Top 5 Lakers of all time.

[Venti Quattro]

Wilt, Worthy, Baylor, Pau are all definitely top 10, I'm torn about who would fill the last spot. Maybe Gail Goodrich.

Mike Penberthy. The king of walk-ins.

[midnightpulp]

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.

False analogy. Efficiency does play a big part in the equation when both players are taking the same amount of shots. Andrew Bynum being "efficient" on 3-4 of shooting isn't the same level of efficiency as Shaq going 14-20. Shaq was far more productive, even though the stats say Bynum was more efficient. Comparing Nene and Carmelo, or Kobe and Bynum and then trying to use that as proof that "efficiency" doesn't translate into production is laughable. If you're going to draw comparisons to highlight your argument, make them meaningful.

Here's an example of how an efficient FG% translates into much better production (when comparing two first option type of players, not Nene and Carmelo, lol): In the 02 playoffs, Shaq and Kobe had a relatively close points per game average of 28 and 26, respectively. Taken at face value, it would seem their offensive production is virtually the same. But when we examine the stats more closely, we discover that Shaq averaged 1.41 points per shot and that Kobe Bryant averaged 1.17 points per shot. A quarter of a point differential is a huge separation. That means Shaq averages 5 more points per 20 shots than Kobe. You might think that the difference is "negligible," but I don't know any rational person who would think that a 25% difference between anything is "negligible."

Seriously, Jam, you're arguing against hard numbers here. Higher FG% does equate to higher production (if the players being measured against each other take a similar amount of shots).

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?

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.

This is one of the worst counterpoints you've made in this argument. This whole "Shaq clogged the lane, thus impairing Kobe's ability to drive more effectively" idea is flat out nonsense, mostly propagated by Kobe homers who insist we believe that Shaq held Kobe back in some capacity. Shaq did not effect Kobe's ability to dribble drive as much as believed, not much at all, to be honest. Quote Doug Collins in the following video (around the 7:00 min mark): "The Spurs are going to have to figure out a way to stop Kobe's dribble penetration." Yep, Shaq took dribble drives out of Kobe's arsenal so much that Kobe was able to penetrate and finish at will against the best interior D of the era.



Low-post players do not take up that much amount of space in the lane. The 3 second rule ensures they can't park themselves in the lane and back their defender down indefinitely until they get the shot they want. Also worth mentioning is that Duncan plays roughly as much as Shaq in the post, and Manu and Parker have no problems penetrating. Parker doesn't shoot 50% from the field in a year if not for Duncan opening things up inside. Ask any Spurs fan why Manu and Parker have such liberal driving lanes to work with.

Regarding Shaq and Kobe, it doesn't matter if Kobe's man leaves him to double Shaq. What would often happen, at least when those Lakers played the Spurs, is that Shaq would post up Robinson or Duncan, Robinson or Duncan would collapse on Shaq, Kobe would slash by his primary defender into the open area that was previously patrolled by Duncan or Robinson, Shaq would find him with a pass, and a layup or dunk would ensue, usually with posterizing results.

And of course they mutually benefited from each other, but Kobe (like Manu or Parker with Duncan) benefited most. Good post players open up lanes via seals and drawing the interior defender away from the basket area. When a team has a viable low-post option, the opposing interior defender has to guard him in the post. Now his back is turned from the basket should the post player find a cutter, causing him to arrive late to challenge the shot. Sure, sometimes post players create crowds, but they help slashing more than they hurt it.

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.

Shaq was always the primary focus of opposing defenses. Always. Sure Kobe was a concern, but he didn't cause the hand-wringing among head coaches like Shaq did.

I'd argue Nash was more of a go-to guy on the Suns than Amare. Amare was the 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.

Now you've contradicted your own argument of FGA and PPG equating to production and defining who the "go-to-guy" is. You used that measurement to demonstrate that Kobe was just as much a go-to-guy as Shaq was, but now it doesn't apply to Amare and Nash? Amare's PPG and FGA are quite higher than Nash's, so by your logic, Amare is the go-to-guy. Thanks for unintentionally proving my point. In much the same way you said Nash is the go-to-guy because he's the main offensive catalyst, Shaq was for the Lakers, regardless of what the FGA and PPG stats are.

Jam, it's common knowledge that Shaq would touch the ball first and the offensive would play off of him. Sure, there were plays where Kobe would initiate the offense, but the majority of the time, things ran through Shaq. I don't know why you're trying so hard to dispute this.

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?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last third of the paragraph (did you mean to say that "double teaming Devean George, etc doesn't make Kobe better?" I would argue that double teaming any player would help the teammates not being doubled. It's why coaches hate double teaming. It opens up the offense for the rest of the team). But I guess I'll reply that the Pistons chose Kobe because they felt it was more beneficial to crowd him than Shaq. Doubling perimeter players is less damaging than doubling post players, because doubling the former doesn't compromise your interior D, which is more important than perimeter D. Also, players doubling on the perimeter can recover a lot more quickly if their primary man should get open than if they had to double a player down in the post.

[JamStone]

False analogy. Efficiency does play a big part in the equation when both players are taking the same amount of shots. Andrew Bynum being "efficient" on 3-4 of shooting isn't the same level of efficiency as Shaq going 14-20. Shaq was far more productive, even though the stats say Bynum was more efficient. Comparing Nene and Carmelo, or Kobe and Bynum and then trying to use that as proof that "efficiency" doesn't translate into production is laughable. If you're going to draw comparisons to highlight your argument, make them meaningful.

You still don't get that efficiency does not = production. Offensive production is scoring points, getting the ball in the basket. The percentage at which a player gets the ball in the basket is efficiency. A player scoring 20 points on 10 shots is still scoring the same exact 20 points as the player scoring 20 points on 20 shots.

You're getting wrapped up in the how instead of the what. Production is the what. Efficiency is the how. That was the purpose of giving examples like I gave. Player A scores 20 points on 10-for-10 shooting and Player B scores 20 points on 10-for-20 shooting. Who produced more points? They produced the same amount of points, Einstein. It's the same production. Who was more efficient? Player A obviously. But the production was the same.

Production does not = efficiency.

Here's an example of how an efficient FG% translates into much better production (when comparing two first option type of players, not Nene and Carmelo, lol): In the 02 playoffs, Shaq and Kobe had a relatively close points per game average of 28 and 26, respectively. Taken at face value, it would seem their offensive production is virtually the same. But when we examine the stats more closely, we discover that Shaq averaged 1.41 points per shot and that Kobe Bryant averaged 1.17 points per shot. A quarter of a point differential is a huge separation. That means Shaq averages 5 more points per 20 shots than Kobe. You might think that the difference is "negligible," but I don't know any rational person who would think that a 25% difference between anything is "negligible."

Seriously, Jam, you're arguing against hard numbers here. Higher FG% does equate to higher production (if the players being measured against each other take a similar amount of shots).

Seriously, you're making the wrong argument. Production is production. Efficiency is efficiency. Get that through your skull, and you'll realize that Kobe's production was not as you put it "nowhere near Shaq's." Silly little you even admitted as much in the above quote when you acknowledged the "offensive production is virtually the same." Exactly. Stop arguing the "how" when the "what" is at issue here. The actual production. It's almost like arguing a dunk is better than a lay-up. 2 points is 2 points.

This is one of the worst counterpoints you've made in this argument. This whole "Shaq clogged the lane, thus impairing Kobe's ability to drive more effectively" idea is flat out nonsense, mostly propagated by Kobe homers who insist we believe that Shaq held Kobe back in some capacity. Shaq did not effect Kobe's ability to dribble drive as much as believed, not much at all, to be honest. Quote Doug Collins in the following video (around the 7:00 min mark): "The Spurs are going to have to figure out a way to stop Kobe's dribble penetration." Yep, Shaq took dribble drives out of Kobe's arsenal so much that Kobe was able to penetrate and finish at will against the best interior D of the era.

Shaq takes up space in the lane. That's not debatable or refutable. And it did affect and restrict what Kobe could do offensively. Did it mean Kobe could never get to the rim with Shaq in the game? Of course not. Kobe is skilled enough and good enough to figure ways to score inside even with Shaq on offense. Using angles, slashing from the weak side, getting the buckets in transition or delayed transition, even using Shaq to help him get to the rim.

I said Shaq presented disadvantages as well as advantages. You wanted to talk about Shaq creating open shots for Kobe. Well Shaq took away easy shots as well. Not all the time. Didn't prevent Kobe from scoring at the rim completely. But Shaq didn't open nearly as many open shots for Kobe as you suggest either. Kobe still created the vast majority of his shots, not Shaq. I was giving you a counter to that point.

Low-post players do not take up that much amount of space in the lane. The 3 second rule ensures they can't park themselves in the lane and back their defender down indefinitely until they get the shot they want. Also worth mentioning is that Duncan plays roughly as much as Shaq in the post, and Manu and Parker have no problems penetrating. Parker doesn't shoot 50% from the field in a year if not for Duncan opening things up inside. Ask any Spurs fan why Manu and Parker have such liberal driving lanes to work with.

Poor comparison. Duncan did not play like Shaq. In the halfcourt set, Shaq exclusively played on the low block. He didn't leave the low block. He was always there. Duncan, especially when Parker and Ginobili emerged as great slashers, did not exclusively play on the low block. Duncan had the skill set and midrange jumper to play either the high post or out to the extended elbow for that patented midrange bankshot. That means he draws his defender out of the paint up to 15 feet away from the basket. When did Shaq ever do that. Duncan's perimeter skills allowed for him to play away from the paint and give more space and more of an open lane for slashers like Manu and Parker. Not to mention, Duncan in his prime was a great pick-and-roll big man. Moreover, Parker was a one man fastbreak. A lot of his drives and easy buckets at the rim, particularly his first few years in the league, occurred in transition or delayed transition. This comparison holds no water.

Regarding Shaq and Kobe, it doesn't matter if Kobe's man leaves him to double Shaq. What would often happen, at least when those Lakers played the Spurs, is that Shaq would post up Robinson or Duncan, Robinson or Duncan would collapse on Shaq, Kobe would slash by his primary defender into the open area that was previously patrolled by Duncan or Robinson, Shaq would find him with a pass, and a layup or dunk would ensue, usually with posterizing results.

Lol happens with or without Shaq. And , Kobe "slashing by his primary defender" is something Kobe specifically has to do to get open. That's not Shaq creating an open shot for Kobe. That's Kobe slashing by his defender to get to an open area to get an open shot. Kobe could do the same exact thing with Luke Walton playing the low post and not commanding a double team. It's a matter of finding the creases and angles and getting to that open spot. How many times a game do you think Kobe getting a good look on offense was directly a result of Shaq getting double teamed? Couple times a game? Handful at most? I'd say a couple times a game. Even playing with Shaq, Kobe still created most of his own shots himself. How many times a game do you think Shaq being planted in that low block prevented a one-on-one dribble drive by Kobe or forced him into either taking a jumper or passing the ball? Handful of times a game? Probably. There were advantages playing with Shaq and disadvantages.

And of course they mutually benefited from each other, but Kobe (like Manu or Parker with Duncan) benefited most. Good post players open up lanes via seals and drawing the interior defender away from the basket area. When a team has a viable low-post option, the opposing interior defender has to guard him in the post. Now his back is turned from the basket should the post player find a cutter, causing him to arrive late to challenge the shot. Sure, sometimes post players create crowds, but they help slashing more than they hurt it.

Just like an explosive perimeter scorer opens things up for a low post scorer. It's a time tested formula. Inside and outside scoring. One opens things up for the other, vice versa. Kobe has proven his own dominance as a perimeter scorer. Shaq was dominant. But Kobe's emergence as an elite, explosive scorer is what made the Lakers unstoppable on offense. Creating an effective balance with the two was the reason they threepeated.

Shaq was always the primary focus of opposing defenses. Always. Sure Kobe was a concern, but he didn't cause the hand-wringing among head coaches like Shaq did.

Shaq was absolutely a focus of the defense. As was Kobe. Go back to my examples. The 2000 Kings and the 2001 Spurs were "more" concerned, yes "MORE" concerned about Kobe shredding their defenses. It's not like Shaq was playing poorly. He was still scoring 27-28 points on 60% shooting against those Kings and Spurs. But it was because Kobe was absolutely carving up their defenses that those two teams lost in those two respective playoff series. Kobe was actually more of a focus of those teams after 2000 for the Kings and after 2001 for the Spurs.

That's the point. It wasn't just Shaq, Shaq, Shaq as you said earlier. It wasn't even mostly Shaq once Kobe emerged.

Now you've contradicted your own argument of FGA and PPG equating to production and defining who the "go-to-guy" is. You used that measurement to demonstrate that Kobe was just as much a go-to-guy as Shaq was, but now it doesn't apply to Amare and Nash? Amare's PPG and FGA are quite higher than Nash's, so by your logic, Amare is the go-to-guy. Thanks for unintentionally proving my point. In much the same way you said Nash is the go-to-guy because he's the main offensive catalyst, Shaq was for the Lakers, regardless of what the FGA and PPG stats are.

With Shaq and Kobe, I went straight to the scoring. I should have included assists. I think playmaking is just as important to identifying a "go-to" player as scoring and number of field goal attempts are. I didn't include assists initially because neither Shaq nor Kobe were high assist guys and the difference between the two in assists wasn't that great. But if I did include assists to represent playmaking, that only strengthens the argument that Kobe was just as much of a go-to guy as Shaq.

And so let's get into how that affects what I'm saying about Nash and Amare. When you factor playmaking and creating shots opportunities and getting assists, you can easily see why Nash was more of the go-to guy for the Suns. It's something you'll see with other high assist point guards. It's why Chris Paul is more of the "go-to" guy than David West even if David West takes more shots, score more points, and/or shoots a higher percentage. Go back to the best point guard of all in Magic Johnson. Even in seasons where James Worthy scored more points, took more shots, had a better FG%, Magic was still more of the go-to guy than Worthy was. it's because playmaking directly leads to scoring opportunities via the assist.

So I apologize for not making that distinction and not adding the assist into my original post about this. Kobe always had more assists than Shaq in those last two seasons of the threepeat, in the regular season and the playoffs. It represents scoring production. It another factor that represents how an offense goes through a player.

I should have included the assist earlier and made the distinction when high assist point guards.

Jam, it's common knowledge that Shaq would touch the ball first and the offensive would play off of him. Sure, there were plays where Kobe would initiate the offense, but the majority of the time, things ran through Shaq. I don't know why you're trying so hard to dispute this.

Touching the ball first doesn't mean that player is the "go-to" guy. Establishing the low post doesn't mean that player is the "go-to" guy. There were games where the Lakers tried to attempt to establish the inside first through Andrew Bynum and then through Pau and let them get touches early. That doesn't make Kobe a second option. It's establishing the low post. Same with who I just talked about with Chris Paul. Establishing David West inside doesn't mean David West is more of the go-to guy than CP3. It just doesn't.

Sure, the offense ran through Shaq a lot. I'm not disputing it didn't run through Shaq. I'm challenging the notion that Kobe wasn't essentially an equal "go-to guy" to Shaq by the 2000-01 season. It's not hard to realize it. The offense ran through Shaq early, especially in the first and third quarters, established the low post and the Lakers went from there. That doesn't define who the go-to guy is. The Lakers often do the same thing. It doesn't mean Andrew Bynum or Pau Gasol are the go-to guys.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last third of the paragraph (did you mean to say that "double teaming Devean George, etc doesn't make Kobe better?" I would argue that double teaming any player would help the teammates not being doubled. It's why coaches hate double teaming. It opens up the offense for the rest of the team). But I guess I'll reply that the Pistons chose Kobe because they felt it was more beneficial to crowd him than Shaq. Doubling perimeter players is less damaging than doubling post players, because doubling the former doesn't compromise your interior D, which is more important than perimeter D. Also, players doubling on the perimeter can recover a lot more quickly if their primary man should get open than if they had to double a player down in the post.

The point was you said you never heard of teams focusing on stopping Kobe. I gave you an example. In fact, with the Kings after 2000 and Spurs after 2001, I gave you three. But, I'm getting tired of typing, but I do have to address your thoughts on double teaming...

You have it backwards. Doubling out on the perimeter is more damaging because doubling out on the perimeter generally ultimately ends up with opening up the paint and easy lay-ups. Doubling out on the perimeter generally means the double teaming player has longer distances to go to double and to recover. That compromises the defense much more. When a team doubles out on the perimeter, players who are doubled off of are taught to go straight to the basket. That's why you don't see nearly as much double teaming on perimeter players. Double teaming a low post player generally means you're sending more defenders towards the paint and basket area, meaning you're opening the perimeter for jumpers. Doubling the low post generally means you're sending a player either from the high post or from the elbow, which is almost always a shorter distance to go to double and a much shorter distance to recover.

Doubling the low post will often result in an open jump shot. Doubling out on the perimeter (especially the further out you get to double) generally ends up in a lay-up or dunk.

[ohmwrecker]

No love for the Mad Dog?

[ohmwrecker]

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

Are there any here?

[midnightpulp]

You still don't get that efficiency does not = production. Offensive production is scoring points, getting the ball in the basket. The percentage at which a player gets the ball in the basket is efficiency. A player scoring 20 points on 10 shots is still scoring the same exact 20 points as the player scoring 20 points on 20 shots.

You're getting wrapped up in the how instead of the what. Production is the what. Efficiency is the how. That was the purpose of giving examples like I gave. Player A scores 20 points on 10-for-10 shooting and Player B scores 20 points on 10-for-20 shooting. Who produced more points? They produced the same amount of points, Einstein. It's the same production. Who was more efficient? Player A obviously. But the production was the same.

Production does not = efficiency.

Seriously, you're making the wrong argument. Production is production. Efficiency is efficiency. Get that through your skull, and you'll realize that Kobe's production was not as you put it "nowhere near Shaq's." Silly little you even admitted as much in the above quote when you acknowledged the "offensive production is virtually the same." Exactly. Stop arguing the "how" when the "what" is at issue here. The actual production. It's almost like arguing a dunk is better than a lay-up. 2 points is 2 points.

1.41 points per shot is more productive than 1.17 points per shot. You're also neglecting the fact of how missed shots give the opposing team more shot opportunities, which cancels out some of the production that player produced. 10-10 is MUCH more productive than 10-20.

Shaq takes up space in the lane. That's not debatable or refutable. And it did affect and restrict what Kobe could do offensively. Did it mean Kobe could never get to the rim with Shaq in the game? Of course not. Kobe is skilled enough and good enough to figure ways to score inside even with Shaq on offense. Using angles, slashing from the weak side, getting the buckets in transition or delayed transition, even using Shaq to help him get to the rim.

I said Shaq presented disadvantages as well as advantages. You wanted to talk about Shaq creating open shots for Kobe. Well Shaq took away easy shots as well. Not all the time. Didn't prevent Kobe from scoring at the rim completely. But Shaq didn't open nearly as many open shots for Kobe as you suggest either. Kobe still created the vast majority of his shots, not Shaq. I was giving you a counter to that point.

You said "Shaq took dribble drives out of Kobe's arsenal." I showed evidence to the contrary, and now you're backtracking.

And Shaq helped Kobe's offensive game more than hurt it. That's my essential point.

Poor comparison. Duncan did not play like Shaq. In the halfcourt set, Shaq exclusively played on the low block. He didn't leave the low block. He was always there. Duncan, especially when Parker and Ginobili emerged as great slashers, did not exclusively play on the low block. Duncan had the skill set and midrange jumper to play either the high post or out to the extended elbow for that patented midrange bankshot. That means he draws his defender out of the paint up to 15 feet away from the basket. When did Shaq ever do that. Duncan's perimeter skills allowed for him to play away from the paint and give more space and more of an open lane for slashers like Manu and Parker. Not to mention, Duncan in his prime was a great pick-and-roll big man. Moreover, Parker was a one man fastbreak. A lot of his drives and easy buckets at the rim, particularly his first few years in the league, occurred in transition or delayed transition. This comparison holds no water.

I said Duncan plays "roughly" the same amount of time in the low post as Shaq. I think 75% of his shots come from there. Anyhow, maybe
"roughly" wasn't the best word choice. However, that doesn't invalidate my point. Ask other Spurs fans about how Duncan in the low post helps Manu and Parker's dribble penetration. Duncan, like Shaq, is a master of sealing his man off near the basket, taking away any chance that defender might've had at blocking the shot. Shaq did this Robinson countless times in those days.

Lol happens with or without Shaq. And , Kobe "slashing by his primary defender" is something Kobe specifically has to do to get open. That's not Shaq creating an open shot for Kobe. That's Kobe slashing by his defender to get to an open area to get an open shot. Kobe could do the same exact thing with Luke Walton playing the low post and not commanding a double team. It's a matter of finding the creases and angles and getting to that open spot. How many times a game do you think Kobe getting a good look on offense was directly a result of Shaq getting double teamed? Couple times a game? Handful at most? I'd say a couple times a game. Even playing with Shaq, Kobe still created most of his own shots himself. How many times a game do you think Shaq being planted in that low block prevented a one-on-one dribble drive by Kobe or forced him into either taking a jumper or passing the ball? Handful of times a game? Probably. There were advantages playing with Shaq and disadvantages.

Yeah? How's that open area created where Kobe slashes into? The interior defense collapsing on Shaq, opening up the weak side.

Just like an explosive perimeter scorer opens things up for a low post scorer. It's a time tested formula. Inside and outside scoring. One opens things up for the other, vice versa. Kobe has proven his own dominance as a perimeter scorer. Shaq was dominant. But Kobe's emergence as an elite, explosive scorer is what made the Lakers unstoppable on offense. Creating an effective balance with the two was the reason they threepeated.

True. Shaq was still the more important component, though.

Shaq was absolutely a focus of the defense. As was Kobe. Go back to my examples. The 2000 Kings and the 2001 Spurs were "more" concerned, yes "MORE" concerned about Kobe shredding their defenses. It's not like Shaq was playing poorly. He was still scoring 27-28 points on 60% shooting against those Kings and Spurs. But it was because Kobe was absolutely carving up their defenses that those two teams lost in those two respective playoff series. Kobe was actually more of a focus of those teams after 2000 for the Kings and after 2001 for the Spurs.

That's the point. It wasn't just Shaq, Shaq, Shaq as you said earlier. It wasn't even mostly Shaq once Kobe emerged.

Ask any opposing coach of that era who their primary focus was when they were playing the Lakers, and they'll tell you it was Shaq.

With Shaq and Kobe, I went straight to the scoring. I should have included assists. I think playmaking is just as important to identifying a "go-to" player as scoring and number of field goal attempts are. I didn't include assists initially because neither Shaq nor Kobe were high assist guys and the difference between the two in assists wasn't that great. But if I did include assists to represent playmaking, that only strengthens the argument that Kobe was just as much of a go-to guy as Shaq.

And so let's get into how that affects what I'm saying about Nash and Amare. When you factor playmaking and creating shots opportunities and getting assists, you can easily see why Nash was more of the go-to guy for the Suns. It's something you'll see with other high assist point guards. It's why Chris Paul is more of the "go-to" guy than David West even if David West takes more shots, score more points, and/or shoots a higher percentage. Go back to the best point guard of all in Magic Johnson. Even in seasons where James Worthy scored more points, took more shots, had a better FG%, Magic was still more of the go-to guy than Worthy was. it's because playmaking directly leads to scoring opportunities via the assist.

So I apologize for not making that distinction and not adding the assist into my original post about this. Kobe always had more assists than Shaq in those last two seasons of the threepeat, in the regular season and the playoffs. It represents scoring production. It another factor that represents how an offense goes through a player.

I should have included the assist earlier and made the distinction when high assist point guards.

You're neglecting "hockey assists." Passing out of double-teams from the low-post usually results in the pass that leads to the open shot. Derek Fisher pretty much lived off Shaq double-teams in some form.

Touching the ball first doesn't mean that player is the "go-to" guy. Establishing the low post doesn't mean that player is the "go-to" guy. There were games where the Lakers tried to attempt to establish the inside first through Andrew Bynum and then through Pau and let them get touches early. That doesn't make Kobe a second option. It's establishing the low post. Same with who I just talked about with Chris Paul. Establishing David West inside doesn't mean David West is more of the go-to guy than CP3. It just doesn't.

Sure, the offense ran through Shaq a lot. I'm not disputing it didn't run through Shaq. I'm challenging the notion that Kobe wasn't essentially an equal "go-to guy" to Shaq by the 2000-01 season. It's not hard to realize it. The offense ran through Shaq early, especially in the first and third quarters, established the low post and the Lakers went from there. That doesn't define who the go-to guy is. The Lakers often do the same thing. It doesn't mean Andrew Bynum or Pau Gasol are the go-to guys.

You can't have it both ways. Either the offense ran through Shaq and he was the clear number 1 option, or he wasn't. Even if 55% of the offense ran through him while the other 45% ran through Kobe, it still means Shaq is the primary option. You just can't say, "Well, that's close enough that it's 'essentially' the same." It's not.

The point was you said you never heard of teams focusing on stopping Kobe. I gave you an example. In fact, with the Kings after 2000 and Spurs after 2001, I gave you three. But, I'm getting tired of typing, but I do have to address your thoughts on double teaming...

I stand by this. Shaq was the primary focus of the defense. Kobe was a heavy concern, no doubt, but defenses planned around stopping Shaq first, aside from the '04 Pistons.

You have it backwards. Doubling out on the perimeter is more damaging because doubling out on the perimeter generally ultimately ends up with opening up the paint and easy lay-ups. Doubling out on the perimeter generally means the double teaming player has longer distances to go to double and to recover. That compromises the defense much more. When a team doubles out on the perimeter, players who are doubled off of are taught to go straight to the basket. That's why you don't see nearly as much double teaming on perimeter players. Double teaming a low post player generally means you're sending more defenders towards the paint and basket area, meaning you're opening the perimeter for jumpers. Doubling the low post generally means you're sending a player either from the high post or from the elbow, which is almost always a shorter distance to go to double and a much shorter distance to recover.

Doubling the low post will often result in an open jump shot. Doubling out on the perimeter (especially the further out you get to double) generally ends up in a lay-up or dunk.

Guards and SFs usually double out on the perimeter, so how is that supposed to lead to "easy layups" when the interior defender's position isn't compromised?

No, players doubling on the perimeter can recover quicker. The Lakers for instance. Kobe will get doubled on the wing, usually by Fisher's primary defender, leaving Fish open at the top of the key. If Kobe chooses to pass back to him so Fisher can take the open shot, the player previously defending Fisher only has a short distance to go, from the wing to the top of the key.

Jeez, if perimeter players put more pressure on the opposing defense, which is what you're suggesting, then head coaches have gotten it wrong all this time by building around low-post players.

Anyhow, I think I've made all the points and counterpoints I can. I'll let you have the last word.

That said, I respect what you bring to the discussion.

[TheNextGen]

damn good arguements here....

I think i'd go with Jams on this one.

[Killakobe81]

Are there any here?

I'm old school and I agree Kobe is not at the top of my greatest Laker list. But really that has more to do with growing up and learning ball during the showtime era ...Magic may always be my favorite Laker...but as the years have passed, it's harder to deny Kobe's place near the top of any Laker list. But really what puts Magic over the top for me is the intangibles, putting the Lakers back in it's rightful place as an elite franchise and making Laker home games must see events. Without Magic L.A. would always be a draw ...but he brought winning back to the table. With Magic running the show they made the Finals almost every year and won 5. Kobe has been a great winner as well ...but his on the court and off the court demeanor is sometimes hard to stomach ...so I get why many despise him. However when it comes to just playing ball ...you can't deny this man's greatness. And the lame attempts to do in this forum are hilarious. Kobe is not the greatest Laker in my book but a strong case can be made. And since Jamstone is better at putting that case to words, I'll leave that to him.

[HarlemHeat37]

damn good arguements here....

I think i'd go with Jams on this one.

Hm, I wonder why..

[ohmwrecker]

I'm old school and I agree Kobe is not at the top of my greatest Laker list. But really that has more to do with growing up and learning ball during the showtime era ...Magic may always be my favorite Laker...but as the years have passed, it's harder to deny Kobe's place near the top of any Laker list. But really what puts Magic over the top for me is the intangibles, putting the Lakers back in it's rightful place as an elite franchise and making Laker home games must see events. Without Magic L.A. would always be a draw ...but he brought winning back to the table. With Magic running the show they made the Finals almost every year and won 5. Kobe has been a great winner as well ...but his on the court and off the court demeanor is sometimes hard to stomach ...so I get why many despise him. However when it comes to just playing ball ...you can't deny this man's greatness. And the lame attempts to do in this forum are hilarious. Kobe is not the greatest Laker in my book but a strong case can be made. And since Jamstone is better at putting that case to words, I'll leave that to him.

This is probably why you are the only Laker fan on ST whose opinion I respect. I was a "showtime" Laker fan as a kid and Kobe doesn't crack my top 5.

[TheGreatest23]

This is probably why you are the only Laker fan on ST whose opinion I respect. I was a "showtime" Laker fan as a kid and Kobe doesn't crack my top 5.

LOL @ Kobe not being a top 5 Laker.

[Killakobe81]

This is probably why you are the only Laker fan on ST whose opinion I respect. I was a "showtime" Laker fan as a kid and Kobe doesn't crack my top 5.

I can respect that, especially if you look at intangibles ...I just hate when people use that he is a selfish or a prick to determine his legacy. Kareem is also hurt by the media perceptions of him. If Kareem was a "clown-prince" and as engaging as Shaq, they would be more support for him as a threat to MJ as the GOAT ...but because he was not likeable or marketable ... I think people tend to overlook him to some degree, he is not underrated necessarily ...but I think it's crazy when people put Shaq or Hakeem over him at center. Kareem in his prime was evrey bit as dominant a scorer, and a better fundamental player than Shaq and his sky hook was more unstoppable than the "dreamshake".

[ohmwrecker]

LOL @ Kobe not being a top 5 Laker.

1 Kareem
2 Magic
3 Wilt
4 West
5 Baylor

6 Shaq or Kobe (I just can't put either one over Baylor)

[JamStone]

I realize at some point (probably already), we're just going in circles...

1.41 points per shot is more productive than 1.17 points per shot. You're also neglecting the fact of how missed shots give the opposing team more shot opportunities, which cancels out some of the production that player produced. 10-10 is MUCH more productive than 10-20.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. It's not "more productive." It's "more efficient." There is a very distinct difference. Production is the actual scoring. Efficiency is the rate at which a players scores. Two different things.

Problem with your "points per shot" stat is that it measures efficiency, not production. Last season (2009-10), Shaq still had a better "points per shot" than Kobe. Are you going to argue Shaq was more productive than Kobe last season too? Production does not = efficiency.

A higher shooting percentage, a better "points per shot" represents efficiency. 20 point production is 20 point production no matter what the FG% or "points per shot."

As for this nonsense about "missed shots give the opposing team more shot opportunities" as it pertains to production, come on man. How about this? Shaq's lazy fatass not getting back in transition allowed for opposing centers who hustled down the court to get easy lay-ups and dunks, canceling some of the production Shaq had on offense. Is that a valid argument to knock down Shaq's production? Of course missed shots lead to shot opportunities for the other team. This is what that argument is like: in baseball, errors by fielders often lead to the other team run scoring opportunities, so that cancels out the effective pitch the pitcher threw at the batter. Well yeah but it's not the pitcher's fault. Kobe missing shots could lead to scoring opportunities by the other team, but it's the responsibility of the entire team to get back on defense. Kobe isn't the only player who would miss shots on the Lakers. You could say that about any Laker who missed shots. That's an issue for the team's transition defense, not a canceling point to Kobe's offensive production. Come on now.

You said "Shaq took dribble drives out of Kobe's arsenal." I showed evidence to the contrary, and now you're backtracking.

And Shaq helped Kobe's offensive game more than hurt it. That's my essential point.

You showed evidence that it doesn't completely prevent dribble drives. Shaq still changed the way Kobe had to get to the rim. Doesn't completely stop Kobe from getting to the rim. But it doesn't help either. I would agree that Shaq helped Kobe's offensive game. I would say Kobe helped Shaq's game too. Kobe's game helped Shaq's game more than hurt it as well. Again, a mutually beneficial relationship. Without Shaq, Kobe was still a 30 ppg scorer. It's not like taking Shaq off of the team and Kobe then became an average NBA player. Kobe proved he was just as good a scorer without Shaq. So Shaq "creating all those open shots for Kobe" is quite exaggerated. Did Shaq help? Of course and obviously. Was it mostly because of Shaq that Kobe scored 25+ ppg? Certainly not.

I said Duncan plays "roughly" the same amount of time in the low post as Shaq. I think 75% of his shots come from there. Anyhow, maybe
"roughly" wasn't the best word choice. However, that doesn't invalidate my point. Ask other Spurs fans about how Duncan in the low post helps Manu and Parker's dribble penetration. Duncan, like Shaq, is a master of sealing his man off near the basket, taking away any chance that defender might've had at blocking the shot. Shaq did this Robinson countless times in those days.

Still a problematic comparison when you consider the things I mentioned, Duncan's ability to draw his defender out of the paint area with his perimeter skills and Parker's (even Ginobili to a lesser extent) ability to score in open court transition.

True. Shaq was still the more important component, though.

That's not the same argument. I'd have no problem saying Shaq was more important or, as I've already acknowledged, more dominant. Being those things don't make the player the only "go-to guy." Go back to the early 80s Lakers with Magic and Kareem. By Magic's second season after he won Finals MVP, it was already his team or at least transitioning into it. He shared that "go-to guy" status with Kareem despite Kareem still being dominant. Go back to another example I've used in this thread, the 2008 Boston Celtics. KG was more "important" than Paul Pierce but Pierce was still the "go-to guy" on offense. You're trying to slightly change the issue here. Shaq being more dominant and more important doesn't mean he was the main go-to guy and couldn't share that responsibility with Kobe. That's what it actually was by 2000-01. And it was pretty evident.

Ask any opposing coach of that era who their primary focus was when they were playing the Lakers, and they'll tell you it was Shaq.

Except for Rick Adelman, Gregg Popovich, and Larry Brown...

You're neglecting "hockey assists." Passing out of double-teams from the low-post usually results in the pass that leads to the open shot. Derek Fisher pretty much lived off Shaq double-teams in some form.

Now we're going to go to "hockey assists?" You're going all over the place. Every little thing. I could argue that Shaq getting double teamed and him passing it out to the elbow to Derek Fisher with Kobe just standing in the corner and his defender refusing to leave Kobe to rotate out to Fisher gives Kobe a hockey assist too, right? You see, basketball is a team sport. And everything every teammate does can have a positive or negative effect for a player. Kobe slashing to the rim drawing two defenders to collapse into the paint could lead to an open shot without Kobe even touching the basketball. Kobe setting a pick could lead to an open shot. There are a bunch of little things we could argue back and forth about what Shaq did or Kobe did that led to scoring opportunities that aren't specifically scoring the basket or getting an assist. You choose to try to find every little thing Shaq did while discrediting what Kobe did. I haven't once said Shaq wasn't dominant or important or valuable to the success those Lakers teams had. I'm merely saying that Kobe had just as much to do with it.

You can't have it both ways. Either the offense ran through Shaq and he was the clear number 1 option, or he wasn't. Even if 55% of the offense ran through him while the other 45% ran through Kobe, it still means Shaq is the primary option. You just can't say, "Well, that's close enough that it's 'essentially' the same." It's not.

So now you're starting to relent? Now it's possible that it was 55/45 Shaq? How about 51/49? Would that still be clear? This started with you suggesting that Kobe's production was "nowhere near" Shaq's production. Now we're getting into "even if it was 55/45...

The offense did run through Shaq. Didn't say it didn't. The offense also ran through Kobe as the point facilitator in the triangle. And when you're talking about two dominating players taking roughly the same amount of shots and scoring roughly the same amount of points, you're talking about two fairly equal "go-to guys." You go to efficiency and hockey assist arguments when it's pretty clear that Kobe was just as much the go-to guy along with Shaq.

I stand by this. Shaq was the primary focus of the defense. Kobe was a heavy concern, no doubt, but defenses planned around stopping Shaq first, aside from the '04 Pistons.

And the 2001 Kings and the 2002 Spurs.

So you're saying aside from when he wasn't, he was...

Guards and SFs usually double out on the perimeter, so how is that supposed to lead to "easy layups" when the interior defender's position isn't compromised?

A player who is doubled off of out on the perimeter is taught to go straight to the rim when he's doubled. When a double team is out on the perimeter, the guy who is doubled off of goes straight to the rim. It's generally much more difficult to recover from the perimeter to the paint. That guy who slashed to the basket now creates a 2-on-1 in the paint area. A good team, with a perimeter player smart and skilled enough to handle a double team out on the perimeter will either get the ball in the paint or swing the ball to get the ball in the paint to take advantage of that 2-on-1 in the paint. The interior defender is compromised by that 2-on-1 scenario.

It's similar to what happens in a pick-and-roll scenario when the guy defending the pick hedges out too hard and too far on the ball and allows his man to slip and roll quickly towards the rim.

No, players doubling on the perimeter can recover quicker. The Lakers for instance. Kobe will get doubled on the wing, usually by Fisher's primary defender, leaving Fish open at the top of the key. If Kobe chooses to pass back to him so Fisher can take the open shot, the player previously defending Fisher only has a short distance to go, from the wing to the top of the key.

Not true. When a double team occurs out on the perimeter, the guy who is doubled off of is supposed to go to the rim. With a player like Fisher who is a small guard and a spot-up jump shooter, you're taught to drift away from the ball and the double team to make it a longer distance to recover and/or to force a defensive rotation. If Kobe is doubled out on the elbow by Fisher's defender, Fisher should either go straight to the rim, go baseline to the opposite side of the half court and allow two swing passes to lead to an open jumper for him, or create enough space that will force another defender to have to rotate on him. That's generally not a shorter distance to recover than a double team on the low post.

Jeez, if perimeter players put more pressure on the opposing defense, which is what you're suggesting, then head coaches have gotten it wrong all this time by building around low-post players.

Not what I suggested at all. How often do you see double teams out on the perimeter versus double teams at the low post? Even against great perimeter players like Kobe, LeBron, and Wade, you won't see doubles that often until maybe late in the game when teams are just trying to get the basketball out of their hands. But you'll see plenty of double teaming against a good low post scorer throughout a game. Double teams on the low post are generally coming from the elbow defender on the same side or from the high post defender. That is almost always a shorter distance to recover than from double teams out on the perimeter. And it doesn't compromise the interior defense nearly as much. When you double the low post, you'll make it very difficult for the low post player to pass it in the paint in traffic so it generally involves kick-out passes to the perimeter. More times than doubles out on the perimeter, it leads to open jumpers. Doubles out on the perimeter more so leads to lay-ups and dunks.

Anyhow, I think I've made all the points and counterpoints I can. I'll let you have the last word.

That said, I respect what you bring to the discussion.

Yeah, like I said, at this point it's just running around in circles. Guess we'll just have to disagree.

[LakeShow]

damn good arguements here....

I think i'd go with Jams on this one.

I agree

Top 5 Lakers

Magic
Kobe
Kareem
West
Shaq

[picc84]

Sometimes the offense ran through Shaq, sometimes it would go through Kobe. They'd alternate entire games. And thats something the two of them actually said. "We'd tell the other one, you run the show tonight", paraphrased.

[LakeShow]

One things for sure and cannot be disputed. When the game was on the line, the Ball was ALWAYS in Kobe's hand. Mainly because Shaq couldn't make free-throws and teams would rather take their chances at just fouling Shaq. Kobe was the closer then and now.