Reply With Quote
all of yall
luva come back to bed and tell me some stories of what you and kobe used to do together
Oh yeah. My stomping grounds in those days were the Scout/Fanhome boards, and pretty much every thread was Laker fan gloating about other teams not being able to stop Shaq. Kobe discussion was relegated to second tier threads with people arguing who's better between him and McGrady.back in the day laker fan billed shaq as an unstoppable beast. now he's just some overrated piece ofclassic
But yeah, he was the leader of the Lakers back then. Look what happened when Shaq let him lead in '04 against the Pistons. One of the worst Finals performances of all-time.
all of yall
luva come back to bed and tell me some stories of what you and kobe used to do together
As if we care.
"merit"
Sure I can. Baseball for one. Just because Mariano Rivera can close out a game like no other doesn't mean he's the best pitcher or player on the Yankees.
Same logic applies to basketball. A player dominating for 3 and 1/2 quarters but then having to defer for the final moments of the game because he's a liability at the free-throw line, doesn't invalidate what he did for the rest of the game. Just because there's more drama associated with the closing minutes of a game, doesn't mean they're anymore important than the opening minutes of a game.
Time is time. it's importance doesn't change no matter what the quarter, and games are won and lost in the 1st quarter just as much as they are in the 4th. To me, a player who goes 32 and 16 on 60% for 3 and 1/2 quarters is the far more valuable player than the player who goes 7-20, but closes out the game with a couple of shots and a few made FTs. There'd be no game to close if not for the contribution of the player who went 32 and 16.
But Shaq was the go-to-guy for the majority of the game, was he not? The stats seem to suggest this as Kobe never really got anywhere near Shaq's total production when they played together. Mamba was doing his 25 points on 40% thing, while Shaq was going off for near 30 on 60% shooting.
And Manu has been the Spurs closer since '05, but only a fool would say he's the Spurs leader (something I think you've actually said)
Magic
Kareem
Shaq
Gasol
Bynum
Kobe
shaq is a GREAT player ...he should of been greatest ever but as it stands still great. But come on as a Laker, his career was spectacular but brief. so you can make a case for West and Baylor over him as well...because "greatest" was not defined on here. West not only was a great player but a great GM that had an impact on at least 5 les as a GM (or president of the Grizz LOL) ...so all things considered you can argue West over them all.
Shaq was a great Laker but not greater than kobe. Many on here like Shaq or respect him cuz he punked your teams in his prime ...but you guys overrate his place in Laker lore.
This
I am as big a Shaq fan as they get but my man wasn't a Laker long enough. Grateful for his contributions but Laker tenure was not to be. By virtue of that, the list has to be modified.
This is an often misconception and misrepresentation of what really happen. What you say is true for the 1999-2000 Lakers team. By 2000-01, Kobe was as much the go-to guy on the Lakers as Shaq was. The difference was insignificant.
2000-01 Lakers
Shaq: 39.5 mpg, 19.2 FGA, 13.1 FTA, 28.7 ppg, 31.6 USG%
Kobe: 40.9 mpg, 22.2 FGA, 8.2 FTA, 28.5 ppg, 31.8 USG%
2000-01 Lakers playoffs
Shaq: 42.3 mpg, 21.5 FGA, 12.5 FTA, 30.4 ppg, 32.0 USG%
Kobe: 43.4 mpg, 22.4 FGA, 9.4 FTA, 29.4 ppg, 30.3 USG%
2001-02 Lakers
Shaq: 36.1 mpg, 18.3 FGA, 10.7 FTA, 27.2 ppg, 31.8 USG%
Kobe: 38.3 mpg, 20.0 FGA, 7.4 FTA, 25.2 ppg, 30.4 USG%
2001-02 Lakers playoffs
Shaq: 40.8 mpg, 20.2 FGA, 10.9 FTA, 28.5 ppg, 31.4 USG%
Kobe: 43.8 mpg, 22.7 FGA, 7.6 FTA, 26.6 ppg, 29.8 USG%
The stats actually do suggest Kobe got near Shaq's total production those last two Shaq-Kobe les. Shaq was more dominant. More efficient in scoring. But Kobe's mark on those last two les of their first threepeat absolutely show that Kobe's contributions were about as much as Shaq's. The scoring differences were marginal after 1999-2000. Yes, Shaq scored on a higher FG%. But even if you factor in free throws, Kobe was taking about as many shots as Shaq, sometimes more. It was really a case of a 1A and 1B, not one go-to guy and a sidekick. Shaq and Kobe were both go-to guys for most of the game and then Kobe closed it out.
People want to diminish what Kobe did on those early championship teams. I get it. People either hate Kobe or hate Kobe/Laker fans. But Kobe is often ted on as a second fiddle when he was more of a go-to guy especially for the 2001 and 2002 championship teams. The stats suggest that he and Shaq put out about the same production and Kobe closed out the games.
And yeah, the Mariano Rivera comparison is extremely weak. Kobe didn't sit out the first 42 minutes of games and only played and contributed in the final 6 minutes.
Last edited by JamStone; 09-14-2010 at 12:47 PM.
This one's easy
1. Magic
2. Kareem
3. Kobe
4. West
5. Shaq
1. Magic
2. Kobe
3. West
4. Kareem
5. Shaq
What I've been saying all along. I'm not a Bean worshiper but after that 2000 season, where Shaquille was clearly the Alpha Dog, Bean clearly held his own, if not did more. I always bring up that 2001 Spurs series: the real NBA Finals. Sure Shaquille got the Finals MVP Award against Filly, but in that Spurs/Lakers matchup with the Spurs having homecourt, the best player on the Floor, including the superstars (Duncan, Robinson, O'Neal, Bryant), Bean was the best one of the court.This is an often misconception and misrepresentation of what really happen. What you say is true for the 1999-2000 Lakers team. By 2000-01, Kobe was as much the go-to guy on the Lakers as Shaq was. The difference was insignificant.
2000-01 Lakers
Shaq: 39.5 mpg, 19.2 FGA, 13.1 FTA, 28.7 ppg, 31.6 USG%
Kobe: 40.9 mpg, 22.2 FGA, 8.2 FTA, 28.5 ppg, 31.8 USG%
2000-01 Lakers playoffs
Shaq: 42.3 mpg, 21.5 FGA, 12.5 FTA, 30.4 ppg, 32.0 USG%
Kobe: 43.4 mpg, 22.4 FGA, 9.4 FTA, 29.4 ppg, 30.3 USG%
2001-02 Lakers
Shaq: 36.1 mpg, 18.3 FGA, 10.7 FTA, 27.2 ppg, 31.8 USG%
Kobe: 38.3 mpg, 20.0 FGA, 7.4 FTA, 25.2 ppg, 30.4 USG%
2001-02 Lakers playoffs
Shaq: 40.8 mpg, 20.2 FGA, 10.9 FTA, 28.5 ppg, 31.4 USG%
Kobe: 43.8 mpg, 22.7 FGA, 7.6 FTA, 26.6 ppg, 29.8 USG%
This more than likely would be the five who would go on this list. Anyone putting Wilt on the top 5 Lakers list obviously doesn't know Laker basketball. The only debatable person would probably be Shaquille. Could he be replaced with Baylor or Worthy? If anyone, probably J dub but I think Shaquille has done enough to stay on. He gave the Lakers eight great years.
Good post. I'm done with this argument in this forum (or at least do my best not to get sucked in on kobe vs. shaq) As well as you backed up your argument above, it wont change the mind of the haters. Kobe talk (even on some Laker forums) is full of fanbois and haters going back and forth...
Shaq and Kobe were both critical to the 3 peat. In 2000 It was no question it was Shaq's team. In fact, I think ALL of the FINALS teams of the Kobe/Shaq era were shaq's team more than Kobe's, though Kobe became more valuable and took more responsibilty each year. Those teams were built on shaq's inside presence, and Kobe slashed and created off that and the role players as well. But to imply he only took over with 6 mins left ... is silly and inaccurate. Kobe pretty much filled whatever role those teams needed he was, in many ways, a sort of a new millenium Scottie Pippen for those teams though a a better scorer. In fact, many of the media made that comparison early on. The big difference is Kobe had clutch time responsibilty, that Pippen never really had because of MJ.
That does not take any credit away from Kobe, in fact Kobe (who many consider selfish) had to sacrifice his game for those teams to win. Now, I have no problem calling out Kobe for his role in the demise of those teams. He gets credit for playing a major role on the wins and blame for not working it out with Shaq. Shaq obviously was to blame as well. And for me, that is why Kobe is not a greater Laker than Magic, but neither is Shaq. Magic was a greater leader and team-mate than either of those two combined. Yes, he wanted to lead the Lakers and increase his role, but he waited for Riley to give it to him, rather than "force it". Magic probably felt kareem was slowing the offense down, but he held his tongue until Riley decided to switch the focus of the offense to Magic. Kobe should of taken note. Shaq should of learned from Kareem (or the Admiral) on how to embrace a young superstar and share the spotlight. Because of this failing, neither is the greatest Laker in my humble opinion, but I would give Kobe the edge over Shaq because he was major contributor to two seperate le runs.That is not a knock on shaq. I have different reason for not being a Shaq fan, (wont detail here) but that does not take away the les he led us to.
Kobe or Shaq hate is silly, especially from Laker fans. Both are great players, both Laker legends. They needed each other to win those les. It's obvious Shaq did not win les until Kobe developed, and Kobe struggled right after Shaq left.
Yep, Kobe closed out Sac and brought us home vs. the spurs that year ...
Good post, but here's a case of where the stats slightly misrepresent what actually happened.
Shaq was most definitely the first option throughout the majority of the game. Much of the reason for the relatively close production (it's not really that close when you examine the stats as a whole. Shaq's PER crushes Kobe's) and shot attempts between each player is because Shaq was often double and triple teamed with Kobe playing off him. If some team were crazy enough to try and check Shaq with single coverage for the entire game, his shot attempts would dwarf Kobe's.
You might think this is a slight against Kobe, but it's more of exaltation of Shaq's dominance. To have a player like that and not feed him in the post for virtually every offensive play would be lunacy. In those days, I never heard the other opposing coaches say that their defensive game plan was entirely built around stopping Kobe. Their main point of concern was Shaq, Shaq, Shaq.
But, yeah Kobe was 1B, which doesn't make sense in itself. He's either the first option or the second, and in the case of the 3 peat Lakers, he was the second option.
Do you know why? Shaq had to deal with Robinson and Duncan down in the post on both the offensive and defensive ends while Kobe got to feast on Terry Porter, Danny Ferry, and Sean Elliott. Shaq would often force Duncan and Robinson to collapse, dish to Kobe, who would then wreak havoc on the weak-side.
Once the Spurs got Bowen, it brought Kobe down to earth some against the Spurs. He no longer could beat his primary defender at will and slash into the open lanes (which Shaq created) with the same amount of ease as before.
And let's not forget Shaq's ability to foul out the opposing team's best interior defender, which happened quite frequently.
I don't know why so people insist on rewriting the history of the 3 peat? Shaq was the main man. The offensive load wasn't split between him and Kobe to create this 1A, 1B nonsense. The offensive system was built around Shaq and his ability to draw doubles and triples, which opened lanes and created open shots for the 3 point shooters.
How about this, yall s stick to deciding your own team's top 5.
Quit Hatin'
Very poor argument. First of all, PER measures more than just offensive production. So just going straight to PER doesn't give a fair or complete evaluation of (exclusively) offensive production or how one player is more of a "go-to" offensive player than another on the same team.
Second, even as it pertains to offensive stats, it isn't so much a measure of merely production, but efficiency. Big men are at an advantage because good big men take higher percentage shots and will generally have much higher FG% than a perimeter player.
Overall, PER favors big men because PER takes into consideration more than just points and FG%. It measures rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, turnovers as well. A big man with rebounds and blocks, compared to a wing player particularly who is not a point guard or not a high assist player, is again at an advantage with respect to PER.
I'll give you a couple examples.
Take the 2003-04 and 2004-05 Detroit Pistons who went to back-to-back NBA Finals. The offense ran through Rip Hamilton primarily and then Chauncey Billups. Ben Wallace didn't score much, didn't rack up assists. Check out their respective PER ratings those two seasons (regular season and playoffs).
2003-04 PER ratings (regular season and playoffs)
Billups: 18.6 and 18.8
Hamilton: 16.8 and 19.6
Wallace: 17.3 and 18.6
2004-05 PER ratings (regular season and playoffs)
Billups: 19.0 and 20.0
Hamilton: 16.0 and 16.2
Wallace: 17.4 and 13.7
Now based on those PER stats, would you guess the offensive go-to player was Rip Hamilton? And would you guess that Ben Wallace was the fifth option on offense? PER does not accurately represent what player on a given team is the main go-to player.
Another example? The 2007-08 Boston Celtics. Another well-balanced team on offense, but Paul Pierce was the go-to guy. KG brought a lot of energy, especially defensively, but it was Paul Pierce on offense.
2007-08 Boston Celtics PER ratings (regular season and playoffs)
Pierce: 19.6 and 17.4
Garnett: 25.3 and 23.0
KG's PER stats are significantly better than Pierce's but Pierce was the go-to guy on offense.
Again, big men are at an advantage when it comes to PER because they generally have higher efficiency in scoring and they have one category in rebounds that they can generally dominate with double digit stats and pushes that PER higher, especially compared to perimeter players who are not the primary ball handlers who rack up double digit assists. When you have both a dominant big man and dominant perimeter scorer on the same team, in general, that big man will have a higher PER even if he's not the go-to guy on offense. Look at Dwight Howard's PER compared to his teammates and he isn't even any good as a go-to low post scorer.
Very poor argument.
You're trying to make it a slight against Kobe. You even try to argue against statistical facts that prove you are wrong as it pertains to the 2000-01 and 2001-02 Lakers. Shaq was dominant. That's not something at issue here. No one is saying Shaq wasn't more dominant. We're talking specifically about who was the "go-to guy" on offense. Look at the FGA and FTA and scoring and usage percentage, and it's pretty much a wash between Shaq and Kobe those last two seasons of the threepeat, in both the regular season and the playoffs. Those are far more accurate indicators than the PER stat. The PER stat is complete horse if you're trying to prove who is the "go-to guy." Good stat for overall production and offensive efficiency? Sure. To prove who was the go-to guy? Not at all.You might think this is a slight against Kobe, but it's more of exaltation of Shaq's dominance. To have a player like that and not feed him in the post for virtually every offensive play would be lunacy. In those days, I never heard the other opposing coaches say that their defensive game plan was entirely built around stopping Kobe. Their main point of concern was Shaq, Shaq, Shaq.
But, yeah Kobe was 1B, which doesn't make sense in itself. He's either the first option or the second, and in the case of the 3 peat Lakers, he was the second option.
And it's funny how you talk about how other teams were concerned about Shaq more than Kobe when you look back at the two biggest challengers of the Lakers in the early 2000s, the San Antonio Spurs and the Sacramento Kings. After the 2000 playoffs, the Sacramento Kings acquired Doug Christie specifically to be a "Kobe stopper" after Kobe torched them in the playoffs. The San Antonio Spurs did the same exact thing after the 2001 playoffs by picking up Bruce Bowen. But teams were only concerned about Shaq? The two best teams in the early 2000s other than the Lakers and they made roster moves specifically because of Kobe.
By the 2000-01 season, Kobe had emerged as just as much of the go-to guy for the Lakers as Shaq was. Shaq was still a go-to guy, don't get me wrong. But it's about as equal as you can get.
That was Detroit's gameplan in the 2004 NBA Finals. Let Shaq get his, play him straight up, and focus on Kobe, shade him with 2-3 help defenders, make him take extremely difficult shots. It worked.In those days, I never heard the other opposing coaches say that their defensive game plan was entirely built around stopping Kobe. Their main point of concern was Shaq, Shaq, Shaq.
Last edited by JamStone; 09-14-2010 at 08:53 PM.
Way to take an aside, turn it into a strawman, and fashion an elaborate argument that doesn't address the main point. Take PER out and Shaq was still the more offensive productive player. He averaged more points on a better percentage in all those playoff runs and was the catalyst that generated the offense. That's my main point. You're trying to spin it as if Kobe was equally productive offensively, which wasn't the case at all. You only gave a cursory mention to FG% without acknowledging (purposely) that efficiency is a huge part of the equation.
You're reducing everything to PPG, Usage, and shot attempts without considering the qualitative.You're trying to make it a slight against Kobe. You even try to argue against statistical facts that prove you are wrong as it pertains to the 2000-01 and 2001-02 Lakers. Shaq was dominant. That's not something at issue here. No one is saying Shaq wasn't more dominant. We're talking specifically about who was the "go-to guy" on offense. Look at the FGA and FTA and scoring and usage percentage, and it's pretty much a wash between Shaq and Kobe those last two seasons of the threepeat, in both the regular season and the playoffs. Those are far more accurate indicators than the PER stat. The PER stat is complete horse if you're trying to prove who is the "go-to guy." Good stat for overall production and offensive efficiency? Sure. To prove who was the go-to guy? Not at all.
For example, let's say a team has an unstoppable player who is without question the go-to-guy. The opposing team chooses to triple team him every time he touches the ball, preventing him from getting a shot off the entire game. As a result the team's 4th best player had more shot attempts. Following your logic, the 4th best player on the team is more of a go-to-guy because he had more shot attempts. Doesn't make any sense.
Same applies to Shaq and Kobe. Many of Kobe's shot attempts were created off Shaq double-teams.
Why wouldn't the championship caliber Kings and Spurs teams address their greatest weaknesses, which was perimeter defense? Both teams had the necessary interior D to somewhat contain Shaq (The Kings had Divac and Miller, the Spurs had Robinson and Duncan), but lacked any semblance of perimeter D (Before Bowen, the Spurs fielded Terry Porter and Danny Ferry, lol). Those movies would've been made even if you switched Kobe with Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady. I don't see how these teams going out and getting "Kobe stoppers" in any way proves that Kobe was the "go-to-guy."And it's funny how you talk about how other teams were concerned about Shaq more than Kobe when you look back at the two biggest challengers of the Lakers in the early 2000s, the San Antonio Spurs and the Sacramento Kings. After the 2000 playoffs, the Sacramento Kings acquired Doug Christie specifically to be a "Kobe stopper" after Kobe torched them in the playoffs. The San Antonio Spurs did the same exact thing after the 2001 playoffs by picking up Bruce Bowen. But teams were only concerned about Shaq? The two best teams in the early 2000s other than the Lakers and they made roster moves specifically because of Kobe.
By the 2000-01 season, Kobe had emerged as just as much of the go-to guy for the Lakers as Shaq was. Shaq was still a go-to guy, don't get me wrong. But it's about as equal as you can get.
So? Amare was the go-to-guy on the run and gun Suns, and the Spurs always let him get his, preferring instead to limit Nash's penetration and shut down the 3 point shooting. Letting a player "get his" doesn't magically attribute go-to-guy status to other player(s).That was Detroit's gameplan in the 2004 NBA Finals. Let Shaq get his, play him straight up, and focus on Kobe, shade him with 2-3 help defenders, make him take extremely difficult shots. It worked.
And choosing to single cover Shaq and focus on Kobe further proves my point. Why? Because the Pistons knew that double teaming Shaq would create open looks for the shooters, open up the weakside for easy slashing and penetration, and risk getting more bigs than need be in foul trouble. By playing Shaq straight up, they were able to prevent the dangerous side effects that comes along with doubling.
Besides, Shaq was pissed he didn't more touches because he was having his way in the post. Kobe wanted (or was forced) to be the "go-to-guy" in that series and the results were one of the worst Finals performances in history.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 09-14-2010 at 09:44 PM.
lol kobe fans
kobe will never surpass magic and he isnt #2, old school laker fans need to get in here to put these bandwagon kobe fan boys in their place
Not old school but I do know that Magic is #1 on the Lakers list, easily. Kareem #2. West/Kobe/Shaq at 3/4/5 and you can make pretty good arguments for each in how they should be ordered.
Wilt, Worthy, Baylor, Pau are all definitely top 10, I'm torn about who would fill the last spot. Maybe Gail Goodrich.
Shaq was the more offensive productive player. The difference was negligible. Didn't you say Kobe's production was nowhere near Shaq's as it pertained to being the "go-to guy" right? Well that's simply not true.
Efficiency alone doesn't make one player more productive than another player. Nene isn't more productive than Carmelo. Kendrick Perkins isn't more productive than Paul Pierce. Efficiency is something you can factor in, but Shaq being more efficient than Kobe doesn't mean he was by far more productive. Actual and tangible production is scoring and rebounding and assists and blocks and steals. That's producing on the basketball court. Not all these manufactured Hollinger formulas trying to skew what actually happens on the court.
Efficiency isn't even that "huge" part of offensive production. In some of your arguments, you even prove that yourself with that "well Shaq gets double teamed and opens up shots for Kobe" point. That doesn't affect Shaq's efficiency, but you seem to think it supports the argument Shaq is more productive. Kobe can go 10 for 30 from the field and score 28 points and Andrew Bynum can go 3 for 4 from the field. Bynum is more efficient. Kobe is more productive. It's pretty simple. It's not that Shaq was more efficient that mattered most. It's the actual tangible production he had on the court. Efficiency counts for little if the actual production is not there. It's not something you completely ignore. But it's not that "huge" of a factor in assessing production.
Come on now. You're reaching here. Really reaching. When teams double and triple teamed Shaq, were they double and triple teaming him with Kobe's man? Did teams leave Kobe open to double Shaq? Or were they leaving Samaki Walker and Rick Fox and the like?You're reducing everything to PPG, Usage, and shot attempts without considering the qualitative.
For example, let's say a team has an unstoppable player who is without question the go-to-guy. The opposing team chooses to triple team him every time he touches the ball, preventing him from getting a shot off the entire game. As a result the team's 4th best player had more shot attempts. Following your logic, the 4th best player on the team is more of a go-to-guy because he had more shot attempts. Doesn't make any sense.
Same applies to Shaq and Kobe. Many of Kobe's shot attempts were created off Shaq double-teams.
Shaq's game helped Kobe's But you'd be foolish to think it wasn't a mutually beneficial relationship. Kobe's game helped Shaq just as much. You put Kobe on the elbow on the side where Shaq was posting up, teams couldn't double team him from that side. You had Kobe get hot from the perimeter, defenses would also have to collapse on Kobe and Shaq would get even more easy buckets down low. It's not all Shaq made Kobe as a player. In fact, Shaq presented problems as well as advantages. How easy is it for an athletic slasher like Kobe who can easily break down his man off the dribble to get in a crowded lane? Shaq's presence in the lane on offense also prevented Kobe to fully exploit defenses off the dribble. That's like taking 1/3 of a player's one-on-one arsenal away from him. Sure, Shaq opened some things for Kobe and teammates, but it was most beneficial for spot up jump shooters who couldn't create off the dribble. Kobe had more than spot-up jump shooting skills.
So I'm sorry, but I can't buy this point at all. If you want to argue that Shaq gave Rick Fox a ton more open looks for spot up jumpers, ok. But Kobe? Teams weren't doubling and tripling off of Kobe. And Shaq taking a lot of space in the lane took away dribble drives out of Kobe's offensive arsenal.
You said you didn't hear back then about teams game-planning only for Kobe. Well, once Kobe emerged as one of the best perimeter scorers in the league, you didn't hear teams game-planning only for Shaq either. It wasn't just about Shaq, Shaq, Shaq. Kobe became a threat to drop 30 just as much as Shaq was. That's why I mention Doug Christie and Bruce Bowen. Teams were not ONLY game planning for Shaq. And that's your suggestion. And the Kobe stoppers specifically point to that. And they specifically show how more of an equal threat Kobe had become as early as the 2000-01 season.Why wouldn't the championship caliber Kings and Spurs teams address their greatest weaknesses, which was perimeter defense? Both teams had the necessary interior D to somewhat contain Shaq (The Kings had Divac and Miller, the Spurs had Robinson and Duncan), but lacked any semblance of perimeter D (Before Bowen, the Spurs fielded Terry Porter and Danny Ferry, lol). Those movies would've been made even if you switched Kobe with Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady. I don't see how these teams going out and getting "Kobe stoppers" in any way proves that Kobe was the "go-to-guy."
I'd argue Nash was more of a go-to guy on the Suns than Amare. Amare was a primary scorer, but Nash made everything happened. He facilitated on basically every play when he was on the court. Nash has the basketball in his hands when it mattered late in close games. The Spurs letting Amare get his and focusing on Nash supports the notion that Nash was the real go-to guy on those Suns teams.So? Amare was the go-to-guy on the run and gun Suns, and the Spurs always let him get his, preferring instead to limit Nash's penetration and shut down the 3 point shooting. Letting a player "get his" doesn't magically attribute go-to-guy status to other player(s).
And choosing to single cover Shaq and focus on Kobe further proves my point. Why? Because the Pistons knew that double teaming Shaq would create open looks for the shooters, open up the weakside for easy slashing and penetration, and risk getting more bigs than need be in foul trouble. By playing Shaq straight up, they were able to prevent the dangerous side effects that comes along with doubling.
Besides, Shaq was pissed he didn't more touches because he was having his way in the post. Kobe wanted (or was forced) to be the "go-to-guy" in that series and the results were one of the worst Finals performances in history.
Lol, it's amusing watching you try to twist things. The Pistons focused on Kobe because Kobe was as much of a threat on the Lakers defense as Shaq was. You try to stop one or the other. It's near impossible to stop both. The Pistons chose Kobe because they felt like Ben could do a good job on Shaq in single coverage. It was as much a decision based on the personnel the Pistons had as anything. But the Pistons focusing on Kobe does nothing to further your point. Double and tripling off of Devean George doesn't make Kobe better. Doubling off of Slava Medvedenko doesn't help Kobe. WTH? Did you even think before posting that crap argument?
Kobe wanted a Finals MVP in 2004 and it bit him in the ass. He had already become one of the two go-to guys on the Lakers several years before the 2004 NBA Finals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
