Rationalizing the C's chances: A comparison of Lakers-Bulls; Kobe-Jordan

[Neurotic Guy]

During this endless week of waiting, I have been floating myriad rationalizations in my mind in attempts to convince myself that the C's have at least a fighting chance against a Laker team that has looked superior over the course of the playoffs. Below is not so much a rationalization but is a train of thought that has intriuged me. I am interested in others' thoughts, opinions, analysis:

With all the Kobe v. Jordan discussion along with the eery Zen-master/triangle offense redux in LA, I have been focused on 3 variables/ questions that would speak to our chances against LA:
1) Is Kobe slightly better/ equal to/ slightly worse than Mike?
2) Are the Celtics slightly better/ equal to/ slightly worse than the Bulls' competition in the 90's?
3) Is the current supporting csat of the Lakers (i.e. Lakers sans Kobe) slightly better/ equal to/ slightly worse than the supporting cast(s) of the 90's Bulls?

Note:
If Kobe equals Jordan, then we must be beneficiaries of either question #2 or #3 in order to believe we have a shot at the title this year. 

Likewise, if Celtics are equal to (i.e. no better than) the Bull's competition of the 90's then we must hope that either Kobe is not Jordan's equal, or that 90's Bulls were superior to the 2008 Lakers.

You get the idea.

My opinion:
Question #1) Kobe equals Jordan.  I just see these 2 in a class by themselves.  They are not identical players but not too disparate either. Both have/had amazing athleticism and ability to take over a game at a moment's notice. Great competitors who can turn it on in the end of games. I saw Jordan as perhaps slightly more powerful in the lane, but Kobe slightly more adept form the outside. That said, Jordan developed into a very solid (sometimes excellent)shooter, and we all know Kobe is magnificent driving to the hoop.  They both were/are top notch defensively and both tend(ed) to get officials to see things their way.

Question #2) Tough to call.  By memory, some of the better teams to face the Bulls were Utah (Stockton/ Malone), Detroit (early 90's with Isiah, Dumars, Laimbeer) and Houston (Hakeem).  Knicks, Cavs, Suns, Sonic, Blazers, Hawks all had teams to remember during the Bulls' runs. Are the C's better than all those teams? I don't think so.  Let's look at the only team in the Bulls 2 three-peats to face them twice: the Utah Jazz. Here is their core: Stockton, Malone, Hornacek, Byron Russell, Greg Ostertag, Antoine Carr, Howard Eisley, and Shandon Anderson.  At first blush, I'd stack the 2008 C's against them and feel it was a good match, but in no way is this a slam-dunk in the C's favor.  The 'big 3' of the Jazz (Malone/Stockton/Hornacek) were awfully good as well as seasoned and played well together.  Ostertag wasn't great, but a decent comp for Perk.  Bench is a wash.  Close.  My guess is C's are equal to (but not better than) the Bulls competition of the 90's.

Question #3) Here is the place where we may make some gain.  I think Lakers supporting cast is not equal to the Bulls supporting cast. Put diffently, I think the Bulls team fit together in a more complimentary way than the current Lakers.  Clearly, Pippen is a better all-around second fiddle than Gasol (thugh Gasol is no slouch).  Odom has a better all-around game than Rodman or Horace Grant did, but Rodman or Grant both filled a role, and filled it better than Odom will fill any singular role.  Ron Harper, John Paxson, Steve Kerr, BJ Armstrong all had their strong moments with the Bulls in their various stints.  Farmer, Fischer, Vujacic I think are not as solid.  Cartwright, Wennington, Stacy King provided size, clean-up, played roles for the Bulls and did so adequately.   Walton, Radmanovic and Turiaf all play important roles for the Lakers.  Hard to analyze but I see Bulls teams as more balanced while I see Lakers as an offensive juggernaut (but one that can be slowed somewhat) that can play D at times (with  a great defender in Kobe).

I think if there is a place where the C's can overcome the Kobe = Jordan phenomenon, it may be in #3 above.  Though I'd be thrilled to hear anyone who could convince me that the C's are better than any team Jordan faced, or that Jordan was better than Kobe. 

If none of these variabe fall the Celtics way, I fear that Kobe will do what Jordan did.

Oh, and did I mention that I hate the Lakers?

 

[Roy Hobbs]

Kobe equals Jordan.

Before concluding that Kobe = Jordan, go back and look at their respective playoff numbers.  You may want to reevaluate.  MJ never averaged less than 29.3 ppg or 4.9 rebounds in the playoffs.  Those were his *lows*.

MJ's playoff averages: 33.4 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 5.7 apg, 48.7 FG%, 6-time Finals MVP, led playoffs in scoring 8 times

Kobe's playoff averages: 24.2 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 4.6 apg, 44.7 FG%, 0-time Finals MVP, led playoffs in scoring twice

[wdleehi]

1) Kobe is below Jordon.

2) Celtics is equal to the teams Jordon played.

3) The Bulls supporting cast was better. 


Celtics win series.




Here is a better comparison. 

Bulls played better defense then the teams they faced in the playoffs.

Celtics play better defense then the Lakers.

[BballTim]

Kobe equals Jordan.

Before concluding that Kobe = Jordan, go back and look at their respective playoff numbers.  You may want to reevaluate.  MJ never averaged less than 29.3 ppg or 4.9 rebounds in the playoffs.  Those were his *lows*.

MJ's playoff averages: 33.4 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 5.7 apg, 48.7 FG%, 6-time Finals MVP, led playoffs in scoring 8 times

Kobe's playoff averages: 24.2 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 4.6 apg, 44.7 FG%, 0-time Finals MVP, led playoffs in scoring twice

  Yes, but aside from that they're pretty close...

[CelticsWhat35]

Kobe equals Jordan.

Before concluding that Kobe = Jordan, go back and look at their respective playoff numbers.  You may want to reevaluate.  MJ never averaged less than 29.3 ppg or 4.9 rebounds in the playoffs.  Those were his *lows*.

MJ's playoff averages: 33.4 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 5.7 apg, 48.7 FG%, 6-time Finals MVP, led playoffs in scoring 8 times

Kobe's playoff averages: 24.2 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 4.6 apg, 44.7 FG%, 0-time Finals MVP, led playoffs in scoring twice

Although I wouldn't put Kobe at Jordan's level, career playoff averages get thrown out the window.  What Kobe did as a 19 yr old rookie doesn't mean a thing about right now.  The only thing that matters is how he's playing now and how he plays in the Finals.  And right now, he's the best player in the league.

[cordobes]

Kobe equals Jordan.

Before concluding that Kobe = Jordan, go back and look at their respective playoff numbers.  You may want to reevaluate.  MJ never averaged less than 29.3 ppg or 4.9 rebounds in the playoffs.  Those were his *lows*.

MJ's playoff averages: 33.4 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 5.7 apg, 48.7 FG%, 6-time Finals MVP, led playoffs in scoring 8 times

Kobe's playoff averages: 24.2 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 4.6 apg, 44.7 FG%, 0-time Finals MVP, led playoffs in scoring twice

  Yes, but aside from that they're pretty close...

Yeps, and they both play as SGs, as well.

Kobe is the best player in the league, as Jordan was. But that doesn't mean that Kobe is as good as Jordan. At his prime, Jordan was way better than the current Kobe. And it's not even that close.

[Roy Hobbs]

Kobe equals Jordan.

Before concluding that Kobe = Jordan, go back and look at their respective playoff numbers.  You may want to reevaluate.  MJ never averaged less than 29.3 ppg or 4.9 rebounds in the playoffs.  Those were his *lows*.

MJ's playoff averages: 33.4 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 5.7 apg, 48.7 FG%, 6-time Finals MVP, led playoffs in scoring 8 times

Kobe's playoff averages: 24.2 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 4.6 apg, 44.7 FG%, 0-time Finals MVP, led playoffs in scoring twice

Although I wouldn't put Kobe at Jordan's level, career playoff averages get thrown out the window.  What Kobe did as a 19 yr old rookie doesn't mean a thing about right now.  The only thing that matters is how he's playing now and how he plays in the Finals.  And right now, he's the best player in the league.

If you exclude Kobe's first two seasons, the averages still aren't close.  Kobe's career high is 32.8 points per game in the playoffs.  That wouldn't make MJ's top-seven.

[Analyst]

Kobe does not equal Jordan (Not now, Not ever...Jordan was that good)
Gasol is nowhere near Pippen
Odom may be equal to Grant (average players on great teams)
The Lakers have noone who compares to Rodman
I'll give you that Fisher "MAY" be equal to Armstrong (I liked BJ)
Will Perdue took up a ton of space.
Those Bulls had a deep bench full of very good role players. Even with all of that talent they still had trouble getting past the Knicks, Cavs and Pistons in the playoffs so we shouldn't worry too much about how the C's got to the finals.

The Bulls never played a team in the finals with the Celtic's talent. I would compare the C's with the Rockets that won during Jordan's absense. I would have liked to see those two teams square off in the finals.

These finals resemble the Heat - Mavericks. Defence wins....Go Celtics.

[eddietours]

ok here goes again you need defense=champioship does bulls team defense was just awesome

[Roy Hobbs]

Oh, yeah, and the Bulls didn't have Jordan defend the opponent's equivalent of Bruce Bowen to conserve energy, either.

[Barnabas]

Neurotic Guy:

1)  Jordan played at a higher level than Kobe, in my opinion.  Especially when you consider the intangibles, such as leadership.  That's not to say that Kobe isn't close.  I believe he is close.  The numbers are on Jordan, but that has to do with the fact that Jordan HAD to score the way he did, because the third wheel, Rodman was not much for scoring a lot of points.  Whereas Kobe is surrounded by guys who can score a lot of points, given the opportunity.  Both the current Lakers and the championship Bulls have/had not only good defense, but also excelled on the offensive end.  Offense is just as important as defense, in my humble opinion.  San Antonio played great defense, but as we saw, it was not nearly enough.  Boston would have had an easier time with Detroit had their offense been just a tad better.

2)  The current Celtics are probably close to the Utah Jazz of Malone/Stockton/Hornacek.  Utah was deeper and had better inside game.  I don't believe the Celtics are as good as the Olajuwon Rockets, obviously.  

3)  In my humble opinion, Jordan's Bulls have a slight edge on Kobe's supporting cast.  They brought in people with a lot of experience, like Cartwright, Harper, etc.  And they had Kukoc.  Chicago's top three players in one of their incarnations: Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman tops out the trio of Kobe, Gasol, and Odom.  In short, to me, while the Lakers do have the firepower, the Chicago team had that intangible called experience.  And a lot of the Chicago role players, like Cartwright and Harper, were on the downswing of their careers and were happy to accept specific roles that might not have resulted in good numbers for them.  A lot of LA's role players are young and looking for big contracts, so perhaps they won't be as happy to simply play defense and not score.  Radmanovic and Vujacic have not gone this far into the playoffs, so they could easily get overwhelmed at the Finals.  In all, Jordan had a more solid supporting cast.

Now, to the real question.  In my opinion, Jordan's Chicago Bulls, in its best incarnation, is a better team than the current Lakers.  But the current Laker team has a better chance to win it all than the current Celtic team.  The odds would be worse for the Celtics if they were playing Chicago at the height of their game.

This is slightly off topic, but now I can see why Ainge was intent on bringing Reggie Miller in.  A player who has proven that he can score points, in bunches, during playoff crunch time has good value.  Let us hope that Eddie House and James Posey can play well enough to give us some much needed offense.  It could be argued that had Eddie been a better handler, which would have allowed him to remain in the game against Detroit, the Celtic offense would have ran more smoothly.  A lot of guys here are harping that the Lakers are not all that good defensively.  I don't believe that to be the case, but let us say that is true.  If Ray Allen is MIA again, it really wouldn't matter a whole lot as long as the Lakers play somewhat reasonable defense.  To exploit that perceived lack of defense, the Celtics would have to play good offense.  That's partly why I feel the offensive part of the game is just as important as the defense.

[Neurotic Guy]

You see -- you're doing exactly as I'd hoped.  This is why I love this place.  You've taken my challenge that Kobe=Jordan and unanimously have thrown that concept overboard. That, of course, changes the discussion. If Kobe is not Michael's equal then the reat of the variables are mitigated in their importance.  Yet, most seem to agree that the Bulls' competition was in the current Celtics' league while most seem to also agree that the Bulls teams were superior en masse than the current Lakers.

While I was continuously astonished by Michael's gifts, I am likewise in awe of Kobe.  To be fair, I also think Magic, Oscar Robertson (yes, I saw him play -- in person once), Connie Hawkins and David Thompson were ridiculous.  Also, Lebron is up there.

I'm not completely convinced that Kobe is no Jordan, but your collective assurance is comforting.

Oh, and what about the Lakers-Bulls coaching comparison? Does Jackson = Jackson?

[Barnabas]

Neurotic Guy,

Oh, and what about the Lakers-Bulls coaching comparison? Does Jackson = Jackson?

He might be even better now.  And Tex Winter is still on the payroll as a consultant.  So, I don't see how they could be worse at the coaching end of things.  Teams have not gotten any better at defending his signature Triangle Offense, right?

Jackson is probably enjoying this team better than Chicago.  Let's face it, which is a bigger discipline problem:  Radmanovic or Rodman?  Recall that Jordan at first did not want to use the Triangle Offense.  Phil had to convince the team to buy into it.

[Roy Hobbs]

Neurotic Guy,

Oh, and what about the Lakers-Bulls coaching comparison? Does Jackson = Jackson?

He might be even better now.  And Tex Winter is still on the payroll as a consultant.  So, I don't see how they could be worse at the coaching end of things.  Teams have not gotten any better at defending his signature Triangle Offense, right?

Jackson is probably enjoying this team better than Chicago.  Let's face it, which is a bigger discipline problem:  Radmanovic or Rodman?  Recall that Jordan at first did not want to use the Triangle Offense.  Phil had to convince the team to buy into it.

Coaching wise, he's probably the same or better.  Execution wise, I prefer the veteran-laden Bulls teams.  No players were better at executing their coach's offensive and defensive game plans than were the Bulls.

[wdleehi]

Can anyone else imagine how much scarier facing Jordon would be if he got to play under the rules today?