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

[TheMACHINE]

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

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

[picc84]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HarlemHeat37]

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

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

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

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

[Koolaid_Man]

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

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

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

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

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

[HarlemHeat37]

What the does that even mean?..

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

[Koolaid_Man]

What the does that even mean?..

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

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

[ezau]

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

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

[Giuseppe]

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

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

[Giuseppe]

.

[namlook]

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

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

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

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

[Giuseppe]

...& one more than Duncan.

tee, hee.

[LkrFan]

Pau Gasol has become a fantastic player.

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

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

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

[ambchang]

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


Quit Hatin'

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

[TheGreatest23]

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