#apples2oranges

[andgar923]

And that's alright..

But don't go on about MJ's leadership in this hypothetical when you know damn well he developed that leadership within his own circumstances during his early tenure on the Bulls.

Would not have been the same if he got it all handed to him from the start like a spoiled kid.

MJ was always a leader because we wanted to WIN. He simply didnt have teammates to win. He tried to lead by example early in his career but failed. He modified his approach as a leader no doubt but he was inherently a natural leader which is what Phil is basically saying.

Phil also gives us a glimpse at what a Shaq and MJ duo may have been like.

In short:

Pure dominance

[andgar923]

And that's alright..

But don't go on about MJ's leadership in this hypothetical when you know damn well he developed that leadership within his own circumstances during his early tenure on the Bulls.

Would not have been the same if he got it all handed to him from the start like a spoiled kid.

As to MJ's circumstances....

What they did was simply add more fuel to his fire. He always wanted to win, the struggles only added more fuel.

If he had won early, his ultimate goal would've been Bill's ring count.

[tpols]

MJ was always a leader because we wanted to WIN. He simply didnt have teammates to win. He tried to lead by example early in his career but failed. He modified his approach as a leader no doubt

So you're admitting he modified his leadership style and approach based on his early failures.. Funny how he became the true legend everyone knows today after dealing with those specific circumstances.

MJ wasn't known as the leader he became in the 80s. He was actually seen as a player that was too individually focused in comparison to the legends before him Larry and magic. He changed dude. And it was under the adversity he faced. Pressure either shapes or breaks.

The reason it is apples and oranges is because MJ.. Wouldn't have been the same MJ with totally opposite circumstances.

You keep saying MJ only wanted to win.. When there's mountains of evidence contradicting that saying he wanted to be the BEST and win as the MAN.

[K Xerxes]

What stupid hypotheticals. Really is incredible how much you people can speculate beyond the realms of logic and sanity.

[tpols]

If he had won early, his ultimate goal would've been Bill's ring count.

If it was about ring count he wouldn't have retired to play baseball after winning three straight..

MJ just wanted to be the best.. That's it. And he would've done anything to get to the top.

[Young X]

MJ was always a leader because we wanted to WIN. He simply didnt have teammates to win. He tried to lead by example early in his career but failed. He modified his approach as a leader no doubt but he was inherently a natural leader which is what Phil is basically saying.

Exactly, people always hear stories about how hard MJ was on his teammates without realizing he was hard on them because they were LOSING. Who wouldn't be mad at teammates who shoot a combined 24% in a game 7 after seeing them joking around in practice?

If Kobe and Shaq had trouble because of their "egos" imagine Jordan with Shaq. I actually remember reading before Jordan telling Kobe something like if he was in Kobe's shoes he wouldn't be able to play with Shaq either back in '04.

MJ wouldn't be in Kobe's shoes tho, he was BETTER than Shaq. Even if he wasn't better than Shaq, I have a hard time believing MJ would rather lose with Bill Cartwright than win championships with Shaq.

[andgar923]

If it was about ring count he wouldn't have retired to play baseball after winning three straight..

MJ just wanted to be the best.. That's it. And he would've done anything to get to the top.

He retired due to gambling investigation, the being bored was a good cover. Don't you think he would've aimed at beating Magic's rings? He and Magic were jawing at each other during the Olympics.

[andgar923]

So you're admitting he modified his leadership style and approach based on his early failures.. Funny how he became the true legend everyone knows today after dealing with those specific circumstances.

MJ wasn't known as the leader he became in the 80s. He was actually seen as a player that was too individually focused in comparison to the legends before him Larry and magic. He changed dude. And it was under the adversity he faced. Pressure either shapes or breaks.

The reason it is apples and oranges is because MJ.. Wouldn't have been the same MJ with totally opposite circumstances.

You keep saying MJ only wanted to win.. When there's mountains of evidence contradicting that saying he wanted to be the BEST and win as the MAN.

Main difference was addressed by Phil.

MJ did whatever it took to win. Kobe did whatever it took to get his.

HUGE difference

[Doranku]

Main difference was addressed by Phil.

MJ did whatever it took to win. Kobe did whatever it took to get his.

HUGE difference

That's just not true. They both did whatever it took to get theirs.

The difference is that MJ was better, and him getting his lead to winning more so than it did for Kobe.

[andgar923]

That's just not true. They both did whatever it took to get theirs.

The difference is that MJ was better, and him getting his lead to winning more so than it did for Kobe.

That's not what Phil alluded to.

MJ did other things to win if he wasn't shooting well, MJ's leadership was inherently superior all according to Phil.

[Ne 1]

Yes, Kobe was blessed to play with Shaq, but on the flip-side looking at it there's certain things you learn and develop quicker when you are the #1 guy. In Kobe's case it would be his intelligence, passing (or rather willingness to do it), leadership, creativity (would definitely have to create more for others), skill, all of which improved rapidly when he was given the team. If he had this privilege since around 2001ish...one can only wonder how many 33+ ppg seasons we could have seen. He also would have had the chance to wait and have a championship contending team built around him so years like 2006 and 2007 (ages at which Jordan won rings...and prime ages for most players) wouldn't be completely wasted.

Ideal situation for maximizing your legacy is getting a chance to put up mind blowing stats early on in your career as you wait for your team to improve. If you lose in the playoffs, it's because of the lack of supporting cast so you're excused. Then as you get around 26-27 years old, management should have put nice pieces around you (unless they fu*ck up) and you are on a contender for your prime and late-prime years (as #1 option, which is key). Helps even more if the competition at the top of the league wanes as your team gets better. This gives you all those early individual accomplishments and then later on the team ones as well.

[AlphaWolf24]

So you're admitting he modified his leadership style and approach based on his early failures.. Funny how he became the true legend everyone knows today after dealing with those specific circumstances.

MJ wasn't known as the leader he became in the 80s. He was actually seen as a player that was too individually focused in comparison to the legends before him Larry and magic. He changed dude. And it was under the adversity he faced. Pressure either shapes or breaks.

The reason it is apples and oranges is because MJ.. Wouldn't have been the same MJ with totally opposite circumstances.

You keep saying MJ only wanted to win.. When there's mountains of evidence contradicting that saying he wanted to be the BEST and win as the MAN.

This.....early on MJ was viewed a ballhogg who was not going to win playing a selfish style.

The whole..." I just want to win.....but my teammates aren't good enough"....schtick is great for revisionist history and selling books...

Jordan was selfish and wanted to score or be viewed as the "man"....Phil Jackson helped him become more of a facilitator...


- Championship Jordan played through his team early and picked his spots....then took over in crunchtime.....

- the same role championship Kobe had...both had similar results.

[NBAller]

Both are fruits?

[305Baller]

[guy]

Yes, Kobe was blessed to play with Shaq, but on the flip-side looking at it there's certain things you learn and develop quicker when you are the #1 guy. In Kobe's case it would be his intelligence, passing (or rather willingness to do it), leadership, creativity (would definitely have to create more for others), skill, all of which improved rapidly when he was given the team.

Intelligence - You would think playing with great teammates from the beginning of his career would help him become a much greater decision maker ala Magic and Bird right? Who both played with great players there whole career and as a result, never really had a problem with balance.

Passing (willingness to do it) - WTF, this is absolutely ridiculous. Playing with great teammates from the beginning of your career should make a player MORE WILLING to pass. What sense does that make? If a player is playing with crap from the beginning of his career and for a long time, how would that make a player a more willing passer?

Leadership - Sure, Kobe didn't get as much opportunity to experience that as much as someone like Jordan or Lebron. However, its ridiculous to act like the guy got no experience at all. During the time with Shaq, Shaq missed a total of 110 games. That's alot of time. Now much of that is from Kobe's early years, but its nobody's fault Kobe just wasn't that good his first few years. On top of that during much of that time, Kobe was the man in the 4th quarter that was carrying his teams to victories because Shaq was such a liability. And because of the great teams around him and Shaq's liabilities, he experienced many deep playoff runs where he got the opportunity to lead these teams in close games. Seriously, the whole "leadership" argument is overexaggerated.

Creativity (would definitly have to create more for others) - Umm, wasn't Kobe considered the "primary facilitator" for these Laker teams? So wasn't he the guy that had the greatest responsibility in "creating for others"?

Skill - seriously this is getting ridiculous. So Kobe didn't get to work on his game as much cause of Shaq? Just because he might've not been able to showcase his skills as much doesn't mean he didn't have the opportunity to develop his skill.

If he had this privilege since around 2001ish...one can only wonder how many 33+ ppg seasons we could have seen.

Well in the 9 seasons he's had since playing with Shaq, he's done it once, and thats when he was in his "prime ages" that you referred to. So going by those rates, probably about 0-1.

He also would have had the chance to wait and have a championship contending team built around him so years like 2006 and 2007 (ages at which Jordan won rings...and prime ages for most players) wouldn't be completely wasted.

Jordan was greater then Kobe ever was by arguably 24, at least 25 which was the beginning of his prime. From the beginning of his career till about 27 (1990), his all-time great basketball ability was wasted with crap teammates. Its completely ridiculous to bring up Kobe's "wasted" years and compare it to Jordan.

Ideal situation for maximizing your legacy is getting a chance to put up mind blowing stats early on in your career as you wait for your team to improve. If you lose in the playoffs, it's because of the lack of supporting cast so you're excused. Then as you get around 26-27 years old, management should have put nice pieces around you (unless they fu*ck up) and you are on a contender for your prime and late-prime years (as #1 option, which is key).

thats funny cause Jordan was putting up mind blowing stats even when he was playing on championship teams. During the first three peat he put up statlines of 32/6/6 on 54 FG%, 30/6/6 on 52 FG%, and 33/7/6 on 50 FG%. Sure, its not as great as his previous 4 years, but you really think it was more ideal for him to put up mindblowing stats while getting nowhere with his crap teams instead of winning championships/seriously contending with great teams while putting up a little less mindblowing stats? Seriously, when has it ever been a good thing for someone to spend half of his career with teams that sucked?

Helps even more if the competition at the top of the league wanes as your team gets better.

It helped Bird and Magic that Jordan had nowhere near a good team to contend with them. For 8 years, it helped that Kobe didn't have to be another ringless player in the way of one of the most dominating players ever, and instead got to win rings with him and propell himself to a reputation that he probably wouldn't be at right now (2 titles vs. 5 titles). After those 8 years, it helped Kobe that a trio like KG/Pierce/Allen didn't get together sooner at younger ages, and that Lebron and Wade didn't have contending teams for most of that time. In other words, this is a stupid observation.

This gives you all those early individual accomplishments and then later on the team ones as well.

Doesn't sound like it was ever a problem a with Magic and Bird. Both of those guys were putting up mindblowing stats with all-time great teams. The same can be said about Jordan. How come you don't say Kareem had an ideal situation? He got all the opportunity to put up mindblowing stats on bad teams and then he had about the same amount of teams to contend for titles.

Anyway, its completely ridiculous to act like Kobe hasn't had a fair shot at enhancing his legacy. At this point, he's had 14 out of 17 seasons where he had help around him good enough to contend, so he literally may have had the greatest opportunity out of everyone in history to enhance his legacy.