Article: Kobe better than Jordan?

[benji]

Sorry, but Pippen wasn't the best SF until he played with MJ.

Yeah, and Jordan wasn't the best guard in the league until he actually joined it. Your statement is technically true, but meaningless as Pippen had zero years in the league before playing with Jordan.

I think Grant and Kukoc were the only ones mentionable, and they were definately role players at their finest.

Most people have some strange perception of Horace Grant. From 1990-96 he was an all-star level Power Forward (and from 1992-94 definately was one of the best in the East) not just some role player. That 1992 year of his was amazing, he was unstoppable on offense, and provided his usual all-defense level defense. In his prime Horace shot a super high percentage and had a turnover rate near the top of the league. (And he was a power forward!)

Let's dig through this thread a bit more as I have some time to kill on the computer...

I feel that people feel Jordan is the best player the way he revolutionized the game in terms of his global reputation.

I agree with this. Jordan is the best backcourt player ever but a lot of people just know of him and the Bulls. They don't know why he was great. They say things like "six titles", "drive to win", etc.

In which way did Duncan change the game more than Hakeem and Robinson?

She said "affected the league" not changed the game...and Duncan is the best power forward of all time and one of it's three greatest defenders so...

Vince Carter is a better defender than Dumars?

I'm not going after maes, but using this as a reference. I don't think she was arguing that Carter is a better defender than Dumars, but that while Jordan faced guys who were tough mentally and hard working like Dumars, there wasn't the raw skill and athletic ability like LeBron or Carter. I don't think anyone would claim John Starks can touch Vince Carter in those areas.

And let's be completely honest, Jordan did not have similar level competition like Kobe has. Drexler was a good player but he couldn't touch Jordan, he wasn't even in the same league. As a quick example, (I've been moving away from PER, but it's still the best for a quick summary of what a player does on the court.) when Drexler was at his best he was getting PER's around 24, Jordan was dropping 30+ during those years. "Superstars" like Miller and Richmond weren't even that close.

Looking at last year (and remember, we're not comparing across eras, as PER is standarized to each individual season) you had James, Bryant and Wade around 28. Iverson, Arenas at 26 and 24. McGrady a few years back went 25-25-30-25 over a four year span. Carter's been about as good as Drexler, peaking around the same values. Anthony and Pierce around the 23-24 range too.

not to mention the 3 second rule

Which makes things easier for the defense...as there used to be a thing called "Illegal Defense" which prevented any type of zone defense...

and the serious lack of shot blocking Centers

Well, one would have to compare shot blocking percentages, I think it'd be a lot less of a difference than people imagine. Also, consider that the best defense since 1973 has happened in the last few years with the Spurs...

Where did the nimble big man trend came from if not from those guys?

Well, from even farther back...think 1960s...Russell, Chamberlain...

Kukoc wasn't the best 6th player until he coached MJ. Phil Jackson wasn't the best coach until he played with MJ. Why can't Kobe make Odom into what MJ made Pippen. Why can't Kobe make Walton into what MJ made Kukoc.

Let's go one by one:
1. Without Jordan, Kukoc wouldn't have won 6th man because he would've been starting.
2. Jackson had never coached in the NBA until he got the job after Collins was fired (and remember that Jordan resisted his triangle as much as Kobe...finally accepting it later)
3. You can't prove Jordan "[made Pippen]", you can argue Jordan made Pippen's life easier though.
4. Maybe because Kukoc was an all-star calibur player on offense from the get-go (see: 1994-95) and Walton is an average player who only appears to work well inside Jackson's system (and it's need for a point-forward)

Who is Kobe facing now? Bruce Bowen and Ron Artest are the only worthy of mentioning.

Of course there's Duncan and Wallace dominating inside...the entire Bulls and Rockets defense that swarms teams. Nets and Pacers have been suffocating defensive teams in recent years as well. (Let's not forget the rest of the perimeter stoppers such as Prince, Wallace, Kirilenko, Ginobili, and Battier.)

I've seen Allen Iverson lead a crappy team to the NBA Finals, which Kobe likely will not be doing this year on his own either.

You saw Allen Iverson lead a defensive monster with no serious holes through the ruins of the Eastern Conference.

Why can't Kobe lead his team to the Finals 6 times without a dominant center? Until that happens, we shouldn't have this conversation.

When Kobe is the best backcourt player in the league by a mile, has the best player at a position alongside him, and then a third all-star level player, along with a bunch of the best defenders in the league, THEN we can have the conversation. Jordan didn't win titles with a lottery team around him, he won titles with a 50+ win team around him. He just put them over the top.

I don't think two of those guys can hold a candle to Lamar Odom, who is basically Scottie Pippen with more height.

And less talent, and no all-defense calibur defense.

Odom's career high PER: 18.9. His second season.
Number of years Pippen posted a higher one? Eight.

Odom in one playoff series last year (age 26): 19-11-5 (Turnover rate: 13.1% Kobe: 28-6-5, 14.0% turnover rate)
Pippen in one playoff series at age 33: 18-12-6
Pippen in 1994: 23-8-5
1993: 20-7-6
1992: 20-9-7
1991: 22-9-6
And don't forget Pippen was guarding the other teams best backcourt scorer every game...

Kobe is great. But Jordan is the best guard ever. Kobe's never been the best player in the league, let alone the best player at his position for an extended period. Until he switched positions and then fell apart, McGrady was better. And the last two years he's had Wade challenging him. If you include all wing positions, then you introduce LeBron into the equation. Once Magic shut down, Jordan had no competition in the backcourt. Only Robinson, Shaq, Hakeem and Malone could compete with Jordan for the top of the league crown.

[beau_boy04]

It's a lady who wrote that article. Her name is Jemele Hill.

ThaSpecialistx360, AI led a team to the Finals in the weakass eastern conference back in 2000 or 2001. I think Sixers had the best record in the eastern conference. Second best team was MIlwaukee Bucks led by Ray Allen and Glenn Robinson. Miami was next led by Tim Hardway and Anthony Mason... so now you get the picture how weak it was right? ok thank you. Did you just say Lamar Odom is a Scottie Pippen but taller? since when can Lamar defend? last time I saw Lamar playing against Kevin Garnett, I felt so sorry for Lamar he didn't know what he was doing out there.

Axel, if Kobe managed to stay long enough yeah he could surpass Jordan in points total but PPG I highly doubt it. Remenber Kobe came out out of high school and his body has taken much punishment than a 28y/o Jordan.

AND FOR THE RECORD, last night MR. KOBE MAN let his Lakers team lose against THE WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE - Memphis. Can't we call that greatness?

Nevertheless, Kobe has been the best SG in his generation. However, Wade and Lebron are catching up to him at a very rapid pace.

[Matthew]

The author of this article should have a debate with Shane Hefty, the both use the "im right, your opinion is tainted becuase I said so" theory.

Before I proceed, I've said since 2004 I thought Kobe was the second best shooting guard in NBA history. And since then he has indeed further closed the gap between him and Jordan. Does he have MVPs, Dpoy or finals mvp's? No, no and no.

But he is still the second best. His body of work is great, and like it or not he is a 3 time NBA champion. I'm not going to try and discredit those championships, but to illistrate a point, lets look exactly at the teams that Chicago went through to win the NBA championship, and compare them to the teams of now (to argue the point of "the nba is tougher now")

Chicago
1991: New York, Philly, Detroit, Lakers.

New York was a tough team with Ewing, McDaniel, Oakley, Gerald Wallace and Mark Jackson. Chicago demolished them in 3 games, then dispatched the Barkley led sixers before sweeping the 2 time defending NBA champions (winning back to back is such a hard thing, people rant about San Antonio's excellence but they never won back to back) before completely dominating a young Laker team still led by one of the best ever in Magic.

1992: Miami, New York, Cleveland, Portland

Miami was a sub 40 win team and were'nt anything special. New York was a 50 win team and played Chicago tougher then anyone in their 6 championships. Cleveland was defensive powerhouse but overated. Portland was probably a deeper and more talented team then Chicago, but it showed the mental toughness of the Bulls to win that series.

1993: Atlanta, Cleveland, New York, Pheonix

Atlanta was led by Dominique who averaged 29.9 ppg, but were no match for Jordan and the Bulls. Cleveland were dismantled and Chicago came from 0-2 back against a 60 win team in New york to get back to the finals. Pheonix played tough after their horrible start to the finals to make it a series, but it was Jordan who delivered when Barkley couldn't.

1996: Miami, New York, Orlando, Seattle

Chicago went 11-1 in the Eastern playoffs against teams who boasted incredible centres, a position of weakness by the Bulls. The then defeated 64 win seattle in 6 games.

1997: Washington, Atlanta, Miami, Utah

Washington was an incredibly tough team in the first round despite a Bulls sweep. ATlanta won 56 games and Miami won 61 games, but both only managed one win each in thir series against chicago. In the finals Utah gave Chicago a serious battle but fell in 6 games.

1998: New Jersey, Charlotte, Indiana, Utah

New Jersey was in a similar position to the of Washington the year before, and Charlotte was also better then their 51 win record suggested. Indiana was a 58 game winner but feel in 7 games to Chicago. Utah had the homecourt advanatage in the finals but still couldnt beat the Bulls.

In short, without Jordan and the Bulls, I think i'm going to assume the following:

1991: Lakers/Pistons finals, either Detroit 3 peats or Magic gets his 5th ring. Talk about greatness.
1992: Portland would outlast New York in a brutal series and Drexler would be considered on a completely different level
1993: Pheonix would beat New York and Barkley, like Drexler, would be considered on a whole different echelon.
1996: Seattle or Orlando would have been champions, and either way the winner would be viewed as a great single season team.
1997: Utah would have beaten Miami and Karl Malones career would have been complete
1998: Utah would have barely beaten Indy, and Malone would have been considered right there with Bird as the best forward of all time.

Now lets compare that to the champions of the last 6 years.

2006: Miami. A tough team with one player going nuts and scoring at will, but hardly a team for the ages.

2005: San Antonio. Such a tough defensive team, but in the finals almost sleptwalked to the championship.
2004: Detroit. What a mentally tough team, but this pales in comparison to the team that went back to back led by Isiah/Rodman / Dumars/

2003: San Antonio. Now this is more like it. The team that went through and ended the lakers dynasty and Duncan played at a great level.

2002: Lakers. They beat Sacramento in Arco in game 7, which was impressive. But if ever there was an example of a weak NBA this was the season. It was two teams contending, that's it.

2001: Lakers. I give this Laker team the best chance of beating a team like the 96 Bulls or 92 Bulls. What they did that playoffs was so impressive. Portland was loaded, and swept. Sacramento was dangerous, and swept. San Antonio was dominant, and swept. Philly had the heart of warriors, and the fact they actually won a game shows how good they were. But that Laker team was unbelievable.

The NBA isn't tougher now then it was in the 90's.

[Matthew]

It's a lady who wrote that article. Her name is Jemele Hill.

ThaSpecialistx360, AI led a team to the Finals in the weakass eastern conference back in 2000 or 2001. I think Sixers had the best record in the eastern conference. Second best team was MIlwaukee Bucks led by Ray Allen and Glenn Robinson. Miami was next led by Tim Hardway and Anthony Mason... so now you get the picture how weak it was right? ok thank you. Did you just say Lamar Odom is a Scottie Pippen but taller? since when can Lamar defend? last time I saw Lamar playing against Kevin Garnett, I felt so sorry for Lamar he didn't know what he was doing out there.

Axel, if Kobe managed to stay long enough yeah he could surpass Jordan in points total but PPG I highly doubt it. Remenber Kobe came out out of high school and his body has taken much punishment than a 28y/o Jordan.

AND FOR THE RECORD, last night MR. KOBE MAN let his Lakers team lose against THE WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE - Memphis. Can't we call that greatness?

Nevertheless, Kobe has been the best SG in his generation. However, Wade and Lebron are catching up to him at a very rapid pace.

Can you explain exactly how Lebron is "catching up ata rapid"pace? Even Wade has a long way to go. To put it this way, Kobe is closer to Jordan then Wade or Lebron are to Kobe.

And your example of the Lakers losing a regular season game to Memphis is stupid. Jordan and the Bulls lost the expansion Raptors in 1996! God, take his MVP's away.

[beau_boy04]

Sir,

Lebron James and D Wade are catching up to Kobe Bryant talentwise and you can't deny it. But I still belive Kobe is better than them both.

Memphis, the worst team in the league, played without 2 starters and possibly his best overall player - Mike Miller. The game was horrible was start to finish. I can not contain myself anymore.

[Matthew]

As I said before, can you explain how? There's nothing that Wade and Lebron are currently doing that Kobe is not.

[ThaSpecialist]

ThaSpecialistx360, AI led a team to the Finals in the weakass eastern conference back in 2000 or 2001. I think Sixers had the best record in the eastern conference. Second best team was MIlwaukee Bucks led by Ray Allen and Glenn Robinson. Miami was next led by Tim Hardway and Anthony Mason... so now you get the picture how weak it was right? ok thank you.

Huh? The East has been weak for years .. this means we should discredit any teams that come out of it? As if the Pistons didn't dominate the entire league for a few years? lol

Did you just say Lamar Odom is a Scottie Pippen but taller? since when can Lamar defend? last time I saw Lamar playing against Kevin Garnett, I felt so sorry for Lamar he didn't know what he was doing out there.

In that there's very little that he can't do, similar to Pippen .. whom would of had a rough time guarding Garnett as well. lol

That really wasn't a good way of discrediting Lamar.

As I said before, can you explain how? There's nothing that Wade and Lebron are currently doing that Kobe is not.

Has Kobe led the current Lakers team (or last year's) to the FINALS?

AI did it.

[J@3]

Has Kobe led the current Lakers team (or last year's) to a Championship?

AI did it.

When did Iverson win a championship? Was I asleep during that season? I must have missed LeBron's championship aswell.

[ThaSpecialist]

Has Kobe led the current Lakers team (or last year's) to a Championship?

AI did it.

When did Iverson win a championship? Was I asleep during that season? I must have missed LeBron's championship aswell.

whoops, let me edit that.

I only said Finals 15,000 times on the other thread.

Edit: And nobody has explained to me how AI dragging a team to the finals has awarded him with a backseat to Kobe's hilarious solo-career?

[J@3]

Edit: And nobody has explained to me how AI dragging a team to the finals has awarded him with a backseat to Kobe's hilarious solo-career?

Maybe because he only did it once in 10 seasons while Kobe's "hilarious" solo career is only in it's 3rd year.

[xman]

Has Kobe led the current Lakers team (or last year's) to a Championship?

AI did it.

When did Iverson win a championship? Was I asleep during that season? I must have missed LeBron's championship aswell.

whoops, let me edit that.

I only said Finals 15,000 times on the other thread.

Edit: And nobody has explained to me how AI dragging a team to the finals has awarded him with a backseat to Kobe's hilarious solo-career?

are you out of your fucking mind saying that AI is better than Kobe

[Andrew]

That really is an atrocious article full of very weak arguments. The lack of research is appalling; Jemele Hill should be ashamed of writing such a laughable column. One can argue very strongly about Kobe's place in history but she failed miserably. As maes said, it makes you wonder if she's even seen any games from the 90s.

Kobe can do everything Michael did, and even a few things Michael couldn't do.

Strong words, but it's basically just an opinion. Hill offers no evidence to support the claim. In fact, in the first six sentences of her article she essentially dismisses any kind of facts that can - and must - be considered when comparing two great players. She conveniently forgets things that Michael Jordan accomplished that Kobe Bryant has not, preferring instead to boldly state her point of view and consider it compelling evidence.

Kobe is just as good a defender. His killer instinct is just as pronounced. He can shoot, finish and explode. And just like Jordan, the more he's pissed off, the more unstoppable he is.

Admittedly much of that holds true but her assertion about Kobe being an equal defender has little merit. Defensive stats can be deceptive because relatively average defenders have been known to rack up a respectable amount of steals and most decent big men average a respectable amount of blocks without the defensive mindset and intelligence of someone like the great Bill Russell. But at the same time, those stats don't happen by accident.

Michael Jordan was the first player to record 200+ steals and 100+ blocks in a season, a feat he accomplished two years in a row. He was also the first player to win the Defensive Player of the Year Award in the same year as leading the league in scoring and several coaches and players spoke of how he was a tough defender, a fact often masked by his scoring feats and backed up by multiple All-Defensive First Team selections. Kobe Bryant has neither the same reputation nor similar statistical marks.

Of course, the idea that Kobe is better than Jordan -- or even the best player in this league -- is as repugnant to some folks as a rectal exam. Even though Kobe has proven himself under pressure countless times, he gets the A-Rod treatment.

Kobe can't please anyone. And it doesn't help that most people suffer from revisionist history when it comes to Jordan, forgetting that he was just as poor a teammate and a ball hog and that he ran off coach Doug Collins like Kobe ran off Phil Jackson the first time.

In fact, you could argue that Jordan was even worse. Far as we know, Kobe hasn't jacked up any of his teammates the way Jordan punched out Steve Kerr and Will Perdue at practice.

Kobe will never be forgiven for Shaq's departure, but you're delusional if you think Jordan wouldn't have had any ego issues playing alongside a player with Shaq's star power.

Given some of her assertions I would suggest Hill is the one who is delusional. It's convenient how she downplays Kobe's shortcomings while stressing Jordan's. There are plenty of other examples of other great players having altercations with teammates that are similarly downplayed. Magic Johnson's style of play was unselfish but the disputes over scoring and clashes with teammates are seldom talked about. Larry Bird was apparently somewhat of a ruthless teammate. Kevin Garnett punched a teammate a couple of years ago and recent scuffles between Etan Thomas and Brendan Haywood have even been praised for showing competitive drive over the starting centre job. Somewhat of a double standard to say the least.

The best-player argument shouldn't be determined by personal dislike. But if you want to take it there, fine. Jordan was hardly the ideal husband, but only the tabloids were brave enough to venture into his personal life. And what about those gambling issues? If Jordan's life had been covered like Kobe's, we would have an entirely different opinion of His Airness.

Complete and utter rubbish. The personal lives of Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and indeed any other player are non-factors when comparing their basketball ability. The notion that Michael Jordan wasn't hounded by the media or ever had his personal life dissected by journalists and the public alike is absurd. One of the factors in his first retirement was the harrassment of the press and the fact everything he did became news. Total hogwash and pure speculation on the part of Hill here; very sloppy journalism.

Besides a different level of media scrutiny, there was definitely a difference in the level of competition during Jordan's heyday compared to now.

We ask you to step back and take an objective look. Isn't Kobe the best player in the NBA?Yesterday's NBA player certainly was more fundamentally sound, but there's no question that today's player is bigger, stronger and faster. When Jordan played, he was a singular force that could not be equaled. Jordan was guarded by the likes of John Starks and Joe Dumars, who were fine players but weren't nearly as skilled or physically imposing as LeBron, D-Wade, Tracy McGrady or even Vince Carter.

The NBA is tougher now.

Another ridiculously inaccurate statement, downplaying the players of yesteryear in an effort to hold up the players of today. The fact that we are asked to "step back and take an objective view" is laughable; is Jemele Hill being objective in her article? Hardly. Getting on your high horse doesn't make a convincing argument.

Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson and Patrick Ewing will be among the best centers ever, but none of them affected the league the way Shaq and Tim Duncan have. There are two two-time MVPs in Kobe's own conference (Duncan, Nash), which is a problem Jordan never faced during his championship runs. Seven-footers weren't launching 3s back then. Magic Johnson and the Lakers were on a downward spiral, and the Pistons were on their last legs. It was Michael and everyone else. That's not the case for Kobe.

Another absurd and ignorant statement. No, centres back in the mid 90s were not launching threes. However, players like the Dream and the Admiral were practising the forgotten art of low post play while at the same redefining the centre position with great athleticism, surprising ballhandling ability and consistent range out to eighteen feet. Their teams were also perennial title contenders, thanks in no small part to their play.

Jemele Hill might just be the worst sportswriter I've come across and no, it's not because she's dared to criticise my all-time favourite player. She offers no evidence for her claims, conveniently brushing aside facts that don't suit her purpose rather than putting forth a compelling argument against them and has failed to undertake any kind of research.

She's basically hanging her argument on the streak of 50+ point games, which is impressive and is something that Michael Jordan did not do but both Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant's careers are comprised of much more than 50 point games, or streaks of 50 point games, and she has basically ignored that. She's also played the "Hater" card, suggesting people don't want to admit what she perceives to be truth because they dislike him which is a weak argument.

Truly a poor article riddled with ignorance and absurd claims that do Michael Jordan a disservice and to a certain extent Kobe Bryant as well, by a journalist who could stand to do some research and put forth an argument backed up by evidence rather than bold opinion. ESPN should be ashamed to have her on staff.

[benji]

by a journalist who could stand to do some research and put forth an argument backed up by evidence rather than bold opinion. ESPN should be ashamed to have her on staff.

Well, she's not a journalist. She's a columnist. Journalists aren't supposed to be making arguments.

And it's hardly damning to accuse a sportswriter of "conveniently brushing aside facts that don't suit her purpose rather than putting forth a compelling argument against them and has failed to undertake any kind of research." That's basically a definition of their profession.

1997: Washington, Atlanta, Miami, Utah

Washington was an incredibly tough team in the first round despite a Bulls sweep. ATlanta won 56 games and Miami won 61 games, but both only managed one win each in thir series against chicago. In the finals Utah gave Chicago a serious battle but fell in 6 games.

1998: New Jersey, Charlotte, Indiana, Utah

New Jersey was in a similar position to the of Washington the year before, and Charlotte was also better then their 51 win record suggested. Indiana was a 58 game winner but feel in 7 games to Chicago. Utah had the homecourt advanatage in the finals but still couldnt beat the Bulls.

I could do a more detailed analysis, but a few points. Charlotte wasn't better than their 51 wins, they were actually worse. If I'm not mistaken Indiana actually outscored Chicago over that seven game series. (I might be confusing two series though...)

The Bulls were the best team in the regular season that year along with the Lakers and Sonics. And they were missing Pippen and Steve Kerr for half the season. (Which killed their offense.) In the playoffs only Longley missed any games. So it's easy to see why they trashed the East aside from Indiana, and then were able to overcome the Jazz. (Especially since the Jazz were all shooting much worse in the playoffs.)

As for 1997, the Heat had posted a much better record than their point differential. Both the Heat and Hawks were 57 win teams, the Bulls were a 68 win team. Don't you expect a team 11 games better to win? If you compared a 53 and 42 win team, few people would pick the 42 win team. And look at how those Heat shooting percentages fell apart...they were only 12th on offense and then they got the 1st and 4th best defensive teams one after another. Plus those Bulls had Rodman and Kukoc back plus Williams/Dele. You'd expect them to be better than the regular season.

Chicago went 11-1 in the Eastern playoffs against teams who boasted incredible centres, a position of weakness by the Bulls

Not to pick on Matthew, but to illustrate something here. People talk about how the Bulls didn't have a great center, but as the Suns are re-proving, positions matter so little to winning.

Battles aren't won by comparing positions and picking the winner at the five, then summing it up. It's by actually taking a look at who's on the court. So the top eight players in the playoffs, and their regular season PER.
Pippen-Jordan-Rodman-Harper-Kukoc-Longley-Kerr-Wennington (21.0/29.4/13.6/14.4/20.4/11.9/15.2/11.0)
Hardaway-Mourning-Chapman-Williams-Gatling-Smith-Thomas-Danilovic (18.7/22.7/13.0/15.8/19.9/11.7/13.5/14.4)
Mason-Ewing-Starks-Oakley-Harper-Davis-Ward-Anderson (15.8/20.9/14.2/15.1/14.8/12.0/11.3)
Hardaway-O'Neal-Scott-Anderson-Grant-Shaw-Bowie-Koncak (24.6/26.4/16.1/16.5/17.9/10.2/10.4/7.1)

Every team but Orlando cannot match the first two Bulls players. And Orlando lost Grant (17.9) for the last three games (and he took only one shot in the first one) and started Koncak in his place. (Royal came in at 12.7.) When you start behind like that, the rest of your team has to beat the rest of the Bulls, and when you factor in that Rodman was really like an 18 with his defense and Harper was closer to about 16...nobody can touch the rest of the Bulls lineup. Only the Heat bring in a guy close to Kukoc with Gatling, and him, Chapman and Walt Williams didn't guard anyone most of the time.

Even comparing using positions, take a gander, against say the Knicks:
C: 11.9-20.9 (-9.0)
PF: 13.6-15.1 (-1.5...and I'd argue it was closer to +1.0)
SF: 21.0-15.8 (+5.2)
SG: 29.4-14.2 (+15.2)
PG: 14.4-14.8 (-0.4)
C/PF/PG: -10.9 (Again, I'd argue really closer to -8.5)
SF/SG: +20.4
Total: +9.5
(Side note: Bulls were +12 points per game for the season...Knicks were +2 points per game...so, you'd just assume the Bulls would probably be +10 in the series...and even though the above is PER...)

Consider: The Bulls were the #1 defense (and #1 offense)...Heat 23rd and 5th...Knicks were 20th and 4th...Magic 3rd and 13th, and without their best defender (Grant)...if you can't score, you can't win, and when you're already one of the worst teams in the league offensively and you face the best defense...as for the Magic, their record was inflated for one thing (they were a 56 win team taking on a 70 win team...and doing it without their third best player) and they were competitive in games two and four.

As for the Finals, Sonics had nobody to guard Jordan for extended periods of time, and like the Knicks, while they were better at C, PF and PG, they couldn't match up at SG and SF at all. Sonics didn't really have a bench, and Brickowski started half the series for some insane reason. (Sonics also, weren't as good as their record...only a 61 win team.)

[Dan's Brain]

Can i ask what you're talking about when you say PER?

[scrub]

His player efficiency rating.

[ThaSpecialist]

Edit: And nobody has explained to me how AI dragging a team to the finals has awarded him with a backseat to Kobe's hilarious solo-career?

Maybe because he only did it once in 10 seasons while Kobe's "hilarious" solo career is only in it's 3rd year.

And here I thought Bryant was already a leader three championships later. Ready to take over and start winning on his own.

So we'll come back to this argument in 7 more years when Bryant has [x] amount of championships as the leader of a team.

Until then, let's refrain from putting Bryant in the same sentence as proven leaders.

are you out of your fucking mind saying that AI is better than Kobe

lol .. another dude with Kobe plastered all over his s/n. ain't that convenient.

[Matthew]

I could do a more detailed analysis, but a few points. Charlotte wasn't better than their 51 wins, they were actually worse. If I'm not mistaken Indiana actually outscored Chicago over that seven game series. (I might be confusing two series though...)

I'm not concernec with your PER, point differential means little to me. Charlotte were comming off a 1997 campaign where they were the second best team after the all star break (behind Utah) and were swept out of the playoffs. They won 51 games, but Pheonix won 56 that season. I believe Charlotte was a much better team then Pheonix that year.

The Bulls were the best team in the regular season that year along with the Lakers and Sonics. And they were missing Pippen and Steve Kerr for half the season. (Which killed their offense.) In the playoffs only Longley missed any games. So it's easy to see why they trashed the East aside from Indiana, and then were able to overcome the Jazz. (Especially since the Jazz were all shooting much worse in the playoffs.)

I've thought about this alot recently. Utah was very good in terms of team defense. It's only flaw was it's inability to have someone create their own shot other then Malone, which allowed teams to collapse on him and then scramble to the outside shooters. Had Utah had someone who could create on the perimeter, I think they would have beaten Chicago in 1998.

As for 1997, the Heat had posted a much better record than their point differential. Both the Heat and Hawks were 57 win teams, the Bulls were a 68 win team. Don't you expect a team 11 games better to win? If you compared a 53 and 42 win team, few people would pick the 42 win team. And look at how those Heat shooting percentages fell apart...they were only 12th on offense and then they got the 1st and 4th best defensive teams one after another. Plus those Bulls had Rodman and Kukoc back plus Williams/Dele. You'd expect them to be better than the regular season.

Not always no. That's why the playoffs are great. Look at Miami last year when they played Detroit, or Detroit when they played Indiana in 2004. A 10, 11 game difference doesn't mean much in the playoffs, upsets do happen. Look at the 92 Knicks/ Bulls series. They pushed Chicago to the limit in the second round and that was a 16 or 17 game difference.

Not to pick on Matthew, but to illustrate something here. People talk about how the Bulls didn't have a great center, but as the Suns are re-proving, positions matter so little to winning.

Battles aren't won by comparing positions and picking the winner at the five, then summing it up. It's by actually taking a look at who's on the court. So the top eight players in the playoffs, and their regular season PER.
Pippen-Jordan-Rodman-Harper-Kukoc-Longley-Kerr-Wennington (21.0/29.4/13.6/14.4/20.4/11.9/15.2/11.0)
Hardaway-Mourning-Chapman-Williams-Gatling-Smith-Thomas-Danilovic (18.7/22.7/13.0/15.8/19.9/11.7/13.5/14.4)
Mason-Ewing-Starks-Oakley-Harper-Davis-Ward-Anderson (15.8/20.9/14.2/15.1/14.8/12.0/11.3)
Hardaway-O'Neal-Scott-Anderson-Grant-Shaw-Bowie-Koncak (24.6/26.4/16.1/16.5/17.9/10.2/10.4/7.1)

Of course positions are meaningless, and the Bulls were able to overcome their defficiences at centre. But lets be honest; the level of talent the Bulls overcame at their weakest positions was amazing. Ewing, Shaq, Alonzo. You compare the Bulls to the suns, but what centre's do the suns face in the West? Yao? After that its players like Dampier, Elson and Marcus Camby. Those guys aren't exactly Alonzo, Ewing or the great Shaq. And with Amare (im aware of him being a power forward playing centre), he is actually a mismatch on the offensive end for those teams. The centres out west aren't the calibur of Zo, Ewing or Shaq.

As for the Finals, Sonics had nobody to guard Jordan for extended periods of time, and like the Knicks, while they were better at C, PF and PG, they couldn't match up at SG and SF at all. Sonics didn't really have a bench, and Brickowski started half the series for some insane reason. (Sonics also, weren't as good as their record...only a 61 win team.)

Interesting. Payton did the best job on Jordan in the finals as anyone did and I would venture to say for the entire series, Rodman outplayed Kemp. Sure he didn't score, but his amazing rebounding performances were what kept Chicago in games 2 and 6. Kemp exploded in game 4 and 5, but did little else the rest of the series.




The specialist, you talk about people with kobe on their usernames. You have Portland in your signature. How many times were the Blazers eliminated by the lakers and kobe? 4 straight times, or was it 5?

Nobody is taking anything away from Iverson in 2001, he had an amazing season. But you're kidding yourself if you honestly believe that the Sixers team around Iverson wasnt better then what Kobe had last year or even this year.

Dikembe Mutumbo, DPOY.
McKie, 6th man of the year.

Those are two huge components of what the Lakers desperately needed last season. Plus add what Kobe brings to floor on the defensive end compared to Iverson. Iverson, god bless him, isnt nearly as complete as Kobe. In the playoffs, Sam Cassell was able to post him up and Alvin Williams ( ) was able to shoot over the top of him.

There does come a time where you have to release all your hate and accept greatness. Players like Kobe, Jordan and even Iverson don't come around too often. If you spend all your time criticising one of them, you don't appreciate the gift as a basketball fan until they're retired.

[dada]

Dikembe Mutumbo, DPOY.
McKie, 6th man of the year.

6th Man of the Year- Aaron Mckie
Coach of the Year- Larry Brown

These seem to be things he conveniently forgot. I suppose dragging along those bunch of losers was quite an achievement.

[Matthew]

In defense of Iverson, apart of Mckie and at very limited time Mutumbo, he was the only guy capable of making a shot. Eric Snow, Geogre Lynch, Tyronne Hill, sure they could defend but when it came to scoring they were pretty ordinary.

[ThaSpecialist]

you talk about people with kobe on their usernames. You have Portland in your signature. How many times were the Blazers eliminated by the lakers and kobe? 4 straight times, or was it 5?

lol .. this is kind of funny that people are thinking this. I think I was more a Drexler fan than a Portland fan. Sucks that I only caught the tail end of his career, but I wasn't much of a Blazer fan with Pip, Arvydas and Brian Grant.

It didn't exactly sting. Like watching Clyde get the exit year after year, I understand that teams and players are superior.

Nobody is taking anything away from Iverson in 2001, he had an amazing season. But you're kidding yourself if you honestly believe that the Sixers team around Iverson wasnt better then what Kobe had last year or even this year.

Dikembe Mutumbo, DPOY.
McKie, 6th man of the year.

Those are two huge components of what the Lakers desperately needed last season. Plus add what Kobe brings to floor on the defensive end compared to Iverson. Iverson, god bless him, isnt nearly as complete as Kobe. In the playoffs, Sam Cassell was able to post him up and Alvin Williams ( ) was able to shoot over the top of him.

I understand that Iverson had plenty of help.

I also loathe that people continue to dog on some of the Lakers players repeatedly, and I usually feel as if it's just their way of saying: "Look at how much Kobe does."

Dude I am a Lamar fan .. he played his ass off last year in the playoffs. Walton and Brown showed up for 10+ ppg and shot great from the floor. Smush had a shitload of steals.

They still took the Suns, the supposed favored squad to come out of the West to Game 7. I don't think they're as bad as everybody thinks they are.

Aside from that, if Bryant is so much better and ahead of guys like Iverson (Bryant is second only to Jordan?) he should give the Lakers a massive advantage altogether.

There does come a time where you have to release all your hate and accept greatness. Players like Kobe, Jordan and even Iverson don't come around too often. If you spend all your time criticising one of them, you don't appreciate the gift as a basketball fan until they're retired.

Dude .. I understand that Bryant is one of the greats. My beef is with the people who claim he is second only to Jordan. I want to know why, without hearing that he won Championships playing along side the greatest Center of this era .. lol. Nothing more. His record as a player out of Shaq's shadow is a joke compared to when he stood beside Shaq each year in the Finals. I expect more out of the guy said to be second only to Jordan. I expect trips to the Conference Finals .. so forth.

And I will be disappointed as shit if LA goes out again in the 1st round this year.

Finally, if the team is so horrid, management should be doing their best to fix it. Bryant should be in on this, and pushing as well. Bryant has been the top dog for three years. LA should be getting some ballers around him and quit forcing him to shoulder a load he apparently is struggling to handle. (..once again I do not expect a guy dubbed "2nd only to Jordan" to struggle carrying this load) What kills me about all this is that Bryant's ego is just the right size for him to keep silent about team needs .. thinking he truly can shoulder the load.

[Andrew]

Well, she's not a journalist. She's a columnist. Journalists aren't supposed to be making arguments.

And it's hardly damning to accuse a sportswriter of "conveniently brushing aside facts that don't suit her purpose rather than putting forth a compelling argument against them and has failed to undertake any kind of research." That's basically a definition of their profession.

You're right, "journalist" and "journalism" weren't the right terms to use. But as far as presenting evidence, if she's going to make these bold declarations then she has to do some kind of research and/or present some kind of evidence to back up those claims otherwise her argument is basically "Kobe is better than Jordan because I said so and those who don't agree with me are haters who can't look at the situation objectively"...and that's essentially what she said.

I agree that it's not below sportswriters to use hyperbole or conveniently twist facts to support their claim but most columnists do at least try to explain their point of view and employ some form of logic, flawed as it may be in some circumstances. Hill basically made a lot of claims without offering much evidence, which gives the impression she has very little knowledge of NBA history nor is willing to do any kind of research for the sake of making the comparison between Kobe and Jordan, relying instead of ignorant, absurd or completely irrelevant statements. That's what makes it such a sloppy article.

[Kobe ftw]

Kobe & Jordan times-lot of difference, Nba is much harder/faster now, totaly true, don't care what u ppl think about it, anyway my pick is definitly Kobe.

[BigKaboom2]

You didn't even need to write anything in that post; your username says it all.

[Kobe ftw]

Sure, it says the truth.

[cyanide]

Nba is much harder/faster now, totaly true

Based on what?