Jordan vs. Zone Defense MYTH

[Nitro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tXwAhMVb1Y

 

Great video. Shows that Jordan did indeed have to face zone defenses, double/triple team on AND off-ball, handchecking, faceguarding, no 3 second rule, etc... If you get the chance check out some of his other videos, they're all pretty good.

 

ANYONE who picks Kobe over Jordan because Jordan didn't have to deal with zone defenses, please watch this video.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Nitro

[Real Deal]

The key to using a zone defense back in those days was that you were required to commit to the double. If you were showing double, you had to commit to it and leave your man open. You weren't allowed to sit a player in the middle of the island, stick guys in random spots on the floor to show that potential double, and not actually execute it.

 

The referees were really loose on those rules...don't know why, really. I thought it was ridiculous to begin with, though...no need to tell a team how to play defense, especially on a professional level.

[Real Deal]

By the way, that's one reason why Jordan excelled with the 90's Bulls. He always had shooters, and they always knocked down the shots when MJ wasn't able to get his (and we all know how rare that was, but they did step up at certain times during every game). It's no wonder he was throwing so many assists, too...teams were scared to death of Michael, no matter what coach/player wants to deny it.

[Guest Michael Jordan]

By the way, that's one reason why Jordan excelled with the 90's Bulls. He always had shooters, and they always knocked down the shots when MJ wasn't able to get his (and we all know how rare that was, but they did step up at certain times during every game). It's no wonder he was throwing so many assists, too...teams were scared to death of Michael, no matter what coach/player wants to deny it.

 

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses....

 

Michael Jordan is a million times the player Kobe Bryant will ever be.

 

He didn't need Daddy Shaq to bail him out in every 4th quarter besides that one fluke in Indiana.

 

Kobe Bryant is exceptional, but no one has yet invented a word to describe Michael Jordan.

 

No laker homer can deny that either...

 

SORRY

[moeroadkill]

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses....

 

Michael Jordan is a million times the player Kobe Bryant will ever be.

 

He didn't need Daddy Shaq to bail him out in every 4th quarter besides that one fluke in Indiana.

 

Kobe Bryant is exceptional, but no one has yet invented a word to describe Michael Jordan.

 

No laker homer can deny that either...

 

SORRY

 

your in for it now.

you better be able to back yourself up now hun

[Big Penny]

He didn't need Daddy Shaq to bail him out in every 4th quarter besides that one fluke in Indiana.

neither did Kobe, and it's hilarious that a MAVS fan is talking [expletive] about Kobe needing to be bailed out

 

cough cough, i mean, choke choke

http://oneanswer.tv/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/dirk_nowitzki_fra_d_184268c.jpg

[Guest Michael Jordan]

neither did Kobe, and it's hilarious that a MAVS fan is talking [expletive] about Kobe needing to be bailed out

 

cough cough, i mean, choke choke

http://oneanswer.tv/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/dirk_nowitzki_fra_d_184268c.jpg

 

Yeah, cause Dirk's supporting cast of Jason Terry, Josh Howard, and Jerry Stackhouse was excellent...

[Hawks Fly High]

Yeah, cause Dirk's supporting cast of Jason Terry, Josh Howard, and Jerry Stackhouse was excellent...

how about last year's cast of kidd,butler,terry,haywood?

[JWaLL]

The reason Jordan is considered so much greater than Kobe is because Jordan redefined the way the game is played. Top players these days model their game off of Jordan, and Kobe has admitted he did too. While there is no logical way to say who the better player is since we can't compare eras, it is known by all that Kobe learned from Jordan.

[Force]

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses....

 

Michael Jordan is a million times the player Kobe Bryant will ever be.

 

He didn't need Daddy Shaq to bail him out in every 4th quarter besides that one fluke in Indiana.

 

Kobe Bryant is exceptional, but no one has yet invented a word to describe Michael Jordan.

 

No laker homer can deny that either...

 

SORRY

lolwut? Where did Brandon even say anything about Kobe..

[Big Penny]

Yeah, cause Dirk's supporting cast of Jason Terry, Josh Howard, and Jerry Stackhouse was excellent...

500000000000 times better than Kwame Smush and Odom lmao

[Guest Michael Jordan]

how about last year's cast of kidd,butler,terry,haywood?

 

Yeah, cause they all did so well.

 

Kidd averaged 3 points a game, Butler shot 30%, and Haywood disappeared.

 

Dirk is this era's Charles Barkley.

[Real Deal]

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses....

 

Michael Jordan is a million times the player Kobe Bryant will ever be.

 

He didn't need Daddy Shaq to bail him out in every 4th quarter besides that one fluke in Indiana.

 

Kobe Bryant is exceptional, but no one has yet invented a word to describe Michael Jordan.

 

No laker homer can deny that either...

 

SORRY

Hmm...

 

I didn't even say Kobe's name in my post, but since you threw the hook and worm out there...

 

1) Bryant had 17 game-winners when he was with Shaq. Just in case you didn't realize, game-winners are hit in the fourth quarter or overtime of games.

 

2) I'm guessing you don't know anything about Bryant or his fourth-quarter performances, playoffs or regular season, so I'll just let you do the research on that. You could also look up how many 50-point games Shaq had as Kobe's teammate, also...if you're curious, of course. Hint: he had two, Bryant had five, one of Shaq's being in 1998, when Kobe was barely getting minutes. "Daddy Shaq" was also pulled from a few games every season when things were close in the fourth, because he was the worst free throw shooter in the NBA (next to Ben Wallace, at least). Or, he was fouling out of games or sitting in foul trouble...fouled out of six games in 2001.

 

3) O'Neal had two 40-point games in the 2000-01 season. He had three in 2002-03. None in 2003-04. Sure didn't look like he dominated the team the way Jordan did Chicago, or LeBron did the Cavaliers. Looks like he may have had a lot of help from Kobe, to the tune of...

 

1999-2000: 22.5 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 4.9 APG

2000-2001: 28.5 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 5.0 APG

2001-2002: 25.2 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 5.5 APG

2002-2003: 30.0 PPG, 6.9 RPG, 5.9 APG

2003-2004: 24.0 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 5.1 APG (Shaq averaged under 22 PPG that season)

 

Care to give me a second option that has put up those numbers? Just one Robin, all I'm looking for...

 

After 2000, Shaq never averaged more shots per game than Kobe as teammates in LA. Two rings and three Finals appearances were the result of that.

 

Can you give me a second option on a championship team that has taken 20+ shots per game, and the most on that championship team? Just curious.

 

4) Bryant was the best defensive player on the Lakers, hands down, during the dynasty. No need to debate it, but you can also ask those handing out the defensive awards: five for Bryant as Shaq's teammate, three for O'Neal as Kobe's. Five for Kobe without O'Neal...and zero for Shaq without Kobe.

 

Did you know Bryant led the team in assists every championship season? That's facilitating the triangle offense AND taking the most shots per game, averaging anywhere from 25-30 points each contest, defending the best perimeter players on the court as well. Mind-boggling, huh?

 

5) Kobe was also doing work in the playoffs.

 

1999-2000: 21.1 PPG, 4.5 RPG, 4.4 APG

2000-2001: 29.4 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 6.1 APG

2001-2002: 26.6 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 4.6 APG

2002-2003: 32.1 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 5.2 APG

2003-2004: 24.5 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 5.5 APG

 

---------

 

Did you see the Lakers/Kings and Lakers/Spurs games in the post-season? I'm not so sure you did, since Bryant has needed "Daddy Shaq" to bail him out in fourth quarters.

 

Were you around to see Kobe's nine-consecutive 40's? Shaq was there for a few of them, but I think it was Kobe carrying the load.

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200302060NYK.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200302110LAL.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200302120DEN.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200302140LAL.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200302160LAL.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200302180LAL.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200302190UTA.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200302210LAL.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200302230LAL.html

 

Just making sure you knew about them.

 

In that stretch, there were also 13 consecutive 35+ point games, 16 consecutive 30's.

 

LA went 13-3 in that stretch of 16, which included ALL of the games mentioned above. That was with Bryant carrying the load and bailing LA out in the fourth quarters, something you said he didn't do.

 

Haha...look, don't bring up Kobe and Shaq. That above is not even a piece of what I have to offer in return for your foolish comments.

 

----------

 

As far as Kobe and Jordan are concerned, Jordan is the greatest player to ever play the game. Never said he wasn't. Kobe may be the most complete. Give me one weakness of Kobe's, offense or defense, that stands out...you know, like LeBron's post game, or Shaq's free throws. Neither Kobe or Jordan have a weakness in their games...so "most complete" is debatable.

 

Kobe had Shaq, right? Jordan had Pippen (arguably the greatest perimeter defender of all-time) and in the second three-peat, he ADDED Rodman (arguably the greatest defender of all-time). Both had Phil Jackson. Jordan had a plethora of shooters, which included Kerr, Paxson, Armstrong (all-star), Kukoc and Harper. Horace Grant was no scrub...an all-star the following season after Jordan's first retirement. For his six rings, Jordan played with four all-star players: Pippen, Rodman, Grant and Armstrong (won't count the guys like Cartwright, who was an all-star in 1980).

 

MJ didn't have Shaq, but he had more than enough to make up for it. LA was more of a superstar duo, while Chicago was the ultimate team, packed with shooters and defensive specialists. LeBron and Iverson reached the Finals with shooters and defensive-minded teammates. I think you're underestimating what damage a real team can do, which means you're underrating what Kobe has done in his career, and/or overrating what Jordan has done.

[Nitro]

Haha RD that was ownage. But I'm bored so I'm gonna nit-pick a few things...

 

3) O'Neal had two 40-point games in the 2000-01 season. He had three in 2002-03. None in 2003-04. Sure didn't look like he dominated the team the way Jordan did Chicago, or LeBron did the Cavaliers.

 

Oh c'mon you know that's not the right way to look at it. Shaq led the league each of the championship seasons in both FG% and FTA. He led the league in scoring the first championship, and took home MVP. Top 4 in blocks the first 2 championship seasons, top 3 in RPG both of those seasons. He was #1 in PER each of the championship seasons. Finals MVP each championship.

 

Aside from the stats, no one demanded as much defensive attention in modern day NBA history as Shaq did those seasons. He was so efficient, so dominant both as a scorer and rebounder, and his passing out of those post is one of the reasons that offense ran so smoothly.

 

Care to give me a second option that has put up those numbers? Just one Robin, all I'm looking for...

 

Well, are we talking just championship teams? If so, I'd say Dr. J came close when the Sixers won the championship and Moses Malone was MVP. Erving averaged 21.4PPG/6.8RPG/3.8APG/1.6SPG/1.8BPG and shot 51.7% from the field. Actually a very good comparison to the '99-'00 stat wise as Malone gave relatively similar production to Shaq.

 

Can you give me a second option on a championship team that has taken 20+ shots per game, and the most on that championship team? Just curious.

 

Gail Goodwrich on the '71-'72 Lakers. Took 20.7 FGA to West's 20.0.

 

5) Kobe was also doing work in the playoffs.

 

1999-2000: 21.1 PPG, 4.5 RPG, 4.4 APG

2000-2001: 29.4 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 6.1 APG

2001-2002: 26.6 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 4.6 APG

2002-2003: 32.1 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 5.2 APG

2003-2004: 24.5 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 5.5 APG

 

Don't know if you're trying to prove that Kobe/Shaq was Batman A and Batman B as opposed to Batman and Robin, but Shaq's playoff numbers during the championship years were off the charts-

 

1999-2000: 30.7PPG, 15.4RPG, 3.1APG, 56.6% FG, 2.4BPG

2000-2001: 30.4PPG, 15.4RPG, 3.2APG, 55.5% FG, 2.4BPG (including the Finals destruction of DPOY Mutombo)

2001-2002: 28.5PPG, 12.6RPG, 2.8APG, 52.9% FG, 2.5BPG

 

Shaq was CLEARLY "the man" on those Laker teams. His level of dominance in that 3-peat has not really been matched in the last 20-30 years by anyone not named MJ.

 

Were you around to see Kobe's nine-consecutive 40's? Shaq was there for a few of them, but I think it was Kobe carrying the load.

 

In that stretch, there were also 13 consecutive 35+ point games, 16 consecutive 30's.

 

LA went 13-3 in that stretch of 16, which included ALL of the games mentioned above. That was with Bryant carrying the load and bailing LA out in the fourth quarters, something you said he didn't do.

 

The Lakers didn't win the championship that season, did they?

 

And isn't it ironic that the first post-season Kobe outscored Shaq, they were knocked out of the playoffs? Keep in mind against the Spurs that post-season Kobe shot nearly 13% worse from the field than Shaq (43% to 56%), and averaged the same amount of assists with 1 more TO.

[Real Deal]

Finals MVP's are really, really nitpicking, man. Same with the FTA and FG%. There was hardly anyone that could contain Shaq because there were really only two or three solid centers in the NBA around that time...and when you start talking about the Finals? Only Mutombo was worthy of mention, but he was rail thin and really had no help up front (I wouldn't consider Hill much help, at all).

 

Shaq was an excellent passer, yes, but Bryant demanded doubles as well, and he was able to find shooters. How many dishes have you seen with Kobe penetrating? I've seen so many dishes to O'Neal, it's ridiculous. The duo was no Batman and Robin...it was Superman and, umm...the Silver Surfer. And the fascinating thing about it, in my opinion, was that Bryant hadn't really reached his absolute prime.

 

LA didn't win it all in 2003 because Tim Duncan absolutely dominated Shaq, and Popovich denied post every chance he got. Bryant was a bit selfish and didn't want to pass it to anyone else not named O'Neal (I mean, who else is going to score when the third highest scorer is hitting at 10 PPG), and the Spurs proved to be the better team.

 

In fact, the Spurs almost did what the Pistons were able to do, but it took more of a fight, and more from a superstar (Duncan). Lakers fans have a lot of respect for Pop after that series (at least I do, and I know a few others who share the same feelings).

 

The biggest flaw (and really the only flaw) in LA's triangle was that their primary scorer (who became Kobe) was also the facilitator. That didn't happen in Chicago. That was the difference, and it opened up a hole in Winter's triangle offense, one that he experienced when he was back at K-State (I can't remember the year or team, but he did talk about this once before).

 

San Antonio found the flaw. Detroit found it. The 2008 Celtics found it. I just have no idea why the Magic and the recent Celtics squad didn't play Los Angeles the same way. Artest and Fisher wouldn't have enough firepower to win a seven-game series.

 

And finally, Erving's 21/7/4 performance is fine. I actually don't mind saying Kobe was Robin in 1999-00. But I can't say he was for the next two rings, and he sure wasn't when he led LA to the Finals in 2004, and I'm a firm believer that, if Karl Malone was not injured, the Lakers would've had that one extra 15-20 a game, and rebounder and decent defender (because he wasn't the Malone of the mid-90's) that could put Brown's Pistons to sleep in six games.

 

At the end of the day, I think a lot of teams realized that stopping Bryant was the key to stopping the Lakers. There weren't enough big men in the NBA to stop Shaq down low, one-on-one (Ewing, Hakeem, Eaton, Howard, Russell, none of those guys were playing or able to during the dynasty), so shutting down the facilitator and primary option was, well, the primary option. Granted it was a waste of time for mostly everyone, including some contenders, there were teams like the Spurs who had the goods to do that AND make Shaq work down low. Duncan had his way with O'Neal in 2003. Ben Wallace crashed the glass and was a monster on defense in 2004. Had those two centers found Shaq in the NBA Finals, would that have changed O'Neal's numbers? I'd say most definitely, yes, compared to Rik Smits (who was done after that Finals series), Todd MacCulloch (really?) and Dikembe Mutombo, who was 35 years old and 245 pounds.

[Nitro]

Finals MVP's are really, really nitpicking, man. Same with the FTA and FG%. There was hardly anyone that could contain Shaq because there were really only two or three solid centers in the NBA around that time...and when you start talking about the Finals? Only Mutombo was worthy of mention, but he was rail thin and really had no help up front (I wouldn't consider Hill much help, at all).

 

C'mon...Shaq led the league in scoring his 3rd season, and FG % his 2nd season. That was when the league was saturated with very good big men...Olajuwon, Ewing, Zo, Deke, Robinson, and the list goes on and on. Secondly, if you're leading the league in scoring (like Shaq did in 1999-2000) or in the top 5 while also leading the league in FG % and FTA is that not a huge indicator of pure dominance?

 

As for the Finals, yes, Shaq didn't have to face the greatest big men. But back when Orlando made the Finals he did average 28PPG/ 12.5RPG/ 6.3APG/ 2.5BPG/ 59% shooting against Hakeem Olajuwon in his absolute prime, and that was before Shaq gained weight and became even more difficult to defend. Shaq also went through the Robinson/Duncan Spurs a number of times. And fact of the matter is even if he didn't have to go through the best Centers in NBA history during the 3-peat, it doesn't change just how dominating he was.

 

LA didn't win it all in 2003 because Tim Duncan absolutely dominated Shaq, and Popovich denied post every chance he got. Bryant was a bit selfish and didn't want to pass it to anyone else not named O'Neal (I mean, who else is going to score when the third highest scorer is hitting at 10 PPG), and the Spurs proved to be the better team.

 

In fact, the Spurs almost did what the Pistons were able to do, but it took more of a fight, and more from a superstar (Duncan). Lakers fans have a lot of respect for Pop after that series (at least I do, and I know a few others who share the same feelings).

 

The biggest flaw (and really the only flaw) in LA's triangle was that their primary scorer (who became Kobe) was also the facilitator. That didn't happen in Chicago. That was the difference, and it opened up a hole in Winter's triangle offense, one that he experienced when he was back at K-State (I can't remember the year or team, but he did talk about this once before).

 

San Antonio found the flaw. Detroit found it. The 2008 Celtics found it. I just have no idea why the Magic and the recent Celtics squad didn't play Los Angeles the same way. Artest and Fisher wouldn't have enough firepower to win a seven-game series.

 

I disagree with your assessment. The reason the Lakers lost was the offense was too Kobe-centric, and the defense. In the first game Kobe took 38(!!!) shot attempts while Shaq took 20. Loss. In 3 of the 4 losses Kobe had 5 TO's or more, which is inexcusible. Kobe never shot 50% or better once in the series, while Shaq shot below 50% only once. I mean, you can break it down all you want, but the answer to the riddle is fundemental and plain to see.

 

At the end of the day, I think a lot of teams realized that stopping Bryant was the key to stopping the Lakers. There weren't enough big men in the NBA to stop Shaq down low, one-on-one (Ewing, Hakeem, Eaton, Howard, Russell, none of those guys were playing or able to during the dynasty), so shutting down the facilitator and primary option was, well, the primary option. Granted it was a waste of time for mostly everyone, including some contenders, there were teams like the Spurs who had the goods to do that AND make Shaq work down low. Duncan had his way with O'Neal in 2003. Ben Wallace crashed the glass and was a monster on defense in 2004. Had those two centers found Shaq in the NBA Finals, would that have changed O'Neal's numbers? I'd say most definitely, yes, compared to Rik Smits (who was done after that Finals series), Todd MacCulloch (really?) and Dikembe Mutombo, who was 35 years old and 245 pounds.

 

You're absolutely right...the key to stopping the Lakers was Kobe because NO ONE COULD STOP SHAQ!!! That's the entire point of my arguement. You can't play the what-if game against Shaq. It's like me saying, "Well, if you put a prime Bowen on Kobe in the 2009 NBA Finals, Kobe wouldn't have averaged 30PPG," or, "If 2008 KG was defending Gasol in the 2010 Finals, the Lakers would've lost the series and Gasol wouldn't have did what he did." Fact of the matter is that Shaq was the best and most dominating player in the entire league during the 3-peat, while everyone else was a distant 2nd or 3rd (and I would argue Duncan, not Kobe, was the 2nd best player in the league those years). No one could defend Shaq 1 on 1 as he required more defensive attention than any player I have ever seen (including 2006 Kobe and including MJ). He was the centerpiece of the Lakers, he was the 1st option (yes, Kobe took more shot attempts some seasons, but Shaq led the team in FGM and FTA each 3-peat season), he was the guy defenses planned their defense around, he was the team's best player and he was generally regarded as the emotional leader (from what I seemed to gather during their run).

[Real Deal]

Well, here's something to chew on...

 

The Lakers didn't win the championship that season, did they?

As for the Finals, yes, Shaq didn't have to face the greatest big men. But back when Orlando made the Finals he did average 28PPG/ 12.5RPG/ 6.3APG/ 2.5BPG/ 59% shooting against Hakeem Olajuwon in his absolute prime, and that was before Shaq gained weight and became even more difficult to defend.

The Magic didn't win the championship that season, did they?

 

We can talk about what Shaq did in Orlando all you want, but that doesn't seem relevant to the discussion. I can tell you what Bryant did against the Raptors in 2006, tell you about his four-consecutive 50's, his 35 PPG average in a season, etc...but what's the point? Shaq wasn't there for that.

 

Shaq scored and rebounded the ball. Bryant scored and did everything else on the floor. O'Neal was contesting shots, but also fouling, showing late help on rotations, and getting absolutely murdered in pick and roll situations ever since the first championship season.

 

Bryant's selfish play wasn't what killed the Lakers after the three-peat. It was teams figuring out who to stop. Shaq couldn't even log 70 games in any of his last three seasons in Los Angeles, because he was overweight and decided to have surgeries after his summer fun was over with. Madsen and Medvedenko were starting a handful of games, Samaki Walker started 63 games that third championship season, and with Shaq in and out of the lineup, things got ugly. Bryant had to play 15 games with Samaki Walker starting at center in 2002-03, and Fisher, Horry, and Fox starting as well.

 

Once Shaq started putting on the weight, he found himself injured, and needed a second superstar to help carry the load. He came to LA in 1996, and Bryant was nowhere near that help.

 

1996-1997: 51 games

1997-1998: 60 games

1998-1999: 49 games

 

That's the count for how many games Shaq played his first three seasons in Los Angeles (yes, I know about the lockout in 1999, I'm sure he would've missed plenty had there been 82 games to play).

 

Shaq also went through the Robinson/Duncan Spurs a number of times.

You mentioned what he did against Robinson and Duncan. Did you see the series in 1999? He couldn't stop Duncan from scoring the ball because Tim was too intelligent, and the Spurs kept the ball out of Shaq's hands, fouled him when he got to the rim, and forced him into bad hooks. They also held him to under 23 points in three of the four games on their way to the sweep, and Duncan matched everything Shaq had in the fourth and final game.

 

The previous season, it was Malone that controlled the glass, boxing Shaq out and keeping him at eight or less boards in three of the four games they played in Utah's sweep of the Lakers.

 

Speaking of Duncan, how about Shaq's performance in 2002? The Spurs took him completely out of his game...wouldn't allow him room to score, contested every shot, and the Lakers still took the series 4-1.

 

GM1: 23 PTS (9-22, .409 FG)

GM2: 19 PTS (7-16, .438 FG)

GM3: 22 PTS (10-20, .500 FG)

GM4: 22 PTS (9-18, .500 FG)

GM5: 21 PTS (7-18, .389 FG)

 

Shaq was not unstoppable.

[Real Deal]

I'm going to give myself a warning for going off-topic.

[Nitro]

Lol I needed to smoke a cigarette before making this reply...

 

The Magic didn't win the championship that season, did they?

 

We can talk about what Shaq did in Orlando all you want, but that doesn't seem relevant to the discussion. I can tell you what Bryant did against the Raptors in 2006, tell you about his four-consecutive 50's, his 35 PPG average in a season, etc...but what's the point? Shaq wasn't there for that.

 

Here's the relevance- From 1999-2003, the one post-season Kobe out-scored Shaq the team didn't win a championship, especially in the Spurs series where Kobe was inefficient while Shaq was extremely efficient. I used that to show that with Kobe getting the chance to really be "the man" the team lost. The relevance in bringing up what Shaq did in the Finals vs. Hakeem was to show that O'Neal could and did put up unbelievable production against arguably the greatest interior defender in NBA history. I used it to counter you saying Shaq didn't face great Centers in the 3-peat, which was your way of minimizing Shaq's ability.

 

Shaq scored and rebounded the ball. Bryant scored and did everything else on the floor. O'Neal was contesting shots, but also fouling, showing late help on rotations, and getting absolutely murdered in pick and roll situations ever since the first championship season.

 

I agree Shaq wasn't the greatest defensive player in the world, but to say all he did was score and rebound well is really undermining his true impact. If you are going to use Kobe's shot selection as a way to account for his relatively low (or average) FG % as you have done in other arguements, then you have to say Shaq's assists aren't as high as Kobe's because he's a big man. What I am getting at is while Kobe facilitated the offense and did rack up more assists, Shaq's ability to effectively collapse an entire defense and consistently kick out to shooters and throw the defense off-balance was just as valuable. It is the same reason Pau Gasol is so effective in the triangle, although Shaq made it work much better for obvious reasons. Also, the attention Shaq drew made things so much easier for all his teammates, including Kobe (yes, Kobe also drew attention off Shaq, but not to the same extent).

 

Bryant's selfish play wasn't what killed the Lakers after the three-peat. It was teams figuring out who to stop. Shaq couldn't even log 70 games in any of his last three seasons in Los Angeles, because he was overweight and decided to have surgeries after his summer fun was over with. Madsen and Medvedenko were starting a handful of games, Samaki Walker started 63 games that third championship season, and with Shaq in and out of the lineup, things got ugly. Bryant had to play 15 games with Samaki Walker starting at center in 2002-03, and Fisher, Horry, and Fox starting as well.

 

Once Shaq started putting on the weight, he found himself injured, and needed a second superstar to help carry the load. He came to LA in 1996, and Bryant was nowhere near that help.

 

1996-1997: 51 games

1997-1998: 60 games

1998-1999: 49 games

 

That's the count for how many games Shaq played his first three seasons in Los Angeles (yes, I know about the lockout in 1999, I'm sure he would've missed plenty had there been 82 games to play).

 

Really most of my arguement is geared towards what they did during the 3-peat and when they both played in the post-season, but I don't know what bringing up Shaq's gamelog before the 3-peat has anything to do with the arguement. I know Shaq had his injury problems before, during and after the 3-peat. But just because he missed games doesn't mean that when Shaq was playing (as he did during every post-season and final stretch of the regular season) he should have given the reigns of the team to Kobe just because Kobe had to pick up the slack when Shaq was injured.

 

And what about Kobe's injury problems? He played in only 66 games in '99-'00, 68 games in '00-'01 and 65 games in '03-'04 (and all season he wasn't quite right).

 

You mentioned what he did against Robinson and Duncan. Did you see the series in 1999? He couldn't stop Duncan from scoring the ball because Tim was too intelligent, and the Spurs kept the ball out of Shaq's hands, fouled him when he got to the rim, and forced him into bad hooks. They also held him to under 23 points in three of the four games on their way to the sweep, and Duncan matched everything Shaq had in the fourth and final game.

 

The previous season, it was Malone that controlled the glass, boxing Shaq out and keeping him at eight or less boards in three of the four games they played in Utah's sweep of the Lakers.

 

Speaking of Duncan, how about Shaq's performance in 2002? The Spurs took him completely out of his game...wouldn't allow him room to score, contested every shot, and the Lakers still took the series 4-1.

 

GM1: 23 PTS (9-22, .409 FG)

GM2: 19 PTS (7-16, .438 FG)

GM3: 22 PTS (10-20, .500 FG)

GM4: 22 PTS (9-18, .500 FG)

GM5: 21 PTS (7-18, .389 FG)

 

Shaq was not unstoppable.

 

Can't account for his 1998 series against Malone or 1999 series against Duncan. But a few points...against the Jazz in 1998, Shaq scored 31, 39 and 38 points in those last 3 games, never shooting below 56.5% and he did out-rebound Malone half those games. Also, Corie Blount was hitting the boards hard for the Lakers that series, grabbing over 10 boards twice. Seems like your really nit-picking on Shaq that series (especially since that was the series where Kobe famously shot those clutch airballs). As for the 1999 series against Duncan, it isn't like Duncan killed him. Duncan shot over 48% only once while Shaq stayed efficient, it's just that they did an above average job of minimizing his shot attempts for the most part. Also, that was when Duncan was a surprisingly athletic PF, so I don't think you can really discount Shaq much for what Duncan did that series offensively.

 

Honeslty, 2 average/below average and 2 above average series against one of the greatest defensive teams with the greatest PF in NBA history really shouldn't be much of a knock on Shaq. He proved throughout his career he could still a dominant force even against those defenders. Not completely unstoppable, but still about as good as one could do. And regardless, it doesn't change the fact that those "inferior" defenders during the 3-peat couldn't stop Shaq and he was close to unstoppable. He was a better, more dominant player during those seasons and post-seasons than Kobe, and was the emotional leader. Clear #1 and #2, even if it was the closest a 1-2 punch has ever been in terms of impact and ability.

[Poe]

The bottom line had less to do with the zone defenses themselves, but the rules set around what defenders could and couldn't do in help situations. Overall though, for reasons beyond the rules themselves, defenses are far better today than they used to be.

 

Also, Jordan put up better numbers only because he wasn't facing the same level of competition as Kobe is currently facing. Basketball is always growing as a sport, and the collective talent grows as well.

 

Today, the coaching is better, the training is better, the game preparation is better. Everything is better. As a result, the players are smarter and more well-trained as athletes, technology allows scouting to be so sophisticated that you can see every play by a player in a touch of a button, scouts can give their top defenders the most advanced statistics possible for the sole purpose of shutting the opposition down, game-plans are more complex and coaches are savvier... The overall gameplay today is more efficient than in the past.

 

 

Despite how sure I am in what I say, I'm starting to learn that the Kobe vs Jordan debate is an argument that is not really worth arguing, anyway. Most of the arguments are speculation, and stats never tell the whole story. Kobe Bryant is a better player than Michael Jordan was. That's not a fact necessarily, it's just my opinion.

[Nitro]

The bottom line had less to do with the zone defenses themselves, but the rules set around what defenders could and couldn't do in help situations. Overall though, for reasons beyond the rules themselves, defenses are far better today than they used to be.

 

As RD said and as the video shows with the floating zone, those rules weren't heavily enforced. And I really don't know how you can say defenses today are so much better when the '90's were the best defensive era in NBA history (not to mention the slowest paced which hurts stats). The video clearly shows just how physical the defenses could get, including a quote that says, "You couldn't guard MJ without putting your hands on him." If you take a look at his series' against the Bad Boy Pistons, where they threw a make-shift zone with one of the best perimeter defenders of all-time (Joe Dumars) hand-checking Jordan and playing physical, as well as Rodman and other hip-checking Jordan on every cut, and he STILL had unbelievable statistical series'...I mean, I don't know what to say if you discount what Jordan did against those types of defenses because of some belief that athletes today are SO much more advanced. Take a look at the video and the type of defense those Knicks and Pistons played against Jordan. They were relentless.

 

Also, Jordan put up better numbers only because he wasn't facing the same level of competition as Kobe is currently facing.

 

Yeah, because Jordan's 37PPG season or 32/8/8 season or MVP/DPOY awards in the '80's was against inferior competition...right. You do know the '80's had the most stacked teams in NBA history, right? That was before expansion and the league started to get a little diluted in the '90's. The level of competition was the highest in league history during the '80's. And it's not like he was playing against a bunch of unathletic, unconditioned boys. You're drastically underrated the athletes the '80's and '90's had (not just the top guys like MJ and Nique, but the overall average player).

 

As a result, the players are smarter and more well-trained as athletes, technology allows scouting to be so sophisticated that you can see every play by a player in a touch of a button, scouts can give their top defenders the most advanced statistics possible for the sole purpose of shutting the opposition down, game-plans are more complex and coaches are savvier... The overall gameplay today is more efficient than in the past.

 

Smarter... Really? Just because they have access to so much information doesn't mean many players take advantage of it. Generally speaking players today are less intelligent today than back in the '80's and '90's because there is far less emphasis on actual refined skill as opposed to athleticism when the players are in middle and high school (even in college to a degree). If you look at players back in the '80's and '90's, they were a lot more fundementally sound and were much better at understanding basic concepts of the game that many players today fail to grasp. This makes a HUGE difference to the quality of play as athleticism only gets you so far (see- Amare and his defense).

 

As for being more well-trained, I agree...however, it's not like we're comparing today's NBA to 1950's or 1960's basketball. The '80's and '90's each had their fair share of freak athletes, and really the level of athleticism and conditioning wasn't much different than nowadays.

[Poe]

Again, the argument is pointless because almost everything you just said is mere speculation, other than the fact that players were allowed to be more physical, which people always go back to on the Jordan side of the debate.

 

Yes, defense and overall play is better now than it used to be. And yes, players are smarter basketball-wise. I'm not going to bother arguing it.

[Nitro]

Again, the argument is pointless because almost everything you just said is mere speculation, other than the fact that players were allowed to be more physical, which people always go back to on the Jordan side of the debate.

 

Yes, defense and overall play is better now than it used to be. And yes, players are smarter basketball-wise. I'm not going to bother arguing it.

 

Kobe's own words just a few days ago:

 

“I believe that the system works best right now is not the US system, I believe it is the European system. Because they develop basketball players, and they teach them the skills. I think the European system has jumped over US system.”

 

http://www.ballineurope.com/us-basketball/nba/kobe-bryant-on-european-basketball-player-development-4203/

 

The reason that started changing is largely because of none other than...MJ. I think that can be seen with how so many players of the late '90's/early '00's played. That's started to blow over, but what Kobe said in that quote is basically a simplified version of what I said in my last post. Another example is the 2002 WC's, 2004 Olympics and 2006 WC's where the US had far more talented, athletic team than any other country, and likely better equipment to prepare and such. They lost largely because team's schooled the US team using fundementals and skill.

 

But, I won't bother arguing it either...just do me a favor and watch some Jordan videos against those elite '80's and '90's defenses, and take a look at the incredible stats he put up in those series'. Then get back to me.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Nitro

[Poe]

But, I won't bother arguing it either...just do me a favor and watch some Jordan videos against those elite '80's and '90's defenses, and take a look at the incredible stats he put up in those series'. Then get back to me.

 

I won't be getting back to you because I'm not arguing it. In my opinion Kobe is better than MJ was. In yours, MJ was better. Neither of us have a true means to prove it each other wrong, so all we can do is understand each others stance on the argument. Nobody has to be right about an opinion.

[Nitro]

I won't be getting back to you because I'm not arguing it. In my opinion Kobe is better than MJ was. In yours, MJ was better. Neither of us have a true means to prove it each other wrong, so all we can do is understand each others stance on the argument. Nobody has to be right about an opinion.

 

It's not the fact that you feel Kobe is better than MJ that is bothering me. You certainly have that right. But some of you're reasons are ridiculous, specifically how you undermine just how good the level of competition and defense was in the '80's and '90's. But it's whatever, don't get back to me, just do yourself a favor and study up on some classic NBA before making some of those statements.