Revisiting Kobe Bryant`s first three-peat

[EarlTheGoat]

Controversial thread, I know. I will try and be as objective as possible when expressing my opinion. This thread might get a lot of trolling, please dont feed it and lets have a solid constructive debate.


So, basicly, revisiting Kobe Bryant`s performances from 1999 to 2002. Its a myth, Kobe Bryant was merely a second option to Shaq on a daily basis in this three playoff runs. Probably made by Kobe haters or simply random people who get pissed about Kobe homers (who I admit can get really annoying).

The argument for many illogical people to hype up Kobe Bryant in comparison with all-time greats is talk about his five rings. "Five rings" here, "five rings" there. So haters or just annoyed people are going to come up with: "he was merely Shaq`s f*ck in his first 3 rings", "he was no more than a second option". And while being partially true, it is not 100 % accurate in my opinion. People tend to diminish Kobe Bryant`s performances in his first three-peat.

The thing is, im a Lakers fan, have been since I was a little child, and of course I saw the first three-peat complete, was a joy to watch and one of the most powerful teams in the history of the league in my opinion. The combination of Kobe and Shaq was unstoppable, and its a shame it didnt last longer. The point is, he probably was a clear second option in the first run (1999-2000) but absolutely not in many series of 00-01 and 01-02, he was the first option or at least the 1b option throughout many stretches of those runs. Kobe was not constantly hitting wide open jump-shots. In the 00-01 he put up 29.4 ppg, 7.3 rpg and 6.1 apg on 46/32/82 %, just throwing some stats for reference. There might not be one single "second option" in the history of the league to have such impact on the game. Seriously, almost 30 points per game is made by a second option player? Absolutely no way. Shaq struggled in many stretches of some series, against the wide knownly Spurs for example. They were double, triple teaming him and making him suffer to get his game, the Spurs played a great defense. And of course Shaq was never completely stopped, but what he did in some of those series was never enough to win the ring if not for the presence of a solid 1b option in Kobe Bryant.

Kobe had something against the Spurs, I dont know what, but he seemed to get the best of him against them. Absolutely unstoppable when getting his shot, when playing fluidly and demanding him to take over the game. Imagine a prime Ray Allen or Manu Ginobili taking the Kobe role during that threepeat. This 2 players have been no more than a very solid option on a contending team, some people say: "switch Kobe with any other all-star guard in the league and they still win 3 rings", and this is obviously false. I really dont see Allen or Ginobili having the impact Kobe had on the Lakers. And this is the difference between a second option and a 1b option. Allen for the Celtics, Ginobili for the Spurs, Gasol for the Lakers...are clear second options and they never got close to Kobe`s level as a "second option" during the three-peat.


So, despite my poor english ive tried to make my arguments as better as possible. As a resume id say that during the first ring 99-00 Kobe was the clear second option, but he surely wasnt in 00-01 and 01-02, at least not on a daily basis. He was dominating and having a similar impact than Shaq during large stretches of games. Kobe benefited from Shaq but Shaq benefited from Kobe. Im not taking credit from O`Neal, I still think he was the key player in all of this runs, im just trying to break this myth that diminishes Kobe`s impact in the first three-peat, making him a clear 1b option many times.

[TheLogo]

Search my Kobe's Greatest Game threads....you can see he was a beast and dominating.

I believe Shaq wouldn't be as dominant as he was without Kobe. Shaq never put up those beast numbers with others like he did with Kobe.

[ShaqAttack3234]

:oldlol: at Shaq not putting up the same numbers without Kobe.

His first 4 seasons in the league with Orlando.
27.2 ppg, 12.6 rpg, 2.4 apg, 2.8 bpg, 58.1 FG%

Shaq's numbers without Kobe during the 3peat(excluding the game he left early due to the fight with Barkley)
31.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.9 bpg, 59.5 FG% (30 games)

And Kobe's 2001 and 2002 rings are sometimes undervalued, he was the second option, but probably the best second option of all time those years and probably the second best player in the playoffs each year so those rings can't be written off as merely "sidekick rings".

[Funky Pool]

That's right a lot of people forget how good Kobe was during the threepeat with Shaq.

The best exemple is the 2001 playoffs, when he scored 93 points in 2 games !

48 points 16 rebounds ! against Sacramento in Game 4 of the west semis
45 points 10 rebounds against San Antonio in Game 1 of the west finals

and he was 22 years old ! I mean i hated him when he was young because he was arrogant and selfish but i had to admit he was a beast.

[TheLogo]

That's right a lot of people forget how good Kobe was during the threepeat with Shaq.

The best exemple is the 2001 playoffs, when he scored 93 points in 2 games !

48 points 16 rebounds ! against Sacramento in Game 4 of the west semis
45 points 10 rebounds against San Antonio in Game 1 of the west finals

and he was 22 years old ! I mean i hated him when he was young because he was arrogant and selfish but i had to admit he was a beast.

yep.

Kobe led the Lakers past Sac and then had a big series against the Spurs.

[AirJordan&Magic]

yep.

Kobe led the Lakers past Sac and then had a big series against the Spurs.

Shaq was every bit as dominant, if not more, in that Sacremento series as Kobe was. They were pretty much even if you ask me in that series.

Kobe Bryant was the best player in the San Antonio series, however.

[plowking]

Well there certainly isn't a second three peat we could talk about.

[beermonsteroo]

[, he was the second option, but probably the best second option of all time

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm Get outta here!

[PurpleChuck]

Well there certainly isn't a second three peat we could talk about.

You just provoked TheLogo and Bladers.

[Desperado]

Agreed.

There's a double standard for counting rings. People say Kobe's first three rings are invalid because they were won with Shaq, then why aren't Magic's 5 rings invalid because he won with Kareem?

Also this whole "the Lakers could have still won championships with some other all-star guard or wing player in Kobe's place" argument is whatever.

They will say ''oh replace Kobe with Vince Carter/AI/T-Mac etc. and they still win 3 rings''.

That hypothetical non-sense might have gotten you some ground back in like '03 but we are in 2010!

I ain't hearing crap like this no more from you idiots cause its without a shred of even comprehensible evidence.

Kobe has proven WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that he is/was/will always be SUPERIOR to any of those guys. How on earth can you even make that argument with a straight face knowing what you know today?

And let's not even mention the defensive end, where Kobe was an All-NBA defender during that run. You telling me T-Mac and Vince played defense as well Kobe?

Your telling me Vince Carter would have went head up with Bruce Bowen and the Spurs defense like Kobe did?

Was Tracy McGrady was about to guard Iverson in the Finals, and Bibby, and Jason Kidd etc.?

I could just as easily speculate that if you replace Shaq with Tim Duncan not only do the Lakers still win championships, they probably win more than 3 without having to go through a rebuilding stage like they did from '05-'07.

Duncan was consistently on another tier as far as defensive impact goes, was consistently more healthy, less injury prone and more dedicated and professional as far as "rehabbing on company time" and conditioning goes.

His offensive game would mesh with Kobe's perfectly. Think Kobe/Gasol on steroids but with dominant instant-championship defensive presence on Tim's behalf and this part is pure speculation on my behalf, it would seem he has the type of personality that would prevent a lot of the clashes Shaq and Kobe had. The Duncan/Kobe duo wouldn't had even ever broken up and Tim's been playing at pretty much the same high level consistently and the Lakers wouldn't have had to waste 3 years of Kobe's prime trying to rebuild. If we're going the "alternate NBA history" route, I could see the Kobe/Duncan Lakers sitting at 6 or 7 rings right now.....

I also like a Kobe/Garnett duo's shot at multiple championships as well....

[G-Funk]

Magic never heard "he never won it without Kareem.'' Bird never heard "he never won it without Robert Parish and Kevin McHale.''

In each of Magic's five championship seasons, he had a top-5 player of all time (Kareem). Granted, Kareem, although still a big-time scorer, was 38, 40 and 41 years old for the final three titles. But by then, Magic had been joined by another top-50 teammate in James Worthy, who played on the Lakers' 1985, 1987 and 1988 title teams. That's not to mention other great Magic teammates such as Byron Scott, Jamaal Wilkes, Norm Nixon and Hall of Famer Bob McAdoo.

Wilt Chamberlain and West won only one ring apiece, despite playing together for four full seasons. Elgin Baylor never won a championship despite playing most of his career with West. Shaq, of course, won 4 rings with 2 of the 3 best players in the league. Wade was not able to win without Shaq and LeBron couldn't do it without Wade.

[rzp]

LoL at Kobe fanboys trying to remake the history to boost their hero career...

LoL at Kobe fanboys always calling Spurs series, just because Kobe has better numbers, completly ignoring the fact that Spurs defense was build and focused to stop Shaq, leaving Kobe to chuck all day long. Without Shaq the Spurs would shut down and embarass Kobe just like they did with Lebron.

Kobe was the second banana, sore.

[G-Funk]

Wade's 06 Championship Season(1st option)
27/6/5

Wade's Last Season(top 3 player in league)
26/6/5

Kobe 2001
28/5/6

Kobe 2002
25/5/5

Kobe in 2003
30/6/6

Kobe in 2010 (Championship Season[1st option])
27/5/5

[AK47DR91]

First three-peat wouldn't happen without Shaq's legendary dominance, so who cares what Kobe did since he played second fiddle.

Be happy with the current 2-peat and possible 3-peat this upcoming season.

[Desperado]

First three-peat wouldn't happen without Shaq's legendary dominance, so who cares what Kobe did since he played second fiddle.

Be happy with the current 2-peat and possible 3-peat this upcoming season.


First 3-peat wouldn't happen without Kobe's legendary clutch performances and dominating performances either.

Kobe may have been treated as a second fiddle but his skill set and the level he was playing at especially in 2001 and 2002 was far beyond that of a second fiddle. If he was on any other team in the league without Shaq he would have likely been the first option, Shaq was a 7'1 380 pound dominating force and just unstoppable in his prime, of course he was gonna be the main first option.

That was part of the reason they split because one guy wanted to be ''the man''. They were both capable of being ''the man'' though and we even seen on numerous occasions situations unfold during the 3-peat were they toke turns being ''the man''.

[gts]

look at the 2000-2001 playoff numbers and you'll see there was no second fiddle

kobe, 29.4 ppg 7.3 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 3.8 win shares, 25 steals 12 blocks, 51 turnovers
shaq, 30.4 ppg 15.4 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 3.7 winshares, 38 blocks 7 steals 57 turnovers

clearly kobe by this time was every bit as important to winng as shaq was, both players needed the other to win games, neither could have carried the team without the other

[Bring-Your-Js]

Was Kareem a second fiddle for all but two of his six titles? Magic for all but three of his five? Does the 1988 championship belong to James Worthy?

Lmao. Bird Shit Logic 101.

[jstern]

Very interesting how watching the Lakers back then, live, able to comprehend basketball being old enough, Shaq was clearly the man of those teams. Nobody argued that. Just too dominant. But back then you never imagine that in just a few years future kids who were probably around 8 during that time were going to try so hard to basically change history. And for what really? Makes you wonder what new phenomenom there's going to be in 8 years.

This Kobe phenomenon of trying to make him much better than he really is, is just so unbelievable. It's truly a phenomenon that I've never seen before, and quite fascinating.

[Desperado]

look at the 2000-2001 playoff numbers and you'll see there was no second fiddle

kobe, 29.4 ppg 7.3 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 3.8 win shares, 25 steals 12 blocks, 51 turnovers
shaq, 30.4 ppg 15.4 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 3.7 winshares, 38 blocks 7 steals 57 turnovers

clearly kobe by this time was every bit as important to winng as shaq was, both players needed the other to win games, neither could have carried the team without the other


Great post.

The first year I would agree he was the clear second option but in 2001 and 2002 it was closer to a 1a/1b situation and the gap between them was much smaller then some people would like to believe.

It's just funny when someone says you could just eaisly replace Kobe with a player like Iverson who was a sub-par defensive player.

Also don't forget a problem Shaq had with Kobe before was he felt that Kobe was taking too many shots. How the hell do you think that would have worked out with a shot first, pass second player that dosen't play defense like AI?

Do you really think Shaq could have co-existed with Iverson who has always had a me-first, defenseless, chucking playing style if he had a problem with Kobe taking too many shots at times?

[catch24]

look at the 2000-2001 playoff numbers and you'll see there was no second fiddle

kobe, 29.4 ppg 7.3 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 3.8 win shares, 25 steals 12 blocks, 51 turnovers
shaq, 30.4 ppg 15.4 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 3.7 winshares, 38 blocks 7 steals 57 turnovers

clearly kobe by this time was every bit as important to winng as shaq was, both players needed the other to win games, neither could have carried the team without the other

Pretty much. While Shaq was the focal point of the offense, and yes, clearly their leader, Kobe was their playmaker (averaging numbers that a first option would have on any other squad). Old, but here's a quote that sums up Kobe's 2001 run:

I think it's the best that I've ever seen a player of mine play with an overall court game. I'm asking him to do so much, and he's accomplishing it. I never asked Michael to be a playmaker. That's the greatest player that I've ever had, that I could consider the greatest player in the game, and I never asked him to be a playmaker in those terms. I asked him to be playmaker when he was doubled or tripled. But Kobe has to set up the offense, to advance the ball, to read the defense, to make other players happy, and he's doing a great job of that.

[olddangerfield]

First three-peat wouldn't happen without Shaq's legendary dominance, so who cares what Kobe did since he played second fiddle.

Be happy with the current 2-peat and possible 3-peat this upcoming season.

lol mad

[olddangerfield]

look at the 2000-2001 playoff numbers and you'll see there was no second fiddle

kobe, 29.4 ppg 7.3 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 3.8 win shares, 25 steals 12 blocks, 51 turnovers
shaq, 30.4 ppg 15.4 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 3.7 winshares, 38 blocks 7 steals 57 turnovers

clearly kobe by this time was every bit as important to winng as shaq was, both players needed the other to win games, neither could have carried the team without the other

This, rep'd.

[ShaqAttack3234]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm Get outta here!

Which part are you arguing with, that he was the second option, or the best second option of all time in those years?

As great as Kobe was, it's revisionist history to suggest he wasn't the second option during the 3peat. However, in 2001 and 2002, he had the load of a first option. I'd consider him a top 5 player in 2001 and 2002 regardless, arguably top 3 behind Shaq and Duncan and in the 2001 and 2002 playoffs, he was more impressive than Duncan, IMO.

Because Kobe's production was on par with first options in the 2001 and 2002 championship seasons, I don't think it's fair to write those off as "sidekick rings". The Lakers didn't have a legit 3rd scorer, so despite Shaq scoring more than many other players in championship years, Kobe also scored more and did more than many other first options.

I don't agree with 1.A/1.B because I think that should be reserved when it's too close to decide who was the best player on the team.

But great point about Magic's rings, Desperado. He was as clear of a sidekick in 1980 as Kobe was in 2000. And if you look at 1982 objectively< Kareem was still the best player and in 1985, it was atleast 1.A/1.B. Yet nobody says Magic has only 2 or 3 rings or puts a qualifier on them. Why the double standard?

[jstern]

Which part are you arguing with, that he was the second option, or the best second option of all time in those years?

As great as Kobe was, it's revisionist history to suggest he wasn't the second option during the 3peat. However, in 2001 and 2002, he had the load of a first option. I'd consider him a top 5 player in 2001 and 2002 regardless, arguably top 3 behind Shaq and Duncan and in the 2001 and 2002 playoffs, he was more impressive than Duncan, IMO.

Because Kobe's production was on par with first options in the 2001 and 2002 championship seasons, I don't think it's fair to right those off as "sidekick rings". The Lakers didn't have a legit 3rd scorer, so despite Shaq scoring more than many other players in championship years, Kobe also scored more and did more than many other first options.

I don't agree with 1.A/1.B because I think that should be reserved when it's too close to decide who was the best player on the team.

But great point about Magic's rings, Desperado. He was as clear of a sidekick in 1980 as Kobe was in 2000. And if you look at 1982 objectively< Kareem was still the best player and in 1985, it was atleast 1.A/1.B. Yet nobody says Magic has only 2 or 3 rings or puts a qualifier on them. Why the double standard?
I'm sure there would people arguing that about Magic, but since that was back in the 80s, it's not a current topic since they both don't play anymore. Those are things that I've noticed about Magic and his rings, but again, it never comes up in conversation. Most Magic fans who saw him play are not constantly trying to put other players down, so they don't antagonize others into a debate. In other words, it's not a double standards, since I'm sure similar arguments would happen in similar situations. Then again I can't imagine a Laker fan back then bashing Kareem just to put Magic in a better light.

Kobe would probably be respect by all if it weren't for his fans. They're the ones who make people think about his flaws.

[Desperado]

I don't agree with 1.A/1.B because I think that should be reserved when it's too close to decide who was the best player on the team.


Well anyone who watched basketball back then knows Shaq was obviously ''the man'' but Kobe's level of play in 2001 and 2002 was just on another level and especially with some of the performances he had against the Spurs and Kings in the playoffs it just kind of feels wrong to call Kobe a side-kick, which is why I think some people consider it more of a 1a/1b situation rather than one being the clear cut 1st option while the other was just the side-kick like in 2000.

[stickfigure87]

look at the 2000-2001 playoff numbers and you'll see there was no second fiddle

kobe, 29.4 ppg 7.3 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 3.8 win shares, 25 steals 12 blocks, 51 turnovers
shaq, 30.4 ppg 15.4 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 3.7 winshares, 38 blocks 7 steals 57 turnovers

clearly kobe by this time was every bit as important to winng as shaq was, both players needed the other to win games, neither could have carried the team without the other

this.

[necya]

First three-peat wouldn't happen without Shaq's legendary dominance, so who cares what Kobe did since he played second fiddle.

Be happy with the current 2-peat and possible 3-peat this upcoming season.

let this thread for the kobe lovers...they are 17 and watch nba since 1962

[Bring-Your-Js]

Well anyone who watched basketball back then knows Shaq was obviously ''the man'' but Kobe's level of play in 2001 and 2002 was just on another level and especially with some of the performances he had against the Spurs and Kings in the playoffs it just kind of feels wrong to call Kobe a side-kick, which is why I think some people consider it more of a 1a/1b situation rather than one being the clear cut 1st option while the other was just the side-kick like in 2000.

Well, it's obviously an attempt to keep him out of where he belongs: In the conversation amongst the greatest players in history. It's foul.

[iamgine]

Part of the problem was big man has always been a more impact position that swingman, at least up till the rule change around 04-05.

[triangleoffense]

Which part are you arguing with, that he was the second option, or the best second option of all time in those years?

As great as Kobe was, it's revisionist history to suggest he wasn't the second option during the 3peat. However, in 2001 and 2002, he had the load of a first option. I'd consider him a top 5 player in 2001 and 2002 regardless, arguably top 3 behind Shaq and Duncan and in the 2001 and 2002 playoffs, he was more impressive than Duncan, IMO.

Because Kobe's production was on par with first options in the 2001 and 2002 championship seasons, I don't think it's fair to right those off as "sidekick rings". The Lakers didn't have a legit 3rd scorer, so despite Shaq scoring more than many other players in championship years, Kobe also scored more and did more than many other first options.

I don't agree with 1.A/1.B because I think that should be reserved when it's too close to decide who was the best player on the team.

But great point about Magic's rings, Desperado. He was as clear of a sidekick in 1980 as Kobe was in 2000. And if you look at 1982 objectively< Kareem was still the best player and in 1985, it was atleast 1.A/1.B. Yet nobody says Magic has only 2 or 3 rings or puts a qualifier on them. Why the double standard?

Great post.. I don't understand why a lot of posters seem to have to discredit kobe.. maybe to put Lebron on a peddle-stool? It seems a lot of kobe homers do the same to Jordan, even though his resume is impeccable.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Well anyone who watched basketball back then knows Shaq was obviously ''the man'' but Kobe's level of play in 2001 and 2002 was just on another level and especially with some of the performances he had against the Spurs and Kings in the playoffs it just kind of feels wrong to call Kobe a side-kick, which is why I think some people consider it more of a 1a/1b situation rather than one being the clear cut 1st option while the other was just the side-kick like in 2000.

Again, not a knock on the level Kobe played at, but the team was built around Shaq and revolved so much around Shaq during those years as evidenced by their 25-6 record with Shaq and without Kobe and just 13-12 vice versa. I just think with Shaq leading the team in scoring, rebounding, blocks and FG% everyone of those years during the regular season, playoffs as a whole and finals as well as finishing higher in MVP voting each year and winning the finals MVP and Phil Jackson as well as analysts calling Shaq the first option makes 1.A and 1.B not quite right either.

I think it feels wrong to call him a sidekick in 2001 and 2002 too, I judge mainly by the level of performance. Again, it's a unique situation because most championship teams have a number 3 guy who is a bigger threat than Derek Fisher which made Kobe have to carry a bigger load than most 2nd options.

Basically, the 2001 and 2002 teams had 2 superstars and both performed at a superstar level, but not a legit number 3 guy. Some idiots will write those off as merely second option rings like Parker's in 2007 or something like that without factoring in that regardless of being the number 2 guy on your team, there's a huge difference between averaging 25-30 ppg every night, playing good perimeter defense while basically being your team's playmaker and what other 2nd options had to do.

But at the same time, even a guy whose production does suggest 2nd option like Scottie Pippen also gets underappreciated because his impact didn't show up in the stats as much.

[gts]

let this thread for the kobe lovers...they are 17 and watch nba since 1962If you're going to go out of your way to insult people and act like a fool, then speak english, make sense and don't appear to be younger than the folks you're insulting

[k-vil]

Part of the problem was big man has always been a more impact position that swingman, at least up till the rule change around 04-05.
:no:
cough MJ cough

[deeznut]

Part of the problem was big man has always been a more impact position that swingman, at least up till the rule change around 04-05. This. the rule change have alot impact on the pistons.

[Bring-Your-Js]

If you're going to go out of your way to insult people and act like a fool, then speak english, make sense and don't appear to be younger than the folks you're insulting

:oldlol: :applause:

[G-Funk]

Well, it's obviously an attempt to keep him out of where he belongs: In the conversation amongst the greatest players in history. It's foul.

like necya.

[Bring-Your-Js]

When ShaqAttack3234 is giving him his due, it makes you wonder what the **** everybody else's problem is.

This whole notion of Bryant needing to win twice as many or three times as many titles than the next guy to be on his 'level' is hysterical.

[Calabis]

Controversial thread, I know. I will try and be as objective as possible when expressing my opinion. This thread might get a lot of trolling, please dont feed it and lets have a solid constructive debate.


So, basicly, revisiting Kobe Bryant`s performances from 1999 to 2002. Its a myth, Kobe Bryant was merely a second option to Shaq on a daily basis in this three playoff runs. Probably made by Kobe haters or simply random people who get pissed about Kobe homers (who I admit can get really annoying).

The argument for many illogical people to hype up Kobe Bryant in comparison with all-time greats is talk about his five rings. "Five rings" here, "five rings" there. So haters or just annoyed people are going to come up with: "he was merely Shaq`s f*ck in his first 3 rings", "he was no more than a second option". And while being partially true, it is not 100 % accurate in my opinion. People tend to diminish Kobe Bryant`s performances in his first three-peat.

The thing is, im a Lakers fan, have been since I was a little child, and of course I saw the first three-peat complete, was a joy to watch and one of the most powerful teams in the history of the league in my opinion. The combination of Kobe and Shaq was unstoppable, and its a shame it didnt last longer. The point is, he probably was a clear second option in the first run (1999-2000) but absolutely not in many series of 00-01 and 01-02, he was the first option or at least the 1b option throughout many stretches of those runs. Kobe was not constantly hitting wide open jump-shots. In the 00-01 he put up 29.4 ppg, 7.3 rpg and 6.1 apg on 46/32/82 %, just throwing some stats for reference. There might not be one single "second option" in the history of the league to have such impact on the game. Seriously, almost 30 points per game is made by a second option player? Absolutely no way. Shaq struggled in many stretches of some series, against the wide knownly Spurs for example. They were double, triple teaming him and making him suffer to get his game, the Spurs played a great defense. And of course Shaq was never completely stopped, but what he did in some of those series was never enough to win the ring if not for the presence of a solid 1b option in Kobe Bryant.

Kobe had something against the Spurs, I dont know what, but he seemed to get the best of him against them. Absolutely unstoppable when getting his shot, when playing fluidly and demanding him to take over the game. Imagine a prime Ray Allen or Manu Ginobili taking the Kobe role during that threepeat. This 2 players have been no more than a very solid option on a contending team, some people say: "switch Kobe with any other all-star guard in the league and they still win 3 rings", and this is obviously false. I really dont see Allen or Ginobili having the impact Kobe had on the Lakers. And this is the difference between a second option and a 1b option. Allen for the Celtics, Ginobili for the Spurs, Gasol for the Lakers...are clear second options and they never got close to Kobe`s level as a "second option" during the three-peat.


So, despite my poor english ive tried to make my arguments as better as possible. As a resume id say that during the first ring 99-00 Kobe was the clear second option, but he surely wasnt in 00-01 and 01-02, at least not on a daily basis. He was dominating and having a similar impact than Shaq during large stretches of games. Kobe benefited from Shaq but Shaq benefited from Kobe. Im not taking credit from O`Neal, I still think he was the key player in all of this runs, im just trying to break this myth that diminishes Kobe`s impact in the first three-peat, making him a clear 1b option many times.

Twice he played with Shaq, he led the NBA playoffs in FGA's(just food for thought), in 2001-02, Kobe took 22.68 per and avg 26ppg, 2000-01 he took 22.37 per and avg 29.4ppg , this has been his avg thru-out his career when he takes that amount of shots(28-31ppg).

During those two particular runs Shaq

2000-01 21.5 fga and avg 30/15/3,

2001-02 20.12 fga and avg 30/15/3

less attempts than Kobe,.....you can always point out a particular series or game, but fact remains that Shaq produced at a more efficient rate, throughout the entire run. He had one bad game aginst the Spurs in 2000-01(even in that bad game he had 19/14, he avg 27ppg on 13 reb for the series). You said Shaq was being doubled and tripled, doesn't that make it a whole lot easier for Kobe and crew???? I think that answers the question in itself.

When it mattered most, he dominated the NBA finals these years, avg nearly 10 more ppg than Kobe in the finals

2000-01:

Shaq: 33ppg/15.8reb/4.8ast/3.4 blks/57.4%

KB24: 24.6ppg/7.8rebs/5.8ast/41.6(42)%

2001-02:

Shaq: 36.25ppg/12.25rebs/3.75ast/2.75blks/59.8(60)%

KB24: 26.75ppg/4.5rebs/5.25asr/50.75(51)%



Shaq was the man,....the defensive gameplan was geared around to stop Shaq....no need to twist it and try to add to Kobe's resume...he was a top 5-8 player in the league, playing with the best and most dominate player during that time. Not hard to put up numbers in that situation imo.....people act like Shaq held Kobe back and he got off like 10-12 attempts a game. When the truth is, when Kobe was jacking and missing, his teammates would just run the offense through Shaq a whole lot more.

[Calabis]

look at the 2000-2001 playoff numbers and you'll see there was no second fiddle

kobe, 29.4 ppg 7.3 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 3.8 win shares, 25 steals 12 blocks, 51 turnovers
shaq, 30.4 ppg 15.4 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 3.7 winshares, 38 blocks 7 steals 57 turnovers

clearly kobe by this time was every bit as important to winng as shaq was, both players needed the other to win games, neither could have carried the team without the other

No it doesn't mean he wasn't important, but he wasn't the best player on the team, Shaq was, Kobe was the second best player on that team....guess what.....that means second fiddle. Jordan needed Pippen, he too was a top 10-12 player in the league at that time, which is why they won three straight. Pippen hade a huge impact, as did Kobe, but that doesn't mean they weren't second fiddle to the teams main star does it?

[ShaqAttack3234]

When ShaqAttack3234 is giving him his due, it makes you wonder what the **** everybody else's problem is.

This whole notion of Bryant needing to win twice as many or three times as many titles than the next guy to be on his 'level' is hysterical.

Why wouldn't I give him his due? Kobe is one of the best players I've ever seen, and that includes his play in 2001 and 2002, and in 2000 he was still a legit all-star, arguably the best shooting guard in the league and one of the most fearless and clutch players.

Just because I'm a Shaq fan doesn't mean I should dislike or discredit Kobe. I just try to call it like I see it. In fact, it irritates me that people try to discredit Kobe by pretending he has some incredibly stacked cast. An injured Andrew Bynum producing 6/4 and 9/7 the last 2 playoffs respectively, Artest being an offensive liability half the time, Ariza being good, but not all-star level the year before, Odom being talented, but inconsistent, Fisher hitting a few clutch shots, but having horrible shot selection and limited point guard skills doesn't make up some incredible cast like people pretend. And Gasol is not some historically great second option, not to mention, their bench is nothing special.

I think it's time everyone who has watched basketball the last decade or so just gives the winners an obvious elite players their due. Whether it be Duncan, Shaq or Kobe. They've seperated themselves from the rest by consistently winning and it seems that people spend time trying to bash Kobe or Shaq to suit their different agendas while forgetting about Duncan altogether.

All 3 have seperated themselves, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're winners and done so in a legendary way, just like the legends before them. Anyone who can't appreciate each player and give them their credit should not be watching basketball.

[Calabis]

yep.

Kobe led the Lakers past Sac and then had a big series against the Spurs.

LMAO, your posts, just truely show that you have no ****ing clue and where probably 7 years old during that time

Shaq vs the Kings, first two games 40+/20rebs he finished with a series avg of 33+ppg/17rebs, but your right after a 3-0 lead Kobe's one 40 point game turned the series momentum and led the Lakers past the Kings...what a dumbass

Kobe played his best series against the Spurs, which is a series I would say he led the Lakers, while Shaq only put in 27/13

[Andrei89]

Search my Kobe's Greatest Game threads....you can see he was a beast and dominating.

I believe Shaq wouldn't be as dominant as he was without Kobe. Shaq never put up those beast numbers with others like he did with Kobe.

Omg

he put beast stats with orlando aswell

Man how does it feel getting owned in every thread inculding your own threads?

[Papaya Petee]

You can turn this around whatever way you want, Shaq is still the man and the #1 option on that Lakers team.

[raptorfan_dr07]

There might not be one single "second option" in the history of the league to have such impact on the game.


:wtf: http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb229/carlos21_56/Lakers/Magic-Johnson-Kareem-Abdul---Jabbar.jpghttp://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u244/jumpman712/jordan_pippen.jpg




Shaq struggled in many stretches of some series, against the wide knownly Spurs for example. They were double, triple teaming him and making him suffer to get his game, the Spurs played a great defense. .


You just gave the reason why Kobe was able to go off in those games. The Spurs entire game plan was to stop Shaq, as was damn near every other team in the league at the time. If you actually watched the NBA then, you would know this. Teams did NOT treat Kobe with the same defensive game plan that they did Shaq.



some people say: "switch Kobe with any other all-star guard in the league and they still win 3 rings", and this is obviously false. I really dont see Allen or Ginobili having the impact Kobe had on the Lakers. And this is the difference between a second option and a 1b option. Allen for the Celtics, Ginobili for the Spurs, Gasol for the Lakers...are clear second options and they never got close to Kobe`s level as a "second option" during the three-peat.


No, nobody ever says switch Kobe with any old all star guard and they win championships. It's not farfetched to imagine the ELITE SG of the time, Allen Iverson, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, to have similar success with a prime Shaquille O'Neal. All 3 of those guys plus Kobe all were putting up similar numbers during the early 2000's. The only difference was Kobe had arguably the most dominant player in NBA history on his team and those guys had average to poor teams.



Was Tracy McGrady was about to guard Iverson in the Finals, and Bibby, and Jason Kidd etc.?


Nope, just like Kobe didn't either. He got burned when they tried to put him on Iverson in 2001, Derek Fisher and Tyronn Lue spent the majority of the time on him. Kobe got burned by Bibby too, when he wasn't blantantly holding and fouling the sh*t out of him. Now that I think of it, Kobe had to be hidden defensively back then too.

[Bring-Your-Js]

You can turn this around whatever way you want, Shaq is still the man and the #1 option on that Lakers team.

Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The issue arises when people don't consider Kobe's individual performance as stated by ShaqAttack. To just wipe those titles off his resume would be imposing a double standard not put on anybody else in history basically.
Being "No. 2" to that particular version of Shaquille O'Neal is something just about any player in history would fall under, including Michael Jordan. At the same age Kobe was? No Alpha personality is overpowering Shaq's dominance and effectiveness.

[Papaya Petee]

Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The issue arises when people don't consider Kobe's individual performance as stated by ShaqAttack. To just wipe those titles off his resume would be imposing a double standard not put on anybody else in history basically.
Being "No. 2" to that particular version of Shaquille O'Neal is something just about any player in history would fall under, including Michael Jordan. At the same age Kobe was? No Alpha personality is overpowering Shaq's dominance and effectiveness.

You can't erase those titles, that's not right, but you can't act like he was the final MVP neither.

[Bring-Your-Js]

You can't erase those titles, that's not right, but you can't act like he was the final MVP neither.

God NO.

This is what'll easily separate Laker fans who take a natural liking to him for obvious reasons... From Kobe Stans, who attempt to diminish what Shaq brought to the table.

All I'm saying is this: You look at Kobe Bryant's career and see that with another 2200 point season, he jumps into 6th Place All-Time through Age 32: he's already fourth all-time in playoff points behind only Jordan, Kareem and Shaq. He's arguably and rather obviously to me the most explosive perimeter scorer in history behind only Jordan himself and it shows itself in various ways if I need to elaborate. Key word being explosive.

Kobe's a franchise player and an all-time great player who happened to be No, 2 under arguably the most dominant peak Center ever. Sure, you could say plug in another SG and see what happens. You could also argue what couldve happened and how Bryant's numbers would look if he was built around from the beginning like Lebron, Wade and Durant from the start instead of 8 years deep, know what I'm saying?

[necya]

If you're going to go out of your way to insult people and act like a fool, then speak english, make sense and don't appear to be younger than the folks you're insulting

a fool?
look at this forum, who are the dumbest poster of ISH? kobe's fans : jacks3, griffeymoney, thelogo, bladers, bring your Js...all those people are really annoying with kobe bryant. they only post stats line and smileys...

who is kobe? he is one of the most talented, one of the most competitive, one of the best scorer in nba history. he is also a great athlete....okay!

but now look at all those comment on him...they are ridiculous.
can we make a little return? the 3-peat? replace kobe by any all stars and the lakers would have won the same number of title. now replace shaq by any all stars...no title. the lakers of 00-02 had a great overall team and the most dominant player : shaq.
now, what's happened to the lakers after??
03 : kobe wanted to be the man, the leader...result? no title, shaq unhappy. he wanted to be the scorer? great, he had 30ppg and the lakers played a worse basketball than the 3 previous years, they had many role players this year but only 2 guys had the ball.
04 : what can i say? thanks again kobe. now, give me some names of guy who destroy their own team like kobe did? the greatest player ever use to do that?
after shaq left, and kobe had what he wanted. his own team. what did he do? scoring 35ppg and cry for good teammates...the greatest player ever use to do that?
now, what about the trade for Pau Gasol...it's obviously an obscur arrangement. who could send his franchise player for kwame brown? so now with a fu**ing stacked team it's just normal they won a title, it's not a performance.

his MVP could be contested as Paul had a great season in 08 (nevertheless it's the best kobe i've seen in the nba), like his 2010 MVP finals where Gasol deserved it the most.

also, his behaviour on the court. we have seen him slap teammates, talk to them like they were dogs. the greatest player ever use to do that?

then, he has never been able to make his teammates better.
a 3rd year penny hardaway was a better player of basketball than a 10th year kobe bryant, putting every players on the court on the same dynamic and team spirit.

kobe's impact is overrated. the greatest player ever are the one you can't do it without them.
replace kobe by wade or lebron and the lakers still win. now put kobe in the cavs team of 07. i don't think the cavs would return to the finals. remove kobe from the lakers team, put a normal player and they can still make the finals with bynum gasol odom artest fisher. kobe is not as indispensable as the greatest players ever.
he is a top ten all time in talent, but no way in best basketball players.


you asked me to speak english...i try to do my best, i'm not american or from UK so i make mistakes, but people usually understand me.

[Desperado]

a fool?
look at this forum, who are the dumbest poster of ISH? kobe's fans : jacks3, griffeymoney, thelogo, bladers, bring your Js...all those people are really annoying with kobe bryant. they only post stats line and smileys...

who is kobe? he is one of the most talented, one of the most competitive, one of the best scorer in nba history. he is also a great athlete....okay!

but now look at all those comment on him...they are ridiculous.
can we make a little return? the 3-peat? replace kobe by any all stars and the lakers would have won the same number of title. now replace shaq by any all stars...no title. the lakers of 00-02 had a great overall team and the most dominant player : shaq.
now, what's happened to the lakers after??
03 : kobe wanted to be the man, the leader...result? no title, shaq unhappy. he wanted to be the scorer? great, he had 30ppg and the lakers played a worse basketball than the 3 previous years, they had many role players this year but only 2 guys had the ball.
04 : what can i say? thanks again kobe. now, give me some names of guy who destroy their own team like kobe did? the greatest player ever use to do that?
after shaq left, and kobe had what he wanted. his own team. what did he do? scoring 35ppg and cry for good teammates...the greatest player ever use to do that?
now, what about the trade for Pau Gasol...it's obviously an obscur arrangement. who could send his franchise player for kwame brown? so now with a fu**ing stacked team it's just normal they won a title, it's not a performance.

his MVP could be contested as Paul had a great season in 08 (nevertheless it's the best kobe i've seen in the nba), like his 2010 MVP finals where Gasol deserved it the most.

also, his behaviour on the court. we have seen him slap teammates, talk to them like they were dogs. the greatest player ever use to do that?

then, he has never been able to make his teammates better.
a 3rd year penny hardaway was a better player of basketball than a 10th year kobe bryant, putting every players on the court on the same dynamic and team spirit.

kobe's impact is overrated. the greatest player ever are the one you can't do it without them.
replace kobe by wade or lebron and the lakers still win. now put kobe in the cavs team of 07. i don't think the cavs would return to the finals. remove kobe from the lakers team, put a normal player and they can still make the finals with bynum gasol odom artest fisher. kobe is not as indispensable as the greatest players ever.
he is a top ten all time in talent, but no way in best basketball players.


you asked me to speak english...i try to do my best, i'm not american or from UK so i make mistakes, but people usually understand me.


:oldlol: @ this troll thinking anyone reads his wall of text gibberish

[necya]

:oldlol: @ this troll thinking anyone reads his wall of text gibberish

i just forget you for the dumbest people of ISH...really sorry

[chazzy]

Necya managed to ineffectively diminish every single one of Kobe's accomplishments in one awful post. It's good to let things out every now and then :oldlol:

[EarlTheGoat]

I dont get why some people get so defensive about this topic...

When did I diminish Shaquille O`Neal or said he wasnt the key franchise player in this three-peat? I challenge you people to find me a quote saying that. What I was trying to prove is that Kobe Bryant had more importance during the three-peat than many people give him credit for. He was the 1b option during some stretches of games/series, not on a daily basis though, but just proves you that he could step up and take over games when neccessary.

[SinJackal]

What were Kobe's stats during the first finals he won with the Lakers?

[Bring-Your-Js]

I dont get why some people get so defensive about this topic...

When did I diminish Shaquille O`Neal or said he wasnt the key franchise player in this three-peat? I challenge you people to find me a quote saying that. What I was trying to prove is that Kobe Bryant had more importance during the three-peat than many people give him credit for. He was the 1b option during some stretches of games/series, not on a daily basis though, but just proves you that he could step up and take over games when neccessary.

It's like beating a dead horse these days. It isn't so much you not being right (because you are) but more so a silly double standard that people will refuse to put on anybody else other than Kobe Bryant. Check the "Magic v. Jabbar" thread and tell me you can't seriously pick apart one of the game's most legendary players and put into question how many titles he won basically as a 'sidekick'.

It's the Michael Jordan effect. He's the only cat to ever come around and win so much as the undisputed alpha dog and without a dominant big, hence his GOAT status.

[L.A. Jazz]

... replace kobe by any all stars and the lakers would have won the same number of title..
i dont think so!
who tells you they would beat the Blazers in 2000? or the Kings in 2002? who tells you that Tmac, Carter, Pierce,... would score Kobe's points (not only the total, but the timely and clutch baskets Kobe made)

[Bring-Your-Js]

What were Kobe's stats during the first finals he won with the Lakers?

15 ppg on 38% (off the top).

It didn't help that he sprained his ankle in the middle of that series. Nobody is really arguing about 2000 though, SJ. Kobe wasn't at a top five level yet and that's primarily why they went 15-8 with plenty of struggles during that run including Game 7 against Portland in which he actually outplayed O'Neal.

[Big#50]

yep.

Kobe led the Lakers past Sac and then had a big series against the Spurs.
Yup. Kobe was the Spurs killer. He was still the second option. What happened when he tried to take over the team. In 03 they lost to the Spurs. In 04 he choked against the Pistons. Kobe deserves credit for those rings but he was still the second option. GOAT second option ever. Shaq gets a little too much credit but those monster games he had really prove his dominance.

[Calabis]

Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The issue arises when people don't consider Kobe's individual performance as stated by ShaqAttack. To just wipe those titles off his resume would be imposing a double standard not put on anybody else in history basically.
Being "No. 2" to that particular version of Shaquille O'Neal is something just about any player in history would fall under, including Michael Jordan. At the same age Kobe was? No Alpha personality is overpowering Shaq's dominance and effectiveness.

I don't know why anyone would wipe those titles from his resume, but when his fans say this guy is as good as MJ, that arguement will come into play(rightfully so imo). Sorry, but that's what happens when you compare players. If Jordan won 6 chips, but he wasn't the best player on three of those teams, we wouldn't even be talking about MJ as the GOAT...hell we wouldn't even compare him to Magic...yet Kobestans vastly overrate Kobe's greatness, because he has 5 chips. Horry has 7, where does he fall on the all time greatest list??? Kobe's finals perfomances have been nothing special, so far.

[Calabis]

I dont get why some people get so defensive about this topic...

When did I diminish Shaquille O`Neal or said he wasnt the key franchise player in this three-peat? I challenge you people to find me a quote saying that. What I was trying to prove is that Kobe Bryant had more importance during the three-peat than many people give him credit for. He was the 1b option during some stretches of games/series, not on a daily basis though, but just proves you that he could step up and take over games when neccessary.

So were Horry and Fisher, Rice during stretches...this 1b crap is a joke...Shaq dominated those finals....period. Kobe was the second best player on the squad

[Desperado]

15 ppg on 38% (off the top).

It didn't help that he sprained his ankle in the middle of that series. Nobody is really arguing about 2000 though, SJ. Kobe wasn't at a top five level yet and that's primarily why they went 15-8 with plenty of struggles during that run including Game 7 against Portland in which he actually outplayed O'Neal.

People will just look at the stats of that series and come to conclusions but anyone who actully watched that series knows the stats are somewhat misleading because he twisted his foot in Game 2 and left after 9 minutes only scoring 2 points. He missed Game 3 but came back in Game 4 playing on a bum ankle and toke over in OT with a memorable clutch performance when Shaq fouled out, winning the game for the Lakers which ultimately prevented them from being down 2-3.

[TheLogo]

Without Kobe the Lakers would have lost those close games. People have to remember that this site is full of kids who have never watched the Lakers 3peat teams and see what Kobe meant to the team.

Yes, Shaq had godly numbers but in terms of impact, he was equal to Kobe.

[EarlTheGoat]

So were Horry and Fisher, Rice during stretches...this 1b crap is a joke...Shaq dominated those finals....period. Kobe was the second best player on the squad


Are you comparing Horry, Fisher and Rice`s impact to Bryant`s?

:roll: :roll:

You perfectly know what I mean when I say taking over games and leading the team during some stretches of games/series. Thats a fact, anybody who actually watched those runs knows that.

Shaq dominated those finals, true. Did I say the opposite? God, some people are so f*cking dense.

Kobe was the second player on that team, also true. Did I say the opposite? All im saying is he was equal with O`Neal some games (not on a daily basis) and he deserves more credit than given.

Relax, nobody is saying Kobe is better than Jordan.

Some of you pretend to place Kobe as a mere second option like Ginobili on the Spurs, Allen on the Celtics or Gasol on the Lakers. When he was more than that and had more impact than this so called second options. Period.

[Bring-Your-Js]

I don't know why anyone would wipe those titles from his resume, but when his fans say this guy is as good as MJ, that arguement will come into play(rightfully so imo). Sorry, but that's what happens when you compare players. If Jordan won 6 chips, but he wasn't the best player on three of those teams, we wouldn't even be talking about MJ as the GOAT...hell we wouldn't even compare him to Magic...yet Kobestans vastly overrate Kobe's greatness, because he has 5 chips. Horry has 7, where does he fall on the all time greatest list??? Kobe's finals perfomances have been nothing special, so far.

Against MJ? Rightfully so. I guess i don't think of that way because it isn't something i'd attempt to do.. As far as top 10-15, i think he should be able to move up considerably depending on what he does the rest of his career since for so long, accomplishments have served as a major barometer of success and ranking alltime.

And yes, he's had his share of dismal Finals. Always great overall postseason runs. At best he has finals series which can compare to 96-98 level mj. Nowhere near 91-93.

[Desperado]

So were Horry and Fisher, Rice during stretches...this 1b crap is a joke...Shaq dominated those finals....period. Kobe was the second best player on the squad

The Finals is only 4-7 games though. Granted the Finals is the most important series but you still have to get through the first 3 rounds and the Western Conference Finals (which many experts and analysts considers to be the ''real Finals'' in the early 00's because the East was at an all time low back then) before you even get to the Finals.

Kobe put in work against Portland, San Antonio and Sacramento in the Western Conference Finals which many considered to be the defacto championship series back then and had some great, dominating performances.

Shaq dominated in the Finals and had legendary performances but Kobe also had some memorable performances also. Comparing him to role players like Horry, Fisher and Rice is a joke and shows you have an anti-Kobe agenda.

The 2002 Finals he averaged 27/6/5 on 51 FG% which is perhaps the best Finals performance not be awarded MVP in a winning effort.

Some of his games-

Game 2: 2001 NBA Finals: 31/8/6/2/2 48 FG%

Game 3 2002 NBA Finals: 35/11/2/4 61 FG%


'These are 2 more games that people forget. He had sank the game clinching basket in that 2002 game, as well.

Also, his Game 3 in the 2001 Finals, though not very efficient overall, had a memorable streak, I think in the 3rd quarter, when he got hot and sank like 6 or 7 baskets without a miss, most from about 18 feet, making the traditionally tough Philly fans go "ooh".' - Psileas

[EarlTheGoat]

The Finals is only 4-7 games though. Granted the Finals is the most important series but you still have to get through the first 3 rounds and the Western Conference Finals (which many experts and analysts considers to be the ''real Finals'' in the early 00's because the East was at an all time low back then) before you even get to the Finals.

Kobe put in work against Portland, San Antonio and Sacramento in the Western Conference Finals which many considered to be the defacto championship series back then and had some great, dominating performances.

Shaq dominated in the Finals and had legendary performances but Kobe also had some memorable performances also. Comparing him to role players like Horry, Fisher and Rice is a joke and shows you have an anti-Kobe agenda.

The 2002 Finals he averaged 27/6/5 on 51 FG% which is perhaps the best Finals performance not be awarded MVP in a winning effort.

Some of his games-

Game 2: 2001 NBA Finals: 31/8/6/2/2 48 FG%

Game 3 2002 NBA Finals: 35/11/2/4 61 FG%


'These are 2 more games that people forget. He had sank the game clinching basket in that 2002 game, as well.

Also, his Game 3 in the 2001 Finals, though not very efficient overall, had a memorable streak, I think in the 3rd quarter, when he got hot and sank like 6 or 7 baskets without a miss, most from about 18 feet, making the traditionally tough Philly fans go "ooh".' - Psileas

Couldnt have said it better.

:applause:

[Fatal9]

If there was an MVP for each series in '01 and '02 this is how it would go down...

'01:
vs. Blazers - Either, hard to pick.
vs. Kings - Could go with either, Shaq dominated first two games and Kobe the last two. Shaq is better if you combine the stats I think so you could give him the edge.
vs. Spurs - Kobe, but Shaq played well too.
vs. Sixers - Shaq

'02:
vs. Blazers - Shaq
vs. Spurs - Kobe (Shaq was injured in this series iirc which was the reason for his low offensive output, Lakers would have lost this series if it weren't for Kobe's fourth quarter play in the last 3 games)
vs. Kings - I'll say Shaq but after watching the series it was way closer than the stats say (Kobe was just as important as Shaq in the wins, but Shaq played better than him in the losses and Kobe had some horrific shooting nights in those games). Shaq also drew a crazy amount of defensive attention this series. I don't think I've seen a player get doubled/tripled like this ever.
vs. Nets - Shaq, but Kobe played well.

'00 was all Shaq though Kobe stepped up in huge moments which is part of the reason I think he isn't as replaceable as people think, even though statistically he wasn't a superstar yet.

[dajadeed]

'00 was all Shaq though Kobe stepped up in huge moments which is part of the reason I think he isn't as replaceable as people think, even though statistically he wasn't a superstar yet.

In that game 7 against Portland Kobe led the team in points, rebounds, assists, and blocks. :applause:

[Bring-Your-Js]

Crazy Western Conference Finals do-or-die games of the Shaq era:

2000 WCF Game 7:

Shaq: 18 pts, 9 reb, 5 ast, 56%
Kobe: 25 pts, 11 reb, 7 ast, 47%

2002 WCF Game 6:

Shaq: 41 pts, 17 reb, 1 ast, 2 blk, 56%
Kobe: 31 pts, 11 reb, 5 ast, 50%

2002 WCF Game 7:

Shaq: 35 pts, 13 reb, 2 ast, 47%
Kobe: 30 pts, 10 reb, 7 ast, 39%


Doin Work and pulling through. Good times.

[Replay32]

Kobe is a great player and the lakers wouldn't of won without him. But the same can be said for horry, fox, fish etc...

Shaq got most of the attention from teams. Shaq was the one getting double and tripled teammed a lot back then. Shaq was the 1st option in the offense no doubt.

[ShaqAttack3234]

If there was an MVP for each series in '01 and '02 this is how it would go down...

'01:
vs. Blazers - Either, hard to pick.
vs. Kings - Could go with either, Shaq dominated first two games and Kobe the last two. Shaq is better if you combine the stats I think so you could give him the edge.
vs. Spurs - Kobe, but Shaq played well too.
vs. Sixers - Shaq

'02:
vs. Blazers - Shaq
vs. Spurs - Kobe (Shaq was injured in this series iirc which was the reason for his low offensive output, Lakers would have lost this series if it weren't for Kobe's fourth quarter play in the last 3 games)
vs. Kings - I'll say Shaq but after watching the series it was way closer than the stats say (Kobe was just as important as Shaq in the wins, but Shaq played better than him in the losses and Kobe had some horrific shooting nights in those games). Shaq also drew a crazy amount of defensive attention this series. I don't think I've seen a player get doubled/tripled like this ever.
vs. Nets - Shaq, but Kobe played well.

'00 was all Shaq though Kobe stepped up in huge moments which is part of the reason I think he isn't as replaceable as people think, even though statistically he wasn't a superstar yet.

Great post and spot on with everything. I would like to add Shaq's defense on Duncan though as a big key to the '02 Spurs series. I agree with the MVPs for each series.

[Fatal9]

Great post and spot on with everything. I would like to add Shaq's defense on Duncan though as a big key to the '02 Spurs series. I agree with the MVPs for each series.
Yea, I'd be interested to see how Duncan shot in second half/fourth quarters of that series or how he shot on possessions with Shaq on him. The storyline of the series was the epic collapses by Spurs in every game (Duncan not being able to take over offensively down the stretch) and Kobe's fourth quarter play mixed with Shaq's D. I'm surprised more people aren't critical of Duncan for that series.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yea, I'd be interested to see how Duncan shot in second half/fourth quarters of that series or how he shot on possessions with Shaq on him. The storyline of the series was the epic collapses by Spurs in every game (Duncan not being able to take over offensively down the stretch) and Kobe's fourth quarter play mixed with Shaq's D. I'm surprised more people aren't critical of Duncan for that series.

I'll probably go back download those games and track how Duncan shot vs Shaq. He continually forced him into tougher runners and turnaround shots and took away the bank shot.

[Calabis]

Are you comparing Horry, Fisher and Rice`s impact to Bryant`s?

:roll: :roll:

You perfectly know what I mean when I say taking over games and leading the team during some stretches of games/series. Thats a fact, anybody who actually watched those runs knows that.

Shaq dominated those finals, true. Did I say the opposite? God, some people are so f*cking dense.

Kobe was the second player on that team, also true. Did I say the opposite? All im saying is he was equal with O`Neal some games (not on a daily basis) and he deserves more credit than given.

Relax, nobody is saying Kobe is better than Jordan.

Some of you pretend to place Kobe as a mere second option like Ginobili on the Spurs, Allen on the Celtics or Gasol on the Lakers. When he was more than that and had more impact than this so called second options. Period.

LMAO!!! Of course Kobe had great games, but it was Shaq who did it on a consistent basis.......as far as Fisher and Horry, yes during those title runs they had moments that had impact equal to Shaq and Kobe.....game winners..ring a bell????? Also how the hell did I say Kobe was just another second option, when I said in a previous post he was a top 5 player in the league, playing with the most dominent/best player in the league???? You Kobe fans get way to defensive:roll:

[Bring-Your-Js]

LMAO!!! Of course Kobe had great games, but it was Shaq who did it on a consistent basis.......as far as Fisher and Horry, yes during those title runs they had moments that had impact equal to Shaq and Kobe.....game winners..ring a bell????? Also how the hell did I say Kobe was just another second option, when I said in a previous post he was a top 5 player in the league, playing with the most dominent/best player in the league???? You Kobe fans get way to defensive:roll:

Somebody recently started a thread regarding the Top 15 SG's of all-time. Kobe was ranked 2nd. Nobody really said shit to dispute it. Nobody should be as defensive as they are.

[crisoner]

I guess OP is assuming Kobe has the second threepeat in the bag?

Sure hope so!!!

[plowking]

Its starting to look that way.

[Javat_90]

Nice to see some of my threads get bumped.



:pimp:

[Nevaeh]

This, rep'd.

Soooooooooo glad Jeff got rid of this bullsh!t. :oldlol:

[crisoner]

The rep thing comes and goes...it will be back again.

[Glide2keva]

To my knowledge, Kobe was on only ONE three-peat team. This title suggests that he was on another, also.

[Jacks3]

He will be after this year. :pimp:

[Javat_90]

To my knowledge, Kobe was on only ONE three-peat team. This title suggests that he was on another, also.


This title will pwn you and my predicting skills will win come June.

[Big#50]

Shaq made it really easy for Kobe to get single coverage. Teams couldn't help because of Shaq. Everyone was worried about Shaq. Kobe is the greatest second option of all time.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Agreed.

There's a double standard for counting rings. People say Kobe's first three rings are invalid because they were won with Shaq, then why aren't Magic's 5 rings invalid because he won with Kareem?

Also this whole "the Lakers could have still won championships with some other all-star guard or wing player in Kobe's place" argument is whatever.

They will say ''oh replace Kobe with Vince Carter/AI/T-Mac etc. and they still win 3 rings''.

That hypothetical non-sense might have gotten you some ground back in like '03 but we are in 2010!

I ain't hearing crap like this no more from you idiots cause its without a shred of even comprehensible evidence.

Kobe has proven WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that he is/was/will always be SUPERIOR to any of those guys. How on earth can you even make that argument with a straight face knowing what you know today?

And let's not even mention the defensive end, where Kobe was an All-NBA defender during that run. You telling me T-Mac and Vince played defense as well Kobe?

Your telling me Vince Carter would have went head up with Bruce Bowen and the Spurs defense like Kobe did?

Was Tracy McGrady was about to guard Iverson in the Finals, and Bibby, and Jason Kidd etc.?

I could just as easily speculate that if you replace Shaq with Tim Duncan not only do the Lakers still win championships, they probably win more than 3 without having to go through a rebuilding stage like they did from '05-'07.

Duncan was consistently on another tier as far as defensive impact goes, was consistently more healthy, less injury prone and more dedicated and professional as far as "rehabbing on company time" and conditioning goes.

His offensive game would mesh with Kobe's perfectly. Think Kobe/Gasol on steroids but with dominant instant-championship defensive presence on Tim's behalf and this part is pure speculation on my behalf, it would seem he has the type of personality that would prevent a lot of the clashes Shaq and Kobe had. The Duncan/Kobe duo wouldn't had even ever broken up and Tim's been playing at pretty much the same high level consistently and the Lakers wouldn't have had to waste 3 years of Kobe's prime trying to rebuild. If we're going the "alternate NBA history" route, I could see the Kobe/Duncan Lakers sitting at 6 or 7 rings right now.....

I also like a Kobe/Garnett duo's shot at multiple championships as well....
:applause: True, Kobe and Shaq's personalities don't go great together.
No way you can discredit Kobe's contribution to the titles.