joehoo.net

This article can be found at joehoo.net

Kobe Bryant is still not as good as Michael Jordan - Separating fact from fiction 4/16/07

It's begun again. Kobe Bryant fans are like flashers. It's derived from the arrogance of Celtics and Lakers fans from the 80s. They got so used to being the best and having the best of everything in basketball, that when Michael Jordan came into the league, it was often fans and writers from these towns who shot at him the most. There was "you can't score this much and yet your team will still win." When Jordan won championships, to people in Boston and LA it was only because the talent level of the entire NBA suddenly diminished greatly between 1990 and 1991. Yeah, that's right, overnight.

When Kobe Bryant came into the NBA, Laker fans had their chance. They had their idol to hold up as being better than Michael Jordan. It started in full force in 1999, and didn't stop until about 2004. Kobe Bryant was "like a young Michael Jordan, only better!" Forget that Kobe's fans usually had no idea just how good MJ was from 84-91, as most memories we get to see of him are from his later years. Kobe fans assume that if Kobe can jump like MJ in 1996 then "he's just as good of a dunker as Michael Jordan."

You heard it all. Laker fans loved to remind you that "Kobe has three rings at age 22, Michael Jordan had none." This of course completely ignores that Michael Jordan was the best player on his title teams, and Kobe was second fiddle to one of the best big men of all time. O'neal won the 2000 NBA MVP and all three Finals MVPs during the Lakers title run. So Kobe Bryant played Jon Havlicek during the Russell years, congratulations.

But Kobe fans went away. Kobe turned 23 and 24, ages at which MJ started to take off to even higher heights. Kobe, on the other hand, failed to look Jordanesque in a 2003 series loss to San Antonio, while watching counterpart Manu Ginobili go off and become a force against the Lakers. Then he shot 37% in 2004 v. the Pistons, and his fans really went away.

But they come back, all the time. If he has a 40 PPG month, they're back and he's Jordan only better all over again. Forget that Kobe fans who compare Kobe to Jordan were nowhere to be found in 2005, or after game 7 last year v. the Suns. When Kobe plays more like Michael Jordan mixed with Reggie Miller and Haywoode Workman, those games don't count. The comparison Kobe Bryant fans like is clear:

Kobe's best games v. MJ's entire career

The worst Kobe > Jordan article I've ever read

Jemele Hill of the Booya network, or ESPN, probably wrote the worst Kobe > MJ article I've ever read in my life. First, the media hegemons goal is clear in making Kobe, or anybody for that matter into the next MJ. See, to the corporate hegemon, MJ = Cash, BIG cash, unprecedented cash. Therefore if you can get Kobe or Lebron to = MJ in the public's eyes, then Kobe will = the same cash for the same people that you and I will never see on TV. Second, if you look at Hill's picture you can't imagine her having seen MJ in his athletic prime day in and day out.

So, with that, let's delve into her argument (Hill's article displayed in italic quotes):

"Kobe Bryant is better than Michael Jordan. Not more successful. Hasn't had a bigger economic impact. Hasn't won more MVPs. Hasn't won more titles. But he's a better player. Kobe can do everything Michael did, and even a few things Michael couldn't do."

Ok, so basically, he's not really better by any measure. He doesn't win more, he's never won as the best player on his team. He doesn't win more MVPs or defensive player of the year awards. He's not better statistically (if you compare Kobe and MJ's stats at the same ages, MJ wins in a landslide). So he's better because you think he is? Well that's great logic. Guess what? George Bush isn't President. See, whether or not anyone likes our system, he was "awarded" President, he lives in the White House, he acts as President, but I don't think he's President, so he's not. See how that works?

"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."

Kobe is just as good a defender? Really? By what measure? Michael Jordan has 1 Defensive Player of the Year Award, Kobe has none.

From ages 21-29 (since MJ entered the league at 21 and Kobe turns 29 shortly after this season is over), Kobe Bryant has averaged 1.65 steals per game and 0.58 blocks per game. Jordan, again, at the same ages, averaged 2.75 steals per game and 1.07 blocks per game.

So Jemele has proven one thing here, that it's great to have an opinion. Your opinion is nice Jemele, but we've just seen, by the numbers, that Kobe is not close to the defender MJ is. I've never seen anyone even suggest Kobe Bryant for a Defensive Player of the Year Award.

Next let's talk about Kobe's alleged "explosion." If you've ever watched Jordan in the late 80s and early 90s you know that Kobe does not dunk like, nor does he explode like Michael Jordan. Jordan's game was about tomahawk dunks and taking two and three defenders to the hole for facial jams over contact from multiple players. That's why MJ shot 53.5% in 88, 53.8% in 89, 52.6% in 90, 53.9% in 91, and 51.9% in 1992.

See Jordan had one glaring difference from today's leapers like Bryant, McGrady and James. His lightning quick first step. Take Kobe Bryant. Now, give him Isiah Thomas' first step and you have Michael Jordan in his athletic prime (87-92). Jordan was able to blow by his on-ball defender so quickly and have such a running start that taking off from far distances and being able to come over the top of elite frontcourt players was seemingly easy.

Bryant, on the other hand, has never shot better than 46.9% from the field. His athleticism on his best day may be Grade B Jordan, but his tendencies are a lot more like Reggie Miller. Could Kobe take it straight to the cup more? Sure. Does he? No. He's a great great jumpshooter. But a great jumpshooter is like comparing a great singles hitter to Willie Mays, or a great all-purpose back to a player like Walter Payton.

Bryant fans love to tell you that the game is so much more athletic now that you can't shoot the percentages that MJ shot back then in today's game from the SG position. Enter Dwyane Wade, who shot 49.5% in 06 and is shooting 49.1% this year. It is Wade, not Bryant, who reminds me most of MJ's ability to take it to the cup on multiple defenders. Wade almost single-handedly willed an inferior Miami team to victory over the Mavericks by taking it straight to the cup on whatever defenders that the Mavericks were willing to provide him.

Take Jordan himself, at age 41 he shot 44.5% on his last legs. Bryant is shooting 45.2% this year. So you're telling me that MJ 15 years younger could not have shot markedly better than 45.2%.

This is what Bryant fans don't get. The scoring, the big points. It was welcomed in Chicago because Jordan was able to sometimes do it at higher percentages than players like Hakeem Olajuwon, Karl Malone and Rik Smits. 30+ PPG production at center FG% rates? That is efficient offense. Kobe is shooting at jumpshooting PG percentages. That's entirely different.

"At the very least, Kobe's scoring spree over the last week should put to rest any lingering doubts that he's the best player in the NBA. Yes, better than Steve Nash, who is the best point guard, but not the lethal force that Kobe is. Yes, better than Dwyane Wade, who is certainly closer to the Kobe-Jordan level than LeBron James, but D-Wade's game is not as polished as Kobe's."

Wrong again, on all counts. First start with Wade. The last time I checked, when scoring on who has LED a team to a championship, the score is:

Wade 1
Bryant 0

And Wade is 3.5 years younger than Bryant. While you're talking about scoring explosion, Wade is averaging 27.8 PPG on 49.1% FG, while Bryant is averaging 31.5 PPG on 45.2% FG. Which do you want leading your team?

Now, let's get to Nash. Wrong again. Nash's team is the two seed, and achieved a high seed last year without Amare playing a large role. He made Boris Diaw look all world in the post. For Bryant to be better than Nash, he has to lead a team to a ring.

And while you're going there, can you picture Nash winning MVPs over 29 year old Jordan? Yes, at Kobe's age, MJ won a ring, won an MVP, a Finals MVP, led his team to 67 regular season wins and averaged 30.1 PPG on 51.9% field goals. Oh and he averaged 6.4 RPG and 6.1 APG on a team with Scottie Pippen averaging 21.0 PPG, 7.7 RPG and 7.0 APG and Horace Grant averaging 14.2 PPG. So MJ did it all. He did what Nash did, what Bryant did and then some.

As far as Kobe being the best player in the NBA, are you talking about career or one season?

Because careerwise, you'd have to call Duncan and Shaq slam dunks as better players than Bryant. If Garnett or Dirk win one ring as the leader of their team, you'd have to include them. And you could easily argue that Nash is better and Wade and James will be better career players than Bryant.

"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."

This idea that Kobe "Would be considered better if people liked him" is false. People don't like Bryant. He overly embraced the idea of being better than Jordan in a 2000 NBA Finals interview, he's a rat, and some people just don't like the look of his face. That doesn't mean that he's better. The evidence still points overwhelmingly in favor of Jordan. Whether you want to talk statistics, MVPs, rings as the best player on your team, Defensive Player of the Year Awards, anything. The only way you come up with Kobe being better is unbridled opinion. Kobe fans should stop confusing them wanting Kobe to be better with him actually being better.

"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."

You could just save the world from confronting startling stupidity and say "I just plain don't like Michael Jordan." The Bulls fired Doug Collins and then Phil Jackson took the same personnel and won six championships. Collins didn't go on to win a ring anywhere else, and Jordan showed us all the money when he led his team to six rings. "Poor teammates" don't lead teams to six rings. Winning a ring means that "hey, we were all good enough teammates to be the best team on earth." Leading a team to a ring is going to expose flaws, but Bryant hasn't even gotten to the point Jordan was at. Jordan was at the point of "ok, he wins, and he leads the team, but he has flaws too." First Kobe has to lead a team to a ring, then we can see how easily he'd probably screw up with that too.

Kobe can please me. He's on his way to being the second best SG of all-time, behind Jordan and in front of Jerry West. Dwyane Wade will probably overtake him, but even if Kobe is third, who wouldn't be pleased with that. He's just not Jordan. Is Kobe's A+ game better than Jordan's B- moments? Sure. Is Kobe in his athletic prime more athletic than Jordan in 1996 when he'd lost about two steps from 1988? Sure. Can Kobe do as many things as well as Jordan did them? Not close.

"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."

Ok so now we see the second best tool Kobe fans have besides their own opinion, pure speculation. Scottie Pippen, outside of his lack of all-time superstar scoring ability was probably in the league of Bryant and Jordan as a basketball player. Jordan existed fine with Pippen, who had egomaniacal explosions all the time, including a hate for Toni Kukoc that manifested itself into Scottie taking himself out of a playoff game. O'neal would have created the space for Jordan to take off and dunk even more. Shaq and MJ would have both averaged over 30 PPG and both would have won MVPs on the way to crushing all opposition.

Look no further than Dwyane Wade. Wade reminds you a lot more of Jordan's temperment and ability to take it straight to the basket for higher percentage looks than Bryant. A rapidly aging Shaq and a young Wade beat one of the better all-around teams we've seen in recent years last June.

"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."

This is where the article takes a turn toward mental retardation. If Jordan's life had been covered like Kobe's? Jordan had four playoff showdowns with the KNICKS and the New York media. He went to AC after a playoff game one night and the next day you probably had to be living in a cave not to know about it.

Kobe fans like going here though. Before the rape charges Kobe fans loved saying "Jordan was a gambler and a cheater while Kobe is more of a golden boy." Jordan fans don't need the off-the-court stuff. The on-the-court evidence is enough.

"Besides a different level of media scrutiny, there was definitely a difference in the level of competition during Jordan's heyday compared to now. 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."
This one is absolutely hilarious. First of all, way to leave out Reggie Miller and Clyde Drexler, who both played the shooting guard position. Wade would be the second best SG in the NBA back then, but who would you take, Drexler or McGrady? Vince Carter or Joe Dumars? How about Dennis Rodman? He was more of a swingman early in MJ's career and at 6'8" was as athletic as any of today's leaping swingmen. Kobe Bryant has never faced a defender as good as Dennis Rodman. Not to mention, did she just say "guarded" and then follow it up with Tracy McGrady and Vince Carter? Those two don't know what it means to guard someone. You can be the most athletic player in the world and if you don't want to guard someone, you won't.

Yesterday's players were not only more fundamentally sound due to much longer college careers, they were quicker. When you get taller, you lose side-to-side quickness. Dumars and Dennis Johnson are quicker side to side than anyone today at the SG position. Besides, who are Kobe's most famous defensive nemeses? Raja Bell, Bruce Bowen, Doug Christie? Kobe hasn't played ten career games against Lebron and Wade. Who would you take? Ron Harper (who was 6'6" and plenty athletic; look at how good an OLD Harper looked in the playoffs in the early 00s), Dennis Johnson and Joe Dumars, who actually did guard Jordan extensively in the playoffs, or Bruce Bowen, Doug Christie and Raja Bell. Joe Dumars would urinate all over Raja Bell. Dumars and Johnson of the perennial All-NBA Defensive First team variety.

There are other differences in today's game. Teams did not draft track stars in 1989. There were no roster spots for players like Eddie Robinson in 1989 or 1992. Expansion has also increased the number of players to include players that would not have played in that NBA. Ronald Dupree would not have made an NBA roster in 1989, not even close. The league is full of a lot of guys who jump high, but can't move side to side, or, for that matter, play basketball.

"The NBA is tougher now.

Kobe, like Michael, is surrounded with mediocre to below-average talent, and Phoenix, Dallas and San Antonio are all better than the Utah, Portland and the Charles Barkley-led Phoenix team that Michael met in the NBA Finals."

But Kobe isn't beating Phoenix, Dallas and San Antonio. So compare those teams to the teams that Jordan could NOT beat. Namely the Boston Celtics and Detroit Pistons of the late 1980s. I'll personally take Parrish, McHale, Bird, Johnson and Ainge over any supposedly great team you want to throw out there now. Same with Isiah, Dumars, Rodman and company.

It is also hilarious that the word tougher is used. There were fouls committed on Jordan that weren't even flagrants in 1989 that would warrant 15 game suspensions now. Just how good could Jordan have been if clotheslining was a 15 game suspension? The Pistons broke Scottie Pippen's nose and I believe nobody was suspended. If they were it was nothing big. Jordan was going off during the Knicks despite dirty moves like Greg Anthony throwing him to the ground. And no, defensively, the 06 Suns aren't anything like the 92 Knicks.

When Kobe leads his team to a ring then compare that team to teams MJ beat like the 1991 Lakers, 97 and 98 Jazz and 91 Pistons, all teams with two hall of famers. But that's the thing, Kobe has yet to lead his team to one playoff series win, so there's nothing to compare.

Also, that Utah Jazz team is better than any team in today's NBA. Stockton was far superior to Steve Nash and Karl Malone is better than any four in today's NBA and maybe history. It's fun to watch Dallas and SAY they are better than Utah, but that just isn't the case.

Oh and Lebron is a three. If you're gonna start bringing threes into play you have to talk about James Worthy, Scottie Pippen (since Hill thinks that Kobe has appreciably faced Shaq), Larry Bird and Chris Mullin.

"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."

Jordan swept Shaquille O'neal in 1996. Don't know if the writer knew that.

First, you could argue that Hakeem is better than Shaq and Duncan. He just is better than Duncan and he dismantled Shaq in 1995. Also, how many games has Kobe ever faced Shaq in? Four games against an old O'neal? That's like saying Jordan had to deal with Pippen because they faced each other when MJ was in Washington. Or like saying Jordan faced Kareem, who is every bit as good as O'neal and who was in the league when MJ was. So first add Kareem to that list, then Motumbo, Parrish, Moses Malone. Add to that that who are the best true centers besides an ancient Shaq and Duncan? Yao Ming? Fine. Who is next? Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Eddy Curry? Erick Dampier? When do I start laughing? Eddy Curry never would have been in the running for a top five center in the NBA in MJ's prime.

By the way, where are all these Kobe fans to talk about how during the dominant part of Chamberlain's career he faced Bill Russell (who would be a small four today) and nobody else? Just curious how we never hear Chamberlain's scoring greatness diminished by the fact that before 1965 Chamberlain faced no one on the nights he wasn't facing Russell.

Duncan would be a force in any era but Steve Nash?? Steve Nash is a nice player, but his MVP reign just shows you how weak the NBA has become. Nash was in the league during Jordan's second title run (97, 98), just like Doug Christie and Bruce Bowen (you know, the expert defenders Kobe Bryant had to brave against). Nobody cared. Nash started 11 games for Phoenix in two years. Bowen, who was 26 in 1997, played 1 minute for the Miami Heat. Doug Christie, everyone's favorite "Kobe stopper" in 2002, was a journeyman nobody in Michael's prime.

Oh and the ever priceless "seven footers weren't launching threes in Jordan's career." Guess Hill never heard of Sam Perkins and Bill Laimbeer. Oh and centers back then were busy dominating the paint. Moses Malone, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, they did their damage inside, which is the point of the game. For all the love of seven foot jumpshooters and jumpshooters in general, the teams winning titles are still able to dominate inside.

Shooting threes at seven feet is great. Teams like San Antonio, Detroit, the Lakers when Shaq was there, and the Bulls loved it when you shot threes with bigger players.

Also, the Lakers were not on a downward spiral when Jordan entered the league. Jordan entered the NBA in 1984, Magic won the MVP in 1990. Isiah and Bird were far from done when MJ faced them. I can't even imagine what the writer is getting at. Is it that these players were all headed down when MJ finally led his team to a ring? Fine, but Kobe hasn't done that yet, so it's not a valid comparison.

"The shame of it is that Kobe might finish his career without a MVP, even though his ability can be compared only to that of Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain. All this time we've been looking for a player who is better than Jordan, but most of us can't get beyond whether we like or dislike Kobe as a person to recognize his contributions to the game."

Yes, Kobe might not win an MVP. By Kobe's age, MJ won his third MVP.

There are a lot of players with more ability than Kobe as a basketball player. If you're talking about Kobe's ability to put up high scoring tallies on low percentages, fine. But if scoring is all that makes a basketball player, then George Gervin is better than Magic Johnson. There's also winning, and six other major statistical categories besides PPG. So no, you can compare Kareem, Russell, Magic, Bird, Oscar Robertson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'neal and Moses Malone all favorably to Bryant, even if he continues to be the same player. You could make an argument for quite a few more players.

The logical conclusion is clear. Michael Jordan is a better basketball player. At age 29 MJ had 3 more MVPs, one more DPOY and two more rings as the best player on his team than Kobe Bryant. From ages 21-29, Jordan also leads Kobe in all seven major statistical categories. The league was better top-to-bottom in the 80s and early 90s than today's league. There literally is no logical basis for picking Kobe over MJ. Unless you perhaps work for the booya network and want to pump Kobe up so that your corporate partners can make more cheddar.

Putting Kobe in a proper perspective with MJ and the rest of the league

You have to establish a clear priority. Jemele Hilll wants the priority to be "my opinion, my speculation, then everything else." The priority has to be 1) winning, 2) statistics, 3) postseason awards, 4) everything else.

Winning:

Kobe 3 rings as second fiddle, Jordan (at age 29) 2 rings as best player on the team.

Advantage Jordan

Statistics:

Kobe Bryant (98-07) 633 games
27.65 PPG 5.83 RPG 5.15 APG 1.65 SPG 0.58 BPG 45.5% FG 84.2% FT

Michael Jordan (84-92) 578 games
32.87 PPG 6.39 RPG 6.06 APG 2.75 SPG 1.07 BPG 51.9% FG 84.6% FT

Jordan wins all 7 categories. PPG, FG% and SPG convincingly. Jordan shot 6.4% higher FGs than Bryant. For scale, if you added 6.4% to Jordan's FG% it would be higher than Wilt Chamberlain (54.0%) and Shaquille O'neal (57.7%).

Advantage Jordan

Postseason awards:

Michael Jordan: 3 MVPs, 2 Finals MVPs, 1 DPOY
Kobe Bryant: None

And whereas Jordan was winning MVPs over Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and David Robinson, Kobe cannot close the deal over players like Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, Allen Iverson and Kevin Garnett.

Advantage Jordan

Opinion and Speculation:

This section is for players who are at least close in the first three sections. What Hill wants to do is say "screw MVPs, winning and statistics, it's all about my opinion." Why should her opinion take precident over a clear body of empirical evidence or the collective opinion of the media? The entire media voted MJ MVP 3 times by Kobe's age, whereas the entire media has rejected Kobe. Does Hill know something the entire media does not know? Is she better than Bob Ryan and Sam Smith (who, while terrible in terms of trade rumors, probably forgot more about what makes a basketball player great than Hill knows at this point)?

This area is reserved for players who are close to being even in the first few categories. Magic and Bird, Wilt and Russell, Wilt and Kareem.

The only conclusion is to call MJ a better player than Kobe Bryant. When Kobe takes a swingman who is 3 years younger than him and ten role players, and wins even three rings, while also winning MVPs, Finals MVPs and still putting up the numbers, somebody wake me up. Until then, he's not as good as MJ. Is he good? Yes. Is he probably going to be a top 3 shooting guard and a top 10-15 player all time? Maybe. Is he better than Michael Jordan? Not even close.

Just to get close to equalling MJ, you'd have to start with Kobe and add Isiah Thomas' first step, Scottie Pippen-like defense (Jordan was not as good as Pippen defensively, but closer to Pippen than Kobe is to MJ), Bill Russell's heart and will to win, Joe Dumars all around fundamentals, Jerry West's clutch ability (Kobe has hit a few game-winners, but not like MJ and West) and a dunking ability in games over contact superior to that of Dominique Wilkins.

Hill's opinion is fine. If her goal is to get readers to read her out of shocked disagreement, similar to Jay Mariotti, she's done her job. If she only wrote what she wrote at the ordering of her boss and their corporate partners, that is understandable. But if she's serious, she's just inept and off base. From reading her article the best I can figure out is that she thinks the following:

Kobe dunks like MJ. MJ entered the league in 1991 and Magic and Bird were 45 years old. Players separated by more than a steal per game are equal defenders, and leading your teams to rings, winning MVPs and statistics don't matter. Her pure unbridled opinion is analogous to, "my friend Barry doesn't observe traffic lights, nor does he know how to steer or use his brakes, and he's caused three accidents this week, but I think he's a better driver than Richard Petty and Mario Andretti."

Lesson learned: Idiots are everywhere, all of them have an opinion, and some of them get hired to write that opinion.

JoeHoo.net • View topic - Kobe Bryant is still not as good as Michael Jordan

King_Bling

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Preseason Starts Soon. x]
Hopefully more people will get on D;
Fuck I'm new here. -_-

oldhamalians

kobe byant is good but nat as good a jordan kobe has still got ages to ge befor he is better then jordan but i dont tink he will be.

T-Money

Yeah, no brainer....Jordan is in a class of his own. Kobe won't win another ring until he has another "Pippen" or "Shaq" as a running mate. History has proven one superstar teams don't win championships.

__________________
T-Money

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your home for everything sports!

oldhamalians

there is no way that kobe is better then mj
mj is the basketball king