Game 4 2001 Western Conference Semifinals

[Desperado]

Close out game against Sacramento.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200105130SAC.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjfxlvvXfSw

Kobe: 48/16/3/2 52 FG% 64 TS%

And just 22 years old.

:bowdown:

[Bigsmoke]

haha Doug Christie got his ass beat

[Desperado]

haha Doug Christie got his ass beat

:lol

[The_Yearning]

What happened to him in 2002 against the Kings?

[Desperado]

What happened to him in 2002 against the Kings?

He averaged 27/4/6 in the WCF.


:confusedshrug:

[theoneneo]

The following game 1 against the spurs he had 45pts 10rebounds....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkvpnmAk2xU
:bowdown:

[Bladers]

So much for being a sidekick... :confusedshrug:

[InsideGame]

and the refs

[Bladers]

and the refs

What about the refs???:confusedshrug:

[Bladers]

dam if he score 2 more would had been 50 :)

[Mr Clutch Melo]

So much for being a sidekick... :confusedshrug:

lol @ Kobe *******ers:roll:

In game 1 : Shaq: 44/21/4/7 53% :bowdown:

Game 2 : 42/20 on 69% :eek: :bowdown:

Game 3 : 21/18 61 %

[Desperado]

So much for being a sidekick... :confusedshrug:


true

this side-kick shyt is ridiculous....


It was more of 1a/1b....it was a 1-2 punch and they were considered co-mvps in '01 and '02. Even the first title when they were considered #1/ #2 Kobe still had clutch performances in the playoffs and Finals and they Lakers may not have even made it to the Finals in 2000 if Kobe didn't take over against the Blazers in Game 7 of the Western Conference Finals.

[OneMoreSucka]

dam if he score 2 more would had been 50 :)
Excellent observation! If he scored 10 more he would've had 58!

[Bladers]

Excellent observation! If he scored 10 more he would've had 58!

2 more and we talking 60 baby... :banana:

[Bladers]

lol @ Kobe *******ers:roll:

In game 1 : Shaq: 44/21/4/7 53% :bowdown:

Game 2 : 42/20 on 69% :eek: :bowdown:

Game 3 : 21/18 61 %

Kobe 29 in Game 1. (Shaq's turn)
Kobe 27 in Game 2. (Shaq's Turn)
Kobe 36 in Game 3. (Kobe's turn)
Kobe 48 in Game 4. (Kobe's turn)

This only proves that they just take turns.
One game for Kobe, One game for Shaq.

hmm... Neither is hero, Neither is sidekick...

[Disaprine]

what a game by kobe. :applause:

[Batchoy]

true

this side-kick shyt is ridiculous....


It was more of 1a/1b....it was a 1-2 punch and they were considered co-mvps in '01 and '02. Even the first title when they were considered #1/ #2 Kobe still had clutch performances in the playoffs and Finals and they Lakers may not have even made it to the Finals in 2000 if Kobe didn't take over against the Blazers in Game 7 of the Western Conference Finals.
Kobe Bryant was not the same player in 2001 as he is now. Player reach their peak during their late 20's and early 30's like Kobe has. That's why he has reached MVP status the past 5 years...his peak years. The same with Shaq during the early 2000's. His greatest years = his peak years.

PLEASE STOP trying to elevate Kobe's play during that time. Yes he was a great young player, but he was still learning to play the game. To say he was equal to Shaq at that time is just being a narrow minded fanatic.

[ShaqAttack3234]

So much for being a sidekick... :confusedshrug:

Well calling Kobe a sidekick does seem like selling him short in 2001. He was the second best player in the entire 2001 playoffs.

IMO, there has NEVER been a duo as good Shaq and Kobe were in the 2001 playoffs. They seemed to just take turns dominating teams. That's why the Lakers didn't even need a 3rd option, when they were on good terms, they were as good of a duo as you can have, an inside/outside duo with arguably the 2 best scorers in the game at the time.

The finals was really Shaq's series, the WCF was really Kobe's and in the Sacramento series, they both went off.

But yes, Kobe was still the number 2 guy, though 2001 Kobe in the playoffs is probably the best number 2 guy of all time. And no, they weren't considered co-MVPs.

"In all fairness, Kobe does have a clear advantage over Mike: He plays with the most dominant player in the league in Shaquille O'Neal. Mike always had to be the most dominant, as well as the most talented, but Kobe gets to defer a lot of the defensive attention, because he is the second option. Mike was never a second option."- Kenny Smith May 4th, 2001 Sports Illustrated

Not to mention that Shaq finished higher in MVP voting every year, even in '02 despite missing 13 more games and of course, won finals MVP each season. That's also why Barkley talked about Kobe needing to win one without Shaq.

Not trying to turn this into a Shaq vs Kobe thread, but saying they were equal is not true.

[raptorfan_dr07]

He averaged 27/4/6 in the WCF.


:confusedshrug:

While shooting sub 50% in all but one game(Game 6), being completely INVISIBLE in the 4th quarter/OT of Game 7(went without a field goal in the 4th, scoreless in OT, only Shaq and Fisher scored for LA in OT), and was allowed to get away with this in one of the most crucial possessions of Game 6:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWQHB0Iz49U

This whole joke of a thread was a pathetic reaction to that other one about Tim Duncan's Game 6 in the 2003 WCSF. Someone made a comment about Kobe crying at the end of the game and this troll got so butthurt about it, he made this thread. Look at that thread, this stupid thread is an exact copy of that good thread. :rolleyes:

[Bladers]

Kobe Bryant was not the same player in 2001 as he is now. Player reach their peak during their late 20's and early 30's like Kobe has. That's why he has reached MVP status the past 5 years...his peak years. The same with Shaq during the early 2000's. His greatest years = his peak years.

PLEASE STOP trying to elevate Kobe's play during that time. Yes he was a great young player, but he was still learning to play the game. To say he was equal to Shaq at that time is just being a narrow minded fanatic.

00-01 Playoffs Average.

Kobe 29.4
Shaq 30.4

Pretty equal I would say...

[ShaqAttack3234]

00-01 Playoffs Average.

Kobe 29.4
Shaq 30.4

Pretty equal I would say...

Shaq also averaged 15.4 rpg, drew more double teams than any player in the league and got entire teams into foul trouble and got them in the penalty early. By the way, Shaq destroyed Kobe in FG% and still beat him in TS%.

[Bladers]

Shaq also averaged 15.4 rpg, drew more double teams than any player in the league and got entire teams into foul trouble and got them in the penalty early. By the way, Shaq destroyed Kobe in FG% and still beat him in TS%.

Center are supposed to shoot above 60% All they get are dunks and layups, some times hooks...
LMAO @ this, Centers are supposed to get rebounds, that is what they are there for...
Do you expect Kobe to run in there and start struggling with (Prime) Shaq for a rebound?

Kobe got 7.3 Rebounds, That's more than enough for a Guard!

[Desperado]

While shooting sub 50% in all but one game(Game 6), being completely INVISIBLE in the 4th quarter/OT of Game 7(went without a field goal in the 4th, scoreless in OT, only Shaq and Fisher scored for LA in OT), and was allowed to get away with this in one of the most crucial possessions of Game 6:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWQHB0Iz49U

This whole joke of a thread was a pathetic reaction to that other one about Tim Duncan's Game 6 in the 2003 WCSF. Someone made a comment about Kobe crying at the end of the game and this troll got so butthurt about it, he made this thread. Look at that thread, this stupid thread is an exact copy of that good thread. :rolleyes:


So just because a player shoots anywhere below 50% that means they had a horrible game? In Game 1 he shot 46% which is good, game 2 he shot 43% which isn't great but its not terrible either... its respectable, game 3 he had a poor shooting performance (33%), game 4 he shots 46% which is good, game 5 he shot 40% which is decent but not good, game 6 he shot 50% which seems to be like the only respectable shooting percentage for you clowns on here. God forbid anyone not shot 50% or higher or it mans you had a horrible performance. Game 7 he shot 38% pretty sub par but he still had 30/10/7/2 in a close out game. Just because he had a sub par shooting night is that supposed to take away from what he did? :confusedshrug:


btw I posted this thread before other guy posted the Duncan thread dumbass.

[bladefd]

As great as Kobe was during those series', you have to not forget how dominant Shaq was. He was a monster during those 3-peat days, probably the most dominant 3-4 year peak performance by any player in nba history (dominant performance is not the same as the greatest). Nobody knew how to defend that 7'3 330+ pound monster in the paint. If Shaq was alone, teams would have triple-teamed him, but with Kobe out there, no team could triple-team Shaq.

With a guy that large, strong and pretty quick for that size, no matter what Kobe does or what argument you bring to the table, he will still be put under Shaq in those 3-peat days. There is no way around it. Even if Jordan was playing next to that prime peak Shaq, even HE would not be put above Shaq during that small ~4 year window. Think about it: Your Airness would have to give the ball up to Shaq in his peak years. That is how dominant Shaq was... I have never seen anything like it, and we probably never will unless we see another big monster like Shaq. Even Wilt/Kareem/Russell/etc were not as dominant as Shaq in his 3-4 peak years (again, dominant is not the same as the word "great"). While trying to defend Kobe and how great he was, do not minimize Shaq's monstrosity.

[Batchoy]

Center are supposed to shoot above 60% All they get are dunks and layups, some times hooks...
LMAO @ this, Centers are supposed to get rebounds, that is what they are there for...
Those quotes are funny

[LA_Showtime]

Yet another reason why replacing Kobe with said player would not have worked. Maybe Vince Carter in the 2001 season, but other than him the Lakers would not have three-peated.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Center are supposed to shoot above 60% All they get are dunks and layups, some times hooks...
LMAO @ this, Centers are supposed to get rebounds, that is what they are there for...
Do you expect Kobe to run in there and start struggling with (Prime) Shaq for a rebound?

Kobe got 7.3 Rebounds, That's more than enough for a Guard!

You're a complete moron. Who cares what they're supposed to do because of size? What matters is, who the most effective player is, who has the biggest impact. Shaq edges him statistically and in impact.

[LA_Showtime]

You're a complete moron. Who cares what they're supposed to do because of size? What matters is, who the most effective player is, who has the biggest impact. Shaq edges him statistically and in impact.

I've always found it peculiar that Bryant doesn't average more rebounds per game. He's an excellent rebounder for his size; he should easily average 6 or 7 rebounds per game.

[SourGrapes]

the problem i have with comparisons of players on the same team is that they depend on each other. kobe's field goal percentage is lower because he is taking the kind of shots required by a player at his position in that offense. those shots are inherently more difficult, and allow shaquille to take the kind of shots he is supposed to take.

and it extends to comparisons of players from other teams. just because one perimeter player gets more of his team's rebounds doesn't make him better at what his team needs.

kobe could have been a stat-whore when he was younger, but didn't. shaquille-kobe is a perfect example of role specialization

[no pun intended]

Can people just naming others sidekicks? Can't we just call them partners? Seriously.

[L.A. Jazz]

it's just fun to see Kobe with lift in his legs. very stylish. a little bit like Pippen.

[Bigsmoke]

00-01 Playoffs Average.

Kobe 29.4
Shaq 30.4

Pretty equal I would say...

not really. The Lakers would go farther in the playoffs without Kobe than without Shaq

[NBAplayoffs2001]

Afro kobe was very fun to watch. 2001 was my favorite year of any versions of Kobe. Especially his playoffs. Took a step back in 2002 IMO.