Replace Michael Jordan with 05' Kobe Bryant

[shobe_24]

A prime Kobe wins 4 atleast. 5-6 is not out of question either.

[Cpt Lebyadkin]

2005 Kobe is overrated. Superficially his numbers are other worldly but when you consider them in context they seem less and less impressive. When he averaged his 35+, the top 5 scorers in the league that year all had career years and two other guys were averaging 33 and 31 points respectively. Numbers that season were inflated due to many reasons, including guard-friendly rule changes and a 'watered down league' effect .

2005 Kobe was rather immature, it is clear that those seasons for him were all about padding his stats and proving to the world that he could get his 'air jordan' 35 a game, even at the expense of winning, ahem. that mind set aint getting you 6 c'ships with those bulls teams.

But i have so much respect for his will power, it is even more impressive than his raw talent, so i'd go with four or five.

[kasino]

^^^^thats 06
you know about every season players are having career years, yes thats including MJ scoring titles years

if he scored less those 05-07 teams would have won more?

and then you turned around with four or five....holy crap bi-polar post

[EGarrett]

Kobe's PER's are embarrassingly bad considering how often he's shot the ball over his career. Add that to his cluelessness and general cancerous attitude off the court, I don't know if Phil could mind-trick him into being useful long enough to fill in for Jordan. I'd say 1 to 0 titles.

Wow. This post .

Anyway, yeah, terrible logic here obviously. PER definitely isn't what you want to use to determine how good a player is. And if anything, it definitely isn't "embarrassingly bad", considering his career PER is 24.0 if you discount the two seasons where he came off the bench in limited minutes. That career 24 PER is good enough to match up with the likes Magic Johnson( Career PER: 24.1 ), Larry Bird( Career PER: 23.5 ), Tim Duncan( Career PER: 24.7 ) and Hakeem Olajuwon( Career PER: 23.6 ). That's pretty elite company.

We're comparing him to Michael Jordan. Note also that I said "considering how often he's shot the ball." The people you are comparing him too were not ballhogs, and ballhogging inflates PER. Over his prime years Kobe had several seasons with a PER of 23. Lebron, Jordan, Wade, and even Tracy McGrady hit the 30's. I stand by my statement that that is embarrassingly bad given how often he shoots.

Cluelessness on the court?( Mind you that's not even a word ) Bad post buddy smh.

"Words" are determined by common colloquial meaning, not presence in the dictionary. I don't think you want to get into that.

[Jordan23Forever]

How in God's name are people suggesting that Kobe would win 5-6 in the same 6 years? There's virtually no way he wins 6, and even 5 is a huge stretch imo. 2-4 is more likely. He almost certainly gets 2, but he's never been close to Jordan as a playoff performer, and the Bulls frequently needed big games/series from MJ to win. Here's who I think Kobe's Bulls could lose to:

'91 Pistons
'91 Lakers (don't let the 5 game victory fool you - the Lakers played the Bulls well, and Jordan had to play perhaps the best Finals series of all time to win it, something I don't think Kobe can come close to replicating)

'92 Blazers, Knicks
'93 Knicks, Suns
'96 Magic, Sonics
'97 Jazz
'98 Pacers, Jazz

Obviously I believe they'd likely get past many of these teams or else I wouldn't say 2-4 titles for Kobe's Bulls. But there's almost no way they get past all of them imo. They also don't win nearly as many RS games with Kobe as opposed to Jordan, which may affect their HCA for the playoffs/Finals, which is another thing to consider.

[Asianiac_24]

92, 93, 96, 97, 98. I'd say 5.

[mysticbb]

Obviously I believe they'd likely get past many of these teams or else I wouldn't say 2-4 titles for Kobe's Bulls. But there's almost no way they get past all of them imo. They also don't win nearly as many RS games with Kobe as opposed to Jordan, which may affect their HCA for the playoffs/Finals, which is another thing to consider.

Are you talking about peak level Bryant anno 2006 or the 2005 Bryant, who came into the season with more weight, had some injury problems and was even worse defensively than Bryant the past 3 seasons? Bryant in 2005 had one of his worst seasons, even though his boxscore numbers might still look pretty good to some people. Put 2005 Bryant on the 1991 Bulls and they rather play the 76ers or even Hawks in the first round without HCA than playing the Knicks with HCA.

[MacGill]

Mysticbb, I always preferred 2008 Kobe to any other version. Not as athletic but still decent enough but I feel this season he truly put forward a full package of scoring, leadership and great decision making. How do you feel the Bulls do with the 2008 version of Bryant?

[Not Bias]

4-6 I'd say.

[Jordan23Forever]

Kobe might not even MAKE the Finals in 1993 - hysterical that anyone is listing 1993 as a championship. And even if he makes the Finals, Kobe cannot even approach Jordan's level of play vs. Phoenix, and Chicago needed every ounce of that to win that series.

[mysticbb]

Mysticbb, I always preferred 2008 Kobe to any other version. Not as athletic but still decent enough but I feel this season he truly put forward a full package of scoring, leadership and great decision making. How do you feel the Bulls do with the 2008 version of Bryant?

I don't think that there is much of a difference between 2006 and 2008. In fact I would argue Bryant was pretty constant a +6 player from 2006 to 2009. That equates to about +5 on the team level given Bryant's minutes. Jordan during his peak (about 1988 to 1992) was more like a +8.5 player, giving him +6.9 with the minutes. A bit weaker in 1993 and +6.5, then about +6.5 in 1996, while at around +6 in 1997 and +5.5 in 1998 (each of those values for the given minutes Jordan played in the respective seasons).

Replacing Jordan with prime/peak level Bryant

1991 Bulls would lose about 2 points, making them as strong as the Lakers. Could go either way.
1992 Bulls would lose about 2 points, making them 1 point stronger as the Blazers, likely win for the Bulls
1993 Bulls would lose about 1.5 points, making them weaker than the Cavs or Knicks, the Bulls probably don't even reach the finals
1996 Bulls would lose about 1.5 points, still above +10 as a team, win for the Bulls
1997 Bulls would lose about 1 point, still nearly a +10 team, win for the Bulls
1998 Bulls would lose about 0.5 points, if they lose HCA vs. the Pacers, they could be out earlier, otherwise tough match-up with the Jazz and could lose as well. Could go either way.

So, counting "could go either way" with 0.5 ring, we end up with 4 rings, if we replace Jordan with prime Bryant.
Now, the 2005 Bryant version was rather a +3 player, making him in his playing time rather a +2.5 contributer on the team level. We are talking about a drop between 3 and 4.5 points. I don't think that the Bulls would even win one title, if we replace Jordan with the 2005 Bryant.

[kasino]

Kobe in this time isn't playing the minutes Jordan is or taking the amount of shots he is either

[Jordan23Forever]

You can't look at a player's impact (via +/- or whatever formula mysticbb is referring to) on a garbage team where you have the ball the majority of the time to a player's impact on a championship level team playing inside a structured offense with lots of off-ball play. They're not equivalent at all. A +5 (whatever that's referring to - I'm not sure) on a garbage team is not the same as being a +5 on a championship-level team...not by a longshot.

To do an apples to apples comparison you'd have to look at MJ's numbers from '87-'89, when his supporting cast and usage/role was more like Kobe's in '05-07. I'd wager it was SUBSTANTIALLY higher than whatever he was posting on the '91-'98 Bulls, and that's because it's much more difficult to have a large impact on a great team than on a poor one, in much the same way that it's more difficult for one player to improve a 55-win team to 65 wins than for a player to improve a 35-win team to 45 wins.

[mysticbb]

You can't look at a player's impact (via +/- or whatever formula mysticbb is referring to) on a garbage team where you have the ball the majority of the time to a player's impact on a championship level team playing inside a structured offense with lots of off-ball play. They're not equivalent at all. A +5 (whatever that's referring to - I'm not sure) on a garbage team is not the same as being a +5 on a championship-level team...not by a longshot.

The Lakers in 2008 and 2009 played championship-level basketball. Thus, no idea what you are even referring to. Adjusted for teammates and opponents that's what Bryant had, about +6 per 100 possession from 2006 to 2009, pretty consistent.

I'd wager it was SUBSTANTIALLY higher than whatever he was posting on the '91-'98 Bulls, and that's because it's much more difficult to have a large impact on a great team than on a poor one, in much the same way that it's more difficult for one player to improve a 55-win team to 65 wins than for a player to improve a 35-win team to 45 wins.

That's taken into account already, so don't get your pants wet.

The same analysis would get you about 0 titles for the 2005 Bryant.

[Wone]

Why 05 Bryant? Is it because he "wasn't that good that year"?

Just seems like a random year to choose from.

[Shot Clock]

Does Kobe get to take the 2005 rules with him? They were the most perimeter scoring friendly rules ever. He isn't going to post the same numbers when he's getting if he's getting hammered by Detroit or the Knicks. Prince drove him crazy and Rodman would unglue him.

On offense he's never been as efficient as Jordan or nearly the playoff scorer. The thing is he wasn't as good of a defender either. So you are really hoping the Bulls are just that much better as a team. Even with Jordan they had numerous games he needed to bail them out with a clutch basket or a defensive stop (Karl *cough*)

The biggest problem with Kobe's D is that he gets caught in no man's land cheating off his assignment. That is going to be a problem against guys like Dumars, Starks or Miller who will run around all day using screens to their advantage.

An old Miller was able to turn it way up vs a young Kobe in 2000. Everyone talks about Kobe's game 4, but the only reason the game was that close is because Miller had gone off for 35 points on .474 FG%. This is a 34 year old Miller that was scoring around 19ppg that season. After his 35 pt night he had 2 more 25 pt games.

They certainly aren't the same with Kobe.

[cpower]

3 trips to the final and 1 ring.

[ShowTimeERA]

Does Kobe get to take the 2005 rules with him? They were the most perimeter scoring friendly rules ever. He isn't going to post the same numbers when he's getting if he's getting hammered by Detroit or the Knicks. Prince drove him crazy and Rodman would unglue him.

On offense he's never been as efficient as Jordan or nearly the playoff scorer. The thing is he wasn't as good of a defender either. So you are really hoping the Bulls are just that much better as a team. Even with Jordan they had numerous games he needed to bail them out with a clutch basket or a defensive stop (Karl *cough*)

The biggest problem with Kobe's D is that he gets caught in no man's land cheating off his assignment. That is going to be a problem against guys like Dumars, Starks or Miller who will run around all day using screens to their advantage.

An old Miller was able to turn it way up vs a young Kobe in 2000. Everyone talks about Kobe's game 4, but the only reason the game was that close is because Miller had gone off for 35 points on .474 FG%. This is a 34 year old Miller that was scoring around 19ppg that season. After his 35 pt night he had 2 more 25 pt games.

They certainly aren't the same with Kobe.

So do we dismiss the fact that Kobe was hobbled throughout the series? That isn't something that can be picked up on basketballreference...

[nikomCH]

Mysticbb, I always preferred 2008 Kobe to any other version. Not as athletic but still decent enough but I feel this season he truly put forward a full package of scoring, leadership and great decision making. How do you feel the Bulls do with the 2008 version of Bryant?

I don't think that there is much of a difference between 2006 and 2008. In fact I would argue Bryant was pretty constant a +6 player from 2006 to 2009. That equates to about +5 on the team level given Bryant's minutes. Jordan during his peak (about 1988 to 1992) was more like a +8.5 player, giving him +6.9 with the minutes. A bit weaker in 1993 and +6.5, then about +6.5 in 1996, while at around +6 in 1997 and +5.5 in 1998 (each of those values for the given minutes Jordan played in the respective seasons).

Replacing Jordan with prime/peak level Bryant

1991 Bulls would lose about 2 points, making them as strong as the Lakers. Could go either way.
1992 Bulls would lose about 2 points, making them 1 point stronger as the Blazers, likely win for the Bulls
1993 Bulls would lose about 1.5 points, making them weaker than the Cavs or Knicks, the Bulls probably don't even reach the finals
1996 Bulls would lose about 1.5 points, still above +10 as a team, win for the Bulls
1997 Bulls would lose about 1 point, still nearly a +10 team, win for the Bulls
1998 Bulls would lose about 0.5 points, if they lose HCA vs. the Pacers, they could be out earlier, otherwise tough match-up with the Jazz and could lose as well. Could go either way.

So, counting "could go either way" with 0.5 ring, we end up with 4 rings, if we replace Jordan with prime Bryant.
Now, the 2005 Bryant version was rather a +3 player, making him in his playing time rather a +2.5 contributer on the team level. We are talking about a drop between 3 and 4.5 points. I don't think that the Bulls would even win one title, if we replace Jordan with the 2005 Bryant.

I'm not a regular of this place so sorry for being ignorant of the lingo but are you referring to RAPM with those numbers? If so what do you mean by the team level/minutes adjustments and also how are you finding those types of numbers for MJ?

[Shot Clock]

So do we dismiss the fact that Kobe was hobbled throughout the series? That isn't something that can be picked up on basketballreference...

You will only pick that up here on Realgm, bbreference doesn't have fictional writers on that site.

Go ahead and google that game and find evidence he was "hobbled".

He was out the best part of two games with a sprained ankle and looked fine on his return.