Kobe with 21 points tonight. Jordan was never held to 21 in a Finals game. In case you've forgotten how great Jordan was, here are his stats for the 1993 NBA Finals, the most watched Finals ever: Game 1- 31 pts, 7 rebs, 5 assts, 5 steals, 1 block Game 2- 42 pts, 12 rebs, 9 assts, 2 steals Game 3- 44 pts, 9 rebs, 6 assts, 2 steals, 1 block Game 4- 55 pts, 8 rebs, 4 assts Game 5- 41 pts, 7 rebs, 7 assts, 2 blks Game 6- 33 pts, 8 rebs, 7 assts, 1 steal Kobe has never been nor will he ever be that good. And America doesn't care either way. 30 million people watched Mike. Only 10 million watch Kobe.
Jordan was definitely better in that Finals and just in general. However the 93 Suns defense compares to the 2010 Atlanta Hawks, definitely not the 2010 Boston Celtics. I wouldn't be using raw numbers to make that specific point, that's a flawed outlook. He's had games in the Finals where he had 22 points and played poorly. It isn't just about point total either.
I thought the Knicks Blog put it best in 2009 when they broke down the stats and mentioned "representativeness heuristic" as the reason people bring up this ridiculous comparison. http://www.knickerblogger.net/?p=1702
I've been on vaca so excuse the delayed response, but if you're going to ignore every point I made, why quote me? I'll try again. It's pretty difficult to accurately compare players from different eras when it's A. a team game & B. they play different positions. Stats can only be a starting point for such a comparison. But to compare Kobe and Hakeem stats I'll see your Win Shares and raise you two DPOYs and higher career PERs both in the regular season and playoffs despite stretching out his career to age 39... and then there is this Who a guy's teammates are affects not only their personal stats but of course the team's ability to win games/championships. If a player is so dominant that they're consistently dragging a sub-par collection of teammates to playoff appearances and even a championship or two, thats to their credit not detriment. During his 20s the only Rockets that Hakeem played with who made an AS team were Ralph Sampson and Sleepy Floyd (who was traded to Houston midseason from the Warriors where he'd played much more productively). Other regular starters during this period included Lewis Lloyd, Rodney McCray, Robert Reid, Jim Peterson, Mike Woodson, Otis Thorp, Buck Johnson, Mitchell Wiggins, Vernon Maxwell & Kenny Smith... an underwhelming list to say the least. Comparing the sort of supporting cast HO enjoyed to Kobe's is a lopsided joke. It's very rare for a player to be double teamed on the perimeter but a common tactic verses solid post players... you don't double even a great player out on the wing because of the risk of exposing your interior for a dunk. Drawing and passing out of double teams doesn't help the post player's personal stats much, but it does help their teammates get open looks. HO drawing a double team was a given not only because of his superior talent but because the Rockets other weapons were so feeble. An able and willing passer, his teammates consistently enjoyed wide open looks from 3's but they just weren't very adept at converting them. A glance at that eras Rockets and Bulls teams have the Bulls consistently shooting a much higher % from deep despite not having a low post presence. Hell, in the Rockets first championship year their most prolific 3 point shooter (batshit crazy/undersized SG Vernon Maxwell) shot under 30% from deep. this discussion is largely subjective with what matters defined differently by each fan. I'd probably place Kobe in the top 10 players I've seen while Hakeem would be in the top 3 along with Magic and Mike. Overall he was good to great at most every aspect of post play on both ends... best low block player I've seen. STOMP
Sorry you came in with a very arrogant statement about Hakeem, I decided to simply address it. I feel your criticism about Kobe is very hypocritical because Hakeem gets by on reputation as well. The way you used random conclusions was inappropriate, imo. Explain to me how WS doesn't account for any of this already. PER is a non-usage adjusted, per minute formula. That estimates assisted buckets which favors Bigs. Absolutely not, individual stats like Win Shares are virtually always adjusted for teammates. Kevin Garnett had 16 win shares on a non-playoff team, Michael had 20 on another sub-par team. I'm just going by the facts. Kobe > Hakeem in two title runs according to Win Shares and WS/48. Sorry, Win Shares > PER. PER has far more flaws, and the DPOY was not there during the second title (108 defensive rating and didn't really contain Shaq). The facts are that Hakeem was not even the best player in the second playoff run.
A Blazer thread analyzing Kobe's greatness in the NBA . . . probably not the best place for an accurate analysis.
arrogant??? What the hell are you talking about? It's arrogant to say that it's my opinion that comparing post and wing players is awkward at best? and my only "criticism"/mention of Kobe was that I'd take MJ over him 8 days a week... good grief most everyone in here has said as much including you As in our past encounter you won't address my questions or links so sorry but no. Whats good for the goose... opinions and assholes... everyone has one STOMP
Your argument is quite subjective then. Someone on par with MJ, yet can't measure up to Kobe. Certainly arrogant (not always a bad trait ), I thought. You'd take MJ over Kobe 8 days a week, and then pat Hakeem on the back. Yet have you shown Hakeem is clearly better in his regular prime, or playoff prime? Hakeem also loses with raw PER in their top two seasons, let alone shot creation-adjusted and true PER. If you care to address how lame the WP coefficient is compared to WS, I'd like to know. An issue of reputation is what we're discussing. "Are you going to go with the PER is BS and only your personal observations are admissible argument or can we look at stats which we actually can compare? If you do place value in that measure (PER) as an overview of whats what, then you'll be surprised" - STOMP http://sportstwo.com/threads/160545-Merged-Lakers-vs.-Celtics?p=2344285&viewfull=1#post2344285 Just replace the word "PER" with any other respected APBRmetric that doesn't go in your favor. And you pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. ;]
of course it's my argument that comparing post and wing players is largely subjective... I've stated that in each post. I also feel that the waters are further muddied when comparing different eras. And I didn't say Hakeem was as good as Mike, I said... "I wouldn't say one was better then the other as they're near impossible to compare". just a wee bit of difference between the accuracy of comparing stats of a player to those of the same player two years earlier with largely the same supporting cast then a post player from one era and a wing player of another. Much fewer variables are involved. Hopefully this rather simple distinction doesn't confuse you yet again... can't say I'd be surprised if that turns out to be the case though. STOMP
It always baffles me that this is such a commonly held lens which the world is viewed. "Nash isn't worthy of an MVP because he hasn't won a title in a team sport." "This President is terrible because the economy is bad. Etc." To say the least, I disagree.
I always thought people said that because he really doesn't get it done on the defensive end. But I think Nash's value can be best measured by how well his former teamates do with their new respective teams. By and large they don't perform as well. I think playing with Nash has something to do with it. Oh, and Jordan is still better then Kobe.
That is a different point: There are those who say Nash isn't a worthy MVP because he hasn't won a title - NOT because he doesn't play defense. If they want to make the argument that another - more complete - player should have won MVP that is fine. What is illogical, is claiming that a winner of an individual award should only get that award based on TEAM success.
I think it is important folks recognize the conditions on the "contest". First of all, they vote for the League MVP before the playoffs even start. That alone tell us that playoff success has nothing to do with it.
The Bulls had to go through the bad boy pistons and a very tough defensive Knicks team just to make the finals. And every team with a prayer had a Jordan "stopper," but you won't find that in your statistics.
FWIW, I'm a bulls fan, saw Jordan come in as a rookie and watched most of his games with the team... If I had to draft #1 in the 1984 draft all over again, I'd pick Hakeem. That's with 20-20 hindsight.
You always build around a dominating big man. You have to think Hakeem, Pippen, Grant/Rodman, Kukoc, etc., would win championships, too.
Player A: 6'6" Career 1073 GP, 22.1 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 3.9 APG, 24.6 PER, .216 WS/48 Player B: 6'6" Career 1021 GP, 25.3 PPG, 5.2 RPG, 4.6 APG, 23.5 PER, .187 WS/48 Both won MVP one time.
