PDA

View Full Version : Whats the best team (on paper) that Kobe has ever played with?



Chronz
10-01-2012, 04:40 PM
Hes saying its this current Lakers team, is he right?

No joke responses about Team USA plz

Hellcrooner
10-01-2012, 04:50 PM
Team?

2010

Collection of individual talent?

Now.

oh and team usa :D

Vidball
10-01-2012, 04:51 PM
It's either this team or 2004. 2004 was great but it had a 400 pound Shaq and an injured Malone. Payton was coming off of a great year but he didn't work in the Triangle very well. Still, that team - in it's only year together - was one injury/3 wins away from a ring. This team will be right there...he'll be playing with a team that has the best defensive player, the most skilled big man, the best playmaker, and an okay bench. What this team is missing is a little Zen but it will be a good thing to have Nash in the Princeton offense as opposed to the Triangle.

Corey
10-01-2012, 04:54 PM
The 1999/2000 team was pretty damn dominant.

Current team can be better.

Cant overstate prime-Shaq though.

Bruno
10-01-2012, 04:56 PM
It's either this team or 2004. 2004 was great but it had a 400 pound Shaq and an injured Malone. Payton was coming off of a great year but he didn't work in the Triangle very well. Still, that team - in it's only year together - was one injury/3 wins away from a ring. This team will be right there...he'll be playing with a team that has the best defensive player, the most skilled big man, the best playmaker, and an okay bench. What this team is missing is a little Zen but it will be a good thing to have Nash in the Princeton offense as opposed to the Triangle.

2004 was vastly over-rated.

Shaq was over-weight, checked out, and one plus years removed from a serious toe injury that changed the way he played the game.

Kobe was at his upmost arrogant self.

Malone and Payton were nothing more than glorified role players at that point in their careers.

The bench was utter garbage. it's amazing that they got past san antonio in the west.

Bruno
10-01-2012, 04:59 PM
Chronz- i think the best overall team was the 2000 Lakers (not counting Kobe). You know what I mean? If you don't count Kobe, that team was possibly the best. It had the most dominant Shaq, and had a legit #3 man in Glen Rice, the bench was decorated as **** and Phil was still very into it physically. 2000 Kobe is far from the best Kobe we saw, but that team around him was probably the best.

Counting Kobe into the overall talent/ability of the team, I'd say it had to be 2001, 2010, or todays team. tough to say really.

Hawkeye15
10-01-2012, 05:05 PM
either 2000, or 2001 I think

showtym24
10-01-2012, 05:06 PM
01 or this one.

nickdymez
10-01-2012, 05:13 PM
01 to me. That team had such good chemestry.

Knowledge
10-01-2012, 05:19 PM
99-00.

Shaq makes up for the collective talent current the laker team has. He was a freak of nature.

Iggz53
10-01-2012, 05:24 PM
On paper, I'd say either this current team or his 03-04 team with Payton, Malone, and 31 yr old Shaq.

Vidball
10-01-2012, 05:27 PM
2004 was vastly over-rated.

Shaq was over-weight, checked out, and one plus years removed from a serious toe injury that changed the way he played the game.

Kobe was at his upmost arrogant self.

Malone and Payton were nothing more than glorified role players at that point in their careers.

The bench was utter garbage. it's amazing that they got past san antonio in the west.

Check Malone and Payton's stats from the previous season...they were both great the previous year. Shaq was dealing more with "healing on company time" than anything else and Kobe was dealing with what happened in Colorado. The Q was what the best team on paper was though. I don't see how anyone can say that on paper 2001 was stronger than Shaq/Kobe/Payton/Malone.

Iron24th
10-01-2012, 05:32 PM
On paper, this 2012/2013 team.
On the court, the 2000/2001 team was unstoppable.

LAKERMANIA
10-01-2012, 05:39 PM
On paper:
1. Current team
2. 2000-2001 Lakers
3. 2009-2010 Lakers

amos1er
10-01-2012, 05:46 PM
2004 was vastly over-rated.

Shaq was over-weight, checked out, and one plus years removed from a serious toe injury that changed the way he played the game.

Kobe was at his upmost arrogant self.

Malone and Payton were nothing more than glorified role players at that point in their careers.

The bench was utter garbage. it's amazing that they got past san antonio in the west.

Don't forget he was fresh off rape charges and as a result, was not getting any calls from the refs. Especially in the finals where Kobe only averaged only 5 FTA per game down from 8.2 in the regular season and the 8.7 he was averaging in the playoffs up until the finals. In fact, the Lakers that season led the league in FT attempts in both the regular season and playoffs while Detroit was in the bottom half of the league in FT attempts. Shaq and Kobe were top two in the NBA in FTA per game. During the finals however, it was the complete opposite...Detroit shot 171 for the series and the Lakers only 111. Detroit had 60 more attempts in just five games, good for an average of 12 more per game. 19 more in game 4 which was a complete rape. Shaq actually was close to his averages as far as FTA...it was Kobe and the rest of the team who were just not getting the calls.

Malone was an asset for sure, but got injured when he was needed most. His replacement during the finals was Slava Medve"stinko". Payton was utter garbage.

Despite being out of shape and on the decline, Shaq did step up in game 4 and played like old Shaq, but not even he could overcome the horrible officiating in that game. Only 22 FTA for the Lakers and 41 for the Pistons. Kobe only had 2 attempts in that game for the 25 field goals he attempted. Far down from his averages in the regular season and playoffs...especially for that many shot attempts...it was his lowest out put of Free throws per amount of field goals attempted for the entire 04 season.

amos1er
10-01-2012, 06:02 PM
As far as starting five and "on paper" factor taken into account I would have to say this years team, but the bench still needs improvement. I hope that Jimmy doesn't feel that he has spent enough money and doesn't want to spend anymore because thats just not acceptable. We need another backup guard/forward shooter off the bench.

Chronz
10-01-2012, 06:05 PM
So the main contenders I take it are 2000, 2001, 2004, and today right?

LoveMeOrHateMe
10-01-2012, 06:06 PM
This years team is the best team Kobe has been on on paper! They have the perfect combination of size length and IQ
They have the perfect play makers post play and outside shooting and rebounding by the bench

Raidaz4Life
10-01-2012, 06:06 PM
I think on paper its gotta be today, especially if MWP plays to the level everyone in the organization is expecting.

TheSource
10-01-2012, 11:17 PM
04 or today would be my picks.

Avenged
10-01-2012, 11:59 PM
2004 was vastly over-rated.

Shaq was over-weight, checked out, and one plus years removed from a serious toe injury that changed the way he played the game.

Kobe was at his upmost arrogant self.

Malone and Payton were nothing more than glorified role players at that point in their careers.

The bench was utter garbage. it's amazing that they got past san antonio in the west.

Fisher .4 :)

Andrew32
10-02-2012, 08:52 AM
2004 was vastly over-rated.

Shaq was over-weight, checked out, and one plus years removed from a serious toe injury that changed the way he played the game.

Kobe was at his upmost arrogant self.

Malone and Payton were nothing more than glorified role players at that point in their careers.

The bench was utter garbage. it's amazing that they got past san antonio in the west.
This is revisionist history.

Shaq was in excellent shape in 2004 and had not "checked out".

He led the entire league in RAPM by a huge margin and was excellent on both ends of the floor by all metrics.

In the 4 wins against the Spurs he averaged 22 / 15 / 2apg / 5bpg on 62% shooting.

Against Minny he averaged 21 / 16 / 3apg / 3bpg on 57% shooting.

In the Finals he had games of
-34 / 11 on 81% shooting
-36 / 20 on 76% shooting
-29 / 7 on 50% shooting
-20 / 8 on 56% shooting

He was probably the best player in the league that year after KG.

Kobe was the one who was overweight and refused to listen to Phil and Shaq.
He gunned inefficently the entire playoffs and his poor offensive play in the Finals combined with the injuries to Malone and the poor overall play on both ends by Payton led to them getting beaten badly by the Pistons.

Shaq wasn't perfect that year but he was still damn dominant and by far the MVP of the team (100x fold if you just look at the Finals) so please its beyond laughable that you and that other guy bring him up as the reason that team failed.

He was the main reason they made the Finals and the only one who showed up against Detroit.

Ebbs
10-02-2012, 11:47 AM
03-04

el hidalgo
10-02-2012, 12:14 PM
Don't forget he was fresh off rape charges and as a result, was not getting any calls from the refs. Especially in the finals where Kobe only averaged only 5 FTA per game down from 8.2 in the regular season and the 8.7 he was averaging in the playoffs up until the finals. In fact, the Lakers that season led the league in FT attempts in both the regular season and playoffs while Detroit was in the bottom half of the league in FT attempts. Shaq and Kobe were top two in the NBA in FTA per game. During the finals however, it was the complete opposite...Detroit shot 171 for the series and the Lakers only 111. Detroit had 60 more attempts in just five games, good for an average of 12 more per game. 19 more in game 4 which was a complete rape. Shaq actually was close to his averages as far as FTA...it was Kobe and the rest of the team who were just not getting the calls.

Malone was an asset for sure, but got injured when he was needed most. His replacement during the finals was Slava Medve"stinko". Payton was utter garbage.

Despite being out of shape and on the decline, Shaq did step up in game 4 and played like old Shaq, but not even he could overcome the horrible officiating in that game. Only 22 FTA for the Lakers and 41 for the Pistons. Kobe only had 2 attempts in that game for the 25 field goals he attempted. Far down from his averages in the regular season and playoffs...especially for that many shot attempts...it was his lowest out put of Free throws per amount of field goals attempted for the entire 04 season.

:rolleyes:

Bruno
10-02-2012, 03:01 PM
Check Malone and Payton's stats from the previous season...they were both great the previous year.
Key phrase, from the previous season. what did they do with the Lakers? What did their production look like next to Shaq and Kobe?

Although if you look at Karl Malones stats from 2002, and 2003, you'd see that he had back-to-back post-season PERs of 15.0; average. Payton was straight abysmal in the 2004 playoffs; Derek Fisher out played him off the bench.




Shaq was dealing more with "healing on company time" than anything else and Kobe was dealing with what happened in Colorado. The Q was what the best team on paper was though.

Looking at the team 'on paper' doesn't mean you just ignore the fact that Karl Malone was 40 years old, and that Payton was 36. Doesn't mean you ignore Shaqs foot problems. Certainly doesn't mean that you ignore the bench.


I don't see how anyone can say that on paper 2001 was stronger than Shaq/Kobe/Payton/Malone.
Because the 2001 team went 15-1 while posting the greatest winning percentage in post-season history? Because the 2004 team had two washed-up superstars in their late 30's, an out of shape, partially injured Shaq, an unfocused Kobe Bryant, and a terrible bench.

Bruno
10-02-2012, 03:04 PM
This is revisionist history.

Shaq was in excellent shape in 2004 and had not "checked out".

He led the entire league in RAPM by a huge margin and was excellent on both ends of the floor by all metrics.

In the 4 wins against the Spurs he averaged 22 / 15 / 2apg / 5bpg on 62% shooting.

Against Minny he averaged 21 / 16 / 3apg / 3bpg on 57% shooting.

In the Finals he had games of
-34 / 11 on 81% shooting
-36 / 20 on 76% shooting
-29 / 7 on 50% shooting
-20 / 8 on 56% shooting

He was probably the best player in the league that year after KG.

Kobe was the one who was overweight and refused to listen to Phil and Shaq.
He gunned inefficently the entire playoffs and his poor offensive play in the Finals combined with the injuries to Malone and the poor overall play on both ends by Payton led to them getting beaten badly by the Pistons.

Shaq wasn't perfect that year but he was still damn dominant and by far the MVP of the team (100x fold if you just look at the Finals) so please its beyond laughable that you and that other guy bring him up as the reason that team failed.

He was the main reason they made the Finals and the only one who showed up against Detroit.
There's nothing revisionist about it. they were over-hyped from day one. you buying into the hype of Malone and Payton and ignoring the lack of supporting pieces in the starting lineup and off the bench doesn't change the numbers or production. see above.

it's much bigger than Shaq, or Kobe. although i know you'd like to make that the focus. this is about a team; it's depth, its synergy, and it's collective passion/focus. the 2004 Lakers didn't have any of that.

Bruno
10-02-2012, 03:12 PM
This is revisionist history.

Shaq was in excellent shape in 2004 and had not "checked out".

He led the entire league in RAPM by a huge margin and was excellent on both ends of the floor by all metrics.

In the 4 wins against the Spurs he averaged 22 / 15 / 2apg / 5bpg on 62% shooting.

Against Minny he averaged 21 / 16 / 3apg / 3bpg on 57% shooting.

In the Finals he had games of
-34 / 11 on 81% shooting
-36 / 20 on 76% shooting
-29 / 7 on 50% shooting
-20 / 8 on 56% shooting

He was probably the best player in the league that year after KG.

Kobe was the one who was overweight and refused to listen to Phil and Shaq.
He gunned inefficently the entire playoffs and his poor offensive play in the Finals combined with the injuries to Malone and the poor overall play on both ends by Payton led to them getting beaten badly by the Pistons.

Shaq wasn't perfect that year but he was still damn dominant and by far the MVP of the team (100x fold if you just look at the Finals) so please its beyond laughable that you and that other guy bring him up as the reason that team failed.

He was the main reason they made the Finals and the only one who showed up against Detroit.

And if you don't think that Shaqs toe injury changed the way that he had to play the game you're wrong. 2004 is the first season where Shaqs numbers went down across the board, including his advanced line- there's a reason for that, age and injury. You should do some reading and pick up a few books by Phil Jackson; it'd help you understand what was going on with that era of the Lakers a bit better.

I never said Shaq wasn't still productive. I said he wasn't peak Shaq from the threepeat. and that's the only player who could have made up for that teams lack of depth, and lack of athleticism in the starting 5. I'm well aware that it wasn't Kobes finest hour; that's not whats being debated.

Bruno
10-02-2012, 03:20 PM
But to get specific.


This is revisionist history.
No.


Shaq was in excellent shape in 2004 and had not "checked out".
No he wasn't.


He led the entire league in RAPM by a huge margin and was excellent on both ends of the floor by all metrics.
He did good, not great. He also was forced to miss 15 regular season games.


In the 4 wins against the Spurs he averaged 22 / 15 / 2apg / 5bpg on 62% shooting.

Against Minny he averaged 21 / 16 / 3apg / 3bpg on 57% shooting.

In the Finals he had games of
-34 / 11 on 81% shooting
-36 / 20 on 76% shooting
-29 / 7 on 50% shooting
-20 / 8 on 56% shooting
he had a few good games, great. what does his overall statline from 2004 look like compared to his 2003 line? thats my point.


He was probably the best player in the league that year after KG. Hardly. He finished 6th in MVP voting and missed 15 regular season games while posting his worst numbers since his rookie season. He saw massive drop-offs in regular season and post season PERs; by 5.0-6.0 margins- HUGE. Go look at the numbers and tell me that 2004 Shaq was the same player as Shaq from 2000-2003. Not even close.





Kobe was the one who was overweight and refused to listen to Phil and Shaq.
He gunned inefficently the entire playoffs and his poor offensive play in the Finals combined with the injuries to Malone and the poor overall play on both ends by Payton led to them getting beaten badly by the Pistons.
Kobe has never once shown up to came overweight (healing from surgery). he didn't play great- once again another point that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.


Shaq wasn't perfect that year but he was still damn dominant and by far the MVP of the team (100x fold if you just look at the Finals) so please its beyond laughable that you and that other guy bring him up as the reason that team failed. Once again you're getting distracted. We're not talking about who the MVP of the team was. were asking if it was Kobes best team on paper. everything you're talking about here is irrelevant to the question at hand. He wasn't as dominant as he was before the injury, period.


He was the main reason they made the Finals and the only one who showed up against Detroit.
Erroneous. stay on topic.

Bruno
10-02-2012, 03:28 PM
Fisher .4 :)

yeah, it took one of the biggest freak accidents ever to get them ahead in the series. Lakers got lucky and had no business knocking out the defending champs who were ranked 1st in SRS, while posting some of the most dominant defensive numbers ever.

Payton actually had a good game when they closed out the spurs. Malone didn't:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200405150LAL.html

Bruno
10-02-2012, 03:34 PM
So the main contenders I take it are 2000, 2001, 2004, and today right?

The 2009 and 2010 teams were better than the 2004 team on paper. They had depth, balance, athleticism, and less BS. People new their roles and there was far less locker room BS to disturb the teams on court chemistry.

its like people look at four big names and total abandon all circumstances around those big names; be it chemistry, age, injury, personal problems, lack of depth, lack of athleticism, ect. Those Lakers were 6th or 7th in SRS, and key pieces missed a lot of games during the regular season. Players got injured. I think they got lucky to get past San Antonio. Over-hyped from day one, still over-hyped to this day.

Bruno
10-02-2012, 03:37 PM
Don't forget he was fresh off rape charges and as a result, was not getting any calls from the refs. Especially in the finals where Kobe only averaged only 5 FTA per game down from 8.2 in the regular season and the 8.7 he was averaging in the playoffs up until the finals. In fact, the Lakers that season led the league in FT attempts in both the regular season and playoffs while Detroit was in the bottom half of the league in FT attempts. Shaq and Kobe were top two in the NBA in FTA per game. During the finals however, it was the complete opposite...Detroit shot 171 for the series and the Lakers only 111. Detroit had 60 more attempts in just five games, good for an average of 12 more per game. 19 more in game 4 which was a complete rape. Shaq actually was close to his averages as far as FTA...it was Kobe and the rest of the team who were just not getting the calls.

Malone was an asset for sure, but got injured when he was needed most. His replacement during the finals was Slava Medve"stinko". Payton was utter garbage.

Despite being out of shape and on the decline, Shaq did step up in game 4 and played like old Shaq, but not even he could overcome the horrible officiating in that game. Only 22 FTA for the Lakers and 41 for the Pistons. Kobe only had 2 attempts in that game for the 25 field goals he attempted. Far down from his averages in the regular season and playoffs...especially for that many shot attempts...it was his lowest out put of Free throws per amount of field goals attempted for the entire 04 season.
kobe wasn't winning any popularity contests, that's for sure. I had never looked at the FT numbers before. Malone did a respectable job of filling the Horace Grant role; he wasn't anywhere near the player that he was. Shaq was still good, he just wasn't 2000-2003 dominant.

Andrew32
10-02-2012, 04:20 PM
No he wasn't.

He did good, not great. He also was forced to miss 15 regular season games.

he had a few good games, great. what does his overall statline from 2004 look like compared to his 2003 line? thats my point.

Hardly. He finished 6th in MVP voting and missed 15 regular season games while posting his worst numbers since his rookie season. He saw massive drop-offs in regular season and post season PERs; by 5.0-6.0 margins- HUGE. Go look at the numbers and tell me that 2004 Shaq was the same player as Shaq from 2000-2003. Not even close.

Kobe has never once shown up to came overweight (healing from surgery). he didn't play great- once again another point that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.


He was in excellent shape.
He hired a marine personal trainer after the 03 season.

He did great.
He was by far the best player in the league in terms of RAPM.

He wasn't that far from his 03 level.
His rebounding improved in 04 as did his defense.
His passing was around the same in the regular season but worse in the playoffs (compared to 03).

Offensively per 36 he was only producing 3-4ppg less then he was in 03 and most of that was due to his FT shooting going from pretty good to sh**** again and from him taking a smaller role due to Malone / Payton joining the team and Kobe chucking more then usual.

So while I agree that Shaq was noticeably better in 2003 he wasn't that much less impactful in 2004.
He was definitly either the best or 2nd best player that year.

MVP voting doesn't mean anything.
It's a media award and no knowledgeable basketball fan takes the media seriously.

Kobe was overweight in 2004.
You could see it visibly towards the start of the season and it effected his stamina.

JordansBulls
10-02-2012, 05:19 PM
Malone and Payton were nothing more than glorified role players at that point in their careers.

The bench was utter garbage. it's amazing that they got past san antonio in the west.

How is that any different then this team? Metta and Nash now aren't better than what Malone or Payton were then. Hell the year before joining the Lakers both Payton and Malone averaged 20 ppg and 8 rpg or 8 apg. Shaq was 32 and Kobe was 26. And Shaq being overweight didn't matter much as he still dominated that season.

JasonJohnHorn
10-02-2012, 07:32 PM
The obvious choice is the current roster. That said, the other obvious choice would be the 04 roster, but frankly speaking, that roster was only 4 deep. I think GP was a little past his prime, but still an all-star calibre player, and Malone proved the pervious season that he was still a 20/10 player, and I think anybody who knows the game knows that Malone could have been posting 20/10 that season, but obviously with Kobe being the ball-hog he is, he's gotta get more shots up than anybody, and then Shaq got his, so that didn't leave much for Malone and Payton to work with. But seriously, after those four players what did they have?

The current roster have a solid startign five (though Artest/MWP is not his former self) and another former all-star in Jamison coming off the bench, which already makes this current team two players deeper than the 04 team, and they got a couple of decent guys off the bench.

The unbvious choice though is the 2000 squad.

Fisher/Shaw
Kobe/Harper
Rice/fox
Green/Horry
Shaq/Salley

That was a GREAT line up.

But the 97 line-up was pretty impressive to (great gaurd rotation and lots of BIG bodies).

Van Excel/Fisher
Bryant/Scott
Jones/Ceballos
Horry/Kersey/Knight
Shaq/Campbell/Rooks


I'll go with 2000.

JasonJohnHorn
10-02-2012, 07:36 PM
Malone and Payton were nothing more than glorified role players at that point in their careers.

Both these guys were posting all-star calibre numbers the season before they arrived in LA. Malone is one of the best conditioned players in the history of the game and even at 40 was capable of playing better ball than 90% of the PF in the league at the time. And Payton was still the best defensive PG in the game. The took on smaller rolls to play for a contender, but either player, even at 40 and 35 respectively, could have been the first option on a playoff calibre team that season.

Bruno
10-02-2012, 07:38 PM
He was in excellent shape.
He hired a marine personal trainer after the 03 season.
How did this marine help Shaq change the mechanics of his damaged toe? You're putting too much emphasis on him not being in perfect shape (something that was a bigger issue in 2003 than it was in 2004) and less on the toe injury. It changed the mechanics of the way he approached the game. Injuries happen, Shaq and Phil are on record talking about the toe injury and how it changed his approach to gaining position on the box.

Maybe Shaq wouldn't have gotten himself mixed up with the injury bug had he been putting in the work the previous few seasons to keep his body in ideal playing condition. Maybe it would have happened regardless, we'll never know. Trainer or not, being in shape was an issue for Shaq during his final seasons in LAL (until he became a team player again in Miami, for 2/3rds his LAL asking price).


On Shaq: "He's the one guy that didn't really like to work. I know Pat got him working here in Miami. We had a hard time getting him to work. All the other players -- Michael, Scottie, Dennis Rodman, all those guys that we had, Horace Grant, they're all hard-working practice and personal work players." -Phil Jackson
http://www.aolnews.com/2006/12/26/phil-jackson-says-shaq-is-lazy-and-wade-travels/


He wasn't that far from his 03 level.
he was by a notable margin. it's written in the stats and it can be seen in 2004 footage.

but more importantly for the sake of this thread, he was far from his 2000, or 2001 self. Since those are the only Shaq teams that are really in the discussion here.


So while I agree that Shaq was noticeably better in 2003 he wasn't that much less impactful in 2004.
Yes, he was less impactful, by a considerable margin. Thats why his numbers across the board went down. He also missed 15 games and by default didn't leave as big of a foot-print.


He was definitly either the best or 2nd best player that year.
No he wasn't.

He didn't even finished top ten in win-shares for the regular season (Kobe did).
He didn't finish top ten in WS/48 minutes during the regular season either (Kobe was 4th).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_top_10.html

KG and Dunan were quite easily better than Shaq in 2004. They didn't get beat out by their own teammates in MVP voting, or in advanced statistics such as WS and WS/48. Shaq finished 4th in PER, and that's the highest he can possibly be argued for 2004.



MVP voting doesn't mean anything.
It's a media award and no knowledgeable basketball fan takes the media seriously.
It's political. But if you're the best player on the best team, you usually win (or are in the discussion with other players who are also the best player on a top three or five team). The Lakers finished with the 4th best regular season record. Yet Shaq finishes behind Kobe in MVP voting (and behind Peja and J. O'neal). Shaq was not the run away best player on a top three team, that's why he wasn't recognized by the MVP voters. If Shaq was still as dominant as you claim he was, it wouldn't even have been a debate- considering his past dominance.

If I ever see you bash Kobe for having one MVP on this forum I'm going to find this, post it in the thread and put it in my sig. There won't be any escaping it either, I have it saved. ;)


Kobe was overweight in 2004.
You could see it visibly towards the start of the season and it effected his stamina.
You don't know what you're talking about. But you seem so interested in this topic- why not read about it rather than regurgitate half truths on a basketball forum?

http://www.amazon.com/Roland-Lazenby/e/B001ITPIFE
Read some Lazenby, read the book by Jackson.

He was still shedding the bulk he had put on his body during the 2003 season (intentionally). He had bulked up his build so he could hit the post stronger, and take contact more easily (for 2002-2003). At the start of the 2003-2004 season he was still in the process of shedding that bulk so he could be quicker on the perimeter (so Malone could assume position in the post). He was by no means overweight, he was simply in the process of altering his build as to adapt his game.

I'll leave you with this. It comes from an article where Tex Winter (One of Phil Jacksons mentors and the creator of the triangle offense) was interviewed and asked about Shaqs play against Detroit. Kobe may have played like ****, but Shaq gave up. There's a difference.

However, after five games, the Lakers found themselves not only defeated but dominated by the Pistons, who won the NBA title.[92] Winter said, "Shaq defeated himself against Detroit. He played way too passively. He had one big game ... He's always interested in being a scorer, but he hasn't had nearly enough concentration on defense and rebounding." -Lazenby

Proof? Not really, more of a testimony. But if you're going to discard the words of the creator of the offense that allowed/helped Shaq to become his most dominant self, as if it were trash by the sidewalk, thats you're call. There is plenty information out there, both statistically and in testimony that dumps all over your theories.



How is that any different then this team? Metta and Nash now aren't better than what Malone or Payton were then.

Not sure why you're including Artest in this comparison (D. George was the starting SF for the 2004 Lakers). It's a lot different from this team, for more reasons than I can count on one hand. Most importantly, Dwight Howard is 26 years old and the best center in the league. Pau Gasol is still a lot better than a 40 year old Karl Malone was. Kobes are a wash (considering how poorly Kobe played in 2004). I'm going to make the assumption that Nash will be considerably better than Payton; you can call me out later if I'm wrong (I won't be). The 2012 bench blows out the 2004 bench.


Hell the year before joining the Lakers both Payton and Malone averaged 20 ppg and 8 rpg or 8 apg.
So what. Their numbers the year before are irrelevant. What were their numbers as Lakers? Go look at Malone and Paytons playoff numbers from 2002 and 2003. Average at best , their decline which were easy to predict landed right on the Lakers laps.

Do you expect the 2013 Lakers to finish 7th in SRS? Do you expect its top three players to miss 72 games combined? Because that is what happened with the 2004 Lakers. Old, injured, feuding, no bench, no synergy, overrated from day one.


Shaq was 32 and Kobe was 26. And Shaq being overweight didn't matter much as he still dominated that season.

It mattered. As much as adjusting his game because of his toe injury? No.

2003 Regular Season PER: 29.5
2004 Regular Season PER: 24.4

2003 Playoff PER: 30.6
2004 Playoff PER: 24.8

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html

He was good in 2004, he didn't dominate. There is a huge drop off in his advanced line. It's because of the toe/aging. Point being, 2004 Shaq isn't in the same league as 2000, or 2001 Shaq. And if he isn't (and if Malone is 40 and Payton is 36-which they were) then the 2004 team (which had no bench) has zero business being in the discussion (my point).

JasonJohnHorn
10-02-2012, 07:40 PM
Shaq did step up in game 4 and played like old Shaq, but not even he could overcome the horrible officiating in that game.

lol

Horrible officiating? From and LAL fan that is funny. The Lakers have gotten SO many calls throughout the history of the game and since Kobe and Shaq have been playing together it's not even funny. The officials call the game the way it's supposed to be called for one series and LAL fans think the officials are against them... lol

Bruno
10-02-2012, 07:50 PM
Both these guys were posting all-star calibre numbers the season before they arrived in LA.Malone didn't make the all-star team in 2003. Their numbers were decent. But you're gona have to tell me why that matters.

We are discussing which team provided the best support around Kobe during his tenure with the Lakers. Therefore, the numbers we should look at are the numbers that Malone and Payton posted, while on the Lakers. Not what they did the previous season on different teams with different circumstances/roles.


Malone is one of the best conditioned players in the history of the game and even at 40 was capable of playing better ball than 90% of the PF in the league at the time.
I won't deny that he is one of the best conditioned NBA players of all-time. But there's no fighting father time bro. Malone missed 40 regular season games, and he missed games in the post-season when they needed him the most. What he did in 2003 doesn't matter; he didn't give the Lakers very much because he missed half the season. If the teams 3rd best player missed half the season, if the 4th best player underachieved, if the bench is non-existant, and the top two players are making eachother worse- then how can the 2004 team possibly be in the discussion here?


And Payton was still the best defensive PG in the game. The took on smaller rolls to play for a contender, but either player, even at 40 and 35 respectively, could have been the first option on a playoff calibre team that season.

I respectfully disagree. Payton hadn't made an all-defensive team since 2002, and he was eight years removed from his D.P.O.Y. award in 1996. He was good, he was no longer elite. Much like Bryant (34) and Artest (33) are today in 2012.

Bruno
10-02-2012, 08:04 PM
The obvious choice is the current roster. That said, the other obvious choice would be the 04 roster, but frankly speaking, that roster was only 4 deep. I think GP was a little past his prime, but still an all-star calibre player, and Malone proved the pervious season that he was still a 20/10 player, and I think anybody who knows the game knows that Malone could have been posting 20/10 that season, but obviously with Kobe being the ball-hog he is, he's gotta get more shots up than anybody, and then Shaq got his, so that didn't leave much for Malone and Payton to work with. But seriously, after those four players what did they have?


How can a roster that goes four deep ( as you admit) possibly be 'the other obvious choice'. Can you name me the last team that won a championship with a pathetic bench?

Everything you wrote about Malone doesn't matter. He missed half the season and broke down in the middle of the finals. Who cares about what he or Payton did in 2003. We aren't talking about 2003. We're talking about practice!

Bruno
10-02-2012, 08:05 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200406100DET.html

you kidding me bro?

Lakersfan2483
10-02-2012, 08:06 PM
This current team is definitely his most talented. Nash is a two time mvp, Howard is a perennial all star, Gasol is a perennial all star, A. Jamison is a former 6th man of the year and 18 pt. a game scorer off of the bench, Metta World Peace is a former defensive player of the year.........

Look at this roster:

S. Nash/S. Blake/Duhon
K. Bryant/Meeks/CDR
Metta/Ebanks
Gasol/Jamison/Clark
Howard/J. Hill

The other years his teams were very talented was in 01 and 10.

The 01 team was deep as well with R. Harper, D. Fish, Kobe, R. Fox, R. Horry, H. Grant, Shaq, B. Shaw and co.... The 10 team was deep also with D. Fish, Kobe, Metta, Gasol, A. Bynum, J. Farmar, S. Brown, S. Vujacic, J. Powell, etc...

Bruno
10-02-2012, 08:13 PM
This current team is definitely his most talented. Nash is a two time mvp, Howard is a perennial all star, Gasol is a perennial all star, A. Jamison is a former 6th man of the year and 18 pt. a game scorer off of the bench, Metta World Peace is a former defensive player of the year.........

Look at this roster:

S. Nash/S. Blake/Duhon
K. Bryant/Meeks/CDR
Metta/Ebanks
Gasol/Jamison/Clark
Howard/J. Hill

The other years his teams were very talented was in 01 and 10.

The 01 team was deep as well with R. Harper, D. Fish, Kobe, R. Fox, R. Horry, H. Grant, Shaq, B. Shaw and co.... The 10 team was deep also with D. Fish, Kobe, Metta, Gasol, A. Bynum, J. Farmar, S. Brown, S. Vujacic, J. Powell, etc...

2013 is so weird because it has a legitimate big four that has a chance of not getting trampled by injury, but then it also has a really solid bench, and Artest at the SF position, and at least he's serviceable.

2001 was more top heavy. I'd argue that 2001 Shaq and Kobe are better than any player/incarnation on the 2013 roster, but then 2001 has this great array of healthy experience, floor spreading, and championship experience throughout the roster (without having a definitive #3 man).

beasted86
10-02-2012, 08:28 PM
2004.

Shaq in 2004 >>>> Dwight Howard now
Kobe in 2004 >> Kobe now

That's all that really matters.

Bruno
10-02-2012, 09:12 PM
2004.

Shaq in 2004 >>>> Dwight Howard now
Kobe in 2004 >> Kobe now

That's all that really matters.

This is wrong on so many different levels.

amos1er
10-02-2012, 09:49 PM
lol

Horrible officiating? From and LAL fan that is funny. The Lakers have gotten SO many calls throughout the history of the game and since Kobe and Shaq have been playing together it's not even funny. The officials call the game the way it's supposed to be called for one series and LAL fans think the officials are against them... lol

We have gotten our share of calls, and have gotten ****ed on our share too. Using like or past justifications doesn't make the act itself any less unscrupulous. Just because you say the Lakers "gotten" SO many calls thoroughout the history of the game", doesn't make it right to call an entire finals series in an opposing teams favor. It's like you saying that murder can justify more murder. It doesn't work that way and no one should be getting as much help as the Pistons got from the refs in 2004...especially in game 4.

You say that the 04 finals were "the way it's supposed to be called"? Well, take into account that the Lakers led the league in both regular season and playoffs in free throw attempts and had Kobe and Shaq who drew more fouls than anyone in the NBA that year in both the regular season and playoffs...until the finals that is.

The 04 Pistons, were in the bottom half of the league in FT attempts and they had always shot either close to or less than their opponents in the regular season and playoffs. Than why was it when the faced the Lakers, who led the league in FT attempts, they ended up shooting 60 more for the series (and average of 12 more per game) and 19 more in a pivotal game 4 where Kobe who had averaged nearly 9 per game in the playoffs up until the finals ended up going to the line once (2 attempts) on 25 field goal attempts...his lowest for the season as well as his lowest ratio of FG attempts to FT attempts.

With all that evidence, it's clear that the refs did a horrible job that series and especially in game 4. I'm not saying that is the sole reason the Lakers lost or that they would have won if the officiating was fair or anything...I'm just saying the calls were pretty one sided that particular series and it sure didn't help their cause especially with Malone's injury and Payton's disappearing act. If we really want to get into possibly rigged series, we can talk about D-Wade's parade to the freethrow line in games 3-6 of the 2006 finals.

Andrew32
10-03-2012, 02:49 AM
KG and Dunan were quite easily better than Shaq in 2004. They didn't get beat out by their own teammates in MVP voting, or in advanced statistics such as WS and WS/48. Shaq finished 4th in PER, and that's the highest he can possibly be argued for 2004.

Shaq's impact in 2004 was 2nd only to KG.

2004 Total RAPM (offensive + defensive)

KG = 8
Shaq = 5.5
Duncan = 4.9
Dirk = 4.7
Kobe = 1.2

Kobe's impact that year wasn't even remotely comparable and the fact that he finished higher in the MVP voting just shows how stupid/biased the media is and how poor they are at understanding player value/impact.

Considering how Shaq absolutely annihilated Duncan in the playoffs and also outplayed KG you can easily argue he was the best player that year.
I personally rank him 2nd after KG though.

nickdymez
10-03-2012, 02:56 AM
Shaq's impact in 2004 was 2nd only to KG.

2004 Total RAPM (offensive + defensive)

KG = 8
Shaq = 5.5
Duncan = 4.9
Dirk = 4.7
Kobe = 1.2

Kobe's impact that year wasn't even remotely comparable and the fact that he finished higher in the MVP voting just shows how stupid/biased the media is and how poor they are at understanding player value/impact.

Considering how Shaq absolutely annihilated Duncan in the playoffs and also outplayed KG you can easily argue he was the best player that year.
I personally rank him 2nd after KG though.

This is the funniest **** ive read on here in a long time. Your hate for Kobe has you thinking that your more qualified than professionals. These are the same guys that vote Lebron MVP every year. I'd be willing to bet they arent poor in that case right? In Lebrons case they are getting it right. But when they put Kobe up there, they dont know what they are talking about. :facepalm: Because that ******** made up stat says otherwise.

Andrew32
10-03-2012, 03:19 AM
This is the funniest **** ive read on here in a long time. Your hate for Kobe has you thinking that your more qualified than professionals. These are the same guys that vote Lebron MVP every year. I'd be willing to bet they arent poor in that case right? In Lebrons case they are getting it right. But when they put Kobe up there, they dont know what they are talking about. :facepalm: Because that ******** made up stat says otherwise.

So because you don't understand a stat (APM / RAPM) its stupid and meaningless? :facepalm:

Yes I consider myself (a long term dedicated basketball head/fan) more qualified and knowledgeable then some random sportswriters/broadcasters.

The fact is the media over the years has made some absolutely ridiculous choices when it comes to MVP voting / All-NBA teams etc... and they constantly spew idiotic statements/opinions on the television and in paper articles without using facts or logic to support themselves.

The media is about entrainment and attracting the casual fans by propping up popular players.
They aren't in the business of putting out well informed / logical basketball opinions that are supported by facts.

No real basketball head would ever use the media to support an argument.
I like watching ESPN for highlights or whatever but in terms of actual storys or information about players/history they are the last place I would ever consider going to.

Also don't make assumptions about me.

I had no problem with Kobe winning the MVP in 08 and I thought he was deserving.
I however don't think Kobe should have been ranked higher then Shaq in 2004.
He simply was a vastly inferior player that year in terms of production and oncourt impact.

kblo247
10-03-2012, 05:51 AM
On paper 97/98 as Van Exel, Kobe, Shaq, and Eddie were all all stars in the same year. Fisher, Horry, and Fox were bench players and Horry and Fox had a lot more in their tanks. They had Elden Campbell too who did fairly well. Del Harris was a dumbass though.

This team on paper right now is probably the best he's played with since he was a puppy. Too bad he's got 50k on his legs, but yeah Nash, Dwight, Jamisonis an upgrade from Fisher, Odom, and Bynum who was a 6/6 guy doing the finals runs

Andrew32
10-03-2012, 05:56 AM
On paper 97/98 as Van Exel, Kobe, Shaq, and Eddie were all all stars in the same year. Fisher, Horry, and Fox were bench players and Horry and Fox had a lot more in their tanks. They had Elden Campbell too who did fairly well. Del Harris was a dumbass though.

I liked that team but Van Exel was insanely overrated and Jones was really a borderline All-Star who choked in the playoffs.

Shaq was the only one who played at an All-Star level against Utah.

1998 VS Utah
------------
Van Exel : 9ppg on 24% shooting
Eddie Jones : 15ppg on 41% shooting
Kobe : 10ppg on 36% shooting

Chronz
10-03-2012, 02:37 PM
On paper 97/98 as Van Exel, Kobe, Shaq, and Eddie were all all stars in the same year. Fisher, Horry, and Fox were bench players and Horry and Fox had a lot more in their tanks. They had Elden Campbell too who did fairly well. Del Harris was a dumbass though.

This team on paper right now is probably the best he's played with since he was a puppy. Too bad he's got 50k on his legs, but yeah Nash, Dwight, Jamisonis an upgrade from Fisher, Odom, and Bynum who was a 6/6 guy doing the finals runs

Thats a good point, technically if your measuring talent by how good the team is without Kobes contributions, those teenage years have to be considered. In his prime is more relevant tho

Bruno
10-03-2012, 03:38 PM
Shaq's impact in 2004 was 2nd only to KG.

2004 Total RAPM (offensive + defensive)

KG = 8
Shaq = 5.5
Duncan = 4.9
Dirk = 4.7
Kobe = 1.2

Kobe's impact that year wasn't even remotely comparable and the fact that he finished higher in the MVP voting just shows how stupid/biased the media is and how poor they are at understanding player value/impact.

Considering how Shaq absolutely annihilated Duncan in the playoffs and also outplayed KG you can easily argue he was the best player that year.
I personally rank him 2nd after KG though.
links please. i'd like to read more about this stat.

anybody have an opinion on this new sorcery? :)

Andrew32
10-03-2012, 03:45 PM
links please.

http://tinyurl.com/bruno87

That is the 04 list.
I am sure you can figure out how to navigate to other years if you want but if you can't feel free to ask me for the links.

nickdymez
10-03-2012, 03:58 PM
links please. i'd like to read more about this stat.

anybody have an opinion on this new sorcery? :)

These people always try and force new stats down other peoples throats to justify an argument. Then they get mad when you dont care for them and dismiss you as not understanding. No, we understand, we just dont give a **** about these zany, cockamainie nunmbers some nerd made up.

Andrew32
10-03-2012, 04:14 PM
These people always try and force new stats down other peoples throats to justify an argument. Then they get mad when you dont care for them and dismiss you as not understanding. No, we understand, we just dont give a **** about these zany, cockamainie nunmbers some nerd made up.

Since when is APM (Adjusted +/-) a new stat? :facepalm:
I find that most people who disregard advanced stats do so because they either don't understand them or because they don't support their favorite players.

nickdymez
10-03-2012, 04:17 PM
Since when is APM (Adjusted +/-) a new stat? :facepalm:
I find that most people who disregard advanced stats do so because they either don't understand them or because they don't support their favorite players.

I find that people made up these stats to try and boost players more than they deserve. It goes both ways buddy.