average -- just to catch the Dipper.

But if you stack the two games side by side, you'll come to the startling realization that Bryant's performance was actually far superior. Breaking the two games down by the numbers, it quickly becomes apparent what a dominant night Kobe had. Consider the facts:

Wilt Chamberlain

Wilt scored 100 of his team's 169 points in the 1962 game.

Bryant was more efficient. Bryant needed 46 shot attempts and 20 free throws to get 81 points. Chamberlain needed 63 field-goal attempts and 32 free-throw tries to get his 100. Bryant's true shooting percentage for the night was 73.9 percent; Chamberlain's was only 63.9 percent.

Bryant's performance was more real. In Chamberlain's game, the Warriors intentionally fouled the Knicks in the final minute of play to get the ball back for another Chamberlain try at the century mark. Only on his third try did he get to 100. At the time, his team was comfortably ahead, as it was for the entire second half, and it won 169-147. Bryant, on the other hand, got almost all his points when they were desperately needed, as his team trailed by 18 early in the third quarter.

Bryant needed fewer minutes. If you want to really be amazed, consider the fact that Kobe sat out for six minutes in the second quarter. So Bryant scored his 81 points in only 42 minutes, while Wilt played the full 48 in his 100-point effort. Had he played for an additional six minutes and scored at the same rate (hardly an unreasonable assumption, given how much gas he appeared to have at the end), Kobe would have finished with 93 points. Yes, 93.

The game was different. Of all the differences between Bryant's game and Chamberlain's, this one is perhaps the biggest. Chamberlain's game ended up 169-147, Bryant's 122-104. Obviously, there was a huge difference in the speed of play, and that meant Chamberlain had far more opportunities to score than Bryant did.

Chamberlain's game featured 233 field-goal attempts versus 164 for Bryant's, and 93 free-throw attempts to 60 for Bryant's. We have no data on turnovers and offensive rebounds for Chamberlain's game, but based on the numbers I just mentioned, we can estimate there were 46 percent more possessions in the Chamberlain game than in the Kobe game.

If that's the case, we need to inflate Kobe's numbers by 46 percent to get an accurate idea of what it equates to in Chamberlain's era. The answer? An unbelievable 118 points. And if we add in six extra minutes for Bryant, we end up with the mind-boggling total of 135. By one player. In one game.

Another way to look at it is by deflating Chamberlain's numbers by a similar amount. If we change his currency into "2006 points," so to speak, the Stilt ends up with 68 points -- still an awesome performance, but clearly not on a level with Kobe's 81-point outburst. And once you adjust for the 48 minutes Chamberlain played vs. Kobe's 42, you end up with 60 points for Wilt -- or just a bit more than Kobe rang up in the second half.

So when our Marc Stein says this is the most amazing performance ever, believe it. Once you adjust for the differences in pace between the two eras and the fact that Bryant sat out for six minutes, even Chamberlain's monumental 100-point game pales by comparison. For basketball historians, Bryant's effort is now the scoring effort against which all others should be measured.

John Hollinger writes for ESPN Insider. His book "Pro Basketball Forecast: 2005-06" is available at Amazon.com and Potomac Books. To e-mail him, click here.
 
Im not talking about single game performances here, im just makin sure the people here who are claiming kobe is better have no idea what they are talking about, kobe puts up 50 like 10 times a year, wilt averaged over 50 points a game for multiple seasons, plus like 30 rebounds a game as well
 
That same article applys directly to regular season as well. If you want me to retype it into a regular season format let me know.
 
that article is a fucking stretch even when applied to one game, theres absolutely no way you can apply that article to the entire regular season, if any of what that guy said made actual sense then why werent the stats of every played who played during that era inflated compared to todays game as well
 
How could you inflate their numbers to the era of basketball today? That article clearly states that the speed of the game was much faster which would give you more touches and scoring chanches per game. If we would take their numbers and slow the game down they wouldn't nearly have the stats thay they had. In Wilts case he was just a freak of nature because of his size and skill level at the time.
 
Team chemistry is over rated, sorry to bust your bubble. These are professionals, they get paid to play basketball and not to finger each others assholes. The Lakers sure didn't have any chemistry problems with Spurs but I guess in a week a lot can happen and by the way the reason why they lost is because Pistons out played and out hustled them in every category. I don't miss Shaq one bit, of course it be nice to have a player of that skill but not for 20 mil per year and a long term contract.
 
yeah are you a moron man? everything youve said about basketball in this thread hasnt made shit sense, just give up now
 
Kobe might be a great player, but his team is still not thta great. They might struggle to make the playoffs or not even it. The pistons and spurrs are good because they play well together. Also to Raptors kinda suck and they were losing to them by a lot at one point
 
I personally think Kobe is bad for the game of basketball. Last season the NBA was starting to turn around into good basketball, with all the european style finally starting to have an impact on the game. And the MVP averaged more than 2 assits and was an actuall team player. It neat to watch an amzing player like Kobe however he's wasted potential in my mind, and could be MVP if he knew how to pass once and a while. However I think no player that is on a team that is not championship contender should be MVP.He is an amzing player and who cares if he can score, if its not valueble to the team.

Kobe, AI and T-mac

are the most overated players in the NBA, because somedays they are hot or days they suck, Yet they shoot regardless.
 
And in a COMPLETLY DIFFERENT NBA. Kobe has a legit shot of scoring 100 this season, averaging 45-55 a game, and his 100+ game might even be bigger than The Stilt's.
 
hahaha this is coming out of a person that said we should inflate Wilts numbers. By the way team play and team chemistry is two diffrent things morons.
 
who the fuck else is going to score on that team? kwame brown? lamar odom is their second best player for god sakes. his team was down and he brought them back for a win, if you're that hot why not keep shooting?
 
Back
Top