PDA

View Full Version : Kobe and Shaq.....Numbers Don't Lie



Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 09:15 AM
Most of us know these basic basketball truths but shockingly enough there are still some that believe the fairytale myth that it was all Shaq and Kobe just rode the coat tails to 3 rings. The article was written before we went on our second Finals threepeat attempt minus Shaq btw...

Facts
------------------------------

I think a large percentage of the hoops loving world has been bamboozled when it comes to evaluating the Shaq, Kobe three peat Lakers. It seems to me the perception of some is that those titles “belong” to Shaq and Kobe rode the “Big Stagecoach” to three Championships. I think this is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

I think part of the problem is some of us have short memories and seem to have forgotten how dominant Bryant was and because of Kobe’s youth at the time, people viewed him as a precocious 21 year old kid and Shaq as the grown man leader of the team.

The age difference and large size of O’Neal made for an easy “Big Brother/leader, Little Brother/follower” box to put them in. It’s funny how no one calls last years Celtic title “all” Garnett’s or “all” Pierce’s, reason being, I think people see them as peers.

Taking a closer look at the stats of Shaq and Kobe and compare their numbers to each other and compare them to other greats you will see this was a PARTNERSHIP.

These Lakers won three championships and I would agree that the first title in 2000 Shaq who was the league MVP, a veteran in the middle of his prime did the heavy lifting that season so if you want to characterize any of the three titles as “Shaq’s” this is the one.

Even so, O’Neal and Bryant looked like a paring of Wilt and Mike with each of them capable of 40 point nights and incredible performances.

Title Run No. 1 1999-2000

In the 1999-2000 season, Shaq won the league MVP, All Star Game MVP, was named First Team All-NBA and Second Team All-Defensive. Kobe was an All Star, Second Team All-NBA and First Team All-Defensive. Since the playoff’s is where legends are made and people say O’Neal carried Kobe let’s take a look at the playoff #’s.

Playoff numbers (Shaq, Kobe, + next best Lakers)

Shaq 30.7 ppg 15.4 reb 3.1 ast

Kobe 21.1 ppg 4.5 reb 4.4 ast

Glen Rice 12.4 ppg 4.0 reb 2.1 ast

Ron Harper 8.6 ppg 3.7 reb 3.2 ast

The season resulted in a championship and a Finals MVP for Shaq, he was the most dominant player and the clear cut leader of the team. Both players did shine in the post season with Kobe playing quarterback you may recall the alley-oop pass to Shaq to win the Western Conference Finals against Portland.

O’Neal led the team in scoring 16 games during the playoffs with games scoring 46, 43, 41, 41, 40 plus eight other 30 point games. Bryant proved his offensive skill leading the team in scoring six times with highs being 35, 33, 32 and 32 again at the age of 21.

Title Run No. 2 2000-2001

Kobe Bryant’s game and confidence was on another level this season and this is the year the Lakers dynasty became a more evenly balanced two headed monster with Shaq and Kobe able to equally kill and destroy.

In fact during the regular season they were both in the top five in the NBA in scoring Shaq scoring 28.7 a night and Kobe 28.5. They were again both All-Stars, Shaq First Team All-NBA and Kobe Second Team All-NBA and both made the Second Team All-Defensive Team.

In this post season they continued the balanced attack combo that featured the best perimeter player both offensively and defensively and the best interior player, most dominant force in basketball.

Playoff numbers (Shaq, Kobe, + next best Lakers)

Shaq 30.4 ppg 15.4 reb 3.2 ast

Kobe 29.4 ppg 7.3 reb 6.1 ast

Derek Fisher 13.4 ppg 3.8 reb 3.0 ast

Rick Fox 10.0 ppg 4.9 reb 3.6 ast

The Lakers won their second championship of the decade and Shaq received his second NBA Finals MVP. He deserved any accolades he received but this was clearly a team with two superstars surrounded by quality role players. Not many teams in league history have had a tandem so prolific.

Through this playoff run Shaq led the team in scoring in eight games scoring 30 points or better seven times and 40 points three times. Kobe on the other hand led the team in scoring in eight games, scoring 30 points or more in seven games and two games over 40 including the team playoff high of 48 points.
Title Run No. 3 2001-2002

By this time Shaq and Kobe’s off court issues are taking their toll on the team but on the court they proved to be effective as ever. Both players were at the top of their game and highly decorated.

They were each All-Stars, and First Team All-NBA plus Kobe was Second Team All-Defensive and the All Star Game MVP. Shaq had acknowledged Kobe as the best player in the game during the previous year’s playoffs and O’Neal was still the most dominant player in the game.

Playoff numbers (Shaq, Kobe, + next best Lakers)

Shaq 28.5 ppg 12.6 reb 2.8 ast

Kobe 26.6 ppg 5.8 reb 4.6 ast

Derek Fisher 10.2 ppg 3.3 reb 2.7 ast

Rick Fox 9.8 ppg 5.4 reb 3.4 ast

The third Championship in a row brought a deserved third Finals MVP for Shaq but again he and Kobe combined for a bulk of the teams production. The MVP is for the NBA Finals but if you look at the entire playoffs you will again see both players carried the team on their backs.

O’Neal was the team scoring leader in nine playoff games, eight times scoring 30 or more points and Kobe led the team in ten playoff games, six times scoring 30 or more points.

The point of this statistical analysis is to prove how foolish it is to claim Kobe was carried by Shaq to his three rings.

Why is it that no one questions the validity of the rings won by other stars that played with stars (Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, Jerry West, Wilt, Julius Erving, James Worthy, Kareem, Magic, Bird, McHale, Isiah, Joe Dumars, Dennis Rodman, David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce), but with Kobe, he is judged on a completely different and unfair level.

No one wins a title alone and I have never heard a star getting his rings devalued because he played with another great player except in the case of Kobe.

This article is by no means to be taken as a slight on the great impact Shaq had on this Lakers team. He was completely deserving of any awards and accolades he received. The purpose is to help debunk the myth that Kobe Bryant somehow needs to prove something by winning another ring by himself because his first three rings are somehow tainted.

You may not like Kobe and some hate to give him any credit but the numbers don't care about opinions or petty hate, the numbers don't lie.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/198374-kobe-and-shaq-they-needed-each-other-the-numbers-dont-lie

TheDish87
07-29-2016, 09:39 AM
ok

jimm120
07-29-2016, 10:00 AM
This is stupid.

No one is saying that Kobe rode on shaq's skills/dominance by Kobe being a **** player. Everyone agrees he was a damn good player.

It isn't a slight at Kobe. He was NOT a bad player. Shaq was obviously #1. Kobe was obviously the 2nd most important. No one says Kobe was a non factor. Kobe was important. Just that shaq was more important.

RLundi
07-29-2016, 10:10 AM
Shaq and Kobe.

I don't think anyone feels like Kobe rode Shaq's coat tails to 3 rings. But I don't think Kobe would have won 3 rings if he had any other center (not even with Tim Duncan IMO). I don't think Shaq needed Kobe as much as Kobe needed Shaq. I honestly think Shaq would have won or at least been in a similar position to have the same amount of rings with Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, and MAYBE Ray Allen and Paul Pierce on his team instead of Kobe, though the latter two are hugely debatable. In no way am I saying that any of the players listed are better players than Kobe. But during the Lakers' championship run, they performed close to what Kobe produced.

So Kobe didn't ride Shaq's coat tails. But at that time, he did need to Shaq to win. Shaq was damn near irreplaceable. Kobe wasn't.

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 10:10 AM
This is stupid.

No one is saying that Kobe rode on shaq's skills/dominance by Kobe being a **** player. Everyone agrees he was a damn good player.

It isn't a slight at Kobe. He was NOT a bad player. Shaq was obviously #1. Kobe was obviously the 2nd most important. No one says Kobe was a non factor. Kobe was important. Just that shaq was more important.

Except you're taking it for granted that everyone agrees. They don't. It runs the gamut of he rode coat tails to anybody could've did it to he was actually a negative.

Also when you look at the numbers Shaq wasn't always more important, that's the whole point.

At certain times they were equal or Kobe was actually more important depending on the situation.

hugepatsfan
07-29-2016, 10:21 AM
He had better games than Shaq sometimes, yeah. Shaq was top dog though, easily. He was the #1 for that stretch. It's just that simple. Kobe won his first 3 rings as second best on the team. It's just stating facts. It's not a slight to him or the incredible career he had. It's just necessary context for all time discussions. You can't just throw out that he won 5 rings without mention that for the first 3 he wasn't the best player. That distinction matters when you're trying to exactly slot him on an all time list. The fact that he's even in those discussions just shows it isn't a slight to him though. His greatness is recognized. Whether someone puts him at #5 all time or #12 at the end of the day they're still showing him an incredible amount of respect. It's foolish to pretend that there's some huge difference between those rankings.

JAZZNC
07-29-2016, 10:24 AM
I think the biggest factor may be that Shaq at no point was a non factor and there were some games especially in that first run that Kobe was a non factor. I know he was really young but Shaq was easily the most important player for all of those runs. When has Kobe ever won without the best front court in the NBA? Whom titles with Shaq and with Pau/Bynum (don't care what you say they were arguably the best front court in the NBA especially when you add Lamar Odom). Yes everyone needs help but Kobe had A LOT of help when he won rings. But that's why he has 5 instead of one like Dirk.

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 10:27 AM
Shaq and Kobe.

I don't think anyone feels like Kobe rode Shaq's coat tails to 3 rings. But I don't think Kobe would have won 3 rings if he had any other center (not even with Tim Duncan IMO). I don't think Shaq needed Kobe as much as Kobe needed Shaq. I honestly think Shaq would have won or at least been in a similar position to have the same amount of rings with Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, and MAYBE Ray Allen and Paul Pierce on his team instead of Kobe, though the latter two are hugely debatable. In no way am I saying that any of the players listed are better players than Kobe. But during the Lakers' championship run, they performed close to what Kobe produced.

So Kobe didn't ride Shaq's coat tails. But at that time, he did need to Shaq to win. Shaq was damn near irreplaceable. Kobe wasn't.

Well when Shaq was paired with what you would consider a equal player in D Wade, while still playing at a high level, he only got one 1 ring and then got swept the next year in unceremonious fashion. This was a Shaq that was still easily the best center in the game and had actually got in shape and lost weight out of spite. Also with a peak D Wade, finals MVP Wade to offset any decline in Shaq.

Kobe however went on to play with a player of less value than Shaq, in Gasol, and STILL went to three straight Finals. Winning 2.

So history and logic would say that one of them continued to win at a high level given reasonably similar talent and the other one couldn't.

That is not consistent with your theory of plug in another allstar wing with Shaq and you get the same results.

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 10:39 AM
He had better games than Shaq sometimes, yeah. Shaq was top dog though, easily. He was the #1 for that stretch. It's just that simple. Kobe won his first 3 rings as second best on the team. It's just stating facts. It's not a slight to him or the incredible career he had. It's just necessary context for all time discussions. You can't just throw out that he won 5 rings without mention that for the first 3 he wasn't the best player. That distinction matters when you're trying to exactly slot him on an all time list. The fact that he's even in those discussions just shows it isn't a slight to him though. His greatness is recognized. Whether someone puts him at #5 all time or #12 at the end of the day they're still showing him an incredible amount of respect. It's foolish to pretend that there's some huge difference between those rankings.

During the second run they both led the team in scoring 8 times with Kobe scoring a playoff high of 48.

During the third run Shaq led the team in scoring 8, Kobe actually led 10. Also at that time Kobe was making all defensive teams, doing it on both ends.

So you can't just casually say Shaq was top dog, there were plenty of games Kobe was actually top dog and when you look at their numbers for the total playoffs they are pretty close.

RLundi
07-29-2016, 11:03 AM
Well when Shaq was paired with what you would consider a equal player in D Wade, while still playing at a high level, he only got one 1 ring and then got swept the next year in unceremonious fashion. This was a Shaq that was still easily the best center in the game and had actually got in shape and lost weight out of spite. Also with a peak D Wade, finals MVP Wade to offset any decline in Shaq.

Kobe however went on to play with a player of less value than Shaq, in Gasol, and STILL went to three straight Finals. Winning 2.

So history and logic would say that one of them continued to win at a high level given reasonably similar talent and the other one couldn't.

That is not consistent with your theory of plug in another allstar wing with Shaq and you get the same results.

You make really good points. The fact that Kobe went on to win 2 more rings speaks to just how good he was over such a long period of time.

I think Shaq's situation is a little different. He had already begun to decline his last season in LA and injuries were starting to mount. Honestly, to this day, I don't know how Shaq found the motivation to be near-elite his first season in Miami, but he did, and they won the championship. His next season though, and the rest of his career, he reverted back to the Shaq we saw in his final season in LA -- uninspired, out of shape, no longer elite. He was 33 and in steep decline, and it only got worse from there.

Kobe, on the other hand, was just hitting his prime at 26. You can't really compare a 33-year old with a 26-year old and apply the theory I used earlier. For that window between 2000-2003, both players were at or very close to their best. Kobe went on to have even better seasons thereafter, so trying to compare the two is apples and oranges.

A better question -- considering how good Kobe became after Shaq left and how he was able to win championships with Gasol -- is would LAL had continued to win rings with a declined Shaq but with Kobe as the star and go-to player? Maybe. We'll never know.

PhillyFaninLA
07-29-2016, 11:31 AM
Facts
------------------------------

I think


I just wanted to point out this part of the quote. You kind of lose your credible right away with that.

See what you did was say facts, they say I think meaning it is actually opinion.

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 11:33 AM
You make really good points. The fact that Kobe went on to win 2 more rings speaks to just how good he was over such a long period of time.

I think Shaq's situation is a little different. He had already begun to decline his last season in LA and injuries were starting to mount. Honestly, to this day, I don't know how Shaq found the motivation to be near-elite his first season in Miami, but he did, and they won the championship. His next season though, and the rest of his career, he reverted back to the Shaq we saw in his final season in LA -- uninspired, out of shape, no longer elite. He was 33 and in steep decline, and it only got worse from there.

Kobe, on the other hand, was just hitting his prime at 26. You can't really compare a 33-year old with a 26-year old and apply the theory I used earlier. For that window between 2000-2003, both players were at or very close to their best. Kobe went on to have even better seasons thereafter, so trying to compare the two is apples and oranges.

A better question -- considering how good Kobe became after Shaq left and how he was able to win championships with Gasol -- is would LAL had continued to win rings with a declined Shaq but with Kobe as the star and go-to player? Maybe. We'll never know.

I know the answer: never would've happened. Because of Shaq.

Important to note Shaq did two things as soon as he went to Miami he refused to do in LA: immediately lost weight and got in shape, and quickly acknowledged publicly that it was D Wades team and that he was going to play his role.

Had he stayed in LA I doubt he would've been motivated to shape up and you can say for almost a certainty he would've never handed the reigns to "little brother" even when it became obvious that Kobe had surpassed him and should be the #1.

Shaq and Wade worked briefly because he knew Wade was the man, same with Kobe and Gasol. Gasol just played his position, he was the perfect compliment.

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 11:34 AM
I just wanted to point out this part of the quote. You kind of lose your credible right away with that.

See what you did was say facts, they say I think meaning it is actually opinion.

Are you aware of this thing called a introductory statement?

Like you have a introduction to a article filled with actual facts?

Becuase that's what happened there.

Jewelz0376
07-29-2016, 11:39 AM
Shaq and Kobe.

I don't think anyone feels like Kobe rode Shaq's coat tails to 3 rings. But I don't think Kobe would have won 3 rings if he had any other center (not even with Tim Duncan IMO). I don't think Shaq needed Kobe as much as Kobe needed Shaq. I honestly think Shaq would have won or at least been in a similar position to have the same amount of rings with Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, and MAYBE Ray Allen and Paul Pierce on his team instead of Kobe, though the latter two are hugely debatable. In no way am I saying that any of the players listed are better players than Kobe. But during the Lakers' championship run, they performed close to what Kobe produced.

So Kobe didn't ride Shaq's coat tails. But at that time, he did need to Shaq to win. Shaq was damn near irreplaceable. Kobe wasn't.

Kobe wouldn't have won with Duncan?? Lol BS

PhillyFaninLA
07-29-2016, 11:42 AM
Are you aware of this thing called a introductory statement?

Like you have a introduction to a article filled with actual facts?

Becuase that's what happened there.


The first 2 words after Facts where I think....that is not an intro, that is a contradiction. You follow the word fact with facts not something that opinion.

But you have never been wrong about anything in your entire life and show you are the single most bias poster on this site so I probably should not have wasted my time pointing out something you don't have enough integrity to acknowledge.

jimm120
07-29-2016, 11:47 AM
Shaq and Kobe.

I don't think anyone feels like Kobe rode Shaq's coat tails to 3 rings. But I don't think Kobe would have won 3 rings if he had any other center (not even with Tim Duncan IMO). I don't think Shaq needed Kobe as much as Kobe needed Shaq. I honestly think Shaq would have won or at least been in a similar position to have the same amount of rings with Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, and MAYBE Ray Allen and Paul Pierce on his team instead of Kobe, though the latter two are hugely debatable. In no way am I saying that any of the players listed are better players than Kobe. But during the Lakers' championship run, they performed close to what Kobe produced.

So Kobe didn't ride Shaq's coat tails. But at that time, he did need to Shaq to win. Shaq was damn near irreplaceable. Kobe wasn't.

Exactly. point.

But that, in no way, disqualifies that Kobe was really damn good. Poster (and I guess Lakers purists that worship kobe) seem to think that people are positing that Kobe was a non-factor.

Shaq with any other great scorer probably gets to the same or close to the same position. Kobe with any other great big man probably doesn't. At least at that time...specifically during the first 2 championships.

Just remember, that isn't a slight at kobe. It is just showing how good Shaq was. Kobe would go on to be just as good later on.

jimm120
07-29-2016, 11:49 AM
Except you're taking it for granted that everyone agrees. They don't. It runs the gamut of he rode coat tails to anybody could've did it to he was actually a negative.

Also when you look at the numbers Shaq wasn't always more important, that's the whole point.

At certain times they were equal or Kobe was actually more important depending on the situation.

SEE. And that is the problem with the people that keep trying to say stuff about Kobe and that situation. People AREN'T saying that Kobe was bad or a negative. People UNDERSTAND that Kobe was really damn good too. But SHAQ is the one that propelled that team to where it was. Shaq, with another great scorer, would have done the same. Kobe, with another great big man, wouldn't...at least at that time.

But Kobe was good. Kobe was not a negative. Stop taking this argument as if it means that Kobe was bad.

HOLD_THIS_L
07-29-2016, 11:50 AM
Kobe wouldn't have won with Duncan?? Lol BS
Right. SMDH.
Duncan>Shaq
Duncan>Gasol

People cray.

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 11:52 AM
The first 2 words after Facts where I think....that is not an intro, that is a contradiction. You follow the word fact with facts not something that opinion.

But you have never been wrong about anything in your entire life and show you are the single most bias poster on this site so I probably should not have wasted my time pointing out something you don't have enough integrity to acknowledge.

Did you read the article? The "I think" refers to what the writer feels is the prevailing sentiment regarding the Kobe/ Shaq dynamic, not the facts. It then proceeds to go into facts that disprove what "he thinks" is a common myth that it was all Shaq.

I didn't write the article btw sir...

jimm120
07-29-2016, 11:53 AM
Well when Shaq was paired with what you would consider a equal player in D Wade, while still playing at a high level, he only got one 1 ring and then got swept the next year in unceremonious fashion. This was a Shaq that was still easily the best center in the game and had actually got in shape and lost weight out of spite. Also with a peak D Wade, finals MVP Wade to offset any decline in Shaq.

Kobe however went on to play with a player of less value than Shaq, in Gasol, and STILL went to three straight Finals. Winning 2.

So history and logic would say that one of them continued to win at a high level given reasonably similar talent and the other one couldn't.

That is not consistent with your theory of plug in another allstar wing with Shaq and you get the same results.

I dunno.

Didn't Shaq come into the league in 1993? That means that by 2007, he would have been in the league 14 years. At that point, you're no longer the same player and are usually declining. Heck, I think in 2006, during that championship, he was pretty good but declining already.

I wouldn't say he was "at the top of his game". Years 6-10 are usually the best years. year 14? not usually.

jimm120
07-29-2016, 11:54 AM
Well when Shaq was paired with what you would consider a equal player in D Wade, while still playing at a high level, he only got one 1 ring and then got swept the next year in unceremonious fashion. This was a Shaq that was still easily the best center in the game and had actually got in shape and lost weight out of spite. Also with a peak D Wade, finals MVP Wade to offset any decline in Shaq.

Kobe however went on to play with a player of less value than Shaq, in Gasol, and STILL went to three straight Finals. Winning 2.

So history and logic would say that one of them continued to win at a high level given reasonably similar talent and the other one couldn't.

That is not consistent with your theory of plug in another allstar wing with Shaq and you get the same results.

But that was when Kobe was in his prime. Kobe in 2000-2003 was damn god but still not a good enough leader (hence why 2005-2007 were so bad).

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 12:03 PM
SEE. And that is the problem with the people that keep trying to say stuff about Kobe and that situation. People AREN'T saying that Kobe was bad or a negative. People UNDERSTAND that Kobe was really damn good too. But SHAQ is the one that propelled that team to where it was. Shaq, with another great scorer, would have done the same. Kobe, with another great big man, wouldn't...at least at that time.

But Kobe was good. Kobe was not a negative. Stop taking this argument as if it means that Kobe was bad.

I think you're making a argument without looking at the actual numbers. Look at the numbers. Aside from the first run they indicate a equal partnership, not a clear cut 1 then 2 as you keep trying to state.

And you say Shaq would've done the same with another great scorer is just going back to the same backhanded compliment myth.

The facts are he had other great wings in Penny, and Wade and never came near the success he had with Kobe so that myth has actually been dispelled.

Like the article says they needed each other, you seem to want to re-word that into Shaq was great, Kobe was really good, but in actuality easily replaceable.

Not the case.

Slug3
07-29-2016, 12:05 PM
Well when Shaq was paired with what you would consider a equal player in D Wade, while still playing at a high level, he only got one 1 ring and then got swept the next year in unceremonious fashion. This was a Shaq that was still easily the best center in the game and had actually got in shape and lost weight out of spite. Also with a peak D Wade, finals MVP Wade to offset any decline in Shaq.

Kobe however went on to play with a player of less value than Shaq, in Gasol, and STILL went to three straight Finals. Winning 2.

So history and logic would say that one of them continued to win at a high level given reasonably similar talent and the other one couldn't.

That is not consistent with your theory of plug in another allstar wing with Shaq and you get the same results.

Shaq by him 3rd season with Miami was on a big decline and back to his lazy days again. He got a ring and kind of let it all go. Wade had some bad injuries that season as well and tried to come back around playoff time and just was not ready.

europagnpilgrim
07-29-2016, 12:41 PM
Well when Shaq was paired with what you would consider a equal player in D Wade, while still playing at a high level, he only got one 1 ring and then got swept the next year in unceremonious fashion. This was a Shaq that was still easily the best center in the game and had actually got in shape and lost weight out of spite. Also with a peak D Wade, finals MVP Wade to offset any decline in Shaq.

Kobe however went on to play with a player of less value than Shaq, in Gasol, and STILL went to three straight Finals. Winning 2.

So history and logic would say that one of them continued to win at a high level given reasonably similar talent and the other one couldn't.

That is not consistent with your theory of plug in another allstar wing with Shaq and you get the same results.

Shaq delivered a Finals trip in Orlando/LA/Miami, and would have had a extra few had Wade not been injured up 3-2 first season as mates in 05' and also had a couple WCF trips with LA that ended in a sweeps with Kobe, Shaq had major impact on all 3 franchises at highest level even though he was past Diesel mode with Heat, but still effective, so he did better with Wade as a old man since they went to Finals in 2nd season(almost 1st season also) as to where it took 4yrs with a younger Shaq, so is Wade better than Kobe or just equal?

Gasol was considered the most versatile/skilled/best hybrid(PF/C) big in the game during his Lakers stint and that had a lot to do with Phil running a nice chunk of the offense through him and Odom/Bynum, Kobe was getting his as we all know but not once did Kobe ever challenge Shaq for Finals MVP like Gasol did Kobe in 10' Finals, and also prior Gasol was at least getting Grizzlies to the postseason regardless of the sweeps they were handed as the leader/best player, Gasol was getting like 18ppg and 10rpg with the Grizz so it wasn't like he didn't know how to play the game effectively, he was ROY also and he put up around the same numbers with Lakers but had a stronger 10' Finals for sure when it mattered most, the Lakers had a triple tower version frontline which is a major advantage in any era

Kobe only won 2 as being the alpha dog post Shaq, Shaq was a coaches nightmare as far as game planning, they double/tripled him like crazy and Fisher/Kobe/Horry/Rice/Fox etc. made'em all pay for doing so, Kobe started getting the double team treatment after Shaq left

Kobe frontline trio after Shaq left was more productive so he should have been in contention or won titles since he did with a dominant Diesel on his side for 8 yrs and was battle tested, go look at Gasol/Bynum/Odom numbers as a whole and they were all at or over 10rpg, boards is how you control/win the game outside of scoring the most points, and this was when Kobe was considered by a lot of fanatics to be the best in game or top of his prime

Shaq was a modern day Big Dipper
Kobe was a Jordan copycat that the nba ran with

advantage by a landslide, Shaq

Kobe was sick of not being Finals MVP and let it be known either during 04' or after that struggle against Pistons

it was his own words that he was tired of being a 'sidekick', Kobe said that so he knew he was a robin/sidekick/2nd option based on his own personal words/views regardless of what stats you post, he wanted to be Jordan and Jordan won all 6 Finals mvp's while Kobe started 0-4, then went 2-3 after Shaq trade while Gasol could have been co Finals mvp in 10' as I stated earlier so he would have been 1 1/2 for 7 so he lucky he went 2 for 7

he built a brickhouse in game 7 in 10' finals

If Tmac/The Answer had that Diesel for 8 healthy strong years they would have been better since I feel those two can put the ball in the bucket in crunchtime but are way more willing to feed the post especially with a dominant bigman like Diesel but Kobe wanted to be Jordan so bad that he ran Shaq off and almost ran himself off to Chicago/Clippers

FraziersKnicks
07-29-2016, 12:44 PM
Funny how people want to "look at the numbers" when it might benefit their guy, but not when certain other players have vastly superior numbers.....

Just watching the games you could see the entire game plan on defense was centred around Shaq. Anyway, the standard counting numbers look okay but delve a bit deeper and it isn't remotely close.

1999-2002 playoffs:

Shaq: 29.3 PER, 12.1 WS, .238 WS/48, 6.9 BPM, 5.5 VORP
Kobe: 21.3 PER, 8.4 WS, .169 WS/48, 4.5 BPM, 3.9 VORP

In terms of advanced numbers Shaq had about the same edge on Kobe as MJ had on Pippen in the second threepeat. It was clear who the #1 guy was in both scenarios.

You're right about one thing, the numbers definitely don't lie.

europagnpilgrim
07-29-2016, 12:48 PM
@Tony Starks

Kobe won 3 rings in 8yrs with Shaq, in his first 6 seasons he had 3 rings
won 2 in 12yrs post Shaq

Also Shaq was main reason why other past all nba/star players would want to come to LA and play there, not because of Kobe which is key in staying elite on the fly, Lakers would have been better off keeping Diesel over Kobe for the short and long term success of the franchise, easily

especially after they stole him away via free agency from Orlando only to let him get back to Fl. via Miami

MarkieMark48
07-29-2016, 12:53 PM
This is hilarious...
"Kobe was the clear #2 in the 3-peat Lakers era" - What someone says
"Kobe was a scrub and didn't contribute at all to those championships" -What Kobephiles hear

Hawkeye15
07-29-2016, 01:00 PM
Let's totally ignore the fact that teams game planned to load up the entire side of the floor Shaq resided on, basically conceding what his teammates would contribute.

Shaq's dominance went well beyond his numbers. Hell even Wade benefited from an older Shaq, who consumed the entire defense's attention.

Kobe was second banana on his first 3 titles. There is literally no debate when it comes to that. That is not a slight to his career, he was a fantastic player during those runs. He just happened to play with someone better...

Hawkeye15
07-29-2016, 01:02 PM
This is hilarious...
"Kobe was the clear #2 in the 3-peat Lakers era" - What someone says
"Kobe was a scrub and didn't contribute at all to those championships" -What Kobephiles hear

exactly. I can't believe how sensitive they are when it comes to Kobe. The guy was an all timer, but not as good as some other all timers. Let it go

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 01:04 PM
@Tony Starks

Kobe won 3 rings in 8yrs with Shaq, in his first 6 seasons he had 3 rings
won 2 in 12yrs post Shaq

Ok. Shaq went to 1 Finals in 8 years post Kobe. Was swept once. He went to 1 Finals in 4 years pre Kobe. Was swept once.

See how that works.

You want to make the assumption that Shaq would've won with another great wing instead of Kobe? Cool by that same token give Kobe another allstar Center capable of demanding a double team and I can make the assertion he would've still threepeated maybe even had more success because they wouldn't have had the childish need to butt heads.

Everything you say works both ways my man.

Hawkeye15
07-29-2016, 01:07 PM
Ok. Shaq went to 1 Finals in 8 years post Kobe. Was swept once. He went to 1 Finals in 4 years pre Kobe. Was swept once.

See how that works.

You want to make the assumption that Shaq would've won with another great wing instead of Kobe? Cool by that same token give Kobe another allstar Center capable of demanding a double team and I can make the assertion he would've still threepeated maybe even had more success because they wouldn't have had the childish need to butt heads.

Everything you say works both ways my man.

33 year old Shaq did win with another top SG

Kobe also won with a dominant frontcourt again

they both worked

IKnowHoops
07-29-2016, 01:13 PM
Since numbers don't lie, I think the biggest question is how in the hell you could have Kobe over Shaq in your rankings. If numbers don't lie, that ranking is ridiculous. Kobe has never had better numbers than Shaq, playoffs or regular season, but your basing all of this off the numbers. You should put FG% up there too. We all know Kobe was a gun, not semi-automatic either. I'd love to see the FG% comparisons and how drastic they are between Shaq and Kobe. Anyway, if you want to make a point about numbers not lying, make sure all your arguments are true to this, otherwise you look silly.

europagnpilgrim
07-29-2016, 01:14 PM
Ok. Shaq went to 1 Finals in 8 years post Kobe. Was swept once. He went to 1 Finals in 4 years pre Kobe. Was swept once.

See how that works.

You want to make the assumption that Shaq would've won with another great wing instead of Kobe? Cool by that same token give Kobe another allstar Center capable of demanding a double team and I can make the assertion he would've still threepeated maybe even had more success because they wouldn't have had the childish need to butt heads.

Everything you say works both ways my man.

A player going to 3 finals with 3 different teams as the dominant/co star is actually remarkable in itself regardless the outcome, or do you think different?

I mean Kobe got mopped by the Celtics in 08' only to beat a hobbled Celtics team two years later, and then we all know how you and Laker nation feel about Howard as a player right, no heart/soft/diva right? that's who Kobe beat out in 09', not impressive at all

of course it works both ways, that's my slogan that 'its two sides to it all'

of course Shaq would have won with The Answer/healthy TMac, why do you think Phil wanted Kobe traded instead of Shaq?

Then he came back to coach Kobe later on after calling him uncoachable, the flip side/both ways of it

is Wade not another top wing player? and Shaq was basically a shell of his Diesel self, just look at Miami W-L record from 04' to 05'

Shaq left Orlando and Penny and Co. fell off the map
Shaq left Lakers and Kobe wanted to follow after carrying Kwame/Parker etc. to nowhere
Shaq left Miami and they suffered until Lebron came and saved the day

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 01:16 PM
Since numbers don't lie, I think the biggest question is how in the hell you could have Kobe over Shaq in your rankings. If numbers don't lie, that ranking is ridiculous. Kobe has never had better numbers than Shaq, playoffs or regular season, but your basing all of this off the numbers. You should put FG% up there too. We all know Kobe was a gun, not semi-automatic either. I'd love to see the FG% comparisons and how drastic they are between Shaq and Kobe. Anyway, if you want to make a point about numbers not lying, make sure all your arguments are true to this, otherwise you look silly.

Longevity

IKnowHoops
07-29-2016, 01:17 PM
Exactly. point.

But that, in no way, disqualifies that Kobe was really damn good. Poster (and I guess Lakers purists that worship kobe) seem to think that people are positing that Kobe was a non-factor.

Shaq with any other great scorer probably gets to the same or close to the same position. Kobe with any other great big man probably doesn't. At least at that time...specifically during the first 2 championships.

Just remember, that isn't a slight at kobe. It is just showing how good Shaq was. Kobe would go on to be just as good later on.

Kobe would of won with prime Drob or Prime Hakeem...but who couldn't.

Duncan won with old Drob, can you imagine Duncan with Prime Drob!!!??? Prime Shaq?!?!?! Prime Hakeem?!?!?! One of the many reasons I take Duncan over Kobe easily. Hell, I'll take every guy on my post over Kobe EASILY!!!!

FraziersKnicks
07-29-2016, 01:23 PM
Longevity

So you've got Timmy over Kobe then?

RLundi
07-29-2016, 01:26 PM
Right. SMDH.
Duncan>Shaq
Duncan>Gasol

People cray.

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


Kobe wouldn't have won with Duncan?? Lol BS

I hear what you both are saying but I think you need to examine the context.

LA won 3 championships from 2000-2002. During those those years, Duncan was a great player but he wasn't on Shaq's level until arguably 2002, and even then, Shaq was still clearly better. But for a certainty, Shaq was a significantly more effective player in 2000 and 2001:

2000
Duncan: 24.8 PER, .218 WS/48
Shaquille: 30.6 PER, .283 WS/48

2001
Duncan: 23.8 PER, .200 WS/48
Shaquille: 30.2 PER, .245 WS/48

2002
Duncan: 27.0 PER, .257 WS/48
Shaquille: 29.7 PER, .262 WS/48

If you were to replace Shaq with Duncan during the years of 2000-2002, I don't think LA wins 3 rings. MAYBE they win one, in 2002, when Duncan was reaching true elite territory. But not before then, when Shaq was pretty conclusively better than young Timmy. But because Shaq was so dominant and put up literally all-time numbers, he was the driving force of those championships, not Kobe. Bryant was an excellent second option, probably the best in NBA history, but Shaq didn't need Kobe to win rings. T-Mac and Vince were just as good as Kobe at that time, before the Mamba reached his peak. With any other big man in the league, be it Duncan or C-Webb or whoever, it doesn't matter, Bryant doesn't go back-to-back-to-back without Shaq.

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 01:26 PM
A player going to 3 finals with 3 different teams as the dominant/co star is actually remarkable in itself regardless the outcome, or do you think different?

I mean Kobe got mopped by the Celtics in 08' only to beat a hobbled Celtics team two years later, and then we all know how you and Laker nation feel about Howard as a player right, no heart/soft/diva right? that's who Kobe beat out in 09', not impressive at all

of course it works both ways, that's my slogan that 'its two sides to it all'

of course Shaq would have won with The Answer/healthy TMac, why do you think Phil wanted Kobe traded instead of Shaq?

Then he came back to coach Kobe later on after calling him uncoachable, the flip side/both ways of it

Phil would also say later "the only player I had that wasn't a worker was Shaq."

Shaq would also later push Van Gundy out the door for who he called "the great Pat Riley" only later to turn on him. Upon leaving Miami he would say about Wade "our relationship wasn't that great."

The fact that you said we beat a "hobbled" Celtics team in '10 yet in the same breath say we got "mopped" in '08 with NO mention of Ariza AND Bynum injured kindof tells me all I need to know about your agenda though.

Gasol got punked in that first Finals btw, so much so that he was being called Gasoft and a lot of people wanted him traded. 3 guesses who both himself and Phil credited for toughening him up for the next title run? You guessed it!

Hawkeye15
07-29-2016, 01:30 PM
Phil would also say later "the only player I had that wasn't a worker was Shaq."

Shaq would also later push Van Gundy out the door for who he called "the great Pat Riley" only later to turn on him. Upon leaving Miami he would say about Wade "our relationship wasn't that great."

The fact that you said we beat a "hobbled" Celtics team in '10 yet in the same breath say we got "mopped" in '08 with NO mention of Ariza AND Bynum injured kindof tells me all I need to know about your agenda though.

Gasol got punked in that first Finals btw, so much so that he was being called Gasoft and a lot of people wanted him traded. 3 guesses who both himself and Phil credited for toughening him up for the next title run? You guessed it!

Phil also criticized Kobe in his book. Badly. So?

Not sure why you are trying to get justification out of something that will never be agreed on universally. Shaq was the #1 on his 3 titles teams in LA. Kobe didn't ride his coat tails, but you are glossing over the fact that teams absolutely set their defensive game plan to limit Shaq as much as they could. And they still got destroyed. The freedom the players around Shaq had, would not have been provided with any other player in the game.

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 01:30 PM
I hear what you both are saying but I think you need to examine the context.

LA won 3 championships from 2000-2002. During those those years, Duncan was a great player but he wasn't on Shaq's level until arguably 2002, and even then, Shaq was still clearly better. But for a certainty, Shaq was a significantly more effective player in 2000 and 2001:

2000
Duncan: 24.8 PER, .218 WS/48
Shaquille: 30.6 PER, .283 WS/48

2001
Duncan: 23.8 PER, .200 WS/48
Shaquille: 30.2 PER, .245 WS/48

2002
Duncan: 27.0 PER, .257 WS/48
Shaquille: 29.7 PER, .262 WS/48

If you were to replace Shaq with Duncan during the years of 2000-2002, I don't think LA wins 3 rings. MAYBE they win one, in 2002, when Duncan was reaching true elite territory. But not before then, when Shaq was pretty conclusively better than young Timmy. But because Shaq was so dominant and put up literally all-time numbers, he was the driving force of those championships, not Kobe. Bryant was an excellent second option, probably the best in NBA history, but Shaq didn't need Kobe to win rings. T-Mac and Vince were just as good as Kobe at that time, before the Mamba reached his peak. With any other big man in the league, be it Duncan or C-Webb or whoever, it doesn't matter, Bryant doesn't go back-to-back-to-back without Shaq.

What your numbers leave out is the drastic improvement they would've had defensively with Duncan over Shaq. Shaq was a total liability on the pick and roll, so much so that teams would specifically target us with that play and exploit it.

Duncan was universally one of the best individual and team defensive Bigs around.
Up until he retired.

One would have to think with the defensive impact they would've still dominated, especially as Kobe got more unstoppable offensively.

mngopher35
07-29-2016, 01:43 PM
Shaq was the clear cut best player in that span (not only on his team but arguably the entire league). I don't get why people want to fight it when it was so obvious at the time. There have been few if any that took the same type of attention from the defense as prime Shaq did. That is an important factor when discussing who the man was and it was clearly Shaq. In fact a very young Kobe had his best WS/48 in his entire playoff career next to Shaq in 01. It was a great run by him but why would that happen so early in his career compared to later on? Could it be that he was not the main focus and benefited from playing off Shaq?

Anyways even outside of that very important distinction lets look at the numbers and awards from 2000-2002 as well since that is what your initial post focused on more.

Kobe regular season: PER 23.2, WS/48 .199, BPM 4.6, 112 ORTG
Shaq regular season: PER 30.2, WS/48 .264, BPM 8.1, 115 ORTG

Clearly favors Shaq as the man. Shaq made 3 all nba first teams while Kobe made 1 and 2 2nd teams. Kobe made 1 more all defensive first team than Shaq but Shaq was actually 2nd in DPOY voting he just played center which made 1st team tougher to achieve. Shaq also won an MVP. So awards again clearly seem to favor Shaq. Overall without Kobe in those 3 years the team went 25-7 while without Shaq they went 13-13. Losing Kobe didn't really throw them off with their record but losing Shaq appears to have dropped them down to a .500 level team.

Post season

Kobe: PER 21.3, WS/48 .169, BPM 4.5, 110 ORTG
Shaq: PER 30.2, WS/48 .264, BPM 8.1, 113 ORTG

Again another clear advantage for Shaq and he also won the 3 FMVP awards (although I get those not being as important given the context). RS or post season it doesn't matter Shaq was better statistically. Given the context behind him taking the main focus of the defense as well and it only furthers the gap between them. Kobe was a great 2nd best player to have but he was still young and Shaq was one of the most dominant players in history. People need to stop taking it as such a knock on Kobe when people point out Shaq was better at the time. It was obvious then and the numbers/context definitely back it up.

Saying Kobe was the 2nd best player on that team is not some sort of major knock on his career. It is normally brought up when people try to just say ringz when comparing players without using context. It is much different to win as the man than to be a secondary option and we see that with tons of players (Pippen/Hondo are the ones I bring up when people use ringz alone to judge). Clearly based on numbers and context he was not the man but he still was a fantastic 2nd option who helped those Lakers teams win titles.

RLundi
07-29-2016, 01:46 PM
What your numbers leave out is the drastic improvement they would've had defensively with Duncan over Shaq. Shaq was a total liability on the pick and roll, so much so that teams would specifically target us with that play and exploit it.

Duncan was universally one of the best individual and team defensive Bigs around.
Up until he retired.

One would have to think with the defensive impact they would've still dominated, especially as Kobe got more unstoppable offensively.

Yeah I hear what you're saying. The impact of Duncan and O'Neal is so far-reaching, the dynamics of the team changes significantly with one over the other. Duncan is a great player on both sides of the ball, but you can't underestimate Shaq's impact on both sides either. Shaq was a FORCE; I'm sure you know from watching him. His defense was stellar when he wanted to defend during those championship seasons. Duncan was a stout defender too, but he didn't become elite until later in his career. Duncan had only been in the league 2 seasons when LA started their dominance. He wasn't the all-world defender he would later become just yet.

But during those back-to-back-to-back years, Shaq DOMINATED on defense when he felt up to it, and he DOMINATED on offense nearly all the time as well. "Dominated" doesn't just mean blocking shots and scoring; when Shaq was on his game, players were terrified to venture into the paint and meet his 330lb frame. On offense, he opened up so much room from double and triple teams for every perimeter player that has ever played with him, including Kobe. Shaq was a good passer out of those double and triple teams for kickouts to Glen Rice and Rick Fox and Kobe and Shaw and Fisher and countless others. Those looks don't come without Diesel owning the world in the paint.

Duncan had his share of strong points he would bring to the Lakers but he absolutely wasn't touching Shaq during those years, even if he had brought his elite defense. Simply put, Shaq was a monster and no one during those early seasons of the 21st century compares at all.

TheMightyHumph
07-29-2016, 01:55 PM
Numbers don't lie?

Bostonjorge
07-29-2016, 02:01 PM
Shaq was the man in LA and the number 1 guy. Shaq also had Kobe who was making every all NBA 1st team and All defenseive first team. So to say you can replace Kobe with lesser players and expect to win more is a joke. Penny wasn't enough for shaq to win so no way Tmac or Iverson get a three peat like Kobe did with shaq. Even tho that shaq was amazing the west finals all 3 years is when Kobe showed the world why he was on both 1st teams. Kobe as a #2 was able to play like the 2-5 best player in the league. We seen guys like Wade, bosh, love and Irving all take steps back as #2 guys.

After Superman left Kobe was finally given Gasol. Gasol never made any all NBA 1st team or any of the defensive teams. Gasol only averaged 10 rebounds once his whole career. Stodimire, Duncan, KG, Dirk, and Howard Were all above and beyond Gasol. That's only big men. Kobe didn't have a Kobe level running mate he didn't even have a pippen level runing mate. Yet Kobe still did what a handful of players ever accomplished, win a back to back championships. Winning as a number #2 then having a tougher road as a #1 to a Champioship is legendary.

Hawkeye15
07-29-2016, 02:18 PM
Shaq was the man in LA and the number 1 guy. Shaq also had Kobe who was making every all NBA 1st team and All defenseive first team. So to say you can replace Kobe with lesser players and expect to win more is a joke. Penny wasn't enough for shaq to win so no way Tmac or Iverson get a three peat like Kobe did with shaq. Even tho that shaq was amazing the west finals all 3 years is when Kobe showed the world why he was on both 1st teams. Kobe as a #2 was able to play like the 2-5 best player in the league. We seen guys like Wade, bosh, love and Irving all take steps back as #2 guys.

After Superman left Kobe was finally given Gasol. Gasol never made any all NBA 1st team or any of the defensive teams. Gasol only averaged 10 rebounds once his whole career. Stodimire, Duncan, KG, Dirk, and Howard Were all above and beyond Gasol. That's only big men. Kobe didn't have a Kobe level running mate he didn't even have a pippen level runing mate. Yet Kobe still did what a handful of players ever accomplished, win a back to back championships. Winning as a number #2 then having a tougher road as a #1 to a Champioship is legendary.

The 3 peat came in Shaq's peak. Not the same Shaq that actually played very well against a peak Dream, but whose team wasn't good enough. Kobe's first finals were not good.

But the fact remains, we don't know if any other wing would have been able to win with Shaq. I will say, 9/10 (the one being Kobe fans) would chance giving Shaq another wing versus Kobe another big to win those chips.


Look, Kobe was a great player. All timer. But the people who think his absolute peak measures up there with the top 10 peaks to play, are crazy. He was a top 5 player for 15 years, and just pounded out numbers and wins. That is why he is a top 10-11 player ever. It's not due to his peak.

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 02:37 PM
So you've got Timmy over Kobe then?

Was Timmy top 5 in MVP for over a decade?

No.

aman_13
07-29-2016, 03:01 PM
Since numbers don't lie, I think the biggest question is how in the hell you could have Kobe over Shaq in your rankings. If numbers don't lie, that ranking is ridiculous. Kobe has never had better numbers than Shaq, playoffs or regular season, but your basing all of this off the numbers. You should put FG% up there too. We all know Kobe was a gun, not semi-automatic either. I'd love to see the FG% comparisons and how drastic they are between Shaq and Kobe. Anyway, if you want to make a point about numbers not lying, make sure all your arguments are true to this, otherwise you look silly.

Longevity is the only reason. I have Shaq ahead of him though.

hugepatsfan
07-29-2016, 03:21 PM
During the second run they both led the team in scoring 8 times with Kobe scoring a playoff high of 48.

During the third run Shaq led the team in scoring 8, Kobe actually led 10. Also at that time Kobe was making all defensive teams, doing it on both ends.

So you can't just casually say Shaq was top dog, there were plenty of games Kobe was actually top dog and when you look at their numbers for the total playoffs they are pretty close.

Impressive stats but did you actually watch the games? Shaq was an unguardable force. What stat do you have that quantifies the foul trouble he put players in that made guarding Kobe more difficult. What stat do you have that quantifies the way he drew attention to open things up for others. Not saying that Kobe didn't do those things but with Shaq he was just physically dominant in a way Kobe or any wing really can't be. Plenty of players could physically match up with Kobe he was just a much better basketball player. Shaq just had a level of dominance physically that was unprecedented at the time. He was arguably the most dominant player ever for a stretch. His prime was just better than Kobe's. It's not even really an argument. Kobe was close enough and had a longer peak so I'd take him but both of them in their prime and Shaq's the alpha. Period.

dAngelo
07-29-2016, 03:45 PM
Was Timmy top 5 in MVP for over a decade?

No.

Kobe was top 5 in MVP voting for 11 years and won the award once.

Duncan was top 5 in MVP voting for 9 years and won the award twice.

Numbers don't lie.

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 04:01 PM
Kobe was top 5 in MVP voting for 11 years and won the award once.

Duncan was top 5 in MVP voting for 9 years and won the award twice.

Numbers don't lie.

Indeed.

That's why during that time period Kobe was 1st all NBA 11 times to Duncan's 9, 1st all defense 9 times to Duncan's 8, scoring champ twice to Dumcans zero.

As well as more allstar acknowledgments even when taking away Kobes last 2.

Kobe was easily more elite during that span, all the way up until tearing the Achilles actually.

Pop had put Duncan in monitor minutes mode for years while Kobe was still killing people.

Bostonjorge
07-29-2016, 04:11 PM
The 3 peat came in Shaq's peak. Not the same Shaq that actually played very well against a peak Dream, but whose team wasn't good enough. Kobe's first finals were not good.

But the fact remains, we don't know if any other wing would have been able to win with Shaq. I will say, 9/10 (the one being Kobe fans) would chance giving Shaq another wing versus Kobe another big to win those chips.


Look, Kobe was a great player. All timer. But the people who think his absolute peak measures up there with the top 10 peaks to play, are crazy. He was a top 5 player for 15 years, and just pounded out numbers and wins. That is why he is a top 10-11 player ever. It's not due to his peak.

People are claiming shaq could of won MORE with T Mac or Iverson. That's a joke. I know shaq could of won one with them but no 0% chance at a three peat let alone more. Shaq had Kobe who went on the win a back to back himself without shaq. Shaq needed Kobe for the three peat. That's not a knock on shaq at all.

Kobe also showed he could win with a big who played nothing like shaq and dominated nothing in the league. Gasol was a all start player and that's it. Never a top 10 player in the league. You replace Gasol with any top 10 player in the league at the time and it's get easier for Kobe and maybe even leads to another tree peat.

Now I think Shaq and Wade could of won more but Wade is the 3rd best shooting guard ever. So to pretend shaq winning with Wade proves he could of won with any good wing is false. At least not a three peat.

Hawkeye15
07-29-2016, 04:46 PM
People are claiming shaq could of won MORE with T Mac or Iverson. That's a joke. I know shaq could of won one with them but no 0% chance at a three peat let alone more. Shaq had Kobe who went on the win a back to back himself without shaq. Shaq needed Kobe for the three peat. That's not a knock on shaq at all.

Kobe also showed he could win with a big who played nothing like shaq and dominated nothing in the league. Gasol was a all start player and that's it. Never a top 10 player in the league. You replace Gasol with any top 10 player in the league at the time and it's get easier for Kobe and maybe even leads to another tree peat.

Now I think Shaq and Wade could of won more but Wade is the 3rd best shooting guard ever. So to pretend shaq winning with Wade proves he could of won with any good wing is false. At least not a three peat.

With Iverson? No way. McGrady, possibly, but not on that window.

The point I was making is, Kobe needed Shaq more than Shaq needed Kobe. Shaq was the most dominant player in the game during his peak, he would have taken less to build around than Kobe would have. Especially in those years, when Kobe was younger.

The trio Kobe had in his back to back chips was dominant dude. Individually, you can claim what you want, but that size, and versatility they had in Gasol/Bynum/Odom was awesome. Gasol had his moments of playing at a high level, but those were obviously teams led by Kobe

Hawkeye15
07-29-2016, 04:48 PM
Impressive stats but did you actually watch the games? Shaq was an unguardable force. What stat do you have that quantifies the foul trouble he put players in that made guarding Kobe more difficult. What stat do you have that quantifies the way he drew attention to open things up for others. Not saying that Kobe didn't do those things but with Shaq he was just physically dominant in a way Kobe or any wing really can't be. Plenty of players could physically match up with Kobe he was just a much better basketball player. Shaq just had a level of dominance physically that was unprecedented at the time. He was arguably the most dominant player ever for a stretch. His prime was just better than Kobe's. It's not even really an argument. Kobe was close enough and had a longer peak so I'd take him but both of them in their prime and Shaq's the alpha. Period.

exactly. The stats don't show how much the defense had to game plan for Shaq, freeing up everyone else he played with in those years.

More-Than-Most
07-29-2016, 04:57 PM
lol teams put everything they had against Shaq and Kobe was still the 2nd best player... really think about that. Kobe is great and a top 12 player but he was robin for 3 of his 5 titles and not even just robin he also had the refs helping him and Shaq or do we not remember the cheating?

More-Than-Most
07-29-2016, 05:00 PM
Was Timmy top 5 in MVP for over a decade?

No.

lol Kobe wasnt... he was between 3-7 but not always top 5 and only once was in the top 2.

Hawkeye15
07-29-2016, 05:08 PM
lol Kobe wasnt... he was between 3-7 but not always top 5 and only once was in the top 2.

in BBR formula, he was top 5 in MVP Award Shares 11 times. Kobe was a top 5 player forever dude, that is why I have him so high on my all time rankings. I still don't think a concrete argument can be made that he was ever the best player in the game for a season, but he was the elite of the elite for so long, that is what makes his case.

IKnowHoops
07-29-2016, 06:03 PM
Impressive stats but did you actually watch the games? Shaq was an unguardable force. What stat do you have that quantifies the foul trouble he put players in that made guarding Kobe more difficult. What stat do you have that quantifies the way he drew attention to open things up for others. Not saying that Kobe didn't do those things but with Shaq he was just physically dominant in a way Kobe or any wing really can't be. Plenty of players could physically match up with Kobe he was just a much better basketball player. Shaq just had a level of dominance physically that was unprecedented at the time. He was arguably the most dominant player ever for a stretch. His prime was just better than Kobe's. It's not even really an argument. Kobe was close enough and had a longer peak so I'd take him but both of them in their prime and Shaq's the alpha. Period.

This is where we look at PER and WS/48 and we see that Shaq destroy's Kobe in these stats. Not that they are the end all be all, but it can help give insigth to just how much more impactful Shaq was than Kobe. I guarantee anytime Kobe lead in points, he probably took around 10 more shots, and they probably lost more of those games than when Shaq lead

kdspurman
07-29-2016, 06:37 PM
Indeed.

That's why during that time period Kobe was 1st all NBA 11 times to Duncan's 9, 1st all defense 9 times to Duncan's 8, scoring champ twice to Dumcans zero.

As well as more allstar acknowledgments even when taking away Kobes last 2.

Kobe was easily more elite during that span, all the way up until tearing the Achilles actually.

Pop had put Duncan in monitor minutes mode for years while Kobe was still killing people.

TD was however all NBA and all Defense his first 13 seasons. Only guy to be able to make that claim

And Kobe being all first defense more during that time doesn't really hold much weight with me lol the defensive impact and better defensive player is clear

Chronz
07-29-2016, 06:50 PM
I havent read through the thread yet but Im sure we're all in agreement that Kobe was one of the best sidekicks of his time, I will however, never view them as equals for one simple reason. While it may be true that they dont win without the other, throughout their tenure together, the Lakers were much closer to a contention team with Shaq than they were with Kobe. I think it was Pop who said Kobe has always been a great scorer but he became a great winner/leader alil after Shaq left. Maybe that Kobe could be seen on relatively even platform at times but even then I dont see it. We're talking about the most dominant big man at the peek of his powers, to think this 20-23 year old was even remotely as impactful would require me to ignore the way the teams played with/without them, the attention Shaq drew. It doesn't hurt that we all saw Shaq leave and continue competing for titles/mvp whereas Kobe finished the season winning something like 3 games out of 20.

Its just not even a close comparison, Shaq more productive, more influential towards winning, simply put, he was easily the better player.

Will read the thread now tho

naps
07-29-2016, 07:10 PM
Keep shoving it. Won't change the truth though. Shaq was the man and Kobe was the sidekick. No matter how much try to prove otherwise.

Jewelz0376
07-29-2016, 07:13 PM
You pair ANY wing player with a prime Shaq and they will be robin.

With that said I agree with the op that some on here talking about Kobe winning those rings like he was a role player saying things like "Kobe was riding Shaqs coat tails"

After the 1st title Kobe was the best wing in the league. Kobe benefited from playing with Shaq no doubt, but Shaq benefited also.

And it's not like Shaq was winning titles before Kobe became elite and the one he did win after Wade was the best player on that team.

More-Than-Most
07-29-2016, 07:33 PM
in BBR formula, he was top 5 in MVP Award Shares 11 times. Kobe was a top 5 player forever dude, that is why I have him so high on my all time rankings. I still don't think a concrete argument can be made that he was ever the best player in the game for a season, but he was the elite of the elite for so long, that is what makes his case.

I thought it was only 9 times? Also yea I get it I have him the 8th GOAT lol. I just never had him as the best player in basketball.

FraziersKnicks
07-29-2016, 08:01 PM
Was Timmy top 5 in MVP for over a decade?

No.

What about Bron then? If that's the criteria for longevity he's got an active run of 11 top 5 MVP finishes (winning 4).

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 08:03 PM
You pair ANY wing player with a prime Shaq and they will be robin.

With that said I agree with the op that some on here talking about Kobe winning those rings like he was a role player saying things like "Kobe was riding Shaqs coat tails"

After the 1st title Kobe was the best wing in the league. Kobe benefited from playing with Shaq no doubt, but Shaq benefited also.

And it's not like Shaq was winning titles before Kobe became elite and the one he did win after Wade was the best player on that team.

Exactly. Nobody is trying to argue that Shaq wasn't dominant. It was Shaqs team. But the fact that Kobe was dominant at HIS position is what made the difference between 1 or 2 chips and a actual dynasty.

As dominant as Shaq was there were a lot of deficiencies that Kobe compensated for, in particular closing out games and being a Swiss Army knife defensively.

You plug in AI/TMac/Ray and you will definitely get at least one ring but they are not locking people up on a regular and dropping anything from 20-40 like Kobe was on a regular. Their energy was mostly saved for offense, that's what differentiated him from just a allstar to all NBA on both teams.

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 08:04 PM
What about Bron then? If that's the criteria for longevity he's got an active run of 11 top 5 MVP finishes (winning 4).

What about him? Is he not in everybody's GOAT list?

FraziersKnicks
07-29-2016, 08:17 PM
What about him? Is he not in everybody's GOAT list?

Yeah but you got Kobe above him right? Just trying to find some consistency in your rankings.

ewing
07-29-2016, 08:22 PM
wait, Kobe was good???????????

Tony_Starks
07-29-2016, 08:22 PM
Yeah but you got Kobe above him right? Just trying to find some consistency in your rankings.

I do. Longevity. More rings. A threepeat as second option, another 3 straight Finals as the man...winning 2 straight. Better scorer. Historic numbers. All the accolades and records you can think of.

I'm very comfortable with him over Bron...for NOW. I suspect Bron has another chip or two up his sleeve before its all said and done tho....

FraziersKnicks
07-29-2016, 09:04 PM
I do. Longevity. More rings. A threepeat as second option, another 3 straight Finals as the man...winning 2 straight. Better scorer. Historic numbers. All the accolades and records you can think of.

I'm very comfortable with him over Bron...for NOW. I suspect Bron has another chip or two up his sleeve before its all said and done tho....

LBJ: 27.2 PPG on 58.1 TS%
Kobe: 25.0 PPG on 55.0 TS%

As you said man, numbers don't lie.

Anyway, I don't have an issue with you having Kobe over Bron. You value rings and longevity more than peak dominance (although Bron has definitely got the rings/longevity/accolades by the bucketload).

My issue is you knocking TD below Kobe and claiming longevity, when TD has an even longer career of making an impact. He has the rings and MVP's as well.

18 straight seasons of 20+ PER (Kobe had 14).
11 seasons of WS/48 above .200 (Kobe had 6).
19 straight 50+ win seasons (Kobe had 11 total).

Age 38 season (37 for Kobe):

TD: 22.6 PER, 9.6 WS, .207 WS/48, 5.5 BPM, 4.2 VORP
Kobe: 14.9 PER, -0.4 WS, -0.010 WS/48, -2.5 BPM, -0.2 VORP

Tim Duncan was an impact player on both ends of the floor for 18 seasons. The guy has more longevity than anyone in this league not named Kareem. Longevity is not a reason for having Kobe above him.

IKnowHoops
07-29-2016, 09:36 PM
Indeed.

That's why during that time period Kobe was 1st all NBA 11 times to Duncan's 9, 1st all defense 9 times to Duncan's 8, scoring champ twice to Dumcans zero.

As well as more allstar acknowledgments even when taking away Kobes last 2.

Kobe was easily more elite during that span, all the way up until tearing the Achilles actually.

Pop had put Duncan in monitor minutes mode for years while Kobe was still killing people.

AI and Durant have double the scoring titles Kobe does. So at the very least they are better scorers right?

1 MVP >>>> 1 defensive first team + 2 Scoring titles easily.

IKnowHoops
07-29-2016, 10:00 PM
With Iverson? No way. McGrady, possibly, but not on that window.

The point I was making is, Kobe needed Shaq more than Shaq needed Kobe. Shaq was the most dominant player in the game during his peak, he would have taken less to build around than Kobe would have. Especially in those years, when Kobe was younger.



The trio Kobe had in his back to back chips was dominant dude. Individually, you can claim what you want, but that size, and versatility they had in Gasol/Bynum/Odom was awesome. Gasol had his moments of playing at a high level, but those were obviously teams led by Kobe

Shaq and Prime Drob win 8 rings

I would never have Kobe above David because David was flat out much better. He's probably got 5-6 seasons better than Kobe's best

IKnowHoops
07-29-2016, 10:03 PM
TD was however all NBA and all Defense his first 13 seasons. Only guy to be able to make that claim

And Kobe being all first defense more during that time doesn't really hold much weight with me lol the defensive impact and better defensive player is clear

All of this.

Every player has something on another. Tone just gonna find that "one" stat Kobe has on another guy and ride it into the sunset.

IKnowHoops
07-29-2016, 10:09 PM
You pair ANY wing player with a prime Shaq and they will be robin.

With that said I agree with the op that some on here talking about Kobe winning those rings like he was a role player saying things like "Kobe was riding Shaqs coat tails"

After the 1st title Kobe was the best wing in the league. Kobe benefited from playing with Shaq no doubt, but Shaq benefited also.

And it's not like Shaq was winning titles before Kobe became elite and the one he did win after Wade was the best player on that team.

Kobe never has and never could lead a team to victory the way Wade did, the way Lebron has done. I've seen Kobe be on a winning team, but Ive never seen him single handedly win anything like Lebron and Wade have.

Kobe is weird like that. He has put up numbers but he has never had that moment or that Series where he just felt Jordan/Lebron dominant. Wade has though.

IKnowHoops
07-29-2016, 10:14 PM
LBJ: 27.2 PPG on 58.1 TS%
Kobe: 25.0 PPG on 55.0 TS%

As you said man, numbers don't lie.

Anyway, I don't have an issue with you having Kobe over Bron. You value rings and longevity more than peak dominance (although Bron has definitely got the rings/longevity/accolades by the bucketload).

My issue is you knocking TD below Kobe and claiming longevity, when TD has an even longer career of making an impact. He has the rings and MVP's as well.

18 straight seasons of 20+ PER (Kobe had 14).
11 seasons of WS/48 above .200 (Kobe had 6).
19 straight 50+ win seasons (Kobe had 11 total).

Age 38 season (37 for Kobe):

TD: 22.6 PER, 9.6 WS, .207 WS/48, 5.5 BPM, 4.2 VORP
Kobe: 14.9 PER, -0.4 WS, -0.010 WS/48, -2.5 BPM, -0.2 VORP

Tim Duncan was an impact player on both ends of the floor for 18 seasons. The guy has more longevity than anyone in this league not named Kareem. Longevity is not a reason for having Kobe above him.

Thanks for the research Frazier

Tony, this destroys your reasons for Kobe over Duncan

Chronz
07-29-2016, 10:24 PM
Count me among those who thinks a Tmac-Shaq pairing would result in more success, not just because I think Tmac was the better player at the time but because he and Shaq would have gotten along tremendously.

TheMightyHumph
07-29-2016, 10:47 PM
Thanks for the research Frazier

Tony, this destroys your reasons for Kobe over Duncan

Duncan was the ultimate team player. Kobe..............not.

Bostonjorge
07-29-2016, 11:25 PM
Kobe never has and never could lead a team to victory the way Wade did, the way Lebron has done. I've seen Kobe be on a winning team, but Ive never seen him single handedly win anything like Lebron and Wade have.

Kobe is weird like that. He has put up numbers but he has never had that moment or that Series where he just felt Jordan/Lebron dominant. Wade has though.
What does that even mean? Kobe has beat more great teams in the playoffs then James and Wade combined. He's beat teams as the underdog many times.

Bostonjorge
07-29-2016, 11:29 PM
Count me among those who thinks a Tmac-Shaq pairing would result in more success, not just because I think Tmac was the better player at the time but because he and Shaq would have gotten along tremendously.

That's not a good thing. Getting along with Shaq does not get Shaq in basketball mode. It gets him out of shape faster then ever. Happy Shaq was good with 2 rings. Calling Shaq out on his condition and getting him traded led to 2 more rings. So getting along with Shaq was not the answer.

Chronz
07-29-2016, 11:43 PM
That's not a good thing. Getting along with Shaq does not get Shaq in basketball mode. It gets him out of shape faster then ever. Happy Shaq was good with 2 rings. Calling Shaq out on his condition and getting him traded led to 2 more rings. So getting along with Shaq was not the answer.

Nah, the vast majority of fans overstate Shaq's weight and none know his body better than he, besides, he really only had that 1 year where he couldn't work out thanks to the toe injury and was losing weight ever since. Not sure I buy your narrative considering he won those rings by actually bulking up and in one year was actually less fit than the year prior. He has always had his reasons and who are we to judge him? Hes the one who takes the beating afterall.

What he needed was someone to accept his stature beneath him and keep the crew together. I always wondered what would have become of Kobe/Shaq if Phil got his way and traded Kobe for team players to feed Shaq

europagnpilgrim
07-30-2016, 12:00 AM
People are claiming shaq could of won MORE with T Mac or Iverson. That's a joke. I know shaq could of won one with them but no 0% chance at a three peat let alone more. Shaq had Kobe who went on the win a back to back himself without shaq. Shaq needed Kobe for the three peat. That's not a knock on shaq at all.

Kobe also showed he could win with a big who played nothing like shaq and dominated nothing in the league. Gasol was a all start player and that's it. Never a top 10 player in the league. You replace Gasol with any top 10 player in the league at the time and it's get easier for Kobe and maybe even leads to another tree peat.

Now I think Shaq and Wade could of won more but Wade is the 3rd best shooting guard ever. So to pretend shaq winning with Wade proves he could of won with any good wing is false. At least not a three peat.

My claim Is valid to say that especially about The Answer who Shaq Diesel quoted saying he was a mini version of himself

he put The Answer in his top 5-6 players ever, along with Jordan-DrJ-Kobe-Lebron and one more player I cant think of right this moment

it never happened because Shaq chose LA over Sixers and everybody else during free agency but had he chosen Sixers back then in the so called weak East they would have ran the East for a decade plus, and had The Answer been drafted by Lakers on draft night they would have beaten that Jazz and Spurs squad, you guys hugely underrate The Answer but turn a blind eye to his ragged support YMCA type cast that he carried those Sixer seasons

When Shaq went to Heat he wasn't the Orlando/early Lakers version but was still good for 20 and 10 prior to being good for 30+ and 15 on a nightly basis, Shaq didn't need to prove he could win without Wade he just proved his value/impact from Penny to Kobe to Wade, go look at Heat W-L record prior to Shaq joining and see why most said he or KG/Dirk or someone else should have won MVP that year over Nash

Just because a majority doesn't have a certain player in their own personal top 10 doesn't mean he isn't, Dr J doesn't have Jordan in his, and others like The Big Dipper was said to have Barkley and Baylor in his personal top 5, which I have no problem with at all as I see the media mainstream never put Barkley/Baylor in top 5 discussion which is their propaganda prerogative to do

Bird is not in my top 5 but Bill Russell/Dipper have Bird there and I am sure others do as well but regardless Bird is one of the best no matter how you slice it or rank him, rings or not

you guys like to take the majority mainstream media top 5-10 and run with it but that doesn't mean much to me and others who have actually played the game and know what it takes to win or who impacts the game more, and winning rings or not doesn't mean a player wasn't that good or the best when you look at the makeup of the team and see if it was built to win it all or not or was that franchise superstar player just that good to get them there like a Lebron/The Answer did once upon a time but it rarely happens being that its a 5 on 5 game and having a deep strong bench and coaching plays major roles also

Wade was drafted a PG so that makes him a PG, not what you were taught just like The Answer was PG drafted into NBA, that's the position they are for no matter if they can put in buckets like a SG, they need to make a category for Combo guards because Wade/The Answer are two of the best ever to do that along with Jordan and few others

if a certain player can carry a team yearly by himself and into the playoffs then I am sure adding a Shaq Diesel would only enhance that to serious contender caliber as it showed in his career for most part, they choked away that series against Spurs when he was in Phoenix but nobody remembers that, and they were on a serious push until Baby Davis broke his thumb in his short Cavs tenure, but nobody remembers that either

the reason I mention TMac/The Answer doing more with Shaq is because the chemistry would have been way better because they were comfortable being who they were and weren't chasing or mimicking Jordan, they had they own game/ID and would have force fed Shaq to keep him totally involved and then took over at the end like a true killer is supposed to, especially The Answer, who would have carved up defenses with Shaq getting all that attention

its all speculation but common bball sense will always reign supreme

Kobe showed he can win with arguably the strongest frontcourt in the league which isn't saying much but he still got it done 2 times out of 12yrs post Shaq, good for Kobe(won 3 his first 6 yrs with Shaq)

go back and look at Bynum/Odom/Gasol numbers as a whole and tell me how can you not be in contention with a coach like Phil calling the shots? Kobe was good no doubt but the longevity means he played a long time and that doesn't make you a better player it just means you played longer than others and padded stats and being in Lakers market helped out significantly, had he been drafted by Hornets this wouldn't be a conversation

Gasol was being regarded by some to be up there with Dirk/KG/Duncan as top bigs in the game during his Lakers time especially early and he was the best passing big and ran the floor like a gazelle, so if he wasn't a top 10 player he was one of the best at his spot which is plenty of help

and on another note go look at the W-L record when they first acquired Gasol to also show his impact, it's pretty damn good

If Wade doesn't get hurt against Pistons in 05' they go to back to back Finals in first two years with a old version of Diesel so I am pretty sure a young Shaq with Wade would have been 3peat material, Finals appearances would have been damn near annually with a possible Spurs roadblock here and there

europagnpilgrim
07-30-2016, 12:09 AM
For those who say Shaq ragdolled the weak competition he faced then who did Kobe have to defend that was so damn tough

a Blazers team with old man S Smith or Pippen? or a decent player in B Wells? or D Christie from the Kings? Kobe guarded The Answer some but it was mostly Fisher/Lue and he had to worry about Mckie/Snow/R Bell? who did the Spurs have B Bowen? Jason Kidd/Kittles/L Harris of the Nets?I mean you guys saying he played lockdown defense against personnel who were never elite scorers and the best ones were old and not how they once were, Manu was nice and he never could stop/lock him down and The Answer avg like 35ppg in that 01' series

Chronz
07-30-2016, 12:58 AM
the reason I mention TMac/The Answer doing more with Shaq is because the chemistry would have been way better because they were comfortable being who they were and weren't chasing or mimicking Jordan, they had they own game/ID and would have force fed Shaq to keep him totally involved and then took over at the end like a true killer is supposed to, especially The Answer, who would have carved up defenses with Shaq getting all that attention

Tmac chose the number 1 because he grew up idolizing Penny, he was a naturally gifted passer that was forced into a scoring role. The 2 would have made sweet magic together.

L8kers4life
07-30-2016, 01:03 AM
I havent read through the thread yet but Im sure we're all in agreement that Kobe was one of the best sidekicks of his time, I will however, never view them as equals for one simple reason. While it may be true that they dont win without the other, throughout their tenure together, the Lakers were much closer to a contention team with Shaq than they were with Kobe. I think it was Pop who said Kobe has always been a great scorer but he became a great winner/leader alil after Shaq left. Maybe that Kobe could be seen on relatively even platform at times but even then I dont see it. We're talking about the most dominant big man at the peek of his powers, to think this 20-23 year old was even remotely as impactful would require me to ignore the way the teams played with/without them, the attention Shaq drew. It doesn't hurt that we all saw Shaq leave and continue competing for titles/mvp whereas Kobe finished the season winning something like 3 games out of 20.

Its just not even a close comparison, Shaq more productive, more influential towards winning, simply put, he was easily the better player.

Will read the thread now tho



You make some really good points, but you make a few statements that really annoy me. First off yes, you see Shaq leave the Lakers and win a title and play at an MVP level, but after 2 years that was done. When Shaq left the Lakers, the Lakers were absolute crap, the blame for that goes on the front office.

In the years without Shaq there were 2 years of crap teams then Kobe almost single handely beat the Suns, with Smush, Kwame, Luke, Kobe and Lamar. And proceded to make the playoffs 6 more times going to 3 finals and winning 2. Then blowing out his Achilles before the playoffs, his final 3 years there was no talent and he was a shell.


The way you make it sound, Kobe is a great " Sidekick" but it's so hard for so many of you to say he was a great player. Kobe is as much a sidekick as Shaq, because from 2004 until he retired, Shaq was never more then a sidekick or secondary player.

And please don't act like Kobe didn't draw attention or double teams with Shaq around. Kobe dominated, one of the greatest plays Kobe ever made against Portland game 7, Shaqs man left him to stop the dribble drive, there were 3 men on Kobe when he threw that Lob, which catapulted the Lakers to start the 3peat. And as any true Laker fan knew, Kobe always drew that kind of attention even when he was 21!

L8kers4life
07-30-2016, 01:08 AM
Tmac chose the number 1 because he grew up idolizing Penny, he was a naturally gifted passer that was forced into a scoring role. The 2 would have made sweet magic together.

If Tmac is so great why could he never get out of the first round with Yao, the one time Yao got to the second round TMac was hurt. He was a naturally gifted passer, who turned the ball over a ton, and always struggled in the playoffs.

Chronz
07-30-2016, 01:24 AM
You make some really good points, but you make a few statements that really annoy me. First off yes, you see Shaq leave the Lakers and win a title and play at an MVP level, but after 2 years that was done. When Shaq left the Lakers, the Lakers were absolute crap, the blame for that goes on the front office.
Im not expecting a championship here guy. The Lakers with that same core +Shaq minus Kobe is contending for HCA easily, you have to keep in mind the superior 2 way impact dominant bigmen have. Consider the fact that a ROOKIE Shaq took an expansion caliber squad to .500 and it didn't take much longer to make the Finals. Thats a far inferior version of Shaq, what do you think he would do at his apex with more talented players like Caron and Odom than what he had as a rookie.


In the years without Shaq there were 2 years of crap teams then Kobe almost single handely beat the Suns, with Smush, Kwame, Luke, Kobe and Lamar. And proceded to make the playoffs 6 more times going to 3 finals and winning 2. Then blowing out his Achilles before the playoffs, his final 3 years there was no talent and he was a shell.

Its hard to say he singlehandedly did anything when the fundamental change in the Lakers game plan was Kobe actually passing to his teammates and allowing them to carve them up inside. Yes, it was a great series but its not like the Suns were overly imposing. They had lost Amare for the entire year, we saw how they destroyed the Lakers when they had him for the playoffs. I was more impressed with Tmac slugging it out with the defensive minded Pistons. BTW, you want turnover prone, check out Kobe in that Suns series, he struggles with taking care of the ball when hes forced into being a full time playmaker, hes a natural scorer who asks his teammates to let him know when he misses them.


The way you make it sound, Kobe is a great " Sidekick" but it's so hard for so many of you to say he was a great player. Kobe is as much a sidekick as Shaq, because from 2004 until he retired, Shaq was never more then a sidekick or secondary player.

Hes a great player, its really not as hard as you think. He was ALSO the clear sidekick. I dont see how Shaq wasn't the best player in Miami his first year tho so you would be off with your dates.



And please don't act like Kobe didn't draw attention or double teams with Shaq around. Kobe dominated, one of the greatest plays Kobe ever made against Portland game 7, Shaqs man left him to stop the dribble drive, there were 3 men on Kobe when he threw that Lob, which catapulted the Lakers to start the 3peat. And as any true Laker fan knew, Kobe always drew that kind of attention even when he was 21!
I dont act that way, they helped each other but its clear who influenced the other more. Its why when we look at how the team performed throughout their tenure together, the Lakers continued to win at an elite level so long as one person was around, and that person wasn't Kobe.



If Tmac is so great why could he never get out of the first round with Yao, the one time Yao got to the second round TMac was hurt. He was a naturally gifted passer, who turned the ball over a ton, and always struggled in the playoffs.

Because by the time Yao became a player worth talking about, Tmac was no longer the superstar athlete he once was. Still a great player but obviously on the decline and his teams were always utterly reliant on him. Like without Kobe, the Lakers were still winning at a contending level so long as Shaq was around. Whereas the Rockets without a declining Tmac were punchless and lottery bound. Tmac is actually one of the best at protecting the ball, its what made up for his inferior efficiency from the floor. He had a microscopic turnover rate for how many plays he created. And I dont see how he struggled in the playoffs when his level of play rose on both ends. You want to see a turnover machine, watch Kobe outside the triangle.

In terms of gauging roster support, the entire team matters more than a single player, the Rockets were losing to superior teams IMO.

Chronz
07-30-2016, 01:30 AM
And part of the reason some like Tmac on those Lakers is because he was a natural SF whereas Kobe and Eddie Jones had that positional overlap. With Tmac, you dont need to trade for an old Glen Rice. Hell when Tmac became a free agent, he and Eddie were considered the best gets.

Essentially, the Lakers get to play with Eddie Jones+Tmac vs Kobe+Old Rice. They also get to keep Elden

L8kers4life
07-30-2016, 02:01 AM
And part of the reason some like Tmac on those Lakers is because he was a natural SF whereas Kobe and Eddie Jones had that positional overlap. With Tmac, you dont need to trade for an old Glen Rice. Hell when Tmac became a free agent, he and Eddie were considered the best gets.

Essentially, the Lakers get to play with Eddie Jones+Tmac vs Kobe+Old Rice. They also get to keep Elden

That would be nice. I think what I'm most biased about when it comes to Kobe was his fire, his will, and to speak up. He was a lightning rod but he also had times where he had to challenge Shaq, they worked in that way. Tmac was good but when he came to the league, I saw him as Vince Carter's cousin. He went for the money in Orlando and as soon as Grant Hill got hurt he was stuck with first round exits or no playoffs during that time. In my eyes he under achieved, but with Shaq anything is possible.

lol, please
07-30-2016, 02:09 AM
This is stupid.

No one is saying that Kobe rode on shaq's skills/dominance by Kobe being a **** player. Everyone agrees he was a damn good player.

It isn't a slight at Kobe. He was NOT a bad player. Shaq was obviously #1. Kobe was obviously the 2nd most important. No one says Kobe was a non factor. Kobe was important. Just that shaq was more important.


Shaq and Kobe.

I don't think anyone feels like Kobe rode Shaq's coat tails to 3 rings. But I don't think Kobe would have won 3 rings if he had any other center (not even with Tim Duncan IMO). I don't think Shaq needed Kobe as much as Kobe needed Shaq. I honestly think Shaq would have won or at least been in a similar position to have the same amount of rings with Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, and MAYBE Ray Allen and Paul Pierce on his team instead of Kobe, though the latter two are hugely debatable. In no way am I saying that any of the players listed are better players than Kobe. But during the Lakers' championship run, they performed close to what Kobe produced.

So Kobe didn't ride Shaq's coat tails. But at that time, he did need to Shaq to win. Shaq was damn near irreplaceable. Kobe wasn't.
Well said both of you. Agree with everything said here

sent from my Note 5 on Tapatalk

Bostonjorge
07-30-2016, 06:13 AM
My claim Is valid to say that especially about The Answer who Shaq Diesel quoted saying he was a mini version of himself

he put The Answer in his top 5-6 players ever, along with Jordan-DrJ-Kobe-Lebron and one more player I cant think of right this moment

it never happened because Shaq chose LA over Sixers and everybody else during free agency but had he chosen Sixers back then in the so called weak East they would have ran the East for a decade plus, and had The Answer been drafted by Lakers on draft night they would have beaten that Jazz and Spurs squad, you guys hugely underrate The Answer but turn a blind eye to his ragged support YMCA type cast that he carried those Sixer seasons

When Shaq went to Heat he wasn't the Orlando/early Lakers version but was still good for 20 and 10 prior to being good for 30+ and 15 on a nightly basis, Shaq didn't need to prove he could win without Wade he just proved his value/impact from Penny to Kobe to Wade, go look at Heat W-L record prior to Shaq joining and see why most said he or KG/Dirk or someone else should have won MVP that year over Nash

Just because a majority doesn't have a certain player in their own personal top 10 doesn't mean he isn't, Dr J doesn't have Jordan in his, and others like The Big Dipper was said to have Barkley and Baylor in his personal top 5, which I have no problem with at all as I see the media mainstream never put Barkley/Baylor in top 5 discussion which is their propaganda prerogative to do

Bird is not in my top 5 but Bill Russell/Dipper have Bird there and I am sure others do as well but regardless Bird is one of the best no matter how you slice it or rank him, rings or not

you guys like to take the majority mainstream media top 5-10 and run with it but that doesn't mean much to me and others who have actually played the game and know what it takes to win or who impacts the game more, and winning rings or not doesn't mean a player wasn't that good or the best when you look at the makeup of the team and see if it was built to win it all or not or was that franchise superstar player just that good to get them there like a Lebron/The Answer did once upon a time but it rarely happens being that its a 5 on 5 game and having a deep strong bench and coaching plays major roles also

Wade was drafted a PG so that makes him a PG, not what you were taught just like The Answer was PG drafted into NBA, that's the position they are for no matter if they can put in buckets like a SG, they need to make a category for Combo guards because Wade/The Answer are two of the best ever to do that along with Jordan and few others

if a certain player can carry a team yearly by himself and into the playoffs then I am sure adding a Shaq Diesel would only enhance that to serious contender caliber as it showed in his career for most part, they choked away that series against Spurs when he was in Phoenix but nobody remembers that, and they were on a serious push until Baby Davis broke his thumb in his short Cavs tenure, but nobody remembers that either

the reason I mention TMac/The Answer doing more with Shaq is because the chemistry would have been way better because they were comfortable being who they were and weren't chasing or mimicking Jordan, they had they own game/ID and would have force fed Shaq to keep him totally involved and then took over at the end like a true killer is supposed to, especially The Answer, who would have carved up defenses with Shaq getting all that attention

its all speculation but common bball sense will always reign supreme

Kobe showed he can win with arguably the strongest frontcourt in the league which isn't saying much but he still got it done 2 times out of 12yrs post Shaq, good for Kobe(won 3 his first 6 yrs with Shaq)

go back and look at Bynum/Odom/Gasol numbers as a whole and tell me how can you not be in contention with a coach like Phil calling the shots? Kobe was good no doubt but the longevity means he played a long time and that doesn't make you a better player it just means you played longer than others and padded stats and being in Lakers market helped out significantly, had he been drafted by Hornets this wouldn't be a conversation

Gasol was being regarded by some to be up there with Dirk/KG/Duncan as top bigs in the game during his Lakers time especially early and he was the best passing big and ran the floor like a gazelle, so if he wasn't a top 10 player he was one of the best at his spot which is plenty of help

and on another note go look at the W-L record when they first acquired Gasol to also show his impact, it's pretty damn good

If Wade doesn't get hurt against Pistons in 05' they go to back to back Finals in first two years with a old version of Diesel so I am pretty sure a young Shaq with Wade would have been 3peat material, Finals appearances would have been damn near annually with a possible Spurs roadblock here and there

Gasol was no KG, Duncan or Dirk. Howard and Stoudemire numbers also put Gasols numbers away. He also played below average defense. Kobe pushed Gasol to new heights like getting Gasol to average 10 Rebs for the first time in his career. Before Gasol even came to LA Kobe had the lakers 1st in the west before Bynum went down. After Bynum went down lakers landed Gasol. Gasol was not a top 5 big and bottom tier defender and Kobe took him to a ring. Gasol never made any 1st team ever. Even the Gasol you claim was in the class as Duncan. Gasol never really accomplished anything until he was led by Kobe. He was just another scoring big with no defense and ok rebounding skills.

Kobe won a ring with Bynum on the bench so don't know why people bring up Bynum like Kobe actually had a weapon with him. Odom was a great 6th man off the bench but not even the best 6th man in the league. Odom was a top tier role player but nothing more then a role player. Bynum was just a big body who was hurt most of the time. He wasn't even a Tristan Thomson level player. Bynum only saw the floor because he was Jims project and he would not let him go. Bynum was the reason why the lakers started to decline.

So Kobe winning a back to back with this as his help is amazing. It took lebron and his super team to win a back to back. Kobe did it with Gasol who never posted Wade type numbers and a 6th man in odom. Kobe doing what only a handful of NBA players had done( winning back to back)and it's not impressive to you? It's ok because like you said for those who actually played the game have put Kobe in their top 5 because of accomplishments like this.

As for Wade and Shaq in Miami. The first year if they beat Detroit they have to face the Spurs who are Shaqs worst matchup. Spurs always had Shaqs number and Kobe always led the team against them. Kobe has owned Duncan especially post Shaq. So beating Detroit doesn't mean anything especially when they lost and Detroit lost to the Spurs. Seeing how the Spurs also destroyed Wade with lebron as his running mate. So replacing Kobe with Wade is a step back and the Spurs would interrupt the 3 peat.

europagnpilgrim
07-30-2016, 11:51 AM
Gasol was no KG, Duncan or Dirk. Howard and Stoudemire numbers also put Gasols numbers away. He also played below average defense. Kobe pushed Gasol to new heights like getting Gasol to average 10 Rebs for the first time in his career. Before Gasol even came to LA Kobe had the lakers 1st in the west before Bynum went down. After Bynum went down lakers landed Gasol. Gasol was not a top 5 big and bottom tier defender and Kobe took him to a ring. Gasol never made any 1st team ever. Even the Gasol you claim was in the class as Duncan. Gasol never really accomplished anything until he was led by Kobe. He was just another scoring big with no defense and ok rebounding skills.

Kobe won a ring with Bynum on the bench so don't know why people bring up Bynum like Kobe actually had a weapon with him. Odom was a great 6th man off the bench but not even the best 6th man in the league. Odom was a top tier role player but nothing more then a role player. Bynum was just a big body who was hurt most of the time. He wasn't even a Tristan Thomson level player. Bynum only saw the floor because he was Jims project and he would not let him go. Bynum was the reason why the lakers started to decline.

So Kobe winning a back to back with this as his help is amazing. It took lebron and his super team to win a back to back. Kobe did it with Gasol who never posted Wade type numbers and a 6th man in odom. Kobe doing what only a handful of NBA players had done( winning back to back)and it's not impressive to you? It's ok because like you said for those who actually played the game have put Kobe in their top 5 because of accomplishments like this.

As for Wade and Shaq in Miami. The first year if they beat Detroit they have to face the Spurs who are Shaqs worst matchup. Spurs always had Shaqs number and Kobe always led the team against them. Kobe has owned Duncan especially post Shaq. So beating Detroit doesn't mean anything especially when they lost and Detroit lost to the Spurs. Seeing how the Spurs also destroyed Wade with lebron as his running mate. So replacing Kobe with Wade is a step back and the Spurs would interrupt the 3 peat.

1. Gasol was putting up 21ppg and 10rpg(9.8 exact) prior to being traded to Lakers and the year before he put up 20 and 9, so if Lakers had a top 2 seed prior to Gasol joining just imagine how it was when Bynum came back healthy then for the Lakers to have twin legit towers and a hybrid PF/SF/PG in Odom with the gunslinger Kobe and a HOF coach, I said the media heads/analysts were putting Gasol up there with KG/Dirk I never said his numbers were better, he was a active 7 footer and I don't recall any big destroying him like how Amare did Duncan years back and we all know Duncan is way better on defense than Gasol, how did Kobe push him to new heights when he put up the same numbers pre Lakers? Gasol always flirted with 10rpg with Grizz, he led the Grizz to playoffs as the leader/best player, that is accomplishing something for a relocated franchise who's best bet was just to make the playoffs

Bynum was a big body that played a factor even if he was just 50pct and he was playing like a all star at one point before Kobe injured him again, Odom was a 6th man candidate and all star talent starter and it showed when he did both for the Lakers(when he was focused and not Khloe'ed out), Bynum was flirting with making allstar team while Tristan is getting max superstar money and not even close to making a all star team but whatever makes you feel good and sleep at night you can think that way, a hobbled Bynum in 10' helped out Lakers vs. Celtics by just being a big body out there to bang with Perkins/C's frontline

Lakers beat a Magic/injured C's team but got dismantled by a healthy C's team in 08', that's nothing to brag about trust me, barring KG injury C's would have 3peated or at worst 2 out of 3

Lebron got Cavs to Finals in 07' with no super team, just like Kobe had a chance to do that in 05-07' seasons when he was a 8th/7th seed up 3-1 vs. Suns and choked that series away, he basically quit on his mates if you really be truthful with yourself, so who cares if Lebron decides to actually go play with talent that Kobe was gifted on draft night and he went to 4 straight Finals and got two rings, Kobe got lucky as hell to be drafted by such a rich tradition nba franchise, top 2 ever with Celtics, kudos to Kobe

not as impressive when you are expected to win it all or be right there in the mix, he wasn't going against the odds, he was the favorite for most part, best 6th man/best coach/twin towers and Fisher who was clutch/tough, if his support wasn't the best it was top 2, and he had the most dominant force of his era for 8yrs prior to that with the best coach or at worst top 3(pop,brown), the Spurs were on a mini re toolling phase so they didn't have to face anybody really tough unless you count a 40yr old Grant Hill and old Nash a legit threat which I don't now and didn't then

again it wouldn't matter who they would have faced it would have just shown Shaq's impact/value was supreme, he went to Finals with 3 diff. franchises at the alpha/co star, that is tough to do with just 1 team let alone 3

and did you see how that Pistons team owned Kobe? the same Pistons team that Wade would eat for breakfast/lunch/dinner, he would have done the same to Spurs

Spurs are Shaqs worst matchup? DRob/Duncan couldn't handle him as a duo and DRob wasn't there in 05' so Shaq would have been okay for the most part but he was pushing 33-34yrs of age so it would have been Wade to carry them like he did when they were together, I mentioned the Spurs would be the roadblock but a young Wade/Shaq would have been plenty to get through, same with a couple other superstars had Shaq been mates with them

europagnpilgrim
07-30-2016, 12:06 PM
For those who actually watched that Gasol/Kobe tenure early when they would take Kobe out the game and run it through Gasol they would increase the lead only to have Kobe come back in and the lead would dwindle and his hero ball was more needed

actually Gasol numbers may have dipped off regular season wise so if you mean taking him to new heights by winning a ring you got me there because numbers wise he didn't, his numbers became worse and Gasol was able to grab more rebounds from all the chucking/missing Kobe would do, Gasol/Bynum were glass eaters as was Odom

FraziersKnicks
07-30-2016, 01:24 PM
I had to stop at Kobe "got Gasol to average 10 rebounds a game" :laugh2:

He averaged 9.8 the season before. But it was Kobe that got him that extra .2 of a rebound wasn't it :rolleyes:

I suppose Derrick Rose "got" Gasol to average 11.4 RPG the past 2 seasons. Or was that Kobe as well?

ciaban
07-30-2016, 01:52 PM
Well when Shaq was paired with what you would consider a equal player in D Wade, while still playing at a high level, he only got one 1 ring and then got swept the next year in unceremonious fashion. This was a Shaq that was still easily the best center in the game and had actually got in shape and lost weight out of spite. Also with a peak D Wade, finals MVP Wade to offset any decline in Shaq.

Kobe however went on to play with a player of less value than Shaq, in Gasol, and STILL went to three straight Finals. Winning 2.

So history and logic would say that one of them continued to win at a high level given reasonably similar talent and the other one couldn't.

That is not consistent with your theory of plug in another allstar wing with Shaq and you get the same results.
And when he was paired with an equally great player (in his prime) as Kobe in Penny Hardaway, they didn't win ****. It's not like those magic teams were devoid of talent outside of Penny and Shaq, they had a lot of other good players.

Chronz
07-30-2016, 02:09 PM
For those who actually watched that Gasol/Kobe tenure early when they would take Kobe out the game and run it through Gasol they would increase the lead only to have Kobe come back in and the lead would dwindle and his hero ball was more needed

actually Gasol numbers may have dipped off regular season wise so if you mean taking him to new heights by winning a ring you got me there because numbers wise he didn't, his numbers became worse and Gasol was able to grab more rebounds from all the chucking/missing Kobe would do, Gasol/Bynum were glass eaters as was Odom

You underrate Kobe's influence on Gasol but at the same time, I do wish Kobe would have sat out with his injuries so we got a chance to see Gasol/Bynum be the driving force more often. I remember a Utah game he sat out but I dont remember how good they looked. There was a Bynum game against the Spurs where he got like 30 rebounds or something but that was under Mike the Dunce Brown.

There is some strong evidence that suggests Kobe's misses (much like Iverson's in his day) are more valuable than most misses simply because they tend to be rebounded by his teammates more often than most. Its a result of both players but Kobe attracts so much attention that the opposition is often out of position. Yes, Gasol got less touches but this freed him to attack the glass and create 2nd chances. Theres a trinkle down effect, Gasol accepts his #2 status and then Bynum accepts the #3 and everything works out. But when Bynum started demanding more touches, it meant the guy who was the better post scorer got less looks and the guy who was better at rebounding any misses wasn't attacking the glass as much. Bynum's selfish drive to hunt for points hurt the Lakers. And whats appalling is that his overall stat line was actually better when he played his role to perfection. Same with Gasol, he was never at his most efficient until the minute he joined Kobe, Phil and most importantly, the triangle. Just like Kobe, Pau benefits from a structured post offense.

Still, heres what NBA.com says is their stat line with/without each other, starting from their first championship season for reasons.

Pau with/out Kobe (Per36)(PTS-REB-AST- TS% and +/-)
2009
With: 18.2-9.3-3.3 (.618 TS%) +8.5
W/Out: 19.0-9.9-4.4 (.613 TS%) -2.3

Playoffs: More of the same, more scoring+rebounding but the team struggles around .500 ball. Which prolly aint bad in the playoffs but it doesn't seem like the lead would increase without Kobe around.

2010
With: 17.0 - 10.9 - 3.0 (1.8t.o. - .588 TS%) +6.0
W/Out: 20.3 - 11.3 - 4.1 (3.1 t.o. - .606 TS%) +0.4


Playoffs: For whatever reason, Pau's scoring rate explodes without Kobe 27.8 vs 16.7 but again the team isn't overwhelming. Still, this was arguably Pau's most dominant individual run.


2011
With: 18.3 - 9.9 - 3.0 (1.6t.o. - .602 TS%) +6.2
W/Out: 18.2 - 9.9 - 4.3 (1.9 t.o. - .542 TS%) +6.7


2012
With: 16.0 - 10.0 - 3.4 (2.1 t.o. - .550 TS%) +2.6
W/Out: 19.6 - 10.2 - 3.9 (2 t.o. - .536 TS%) +1.0

2013
With: 14.5 - 9.0 - 4.3 (2.2t.o. - .525 TS%) +2.1
W/Out: 15.4 - 9.8 - 4.8 (2.8 t.o. - .455 TS%) +2.4


Make of this what you will, those last few years are really puzzling to me but his role was dramatically different by then. I think its fair to say Pau stands tall on his own for the most part but that the team was rarely dominant without Kobe around. If you do this same trick for Kobe without Pau, you get a more dominant player with a more dominant team IIRC.

RLundi
07-30-2016, 02:38 PM
And when he was paired with an equally great player (in his prime) as Kobe in Penny Hardaway, they didn't win ****. It's not like those magic teams were devoid of talent outside of Penny and Shaq, they had a lot of other good players.

Two things incorrect with this assessment:

1.) Shaq on Orlando wasn't prime Shaq. That was a young Shaq after only 3 and 4 seasons in the league. Shaq was truly dominant later around the late 1990s into the 21st century.

2.) Even at Penny's very best, he was not at all comparable to Kobe's best. In fact, Penny's best season is comparable to prime Kobe's worst seasons.

I still think prime Shaq would've been able to win championships with a healthy Hardaway (they got to the Finals after all, and only youth and choking prevented them from beating an aged Rockets squad), but I don't think Orlando's Shaq would've won with prime Kobe. Shaq just wasn't mature enough at that point.

MTar786
07-30-2016, 05:30 PM
in 2000 it was shaqs team with kobe and rice as the next options. With that said, if you take out kobe or replace him with anyone else at his position they dont beat portland in game 7. from 2001 onwards it was a 1A and 1B team with role players. shaq having the slight edge imo as the better player. But There were debates as to who the better player was. In 03 people started to say kobe was becoming the better player. People may forget this because of kobes rape case and him not being able to perform that great in 04 due to the trial and the fact that he had to share the ball with 3 other all stars that year. this is coming from someone who watched every minute of every single lakers game from the entire shaq and kobe run. Who ever thinks kobe rode shaqs coat tails is just dumb or didnt witness it live like i did.

Bostonjorge
07-30-2016, 05:36 PM
Gasol had Mike Miller, James posey, Jason Williams and Shane Battier when he was swept twice. Gasol averaged an aminzing 5 rebounds. With all of that he got swept yet Bynum is enough for Gasol to dominate? This has to be a joke right? Gasol led the lakers to the worst record ever(up to that point) when Kobe was hurt. If you can't see what Kobe did for Gasol then it's because you don't want to see.

KG destroyed Gasol when the a hurt lakers team lost to a special Boston team. Gasol was still that weak Memphis player. After a full offseason and training camp with Kobe Gasol changed. He started to play more physical and even look comfortable playing C. He started to rebound better, score easier and started acting like a winner. His whole additude changed and additude reflects leader ship(thanks Kobe). Kobe saw something is Gasol and made full use of Gasol. Gasol never turned in a Wade or Irving performance but he came close.

I still don't see the fascination with Bynum. He was a scrub in a 7 foot body. He made the all star game when the C was more dead then it is right now. The Bynum that sometimes played on the championship teams was never elite at anything. Just ok at everything. Tristan Thomson is a better rebounder, more athletic and they score around the same. Bynum best season came when lakers where 2 years removed from the championship and he hurt the lakers more than helped.

It's easy to see Kobe had one of the least help ever of any back to back team ever. Duncan, Wilt and Bird never pulled it off. James needed more help then just a Gasol. Magic and KAJ had each other. Kobe took down a Boston team who made James quit on Cleveland earlier in the playoffs and made lebron see he needed a super team to stand up to that same Boston team. Kobe beat them with a broken hand and had a splint on his shooting hand yet still dominated that series. You look up all 7 games and Kobe was a force. After it was all said and done many legends came out and put Kobe on many top 10 and top 5 list. Some went even higher.

GREATNESS ONE
07-30-2016, 06:51 PM
Kobe & Duncan would have won 7+ Championships together.

Chronz
07-30-2016, 07:10 PM
Kobe & Duncan would have won 7+ Championships together.

Nah, for the same reasons he wanted Shaq gone he would have wanted Duncan out. The guy would've gotten tired of people saying he cant win without a dominant bigman and Duncan would have outshun Kobe just the same. Thats assuming they win in the first place cuz theres still a matter of where Shaq gets to play and he wouldn't stay at some bad spot.

Bostonjorge
07-30-2016, 07:13 PM
in 2000 it was shaqs team with kobe and rice as the next options. With that said, if you take out kobe or replace him with anyone else at his position they dont beat portland in game 7. from 2001 onwards it was a 1A and 1B team with role players. shaq having the slight edge imo as the better player. But There were debates as to who the better player was. In 03 people started to say kobe was becoming the better player. People may forget this because of kobes rape case and him not being able to perform that great in 04 due to the trial and the fact that he had to share the ball with 3 other all stars that year. this is coming from someone who watched every minute of every single lakers game from the entire shaq and kobe run. Who ever thinks kobe rode shaqs coat tails is just dumb or didnt witness it live like i did.

The year lakers lost to Detriot Kobe lead the team and carried Shaq in the first 3 rounds. Everything went thru Kobe not Shaq. When they got to Detroit it wasn't about beating them it was who was going to get the finals MVP. Kobe and Shaq started to show they weren't not going to work anymore. Kobe was the NBA playoffs MVP up to that point. If Shaq and Kobe would of turned into Kobe and Shaq they would of won 3 more maybe even 4 in a row. The series before Detroit Kobe carved up the Spurs and the best Duncan we seen. One year later that Spurs team took Detroit down. O well what could of been, should of been.

Chronz
07-30-2016, 07:26 PM
The year lakers lost to Detriot Kobe lead the team and carried Shaq in the first 3 rounds. Everything went thru Kobe not Shaq. When they got to Detroit it wasn't about beating them it was who was going to get the finals MVP. Kobe and Shaq started to show they weren't not going to work anymore. Kobe was the NBA playoffs MVP up to that point. If Shaq and Kobe would of turned into Kobe and Shaq they would of won 3 more maybe even 4 in a row. The series before Detroit Kobe carved up the Spurs and the best Duncan we seen. One year later that Spurs team took Detroit down. O well what could of been, should of been.

Actually nothing you said was true, it was Kobe's inability to reign himself in that was often at the heart of the Lakers problems. Teammates had to come to him and tell him to tone it down, to which in total young Kobe fashion, took the criticism to the extreme and just stopped looking to shoot entirely for a stretch there. In fact, IIRC, even the LAKERS championship DVD cites Kobe's injury as the turning point of the season. Being forced to watch his team return to a championship level because of his absence was a humbling experience at the time. Its the main reason Phil wanted Kobe gone in the first place, he didn't know his rightful place in the hierarchy. Shaq was always the playoffs MVP by virtue of his mere presence and production, when Phil wanted Kobe to stop forcing up shots vs Detroit, he refused to listen to reason and they wasted a "vintage Shaq" game. Had Kobe improved his leadership sooner, or hell, just waited his turn for Shaq to become the inferior player, then who knows what could've happened. And why bring up it was the best Duncan we've ever seen when he was locked down to close the series and it wasn't a result of Kobe's doing thats for sure.

What could have been indeed, Im sure both men regret things they did but it was Kobe who betrayed both Phil and Shaq the most.

Bostonjorge
07-30-2016, 07:49 PM
Actually nothing you said was true, it was Kobe's inability to reign himself in that was often at the heart of the Lakers problems. Teammates had to come to him and tell him to tone it down, to which in total young Kobe fashion, took the criticism to the extreme and just stopped looking to shoot entirely for a stretch there. In fact, IIRC, even the LAKERS championship DVD cites Kobe's injury as the turning point of the season. Being forced to watch his team return to a championship level because of his absence was a humbling experience at the time. Its the main reason Phil wanted Kobe gone in the first place, he didn't know his rightful place in the hierarchy. Shaq was always the playoffs MVP by virtue of his mere presence and production, when Phil wanted Kobe to stop forcing up shots vs Detroit, he refused to listen to reason and they wasted a "vintage Shaq" game. Had Kobe improved his leadership sooner, or hell, just waited his turn for Shaq to become the inferior player, then who knows what could've happened. And why bring up it was the best Duncan we've ever seen when he was locked down to close the series and it wasn't a result of Kobe's doing thats for sure.

What could have been indeed, Im sure both men regret things they did but it was Kobe who betrayed both Phil and Shaq the most.

Kobes numbers in those first 3 rounds is what made Kobe the playoffs MVP. No one not even Shaq had better numbers. Kobe had already surpassed Shaq who was 30 pounds heavier then Miami Shaq. That finals series was everyone fault as a whole not just one persons. If they playe the way they played against the superior Spurs then Lakers win easily with Kobe holding up the finals MVP trophy.

Phill was all sour grapes for the lakers picking Kobe over him. If it was really that bad he would of never came back. Phil today never quotes himself in that book he actually sings a much different tune yet you never mention anything he says today. Phill today would actually disagree with everything you brought to this topic about Kobe.

Tony_Starks
07-30-2016, 07:59 PM
1. Gasol was putting up 21ppg and 10rpg(9.8 exact) prior to being traded to Lakers and the year before he put up 20 and 9, so if Lakers had a top 2 seed prior to Gasol joining just imagine how it was when Bynum came back healthy then for the Lakers to have twin legit towers and a hybrid PF/SF/PG in Odom with the gunslinger Kobe and a HOF coach, I said the media heads/analysts were putting Gasol up there with KG/Dirk I never said his numbers were better, he was a active 7 footer and I don't recall any big destroying him like how Amare did Duncan years back and we all know Duncan is way better on defense than Gasol, how did Kobe push him to new heights when he put up the same numbers pre Lakers? Gasol always flirted with 10rpg with Grizz, he led the Grizz to playoffs as the leader/best player, that is accomplishing something for a relocated franchise who's best bet was just to make the playoffs

Bynum was a big body that played a factor even if he was just 50pct and he was playing like a all star at one point before Kobe injured him again, Odom was a 6th man candidate and all star talent starter and it showed when he did both for the Lakers(when he was focused and not Khloe'ed out), Bynum was flirting with making allstar team while Tristan is getting max superstar money and not even close to making a all star team but whatever makes you feel good and sleep at night you can think that way, a hobbled Bynum in 10' helped out Lakers vs. Celtics by just being a big body out there to bang with Perkins/C's frontline

Lakers beat a Magic/injured C's team but got dismantled by a healthy C's team in 08', that's nothing to brag about trust me, barring KG injury C's would have 3peated or at worst 2 out of 3

Lebron got Cavs to Finals in 07' with no super team, just like Kobe had a chance to do that in 05-07' seasons when he was a 8th/7th seed up 3-1 vs. Suns and choked that series away, he basically quit on his mates if you really be truthful with yourself, so who cares if Lebron decides to actually go play with talent that Kobe was gifted on draft night and he went to 4 straight Finals and got two rings, Kobe got lucky as hell to be drafted by such a rich tradition nba franchise, top 2 ever with Celtics, kudos to Kobe

not as impressive when you are expected to win it all or be right there in the mix, he wasn't going against the odds, he was the favorite for most part, best 6th man/best coach/twin towers and Fisher who was clutch/tough, if his support wasn't the best it was top 2, and he had the most dominant force of his era for 8yrs prior to that with the best coach or at worst top 3(pop,brown), the Spurs were on a mini re toolling phase so they didn't have to face anybody really tough unless you count a 40yr old Grant Hill and old Nash a legit threat which I don't now and didn't then

again it wouldn't matter who they would have faced it would have just shown Shaq's impact/value was supreme, he went to Finals with 3 diff. franchises at the alpha/co star, that is tough to do with just 1 team let alone 3

and did you see how that Pistons team owned Kobe? the same Pistons team that Wade would eat for breakfast/lunch/dinner, he would have done the same to Spurs

Spurs are Shaqs worst matchup? DRob/Duncan couldn't handle him as a duo and DRob wasn't there in 05' so Shaq would have been okay for the most part but he was pushing 33-34yrs of age so it would have been Wade to carry them like he did when they were together, I mentioned the Spurs would be the roadblock but a young Wade/Shaq would have been plenty to get through, same with a couple other superstars had Shaq been mates with them

Twice now you have made a point of saying that the '08 Lakers got "dismantled" by the Celtics yet basically say we lucked up and beat a injured Celtics team in '10.

Pretty hypocritical and illogical seeing as how TWICE now you've neglected to mention that Ariza AND the Bynum that you keep ranting and raving about were both injured in the '08 against Boston.

In fact if you were a actual Laker fan and watched you'd know that Bynum stayed hurt, was often a non factor, and was constantly publicly criticized by Phil about his attitude and work ethic. Take a look at the rest of his career post-Kobe and you get back to me on that one. Same with Odom btw. Where's Shannon Brown at? How about Farmar? How's Luke doing? Oh wait Sasha is actually still playing on the Knicks! Wow what a Superteam!

Kobe was the total leader of that team and got the absolute best out of each of a lot of guys that literally didn't even survive in the league or barely signed minimum deals after those years.

You're bias and hating is showing, I'd bet money you were one of the ones that was screaming that Kobe would never win another title when Shaq left and then had a million bitter excuses when he actually went to 3 straight Finals minus Shaq and did what few top 10 ten greats in history ever did.....win multiple back to backs as a 1b AND as a leader.

In short you sound salty af

Chronz
07-30-2016, 08:17 PM
Kobes numbers in those first 3 rounds is what made Kobe the playoffs MVP.
Sounds like a pretty shoddy case, but even if I agreed that it was at least comparable, the impact wasn't there and most importantly, I dont just disregard the Finals.


No one not even Shaq had better numbers. Kobe had already surpassed Shaq who was 30 pounds heavier then Miami Shaq.
Nah, it took Shaq regaining much of those 30lbs in his championship season with Miami and Kobe finally reaching his apex for him to surpass Shaq.


That finals series was everyone fault as a whole not just one persons.
Winning and losing is never the result of a single player, it just so happens to be that out of the 2 stars we are comparing, Kobe far and away more at fault and less heralded. Everyone had their faults but Kobe magnified his by refusing to follow the gameplan and just kept chucking..


If they playe the way they played against the superior Spurs then Lakers win easily with Kobe holding up the finals MVP trophy.

LMFAO, easily? Way to sound objective chief, I dont believe you know what you're watching nor do I trust your ability to gauge a teams ability. An even better version of those Spurs needed 7 games to beat a less deep version of the Pistons. Pistons were the better team that year, and the Lakers lost guys to injuries so how do they win easily? The reason the Lakers didn't play their game was because Kobe was playing to win his way and was shooting for the FMVP imo instead of letting the natural order of things commence. I honestly believe he was tired of winning with Shaq being the clear cut best player on the team and its why he didn't have their backs.


Phill was all sour grapes for the lakers picking Kobe over him. If it was really that bad he would of never came back. Phil today never quotes himself in that book he actually sings a much different tune yet you never mention anything he says today. Phill today would actually disagree with everything you brought to this topic about Kobe.

Of course he would come back, people grow and mature and hes not singing a different tune about anything I've mentioned but feel free to show me where hes gone on record to denying Kobe's part in all that. Kobe matured and grew and Phil loves him the most now, doesn't change what hes already put on record. I highly doubt someone who puts out as many books as Phil has is willingly going to discredit himself. I actually just came back with a Phil book, you telling me its worthless now? LOL, Ill wait for your links. Until then, Phils written word is better than your unsubstantiated opinions, especially because they happened in the actual moment.

Bostonjorge
07-30-2016, 08:19 PM
Twice now you have made a point of saying that the '08 Lakers got "dismantled" by the Celtics yet basically say we lucked up and beat a injured Celtics team in '10.

Pretty hypocritical and illogical seeing as how TWICE now you've neglected to mention that Ariza AND the Bynum that you keep ranting and raving about were both injured in the '08 against Boston.

In fact if you were a actual Laker fan and watched you'd know that Bynum stayed hurt, was often a non factor, and was constantly publicly criticized by Phil about his attitude and work ethic. Take a look at the rest of his career post-Kobe and you get back to me on that one. Same with Odom btw. Where's Shannon Brown at? How about Farmar? How's Luke doing? Oh wait Sasha is actually still playing on the Knicks! Wow what a Superteam!

Kobe was the total leader of that team and got the absolute best out of each of a lot of guys that literally didn't even survive in the league or barely signed minimum deals after those years.

You're bias and hating is showing, I'd bet money you were one of the ones that was screaming that Kobe would never win another title when Shaq left and then had a million bitter excuses when he actually went to 3 straight Finals minus Shaq and did what few top 10 ten greats in history ever did.....win multiple back to backs as a 1b AND as a leader.

In short you sound salty af

It's like you actually watched the games.

Tony_Starks
07-30-2016, 08:20 PM
It's like you actually watched the games.

Hahaha imagine that!

Chronz
07-30-2016, 08:24 PM
Dude no matter how much you want to pretend it never happened, Phil wanted Kobe traded, not because he held some kind of silly grudge at the time, but because he wanted to improve the team. Of course he would come back to LA to coach Kobe, you really dont know Phil if you think hes scared of confrontation and the challenge of rebuilding LA.

Chronz
07-30-2016, 08:24 PM
Hahaha imagine that!
How come neither of you responded to my point about why you guys didn't watch the games??

Tony_Starks
07-30-2016, 09:14 PM
How come neither of you responded to my point about why you guys didn't watch the games??

I didn't see it. Were you saying that we didn't watch games?

Because speaking for myself I've religiously watched every Laker game since Magics later years, through the Sedale Threat era, the Van Exel and Eddie jones resurgence of the franchise, and the new Dynasty.

I even watch the clusterF that has been known as the Jimmy Buss tenure, and that is HARD.

Watching Jimmy run the team has to be like what it would be like watching Trump run the country.

Tony_Starks
07-30-2016, 09:23 PM
Dude no matter how much you want to pretend it never happened, Phil wanted Kobe traded, not because he held some kind of silly grudge at the time, but because he wanted to improve the team. Of course he would come back to LA to coach Kobe, you really dont know Phil if you think hes scared of confrontation and the challenge of rebuilding LA.

Ok and no matter what you think the late great Dr Buss went on record of saying he was sick of Shaq and was not bringing him back after that last season regardless of the outcome. He chose to go with Kobe. A decision that yielded 2 more rings.

As far as Phil he returned and would later go on to rave about Kobes leadership on and off the court that led to those 3 straight finals, amongst many other compliments so if you're going to include the bad don't forget about all the positive things he said on the second time around.

FraziersKnicks
07-31-2016, 03:08 AM
People defending Kobe as 1b still haven't address the fact that Shaq's advanced numbers made Kobe look like Pippen compared to MJ in the 3 peat.

1999-2002 playoffs:

Shaq: 29.3 PER, 12.1 WS, .238 WS/48, 6.9 BPM, 5.5 VORP
Kobe: 21.3 PER, 8.4 WS, .169 WS/48, 4.5 BPM, 3.9 VORP

1995-98 playoffs:

MJ: 27.3 PER, 13.4 WS, .268 WS/48, 7.6 BPM, 5.9 VORP
Pippen: 19.0 PER, 8.2 WS, .169 WS/48, 7.1 BPM, 5.1 VORP

Differences:

PER: +8/+8.3
WS: +3.7/+5.2
WS/48: +0.69/+0.99
BPM: +2.4/+0.5
VORP: +1.6/+0.8

On the left is Shaq's lead over Kobe in those numbers, on the right it's MJ over Pippen.

PER is basically the same difference. WS the difference is slightly bigger between MJ/Pippen. BPM and VORP it's a bigger difference between Kobe/Shaq.

Now would anyone argue that Pippen was 1b to MJ in that second 3 peat?

(Patiently awaits Kobe defenders to claim these numbers actually DO lie when they don't benefit their argument).

Also kinda unrelated to this thread, but I'm still waiting for a reply from Tony about the Tim Duncan longevity post.....

lol, please
07-31-2016, 03:12 AM
People defending Kobe as 1b still haven't address the fact that Shaq's advanced numbers made Kobe look like Pippen compared to MJ in the 3 peat.

1999-2002 playoffs:

Shaq: 29.3 PER, 12.1 WS, .238 WS/48, 6.9 BPM, 5.5 VORP
Kobe: 21.3 PER, 8.4 WS, .169 WS/48, 4.5 BPM, 3.9 VORP

1995-98 playoffs:

MJ: 27.3 PER, 13.4 WS, .268 WS/48, 7.6 BPM, 5.9 VORP
Pippen: 19.0 PER, 8.2 WS, .169 WS/48, 7.1 BPM, 5.1 VORP

Differences:

PER: +8/+8.3
WS: +3.7/+5.2
WS/48: +0.69/+0.99
BPM: +2.4/+0.5
VORP: +1.6/+0.8

On the left is Shaq's lead over Kobe in those numbers, on the right it's MJ over Pippen.

PER is basically the same difference. WS the difference is slightly bigger between MJ/Pippen. BPM and VORP it's a bigger difference between Kobe/Shaq.

Now would anyone argue that Pippen was 1b to MJ in that second 3 peat?

(Patiently awaits Kobe defenders to claim these numbers actually DO lie when they don't benefit their argument).

Also kinda unrelated to this thread, but I'm still waiting for a reply from Tony about the Tim Duncan longevity post.....
Great post. I agree completely.

Honestly no one with a counter argument can support it.

sent from my Note 5 on Tapatalk

europagnpilgrim
07-31-2016, 03:55 AM
Twice now you have made a point of saying that the '08 Lakers got "dismantled" by the Celtics yet basically say we lucked up and beat a injured Celtics team in '10.

Pretty hypocritical and illogical seeing as how TWICE now you've neglected to mention that Ariza AND the Bynum that you keep ranting and raving about were both injured in the '08 against Boston.

In fact if you were a actual Laker fan and watched you'd know that Bynum stayed hurt, was often a non factor, and was constantly publicly criticized by Phil about his attitude and work ethic. Take a look at the rest of his career post-Kobe and you get back to me on that one. Same with Odom btw. Where's Shannon Brown at? How about Farmar? How's Luke doing? Oh wait Sasha is actually still playing on the Knicks! Wow what a Superteam!

Kobe was the total leader of that team and got the absolute best out of each of a lot of guys that literally didn't even survive in the league or barely signed minimum deals after those years.

You're bias and hating is showing, I'd bet money you were one of the ones that was screaming that Kobe would never win another title when Shaq left and then had a million bitter excuses when he actually went to 3 straight Finals minus Shaq and did what few top 10 ten greats in history ever did.....win multiple back to backs as a 1b AND as a leader.

In short you sound salty af

Boston was a stronger/better overall team prior to the KG injury, if Bynum/Ariza were healthy they still lose in 6 just not getting destroyed by 30-40pts or whatever the score was, they would have lost by 10

Bynum when healthy also showed all star level play especially from what they needed, Kobe was the shot chucker regardless so whatever they got from the rest was gravy train

injuries derailed Bynum not playing without Kobe/Lakers, who was the the one who hurt Bynum in the first place by running/falling into his legs

Odom was nice coming out of Rhode Island as a top 5 pick and he also shined brightly with DWade before joining the Lakers, he fell off when he start doing that Hollywood ish with those KDash sisters, Shannon Brown was never a factor, I mentioned Fisher/Gasol/Bynum when healthy/Odom and HOF coach, Farmar and the rest were along for the ride like many players who have rings on championship teams

Lakers beat Magic who was led by Dwight Howard and we all know how Lakers fanatics(probably yourself also) view him as a player/leader, they beat a hobbled Boston team so I guess they are even based on your statement about Ariza/Bynum being out

Kobe was the leader of the team and he inherited Odom/Gasol who all could play and it showed, he didn't elevate those guys outside of having 3 rings and saying lets get me another one without Shaq, Gasol put up the same numbers in LA as with Grizz as so did Odom who was capable of a triple double when he entered the league

the Spurs went through a re tool stretch during that Lakers run and Phoenix led by Nash/G Hill were the only threats out West, I didn't care when Kobe won his first 3 rings with Shaq and didn't care about his other 2 without him but I do know it took him 7 long years to win another, 5 yrs after Shaq left after winning 3 his first 6 yrs

Me calling it how it went is actual factual nothing to be biased about, but if I am hating then you are sure a top tier fanatic Kobe mvp with posters on your wall still from his number 8 days, maybe even his 33 wearing HS days

in short and long I could care less about rings, I just watch players and talk about what happened and how they demonstrated what they can do solo and impact the team/game on what level

during 8 yrs of being mates Shaq was more dominant, easily, he was like having 2 superstars in one player, so Kobe was 2b and a sidekick/robin like Kobe told Phil he was sick of being

I would post that quote but being the fanatic you are you would say Kobe was drunk that day

you are comical af when it comes to your fanatical-ism over Kobe, I guess he was 1b while being a backup also since he went for 33pts or so against Jordan/Bulls in garbage time in 96-97' season, he was also 1b when he was a backup for the Lakers but starting SG in a allstar game as well, what a luxury to be a 1b in Lakers-fanatic-ville, go Kobe

europagnpilgrim
07-31-2016, 04:25 AM
You underrate Kobe's influence on Gasol but at the same time, I do wish Kobe would have sat out with his injuries so we got a chance to see Gasol/Bynum be the driving force more often. I remember a Utah game he sat out but I dont remember how good they looked. There was a Bynum game against the Spurs where he got like 30 rebounds or something but that was under Mike the Dunce Brown.

There is some strong evidence that suggests Kobe's misses (much like Iverson's in his day) are more valuable than most misses simply because they tend to be rebounded by his teammates more often than most. Its a result of both players but Kobe attracts so much attention that the opposition is often out of position. Yes, Gasol got less touches but this freed him to attack the glass and create 2nd chances. Theres a trinkle down effect, Gasol accepts his #2 status and then Bynum accepts the #3 and everything works out. But when Bynum started demanding more touches, it meant the guy who was the better post scorer got less looks and the guy who was better at rebounding any misses wasn't attacking the glass as much. Bynum's selfish drive to hunt for points hurt the Lakers. And whats appalling is that his overall stat line was actually better when he played his role to perfection. Same with Gasol, he was never at his most efficient until the minute he joined Kobe, Phil and most importantly, the triangle. Just like Kobe, Pau benefits from a structured post offense.

Still, heres what NBA.com says is their stat line with/without each other, starting from their first championship season for reasons.

Pau with/out Kobe (Per36)(PTS-REB-AST- TS% and +/-)
2009
With: 18.2-9.3-3.3 (.618 TS%) +8.5
W/Out: 19.0-9.9-4.4 (.613 TS%) -2.3

Playoffs: More of the same, more scoring+rebounding but the team struggles around .500 ball. Which prolly aint bad in the playoffs but it doesn't seem like the lead would increase without Kobe around.

2010
With: 17.0 - 10.9 - 3.0 (1.8t.o. - .588 TS%) +6.0
W/Out: 20.3 - 11.3 - 4.1 (3.1 t.o. - .606 TS%) +0.4


Playoffs: For whatever reason, Pau's scoring rate explodes without Kobe 27.8 vs 16.7 but again the team isn't overwhelming. Still, this was arguably Pau's most dominant individual run.


2011
With: 18.3 - 9.9 - 3.0 (1.6t.o. - .602 TS%) +6.2
W/Out: 18.2 - 9.9 - 4.3 (1.9 t.o. - .542 TS%) +6.7


2012
With: 16.0 - 10.0 - 3.4 (2.1 t.o. - .550 TS%) +2.6
W/Out: 19.6 - 10.2 - 3.9 (2 t.o. - .536 TS%) +1.0

2013
With: 14.5 - 9.0 - 4.3 (2.2t.o. - .525 TS%) +2.1
W/Out: 15.4 - 9.8 - 4.8 (2.8 t.o. - .455 TS%) +2.4


Make of this what you will, those last few years are really puzzling to me but his role was dramatically different by then. I think its fair to say Pau stands tall on his own for the most part but that the team was rarely dominant without Kobe around. If you do this same trick for Kobe without Pau, you get a more dominant player with a more dominant team IIRC.

I am not underrating Kobe's influence on Gasol I am just going off the games I would watch, I didn't watch all 80 or so games each season but they were heavily televised during that time in reg. season and those games I observed the Lakers would be down or up 2 then when Kobe went to the pine the ball would go through Gasol and they would up/take the lead to double digits(or close), we use to sit back and laugh about if the best player with average support is taken out then you would be in trouble but they seem to play better during that stretch, no doubt they would need him in the long haul/playoff time but they were strong rebound team with that frontline trio and they would execute nicely in the triangle and it had a lot to do with Gasol being the player who he was along with Odom, smart/unselfish/skilled

Kobe was a killer until he decides to quit/pout if things don't go completely his way, or shoot his team out of the game, he would have really showed me something special had he not blown that 3-1 lead against a superior Suns team post Shaq, but he chose to quit and then threated to leave Lakerville rocking his Bulls jersey while trying to be GM about the trade before it happened on what players Chicago should keep, what a classic diva

he had Smush/Kwame up 3-1 so was his support better than we think or was he that good solo or was it a combo or a fluke? I know I went off topic so forgive me for that

Kobe is a good player but all this being top 10 because of longevity is a bunch of hogwash, and I think even Gasol wanted more touches after a while playing with him, he alienates teammates for most part

Kobe became slightly more vocal/better leader after watching Lebron/Kidd during Olympic tenure

Those numbers you posted are pretty much what I stated about Gasol doing what he did in Memphis and carried it over to Lakers, had nothing to do with Kobe lifting him to new heights, especially from 08-12'

Tony_Starks
07-31-2016, 10:05 AM
I am not underrating Kobe's influence on Gasol I am just going off the games I would watch, I didn't watch all 80 or so games each season but they were heavily televised during that time in reg. season and those games I observed the Lakers would be down or up 2 then when Kobe went to the pine the ball would go through Gasol and they would up/take the lead to double digits(or close), we use to sit back and laugh about if the best player with average support is taken out then you would be in trouble but they seem to play better during that stretch, no doubt they would need him in the long haul/playoff time but they were strong rebound team with that frontline trio and they would execute nicely in the triangle and it had a lot to do with Gasol being the player who he was along with Odom, smart/unselfish/skilled

Kobe was a killer until he decides to quit/pout if things don't go completely his way, or shoot his team out of the game, he would have really showed me something special had he not blown that 3-1 lead against a superior Suns team post Shaq, but he chose to quit and then threated to leave Lakerville rocking his Bulls jersey while trying to be GM about the trade before it happened on what players Chicago should keep, what a classic diva

he had Smush/Kwame up 3-1 so was his support better than we think or was he that good solo or was it a combo or a fluke? I know I went off topic so forgive me for that

Kobe is a good player but all this being top 10 because of longevity is a bunch of hogwash, and I think even Gasol wanted more touches after a while playing with him, he alienates teammates for most part

Kobe became slightly more vocal/better leader after watching Lebron/Kidd during Olympic tenure

Those numbers you posted are pretty much what I stated about Gasol doing what he did in Memphis and carried it over to Lakers, had nothing to do with Kobe lifting him to new heights, especially from 08-12'


Your revisionist history is very bad and also inaccurate. Almost like you're making it up.

For example you say that Kobe became a better leader after watching Lebron/ Midd during the Olympic tenure. That's literally laughable. It is a matter of public record that Kobe was the leader/ defensive stopper/ closer of that team. Look it up. In fact coach K was just reminiscing about that this very week. In fact KD, Kyrie, and Melo have publicly talked for years about the impact it had on them practicing with Kobe that summer from his approach to the game and work ethic. Kyrie to the extent that he talked to Kobe throughout the playoffs and the first thing he said after he hit the game 7 game winner was "I was just thinking Mamba mentality."

Kobe started off a loner and horrible leader, but he facts are after the Shaq departure he had to learn to be a better teammate and leader and eventually became a great one. Facts.

That's just one example but everything I'm saying are facts, you're giving some facts mixed in with some skewed biased make believe opinions based on the occasional televised Laker games you watched.

You give away your bias with your suddle jabs and ridiculous remarks such as Kobe becoming a "slightly better" leader and him being top 10 is "hogwash" though.

I'm pretty sure you fall into the camp of those that personally hated his style of play, arrogant personality, perceived him as a me first player, so you're going to have either a explanation, backhanded compliment, or otherwise downright discredit any accomplishment he made.

IKnowHoops
07-31-2016, 01:22 PM
People defending Kobe as 1b still haven't address the fact that Shaq's advanced numbers made Kobe look like Pippen compared to MJ in the 3 peat.

1999-2002 playoffs:

Shaq: 29.3 PER, 12.1 WS, .238 WS/48, 6.9 BPM, 5.5 VORP
Kobe: 21.3 PER, 8.4 WS, .169 WS/48, 4.5 BPM, 3.9 VORP

1995-98 playoffs:

MJ: 27.3 PER, 13.4 WS, .268 WS/48, 7.6 BPM, 5.9 VORP
Pippen: 19.0 PER, 8.2 WS, .169 WS/48, 7.1 BPM, 5.1 VORP

Differences:

PER: +8/+8.3
WS: +3.7/+5.2
WS/48: +0.69/+0.99
BPM: +2.4/+0.5
VORP: +1.6/+0.8

On the left is Shaq's lead over Kobe in those numbers, on the right it's MJ over Pippen.

PER is basically the same difference. WS the difference is slightly bigger between MJ/Pippen. BPM and VORP it's a bigger difference between Kobe/Shaq.

Now would anyone argue that Pippen was 1b to MJ in that second 3 peat?

(Patiently awaits Kobe defenders to claim these numbers actually DO lie when they don't benefit their argument).

Also kinda unrelated to this thread, but I'm still waiting for a reply from Tony about the Tim Duncan longevity post.....

Thread/

europagnpilgrim
07-31-2016, 03:43 PM
Your revisionist history is very bad and also inaccurate. Almost like you're making it up.

For example you say that Kobe became a better leader after watching Lebron/ Midd during the Olympic tenure. That's literally laughable. It is a matter of public record that Kobe was the leader/ defensive stopper/ closer of that team. Look it up. In fact coach K was just reminiscing about that this very week. In fact KD, Kyrie, and Melo have publicly talked for years about the impact it had on them practicing with Kobe that summer from his approach to the game and work ethic. Kyrie to the extent that he talked to Kobe throughout the playoffs and the first thing he said after he hit the game 7 game winner was "I was just thinking Mamba mentality."

Kobe started off a loner and horrible leader, but he facts are after the Shaq departure he had to learn to be a better teammate and leader and eventually became a great one. Facts.

That's just one example but everything I'm saying are facts, you're giving some facts mixed in with some skewed biased make believe opinions based on the occasional televised Laker games you watched.

You give away your bias with your suddle jabs and ridiculous remarks such as Kobe becoming a "slightly better" leader and him being top 10 is "hogwash" though.

I'm pretty sure you fall into the camp of those that personally hated his style of play, arrogant personality, perceived him as a me first player, so you're going to have either a explanation, backhanded compliment, or otherwise downright discredit any accomplishment he made.

Hold up I stated that Kobe became a better leader watching Kidd/Lebron and then you say he started off as a horrible leader? wow whoa Nelly

Kobe was the leader as in terms of being in the league the longest/veteran as with Kidd, not vocal/likeable style on that Olympic team, it was Kidd/Lebron no matter what teammates say, if that's the case based on what all players say The Answer is top 5 ever clear cut based on what players have been quoted to say, including Kobe mentioning him and Jordan as the toughest competitors he ever faced

I never discredited his work ethic, he should have a incredible work ethic since he was a former back up player

I always wanted to watch Jordan play anytime he was on tv or even live when I could, I don't mind watching his carbon fake copycat son, he took/stole/borrowed Jordan walk/talk/game and ran with it as well as the nba in that Lakers market, matter of fact he took the old man Jordan game because he could never be the 'come fly with me' version, so I actually like to watch Kobe play to give me a Jordan fadeaway and to watch him shoot away with no conscious

and if my revisionist history is so bad how come you said Kobe started off as a horrible leader and I said he slightly improved and were not the Lakers up 3-1 in that series vs Suns before choking it away and Kobe basically quit/took his ball and went home? you are rattled indeed

being a loner is excellent since he was drafted that way, as long as you come to play then it doesn't matter who you play buddy buddy with, just come play like its your last game like The Answer would say

I guess you just made that up also about Kobe being a horrible leader at first, you fanatics take it to a whole other level with this guy

him being top 10 is hogwash because lets say he had that 05-07' team for a decade then where would you rank him all time? 7th/8th seed for a decade and scoring a bunch of points? he would basically be Carmelo Anthony and he damn for sure wouldn't be top 10 best ever, so to me it is hogwash just like Favre isnt the best QB ever because of longevity

europagnpilgrim
07-31-2016, 04:14 PM
Jackson wrote he became so frustrated with Bryant that he told general manager Mitch Kupchak in January: "I won't coach this team next year if he is still here. He won't listen to anyone. I've had it with this kid."

Bryant was aware of Jackson's ultimatum.

"I heard something like that, but I wasn't going to let that come between me and the team," Bryant said. "

It was not the first time Jackson requested the team trade Bryant. He sought to trade him to the Phoenix Suns for Jason Kidd and Shawn Marion in the 1999-00 season. But then-general manager Jerry West told Jackson that owner Jerry Buss would never trade the Laker star, he wrote in his diary. Jackson said he was told the same thing last season.


Bryant told Jackson that O'Neal's presence on the team would affect his decision to stay with the Lakers, adding, "I'm tired of being a sidekick," Jackson wrote.

europagnpilgrim
07-31-2016, 04:33 PM
I didn't see it. Were you saying that we didn't watch games?

Because speaking for myself I've religiously watched every Laker game since Magics later years, through the Sedale Threat era, the Van Exel and Eddie jones resurgence of the franchise, and the new Dynasty.

I even watch the clusterF that has been known as the Jimmy Buss tenure, and that is HARD.

Watching Jimmy run the team has to be like what it would be like watching Trump run the country.

No wonder you have such a fanatical drive about the Lakers and the players they draft, I mean if you have 'religiously' watched every Lakers game since 1980 then everybody not in agreement with your fanatical purely biased viewpoint will be called a hater or being salty since your belief is clouded in Lakers religion, that's good to know, appreciate the heads up

FlashBolt
07-31-2016, 06:22 PM
People defending Kobe as 1b still haven't address the fact that Shaq's advanced numbers made Kobe look like Pippen compared to MJ in the 3 peat.

1999-2002 playoffs:

Shaq: 29.3 PER, 12.1 WS, .238 WS/48, 6.9 BPM, 5.5 VORP
Kobe: 21.3 PER, 8.4 WS, .169 WS/48, 4.5 BPM, 3.9 VORP

1995-98 playoffs:

MJ: 27.3 PER, 13.4 WS, .268 WS/48, 7.6 BPM, 5.9 VORP
Pippen: 19.0 PER, 8.2 WS, .169 WS/48, 7.1 BPM, 5.1 VORP

Differences:

PER: +8/+8.3
WS: +3.7/+5.2
WS/48: +0.69/+0.99
BPM: +2.4/+0.5
VORP: +1.6/+0.8

On the left is Shaq's lead over Kobe in those numbers, on the right it's MJ over Pippen.

PER is basically the same difference. WS the difference is slightly bigger between MJ/Pippen. BPM and VORP it's a bigger difference between Kobe/Shaq.

Now would anyone argue that Pippen was 1b to MJ in that second 3 peat?

(Patiently awaits Kobe defenders to claim these numbers actually DO lie when they don't benefit their argument).

Also kinda unrelated to this thread, but I'm still waiting for a reply from Tony about the Tim Duncan longevity post.....

Tony will most likely ignore your post and then disappear into another thread with another stupid accusation/post. It's really that simple. There are no NUMBERS that support that Kobe was of the same impact Shaq was on those championship teams. ZERO. Shaq was by and large the best player on that team and NBA. Not a slight on Kobe because Shaq probably would win Finals MVP if it were Jordan/LeBron on his team as well but let's just call it what it is.

Tony_Starks
07-31-2016, 06:48 PM
People defending Kobe as 1b still haven't address the fact that Shaq's advanced numbers made Kobe look like Pippen compared to MJ in the 3 peat.

1999-2002 playoffs:

Shaq: 29.3 PER, 12.1 WS, .238 WS/48, 6.9 BPM, 5.5 VORP
Kobe: 21.3 PER, 8.4 WS, .169 WS/48, 4.5 BPM, 3.9 VORP

1995-98 playoffs:

MJ: 27.3 PER, 13.4 WS, .268 WS/48, 7.6 BPM, 5.9 VORP
Pippen: 19.0 PER, 8.2 WS, .169 WS/48, 7.1 BPM, 5.1 VORP

Differences:

PER: +8/+8.3
WS: +3.7/+5.2
WS/48: +0.69/+0.99
BPM: +2.4/+0.5
VORP: +1.6/+0.8

On the left is Shaq's lead over Kobe in those numbers, on the right it's MJ over Pippen.

PER is basically the same difference. WS the difference is slightly bigger between MJ/Pippen. BPM and VORP it's a bigger difference between Kobe/Shaq.

Now would anyone argue that Pippen was 1b to MJ in that second 3 peat?

(Patiently awaits Kobe defenders to claim these numbers actually DO lie when they don't benefit their argument).

Also kinda unrelated to this thread, but I'm still waiting for a reply from Tony about the Tim Duncan longevity post.....


I thought I did reply but basically you can present all the advanced stats you want, stuff like PER and WS are not going to sway me into Tim over Kobe.

At the end of the day they both had ridiculous longevity. Tim was a anchor on D forever but his offensive role had taken a huge dip for years, he was scoring in teens as Pop put him on maintenance. Meanwhile Kobe basically took defense off the later portion of his career but remained elite offensively all the way up until he Achilles injury. He was a better scorer than James Harden at that point, at his age that was unheard of.

So we got 2 players, 1 elite defensively the other elite offensively....both played major roles in 5 championships, both have all the all star and all NBA accolades plus a gold medal for Kobe.....with comparable resumes I'm very comfortable taking Kobe sorry.

Literally list all their accomplishments and tell me they aren't comparable. If you need me to I can but I'm sure you already know.

Even if you don't agree if it's still a reasonable debate either way, it's a coin toss unless you happen to believe heavily in advanced stats which fortunately I don't.

Tony_Starks
07-31-2016, 06:51 PM
Hold up I stated that Kobe became a better leader watching Kidd/Lebron and then you say he started off as a horrible leader? wow whoa Nelly

Kobe was the leader as in terms of being in the league the longest/veteran as with Kidd, not vocal/likeable style on that Olympic team, it was Kidd/Lebron no matter what teammates say, if that's the case based on what all players say The Answer is top 5 ever clear cut based on what players have been quoted to say, including Kobe mentioning him and Jordan as the toughest competitors he ever faced

I never discredited his work ethic, he should have a incredible work ethic since he was a former back up player

I always wanted to watch Jordan play anytime he was on tv or even live when I could, I don't mind watching his carbon fake copycat son, he took/stole/borrowed Jordan walk/talk/game and ran with it as well as the nba in that Lakers market, matter of fact he took the old man Jordan game because he could never be the 'come fly with me' version, so I actually like to watch Kobe play to give me a Jordan fadeaway and to watch him shoot away with no conscious

and if my revisionist history is so bad how come you said Kobe started off as a horrible leader and I said he slightly improved and were not the Lakers up 3-1 in that series vs Suns before choking it away and Kobe basically quit/took his ball and went home? you are rattled indeed

being a loner is excellent since he was drafted that way, as long as you come to play then it doesn't matter who you play buddy buddy with, just come play like its your last game like The Answer would say

I guess you just made that up also about Kobe being a horrible leader at first, you fanatics take it to a whole other level with this guy

him being top 10 is hogwash because lets say he had that 05-07' team for a decade then where would you rank him all time? 7th/8th seed for a decade and scoring a bunch of points? he would basically be Carmelo Anthony and he damn for sure wouldn't be top 10 best ever, so to me it is hogwash just like Favre isnt the best QB ever because of longevity

You just literally said Lebron and Kidd were leaders no matter what the players said. So basically forget what the actual people that played on the team said but take your word? Lol.

You're also saying he's not too 10 because of some make believe what if he played with a garbage team for the rest of his career? You could literally do that with any player.

Ok, no need for me to even take you seriously my man. Lost all credibility.

Agree to disagree.

Chronz
07-31-2016, 07:12 PM
Ok and no matter what you think the late great Dr Buss went on record of saying he was sick of Shaq and was not bringing him back after that last season regardless of the outcome. He chose to go with Kobe. A decision that yielded 2 more rings.
You dont know the NBA or Buss if you dont think he would have brought back both Phil AND Shaq had Kobe insisted upon it. If he signs off on that, Malone comes back to LA because the only reason he didn't was because he knew it was just Kobe. GP eventually followed Shaq again and won a title so I think its fair to say he may have eventually come back too. I honestly think the Lakers win more rings if they just keep everyone together and instead of lying to Kobe about rebuilding (even tho it was obvious to everyone once Shaq was gone that the Lakers were in rebuild mode) they simply retool. But Kobe wanted a challenge he wasn't ready for, nor one he deserved. Shaq was undoubtedly the most influential player and every shred of evidence we have suggests as much.


As far as Phil he returned and would later go on to rave about Kobes leadership on and off the court that led to those 3 straight finals, amongst many other compliments so if you're going to include the bad don't forget about all the positive things he said on the second time around.
What do you think is relevant in a thread titled Kobe and Shaq, Kobe's stature in his time WITH SHAQ, or how he grew in his later years. I guess you missed my post but I already mentioned how Pop noticed the growth in Kobe's leadership. Kobe himself acknowledges his greatest weakness in his youth was not knowing how to relate to players and get the most out of them. Not just on the court but off of it, instead of being the loner who refused Shaq's invitations, he started hanging out with his teammates. Sadly, that doesn't matter in a thread about Kobe with Shaq. You struggle with context bro, its why you brought up an irrelevant series in a thread about the Finals, just because you felt your hero was being trashed for simply bringing up facts about his reign.

Dont get so upset if someone doesn't think as highly as you do about your idol. You dont get mad when you meet people of different religions do you?

Tony_Starks
07-31-2016, 07:13 PM
Tony will most likely ignore your post and then disappear into another thread with another stupid accusation/post. It's really that simple. There are no NUMBERS that support that Kobe was of the same impact Shaq was on those championship teams. ZERO. Shaq was by and large the best player on that team and NBA. Not a slight on Kobe because Shaq probably would win Finals MVP if it were Jordan/LeBron on his team as well but let's just call it what it is.

Negative, I have no problem responding but I'm not going to take advanced stats as gospel sorry. We've all seen the flaws they present.

You also said there's no numbers to support Kobe had the same impact as Shaq during the chip years that's absolutely false.

The numbers are listed on the very first page in the actual article, I'm going to guess you didn't read it.

Chronz
07-31-2016, 08:20 PM
I didn't see it. Were you saying that we didn't watch games?

Because speaking for myself I've religiously watched every Laker game since Magics later years, through the Sedale Threat era, the Van Exel and Eddie jones resurgence of the franchise, and the new Dynasty.

I even watch the clusterF that has been known as the Jimmy Buss tenure, and that is HARD.

Watching Jimmy run the team has to be like what it would be like watching Trump run the country.

Its in the Finals thread I made where you cosign the reports of another poster, just like he cosigned you just now about allegedly "watching" games, yet you cosigned someone who was completely off base and never had the conviction to defend his stance. Both of you went ghost, believe me, just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they didn't watch the games.

Chronz
07-31-2016, 08:23 PM
Negative, I have no problem responding but I'm not going to take advanced stats as gospel sorry. We've all seen the flaws they present.

You also said there's no numbers to support Kobe had the same impact as Shaq during the chip years that's absolutely false.

The numbers are listed on the very first page in the actual article, I'm going to guess you didn't read it.
So in the same thread you say stats arent gospel yet your op insists the numbers dont lie?

Cmon bro, you really have to come to grips with the fact that the Lakers were contending so long as one person was around, and both the subjective AND objective agree, it wasn't Kobe. Its not a diss to fall short of the most dominant big man of our era when you're a SG who couldn't match the talent he sought out to replicate.

europagnpilgrim
07-31-2016, 08:44 PM
I thought I did reply but basically you can present all the advanced stats you want, stuff like PER and WS are not going to sway me into Tim over Kobe.

At the end of the day they both had ridiculous longevity. Tim was a anchor on D forever but his offensive role had taken a huge dip for years, he was scoring in teens as Pop put him on maintenance. Meanwhile Kobe basically took defense off the later portion of his career but remained elite offensively all the way up until he Achilles injury. He was a better scorer than James Harden at that point, at his age that was unheard of.

So we got 2 players, 1 elite defensively the other elite offensively....both played major roles in 5 championships, both have all the all star and all NBA accolades plus a gold medal for Kobe.....with comparable resumes I'm very comfortable taking Kobe sorry.

Literally list all their accomplishments and tell me they aren't comparable. If you need me to I can but I'm sure you already know.

Even if you don't agree if it's still a reasonable debate either way, it's a coin toss unless you happen to believe heavily in advanced stats which fortunately I don't.

Poppycock, Duncan took a backseat to let others score/handle the load/team play, had he wanted to do his best Kobe scoring impression and demand the ball every time down he would have put up a lot more 30-40pt games with frequent ease like he use to give you guys in the playoffs, I know you remember him doing that during 98- early 00's since you have watched all the Lakers games religiously

Kobe wanted to be like Jordan and score like crazy, Duncan wanted to be like Russell and win, period

I don't put a lot of stock in media advanced stats unless you are counting my brain/eye test/playing ability as the advanced stat/knowledge then I am all in

I would take Duncan if they were in same draft, I would take any dominant big over the guard number one overall,Big Dipper over any player any era, after that then I would go look at a Magic/Zeke/The Answer/Jordan/Big O type to compliment him

Kobe was just a scorer/gunner, he said it many a times, Duncan was a two way player, he was a killer on both sides but the ultimate team player, Kobe tried harder on defense early on because he started out a backup and had more to prove prior to 01' season, after that his defense was average at best, except in certain moments of a game or three

europagnpilgrim
07-31-2016, 08:58 PM
You just literally said Lebron and Kidd were leaders no matter what the players said. So basically forget what the actual people that played on the team said but take your word? Lol.

You're also saying he's not too 10 because of some make believe what if he played with a garbage team for the rest of his career? You could literally do that with any player.

Ok, no need for me to even take you seriously my man. Lost all credibility.

Agree to disagree.

Kidd was a better natural leader while at University of California, then on to the Mavs as a 40yr old or close to it its a reason why Phil wanted Kobe traded for Kidd/Marion in 99/00 season, Lebron is more a leader than Kobe also, it was Lebron who was the vocal leader on that Olympic team, Kobe was there to showcase his overrated work ethic

his team was garbage from 05-07' and he didn't make the playoffs one year and was 7th/8th seed for the others so I was piggy backing off something that 'f'actually happened and extended it 7 more seasons to show you he would not have been top 10 best ever so him having 5 rings and longevity wouldn't make it diff. either in my book, he is not a transcendent talent at all, he is a fake carbon copycat who mimicked the media GOAT

losing credibility while stating what happened only shows your denial and fanatical-ism you have for the Lakers and its players

its like if I say well the Lakers didn't win any titles in the 90's which they didn't you would come back and say well they made it to the Finals in 91' so at least they had a chance to, but they didnt

based on what players say The Answer is top 5 best ever, spread the word and see how far that gets you on here,nowhere

Kobe said The Answer embarrassed him so bad that he made him basically into the focused obsessive player he became, The Answer is the best guard of his era, hands down

remember Kobe the player said this so take his word for it not mine

I don't need to disagree since what I say is pretty much on point, rather factual or speculation, you have to play that card once you come to grips what actually happened

a backup guard starting in the all star game, fact

europagnpilgrim
07-31-2016, 09:06 PM
[QUOTE=europagnpilgrim;31099219]

Kidd was a better natural leader while at University of California, then on to the Mavs as a 40yr old or close to it its a reason why Phil wanted Kobe traded for Kidd/Marion in 99/00 season, Lebron is more a leader than Kobe also, it was Lebron who was the vocal leader on that Olympic team, Kobe was there to showcase his overrated work ethic and don't give me that jive he was the 'closer' for a damn super all star Olympic team, they didn't need a closer when expected to be up 20pts by halftime(like they should be)

his team was garbage from 05-07' and he didn't make the playoffs one year and was 7th/8th seed for the others so I was piggy backing off something that 'f'actually happened and extended it 7 more seasons to show you he would not have been top 10 best ever so him having 5 rings and longevity wouldn't make it diff. either in my book, he is not a transcendent talent at all, he is a fake carbon copycat who mimicked the media GOAT

losing credibility while stating what happened only shows your denial and fanatical-ism you have for the Lakers and its players

its like if I say well the Lakers didn't win any titles in the 90's which they didn't you would come back and say well they made it to the Finals in 91' so at least they had a chance to, but they didnt

based on what players say The Answer is top 5 best ever, spread the word and see how far that gets you on here,nowhere

Kobe said The Answer embarrassed him so bad that he made him basically into the focused obsessive player he became, The Answer is the best guard of his era, hands down

remember Kobe the player said this so take his word for it not mine

I don't need to disagree since what I say is pretty much on point, rather factual or speculation, you have to play that card once you come to grips what actually happened

a backup guard starting in the all star game, fact

IKnowHoops
08-01-2016, 12:26 AM
I thought I did reply but basically you can present all the advanced stats you want, stuff like PER and WS are not going to sway me into Tim over Kobe.

At the end of the day they both had ridiculous longevity. Tim was a anchor on D forever but his offensive role had taken a huge dip for years, he was scoring in teens as Pop put him on maintenance. Meanwhile Kobe basically took defense off the later portion of his career but remained elite offensively all the way up until he Achilles injury. He was a better scorer than James Harden at that point, at his age that was unheard of.

So we got 2 players, 1 elite defensively the other elite offensively....both played major roles in 5 championships, both have all the all star and all NBA accolades plus a gold medal for Kobe.....with comparable resumes I'm very comfortable taking Kobe sorry.

Literally list all their accomplishments and tell me they aren't comparable. If you need me to I can but I'm sure you already know.

Even if you don't agree if it's still a reasonable debate either way, it's a coin toss unless you happen to believe heavily in advanced stats which fortunately I don't.

If PER and WS mean absolutely nothing to you than I can understand all your crazy arguments now.

Tony_Starks
08-01-2016, 09:08 AM
I'll just go ahead and leave this again since apparently reading is a issue for some invidividuals. By the third chip run it was clearly a 1a 1b situation.

Shaq led the team 8 times.

Kobe 10.

At this point Kobe was not only top 5 MVP voting but legit all defense, basically the best 2way wing in the game doing it on both ends.

Shaq himself pronounced Kobe the best player in the game, even though they had SERIOUS beef and he had no reason to compliment him. But I'm guessing the haters will disregard that too and have a bunch of excuses why it happened right?

Facts.
------------------------

Title Run No. 3 2001-2002

By this time Shaq and Kobe’s off court issues are taking their toll on the team but on the court they proved to be effective as ever. Both players were at the top of their game and highly decorated.

They were each All-Stars, and First Team All-NBA plus Kobe was Second Team All-Defensive and the All Star Game MVP. Shaq had acknowledged Kobe as the best player in the game during the previous year’s playoffs and O’Neal was still the most dominant player in the game.

Playoff numbers (Shaq, Kobe, + next best Lakers)

Shaq 28.5 ppg 12.6 reb 2.8 ast

Kobe 26.6 ppg 5.8 reb 4.6 ast

Derek Fisher 10.2 ppg 3.3 reb 2.7 ast

Rick Fox 9.8 ppg 5.4 reb 3.4 ast

The third Championship in a row brought a deserved third Finals MVP for Shaq but again he and Kobe combined for a bulk of the teams production. The MVP is for the NBA Finals but if you look at the entire playoffs you will again see both players carried the team on their backs.

O’Neal was the team scoring leader in nine playoff games, eight times scoring 30 or more points and Kobe led the team in ten playoff games, six times scoring 30 or more points.

The point of this statistical analysis is to prove how foolish it is to claim Kobe was carried by Shaq to his three rings.

FraziersKnicks
08-01-2016, 12:42 PM
I'll just go ahead and leave this again since apparently reading is a issue for some invidividuals. By the third chip run it was clearly a 1a 1b situation.

Shaq led the team 8 times.

Kobe 10.

At this point Kobe was not only top 5 MVP voting but legit all defense, basically the best 2way wing in the game doing it on both ends.

Shaq himself pronounced Kobe the best player in the game, even though they had SERIOUS beef and he had no reason to compliment him. But I'm guessing the haters will disregard that too and have a bunch of excuses why it happened right?

Facts.
------------------------

Title Run No. 3 2001-2002

By this time Shaq and Kobe’s off court issues are taking their toll on the team but on the court they proved to be effective as ever. Both players were at the top of their game and highly decorated.

They were each All-Stars, and First Team All-NBA plus Kobe was Second Team All-Defensive and the All Star Game MVP. Shaq had acknowledged Kobe as the best player in the game during the previous year’s playoffs and O’Neal was still the most dominant player in the game.

Playoff numbers (Shaq, Kobe, + next best Lakers)

Shaq 28.5 ppg 12.6 reb 2.8 ast

Kobe 26.6 ppg 5.8 reb 4.6 ast

Derek Fisher 10.2 ppg 3.3 reb 2.7 ast

Rick Fox 9.8 ppg 5.4 reb 3.4 ast

The third Championship in a row brought a deserved third Finals MVP for Shaq but again he and Kobe combined for a bulk of the teams production. The MVP is for the NBA Finals but if you look at the entire playoffs you will again see both players carried the team on their backs.

O’Neal was the team scoring leader in nine playoff games, eight times scoring 30 or more points and Kobe led the team in ten playoff games, six times scoring 30 or more points.

The point of this statistical analysis is to prove how foolish it is to claim Kobe was carried by Shaq to his three rings.

Your "statistical analysis" is purely looking at PPG. You're not even taking into account efficiency (which of course, Shaq was the more efficient at 56.9 to 51.1 TS%). What about rebounding and blocks? Shaq led the team 15 and 14 times in those categories respectively (out of 19 games). Also, once again, Shaq's advanced numbers dwarfed Kobe's.

2001-02 playoffs:

Shaq: PER 28.3, WS 3.8, WS/48 .236, 6.2 BPM, 1.6 VORP
Kobe: PER 20.5, WS 2.6, WS/48 .148, 3.3 BPM, 1.1 VORP

You can keep avoiding advanced numbers because they don't support your argument, but they exist and they don't lie. They are way more FACTUAL than PPG without any efficiency numbers. You like to pretend they're plucked from thin air and mean nothing but they do.

Shaq also was more impactful on defense (big men anchors historically are, that's also just fact).

Shaq: DRtg 99, Def WS 1.2, DBPM 2.6
Kobe: DRtg 103, Def WS 0.8, DBPM 0.8

Basically all you've done so far is say Kobe led the team in scoring a few more times and was voted to some REGULAR season award teams. Nothing to do with Shaq clearly carrying the load in the playoffs and being the main guy.

No one is claiming Kobe was carried to his titles, but to claim he had the same impact as Shaq is just as foolish as saying he had none at all.

During those runs he was a great sidekick, one of the best ever. But he was playing alongside arguably the most dominant player of all-time at his peak. That form of Shaq probably makes every wing player in NBA history his sidekick because he was just too dominant to not be the focal point of opposing teams defenses.

Tony_Starks
08-01-2016, 12:45 PM
Your "statistical analysis" is purely looking at PPG. You're not even taking into account efficiency (which of course, Shaq was the more efficient at 56.9 to 51.1 TS%). What about rebounding and blocks? Shaq led the team 15 and 14 times in those categories respectively (out of 19 games). Also, once again, Shaq's advanced numbers dwarfed Kobe's.

2001-02 playoffs:

Shaq: PER 28.3, WS 3.8, WS/48 .236, 6.2 BPM, 1.6 VORP
Kobe: PER 20.5, WS 2.6, WS/48 .148, 3.3 BPM, 1.1 VORP

You can keep avoiding advanced numbers because they don't support your argument, but they exist and they don't lie. They are way more FACTUAL than PPG without any efficiency numbers. You like to pretend they're plucked from thin air and mean nothing but they do.

Shaq also was more impactful on defense (big men anchors historically are, that's also just fact).

Shaq: DRtg 99, Def WS 1.2, DBPM 2.6
Kobe: DRtg 103, Def WS 0.8, DBPM 0.8

Basically all you've done so far is say Kobe led the team in scoring a few more times and was voted to some REGULAR season award teams. Nothing to do with Shaq clearly carrying the load in the playoffs and being the main guy.

No one is claiming Kobe was carried to his titles, but to claim he had the same impact as Shaq is just as foolish as saying he had none at all.

During those runs he was a great sidekick, one of the best ever. But he was playing alongside arguably the most dominant player of all-time at his peak. That form of Shaq probably makes every wing player in NBA history his sidekick because he was just too dominant to not be the focal point of opposing teams defenses.

The very last sentence of your statement is actually correct, assuming you're not using "sidekick" as a jab that is.

Hawkeye15
08-01-2016, 01:49 PM
the mere fact that some don't understand the freedom peak Shaq gave his teammates astounds me. Alllll those open jumpers and drive lanes were courtesy of the other team doing anything and everything they could to stop Shaq. Or even limit.

When he was on the floor, he was what the defense cared about. That alone is the #1 option. It's not like Kobe got the scraps, but please, his life was so much easier, so much earlier, than it would have been with anyone else.

And the Duncan versus Kobe thing, outside Jordan, give me the 2 way dominant big any day over the high volume scoring wing.

FlashBolt
08-01-2016, 05:10 PM
Kobe wasn't the one who made the Lakers unstoppable. To even suggest as such is a Kobephile statement. Just stop, Tony. What are you trying to prove here?

FlashBolt
08-01-2016, 05:12 PM
The very last sentence of your statement is actually correct, assuming you're not using "sidekick" as a jab that is.

Yes, it is a jab when you try to equate that Kobe=Shaq in their threepeat reign. Sorry, it wasn't close.

FlashBolt
08-01-2016, 05:14 PM
Your "statistical analysis" is purely looking at PPG. You're not even taking into account efficiency (which of course, Shaq was the more efficient at 56.9 to 51.1 TS%). What about rebounding and blocks? Shaq led the team 15 and 14 times in those categories respectively (out of 19 games). Also, once again, Shaq's advanced numbers dwarfed Kobe's.

2001-02 playoffs:

Shaq: PER 28.3, WS 3.8, WS/48 .236, 6.2 BPM, 1.6 VORP
Kobe: PER 20.5, WS 2.6, WS/48 .148, 3.3 BPM, 1.1 VORP

You can keep avoiding advanced numbers because they don't support your argument, but they exist and they don't lie. They are way more FACTUAL than PPG without any efficiency numbers. You like to pretend they're plucked from thin air and mean nothing but they do.

Shaq also was more impactful on defense (big men anchors historically are, that's also just fact).

Shaq: DRtg 99, Def WS 1.2, DBPM 2.6
Kobe: DRtg 103, Def WS 0.8, DBPM 0.8

Basically all you've done so far is say Kobe led the team in scoring a few more times and was voted to some REGULAR season award teams. Nothing to do with Shaq clearly carrying the load in the playoffs and being the main guy.

No one is claiming Kobe was carried to his titles, but to claim he had the same impact as Shaq is just as foolish as saying he had none at all.

During those runs he was a great sidekick, one of the best ever. But he was playing alongside arguably the most dominant player of all-time at his peak. That form of Shaq probably makes every wing player in NBA history his sidekick because he was just too dominant to not be the focal point of opposing teams defenses.

Have you noticed that advanced numbers and other factors of the game certainly disappear or are "meaningless" when it comes to Kobephiles and their dreadful arguments? The facts show that Kobe's advanced statistics are poor for someone who has a top ten player reputation. That's why they always tend to ignore it. If Kobe had insane advanced numbers, they would be the first to glorify it.

Bostonjorge
08-01-2016, 08:56 PM
By year 3

The article clearly says by year 3 and not trying to claim anything else. To throw in year 1 and 2 to battle Kobes production and impact on year 3 makes no sense. No one is claiming anything for year 1 or 2 and not saying Kobe was the lead guy so why use that as a argument? It's because the numbers don't lie for year 3 to see that Kobes production was MVP worthy behind Shaq. It clearly says Shaq was the deserving MVP but to claim Kobes impact was not elite is a joke when he clearly led the team to victory multiple times during that playoff year.

Year 3 clearly shows Kobe was far ahead of any #2 player ever by being as close as you can't get to equal to the #1 guy. Beyond any pippen year. We are excluding Wade when he actually completely dwarfed his #1 player James by every which way you can. I would think for obvious reasons. If not so obvious then it's because Shaq played like the league MVP and Kobe put in a MVP performance as well. Wade out played James who was a liability and hurt the team noting close to Shaq or Kobe. James play was joke really. So not including Wades dwarfing James Kobe got the closest and showed he could lead a team as well.

So the article holds truth when the gap between Kobe and the next guy was huge compared to the gap between Shaq and Kobe. That what's makes Kobe legend even more great when the next step was can he do it on his own and Kobe answered that question with a bang.

FraziersKnicks
08-02-2016, 02:51 AM
By year 3

The article clearly says by year 3 and not trying to claim anything else. To throw in year 1 and 2 to battle Kobes production and impact on year 3 makes no sense. No one is claiming anything for year 1 or 2 and not saying Kobe was the lead guy so why use that as a argument? It's because the numbers don't lie for year 3 to see that Kobes production was MVP worthy behind Shaq. It clearly says Shaq was the deserving MVP but to claim Kobes impact was not elite is a joke when he clearly led the team to victory multiple times during that playoff year.

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering but here goes. Year 2 was actually when Kobe's impact was its closest to Shaq's. Shaq completely took over in the finals, averaging 33/16/5/3, but Kobe was elite during the run to the finals. Unfortunately Shaq was just more elite (29/15/3/2). No shame in being number 2 to that guy once again, but no doubt he was.

Answer me this... How many MVP's in league history had a WS/48 as low as Kobe? Or a PER as low as his? You obviously don't even look at those numbers so I'll tell you... Zero.

Kobe's basic counting numbers in 2001-02 were inflated hugely by his 44 MPG. His per 36 numbers look incredibly pedestrian for someone "elite".

PER 36: 21.9/4.8/3.8 on 43% shooting.

Those are DeMar DeRozan type numbers. They don't lie. Keep telling yourself he had the same impact as Shaq though.


Year 3 clearly shows Kobe was far ahead of any #2 player ever by being as close as you can't get to equal to the #1 guy. Beyond any pippen year. We are excluding Wade when he actually completely dwarfed his #1 player James by every which way you can. I would think for obvious reasons. If not so obvious then it's because Shaq played like the league MVP and Kobe put in a MVP performance as well. Wade out played James who was a liability and hurt the team noting close to Shaq or Kobe. James play was joke really. So not including Wades dwarfing James Kobe got the closest and showed he could lead a team as well.

Year 3 Kobe was the greatest #2 ever?

21.9/4.8/3.8 on .434/.379/.759 PER 20.5, WS/48 .148

Or

24.7/2.9/4.6 on .475/.440/.875 PER 24.4, WS/48 .210

You tell me who you think player better... I'll wait.

Also in regards to Wade "dwarfing" Bron's production in the 2010-11 playoffs (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to). Let's look at the numbers shall we:

LBJ: 23.7/8.4/5.9 on .466/.353/.763*
Wade: 24.5/7.1/4.4 on .485/.269/.777

No one is excusing LeBron's poor Finals play but on the lead up to that moment they were very much 1a/1b. Way more so than Shaq/Kobe ever were.

*these numbers still include LeBron's poor Finals.


So the article holds truth when the gap between Kobe and the next guy was huge compared to the gap between Shaq and Kobe. That what's makes Kobe legend even more great when the next step was can he do it on his own and Kobe answered that question with a bang.

What did he do on his own? Lead the Lakers to a 34-48 record and out of the playoffs in 2004-05? Or back to back first round exits in 2005-06 and 06-07?

He scored a lot of points on a bad team and had no team success. It wasn't until they acquired Pau, Bynum took the next step and Kobe became more efficient with his support that they achieved anything again.

Bostonjorge
08-02-2016, 08:46 AM
I'm not even sure why I'm bothering but here goes. Year 2 was actually when Kobe's impact was its closest to Shaq's. Shaq completely took over in the finals, averaging 33/16/5/3, but Kobe was elite during the run to the finals. Unfortunately Shaq was just more elite (29/15/3/2). No shame in being number 2 to that guy once again, but no doubt he was.

Answer me this... How many MVP's in league history had a WS/48 as low as Kobe? Or a PER as low as his? You obviously don't even look at those numbers so I'll tell you... Zero.

Kobe's basic counting numbers in 2001-02 were inflated hugely by his 44 MPG. His per 36 numbers look incredibly pedestrian for someone "elite".

PER 36: 21.9/4.8/3.8 on 43% shooting.

Those are DeMar DeRozan type numbers. They don't lie. Keep telling yourself he had the same impact as Shaq though.



Year 3 Kobe was the greatest #2 ever?

21.9/4.8/3.8 on .434/.379/.759 PER 20.5, WS/48 .148

Or

24.7/2.9/4.6 on .475/.440/.875 PER 24.4, WS/48 .210

You tell me who you think player better... I'll wait.

Also in regards to Wade "dwarfing" Bron's production in the 2010-11 playoffs (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to). Let's look at the numbers shall we:

LBJ: 23.7/8.4/5.9 on .466/.353/.763*
Wade: 24.5/7.1/4.4 on .485/.269/.777

No one is excusing LeBron's poor Finals play but on the lead up to that moment they were very much 1a/1b. Way more so than Shaq/Kobe ever were.

*these numbers still include LeBron's poor Finals.



What did he do on his own? Lead the Lakers to a 34-48 record and out of the playoffs in 2004-05? Or back to back first round exits in 2005-06 and 06-07?

He scored a lot of points on a bad team and had no team success. It wasn't until they acquired Pau, Bynum took the next step and Kobe became more efficient with his support that they achieved anything again.

And here I thought you didn't like using per game stats yet you use them for James to compare him to Wade. I know you must be attacking your self right now. Maybe it's what some come in here and say "it doesn't fit your agenda".

James and the first option or Shaq role. Per 36

19.4/6.9/4.8

That's not even Demar DeRozen numbers. Numbers don't lie.

Kobe did have better numbers in 2001 in fact just looking at the numbers that's Kobes best playoff run and it was amazing. It's just the lakers ran thru everyone. In 2002 lakers didn't have it as easy and Shaq wasn't as dominant. Kobe was winning games for the lakers and he carved up the Spurs again that year. So just pointing at numbers yea Kobes amazing stat line in 2001 was superior. In 2002 Kobe was clearly Shaqs equal when it came to winning games and series.

I also found this. Shaq and Kobes Western conference playoff stats 2001


Kobe (11g): 31.6 PTS (.577 TS%), 7.0 REB, 6.2 AST, 1.6 STL, 0.5 BLK, 3.0 TOV
Shaq (11g): 29.3 PTS (.558 TS%), 15.3 REB, 2.5 AST, 0.5 STL, 1.9 BLK, 3.4 TOV

FraziersKnicks
08-02-2016, 09:39 AM
And here I thought you didn't like using per game stats yet you use them for James to compare him to Wade. I know you must be attacking your self right now. Maybe it's what some come in here and say "it doesn't fit your agenda".

James and the first option or Shaq role. Per 36

19.4/6.9/4.8

That's not even Demar DeRozen numbers. Numbers don't lie.

Kobe did have better numbers in 2001 in fact just looking at the numbers that's Kobes best playoff run and it was amazing. It's just the lakers ran thru everyone. In 2002 lakers didn't have it as easy and Shaq wasn't as dominant. Kobe was winning games for the lakers and he carved up the Spurs again that year. So just pointing at numbers yea Kobes amazing stat line in 2001 was superior. In 2002 Kobe was clearly Shaqs equal when it came to winning games and series.

I also found this. Shaq and Kobes Western conference playoff stats 2001


Kobe (11g): 31.6 PTS (.577 TS%), 7.0 REB, 6.2 AST, 1.6 STL, 0.5 BLK, 3.0 TOV
Shaq (11g): 29.3 PTS (.558 TS%), 15.3 REB, 2.5 AST, 0.5 STL, 1.9 BLK, 3.4 TOV

The funny thing is you know so little about what you're arguing you actually thought the 2nd year of the 3 peat bought his numbers down :laugh2:

Btw you still haven't told me who played better out of those two statlines I gave you.

Bostonjorge
08-02-2016, 10:33 AM
The funny thing is you know so little about what you're arguing you actually thought the 2nd year of the 3 peat bought his numbers down :laugh2:

Btw you still haven't told me who played better out of those two statlines I gave you.

You can't just look at numbers. You can't ignore context. I know Kobe's numbers came from beating a...

49 win Blazers team
58 win Spurs team
61 win kings team
52 win nets team

So I like kobes numbers with that context. Easily since the other numbers have no contexts. It's like posting Kevin loves numbers in Minnesota blind and saying who's better.

Chronz
08-02-2016, 10:43 AM
2001 was basically Kobe's version of Shaq playing against the Eastern conference, I brought this up before in another thread: http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?840568-Q-on-Kobe-in-the-01-Playoffs-(wtf-)


Basically, strictly statistically speaking, 2001 was Kobe's best Shaq imitation in terms of being a 1b to his 1a, why did he never return to this form while Shaq continued his dominating ways? Some of the the answers might be in that thread but over the years I've come to this conclusion. It was the perfect storm of Kobe being in perfect health physically (he had sat out a chunk of the year and had enough time to gear up for the playoffs), perfect health mentally (that stretch forced him to see what the team could accomplish when it played for one another, that despite his improvements he shouldn't force the issue when he has this much talent) and one more thing, the opponents were weakened. The same way Shaq beasted on whatever pitiful frontcourt the East had, Kobe feasted on the undersized Spurs (they lost their starting SG to injury and were forced to play old Man Porter and young but frail Antonio Daniels. They just never stood a chance.

You look at Kobes 2001 season with his 2002 season and you see that Kobe was basically the same player, just more in tuned with his team so he simmered down on the chucking outside the triangle but then the playoffs come and look at the difference adding Bruce Bowen made:
Pre-Bowen: 33.3PPG (.571TS%)- 7Ast (2.8t.o.) GmSc: 25.4 - 121 ORTG
Post-Bowen: 26.2PPG (.486TS%) - 4.8Ast(2.0 t.o.) GmSc: 16.4 - 107 ORTG

Lakers still won, but the Spurs had found the piece they needed to eventually topple the Lakers and force Kobe into dropping off statistically. The next 2 years weren't much different but they would lose one and win another.



So when I tell people that Impact and Stats are different, this season is one of the examples I point to. I actually think Kobe continued improving as a player but the environment he was in wasn't as conducive to bigger numbers. The Spurs became a harder team for Kobe to score against once they added an All-League defender at his position, shocking I know. Now I can admit that even for having it slightly easier, Kobe destroyed the Spurs to a degree that just shouldn't be possible, Bowen or not. So maybe it was more a perfect storm than anything Bowen did but the fact remains, outside this stretch, I never once saw them as equals and the reasons why are in the records:

Copy and pasted old argument:
In the 5 years from 2000 to 2004, the Lakers amassed a record of 230-74 when Kobe and Shaq both played. 2-6 in games they both missed. When Kobe played WITHOUT Shaq, the Lakers had a cumulative record of 38-32 good for a .54 winning% (44-45 win pace). With Shaq but no Kobe, the Lakers went 31-10 (+62Win pace)
Basically, the difference between being a contender vs a possible lottery team was the difference between the impact Shaq had vs Kobe. Thats without looking into the teams level of efficiency, which I dont have the time to research at the moment but Im sure it would only serve to enhance Shaq's argument.
----------------------------------------------


So yeah, the numbers dont lie. The team is a contender so long as Shaq is around, everyone else only helps him win a title because without him, the team is in the lottery most likely.

Tony_Starks
08-02-2016, 11:09 AM
2001 was basically Kobe's version of Shaq playing against the Eastern conference, I brought this up before in another thread: (searching for thread)

Basically, strictly statistically speaking, 2001 was Kobe's best Shaq imitation in terms of being a 1b to his 1a, why did he never return to this form while Shaq continued his dominating ways? Some of the the answers might be in that thread but over the years I've come to this conclusion. It was the perfect storm of Kobe being in perfect health physically (he had sat out a chunk of the year and had enough time to gear up for the playoffs), perfect health mentally (that stretch forced him to see what the team could accomplish when it played for one another, that despite his improvements he shouldn't force the issue when he has this much talent) and one more thing, the opponents were weakened. The same way Shaq beasted on whatever pitiful frontcourt the East had, Kobe feasted on the undersized Spurs (they lost their starting SG to injury and were forced to play old Man Porter and young but frail Antonio Daniels. They just never stood a chance.

You look at Kobes 2001 season with his 2002 season and you see that Kobe was basically the same player, just more in tuned with his team so he simmered down on the chucking outside the triangle but then the playoffs come and look at the difference adding Bruce Bowen made:
Pre-Bowen: 33.3PPG (.571TS%)- 7Ast (2.8t.o.) GmSc: 25.4 - 121 ORTG
Post-Bowen: 26.2PPG (.486TS%) - 4.8Ast(2.0 t.o.) GmSc: 16.4 - 107 ORTG

Lakers still won, but the Spurs had found the piece they needed to eventually topple the Lakers and force Kobe into dropping off statistically. The next 2 years weren't much different but they would lose one and win another.



So when I tell people that Impact and Stats are different, this season is one of the examples I point to. I actually think Kobe continued improving as a player but the environment he was in wasn't as conducive to bigger numbers. The Spurs became a harder team for Kobe to score against once they added an All-League defender at his position, shocking I know. Now I can admit that even for having it slightly easier, Kobe destroyed the Spurs to a degree that just shouldn't be possible, Bowen or not. So maybe it was more a perfect storm than anything Bowen did but the fact remains, outside this stretch, I never once saw them as equals and the reasons why are in the records:

Copy and pasted old argument:
In the 5 years from 2000 to 2004, the Lakers amassed a record of 230-74 when Kobe and Shaq both played. 2-6 in games they both missed. When Kobe played WITHOUT Shaq, the Lakers had a cumulative record of 38-32 good for a .54 winning% (44-45 win pace). With Shaq but no Kobe, the Lakers went 31-10 (+62Win pace)
Basically, the difference between being a contender vs a possible lottery team was the difference between the impact Shaq had vs Kobe. Thats without looking into the teams level of efficiency, which I dont have the time to research at the moment but Im sure it would only serve to enhance Shaq's argument.

That these facts coincide with Shaq being the dramatically more productive player paint a clear enough picture with what I remember seeing. We can agree to disagree, maybe we saw differently, but I will take comfort in the loads of objective evidence in my favor. Kobe was simply never as important.

So yeah, the numbers dont lie. The team is a contender so long as Shaq is around, everyone else only helps him win a title because without him, the team is in the lottery most likely.

The Lakers team was literally built to play through Shaq, not Kobe, so of course the teams overall winning numbers are going to be dramatically better with him in instead of Kobe. How about you give me some numbers on the Kobe/ Gasol years when the team was built around him?

It being Shaqs team has not been debated, we all acknowledge it was. What the article and what some of us have been trying to point out is by the time the third chip came around it was totally obvious it was a 1a 1b instead of the tired old narrstive that people insist on harping on.

There's really no way of denying it both from the eye test, the numbers bostonjorge brought out, the recognition the NBA gave Kobe as far as MVP and all NBA and defense voting...it's all there.

If you choose to ignore it or just blow off his greatness was merely a bi-product of Shaqs dominance that's on you. The fact that he continued to make routine trips to the Finals with contending talent minus Shaq, while Shaq only made 1 more Finals with a prime Wade taking a historic Wade performance to win really doesn't agree with that theory though.

FraziersKnicks
08-02-2016, 11:44 AM
You can't just look at numbers. You can't ignore context. I know Kobe's numbers came from beating a...

49 win Blazers team
58 win Spurs team
61 win kings team
52 win nets team

So I like kobes numbers with that context. Easily since the other numbers have no contexts. It's like posting Kevin loves numbers in Minnesota blind and saying who's better.

But it's not at all. Those are both the numbers of players who won a championship as the #2 guy. Very comparable situations. The other numbers were put up by Kyrie Irving against a...

44 win Pistons team
48 win Hawks team
56 win Raptors team
73 win Warriors team

Total: 221 wins

Those teams Kobe put his numbers up against had a total of... 220 wins.

So as comparable as you can get really.

That's just one example of a #2 putting up better numbers than 2001-02 Kobe. But I bet you still think he was the greatest #2 ever right?

Chronz
08-02-2016, 11:44 AM
The Lakers team was literally built to play through Shaq, not Kobe, so of course the teams overall winning numbers are going to be dramatically better with him in instead of Kobe. How about you give me some numbers on the Kobe/ Gasol years when the team was built around him?
But then the argument would just turn into Gasol not being on a platform with Shaq. And Im sorry but thats a BS excuse, if not having a team constructed perfectly around you is a reason for your struggles then you're not as good as the guy who at the very least proves to turn every team he joins into a fringe contender. I've seen inferior players lead their teams in better fashion, albeit they were older as well, so your excuse is just another reason for Kobe's inferiority.

Put it this way, the Miami Heat Shaq joined literally lost 3/5 of their starting lineup and had no idea whether to play Wade at the 1 or 2 at the time, they were a discombobulated team that was just throwing talent together because it was better than the alternative. Yet they came out the gates ON FIRE (IIRC they never trailed by more than a bucket for like their first 3 games) Those Heat remained a contender so long as 1 guy was around too, as he dwindled, so too did their chances at contention.

I guess thats the point tho, if that's your excuse then literally ANY team Shaq joins is instantly his, when his teammates shoot better with him than with Kobe, thats just a result of them only being able to play with Shaq I guess. According to your inane theory anyways.


It being Shaqs team has not been debated, we all acknowledge it was. What the article and what some of us have been trying to point out is by the time the third chip came around it was totally obvious it was a 1a 1b instead of the tired old narrstive that people insist on harping on.

I would expect a 1a and 1b relationship to yield better results on their own than Kobe was able to muster. I would expect a 1a and 1b to be MUCH closer in statistical dominance and team influence. The narrative is that Kobe had the best run a sidekick ever had that one year and possibly others, I made a thread on that one too: http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?842169-Best-Runs-by-quot-Secondary-Options-quot-(Where-do-Wade-s-2-fit-)

But the narrative will never be that he was Shaqs relative equal or even close to it. The man was just soo dominant that the actual difference between the 2 is as drastic as most #1 and #2 that are worth bragging about. Hes not Pippen is the narrative you've made, but hes FAR from Peak Shaq.


There's really no way of denying it both from the eye test, the numbers bostonjorge brought out, the recognition the NBA gave Kobe as far as MVP and all NBA and defense voting...it's all there.

the numbers dont support your opinion. any stat you wish to include is overwhelmed with more advanced analysis, any subjective point can be debunked or at the least marginalized. Like all defensive voting? Put it this way, when Kobe's own coach says his defensive accolades were overrated, that he stopped playing fundamental defense a long time ago (Save for the playoffs), who do you think Im going to lend more credence to, the one coach that sees him all the time or the coaches who see him as little as once a year as much as 4 times a year and of which some actually just hand down ballots for their assistants to fill? Its an easy choice made easier when the objective evidence backs Phil.


If you choose to ignore it or just blow off his greatness was merely a bi-product of Shaqs dominance that's on you. The fact that he continued to make routine trips to the Finals with contending talent minus Shaq, while Shaq only made 1 more Finals with a prime Wade taking a historic Wade performance to win really doesn't agree with that theory though.

LOL, you missed that gap where we SAW firsthand what separating Shaq and Kobe did to one another and that was a DECLINING Shaq and an ASCENDING Kobe. The argument you are making is essentially that Kobe could never contend without Shaq, why on earth would anyone be so stupid when we've already seen plenty of inferior players win titles. You think Im looking at Elvin Hayes Championship and thinking to myself "oh man, that ring means hes better than _insert ringless hof'er here_ ? I've seen great players go without winning and I've seen losers win titles, what makes you think someone as great as Kobe couldn't eventually compete for a title once the team got enough pieces?

LOL, Im not ignoring anything, its called putting everything into perspective. I mean look at the absurdity of your point, how many contending years had Shaq had by the point he hooked up with a 2nd year Wade? You act as if Kobe and Shaq were at the same stage of their development and as such, should be judged by how they fared from that point forward.

Chronz
08-02-2016, 11:53 AM
Its not just you guys, some of my friends tried pulling this on me a few years ago. I dont understand why Kobe fans think citing Shaq in Miami does anything but make Kobe look worse. Its almost as if people forget that Shaq had a HOF career before ever even meeting Kobe, much less by the time Kobe became a player worth mentioning historically.

FraziersKnicks
08-02-2016, 12:00 PM
The Lakers team was literally built to play through Shaq, not Kobe, so of course the teams overall winning numbers are going to be dramatically better with him in instead of Kobe. How about you give me some numbers on the Kobe/ Gasol years when the team was built around him?

It being Shaqs team has not been debated, we all acknowledge it was. What the article and what some of us have been trying to point out is by the time the third chip came around it was totally obvious it was a 1a 1b instead of the tired old narrstive that people insist on harping on.

There's really no way of denying it both from the eye test, the numbers bostonjorge brought out, the recognition the NBA gave Kobe as far as MVP and all NBA and defense voting...it's all there.

If you choose to ignore it or just blow off his greatness was merely a bi-product of Shaqs dominance that's on you. The fact that he continued to make routine trips to the Finals with contending talent minus Shaq, while Shaq only made 1 more Finals with a prime Wade taking a historic Wade performance to win really doesn't agree with that theory though.

Why are you using the AS game MVP and regular season awards as an argument here :laugh2:

Are we not talking about the playoffs and how Shaq was still vastly more impactful then?

You also continue to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that the advanced numbers provide. You haven't even attempted to address the fact that Shaq's impact made Kobe's look like Pippen to MJ.

Shaq was a hell of a lot older and by the time he won that title with Wade he was well past his peak and leaving his prime. Of course he wasn't going to contend for much longer. Kobe was right in his prime when he was gifted Pau and Bynum turned a corner. Using that to support your argument is pointless. It has nothing to do with the fact Shaq was more important in those 3 title runs and Kobe was the #2.

Chronz
08-02-2016, 12:41 PM
It has nothing to do with the fact Shaq was more important in those 3 title runs and Kobe was the #2.
To me it kind of does, it gave us a glimpse of their respective impact on the game/season. Shaq continued contending despite the team he joined being gutted of 3 starters to acquire him and Kobe finished the season on like a 3-21 spiral to fall out of the playoff picture. In 2004 alone, there was only 1 teammate who saw his efficiency enhance more with Kobe on the court, and thats Karl Malone, the one teammate that wouldn´t come back to play with him if Shaq was´nt there.


To anyone with a set of eyes not focused on Kobe's aesthetically pleasing game, we knew the Lakers wouldn't contend for a long time after the Shaq trade, just like we knew Kobe would rack up some scoring titles in the interim.

Tony_Starks
08-02-2016, 12:57 PM
To me it kind of does, it gave us a glimpse of their respective impact on the game/season. Shaq continued contending despite the team he joined being gutted of 3 starters to acquire him and Kobe finished the season on like a 3-21 spiral to fall out of the playoff picture. In 2004 alone, there was only 1 teammate who saw his efficiency enhance more with Kobe on the court, and thats Karl Malone, the one teammate that wouldn´t come back to play with him if Shaq was´nt there.


To anyone with a set of eyes not focused on Kobe's aesthetically pleasing game, we knew the Lakers wouldn't contend for a long time after the Shaq trade, just like we knew Kobe would rack up some scoring titles in the interim.

Why you continue to mention the D league shell of a roster that Kobe had when Shaq left, with Phil gone too, in the same breadth as Shaqs post Kobe team with all world Wade and SVG/ Riley is beyond me.

That's not even apples to oranges, that's like apples to rotten tomatoes. What you can do is compare Shaq, FMVP Wade, Twon, Haslem, White Chocolate, GP, and the crew with under Riley with Kobe,all-star Gasol, 6th man Odom and the crew under Phil. That's more fair but you won't do that.

You've been disproven many many times by others already on how absurd that comparison is so hey whatever floats your boat dude.

Vee-Rex
08-02-2016, 01:10 PM
I'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about. It seems to have completely shifted from how it was in the beginning of the thread.

Shaq was 1st banana on those Lakers teams and had a bigger impact than Kobe. Was the impact close at times? Absolutely. Did Kobe outperform Shaq at times? Absolutely. Would the Lakers have won without either Shaq or Kobe? Absolutely not.

Shaq was indisputably the driving force and not because the team was "built-around" him. He he was just a better player than Kobe. That's not criticizing Kobe at all - Kobe is legendary and a top 15 all-time.

Chronz
08-02-2016, 01:43 PM
Why you continue to mention the D league shell of a roster that Kobe had when Shaq left, with Phil gone too, in the same breadth as Shaqs post Kobe team with all world Wade and SVG/ Riley is beyond me.
No doubt. I mention them because I have no doubt that if you replace those same players with Shaq, the Lakers are still winning +52 games with he and Kobe, and I have a feeling you know it.

I also believe if you get rid of Kobe and give Shaq the guys who were able to help their respective teams win a playoff series in Caron Butler, who could have been the 20 PPG scorer (as he proved when the Lakers went back to the triangle) and Lamar Odom, the guy who was Miami's marquee Free Agent acquisition that helped lead the Heat back into the playoffs and the 2nd round. On top of his talent, he would've been a PERFECT compliment to Shaq IMO, especially with regards to where the league was trending.

And SVG is nothing of importance IMO, the team won in spite of him, its a big reason why both Shaq and Zo quit on him, he wasn't ready.



That's not even apples to oranges, that's like apples to rotten tomatoes. What you can do is compare Shaq, FMVP Wade, Twon, Haslem, White Chocolate, GP, and the crew with under Riley with Kobe,all-star Gasol, 6th man Odom and the crew under Phil. That's more fair but you won't do that.
Make the comparison, especially factoring in Twon. PS GP was on the Lakers, they chose to trade him for 2 pieces.



You've been disproven many many times by others already on how absurd that comparison is so hey whatever floats your boat dude.

Not by any of you guys on this particular subject. I dont have to make inane excuses for my players lack of impact or production. Kobe failed to lead his own team and it took YEARS for him to finally accomplish anything of note, meanwhile a ROOKIE Shaq was able to lead his team to .500 and has never set the bar as low as Kobe has.

Simply put, Shaq has ALWAYS been more productive and has ALWAYS been more of a winner and this held true before they met, while they were on the same team and immediately thereafter, this despite him being on the decline while competing for MVP's when Kobe wasn't even All-NBA 2nd team caliber and being too busy turning the ball over trying to play the Bron-Wade role.

Chronz
08-02-2016, 01:47 PM
I'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about. It seems to have completely shifted from how it was in the beginning of the thread.

Shaq was 1st banana on those Lakers teams and had a bigger impact than Kobe. Was the impact close at times? Absolutely. Did Kobe outperform Shaq at times? Absolutely. Would the Lakers have won without either Shaq or Kobe? Absolutely not.

Shaq was indisputably the driving force and not because the team was "built-around" him. He he was just a better player than Kobe. That's not criticizing Kobe at all - Kobe is legendary and a top 15 all-time.

The devil is in the details. Me and Tony both agree with what you're saying, we disagree on how often it was close. I wont disregard the majority of their time together for a select few instances in comparison, especially if it ignores the objective data. Shaq doesn't have to apologize for having a greater influence in this relationship. Without Shaq, its possible Kobe begins his career in a very Iverson-eque fashion, not even Tmac level but AI level, shooting 40% and missing the playoffs here and there as he proved to do immediately upon Shaq's departure and that was a FAR more matured Kobe. Imagine a young Kobe who often struggled finding his in the flow of the offense, to the point where his own HOF coach wanted him traded.

IKnowHoops
08-02-2016, 02:14 PM
Why are you using the AS game MVP and regular season awards as an argument here :laugh2:

Are we not talking about the playoffs and how Shaq was still vastly more impactful then?

You also continue to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that the advanced numbers provide. You haven't even attempted to address the fact that Shaq's impact made Kobe's look like Pippen to MJ.

Shaq was a hell of a lot older and by the time he won that title with Wade he was well past his peak and leaving his prime. Of course he wasn't going to contend for much longer. Kobe was right in his prime when he was gifted Pau and Bynum turned a corner. Using that to support your argument is pointless. It has nothing to do with the fact Shaq was more important in those 3 title runs and Kobe was the #2.

LOLOLOLOL

I'm telling you the guy just picks whatever stat helps him and ignores whatever stat doesn't. There is no rhyme or reason or level of consistency.

He uses an All-star MVP to validate Kobe

But ignores and downplays Lebron's 4 MVP's to Kobe's 1 when comparing the two of them.

You can't make sense of anything when a guy constantly jumps around like this.

Hawkeye15
08-02-2016, 02:17 PM
LOLOLOLOL

I'm telling you the guy just picks whatever stat helps him and ignores whatever stat doesn't. There is no rhyme or reason or level of consistency.

He uses an All-star MVP to validate Kobe

But ignores and downplays Lebron's 4 MVP's to Kobe's 1 when comparing the two of them.

You can't make sense of anything when a guy constantly jumps around like this.

I can't possibly read every post, half of it is repetitive drivel (I mean with all of the NBA forum, not tony). But why would anyone use ASG MVP to validate anything? Tom Chambers won it for crying out loud. So?

Tony_Starks
08-02-2016, 02:24 PM
LOLOLOLOL

I'm telling you the guy just picks whatever stat helps him and ignores whatever stat doesn't. There is no rhyme or reason or level of consistency.

He uses an All-star MVP to validate Kobe

But ignores and downplays Lebron's 4 MVP's to Kobe's 1 when comparing the two of them.

You can't make sense of anything when a guy constantly jumps around like this.

Correction: I said MVP votes, all NBA, all defense.

3 separate things, non of which allstar MVP.

Feel free to go back and check before you respond.

IKnowHoops
08-02-2016, 02:26 PM
On the note of everyone playing second fiddle to Prime Shaq...I think between Jordan, Kobe, Lebron...I think Lebron would have the greatest chance of stealing away MVP honors.

The reason why is he would be the only guy who could score at the same level of efficiency as Shaq, and he is just such a physical specimen and he can effect the games in every way possible. He can flat out make plays that neither Jordan or Kobe can make, due to his sheer size and strength. I also think he and Shaq would probably have the most success and the most chemistry because Bron is more of a passer than the other two. And not having to score as much or work as hard playing with Shaq, his motor would be on level 100 the whole game. He'd also most likely be surrounded by 3 pt shooters so he would just have numbers everywhere. Meanwhile Jordan and Kobe are more points oriented and they may fight a little with Shaq for shots. The fact that Lebron is a chameleon that can do whatever a team needs gives him more opportunities to make plays that effect the game that don't overlap with Shaq's skill set.

Tony_Starks
08-02-2016, 02:27 PM
Why are you using the AS game MVP and regular season awards as an argument here :laugh2:

Are we not talking about the playoffs and how Shaq was still vastly more impactful then?

You also continue to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that the advanced numbers provide. You haven't even attempted to address the fact that Shaq's impact made Kobe's look like Pippen to MJ.

Shaq was a hell of a lot older and by the time he won that title with Wade he was well past his peak and leaving his prime. Of course he wasn't going to contend for much longer. Kobe was right in his prime when he was gifted Pau and Bynum turned a corner. Using that to support your argument is pointless. It has nothing to do with the fact Shaq was more important in those 3 title runs and Kobe was the #2.

Please tell me where in my words that you quoted did I once mention allstar MVP.

I'll wait

Reading is fundamental

Hawkeye15
08-02-2016, 02:29 PM
Please tell me where in my words that you quoted did I once mention allstar MVP.

I'll wait

Reading is fundamental

Yeah I mean, we disagree when it comes to Kobe all the time. But I have never seen you use his ASG MVP as justification for anything...

not sure where that came from

IKnowHoops
08-02-2016, 02:37 PM
Correction: I said MVP votes, all NBA, all defense.

3 separate things, non of which allstar MVP.

Feel free to go back and check before you respond.

My bad, my mistake.

But it strengthens my point about how you will use 1 MVP to bolster Kobe, but ignore that when comparing Lebron's 4 MVP's to Kobe's 1

Hawkeye15
08-02-2016, 02:44 PM
My bad, my mistake.

But it strengthens my point about how you will use 1 MVP to bolster Kobe, but ignore that when comparing Lebron's 4 MVP's to Kobe's 1

Kobe (done)- 11 times top 5 in MVP voting shares
1 MVP
12 all defensive teams

LeBron (31)- 11 times top 5 in MVP voting shares
4 MVPs
6 all defensive teams

Pretty crazy numbers both ways

europagnpilgrim
08-02-2016, 03:03 PM
Kobe (done)- 11 times top 5 in MVP voting shares
1 MVP
12 all defensive teams

LeBron (31)- 11 times top 5 in MVP voting shares
4 MVPs
6 all defensive teams

Pretty crazy numbers both ways

But if you magically swap those players and put them opposite markets I feel Lebron would have been a top 5 mvp from rookie year in a LA market, Kobe would have basically been Melo/Bernard King in Cavs market , easily

Kobe benefited from playing in that overrated fan market, I mean he started in the ASG as a backup because of how the Lakers domestic and worldwide fanatics voted him in

Lebron rookie year in Lakers uniform would have been so overblown as compared to being with Cavs it would have been comical almost, to that market media he would have been the next Dipper/Magic combined, Kobe got away with it being Jordan's son as we saw for basically 20 seasons

Tony_Starks
08-02-2016, 03:11 PM
My bad, my mistake.

But it strengthens my point about how you will use 1 MVP to bolster Kobe, but ignore that when comparing Lebron's 4 MVP's to Kobe's 1

I wasn't using 1 MVP I was saying he was top 5 in MVP voting at that time, all NBA, and all defense.

So basically he was universally recognized by the league as elite.

PowerHouse
08-02-2016, 03:29 PM
Real Question:

Does Kobe/Shaq win those 3 rings with Del Harris instead of Phil?

Do they even win one? Two?

IKnowHoops
08-02-2016, 04:02 PM
I wasn't using 1 MVP I was saying he was top 5 in MVP voting at that time, all NBA, and all defense.

So basically he was universally recognized by the league as elite.

OK, your still using MVP status as a barometer. If you like being in the top five, then to be real you'd have to love winning the MVP a hole lot more. I mean Jordan's been to the finals 6 times, Lebron has been there 7. You see where I'm going with this. Winning it is always better than being top 5. Always.

Thus you are using a top 5 MVP to bolster Kobe, yet ignore Lebron actually winning it 4 times to Kobe's 1. The more you explain yourself the more you bolster my point. This is actually beyond hypocricy. It would be straight hypocrisy if you were simply talking about Kobe's MVP, but your talking about top 5 finishes.

Man you talking bout practice!

Bostonjorge
08-02-2016, 04:08 PM
But if you magically swap those players and put them opposite markets I feel Lebron would have been a top 5 mvp from rookie year in a LA market, Kobe would have basically been Melo/Bernard King in Cavs market , easily

Kobe benefited from playing in that overrated fan market, I mean he started in the ASG as a backup because of how the Lakers domestic and worldwide fanatics voted him in

Lebron rookie year in Lakers uniform would have been so overblown as compared to being with Cavs it would have been comical almost, to that market media he would have been the next Dipper/Magic combined, Kobe got away with it being Jordan's son as we saw for basically 20 seasons
Everything you said is false. Why would Kobe become melo? Kobe has won a back to back by himself and showed he can win three in a row with help. Something many greats never did. Easy to see Kobe would find a way to win multiple rings in Cleveland if he was drafted by them.

Hawkeye15
08-02-2016, 04:16 PM
Everything you said is false. Why would Kobe become melo? Kobe has won a back to back by himself and showed he can win three in a row with help. Something many greats never did. Easy to see Kobe would find a way to win multiple rings in Cleveland if he was drafted by them.

ditto

Tony_Starks
08-02-2016, 04:16 PM
Real Question:

Does Kobe/Shaq win those 3 rings with Del Harris instead of Phil?

Do they even win one? Two?

No.

Under the Del Harris regime we do not win a single championship. Not even prime Shaq, elite Kobe.

Del was a horrible coach and Phil was really the perfect man for the job.

As great as Shaq and Kobe were they're not winning that chip without a Phil, Riley, Larry Brown type coach.

Tony_Starks
08-02-2016, 04:22 PM
OK, your still using MVP status as a barometer. If you like being in the top five, then to be real you'd have to love winning the MVP a hole lot more. I mean Jordan's been to the finals 6 times, Lebron has been there 7. You see where I'm going with this. Winning it is always better than being top 5. Always.

Thus you are using a top 5 MVP to bolster Kobe, yet ignore Lebron actually winning it 4 times to Kobe's 1. The more you explain yourself the more you bolster my point. This is actually beyond hypocricy. It would be straight hypocrisy if you were simply talking about Kobe's MVP, but your talking about top 5 finishes.

Man you talking bout practice!

Not sure what Lebron/ MJ have to do with this.

I'm using Kobes top 5 MVP to point out he was far from a mere role playing sidekick and actually viewed as one of the best of the best players in the league at the time.

Pippen, since you've compared Kobe to him for example, I'm pretty sure never sniffed top 5 MVP level playing with MJ. Don't know off top but that's my educated guess, maybe he was top 10? Have to look it up.

Im using that to show Kobe wasn't just some good player on the Lakers but recognized as elite in his own right in the league.

IKnowHoops
08-02-2016, 04:23 PM
No.

Under the Del Harris regime we do not win a single championship. Not even prime Shaq, elite Kobe.

Del was a horrible coach and Phil was really the perfect man for the job.

As great as Shaq and Kobe were they're not winning that chip without a Phil, Riley, Larry Brown type coach.

Spo? Lue?

IKnowHoops
08-02-2016, 04:27 PM
Not sure what Lebron/ MJ have to do with this.

I'm using Kobes top 5 MVP to point out he was far from a mere role playing sidekick and actually viewed as one of the best of the best players in the league at the time.

Pippen, since you've compared Kobe to him for example, I'm pretty sure never sniffed top 5 MVP level playing with MJ. Don't know off top but that's my educated guess, maybe he was top 10? Have to look it up.

Im using that to show Kobe wasn't just some good player on the Lakers but recognized as elite in his own right in the league.

Of course Kobe is elite! And a distant #2 on that team.

And the Jordan/Lebron was brought up for the fact that nobody cares how many times you went to the dance, they care how many times you won the dance. Same goes for MVP's. Winning it is really all that matters, and winning it means much much much more than being in the top 5.

Bostonjorge
08-02-2016, 04:27 PM
ditto
I don't understand why Kobe playing for another team gets Kobe a melo career? What's stopping Kobe from winning a title? Does his new team never draft good players or sign good players? Will teams like Memphis not offer up gasol type talnt so they can rebuild? That has to be the biggest reach since dhalsim.

Hawkeye15
08-02-2016, 04:30 PM
Not sure what Lebron/ MJ have to do with this.

I'm using Kobes top 5 MVP to point out he was far from a mere role playing sidekick and actually viewed as one of the best of the best players in the league at the time.

Pippen, since you've compared Kobe to him for example, I'm pretty sure never sniffed top 5 MVP level playing with MJ. Don't know off top but that's my educated guess, maybe he was top 10? Have to look it up.

Im using that to show Kobe wasn't just some good player on the Lakers but recognized as elite in his own right in the league.

Pippen did get a #5 in MVP voting shares one season with Mike, but that isn't the point.

Kobe was never some damn role player. He was hurt/young in his first finals, and didn't have a very good finals by his future standards. But he is by far and away much more than a role player haha. He was a superstar who just happened to play with a better superstar early in his career. You won't be able to convince anyone that he was as important to the overall success of the Lakers as Shaq. Ever. Can you cherry pick a series, or short span of time where he may have been? Kind of. But even then you neglect to understand how much Shaq just sucked up the defenses attention, allowing his teammates to play at a higher level than usual.

You need to blow right by anyone that states Kobe "coat rid" his way to 3 rings. Eff that

Hawkeye15
08-02-2016, 04:31 PM
I don't understand why Kobe playing for another team gets Kobe a melo career? What's stopping Kobe from winning a title? Does his new team never draft good players or sign good players? Will teams like Memphis not offer up gasol type talnt so they can rebuild? That has to be the biggest reach since dhalsim.

Your claim that Kobe would have won multiple rings in Cleveland is b.s. That is what I was responding to. Who cares about a Melo career, he hasn't produced anything of substance except numbers. He is this generations Nique'

Tony_Starks
08-02-2016, 06:06 PM
Spo? Lue?

Spo with Riley looking over his shoulder, yes.

Lue is the coach/ personality manager he is today from playing with Shaq and Kobe according to him.

L8kers4life
08-02-2016, 07:20 PM
Pippen did get a #5 in MVP voting shares one season with Mike, but that isn't the point.

Kobe was never some damn role player. He was hurt/young in his first finals, and didn't have a very good finals by his future standards. But he is by far and away much more than a role player haha. He was a superstar who just happened to play with a better superstar early in his career. You won't be able to convince anyone that he was as important to the overall success of the Lakers as Shaq. Ever. Can you cherry pick a series, or short span of time where he may have been? Kind of. But even then you neglect to understand how much Shaq just sucked up the defenses attention, allowing his teammates to play at a higher level than usual.

You need to blow right by anyone that states Kobe "coat rid" his way to 3 rings. Eff that



:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I think that is the only point I try to make on here, and people go crazy sometimes if you defend Kobe in anyway, it's funny at times, and sometimes frustrating. Anyway, great post

europagnpilgrim
08-02-2016, 07:35 PM
Everything you said is false. Why would Kobe become melo? Kobe has won a back to back by himself and showed he can win three in a row with help. Something many greats never did. Easy to see Kobe would find a way to win multiple rings in Cleveland if he was drafted by them.

Kobe would have not done nothing in Cleveland outside of score and get put out in the 1st round, he would have done nothing with Mo and Boobie as sidekick and definitely not with the Shaq version or Jamison version or Hickson that Lebron had to work with, or Larry Hughes but keep thinking he would have

Melo was a scorer and couldn't get out of 1st round except once with Nuggets and I think once with the Knicks also so that's why I said it based on the 05-07' seasons when he didn't have a young Shaq or Gasol to feed down low and you know those results unless you feel that is false also, if that's not Melo-like then insert your own player so you can feel better

only way its false is because Kobe got drafted by the Lakers and not some Hornets type franchise, Kobe would find a way to be traded from the Cavs quick just like he wanted out from the Lakers org. he won 3 titles with his first 6 yrs, or is that false also? he would have done just like Lebron and took his talents elsewhere after x amount of years of doing nothing but scoring and doing his best Jordan impersonations on/off the court, at least Lebron maxed out with the Cavs first stint and reach a Finals

europagnpilgrim
08-02-2016, 07:58 PM
I don't understand why Kobe playing for another team gets Kobe a melo career? What's stopping Kobe from winning a title? Does his new team never draft good players or sign good players? Will teams like Memphis not offer up gasol type talnt so they can rebuild? That has to be the biggest reach since dhalsim.

Well based on the tail end of his career when Lakers had money to sign 2 max players nobody wanted to come play with him or earlier pre injury outside of Ron Artest and I think Ariza, they got all the good-superstar players via a trade outside of Fisher who was drafted with him in 96' so based on Cavs being a playoff team they wouldn't have gotten a lottery pick game changer type to help Kobe and nobody was backing up the Hummer/Maybach to come and play with Kobe in Cleveland, Lebron couldn't do it either he was just more of a impact/likable player and it has showed from Cavs to Heat back to Cavs, easily


Melo is known as a scorer/gunslinger, Kobe is that with 5 rings, what don't you get? if Melo had 5 rings and Kobe didnt would he be top 10 best ever? I dont think so, he would just be Kobe with 5 rings

If Kobe was in Cavs market he wouldn't have been a starting all star player but coming off the bench for the Cavs, that's the hype that you guys cant seem to get from being apart of the Lakers fanatic base, take the blinders off and see he greatly benefited from being drafted to that hype machine market and they had won 50+ games without him, Cavs were like a 18-20 win team when Lebron got drafted, Kobe wouldn't have changed much the first 7years there like a Lebron did, why is that so hard to decipher especially when Kobe had basically a identical situation post Shaq era?

IKnowHoops
08-02-2016, 09:56 PM
Spo with Riley looking over his shoulder, yes.

Lue is the coach/ personality manager he is today from playing with Shaq and Kobe according to him.

Link?

MarkieMark48
08-02-2016, 11:28 PM
Everything you said is false. Why would Kobe become melo? Kobe has won a back to back by himself and showed he can win three in a row with help. Something many greats never did. Easy to see Kobe would find a way to win multiple rings in Cleveland if he was drafted by them.

Do you remember Clevelands roster during lebrons first run in Cleveland?

IKnowHoops
08-03-2016, 12:00 AM
Kobe was a great player on a great team but thats it. I mean Tmac has as many memorable playoff games as Kobe and he never got out of the first round. I don't remember Kobe ever leading his team to victory single handedly. He was just there playing basketball on a good team.

Kobe seemed like he was the best player on his team every other game post Shaq. Some games it was Gasol, some games it was some random, and then back to Kobe.

FlashBolt
08-04-2016, 01:04 PM
Tony likes to blame LeBron for losing with the dreadful Cavs roster in 2007 but now gives an excuse for Kobe's two seasons in which he finally had to adjust to not playing with someone better than him.. This guy flops around like a Magikarp. His argument is inconsistent when it comes to these two guys and once you figure out it's a huge pattern, you'll realize he just hates LeBron. He absolutely loses every discussion he tries to force on everyone else that the only individuals who ever support his theory are the notorious Kobephiles on this forum. This was the same guy who said Kobe Bryant was going to shoot 50% from the field last season.. why does he even bother??

europagnpilgrim
08-04-2016, 02:43 PM
Do you remember Clevelands roster during lebrons first run in Cleveland?

Ditto, exactly what I am basically trying to teach these psd experts but once you have a religious belief its hard to shake it once the other side of the coin is showed/viewed

Kobe would have been demanded a trade either on draft night or by year 3 max from that pathetic Cavs roster, only bright side for him would have been his PPG avg, he wouldn't have average 7ppg as a rookie because I feel he would have played more on a bottom feeder team, nothing special, very Melo like scoring wise but at least Melo had big immediate impact wise on his lottery team that drafted him, but psd experts don't remember that

Hawkeye15
08-04-2016, 02:55 PM
Ditto, exactly what I am basically trying to teach these psd experts but once you have a religious belief its hard to shake it once the other side of the coin is showed/viewed

Kobe would have been demanded a trade either on draft night or by year 3 max from that pathetic Cavs roster, only bright side for him would have been his PPG avg, he wouldn't have average 7ppg as a rookie because I feel he would have played more on a bottom feeder team, nothing special, very Melo like scoring wise but at least Melo had big immediate impact wise on his lottery team that drafted him, but psd experts don't remember that

did you see the pre and post rosters that Melo walked into? Juwan Howard, and Nick Van Exel were probably the best players on that injury decimated squad. Hell James Posey led them in total points scored that year. Melo's rookie year roster was better, and healthier than prior year by a lot.