What Will The Lakers Do With Kobe?

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
I watched some of those playoffs and Oscar did not looke like he was over the hill. He looked like a guy more interested in winning than in his stats.

That's changing the subject. If this current Laker team could ever get its act together, you'd see the same behavior from Malone. There are plenty of cases where former all-world players accepted lesser roles even though they were still pretty darn good. I'm not debating that point.

I wasn't really challenging your premise, just your categorical statement. As a general rule, every strong team has a core player and the rest of the players adjust their style around that player.

When Wilt Chamberlin joined the Lakers, the main man was Jerry West. So Wilt reinvented himself into a defense and rebounding fiend. I wonder how many modern players would do that?

 

[newfan101]

I completely agree with you elindholm. Yet I think you can even take it a step further. Bryant was arguably the greatest player in the NBA during the Lakers last two championships, yet had to defer to the less talented but more dominant O'Neal. I don't ever remember a time that the best player in the world, in his prime, had to play second fiddle.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by newfan101
yet had to defer to the less talented but more dominant O'Neal.

I'm not sure I understand this point.

My guess is that if you put Kobe on another team, there are about five or six teams that would be made good enough to win the championship. If you put Shaq on another team, there are closer to a dozen who could win it all. Maybe more.

Just look at the Suns. Put Shaq on this team next year and they contend for the championship, inexperience or not. Even with Kobe, they would be lucky to get out of the first round.

 

[newfan101]

Originally posted by George O'Brien
I'm not sure I understand this point.

My guess is that if you put Kobe on another team, there are about five or six teams that would be made good enough to win the championship. If you put Shaq on another team, there are closer to a dozen who could win it all. Maybe more.

Just look at the Suns. Put Shaq on this team next year and they contend for the championship, inexperience or not. Even with Kobe, they would be lucky to get out of the first round.

That's not my argument. Of course Shaq could single handedly make any team a contender. But that's not because he's the best player. It's because he's the biggest and most dominating big man in an era where few exist. While that may make him the most important player in the league, Kobe is still arguably the best player. I'm sure Kobe knows that, and I'm sure he gets frustrated playing second fiddle simply because Shaq's a dominating center, not because he's a better player, leader, or competitor.

 

[elindholm]

My guess is that if you put Kobe on another team, there are about five or six teams that would be made good enough to win the championship. If you put Shaq on another team, there are closer to a dozen who could win it all. Maybe more.

I think that's a valid point, but only if we're talking about this year. O'Neal is already well into the downside of his career, in my opinion, whereas Bryant (external factors willing) is still improving.

Just look at the Suns. Put Shaq on this team next year and they contend for the championship, inexperience or not. Even with Kobe, they would be lucky to get out of the first round.

That's not quite fair, because the Suns (as we'd all agree!) are particularly weak at center. So yes, O'Neal would help the Suns more. But who would help, say, the Pacers more? I'd say Bryant. How about the Pistons? Bryant again, in my opinion. The Mavericks? Surely O'Neal. The Kings? Probably Bryant, since their game relies so much on passing and moving, but it's a tough call. The point is, it depends on the situation.

I'll go out on a limb here: If Bryant and O'Neal split up before either retires (or is, ahem, otherwise removed from the NBA), Bryant will win another title before O'Neal does. In fact, I believe that O'Neal will never win another title without Bryant as a teammate.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by newfan101
That's not my argument. Of course Shaq could single handedly make any team a contender. But that's not because he's the best player. It's because he's the biggest and most dominating big man in an era where few exist. While that may make him the most important player in the league, Kobe is still arguably the best player. I'm sure Kobe knows that, and I'm sure he gets frustrated playing second fiddle simply because Shaq's a dominating center, not because he's a better player, leader, or competitor.

Interesting argument. I can't say I buy it, but it is interesting.

 

[F-Dog]

Originally posted by newfan101
That's not my argument. Of course Shaq could single handedly make any team a contender. But that's not because he's the best player. It's because he's the biggest and most dominating big man in an era where few exist. While that may make him the most important player in the league, Kobe is still arguably the best player. I'm sure Kobe knows that, and I'm sure he gets frustrated playing second fiddle simply because Shaq's a dominating center, not because he's a better player, leader, or competitor.

I think it's a very silly argument. Sure, as soon as you redefine what "best" means (to what? most Jordan-like?), Kobe is the "best" player in the league.

Of course, if go back to the usual definitions, Kobe isn't even in the top three, but so what?

I'll go out on a limb here: If Bryant and O'Neal split up before either retires (or is, ahem, otherwise removed from the NBA), Bryant will win another title before O'Neal does. In fact, I believe that O'Neal will never win another title without Bryant as a teammate.

If Kobe leaves next year, I'll happily take that bet. You think that Kobe is the only one who'd like to prove what he can do on his own?

Is Bryant selfish? Sure. All great players are selfish. They all want to be the one who leads the team, takes the important shots, gets the credit. I hope that no one thinks that Jordan or any other great player was any different. The difference was that Jordan was always the best player on his team, so there was no need for him to defer to anyone. And his teammates knew better than to question his aloof, superior attitude.

Another difference is that Bryant isn't nearly as good as Jordan was at the same age, and he'll probably never be able to play at that level.

Kobe Bryant is a great player, but he's going to need teammates to win championships, good ones, which means he might have to develop some leadership skills along the way. He's not going to do that without some meaningful losses under his belt, though.


I wouldn't guarantee that Kobe will win a championship after he leaves the Lakers, and he's definitely not going to shut out the rest of the league.

I wouldn't put it past him to average 40 ppg over an entire season, though.

 

[George O'Brien]

I'll go out on a limb here: If Bryant and O'Neal split up before either retires (or is, ahem, otherwise removed from the NBA), Bryant will win another title before O'Neal does. In fact, I believe that O'Neal will never win another title without Bryant as a teammate.

Since I do not believe Bryant will leave for at least a year, this is not much of a reach. By then, Malone will be gone and probably Payton, so the general weakness of the Lakers backup people would be a big problem for them. However, if Kobe leaves this summer...

 

[elindholm]

Another difference is that Bryant isn't nearly as good as Jordan was at the same age

Huh? Bryant has been plagued by injury this season, so let's look at last year, when he was 24 years old. Jordan turned 24 during the '86-'87 season, so we could look at either that year or '87-'88. Let's go with '87-'88, in which Jordan's overall numbers were better.

Bryant '02-'03 versus Jordan '87-'88 looks like this:

Points: Jordan 35.0, Bryant 30.0
FG%: Jordan .535, Bryant .451
3FG%: Jordan .132, Bryant .383
FT%: Jordan .841, Bryant .843
Assists: Jordan 5.9, Bryant 5.9
Rebounds: Jordan 5.5, Bryant 6.9
Steals: Jordan 3.2, Bryant 2.2
Other minor stats: Jordan generally has a slight edge

So Jordan was a bigger scorer and shot a much higher percentage. However, defenses of the mid-80's weren't nearly as sophisticated as they are now (just look who the perennial title contenders were, the Lakers and Celtics) and shooting percentages across the league were higher. With defenses packing the middle now a lot more, three-point shooting becomes a more important weapon, and Bryant has a huge edge there. One could argue that Jordan hadn't added the three-point weapon to his game because he didn't yet need it, but that tells you a lot about the defense of the era right there.

Other stats are fairly even, with Bryant having a rebounding edge and Jordan leading in several minor categories. On the other hand, Jordan was still three years away from his first championship.

In short, while you could argue who was the better player overall, I think it's not accurate to say that Bryant "isn't nearly as good" as Jordan was. They look pretty comparable to me.

 

[George O'Brien]

Oh, NOW you believe in statistics.

You left out a big difference. During the '80's, the Bulls did not have much support for Michael. I watched Michael score 63 points in a playoff game against the Celtics, which was one of the most dominant performance by a guard I've ever seen.

 

[F-Dog]

Originally posted by elindholm
Another difference is that Bryant isn't nearly as good as Jordan was at the same age
...

In short, while you could argue who was the better player overall, I think it's not accurate to say that Bryant "isn't nearly as good" as Jordan was. They look pretty comparable to me.

You mean that their statistics look pretty comparable, right? (And even that is charitable, isn't it?)


Jordan was an otherworldly athlete--Kobe is not nearly on that level. There are several players in the NBA who are at least as athletic as Kobe is.

On defense, young Jordan could guard any perimeter player, even the quicker point guards. Kobe can't even guard the quicker shooting guards in the NBA.

Young Jordan could go 1-on-5 in crunch time and get high-percentage shots close to the basket. Kobe takes fadeaways, like Jordan did when he got old.

By the time Jordan looked like Kobe looks today, though, he had championship savvy, the refs in his pocket, and other players afraid to look at him. Kobe has a long way to go to get to that point, and since his body seems to be breaking down already, who says he'll get there before his athletic ability slips even more?

 

[newfan101]

Originally posted by F-Dog
I think it's a very silly argument. Sure, as soon as you redefine what "best" means (to what? most Jordan-like?), Kobe is the "best" player in the league.

Of course, if go back to the usual definitions, Kobe isn't even in the top three, but so what?

I'm not understanding how this is silly. It's been stated by several sportwriters that during the Lakers run, they had arguably the best basketball player in Kobe and the most dominating one in Shaq. You guys are acting like this is some wierd left field argument. I was simply stating that I couldn't remember the last time a player who could be regarded as the best in the game had to play second fiddle. Add to the fact that Shaq doesn't always give it his all, gets out of shape, doesn't improve important facets of his game, like free throw shooting .. etc, and it's easy to see why a competitive, top 5 talent like Kobe would get frustrated.

 

[F-Dog]

Originally posted by newfan101
I'm not understanding how this is silly. It's been stated by several sportwriters that during the Lakers run, they had arguably the best basketball player in Kobe and the most dominating one in Shaq. You guys are acting like this is some wierd left field argument.

You're right, I've seen this argument before. (It didn't hold any water then, either.)

Those are some very silly sportswriters.

 

[elindholm]

Jordan was an otherworldly athlete--Kobe is not nearly on that level.

On what do you base this claim? And since when is pure athleticism a measure of greatness anyway?

I concede that Jordan was probably a better defensive player.

Young Jordan could go 1-on-5 in crunch time and get high-percentage shots close to the basket.

I think this is related to the more physical defense that is permitted today. It's harder to get to the rim now because the "threshold" for what constitutes a foul is a lot higher.

Kobe has a long way to go to get to that point, and since his body seems to be breaking down already

It's true that Bryant's shoulder issues could become a recurring problem.

During the '80's, the Bulls did not have much support for Michael. I watched Michael score 63 points in a playoff game against the Celtics, which was one of the most dominant performance by a guard I've ever seen.

And do you doubt that Bryant could do something similar if he were a one-man team? It was just last season that he set a new record for consecutive games scoring 40+, when O'Neal went down.

 

[F-Dog]

Originally posted by elindholm
Jordan was an otherworldly athlete--Kobe is not nearly on that level.

On what do you base this claim? And since when is pure athleticism a measure of greatness anyway?

Watching both of them play. Are you really going to dispute this?


Athletic ability is huge in basketball. Jordan's edge in athleticism was his main advantage over his rivals, and Kobe's much smaller edge in athleticism is his main advantage over most of his rivals.

Even playing against someone at the Y, it's fairly obvious that the better athlete has a significant advantage on the basketball court.

Originally posted by elindholm
I concede that Jordan was probably a better defensive player.

If by 'probably', you mean 'not even in the same ballpark', then I concur.

 

[newfan101]

Originally posted by F-Dog
You're right, I've seen this argument before. (It didn't hold any water then, either.)

Those are some very silly sportswriters.

My, aren't we cocky. This isn't a crazy, stupid argument. You either agree or disagree. The only thing silly is to take such a demeaning, arrogant stance on this issue. I simply don't care enough about this to take this any further.

 

[F-Dog]

Originally posted by newfan101
My, aren't we cocky. This isn't a crazy, stupid argument. You either agree or disagree. The only thing silly is to take such a demeaning, arrogant stance on this issue. I simply don't care enough about this to take this any further.

I intended to sound cocky and arrogant, but not demeaning...sorry if it came across that way.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by F-Dog



If by 'probably', you mean 'not even in the same ballpark', then I concur.

Ridiculous. The guy doesn't make the 1st team all-defense for just standing around. I honestly don't think you've seen him play very much. Kobe is an outstanding defender.

 

[George O'Brien]

This is just so BORING.

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Ridiculous. The guy doesn't make the 1st team all-defense for just standing around. I honestly don't think you've seen him play very much. Kobe is an outstanding defender.

Kobe Bryant is a pretty good defender, but I would agree with F-Dog that he isn't even in the same ballpark as Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan turned himself into one of the best defensive guards ever. Kobe Bryant is pretty good, but remember that he has a safety net named Shaquille O'Neal that Michael Jordan never had. Frankly I believe Kobe Bryant is an overrated defender.

Joe Mama

 

[F-Dog]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Ridiculous. The guy doesn't make the 1st team all-defense for just standing around. I honestly don't think you've seen him play very much. Kobe is an outstanding defender.

Kobe can be first team all-defense and still not be in the same ballpark as Jordan.

I have yet to see Kobe dominate on defense like Jordan did--Jordan could swallow his man alive, or he could shut down half the court away from the ball.

 

[scotsman13]

Originally posted by elindholm
In short, while you could argue who was the better player overall, I think it's not accurate to say that Bryant "isn't nearly as good" as Jordan was. They look pretty comparable to me.

joe there is only one thing that you are forgetting. jordan didnt play with shaq kobe does. jordan has always been the main guy with the bulls and he lead the team to 6 championships. while kobe is #2 on the lakers and when shaq is out the lakers lose a big % of the time.

stats were the end all be all of the nba then we wouldnt even be any question if marion was a superstar, but there are questions about that and that is why a lot of people question where kobe can be a superstar without shaq on the floor.

 

[Suns_fan69]

I was pretty young during Jordan's hey day, and wasn't much into basketball then, but it sure seems like there are a lot more guys in this league who are super ahtletic these days. Certainly much higher percentage of the total league then when Jordan was in his prime.

Put Jordan in his prime today in this league and I don't think he'd stand head and shoulders above the competition as far as athleticism is concerned.

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by scotsman13
joe there is only one thing that you are forgetting. jordan didnt play with shaq kobe does. jordan has always been the main guy with the bulls and he lead the team to 6 championships. while kobe is #2 on the lakers and when shaq is out the lakers lose a big % of the time.

stats were the end all be all of the nba then we wouldnt even be any question if marion was a superstar, but there are questions about that and that is why a lot of people question where kobe can be a superstar without shaq on the floor.

That wasn't me. That was Eric. I would agree with you as far as comparing Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant goes. At this point, and it is still early in Kobe Bryant's career (assuming he doesn't go to jail), I don't think it's close. I think Michael Jordan was much better than Kobe Bryant. If you replaced Kobe Bryant with Michael Jordan the Lakers would have won the last 5-6 NBA championships.

Joe Mama