Lebron explodes for 56pts...

[Gargamel]

Some of his teammates are having pretty good statistical seasons, 4cwebb. What exactly counts as "making teammates better"?

 

[KA_2]

Yes, Rodman had done those things, but years earlier in his career. He was a headcase when he joined the Bulls, and it's been openly acknowledged that Jordan was the guy who reigned him in.

I have to disagree with this. More people would say Jackson reigned him in, than Jordan. That said, it's mostly irrelevant who "reigned" him in, he was a rebounding/DPOY champion before joining the Bulls. He brought it every night, regardless of the team.

And saying that Pippen was a great defender/good scorer in college is a tad misleading, as if he played at Duke or UNC. Where did he go to school? Central Arkansas (or somewhere similar) where his competition on a nightly basis consisted largely of players with 1/50th of the talent.

Sorry, but Pippen was widely regarded as the best defender out of the 87 draft, and that was the major reason he was picked 5th. No one was under the illusion that he wasn't a great defender out of college. Of course, at the time no one knew he'd become a great scorer and passer too. I bet you Seattle wouldn't trade Pippen for Olden Polynice and draft picks again if they had a second chance.

I'd agree with some points of your assessment, though, and I'd grant that Kobe isn't getting the fairest of shakes in the "making teammates" better arena, but it's just year 1 of the Kobe-all-by-his-lonesome experiment. He's got plenty of time to prove his doubters wrong.

My only gripe with Kobe analysts is their understanding of basketball. Hell, even Magic Johnson gets it wrong, so I can understand why a lot of people are under the illusion that "making teammates better" is all it takes to win. Even worse, some are under the illusion that that's what ails the Lakers (when in fact the Lakers are something like 6-27 when holding opponents under 100 points). There's just so much more to winning than making your teammates better (rebounding, defending, leadership, etc.), and scoring is the last thing the Lakers need to worry about.

 

[4cwebb]

I have to disagree with this. More people would say Jackson reigned him in, than Jordan. That said, it's mostly irrelevant who "reigned" him in, he was a rebounding/DPOY champion before joining the Bulls. He brought it every night, regardless of the team.

Really? I'm no Phil or Jordan follower, but my impression was that it was Jordan's (reputed) iron will that had as much to do with Rodman straightening up and flying right when he played for the Bulls.

And I think if you asked Spurs' teammates from the previous season or two whether he brought his game each and every night, I think they might disagree...didn't he take his shoes off during timeouts with that team?

Sorry, but Pippen was widely regarded as the best defender out of the 87 draft, and that was the major reason he was picked 5th. No one was under the illusion that he wasn't a great defender out of college. Of course, at the time no one knew he'd become a great scorer and passer too. I bet you Seattle wouldn't trade Pippen for Olden Polynice and draft picks again if they had a second chance.

Fine, regarded as a potentially great defender, but as you said, no knew he'd become a great scorer and passer, too. I think Seattle might make that swap at this point. Oohh, Rain Man and Pippen on the same team...that'd have been fun to see.

My only gripe with Kobe analysts is their understanding of basketball. Hell, even Magic Johnson gets it wrong, so I can understand why a lot of people are under the illusion that "making teammates better" is all it takes to win. Even worse, some are under the illusion that that's what ails the Lakers (when in fact the Lakers are something like 6-27 when holding opponents under 100 points). There's just so much more to winning than making your teammates better (rebounding, defending, leadership, etc.), and scoring is the last thing the Lakers need to worry about.

I guess I'll take it as a pseudo-compliment that you didn't mention me specifically as a "Kobe analyst". It certainly is hard to measure with statistics whether one superstar really makes players better than another. My guess would be that Kobe detractors would point to the supposed discontent among the Lakers a few weeks ago regarding Kobe's play (although I only noted those comments after one game, and haven't heard any since). As I mentioned in my initial post, this is new territory for Kobe running without Shaq, and there will plenty more time to judge whether or not he can truly inspire his teammates to greatness. Too quick to judge right now.

 

[4cwebb]

Some of his teammates are having pretty good statistical seasons, 4cwebb. What exactly counts as "making teammates better"?

I don't think I singled out Kobe as "not making his teammates" better, I just don't think he does it as well as Lebron. Lebron may have more to work with in a viable center (instead of two other perimeter players as his main wingmen), though.

Oh, and to respond to another point of KA2's, it's confusing to me how Magic could had such an apparently inate ability to play the game of basketball, but he has such a difficult time putting his thoughts into words that make sense on t.v. I really, really wish they would just fire him from that TNT show. He knows how to play the game, and he knew how to win at the highest levels, but he doesn't know how to tell us about it, and it's painful to watch (and I'm a huge Magic fan --- finding out he had to retire b/c of HIV is akin to a JFK assasination moment for people that lived through that event).

 

[Superman]

No I don't. Given the same scenario (18-36 in a loss), Kobe would be criticized. Guarantee it. You'd get the ol "doesn't make Chucky Atkins and Brian Grant better" spiel like over in the Laker/Jazz thread.

You don't agree that Kobe's situation 3 years ago when he scored 51 against the Warriors and lost was different than LeBron's situation was a few nights ago when he scored 56 and lost?

Kobe had Shaq, Phil, and several more years of experience in the NBA.

LeBron had his season-long starting point guard benched, the replacement point guard go 0-4, his center go 4-15 with 8 rebounds and one assist. He is not and has never played on a winning team or been to the playoffs.

Name some similarities that matter.

The Lakers in 2001 were much better - even without Kobe's 51-point ability - than the Cavs are right now. Kobe had much more at his disposal than LeBron has at his (one of the best coaches in the League, the reigning MVP, etc.). How do you not see that their situations are different? The Cavs need LeBron to be a superstar in order to win. The Lakers didn't need Kobe to be one; they needed him to be the best secondary player in the League and let Shaq dominate the lowly Golden State Warriors.