|
On June 01 2010 14:14 OneOther wrote:
It definitely makes sense to compare Kobe and MJ even at this point. If Kobe wins it all this year, then absolutely.
If the Lakers win this year, Kobe will have been the best player on 2 championship teams. How does this compare to being the best player on 6 championship teams? He's performing at an MJ-esque level at the moment (in my opinion this is his best postseason by FAR) but I think he'd need a couple more titles after this year to make the discussion legitimate. If total titles is all you judge by, then John Havlicek is beyond MJ too.
Unfortunately I think the Lakers will lose for the exact same reason as two years ago: Bynum's health. They really need him to get double digit rebounds, since Odom comes and goes at random and Gasol tends to fade against the physical Boston front line.
|
United States10774 Posts
On June 02 2010 02:13 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 14:14 OneOther wrote:
It definitely makes sense to compare Kobe and MJ even at this point. If Kobe wins it all this year, then absolutely. If the Lakers win this year, Kobe will have been the best player on 2 championship teams. How does this compare to being the best player on 6 championship teams? He's performing at an MJ-esque level at the moment (in my opinion this is his best postseason by FAR) but I think he'd need a couple more titles after this year to make the discussion legitimate. If total titles is all you judge by, then John Havlicek is beyond MJ too. Unfortunately I think the Lakers will lose for the exact same reason as two years ago: Bynum's health. They really need him to get double digit rebounds, since Odom comes and goes at random and Gasol tends to fade against the physical Boston front line.
When did anyone say total titles is the only criteria? It's an important one, but not the only one. You have to obviously look at other numbers and intangibles as well such as leadership and just sheer performance. Also, I don't buy your "Kobe played with Shaq" argument. It doesn't matter anymore. He has proven to be able to win without him and this by no means should discredit what he has done. They needed each other to win. Kobe was the number one option against many teams, and they allowed each other to get open.
Seriously, nobody is saying that Kobe is better than MJ. But he absolutely has earned the right to be compared to Jordan. (I will just ignore your Havlicek argument since it's pretty irrelevant) In my eyes, he is already superior in terms of pure skill. Now he just has to go out there and start adding even more to his damn impressive resume. Kobe isn't as revered or doesn't represent this global icon of basketball as MJ did but he's getting pretty damn close. If he performs in the Finals as he has been this entire playoffs and pushes the Lakers for his fifth championship, then Kobe vs MJ will become a more serious discussion.
|
On June 02 2010 02:13 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 14:14 OneOther wrote:
It definitely makes sense to compare Kobe and MJ even at this point. If Kobe wins it all this year, then absolutely. If the Lakers win this year, Kobe will have been the best player on 2 championship teams. How does this compare to being the best player on 6 championship teams? He's performing at an MJ-esque level at the moment (in my opinion this is his best postseason by FAR) but I think he'd need a couple more titles after this year to make the discussion legitimate. If total titles is all you judge by, then John Havlicek is beyond MJ too. Unfortunately I think the Lakers will lose for the exact same reason as two years ago: Bynum's health. They really need him to get double digit rebounds, since Odom comes and goes at random and Gasol tends to fade against the physical Boston front line.
whoa whoa, I don't think anyone is saying Kobe is topping MJs greatness. I was speaking more in the vain of lets have more Kobe and MJ discussion over Kobe and Lebron.
|
On June 02 2010 02:24 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 02:13 city42 wrote:On June 01 2010 14:14 OneOther wrote:
It definitely makes sense to compare Kobe and MJ even at this point. If Kobe wins it all this year, then absolutely. If the Lakers win this year, Kobe will have been the best player on 2 championship teams. How does this compare to being the best player on 6 championship teams? He's performing at an MJ-esque level at the moment (in my opinion this is his best postseason by FAR) but I think he'd need a couple more titles after this year to make the discussion legitimate. If total titles is all you judge by, then John Havlicek is beyond MJ too. Unfortunately I think the Lakers will lose for the exact same reason as two years ago: Bynum's health. They really need him to get double digit rebounds, since Odom comes and goes at random and Gasol tends to fade against the physical Boston front line. When did anyone say total titles is the only criteria? It's an important one, but not the only one. You have to obviously look at other numbers and intangibles as well such as leadership and just sheer performance. Also, I don't buy your "Kobe played with Shaq" argument. It doesn't matter anymore. He has proven to be able to win without him and this by no means should discredit what he has done. They needed each other to win. Kobe was the number one option against many teams, and they allowed each other to get open. Seriously, nobody is saying that Kobe is better than MJ. But he absolutely has earned the right to be compared to Jordan. (I will just ignore your Havlicek argument since it's pretty irrelevant) In my eyes, he is already superior in terms of pure skill. Now he just has to go out there and start adding even more to his damn impressive resume. Kobe isn't as revered or doesn't represent this global icon of basketball as MJ did but he's getting pretty damn close. If he performs in the Finals as he has been this entire playoffs and pushes the Lakers for his fifth championship, then Kobe vs MJ will become a more serious discussion.
Fine, let's talk leadership. At the moment, Kobe's leadership is in that rarefied level with Jordan and a few others. But how long has it been that way? This is the same guy who threw temper tantrums and demanded a trade more than once, and did everything but quit on his team in the '06 playoffs when he refused to shoot the ball in the second half against Phoenix to show up the media. He played a major role in dismantling a team that could have won more titles. He decided that he would take over an elimination game against Utah in his first playoff series, even though he was still just a bench player and never made an all-NBA team up to that point, and threw up 3 crunch-time airballs. If Kupchak didn't fleece Memphis to get Gasol, this "leadership" we see would probably never have existed. Winning changes everything.
By comparison, MJ took a bunch of crappy playoff losses despite amazing individual efforts, and continued to work to improve both himself and the team, which was horrible until Pippen bacame an all-star level player. When they fired Collins and Phil Jackson told him he was going to implement the ball-sharing offense, he accepted it in the name of winning. MJ's Bulls teams never missed the playoffs, even when Orlando Woolridge was their second best player.
What other intangibles do you want to discuss?
|
On June 01 2010 12:08 Ace wrote:
And you're wrong. Defenders that play back on him get blown by or let him survey the defense. This has been pointed out multiple times - he's not your average point guard where he settles for what the defense gives him. Do you not remember the clip of Rondo vs the Cavs where he's standing there with the ball under his left arm, pointing and directing with his right while his defender is 5 feet off of him? He murdered them on that very same play. You consistently play multiple feet back and you're screwed.
Yes, you have a chance to play help defense. That is great but that is not the reason you suggested to play off of Rondo. You said it's because he can't shoot due to low confidence - I'm telling you that is not a reason to consistently play off someone. It's just stupid. The Lakers in 08 got rocked because of that strategy and it wasn't until they started mixing it up they stopped Boston from doing whatever they wanted on offense. Keep leaving a guy open to shoot, especially one that can drive at will in the paint and once he starts hitting shots you.are.screwed. Ron Artest just showed you this by dropping 15 first half points on Phoenix and sending them home. Did you listen to what Alvin Gentry said? "We'd rather Artest be hitting open shots than Kobe. If he hits them then we'll live with it." And they ended up dying because of it.
God, you have no idea what you're talking about. It sounds as if you've never played a game of basketball in your life.
Defenders that play back on him will get blown by? That is perhaps the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. What are you talking about? How is someone going to blow by you if you're playing multiple feet back on them? That is the complete opposite of the truth. People who give room and play back are far, far less likely to get blown by. I really can't believe that has to be explained.
I would respond to the rest of your nonsense but it's not even worth it. If you can't understand that then it's like arguing with a child who doesn't even know the rules of the game. Such a very, very basic misunderstanding of the fundamentals of the game.
On June 01 2010 12:17 XaI)CyRiC wrote:Rondo not shooting perimeter shots isn't by any means fatal to Boston's offense, he's consistently found ways to be a great PG despite not taking those shots all year. Would it be better if he did take and make those shots? Would it make him basically impossible to guard one-on-one a la Tony Parker (when healthy)? Yeah, but it's not a huge problem because of the cast he has around him. Rondo is very lucky to play with guys like Ray, Pierce and KG because they hide his deficiencies, but play with them he does and it works for the most part.
Did I say it would be fatal? No I didn't, you should read more closely. What I said was that it's a big disadvantage, which it is. Rondo would be far more dangerous if he could hit a perimeter shot.
And we're not talking about a PG who is a bit weaker of a shooter than a SG, like most are. This is a PG who is totally unwilling to take a wide open perimeter shot. That is an unusual problem that will always be relevant.
While I do think the Lakers will dare him to shoot, I also don't think they'll give him a ton of space to just relax and build up speed for drives either. At least I hope Kobe and Phil are smarter than that after watching the earlier series in these playoffs. He'll be dared to shoot, but will still have some pressure on him to give him something to think about other than just setting teammates up.
Depends what you mean by a "ton of space". Of course I'm not saying that they should give him 6-8 feet. However, a good 3-5 would make perfect sense. Five feet would be a "ton of space" against a PG with an average shot, but not with Rondo. He is great at penetration and horrible at shooting, so obviously you play back on him. Very simple, very uncontroversial, there shouldn't even be anything to discuss. This is the absolute basics of basketball strategy.
|
And you'd be wrong. But if you wanna ball we can play at Rucker Park in Harlem ^_^
|
On June 02 2010 02:28 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 02:13 city42 wrote:On June 01 2010 14:14 OneOther wrote:
It definitely makes sense to compare Kobe and MJ even at this point. If Kobe wins it all this year, then absolutely. If the Lakers win this year, Kobe will have been the best player on 2 championship teams. How does this compare to being the best player on 6 championship teams? He's performing at an MJ-esque level at the moment (in my opinion this is his best postseason by FAR) but I think he'd need a couple more titles after this year to make the discussion legitimate. If total titles is all you judge by, then John Havlicek is beyond MJ too. Unfortunately I think the Lakers will lose for the exact same reason as two years ago: Bynum's health. They really need him to get double digit rebounds, since Odom comes and goes at random and Gasol tends to fade against the physical Boston front line. whoa whoa, I don't think anyone is saying Kobe is topping MJs greatness. I was speaking more in the vain of lets have more Kobe and MJ discussion over Kobe and Lebron.
I know what you said, I was only disagreeing with OneOther. I'm sick of the Kobe-LeBron talk too, they aren't the least bit comparable as players. LeBron to me is like Shaq in that he puts up astronomical numbers merely due to his natural athleticism, but doesn't have any heart. The way he faded against Boston was really disturbing. Kobe's competitive spirit and heart have been misguided over the years, but he's always put winning over everything else. I can honestly say that I've only seen Jordan and Hakeem play at the level Kobe is at right now. I dislike the guy, so I wouldn't throw around stuff like that unless I mean it.
|
Lefnui do you know why you don't consistently play 5 feet off of guards with quick bursts of speed? Come on, let's hear you explain your basic basketball strategy.
|
The closer you play to a quick guard the more likely it'll be for them to blow by you. Giving space means giving a jumper, but it should stop penetration.
|
And I'm telling you that's not necessarily true. If you play up on quick guards without getting caught hand checking you can prevent them by blowing by you by sticking your arm in their dribble path. This is where great on the ball defenders like Artest and Kobe make their reputation. You can't blow by someone even with the great speed when they are in your dribble path. When you're that close up they can't change direction without being called for a foul.
However playing 5 feet off a guy doesn't automatically mean you won't get blown out. When you're that far off if your lateral quickness isn't good enough or your caught back pedaling trying to feign help defense you'll get cracked. Most people mistakenly think being that far off you'll have enough time to recover but you won't because you have to change momentum.
The key to stopping penetrating guards is to mix it up. You don't just assume playing 5 feet off of them every possession is going to save the day because like I said before if it's that easy then surely somebody would have shut Rondo down by now. Make him uncomfortable, deny the ball, play him off one possession and ball hawk him the next. When you're dealing with a versatile point guard you don't constantly give him space to survey the defense and tear you apart.
|
On June 02 2010 03:56 tonight wrote:
The closer you play to a quick guard the more likely it'll be for them to blow by you. Giving space means giving a jumper, but it should stop penetration.
This man speaks the truth. If anyone argues against this, they're either trolling or don't know anything about basketball
|
United States10774 Posts
On June 02 2010 02:54 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 02:24 OneOther wrote:On June 02 2010 02:13 city42 wrote:On June 01 2010 14:14 OneOther wrote:
It definitely makes sense to compare Kobe and MJ even at this point. If Kobe wins it all this year, then absolutely. If the Lakers win this year, Kobe will have been the best player on 2 championship teams. How does this compare to being the best player on 6 championship teams? He's performing at an MJ-esque level at the moment (in my opinion this is his best postseason by FAR) but I think he'd need a couple more titles after this year to make the discussion legitimate. If total titles is all you judge by, then John Havlicek is beyond MJ too. Unfortunately I think the Lakers will lose for the exact same reason as two years ago: Bynum's health. They really need him to get double digit rebounds, since Odom comes and goes at random and Gasol tends to fade against the physical Boston front line. When did anyone say total titles is the only criteria? It's an important one, but not the only one. You have to obviously look at other numbers and intangibles as well such as leadership and just sheer performance. Also, I don't buy your "Kobe played with Shaq" argument. It doesn't matter anymore. He has proven to be able to win without him and this by no means should discredit what he has done. They needed each other to win. Kobe was the number one option against many teams, and they allowed each other to get open. Seriously, nobody is saying that Kobe is better than MJ. But he absolutely has earned the right to be compared to Jordan. (I will just ignore your Havlicek argument since it's pretty irrelevant) In my eyes, he is already superior in terms of pure skill. Now he just has to go out there and start adding even more to his damn impressive resume. Kobe isn't as revered or doesn't represent this global icon of basketball as MJ did but he's getting pretty damn close. If he performs in the Finals as he has been this entire playoffs and pushes the Lakers for his fifth championship, then Kobe vs MJ will become a more serious discussion. Fine, let's talk leadership. At the moment, Kobe's leadership is in that rarefied level with Jordan and a few others. But how long has it been that way? This is the same guy who threw temper tantrums and demanded a trade more than once, and did everything but quit on his team in the '06 playoffs when he refused to shoot the ball in the second half against Phoenix to show up the media. He played a major role in dismantling a team that could have won more titles. He decided that he would take over an elimination game against Utah in his first playoff series, even though he was still just a bench player and never made an all-NBA team up to that point, and threw up 3 crunch-time airballs. If Kupchak didn't fleece Memphis to get Gasol, this "leadership" we see would probably never have existed. Winning changes everything. By comparison, MJ took a bunch of crappy playoff losses despite amazing individual efforts, and continued to work to improve both himself and the team, which was horrible until Pippen bacame an all-star level player. When they fired Collins and Phil Jackson told him he was going to implement the ball-sharing offense, he accepted it in the name of winning. MJ's Bulls teams never missed the playoffs, even when Orlando Woolridge was their second best player. What other intangibles do you want to discuss?
You are disagreeing with me that Kobe doesn't deserve to be compared to Jordan? Because like I said, I was never arguing that Kobe has surpassed Jordan's greatness. But he's getting close and the discussion has its merits now. You can't pick out a dark page from Kobe's otherwise amazing career and conclude that he can't be compared to Jordan as a basketball player and a leader. And as for that Phoenix game, nobody but Kobe knows what he intended to do. Magic Johnson and his cast recently analyzed if Kobe threw away that game on purpose. They didn't think he did. Throughout that entire series, Kobe was taking a lot of shots and was his usual prolific scorer, but the Lakers were still losing. He knew they wouldn't win if his teammates did not get involved in the second half. You can't just assume that he refused to shoot or that he is responsible for breaking up that team. In my opinion, he did nearly everything he could do to make his team win, and you are simply laying down the hammer that he quit on his team. Kobe put up amazing individual efforts just like Jordan did and "took crappy playoff losses."
It's absurd that you bring up his airball against Utah Jazz. How old was he back then? How does that have to do anything with what Kobe's greatness will be compared to Jordan once his career ends? I don't even know why you think this even matters. Kobe has proven himself throughout this entire damn career. I mean, Kobe definitely had his ups and downs, went through his immature stages, but look at what he has grown into. You don't think Jordan never had his share of problems? Why should Kobe's few issues from the past determine that he can't be as great as Jordan? In my eyes, he is already near.
Keep in mind that Jordan was not a perfect leader or player, either. He punched a teammate, got in feuds with them, and teammates made complaints about him. Even Phil Jackson said that he believes Kobe has developed into a better leader than Jordan. You can't take that away from him, no matter what he's done in the past. And he has more years left in his career. Why hasn't Kobe earned the right to be compared to Jordan?
You said that you hate Kobe-LeBron discussion because they are completely different basketball players. Kobe and Jordan are two of the greatest shooting guards we have ever seen. Both are fierce competitors and charismatic leaders. They play pretty similar games. Kobe is in his third straight final, seventh overall, and going for his fifth ring. He's not only breaking historic Laker records but the entire NBA's. He's really reaching another level of greatness. Why in the world shouldn't Kobe be compared to Jordan?
Nobody is saying that Kobe is greater than Jordan, but the argument is becoming more legitimate than ever. If Kobe keeps on playing anywhere near his level right now and pushes the Lakers towards winning for those years left in his gas tank, then he has a chance to be as great (or even greater) than Jordan. Kobe's bumps in the past can't forever stop him from doing that.
|
On June 01 2010 23:42 Kazius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 13:44 CSN wrote:
lebron is already the best ever to play the game. kobe and jordan cant compare. QFT Kobe is still better than him, and I think the series vs. Phoenix proved it. That doesn't mean much about the future (Magic was a better player than MJ during his first years in the NBA), but seriously, LeBrick needs to improve his shooting but more so to improve his teammates, because until then he's an improved Dominique Wilkins. Oh, and GO DELONTE!!!!
i was actually just kidding. i hate lebron and have no idea how he was ever put in the discussion of being like mike when he's more like shaq.
|
On June 02 2010 03:00 Ace wrote:
And you'd be wrong. But if you wanna ball we can play at Rucker Park in Harlem ^_^
What an empty challenge. I doubt you've ever even played. The only reason you make that challenge is because you know the chances of me living there are about zero.
On June 02 2010 03:56 tonight wrote:
The closer you play to a quick guard the more likely it'll be for them to blow by you. Giving space means giving a jumper, but it should stop penetration.
Thank you. It's so basic that I'm shocked anyone wouldn't understand this. It's a matter of common sense that a child who never played basketball would understand.
On June 02 2010 04:11 Miss_Cleo wrote:
This man speaks the truth. If anyone argues against this, they're either trolling or don't know anything about basketball
Again, thank you. It's comforting to know at least a few people understand basketball here.
|
It's not an empty challenge. Every one here knows I live in NYC. I've been balling all over the city since I was 8 years old. You made a pretty stupid claim that I've never played basketball if I don't agree with you and I'm willing to prove you wrong on your own merit.
sup?
|
fly him a ticket to new york.
|
So, if Artest was up on CP3 you think he wouldn't get called for a reach in if he stuck his arms out in his dribble path while Paul made his move to go around him? Strictly speaking you have to assume it's guard on guard in which case that's why you see Fisher having trouble with faster guards all the time. He cannot play up on them as much as he would the more physical guards like Derron or Chuancey.
|
On June 02 2010 06:05 Ace wrote:
It's not an empty challenge. Every one here knows I live in NYC. I've been balling all over the city since I was 8 years old. You made a pretty stupid claim that I've never played basketball if I don't agree with you and I'm willing to prove you wrong on your own merit.
sup?
Also, playing street ball isn't really credible for this argument, haha
|
On June 02 2010 06:11 tonight wrote:
So, if Artest was up on CP3 you think he wouldn't get called for a reach in if he stuck his arms out in his dribble path while Paul made his move to go around him? Strictly speaking you have to assume it's guard on guard in which case that's why you see Fisher having trouble with faster guards all the time. He cannot play up on them as much as he would the more physical guards like Derron or Chuancey.
If you have your arm in the path to bar the guard before he dribbles off you won't be called, well barring superstar status. Hence the arms out mantra of defense and the gutting of perimeter defense in recent years 
Artest doesn't have to be too close to CP3. Just close enough to ball hawk and not give CP3 a clear path to the basket. 5 feet is a lot of room start off a drive.
And hey I didn't play street ball all my life. Youth leagues do teach you basic basketball ability ^_^
|
On June 02 2010 04:52 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 02:54 city42 wrote:On June 02 2010 02:24 OneOther wrote:On June 02 2010 02:13 city42 wrote:On June 01 2010 14:14 OneOther wrote:
It definitely makes sense to compare Kobe and MJ even at this point. If Kobe wins it all this year, then absolutely. If the Lakers win this year, Kobe will have been the best player on 2 championship teams. How does this compare to being the best player on 6 championship teams? He's performing at an MJ-esque level at the moment (in my opinion this is his best postseason by FAR) but I think he'd need a couple more titles after this year to make the discussion legitimate. If total titles is all you judge by, then John Havlicek is beyond MJ too. Unfortunately I think the Lakers will lose for the exact same reason as two years ago: Bynum's health. They really need him to get double digit rebounds, since Odom comes and goes at random and Gasol tends to fade against the physical Boston front line. When did anyone say total titles is the only criteria? It's an important one, but not the only one. You have to obviously look at other numbers and intangibles as well such as leadership and just sheer performance. Also, I don't buy your "Kobe played with Shaq" argument. It doesn't matter anymore. He has proven to be able to win without him and this by no means should discredit what he has done. They needed each other to win. Kobe was the number one option against many teams, and they allowed each other to get open. Seriously, nobody is saying that Kobe is better than MJ. But he absolutely has earned the right to be compared to Jordan. (I will just ignore your Havlicek argument since it's pretty irrelevant) In my eyes, he is already superior in terms of pure skill. Now he just has to go out there and start adding even more to his damn impressive resume. Kobe isn't as revered or doesn't represent this global icon of basketball as MJ did but he's getting pretty damn close. If he performs in the Finals as he has been this entire playoffs and pushes the Lakers for his fifth championship, then Kobe vs MJ will become a more serious discussion. Fine, let's talk leadership. At the moment, Kobe's leadership is in that rarefied level with Jordan and a few others. But how long has it been that way? This is the same guy who threw temper tantrums and demanded a trade more than once, and did everything but quit on his team in the '06 playoffs when he refused to shoot the ball in the second half against Phoenix to show up the media. He played a major role in dismantling a team that could have won more titles. He decided that he would take over an elimination game against Utah in his first playoff series, even though he was still just a bench player and never made an all-NBA team up to that point, and threw up 3 crunch-time airballs. If Kupchak didn't fleece Memphis to get Gasol, this "leadership" we see would probably never have existed. Winning changes everything. By comparison, MJ took a bunch of crappy playoff losses despite amazing individual efforts, and continued to work to improve both himself and the team, which was horrible until Pippen bacame an all-star level player. When they fired Collins and Phil Jackson told him he was going to implement the ball-sharing offense, he accepted it in the name of winning. MJ's Bulls teams never missed the playoffs, even when Orlando Woolridge was their second best player. What other intangibles do you want to discuss? You are disagreeing with me that Kobe doesn't deserve to be compared to Jordan? Because like I said, I was never arguing that Kobe has surpassed Jordan's greatness. But he's getting close and the discussion has its merits now. You can't pick out a dark page from Kobe's otherwise amazing career and conclude that he can't be compared to Jordan as a basketball player and a leader. And as for that Phoenix game, nobody but Kobe knows what he intended to do. Magic Johnson and his cast recently analyzed if Kobe threw away that game on purpose. They didn't think he did. Throughout that entire series, Kobe was taking a lot of shots and was his usual prolific scorer, but the Lakers were still losing. He knew they wouldn't win if his teammates did not get involved in the second half. You can't just assume that he refused to shoot or that he is responsible for breaking up that team. In my opinion, he did nearly everything he could do to make his team win, and you are simply laying down the hammer that he quit on his team. Kobe put up amazing individual efforts just like Jordan did and "took crappy playoff losses." It's absurd that you bring up his airball against Utah Jazz. How old was he back then? How does that have to do anything with what Kobe's greatness will be compared to Jordan once his career ends? I don't even know why you think this even matters. Kobe has proven himself throughout this entire damn career. I mean, Kobe definitely had his ups and downs, went through his immature stages, but look at what he has grown into. You don't think Jordan never had his share of problems? Why should Kobe's few issues from the past determine that he can't be as great as Jordan? In my eyes, he is already near. Jordan was not a perfect leader or player, either. He punched a teammate, got in feuds with them, and teammates made complaints about him. Even Phil Jackson said that he believes Kobe has developed into a better leader than Jordan. You can't take that away from him, no matter what he's done in the past. And he has more years left in his career. Why hasn't Kobe earned the right to be compared to Jordan? You said that you hate Kobe-LeBron discussion because they are completely different basketball players. Kobe and Jordan are two of the greatest shooting guards we have ever seen. Both are fierce competitors and charismatic leaders. They play pretty similar games. Kobe is in his third straight final, seventh overall, and going for his fifth ring. He's not only breaking historic Laker records but the entire NBA's. He's really reaching another level of greatness. Why in the world shouldn't Kobe be compared to Jordan? Nobody is saying that Kobe is greater than Jordan, but the argument is becoming more legitimate than ever. If Kobe keeps on playing anywhere near his level right now and pushes the Lakers towards winning for those years left in his gas tank, then he has a chance to be as great (or even greater?) than Jordan. Kobe's bumps in the past can't stop him from doing that forever. You are just blinded if you don't think Kobe hasn't earned the right to be compared to Jordan.
This is extremely long to respond to so forgive me if something gets omitted:
First of all, my last post didn't make any mention to him as a player. If I wanted to compare Kobe and Jordan as players, I would make reference to the 10 scoring titles, 5 MVPs, 6 finals MVPs, defensive POY, all time RS and playoff scoring averages, 6-0 finals record, etc. that Jordan has to his name. It's LEADERSHIP I was discussing, as I made clear in the first sentence.
The only teammates who complained about Jordan's behavior were benchwarmers. This is similar to Smush Parker bashing Kobe Bryant last year. Usually it's out of jealousy from the superstars getting preferential treatment. You might want to do a bit of research on Jordan punching Kerr before dismissing it as poor leadership. They were matched up in practice and were going at it fiercely. That sort of behavior is precisely what breeds winning. Chuck Daly used to instigate it by telling his players, "There's the ball, now play for your minutes." Conversely, Kobe demanding the Lakers to make an impossible trade does not breed winning. How, as a GM, can you plan for the team's future when you aren't sure whether your best player will be there? I think Kobe has finally realized that what he's done for the last 3 years is the right way to lead a team, but it took him 11 years to figure that out, which HAS to be taken into consideration when discussing his legacy.
Using a Phil Jackson comment to strengthen your argument is quite something. Phil is a tactician and uses the media as a vehicle to motivate his players. If we're going to take words at face value, then I'll make the assertion that Kobe didn't care about getting a ring without Shaq, just because he said so.
I have to break the leadership theme to discuss your comment about Kobe and Jordan playing similar games. What the hell? Their games are nothing alike. The only current player who has a game that even mildly resembles MJ's is Wade. MJ was a slasher first and his game only extended past midrange in the late years. Kobe has always taken most of his shots from 10+ feet from the basket, which is reflected in his far lower FG%. On the other side of the ball, Kobe has always been a better at help defense than at man-to-man, which is opposite to Jordan (although Jordan was excellent at trapping), and it's not even possible for him to play similar defense since the rules are different now. They're both off-guards and both got in fights with Reggie Miller, that's about it.
Long story short: Kobe Bryant is an awesome player. He's always had fierce competitiveness, which unfortunately is an increasingly rare attribute since players are a lot friendlier with each other now than they used to be. He's the best player in the NBA. I think it's fair to slot him above West as the second greatest off-guard of all time. However, there's simply not enough time for him to end up with a comparable career to that of Michael Jordan. Kobe has already played more NBA seasons than MJ did with the Bulls, and his body has been slowly wearing down since about 2007. The guy can't even practice during these playoffs (which also speaks to how amazing he's been in the actual games), so it's unfathomable to think he'll be able to maintain this level for much longer. If he loses this finals, his career finals record will be 4-3, and that will make the discussion impossible forever. If he pulls a threepeat and ends up 6-2, we can talk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
