For real dude. Well said. I guess the whole "Kobe vs. MJ" would attract more readers than "Kobe Is Just Plain Great" though. Controversy sells, but I'm sure you'd know that. Kobe's great, especially when playing like this, but he's nowhere near MJ or any of the all-time greats. Individual talent never matters if it never accounts to anything. Ask T-Mac. And to a lesser extent, Stockton and Malone. In a team game like basketball, winning is most important. All the greats did it as the main man of their organization. Kobe has not. It's not to say he didn't have a hand in winning 3 rings, but you can see without Shaq he can't even get to the 2nd round.
Kobe = copying Jordan's style. 50 Cent = copying Tupac's style. Ja Rule = copying Tupac's style. The Game =copying Tupac's style.
controversy is trying to sell, but look at most overall stats and accomplishments. It's a Babe Ruth situation. I don't care who care who comes along or what records are broken, the man will probably still be considered the greatest baseball player of all-time for years.
that was terrible. garbage. kobe can score for sure, but he's no michael jordan. she's taking advantage of kobe's historic week in the wrong way. heck, i think even kobe would slap her upside the head if he read this. at least, i hope so. just because the league is older now doesn't mean it's better. the focus has shifted to the individual. it highlights athleticism instead of the fundamentals. which is why the defense now is not as stellar as it used to be. sure, teams are scouted better, but when most players are playing the passing lanes and getting torched by simple crossovers, the scouting reports are wasted. throw in the fact that simply touching a guy when he's driving is an instant foul, then it's no wonder that we're seeing these incredible scoring sprees. MJ is still the benchmark, no one has passed him yet. yeah and tupac is better than 50! hahaha
Bottom line: For all Kobe's scoring, the lakers are just barely beating really crappy teams. End of story.
For all the people who think today's players are better are delusional. Why are there rules to try and increase scoring? Because most players can't shoot to save their lives. The no hand check rule is huge for perimeter players to get layups or fouls at the rim. Hard fouls at the rim are gone now due to the league trying to tone down the contact. Stuff that went by in the past as a "good foul" would most likely be flagrants. How about the shotclock changes? Fouls are reset to 14s instead of 24s, 8s backcourt violations (forcing teams to push the ball upcourt faster). Talk about how players are faster/bigger/stronger is moot because that same training is available to Kobe. Couldn't you argue that with recent advancements in training, Jordan would be better as well. Someone mentioned this earlier, but Kobe wasn't even the best player on his team when the Lakers even got past a first round. His achievements are similar to Tmac when he was in Orlando. Leading a mediocre team (I'd argue Tmac's teammates/coach are worse) to a first round exit.
Just saw this...I couldn't even stomach reading the entire thing. Saying that Tim Duncan didn't have the effect on the league that Dream had? Guh. By the way, Jemele Hill is 30 and it shows. link
I would say the era of tough, physical play lasted from the mid-80s to the mid/late 90s. And no, I am not just talking about hand-checking rule, which you seem to be referring to. I am talking about the overall physicality of the league. There was more physical play in one Bulls-Knicks game or Bulls-Pistons game or heck, even a Miami-Knicks game in the mid/late 90s than there is in an entire NBA season now. I don't think anyone can honestly contend that the league has gotten much 'softer' since the late 90s. Guys like MJ, Pippen, Magic, Dream, and even Shaq early on had to play through that era. Kobe, McGrady, Melo, and Lebron don't have to anymore. With exception of Jordan and to an extent that Pistons team, both the Lakers and the Celtics during Magic's and Bird's careers had some pretty darn good players in the front court. Moreover, you had teams that were consistently dominating the league in the Spurs (Robinson), Rockets (Dream and even Sampson at one point), Knicks (Ewing), Lakers (Kareem), Utah (Malone) and even Orlando (Shaq) of the early/mid 90's). PFs would also qualify as "Big Men", and Jordan faced the Sonics with Kemp and the Jazz twice with Malone, not to mention the Suns with Barkley. Regardless, the point is he had to go through teams that had pretty good inside players to get to the finals. Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Malone and Mourning were still in the league when Jordan won those rings. How is that a league lacking in dominant big men? Barkley gets an honorable mention, although he was the little big man, but he played like a much bigger player than he really was.
No, it's not just how they played, It was the rules also. The rules today make it easier for the guards to score like the ridiculous "lay one finger on me while i'm on the perimeter" foul. Of course it wasn't like they let guys throw punches like nothing but they let a lot more go back then. He is right, players of today are softer. Just because you want some games on ESPN Classics doesn't mean you've seen enough to know about an the 80s-Early 90s Era in basketball.
I also sent her a (civil) email ripping her column apart. I get it that controversial position = reader hits, but geez. Her argument was built purely on sand, leaning mostly on Jordan's personal issues (which she initially said shouldn't be used to compare Kobe and Jordan), threw out several indefensible statements (Kobe just as good on defense, Jordan faced inferior opponents, etc), and ignored the mountain of evidence to the contrary. To write a good persuasion piece, you have to face the other side's aces openly. You can't just play 3-card monty and hope no one notices you ducked half the debate. Jordan was a fixture on the first team all-defensive squads - 9 times. Kobe's got 4. The major holes in her lifetime-movie-slanted argument are all over the place. Shaq was most certainly around when Jordan tore the league apart in the 90s. Jordan's 1988 MVP (pre-Scottie & Co) didn't exactly come when the Lakers (or Celtics, or the Bad Boys) were on their last legs. She says that Jordan didn't have to go past Vince Carter and LeBron, neglecting to mention that they're defensively disinclined or that Kobe hasn't had to face terrorizing defenses like the Knicks or Pistons from back in the day (Modern Detroit has been close, but they don't exactly send opponents into the goal posts to send a message). Kobe may just be a better overall scorer than Michael was. But his overall game and the way that he approaches the game keeps him in MJ's shadow. Kobe's a narcissist who is driven by his public image, Michael was driven to be better than anyone and understood that he could only do that by winning. Kobe just hasn't gotten that message. All in all, just a terrible example of sensationalist rating from an untalented and unintelligent writer doing what she can to get readers. I fell bad that I played along. Evan
Part of that is that he can get into the paint so easily with the handchecking rule on the perimeter. heck if you look at any quick guard in the league now you'll see how easy it is for them to get into the paint (paul,iverson,nash) not suprising at all. you give me the rules from the mid 90s and derek harper in his prime and tony would not score more than 4-6 points in there
has kobe ever faced dallas or san antonio in the playoffs post shaq era? i guess this will be the first year. Jordan beat those teams in the finals too. All kobe ever faced were the pacers, sixers and nets. Thats not even close.
The Hakeem comment is way, way out of line. And I am at best on the fence on this Kobe-is-better-than-Jordan thing. I suppose it's arguable. But that article ain't making me buy it. On the other hand, I completely agree with her that Jordan was just as poor a teammate as Kobe... probably worse. It's beyond comprehension to me how some people today make excuses for Jordan punching teammates, as if that's ever okay. I also like how people claim that he "led" North Carolina to the national title (any fool could tell you that was James Worthy's team). Isn't revisionist history great?
I would like to see Kobe hit for 50 against the 80's Pistons, when you could bodyslam and clothesline players as regular fouls…especially since they had enough big-men to slam you 30 times a game (Laimbeer, Salley, Mahorn, Edwards, Rodman). And that's just the frontcourt fouls. Yeah....MJ had it easier. Last year Kobe had to go through Raja Bell to advance.
I think ppl are always caught up in the mystique of Jordan. Sure he is great, but was he so past everyone else? I don't think so. Its not completely ludicrious to compare Kobe/Jordan. I'm not arguing for one or the other, but the fact that ppl are merely brushing off Kobe from the start is prompting my response. When ppl talk about Jordan, they usually discount everything that helped him get to the 6 championships... the coaches, the players, and everything else in between. And don't give me the crap about Jordan making everyone else better and being a good teammate. To me, he was just the same as Kobe if not worse. The difference between an assist and nothing to show on the stat sheet, is that the players make their shots. If Kobe passes to someone and he doesn't make that shot, does that make Kobe less of a teammate than say Jordan, who happens to have Kerr who can actually make that shot in that same situation? I'll tell you who actually fits in the category of a good teammate and makes their teammates better... Nash. Wade is good, but I don't hold him in the same regard. When he loses his explosiveness, what will he do then? The hand check rules and frequent whistles also play in his favor. You have to understand, Kobe is putting up these numbers after losing a good deal of his explosiveness. I don't think its inconceivable to compare Kobe at 28 and when Jordan is 28.
