Photo

Kobe's last game vs 73 wins


  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

Poll: Kobe vs 73 wins (9 member(s) have cast votes)

Which game are going to?

  1. Kobe's last game (4 votes [44.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.44%

  2. Warriors chance at history and 73 wins (5 votes [55.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 55.56%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#121 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,382 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 15 April 2016 - 01:20 PM

The big question would be if the Lakers/Celts would be able to dominate with old school post up basketball or if the other team could use its superior shooting and quickness to overcome the disadvantage with the bigs. 

 

Walton's number isn't retired by the Celts right?



#122 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    I Miss McNulty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,607 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 15 April 2016 - 01:22 PM

The big question would be if the Lakers/Celts would be able to dominate with old school post up basketball or if the other team could use its superior shooting and quickness to overcome the disadvantage with the bigs.

Walton's number isn't retired by the Celts right?


I think it is but not positive.

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#123 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 19,485 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 15 April 2016 - 01:26 PM

The big question would be if the Lakers/Celts would be able to dominate with old school post up basketball or if the other team could use its superior shooting and quickness to overcome the disadvantage with the bigs. 

 

Walton's number isn't retired by the Celts right?

 

Doubt it. But one last word on this. IMO if you put a player on an all-time list for a certain team, you should be getting the player he was for most, if not all, of his tenure only on that team. So putting Walton on the Celtics All-time team gets you the gimpy Walton who played 15 minutes a night averaging single-digit points, not the mid-70s Portland version of Walton.



#124 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    I Miss McNulty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,607 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 15 April 2016 - 01:27 PM

Doubt it. But one last word on this. IMO if you put a player on an all-time list for a certain team, you should be getting the player he was for most, if not all, of his tenure only on that team. So putting Walton on the Celtics All-time team gets you the gimpy Walton who played 15 minutes a night averaging single-digit points, not the mid-70s Portland version of Walton.


That's fair.

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#125 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,382 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 15 April 2016 - 01:41 PM

I think it is but not positive.

 

Just looked it up and it's not. 

 

Would have been pretty ridiculous to retire his number.

 

So while Walton doesn't rank super high on best ever lists due to injuries, prime Walton is in the class of the all-time greats from what I understand, so I think he can compete with Kareem/Wilt/Russell/Shaq.



#126 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    I Miss McNulty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,607 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 15 April 2016 - 01:45 PM

For some reason I thought they did because of the 1986 title.

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=