PDA

View Full Version : Does Kobe winning 'ships as the second option to a prime SHAQ tarnish his legacy?



Pages : [1] 2

lol, please
01-23-2015, 09:14 PM
If we swap SHAQ ATTAQ with say, Dwight Howard, Yao Ming, or Manute Bol, could Kobe carry those Lakers squads to championships? Discuss.

nastynice
01-23-2015, 09:30 PM
Not at all. That's part of his legacy, being part of a laker team with one of the most dominant centers of all time. Its one hell of a legacy to be a part of, it was one hell of a 1-2 punch. That was an absolutely crazy squad right there, 15-1 in the playoffs, wow, just ridiculous. IMO underrated in terms of all time best teams

I don't know if he woulda won with Howard, etc, I definitely don't think he woulda won 3 in a row. But at the same time I don't think Shaq woulda won 3 in a row if he had Tmac or VC, etc.

It was a great team, even the role players were HUGE, people underestimate what a great job the FO did assembling that team.

numba1CHANGsta
01-23-2015, 09:54 PM
Kobe Bryant appreciates all of the love you guys give him by posting 20983298924 posts about him everyday :)

Jamiecballer
01-23-2015, 09:58 PM
Nope. Next.

L8kers4life
01-23-2015, 10:22 PM
Nope. Next.


Nope , not at all

Avenged
01-23-2015, 10:24 PM
lol, please

FlashBolt
01-23-2015, 10:25 PM
Close this.. this is just a bait.

IKnowHoops
01-23-2015, 11:25 PM
If we swap SHAQ ATTAQ with say, Dwight Howard, Yao Ming, or Manute Bol, could Kobe carry those Lakers squads to championships? Discuss.

No and with Manute Haaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil naw!

TheNumber37
01-23-2015, 11:46 PM
NO.

It's Shaq dammnit. The most physically dominating force in NBA history. ANY TEAM he played for in his prime would be foolish to have Shaq anything but the 1st option. Secondly, they ran the triangle, which starts int the post.

IF JORDAN played with Shaq, MJ would be the second option as good as Jordan was, hes not gonna shoot a higher percentage than just dumping it down low to Shaq

IKnowHoops
01-24-2015, 12:02 AM
NO.

It's Shaq dammnit. The most physically dominating force in NBA history. ANY TEAM he played for in his prime would be foolish to have Shaq anything but the 1st option. Secondly, they ran the triangle, which starts int the post.

IF JORDAN played with Shaq, MJ would be the second option as good as Jordan was, hes not gonna shoot a higher percentage than just dumping it down low to Shaq

Yeah I was gonna say this. Every player in history would of been a second fiddle to Shaq. I don't hold being second fiddle to Shaq against Kobe. I do believe Jordan and Lebron would have been much better second fiddles though.

lol, please
01-24-2015, 12:18 AM
NO.

It's Shaq dammnit. The most physically dominating force in NBA history. ANY TEAM he played for in his prime would be foolish to have Shaq anything but the 1st option. Secondly, they ran the triangle, which starts int the post.

IF JORDAN played with Shaq, MJ would be the second option as good as Jordan was, hes not gonna shoot a higher percentage than just dumping it down low to Shaq
As a lifelong shaq fan this post is outstanding!

beasted86
01-24-2015, 08:21 AM
Yes, since we saw exactly what caliber player Kobe was when he forcefully tried to takeover the #1 option role in 2004. Lakers just weren't as good.

Kobe great all-time player, easy top 12 on everybody's list, first ballot HOF, second best SG all time, but definitely he was a second option and it hurts his legacy because he WAS a "second option" not a 1st caliber player back then. They weren't winning with a Howard or Manute Bol, LOL.

slashsnake
01-24-2015, 08:25 AM
Not at all... Now if people want to just compare the finals part of the career, sure, 5 where a few were 2nd fiddle vs. 5 for example with Rodman, Kerr, Harper, Fisher, etc where they were all 2nd fiddle (or 4th 5th etc), is a difference. Likewise if he won 6 somehow, just based on finals I'd put his impact between Pippen and Jordan. There with Kareem, ahead of Cousy.

Now of course that's just one part of a resume for him. But being #2 for a while doesn't tarnish a legacy. It didn't tarnish the careers of Magic, Kareem, Wade, Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Isisah, Bird did it?


C

hidalgo
01-24-2015, 08:40 AM
probably everyone EXCEPT Michael would be 2nd option. MJ was way too good offensively to be the 2nd option, ton of moves, & he shot over 50% for his entire Bulls career, & with Shaq on his side his FG% would be even better. he was smart enough to give Shaq a ton of touches though. i could see MJ avg 30, & Shaq 28, & they'd have won the title every year

Michael absolutely would win most if not all the finals mvps, MJ in the finals was scary. this isn't Kobe we're talking about, this is His Airness

PurpleLynch
01-24-2015, 09:18 AM
Does Wade being a second fiddle to Lebron tarnish is legacy?
Does Magic having Kareem tarnish is legacy?
Does MJ having Pippen,Grant or Rodman tarnish his legacy?
Does Wilt having West in his decline tarnish his legacy?
Does Bird having McHale tarnish his legacy?
Does Lebron having Bosh/Wade/Allen in his championship runs tarnish his legacy?

Championships are won with a complete effort from the team. Period.

KnicksorBust
01-24-2015, 09:19 AM
Not at all. That's part of his legacy, being part of a laker team with one of the most dominant centers of all time. Its one hell of a legacy to be a part of, it was one hell of a 1-2 punch. That was an absolutely crazy squad right there, 15-1 in the playoffs, wow, just ridiculous. IMO underrated in terms of all time best teams

I don't know if he woulda won with Howard, etc, I definitely don't think he woulda won 3 in a row. But at the same time I don't think Shaq woulda won 3 in a row if he had Tmac or VC, etc.

It was a great team, even the role players were HUGE, people underestimate what a great job the FO did assembling that team.

This.

Sidenote: MJ still would have been #1 option on a team with prime Shaq.

LakersEaglesLA
01-24-2015, 03:45 PM
Just because Shaq got the Finals MVP's does not mean Kobe was second fiddle. Go back and watch those Western Conference Playoffs rounds 1,2,and 3 Kobe was a killer. He bailed the Lakers out so many 4th quarters it's not even debatable.. The Championship was much easier than the Western Playoffs where Kobe would have been the Lakers MVP

Goose17
01-24-2015, 03:47 PM
No.

Just like Nash not having a ring doesn't tarnish his. Or Lebron needing Wade and Bosh to get his. Or M.J with Pippen and Rodman.

Championships are a team achievement. The sooner people realise this the better.

See the sig.

Goose17
01-24-2015, 03:48 PM
And you need more poll options. He needed Shaq, yes. He wouldn't have won those without him. But that doesn't tarnish his legacy.

Chronz
01-24-2015, 03:53 PM
Rank the best championship seasons from a teams 2nd best player. Kobe is at the top of most those list. Theres not much to take away from him in that regard.

jayjay33
01-24-2015, 03:56 PM
NO.

It's Shaq dammnit. The most physically dominating force in NBA history. ANY TEAM he played for in his prime would be foolish to have Shaq anything but the 1st option. Secondly, they ran the triangle, which starts int the post.

IF JORDAN played with Shaq, MJ would be the second option as good as Jordan was, hes not gonna shoot a higher percentage than just dumping it down low to Shaq


This....

I tried telling someone, who shall remain name less the exact same thing. But they were just to basketball ignorant to see it.

It doesn't matter who you have on the wing. Jordan or whoever. Your gonna throw the ball down low to shaq first and foremost. He's just to damn big and to damn close to the basket.

IKnowHoops
01-24-2015, 04:17 PM
Does Wade being a second fiddle to Lebron tarnish is legacy?
Does Magic having Kareem tarnish is legacy?
Does MJ having Pippen,Grant or Rodman tarnish his legacy?
Does Wilt having West in his decline tarnish his legacy?
Does Bird having McHale tarnish his legacy?
Does Lebron having Bosh/Wade/Allen in his championship runs tarnish his legacy?

Championships are won with a complete effort from the team. Period.

There is a difference between having good help, and being second fiddle to good help. But regardless, when you play with Shaq, and winning basketball is played inside out, there is nothing wrong with being second fiddle to that help. I think its worse to be second fiddle to Jordan, than second fiddle to Shaq. You have to go down low to a force of nature like that first no matter what.

Bruno
01-24-2015, 04:20 PM
i think it expands his legacy. he's both the greatest second option in NBA history, as well as one of six players in NBA history with back to back finals MVPs. pretty sure thats a unique trait specific to his career.

Hawkeye15
01-24-2015, 04:20 PM
Does Wade being a second fiddle to Lebron tarnish is legacy?
Does Magic having Kareem tarnish is legacy?
Does MJ having Pippen,Grant or Rodman tarnish his legacy?
Does Wilt having West in his decline tarnish his legacy?
Does Bird having McHale tarnish his legacy?
Does Lebron having Bosh/Wade/Allen in his championship runs tarnish his legacy?

Championships are won with a complete effort from the team. Period.

yes

IKnowHoops
01-24-2015, 04:21 PM
I think Lebron would be second fiddle to Shaq, but I think if Lebron and Jordan were to play they would be as close to an even tag team as possible with Lebron initiating a larger share of the offense and Jordan finishing a larger share of the offense. But I think they would work in tandem. I think Kobe and Jordan would work similarly, but i see them getting into arguments much the same way Shaq and Kobe did. I think Bron and Jordan would get along simply because Lebron doesn't force bad shots at all. And Jordan makes everything he forces anyway.

xnick5757
01-24-2015, 04:45 PM
Does Wade being a second fiddle to Lebron tarnish is legacy?
Does Magic having Kareem tarnish is legacy?
Does MJ having Pippen,Grant or Rodman tarnish his legacy?
Does Wilt having West in his decline tarnish his legacy?
Does Bird having McHale tarnish his legacy?
Does Lebron having Bosh/Wade/Allen in his championship runs tarnish his legacy?

Championships are won with a complete effort from the team. Period.



93/94 Hakeem is the exception to this rule

Goose17
01-24-2015, 04:51 PM
93/94 Hakeem is the exception to this rule

Meh, Thorpe was a double double machine back then and big shot Bob was doing his thing. I mean they had the series with Phoenix tied and Thorpe and the Jet played a big part in taking that 3-2 lead. Same with game 3 against Utah, Olajuwon was garbage in that game and the Jet took over.

Nobody has won a title completely by themselves. But that's probably the closest I've seen to someone doing it.

JasonJohnHorn
01-24-2015, 04:54 PM
Not voting here because I don't like either option.

Does winning tarnish your legacy? NEVER.

The problem is the people that say: Kobe has 5 rings; therefore he is great than LBJ who only has two.

Winning is about context. Is Kobe's ring count as impressive as Jordan's? No. Because not only does Jordan have more, but Jordan was drafted by a horrible team and there for took a few years to develop a contentder. He therefore had a much smaller window to win in than Kobe (he was essentially on a contender for 9 seasons, compared to Kobe who was a contender for 12 seasons and only came away with 5).

LBJ wasn't on a contender really ever until he got to Miami. His first season on a contender, he got to the finals; then two championships, then another finals appearance. He didn't have another franchise player to win with like Kobe, and like Magic and Bird did.

The problem isn't that it tarnishes his legacy, it's that his ring count doesn't really factor in when comparing him to a player who had less opportunity to win and in turn has less rings.


What DOES hurt is legacy is the fact that when he became the first option for the Lakers, even when they had Shaq, he couldn't take them to the top and got shut down by the likes of Manu or Tayshuan Prince. Kobe had Shaq, Malone and Payton, and as the first option of a team with three HOFer and a HOF coach, couldn't beat a team that didn't even have a single player who would be considered a franchise player. That hurts him a little, but given that he won two additional titles, it's clear he's among the very best ever to play.

Just DO NOT USE his ring count when comparing him to LBJ. It's ridiculous.

PurpleLynch
01-24-2015, 04:58 PM
93/94 Hakeem is the exception to this rule

Well,he didn't win alone(Thorpe,Smith,Horry and Maxwell was a good supporting team),but it's a good example of a player almost winning a championship "on his own". But that doesn't count as exception imo.
Rockets won against a formidable Knicks team though.

Ty22Mitchell
01-24-2015, 04:58 PM
Just because Shaq got the Finals MVP's does not mean Kobe was second fiddle. Go back and watch those Western Conference Playoffs rounds 1,2,and 3 Kobe was a killer. He bailed the Lakers out so many 4th quarters it's not even debatable.. The Championship was much easier than the Western Playoffs where Kobe would have been the Lakers MVP

Can you please post stats to back such a claim, or provide a video to said situation?

This is why I dislike being a Lakers fan. Kobe fans cannot, will not, and do not aknowledge Shaq's dominance. Kobe was definitely a major part of those games, but hitting a few big shots doesn't qualify as "being the man." I'm tired of people inflating his accomplishments to justify his legacy/ranking. Either I was watching different Lakers teams from 99-02, or people are rewriting history.

Sorry, but I had to get that off my chest. (Kobe is my second fav all time, and in my all time top 10 ranking).

PurpleLynch
01-24-2015, 05:06 PM
Not voting here because I don't like either option.

Does winning tarnish your legacy? NEVER.

The problem is the people that say: Kobe has 5 rings; therefore he is great than LBJ who only has two.

Winning is about context. Is Kobe's ring count as impressive as Jordan's? No. Because not only does Jordan have more, but Jordan was drafted by a horrible team and there for took a few years to develop a contentder. He therefore had a much smaller window to win in than Kobe (he was essentially on a contender for 9 seasons, compared to Kobe who was a contender for 12 seasons and only came away with 5).

LBJ wasn't on a contender really ever until he got to Miami. His first season on a contender, he got to the finals; then two championships, then another finals appearance. He didn't have another franchise player to win with like Kobe, and like Magic and Bird did.

The problem isn't that it tarnishes his legacy, it's that his ring count doesn't really factor in when comparing him to a player who had less opportunity to win and in turn has less rings.


What DOES hurt is legacy is the fact that when he became the first option for the Lakers, even when they had Shaq, he couldn't take them to the top and got shut down by the likes of Manu or Tayshuan Prince. Kobe had Shaq, Malone and Payton, and as the first option of a team with three HOFer and a HOF coach, couldn't beat a team that didn't even have a single player who would be considered a franchise player. That hurts him a little, but given that he won two additional titles, it's clear he's among the very best ever to play.

Just DO NOT USE his ring count when comparing him to LBJ. It's ridiculous.

Payton and Malone were past their primes(injured also),Shaq too. Pistons played one of the best defense of all time in 2004 also.That doesn't count as something of damaging imo. Most of NBA teams never reached a Finals,so even if it was a bad loss,I don't count it as something of tarnishing.
Using a ring count to compare any player to another one it's stupid:Russell and Horry would be the GOATS of the Nba.

Goose17
01-24-2015, 05:25 PM
Just because Shaq got the Finals MVP's does not mean Kobe was second fiddle. Go back and watch those Western Conference Playoffs rounds 1,2,and 3 Kobe was a killer. He bailed the Lakers out so many 4th quarters it's not even debatable.. The Championship was much easier than the Western Playoffs where Kobe would have been the Lakers MVP

I agree. Like game 3 versus Sacramento, when Kobe shot 33% from the field and had 3 assists with 2 turnovers. While Shaq had a bad game and put up 20 points on 45% and grabbed 20 rebounds. Or when they played the Blazers in the first round and in one of the games Kobe went 5 for 21 from the field and 1 for 4 from deep. While Shaq only managed 31 points on 60%, 14 rebounds and 2 blocks.

Or game one of the finals against Philly. Shaq put up 44 and 20 on 60% Kobe had 15 and 5 with 6 turnovers on 30%

Those were the days...

Ty22Mitchell
01-24-2015, 08:06 PM
I agree. Like game 3 versus Sacramento, when Kobe shot 33% from the field and had 3 assists with 2 turnovers. While Shaq had a bad game and put up 20 points on 45% and grabbed 20 rebounds. Or when they played the Blazers in the first round and in one of the games Kobe went 5 for 21 from the field and 1 for 4 from deep. While Shaq only managed 31 points on 60%, 14 rebounds and 2 blocks.

Or game one of the finals against Philly. Shaq put up 44 and 20 on 60% Kobe had 15 and 5 with 6 turnovers on 30%

Those were the days...

Thank you....

Goose17
01-24-2015, 08:21 PM
Thank you....

To be fair he did say "He bailed the Lakers out so many 4th quarters it's not even debatable.."

So maybe he meant the 4th quarter in game 4 of the finals against Philly? Where Kobe shot exactly 0% from the floor and Shaq shot 55% totaling 10 points in that quarter.

Or game 5 (last game of the series) when Shaq shot 100% in the fourth and Kobe managed to get 2 points in the entire quarter. It was actually Fisher that put the nail in the coffin during that game. With less than a minute left in the game he hit them with a dagger from beyond the 3pt line giving them a double digit lead.

I'm just guessing. He'll have to let me know.

THE MTL
01-24-2015, 10:03 PM
Nope because he won the next 2 chips on his own to disprove the haters

LakersEaglesLA
01-24-2015, 10:36 PM
Can you please post stats to back such a claim, or provide a video to said situation?

This is why I dislike being a Lakers fan. Kobe fans cannot, will not, and do not aknowledge Shaq's dominance. Kobe was definitely a major part of those games, but hitting a few big shots doesn't qualify as "being the man." I'm tired of people inflating his accomplishments to justify his legacy/ranking. Either I was watching different Lakers teams from 99-02, or people are rewriting history.

Sorry, but I had to get that off my chest. (Kobe is my second fav all time, and in my all time top 10 ranking).

The question was abt Kobe not Shaq.. I am Laker fan since 1979 and I watched every playoff game my team played during the Shaq and Kobe championship runs and that's my opinion.. Shaq doesn't have haters in the nba fan bases so obviously I don't have to talk abt his dominance.. Shaq was the Man along with Kobe being the man.. I watched I don't have to run to the stat machine to prove Kobe was dominant. When you actually watch the games you don't need to look up stats. Since I don't remember every rebound assist and point total I will Google them if you really need me to fellow Laker fan

LakersEaglesLA
01-24-2015, 10:52 PM
2000 playoffs Shaq 30.1 Kobe 21.1, 2001 playoffs Shaq 30.4 Kobe 29.4, 2002 playoffs Shaq 28.5 Kobe 26.6, 2003 playoffs Kobe 32.1 Shaq 27.0 So get the hell outta hell! Sorry (I had to get that off my chest)

mngopher35
01-24-2015, 11:07 PM
When you watched those 3peat lakers it was very evident that shaq was the man. It isn't just solely about his stats being better than Kobe either. Watch the way teams defended him and who was getting the defenses attention and double teams.

As others have said this isn't a knock on Kobe or anything that tarnishes his legacy at all. Pretty much any other player would be 2nd option to a prime shaq. Kobe has proven he can be the main guy and lead a team to a title as well.

LakersEaglesLA
01-24-2015, 11:43 PM
So you all decided to pick 3 bad games by Kobe in a 4 year playoff span that had well over 70 games WooWhoo!

LakersEaglesLA
01-24-2015, 11:47 PM
Goose17 and Ty22 3 games doesn't make a point

goingfor28
01-25-2015, 12:30 AM
2000 playoffs Shaq 30.1 Kobe 21.1, 2001 playoffs Shaq 30.4 Kobe 29.4, 2002 playoffs Shaq 28.5 Kobe 26.6, 2003 playoffs Kobe 32.1 Shaq 27.0 So get the hell outta hell! Sorry (I had to get that off my chest)
Without looking it up I bet Shaq was way more efficient

jerellh528
01-25-2015, 12:47 AM
Effieciency isn't the only thing that goes into an effective offensive game plan. But yea shaq should be more efficient since he's a mammoth who sits 3 feet away from the basket. Also I bet thier ts% aren't far off

mngopher35
01-25-2015, 12:50 AM
Without looking it up I bet Shaq was way more efficient

Every regular season and playoff through their 3 peat Shaq had more ppg on better TS%, better PER, better Vorp, more WS and better WS/48 (outside of 2001 playoffs where there is .1 difference and tied in WS/48). Some of these by significant amounts. He also won an MVP and was third in voting the other two years and got all of the finals MVP's. Lastly as I also pointed out this is while he was clearly the main focus of the defense.

Being the second best player next to prime shaq isn't a terrible thing though as stated, basically anyone would be. Kobe wasn't even at his peak yet as a player anyways. It is pretty ridiculous to try and claim they were equals a that point in their careers though.

mngopher35
01-25-2015, 12:54 AM
Effieciency isn't the only thing that goes into an effective offensive game plan. But yea shaq should be more efficient since he's a mammoth who sits 3 feet away from the basket. Also I bet thier ts% aren't far off

Ya, I think in most cases the TS% advantage was only by a couple percentage points. Shaq obviously got more baskets at the hoop but wasn't a great ft shooter so couldn't completely capitalize in TS%.

IKnowHoops
01-25-2015, 01:14 AM
Nope because he won the next 2 chips on his own to disprove the haters

Oh yeah on his own, like in game 7 of that last chip when he shot 6 for 24 from the field and got the W because he did it on his own. Man who's the last player to shoot 25% from the field and win on his own? Nevermind Gasol averaging 20/11 with a 24 PER. Those are crap numbers.

IKnowHoops
01-25-2015, 01:17 AM
2000 playoffs Shaq 30.1 Kobe 21.1, 2001 playoffs Shaq 30.4 Kobe 29.4, 2002 playoffs Shaq 28.5 Kobe 26.6, 2003 playoffs Kobe 32.1 Shaq 27.0 So get the hell outta hell! Sorry (I had to get that off my chest)

Scoring is not everything. Once you add in the other stats that go along, its evident that Shaq dominace destroys anything that Kobe was doing out there.

mngopher35
01-25-2015, 01:33 AM
Oh yeah on his own, like in game 7 of that last chip when he shot 6 for 24 from the field and got the W because he did it on his own. Man who's the last player to shoot 25% from the field and win on his own? Nevermind Gasol averaging 20/11 with a 24 PER. Those are crap numbers.

Saying on his own probably was more in the context of the thread, meaning without shaq. There were people questioning if he could do it as the first option/leader and his last two rings disproved the idea he couldn't.

Tony_Starks
01-25-2015, 01:50 AM
Laughing. Out. Loud. First and last comment.

jerellh528
01-25-2015, 01:58 AM
Oh yeah on his own, like in game 7 of that last chip when he shot 6 for 24 from the field and got the W because he did it on his own. Man who's the last player to shoot 25% from the field and win on his own? Nevermind Gasol averaging 20/11 with a 24 PER. Those are crap numbers.

1 game. Anyways if you're going to add the 19/11 gasol averaged don't forget kobes 29/8 series average

IKnowHoops
01-25-2015, 01:59 AM
Saying on his own probably was more in the context of the thread, meaning without shaq. There were people questioning if he could do it as the first option/leader and his last two rings disproved the idea he couldn't.

I feel that, but I don't think playing second fiddle to Shaq tarnished his legacy at all. I just disagreed with that statement. And I disagree that the statement verifies his legacy. His game is his game with or without enough talent around it to win a ring.

IKnowHoops
01-25-2015, 02:02 AM
1 game. Anyways if you're going to add the 19/11 gasol averaged don't forget kobes 29/8 series average

No doubt, Kobe was Kobe. But my only point was that he didn't do anything on his own. Yes without Shaq, but def not on his own. He and Gasol had the basically the same PER in the playoffs that year.

jerellh528
01-25-2015, 02:04 AM
No doubt, Kobe was Kobe. But my only point was that he didn't do anything on his own. Yes without Shaq, but def not on his own. He and Gasol had the basically the same PER in the playoffs that year.

I think in his own was taken out of context. I'm betting the poster meant, out of shaqs shadow. Of course no title was ever won on a player's own.

IKnowHoops
01-25-2015, 02:25 AM
I think in his own was taken out of context. I'm betting the poster meant, out of shaqs shadow. Of course no title was ever won on a player's own.

I get that. But as a huge Drob fan and Spurs fan. Kobe seemed like more of a monster during his time with Shaq. He had guys on skates trying to guard him. He gave the Spurs tons of trouble. He was the dot on the I's and the cross on the T's. Dealing with Shaq was a life and death struggle every time down as he was like a tank against soldiers. Then you had Kobe as that assassin who would just add insult to injury in Shaqs aftermath. The combo was impossible to deal with when Kobe played his position.

slashsnake
01-25-2015, 05:28 AM
Just because Shaq got the Finals MVP's does not mean Kobe was second fiddle. Go back and watch those Western Conference Playoffs rounds 1,2,and 3 Kobe was a killer. He bailed the Lakers out so many 4th quarters it's not even debatable.. The Championship was much easier than the Western Playoffs where Kobe would have been the Lakers MVP

WATCH... I remember those ones. Shaq was constantly doubled and still killed. Kobe had a lot of open shots and did amazing too.

Lets look at those series. Which ones do you give to Kobe in the WCF? Not the first year. Shaq was a lot better in that one.

2nd year? Shaq and Kobe were close. Granted anyone who actually saw that knows Shaq had Tim Duncan and David Robinson double teaming him and constantly going after him while Kobe faced the trouble of a 35 year old Steve Kerr and a 37 year old Terry Porter. No way Kobe's winning that one. LA doesn't win without both of them, but I don't even think they come close in any game without Shaq in the middle. Easy MVP vote watching that series

3rd chip? Shaq was 30-14 vs. Webber in that one. Down 2-3 in that series, Shaq goes for 41-17 then 35-13 and makes his free throws down the stretch of both games to win the WCF that year. Easy Shaq.

In the end of those 12 series, you can point to a couple for Kobe (sweep vs. 7th seed Blazers is the clear one).

It was a close two sure. But just because Bosh outplayed Lebron in the 2011 ECF doesn't mean he was not a second fiddle for the Heat to Lebron. Just because I'd argue Pau was the MVP of that series against Denver in the WCF doesn't mean Kobe wasn't the real MVP of the Lakers that year right?


Just because Kobe HAS BECOME a bonafide #1 star who can carry his team to the finals and win rings, doesn't mean we get to rewrite history of what happened back then.

The thing I think that tarnishes it is when people try and rewrite what we all saw and make up stories to make Shaq seem like a #2 there. That just didn't happen.

More-Than-Most
01-25-2015, 05:50 AM
No not at all... He isnt near the level of James/Jordan but this doesnt drop him down at all

Goose17
01-25-2015, 11:28 AM
So you all decided to pick 3 bad games by Kobe in a 4 year playoff span that had well over 70 games WooWhoo!

Well you said;

" Go back and watch those Western Conference Playoffs rounds 1,2,and 3 Kobe was a killer. He bailed the Lakers out so many 4th quarters it's not even debatable.. "

Go back and watch them, he wasn't a killer, he flat out sucked in a lot of those games and I only picked the three I knew he sucked in there will be more I don't remember.

And he fell apart in most of the 4th quarters.

The argument was that Kobe played as the second option, which he did until you can prove otherwise.

Ty22Mitchell
01-25-2015, 02:28 PM
If we swap SHAQ ATTAQ with say, Dwight Howard, Yao Ming, or Manute Bol, could Kobe carry those Lakers squads to championships? Discuss.http://financenot.com/image/images/23.gif http://financenot.com/image/images/40.gif


Is this assuming all other things are equal (Phil is Coach, Fox/Fish/Horry supporting staff, Kobe is pre-prime and other guy is prime)?

Ty22Mitchell
01-25-2015, 02:30 PM
To be fair he did say "He bailed the Lakers out so many 4th quarters it's not even debatable.."

So maybe he meant the 4th quarter in game 4 of the finals against Philly? Where Kobe shot exactly 0% from the floor and Shaq shot 55% totaling 10 points in that quarter.

Or game 5 (last game of the series) when Shaq shot 100% in the fourth and Kobe managed to get 2 points in the entire quarter. It was actually Fisher that put the nail in the coffin during that game. With less than a minute left in the game he hit them with a dagger from beyond the 3pt line giving them a double digit lead.

I'm just guessing. He'll have to let me know.

Lmao

lol, please
01-25-2015, 02:43 PM
Is this assuming all other things are equal (Phil is Coach, Fox/Fish/Horry supporting staff, Kobe is pre-prime and other guy is prime)?
Yes

IKnowHoops
01-25-2015, 03:06 PM
Is this assuming all other things are equal (Phil is Coach, Fox/Fish/Horry supporting staff, Kobe is pre-prime and other guy is prime)?

NO Way! None of these guys would require a double team from Drob and Duncan. Manute would get annihilated by Duncan or Robinson. Dwight or Yao would get outplayed by Duncan or Robinson. Where as Shaq outplayed Duncan or Robinson and required a double team from both. Webber even outplays Dwight and Manute every night and probably splits with yao. The answer is no way. Shaq is way more of a force. Yao in certain spots would be very tough don't get me wrong, but he's not running the floor and getting back on D like Shaq and he still isn't as much of a force as Shaq anywhere accept when he is away from the rim shooting jumpers, which Yao could do. They don't make it to the finals with any of those guys. They don't make it out of the first round with Manute. 2nd round exits with Yao or Dwight.

Sly Guy
01-25-2015, 03:56 PM
don't like the poll options, but the short answer is no. Kobe's legacy isn't tarnished by winning it out.

Cal827
01-25-2015, 04:04 PM
To the OP, does it hurt Shaq's legacy, that he's had 2 of probably the top 5 or 6 SGs of all time when he won all of his titles?

I mean, to take a page out of Jordan's Bulls:

Couldn't win with Orlando, Penny, and HCA
He couldn't win with that dynamic Suns team
Couldn't win with Lebron on his team and HCA
Couldn't win in Boston, with Allen, KG, and Pierce

LakersEaglesLA
01-25-2015, 06:30 PM
Well you said;

" Go back and watch those Western Conference Playoffs rounds 1,2,and 3 Kobe was a killer. He bailed the Lakers out so many 4th quarters it's not even debatable.. "

Go back and watch them, he wasn't a killer, he flat out sucked in a lot of those games and I only picked the three I knew he sucked in there will be more I don't remember.

And he fell apart in most of the 4th quarters.

The argument was that Kobe played as the second option, which he did until you can prove otherwise.

So if Kobe fell apart in those 4th quarters (which is not true) and Shaq couldn't make free throws how the Hell did they Win 3 straight Championships... Jus sayin

Kevj77
01-25-2015, 07:09 PM
So if Kobe fell apart in those 4th quarters (which is not true) and Shaq couldn't make free throws how the Hell did they Win 3 straight Championships... Jus sayinThis is how I remember those years. Shaq dominated for 44 minutes Kobe took over the last 4 due to Shaq's terrible FT shooting and Hack a Shaq. Kobe was a second option in the first title after that he was option 1b.

Without a doubt Shaq was the best player in every series except in the 2001 WCF, which is perhaps the best series of Kobe's career. The WCF in 2001 and 2002 was the NBA championship.

lol, please
01-26-2015, 01:38 AM
So if Kobe fell apart in those 4th quarters (which is not true) and Shaq couldn't make free throws how the Hell did they Win 3 straight Championships... Jus sayin
:clap:

PowerHouse
01-26-2015, 02:00 AM
Im not so sure Kobe was that much of a second option to Shaq anyways considering Kobe averaged more shot attempts per game than Shaq in the two championship seasons of '01 and '02, both regular season and playoffs.

The pressure and responsibilities were divided much more evenly between Shaq and Kobe than the Kobe-haters want to admit, or realize.

JV35
01-26-2015, 02:40 AM
Kobe's legacy is fine.

While we're on the subject of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, I'd like to say my favorite team was the 2000 Champs.

The team that broke the Championship drought (and the only Championship with Glen Rice).

I know the 2001 Champs went 15-1 in the playoffs, but I liked the 2000 team better.

Shaq/Kobe/Rice was quite a 3-headed monster.

Goose17
01-26-2015, 03:33 AM
So if Kobe fell apart in those 4th quarters (which is not true) and Shaq couldn't make free throws how the Hell did they Win 3 straight Championships... Jus sayin

Kobe did fall apart in a lot of those 4th quarters. Look at the stats I posted. Unless you call 0% from the field and 2 points in the entire quarter as "clutch"?

He didn't do it all the time but it did happen more than people care to remember.

Jeffy25
01-26-2015, 03:43 AM
Yeah I was gonna say this. Every player in history would of been a second fiddle to Shaq. I don't hold being second fiddle to Shaq against Kobe. I do believe Jordan and Lebron would have been much better second fiddles though.

This

slashsnake
01-26-2015, 03:54 AM
Kobe's legacy is fine.

While we're on the subject of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, I'd like to say my favorite team was the 2000 Champs.

The team that broke the Championship drought (and the only Championship with Glen Rice).

I know the 2001 Champs went 15-1 in the playoffs, but I liked the 2000 team better.

Shaq/Kobe/Rice was quite a 3-headed monster.

Always loved Rice. I remember going to Heat practices back in the day and he'd sit out there at nearly half court bombing three's and they'd either sink or hit the rim, nothing off the backboard or airballing from that range, it was sick. Such a talented shooter.

slashsnake
01-26-2015, 04:43 AM
Im not so sure Kobe was that much of a second option to Shaq anyways considering Kobe averaged more shot attempts per game than Shaq in the two championship seasons of '01 and '02, both regular season and playoffs.

The pressure and responsibilities were divided much more evenly between Shaq and Kobe than the Kobe-haters want to admit, or realize.

If you pair Iverson next to anyone but maybe Jordan and Wilt, he's going to be leading that team in shot attempts. Iverson + Olajuwon win a chip, I'd be very surprised if after actually watching the year I'd call that Iverson's team.

Has nothing to do with liking or hating Kobe really, more about just watching how the Lakers operated back then. It's easy to throw that out anytime someone doesn't say something you like about him but I like Kobe more than Shaq, but just can't make myself buy that no matter how much I want to.

2 of the past 3 years (nearly 3 out of 4) Westbrook has outshot Durant. I think basketball is more than just who shoots more though. I don't believe volume shooting makes the Thunder Westbrook's team.

Just because Jameer, Hedo and Rashard took more shots than Dwight on their finals run in Orlando doesn't mean Dwight wasn't even in the hunt for being the thing that made that team go does it? There were years Bill Russell wasn't even in the top 7 guys of field goals taken for his team. I don't think he ever led them in shots. But that dynasty was Bill's, not 5 other guys.

Or do you believe the 80's Lakers were driven by Scott, Nixon, Wilkes, and Worthy, not Magic?

If you were going to pretend not to watch those seasons, I'd go with things like PER, win shares, box +-, value over replacement... Stats that tell more of a story of who was the driving force than who had more shot attempts. Things like LA being +3 when Kobe is in the game per 100 posessions vs. not, and +13 when Shaq was in vs. not in those two years. Things like LA going as high as +23 when Shaq was on the court per 100 posessions in the 02 playoffs, vs. +1.5 for Kobe.

YAALREADYKNO
01-26-2015, 11:02 AM
To the OP, does it hurt Shaq's legacy, that he's had 2 of probably the top 5 or 6 SGs of all time when he won all of his titles?

I mean, to take a page out of Jordan's Bulls:

Couldn't win with Orlando, Penny, and HCA
He couldn't win with that dynamic Suns team
Couldn't win with Lebron on his team and HCA
Couldn't win in Boston, with Allen, KG, and Pierce


well, he was old and injured with the Celtics and cavs and was out of his prime in phoenix. I know he made the allstar team but he wasn't the shaq in Orlando, LA, or even MIA.

FlashBolt
01-26-2015, 11:35 AM
To the OP, does it hurt Shaq's legacy, that he's had 2 of probably the top 5 or 6 SGs of all time when he won all of his titles?

I mean, to take a page out of Jordan's Bulls:

Couldn't win with Orlando, Penny, and HCA
He couldn't win with that dynamic Suns team
Couldn't win with Lebron on his team and HCA
Couldn't win in Boston, with Allen, KG, and Pierce

Here's the difference: Shaq never took a backseat to anyone but Wade during those rings. He was a 3x FMVP and is arguably the most dominating player to ever take court. Kobe at his absolute prime is not a top 10 player. I'm talking peak peak, year by year, he will never be a top 10 player in that regard. In terms of longevity and everything considered, that is the only reason he is a top 10. Let's also be honest with ourselves here. Shaq's career was diminished by the time he got to Miami. He was a shell of his former self and though he still put up decent numbers, that was not the Shaq of LAL. That guy put up 30 points and 15 rebounds averaged throughout all his NBA Finals (minus the Miami Heat one of course).

lol, please
01-26-2015, 03:22 PM
Here's the difference: Shaq never took a backseat to anyone but Wade during those rings. He was a 3x FMVP and is arguably the most dominating player to ever take court. Kobe at his absolute prime is not a top 10 player. I'm talking peak peak, year by year, he will never be a top 10 player in that regard. In terms of longevity and everything considered, that is the only reason he is a top 10. Let's also be honest with ourselves here. Shaq's career was diminished by the time he got to Miami. He was a shell of his former self and though he still put up decent numbers, that was not the Shaq of LAL. That guy put up 30 points and 15 rebounds averaged throughout all his NBA Finals (minus the Miami Heat one of course).
Well said. Good post.

PowerHouse
01-26-2015, 04:10 PM
If you pair Iverson next to anyone but maybe Jordan and Wilt, he's going to be leading that team in shot attempts. Iverson + Olajuwon win a chip, I'd be very surprised if after actually watching the year I'd call that Iverson's team.

Has nothing to do with liking or hating Kobe really, more about just watching how the Lakers operated back then. It's easy to throw that out anytime someone doesn't say something you like about him but I like Kobe more than Shaq, but just can't make myself buy that no matter how much I want to.

2 of the past 3 years (nearly 3 out of 4) Westbrook has outshot Durant. I think basketball is more than just who shoots more though. I don't believe volume shooting makes the Thunder Westbrook's team.

Just because Jameer, Hedo and Rashard took more shots than Dwight on their finals run in Orlando doesn't mean Dwight wasn't even in the hunt for being the thing that made that team go does it? There were years Bill Russell wasn't even in the top 7 guys of field goals taken for his team. I don't think he ever led them in shots. But that dynasty was Bill's, not 5 other guys.

Or do you believe the 80's Lakers were driven by Scott, Nixon, Wilkes, and Worthy, not Magic?

If you were going to pretend not to watch those seasons, I'd go with things like PER, win shares, box +-, value over replacement... Stats that tell more of a story of who was the driving force than who had more shot attempts. Things like LA being +3 when Kobe is in the game per 100 posessions vs. not, and +13 when Shaq was in vs. not in those two years. Things like LA going as high as +23 when Shaq was on the court per 100 posessions in the 02 playoffs, vs. +1.5 for Kobe.

Am I saying those teams were Kobe's rather than Shaq's? No. Am I saying that the pressure and responsibilities were more evenly divided between the two than say a Jordan/Pippen combo? Yes.

I know its not all about the shot attempts and I have been avidly watching the Lakers since the Magic days so I have seen for myself that yes Shaq was the big dog but Kobe's ability to run the offense and take over games late was crucial for the Lakers success. Because of Shaq's unreliable FT shooting or occasional foul trouble it was often times Kobe who would take close games over late, attacking the basket, getting to the FT line, shutting down the other teams top perimeter scorer.

JasonJohnHorn
01-26-2015, 04:17 PM
Im not so sure Kobe was that much of a second option to Shaq anyways considering Kobe averaged more shot attempts per game than Shaq in the two championship seasons of '01 and '02, both regular season and playoffs.

The pressure and responsibilities were divided much more evenly between Shaq and Kobe than the Kobe-haters want to admit, or realize.

More shots and less points.

Kobe, and everybody knows this, used to CONSTANTLY p!$$ off his teammates by forcing shots. Just because he took the most shots doesn't mean he was their first option it means that he jacked up shots before plays could be set, but even with FEWER shots, Shaq got more points, AND Shaq shot like $#!T from the free throw line and took no 3's, which tells you something about Kobe's shooting those seasons. When a guy that doens't hit free throws and doesn't shoot threes, score more points on fewer shots than your all-star shooting guard... there is an issue.

Lakers + Giants
01-26-2015, 04:28 PM
Kobe couldn't win without shaq but shaq needed another superstar next to him to win as well.

Kobe had Shaq and Gasol. Shaq had Kobe and Wade.

jerellh528
01-26-2015, 04:29 PM
More shots and less points.

Kobe, and everybody knows this, used to CONSTANTLY p!$$ off his teammates by forcing shots. Just because he took the most shots doesn't mean he was their first option it means that he jacked up shots before plays could be set, but even with FEWER shots, Shaq got more points, AND Shaq shot like $#!T from the free throw line and took no 3's, which tells you something about Kobe's shooting those seasons. When a guy that doens't hit free throws and doesn't shoot threes, score more points on fewer shots than your all-star shooting guard... there is an issue.

Centers are supposed to score more points on less shots than a guard. Perks of being 7 foot and playing 3 ft from the basket.

PowerHouse
01-26-2015, 04:42 PM
Centers are supposed to score more points on less shots than a guard. Perks of being 7 foot and playing 3 ft from the basket.

Thank you. That is just basic basketball logic 1-A that somehow got by him.

nickdymez
01-26-2015, 04:44 PM
You guys a ****in pathetic man

FlashBolt
01-26-2015, 04:58 PM
More shots and less points.

Kobe, and everybody knows this, used to CONSTANTLY p!$$ off his teammates by forcing shots. Just because he took the most shots doesn't mean he was their first option it means that he jacked up shots before plays could be set, but even with FEWER shots, Shaq got more points, AND Shaq shot like $#!T from the free throw line and took no 3's, which tells you something about Kobe's shooting those seasons. When a guy that doens't hit free throws and doesn't shoot threes, score more points on fewer shots than your all-star shooting guard... there is an issue.

Shooting guards aren't supposed to have high FG%, though. When your SG is 46%+, that's actually very good. Let's put Shaq out there shooting threes and handling the ball. I guarantee you that they would drop him from the team. Just not his game man.

Jeffy25
01-26-2015, 09:21 PM
Kobe couldn't win without shaq but shaq needed another superstar next to him to win as well.

Kobe had Shaq and Gasol. Shaq had Kobe and Wade.

Maybe I'm confusing posters here.

But didn't you argue about rings being part of an individual's legacy in the other thread?

Or different poster?

Lakers + Giants
01-26-2015, 09:32 PM
Maybe I'm confusing posters here.

But didn't you argue about rings being part of an individual's legacy in the other thread?

Or different poster?

Nah wasn't me haha.

I honestly feel Championships aren't that important when it comes to a players legacy.

As for the the question in the title tho, no way winning championships as a 2nd option can hurt one's legacy...

JasonJohnHorn
01-26-2015, 09:56 PM
Shooting guards aren't supposed to have high FG%, though. When your SG is 46%+, that's actually very good. Let's put Shaq out there shooting threes and handling the ball. I guarantee you that they would drop him from the team. Just not his game man.

It's not about lower FG%, it's about points-per-shot. The fact that Kobe is shooting 3'd and hitting a higher FT% is supposed to make up the difference in FG%.


Centers are supposed to score more points on less shots than a guard. Perks of being 7 foot and playing 3 ft from the basket.


Thank you. That is just basic basketball logic 1-A that somehow got by him.

That shows a rudimentary understanding of advance stats. Kobe's slightly lower FG% is supposed to be offset by the fact that some of the shots he's taking are worth 3 points. Coupled with that, Shaq shot UNDER .600 from the stripe, whilst Kobe shot OVER .800.

If you used that logic, then why isn't EVERY team in the league pounding the ball into the paint on every play? You can count the number of teams whose center leads the team in shots on one hand. There is a reason for that.

Shaq lead the league in FG% in 00 with .574. Durant shot only .503 last year, HOWEVER, Durant scored 32 points per game on 20.8 shots whilst Shaq only scored 29.7 on 21.1 shots.

Durant had less shots and more points than Shaq, so there goes whatever it is you were trying to argue out the window.

An elite guard is supposed to score as efficiently as anybody else on the court. Period. If your points-per-shot is lower than a guy who only his 1 3-pointer his entire career and averaged less than .600 from the floor... you aren't going to be doing to well in advance stats. Just saying.

PowerHouse
01-26-2015, 10:36 PM
.

jerellh528
01-26-2015, 10:48 PM
It's not about lower FG%, it's about points-per-shot. The fact that Kobe is shooting 3'd and hitting a higher FT% is supposed to make up the difference in FG%.




That shows a rudimentary understanding of advance stats. Kobe's slightly lower FG% is supposed to be offset by the fact that some of the shots he's taking are worth 3 points. Coupled with that, Shaq shot UNDER .600 from the stripe, whilst Kobe shot OVER .800.

If you used that logic, then why isn't EVERY team in the league pounding the ball into the paint on every play? You can count the number of teams whose center leads the team in shots on one hand. There is a reason for that.

Shaq lead the league in FG% in 00 with .574. Durant shot only .503 last year, HOWEVER, Durant scored 32 points per game on 20.8 shots whilst Shaq only scored 29.7 on 21.1 shots.

Durant had less shots and more points than Shaq, so there goes whatever it is you were trying to argue out the window.

An elite guard is supposed to score as efficiently as anybody else on the court. Period. If your points-per-shot is lower than a guy who only his 1 3-pointer his entire career and averaged less than .600 from the floor... you aren't going to be doing to well in advance stats. Just saying.

It's called balance. I'm starting to think you don't understand the basic concepts of basketball. Also, you used durant as your example who just so happened to have arguably the most legendary offensive season in basketball history.

lol, please
01-27-2015, 01:06 AM
More shots and less points.

Kobe, and everybody knows this, used to CONSTANTLY p!$$ off his teammates by forcing shots. Just because he took the most shots doesn't mean he was their first option it means that he jacked up shots before plays could be set, but even with FEWER shots, Shaq got more points, AND Shaq shot like $#!T from the free throw line and took no 3's, which tells you something about Kobe's shooting those seasons. When a guy that doens't hit free throws and doesn't shoot threes, score more points on fewer shots than your all-star shooting guard... there is an issue.
Good post. Kobe did throw alot of set plays into the dumpster by trying to hero ball it, if we are going to be objective about it.

PowerHouse
01-27-2015, 01:13 AM
Good post. Kobe did throw alot of set plays into the dumpster by trying to hero ball it, if we are going to be objective about it.

It was me talking about the '01 and '02 seasons that led to his post.

The hero ball seemed to work out just fine for everybody those years. :win:

Ty Fast
01-27-2015, 01:21 AM
The Lakers dont win without Shaq but they also dont win without Kobe.

lol, please
01-27-2015, 01:23 AM
The Lakers dont win without Shaq but they also dont win without Kobe.
While I want to agree, I think kobe is more easily replaceable on those squads than shaq.

numba1CHANGsta
01-27-2015, 02:03 AM
Get a life guys, there's nothing you can say that tarnishes Kobe's career. Does LeBron playing with Wade and Bosh tarnish his career? pretty much all of you will say no, so yeah keep hating on Kobe and his 5 championship rings ;)

lol, please
01-27-2015, 02:06 AM
Get a life guys, there's nothing you can say that tarnishes Kobe's career. Does LeBron playing with Wade and Bosh tarnish his career? pretty much all of you will say no, so yeah keep hating on Kobe and his 5 championship rings ;)
Honestly it does, and what really blemished lebron legacy was leaving Cleveland to try and build a super team in the first place, so let's not bring him up as if he is some positive example. Like Jordan said "we were trying to beat those guys, not join them..."

PowerHouse
01-27-2015, 02:58 AM
Now are we going to have a thread questioning the legacy of Duncan's career because he had Tony Parker, Manu Ginobli, David Robinson, etc?

Cuz Im really waiting for that one.

numba1CHANGsta
01-27-2015, 03:03 AM
Honestly it does, and what really blemished lebron legacy was leaving Cleveland to try and build a super team in the first place, so let's not bring him up as if he is some positive example. Like Jordan said "we were trying to beat those guys, not join them..."

Most basketball (or LeBron) fans would say it wouldn't tarnish his career but it's all BS. I think if you stay with one team all your career no matter who you played along with there's no way your career can be tarnished. The worst is leaving team to team and fail, such as Dwight, Melo, Barkley, etc.

lol, please
01-27-2015, 03:24 AM
Most basketball (or LeBron) fans would say it wouldn't tarnish his career but it's all BS. I think if you stay with one team all your career no matter who you played along with there's no way your career can be tarnished. The worst is leaving team to team and fail, such as Dwight, Melo, Barkley, etc.

I agree with this. Stay loyal to who drafted you. Obviously trades happen, but leaving when the going gets tough of your own accord is weak, petty, and distasteful.

JasonJohnHorn
01-27-2015, 10:19 AM
It's called balance. I'm starting to think you don't understand the basic concepts of basketball. Also, you used durant as your example who just so happened to have arguably the most legendary offensive season in basketball history.

If you want to suggest that Kobe is not in the conversation with Durant, I won't argue. Jordan also had any number of seasons where he had higher point-per-shot as well. As has LeBron. It's not like I'm comparing Scott Hasting to George Gervin here. I'm comparing elite players from the same generation.

And yes, there is balance, but teams are continuing to move away from interior offense. It is a much smaller part of the game than it was 20 years ago because even though the percentages are higher, the outside shots yield more points. It's not an interpretive argument. It is a fact.

JasonJohnHorn
01-27-2015, 10:33 AM
Good post. Kobe did throw alot of set plays into the dumpster by trying to hero ball it, if we are going to be objective about it.

I know... I got no problem saying that Kobe is the second best SG of all time, and will concede that he is certainly a top-15 player all time, but he was FAR from perfect, and people act like the guy is a god. If you are talking to a Kobephile, it is not enough to simply say he's the second best shooting guard of all time and that he's one of the greatest ever. You have to exclude any criticisms of his game from the conversation. When he was playing with Shaq, he took a lot of stupid shots. I've seen games where he literally turned his back to the basket and flipped the ball over his head as if he were trying to make the highlight reel with some miraculous shot that had no hope of going in. I've seen him throw up shots from behind the backboard. And this is with teammates open and time on the clock. Like that one shot he totally bricked when he had an open Horry on the arc, then brick popped back up and Horry grabbed it and hit the shot. When Kobe drove the lane in that game, Divac came out to meet him and leg Shaq open for a dunk. Kobe could have dumped the ball to Shaq for the tie, but he wanted to take the shot, which he missed, and by the time O'Neal got the offensive board (because he was wide open), defenders got to him, he miss the shot and the rebound got tipped to Horry who hit the three. That is a loss. That is one less ring for Kobe if Horry hadn't bailed him out from his mistake. There is no doubt Kobe helped the team, and was well deserving of the finals MVP awards he got, but he took some stupid shots on important plays that hurt the team. There is a reason why the man many consider to be the greatest coach of all time said that Kobe was uncoachable.

Kobe's one of the best to ever step foot on the court, but he is far from perfect.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2015, 11:55 AM
I agree with this. Stay loyal to who drafted you. Obviously trades happen, but leaving when the going gets tough of your own accord is weak, petty, and distasteful.

are you out of college yet? Are you in the job market yet?

Curious

FlashBolt
01-27-2015, 01:08 PM
Honestly it does, and what really blemished lebron legacy was leaving Cleveland to try and build a super team in the first place, so let's not bring him up as if he is some positive example. Like Jordan said "we were trying to beat those guys, not join them..."

Jordan was a notorious loser and if it weren't for Pippen to the rescue, he would have bolted. Sorry, it's the truth. People wanna talk about how LeBron didn't do this or didn't do that. Have you seen how incompetent Cleveland's management has been before LeBron came back? The only reason Cleveland is actually putting any effort into this is because Dan Gilbert suffered a huge loss when James left. The entire city suffered from some sort of economical impact. Revenue was down, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if James had an undisclosed payment to come back to Cleveland. Also, James having more control of the team also helped that things are much different. Honestly, James took a weak team to the NBA Finals. Jordan never did that (yet he has the killer instinct, cool). Even Magic/Bird said the exact same thing. Yeah, you wouldn't join them but let's put you on a team that completely sucks for 7 years. Easy for someone to say "I wanted to beat them", when your team was stacked from top to bottom.

lol, please
01-27-2015, 04:12 PM
are you out of college yet? Are you in the job market yet?

Curious

Sure am, Software engineer. What's that got to do with anything here? In some aspects different industries are similar, but please don't try to discredit my point by telling me how it's nonsensical elsewhere, because it's a moot point, I would be the first to acknowledge that loyalty of that nature doesn't have its place anywhere else other than professional sports.

Jamiecballer
01-27-2015, 04:45 PM
Sure am, Software engineer. What's that got to do with anything here? In some aspects different industries are similar, but please don't try to discredit my point by telling me how it's nonsensical elsewhere, because it's a moot point, I would be the first to acknowledge that loyalty of that nature doesn't have its place anywhere else other than professional sports.

i guess the obvious question then is why it's reasonable that average joe souldn't waste their prime years in a dead end job but athletes should just say "oh darn" and fade into obscurity. seems hypocritical.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2015, 04:46 PM
Sure am, Software engineer. What's that got to do with anything here? In some aspects different industries are similar, but please don't try to discredit my point by telling me how it's nonsensical elsewhere, because it's a moot point, I would be the first to acknowledge that loyalty of that nature doesn't have its place anywhere else other than professional sports.

why does loyalty have it's place in sports? It's a business, just like your software company. The young working class of Americans switch companies like they are candy. You expect our young professional athletes to be different?

Unfortunately, this isn't a fairly tale world where you get to pick what team drafts you. If you are MJ, Bird, Magic, Duncan, or Kobe, and you luck out and get picked by a perennial championship team, good for you. I don't hold it against players if they were drafted by the 95% of the NBA that hasn't figured it out at any point in time.

Loyalty, in business, does not have its place, period. You are almost there with the idea.

lol, please
01-27-2015, 06:21 PM
why does loyalty have it's place in sports? It's a business, just like your software company. The young working class of Americans switch companies like they are candy. You expect our young professional athletes to be different?

Unfortunately, this isn't a fairly tale world where you get to pick what team drafts you. If you are MJ, Bird, Magic, Duncan, or Kobe, and you luck out and get picked by a perennial championship team, good for you. I don't hold it against players if they were drafted by the 95% of the NBA that hasn't figured it out at any point in time.

Loyalty, in business, does not have its place, period. You are almost there with the idea.
Because unlike other industries I belive that beyond profit, the FO has a responsibility to the generations of fans who are more than just consumers, they are passionate followers through thick and thin. Money shouldn't be the end all be all even though it tends to be. Just because we live in a consumer and capitalist economy doesn't mean some of us don't believe in or value more than money. Yes, a person with a certain moral compass and principles would be different when it comes to athletes, it shouldn't be considered foolish, it should be commendable, it's sad that greed is more important than principal in this day and age.

lol, please
01-27-2015, 06:37 PM
i guess the obvious question then is why it's reasonable that average joe souldn't waste their prime years in a dead end job but athletes should just say "oh darn" and fade into obscurity. seems hypocritical.
I answered it in the previous post, but to give an amusing example, because unlike a sports franchise, my parents parents didn't raise my parents with IBM banners on walls and IBM jerseys worshipping IBM managers and buying fiscal year tickets to go get good seats to watch board members hold meetings once a week and cheer them on. I am not arguing that sports isn't a business driven by profit, I am arguing that it isn't wrong to wish that FO and staff of a franchise would prioritize things like fandom and sentiment as opposed to just profit. I know they really don't, but that doesn't make it right in my eyes. Loyalty doesn't have its place in business and that's true, but sports shouldn't be that way whether it makes sense financially or not. I find the example of working a dead end job as a young professional especially inaccurate by the way, you can't compare a low salary or wage of a young professional to the average contract or even low end contract of an athlete. Even the lowest of contracts put the most unknown professional athletes in the upper middle class in the usa at worst. It's not the same thing. They can choose to chase more money but they aren't having financial hardships unless they are irresponsible, and unlike other industries just making a professional team is "making it", compared to the rest of society so I don't buy the argument that they need to build a name in the industry or build their careers like we are talking about tradesmen,consultants, or other professionals.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2015, 06:38 PM
Because unlike other industries I belive that beyond profit, the FO has a responsibility to the generations of fans who are more than just consumers, they are passionate followers through thick and thin. Money shouldn't be the end all be all even though it tends to be. Just because we live in a consumer and capitalist economy doesn't mean some of us don't believe in or value more than money. Yes, a person with a certain moral compass and principles would be different when it comes to athletes, it shouldn't be considered foolish, it should be commendable, it's sad that greed is more important than principal in this day and age.

your customer base does not dictate your individual employees, and their decisions. In any industry. You have the right to change companies (teams) for any possible reason you might come up with.

For many athletes, money isn't the end all. They are competitive people. They enjoy succeeding. There is the same percentage of NBA professional players that want to succeed at any cost they can, as there are wall street brokers who want to do the same. There are the same percentage of NBA professional players, that are just content getting a paycheck, and show up enough to be average, just like in Construction for example.

If you have a problem with society, and it's need for success and money as a whole, that is fine. But it has nothing to do with professional sports.

In my scenario, look at it like this. A young man (let's call him LeBron), is hired out of school, for a company. As incredibly talented as he is, he sees his company is going nowhere, with poor management, and a high turnover rate. Another young man (lets call him Tim), is hired out of school, for a company. He is incredibly talented, and this company is such, that is is able to develop it's employees, the business is continually growing, and turning over more opportunities for it's valued, and treasured employees, has a low turnover rate, and continued success in it's margins and company purpose.

The first guy is leaving, the second guy is staying in the real world scenario. And in the NBA, you don't get to pick your first team (company). It is chosen for you.

So no, I don't agree with your premise at all.

lol, please
01-27-2015, 06:45 PM
Well we agree to disagree I guess. I have no problem with our economic principles or with making smart career moves as an individual, but at the same time I was raised to value other things other than money as a person and to me loyalty is always a positive commendable trait, even if it's at the expense of other factors.

Lol @ your shot at construction workers btw.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2015, 06:50 PM
Well we agree to disagree I guess. I have no problem with our economic principles or with making smart career moves as an individual, but at the same time I was raised to value other things other than money as a person and to me loyalty is always a positive commendable trait, even if it's at the expense of other factors.

Lol @ your shot at construction workers btw.

I read that, and thought maybe I should have flipped it around haha. I meant literally nothing by it, just picked the first random job that came to my mind

Hawkeye15
01-27-2015, 06:51 PM
Well we agree to disagree I guess. I have no problem with our economic principles or with making smart career moves as an individual, but at the same time I was raised to value other things other than money as a person and to me loyalty is always a positive commendable trait, even if it's at the expense of other factors.

Lol @ your shot at construction workers btw.

you do agree, loyalty is easier when your surroundings are much more set up for success thought, right?

lol, please
01-27-2015, 06:56 PM
you do agree, loyalty is easier when your surroundings are much more set up for success thought, right?
I agree with that, just like a lucrative package would entice an employee to stay with a firm, but let's use fandom as an example, who do you give more respect to, a fan of a perennial contender, or the fan of a cellar dweller who hasn't sniffed a .500 season in a decade? Can we at least agree that the bandwagon fan that hops from winner to winner deserves none? Now, if we apply that to employees in a similar industry it doesn't make sense, the one hopping to the most successful companies for the better positions would be the smart one, but I'm just saying loyalty can be respected depending on the context.

jerellh528
01-27-2015, 09:18 PM
Nah wasn't me haha.

I honestly feel Championships aren't that important when it comes to a players legacy.

As for the the question in the title tho, no way winning championships as a 2nd option can hurt one's legacy...

Championships don't matter because it's a team game. But guys like love doing work on the crap Timberwolves gets dismissed from being a good player because he's on a crap team. Also guys like Barkley never get a fair shake because they never won. But winning rings doesn't count toward a legacy?

Lakers + Giants
01-27-2015, 10:49 PM
Championships don't matter because it's a team game. But guys like love doing work on the crap Timberwolves gets dismissed from being a good player because he's on a crap team. Also guys like Barkley never get a fair shake because they never won. But winning rings doesn't count toward a legacy?

I never said it doesn't count toward a legacy. I said they're not that important. There are plenty of players that I would put above others despite them not having a ring. Malone, Barkley, Nash, Stockton etc.

And then there are those with great legacies that ended up ring chasing but IMO didn't need a ring (especially not one where you weren't a big factor) to add to an already great legacy. Gary Payton comes to mind. That championship he won with the heat didn't add to his legacy, even without a ring he was already an all time great IMO.

FlashBolt
01-27-2015, 10:51 PM
Championships don't matter because it's a team game. But guys like love doing work on the crap Timberwolves gets dismissed from being a good player because he's on a crap team. Also guys like Barkley never get a fair shake because they never won. But winning rings doesn't count toward a legacy?

Don't get it twisted.. You know the difference. The best team wins; not the best player. Can you tell me why Jordan always lost to the Celtics?

lol, please
01-27-2015, 11:04 PM
It's a team accomplishment but you can't discount titles entirely. It depends on the situation. If we are comparing two great players in similar situations and one contributes to the wins enough to win a title and the other didn't, we can't not consider efficiency in playoff situations. Aside from that, advanced metrics are the way to measure and compare two players. The eye test will fail you. Numbers are unbiased.

FlashBolt
01-27-2015, 11:15 PM
It's a team accomplishment but you can't discount titles entirely. It depends on the situation. If we are comparing two great players in similar situations and one contributes to the wins enough to win a title and the other didn't, we can't not consider efficiency in playoff situations. Aside from that, advanced metrics are the way to measure and compare two players. The eye test will fail you. Numbers are unbiased.

Exactly. No one is discounting that titles doesn't mean anything but are we going to sit here and say it's the same as UFC, gold, tennis, or boxing? Those are true legitimate singles championship and you can compare THOSE achievements. In team sports, the championship debate isn't as strong. It's a team sport, for Christ's sake. Doesn't take a genius to understand that the best team will win 99% of the time.

Hawkeye15
01-28-2015, 01:10 AM
I agree with that, just like a lucrative package would entice an employee to stay with a firm, but let's use fandom as an example, who do you give more respect to, a fan of a perennial contender, or the fan of a cellar dweller who hasn't sniffed a .500 season in a decade? Can we at least agree that the bandwagon fan that hops from winner to winner deserves none? Now, if we apply that to employees in a similar industry it doesn't make sense, the one hopping to the most successful companies for the better positions would be the smart one, but I'm just saying loyalty can be respected depending on the context.

you are again pissing time away on the consumer

I am a Wolves fan. Yeah......

lol, please
01-28-2015, 01:11 AM
you are again pissing time away on the consumer

I am a Wolves fan. Yeah......
Poor wolves fans. :( I wanted that team to be perennial contenders with Rubio and love

FlashBolt
01-28-2015, 01:32 AM
Poor wolves fans. :( I wanted that team to be perennial contenders with Rubio and love

Meh, they got wiggins.. could've been much worse.

Hawkeye15
01-28-2015, 10:42 AM
Poor wolves fans. :( I wanted that team to be perennial contenders with Rubio and love

is it wrong I do a Wiggy dance in my apartment now at times?

I think the future is finally bright for my team.

lol, please
01-28-2015, 01:48 PM
is it wrong I do a Wiggy dance in my apartment now at times?

I think the future is finally bright for my team.
:laugh2: I hope you are right, the fans and franchise deserve to taste some success.

Hawkeye15
01-28-2015, 03:08 PM
:laugh2: I hope you are right, the fans and franchise deserve to taste some success.

you are a Warriors fan, right? You guys weathered a looooooooooooong storm too haha. Glad the fanbase has a great team now, awesome fanbase. I used to love the Warriors when I was a kid, loved me some Chris Mullin. Except when he talked. Cause I couldn't understand a word he said.

lol, please
01-28-2015, 04:19 PM
you are a Warriors fan, right? You guys weathered a looooooooooooong storm too haha. Glad the fanbase has a great team now, awesome fanbase. I used to love the Warriors when I was a kid, loved me some Chris Mullin. Except when he talked. Cause I couldn't understand a word he said.
Yea, that's true, haha. I loved Mullin as a kid, the run TMC era was fun, but it was dark ages with the exception of the one year we had baron davis, but I knew with certainty good times were ahead when jerry west came over. I knew it was the start of great things to come, I just didn't think it would happen so quicky. The first year under mark jackson was the start of something truly special. I still remember being angry and embarassed to be a fan when lacob got booed by all of Oracle on the night we honored Mullin, because of trading fan favorite Monta "the one man fast break" Ellis for an injured Bogut. Bet most of those guys who booed feel foolish now.

Hawkeye15
01-28-2015, 05:52 PM
Yea, that's true, haha. I loved Mullin as a kid, the run TMC era was fun, but it was dark ages with the exception of the one year we had baron davis, but I knew with certainty good times were ahead when jerry west came over. I knew it was the start of great things to come, I just didn't think it would happen so quicky. The first year under mark jackson was the start of something truly special. I still remember being angry and embarassed to be a fan when lacob got booed by all of Oracle on the night we honored Mullin, because of trading fan favorite Monta "the one man fast break" Ellis for an injured Bogut. Bet most of those guys who booed feel foolish now.

I was blown away that anyone was against trading Monta for Bogut. Even with his injury history, a two way big is exponentially more impactful than a midget shooting guard with a quick trigger.

I remember playing Live 95, and I was always GS. Spree, Hardaway, Mullin, Smith, and that hairy Syracuse mother ****er I never liked, sexy Rony

IKnowHoops
01-28-2015, 11:45 PM
I was blown away that anyone was against trading Monta for Bogut. Even with his injury history, a two way big is exponentially more impactful than a midget shooting guard with a quick trigger.

I remember playing Live 95, and I was always GS. Spree, Hardaway, Mullin, Smith, and that hairy Syracuse mother ****er I never liked, sexy Rony

Dude do you remember bulls vs lakers or bulls vs blazers on Sega Genesis. You hit a players spot and hit the shoot button and they do there special move. David Robinson had the win mill slam from the top corner of the free throw line. But Tim Hardaway had the Killer Crossover. You get to that spot and push the shoot button, and he would do the killer crossover and score every single time. Jordan had the up and under. Those game were so freaking sick.

L8kers4life
01-29-2015, 12:07 AM
Dude do you remember bulls vs lakers or bulls vs blazers on Sega Genesis. You hit a players spot and hit the shoot button and they do there special move. David Robinson had the win mill slam from the top corner of the free throw line. But Tim Hardaway had the Killer Crossover. You get to that spot and push the shoot button, and he would do the killer crossover and score every single time. Jordan had the up and under. Those game were so freaking sick.

That game was dope. Do you guys remember Double Dribble, the screen would turn black and white and zoom in when you dunk.

IKnowHoops
01-29-2015, 12:28 AM
That game was dope. Do you guys remember Double Dribble, the screen would turn black and white and zoom in when you dunk.

Hahahah, heck yeah man. That was like the first b-ball game ever. good ole nintendo

lol, please
01-29-2015, 12:30 AM
Sega was a great system for its era but no JAM game could hang with the GOAT, Live '04

jerellh528
01-29-2015, 12:41 AM
NBA street. Vol. 2

PowerHouse
01-29-2015, 12:46 AM
Live '97 with Mitch Richmond on the cover was by far the best because I believe that was the first basketball game where you could create your own player which was nothing short of mind-boggling technology at that time.

IKnowHoops
01-29-2015, 12:55 AM
Sega was a great system for its era but no JAM game could hang with the GOAT, Live '04

I dont understand how Live could fall off so hard.

lol, please
01-29-2015, 01:00 AM
I dont understand how Live could fall off so hard.
Same as madden, they try and do too much. Stop releasing a game a year and just make roster updates.

FlashBolt
01-29-2015, 09:39 AM
Same as madden, they try and do too much. Stop releasing a game a year and just make roster updates.

Where's the money in that for them, though? Haha. In a perfect world, I would love to stick my NBA 2k6 with Shaq's huge head and just update rosters, but the graphics wouldn't be the same. Creators purposely leave room for improvements so that the next game can look "better". Not to mention that these people would have months of zero income because of that. Just not going to happen.

Hawkeye15
01-29-2015, 11:00 AM
That game was dope. Do you guys remember Double Dribble, the screen would turn black and white and zoom in when you dunk.

omg I loved that game haha. From the 45 degree angle, and the corner, I was Kyle Korver.

lol, please
01-29-2015, 01:54 PM
Where's the money in that for them, though? Haha. In a perfect world, I would love to stick my NBA 2k6 with Shaq's huge head and just update rosters, but the graphics wouldn't be the same. Creators purposely leave room for improvements so that the next game can look "better". Not to mention that these people would have months of zero income because of that. Just not going to happen.
I always used shaq lol

lol, please
02-06-2015, 03:41 PM
Shooting guards aren't supposed to have high FG%, though. When your SG is 46%+, that's actually very good. Let's put Shaq out there shooting threes and handling the ball. I guarantee you that they would drop him from the team. Just not his game man.
Except that's a ridiculous and unrealistic situation. He belongs in the paint.

L8kers4life
02-06-2015, 03:48 PM
I don't know if any of you remember Sega Dreamcast, but it was like the first xbox, the NBA2k games were amazing on that system. That was a game you could make your players and take them online. I made the character Dead Sexy from Austin powers and he dominated.

lol, please
02-06-2015, 04:02 PM
Dream cast was a cool system but I didn't play sports games on it.

HeatFan
02-06-2015, 04:03 PM
Good question. I myself thought it would tarnish his legacy but after seeing him play without Shaq and being well known as an ultra competitor (a la Jordan), and the fact that he has stayed with the team even in hard times, I think he deserves all the accolades he has received and those to come after retirement. He is one of the best all times, no doubt. This coming from a Kobe hater all his career. He did mess up my Fantasy team this year but I'll let it slide.

There are few players that when they are on the court you know you always have a chance. When the clock winds down no matter how crazy the shot looks you feel you are lucky if he misses, and Kobe is that.

HeatFan
02-06-2015, 04:05 PM
Now are we going to have a thread questioning the legacy of Duncan's career because he had Tony Parker, Manu Ginobli, David Robinson, etc?

Cuz Im really waiting for that one.

Good one!!

lol, please
02-06-2015, 04:32 PM
Good one!!
Not sure how it's the same thing, Kobe was never the first option in those championship teams.

rhd420
02-06-2015, 05:11 PM
Good question. I myself thought it would tarnish his legacy but after seeing him play without Shaq and being well known as an ultra competitor (a la Jordan), and the fact that he has stayed with the team even in hard times, I think he deserves all the accolades he has received and those to come after retirement. He is one of the best all times, no doubt. This coming from a Kobe hater all his career. He did mess up my Fantasy team this year but I'll let it slide.

There are few players that when they are on the court you know you always have a chance. When the clock winds down no matter how crazy the shot looks you feel you are lucky if he misses, and Kobe is that.

funny part is Pau Gasol, , Phil Jackson and Derek Fisher is out of the equation for most fans .... everybody mentions Shaq but the Lakers (and Kobe) would not have any titles if it weren't for those guys as well

Just truly interesting to see it's "Kobe's legacy" and not the Lakers, it's Kobe's 5 titles and not the Lakers, yet he's injured and has to take the full load of the team, he's not successful - this is the reason why the Lakers front office gave him that contract he did - the belief he did it all by himself and marketing him like he did - fans would rather see Kobe retire a Lakers than rebuild with with a playoff team without Kobe and they correctly did so.

Tony_Starks
02-06-2015, 06:03 PM
Live '97 with Mitch Richmond on the cover was by far the best because I believe that was the first basketball game where you could create your own player which was nothing short of mind-boggling technology at that time.


Man that was like a video game Revelation!I remember making myself with my own size and height but ridiculous ratings. Had to start myself and sit Van Exel on the bench!!

lol, please
02-06-2015, 06:21 PM
Eh, I was never into the create a player thing in basketball, but I do admit making myself a receiver on the 9ers in a madden game before. I generally like taking a true roster against a true roster in nba live

Chronz
02-06-2015, 06:49 PM
You guys make me hate growing up.

lol, please
02-06-2015, 07:01 PM
Honestly the only thing that sucks (if you can say it sucks) about being an independent adult is that there isn't much time for games, if you give half a crap about your career development and progression anyway, but on the flipside, as a working professional I can afford any system and anything to add to an amazing gaming experience I want, even though I wouldn't get to enjoy it much, as gaming time would come behind more important ways to spend my time, such as career progression, fitness, sleep, wrecking dime pieces, and watching as many live games in all the sports I follow possible, in that order.

KnicksorBust
02-06-2015, 07:43 PM
gaming time would come behind more important ways to spend my time, such as career progression, fitness, sleep, wrecking dime pieces, and watching as many live games in all the sports I follow possible, in that order.

Lol preach brotha.

I can barely remember the the last time I was trying to "wreck a dime piece." #marriedlife #happybutmemories

lol, please
02-07-2015, 01:15 PM
Lol preach brotha.

I can barely remember the the last time I was trying to "wreck a dime piece." #marriedlife #happybutmemories
Being married is a blessing man, never take that kind of special relationship for granted.

That being said,I wish shaq attaq stayed married to the Lakers after he got there. Not every ATG has the kind of loyalty kobe has. Not everyone has that kind of character.

lol, please
02-07-2015, 01:31 PM
Don't worry spammer, kdspurman will come delete your account soon.

Bostonjorge
02-07-2015, 01:39 PM
A threepeat can't hurt anyone's legacy.

kobe4thewinbang
02-07-2015, 02:10 PM
Not at all. Shaq was a beast, but they played seesaw, know what I mean? Kobe bailed Shaq out sometimes, and vice versa.

lol, please
02-07-2015, 03:14 PM
Not at all. Shaq was a beast, but they played seesaw, know what I mean? Kobe bailed Shaq out sometimes, and vice versa.
Shaq bailed out kobe way more than kobe bailed out shaq.

chisox721
02-07-2015, 03:23 PM
1. Stupid question
2. They basically had equal USG rates all 3 title years

D-Leethal
02-07-2015, 03:37 PM
I'd say Kobe has just as many legacy moments during that three-peat as Shaq did.

And to me those guys were a 1a/1b type of option, you couldn't always go to Shaq when you needed a bucket late because of his inability to hit FTs, and you can't always establish position and get a quality look in the post when the clock is ticking, often times you need to rely on a perimeter guy and that was Kobe every time.

mightybosstone
02-07-2015, 04:32 PM
I don't like the way the question is framed. If you ask whether a player winning championships as a No. 2 tarnishes their legacy, of course it doesn't. That's idiotic. Does it tarnish the legacies of Pippen, McHale, Wade, Havlicek, Kareem, Parker or Dumars? No. It adds to the legacies of those players the same way it adds to Kobe's legacy.

That being said, you have to take the context of the rings into account. A ring as a No. 2 is still a ring, but it shouldn't be the same thing as winning a ring as a No. 1. Kobe's five rings aren't the equivalent of Duncan's five rings, for example, or five of Jordan's rings.

So the idea that winning titles as a No. 2 should tarnish a player's legacy is completely preposterous. But the people who scream "five ringz!!!!!" from the mountaintops also need to remember the context of those rings and what they actually mean. Frankly, I think fans on both sides of the argument take it way too seriously. Championships alone are not the best barometer of a player's worth. Bill Russell is not the greatest player of all time. And Charles Barkley was not crap.

Tony_Starks
02-07-2015, 05:17 PM
I'd say Kobe has just as many legacy moments during that three-peat as Shaq did.

And to me those guys were a 1a/1b type of option, you couldn't always go to Shaq when you needed a bucket late because of his inability to hit FTs, and you can't always establish position and get a quality look in the post when the clock is ticking, often times you need to rely on a perimeter guy and that was Kobe every time.

Bingo. People forget who closed games, who the offense ran through during hack a Shaq, and who bailed them out when the triangle broke down.....

L8kers4life
02-07-2015, 05:23 PM
I don't like the way the question is framed. If you ask whether a player winning championships as a No. 2 tarnishes their legacy, of course it doesn't. That's idiotic. Does it tarnish the legacies of Pippen, McHale, Wade, Havlicek, Kareem, Parker or Dumars? No. It adds to the legacies of those players the same way it adds to Kobe's legacy.

That being said, you have to take the context of the rings into account. A ring as a No. 2 is still a ring, but it shouldn't be the same thing as winning a ring as a No. 1. Kobe's five rings aren't the equivalent of Duncan's five rings, for example, or five of Jordan's rings.



So the idea that winning titles as a No. 2 should tarnish a player's legacy is completely preposterous. But the people who scream "five ringz!!!!!" from the mountaintops also need to remember the context of those rings and what they actually mean. Frankly, I think fans on both sides of the argument take it way too seriously. Championships alone are not the best barometer of a player's worth. Bill Russell is not the greatest player of all time. And Charles Barkley was not crap.

Your completely wrong here or you at least used the wrong comparison in Duncan. First of all, there have been plenty of times where Duncan has not been the number 1 on his teams. Secondly, Duncan has not played the minutes or had the same pressures as Kobe. Duncan has not been the MVP for 2 or 3 of his championships similar to Kobe. But Duncan has also had the luxury of resting plenty and not having to be the go to guy for many of their runs. Kobe, even when he played with Shaq, was the primary facilitator, and the finisher in most series. Kobe bailed out Shaq plenty during his time, as did Shaq. But Kobe has played at least 35 minutes his whole career and has been 1 or 2 for all of those. Duncan has had way more times of rest or taking a back seat. Hell 5 years ago he averaged like 13 or 14 points, and then had a bit of a rebirth when he lost some weight.

What you said about Jordan is true, but not Duncan.

L8kers4life
02-07-2015, 05:27 PM
Also, everyone on here fails to realize that Shaq and Kobe were the most Dominate 1-2 punch of all time. With Shaq and Kobe in their second title they both put up close to 30, and Kobe would defend the best wing or PG for every team, and he closed out games. The slight on Kobe is ridiculous, obviously most on here did not watch the Shaq and kobe Lakers, if you did, we probably would not be hearing this garbage about being number 2. He is the greatest number 2 option of all time if that is the case. Remember Kobe orchestrated those offenses and was the best defender on those teams.

Tony_Starks
02-07-2015, 05:32 PM
Also, everyone on here fails to realize that Shaq and Kobe were the most Dominate 1-2 punch of all time. With Shaq and Kobe in their second title they both put up close to 30, and Kobe would defend the best wing or PG for every team, and he closed out games. The slight on Kobe is ridiculous, obviously most on here did not watch the Shaq and kobe Lakers, if you did, we probably would not be hearing this garbage about being number 2. He is the greatest number 2 option of all time if that is the case. Remember Kobe orchestrated those offenses and was the best defender on those teams.

I'm still mad Iverson snatched game 1 of the Finals that second year. Would've probably been the only time we would ever see a team sweep the entire playoffs.....

L8kers4life
02-07-2015, 05:44 PM
I'm still mad Iverson snatched game 1 of the Finals that second year. Would've probably been the only time we would ever see a team sweep the entire playoffs.....

Man that year was crazy. I remember the great San Antonio Spurs, watching the ball flying around, every single 3 seemed like it went in, and we just destroyed them by 10-25 points every game. It kind of looked like what the Spurs did to Miami last year, except they didn't get anywhere close to a victory.

Tony_Starks
02-07-2015, 06:08 PM
I'm still mad Iverson snatched game 1 of the Finals that second year. Would've probably been the only time we would ever see a team sweep the entire playoffs.....

Man that year was crazy. I remember the great San Antonio Spurs, watching the ball flying around, every single 3 seemed like it went in, and we just destroyed them by 10-25 points every game. It kind of looked like what the Spurs did to Miami last year, except they didn't get anywhere close to a victory.

The funniest thing I remember is Malik Rose getting interviewed after we swept them. They asked him "is it safe to say that the Lakers are on a mission?" and this dude literally said "I don't know if I would call it a mission...." Like dude they just swept the entire West, what the hell would you call it!

mightybosstone
02-07-2015, 07:09 PM
Your completely wrong here or you at least used the wrong comparison in Duncan. First of all, there have been plenty of times where Duncan has not been the number 1 on his teams. Secondly, Duncan has not played the minutes or had the same pressures as Kobe. Duncan has not been the MVP for 2 or 3 of his championships similar to Kobe. But Duncan has also had the luxury of resting plenty and not having to be the go to guy for many of their runs. Kobe, even when he played with Shaq, was the primary facilitator, and the finisher in most series. Kobe bailed out Shaq plenty during his time, as did Shaq. But Kobe has played at least 35 minutes his whole career and has been 1 or 2 for all of those. Duncan has had way more times of rest or taking a back seat. Hell 5 years ago he averaged like 13 or 14 points, and then had a bit of a rebirth when he lost some weight.

What you said about Jordan is true, but not Duncan.

I love that you took issue with two words in my entire post and completely ignored the other 99 percent of it. That's a Kobephile for you. Instead of having a decent, legitimate conversation about the topic, you take issue with a minute piece of something I said off-hand, completely avoiding the point of my post altogether.

But you want to talk Kobe vs. Duncan for a minute? Because pretty much everything you said here was complete crap. Let's break down each one of your inaccuracies, shall we?

1. "There have been plenty of times where Duncan has not been the number 1 on his teams." Oh really? I'd love to see you justify that. In four of his five championship seasons, he led the Spurs in scoring, rebounding, WS and pretty much every other relevant advanced statistic. And even in the last championship, while he was second in scoring and WS, you could argue that his defensive impact made him the most valuable player on those teams.

2. "Duncan has also had the luxury of resting plenty and not having to be the go to guy for many of their runs." This might be the worst point of them all. You're thinking about older, past his prime Duncan. But prime Tim Duncan played more than his fair share of minutes. In Duncan's first six seasons (which included two titles), he played essentially 39 minutes per game and didn't miss more than eight games in a season. And it's not like he got a ton of rest in the next six seasons. The guy played basically 33-36 minutes per game over that span and never played fewer than 66 games in a season. Duncan's not just 17th in career minutes played, he's fist in NBA history in postseason minutes played.

3. "...not had the same pressures as Kobe." You want to talk about pressure, try being the defensive anchor AND the go-to offensive player on multiple championship teams. Kobe was a very good defender, but even the best perimeter defender doesn't have the same value or responsibility as an elite defensive big. And Duncan was one of the best of his era.

4. "Duncan has not been the MVP for 2 or 3 of his championships similar to Kobe." Who cares? It's a completely objective award based on the performance of a player in only seven games or fewer out of a 100+ game season. That's hardly the best barometer to determine the most important player on a championship team. And it's worth noting that even using this terrible barometer, Duncan still bests Kobe. Duncan earned the award in three of his five titles compared to only two of five for Kobe. Also, the award is completely subjective. I personally thought Gasol should have won Finals MVP on the second title.

mngopher35
02-07-2015, 07:18 PM
Your completely wrong here or you at least used the wrong comparison in Duncan. First of all, there have been plenty of times where Duncan has not been the number 1 on his teams. Secondly, Duncan has not played the minutes or had the same pressures as Kobe. Duncan has not been the MVP for 2 or 3 of his championships similar to Kobe. But Duncan has also had the luxury of resting plenty and not having to be the go to guy for many of their runs. Kobe, even when he played with Shaq, was the primary facilitator, and the finisher in most series. Kobe bailed out Shaq plenty during his time, as did Shaq. But Kobe has played at least 35 minutes his whole career and has been 1 or 2 for all of those. Duncan has had way more times of rest or taking a back seat. Hell 5 years ago he averaged like 13 or 14 points, and then had a bit of a rebirth when he lost some weight.

What you said about Jordan is true, but not Duncan.

Alright lets clear up some of this about Duncan here. In all 4 of his first rings Duncan lead the Spurs in ppg, rpg, PER, and WS/48 during the playoffs (also usage% if that matters to you). He also played 36.8 mpg or more every playoff run (only once was he not leader in mpg) averaging over 20/10 each time and being a defensive anchor. He definitely was the best player on those teams.

Now looking at Kobe in 2001 I agree with you that there is an argument he was the best 2nd option ever that year. It is no coincidence that is also the year they steam rolled everyone in the playoffs. He put up numbers that were very close to Shaq but Shaq was definitely the focus of the defense still (because he was arguably the best player in the league) and getting the double teams.

In the other two titles they won Kobe didn't reach .52 TS%, 21 PER, 108 ORTG 3 WS or .15 ws/48 either year while still being the one getting 1v1 because Shaq demanded double teams. For reference Gasol was able to reach all of these (and then some) both years as the 2nd option next to Kobe (who was the defenses focus by then). Look Kobe is a great player and was very important to those titles but to try and claim he was about as valuable as Shaq is just overrating his contributions. He was a high volume guard playing next to one of the most dominant forces the NBA has ever seen. This is not comparable to Duncan who was the leader on both ends of the court for 4 of the Spurs championships.

HeatFan
02-07-2015, 09:27 PM
funny part is Pau Gasol, , Phil Jackson and Derek Fisher is out of the equation for most fans .... everybody mentions Shaq but the Lakers (and Kobe) would not have any titles if it weren't for those guys as well

Just truly interesting to see it's "Kobe's legacy" and not the Lakers, it's Kobe's 5 titles and not the Lakers, yet he's injured and has to take the full load of the team, he's not successful - this is the reason why the Lakers front office gave him that contract he did - the belief he did it all by himself and marketing him like he did - fans would rather see Kobe retire a Lakers than rebuild with with a playoff team without Kobe and they correctly did so.

The Laker's legacy is there no matter what. But the question is about Kobe. Of course he had good teams when he won but to say that he wan't the best player on the court because of his supporting cast is like saying Jordan was not the best because he had Pippen, Rodman, etc. the fact is tha with or without a good team, he was a beast just like Jordan is still #1 in history.

L8kers4life
02-07-2015, 10:17 PM
I love that you took issue with two words in my entire post and completely ignored the other 99 percent of it. That's a Kobephile for you. Instead of having a decent, legitimate conversation about the topic, you take issue with a minute piece of something I said off-hand, completely avoiding the point of my post altogether.

But you want to talk Kobe vs. Duncan for a minute? Because pretty much everything you said here was complete crap. Let's break down each one of your inaccuracies, shall we?

1. "There have been plenty of times where Duncan has not been the number 1 on his teams." Oh really? I'd love to see you justify that. In four of his five championship seasons, he led the Spurs in scoring, rebounding, WS and pretty much every other relevant advanced statistic. And even in the last championship, while he was second in scoring and WS, you could argue that his defensive impact made him the most valuable player on those teams.

2. "Duncan has also had the luxury of resting plenty and not having to be the go to guy for many of their runs." This might be the worst point of them all. You're thinking about older, past his prime Duncan. But prime Tim Duncan played more than his fair share of minutes. In Duncan's first six seasons (which included two titles), he played essentially 39 minutes per game and didn't miss more than eight games in a season. And it's not like he got a ton of rest in the next six seasons. The guy played basically 33-36 minutes per game over that span and never played fewer than 66 games in a season. Duncan's not just 17th in career minutes played, he's fist in NBA history in postseason minutes played.

3. "...not had the same pressures as Kobe." You want to talk about pressure, try being the defensive anchor AND the go-to offensive player on multiple championship teams. Kobe was a very good defender, but even the best perimeter defender doesn't have the same value or responsibility as an elite defensive big. And Duncan was one of the best of his era.

4. "Duncan has not been the MVP for 2 or 3 of his championships similar to Kobe." Who cares? It's a completely objective award based on the performance of a player in only seven games or fewer out of a 100+ game season. That's hardly the best barometer to determine the most important player on a championship team. And it's worth noting that even using this terrible barometer, Duncan still bests Kobe. Duncan earned the award in three of his five titles compared to only two of five for Kobe. Also, the award is completely subjective. I personally thought Gasol should have won Finals MVP on the second title.


Dont call me a Kobephile, if you have read my previous posts you would know that I'm not a Homer, I can be objective about Kobe and have stated his flaws plenty on here. You can give all the stats you want the reality is Duncan has been on the decline for many years and his been fortunate to have a great supporting cast and one of the greatest coaches ever to have coached this game his ENTIRE career.
Secondly you can talk win shares and per all you want, but in reality he was not the finals MVP this last year and another year where parker was MVP and that tells you a lot because Kawhi is not an all star and parker won by default because Duncan did not play good enough to win it. Kobe played with one of the greatest to ever play so of course he would not win some MvPs . Also Duncan has had the great luxury of resting plenty throughout his career and his last 7 years his minutes have always been under 30 minutes. Say what you want bout stats, when Andrew Bynum had a 23 PER one year with the lakers playing 28 minutes a game. Less minutes mean efficient players PER will look fantastic.

I love how you fail to acknowledge that Duncan has been on the decline for many years and was not even mvp for a team who's high scorer was 17 a game.

you hate kobe, that does not mean I'm Kobephile for defending someone who was vital to the lakers for the last 20 years and 5 championships .

Jamiecballer
02-07-2015, 11:48 PM
I'd say Kobe has just as many legacy moments during that three-peat as Shaq did.

And to me those guys were a 1a/1b type of option, you couldn't always go to Shaq when you needed a bucket late because of his inability to hit FTs, and you can't always establish position and get a quality look in the post when the clock is ticking, often times you need to rely on a perimeter guy and that was Kobe every time.
Right. But without Shaq he'd be having those moments in regular season games and second round losses. I think that's the point. Not that I'm buying it. If you measure players by championships then there is no reason to discredit Kobes.

lol, please
02-08-2015, 12:08 AM
Dont call me a Kobephile, if you have read my previous posts you would know that I'm not a Homer, I can be objective about Kobe and have stated his flaws plenty on here. You can give all the stats you want the reality is Duncan has been on the decline for many years and his been fortunate to have a great supporting cast and one of the greatest coaches ever to have coached this game his ENTIRE career.
Secondly you can talk win shares and per all you want, but in reality he was not the finals MVP this last year and another year where parker was MVP and that tells you a lot because Kawhi is not an all star and parker won by default because Duncan did not play good enough to win it. Kobe played with one of the greatest to ever play so of course he would not win some MvPs . Also Duncan has had the great luxury of resting plenty throughout his career and his last 7 years his minutes have always been under 30 minutes. Say what you want bout stats, when Andrew Bynum had a 23 PER one year with the lakers playing 28 minutes a game. Less minutes mean efficient players PER will look fantastic.

I love how you fail to acknowledge that Duncan has been on the decline for many years and was not even mvp for a team who's high scorer was 17 a game.

you hate kobe, that does not mean I'm Kobephile for defending someone who was vital to the lakers for the last 20 years and 5 championships .
:clap:

Chronz
02-08-2015, 12:37 AM
Jumping in really quick. To put it simply, throughout their tenure together, the Lakers were contenders so long as 1 man was around. And it wasn't Kobe. Its no slight against him but dominating bigmen really do carry that kind of impact. They dont win without either of them, but they were really only co-stars that 1 magical post-season. Every other year was clearly Shaq's team.

mightybosstone
02-08-2015, 12:40 AM
Dont call me a Kobephile, if you have read my previous posts you would know that I'm not a Homer, I can be objective about Kobe and have stated his flaws plenty on here.
Yeah... You're clearly being super objective here. :eyebrow:


You can give all the stats you want the reality is Duncan has been on the decline for many years and his been fortunate to have a great supporting cast and one of the greatest coaches ever to have coached this game his ENTIRE career.
Except he won four of his five titles in his prime. Also, Kobe won his five titles with Phil ****ing Jackson, so I have no clue what point you're trying to make about Poppovich.


Secondly you can talk win shares and per all you want, but in reality he was not the finals MVP this last year and another year where parker was MVP and that tells you a lot because Kawhi is not an all star and parker won by default because Duncan did not play good enough to win it. Kobe played with one of the greatest to ever play so of course he would not win some MvPs .
I don't think you know the meaning of the phrase "sample size." The reason the Finals MVP is a terrible barometer to judge a player's worth is because it looks solely at a single playoff series and not an entire season. Was Kawhi Leonard a more important player on that Spurs team last season than Duncan? Hell no. And there are several instances throughout history where a guy who was hardly the team's best player won a Finals MVP. Was Jo Jo White better than Dave Cowens in 76 or Cedric Maxwell better than Larry Bird in 81? Hell no. Was Worthy better than Magic in 88 or Dumars better than Isiah in 89?

Also, the Finals MVP is a completely subjective stat. Duncan could have easily earned it 07 or 13 based on his defensive presence alone. And Gasol could have just as easily won it in 2010. Finals MVP is a nice accolade, but using it in any kind of argument is nonsensical.


Also Duncan has had the great luxury of resting plenty throughout his career and his last 7 years his minutes have always been under 30 minutes.
What the hell does that have to do with anything we've been talking about? I'm not debating that Kobe has played more minutes. Nobody is. We're talking about the value of championship rings here. And Duncan won four of his five before your argument even starts, so it's a completely moot point. Also, what does rest have to do with anything? You could bring up the colors of their jerseys, and that argument would be equally useless.


Say what you want bout stats, when Andrew Bynum had a 23 PER one year with the lakers playing 28 minutes a game. Less minutes mean efficient players PER will look fantastic.
What does this have to do with anything? You've gone so far off topic, you're not even having the same discussion anymore.


I love how you fail to acknowledge that Duncan has been on the decline for many years and was not even mvp for a team who's high scorer was 17 a game.
:laugh: What? It's like you and I are debating two completely different things. And when did I refuse to acknowledge anything? I'm not refusing to acknowledge it at all. Of course Duncan is aging. That's common sense. But it has literally ZERO to do with this argument.


you hate kobe, that does not mean I'm Kobephile for defending someone who was vital to the lakers for the last 20 years and 5 championships .
And now I hate Kobe, because I disagree with your stance on something Kobe related? I'm sorry. How are you not a Kobephile again?

L8kers4life
02-08-2015, 01:02 AM
[QUOTE=mightybosstone;29601354]Yeah... You're clearly being super objective here. :eyebrow:


Except he won four of his five titles in his prime. Also, Kobe won his five titles with Phil ****ing Jackson, so I have no clue what point you're trying to make about Poppovich.


I don't think you know the meaning of the phrase "sample size." The reason the Finals MVP is a terrible barometer to judge a player's worth is because it looks solely at a single playoff series and not an entire season. Was Kawhi Leonard a more important player on that Spurs team last season than Duncan? Hell no. And there are several instances throughout history where a guy who was hardly the team's best player won a Finals MVP. Was Jo Jo White better than Dave Cowens in 76 or Cedric Maxwell better than Larry Bird in 81? Hell no. Was Worthy better than Magic in 88 or Dumars better than Isiah in 89?

Also, the Finals MVP is a completely subjective stat. Duncan could have easily earned it 07 or 13 based on his defensive presence alone. And Gasol could have just as easily won it in 2010. Finals MVP is a nice accolade, but using it in any kind of argument is nonsensical.


What the hell does that have to do with anything we've been talking about? I'm not debating that Kobe has played more minutes. Nobody is. We're talking about the value of championship rings here. And Duncan won four of his five before your argument even starts, so it's a completely moot point. Also, what does rest have to do with anything? You could bring up the colors of their jerseys, and that argument would be equally useless.


What does this have to do with anything? You've gone so far off topic, you're not even having the same discussion anymore.


:laugh: What? It's like you and I are debating two completely different things. And when did I refuse to acknowledge anything? I'm not refusing to acknowledge it at all. Of course Duncan is aging. That's common sense. But it has literally ZERO to do with this argument.


And now I hate Kobe, because I disagree with your stance on something Kobe related? I'm sorry. How are you not a Kobephile again?[/QUOT



You make my point for me, which is, you don't value a players worth off MVPs in the finals, the knock on Kobe is he played second fiddle to Shaq. People always reference Shaqs finals MVPs and his dominance, and that some how takes away from Kobe's legacy. But its not just about the finals, Kobe has brought the same things you mentioned about Duncan to the Lakers. Day in and day out, while playing much more minutes and carrying a heavier load than Duncan his entire career, so that is why I'm bringing up minutes.

The fact that your trying to put Duncan on a whole different level, like Jordan is ludicrous. Jordan is one thing, but Duncan? You and I both know Kobe has been just as important to his teams success over the last 19 years and 5 championships as Duncan. The fact that you believe Duncan is on some different level than Kobe in my opinion is completely false, we both should agree to disagree. You will not win that argument with me or any fan of the NBA. Duncan and Kobe are in the same class.

L8kers4life
02-08-2015, 01:10 AM
Jumping in really quick. To put it simply, throughout their tenure together, the Lakers were contenders so long as 1 man was around. And it wasn't Kobe. Its no slight against him but dominating bigmen really do carry that kind of impact. They dont win without either of them, but they were really only co-stars that 1 magical post-season. Every other year was clearly Shaq's team.

The second and 3rd rings they were on the same level, the two years after that Kobe was on the same level if not better. Shaq was beginning to get injured more often and his decline had slowly started just before he left to Miami.

Chronz
02-08-2015, 01:27 AM
The second and 3rd rings they were on the same level, the two years after that Kobe was on the same level if not better. Shaq was beginning to get injured more often and his decline had slowly started just before he left to Miami.

Shaq played 67 games every year like clockwork, Im not arguing against Kobe being a healthier player, just who had the greater impact on the game when they actually played. And considering Shaq's play style, I can give him a pass for regular season mishaps so long as he brought in for the playoffs. Which he did. A declined Shaq was still better than Kobe. Kobe was never better than Shaq at any point in their partnership, he never had the greatest influence on his teams record/efficiency. It took Shaq declining in Miami before Kobe surpassed his talent. And to be honest, I recall Kobe missing alot of games those days as well, thats partly why we were able to see the impact each player had on the squad. I would argue it took Kobe missing those games to realize his place, watching the team do so well without him had a humbling effect on him. He reigned in his game and became more efficient on both ends as a result.

Tony_Starks
02-08-2015, 02:31 AM
Jumping in really quick. To put it simply, throughout their tenure together, the Lakers were contenders so long as 1 man was around. And it wasn't Kobe. Its no slight against him but dominating bigmen really do carry that kind of impact. They dont win without either of them, but they were really only co-stars that 1 magical post-season. Every other year was clearly Shaq's team.

Not really true. I don't call a team a contender when they are getting bounced in the second round and that happened a couple of times with that one man on the team. They even got bounced the year they took that 1 Big man plus 3 other Lakers to the allstar game. Its no coincidence that they went from that to regular finals appearances as his 1b's game got stronger.....

I have no problem giving Shaq all the credit in the world but the fact remains that was the most dominant big/ wing combo ever seen....probably the best we ever will see and they both had huge roles in it as orchestrated by Phil.

mightybosstone
02-08-2015, 10:12 AM
You make my point for me, which is, you don't value a players worth off MVPs in the finals
Didn't you use the argument a few posts ago that Kobe and Duncan "both have like 2 or 3 Finals MVPs?" Now you're doing a complete 180 on the subject? Also, you're totally missing my point altogether. I'm not using Finals MVPs as my argument. I'm using championship rings as a No. 1 versus championship rings as a No. 2. That's a very different discussion, because as I've already said multiple times, the best player doesn't always win the Finals MVP.


the knock on Kobe is he played second fiddle to Shaq. People always reference Shaqs finals MVPs and his dominance, and that some how takes away from Kobe's legacy.
Go back to my initial post. As I already said, I don't think that argument should be used to diminish Kobe's achievements. I think winning a ring as a great No. 2 is a hell of an accomplishment and should be treated as such. I'm just saying that a ring as a No. 1 shouldn't mean the same thing as a ring as a No. 2, which is why, when Lakers fans scream "ringzzzz" in every thread, that's the first response that comes up. If Lakers fans weren't so quick to bring up Kobe's rings, then other fans wouldn't be so quick to bring up the Shaq argument.


But its not just about the finals, Kobe has brought the same things you mentioned about Duncan to the Lakers. Day in and day out, while playing much more minutes and carrying a heavier load than Duncan his entire career, so that is why I'm bringing up minutes.
Mmm... Has he brought the same thing Duncan has? Don't get me wrong, Kobe has done a ton for the Lakers franchise, is a top 10-15 all-time guy and deserves to go down as one of the greatest Lakers in the history of the franchise, right in the mix with Magic, Kareem and Shaq. That being said, Duncan IS San Antonio Spurs basketball. He stepped in as a rookie in 97 and was already the best basketball player on the entire team. And today, 18 years later, he's still the best player on the team. It's remarkable. He not only has two MVPs, but he was the sole reason the Spurs have their only five championships.

And this is coming from a guy who loathes the Spurs almost as much as he loathes the Lakers. Duncan simply has had a greater career and was simply a better player than Kobe. Period.


The fact that your trying to put Duncan on a whole different level, like Jordan is ludicrous. Jordan is one thing, but Duncan? You and I both know Kobe has been just as important to his teams success over the last 19 years and 5 championships as Duncan. The fact that you believe Duncan is on some different level than Kobe in my opinion is completely false, we both should agree to disagree. You will not win that argument with me or any fan of the NBA. Duncan and Kobe are in the same class.
Except Kobe wasn't as important to the Lakers success as Duncan was. That's exactly what I'm saying. If Duncan isn't on the Spurs franchise, they win zero of their five titles. If Kobe hadn't come to LA, it's quite possible they still would have won a few with Shaq in the early 2000s. And just because you believe something, doesn't mean the rest of NBA fans do. I wouldn't lump everyone into your category so easily. If you really want to see what people think, start a thread of "Duncan vs. Kobe: Who has had the greater career?" and see what the responses are. I'd be willing to bet fairly easily that the average NBA fan (not Lakers or Spurs fans) will pick Duncan over Kobe.

Bottom line. Duncan > Kobe.

Chronz
02-08-2015, 12:45 PM
Not really true. I don't call a team a contender when they are getting bounced in the second round and that happened a couple of times with that one man on the team.
Plz tell me you were one of those smart Laker fans that was able to know that the REAL NBA Finals took place in the West. If you're not then we aint gonna agree on much. If you are, then you already know why round advancement can be an arbitrary barometer. Still, even if we go by your theory, you still have history wrong. They made it BEYOND R2.

Point being, the Lakers were most definitely contenders. Even if you disagree, the fact remains they were much closer to contention with Shaq and no Kobe than vice versa. IIRC, they won like 70% of their games without Kobe but with Shaq, and less than .500 when it was just Kobe and no Shaq. So if making the WCF and winning as many games as just about everyone isn't a contender to you, then what do you call a trip to the lottery? Cuz thats where Kobe was leading the Lakers without Shaq. So, if its just the semantics you care about, fine, but the proof is in the pudding. Shaq had FAR AND AWAY the greater influence on his teams success. That doesn't happen in a true 1A, 1B relationship.



They even got bounced the year they took that 1 Big man plus 3 other Lakers to the allstar game. Its no coincidence that they went from that to regular finals appearances as his 1b's game got stronger.....
LOL, who said it was a coincidence? I dont see a 1B either, save for that 1 magical run and there just isn't any evidence to that. Its clear as day which one was more pivotal, the guy who manned the pivot. To put it how you have, its no coincidence that the only post season in which Kobe even remotely approaches Shaq's territory in terms of production, is the 1 time they cruised through the playoffs. Shaqobe at their apex was the most deadly tandem ever. But Shaq held up his end of the bargain far more than Kobe did.


I have no problem giving Shaq all the credit in the world but the fact remains that was the most dominant big/ wing combo ever seen....probably the best we ever will see and they both had huge roles in it as orchestrated by Phil.
If it were up to Phil, Kobe would have been in a Phoenix jersey so lets not re-write history. And yes, they were the best Big-Wing combo we've ever seen. Who ever argued against that? Sounds more like you're depriving Shaq of full credit by suggesting such an inferior player was his equal. Its downright blasphemous.

valade16
02-08-2015, 01:20 PM
As a Blazer fan who remembers those days very well (**** the 00 WCF!), I can say we were way more worried about how to stop Shaq than we ever were on how to stop Kobe.

The Blazers traded Jermaine O'Neal for Dale Davis for 1 reason: To provide an extra body to guard Shaq. When your rival makes trades designed with one player in mind, that's probably the player that had the bigger impact.

lol, please
02-08-2015, 04:05 PM
It's fair to say kobe has less rings if shaq stays in Orlando or goes elsewhere

Kevj77
02-08-2015, 07:02 PM
It's fair to say kobe has less rings if shaq stays in Orlando or goes elsewhereThe same can be said for Shaq. Hell without Robert Horry they both have one less ring.

lol, please
02-09-2015, 12:05 AM
The same can be said for Shaq. Hell without Robert Horry they both have one less ring.
I disagree completely.

valade16
02-09-2015, 09:51 AM
The same can be said for Shaq. Hell without Robert Horry they both have one less ring.

I mean if you just took either Shaq or Kobe off those teams yeah they probably don't win. But if you replace Kobe with many of the other great SGs of the time (Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Ray Allen, etc.) they are probably still winning rings.

I can't think of a single C you could have replaced Shaq with and had the Lakers still winning 3 straight.

Hawkeye15
02-09-2015, 12:32 PM
As a Blazer fan who remembers those days very well (**** the 00 WCF!), I can say we were way more worried about how to stop Shaq than we ever were on how to stop Kobe.

The Blazers traded Jermaine O'Neal for Dale Davis for 1 reason: To provide an extra body to guard Shaq. When your rival makes trades designed with one player in mind, that's probably the player that had the bigger impact.

this is something Kobe fans mostly don't get. Even when the stats became similar between the two, the reason Kobe had the freedom he did, was because teams entire gameplan, and personel moves, were made to try and limit Shaq from destroying them. Loading his side of the floor, sending help even before the ball was sent his way, allowed dribble penetration and weak side open looks, because those were a hell of a lot better chances for the defense to try and make a stop than play Shaq straight up.

Wade benefited from it too. People don't realize Shaq's impact went far beyond his numbers. He altered how teams defended the rest of his teammates..

Chronz
02-09-2015, 12:38 PM
As a Blazer fan who remembers those days very well (**** the 00 WCF!), I can say we were way more worried about how to stop Shaq than we ever were on how to stop Kobe.

The Blazers traded Jermaine O'Neal for Dale Davis for 1 reason: To provide an extra body to guard Shaq. When your rival makes trades designed with one player in mind, that's probably the player that had the bigger impact.

I always found it curious that as Shaq improved as a player, the Blazers defended him better with each passing year. I remember Shaq insisting on bulking up to keep his advantage against the brutes teams were starting to throw at him. IIRC, he specifically mentioned Arvydas, he truly was the best weapon against a Shaq. Both because he was a wide bodied 7"2 behemoth but also because he could keep Shaq honest defensively with his perimeter shot.

Chronz
02-09-2015, 12:42 PM
this is something Kobe fans mostly don't get. Even when the stats became similar between the two, the reason Kobe had the freedom he did, was because teams entire gameplan, and personel moves, were made to try and limit Shaq from destroying them. Loading his side of the floor, sending help even before the ball was sent his way, allowed dribble penetration and weak side open looks, because those were a hell of a lot better chances for the defense to try and make a stop than play Shaq straight up.

Wade benefited from it too. People don't realize Shaq's impact went far beyond his numbers. He altered how teams defended the rest of his teammates..

Thats true and all but I really appreciated what the duo did for each other (When Kobe knew his place). It was only when Kobe's ego trumped his selflessness that the duo stopped complimenting each other. Still, while it lasted, it was beautiful to watch. I always found it hilarious that teams would try defending Shaq with soft coverage the first game only to throw the kitchen sink at him towards the end. Thats when Kobe truly became aggressive, Phil liked to come out with a heavy dose of Shaq to start a series and then counter with Kobe on the road/mid series as defenses began to shade off him.

They should have always stuck with that gameplan but by the time Kobe's free agency was coming up, Phil lost all control over him.

Tony_Starks
02-09-2015, 01:10 PM
The same can be said for Shaq. Hell without Robert Horry they both have one less ring.

I mean if you just took either Shaq or Kobe off those teams yeah they probably don't win. But if you replace Kobe with many of the other great SGs of the time (Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Ray Allen, etc.) they are probably still winning rings.

I can't think of a single C you could have replaced Shaq with and had the Lakers still winning 3 straight.

Tim Duncan.

Hawkeye15
02-09-2015, 01:25 PM
Thats true and all but I really appreciated what the duo did for each other (When Kobe knew his place). It was only when Kobe's ego trumped his selflessness that the duo stopped complimenting each other. Still, while it lasted, it was beautiful to watch. I always found it hilarious that teams would try defending Shaq with soft coverage the first game only to throw the kitchen sink at him towards the end. Thats when Kobe truly became aggressive, Phil liked to come out with a heavy dose of Shaq to start a series and then counter with Kobe on the road/mid series as defenses began to shade off him.

They should have always stuck with that gameplan but by the time Kobe's free agency was coming up, Phil lost all control over him.

I agree that Kobe was a perfect compliment, and vice versa. But, the most important player, was always Shaq.

valade16
02-09-2015, 01:59 PM
I always found it curious that as Shaq improved as a player, the Blazers defended him better with each passing year. I remember Shaq insisting on bulking up to keep his advantage against the brutes teams were starting to throw at him. IIRC, he specifically mentioned Arvydas, he truly was the best weapon against a Shaq. Both because he was a wide bodied 7"2 behemoth but also because he could keep Shaq honest defensively with his perimeter shot.

Arvydas did about as well as can be expected on Shaq considering his age and physical deterioration at that point. The problem was he was only good for 28 Minutes a night maximum. A big reason we lost the 00 WCF was because when Sabonis sat Shaq would abuse Brian Grant. So the next year we traded Jermaine O'Neal for Dale Davis and tried him on Shaq, obviously that didn't work either.

valade16
02-09-2015, 02:00 PM
Tim Duncan.

I was thinking of him as a PF but yeah, he'd be about the only one.

Tony_Starks
02-09-2015, 02:21 PM
Tim Duncan.

I was thinking of him as a PF but yeah, he'd be about the only one.


Yep. Not as physically imposing but still very dominant in his prime. When you factor in he was a much better defender and take hack-a-Shaq out of the equation not to mention the ego and laziness, I think they could've got it done.......I mean as long as we're playing make believe you know.

jerellh528
02-09-2015, 02:24 PM
I mean if you just took either Shaq or Kobe off those teams yeah they probably don't win. But if you replace Kobe with many of the other great SGs of the time (Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Ray Allen, etc.) they are probably still winning rings.

I can't think of a single C you could have replaced Shaq with and had the Lakers still winning 3 straight.

Yup, even penny hardaway. Peak tmac is about the only other sg at the time I would agree with.

Vendetta_
02-09-2015, 02:39 PM
Yup, even penny hardaway. Peak tmac is about the only other sg at the time I would agree with.

If you swapped Penny with Kobe I think they still win multiple championships. I don't even remember who coached the Magic when they went to the finals with Penny and Shaq, but I bet if they switched whoever it was for Phil Jackson they'd have a pretty good chance.

Couldn't tell if I understood your post or not, but I think you were being sarcastic towards the idea of switching Kobe with any other SG, but I couldn't tell. Sorry for the misunderstanding if I'm mistaken.

Rain City
02-09-2015, 02:41 PM
If kobe didnt win Ships on his own than maybe considering him an all time great is a stretch. but kobe went b2b w/out shaq. without question the #2 SG of all time. top 10 or 15 GOAT regardless of position.

bucketss
02-09-2015, 02:44 PM
its a team sport, no one can win on their own..

Chronz
02-09-2015, 03:16 PM
Arvydas did about as well as can be expected on Shaq considering his age and physical deterioration at that point. The problem was he was only good for 28 Minutes a night maximum. A big reason we lost the 00 WCF was because when Sabonis sat Shaq would abuse Brian Grant. So the next year we traded Jermaine O'Neal for Dale Davis and tried him on Shaq, obviously that didn't work either.

Should've traded for Elden Cambell. Dude blew up towards the end of his career.

valade16
02-09-2015, 03:25 PM
Should've traded for Elden Cambell. Dude blew up towards the end of his career.

Should have not blown a 13 point lead with 7:00 in the 4th of game 7 of the WCFs :(

Hawkeye15
02-09-2015, 04:21 PM
Should have not blown a 13 point lead with 7:00 in the 4th of game 7 of the WCFs :(

haha, true

Tony_Starks
02-09-2015, 04:35 PM
Should've traded for Elden Cambell. Dude blew up towards the end of his career.

Should have not blown a 13 point lead with 7:00 in the 4th of game 7 of the WCFs :(


Sheed was my guy man I almost felt sorry for yall.......ALMOST.

No BS though if we don't pull that off you guys definitely get the ring and maybe breakup our dynasty before it starts....

valade16
02-09-2015, 04:58 PM
Sheed was my guy man I almost felt sorry for yall.......ALMOST.

No BS though if we don't pull that off you guys definitely get the ring and maybe breakup our dynasty before it starts....

Yeah that was my first real sports heartbreak. Sheed getting a technical for just looking at the ref. We had it and just let it go.

lol, please
02-09-2015, 06:03 PM
I can't think of a single C you could have replaced Shaq with and had the Lakers still winning 3 straight.

Prime Yao ming

valade16
02-09-2015, 06:05 PM
Prime Yao ming

We'll have to disagree there. No way Yao on those Lakers teams wins 3 straight titles.

Lakers + Giants
02-09-2015, 06:21 PM
We'll have to disagree there. No way Yao on those Lakers teams wins 3 straight titles.

I dont think so either. Only 2 other players i can see kobe winning more than 1 ring with is KG/Duncan.

Hawkeye15
02-09-2015, 06:31 PM
Prime Yao ming

I don't agree on that. I think you could have paired prime Kobe (with a relatively good roster around them), with Duncan, KG, Dirk, and still won some chips. But I can't think of anyone else, as far as big men go.

IKnowHoops
02-09-2015, 06:35 PM
I dont think so either. Only 2 other players i can see kobe winning more than 1 ring with is KG/Duncan.

Agreed

jerellh528
02-09-2015, 06:36 PM
I don't agree on that. I think you could have paired prime Kobe (with a relatively good roster around them), with Duncan, KG, Dirk, and still won some chips. But I can't think of anyone else, as far as big men go.

with the role players they had, fox, fish, George, shaw, horry as the meat and potatoes I don't know if anyone but shaq woulda worked out, those guys weren't the greatest at all. Maybe a bit more balance in the roster besides just dominant big and kobe and I think duncan, kg, Yao, mayyyybe dirk woulda worked.

Hawkeye15
02-09-2015, 06:57 PM
with the role players they had, fox, fish, George, shaw, horry as the meat and potatoes I don't know if anyone but shaq woulda worked out, those guys weren't the greatest at all. Maybe a bit more balance in the roster besides just dominant big and kobe and I think duncan, kg, Yao, mayyyybe dirk woulda worked.

sure, I didn't state the players they had, I meant a good roster complimenting what they would have had.

FlashBolt
02-09-2015, 07:00 PM
Are we really debating Shaq's impact on that team? He was their big piece. I'm sorry but you can take Kobe out and put T-Mac on that team and it would have been just as destructive. You take Shaq out and put Alonzo or Dikembe? You'll have a first round exit team. That's the truth. Kobe+KG would have been an amazing force but three rings? Yeah, right. And I don't see Duncan being able to co-exist with Kobe. Most of his success comes off playing with a team that doesn't play hero ball and loses their ego behind the door. Their personalities just doesn't fit and in basketball chemistry, that means a lot. Take for example LeBron+Love. Two completely different personalities and what do you have? Drama.

jerellh528
02-09-2015, 07:09 PM
Are we really debating Shaq's impact on that team? He was their big piece. I'm sorry but you can take Kobe out and put T-Mac on that team and it would have been just as destructive. You take Shaq out and put Alonzo or Dikembe? You'll have a first round exit team. That's the truth. Kobe+KG would have been an amazing force but three rings? Yeah, right. And I don't see Duncan being able to co-exist with Kobe. Most of his success comes off playing with a team that doesn't play hero ball and loses their ego behind the door. Their personalities just doesn't fit and in basketball chemistry, that means a lot. Take for example LeBron+Love. Two completely different personalities and what do you have? Drama.

Well of course when you put it that way lol. Alonzo and dikembe weren't half the players shaq was. Prime tmac was a superb player, if you want to add players around shaqs level of talent like you did with kobe then I would say kobe add Hakeem would be just as destructive. Obviously shaq was the most important player but let's not act like kobe wasn't a huge part that you can just plug n play with a guy like vc, Allen, or the likes. As for the chemistry/ personality, there's no way of knowing. It wasn't just kobe, shaq was a huge jack *** as well

FlashBolt
02-09-2015, 07:17 PM
Well of course when you put it that way lol. Alonzo and dikembe weren't half the players shaq was. Prime tmac was a superb player, if you want to add players around shaqs level of talent like you did with kobe then I would say kobe add Hakeem would be just as destructive. Obviously shaq was the most important player but let's not act like kobe wasn't a huge part that you can just plug n play with a guy like vc, Allen, or the likes. As for the chemistry/ personality, there's no way of knowing. It wasn't just kobe, shaq was a huge jack *** as well

No; because Shaq was the big dog at his position. Kobe was up there with AI, T-Mac, and Vince. Of the modern NBA, the top centers were Dikembe, Alonzo (before his illness), and you could even put Dwight/Yao. Simply put, it should be about who you could replace at the center position or the PF position at a time in which Kobe was at his prime that would be as effective as Shaq. Simply, no one. Even if you dug past to Hakeem, Shaq at his prime could never be duplicated by Hakeem. But you can have the same/better result with T-Mac, Vince, or probably AI when you pair them up with Shaq. I mean T-Mac with prime Shaq? You can't tell me that isn't a three-peat anymore than Kobe was. I'd take Kobe over Vince any day but they would still win a couple of rings. AI is a tricky situation but two rings doesn't seem farfetched.

jerellh528
02-09-2015, 07:23 PM
No; because Shaq was the big dog at his position. Kobe was up there with AI, T-Mac, and Vince. Of the modern NBA, the top centers were Dikembe, Alonzo (before his illness), and you could even put Dwight/Yao. Simply put, it should be about who you could replace at the center position or the PF position at a time in which Kobe was at his prime that would be as effective as Shaq. Simply, no one. Even if you dug past to Hakeem, Shaq at his prime could never be duplicated by Hakeem. But you can have the same/better result with T-Mac, Vince, or probably AI.

No. peak tmac, okay. To the others, I don't believe that you even believe yourself. Kobe would've had similar success with early 2000s kg, duncan, Yao, who were players than pau who he won back to backs with. I don't see how you're saying he couldn't win multiple tiles with duncan, kg, Yao, when he did it with an inferior player in pau. Shaq won 1 more title with a peak wade, never multiple again. And he didn't win with penny, who was a damn good guard in his own right and that Orlando team had a better cast than 3 peat la outside of kobester.

FlashBolt
02-09-2015, 07:31 PM
No. peak tmac, okay. To the others, I don't believe that you even believe yourself. Kobe would've had similar success with early 2000s kg, duncan, Yao, who were players than pau who he won back to backs with. I don't see how you're saying he couldn't win multiple tiles with duncan, kg, Yao, when he did it with an inferior player in pau. Shaq won 1 more title with a peak wade, never multiple again.

You're telling me Pau Gasol dominates the way Shaq did? 2008 was a different story against a different team. Pau wouldn't be able to dominate against Portland or Dikembe.. LMAO. Shaq DOMINATED absolutely everything. That's why they won. Kobe was just there but screw that, it was mainly Shaq who just terrorized everybody. You really think Pau could achieve that same level of play in the years they three-peated?

As for Vince/AI, I did say that Kobe would be better but we judged those players when they didn't have Shaq. Put Kobe away from Shaq and you'd get a different Kobe. I can see Vince coexisting with Shaq and AI probably isn't the best in terms of sharing the ball. Shaq was out of his prime by the time he left LAL.. He was already declining before he left. C'mon; that wasn't Shaq. You and I both know that. You think KG was as dominant as Shaq in the playoffs? Didn't Shaq average 35 PPG/16 RPG and like 4 blocks in all NBA Finals during that threepeat? Duncan's success is based off Pop/teammates. He wouldn't be as dominant and effective with Kobe in that LAL situation. KG/Kobe had similar personalities so they could get away with two but again, KG was never as dominant and that is what took LAL to another level. Yao Ming? Yeah right.

jerellh528
02-09-2015, 07:38 PM
You're telling me Pau Gasol dominates the way Shaq did? 2008 was a different story against a different team. Pau wouldn't be able to dominate against Portland or Dikembe.. LMAO. Shaq DOMINATED absolutely everything. That's why they won. Kobe was just there but screw that, it was mainly Shaq who just terrorized everybody. You really think Pau could achieve that same level of play in the years they three-peated?

As for Vince/AI, I did say that Kobe would be better but we judged those players when they didn't have Shaq. Put Kobe away from Shaq and you'd get a different Kobe. I can see Vince coexisting with Shaq and AI probably isn't the best in terms of sharing the ball. Shaq was out of his prime by the time he left LAL.. He was already declining before he left. C'mon; that wasn't Shaq. You and I both know that. You think KG was as dominant as Shaq in the playoffs? Didn't Shaq average 35 PPG/16 RPG and like 4 blocks in all NBA Finals during that threepeat? Duncan's success is based off Pop/teammates. He wouldn't be as dominant and effective with Kobe in that LAL situation. KG/Kobe had similar personalities so they could get away with two but again, KG was never as dominant and that is what took LAL to another level. Yao Ming? Yeah right.

Lakers steam rolled everyone. Of course pau wasn't as dominant as shaq, nor was kg. But just maybe, kobe didn't need such dominance, an all star caliber big who was consistant. The series' woulda been tougher and maybe they wouldn't have ran over teams like shaq/ kobe. But I think the lakers would've had similar success. shaq/ kobe was perfect timing because shaq was in his prime and kobe was entering his, they were able to dominate despite their weakish cast. Shaq was the driving force but give kobe duncan or kg after shaq left and I think they're winning rings.

andy2518
02-09-2015, 07:52 PM
I really don't understand logically how someones legacy can go backwards for winning a championship as a second option. Winning is a positive thing and most would agree the most important thing, therefore I can only see a legacy increasing as a result.

andy2518
02-09-2015, 07:53 PM
The poll questions are pretty much on the opposite sides of the spectrum. There really is no middle ground so I don't think I will be voting on this one seeing as how I don't agree with either of the choices.

Bostonjorge
02-09-2015, 09:22 PM
T Mac is not winning anything with shaq. Prime T Mac or the very best T Mac we saw couldn't even beat Barron Davis. Barron davis like T Mac had no team around him but baron easily handled him. So all it took was a player like baron and limited help to get past prime T Mac. T Mac also lost to a good bucks team but AI single handily took that same bucks team down the very same year. T Mac is a Kevin love type player. Great stats on bad teams, only difference T Mac played out east and still got destroyed come playoff time.

The lakers where shaqs team and he dominated the league. In 2002 Kobe led the lakers to there third ring. You take out the final series(the easiest series) and Kobe is dominating the stats and leading the team thru out the west playoffs. Kobe was always the west playoffs MVP. The finals was always the weakest competition for the lakers. SHAQ always showed this by having his best averages by far.

In the finals sure you can replace Kobe but getting there no way T Mac is enough of an replacement.

Tony_Starks
02-09-2015, 09:33 PM
I really don't understand logically how someones legacy can go backwards for winning a championship as a second option. Winning is a positive thing and most would agree the most important thing, therefore I can only see a legacy increasing as a result.

Welcome to the world of Kobe my friend. A world where accomplishments that would highlight the legacy of any other all time great somehow tarnish his and are open to make believe speculation and begrudgingly given backhanded compliments....

Tony_Starks
02-09-2015, 09:42 PM
T Mac is not winning anything with shaq. Prime T Mac or the very best T Mac we saw couldn't even beat Barron Davis. Barron davis like T Mac had no team around him but baron easily handled him. So all it took was a player like baron and limited help to get past prime T Mac. T Mac also lost to a good bucks team but AI single handily took that same bucks team down the very same year. T Mac is a Kevin love type player. Great stats on bad teams, only difference T Mac played out east and still got destroyed come playoff time.

The lakers where shaqs team and he dominated the league. In 2002 Kobe led the lakers to there third ring. You take out the final series(the easiest series) and Kobe is dominating the stats and leading the team thru out the west playoffs. Kobe was always the west playoffs MVP. The finals was always the weakest competition for the lakers. SHAQ always showed this by having his best averages by far.

In the finals sure you can replace Kobe but getting there no way T Mac is enough of an replacement.

Exactamundo. Tmac was nowhere near the defender Kobe was. All his energy was saved for the offensive end. Kobe not only would defend the other teams best wing but often switch off to cover their pg ( Stoudamire, Parker, Bibby, Cassel) who was routinely lighting Fishers a_ss on fire. AND still give you buckets and close the game at that.

The TMacs of the world weren't doing that....

Chronz
02-09-2015, 10:06 PM
Exactamundo. Tmac was nowhere near the defender Kobe was. All his energy was saved for the offensive end. Kobe not only would defend the other teams best wing but often switch off to cover their pg ( Stoudamire, Parker, Bibby, Cassel) who was routinely lighting Fishers a_ss on fire. AND still give you buckets and close the game at that.

The TMacs of the world weren't doing that....

You forgot the green font. You literally havent seen Tmac in the playoffs if you believe this trash.

FlashBolt
02-09-2015, 10:18 PM
Lmao @ T-Mac not being close to Kobe at defense. He was an exceptional defender in his prime. I don't even like T-Mac much to not realize this.

FlashBolt
02-09-2015, 10:22 PM
While I agree that it won't tarnish his legacy, how many of you Kobe fanboys have stated the below:

"Ray Allen saved LeBron's legacy."
"LeBron had the most stacked NBA team with Wade/Bosh."
"Shane Battier could lock-up MJ."
"Wade would have won FMVP if they had beaten Dallas."

Suddenly when it's Kobe, you throw away your nervous system and say "it doesn't matter."

Tony_Starks
02-09-2015, 10:24 PM
Not sure what TMac you were watching but the one whose career I observed played defense on a when he felt like it basis. Maybe we saw something different.....

Bostonjorge
02-09-2015, 10:25 PM
You forgot the green font. You literally havent seen Tmac in the playoffs if you believe this trash.

I did see T Mac in the playoffs and he could score and had some great plays. Only thing is he never played anyone great. Ray Allen and baron Davis took it to him and more importantly won thoses series.

sheesh
02-09-2015, 10:28 PM
Wait. This is actually a debate.

Winning 3 championships with the best player in the league on your team doesn't affect your legacy?

andy2518
02-09-2015, 11:07 PM
While I agree that it won't tarnish his legacy, how many of you Kobe fanboys have stated the below:

"Ray Allen saved LeBron's legacy."
"LeBron had the most stacked NBA team with Wade/Bosh."
"Shane Battier could lock-up MJ."
"Wade would have won FMVP if they had beaten Dallas."

Suddenly when it's Kobe, you throw away your nervous system and say "it doesn't matter."

I've never heard anyone say any of those things. Maybe the Allen thing, but very rarely and it's somewhat justified. More so that he played the end of that 4th quarter in game six so badly and the series leading up to that point. Allen just happened to be in the right place at the right time and he hit the big shot. A lot of other factors went into that miracle comeback than Allen being "Superman" and saving the day lol.

andy2518
02-09-2015, 11:08 PM
Wait. This is actually a debate.

Winning 3 championships with the best player in the league on your team doesn't affect your legacy?

Ya, because it's really possible to take away from a legacy by winning three consecutive championships. You guys are pretty darn ridiculous you know that.

andy2518
02-09-2015, 11:09 PM
Wait. This is actually a debate.

Winning 3 championships with the best player in the league on your team doesn't affect your legacy?

We see what happened when T-Mac had his own Superstar center in Houston.

FlashBolt
02-09-2015, 11:09 PM
I've never heard anyone say any of those things. Maybe the Allen thing, but very rarely and it's somewhat justified. More so that he played the end of that 4th quarter in game six so badly and the series leading up to that point. Allen just happened to be in the right place at the right time and he hit the big shot. A lot of other factors went into that miracle comeback than Allen being "Superman" and saving the day lol.

Yeah, but those things "tarnish" LeBron's legacy but when Kobe wins because of clearly, Shaq, that shouldn't tarnish it? I mean we talk about Kobe's rings but how many of those were saved/rigged? Refs publicly admitting that they fixed a game? I mean, why not talk about that some more?

andy2518
02-09-2015, 11:13 PM
Yeah, but those things "tarnish" LeBron's legacy but when Kobe wins because of clearly, Shaq, that shouldn't tarnish it? I mean we talk about Kobe's rings but how many of those were saved/rigged? Refs publicly admitting that they fixed a game? I mean, why not talk about that some more?

Go look at Donaghy's YouTube channel and see what he said about Lebron during his championship run. The dude was most likely a quack. Can't really take all that too seriously.

It's not about tarnishing a legacy, it's just about comparing the legacy of greats. Just to be in the conversation is a great honor.

sheesh
02-09-2015, 11:17 PM
We see what happened when T-Mac had his own Superstar center in Houston.

WTF? Why are you talking about T-Mac.

The answer is obvious. Shaq was the league's best player.

LAcowBOMBER
02-10-2015, 12:20 AM
I don't want to get into it on PSD for the millionth time, but it can certainly be argued that Kobe was the best player for 2 of those years. Shaq wouldn't even come into the season in shape. I've heard Rick Fox talk about it and talk about how Kobe had to lead the team until Shaq played into shape. The numbers are closer than people would like to believe and how quickly we forget that Kobe was literally the only player on that team that could create his own shot. That team needed Kobe every bit as much as they needed Shaq. I'll give some of you that it would have been easier to find someone close to Kobe than close to Shaq, but that's not a knock on Kobe, if anything it speaks to the lack of center depth that Shaq played against later in his career and how competitive the backcourts were at the time

sheesh
02-10-2015, 12:23 AM
I don't want to get into it on PSD for the millionth time, but it can certainly be argued that Kobe was the best player for 2 of those years. Shaq wouldn't even come into the season in shape. I've heard Rick Fox talk about it and talk about how Kobe had to lead the team until Shaq played into shape. The numbers are closer than people would like to believe and how quickly we forget that Kobe was literally the only player on that team that could create his own shot. That team needed Kobe every bit as much as they needed Shaq. I'll give some of you that it would have been easier to find someone close to Kobe than close to Shaq, but that's not a knock on Kobe, if anything it speaks to the lack of center depth that Shaq played against later in his career and how competitive the backcourts were at the time

Give ball to Shaq. Shaq post up. Shaq back down. Shaq Dunk. Rinse. Repeat. Rings.

LAcowBOMBER
02-10-2015, 12:52 AM
Give ball to Shaq. Shaq post up. Shaq back down. Shaq Dunk. Rinse. Repeat. Rings.

I don't consider needing a teammate to make a strongly contested entry pass creating your own shot but agree to disagree I suppose.

But go back and watch those playoff runs and tell me that Kobe wasn't a huge reason for their success. He needed Shaq, but it goes both ways. It wasn't the batman and robin narrative everyone wants to make it though

sheesh
02-10-2015, 01:06 AM
I don't consider needing a teammate to make a strongly contested entry pass creating your own shot but agree to disagree I suppose.

But go back and watch those playoff runs and tell me that Kobe wasn't a huge reason for their success. He needed Shaq, but it goes both ways. It wasn't the batman and robin narrative everyone wants to make it though

So by your logic basketball a Center can't create his own shot. Brilliant.

PowerHouse
02-10-2015, 01:48 AM
This thread is not only ridiculous but also a tad confusing. Are we saying that Kobe's legacy is tarnished because he, as a young developing player, wasnt good enough to be #1 option? Or are we saying this because he had the good fortune of being a teammate of Shaqs? If the latter, it doesnt make sense to fault somebody over factors out of their control. Remember Kobe was there before Shaqs aquisition. If its the first one, show me a coach who will let a 22 yr old kid who is still developing his game override a spectacular and dominant veteran center as #1 option and I will show you a coach who gets fired fast enough to make his head spin.

Its not like Kobe couldnt win rings as #1 option anyway. What makes Kobe special is how he proved that he can do both, #1 or #2 and make it work to a championship(s) degree.

LAcowBOMBER
02-10-2015, 02:17 AM
So by your logic basketball a Center can't create his own shot. Brilliant.

I don't consider receiving a deep entry pass in the post to be creating your own shot, but like I said, agree to disagree. Kobe Bryant was the only player on that team that could take the ball from anywhere on the court and create a makable shot for himself. He was the player the team relied on to make shots when the clock was running down when Shaq couldn't get position.

Shaq was an absolute beast in those years, but the idea that Kobe was just some guy along for the ride is ridiculous. This conversation started with you acting like the Lakers championships were won solely by dumping the ball to Shaq, which is ridiculous. As a fan of both players, I felt at the time, and still feel the same way today after looking back on that run, that Kobe was just as important. He played better than Shaq the last 2 championship years minus the Finals. Shaq was such a mismatch at that point against those centers that everyone did defer to him. Shaq may have been the anchor of that team, but Kobe was certainly the motor

JJ_JKidd
02-10-2015, 05:01 AM
If we swap SHAQ ATTAQ with say, Dwight Howard, Yao Ming, or Manute Bol, could Kobe carry those Lakers squads to championships? Discuss.

Shaq won those because of Samaki

sheesh
02-10-2015, 11:33 AM
I don't consider receiving a deep entry pass in the post to be creating your own shot, but like I said, agree to disagree. Kobe Bryant was the only player on that team that could take the ball from anywhere on the court and create a makable shot for himself. He was the player the team relied on to make shots when the clock was running down when Shaq couldn't get position.

Shaq was an absolute beast in those years, but the idea that Kobe was just some guy along for the ride is ridiculous. This conversation started with you acting like the Lakers championships were won solely by dumping the ball to Shaq, which is ridiculous. As a fan of both players, I felt at the time, and still feel the same way today after looking back on that run, that Kobe was just as important. He played better than Shaq the last 2 championship years minus the Finals. Shaq was such a mismatch at that point against those centers that everyone did defer to him. Shaq may have been the anchor of that team, but Kobe was certainly the motor

You're speaking in generalities because you know Shaq was the better player. Kobe couldn't score from halfcourt. Kobe had to take a contested in-bounds on a full court press. Kobe had to receive a contested pass flying off the screen to get in position. Kobe had to rely on his players to form the triangle to put him in position.

See I can do it too. For you to say Shaq was incapable of creating his own shot is one the bigger insults I've ever seen PSD. It's a slap in the face to him and all great Centers capable of creating their own shots. It's pretty egregious.

D-Leethal
02-10-2015, 11:40 AM
Give ball to Shaq. Shaq post up. Shaq back down. Shaq Dunk. Rinse. Repeat. Rings.

Late in game. Shaq post up. Shaq get wrapped up. Shaq miss 2 FTs. Rinse. Repeat. More rings for Spurs.

sheesh
02-10-2015, 11:58 AM
Late in game. Shaq post up. Shaq get wrapped up. Shaq miss 2 FTs. Rinse. Repeat. More rings for Spurs.

Shaq was a 53% shooter from the line. That means you foul him he scores on average more than 1 point per possession. You're giving him points. And a lot of times Hack a Shaq would just lead to an and 1 situation.

Hawkeye15
02-10-2015, 12:46 PM
I don't want to get into it on PSD for the millionth time, but it can certainly be argued that Kobe was the best player for 2 of those years. Shaq wouldn't even come into the season in shape. I've heard Rick Fox talk about it and talk about how Kobe had to lead the team until Shaq played into shape. The numbers are closer than people would like to believe and how quickly we forget that Kobe was literally the only player on that team that could create his own shot. That team needed Kobe every bit as much as they needed Shaq. I'll give some of you that it would have been easier to find someone close to Kobe than close to Shaq, but that's not a knock on Kobe, if anything it speaks to the lack of center depth that Shaq played against later in his career and how competitive the backcourts were at the time

I don't think an argument can be made that Kobe had the same impact as Shaq at any point of their tenure together, outside Shaq's missed games.

Chronz
02-10-2015, 01:56 PM
We see what happened when T-Mac had his own Superstar center in Houston.
Context is everything. By the time Yao became a superstar center (an often injured one at that), Tmac ceased being the superstar he was years prior.


Not sure what TMac you were watching but the one whose career I observed played defense on a when he felt like it basis. Maybe we saw something different.....

Thats probably it, Im not talking about Todd MacColloch the way you seem to be.


I did see T Mac in the playoffs and he could score and had some great plays. Only thing is he never played anyone great. Ray Allen and baron Davis took it to him and more importantly won thoses series.
His scoring was actually overrated, it was his all around offense and defensive versatility that made him special. And you clearly didn't see Tmac in the playoffs if thats what you think you saw. Tmac checked Glen Robinson in that series vs Ray, and he COMPLETELY locked him down. In the series vs the Hornets, he split time defending Davis when he was abusing DA in the post but because he was also his teams best help defender, he actually spent some time as his teams defacto center in Doc's zone scheme. Then there was his virtuoso performance vs Dirk. His defense against Dirk was lauded, the Mavs won that series in spite of Dirk's struggles, thats what a superior team can do. Tmac has never been on a team where he can struggle on both ends and see his teammates pick up the slack.

I know you think he never played anyone great but thats because you were either not paying attention or too young to realize his defensive versatility.

Then there was that series vs Detroit where his team shouldn't have won a single game. 8th seed vs 1 seed and Tmac nearly gets it done. It was very similar to Kobe taking on the Suns with his rag tag group of bums. The primary difference being that Tmac faced a FAR superior defensive team and STILL produced more than Kobe did against his soft rival. Both went up 3-1, both lost to superior squads, only Tmac played at a higher 2-way level. Did Kobe even have the responsibility of checking anyone worth a damn that series? Like Tmac in Orlando would have most likely been checking Nash or Marion that series. Guess Kobe didn't need to but the fact that he was hidden on the likes of Raja Bell and still couldn't produce more on the offensive side is pretty sad.



I don't want to get into it on PSD for the millionth time, but it can certainly be argued that Kobe was the best player for 2 of those years. Shaq wouldn't even come into the season in shape. I've heard Rick Fox talk about it and talk about how Kobe had to lead the team until Shaq played into shape. The numbers are closer than people would like to believe and how quickly we forget that Kobe was literally the only player on that team that could create his own shot. That team needed Kobe every bit as much as they needed Shaq. I'll give some of you that it would have been easier to find someone close to Kobe than close to Shaq, but that's not a knock on Kobe, if anything it speaks to the lack of center depth that Shaq played against later in his career and how competitive the backcourts were at the time
Feel free to argue it, your brethren have done a piss poor job of even supporting that. Check my posts about the influence on their teams record/efficiency because its quite obvious their individual production isn't going to back you, so lets focus more on the intangibles. Good luck

Chronz
02-10-2015, 02:02 PM
I don't consider receiving a deep entry pass in the post to be creating your own shot, but like I said, agree to disagree. Kobe Bryant was the only player on that team that could take the ball from anywhere on the court and create a makable shot for himself. He was the player the team relied on to make shots when the clock was running down when Shaq couldn't get position.

Shaq was an absolute beast in those years, but the idea that Kobe was just some guy along for the ride is ridiculous. This conversation started with you acting like the Lakers championships were won solely by dumping the ball to Shaq, which is ridiculous. As a fan of both players, I felt at the time, and still feel the same way today after looking back on that run, that Kobe was just as important. He played better than Shaq the last 2 championship years minus the Finals. Shaq was such a mismatch at that point against those centers that everyone did defer to him. Shaq may have been the anchor of that team, but Kobe was certainly the motor

To put it simply, its not about creating your own shot, its about creating high quality looks for the TEAM. Theres a reason why the offense hummed just fine without Kobe so long as Shaq was around. Its the same reason why the team fell apart without Shaq even if Kobe was on the court. Its because he attracted more attention and had a greater 2-way influence on HIS Lakers squad.

Its like you are purposely ignoring the humbling experience Kobe's injury had on him. He saw firsthand how well the team played without him when they worked to create for each other with ball movement rather than watch a one man show hold the offense hostage. Drop the irrelevant labels and focus on what actually wins games. EFFICIENCY and TEAMWORK.

PowerHouse
02-10-2015, 04:34 PM
To put it simply, its not about creating your own shot, its about creating high quality looks for the TEAM. Theres a reason why the offense hummed just fine without Kobe so long as Shaq was around. Its the same reason why the team fell apart without Shaq even if Kobe was on the court. Its because he attracted more attention and had a greater 2-way influence on HIS Lakers squad.



Sure, they always fell apart without Shaq. Especially down the stretch of a crucial game against tough competition right? Maybe you need to be reminded of pivotal game 4 of the 2000 Finals when Shaq fouled out with 2:33 left in OT. The Lakers didnt fall apart, it was Kobe (on a sprained ankle) who hit clutch shots late and carried the team to victory.

jerellh528
02-10-2015, 04:43 PM
Rings are a team accomplishment. Horry has like 7. Shaq was no more responsible for his rings than any of his teammates because rings are a team achievement. Rings shouldn't affect kobes legacy either way.

valade16
02-10-2015, 04:52 PM
Rings are a team accomplishment. Horry has like 7. Shaq was no more responsible for his rings than any of his teammates because rings are a team achievement. Rings shouldn't affect kobes legacy either way.

Could you clarify? Are you saying Shaq and Luke Walton were equally responsible for the Lakers Championships?

Tony_Starks
02-10-2015, 05:00 PM
I wonder does it tarnish Eminem's legacy that he started off his career with Dre doing his beats? I mean even though he went on to make hits without Dre and is universally recognized as one of the best Emcees ever the mere fact that he started his career with a all time great producer should somehow taint his legacy right?.......

Chronz
02-10-2015, 05:10 PM
I wonder does it tarnish Eminem's legacy that he started off his career with Dre doing his beats? I mean even though he went on to make hits without Dre and is universally recognized as one of the best Emcees ever the mere fact that he started his career with a all time great producer should somehow taint his legacy right?.......

Dre taught him how to win, but at the same time, others have worked with Dre and have gone on to be **** without him. So its still on the individual.

Chronz
02-10-2015, 05:13 PM
Sure, they always fell apart without Shaq. Especially down the stretch of a crucial game against tough competition right? Maybe you need to be reminded of pivotal game 4 of the 2000 Finals when Shaq fouled out with 2:33 left in OT. The Lakers didnt fall apart, it was Kobe (on a sprained ankle) who hit clutch shots late and carried the team to victory.
I dont think you understand the scope of the argument. Its about relative value, the Lakers obviously dont win without both, but you highlighting a single incident doesn't prove anything. I could EASILY raise you that 1 section of a game by highlighting the game the Lakers won with Kobe playing a meager 11 minutes or whatever it was when he got injured. Shaq carried those same Lakers against the same COMP for FAR longer.

That trend becomes apparent when you look at the TOTALITY of their time spent together and not just 1 minuscule aspect.

mightybosstone
02-10-2015, 05:21 PM
I wonder does it tarnish Eminem's legacy that he started off his career with Dre doing his beats? I mean even though he went on to make hits without Dre and is universally recognized as one of the best Emcees ever the mere fact that he started his career with a all time great producer should somehow taint his legacy right?.......

I understand the comparison you're trying to make, but these are two totally different things. Fans of entertainment don't tend to judge entertainers by the number of awards they win and who helped them win those awards. Daniel Day Lewis' Oscar for "Lincoln" working with Steven Spielberg and a star-studded cast doesn't mean anything less than his Oscars for "There Will Be Blood" or "My Left Foot."

Sure, it's nice if an entertainer wins a Grammy or a Tony or an Oscar in their lifetimes, but there have been thousands of great performers who have never won any major awards or great all-time entertainers who have won very few. Hell, before "The Departed," Martin Scorcese had never won the Oscar for Best Director. Do you honestly think there are a ton of film buffs out there who would suggest that Mel Gibson or Kevin Costner are better directors than Scorcese?

And because film and music and art are so subjective, we don't tend to judge entertainers and artists with the same level of scrutiny in terms of their work as we do with athletes. Adam Sandler keeps making millions of dollars with terrible, unwatchable films and nobody cares. But Lebron's stats dropped a little bit this year and everyone lost their freaking minds.

Chronz
02-10-2015, 05:26 PM
Rings are a team accomplishment. Horry has like 7. Shaq was no more responsible for his rings than any of his teammates because rings are a team achievement. Rings shouldn't affect kobes legacy either way.

But Rings are what prop Kobe up, well that and longevity. I dont like the idea of dismissing winning (not just rings, but WINNING) altogether. Honestly, I have more respect for a player who turns a meager cast into a contender more than a great player being lifted by his teammates ala Elvin Hayes.

Horry is a bad example because everyone knows he was a complimentary player, but people cant wrap their heads around the idea of a star winning a title yet still being inferior to another star who may have not even qualified for the playoffs because his team was so bad. Its all about context, I feel like most people dont understand nuance and a big reason for that is their ineptitude quantifying an individuals contribution. It doesn't have to be perfect, but people dont even come close (IMO anyways). There are a select few here who get it. Winning is only 1 part of the equation, if you find yourself relying tooo much on any one aspect of a players worth, you simply dont get it.

L8kers4life
02-10-2015, 05:52 PM
But Rings are what prop Kobe up, well that and longevity. I dont like the idea of dismissing winning (not just rings, but WINNING) altogether. Honestly, I have more respect for a player who turns a meager cast into a contender more than a great player being lifted by his teammates ala Elvin Hayes.

Horry is a bad example because everyone knows he was a complimentary player, but people cant wrap their heads around the idea of a star winning a title yet still being inferior to another star who may have not even qualified for the playoffs because his team was so bad. Its all about context, I feel like most people dont understand nuance and a big reason for that is their ineptitude quantifying an individuals contribution. It doesn't have to be perfect, but people dont even come close (IMO anyways). There are a select few here who get it. Winning is only 1 part of the equation, if you find yourself relying tooo much on any one aspect of a players worth, you simply dont get it.



Of all your posts, this is the one I can relate to the most. This argument has been about, does Kobe winning with Shaq hurt his Legacy. But championships as you said are just one part.

With Kobe his Legacy is about everything. The longevity of his career, the accolades, 14 time all NBA, 11 time all defensive and so forth, the championships, all of it.

What I have taken offense to, is this notion that Kobe is not on the same level as Duncan. To me they are in the same category. Sure Duncan came in right away and dominated. But Duncan was a senior when he came out, which obviously is different than Kobe. But they both have had long storied careers and are considered the face of their respective franchises. Also, some on here, have punished Kobe for having a Dominate center like Shaq. But we should not punish him based on the talent on his team. Duncan has always had great talent and coaching around him. We also can not criticize LeBron for teaming up to make the big 3 or going back to Cleveland to play with Irving and Love.


What I do hate about PSD, is that everyone on here constantly criticize Kobe for his involvement in Shaq leaving, its as if Shaq had no part of it, anyone who paid attention at the time, knew Shaq was part of the problem Especially when he was running up the court screaming at Dr. Buss to pay him, after missing 3weeks with a sore toe and playing out of shape.

PowerHouse
02-10-2015, 05:55 PM
I dont think you understand the scope of the argument. Its about relative value, the Lakers obviously dont win without both, but you highlighting a single incident doesn't prove anything. I could EASILY raise you that 1 section of a game by highlighting the game the Lakers won with Kobe playing a meager 11 minutes or whatever it was when he got injured. Shaq carried those same Lakers against the same COMP for FAR longer.

That trend becomes apparent when you look at the TOTALITY of their time spent together and not just 1 minuscule aspect.

The bold is where you hit the nail on the head. I could also point out the game 3 loss would not have happened had Kobe played that game. Is it unfair to view that as the Lakers falling apart without Kobe? The team was always at its best when both were on the court and to say the team "fell apart" when one of the two were absent is an unnecessary exaggeration.

jerellh528
02-10-2015, 06:16 PM
But Rings are what prop Kobe up, well that and longevity. I dont like the idea of dismissing winning (not just rings, but WINNING) altogether. Honestly, I have more respect for a player who turns a meager cast into a contender more than a great player being lifted by his teammates ala Elvin Hayes.

Horry is a bad example because everyone knows he was a complimentary player, but people cant wrap their heads around the idea of a star winning a title yet still being inferior to another star who may have not even qualified for the playoffs because his team was so bad. Its all about context, I feel like most people dont understand nuance and a big reason for that is their ineptitude quantifying an individuals contribution. It doesn't have to be perfect, but people dont even come close (IMO anyways). There are a select few here who get it. Winning is only 1 part of the equation, if you find yourself relying tooo much on any one aspect of a players worth, you simply dont get it.

Good stuff cronz

Hawkeye15
02-10-2015, 06:26 PM
Of all your posts, this is the one I can relate to the most. This argument has been about, does Kobe winning with Shaq hurt his Legacy. But championships as you said are just one part.

With Kobe his Legacy is about everything. The longevity of his career, the accolades, 14 time all NBA, 11 time all defensive and so forth, the championships, all of it.

What I have taken offense to, is this notion that Kobe is not on the same level as Duncan. To me they are in the same category. Sure Duncan came in right away and dominated. But Duncan was a senior when he came out, which obviously is different than Kobe. But they both have had long storied careers and are considered the face of their respective franchises. Also, some on here, have punished Kobe for having a Dominate center like Shaq. But we should not punish him based on the talent on his team. Duncan has always had great talent and coaching around him. We also can not criticize LeBron for teaming up to make the big 3 or going back to Cleveland to play with Irving and Love.


What I do hate about PSD, is that everyone on here constantly criticize Kobe for his involvement in Shaq leaving, its as if Shaq had no part of it, anyone who paid attention at the time, knew Shaq was part of the problem Especially when he was running up the court screaming at Dr. Buss to pay him, after missing 3weeks with a sore toe and playing out of shape.

yes, exactly.