Kobe/MJ

I've seen some sentiment to the effect that the Lakers' collapse in Game 4 "proves" the invalidity of comparisons between Kobe and Michael Jordan. That seems silly. The reason comparisons are illegitimate is that Jordan was clearly a much better player.

Kobe Bryant's a great scorer, and in his highest-scoring season (2008) he earned 35.4 points per game. But Jordan scored 37.1 ppq in 1987. And Jordan did it by shooting more efficiently, with a TS% of .562 to .559 for Kobe. In terms of scoring efficiency, Kobe's best season was 2007 when his TS% was .580, but Jordan bested that five times (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1996). In Kobe's best rebounding year (2003), he got 6 per game, which Jordan bested in 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, and 2003 and tied in 1991. Kobe topped out at 5.3 assists per game in 2005. Jordan got more in 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993. Kobe's best year for turnovers was 2002 when he only gave it up 2.6 times per game. Jordan did better in 1986, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2003.

There's just no comparison, and it shouldn't be considered some huge knock on Kobe to observe that he was and is a clearly inferior player to the best player ever. I feel like even though Jordan is generally acknowledged as the greatest, people actually wind up underestimating him because the Jordan they remember best is the Jordan of the second threepeat. But that player, great as he was, was in his thirties and only a shadow of the peak-performance Jordan of the late-1980s and early 1990s.

UPDATE: Consider that in the 1988-89 season Jordan averaged eight boards, eight assists, three steals, and 32.5 points per game shooting 54 percent from the field and 85 percent on free throws; Kobe's never put up anything remotely comparable to that.

Comments

How would Kareem rank on the best ever list?

Posted by dwight meredith | June 15, 2008 12:34 PM

I generally agree, but give Kobe credit, he's also done some things Jordan never did. He's a consistently better 3-point shooter (and in fact holds the league record for 3-pointers in a game). He also scored 81 points in a game, which Jordan never came close to doing.

Posted by Mr. Noah | June 15, 2008 12:38 PM

Say what you will about MJ but Bill Russell and his 11 NBA championships is the "best ever".

Rebounding prowess is always underrated by today's basketball fans and 'experts'.

Posted by Observer | June 15, 2008 12:38 PM

I'd take Kobe and his million moves in a game of 1-on-1, even with Jordan's D (something you don't mention- MJ's blocks and steals numbers are amazing).

But for a player on my team, Jordan 8 days a week.

Awesome MJ videos: http://youtube.com/user/hoopsencyclopedia

Posted by 55 | June 15, 2008 12:41 PM

Say what you will about MJ but Bill Russell and his 11 NBA championships is the "best ever".

That's a silly metric. The nature of the NBA as a business changed significantly after the Russel era such that no team could achieve that sort of dominance today. Jordan's Bulls faced much greater competition than Russel's Celtics did.

Posted by WillieStyle | June 15, 2008 12:44 PM

personally, i rank russell as the "best" ever and jordan as the "best talent" ever, but that really just goes to show how silly, at some level, that kind of comparison is: all i'm really saying is give me everyone in basketball history in his prime for a draft and i'd start not with jordan but with russell.

but actually, i was writing about something else, the oddly self-absorbed way in which matthew confuses "my friends and i remember best...the Jordan of the second threepeat" (a simple demographic fact) and turns it into "people remember best."

i not only remember the jordan of the first threepeat perfectly well (as do tens of millions of others older than matthew), i remember being able to walk up to the chicago arena and buy day-of-game tickets when jordan was a rookie (something i did twice when i was in town at the right time)....

of course, i'm old enough to remember russell, although not the russell of the first few titles, just the last 8 or so....

Posted by howard | June 15, 2008 12:45 PM

To follow up on WillieStyle, the "most rings ever" makes Robert Horry a better player than MJ.

Posted by 55 | June 15, 2008 12:47 PM

I wonder what Kobe and MJ can do to solve our energy problems.

Posted by Swan | June 15, 2008 12:51 PM

williestyle, the game has changed enormously, i agree, but i'd be careful about whether it's "harder" to dominate today in terms of competition (what makes it "harder," in my mind, is free agency). it is true that you have to go through more rounds today; it is also true that the talent was very highly concentrated back then and the russ celtics defeated some extremely strong teams along the way (look at some of wilt's clubs, for example).

in addition to free agency, the other big change is in the amount of contact the refs allow. i've mentioned in the past that i missed the "willis reed" game 7 in 1970 because i was at a protest of the illegal invasion of cambodia, and when i finally saw the game a few years back on espn classic, the thing that leaped out at me was that if they called contact as tightly today as they did then, 12 players on both teams would foul out at halftime....

Posted by howard | June 15, 2008 12:53 PM

We're in Heaven. Bored. We get to draft players from any era for a league. I'll let you draft first. Then, I get the next 2, then we alternate thereafter until we've got 12 players. Who do you pick? Jordan? Kareem? Kobe? Who do you build your Heaven's Best team around?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 15, 2008 1:00 PM

Oh, don't forget that Kobe is a tremendous jackass. Even his opponents kinda liked Jordan, but even Kobe's teammates dislike him. Blech. I feel dirty writing his name.

Posted by Loneoak | June 15, 2008 1:06 PM

To follow up on WillieStyle, the "most rings ever" makes Robert Horry a better player than MJ..

This misses the point, obviously.

Russell was unquestionably the best player on teams that won 11 NBA titles in 13 years. He won NCAA titles his junior and senior years at San Fransisco and an Olympic gold medal immediately after, giving him 14 titles in 16 chances starting his junior year in college through his retirement. In the NBA, he won 5 MVP's and was acknowledged to be neck and neck with Wilt Chamberlain - whom he beat repeatedly in head to head match-ups - as the best player of his generation (guess who won MVP the year Wilt averaged 50 ppg). Over his college, olympic, and NBA career, Russell's teams were 28-2 in elimination games. Comparing him with Robert Horry is an insult.

One can obviously say that Jordan is the better player if they were to suit up in their respective primes to play a game...but still, you have ask: if you transported Jordan back to Russell's era and let him play, would have have bested Russell's winning? Maybe, maybe not.

Posted by owenz | June 15, 2008 1:11 PM

Anyone comparing Kobe to Jordan is a fucking idiot.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | June 15, 2008 1:13 PM

"Anyone comparing Kobe to Jordan is a fucking idiot.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | June 15, 2008 1:13 PM "

Favorably, that is.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | June 15, 2008 1:16 PM

Howard,

That is an interesting observation considering that people thing the game today is called pretty tight, at least considering what was allowed in the 90s.

Posted by Ethan | June 15, 2008 1:29 PM

I'm surprised no one here has brought up Magic. He definitely needs to come up in the best ever conversation. He can play all 5 positions, could score (2s and 3s), pass, play D and rebound with the best of them. He had a ridiculous number of triple doubles in an era when triple doubles were significantly harder to get than Big O's time.

Posted by Mo | June 15, 2008 1:34 PM

I wonder what Kobe and MJ can do to solve our energy problems.

If there's one thing more obnoxious and impolite than blogwhoring, it's completely off-topic blogwhoring.

Posted by James Gary | June 15, 2008 1:37 PM

"Comparing him with Robert Horry is an insult."

No shit, moron. The post in question was "Say what you will about MJ but Bill Russell and his 11 NBA championships is the "best ever"."

It wasn't "Russell was the best player on 11 teams yada yada yada." It was "Russell has 11, = Best ever." My point was simply that having the most rings doesn't automatically make you the best ever.

You did what should have been done and used other arguments.

And Russell was the best player on many good teams, just as Jordan was the best player on many good teams.

Posted by 55 | June 15, 2008 1:40 PM

Yes, I'm a lifelong Bulls fan, so I'm biased. But come on. If Jordan played with the handchecking rues of today, he'd score 40 a game. And if he played with Shaquille Oneal at his prime, that team would've gone 80-2.

By the way, it's an utter myth that Bill Russel won his individual matchups with Wilt Chamberlain. True, Russell's teams won more often, and that's what counts-- but then I would argue Russell had a much superior cast around him, again thanks to the old time financial rules of basketball that allowed the creation of that kind of team.

Posted by Freddie | June 15, 2008 1:40 PM

I've always thought the comparisons between MJ and Kobe were silly. Kobe's a great player, no doubt, but MJ was in a whole other category of greatness.

It's a sign that Kobe is not as great as MJ that we even have to debate this. Players of the sort of greatness that was MJ do not require debates; everyone just knows they are really really special.

Posted by cm | June 15, 2008 1:46 PM

Kobe's only compared to MJ because of a relentless and stupid sports marketing campaign that commenced when they were still in the league together, in the late 1990s ... and because Kobe himself clearly modeled his game on Jordan's. The unfortunate thing is that my Lakers seem to have bought into the marketing, but a consolation for me is that he's still a very good player. But MJ was better in every way. And to whoever it is that said they'd "take Kobe and his million moves in a game of 1-on-1," you've obviously never seen Jordan play. Kobe is a pale shadow of Jordan both statistically, as MY shows, and in every other intangible way, including pure physical ability, speed, quickness (especially quickness) and of course, his arsenal of moves. MJ would pulverize Kobe in a game of 1 on 1.

Posted by Steve V | June 15, 2008 1:49 PM

MJ sucked for half his career. You really should be taking that into account when you talk about how awesome he was later on. Kobe was never as terrible as Jordan was early on, even if he isn't quite as great as he was later in his career.

Posted by soullite | June 15, 2008 1:50 PM

In 1971-72, Kareem averaged 34.8, shooting .574, 16.6 rebounds, 4.6 assists, and although not kept, surely had more than 3 blocks per game. He also commanded a double team on every single possession.

Posted by dwight meredith | June 15, 2008 1:51 PM

MJ sucked for half his career. You really should be taking that into account when you talk about how awesome he was later on. Kobe was never as terrible as Jordan was early on, even if he isn't quite as great as he was later in his career.

Posted by soullite | June 15, 2008 1:53 PM

Dude, have you looked at league pace and average shooting percentage when making your comparisons? Consider that in Jordan's big year, every team in the league averaged more than 100 points per game, and big scorers who shot over 50% were not rare. In Kobe's big year, only five teams averaged over 100 points per game. Every team in 1986-1987 had a pace factor of over 100; not a single one--not even Phoenix--hit that number in 2005-2006.

There were way more possessions per game in which to get rebounds and assists in Jordan's day. And while nostalgists like to remember the 80s as tougher because of the occasional hard foul, it was a lot easier to get uncontested shots back then. NBA defenses were way less evolved.

You wouldn't make such facile statistical comparisons in politics; don't do it in sports either.

Posted by Damon | June 15, 2008 1:56 PM

Dude, have you looked at league pace and average shooting percentage when making your comparisons? Consider that in Jordan's big year, every team in the league averaged more than 100 points per game, and big scorers who shot over 50% were not rare. In Kobe's big year, only five teams averaged over 100 points per game. Every team in 1986-1987 had a pace factor of over 100; not a single one--not even Phoenix--hit that number in 2005-2006.

There were way more possessions per game in which to get rebounds and assists in Jordan's day. And while nostalgists like to remember the 80s as tougher because of the occasional hard foul, it was a lot easier to get uncontested shots back then. NBA defenses were way less evolved.

You wouldn't make such facile statistical comparisons in politics; don't do it in sports either.

Posted by Damon | June 15, 2008 1:57 PM

Doesn't a debate require someone to argue for each side?

Posted by Skyhook | June 15, 2008 1:59 PM

Dude, have you looked at league pace and average shooting percentage when making your comparisons? Consider that in Jordan's big year, every team in the league averaged more than 100 points per game, and big scorers who shot over 50% were not rare. In Kobe's big year, only five teams averaged over 100 points per game. Every team in 1986-1987 had a pace factor of over 100; not a single one--not even Phoenix--hit that number in 2005-2006.

There were way more possessions per game in which to get rebounds and assists in Jordan's day. And while nostalgists like to remember the 80s as tougher because of the occasional hard foul, it was a lot easier to get uncontested shots back then. NBA defenses were way less evolved.

You wouldn't make such facile statistical comparisons in politics; don't do it in sports either.

Posted by Damon | June 15, 2008 2:00 PM

MJ sucked!!? Soullite.....are you counting grade school?

If Kobe wasn't such a head case, he might be closer to MJ. He's an awesome talent. But Kobe is fighting himself alot of the time.

Posted by jvoe | June 15, 2008 2:02 PM

I am guessing that other people are having the same trouble with the comment-posting software that I've been having...it posts the comment, but a page comes up saying "Internal Server Error." Someone needs to fix the scripts on this blog!

Posted by Noah | June 15, 2008 2:06 PM

Of course Kareem was the best ever.

In high school, his team won 71 in a row. At UCLA, his team lost twice in four years.

He won 6 MVP awards in the NBA, more than anyone else, even though pretty much nobody liked him. He made 19 All-Star teams, more than anyone else. He scored more than anyone else. He had more rebounds than anyone but Wilt and Russell. He blocked more shots than anyone but Mutumbo and Olajuwon.

Even given this superhuman resume, his greatest accomplishment occurred in 1985. At the age of 38, in the 1985 Finals, Kareem averaged 30 points, 11 rebounds, 7 assists and 2 blocks in the Lakers' 4 victories against a superb Celtics team that won titles in both 1984 and 1986.

It's the greatest performance by a player that age in NBA history. Indeed, it's probably the greatest performance by a person that age in the history of American sports.

Kareem was the best ever. Unquestionably, in my opinion. He doesn't get his due because he was a quiet, misunderstood eccentric, and because he played on some really crappy Lakers teams in the 70's.

Posted by Tom | June 15, 2008 2:12 PM

I agree completely that Jordan was a better player than Kobe is now, but for different reasons.

One thing to remember is that during the 2005-2006 season, Bryant's Lakers averaged 91 possessions per game. During the 1986-1987 season, Jordan's Bulls averaged 96 possessions per game. Given that these guys dominated ~1/3 of their team's offensive possessions, that actually neutralizes the (largely insignificant) difference in the scoring average.

Bryant is a great scorer, albeit one who relies (like most of his contemporaries) on three pointers or dribble penetration. For his entire career he played the top of the key in the triangle or isolation. Jordan began his career playing in Doug Collins' awful offense, getting his shots wherever he could, usually by using his physical superiority to will himself to the hoop.

So off the bat, these guys played in dissimilar systems against dissimilar defenses. Its worth considering when you look at the numbers. That said, I would still give Jordan a sizable edge, based on his defense, his rebounding, and his uncanny ability to control the ball.

Even though I never got to see him play, I think Wilt Chamberlain deserves a seat at the table in the discussion of greatest players.

Posted by Joel | June 15, 2008 2:14 PM

By the way, if you're starting a team, of course you start with Kareem. In addition to his incomparable set of accomplishments, he was by far the most durable of the all-time greats, missing about 80 games TOTAL in 20 seasons.

At the age of 40, he played in 80 out of 82 games and averaged nearly 30 minutes a game.

Shaquille O'Neal, one of the five greatest centers ever, will turn 40 in 2012.

Posted by Tom | June 15, 2008 2:29 PM

There is no question that Jordan was better, but the reason the two men are so comparable is they are both so eminently hateable. Jordan made basketball so incredibly boring and predictable: in his prime, you always knew his teams would win. There was no excitement rooting for him then as such a heavy favorite, and any good sports fan outside of Chicago should have despised him in the way those outside of Dallas despised the Cowboys of the early 90s.

Kobe, meanwhile, is despicable partly in the same way, but also because he appears to be an incredible asshole and quite possibly a rapist. Thus, the fact that Kobe is beatable is nice, and it would be wonderful if he never wins his Shaq-free championship, in the same way as it will be wonderful that Barry Bonds never gets his championship.

Posted by darkwing | June 15, 2008 2:42 PM

No shit, moron. The post in question was "Say what you will about MJ but Bill Russell and his 11 NBA championships is the "best ever" ... It wasn't "Russell was the best player on 11 teams yada yada yada." It was "Russell has 11, = Best ever." My point was simply that having the most rings doesn't automatically make you the best ever.

You purposefully misinterpret someone's quote to suggest he believes Robert Horry's rings are equal to Bill Russell's and I'm the moron? Wow. Or maybe you didn't purposefully misinterpret anything. There's a chance you're just dumb.

Anyway, maybe you should take it easy, Champ. Why don't you sit this next one out, stop talking for a while.

Posted by owenz | June 15, 2008 2:43 PM

There are only two people even in the conversation for best ever: Wilt and MJ. MJ probably wins that, but only probably.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | June 15, 2008 2:50 PM

Yes, the mature, intelligent person tries to censor anonymous commenters- on someone else's blog.

All right, "Champ," you win this one. I have no problem discussing things with people I think are wrong, but against a raging asshole, there's just no point.

Posted by 55 | June 15, 2008 2:54 PM

How can Wilt be the best ever when he got his ass kicked by both Russell and Kareem?

Posted by Tom | June 15, 2008 2:55 PM

Go look at Jordan's "legendary" 62 point overtime playoff game (highlights on youtube). Look who was guarding him. Danny Ainge. Single coverage. Standing bolt upright in a "defensive stance". Hell, even a shot Bill Walton was on him for a few possessions.

There is no comparison between eras, especially statistically.

Posted by C | June 15, 2008 2:56 PM

tom, go ask kareem: he'll tell you that number 6 was "better," whatever that may mean.

wilt, by the way, didn't get his "ass kicked" by russell and kareem; wilt's teams generally weren't as good. the year that wilt had his best teammates - the 1967 '76ers - remain arguably the greatest team ever.

someone up above talked about russell's teammates, and it's true that russ' teammates were better than wilt's; the argument, though, is that if you reversed those two players, wilt's team doesn't win as many championships as it did when it was russ' team.

ethan: it was amazing. essentially, next to no hand-checking was allowed at all - you had to defend totally by moving your feet. it was a different world, and i really hadn't remembered that that's what it was like back then....

Posted by howard | June 15, 2008 3:02 PM

There is no question that Jordan was better, but the reason the two men are so comparable is they are both so eminently hateable. Jordan made basketball so incredibly boring and predictable: in his prime, you always knew his teams would win. There was no excitement rooting for him then as such a heavy favorite, and any good sports fan outside of Chicago should have despised him in the way those outside of Dallas despised the Cowboys of the early 90s.

Kobe, meanwhile, is despicable partly in the same way, but also because he appears to be an incredible jerk and quite possibly a rapist. Thus, the fact that Kobe is beatable is nice, and it would be wonderful if he never wins his Shaq-free championship, in the same way as it will be wonderful that Barry Bonds never gets his championship.

Posted by darkwing | June 15, 2008 3:05 PM

Wilt didn't ask for the ball in 1968 and didn't play hurt in 1969, costing his teams two championships.

I've never seen Kareem's admission that Wilt was better. However, given that Kareem was a class act and Wilt wasn't, it wouldn't surprise me. Cite?

Posted by Tom | June 15, 2008 3:09 PM

Actually, if you adjust for pace, etc. Michael looks even better. PER accounts for league pace and is normalized against the league average player and Michael destroys Kobe in this metric. Head over to basketball-reference.com and browse some stats. Michael is without question the best guard ever statistically and observationally. I rooted against Jordan's Bulls but I've come to appreciate Jordan's singularity and don't understand why people are so desperate to anoint someone better. It sort of cheapens the idea of best ever if it is a title so easily taken.

P.S. The idea that Jordan was a bad player in his first couple of seasons is beyond idiotic. And Kobe isn't even close at the equivalent ages.

Posted by Ethan | June 15, 2008 3:12 PM

C, i was at the 49-pointer that preceded that one: bear in mind that the celts strategy was to concede jordan whatever he wanted to do and simply shut down the rest of the team.

Posted by howard | June 15, 2008 3:14 PM

Tom, number 6 is russell and kareem is a longtime admirer. in fact, i was once watching an interview (i think it was during the '74 playoffs) and kareem had blocked a few shots and the interviewer was asking him about his shot-blocking.

"yeah," said kareem, "i brought out my number six defense."

not getting it at all, the interviewer said something yes, but how about those shot blocks?

"i told you," says kareem, obviously astonished that this basketball announcer didn't recognize the russell reference, "i brought out my number six defence."

PS. that's not my only cite of kareem's admiration for russell, that's just a story about number six....

Posted by howard | June 15, 2008 3:20 PM

yes, i realized my dumbassery almost as soon as i posted. thanks for the cite. it doesn't surprise me that kareem admired russell as much as he did. and russell was clearly the better defender...

Posted by Tom | June 15, 2008 3:27 PM

But Howard...

it has to mean something to you that out of the traditional "greatest centers ever" (shaq, russell, wilt, jabbar), three were/will be retired at 38... and one was winning a championship for his team almost single-handedly.

for this reason, i'm strongly tempted to rate the most underrated NBA player ever above one or two of the aforementioned four. moses was a beast.

Posted by Tom | June 15, 2008 3:34 PM

And furthermore, anyone who would even entertain the notion that Hakeem Olajuwon was better than Kareem is pretty questionable in my view... :-)

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2006/06/wheres_shaq.html

Posted by Tom | June 15, 2008 3:41 PM

Equating Bryant with Jordan is more wishful thinking on behalf of the NBA and people who broadcast it, and it does Bryant a disservice. (Who else in the NBA is judged a failure if they don't reach this mark.) If you've seen them both you really don't even have to look at the instruments; the difference is obvious. Kobe's not Jordan but he's something like 85% of Jordan, which should be enough. One particular quality Jordan had that he lacks is an instinctive quality for maintaining his image. Any character flaws Jordan might have had stayed at the level of rumor, rather than being splashed all over the press.

The Laker teams Kareem played for in the 70s weren't champions but weren't lousy, either. They went to the conference finals in 1977 and the semifinals in 1979. The real problem in his getting his due is that sportswriters don't like him. Which tells you something about the integrity of sportswriters.

P.S. The NBA would love it if people hated Kobe like they hated Jordan.

Posted by Robert Fiore | June 15, 2008 3:45 PM

darkwing, if anything, the opposite is true. I've always thought one of the reasons people find Jordan so attractive as Best Ever is that in addition to being super awesome, he also had a flair for the dramatic, for being very not boring. Wilt never won anything in dramatic fashion. Ditto Kareem and Russell. And none of them had particularly exciting ways of playing. Magic and Bird had more exciting styles; as for drama, Magic had a couple moments, as did Bird. But Jordan had a litany of them. (Bird, Magic, and Jordan were all aided by widespread TV coverage, obviously.)

Five of his six titles had singularly indelible moments in them; four of those moments had Jordan at their center (switching hands against the Lakers, The Shrug against the Blazers, Pippen carrying him off after the Flu Game, his shot against the Jazz). That's to say nothing of 54 against the Knicks in his comeback, his assist to Kerr to beat the Jazz, the 63-point playoff game, the shot to beat the Cavs, the UNC title, and the way his otherwise outmanned team beat the Suns because nobody could defend him (averaged 41 a game).

In other words, part of what makes Jordan's greatness so memorable is that he had a lot of victories that weren't easy, so the flashbulbs caught them well. We remember a lot of players, but few could make basketball feel meaningful, awe-inspiring, even artistic the way Jordan did. His physical skills had a tendency to make routine plays look dramatic. That was a remarkable gift: even if you knew he'd win, it was still exciting to watch. Sports are entertainment, and nobody ever entertained like MJ.

This is to take nothing from the quality of his game; I think as a player he was probably the best ever. (I at least see the arguments for Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Magic, and I'd even accept arguments for Duncan.) But to say Michael Jordan made basketball boring? That's totally absurd.

Posted by jhupp | June 15, 2008 3:50 PM

Jesus.

Wilt didn't ask for the ball in 1968 and didn't play hurt in 1969, costing his teams two championships.

I've never seen Kareem's admission that Wilt was better. However, given that Kareem was a class act and Wilt wasn't, it wouldn't surprise me. Cite?

1. Kareem is not a "class act". He is well known as one of the biggest jerks in NBA history.

2. People constantly blast Wilt for scoring too much, now you're attacking him for not shooting enough. Classic.

3. Have you ever "played hurt"? Do you have any idea about the extent of his injury? How painful it might have been? How much damage he might have done to his further career?

4. Someone upthread lauded Kobe for his 81 point game, so the 100 point game for Wilt is relevant. Also relevant is that there was a minute left when he scored his 100th point and the fans stormed the floor, ending the game prematurely. What would his final points have been had they played that last minute? 106? 108?

Wilt average 50 points a game for a season. He had a game with 55 rebounds. He is far and away the leading rebounder in league history. He led the league in assists from the center position. He won two championships and was a Finals MVP. He was MVP four times. He led the league in scoring seven times, in rebounding 11 times. He's one of the all time leaders in field goal percentage even though he shot so many shots. And, since people have a mental block regarding this fact, I'll repeat it: it is completely untrue that Wilt lost his individual matchups against Bill Russell. In fact, the statistics and actually watching the game footage reveals that Wilt dominated throughout their matchups. It's just bullshit Celtics mythologizing that says otherwise.

There's so many weird double standards regarding Wilt. It's bizarre. If he isn't the best basketball player of all time, he's number 2.

Posted by Freddie | June 15, 2008 4:23 PM

jhupp,

I guess it's a question of what you prefer as a sports fan (I'll admit first that I am not a huge basketball fan, always preferring baseball and boxing).

To me, excitement in sports comes form the unpredictability, the possibility that underdogs can win. Born in 1982, I simply never really experienced Jordan as an underdog (except when he tried to make it is a baseball player). I can never bring myself to root for favorites, so I could never root for Jordan, because my desire was for the unpredictable: to see him lose, to see him miss that shot, flub that pass, be called for a travel, commit a stupid foul, etc.

My favorite MJ moment of all time was in that playoff series against the Pacers several years ago when Reggie Miller shoved him out of the way to hit a game-winning three. Reggie was my kind of player, clutch but not inevitable. The fact that the Bulls ultimately won that series I think reinforces my view. How much more exciting would it have been if the Pacers had found a way to win?

Of course, none of this applies to those from Chicago. It's always legitimate to root for the hometown team (though New Yorkers should prefer the Mets to the Yankees, I think).

Just to bring this back to the topic of discussion, though I hate Kobe, I'd argue he's a more exciting player than Jordan BECAUSE he's more beatable. The same is true of Allen Iverson, Reggie Miller, and a host of others.

Posted by darkwing | June 15, 2008 5:13 PM

We're in Heaven. Bored. We get to draft players from any era for a league. I'll let you draft first. Then, I get the next 2, then we alternate thereafter until we've got 12 players. Who do you pick? Jordan? Kareem? Kobe? Who do you build your Heaven's Best team around?
Magic Johnson, obviously. If I have 4 of the other best 10 players on the court, I want the best playmaker.

Posted by Tom Scudder | June 15, 2008 5:35 PM

I don't like PER at all.

However, if you break down the formula, you would figure out that Jordan's offensive superiority over Bryant has more to do with turnovers and offensive rebounds than it does with actual shooting efficiency. Since Jordan was a midrange player earlier in his career, his (and his contemporaries') high FG% were nullified by the fact that he took fewer 3PA than Bryant and the other modern players.

And to think, so much about how offensive strategy changed in the 1994-1995 season, when the NBA moved in the 3-point line to 22 feet (it has since moved back to 23'9").

Posted by Joel | June 15, 2008 5:55 PM

freddie, calm down! i'm not sure there is anyone out there who thinks that russell had better individual numbers head-to-head against wilt. what actual celts fans say is that russell's team won a majority of the head-to-head confrontations, that russell was the heart of the team, its unquestioned leader, and that they'd rather have russell than wilt.

and i agree, as much as i respect wilt.

tom, by his last title, kareem was largely a role player; i'm not sure that makes him being the oldest of the great centers to win a ring all that significant.

but really, i'm posting this time because it's once again an opportunity for me to point people to russell's marvelous 1965 SI article, "the psych and my other tricks," recently posted online here:

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077812/index.htm

i read it (and remember it) as an adolescent, but reading it 43 years later, it still holds up wonderfully, and especially you younger folks who never saw russ should give this a once-over.

Posted by howard | June 15, 2008 7:30 PM

Look I'm a Boston fan born and bred and saw Russell at the end, Jabbar in his prime (actually get outplayed by Cowens), Bird and Magic in their primes, but I'm sorry Jordan was the best. And he never sucked and he was never boring. He was the most charismatic athlete I've ever seen, the toughest competitor and an incredible defensive player, which makes him a rare thing indeed among high scoring guards. And so quick and tough.

Kobe's a phenomenal offensive player, but I wouldn't hesitate to take Jordan over him.

Posted by Sir Charles | June 15, 2008 9:46 PM

Jordan never came close to playing all five positions on the floor...in one game...in the finals...with the league MVP hurt and out of the game...as a rookie. Oh, and he just happened to light up the scoreboard in the process.

Magic was the best player in the history of basketball.

Posted by Seitz | June 15, 2008 10:03 PM

Obviously Jordan has a more outstanding resume.

But the real difference is what we saw in the US Open today with Tiger Woods. Watching Jordan, Tiger, Ali, Elway, you know these guys are once in a generation athletes who always come up in the big moments and that is part of why they are remembered as being the greats.

What is the highlight of Kobe's career? Scoring 81 in a meaningless game? Winning with Shaq?

Also, once in a generation athletes don't lose a Finals home game when they are up 24.

Posted by Peter | June 15, 2008 11:12 PM

One of the reasons Russell is the best is he was the best defensive player of all time, and defense is more important to winning than offense. And that's why they won those 11 titles.

Yes, Jordan (and Wilt) scored a ton of points, but that is deceptive-- the real question, very tough to answer with statistics, is how many of those points would have been scored by the offense otherwise if Jordan / Chamberlain didn't score them. You would have to measure how much more efficient the individual's efficiency is vs. the rest of the team.

Jordan is thought to be the greatest because (1) he was a highlight film player in the television age, unlike Russell, and (2) it is easier to measure offense than defense with statistics.

Last point-- Russell also did things on offense that are impossible to measure with statistics. He was a great outlet passer. He set more picks than just about anyone in history. He kept balls alive (a la Dennis Rodman, another underrated player).

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 16, 2008 12:21 AM

I think Magic Johnson was the overall most talented player, but I'd start to build a team with Chamberlain. Jordan would be the player you'd build an advertising campaign around.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 16, 2008 8:38 AM

In a few seasons, barring injury, Chris Paul might be making a case to supplant Magic as the greatest point of all time.

Posted by Joel | June 16, 2008 10:14 AM

It pains me to say it, because I was a Bird guy for a long time, but MJ was clearly the best ever. I thought this paragraph was interesting, though:

"the 1988-89 season Jordan averaged eight boards, eight assists, three steals, and 32.5 points per game shooting 54 percent from the field and 85 percent on free throws; Kobe's never put up anything remotely comparable to that."

You know who has put numbers comparable to that? Rhymes with "Schlabron James."

Posted by too many steves | June 16, 2008 11:21 AM

When Kobe wins Defensive Player of the Year, we can start to talk comparisons with MJ.

Posted by Daddy Love | June 16, 2008 4:00 PM

First of all, Jordan averaged 20ppg as a 40 yr old with "today's" rules. There can be NO DOUBT he would have dominated the game in his 20's and early 30's. Secondly, Kobe has monster regular season games, but he has failed YET AGAIN to come up extra large in the postseason. Third, this series against Boston showed us that Kobe struggles against a more physical team. Jordan averaged about 35ppg against arguably the most physical team of all time.

Lastly, for the guy who talks about FG% and possessions, the reason field goal percentages are down is because FAR more 3 pt shots are attempted today. Quite naturally, that will drag the total percentage down. Jordan and many of the other guys who shot 50% did not rely heavily on the 3pt shot. The mid-range jump shot was the most lethat weapon in the game and with the exception of a few players today its become a lost art.

Posted by Dwayne | June 18, 2008 3:43 PM

First of all, Jordan averaged 20ppg as a 40 yr old with "today's" rules. There can be NO DOUBT he would have dominated the game in his 20's and early 30's. Secondly, Kobe has monster regular season games, but he has failed YET AGAIN to come up extra large in the postseason. Third, this series against Boston showed us that Kobe struggles against a more physical team. Jordan averaged about 35ppg against arguably the most physical team of all time.

Lastly, for the guy who talks about FG% and possessions, the reason field goal percentages are down is because FAR more 3 pt shots are attempted today. Quite naturally, that will drag the total percentage down. Jordan and many of the other guys who shot 50% did not rely heavily on the 3pt shot. The mid-range jump shot was the most lethat weapon in the game and with the exception of a few players today its become a lost art.

Posted by Dwayne | June 18, 2008 3:43 PM

First of all, Jordan averaged 20ppg as a 40 yr old with "today's" rules. There can be NO DOUBT he would have dominated the game in his 20's and early 30's. Secondly, Kobe has monster regular season games, but he has failed YET AGAIN to come up extra large in the postseason. Third, this series against Boston showed us that Kobe struggles against a more physical team. Jordan averaged about 35ppg against arguably the most physical team of all time.

Lastly, for the guy who talks about FG% and possessions, the reason field goal percentages are down is because FAR more 3 pt shots are attempted today. Quite naturally, that will drag the total percentage down. Jordan and many of the other guys who shot 50% did not rely heavily on the 3pt shot. The mid-range jump shot was the most lethat weapon in the game and with the exception of a few players today its become a lost art. Jordan was a master of the mid-range game from the day he entered the league till he left at 40.

Posted by Dwayne | June 18, 2008 3:44 PM

Sir Charles: When did Cowens outplay Kareem? That's a big revisionist myth just like with Reed and Walton when Kareem kicked the crap out of those 2 but his teams lost because his teammates were absolutely inferror. In Game 7 of the 74 finals Boston had to resort to Heinsohn's taboo of double-teamming Kareem to slow him down after he absolutely destroyed Dave over the first six games and owned him in the clutch when Milwaukee won the only 2 close games of the series. The Milwaukee team failed to adjust to this strategy change and relied on too many jumpers and just got completely out of their offense -- Oscar was just terrible in that game (and pretty much stunk for the whole series). Dave played great in that game without question, but Kareem's numbers were just as good -- his team just went to crap.

Freddie: Kareem was aloof and not fond of the public until he lightened up with Magic's arrival. He was arrogant to be sure, but no more than Bird, Jordon, Wilt or Russell. That's often a trait that goes along with greatness. He was considered a "jerk" because he wasn't media friendly. As for Wilt, he was a stat-hog. He gets unfair blame for his teams losing and he wasn't trying to put his personal glory above winning -- yet he was obsessed with numbers and that often did come at the expense of his teams -- again uninentionally as he just didn't fully understand winning team basketball, even when he stopped trying to score in his last 2 years. His numbers were inflated because of that attitude and the era he played in.

As for my all time greats I like 1. Jordon, 2. Russell, 3. Kareem, 4. Wilt, 5. Shaq, 6. Bird, 7. Magic, 8. Hakeem, 9. Oscar, 10. West. I think Kobe could be considered top 10 and he'll definitely break in before he's done. Duncan is just on the outside and LeBron of course will likely break in before he's done. Baylor, Dr. J, Moses, Karl (probably the most overrated of the group) and Issiah probably deserve special mention, and maybe David R. and a fully healthy Bill Walton

Posted by Wally McGee | June 23, 2008 5:29 PM