Damn...looks like I struck a nerve. In the future, you can just link us to the
random blog that you use as citation instead of writing us a dissertation.
Regarding the assertions that Michael, or anyone else for that matter, could score 45-50ppg in this era is not consistent with his performance relative to his era. Jordan's most prolific scoring year was when he scored 37.1ppg in a season where the average team scored 109.9ppg. By comparison, in the season that Kobe scored 35.4ppg, the league averaged 97ppg. Considering the large sample size, this would suggest that scoring was an easier feat in 1987 than it was in 2006.
As a whole, the average team scored 10ppg more during Jordan's career than during Kobe's. If it was truly easier under the rules of the current era, it would have manifested itself not only in Kobe, but leaguewide as well. It hasn't. It's illogical to say that MJ would score more points in a lower scoring era than he did in a higher scoring one. "In my world", and the scientific and statistical ones as well, a comparative study is only valid when controls are in place to minimize the variables. Transferring Jordan's percentages and PPG into the current era does not do this.
As for signature moves, I concede the point because I find it be warm, fuzzy, and irrelevant.
I LOL'd at the Hollinger part. The fact that according to his numbers, the
10th & 12th best teams in the NBA just met in the Finals seems to indicate how "empirical" such data is.
The random YouTube clip was an unfiltered Finals game. No highlights, no edits, just the game. I encourage anyone who cares to just watch Jordan's full games. They're easy to access.
I watched plenty of the NBA before 2000, which is why I get a kick out of the romanticized memories of teams like the Bad Boys and how incredible their defenses were. For example, in terms of Points Allowed Per 100 possessions (so we can adjust for pace so the Celtics don't get an unfair advantage) the '08 Celtics allowed 98.9, whereas the '89 Pistons allowed. 104.7. The fond memories of those teams are largely just flowery, romantic platitudes. The same thing will happen in 20 years when people who grew up now are exaggerating the accomplishments of Kobe, LeBron, this current Laker squad, etc.
If Shaq's presence in the middle creates easier looks for the players that surround him, that should be reflected in the shooting percentages of those players. They are not. Kobe's percentages are virtually identical with or without Shaq.
Glen Rice's shooting percentage dropped precipitously as soon as he became a Laker.
Rick Fox's are lower.
Derek Fisher's are lower.
Robert Horry's are consistent with his career averages.
Dwyane Wade's are consistent with his career averages.
This is because a dominant big man gives perimeter players less space to operate in the lane. Guys like Cartwright & Longley primarily played on the perimeter...and brought their man with them, which gave Jordan & Pippen clearer driving lanes. The idea that a dominant big man benefits the percentages of those who surround him is simply not true. It's conducive to team success, but doesn't inflate the metrics of PPG & shooting percentage.
The "watering down" of the league is probably your weakest point. From 1991-93 there were 27 teams, and in 1996-98 there were 29. In the last 15 years, the world has started playing basketball to a degree that has increased the NBA talent pool by tens of millions of people, along with the increase in the number of people playing basketball in the US. And the league has only expanded by 12-15 roster spots. This is a much stronger league than it was 15 years ago, due to the massive increase in the talent pool. When combined with the quantum leaps in scouting due to technological advances, the game is being played at a much more sophisticated level than ever before.
Regarding the people who have guarded Kobe in the Finals, you're incorrect regarding who guarded him in the New Jersey series (it was Kidd) and the Orlando series (Pietrus got considerably more minutes on him), but what stood out most was your comments about Ray Allen. Boston plays Jerry Tarkanian's "amoeba" defense, which overloads the strong side.
More in depth explanation of matchup zones
Ray Allen's guarding Kobe, but the 4 or 5 is defending against the driving lane and he has help to the middle with either the 1 or the 3. The open player is on the weak side, or a weak side player that flashes to the middle. (Gasol was effective at getting to this spot in '10)
This sort of defense was illegal in Jordan's era. You could not guard an area, you had to guard a person. All of the double teams were "hard doubles" as opposed to a soft double that can sit behind as a second layer of defense. And this one of the reasons
why scoring has decreased. And the idea that the Celtics don't hand check (amongst other things) is silly, they're much more physical than the teams that MJ faced in the Finals.
As for examples of Jordan's lackluster playoff performances, there are several, just as there are for Kobe. Be it against the Pistons, Celtics, or his own 5-19 performance in a close out game that his team won. People like you just choose to not remember them.
My point of view is not that Kobe is better than MJ. I think MJ was the better player by a small margin, with the caveat that Kobe isn't done. But the idea that it isn't even close is absurd to me, and I think that Jordan's been made into something more than what he actually was.
I'm not going to continue a redundant back and forth with you as it's a waste of time, but since you seem to like quotes, I'll leave you with one.
"He does." -
Phil Jackson, when asked if Kobe has better basketball skills than Jordan did
And like you said...who am I to argue with Phil freaking Jackson?
[ Edited by LA9erFan on Jul 17, 2010 at 11:11 AM ]
