My fault, I meant to say Kobe wasn't 1b until 2003. He was the clear robin until then. If you can even call him robin. He's the Hawkeyes or black widow up till around 2002. Became robin for the year, then more of an equal billing in 2003 when shaq declined and the lakers went nowhere.
And no, shaq didn't get swept by the Jazz because he didn't have a #2, it's because he had rambis or whoever it was as a patch instead of kfc, and 98 shaq is no where as dominant as 2001 shaq. It's like you saying 85 Kareem was as dominant as 80 Kareem, it's just not the case.
I'm fine with with Kobe being the number 2, he earned it since around 1999/2000, but no way in was he the 1b until at least 2003. Shaq ran that team. Nobody called Pippen a 1b, he was the clear #2. Same with mchale, and Kobe had that role during the three peat.
And you are disappointed with me? Look at the quote I originally responded to, the entire thing was Kobe propaganda, trying to sneak Kobe into the conversation and draw equivalence of him with the most dominant version of shaq. If I said Parker was the clear 1b to Duncan in 2003, it would be a clear propaganda move to boost up Parker and would be an insult to Duncan as well.
Sure the best teams needed a #2. Pippen was that on the 92 bulls, and Kobe was that on the 01 lakers. Neither of them were 1bs.
To nitpick, magic was 1b in 85 still. Kareem was the 1a.