I hate Phil Jackson as much as the next guy, but to discredit what several coaches before him were anable to do in LA is just .... well ummmmmm.... rediculousness. I also know I have a biased unfavorable opinion of Rudy. But 95 percent of the league would take Phil over Rudy any day.
I'm not saying that they are not stars, superstars even. I do dispute that they are at the top of the NBA. Anyone who puts Kobe ahead of Shaq, Duncan, or Garnett should have their head examined. That is my point. I also do not think that Kobe and Iverson are as far ahead of the other great guards in the leagus as some would like to believe. Put Allen, Stackhouse, McGrady, or Carter on the Lakers and they will do the same thing. Jason Kidd might very well be the besty guard in the league. Cat has better offensive efficiancy than Iverson (or at least he did the last time I ran the numbers). Two facts spring to mind about Ivy and Kobe. First, Iverson is the 1st-5th options on his team, so he scores a lot of points and the rest of the team gets to concentrate on defense, something guys like Snow and Motumbo know a little about. Second, Kobe usually gets to play with the most constant scoring threat in the NBA. That he is played in single coverage (an opportunity not shared by Stackhouse or Mobley) is responsible for at least some of his success. Iverson is set up to post a tremendous scoring average because he is responsible for most of the team's offense. He is like the Ravens kicker last season, somebody has to score points. Kobe is in the best situation for any shooting guard. He gets to play against about 3/4s of a defender as even his own man keeps an eye out for Shaq. He is like Ahman Green, definitley a good player, but his job is made much easier by having Brett Favre for devenses to key on.
"Do you watch basketball? Carter shoots a good amount of threes, but he is hardly a three point shooter. His first step, ability to penetrate, and elevate with stellar body control are absolutely amazing. "Remarkable" doesn't do it justice." Carters game has changed. He avgs 6-7 threes a game. He has more 3pt attempts then FT attempts so far this year. Plus his one on one defense still sucks!
Jordan is the best guard in the league. The Wizards have already exceeded their win total from last year. He also scored 51 without Shaq last month, too. Michael Jordan, at 39, is the best guard in the league. I love this game.
Jordan now is not the player Iverson, Kobe or McGrady's is by a longshot. I think Carter and Allen are solidly better to, but you could make a case otherwise. Jordan is in the next best group of shooting guards (e.g., Finley). If you want to name the "best guard" by the criteria of turning around a team (difference in WL with his arrival), that is easy and it isn't Jordan either. It is Jason Kidd.
Jordan's team has the same record as McGrady's team, and a better record than Iverson's team, except Jordan has a lot less talent to work with. Their stats are comparable. If Jordan was on the Lakers instead of Bryant, they'd be no worse off. How can you say those other guys are better than Jordan "by a longshot"? Their numbers are comparable, and Jordan's helping his team more, flat out. What is the basis for your statement? Put Mutombo on the Wizards, and they lead the East. And you're right about Kidd. He's always been a great regular season player.
Your are correct "a longshot" is too strong. But any statistical comparson that combines stats (includes PPG, RPG, APG, SPG, BPG and factors in FG%) has a noticable advantage for Kobe, McGrady or AI over Jordan. When AI was gone Phily totally sucked, so in addition to the statistical argument it is easy to see what he means to that team. We haven't see the Magic without McGrady (I think they would be close to the Bulls level, McGrady hasn't had all that much to work with IMO either, look at what they did before McGrady got there) or Lakers without Kobe (tougher call, but with Shaq out Kobe still keeps the Lakers a halfway decent team), so all I can do is guess there. So based on statistical or my own more subjective criteria (watching them play and seeing all the things they do on the court) I am confident McGrady, Kobe and AI are better players. Again, I do retract the "by a longshot" statement though. I don't think Kidd (or Jordan, or Carter) is as good as the above 3 anyway, but I threw him out there to satisfy the "best player is the one to make the most dramatic turnaround in the team" argument. I however would be willing to have a friendly bet that the Jason "Regular Season "Kidd's team does better in the playoffs than Jordan's team this year though.
I wouldn't say there's a noticeable advantage. Jordan gets more assists and steals than McGrady, outrebounds Iverson (not a surprise I guess) and shoots slightly better than Iverson. He's outrebounding Bryant. For the most part the numbers are all very close, with the exception of scoring/Iverson. However, Bryant isn't the main focus of the defense, so he has it much easier. Well he's played in 31 of 38 games, and the team is 18-20. Do you think they win more than 17 games for the year without Iverson? I do. That's how many games Washington won last year without Jordan, I believe. The Magic without McGrady were 41-41 in Doc Rivers' first year. They are 20-20 right now. I think their record last year was similar. True we haven't seen the Lakers without Shaq for a year. It would make it a lot easier to evaluate Bryant if we had. I don't see much difference replacing Bryant with Jordan. If anything, I think it makes the Lakers better. I don't see it that way (at least not at this point, Jordan could break down before the year's over). In particular with McGrady and Iverson, the record is most telling. The Wizards have the same or better record than Orlando and Philly, and this is a completely new team for Jordan, with less talent (again, put Mutombo on the Wizards, and they challenge for the top spot in the East, IMO). Kidd has made a huge difference as well, but he's not a guy you can count on to hit the big shots. He's good for a lot of regular season wins, but it's going to take someone else on NJ to advance them in the playoffs, IMO. I'll take that bet I guess. As long as it's just "friendly". I'm not sure the Wizards are going to make the playoffs. They just don't have anybody on that team.
Comparing the Lakers without Shaq to the Raptors, Sixers, Magic etc.. isn't fair. You're taking away more than a third of the Lakers payroll when you take Shaq out, Raptors and Sixers have both spent lavishly on all star big guys, what do the Lakers have at the big positions? Outcasts and inexperienced low draft picks. The Magic doesn't really have better big men than the Lakers, but McGrady has Armstrong, who is a much better point guard than anyone on the Raptors, Lakers, or Sixers, plus they have mike Miller, he is legit, I think he's actually been outscoring McGrady lately. Lakers without Shaq-No size, no inside play, no second option that goes close to scoring anyone, no one else on that team should even be able to average 10 points. Mike Miller is almost an all star calibur player these days, Mutombo is all star and second best center in the league, Antonio Davis was an all star, which of the Lakers "scrubs" as they are so often called even get consideration for the all star game?
I really agree. I for one, would loooove to see Shaq go down for half a season or so. How Bryant performed would really help settle the debate once and for all. Right now, it even works both ways: yes, it helps Bryant that he's not the primary focus of the defense... but at the same time, he doesn't get to dictate how the offense operates. Kobe, in some ways, plays a lot like Drexler did... and Drexler took a numbers hit once he started playing with Hakeem and especially Barkley, right? I actually like Bryant a great deal. If I had rate NBA players on value, I'd rate Shaq #1, Duncan #2, and Bryant #3. I will agree with you that Jordan has been amazing. The Wizards were putrid last year. Now, they're average. I don't think Tyrone Lue or Kwame Brown is the difference . To be honest, I don't even evaluate Jordan with the other NBA players. He's... Jordan. He won 6 titles, made Scottie Pippen look like a super star, and ensured Phil Jackson's reputation as a great coach (I will agree that he's a good coach). Best ever. If he's lost a step... so what? He's still MJ.
