Kobe versus Michael

There IS only one!I’m sorry if this is too adamant for your tastes, but anyone who thinks Kobe Bryant is in Michael Jordan’s league needs their head examined! There’s no way. Now, having said that, a legitimate question can be asked – that is whether Kobe will ever be in MJ’s league? That’s still open. Anything is possible, but I doubt it will ever come to pass and I think the reasons are obvious.

I grew up in the NBA with Bird and Magic. Until they came into the league – along with my hero David Stern, there was very little to get excited about … and, I admit, I wasn’t. However, once I did get into the sport, I started learning the history and recognized that Mikan, Russell, Cousy, Havlicek, West, Baylor, Chamberlain, Robertson, Jabbar and Dr. J were the standards Larry and Magic strove to reach.

When MJ came along, Johnson and Bird had already established themselves as two of the greatest ever. There are many people who consider one or the other as the greatest player in NBA history. I don’t, but I certainly put both in the top 6. Nevertheless, when Jordan started dominating the league (from a production point of view), I was skeptical. It took a long time before I was willing to put him in the category of Magic or Larry – for the simple reason that it took him quite awhile to learn how to make everyone around him better. The fact is that Magic and Larry knew how to do it from the day they entered the league, but weren’t as productive as Jordan on a individual basis.

I eventually came to accept Jordan as equivalent to Bird/Magic. I suppose that probably happened after his third championship. By the time he won his fourth, he had more than solidified his position in the top 5 of all time. By the time he won his fifth, only Chamberlain (stats) or Russell (championships) could be argued as reasons to keep him from the #1 position. And, once he won his sixth title, there was no mystery left – without a doubt the greatest NBA player in history IMO.

So, now you know where I’m coming from on Jordan. Thus, unless an argument could be made that Bryant is the best in history, then the only answer left is that he falls well short of Jordan.

This isn’t just about championships even though Kobe has only won four to Michael’s six. But, honestly, you can’t compare Bryant’s four to Jordan’s six for more reasons than numbers. I realize it’s a tired argument, but the fact is that O’Neal was a sensational teammate – in fact, easily the best player on the team when Bryant won three titles. Jordan, on the other hand, won all six as overwhelmingly the best player on his team!

Comparing Bryant to Duncan might be more appropriate, but even Duncan’s four championships were as the best player on the team, not as Shaquille’s version of Scottie Pippen.

Just for the record, shown below are both players, their team's record and their EFF from their first year to their last/most recent.

	Kobe Bryant		Michael Jordan
1	56-26	6.3	38-44	29.2
2	61-21	12.7	40-42	31.9
3	51-31*	19.0	50-32	35.1
4	67-15	22.9	47-35	37.0
5	56-26	25.3	55-27	34.6
6	58-24	23.5	61-21	32.7
7	50-32	28.0	67-15	31.1
8	56-26	22.7	57-25	31.6
9	34-48	24.3	72-10	28.9
10	45-37	27.8	69-13	27.0
11	42-40	27.6	62-20	23.4
12	57-25	26.6	37-45**	18.8
13	65-17	24.2	37-45**	18.7
Career	65.5%	22.6	63.8%	29.2

Championship seasons bolded

* predicated upon a complete season (strike)

** last two seasons played with Washington

Keep in mind, I did not include Jordan’s second year when he was injured and only played 18 games. I also did not include the year he came back from retirement and only played 17 games. That would have cluttered up the comparisons – especially misleading in terms of the team winning percentages. Because of that, six potential seasons are not shown for Jordan – injury year, two years of retirement the first time and three years of retirement the second time.

Another way to look at this issue is to compare the 10 NBA titles with respect to who the second banana was and how productive they were. Of course, Bryant was the second banana in three of the titles, but we’ll consider O’Neal in that role and Gasol this past season. For Jordan, it was Pippen all six times.

KB’s mate	EFF	MJ’s mate	EFF
O’Neal	33.82	Pippen	24.00
O’Neal	30.99	Pippen	26.11
O’Neal	28.48	Pippen	22.48
Gasol	24.93	Pippen	21.69
		Pippen	22.37
		Pippen	20.52
AVERAGES	29.55		22.86

If the fact that Jordan was considerably more efficient and productive, won two more titles, and with less help… if that weren’t enough, how about this? Here are the ten championships between them based on their all-time rank. This was from a post I did a couple days ago.

Lakers Championships		Bulls Championships
Year	Rank	Year	Rank
2000	16	1991	11
2001	14	1992	13
2002	28	1993	31
2009	17	1996	1
		1997	2
		1998	21
AVERAGES	18.8		13.2

Jordan’s 1996 and 1997 teams rank #1 and #2 of all time!

This isn’t even a close call. Despite Kobe winning the NBA title, he wasn’t even the best player in 2009 – much less comparable to the great one.

If Bryant were to win two more championships as the undisputed leader of his team, then he would have earned the right to be in the Russell, Jabbar, Chamberlain, Robertson, Bird, Magic conversation. Even then, that’s not Jordan’s rarified air!

Win four more and we can talk.

Submitted by Martin Manley on June 17, 2009 - 1:25am.
Misc - NBA | Stories | login or register to post comments

The Greatest Ever argument is complex

Submitted by mdg2015 on June 17, 2009 - 5:59pm.

I am glad this topic is addressed here and some telling stats put behind it. Go for these big issues always along with local coverage.

I think socially, the NBA carries the issue of race more than any other major sport in the U.S. and each superstar represents so many different qualities, issues and traits. A full treatment of this alone would be very insightful and we should be aware of everything that is behind the representation of each superstar which is also not all about race.

For example, one aspect of any fan's view of a player is how much they see of a player and especially in person. Effectively, I have a closer sense of Dr. J, Kareem, Bird, Magic, etc. since I saw them play in KC while the Kings were here. Jordan's rookie year was the King's last year and I was in college that year and never saw him play live. It's just one of the things that makes a little difference.

I want to address a few of the things that are not statistical that matter in this argument of who is the greatest ever and can do that since the statisical analysis was presented fairly well here.

An argument about Kobe not being comparable to MJ is that his first three rings were more due to Shaq. No one likes it when someone is credited for something they did not deserve. Kobe deserved the rings but did not have to do as much for them as MJ did for his first three rings. So, in the greatest ever conversations are partly about what did a player actually contribute to their titles.

I think it is just as important to look as what they couldn't control and how they adjusted.

I have always been adament that Kobe has done no more upto this year than Scottie Pippin had done upto the mid-90's which is very good by the way. But it is not Magic, Bird and MJ worthy. But would have MJ played the same if he had a dominent big man as a teammate early in his career? Kobe and Shaq clashed a lot and you can give them credit for making it work for three title years and blame each (more Kobe) for not making it work longer. What if Kareem and Oscar Robertson would have stayed in Milwaukee for three for four more years together after their '71 title?

But Kobe couldn't control that he had one of the most dominating big men in NBA history with him early in his career. He didn't need to be LeBron and MJ early in their careers and wisely fed Shaq more after learning that was the best thing to do. So, his EFF would have been higher had he not had Shaq with him. Also, keep in mind MJ had the same type of experience at UNC when he walked into a team with a veteran James Worthy which also included Sam Perkins (MJ still seems a little intimidated by Worthy - see his comments on playing Worthy one on one in his first year at UNC, I think, in the fairly new UNC-Duke docu). MJ's EFF for many reasons was not that high and UNC did not win a title despite MJ being there two more years.

What if Magic did not have Kareem and Worthy when he entered the NBA? He'd have a higher EFF but less championships most likely. And the same with Bird minus McHale and the Chief. You never hear of Bird or Magic as the game's best because they had fewer titles than MJ but also had great teammates most or all of their careers which always causes a player to defer more, lowers their stats and the credit for the titles is more spread out.

What if MJ came out of college the same year as Bird and Magic and had to contend with the Lakers and Celtics for a decade? Would he have had six championships? He retired the first time after eight (?) years in the league. That would have been in '87 had he come to the NBA with Bird and Magic. i.e. during the height of LA-Boston II.

Or could Magic, Bird, Kobe, LeBron, Dr. J, Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, Russell, Oscar, etc. have won six or more in eight years with Pippin (and don't forget - as many do - what Rodman, his incredible rebounding and teammates brought to the Bulls as it was not just MJ and Pippin) and the competition of that time?

You could also challenge that Pippin and Rodman were as good as Magic's older Kareem and Worthy or Bird's McHale and the Chief.

More recently and close to home, Paul Pierce scored less with KG and Ray Allen as teammates but arguably had his best season. Had Pierce had that support earlier, he might have two or three (same as Bird) titles and a lower scoring average.

So, on Kobe's side, without Shaq, he would have had to learn to be the leader and go to guy and develop more like MJ and LeBron.

I am basically making the point that there are so many variables in deciding who was the best ever in the NBA that so much more has to be considered in coming to an answer.

The competition in the NBA may have been less in the 90's than in the Laker-Boston 80's. I would take almost all of the losers of an LA or Boston title year against any team the Bulls beat in their six championships.

Dr. J's '76ers were a third wheel for the most part of LA-Boston rivalry and the Sixers had Moses Malone and George McGinnis along with Dr. J at times.

Magic, Bird and Russell may be considered the greatest teammates who were superstars. Does this make them better overall as opposed to superstars who "had" to be the guy for a long time like MJ, Kobe and Wilt are percieved?

All of this has to be considered, analysed, statisized and decided upon before determining the best ever or the top five or so.

But a few things are always true. The best stats, the most titles and the greatest desire and energy. Two words - Bill Russell. He won two NCAA titles at USF and then won 11 in 13 years in the NBA against Wilt and everything else the NBA threw at him. The key - high energy, unselfishness and no ego. Check his EFF too. He averaged 25 rebounds and maybe 17 to 20 points in the playoffs and a little less in the regular season. Those who followed the NBA from '85 to '90 will remember you always heard about Jordan that he needs to learn how to make his teammates better like Magic and Bird had been doing for years.

Nobody did that better than Bill Russell and the fact that he was not a big media personality is evidence he may be the greatest ever. He just did it. I think I have heard that phrase before.

I never saw Russell play as he retired when I was three but he must have been the greatest. The only argument against that is that the NBA did not have as good of talent in the 60's that it did in the following decades. Oscar, Cousy and Wilt all looked pretty good but I can't say much about the rest of the league because I do not know enough.

At this level it's like trying to compare Greg Mathews and Walter Johnson or Emmitt Smith and Jim Brown. It's either very tough to do or at least a one thick book of analysis is needed.

Kobe still has alot to do to be in the conversation but the stats, titles and desire are all mounting.

I think the most pertinent and answerable question is was Magic better than Michael given the above arguments? He kept Kareem, Worthy and Co. motivated and happy until they could no longer play and outperformed Boston overall. Put a young Magic with Shaq in 2000 and they each have five to six titles minimum now as Magic keeps Shaq happy and motivated like he did a personally challenging Kareem at times. Put Michael with Shaq in 2000 and you have more titles than Shaq/Kobe but less than Shaq/Magic based on the fact he took a while to play like a good teammate.

One last factor to keep in mind is the NBA very intentionally promotes certain types of players who win, perform at the highest level and WANT to play the media game. I have not mentioned Tim Duncan once yet but he is not too much older than Kobe, had has same number of rings and two more Finals MVP's. Enough said.

MDG:

Submitted by Martin Manley on June 17, 2009 - 11:47pm.

"I have always been adament that Kobe has done no more upto this year than Scottie Pippin had done upto the mid-90's which is very good by the way. But it is not Magic, Bird and MJ worthy."

I think that's exactly spot on. In the three years between Shaq and Gasol, Kobe's teams averaged winning 40 games. In the two years between Jordan 1 and Jordan 2, Pippen's teams averaged winning 51 games.

Obviously, this season Kobe proved he's better than Pippen IMO, but that doesn't make him anywhere near comparable to Magic, Bird or MJ.

Neither championships nor EFF tell the whole story. They are tools to help you decide. It's a very good question as to whether Magic could have won 8 championships if Bird did not exist - and vice versa. It's a good question as to whether Chamberlain could have won 8 championships if Russell did not exist. But, we'll never know. The only thing we do know is that Jordan won six as the premier player on his team for every one of them.

Of course, Russellites will argue that the ulimate measurement are the championships - and that's fair. He won 11, Jordan 6. However, as I pointed out in my post on Auerbach versus Jackson, it was easier for Russell to win them than it was for Jordan. Besides, if MJ had not taken off the two years that he did, he could have had eight in a row since I don't see the Rockets being better than the Bulls before or after. He might have even been able to win another one or two when he retired the second time.

Also, FWIW, Russell was five for five in game 7 of the finals. Jordan never even had to play a game 7 in the finals.

It's a complicated subject, but Jordan and Kobe (at least) are contemporary enough that I think a relatively easy comparison can be made.

Great post!

Martin

Implications of Creating MJ's and Kobes

Submitted by mdg2015 on June 18, 2009 - 2:09am.

I appreciated your work on shedding light on Russell's situation.

Russell had Wilt and Jerry West to deal with and beating them alone as often as he did gives argument to him being the best ever. Who did Jordan really have to be up against in the '90's? Karl Malone was great but did not have the killer instinct of the greats. Hakeem may not have had a fair amount of support in Houston.

I would say though Kobe is closer to MJ than appears but has a lot to do to equal him. I have not been a Kobe fan until this past week. He has earned his reputation now. He has close to the determination of greats like MJ, Magic and Bird. He had a maturity problem early like MJ did but that Magic and Bird seem to not have had BUT Magic and Bird both had better supporting casts than MJ. Would Bird or Magic have been #1 on their team if they had Shaq with them early on? Did ego questions ever come up with the '80's Celtics or Lakers? My guess is you wouldn't have noticed any power issues with a Magic/Shaq or a Bird/Shaq but you might have with an MJ/Shaq. Also, give Kareem, Worthy, McHale and the Chief credit for being more mature than Shaq has been.

Kobe is getting the rings AND he may play into his forties - ten more years? He has a maturing LeBron to deal with. Kobe may get a few more rings. He is there in terms of full development, maturity, leadership and desire. Is LeBron determined enough to be ruthless like MJ and Kobe? We should recognize the ruthless winning determination of MJ and Kobe have resulted in bad situations in other areas. You can say the same for many athletes like that - Magic and Bird too. You don't hear about things like that with players like Duncan or Russell though.

As for other future threats to Kobe matching MJ, I see Dwight Howard as not having the fire of the greats. His career will end up like Malone's or Hakeem's or Garnett's. He may get zero or one or two titles but not be like a Duncan or Russell. For many titles he needs to play with Kobe, LeBron or D-Wade or even Chris Paul or Derrick Rose.

My utopian view is that the NBA will let talent disperse fairly and evenly creating NFL-like parity. This won't happen and the NBA will continue to create a few super powers. LeBron will have a Pippin and Rodman in NY. Kobe will keep a strong supporting cast. The Celtics will be stocked enough after KG, Pierce and Allen call it quits. The NBA needs to see the future is in great team basketball like the 80's Lakers and Celtics produced where it can be tough to follow the basketball as fast and often as it is passed.

Since the league will tinker, they should match more superstars. Give backcourt stars like Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Dwayne Wade and LeBron James, who all have the fire to win, superstar frontcourt players so they have a chance to win and so we can see them in the Finals. If the NBA is going to effect things, create five superteams rather than two or three.

The one on one style of play is hurting the NBA more than anything. That play is boring too much of the time. The best basketball was the team ball of the Lakers and Celtics of the '80's which more closely resembles how the best European teams play - the ones that beat the US in the few years before these past Olympics.

In the next ten to twelve years, LeBron will get at least four or five titles in NY, Kobe will pick up two or three more minimum and if the before mentioned other superstar backcourt players get great front court help, those teams will get the rest.

Look at the variety of teams that win Super Bowls and see how the NFL has made itself the #1 sporting league in the US. If the NBA let talent disperse better and teams earn NBA Titles in a purer fashion, the NBA would be better off and more fun to watch. A decade of essentially a few players going one on one against each other does not excite me like LA-Boston/Magic-Bird used to because it was exciting team basketball.

Let the growing number of foreign players influence American superstars to play team ball. Duncan is not from the US mainland so picked up his passing and fundamentals away from US one on one ball. Superstars playing as a team. What a novel idea.

MDG

Submitted by Martin Manley on June 19, 2009 - 5:52am.

As always, a great read... however...

I strongly disagree that the NBA has any affect on where talent is spread. You discussed it as though they sit at a table and move chess pieces.

The NBA doesn't control the ping pong balls (Clippers picking first in the upcoming draft). They obviously don't control who gets into the finals (Where was Lebron?). They don't control whether Boston will be great or not since from 1994 to 2001 (8 seasons), they not only had losing records, but won 19 games one season and 15 in another.

If they wanted to dictate who went where, they wouldn't have had Wade go to Miami or Paul to New Orleans or Durant to Oklahoma City or Howard to Orlando or James to Cleveland.

And, if that weren't enough of an argument, the biggest sports market in world history (New York) hasn't had an NBA champion in 35 years!!!! In fact, in 63 NBA seasons, the Knicks have never won over 60 games in a season. Even more to the point, New York has an all-time losing record.

I'm 100% confident that the NBA has zero control over who plays where. Boston or LA probably have more ups than downs for the simple reason that players want to play there. When that's the case, deals can be made.

Martin

I'm Just Tellin' It Like It Is - Petey Greene

Submitted by mdg2015 on June 20, 2009 - 4:41am.

If you isolate Kobe's play from everything else, how close is he to MJ in the peak of his career?

I see great players like MJ, Bird, Wilt who had incredible physical, mental and basketball skills. They seem like they were first despite being able (some more of their careers than others) to play good or great team basketball.

Then when I think of Magic or Bill Russell, I think of guys who projected a postive (as opposed to fiercely competitive - although they were that too) spirit that made the team first before themselves. Magic and Russell exuded something rare in sports or anywhere else. A dedication to team greatness first. What strong, positive spirits both of them are especially relative to their comtemporaries.

I wish I could comment on Jerry West in reference to these things, or Bob Cousy for that matter, but I have only heard commentary on each, seen some highlights and heard them in interviews. I just have more of a full and telling picture of Russell.

If I could start an All Time Team and pick one front court player and one back court player, I would take Magic and Russell because they are as much as you can find of a winner and champion in basketball.

In reference to the NBA tampering with player placement, I was merely echoing many who are begining to say that in the past few years there have been some questionable things happen with regard to fairness in the league. Gasol's move to LA, KG and Ray Allen's move to Boston, LeBron's forecasted move to the Big Apple (if he wins in Cleveland, it makes it tough to justify leaving for NY) and then some Draft controversies such as Rose to the Bulls. I also mentioned earlier Magic and Worthy to LA as first picks (?) and Bird to Boston (drafted after his junior year) raise questions not often asked before. Since Russell's retirement, Boston had only two titles in eleven seasons before Magic. The Lakers were close to a decade long title draught also. The NBA may not have done well financially with the Bucks, Warriors, Blazers, Bullets and Sonics winning it all in the '70's. The most I would say is the league may make help pave the road for some of these moves to be made.

Yes, the Knicks are dumbfounding but the league hasn't orchestrated everything - obviously. They may have tried with Ewing in the draft though.

There is no way you can look at the more recent LA-Boston moves and say that doesn't at least raise questions. And the public is being prepared way in advance for LeBron to the Knicks. What happened to all of the LeBron and Jay-Z's Nets talk? Someone tell Jay-Z the deal is done, sorry?

Let me sugarcoat this with an IF. IF there is some help in "paving" the way for financially advantageous player placement, realise the NBA competes with both the NFL, MLB and NCAA in BB and FB in a bad economy along with every other entertainment option. An extra game or two in a seven game series makes a huge financial difference.

IF they are tampering, it's because they have seen it work and they feel they need it financially. Have the LA-Boston moves been illegal or, as you suggest, might happen anyway as many players would like to play for teams that have potential and a great history?

I am not defending possible NBA tampering just explaining it. I am very much against it. The salary cap helped the NFL prosper by parity but I don't think the NBA percieves it is working for them as well.

The next most important point I have tried to make concerning the NBA is that they should be working hard to elevate great team basketball in the league. Some of the play in this year's playoffs, especially the conference finals, was horrible one-on-one slop. When the league choses to market individual stars especially if they are not ardent, strong team first guys, it puts pressure on those players and maybe makes it easier for them and their teammates to spread the floor down the stretch rather than work the ball around.

As MJ was effectively retiring, some thought the league would furthur prosper as more budding stars meant more competitive and compelling teams. If you want to analyze whether there is any tampering, following the money/ratings.

LA/Boston domination has been followed by a decade each time of relative parity. The NBA learned from 1999 to 2007 the same thing it learned from 1970 to 1979. LA/Boston works and we might as well get around to stocking the Knicks but make it work this time. Their '70 and '73 championships didn't seem to take hold as much as maybe anticipated.

Again, the question is who will LeBron play WITH in NY? Go ahead and make a guess? It will have to be a player who does not threaten his star status. His backcourt teammate will be very skilled, humble and relatively unassuming like MJ's Pippin, Pierce's Allen or Duncan's Parker. He'll have to have an All Star or two in the front court like Magic's Kareem or Worthy. The front court teammates may have to be a team players like Bird's McHale or Chief. In that mix they'll might want a great rebounder like MJ's Rodman or a selfless, skilled foreigner like Kobe's Gasol or Duncan's Ginobli. They won't leave LeBron stranded with only a Mo Williams. Or I can hear it now...."With the first (or however high they need) pick in the 2010 NBA Draft the New York Knicks select...."

Efectively explain Magic and Worthy to LA and Bird to Boston was 100% on the up and up and I will be less on the side of the doubters in the NBA fanbase and media. It's just how life works, unfortunately.

MDG

Submitted by Martin Manley on June 21, 2009 - 2:35pm.

You know I have a lot of respect for your writing, logic, intelligence and knowledge... however...

I'm not buying the NBA conspiracy theory for a single second. I don't buy any part of it - none. Some of your questions I addressed recently in this post.

I see no prevailing evidence that even remotely suggests that whatever has happened in the NBA is anything other than what would happen by random chance or by the simple fact that great players, by and large, want to play in high profile conditions - where, BTW, they probably also make more money - if not in their paycheck from the team, then through exposure and endorsements. And, they have agents that are working 24/7 to make that happen.

Let me address a few specific issues.

1) Boston got Allen and Garnett because they mortgaged their future for a single championship. You can probably never regret making that move if you are the Celtics because they did win it all, but years from now, millions of Celtics fans will have forgotten about that single title and will only be looking at what a beast Jefferson has become and how many wins the Thunder have in comparison to the Celtics. There is nothing mysterious about those trades. They happen all the time. One team wants to win now. Another wants to build from the ground up. Would I have done it? NO WAY! I always try to think long term. Imagine what Boston would be like for years to come if they had Durant, Jefferson and Rondo!

2) Magic came to LA in 1980 because they had the top pick. Why did they have the top pick? Because of trades, LA had 5 first and second round picks that season. The reason they had the #1 pick is simple. They traded Adrian Dantley for the rights to Utah's pick - which ended up being #1. Dantley averaged 28 ppg his first season with Utah, so it wasn't exactly a bad trade for Utah on the surface! LA's pick was Magic. He could have been a bust. Obviously, Utah wanted a known commodity while LA needed a point guard. The rest is history. Hardly, a conspiracy.

3) Los Angeles got Worthy for one simple reason. Two years before, they made what seemed like an obscure trade with Cleveland. Neither team was particularly good or particularly bad. The trade was Don Ford for Butch Lee and they swapped first round draft picks in 1982. As it turns out, Cleveland had the worst record in the NBA two years later and LA got the first pick. That's what smart teams do. They anticipate not only their own future, but the future of their competitors and they act accordingly.

4) James isn't even in NY yet. He still has a year on his contract in Cleveland. How can you use him as part of a conspiracy theory when nothing has even happened yet? If there were a conspiracy regarding James, why would he have been Cleveland (of all places) all these years in the first place??? Even if we project forward, don't you think the odds are pretty good that he would like to play in a market that is worthy of his incredible skills? Don't you think his agent would like to make that happen at all costs? Don't you think the Knicks will have to pay him an astronomical amount of money to make it happen? None of that is strange. If it does come about, NY is mortgaging their entire future on one guy. If it pans out, they may arrest their below average franchise for the last 35 years in the biggest sports market in world history. If not, the beat goes on.

Sorry. I don't wear tin foil on my head and I don't accept NBA conspiracy theories - mainly because they simply don't hold water.

Otherwise, everything you have ever said is great.

Martin

Where There's Smoke There's Fire

Submitted by mdg2015 on June 26, 2009 - 11:16pm.

The history of the NBA will show a series of transactions by trade and draft that immensely helped its power franchises and further sunk franchises that not many cared about.

First, your accounts of Magic and Worthy's paths to the Lakers are different than the best singular internet source I could find.

http://www.prosportstransactions.com/basketball/

To sum up what I found and comment a little from this source's information....

As far as Magic’s path to LA, the Lakers got a 1977 Ist round pick, a 1979 1st round pick (Magic) and a 1980 2nd round pick from the below average New Orleans Jazz for compensation for losing veteran Gail Goodrich, who only played three more below average seasons, to them as a free agent. LA also gave up a 1977 second round pick (#44 overall) in that deal. LA had also recently lost Wilt and then Jerry West in the past couple of years resulting in one bad year and a following mediocre rebuilding year before returning to prominence. The Lakers picked up Kareem (more questionable evidence) soon afterwards. LA had Kareem and was quickly on the way back up when they received all of that compensation for Goodrich. Dantley was traded by the Lakers straight up to the Jazz after the 1979 season for Spencer Haywood.

As far as Worthy goes, the trade with the Cavs did involve Butch Lee and Don Ford, both backups who did not contribute a lot or anything, but the great LA Lakers gave up a 1980 first round pick for a 1982 first round pick from the bad, and getting worse, Cavs. A clearly questionable deal in plain sight. LA was looking at getting a likely very high pick for a very likely low first round pick which is not much for one of the best franchises in the league.

As far as the Gasol to LA and KG to Boston trades go....

Boston had no sure hope of a future after 2007. They had not won a title since 1986 and several players of the future had not panned out obviously. Few players, even guys like Jefferson, are guaranteed to be stars and winners. Only a few phenoms like Shaq, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Wilt, West and Russell really deliver but even they can’t always come through. Even if Boston just gets this one title win 2008 with the Big Three II, this year and a probable little run the next few years sure beats pre-Garnett years. So, there was not a total mortgaging the farm with this given the past twenty years. Minnesota is a small market team who couldn't win relatively big with a player of Garnett's stature so they might appear to be more expendable in losing a big star like Garnett. If the Celtics picks and prospects don’t pan out, the bad perception of some league rogues might be is that Minnesota is used to failure so grabbing stars from them is much less of a risk to the league. There has not been a national sporting uproar concerning the Timberwolves plight.

As far as LA getting Gasol in 2007, a few years ago it was obvious LA definitely needed another piece to win. In the trade for Gasol, LA gave up no one of substance. Not Odom or Bynum. Not only did LA lose no one but they got rid of a big bust in Kwame Brown. No draft pick that the Grizzlies recieved can be looked to produce a difference maker that can lift the team back into the playoffs. Gasol was a Rookie of the Year, a 2006 All Star, an MVP in Europe and one of only eleven NBA'ers to be averaging 19 and 9 at the time he was traded. Memphis opened cap space for what? To make 22 and 24 win seasons possible. Like many bad expansion teams, Memphis was going nowhere. Right? Wrong! They got to the playoffs three years in a row with Pao and with some help, even a little like LA and Boston get, another solid franchise could have developed. That is one of the maddening things about all of this - does any non-big city/media center team really have a fair chance unless the NBA decides to focus on building it up? Memphis’ owner said Memphis was in danger of being sold and moved around the time of the Gasol trade. So did that make them a "good" candidate to take one for the league. Jerry West said at the time about Gasol that he was a star but they needed a superstar. And how did this trade help that? Yes, it does take time to develop and they seemed to have used Crittenton to get draft picks, but if the league "assists" efforts in LA-Boston, it is not fair for smaller market teams.

Both LA and Boston trades were done with former Laker and Celtic legends who, of course, had the closest of ties to their old teams. Ainge and McHale played together in Boston and West is the Lakers in many ways and their former GM. West announced his retirement two months after the Gasol trade and McHale slowly went down with his ship in Minnesota.

One major point is that the NFL in creating parity, creates several strong franchises which make money by being competitive and are desirable to watch for non-fans of those franchises. The NBA guts too many franchises thus depleting the league of solid franchises, respectibility and potential profits.

To "prove" NBA orchestration of these things, you'd need a Richard Nixon-like tape from the NBA offices with league officials detailing that they are influencing the moving of players like chess pieces. Without that, (and I don't know that you could find anyone willing to don masks and leather gloves to snoop around), you have to look at circumstantial evidence. Some of the deals over the years that have greatly helped franchises like the Lakers and Celtics and further hurt the lower rung teams of the NBA, which overall did not effect the league that much in the league's eyes, do naturally caste some doubt as to the fair and free movement of players and draft picks in the NBA.

Some members of the media will steer 100% away from commenting on any possible systematic wrong doing in any of the major sports. Job security is certainly a factor in some media members looking past serious obvious question marks in any sport. Those that do go out on a limb ultimately help rid sports of at least some wrong doing and are more honest and professional in their work. That bravery and clarity many times makes careers for media members. This situation with the NBA is similar to a few years ago in major league baseball when some media and said you can't guess at who has used steroids because there hasn't been any proof. Was all of baseball in America supposed to not say anything or do anything when players like Brady Anderson and Barry Bonds changed dramatically in appearance and production. We know now that players we suspected (and even some we didn’t) did use. I believe it would ideally be best for the league to have tested much sooner before things got out of hand but MLB, like many organizations and companies, won’t create waves by doing things like testing unless there is a significant public expression of distaste and dissatisfaction. We, as a society, partly rely on the media to voice our opinions and keep those in power in check. Should a player who has stayed clean and very much stepped up their off season workouts, have to go through some public scrutiny because of others who are breaking the rules? No, but that is part of life and it will happen.

In terms of LeBron, the NBA has seen it takes post-Magic/Bird stars time to mature and develop. The league saw what happened when it pushed the envelope and had Kobe in LA as a teenager. He had too much of a spotlight on him when he was too young and a nightmare happened. Magic and Bird also had their own problems. The NBA may have reflected and realized MJ even needed time to mature and Kobe would have benefited with time to grow being away from the biggest spotlight in the league. So, with LeBron just out of high school, a can’t miss, future-of-the-league, first overall pick teenager is coming to the NBA and there is no way the league was going to risk another nightmare for many. His hometown, Cleveland, got him. The same thing happened with the Curious Case of Derrick Rose, first pick, future superstar, teenager ends up in his hometown where he can feel comfortable being at home and getting family support to make the big transition easier and to help with tough times. Makes sense. Again, if LeBron wins in Cleveland, justifying a leave to NY becomes much tougher to do.

Before you think about responding with a "there is absolutely 0% chance of any conspiracy theory existing in the NBA" comment again, think again about Brady Anderson and how we "shouldn't" have been guessing at who was using steroids. If there had been no outcry or comment from society, the media and fans, nothing would have been done about this damaging problem. It's right there in front of you. With the NBA's case, tampering may not be as bad as using steroids which can physically hurt you - and others. However, tampering has the result of sending the message that people in charge are not honest, power corrupts, however hard you try you find you can’t succeed because those in power control things and ultimately you can’t trust society in general. With a cloud over things, even if it is not often expressed, ticket sales and TV viewing will be negatively affected.

And like the argument for a NCAA Division I college football playoff, the best agrument from both those against a playoff and those that may tamper with NBA transactions, is that those currently in charge will make MORE money by haveing a playoff in college football and not tampering in the NBA.

It just takes an open mind, faith and belief that the free market will prevail. Again, the NFL is a better example except for things like the Eli and Archie Manning debacle.

MDG:

Submitted by Martin Manley on June 28, 2009 - 1:38am.

Let me make it clear... IMO... there is zero chance of the type of manipulation you are referring to.

I stand corrected on the Goodrich/Dantley issue and I can't comment on what may or may not have justified the compensation for the Jazz signing Goodrich. Furthermore, I don't really care about pre-1980 with respect to this debate.

The NBA is an extremely open book IMO. I don't see any possible way you can manipulate these things as you believe have been done. And, for every question you have, I have another. If the NBA already has James penciled in the NYK lineup in 2011, why would they have allowed Cleveland to pick up Shaq - as if the NBA has any control over that anyway.

You made your arguments and I made mine. I remain unconvinced primarily because for every benefactor of a conspiracy, there is a victim. Unless a person can paint a very clear picture of why teams intentionally choose to be victims, then the argument is moot as far as I'm concerned.

On a personal basis, I don't have the slightest problem saying sport X or Y or Z is the filthiest most corrupt sport in history - if I thought it were true. I pull no punches on this blog. I'm not indebted to anyone. I owe no one. I tell it like I see it and I don't care who cares.

Even though I disagree with your premise, I will give you tremendous credit for making the best case you can. You're a very sharp guy!

Martin

Balance Is Best

Submitted by mdg2015 on June 28, 2009 - 10:14pm.

Honestly, my overall opinion is that though some of the transactions over the years in the NBA do look a bit shady, it is also possible that they are basically forces of nature. For example, it can also be argued that Kevin McHale sees his Minnesota Timberwolves are going nowhere with KG and they can get some good prospects from his former teammate Danny Ainge who can vouch for them. People do business with those they know. Same with Jerry West and Gasol. The Grizzlies were having a bad year and they were nowhere near winning a first round series in the three straight years they got to the playoffs with Pao. Yes, these things can be explained either way. I believe it is very possible Shaq told the Suns last week, "You want to rebuild and to also have some cap space and I want another ring before Kobe gets another. Send me to Cleveland. I helped get one for D-Wade and three for Kobe." This is the opposing explanation to that the NBA orchestrated it. My earlier point was there are enough shady looking deals that tampering is a possibility or even a reality. You didn't comment on the Worthy deal. If my source was correct on how Magic got to LA then I assume the Worthy deal (done in your time frame 2-15-1980) was correct too. Hard to see the fairness in that as much although Don Ford had more credibility than Butch Lee who never really played again I am assuming maybe due to injury. Those first round picks don't mesh well with fairness tough. In parts of some of my previous posts on this subject, I have written from the point of view that if there is tampering, and it looks like it sometimes, then this is how it has played out and why. eg. LeBron and Derrick Rose as young first overall picks ending up in their hometowns. There are times, as when I was writing some of the previous posts, that tampering seemed to be there for sure. There are a lot of things the NBA has not done well and a lot of things that they have. Because there was a lot of scandal in college basketball at one time, there is no reason to believe that it can't or hasn't happened in the NBA. The NBA has been in bad, poor or not good shape enough times that may have percieved their situation as desperate and called on despersate actions.

One less damning analogy is (and I am not intending on making a political/economic statement here) that alledged NBA tampering with player transactions is not much different than the government helping out certain industries or companies. The free market doesn't work well enough for an industry or major company (NBA) to function or compete well enough to the needs of the public so the government (NBA front office) steps in to do enough for the good of the people (league including owners, teams, players and fans - oh yeah, NBA execs too) and all is better - maybe. You can plead for parity but the NBA has had that in the '70's (only the Celtics and Knicks won more than once and they each did it just twice) and it didn't seem to work as well as having one or two dominant teams. At least that is what I assume since the powers that be in every sporting championship hopes for the big name, big tradition teams to play in the finals of whatever sport for ratings and money sake. I hope my presentation of the possibility of tampering at least showed that certain situations should be looked at. My overall view of the NBA is that it needs to play better team basketball moving the ball around much quicker rather than promote superstars in a way in which it can lead to one on one basketball especially when you least want it. One reason parity works in the NFL is that the NFL may be more suited to US culture than any of the other sports giving it an advantage. Personally, I am glad the NBA didn't let Phil Ford's open dissatisfaction with being drafted by the KC Kings in 1978 change where he ended up. To me, that makes for a better league. The Kings immediately won their only division title and did even better two years later. Thanks to this exercise I also learned that Joe "The Worst" Axelson's trade of Nate "Tiny" Archibald resulted in getting Ford and Otis Birdsong. Now he is just Joe "One of the Worst" Axelson - who played a big part in ruining NBA basketball in four different cities - Cinncinnati, Kansas City, Omaha and Sacramento. Two words - Richard Washington. Our country works better than most others because we have checks and balances. The NBA needs to be checked but with balance.

MDG:

Submitted by Martin Manley on July 1, 2009 - 12:13am.

BTW: I recommend to anyone reading this that they click reply (whether they plan to or not). That will allow them to see it in a wider column.

Not to belabor it, but there remains one fatal flaw in your Chicago/Cleveland conspiracy - ping pong balls.

As I have said before, every team has one or more representatives present when this is being done. There are also independent auditors present. Those are the last people on earth to overlook something. Frankly, IMO, it's beyond preposterous to think the NBA has any ability to manipulate which teams win the lottery or get second and third. It's a simple random process that uses the same machines that are used to distribute bazillions of lottery dollars. If the NBA really DID have any ability to control the ping pong balls, the LA Clippers would have been the LAST team to win the lottery and Oklahoma City would have been the FIRST - either them or NYC.

I simply cannot comprehend how anyone can argue with that.

Martin

Oh yeah....on the NBA in KC possibility....

Submitted by mdg2015 on June 28, 2009 - 10:42pm.

The only way for an NBA team to survive here is for corporations in Kansas City to back it with buying suites and season ticket sales.

Most big sports fans I have talked to about a franchise in town would go see six games maximum in a season. This individual buying wouldn't be enough to support an NBA franchise. If you saw the Kings in a close playoff game, you know how great the NBA can be. Also, with over half of the teams making the playoffs, a KC NBA team might bring us our next post-season in KC.

If you bought tickets early for the best games imagine from November to April seeing one game a month and getting to see the Spurs, Lakers, Celtics, Nuggets, Magic and the future Knicks. Imagine having a team here that could win four of those six games!

1 Banana, 2 Banana

Submitted by mackthefinger on June 17, 2009 - 9:05am.

Of course, according to your EFFs, Pau Gasol had a slightly higher EFF than Kobe did over the course of the season. Something like 24.2 to 24.9 if I remember correctly. Over the playoffs, if i did my math correctly, Kobe led the team 27.5 to 25.8. But still, assuming your EFF is as much of a holy grail stat as you make it out to be, Kobe is co-banana with Gasol for this season and still lacks a championship where he is the undisputed leader of the team. (at least undisputed by statistics, certainly the media and popular opinion think this one is all Kobe, for whatever that is worth)

Mack

Submitted by Martin Manley on June 17, 2009 - 2:44pm.

Here is how I respond to that.

1) Gasol is better than people give him credit for being. Kobe couldn't even begin to sniff a title without him. In the three combined seasons before Gasol, Kobe had a LOSING record!

2) Kobe is not as good as people think.

3) Scoring always gets the headlines. But, scoring is only part of the game and that's why it took me so long to annoint MJ as the greatest. He eventually perfected the rest of the game. Kobe is on the road to doing that, but has a long, long ways to go - and he's already played 13 seasons!

As to first and second banana, almost everyone attributes the five LA championships in the 80's to Magic.... along with Jabbar and Worthy. But, here are the EFFs for the first three. By the last two, Jabbar was fading. Of course, Kareem also won one without Magic, but even then he had Oscar.

	Magic	Kareem
1980	25.13	32.87
1982	29.65	27.16
1985	28.77	25.87

Magic was the outgoing one - the flashier of the two. That's the nature of the beast for emotional humans, but for stats freaks we look at the objective criteria only. I might like Magic better, but I believe Kareem was the greater of the two (though that's an extremely close call).

Anyway, this example is one more argument for why you have to have some kind of major help to win championships. Kobe has probably had the best help of anyone ever - at least for someone being given equal or primary responsibility for the titles. Jordan had his share of help - no argument. Lebron hasn't had any help at all - yet.

Martin

I've always said ...

Submitted by Dom2 on June 17, 2009 - 7:03am.

... modern era players (Bird/Magic and after) should donate a percentage of their salary to the "Dr J Retirement Fund" because (IMO) it was Dr J who brought the game to the public eye and generated interest like nobody else before him. His style of play, his incredible hang time, his absolute grace both on and off the court, both ABA and NBA. I suppose you could include Jabbar as a major impetus for the growth of the sport's popularity and not be wrong, but for me, Dr J was a wake-up call.

It's a JEEP thing - you wouldn't understand

Dom

Submitted by Martin Manley on June 17, 2009 - 3:08pm.

The problem with Dr. J is (as if this is news) he played in the ABA for as many years as he did. Unforunately for those of us who became NBA fans with Magic and Bird, we really didn't get to see Erving play much. Yes, we saw him in the early 80's, but in those days, there wasn't that much on T.V. It wasn't until Bird/Magic got deep into their rivalry and MJ came into the league that the NBA became so popular and was widely viewable.

I had a satellite TV dish and I watched multiple games a day, but I was among the few that had that luxury in those first few years of the 80's - when DrJ was still in his prime.

Here is his career by season with his EFF and EFF league rank.

Year	League	EFF	Rank
1972	ABA	34.14	2
1973	ABA	33.61	1
1974	ABA	31.21	2
1975	ABA	32.20	3
1976	ABA	32.79	1
1977	NBA	23.84	9
1978	NBA	21.89	20
1979	NBA	22.74	15
1980	NBA	27.78	3
1981	NBA	27.38	4
1982	NBA	26.69	8
1983	NBA	23.24	14
1984	NBA	24.06	12
1985	NBA	19.41	38
1986	NBA	17.51	50
1987	NBA	16.30	65

It's pretty clear that Dr.J overly excelled in the five seasons in the ABA. Sure there were some good players, but it's hard to believe he would have had that level of production in the NBA. All you have to do is look at the first few seasons after he joined the NBA - years 6-8 (typically a player's prime years).

I'm not sure Bird/Magic owe Dr.J, but Jordan might. He came into the league in 1985. If you look at Erving's career, that was just the time when he began to fade. MJ basically replaced DJ. The difference is that MJ's era was when the NBA was widely viewable and very popular. DJ's was during an era when neither of those were true - in fact even worse than that - split leagues where the ABA just struggled to stay alive and maintain an identity.

I rank Dr. J in my all-time top 11. #1 is Jordan. #2-#8 (in no particular order) is Mikan, Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson, Jabbar, Bird and Magic. #9-11 (in no particular order) West, Baylor and Dr. J.

The next group would definitely include Cousy, Pettit, Schayes, Havlicek, Akeem and Shaq.

Martin

I completely agree with you.

Submitted by Dannar on June 17, 2009 - 1:48am.

I think Kobe will never be in the rarified air of Jordan.

I think it would be awesome, and an excellent read if you could put your amazing skills as a researcher/blogger/journalist to use in comparing Lebron James and Jordan in their first (5 seasons for Lebron now?) seasons. See how their EFF's compare. I think the argument can be made far more likely that Lebron has a much likelier chance of being the second coming of Jordan. All he needs is his Scottie Pippin. I've been saying this to my friends for a year now.

I would love to know what you think. Does Lebron need his Scottie Pippin, or does he already have a Scottie Pippin and he just isn't good enough to win without a Dominant Big Guy (a la Kobe, pre-screwy 2008-2009 Season where a Magic Team that doesn't have a scoring Big or a true point guard/2 guard combo can make it to the NBA finals.).

-Dannar

Dannar

Submitted by Martin Manley on June 17, 2009 - 3:35am.

Lebron definitely does NOT have his "Scottie Pippen". I like Mo Williams and everything, but with a 16.42 EFF, he's nothing compared to Pippen. The fact that Cleveland won 66 games is almost beyond belief!

As I mentioned in my post about James being the MVP, his support cast was woefully less than other MVPs whose teams won 66 or more games. It's one of the great seasons of all time.

There's really not much comparison between Bryant and James IMO - and I like Kobe, I'm just being objective. Lebron has a better chance (even with zero championships) of being Jordan than Kobe does IMO - but that totally depends upon his ability to parlay his power into demanding the necessary help. As was proven against Orlando, nobody can do it by themselves - not even Jordan.

Here are the two players and their first six years by EFF. Kobe's best was year #6 and that's Lebron's best so far.

Year	Kobe	Lebron
1	12.7	18.8
2	19.0	28.2
3	22.9	29.4
4	25.3	25.6
5	23.5	30.3
6	28.0	30.9

Martin

Horizontal

COOL FACTOIDS OF THE DAY

Contributor

Recommendations

Kobe versus Michael

User login

Martin's Best