Write On Sports LLC - "Kobe Bryant, the modern-day Wilt Chamberlain" by Jake Lloyd

Kobe Bryant, the modern-day Wilt Chamberlain

2007-05-03 13:38:18 | By: Jake Lloyd

This is not an easy comparison to make, but I'm moving forward with it regardless.

Kobe Bryant is the modern-day Wilt Chamberlain.

What??? you say. You can*t compare a 7-foot-1 guy from the 1960s to a modern-day 6-foot-6 guy.

Well, hold on; just give me a few words to explain myself.

It has nothing to do with their position -- Chamberlain was a center, Bryant is a shooting guard -- or their style of play, except that they both preferred to shoot fadeaway jumpers.

Many consider Chamberlain the strongest man ever to play the game of basketball. Some consider Bryant the most talented man ever to play the game.

And that's where the comparison starts to hold a little water.

Recently, in writing a 73-page paper on the Golden Age of the NBA, I read a lot about Chamberlain. From what I read, Chamberlain could do anything on the court. He could score (just consider his 100-point game -- still an NBA record -- or his 1962 season, when he averaged 50 points a game). He could rebound (he remains the all-time leader in that category today and he holds the record for boards in a game with 55). He could pass (Chamberlain decided he wanted to become the first center in league history to lead the NBA in assists, so he did just that in 1968 -- no center has come close since). And he could block shots (while blocked shots weren't officially recorded until 1974, the season after Chamberlain's retirement, those who played alongside him swear he averaged nearly eight a game).

Yeah, Chamberlain could do it all. But in 14 seasons he won just two NBA titles, and he wasn't even the star on his second championship team in 1972. That would go to another all-time great, Jerry West, who led that Lakers' team to the title.

Speaking of the Lakers, Bryant hasn't done anything in the playoffs since Shaquille O'Neal was traded to Miami following the 2004 season. With O'Neal, the Lakers won three consecutive titles from 2000-2002, but it was very clear who The Man was on those teams. It was O'Neal, who was indomitable in those Finals series and was the Most Valuable Player of all three of them. Bryant was just his sidekick, a Scottie Pippen, if you will.

Since Bryant, and owner Jerry Buss, booted O'Neal out of town, the Lakers have won a measly four playoff games. Wednesday night Bryant scored a game-high 34 points, but it wasn't enough, as Phoenix dispatched the Lakers in five games 119-110.

Bryant is the leading scorer in the playoffs, averaging 32.5 points per game... but his season's over. (He also, it should be noted, led the league in scoring during the regular season for the second straight year... but that season's over.)

Bryant's just like Chamberlain in that he can do just about anything he wants to on the court -- except, I guess, block eight shots or grab 40 rebounds -- but when it comes to winning games, he struggles at leading his team. He makes the most unbelievable shots, falling out of bounds, or twisting and hanging in the air f-o-r-e-v-e-r before softly kissing the ball off the glass. He also is an underrated passer, and when he dedicates himself on the defensive end, he's the best shutdown guard in the NBA.

Basically, he can do it all, like Chamberlain, except on a smaller scale.

The biggest difference between the two players is that Bryant really, really wants to win. He doesn't care about the individual statistics. It's just that he can't seem to find a way to win without O'Neal. Chamberlain, on the other hand, didn't always make winning his No. 1 priority. For instance, after he led Philadelphia to the 1967 NBA title, finally defeating the mighty Boston Celtics in the Eastern Conference Finals, Chamberlain felt that he needed a new challenge (winning wasn't enough) the next season. So he led the league in assists.

That didn't necessarily help his team win, however, and the 76ers bowed out to the aging Celtics in the playoffs.

The point is, Chamberlain could do anything on a court -- when his coach complained that he wasn't scoring enough, he went out and put up 50-plus points in consecutive games -- but he wasn't as dedicated to his team as Bill Russell, who won a record 11 NBA titles, or even Bryant.

Still, the comparison needs to be considered. Just like Chamberlain averaged 50 points in 1962, I bet Bryant could score 40 a night next season. If not for a player named Steve Nash and the lack of good shooters around him, Bryant -- if he tried -- could probably lead the league in assists one season.

Most importantly, while they may be two of the top five most talented and athletic players ever to play in the NBA, Chamberlain and Bryant may forever be lumped into the category of "non-winners."

Which is a shame.

Luckily for Bryant, he still has time to escape that group.