Reply With Quote
Kobe is legit.
all star mvp lmao watta joke ball hog
Kobe is legit.
So what exactly makes a player the first option of a team over another player? The player that scores more is always the number one option? Problem with the Shaq and Kobe Lakers is that there are very few other examples of championship teams that have had their two best players both in their prime and both having the dominant talent to be number 1 options. Take a look at the last two seasons of the Shaq-Kobe three-peat Lakers.
2000-01 LA Lakers
Regular season
Shaq: 28.7 ppg, 19.2 FGApg
Kobe: 28.5 ppg, 22.2FGApg
Playoffs
Shaq: 30.4 ppg, 21.5 FGApg
Kobe: 29.4 ppg, 22.4 FGApg
2001-02 LA Lakers
Regular season
Shaq: 27.2 ppg, 18.3 FGApg
Kobe: 25.2 ppg, 20.0 FGApg
Playoffs
Shaq: 28.5 ppg, 20.2 FGApg
Kobe: 26.6 ppg, 22.7 FGApg
Yes, Shaq scored more, marginally. Yes, he was more efficient at scoring, since he was making dunks, lay-ups, and short hook shots. And yes, he had better NBA Finals performances. But, if you look at those stats above, it's far from a huge margin between the two as to which was the number one option. Kobe took more shots. The offense was geared towards showcasing both players, rather equally actually. Kobe wasn't a second option on those Lakers teams. The most appropriate way to call it is Shaq was 1A and Kobe was 1B. Kobe was a first option.
It absolutely boggles my mind that people try to twist it so adamantly just to discredit Kobe.
I share the opposite sentiment; imo this perspective comes across as a serious underestimation of how dominant Shaq was during that period especially in their championship Finals. He was the most dominant force the modern NBA has ever and likely will ever see. Kobe was a great player but his role was clearly a secondary one. Doesn't mean he's not important but it wasn't 1a and 1b, it was clearly 1 and 2. On everyone's top players list in the NBA for that period, Shaq was at the top whereas Duncan and Kobe were fighting for spots 2 and 3 back in early 00's on Bill Simmons and the rest of the media's best-of lists. That also doesn't mean that a clear no. 1 option can't be outplayed on occasion by fellow teammates especially if the match-ups prove to be favorable or if they simply play great.
Shaq's also been to the Finals as a no. 1 option prior to Kobe and got there without him although riding on the Wade train in 2006 when it comes to that "what if Shaq had another great swing man" argument. And Kobe's got Gasol as his "got there without Shaq but still had a great big man" argument.
Last edited by Cane; 06-19-2010 at 11:07 PM.
Kome got so many of those shots because of other teams having to pay attention to Shaq.
And the refs sniffing.
It's not that boggling. You are not that smart.
FIFY but I like it when you actually post an original thought.
You can argue that Duncan didn't deserve finals mvp, but there is no way he wasn't the best player on all of those championship teams. It's a moot point since you said it yourself that Shaq was clearly the number one option for the lakers during their three peat. And not just in a finals series; which is your case for both Tony and Manu being the number one option over Duncan.
I would say Kobe is ranked above duncan in terms of his career.. but i would also understand if someone else said duncan is ranked above kobe.
They both have distinct advantages over each other which makes them relatively equal in my book.
Both are top 10 players of all time.
I didn't say Shaq was clearly the number one option for those Lakers during their three-peat. I said he was the best player. If people would say that instead of the argument of "number one option" I'd likely not argue against it as much. Being a "number one option" is what I read all the time. Kobe shared that le with Shaq for the last two le teams of that three-peat. Shaq, however, was still the best player.
Definately Duncan. Duncan did more with less, has more MVPS and has 4 les as the alpha dog. Kobe Bryant has only 2 les as the alpha dog. From 2005-2007 Kobe either missed the playoffs or got bounced in the 1st - 2nd round as 7th or 8th seed. This will always be a stain in Kobe's legacy. Jerry West's re ed trade saved Kobe's legacy. A prime Duncan beat a Prime Kobe in the playoffs.
Shaq's Finals appearance as the no. 1 option prior to Kobe only helps support my point. Shaq couldn't win it with a great wing player like Penny. It required the caliber of player Kobe was. And what you indicate as riding the Wade train in 2006 doesn't really add much to either side of the argument.
I agree that Shaq was the most dominant player in the late 90s and early 2000s. The most dominant player in the league alone cannot by himself win a championship. Wilt Chamberlain knows all about that.
There's a distinction between individual dominance and team greatness. LeBron is the most dominant and most talented player in the league. But hasn't his shine worn off considering the last couple of post-seasons?
To me, Shaq was the more dominant player. But Kobe carried the offense roughly about as much as Shaq did. Shaq could have averaged 30 field goal attempts a game to make Kobe more of a role player. But they wouldn't have had the success they had as a team. The balance they shared on offense made it so difficult for other teams to guard. Shaq dominated the paint. And Kobe's abilities out on the perimeter not only to score but to create for others made Kobe just as important as Shaq on those Lakers teams. It was the balance between the two. It was the two of the equally sharing the offensive load.
Vice versa works.
Shaq didn't get triple teamed every single time down the court because of Kobe's ability to score on the perimeter and create other scoring opportunities for others. Kobe's emergence as a premier scorer in the league in the early 2000s had a great deal to do with teams not being able to stop Shaq or the Lakers.
But I guess just telling someone they're not smart is a much better argument.
See, this take absolutely boggles my mind since it paints a seriously skewed image. You're basically only comparing their PPG and FGA which is a pretty questionable way to evaluate any two players overall impact and their importance to the team. However the fact that Shaq was a god damn near 30 PPG player playing as a center on the 3-peat should say a lot more than what you're taking from it.
You also only compare two of the three seasons of the 3-peat.
Shaq was able to create his own, much higher percentage shots than Kobe while being a dominant force. He created the inside-out game that championship teams usually utilize and had a superior impact on the rest of the boxscore.
Shaq's impact in the finals was also huge compared to Bryant's and thats the stage that matters the most.
PER doesn't include either players numerous intangibles but its a much better stat to gauge than just PPA and FGA if you want to compare players on their metrics. PER also shows one how dominant Shaq really was without having to go back and watch tape or read media articles.
Shaq had a phenomenal 30.5, 28.7, and 28.3 PER rating in the playoffs for the 3-peat. Kobe had had a great but not phenomenal 19.3, 25.0, 20.0. Shaq put up phenomenal numbers and his career PER averages both for the playoffs and regular season currently exceeds both Duncan's and Kobe's.
And if you don't want to take my post for it, check out the media articles and post game coverage of the time. Shaq was ranked as the clear cut no. 1 player during that period. Both Kobe and Duncan were fighting for secondary spots until age, injuries and questionable motivation caught up to Shaq.
And without having a great frontcourt, Kobe doesn't win championships either. These what-if games kinda suck since without Pippen, Jordan wouldn't have had as many championships either. EDIT: Although its much easier to build around a prime Shaq than Kobe. Basketball's a team game but its no question that Shaq was the more vital piece and had a much bigger overall impact especially since he was quite possibly the most dominant big man the NBA will see playing in a big man's game.
Last edited by Cane; 06-19-2010 at 11:48 PM.
I've already made reference to this in one of my previous posts, but it's the whole idea of "number one option" and Kobe not being the "number one option" on those Lakers teams or only winning two les as the "number one option." It just doesn't make for a compelling argument for me. Your take is slightly different, by saying it's Shaq's dominance or that he was more vital. That I have less of a problem with. As I said earlier, if people argued Shaq was the "best player" on those teams, I'd have less of a problem with. It's the whole "number one option" thing merely to discredit Kobe.
I haven't argued once that Kobe was the number one option over Shaq. Merely that they shared that status for two of those championship teams. I didn't include the first le and I didn't even look at the stats of that team because I'm pretty sure the stats would bear out that Shaq was more clearly the number one guy on that team. I'm only suggesting that this whole "number one option" thing is just a phrase used to discredit Kobe.
I haven't once argued anything to discredit Shaq or how good or dominant he was during that stretch of les. He was phenomenal. You don't have to convince me. He was a modern version of Wilt Chamberlain, or as close as there could be. He was just unstoppable in the paint. None of my comments have suggested otherwise, nor have I intended them to.
Point to point, I'm arguing that you can't discredit Kobe for those championships either. How people talk about it, you'd think Kobe was really a role player, someone like the status of a Scottie Pippen or Kevin McHale. But that's simply not the case. The cat averaged one or two points fewer than Shaq. He was not simply a role player or even a sidekick. It wasn't Batman and Robin. It was Superman and Batman. That's what I've been getting at. Role players don't average 25-30 points a game. Sidekicks don't get the basketball in their hands in the final two minutes of close games to close it out.
When you consider that Kobe was playing with such a dominant big man, and then you look at his numbers, it's crazy to discredit him for not having as much an impact on those early Lakers les as he did.
Magic Johnson not once was the playoff leading scorer on any of his five championship Lakers squad. How ridiculous would it be to say he wasn't the "the number one option" on those teams? Now I know it's not exactly the same thing. But that's the type the criticism Kobe not being "the number one option" on those teams come across as. Kobe wasn't Kevin McHale. He wasn't Robin. He was "1B."
I hope we can use usage % over FGA. I think it is a better measurement to see how many possessions end with the particular player whether it is a shot or an assist. Maybe Jamstone would like to bring that up in his argument. That would be helpful.
Don't disagree with that and that follows my line of thinking.
I think Kobe's impact was just as vital. You take Shaq off those Lakers teams, they don't win les. You take Kobe off those Lakers teams, they don't win les. I truly believe that.
Shaq was the better player. He was the more dominant player. I personally think his importance wasn't that much greater than Kobe's. I still view it as more as a "1A" and "1B' type of thing. Kobe's emergence as elite player and premier scorer is what helped make Shaq's dominance so unstoppable. It wasn't with Penny. It wasn't with Van Exel/Eddie Jones. It got to that point with Kobe. It wasn't like Hakeem and a bunch of jumpshooting role players. It was Shaq 1A and Kobe 1B.
I'm not really one who has looked at USG% much, but for what it's worth:
2000-01
Regular Season
Shaq: 31.6 USG%
Kobe: 31.8 USG%
Playoffs
Shaq: 32.0 USG%
Kobe: 30.3 USG%
2001-02
Regular Season
Shaq: 31.8 USG%
Kobe: 30.4 USG%
Playoffs
Shaq: 31.4 USG%
Kobe: 29.8 USG%
Funny how nobody discredits any of Magic's 5 les even though he only won the finals MVP 3 times and in the year of his first his own teamate was the season MVP.
Kobe just ins't as likeable... simple as that.
PJ just last night described Kobe's role in the 3peat as a primary mover.
FG%, FGA, Points, advanced stats, etc etc blah blah blah. Watch the games!
It takes a team to win and neither Kobe or Shaq win without the likes of Fish, Shaw, Horry, Fox, Harper etc. Anyone who watched the games knows that neither win without the other. The BIG men will always have better effeciency numbers. It goes with the position.
Just as Magic and Kareem don't win without Worthy, Scott, Wilkes, Green, Rambis etc. So who was the number one option? Kareem or Magic? I believe it was Kareem and Magic was the glue. Othere might think the opposite. Does that take anything away from either players championships or legacies? Of couse not...
Only Kobe get's that microscope.
Maybe you should be in prison too.
I am not a rapist.
Kobe had a profound impact on the 3-peat but he was still clearly a secondary option since they had a prime Shaq on their team. Shaq's impact on the game was unrivaled at the point in the league and to sound like a broken record he was basically the undisputed best player during his LA prime. Bryant simply didn't contribute as much as Shaq did and wasn't as dominant whether its overall stats, impact, or in their championship winning Finals. But yea I agree that without him, LA wouldn't 3peat but without Shaq they would've been much worse off.
Kobe really only shared that "1B" status for one year and was vastly outplayed in the other two by a combined 19.5 PER in the playoffs. Kobe was easily the best secondary option in the NBA and a top player himself but Shaq was clearly the best player in the league.I haven't argued once that Kobe was the number one option over Shaq. Merely that they shared that status for two of those championship teams. I didn't include the first le and I didn't even look at the stats of that team because I'm pretty sure the stats would bear out that Shaq was more clearly the number one guy on that team. I'm only suggesting that this whole "number one option" thing is just a phrase used to discredit Kobe.
When it comes to comparing such elite players and their careers, qualities such as not having as impressive run(s) in the Championship-winning Finals or as the overall no. 1 option are still in the discussion.
Well when you compared Kobe to Shaq by using PPG and FGA on just two of the three-peat years it seemed like a biased and skewed take.I haven't once argued anything to discredit Shaq or how good or dominant he was during that stretch of les. He was phenomenal. You don't have to convince me. He was a modern version of Wilt Chamberlain, or as close as there could be. He was just unstoppable in the paint. None of my comments have suggested otherwise, nor have I intended them to.
Of course he wasn't a role player, he was one of the top players in the league. However during that 3peat era everyone was Robin if Shaq's Batman including the next best players in the league in Duncan and Kobe. Everyone would've played second fiddle to Shaq on the Lakers during that era and that shouldn't be an insult to anyone. But that also doesn't mean that he wasn't the best no.1 option of the time either given his basically unrivaled modern NBA dominance.Point to point, I'm arguing that you can't discredit Kobe for those championships either. How people talk about it, you'd think Kobe was really a role player, someone like the status of a Scottie Pippen or Kevin McHale. But that's simply not the case. The cat averaged one or two points fewer than Shaq. He was not simply a role player or even a sidekick. It wasn't Batman and Robin. It was Superman and Batman. That's what I've been getting at. Role players don't average 25-30 points a game. Sidekicks don't get the basketball in their hands in the final two minutes of close games to close it out.
I'm not sure whats the deal with the scoring emphasis and jumping to other players but Magic Johnson wasn't outplayed by a teammate by over 10 PER in a championship run like Kobe was and its not like Magic was the Finals MVP on all their runs either . Magic also posted up far greater moments in NBA finals history.Magic Johnson not once was the playoff leading scorer on any of his five championship Lakers squad. How ridiculous would it be to say he wasn't the "the number one option" on those teams?
It was no contest that Shaq was absolutely superior for most of the run especially in the Finals, Kobe only had one championship year where he closed in on Shaq's impact.Now I know it's not exactly the same thing. But that's the type the criticism Kobe not being "the number one option" on those teams come across as. Kobe wasn't Kevin McHale. He wasn't Robin. He was "1B."
No one's saying Kobe is Kevin McHale but Bryant was clearly a secondary option on the 3-peat and not "1B" but that doesn't mean he wasn't a top 2-4 player either
Kobe really only has a legitimate argument for one championship run as the 1B. He was the second most important reason why they were successful though but did fall short in the championship Finals.
You seem to acknowledge that Shaq was a greater player so how can Kobe be just as important if Shaq as better? You take Kobe off the team and the Lakers still has a shot of getting a le and at the very least having a much better chance at getting a le than a team built around Kobe.
And now that I think about it....1B basically is being a no. 2 spot or not being the legitimate no. 1 guy.
Final MVP's are decided by the team and Magic was able to carry the load during Kareem's injury is why he got that one IIRC.
Doesn't stop his jersey from being the most sold in the NBA. However other GOATs also didn't get involved with rape, nasty feuds like he had with Shaq, and you're surfing on spurstalk.com where LA is basically enemy no. 1.Kobe just ins't as likeable... simple as that.
Lets not forget that Magic Johnson and the Lakers were a polarizing force back in the day as well versus Bird and the Celtics.
During that Shaq-era PJ also called Kobe "uncoachable" and was willing to trade him since that locker room was so crazy and Shaq was the more important piece at the time IIRC.PJ just last night described Kobe's role in the 3peat as a primary mover.
FG%, FGA, Points, advanced stats, etc etc blah blah blah. Watch the games!
It takes a team to win and neither Kobe or Shaq win without the likes of Fish, Shaw, Horry, Fox, Harper etc. Anyone who watched the games knows that neither win without the other. The BIG men will always have better effeciency numbers. It goes with the position.
Just as Magic and Kareem don't win without Worthy, Scott, Wilkes, Green, Rambis etc. So who was the number one option? Kareem or Magic? I believe it was Kareem and Magic was the glue. Othere might think the opposite. Does that take anything away from either players championships or legacies? Of couse not...
Only Kobe get's that microscope.
Whenever people do talk about the stacked teams like Magic's and Bird's its usually brought up that they had incredible teammates and some of the most talent on a roster the NBA has seen.
But yea, basketball is of course a team game and Kobe was instrumental in the 3-peat and not really interchangeable. Doesn't change that he didn't have as much of an impact as Shaq and by a substantial margin in at least two of the three championship years. Or that Shaq performed better in the championship finals.
Last edited by Cane; 06-20-2010 at 01:34 AM.
Kobe's talent should never be discredited. I don't think many would argue who is more talented between Duncan and Kobe. Basketball is about team and winning and this is where Tim passes Kobe.
By the time 2000 rolls around the Lakers are starting the next dynasty. Shaq is 28 and Kobe 22. Three years in and three les later this isn't enough for Kobe. He has bought into the hype of being the next Jordan and deferring to Shaq or allowing Shaq to take more credit is more than Kobe can take. He chases Shaq out in '04 and along with it more les. The alternative here is to exude a little humility and recognize that at some point he would be the go to guy and Shaq would recognize and embrace it. He couldn't do that. In the interim the Lakers are mediocre for 5 years. He threatens to walk because he can't take the mediocrity and suddenly the Lake show gets Gasol. Along this journey he has a rape accusation and throws Shaq under the bus for cheating on his wife.
Duncan on the other hand has exhibited loyalty to his team franchise and city. Has always played with the best interest of the team ahead of his own. Has brought 4 les to a town as the best player on his team. He has exuded class and a committment to winning over personal glory at every step along the way.
Kobe is the better athlete Tim is the better basketball player.
Kobe is legit.
Duncan's had the better career overall. More consistent, even in the playoffs. The margin is small but the edge goes to Duncan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
