Transcription
I'm MPs, so Lakers legend and all-time great Kobe Bryant has been going through, it seems to be, a sort of basketball renaissance, meaning a rebirth. He's decided that he's going to make his presence known in basketball circles, not only due to his expertise in evaluating the game and its best players. Now, he's going to go back in time and inject his own favorite Laker squad, the 2001 Lakers, into the greatest team of all time debate. He states that he believes that his 2001 Lakers will beat any other team in history, and he has the right to say that because I myself also list them amongst the best teams that I've ever seen personally. They're right there with the '96 Bulls, the 2017 Warriors, the '92 Bulls, '87 Lakers, '86 Celtics, '89 Pistons, so on and so forth. So, he certainly has the right to list his team, the 2001 Lakers, right there with anyone. So, of course, they're gonna talk about it, and I'm gonna chime in. Mamba mentality.
Recently, he was asked by Alex Kennedy if Hoops Hype, do you believe if he and Shaq could stay together with that team, be cemented as the greatest dynasty of all time? Let me say this before she continues, and I'm on record as stating that yes, Kobe Bryant, as well as Michael Jordan, are trying to make sure that their legacy is properly evaluated as they see it should be, because they believe that LeBron James is being overhyped and overrated by the modern liberal sports media. And I also say this about Kobe Bryant, he was not the recipient of the favoritism from the liberal sports media back in his day that LeBron James is today. Now, there was an attempt to champion him as a possible usurper of Michael Jordan's throne, quote-unquote, as the greatest player of all time, but one could tell that that was a lot more hype than what the liberal sports media is trying to do today with LeBron.
Back in 2010, Kobe Bryant was able to win his fifth championship. He was only, I believe, 31 years old. And afterwards, you had certain sportscasters, particularly Mark Jackson, who was trying to champion Kobe Bryant as a player who was even better than Michael Jordan. And going into the 2010-2011 season, that was supposed to be the test whether or not Kobe Bryant could match Michael Jordan's six championships, and they were going to use that as a basis to push him as being just as good as, if not better than, Michael Jordan. As we know, he flamed out in the playoffs. His team flamed out. Let me specify, they got swept by the Dallas Mavericks, and that initiated a change in overall style of play and what the basic paradigm was for winning championships thereafter. No more hero ball. Now, we move the basketball, we hit open threes. That's where the Dallas Mavericks did, and they ended not only the LA Lakers' short run as the best team in the NBA, but also that hero ball archetype.
So, I said all that to say this: it's very clear that Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan understand what the liberal sports media is trying to do. They're trying to controvert it. But I'll also say that I find that the response of the liberal sports media to what Kobe Bryant has been doing, which is basically just answering questions, I find it to be very conspicuous that they're attacking him so much. I think that it says a lot about how he's perceived as opposed to the image that is pushed and promoted for Mr. LeBron James. I think that Kobe Bryant, once again, has a much more alpha male, masculine energy than LeBron James does, and I think that they use that against him.
The 56-win, well, let me say this, the 2000-2001 Laker team, they only won 56 games in the regular season. He's correct. But that does not stop many of these so-called NBA media pundits from evaluating the 2018 Warriors and saying that they're one of the greatest teams ever, and they only won what, 58 games this regular season? I believe that Kobe Bryant missed a lot of games that season, and I think Shaq did as well, and that hurt them in regards to how many games they won in the regular season. If I'm wrong about that, one of you brothers can correct me, but I know at least one of those two players missed a lot of games during that regular season. But they were, without a doubt, right up there with any other team that I've ever seen in regards to dominance in the playoffs. They just totally trucked teams, and they were trucking good teams too. They trucked the San Antonio Spurs, and were it not for Allen Iverson and his outstanding performance in Game 1 of the Finals, they would have swept the entire playoffs.
Now, the 2017 Warriors are probably the only team that I've seen that played better in the playoffs. And of course, they kind of gave in to the Cleveland Cavaliers in Game 4 of last year's Finals, and also Cleveland got extremely hot from 3-point land. The '91 Bulls were also an extraordinary playoff team. I think they only lost two games that entire playoff. They lost one game to the Philadelphia 76ers in the second round where Jordan, I believe, had tendonitis in his knee, and he scored 46 points in the old spectrum in Philadelphia. And then in the Finals, they lost Game 1 to the Lakers when Sam Perkins hit a three-point shot. Not really to win the game, per se, it was the shot that won the game, but it wasn't a game-winner. Jordan had an opportunity to tie the game thereafter, and he missed a shot. Those were the two games that the '91 Bulls lost in the playoffs. They were also an exemplary playoff team. But yes, the 2001 Lakers in the playoffs, they may have been the most dominant team that I've ever seen, especially with the style of play that was utilized back then, which I think, to me, was the most defensive era. That era from the late late 90s through the early 2000s. Penalize them for, you know, the modern game, but there wasn't as much stretch. Although, I mean, Fisher and I, I think Rick Fox for 38, 39% shooters. It's just, I think it's a GT minutes air, right? I, I'm joined badging where they imagine how much fun watching Shaq surround perimeter players. Wow. It's a small line. I mean, again, there's no one to stop. I mean, I've always said about this, people say, oh, I don't know Jack, we're doing the modern game. Trust me, the minor game would partly fold around Shaquille O'Neal. And let me say this also, they will push Shaq on Draymond Green, and Shaq would dare Draymond to make 3-point shots. It would really put the onus on Draymond to make sure that he was a heavy contributor offensively. Or really, all Shaq will be doing will be standing right in front of Draymond about eight feet away and daring him to shoot. He would actually probably get more rest on defense than he did in his own era when he had to guard big men who actually tried to score on him. So that's certainly a catch-22 on the defensive end. They would not be able to do anything to stop Shaq.
I would like to see that Klay Thompson versus Kobe Bryant matchup to see if Steve Kerr and the Golden State Warriors defense could succor Kobe in the trying to go one on three or one on two or even one on one against Klay Thompson and Andre Iguodala to get him into that mode where he's jacking up jump shots, because that truly was the code to defeat the Lakers back then, to see if you can get Kobe so caught up in his own offensive prowess that he would forget his teammates. That's what the Detroit Pistons did in 2004. Almost unfair. Didn't matter what they did in the regular season, because at the end, you knew they were gonna be there. So there was that. But this is just another edition of Kobe doing the "Don't You Forget About Me."
Well, I also think it is the case of Kobe Bryant answering the questions that are asked of him. Now, is there an element of, I'm trying to inject myself into the GOAT conversation, and I'm not crazy about the new parameters that are being created for LeBron James to push him ahead of others who have succeeded on the grand stage more than him? I think that that's certainly there, and I think that's valid as well. Kobe Bryant has the right to say, "Look, how are you guys going to make excuses for a guy who's lost six out of nine Finals, and then tell me he's the greatest player of all time?" I don't mind you saying that he's three and in the Finals, and seven of his nine matchups he was the underdog. I don't mind that if you're just going to say he's a great player. But when your point is he's the greatest player ever, then that is what greatest players of all time do. They beat teams that are better than them. That's what they do. Or what they do is they perform so well in the regular season that their team has such great camaraderie, such great affinity with each other, how they play together, that when they get to the Finals, they're not the underdog. That's the reason why other great teams in history were not the underdog. It wasn't necessarily that they had a better roster, it was that they had more focus during the regular season, so that by the time they got to the big stage in the Finals, the people who evaluated them, who appraised their chances, said, "We're going to make them the favorite because of how they played throughout the regular season."
One of the main reasons why LeBron James's teams are consistently the underdogs, despite the fact that on paper they had bigger names, is because they don't play up to their standards, up to their capabilities in the regular season. They're constantly winning in the low 50s, as opposed to the low to mid 60s, which you would think a team with the greatest player of all time will consistently be winning 60-plus games. They don't. So there's a reason why many of LeBron James's teams were the underdogs. But just to get back to the point, do I believe that Kobe Bryant is trying to make sure that he's not forgotten? Of course. And there's nothing wrong with that. When you've worked as hard as he's worked, and other great players have worked, you don't want to be forgotten. That's why I bring up names like Hakeem Olajuwon, Moses Malone, Isiah Thomas, and Dr. J, because they don't promote themselves, so people forget about them and what they've done. Kobe Bryant is starting to experience the same phenomenon, and he's trying to fight against it.
[Laughter] Say, hey, do you guys have a nominated for what you would say is the greatest thing? Follow them. This lawyers paying close. Now you see what they're saying. The person in the middle just stated that the 2001 Lakers, they can't be the greatest team ever in his mind because they only won 56 games during the regular season. But these Warriors only won 58? Do I believe that the Warriors of the last two seasons are amongst the greatest teams ever? Absolutely. They're up there with anybody. But for the most part, what makes this Warriors team so superlative is that they optimized what this era of basketball is all about, which is the face-up game, movement off the ball, and long-range shooting. That's truly what they exemplify to the highest degree. So, every team has to be evaluated according to their era.
If you're gonna ask me who the greatest team ever that I've seen is or was, I would have to say the 1987 Lakers. And right behind them, and we'll probably be a toss-up between the '96 Bulls and the '86 Celtics. And then right behind them would be the '89 Pistons, or maybe the '91 Bulls. I would love to have seen the '89 Pistons against the '91 Bulls. Please keep in mind that the 1989 Chicago Bulls took those Pistons six games with a precocious Michael Jordan and a Scottie Pippen who had just become a starter, who was not a major contributor on offense. He was more of a swing player and someone who helped Jordan on defense, but he still had not found his feet yet, even on the defensive side of the basketball. And that team took the Pistons six games. They were the only team to defeat them in the playoffs, the Chicago Bulls. The Pistons swept everybody else. So, certain people might say, "Well, how could you say that the '91 Bulls could beat the '89 Pistons?" Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. No, those '91 Bulls swept the Pistons. And people try to make up all these excuses. "Well, it's because the NBA changed the rules." Well, please keep in mind that the previous two seasons, even before the NBA changed the rules, the Bulls were the team that gave them their greatest run in the playoffs. The Bulls were coming. It didn't matter what rules would change, they were going to defeat the Pistons in '91. So, I'll probably have the '89 Pistons and the '91 Bulls dead even. Out of respect to the greatness of the '89 Pistons and how hungry they were, that would be a great series. But yes, the best team ever that I've ever seen is most likely the '87 Lakers. And then right after them, the '86 Celtics and the '96 Bulls. And then right after them, maybe the '91 Bulls, '89 Pistons. Also, I have to give honorary mention to the '92 Bulls and, of course, the 2001 Lakers. All those teams, if they played in the tournament, who knows who'd win?
I think that what would hurt the 2001 Lakers, once again, is that one of the greatest players, that being Kobe Bryant, you could sucker him into playing low-level basketball, meaning going one-on-one and not being as proficient as he should be. And we already know they would have had chemistry problems in their locker room because Shaq would have been upset with him, and then he would have lashed back out at Shaq. So I could imagine those 2001 Lakers playing against an intelligent team who would have said, "You know what? We're gonna let Kobe Bryant get off early and try to pull him into a Venus flytrap to make him think that he should want to have to get 50 points every night. Take Shaq out of the game, and then double-team him late and hope that he's not hot." If you can get him into one of those games where he's eight for 25 or something like that, and that's something that great defensive teams did to those Lakers. Once again, look at the 2004 Finals, Kobe Bryant shot 38% in those Finals. So I could see high IQ teams trying to use that strategy against the 2001 Lakers.
Now, against these Warriors, the ball movement would have hurt a lot of those teams. But the defensive intensity that those other teams would have been allowed to use, I think would have hurt the Warriors. They would have had to have become adjusted to that style of play very quickly. I would love to have seen the 2017 Warriors against the '87 Lakers. That would have been a hell of a shootout. The two, three people. Yeah, right. I mean, I sit there and I want, of course, the reflexive answer is this, where's team? And it certainly, I think the most talented roster that's been put together, top five players deep, at least rate in the [ __ ] thing though about the entry. I know these reasons I've been, but in the sense of the game is evolved. Steve Kerr always talks about this, like, like humans evolve, and and we are more skilled than the people 10,000 years ago. Um, allegedly, that's the philosophy, that's not fact. You know what I never saw was the '60 Celtics, right? You know, there is a lot of footage out there. I mean, we can't watch. Coldest transport yourself for 48. What I say this all the time about the 1960 Celtics, I evaluate them like their currency that's been inflated. I look at their championship, they went 11 titles in 13 seasons. But here's what I have to say once again about Bill Russell. They never won a championship until he got there. They won their first championship in his rookie season, and he won 11 titles in 13 years. He retires, and they don't win again for five years. So you cannot tell me that he's not one of the most impactful players in NBA history. I don't care if they were only playing with two teams. Now, why do I evaluate their success like a financial asset that has been inflated? It's very simple. I've already stated this, because they had the ABA that came into existence in the mid-60s, and also because they only had eight teams. So I like to chop those 11 championships in half and say, for the sake of fairness, Bill Russell really won five and a half championships. They bull rounded up to six. That still puts him on par with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Michael Jordan. And Kareem was not the alpha on all those Laker championship teams. He just wasn't. I mean, to be quite frank with you, I probably should have Bill Russell ahead of Kareem on my all-time player list, but I have Kareem above Bill Russell because Kareem played more in the modern era. But those two players, they can be switched. Either one, one could be two, another could be three, or vice versa.
Well, those second, if you think about it, I mean, obviously Michael, Scottie, Rodman, right? But you have guys like Ron Harper who played on those teams as well. Like, there are a lot of guys, even that they're role players, that were very, they were just another weakness of the early 2000s Lakers with that their basketball IQ was very low. And I'm sure that I'm going to get some Laker fans who get upset by that. But here's a fun fact, and you can look this up. Phil Jackson is on record as stating that he tried to avoid the Utah Jazz in those 2000 playoffs because he did not want his team going against the Utah Jazz because he felt like their overall basketball IQ would be too much for his team. Now, by 2001, make EFL different, who knows? But one of the witnesses of those early 2000s Lakers was their low basketball IQ. One of their strengths was their great half-court defense. Rick Fox, Derek Fisher, Kobe Bryant, they did a great job guarding the perimeter offensive players for that era.
That you're talking about, obviously the coach of the Warriors, and you're right, he always says, "Look, anybody who's sitting there, and even when you get down to the LeBron MJ debate, if you really match them up against each other on the court, you're talking about a guy who has a 20-year advantage in, you know, nutrition and conditioning and and performance-enhancing drugs, allegedly." [Laughter] People forget Michael Jordan did not start lifting weights until the end of the 1989 season. So we're talking about the end of his fifth year. He spent his first five years in the NBA not lifting weights. Had he been put through a rigorous weightlifting program starting in high school, like many of these basketball players are today, who knows how much better he could have been throughout the 80s?
Back to the point of, hey, whatever players may come here in free agency, Kobe wants everyone to remember. And he's, to me, he's earned that right. Once again, I know as many of these liberal NBA sports media pundits trying to attack Kobe Bryant, and I particularly notice that most of them are females who seem to believe that they're going to use their intuition, they're going to get in touch with their feminine side and evaluate what Kobe's really saying. Not do I think there's an element with Kobe that, look, don't forget what our team's did? Yes. But do I think Kobe feels threatened by other players? No, I don't believe that. I don't believe that at all. I just think that he's trying to establish what the Laker standard is in regards to how he views the standard of that franchise to be. Then look, you're not going to come to the Lakers and think that it's just going to be good enough to get to the Finals. You have to win the Finals. That's basically what Kobe Bryant is stating, as I see it. I don't think that he's hating on any other players. I think that he's accomplished too much to hate on anyone. And I think that he does not like how the media has tried to grade LeBron's accomplishments on a curve and make all these exceptions for him, even though he constantly comes up short in the Finals, and people are constantly making excuses for him coming up short in the Finals. Don't tell me how LeBron doesn't have any help when he's the general manager. It doesn't work that way. Because if you're going to do that, then let's go back to the 60s and let's reevaluate Wilt Chamberlain's career and make him the number one all-time greatest player. Hey, by the way, we did. Oh, this year. So just know, if you come to my franchise, this is what you will be in the shadow of. That's, I mean, no. I think that he's stating that if you come to the Lakers, our standards are winning Finals, not just getting there. That's really what he's saying. And I think that they're being a little bit unfair to a player like Kobe. It'd be one thing if this was Derek Fisher or someone like that. They're acting like it's an insult to LeBron James that Kobe Bryant is appraising LeBron's career or giving him advice on winning. That's Kobe's right to do that. Kobe views himself as the greatest player ever. He has full right to do that. I think that when you get up into that extra line of top anywhere from top 10 to the top 15, the top 20 greatest players, they all believe that they're the greatest player ever. They all truly believe that in their heart of hearts, and they have the right to that, and they have the right to speak on other players.
I also think that Kobe Bryant is speaking as a proxy of Michael Jordan. He's relaying a lot of the information, a lot of the ideologies that Michael Jordan taught him in the late late 90s, early 2000s, that helped him become a better player. That's why I stated in another video that Michael Jordan is Kobe Bryant's master. Kobe is Michael's apprentice in a lot of different ways, not just basketball. I'll leave it at that. But I think that Kobe is acting as a proxy for Michael Jordan. He's letting LeBron know, "Michael don't [ __ ] with you, but I'm gonna try to help you out because we played on a couple of different Olympic teams together. I know that you're alright. Do so, I'm gonna let you know what Michael would tell you if Michael was on speaking terms with you." Mike goes on speaking terms with me, and this is what he taught me. So I'm gonna tell you to try to make you a better player so that you don't get frustrated so easily, so that you understand how to try to use some of your teammates. Now, we can debate back and forth how hypocritical that is on a Kobe Bryant's part, because one can definitely assert that Kobe was not as respectful to his teammates as he could have been. And the fact of the matter is that Phil Jackson was the essential piece enforcing Kobe Bryant to utilize his teammates to the utmost degree. But, you know, that's all other conversation. Point being is this, Kobe does not have to offer LeBron any advice. Kobe could just chill in the cut. And if you really wanted to respond to a lot of the sentiments that are put forth by the modern liberal sports media, if you really wanted to respond with vitriol, you can look at LeBron and say, "LeBron, act like a [ __ ] in 2011." You can easily say that.
Look, Kobe is the first one to describe themselves as a word that begins with an A, and that's how guys are. Now, the best players, and then Michael Jordan is one of the first people to describe himself right away, right? But we could also consider it Magic's franchise. He's one of many. Titus's Kobe, and he's also in charge. And Magic is also the greatest Laker of all time. I'm saying, you're welcome to be here. Speaking of a guy, anyway, that's pretty much it on that video. I think that the liberal sports media starting to come down a little bit too hard on Kobe Bryant. Do I think that Kobe has some ulterior motives in regards to some of the statements that he's made recently? Of course. But he has the right to them. It's kind of like your mother or your father. They may say certain things to you that you might not agree with or think are necessary or relevant, but they have the right to say them to you because they have been there. They've been certain places that you haven't been. And even if their personality type is not the same as yours, or maybe they're not exactly informed on what they're trying to inform you about, you still have to hear them out. And that's the case with Kobe Bean and LeBron. But anyway, peace.