Kobe being held down individually by Shaq is way overblown

[guy]

First of all, from 97-00, he clearly wasn't that good, which has nothing to do with Shaq. I think everyone can agree on that. He became a dominating superstar in 2001.

His statlines from 2001-2004 with Shaq

2001 - 28.5 ppg/5.9 rpg/5 apg on 46 FG%
2002 - 25.2 ppg/5.5 rpg/5.5 apg on 47 FG%
2003 - 30 ppg/6.9 rpg/5.9 apg on 45 FG%
2004 - 24 ppg/5.5 rpg/5 apg on 44 FG%

His statlines from 2005-2009 without Shaq

2005 - 27.6 ppg/5.9 rpg/6 apg on 43 FG%
2006 - 35.4 ppg/5.3 rpg/4.5 apg on 45 FG%
2007 - 31.6 ppg/5.7 rpg/5.4 apg on 46 FG%
2008 - 28.3 ppg/6.3 rpg/5.4 apg on 46 FG%
2009 - 26.8 ppg/5.2 rpg/4.9 apg on 47 FG%

If I had to rank the 9 statistically , it would go something like this from top to bottom:
2006
2003
2007
2008
2001
2009
2005
2002
2004

And some of these are arguable, but I think this would be somewhat of the consensus. Although I would consider his 03 season as his second best, many consider that his best. The point is if Kobe was getting held back so much, which he was but to a much smaller degree then people make it out be, then all 5 of his seasons without Shaq would be at the very top and the 4 seasons with Shaq would be at the very bottom. But instead, 2 of the seasons with Shaq are in the top 5, and 2 of the seasons without Shaq are in the bottom 4. The stats from 01-04 with Shaq are not that much different from 05-09 without Shaq. 01 is not much different from 08, 02 is not much different from 05 or 09, and 03 is not much different from 07. And although I think Kobe's stats without Shaq are overall better then with Shaq, it's not that much better and much of that can be attributed to Kobe hitting his prime during that time. The presence of ONE player, even someone as dominating as Shaq, can't impact someone else's stats that much, especially someone as great as Kobe's.

As far as MVPs goes, even if he didn't play with Shaq, there's still a really good chance he wouldn't have won MVPs in that time. From 97-00, he just clearly wasn't that great, and in 00, 01, and 04 he missed way too many games to injuries to really be considered. That leaves 02 and 03. In 03, even though he played with Shaq, do people really think he had unfair shot at MVP? Kobe had great enough stats, better stats then in 08 when he did win, yet even with Shaq for most of the season, the team really wasn't that great, while Duncan on the other hand clearly deserved it. So the only season you can really say Kobe was held back from winning an MVP by nothing else then the fact he played with Shaq is 02, but does anyone really think he was as good as Duncan that year anyway?

So anyway, this idea that some people have, especially Kobe fans, that Kobe would've added about 4 more ppg to his career average and won 2-3 MVPs if he didn't play with Shaq i.e. his legacy might've been better off playing without Shaq is really farfetched and ridiculous.

[dr8ked]

Meh, I think they might be right, Phil jackson doesn't go to LA if Shaq was not a laker. He was the main focus of the Offense..

[ShaqAttack3234]

Kobe without playing with Shaq may ahve had a few extra ppg, but you wouldn't have seen him shooting around 47% like he was during the 3peat and you wouldn't have seen him playing deep into the playoffs and winning championships. In reality his legacy would be worse without the 3 extra rings. Kobe would never trade those 3 rings for 3 extra ppg for is career.

[purple8gold]

Kobe without playing with Shaq may ahve had a few extra ppg, but you wouldn't have seen him shooting around 47% like he was during the 3peat and you wouldn't have seen him playing deep into the playoffs and winning championships. In reality his legacy would be worse without the 3 extra rings. Kobe would never trade those 3 rings for 3 extra ppg for is career.

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so. :cheers:

[plowking]

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so. :cheers:

No, Shaq would have won if he had any other of the 4 or 5 top SG's at the time.

[raptorfan_dr07]

The presence of ONE player, even someone as dominating as Shaq, can impact someone else's stats that much, especially someone as great as Kobe's.


If you're saying Kobe's stats were affected positively by Shaq's presence alone, then I whole heartedly agree with you. A dominant post presence will always make people's stats a bit inflated. It's one of the reasons why I think Hedo Turkoglu has become so overrated, even though he's on my team now. Playing with a dominant big like Dwight Howard makes everyone look good. Tim Duncan's mere presence in the 07 Finals allowed Tony Parker to explode. Duncan was also responsible for a lot of Parker and Ginobili's development. What a lot of people don't realize is that a bunch of Kobe's top playoff games came as a result of Shaq's mere presence. Similar to the aforementioned 07 Finals with TD and Tony Parker, and the 06 Finals with Shaq and Dwyane Wade. The Mavericks game plan was to concentrate their whole defense on Shaq, which in turn gave Wade the opportunity to attack. Same with Kobe, team's entire gameplans revolved around stopping Shaq, which allowed Kobe to wreak havoc.

[raptorfan_dr07]

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so. :cheers:

It probably would be the same. Shaq was too good a player and too dominant to not eventually win a few championships. It's much easier to build a winning team around a dominant big. It's why even Phil Jackson said this past year that if he were to build a team from scratch, he would pick Dwight Howard over Kobe and Lebron. It's why I believe that Houston made the right pick in taking Hakeem over MJ, and if they could do it all over again, I'm sure they'd do the same.

Besides, who's to say the Lakers don't trade for or sign some other star guard during that time? After all, don't you guys always say that the Lakers will always be relevent and will always be able to snag some young superstar player just because they're the Lakers??? I'm sure a team like LA would have had no problems snagging some other talented young wing to pair up with Shaq.

[All Net]

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so. :cheers:

Shaq's legacy has certainly been boasted alot by getting to play with top tier shooting guards throughout his career no doubt.

[imdaman99]

No, Shaq would have won if he had any other of the 4 or 5 top SG's at the time.
What was Penny the year they got swept in the Finals?

[Collie]

What was Penny the year they got swept in the Finals?

A young PG who was on his way to greatness.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so. :cheers:

Yes, but I could see him still winning some titles. In 2000, Kobe was a 22.5, 6 and 5 player who missed 16 games(the Lakers were 12-3 in those games not including the 1 Shaq missed). Here are some perimeter players with atleast similar production that season.

Grant Hill- 25.8 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 5.2 apg, 1.4 spg, 48.9 FG%, 34.7 3P%, 79.5 FT%, 74 games
Vince Carter- 25.7 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.3 spg, 1.1 bpg, 46.5 FG%, 40.3 3P%, 79.1 FT%, 82 games
Gary Payton- 24.2 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 8.9 apg, 1.9 spg, 44.8 FG%, 34 3P%(177 made 3's), 73.5 FT%, 82 games, all-defensive first team
Allen Iverson- 28.4 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 4.7 apg, 2.1 spg, 42.1 FG%, 34.1 3P%, 71.3 FT%, 70 games
Michael Finley- 22.6 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 5.3 apg, 1.3 spg, 45.7 FG%, 40.1 3P%, 82 FT%, 82 games
Ray Allen- 22.2 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 3.8 apg, 45.5 FG%, 42.3 3P%(172 made 3's), 88.7 FT%, 82 games
Jerry Stackhouse- 23.6 ppg, 42.8 FG%, 28.8 3P%, 81.5 FT%, 82 games
Eddie Jones- 20.1 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.2 apg, 2.7 spg, 42.7 FG%, 37.5 3P%(128 made 3's), 86.4 FT%, 72 games, all-defensive second team
Stephon Marbury- 22.2 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 8.4 apg, 1.5 spg, 43.2 FG%, 28.3 3P%, 81.2 FT%, 74 games

However you can't find anyone who could match Shaq's production(30, 14, 4, 3 on 57% shooting). He led the league in scoring and FG% plus he finished 2nd and 3rd in blocks and rebounds, respectively.

Granted I don't think all of those players were good enough to win a title with Shaq. For example it's unknown if Iverson could be effective with a player who needs the ball as much as Shaq, plus he wasn't the defender that Bryant was. There's similar questions for Marbury and Stackhouse. Jones also wasn't exactly known as a clutch playoff performer.

But does anyone really doubt that Shaq could win a title in 2000 with Grant Hill, Vince Carter, Gary Payton, Ray Allen or Michael Finley? All of those players also played all 82 games.

In 2001 it's very tough to find players who could match Kobe's production(28.5 ppg, 6 rpg, 5 apg, all defensive second team), but considering the fact that the Lakers breezed through the playoffs(15-1) and they did fine in the regular season in the games Kobe missed(11-3). I see no reason why the following players couldn't replace Kobe and have the Lakers still win a title that season.

Vince Carter- 27.6 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.5 spg, 1.1 bpg, 46 FG%, 40.8 3P%(162 made 3's), 76.5 FT%, 75 games
Tracy McGrady- 26.8 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.5 spg, 1.5 bpg, 45.7 FG%, 35.5 3P%, 73.3 FT%, 77 games
Paul Pierce- 25.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 3.1 apg, 1.7 spg, 45.4 FG%, 38.3 3P%(147 made 3's), 74.5 FT%, 82 games
Ray Allen- 22 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.5 spg, 48 FG%, 43.3 3P%(202 made 3's), 88.8 FT%, 82 games
Gary Payton- 23.1 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 8.1 apg, 1.6 spg, 45.6 FG%, 37.5 3P%, 76.6 FT%, 79 games

Don't forget that Carter and Allen led their teams with impressive playoff runs of their own that season. Pierce would have one of his own just the next season. Then you have other players with excellent production, but with question marks.

Allen Iverson- 31.1 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 4.6 apg, 2.5 spg, 42 FG%, 32 3P%, 81.4 FT%, 71 games
Jerry Stackhouse- 29.8 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.2 spg, 40.2 FG%, 35.1 3P%(166 made 3's), 82.2 FT%, 80 games
Stephon Marbury- 23.9 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 7.6 apg, 1.2 spg, 44.1 FG%, 32.8 3P%(110 made 3's), 79 FT%, 67 games

Who could match Shaq's production(29, 13, 4, 3, 57%)? Nobody and I could only see LA replacing him with Duncan or Garnett and still winning a title. More likely Duncan. And that all depends on what team Shaq ends up on.

In 2002, Kobe was probably the most irreplaceable of his career as he played 80 games, averaged 25, 5.5 and 5.5, was all-defensive second team and LA just barely squeaked by LA in 7. The only possible replacements I see are.

Paul Pierce- 26.1 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.9 spg, 1 bpg, 45.4 FG%, 40.4 3P%(210 made 3's), 80.9 FT%, 82 games
Tracy McGrady- 25.6 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 5.3 apg, 1.6 spg, 1 bpg, 45.1 FG%, 35.7 3P%(103 made 3's), 74.8 FT%, 76 games

As for Shaq, it's tough to imagine him being replaced because he was the best player in the league and they barely beat Sacramento in OT. Maybe Duncan could replace him. The Lakers were 51-16 with Shaq in the regular season, so it's tough to find someone who could match that.

So, it is plausible for the Lakers to win titles without Kobe and other great perimeter players in his place. But outside of 2001(and only with Duncan, possibly KG) it's very tough to see the Lakers winning with anyone in Shaq's place. So it's not really a fair comparison.

[Fatal9]

There's certain things you learn and develop quicker when you are the #1 guy. In Kobe's case it would be his intelligence, passing (or rather willingness to do it), leadership, creativity (would definitly have to create more for others), skill, all of which improved rapidly when he was given the team. If he had this privilege since 2001ish...one can only wonder how many 33+ ppg seasons we could have seen. He also would have had the chance to wait and have a contending team built around him so years like 2006 and 2007 (ages at which Jordan won rings...and prime ages for most players) wouldn't be completely wasted.

Ideal situation for maximizing your legacy is getting a chance to put up mind blowing stats early on in your career as you wait for your team to improve. If you lose in the playoffs, it's because of the cast so you're excused. Then as you get around 26-27, management should have put nice pieces around you (unless they fck up) and you are on a contender for your prime and late-prime years (as #1 option, which is key). Helps even more if the competition at the top of the league wanes as your team gets better. This gives you all those early individual accomplishments and then later on the team ones as well.

[Heilige]

There's certain things you learn and develop quicker when you are the #1 guy. In Kobe's case it would be his intelligence, passing (or rather willingness to do it), leadership, creativity (would definitly have to create more for others), skill, all of which improved rapidly when he was given the team. If he had this privilege since 2001ish...one can only wonder how many 33+ ppg seasons we could have seen. He also would have had the chance to wait and have a contending team built around him so years like 2006 and 2007 (ages at which Jordan won rings...and prime ages for most players) wouldn't be completely wasted.

Ideal situation for maximizing your legacy is getting a chance to put up mind blowing stats early on in your career as you wait for your team to improve. If you lose in the playoffs, it's because of the cast so you're excused. Then as you get around 26-27, management should have put nice pieces around you (unless they fck up) and you are on a contender for your prime and late-prime years (as #1 option, which is key). Helps even more if the competition at the top of the league wanes as your team gets better. This gives you all those early individual accomplishments and then later on the team ones as well.



What do you consider late prime years?

[juju151111]

There's certain things you learn and develop quicker when you are the #1 guy. In Kobe's case it would be his intelligence, passing (or rather willingness to do it), leadership, creativity (would definitly have to create more for others), skill, all of which improved rapidly when he was given the team. If he had this privilege since 2001ish...one can only wonder how many 33+ ppg seasons we could have seen. He also would have had the chance to wait and have a contending team built around him so years like 2006 and 2007 (ages at which Jordan won rings...and prime ages for most players) wouldn't be completely wasted.

Ideal situation for maximizing your legacy is getting a chance to put up mind blowing stats early on in your career as you wait for your team to improve. If you lose in the playoffs, it's because of the cast so you're excused. Then as you get around 26-27, management should have put nice pieces around you (unless they fck up) and you are on a contender for your prime and late-prime years (as #1 option, which is key). Helps even more if the competition at the top of the league wanes as your team gets better. This gives you all those early individual accomplishments and then later on the team ones as well.
Kobe wasn't good enough to put up mind blowing stats in his first 2-3 years.

[BallersTalk]

Kobe wasn't good enough to put up mind blowing stats in his first 2-3 years.
Let's stop feeding the troll. This is all you need to know about Fatal9:

1. He's one of the biggest Kobe homers ever.
2. Because he's a Kobe homer, he has to hate on Jordan.

We can ignore anything he says that directly or indirectly has to do with Kobe.

[guy]

There's certain things you learn and develop quicker when you are the #1 guy. In Kobe's case it would be his intelligence, passing (or rather willingness to do it) leadership, creativity (would definitly have to create more for others) skill, all of which improved rapidly when he was given the team.

Intelligence - You would think playing with great teammates from the beginning of his career would help him become a much greater decision maker ala Magic and Bird right? Who both played with great players there whole career and as a result, never really had a problem with balance.

Passing (willingness to do it) - WTF, this is absolutely ridiculous. Playing with great teammates from the beginning of your career should make a player MORE WILLING to pass. What sense does that make? If a player is playing with crap from the beginning of his career and for a long time, how would that make a player a more willing passer?

Leadership - Sure, Kobe didn't get as much opportunity to experience that as much as someone like Jordan or Lebron. However, its ridiculous to act like the guy got no experience at all. During the time with Shaq, Shaq missed a total of 110 games. That's alot of time. Now much of that is from Kobe's early years, but its nobody's fault Kobe just wasn't that good his first few years. On top of that during much of that time, Kobe was the man in the 4th quarter that was carrying his teams to victories because Shaq was such a liability. And because of the great teams around him and Shaq's liabilities, he experienced many deep playoff runs where he got the opportunity to lead these teams in close games. Seriously, the whole "leadership" argument is overexaggerated.

Creativity (would definitly have to create more for others) - Umm, wasn't Kobe considered the "primary facilitator" for these Laker teams? So wasn't he the guy that had the greatest responsibility in "creating for others"?

Skill - LOL seriously this is getting ridiculous. So Kobe didn't get to work on his game as much cause of Shaq? Just because he might've not been able to showcase his skills as much doesn't mean he didn't have the opportunity to develop his skill.



If he had this privilege since 2001ish...one can only wonder how many 33+ ppg seasons we could have seen.

Well in the 5 seasons he's had since playing with Shaq, he's done it once, and thats when he was in his "prime ages" that you referred to. So going by those rates, probably about 0-1.



He also would have had the chance to wait and have a contending team built around him so years like 2006 and 2007 (ages at which Jordan won rings...and prime ages for most players) wouldn't be completely wasted.

Jordan was greater then Kobe ever was by arguably 24, at least 25 which was the beginning of his prime. From the beginning of his career till about 27 (1990), his all-time great basketball ability was wasted with crap teammates. Its completely ridiculous to bring up Kobe's "wasted" years and compare it to Jordan.



Ideal situation for maximizing your legacy is getting a chance to put up mind blowing stats early on in your career as you wait for your team to improve. If you lose in the playoffs, it's because of the cast so you're excused. Then as you get around 26-27, management should have put nice pieces around you (unless they fck up) and you are on a contender for your prime and late-prime years (as #1 option, which is key).

LOL, thats funny cause Jordan was putting up mind blowing stats even when he was playing on championship teams. During the first three peat he put up statlines of 32/6/6 on 54 FG%, 30/6/6 on 52 FG%, and 33/7/6 on 50 FG%. Sure, its not as great as his previous 4 years, but you really think it was more ideal for him to put up mindblowing stats while getting nowhere with his crap teams instead of winning championships/seriously contending with great teams while putting up a little less mindblowing stats? Seriously, when has it ever been a good thing for someone to spend half of his career with teams that sucked?



Helps even more if the competition at the top of the league wanes as your team gets better.

It helped Bird and Magic that Jordan had nowhere near a good team to contend with them. For 8 years, it helped that Kobe didn't have to be another ringless player in the way of one of the most dominating players ever, and instead got to win rings with him and propell himself to a reputation that he probably wouldn't be at right now (1 title vs. 4 titles).



This gives you all those early individual accomplishments and then later on the team ones as well.

Doesn't sound like it was ever a problem a with Magic and Bird. Both of those guys were putting up mindblowing stats with all-time great teams. The same can be said about Jordan. How come you don't say Kareem had an ideal situation? He got all the opportunity to put up mindblowing stats on bad teams and then he had about the same amount of teams to contend for titles.

Anyway, its completely ridiculous to act like Kobe hasn't had a fair shot at enhancing his legacy. At this point, he's had more then a fair shot, and with the way things are going right now, by the end of the next 4-5 years, he will most likely end up with most ideal situation of any player ever at enhancing his legacy.

[Manute for Ever!]

.

Intelligence - You would think playing with great teammates from the beginning of his career would help him become a much greater decision maker ala Magic and Bird right? Who both played with great players there whole career and as a result, never really had a problem with balance.

Passing (willingness to do it) - WTF, this is absolutely ridiculous. Playing with great teammates from the beginning of your career should make a player MORE WILLING to pass. What sense does that make? If a player is playing with crap from the beginning of his career and for a long time, how would that make a player a more willing passer?

Leadership - Sure, Kobe didn't get as much opportunity to experience that as much as someone like Jordan or Lebron. However, its ridiculous to act like the guy got no experience at all. During the time with Shaq, Shaq missed a total of 110 games. That's alot of time. Now much of that is from Kobe's early years, but its nobody's fault Kobe just wasn't that good his first few years. On top of that during much of that time, Kobe was the man in the 4th quarter that was carrying his teams to victories because Shaq was such a liability. And because of the great teams around him and Shaq's liabilities, he experienced many deep playoff runs where he got the opportunity to lead these teams in close games. Seriously, the whole "leadership" argument is overexaggerated.

Creativity (would definitly have to create more for others) - Umm, wasn't Kobe considered the "primary facilitator" for these Laker teams? So wasn't he the guy that had the greatest responsibility in "creating for others"?

Skill - LOL seriously this is getting ridiculous. So Kobe didn't get to work on his game as much cause of Shaq? Just because he might've not been able to showcase his skills as much doesn't mean he didn't have the opportunity to develop his skill.



Well in the 5 seasons he's had since playing with Shaq, he's done it once, and thats when he was in his "prime ages" that you referred to. So going by those rates, probably about 0-1.



Jordan was greater then Kobe ever was by arguably 24, at least 25 which was the beginning of his prime. From the beginning of his career till about 27 (1990), his all-time great basketball ability was wasted with crap teammates. Its completely ridiculous to bring up Kobe's "wasted" years and compare it to Jordan.



LOL, thats funny cause Jordan was putting up mind blowing stats even when he was playing on championship teams. During the first three peat he put up statlines of 32/6/6 on 54 FG%, 30/6/6 on 52 FG%, and 33/7/6 on 50 FG%. Sure, its not as great as his previous 4 years, but you really think it was more ideal for him to put up mindblowing stats while getting nowhere with his crap teams instead of winning championships/seriously contending with great teams while putting up a little less mindblowing stats? Seriously, when has it ever been a good thing for someone to spend half of his career with teams that sucked?



It helped Bird and Magic that Jordan had nowhere near a good team to contend with them. For 8 years, it helped that Kobe didn't have to be another ringless player in the way of one of the most dominating players ever, and instead got to win rings with him and propell himself to a reputation that he probably wouldn't be at right now (1 title vs. 4 titles).



Doesn't sound like it was ever a problem a with Magic and Bird. Both of those guys were putting up mindblowing stats with all-time great teams. The same can be said about Jordan. How come you don't say Kareem had an ideal situation? He got all the opportunity to put up mindblowing stats on great teams and then he had about the same amount of teams to contend for titles.

Anyway, its completely ridiculous to act like Kobe hasn't had a fair shot at enhancing his legacy. At this point, he's had more then a fair shot, and with the way things are going right now, by the end of the next 4-5 years, he will most likely end up with most ideal situation of any player ever at enhancing his legacy.

http://rlv.zcache.com/ball_game_set_match_bumper_sticker-p128748782328715672trl0_400.jpg

[EricForman]

Shaq's legacy has certainly been boasted alot by getting to play with top tier shooting guards throughout his career no doubt.

To you and the other posters who are implying that Shaq wouldnt have won without Kobe.

Can you understand that 2000 Kobe wasn't a superstar level player? He wasn't top ten in the league, and for every playoff series he was arguably the 3rd or 4th best player on the court.

So yes, 2000 Kobe was replaceable with at least 3-4 other SGs in the league that year.

[All Net]

To you and the other posters who are implying that Shaq wouldnt have won without Kobe.

Can you understand that 2000 Kobe wasn't a superstar level player? He wasn't top ten in the league, and for every playoff series he was arguably the 3rd or 4th best player on the court.

So yes, 2000 Kobe was replaceable with at least 3-4 other SGs in the league that year.

You really shouldn't assume things like that.

2000 he was replaceable but after that? highly debatable that you could just plug any SG and it would of been the same result. The performances Kobe had in those Kings, Spurs series take alot of clutch and plenty of heart to deal with the pressure. There were plenty of players who could of had the same amount of huge games but there is no lock they could of performed at the same high level.

With all that said Shaq was so dominant that he likely would of been able to win titles anyway even if he didn't have a top tier SG. If he had the right role players around him he would of likely still won. However having those top guards certainly didn't hurt.

[guy]

What do you consider late prime years?

I would assume 1993 since that was the end of his prime. I'm not even sure what "late prime" years could mean other then that.

[guy]

You really shouldn't assume things like that.

2000 he was replaceable but after that? highly debatable that you could just plug any SG and it would of been the same result. The performances Kobe had in those Kings, Spurs series take alot of clutch and plenty of heart to deal with the pressure. There were plenty of players who could of had the same amount of huge games but there is no lock they could of performed at the same high level.

With all that said Shaq was so dominant that he likely would of been able to win titles anyway even if he didn't have a top tier SG. If he had the right role players around him he would of likely still won. However having those top guards certainly didn't hurt.

I don't think anyone is saying you could replace Kobe in 2001 with any SG and they have the exact same result, as in a 15-1 most dominating playoffs ever. Short of Jordan, Magic, or Bird, I don't think you can replace 2001 Kobe with anyone and they would've gotten that result. Kobe was just that dominant that year and was that much in sync with Shaq. But could they replace him with one of the best SG/SFs in the league at the time and still win a title, not necessarily in that dominating fashion? Sure.

As far as 2002 goes, maybe not. But I don't think it really matters since the Lakers probably shouldn't have won a title that year anyway.

[shadow]

I don't think the initial argument is fair.

2005 was just a bad year with injuries and the coach ditching the team mid-way. Plus Kobe played like **** just jacking up shot after shot without any structured offense.

2008 and 2009 are also different because the stats came down due to him having help, much like when Shaq was there. Which brings me to my main point. I wouldn't say Shaq held him back. It goes by logic that if you have multiple star-type players on a team, the stars' stats will come down. By OP's logic you can also argue Kobe held shaq back because shaq would have likely scored more if he was going solo on a bad team. IMO they did each other a favor, 3 big ones.

[guy]

I don't think the initial argument is fair.

2005 was just a bad year with injuries and the coach ditching the team mid-way. Plus Kobe played like **** just jacking up shot after shot without any structured offense.

Injuries are part of the game. If his injuries were that bad, he wouldn't have played 66 games. And I'm not sure if the last sentence is an excuse for Kobe or you giving me support that Kobe not having better stats has little to do with Shaq.



2008 and 2009 are also different because the stats came down due to him having help, much like when Shaq was there. Which brings me to my main point. I wouldn't say Shaq held him back. It goes by logic that if you have multiple star-type players on a team, the stars' stats will come down. By OP's logic you can also argue Kobe held shaq back because shaq would have likely scored more if he was going solo on a bad team. IMO they did each other a favor, 3 big ones.

I agree. But you can say this about so many players, but its never mentioned. Its never talked about with Magic, Bird, Shaq, Duncan who all played on great teams for there whole career. But for Kobe, its ALWAYS mentioned.

And in the Jordan vs. Kobe argument, its never mentioned by Kobe fans that when Jordan did have great teammates, his stats are still greater then Kobe's with great teammates, whether it be with Shaq or Gasol/Odom.

[guy]

Kobe without playing with Shaq may ahve had a few extra ppg, but you wouldn't have seen him shooting around 47% like he was during the 3peat and you wouldn't have seen him playing deep into the playoffs and winning championships. In reality his legacy would be worse without the 3 extra rings. Kobe would never trade those 3 rings for 3 extra ppg for is career.

Of course he wouldn't. Funny thing is for him to have added 3 more ppg to his career (28 ppg as opposed to 25 ppg), he would've needed to average about 5 more ppg during those 8 years (561 games) with Shaq. That's about 2800 points. Does anyone honestly think playing with Shaq cost Kobe 2800 points?

Now alot of people like to say that if he didn't play with Shaq he'd have the stats Jordan has, who has a 30.1 career ppg. Does anyone realize how much of a mountain that would've been to climb? Kobe would've needed to add about 9 PPG to those 8 years (561 games) with Shaq. This would've brought his career average to about 30.4 ppg. That's about 5000 points! Anyone honestly think Shaq cost Kobe 5000 points?

[Solid Snake]

Of course he wouldn't. Funny thing is for him to have added 3 more ppg to his career (28 ppg as opposed to 25 ppg), he would've needed to average about 5 more ppg during those 8 years (561 games) with Shaq. That's about 2800 points. Does anyone honestly think playing with Shaq cost Kobe 2800 points?

Now alot of people like to say that if he didn't play with Shaq he'd have the stats Jordan has, who has a 30.1 career ppg. Does anyone realize how much of a mountain that would've been to climb? Kobe would've needed to add about 9 PPG to those 8 years (561 games) with Shaq. This would've brought his career average to about 30.4 ppg. That's about 5000 points! Anyone honestly think Shaq cost Kobe 5000 points?

Snaq costs everyone, everything.

/

[guy]

BUMP :banana:

[eliteballer]

No it's not. Kobe's stats from 97-2004 were higher in the games he played without Shaq than with. In 2003 without Shaq he was like 32/8/7 in games without shaq. In 2002 he had that 56 points in 3 quarters game without Shaq and in 2003 he started off the season putting up the best all-around numbers of his career when Shaq was out. In 2001 he was averaging about 30 PPG because he wanted the ball more and the next season went down to 25 PPG because he let Shaq have his way. Talents like Kobe become great no matter what, and playing on more talented teams just diminishes their stats.

[eliteballer]

To you and the other posters who are implying that Shaq wouldnt have won without Kobe.

Can you understand that 2000 Kobe wasn't a superstar level player? He wasn't top ten in the league, and for every playoff series he was arguably the 3rd or 4th best player on the court.

So yes, 2000 Kobe was replaceable with at least 3-4 other SGs in the league that year.

LOL. Kobe was a 22/6/5 ALL NBA DEFENSIVE FIRST TEAM player. He hit that gamewinner against the Suns in Game 2 of the 2nd round, won game 4 in OT during the Finals when Shaq fouled out and in that famous game 7 vs. the Blazers?

Shaq had 18 pts, 9 rebounds, and 5 assists.

Kobe? 25 points, 11 rebounds, 7 assists, and 4 blocks

[ShaqAttack3234]

No it's not. Kobe's stats from 97-2004 were higher in the games he played without Shaq than with. In 2003 without Shaq he was like 32/8/7 in games without shaq. In 2002 he had that 56 points in 3 quarters game without Shaq and in 2003 he started off the season putting up the best all-around numbers of his career when Shaq was out. In 2001 he was averaging about 30 PPG because he wanted the ball more and the next season went down to 25 PPG because he let Shaq have his way. Talents like Kobe become great no matter what, and playing on more talented teams just diminishes their stats.

Yes his stats would have been better, but he wouldn't have won nearly as much. His record was about .500 without Shaq during the 3peat and just 5-10 in 2002-2003. So what's better? Multiple 50 win seasons, a 67 win season, 4 finals appearances and 3 titles or better stats with 40-45 win seasons and early playoff exits?


LOL. Kobe was a 22/6/5 ALL NBA DEFENSIVE FIRST TEAM player. He hit that gamewinner against the Suns in Game 2 of the 2nd round, won game 4 in OT during the Finals when Shaq fouled out and in that famous game 7 vs. the Blazers?

Shaq had 18 pts, 9 rebounds, and 5 assists.

Kobe? 25 points, 11 rebounds, 7 assists, and 4 blocks

Won game 4 of the finals? He finished the game, but without Shaq's 36 points and 21 rebounds they aren't in that game late to begin with.

[guy]

No it's not. Kobe's stats from 97-2004 were higher in the games he played without Shaq than with. In 2003 without Shaq he was like 32/8/7 in games without shaq. In 2002 he had that 56 points in 3 quarters game without Shaq and in 2003 he started off the season putting up the best all-around numbers of his career when Shaq was out. In 2001 he was averaging about 30 PPG because he wanted the ball more and the next season went down to 25 PPG because he let Shaq have his way. Talents like Kobe become great no matter what, and playing on more talented teams just diminishes their stats.

I didn't say he wasn't held down individually AT ALL, just that its been overexaggerated greatly as evident to the fact that he's had seasons with Shaq that were equal or better then some of his seasons without Shaq, and even better then one where his team wasn't talented like it has been for the past 2 years. Many people assume he would be a 30 ppg career scorer and won many more MVPs, but like I said this is far-fetched. People even say Kobe's legacy would've been better off had he not played with Shaq at all, which is really crazy IMO.

[Rocker09]

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so. :cheers:

This actually makes sense....Yes, kobe wouldn't have won 3 rings w/o shaq but the same applies to shaq....The same also applies to Phil Jackson...The lakers 3 peat is the result of having these 3 in one team...

[plowking]

This actually makes sense....Yes, kobe wouldn't have won 3 rings w/o shaq but the same applies to shaq....The same also applies to Phil Jackson...The lakers 3 peat is the result of having these 3 in one team...

No, pair Shaq with any all star wing those first 2 championships and he wins.

[Rocker09]

No, pair Shaq with any all star wing those first 2 championships and he wins.

That's hypothetical and cannot be proven.....Whether people like it or not, Kobe is a big reason for that 3 peat.....Remove any of those 3 key pieces(shaq, kobe, and Phil) and the lakers MIGHT NOT have won anything....

[jmill]

Kobe without playing with Shaq may ahve had a few extra ppg, but you wouldn't have seen him shooting around 47% like he was during the 3peat and you wouldn't have seen him playing deep into the playoffs and winning championships. In reality his legacy would be worse without the 3 extra rings. Kobe would never trade those 3 rings for 3 extra ppg for is career.

Um, Kobe has been a better shooter since Shaq left. You're ignoring the fact that Kobe increased his volume with regards to 3PA's since Shaq left. Due to him becoming more proficient in that area and likely due to getting older and not being able to rely on his explosiveness as much. His TS% (true shooting percentage) is the metric that should be looked at, not just his FG%.

And his TS% has been higher every single year since Shaq left LA.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Um, Kobe has been a better shooter since Shaq left. You're ignoring the fact that Kobe increased his volume with regards to 3PA's since Shaq left. Due to him becoming more proficient in that area and likely due to getting older and not being able to rely on his explosiveness as much. His TS% (true shooting percentage) is the metric that should be looked at, not just his FG%.

And his TS% has been higher every single year since Shaq left LA.

What's your point? We know what he did after Shaq left, I'm talking about what Shaq era Kobe would have done without Shaq. He would not shoot 47% during those years so while his scoring would increase, his shooting percentages would not. And of course without Shaq, those Laker teams might not even make the playoffs.

[dynasty1978]

I didn't say he wasn't held down individually AT ALL, just that its been overexaggerated greatly as evident to the fact that he's had seasons with Shaq that were equal or better then some of his seasons without Shaq, and even better then one where his team wasn't talented like it has been for the past 2 years. Many people assume he would be a 30 ppg career scorer and won many more MVPs, but like I said this is far-fetched. People even say Kobe's legacy would've been better off had he not played with Shaq at all, which is really crazy IMO.

Those people saying Kobe's legacy would've been better w/out Shaq IMO are typically obsessed with individual stats and resume builders (i.e., scoring titles). The only benefit to this is added ammo for kobe vs. player x arguments on ISH :oldlol:

A small price to pay for the stats that matter, championships. In the end, the major criticism of Bryant as a player centered on his ability to lead, get the best out of his teammates, and ultimately win. I'll gladly take the finished product that I'm seeing now over a stat stuffing machine.

[lefthook00]

You guys are acting like Kobe would be the same player if Shaq wasn't there. He would have developed much faster. He has the drive and work ethic for it. I think he would have about 2 rings by now, somewhere between 2004-present.

[triangleoffense]

No, Shaq would have won if he had any other of the 4 or 5 top SG's at the time.


well he had penny and went 0-4 in the finals. Some say that penny would have been a hall of famer if not for the injuries. Shaq played with the top3 SGs of the generation and two of the top5 coaches of all time. And now who is he playing with? Arguebly the best player of the next generation.

[plowking]

well he had penny and went 0-4 in the finals. Some say that penny would have been a hall of famer if not for the injuries. Shaq played with the top3 SGs of the generation and two of the top5 coaches of all time. And now who is he playing with? Arguebly the best player of the next generation.

Shaq was a hell of a lot better at the Lakers than at Orlando. Furthermore, the supporting cast excluding Penny/Kobe was better at the Lakers.

[jmill]

What's your point? We know what he did after Shaq left, I'm talking about what Shaq era Kobe would have done without Shaq. He would not shoot 47% during those years so while his scoring would increase, his shooting percentages would not. And of course without Shaq, those Laker teams might not even make the playoffs.

Huh?

- You say he wouldn't have shot x% without Shaq
- Without Shaq, he's done just that.

My point is he's already done what you said he wouldn't without Shaq. Also, the way you worded it implied Kobe was a better shooter when he played with Shaq, which he wasn't.

All you're doing then is speculating off what you think would have happened, while I'm using stats that show he's done exactly what you're saying he wouldn't have.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Huh?

- You say he wouldn't have shot x% without Shaq
- Without Shaq, he's done just that.

My point is he's already done what you said he wouldn't without Shaq. Also, the way you worded it implied Kobe was a better shooter when he played with Shaq, which he wasn't.

All you're doing then is speculating off what you think would have happened, while I'm using stats that show he's done exactly what you're saying he wouldn't have.

:roll: You pointed out yourself that Kobe's become a better shooter over the years. 3peat Kobe's shooting percentages would have dropped if he was forced to play without Shaq.

In fact in the 3peat and 2003, Kobe shot 43% in the games that Shaq missed and the Lakers were 18-22.

I wasn't talking about what Kobe did after Shaq left I was talking about what the younger version of Kobe would have done without Shaq. Yes, he would have scored more points as Kobe fans love to point out, but his shooting percentages would have dropped and the Lakers would have struggled to be a .500 team.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Furthermore, the supporting cast excluding Penny/Kobe was better at the Lakers.

That couldn't be farther from the truth. Shaq had a prime Horace Grant on the Magic who was far better than any Laker not named Shaq or Kobe on the 3peat, Brian Shaw was better than he was on the Lakers and Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott were also more productive than the Lakers role players.

The 3peat Laker teams really weren't that good outside of Shaq and Kobe.

[plowking]

What is it with Kobe fans using TS%? FG% is there for a reason, its the best stat.

[guy]

You guys are acting like Kobe would be the same player if Shaq wasn't there. He would have developed much faster. He has the drive and work ethic for it. I think he would have about 2 rings by now, somewhere between 2004-present.

Why do you say that? Every SG/SF besides Kobe in the league since Jordan retired in 98 have all had teams built around them that weren't nearly as good as the teams built around Shaq and Duncan. Not sure why we should assume Kobe would be different. I'm not saying he couldn't have won, but there is no reason to say he would've.

And like I said, its just speculation IMO to say he would've developed faster. Yes, he would've been more used to carrying his teams on offense more. But what about that valuable playoff and big game experience that he probably wouldn't have had if he didn't play on those great teams? What about his ability to play with great players in the first place, which like many have said, is harder to learn? For example, I'm sure playing with Shaq all those years has helped him play with his current cast of Gasol/Bynum/Odom much better.

[guy]

This actually makes sense....Yes, kobe wouldn't have won 3 rings w/o shaq but the same applies to shaq....The same also applies to Phil Jackson...The lakers 3 peat is the result of having these 3 in one team...

The difference is Kobe was clearly more replaceable then Shaq and didn't have as much impact on that team. If you remove one guy from any team, it could change everything so much. People like to point out that without Kobe on the 2000 team, they don't get past the Blazers. You can say the same thing about Brian Shaw who hit like 2 3s during the comeback. You can say the same thing about Robert Horry in 2002 who hit the buzzer beater against the Kings. That doesn't mean Horry and Shaw were just as important to that team as Kobe was, just like Kobe wasn't as important to that team as Shaq was.

[Jacks3]

Kobe without Shaq is much better individually. Without Shaq he has 3-4 more scoring titles. Probably 3-4 more 30+/5+/5+ seasons on excellent efficiency( like he did in 05-07). Maybe not 4 rings, but if the Lakers are building around him for a decade+, I think he has 1-2 rings-probably more All-NBA First teams, too. :bowdown:

[guy]

Kobe without Shaq is much better individually. Without Shaq he has 3-4 more scoring titles. Probably 3-4 more 30+/5+/5+ seasons on excellent efficiency( like he did in 05-07). Maybe not 4 rings, but if the Lakers are building around him for a decade+, I think he has 1-2 rings-probably more All-NBA First teams, too. :bowdown:

IMO 2 more scoring titles at the most, being 01 and 03. There's no reason to think he would've scored more then 6.2 more ppg in 02, which is what it would've taken to beat AI, especially when he was already on a team that outside of himself and Shaq wasn't much, and when Shaq already missed like 15 games that year. There's no reason to think Kobe would've scored more then 4.0 more ppg in 04, which is what it would've taken to beat T-Mac that year, especially when Shaq missed 15 games and was already taken a less aggressive approach that year offensively, averaging 4 less FGA and only scoring 21.5 ppg.

As far as 30+/5+/5+ seasons go, I don't think he has anymore. In 03 he already did it. In 01, he only averaged 5.0 apg anyway, so that number would likely go down. In 02, he would've had to have scored 4.8 more ppg, and 6 more ppg in 04. 02 is possible, but doubtful IMO for the same reason why he wouldn't have won a scoring title, plus his apg might've gone below 5.0. He would've obviously came close, but I don't think it happens anymore

He might've gotten on 1-2 more all-nba first teams in 2000 and 2001, but even thats far fetched since he missed a good amount of games in each of those seasons.

And like I said before, from 97-00 he just clearly wasn't that good.

[dynasty1978]

IMO 2 more scoring titles at the most, being 01 and 03. There's no reason to think he would've scored more then 6.2 more ppg in 02

IMO, Kobe could certainly match AI's output and with greater efficiency (39.8% isn't anything to write home about)



There's no reason to think Kobe would've scored more then 4.0 more ppg in 04


T-mac's 28 ppg on 41.7% shooting isn't anything monumental. To suggest that Kobe couldn't touch that is laughable.

Again, not that stats mean much in the big picture, but Kobe could easily have over 5 scoring titles as a solo artist...

[guy]

IMO, Kobe could certainly match AI's output and with greater efficiency (39.8% isn't anything to write home about)



T-mac's 28 ppg on 41.7% shooting isn't anything monumental. To suggest that Kobe couldn't touch that is laughable.

Again, not that stats mean much in the big picture, but Kobe could easily have over 5 scoring titles as a solo artist...

This doesn't have much to do with what those players did, but I'm looking more at what playing with Shaq cost Kobe. To suggest that Kobe would've scored close to 7 more ppg in 02 without Shaq, when the rest of his team was already not that great and Shaq missed 15 games anyway, is a bit far-fetched. To suggest that Kobe would've scored over 4 more ppg in 04 without Shaq, when Shaq was only scoring 21 ppg and missed 15 games that year anyway, is a bit far-fetched as well. Also, in 04 Kobe was already dealing with injuries and off the court distractions, which also probably had an impact on his numbers.

[guy]

IMO, Kobe could certainly match AI's output and with greater efficiency (39.8% isn't anything to write home about)



T-mac's 28 ppg on 41.7% shooting isn't anything monumental. To suggest that Kobe couldn't touch that is laughable.

Again, not that stats mean much in the big picture, but Kobe could easily have over 5 scoring titles as a solo artist...

I just did a little bit more research on this.

Kobe's ppg in games without Shaq from 01-04:

2001 - 31.9 ppg (8 games)
2002 - 28.9 ppg (15 games)
2003 - 32.3 ppg (15 games)
2004 - 24.8 ppg (8 games - Shaq missed 15, but 7 of those Kobe missed as well)

According to that, what I said is right. If he averaged that for an 82 game season, he would've had 2 more scoring titles both in the years I mentioned, 2001 and 2003. Now obviously 8-15 games is a small sample size, but that means not only could the ppg have been higher with a larger sample size, it could've also been lower.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Kobe is not having the same efficiency in '00-'04 as he did from '06-'08 because a lot of that is due to the new perimeter friendly rules. Kobe was a 54-55% TS player before the rule changes, and that jumped to 56-57+% afterwards. Not a coincidence, as most star perimeter players saw similar gains.


2001 - 31.9 ppg (8 games)
2002 - 28.9 ppg (15 games)
2003 - 32.3 ppg (15 games)
2004 - 24.8 ppg (8 games - Shaq missed 15, but 7 of those Kobe missed as well)

Check his efficiency during those stretches. I know for a fact that during his 2003 games w/o Shaq where he averaged 32.3 ppg, he also averaged 27 FGA and 42.5% shooting iirc (it was no more than 43%).

[guy]

Check his efficiency during those stretches. I know for a fact that during his 2003 games w/o Shaq where he averaged 32.3 ppg, he also averaged 27 FGA and 42.5% shooting iirc (it was no more than 43%).

I didn't bother looking at that since it was irrelevant to my point. All I was looking for was PPG without Shaq.

[guy]

:rockon:
Saw a few comments in some other threads again implying that Shaq held Kobe down alot so I felt like bumping this :rockon:

[IGOTGAME]

There's certain things you learn and develop quicker when you are the #1 guy. In Kobe's case it would be his intelligence, passing (or rather willingness to do it), leadership, creativity (would definitly have to create more for others), skill, all of which improved rapidly when he was given the team. If he had this privilege since 2001ish...one can only wonder how many 33+ ppg seasons we could have seen. He also would have had the chance to wait and have a contending team built around him so years like 2006 and 2007 (ages at which Jordan won rings...and prime ages for most players) wouldn't be completely wasted.

Ideal situation for maximizing your legacy is getting a chance to put up mind blowing stats early on in your career as you wait for your team to improve. If you lose in the playoffs, it's because of the cast so you're excused. Then as you get around 26-27, management should have put nice pieces around you (unless they fck up) and you are on a contender for your prime and late-prime years (as #1 option, which is key). Helps even more if the competition at the top of the league wanes as your team gets better. This gives you all those early individual accomplishments and then later on the team ones as well.

great post. Kobe didnt get the teams until after his physical prime.

[guy]

great post. Kobe didnt get the teams until after his physical prime.

Right, he's only had great help around him 13 out of 16 seasons. How unfortunate for him.

[AlphaWolf24]

Kobe without playing with Shaq may ahve had a few extra ppg, but you wouldn't have seen him shooting around 47% like he was during the 3peat and you wouldn't have seen him playing deep into the playoffs and winning championships. In reality his legacy would be worse without the 3 extra rings. Kobe would never trade those 3 rings for 3 extra ppg for is career.


Kobe could have replaced Snaq with a Euro like Big Z and still won multiple championships from 00 ' - 02'...

saying Kobe would not have won without Snaq is silly..and shows your bias once again..

infact...replace Snaq's ego with a soft Euro and Kobe wins more....not having to deal with snaq's personality issues.

shoot..in 2003 alone Kobe could have easily averaged over 35 PPG and won a Title if not for Snaq's outta shape behind holding him back.


Hayyyter

[eliteballer]

To suggest that Kobe would've scored close to 7 more ppg in 02 without Shaq, when the rest of his team was already not that great and Shaq missed 15 games anyway, is a bit far-fetched.

It's not. He pulled back because he got married before that season and wasnt as purely basketball driven as before. Coincidence one of the games Shaq missed that year he scored 56 in 3 quarters? No.

The guy averaged 29/6/5 at 22 years old AFTER pulling back when he reconciled with Shaq in 01.

Hell Doug Collins said he'd lead the league in scoring if he was on his own team during the 2000 playoffs when he was 21.

[guy]

It's not. He pulled back because he got married before that season and wasnt as purely basketball driven as before. Coincidence one of the games Shaq missed that year he scored 56 in 3 quarters? No.

The guy averaged 29/6/5 at 22 years old AFTER pulling back when he reconciled with Shaq in 01.

Hell Doug Collins said he'd lead the league in scoring if he was on his own team during the 2000 playoffs when he was 21.

Like I said later in this topic, he averaged 29 ppg in the 15 games in 2002 when Shaq wasn't playing.

What does him getting married have anything to do with Shaq?

[eliteballer]

When he got married he was content to let Shaq control the team. The point was repeatedly made in the media. In 2001 he was averaging 30 ppg before he got injured and decided to cut back. Yet you act as if he magically regressed in 2002.

[eliteballer]

What were his numbers in 03 without Shaq? Like 33/8/7, and once he adjusted his shot after adding all that muscle in the offseason his efficiency was off the chart too during the 40 point month

[AlphaWolf24]

What were his numbers in 03 without Shaq? Like 33/8/7, and once he adjusted his shot after adding all that muscle in the offseason his efficiency was off the chart too during the 40 point month


yes that was crazy...the greatest scoring period since Wilt.

[Lucifer]

No one's saying he was held completely down by Shaq, but if you think Kobe's stats would have been similar without Shaq when he was physically in his prime then your a damn fool ya mudblood!

[Artillery]

I agree. But you can say this about so many players, but its never mentioned. Its never talked about with Magic, Bird, Shaq, Duncan who all played on great teams for there whole career. But for Kobe, its ALWAYS mentioned.

It's always mentioned because Kobe's played with more talent than most other franchise players. He's had another All-NBA player beside him on EVERY one of his championship teams. The three seasons where he actually HAD to carry a bad team the Lakers either failed to make the playofffs or barely won 40 games en route to a first round exit.

[AlphaWolf24]

It's always mentioned because Kobe's played with more talent than most other franchise players. He's had another All-NBA player beside him on EVERY one of his championship teams. The three seasons where he actually HAD to carry a bad team the Lakers either failed to make the playofffs or barely won 40 games en route to a first round exit.


by "More" talent do you really mean "less" Talent...

He never had a player of chrich Bosh , James Worthy , Toni Kukoc or robert Parrish as a 3rd Option...

He had 40 year old Glenn Rice and Derek Fisher as 3rd options on championship teams...


please move along it's clear you have no clue.




next

[guy]

When he got married he was content to let Shaq control the team. The point was repeatedly made in the media. In 2001 he was averaging 30 ppg before he got injured and decided to cut back. Yet you act as if he magically regressed in 2002.

I mentioned that I think he would've won in 2001. And yes, he got injured, but that has nothing to do with Shaq.

In 2002, I don't think he magically regressed, but every year is different. The dynamics of the team was different, maybe some of that had to do with Kobe's personal life which had nothing to do with Shaq, and like I said in the 15 games Shaq didn't play he averaged 29 ppg, which was 2.4 ppg under AI's for the season.

My main point is all this talk alot of people have that Kobe would've accomplished so much more individually if it weren't for Shaq, to the point that it would rival Jordan and would've been greater for his legacy then winning 3 titles in his role, is extremely far-fetched and the evidence points to that.

[guy]

No one's saying he was held completely down by Shaq, but if you think Kobe's stats would have been similar without Shaq when he was physically in his prime then your a damn fool ya mudblood!

It would've been greater, but greater to the point that his legacy been higher keeping in mind alot of his team success would've been gone? Very doubtful.

[NumberSix]

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so. :cheers:
this.

[Artillery]

by "More" talent do you really mean "less" Talent...

He never had a player of chrich Bosh , James Worthy , Toni Kukoc or robert Parrish as a 3rd Option...

He had 40 year old Glenn Rice and Derek Fisher as 3rd options on championship teams...


please move along it's clear you have no clue.
next

lol at the 3rd option argument. How many players get to coattail a top 10 HOF big man in his prime to three titles. Or be gifted an all-star/all-NBA big man after threatening to leave the team over the summer(going on a radio tour demaning a trade after not being able to tough it out with a weak supporting cast).

[OldSchoolBBall]

by "More" talent do you really mean "less" Talent...

He never had a player of chrich Bosh , James Worthy , Toni Kukoc or robert Parrish as a 3rd Option...


Lamar Odom is easily as good as Toni Kukoc, as is Bynum (though his attendance is spotty). Get real.

[Leviathon1121]

How many excuses and what if's does Kobe Bryant need from you guys? Holy shit it is comical.

[Boston C's]

Kobe could have replaced Snaq with a Euro like Big Z and still won multiple championships from 00 ' - 02'...

saying Kobe would not have won without Snaq is silly..and shows your bias once again..

infact...replace Snaq's ego with a soft Euro and Kobe wins more....not having to deal with snaq's personality issues.

shoot..in 2003 alone Kobe could have easily averaged over 35 PPG and won a Title if not for Snaq's outta shape behind holding him back.


Hayyyter

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

your bias is mind blowing

[Force]

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so. :cheers:

Prime Shaq wins at least 1 title with any of the top 5 guards. Even Vince Carter or Jerry Stackhouse could have traded places with Kobe on the same team and won at least 1 title.