Other than that, the best point in this thread was made by KnicksSince88... MJ would've been an 8-peat if he didn't retire.

kam77 wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:Holfresh, even as someone who is down on Kobe compared to others mentioned, i think you are sort of underrating the competition hes faced. The Western Conference over the past decade has been beyond sick. The 8 seed in that conference is routinely winning 48-50 games. Guys like Garnett would lead his team to 50 wins and not get out of round 1 because they just ran into better teams. Hes had to deal with the Duncan Spurs and their 4 rings, it hasn't been an easy road. During most of these runs they are facing a team who could give them a run for their money as early as round 1. Over this past decade, usually when they got to the finals the Eastern winner they played was about the equivalent of a Western first round opponent in many of those years. The Western conference in the post Jordan era has been as strong as a conference could possibly be, year in year out

You still win championships by beating the other conference.

Unlike MJ, Kobe has had to beat some pretty weak teams in the finals.
The Pacers, Sixers, and Nets were some of the weakest finalists in the last 30 years.

I don't see how you can diminish the opposition just because the finals opponent was weaker in some years. In many years their conference final was their final. You play the Duncan Spurs in the conference finals and beat them, I don't know why thats somehow less impressive than beating a good team in the finals. It's hard to win 5 rings with a dynasty like that right in your conference, and competing with you for home court many years. The Portland team they squeaked by in 2000 was LOADED. Lets not compare it to Jordans teams going through our Knicks in the East. The Duncan Spurs may have been better than any team Jordan ever played against. (thats the only thing im going to say nice about Kobe here in relation to MJ) They have had to battle from round 1 on. Most teams on their way to titles don't even face threatening opposition until round 2 at the earliest, they have to grind from day 1 of the playoffs.

The finals competition though has indeed been much harder for Jordan and hes excelled more in those finals than Kobe, no doubt. Overall competition though? Tough to compare but its really a wash. Lakers did play this last decade in a much better conference than the 90s Bulls did. Much better. Jordan excelled more anyway though and would have against Kobe's competition too

kam77 wrote:MJ faced better competition period at all levels of the playoffs. The EAST was the stacked conference in MJ's day.

No he didn't. From 91 to 98 name me the team in his conference who was as good as the Duncan Spurs? No one is remotely close. Orlando had about a 2 year window where they were real good and did in fact beat the bulls in the year MJ came back with 15 games left. The Knicks were really their biggest eastern foe for the balance of that run, and we had a highly flawed team who had one great player and a bunch of role players. Our #2 option on offense was an average at best basketball player

Again. MJ is better than Kobe, but the competition argument doesn't really fly. The West this past decade dwarfs the 90s East. You have the 8 seed winning 50 games some years and minimum 47-48. Bulls faced sub 500 teams in round 1 a few times during their runs. Jordan had the tougher finals opponents but Kobe played in a much much better conference

There really is no comparing the 90s East to the 00's West

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:Holfresh, even as someone who is down on Kobe compared to others mentioned, i think you are sort of underrating the competition hes faced. The Western Conference over the past decade has been beyond sick. The 8 seed in that conference is routinely winning 48-50 games. Guys like Garnett would lead his team to 50 wins and not get out of round 1 because they just ran into better teams. Hes had to deal with the Duncan Spurs and their 4 rings, it hasn't been an easy road. During most of these runs they are facing a team who could give them a run for their money as early as round 1. Over this past decade, usually when they got to the finals the Eastern winner they played was about the equivalent of a Western first round opponent in many of those years. The Western conference in the post Jordan era has been as strong as a conference could possibly be, year in year out

Ok...Well how many top 50 players leading teams that Kobe faced versus what Jordan, Bird, and Magic face??...There were teams that Kobe faced that had crazy regular season records that wasn't championship caliber teams such as Sacramento, Dallas,PHX,Minny, and the Nuggets...

Many of those teams didn't win championships BECAUSE the Lakers beat them. I guess using that same logic you can knock every single team the Bulls played between 91 and 98 in the playoffs, because none of those teams won the title that year or won the title in the future. They didn't face a champion during that entire run aside from knocking off the defending champion 90 Pistons who were fading due to age some at that point

Jordan is better than Kobe but this competition argument is weak.

KnicksSince88 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:Holfresh, even as someone who is down on Kobe compared to others mentioned, i think you are sort of underrating the competition hes faced. The Western Conference over the past decade has been beyond sick. The 8 seed in that conference is routinely winning 48-50 games. Guys like Garnett would lead his team to 50 wins and not get out of round 1 because they just ran into better teams. Hes had to deal with the Duncan Spurs and their 4 rings, it hasn't been an easy road. During most of these runs they are facing a team who could give them a run for their money as early as round 1. Over this past decade, usually when they got to the finals the Eastern winner they played was about the equivalent of a Western first round opponent in many of those years. The Western conference in the post Jordan era has been as strong as a conference could possibly be, year in year out

Ok...Well how many top 50 players leading teams that Kobe faced versus what Jordan, Bird, and Magic face??...There were teams that Kobe faced that had crazy regular season records that wasn't championship caliber teams such as Sacramento, Dallas,PHX,Minny, and the Nuggets...

Many of those teams didn't win championships BECAUSE the Lakers beat them. I guess using that same logic you can knock every single team the Bulls played between 91 and 98 in the playoffs, because none of those teams won the title that year or won the title in the future. They didn't face a champion during that entire run aside from knocking off the defending champion 90 Pistons who were fading due to age some at that point

Jordan is better than Kobe but this competition argument is weak.

But its not like the Fakers won 6 Championships or dominated that era...They had a nice run but not the likes of the Bulls or Magic's Lakers...

KnicksSince88 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

kam77 wrote:MJ faced better competition period at all levels of the playoffs. The EAST was the stacked conference in MJ's day.

No he didn't. From 91 to 98 name me the team in his conference who was as good as the Duncan Spurs? No one is remotely close. Orlando had about a 2 year window where they were real good and did in fact beat the bulls in the year MJ came back with 15 games left. The Knicks were really their biggest eastern foe for the balance of that run, and we had a highly flawed team who had one great player and a bunch of role players. Our #2 option on offense was an average at best basketball player

Again. MJ is better than Kobe, but the competition argument doesn't really fly. The West this past decade dwarfs the 90s East. You have the 8 seed winning 50 games some years and minimum 47-48. Bulls faced sub 500 teams in round 1 a few times during their runs. Jordan had the tougher finals opponents but Kobe played in a much much better conference

Detroit Pistons...

The Piston team they finally did beat had become old, and at that point you can't compare them to the Spurs team of this decade. The prior series against the Pistons they ultimately lose (not any fault of Jordan). And Kobe has had to deal with the Spurs for most of this decade. Bulls-Pistons fizzled out after 91 because Detroit got old

I just find this competition argument very weak

Across the board you cannot compare the competition...Please tell top 50 players on teams such as Drexler and Portland, Utah and Mailman, Houston and Hakeem, Seattle and the Glove, Knick's Ewing...Who was Kobe facing year in and out besides Duncan that had to lead a legit team??..the Cavs was legit, Indiana and Miller was legit...Charlotte was coming along, Miami later...

KnicksSince88 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:He's got the same mentality he's just a great great player but I think MJ--atleast to me was the superior player and I'm not even counting that I still think Magic Johnson is the best player I ever watched

no jordan at all. jordan would not have sucked as bad as kobe last night. kobe's the closest thing to jordan, but he's still a long ways off.

Its hard to argue that Kobe is better than Jordan. Regarding last night though, I cannot recall Jordan facing a team of Boston's caliber and having to deal with double and triple teams to go with it. Kobe's teammates aren't as talented as Pippen was, but they bring far more size than Pippen did. Kobe was not getting the calls that Jordan would get... hell, he wasn't getting the calls that Durant gets. Last night wasn't his best showing, but he gritted it out.

I think you are overrating this Boston team just a bit to say MJ never played a team who was as good as them. They are a very good team, but most of their names are bigger than their games at this point. They aren't as good as their 08 version even with Rondo's maturation. Sure they have 3 HOFers. But which one of those guys was a HOFer in 2010? None of them. Theres no doubt in my mind the 2010 Celtics lose to each and every one of the Jordan title teams

I don't think I said that this Celtics would beat Jordan's Bulls, but if we are wagering, the first 3 years I call 50/50, the last threepeat, I take Jordan's Bulls each time. Those last three years that Michael had Pippen, Rodman and Kukoc, they were unstoppable. What I am trying to say is that the competitiveness of the top 5 or 6 teams in the NBA is at a much higher level than it was then. Both Kobe's Laker's and these Celts would trounce Clyde's Blazers, the Kemp/Payton Sonics and the Malone/Stockton Jazz also. Now, you put a healthier Kobe/Pau/Bynum/Artest/Odom Laker's against the Jordan/Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc Bulls and I think you have a war.

Ultimately, I am saying that Kobe not looking as phenomenal against these Celts is because they are at a higher level (and a much stronger defensive team) than anyone Jordan faced in the finals.

I really completely disagree with that. I think the perception that the competitiveness/greatness with the top 5-6 is much greater than the 90s comes from the fact that the Bulls were so dominant it makes everyone else look bad. Plenty of really good teams who were fully capable of winning titles didn't because they ran into Jordan. I completely disagree that these Lakers and Celtics would trounce those Jazz teams. I mean cmon now. The better version of the Celts in 2008 went 7 games against a 36 win Hawk team, last years Lakers went 7 games against the Rockets without Yao and Tracy, and Malone and Stockton couldn't give them a series? Or the Barkley/KJ Suns? I just very very strongly disagree, basically as much as humanly possible. The Jazz in 98 before ultimately losing to the Bulls in the finals SWEPT the Shaq led Lakers in the Western Finals, and while Kobe was very young he was an all star that year and a factor. I doubt those Jazz teams would beat the Shaq/Kobe Laker teams from a couple years later when Kobe grew a little more and Phil got there, but I do think they would be able to play with this Laker group.

I agree that Jordan's Bulls dominance over that decade's teams understates the talent on the other teams. However, I am still saying that the top 5 or 6 teams of the last few years have far more talent on them than the any of the other 90s teams. Those were mainly teams with two all stars.

The difference as I see it is the transition from teams with one or two all-star players to teams with 4 or 5 all star caliber players. That 95-96 Bulls team had a lot of depth. That Jazz team had two HOFers. This year's Laker's team has a top 10-15 talent of all time (Kobe), a perennial all star in Pau, former all star and perenial all defensive team player in Artest, a superb talent that never made an all star game in Odom, and I'll give Bynum a nod as a future all star(if he can healthy), he clearly has the size and the talent.

I see that the talent in the NBA is aggregating in fewer teams. Furthermore, the league has expanded to include many more foreign players so that the talent pool is so much deeper than it used to be. On top of that, the teams now are far more athletic than the teams from the 90s. With all honesty, has there ever been a player in the league with Dwight Howard's size and athleticism? Or Lebron's size and athleticism? I'm not knocking guys like Karl Malone and Stockton (or Hornacek or Ostertag), who were dominant..., I'm also not saying that there wasn't a lot of individual talent, I'm just saying that the depth of these teams is far greater.