Miami Herald - Kobe overrated

[CeltsSteve@AOL.com]

Finally, a scribe with the nads to tell it like it really is . . . 



http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/columnists/dan_le_batard/3014668.ht

m

<A HREF="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/columnists/dan_le_batard/3014668.htm">The Miami Herald | 04/07/2002 | Pro-con: Kobe is good, but clearly not the 
best</A> 

Posted on Sun, Apr. 07, 2002 
  

 
Pro-con: Kobe is good, but clearly not the best

There has been this fashionable myth making its way around basketball, 
embraced by the lazy who simply like to repeat what they've heard elsewhere, 
and it states that Kobe Bryant is the game's best player.(CeltsSteve: Hey 
Bill Simmons, you on this list?)

The myth excludes Shaquille O'Neal from the equation, giving him the title of 
''most dominant'' instead, because Shaq is so much bigger and stronger than 
everyone else in the league that ''player'' is an understatement and 
''monster'' might be, too.Bryant, a champion, is excellent and versatile and 
nice (when he isn't punching people), but he's something else, too: 
overrated.

Not terribly overrated because he's very good, but overrated nonetheless if 
you think he's the game's best player. Because there are at least half a 
dozen players who could put up Kobe numbers, and better, if they had the 
absurd luxury of playing with Shaq.I'm sure this is blasphemy to all the 
marketing people making sneakers and Sprite for Kobe, but among the group of 
players I'd rather have than their spokesperson is Tracy McGrady, Paul 
Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Chris Webber and maybe even Gary Payton, 
to name a few.

It is impossible to overstate how much Bryant benefits from having Shaq 
swallow double- and triple-teams. The floor opens up for him in a way it 
doesn't for, say, McGrady and Pierce and even Shareef Abdur-Rahim, none of 
whom has real big-man help.Those three all put up Kobe-like numbers and they 
do this without Shaq's help, mind you. Bryant passes a little better than, 
say, McGrady (5.5 assists per game to 5.3) but, again, even that is skewed by 
the 7-1, 350 pounds of assistance he gets that McGrady doesn't. Even Jeff 
Miller would have five assists a game if he were passing to Shaq -- which he 
wouldn't be because Miller is a selfish ballhog, but Shaq would push him down 
and take the ball five times a game, thus giving Miller his five assists.

Doesn't it stand to reason that they (McGrady, Pierce and Abdur-Rahim, not 
Miller) would be even better with Shaq's presence in the middle? As it is, 
all their shooting percentages are right up there with Bryant's even without 
Shaq's help.The easiest job in basketball is being Shaq's teammate, which is 
how the Rick Foxes and Robert Horrys of the world stay relevant.

Bryant is not the player defenses worry about stopping first when they play 
the Lakers, not unless Shaq is out of the lineup, at which point the Lakers 
tend to become a .500 team (CeltsSteve: actually sub .500 as their record 
attests). Remember Penny Hardaway? He was supposed to be the next Michael 
Jordan, right? You saw what happened to Hardaway when he left Shaq's side, 
right? His career hit the ground as if a puppeteer had let go of the strings. 
Shaq inflated his value, made him look better than he was, far better.

Remember Scottie Pippen? He was, absurdly, named one of the greatest 50 
players in NBA history. People were fooled by how much he was helped by 
playing next to that Jordan guy. You saw what Pippen really was when he 
flopped in Houston and is now just another guy in Portland.

Bryant? Maybe not as much as Hardaway and Pippen, but he'll get exposed, too, 
if he ever leaves Shaq's side.

<A HREF="mailto:dlebatard@herald.com">dlebatard@herald.com</A> 


CeltsSteve