NBA '08 Playoff Thread

I think we'll only really be able to tell if the two are even close during the twilightish years of Kobe's career. When Jordan started his downswing and lost a good portion of his explosive athletic ability, he transformed his game and became maybe even more dominant that way. He was constantly adapting. It never looked like Jordan was trying too hard at anything, he was just always taking things in stride and dominating. Kobe's not to that point yet, he can still rely on athletic ability ... but when that starts to fade, we'll see how much like MJ he really is.
And as far as teams go -- yes, I think we can say that Jordan wouldn't have allowed something like what happened in Game 4 to ever happen. It wasn't in his makeup to panic and press things in the playoffs. When the kill needed to be made, he ALWAYS made it. If his teammates were off for certain stretches, he was ALWAYS on. We can sit and compare individual talent all we want, but when it comes down to being a basketball player who will not allow a team to lose -- the last 20 years put only three in the conversation: Magic, Bird, Jordan. That's it. Kobe's just not there in my opinion.

Overall, I'm just sort of wondering why I really thought LA was going to have the kind of advantage in this series that I thought they would. Gasol obviously isn't the same player when the chips are down right now as he is in January or February. Odom is an enigma. And frankly, Kobe can't carry this thing all on his own.
And oh by the way, I'm REALLY getting sick of Laker people dropping the Andrew Bynum card. The guy's as unproven as anyone around and there is absolutely no way anyone can say Bynum would make some huge type of difference in this series -- he simply hasn't been around long enough for anyone to make that statement with extreme confidence.

 

Thank for the Bynum point. I've thought that for a long time, going back to when everyone was saying he'd come back and the Lakers would be unstoppable. I was never convinced he'd come back or if he did if he'd be the same. Obviously he didn't make it back. My skepticism was based on the fact that he's been an underachiever in his short career longer than a difference maker. He was starting to reach some of his potential, but it's no sure thing that he rebounds from this injury and comes back a dominant force (which he really wasn't pre-injury: 13-10 is nice, but not earth-shattering). One thing he would definitely do is add something to that soft as tissue paper frontline.

 

I can't really say with any authority who is better, Bird or Magic. I really didn't watch either of them live in their primes so my opinion is completely shaded by growing up in Boston.

I don't think titles are the sole determinant in who is better, but it can be one of many deciding factors when other things are largely equal. Like I said, I think the offensive games of MJ and Kobe are comparable. I know this series isn't over, but MJ never had a failure like this would be in the finals. The Lakers are set to be a top contender for the next three years or so. I just think we can wait until then to really revisit this comparison.

A further point on the titles, is Tim Duncan a better basketball player than Kevin Garnett? If you look at what they've done in their careers you'd have a pretty tough time making a case for one over the other, except for one major category: 4-0 in championships. So that's how I think it can be used, to differentiate between two comparable players. Now if Kobe gets only gets to 5 does that mean he'll never be Jordan's equal? I don't think you can say that. But for right now, he has some work to do to at least close that gap some.

 

Boobie,

It's way too simplistic just to use championships as the tiebreaker. Yes, basketball is a sport where a single player can change a team. But a single player cannot win a title, or we'd be talking about a third straight Lakers/Cavaliers Finals. Titles depend on so many other factors. Teammates, coaches, who are the contemporaries you had to face to get a title.

Elgin Baylor never won a title, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would say he didn't do what he could to lift his team to victory. They just ran into a buzzsaw - multiple times - in the 1960s. Charles Barkley did whatever he could - aside from actually working out in the offseason, of course - but could never break through. Dr. J has a single championship; otherwise, he just couldn't beat the Lakers or Celtics.

Frankly, the fact that you didn't see Bird in his prime (were you too young?) explains a lot about why you're so willing, like bostonbred, to fellate this current Celtics team so much. You've never seen a great Celtics team.

For instance, Garnett vs. Duncan is no comparison. Garnett is a fiery guy who has spent a career playing hot potato in the final minutes of big games ("But he has been good in THESE PLAYOFFS!!!!!!!!!!!").

Duncan is a quiet guy whose team can count on him for the entire game every single night. Both great players, but Duncan has had a maturity to his game and winning attitude that Garnett has lacked except when paired with a hell of a backcourt (2004, this year). Yes, I know Garnett "wants to win!" but winning attitude to me, means, "Give me the freaking ball! I'm NOT Chris Webber!" Garnett hasn't had that.

On Kobe vs. Jordan: the funny thing about this is that after Game Four, talk radio idiots, message board posters, etc., just had to scream "See? SEE!?!?!?! He's not as good as JORDAN!!!!!!!!!!!"

Well, yeah, no shit.

I will never compare Kobe to Jordan. Anfernee Hardaway, Vince Carter, Harold Miner (?!?!?!?!!?!!!), Jerry Stackhouse, etc. were all tabbed by media as "Next JORDAN!!!!!!" when they were young and coming into the league. It's a foolish waste of time to even bother with it. Let Kobe Bryant be Kobe Bryant: one hell of a basketball player, with a thousand social issues.

rube: it's fair to note, as someone has in this thread, that Scottie Pippen was also the type of guy who Jordan could look to in bad times. Kobe has no such teammate. These Lakers have some growing up to do. But hey, look at sivault.com, and see that among the Lakers-Celtics stories is one from 1984 that says "Magic Johnson is clearly not a clutch player!" Magic did say that year's loss in the Finals taught them a lesson. Teams change, lessons are (hopefully) learned.

Unless you're the 1990s Blazers and Sonics.

As for Bynum: yes, it's not like he was dominating. His large presence defensively would have helped in some ways, but we'll never know. Better that he didn't come back until fall. Get an entire training camp for the staff to figure out how to fit him with Gasol, and go from there.

 

I agree Piotr about the Lakers having some growing up to do. And some gelling as well. The ONE thing I would do if I was Kupchak is trade Odom. Move him, find something, anything and figure out something else as an option at the 3 because he's not going to get it done. If you do that, and let Bynum grow alongside Gasol, let Farmar and Sasha mature a bit -- which they're both currently doing quite well -- and add all that with Kobe, then this team might be able to rattle off a very impressive run over the next several seasons.
But it starts and stops with Odom as far as I'm concerned. The potential is through the roof, but the nonchalant attitude and the disappearing acts simply cannot be counted on.
The Lakers have a nice, active, youthful bench and the makings of a "team-to-beat" group for quite a while.

 

I liked Odom when he was a young Clipper with a world of potential and some maddening moments where you wonder if he's playing while stoned.

Now he's a veteran Laker . . . with a world of potential and some maddening moments where you wonder if he's playing while stoned. If they can get someone tall or athletic for him, they should.

BUT . . . . I can see why a team would salivate at the prospect of starting a Triple Towers frontline of Odom, Gasol and Bynum. But as we have seen in this series, rebounding is about a lot more than simple size.

 

Oh yeah, that's the problem with guys like Odom and Rasheed Wallace. On paper, they look amazing in certain situations. And at certain moments, they make you feel like their team will go 82-0. But then reality sets in -- Wallace with his ridiculous antics and disappearing acts and Odom with his vanish-man antics -- and you pull your hair out. The guy could pull a triple-double two or three nights a week. But when the bright lights shine, he's standing somewhere chewing his finger nails and checking his watch.

 

Between the length and condescending nature, I didn't make it through this whole post so I'll cut to the chase. I don't think titles are the end all and be all, but they do matter. Who is better than who is completely subjective, there is no right or wrong answer. All you can do is match the guys up and see how it sizes up. It's crazy to think that, with comparable players, titles aren't an important factor though.

 

Too bad you didn't read it, Boobie.

Might have learned something.

(See? THAT was condescending. Before, you confused "I disagree, and here's why, featuring some helpful information" with condescending).

 

No, I'd say the whole post was fairly condescending, particularly the part about me not knowing any better than to "fellate" this team.

The thing I find funny is that your breakdown of Duncan and Garnett basically supports my point. All of the things about the difference being that Duncan is a "winner"... how exactly is that quantified if not championships? Because other than that, look at the numbers, there ain't much of a difference.

20.4 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 4.4 apg, 1.7 bpg, 1.4 spg, 49% shooting, 11 all-star games, 1 MVP
21.6 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.1 apg, 2.4 bpg, 0.8 spg, 50% shooting, 10 all-star games, 1 MVP, 3 finals MVPs

 

You should have read the whole post. Knowledge is power, you know.

My earlier point was that there have been many players who did what it took to win, but could not win titles. Duncan hapens to have a very good team around him, but that doesn't diminish the fact he brings a clutch aspect every night. There have been many great players who lacked the teammates necessary for their own greatness to result in a title. And there are a lot of mediocre players with rings.

This is not something that can be quantified, except by those looking for the easy route of "championships!" Statistics mean less than nothing to that discussion.

I stand by my point about your eagerness to embrace everything about this Celtics team. Read your own posts in this thread. You're a youngster who finally has a winner to adore. Good for you, and congratulations. Boston is a wonderful city.

 

Sorry, Piotr. But your tone is incredibly condescending.