Town Bidness

[Deez]

No you really don't

It's okay to be upset. I know I was when I realized LeBron is better than Kobe.

Just accept it, don't be bitter.

Not quite yet.

I still have Kobe at 9 and James at 10. Barring a catastrophe he passes him at some point. With another ring he moves up to #6 on my list and most consensus lists.

Given the inevitable decline that comes with age he has to be damn near perfect to catch Jordan. He needs at least two to three more rings to get in that conversation. That's going to be extraordinarily difficult.

Max apparently doesn't think he needs anything else to catch the top 5

[Max]

It's okay to be upset. I know I was when I realized LeBron is better than Kobe.

Just accept it, don't be bitter.

Not quite yet.

I still have Kobe at 9 and James at 10. Barring a catastrophe he passes him at some point. With another ring he moves up to #6 on my list and most consensus lists.

Given the inevitable decline that comes with age he has to be damn near perfect to catch Jordan. He needs at least two to three more rings to get in that conversation. That's going to be extraordinarily difficult.

Max apparently doesn't think he needs anything else to catch the top 5

Of course he does, and I think he'll accomplish those things.

[Sudanese Sensation]

Not quite yet.

I still have Kobe at 9 and James at 10. Barring a catastrophe he passes him at some point. With another ring he moves up to #6 on my list and most consensus lists.

Given the inevitable decline that comes with age he has to be damn near perfect to catch Jordan. He needs at least two to three more rings to get in that conversation. That's going to be extraordinarily difficult.

Max apparently doesn't think he needs anything else to catch the top 5

Of course he does, and I think he'll accomplish those things.

There's also a bit of luck in accumulating championships. If Pipp or Magic or kareem go down at the wrong time they all have less championships.

James should have three now. In retrospect Dallas should have been the Heat's easiest series.

We'll see... I just think winning championships and championships and championships are hard.

[town bidness]

I'm not calling you out, bro, because I don't have the proverbial "dog in this fight" but what is your evidence for arguing that Kobe Bryant was a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

I think it would make for a great thread.

Thank you in advance.

well it's a number of factors from skill level/flexibility to not being a quitter, being a far greater old player, jordans' glaring weaknesses, etc. my bullshitting time is nearing the end but if have the time i'll be glad to post something reasonably soon.

[Deez]

I'm not calling you out, bro, because I don't have the proverbial "dog in this fight" but what is your evidence for arguing that Kobe Bryant was a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

I think it would make for a great thread.

Thank you in advance.

well it's a number of factors from skill level/flexibility to not being a quitter, being a far greater old player, jordans' glaring weaknesses, etc. my bullshitting time is nearing the end but if have the time i'll be glad to post something reasonably soon.

So you are just gonna go off of nonsense bs then? Let's compare those 2 at 35 and see who was far greater old player. Kobes decision making is a weakness that MJ excels at. Kobe chucks when double and triple teamed in bad situations when he should pass.

[town bidness]

I'm not calling you out, bro, because I don't have the proverbial "dog in this fight" but what is your evidence for arguing that Kobe Bryant was a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

I think it would make for a great thread.

Thank you in advance.

well it's a number of factors from skill level/flexibility to not being a quitter, being a far greater old player, jordans' glaring weaknesses, etc. my bullshitting time is nearing the end but if have the time i'll be glad to post something reasonably soon.

So you are just gonna go off of nonsense bs then? Let's compare those 2 at 35 and see who was far greater old player. Kobes decision making is a weakness that MJ excels at. Kobe chucks when double and triple teamed in bad situations when he should pass.

you had a chance to make the thread and chose not to.

[Deez]

well it's a number of factors from skill level/flexibility to not being a quitter, being a far greater old player, jordans' glaring weaknesses, etc. my bullshitting time is nearing the end but if have the time i'll be glad to post something reasonably soon.

So you are just gonna go off of nonsense bs then? Let's compare those 2 at 35 and see who was far greater old player. Kobes decision making is a weakness that MJ excels at. Kobe chucks when double and triple teamed in bad situations when he should pass.

you had a chance to make the thread and chose not to.

No need, you wouldn't have an argument to hold

[Sudanese Sensation]

Biz is a really bright guy. That just seems like a super hard argument to make.

Jordan does have six FMVPs, five MVPS, a ROY, and a DPOY. That's a ton of hardware. And really good stats across the board.

[FPL]

Biz is a really bright guy. That just seems like a super hard argument to make.

Jordan does have six FMVPs, five MVPS, a ROY, and a DPOY. That's a ton of hardware. And really good stats across the board.

If you're going to make the case, I think you need to make it based on "goodness" (quality as a player/skillset/abilities/impact) as opposed to "greatness" (accolades/achievements). The key points you'll have to hit are:

• defenses today are better, and were in particular after zone defense was allowed and before handchecking was banned
• defensive schemes are better than ever now, in no small part thanks to the analytics revolution
• 80s MJ played a style of basketball that wouldn't be conducive do winning in today's defensive era (or the early 90s); particularly, teams would take the drive away in any meaningful game/series (in general, scouting is better than ever) and there are fewer transition opportunities than ever (lower pace)
• defense by non-bigs is not very meaningful on a team level, as their impact is limited
• Kobe has superior range, and this in an era where the three is a legitimate weapon and is defended properly
• Kobe did play with bigs, but they weren't good closers (Shaq needed Kobe against Portland and SA in particular); he faces more defensive attention than MJ because he is the only perimeter creator on his teams (MJ had scottie)
• the positional competition in Kobe's era is superior, and he faced better wing defenders throughout his career
• Kobe has superior longevity (in terms of wear-and-tear in the NBA, not based on age)
• over-expansion leading to dilution of talent, while in Kobe's era top-flight international players have finally been integrated into the league

I think that's everything. Again, I don't personally think Kobe is better than Jordan, but one could go through the above and make a case for him.

[Sudanese Sensation]

Biz is a really bright guy. That just seems like a super hard argument to make.

Jordan does have six FMVPs, five MVPS, a ROY, and a DPOY. That's a ton of hardware. And really good stats across the board.

If you're going to make the case, I think you need to make it based on "goodness" (quality as a player/skillset/abilities/impact) as opposed to "greatness" (accolades/achievements). The key points you'll have to hit are:

• defenses today are better, and were in particular after zone defense was allowed and before handchecking was banned
• defensive schemes are better than ever now, in no small part thanks to the analytics revolution
• 80s MJ played a style of basketball that wouldn't be conducive do winning in today's defensive era (or the early 90s); particularly, teams would take the drive away in any meaningful game/series (in general, scouting is better than ever) and there are fewer transition opportunities than ever (lower pace)
• defense by non-bigs is not very meaningful on a team level, as their impact is limited
• Kobe has superior range, and this in an era where the three is a legitimate weapon and is defended properly
• Kobe did play with bigs, but they weren't good closers (Shaq needed Kobe against Portland and SA in particular); he faces more defensive attention than MJ because he is the only perimeter creator on his teams (MJ had scottie)
• the positional competition in Kobe's era is superior, and he faced better wing defenders throughout his career
• Kobe has superior longevity (in terms of wear-and-tear in the NBA, not based on age)

I think that's everything. Again, I don't personally think Kobe is better than Jordan, but one could go through the above and make a case for him.

Would it be fair to say you are arguing Jordan played in a weaker era?

[town bidness]

kobe has the longest run of uncanny consistency along with being the lone player in the history of this sport to win rings with not only totally different cores but three straight finals with a lesser core from the previous. all of this after a complete rebuild in only four seasons. this places kobe in a category all on his own because unlike rick barry and his lackluster team, kobe was able to repeat (although barry had a better team the year after he won his ring and got bounced from the playoffs, though i dont know the details because it was before my time) and hakeem only got two.... albeit in spectacular fashion.

he's the best player of his era and the top sg to date that has five rings in seven finals with another great team in the same conference. something the #2 sg all time had the luxury of not having to deal with and still made less finals in a diluted era called the 90s. to top that all off, kobe has been the top or the close #2 scorer, top defender, main ball handler thus being the top assist man, played out of position his entire career, the individual responsible for bailing the team out of last second shot clock situations, the closer for every championship team he's been a part of and often times the unjustified scapegoat for when the team comes up short. jordan comes up short in this regard. jordan was a gunners gunner and solid on defense though vastly overrated. pippen did the heavy defensive lifting on the perimeter. kobe had no such luxury.

doing this all in the face of being shunned by the media to further prop up the media darling and petulant dunce shaq also performing masterly whilst going through a fraudulent rape accusation.

now, with jordan being the face of nike, gatoraide and all that was good in bball, he had massive failures in the playoffs both pre and even worse post pippen with his jaw dropping selfishness in dc, he could not further capitalize on a tepid era devoid of any great teams other than his bulls, he quit on his teammates multiple times. once with zero notice in fact, though that team barely missed a beat the next year in only dropping a couple games the following year, had the luxury of stat padding in the 80s when the sg position was at it's nadir and shot his teams to terrible records to barely get in the playoffs, never could beat the bird lead celtics... in fact could never get a single game in the playoffs... never mind a series, lacks the requisite skills to be a starting sg today... who is going to start a sg that has no range? could an outside game have been developed? maybe but reality is he didnt have range.

accounting for the differences of the eras both players performed in although jordan has more points (for the moment) kobe has a eerily similar pps because he made almost as many threes as jordan attempted and was the more varied scorer and needed no crutch for all his rings. that's with kobe dealing with MUCH better defenses.

that said, jordans' game was taken by kobe as a child and built upon it by filling those holes like jordan did with with the games of david thompson and iceman (i think). so jordan should take pride in playing a small part in kobes' development but kobe exceeded jordan. they are clearly the number one and two sg in history and no one comes close. kobe is the evolution of jordan and that pissed of millions of slavish jordan fans.

the mvps would carry more weight if the coaches still did the voting but it's just a media award. the scoring titles and all that are more impressive but indicative of the era he was in. his actual scoring production is another story. no one was close to jordan in the 90s as far as scoring and the sg position was starting to get better as players like the 'jordan stopper' gerald wilkins and sleepy floyds' of the nba began to wash out the league and be replaced with vastly better talent.

there's more but that's what i'll present for now.

[FPL]

Biz is a really bright guy. That just seems like a super hard argument to make.

Jordan does have six FMVPs, five MVPS, a ROY, and a DPOY. That's a ton of hardware. And really good stats across the board.

If you're going to make the case, I think you need to make it based on "goodness" (quality as a player/skillset/abilities/impact) as opposed to "greatness" (accolades/achievements). The key points you'll have to hit are:

• defenses today are better, and were in particular after zone defense was allowed and before handchecking was banned
• defensive schemes are better than ever now, in no small part thanks to the analytics revolution
• 80s MJ played a style of basketball that wouldn't be conducive do winning in today's defensive era (or the early 90s); particularly, teams would take the drive away in any meaningful game/series (in general, scouting is better than ever) and there are fewer transition opportunities than ever (lower pace)
• defense by non-bigs is not very meaningful on a team level, as their impact is limited
• Kobe has superior range, and this in an era where the three is a legitimate weapon and is defended properly
• Kobe did play with bigs, but they weren't good closers (Shaq needed Kobe against Portland and SA in particular); he faces more defensive attention than MJ because he is the only perimeter creator on his teams (MJ had scottie)
• the positional competition in Kobe's era is superior, and he faced better wing defenders throughout his career
• Kobe has superior longevity (in terms of wear-and-tear in the NBA, not based on age)

I think that's everything. Again, I don't personally think Kobe is better than Jordan, but one could go through the above and make a case for him.

Would it be fair to say you are arguing Jordan played in a weaker era?

I'm not arguing that, but it would have to be central to one's argument if that is what one chose to argue.

One point I forgot to add is:

• over-expansion leading to dilution of talent, while in Kobe's era top-flight international players have finally been integrated into the league

[town bidness]

Biz is a really bright guy. That just seems like a super hard argument to make.

Jordan does have six FMVPs, five MVPS, a ROY, and a DPOY. That's a ton of hardware. And really good stats across the board.

thank you sir. maybe not so much bright as nobodies fool.

i dont put much stock at all in mvps, fmvps are a bit different those do mean a bit more and jordans dpoy is quite suspect. jordan was not the defender alvin robertson or sidney moncrief was during that time.

hell pip never go a dpoy and we know who was the best defender on those bulls teams.

[Sudanese Sensation]

If you're going to make the case, I think you need to make it based on "goodness" (quality as a player/skillset/abilities/impact) as opposed to "greatness" (accolades/achievements). The key points you'll have to hit are:

• defenses today are better, and were in particular after zone defense was allowed and before handchecking was banned
• defensive schemes are better than ever now, in no small part thanks to the analytics revolution
• 80s MJ played a style of basketball that wouldn't be conducive do winning in today's defensive era (or the early 90s); particularly, teams would take the drive away in any meaningful game/series (in general, scouting is better than ever) and there are fewer transition opportunities than ever (lower pace)
• defense by non-bigs is not very meaningful on a team level, as their impact is limited
• Kobe has superior range, and this in an era where the three is a legitimate weapon and is defended properly
• Kobe did play with bigs, but they weren't good closers (Shaq needed Kobe against Portland and SA in particular); he faces more defensive attention than MJ because he is the only perimeter creator on his teams (MJ had scottie)
• the positional competition in Kobe's era is superior, and he faced better wing defenders throughout his career
• Kobe has superior longevity (in terms of wear-and-tear in the NBA, not based on age)

I think that's everything. Again, I don't personally think Kobe is better than Jordan, but one could go through the above and make a case for him.

Would it be fair to say you are arguing Jordan played in a weaker era?

I'm not arguing that, but it would have to be central to one's argument if that is what one chose to argue.

One point I forgot to add is:

• over-expansion leading to dilution of talent, while in Kobe's era top-flight international players have finally been integrated into the league

On a somewhat related point I do get tired of hearing how great the ballers of yore were. Today's athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger and the game has evolved.

I told this story before. I was reading about one of the Lakers coaches of the 60s and his coaching consisted of telling flatulence jokes and asking "what are we going to do tonight, guys". i doubt today's coaches get more than five hours of sleep a night.

[town bidness]

Biz is a really bright guy. That just seems like a super hard argument to make.

Jordan does have six FMVPs, five MVPS, a ROY, and a DPOY. That's a ton of hardware. And really good stats across the board.

If you're going to make the case, I think you need to make it based on "goodness" (quality as a player/skillset/abilities/impact) as opposed to "greatness" (accolades/achievements). The key points you'll have to hit are:

• defenses today are better, and were in particular after zone defense was allowed and before handchecking was banned
• defensive schemes are better than ever now, in no small part thanks to the analytics revolution
• 80s MJ played a style of basketball that wouldn't be conducive do winning in today's defensive era (or the early 90s); particularly, teams would take the drive away in any meaningful game/series (in general, scouting is better than ever) and there are fewer transition opportunities than ever (lower pace)
• defense by non-bigs is not very meaningful on a team level, as their impact is limited
• Kobe has superior range, and this in an era where the three is a legitimate weapon and is defended properly
• Kobe did play with bigs, but they weren't good closers (Shaq needed Kobe against Portland and SA in particular); he faces more defensive attention than MJ because he is the only perimeter creator on his teams (MJ had scottie)
• the positional competition in Kobe's era is superior, and he faced better wing defenders throughout his career
• Kobe has superior longevity (in terms of wear-and-tear in the NBA, not based on age)
• over-expansion leading to dilution of talent, while in Kobe's era top-flight international players have finally been integrated into the league

I think that's everything. Again, I don't personally think Kobe is better than Jordan, but one could go through the above and make a case for him.

fine work as usual.

one can go either way but a case certainly can be made.

[Sudanese Sensation]

I would just add something...

I think players should get points for being productive in their "old man" years but shouldn't be deducted points for being unproductive in their "old man" years, especially when they're playing at an age when most of their peers had retired.

[FPL]

Would it be fair to say you are arguing Jordan played in a weaker era?

I'm not arguing that, but it would have to be central to one's argument if that is what one chose to argue.

One point I forgot to add is:

• over-expansion leading to dilution of talent, while in Kobe's era top-flight international players have finally been integrated into the league

On a somewhat related point I do get tired of hearing how great the ballers of yore were. Today's athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger and the game has evolved.

I told this story before. I was reading about one of the Lakers coaches of the 60s and his coaching consisted of telling flatulence jokes and asking "what are we going to do tonight, guys". i doubt today's coaches get more than five hours of sleep a night.

Hm well, that's a point on which we'll have to agree to disagree. I think all stars from the beginning of the shot-clock era would thrive in today's game, as long as you give them a full summer and training camp to adapt. If you have them grow up in today's game, they could be even better.

I don't think there's an issue with talent as long as its during the shot-clock era, but the other shit is important in shaping guys stylistically (weight-training, schemes, scouting, camps, rule changes, etc.).

But yeah, I can understand that some might feel differently, but it's my present stance, and I'm pretty firmly entrenched in this belief.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Biz is a really bright guy. That just seems like a super hard argument to make.

Jordan does have six FMVPs, five MVPS, a ROY, and a DPOY. That's a ton of hardware. And really good stats across the board.

If you're going to make the case, I think you need to make it based on "goodness" (quality as a player/skillset/abilities/impact) as opposed to "greatness" (accolades/achievements). The key points you'll have to hit are:

• defenses today are better, and were in particular after zone defense was allowed and before handchecking was banned
• defensive schemes are better than ever now, in no small part thanks to the analytics revolution
• 80s MJ played a style of basketball that wouldn't be conducive do winning in today's defensive era (or the early 90s); particularly, teams would take the drive away in any meaningful game/series (in general, scouting is better than ever) and there are fewer transition opportunities than ever (lower pace)
• defense by non-bigs is not very meaningful on a team level, as their impact is limited
• Kobe has superior range, and this in an era where the three is a legitimate weapon and is defended properly
• Kobe did play with bigs, but they weren't good closers (Shaq needed Kobe against Portland and SA in particular); he faces more defensive attention than MJ because he is the only perimeter creator on his teams (MJ had scottie)
• the positional competition in Kobe's era is superior, and he faced better wing defenders throughout his career
• Kobe has superior longevity (in terms of wear-and-tear in the NBA, not based on age)
• over-expansion leading to dilution of talent, while in Kobe's era top-flight international players have finally been integrated into the league

I think that's everything. Again, I don't personally think Kobe is better than Jordan, but one could go through the above and make a case for him.

I don't often disagree iwth fpliii, but I do here.

Rule changes that were enforced in spades beginning in the 2006 season made it easier than ever for perimeter players to score relative to post players. Defensive 3s and no hand check rules along with pretty tough enforcement of flagrants opened the lane for quality slashers. In 2006, when the no hand check really got enforced for the first time in a meaningful way, all of the top 10 scorers were wing players (although I am taking the liberty of calling Dirk a wing player in this instance). All but one of them had no career highs in points per game, all but two had career high in field goal % and all but one had career highs in FTAs. All had career high in FTAs/FGAs. 8 wing players went to the line ten or more times that season. To put that in perspective, MJ during his first 3 peat when he was at the height of his slashing ability never came close to sniffing 10 FTAs per game. It gets even more glaring when you look at FTAs per FGA.

A few years later, Wade scored 30 a game and went to the line just under 10 times a game. His attempts for FGA were higher than any single year in MJs career. I consider Wade "MJ Lite". A somewhat inferior version in pretty much every respect. A great slasher, but lacking MJs body control, less hang time, less ability to finish with either hand, less ability to use spin and the backboard to finish, less explosiveness etc.. I truly believe prime MJ playing under those rules would have averaged several more points and had a better field goal percentage. The latter two in part come from more "and 1s" and field goal misses that are negated by shooting foul calls.

Sadly, a lot of the foul calls that have been awarded to wings have come at the expense of post players. The reffing of the post versus the wing became ridiculous. While once upon a time, fouls in the post and the perimeter were not hugely different, muggings go on routinely in the post now with no calls. A guy like Adrian Dantley who was a prolific post scorer out of the SF slot thoughout his career, would be damn near irrelevant in today's NBA.

I do agree that in the last 3-4 years, that advantage has disappeared. Refs are not calling it as tight, defenses have adjusted and wings, while still seeing it an easier pathway to the rim in the regular season in games with less intensity, generally have lost the advantage they had from 2006 till 2010 or so.

In any case, I just disagree with most of the premises in the case you are trying to make. Seen both guys throughout their careers, and only homer glasses can make you believe Kobe is better than MJ.

[FPL]

Biz is a really bright guy. That just seems like a super hard argument to make.

Jordan does have six FMVPs, five MVPS, a ROY, and a DPOY. That's a ton of hardware. And really good stats across the board.

If you're going to make the case, I think you need to make it based on "goodness" (quality as a player/skillset/abilities/impact) as opposed to "greatness" (accolades/achievements). The key points you'll have to hit are:

• defenses today are better, and were in particular after zone defense was allowed and before handchecking was banned
• defensive schemes are better than ever now, in no small part thanks to the analytics revolution
• 80s MJ played a style of basketball that wouldn't be conducive do winning in today's defensive era (or the early 90s); particularly, teams would take the drive away in any meaningful game/series (in general, scouting is better than ever) and there are fewer transition opportunities than ever (lower pace)
• defense by non-bigs is not very meaningful on a team level, as their impact is limited
• Kobe has superior range, and this in an era where the three is a legitimate weapon and is defended properly
• Kobe did play with bigs, but they weren't good closers (Shaq needed Kobe against Portland and SA in particular); he faces more defensive attention than MJ because he is the only perimeter creator on his teams (MJ had scottie)
• the positional competition in Kobe's era is superior, and he faced better wing defenders throughout his career
• Kobe has superior longevity (in terms of wear-and-tear in the NBA, not based on age)
• over-expansion leading to dilution of talent, while in Kobe's era top-flight international players have finally been integrated into the league

I think that's everything. Again, I don't personally think Kobe is better than Jordan, but one could go through the above and make a case for him.

I don't often disagree iwth fpliii, but I do here.

Rule changes that were enforced in spades beginning in the 2006 season made it easier than ever for perimeter players to score relative to post players. Defensive 3s and no hand check rules along with pretty tough enforcement of flagrants opened the lane for quality slashers. In 2006, when the no hand check really got enforced for the first time in a meaningful way, all of the top 10 scorers were wing players (although I am taking the liberty of calling Dirk a wing player in this instance). All but one of them had no career highs in points per game, all but two had career high in field goal % and all but one had career highs in FTAs. All had career high in FTAs/FGAs. 8 wing players went to the line ten or more times that season. To put that in perspective, MJ during his first 3 peat when he was at the height of his slashing ability never came close to sniffing 10 FTAs per game. It gets even more glaring when you look at FTAs per FGA.

A few years later, Wade scored 30 a game and went to the line just under 10 times a game. His attempts for FGA were higher than any single year in MJs career. I consider Wade "MJ Lite". A somewhat inferior version in pretty much every respect. A great slasher, but lacking MJs body control, less hang time, less ability to finish with either hand, less ability to use spin and the backboard to finish, less explosiveness etc.. I truly believe prime MJ playing under those rules would have averaged several more points and had a better field goal percentage. The latter two in part come from more "and 1s" and field goal misses that are negated by shooting foul calls.

Sadly, a lot of the foul calls that have been awarded to wings have come at the expense of post players. The reffing of the post versus the wing became ridiculous. While once upon a time, fouls in the post and the perimeter were not hugely different, muggings go on routinely in the post now with no calls. A guy like Adrian Dantley who was a prolific post scorer out of the SF slot thoughout his career, would be damn near irrelevant in today's NBA.

I do agree that in the last 3-4 years, that advantage has disappeared. Refs are not calling it as tight, defenses have adjusted and wings, while still seeing it an easier pathway to the rim in the regular season in games with less intensity, generally have lost the advantage they had from 2006 till 2010 or so.

In any case, I just disagree with most of the premises in the case you are trying to make. Seen both guys throughout their careers, and only homer glasses can make you believe Kobe is better than MJ.

Again, I noted that I don't believe this to be the case, but those would have to be the points on which one would have to focus if he/she wanted to make that argument.

[town bidness]

I would just add something...

I think players should get points for being productive in their "old man" years but shouldn't be deducted points for being unproductive in their "old man" years, especially when they're playing at an age when most of their peers had retired.

i think that should be taken on an individual level because so few get to that point with having any enduring success in their rear view mirror. jordan should have been able to get that team in dc to the post had he not been so stubborn in taking the most shots and basically demoralizing that young team. had they made the playoffs i wouldnt be able to bring it up i dont think.