It feels like you've contracted one of those airborne sicknesses in the movie, Outbreak. And it's been spreading like wildfire ever since the immortal Michael Jordan returned to the NBA. It poisons the minds of sportswriters and ratings-hungry NBA execs, reducing them to zombies who haunt the courts and offices of pro hoops, eternally asking one question: Who is the next Michael Jordan? Before and after Jordan retired, scribes and scrubs alike lined up — and still do — to crown a host of talented yet unworthy descendants, from the ludicrous (where is Harold "Baby Jordan" Miner these days anyway?), to the similar (the highly marketable but oft-injured Grant Hill) and the obvious (high-flying ex-Tar Heel, Vince Carter). But just like most of his foes, Jordan's next-in-lines have all been relegated to the dustbin of pro basketball history. For awhile there, some writers got smarter, conceding that there would never be another Jordan, so why bother talking about it. But once the 2002 NBA playoffs hit the airwaves and arenas, all it took was some good games from another talented guard, this time in the form of Kobe Bryant, scoring at will and helping his team into the next round for the virus to take hold again. To wit (watch out, this stuff is highly contagious): Sports Illustrated's Jack McCallum: "His boundless talent, timing and bravado haven't been seen since — well, since you know who — and it is no longer a stretch to compare the 23-year-old Bryant to No. 23." ESPN's Ralph Wiley: "All Jordan's people can do now is quote scoring averages of Jordan and Kobe at the same age. Otherwise, Kobe is ahead. Maybe even miles ahead. We haven't seen what Kobe Bryant might become. We can't imagine." Shaun Powell, Newsday: "Bryant demonstrated how to take over a playoff game down the stretch. He brushed off a lousy shooting day like dandruff and carried the Lakers to victory in the final 90 seconds. His bravura performance invoked the name 'Michael Jordan' for many." In 1998 Bryant became the youngest All-Star in NBA history at the age of 19. Kevork Djansezian /Associated Press I hope that if you haven't got a fever by now, you've at least got the picture. One thing these afflicted souls seem to forget is the Incredible Hulk that haunts opposing NBA centers' dreams like bad food: Shaquille O'Neal. In fact, the clever Wiley tried to turn the tables and imply that Shaq is merely holding Kobe back from being the mega-star he could be — "Just think what Bryant would try if he didn't have Shaquille O'Neal as a teammate," a caption on his story reads. And although Kobe's been wearing that "Next" nametag around his neck since he came into the league, Shaq's presence throughout the Lakers' championship years has been far from chopped liver. Kobe logged 19.9, 22.5, and 28.5 ppg to Shaq's 26.3, 29.7, and 28.7 ppg from 1998 through 2001, numbers that don't exactly make you stand up and blink twice. Meanwhile, Shaq — who finished with an NBA second-best 27.2 ppg (behind Allen Iverson) in the regular season — gets to play second fiddle to yet another in a line of guards that, while electrifying, are unfairly canonized over his head. Let's not forget O'Neal was selected in 1996 as one of the 50 Greatest Players in pro hoops history, is a two-time finals MVP after leading the Lakers to back-to-back finals victories, was voted the 1999-2000 MVP, is now a four-time All-NBA First Team selection, a nine-time All-Star selection, a two-time regular-season scoring champion, and has led the league in field-goal percentage five times. Add that to the fact that no one has ever been able to convincingly outscore, guard or even defend him since he came into the league. That seems like a resume more deserving of Jordan talk than this one: a one-time All-NBA First Team selection, no season MVPs, 1999-2000 All-NBA Second Team selection, two-time NBA All-Defensive First Team selection, and, uh, no Finals MVPs. And if those stats look slimmer than they should be — which they probably are — I got them off of the Lakers official site. Evidently, even they aren't worried about keeping up on current Kobe events. And that's just stats; forget the things — like sheer lane-clogging size, for one — that don't show up on the stat sheet. Look, I'm a numbers guy, a hoops realist. Which means I can tell that when one of the greatest centers in the history of the NBA attracts 90 percent of the opposition's attention, defense, and energy, other guys on the team, talented or not, are going to get more looks, less attention, and easier breaks than if he all of a sudden disappeared. Let me offer four more points: Cartwright, Purdue, Longley, and Wennington. Remember them? No? Those were only some of the scrub centers that comprised Jordan's supporting cast during his six championship runs. I wouldn't be surprised if their cumulative career ppg equaled half of Kobe's — during his first year in the league. Let's get serious here: If guard-heavy squads like the Mavs, the Kings, hell, even the Nets were blessed with the sheer dumb luck of Shaq's sudden disappearance, the Lakers' lines at Las Vegas would drop faster than 2001's NASDAQ. No, numbers fans should really chew on these digits: 20 ppg, 6 rpg, 6 apg — those were Scottie Pippen's numbers — more or less identical to Kobe's save in the (all-important?) points department — while he played second fiddle to Jordan's second run at the threepeat. Ruben Patterson calls himself the Kobe Stopper; who ever called himself the Jordan Stopper? Better yet, who calls himself the Shaq Stopper? That's right, no one. Some perspective is needed here. Look at the numbers and watch the action (all of it, please) on the court. Watch how the defenses collapse not on Kobe but Shaq. But most of all, watch the mercury on that thermometer sportswriters carry in their mouths. Because once it climbs over 100, they'll start saying the craziest things.
It's a good piece, but nothing about Shaq affects positively or negatively Kobes ability to knock down a jumper, get a great first step on most everyone in the league, dish and finish by the hoop. Or to be clutch. He'd do those things in any uniform. Thats why he has a chance to be like Mike. Mike in his early days probably would have deferred a bit to this Shaq too. I don't think it's any secret that Shaq powers that team. But Kobe is a highly, highly talented basketball player on his own---and we don't know what he can do for a team until one is built for him and he has a go at it alone like mike did.
I'm still mad about Shaq being included in the 50 Greatest. Not that I don't think he should be considered after his career's said and done, but he hadn't been in the league that long when they put him on that list. He hadn't done anything at that time to deserve being included IMO.
The question is not is Kobe talented and good but is he MIKE LIKE i.e. THE GREATEST Take Kobe and place him on this years: Magic. . . . instead of McGrady . . do they go further? Celtics . . instead of Peirce. Do they beat the nets and the lakers if peirce was on the lakers? Would the Rockets have won more with Kobe instead of Stevie? [let's say kobe was out for 20 games as well] The issue is not that he is talented. . .the issue is he *is* still OVERRATED Just because you the best . . .does not mean u cannot be overrated and he is not even the best IMO Rocket River
rockets would be alot better with bryant instead of francis. I think hes the most talented player in the leauge, and the 2nd best player behind shaq.
The Rockets would be better with Kobe instead of Francis huh? Did you see what happened to the Lakers when Shaq went down? Kobe started jacking up about 30 shots per game, the offense started getting bogged down and everybody else's numbers went down. I think Shaq's dominance masks a lot of Kobe's weaknesses.
Exactly, Correct me if i'm wrong but the Lakers have a 50% winning percentage without Shaq (they don't even make the playoffs in the west). Swap Kobe with McGrady, Pierce etc. Even Carter, is Toronto a better team? There is no doubt Kobe is one of the best players in the game but Mike, i don't think so.
One argument I don't like is the "take shaq away and how does kobe do" argument. you can't just do that to any player in the league. teams are built with the expectations of certain players playing, not for the possibility that one of the stars goes down. this team was built for shaq and kobe, shaq and kobe, shaq and kobe, not just kobe. if anything, it is more built to shaq as he was dominant before kobe became a force. i'm sure if a team was ever built around kobe, the starting center wouldn't be madsen (or whatever scrub the lakers start when shaq sits) and shaq's massive salary would go toward improving the other 3 starting positions. not that those positions are manned by scrubs, but they are just role players who fit their role very well. the only game i remember from when shaq didn't play was when LA played the wizards and kobe led them from down 20 to win the game while racking up a triple double, including 15 assists. i'm sure the lakers aren't as good as they are with only kobe, but is there any other star who would take the shaqless lakers and make them much more than a 500 team, i doubt it. shaq will eventually retire and kobe will be the man and then we will more clearly see what he is made of. we already know he's clutch. one other thing about the MJ comparisons, is this kobe's 5th or 6th season? whichever it is, subtract the 3 years MJ went to college and then compare that year of mike's career to kobe right now. mike will probably come out on top statistically, but he sure isn't blowing kobe out of the water.
So you saying Orlando was build around McGrady . .alone? Charlotte wasa built to baron Davis's strengths? Celtics and Peirce? In most of the ones I gave you . . . the BIG MAN there is a johnny come lately. . . . My Point is. . . . .Kobe is Good. . . even Great but . . as the article says. . HE HAS HELP Look how good Pippen looked with MJ on the side. I McHale great without Bird hell . . .is Magic as Dominate without Kareem .. in the early years.? it takes nothing away from Magic or McHale but. . . it does Explain somethings. Rocket River
What Francis4prez said... Fact is, that the Lakers were built around Shaq, not Kobe. There is a HUGE difference between building your team around a dominating center, as opposed to the best swingman in basketball. If anyone thinks that Kobe wouldn't have a .500 record or better in the weak assed East, you're smoking the same crack that tells people that Phil Jackson is an average coach. There is not a more clutch player in the NBA in the league than Kobe. If you inserted T-Mac or whoever to the Lakers, they are not quite as strong. No player in the NBA has the cutthroat attitude that Kobe has. Killer instinct is a rare commodity these days. Kobe is one of a handful of players who have it. I don't think the Lakers would trade Kobe for anything. On the other hand, Orlando would be foolish if they did not take a Kobe for T-Mac trade. Or Boston with Pierce for Kobe.
Kidrock8 is right on the money. I know there are a lot of Kobe haters and rightfully so but give credit where credit is due. As much as I hate to say this... Kobe IS that damn GOOD.
That's what makes Jordan better than Clyde the Glide.. Every game I watch with Kobe, his D and his shot selection makes me think that he's bored in the first 3 quarters and tries to go for the fancy play. This guy can ball and he looks for the shot because he knows he's gonna make it. The guy can back up his swagger. After watching game 2, Shaq was a monster but the other role players just didn't hit their shots. You can see how they feed off of Kobe on offense just like they feed off Shaq on defense. People take Shaq for granted because of his size, and because there aren't any credible centers that can take him on (Duncan being the closest guy is a joke...) Kobe usually takes on the opposition's most talented players while Shaq can let his big toe heal on D. The guy cheats defensively more times than you can imagine. Bottom line, as it has always been, is that they need each other. Shaq was swept 5 times before Phil came in, and a lot more when Kobe wasn't around than when he was.
Well . . see Kobe can go 1-9 . . then hit the last second shot BECAUSE SHAQ KEPT THEM CLOSE T-Mac or Paul go like that . . . they are not even close Killer Instinct? Pul Lease. . . . T-Mac has it .. . Peirce has it Point is. . .they have to demonstrate it all game long whereas kobe can coast. .. . NO ONE IS SAYING KOBE AIN'T GOOD or THAT HE IS BELOW AVERAGE but the point is. . . put him on orlando and they are NOT significantly better Kobe and T-mac is the difference between walking a tighrope two feet off the ground. . .and two hundred feet off the ground while they maybe equally great tightrope walkers. . . one's job mentally is a little tougher. . . Rocket River
I disagree...it's called single coverage, the kind Shaq's presence ensures Kobe will almost always get, and the kind that McGrady, Carter, and Iverson almost never see.
You mean like yesterday? Or during most of the playoffs for that matter? I can't remember 1 big shot that T-Mac has hit. T-Mac and Pierce are nowhere near as unstoppable as Kobe. T-Mac comes close, but Pierce is nowhere close. Kobe's handle, quicks, and size make him the toughest perimeter player to defend in the NBA. Pierce has a great shot, but not much of a handle. T-Mac has everything Kobe has, except a jumper off the dribble.
you can't measure kobe's worth/talent in the game of 'take shaq away and whadayaget?' kinda deal. like kidrock stated, the lakers are built around shaq. if it were built around kobe (with no shaq at all), i think it would have more of a deep supporting cast (since no $100+ million shaq contract). it's not fair to use a 'shaqless' record to compare kobe's attributes when the team wasn't built for him in the first place. kobe + orlando = no more than 5 more wins than an orlando team w/ tmac. tmac's working w/ scrubs b/c they want duncan in a couple of years. kobe would be working w/ the same scrubs but honestly, kobe is better than tmac. kobe + boston = now this is interesting. boston is ALMOST (not entirely) built around pierce with a great 2nd banana in walker. i think kobe could actually make boston significantly better. i think you could even possibly see somethin of a chicago bulls clone team here. go to guy-kobe 2nd banana- walker nice role players-rogers, delk players that can knock down the open jumpers-take your pick but the one thing lacking is D. bulls had D and this celtics team don't. but in the weak East, i think that a team led by kobe bryant would stand a great chance against,say, a shaq led west team. kobe + houston=actually not all that better. see orlando situation. we got too many scrubs to actually have a better team.
OH PLEASE!! Why arn't Derek Fisher, Rick Fox and Robert Horry all-stars too? Kenny 'Sky' Walker and everyone who played with Ewing? LOL@U
The Lakers would be in the same place they are now with the Michael Jordan of today. No doubt about it.
