That’s why he sees all the real stories. Behind the numbers. Behind the uniforms and canned quotes, Simmons is able to break it all down for us. Why did Lebron have a great season in ’08-09? Give up? Kobe Bryant played in the Olympics.
From the mailbag.
I'd bet anything that Kobe secretly regrets being on the Redeem Team. He gained nothing exposure-wise because they showed every game in America in the wee hours;
But he gained something exposure wise with the tens of millions of people around the world who watched Olympic basketball. Is there anyone in the US who doesn’t know who Kobe Bryant is? Also, wasn’t that first game against China on at like 10AM Eastern time on a Sunday?
all he did was put unnecessary mileage on his knees when he could have been resting.
That’s all he did. That’s all that was accomplished in Beijing. When Kobe Bryant is 60 and his grandchildren ask him about the Summer of ’08, his first memory will be…. “Oh that was the summer I put some more mileage on my knees. Nothing else of substance happened. Next topic.” Then they’ll probably ask him about Shaq or about winning the dunk contest in ’97 or being accused of rape or something.
If that's not bad enough, he SINGLE-HANDEDLY altered the course of his main rival's career.
SINGLE-HANDEDLY! This needs to be in all caps, so you know how important it is to his point. That rival? None other than Lebron James, who was an underachieving, underperforming pile of crap before the Beijing Olympics. Lebron James...the guy whose high school games were nationally televised. The number 1 pick in the draft a few years back. That guy. His career path was altered by the Olympics. Right.
Fun fact – Lebron’s per game averages for Points, Rebounds, Assists, Steals and Blocks either stayed the same or decreased from the season prior to the Olympics. Although he did play a couple less minutes because there were more blowouts. Still, his course was not altered any more than it would have been if Lebron had stayed home.
LeBron intimated as much himself: Only after watching Kobe's daily workout routine and nonstop commitment to defense did LeBron realize that he was selling himself short to some degree.
Did playing with Kobe Bryant (and Dwyane Wade, and Chris Paul, and…) make Lebron James better? Probably. How could playing with those guys not help your game? Is this something that we should credit with making him turn some sort of corner? No. This is like saying that Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade and Paul Pierce all wouldn’t have been the players they are today if they were drafted 1-3 slots higher. Oh wait, Simmons is convinced of that point too. He and other sportswriters love to take small, innocuous parts of the story, and make them the story. Because that’s what they think they are paid to do – point out the little things that dummies like you and me (especially you) miss because we aren’t as perceptive.
And when Kobe took over as the alpha dog in the gold-medal game (and everyone let him do it), that made LeBron realize, "I'm not quite there yet."
I bet a million dollars that Lebron James didn’t realize this, or think this after the gold medal game, and Bill Simmons is making up that he did so that he can tie it into his nice little bullshit anecdote.
Of the many reasons MJ skipped the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, I guarantee these were two of them:
The 1984 Olympics and the 1992 Olympics? Those are the two main reasons. He already had two gold medals. Just kidding. Bill is right. He was afraid that people would realize why he’s really good at basketball, in 1996, when he was 33 years old and had just unretired and led the Bulls to 72 wins.
"Why should I show these guys I'm trying to beat how I prepare every day?"
Double or nothing on the million dollars that Michael Jordan being afraid to show these guys how he prepares every day had nothing to do with him not playing in the 1996 Olympics.
and "Why should I give my foes any insight into what makes me me."
That’s the same thing as reason one. But very true, I doubt any of those guys knew much about Jordan in 1996. He had 4 rings, 8 scoring titles and 4 MVP's at the time .
He remembered how the 1992 Dream Team experience rejuvenated Barkley's career and didn't want to make the same mistake twice.
Um, I’m pretty sure the 1992-93 season coinciding with Barkley being traded to a good Suns team with a good blend of stars (KJ, Majerle) complementary players (West, Ainge, Chambers, Ceballos) and young guys who would pull productive years out of their asses (Oliver Miller, Richard Dumas) had more to do with his success in 1993 than the Olympics OR MICHAEL JORDAN PLAYING IN THE OLYMPICS. Barkley didn’t play remarkably better in ’93 than he had before; he just played with a better team than he had been dealt in Philly.
Anyway, if Kobe never plays in the 2008 Olympics, then LeBron and Wade become alpha dogs by default and spend the whole time playing poker or Bid Whist in Worldwide Wes' hotel room ... and Kobe is cruising to the title right now. He has to be kicking himself.
Sure.
Do you think Kobe has spent 5 minutes since he left Beijing thinking about the impact his presence at the Olympics may or may not have had on the other players? I don’t.
Showing posts with label Kobe Bryant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kobe Bryant. Show all posts
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Kobe v. Jordan Again
Well well well look what we've found here. So Jemele Hill has her own website, and she recently revived the Jordan/Bryant argument that she made here. She obviously used an obscure blog post on her website, instead of ESPN, to hide these words from me. I see right through it all. But here we are anyway. Nice try, Ms. Hill.
She actually acknowledges that she did a bad job supporting her opinion….
To be honest, I didn’t do a good job of really explaining why I feel that way (Kobe better than Jordan) in that initial ESPN column.
Yeah I caught that. Unfortunately, her blog is not very reader/blogger friendly. I have no idea how to copy/paste content out of it. Because there’s no way I’ll be transcribing all the content, I’ll have to just grab her main points.
The game evolves and so does the skill level. It’s obvious that Kobe has studied MJ’s every move. He’s not only perfected those moves, but developed particular skill sets faster than Jordan did. For example, Jordan was never as good a long-range shooter as Kobe. Over time, Jordan added that element of his game, but it came along for Kobe much faster – as did Kobe’s fadeaway, post-up game, and mid-range shooting. Kobe ceased strictly being an above-the-rim player a lot quicker than Jordan.
There’s nothing very egregious here. Skills do evolve over time, however I just can’t be so definitive in separating their time periods in the way that she can. But can I just point this out:
For example, Jordan was never as good a long-range shooter as Kobe.
Keep in mind that these two players play a very similar style game, and Kobe plays in a more stringent era in terms of defensive hand checking rules.
Career 3-point %’s:
Regular Season:
Jordan - .327
Bryant - .340
Playoffs:
Jordan - .332
Bryant - .324
Virtually the same. I would love to see a career shot chart that parsed their shooting percentages based on the location of their shots – Jordan would beat Kobe inside the 3-point line (virtually the same outside). Jordan was a career 49.7 % FG shooter – Kobe is at 45.3%. To be fair, you should remove three’s from that % - when you do Jordan is 51% and Kobe is 48%. Their playoff non-3 % has a Jordan edge of 50.4% to 47.3%. Jordan's percentages during his Washington years were particularly bad, as well, but I've left them in there. We'll call that a dramatic decline phase that Kobe has not experienced.
If he’s such a better shooter, he must be worse at shot selection, because he makes less of them.
Quick sidebar - Charles Barkley was one of my favorite players to watch. One of his downfalls was he liked to take 3's. He took almost 2 a game for his career (as a power forward). Had Barkley never taken a 3-pointer, his career FG % would have been 58.13%, good for 3rd all-time behind Andris Beidrins (in only 4 seasons) and Artis Gilmore. Barkley was more efficient with his field goals, inside the three-point line, than Shaquille O'Neal, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Kevin McHale. Add that to the fact that he was a 6'6" (at best) power forward who led the league in rebounding and could handle the ball pretty well and he's one of the most uniquely talented offensive players in NBA history.
But here are some of the things that people always fail to consider in the never ending Kobe vs. Jordan debate.
1. Jordan is possibly the most magnetic sports figure of all time.
She goes on for a while on each point, but I’ll stick to the main points because it shows why she’s not going to convince me that Kobe is better. What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
2. Revisionist history has turned Jordan into the perfect human being.
What the fuck does this (that I disagree with anyway) have to do with anything?
3. Jordan didn’t have the Internets, and he missed out on a time in sports media where athletes personal lives are covered just as much as their on court performances.
Am I the only one that remembers the non-stop media frenzy that was Michael Jordan? Also, what the fuck does this have to do with anything?
4. We don’t seem to realize how the size - or lack thereof - during Jordan’s days contributed to his dominance.
That’s true, since Michael Jordan played most of his professional ball in China in the 1950’s. Seriously, this is what you’re spending your time on? Well, if only we had some sort of chart put out by a reputable source that showed us the average size of the NBA players through the years....hmmmmm. Wait, look what I found:
But we wouldn’t look at his athleticism in a vacuum if there were other players with just as much physical ability. Compared to Larry, Zeke and Magic, Jordan looked like a freak.
Did he look like an athletic freak next to Dominique Wilkins, Charles Barkley and Clyde Drexler? Oh, those guys aren't good examples, so just ignore them.
He wouldn’t look like a freak to us today with Kobe, Chris Paul, and LeBron James and others on the floor.
Sooo? Is anyone’s assertion anywhere that Jordan is better than Bryant because he’s a better athlete? Does anyone think this? That’s the point you’re making.
Which brings me to this: What would Jordan have done against LBJ, who is built like Julius Peppers and taller?
I don’t know, probably the same thing as Kobe Bryant? What would James have done against Jordan? He’d get smoked, that’s what. James had a tough enough time with Paul Pierce.
5. That Jordan never had to go through a dominating big man was a huge bonus. And no, I don’t count Shaq because he had diapers on. Olajuwon won his two when Jordan was out of the league. I MIGHT give you Patrick Ewing. Maybe even Karl Malone.
Comparing guards in sequential generations by analyzing the centers they played against is unbelievably stupid. But if you want to go there…
Jordan played against Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, and Alonzo Mourning in their primes. He played against Shaquille O’Neal from ’93-’98. Fuck that diapers shit, Shaq lead a 60 win Orlando team when he was 24 years old – his 4th year in the league. The year after he led them to the finals. Jordan’s Bulls destroyed them in ’96. ’96 – when the Bulls went through Mourning, Ewing and Shaq in sequential playoff series.
I guess what I’m saying is…..Jordan saw the best of a lot more big men the Kobe did, and (oh by the way), he didn’t have an all-time great like Shaq on his team for 8 years to handle those big men, as Kobe did. I love how it's to Kobe's credit to play against Shaq and Duncan when Shaq's prime was spent as Kobe's teammate.
She actually acknowledges that she did a bad job supporting her opinion….
To be honest, I didn’t do a good job of really explaining why I feel that way (Kobe better than Jordan) in that initial ESPN column.
Yeah I caught that. Unfortunately, her blog is not very reader/blogger friendly. I have no idea how to copy/paste content out of it. Because there’s no way I’ll be transcribing all the content, I’ll have to just grab her main points.
The game evolves and so does the skill level. It’s obvious that Kobe has studied MJ’s every move. He’s not only perfected those moves, but developed particular skill sets faster than Jordan did. For example, Jordan was never as good a long-range shooter as Kobe. Over time, Jordan added that element of his game, but it came along for Kobe much faster – as did Kobe’s fadeaway, post-up game, and mid-range shooting. Kobe ceased strictly being an above-the-rim player a lot quicker than Jordan.
There’s nothing very egregious here. Skills do evolve over time, however I just can’t be so definitive in separating their time periods in the way that she can. But can I just point this out:
For example, Jordan was never as good a long-range shooter as Kobe.
Keep in mind that these two players play a very similar style game, and Kobe plays in a more stringent era in terms of defensive hand checking rules.
Career 3-point %’s:
Regular Season:
Jordan - .327
Bryant - .340
Playoffs:
Jordan - .332
Bryant - .324
Virtually the same. I would love to see a career shot chart that parsed their shooting percentages based on the location of their shots – Jordan would beat Kobe inside the 3-point line (virtually the same outside). Jordan was a career 49.7 % FG shooter – Kobe is at 45.3%. To be fair, you should remove three’s from that % - when you do Jordan is 51% and Kobe is 48%. Their playoff non-3 % has a Jordan edge of 50.4% to 47.3%. Jordan's percentages during his Washington years were particularly bad, as well, but I've left them in there. We'll call that a dramatic decline phase that Kobe has not experienced.
If he’s such a better shooter, he must be worse at shot selection, because he makes less of them.
Quick sidebar - Charles Barkley was one of my favorite players to watch. One of his downfalls was he liked to take 3's. He took almost 2 a game for his career (as a power forward). Had Barkley never taken a 3-pointer, his career FG % would have been 58.13%, good for 3rd all-time behind Andris Beidrins (in only 4 seasons) and Artis Gilmore. Barkley was more efficient with his field goals, inside the three-point line, than Shaquille O'Neal, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Kevin McHale. Add that to the fact that he was a 6'6" (at best) power forward who led the league in rebounding and could handle the ball pretty well and he's one of the most uniquely talented offensive players in NBA history.
But here are some of the things that people always fail to consider in the never ending Kobe vs. Jordan debate.
1. Jordan is possibly the most magnetic sports figure of all time.
She goes on for a while on each point, but I’ll stick to the main points because it shows why she’s not going to convince me that Kobe is better. What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
2. Revisionist history has turned Jordan into the perfect human being.
What the fuck does this (that I disagree with anyway) have to do with anything?
3. Jordan didn’t have the Internets, and he missed out on a time in sports media where athletes personal lives are covered just as much as their on court performances.
Am I the only one that remembers the non-stop media frenzy that was Michael Jordan? Also, what the fuck does this have to do with anything?
4. We don’t seem to realize how the size - or lack thereof - during Jordan’s days contributed to his dominance.
That’s true, since Michael Jordan played most of his professional ball in China in the 1950’s. Seriously, this is what you’re spending your time on? Well, if only we had some sort of chart put out by a reputable source that showed us the average size of the NBA players through the years....hmmmmm. Wait, look what I found:
The average height of an NBA player over the last 20 years has stayed remarkably (expectedly?) consistent. The average weight is up a whopping 7 pounds, but you’ll notice it’s virtually unchanged since 1994. The point is, there’s not much of a difference. Are the players stronger, and more athletic? Yes - at least compared to the early stage of Jordan's career - but I would dispute this point with regards to the the later stage. Is Kobe's competition just plain "bigger"? Not really. The players Michael Jordan played against did not resemble the starting five from Hickory High, which is what Jemele seems to want you to envision. In fact, to be nitpicky and turn this non-point around on Jemele - the average player in ’98 was slightly taller and heavier than in ’08, and Jordan seemed to do okay that year, when (at age 35) he was the regular season MVP and the Finals MVP and he led the league in scoring. He also worked Kobe Bryant pretty good in the All-Star game too, in route to winning the MVP of the game. Not meaningful for this argument, but interesting.
She goes into more depth here, and actually talks about basketball and stuff (hey, it is the 4th point), so I’ll transcribe the section.
The players today are bigger, faster and stronger than they were when Jordan played. Granted, the players from Jordan’s era were more skilled and had a higher basketball IQ, but it’s a lot different having to shoot over Craig Ehlo versus someone like Tracy McGrady, who is 6-foot-9 and just as quick. Of course, I realize that assumes McGrady would be interested in playing defense.
She’s made this point before. Players today are better athletes, but players during Jordan’s era were more skilled and had a better basketball IQ. Do you see how pointless and difficult to argue this point is? It’s not like Jordan played in the 60’s. Jordan played through ’98 (ignoring the Washington years). Kobe’s first year was ’96-’97 – NBA players didn’t become superhuman after ’98. Of course, there’s an evolution in the capabilities of athletes, but I have a tough time identifying this separation in athletic prowess between the mid-‘90’s and the mid-‘00s. Does Allen Iverson have a tougher time scoring now than he did in ’97? Was Karl Malone way out of his element playing in this decade? Christ, Jordan had 40 point games playing at almost 40 years of age in 2003. This is not a good point to make. It’s virtually impossible to establish and she concedes that better athletes does not mean better players.
Why bring up McGrady if you’re acknowledging that he’s not that great a defender? Craig Ehlo DID play good defense. Just because he was white and he couldn’t jump out of the gym doesn’t mean he couldn’t play D. Also, wouldn’t a better point of reference be a guy like Dennis Rodman? I’d much rather have McGrady (or Bruce Bowen) on me than Rodman.
Anyway, guys on the wing are huge. You got a guy like 6-11 Lamar Odom, who is able to play four different positions.
Really? Jordan is going to be worried about Lamar Fucking Odom?
You have a 7-footer like Dirk Nowitzki playing the two (and by the way, foreign players were largely irrelevant during the Jordan era).
He does? He’s listed at power forward. He plays the two….once in a while? This is a big deal? Does he guard Kobe Bryant much? Does Kobe guard him? No? You know who could play 4 positions - ex-Blazer Cliff Robinson. Riveting, right?
I agree that the influx of foreign players has added to the talent level of the league. Congratulations, you’ve made a valid point.
You got Deron Williams playing the point at 6-5.
Wow, 6-5. We are truly in an age of superhuman basketball players. Magic was 6’9”. Jordan played against Kidd and Payton, who were taller than Williams (if this mattered, which it doesn't).
Also, Deron Williams is 6-3. I know this because the NBA, Jemele's employer, and Deron's website tell me this.
She goes into more depth here, and actually talks about basketball and stuff (hey, it is the 4th point), so I’ll transcribe the section.
The players today are bigger, faster and stronger than they were when Jordan played. Granted, the players from Jordan’s era were more skilled and had a higher basketball IQ, but it’s a lot different having to shoot over Craig Ehlo versus someone like Tracy McGrady, who is 6-foot-9 and just as quick. Of course, I realize that assumes McGrady would be interested in playing defense.
She’s made this point before. Players today are better athletes, but players during Jordan’s era were more skilled and had a better basketball IQ. Do you see how pointless and difficult to argue this point is? It’s not like Jordan played in the 60’s. Jordan played through ’98 (ignoring the Washington years). Kobe’s first year was ’96-’97 – NBA players didn’t become superhuman after ’98. Of course, there’s an evolution in the capabilities of athletes, but I have a tough time identifying this separation in athletic prowess between the mid-‘90’s and the mid-‘00s. Does Allen Iverson have a tougher time scoring now than he did in ’97? Was Karl Malone way out of his element playing in this decade? Christ, Jordan had 40 point games playing at almost 40 years of age in 2003. This is not a good point to make. It’s virtually impossible to establish and she concedes that better athletes does not mean better players.
Why bring up McGrady if you’re acknowledging that he’s not that great a defender? Craig Ehlo DID play good defense. Just because he was white and he couldn’t jump out of the gym doesn’t mean he couldn’t play D. Also, wouldn’t a better point of reference be a guy like Dennis Rodman? I’d much rather have McGrady (or Bruce Bowen) on me than Rodman.
Anyway, guys on the wing are huge. You got a guy like 6-11 Lamar Odom, who is able to play four different positions.
Really? Jordan is going to be worried about Lamar Fucking Odom?
You have a 7-footer like Dirk Nowitzki playing the two (and by the way, foreign players were largely irrelevant during the Jordan era).
He does? He’s listed at power forward. He plays the two….once in a while? This is a big deal? Does he guard Kobe Bryant much? Does Kobe guard him? No? You know who could play 4 positions - ex-Blazer Cliff Robinson. Riveting, right?
I agree that the influx of foreign players has added to the talent level of the league. Congratulations, you’ve made a valid point.
You got Deron Williams playing the point at 6-5.
Wow, 6-5. We are truly in an age of superhuman basketball players. Magic was 6’9”. Jordan played against Kidd and Payton, who were taller than Williams (if this mattered, which it doesn't).
Also, Deron Williams is 6-3. I know this because the NBA, Jemele's employer, and Deron's website tell me this.
But, you know, good point otherwise.
Now, this is not to say that Jordan wouldn’t have averaged 30 a game. He would.
Since that's his career average, doesn't that make this manner of comparison a little pointless.
Now, this is not to say that Jordan wouldn’t have averaged 30 a game. He would.
Since that's his career average, doesn't that make this manner of comparison a little pointless.
But we wouldn’t look at his athleticism in a vacuum if there were other players with just as much physical ability. Compared to Larry, Zeke and Magic, Jordan looked like a freak.
Did he look like an athletic freak next to Dominique Wilkins, Charles Barkley and Clyde Drexler? Oh, those guys aren't good examples, so just ignore them.
He wouldn’t look like a freak to us today with Kobe, Chris Paul, and LeBron James and others on the floor.
Sooo? Is anyone’s assertion anywhere that Jordan is better than Bryant because he’s a better athlete? Does anyone think this? That’s the point you’re making.
Which brings me to this: What would Jordan have done against LBJ, who is built like Julius Peppers and taller?
I don’t know, probably the same thing as Kobe Bryant? What would James have done against Jordan? He’d get smoked, that’s what. James had a tough enough time with Paul Pierce.
5. That Jordan never had to go through a dominating big man was a huge bonus. And no, I don’t count Shaq because he had diapers on. Olajuwon won his two when Jordan was out of the league. I MIGHT give you Patrick Ewing. Maybe even Karl Malone.
Comparing guards in sequential generations by analyzing the centers they played against is unbelievably stupid. But if you want to go there…
Jordan played against Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, and Alonzo Mourning in their primes. He played against Shaquille O’Neal from ’93-’98. Fuck that diapers shit, Shaq lead a 60 win Orlando team when he was 24 years old – his 4th year in the league. The year after he led them to the finals. Jordan’s Bulls destroyed them in ’96. ’96 – when the Bulls went through Mourning, Ewing and Shaq in sequential playoff series.
I guess what I’m saying is…..Jordan saw the best of a lot more big men the Kobe did, and (oh by the way), he didn’t have an all-time great like Shaq on his team for 8 years to handle those big men, as Kobe did. I love how it's to Kobe's credit to play against Shaq and Duncan when Shaq's prime was spent as Kobe's teammate.
That's like me saying..."There were great defenders during Jordan's day - like Scottie Pippen!"
But could in-his-prime Jordan have defeated in-his-prime Shaq in a seven-game series? Or what about Duncan? I have my doubts.
Kobe was Shaq’s teammate during Shaq’s prime??!??!?!?!??!!??!!???!?!??!?!? That’s a huge advantage. HE didn’t go through him. Jordan had many more battles (ahem, on court) with Shaq than Kobe has. What a stupid point.
Yes, Jordan missed Duncan. I think the big men he faced more than offset Duncan. Give me a break. What an inane way to compare shooting guards….by comparing the big men who they didn’t guard and weren’t guarded by. How many more titles would Jordan have won if he was able to play with a dominating big man like Shaq in the early stage of HIS career? I'll give him the rings in '89 and '90 right now.
She then goes on to point out that Kobe did some things Jordan wouldn’t do – like pouting and fucking up the Phoenix series a couple years ago. She also tells us that the “Shaq situation” would have turned out the same with Jordan. She’s a psychic! Anyway, it’s meaningless when discussing their respective games anyway. I also have to disagree.
But could in-his-prime Jordan have defeated in-his-prime Shaq in a seven-game series? Or what about Duncan? I have my doubts.
Kobe was Shaq’s teammate during Shaq’s prime??!??!?!?!??!!??!!???!?!??!?!? That’s a huge advantage. HE didn’t go through him. Jordan had many more battles (ahem, on court) with Shaq than Kobe has. What a stupid point.
Yes, Jordan missed Duncan. I think the big men he faced more than offset Duncan. Give me a break. What an inane way to compare shooting guards….by comparing the big men who they didn’t guard and weren’t guarded by. How many more titles would Jordan have won if he was able to play with a dominating big man like Shaq in the early stage of HIS career? I'll give him the rings in '89 and '90 right now.
She then goes on to point out that Kobe did some things Jordan wouldn’t do – like pouting and fucking up the Phoenix series a couple years ago. She also tells us that the “Shaq situation” would have turned out the same with Jordan. She’s a psychic! Anyway, it’s meaningless when discussing their respective games anyway. I also have to disagree.
If the Lakers win the championship we'll be met with a lot of "Kobe Bryant is as good as Jordan" type columns. I personally love this stuff - comparing players in NBA history. Hopefully, it's more well thought out than this. In Jemele's defense, it was just a blog post on her site, but it's not much different than her column on ESPN.com.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Some Sanity and Some Jibberish
I skimmed ESPN Page 2 today and noted that Tim Keown had a brief write-up on Robert Horry not being a Hall of Famer. It’ll be interesting to see how many posts I have up on this site after Horry retires responding to writers who argue for Horry to make the Hall, so I figured I’d link this now.
Then there’s Scoop Jackson.
There's a term used in the community called "thirsty."
“The community”. How about “the world”. There’s a term in the world of English speaking people. Why be so exclusionary, buddy?
It means what you think it means, but it's now being used in different contexts. Only to make a point of the extremes to which some people will go to get what they want. More severely, what they need.
Nooo…that’s pretty much what I figured you meant. You're not writing about nutrition on ESPN.com.
Kobe Bryant, for lack of more sophisticated terminology, is thirsty.
Gotcha. So what else are we going to talk about? Matchups? Some Lakers-Celtics history?
Oh, much much much more on Kobe Bryant’s thirst?
His thirst for another NBA title is that of an amplitude we may not have ever seen before. Not in sports, business, crime, corruption or politics.
Kobe Bryant, a 3-time NBA champion, is not more thirsty than John Elway was to end his career as the guy who kept losing the big game. He’s not more thirsty than Jordan, Isiah, or Shaq were to break through and win a championship. He’s not more thirsty than Andy Fastow was to siphon money out of Enron or than Bill Gates was when he started Microsoft.
Keeping it community: He's thirsty like a fiend.
Scoop, I’m just going to come out and ask you this. Do you not want me reading this? I’m white. Is “community” supposed to be “the black community”? Are you just talking to people in that community? Can you “keep it” in a more inclusionary manner please? Is this why I never understand you? Because you don’t want me to?
Now I understand how Bill Maher it is to use a dependency as an analogy to describe Kobe's mental range, scope and capacity and how wrong it probably is to compare "the greatest player of his generation" (as TNT labeled him to promote the Western Conference finals) to Ashy Larry or Bubbles, but it fits. Like disloyalty and Scott McClellan. In technical terms, Kobe is an obligate anti-carnivore.
I have no fucking idea what that paragraph means. None. Is Dennis Miller ghost-writing Scoop Jackson columns now? That doesn’t jibe with the “community” talk but it’s the only explanation.
This thirst -- whether he admits or denies or realizes it -- comes from a needing to do this without Shaquille O'Neal. It's a needing to come as close to Jordan and Jordan's legacy as any other basketball player alive right now … and maybe in the future. It's a needing to prove to himself what he's known and told himself ever since he challenged Brian Shaw to play one-on-one at age 11.
I agree – Kobe Bryant wants to win. Do we need a column for this? I say no.
Redemption, chip on his shoulder, edge, anger. None apply. There's a fiend-like component inside Kobe that exceeds all of the above labels that no athlete in any other sport possesses,
Not Tiger Woods?
and the closer he gets to attaining another championship ring, the more impossible it is going to be for anyone -- or any one team -- to deny him. His want has gone into an almost dependence stage of validation, of recognition, of being the last man standing.
You sir, are just making stuff up to fill up a column. You are offering nothing. No examples, no analysis – just jibberish.
There is no player or collection of players on Boston's squad -- no player(s) on any team that the Lakers have faced throughout the playoffs, no entire 12-man roster in the league, to be honest -- that can match his need to win this championship.
The Lakers are a good, young team. They will be awesome for the next few years. The Celtics have maybe 2 shots at a Championship. Garnett has never won. Kobe has won 3. I think Garnett’s “need” is on par with Bryant’s.
A compulsion to prove to himself -- and us -- that he's been right all along is what's at the center of this. Right that he's not a bad guy, a prima donna, arrogant, aloof or antisocial. Right that he is engaging and personable. Right that he might be the best basketball player your kids will ever see.
Look – only a grade A-moron would confuse basketball brilliance with not being a bad guy or a prima donna. He’ll diffuse very little of that by winning this championship.
Just as he was right about publicly forcing the Lakers to make some roster moves, in every fabric of his being he has to be right about how he sees himself and what he sees himself as. Even though he said in the ESPN Sunday Conversation that he was comfortable being the No. 2 guy while winning rings with Shaq, and in so many words to please stop the Jordan comparisons because there will never be another ("He's a different person … the greatest ever … let me do me …. Thank you!"), those who have watched his evolution -- his ascendance -- know better. He tries to cover it up in interviews and private conversations, but once he gets in "black" Jack Bauer mode it becomes clear as Claritin. He's on something extra. Something that once he calls it quits about five years and three more rings from now, he's going to need some serious form of detox to get out of his system.
He’s competitive. We know this.
Hopefully he has the sense that Jordan did not and just quietly ascends into retirement instead of botching the personnel thing, trying a comeback, and then doing whatever Jordan is doing now (I know his title, but I don’t know what he actually does, other than piss off people in Charlotte).
To everyone else, this is about basketball. To him … this is about survival.
Whose?
His.
Deep.
No it’s not, it’s about basketball. Basketball is about throwing a ball into a hole. If I was actually going through any real drama in my life, like if I had cancer or something, I'd probably be offended by this column.
It's the life of a fiend. Trapped inside the shell of a basketball player who almost had the game taken from him. The fact that he could have been responsible for not being able to show the world this stage of his life probably still eats at his mind. It might be what ultimately drives him.
Did Kobe Bryant botch a suicide attempt at some point?
Maybe it's something deeper, something that revealed itself at birth. Who knows? And the beauty, he'll never -- not even in Spike Lee's documentary about him -- be the one to tell.
Do you think Scoop’s editor reads this and actually knows what the hell he is talking about?
What’s “it”. The fiendish thirst?
The Celtics are thirsty for that ring, too, but they aren't dying of thirst.
Well that clear’s that up.
Which essentially is the difference between Kobe and them -- maybe Kobe and maybe all other human beings. And until KG, Truth and Jesus (anyone: Tiger, Roger, Peyton, LeBron, Kimbo, etc.) can equate death with what it will mean to not win a championship on these terms, until they can make themselves believe -- as Kobe has -- that their survival depends on getting this ring, then their collective and collaborative effort may not be enough.
We’re lumping Kimbo Slice in with Tiger Woods at this point? This column is redefining the sports column as we know it. It literally is about nothing. It’s just a bunch of poetic-like sentences about absolutely nothing of substance. It’s terrible.
Winning is the difference between a mission and an addiction. The Celtics are on a season-long mission against a dude that for the last five years has forced an addiction on himself to win. Winning substantiates this dude.
Dude, is Paulie Shore writing this thing? Back to back sentences referring to Kobe as "dude"?
It eliminates every doubt that may have somehow crept into his überconfident mind about his ability to carry and lead a team at the highest level of this sport. He has tasted something his competition (outside of Sam Cassell and James Posey) has never tasted, is hooked on something they've yet to sample. Addiction does not come by osmosis, whether it's meth, crack, coke, chocolate, caffeine, nicotine, sex, gambling, drinking or body art. To feel what it feels like to want to experience that same feeling again, you would have had to have it in your system before. The power of that feeling always makes those who reach that level of necessity more powerful than those who wish they knew what it felt like.
For a guy so hell bent on winning, he sure hasn’t been very good at it the last few years. Funny how the addiction is driving him this year, when he’s playing with better teammates. Last year? Not so addicted.
Kobe has that feeling. The others don't. And he is still thirsty.
That sentence strikes me to the core of my being and leaves me with the undying desire to want to experience the feeling that Kobe Bryant is living and breathing……drinking, if you will.
As those who are close to the game and those who still hate him despite what he's done since the playoffs started will testify, you can't beat a fiend at his own game when his game is basketball and basketball is all he has.
Is that sort of like “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!”?
Which leaves only one thing left that Kobe Bryant can do: Obey his thirst.
(pukes).
Then there’s Scoop Jackson.
There's a term used in the community called "thirsty."
“The community”. How about “the world”. There’s a term in the world of English speaking people. Why be so exclusionary, buddy?
It means what you think it means, but it's now being used in different contexts. Only to make a point of the extremes to which some people will go to get what they want. More severely, what they need.
Nooo…that’s pretty much what I figured you meant. You're not writing about nutrition on ESPN.com.
Kobe Bryant, for lack of more sophisticated terminology, is thirsty.
Gotcha. So what else are we going to talk about? Matchups? Some Lakers-Celtics history?
Oh, much much much more on Kobe Bryant’s thirst?
His thirst for another NBA title is that of an amplitude we may not have ever seen before. Not in sports, business, crime, corruption or politics.
Kobe Bryant, a 3-time NBA champion, is not more thirsty than John Elway was to end his career as the guy who kept losing the big game. He’s not more thirsty than Jordan, Isiah, or Shaq were to break through and win a championship. He’s not more thirsty than Andy Fastow was to siphon money out of Enron or than Bill Gates was when he started Microsoft.
Keeping it community: He's thirsty like a fiend.
Scoop, I’m just going to come out and ask you this. Do you not want me reading this? I’m white. Is “community” supposed to be “the black community”? Are you just talking to people in that community? Can you “keep it” in a more inclusionary manner please? Is this why I never understand you? Because you don’t want me to?
Now I understand how Bill Maher it is to use a dependency as an analogy to describe Kobe's mental range, scope and capacity and how wrong it probably is to compare "the greatest player of his generation" (as TNT labeled him to promote the Western Conference finals) to Ashy Larry or Bubbles, but it fits. Like disloyalty and Scott McClellan. In technical terms, Kobe is an obligate anti-carnivore.
I have no fucking idea what that paragraph means. None. Is Dennis Miller ghost-writing Scoop Jackson columns now? That doesn’t jibe with the “community” talk but it’s the only explanation.
This thirst -- whether he admits or denies or realizes it -- comes from a needing to do this without Shaquille O'Neal. It's a needing to come as close to Jordan and Jordan's legacy as any other basketball player alive right now … and maybe in the future. It's a needing to prove to himself what he's known and told himself ever since he challenged Brian Shaw to play one-on-one at age 11.
I agree – Kobe Bryant wants to win. Do we need a column for this? I say no.
Redemption, chip on his shoulder, edge, anger. None apply. There's a fiend-like component inside Kobe that exceeds all of the above labels that no athlete in any other sport possesses,
Not Tiger Woods?
and the closer he gets to attaining another championship ring, the more impossible it is going to be for anyone -- or any one team -- to deny him. His want has gone into an almost dependence stage of validation, of recognition, of being the last man standing.
You sir, are just making stuff up to fill up a column. You are offering nothing. No examples, no analysis – just jibberish.
There is no player or collection of players on Boston's squad -- no player(s) on any team that the Lakers have faced throughout the playoffs, no entire 12-man roster in the league, to be honest -- that can match his need to win this championship.
The Lakers are a good, young team. They will be awesome for the next few years. The Celtics have maybe 2 shots at a Championship. Garnett has never won. Kobe has won 3. I think Garnett’s “need” is on par with Bryant’s.
A compulsion to prove to himself -- and us -- that he's been right all along is what's at the center of this. Right that he's not a bad guy, a prima donna, arrogant, aloof or antisocial. Right that he is engaging and personable. Right that he might be the best basketball player your kids will ever see.
Look – only a grade A-moron would confuse basketball brilliance with not being a bad guy or a prima donna. He’ll diffuse very little of that by winning this championship.
Just as he was right about publicly forcing the Lakers to make some roster moves, in every fabric of his being he has to be right about how he sees himself and what he sees himself as. Even though he said in the ESPN Sunday Conversation that he was comfortable being the No. 2 guy while winning rings with Shaq, and in so many words to please stop the Jordan comparisons because there will never be another ("He's a different person … the greatest ever … let me do me …. Thank you!"), those who have watched his evolution -- his ascendance -- know better. He tries to cover it up in interviews and private conversations, but once he gets in "black" Jack Bauer mode it becomes clear as Claritin. He's on something extra. Something that once he calls it quits about five years and three more rings from now, he's going to need some serious form of detox to get out of his system.
He’s competitive. We know this.
Hopefully he has the sense that Jordan did not and just quietly ascends into retirement instead of botching the personnel thing, trying a comeback, and then doing whatever Jordan is doing now (I know his title, but I don’t know what he actually does, other than piss off people in Charlotte).
To everyone else, this is about basketball. To him … this is about survival.
Whose?
His.
Deep.
No it’s not, it’s about basketball. Basketball is about throwing a ball into a hole. If I was actually going through any real drama in my life, like if I had cancer or something, I'd probably be offended by this column.
It's the life of a fiend. Trapped inside the shell of a basketball player who almost had the game taken from him. The fact that he could have been responsible for not being able to show the world this stage of his life probably still eats at his mind. It might be what ultimately drives him.
Did Kobe Bryant botch a suicide attempt at some point?
Maybe it's something deeper, something that revealed itself at birth. Who knows? And the beauty, he'll never -- not even in Spike Lee's documentary about him -- be the one to tell.
Do you think Scoop’s editor reads this and actually knows what the hell he is talking about?
What’s “it”. The fiendish thirst?
The Celtics are thirsty for that ring, too, but they aren't dying of thirst.
Well that clear’s that up.
Which essentially is the difference between Kobe and them -- maybe Kobe and maybe all other human beings. And until KG, Truth and Jesus (anyone: Tiger, Roger, Peyton, LeBron, Kimbo, etc.) can equate death with what it will mean to not win a championship on these terms, until they can make themselves believe -- as Kobe has -- that their survival depends on getting this ring, then their collective and collaborative effort may not be enough.
We’re lumping Kimbo Slice in with Tiger Woods at this point? This column is redefining the sports column as we know it. It literally is about nothing. It’s just a bunch of poetic-like sentences about absolutely nothing of substance. It’s terrible.
Winning is the difference between a mission and an addiction. The Celtics are on a season-long mission against a dude that for the last five years has forced an addiction on himself to win. Winning substantiates this dude.
Dude, is Paulie Shore writing this thing? Back to back sentences referring to Kobe as "dude"?
It eliminates every doubt that may have somehow crept into his überconfident mind about his ability to carry and lead a team at the highest level of this sport. He has tasted something his competition (outside of Sam Cassell and James Posey) has never tasted, is hooked on something they've yet to sample. Addiction does not come by osmosis, whether it's meth, crack, coke, chocolate, caffeine, nicotine, sex, gambling, drinking or body art. To feel what it feels like to want to experience that same feeling again, you would have had to have it in your system before. The power of that feeling always makes those who reach that level of necessity more powerful than those who wish they knew what it felt like.
For a guy so hell bent on winning, he sure hasn’t been very good at it the last few years. Funny how the addiction is driving him this year, when he’s playing with better teammates. Last year? Not so addicted.
Kobe has that feeling. The others don't. And he is still thirsty.
That sentence strikes me to the core of my being and leaves me with the undying desire to want to experience the feeling that Kobe Bryant is living and breathing……drinking, if you will.
As those who are close to the game and those who still hate him despite what he's done since the playoffs started will testify, you can't beat a fiend at his own game when his game is basketball and basketball is all he has.
Is that sort of like “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!”?
Which leaves only one thing left that Kobe Bryant can do: Obey his thirst.
(pukes).
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Jemele Hill Can Not Be Taken Seriously
Here is Jemele, on April 4th:, on the subject of the NBA MVP:
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No question, Kobe has put up some unbelievable numbers this season. But if New Orleans finishes first in the West and Chris Paul doesn't win the MVP, this award officially can't be taken seriously.
Here are Jemele's top 5 MVP picks, in order:
Kobe Bryant: I know I recently wrote that Chris Paul deserves the MVP, but the Hornets appear to be slipping a bit while the Lakers are still surging. Besides, if Kobe doesn't win it this year, he may go down as the greatest player to never win an MVP. That's as bad as giving Steve Nash two MVPs.
Oh i see, the Hornets have won tonight and are now tied for first with the Lakers (pending the Lakers game that is in the first quarter). Since they fell like .5 games behind the Lakers as of the time this was posted on ESPN.com, Kobe Bryant is the MVP?
Hmmm, doesn't the paragraph above sort of sound a bit like she's even saying that Kobe should win because it's "his time". This is what Jemele said last week:
But giving Kobe the MVP just because "it's his time" or "he's learned to be a team player" is a disservice.
Is she serious? Is she? That was 11 days ago?
Chris Paul: Paul is having one of the finest seasons a point guard has ever had. He made the Hornets a contender in the West, a feat that absolutely no one expected. If CP3 had won in L.A. last Friday, I may have reversed field. Honestly, this MVP race is so close, so that's still a possibility.
1 regular season game decides the MVP now?
In case you gave her a shred of credibility at this point, her number 5 is Hedo Turkoglu - who is not the most valuable player on his team.
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No question, Kobe has put up some unbelievable numbers this season. But if New Orleans finishes first in the West and Chris Paul doesn't win the MVP, this award officially can't be taken seriously.
Here are Jemele's top 5 MVP picks, in order:
Kobe Bryant: I know I recently wrote that Chris Paul deserves the MVP, but the Hornets appear to be slipping a bit while the Lakers are still surging. Besides, if Kobe doesn't win it this year, he may go down as the greatest player to never win an MVP. That's as bad as giving Steve Nash two MVPs.
Oh i see, the Hornets have won tonight and are now tied for first with the Lakers (pending the Lakers game that is in the first quarter). Since they fell like .5 games behind the Lakers as of the time this was posted on ESPN.com, Kobe Bryant is the MVP?
Hmmm, doesn't the paragraph above sort of sound a bit like she's even saying that Kobe should win because it's "his time". This is what Jemele said last week:
But giving Kobe the MVP just because "it's his time" or "he's learned to be a team player" is a disservice.
Is she serious? Is she? That was 11 days ago?
Chris Paul: Paul is having one of the finest seasons a point guard has ever had. He made the Hornets a contender in the West, a feat that absolutely no one expected. If CP3 had won in L.A. last Friday, I may have reversed field. Honestly, this MVP race is so close, so that's still a possibility.
1 regular season game decides the MVP now?
In case you gave her a shred of credibility at this point, her number 5 is Hedo Turkoglu - who is not the most valuable player on his team.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Jemele Hill Creates Another Argument to Refute, Volume 10
I imagine it’s difficult in many respects to be a columnist (especially for a magazine or newspaper – harder deadlines), but it can’t be that hard to come up with topics right? Right now, the NBA MVP is a good topic of conversation, as it’s been an intriguing and outstanding NBA season and there are a few names to talk about. But Jemele Hill doesn’t tend to write pieces with the mindset of, say, “Chris Paul should be the MVP”. She apparently doesn’t think that this is interesting enough. She instead positions her column “EVERYONE is saying Kobe Bryant should be the MVP, and that’s wrong”. The problem? It’s not true. I’ve heard/read MVP support for Paul, Bryant, Lebron James, Kevin Garnett and I've even seen Tim Duncan's name mentioned. I just don’t have the impression that it’s a slam dunk for everyone. In fact, I think I’ve heard the most support for Jemele’s pick, Chris Paul.
In her latest column, Jemele acts like it’s a foregone conclusion that Kobe is the MVP in the eyes of most basketball media. I think Kobe’s getting plenty of press, but so are the other candidates.
This is nothing new for Jemele. In this column she argued that the negativity that you were putting on Randy Moss late last year by criticizing his success was unfounded! In this column she argued that Barry Bonds should be in the all-star game, despite his performance during the season, because he’s breaking an all-time record. She glosses over the fact that Bonds was playing at an all-star level and clearly should have been the Giants’ All-Star representative.
Anyway, let’s get to the newest work.
What movie did Al Pacino win Best Actor for?
(a) "Scarface"(b) "Dog Day Afternoon"(c) "The Godfather"(d) "The Godfather: Part II"(e) None of the above, because Academy Award voters are stupid
Hmmm, well Brando won for the Godfather. Nicholson won for Cuckoo’s Nest the year Al Pacino was up for Dog Day Afternoon. He didn’t get nominated for Scarface. I didn’t see any of the movies that had an actor nominated that year so I can’t comment. Pacino not winning for Godfather Part II would seem to be a terrible miss. I didn’t see Art Carney in Harry and Tonto but he better have been damn good.
Wait, what’s going on, I’m on ESPN.com right?
Actually, this is the same analogy she lead her column off with last year.
When I hear people say that Dirk has the MVP wrapped up, it makes me think the race has become just as political and illogical as the Academy Awards.
She’ll either borrow from or contradict that column a few times here.
Pacino, a seven-time Oscar nominee, finally won Best Actor in 1992 for "Scent of a Woman." To date, it's Pacino's only Oscar, and any Pacino fan will tell you that seeing him win for "Scent of a Woman" was like seeing Ice Cube for the first time without his jheri curl. It just wasn't right. It didn't make sense. And you felt cheated.
This is why I don’t read Jemele Hill much. She makes little sense. Wouldn’t you have felt more cheated if you saw him lose for Scent of a Woman, if you felt he had been cheated in the past?
Sadly, the NBA MVP race has become just as warped and backwards as the Academy Awards. The definition of MVP seems to change every year, and all too often players are rewarded for sentimental reasons and discredited using other ludicrous rationales.
Almost every sport’s MVP race is as warped and backwards as the Academy Awards. That’s because it’s an award voted on by tons of people with conflicting views and interests. The NBA is no different.
It's no different this season, which somehow universally came to be known as "Kobe's year," even if the Lakers don't finish with the top seed in the Western Conference.
Classic Jemele Hill bullshit. It’s UNIVERSALLY “Kobe’s Year”. She’s right! I haven’t heard any support for Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett or Lebron James! No, no that’s not right. Not at all. Jemele Hill is about to create another argument to disagree with. The “only Kobe Bryant is getting MVP attention, and that’s wrong!” argument.
Next week from Jemele Hill – “No one is paying attention to Barack Obama for the Democratic Nomination.” Or, “Why didn’t No Country for Old Men get any Oscar buzz!”
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No question, Kobe has put up some unbelievable numbers this season. But if New Orleans finishes first in the West and Chris Paul doesn't win the MVP, this award officially can't be taken seriously.
This award officially couldn’t be taken seriously in 1962 when Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points and 26 rebounds and lost to Bill Russell (19/24), presumably because Russell had much better teammates. It’s had off years since then too.
Also, "unbelievable" is now the most overused term of exaggeration on the planet. If you told me in October that Kobe Bryant's numbers would be 28.6 points, 6.4 rebounds and 5.4 assists while shooting 46% from the field...the last thought I would have is "that's unbelievable!" I probably would have said....."um, yeah.....that's pretty much what he does every year, minus a few points."
It would be criminal to overlook one of the most brilliant seasons a point guard has ever had. Paul averaged 24 points, 13 assists and nearly 3 steals per game in March. In fact, he's on the verge of becoming the first point guard since John Stockton to lead the league in both assists and steals in the same season. Nobody expected anything from the Hornets, and they're poised to win perhaps the most competitive conference we've ever seen in the NBA.
Paul’s been great and is a worthy MVP pick, so I’m not griping about that, but I don’t follow her last sentence. The conference is awesome, but it’s without a true all-time powerhouse regular season team. It’s good 1-9, but that doesn’t mean it’s harder to win than say, the Eastern Conference in 1996 if you’re a team that’s not the Chicago Bulls. Good luck winning 73 games to win the top seed.
I like how she cherry picks March stats too. Lebron James in March? 31 points, 8 boards, 7 assists, 48% shooting. Actually, that's basically his line for the year as well.
That's the very definition of MVP -- individual brilliance coinciding with team success. I'm a Kobe supporter, and I still stand by my assertion that Kobe is a more skilled player than Michael Jordan was.
I stand by my assertion that your column on Kobe being more skilled than Michael Jordan was about as well argued as Britney Spears’ child custody case. (Get it? She like never showed up for court? It was all over the entertainment news sources – so it’s pretty topical. Aww fuck you.)
The fact that Jemele thinks she has to remind readers how much she likes Kobe Bryant is laughable. She defends/supports him all the time. Remember this mess comparing Bryant to Alex Rodriguez? I'm actually a Kobe fan but she backs him nonstop.
But giving Kobe the MVP just because "it's his time" or "he's learned to be a team player" is a disservice.
No shit. Who are you arguing with? Oh that’s right, yourself.
This is what has become most frustrating about the evolution of the MVP race. Over time, merit has become less of a factor.
Not entirely accurate. So when Steve Nash won ’05 and ’06, it was because he was “due”. Oh…..I don’t think so. Iverson, Garnett, Duncan...these guys didn't win because of merit? In fact, I challenge you Jemele Hill to point to this happening in a recent year.
In the 1996-97 season, the MVP was thrown in Karl Malone's lap strictly because voters seemed sick of giving it to Michael Jordan, who won the MVP five times.
So the MVP has evolved into a race where merit is less of a factor, and it’s more of a lifetime achievement deal, and the last example of this is over 10 years ago? See, I think the voters have been trying to give it to the most deserving player each year (for their performance in the year) and that’s why you’re reaching back 10 years. Jordan not winning in ’97 was a little nutty, the Bulls won 69 games and Jordan was the best player in the league.
Before that, the benefactor of ABJ (Anybody But Jordan) was Charles Barkley, who was named the MVP for the 1992-93 season even though Jordan averaged 32 points, 6.7 assists and 5.5 rebounds.
Okay, but Barkley averaged 26 points, 12 boards and 5 assists to lead the Suns to the best record in the NBA. See, it’s more interesting when you don’t just spout out half the story. I would have given it to Jordan but Barkley was an entirely defensible, worthy winner.
LeBron James probably didn't get the consideration he deserved last season because of the "he has plenty of time to win an MVP" argument.
Dirk Nowitzki – 29/9/3 leading the Mavs to the best record in the NBA. Should he have won MVP? No, I don’t think so. Did Lebron (27/7/6) lose because he is young and has plenty of time……naw…. He didn’t get the same voting consideration because Dirk’s team won 17 more games. Flip the records around and Dirk isn’t in the top 5 in voting and Lebron walks away with the thing. Writer’s always put a premium on team success in their MVP voting. This is not a mystery.
Two-time MVP winner Tim Duncan should have gotten stronger consideration last season, too. But Duncan is the NBA's version of Russell Crowe.
Tim Duncan throws phones at people?
After Crowe won Best Actor for "Gladiator," the Academy overlooked him for both "The Insider" and "A "Beautiful Mind." Crowe won't win another one because he's too consistently good. Same goes for Duncan.
Um….hmmmm… Crowe was nominated for The Insider in 1999. He won for Gladiator in 2000. So you’re theory both sucks and is inaccurate. Saying he won’t win another one because he’s consistently good is beyond moronic. He might not win another won because it’s very very hard to win multiple best Actor Oscars. The most anyone has won is 2! There are a lot of NBA players with more than 2 awards (with less history). Katharine Hepburn did win 4 in the female category though I guess. Why the fuck am I looking this up again? Ohhhh right….because Jemele’s telling me the MVP is like the Oscar. This sounds familiar. Hmmm….oh right, she told me this last year:
Sounds just like when people were arguing that Russell Crowe shouldn't win an Oscar for "A Beautiful Mind" since (a) he'd already won one for "Gladiator"…
Boring. Also, were people even saying that? She has used the same example two friggin years in a row and I don't remember that being some sort of hot issue back then. Didn't Hanks win two in a row in the early 90's?
What really makes no sense about this argument, is that she's saying that the MVP voters are reluctant to reward players who are consistently good, therefore Duncan doesn't get enough MVP attention. Um...hmm....Jordan won 5. Bird won 3. Magic won 3. Kareem won 6. Nash won two in a row. Very recently! This goes against the premise of your argument.
And only in the NBA could Shaq, the most dominant center of all time, have one MVP while Steve Nash, who has never gotten his team to the NBA Finals, has two.
Playoff performance means jack shit in NBA voting. It’s a regular season award. Also, your pick, Chris Paul, has never led his team to an NBA finals. See how that’s unfair?
Also, Jemele knows this, as this is what she wrote last year:
Winning a championship is not a requirement for a MVP. Yeah, I know I just killed Malone above, but he won two MVPs and didn't win a title. Allen Iverson and Kevin Garnett also have MVPs, but no titles. Sure, Iverson and Malone made it to the NBA Finals, but this is a REGULAR-SEASON award.
Not only does she create arguments to counter, she counters her own arguments – she just trusts that you’re too dumb to remember.
That's why it's difficult to argue against Kobe, knowing he was cheated out of at least one MVP -- the one Dirk Nowitzki shamelessly won last season.
Shame on you, Dirk Nowitzki. How dare you be voted as MVP by a bunch of random writers! Go back to Germania! (sorry, I had to)
But while Kobe's renewed commitment to team ball makes for a cute catchphrase, it's a misnomer. Obviously Kobe has matured, but he's a better teammate primarily because he's got a fellow All-Star in Pau Gasol, a deeper, more skilled bench, and an emerging star in Andrew Bynum. Teamwork becomes much easier when your teammates can actually do something with the ball.
Which brings me to another frustrating element of the MVP race. Why are good players considered stronger MVP candidates when they have more help? (See: Kevin Garnett, the 2003-04 MVP.) Isn't the concept of "value" based on doing more with less?
I hate trying to confine the MVP award this way, it drives me nuts. It should be about who played the best fucking basketball. Anyway, no, value is about playing basketball very well while doing the most in proportion with what you have – be it a lot or a little. This is getting a little too esoteric for me, back to the column…
That should be the only criteria. And if it is, Paul is the MVP over Kobe, LeBron and KG. LeBron has had a fine season, and he certainly ranks high in the value department, but Cleveland's team success isn't significant enough to warrant LeBron winning. KG's presence transformed the Celtics, but it certainly helps that he has All-Star security blankets Paul Pierce and Ray Allen.
No, no no I will not let you get away with this. You just said that Kobe Bryant was cheated out of the MVP last year. Then you said Lebron James shouldn’t win because his team’s success is not significant enough. Kobe’s Lakers were 42-40 last year. Lebron’s Cavs are 42-34, on pace for about 45-46 wins – with some shit-ass teammates I’ll add. Yes, the West was better last year, but this is really just you making up qualifiers as you go along to conveniently support your arguments.
This is what Jemele wrote last year supporting Bryant:
But at the same time, it's not fair to eliminate Kobe Bryant because the Lakers are only a 6 or 7 seed. Kobe has the least talented teammates to work with of the MVP candidates and that his team is even in the playoff hunt is a miracle. Besides, most NBA players regard Kobe as the best player in the league and that should mean something, too. Team success is an important component, but it can't be the entire equation.
Given that those were here sentiments supporting Kobe last year, how does she eliminate Lebron James so easily this year?
Cleveland's team success isn't significant enough to warrant LeBron winning.
Huh?
But, if recent MVP races are any indication, politics will win again.
So congrats, Kobe.
I was watching Sports Reporters as I began writing this, and John Saunders started his final point. He said, “I know I’m not the first one to push for Chris Paul to win the MVP…”.
Tell that to Jemele Hill.
Jemele’s next column…. "will someone please talk about the rise of oil prices!”
In her latest column, Jemele acts like it’s a foregone conclusion that Kobe is the MVP in the eyes of most basketball media. I think Kobe’s getting plenty of press, but so are the other candidates.
This is nothing new for Jemele. In this column she argued that the negativity that you were putting on Randy Moss late last year by criticizing his success was unfounded! In this column she argued that Barry Bonds should be in the all-star game, despite his performance during the season, because he’s breaking an all-time record. She glosses over the fact that Bonds was playing at an all-star level and clearly should have been the Giants’ All-Star representative.
Anyway, let’s get to the newest work.
What movie did Al Pacino win Best Actor for?
(a) "Scarface"(b) "Dog Day Afternoon"(c) "The Godfather"(d) "The Godfather: Part II"(e) None of the above, because Academy Award voters are stupid
Hmmm, well Brando won for the Godfather. Nicholson won for Cuckoo’s Nest the year Al Pacino was up for Dog Day Afternoon. He didn’t get nominated for Scarface. I didn’t see any of the movies that had an actor nominated that year so I can’t comment. Pacino not winning for Godfather Part II would seem to be a terrible miss. I didn’t see Art Carney in Harry and Tonto but he better have been damn good.
Wait, what’s going on, I’m on ESPN.com right?
Actually, this is the same analogy she lead her column off with last year.
When I hear people say that Dirk has the MVP wrapped up, it makes me think the race has become just as political and illogical as the Academy Awards.
She’ll either borrow from or contradict that column a few times here.
Pacino, a seven-time Oscar nominee, finally won Best Actor in 1992 for "Scent of a Woman." To date, it's Pacino's only Oscar, and any Pacino fan will tell you that seeing him win for "Scent of a Woman" was like seeing Ice Cube for the first time without his jheri curl. It just wasn't right. It didn't make sense. And you felt cheated.
This is why I don’t read Jemele Hill much. She makes little sense. Wouldn’t you have felt more cheated if you saw him lose for Scent of a Woman, if you felt he had been cheated in the past?
Sadly, the NBA MVP race has become just as warped and backwards as the Academy Awards. The definition of MVP seems to change every year, and all too often players are rewarded for sentimental reasons and discredited using other ludicrous rationales.
Almost every sport’s MVP race is as warped and backwards as the Academy Awards. That’s because it’s an award voted on by tons of people with conflicting views and interests. The NBA is no different.
It's no different this season, which somehow universally came to be known as "Kobe's year," even if the Lakers don't finish with the top seed in the Western Conference.
Classic Jemele Hill bullshit. It’s UNIVERSALLY “Kobe’s Year”. She’s right! I haven’t heard any support for Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett or Lebron James! No, no that’s not right. Not at all. Jemele Hill is about to create another argument to disagree with. The “only Kobe Bryant is getting MVP attention, and that’s wrong!” argument.
Next week from Jemele Hill – “No one is paying attention to Barack Obama for the Democratic Nomination.” Or, “Why didn’t No Country for Old Men get any Oscar buzz!”
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No question, Kobe has put up some unbelievable numbers this season. But if New Orleans finishes first in the West and Chris Paul doesn't win the MVP, this award officially can't be taken seriously.
This award officially couldn’t be taken seriously in 1962 when Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points and 26 rebounds and lost to Bill Russell (19/24), presumably because Russell had much better teammates. It’s had off years since then too.
Also, "unbelievable" is now the most overused term of exaggeration on the planet. If you told me in October that Kobe Bryant's numbers would be 28.6 points, 6.4 rebounds and 5.4 assists while shooting 46% from the field...the last thought I would have is "that's unbelievable!" I probably would have said....."um, yeah.....that's pretty much what he does every year, minus a few points."
It would be criminal to overlook one of the most brilliant seasons a point guard has ever had. Paul averaged 24 points, 13 assists and nearly 3 steals per game in March. In fact, he's on the verge of becoming the first point guard since John Stockton to lead the league in both assists and steals in the same season. Nobody expected anything from the Hornets, and they're poised to win perhaps the most competitive conference we've ever seen in the NBA.
Paul’s been great and is a worthy MVP pick, so I’m not griping about that, but I don’t follow her last sentence. The conference is awesome, but it’s without a true all-time powerhouse regular season team. It’s good 1-9, but that doesn’t mean it’s harder to win than say, the Eastern Conference in 1996 if you’re a team that’s not the Chicago Bulls. Good luck winning 73 games to win the top seed.
I like how she cherry picks March stats too. Lebron James in March? 31 points, 8 boards, 7 assists, 48% shooting. Actually, that's basically his line for the year as well.
That's the very definition of MVP -- individual brilliance coinciding with team success. I'm a Kobe supporter, and I still stand by my assertion that Kobe is a more skilled player than Michael Jordan was.
I stand by my assertion that your column on Kobe being more skilled than Michael Jordan was about as well argued as Britney Spears’ child custody case. (Get it? She like never showed up for court? It was all over the entertainment news sources – so it’s pretty topical. Aww fuck you.)
The fact that Jemele thinks she has to remind readers how much she likes Kobe Bryant is laughable. She defends/supports him all the time. Remember this mess comparing Bryant to Alex Rodriguez? I'm actually a Kobe fan but she backs him nonstop.
But giving Kobe the MVP just because "it's his time" or "he's learned to be a team player" is a disservice.
No shit. Who are you arguing with? Oh that’s right, yourself.
This is what has become most frustrating about the evolution of the MVP race. Over time, merit has become less of a factor.
Not entirely accurate. So when Steve Nash won ’05 and ’06, it was because he was “due”. Oh…..I don’t think so. Iverson, Garnett, Duncan...these guys didn't win because of merit? In fact, I challenge you Jemele Hill to point to this happening in a recent year.
In the 1996-97 season, the MVP was thrown in Karl Malone's lap strictly because voters seemed sick of giving it to Michael Jordan, who won the MVP five times.
So the MVP has evolved into a race where merit is less of a factor, and it’s more of a lifetime achievement deal, and the last example of this is over 10 years ago? See, I think the voters have been trying to give it to the most deserving player each year (for their performance in the year) and that’s why you’re reaching back 10 years. Jordan not winning in ’97 was a little nutty, the Bulls won 69 games and Jordan was the best player in the league.
Before that, the benefactor of ABJ (Anybody But Jordan) was Charles Barkley, who was named the MVP for the 1992-93 season even though Jordan averaged 32 points, 6.7 assists and 5.5 rebounds.
Okay, but Barkley averaged 26 points, 12 boards and 5 assists to lead the Suns to the best record in the NBA. See, it’s more interesting when you don’t just spout out half the story. I would have given it to Jordan but Barkley was an entirely defensible, worthy winner.
LeBron James probably didn't get the consideration he deserved last season because of the "he has plenty of time to win an MVP" argument.
Dirk Nowitzki – 29/9/3 leading the Mavs to the best record in the NBA. Should he have won MVP? No, I don’t think so. Did Lebron (27/7/6) lose because he is young and has plenty of time……naw…. He didn’t get the same voting consideration because Dirk’s team won 17 more games. Flip the records around and Dirk isn’t in the top 5 in voting and Lebron walks away with the thing. Writer’s always put a premium on team success in their MVP voting. This is not a mystery.
Two-time MVP winner Tim Duncan should have gotten stronger consideration last season, too. But Duncan is the NBA's version of Russell Crowe.
Tim Duncan throws phones at people?
After Crowe won Best Actor for "Gladiator," the Academy overlooked him for both "The Insider" and "A "Beautiful Mind." Crowe won't win another one because he's too consistently good. Same goes for Duncan.
Um….hmmmm… Crowe was nominated for The Insider in 1999. He won for Gladiator in 2000. So you’re theory both sucks and is inaccurate. Saying he won’t win another one because he’s consistently good is beyond moronic. He might not win another won because it’s very very hard to win multiple best Actor Oscars. The most anyone has won is 2! There are a lot of NBA players with more than 2 awards (with less history). Katharine Hepburn did win 4 in the female category though I guess. Why the fuck am I looking this up again? Ohhhh right….because Jemele’s telling me the MVP is like the Oscar. This sounds familiar. Hmmm….oh right, she told me this last year:
Sounds just like when people were arguing that Russell Crowe shouldn't win an Oscar for "A Beautiful Mind" since (a) he'd already won one for "Gladiator"…
Boring. Also, were people even saying that? She has used the same example two friggin years in a row and I don't remember that being some sort of hot issue back then. Didn't Hanks win two in a row in the early 90's?
What really makes no sense about this argument, is that she's saying that the MVP voters are reluctant to reward players who are consistently good, therefore Duncan doesn't get enough MVP attention. Um...hmm....Jordan won 5. Bird won 3. Magic won 3. Kareem won 6. Nash won two in a row. Very recently! This goes against the premise of your argument.
And only in the NBA could Shaq, the most dominant center of all time, have one MVP while Steve Nash, who has never gotten his team to the NBA Finals, has two.
Playoff performance means jack shit in NBA voting. It’s a regular season award. Also, your pick, Chris Paul, has never led his team to an NBA finals. See how that’s unfair?
Also, Jemele knows this, as this is what she wrote last year:
Winning a championship is not a requirement for a MVP. Yeah, I know I just killed Malone above, but he won two MVPs and didn't win a title. Allen Iverson and Kevin Garnett also have MVPs, but no titles. Sure, Iverson and Malone made it to the NBA Finals, but this is a REGULAR-SEASON award.
Not only does she create arguments to counter, she counters her own arguments – she just trusts that you’re too dumb to remember.
That's why it's difficult to argue against Kobe, knowing he was cheated out of at least one MVP -- the one Dirk Nowitzki shamelessly won last season.
Shame on you, Dirk Nowitzki. How dare you be voted as MVP by a bunch of random writers! Go back to Germania! (sorry, I had to)
But while Kobe's renewed commitment to team ball makes for a cute catchphrase, it's a misnomer. Obviously Kobe has matured, but he's a better teammate primarily because he's got a fellow All-Star in Pau Gasol, a deeper, more skilled bench, and an emerging star in Andrew Bynum. Teamwork becomes much easier when your teammates can actually do something with the ball.
Which brings me to another frustrating element of the MVP race. Why are good players considered stronger MVP candidates when they have more help? (See: Kevin Garnett, the 2003-04 MVP.) Isn't the concept of "value" based on doing more with less?
I hate trying to confine the MVP award this way, it drives me nuts. It should be about who played the best fucking basketball. Anyway, no, value is about playing basketball very well while doing the most in proportion with what you have – be it a lot or a little. This is getting a little too esoteric for me, back to the column…
That should be the only criteria. And if it is, Paul is the MVP over Kobe, LeBron and KG. LeBron has had a fine season, and he certainly ranks high in the value department, but Cleveland's team success isn't significant enough to warrant LeBron winning. KG's presence transformed the Celtics, but it certainly helps that he has All-Star security blankets Paul Pierce and Ray Allen.
No, no no I will not let you get away with this. You just said that Kobe Bryant was cheated out of the MVP last year. Then you said Lebron James shouldn’t win because his team’s success is not significant enough. Kobe’s Lakers were 42-40 last year. Lebron’s Cavs are 42-34, on pace for about 45-46 wins – with some shit-ass teammates I’ll add. Yes, the West was better last year, but this is really just you making up qualifiers as you go along to conveniently support your arguments.
This is what Jemele wrote last year supporting Bryant:
But at the same time, it's not fair to eliminate Kobe Bryant because the Lakers are only a 6 or 7 seed. Kobe has the least talented teammates to work with of the MVP candidates and that his team is even in the playoff hunt is a miracle. Besides, most NBA players regard Kobe as the best player in the league and that should mean something, too. Team success is an important component, but it can't be the entire equation.
Given that those were here sentiments supporting Kobe last year, how does she eliminate Lebron James so easily this year?
Cleveland's team success isn't significant enough to warrant LeBron winning.
Huh?
But, if recent MVP races are any indication, politics will win again.
So congrats, Kobe.
I was watching Sports Reporters as I began writing this, and John Saunders started his final point. He said, “I know I’m not the first one to push for Chris Paul to win the MVP…”.
Tell that to Jemele Hill.
Jemele’s next column…. "will someone please talk about the rise of oil prices!”
Friday, March 28, 2008
Let’s Talk Most Valuable
Sorry folks, I was on vacation for a week and generally haven’t been reading much beyond The Big Lead and the FJM’s lately. It’s either a testament to your devotion to reading this blog or a sign that you have no life that the “recurring visitors” that I get has remained constant. I'll go with the former.
Today I listened to (Boston) Sports Talk Radio during my lengthy commute to work, and by the end I was sort of yelling at my radio in annoyance at the general tone of their NBA MVP discussions. Here’s a little synopsis of the events:
Gerry Callahan and John Dennis are the hosts, and they both (Dennis more vehemently so) conveyed that Kevin Garnett should be the NBA MVP. They had their share of points and whatnot, but I can make this real real simple. Here are the basic reasons that were given to support Garnett:
1. Ultimately will be the best player on a team with the best record in the NBA.
2. Ultimately will be the best player on a team that had the biggest turnaround in NBA history, and he wasn’t on the team last year so he has been the major reason for that impact.
Now, let me tell you the real reasons why they believe that Garnett should be the MVP:
1. They are sports talk radio hosts in Boston.
2. They are not sports talk radio hosts in New Orleans, Los Angeles, or Cleveland. If they were, they’d be using the many arguments for those players instead.
Now, we first need to take a step back a little bit. The award, for right or wrong (wrong) is called “Most Valuable Player”. While I will always believe that the intent of the award should just be to award the basketball player who played the best basketball over the course of the basketball season (Most Outstanding Performance at Playing Basketball - MOPPB), it is unfortunately called the MVP – which does have a better ring to it.
Why am I discussing this? Because at one point John Dennis read a dictionary definition of the fucking word valuable. They frequently noted that the award was not for the most outstanding, but the most VALUABLE, in support of Garnett. This is maddening, but unfortunately we’re left with the word valuable to deal with.
So why do I disagree with them? Let’s discuss the two main arguments put forth:
1. Ultimately will be the best player on a team with the best record in the NBA.
Well that’s definitely a nice place to start an MVP argument, and the Celtics’ 24-5 record against the West means that for right or wrong we sort of have to throw out the conference argument. But the Celtics were 7-2 when he was out, which, while not being many games, is right on par with their overall winning percentage. Note that I don't think this is a disqualifier, but I note it just to point out that he has pretty good teammates contributing to that best record, if that's what you're hanging your hat on. Garnett isn’t carrying this team by any stretch. Paul Pierce is still the best offensive player on the Celtics, and he and Ray Allen alleviate a tremendous amount of the scoring load off of Garnett, versus what Mr. James is going through in Cleveland. But basketball isn’t all scoring, and Garnett has been a good rebounder and has anchored the best defense in the NBA. If you blindly believe that the MVP should go to the best player on the best team than there’s just nothing I can say, Kevin Garnett is your man.
Personally, I think that the MVP should go to a team with at least a .500 record, but other than that there’s too much to consider to just give the best player/best team the award. If you have a team with 3 stars and 5 good complementary players and they win 67 games and another team with 1 star, 2 good complementary players and a bunch of scrubs and they win 58 games with the Superstar averaging 30/8/8….then my MVP vote is probably going to the player on the second team. It’s really not as simple as checking the standings.
I don’t think John Dennis would have made much of an argument for Chauncey Billups winning the ’06 MVP (unless he lived in Detroit), or Clyde Drexler beating out Michael Jordan for the ’91 MVP. Allen Iverson would have to cough up his ’01 hardware to Tim Duncan, who would have to hand his ’02 MVP award to…Chris Webber. It’s just not that simple.
2. Ultimately will be the best player on a team that had the biggest turnaround in NBA history, and he wasn’t on the team last year so he has been the major reason for that impact.
Now this is why I wrote this post, as what he said in defense of this point led me to literally yell at the radio. Dennis pointed out that the Hornets won 39 games last year! They were 39-42. Not nearly as bad as the Celtics! The Lakers were 42-40! The Celtics were 24-58….this year they have the best record! The implication being that best player they added was Garnett, therefore he’s the MVP, because the other teams were already not-so-bad. Clearly they’ve improved, but they didn’t come from the same depths that the Celtics did!
Do you see the flaw in this logic? That led to me yelling this in my car:
CHRIS PAUL WAS ON THE MOTHER FUCKING HORNETS LAST YEAR YOU FUCKING MORON! KOBE BRYANT WAS ON THE LAKERS! THEY ARE THE REASON WHY THEIR TEAMS WON THOSE GAMES LAST YEAR!
With me yet? You can’t give the MVP to Garnett on the basis of the turnaround unless you have some magical ability to forecast what Cleveland, LA, and New Orleans records would have been last year minus their MVP candidates (not nearly as good). Next year, when the Celtics probably regress by a few games, will Dennis eliminate Garnett from MVP contention because they went backwards? Of course not, and he shouldn’t. It’s a stupid criteria for basing the highest individual achievement in the sport on. Let’s talk about which basketball players played the best basketball THIS YEAR, why does last year mean anything at all? The Celtics roster is totally different anyway – it’s basically like a new team.
In summary, let’s just rename the award please.
Today I listened to (Boston) Sports Talk Radio during my lengthy commute to work, and by the end I was sort of yelling at my radio in annoyance at the general tone of their NBA MVP discussions. Here’s a little synopsis of the events:
Gerry Callahan and John Dennis are the hosts, and they both (Dennis more vehemently so) conveyed that Kevin Garnett should be the NBA MVP. They had their share of points and whatnot, but I can make this real real simple. Here are the basic reasons that were given to support Garnett:
1. Ultimately will be the best player on a team with the best record in the NBA.
2. Ultimately will be the best player on a team that had the biggest turnaround in NBA history, and he wasn’t on the team last year so he has been the major reason for that impact.
Now, let me tell you the real reasons why they believe that Garnett should be the MVP:
1. They are sports talk radio hosts in Boston.
2. They are not sports talk radio hosts in New Orleans, Los Angeles, or Cleveland. If they were, they’d be using the many arguments for those players instead.
Now, we first need to take a step back a little bit. The award, for right or wrong (wrong) is called “Most Valuable Player”. While I will always believe that the intent of the award should just be to award the basketball player who played the best basketball over the course of the basketball season (Most Outstanding Performance at Playing Basketball - MOPPB), it is unfortunately called the MVP – which does have a better ring to it.
Why am I discussing this? Because at one point John Dennis read a dictionary definition of the fucking word valuable. They frequently noted that the award was not for the most outstanding, but the most VALUABLE, in support of Garnett. This is maddening, but unfortunately we’re left with the word valuable to deal with.
So why do I disagree with them? Let’s discuss the two main arguments put forth:
1. Ultimately will be the best player on a team with the best record in the NBA.
Well that’s definitely a nice place to start an MVP argument, and the Celtics’ 24-5 record against the West means that for right or wrong we sort of have to throw out the conference argument. But the Celtics were 7-2 when he was out, which, while not being many games, is right on par with their overall winning percentage. Note that I don't think this is a disqualifier, but I note it just to point out that he has pretty good teammates contributing to that best record, if that's what you're hanging your hat on. Garnett isn’t carrying this team by any stretch. Paul Pierce is still the best offensive player on the Celtics, and he and Ray Allen alleviate a tremendous amount of the scoring load off of Garnett, versus what Mr. James is going through in Cleveland. But basketball isn’t all scoring, and Garnett has been a good rebounder and has anchored the best defense in the NBA. If you blindly believe that the MVP should go to the best player on the best team than there’s just nothing I can say, Kevin Garnett is your man.
Personally, I think that the MVP should go to a team with at least a .500 record, but other than that there’s too much to consider to just give the best player/best team the award. If you have a team with 3 stars and 5 good complementary players and they win 67 games and another team with 1 star, 2 good complementary players and a bunch of scrubs and they win 58 games with the Superstar averaging 30/8/8….then my MVP vote is probably going to the player on the second team. It’s really not as simple as checking the standings.
I don’t think John Dennis would have made much of an argument for Chauncey Billups winning the ’06 MVP (unless he lived in Detroit), or Clyde Drexler beating out Michael Jordan for the ’91 MVP. Allen Iverson would have to cough up his ’01 hardware to Tim Duncan, who would have to hand his ’02 MVP award to…Chris Webber. It’s just not that simple.
2. Ultimately will be the best player on a team that had the biggest turnaround in NBA history, and he wasn’t on the team last year so he has been the major reason for that impact.
Now this is why I wrote this post, as what he said in defense of this point led me to literally yell at the radio. Dennis pointed out that the Hornets won 39 games last year! They were 39-42. Not nearly as bad as the Celtics! The Lakers were 42-40! The Celtics were 24-58….this year they have the best record! The implication being that best player they added was Garnett, therefore he’s the MVP, because the other teams were already not-so-bad. Clearly they’ve improved, but they didn’t come from the same depths that the Celtics did!
Do you see the flaw in this logic? That led to me yelling this in my car:
CHRIS PAUL WAS ON THE MOTHER FUCKING HORNETS LAST YEAR YOU FUCKING MORON! KOBE BRYANT WAS ON THE LAKERS! THEY ARE THE REASON WHY THEIR TEAMS WON THOSE GAMES LAST YEAR!
With me yet? You can’t give the MVP to Garnett on the basis of the turnaround unless you have some magical ability to forecast what Cleveland, LA, and New Orleans records would have been last year minus their MVP candidates (not nearly as good). Next year, when the Celtics probably regress by a few games, will Dennis eliminate Garnett from MVP contention because they went backwards? Of course not, and he shouldn’t. It’s a stupid criteria for basing the highest individual achievement in the sport on. Let’s talk about which basketball players played the best basketball THIS YEAR, why does last year mean anything at all? The Celtics roster is totally different anyway – it’s basically like a new team.
In summary, let’s just rename the award please.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Bill Simmons Rhetorical Mailbag Questions: Answered
Bill Simmons published an NBA mailbag yesterday. In one particular question he’s decided to (rhetorically) ask you, the reader (yeah you) some questions. Instead of all of us readers flooding his e-mail with the answers, I’ll just answer for all of us on this widely read weblog. Cool?
Q: Before Andrew Bynum got hurt, the biggest change with him was effort. He looked like he was out to prove himself every night. The interesting question is, without all the Mamba drama in the offseason, would Bynum be as good now? I really think the answer is no. While calling out Bynum that way was distasteful, it might be one of those clear moves Jordan would have made, deriding a young star until he responded or was reduced to a shell of his former self (Kwame Brown.) Am I giving Kobe too much credit?-- David, San Jose, Calif.
SG: Not at all. You can't overstate how much one slight can change the course of someone's career. Does Dwyane Wade play like a man possessed if he didn't slip to No. 5 in 2003? Do Paul Pierce and Caron Butler have the same careers if they didn't fall to 10 in their drafts? Would Chris Paul be the 2008 MVP at the two-thirds mark if three teams didn't pass on him in 2005? Does Chauncey Billups turn into such a killer if Rick Pitino hadn't given up on him after 50 games? Does Baron Davis turn his career around if New Orleans never gave up on him? You could call it the first cousin of the "Nobody believed in us!" factor with team sports, in which an aggrieved player goes to another level partially because he's trying to shove it in somebody's face.
Let’s go over the questions separately.
Does Dwyane Wade play like a man possessed if he didn't slip to No. 5 in 2003?
Dwyane Wade plays no differently than he did if he was drafted in a slightly different slot. I can see him now….hmmm…I was GOING to go all out this game/practice/workout, but since I was only drafted behind Lebron and Melo I’m going to take it easy.
Do Paul Pierce and Caron Butler have the same careers if they didn't fall to 10 in their drafts?
If those same teams had drafted them (but in different slots), then yes….careers are the same.
Would Chris Paul be the 2008 MVP at the two-thirds mark if three teams didn't pass on him in 2005?
Yes, he plays the same in 2008 regardless of where he was drafted in 2005. I don’t think Paul says “yeah, take that Atlanta!… for taking Marvin Williams ahead of me!”….after he sinks a jump shot.
Does Chauncey Billups turn into such a killer if Rick Pitino hadn't given up on him after 50 games?
Um…hmmm…..well…if you’re going to credit Pitino giving up on Billups as being the reason why he’s such a “killer”, then how do you explain the fact that his performance from the midpoint of the 1997-98 season, when he was traded, was virtually on par with his next 5 ½ years in the league? Billups didn’t really show his “killer”-ness until he got to Detroit. So I’m going to say that going to the right environment, with the right teammates and coaching, is what helped Billups go the next level.
Does Baron Davis turn his career around if New Orleans never gave up on him?
Is Davis that different now, or is he just playing with better players in a better system while not being hurt? The numbers would say he’s not (that) much different, but I honestly don’t watch much Baron Davis. He was pretty much at his worst when he was traded. Perhaps some of his improvement would be the result of maturity and not being injured all the time? No, it can’t be that. He’s still mad at New Orleans. Wouldn’t Davis feel good about his ultimate treatment in New Orleans, since they sent him to a better (at the time) franchise in his hometown at at time that he himself wanted to leave?
I’m sure there are certain select cases of a player’s career being slightly different based on the fact that they were drafted at a spot that they felt was too low in the draft, but to imply at all that Chris Paul is the player he is today because he was so insulted that he fell all the way to the number four slot in the 2005 draft is stupid. Imagine how good Lebron James would have been if Carmelo Anthony was taken in front of him! That’s silly. Lebron is as good as he can be, and a player’s performance and reputation on the court is the product of their talent, skills, effort, fitness level, teammates, coaching, and luck (injuries, foul calls, some big shots going in/out, etc.). Nowhere in that equation is “draft position”.
I’d also like to point these excerpts out:
David (San Jose): Am I giving Kobe too much credit?
Bill Simmons: Not at all.
Bill Simmons (2 paragraphs later): The funny thing is that it probably wasn't Kobe's intent at all; it just worked out that way.
So Kobe gets the credit for Bynum’s improvement (it obviously has nothing to do with the fact that he’s now in his third year and isn’t in his teens anymore and is a good player...he just wasn't trying before) even though Kobe’s intent was (probably) to just be an asshole and make fun of him, not to ridicule him into improving. The credit goes to....Kobe.
Friday, November 9, 2007
This Sounds Like the Work of Crazy Old Jemele Hill
Firejaymariotti scooped me on this (even though we’re both a week late). I did have this written and ready to post it just needed some review, but screw that nerdy shit.
Jemele Hill has decided to write an article that compares Alex Rodriguez to Kobe Bryant. The column defends Bryant and points out his differences to A-Rod and, in general, why she would choose to have Kobe over A-Rod (ignoring the fact that they play different sports). Mainly that A-Rod was a distraction to his team during the playoffs during his rape trial, hasn’t gotten his team out of the first round in three years and seems to be whining all off-season every year. Oh wait, that’s Kobe Bryant. Those items either aren’t mentioned or are glossed over. The column defends Kobe’s antics because he just wants to win while A-Rod’s are lambasted as signs that he only cares about himself.
Give me Kobe over A-Rod any day
Say what you will about Kobe Bryant, but at least he's not a mercenary who wants all of the money, but none of the pressure, and doesn't perform in the playoffs.
In other words, at least he's not Alex Rodriguez.
Okay. So we’re comparing an NBA player to an MLB player. Good to recognize this up front, because the leagues and sports are VERY different. Like, if the NBA was set up like MLB, Kobe Bryant wouldn’t have led his team to the playoffs last year or the year before, where he lost in the first round (both years). Also he wouldn’t have led his team to the playoffs the year prior to that, when he…didn’t…lead..his…team to the playoffs. That’s if the performance of these players, in these sports, was really capable of being easily analogized, which they are not.
Both players are generally viewed as selfish, whiny divas. But as we approach the unusual sports phenomenon of having the best player in baseball head to a new team and arguably the best player in basketball also potentially on the move, understand that A-Rod and Kobe are two very different creatures.
Right, one plays baseball and one plays basketball. This is easy, because those sports are very dissimilar. If you try to play baseball using a basketball, pitchers would never throw a strike. So there's one difference. There's probably 2 or 3 more. There are no bases in basketball, no baskets in baseball. One is a sport of 5 guys playing in unison where 1 player can have a dramatic impact on the success of every game, the other is mostly a sport of individual achievements where a team needs many different individuals to achieve, all by themselves, in order for the team to win. In baseball, they have to play as a team, sure, but not like basketball. So I agree, very different.
A-Rod's decision to opt-out of New York is far more self-absorbed than Kobe's finagling to get out of Los Angeles.
How do you know? What if he just didn’t want to play in New York anymore because the media never left him alone, he was unfairly blamed for just about everything that went wrong, and a certain star teammate didn’t want to have sleepovers anymore?
Now, A-Rod’s opting out is likely due to a great deal of greed, and is pretty much the worst thing he can do for his image. But, let’s not be too easy on Kobe, okay? He pretty much imploded the team so it could be “his team” and then put up the gawdy numbers he wanted before noticing that people generally aren’t that impressed by gawdy numbers in the NBA when you can’t get your team out of the first round. Because this is the NBA, where individual players can have a large impact on the success of the team, this is somewhat damaging to Kobe’s legacy.
Despite Kobe's flaws, we at least know he is consumed with winning championships. A-Rod is consumed with being A-Rod.
Michael Jordan took a pay cut so the Bulls could sign Dennis Hopson, who they thought could help them reach the next level. Dennis Hopson sucked. Kobe Bryant couldn’t get along with Shaquille O’Neal in the interest of winning championships.
A-Rod is consumed with being, like, one of the best players ever – and getting paid like it.
Kobe doesn't always demonstrate his aspirations maturely. It also can't be ignored that a key aspect of his championship ambitions is that he has to be the guy in the lead role. But if the worst you can say about Kobe -- whose competitive streak was cloned from Michael Jordan's -- is he no longer wanted to play alongside a once-dominant, but injury-prone center, it's not exactly a sign of the apocalypse.
I love how she brushed by Kobe’s flaws by setting such a high hurdle for it to be newsworthy (um, the apocalypse). Is it a sign of a selfish player, Jemele? Is it a sign of a player who was maybe putting the possibility of winning a championship somewhere other than “first” on his list of priorities?
The worst I can say about Kobe is that he may have raped a girl. The worst I can say about him on the court is that he has not exhibited himself as the best team player that he could be. When criticized about shooting too much, he’s even pouted and then he won’t take shots that he should be taking. He’s sort of a baby that way.
Phil Jackson, arguably the best coach in NBA history, called Kobe Bryant “uncoachable” in his book.
And considering some of the things that Lakers owner Jerry Buss has said about Kobe in recent weeks, we've seen that Buss is his own man -- if he really wanted to keep Shaq, he would have kept him. Buss' main concern was dumping another $100 million into the fourth Fu-Schniken.
Um, right. He could have kept Shaq, and Phil Jackson, and Kobe Bryant would have signed with the LA Clippers. That was Kobe’s move; he was a free agent threatening to sign elsewhere unless Shaq was traded. So Kobe Bryant is absolved from his role in Shaq being traded because Jerry Buss is his “own man”? You don’t think that Kobe could have helped keep Shaq in town, if he really wanted to keep winning? Considering that both Phil Jackson and Shaq were exited from LA, and that's what Kobe wanted, I'm pretty sure he could have had a big say in them staying. The fact is, even if Buss wouldn't have listened to him, what happened was what Kobe wanted to happen.
But does anything in A-Rod's history or demeanor suggest he's remotely obsessed with winning the way Kobe is? A-Rod seems more obsessed with being loved than winning. He wants all the perks, but none of the responsibility. He wants 100-plus RBIs, and to eventually be the home run king. Just don't expect him to bring any of the necessary intangibles it takes to win something meaningful.
Does A-Rod really seem obsessed with being loved? Opting out of his contract during the 8th inning of the deciding game of the World Series is hardly the act of a player who wants to be loved. While I may not expect him to bring any of the necessary intangibles it takes to win, because I don’t know what those are, I do expect him to bring very necessary TANGIBLES for winning. Things like “hits” and “home runs”.
Sounds like a perfect fit for the Chicago Cubs.
What?
A-Rod isn't a leader, comes off as insecure and teams mysteriously seem better off when he's gone. Kobe? The three-time champion thrives under pressure and the low opinions some people have of him.
Hmm, okay. Has Kobe really performed better as an NBA player than A-Rod has as an MLB player since those low opinions were formed, primarily during his rape trial and him being accused of pushing Shaq out? Has Kobe really outperformed A-Rod in the last 3 years? A-Rod should soon have two league MVPs in that time and has helped his team get to the playoffs in each of those years. Kobe hasn’t made it out of the first round w/out Shaq. It’s a lot easier to make the NBA playoffs than the MLB playoffs – and it’s a lot easier for one player to impact his team making the playoffs in the NBA. Now, there are a million other factors at play here, but if you’re going to oversimplify to make convenient arguments then so am I.
Also – see FireJay’s post for numbers regarding A-Rod’s teams after he leaves. You are mentally retarded if you think that teams are better without the best player on the planet because he left….you can’t just look at records and ignore ALL other factors driving the change in records.
Kobe was criticized for brutally assessing the Lakers' lack of progress. But when A-Rod was a Yankee, the only thing that seemed to bother him was his own personal slumps.
Well what the fuck else should bother him? Should A-Rod criticize Brian Cashman for the Yankees’ pitching woes at points in the season? Should Derek Jeter’s slumps bother him? Should he be riding Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina and Andy Pettite to pitch better? People like you would be all over him.
Wouldn't you prefer a player who gets upset about losing more than a player who seems fine with it as long as he can stare at his pretty statistics and pay stubs? Can you blame Kobe for complaining about any plan that included passing on a skilled player who could help the Lakers in the present in favor of the long-term coddling of Andrew Bynum? Has A-Rod ever exhibited that kind of passion and determination? Has he ever given answers that didn't sound rehearsed?
Did Michael Jordan ever give answers that didn’t sound rehearsed (no)? Did Dennis Rodman (yes)? What’s your point? What reason did A-Rod have for lashing out at Yankee management? Should he just invent one to seem more passionate?
Even if A-Rod somehow wound up playing for the world champion Red Sox -- and if you're listening Boston, adding this guy to your clubhouse is akin to putting Britney Spears on "Nanny 911" -- it would be difficult to interpret A-Rod's actions as that of a man driven to win.
Putting up the best numbers in baseball = not the actions of a man driven to win.
A-Rod, of course, has the right to chase as much money as he wants. It's not his fault if the market dictates he earn an astronomical figure. There's no denying there were times he was unfairly brutalized in New York. The stalking by the tabloids was unacceptable, as was the fascination with his personal life. But the problems he had there will follow him into his next clubhouse.
Really? Did they exist in Seattle? What about Texas?
It's fair to accuse A-Rod and Kobe of being types who can't operate in a locker room unless they control it.
The difference is, there've been signs that Kobe has outgrown some of that. A-Rod doesn't seem like he ever will.
Right, because Kobe has been really mature this off-season.
There are two fundamental points not addressed by Jemele at all, as follows:
1. In the hypothetical situation that you own an NBA team and an MLB team, and you get one player to start that team (say, for 1 season, because of the impact of age in the two sports is so disparate), of course you take Kobe Bryant. But that’s because of the make-up of the sports. In the NBA, a top notch superstar helps to assure fans in the seats and a much better shot at a title contention. Baseball is just different. I don’t know how she can’t address this. If baseball was played on a smaller field with 5 players on the field and at bat, and A-Rod was able to get the most AB’s on the team by far, then the impact of Alex Rodriguez would be much much greater and he would be as valuable as a Kobe Bryant is in the NBA – probably more valuable.
2. A-Rod is all about the money and the personal accolades. That’s what she implies. He isn’t as interested in winning as Kobe. Let’s break this down:
Money: There is no salary cap in baseball. Baseball players who become free agents are truly paid market value for their services. Rodriguez, being the best player in the game, thinks he should be paid a lot of money for his services, so he gets it. You never hear about Kobe Bryant and money problems for a simple reason. In the NBA, it’s very structured. He makes damn near the most money he can possible make, per the CBA/Salary cap structure. By the way, he makes close to A-Rod money in salary. There is literally nothing for Kobe to complain about, money-wise. If it was truly a free market – with no limit on how much teams could sign free agents for and no salary cap - and Charlotte offered Kobe Bryant $40 million a year, and that was much more than anyone else was offering, would he take it? Would you fault him for taking it? This is another fundamental unfairness that never gets addressed.
Statistics/accolades/records: I don’t see a problem with an offensive player in baseball being concerned with putting up the best offensive statistics he can. It’s mind-boggling how this is turned into a negative quality in baseball.
“Boy, look at Johnny Hanrahan, that guy hit .215 last year and he doesn’t give a shit! He doesn’t care about his numbers! He just wants to win! Now look at selfish Bobby Smith who hit 55 home runs but cared more about hitting those home runs than he did winning. I know this because Johnny Hanrahan is killing himself out there and Bobby Smith is playing in a very smooth, unemotional manner.”
Seriously, why is this hard to understand? A-Rod, by putting up crazy numbers, is trying to win. Yes, the last few postseason series were not up to par. But it’s like 70 at-bats spread out over 4 years. He’s the best player at baseball at getting you to the playoffs, and that’s the hard part. The playoffs are a crap shoot.
Nothing against Kobe, who is an unreal basketball player, but please remember that MLB is a free market system. Also, an NBA player has significantly more impact on his team’s overall success than an MLB player who gets 4-5 at-bats a game and 2-3 balls hit to him.
Jemele Hill has decided to write an article that compares Alex Rodriguez to Kobe Bryant. The column defends Bryant and points out his differences to A-Rod and, in general, why she would choose to have Kobe over A-Rod (ignoring the fact that they play different sports). Mainly that A-Rod was a distraction to his team during the playoffs during his rape trial, hasn’t gotten his team out of the first round in three years and seems to be whining all off-season every year. Oh wait, that’s Kobe Bryant. Those items either aren’t mentioned or are glossed over. The column defends Kobe’s antics because he just wants to win while A-Rod’s are lambasted as signs that he only cares about himself.
Give me Kobe over A-Rod any day
Say what you will about Kobe Bryant, but at least he's not a mercenary who wants all of the money, but none of the pressure, and doesn't perform in the playoffs.
In other words, at least he's not Alex Rodriguez.
Okay. So we’re comparing an NBA player to an MLB player. Good to recognize this up front, because the leagues and sports are VERY different. Like, if the NBA was set up like MLB, Kobe Bryant wouldn’t have led his team to the playoffs last year or the year before, where he lost in the first round (both years). Also he wouldn’t have led his team to the playoffs the year prior to that, when he…didn’t…lead..his…team to the playoffs. That’s if the performance of these players, in these sports, was really capable of being easily analogized, which they are not.
Both players are generally viewed as selfish, whiny divas. But as we approach the unusual sports phenomenon of having the best player in baseball head to a new team and arguably the best player in basketball also potentially on the move, understand that A-Rod and Kobe are two very different creatures.
Right, one plays baseball and one plays basketball. This is easy, because those sports are very dissimilar. If you try to play baseball using a basketball, pitchers would never throw a strike. So there's one difference. There's probably 2 or 3 more. There are no bases in basketball, no baskets in baseball. One is a sport of 5 guys playing in unison where 1 player can have a dramatic impact on the success of every game, the other is mostly a sport of individual achievements where a team needs many different individuals to achieve, all by themselves, in order for the team to win. In baseball, they have to play as a team, sure, but not like basketball. So I agree, very different.
A-Rod's decision to opt-out of New York is far more self-absorbed than Kobe's finagling to get out of Los Angeles.
How do you know? What if he just didn’t want to play in New York anymore because the media never left him alone, he was unfairly blamed for just about everything that went wrong, and a certain star teammate didn’t want to have sleepovers anymore?
Now, A-Rod’s opting out is likely due to a great deal of greed, and is pretty much the worst thing he can do for his image. But, let’s not be too easy on Kobe, okay? He pretty much imploded the team so it could be “his team” and then put up the gawdy numbers he wanted before noticing that people generally aren’t that impressed by gawdy numbers in the NBA when you can’t get your team out of the first round. Because this is the NBA, where individual players can have a large impact on the success of the team, this is somewhat damaging to Kobe’s legacy.
Despite Kobe's flaws, we at least know he is consumed with winning championships. A-Rod is consumed with being A-Rod.
Michael Jordan took a pay cut so the Bulls could sign Dennis Hopson, who they thought could help them reach the next level. Dennis Hopson sucked. Kobe Bryant couldn’t get along with Shaquille O’Neal in the interest of winning championships.
A-Rod is consumed with being, like, one of the best players ever – and getting paid like it.
Kobe doesn't always demonstrate his aspirations maturely. It also can't be ignored that a key aspect of his championship ambitions is that he has to be the guy in the lead role. But if the worst you can say about Kobe -- whose competitive streak was cloned from Michael Jordan's -- is he no longer wanted to play alongside a once-dominant, but injury-prone center, it's not exactly a sign of the apocalypse.
I love how she brushed by Kobe’s flaws by setting such a high hurdle for it to be newsworthy (um, the apocalypse). Is it a sign of a selfish player, Jemele? Is it a sign of a player who was maybe putting the possibility of winning a championship somewhere other than “first” on his list of priorities?
The worst I can say about Kobe is that he may have raped a girl. The worst I can say about him on the court is that he has not exhibited himself as the best team player that he could be. When criticized about shooting too much, he’s even pouted and then he won’t take shots that he should be taking. He’s sort of a baby that way.
Phil Jackson, arguably the best coach in NBA history, called Kobe Bryant “uncoachable” in his book.
And considering some of the things that Lakers owner Jerry Buss has said about Kobe in recent weeks, we've seen that Buss is his own man -- if he really wanted to keep Shaq, he would have kept him. Buss' main concern was dumping another $100 million into the fourth Fu-Schniken.
Um, right. He could have kept Shaq, and Phil Jackson, and Kobe Bryant would have signed with the LA Clippers. That was Kobe’s move; he was a free agent threatening to sign elsewhere unless Shaq was traded. So Kobe Bryant is absolved from his role in Shaq being traded because Jerry Buss is his “own man”? You don’t think that Kobe could have helped keep Shaq in town, if he really wanted to keep winning? Considering that both Phil Jackson and Shaq were exited from LA, and that's what Kobe wanted, I'm pretty sure he could have had a big say in them staying. The fact is, even if Buss wouldn't have listened to him, what happened was what Kobe wanted to happen.
But does anything in A-Rod's history or demeanor suggest he's remotely obsessed with winning the way Kobe is? A-Rod seems more obsessed with being loved than winning. He wants all the perks, but none of the responsibility. He wants 100-plus RBIs, and to eventually be the home run king. Just don't expect him to bring any of the necessary intangibles it takes to win something meaningful.
Does A-Rod really seem obsessed with being loved? Opting out of his contract during the 8th inning of the deciding game of the World Series is hardly the act of a player who wants to be loved. While I may not expect him to bring any of the necessary intangibles it takes to win, because I don’t know what those are, I do expect him to bring very necessary TANGIBLES for winning. Things like “hits” and “home runs”.
Sounds like a perfect fit for the Chicago Cubs.
What?
A-Rod isn't a leader, comes off as insecure and teams mysteriously seem better off when he's gone. Kobe? The three-time champion thrives under pressure and the low opinions some people have of him.
Hmm, okay. Has Kobe really performed better as an NBA player than A-Rod has as an MLB player since those low opinions were formed, primarily during his rape trial and him being accused of pushing Shaq out? Has Kobe really outperformed A-Rod in the last 3 years? A-Rod should soon have two league MVPs in that time and has helped his team get to the playoffs in each of those years. Kobe hasn’t made it out of the first round w/out Shaq. It’s a lot easier to make the NBA playoffs than the MLB playoffs – and it’s a lot easier for one player to impact his team making the playoffs in the NBA. Now, there are a million other factors at play here, but if you’re going to oversimplify to make convenient arguments then so am I.
Also – see FireJay’s post for numbers regarding A-Rod’s teams after he leaves. You are mentally retarded if you think that teams are better without the best player on the planet because he left….you can’t just look at records and ignore ALL other factors driving the change in records.
Kobe was criticized for brutally assessing the Lakers' lack of progress. But when A-Rod was a Yankee, the only thing that seemed to bother him was his own personal slumps.
Well what the fuck else should bother him? Should A-Rod criticize Brian Cashman for the Yankees’ pitching woes at points in the season? Should Derek Jeter’s slumps bother him? Should he be riding Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina and Andy Pettite to pitch better? People like you would be all over him.
Wouldn't you prefer a player who gets upset about losing more than a player who seems fine with it as long as he can stare at his pretty statistics and pay stubs? Can you blame Kobe for complaining about any plan that included passing on a skilled player who could help the Lakers in the present in favor of the long-term coddling of Andrew Bynum? Has A-Rod ever exhibited that kind of passion and determination? Has he ever given answers that didn't sound rehearsed?
Did Michael Jordan ever give answers that didn’t sound rehearsed (no)? Did Dennis Rodman (yes)? What’s your point? What reason did A-Rod have for lashing out at Yankee management? Should he just invent one to seem more passionate?
Even if A-Rod somehow wound up playing for the world champion Red Sox -- and if you're listening Boston, adding this guy to your clubhouse is akin to putting Britney Spears on "Nanny 911" -- it would be difficult to interpret A-Rod's actions as that of a man driven to win.
Putting up the best numbers in baseball = not the actions of a man driven to win.
A-Rod, of course, has the right to chase as much money as he wants. It's not his fault if the market dictates he earn an astronomical figure. There's no denying there were times he was unfairly brutalized in New York. The stalking by the tabloids was unacceptable, as was the fascination with his personal life. But the problems he had there will follow him into his next clubhouse.
Really? Did they exist in Seattle? What about Texas?
It's fair to accuse A-Rod and Kobe of being types who can't operate in a locker room unless they control it.
The difference is, there've been signs that Kobe has outgrown some of that. A-Rod doesn't seem like he ever will.
Right, because Kobe has been really mature this off-season.
There are two fundamental points not addressed by Jemele at all, as follows:
1. In the hypothetical situation that you own an NBA team and an MLB team, and you get one player to start that team (say, for 1 season, because of the impact of age in the two sports is so disparate), of course you take Kobe Bryant. But that’s because of the make-up of the sports. In the NBA, a top notch superstar helps to assure fans in the seats and a much better shot at a title contention. Baseball is just different. I don’t know how she can’t address this. If baseball was played on a smaller field with 5 players on the field and at bat, and A-Rod was able to get the most AB’s on the team by far, then the impact of Alex Rodriguez would be much much greater and he would be as valuable as a Kobe Bryant is in the NBA – probably more valuable.
2. A-Rod is all about the money and the personal accolades. That’s what she implies. He isn’t as interested in winning as Kobe. Let’s break this down:
Money: There is no salary cap in baseball. Baseball players who become free agents are truly paid market value for their services. Rodriguez, being the best player in the game, thinks he should be paid a lot of money for his services, so he gets it. You never hear about Kobe Bryant and money problems for a simple reason. In the NBA, it’s very structured. He makes damn near the most money he can possible make, per the CBA/Salary cap structure. By the way, he makes close to A-Rod money in salary. There is literally nothing for Kobe to complain about, money-wise. If it was truly a free market – with no limit on how much teams could sign free agents for and no salary cap - and Charlotte offered Kobe Bryant $40 million a year, and that was much more than anyone else was offering, would he take it? Would you fault him for taking it? This is another fundamental unfairness that never gets addressed.
Statistics/accolades/records: I don’t see a problem with an offensive player in baseball being concerned with putting up the best offensive statistics he can. It’s mind-boggling how this is turned into a negative quality in baseball.
“Boy, look at Johnny Hanrahan, that guy hit .215 last year and he doesn’t give a shit! He doesn’t care about his numbers! He just wants to win! Now look at selfish Bobby Smith who hit 55 home runs but cared more about hitting those home runs than he did winning. I know this because Johnny Hanrahan is killing himself out there and Bobby Smith is playing in a very smooth, unemotional manner.”
Seriously, why is this hard to understand? A-Rod, by putting up crazy numbers, is trying to win. Yes, the last few postseason series were not up to par. But it’s like 70 at-bats spread out over 4 years. He’s the best player at baseball at getting you to the playoffs, and that’s the hard part. The playoffs are a crap shoot.
Nothing against Kobe, who is an unreal basketball player, but please remember that MLB is a free market system. Also, an NBA player has significantly more impact on his team’s overall success than an MLB player who gets 4-5 at-bats a game and 2-3 balls hit to him.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Hiatus
The entire staff of GGAS (23 person office in White Bear Lake Minnesota - Go Bears!) is going to be on hiatus from now through about September 16th. We at GGAS measure our success just like a public company, quarterly, and in less than three months we’ve exceeded our stockholders’ expectations by so much that we are taking a well deserved vacation. That means we’ll come back ready to start a new quarter, and hopefully kick so much ass in the first month that we can take the second and third months off.
If I read something particularly egregious I will have to contain my excitement and post when I get back. If I can steal some internet time it will probably be to make updates to my fantasy team, since all bloggers are just fantasy dorks who live in their parents basements! Ha! LOL!
Because I know that the dozens of regularly readers (technically true!) will be going through withdrawals without my crazy commentary on Stuart Scott’s typos, here's some stuff you can read (in addition to regularly checking out the links on the right, of course). This isn't meant to be endorsed as all quality sportswriting or whatever, just some items that I remembered reading and being decent or interesting.
Baseball’s Most Impressive Records – The Baseball Crank.
Eleven Weeks to Irrelevance – Scoop Jackson. No Shit! This Scoop Jackson! …talking about Larry Doby.
Tom Verducci of SI wrote this decent column on Hank Aaron before Barry broke the record. Barry Bonds. The home run record! Remember that?
Here is an interesting comparison of Johan Santana and Pedro Martinez – Hardball Times.
Here is a crazy string of stories about the guy who sued Michael Vick for like 63 Billion dollars for using his dogs, then selling them to buy nukes from the Iranians. Something like that – at Dreadnaught.
Kobe Bryant’s blog. THE NBA ALL-STAR! Yeah, now that I have your attention….
If you’re new to GGAS, this is the most consistently read post from the archives of this site. This and other Jemele Hill related posts,actually – here.
If I read something particularly egregious I will have to contain my excitement and post when I get back. If I can steal some internet time it will probably be to make updates to my fantasy team, since all bloggers are just fantasy dorks who live in their parents basements! Ha! LOL!
Because I know that the dozens of regularly readers (technically true!) will be going through withdrawals without my crazy commentary on Stuart Scott’s typos, here's some stuff you can read (in addition to regularly checking out the links on the right, of course). This isn't meant to be endorsed as all quality sportswriting or whatever, just some items that I remembered reading and being decent or interesting.
Baseball’s Most Impressive Records – The Baseball Crank.
Eleven Weeks to Irrelevance – Scoop Jackson. No Shit! This Scoop Jackson! …talking about Larry Doby.
Tom Verducci of SI wrote this decent column on Hank Aaron before Barry broke the record. Barry Bonds. The home run record! Remember that?
Here is an interesting comparison of Johan Santana and Pedro Martinez – Hardball Times.
Here is a crazy string of stories about the guy who sued Michael Vick for like 63 Billion dollars for using his dogs, then selling them to buy nukes from the Iranians. Something like that – at Dreadnaught.
Kobe Bryant’s blog. THE NBA ALL-STAR! Yeah, now that I have your attention….
If you’re new to GGAS, this is the most consistently read post from the archives of this site. This and other Jemele Hill related posts,actually – here.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Kobe Better Player Than Jordan, But Jordan Best Player Ever
If that title doesn’t make sense to you, then we are in for a long journey my friend.
This is a column written by Jemele Hill in late March about Kobe Bryant being the best player in the NBA, and being better than Michael Jordan (titled "Putting Kobe in perspective"). It’s old, but it pre-dated this site so I get to include it now because I was recently reminded of it. I’ve excluded her points about Kobe being the best player in the NBA because it was not interesting or relevant to the Jordan discussion. Her column generated a fair amount of mail for Jemele and I’ve included her general responses to some of that mail (her next column was a mailbag). I believe Bill Simmons commented on it as well in a chat or mailbag but I’m not going to dig that up.
The best description I could give to the column would be to call it unfortunate. Comparisons of NBA greats are supposed to be a fun thing, with discussions of accomplishments, great moments and mind boggling stats. Jemele instead gives us a truck load of excuses for Kobe not getting the respect he deserves and statements about all things concerning MJ except his game. The first statement is an attention getter:
Kobe Bryant is better than Michael Jordan.
Interesting, let’s hear you back it up with basketball related evidence. Should be fun!
Not more successful.
At basketball? Well that seems like it would hurt your argument. 1 point Jordan! Go on.
Hasn't had a bigger economic impact.
Irrelevant. Let’s talk hoops.
Hasn't won more MVPs.
That’s a fact. If you want to argue that Kobe should have won a couple by now I’ll argue that Jordan should have also won MVP’s in ‘90, ‘93 and ‘97. Let's stop this one sentence crap and get the ball rolling here!
Hasn't won more titles.
I have a feeling your argument is going to be based on a lot of non-results based things.
But he's a better player.
Kobe can do everything Michael did, and even a few things Michael couldn't do.
“Can do” is different than “does”. It’s much different actually. Kobe can do pretty much anything on a basketball court, but shouldn’t this argument be based on what these men actually do/have done on the court? Like, with stats and big games and clutch shots and nuances that only a keen ESPN Page 2 eye could uncover? No? Just nebulous unsupported, terrible arguments? This is going to suck.
Kobe is just as good a defender. His killer instinct is just as pronounced. He can shoot, finish and explode. And just like Jordan, the more he's pissed off, the more unstoppable he is.
Look, I’d take Jordan but Kobe is a great defender, so I’ll give you this one – that they are equal on defense. I mean, there’s no objective evidence that would ever lead you there, based on statistics and awards, but Kobe is a great defender. I think Kobe goes through more lapses than Jordan, and Jordan was more prolific and getting steals and blocks.
Of course, the idea that Kobe is better than Jordan -- or even the best player in this league -- is as repugnant to some folks as a rectal exam. Even though Kobe has proven himself under pressure countless times, he gets the A-Rod treatment.
Please explain this. Is anyone saying Kobe isn’t good under pressure? I mean, he faded in the second half of the Pistons Finals in ’04 and he didn’t set the world on fire in the second half of game 7 against the Suns in ’06, but he’s come through far to often for anyone to think he’s not clutch.
Kobe can't please anyone. And it doesn't help that most people suffer from revisionist history when it comes to Jordan, forgetting that he was just as poor a teammate and a ball hog and that he ran off coach Doug Collins like Kobe ran off Phil Jackson the first time.
So Jordan ran off a bad coach which lead to an awesome coach taking over and the team winning 6 championships in 8 years. Bryant ran off an awesome coach (by that time, historically great) after winning 3 championships for a lesser coach which lead to disappointing results for the Lakers. You're including this?
And really, what is this poor teammate business? He was a hard ass. So was Bird, so was Magic. There’s nothing wrong with a superstar pushing his teammates to come up to his level. Say whatever you want about how “fun” it may not have been to play with Jordan, but he made his teammates better. This is a stupid direction to take this argument. If Michael Jordan had the temperament of Tracy McGrady, then he doesn’t win 6 rings. Jordan was a “ball hog” to the extent that he needed to be to give his team the best chance to win.
In fact, you could argue that Jordan was even worse. Far as we know, Kobe hasn't jacked up any of his teammates the way Jordan punched out Steve Kerr and Will Perdue at practice.
Worse what? As a teammate? This is so subjective it’s pointless, and I could argue that a guy who takes a leak in his teammate’s lockers every day could still be the best player ever. This is stupid.
Kobe will never be forgiven for Shaq's departure, but you're delusional if you think Jordan wouldn't have had any ego issues playing alongside a player with Shaq's star power.
So Kobe is better because (you hypothesize) that Jordan wouldn’t have liked playing with Shaq either? This is not a good argument, Jemelle. I personally think they would have worked pretty well together and gotten along fine, because they would have gone like 79-3. But the whole thing is just pointless to discuss.
The best-player argument shouldn't be determined by personal dislike.
I agree, let's keep it to the basketball court! We are on the same page.
But if you want to take it there, fine.
Oh, never mind. You are a hypocrite.
Jordan was hardly the ideal husband, but only the tabloids were brave enough to venture into his personal life. And what about those gambling issues? If Jordan's life had been covered like Kobe's, we would have an entirely different opinion of His Airness.
To paraphrase: The best player argument should be based on on-court results….but…but...but look at Michael Jordan off the court! I bet he wouldn’t have liked Shaq! He was horribly competitive in practice! He gambled!!! Look at that stuff!!!
The gambling issues were debated, all the time, during Jordan’s playing days. Seriously, it was non-stop. Where were you? Bill Simmons thinks he was forced to take a break from the NBA in '93 because of gambling. It got a fair amount of attention.
Besides a different level of media scrutiny,
I totally disagree. His gambling was covered non-stop. Also, a very rich man gambling is not the same as a rape allegation, if you want to go there. Pointless to bring this stuff up. Jordan got about the same attention for a gambling venture in Atlantic City the night before a playoff game as Kobe did for flying in from Colorado from his rape trial during the playoffs. “Michael Jordan” and “Gambling” get about the same number of google hits (more than) as “Kobe Bryant” and “Rape”, and that was like 14 years ago, and he’s retired, and it’s rape! Crude I know, but just trying to drill it into Jemele’s noggin.
there was definitely a difference in the level of competition during Jordan's heyday compared to now.
Possibly a fair point, let’s hear you defend it.
Yesterday's NBA player certainly was more fundamentally sound, but there's no question that today's player is bigger, stronger and faster. When Jordan played, he was a singular force that could not be equaled. Jordan was guarded by the likes of John Starks and Joe Dumars, who were fine players but weren't nearly as skilled or physically imposing as LeBron, D-Wade, Tracy McGrady or even Vince Carter.
The NBA is tougher now.
Sooo….guys are more athletic. That’s a given. Does that automatically make them better defenders? Are any of those guys great defenders? Single guys didn’t guard Jordan, teams did. The Pistons and the Knicks (Dumars and Starks) guarded Jordan, with great team defense. You can’t make arguments thinking this narrowly. It’s retarded. Is team defense in the NBA now where it was in the early-mid 90’s? Maybe, maybe not, but you’re not even thinking this way. Hand checking was rampant and it was an era of much harder fouls that didn’t carry the same consequences. Has anyone ever really beat up on Kobe and went after him like the Pistons and Knicks did with Jordan? No, because they’d foul out in 5 minutes and end up with suspensions.
Kobe, like Michael, is surrounded with mediocre to below-average talent, and Phoenix, Dallas and San Antonio are all better than the Utah, Portland and the Charles Barkley-led Phoenix team that Michael met in the NBA Finals.
Based on what? That’s just bullshit speculation passed off as fact. This looks pretty stupid now with Dallas losing in round 1. San Antonio I’ll give you, but the other two? No, I don’t think so. Those Utah teams were real good. Same with Portland. You can have a healthy debate, but this is not fact and I wouldn’t waste my time on it if I were you.
Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson and Patrick Ewing will be among the best centers ever, but none of them affected the league the way Shaq and Tim Duncan have.
This is a piss-poor way to argue that Kobe’s competition is better, especially since Shaq is much better classified as Kobe’s teammate than his competition in the context of Kobe’s career. You know who else was around when Jordan was winning MVPs and championships? Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal. Shaq was in the league for 4 of Jordan’s championships. Shaq was Jordan’s competition a lot more than he’s been Kobe’s. What about Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and Charles Barkley? Did they affect the league? They were Jordan's contemporaries, too.
There are two two-time MVPs in Kobe's own conference (Duncan, Nash), which is a problem Jordan never faced during his championship runs.
That’s because Jordan won most of the MVP’s. You keep setting ‘em up, and I’ll keep spiking ‘em down.
Seven-footers weren't launching 3s back then. Magic Johnson and the Lakers were on a downward spiral, and the Pistons were on their last legs. It was Michael and everyone else. That's not the case for Kobe.
Bill Laimbeer was launching 3s. Anyway, watch me turn this around into a classic Jemele non-point.
Today 7 footers are launching 3s, back then they ruled the paint. Back then there were dominating the post, blocking shots, and weren’t jacking up 3’s like now. Back then big men made it more difficult to finish around the rim, they knew their place was in the paint, to clog the lanes, and challenge shots. Some of the best shotblockers ever such as Hakeem, Mutumbo, Ewing, Mourning, Shaq, Robinson, Eaton etc. were in their shot blocking prime and roaming the paint when Jordan played.
Does that make sense? Is it accurate? Does it further a point? Does it directly relate to this column? Maybe no on all counts. But it has the same impact as “seven footers weren’t launching 3s back then”, yet it’s the exact opposite point.
The Pistons period of greatness was ’87-’90. Jordan didn’t face those teams? Of course he did, but Pippen and Grant were still maturing, and they were strengthening as a team because they were playing the Pistons so much. Jordan put up ridiculous seasons from ’87 – ’90, the Pistons period of dominance. They were his best statistical seasons. There were a lot of great players and teams during Jordan's tenure in the NBA. You can't just disregard them as "everyone else".
The shame of it is that Kobe might finish his career without a MVP, even though his ability can be compared only to that of Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain.
Wilt Chamberlain? I’m pretty sure that Wilt and Kobe have entirely different ability, both in skills, athletic strengths, and the mental aspects (Wilt was said to lack a killer instinct). Do you mean in terms of the size of their ability? Sure, those three have the most ability in history, whatever the fuck that means.
All this time we've been looking for a player who is better than Jordan, but most of us can't get beyond whether we like or dislike Kobe as a person to recognize his contributions to the game.
Maybe you, Jemele. Most everyone I hear calls him the best player in the NBA. I HATE when writers make arguments for themselves to counter like this. Jemele is the queen of that.
Kobe Mailbag responses
Jemele then got a lot of mail on the subject, and had more to add. It gets real confusing here, folks. I have to cut extraneous stuff out to keep you awake. This is actually worse than the original column she wrote, a difficult feat to pull off.
(1) I do not believe the NBA is better now than it was then. It's my fault for not explaining this better. At least a third of you who e-mailed thought I was on crack -- and seriously at least 400-500 e-mails had, "Are you on crack?" in the subject line -- for even entertaining the possibility the NBA is a better product now.
That’s awesome. When you write a column which results in 1/3rd of the readers asking if you’re on crack, you have not put together a good argument (assuming the readers who wrote in were a representative sample of all her readers).
No, it's not. That's not what I'm saying. I believe today's player is more athletic, stronger and has more raw ability than players in the '80s and early '90s. Clearly those players in the Magic, Bird and Isiah era were more polished, tougher and had unbelievable basketball acumen. It was a better game because the players were more skilled. Today, we see guys with extraordinary physical gifts and no fundamentals. So, to sum up: Today's player has more talent, but yesterday's player was a better basketball player.
Then why is it to Kobe’s credit that he excels against players that you yourself admit are inferior basketball players (I disagree, but I don’t want to confuse the situation more)? This makes zero sense.
(2) That being said, there are teams in the league right now that were better than at least three of the teams Jordan beat in the Finals. The Mavericks, Suns and Spurs are better than Clyde Drexler's Trail Blazers, Gary Payton's Sonics and Charles Barkley's Suns. The coaches: Avery Johnson, Mike D'Antoni and Gregg Popovich versus Rick Adelman, George Karl and Paul Westphal. Not even a debate there. Drexler was horribly overrated -- a slasher, terrific shot-blocker and rebounder for a 6-foot-7 guy, but he was a subpar shooter and mediocre ballhandler. You play the who-would-you-rather-have game with the rosters and you would favor most of the 2007 players. Nash or KJ? Duncan or Kemp? Stoudemire or Kemp? Shawn Marion or Buck Williams? The only untouchables are Payton and Barkley. And by the way, I'm not entirely convinced Jordan's Bulls could have beaten the Rockets in '94 or '95 when Hakeem Olajuwon was at the height of his filthiness (I mean that in a good way).
Sorry, this is stupid. You can’t say that team X was better than team Y because you like team X’s coach or superstar more. There’s much more to a team than that. Those Blazers teams were very good, same with the Jazz, Sonics and Suns. But we think back to those teams and the flaws in their superstars and immediately discredit the entire team. You can’t do this “KJ or Nash” game – it really proves no point. When you were watching all those finals, you never said, “man….this team sucks.” But what you are doing now is what you accuse the fans of….revisionist history. I seriously don’t know who would come out of the west with the '07 Mavs, Suns, Spurs, '93 Suns, '92 Blazers, '96 Sonics, and '97 Jazz in the mix. But I certainly don’t think it’s a slam dunk for the Spurs, and I think the '07 Mavs and Suns are probably the 2 worst teams in that group. Debatable of course, but the general point is that we’re not looking at two classes of teams here. Certainly nothing I’m hanging my hat on in a Kobe Bryant vs. Michael Jordan argument.
I mean, did you really just compare Shawn Marion and Buck Williams in a column about Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant?
(3) I'm not totally certifiable. I know T-Mac or Vince Carter couldn't stop an 8-year-old on a PAL team. Dwyane Wade's defense also is suspect. My argument wasn't about their defense, but their offense.
So they are bad defenders, but you were arguing about their offense….let’s reprint your original point.
“Jordan was guarded by the likes of John Starks and Joe Dumars, who were fine players but weren't nearly as skilled or physically imposing as LeBron, D-Wade, Tracy McGrady or even Vince Carter. The NBA is tougher now.”
Nope, sounds like you’re saying that Kobe is defended by better players than Jordan was.
The evolution of size and skill from the '80s until now is obvious. This is a league filled with very tall, very big, athletic people who can shoot and do ridiculously dumb things above the rim. When Jordan played, some could match his athleticism, but not many. These days, 40-inch verticals are a dime a dozen. Jordan's killer instinct will always set him apart, but if he played today, his athleticism would not be the distinguishing factor it was before. I concede, though, he would have nearly 40 a game.
So to summarize:
- Jordan’s athleticism wouldn’t stand out as much.
- After all this shit about competition you say that Jordan would average nearly 40 a game right now. Like 25% more than Kobe Bryant.
You are terrible at making arguments and supporting them. You say some bold things and then never back them up, not even close. Usually you back up the opposite point, which is unique.
(4) I'll say it again: Kobe is just as good or better than MJ on the defensive end. Jordan was an unbelievable defender, but some of you seemed to forget he was playing alongside a defender who was just as capable -- Scottie Pippen. If you think that didn't help Jordan beef up his defensive stats, you are delusional.
I’m delusional?
So you think playing with Pippen helped Jordan “beef up his defensive stats?”
Okay well now this just happened:
Jordan steals/blocks per game in his Chicago years, pre-Scottie Pippen (84/85-87), and I’ll even throw in the Washington years at age 38 and 39:
Steals per game: 2.09 / Blocks per game: 0.86
Kobe Bryant: Career
Steals per game: 1.50 / Blocks per game: 0.60
Jordan in his ’87 year, last year before Pippen:
Steals per game: 2.88 / Blocks per game: 1.52
And get this (since you brought up defensive stats):
In 1987 (pre-Pippen), Jordan was the first player in the NBA (since they tracked these stats) to record 200 steals and 100 blocks in a season (he had 236 steals and 125 blocks). In 1988 he duplicated this with 259/131. Kobe Bryant has never really come close to doing either of these things (most steals = 181, most blocks = 67), never mind doing both at the same time while averaging 37 and 35 on the other end.
Really, as I said before, you can’t use any numbers to support Kobe being a better defender, even when you solve for Scottie Pippen’s impact (is there one?). Seriously, how dumb do you feel? Oh right, you’re not reading this. Like 3 people are.
Kobe Bryant’s best steals season: 2.2/game.
Michael Jordan exceeded this 9 times, and averaged 2.35 for his career.
Kobe Bryant’s best blocks season: 1.0/game in a lockout shortened season.
Jordan exceeded 4 times.
The value of these numbers can certainly be debated, but you’re the one who wanted to talk defensive stats and imply they’d be equal if not for Pippen. Jordan never averaged less steals per game, for a season, than Kobe Bryant’s career average.
You are delusional.
The reason I give Kobe even more credit is (A) he's the only player in the league even remotely interested in being a good defender and (B) he's been named to the All-Defensive first team four times during an age when every rule is geared to create more offense.
So doesn’t point A make it easier to accomplish point B? How does the fact that the league is geared to create more offense make it harder to make the all-NBA defense first team? They are still naming 5 players to the team, right? Wouldn’t it be easier to make it, if the other players aren’t playing defense? Are you twelve?
And what’s with the freakin’ absolutes (“only player”)? Bruce Bowen, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, etc. aren’t “remotely interested in being a good defender?” You want to back that up? You’re terrible.
Will Kobe ever win Defensive Player of the Year? Probably not. But then again, he probably won't win a lot of the awards Jordan received because people really, really hate Kobe. The wall of hate that Kobe faces is why he remains underappreciated. No matter how much surgery he performs on his image, most people always will view him as an egotistical ball hog who got away with a major sexual assault even though he was never convicted. Hey, people just prefer to show blind loyalty to a player some people believe is a degenerate, philandering gambler whose teammates would have killed him if they didn't fear prison.
I can’t even address all the non-basketball related crap thrown in here, so I’ll just leave it in to show how batshit nuts she is. Her support that Kobe is better is that people don’t like him as much as Jordan, so he gets a raw deal when actual basketball comparisons are performed. But then she then fails to do a good comparison. At all. All she has are gripes about Jordan off the court, an incorrect statement about his defense, and she’d take ’07 Amare Stoudamire over ’96 Kemp. These are not good arguments, folks. I never heard his teammates say, even well after playing with him, that they’d have killed him if they didn’t fear prison. Seriously, you’re reaching.
Plus Jordan won defensive player of the year for the aforementioned 1988 season where he had 259 steals and 131 blocks. He earned it. Do you know how nuts that is, for a guard, who’s also averaging 35 points, 6 assists and 6 rebounds a game? No active player has had more than 259 steals in a season. Only Gary Payton and Allen Iverson have had at least 200, for a total of 3 different seasons. Jordan did it 6 times, and he lead the league in scoring every time he did it. Jordan blocked more shots that year than a lot of starting centers, including Kareem and Robert Parish.
(5) And yes, I still believe Kobe is a better player. This is an eyeball argument. Kobe will never be the best player who played the game. That achievement belongs to MJ alone. He'll never impact the world the way MJ did. But from a skill perspective, Kobe has MJ beat.
Man I’m confused.
Me: “Jemele, who’s better, Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan?”
Jemele: “Kobe Bryant is better than Michael Jordan” – (that was the first line of her column). “Kobe is a better player” (directly above).
Me: “So you think Kobe Bryant is the best player who ever played the game, or will be by the time he’s done?”
Jemele: “Kobe will never be the best player who played the game. That achievement belongs to MJ alone.”
Me: “I’M REALLY FUCKING CONFUSED RIGHT NOW JEMELE.”
To sum up her point:
You hate on Kobe because of off the court stuff but Jordan had off court stuff too and Kobe’s competition is tougher, even though the defense is worse and Jordan would average 40 PPG now and it’s easier to score and hey Jordan may not have played with Shaq that well either and Jordan’s defensive stats were because he had Pippen so stop hating on Kobe Bryant. He's a better player than Michael Jordan, except he’s not the best, Jordan is.
But you and I, as her readers, are delusional. She said this twice.
This is a column written by Jemele Hill in late March about Kobe Bryant being the best player in the NBA, and being better than Michael Jordan (titled "Putting Kobe in perspective"). It’s old, but it pre-dated this site so I get to include it now because I was recently reminded of it. I’ve excluded her points about Kobe being the best player in the NBA because it was not interesting or relevant to the Jordan discussion. Her column generated a fair amount of mail for Jemele and I’ve included her general responses to some of that mail (her next column was a mailbag). I believe Bill Simmons commented on it as well in a chat or mailbag but I’m not going to dig that up.
The best description I could give to the column would be to call it unfortunate. Comparisons of NBA greats are supposed to be a fun thing, with discussions of accomplishments, great moments and mind boggling stats. Jemele instead gives us a truck load of excuses for Kobe not getting the respect he deserves and statements about all things concerning MJ except his game. The first statement is an attention getter:
Kobe Bryant is better than Michael Jordan.
Interesting, let’s hear you back it up with basketball related evidence. Should be fun!
Not more successful.
At basketball? Well that seems like it would hurt your argument. 1 point Jordan! Go on.
Hasn't had a bigger economic impact.
Irrelevant. Let’s talk hoops.
Hasn't won more MVPs.
That’s a fact. If you want to argue that Kobe should have won a couple by now I’ll argue that Jordan should have also won MVP’s in ‘90, ‘93 and ‘97. Let's stop this one sentence crap and get the ball rolling here!
Hasn't won more titles.
I have a feeling your argument is going to be based on a lot of non-results based things.
But he's a better player.
Kobe can do everything Michael did, and even a few things Michael couldn't do.
“Can do” is different than “does”. It’s much different actually. Kobe can do pretty much anything on a basketball court, but shouldn’t this argument be based on what these men actually do/have done on the court? Like, with stats and big games and clutch shots and nuances that only a keen ESPN Page 2 eye could uncover? No? Just nebulous unsupported, terrible arguments? This is going to suck.
Kobe is just as good a defender. His killer instinct is just as pronounced. He can shoot, finish and explode. And just like Jordan, the more he's pissed off, the more unstoppable he is.
Look, I’d take Jordan but Kobe is a great defender, so I’ll give you this one – that they are equal on defense. I mean, there’s no objective evidence that would ever lead you there, based on statistics and awards, but Kobe is a great defender. I think Kobe goes through more lapses than Jordan, and Jordan was more prolific and getting steals and blocks.
Of course, the idea that Kobe is better than Jordan -- or even the best player in this league -- is as repugnant to some folks as a rectal exam. Even though Kobe has proven himself under pressure countless times, he gets the A-Rod treatment.
Please explain this. Is anyone saying Kobe isn’t good under pressure? I mean, he faded in the second half of the Pistons Finals in ’04 and he didn’t set the world on fire in the second half of game 7 against the Suns in ’06, but he’s come through far to often for anyone to think he’s not clutch.
Kobe can't please anyone. And it doesn't help that most people suffer from revisionist history when it comes to Jordan, forgetting that he was just as poor a teammate and a ball hog and that he ran off coach Doug Collins like Kobe ran off Phil Jackson the first time.
So Jordan ran off a bad coach which lead to an awesome coach taking over and the team winning 6 championships in 8 years. Bryant ran off an awesome coach (by that time, historically great) after winning 3 championships for a lesser coach which lead to disappointing results for the Lakers. You're including this?
And really, what is this poor teammate business? He was a hard ass. So was Bird, so was Magic. There’s nothing wrong with a superstar pushing his teammates to come up to his level. Say whatever you want about how “fun” it may not have been to play with Jordan, but he made his teammates better. This is a stupid direction to take this argument. If Michael Jordan had the temperament of Tracy McGrady, then he doesn’t win 6 rings. Jordan was a “ball hog” to the extent that he needed to be to give his team the best chance to win.
In fact, you could argue that Jordan was even worse. Far as we know, Kobe hasn't jacked up any of his teammates the way Jordan punched out Steve Kerr and Will Perdue at practice.
Worse what? As a teammate? This is so subjective it’s pointless, and I could argue that a guy who takes a leak in his teammate’s lockers every day could still be the best player ever. This is stupid.
Kobe will never be forgiven for Shaq's departure, but you're delusional if you think Jordan wouldn't have had any ego issues playing alongside a player with Shaq's star power.
So Kobe is better because (you hypothesize) that Jordan wouldn’t have liked playing with Shaq either? This is not a good argument, Jemelle. I personally think they would have worked pretty well together and gotten along fine, because they would have gone like 79-3. But the whole thing is just pointless to discuss.
The best-player argument shouldn't be determined by personal dislike.
I agree, let's keep it to the basketball court! We are on the same page.
But if you want to take it there, fine.
Oh, never mind. You are a hypocrite.
Jordan was hardly the ideal husband, but only the tabloids were brave enough to venture into his personal life. And what about those gambling issues? If Jordan's life had been covered like Kobe's, we would have an entirely different opinion of His Airness.
To paraphrase: The best player argument should be based on on-court results….but…but...but look at Michael Jordan off the court! I bet he wouldn’t have liked Shaq! He was horribly competitive in practice! He gambled!!! Look at that stuff!!!
The gambling issues were debated, all the time, during Jordan’s playing days. Seriously, it was non-stop. Where were you? Bill Simmons thinks he was forced to take a break from the NBA in '93 because of gambling. It got a fair amount of attention.
Besides a different level of media scrutiny,
I totally disagree. His gambling was covered non-stop. Also, a very rich man gambling is not the same as a rape allegation, if you want to go there. Pointless to bring this stuff up. Jordan got about the same attention for a gambling venture in Atlantic City the night before a playoff game as Kobe did for flying in from Colorado from his rape trial during the playoffs. “Michael Jordan” and “Gambling” get about the same number of google hits (more than) as “Kobe Bryant” and “Rape”, and that was like 14 years ago, and he’s retired, and it’s rape! Crude I know, but just trying to drill it into Jemele’s noggin.
there was definitely a difference in the level of competition during Jordan's heyday compared to now.
Possibly a fair point, let’s hear you defend it.
Yesterday's NBA player certainly was more fundamentally sound, but there's no question that today's player is bigger, stronger and faster. When Jordan played, he was a singular force that could not be equaled. Jordan was guarded by the likes of John Starks and Joe Dumars, who were fine players but weren't nearly as skilled or physically imposing as LeBron, D-Wade, Tracy McGrady or even Vince Carter.
The NBA is tougher now.
Sooo….guys are more athletic. That’s a given. Does that automatically make them better defenders? Are any of those guys great defenders? Single guys didn’t guard Jordan, teams did. The Pistons and the Knicks (Dumars and Starks) guarded Jordan, with great team defense. You can’t make arguments thinking this narrowly. It’s retarded. Is team defense in the NBA now where it was in the early-mid 90’s? Maybe, maybe not, but you’re not even thinking this way. Hand checking was rampant and it was an era of much harder fouls that didn’t carry the same consequences. Has anyone ever really beat up on Kobe and went after him like the Pistons and Knicks did with Jordan? No, because they’d foul out in 5 minutes and end up with suspensions.
Kobe, like Michael, is surrounded with mediocre to below-average talent, and Phoenix, Dallas and San Antonio are all better than the Utah, Portland and the Charles Barkley-led Phoenix team that Michael met in the NBA Finals.
Based on what? That’s just bullshit speculation passed off as fact. This looks pretty stupid now with Dallas losing in round 1. San Antonio I’ll give you, but the other two? No, I don’t think so. Those Utah teams were real good. Same with Portland. You can have a healthy debate, but this is not fact and I wouldn’t waste my time on it if I were you.
Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson and Patrick Ewing will be among the best centers ever, but none of them affected the league the way Shaq and Tim Duncan have.
This is a piss-poor way to argue that Kobe’s competition is better, especially since Shaq is much better classified as Kobe’s teammate than his competition in the context of Kobe’s career. You know who else was around when Jordan was winning MVPs and championships? Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal. Shaq was in the league for 4 of Jordan’s championships. Shaq was Jordan’s competition a lot more than he’s been Kobe’s. What about Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and Charles Barkley? Did they affect the league? They were Jordan's contemporaries, too.
There are two two-time MVPs in Kobe's own conference (Duncan, Nash), which is a problem Jordan never faced during his championship runs.
That’s because Jordan won most of the MVP’s. You keep setting ‘em up, and I’ll keep spiking ‘em down.
Seven-footers weren't launching 3s back then. Magic Johnson and the Lakers were on a downward spiral, and the Pistons were on their last legs. It was Michael and everyone else. That's not the case for Kobe.
Bill Laimbeer was launching 3s. Anyway, watch me turn this around into a classic Jemele non-point.
Today 7 footers are launching 3s, back then they ruled the paint. Back then there were dominating the post, blocking shots, and weren’t jacking up 3’s like now. Back then big men made it more difficult to finish around the rim, they knew their place was in the paint, to clog the lanes, and challenge shots. Some of the best shotblockers ever such as Hakeem, Mutumbo, Ewing, Mourning, Shaq, Robinson, Eaton etc. were in their shot blocking prime and roaming the paint when Jordan played.
Does that make sense? Is it accurate? Does it further a point? Does it directly relate to this column? Maybe no on all counts. But it has the same impact as “seven footers weren’t launching 3s back then”, yet it’s the exact opposite point.
The Pistons period of greatness was ’87-’90. Jordan didn’t face those teams? Of course he did, but Pippen and Grant were still maturing, and they were strengthening as a team because they were playing the Pistons so much. Jordan put up ridiculous seasons from ’87 – ’90, the Pistons period of dominance. They were his best statistical seasons. There were a lot of great players and teams during Jordan's tenure in the NBA. You can't just disregard them as "everyone else".
The shame of it is that Kobe might finish his career without a MVP, even though his ability can be compared only to that of Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain.
Wilt Chamberlain? I’m pretty sure that Wilt and Kobe have entirely different ability, both in skills, athletic strengths, and the mental aspects (Wilt was said to lack a killer instinct). Do you mean in terms of the size of their ability? Sure, those three have the most ability in history, whatever the fuck that means.
All this time we've been looking for a player who is better than Jordan, but most of us can't get beyond whether we like or dislike Kobe as a person to recognize his contributions to the game.
Maybe you, Jemele. Most everyone I hear calls him the best player in the NBA. I HATE when writers make arguments for themselves to counter like this. Jemele is the queen of that.
Kobe Mailbag responses
Jemele then got a lot of mail on the subject, and had more to add. It gets real confusing here, folks. I have to cut extraneous stuff out to keep you awake. This is actually worse than the original column she wrote, a difficult feat to pull off.
(1) I do not believe the NBA is better now than it was then. It's my fault for not explaining this better. At least a third of you who e-mailed thought I was on crack -- and seriously at least 400-500 e-mails had, "Are you on crack?" in the subject line -- for even entertaining the possibility the NBA is a better product now.
That’s awesome. When you write a column which results in 1/3rd of the readers asking if you’re on crack, you have not put together a good argument (assuming the readers who wrote in were a representative sample of all her readers).
No, it's not. That's not what I'm saying. I believe today's player is more athletic, stronger and has more raw ability than players in the '80s and early '90s. Clearly those players in the Magic, Bird and Isiah era were more polished, tougher and had unbelievable basketball acumen. It was a better game because the players were more skilled. Today, we see guys with extraordinary physical gifts and no fundamentals. So, to sum up: Today's player has more talent, but yesterday's player was a better basketball player.
Then why is it to Kobe’s credit that he excels against players that you yourself admit are inferior basketball players (I disagree, but I don’t want to confuse the situation more)? This makes zero sense.
(2) That being said, there are teams in the league right now that were better than at least three of the teams Jordan beat in the Finals. The Mavericks, Suns and Spurs are better than Clyde Drexler's Trail Blazers, Gary Payton's Sonics and Charles Barkley's Suns. The coaches: Avery Johnson, Mike D'Antoni and Gregg Popovich versus Rick Adelman, George Karl and Paul Westphal. Not even a debate there. Drexler was horribly overrated -- a slasher, terrific shot-blocker and rebounder for a 6-foot-7 guy, but he was a subpar shooter and mediocre ballhandler. You play the who-would-you-rather-have game with the rosters and you would favor most of the 2007 players. Nash or KJ? Duncan or Kemp? Stoudemire or Kemp? Shawn Marion or Buck Williams? The only untouchables are Payton and Barkley. And by the way, I'm not entirely convinced Jordan's Bulls could have beaten the Rockets in '94 or '95 when Hakeem Olajuwon was at the height of his filthiness (I mean that in a good way).
Sorry, this is stupid. You can’t say that team X was better than team Y because you like team X’s coach or superstar more. There’s much more to a team than that. Those Blazers teams were very good, same with the Jazz, Sonics and Suns. But we think back to those teams and the flaws in their superstars and immediately discredit the entire team. You can’t do this “KJ or Nash” game – it really proves no point. When you were watching all those finals, you never said, “man….this team sucks.” But what you are doing now is what you accuse the fans of….revisionist history. I seriously don’t know who would come out of the west with the '07 Mavs, Suns, Spurs, '93 Suns, '92 Blazers, '96 Sonics, and '97 Jazz in the mix. But I certainly don’t think it’s a slam dunk for the Spurs, and I think the '07 Mavs and Suns are probably the 2 worst teams in that group. Debatable of course, but the general point is that we’re not looking at two classes of teams here. Certainly nothing I’m hanging my hat on in a Kobe Bryant vs. Michael Jordan argument.
I mean, did you really just compare Shawn Marion and Buck Williams in a column about Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant?
(3) I'm not totally certifiable. I know T-Mac or Vince Carter couldn't stop an 8-year-old on a PAL team. Dwyane Wade's defense also is suspect. My argument wasn't about their defense, but their offense.
So they are bad defenders, but you were arguing about their offense….let’s reprint your original point.
“Jordan was guarded by the likes of John Starks and Joe Dumars, who were fine players but weren't nearly as skilled or physically imposing as LeBron, D-Wade, Tracy McGrady or even Vince Carter. The NBA is tougher now.”
Nope, sounds like you’re saying that Kobe is defended by better players than Jordan was.
The evolution of size and skill from the '80s until now is obvious. This is a league filled with very tall, very big, athletic people who can shoot and do ridiculously dumb things above the rim. When Jordan played, some could match his athleticism, but not many. These days, 40-inch verticals are a dime a dozen. Jordan's killer instinct will always set him apart, but if he played today, his athleticism would not be the distinguishing factor it was before. I concede, though, he would have nearly 40 a game.
So to summarize:
- Jordan’s athleticism wouldn’t stand out as much.
- After all this shit about competition you say that Jordan would average nearly 40 a game right now. Like 25% more than Kobe Bryant.
You are terrible at making arguments and supporting them. You say some bold things and then never back them up, not even close. Usually you back up the opposite point, which is unique.
(4) I'll say it again: Kobe is just as good or better than MJ on the defensive end. Jordan was an unbelievable defender, but some of you seemed to forget he was playing alongside a defender who was just as capable -- Scottie Pippen. If you think that didn't help Jordan beef up his defensive stats, you are delusional.
I’m delusional?
So you think playing with Pippen helped Jordan “beef up his defensive stats?”
Okay well now this just happened:
Jordan steals/blocks per game in his Chicago years, pre-Scottie Pippen (84/85-87), and I’ll even throw in the Washington years at age 38 and 39:
Steals per game: 2.09 / Blocks per game: 0.86
Kobe Bryant: Career
Steals per game: 1.50 / Blocks per game: 0.60
Jordan in his ’87 year, last year before Pippen:
Steals per game: 2.88 / Blocks per game: 1.52
And get this (since you brought up defensive stats):
In 1987 (pre-Pippen), Jordan was the first player in the NBA (since they tracked these stats) to record 200 steals and 100 blocks in a season (he had 236 steals and 125 blocks). In 1988 he duplicated this with 259/131. Kobe Bryant has never really come close to doing either of these things (most steals = 181, most blocks = 67), never mind doing both at the same time while averaging 37 and 35 on the other end.
Really, as I said before, you can’t use any numbers to support Kobe being a better defender, even when you solve for Scottie Pippen’s impact (is there one?). Seriously, how dumb do you feel? Oh right, you’re not reading this. Like 3 people are.
Kobe Bryant’s best steals season: 2.2/game.
Michael Jordan exceeded this 9 times, and averaged 2.35 for his career.
Kobe Bryant’s best blocks season: 1.0/game in a lockout shortened season.
Jordan exceeded 4 times.
The value of these numbers can certainly be debated, but you’re the one who wanted to talk defensive stats and imply they’d be equal if not for Pippen. Jordan never averaged less steals per game, for a season, than Kobe Bryant’s career average.
You are delusional.
The reason I give Kobe even more credit is (A) he's the only player in the league even remotely interested in being a good defender and (B) he's been named to the All-Defensive first team four times during an age when every rule is geared to create more offense.
So doesn’t point A make it easier to accomplish point B? How does the fact that the league is geared to create more offense make it harder to make the all-NBA defense first team? They are still naming 5 players to the team, right? Wouldn’t it be easier to make it, if the other players aren’t playing defense? Are you twelve?
And what’s with the freakin’ absolutes (“only player”)? Bruce Bowen, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, etc. aren’t “remotely interested in being a good defender?” You want to back that up? You’re terrible.
Will Kobe ever win Defensive Player of the Year? Probably not. But then again, he probably won't win a lot of the awards Jordan received because people really, really hate Kobe. The wall of hate that Kobe faces is why he remains underappreciated. No matter how much surgery he performs on his image, most people always will view him as an egotistical ball hog who got away with a major sexual assault even though he was never convicted. Hey, people just prefer to show blind loyalty to a player some people believe is a degenerate, philandering gambler whose teammates would have killed him if they didn't fear prison.
I can’t even address all the non-basketball related crap thrown in here, so I’ll just leave it in to show how batshit nuts she is. Her support that Kobe is better is that people don’t like him as much as Jordan, so he gets a raw deal when actual basketball comparisons are performed. But then she then fails to do a good comparison. At all. All she has are gripes about Jordan off the court, an incorrect statement about his defense, and she’d take ’07 Amare Stoudamire over ’96 Kemp. These are not good arguments, folks. I never heard his teammates say, even well after playing with him, that they’d have killed him if they didn’t fear prison. Seriously, you’re reaching.
Plus Jordan won defensive player of the year for the aforementioned 1988 season where he had 259 steals and 131 blocks. He earned it. Do you know how nuts that is, for a guard, who’s also averaging 35 points, 6 assists and 6 rebounds a game? No active player has had more than 259 steals in a season. Only Gary Payton and Allen Iverson have had at least 200, for a total of 3 different seasons. Jordan did it 6 times, and he lead the league in scoring every time he did it. Jordan blocked more shots that year than a lot of starting centers, including Kareem and Robert Parish.
(5) And yes, I still believe Kobe is a better player. This is an eyeball argument. Kobe will never be the best player who played the game. That achievement belongs to MJ alone. He'll never impact the world the way MJ did. But from a skill perspective, Kobe has MJ beat.
Man I’m confused.
Me: “Jemele, who’s better, Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan?”
Jemele: “Kobe Bryant is better than Michael Jordan” – (that was the first line of her column). “Kobe is a better player” (directly above).
Me: “So you think Kobe Bryant is the best player who ever played the game, or will be by the time he’s done?”
Jemele: “Kobe will never be the best player who played the game. That achievement belongs to MJ alone.”
Me: “I’M REALLY FUCKING CONFUSED RIGHT NOW JEMELE.”
To sum up her point:
You hate on Kobe because of off the court stuff but Jordan had off court stuff too and Kobe’s competition is tougher, even though the defense is worse and Jordan would average 40 PPG now and it’s easier to score and hey Jordan may not have played with Shaq that well either and Jordan’s defensive stats were because he had Pippen so stop hating on Kobe Bryant. He's a better player than Michael Jordan, except he’s not the best, Jordan is.
But you and I, as her readers, are delusional. She said this twice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)