This blog does a quick stat comparison of Kobe and Jordan at this age in their careers - see results here.
I find it oddly compelling, but maybe it's because I loved Jordan as a kid and am not as enamored of Kobe today. One of the commentators suggested that LeBron, and not Kobe, would have a better shot at being compared to Michael. I'm not sure about that. I feel that LeBron is just so much bigger than Jordan was and plays a slightly different style (more concerned about being a distributor, Magic-style, as he averages maybe 2 or 3 more assists a game, and seeing himself as the only player other than Jason Kidd with the Nets who has a legitimate shot at matching the Big O's triple-double season) such that comparisons are less apt.
Jordan came into the league with people wondering if he could be the next Magic or the next Larry and ended up creating something that was uniquely him. I think LeBron, and not Kobe, has the chance to do the same thing.
Kobe is a better athlete than Jordan was, but modern athletes (Phelps, LeBron, Tiger) always seem to be stronger, faster, and more skilled than their predecessors. This is probably a result of better coaching and training techniques rather than talent (and hopefully not drugs). I do think that the appropriate comparison is how dominant Jordan was relative to his competition, not absolute stat comparisons of the two.
ReplyDeleteI also think most traditional stats in basketball generally suck because of the team aspect, it isn't baseball where most of the stats involve 1 on 1 matchups. +/- of players on teams that frequently get blown out comes to mind.