Printable View
[QUOTE]NB4 PJax releases staements saying Kobe was a better shooter and better facilitator....Both Kobe and MJ have attributes better then each other.
Jordan friends will reply with ...he had to...he was under pressure by his girlfriend....
MJ is really leaps and bounds ahead of Kobe with the ball and shooting...check FG%[/QUOTE]
........
[QUOTE=tpols]You still dont get it though..
Their situations they grew up in, that shaped them as basketball players, were completely opposite.
Thats the point.[/QUOTE]
So we should never compare any players ever then. Because you could literally go back to middle school with this shit.
It's just a never ending line of bs excuses that could be given.
Regardless of circumstances....MJ and Kobe are the most apples to apples player comparison of all time. Everyone knows this. No two players can be more easily compared than those 2.
[QUOTE=Ne 1]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.[/QUOTE]
It was Kobe's choice to come out of high school instead of going to college. You'd like him to be excused for being young, but I don't hear any excuses when it comes to all-time points where he benefits from coming out early as opposed to the all-time greats who spend 4 years in college before the NBA.
You acknowledge that most stars end up on lowly teams and it takes a long time for them to win championships - see MJ, Lebron yet Kobe goes to an organization that's ready to win, that spends a lot of money, that gets the GOAT coach and the 5 rings argument is continually rammed down our throats.
[QUOTE=Ne 1]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]
I was going to bring up Magic and Kareem, but decided against it because it wasn't exactly the same situation. But since you bring it up... Now, in all of the GOAT lists I've ever seen, Kareem is regarded at least in the top 5, a lot of people have him 2nd, and a few even have him first. But Kareem only had one finals MVP in the five championships he won with Magic. Granted, he was going to win finals MVP in the '80s until he was injured in game 6 and Magic came up with *that* historic game, but how many people do you think know that? Really, people look at Kareem, see that he is the all time leading scorer, see that he has 6 championships and 6 MVPs, and they immediately think dominance and a GOAT contender. But, make no mistake, Kareem was the better player in the early 80s even though Magic won 2 finals MVPs in that time. It's funny how people look back at history.
As history goes on, the haters dwindle into nothingness. People won't look back at LeBron and see that he failed to win in Cleveland. Hell, his '11 performance will be overlooked (Magic's 84 is rarely mentioned afterall). What they will see is a physical specimin like we have never seen before, a player that could dominant all facets of the game like no one in history could, an [I]X[/I] MVP winner, and a player that completely dominated the game from 2012 to whenever he stops.
When they look at Kobe, they will see Jordan's successor. He may never be seen as good as Jordan, but they will look at someone with the competitive drive, will to win only matched by Jordan in history. They will see a guy that could play on injuries that would keep anyone else out for weeks. A guy that won 5 rings, 3 with Shaq and 2 on his own (thus invalidating the claim that Kobe couldn't win without Shaq). He will have been deserving of all five rings (at the very least four). They will see an all time great as well.
The haters are most prevalent when people actually play, but they will be gone by the next generation. When they reminisce on the post MJ era, they will look at Kobe, Duncan, Shaq and LeBron (Durant is still pending) and think of supreme greatness. It will happen.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]So we should never compare any players ever then. Because you could literally go back to middle school with this shit.
It's just a never ending line of bs excuses that could be given.
Regardless of circumstances....MJ and Kobe are the most apples to apples player comparison of all time. Everyone knows this. No two players can be more easily compared than those 2.[/QUOTE]
That would just be ridiculous though.. going back to the start of their original nba careers, in a comparison about how their hypothetical nba careers would pan out.. isnt that far fetched. We arent going butterfly effect deep.
Their career starts greatly affected how their roles, responsibilities, mentalities, leadership, etc all developed.
I didnt even mention one guy coming out of HS and one coming out of college. Lets see HS MJ come to play with the MDE and see how much responsibility he is handed.. and then compare that to his career track as an out of college player given full reigns on a shitty team.
Their situations were as apples and oranges as it could get.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]So we should never compare any players ever then. Because you could literally go back to middle school with this shit.
It's just a never ending line of bs excuses that could be given.
[/QUOTE]
EXACTLY. There maybe some homeless drug addict out there who's dad is in jail and mom was a crackhead, and if he grew up in Jordan's situation would've been twice as great as Jordan was instead of a homeless drug addict. But I guess we can't say Jordan was the GOAT cause there maybe others in the entire population of the Earth's history that would've been better in the same situation. :roll:
[QUOTE=tpols]That would just be ridiculous though.. going back to the start of their original nba careers, in a comparison about how their hypothetical nba careers would pan out.. isnt that far fetched. We arent going butterfly effect deep.
Their career starts greatly affected how their roles, responsibilities, mentalities, leadership, etc all developed.
I didnt even mention one guy coming out of HS and one coming out of college. Lets see HS MJ come to play with the MDE and see how much responsibility he is handed.. and then compare that to his career track as an out of college player given full reigns on a shitty team.
Their situations were as apples and oranges as it could get.[/QUOTE]
How they came into the league was different. That is obvious and why you didn't mention it....it's ****ing obvious.
Again. Should we then never compare players? Because if you think comparing Kobe and MJ is apples to oranges.
WTF is comparing a guy like Dirk to Duncan? One guy growing up in Germany and coming to a foreign land and straight to a NBA team vs the 4 year college vet in Duncan...joining Robinson and the Pop on the Spurs.
So those two players can't be compared? We can't rank them all time? Come off it.
No 2 players are ever going to have the exact same career path.
[QUOTE=tpols]That would just be ridiculous though.. going back to the start of their original nba careers, in a comparison about how their hypothetical nba careers would pan out.. isnt that far fetched. We arent going butterfly effect deep.
Their career starts greatly affected how their roles, responsibilities, mentalities, leadership, etc all developed.
I didnt even mention one guy coming out of HS and one coming out of college. Lets see HS MJ come to play with the MDE and see how much responsibility he is handed.. and then compare that to his career track as an out of college player given full reigns on a shitty team.
Their situations were as apples and oranges as it could get.[/QUOTE]
Skipping or going to college was their choice though, and Phil only made comparisons that really has nothing to do with their career paths. In fact, he didn't refer to any of their NBA experiences, but he referred to how developed they were coming into the NBA, which had alot to do with their own choices i.e. college.
Comparing their defense is not apples and oranges. Comparing their approach isn't apples and oranges. Comparing their personality isn't apples and oranges. You don't have to come up with reasons for them being one way or the other to compare the two.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]How they came into the league was different. That is obvious and why you didn't mention it....it's ****ing obvious.
Again. Should we then never compare players? Because if you think comparing Kobe and MJ is apples to oranges.
WTF is comparing a guy like Dirk to Duncan? One guy growing up in Germany and coming to a foreign land and straight to a NBA team vs the 4 year college vet in Duncan...joining Robinson and the Pop on the Spurs.
So those two players can't be compared? We can't rank them all time? Come off it.
No 2 players are ever going to have the exact same career path.[/QUOTE]
Dude..
Its not about the player to player skill to skill athelticism to athleticism comparison. Those are the things that would NOT have changed as much because of their differing situations entering the league. Those are things that are CONSTANTS.
MJ wasnt losing his vert or his skill because he went to the lakers.
The things that would CHANGE based on their situations are their roles, responsibilities, and leadership development. And those are extremely important in setting a career path off.
While we're on this stupid topic, I have wondered before what would have happened had LeBron grown up like Jordan. Jordan drew his competitive spirit from his siblings IIRC, LeBron never had that. LeBron was always special from a young age and was thrown into the national media as a 16 year old, Jordan had to prove himself from a young age. LeBron was crowned the king from the beginning, Jordan had to earn it.
Hmmm, just wondering.
[QUOTE=tpols]Dude..
Its not about the player to player skill to skill athelticism to athleticism comparison. Those are the things that would NOT have changed as much because of their differing situations entering the league. Those are things that are CONSTANTS.
MJ wasnt losing his vert or his skill because he went to the lakers.
The things that would CHANGE based on their situations are their roles, responsibilities, and leadership development. And those are extremely important in setting a career path off.[/QUOTE]
Again. You pretend like we didn't get to see Kobe in every role. If he had played his entire career in only 1 role...then your point would have merit.
We got to see Kobe play the rookie, the young gun with too much confidence for how good he was, the great 2nd fiddle, the star player on crap teams, the star player on good teams, the star player on good to great teams.
We saw everything.
All of what you say is true, but you could go all the way back to middle school or high school and lament about responsibilities and leadership and situations...etc. It's just a non point.
You judge players on what they did in the circumstances they were given. End of story. And with Kobe it's very easy to imagine his career not playing with Shaq. 2 or 3 titles....and probably 2 more ppg in the playoffs and regular season with a 1% dip in overall efficiency.
Does that change anything for anyone? Nope. In fact, it just puts Kobe lower on all time lists I would imagine.
[QUOTE=K Xerxes]While we're on this stupid topic, I have wondered before what would have happened had LeBron grown up like Jordan. Jordan drew his competitive spirit from his siblings IIRC, LeBron never had that. LeBron was always special from a young age and was thrown into the national media as a 16 year old, Jordan had to prove himself from a young age. LeBron was crowned the king from the beginning, Jordan had to earn it.
Hmmm, just wondering.[/QUOTE]
You could just as easily turn it around. If Jordan was a superstar at the age of 16, would he have still had that chip on his shoulder?
It's pretty amazing that LeBron has put in so much work after already being a celebrity with a $100M contract before even playing an NBA game. Look at guys like Melo who simply don't have the same hunger.
[QUOTE=guy]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.
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.........[/QUOTE]
Now this is just wishful thinking and more authority appeals.
[QUOTE]Jordan would've clearly had a better relationship with Shaq[/QUOTE]
Everything isn't black or white man. This is just wishful thinking.
[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:[/QUOTE]
Strawman argument.
[QUOTE]How they developed before that doesn't change or downplay who was better then the other. [/QUOTE]
Yes it does. As he said, different career paths. Apples to oranges.
[QUOTE]Besides, no one forced him to skip college just like no one forced Jordan to go to college. [/QUOTE]
That's irrelevant.
[QUOTE]
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? [/QUOTE]
That is a false dilemma and a weak analogy.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Again. You pretend like we didn't get to see Kobe in every role. If he had played his entire career in only 1 role...then your point would have merit.
We got to see Kobe play the rookie, the young gun with too much confidence for how good he was, the great 2nd fiddle, the star player on crap teams, the star player on good teams, the star player on good to great teams.
We saw everything.
All of what you say is true, but you could go all the way back to middle school or high school and lament about responsibilities and leadership and situations...etc. It's just a non point.
You judge players on what they did in the circumstances they were given. End of story. And with Kobe it's very easy to imagine his career not playing with Shaq. 2 or 3 titles....and probably 2 more ppg in the playoffs and regular season with a 1% dip in overall efficiency.
Does that change anything for anyone? Nope. In fact, it just puts Kobe lower on all time lists I would imagine.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that..
I said Kobe would win around that.. depending on what you give him.
And I said Jordan would win 4ish titles with Shaq before a split occured, and then he would have over half his career to get more chips.
Youre the one who said 5 minimum and ending at 8-10 championships.. which is just so absurd to think they wouldve stuck around with each other that long when theres so much evidence pointing to it not working out for the long haul.
Not to mention Jordan would've had less MVPs.. just like Shaq. Because they dont reward a guy that plays with another all time great beside him.
[QUOTE=K Xerxes]While we're on this stupid topic, I have wondered before what would have happened had LeBron grown up like Jordan. Jordan drew his competitive spirit from his siblings IIRC, LeBron never had that. LeBron was always special from a young age and was thrown into the national media as a 16 year old, Jordan had to prove himself from a young age. LeBron was crowned the king from the beginning, Jordan had to earn it.
Hmmm, just wondering.[/QUOTE]
- From watching every Jordan VHS/DVD/TV shows etc...etc...
- Both of MJ's parents worked and MJ's dad ( according to MJ) knew how to fix anything mechanical...cars, engines, farm equipment...etc.
- His dad would often make MJ work....and if Jordan would ge tired his dad would make fun of telling him to " go in the kitchen then and work with the women"
- so obviously he had an " work ethic to prove yurself" with his siblings and his father.....he probably felt he had to prove himself constantly...
- Lebrons menatlity most likely came from his peers.....he was always looked at asbieng great....his peers put that pressure on him to be great.
- Luckily he had great people who raised him when his Mom could not....
- who knows wich is better...but both have excelled and become great at what they love to do...
( Not comparing or saying lebron is better......but both have made it is all)
8-10 Championships? Really? :biggums:
I've avoided posting in this thread but Kobe has a point about perception. If Kobe had come first and had the same career he has now there's no doubt he would be looked at in a different light. If Jordan had played with Shaq from when he entered the league he'd be looked at in a different light too regardless of how Jordan like he played. Either way Kobe shouldn't have responded because there's no way he can look good regardless of what he says. Should have just said he respects Phil and respects MJ. But his apples to oranges analogy is just plain dumb. Comparing Kobe and Jordan is pretty much as apples to apples as you can get.
[QUOTE=longtime lurker]I've avoided posting in this thread but Kobe has a point about perception. If Kobe had come first and had the same career he has now there's no doubt he would be looked at in a different light. If Jordan had played with Shaq from when he entered the league he'd be looked at in a different light too regardless of how Jordan like he played. [/QUOTE]
This point^^^
[QUOTE=longtime lurker]But his apples to oranges analogy is just plain dumb. Comparing Kobe and Jordan is pretty much as apples to apples as you can get.[/QUOTE]
And this point ^^^ directly contradict each other.
[QUOTE=Ne 1]Now this is just wishful thinking and more authority appeals.
Everything isn't black or white man. This is just wishful thinking.
Strawman argument.
Yes it does. As he said, different career paths. Apples to oranges.
That's irrelevant.
That is a false dilemma and a weak analogy.[/QUOTE]
Its not a weak analogy. Its exactly what you're doing. Because that murderer wasn't brought up in a more favorable situation, his actions aren't as bad according to you. Just like if Jordan came out of HS instead of college, his accomplishments would be better because he wasn't developed in a more favorable situation. :confusedshrug:
I guess I'll just say this. We can't say that Michael Jordan was that much better then Darius Miles, because Darius Miles could've possibly been better then Jordan if he went to UNC for 3 years then the NBA instead of skipping college then going straight to the NBA.
:roll: @ the thought that MJ/Shaq would be able to co-exist any better than Kobe/Shaq did.
[QUOTE=AlphaWolf24]- From watching every Jordan VHS/DVD/TV shows etc...etc...
- Both of MJ's parents worked and MJ's dad ( according to MJ) knew how to fix anything mechanical...cars, engines, farm equipment...etc.
- His dad would often make MJ work....and if Jordan would ge tired his dad would make fun of telling him to " go in the kitchen then and work with the women"
- so obviously he had an " work ethic to prove yurself" with his siblings and his father.....he probably felt he had to prove himself constantly...
- Lebrons menatlity most likely came from his peers.....he was always looked at asbieng great....his peers put that pressure on him to be great.
- Luckily he had great people who raised him when his Mom could not....
- who knows wich is better...but both have excelled and become great at what they love to do...
( Not comparing or saying lebron is better......but both have made it is all)[/QUOTE]
Lebron is clearly better cause he did it all without a father.
[QUOTE=Doranku]:roll: @ the thought that MJ/Shaq would be able to co-exist any better than Kobe/Shaq did.[/QUOTE]
Its not just any thought. But a thought that is clearly supported by comments from the most qualified person in the world.
[QUOTE=Doranku]:roll: @ the thought that MJ/Shaq would be able to co-exist any better than Kobe/Shaq did.[/QUOTE]
People are putting 90s champion, overcome everything, killer Mike on LA instead of a rook.. and acting like its crazy to put the situation in context.
[QUOTE=tpols]People are putting 90s champion, overcome everything, killer Mike on LA instead of a rook.. and acting like its crazy to put the situation in context.[/QUOTE]
Phil didn't say Jordan could get along with teammates better because of anything that happened in the 90s at older ages. He said he could get along with teammates because of his natural charisma and ability to adapt better to social situations that he developed as a result of going to college. What the **** does that have to do with Jordan being a champion? This has nothing to do with their NBA career paths. Phil didn't mention NBA career paths at all.
Kobe is shooting himself in the legs with a response like this, it`s that stupid.
#Kobesyndrome
:roll: :hammerhead:
[QUOTE=tpols]I agree with that..
I said Kobe would win around that.. depending on what you give him.
And I said Jordan would win 4ish titles with Shaq before a split occured, and then he would have over half his career to get more chips.
Youre the one who said 5 minimum and ending at 8-10 championships.. which is just so absurd to think they wouldve stuck around with each other that long when theres so much evidence pointing to it not working out for the long haul.
Not to mention Jordan would've had less MVPs.. just like Shaq. Because they dont reward a guy that plays with another all time great beside him.[/QUOTE]
What? 5 with Shaq and then at least another 3 given Kobe's circumstances.
That isn't hard at all to follow.
So this is all about me saying 5 and you saying 4? WTF?
I'll say it again. 8 years of prime/peak Shaq with 8 years of MJ...it's just too good to not win 5. Kobe didn't become as good as rookie Jordan until his 5th year in the league. Think about 00 when the Lakers won the title. That Kobe wasn't even as good as rookie MJ....think about that.
I have no clue why you are so up in arms about 8 to 10 titles for MJ switching places with Kobe. You already concede MJ was better...and you are ignoring how much of a non factor Kobe was his first 3 years...and how great MJ was his first 3 years.
Mike + "Shack" = [I]at least[/I] 5 championships.
Deal with it.
:lebroncry:
[QUOTE=Doranku]:roll: @ the thought that MJ/Shaq would be able to co-exist any better than Kobe/Shaq did.[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't see the relevance. The problem with Shaq and Kobe really wasn't really the problem...if that makes sense.
It was that Kobe wasn't good enough his first 3 years....Kobe then tried to take a larger role in 03 and 04 and honestly just wasn't good enough.
MJ in his 7th year isn't playing the 03 Spurs the way Kobe did...and he sure as hell isn't doing what Kobe did in 04 against the Pistons.
MJ and Shaq might have hated each other even more...but they would have just been too good for the teams from 99 through 04 to beat them.
[QUOTE=tpols]This point^^^
And this point ^^^ directly contradict each other.[/QUOTE]
How so? As far as playing style, position, skills and mentality comparing Kobe to Jordan is a fair comparison. Especially since Phil coached both of them. It's not comparing Wilt to Kobe here. As far as actual roles on the teams, accomplishments etc well that's all where perception comes into play. It will always be a comparison coloured by bias, but there are still other comparisons that can be made.
[QUOTE=guy]Phil didn't say Jordan could get along with teammates better because of anything that happened in the 90s at older ages. He said he could get along with teammates because of his natural charisma and ability to adapt better to social situations that he developed as a result of going to college. What the **** does that have to do with Jordan being a champion? This has nothing to do with their NBA career paths. Phil didn't mention NBA career paths at all.[/QUOTE]
I dont know how this at all applies to what I said. Its not about 'getting along with teammates'. Its about the maintenance of a relationship with one person of a certain bball caliber the likes of which MJ has never come close to playing or dealing with.
[QUOTE=longtime lurker]How so? As far as playing style, position, skills and mentality comparing Kobe to Jordan is a fair comparison. Especially since Phil coached both of them. It's not comparing Wilt to Kobe here. As far as actual roles on the teams, accomplishments etc well that's all where perception comes into play. It will always be a comparison coloured by bias, but there are still other comparisons that can be made.[/QUOTE]
Kobe never said their abilities as players were apples to oranges.
He said their situations entering the league were apples to oranges.
I cant believe people dont get this. He literally wrote like 15 words.. and they outlined exactly what he meant.
Kobes the closest to Jordan as of now. MJ is still GOAT. MJ is still better.
Lebron has the chance to be better than Kobe but i dont see him surpassing MJ.
But Lebron might not continue his dominance after his athleticism goes away or if he plays hurt after an injury.
And, also, don't count Kobe out just yet. He can still come back and make miracles and make his career better.
[QUOTE=tpols]I dont know how this at all applies to what I said. Its not about 'getting along with teammates'. Its about the maintenance of a relationship with one person of a certain bball caliber the likes of which MJ has never come close to playing or dealing with.[/QUOTE]
Umm maintaining a relationship with a person has a lot to do with being able to get along with people. From everything Phil said, who is the most qualified person on the planet for this topic, there's more support that Jordan would've had a better relationship with Shaq and those Laker teammates in general then Kobe did.
[QUOTE=tpols]Kobe never said their abilities as players were apples to oranges.
He said their situations entering the league were apples to oranges.
I cant believe people dont get this. He literally wrote like 15 words.. and they outlined exactly what he meant.[/QUOTE]
And their situations have absolutely nothing to do with the comments he was responding too. Like I said, cause he's insecure as shit, he went with the same robotic response that he always uses when this topic comes up.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]What? 5 with Shaq and then at least another 3 given Kobe's circumstances.
That isn't hard at all to follow.
So this is all about me saying 5 and you saying 4? WTF?
I'll say it again. 8 years of prime/peak Shaq with 8 years of MJ...it's just too good to not win 5. Kobe didn't become as good as rookie Jordan until his 5th year in the league. Think about 00 when the Lakers won the title. That Kobe wasn't even as good as rookie MJ....think about that.
I have no clue why you are so up in arms about 8 to 10 titles for MJ switching places with Kobe. You already concede MJ was better...and you are ignoring how much of a non factor Kobe was his first 3 years...and how great MJ was his first 3 years.[/QUOTE]
too bad MJ would be considered lesser than he is now if he played with Shaq.
I see 3-4, then the 2 getting into feuds over who is the real alpha like how Kobe and shaq feuded.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I honestly don't see the relevance. The problem with Shaq and Kobe really wasn't really the problem...if that makes sense.
It was that Kobe wasn't good enough his first 3 years....Kobe then tried to take a larger role in 03 and 04 and honestly just wasn't good enough.
MJ in his 7th year isn't playing the 03 Spurs the way Kobe did...and he sure as hell isn't doing what Kobe did in 04 against the Pistons.
MJ and Shaq might have hated each other even more...but they would have just been too good for the teams from 99 through 04 to beat them.[/QUOTE]
If we're assuming that Jordan/Shaq would have the same exact path that Kobe/Shaq did, sure they might win from 99-04, but Jordan could very well end up with zero finals MVPs.
99 and 04 would be the only seasons that Jordan would have a shot at finals MVP. Shaq was far too dominant against the Pacers, Sixers, and Nets that they faced/would have faced from '00 to '03.
'04 is a big stretch too, because Shaq dominated the Pistons while they completely shut down every (yes, not just Kobe) perimeter player they faced.
So maybe Jordan gets one finals MVP in '99 against the Knicks. Meanwhile, Kobe would likely have won 3-4 rings in the 90's with Jordan's cast, winning finals MVP each time.
Ultimately, Shaq would have 4-5+ finals MVPs, Jordan 1-2, and Kobe 3-4. Kobe v. Jordan would be a legit argument (with more likely choosing Kobe as being better) and Shaq would be GOAT.
What exactly are we arguing here, again? :oldlol:
[QUOTE=tpols]Kobe never said their abilities as players were apples to oranges.
He said their situations entering the league were apples to oranges.
I cant believe people dont get this. He literally wrote like 15 words.. and they outlined exactly what he meant.[/QUOTE]
Yes and I agree with that. But Phil wasn't just comparing their situations entering the league. He compared their mindset, leadership etc. Kobe would have just been better off not responding because no matter what he says he doesn't come out of this looking good.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
I have no clue why you are so up in arms about 8 to 10 titles for MJ switching places with Kobe. [/QUOTE]
Then I dont know what to tell you man.. You think MJ wouldve won like Bill Russel in the 60s when there were 8 teams in the league. Its just not realistic.
Jordan had GREAT teams for the bulk of his prime starting in the early 90s to the late 90s.. and he won 6.
But with slightly better teams in the 00s he wouldve won 10? Doesnt add up.
[QUOTE=Doranku]If we're assuming that Jordan/Shaq would have the same exact path that Kobe/Shaq did, sure they might win from 99-04, but Jordan could very well end up with zero finals MVPs.
99 and 04 would be the only seasons that Jordan would have a shot at finals MVP. Shaq was far too dominant against the Pacers, Sixers, and Nets that they faced/would have faced from '00 to '03.
'04 is a big stretch too, because Shaq dominated the Pistons while they completely shut down every (yes, not just Kobe) perimeter player they faced.
So maybe Jordan gets one finals MVP in '99 against the Knicks. Meanwhile, Kobe would likely have won 3-4 rings in the 90's with Jordan's cast, winning finals MVP each time.
Ultimately, Shaq would have 4-5+ finals MVPs, Jordan 1-2, and Kobe 3-4. Kobe v. Jordan would be a legit argument (with more likely choosing Kobe as being better) and Shaq would be GOAT.
What exactly are we arguing here, again? :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
You really underrate the difference between Jordan and Kobe if you think that's how it would play out.
[QUOTE=guy]Umm maintaining a relationship with a person has a lot to do with being able to get along with people. From everything Phil said, who is the most qualified person on the planet for this topic, there's more support that Jordan would've had a better relationship with Shaq and those Laker teammates in general then Kobe did.
And their situations have absolutely nothing to do with the comments he was responding too. Like I said, cause he's insecure as shit, he went with the same robotic response that he always uses when this topic comes up.[/QUOTE]
Your first part makes absolutely no sense. Way, way more dirt on Jordan not getting along with dudes than Kobe. I remember someone had a quote that was like 3 pages long of altercations for him.
And sure what Kobe said makes sense. Longtime lurker touched on it.. the perceptions are 180 because of their situations.
And hes also right in Kobe being wrong for responding since, in the end, it will only make him look bitter.. even if its completely true.
I respect that though. Fvck what people think, say what you believe is right.
[QUOTE=tpols]Then I dont know what to tell you man.. You think MJ wouldve won like Bill Russel in the 60s when there were 8 teams in the league. Its just not realistic.
Jordan had GREAT teams for the bulk of his prime starting in the early 90s to the late 90s.. and he won 6.
But with slightly better teams in the 00s he wouldve won 10? Doesnt add up.[/QUOTE]
Ummm its not a stretch at all to say the Lakers would've won up to 8 titles from 97-04 with Jordan/Shaq, which would've been with 1985-1992 Jordan, and then 2-3 from 08-10 with Jordan/Gasol/Odom/Bynum, which would've been with 1996-1998 Jordan.