by Charley Rosen

Comment

I don't believe there's any discernible difference in the athleticism of Jordan and Kobe, but I do think that M.J.'s competitive edge was sharper and more intense. Plus, Jordan understood much earlier in his career how to channel that competitive spirit to win championships. This is something that Kobe has only recently learned.

Also, Jordan was never much of a team leader — except by example. Because he was so critical and unforgiving of their mistakes, his teammates went to Scottie Pippen for sympathy.

Otherwise, Kobe is a better 3-point shooter than M.J. — except in the clutch, when they were both deadly. And Jordan was a better mid-range shooter and a better finisher.

Because Jordan had bigger hands, he could do more with the ball.

Plus, Kobe tends to force his way through traffic and thereby to abort the triangle more often than Jordan did. (At least in M.J.'s tenure under Phil Jackson.)

But the biggest difference is defense. While Kobe is an exceptional defender, he tends to wander toward the ball, often to the detriment of his team. M.J., meanwhile, played aggressive, positional defense on a more consistent basis.

Players at different positions have different responsibilities. It's as pointless to compare pitchers with designated hitters, or defensive tackles with quarterbacks, as it is to compare wing players with centers. So, for now, His Airness remains at the top of at least my list as the best non-center to ever play in the NBA.

For Kobe to surpass Jordan, he needs to win two more championships and show more discipline on both offense and defense. All of which are entirely possible.

You recently wrote that Scottie Pippen's admittance into the Hall of Fame was "a long shot". What?!?! If Frank Ramsey and K.C. Jones are in the Hall, why don't you think Scottie has a good chance of making it? — Tyler Munns, Homer, AK

Actually, I think that Pippen does belong there, but there are several reasons why the media who vote on admission might reject him:

Pippen was an extraordinary team defender, but he was "only" a very good one-on-one defender. His ability to rotate, anticipate and provide judicious defensive help are very subtle endeavors that are beyond the ken of too many media folks.

As Jordan's sidekick, is Scottie Pippen a Hall of Famer in his own right? (Nathaniel S. Butler / Getty Images)

He was an erratic 3-point shooter (32.6 percent lifetime) and could be counted on to force at least two trey attempts per game.

While Pippen was an empathetic and supportive teammate, he was frequently aloof, curt and unavailable to the media.

How often do second bananas get into the Hall of Fame? Especially since he only averaged 16.1 points per game for his career.

Most HOF voters are still unduly influenced by Pippen's refusal to enter that infamous playoff game against the Knicks because Phil Jackson wanted him to be the inbounder and not the win-or-lose shot-taker. That's why Pip has the undeserved reputation of being a selfish player.

Don't be misled by Pippen's being voted to the NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team. The list included such dubious performers as Patrick Ewing (incredibly selfish and a clutch-time choker), Pete Maravich (strictly a scorer to the detriment of his team's success and possibly the worst defender in the history of the league), Robert Parish (another habitual choker who never got the ball in the endgame), David Robinson (a softie who never won anything until Tim Duncan arrived in San Antonio), Nate Archibald (great stats on bad teams) and George Gervin (great stats on flashy but mediocre teams).

Except for Wes Unseld, voters cast their ballots strictly according to numbers.

Who should have been included? Neil Johnston. Gus Johnson. Dennis Rodman. And Joe Fulks, whose limited career as a dominant player was longer than Bill Walton's.

By the way, Frank Ramsey and K.C. Jones were pioneers — the former being the first sixth man and the latter being the initial defensive ace.

So, if Pippen doesn't gain admittance in the next few years, he might get forgotten as a new wave of eligibles garner all of the attention. Meanwhile, Pippen's sophisticated skills will be largely overlooked since too many of them cannot be quantified in numbers.

Magic Johnson was probably the most versatile player ever, was the king of triple-doubles and always was at his best in the clutch. But why is he never mentioned as being the best player of all-time? — Tom, Clearwater, FL

Before he developed his one-handed push shot late in his career, Magic was a below-average shooter. Plus, he was always a horrendous defender.

And despite his smiley-faced media persona, Magic had a gargantuan ego. For example, when Mike Dunleavy took over the Lakers in 1991, he had a face-to-face meeting with Magic on the beach during the Players Association meeting in Hawaii. When his new coach handed Magic the playbook that would theoretically be in effect during the upcoming season, Johnson tossed the book into the ocean. Then he pointed to his own head and said, "Here's our playbook."

Was Magic great? No doubt. Clearly the best point guard ever. But just as clearly not the greatest player ever.

Dwight Howard plays the post with a lot of heart, but he seems to get the ball stripped on numerous occasions when he pivots into the lane. Are his hands too small, or too weak? Who would you rate as having the strongest hands ever? I'm betting it was Wilt Chamberlain. — Ron Blackmer, Walled Lake, MI

Dwight Howard doesn't protect the ball well enough on his post moves. (Ronald Martinez / Getty Images)

Howard has good but not great hands. His main trouble is that he leads with the ball when he spins into the middle — instead of holding the ball closer to his body and leading with his elbows. Using his lead shoulder to help create more space would also be beneficial.

Yes, Wilt had the strongest hands. How strong were they?

Once, he rose up for a dunk, totally unaware that Jon McGlocklin was trying to strip the ball and indeed had the rock firmly gripped with both hands. Nevertheless, Chamberlain lifted McGlocklin off the floor with ease and was prepared to dunk both him and the ball until McGlocklin finally let go. Chamberlain performed the same maneuver with John Havlicek.

Of today's players, the strongest pair of hands belongs to Shaq, who indeed is one of the all-time best catchers.

Since Phil Jackson has had so much success with the triangle offense, why don't other coaches follow suit? Is it that other teams don't have an M.J. or a Kobe to be the focal point, or is it a lack of understanding of the specifics of how the triangle works? — CB, Houston, TX

Teams do not necessarily need a Jordan or a Bryant to make the triangle go. In fact, it was the 1993-94 edition of the Bulls — when M.J. was retired — that did the best job ever of executing the triangle. Except for an egregiously bad call against the Bulls in the playoffs versus the Knicks, Chicago could easily have won the championship.

If you have a question or comment for Charley Rosen, submit it below and Charley may just respond. Subject: Comment/Question: Name:  Email:  Hometown:

As you suggested, the one overriding reason why other coaches ignore the triangle is their lack of understanding of its intricacies. Since the triangle is nothing like any other offense, rival coaches only have partial ideas of what's really going on. This is because much of the triangular action is totally unscripted. Instead, players react to each succeeding pass and the defense's reactions to these passes.

Also, in order for it to be effective, a team must make a full commitment to running the triangle. Just using a specific play in specific situations — like the Nets use the speed-cut variation in certain post-up alignments — won't get the job done, only because players must fully believe in an offense before they can depend on it.

In addition, players must be willing to sacrifice to make the triangle work, which is one major reason why Jim Cleamons failed so miserably when he tried to implement the triangle when he coached the Mavericks (1996-97). Neither Jason Kidd nor Jamal Mashburn wanted to give up the ball.

For all of these reasons, the list of future practitioners of the triangle is limited only to those charismatic and studious players and/or assistant coaches who have been associated with P.J. for several seasons.

What's the best way to defend the triangle? — George Van Buren, Bradenton, FL

Deny the wings and have the center drop back into the lane to protect against back-door cuts. Since the wing-deny release is to have the center move up to the foul line, this defense does allow the Lakers' center some open space up there. But giving up 15-foot jumpers to Pau Gasol and/or Andrew Bynum is an acceptable risk.

Besides, the denying wing-defenders are also in perfect position to help if Gasol and/or Bynum opt to drive the ball into the lane.

Howdy, Charley. Your articles are quasi-legendary. I am a compulsive psychoanalyst who gets down to the minutest motive for all human actions and thoughts. But what I have never been able to decipher is why so many non-LAians (pronounced "aliens") hate Kobe with such vehemence — even before Colorado. Charley, you have a Freudian beard and facial structure, so please solve this Kobe dilemma. Thanks. — Espoir, L.A.

Thanks for your kind words. At least I'm not a quasi-legend in my own quasi-mind.

Anyway, fans hate Kobe only because over the years he's been a primary instrument in the Lakers routinely beating their teams of choice. If Kobe played for their favorite team, they'd be madcap Kobe boosters.

Of course, the blatant egomania of his early career didn't help his popularity. And his Colorado adventure was seen by many fans as simply a case whereby a rich celebrity ultimately paid his way out of a mess.

However, all of this "hater" business is disheartening. The word is bandied about in such trivial instances as to be more of a reflection of the user's psychological shortcomings than of anything else. I mean, isn't it absurd to "hate" an athlete?

This is just another example of how drastically — and dangerously — our culture has been polarized.