Kobe/Gasol's roles during their title runs..

[HarlemHeat37]

Kobe in 2000 was clearly a sidekick, a Robin, that isn't debatable..however, in 2001, he was definitely a 1a option, more than sidekick..in 2002, I'm not sure I would call him a "sidekick", he was better than that..he was clearly the 2nd best player on the team, definitely not as good as Shaq, but he was more of a 1a on 2001 and better than a traditional #2 in 2002..Shaq was clearly the best player, but Kobe was still a top 3-5 player and had a superior overall role than a guy like Pippen had..

The problem I have is that Gasol is an afterthought when people defend Kobe, the media even going as far as saying Miami teamed up to face Kobe, neglecting Gasol..there's a very strong argument that Gasol had just as big of a role last year as Kobe did during the 2001 and 2002 season..if not as big, then it's very close..you can't have it both ways, which is what revisionist history has done in Kobe's favor..

2009-2010 Regular Season
Gasol WS/48: 0.220
Bryant WS/48: 0.160

Gasol PER: 22.9
Bryant PER: 21.9

Gasol eFG%: 53.6
Bryant eFG%: 48.8

Gasol O-Rating: 120
Bryant O-Rating: 109

Gasol D-Rating: 102
Bryant D-Rating: 104

So during the regular season, Gasol led the Lakers in every important advanced stat category, he was the most efficient player on the team, and he also led the Lakers in rebounding and shot-blocking..

Whether you believe in advanced stats or not is irrelevant here..if a player leads the team in every major category, it's meaningful..

2010 Playoffs
Gasol WS/48: 0.224
Bryant WS/48: 0.190

Gasol PER: 24
Kobe PER:24.7

Gasol eFG%: 53.9
Bryant eFG%: 50.6

Gasol O-Rating: 126
Bryant O-Rating: 115

Gasol D-Rating: 107
Bryant D-Rating: 109

Gasol led the Lakers in RPG and BPG again in the playoffs as well..So while Bryant stepped his game up in the playoffs(well, for the middle rounds against the bad defensive teams), he still trailed Gasol in all major advanced stat categories, except for a slight edge in PER..

Now my argument here isn't to say Gasol = Kobe or even something as ridiculous as Gasol > Kobe..my argument is simply showing how important Gasol was to this championship Laker team, and comparing it to how important Kobe was to his 2001 and 2002 teams..

2000-2001 Regular Season
O'Neal WS/48: 0.245
Bryant WS/48: 0.196

O'Neal PER: 30.2
Bryant PER: 24.5

O'Neal eFG%: 57.2
Bryant eFG%: 48.4

O'Neal O-Rating: 114
Bryant O-Rating: 112

O'Neal D-Rating: 101
Bryant D-Rating: 105

2001 Playoffs
O'Neal WS/48: 0.260
Bryant WS/48: 0.260

O'Neal PER: 28.7
Bryant PER: 25

O'Neal eFG%: 55.5
Bryant eFG%: 48.5

O'Neal O-Rating: 113
Bryant O-Rating: 116

O'Neal D-Rating: 96
Bryant O-Rating: 99

The 2001 playoffs show that Kobe stepped his game up compared to the regular season, and he really established himself as a superstar here..he managed to tie Shaq and even take another category in offensive rating, which is very impressive..he also led the Lakers in APG and SPG..

2001-2002 Regular Season
O'Neal WS/48: 0.262
Bryant WS/48: 0.199

O'Neal PER: 29.7
Bryant PER: 23.2

O'Neal eFG%: 57.9
Bryant eFG%: 47.9

O'Neal O-Rating: 116
Bryant O-Rating: 112

O'Neal D-Rating: 99
Bryant O-Rating: 103

2002 Playoffs
O'Neal WS/48: 0.236
Bryant WS/48: 0.148

O'Neal PER: 28.3
Bryant PER: 20.5

O'Neal eFG%: 52.9
Bryant eFG%: 45.9

O'Neal O-Rating: 112
Bryant O-Rating: 106

O'Neal D-Rating: 99
Bryant D-Rating: 103

Shaq pretty much dominated this entire playoff run, they weren't really close here..

I'm not using these numbers to argue Gasol vs. Kobe or Shaq vs. Kobe..I'm using them as examples as to the misconception..either Gasol's role is being downplayed by most fans(especially Laker fans) and the media, or Kobe's role during the 3-peat is being overplayed..now granted, Kobe was also the closer on those teams, so I'll give more credit than the numbers show..however, is Kobe's ability as a "closer" enough to completely overshadow Gasol's superior numbers in comparison to the #1 player on these respective teams?..

These numbers are just numbers, but they seem to translate well for the most part..Jordan on any of his teams, Hakeem, Duncan in '03, Shaq in '99 as examples..these are often mentioned as teams where there was a clear alpha, and the numbers clearly show that it's accurate..

So in regards to Kobe-Gasol and Kobe-Shaq, the hypocrisy and revisionist history is too much IMO..

Has Kobe's role during the 3-peat become overrated?..Is Gasol's role during this current repeat underrated?..Both?..Neither?..

BTW, I'm not particularly talking about "1st/2nd option" here, I'm talking about best/most effective player..

[lefty]

Well, let's say they complete each other.

Kobe chokes, Gasol bails him out
Kobe misses, Gasol tips it in
Kobe ballhogs, he is benched and Gasol takes over

[TheGreatest23]

It's unfortunate that Lebron doesn't make his teammates better like Kobe does.

[Medvedenko]

It's unfortunate that Lebron doesn't make his teammates better like Kobe does.

Thanks for this sober account that those #'s proved.

Harlem, good bball take. No really, not bad.

[Muser]

Kobe is the best player on the current Lakers team. No question about it.

[TheMACHINE]

OMG....a center/PF beating a SG in FG%, rebounding and shotblocking!!! Thats unheard of!!!

[lefty]

OMG....a center/PF beating a SG in FG%, rebounding and shotblocking!!! Thats unheard of!!!
Jordan was better than 50% of NBA centers in those areas :lmao

[usdane]

Jordan was better than 50% of NBA centers in those areas :lmao

And what does Jordan have to do with this thread? what was he about 1 for 10 in playoff games without pippen and only batting 400 without pippen.:lmao

[JamStone]

Pau Gasol has become a fantastic player.

Aside from the obvious advantages a 7-foot big has in efficiency over a perimeter player, I think Pau Gasol has been more efficient also because he accepts being the sidekick. Kobe selfishly would not accept being the sidekick and instead insisted and forced Phil to allow for those Lakers teams to have two Batmans instead of having a Batman and a Robin. Had Kobe been more willing to accept a back-up role, he probably could have put up more efficient numbers. It's a double edge sword though because Kobe not accepting a back up role is a big reason why the Lakers became so dominant on offense. He made himself less efficient, but he forced other teams to treat him as the primary threat along with Shaq, instead of an afterthought sidekick. If Kobe was content to being a spot-up shooter and occasional slasher playing almost completely off of Shaq, perhaps he could have shot closer to 48-50% from the field, but he would have also probably lowered himself to a 19-20 ppg scorer and probably less of a facilitator as well. Kobe's aggressiveness helped that Laker offense even though it hurt his efficiency.

I would probably even go so far as saying that Pau Gasol was a better championship "sidekick" because he's been absolutely accepting of the role. Kobe wouldn't accept the role.

[lefty]

And what does Jordan have to do with this thread? what was he about 1 for 10 in playoff games without pippen and only batting 400 without pippen.:lmao
Not comparing MJ and Kobe

I was just saying that it was possible that a SG can have better stats than a lot of starting big men outside of scoring

[JamStone]

But rarely will even an elite SG have better FG%, rebounds, and blocked shots than an elite PF/C. Pau Gasol isn't in the bottom 50% of NBA big men.

I don't even buy that Jordan had better rebounds and blocked shots than 50% of centers. But let's assume that he did. Well those certainly weren't elite centers.

[picc84]

Kobe during the 01 and 02 title runs was a better player than Gasol by planetary distances. His #'s throughout the playoffs were better than the large majority of first option players. He was a first option player, on a team with the MDE. Shaq was just so great himself that Kobe was overshadowed.

Gasol is a second option, and his style of play and #'s reflect it. His team contributions come closer to Kobe's because Kobe has declined significantly. That doesn't mean he is as effective a second option as Kobe was during the 3-peat.

If your intent is to say that the gap between he and Kobe the past few years has been comparable to the gap between Kobe and Shaq during the 3-peat, its a debate that can take place. You'd be wrong, but you wouldn't look like a complete idiot. If your intent is to say he's as good for the Lakers now as Kobe was for the Lakers then, the answer is not even a little bit.

Jam,

In the 3-peat Kobe played the team-game during the playoffs, even if he didn't at times during the regular season. Shaq got all the touches he wanted and Kobe still facilitated for the rest of the team, as well as Shaq.

[TheMACHINE]

Jordan was better than 50% of NBA centers in those areas :lmao

Good for Jordan. Im not saying that Kobe > Jordan.

Just another Lefty one liner. :p:

[lefty]

Good for Jordan. Im not saying that Kobe > Jordan.

Just another Lefty one liner. :p:
:lol

[lefty]

But rarely will even an elite SG have better FG%, rebounds, and blocked shots than an elite PF/C. Pau Gasol isn't in the bottom 50% of NBA big men.

I don't even buy that Jordan had better rebounds and blocked shots than 50% of centers. But let's assume that he did. Well those certainly weren't elite centers.

I never said they were :D

[JamStone]

Jam,

In the 3-peat Kobe played the team-game during the playoffs, even if he didn't at times during the regular season. Shaq got all the touches he wanted and Kobe still facilitated for the rest of the team, as well as Shaq.

I suppose that's probably true for the most part. It's at least debatable.

I guess how I view it is that Kobe did enough during the threepeat title runs so that his desire to shine wouldn't prevent the Lakers from winning until that 2004 playoffs. You could argue he really started to do it to the detriment of the team in the 2003 playoffs against the Spurs when he averaged nearly 10 more field goal attempts than Shaq.

I can agree he played the team game to the extent that he did what he had to do so the team would still win. But I think he also had the mentality that he was going to take over the game like the primary go-to guy when he felt he could and when he felt he should. Let's say that despite playing the team game, he wasn't going to not shine like a superstar along the way. He wanted a share of that glory. And there was jealousy that Shaq was winning the Finals MVP each time. Kobe really wanted the Finals MVP against Philly especially, with all his hometown haters and critics watching.

[ambchang]

09 and 10 Gasol is no where close to 00 to 02 Kobe, as Kobe is at least one of the top 3 sidekicks in the history of the league (if not the best).

However, keep in mind that Kobe not only have Gasol, he also had Odom and Bynum. The 00 to 02 Lakers bench was known to be shallow, and without Shaq and Kobe playing the majority of minutes, production (especially offensively) drops of steeply.

I would say Gasol + Odom + Bynum to Kobe would be a closer comparison, but even then, I would take Kobe.

[TheGreatest23]

Kobe made a great sidekick, but always wanted to be the star...wether it resulted in good or bad, he didnt like Shaq's work ethic and didnt like playing the Robin role. Gasol accepts that he is the sidekick and knows what role he needs to play. There are times where he wants to speak out (like a leader) but holds it in.

In essence, a few of the lakers three peat years has Kobe and Shaq as 1a/2a other than the usual 1,2 option.

[mingus]

there's no argument that Kobe is the best player on his team; however i think he's willing to seflishly go out of his way to prove that. as Phil pointed out during the season i know at least one time, ball doesn't go to Gasol nearly enough. the Finals proved that. Gasol shot close to 50% for the series and Kobe was putting up close to 30 shots a game on bad percentages. i think it's closer than a lot of people including Kobe want to admit. that series should have last 5 or 6 games.

[Quit Hatin']

09 and 10 Gasol is no where close to 00 to 02 Kobe, as Kobe is at least one of the top 3 sidekicks in the history of the league (if not the best).

However, keep in mind that Kobe not only have Gasol, he also had Odom and Bynum. The 00 to 02 Lakers bench was known to be shallow, and without Shaq and Kobe playing the majority of minutes, production (especially offensively) drops of steeply.

I would say Gasol + Odom + Bynum to Kobe would be a closer comparison, but even then, I would take Kobe.

You are not giving any credit to the horace grants, a.c. greens, derek fisher, brian shaw, ron harper, robert horry, rick fox, glen rice. if u are say odom and bynum are better than all those guys then we simply got the best championship team all time.


Quit Hatin'

[Koolaid_Man]

Has Kobe's role during the 3-peat become overrated?..Is Gasol's role during this current repeat underrated?..Both?..Neither?..

BTW, I'm not particularly talking about "1st/2nd option" here, I'm talking about best/most effective player..


your pretty passionate about LA...I like...:toast

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146434&highlight=Pareto+Chart

[Giuseppe]

I'm just glad he shoveled it to Artest and that lunk-head Pierce was playing soft. WTF was worrying about....Artest catchin' & drivin'?

tee, hee.

[Zelophehad]

I'm just glad he shoveled it to Artest and that lunk-head Pierce was playing soft. WTF was worrying about....Artest catchin' & drivin'?

tee, hee.

How many more times are you planning on mentioning this?

[Giuseppe]

Many, many more times. There are consequences to winning an NBA World Title.

You all ruminated & obsessed for months on end concerning Artest and his imminent implosion.

You deserve exactly what yer getting.

I have no sympathy for you.

[JamStone]

there's no argument that Kobe is the best player on his team; however i think he's willing to seflishly go out of his way to prove that. as Phil pointed out during the season i know at least one time, ball doesn't go to Gasol nearly enough. the Finals proved that. Gasol shot close to 50% for the series and Kobe was putting up close to 30 shots a game on bad percentages. i think it's closer than a lot of people including Kobe want to admit. that series should have last 5 or 6 games.


A few exaggerations. Kobe averaged 23 shots a game in the NBA Finals. Still a lot, but not close to 30 shots a game. In fact he never shot 30 games in any of the 7 games, but did come close in two games. He shot extremely poorly in two of the games, games 3 and 7. He shot sub par for game 2 but 8-for-20 isn't that bad especially when you consider he took three or four shot clock winding down shots. The other four games 45% or better which is right where his career averages are.

Gasol shot 48% from the field which is ok, but not great for him, considering he shot 54% from the field on the season and over 56% for the playoffs before the NBA Finals. Plus he shot under 43% from the field in the final three games of the Finals. For an elite big man, he wasn't all that efficient from the field either.

It's only been a couple months and people already change facts. Over time, it will be more like "Gasol was shooting 75% from the field and Kobe was shooting 25% from the field and took 50 shots a game." This is how biased revisionist history starts to skew the facts and rewrite what actually happened.

[TheMACHINE]

there's no argument that Kobe is the best player on his team; however i think he's willing to seflishly go out of his way to prove that. as Phil pointed out during the season i know at least one time, ball doesn't go to Gasol nearly enough. the Finals proved that. Gasol shot close to 50% for the series and Kobe was putting up close to 30 shots a game on bad percentages. i think it's closer than a lot of people including Kobe want to admit. that series should have last 5 or 6 games.

Gasol still gets touches, but doesnt always shoot it. Trust me..alot of us Lakers fans wish he'd back down and take more shots. Can't blame that on Kobe though.

[picc84]

I suppose that's probably true for the most part. It's at least debatable.

I guess how I view it is that Kobe did enough during the threepeat title runs so that his desire to shine wouldn't prevent the Lakers from winning until that 2004 playoffs. You could argue he really started to do it to the detriment of the team in the 2003 playoffs against the Spurs when he averaged nearly 10 more field goal attempts than Shaq.

I can agree he played the team game to the extent that he did what he had to do so the team would still win. But I think he also had the mentality that he was going to take over the game like the primary go-to guy when he felt he could and when he felt he should. Let's say that despite playing the team game, he wasn't going to not shine like a superstar along the way. He wanted a share of that glory. And there was jealousy that Shaq was winning the Finals MVP each time. Kobe really wanted the Finals MVP against Philly especially, with all his hometown haters and critics watching.

But....he was the primary go-to guy down the stretch. As he should have been. The last two years of the 3-peat he was one of the 2-3 best players in the league, at times looking like the best. Why wouldn't shine like a superstar when he was a superstar..? Shining was a natural result of his abilities, not something he had to chase. The boy was bad.

Beyond he and Shaq the team wasn't very talented, its not like Shaq was going to score 60 points a game, and its not like anyone else could create their own offense. His role was to score and make plays for others. He was one of the best ever at that. So he did. Not sure what the reason would be for him not playing that role when it was natural for him, and the Lakers needed it.

Or maybe i'm just misinterpreting what you're saying.

[HarlemHeat37]

The point of this thread isn't Kobe vs. Gasol right now, and it isn't necessarily which player is better between sidekick Gasol vs. sidekick Kobe..Kobe obviously wins in both of those arguments, if that was the case..

The point is to compare Kobe's impact on those 3-peat teams in relation to Shaq, compared to Gasol's impact on the current repeat team in relation to 2009/2010 Kobe..

The question I'm asking is why people often refer to Kobe as a 1a option(which I would agree with, actually), including many that are clearly using revisionist history to a more severe extent as time goes by, but Gasol is always referred to as clearly a sidekick and is often dismissed by the fans/media..

For example..a traditional "sidekick", IMO, would be Scottie Pippen, and these numbers reflect that..does that mean Gasol is better than Pippen?..no, not necessarily..it just means that you can make the argument that Gasol's impact on the Lakers' titles in relation to this current version of Kobe is larger than Pippen's impact on the Bulls' in relation to Jordan, if that makes any sense..

[Koolaid_Man]

The point of this thread isn't Kobe vs. Gasol right now, and it isn't necessarily which player is better between sidekick Gasol vs. sidekick Kobe..Kobe obviously wins in both of those arguments, if that was the case..

The point is to compare Kobe's impact on those 3-peat teams in relation to Shaq, compared to Gasol's impact on the current repeat team in relation to 2009/2010 Kobe..

The question I'm asking is why people often refer to Kobe as a 1a option(which I would agree with, actually), including many that are clearly using revisionist history to a more severe extent as time goes by, but Gasol is always referred to as clearly a sidekick and is often dismissed by the fans/media..

For example..a traditional "sidekick", IMO, would be Scottie Pippen, and these numbers reflect that..does that mean Gasol is better than Pippen?..no, not necessarily..it just means that you can make the argument that Gasol's impact on the Lakers' titles in relation to this current version of Kobe is larger than Pippen's impact on the Bulls' in relation to Jordan, if that makes any sense..

So tell me where did Kobe take you for dinner last night? You in Love or what homie? Legit question ...:lol You keep waxing his jimmy like you do you gone have prolems with Lebuns...:rollin

[HarlemHeat37]

What the fuck does that even mean?..

Can Kori just make him a homo forum already?..get it over with..

[Koolaid_Man]

What the fuck does that even mean?..

Can Kori just make him a homo forum already?..get it over with..


It means you need to learn sign language so that you can tell Kobe to slowly pull his cock outta your Heated throat...:toast

[ezau]

Kobe is at least one of the top 3 sidekicks in the history of the league (if not the best).

You nailed it brah, once a sidekick always a sidekick, no matter how good.

[Giuseppe]

^Musta killed ya to watch him shovel to Artest that night, eh, ez?

I watch that play almost daily. It's cued on my DVR. I'm astonished now at Pierce letting Artest breath.

[Giuseppe]

.

[namlook]

I think Pau Gasol has been more efficient also because he accepts being the sidekick. Kobe selfishly would not accept being the sidekick and instead insisted and forced Phil to allow for those Lakers teams to have two Batmans instead of having a Batman and a Robin.

It's really too bad that Kobe's selfishness has only resulted in five championships, as many as the greatest team player of all time, Magic Johnson.



For example..a traditional "sidekick", IMO, would be Scottie Pippen, and these numbers reflect that..does that mean Gasol is better than Pippen?..no, not necessarily..it just means that you can make the argument that Gasol's impact on the Lakers' titles in relation to this current version of Kobe is larger than Pippen's impact on the Bulls' in relation to Jordan, if that makes any sense..

Of course Gasol's impact is surely more than Pippen's was because after all Jordan was able to win rings without Pippen. Also Pippen was only able to win 55 games without Jordan, a whole 2 games less than they had won the year before with Jordan. And after all Phil Jackson never called Jordan and Pippen "the two leaders of this team" following one of the Bulls championships.

[Giuseppe]

...& one more than Duncan.

tee, hee.

[LkrFan]

Pau Gasol has become a fantastic player.

Aside from the obvious advantages a 7-foot big has in efficiency over a perimeter player, I think Pau Gasol has been more efficient also because he accepts being the sidekick. Kobe selfishly would not accept being the sidekick and instead insisted and forced Phil to allow for those Lakers teams to have two Batmans instead of having a Batman and a Robin. Had Kobe been more willing to accept a back-up role, he probably could have put up more efficient numbers. It's a double edge sword though because Kobe not accepting a back up role is a big reason why the Lakers became so dominant on offense. He made himself less efficient, but he forced other teams to treat him as the primary threat along with Shaq, instead of an afterthought sidekick. If Kobe was content to being a spot-up shooter and occasional slasher playing almost completely off of Shaq, perhaps he could have shot closer to 48-50% from the field, but he would have also probably lowered himself to a 19-20 ppg scorer and probably less of a facilitator as well. Kobe's aggressiveness helped that Laker offense even though it hurt his efficiency.

I would probably even go so far as saying that Pau Gasol was a better championship "sidekick" because he's been absolutely accepting of the role. Kobe wouldn't accept the role.

I disagree JamStone. If you were just as good as dominating your position, put in the work both defensively and offensively, why would you want to take a backseat to a fat 12-sandwich eating slob? Before you answer that, can you tell me with a straight face that even during Shaq's prime the gap between him and the #2 center was greater than the gap between Kobe and the #2 SG? Of course that gap between Kobe and the #2 has closed a bit since then (Lakers' 3peat years). The thing is, Kobe was like what 21? And Shaq was like 27 at the time. No way in hell would PJ let Kobe take over because of Shaq would have been butthurt. Everybody knows that. But when you are 21 and improving because you put the work in, it is not selfish that you want a bigger role in the offense. It's called hunger, not selfishness. Thing is, after 14 years, he's still working his ass off, and still hungry. Gotta respect that.

[ambchang]

You are not giving any credit to the horace grants, a.c. greens, derek fisher, brian shaw, ron harper, robert horry, rick fox, glen rice. if u are say odom and bynum are better than all those guys then we simply got the best championship team all time.


Quit Hatin'

Not that they were totally useless, but their contributions, for all intents and purposes, are similar to those of Ariza, Fisher, Farmer, Walton, Vujacic, Artest, Brown, and of course, Adam Morrison.

[TheGreatest23]

Not that they were totally useless, but their contributions, for all intents and purposes, are similar to those of Ariza, Fisher, Farmer, Walton, Vujacic, Artest, Brown, and of course, Adam Morrison.
:lmao