Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All MJ did was win championships... 6 times. You can't "touch that". I get what you and Mathguy are sayin'. But there might me some Kobe Homers who don't.
He won 6 times as 'the man' on a team with no true dominant bigman, in an era with the biggest influx of talented bigmen playing at one time.
He's basically the only player in league history around which a multi-championship dynasty was built without the help of a dominant center.
Steve Nash will always be MVP for me. To make it to the NBA western conference finals and not be a top seede team in the west shows his leadership and natural team talent. He just doesn't have the best supporting cast.
Of course not, i mean who is Amare Stoudamire, Grant Hill, Jason Richardson or Robin Lopez? !
With Kobe's performance in that last game, I can't think of any other player in the NBA that can match him. If they vote against Kobe it has to be because they simply don't like the guy. If you watched that game there's no way you vote against him. The only other player I've ever seen play like that was MJ - especially for more than just one game in a playoff series. Simply unbelievable. LeBron has a ways to go and Kobe just showed why.
With Kobe's performance in that last game, I can't think of any other player in the NBA that can match him. If they vote against Kobe it has to be because they simply don't like the guy. If you watched that game there's no way you vote against him. The only other player I've ever seen play like that was MJ - especially for more than just one game in a playoff series. Simply unbelievable. LeBron has a ways to go and Kobe just showed why.
Yep, also the thing people (especially younger guys) forget is that defense wins championships. Kobe is a fixture on the all-defense teams.
Current best player in NBA? Kobe.
We've beaten the Kobe vs. MJ thing to death in other threads and there is enough separation there that I cannot put Kobe to quite that level to do so would mean to put Kobe in the top 2-3 players all time and that's difficult to do when you look at it that way.
He won 6 times as 'the man' on a team with no true dominant bigman, in an era with the biggest influx of talented bigmen playing at one time.
He's basically the only player in league history around which a multi-championship dynasty was built without the help of a dominant center.
Sure would be interesting to put Kobe in MJ's situation and see what he could do with Pippen and the others.
Kobe is about to be in the 3rd straight Finals appearance without Shaq, with a team that isn't quite as talented as the 90's Bulls teams (but pretty close). Granted, he lost that first one to Boston with the Lakers' 2nd (or maybe 3rd) best player at the time being injured (Bynum) - Gasol is definitely their 2nd best player now, but it was a toss up between Gasol and Bynum back then. At age 31, Kobe has been to the Finals as the team's best player 3 times now and has a decent chance at winning 2 of the 3 - we'll see how that plays out. By age 31, Jordan had 3 titles while being the team's best player.
Is Kobe better than MJ? No, not right now. But at age 31, he's pretty close to where MJ was when he was 31 - not quite there, but close. This will be his 7th Finals appearance, he has 4 rings, only one of which he's won being the best player on the team (though this year could be 2), and has had a very impressive playoff run so far this season. If the Lakers can keep talented players around him for the next 4-5 years, it could be pretty interesting. And I think only at that point can you start a fair comparison. If the Lakers had beat the Celtics in 2008 that would have made it tough to dispute when comparing their accomplishments at their age, but it didn't happen, and Kobe will have to make up for that if he wants to be compared to Jordan - and I think he knows that.
Last edited by Ludachris; 06-02-2010 at 01:10 PM..
Yep, also the thing people (especially younger guys) forget is that defense wins championships. Kobe is a fixture on the all-defense teams.
Current best player in NBA? Kobe.
We've beaten the Kobe vs. MJ thing to death in other threads and there is enough separation there that I cannot put Kobe to quite that level to do so would mean to put Kobe in the top 2-3 players all time and that's difficult to do when you look at it that way.
Agreed about defense. And that's why I think people tend to forget how tough Jordan was when paired with Pippen. Pippen had the length and speed to shut down the other team's best player. With those two combined, the Bulls were very tough to beat, even with a bunch of role players... though some of their big men weren't all that bad either
We'll see if Artest can be a fraction of what Pippen was for Jordan in this next series. If he plays half as good as Pippen did on defense I think the Lakers win. Of course, I think Bynum needs to play at least as well as he had in the last round, giving them close to 10 points and 8 rebounds per game.
Sure would be interesting to put Kobe in MJ's situation and see what he could do with Pippen and the others.
Kobe is about to be in the 3rd straight Finals appearance without Shaq, with a team that isn't quite as talented as the 90's Bulls teams (but pretty close). Granted, he lost that first one to Boston with the Lakers' 2nd (or maybe 3rd) best player at the time being injured (Bynum) - Gasol is definitely their 2nd best player now, but it was a toss up between Gasol and Bynum back then. At age 31, Kobe has been to the Finals as the team's best player 3 times now and has a decent chance at winning 2 of the 3 - we'll see how that plays out. By age 31, Jordan had 3 titles while being the team's best player.
Is Kobe better than MJ? No, not right now. But at age 31, he's pretty close to where MJ was when he was 31 - not quite there, but close. This will be his 7th Finals appearance, he has 4 rings, only one of which he's won being the best player on the team (though this year could be 2), and has had a very impressive playoff run so far this season. If the Lakers can keep talented players around him for the next 4-5 years, it could be pretty interesting. And I think only at that point can you start a fair comparison. If the Lakers had beat the Celtics in 2008 that would have made it tough to dispute when comparing their accomplishments at their age, but it didn't happen, and Kobe will have to make up for that if he wants to be compared to Jordan - and I think he knows that.
IMO it's the FG% that separates the two. Kobe has a number of nagging injuries and he isn't getting any younger but there is no point speculating as he is a 1st ballot HOFer.
The thing that separated Jordan from guys like Olajuwon etc. was that he played at that really high level for YEARS. Kobe for a while was trying way too hard to prove himself...I think it was just in the past 3-4 years that he really elevated his game and we will just have to wait and see how long he can keep it at a high level.
Disputing the old Jordan vs. Bryant is a useless point especially when people get into their opinions of number of championship rings as only counting when you are the team's best player. C'mon... are we in grade school.
Bill Russel won 11 championships rings along with 5 mvps does that make him a better overall player than Jordan with his 6 rings...NO!!!
Shaq, at the peak of his career..could he have really won those championships without Kobe, Fisher, Horry or any of the other talented players of that Laker Era....NO!!!
Could Jordan have won the 6 championships without the talents of Pippen, Horace Grant, Craig Hodges, Armstrong, Steve Kerr....People forget about how deep that team was.
How about this...If Kobe had left the lakers instead of Shaq, would Shaq have been able to bring the championship home against the celtics in 2008 without bryant....NO!!!!
Currently Rondo is top dog on the celtics with a championship ring from 2008...Does that make him better than Allen Iverson, Steve Nash, or John Stockton....Of course not.
For me my top player list is... Kobe bryant: best shooting guard of 2010 Steve Nash: best point guard of 2010 Lebron James: best small forward of 2010 Kevin Garnett: best Power Forward of 2010 Dwight Howard: best Center of 2010
Agreed about defense. And that's why I think people tend to forget how tough Jordan was when paired with Pippen. Pippen had the length and speed to shut down the other team's best player. With those two combined, the Bulls were very tough to beat, even with a bunch of role players... though some of their big men weren't all that bad either
We'll see if Artest can be a fraction of what Pippen was for Jordan in this next series. If he plays half as good as Pippen did on defense I think the Lakers win. Of course, I think Bynum needs to play at least as well as he had in the last round, giving them close to 10 points and 8 rebounds per game.
Bynum is hurt.
The irony being that the last 2 years it has been injuries that has decided the winner with Boston not even getting to the finals due to them last year.
This is the great unknown and frankly I don't feel the Lakers have really faced a tough team yet in the playoffs where the Celtics have bounced 2 teams already tougher than the Suns.
Also curious if the Lakers will adjust to a team that won't let them shoot >50% for the series.
Don't get me wrong, both teams healthy I call it a dog fight in favor of the Lakers....I just don't know *how* hurt they are. Could be a close series and at any given moment a new injury could crop up on a key player that makes the playoffs lopsided either way.
Bynum is hurt.
The irony being that the last 2 years it has been injuries that has decided the winner with Boston not even getting to the finals due to them last year.
This is the great unknown and frankly I don't feel the Lakers have really faced a tough team yet in the playoffs where the Celtics have bounced 2 teams already tougher than the Suns.
Also curious if the Lakers will adjust to a team that won't let them shoot >50% for the series.
Don't get me wrong, both teams healthy I call it a dog fight in favor of the Lakers....I just don't know *how* hurt they are. Could be a close series and at any given moment a new injury could crop up on a key player that makes the playoffs lopsided either way.
It's all about match-ups. As good as a team can look against one opponent, they can always look terrible against another opponent - just look at how the Celtics struggled against lesser teams in the 2008 playoffs and beat up on Lakers team favored to win it all (even though they were injured).
I think the Lakers look old against the faster teams (Suns, Thunder, etc) but match-up better against teams like Boston. It just suits their style of play better, which is why I think the series will be tougher for both the Lakers and the Celtics. Just as Boston might have beat "tougher" teams, they haven't faced a team as talented or as experienced as the Lakers yet. It goes both ways. Both teams have looked extremely good and have struggled too in these playoffs.
It should be fun to watch, that's for sure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just kidding. I won't go there.
Could be a close series and at any given moment a new injury could crop up on a key player that makes the playoffs lopsided either way.
