Kobe didn't run Shaq out. They chose Kobe over Shaq. Think about it, it only makes sense. The Lakers did the right thing.

And the Lakers will be hard pressed to win a championship within the next five years because of that choice. So maybe they did the right thing, maybe they did not?

Great teammates or not, it always comes down to this for me:

 

When Jordan was with the Bulls, what happened when he walked away after three straight rings? One year, no ring. He comes back nearly two years after leaving and nearly rallies the Bulls to an amazing run, stopped by the Magic in the semis. Then they win for three more years before the team is dismantled.

 

When Kobe was with the Lakers with Shaq, I remember several games where one or the other was out. I won't pretend to have the numbers in front of me, but I do remember this: Without Kobe they still won more than they lost. Without Shaq, they barely ever won.

 

If the teammates are part of the argument (and since the Bulls' teams were so much better), my question is why couldn't the Bulls win without Michael while the Lakers could without Kobe?

With a career average over 5 points lower, assists lower, fg% significantly lower and similar 3pt and ft%'s, why would someone say Kobe's a better offensive player? I'm having trouble following that.

 

One thing to consider is how Kobe's first 2 or 3 years affect his scoring average...how would it compare if you took away Kobe's first 3 years, which would correlate with MJ's years at UNC and figure from there...that would likely tighten it up some, but I'm not sure. And I'm not going to figure it out.

Got the Kobe/Shaq stats:

 

When Kobe missed: 23-9

When Shaq missed: 18-23 (which is better than barely ever, so I missed that)

Great teammates or not, it always comes down to this for me:

 

When Jordan was with the Bulls, what happened when he walked away after three straight rings? One year, no ring. He comes back nearly two years after leaving and nearly rallies the Bulls to an amazing run, stopped by the Magic in the semis. Then they win for three more years before the team is dismantled.

 

When Kobe was with the Lakers with Shaq, I remember several games where one or the other was out. I won't pretend to have the numbers in front of me, but I do remember this: Without Kobe they still won more than they lost. Without Shaq, they barely ever won.

 

If the teammates are part of the argument (and since the Bulls' teams were so much better), my question is why couldn't the Bulls win without Michael while the Lakers could without Kobe?

 

Well, as a biased Bulls fan, I would say the Bulls may very well have won four in a row had in not been for some very questionable officiating that prevented them from beating the Knicks and advancing to the finals. Now, whether they would have beaten the Rockets is a whole 'nother debate, but, in my honest opinion, the Bulls were robbed of that series against the Knicks, denying them of a chance to win another title (without MJ).

 

That's what I think.

One thing to consider is how Kobe's first 2 or 3 years affect his scoring average...how would it compare if you took away Kobe's first 3 years, which would correlate with MJ's years at UNC and figure from there...that would likely tighten it up some, but I'm not sure. And I'm not going to figure it out.

 

If you take away Kobe's first three years, the scoring average comparison becomes:

 

Kobe: 28.17 PPG (16,144 Points through 573 games)

Michael: 30.10 PPG (32,267 Points through 1072 games)

 

Still 2 PPG higher than Kobe, and that's WITH his last two years after being gone three seasons, which lowered his average by 1.35 PPG (before that it was 29,253 Points through 930 games = 31.45 PPG).

Yeah you are right. Kobe is reason the Lakers haven't had any cap room to do anything. The Mailman and Payton were GARBAGE when they game to the Lakers.

 

Where did I say anything about cap room? All I said was that Kobe is a prima dona and not many teammates have anything positive to say about him.

Well, as a biased Bulls fan, I would say the Bulls may very well have won four in a row had in not been for some very questionable officiating that prevented them from beating the Knicks and advancing to the finals. Now, whether they would have beaten the Rockets is a whole 'nother debate, but, in my honest opinion, the Bulls were robbed of that series against the Knicks, denying them of a chance to win another title (without MJ).

 

That's what I think.

 

You'll pardon those former NBAers who will not exactly shed a tear over this one call when its their belief (and most MJ fans as well) that MJ was the recipient of more "calls" than any player in NBA history.

You'll pardon those former NBAers who will not exactly shed a tear over this one call when its their belief (and most MJ fans as well) that MJ was the recipient of more "calls" than any player in NBA history.

 

He did not push off Russell to hit that game winning shot, lol.

You'll pardon those former NBAers who will not exactly shed a tear over this one call when its their belief (and most MJ fans as well) that MJ was the recipient of more "calls" than any player in NBA history.

 

I sure will...which is why I noted that I was a "biased Bulls fan". :thumb:

If you take away Kobe's first three years, the scoring average comparison becomes:

 

Kobe: 28.17 PPG (16,144 Points through 573 games)

Michael: 30.10 PPG (32,267 Points through 1072 games)

 

Still 2 PPG higher than Kobe, and that's WITH his last two years after being gone three seasons, which lowered his average by 1.35 PPG (before that it was 29,253 Points through 930 games = 31.45 PPG).

 

You don't have to convince me MJ is better. I already believe it. I was just saying that the scoring averages would be closer if you accounted for Kobe's first few years...and it was.

 

My only point really is that Kobe had at least positioned himself to have a chance to bring about a serious discussion on this topic...he's not there yet, but with 3 titles under his belt and only 29 years old, he's likely got near a decade to play the game at a very high level...IF he could add 3 more titles and match MJ's six, then we could have a real discussion, IMO. Will he? Who knows? But, he has at least given himself a chance at it.

Good debate but its not even close.

 

The NBA and ESPN want and need Kobe to be compared to Jordan because the NBA is just plain bad to watch during the regular season.

He's not there yet but he is without a doubt the closest there has been.

IMO... Kobe is a great player, but he will never be a great as Jordan.