Jack’s Blog

When the question of who is the better player: Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant, the results are usually easy to predict.  The older generation picks MJ, while today’s younger fans say Kobe.  When each makes their case, the obvious bias always shines through.  “The players now are better than those from Jordan’s era (as if he played in the ’50s).  That’s why I think Kobe is better.”  “Michael has six rings.  Until Kobe has that many, there’s no argument.  It’s MJ.”  Can you guess which speaker is older?

In an attempt to keep everything as equal as possible (which is never going to happen when comparing teams or players from different times - even times as close as these are), let’s look at a number of intangible categories since comparing stats is too mundane.

#1 Each player has a focus all his own.  Game’s on the line, who takes the last shot?  MJ then, Kobe now.

#2 Each has a versatility to his game - power dunker in the earlier years, maintained/s ability to go to the hole; neither can be ignored behind the three-point line and both them have fantastic mid-range games (a trait in its own right that separates them from most of basketball’s other “superstars”).  Both are primarily 2 guards,  each can take over the point if necessary.  Yet each has an unstoppable post up game.

#3 Each demanded/demands to guard the opponent’s best offensive player and was/is a shut-down defender.

#4 Each has shown no hesitation to get in teammates’ faces in order to elevate their games and each made/makes his teammates better.

#5 Each has personal flaws (this just in - as spectacular as they are on the court, they are human).  MJ has a reputation as somewhat of a womanizer and a heavy gambler.  While Kobe doesn’t have the gambling rap of MJ, Michael was never subjected to the public humiliation of Kobe’s “post-Colorado” press conference.

#6 As marketing icons go, MJ might own a higher business acumen (has his own brand), but Kobe’s younger and has the identical global appeal Michael did at that stage of his career.

#7 Each has won multiple championships, Jordan 6 (MJ is 6-0 in title series) to Bryant’s 4 (Kobe’s 4-2), BUT Kobe’s career is not yet complete and, if championships is the end-all barometer, what if Kobe ends up with 7?  Is he automatically the better player?  It’s not that simple.

#8 Each had incredible discipline when it came to personal work ethic.

#9 Interestingly enough, the fact I don’t hear when this debate is raged is that both were coached by Phil Jackson, a remarkable coincidence when comparing two players.  Nowhere else is this the case.  Russell-Chamberlain?  Mays-Mantle?  OJ-Sweetness-Sanders-Smith?  Howe-Orr?

As far as differences, Michael went to college (and was mentored by Dean Smith), whereas Kobe’s education was growing up in a foreign country and is the son of a former NBA player.  MJ was an immediate starter; Kobe began his career coming off the bench.

As a math teacher, I understand that answers and solutions mean the same, so when someone wants to know if there’s an answer (solution) to the “Who’s better” question between Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, I refer them to Marcel Duchamp’s quote:

“There is no solution because there is no problem.”

Even if you’re not a football fan, chances are you’ve heard of the situation Plaxico Burress got himself into at a New York nightclub.  In the wee hours of the morning, two days before his team (for now), the New York Giants, were scheduled to play a game he wasn’t even going to play in, Burress brought a loaded gun into the club.  Somehow, he managed to accidentally shoot himself in the leg.  Are we sure he didn’t try to end it all, but accidentally missed his head (which at the time was no doubt firmly planted in between his legs, but a little higher up).

The NFL has a rookie orientation program which educates guys entering the league.  Although I’ve known players who’ve attended the sessions, I’ve never asked what areas were covered.  To be honest, if “packing heat,” i.e. bringing a loaded firearm into a club wasn’t one of the topics addressed, I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest.  After all, does someone really need to be told not to bring a loaded gun into a public place?  What, did he feel threatened?  With the kind of bank he’s pulling down, you’d think he could hire security - you know, people who actually have permits to carry weapons.

What they may cover in the professional orientations is what to do and say once you’ve screwed up.  My reason for saying that is that these guys always seem to come up with some marvelous fiction, stuff they could never have dreamed up on their own.  Burress’ explanation?  He was shot in a restaurant.  I know for a fact those New York chefs are ultra-sensitive when you criticize the daily special.  This was right after he’d checked into a hotel under the name of Harris Smith.  Why do I think there are some lawyers working overtime trying to find a Harris Smith, any Harris Smith?

For reactions to Plaxico’s behavior, let’s start with the ESPN analysts, Steve Young and Emmitt Smith.  They were asked the question all of America wants and desperately needs to know at this time, right after there was a shooting in a club in New York (where the crime rate has been one of city’s claim to fame) - “Do you think he’ll ever play for the Giants again?” 

To their credit, each commentator handled it about as well as could be expected.  Young said what must first be answered is, “Is he a good teammate?”  (Well, he’s certainly one I wouldn’t go with to get some take out).  Young’s conclusion is that, “No, he’s not (although Steve might be biased because, chances are, he never had a teammate at BYU quite like Plax) and the Giants don’t need him.”  Which begs the question, “What if they did?”  Smith made me feel like he and I think alike, a much higher compliment to me than to him.  In my blog a couple days ago (11/30), I said Stephon Marbury was a cancer and cancers need to be cut out.  Emmitt used exactly the same term, “cancer” when referring to Burress - and said he had to be removed.

When you’re an uber-talented wideout for a team that won last year’s Super Bowl in one of the greatest upsets ever, and the team has continued playing lights out again this year, you have to do something really bad to piss off the mayor to get him to say he thinks you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  Especially when what you’re facing is the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 1/2 years in the slammer and a maximum of 15 years. Yet this is precisely what Michael Bloomberg so vehemently decried at his press conference.

How could someone not see this coming?  Consider that in the past, Burress has been fined and suspended, and wasn’t healthy enough to play.  In this instance, maybe he could have called on the NFL sessions he received as a rookie, which undoubtedly told him that in cases similar to this, stay home!  So why would Plaxico Burress do what he did?  One of the oldest lines of all time tells it best:

“The greatest indicator of future behavior is past performance.”

The Monday Night football game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Philadelphia Eagles had everything a fan (of offensive football) would want.  There certainly was a great deal to talk about on the post-game show for Stuart Scott and his two sidekicks who actually played professional football and have Hall-of-Fame careers (as opposed to cute signature catch words and phrases) to back up their commentary.  Boo-yah.

Early in the game, the Eagles’ sensational rookie receiver out of Cal, DeSean Jackson, on his way to a touchdown, prematurely celebrated his apparent score, but, as he did in a high school all-star game (although not as dramatic), he failed to cross the goal line with the ball.  In high school, he did a flip, landing on the one-yard line, jarring the ball loose.  In the game against the Cowboys, he casually discarded the ball, once again on the one-yard line.  The play, although embarrassing to Jackson, didn’t cost the Eagles, as the referees decided the ball belonged to the Eagles on the one and they subsequently scored.

Following the contest, Scott’s partners, Steve Young and Emmitt Smith, took opposing views on Jackson’s nonchalant play.  Young claimed it was no big deal and “I can fix that problem tomorrow,” stating a practice drill making Jackson run through the end zone with the ball and having his teammates laugh and joke about it would create an impression in mind he’d remember the next time (and all those thereafter) he was in a similar position.  Young’s main point was that the rookie is a “difference-maker,” a guy who can make plays that can change the outcome of a game.  It seemed as though (amateur analyst I am) that this was a quarterback’s view.  Someone who was always looking for a guy who could break a reception into a game-breaker and once he found one, didn’t want to do anything to upset the (possible) fragile ego. 

Smith took the diametrically opposed viewpoint.  His was that of a running back, a guy who had to bang, get banged and struggle for every yard and touchdown and they weren’t so easy to get that someone should ever act so “cool” about attempting to do what is, in essence, the purpose of the game.  He went so far as to say Jackson’s action was simply one to draw attention to himself, something that’s become more and more common for today’s me-first generation of athlete.

Give props to Scott for allowing two guys who played the game at the highest of levels to go at each other, each trying to prove his case (as opposed to making some innane comments about Pookey and Ray-Ray or some hip-hop mumbo jumbo like “dude has mad, sick skills” in the name of “entertainment” - the game, and Young and Smith’s post-game analyses were entertaining enough).  Young continued his argument that players who can do what Jackson can do don’t come around all that frequently and how the team leaders, i.e. best players and coaching staff, need to (gently) let him know what he did was great - until right there at the very end.  Smith refused to back down from his stance that football is not a game whose goal is to promote yourself and that individual celebration is not welcome, especially if it could cost the team in the long run.

After a game as exciting as that one, it was fitting commentary with two masters taking opposing sides of what’s become a current fad.  The fact they vehemently diasagreed reminded me of a line I heard many, many years ago:

“If you and I agree on everything, one of us isn’t necessary.”   Â