I agree - very well put Hakeem06. I realized right away that Jamele Hill wrote this article before I started reading it. I don't know why I even gave her the time of day. But Jamele Hill has always been a controversial writer, and I think that's exactly why ESPN hired her (note: this is a Page2 article). She's just like Skip Bayless (she actually guest co-hosted with him on Cold Pizza once): no substance, yet gets audiences to tune in (or click in) to see what dumb thing they're saying now. I really wish ESPN would get more writers and analysts that really know what they're talking about, like Peter Gammons and Tim Kurkjian do for baseball. But of course they're into making money and drawing as much attention as possible, using whatever method necessary to accomplish that. All the articles I've read by her have had very little substance to back up the claim, in addition to the fact that they're pretty poorly written. But with articles like this one, she'll get just the type of publicity she needs to take her to the top.
i don't think kobe is better than jordan. i don't think anyone is. i'd even take wade right now (although we'll see where wade is when a little of his explosion is gone). their peak defense seems to be about the same, but jordan could somehow play it most of the game (although pippen took the best player on the other team) while kobe can only do it in spurts like most anyone called up to lead the entire offense (same with tmac). and kobe doesn't quite have the efficiency either. and some other things. the point is, kobe might be more "skilled" (hell he might have more pure skills than anyone ever) but as a complete package he ain't better and i really don't see how that can be argued. HOWEVER, scoring points is definitely not easier now than it used to be. it might be easier than 2 years ago before the handchecking, but not the 80s. people always bring up hand-checking but defenses were nothing like they are today (except the pistons) and double-teaming still wasn't a huge thing like it is now. and then there's the biggest factor, the pace. teams scored so much more and had so many more possessions. scoring 35.4 today is at least as good if not better than the 37.0 jordan scored back in the day. oh, and players today are not worse than players back then. no way 6 billion people on the planet suddenly got worse over the course of 15 years. there is slightly less fundamental skill, but the athleticism and training are way ahead of the 80s and there are so many things people do now that weren't done back then. 7 footers hitting 3's, power forwards who can face up and dribble and pass, the amazing ball-handling and finishing there is now from almost every single perimeter player. just b/c people don't hit an open jumper quite like this used to (even back then they did occasionally miss) doesn't mean players are worse. and finally, duncan over hakeem? puh-freakin'-lease.
What?! Your post doesnt make any sense. So you are saying that players today understand/know how to play the game better? And that scoring today is harder than before? Thats just crazy talk. Take a look at how many FTs Kobe took during his scoring run. He took close to 20 FTs during each of those games. You realize that is 20 pts? If you ever watched any of Jordan's highlights, he would get close to 20 or more FTs himself. Add that to his avg and he might be averaging 50 pts a game. Sure some of todays players can do astonishing things, it doesnt mean they understand how to play the game. Understanding how to play the game means more then a 7 footer being able to drain 3s or handle the ball. Re-watch those games from the 80s and mid 90s and you will realize what real basketball is all about.
Today's perimeter players play against the softest defense in recent memory. Kobe is great and will eventually be an all-time great, but he's no Jordan, even if he does look, act and shoot like him. Jordan was just too good at too many things in a much better era of basketball that featured a lot more physical play and generally favored the big man's game. Jordan did what no other guard in league history did, he dominated a game long ruled by front court players, and he did it all without any real inside scoring presence. He shot better than Kobe, he defended better than Kobe, and he led much better than Kobe. Seems like ESPN just wants to be controversial for the sake of creating attention/controversy and hopefully get people to start watching their games to see what Kobe will do next.
What could Drexler have done? How about A.I., Reggie, Richmond, Penny, and McGrady? In my opinion all of those guys could have won rings if they were with the Bulls but they would still be a level below Jordan....Clyde and Mitch Richmond coming as close to Jordan as one could get.
Kobe is more skilled than Jordan. I believe Kobe would win a one on one game. Jordan's defense was overrated imo. Of what I remember, he mostly played Iverson defense i.e. passing lanes and used his quickness whereas Kobe does that as well as fronts and locks down. Not as much nowadays but check him out a few years ago. With that said, it's pointless to compare the two, with all the ways the game has changed from that era to this era. I'm from the school that believes the League gets better as the years go by. I really don't think Wilt for example could do accomplish what he did in the NBA as we know today. Apples and oranges. [I do honestly believe Hakeem would still absolutely dominate though. Just wanted to throw that out just in case anybody gave me crap for being a blasphemer! [end tangent]] I feel the big reason people dislike Kobe so much is because of his personality and his situation with the girl in CO. Personally, I really don't care about off-the-court Kobe. I don't know dude personally and I would never judge anyone I didn't. All I know is that down the line I can tell my kids how lucky I was to have been able to see one of the greatest basketball players of all time [yeah, that's right] in his prime. This is the last time I'm ever gonna defend Kobe on this board. I just feel he's wrongly disrespected and had to say this. Hate on, haters.
MJ scored 51 pts at age 38 in 2002.So I don't think it is that hard for prime MJ to score 4 straight 50+ points game in today's game.Kobe is great for sure,but come on,he is no MJ.
i'm sure he could do it. he was really good. but he played in a higher scoring era and even he topped out at 3 in a row, and it's not like he was shy about shooting. he wouldn't just be scoring 50 every other game or anything. exactly. and that goes for any league. players get bigger, faster, and stronger. techniques are improved, coaching strategies evolve and improve, new skills are honed or refined or are implemented. so any league is going to improve over time. at least any league that doesn't suffer some catastrophic drop in popularity. like if we woke up tomorrow and the NBA, MLB, or NFL were as popular as hockey and virtually no one played those sports, you could easily explain a drop in ability. but basketball has several hundred million people in America as a talent pool. and the players now grew up watching basketball when it was it's most popular (late 80s, early 90s), so we even have more of the talent pool interested in basketball than we did back in the day. and then we have the fact that there was basically zero international presence in the nba 15 years ago and we now have 80-90 players. so not only are we taking from a bigger pool in America, we're cherry-picking the very best from another 5.7 billion people around the world. things don't get worse in that situation. people just confuse their personal preference for what they like to see with improvement or no improvement.
That article was awful. Kobe > MJ??? Hell, is Kobe even in the top 10 yet? Most think that MJ sits at the top of the ladder (or is at least in the discussion), and there are plenty of rungs to pass before he gets to MJ. Is Kobe even the best in his generation? So far he hasn't had a better career than Duncan, who LED his team to 3 titles (there is a difference between getting one as the main and as the sidekick). When Kobe was winning titles was he even the best player on his own team (Shaq)? If he doesn't lead his team to multiple titles then how do you take him over Magic, Russell Kareem, Bird, Wilt or Hakeem? If he doesn't lead a team to at least one how do you take him over Moses Malone or Jerry West? What about the other players with great numbers that showed that they could win as the sidekick when they finally got help (O.Robertson, Drexler, Dr. J, Robinson). Ya gotta crack the top without question before you can get to MJ....
Why can't Kobe just be this awesome player? Why does everything have to be ranked like this? Why can't he just be one of the best players in the NBA, right now? What's wrong with that? Why does he have to be better than MJ?
how far back does that go, 2 years? am i the only one who watches games from the 80s when they come on espn classic. they always love to brag about all the flagrant fouls that were considered touch fouls back then , but it's a bunch of bunk. maybe the occasional rivalry game saw punches thrown (or any game with Akeem in it ) but defenses were not anywhere near as physical as the early 90's to early 00's. nor as intense. there's just no comparing. so if the reference point is 2004, then yes perimeter players have it way better. if it's 1984, no they don't. and why is there always this assumption that it was so big man dominated and hasn't been for much of the current group of players' careers? it was and is generally a big man's game. but just for reference, magic, bird and isiah won 10 of 11 titles before jordan won, and jordan never even faced a good center in the finals. then after the first 3-peat, hakeem, shaq and duncan won 9 of the next 13. hardly some big man dominated game that jordan snuck a few titles into. only now with the lull in true centers has it again become easier for a perimeter player to win it with wade, nash, and dirk having very good chances to win. but maybe yao, howard, oden, and a still effective duncan will change that back soon. true. which is why it's cool when people just post the articles in here and we don't have to click on the link and give them what they want.
Poor article.. but I think there's at least an argument that can be made, if made properly. Give Kobe a top 50 all-time sidekick and a supporting cast that really understands the game well and palys their position in the trinagle well.. and I'd be interested to see what happens. Luke Walton is a good start.. that's about it from the current Lakers.
Before reading this article go through her archives and read some of her prior "work" then read this baseless Kobe>MJ article and tell me if you couldn't do a better job than her. She should give hope to thousands around the world gunning for major sports writing positions. Why does she have a job? Seriously, you would think an ESPN gig would be top of the line. Apparently not if they're willing to showcase her "work".
what was that? to lose any type of credibility as a writer? I guess in her mind any publicity is good publicity. wow...i just read the article again. it could be the biggest piece of garbage ever written!! well outside of chickenboy writing "Kobe is more skilled than Jordan."
