#apples2oranges

[guy]

Im sorry, but this post is way, way too simplistic and doesnt have its roots grounded in reality.

First off you have to use context of what would happen in this scenario.

Rookie MJ would join the Lakers in the late 90s and be a promising young player alongside a very dominant Shaquille Oneal. We all know the offense wouldve still ran through Shaq, and MJ wouldnt have been given full reign to ball out like he did in his first year with the Bulls. Shaq wouldve been the undisputed man.

We all know MJ was a firery competitor and always wanted to be the best. Thats was his goal. To be the best. We all know MJ had a great work ethic, and we also know that he had a hard time trusting his teammates up until 6+ years into his career when Phil reigned him in and made him develop a trust in the system. He was very much seen as an individual type talent and not a true team player ala the greats before him Magic and Larry. That was the main knock on early MJ.

Jordan had a hard time trusting his teammates cause they sucked. The players he was playing with were either scrubs or players who relied strictly on talent, and didn't care much about winning and were involved in drug use. COMPLETELY different from who he would be playing with in LA. He wouldn't have a problem trusting Shaq who clearly wasn't like that and was one of the most dominant players ever. He wouldn't have a problem trusting veterans like Horry, Shaw, Harper, and Fox who had the experience and only cared about winning.

And you realize in this situation, he'd actually get Phil EARLIER in his career?

Now, you give a guy who wants to be the best to ever do it, who is insanely competitive and pushes others around him to work as hard as he did, a dominant entering his prime SHAQ and what happens?

They win 2-3 titles within the first 4-5 years easy.. and who gets the credit? Obviously Shaq. He would still feast on the subpar frontlines in th EAST and would still win FMVPs and be seen as the 'man' on those teams.

How does MJ respond to that?

Possessing many of the same traits Kobe does but to a larger than life degree(the real version-competitiveness, the ultimate dick, workaholic, physcotic confidence) MJ wouldve likely tried to get his share of the glory himself and wouldve gunned for FMVPs and to be the featured weapon etc.

Except MJ wouldve done it BETTER than Kobe and he wouldve actually won some of those awards over Shaq because he was actually that good. So say they win 2-3 titles with Shaq getting the glory and then they win their first one with MJ getting the FMVP and large share of the credit?

How does Shaq respond to that? The same Shaq that fueded with Penny.. and Kobe.. and Wade isnt going to fued with perhaps the most demanding and dickheaded player of all time stealing his thunder in the dead middle of his prime ? What?

Guarantee that relationship goes sour well before 5 titles, much less 8 or 10.

Sooo you think they could win 4 titles, but its a huge jump to say would win 5? Huh? Kobe's relationship with Shaq was rocky even before they won their 2nd title. I don't think anyone said Jordan and Shaq wouldn't have issues. But would it be a problem on the court and as big of a problem as it was with Kobe? Doesn't seem like it. And from Phil's comments, it seems like Jordan would've clearly had a better relationship with Shaq and the rest of his teammates because he was a more likable person that didn't alienate himself from them, and in turn this would make him a leader that they would actually want to follow. From Phil's comments, Jordan was clearly better at adjusting to the personalities of his teammates.

And I'm pretty sure the 8-10 titles comment is including Jordan with Gasol, Odom, Bynum, etc.

Thats a joke because we SAW MJ get bored after winning three straight and retire to play baseball. But hes not going to get bored cakewalking to multiple chips with Shaq? MJ always wanted a challenge.

Not only that, but according to andgar, MJ left the league after his three chips because of a giant gambling conspiracy. And were going to act like that type of shit wouldn't affect his ability to stack titles? Having to leave the league under a guise in the middle of his prime because his competitive nature backfired on him(extreme addiction to gambling)?

I don't believe in the gambling conspiracy, but how about mentioning that Jordan's father was murdered? Seems like people think that has nothing to do with it.

And Jordan isn't retiring after only 8 seasons in the league regardless of how bored he is. Thats not happening. Maybe he leaves as a UFA, but that wouldn't have been possible until 8 seasons after. Anyway, in these scenarios, I don't think its fair to assume Jordan doesn't retire, because that was the trajectory his career took and it would be unfair to give him two more great seasons that just didn't happen. But even if with retiring, that doesn't mean wouldn't have stacked his resume up like he actually did. But just for speculation's sake, I could see him NOT retiring like he did because even if he is winning FMVPs and MVPs unlike Kobe, he'd probably still get the criticism that he couldn't win without Shaq, which would've kept him motivated.

Not only that but if you look at MJ's leadership.. it was largely built under his tenure with the Bulls where he had to fight it out with undermanned squads against legendary opponents like the C's and Bad Boy Pistons. He built that character and hunger to win through adversity and failing time and time again.. getting nailed in the me3dia for being too selfish and not being good enough. He BUILT that leadership.

It would not have been the same if he got it handed to him from the start. He wouldnt have learned and grown the same way as a player.

This stuff is delicate. It s not a video game where you add up imaginary numbers.

So what are you saying? Jordan doesn't build character, hunger, and leadership if he doesn't face the Celtics and Pistons? There's different ways for it to happen. In general, that stuff happens to EVERYONE as they get older, including Kobe regardless of having to play with Shaq. In general, your general habits like work ethic and personality are fully established by your late teens/early twenties. You don't really change much as a person after that. Experience/knowledge might alter your approach a little to things after that, but the things that Phil was talking about like charisma and motivation are innate, which is why he didn't refer to Kobe's not getting the reigns from the beginning but instead referred to his life before the NBA which didn't include college. Its the same reason you can't simply say switch Kobe with AI, T-Mac, or Carter, and AI/T-Mac/Carter would be considered one of the greatest players and still going strong, while Kobe would be out of the league or barely holding on to a roster spot right now. They clearly didn't have the drive and work ethic as Kobe.

As far as Kobe? Well never know because Pippen developed under MJ.. and so did Kobe actually lol.. Well never know. He literally couldve been a journeyman. You cant just transpose players onto teams without looking at their circumstances. And since Kobe patterned his game from MJ, we would have to assume hed pattern his game off Dr. J or some other great from before him in this hypothetical. Its too messy at that point though.

And sorry for the pauk style essay lol

So basically you're saying we can't compare players? The comparison isn't that complicated. We're just talking about their NBA careers. Not before that. So basically, they are what they were entering the NBA, and how they developed before that doesn't really matter. They were going to progress the way they progressed for the most part because of their focus and desire, and their personality and work ethic were almost fully established at that point, which meant that career path wasn't going to change much WHO they were. The fact that he patterned his game from Jordan doesn't really matter. If we are going to nitpick on things like that, we can go as far back as analyzing their parents and who raised them better, which could play into who was better. Its stupid.

[dh144498]

you guys are not getting the point here. MJ's ego is just as big as Kobe's. So imagine MJ playing with prime Shaq, they sure will at least 3peat, but what would happen a few championships? I just don't see MJ not being overshadowed by Shaq's dominance during the eaerly 2000s. Would MJ get worked up about this? I think most likely.

[rmt]

Don't know why Kobe must continue to bitch - he's one of the luckiest players ever. He played with MDE for 8 years, with GOAT coach for the majority of his career, played under an owner willing to spend, team salaries $10s of millions over the luxury tax, in a city that attracts free agents like no other. What more can he possibly want? Now he's using Shaq as an excuse vs MJ

Kobe - newsflash - there is no comparison - MJ put up better stats than you, won more championships, had more impact and was plain just a better player - and all without the BENEFIT of having Shaq attracting double teams. Just think about how many championships you would have if Scottie were your team mate instead of Shaq.

[Ne 1]

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.

Good points. I've actually wonder myself if people 10, 15, or 20 years from now will care about this "#1" thing as much as we do today regarding the early 00's Lakers. I have seen this discussed regarding the 80's Lakers, but even then it was because it suited the agenda of fans of a certain retired player. Usually, though, people always say "Magic has 5 rings" without a qualifier, even though like Kobe, he won his first few with a superior player. Whenever Kobe's rings are mentioned here an immediate asterisk is attached. It is ironic. The asterisk is based on classification of "#1" and "#2.'

[guy]

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.



Appeal to authority.

So basically what you're saying is Kobe was socially awkward, could be a disrespectful asshole to his teammates/coaches alienating them in the process, couldn't adjust as well to his teammates personalities, and took longer to mature. You didn't have to write that much to say you agree with Phil.

I don't give a shit that Kobe was a baby coming from High School that didn't know how to respect his elders and didn't bother trying to relate to them. This is about their NBA careers. How they developed before that doesn't change or downplay who was better then the other. Besides, no one forced him to skip college just like no one forced Jordan to go to college.

If you murder someone today, does the fact that you weren't educated enough to know how wrong murder is make you less of a shitty person? Life doesn't work that way.

[DMAVS41]

you guys are not getting the point here. MJ's ego is just as big as Kobe's. So imagine MJ playing with prime Shaq, they sure will at least 3peat, but what would happen a few championships? I just don't see MJ not being overshadowed by Shaq's dominance during the eaerly 2000s. Would MJ get worked up about this? I think most likely.

Sure...and maybe MJ leaves sooner than Kobe did.

But that really isn't the point. MJ was flat out better than Kobe...and the gap is enormous early on in their careers.

So if you replaced Kobe's 8 years with Shaq....with MJ...you just get different results. End of story.

Debating what might have happened in terms of MJ leaving or something like that isn't apt because Kobe played with him for 8 years and they had tons of problems on and off the court.

Here is what we know. It is perfectly reasonable to assume prime/peak Shaq paired with MJ for 8 years is going to net 5 titles given the circumstances. You get into tough areas like 97 in which MJ would be going against himself...but I certainly wouldn't put it out of the question that the Lakers beat the Bulls in 97.

Again. The Lakers won 56 games with rookie Kobe playing 15 minutes a game. You put Jordan on that team as the starting 2 guard with Jones coming off the bench and you have a team capable of winning 65 plus games. And a team easily capable of winning the title.

We don't know anything for sure, but given the fact that MJ was far superior to Kobe early on in his career as a player...I'd say it is perfectly reasonable to assume Shaq and MJ win roughly 5 titles in 8 years together. And honestly, that might be low...they might be so good that it's impossible for teams like the Duncan led Spurs in 03 to beat them.

[dh144498]

Sure...and maybe MJ leaves sooner than Kobe did.

But that really isn't the point. MJ was flat out better than Kobe...and the gap is enormous early on in their careers.

So if you replaced Kobe's 8 years with Shaq....with MJ...you just get different results. End of story.

Debating what might have happened in terms of MJ leaving or something like that isn't apt because Kobe played with him for 8 years and they had tons of problems on and off the court.

Here is what we know. It is perfectly reasonable to assume prime/peak Shaq paired with MJ for 8 years is going to net 5 titles given the circumstances. You get into tough areas like 97 in which MJ would be going against himself...but I certainly wouldn't put it out of the question that the Lakers beat the Bulls in 97.

Again. The Lakers won 56 games with rookie Kobe playing 15 minutes a game. You put Jordan on that team as the starting 2 guard with Jones coming off the bench and you have a team capable of winning 65 plus games. And a team easily capable of winning the title.

We don't know anything for sure, but given the fact that MJ was far superior to Kobe early on in his career as a player...I'd say it is perfectly reasonable to assume Shaq and MJ win roughly 5 titles in 8 years together. And honestly, that might be low...they might be so good that it's impossible for teams like the Duncan led Spurs in 03 to beat them.

MJ is better than Kobe. But that doesn't not justify what Kobe said about apples to oranges.

[guy]

MJ is better than Kobe. But that doesn't not justify what Kobe said about apples to oranges.

Actually it does. Because his response was to Phil's comments, which had nothing to do with their career paths. His comments were about basic aspects that applies to every NBA player. This maybe hard to believe, but not every slight to Kobe can be appropriately prefaced with "he was playing with Shaq."

[DMAVS41]

MJ is better than Kobe. But that doesn't not justify what Kobe said about apples to oranges.

But he's implying that their circumstances make any possible comparison invalid.

Which just isn't true. We go to see Kobe both with and without Shaq...as a young player, as an older player...with stacked teams and without stacked teams..the same coaches with the same system playing the same position.

I mean, honestly, the Kobe/MJ comparison is probably the easiest and most apt comparison to make in the history of the game. Two players have never had such similarities from playing style to circumstances....

That is what is so funny. It's actually the best and easiest comparison ever.

[tpols]

But he's implying that their circumstances make any possible comparison invalid.

Which just isn't true. We go to see Kobe both with and without Shaq...as a young player, as an older player...with stacked teams and without stacked teams..the same coaches with the same system playing the same position.

I mean, honestly, the Kobe/MJ comparison is probably the easiest and most apt comparison to make in the history of the game. Two players have never had such similarities from playing style to circumstances....

That is what is so funny. It's actually the best and easiest comparison ever.

You still dont get it though..

Their situations they grew up in, that shaped them as basketball players, were completely opposite.

Thats the point.

[AlphaWolf24]

NB4 PJax releases staements saying Kobe was a better shooter and better facilitator....Both Kobe and MJ have attributes better then each other.

Jordan friends will reply with ...he had to...he was under pressure by his girlfriend....

MJ is really leaps and bounds ahead of Kobe with the ball and shooting...check FG%

........

[DMAVS41]

You still dont get it though..

Their situations they grew up in, that shaped them as basketball players, were completely opposite.

Thats the point.

So we should never compare any players ever then. Because you could literally go back to middle school with this shit.

It's just a never ending line of bs excuses that could be given.

Regardless of circumstances....MJ and Kobe are the most apples to apples player comparison of all time. Everyone knows this. No two players can be more easily compared than those 2.

[rmt]

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.

It was Kobe's choice to come out of high school instead of going to college. You'd like him to be excused for being young, but I don't hear any excuses when it comes to all-time points where he benefits from coming out early as opposed to the all-time greats who spend 4 years in college before the NBA.

You acknowledge that most stars end up on lowly teams and it takes a long time for them to win championships - see MJ, Lebron yet Kobe goes to an organization that's ready to win, that spends a lot of money, that gets the GOAT coach and the 5 rings argument is continually rammed down our throats.

[K Xerxes]

Good points. I've actually wonder myself if people 10, 15, or 20 years from now will care about this "#1" thing as much as we do today regarding the early 00's Lakers. I have seen this discussed regarding the 80's Lakers, but even then it was because it suited the agenda of fans of a certain retired player. Usually, though, people always say "Magic has 5 rings" without a qualifier, even though like Kobe, he won his first few with a superior player. Whenever Kobe's rings are mentioned here an immediate asterisk is attached. It is ironic. The asterisk is based on classification of "#1" and "#2.'

I was going to bring up Magic and Kareem, but decided against it because it wasn't exactly the same situation. But since you bring it up... Now, in all of the GOAT lists I've ever seen, Kareem is regarded at least in the top 5, a lot of people have him 2nd, and a few even have him first. But Kareem only had one finals MVP in the five championships he won with Magic. Granted, he was going to win finals MVP in the '80s until he was injured in game 6 and Magic came up with *that* historic game, but how many people do you think know that? Really, people look at Kareem, see that he is the all time leading scorer, see that he has 6 championships and 6 MVPs, and they immediately think dominance and a GOAT contender. But, make no mistake, Kareem was the better player in the early 80s even though Magic won 2 finals MVPs in that time. It's funny how people look back at history.

As history goes on, the haters dwindle into nothingness. People won't look back at LeBron and see that he failed to win in Cleveland. Hell, his '11 performance will be overlooked (Magic's 84 is rarely mentioned afterall). What they will see is a physical specimin like we have never seen before, a player that could dominant all facets of the game like no one in history could, an X MVP winner, and a player that completely dominated the game from 2012 to whenever he stops.

When they look at Kobe, they will see Jordan's successor. He may never be seen as good as Jordan, but they will look at someone with the competitive drive, will to win only matched by Jordan in history. They will see a guy that could play on injuries that would keep anyone else out for weeks. A guy that won 5 rings, 3 with Shaq and 2 on his own (thus invalidating the claim that Kobe couldn't win without Shaq). He will have been deserving of all five rings (at the very least four). They will see an all time great as well.

The haters are most prevalent when people actually play, but they will be gone by the next generation. When they reminisce on the post MJ era, they will look at Kobe, Duncan, Shaq and LeBron (Durant is still pending) and think of supreme greatness. It will happen.

[tpols]

So we should never compare any players ever then. Because you could literally go back to middle school with this shit.

It's just a never ending line of bs excuses that could be given.

Regardless of circumstances....MJ and Kobe are the most apples to apples player comparison of all time. Everyone knows this. No two players can be more easily compared than those 2.

That would just be ridiculous though.. going back to the start of their original nba careers, in a comparison about how their hypothetical nba careers would pan out.. isnt that far fetched. We arent going butterfly effect deep.

Their career starts greatly affected how their roles, responsibilities, mentalities, leadership, etc all developed.

I didnt even mention one guy coming out of HS and one coming out of college. Lets see HS MJ come to play with the MDE and see how much responsibility he is handed.. and then compare that to his career track as an out of college player given full reigns on a shitty team.

Their situations were as apples and oranges as it could get.