PDA

View Full Version : Kobe won because of Shaq?



Incublime24
06-02-2009, 05:24 PM
I am sick of hearing that Kobe won his three rings because he had Shaq. Whether its random articles on the Internet, my friends, or the talking heads on Around the Horn, everybody seems to think that Kobe won his 3 rings because of Shaq. While I think Shaq was the main reason for the Lakers' dominance during their three-peat, I don't think Kobe gets enough credit for what he did. Why didn't Shaq win his three rings because of Kobe? Maybe Shaq was so dominant that his team would inevitably make the playoffs, but you can't say that Kobe wasn't a huge part of the reason that they got to the Finals and won.

In each of the three years that the Lakers won the championship, Kobe's regular season averages are as follows:

99-00: 22.5 pts, 6 rebs, 5 assts
00-01: 28.5 pts, 6 rebs, 5 assts
01-02: 25 pts, 5.5 rebs, 5.5 assts

His playoff numbers in each of those seasons are as follows:

99-00: 21 pts, 4.5 rebs, 4.5 assts
00-01: 29 pts, 7 rebs, 6 assts
01-02: 26.5 pts, 6 rebs, 4.5 assts

Its not like he was averaging decent numbers and riding the coattails of Shaq. He was putting up ridiculous numbers in his own right. Don't get me wrong, I understand how great and truly dominant Shaq was during those championship years. I know that he was the main reason they won. But you can't sleep on what Kobe did for the team. He wasn't 7 feet tall and built like a freak of nature. However, Kobe was as dominant as any perimeter player could hope to be during those years.

So, why is it always said that Kobe won because of Shaq? Why didn't they win because of each other? Why didnt Shaq win until Kobe started coming into his own? They were champions because of their tandem, not because of any one man alone.

theuuord
06-02-2009, 05:26 PM
stop this madness.

MiamiHeat
06-02-2009, 05:26 PM
shaq won because of kobe
kobe won because of shaq

they needed each other to win

Verbal Christ
06-02-2009, 05:27 PM
so are you saying that kobe would have gone back-to-back-to-back without shaq???

bahama0811
06-02-2009, 05:27 PM
How many rings does Kobe have without Shaq? As of now, that would be zero.

sp1derm00
06-02-2009, 05:27 PM
Because Kobe is Kobe.

Kobe is held to a different standard than most NBA players... and rightfully so. He is so great a basketball player, people want him to win rings without Shaq because they EXPECT it of him.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-02-2009, 05:28 PM
Most of us are just saying that if it wasn't for Shaq, he wouldn't have won 3 rings.

Just like how some people say if Shaq wasn't in Miami, they wouldn't have won the title.

Vinny642
06-02-2009, 05:28 PM
shaq won because of kobe
kobe won because of shaq

they needed each other to win

Yea right there,
I never use that excuse against Kobe. But I guess for others he needs to win one without Shaq

Raps18-19 Champ
06-02-2009, 05:29 PM
And Kobe was Shaq's sidekick.

I guess people wan't Kobe to win a title as the "Main Man" before they start praising him.

jmastert
06-02-2009, 05:30 PM
I am sick of hearing that Kobe won his three rings because he had Shaq. Whether its random articles on the Internet, my friends, or the talking heads on Around the Horn, everybody seems to think that Kobe won his 3 rings because of Shaq. While I think Shaq was the main reason for the Lakers' dominance during their three-peat, I don't think Kobe gets enough credit for what he did. Why didn't Shaq win his three rings because of Kobe? Maybe Shaq was so dominant that his team would inevitably make the playoffs, but you can't say that Kobe wasn't a huge part of the reason that they got to the Finals and won.

In each of the three years that the Lakers won the championship, Kobe's regular season averages are as follows:

99-00: 22.5 pts, 6 rebs, 5 assts
00-01: 28.5 pts, 6 rebs, 5 assts
01-02: 25 pts, 5.5 rebs, 5.5 assts

His playoff numbers in each of those seasons are as follows:

99-00: 21 pts, 4.5 rebs, 4.5 assts
00-01: 29 pts, 7 rebs, 6 assts
01-02: 26.5 pts, 6 rebs, 4.5 assts

Its not like he was averaging decent numbers and riding the coattails of Shaq. He was putting up ridiculous numbers in his own right. Don't get me wrong, I understand how great and truly dominant Shaq was during those championship years. I know that he was the main reason they won. But you can't sleep on what Kobe did for the team. He wasn't 7 feet tall and built like a freak of nature. However, Kobe was as dominant as any perimeter player could hope to be during those years.

So, why is it always said that Kobe won because of Shaq? Why didn't they win because of each other? Why didnt Shaq win until Kobe started coming into his own? They were champions because of their tandem, not because of any one man alone.


Ok and just cuz kobe had good numbers isnt becuase shaq was such a presence and makes it impossible to double kobe cuz shaq will have a wide open dunk? (Sarcasm)

SHAQ owned that team the day he left was when it all went down hill. if he was still there they wuda won at least 2 more championships

superkegger
06-02-2009, 05:31 PM
They won because they had eachother.

sp1derm00
06-02-2009, 05:33 PM
Ok and just cuz kobe had good numbers isnt becuase shaq was such a presence and makes it impossible to double kobe cuz shaq will have a wide open dunk? (Sarcasm)

SHAQ owned that team the day he left was when it all went down hill. if he was still there they wuda won at least 2 more championships

Uh, yea... if Shaq stayed AND Kobe stayed, LA would have more championships.

If Shaq stayed and Kobe left, LA has no more championships and would possibly be a lottery team right now.

JordansBulls
06-02-2009, 05:38 PM
I am sick of hearing that Kobe won his three rings because he had Shaq. Whether its random articles on the Internet, my friends, or the talking heads on Around the Horn, everybody seems to think that Kobe won his 3 rings because of Shaq. While I think Shaq was the main reason for the Lakers' dominance during their three-peat, I don't think Kobe gets enough credit for what he did. Why didn't Shaq win his three rings because of Kobe? Maybe Shaq was so dominant that his team would inevitably make the playoffs, but you can't say that Kobe wasn't a huge part of the reason that they got to the Finals and won.

In each of the three years that the Lakers won the championship, Kobe's regular season averages are as follows:

99-00: 22.5 pts, 6 rebs, 5 assts
00-01: 28.5 pts, 6 rebs, 5 assts
01-02: 25 pts, 5.5 rebs, 5.5 assts

His playoff numbers in each of those seasons are as follows:

99-00: 21 pts, 4.5 rebs, 4.5 assts
00-01: 29 pts, 7 rebs, 6 assts
01-02: 26.5 pts, 6 rebs, 4.5 assts

Its not like he was averaging decent numbers and riding the coattails of Shaq. He was putting up ridiculous numbers in his own right. Don't get me wrong, I understand how great and truly dominant Shaq was during those championship years. I know that he was the main reason they won. But you can't sleep on what Kobe did for the team. He wasn't 7 feet tall and built like a freak of nature. However, Kobe was as dominant as any perimeter player could hope to be during those years.

So, why is it always said that Kobe won because of Shaq? Why didn't they win because of each other? Why didnt Shaq win until Kobe started coming into his own? They were champions because of their tandem, not because of any one man alone.

To put it simply this is the best way you can tell who won as the best on the team.


Shaq gets the credit those years because he finished 1st, 3rd, 3rd in MVP Voting. He won the 3 finals MVP's, he led the team in PER and Win Shares.
Kobe helped more so in 2001 and 2002 than he did in 2000 as 2000 was Shaq's best season in his career.

However for the 3 years the Lakers won, Kobe finished 12th, 9th and 5th in MVP voting those years.

Now had the Lakers won in 2003 or 2004 then Kobe should have gotten the credit as he did finish ahead of Shaq in MVP voting. Also IIRC he even finished ahead of him in Win Shares for the season as well.


So the best way you can tell who will get the most credit on the team is if both players play a significant amount of games and one finishes higher in MVP Voting and/or leads the team in Win Shares/PER, etc.

MVP Voting ranking will hold a higher regard on one team though.

AirJordan23
06-02-2009, 05:41 PM
They both needed each other to win. It's really that simple. I wouldn't say Kobe was as important to LA's success as Shaq but he still played a pretty big role. But, he was their best defensive player and their scorer/playmaker in the clutch when Shaq was either sitting out or not being fed to due to being a poor FT shooter. Both Shaq and Kobe made each other better. Kobe orcherstrated the LA offense really well and scored whenever they needed him to. They didn't have a PG to run the offense. Fisher/Harper were really spot up shooters and the triangle never relied on PGs to run the offense. Shaq, well, you know what he did. Beast down low demanding double and triple teams. One of the greatest duos EVER.

Incublime24
06-02-2009, 06:28 PM
so are you saying that kobe would have gone back-to-back-to-back without shaq???

Not at all. As I said, Shaq was the main reason they won, but Kobe was also a big part of it. I don't think Kobe would have won 3 without Shaq, but I also don't think Shaq would have won three without Kobe. That is the whole point of what I am saying.

Incublime24
06-02-2009, 06:30 PM
stop this madness.

get over it. Its a current topic in sports that everybody is talking about. ESPN, the internet, NBA fans. so, im going to post something about it on this here sports web site.