#apples2oranges

[Screamingdoom]

I don't agree with that post, I'm pretty sure '85 Jordan - '89 Jordan paired up with '97 - 2004 Shaq wins multiple rings. Jordan coming into the league was flat out much better player, and made much more impact than Kobe did from '97 - 2000, and Shaq was peaking.

Kobe's career situation is very confusing, though. Which makes ranking him very difficult. He played an awesome second fiddle to Shaq winning three rings, but his production in 2001 almost makes him an equal to Shaquille O'Neal. One could make the argument he was not a sidekick that season.

His most productive or eye popping statistical years individually (2003 excluded) came in his absolute PEAK as a player on bad teams 27 - 30 years old on the 2006, 2007, and 2008 Lakers.

Jordan at his absolute peak '90, '91, '92 and '93 of the same ages was formatting his game to championship contenders, while trying to be a selfless team leader and utility player. Not going on scoring binges, when he was obviously at his absolute best as a player.

Kobe was the best from a leader perspective in 2008 and 2009. He finally got it. He finally seemed mature. He actually finally struck a balance in his game (2008 at least) ... He involved teammates, was trusting, gregarious, and didn't rule over them with an iron fist.

It seems since LeBron won MVP in 2009, thereafter Kobe relentlessly gunned to try and prove he was still an MVP caliber player. Probably because he knew from a legacy perspective, he needed more MVP trophies.

This is where Kobe's need to prove people wrong takes a turn for the worse, because he focuses on the trees and not the forrest. Even more noticeable the past two seasons when his burden should be easing with advanced age and regressing abilities, he should be more of a zen like cerebral team leader by delegating to teammates the way MJ did in '97 and '98 at comparable ages. It seems like he regressed mentally as a leader at times.

Good post

[Kiddlovesnets]

If MJ played with Shaq, he'd earn FMVP over Shaq. For Kobe, this would never happen so the Lakers had to sent Shaq away.

[Nevaeh]

[QUOTE=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.

Like how to handle pressure, and as history has proven, even a veteran Kobe wanted out, after 2 measly years of "adversity" as a leader.

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.

Kobe has never shown a willingness to pass on any consistent basis except for maybe 2 seasons being team leader. He stayed gunning for scoring titles, but always kept coming up short.

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.

Had Kobe been the focal point of the team, under 2001ish rules, he wouldn't sniff anything near 27ppg, let alone 33ppg. We have all seen how Kobe will keep shooting while seeing double team after double team, ending games on 5-21 type shooting, game after game.

As far as his prime being "wasted", that was his own doing, pouting like a b!tch, shooting his team out of the Finals, and stringing the Lakers along, hinting that he ain't coming back to the team, if Shaq returns. Just like this past season, he got EXACTLY what he was asking for, regarding team makeup and coaching style.

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.

You're "excused" if you're the only person on the team that's doing anything worth a damn, while your front office is content to just sell tickets off the back of your ability to reinvigorate and alter the game, year after year, while slowly adding pieces to help you get over the hump.

And lets not act like Kobe didn't have plenty of time to put up "Mind Blowing Stats" as well. He's never been efficient, nor consistent enough to do it, no matter what type of teammates he's played with.

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

Also helps when you can prove, time and time again, that you're just flat out BETTER than whoever goes up against you, and not curling into a fetal position once you make it to the Finals and have a chance to win it all.

[Ne 1]

Kobe is insecure as shit to write this. He's clearly holding on to that reason in any comparison to Jordan. Its funny because what Phil said in those quotes at least HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SHAQ or career achievements. Phil doesn't say anything like "if Kobe got to lead his own team from the beginning he would've been a better player and accomplished more i.e. like Jordan." To basically steer the argument in a different direction reeks of insecurity.

In general, Kobe is right. If Jordan came into the league playing with Shaq his first 8 years he wouldn't have the same amount of scoring titles, MVP's, Finals MVP's, and overall statistics which would change how he's viewed historically.

Kobe wasn't a starter until 1999, he came into the league as an unproven 17 year old kid out of high-school and had to unseat a quality, 2x ALL-STAR veteran shooting guard (Eddie Jones) who was ahead of him on the roster ... JUST to earn his position, first.

The Bulls were MJ's franchise from the get go ... he was a grown man upon entering the league, and was a starter with the keys to the town from the word "go" and given a free reign.

I think the apples/oranges comparison is missing a lot of shit in here - Kobe is saying that if Mike had to play with Shaq, that he would be consider the "sidekick." And if he played with Scottie/Grant, he might be considered the greatest. Their situations dictated how they were perceived. It seems that people are reading this and coming to the conclusion that Phil is saying that he's not near the player that Mike was and that's just not true. Phil didn't say anything like that, he just said Mike was better.

I agree that Mike is better but the gap between the 2 isn't as astronomical as people want to make it.

[Ne 1]

And let's address this leadership nonsense Phil is spewing.

Again, Jordan was a full grown man approx the same age as everyone else on his team. He was not the youngest guy or close to the youngest on his team. That right there alone changes the dynamics of who's a leader and who isn't.

In addition. He was the most alpha male dominant presence in the locker room. Also Phil sided with Jordan because he was the best player and the biggest alpha male in the locker room.

Phil sided with Shaq who was the most dominant big man in the NBA and Shaq was also an alpha male. But Kobe was too. Neither one would back down. There was no Pippen to MJ relationship with Shaq and Kobe, Phil sided with Shaq, which made Kobe choose to leave or back down for the moment and win these rings. We know what happened; 3peat. Kobe was a young kid out of high school. how hard would it be for a perfectionist hoop junky kid to try and lead a team full of old guys? Kobe is just playing semi passive to be a team guy and win rings with O'Neal. More or less swallowing his pride and winning those first 3. Only showing you how ridiculously good he was vs the Spurs and Kings in the playoffs when the team needed him the most.

Anyway, lets take a look at the age difference

Jordan's Bulls the year they won their 1st ring:
Jordan was 27 years old in his 7th season in the NBA

Player Age
Scott Williams 22
B.J. Armstrong 23
Stacey King 24
Will Perdue 25
Dennis Hopson 25
Horace Grant 25
Scottie Pippen 25
Michael Jordan 27
Cliff Levingston 30
Craig Hodges 30
John Paxson 30
Bill Cartwright 33

Lets look at Kobe.. this dude was the youngest on the team, 21 years old (2nd year in the league as a starter, just barely legal enough to grab a beer). With prime Shaq being in the middle at 27. 6 years older than Kobe and an established superstar and 8 year veteran. There was no way on earth Kobe could've LEAD that team like Mike lead the Bulls. Too many old heads. He's too young and Shaq was older with seniority and too dominant and had too big of an ego to ever allow it to happen. And lastly, Phil took sides before he gave kobe a chance to lead. This is why its so much an apples to oranges comparison.

Player Age
Ron Harper 36
A.C. Green 36
John Salley 35
Brian Shaw 33
Glen Rice 32
Rick Fox 30
Robert Horry 29
Shaquille ONeal 27
Derek Fisher 25
Travis Knight 25
Sam Jacobson 24
Devean George 22
Tyronn Lue 22
John Celestand 22
Kobe Bryant 21

[sportjames23]

Kobe stans straight up buggin'. Still.

[TheBigVeto]

Kobetards are

[Nevaeh]

Good post.

MJ would probably of had Shaq in the best condition of his life. No way Jordan would let Shaq coast through practices and allowed him to be lazy. Who knows, he could of made Shaq into GOAT(not that he already is top 3 now).

It's all very hypothetical, Jordan may not of had the same impact with the Lakers team, because in all likelyhood, there probably wouldn't be any team good enough to challenge them. So all the clutch plays, the flu game, and all the close battles that help build his legacy would not be in existence and people would be saying he isn't that great considering he has Shaq and how stacked they are.

Jordan is one of my favourite players, and his legacy was built on the adversity and challenges he had playing for the Chicago Bulls. It is too simplistic to say that Jordan's impact and GOAT status would be the same if he donned himself a Lakers uniform.

Great point. Not to mention, Jordan would have had going to the most "Winningest Franchise" right after Magic's era to join another All time Great, who had already been to the Finals hanging over his head as well.

What he did for the Bulls was put them on the Map, and made people take notice that the League's not just about Boston, LA and NY, just like Duncan did with the Spurs. He'd be just be another all time great player who played for the Lakers. Ho Hum, how exciting that would have been.



Plus, his kicks would have had some seriously sh!tty colorways, had he been a Laker. Yikes!!

[guy]

In general, Kobe is right. If Jordan played with Shaq his first 8 years he wouldn't have the same amount of scoring titles, MVP's, Finals MVP's, and overall statistics which would change how he's viewed historically.

Kobe wasn't a starter until 1999, he came into the league as an unproven 17 year old kid out of high-school and had to unseat a quality, established 2x ALL-STAR veteran shooting guard (Eddie Jones) who was ahead of him on the roster ... JUST to earn his position, first.

The Bulls were MJ's franchise from the get go ... he was a grown man upon entering the league, and was a starter with the keys to the town from the word "go" and given a free reign.

I think the apples/oranges comparison is missing a lot of shit in here - Kobe is saying that if Mike had to play with Shaq, that he would be consider the "sidekick." And if he played with Scottie/Grant, he might be considered the greatest. Their situations dictated how they were perceived. It seems that people are reading this and coming to the conclusion that Phil is saying that he's not near the player that Mike was and that's just not true. Phil didn't say anything like that, he just said Mike was better.

I agree that Mike is better but the gap between the 2 isn't as astronomical as people want to make it.

Is he right? Maybe, maybe not. But even if he is right, its completely stupid to attribute that big of a difference to their career path. COMPLETELY STUPID. It is not far-fetched at all to say Jordan in Kobe's situation would've at minimum won 7-8 championships, 4-5 Finals MVPs, 3-4 MVPs, 4-5 scoring titles. Kobe doesn't even come close to that. No one is saying someone has to match or surpass Jordan in all accolades. If someone won 7 titles, 4 FMVPs, 3 MVPs, 4 scoring titles vs. 6 titles, 6 FMVPs, 5 MVPs, 10 scoring titles, it would be understandable if the difference is due to career path and people could reasonably argue that the first guy on paper could still match up with the 2nd guy. But 5 titles, 2 FMVPs, 1 MVP, 2 scoring titles vs. 6 titles, 6 FMVPs, 5 MVPs, 10 scoring titles is WAY TOO BIG of a difference to attribute to "career path".

On top of that, lets stop acting like Kobe hasn't played 9 ****ing seasons without Shaq now. He's played without Shaq as long as Jordan played pre-first retirement now. You can take any 9 year period of Jordan's career, and Kobe's post Shaq career accolades still falls short, even if you include a period that includes his retirements. Shit, just take either 3-peat period and compare it to Kobe's post Shaq career accolades and it still falls short (2 titles, 2 FMVPs, 1 MVP, 2 scoring titles vs. 3 titles, 3 FMVPs, 2 MVPs, 3 scoring titles)

Anyway, your response was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to my point, just like Kobe's response to Phil's comparisons was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to his point, which clearly shows his insecurity. He's done this multiple times now when it comes to the Jordan comparison. He brings up playing with Shaq when no one else alludes to it almost like its an automatic, robotic response. What does everything that Phil said have to do with their different career paths and having or not having to play with Shaq? This is basically the argument of Phil and the response of Kobe:

Phil: Jordan was a better leader that got along with his teammates better and didn't alienate them as much as Kobe did.
Kobe: Well I had to play with Shaq.

Phil: Jordan was a better defender then Kobe.
Kobe: Well I had to play with Shaq.

Phil: Jordan let the game come to him while Kobe forced himself.
Kobe: Well I had to play with Shaq.

Phil: Jordan had bigger hands then Kobe.
Kobe: Well I had to play with Shaq.

The last one is obviously a joke, but it might as well have happened. What does any of what Phil said have to do with Shaq? In none of those excerpts did Phil say ANYTHING about career achievements. All he did was compare them as players and how good they are by bringing up BASIC SHIT that applies to every NBA player, and removed anything that is reliant at all on team circumstance.

When someone is compared unfavorably by someone else, and their response has nothing to do with what the other person said and basically steers the argument in another direction, it SCREAMS INSECURITY.

[guy]

And let's address this leadership nonsense Phil is spewing.

Again, Jordan was a full grown man approx the same age as everyone else on his team. He was not the youngest guy or close to the youngest on his team. That right there alone changes the dynamics of who's a leader and who isn't.

In addition. He was the most alpha male dominant presence in the locker room. Also Phil sided with Jordan because he was the best player and the biggest alpha male in the locker room.

Phil sided with Shaq who was the most dominant big man in the NBA and Shaq was also an alpha male. But Kobe was too. Neither one would back down. There was no Pippen to MJ relationship with Shaq and Kobe, Phil sided with Shaq, which made Kobe choose to leave or back down for the moment and win these rings. We know what happened; 3peat. Kobe was a young kid out of high school. how hard would it be for a perfectionist hoop junky kid to try and lead a team full of old guys? Kobe is just playing semi passive to be a team guy and win rings with O'Neal. More or less swallowing his pride and winning those first 3. Only showing you how ridiculously good he was vs the Spurs and Kings in the playoffs when the team needed him the most.

Anyway, lets take a look at the age difference

Jordan's Bulls the year they won their 1st ring:
Jordan was 27 years old in his 7th season in the NBA

Player Age
Scott Williams 22
B.J. Armstrong 23
Stacey King 24
Will Perdue 25
Dennis Hopson 25
Horace Grant 25
Scottie Pippen 25
Michael Jordan 27
Cliff Levingston 30
Craig Hodges 30
John Paxson 30
Bill Cartwright 33

Lets look at Kobe.. this dude was the youngest on the team, 21 years old (2nd year in the league as a starter, just barely legal enough to grab a beer). With prime Shaq being in the middle at 27. 6 years older than Kobe and an established superstar and 8 year veteran. There was no way on earth Kobe could've LEAD that team like Mike lead the Bulls. Too many old heads. He's too young and Shaq was older with seniority and too dominant and had too big of an ego to ever allow it to happen. And lastly, Phil took sides before he gave kobe a chance to lead. This is why its so much an apples to oranges comparison.

Player Age
Ron Harper 36
A.C. Green 36
John Salley 35
Brian Shaw 33
Glen Rice 32
Rick Fox 30
Robert Horry 29
Shaquille ONeal 27
Derek Fisher 25
Travis Knight 25
Sam Jacobson 24
Devean George 22
Tyronn Lue 22
John Celestand 22
Kobe Bryant 21

this has NOTHING to do with what Phil said. Being able to get along with teammates and not alienate them has nothing to do with age. Being socially awkward or not has NOTHING to do with age. That's personality, which isn't age specific.

at you say Phil is spewing nonsense. The dude is clearly more qualified then anyone to talk about this, and at this point has no reason to be bias towards Jordan. In fact, if he's still positioning himself for a job with the Lakers, he probably has good reason to be bias towards Kobe. Who the **** are you?

[K Xerxes]

Is he right? Maybe, maybe not. But even if he is right, its completely stupid to attribute that big of a difference to their career path. COMPLETELY STUPID. It is not far-fetched at all to say Jordan in Kobe's situation would've at minimum won 7-8 championships, 4-5 Finals MVPs, 3-4 MVPs, 4-5 scoring titles. Kobe doesn't even come close to that. No one is saying someone has to match or surpass Jordan in all accolades. If someone won 7 titles, 4 FMVPs, 3 MVPs, 4 scoring titles vs. 6 titles, 6 FMVPs, 5 MVPs, 10 scoring titles, it would be understandable if the difference is due to career path and people could reasonably argue that the first guy on paper could still match up with the 2nd guy. But 5 titles, 2 FMVPs, 1 MVP, 2 scoring titles vs. 6 titles, 6 FMVPs, 5 MVPs, 10 scoring titles is WAY TOO BIG of a difference to attribute to "career path".

On top of that, lets stop acting like Kobe hasn't played 9 ****ing seasons without Shaq now. He's played without Shaq as long as Jordan played pre-first retirement now. You can take any 9 year period of Jordan's career, and Kobe's post Shaq career accolades still falls short, even if you include a period that includes his retirements. Shit, just take either 3-peat period and compare it to Kobe's post Shaq career accolades and it still falls short (2 titles, 2 FMVPs, 1 MVP, 2 scoring titles vs. 3 titles, 3 FMVPs, 2 MVPs, 3
scoring titles)

No no no, you're not getting it. Because Kobe had to play second fiddle to Shaq all these years, it prevented Kobe from developing his leadership skills the way Jordan did! Winning 3 titles by your sixth season is obviously far far worse than winning no titles until your seventh season. Yes yes, if Kobe was on a scrub team from the beginning, he would have ended up with a better legacy than he is now, because, you know, he would have developed better leadership, game management and bigger hands.

[Ne 1]

LONG read, so buckle up.

The truth is, Phil is as mesmerized by MJ as is all the MJ lovers. If it wasn't for Mike, he would not be "the ZEN MASTER" sitting on that many rings. He and Mike had a great relationship. Not so with Phil and Kobe that first time around.

Kobe wasn't about that Zen talk. AT ALL. He told Phil many of times "look man, you can miss me with all that Zen talk and book reading stuff. I know multiple languages, I lived in Italy. I'm probably more well rounded then you and I'm younger. Just tell me what you need me to do on the court so I can do that and we can win. Let's keep it simple. Keep the zen talk to yourself or your other players that need that to motivate them. i don't need motivation. I'm a basketball junkie, NERD to the 1000th degree. I eat, sleep and breathe baksetball.

So that broke Phillips heart. He wasn't feeling Kobe ever since. When he and Phil got back together with Gasol and the band. Kobe started to read more of Phil's books and push that ZEN talk to everyone else. This is when Phil gives Kobe props for becoming a better leader. Notice only when Kobe start imparting PHIL-izms on others did Phil give Kobe leadership props.

Coaches sell you something and they want their players to buy in. Kobe wasn't buying what Phil was selling during the 2000-2004 era. Kobe just wanted to win and be told do what on the court. You can keep that zen stuff to yourself. I don't need help focusing. I'm more focused then any man that has ever touched a basketball, including that compulsive gambling alcoholic, I need to take time off to play baseball Mike.

If you ever want to know how focused Kobe is/was about baksetball. Look no further then the rape case and him coming off of a plane flight after fighting for his LIFE then hitting game winners the same day. He didn't need ZEN to do that. Sure it may have gave what he already had a name. But Kobe is another type of animal when it comes to basketball. you may never see anyone that this focused on hoop again in your life. and I'm not saying its necessarily a good thing to be Kobe focused, when it comes to one thing. Doing that makes you lose perspective on life outside of the game. Which is where the loaner/aloof comments come from. But again Kobe's own dad said Kobe is a basketball nerd. How many super nerds do you know that act aloof, and are loaners? A lot of them. So it makes perfect sense.

Mike didn't come in the NBA when he was a baby alongside a bunch of full grown men. Kobe was fresh off the prom. How is he going to lead anyone at that age playing behind an all-star 2 guard in Eddie Jones already, a stubborn older All-Star Nick shoot you in then shoot you out Van Exel, and big ego I'm the MAN Shaq? Not going to happen. How was Kobe going to lead full grown prime Diesel, full grown veteran Rick Fox. Full grown veteran Horry sitting on 2 Rockets championship rings?

How in the hell was a KID low 20 something Kobe going to lead those full grown men? He wasn't.

[Ne 1]

Being able to get along with teammates and not alienate them has nothing to do with age. Being socially awkward or not has NOTHING to do with age. That's personality, which isn't age specific.

Glad you brought this up. Let's go back to this aloof thing. Besides Kobe being a hoop nerd.

Kobe was a KID fresh off his prom when he got into the NBA. He tried to stay away from the nightlife to stay focused. We ask our stars to do this all the time. Do we not? Yet we fault Kobe for not heading out to the club with 27 year old Shaq and 30 year old Robert Horry and Rick Fox. Kobe couldn't even legally drink.

How many teenagers do you know hanging out with grown men in their 30's? YOU DON'T.

Most star players like Kobe, end up on lowly teams due to the draft. Those teams are usually weak because they have a team full of younger guys (past draft picks that have not yet panned out). That's never the case with the Lakers.

The youngest team the Lakers had was when they traded Shaq and they had Lamar Odom, Smush Parker, Luke Walton, Brian Cook, etc. and that team sucked. But yet Kobe lead them to the playoffs in a deep/stacked Western Conference and almost got them to past the heavily favored #2 seed. Has Mike ever upset any team with a lesser team? Nope. He has never come close to an upset. Mike's team was always head and shoulders better then the team he was matched up against. Not his fault. Just a reality of the situation.

At the end of the day, don't be fooled by Phil's books. Phil LOVES drama. He knows drama sells and he's trying to sell a book here. Phil used to side with Shaq when he first came to L.A. (he admitted this himself) which strained his relationship with Kobe. Now I'm not saying he should've sided with Kobe. But a real leader coach could've figured a way how to bring them both together and make them understand how much they needed one another. That never happened. Sure, they won 3 in a row, but they barely could do that due to the infighting and clashing that had a lot to do with Phil choosing sides since he knew Shaq was the big baby of both Kobe and Shaq. Even though Shaq was older. Shaq needed his ego caressed.

The dude is clearly more qualified then anyone to talk about this

Appeal to authority.

[Ne 1]

Winning 3 titles by your sixth season is obviously far far worse than winning no titles until your seventh season.

Yeah, and he never get's full credit from people for those 3 rings. How many times did we here from 2005-2008, "Kobe will never win without Shaq"? and "Kobe wouldn't have won those rings without Shaq." Even until this day people still say that Kobe was Shaq's 2nd fiddle, so they put a qualifier on his first 3 rings and say that only his 2009 and 2010 rings "count" even though he proved he could win without Shaq.

Actually seems like on ISH and similar site that no rings is equal to any rings "2nd option." For example, many times I've seen people on this site rank Wade or over Pippen or say Wade is better than Pippen because Wade has won a ring as "the man", while Pippen's 6 rings rings don't even "count" because he was the "2nd option."

[K Xerxes]

Yeah, and he never get's full credit from people for those 3 rings. How many times did we here from 2005-2008, "Kobe will never win without Shaq"? and "Kobe wouldn't have won those rings without Shaq." Even until this day people still say that Kobe was Shaq's 2nd fiddle, so they put a qualifier on his first 3 rings and say that only his 2009 and 2010 rings "count" even though he proved he could win without Shaq.

There are haters for every great athlete, and Kobe's haters will say anything they can to diminish his status. They can say that Kobe was gifted three rings, but anyone clued up on the game knows that he was a factor in all three, and particularly crucial in '01 and '02. Besides, his two rings as the man validates that he can win without Shaq, which means it should be easy to debunk.

In the eyes of the average fan, would Kobe be 'greater' with 2 rings and 2 finals MVPs, or with 5 rings and 2 finals MVPs? Just think about it, if LeBron won this year, he would have as many finals MVPs as Kobe, but Kobe fans still have the overall ring argument.

Stop kidding yourself, the three titles with Shaq only augments his legacy in the long run, not diminishes. In 20 years time when the new superstars will be centre stage, people will forget this sort of stuff. People will forget what happened in '02. People will forget the decision. Etc etc.