Jemele Hill: Swagged... Big Time

Wow, what can be said about an article this putrid? Other than just, "wow." Where to begin? When my brother, Ball Hog, called to my attention an article that claims Kobe is not only far and away the best player in the NBA now, but even better than Jordan, I actually got excited. I was expecting a John Hollinger-esque number breakdown with statistics, and coefficients that might tackle the age old problem of comparing the stars of yesteryear with the stars of today. Instead what I got was this. Basically Jemele Hill just says Kobe's better than Jordan, and then backs it up with a bunch of spurious claims about today's players being better than Jordan's colleagues. Not only can she not back up her thesis with any evidence, she can't back up her evidence with any evidence.

"At the very least, Kobe's scoring spree over the last week should put to rest any lingering doubts that he's the best player in the NBA."

Says who? I'll certainly entertain the argument. And a convincing one can certainly be made. But that argument could be made before Kobe started increasing his chucking percentage. The bottom line is Allen Iverson could've routinely put up 50 point nights, but that's not so easy to do when you also average 7+ assists per night. Something else that both Kobe and AI share in common is their low FG% (obviously AI's is lower). I don't know when this stat became so inconsequential to Ms. Hill (and everyone else). Can you point out the season where Kobe averaged 30+ pts to go along with 54%FG? I'll save you the trouble, it never happened. Jordan did it twice. In fact Kobe's never even sniffed 50% from the field, including this year, in which he's shooting a career best 47%FG. I agree it's historic what Kobe did(scoring 50+ four times in a row), but he also did it to 4 teams that, barring any miracles, will not be in the playoffs. I might add that none of the 4 teams had guys like Bruce Bowen or Tayshaun Prince covering him. It may still be difficult, but it's obviously easier, to do that against the defensive likes of Mike Miller, Rasual Butler, Brandon Roy and Ricky Davis.
Calling him better than Jordan is a laugh. I agree they're comparable on defense, and in the clutch. Also that they're comparable in their ability to get to the hoop and their competitive ferocity. But Jordan won championships with Bill Wennington, a 90 year old Bill Cartwright, Luc Longley, but no Shaq. Furthermore, Jordan made Pippen, and to a lesser extent Rodman and Harper. Kobe has turned approximately zero players into all stars, let alone even slightly better players. In fact there's considerable evidence to suggest he makes the players around him worse, as they now spend 48 minutes a night standing around watching him play. But that's not to say Kobe's got nobody. Lamar Odom would be an All Star on any other team, Luke Walton's development into a decent player was obviously slowed by learning nothing from Kobe. Bynum's already a better center than Longley and Wennington combined, and just at the beginning of his rise. Kobe's got no Pippen, but his team is not exactly setting the world on fire, so that shouldn't be evidence either way. Yeah Jordan could be a jerk and probably would have had ego competition with Shaq. So? What the hell does that have to do with anything? No serious basketball pundit bases their ranking of Kobe on his off-court arrogance. The bottom line fact is that Kobe's amazing, but he's just no Jordan.
On to the most disturbing of the myriad unsubstantiated statements in this article:

"Yesterday's NBA player certainly was more fundamentally sound, but there's no question that today's player is bigger, stronger and faster. When Jordan played, he was a singular force that could not be equaled. Jordan was guarded by the likes of John Starks and Joe Dumars, who were fine players but weren't nearly as skilled or physically imposing as LeBron, D-Wade, Tracy McGrady or even Vince Carter. The NBA is tougher now."

My word that was a mouthful. Are you absolutely shitting me? I agree with the first part, the NBA of Jordan's era absolutely was vastly more fundamentally sound. And I agree that by in large the players of today are physically more terrifying. But why take 4 guys with decidedly suspect defensive capabilities and use them as your example? If you're asking me right now who I'd pick to cover Kobe, Joe D or Vince Carter, I would choose Dumars so fast I'd get whiplash. Is that some sort of joke? For that matter I might consider Starks as well. There are a handful of defensive stalwarts in the league now, but back then the superstars played on both sides of the ball. Is Shaq the most dominant physical presence ever? Yeah. But he's still only a hair better than guys like Olajuwon and Robinson. And in terms of D, I wouldn't hesitate to pick the Admiral 1st.

"Phoenix, Dallas and San Antonio are all better than the Utah, Portland and the Charles Barkley-led Phoenix team that Michael met in the NBA Finals."

Ummm, that is not at all obvious enough to me that it shouldn't merit some sort of supporting evidence. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that I grant that premise. Okay. Fine, Dallas San Antonio and Phoenix are better than the old Portland, Phoenix and Utah. Great, well Jordan dominated those teams thoroughly. There was never a moment of doubt that his team would win (except maybe briefly against Phoenix that one year). Kobe's Lakers got beat by Dallas by 36 points last they met. And they either lost (or won by slim margin) in their meetings this year with Phoenix and San Antone. And is there even a single reasonable sports writer on the planet who thinks the Lakers (with the 6, 7, or 8 seed) stand even a small chance of getting out of the first round of the playoffs this year? The sad truth is this Lakers team is not only completely outclassed by the big 3, but also by Utah and Houston. But that was me granting the premise. And in reality I don't grant it. I think this Suns team is very special, but I'm not that confident they would run all over the 92-93 Suns, which featured Barkley, KJ, Majerle, Ceballos, Danny Ainge and Tom Chambers, amongst others. I'm certain that today's Dallas is better than those Portland teams, although the 91-92 squad that got thrashed by the Jordan featured Drexler, Terry Porter, Jerome Kersey, Ainge, Duckworth, Cliff Robinson and Buck Williams. In short they were no slouches. But maybe Hill's boldest statement is throwing those unreal Utah teams in the mix as clearly inferior. The 97-98 Jazz that got steamrolled by Jordan in the Finals beat the Kobe/Shaq Lakers 4-0 in the conference finals. Good call, that team must've really sucked compared to today's "bigger, stronger and faster" players.
How to sum this up other than calling it what it is? She's jumping on Kobe's bandwagon. And don't get me wrong; Kobe is one of the greatest players to ever lace 'em up. I'd throw his name in with Malone, Drexler, Dr. J, Wilkins, Barkley, Maravich, Havlicek, etc. He's definitely one of the 50 greatest ever. But there's a separate rung that's occupied by a very select few; Jordan, Bird, Magic, Chamberlain and Robertson. Guys who not only dominated, but made their teammates dominate as well. And by those standards, Kobe can't hold a candle.
The issue is you still can't accurately compare the players of then with the players of now. But with this article, Ms. Hill has set the science of trying to compare the eras back 150 years. She has re-invented the wheel... and it's a square.