#apples2oranges

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]Apparently a "Nets fan" too ... very similar to Heavincent. East coast people who defend Kobe like the fiercest of LA stans (YMF, AlphaWolf24, eliteballer, etc)[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I don't care if they're Kobe fans. I just find it funny that these guys STILL believe Jordan and Kobe are, [I]virtually[/I], the SAME player. That you replace Kobe w/ Jordan and he would have the same career (and vice versa).

I'm over debating this TIRED subject.

[QUOTE=tpols]Care to explain where you disagree?[/QUOTE]

I might take your post more seriously if you occasionally picked a different side of the argument. I take your opinion of a Jordan/Kobe debate about as seriously as Bruce Bowens, both of you guys are just as sad, only different sides of the spectrum.

[QUOTE=Poochymama]I might take your post more seriously if you occasionally picked a different side of the argument. I take your opinion of a Jordan/Kobe debate about as seriously as Bruce Bowens, both of you guys are just as sad, only different sides of the spectrum.[/QUOTE]
I just dont see how saying MJ wouldve fueded with Shaq after winning 4 titles is.. crazy. Not like Jordan wouldnt have won after Shaq.. end his career with 6 or more titles.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Honestly, I don't care if they're Kobe fans. I just find it funny that these guys STILL believe Jordan and Kobe are, [I]virtually[/I], the SAME player. That you replace Kobe w/ Jordan and he would have the same career (and vice versa).

I'm over debating this TIRED subject.[/QUOTE]
Kobe wins a ring w/ the Bulls in '94, '96, and '97 ... I give them that.

MJ being the superior player, and bringing unique assets Kobe does not posses IMO he couldn't replicate what MJ did in '91, '92, '93, and '98 with those Bulls rosters.

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]Kobe wins a ring w/ the Bulls in '94, '96, and '97 ... I give them that.

MJ being the superior player, and bringing unique assets Kobe does not posses IMO he couldn't replicate what MJ did in '91, '92, '93, and '98 with those Bulls rosters.[/QUOTE]

There are people in this thread that think Kobe would've gotten 5 rings w/ those Bulls teams. ****ing mind boggling. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=tpols]Im sorry, but this post is way, way too simplistic and doesnt have its roots grounded in reality.

First off you have to use context of what would happen in this scenario.

Rookie MJ would join the Lakers in the late 90s and be a promising young player alongside a very dominant Shaquille Oneal. We all know the offense wouldve still ran through Shaq, and MJ wouldnt have been given full reign to ball out like he did in his first year with the Bulls. Shaq wouldve been the undisputed man.

We all know MJ was a firery competitor and always wanted to be the best. Thats was his goal. To be the best. We all know MJ had a great work ethic, and we also know that he had a hard time trusting his teammates up until 6+ years into his career when Phil reigned him in and made him develop a trust in the system. He was very much seen as an individual type talent and not a true team player ala the greats before him Magic and Larry. That was the main knock on early MJ.

Now, you give a guy who wants to be the best to ever do it, who is insanely competitive and pushes others around him to work as hard as he did, a dominant entering his prime SHAQ and what happens?

They win 2-3 titles within the first 4-5 years easy.. and who gets the credit? Obviously Shaq. He would still feast on the subpar frontlines in th EAST and would still win FMVPs and be seen as the 'man' on those teams.

How does MJ respond to that?

Possessing many of the same traits Kobe does but to a larger than life degree(the real version-competitiveness, the ultimate dick, workaholic, physcotic confidence) MJ wouldve likely tried to get his share of the glory himself and wouldve gunned for FMVPs and to be the featured weapon etc.

Except MJ wouldve done it BETTER than Kobe and he wouldve actually won some of those awards over Shaq because he was actually that good. So say they win 2-3 titles with Shaq getting the glory and then they win their first one with MJ getting the FMVP and large share of the credit?

How does Shaq respond to that? The same Shaq that fueded with Penny.. and Kobe.. and Wade isnt going to fued with perhaps the most demanding and dickheaded player of all time stealing his thunder in the dead middle of his prime ? What?

Guarantee that relationship goes sour well before 5 titles, much less 8 or 10. Thats a joke because we SAW MJ get bored after winning three straight and retire to play baseball. But hes not going to get bored cakewalking to multiple chips with Shaq? MJ always wanted a challenge.

Not only that, but according to andgar, MJ left the league after his three chips because of a giant gambling conspiracy. And were going to act like that type of shit wouldnt affect his ability to stack titles? Having to leave the league under a guise in the middle of his prime because his competitive nature backfired on him(extreme addiction to gambling)?

Not only that but if you look at MJ's leadership.. it was largely built under his tenure with the Bulls where he had to fight it out with undermanned squads against legendary opponents like the C's and Bad Boy Pistons. He built that character and hunger to win through adversity and failing time and time again.. getting nailed in the me3dia for being too selfish and not being good enough. He BUILT that leadership.

It would not have been the same if he got it handed to him from the start. He wouldnt have learned and grown the same way as a player.

This stuff is delicate. It s not a video game where you add up imaginary numbers.

As far as Kobe? Well never know because Pippen developed under MJ.. and so did Kobe actually lol.. Well never know. He literally couldve been a journeyman. You cant just transpose players onto teams without looking at their circumstances. And since Kobe patterned his game from MJ, we would have to assume hed pattern his game off Dr. J or some other great from before him in this hypothetical. Its too messy at that point though.

And sorry for the pauk style essay lol[/QUOTE]

Good post.

MJ would probably of had Shaq in the best condition of his life. No way Jordan would let Shaq coast through practices and allowed him to be lazy. Who knows, he could of made Shaq into GOAT(not that he already is top 3 now).

It's all very hypothetical, Jordan may not of had the same impact with the Lakers team, because in all likelyhood, there probably wouldn't be any team good enough to challenge them. So all the clutch plays, the flu game, and all the close battles that help build his legacy would not be in existence and people would be saying he isn't that great considering he has Shaq and how stacked they are.

Jordan is one of my favourite players, and his legacy was built on the adversity and challenges he had playing for the Chicago Bulls. It is too simplistic to say that Jordan's impact and GOAT status would be the same if he donned himself a Lakers uniform.

[QUOTE=tpols]Possessing many of the same traits Kobe does but to a larger than life degree(the real version-competitiveness, the ultimate dick, workaholic, physcotic confidence) MJ wouldve likely tried to get his share of the glory himself and wouldve gunned for FMVPs and to be the featured weapon etc.
[/QUOTE]
Good post but I disagree with this part.

The problem is you think MJ was the same as Kobe personality wise when he wasn't, just because they were both 2 of the most cutthroat/competitive athletes ever doesn't automatically mean they would've handled the situations the same way.

We've never seen MJ play with a player even close to being as good as Shaq so it's unlikely he would've sacrificed winning championships for individual glory.

[QUOTE=poido123]Good post.

MJ would probably of had Shaq in the best condition of his life. No way Jordan would let Shaq coast through practices and allowed him to be lazy. Who knows, he could of made Shaq into GOAT(not that he already is top 3 now).

It's all very hypothetical, Jordan may not of had the same impact with the Lakers team, because in all likelyhood, there probably wouldn't be any team good enough to challenge them. So all the clutch plays, the flu game, and all the close battles that help build his legacy would not be in existence and people would be saying he isn't that great considering he has Shaq and how stacked they are.

Jordan is one of my favourite players, and his legacy was built on the adversity and challenges he had playing for the Chicago Bulls. It is too simplistic to say that Jordan's impact and GOAT status would be the same if he donned himself a Lakers uniform.[/QUOTE]
Fvcking thank you.

I cant believe the Jordan stans jump on my ass within 2 minutes of my post.:oldlol:

And then act like its impossible for Jordan to have fueded with a player who fueded with damn near everyone.

[QUOTE=Young X]Good post but I disagree with this part.

The problem is you think MJ was the same as Kobe personality wise when he wasn't, just because they were both 2 of the most cutthroat/competitive athletes ever doesn't automatically mean they would've handled the situations the same way.

We've never seen MJ play with a player even close to being as good as Shaq so it's unlikely he would've sacrificed winning championships for individual glory.[/QUOTE]
Precisely. This "MJ was a dick" thing is getting blown out of proportion. PJ himself said MJ was gregarious. He chided teammates but also BUILT THEM UP, and gave them confidence. He included them in poker games on planes, gave them a chance to win money from (as he said) a way of giving back his much bigger contracts from the Bulls to his teammates. That stuff goes a long way. Meaning, he was an inherently better leader. Being a cut throat competitor doesn't make you a dick for life.

I'm tired of the misrepresentation of who MJ was. Like a little kid would walk up to him as him for an autograph and he would spit on the kid and say NO. MJ was NOT that kind of guy.

[QUOTE=tpols]Im sorry, but this post is way, way too simplistic and doesnt have its roots grounded in reality.

First off you have to use context of what would happen in this scenario.

Rookie MJ would join the Lakers in the late 90s and be a promising young player alongside a very dominant Shaquille Oneal. We all know the offense wouldve still ran through Shaq, and MJ wouldnt have been given full reign to ball out like he did in his first year with the Bulls. Shaq wouldve been the undisputed man.

We all know MJ was a firery competitor and always wanted to be the best. Thats was his goal. To be the best. We all know MJ had a great work ethic, and we also know that he had a hard time trusting his teammates up until 6+ years into his career when Phil reigned him in and made him develop a trust in the system. He was very much seen as an individual type talent and not a true team player ala the greats before him Magic and Larry. That was the main knock on early MJ.

Now, you give a guy who wants to be the best to ever do it, who is insanely competitive and pushes others around him to work as hard as he did, a dominant entering his prime SHAQ and what happens?

They win 2-3 titles within the first 4-5 years easy.. and who gets the credit? Obviously Shaq. He would still feast on the subpar frontlines in th EAST and would still win FMVPs and be seen as the 'man' on those teams.

How does MJ respond to that?

Possessing many of the same traits Kobe does but to a larger than life degree(the real version-competitiveness, the ultimate dick, workaholic, physcotic confidence) MJ wouldve likely tried to get his share of the glory himself and wouldve gunned for FMVPs and to be the featured weapon etc.

Except MJ wouldve done it BETTER than Kobe and he wouldve actually won some of those awards over Shaq because he was actually that good. So say they win 2-3 titles with Shaq getting the glory and then they win their first one with MJ getting the FMVP and large share of the credit?

How does Shaq respond to that? The same Shaq that fueded with Penny.. and Kobe.. and Wade isnt going to fued with perhaps the most demanding and dickheaded player of all time stealing his thunder in the dead middle of his prime ? What?

Guarantee that relationship goes sour well before 5 titles, much less 8 or 10. Thats a joke because we SAW MJ get bored after winning three straight and retire to play baseball. But hes not going to get bored cakewalking to multiple chips with Shaq? MJ always wanted a challenge.

Not only that, but according to andgar, MJ left the league after his three chips because of a giant gambling conspiracy. And were going to act like that type of shit wouldnt affect his ability to stack titles? Having to leave the league under a guise in the middle of his prime because his competitive nature backfired on him(extreme addiction to gambling)?

Not only that but if you look at MJ's leadership.. it was largely built under his tenure with the Bulls where he had to fight it out with undermanned squads against legendary opponents like the C's and Bad Boy Pistons. He built that character and hunger to win through adversity and failing time and time again.. getting nailed in the me3dia for being too selfish and not being good enough. He BUILT that leadership.

It would not have been the same if he got it handed to him from the start. He wouldnt have learned and grown the same way as a player.

This stuff is delicate. It s not a video game where you add up imaginary numbers.

As far as Kobe? Well never know because Pippen developed under MJ.. and so did Kobe actually lol.. Well never know. He literally couldve been a journeyman. You cant just transpose players onto teams without looking at their circumstances. And since Kobe patterned his game from MJ, we would have to assume hed pattern his game off Dr. J or some other great from before him in this hypothetical. Its too messy at that point though.

And sorry for the pauk style essay lol[/QUOTE]

It's not simplistic at all.

You have to understand how good MJ was right away. The Lakers were a 56 win team without Kobe in 97. Adding a rookie MJ to that team and they make the finals in my opinion

Now, Jordan got hurt in his 2nd year. So we'll throw that out.

3rd year MJ and Shaq in 99? 50/50 if they beat the Spurs. It's not simplistic...you just have no clue how good Jordan actually was compared to early on Kobe.

Obviously then the 3 peat.

Then 1 more for sure title in 03 or 04.

So again...even if you take a year away from Jordan for his injury...you get 5 titles very easily.

If you want to talk about quitting or MJ getting bored or something like that...that is a different story.

But here is reality. Kobe will end his career with 3 more rings than he would have had if he didn't luck into playing with Shaq. The only other player of the era that would have yielded 1 title to Kobe in the 8 year stretch to start his career was Duncan. So if Kobe doesn't play with Duncan or Shaq...he's winless early on

And the downside? His ppg would likely be 1 to 3 points higher per game with his fg% dipping 1% or so

The only thing that would change is that Kobe would be already behind Lebron all time and West vs Kobe would be more of a legit debate

That is it.

Those 5 rings are a huge positive on his legacy and for Kobe to pretend like it was bad luck or something is just absurd

He got to play with prime/peak Shaq for 8 years.

And do you realize that MJ was better than Shaq?

This myth that Kobe had to give anything up for Shaq is nonsense. MJ would have still averaged over 30 a game.

It's not like MJ and Kobe would have played the exact same role. The Lakers would have gone to MJ more than they went to Kobe for the simple reason MJ was much better.

I see it being Shaq as the better player from 97 to 00...and then MJ from 01 through 04.

I have no doubt MJ would have had his issues with Shaq...but Shaq would have listened to MJ...hell, just look at the relationship Shaq and Wade had in 05 and 06. They got it done and Shaq was leading the "flash" bandwagon

The GOAT and peak Shaq is just too good to overcome for the league then.

Hey, at least Kobe proved he could win without Shaq, Jordan on the other hand...

[QUOTE=The-Legend-24]Hey, at least Kobe proved he could win without Shaq, Jordan on the other hand...[/QUOTE]

:lebronamazed:

[QUOTE=The-Legend-24]Hey, at least Kobe proved he could win without Shaq, Jordan on the other hand...[/QUOTE]
Jordan won all of his titles without Shaq you moron.:oldlol:

oh... I fell for it.

[QUOTE=The-Legend-24]Hey, at least Kobe proved he could win without Shaq, Jordan on the other hand...[/QUOTE]
Proved he could sweep Shaq's team?

Or do you mean when post prime MJ ('97 and '98) led the Bulls to 2x straight rings with his second best player (Pippen) being a total SHELL of himself in the playoffs due to a back injury?

Riiiiight.

[QUOTE=The-Legend-24]Hey, at least Kobe proved he could win without Shaq, Jordan on the other hand...[/QUOTE]

Ok, this is trolling...:lol:

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]I don't agree with that post, I'm pretty sure '85 Jordan - '89 Jordan paired up with '97 - 2004 Shaq wins multiple rings. Jordan coming into the league was flat out much better player, and made much more impact than Kobe did from '97 - 2000, and Shaq was peaking.

Kobe's career situation is very confusing, though. Which makes ranking him very difficult. He played an awesome second fiddle to Shaq winning three rings, but his production in 2001 almost makes him an equal to Shaquille O'Neal. One could make the argument he was not a sidekick that season.

His most productive or eye popping statistical years individually (2003 excluded) came in his absolute PEAK as a player on bad teams 27 - 30 years old on the 2006, 2007, and 2008 Lakers.

Jordan at his absolute peak '90, '91, '92 and '93 of the same ages was formatting his game to championship contenders, while trying to be a selfless team leader and utility player. Not going on scoring binges, when he was obviously at his absolute best as a player.

Kobe was the best from a leader perspective in 2008 and 2009. He finally got it. He finally seemed mature. He actually finally struck a balance in his game (2008 at least) ... He involved teammates, was trusting, gregarious, and didn't rule over them with an iron fist.

It seems since LeBron won MVP in 2009, thereafter Kobe relentlessly gunned to try and prove he was still an MVP caliber player. Probably because he knew from a legacy perspective, he needed more MVP trophies.

This is where Kobe's need to prove people wrong takes a turn for the worse, because he focuses on the trees and not the forrest. Even more noticeable the past two seasons when his burden should be easing with advanced age and regressing abilities, he should be more of a zen like cerebral team leader by delegating to teammates the way MJ did in '97 and '98 at comparable ages. It seems like he regressed mentally as a leader at times.


[/QUOTE]

Good post

If MJ played with Shaq, he'd earn FMVP over Shaq. For Kobe, this would never happen so the Lakers had to sent Shaq away.

[QUOTE=Ne 1][QUOTE]Yes, Kobe was blessed to play with Shaq, but on the flip-side looking at it there's certain things you learn and develop quicker when you are the #1 guy.[/QUOTE]

Like how to handle pressure, and as history has proven, even a veteran Kobe wanted out, after 2 measly years of "adversity" as a leader.


[QUOTE]In Kobe's case it would be his intelligence, passing (or rather willingness to do it), leadership, creativity (would definitely have to create more for others), skill, all of which improved rapidly when he was given the team.
[/QUOTE]

Kobe has never shown a willingness to pass on any consistent basis except for maybe 2 seasons being team leader. He stayed gunning for scoring titles, but always kept coming up short.


[QUOTE]If he had this privilege since around 2001ish...one can only wonder how many 33+ ppg seasons we could have seen. He also would have had the chance to wait and have a championship contending team built around him so years like 2006 and 2007 (ages at which Jordan won rings...and prime ages for most players) wouldn't be completely wasted.[/QUOTE]

Had Kobe been the focal point of the team, under 2001ish rules, he wouldn't sniff anything near 27ppg, let alone 33ppg. We have all seen how Kobe will keep shooting while seeing double team after double team, ending games on 5-21 type shooting, game after game.

As far as his prime being "wasted", that was his own doing, pouting like a b!tch, shooting his team out of the Finals, and stringing the Lakers along, hinting that he ain't coming back to the team, if Shaq returns. Just like this past season, he got EXACTLY what he was asking for, regarding team makeup and coaching style.

[QUOTE]Ideal situation for maximizing your legacy is getting a chance to put up mind blowing stats early on in your career as you wait for your team to improve. If you lose in the playoffs, it's because of the lack of supporting cast so you're excused.[/QUOTE]

You're "excused" if you're the only person on the team that's doing anything worth a damn, while your front office is content to just sell tickets off the back of your ability to reinvigorate and alter the game, year after year, while slowly adding pieces to help you get over the hump.

And lets not act like Kobe didn't have plenty of time to put up "Mind Blowing Stats" as well. He's never been efficient, nor consistent enough to do it, no matter what type of teammates he's played with.


[QUOTE]Then as you get around 26-27 years old, management should have put nice pieces around you (unless they fu*ck up) and you are on a contender for your prime and late-prime years (as #1 option, which is key). Helps even more if the competition at the top of the league wanes as your team gets better. This gives you all those early individual accomplishments and then later on the team ones as well[/QUOTE]

Also helps when you can prove, time and time again, that you're just flat out BETTER than whoever goes up against you, and not curling into a fetal position once you make it to the Finals and have a chance to win it all.

[QUOTE=guy]Kobe is insecure as shit to write this. He's clearly holding on to that reason in any comparison to Jordan. Its funny because what Phil said in those quotes at least HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SHAQ or career achievements. Phil doesn't say anything like "if Kobe got to lead his own team from the beginning he would've been a better player and accomplished more i.e. like Jordan." To basically steer the argument in a different direction reeks of insecurity.[/QUOTE]

In general, Kobe is right. If Jordan came into the league playing with Shaq his first 8 years he wouldn't have the same amount of scoring titles, MVP's, Finals MVP's, and overall statistics which would change how he's viewed historically.

Kobe wasn't a starter until 1999, he came into the league as an unproven 17 year old kid out of high-school and had to unseat a quality, 2x ALL-STAR veteran shooting guard (Eddie Jones) who was ahead of him on the roster ... JUST to earn his position, first.

The Bulls were MJ's franchise from the get go ... he was a grown man upon entering the league, and was a starter with the keys to the town from the word "go" and given a free reign.

I think the apples/oranges comparison is missing a lot of shit in here - Kobe is saying that if Mike had to play with Shaq, that he would be consider the "sidekick." And if he played with Scottie/Grant, he might be considered the greatest. Their situations dictated how they were perceived. It seems that people are reading this and coming to the conclusion that Phil is saying that he's not near the player that Mike was and that's just not true. Phil didn't say anything like that, he just said Mike was better.

I agree that Mike is better but the gap between the 2 isn't as astronomical as people want to make it.

And let's address this leadership nonsense Phil is spewing.

Again, Jordan was a full grown man approx the same age as everyone else on his team. He was not the youngest guy or close to the youngest on his team. That right there alone changes the dynamics of who's a leader and who isn't.

In addition. He was the most alpha male dominant presence in the locker room. Also Phil sided with Jordan because he was the best player and the biggest alpha male in the locker room.

Phil sided with Shaq who was the most dominant big man in the NBA and Shaq was also an alpha male. But Kobe was too. Neither one would back down. There was no Pippen to MJ relationship with Shaq and Kobe, Phil sided with Shaq, which made Kobe choose to leave or back down for the moment and win these rings. We know what happened; 3peat. Kobe was a young kid out of high school. how hard would it be for a perfectionist hoop junky kid to try and lead a team full of old guys? Kobe is just playing semi passive to be a team guy and win rings with O'Neal. More or less swallowing his pride and winning those first 3. Only showing you how ridiculously good he was vs the Spurs and Kings in the playoffs when the team needed him the most.

Anyway, lets take a look at the age difference

Jordan's Bulls the year they won their 1st ring:
Jordan was 27 years old in his 7th season in the NBA

Player Age
Scott Williams 22
B.J. Armstrong 23
Stacey King 24
Will Perdue 25
Dennis Hopson 25
Horace Grant 25
Scottie Pippen 25
Michael Jordan 27
Cliff Levingston 30
Craig Hodges 30
John Paxson 30
Bill Cartwright 33

Lets look at Kobe.. this dude was the youngest on the team, 21 years old (2nd year in the league as a starter, just barely legal enough to grab a beer). With prime Shaq being in the middle at 27. 6 years older than Kobe and an established superstar and 8 year veteran. There was no way on earth Kobe could've LEAD that team like Mike lead the Bulls. Too many old heads. He's too young and Shaq was older with seniority and too dominant and had too big of an ego to ever allow it to happen. And lastly, Phil took sides before he gave kobe a chance to lead. This is why its so much an apples to oranges comparison.

Player Age
Ron Harper 36
A.C. Green 36
John Salley 35
Brian Shaw 33
Glen Rice 32
Rick Fox 30
Robert Horry 29
Shaquille ONeal 27
Derek Fisher 25
Travis Knight 25
Sam Jacobson 24
Devean George 22
Tyronn Lue 22
John Celestand 22
Kobe Bryant 21

Kobe stans straight up buggin'. Still. :oldlol:

Kobetards are :mad:

[QUOTE=poido123]Good post.

MJ would probably of had Shaq in the best condition of his life. No way Jordan would let Shaq coast through practices and allowed him to be lazy. Who knows, he could of made Shaq into GOAT(not that he already is top 3 now).

It's all very hypothetical, Jordan may not of had the same impact with the Lakers team, because in all likelyhood, there probably wouldn't be any team good enough to challenge them. So all the clutch plays, the flu game, and all the close battles that help build his legacy would not be in existence and people would be saying he isn't that great considering he has Shaq and how stacked they are.

[B]Jordan is one of my favourite players, and his legacy was built on the adversity and challenges he had playing for the Chicago Bulls. It is too simplistic to say that Jordan's impact and GOAT status would be the same if he donned himself a Lakers uniform.[/B][/QUOTE]

Great point. Not to mention, Jordan would have had going to the most "Winningest Franchise" right after Magic's era to join another All time Great, who had already been to the Finals hanging over his head as well.

What he did for the Bulls was put them on the Map, and made people take notice that the League's not just about Boston, LA and NY, just like Duncan did with the Spurs. He'd be just be another all time great player who played for the Lakers. Ho Hum, how exciting that would have been.

:rolleyes:

Plus, his kicks would have had some seriously sh!tty colorways, had he been a Laker. Yikes!!


:oldlol:

[QUOTE=Ne 1]In general, Kobe is right. If Jordan played with Shaq his first 8 years he wouldn't have the same amount of scoring titles, MVP's, Finals MVP's, and overall statistics which would change how he's viewed historically.

Kobe wasn't a starter until 1999, he came into the league as an unproven 17 year old kid out of high-school and had to unseat a quality, established 2x ALL-STAR veteran shooting guard (Eddie Jones) who was ahead of him on the roster ... JUST to earn his position, first.

The Bulls were MJ's franchise from the get go ... he was a grown man upon entering the league, and was a starter with the keys to the town from the word "go" and given a free reign.

I think the apples/oranges comparison is missing a lot of shit in here - Kobe is saying that if Mike had to play with Shaq, that he would be consider the "sidekick." And if he played with Scottie/Grant, he might be considered the greatest. Their situations dictated how they were perceived. It seems that people are reading this and coming to the conclusion that Phil is saying that he's not near the player that Mike was and that's just not true. Phil didn't say anything like that, he just said Mike was better.

I agree that Mike is better but the gap between the 2 isn't as astronomical as people want to make it.[/QUOTE]

Is he right? Maybe, maybe not. But even if he is right, its completely stupid to attribute that big of a difference to their career path. COMPLETELY STUPID. It is not far-fetched at all to say Jordan in Kobe's situation would've at minimum won 7-8 championships, 4-5 Finals MVPs, 3-4 MVPs, 4-5 scoring titles. Kobe doesn't even come close to that. No one is saying someone has to match or surpass Jordan in all accolades. If someone won 7 titles, 4 FMVPs, 3 MVPs, 4 scoring titles vs. 6 titles, 6 FMVPs, 5 MVPs, 10 scoring titles, it would be understandable if the difference is due to career path and people could reasonably argue that the first guy on paper could still match up with the 2nd guy. But 5 titles, 2 FMVPs, 1 MVP, 2 scoring titles vs. 6 titles, 6 FMVPs, 5 MVPs, 10 scoring titles is WAY TOO BIG of a difference to attribute to "career path".

On top of that, lets stop acting like Kobe hasn't played 9 ****ing seasons without Shaq now. He's played without Shaq as long as Jordan played pre-first retirement now. You can take any 9 year period of Jordan's career, and Kobe's post Shaq career accolades still falls short, even if you include a period that includes his retirements. Shit, just take either 3-peat period and compare it to Kobe's post Shaq career accolades and it still falls short (2 titles, 2 FMVPs, 1 MVP, 2 scoring titles vs. 3 titles, 3 FMVPs, 2 MVPs, 3 scoring titles) :oldlol:

Anyway, your response was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to my point, just like Kobe's response to Phil's comparisons was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to his point, which clearly shows his insecurity. He's done this multiple times now when it comes to the Jordan comparison. He brings up playing with Shaq when no one else alludes to it almost like its an automatic, robotic response. What does everything that Phil said have to do with their different career paths and having or not having to play with Shaq? This is basically the argument of Phil and the response of Kobe:

Phil: Jordan was a better leader that got along with his teammates better and didn't alienate them as much as Kobe did.
Kobe: Well I had to play with Shaq.

Phil: Jordan was a better defender then Kobe.
Kobe: Well I had to play with Shaq.

Phil: Jordan let the game come to him while Kobe forced himself.
Kobe: Well I had to play with Shaq.

Phil: Jordan had bigger hands then Kobe.
Kobe: Well I had to play with Shaq.

The last one is obviously a joke, but it might as well have happened. What does any of what Phil said have to do with Shaq? In none of those excerpts did Phil say ANYTHING about career achievements. All he did was compare them as players and how good they are by bringing up BASIC SHIT that applies to every NBA player, and removed anything that is reliant at all on team circumstance.

When someone is compared unfavorably by someone else, and their response has nothing to do with what the other person said and basically steers the argument in another direction, it SCREAMS INSECURITY.

[QUOTE=Ne 1]And let's address this leadership nonsense Phil is spewing.

Again, Jordan was a full grown man approx the same age as everyone else on his team. He was not the youngest guy or close to the youngest on his team. That right there alone changes the dynamics of who's a leader and who isn't.

In addition. He was the most alpha male dominant presence in the locker room. Also Phil sided with Jordan because he was the best player and the biggest alpha male in the locker room.

Phil sided with Shaq who was the most dominant big man in the NBA and Shaq was also an alpha male. But Kobe was too. Neither one would back down. There was no Pippen to MJ relationship with Shaq and Kobe, Phil sided with Shaq, which made Kobe choose to leave or back down for the moment and win these rings. We know what happened; 3peat. Kobe was a young kid out of high school. how hard would it be for a perfectionist hoop junky kid to try and lead a team full of old guys? Kobe is just playing semi passive to be a team guy and win rings with O'Neal. More or less swallowing his pride and winning those first 3. Only showing you how ridiculously good he was vs the Spurs and Kings in the playoffs when the team needed him the most.

Anyway, lets take a look at the age difference

Jordan's Bulls the year they won their 1st ring:
Jordan was 27 years old in his 7th season in the NBA

Player Age
Scott Williams 22
B.J. Armstrong 23
Stacey King 24
Will Perdue 25
Dennis Hopson 25
Horace Grant 25
Scottie Pippen 25
Michael Jordan 27
Cliff Levingston 30
Craig Hodges 30
John Paxson 30
Bill Cartwright 33

Lets look at Kobe.. this dude was the youngest on the team, 21 years old (2nd year in the league as a starter, just barely legal enough to grab a beer). With prime Shaq being in the middle at 27. 6 years older than Kobe and an established superstar and 8 year veteran. There was no way on earth Kobe could've LEAD that team like Mike lead the Bulls. Too many old heads. He's too young and Shaq was older with seniority and too dominant and had too big of an ego to ever allow it to happen. And lastly, Phil took sides before he gave kobe a chance to lead. This is why its so much an apples to oranges comparison.

Player Age
Ron Harper 36
A.C. Green 36
John Salley 35
Brian Shaw 33
Glen Rice 32
Rick Fox 30
Robert Horry 29
Shaquille ONeal 27
Derek Fisher 25
Travis Knight 25
Sam Jacobson 24
Devean George 22
Tyronn Lue 22
John Celestand 22
Kobe Bryant 21[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: this has NOTHING to do with what Phil said. Being able to get along with teammates and not alienate them has nothing to do with age. Being socially awkward or not has NOTHING to do with age. That's personality, which isn't age specific.

:oldlol: at you say Phil is spewing nonsense. The dude is clearly more qualified then anyone to talk about this, and at this point has no reason to be bias towards Jordan. In fact, if he's still positioning himself for a job with the Lakers, he probably has good reason to be bias towards Kobe. Who the **** are you?

[QUOTE=guy]Is he right? Maybe, maybe not. But even if he is right, its completely stupid to attribute that big of a difference to their career path. COMPLETELY STUPID. It is not far-fetched at all to say Jordan in Kobe's situation would've at minimum won 7-8 championships, 4-5 Finals MVPs, 3-4 MVPs, 4-5 scoring titles. Kobe doesn't even come close to that. No one is saying someone has to match or surpass Jordan in all accolades. If someone won 7 titles, 4 FMVPs, 3 MVPs, 4 scoring titles vs. 6 titles, 6 FMVPs, 5 MVPs, 10 scoring titles, it would be understandable if the difference is due to career path and people could reasonably argue that the first guy on paper could still match up with the 2nd guy. But 5 titles, 2 FMVPs, 1 MVP, 2 scoring titles vs. 6 titles, 6 FMVPs, 5 MVPs, 10 scoring titles is WAY TOO BIG of a difference to attribute to "career path".

On top of that, lets stop acting like Kobe hasn't played 9 ****ing seasons without Shaq now. He's played without Shaq as long as Jordan played pre-first retirement now. You can take any 9 year period of Jordan's career, and Kobe's post Shaq career accolades still falls short, even if you include a period that includes his retirements. Shit, just take either 3-peat period and compare it to Kobe's post Shaq career accolades and it still falls short (2 titles, 2 FMVPs, 1 MVP, 2 scoring titles vs. 3 titles, 3 FMVPs, 2 MVPs, 3
scoring titles) :oldlol: [/QUOTE]

No no no, you're not getting it. Because Kobe had to play second fiddle to Shaq all these years, it prevented Kobe from developing his leadership skills the way Jordan did! Winning 3 titles by your sixth season is obviously far far worse than winning no titles until your seventh season. Yes yes, if Kobe was on a scrub team from the beginning, he would have ended up with a better legacy than he is now, because, you know, he would have developed better leadership, game management and bigger hands.

:roll: :roll:

LONG read, so buckle up.

The truth is, Phil is as mesmerized by MJ as is all the MJ lovers. If it wasn't for Mike, he would not be "the ZEN MASTER" sitting on that many rings. He and Mike had a great relationship. Not so with Phil and Kobe that first time around.

Kobe wasn't about that Zen talk. AT ALL. He told Phil many of times "look man, you can miss me with all that Zen talk and book reading stuff. I know multiple languages, I lived in Italy. I'm probably more well rounded then you and I'm younger. Just tell me what you need me to do on the court so I can do that and we can win. Let's keep it simple. Keep the zen talk to yourself or your other players that need that to motivate them. i don't need motivation. I'm a basketball junkie, NERD to the 1000th degree. I eat, sleep and breathe baksetball.

So that broke Phillips heart. He wasn't feeling Kobe ever since. When he and Phil got back together with Gasol and the band. Kobe started to read more of Phil's books and push that ZEN talk to everyone else. This is when Phil gives Kobe props for becoming a better leader. Notice only when Kobe start imparting PHIL-izms on others did Phil give Kobe leadership props.

Coaches sell you something and they want their players to buy in. Kobe wasn't buying what Phil was selling during the 2000-2004 era. Kobe just wanted to win and be told do what on the court. You can keep that zen stuff to yourself. I don't need help focusing. I'm more focused then any man that has ever touched a basketball, including that compulsive gambling alcoholic, I need to take time off to play baseball Mike.

If you ever want to know how focused Kobe is/was about baksetball. Look no further then the rape case and him coming off of a plane flight after fighting for his LIFE then hitting game winners the same day. He didn't need ZEN to do that. Sure it may have gave what he already had a name. But Kobe is another type of animal when it comes to basketball. you may never see anyone that this focused on hoop again in your life. and I'm not saying its necessarily a good thing to be Kobe focused, when it comes to one thing. Doing that makes you lose perspective on life outside of the game. Which is where the loaner/aloof comments come from. But again Kobe's own dad said Kobe is a basketball nerd. How many super nerds do you know that act aloof, and are loaners? A lot of them. So it makes perfect sense.

Mike didn't come in the NBA when he was a baby alongside a bunch of full grown men. Kobe was fresh off the prom. How is he going to lead anyone at that age playing behind an all-star 2 guard in Eddie Jones already, a stubborn older All-Star Nick shoot you in then shoot you out Van Exel, and big ego I'm the MAN Shaq? Not going to happen. How was Kobe going to lead full grown prime Diesel, full grown veteran Rick Fox. Full grown veteran Horry sitting on 2 Rockets championship rings?

How in the hell was a KID low 20 something Kobe going to lead those full grown men? He wasn't.

[QUOTE]Being able to get along with teammates and not alienate them has nothing to do with age. Being socially awkward or not has NOTHING to do with age. That's personality, which isn't age specific.
[/QUOTE]

Glad you brought this up. Let's go back to this aloof thing. Besides Kobe being a hoop nerd.

Kobe was a KID fresh off his prom when he got into the NBA. He tried to stay away from the nightlife to stay focused. We ask our stars to do this all the time. Do we not? Yet we fault Kobe for not heading out to the club with 27 year old Shaq and 30 year old Robert Horry and Rick Fox. Kobe couldn't even legally drink.

How many teenagers do you know hanging out with grown men in their 30's? YOU DON'T.

Most star players like Kobe, end up on lowly teams due to the draft. Those teams are usually weak because they have a team full of younger guys (past draft picks that have not yet panned out). That's never the case with the Lakers.

The youngest team the Lakers had was when they traded Shaq and they had Lamar Odom, Smush Parker, Luke Walton, Brian Cook, etc. and that team sucked. But yet Kobe lead them to the playoffs in a deep/stacked Western Conference and almost got them to past the heavily favored #2 seed. Has Mike ever upset any team with a lesser team? Nope. He has never come close to an upset. Mike's team was always head and shoulders better then the team he was matched up against. Not his fault. Just a reality of the situation.

At the end of the day, don't be fooled by Phil's books. Phil LOVES drama. He knows drama sells and he's trying to sell a book here. Phil used to side with Shaq when he first came to L.A. (he admitted this himself) which strained his relationship with Kobe. Now I'm not saying he should've sided with Kobe. But a real leader coach could've figured a way how to bring them both together and make them understand how much they needed one another. That never happened. Sure, they won 3 in a row, but they barely could do that due to the infighting and clashing that had a lot to do with Phil choosing sides since he knew Shaq was the big baby of both Kobe and Shaq. Even though Shaq was older. Shaq needed his ego caressed.

[QUOTE]The dude is clearly more qualified then anyone to talk about this[/QUOTE]

Appeal to authority.

[QUOTE=K Xerxes]Winning 3 titles by your sixth season is obviously far far worse than winning no titles until your seventh season.

:roll: :roll:[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and he never get's full credit from people for those 3 rings. How many times did we here from 2005-2008, "Kobe will never win without Shaq"? and "Kobe wouldn't have won those rings without Shaq." Even until this day people still say that Kobe was Shaq's 2nd fiddle, so they put a qualifier on his first 3 rings and say that only his 2009 and 2010 rings "count" even though he proved he could win without Shaq.

Actually seems like on ISH and similar site that no rings is equal to any rings "2nd option." For example, many times I've seen people on this site rank Wade or over Pippen or say Wade is better than Pippen because Wade has won a ring as "the man", while Pippen's 6 rings rings don't even "count" because he was the "2nd option."

[QUOTE=Ne 1]Yeah, and he never get's full credit from people for those 3 rings. How many times did we here from 2005-2008, "Kobe will never win without Shaq"? and "Kobe wouldn't have won those rings without Shaq." Even until this day people still say that Kobe was Shaq's 2nd fiddle, so they put a qualifier on his first 3 rings and say that only his 2009 and 2010 rings "count" even though he proved he could win without Shaq.[/QUOTE]

There are haters for every great athlete, and Kobe's haters will say anything they can to diminish his status. They can say that Kobe was gifted three rings, but anyone clued up on the game knows that he was a factor in all three, and particularly crucial in '01 and '02. Besides, his two rings as the man validates that he [I]can[/I] win without Shaq, which means it should be easy to debunk.

In the eyes of the average fan, would Kobe be 'greater' with 2 rings and 2 finals MVPs, or with 5 rings and 2 finals MVPs? Just think about it, if LeBron won this year, he would have as many finals MVPs as Kobe, but Kobe fans still have the overall ring argument.

Stop kidding yourself, the three titles with Shaq only augments his legacy in the long run, not diminishes. In 20 years time when the new superstars will be centre stage, people will forget this sort of stuff. People will forget what happened in '02. People will forget the decision. Etc etc.

[QUOTE=tpols]Im sorry, but this post is way, way too simplistic and doesnt have its roots grounded in reality.

First off you have to use context of what would happen in this scenario.

Rookie MJ would join the Lakers in the late 90s and be a promising young player alongside a very dominant Shaquille Oneal. We all know the offense wouldve still ran through Shaq, and MJ wouldnt have been given full reign to ball out like he did in his first year with the Bulls. Shaq wouldve been the undisputed man.

We all know MJ was a firery competitor and always wanted to be the best. Thats was his goal. To be the best. We all know MJ had a great work ethic, and we also know that he had a hard time trusting his teammates up until 6+ years into his career when Phil reigned him in and made him develop a trust in the system. He was very much seen as an individual type talent and not a true team player ala the greats before him Magic and Larry. That was the main knock on early MJ. [/QUOTE]

Jordan had a hard time trusting his teammates cause they sucked. The players he was playing with were either scrubs or players who relied strictly on talent, and didn't care much about winning and were involved in drug use. COMPLETELY different from who he would be playing with in LA. He wouldn't have a problem trusting Shaq who clearly wasn't like that and was one of the most dominant players ever. He wouldn't have a problem trusting veterans like Horry, Shaw, Harper, and Fox who had the experience and only cared about winning.

And you realize in this situation, he'd actually get Phil EARLIER in his career?

[QUOTE=tpols]
Now, you give a guy who wants to be the best to ever do it, who is insanely competitive and pushes others around him to work as hard as he did, a dominant entering his prime SHAQ and what happens?

They win 2-3 titles within the first 4-5 years easy.. and who gets the credit? Obviously Shaq. He would still feast on the subpar frontlines in th EAST and would still win FMVPs and be seen as the 'man' on those teams.

How does MJ respond to that?

Possessing many of the same traits Kobe does but to a larger than life degree(the real version-competitiveness, the ultimate dick, workaholic, physcotic confidence) MJ wouldve likely tried to get his share of the glory himself and wouldve gunned for FMVPs and to be the featured weapon etc.

Except MJ wouldve done it BETTER than Kobe and he wouldve actually won some of those awards over Shaq because he was actually that good. So say they win 2-3 titles with Shaq getting the glory and then they win their first one with MJ getting the FMVP and large share of the credit?

How does Shaq respond to that? The same Shaq that fueded with Penny.. and Kobe.. and Wade isnt going to fued with perhaps the most demanding and dickheaded player of all time stealing his thunder in the dead middle of his prime ? What?

Guarantee that relationship goes sour well before 5 titles, much less 8 or 10. [/QUOTE]

Sooo you think they could win 4 titles, but its a huge jump to say would win 5? Huh? Kobe's relationship with Shaq was rocky even before they won their 2nd title. I don't think anyone said Jordan and Shaq wouldn't have issues. But would it be a problem on the court and as big of a problem as it was with Kobe? Doesn't seem like it. And from Phil's comments, it seems like Jordan would've clearly had a better relationship with Shaq and the rest of his teammates because he was a more likable person that didn't alienate himself from them, and in turn this would make him a leader that they would actually want to follow. From Phil's comments, Jordan was clearly better at adjusting to the personalities of his teammates.

And I'm pretty sure the 8-10 titles comment is including Jordan with Gasol, Odom, Bynum, etc.

[QUOTE=tpols]
Thats a joke because we SAW MJ get bored after winning three straight and retire to play baseball. But hes not going to get bored cakewalking to multiple chips with Shaq? MJ always wanted a challenge.

Not only that, but according to andgar, MJ left the league after his three chips because of a giant gambling conspiracy. And were going to act like that type of shit wouldn't affect his ability to stack titles? Having to leave the league under a guise in the middle of his prime because his competitive nature backfired on him(extreme addiction to gambling)?[/QUOTE]

I don't believe in the gambling conspiracy, but how about mentioning that Jordan's father was murdered? Seems like people think that has nothing to do with it.

And Jordan isn't retiring after only 8 seasons in the league regardless of how bored he is. Thats not happening. Maybe he leaves as a UFA, but that wouldn't have been possible until 8 seasons after. Anyway, in these scenarios, I don't think its fair to assume Jordan doesn't retire, because that was the trajectory his career took and it would be unfair to give him two more great seasons that just didn't happen. But even if with retiring, that doesn't mean wouldn't have stacked his resume up like he actually did. But just for speculation's sake, I could see him NOT retiring like he did because even if he is winning FMVPs and MVPs unlike Kobe, he'd probably still get the criticism that he couldn't win without Shaq, which would've kept him motivated.

[QUOTE=tpols]
Not only that but if you look at MJ's leadership.. it was largely built under his tenure with the Bulls where he had to fight it out with undermanned squads against legendary opponents like the C's and Bad Boy Pistons. He built that character and hunger to win through adversity and failing time and time again.. getting nailed in the me3dia for being too selfish and not being good enough. He BUILT that leadership.

It would not have been the same if he got it handed to him from the start. He wouldnt have learned and grown the same way as a player.

This stuff is delicate. It s not a video game where you add up imaginary numbers.[/QUOTE]

So what are you saying? Jordan doesn't build character, hunger, and leadership if he doesn't face the Celtics and Pistons? There's different ways for it to happen. In general, that stuff happens to EVERYONE as they get older, including Kobe regardless of having to play with Shaq. In general, your general habits like work ethic and personality are fully established by your late teens/early twenties. You don't really change much as a person after that. Experience/knowledge might alter your approach a little to things after that, but the things that Phil was talking about like charisma and motivation are innate, which is why he didn't refer to Kobe's not getting the reigns from the beginning but instead referred to his life before the NBA which didn't include college. Its the same reason you can't simply say switch Kobe with AI, T-Mac, or Carter, and AI/T-Mac/Carter would be considered one of the greatest players and still going strong, while Kobe would be out of the league or barely holding on to a roster spot right now. They clearly didn't have the drive and work ethic as Kobe.

[QUOTE=tpols]
As far as Kobe? Well never know because Pippen developed under MJ.. and so did Kobe actually lol.. Well never know. He literally couldve been a journeyman. You cant just transpose players onto teams without looking at their circumstances. And since Kobe patterned his game from MJ, we would have to assume hed pattern his game off Dr. J or some other great from before him in this hypothetical. Its too messy at that point though.

And sorry for the pauk style essay lol[/QUOTE]

So basically you're saying we can't compare players? The comparison isn't that complicated. We're just talking about their NBA careers. Not before that. So basically, they are what they were entering the NBA, and how they developed before that doesn't really matter. They were going to progress the way they progressed for the most part because of their focus and desire, and their personality and work ethic were almost fully established at that point, which meant that career path wasn't going to change much WHO they were. The fact that he patterned his game from Jordan doesn't really matter. If we are going to nitpick on things like that, we can go as far back as analyzing their parents and who raised them better, which could play into who was better. Its stupid.

you guys are not getting the point here. MJ's ego is just as big as Kobe's. So imagine MJ playing with prime Shaq, they sure will at least 3peat, but what would happen a few championships? I just don't see MJ not being overshadowed by Shaq's dominance during the eaerly 2000s. Would MJ get worked up about this? I think most likely.

Don't know why Kobe must continue to bitch - he's one of the luckiest players ever. He played with MDE for 8 years, with GOAT coach for the majority of his career, played under an owner willing to spend, team salaries $10s of millions over the luxury tax, in a city that attracts free agents like no other. What more can he possibly want? Now he's using Shaq as an excuse vs MJ :eek:

Kobe - newsflash - there is no comparison - MJ put up better stats than you, won more championships, had more impact and was plain just a better player - and all without the BENEFIT of having Shaq attracting double teams. Just think about how many championships you would have if Scottie were your team mate instead of Shaq.

[QUOTE=K Xerxes]There are haters for every great athlete, and Kobe's haters will say anything they can to diminish his status. They can say that Kobe was gifted three rings, but anyone clued up on the game knows that he was a factor in all three, and particularly crucial in '01 and '02. Besides, his two rings as the man validates that he [I]can[/I] win without Shaq, which means it should be easy to debunk.

In the eyes of the average fan, would Kobe be 'greater' with 2 rings and 2 finals MVPs, or with 5 rings and 2 finals MVPs? Just think about it, if LeBron won this year, he would have as many finals MVPs as Kobe, but Kobe fans still have the overall ring argument.

Stop kidding yourself, the three titles with Shaq only augments his legacy in the long run, not diminishes. In 20 years time when the new superstars will be centre stage, people will forget this sort of stuff. People will forget what happened in '02. People will forget the decision. Etc etc.[/QUOTE]

Good points. I've actually wonder myself if people 10, 15, or 20 years from now will care about this "#1" thing as much as we do today regarding the early 00's Lakers. I have seen this discussed regarding the 80's Lakers, but even then it was because it suited the agenda of fans of a certain retired player. Usually, though, people always say "Magic has 5 rings" without a qualifier, even though like Kobe, he won his first few with a superior player. Whenever Kobe's rings are mentioned here an immediate asterisk is attached. It is ironic. The asterisk is based on classification of "#1" and "#2.'

[QUOTE=Ne 1]Glad you brought this up. Let's go back to this aloof thing. Besides Kobe being a hoop nerd.

Kobe was a KID fresh off his prom when he got into the NBA. He tried to stay away from the nightlife to stay focused. We ask our stars to do this all the time. Do we not? Yet we fault Kobe for not heading out to the club with 27 year old Shaq and 30 year old Robert Horry and Rick Fox. Kobe couldn't even legally drink.

How many teenagers do you know hanging out with grown men in their 30's? YOU DON'T.

Most star players like Kobe, end up on lowly teams due to the draft. Those teams are usually weak because they have a team full of younger guys (past draft picks that have not yet panned out). That's never the case with the Lakers.

The youngest team the Lakers had was when they traded Shaq and they had Lamar Odom, Smush Parker, Luke Walton, Brian Cook, etc. and that team sucked. But yet Kobe lead them to the playoffs in a deep/stacked Western Conference and almost got them to past the heavily favored #2 seed. Has Mike ever upset any team with a lesser team? Nope. He has never come close to an upset. Mike's team was always head and shoulders better then the team he was matched up against. Not his fault. Just a reality of the situation.

At the end of the day, don't be fooled by Phil's books. Phil LOVES drama. He knows drama sells and he's trying to sell a book here. Phil used to side with Shaq when he first came to L.A. (he admitted this himself) which strained his relationship with Kobe. Now I'm not saying he should've sided with Kobe. But a real leader coach could've figured a way how to bring them both together and make them understand how much they needed one another. That never happened. Sure, they won 3 in a row, but they barely could do that due to the infighting and clashing that had a lot to do with Phil choosing sides since he knew Shaq was the big baby of both Kobe and Shaq. Even though Shaq was older. Shaq needed his ego caressed.



Appeal to authority.[/QUOTE]

So basically what you're saying is Kobe was socially awkward, could be a disrespectful asshole to his teammates/coaches alienating them in the process, couldn't adjust as well to his teammates personalities, and took longer to mature. :oldlol: You didn't have to write that much to say you agree with Phil. :oldlol:

I don't give a shit that Kobe was a baby coming from High School that didn't know how to respect his elders and didn't bother trying to relate to them. This is about their NBA careers. How they developed before that doesn't change or downplay who was better then the other. Besides, no one forced him to skip college just like no one forced Jordan to go to college.

If you murder someone today, does the fact that you weren't educated enough to know how wrong murder is make you less of a shitty person? Life doesn't work that way.

[QUOTE=dh144498]you guys are not getting the point here. MJ's ego is just as big as Kobe's. So imagine MJ playing with prime Shaq, they sure will at least 3peat, but what would happen a few championships? I just don't see MJ not being overshadowed by Shaq's dominance during the eaerly 2000s. Would MJ get worked up about this? I think most likely.[/QUOTE]

Sure...and maybe MJ leaves sooner than Kobe did.

But that really isn't the point. MJ was flat out better than Kobe...and the gap is enormous early on in their careers.

So if you replaced Kobe's 8 years with Shaq....with MJ...you just get different results. End of story.

Debating what might have happened in terms of MJ leaving or something like that isn't apt because Kobe played with him for 8 years and they had tons of problems on and off the court.

Here is what we know. It is perfectly reasonable to assume prime/peak Shaq paired with MJ for 8 years is going to net 5 titles given the circumstances. You get into tough areas like 97 in which MJ would be going against himself...but I certainly wouldn't put it out of the question that the Lakers beat the Bulls in 97.

Again. The Lakers won 56 games with rookie Kobe playing 15 minutes a game. You put Jordan on that team as the starting 2 guard with Jones coming off the bench and you have a team capable of winning 65 plus games. And a team easily capable of winning the title.

We don't know anything for sure, but given the fact that MJ was far superior to Kobe early on in his career as a player...I'd say it is perfectly reasonable to assume Shaq and MJ win roughly 5 titles in 8 years together. And honestly, that might be low...they might be so good that it's impossible for teams like the Duncan led Spurs in 03 to beat them.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Sure...and maybe MJ leaves sooner than Kobe did.

But that really isn't the point. MJ was flat out better than Kobe...and the gap is enormous early on in their careers.

So if you replaced Kobe's 8 years with Shaq....with MJ...you just get different results. End of story.

Debating what might have happened in terms of MJ leaving or something like that isn't apt because Kobe played with him for 8 years and they had tons of problems on and off the court.

Here is what we know. It is perfectly reasonable to assume prime/peak Shaq paired with MJ for 8 years is going to net 5 titles given the circumstances. You get into tough areas like 97 in which MJ would be going against himself...but I certainly wouldn't put it out of the question that the Lakers beat the Bulls in 97.

Again. The Lakers won 56 games with rookie Kobe playing 15 minutes a game. You put Jordan on that team as the starting 2 guard with Jones coming off the bench and you have a team capable of winning 65 plus games. And a team easily capable of winning the title.

We don't know anything for sure, but given the fact that MJ was far superior to Kobe early on in his career as a player...I'd say it is perfectly reasonable to assume Shaq and MJ win roughly 5 titles in 8 years together. And honestly, that might be low...they might be so good that it's impossible for teams like the Duncan led Spurs in 03 to beat them.[/QUOTE]

MJ is better than Kobe. But that doesn't not justify what Kobe said about apples to oranges.

[QUOTE=dh144498]MJ is better than Kobe. But that doesn't not justify what Kobe said about apples to oranges.[/QUOTE]

Actually it does. Because his response was to Phil's comments, which had nothing to do with their career paths. His comments were about basic aspects that applies to every NBA player. This maybe hard to believe, but not every slight to Kobe can be appropriately prefaced with "he was playing with Shaq."

[QUOTE=dh144498]MJ is better than Kobe. But that doesn't not justify what Kobe said about apples to oranges.[/QUOTE]

But he's implying that their circumstances make any possible comparison invalid.

Which just isn't true. We go to see Kobe both with and without Shaq...as a young player, as an older player...with stacked teams and without stacked teams..the same coaches with the same system playing the same position.

I mean, honestly, the Kobe/MJ comparison is probably the easiest and most apt comparison to make in the history of the game. Two players have never had such similarities from playing style to circumstances....

That is what is so funny. It's actually the best and easiest comparison ever.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]But he's implying that their circumstances make any possible comparison invalid.

Which just isn't true. We go to see Kobe both with and without Shaq...as a young player, as an older player...with stacked teams and without stacked teams..the same coaches with the same system playing the same position.

I mean, honestly, the Kobe/MJ comparison is probably the easiest and most apt comparison to make in the history of the game. Two players have never had such similarities from playing style to circumstances....

That is what is so funny. It's actually the best and easiest comparison ever.[/QUOTE]
You still dont get it though..

Their situations they grew up in, that shaped them as basketball players, were completely opposite.

Thats the point.