Re: Ventre - Better than MJ? Kobe can make case

what a laughable article by a stupid author...

-kobe's drive to the hoop is much inferior to MJ.
-kobe won 0 finals MVPs
-what a stupid comparison, jordon 6 titles, kobe 3 titles, 3 short right?
wrong... horry with 7 should be the discussions when talking about greatest
ever.
-kobe career 45% shooter, MJ 50%, with today's *** rules, MJ would be
averaging 55% and 40 pts / game
- MJ would have won 8 straight titles if he didn't go play baseball, kobe
couldn't win anything without a dominant center.




"Alson Wong" <rasvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hAY0k.515$Tq.295@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24918034/

Ventre: Better than MJ? Kobe can make case
Beating Celtics, adding more titles could put Bryant ahead of Jordan
OPINION
By Michael Ventre
updated 1:50 p.m. PT, Sun., June. 1, 2008
Over the years, Michael Jordan comparisons have been as frequent as
Shaquille O'Neal misses at the free throw line. It seems every Tom, ***,
Harry and Kobe who comes along inspires the old, "Is he the next Jordan?"
cacophony. It's almost as if people weren't happy enough with the first
Jordan, so they embark on a crusade to find a new one.

There is no "next Jordan." There is, and always will be, just one. He won
six championships. He was a middling outfielder in double A. He yelled at
Kwame Brown a lot.

But what about Jordan's title of "Greatest Player Ever"? Is that up for
debate? Time marches on, and memories fade. All of a sudden, Jordan's
accomplishments are but a dim memory, trotted out occasionally in
highlight form, while present-day hot shots vie to fill his hallowed high
tops.

It's hard to say at this moment in history that Kobe Bryant has supplanted
Jordan as "The Greatest Player Ever," for a variety of reasons. Yet would
it be sacrilege to suggest that, if the guy leads these Los Angeles Lakers
past the Boston Celtics in the 2008 NBA Finals, he at least belongs in the
discussion?

Would that be hardwood heresy?

I think not.

Right now, Jordan's grip on the moniker is secure, despite the passage of
time as well as a failure of stewardship with the Washington Wizards and a
"The jury is still out, but leaning toward conviction" stint with the
Charlotte Bobcats.

The man led the Chicago Bulls to six championships. He was impossible to
guard. His game matured with each passing season. He set a standard of
excellence in practice that kept his teammates from settling for less. And
he was as clutch a performer as there ever has been.

Yes, his legend was enhanced greatly by the marketing campaigns that
hitched a ride on his basketball star. He certainly was a brand unto
himself, and the advertising of his shoes served to trumpet the individual
as well.

But he's still The Man among the basketball cognoscenti. His reputation as
a player has staying power.

Kobe's case to be included as a candidate is complicated. It involves
basketball and personal issues. There are probably as many character
witnesses in his corner as there are detractors. And much of the anti-Kobe
sentiment is the result of his own actions and behavior.

In hoop terms, Bryant is probably as spectacular in every phase of the
game as Jordan ever was. He can drive to the hoop in the most daunting of
circumstances and finish with the same acrobatic flourish as the former
Bulls' star. He can nail outside shots under duress, with the final
seconds of a game ticking away and his team behind, and like Jordan he
does so as if he's playing HORSE in the backyard.

After a long struggle with questionable basketball judgment, he is finally
making the kinds of decisions that Jordan used to make. Kobe rarely makes
a dumb play these days, and this season he almost never has gone
one-against-three when there are open teammates waiting for the ball. He's
a tenacious defender and a great leader.

Kobe has a lot more baggage. The days feuding with Shaq. The Colorado
incident. The occasional tantrums. The scheme to have owner Jerry Buss
cowtow to his every whim before he would sign a new contract. And, of
course, the "Trade me" tirade of last spring.

But really, none of that works against him as much as this:

Jordan has six rings. Kobe only has three.


In this American sporting society, it's all about the hardware. Joe
Montana is clearly a better quarterback than Troy Aikman, because Montana
has four rings and Aikman only three. Forget the many variables that
should also be involved - the levels of competition, the coaching staffs,
the supporting casts, injuries, etc. - what people want to know is, "How
many championships?"


That doesn't mean two players on radically different plateaus are assessed
only by titles. Kurt Rambis has four rings from his days with the Lakers.
Karl Malone has none. Yet only one is Hall of Fame material.

But in this comparison, Bryant still has some catching up to do. And he
could do it.

Jordan won his six titles with one other star in Scottie Pippen (and
partly with another, if you count madman Dennis Rodman), but with an
impressive array of role players. Michael's achievements are viewed with
widespread admiration. The glistening bling of those years still keeps the
basketball populace in awe.

Kobe won three titles with more help, so those are not viewed
predominantly as his doing. He had Shaq, Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Robert
Horry and others, not to mention Phil Jackson. He was not the perceived
leader of that team, even though he was an indispensable and vital
presence.

But if he happens to lead this Lakers team to paydirt against Boston, it
will spit-shine his "Best Ever" credentials. A year ago, this assemblage
was a contestant for the No. 8 seed in the West - if not the lottery. This
season it finished as the top seed in the conference and has outclassed
Denver, Utah and San Antonio. And Kobe Bryant is the primary reason.

And next year, the Lakers should be even better, with Andrew Bynum and
Trevor Ariza back and perhaps another addition or two. That means if they
win these Finals, it's possible they could continue building a dynasty.

Kobe might actually catch Michael in rings. In fact, it's not lunacy to
suggest Kobe could even surpass him.

Then what?

That would throw the "Greatest Player Ever" debaters into a tizzy. But for
now, maybe it would be wise if we slipped the name "Kobe Bryant" into the
discussion, just to be safe.

Michael Ventre is a contributor to NBCSports.com and a freelance writer
based in Los Angeles.


.

Quantcast