Shannon wrote:Wait, so since the NBA is more offensively minded and bias nowdays its harder to make the All Defensive team? Hell, someone has to make it... it just means it's probably harder to get better numbers, but there still needs to be players to fill the spots. It becomes harder to defend for all players, not just Kobe.
Exactly; everyone is in the same boat when it comes to defense being made more challenging by a game "geared to create more offense".
Eugene wrote:1. Kobe's a better three point shooter: The numbers speak for themselves on this one. Kobe is not only prone to shooting more 3s than Michael Jordan, but shoots a higher percentage, if only marginally so. Kobe shoots a .337 to Jordan's .327 career average. Again, a negligible difference, but I submit that even Jordan couldn't pull off that double-spin fadeaway corner 3 that Kobe pulled off.
As Matthew said, one shot or move hardly proves one player is a superior shooter. That's not to discredit the difficulty of that three point shot but I would suggest that the effectiveness of Michael Jordan's array of fadeaway jumpshots is similarly unmatched, not to mention his ability to consistently convert on difficult moves in the paint such as up-and-under layups and other off-balance shots that graced the weekly highlight reels. I don't disagree that Kobe Bryant is better from three point range - no doubt thanks in part to the fact the three point line was a standard when he was growing up whereas the NCAA didn't adopt it until after Jordan left for the NBA - but as for the numbers speaking for themselves, 1% is pretty trivial.
Eugene wrote:2. Kobe's a better ball-handler/playmaker: This is from the horse's mouth. Phil Jackson has been quoted as saying that he relies on Kobe to play the quarterback in the Triangle more than he ever did with Jordan. And earlier this season, and back when Shaq was still on the Lakers, Kobe did play the off-guard in the 2-guard front of the triangle. Now, with the Lakers needing more offense from Kobe, you see him in the familiar "Jordan Role," in which he chases the ball and plays the high post and wings. As far as the assist numbers go, I'm going to submit that Shaq aside, Kobe has far less appealing options than Jordan did (in Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr, and Pax, Armstrong, Grant).
Phil Jackson didn't need to rely on Michael Jordan to fulfil that role in the triangle; he had Scottie Pippen. Without an equivalent player on the current Lakers team, it's no wonder that Kobe takes on a greater playmaking role.
As far as the assist numbers are concerned, it's true that Jordan certainly had capable shooters he could pass to when the double team came and players like Pippen and Horace Grant were hardly incompetent at the offensive end. But the abilities and significance of Kobe's teammates is often underrated. Lamar Odom, Luke Walton and Smush Parker are all capable scorers particularly when teamed up with a player who commands as much attention from the defense as Kobe does.
I would suggest it's also no mean feat that Jordan could dish out six or seven assists per game without being the primary playmaker, playing alongside another player in Pippen who was also dishing out between six and eight assists himself.
Eugene wrote:3. Jordan's load was eased by the strength of his team: Jordan, when he won the 6 championships, played with Pippen (for all six) and an assortment of quality role players. The last time Kobe was on such a strong team, he won 3 consecutive titles. Now Kobe has to play with Lamar Odom and Luke Walton and bunch of younger players who are unfamiliar with the Triangle offense. The burden on Kobe is greater, and the triangle, which relies on the other four guys to alleviate the defensive pressure on each player, is less effective with this group than it was for Jordan. Regardless of this fact, Kobe went on to score his 10th 50-point game for the season.
It certainly is a burden especially when the Lakers are trying to win games. But it also affords Kobe an opportunity score all these 50 point games because more than once it's come down to "give the ball to Kobe and get the hell out of his way", because when the game is on the line there's little else the Lakers can do. The Bulls teams of the 90s could fall back on a deeper team with experienced players who could get the job done with a more balanced attack.
With the current makeup of the Lakers, Kobe gets more of an opportunity to go out and attempt enough shots (both those that register as field goal attempts and those that draw free throws) to score 50 points. Within the triangle, Phil tried to reign in Jordan's scoring whereas over the past month or so he's given Kobe the green light to go out and put up 30+ shots if need be. Against the Rockets a few weeks back, he put up 44 shots. When a player of Kobe's calibre (or indeed Jordan's or a few other dominant scorers we could name) can attempt that many shots, he's going to score a lot of points. That's not to downplay Kobe's scoring feats or to say they were easy, but he is being given a golden opportunity to reach those marks.
Eugene wrote:4. The game is revolutionary and evolutionary. Jordan said it himself: the game goes forwards, not backwards. Each interation of players is better than the previous generation. Because Jordan came before Kobe, Kobe had the foundation upon which to build his game. He is Jordan 2.0, and while MJ may have mastered and perfected the offensive game, Kobe is reinventing it for the new millenium, Jordan Remix.
Would you say that Steve Nash is better than John Stockton? He's certainly a modern incarnation of the same sort of player with a higher scoring average and a couple of league MVPs to show for his play.
Eugene wrote:Michael Jordan is my favorite player, and I will concede (in fact, I believe) that Jordan is a better teammate, better leader, a better winner. Considering all those points, I will take Jordan over Bryant any day of the week and twice on Sunday. But, it's not a stretch to believe that from a pure skills standpoint, Kobe is superior to Jordan. It's easy to say that Jordan would have scored 40 ppg in today's league, but if we're really going to play that game of hypotheticals, couldn't I say that Kobe would have scored 30-35 if he played in the 90's, for a quality team like the Bulls?
One could certainly suggest that and it would hardly be a far-fetched suggestion given Kobe's abilities at the offensive end. But if you're talking about skills then you have to consider all aspects of the game at both ends of the court. Even if you just want to focus on offensive skills, Jordan's post game was superior and his three point game was at least decent in his prime. One might also argue that the fact many of Jordan's scoring marks were achieved without the amount of three pointers and in some cases free throw attempts compared to Kobe would suggest a higher level of skill and diverse range of offensive weapons.
Eugene wrote:Just stop glorifying the old days for a second and look at what Kobe's done this season and his career, and consider that this is far beyond anything we've ever seen, and he is, right now, redefining what an individual player is capable of.
I don't think it's necessarily "glorifying the old days" to appreciate past eras or use them as a measuring stick. To a certain extent I think people downplay the old days in an effort to promote today's players as the cream of the crop.
As far as Kobe's 2006/2007 season being beyond anything we've ever seen, I wouldn't go that far. His marks are impressive but they are but one aspect of the game, and even then fall short of marks set by Wilt Chamberlain in the 1962 season.
Eugene wrote:It's time to put away the nostalgia goggles and at least entertain the possibility that from a skills perspective, Kobe is superior to Jordan.
I think it's a subject worth entertaining and discussing but as far "nostalgia goggles" are concerned, isn't it possible that recent achievements are being viewed through "Kobe goggles", considering the frequent suggestion that the old days featured a weaker and less challenging NBA?
In a nutshell, that was my criticism of the Jemele Hill article. Essentially her argument was "Kobe is better because I said so and anyone who disagrees is a hater who won't look at things objectively." The article implored readers to take an objective view but it was hardly objective itself, failing to offer evidence such as statistics and displaying a rather blatant bias. I'm not saying it's a thought that can't be pondered, just that she argued it rather poorly to say the least.
) you have to be kidding. It's one shot! And MJ made numerous big 3 point shots. Remember game 1 against portland? The flu game in 97? Even unheralded shots like this one:
Did you miss last season?
