97-98 Michael Jordan vs 07-08 Kobe Bryant

[Matt15]

Who would you say was the better player and why for their respective seasons and why?

1997-98 Michael Jordan
PPG: 28.7, FG%.465, 3P%.238,TRB 5.8, AST 3.5, STL 1.7, BLK 0.5

Playoffs: PPG: 32.4, FG%.462, 3P%.302, TRB 5.1, AST 3.5

2007-08 Kobe Bryant
PPG: 28.3, FG%.459, 3P%.361,TRB 6.3, AST 5.4, STL 1.8, BLK 0.5

Playoffs: PPG: 30.1, FG%.479, 3P%.302, TRB 5.7, AST 5.6

[JordansBulls]

Jordan, just look at what happened in the finals. Neither had HCA, both teams had #1 seeds.

Not sure we really need another thread on this. We've had like 7 in the last week or so.

[Tesla]

Tough... I think Kobe of the last two years is very similar in terms of production/play/success in both the reg season and post-season of second three-peat (past prime) MJ. Probably MJ slightly due to better reads, better clutch play, and a big man type of post play.

[DEEP3CL]

[nolunch]

no difference at all....But MJ won the title at last.

[That Nicka]

by just looking at stats I'd say Kobe but going by results it has to be Jordan cuz he won the chip

[LebronsCavs]

,lol this is a joke. How do you compare a guy who was clutch all post season and hit a game winner to clinch the finals to a guy who was horrible vs the celtics and let his team blow a huge lead in that series as well.

[Collie]

Kobe, from a statistical standpoint. 98 was probably the year where MJ was noticeably older and had his worst stats as a Bull. But in terms of overall impact, I'd go with MJ.

[Optms]

,lol this is a joke. How do you compare a guy who was clutch all post season and hit a game winner to clinch the finals to a guy who was horrible vs the celtics and let his team blow a huge lead in that series as well.

He didn't do much of anything wrong that series. The sub-par performances you are referring to were the result of the Boston job done on him. I've never seen a better job done on Kobe Bryant to date. The Lakers could go back again and again to that series and Boston would win 9/10 times. They weren't the better team.

[tsherkin]

I have to back Optms on that one; Kobe had an entire defense working specifically to stop him. Jordan's seen that before, but this defense was one of the best all-time defensive squads in basketball history, so it's a wee bit different. The lack of a serious secondary threat really hurt them in that series because of the passive play of Odom and Gasol, so Kobe had a crap series. Jordan didn't exactly overwhelm against, say, Seattle, either, now did he? A defense with a great defender holding it together really damages the ability of one player to go off all nutters on them and it really undermined their respective field goal efficiencies to a similar degree.

[mysticbb]

Nice trick to leave out turnovers in the comparison of the stats. Jordan wins the statistical comparison to Bryant in both regular season and playoffs, if turnovers, pace and the level of competition are taken into account. Jordan had an regular season PER of 25.2 while Bryant had 24.2. Jordan also had more win shares during the regular season (15.6 vs. 14.3). The difference isn't that big, but Jordan was still statistically better than Bryant. One of the reason is the huge difference in turnovers. While Jordan turned the ball over 2.3 times per game Bryant done that 3.1 times. Overall Jordan was 2nd in the league in turnover percentage 1997/98 with 7.7, Bryant had 11.3 and was nowhere near the top of the league.

If we take a look at the playoffs the difference in the stats even increases. Jordan wins the PER 28.1 to 25.0 and Win Shares 4.7 (#1 in the league) to 3.4. Again the difference in turnovers is huge, 2.1 turnover per game for Jordan and 3.3 for Bryant.

On another note: The Jazz had an DRtg during the 1998 playoffs of 100.4, that isn't that far away from the 98.9 of the Boston Celtics in the playoffs 2008.

Even the 35 year old Jordan produced better numbers overall than a 29 year old Bryant.

[That Nicka]

^ good post

[FJS]

Nice trick to leave out turnovers in the comparison of the stats. Jordan wins the statistical comparison to Bryant in both regular season and playoffs, if turnovers, pace and the level of competition are taken into account. Jordan had an regular season PER of 25.2 while Bryant had 24.2. Jordan also had more win shares during the regular season (15.6 vs. 14.3). The difference isn't that big, but Jordan was still statistically better than Bryant. One of the reason is the huge difference in turnovers. While Jordan turned the ball over 2.3 times per game Bryant done that 3.1 times. Overall Jordan was 2nd in the league in turnover percentage 1997/98 with 7.7, Bryant had 11.3 and was nowhere near the top of the league.

If we take a look at the playoffs the difference in the stats even increases. Jordan wins the PER 28.1 to 25.0 and Win Shares 4.7 (#1 in the league) to 3.4. Again the difference in turnovers is huge, 2.1 turnover per game for Jordan and 3.3 for Bryant.

On another note: The Jazz had an DRtg during the 1998 playoffs of 100.4, that isn't that far away from the 98.9 of the Boston Celtics in the playoffs 2008.

Even the 35 year old Jordan produced better numbers overall than a 29 year old Bryant.

I can't explain it better.

[CHIMOCHI]

Nice trick to leave out turnovers in the comparison of the stats. Jordan wins the statistical comparison to Bryant in both regular season and playoffs, if turnovers, pace and the level of competition are taken into account. Jordan had an regular season PER of 25.2 while Bryant had 24.2. Jordan also had more win shares during the regular season (15.6 vs. 14.3). The difference isn't that big, but Jordan was still statistically better than Bryant. One of the reason is the huge difference in turnovers. While Jordan turned the ball over 2.3 times per game Bryant done that 3.1 times. Overall Jordan was 2nd in the league in turnover percentage 1997/98 with 7.7, Bryant had 11.3 and was nowhere near the top of the league.

If we take a look at the playoffs the difference in the stats even increases. Jordan wins the PER 28.1 to 25.0 and Win Shares 4.7 (#1 in the league) to 3.4. Again the difference in turnovers is huge, 2.1 turnover per game for Jordan and 3.3 for Bryant.

On another note: The Jazz had an DRtg during the 1998 playoffs of 100.4, that isn't that far away from the 98.9 of the Boston Celtics in the playoffs 2008.

Even the 35 year old Jordan produced better numbers overall than a 29 year old Bryant.

/thread

[JordansBulls]

I have to back Optms on that one; Kobe had an entire defense working specifically to stop him. Jordan's seen that before, but this defense was one of the best all-time defensive squads in basketball history, so it's a wee bit different. The lack of a serious secondary threat really hurt them in that series because of the passive play of Odom and Gasol, so Kobe had a crap series. Jordan didn't exactly overwhelm against, say, Seattle, either, now did he? A defense with a great defender holding it together really damages the ability of one player to go off all nutters on them and it really undermined their respective field goal efficiencies to a similar degree.

That's an excuse as the Lakers came in that series as favorites and even was favorite in Boston. The Bulls were the underrdogs in there series.

Not that I agree with Hollinger, but that Finals was considered 2nd all time

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2 ... ormances-2


Here is where you know the Bulls were the underdogs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPYseUjO ... F0&index=4

Not to mention MJ had a higher win share and PER in both the season and playoffs and actually led the league in scoring as well for his 10th time.

Also in those 2008 finals here is what Kobe's Efficiency was in comparison to Gasol's and Odom's.

Kobe: 25.7/4.7/5/2.7/0.2, 40.5%/79.6%, 3.8 TO; EFF: 19.7
Gasol: 14.7/10.2/3.3/0.5/0.5, 53.2%/64.7%, 2.2 TO; EFF: 20.2
Odom: 13.5/9/3/0.3/1, 51.7%/64.3%, 2.7 TO; EFF: 17.7


Gasol shot 53% and Odom 52% and these were the 2nd and 3rd options. Jordan's 2nd option shot 41%

[semi-sentient]

Why are you comparing Kobe's efficiency to Gasol and Odom? Why?

That Celtics defense, which was better than anything that 2nd 3-peat Jordan faced (especially the Jazz -- come on now), was geared towards stopping Kobe from scoring (or sufficiently containing him) and they had a reputation for putting the clamps on elite perimeter players. They weren't focusing on containing Gasol or Odom. They were focusing on Kobe, and they did a great job. Gasol and Odom, as efficient as they were, were largely contained in 1-on-1 situations. What do you think Kobe would have done against that Jazz defense? Come on now. Bryon Russell? Hornacek? That defensive monster Greg Foster waiting for him if he got past either?

The real reason that the Lakers lost, outside of their bigs being mentally unprepared, was that the Lakers bench was atrocious. This is where the series (and leads/momentum) was lost. The Celtics were the superior team and that was true even before the Finals. I think people got caught up on how the Celtics were taken to 7 games in their conference and thought that somehow that was going to translate to the Lakers series which is why the Lakers were favored by the media. Nonsense. The truth is that the Lakers matched up poorly with the Celtics and that didn't change just because Gasol was on board (for less than half a season, at that). I never once felt that the Lakers could take the Celtics (neither did RealGM posters judging by the polls), and quite frankly, most Lakers fans were surprised that they even made the Finals in the first place.

...

As for the Kobe/Jordan turnover argument, I think it needs to be considered that Kobe handled the ball more than Jordan did, which is why Pippen always led the team in turnovers (find me a year that he didn't). If you can't understand this simple point then you are either ignorant or lying to yourself. Was Pippen just careless as hell with the ball or was it because he had the ball so much that caused him to always lead the Bulls in turnovers? I think it's obvious as to why Jordan didn't have as many turnovers as Kobe. Since it generally isn't though, let's just say that Kobe did not have anyone like Pippen to take on that kind of responsibility as far as initiating/facilitating the offense goes. Not even close. If not for Pippen, Jordan would have probably had to handle the ball much more and that would have undoubtedly caused a rise in turnovers (and assists, of course).

I know it's easy to look at statistics and talk about how player A is better than player B, but at some point you have to look beyond that and realize that Kobe/Jordan had different roles and that does have an impact on numbers such as turnovers/efficiency.

And why are we comparing FG%/3P%? If we use TS%, which we should, then Kobe has a sizable advantage in both regular season and playoffs. When you consider that Kobe faced better defensive teams, how is that not more impressive? Jordan had an advantage in scoring and turnovers (explained above), so I'm not sure how anyone could consider his numbers more impressive given the roles that both players had.

Also, this whole argument about homecourt advantage is nonsense. The Bulls and Jazz had identical records. The Jazz won the tie-breaker as a result of winning the regular season series where both games were relatively close. By contrast, the Celtics dominated the Lakers twice in the regular season and were 9 games better during the regular season. The Celtics were easily the best team in the league and should have been favored from start to finish regardless of what those twats at ESPN predicted. It was clear to anyone with an ounce of basketball knowledge that the Celtics presented some serious match-up problems for the Lakers.

...

As a side note, someone seriously compared the Jazz defense to the Celtics by using their playoff dRtg? How can anyone that's watched both teams give that a serious amount of thought. I guess if we're going to go through those stretches then why not include the enormous advantage the the Celtics (109.4) had over the Jazz (102.8) as far as playoff oRtg goes? In fact, the Jazz were rated worse on offense than any team that the Lakers faced in the postseason in 2008. How about that?

Anyway, if I were to consider that Jordan won it all and Kobe didn't (which is irrelevant to the question, IMO), then I would have to choose Jordan. That has more to do with who their teammates/opponents were so I'm not going to consider it in terms of who I think the better player is. I think Kobe was better for his team because he had to do more for them on offense (a combination of scoring/facilitating) and the Lakers faced better competition overall (especially in the Finals). Defensively, I would say that Kobe has an edge there as well, although this is difficult to quantify. At worst I'll say they were even. Jordan had a far better second option and a considerably better team in terms of defense, so I'm not really feeling any of the arguments in favor of Jordan outside of the usual knee-jerk responses that dictate that Jordan should always be the choice over Kobe.

In closing, I would have loved to seen what 2008 Kobe would have done to that Jazz defense after having a phenomenal playoff run as it were. He was playing at an extremely high level until he ran into a historically great defensive team that excelled at shutting down perimeter players. Given the same situation I seriously doubt that a 35-year old Jordan does as well as a 29-year old Kobe, but that's just me (or maybe not -- see what the Soncs did to Jordan). Now let's see how many Kobe homer responses this provokes because that's typically the only type of rebuttal I get. Keep it clean and so will I.

PS: I had to rush all of this because I'm at work, so I'm sure there are holes here and there. Sue me.

Edit: Removed my statement about win shares as I looked at the wrong season for Kobe. However, why should I put strong consideration into win shares? Kobe led the Lakers in the 2001 post-season which was the most dominant playoff run in history. Does he get credit for that? I didn't think so.

[See5]

^ Very nice explanation. I'd be hard pressed to pick '08 Kobe over '96 Jordan but by '98 he was declining.

[semi-sentient]

Also in those 2008 finals here is what Kobe's Efficiency was in comparison to Gasol's and Odom's.

Kobe: 25.7/4.7/5/2.7/0.2, 40.5%/79.6%, 3.8 TO; EFF: 19.7
Gasol: 14.7/10.2/3.3/0.5/0.5, 53.2%/64.7%, 2.2 TO; EFF: 20.2
Odom: 13.5/9/3/0.3/1, 51.7%/64.3%, 2.7 TO; EFF: 17.7

Gasol shot 53% and Odom 52% and these were the 2nd and 3rd options. Jordan's 2nd option shot 41%

You're leaving out a lot of information here.

For starters, you are comparing the FG% (why not TS%?) of big men to that of perimeter players. Of course their percentages are going to be higher. Next, you didn't bother to show us what Pippen and Kukoc did, and you are excluding the rest of the playoffs which shows quite different results (Kobe had a higher TS% than both Odom as Gasol in the 2008 playoffs). Also, where are you getting the EFF? I generally only use basketball-reference when pulling statistics and I didn't see that one.

Anyway, here's a different picture of the 2nd/3rd options for both Kobe and Jordan:

Kobe: 25.7 PTS (.505 TS%)
Gasol: 14.7 PTS (.571 TS%)
Odom: 13.5 PTS (.560 TS%)

Jordan: 33.5 PTS (.516 TS%)
Pippen: 15.3 PTS (.487 TS%)
Kukoc: 15.2 PTS (.617 TS%)

It should be noted that Pippen's numbers took a huge dip thanks to Game 5 of the Finals where he scored 6 points and shot 2-16. That game alone caused his TS% to drop from .554 to .487. I'll take it a step further and say that if you remove both Pippen and Jordan's worst games, Pippen has a higher TS% (.554 compared to .527 for Jordan). That's how much of a difference one poor game can make, so let's keep that in mind when we're posting these numbers that encompass an entire series. Pippen was a better 2nd option than what Kobe had in Gasol, and Kukoc was a better 3rd option when compared to Odom -- statistically speaking.

I'm not sure if you're insinuating that Kobe had more help, but if that is the case then you are flat out wrong. Don't even get me started on the defensive end because the Bulls have a huge advantage there as a team. I'll also reiterate that Kobe, playing the "Pippen" role of running the offense, should receive some credit for the increased percentages of his bigs, much like Pippen would get credit for his teammates getting easier opportunities that lead to better efficiency.

[twenty23]

Jordan... rather easily aswell.

[Baller 24]

Easy Jordan, he just dominated better.