13 vs 81

[Jhiane]

Which is better? Kobe's 81 points or T-Mac's 13 points in 35 seconds?

[IronMike]

Kobe

[Lean]

T-Mac's, because of how much effort he did to pull off a win in an almost-decided game vs. the Spurs.

And also because of how much I hate Kobe.

[IronMike]

Lol kobe hater lol

[shadowgrin]

Bitches please.

phpBB [video]

[dare]

I like both players and both was a great game to watch. I should give it to T-Mac since he is my favorite player but for making history in this era of basketball I'd give it to Kobe. Really close to judge imo.

[Patr1ck]

They are both unique performances. Kobe brought his team back performing throughout the entire game, while T-Mac came up with some clutch shots and the buzzer beating game winner. McGrady's performance is a great feat, but Kobe's performance was historical, so I'm going with Kobe.

[Jhiane]

Bitches please.

then you're saying that is better than T-Mac's? Bitch please

Kobe's 81 was really impressive, you can really score even a 100 if you always have the ball plus you're on fire especially a player like him. But T-Mac's? I'll give it to him 13points is better than Reggie's 6 imagine, got 4 point play and for the win shot?

[shadowgrin]

Uh Pacers won that game. They fouled John Starks afterward, both FTs he missed (like what he did in the entirety of game 7 of the 94 Finals lololol). Pacers got possession back, Knicks fouled Miller. Miller sank the game winning FTs.
That was also a playoff game. Not some game early in the season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/espn25/s ... moments/90


If you want math we could do math. Miller had greater points per second (of game time) than T-Mac.
8/11 pps > 13/35 pps
You can do the calculations yourself. Don't be afraid it won't bite. See which has the greater value.
We can even make Miller's to 8/19 pps to account for the remaining seconds in the game and it still has greater pps than T-Mac.


Like I said, bitches please.

[Andrew]

Tough call. I'm tempted to say that neither can really be called "better", as much as that's a cop out, as both are very impressive performances for distinctly different reasons. I find myself going back and forth, the historical significance of Kobe's 81 vs the rarity and unexpectedness of T-Mac's 13 in 35.

My first instinct is to go with Kobe because of the magnitude of scoring 81 points, something only one other person has done in NBA history. However, it obviously doesn't sit atop the list of single game scoring totals, thus lacking "all-time best" status, and there are other marks in the mid to high 60s and into the 70s. While it's impressive and certainly not something we see every game, scoring a lot of points on a lot of shot attempts isn't a unique or unusual phenomenon - if a good scorer shoots a lot, they'll rack up the points - though 81 points naturally ranks as one of the most significant examples.

What T-Mac did isn't completely unique either, as shadowgrin pointed out with Reggie's famous performance against the Knicks, but it's far less common than an elite scorer gunning their way to a big night. It snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with far less time on the clock and against a quality opponent in the Spurs. In contrast, Kobe's 81 came against a very ordinary Raptors team and his barrage continued with the game already in hand, adding the element of stat padding (though it remains a brilliant offensive performance nevertheless). As far as turning around a team's fortunes, scoring 13 points in 35 seconds, complete with the defensive stop and four point play, is far rarer and arguably stands as a more impressive feat than just gunning away in the second half of a game.

Still...81 points...

The easy answer would be to say that Kobe's is the more historically significant performance, an unthinkable scoring barrage, while T-Mac's is more unique and defiantly clutch, a standout example of never giving up in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. I don't think it's an entirely unfair assessment either, as there's a certain amount of "apples and oranges" in comparing the two games.

In the interest of just picking one though, I'd have to go with T-Mac's 13 in 35. It's a very close call, very tough to pick against an 81 point game, but I'll give the nod to T-Mac for the brashness of the clutch performance, the quality of the opponent and uniqueness of the feat.

[NovU]

Kobe's 81 points achievement probably is as rare(boxscore scoring) as it can get in our generation of basketball and probably the record won't be broken for several decades, just not likely as no sane person/team would allow a player to jack up all those shots. But like Andrew, I would crown T-Mac's 13in35 over Kobe's performance. It's not as rare as Kobe's 81 points in some senses but in my opinion, it's just greater level of excellent performance that truly decided the outcome of the game against one of the best teams in its era who was also known for great defense.

[Jhiane]

Uh Pacers won that game. They fouled John Starks afterward, both FTs he missed (like what he did in the entirety of game 7 of the 94 Finals lololol). Pacers got possession back, Knicks fouled Miller. Miller sank the game winning FTs.
That was also a playoff game. Not some game early in the season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/espn25/s ... moments/90


If you want math we could do math. Miller had greater points per second (of game time) than T-Mac.
8/11 pps > 13/35 pps
You can do the calculations yourself. Don't be afraid it won't bite. See which has the greater value.
We can even make Miller's to 8/19 pps to account for the remaining seconds in the game and it still has greater pps than T-Mac.


Like I said, bitches please.

ok, you have that stats, but the choice is only Kobe and T-Mac and Miller isn't there

[Andrew]

Kobe's 81 points achievement probably is as rare(boxscore scoring) as it can get in our generation of basketball and probably the record won't be broken for several decades, just not likely as no sane person/team would allow a player to jack up all those shots. But like Andrew, I would crown T-Mac's 13in35 over Kobe's performance. It's not as rare as Kobe's 81 points in some senses but in my opinion, it's just greater level of excellent performance that truly decided the outcome of the game against one of the best teams in its era who was also known for great defense.

The 81 point total is obviously rare and rather unique, but the basic act itself - scoring a lot of points on close to 50 shot attempts (13 of them from beyond the arc) and 20 free throw attempts - not so much. It's scoring a lot of points on a lot of attempts, which isn't too far out there as far as great performances in basketball are concerned. It is admittedly on a much larger scale of course, and still a remarkable feat. That's how I came to give 13 in 35 the edge, though just barely and it's a tough, tough call to make.

[The X]

Definitely the 81. 13 in 35 is impressive but after seeing guys like Kobe & Durant put on like 12 points in under a minute at Olympics shows me that given the circumstances, & stopping the clock at ends of games, it's more likely to happen again than 81 points.

[Its_asdf]

If you watched the Kobe game closely, you'd realize how terrible of a coach Sam Mitchell was. Single coverage on Kobe with Jalen Rose and Morris Peterson alternating as defenders? Ugh.

[NovU]

I think rarity doesn't always mean better.

[shadowgrin]

ok, you have that stats, but the choice is only Kobe and T-Mac and Miller isn't there

Why should I limit myself to your inferior options.

[_Steve_]

I'd vote the same way as shadowgrin. I watched that game on TV the next day, not knowing the result, and couldn't believe what I saw.
Second would be Kobe's 81 points. Having seen many of MJ's 50 & 60 point games, I wouldn't have expected anyone so soon, to score more than 70 points.

[deihatein]

That Reggie Miller one is the most cold blooded shit I have ever seen. I have seen it years before, and I am still amazed everytime I watch it.

[Jhiane]

ok, you have that stats, but the choice is only Kobe and T-Mac and Miller isn't there

Why should I limit myself to your inferior options.

why you're always like that? We are talking about Kobe and T-Mac, there is no Miller don't be a bitter, you're always like that

[Andrew]

Definitely the 81. 13 in 35 is impressive but after seeing guys like Kobe & Durant put on like 12 points in under a minute at Olympics shows me that given the circumstances, & stopping the clock at ends of games, it's more likely to happen again than 81 points.

I don't think those performances in the Olympics against severely outmatched opponents serve as a good measuring stick. It doesn't mean they're not impressive in their own right, but they lose some of their shine when there's such a mismatch. Kobe and Durant ripping vastly inferior opponents for 12 points in under a minute in the middle of a blowout isn't quite the same as T-Mac scoring 13 in 35 seconds to complete a comeback win over a superior Spurs team.

Also, we could just as easily say that Kobe's 81 point game demonstrates that given the right circumstances - ie close to 50 shots along with 20 free throw attempts in the same game - any quality scorer could top 70 or 80 points.

I think rarity doesn't always mean better.

It doesn't, but it's hard to determine what constitutes "better" here in the first place, because we're talking about two different kinds of impressive performances/achievements. The same goes for any other noteworthy performances and statistical marks that we could mention.

For example...which is better, Kobe's 81 points or one of the quadruple double games (Nate Thurmond, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Alvin Robertson...take your pick)? Which is the greater achievement, Wilt's 100 points or his 55 rebounds in a single game? Speaking of that era, is Wilt averaging 50.4 ppg and 48.5 mpg a better accomplishment than Oscar Robertson averaging a triple double? Is Magic Johnson coming close to averaging a triple double in the 80s equal to or superior than The Big O averaging a triple double in the 60s? And are Dennis Rodman's rebounding numbers ultimately more impressive than Wilt's despite being lower, given his height and the difference between their respective eras?

It's very tough, arguably impossible to give a definitive answer, but to make as fair a comparison as possible you have to try and put everything in context, finding some common ground. That means taking into consideration whether something is rare or unique, if it's likely be duplicated or bested, whether or not the circumstances that would allow it to be duplicated or bested are likely to arise or are unique to/favoured by a certain era, what exactly was out of the ordinary and special about it, who the opponents were, which era did it occur in (and all that entails, such as the skill level of players in the league, the rules, the pace of the game, etc)...all that stuff needs to be taken into account.

[Jhiane]

agree on that Andrew, the 3 point distance in the NBA was far than FIBA that's why it was too easy to shoot for Durant

[Andrew]

That certainly did help the 2012 team when they were bombing away from three point range, yes.

[koberulz]

And are Dennis Rodman's rebounding numbers ultimately more impressive than Wilt's despite being lower

They're not lower.

[Andrew]

And are Dennis Rodman's rebounding numbers ultimately more impressive than Wilt's despite being lower

They're not lower.

I'm aware of that; to clarify, I was referring to raw rebounding averages and single game records, the stats seen at first glance. That article is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about as far as putting things into context, comparing different eras, adjusting for difference pace, and so on.