Taking logic into account when comparing Jordan to Kobe

[hateraid]

First of all I'm not going to debate on who I think is better. I just wanted to point this out on how people don't seem to parrallel this peice of logic when comparing Jordan to Kobe.

With most of you
Jordan > Kobe
But then when comparing the teams most people have
championship '96 Bulls > championship '09 Lakers
When people make arguments on how Jordan is miles ahead of Kobe fail to parallel the fact that they also believe the Bulls would have murked the Lakers and was a vast superior team. Looking at the team most specifically had mentioned:
Rodman > Bynum
Pippen > Gasol
Kerr > Fisher
and so on.
Failing to point out when you're pro Jordan that he had the greatest second banana, the greatest rebounder, and the greatest 3 point shooter (or course all arguably) and the greatest coach to put that into a system to me is completely bias.
When making these arguments you've got to be consistant with you're opinion. That is all.

[JMT]

When are you going to post the logical part?

[Rekindled]

When are you going to post the logical part?

this

[rizzy]

Jordan played with a 30-20 center with 3 Finals MVP's?

interesting

[Alhazred]

Kerr > Fisher


Based on what?

[phoenix18]

Based on what?
Common sense.

[hateraid]

Here we go, groupie/hater bunch getting into defense mode.

If it was a player A versus player B situation player B would get the benefit of the doubt. But since it's Jordan versus Kobe the name bring somewhat of a bias. There's the logic.

[TimeConfidence]

Jordan > Kobe it's all you really need to know.

[97 bulls]

Based on what?
id rather have kerr than fisher

[Alhazred]

id rather have kerr than fisher

Are we talking about in their primes, or specifically 1996 Kerr and 09 Fisher?

If we're going strictly by the the years mentioned, I can understand Kerr being picked.

[greensborohill]

I find it funny that whenever someone wants to take a logical look at Kobe & Jordan. . . it's always someone that wants to find a way to make Kobe out to be better.

[97 bulls]

Are we talking about in their primes, or specifically 1996 Kerr and 09 Fisher?

If we're going strictly by the the years mentioned, I can understand Kerr being picked but even then there's not a huge difference, imo.
i guess im more talking about their role as a 3 pt shooter. fisher was obviosly a better all-around player

[greensborohill]

First of all I'm not going to debate on who I think is better. I just wanted to point this out on how people don't seem to parrallel this peice of logic when comparing Jordan to Kobe.

With most of you
Jordan > Kobe
But then when comparing the teams most people have
championship '96 Bulls > championship '09 Lakers
When people make arguments on how Jordan is miles ahead of Kobe fail to parallel the fact that they also beleive teh Bulls would have murked the Lakers and was a vast superior team. Looking at the team most specifically had mentioned:
Rodman > Bynum
Pippen > Gasol
Kerr > Fisher
and so on.
Failing to point out when you're pro Jordan that he had the greatest second banana, the greatest rebounder, and the greatest 3 point shooter (or course all arguably) and the greatest coach to put that into a system to me is completely bias.
When making these arguments you've got to be consistant with you're opinion. That is all

Correction. . . Shaq had the greatest 2nd banana ever. . . . KOBE.

Remember that? When Kobe won his first 3 rings when he wasn't the man?

Yeah. . thought so.


Kobe has a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNG Muthafvckin way to go to even try and snif Jordan's jock.

[imdaman99]

Jordan played with a 30-20 center with 3 Finals MVP's?

interesting
yeah? and how many MVPs and Finals MVPs does Jordan get with said 30-20 center?

[Alhazred]

i guess im more talking about their role as a 3 pt shooter. fisher was obviosly a better all-around player

Agreed, Kerr definitely has the edge in that aspect.

[greensborohill]

Jordan as "The Man" on his team = SIX

Kobe as "The Man" on his team = ONE

[Desperado]

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/5899/kobexk4.jpg

[hateraid]

Lol, I knew this would happen. People jumping on me thinking I'm a Kobe fan. Not the case at all. Read between the lines fellas. Like I said, if it was player A versus player B than it's a completely different argument.

[greensborohill]

http://propertalks.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/kb-shaq.jpg

Wait. . . . why isn't Kobe holding the Finals MVP trophy??? Oh that's right, because he's the 2nd best player on that team!!

[Allstar24]

This isn't even a Kobe vs Jordan thread but trolls will see what trolls want to see...

[greensborohill]

Lol, I knew this would happen. People jumping on me thinking I'm a Kobe fan. Not the case at all. Read between the lines fellas. Like I said, if it was player A versus player B than it's a completely different argument.


Bynum is a better offensive threat than Rodman

you forgot about Odom in your arguement

Ariza as well.

You failed in your attempt to put Kobe over.

[hateraid]

Bynum is a better offensive threat than Rodman

you forgot about Odom in your arguement

Ariza as well.

You failed in your attempt to put Kobe over.


And you failed to have reading comprehension. Again, read between the lines of what I'm saying and please point out where i've actually said I fealt Kobe was better than Jordan.

Read the very first point I've stated.
You are actually the pure example of why I've created this thread.

[hateraid]

Lol, I knew this would happen. People jumping on me thinking I'm a Kobe fan. Not the case at all. Read between the lines fellas. Like I said, if it was player A versus player B than it's a completely different argument.

Read greensboro

[hateraid]

This isn't even a Kobe vs Jordan thread but trolls will see what trolls want to see...


Thank you.

First guy to get it.

[Desperado]

http://propertalks.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/kb-shaq.jpg

Wait. . . . why isn't Kobe holding the Finals MVP trophy??? Oh that's right, because he's the 2nd best player on that team!!



Finals MVP is an weak argument. Just because you win the finals MVP doesn't make you the teams best player. You were for that finals.

Not saying shaq wasn't, but you using finals MVPs is a weak point.


Tony Parker isn't better than Duncan is he? Pierce isn't better than KG is he? Dumars isn't better than Zeke is he? Cedric Maxwell isn't better than Larry is he? Worthy isn't better than Magic is he?

[Lebron23]

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/5899/kobexk4.jpg


:oldlol: :roll: :oldlol:

[Lebron23]

Finals MVP is an weak argument because just because you win the finals MVP doesn't make you the teams best player. You were for that finals.

Not saying shaq wasn't but you using finals MVPs is a weak point.


Tony Parker isn't better than Duncan is he? Pierce isn't better than KG is he? Dumars isn't better than Zeke is he? Cedric Maxwell isn't better than Larry is he? Worthy isn't better than Magic is he?

But Prime Shaq was way better than young Kobe Bryant.

[NBASTATMAN]

id rather have kerr than fisher



Fisher is one of the best 3 PTshooters ever in the playoffs... Kerr needed a wide open shot to make them.. I mean he needed alot of time.. Everyone forgets that Kerr choked over and over in the Finals before he made the wide open game winning shot in game 6... I take fisher over Kerr anyday.. But I would take Pippen over Gasol too.. I would not compare bynum to Rodman.. I would say Odom is more of a closer match to Rodman... Just cuz they are both those wild cards... Never know what you are going to get from either one of them but you know they both will rebound...

[Freshprince619]

Phil Jackson even said Kobe's the more skilled player but Jordan just had crazy athleticism no oone could match.

[Desperado]

Also everyone knows the 'NBA Finals' in those years were simply a formality, as even most people dubbed the Western Conference Finals those years as more important and a higher quality match up.

Let's not act like the Pacers, Sixers and Nets were better then the Blazers, Spurs and Kings. The WCF's back then were the 'de facto Finals'.

[imdaman99]

Phil Jackson even said Kobe's the more skilled player but Jordan just had crazy athleticism no oone could match.
true. athleticism is a bigger sign than skill to base on whos better.

i mean jason richardson and vince carter are even bettter than kobe.

[Freshprince619]

i guess im more talking about their role as a 3 pt shooter. fisher was obviosly a better all-around player

HUH? Do you watch basketball? Fisher cant do nothing but hit open 3 pointers. Lol @ all around player. Steve Kerr has the highest 3 point percentage of all time. So i dont get why people trying to make it sound close

[Amil23]

But Prime Shaq was way better than ANY Kobe Bryant.
Fixed that for you.

[Freshprince619]

true. athleticism is a bigger sign than skill to base on whos better.

i mean jason richardson and vince carter are even bettter than kobe.

Man if you truly believe that first line your a huge idiot. I hope you mean athletically and like 5 years ago. Vince plays like a slug now same for Jrich. Athleticism puts the cream on the top

[Freshprince619]

Fixed that for you.

Lol funnies thing i read all day

[97 bulls]

HUH? Do you watch basketball? Fisher cant do nothing but hit open 3 pointers. Lol @ all around player. Steve Kerr has the highest 3 point percentage of all time. So i dont get why people trying to make it sound close
i get what your saying. but when fish was younger, he was a good defender and attacked the basket more than when he settled in as a 3pt specialist. he made nick van exel expendble. kerr has always been a 3pt specialist. but like i said id rather have a prime kerr over fish.

[imdaman99]

Fixed that for you.
Oh cool, you have 23 in your nickname. I was wondering where your loyalty lay.

[Amil23]

Lol funnies thing i read all day
So prime Kobe was better than prime Shaq?

[Amil23]

Oh cool, you have 23 in your nickname. I was wondering where your loyalty lay.
I have no loyalties to anyone.Jordan isnt or wasnt my favorite player.

[Freshprince619]

So prime Kobe was better than prime Shaq?
Yes, ill take Prime kobe any day

[Amil23]

Yes, ill take Prime kobe any day
OK,I see where your head is at and for that we no longer have a discussion.peace

[NBASTATMAN]

HUH? Do you watch basketball? Fisher cant do nothing but hit open 3 pointers. Lol @ all around player. Steve Kerr has the highest 3 point percentage of all time. So i dont get why people trying to make it sound close


Steve Kerr only took like 2 three pointers a game.. And when he got to the playoffs he dropped off considerably.. Steve Kerr is not even close to FISHER .. Not even close. Especially when it counted in the playoffs..

Anyone who saw Steve Play would agree...

[Niquesports]

Yes, ill take Prime kobe any day


This is the logical way of looking at it

Young Jordan>Kobe
Prime Jordan >Kobe

Jordan head over heels against his peers
Kobe is a debate if he is even the best player in the league some might even rank him 3rd.

[Freshprince619]

OK,I see where your head is at and for that we no longer have a discussion.peace

Okay Amil 23 lol i see you just try to discredit anything that brings kobe closer to mj is funny and pathetic. So you can say "Kobe ainnt even better then shaw dont compare him to mj" you need to stop being so defensive. Mj groupie

[Freshprince619]

This is the logical way of looking at it

Young Jordan>Kobe
Prime Jordan >Kobe

Jordan head over heels against his peers
Kobe is a debate if he is even the best player in the league some might even rank him 3rd.
So where people rank him knocks him down? Lol he's the most hated player in the game and they still say he's top 2. Trying to name a 3rd player in his category is blasphemy.

[Amil23]

Okay Amil 23 lol i see you just try to discredit anything that brings kobe closer to mj is funny and pathetic. So you can say "Kobe ainnt even better then shaw dont compare him to mj" you need to stop being so defensive. Mj groupie

lol I just explained im not a MJ"groupie",yes im a fan of Mj because he was great but im not what you would classify as a Mj groupie.But that post had nothing to do with Mj,I simple said Prime Shaq was better than the best version of Kobe which is not even debatable.

[DJ Leon Smith]

I guess if we're comparing how players did with certain supporting casts, that means a rookie Dwyane Wade > prime Kobe. Seeing as Wade took the supporting cast that Kobe took to the lottery to the second round.

[chazzy]

There's so much insecurity in this thread... stepping away.. :oldlol: OP wasn't even saying Kobe>Jordan, just bringing up a point that people adjust their opinions to their agenda. It's like this with all arguments.. but the moment anyone says something that can be INTERPRETED as Kobe>Jordan, this is what happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOunrf3FTTs

[LA_Showtime]

Steve Kerr only took like 2 three pointers a game.. And when he got to the playoffs he dropped off considerably.. Steve Kerr is not even close to FISHER .. Not even close. Especially when it counted in the playoffs..

Anyone who saw Steve Play would agree...

Steve Kerr is not on Derek Fisher's level, but there's this common misconception that Fisher has played well in the playoffs. He usually sucks, and then he hits a big shot or two and everyone forgets.

[WhySoInsecure?]

woopty doo

Shaq>Sheed
Kobe>Billups

The Lakers must be better than the pistons!

[LA_Showtime]

I don't get it. The league is watered down now, and the Lakers would lose to the Bulls, but the Lakers are more talented...? Huh?

[WhySoInsecure?]

I don't get it. The league is watered down now, and the Lakers would lose to the Bulls, but the Lakers are more talented...? Huh?
yeah because Jordan>Kobe

[Alhazred]

HUH? Do you watch basketball? Fisher cant do nothing but hit open 3 pointers. Lol @ all around player. Steve Kerr has the highest 3 point percentage of all time. So i dont get why people trying to make it sound close

Did you watch DFish from 98-04? He was definitely a more well-rounded player than Kerr. That's not saying much, though. Derek wasn't that well-rounded, but compared to Kerr? Definitely. Steve was essentially a one-trick pony(A very good one, but still).

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

as the OP aptly pointed out, that Bulls team was obviously superior to this Lakers team.

but, of course, that does not mean that Kobe is on MJ's level.

[hateraid]

There's so much insecurity in this thread... stepping away.. :oldlol: OP wasn't even saying Kobe>Jordan, just bringing up a point that people adjust their opinions to their agenda. It's like this with all arguments.. but the moment anyone says something that can be INTERPRETED as Kobe>Jordan, this is what happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOunrf3FTTs


Ding ding ding, we have a second winner.:applause: Welcome to the upper echelon of posters who can interpret exactly what is being debated.
I swear, Jordan fans are probably the most insecure with the bigger agendas.

[hateraid]

as the OP aptly pointed out, that Bulls team was obviously superior to this Lakers team.

but, of course, that does not mean that Kobe is on MJ's level.

Another one who got it.
I'm beginning to think that Laker fans are now the brighter oner in this ISH era. It's a shame they always get unwarranted insults and bashing. This is coming from one of the sites longest running Sixer fan.

Actually you've been around a while bleedingpurps.

[Gifted Mind]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Kobe has a more talented team around him this year than Jordan has ever had.

[Freshprince619]

Did you watch DFish from 98-04? He was definitely a more well-rounded player than Kerr. That's not saying much, though. Derek wasn't that well-rounded, but compared to Kerr? Definitely. Steve was essentially a one-trick pony(A very good one, but still).

Fish stood in one spot and took wide open threes? you call that complete? he was always getting his ass teared up by point guards

[Freshprince619]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Kobe has a more talented team around him this year than Jordan has ever had.
Hahahahahahahhaha Jordan Groupie Lmfaooooo
Only a Jordan troll would believe that due to insecurities.
When Jordan left his team record went down 2 games and got knock out in conference finals to Game 7. If they gave Pippen Jordan calls they would have been right back in the finals. Bulls were Contenders without Jordan.

[YAWN]

But Prime Shaq was way better than young Kobe Bryant.
For most of their time together..
#1-2 player in the league= shaq; #3-4 player in the league= Kobe. Where is this "way better" thing coming from?

People forget that the early 2000 Lakers were basically a team with 2 number 1 superstar options and role players molded around them.

Ala, If Lebron and Howard joined forces today, surrounded solely by perfect role players.

Anyways thats my rant, don't want to derail from the OP's point which no one seems to be understanding.

[Alhazred]

Fish stood in one spot and took wide open threes? you call that complete? he was always getting his ass teared up by point guards

It seems you were unable to comprehend my post. I said "compared to Steve Kerr".

[Fatal9]

Extending OP back to the first threepeat, I would take Pippen/Grant combo 10/10 over Gasol/Bynum combo. People fail to mention that Jordan after 1991 always entered the playoff series with a better team. If he was as good as he is made out to be (you know, clearly the GOAT) and could win in situations that other players didn't (ie. on crappy teams), why could he not win by himself in 1990 when he was at the peak of his abilities, and had a good amount of help (all-star Pippen and solid role players)? and then they penalize other players for not winning more with shitty teams. how many legends would have swept the 90s in the same situation? we already saw that even without prime MJ in '94 who was replaced by rookie kukoc and a CBA scrub, that the Bulls were still a contender.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOunrf3FTTs
:oldlol:

[Lebron23]

For most of their time together..
#1-2 player in the league= shaq; #3-4 player in the league= Kobe. Where is this "way better" thing coming from?

People forget that the early 2000 Lakers were basically a team with 2 number 1 superstar options and role players molded around them.

Ala, If Lebron and Howard joined forces today, surrounded solely by perfect role players.

Anyways thats my rant, don't want to derail from the OP's point which no one seems to be understanding.


Kobe was not yet a top 5 NBA player in 2000. He averaged 16 ppg in the NBA Finals, but the Lakers still won the series because of the dominant performance of Shaquille O'Neal.

[themurph]

First of all I'm not going to debate on who I think is better. I just wanted to point this out on how people don't seem to parrallel this peice of logic when comparing Jordan to Kobe.

With most of you
Jordan > Kobe
But then when comparing the teams most people have
championship '96 Bulls > championship '09 Lakers
When people make arguments on how Jordan is miles ahead of Kobe fail to parallel the fact that they also believe the Bulls would have murked the Lakers and was a vast superior team. Looking at the team most specifically had mentioned:
Rodman > Bynum
Pippen > Gasol
Kerr > Fisher
and so on.
Failing to point out when you're pro Jordan that he had the greatest second banana, the greatest rebounder, and the greatest 3 point shooter (or course all arguably) and the greatest coach to put that into a system to me is completely bias.
When making these arguments you've got to be consistant with you're opinion. That is all.


huh?

[Freshprince619]

It seems you were unable to comprehend my post. I said "compared to Steve Kerr".

Yeah they both didnt play defense or contribye in the play making. Both were only good at shooting 3pointers and we know Kerr is far superior to Dfish in that. Dfish has a average 3 point percentage nothing special dude is too streaky.

[YAWN]

Kobe was not yet a top 5 NBA player in 2000. He averaged 16 ppg in the NBA Finals, but the Lakers still won the series because of the dominant performance of Shaquille O'Neal.
1 year does not equal "most of the their time together" as i stated. Check the years following that..

[NBASTATMAN]

Steve Kerr is not on Derek Fisher's level, but there's this common misconception that Fisher has played well in the playoffs. He usually sucks, and then he hits a big shot or two and everyone forgets.


The only time that Fisher has not been good in the playoffs was last year... Still he hit the biggest shots to win a title.....I am sure you forgot how good he was during your three peat and in other years.. His numbers in the playoffs don't lie...They are head and shoulders over Kerr..

[Gifted Mind]

Hahahahahahahhaha Jordan Groupie Lmfaooooo
Only a Jordan troll would believe that due to insecurities.
When Jordan left his team record went down 2 games and got knock out in conference finals to Game 7. If they gave Pippen Jordan calls they would have been right back in the finals. Bulls were Contenders without Jordan.

Is that so? I don't ever recall them making the Eastern Conference Finals Game 7. I've heard this one a few times as well. Where do these myths originate from? Kobe fanatic's imagination has been running wild as of late.

[Alhazred]

Yeah they both didnt play defense or contribye in the play making. Both were only good at shooting 3pointers and we know Kerr is far superior to Dfish in that. Dfish has a average 3 point percentage nothing special dude is too streaky.

Fisher played better d than Kerr and was capable of contributing as a playmaker, just check his two years in Golden State.

[Freshprince619]

Kobe was not yet a top 5 NBA player in 2000. He averaged 16 ppg in the NBA Finals, but the Lakers still won the series because of the dominant performance of Shaquille O'Neal.

Lol i like how you put his finals number up and not regular season. He was till easily a top 5 player in hi stint with shaq.

But let me guess Lebron had one of the worst final performances for A Team Leader EVER! Does that drop him down from where he's ranked among players then? Quit being biased hypocrite its kind of sad.

[Freshprince619]

Fisher played better d than Kerr and was capable of contributing as a playmaker, just check his two years in Golden State.

Thats why Golden state got rid of him. He's not a playmaker.

[NBASTATMAN]

1 year does not equal "most of the their time together" as i stated. Check the years following that..


I think people don't give Kobe enuff credit for how good he was in 2001.. But it took a injury from Kobe to know his role that year.. I remember him going down and the Lakers actually playing better when he was injured.. That is what actually turned the 2001 season around for the Lakers... He came back and played great.. That was his best basketball ever...He was still the number two player on that team but he was instrumental in the lakers run... Alot more so than in 2000...

[Alhazred]

Thats why Golden state got rid of him. He's not a playmaker.

He is compared to Kerr. Seriously, why are we arguing over this? At their peaks, Fisher was a better all-around player than Kerr. Is that so hard to accept?

EDIT: DFish also averaged 4.4 assists per game in 2001 on a championship-winning team. When did Kerr ever approach that?

[Freshprince619]

Is that so? I don't ever recall them making the Eastern Conference Finals Game 7. I've heard this one a few times as well. Where do these myths originate from? Kobe fanatic's imagination has been running wild as of late.
you know what i meant eastern conf semis. Still went to a close game 7. If they gave Pippen superstar treatment they easily would have took that series. Jordans great but dont act like he didnt have one of the best well rounded teams of all time

[themurph]

I have no loyalties to anyone.Jordan isnt or wasnt my favorite player.


A player doesn't have to be your favorite player to know and respect that fact that he was the greatest to ever do lace 'em up....

[NBASTATMAN]

Lol i like how you put his finals number up and not regular season. He was till easily a top 5 player in hi stint with shaq.

But let me guess Lebron had one of the worst final performances for A Team Leader EVER! Does that drop him down from where he's ranked among players then? Quit being biased hypocrite its kind of sad.

Kobe was not a top 5 player in 2000..I guess he was top 10 though......After that year he was top 5

[Freshprince619]

He is compared to Kerr. Seriously, why are we arguing over this? At their peaks, Fisher was a better all-around player than Kerr. Is that so hard to accept?

All round i guess you could say but not by much. Their both put in the Triangle to do only 1 THING! And whats that? shoot 3's. Which Steve Kerr was Goat at.

[Amil23]

A player doesn't have to be your favorite player to know and respect that fact that he was the greatest to ever do lace 'em up....
thats what im saying

[Lebron23]

Lol i like how you put his finals number up and not regular season. He was till easily a top 5 player in hi stint with shaq.


Are you an idiot?

He was not a top 5 NBA player in 2000. Check his Regular Season, and playoffs stats.

Kobe was a top 5 NBA player in 2001 and 2002, but Shaq was the Lakers best player in the Regular season, playoffs, and NBA Finals.

[Fatal9]

:oldlol: at going pages about Kerr and Fisher. who the fck cares? both are like fifth options good for only spot up shots. is one being better than the other really going to shift the supporting cast in the others favor? Kobe does have more talent but not the better team. Bulls were nearly flawless, they had the GOAT rebounder, GOAT perimeter defender, excellent defensive PG, one of the best second options ever who was an excellent playmaker, could have had more post scoring but Pippen/MJ provided that, great shooters, GOAT coach, one of the best sixth men ever, everyone had a well defined role. They could blow open playoff series with MJ shooting like crap (nearly swept a 61 win team with MJ shooting like 38%). Lakers are a mess, their center is a lazy bum who does nothing other than score (no defense, weak rebounding, blackhole), their second option is widely recognized as one of the softest players in the league...despite the talent, their starting PG is maybe the worst starter in the entire league, their SF has fallen off the map offensively. Sorry having a better team goes beyond looking at individual talent/stats. Bynum for example is more talented than Grant but I would take Grant over him without thinking twice, especially in a third option type of role.

[Freshprince619]

Are you an idiot?

He was not a top 5 NBA player in 2000. Check his Regular Season, and playoffs stats.

Kobe was a top 5 NBA player in 2001 and 2002, but Shaq was the Lakers best player in the Regular season, playoffs, and NBA Finals.

I like how you took out my argument bout Lebron. Cant handle the truth?
Did i say shaq wasnt? He was the best player in League forget Lakers. You sounding real insecure right now lmfaoo pointing out the obvious...

[Lebron23]

I like how you took out my argument bout Lebron. Cant handle the truth?
Did i say shaq wasnt? He was the best player in League forget Lakers. You sounding real insecure right now lmfaoo pointing out the obvious...


LeBron is only 25 yrs.old. He's going to win an NBA Finals MVP in this decade.

[Amil23]

:oldlol: at going pages about Kerr and Fisher. who the fck cares? both are like fifth options good for only spot up shots. is one being better than the other really going to shift the supporting cast in the others favor? Kobe does have more talent but not the better team. Bulls were nearly flawless, they had the GOAT rebounder, GOAT perimeter defender, excellent defensive PG, one of the best second options ever who was an excellent playmaker, could have had more post scoring but Pippen/MJ provided that, great shooters, GOAT coach, one of the best sixth men ever, everyone had a well defined role. They could blow open playoff series with MJ shooting like crap (nearly swept a 61 win team with MJ shooting like 38%). Lakers are a mess, their center is a lazy bum who does nothing other than score (no defense, weak rebounding, blackhole), their second option is widely recognized as one of the softest players in the league...despite the talent, their starting PG is maybe the worst starter in the entire league, their SF has fallen off the map offensively. Sorry having a better team goes beyond looking at individual talent/stats. Bynum for example is more talented than Grant but I would take Grant over him without thinking twice, especially in a third option type of role.
Great post

[Desperado]

Are you an idiot?

He was not a top 5 NBA player in 2000. Check his Regular Season, and playoffs stats.

Kobe was a top 5 NBA player in 2001 and 2002, but Shaq was the Lakers best player in the Regular season, playoffs, and NBA Finals.


Kobe was the facilitator of the team.

He sacrificed meaningless personal awards and stats for team championships.


Kobe was the "Magic" to Shaq's "Kareem"!.....




It was a 1-2 punch.

Kobe's numbers during the 3 titles:
2000: 21pts 4 rebs 4 asts
2001: 29pts 7 rebs 6 asts
2002: 26pts 6 rebs 5 asts



Kobe was instrumental in the 3 championships the Lakers won. Shaq and Kobe were one of the greatest duos in NBA history. Give the man the respect he has earned.

[Alhazred]

All round i guess you could say but not by much. Their both put in the Triangle to do only 1 THING! And whats that? shoot 3's. Which Steve Kerr was Goat at.

Check Fisher's playoff numbers from 1999-04 and look up his three point shooting. Anyways, I'm done with this argument.

As for which team was better overall, have to go with the Bulls. LA does have a deep frontcourt, though and a coach that matches. Would be a nice matchup.

[Amil23]

The only reason Kobe fans are bringing Lebron up is because they have no real argument for why Kobe is even on Jordan's level so they rag on Lebron to make Kobe seem better.

[Lebron23]

Kobe was the facilitator of the team.

He sacrificed meaningless personal awards and stats for team championships.


Kobe was the "Magic" to Shaq's "Kareem"!.....




It was a 1-2 punch.

Kobe's numbers during the 3 titles:
2000: 21pts 4 rebs 4 asts
2001: 29pts 7 rebs 6 asts
2002: 26pts 6 rebs 5 asts



Kobe was instrumental the Lakers won. Shaq and Kobe were one of the greatest duos in NBA history. Give the man the respect he has earned.


He was instrumental in the 3 championships, but Shaq's dominant play, and the Triangle Offense were the main reasons the Lakers won 3 straight NBA titles in this decade.

[DCL]

First of all I'm not going to debate on who I think is better. I just wanted to point this out on how people don't seem to parrallel this peice of logic when comparing Jordan to Kobe.

With most of you
Jordan > Kobe
But then when comparing the teams most people have
championship '96 Bulls > championship '09 Lakers
When people make arguments on how Jordan is miles ahead of Kobe fail to parallel the fact that they also believe the Bulls would have murked the Lakers and was a vast superior team. Looking at the team most specifically had mentioned:
Rodman > Bynum
Pippen > Gasol
Kerr > Fisher
and so on.
Failing to point out when you're pro Jordan that he had the greatest second banana, the greatest rebounder, and the greatest 3 point shooter (or course all arguably) and the greatest coach to put that into a system to me is completely bias.
When making these arguments you've got to be consistant with you're opinion. That is all.

didnt bother to read your sh1t. but i can tell you should to STFU already

[Freshprince619]

He was instrumental in the 3 championships, but Shaq's dominant play, and the Triangle Offense were the main reasons the Lakers won 3 straight NBA titles in this decade.

I smell insecurity

[Lebron23]

Shaquille O'Neal

http://images.allposters.com/images/153/421314.jpg


Regular Season

2000 - 29.7 ppg, 13.6 apg, 3.8 apg, 3.0 bpg, 57.4 FG%

2001 - 28.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.7 apg, 2.8 bpg, 57.2 FG%

2002 - 27.2 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.0 bpg, 57.9 FG&


Playoffs Stats


2000 - 30.7 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.1 apg, 2.4 bpg, 56.6 FG%

2001 - 30.4 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.4 bpg, 55.5 FG%

2002 - 28.5 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.5 bpg, 53 FG%


Finals Stats


2000 - 38.0 points, 16.7 rebounds, 2.67 blocks, 61.1 FG%

2001 - 33.0 points, 15.6 rebounds, 3.40 blocks, 57.3 FG%

2002 - 36.3 points, 12.3 rebounds and 2.75 blocks, 59.5 FG%

Western Conference Finals Stats


2000: 25.9 pts, 12.4 reb, 4.3 ast, 1.9 blk, 53.7% FG

2001: 27.0 pts, 13.0 reb, 2.5 ast, 1.3 blk, 54.1% FG

2002: 30.3 pts, 13.6 reb, 1.6 ast, 2.4 blk, 53.1% FG


I smell insecurity

The numbers don't lie. Kobe is still one of the greatest NBA players of all time, but Shaq had more of an impact on the 2000-2002 Los Angeles Lakers.

[hateraid]

huh?


Read on Guy Incognito. There's a point to this that goes beyond Kobe vs. Jordan.

[hateraid]

didnt bother to read your sh1t. but i can tell you should to STFU already

Explain to me why? Because the only people who have seem to be offended by my post are the ones who are close minded and insecure. If you didn't get the jyst of my post then maybe you should have been the one to STFU.

[Glide2keva]

Fisher is one of the best 3 PTshooters ever in the playoffs... Kerr needed a wide open shot to make them.. I mean he needed alot of time.. Everyone forgets that Kerr choked over and over in the Finals before he made the wide open game winning shot in game 6... I take fisher over Kerr anyday.. But I would take Pippen over Gasol too.. I would not compare bynum to Rodman.. I would say Odom is more of a closer match to Rodman... Just cuz they are both those wild cards... Never know what you are going to get from either one of them but you know they both will rebound...
You must be forgetting Game 1 of the 1997 series where he hit the game winner off a pass from MJ.

[raptorfan_dr07]

Kobe was the facilitator of the team.

He sacrificed meaningless personal awards and stats for team championships.


Kobe was the "Magic" to Shaq's "Kareem"!.....




It was a 1-2 punch.

Kobe's numbers during the 3 titles:
2000: 21pts 4 rebs 4 asts
2001: 29pts 7 rebs 6 asts
2002: 26pts 6 rebs 5 asts



Kobe was instrumental in the 3 championships the Lakers won. Shaq and Kobe were one of the greatest duos in NBA history. Give the man the respect he has earned.

Since Cantstop has finally been banned again for the umpteenth time, the current village idiot strikes again. Seriously, this revisionist history BS is out of control. The reason why the 3peat Lakers broke up was because Kobe refused to sacrifice personal glory for the betterment of the team. Bill Russell did it on a team full of HOFers. Wilt Chamberlain did it once he got traded to the Lakers. Scottie Pippen did it with MJ. Magic did it with Kareem and vice versa. James Worthy did it with the two of them. David Robinson did it with Tim Duncan. Shaq did it in 2006 with Dwyane Wade. Kobe refused, and still refuses. He STILL has not learned in 14 years in the NBA.

Kobe was outplayed by an old Reggie Miller in 2000 and Allen Iverson in 2001. Before you bring up the WCF again, Shaq averaged 26, 12, 4 assists, and 2 blocks on 54% shooting against Portland in 2000. I don't care what Kobe's numbers in that series were, he shot 41%, pathetic for the "supposed elite player" he was back then. Kobe had a great series against San Antonio, one of his best, BUT, it was largely due in part to San Antonio swarming Shaq and allowing Kobe to free reign. In that epic series against Sacramento, Shaq gave the Kings 30 and 14 on 57% shooting. This against Vlade Divac and Scott Pollard who guarded prime Shaq as well as anybody I've ever seen. He was clutch as hell in Game 7, hitting that sweet turnaround J over Chris Webber in OT and nailing his free throws. He had some critical defensive stops in the paint late in the game as well. Kobe on the other hand, shot 42% against the Kings, and was limited by Doug Christie to 10-26, and ZERO field goals in the 4th quarter and overtime of Game 7. The disparity between Shaq and Kobe was FAR GREATER than between Magic and Kareem.


Kobe fanatic's imagination has been running wild as of late.

No kidding. They manage to ruin every discussion and discourage people from posting on the board. They're in supreme damage control mode cause the Lakers have looked sluggish and uninterested since Kobe came back while they were smashing on playoff contenders without Kobe. The offense looked crisp while the defense was amazing. Gasol was talking about how it was fun to play basketball again. Kobe comes back and all that changes.

[NBASTATMAN]

You must be forgetting Game 1 of the 1997 series where he hit the game winner off a pass from MJ.


lol...LOL.... LOL.... ... Another one bites the dust..


GREAT THING ABOUT KOBE STANS IS THAT all of them are dumb... LOL

[Big#50]

Agreed, Kerr definitely has the edge in that aspect.
I thinkFish has the hight 3point % in Finals history.

[Desperado]

In the 1999-2000 season, Bryant lead the team in assists and steals (not to mention his 22.5 ppg) as the Lakers went on to win 67 games.

The Lakers ran into some trouble against the Portland Trailblazers in the Western Conference Finals. It all came down to Game Seven, in which "Mr. Second Fiddle" had 25 points, 11 rebounds, seven assists, and four blocks. O'Neal finished with 18 points and nine rebounds.

The Lakers went on to win 89-84 in the biggest comeback in Western Conference Finals history.

Anyone seriously think that the Lakers could have beat the Blazers that night without Kobe? I don't think so. No Kobe equals no championship.

But they did beat the Blazers and went on to play the Indiana Pacers in the finals.

In Game Four, with the Pacers looking to even the series up at two games apiece, Shaq fouled out in overtime. Bryant would go on to score eight points in OT as the Lakers won 120-118.

The Lakers went on to win the series in six games.

In 2000-2001, Bryant again lead the team in assists, while he saw his points per game jump to 28.5.

This time they breezed through the playoffs, going 15-1 and beating the Philadelphia 76ers in the Finals.

Shaq would once again win the NBA Finals MVP, but Bryant wasn't too shabby in the playoffs either, averaging 29.4 points, 7.3 rebounds, and 6.1 assists per game.

Compare that to Michael Jordan's playoff stats in 1991-1992 (second championship), in which he averaged 31.1 points, 6.4 rebounds, and 8.4 assists.

However, nobody would dare say Jordan doesn't deserve credit for his team's success.

The last of the Lakers' championships would occur the following season (2001-2002). Once again, Kobe lead his team in assists as they finished with the second best record in the West, behind the Sacramento Kings.

They would meet the Kings in the Western Conference Finals and the series went the distance

[jstern]

I guess it's really hard for a person who never saw Jordan play to understand why Jordan was just in such a different league, but the more I think about it, even the difference in stats between Kobe and Jordan doesn't explain how much of a superior player Jordan was. And I'm not knocking Kobe at all. The big difference was Jordan's mind. Being able to step it up, and produce more pretty much at will, against the strongest competition, rather than shooting 40% during the finals. Jordan rarely scored 50 points against weak teams, he played big against the strongest competition and during the final minutes of really big games. That's something that's relative, and can be use to compare any player from any era.

[NBASTATMAN]

In the 1999-2000 season, Bryant lead the team in assists and steals (not to mention his 22.5 ppg) as the Lakers went on to win 67 games.

The Lakers ran into some trouble against the Portland Trailblazers in the Western Conference Finals. It all came down to Game Seven, in which "Mr. Second Fiddle" had 25 points, 11 rebounds, seven assists, and four blocks. O'Neal finished with 18 points and nine rebounds.

The Lakers went on to win 89-84 in the biggest comeback in Western Conference Finals history.

Anyone seriously think that the Lakers could have beat the Blazers that night without Kobe? I don't think so. No Kobe equals no championship.

But they did beat the Blazers and went on to play the Indiana Pacers in the finals.

In Game Four, with the Pacers looking to even the series up at two games apiece, Shaq fouled out in overtime. Bryant would go on to score eight points in OT as the Lakers won 120-118.

The Lakers went on to win the series in six games.

In 2000-2001, Bryant again lead the team in assists, while he saw his points per game jump to 28.5.

This time they breezed through the playoffs, going 15-1 and beating the Philadelphia 76ers in the Finals.

Shaq would once again win the NBA Finals MVP, but Bryant wasn't too shabby in the playoffs either, averaging 29.4 points, 7.3 rebounds, and 6.1 assists per game.

Compare that to Michael Jordan's playoff stats in 1991-1992 (second championship), in which he averaged 31.1 points, 6.4 rebounds, and 8.4 assists.

However, nobody would dare say Jordan doesn't deserve credit for his team's success.

The last of the Lakers' championships would occur the following season (2001-2002). Once again, Kobe lead his team in assists as they finished with the second best record in the West, behind the Sacramento Kings.

They would meet the Kings in the Western Conference Finals and the series went the distance—seven games.

Bryant would once again come up big. He scored 30 points, added 10 rebounds, and dished out seven assists as the Lakers won by six.

Anyone seriously think the Lakers would still have beaten the Kings without Kobe's near triple-double? I don't think so. No Kobe equals no championship.

In the Finals, the Lakers swept the New Jersey Nets, and once again Shaq won the MVP Award. Kobe wasn't too bad either, averaging 27 points, 5.8 rebounds, and 5.3 assists per game, while shooting 51.4% from the floor.

Not too bad for a guy who wouldn't have accomplished anything without the Big Fella, huh?

It was also in this series that Bryant would begin to gain his reputation as clutch. In fourth quarters alone, he shot a staggering 63% from the field, while scoring 12 and 11 in the final quarter of games three and four.

USA Today recognized his greatness, saying: "Never before has a player on the winning team put up the numbers and had the impact that Bryant had against the Nets and not been selected series MVP."

It's clear that Kobe wouldn't have any rings without Shaq, but what seems to get lost is just how important he was to the Lakers' success. He wasn't some average contributor, he was, at times, the best and most important player on the team.

It's clear that Shaq didn't just hand Kobe his three rings, he went out there and got them himself.

And if you think differently...well, you're an idiot.




They would have lost that game without BRIAN SHAW AS WELL... :lol


Anyone who knows basketball gives Kobe his credit.. Kobe was vital...

[NBASTATMAN]

Kobe was the facilitator of the team.

He sacrificed meaningless personal awards and stats for team championships.


Kobe was the "Magic" to Shaq's "Kareem"!.....




It was a 1-2 punch.

Kobe's numbers during the 3 titles:
2000: 21pts 4 rebs 4 asts
2001: 29pts 7 rebs 6 asts
2002: 26pts 6 rebs 5 asts



Kobe was instrumental in the 3 championships the Lakers won. Shaq and Kobe were one of the greatest duos in NBA history. Give the man the respect he has earned.


I agree.. But he was clearly the second option... Wade was able to win a title with a less dominant Shaq and probably could have won in 2005 if not for both Wade and Shaq being injured... With Shaq in his prime it was much easier for Kobe to put up the numbers he put up and win a title.. Obviously Shaq needed Kobe as well... Anyone who doesn't think Kobe was vital to those titles just didn't watch..

[Glide2keva]

Hahahahahahahhaha Jordan Groupie Lmfaooooo
Only a Jordan troll would believe that due to insecurities.
When Jordan left his team record went down 2 games and got knock out in conference finals to Game 7. If they gave Pippen Jordan calls they would have been right back in the finals. Bulls were Contenders without Jordan.
Stop with the agenda posts.

Half of the team that Jordan had in 1993 wasn't even on the roster in 1994.

1992-93 Chicago Bulls:
No. Player Pos Ht Wt
10 B.J. Armstrong G 6-2 175 Stayed
17 Ricky Blanton F 6-7 215 Who? Buster
24 Bill Cartwright C 7-1 245 Was old but stayed on more year
40 Joe Courtney F 6-8 235 Scrub
3 Jo Jo English G 6-4 195 Stayed and never really played
54 Horace Grant F-C 6-10 215 Stayed
23 Michael Jordan G-F 6-6 195 Retired (suspension?)
21 Stacey King F-C 6-11 230 Stayed
22 Rodney McCray F-G 6-7 220 Weak scrub, god I hated this guy
45 Ed Nealy F 6-7 238 Scrub
5 John Paxson G 6-2 185 Stayed
32 Will Perdue C 7-0 240 Stayed
33 Scottie Pippen F-G 6-8 210 Stayed
6 Trent Tucker G 6-5 193 Gone
20 Darrell Walker G 6-4 180 Gone, scrub
12 Corey Williams G 6-2 190 Gone, scrub
42 Scott Williams F-C 6-10 230 Stayed but was eventually traded to Milwaukee

1994

No. Player Pos Ht Wt
10 B.J. Armstrong G 6-2 175
44 Corie Blount F 6-9 240 (Dude was a stud PF at the time)
24 Bill Cartwright C 7-1 245 Old
3 Jo Jo English G 6-4 195 Scrub that never played
54 Horace Grant F-C 6-10 215 Had one of his best seasons
8 Dave Johnson G-F 6-7 210 Who? Scrub
25 Steve Kerr G 6-3 175 Made Paxson expendable
Stacey King F-C 6-11 230 Was traded, I think
7 Toni Kukoc F 6-10 192 No need to say anything here
13 Luc Longley C 7-2 265 The Bulls finally got a center
20 Pete Myers G-F 6-6 180 MJ's former practice punching bag
5 John Paxson G 6-2 185 Retired after this season
32 Will Perdue C 7-0 240 Was eventually let go
33 Scottie Pippen F-G 6-8 210 Should've won MVP
34 Bill Wennington C 7-0 245 Another solid Center who could nail it from 19' in.
42 Scott Williams F-C 6-10 230 Traded to Milwaukee

The 1994 team was a more solid team with out MJ than the 1993 team with MJ. Had it not been for Hue Hollins making that bullshit call, The Bulls might have won it all.

They had better outside shooting with Wennington, Kerr, B.J., Paxson, Kukoc, Pippen all able to knock down shots MJ, had himself, Scottie, and Paxson as the main perimeter shooters, Trent Tucker hardly ever played and wasn't effective when he did, Darrell Walker was in for his defense, and Jo Jo English never saw the court because he was always on the bench.

Compare that to the 1994 team where you had a solid front court and a tough offensive rebounding machine in Horace grant, and stud rookie coming off the bench in Corey Blount (who had a decent NBA career after the Bulls) a Center who could hit from the outside which wasn't as common then as it is now, Toni Kukoc who was an assist machine and could drain from 3 at 6' 11"

Scottie having his best all around season where he led the Bulls in every major category.

That 1994 team was not the same as the 1993 team and I would argue that they were better.

[Glide2keva]

As for the OP, there is no comparison, that's the only logical conclusion.

[Desperado]

[/B]


I agree.. But he was clearly the second option... Wade was able to win a title with a less dominant Shaq and probably could have won in 2005 if not for both Wade and Shaq being injured... With Shaq in his prime it was much easier for Kobe to put up the numbers he put up and win a title.. Obviously Shaq needed Kobe as well... Anyone who doesn't think Kobe was vital to those titles just didn't watch..


Shaq played with :
Penny,Kobe,Wade,Nash, Lebron

w/Penny: 0 ring
w/Kobe:3 Rings
w/Wade: 1 Ring
w/Nash: 0 Ring
w/Lebron : ?
Compare how many greats help carried shaq to how many greats help carried Kobe?

Only 2 Superstars Kobe played with:
Shaq: 3 Rings
Gasol: 1 Ring and Counting.

These mean nothing to me. Just showing, the "Kobe's 3 Rings was all Shaq's" thing is total Bull sh*t.

[guy]

First of all I'm not going to debate on who I think is better. I just wanted to point this out on how people don't seem to parrallel this peice of logic when comparing Jordan to Kobe.

With most of you
Jordan > Kobe
But then when comparing the teams most people have
championship '96 Bulls > championship '09 Lakers
When people make arguments on how Jordan is miles ahead of Kobe fail to parallel the fact that they also believe the Bulls would have murked the Lakers and was a vast superior team. Looking at the team most specifically had mentioned:
Rodman > Bynum
Pippen > Gasol
Kerr > Fisher
and so on.
Failing to point out when you're pro Jordan that he had the greatest second banana, the greatest rebounder, and the greatest 3 point shooter (or course all arguably) and the greatest coach to put that into a system to me is completely bias.
When making these arguments you've got to be consistant with you're opinion. That is all.

Rodman>Bynum, Pippen>Gasol, yes. But Odom>Kukoc, Ariza>Harper, and Fisher>Kerr(don't see how Kerr is better when Fisher is better at every aspect of the game aside from 3-point shooting.) The rest of the teams is about equal. And I don't understand why you bring up "greatest coach" when the same coach was on the Lakers. I think Jordan definitely had the better team, but they weren't significantly better. It sounds like you're implying that Kobe didn't have a "fair shot" in comparison to Jordan which is ridiculous. And even if Jordan's team was "miles ahead", that doesn't mean Jordan can't be "miles ahead" of Kobe (I don't think Jordan is miles ahead but there really is no argument for Kobe to be as great or significantly close"). Also, its not like the Jordan vs Kobe debate is centered around 96 Bulls vs. 09 Lakers.

[NBASTATMAN]

Shaq played with :
Penny,Kobe,Wade,Nash, Lebron

w/Penny: 0 ring
w/Kobe:3 Rings
w/Wade: 1 Ring
w/Nash: 0 Ring
w/Lebron : ?
Compare how many greats help carried shaq to how many greats help carried Kobe?

Only 2 Superstars Kobe played with:
Shaq: 3 Rings
Gasol: 1 Ring and Counting.

These mean nothing to me. Just showing, the "Kobe's 3 Rings was all Shaq's" thing is total Bull sh*t.



I agree.. But Shaq has clearly been on the decline since Nash.. Can't blame Nash for not being able to carry Shaq when Kobe and co. couldn't carry Shaq after 2002... You also have to realize that Shaq has not been mentioned as being able to break the top 5.. Or being compared to Mj or Kareem whom in my opinion are the two best ever... Kobe has played with alot more talent than Mj or any other superstar guard since Magic... He has also had the GOAT coach to help him along... Kobe now has two seven footers that could both avg 20 and 10 another two small forwards that are very good all around players.. One could be in contention for DPOY.... Both Shaq and Kobe have been given the best supporting casts... Neither in my opinion will be better than 5th ever if you ask me...

If you ask me Penny was never a superstar.. He would have been if his injuries didn't slow him down...

[hateraid]

Rodman>Bynum, Pippen>Gasol, yes. But Odom>Kukoc, Ariza>Harper, and Fisher>Kerr(don't see how Kerr is better when Fisher is better at every aspect of the game aside from 3-point shooting.) The rest of the teams is about equal. And I don't understand why you bring up "greatest coach" when the same coach was on the Lakers. I think Jordan definitely had the better team, but they weren't significantly better. It sounds like you're implying that Kobe didn't have a "fair shot" in comparison to Jordan which is ridiculous. And even if Jordan's team was "miles ahead", that doesn't mean Jordan can't be "miles ahead" of Kobe (I don't think Jordan is miles ahead but there really is no argument for Kobe to be as great or significantly close"). Also, its not like the Jordan vs Kobe debate is centered around 96 Bulls vs. 09 Lakers.


I'm not implying that at all.
You've missed my point completely. Read on after my OP. And read the very first thing I wrote. The Lakers fan seem to have a grasp on what I'm saying.

[guy]

Okay, I re-read your post and now it sounds like you're saying if someone says that Jordan>Kobe without pointing out he had the greatest second banana and greatest rebounder that makes that person biased? How is that the case?

[jstern]

Rodman>Bynum, Pippen>Gasol, yes. But Odom>Kukoc, Ariza>Harper, and Fisher>Kerr(don't see how Kerr is better when Fisher is better at every aspect of the game aside from 3-point shooting.) The rest of the teams is about equal. And I don't understand why you bring up "greatest coach" when the same coach was on the Lakers. I think Jordan definitely had the better team, but they weren't significantly better. It sounds like you're implying that Kobe didn't have a "fair shot" in comparison to Jordan which is ridiculous. And even if Jordan's team was "miles ahead", that doesn't mean Jordan can't be "miles ahead" of Kobe (I don't think Jordan is miles ahead but there really is no argument for Kobe to be as great or significantly close"). Also, its not like the Jordan vs Kobe debate is centered around 96 Bulls vs. 09 Lakers.
Truly a logical post. It's funny how people don't notice things when it doesn't fit their agenda. Like Phil Jackson being the coach for both teams. And yeah, Steve Kerr was like the 8th man, yet I have heard younger people saying that Jordan had the best team because he had superstars, future hall of famers like Steve Kerr.

[Fatal9]

I guess it's really hard for a person who never saw Jordan play to understand why Jordan was just in such a different league, but the more I think about it, even the difference in stats between Kobe and Jordan doesn't explain how much of a superior player Jordan was. And I'm not knocking Kobe at all. The big difference was Jordan's mind. Being able to step it up, and produce more pretty much at will, against the strongest competition, rather than shooting 40% during the finals. Jordan rarely scored 50 points against weak teams, he played big against the strongest competition and during the final minutes of really big games. That's something that's relative, and can be use to compare any player from any era.
Jordan stunk it up shooting/scoring wise all through out the 90s vs. #1 ranked defensive teams in the playoffs. And the one defensive team that he did face in the finals that was as good as '04 Pistons and '08 Celtics...he did in fact end up shooting around 40%.

[Bandito]

First of all I'm not going to debate on who I think is better. I just wanted to point this out on how people don't seem to parrallel this peice of logic when comparing Jordan to Kobe.

With most of you
Jordan > Kobe
But then when comparing the teams most people have
championship '96 Bulls > championship '09 Lakers
When people make arguments on how Jordan is miles ahead of Kobe fail to parallel the fact that they also believe the Bulls would have murked the Lakers and was a vast superior team. Looking at the team most specifically had mentioned:
Rodman > Bynum
Pippen > Gasol
Kerr > Fisher
and so on.
Failing to point out when you're pro Jordan that he had the greatest second banana, the greatest rebounder, and the greatest 3 point shooter (or course all arguably) and the greatest coach to put that into a system to me is completely bias.
When making these arguments you've got to be consistant with you're opinion. That is all.
I know MJ> than Kobe but the greatest 3 point shot? He suck from there and was at best a streaky shooter.

[hateraid]

Okay, I re-read your post and now it sounds like you're saying if someone says that Jordan>Kobe without pointing out he had the greatest second banana and greatest rebounder that makes that person biased? How is that the case?


More like when a comparison between Jordan and Kobe are made it's not taken into consideration team success and chemistry. If it was a case of player A and B it would be a different case scenario. On the other token completely discrediting Lakers team when compariring the Bulls to the Lakers but yet not using it in comparison to the actually player versus player comparison. Again any other two player this becomes a factor.

Just like it was pointed out in this thread, a case can be made that Wade is better than Kobe. But that same statement can't be made about Kobe versus Jordan? It is the same type playing field. That's bias.

[hateraid]

I know MJ> than Kobe but the greatest 3 point shot? He suck from there and was at best a streaky shooter.

You forgot to highlight the part immediately after when I wrote (of course all arguably).

[hateraid]

People, I've never even made a definative statement. Kobe versus Jordan? I personally don't care. To me neither is the GOAT in my book.
Again, the insecure fanboys reading what they WANT to read.

[Abraham Lincoln]

I don't get it. The league is watered down now, and the Lakers would lose to the Bulls, but the Lakers are more talented...? Huh?Indeed. Bulls were a better basketball team with the better 2 guard. All these player hypothetical replacement scenarios are just that. Nothing more than speculation. This is a good thread to show the logic flaw in many debates. :applause:

[hateraid]

Here's a simpler formula

09 Lakers > 06 Heat
so a case can be made that
Wade > Kobe based on the fact that Wade did more with less talent (let's not make this into a Shaq debate)

so on the same token
96 Bulls > 09 Lakers
So why can't an argument be made that Kobe > Jordan?

Again I'm saying he is or he isn't, but most people who do say J>K discredit that fact. Again, I believe people should be more consistant.

[hateraid]

Indeed. Bulls were a better basketball team with the better 2 guard. All these player hypothetical replacement scenarios are just that. Nothing more than speculation. Good thread to show the logic flaw in many debates. :applause:


:applause: . Again, someone who gets the point.

[jstern]

Jordan stunk it up shooting/scoring wise all through out the 90s vs. #1 ranked defensive teams in the playoffs. And the one defensive team that he did face in the finals that was as good as '04 Pistons and '08 Celtics...he did in fact end up shooting around 40%.
Jordan shot a career 48% during the finals, and only shot under 50% during the finals where he wasn't in his prime. His lowest was against Seattle .415 which is still higher than Kobe's average, in his prime. But other than that is how he stepped it up when the game was on the line. I wasn't a Jordan fan at the time, but that's what made Jordan great.

[Alhazred]

Here's a simpler formula

09 Lakers > 06 Heat
so a case can be made that
Wade > Kobe based on the fact that Wade did more with less talent (let's not make this into a Shaq debate)

so on the same token
96 Bulls > 09 Lakers
So why can't an argument be made that Kobe > Jordan?


So if Player A wins a championship with a weaker cast than Player B, that makes Player A better? Seems kind of flawed. May I ask where you heard it from?

[EroticVanilla]

I feel bad for hateraid, he make a completely valid thread that basically just points out the Jordan had a better supporting cast for his rings (atleast 2nd three-peat) and that should be taken into account when comparing Kobe and Jordan and all the Jordan *** guzzlers had to come in and protect there man-crush.

[hateraid]

So if Player A wins a championship with a weaker cast than Player B, that makes Player A better? Seems kind of flawed. May I ask where you heard it from?


When did I ever say that?
You're basically twisting my stament into a completely different argument bud. Sorry.

[hateraid]

I feel bad for hateraid, he make a completely valid thread that basically just points out the Jordan had a better supporting cast for his rings (atleast 2nd three-peat) and that should be taken into account when comparing Kobe and Jordan and all the Jordan *** guzzlers had to come in and protect there man-crush.

Tough crowd huh?
Thank you for actually having comprehension on what I was trying to state.

[hateraid]

So if Player A wins a championship with a weaker cast than Player B, that makes Player A better? Seems kind of flawed. May I ask where you heard it from?


Kinda funny because you inadvertantly agreed with my whole point. Maybe I should thank you.:applause:
My point, LOGIC IS FLAWED.
Now us unbias folk can clearly see who has actual comprehension skill.

[Fatal9]

Jordan shot a career 48% during the finals, and only shot under 50% during the finals where he wasn't in his prime. His lowest was against Seattle .415 which is still higher than Kobe's average, in his prime. But other than that is how he stepped it up when the game was on the line. I wasn't a Jordan fan at the time, but that's what made Jordan great.
No doubt Jordan would perform better under same circumstances, but you need to remember Jordan wasn't seeing all-time great type defensive teams in the finals. when he did, he shot poorly (and '96 Jordan wasn't that far off from first threepeat Jordan btw). He saw them in lesser rounds throughout the 90s and struggled shooting wise against them. Kobe meanwhile has seen the best defense in the league in the finals for 3 years in a row, with two of those teams in the conversation amongst the greatest defensive teams ever. He should have performed better against them but the idea that Jordan consistently torched great defenses in the 90s is a myth, something which would have been more exposed had he seen those teams in the finals.


I feel bad for hateraid, he make a completely valid thread that basically just points out the Jordan had a better supporting cast for his rings (atleast 2nd three-peat) and that should be taken into account when comparing Kobe and Jordan and all the Jordan *** guzzlers had to come in and protect there man-crush.
happens in every thread around here.

[NBASTATMAN]

Jordan stunk it up shooting/scoring wise all through out the 90s vs. #1 ranked defensive teams in the playoffs. And the one defensive team that he did face in the finals that was as good as '04 Pistons and '08 Celtics...he did in fact end up shooting around 40%.


Yea I guess he is the only superstar to do that... I know another guy who shot less than 40 percent vs the 8th ranked defense and then SHOT LESS THEN 40 PERCENT again vs the second ranked defense.. That guy had three future hall of famers playing along side of him waiting to get the ball... :lol

[Alhazred]

When did I ever say that?
You're basically twisting my stament into a completely different argument bud. Sorry.

I didn't say you did, I was asking who told you that Wade has a case over Kobe because of that.


Kinda funny because you inadvertantly agreed with my whole point. Maybe I should thank you.:applause:
My point, LOGIC IS FLAWED.


Ok, cool. Glad we agree.

[NBASTATMAN]

I wouldn't want him over Perdue or Cartwright, much less Grant.


LOL He is a talent but he needs to know where to get his...If he just played a smart game he would make the Lakers invincible... Yet I could say that about another superstar on that same team... :roll:

[hateraid]

I didn't say you did, I was asking who told you that Wade has a case over Kobe because of that.

Right here:



I guess if we're comparing how players did with certain supporting casts, that means a rookie Dwyane Wade > prime Kobe. Seeing as Wade took the supporting cast that Kobe took to the lottery to the second round.

[jstern]

No doubt Jordan would perform better under same circumstances, but you need to remember Jordan wasn't seeing all-time great type defensive teams in the finals. when he did, he shot poorly (and '96 Jordan wasn't that far off from first threepeat Jordan btw). He saw them in lesser rounds throughout the 90s and struggled shooting wise against them. Kobe meanwhile has seen the best defense in the league in the finals for 3 years in a row, with two of those teams in the conversation amongst the greatest defensive teams ever. He should have performed better against them but the idea that Jordan consistently torched great defenses in the 90s is a myth, something which would have been more exposed had he seen those teams in the finals.

I don't like the way this conversation is going, because I have my point of of you, you have yours and there's no common ground. All starting from me using one specific example, and that becoming the complete focus. My point basically was that Jordan big numbers, example 50+ point games typically came against elite teams, and I saw some statistic of Kobe's 50+ games, and they're virtually all were against crappy teams. I have nothing against Kobe, I like him, but I was trying to show the difference when it came to Jordan's mind and other super stars. But what I focus more is how he performed in the clutch, not just offensively, but defensively.

[Alhazred]

Right here:


Originally Posted by DJ Leon Smith
I guess if we're comparing how players did with certain supporting casts, that means a rookie Dwyane Wade > prime Kobe. Seeing as Wade took the supporting cast that Kobe took to the lottery to the second round.

He's either a moron or being sarcastic, not sure.

[HERB Stempel]

Another one who got it.
I'm beginning to think that Laker fans are now the brighter oner in this ISH era. It's a shame they always get unwarranted insults and bashing. This is coming from one of the sites longest running Sixer fan.

Actually you've been around a while bleedingpurps.

read ur op which is clearly slanted to favor kobe and it shouldnt surprise you to be in agreement with laker fans on this. according to you its okay to draw conclusions on faulty reasoning while dismissing every argument as jordan ******gers. determing the better player based on quantity of titles in a team game is stupid for sure. but the delivery of ur message in this thread isnt so hot either

[catch24]

There's nothing Kobe can do to match Jordan's greatness. The comparison is over, and has been for a while now.

[hateraid]

read ur op which is clearly slanted to favor kobe and it shouldnt surprise you to be in agreement with laker fans on this. according to you its okay to draw conclusions on faulty reasoning while dismissing every argument as jordan ******gers. determing the better player based on quantity of titles in a team game is stupid for sure. but the delivery of ur message in this thread isnt so hot either


OK, I can accept that. The delivery may be off. But on the other hand it was the Laker fans who saw it for what it really was and Jordan fans getting irrational. Read on and tell me if I had at least recovered a bit. If I came across as being Kobe bias, that wasn't the intent. But if the actual bias posters actually can see it for what it was, then my delivery may not have been all that bad.

[EricForman]

First of all I'm not going to debate on who I think is better. I just wanted to point this out on how people don't seem to parrallel this peice of logic when comparing Jordan to Kobe.

With most of you
Jordan > Kobe
But then when comparing the teams most people have
championship '96 Bulls > championship '09 Lakers
When people make arguments on how Jordan is miles ahead of Kobe fail to parallel the fact that they also believe the Bulls would have murked the Lakers and was a vast superior team. Looking at the team most specifically had mentioned:
Rodman > Bynum
Pippen > Gasol
Kerr > Fisher
and so on.
Failing to point out when you're pro Jordan that he had the greatest second banana, the greatest rebounder, and the greatest 3 point shooter (or course all arguably) and the greatest coach to put that into a system to me is completely bias.
When making these arguments you've got to be consistant with you're opinion. That is all.


how the hell did jordan have the greatest second banana? was pip better than either magic or kareem was? or the oscar robertson?

jordan's cast wasn't weak. but it's simply false to say his cast was so stacked compared to what other all time greats has. wilt, russell, kareem, magic, bird, kobe, shaq all won with more "talent" and "help".

also, there are flaws to your argument. rodman wasnt around during first threepeat. so what, now you're gonna elevate horace grant to "one of the best PFs in the game!"??

and by the 98 playoffs, Rodman wasn't top 20 and injured Pip wasn't top ten in the league.

[hateraid]

how the hell did jordan have the greatest second banana? was pip better than either magic or kareem was? or the oscar robertson?

jordan's cast wasn't weak. but it's simply false to say his cast was so stacked compared to what other all time greats has. wilt, russell, kareem, magic, bird, kobe, shaq all won with more "talent" and "help".

also, there are flaws to your argument. rodman wasnt around during first threepeat. so what, now you're gonna elevate horace grant to "one of the best PFs in the game!"??

and by the 98 playoffs, Rodman wasn't top 20 and injured Pip wasn't top ten in the league.

Good lord. I am going to change the OP. Obviously anybody who's a Jordan fan is going to misinterperate what the message was. And if you read cloesey, I said ARGUABLY after what I had stated. But in terms of being a second banana, most would interperate it as a person whose not another first option, but an extremely talented complimentary second option.

Everybody, forget what I have written about individuals being better on the Bulls and Lakers and let's just say this, THAT BULLS TEAM IS BETTER THAN LAST YEARS LAKERS TEAM.

Read the whole thread and see what NON-BIAS people interperated my thread to be.

[jlauber]

Jordan was a great player...and I would give him an edge over Kobe...but I am so sick-and-tired of the posters here, whop make Jordan out like some kind of god.

One more time...MJ languished on FIVE losing teams in his career. At one point his teams were 1-9 in the post-season. He never played on a winning team until the likes of Pippen, Grant, Paxson, Cartwright, Rodman, Kerr, Harper, and Kukoc came along.

How good were those Bulls' rosters? After Jordan retired the first time, and following a 57-25 season, the Bulls basically replaced him with Toni Kukoc...and went 55-27. That team, without MJ, lost a close game seven to the Knicks, who would go on to lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals. AND, MJ returned later the next year, and couldn't take that team to a title.


While players like Bird, D. Robinson, Kareem, and Wilt immediately turned last place teams into winners in their very first seasons, ...it took MJ four years (and Pippen & Co.) to make his team a winner.

Yes, MJ was great. But he was NOT a mriacle worker.

AND, if Kobe gets another ring, or two, and there will be many more fans jumping on his bandwagon.

[juju151111]

Jordan was a great player...and I would give him an edge over Kobe...but I am so sick-and-tired of the posters here, whop make Jordan out like some kind of god.

One more time...MJ languished on FIVE losing teams in his career. At one point his teams were 1-9 in the post-season. He never played on a winning team until the likes of Pippen, Grant, Paxson, Cartwright, Rodman, Kerr, Harper, and Kukoc came along. AND, MJ returned later the next year, and couldn't take that team to a title.

How good were those Bulls' rosters? After Jordan retired the first time, and following a 57-25 season, the Bulls basically replaced him with Toni Kukoc...and went 55-27. That team, without MJ, lost a close game seven to the Knicks, who would go on to lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals.

While players like Bird, D. Robinson, Kareem, and Wilt immediately turned last place teams into winners in their very first seasons, ...it took MJ four years (and Pippen & Co.) to make his team a winner.

Yes, MJ was great. But he was NOT a mriacle worker.

AND, if Kobe gets another ring, or two, and there will be many more fans jumping on his bandwagon.
LOL MJ team went to the playoffs every year.Pippen was a bench player in 88.

[jlauber]

I don't want to waste my time on this argument...

Those that claim that Jordan could walk on water obviously never watched Russell, Oscar, Magic, Bird, Kareem, or Wilt play.

Most of them probably believe MJ invented basketball.

[Richard 23]

Jordan is better than Kobe so get over it. Not only that, but so were a handful of other players. Kobe is great and all, but there are better players in the history of the nba out there and argubly a few right now.

[HERB Stempel]

how the hell did jordan have the greatest second banana? was pip better than either magic or kareem was? or the oscar robertson?

jordan's cast wasn't weak. but it's simply false to say his cast was so stacked compared to what other all time greats has. wilt, russell, kareem, magic, bird, kobe, shaq all won with more "talent" and "help".

also, there are flaws to your argument. rodman wasnt around during first threepeat. so what, now you're gonna elevate horace grant to "one of the best PFs in the game!"??

and by the 98 playoffs, Rodman wasn't top 20 and injured Pip wasn't top ten in the league.

think the point was about kobes titles with shaq being downplayed but jordan receives full credit for the ones with a peak pippen and rodman. if those titles arent seen as equivalent one to one, do those same people view kobes 2009 championship as greater using the same weighted scale

[bdreason]

I watched the entire careers of both players, and it isn't even a question who is better.

Even if Kobe had a better resume (which he isn't even close), Jordan was just better... at pretty much everything.

I may give Kobe the edge in 3 point shooting... but that's mainly because MJ didn't settle for 3 pointers.

[EricForman]

I don't want to waste my time on this argument...

Those that claim that Jordan could walk on water obviously never watched Russell, Oscar, Magic, Bird, Kareem, or Wilt play.

Most of them probably believe MJ invented basketball.


you are a moron just like roundball.

saying MJ is goat is different from thinking he's god, can walk on water, or shits on every great in the history of earth. any reasonable fan knows kareem, russell, wilt, magic, bird have cases for GOAT too, it's just Jordan has the most complete case.

idiots like you can't accept that. you have to blow it out of proportion and think when we say Jordan is GOAT, we think he's three times the player kareem/wilt was or that Jordan could win 70 with any trash players.

man, STFU And stop making stuff up. most Jordan fans also realize Pip was a top 25, 30 player.

[catch24]

you are a moron just like roundball.

saying MJ is goat is different from thinking he's god, can walk on water, or shits on every great in the history of earth. any reasonable fan knows kareem, russell, wilt, magic, bird have cases for GOAT too, it's just Jordan has the most complete case.

idiots like you can't accept that. you have to blow it out of proportion and think when we say Jordan is GOAT, we think he's three times the player kareem/wilt was or that Jordan could win 70 with any trash players.

man, STFU And stop making stuff up. most Jordan fans also realize Pip was a top 25, 30 player.

jrauber is another fraud pretending to have historical perspective of legends that paved way for his hero (Bryant -- lmao @ him spitting out out all this "knowledge", yet ranks Kobe #7???). Anyway, I wouldn't call the 70's trash, but I see what you're saying.

[Knoe Itawl]

I don't want to waste my time on this argument...

Those that claim that Jordan could walk on water obviously never watched Russell, Oscar, Magic, Bird, Kareem, or Wilt play.

Most of them probably believe MJ invented basketball.

I was going to stay away from this thread because of the idiocy, but I had to point this out.

WTF does thinking Jordan > Kobe have to do woth Oscar, Magic, Wilt, etc.? Oh that's right, nothing. But as usual, some simpletons have to bring up shyt that has NOTHING to do with the thread in order to take shots at Jordan.

[DuMa]

i only need one thing to argue why kobe isnt near jordan's level: defense.

[Freshprince619]

I don't want to waste my time on this argument...

Those that claim that Jordan could walk on water obviously never watched Russell, Oscar, Magic, Bird, Kareem, or Wilt play.

Most of them probably believe MJ invented basketball.

Greatest post of the F*cking day! I've never seen people so blind that think his status of GOAT is far superior to everybody else. Kids these days:hammerhead: so silly

[Freshprince619]

Jordan was a great player...and I would give him an edge over Kobe...but I am so sick-and-tired of the posters here, whop make Jordan out like some kind of god.

One more time...MJ languished on FIVE losing teams in his career. At one point his teams were 1-9 in the post-season. He never played on a winning team until the likes of Pippen, Grant, Paxson, Cartwright, Rodman, Kerr, Harper, and Kukoc came along.

How good were those Bulls' rosters? After Jordan retired the first time, and following a 57-25 season, the Bulls basically replaced him with Toni Kukoc...and went 55-27. That team, without MJ, lost a close game seven to the Knicks, who would go on to lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals. AND, MJ returned later the next year, and couldn't take that team to a title.


While players like Bird, D. Robinson, Kareem, and Wilt immediately turned last place teams into winners in their very first seasons, ...it took MJ four years (and Pippen & Co.) to make his team a winner.

Yes, MJ was great. But he was NOT a mriacle worker.

AND, if Kobe gets another ring, or two, and there will be many more fans jumping on his bandwagon.

Someone with an actual analysis and not just throwing stats that people have no idea about. Strong points

[hateraid]

I was going to stay away from this thread because of the idiocy, but I had to point this out.

WTF does thinking Jordan > Kobe have to do woth Oscar, Magic, Wilt, etc.? Oh that's right, nothing. But as usual, some simpletons have to bring up shyt that has NOTHING to do with the thread in order to take shots at Jordan.

Lol, hey old buddy. Finally a post I see your perspective clearly. I'll glad I created a thread in which you can participate.

[jlauber]

jrauber is another fraud pretending to have historical perspective of legends that paved way for his hero (Bryant -- lmao @ him spitting out out all this "knowledge", yet ranks Kobe #7???). Anyway, I wouldn't call the 70's trash, but I see what you're saying.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

These Jordanites are so enamored with MJ, that they think it is an insult to rank Kobe at #7 (or #8 where I currently have him)...EVEN THOUGH I ranked Jordan at #4.

Are we supposed to rank MJ at #1...and then start ranking the other players at say, #11? Jordan #1, #11 Russell, #12 Kareem, #13 Wilt, etc, etc?

The other idiocy is that these Jordan lovers dismiss anyone suggesting that Kareem, or Wilt, or Oscar, or Russell, might have been greater, because...well, they played in the prehistoric era. I even got RIPPED for susggesting that Magic might have had a greater career. So, in effect, ANY player who came before Jordan has to be dismissed, because their era's were strictly players shotting set-shots at peach baskets.

BUT, if anyone uses the same argument against Jordan...like saying that the players of the CURRENT NBA are better...Kobe, Lebron, or Wade...well, that is nonsense...MJ would KILL those guys...despite the fact that Jordan's last meaningful game was 12 years ago.

I have ALWAYS been on record as ranking Jordan or Kobe. And I have ALWAYS been on record as having Jordan in MY Top-5. AND, I don't have a problem with anyone ranking him at #1. But, PLEASE, get these ridiculous assertions about how he was WAY better than anyone else outta here!

Incidently, while we are on the subject of taking shots at Jordan...

Has there EVER been a more classless HOF speech in sport's history?

[Floppy]

Kerr = Matt Carroll

And anyone who thinks that Kobe's better than Jordan or 2 more rings will make him better than Jordan is a ****ing idiot.

[Cermet]

Why dont we just call Kobe the greatest basketball player EVER so that the Kobe fan/f@gs would be happy and wont bother us anymore...

[ILLsmak]

Best thing:

If Kobe didn't thieve various Michael Jordan moves and trademarks... nobody would even be making this comparison.

Kobe is the closest thing we'll ever see to MJ simply because Kobe's whole game is patterned after MJs. In terms of impact, it's not really that close, and you can take LeBron now and say he is closer to MJ's impact than Kobe ever was.

SON.

-Smak

[jlauber]

Why dont we just call Kobe the greatest basketball player EVER so that the Kobe fan/f@gs would be happy and wont bother us anymore...

Or, let's just say Jordan was the ONLY great player...and everyone else was just average or worse.

[jrong]

Why do these threads constantly appear? I'm no Bryant hater, but the only way in which this comparison is even worth discussing is if we compare the players as individual scorers. Then, we can have a debate about that.

But-- hear me out-- Michael Jordan was a PHENOMENAL passer. Go watch tapes of old Bulls games in the late 80s or during the first three-peat if you don't believe me. And Kobe is, well, not.

Jordan was also a better rebounder, a better defender, and a better leader. In other words, he was just plain better.

[ILLsmak]

Why do these threads constantly appear? I'm no Bryant hater, but the only way in which this comparison is even worth discussing is if we compare the players as individual scorers. Then, we can have a debate about that.

But-- hear me out-- Michael Jordan was a PHENOMENAL passer. Go watch tapes of old Bulls games in the late 80s or during the first three-peat if you don't believe me. And Kobe is, well, not.

Jordan was also a better rebounder, a better defender, and a better leader. In other words, he was just plain better.

They were similar in every aspect except that Kobe constantly makes the wrong decision... due to his ego. I'd like to know how many times MJ has air balled or been blocked on a final shot. Or how many times he shot over two people when his teammate had a wide open look.

Anyone who talks about history needs to give Jordan his credit. Those who speak about records Wilt broke, I've got 2 that will never be broken, either: 72 wins, 6 finals MVPs. Add two three peats in an era of more than 12 teams if you want.

-Smak

[jlauber]

They were similar in every aspect except that Kobe constantly makes the wrong decision... due to his ego. I'd like to know how many times MJ has air balled or been blocked on a final shot. Or how many times he shot over two people when his teammate had a wide open look.

Anyone who talks about history needs to give Jordan his credit. Those who speak about records Wilt broke, I've got 2 that will never be broken, either: 72 wins, 6 finals MVPs. Add two three peats in an era of more than 12 teams if you want.
-Smak

Did Jordan SINGLE-HANDEDLY win those 72 games? As for the three-peats...yeah, forget Russell's eight in row. As for those Finals MVPs...he didn't face teams like the 80's Lakers and Celtics, either. And even though his stats were similar, it is astonishing that Jordan went from a loser, in his first three seasons, to single-handedly being a winner.

Chamberlain literally holds HUNDREDS of records. MANY are just staggering. And, he played against the likes of Thurmond, Lanier, Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Unseld, Hayes, Russell, Kareem...all in the HOF, as well as even Gilmore. All of which makes his accomplishments that much more amazing.

[ILLsmak]

Did Jordan SINGLE-HANDEDLY win those 72 games? As for the three-peats...yeah, forget Russell's eight in row. As for those Finals MVPs...he didn't face teams like the 80's Lakers and Celtics, either. And even though his stats were similar, it is astonishing that Jordan went from a loser, in his first three seasons, to single-handedly being a winner.

Chamberlain literally holds HUNDREDS of records. MANY are just staggering. And, he played against the likes of Thurmond, Lanier, Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Unseld, Hayes, Russell, Kareem...all in the HOF, as well as even Gilmore. All of which makes his accomplishments that much more amazing.

Chamberlain was pretty unsuccessful overall for holding so many records...

Why do you mention Russell's eight in a row and then say MJ didn't win by himself? He certainly did more than Russell did for his team. I dare you to argue that.

So, let's say you put Chamberlain as the greatest individual player and Russell as the greatest teammate (assuming, because most people who come from your point of view do)... why is Jordan better? (And this is not even trying to discount the era, because you obviously won't accept that.)

Jordan was a mixture of success AND individual dominance. I think Kareem has more of a case than Wilt/Russell for any sort of GOAT honors, but still... Jordan is better. The resume speaks for itself. Nobody else from this point on will ever have a resume like that. That's why people say MJ is the goat. Who cares if you could have taken another player and put him on that Bulls team? It's not debatable. All you do is make yourself look like a tool when you try to discredit Jordan.

-Smak

[jlauber]

Chamberlain was pretty unsuccessful overall for holding so many records...

Why do you mention Russell's eight in a row and then say MJ didn't win by himself? He certainly did more than Russell did for his team. I dare you to argue that.

So, let's say you put Chamberlain as the greatest individual player and Russell as the greatest teammate (assuming, because most people who come from your point of view do)... why is Jordan better? (And this is not even trying to discount the era, because you obviously won't accept that.)

Jordan was a mixture of success AND individual dominance. I think Kareem has more of a case than Wilt/Russell for any sort of GOAT honors, but still... Jordan is better. The resume speaks for itself. Nobody else from this point on will ever have a resume like that. That's why people say MJ is the goat. Who cares if you could have taken another player and put him on that Bulls team? It's not debatable. All you do is make yourself look like a tool when you try to discredit Jordan.

-Smak

Chamberlain, HIMSELF, was unsuccessful???? No, his TEAMs did not win as many championships as MJ's TEAMs, but in terms of success...as Oscar Robertson once said..."The record book does not lie."

My point about Jordan AND Russell's titles...they won on GREAT TEAMs (and Jordan's came in a watered-down NBA BTW.)

Kareem was CERTAINLY the equivalent of MJ...in EVERY category.

It's not debatable??? WHY? Because YOU say so???

I have MJ at #4 on MY all-time list. Is that discrediting him??? IMHO, Jordan was NOT greater than several players. Maybe on par, but NOT greater.

As for discrediting...how can you just IGNORE Chamberlain's OVERWHELMING dominance??? Aside from FT shooting, there was not ONE area in which Jordan was better than Wilt. Scoring, shooting, rebounding, passing, defense...not even close.

[ILLsmak]

Chamberlain, HIMSELF, was unsuccessful???? No, his TEAMs did not win as many championships as MJ's TEAMs, but in terms of success...as Oscar Robertson once said..."The record book does not lie."

My point about Jordan AND Russell's titles...they won on GREAT TEAMs (and Jordan's came in a watered-down NBA BTW.)

Kareem was CERTAINLY the equivalent of MJ...in EVERY category.

It's not debatable??? WHY? Because YOU say so???

I have MJ at #4 on MY all-time list. Is that discrediting him??? IMHO, Jordan was NOT greater than several players. Maybe on par, but NOT greater.

As for discrediting...how can you just IGNORE Chamberlain's OVERWHELMING dominance??? Aside from FT shooting, there was not ONE area in which Jordan was better than Wilt. Scoring, shooting, rebounding, passing, defense...not even close.

lol, you wanna talk about weak eras....

I suggest you steer away from that.

Because I say so? No, because 95%(probably more, just using that number to give you an idea) of players, coaches, and sportswriters would say the exact same thing.


-Smak

[jlauber]

lol, you wanna talk about weak eras....

I suggest you steer away from that.

Because I say so? No, because 95%(probably more, just using that number to give you an idea) of players, coaches, and sportswriters would say the exact same thing.


-Smak

Yep, while SI ran an article just a couple of years ago lamenting the demise of the center position in the NBA, Wilt merely faced the likes of a TON of HOF centers, and far more often, as well.

So, 95% (or more) say that MJ was the GOAT's ever..and it is not even DEBATABLE. Please post the link to that poll. Taking a look at the Top-10 lists posted here, and I see MANY lists in which MJ is not #1, much less CLEARLY #1.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165594

[ILLsmak]

http://www.nba.com/history/players/jordan_bio.html

I dunno how old you are, man, but I remember when I was like 13 and looking through basketball history books. I was out to disprove what everyone else thought (Jordan being the GOAT), but now that I am more mature... I realize.

People who ISH who don't list MJ as the GOAT are just trying to be different.

GOAT is subjective, and there probably isn't a 'true GOAT' because there are so many factors, but if you start talking about who is the GOAT and don't mention Jordan as the number 1 possibility, you are trying to rebel in the wrong situation. If you wanna go against the grain, do it somewhere that matters... no need to try to bring up stuff that most educated bball fans know and try to prove the consensus wrong.


-Smak

[Himan12]

First of all I'm not going to debate on who I think is better. I just wanted to point this out on how people don't seem to parrallel this peice of logic when comparing Jordan to Kobe.

With most of you
Jordan > Kobe
But then when comparing the teams most people have
championship '96 Bulls > championship '09 Lakers
When people make arguments on how Jordan is miles ahead of Kobe fail to parallel the fact that they also believe the Bulls would have murked the Lakers and was a vast superior team. Looking at the team most specifically had mentioned:
Rodman > Bynum
Pippen > Gasol
Kerr > Fisher
and so on.
Failing to point out when you're pro Jordan that he had the greatest second banana, the greatest rebounder, and the greatest 3 point shooter (or course all arguably) and the greatest coach to put that into a system to me is completely bias.
When making these arguments you've got to be consistant with you're opinion. That is all.

Looks like you are trying to downplay what Jordan did by saying his team had X, Y and B so thats why they won. Take Jordan off and they dont win 1 single ring. BTW where is odom?

[jlauber]

http://www.nba.com/history/players/jordan_bio.html

I dunno how old you are, man, but I remember when I was like 13 and looking through basketball history books. I was out to disprove what everyone else thought (Jordan being the GOAT), but now that I am more mature... I realize.

People who ISH who don't list MJ as the GOAT are just trying to be different.

GOAT is subjective, and there probably isn't a 'true GOAT' because there are so many factors, but if you start talking about who is the GOAT and don't mention Jordan as the number 1 possibility, you are trying to rebel in the wrong situation. If you wanna go against the grain, do it somewhere that matters... no need to try to bring up stuff that most educated bball fans know and try to prove the consensus wrong.


-Smak

I am 55 years old, and I have SEEN all of the greats from the 60's thru the 00's.

As far as most EDUCATED fans...I seriously doubt many of them here actualy witnessed Russell and Wilt going at it LIVE. Or Kareem and Wilt LIVE.

Of all of the many quality posts on this forum, I have to say that Fatal9's post regarding the Olajuwon-Kareem matchups of the 80's was the most enlightening. Why? As Fatal pointed out, Kareem, as the OLDEST player in the league, and well past his prime, hung games of 35, 43, and 46 on Olajuwon, in the same season in the mid-80's. And, what is the siginificance of that? Well, Olajuwon went on to be the dominant center of the 90's...some even considered him better than Shaq. Meanwhile, the general consensus was that Wilt, 11 years older and with two bad knees, outplayed Kareem in the early 70's. And Kareem was in his prime, while Chamberlain was well past his. Geez, even Thurmond held Kareem down.

The point is obvious. Virtually NO ONE would claim Dwight Howard is a better center, today, than what Shaq was, just a few years ago. And, if Olajuwon, at his peak, was considered better than Shaq. And, if an aged Kareem could dominate a young Olajuwon. And if Wilt, well past his peak, could battle a prime Kareem to a draw...

well, you tell me. Howard > Wilt??? That is truly LAUGHABLE.

So, to say that Jordan was a consensus #1, when it is OBVIOUS that there were GREAT players as far back as the 60's, that were MORE dominant...

sorry to say...but MJ is not CLEARLY the GOAT. Once again, I can accept an argument that he is AMONG the greats...but not GREATER than ALL of them.

[catch24]

I am 55 years old, and I have SEEN all of the greats from the 60's thru the 00's.

As far as most EDUCATED fans...I seriously doubt many of them here actualy witnessed Russell and Wilt going at it LIVE. Or Kareem and Wilt LIVE.

Of all of the many quality posts on this forum, I have to say that Fatal9's post regarding the Olajuwon-Kareem matchups of the 80's was the most enlightening. Why? As Fatal pointed out, Kareem, as the OLDEST player in the league, and well past his prime, hung games of 35, 43, and 46 on Olajuwon, in the same season in the mid-80's. And, what is the siginificance of that? Well, Olajuwon went on to be the dominant center of the 90's...some even considered him better than Shaq. Meanwhile, the general consensus was that Wilt, 11 years older and with two bad knees, outplayed Kareem in the early 70's. And Kareem was in his prime, while Chamberlain was well past his. Geez, even Thurmond held Kareem down.

The point is obvious. Virtually NO ONE would claim Dwight Howard is a better center, today, than what Shaq was, just a few years ago. And, if Olajuwon, at his peak, was considered better than Shaq. And, if an aged Kareem could dominate a young Olajuwon. And if Wilt, well past his peak, could battle a prime Kareem to a draw...

well, you tell me. Howard > Wilt??? That is truly LAUGHABLE.

So, to say that Jordan was a consensus #1, when it is OBVIOUS that there were GREAT players as far back as the 60's, that were MORE dominant...

sorry to say...but MJ is not CLEARLY the GOAT. Once again, I can accept an argument that he is AMONG the greats...but not GREATER than ALL of them.

No, you're not. And even if you were, your logic is salty as sh*t.

[guy]

More like when a comparison between Jordan and Kobe are made it's not taken into consideration team success and chemistry. If it was a case of player A and B it would be a different case scenario. On the other token completely discrediting Lakers team when compariring the Bulls to the Lakers but yet not using it in comparison to the actually player versus player comparison. Again any other two player this becomes a factor.

Just like it was pointed out in this thread, a case can be made that Wade is better than Kobe. But that same statement can't be made about Kobe versus Jordan? It is the same type playing field. That's bias.

Okay well like I said, its irrelevant cause one isn't dependent on the other. Jordan's team could still be "miles ahead" of Kobe's and Jordan could still be "miles ahead" of Kobe at the same time, which neither are but lets just say they are. With that being the case, it doesn't necessarily need to be mentioned nor is it being bias. You can say Jordan>Kobe with teams having nothing to do with it.

And anyway, all you did is bring up the 96 and 09 teams. Like I said, I'll definitely say the 96 Bulls>09 Lakers, but I can easily argue that some of the other Bulls' teams Jordan won championships with were weaker then what Kobe won with in 09. I would DEFINITELY argue that vs. Kobe's 3-peat teams where he had Shaq as a teammate. So the argument you're bringing up, which like I said before isn't necessary, can really be twisted around in the opposite way.

As far as Wade vs. Kobe, rarely anybody says Wade is better then Kobe cause of that. The majority of people still think Kobe>Wade. The majority of people thought that even before Kobe ever won as the best player on his team, and the majority of people even think Kobe in 06>Wade in 06 despite the fact that Wade won a championship and Kobe lost in the first round. IMO you're making something out of nothing.

[ILLsmak]

I am 55 years old, and I have SEEN all of the greats from the 60's thru the 00's.

As far as most EDUCATED fans...I seriously doubt many of them here actualy witnessed Russell and Wilt going at it LIVE. Or Kareem and Wilt LIVE.

Of all of the many quality posts on this forum, I have to say that Fatal9's post regarding the Olajuwon-Kareem matchups of the 80's was the most enlightening. Why? As Fatal pointed out, Kareem, as the OLDEST player in the league, and well past his prime, hung games of 35, 43, and 46 on Olajuwon, in the same season in the mid-80's. And, what is the siginificance of that? Well, Olajuwon went on to be the dominant center of the 90's...some even considered him better than Shaq. Meanwhile, the general consensus was that Wilt, 11 years older and with two bad knees, outplayed Kareem in the early 70's. And Kareem was in his prime, while Chamberlain was well past his. Geez, even Thurmond held Kareem down.

The point is obvious. Virtually NO ONE would claim Dwight Howard is a better center, today, than what Shaq was, just a few years ago. And, if Olajuwon, at his peak, was considered better than Shaq. And, if an aged Kareem could dominate a young Olajuwon. And if Wilt, well past his peak, could battle a prime Kareem to a draw...

well, you tell me. Howard > Wilt??? That is truly LAUGHABLE.

So, to say that Jordan was a consensus #1, when it is OBVIOUS that there were GREAT players as far back as the 60's, that were MORE dominant...

sorry to say...but MJ is not CLEARLY the GOAT. Once again, I can accept an argument that he is AMONG the greats...but not GREATER than ALL of them.

Yeah, I don't know about your logic, either. You're using way too many words, too many if --- thens. What does all of that have to do with Jordan, anyway?

If you were witnessing Bill and Wilt and are 55, I'd have to say that your brain might not have been able to grasp the concept of basketball yet. I mean, I believe basketball is pretty deep, and I don't think a teenager could truly understand it. So, I kind of discredit that argument, too.

Kareem, well, yeah. I'll give you that, but nobody is arguing that Kareem wasn't good. Nor are they arguing anything about any of those other players. The point is, all things considered MJ is the GOAT. If you want to take one category, then maybe not, but if you put it all together, then he is.

In fact, since you are going against conventional belief, you are the one that needs to disprove us. And you haven't.

As much as I respect what Wilt accomplished individually (honestly, it's much more impressive than Bill's titles), you would think if he was truly that dominating that he would have been able to win more.

Lastly, you could say that Jordan's accomplishments were more impressive because he was a wing. Jordan was the bridge between today's basketball ( guard oriented) and the bball of old (center dominated.) He was the one that proved it can be done without a great center...

-Smak

[jlauber]

No, you're not. And even if you were, your logic is salty as sh*t.

I'm not 55????

Look, the Jordanites argue against Wilt because, despite the OVERWHELMING records, his TEAMs "only" won two rings (and in the era of the greatest Dynasty in professional sports' history BTW.) They argue against Russell, because, despite the 11 rings, his scoring stats were not spectacular. Of course, Russell NEVER concerned himself with personal stats. In fact, he could argue that HIS scoring was in the form of putting his fellow teammates in better position to score, or in finding the teammate that had an offensive advantage over his defender, or in igniting an easy hoop via an outlet pass, or crashing the offensive glass and giving a teammate another opportunity. AND, none of that even takes into account his defensive IMPACT.

Once again, at age 55, I have witnessed MANY of the greats. I have never seen anyon duplicate Russell's overall IMPACT on the game. I have never seen anyone with the all-around skills that Oscar had. I have never seen anyone else come close to duplicating Kareem's deadly "sky-hook." I have never seen anyone duplicate Maravich's "magic" with a basketball. Nor have seen anyone come close to accomplishing what a 6-9 Magic Johnson could do as point guard. AND, I have never witnessed anyone CLOSE to the ATHLETIC ability that Chamberlain had. As I have said many times...Wilt was bigger, stronger, faster, could jump higher, and was FAR more skilled than Dwight Howard. Not even close.

6-6 Gus Johnson was shattering rims in the 60's. Connie Hawkins and Dr. J. were performing spectacular dunks long before MJ. Maravich was making half-court between the legs passes in the 70's. Jerry Lucas, a 20-20 player in two seasons, was hitting 25 ft rainbows long before the 3pt line was instituted in the NBA (as was Jon McGlocklin BTW.)

Kareem, in his late 30's, was torching Olajuwon in the 80's. And Olajuwon was the league's best center in the 90's. But, Kareem, in his prime, struggled against a 36 year-old Wilt, who was well past his prime, in the early 70's.

So, NO, Jordan was NOT the best player I ever saw play. He was certainly AMONG the best...but he was NOT CLEARLY the best.

[ILLsmak]

So, NO, Jordan was NOT the best player I ever saw play. He was certainly AMONG the best...but he was NOT CLEARLY the best.

Who's the best, then?

Someone has to be the best...

You can poke holes in any argument except Jordan's. Because w/ Jordan once you disprove point A you can bring up point B. You can't do that with those other guys. Except maybe Kareem...

I'd accept a Kareem argument, but I still think MJ gets the edge. I also wonder why you are so bent on arguing that MJ isn't the greatest when so many people think he is...

-Smak

[catch24]

I'm not 55????

Look, the Jordanites argue against Wilt because, despite the OVERWHELMING records, his TEAMs "only" won two rings (and in the era of the greatest Dynasty in professional sports' history BTW.) They argue against Russell, because, despite the 11 rings, his scoring stats were not spectacular. Of course, Russell NEVER concerned himself with personal stats. In fact, he could argue that HIS scoring was in the form of putting his fellow teammates in better position to score, or in finding the teammate that had an offensive advantage over his defender, or in igniting an easy hoop via an outlet pass, or crashing the offensive glass and giving a teammate another opportunity. AND, none of that even takes into account his defensive IMPACT.

Once again, at age 55, I have witnessed MANY of the greats. I have never seen anyon duplicate Russell's overall IMPACT on the game. I have never seen anyone with the all-around skills that Oscar had. I have never seen anyone else come close to duplicating Kareem's deadly "sky-hook." I have never seen anyone duplicate Maravich's "magic" with a basketball. Nor have seen anyone come close to accomplishing what a 6-9 Magic Johnson could do as point guard. AND, I have never witnessed anyone CLOSE to the ATHLETIC ability that Chamberlain had. As I have said many times...Wilt was bigger, stronger, faster, could jump higher, and was FAR more skilled than Dwight Howard. Not even close.

6-6 Gus Johnson was shattering rims in the 60's. Connie Hawkins and Dr. J. were performing spectacular dunks long before MJ. Maravich was making half-court between the legs passes in the 70's. Jerry Lucas, a 20-20 player in two seasons, was hitting 25 ft rainbows long before the 3pt line was instituted in the NBA (as was Jon McGlocklin BTW.)

Kareem, in his late 30's, was torching Olajuwon in the 80's. And Olajuwon was the league's best center in the 90's. But, Kareem, in his prime, struggled against a 36 year-old Wilt, who was well past his prime, in the early 70's.

So, NO, Jordan was NOT the best player I ever saw play. He was certainly AMONG the best...but he was NOT CLEARLY the best.

Far from a "Jordanite", I'm from Los Angeles and Kobe is my favorite player. You're not 55 dude, get over it. Pretty pathetic that your claiming to be someone twice your age. Many posters have already addressed you, your logic is faulty, and that's giving you credence. It's fine to believe Bill Russell/Jabbar were/are better than Jordan, but you belittling his competition all while ranking Kobe at #7 throws any credibility you had out the window.

[jlauber]

Who's the best, then?

Someone has to be the best...

You can poke holes in any argument except Jordan's. Because w/ Jordan once you disprove point A you can bring up point B. You can't do that with those other guys. Except maybe Kareem...

I'd accept a Kareem argument, but I still think MJ gets the edge. I also wonder why you are so bent on arguing that MJ isn't the greatest when so many people think he is...

-Smak

No, someONE does NOT have to be the best.

And those that claim MJ's six rings give him an edge over Wilt (or other's) NEVER mention that he also played on FIVE losing teams. AND, his Bulls' team of the 90's were among the best teams in the league WITHOUT MJ!

As for Kareem...yes, he had six rings, too,...but FIVE of them came after Magic Johnson arrived.

Yet, Wilt gets docked, because despite DOMINATING the league (geez, as great as Russell was, Wilt statitically CRUSHED him)...because he "only" had two rings...in a TEAM game.

We saw what Jordan did with mediocre rosters...he was basically a great player on bad teams. AND, we saw what Wilt did with mediocre rosters...he CARRIED them to within a eyelash of knocking off the greatest Dynasty, several times...AND he DID lead them to an OVERWHELMING title in '67 against that Dynasty (and would lead the '72 Lakers to another title...in a league with the great Buck team.)

[YAWN]

Far from a "Jordanite", I'm from Los Angeles and Kobe is my favorite player. You're not 55 dude, get over it. Pretty pathetic that your claiming to be someone twice your age. Many posters have already addressed you, your logic is faulty, and that's giving you credence. It's fine to believe Bill Russell/Jabbar were/are better than Jordan, but you belittling his competition all while ranking Kobe at #7 throws any credibility you had out the window.

What was wrong with him not ranking Jordan at #1? It seems he is saying Jordan should be ranked anywhere from #1-4, with Wilt, Kareem, Russell all being so close that they are interchangeable..? I personally rank MJ at #1, but its not like he is astronomically better than some of the other guys that an argument against that becomes offensive. I rank Kobe at #10, but can entertain arguments over some of the guys in front of him, because there is not a large gap..

[catch24]

What was wrong with him not ranking Jordan at #1? It seems he is saying Jordan should be ranked anywhere from #1-4, with Wilt, Kareem, Russell all being so close that they are interchangeable..? I personally rank MJ at #1, but its not like he is astronomically better than some of the other guys. I rank Kobe at #10, but can entertain arguments over some of the guys in front of him, because there is not a large gap..

There's nothing wrong with him ranking Russell/Jabbar/Wilt over Jordan, re-read my post. He slights Jordan's competition yet praises Russell's? lol, the irony. Kobe has not had a better career than Tim Duncan/Shaq (most people rank them anywhere from 6-9). I have Kobe #10 all time.

[EricForman]

I am 55 years old,


:oldlol: i'm trying to picture a 55 year old fat guy typing "Jordan stans" and "******ger"

HAHAAH

[jlauber]

There's nothing wrong with him ranking Russell/Jabbar/Wilt over Jordan, re-read my post. He slights Jordan's competition yet praises Russell's? lol, the irony. Kobe has not had a better career than Tim Duncan/Shaq (most people rank them anywhere from 6-9). I have Kobe #10 all time.

I actually have Kobe at #8 BTW...which is evidently WAY higher than you do, at #10. And I guess I am "belittling" Jordan by "only" ranking him four slots ahead of Kobe.

[catch24]

I actually have Kobe at #8 BTW...which is evidently WAY higher than you do, at #10. And I guess I am "belittling" Jordan by "only" ranking him four slots ahead of Kobe.

My bad, I forgot, you had Bird at #10 :oldlol:

[jlauber]

:oldlol: i'm trying to picture a 55 year old fat guy typing "Jordan stans" and "******ger"

HAHAAH

This coming from someone whose avatar is probably a photograph of himself.

[EricForman]

This coming from someone whose avatar is probably a photograph of himself.


making fun of my avatar pic (when ive had this for years and no one has said a thing) just shows how out of touch you are.

maybe you are 55 years old.

damn, a 55 year old using the word Stan. Do you listen to Eminem? man this is high comedy.

[jlauber]

making fun of my avatar pic (when ive had this for years and no one has said a thing) just shows how out of touch you are.

maybe you are 55 years old.

damn, a 55 year old using the word Stan. Do you listen to Eminem? man this is high comedy.

I guess I am out of touch...I didn't understand a thing you just typed.

[catch24]

making fun of my avatar pic (when ive had this for years and no one has said a thing) just shows how out of touch you are.

maybe you are 55 years old.

damn, a 55 year old using the word Stan. Do you listen to Eminem? man this is high comedy.

Why the f*ck would anyone claim to be a 50 year old on a basketball forum? Nice life I guess.

[Amil23]

:oldlol: i'm trying to picture a 55 year old fat guy typing "Jordan stans" and "******ger"

HAHAAH
+100 and dont forget while dipping cookies in his milk while typing in his mama's basement.

[Amil23]

This coming from someone whose avatar is probably a photograph of himself.
lol I laughed at this sadly

[EricForman]

man, when im 55, i hope i'm retired and have a good family to chat with instead of trolling on ISH

[ILLsmak]

No, someONE does NOT have to be the best.


Oh... ok.

-Smak

[chitownsfinest]

No, someONE does NOT have to be the best.

And those that claim MJ's six rings give him an edge over Wilt (or other's) NEVER mention that he also played on FIVE losing teams.
Uhh, two of those 5 losing seasons came when he was between the ages of 38-40 and inheriting a 19 win team in Washington (had them at 47 win pace in his first season there before he went down with an injury) and was leading them at an age where most other legends had already been retired. Do you honestly see someone as old as he was and with the knee problems he had to lead a team full of inexperienced players, scrubs, and washups to winning records. Another one of his losing seasons came in his second season when he was out most of the yr and played most of his games off the bench. You need to look closely into those losing seasons instead of merely stating it like other posters here do.

[EricForman]

Uhh, two of those 5 losing seasons came when he was between the ages of 38-40 and inheriting a 19 win team in Washington (had them at 47 win pace in his first season there before he went down with an injury) and was leading them at an age where most other legends had already been retired. Do you honestly see someone as old as he was and with the knee problems he had to lead a team full of inexperienced players, scrubs, and washups to winning records. Another one of his losing seasons came in his second season when he was out most of the yr and played most of his games off the bench. You need to look closely into those losing seasons instead of merely stating it like other posters here do.

now we'll see how big a troll/idiot he is. if hes level C troll he ignores this. if he's level B troll he comes back and says "jordans age with Wiz dont matter, Kareem was still leading teams to titles at 38!!!"

if he's level A troll (meaning the king of trolls), he'll simply say you've been brainwashed by ESPN and Nike.

[jlauber]

now we'll see how big a troll/idiot he is. if hes level C troll he ignores this. if he's level B troll he comes back and says "jordans age with Wiz dont matter, Kareem was still leading teams to titles at 38!!!"

if he's level A troll (meaning the king of trolls), he'll simply say you've been brainwashed by ESPN and Nike.

Of course, it was pointed out that MJ had 72 wins one season, too. What happened in the year's in which his teams had losing records?

Bird, D. Rob, Kareem, and Wilt could elevate last place teams to title contention in their rookie years. And Wilt could take a mediocre roster to a game-seven, TWO-POINT, defeat at the hands of a Celtic TEAM that had SIX HOFers in 61-62. Not only that, but Wilt led a 40-40 team to a game seven, ONE POINT defeat at the hands of the 62-18 Celtics in '64-65 ECF's.

Meanwhile, how about MJ on his crappy teams????

[EricForman]

Of course, it was pointed out that MJ had 72 wins one season, too. What happened in the year's in which his teams had losing records?

Bird, D. Rob, Kareem, and Wilt could elevate last place teams to title contention in their rookie years. And Wilt could take a mediocre roster to a game-seven, TWO-POINT, defeat at the hands of a Celtic TEAM that had SIX HOFers in 61-62. Not only that, but Wilt led a 40-40 team to a game seven, ONE POINT defeat at the hands of the 62-18 Celtics in '64-65 ECF's.

Meanwhile, how about MJ on his crappy teams????

So early in his career, MJ didn't have the overall immediate impact great big men have. Afterall, bball is a big man's sport and conventional wisdom always suggests building from the inside out. If you want to argue rookie Kareem, rookie Wilt was a more impactful player than rookie Jordan, okay fine. But we're talking careers and prime here.

The Bulls played the eventual champs Pistons tougher than any other team during the playoffs in 89 and 90. So you could argue they were at least a top three team, no? Was Pip and Horace anywhere near their peak form in 89? So Jordan took a pretty average cast in 89 to a top three status, right? His cast was weaker than what Magic, Bird, Zeke had to work with in 89, right?

And what about when each superstar had their cast set and ready to go? From then on, Jordan never disappointed once he had a reasonable cast to work with. While Wilt would shrink from time to time and Kareem has definitely had some stinkers or individual asswhuppings.

Like I've said before, Jordan,Magic, Bird, Kareem, Russell and Wilt all have case for GOAT. Jordan just has the most complete one based on rings (especially as #1 guy), playoff dominance, stepping up when it matters, etc. Again, it's widely agreed by most media, former players, coaches, everyone.

If you're merely trying to argue Jordan is #4 on your list then I can accept that. But you shouldnt associate yourself with the other idiots like Desperado and Fresh prince, who actually said Kerr was a hall of fame shooting guard just to prove Jordan had a "stacked cast". I see you agree with those idiots all the time. Why? If you're 55, you should know better.

[Leviathon1121]

Jlauber, why did you feel the need to come in here and hijack the shit out of this thread? Not a single person before you had made any mention of Jordan vs the other players in the top 4. Not a single person was saying Jordan was heads and shoulders above everyone in the history of the league. People were arguing that Jordan > Kobe, mainly because the OP's post is so hard to understand and read it is no wonder whatever point he is trying to make was lost.

So honestly, what good did you do this thread by coming in here on your Jordan hating crusade?

[jlauber]

Listen Foreman,

It is amazing to me that I get RIPPED here by the Jordanaires...for saying things that they basically agree with me on.

I have MJ at #4 on MY all-time list. AND, I have repeatedly stated that if YOU, or anyone else has MJ at #1, fine. BUT, I am so sick of this "ESPN Generation" making Jordan out like some kind of god. IMHO, Jordan was NOT a CLEAR-CUT GOAT. A case could be made for SEVERAL other greats.

AND, why do the MJ fans rip me for putting Kobe at #8? Is that a slap in MJ's face???? I have NEVER ranked Kobe ahead of MJ. But, I guess to even mention Kobe in the same discussions immediately irks the Jordanites.

For anyone to suggest that Kobe is NOT one of the all-time greats, is just ridiculous. And I have noticed those that dislike Kobe, still tend to put him either in their Top-10, or near it. Even Laker-hater Bill Simmons finally had to move Kobe up to #9. AND, Kobe's career is not over yet, either.

[Leviathon1121]

Listen Foreman,

It is amazing to me that I get RIPPED here by the Jordanaires...for saying things that they basically agree with me on.

I have MJ at #4 on MY all-time list. AND, I have repeatedly stated that if YOU, or anyone else has MJ at #1, fine. BUT, I am so sick of this "ESPN Generation" making Jordan out like some kind of god. IMHO, Jordan was NOT a CLEAR-CUT GOAT. A case could be made for SEVERAL other greats.

AND, why do the MJ fans rip me for putting Kobe at #8? Is that a slap in MJ's face???? I have NEVER ranked Kobe ahead of MJ. But, I guess to even mention Kobe in the same discussions immediately irks the Jordanites.

For anyone to suggest that Kobe is NOT one of the all-time greats, is just ridiculous. And I have noticed those that dislike Kobe, still tend to put him either in their Top-10, or near it. Even Laker-hater Bill Simmons finally had to move Kobe up to #9. AND, Kobe's career is not over yet, either.

And where exactly did anyone say Jordan was God in this thread? You know whats funny, you and only you did. I don't think I read anyone saying Kobe is not an all time great player. I mean maybe there was a single post I missed where someone said Kobe wasn't even in the top 20, but I doubt it. So why the need to make stuff up? Are you just bored?

[jlauber]

Jlauber, why did you feel the need to come in here and hijack the shit out of this thread? Not a single person before you had made any mention of Jordan vs the other players in the top 4. Not a single person was saying Jordan was heads and shoulders above everyone in the history of the league. People were arguing that Jordan > Kobe, mainly because the OP's post is so hard to understand and read it is no wonder whatever point he is trying to make was lost.

So honestly, what good did you do this thread by coming in here on your Jordan hating crusade?

You're right. It is a waste of time. But, it amuses me that the pooor poster that started this thread was getting ripped...even though his assertion was not that Kobe was better than MJ, but that there are valid comparisons.

AND, MJ played on three title teams after age 32. Kobe's career is hardly over.

[O.J A 6'4Mamba]

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/337/zzzzzwhatwh4.gif


but Jordan is the CLEAR CUT GOAT. watch the videos of him for those who didnt see him in his prime.

[Leviathon1121]

You're right. It is a waste of time. But, it amuses me that the pooor poster that started this thread was getting ripped...even though his assertion was not that Kobe was better than MJ, but that there are valid comparisons.

AND, MJ played on three title teams after age 32. Kobe's career is hardly over.


You can honestly read that garbled mess he wrote and clearly understand what he was trying to get across. I seriously had problems trying to figure out what he was trying to say.

And you know what, I want to know something else. You, roundball and fatal have all let yourselves be worked up into a crazy frenzy over a FEW, that's right, a FEW posters who said something like Jordan is inarguably the GOAT. Most everyone else argues on Jordan's side, but they concede that Wilt, Kareem, etc have a legit case. So why the need for you three to hijack every single thread that had Jordan in it and create these stupid circles of arguements?

I mean how come none of you care that someone like Desperado thinks Kobe is the GOAT? I don't think you guys have been here to see his other banned usernames, but despite what he says, his only goal here is to diminish Jordan and prop Kobe up to the GOAT. How come that doesn't bother you? I mean by doing that, not only is he diminishing Jordan, but he is also shitting on Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird. Yet neither you, nor Fatal, nor Roundball seem to care in the least. Hell I've seen Roundball praise him for his "basketball knowledge"

Just curious why a few people who usually only post a single line of text saying "Jordan clear GOAT" frustrates you so much, when someone like desperado is in every single Jordan thread multiple times pushing his Kobe GOAT agenda and you don't blink an eye.

[Glide2keva]

As I've stated before, there is no comparison between MJ and Kobe.

[ILLsmak]

Just curious why a few people who usually only post a single line of text saying "Jordan clear GOAT" frustrates you so much, when someone like desperado is in every single Jordan thread multiple times pushing his Kobe GOAT agenda and you don't blink an eye.

Yeppp.

I mean, dude's whole argument is wack IMO. From what I've gathered it's "There is no clear cut GOAT, but especially not Jordan."

And Kobe is not an all time great, to clear that up. There are plenty of players that have done what Kobe has done. He could be replaced with a lot of players. You take someone like T-Mac (yeah, I went there) and put him w/ Shaq and imagine he wins 3 rings... then stays in LA. He's bound to get another.

Kobe is a great player, but there is NO GOAT case for him at all.

-Smak

[Johnni Gade]

These threads never end

[Dresta]

There's a lot of downers in this thread.

Jordan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(with an infinite number of >>>>)Kobe

That is all.

[Fatal9]

...
uh, I don't waste my time on trolls in general. Very rarely will I even reply to posters because I consider arguing with someone who simply doesn't know useless. I've never agreed with him so no need to me lump me in there as if I do. I ignore him the same way I ignore idiot Jordan fans (juju, duncanformvp etc).

And wow. this really is a new low. ripping a long time fan who has been watching ball for twice as many years as you've been alive, just because he doesn't agree with you. jlauber may have some Laker bias (probably why he ranks Bird so low), but he has provided more insight, and has more knowledge than any of you. he's put together some posts sharing information that i've never even seen anywhere before. never got why jordan's fans on this board always take it so personally, it really is like a cult. and believe it or not, not any of the 5 or so posters on this board who have a sweeping knowledge of basketball think Jordan has done anything to separate himself (psileas, dejordan, kblaze, abe to an extent etc etc), that isn't a coincidence. I still don't understand why a guy sharing a mix about jordan needed to title the thread "kobe will never be jordan" right out of the gate, as if 99% of the basketball community hasn't accepted this for years.

[NBASTATMAN]

Listen Foreman,

It is amazing to me that I get RIPPED here by the Jordanaires...for saying things that they basically agree with me on.

have MJ at #4 on MY all-time list. AND, I have repeatedly stated that if YOU, or anyone else has MJ at #1, fine. BUT, I am so sick of this "ESPN Generation" making Jordan out like some kind of god. IMHO, Jordan was NOT a CLEAR-CUT GOAT. A case could be made for SEVERAL other greats AND, why do the MJ fans rip me for putting Kobe at #8? Is that a slap in MJ's face???? I have NEVER ranked Kobe ahead of MJ. But, I guess to even mention Kobe in the same discussions immediately irks the Jordanites.

For anyone to suggest that Kobe is NOT one of the all-time greats, is just ridiculous. And I have noticed those that dislike Kobe, still tend to put him either in their Top-10, or near it. Even Laker-hater Bill Simmons finally had to move Kobe up to #9. AND, Kobe's career is not over yet, either.


I agree.. But I only think Russell and Kareem can be compared to MJ... Picking the all time best is just too hard.. But I would narrow my list to three players.. MJ,KAREEM AND RUSSELL....

[Johnni Gade]

Jordan > Kobe it's all you really need to know.
people just need to accept it

[hateraid]

Looks like you are trying to downplay what Jordan did by saying his team had X, Y and B so thats why they won. Take Jordan off and they dont win 1 single ring. BTW where is odom?


Once again, someone way off. This is like the fourth time someone asked where's Odom. It's funny when people actually choose to read on see I don't have an agenda.

[NuggetsFan]

I don't think there's really a need for "logic" in that comparison because there shouldn't be a comparison in the first place. Jordan was just better than Kobe. Jordan is one of the few players that have a case for being the GOAT(Among others) and Kobe isn't in that group so why compare them?. It's just unfair to Kobe because really somebody with no bias at all is going to think Jordan is better most likely.

And It's a team game and every player that wins a ring has a good supporting cast you don't win unless you have a good team so using that logic is stupid.

[hateraid]

Okay well like I said, its irrelevant cause one isn't dependent on the other. Jordan's team could still be "miles ahead" of Kobe's and Jordan could still be "miles ahead" of Kobe at the same time, which neither are but lets just say they are. With that being the case, it doesn't necessarily need to be mentioned nor is it being bias. You can say Jordan>Kobe with teams having nothing to do with it.

And anyway, all you did is bring up the 96 and 09 teams. Like I said, I'll definitely say the 96 Bulls>09 Lakers, but I can easily argue that some of the other Bulls' teams Jordan won championships with were weaker then what Kobe won with in 09. I would DEFINITELY argue that vs. Kobe's 3-peat teams where he had Shaq as a teammate. So the argument you're bringing up, which like I said before isn't necessary, can really be twisted around in the opposite way.

As far as Wade vs. Kobe, rarely anybody says Wade is better then Kobe cause of that. The majority of people still think Kobe>Wade. The majority of people thought that even before Kobe ever won as the best player on his team, and the majority of people even think Kobe in 06>Wade in 06 despite the fact that Wade won a championship and Kobe lost in the first round. IMO you're making something out of nothing.

OK, a little worthy of an actual rebuttle. Still a little OT but starting to get it.

On the flip side some who would contest J vs. K would on a player versus player debate would level off the Kobe+Shaq teams were debatable compared to the orignal 3peat. This is to use it as ammo comparing the two players and giving J a more level playing field. but if it was a debate between the two teams not on the platform of J vs. K but started on the teams themselves the same people would say that Laker team isn't close. That's an agenda, that's bias.
I'm not saying everybody does it, but most do, and Jordan fans do it way more than Kobe fans.
This is not an agenda out to get Jordan, this is to point out that logic gets shifted when debating and not consistant.
Hope that gets my message off clearer.
BTW, great rebuttle post on this one. Kept it very civilized and non judgmental on the poster.

[hateraid]

I don't think there's really a need for "logic" in that comparison because there shouldn't be a comparison in the first place. Jordan was just better than Kobe. Jordan is one of the few players that have a case for being the GOAT(Among others) and Kobe isn't in that group so why compare them?. It's just unfair to Kobe because really somebody with no bias at all is going to think Jordan is better most likely.

And It's a team game and every player that wins a ring has a good supporting cast you don't win unless you have a good team so using that logic is stupid.


But in cases where A vs. B is used that logic is very relevant. It's the common ground on which we debate players. That and individual statistics. It just irks me that if the name is Jordan then that logic is thrown out the window. For me it goes even beyond a Kobe thing to the point where in this thread I just want to omit Kobe all together.
My fault for not painting a clearer picture in the OP. I used those comparison because it's the common belief, not neccessarily mine. If it was a praise Jordan thread those same point of views would have been validated by the same people. But throw in the monkey wrench using it to compare Kobe it's now a blasphemis statement. all in perception.

[NuggetsFan]

But in cases where A vs. B is used that logic is very relevant. It's the common ground on which we debate players. That and individual statistics. It just irks me that if the name is Jordan then that logic is thrown out the window. For me it goes even beyond a Kobe thing to the point where in this thread I just want to omit Kobe all together.
My fault for not painting a clearer picture in the OP. I used those comparison because it's the common belief, not neccessarily mine. If it was a praise Jordan thread those same point of views would have been validated by the same people. But throw in the monkey wrench using it to compare Kobe it's now a blasphemis statement. all in perception.

I guess for some. But why compare teams? Both teams were good and championship level teams. Kobe's in 09' was the man and Jordan was the man on his teams so why not just look at them individually?. In some scenario's I think it's fine like when a team was "carried" than It's probably a bigger achievement winning a ring than a player who took a balanced and stacked team to a ring.

But should the better player be punished because he had better teammates? If he won the ultimate prize in a championship ring what else do you expect him to do?.

I'm more for looking what the players do individually than comparing who had the better PF or w.e. Unless it's noticeable the one player had the much better supporting cast.

As for Kobe vs Jordan and using logic .. well I don't see that as a big deal because well there isn't much of a debate because the answer is usually as simple as Jordan is better if you've followed the NBA. But let's say Jordan vs Kareem .. than there's where logic would come in.

[ILLsmak]

uh, I don't waste my time on trolls in general. Very rarely will I even reply to posters because I consider arguing with someone who simply doesn't know useless. I've never agreed with him so no need to me lump me in there as if I do. I ignore him the same way I ignore idiot Jordan fans (juju, duncanformvp etc).

And wow. this really is a new low. ripping a long time fan who has been watching ball for twice as many years as you've been alive, just because he doesn't agree with you. jlauber may have some Laker bias (probably why he ranks Bird so low), but he has provided more insight, and has more knowledge than any of you. he's put together some posts sharing information that i've never even seen anywhere before. never got why jordan's fans on this board always take it so personally, it really is like a cult. and believe it or not, not any of the 5 or so posters on this board who have a sweeping knowledge of basketball think Jordan has done anything to separate himself (psileas, dejordan, kblaze, abe to an extent etc etc), that isn't a coincidence. I still don't understand why a guy sharing a mix about jordan needed to title the thread "kobe will never be jordan" right out of the gate, as if 99% of the basketball community hasn't accepted this for years.

Don't confuse a Jordan fan with a seeker of truth.

Have you ever thought that maybe the only people who agree with you on what you deem 'important' subjects are the ones you label as having 'sweeping knowledge?'

Not everyone has the same ideas, truly intelligent minds with innovative viewpoints rarely agree... unless it's on something that is blatantly obvious like Jordan's greatness.

But, as I said, if you want to play switch-a-roo and put another player in his place, he might have accomplished the same things, but you can do that with other players, too. It's confidence as well as media support that allows you success in professional sports. The point is MJ did what MJ did...

To compare him to players of another generation is to take away from him because not only have players become stronger, faster, and larger... but they have also been able to look at the 'greats' and learn from them. Not to mention the fact that basketball has evolved as a sport.

The only people who go out and say MJ isn't the GOAT are people who have something against MJ or, as I said before, want to prove their 'intelligent and innovative' viewpoint by going against common knowledge.

It doesn't have to do with ESPN (because even guys like Larry and Magic were gushing over MJ's talent), it has to do with the fact that every criteria used to define GOAT has been met in Jordan's case... and in the modern era.

It's really reaching to call the era weak or come up with other such "what if" theories.

Any unbiased basketball mind should come to the conclusion that MJ has the greatest resume. You can say he might not have been the best to build around... etc etc, but the fact remains that he accomplished the most, all things considered.

-Smak

[ukplayer4]

I watched the entire careers of both players, and it isn't even a question who is better.

Even if Kobe had a better resume (which he isn't even close), Jordan was just better... at pretty much everything.

I may give Kobe the edge in 3 point shooting... but that's mainly because MJ didn't settle for 3 pointers.




this is exactly where i stand on it also.

[Jasper]

First of all I'm not going to debate on who I think is better. I just wanted to point this out on how people don't seem to parrallel this peice of logic when comparing Jordan to Kobe.

With most of you
Jordan > Kobe
But then when comparing the teams most people have
championship '96 Bulls > championship '09 Lakers
When people make arguments on how Jordan is miles ahead of Kobe fail to parallel the fact that they also believe the Bulls would have murked the Lakers and was a vast superior team. Looking at the team most specifically had mentioned:
Rodman > Bynum
Pippen > Gasol
Kerr > Fisher
and so on.
Failing to point out when you're pro Jordan that he had the greatest second banana, the greatest rebounder, and the greatest 3 point shooter (or course all arguably) and the greatest coach to put that into a system to me is completely bias.
When making these arguments you've got to be consistant with you're opinion. That is all.

Here I'll make it simple - Phil jackson will retire and tell you the Bulls 6 championship team was the best team that he ever coached .
Now end thread
PS : I am totally sick of these ass prick threads

[hateraid]

Here I'll make it simple - Phil jackson will retire and tell you the Bulls 6 championship team was the best team that he ever coached .
Now end thread
PS : I am totally sick of these ass prick threads

What's your point? It doesn't contribute anything towards the OP. In fact, you're validating the OP.

[guy]

On the flip side some who would contest J vs. K would on a player versus player debate would level off the Kobe+Shaq teams were debatable compared to the orignal 3peat. This is to use it as ammo comparing the two players and giving J a more level playing field. but if it was a debate between the two teams not on the platform of J vs. K but started on the teams themselves the same people would say that Laker team isn't close. That's an agenda, that's bias.


No offense, but I could not comprehend any of this.

[Leviathon1121]

Yah Guy, that was one of my points, the post you quoted is beyond saving. I have reread the OP multiple times and still have not figured out what it is exactly he is trying to say.

The only thing I can get out of it is that Bryant should get extra credit in comparison's to Jordan because some of Jordan's teams have been better then some of the Laker teams. Personally this makes no sense to me at all.

If this is the case then we may as well start a thread comparing Tracy McGrady to Kobe, which of course is ridiculous. But McGrady's teams have been so bad that he should get all this extra credit and be on a comparable level with Bryant.

Who knows, maybe I am way off, but for someone to write such a garbled mess of an OP and then chastise people for not understanding it is a little wrong IMO.

[juju151111]

Who's the best, then?

Someone has to be the best...

You can poke holes in any argument except Jordan's. Because w/ Jordan once you disprove point A you can bring up point B. You can't do that with those other guys. Except maybe Kareem...

I'd accept a Kareem argument, but I still think MJ gets the edge. I also wonder why you are so bent on arguing that MJ isn't the greatest when so many people think he is...

-Smak
Why are you arguing with this guy. He has Magic johnson ahead of MJ and LB ay 10th all-time.

[juju151111]

uh, I don't waste my time on trolls in general. Very rarely will I even reply to posters because I consider arguing with someone who simply doesn't know useless. I've never agreed with him so no need to me lump me in there as if I do. I ignore him the same way I ignore idiot Jordan fans (juju, duncanformvp etc).

And wow. this really is a new low. ripping a long time fan who has been watching ball for twice as many years as you've been alive, just because he doesn't agree with you. jlauber may have some Laker bias (probably why he ranks Bird so low), but he has provided more insight, and has more knowledge than any of you. he's put together some posts sharing information that i've never even seen anywhere before. never got why jordan's fans on this board always take it so personally, it really is like a cult. and believe it or not, not any of the 5 or so posters on this board who have a sweeping knowledge of basketball think Jordan has done anything to separate himself (psileas, dejordan, kblaze, abe to an extent etc etc), that isn't a coincidence. I still don't understand why a guy sharing a mix about jordan needed to title the thread "kobe will never be jordan" right out of the gate, as if 99% of the basketball community hasn't accepted this for years.
This is the same Fatal who says old school BB had weak players, Mj never guarded anyine, and Kobe is at his level,MJ goes iso all day etc... I wonder who really is the troll.

[OldSchoolBBall]

and believe it or not, not any of the 5 or so posters on this board who have a sweeping knowledge of basketball think Jordan has done anything to separate himself (psileas, dejordan, kblaze, abe to an extent etc etc), that isn't a coincidence.

That's BS. Jordan may not have done much to separate himself from KAREEM, and that's why Kareem has the best case for GOAT along with Jordan. But he sure as hell did a lot to separate himself from Wilt (winning) and Russell (individual dominance).

[Glide2keva]

That's BS. Jordan may not have done much to separate himself from KAREEM, and that's why Kareem has the best case for GOAT along with Jordan. But he sure as hell did a lot to separate himself from Wilt (winning) and Russell (individual dominance).
They have to go to Wilt, Russell and Kareem because they have come to accept that arguing for Kobe is pointless since he doesn't have the numbers, titles as the teams' best player or sustained individual dominiance.

It's sad really.