And quite simply, Kobe couldn't win without an All Star big. Look again, no asterik. Only Lakers fans believe in that asterik .I'm sorry, I forgot about him.
Corrected: Tim Duncan couldn't win without The Admiral or Tony or Manu. Maybe all 4 of his rings should be re-evaluated instead of just 1
And from what I recall, there was an asterisk * put on the 1999 season.
And Jordan couldn't win without a Top 50 player of all time.
And Duncan won in 1999 and 2003 with a HoF Big Man
And Shaq won with an All Star Wade
Basketball is a team game; of course 1 guy can't do it alone. It's ridiculous to try and take away achievements because there were other good players on the team.
Why should Kobe lose credit for 3 rings? Should Duncan lose credit for 1 ring thanks to Tony Parker? How about losing 1 ring because he had HoF'er David Robinson?
All very ridiculous.
You're right. It's a team game and every player has a role and an impact. But when trying to figure out who belongs on these "greatest ever lists" we have to try and figure who is more valuable to their team. There's a reason why Bird and not McHale has a place on the top ten list, even though McHale was a vital piece of those teams.
Shaq was irreplaceable during the 3 peat. They don't win 3 les if there's any other name on the back of that jersey. Kobe was replaceable. Homers are fooling themselves if they think McGrady, Ray Allen, or any other top 5 wing wouldn't be able to produce similar results. Sure Kobe had clutch moments, but those players would've had their moments as well.
Maybe they don't 3 peat with another player besides Bryant in a Laker uniform, but I'd be willing to bet they win at least 2. You don't think Vince Carter would be able to replicate Kobe's 19 a game on 44% during the 00 run? But who in the league is going to for 30-15?
You take Shaq out the equation and replace him with say Chris Webber or Jermaine O'Neal and the Lakers never get a ring.
So I guess according to Spur fan the only way Kobe can legitimately win an NBA championship is if his team consists entirely of scrubs.
Great logic guys.
this is the dumbest thing i have ever read on this forum.
Uh, no. Kobe legitimately won. But as the best role player on the team.
Shaq was replaceable. You take out Shaq and put in Tim Duncan and Kobe/Tim would have had 10 rings.
role player? he was apart of a 1-2 punch. any person not wearing hater goggles could tell you that.
Kobe was Shaq's "Pippen."
Prove me wrong then.
Would 00 Vince Carter or Ray Allen be capable of replicating Kobe's numbers during that year's championship run?
In 01, Kobe wasn't even on the all-NBA First Team, he was on the second team along with Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady. But yet, Kobe was so transcendent, there's was no player within a hair's breadth of him.
In 02, I guess other elite wings wouldn't have been capable of 26 on 43% shooting.
Now we can argue what Kobe brought to the table defensively, or Kobe's role within the triangle, but I still believe the Lakers win at least two with a different elite wing.
You homers remember Kobe's clutch overtime performance against Indiana when Shaq went out, I remember his 30 something percent overall FG in that series. He played 9 min in game 2 with the Lakers winning by 7. He went 8-27 in the closeout game and the Lakers still won by 5.
Yep, irreplaceable.
Don't feed the trolls. Shoback clearly has no intention of doing anything other than trying to rile Laker fans up.
Why would anything I say rile you up? Would I give my left nut to have Kobe on the Spurs when he was wanting to be traded? You bet I would! As long as he knew his role. He would be Duncan's "Pippen."
I never seen a player have a more dominant three playoff years as Shaq during the 3 peat. I don't think Duncan could replicate what he did if you traded them straight up in those years. even as late as 04, Shaq dominated that Pistons front line that gave Duncan fits.
But who knows?
Shaq was truly unstoppable during those years but I'm a big believer in Tim Duncan.
I'm sure a Duncan/Kobe pairing would have lasted much longer and would have yielded many more rings than ShaqKobe.
Tim Duncan has the right at ude to play with another superstar.
No relationship has lasted for Shaq (Penny, Kobe, Wade, Nash) while Timmy would rather conjure up Wizards and than argue.
pippen wasnt a role player.
I agree, higer averages from the regular season.
Quite probable. Take Kobe off the 01 Lakers and replace him with Tracy McGrady and put Kobe on the 01 Spurs, replacing Derek Anderson. Who wins?
Probably a 7 game series.
Left game early with an injury...again who needs facts?
I agree that he's an extremely important piece of the puzzle. I also agree that his value is much more than Kobe.
A big man willing to sacrifice his body on defense and is also a great offensive player and very efficient will always be a better value than a shooting guard who shoots 47% and takes 23 shots away.
In the 02 playoffs, Kobe averaged 26 a game on .434 shooting.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...bryanko01.html
And the point I was trying to make about Bryant only playing 9 minutes is that the Lakers were deep enough, primarily because of the dominance of Shaq, to survive that series without Kobe playing like Jordan, something Laker homers attribute to him during the 3 peat years.
Like it or not, Kobe was very replaceable during 00. He definitely had a greater impact in the next two years but I still believe you could replace him T-Mac, Carter, or Ray Allen and achieve similar success. Granted he was better than those players from 01-02 but not that much better.
Clearly you haven't WATCHED any of the playoff series from '00-02 when the Lakers went on their 3-peat. I suggest you revisit the 2000 NBA Finals as well as all of the series played against the Spurs. Let me know if you still think Kobe was replaceable.
Stats don't always tell the whole story. You know that. What Kobe brings to the table cannot possibly be measured entirely by his stats.
Kobe was the MVP of the of 'real' NBA finals in 2001. He tore off San Antonio's head and took a massive down their neck.
And yet without Shaq, he wouldn't have won those first 3 years of the decade.
And yet without Kobe, Shaq wouldn't have won those first 3 years of the decadeAnd yet without Shaq, he wouldn't have won those first 3 years of the decade.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
