Bryant's 2009 and 2010 Championship teams

[BlueandGold]

Looking back at those teams it seems like everyone at the same were saying how stacked those teams were but now in retrospective the cast on those teams don't seem all that impressive.

Kobe in 09 and 10 played beside only one all-star in Gasol, Odom was at best a borderline all-star and Bynum was way too injured during that 2 year stretch to be considered an all-star. Beyond that you had a veteran PG who would routinely let opposing PGs blow past him, a fact that was all too apparent in the playoffs.

when the Celtics won in 08 they had 3 clear all-stars and first-ballot hof'ers. I don't see any player on the 09 or 10 team that would be considered a first-ballot, Gasol is borderline at best and bynum has a long long way to go to even be considered as a worthy vote-in.

[Odinn]

Pau Gasol is first ballot HoF. It's Basketball HoF. Not just NBA HoF.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Whats new?

Kobe is the only legendary player with 5 rings with only one all star/HOF per title team.

:confusedshrug:

[guy]

Looking back at those teams it seems like everyone at the same were saying how stacked those teams were but now in retrospective the cast on those teams don't seem all that impressive.

Kobe in 09 and 10 played beside only one all-star in Gasol, Odom was at best a borderline all-star and Bynum was way too injured during that 2 year stretch to be considered an all-star. Beyond that you had a veteran PG who would routinely let opposing PGs blow past him, a fact that was all too apparent in the playoffs.

when the Celtics won in 08 they had 3 clear all-stars and first-ballot hof'ers. I don't see any player on the 09 or 10 team that would be considered a first-ballot, Gasol is borderline at best and bynum has a long long way to go to even be considered as a worthy vote-in.

If you want to say KG had a better supporting cast in 08 then Kobe did in 09 and 10, thats cool. No one really compares the two though.

[Celtic_Pride]

Looking back at those teams it seems like everyone at the same were saying how stacked those teams were but now in retrospective the cast on those teams don't seem all that impressive.


During 2009-10,

Remove Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Dwight, Dirk, Paul from their respective teams and try to figure which team is the best

So yeah, Kobe had a stacked team compared to other stars during those 2 years.

/ thread

[magnax1]

I never really thought his cast was all that impressive in the first place. When they added Artest, that made a difference, but the 09 cast wasn't that impressive really.

[tmacattack33]

Looking back at those teams it seems like everyone at the same were saying how stacked those teams were but now in retrospective the cast on those teams don't seem all that impressive.

Kobe in 09 and 10 played beside only one all-star in Gasol, Odom was at best a borderline all-star and Bynum was way too injured during that 2 year stretch to be considered an all-star. Beyond that you had a veteran PG who would routinely let opposing PGs blow past him, a fact that was all too apparent in the playoffs.

when the Celtics won in 08 they had 3 clear all-stars and first-ballot hof'ers. I don't see any player on the 09 or 10 team that would be considered a first-ballot, Gasol is borderline at best and bynum has a long long way to go to even be considered as a worthy vote-in.

Not much has changed with our newly gaied hindsight. Kobe's teammates back then were great.

This year, we have seen what happens when Kobe doesn't have Odom and Prime Gasol...or a good Artest or Trevor Ariza. We have also seen that he has terrible shot selection and is not good at getting his teammates involved.

Try again.

[Cali Syndicate]

So Phil Jackson accounts for nothing?

[Big#50]

During 2009-10,

Remove Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Dwight, Dirk, Paul from their respective teams and try to figure which team is the best

So yeah, Kobe had a stacked team compared to other stars during those 2 years.

/ thread
Great post. Lakers are still contenders with no Kobe those seasons.

[eliteballer]

Stil cant believe we beat Boston in 10 with Kobe and Bynum each playing with one knee

[DKLaker]

Great post. Lakers are still contenders with no Kobe those seasons.

You are insane if you really think that.

[Celtic_Pride]

Great post. Lakers are still contenders with no Kobe those seasons.

If you are being sarcastic,

No the Lakers aren't contenders without Kobe. But the team they had is good enough to take them to playoffs w/o Kobe. Add Phil Jackson, he has the most stacked team compared to other stars during those 2 years. Period!

[BlackWhiteGreen]

Stil cant believe we beat Boston in 10 with Kobe and Bynum each playing with one knee

:rant :oldlol:

To be fair, no Garnett injury in 09 and I think we'd have beaten the Lakers in the Finals. The difference in 2010 was Artest (and I feel disgusting saying that).

[Indian guy]

Kobe is the only legendary player with 5 rings with only one all star/HOF per title team.

There are a lot of such 'legendary players'.

[chazzy]

They were the traditional style championship team, with one superstar, a great all star sidekick, and varied contributions from good role players in the playoffs. Nothing more, nothing less. If only Bynum was healthy from 08-10 playoffs.. I wonder how that would've played out.

Not much has changed with our newly gaied hindsight. Kobe's teammates back then were great.

This year, we have seen what happens when Kobe doesn't have Odom and Prime Gasol...or a good Artest or Trevor Ariza. We have also seen that he has terrible shot selection and is not good at getting his teammates involved.

Try again.
Kobe has also declined since then

[eliteballer]

Umm, no. Bulls never had more than 2 All Stars on their 6 title teams either.

Horace and BJ all stars in 94, Harper was a 22 ppg player the year before joining the Bulls, Kukoc was a 6th man of the year, and I dont know need to explain Rodman as being All-Star Caliber

[Celtic_Pride]

:rant :oldlol:

To be fair, no Garnett injury in 09 and I think we'd have beaten the Lakers in the Finals. The difference in 2010 was Artest (and I feel disgusting saying that).

Perkins going down was a factor too

We were leading the series 3-2, Perkins goes down, Lakers rape us on the offensive board and we lose 2 straight

[Big#50]

You are insane if you really think that.
Nope. That front line was just too good.

[Heavincent]

They were just your average championship team, if that makes any sense. Not nearly as stacked as people make them out to be. It was Kobe, Pau, Odom, and not much else outside of that :confusedshrug: Ariza (09) was okay, Artest (10) had his moments, but they really weren't the dream team supporting cast people make them out to be.

[Indian guy]

Horace and BJ all stars in 94, Harper was a 22 ppg player the year before joining the Bulls, Kukoc was a 6th man of the year, and I dont know need to explain Rodman as being All-Star Caliber

None of these players were All Stars when Chicago won it all.

[eliteballer]

Perkins going down was a factor too

We were leading the series 3-2, Perkins goes down, Lakers rape us on the offensive board and we lose 2 straight

If you get a healthy Perkins we get a healthy Kobe and Bynum

[chazzy]

:rant :oldlol:

To be fair, no Garnett injury in 09 and I think we'd have beaten the Lakers in the Finals. The difference in 2010 was Artest (and I feel disgusting saying that).
It would've been a great series.. Kobe was better/healthier in 09 and Ariza/Odom were shooting lights out in the playoffs. Bynum was also slightly less gimpy than he was in 2010. KG was playing great that year and declined in 2010.

[Heavincent]

Nope. That front line was just too good.

Oh please. It's not like Bynum was that good back then. Hell, he barely did anything in the repeat playoff runs and was injured most of the time.

[eliteballer]

None of these players were All Stars when Chicago won it all.


Ok, Shaq wasn't MVP caliber in 01 and 02:rolleyes:

[AMISTILLILL]

If you get a healthy Perkins we get a healthy Kobe and Bynum

You made it to the Finals without Bynum. He went down before the All Star break. Boston made it to the Finals with Perkins and lost him during the series. Hardly comparable.

Never mind the fact that two players in Kobe/Bynum being healthy isn't comparable to Perkins healthy.

[guy]

Ok, Shaq wasn't MVP caliber in 01 and 02:rolleyes:

BJ Armstrong wasn't even a starter in 91 and 92. Its hilarious how people look back and assume that a certain player was at his peak every single season of his career.

[guy]

Whats new?

Kobe is the only legendary player with 5 rings with only one all star/HOF per title team.

:confusedshrug:

:oldlol: I like how Shaq is just your average all-star and HOFer. You make it seem like he was just Robert Parish or something.

[Indian guy]

Ok, Shaq wasn't MVP caliber in 01 and 02:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Grant and Armstrong made the AS team ONCE in their entire career, and it was more a testament to how weak those positions were in '94 than anything. Ron Harper NEVER made the AS team in his career. Neither did Kukoc. Rodman last made the All Star team in '92.

MJ never played with more than 1 All Star on his team and the only time he was even close to having 2 was Grant in '92. Saying otherwise would be like me saying Kobe played with multiple All Stars too because of Rice, AC Green, Grant, Richmond, Bynum etc....who ALL made the AS team at some point in their career.

[Vertical-24]

They were the traditional style championship team, with one superstar, a great all star sidekick, and varied contributions from good role players in the playoffs. Nothing more, nothing less. If only Bynum was healthy from 08-10 playoffs.. I wonder how that would've played out.

Kobe has also declined since then


Absolutely. :cheers:

/thread

[Inactive]

They weren't historically stacked, but I think in 09 they had a pretty big personnel edge, over their competition. In 2010, Boston, and Cleveland weren't far behind them.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

It would've been a great series.. Kobe was better/healthier in 09 and Ariza/Odom were shooting lights out in the playoffs. Bynum was also slightly less gimpy than he was in 2010. KG was playing great that year and declined in 2010.

:cheers: obviously I'm biased, but I'd have loved to have seen LA w/ Gasol and Celts w/ the big 3 from about 06 and watched them grow as rivals. It's also a shame injuries have curtailed what little time we had of the two together.

Side note: I'd argue KG is as good, if not better, now than he ever has been since the injury.

[Celtic_Pride]

If only Bynum was healthy from 08-10 playoffs.. I wonder how that would've played out.


Bynum has no place in triangle. Fisher, Kobe, Artest/Ariza, Odom, Gasol was about the perfect lineup for Phil and heck even Gasol guarded Dwight for the most part during 2009 finals despite Bynum being healthy.

And we saw this year, if Gasol and Bynum play together, 1 of them will always be under utilized since they are similar type of 7 footers

So using Bynum's injury excuse is kinda silly!

[BlueandGold]

They were the traditional style championship team, with one superstar, a great all star sidekick, and varied contributions from good role players in the playoffs. Nothing more, nothing less. If only Bynum was healthy from 08-10 playoffs.. I wonder how that would've played out.

Kobe has also declined since then
This is pretty much the view that I have now of the team. Although I would say that outside of their great sidekick that they still had borderline all-stars in bynum and odom, although Odom is mentally and sometimes physically soft and Bynum like I stated earlier was way too injured to be considered.


Bynum has no place in triangle. Fisher, Kobe, Artest/Ariza, Odom, Gasol was about the perfect lineup for Phil and heck even Gasol guarded Dwight for the most part during 2009 finals despite Bynum being healthy.

And we saw this year, if Gasol and Bynum play together, 1 of them will always be under utilized since they are similar type of 7 footers

So using Bynum's injury excuse is kinda silly!

/credibility

[bwink23]

You don't need a traditionally stacked team, you just need role players to step up their game....

Kobe's never "carried" any team, he's had plenty of help collectively over his championship years.

[thelucifer69]

Last game Vs Rockets
Lakers down by 5 Kobe's out.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-kaJ2mVZ2hVQ/T4C2orvs0hI/AAAAAAAAATc/jGJTp94muJE/s864/1.jpg
Lakers up by 3 when he came in.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Ta_UHcMFrjA/T4C2nQBHbJI/AAAAAAAAATU/2dcq7n_nz-U/s864/2.jpg

[Anaximandro1]

The Lakers had a pretty stacked frontcourt relative to the era with Pau,Odom and Bynum.

[AMISTILLILL]

Last game Vs Rockets
Lakers down by 5 Kobe's out.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-kaJ2mVZ2hVQ/T4C2orvs0hI/AAAAAAAAATc/jGJTp94muJE/s864/1.jpg
Lakers up by 3 when he came in.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Ta_UHcMFrjA/T4C2nQBHbJI/AAAAAAAAATU/2dcq7n_nz-U/s864/2.jpg

Too bad he wasn't even in the game until they'd already taken the lead, genius. :facepalm

http://i40.tinypic.com/23k7uqa.png
http://i39.tinypic.com/mufz7s.png

[TheAesirsFinest]

Too bad he wasn't even in the game until they'd already taken the lead, genius. :facepalm

I'm pretty sure that's what he was going for. Not that that matters since the current Lakers are quite different compared to the 09, 10 Lakers.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Great post. Lakers are still contenders with no Kobe those seasons.
6/8 and 9/7 playoff averages for their starting center Bynum in '09&'10
stacked :bowdown: :bowdown:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

There are a lot of such 'legendary players'.

such as...

:confusedshrug:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

The Lakers had a pretty stacked frontcourt relative to the era with Pau,Odom and Bynum.

Kobe's teams were stacked only if you

1) ignore NBA history
2) pretend NBA is a 2v2 sport (Shaq)
3) pretend that NBA is just SG-PF-C (and that Bynum wasn't injured)

[Cali Syndicate]

6/8 and 9/7 playoff averages for their starting center Bynum in '09&'10
stacked :bowdown: :bowdown:

Kinda tells you how much Phil thought about Pau, if Bynum, arguably the best center right now, was essentially his back up in 09 and 10.

And FYI, Bynum was playing some great ball right before he went down in 09. Was playing solid throughout 10 as well.

[guy]

Kobe's teams were stacked only if you

1) ignore NBA history
2) pretend NBA is a 2v2 sport (Shaq)
3) pretend that NBA is just SG-PF-C (and that Bynum wasn't injured)

Wow seriously, how much help does the dude need? No one said it was 2v2 with Shaq, but its not like they didn't have their typical great role players besides them during those years.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Wow seriously, how much help does the dude need? No one said it was 2v2 with Shaq, but its not like they didn't have their typical great role players besides them during those years.

Honestly, outside of 2001, their role players were average at best in terms of how well they played during the Kobe/Shaq years, especially in 2000 and 2002. Those early 3 peat teams really were pretty much Kobe and Shaq.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Wow seriously, how much help does the dude need? No one said it was 2v2 with Shaq, but its not like they didn't have their typical great role players besides them during those years.

It was insane depth (Kings/Blazers) vs star power (Kobe/Shaq). Those two teams had 6-8 guys better than the Lakers third best player.

It was like the Heat vs the Bulls except Wade and Lebron would have to get it done without Bosh.

"Stacked" :rolleyes:

[DMAVS41]

It was insane depth (Kings/Blazers) vs star power (Kobe/Shaq). Those two teams had 6-8 guys better than the Lakers third best player.

It was like the Heat vs the Bulls except Wade and Lebron would have to get it done without Bosh.

"Stacked" :rolleyes:

And star power almost always wins out. And the Lakers role players did their jobs around Kobe/Shaq. Could they have used a bit more out of a third guy? Sure, but no team is just going to be perfect.

If you have Shaq and Kobe in 01 and 02 on the same team. All you want is a great coach and a group of veteran role players that can do some of the dirty work and make big shots. Because you are going to get 40 plus shots a game out of Kobe/Shaq each night...and that is what you need. If you start throwing in more talented players that need shots....it wouldn't work nearly as well.

As far as 09 and 10. They weren't historically "stacked"....but when you compare them to rest of the league...especially to the rest of the teams other star players were on. Lakers were clearly the best. All the other elite players didn't have as much help. That is why people called them stacked. The 09 Lakers would not be nearly as scary if they were playing the competition of last year or this year. Its all about the state of the "current" league.....

[Yao Ming's Foot]

And star power almost always wins out. And the Lakers role players did their jobs around Kobe/Shaq. Could they have used a bit more out of a third guy? Sure, but no team is just going to be perfect.

Star power almost always wins out? Based on what? The only relevant comparison would be Wade and Lebron without Bosh or Durant and Westbrook without Harden. Are you telling me that they would be favored against deep teams like the Bulls and Spurs without that big third? The entire concept of if it being easy for star duos to dominate was born out of the need to minimize young Kobe's accomplishments in comparison to Jordans. Where are all of these other star power duos who have won 3 championships in a row?




If you have Shaq and Kobe in 01 and 02 on the same team. All you want is a great coach and a group of veteran role players that can do some of the dirty work and make big shots. Because you are going to get 40 plus shots a game out of Kobe/Shaq each night...and that is what you need. If you start throwing in more talented players that need shots....it wouldn't work nearly as well.

That's all it took to need because Kobe and Shaq are just that good. A stacked team would have featured better defensive players and shooters. A stacked team would have had some semblance of a bench.


As far as 09 and 10. They weren't historically "stacked"....but when you compare them to rest of the league...especially to the rest of the teams other star players were on. Lakers were clearly the best. All the other elite players didn't have as much help. That is why people called them stacked. The 09 Lakers would not be nearly as scary if they were playing the competition of last year or this year. Its all about the state of the "current" league.....

The Lakers were the best because they won. Plenty of teams could have beaten them and they certainly were not stacked. Put Kobe in place of Ray Allen on the Celtics and now we are talking about a stacked team. Why is the relative strength of Kobe's back court teammates never spoken of? Do they not make up over half of the minutes on the floor? In the state the current league where does a Fisher-Brown-Artest backcourt rate? Worst among all the other playoff teams?

[DMAVS41]

Star power almost always wins out? Based on what? The only relevant comparison would be Wade and Lebron without Bosh or Durant and Westbrook without Harden. Are you telling me that they would be favored against deep teams like the Bulls and Spurs without that big third? The entire concept of if it being easy for star duos to dominate was born out of the need to minimize young Kobe's accomplishments in comparison to Jordans. Where are all of these other star power duos who have won 3 championships in a row?




That's all it took to need because Kobe and Shaq are just that good. A stacked team would have featured better defensive players and shooters. A stacked team would have had some semblance of a bench.



The Lakers were the best because they won. Plenty of teams could have beaten them and they certainly were not stacked. Put Kobe in place of Ray Allen on the Celtics and now we are talking about a stacked team. Why is the relative strength of Kobe's back court teammates never spoken of? Do they not make up over half of the minutes on the floor? In the state the current league where does a Fisher-Brown-Artest backcourt rate? Worst among all the other playoff teams?


Based on what? Based on the entire NBA history. How many teams have won a title having only 1 star player? Its a very short list. That is what it is based on.

That is all it took with Kobe/Shaq because they were that good. Agree...but having more talent wouldn't have necessarily been better. Those role players complemented Kobe/Shaq very well.

The Lakers in 09/10 were the best team because they had the best team. Not because they won. You could argue that the Celtics had a better team in 2010 and I wouldn't argue a ton even though I disagree.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Based on what? Based on the entire NBA history. How many teams have won a title having only 1 star player? Its a very short list. That is what it is based on.

How many teams won with only 2? That's my entire point. :confusedshrug:

How many championship winning teams have a 3rd, 4th or 5th best players worse than what the Lakers trotted out there?

As I said before those Lakers teams were stacked only if you stopped paying attention after the 2nd player...

[kileer7]

Sigh. .... I see a point to both arguments that they were stacked or they were good but not stacked ..... keep in mind those are Kobe's teams and when you're as popular as Kobe is things get blown out of proportion .... everything from the severity of injuries to the quality of the teammates he has around him .... all blown out of proprotion imo

[DMAVS41]

How many teams won with only 2? That's my entire point. :confusedshrug:

How many championship winning teams have a 3rd, 4th or 5th best players worse than what the Lakers trotted out there?

As I said before those Lakers teams were stacked only if you stopped paying attention after the 2nd player...

Well, where we disagree is what you would want around Shaq/Kobe. I'd also say that peak Shaq is a totally different animal than just about any player in NBA history other than maybe Wilt and Jordan.

The main theme throughout NBA history has been that you win with multiple star players. That could mean 2....or it could mean 3.

You of course undervalue the shit out of some of the role players that Kobe has played with. Who have come out big time and time again making championship winning plays throughout his career.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Well, where we disagree is what you would want around Shaq/Kobe. I'd also say that peak Shaq is a totally different animal than just about any player in NBA history other than maybe Wilt and Jordan.

The main theme throughout NBA history has been that you win with multiple star players. That could mean 2....or it could mean 3.

You of course undervalue the shit out of some of the role players that Kobe has played with. Who have come out big time and time again making championship winning plays throughout his career.

In what way?

Show me an example of a playoff game during the early threepeat where a Lakers role player achieved a level of greatness that goes above and beyond what any other role player on any other team is capable of?

The highest PER for the 3rd best Laker in the playoffs during any title year was

Derick Fisher in 2001 (15.6)

less than Jose Barea (16.8) and Jason Kidd (15.7) during their title run last year

[DMAVS41]

In what way?

Show me an example of a playoff game during the early threepeat where a Lakers role player achieved a level of greatness that goes above and beyond what any other role player on any other team is capable of?

Do you really forget the Horry and Fisher shots? And nobody is saying they did anything above and beyond.

I'm saying that what you want around Shaq and Kobe is exactly what they had. You act like adding a player like Bosh next to those two guys would be good.

I could not disagree more. That is the exact type of player you wouldn't want. But with your logic, Bosh would make them much better. And I disagree.

Its all about your circumstances as a team. Some teams have different needs.

But one thing that remains constant is that you always want at least two elite players.

[guy]

It was insane depth (Kings/Blazers) vs star power (Kobe/Shaq). Those two teams had 6-8 guys better than the Lakers third best player.

It was like the Heat vs the Bulls except Wade and Lebron would have to get it done without Bosh.

"Stacked" :rolleyes:

And they played them like 3 times total when they were legitimate threats in those years and 6-8 guys is an overexaggeration anyway. Either way, 2 top 10 players ever at or close to the peak of their powers with experienced complementary role players should have no issues going up against these deep teams that are led by the likes of Chris Webber, Mike Bibby, Rasheed Wallace, old Scottie Pippen, etc.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

And they played them like 3 times total when they were legitimate threats in those years and 6-8 guys is an overexaggeration anyway. Either way, 2 top 10 players ever at or close to the peak of their powers with experienced complementary role players should have no issues going up against these deep teams that are led by the likes of Chris Webber, Mike Bibby, Rasheed Wallace, old Scottie Pippen, etc.

hint Webber, Bibby and Rasheed Wallace are not the washed up versions you seem to be recollecting

:facepalm

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Do you really forget the Horry and Fisher shots? And nobody is saying they did anything above and beyond.

I'm saying that what you want around Shaq and Kobe is exactly what they had. You act like adding a player like Bosh next to those two guys would be good.

I could not disagree more. That is the exact type of player you wouldn't want. But with your logic, Bosh would make them much better. And I disagree.

Its all about your circumstances as a team. Some teams have different needs.

But one thing that remains constant is that you always want at least two elite players.

Im not forgetting shots. I just dont know what that changes. Do you think other role players did not hit a clutch shot here and there on the road to a championship? That doesn't change the fact that they are less talented than other championship winning 3,4,5s... More talented 3s, 4s, and 5s hit plenty of clutch shots as well.

[guy]

hint Webber, Bibby and Rasheed Wallace are not the washed up versions you seem to be recollecting

:facepalm

Where did I say they were?

[BlueandGold]

Based on what? Based on the entire NBA history. How many teams have won a title having only 1 star player? Its a very short list. That is what it is based on.

That is all it took with Kobe/Shaq because they were that good. Agree...but having more talent wouldn't have necessarily been better. Those role players complemented Kobe/Shaq very well.

The Lakers in 09/10 were the best team because they had the best team. Not because they won. You could argue that the Celtics had a better team in 2010 and I wouldn't argue a ton even though I disagree.

Not to be a smartass here, but what happened in 2011 then? Are you going to argue that Dallas was a better team than Miami?

[G-Funk]

Perkins going down was a factor too

We were leading the series 3-2, Perkins goes down, Lakers rape us on the offensive board and we lose 2 straight

no. Lakers were gonna win game 6 regardless...Perkins was not gonna make a difference...and game 7 Wallace played great, i doubt Perkins wouldve had a better game, now if Bynum was healthy!

[Mach_3]

:rant :oldlol:

To be fair, no Garnett injury in 09 and I think we'd have beaten the Lakers in the Finals. The difference in 2010 was Artest (and I feel disgusting saying that).

Don't forget Ray Allen's thigh

[AlphaWolf24]

Haters will say Kobe has had special teammates that no one else has...

Haters will say Shaq was this ...Shaq was that..

Fact is...Kobe has had the same level of Talent as other past superstars..

Fact is Shaq has never looked as good as he has when playing with Kobe...Shaq has played with Penny , Nash, Lebron and Wade....he played on 7+ 50 win teams very capable of winning a title without Kobe....he never sniffed the sucsess he did when he played with Kobe.

[BEAST Griffin]

http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2011/9/1/its-all-about-the-ws-kobe-bryant.html

[QUOTE]With Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum/Lamar Odom (

[BEAST Griffin]

Selective memory of Kobe fans is unbelievable.

And look at them all rejoice because the Lakers lost a game without Kobe.

:roll:

[BlueandGold]

Kobe again played the full 82 the next season, but now they had Gasol for 81 games, Bynum for 50, and Odom for 78. They created, without question, the strongest trio of frontcourt players on one team since the Celtics of the 80’s. Similar to the team’s records the year before when they had at least two of them playing at once, LA finished 65-17 (.793).


Stopped reading there. Let me know when Gasol, Odom or Bynum are in the hall of fame or constantly ranked at the all-time top lists at their positions like Parish, Mchale or hell even Walton.

The delusion here is unbelievable. I'm not saying that Bryant is anywhere close to Jordan but give him some credit, I actually just watched the entire 2009 and 2010 finals series' and there was no question who tipped the scales in those serious (ie, who was the clear MVP). Watching the Lakers offensive work in those two series it become apparent why Jackson's triangle works brilliantly with the teams he's constructed. Because they in order for the triangle to work you need a dominant wing player who can dominant the wing in order to create space for the bigs and cutters. And create space is exactly what Bryant did as the majority of all possessions saw Bryant either passing out of a double team or commanding double coverage while cutting or even by himself on the wing/perimeter.

[DKLaker]

Stopped reading there. Let me know when Gasol, Odom or Bynum are in the hall of fame or constantly ranked at the all-time top lists at their positions like Parish, Mchale or hell even Walton.

The delusion here is unbelievable. I'm not saying that Bryant is anywhere close to Jordan but give him some credit, I actually just watched the entire 2009 and 2010 finals series' and there was no question who tipped the scales in those serious (ie, who was the clear MVP). Watching the Lakers offensive work in those two series it become apparent why Jackson's triangle works brilliantly with the teams he's constructed. Because they in order for the triangle to work you need a dominant wing player who can dominant the wing in order to create space for the bigs and cutters. And create space is exactly what Bryant did as the majority of all possessions saw Bryant either passing out of a double team or commanding double coverage while cutting or even by himself on the wing/perimeter.

:applause: :cheers: :applause:

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2011/9/1/its-all-about-the-ws-kobe-bryant.html
Tell me Andrew Bynum's playoff averages in '08, '09, and '10

[Force]

those teams were stacked. not just a ton of size, but the big guys were all skilled.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Those two Laker teams were arguably the worst teams to win a championship in many many years.
- Only one other all-star
- Odom had never been an all-star and has never been anything more than a good role player.
- Bynum was a nonfactor
- Average bench.
Really, just a bunch of decent role players.

[Ne 1]

Few questions about Bryant's "ridiculously stacked team":

-How many hall of famers did the Lakers have?

-How many dominant defensive players did the Lakers have?

-How many dominant rebounders did the Lakers have?

-How many other wing players had their starting center average 6/4 and 8/6 during championship runs?

-How many hall of famers did other top 10 players play with during their championship runs?

-How many championship teams of other top 10 players would Sasha Vujacic get consistent playing time?

[10x91= 5 Rings]

:rolleyes:

Grant and Armstrong made the AS team ONCE in their entire career, and it was more a testament to how weak those positions were in '94 than anything. Ron Harper NEVER made the AS team in his career. Neither did Kukoc. Rodman last made the All Star team in '92.

MJ never played with more than 1 All Star on his team and the only time he was even close to having 2 was Grant in '92. Saying otherwise would be like me saying Kobe played with multiple All Stars too because of Rice, AC Green, Grant, Richmond, Bynum etc....who ALL made the AS team at some point in their career.

Rodman was blackballed from the All Star Game in 96 because it took place in San Antonio.

[Ne 1]

The talent Kobe played with in the playoffs hasn't even been that impressive, especially 2010. The Lakers had three below average starters in the playoffs. Fisher was poor. Artest was a huge liability after the first round. Bynum was struggling with injury and had limited mobility (averaged 7/6 after the first round, and 6/4 on below 50% in the '09 playoffs). If he had a healthy Bynum, a prime Artest, a great bench, I'd accept the "stacked" argument but that's not what he's won with in '09 and '10 His playoff roster just hasn't been that special, especially in comparison to past championship teams.

Players putting up 30/6/6 on 57 TS% in three consecutive Finals runs don't grow on trees (and definitely aren't getting carried due to a "stacked" roster - or they wouldn't be averaging 30 in the first place). Only Jordan, Shaq and Hakeem I'd say have had better three year runs in the playoffs over that.

[Scholar]

Stil cant believe we beat Boston in 10 with Kobe and Bynum each playing with one knee

One knee each = two knees. :applause:

[DMAVS41]

The talent Kobe played with in the playoffs hasn't even been that impressive, especially 2010. The Lakers had three below average starters in the playoffs. Fisher was poor. Artest was a huge liability after the first round. Bynum was struggling with injury and had limited mobility (averaged 7/6 after the first round, and 6/4 on below 50% in the '09 playoffs). If he had a healthy Bynum, a prime Artest, a great bench, I'd accept the "stacked" argument but that's not what he's won with in '09 and '10 His playoff roster just hasn't been that special, especially in comparison to past championship teams.

Players putting up 30/6/6 on 57 TS% in three consecutive Finals runs don't grow on trees (and definitely aren't getting carried due to a "stacked" roster - or they wouldn't be averaging 30 in the first place). Only Jordan, Shaq and Hakeem I'd say have had better three year runs in the playoffs over that.

But Kobe wasn't playing past championship teams. He played the teams in front of him.

He lost in 08 in the finals even though the Lakers were favored.
The competition was extremely weak in 09....and he got a lot of help in 10.

Nobody would be calling the 09/10 Lakers stacked if they had to play teams like the current Thunder/Heat/Bulls....or even Spurs this year. Or teams like the Grizzlies looming out there as well. In 09 and 10 there simply weren't elite other teams out there really. The 10 Celtics were really good, but clearly not the same team they once were....and they lost Perkins.

"stacked"....meh...maybe its the wrong word. the question is what other supporting casts were better for other elite players those years? Lebron, Wade, Paul, and Dirk all had considerably worse help in terms of coaching and supporting casts.

Each year is different. All titles are not equal. Think about how much easier the Lakers had it in 09 compared to the Mavs last year. The Lakers beat the Jazz, Rockets, Nuggets, and Magic in 09. The Mavs beat the Blazers, Lakers, Thunder, and Heat in 11. The difference is huge. And again, nobody would be calling the 09 Lakers "stacked" if they had to play the teams in 11. But 09 was a different year.

I think that is what you are missing.

[dyna]

But Kobe wasn't playing past championship teams. He played the teams in front of him.

He lost in 08 in the finals even though the Lakers were favored.
The competition was extremely weak in 09....and he got a lot of help in 10.

Nobody would be calling the 09/10 Lakers stacked if they had to play teams like the current Thunder/Heat/Bulls....or even Spurs this year. Or teams like the Grizzlies looming out there as well. In 09 and 10 there simply weren't elite other teams out there really. The 10 Celtics were really good, but clearly not the same team they once were....and they lost Perkins.

"stacked"....meh...maybe its the wrong word. the question is what other supporting casts were better for other elite players those years? Lebron, Wade, Paul, and Dirk all had considerably worse help in terms of coaching and supporting casts.

Each year is different. All titles are not equal. Think about how much easier the Lakers had it in 09 compared to the Mavs last year. The Lakers beat the Jazz, Rockets, Nuggets, and Magic in 09. The Mavs beat the Blazers, Lakers, Thunder, and Heat in 11. The difference is huge. And again, nobody would be calling the 09 Lakers "stacked" if they had to play the teams in 11. But 09 was a different year.

I think that is what you are missing.

:applause:

[BlueandGold]

But Kobe wasn't playing past championship teams. He played the teams in front of him.

He lost in 08 in the finals even though the Lakers were favored.
The competition was extremely weak in 09....and he got a lot of help in 10.

Nobody would be calling the 09/10 Lakers stacked if they had to play teams like the current Thunder/Heat/Bulls....or even Spurs this year. Or teams like the Grizzlies looming out there as well. In 09 and 10 there simply weren't elite other teams out there really. The 10 Celtics were really good, but clearly not the same team they once were....and they lost Perkins.

"stacked"....meh...maybe its the wrong word. the question is what other supporting casts were better for other elite players those years? Lebron, Wade, Paul, and Dirk all had considerably worse help in terms of coaching and supporting casts.

Each year is different. All titles are not equal. Think about how much easier the Lakers had it in 09 compared to the Mavs last year. The Lakers beat the Jazz, Rockets, Nuggets, and Magic in 09. The Mavs beat the Blazers, Lakers, Thunder, and Heat in 11. The difference is huge. And again, nobody would be calling the 09 Lakers "stacked" if they had to play the teams in 11. But 09 was a different year.

I think that is what you are missing.

Stopped reading there.

[DMAVS41]

Stopped reading there.

So you think the level of competition is the same right now and last year as it was in 09?

Please. Wake up. Not even remotely the same. The path to the title last year and this year will be significantly harder.

The 10 Suns would be like the 5th or 6th best team in the West this year. LOL

[chazzy]

The 10 Suns would be like the 5th or 6th best team in the West this year. LOL
That team was scary good offensively. I'm not sure if the current Lakers would beat them; they barely got by with Kobe having one of his best series ever

[Celtic_Pride]

Are people retarded when comparing the number of HOFers Kobe had with other superstars?

Yes Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kareem had HOFers in their teams but the teams they defeated to win championships also had multiple HOFers in them!

Just compare the teams like 80s Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, 90s Rockets, Jazz with the teams Kobe faced in finals like 00s Pacers, Sixers, Kings, Magic etc.

:facepalm

[DMAVS41]

That team was scary good offensively. I'm not sure if the current Lakers would beat them; they barely got by with Kobe having one of his best series ever

Scary good offensively? Sure. Better than the Lakers/Spurs/Thunder/Grizzlies this year? Not in my opinion.

[eliteballer]

Are people retarded when comparing the number of HOFers Kobe had with other superstars?

Yes Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kareem had HOFers in their teams but the teams they defeated to win championships also had multiple HOFers in them!

Just compare the teams like 80s Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, 90s Rockets, Jazz with the teams Kobe faced in finals like 00s Pacers, Sixers, Kings, Magic etc.

:facepalm


00's Spurs, Kings, Blazers, Celtics were all monster squads clown, and unlike some of those guys Kobe had to play tough teams in the first two rounds too since hes always been in the loaded west.

Dudes drawn 50 win teams in the first round, not expansion level 35 win teams like the 92 Heat

[Celtic_Pride]

00's Spurs, Kings, Blazers, Celtics were all monster squads clown

Nothing when compared to 80s Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, 90s Bulls, Rockets, Jazz etc.

Injury riddled and past-their-prime-big-3 Celtics was probably the best team Kobe's Lakers had beaten. Well that team was nothing compared to the 80s and 90s monster squads!

[eliteballer]

Nothing when compared to 80s Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, 90s Bulls, Rockets, Jazz etc.

Injury riddled and past-their-prime-big-3 Celtics was probably the best team Kobe's Lakers had beaten. Well that team was nothing compared to the 80s and 90s monster squads!

All those teams are comparable to the best teams Jordan faced in the 90s, and Kobe had proportionately less talent to play with vs his competition regarding the 80's so that argument holds NO water you dimwit

[Celtic_Pride]

All those teams are comparable to the best teams Jordan faced in the 90s, and Kobe had proportionately less talent to play with vs his competition regarding the 80's so that argument holds NO water you dimwit

Only Jordan? What about the teams faced by Magic, Bird etc. ?

My point is,

If Kobe played with less HOFers when compared with other superstars, he also faced teams with less number of HOFers compared to the same superstars!

Also the best team Kobe's Lakers had beaten is injury riddled past-their-prime-Big-3 Celtics and that team is nothing when compared with 80s Lakers/Celtics/Pistons or 90s Bulls/Jazz/Rockets

If you don't agree, GTFOH!

[AlphaWolf24]

But Kobe wasn't playing past championship teams. He played the teams in front of him.

He lost in 08 in the finals even though the Lakers were favored.
The competition was extremely weak in 09....and he got a lot of help in 10.

Nobody would be calling the 09/10 Lakers stacked if they had to play teams like the current Thunder/Heat/Bulls....or even Spurs this year. Or teams like the Grizzlies looming out there as well. In 09 and 10 there simply weren't elite other teams out there really. The 10 Celtics were really good, but clearly not the same team they once were....and they lost Perkins.

"stacked"....meh...maybe its the wrong word. the question is what other supporting casts were better for other elite players those years? Lebron, Wade, Paul, and Dirk all had considerably worse help in terms of coaching and supporting casts.

Each year is different. All titles are not equal. Think about how much easier the Lakers had it in 09 compared to the Mavs last year. The Lakers beat the Jazz, Rockets, Nuggets, and Magic in 09. The Mavs beat the Blazers, Lakers, Thunder, and Heat in 11. The difference is huge. And again, nobody would be calling the 09 Lakers "stacked" if they had to play the teams in 11. But 09 was a different year.

I think that is what you are missing.

so now the Thunder are a great team??......ok...LA Beat them in 10'...Boston has been a great team since the Big 3' came together ...no matter what BS you spin.

You think Magic Johnson/Divac and Byron Scott were a Great team??....Kevin Duckworth , Terry Porter and Drexler were Great?....Barkley, KJ and Richard Dumas were Great?....Kemp and Payton on the crappy underachieving Sonics were great?....Durant , Paul Pierce and Ray Allen (3HOF) wer better then anyone (out side the Bull;s) of the watered down 90's....even the 09' Magic were better then the 96 Sonics...

Kobe's will to win made the Lakers champions.....he had some great teammates....but no better then nearly every other superstar who played on good teams..


many players play on great teams and never win anything...what's there excuse?

[DMAVS41]

so now the Thunder are a great team??......ok...LA Beat them in 10'...Boston has been a great team since the Big 3' came together ...no matter what BS you spin.

You think Magic Johnson/Divac and Byron Scott were a Great team??....Kevin Duckworth , Terry Porter and Drexler were Great?....Barkley, KJ and Richard Dumas were Great?....Kemp and Payton on the crappy underachieving Sonics were great?....Durant , Paul Pierce and Ray Allen (3HOF) wer better then anyone (out side the Bull;s) of the watered down 90's....even the 09' Magic were better then the 96 Sonics...

Kobe's will to win made the Lakers champions.....he had some great teammates....but no better then nearly every other superstar who played on good teams..


many players play on great teams and never win anything...what's there excuse?

The Thunder last year were easily better than 10...and this year the Thunder are easily better than 11.

I didn't say it was an "easy" title or anything. I simply said the league has far more teams capable of winning it all right now and last year than in 09 and 10.

And its not just that. Some of the best players in the league are now on contending teams. Durant, Lebron, Wade, and Rose all play on elite teams now.

Paul is on a very good team. A healthy Grizzlies team of 2012 might be better than any team the Lakers beat in 09. The league has changed. More teams capable of winning and the best players have more help now.

Flip it around. Imagine if Kobe leads the Lakers to a title this year. It will be hugely impressive. Far more impressive than leading them in 09 or 10 because he's going to have to go through better teams with a worse team of his own and a far worse coach. If Kobe wins the title this year and plays well in doing so....its going to be a historic accomplishment. Imagine going through the Rockets, Spurs, Thunder, and Heat. It would be unreal.

Are you telling me that the above road isn't harder than 09 or 10? Really? Please tell me you aren't so far gone that you really can't even concede that.

[LA_Showtime]

I don't buy the argument that Kobe played on better teams relative to the league, because A) that shit doesn't matter and B) the Lakers hardly cruised to those championships. They had to work, a lot. They had to get lucky, a lot. They were a semi-talented team that had a lot of fortunate breaks and had a few players who rose to the occasion, that's it. It's easy to look back and make those type of comments, but it's nothing but revisionist history.

[Mr. Jabbar]

2010 Celtics were a BEAST of a team, I CLEARLY remember they pressed the on switch during the 2nd round and ppl were ALL OVER talking about how they were even BETTER than their 08 version.

10 playoff Celtics are the best defensive team in recent history, even over the championship pistons.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yeah, Kobe's '09 and '10 teams are overrated to some extent, especially with Bynum injured. The '09 team had Kobe, Pau and then Odom and Ariza, who in fairness were unusually hot which made them a better 3 point shooter than usual. Those 2 did play arguably the best ball of their careers(Ariza certainly did), but they really didn't have anything outside of those 4. Though I don't want to undervalue Odom's versatility, but they still weren't all-stars.

The '10 team had a bit more with Kobe playing like himself after getting his knee drained, Bynum able to contribute something unlike '09(though he was still really limited), Pau playing the best ball of his career, Artest contributing here and there(but at no more than role player level) and Odom, but a weak 3 point shooting team without much of a bench excluding Odom who was still close to a starter, though not as much as '09.

They were good casts, and you need that to win titles, but not some incredible luxury that Kobe haters make it out to be. And the fact that he won with them and had incredible playoff runs is the thing worth pointing out, much fewer players have proved capable of that.


Rodman last made the All Star team in '92.

Your point is valid, amazingly some don't make this connection when listing names on a roster(though I think it's a case of some playing dumb to support an agenda in those cases), but in the case of Rodman, regardless of when he last made an all-star team, I think his impact was right there during the '96 run. He was great, especially after the first round raising his game in each series. So that isn't one of those cases of a washed up former all-stars not playing at an all-star caliber level, imo.

Either way, I'm not sure how many times the Bulls actually had the most talented team in the league, but no more than 2 times, and definitely not during the first 3peat.



Kobe's never "carried" any team, he's had plenty of help collectively over his championship years.

Really? So what do you call averaging 29-30 ppg in back to back title runs while being the primary faciltator and focus of opposing defenses? Just sitting back and enjoying the ride? :facepalm

If Kobe didn't carry those teams, then the term carry really shouldn't be applied to a player leading a team to a title.


And star power almost always wins out. And the Lakers role players did their jobs around Kobe/Shaq. Could they have used a bit more out of a third guy? Sure, but no team is just going to be perfect.

Eh, all championship teams are different. You're more convinced of a pattern than I am. Winning a title is such a difficult thing to do, it requires some luck. In reality, there's a few teams each year who have a legitimate shot, and they're usually built very differently.

We don't have to go back far to see a balanced team without a superstar winning a title, it happened in '04 and that same team damn near repeated. And even the Bad Boy Pistons were pretty similar in that they didn't have a star or 2 carrying them, they also won with defense and by going to whoever was hot that night.

And then there are teams that came ridiculously close. Look at the 2010 Celtics, they lose in game 7 of the finals with Perkins injured. Now by that point, despite the big 3, none of the Celtics were more than top 15-20 players, and in a situation like that, I consider those teams evenly matched.

Then you have the 2000 Blazers blowing a 15 point 4th quarter lead in game 7. That simply came down to Portland panicking and not playing their game, but if they play a decent quarter, they're headed to the finals as a clear favorite, and once again, that team also didn't really have a superstar.

The Sonics were also great in general even before Payton and Kemp hit their peaks, and before Payton became a superstar. And if not for a weird upset in '94, who knows what happens? We saw how much that alters things again in '07.

Situations like this are so close that it's a case of someone having to win. And back to the Bad Boys, while I rarely get into this sort of thing, they probably should've won the '88 title which came before they won back to back, and they certainly didn't have prime Magic, nor did they have prime Bird or Jordan who was approaching his prime, both of whom they beat to get to the '88 finals. And they'd beat Jordan the next 2 years when he got better each year.

You have some 2 star teams, some big 3s, some teams with 1 star and various role players, some teams with balance instead of a superstar. All have proven successful at various times.

Looking at trends, it seems that the trend in the 70's was more balance, team play and defense instead of a star carrying them. Take the '70 and '73 Knicks, '76 Celtics, '78 Bullets, '79 Sonics, which isn't to say that these teams didn't have great players, just as the Bad Boy Pistons did and even the '04 Pistons did, but they won with a more balanced attack and none of the teams specified had a Jordan, Kobe, Kareem, Shaq, Bird, Hakeem ect.


Do you really forget the Horry and Fisher shots? And nobody is saying they did anything above and beyond.

Well, Horry was a consistently solid role player. Solid passer, especially entry passer, high IQ, pretty good rebounder, good team defender.

Though on the other hand, I never completely bought the big shots theory, 1 shot at a big moment isn't necessarily more valuable than a more productive player over the other 47 minutes.

The thing with Horry is, I do think he fit well into a championship team for the reasons stated above, but on the otherhand, I also got the impression that he got sort of lazy after Houston and declined at a surprisingly young age as he was never the same player after he bulked up to play PF in '98. He looked like he could have all-star potential in Houston.

I will say that his big shots were so frequent over such a long stretch that it was flat out strange because he rarely scored at any other times(at least with LA and San Antonio) and shot a low percentage in general as well.

His '02 run was really solid, though, and not just for the big shots.

Fisher on the otherhand, well, some of that his reputation since the 3peat mixed in. He hit some timely shots during the '01 run, but his contribution during that run was more that he was red hot, gave them some much needed shooting and played solid defense back then.

But in general, if you look at Fisher's 2000 run, he was a non-factor in the playoffs and the 4th guard behind Kobe, Harper and Shaw. And then you had '02 when he shot an embarrassing 36% from the field, and even worse in the 2 most competitive series, while giving up a lot to opposing point guards. I'll forgive Kidd dominating him, but Parker also showed more potential in some of those LA games than he did for most, if not all of his rookie season, and then Mike Bibby had the series of his life, and was elevated to stardom overnight, despite never reaching those heights before or since.

Fisher is really one of the most overrated role players I've seen. When he was young, he could defend well, and he understood the triangle as far as where to be, but that came with horrible shot selection and a low shooting percentage as a result as well as a complete lack of point guard skills. And to top it off, most of his biggest playoff shots came later when he was a worse player than he was during the 3peat.

I really can't praise him as much of a contributor outside of the '01 run when he was great.


I'm saying that what you want around Shaq and Kobe is exactly what they had. You act like adding a player like Bosh next to those two guys would be good.

Nah, they clearly had some weaknesses, I hear people questioning whether OKC can win with "just" 3 scorers, and while their duo doesn't compare to Shaq/Kobe, they actually use up a pretty comparable amount of shots, and a third scorer has fit in just fine, and Shaq and Kobe both have a bigger impact on their teammates than Durant and Westbrook, imo.

The 2000 team was the most flawed, though you didn't mention that team in fairness. The '01 team did fit perfectly into place, part of that was that they matched up well with their Western Conference opponents with Grant to guard Sheed, Webber and Duncan and Fisher shooting unusually well.

The '02 team was better than 2000, but came down to earth from '01.


And they played them like 3 times total when they were legitimate threats in those years and 6-8 guys is an overexaggeration anyway. Either way, 2 top 10 players ever at or close to the peak of their powers with experienced complementary role players should have no issues going up against these deep teams that are led by the likes of Chris Webber, Mike Bibby, Rasheed Wallace, old Scottie Pippen, etc.

Uh, Portland had the highest payroll in '00, were the preseason favorites, some were wondering about 70 wins and they were viewed as a super team with everyone considering them the most talented team. Why shouldn't the '00 Lakers have had trouble with them when they had some clear weaknesses that Portland proved perfectly equipped to exploit? That match up was billed like a heavyweight fight.

And the '02 Kings? Webber himself was arguably a top 5 player, I'd have him top 6 and the team had quite a bit more depth and talent than LA with Bibby(who played like a star vs LA), Peja(though he was injured), Vlade, Christie, Hedo and Bobby Jackson. They had a ton of threats and were clearly the most talented team in the league, and they had a great coach.

[LA_Showtime]

2010 Celtics were a BEAST of a team, I CLEARLY remember they pressed the on switch during the 2nd round and ppl were ALL OVER talking about how they were even BETTER than their 08 version.

10 playoff Celtics are the best defensive team in recent history, even over the championship pistons.

People shouldn't overlook Cleveland either. LeBron was a one-man wrecking crew but he didn't play with a bunch of scrubs. Mo Williams, Shaq, Big Z, West, Jamison... he was surrounded by quality talent. Had he, you know, actually tried in the Boston series, chances are Cleveland would have been in the Finals.

[LA_Showtime]

Shaq, go back and look at Odom's numbers in the playoffs. I originally thought it was all-star worthy, but looking back he played no better than a typical third option guy.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah, Kobe's '09 and '10 teams are overrated to some extent, especially with Bynum injured. The '09 team had Kobe, Pau and then Odom and Ariza, who in fairness were unusually hot which made them a better 3 point shooter than usual. Those 2 did play arguably the best ball of their careers(Ariza certainly did), but they really didn't have anything outside of those 4. Though I don't want to undervalue Odom's versatility, but they still weren't all-stars.

The '10 team had a bit more with Kobe playing like himself after getting his knee drained, Bynum able to contribute something unlike '09(though he was still really limited), Pau playing the best ball of his career, Artest contributing here and there(but at no more than role player level) and Odom, but a weak 3 point shooting team without much of a bench excluding Odom who was still close to a starter, though not as much as '09.

They were good casts, and you need that to win titles, but not some incredible luxury that Kobe haters make it out to be. And the fact that he won with them and had incredible playoff runs is the thing worth pointing out, much fewer players have proved capable of that.



Your point is valid, amazingly some don't make this connection when listing names on a roster(though I think it's a case of some playing dumb to support an agenda in those cases), but in the case of Rodman, regardless of when he last made an all-star team, I think his impact was right there during the '96 run. He was great, especially after the first round raising his game in each series. So that isn't one of those cases of a washed up former all-stars not playing at an all-star caliber level, imo.

Either way, I'm not sure how many times the Bulls actually had the most talented team in the league, but no more than 2 times, and definitely not during the first 3peat.



Really? So what do you call averaging 29-30 ppg in back to back title runs while being the primary faciltator and focus of opposing defenses? Just sitting back and enjoying the ride? :facepalm

If Kobe didn't carry those teams, then the term carry really shouldn't be applied to a player leading a team to a title.



Eh, all championship teams are different. You're more convinced of a pattern than I am. Winning a title is such a difficult thing to do, it requires some luck. In reality, there's a few teams each year who have a legitimate shot, and they're usually built very differently.

We don't have to go back far to see a balanced team without a superstar winning a title, it happened in '04 and that same team damn near repeated. And even the Bad Boy Pistons were pretty similar in that they didn't have a star or 2 carrying them, they also won with defense and by going to whoever was hot that night.

And then there are teams that came ridiculously close. Look at the 2010 Celtics, they lose in game 7 of the finals with Perkins injured. Now by that point, despite the big 3, none of the Celtics were more than top 15-20 players, and in a situation like that, I consider those teams evenly matched.

Then you have the 2000 Blazers blowing a 15 point 4th quarter lead in game 7. That simply came down to Portland panicking and not playing their game, but if they play a decent quarter, they're headed to the finals as a clear favorite, and once again, that team also didn't really have a superstar.

The Sonics were also great in general even before Payton and Kemp hit their peaks, and before Payton became a superstar. And if not for a weird upset in '94, who knows what happens? We saw how much that alters things again in '07.

Situations like this are so close that it's a case of someone having to win. And back to the Bad Boys, while I rarely get into this sort of thing, they probably should've won the '88 title which came before they won back to back, and they certainly didn't have prime Magic, nor did they have prime Bird or Jordan who was approaching his prime, both of whom they beat to get to the '88 finals. And they'd beat Jordan the next 2 years when he got better each year.

You have some 2 star teams, some big 3s, some teams with 1 star and various role players, some teams with balance instead of a superstar. All have proven successful at various times.

Looking at trends, it seems that the trend in the 70's was more balance, team play and defense instead of a star carrying them. Take the '70 and '73 Knicks, '76 Celtics, '78 Bullets, '79 Sonics, which isn't to say that these teams didn't have great players, just as the Bad Boy Pistons did and even the '04 Pistons did, but they won with a more balanced attack and none of the teams specified had a Jordan, Kobe, Kareem, Shaq, Bird, Hakeem ect.



Well, Horry was a consistently solid role player. Solid passer, especially entry passer, high IQ, pretty good rebounder, good team defender.

Though on the other hand, I never completely bought the big shots theory, 1 shot at a big moment isn't necessarily more valuable than a more productive player over the other 47 minutes.

The thing with Horry is, I do think he fit well into a championship team for the reasons stated above, but on the otherhand, I also got the impression that he got sort of lazy after Houston and declined at a surprisingly young age as he was never the same player after he bulked up to play PF in '98. He looked like he could have all-star potential in Houston.

I will say that his big shots were so frequent over such a long stretch that it was flat out strange because he rarely scored at any other times(at least with LA and San Antonio) and shot a low percentage in general as well.

His '02 run was really solid, though, and not just for the big shots.

Fisher on the otherhand, well, some of that his reputation since the 3peat mixed in. He hit some timely shots during the '01 run, but his contribution during that run was more that he was red hot, gave them some much needed shooting and played solid defense back then.

But in general, if you look at Fisher's 2000 run, he was a non-factor in the playoffs and the 4th guard behind Kobe, Harper and Shaw. And then you had '02 when he shot an embarrassing 36% from the field, and even worse in the 2 most competitive series, while giving up a lot to opposing point guards. I'll forgive Kidd dominating him, but Parker also showed more potential in some of those LA games than he did for most, if not all of his rookie season, and then Mike Bibby had the series of his life, and was elevated to stardom overnight, despite never reaching those heights before or since.

Fisher is really one of the most overrated role players I've seen. When he was young, he could defend well, and he understood the triangle as far as where to be, but that came with horrible shot selection and a low shooting percentage as a result as well as a complete lack of point guard skills. And to top it off, most of his biggest playoff shots came later when he was a worse player than he was during the 3peat.

I really can't praise him as much of a contributor outside of the '01 run when he was great.



Nah, they clearly had some weaknesses, I hear people questioning whether OKC can win with "just" 3 scorers, and while their duo doesn't compare to Shaq/Kobe, they actually use up a pretty comparable amount of shots, and a third scorer has fit in just fine, and Shaq and Kobe both have a bigger impact on their teammates than Durant and Westbrook, imo.

The 2000 team was the most flawed, though you didn't mention that team in fairness. The '01 team did fit perfectly into place, part of that was that they matched up well with their Western Conference opponents with Grant to guard Sheed, Webber and Duncan and Fisher shooting unusually well.

The '02 team was better than 2000, but came down to earth from '01.



Uh, Portland had the highest payroll in '00, were the preseason favorites, some were wondering about 70 wins and they were viewed as a super team with everyone considering them the most talented team. Why shouldn't the '00 Lakers have had trouble with them when they had some clear weaknesses that Portland proved perfectly equipped to exploit? That match up was billed like a heavyweight fight.

And the '02 Kings? Webber himself was arguably a top 5 player, I'd have him top 6 and the team had quite a bit more depth and talent than LA with Bibby(who played like a star vs LA), Peja(though he was injured), Vlade, Christie, Hedo and Bobby Jackson. They had a ton of threats and were clearly the most talented team in the league, and they had a great coach.

You just listed off a bunch of teams that came close to winning...but never did. Could it be that not having the star power was the reason they lost.

Of course there are exceptions. I've never stated its 100% of the time. But if you go back and look at NBA history. Very rarely do teams like the 03 Spurs, 94 Rockets, and 11 Mavs win. You listed the 04 Pistons...but they weren't built around a star player....so its a totally different animal. We were discussing teams clearly built around 1 star.

You and I will never agree on the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. Of course they had weaknesses. Every single team does. No team is perfect. But we've debated that before and there is no use going through it again. We just disagree.

If you look at the teams the 09 and 10 Lakers had to beat to win it all, I think it was pretty clear the Lakers had the best team. Some of it was luck..sure. Some of it is just reality. The level of competition now is clearly and definitively better last year now than it was in either of those years.

Doesn't mean it was easy. Never said it was. But the Lakers got some of that "luck" you talk about because they never really faced an elite team imo until the 2010 Celtics.

[AlphaWolf24]

The Thunder last year were easily better than 10...and this year the Thunder are easily better than 11.

I didn't say it was an "easy" title or anything. I simply said the league has far more teams capable of winning it all right now and last year than in 09 and 10.

And its not just that. Some of the best players in the league are now on contending teams. Durant, Lebron, Wade, and Rose all play on elite teams now.

Paul is on a very good team. A healthy Grizzlies team of 2012 might be better than any team the Lakers beat in 09. The league has changed. More teams capable of winning and the best players have more help now.

Flip it around. Imagine if Kobe leads the Lakers to a title this year. It will be hugely impressive. Far more impressive than leading them in 09 or 10 because he's going to have to go through better teams with a worse team of his own and a far worse coach. If Kobe wins the title this year and plays well in doing so....its going to be a historic accomplishment. Imagine going through the Rockets, Spurs, Thunder, and Heat. It would be unreal.

Are you telling me that the above road isn't harder than 09 or 10? Really? Please tell me you aren't so far gone that you really can't even concede that.


so Lebron playing on a 65 win team with multiple allstars isn't a great team???

Durant has had a great team since 10'....the Spurs have been a Legendary team since 2000...Rose had been on a great team for the past few years and I guarantee he aint winning a championship...


even if the Lakers win a championship this year....they still would most likely have to beat the OKC (just as in 2010)...then if they beat the Bull's or Heat you would still be here saying Kobe's team was just more stacked then any team ever....he won because he had a 7' center who can make hook shots...

no other team has a 7' who knows how to make hookshots:lol

[DMAVS41]

so Lebron playing on a 65 win team with multiple allstars isn't a great team???

Durant has had a great team since 10'....the Spurs have been a Legendary team since 2000...Rose had been on a great team for the past few years and I guarantee he aint winning a championship...


even if the Lakers win a championship this year....they still would most likely have to beat the OKC (just as in 2010)...then if they beat the Bull's or Heat you would still be here saying Kobe's team was just more stacked then any team ever....he won because he had a 7' center who can make hook shots...

no other team has a 7' who knows how to make hookshots:lol

Just answer the question.

Is the competition level (in terms of winning the title) better or worse now than it was in 09 and 10?

And how on earth can you state the bold after the post of mine you quoted...the one where I say Kobe leading the Lakers to a title this year against this competition would be amazing.

ROFL...agenda much

[LA_Showtime]

A few people in this thread would do well to follow this quote.


Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.

[AlphaWolf24]

Just answer the question.

Is the competition level (in terms of winning the title) better or worse now than it was in 09 and 10?

2010 was slightly better IMO..

OKC was great , Utah was so much better, San Antonio, Dallas, Wade on his own team....Lebron on his own 60+ win team, Boston , Orlando was better, Chicago was the same...


this year the east has 1 great team.

[DMAVS41]

2010 was slightly better IMO..

OKC was great , Utah was so much better, San Antonio, Dallas, Wade on his own team....Lebron on his own 60+ win team, Boston , Orlando was better, Chicago was the same...


this year the east has 1 great team.

Fair enough. I could not disagree more. No point in debating it when we are so far off.

OKC is clearly far better
Spurs definitely better
Hell, the Grizzlies this year were probably better than the 10 Suns

The 10 Celtics were great, but I think both the Heat and Bulls are just as good..if not better. Especially without Perkins.

Too far apart though. I don't see where you are coming from at all, but its your opinion. Fair enough.

[ShaqAttack3234]

People shouldn't overlook Cleveland either. LeBron was a one-man wrecking crew but he didn't play with a bunch of scrubs. Mo Williams, Shaq, Big Z, West, Jamison... he was surrounded by quality talent. Had he, you know, actually tried in the Boston series, chances are Cleveland would have been in the Finals.

Yeah, while I don't think you look at those teams and expect 60+ wins(I know I didn't), the '09 team in particular was built well with great chemistry and built to complement Lebron as they were a top two 3 point shooting team(39.3%) and they maintained that on a ton of attempts, plus they were a top 3 defensive team and a very good rebounding team(outrebounded opponents by 3.3)

I'll be the first to point out the flaws they did have and what a feat it was for Lebron to make them a historic regular season team and sweep the first 2 rounds with ease, you can't disregard shooting, defense and rebounding at an elite level plus the chemistry. It did demand a lot of Lebron, though to his credit, he appeared up to the task in the '09 playoffs

The '10 team didn't have as good chemistry and took a step back defensively with the Jamison trade, plus the Shaq trade didn't make much of an impact either way as their winning percentage was about even with and without him. Though it was clear that move was made for an anticipated Orlando match up, and it probably would've worked, but the problem was they didn't get to face Orlando. The team also often looked better with Big Z who had more chemistry and fit perfectly with his pick and pop ability alongside Lebron.

But their 3 point shooting remained as they were 2nd again at 38.1%, they had more offensive talent overall and increased their rebounding differential at 3.9 rpg.

Lebron's pre-'09 Cavs were obviously much worse, but the whole '07 team is never put into context, particularly their own defense and rebounding, competition as well as Lebron's actual performances outside of game 5 vs Detroit.

Scrub has to be the most overused word on this board.


Shaq, go back and look at Odom's numbers in the playoffs. I originally thought it was all-star worthy, but looking back he played no better than a typical third option guy.

Yeah, the numbers don't stand out. 12/9, 1.3 bpg on 52 FG% and 51 3P% for the '09 run, but I do think his impact was superior to that, particularly with his comfort level as a 3rd option and the mismatches he causes.

'10 numbers were down at 10/9 on 47 FG%.

In general, I do think Lamar has played borderline all-star caliber ball a number of times, and the '09 playiffs is one of them, consistency is just the question. Quite a few thought he was deserving in '04 with Miami, after an inconsistent first half in '06, he played like one in the second half/playoffs, appeared well on his way prior to his injury in '07, started playing like that again when he became the 3rd option after the Gasol trade in '08 and he wasn't far during the '11 season when he had his most consistent season.

But the inconsistency in general is why he's suited to a 3rd option role at best, despite everyone knowing he had star ability from the year he entered the league.


You just listed off a bunch of teams that came close to winning...but never did. Could it be that not having the star power was the reason they lost.

In the case of some of my examples, no. '88 Pistons had that horrible call that prevented them, and like I said, I rarely mention things like this, but that team needs no defense as they won 2 more. Same with '04 Pistons, I just mentioned that they almost repeated to show how good that team was.

'00 Blazers? No, if they get to game 7 with a 15 point lead, they're more than good enough to not lose by 15 for the final 12 minutes. That was just a completely mental meltdown, a few suspect calls combined with the Lakers playing near perfect basketball.

'10 Celtics? No, similar to '00 Blazers in that they were right there, except without the same choke job, and somewhat of an injury excuse.

Those 2 series in particular were just 2 close for that argument to apply.


Of course there are exceptions. I've never stated its 100% of the time. But if you go back and look at NBA history. Very rarely do teams like the 03 Spurs, 94 Rockets, and 11 Mavs win. You listed the 04 Pistons...but they weren't built around a star player....so its a totally different animal. We were discussing teams clearly built around 1 star.

I was merely talking about teams that didn't fit the superstar, star sidekick ect. criteria. I'll also add Rick Barry's '75 Warriors.


You and I will never agree on the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. Of course they had weaknesses. Every single team does. No team is perfect. But we've debated that before and there is no use going through it again. We just disagree.

I'm just objecting to the statement that they had "exactly what you'd want", though I'll say again that the '01 Lakers played like the perfect cast. If my memory is correct, we're not far apart on the '00 team.


If you look at the teams the 09 and 10 Lakers had to beat to win it all, I think it was pretty clear the Lakers had the best team. Some of it was luck..sure. Some of it is just reality. The level of competition now is clearly and definitively better last year now than it was in either of those years.

Well, I won't deny that Boston losing KG after looking like the same dominant '08 team(except with more offense) prior to the injury is huge, same with Houston losing Yao and taking LA to 7.

But while LA were the clear favorites in the WCF and Finals, the '09 Nuggets and '09 Magic had just as much, if not more talent.

No need to go into the '10 Celtics, but another team who had more overall talent and balance than the Lakers, imo, particularly with Rondo's emergence.

[DetroitPistonFan]

Pau Gasol is first ballot HoF. It's Basketball HoF. Not just NBA HoF.
You must've smoked some good crack.

[AlphaWolf24]

Fair enough. I could not disagree more. No point in debating it when we are so far off.

OKC is clearly far better
Spurs definitely better
Hell, the Grizzlies this year were probably better than the 10 Suns

The 10 Celtics were great, but I think both the Heat and Bulls are just as good..if not better. Especially without Perkins.

Too far apart though. I don't see where you are coming from at all, but its your opinion. Fair enough.


jeez ...did anyone think the Mavs last year were "so much better?"...no....hardly anyone thought they were good enough to beat OKC , LA and Miami..


I don't think the Spurs are so much better then 10'..maybe more fresh....

2010 was a much more balanced league with many teams capable of winning..

many experts picked Cleveland with all the talent they had to beat Boston...

we get it....you dislike the Lakers and Kobe...you and your brothers have 1 laptop and the timeshare and switching accounts make's you cranky..


deal wit it..

[DMAVS41]

jeez ...did anyone think the Mavs last year were "so much better?"...no....hardly anyone thought they were good enough to beat OKC , LA and Miami..


I don't think the Spurs are so much better then 10'..maybe more fresh....

2010 was a much more balanced league with many teams capable of winning..

many experts picked Cleveland with all the talent they had to beat Boston...

we get it....you dislike the Lakers and Kobe...you and your brothers have 1 laptop and the timeshare and switching accounts make's you cranky..


deal wit it..

if you can't admit that the Heat are better than the Cavs...or that the Thunder this year are better than the 10 Thunder.....

then you are either a complete moron or you are full of shit. either one works.

:wtf:

[DMAVS41]

Yeah, while I don't think you look at those teams and expect 60+ wins(I know I didn't), the '09 team in particular was built well with great chemistry and built to complement Lebron as they were a top two 3 point shooting team(39.3%) and they maintained that on a ton of attempts, plus they were a top 3 defensive team and a very good rebounding team(outrebounded opponents by 3.3)

I'll be the first to point out the flaws they did have and what a feat it was for Lebron to make them a historic regular season team and sweep the first 2 rounds with ease, you can't disregard shooting, defense and rebounding at an elite level plus the chemistry. It did demand a lot of Lebron, though to his credit, he appeared up to the task in the '09 playoffs

The '10 team didn't have as good chemistry and took a step back defensively with the Jamison trade, plus the Shaq trade didn't make much of an impact either way as their winning percentage was about even with and without him. Though it was clear that move was made for an anticipated Orlando match up, and it probably would've worked, but the problem was they didn't get to face Orlando. The team also often looked better with Big Z who had more chemistry and fit perfectly with his pick and pop ability alongside Lebron.

But their 3 point shooting remained as they were 2nd again at 38.1%, they had more offensive talent overall and increased their rebounding differential at 3.9 rpg.

Lebron's pre-'09 Cavs were obviously much worse, but the whole '07 team is never put into context, particularly their own defense and rebounding, competition as well as Lebron's actual performances outside of game 5 vs Detroit.

Scrub has to be the most overused word on this board.



Yeah, the numbers don't stand out. 12/9, 1.3 bpg on 52 FG% and 51 3P% for the '09 run, but I do think his impact was superior to that, particularly with his comfort level as a 3rd option and the mismatches he causes.

'10 numbers were down at 10/9 on 47 FG%.

In general, I do think Lamar has played borderline all-star caliber ball a number of times, and the '09 playiffs is one of them, consistency is just the question. Quite a few thought he was deserving in '04 with Miami, after an inconsistent first half in '06, he played like one in the second half/playoffs, appeared well on his way prior to his injury in '07, started playing like that again when he became the 3rd option after the Gasol trade in '08 and he wasn't far during the '11 season when he had his most consistent season.

But the inconsistency in general is why he's suited to a 3rd option role at best, despite everyone knowing he had star ability from the year he entered the league.



In the case of some of my examples, no. '88 Pistons had that horrible call that prevented them, and like I said, I rarely mention things like this, but that team needs no defense as they won 2 more. Same with '04 Pistons, I just mentioned that they almost repeated to show how good that team was.

'00 Blazers? No, if they get to game 7 with a 15 point lead, they're more than good enough to not lose by 15 for the final 12 minutes. That was just a completely mental meltdown, a few suspect calls combined with the Lakers playing near perfect basketball.

'10 Celtics? No, similar to '00 Blazers in that they were right there, except without the same choke job, and somewhat of an injury excuse.

Those 2 series in particular were just 2 close for that argument to apply.



I was merely talking about teams that didn't fit the superstar, star sidekick ect. criteria. I'll also add Rick Barry's '75 Warriors.



I'm just objecting to the statement that they had "exactly what you'd want", though I'll say again that the '01 Lakers played like the perfect cast. If my memory is correct, we're not far apart on the '00 team.



Well, I won't deny that Boston losing KG after looking like the same dominant '08 team(except with more offense) prior to the injury is huge, same with Houston losing Yao and taking LA to 7.

But while LA were the clear favorites in the WCF and Finals, the '09 Nuggets and '09 Magic had just as much, if not more talent.

No need to go into the '10 Celtics, but another team who had more overall talent and balance than the Lakers, imo, particularly with Rondo's emergence.

And again. Far more teams with stars have won titles. Its just a fact. You can come up with excuses and reasons why other teams have failed, but they didn't come through. What those reasons are can be debated endlessly. The fact remains that teams built around two elite players or even just a superstar and another all nba type player have won a lot more than other so called more balanced teams. Just a fact.

And about 09...you make my point for me. You put a true superstar on some of those teams....then they are dangerous. But Melo and Howard just aren't that in 09. Imagine Howard in 11 on that Magic team. Far far far better.

Its just really hard to win if you don't have that consistent all nba type 2nd guy coming through night in night out.

The competition is clearly much better last year and now than it was in 09/10. I'm shocked people are even debating this. I'd take the current Grizzlies and probably the Grizzlies of last year over the Suns in 10. The Bulls and Heat are clearly better than the 09 Magic. Not even close.

The only true team that holds up is the 10 celtics...and like you said, they lose a key player in game 6 of the series.

[AlphaWolf24]

if you can't admit that the Heat are better than the Cavs...or that the Thunder this year are better than the 10 Thunder.....

then you are either a complete moron or you are full of shit. either one works.

:wtf:


Heat are far more stacked...but a better team?...I thought the 09' Cavs would win the championship (as did most people/experts)..I think the 12' Heat will lose in the 2nd round....so yeah I think the Cavs were better...

the 10' Thunder are better...but the 10' Celtics were better and actually won a Title 2 years prior.

you an your brothers really need to get 2 more Laptops...all you on at 1 time = good times..:lol

[DMAVS41]

Heat are far more stacked...but a better team?...I thought the 09' Cavs would win the championship (as did most people/experts)..I think the 12' Heat will lose in the 2nd round....so yeah I think the Cavs were better...

the 10' Thunder are better...but the 10' Celtics were better and actually won a Title 2 years prior.

you an your brothers really need to get 2 more Laptops...all you on at 1 time = good times..:lol

I guess I just know the game better than you. I predicted the Magic upset in 09 and the Celtics beating the Cavs in 10.

This is my exact point...the Cavs were simply nowhere near as good as the Heat when it comes to competing for titles. Not even remotely close. Which is once again why single star teams rarely win titles.

But I guess all the evidence in the world will never convince you of that.

[AlphaWolf24]

I guess I just know the game better than you. I predicted the Magic upset in 09 and the Celtics beating the Cavs in 10.

This is my exact point...the Cavs were simply nowhere near as good as the Heat when it comes to competing for titles. Not even remotely close. Which is once again why single star teams rarely win titles.

But I guess all the evidence in the world will never convince you of that.


sure you did:rolleyes: .....

single star teams?....Lebron had multiple stars on his 60+ win Cavs teams...wtf? are you talking about?

and if the Heat lose in the first or 2nd round this year...how is that better at competing for titles???


any predictions this year about the Heat Nostradamus??

[ShaqAttack3234]

And again. Far more teams with stars have won titles. Its just a fact. You can come up with excuses and reasons why other teams have failed, but they didn't come through. What those reasons are can be debated endlessly. The fact remains that teams built around two elite players or even just a superstar and another all nba type player have won a lot more than other so called more balanced teams. Just a fact.

I'm not disputing that they have won more often, I don't have a set preference myself, I just judge the particular team. I understand your preference, you've explained why you prefer those teams, and I'm not saying I prefer more balanced teams, just that they can win as well.

But it's clear that both teams had all of the ability on the roster to win. Both series were ridiculously close, and Portland in particular lost in one of the most unlikely ways imaginable, even inferior teams to Portland won't blow a 15 point 4th quarter lead most times.

That's all I'm saying, both teams proved they more than capable, and there was a high probability of either winning. Miami is another team, we both know damn well that they were highly capable last year, and a big part of how they lost was certainly improbable.

I said the same thing about Dirk before he won. Being so close '06 was proof he was capable, he just didn't do it until last year, but I thought it was ridiculous to ask if he was capable.


And about 09...you make my point for me. You put a true superstar on some of those teams....then they are dangerous. But Melo and Howard just aren't that in 09. Imagine Howard in 11 on that Magic team. Far far far better.

Yes they were, particularly Howard who was a top 4 player, imo, though I'll acknowledge that Paul and Dirk have good cases over him, but top 6 at worst.

He wasn't nearly as fluid as '11, or even this year excluding the FT shooting, but out of all the pre-'11 years, that was the year he made his more limited arsenal work the best. He was a very effective offensive player, just not great, but that combined with being the game's best defensive player and rebounder is a clear superstar.

I can't see any case for a guy who during the regular season puts up 21/14/3, 57 FG% while leading the team to 59 wins, winning DPOY, leading the league in blocks and rebounds and finishing 4th in MVP voting only to follow that up with 20/15/3, 60 FG% on a playoff run to the finals isn't a superstar.

Melo was also a superstar, imo, certainly a guy who could carry you offensively, and he did quite a bit in that postseason run. Top 10 player, imo. And he averaged 27/6/4/45 FG%/56 TS% during the postseason and Billups(who like Melo, was all-nba thta year) averaged 21/4/7/46 FG%/66 TS% so they did have a strong 1-2 punch.

I don't see how that proves your point. If anything, Orlando's inexperience was a key, LA was experienced themselves, matched up well and was a better team with a more reliable half court offense and a better inside/outside attack.

Not entirely unlike the LA/Denver series, but that was of course won in large part due to one of Kobe's great series, but also LA again having such a great offensive system, superior length and a much more potent inside/outside attack.

So LA didn't win because their opponents didn't have superstars since both did(though I can see why some would call '09 Melo borderline) as well as an all-star caliber player or 2 alongside them and role players.


Its just really hard to win if you don't have that consistent all nba type 2nd guy coming through night in night out.

Well, it's tough to win if you don't have guys to go with. Boston actually had far less options than '00 Portland, though they had Pierce who could still(and still can in 2012) get a good shot when he wants. Allen was also still a deadly shooter, Rondo's penetration always made him an ability though the suspect jumper made him questionable as a scorer, and you could still go to KG at times, particularly when he had the dominant advantage vs Jamison.

Their go to guy was Sheed who was a legitimate scorer back then when he was athletic, focused on his devastating post game and rarely took 3s, but regularly hit mid-range shots. He averaged 23 on 50% in the '00 WCF.

Steve Smith was also a very reliable scorer, Damon Stoudamire was a talented scoring point guard who was averaging 20 when he played on bad teams, Pippen could still score and Sabonis could stretch the defense, score inside or have the offense run through him.

Hell, you could even go to Bonzi Wells who was one of the better post up guards and most explosive bench scorers. Even Brian Grant(playing limited minutes on the bench) averaged 15/9 when he got a chance to start on the '01 Heat, and he was just their 7th or 8th best scorer.

They were actually quite similar to Mike Dunleavy's '91 Lakers in approach as they posted up a lot to exploit whatever the mismatch was which is why having multiple players who can post up itself is a big luxury.

And having 5 threats in your starting lineup is rare when it doesn't take away from your defense, as they were top 5 defensively as well and looked even better in the playoffs limiting every star they faced in the playoffs includng KG, Karl Malone, Shaq and Kobe as well as John Stockton(aging, but a top 6 PG). The only star they didn't limit was Terrell Brandon, who wasn't a legit star, but an all-star caliber player that season.

Not surprisingly, they were a better offensive team(top 3 in '00) than the 2010 Celtics, though who was the better team would be a very good debate. Definitely 2 of the better non-championship teams in the last 10-15 years.

But I think both approaches work, chances are, you're in good shape when you have a lot of gifted scorers to choose from, but also in good shape when you have 1 or 2 of the game's absolute premier scorers.

You can come up with arguments against both approaches, such as some prefer knowing who the guy is going to be, while others have a problem with so much of the offense revolving around 1 or 2 guys.


The only true team that holds up is the 10 celtics...and like you said, they lose a key player in game 6 of the series.

Portland clearly does as well. 12 minutes away with a 15+ point lead. Just like the Celtics, they proved capable, but didn't quite get the job done.

Portland lost because they choked, Boston lost because of a flaw on their roster(rebounding), not because of a lack of a true elite player, and who knows if they lose with Perkins?

[DMAVS41]

I'm not disputing that they have won more often, I don't have a set preference myself, I just judge the particular team. I understand your preference, you've explained why you prefer those teams, and I'm not saying I prefer more balanced teams, just that they can win as well.

But it's clear that both teams had all of the ability on the roster to win. Both series were ridiculously close, and Portland in particular lost in one of the most unlikely ways imaginable, even inferior teams to Portland won't blow a 15 point 4th quarter lead most times.

That's all I'm saying, both teams proved they more than capable, and there was a high probability of either winning. Miami is another team, we both know damn well that they were highly capable last year, and a big part of how they lost was certainly improbable.

I said the same thing about Dirk before he won. Being so close '06 was proof he was capable, he just didn't do it until last year, but I thought it was ridiculous to ask if he was capable.



Yes they were, particularly Howard who was a top 4 player, imo, though I'll acknowledge that Paul and Dirk have good cases over him, but top 6 at worst.

He wasn't nearly as fluid as '11, or even this year excluding the FT shooting, but out of all the pre-'11 years, that was the year he made his more limited arsenal work the best. He was a very effective offensive player, just not great, but that combined with being the game's best defensive player and rebounder is a clear superstar.

I can't see any case for a guy who during the regular season puts up 21/14/3, 57 FG% while leading the team to 59 wins, winning DPOY, leading the league in blocks and rebounds and finishing 4th in MVP voting only to follow that up with 20/15/3, 60 FG% on a playoff run to the finals isn't a superstar.

Melo was also a superstar, imo, certainly a guy who could carry you offensively, and he did quite a bit in that postseason run. Top 10 player, imo. And he averaged 27/6/4/45 FG%/56 TS% during the postseason and Billups(who like Melo, was all-nba thta year) averaged 21/4/7/46 FG%/66 TS% so they did have a strong 1-2 punch.

I don't see how that proves your point. If anything, Orlando's inexperience was a key, LA was experienced themselves, matched up well and was a better team with a more reliable half court offense and a better inside/outside attack.

Not entirely unlike the LA/Denver series, but that was of course won in large part due to one of Kobe's great series, but also LA again having such a great offensive system, superior length and a much more potent inside/outside attack.

So LA didn't win because their opponents didn't have superstars since both did(though I can see why some would call '09 Melo borderline) as well as an all-star caliber player or 2 alongside them and role players.



Well, it's tough to win if you don't have guys to go with. Boston actually had far less options than '00 Portland, though they had Pierce who could still(and still can in 2012) get a good shot when he wants. Allen was also still a deadly shooter, Rondo's penetration always made him an ability though the suspect jumper made him questionable as a scorer, and you could still go to KG at times, particularly when he had the dominant advantage vs Jamison.

Their go to guy was Sheed who was a legitimate scorer back then when he was athletic, focused on his devastating post game and rarely took 3s, but regularly hit mid-range shots. He averaged 23 on 50% in the '00 WCF.

Steve Smith was also a very reliable scorer, Damon Stoudamire was a talented scoring point guard who was averaging 20 when he played on bad teams, Pippen could still score and Sabonis could stretch the defense, score inside or have the offense run through him.

Hell, you could even go to Bonzi Wells who was one of the better post up guards and most explosive bench scorers. Even Brian Grant(playing limited minutes on the bench) averaged 15/9 when he got a chance to start on the '01 Heat, and he was just their 7th or 8th best scorer.

They were actually quite similar to Mike Dunleavy's '91 Lakers in approach as they posted up a lot to exploit whatever the mismatch was which is why having multiple players who can post up itself is a big luxury.

And having 5 threats in your starting lineup is rare when it doesn't take away from your defense, as they were top 5 defensively as well and looked even better in the playoffs limiting every star they faced in the playoffs includng KG, Karl Malone, Shaq and Kobe as well as John Stockton(aging, but a top 6 PG). The only star they didn't limit was Terrell Brandon, who wasn't a legit star, but an all-star caliber player that season.

Not surprisingly, they were a better offensive team(top 3 in '00) than the 2010 Celtics, though who was the better team would be a very good debate. Definitely 2 of the better non-championship teams in the last 10-15 years.

But I think both approaches work, chances are, you're in good shape when you have a lot of gifted scorers to choose from, but also in good shape when you have 1 or 2 of the game's absolute premier scorers.

You can come up with arguments against both approaches, such as some prefer knowing who the guy is going to be, while others have a problem with so much of the offense revolving around 1 or 2 guys.



Portland clearly does as well. 12 minutes away with a 15+ point lead. Just like the Celtics, they proved capable, but didn't quite get the job done.

Portland lost because they choked, Boston lost because of a flaw on their roster(rebounding), not because of a lack of a true elite player, and who knows if they lose with Perkins?

I think you are confused as to my point. I'm talking about 09 and 10. Not any of the other years at all.

I think if you put 11 Howard on the 09 Magic then they have a far better shot at beating the Lakers. But again, its a 1 superstar team...and those rarely win.

Melo is a star player. I just don't think he's capable of being the best player on a title winning team.

I'm talking legit championship caliber first option players. I wouldn't include Melo on that list. Although like you said...he's borderline.

The line between winning and losing a game or a series can be extremely slim. Its so fragile. 1 player here and 1 play there can change an entire series.

Of course you can win both ways. I never said you couldn't. But the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of teams with 2 or more all nba type players. And its simple. Its because its far easier to get role players to step up when you have two consistent performers night in night out than it is to get role players to step up when you only have 1.

As for Dirk, of course he's been capable of leading a team to a title most of his career. I don't know how anyone can really dispute that since the 03 playoffs. That is kind of my point. If Dirk ever had that consistent number 2 guy post 03...a guy like Paul Pierce. Someone really good, but not the best player in the league or anything...the results would just have been different. And that is often the difference between winning and losing. 1 player. Do the Mavs still lose in 06 with Pierce instead of Howard/Terry? Maybe, but I doubt it.

The Mavs have really never been favored to win the title because of the lack of star power. Even the 67 win team in 07 was basically even with the Spurs/Suns to win the title odds wise. Why? Because you look at the roster and you see a noticeable lack of consistent performers. If the 07 Mavs had Pierce and Dirk and won 67....they would have been huge favorites to win the title. Because in the playoffs...in those moments/games that are make or break...you want proven players like Pierce....not Terry and Howard.

Doesn't mean you can't win other ways...its just a lot harder...and it almost always seems work out in some way that leads to the team with two or more reliable players beating the team built around 1 or 0.

[D-Wade316]

2010 > 2009

[Carbine]

He had arguably the most talented cast in the league for a superstar to lead at the time.

[Bigsmoke]

Bynum= great center but got hurt before the playoffs
Gasol= Made the All NBA team
Ariza= coexit with Kobe perfectly and stepped up in the playoffs
Kobe = Kobe
Fisher= was aging but still effective out on the court.

Lamar Odom, Jordan Farmar, and Vujacic were all solid players coming off the bench.

[amfirst]

I don't know about stacked. I would say good. I mean Gasol was good enough, but not stacked. Bynum didn't count because he didn't do much and was young. Odom is a ok player, not close to a allstar see Dallas. Everyone else sucks and are below avg players for there position, so no they were not stacked but had a good core.

[caliman]

Bynum= great center but got hurt before the playoffs
Gasol= Made the All NBA team
Ariza= coexit with Kobe perfectly and stepped up in the playoffs
Kobe = Kobe
Fisher= was aging but still effective out on the court.

Lamar Odom, Jordan Farmar, and Vujacic were all solid players coming off the bench.


Seriously?

Bynum was never great, he had a great month before he went down in 09.

Agree on Gasol.

Ariza didn't do much until he found a shooting stroke for the final 2 rounds of the playoffs. It was great to see him step him, but he was far more hit and miss than people remember. They remember him against Denver and Orlando and think he was like that all season. He wasn't. Like Bynum, he had a great month.

Agree on Kobe.

Fisher was in the bottom 3rd of PG's even back then. He hit a few timely shots in both title runs and people overate the hell out of him.

The bench outside of Odom was trash. What did Farmar contribute over the 2 years? Sasha made 2 free throws to clinch the title and what else?

The Lakers were not "stacked", but they had pieces that fit well together and that made them champions.

[BlueandGold]

Yeah, Kobe's '09 and '10 teams are overrated to some extent, especially with Bynum injured. The '09 team had Kobe, Pau and then Odom and Ariza, who in fairness were unusually hot which made them a better 3 point shooter than usual. Those 2 did play arguably the best ball of their careers(Ariza certainly did), but they really didn't have anything outside of those 4. Though I don't want to undervalue Odom's versatility, but they still weren't all-stars.

The '10 team had a bit more with Kobe playing like himself after getting his knee drained, Bynum able to contribute something unlike '09(though he was still really limited), Pau playing the best ball of his career, Artest contributing here and there(but at no more than role player level) and Odom, but a weak 3 point shooting team without much of a bench excluding Odom who was still close to a starter, though not as much as '09.

They were good casts, and you need that to win titles, but not some incredible luxury that Kobe haters make it out to be. And the fact that he won with them and had incredible playoff runs is the thing worth pointing out, much fewer players have proved capable of that.



Your point is valid, amazingly some don't make this connection when listing names on a roster(though I think it's a case of some playing dumb to support an agenda in those cases), but in the case of Rodman, regardless of when he last made an all-star team, I think his impact was right there during the '96 run. He was great, especially after the first round raising his game in each series. So that isn't one of those cases of a washed up former all-stars not playing at an all-star caliber level, imo.

Either way, I'm not sure how many times the Bulls actually had the most talented team in the league, but no more than 2 times, and definitely not during the first 3peat.



Really? So what do you call averaging 29-30 ppg in back to back title runs while being the primary faciltator and focus of opposing defenses? Just sitting back and enjoying the ride? :facepalm

If Kobe didn't carry those teams, then the term carry really shouldn't be applied to a player leading a team to a title.



Eh, all championship teams are different. You're more convinced of a pattern than I am. Winning a title is such a difficult thing to do, it requires some luck. In reality, there's a few teams each year who have a legitimate shot, and they're usually built very differently.

We don't have to go back far to see a balanced team without a superstar winning a title, it happened in '04 and that same team damn near repeated. And even the Bad Boy Pistons were pretty similar in that they didn't have a star or 2 carrying them, they also won with defense and by going to whoever was hot that night.

And then there are teams that came ridiculously close. Look at the 2010 Celtics, they lose in game 7 of the finals with Perkins injured. Now by that point, despite the big 3, none of the Celtics were more than top 15-20 players, and in a situation like that, I consider those teams evenly matched.

Then you have the 2000 Blazers blowing a 15 point 4th quarter lead in game 7. That simply came down to Portland panicking and not playing their game, but if they play a decent quarter, they're headed to the finals as a clear favorite, and once again, that team also didn't really have a superstar.

The Sonics were also great in general even before Payton and Kemp hit their peaks, and before Payton became a superstar. And if not for a weird upset in '94, who knows what happens? We saw how much that alters things again in '07.

Situations like this are so close that it's a case of someone having to win. And back to the Bad Boys, while I rarely get into this sort of thing, they probably should've won the '88 title which came before they won back to back, and they certainly didn't have prime Magic, nor did they have prime Bird or Jordan who was approaching his prime, both of whom they beat to get to the '88 finals. And they'd beat Jordan the next 2 years when he got better each year.

You have some 2 star teams, some big 3s, some teams with 1 star and various role players, some teams with balance instead of a superstar. All have proven successful at various times.

Looking at trends, it seems that the trend in the 70's was more balance, team play and defense instead of a star carrying them. Take the '70 and '73 Knicks, '76 Celtics, '78 Bullets, '79 Sonics, which isn't to say that these teams didn't have great players, just as the Bad Boy Pistons did and even the '04 Pistons did, but they won with a more balanced attack and none of the teams specified had a Jordan, Kobe, Kareem, Shaq, Bird, Hakeem ect.



Well, Horry was a consistently solid role player. Solid passer, especially entry passer, high IQ, pretty good rebounder, good team defender.

Though on the other hand, I never completely bought the big shots theory, 1 shot at a big moment isn't necessarily more valuable than a more productive player over the other 47 minutes.

The thing with Horry is, I do think he fit well into a championship team for the reasons stated above, but on the otherhand, I also got the impression that he got sort of lazy after Houston and declined at a surprisingly young age as he was never the same player after he bulked up to play PF in '98. He looked like he could have all-star potential in Houston.

I will say that his big shots were so frequent over such a long stretch that it was flat out strange because he rarely scored at any other times(at least with LA and San Antonio) and shot a low percentage in general as well.

His '02 run was really solid, though, and not just for the big shots.

Fisher on the otherhand, well, some of that his reputation since the 3peat mixed in. He hit some timely shots during the '01 run, but his contribution during that run was more that he was red hot, gave them some much needed shooting and played solid defense back then.

But in general, if you look at Fisher's 2000 run, he was a non-factor in the playoffs and the 4th guard behind Kobe, Harper and Shaw. And then you had '02 when he shot an embarrassing 36% from the field, and even worse in the 2 most competitive series, while giving up a lot to opposing point guards. I'll forgive Kidd dominating him, but Parker also showed more potential in some of those LA games than he did for most, if not all of his rookie season, and then Mike Bibby had the series of his life, and was elevated to stardom overnight, despite never reaching those heights before or since.



Great post, brilliant insight and the voice of reason as always. People on here know that I'm a Laker fan first and if you look up my posts during 2010 and even now many of them were very critical of Kobe "jacking up shots" or "not passing as much as he should".

What people don't understand, and I believe JVG brought this up a season or so ago, is that Kobe was walking a very fine line those years between primary scorer and primary disturber. And as much as i hate to bring up meaningless stats what I will do is bring them up in context. There is a reason why Kobe had the ball so much in his hands and why he lead his team in both points and assists for the last decade or so. It's because Kobe serves as both the primary scoring option and primary facilitating option for his team, which can be an extremely difficult line to walk at times, ask Michael Jordan.

What people also don't realize is that all of the things being said about Kobe (or at least some of the things) were also said about Jordan. That a scoring leader could never win a championship (before 91 obviously), that Jordan was a huge ball-hog (this idea was rampant and generally accepted as a partial truth), and that he hated to pass/didn't trust his teammates (until he actually got some good ones). And while i hate to compare the two players (partially because Jordan's resume is untouchable) there are a lot of striking similarities that the two players share, including their roles on their respective teams.

A lot of critics love to divert blame on the individual instead of looking at the organization/institution/system at large (not to self indulge but I did make a thread stating why I don't blame melo because of the Knicks front office disarray). People like to nitpick numbers and advanced metrics and use that solely as a way to discredit a player.

For example people see Kobe's FG%s and automatically assume that he's a ball hog or takes bad shots solely based off a statistic that has no meaning unless you explain it with context. For example I've seen some people try to compare Lebron and Kobe's FG% in order to either discredit Kobe or hype up Lebron (and please know that I'm not trying to defend or discredit either) but what they dont pay attention to are the circumstances that lead to those numbers. On the surface Lebron's FG% may seem vastly superior, maybe even so much so that anyone who religiously believes in statistics would claim that Lebron is by far the better player.

However, to anyone to knows and understands the game of basketball will tell you that the game is much more complex than a bunch of arbitrary numbers and statistics. So going back to the FG% comparison; when you dissect the meaning behind those two FG%s you begin to understand why FG% is an extremely flawed statistic. First of all FG% doesn't take into consideration the amount of times a player is double-teamed, his shot selection (which is why big men obviously shoot higher average FG%s than guards) and the context for why his shot selection is made.

[BlueandGold]

I think you are confused as to my point. I'm talking about 09 and 10. Not any of the other years at all.

I think if you put 11 Howard on the 09 Magic then they have a far better shot at beating the Lakers. But again, its a 1 superstar team...and those rarely win.

Melo is a star player. I just don't think he's capable of being the best player on a title winning team.

I'm talking legit championship caliber first option players. I wouldn't include Melo on that list. Although like you said...he's borderline.

The line between winning and losing a game or a series can be extremely slim. Its so fragile. 1 player here and 1 play there can change an entire series.

Of course you can win both ways. I never said you couldn't. But the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of teams with 2 or more all nba type players. And its simple. Its because its far easier to get role players to step up when you have two consistent performers night in night out than it is to get role players to step up when you only have 1.

As for Dirk, of course he's been capable of leading a team to a title most of his career. I don't know how anyone can really dispute that since the 03 playoffs. That is kind of my point. If Dirk ever had that consistent number 2 guy post 03...a guy like Paul Pierce. Someone really good, but not the best player in the league or anything...the results would just have been different. And that is often the difference between winning and losing. 1 player. Do the Mavs still lose in 06 with Pierce instead of Howard/Terry? Maybe, but I doubt it.

The Mavs have really never been favored to win the title because of the lack of star power. Even the 67 win team in 07 was basically even with the Spurs/Suns to win the title odds wise. Why? Because you look at the roster and you see a noticeable lack of consistent performers. If the 07 Mavs had Pierce and Dirk and won 67....they would have been huge favorites to win the title. Because in the playoffs...in those moments/games that are make or break...you want proven players like Pierce....not Terry and Howard.

Doesn't mean you can't win other ways...its just a lot harder...and it almost always seems work out in some way that leads to the team with two or more reliable players beating the team built around 1 or 0.

I think he understood your point perfectly. Your playing the what if game and totally discredited the entire NBA talent pool of 08-10, which saw the combination of three of the best players at their positions (pierce, allen, KG) on one of the best run organizations in the entire league in the celtics. Hell KG even said that he didn't know how to win until he arrived in Boston. Kobe won in 09 and 10 and got to the finals in 08 with a borderline perennial all-star in Gasol, and two players who had never been in an all-star selection in Odom and Bynum (at the time).

Let's also not forget that there were some who were arguing the the 2008 celtics to be the best celtic team of all time, which can possibly go down as having four hall of fame players on their team.

What Shaqattack is also saying (i believe) is that your trying to place too much emphasis on a "formula" or "trend" to winning championships when that certainly isn't the case, unless of course your trend is to sign 2 of the most coveted NBA free agents of all time and PF who was and still a top5 talent at his position. He gave countless examples of why your formula theory is invalid by stating numerous circumstances in which that wasn't the case.

Let's also not forget having a duo 7'footer frontcourt was not and still is not the normal trend for the structuring of a team in the NBA. Remember that a good amount of pundits back then wondered if the twin towers would work or if they would just clog up the paint and disrupt the spacing of the team. As shaqattack stated every team is built differently as well as every player.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I think you are confused as to my point. I'm talking about 09 and 10. Not any of the other years at all.

Are you talking about Howard not being a superstar those years, because I was saying that I consider him one and a top 4 player each year.


I think if you put 11 Howard on the 09 Magic then they have a far better shot at beating the Lakers. But again, its a 1 superstar team...and those rarely win.

'11 Howard on the '09 Magic sounds great. I think that with just a little more experience or even luck, Orlando takes LA to 6 or 7 in '09, but adding a greatly improved '11 Dwight and I'd be tempted to favor Orlando.

As far as 2 superstar teams? Well, how many of them do we even see?

In the 10's, we've seen Wade/Lebron the past 2 seasons as the legitimate one. Some would say Durant/Westbrook the past 2 seasons, but I'm unsure about Westbrook.

In the 00's, there was just Shaq and Kobe from '01-'04, Shaq and Wade in '05, I guess you could argue Shaq/Kobe in '00 and Shaq/Wade in '06 as well. Maybe Yao/T-Mac in '07. Maybe Amare and Nash in '05 and '08.

In the 90's, there was Jordan/Pippen from '92-'97, Shaq and Penny in '96, maybe '95, KJ/Barkley in '94 I guess and maybe Duncan/Robinson in '98.

In the 80's, Kareem/Magic from '82-'85, maybe Moses/Dr. J in '83 and Bird/McHale from '86-'88.


Melo is a star player. I just don't think he's capable of being the best player on a title winning team.

I'm talking legit championship caliber first option players. I wouldn't include Melo on that list. Although like you said...he's borderline.

I don't really think there's really a set level you have to be at, I just think it depends on the team.

I'm just open-minded when it comes to what teams can win. For example, the Bulls would be an odd team compared to most championship teams. I haven't really seen a team built like them win it all, but seeing how much they win, I wouldn't be surprised to see them win.


The line between winning and losing a game or a series can be extremely slim. Its so fragile. 1 player here and 1 play there can change an entire series.

Obviously 1 player can make a huge difference, I was citing teams that came so close that they didn't need another player, just needed to avoid a mistake or 2, though part of what was exposed in game 7 of the '10 finals was the Celtics lack of rebounding, so they could've used help there, but also had a great chance of winning as constructed. Portland just needed to avoid an inexplicable choke job.


Of course you can win both ways. I never said you couldn't. But the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of teams with 2 or more all nba type players. And its simple. Its because its far easier to get role players to step up when you have two consistent performers night in night out than it is to get role players to step up when you only have 1.

Obviously no teams built around role players is going to win. Most teams that have those 2 all-nba players also have more than just those 2 who are above role player status as well.


As for Dirk, of course he's been capable of leading a team to a title most of his career. I don't know how anyone can really dispute that since the 03 playoffs. That is kind of my point.

It's actually my point as well, I'm just using a player as an analogy to teams being capable despite not actually winning. Prior to Dirk winning, I would use the example of him being so close in '06 to back up my point that he was capable. More would question '03 Dirk, though I think he was great prior to his injury, a top 7 player and superstar, imo.


If Dirk ever had that consistent number 2 guy post 03...a guy like Paul Pierce. Someone really good, but not the best player in the league or anything...the results would just have been different. And that is often the difference between winning and losing. 1 player. Do the Mavs still lose in 06 with Pierce instead of Howard/Terry? Maybe, but I doubt it.

You mean Pierce in place of Terry and Howard? I'm not sure how much their chances increase if he's replacing both, but if he's replacing 1, then they'd obviously look a lot better. But the '06 Mavs were certainly capable as constructed, it came down to choking and Wade going on a truly legendary 4 game stretch.


The Mavs have really never been favored to win the title because of the lack of star power. Even the 67 win team in 07 was basically even with the Spurs/Suns to win the title odds wise. Why? Because you look at the roster and you see a noticeable lack of consistent performers. If the 07 Mavs had Pierce and Dirk and won 67....they would have been huge favorites to win the title. Because in the playoffs...in those moments/games that are make or break...you want proven players like Pierce....not Terry and Howard.

Yeah, I don't remember the Mavs ever being the favorites, but for the most part, Dallas was considered a contender and one of the more talented teams


Great post, brilliant insight and the voice of reason as always. People on here know that I'm a Laker fan first and if you look up my posts during 2010 and even now many of them were very critical of Kobe "jacking up shots" or "not passing as much as he should".

What people don't understand, and I believe JVG brought this up a season or so ago, is that Kobe was walking a very fine line those years between primary scorer and primary disturber. And as much as i hate to bring up meaningless stats what I will do is bring them up in context. There is a reason why Kobe had the ball so much in his hands and why he lead his team in both points and assists for the last decade or so. It's because Kobe serves as both the primary scoring option and primary facilitating option for his team, which can be an extremely difficult line to walk at times, ask Michael Jordan.

What people also don't realize is that all of the things being said about Kobe (or at least some of the things) were also said about Jordan. That a scoring leader could never win a championship (before 91 obviously), that Jordan was a huge ball-hog (this idea was rampant and generally accepted as a partial truth), and that he hated to pass/didn't trust his teammates (until he actually got some good ones). And while i hate to compare the two players (partially because Jordan's resume is untouchable) there are a lot of striking similarities that the two players share, including their roles on their respective teams.

A lot of critics love to divert blame on the individual instead of looking at the organization/institution/system at large (not to self indulge but I did make a thread stating why I don't blame melo because of the Knicks front office disarray). People like to nitpick numbers and advanced metrics and use that solely as a way to discredit a player.

For example people see Kobe's FG%s and automatically assume that he's a ball hog or takes bad shots solely based off a statistic that has no meaning unless you explain it with context. For example I've seen some people try to compare Lebron and Kobe's FG% in order to either discredit Kobe or hype up Lebron (and please know that I'm not trying to defend or discredit either) but what they dont pay attention to are the circumstances that lead to those numbers. On the surface Lebron's FG% may seem vastly superior, maybe even so much so that anyone who religiously believes in statistics would claim that Lebron is by far the better player.

However, to anyone to knows and understands the game of basketball will tell you that the game is much more complex than a bunch of arbitrary numbers and statistics. So going back to the FG% comparison; when you dissect the meaning behind those two FG%s you begin to understand why FG% is an extremely flawed statistic. First of all FG% doesn't take into consideration the amount of times a player is double-teamed, his shot selection (which is why big men obviously shoot higher average FG%s than guards) and the context for why his shot selection is made.

I agree, it's easier to put up numbers when you have the ball more and playing within a structured offense less. For example, Jordan's best scoring season statistically was '88 when he put up 35/6/6 on 54 FG%/60 TS% and best overall season statistically was probably '89 when he put up 33/8/8 on 54 FG%/61 TS%.

After that, Phil took over and Jordan became far less ball-dominant. He was a better player putting up 34/7/6 on 53 FG%/61 TS% in '90, 32/6/6 on 54 FG%/61 TS% in '91 and even 30/6/6 on 52 FG%/58 TS% than he was in '88 or '89, but he was playing more within the offense, and I'd add '93 Jordan in there as well.

Bottom line is that numbers are helpful(some of them at least), but leave out a lot that you can only pick up on by watching the players, how they play, what kind of offense they run ect.

And good point about scoring leaders winning titles. In mid '91, Jordan, Barkley and I believe Bernard King and Orlando Woolridge were all very close together for the scoring lead, and Barkley stated that he didn't want to win it because the scoring champ never wins a championship. So that was in fact a common belief, especially after Magic and even Bird's styles compared to Jordan and Detroit winning back to back without 1 single player scoring a ton.

As it is, this has actually only been done by 3 players in the post-shot clock era have done it in the same season, and it was Kareem and Shaq once and Jordan 6 times. There is somewhat of a reason for that since it's tougher to score a lot of points within the flow of an offense without taking away from other players, which is how you need to do it to win a title.



Fisher= was aging but still effective out on the court.

That's being pretty generous.

[BlueandGold]

Pwned.

[red1]

Relative to the league at the time, those teams were stacked just like 99.9% of all championship teams are. Lamar and Pau were clearly the best frontcourt in the league and fisher/ariza/artest were very good at their role.

[kennethgriffin]

Pau Gasol is first ballot HoF. It's Basketball HoF. Not just NBA HoF.

pau was a legit star on a contender for maybe 3 years of his nba career

a few all nba 3rd teams and his career average will be like 16/8 by the time hes done

a silver medal and some euro status wont get him in.

if it does it wont be till like 20 years after hes eligible

[secund2nun]

Kobe is the most overrated athlete of all time. The guy could not even lead his team past the first round in the 3 chances he got IN HIS PRIME (3 seasons after Shaq and before Gasol). He is Tracy McGrady without the injuries and much better teammates. He pays homage to the adage of being in the "right place at the right time". Then they got Gasol and Bynum developed and finally starting winning titles.

Also Gasol was easily the 2010 finals MVP. Also remember game 7 where Kobe choked Gasol explode leading them to the win against Houston. They were a complete team- 2 stars (not superstars), 1 very good player, a good player (Odom) and then one of the best coaches ever. They weren't Kobe's teams. Stop this charade of pretending that Kobe is MJ, Lebron, Shaq, Duncan, Bird, Hakeem, Magic, Kareem etc. He is not. We saw Kobe's teams- 3 years of not winning a single playoff series...and that was prime Kobe.

[secund2nun]

pau was a legit star on a contender for maybe 3 years of his nba career

a few all nba 3rd teams and his career average will be like 16/8 by the time hes done

a silver medal and some euro status wont get him in.

if it does it wont be till like 20 years after hes eligible

Gasol spent much of his career on low talent teams. We saw prime Kobe on a low talent team- 3 straight years of failing to win a single playoff series. And then Gasol's play drops off and they go right back to the level of play before Gasol arrived. Kobe is a fraud.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Relative to the league at the time, those teams were stacked just like 99.9% of all championship teams are. Lamar and Pau were clearly the best frontcourt in the league and fisher/ariza/artest were very good at their role.

They were not even clearly the best frontcourt in the Finals.... let alone the entire league.

2008 KG >>> 2008 Gasol
2009 DH >>> 2009 Gasol

[Ne 1]

They were the traditional style championship team, with one superstar, a great all-star sidekick, and varied contributions from good role players in the playoffs. Nothing more, nothing less.

2008 he carried LA to the Finals with Gasol/Odom. Ariza and Bynum were both injured.

Gasol was a top 20 player and Odom was a role player


In '09 he won with essentially Gasol/Odom/Ariza

Gasol was a very good, top 10-15 player.

Odom was a solid third fiddle/role-player

Ariza was a role player

The Lakers bench was crap, Bynum put up 6/4 and Fisher might have been the worst starting PG in the league at that point of his career.

2010-

Gasol: solid season, top 10-15 player, great playoff run

Artest: shell of his former self....don't get me wrong he was still good defensively but his man-to-man defense meant little in 2-4 series, and we're talking about perhaps the worst offensive starting SF in the league.

Odom: Struggled all season, role-player and nothing more.

Fisher: worst starting PG in the nba

Bynum: put up 7/6 in the playoffs

bench- among the worst in the league

3-point shooting....24th in the league

If the 2008-2010 Lakers were so incredibly stacked as some people say (It's mainly Kobe detractors) then Kobe wouldn't have had to put up 30/6/6, 30/5/6 and 29/6/6 during the Lakers 3 Finals runs.

[secund2nun]

They were not even clearly the best frontcourt in the Finals.... let alone the entire league.

2008 KG >>> 2008 Gasol
2009 DH >>> 2009 Gasol

All Boston had was KG and mediocre Perkins. The front court of Gasol (who wasn't that far behind KG), Bynum (who is far superior to Perkins), and Odom was easily the best front court in the NBA,

All Orlando had was DH. All Boston had was KG. Front courts win titles...unless you have MJ or Lebron on your team.

[red1]

They were not even clearly the best frontcourt in the Finals.... let alone the entire league.

2008 KG >>> 2008 Gasol
2009 DH >>> 2009 Gasol
Lakers got smoked by boston the way they did because they had radmanovic on pierce and the celtics were just mentally tougher. If you watched the 2009 finals you would realize that the laker frontcourt was also clearly superior to the orlando frontcourt. Pau+lamar> dwight and rashard

[secund2nun]

If the 2008-2010 Lakers were so incredibly stacked as some people say (It's mainly Kobe detractors) then Kobe wouldn't have had to put up 30/6/6, 30/5/6 and 29/6/6 during the Lakers 3 Finals runs.

Kobe was getting knocked out in the first round before Gasol. He did not carry anything. On top of that Gasol was the laker's best playoff performer in the 2010 playoffs and easily the real finals MVP in 2010.

[Whoah10115]

I never really thought his cast was all that impressive in the first place. When they added Artest, that made a difference, but the 09 cast wasn't that impressive really.



A negative difference.


Those teams were great. They weren't historic, but they were great. I think this is where Bryant gets underrated. They were as good as they were because of him. They were a potential playoff team without him, sure. But it's not only wining back-to-back titles...that team was annoying. In fact, there's a TNT segment on youtube where Webber goes of on how annoying they are. They coasted from game to game, it's ridiculous. But they were feared. They had a great team and I know people realize that Bryant was great, but I think people sleep on how great a player he was.

[Magic 32]

Kobe was getting knocked out in the first round before Gasol. He did not carry anything. On top of that Gasol was the laker's best playoff performer in the 2010 playoffs and easily the real finals MVP in 2010.

This again?

Kobe was demonstrably better in Boston and he sliced and diced the Celtics defence in the game 1 blowout (only to see Gasol getting better stats by staying on the floor in the 4th, posting up Nate Robinson).

Nobody is buying your cr*p!!!

[secund2nun]

A negative difference.


Those teams were great. They weren't historic, but they were great. I think this is where Bryant gets underrated. They were as good as they were because of him. They were a potential playoff team without him, sure. But it's not only wining back-to-back titles...that team was annoying. In fact, there's a TNT segment on youtube where Webber goes of on how annoying they are. They coasted from game to game, it's ridiculous. But they were feared. They had a great team and I know people realize that Bryant was great, but I think people sleep on how great a player he was.

We can use that same logic with Gasol. Take Gasol off of that team and they don't come close to winning a single NBA title. It work's both ways.

[3peated]

rofl. no one on those teams is even a starter for another team now

[Whoah10115]

We can use that same logic with Gasol. Take Gasol off of that team and they don't come close to winning a single NBA title. It work's both ways.



You can and should use that logic on any good player in the history of any team sport. Tho you're doing it very simplistically. And no, Gasol was not the MVP of the Finals, much less of the entire playoffs.


Three years ago, there were just as many people calling Kobe the best player in the game. I think the way Lebron has played the last 2 1/2 years and the way Kobe has declined has allowed for a lot of revisionism.


People are here calling me a Kobe stan...anyone who knows me and anyone who read my posts a year ago would know that I've always been a bigger Wade fan than I ever was a Kobe fan. And I mean my favorite Kobe of 10 years ago. But just as people did with Lebron when he lost in the Finals or before he got to Miami, people are now bagging on Bryant. It's a logical troll cycle.

[gengiskhan]

Looking back at those teams it seems like everyone at the same were saying how stacked those teams were but now in retrospective the cast on those teams don't seem all that impressive.

Kobe in 09 and 10 played beside only one all-star in Gasol, Odom was at best a borderline all-star and Bynum was way too injured during that 2 year stretch to be considered an all-star. Beyond that you had a veteran PG who would routinely let opposing PGs blow past him, a fact that was all too apparent in the playoffs.

when the Celtics won in 08 they had 3 clear all-stars and first-ballot hof'ers. I don't see any player on the 09 or 10 team that would be considered a first-ballot, Gasol is borderline at best and bynum has a long long way to go to even be considered as a worthy vote-in.

Stupidity beyond imagination !!

Kobe's LAL was stacked with NBA's best most talented BIG MEN in Front court.

Not just Gasol but also Bynum, who has the best post-up game.

Kobe's LAL were front loaded. Every Kobe miss has the best chance of offensive put back if not aleast Offensive rebound.

2008-2010 were destined to 3-peat under Coach Phil Jackson. Bynum's injury may have costed Phil his 4th 3-peat

or

maybe who knows, Kobe's 2008 choke job may have costed LAL the 2008 finals.

either / or. pick your poison. we'll never know.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

All Boston had was KG and mediocre Perkins. The front court of Gasol (who wasn't that far behind KG), Bynum (who is far superior to Perkins), and Odom was easily the best front court in the NBA,

All Orlando had was DH. All Boston had was KG. Front courts win titles...unless you have MJ or Lebron on your team.

Bynum contributed nothing in the 08 Finals, 6.0 pts 4.2 rebs in 09 and 7.4 pts 5.0 rebs in 10 Finals.

:confusedshrug:

I stand by my original statement. The gap between Gasol and Garnett/Howard at worst matches the gap between Odom/injured Bynum and the Celtics/Magics role players. The idea that the Lakers undoubtedly had the best frontcourt in the league is unfounded.

[red1]

Bynum contributed nothing in the 08 Finals, 6.0 pts 4.2 rebs in 09 and 7.4 pts 5.0 rebs in 10 Finals.

:confusedshrug:

I stand by my original statement. The gap between Gasol and Garnett/Howard at worst matches the gap between Odom/injured Bynum and the Celtics/Magics role players. The idea that the Lakers undoubtedly had the best frontcourt in the league is unfounded.
Proving how unknowledgeable you are yet again. Lakers had the best frontcourt in the league for the two years they won, that is just a fact. That team's flaw was their shitty bench, the starting line-up was the best in the league.

[Magic 32]

Proving how unknowledgeable you are yet again. Lakers had the best frontcourt in the league for the two years they won, that is just a fact. That team's flaw was their shitty bench, the starting line-up was the best in the league.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zohd0Q6J_Y

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Proving how unknowledgeable you are yet again. Lakers had the best frontcourt in the league for the two years they won, that is just a fact. That team's flaw was their shitty bench, the starting line-up was the best in the league.

I spot an unsupported fact and two unrelated and irrelevant statements. I know its an inconvenient truth that Bynum wasn't healthy during either of those title runs but keeping your head in the sand won't rewrite history.

"Bench" doesn't = frontcourt
"Starting lineup" doesn't = frontcourt

[red1]

I spot an unsupported fact and two unrelated and irrelevant statements. I know its an inconvenient truth that Bynum wasn't healthy during either of those title runs but keeping your head in the sand won't rewrite history.

"Bench" doesn't = frontcourt
"Starting lineup" doesn't = frontcourt
I didnt even mention bynum once. Pau and lamar alone were the best frontcourt. Yes, better than kg/perkins and dwight/shard which were the next best. Still not as good as LA's.

[NBASTATMAN]

Looking back at those teams it seems like everyone at the same were saying how stacked those teams were but now in retrospective the cast on those teams don't seem all that impressive.

Kobe in 09 and 10 played beside only one all-star in Gasol, Odom was at best a borderline all-star and Bynum was way too injured during that 2 year stretch to be considered an all-star. Beyond that you had a veteran PG who would routinely let opposing PGs blow past him, a fact that was all too apparent in the playoffs.

when the Celtics won in 08 they had 3 clear all-stars and first-ballot hof'ers. I don't see any player on the 09 or 10 team that would be considered a first-ballot, Gasol is borderline at best and bynum has a long long way to go to even be considered as a worthy vote-in.


Compared to the rest of the league the LAKERS were by far the most talented. Even Kobe's biggest fan "Mark Jackson" stated this while announcing during the finals. It is all relative. Lebron's best teammate was Mo and they won 65 games. The league didn't have too many teams with great talent. Now you have OKC, MIA, LA, NY, and BKLN with two or three star players playing together.. Yet none of these teams will WIN 65. imo

[Ne 1]

Kobe was getting knocked out in the first round before Gasol.

Kobe without Gasol: 3 rings, 4 Finals
Gasol without Kobe: 0-12 in the playoffs.


On top of that Gasol was the laker's best playoff performer in the 2010 playoffs and easily the real finals MVP in 2010.

:roll: :lol

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I didnt even mention bynum once. Pau and lamar alone were the best frontcourt. Yes, better than kg/perkins and dwight/shard which were the next best. Still not as good as LA's.

You realize that's not making any sort of compelling argument right? KG and Howard were DPOY winners and MVP contenders. Gasol was an average all star big man. Lamar Odom iwas a slightly above average starting PF, Shard and Perkins were role players who fit their system extremely well. At best its a wash. It's nowhere near the Lakers were "clearly" better.

Kobe Bryant had the worst backcourt (including SFs) support from 08-10 in the entire league. :confusedshrug:

[Micku]

I never really thought his cast was all that impressive in the first place. When they added Artest, that made a difference, but the 09 cast wasn't that impressive really.

Nah, I really like the balance of the 2009. I think the 2009 team was better. The bench was better and they were serviceable. The balance of scoring was great, especially when Bynum was healthy but it was rare.

They were one of the most talented teams in respect to the season they were playing, and they played well together. That's more of the main thing. Artest never got used to playing within the triangle and looked awkward through his time with Phil Jackson.

As oppose to now where you see they do not play well together despite having more talent on the starting lineup. I guess it just says that having more talent doesn't equal to chemistry.

[Ne 1]

You realize that's not making any sort of compelling argument right? KG and Howard were DPOY winners and MVP contenders. Gasol was an average all star big man. Lamar Odom iwas a slightly above average starting PF, Shard and Perkins were role players who fit their system extremely well. At best its a wash. It's nowhere near the Lakers were "clearly" better.

Kobe Bryant had the worst backcourt (including SFs) support from 08-10 in the entire league. :confusedshrug:

Kobe's range is what made the Lakers length especially successful. Otherwise teams could just clog the paint.

Honesty there were probably 8-10 teams in the league with front-courts that would have been contenders with Kobe, while there was only 1 SG on Kobe's level in 2009 and 2010 (Dwayne Wade).

The Lakers front-court is usually just overrated by Kobe haters trying to diminish him. The "amazing" front-court and the Lakers didn't even finish top 5 in OREB%, DREB%, or rebounding differential. I especially like how they always bring up Bynum. I can understand Gasol/Odom, who wer4e both key for the Lakers during the 3 consecutive Finals runs, but including Bynum?

Bynum-
2008 Regular season: Only played 35 games. Lakers won 57 games and finished with the #1 seed in the stacked Western Conference.
2008 Playoffs: Didn't play. Lakers still made the Finals without him.

2009 Regular season: Only played 50 games.
2009 Playoffs: Averaged 6/3. Lakers still win championship

2010 Playoffs: Averaged 9/7. Lakers win championship.

there have been more teams that could pose front-courts on the Lakers level than guards that have been on kobe's level

These front-courts would have been contenders with a Kobe Bryant...
Hawks: Horford/Pachulia/Josh Smith/Kobe
Magic: Dwight/Gortat/Rashard/Kobe
Jazz: Okur/Jefferson/Millsap/Kobe
Boston: Garnett/Perkins/Wallace/Kobe
Portland: Pryzvvilla/Camby/Aldridge/Kobe
Nuggets: Nene/Martin/Andersen
Mavs: Nowitzki/Marion/Chandler/Haywood/Kobe
Bulls: Noah/Boozer/Deng/Kobe

and that's just off the type of my head...

Now keep in mind Kobe averaged 30/6/6 in the playoffs during the lakers last 3 Finals runs.

2010 Championship run, Odom/Gasol/Bynum combined: 36 PPG/24 RPG/4 APG

Hawks: Horford/Pazchila/Josh Smith season:34 PPG/23 RPG/6 APG

Dallas: Dirk/Haywood/Dampier: 39 PPG/22 RPG/4 APG

Orlando:Howard/Rashard/Gortat: 36 PPG/21 RPG/4 APG

Bulls: Boozer/Noah/Deng: 41 PPG/29 RPG/7 APG

That's at least 5 teams that can replace LA's front-court and still expect a ring. The Kobe Bryant's of the world are ridiculously hard to find. No SG could have replaced Kobe except perhaps Wade. That goes without saying Wade's skill set isn't suited for the triangle as well as Kobe's. Not saying he wouldn't be good in it, just not as good as Kobe. Wade doesn't have the range, nor is he as good off the ball.

[TheMarkMadsen]

I'm just curious, here's the 2009 Lakers roster..


Trevor Ariza

Shannon Brown

Kobe Bryant

Andrew Bynum

Jordan Farmar

Derek Fisher

Pau Gasol

Didier Ilunga-Mbenga

Chris Mihm

Adam Morrison

Lamar Odom

Josh Powell

Vladimir Radmanovic

Sasha Vujacic

Luke Walton

Sun Yue


other than Kobe how many of these guys are still relevant/ contributing to an NBA team?

and for the record. Andrew Bynum averaged 6 & 4 on 45% during the playoffs for the Lakers 09 championship

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2009.html

[SilkkTheShocker]

I'm just curious, here's the 2009 Lakers roster..


Trevor Ariza

Shannon Brown

Kobe Bryant

Andrew Bynum

Jordan Farmar

Derek Fisher

Pau Gasol

Didier Ilunga-Mbenga

Chris Mihm

Adam Morrison

Lamar Odom

Josh Powell

Vladimir Radmanovic

Sasha Vujacic

Luke Walton

Sun Yue


other than Kobe how many of these guys are still relevant/ contributing to an NBA team?


Chris Mihm wasn't on the 09 team. He was traded not long after he tossed a bow at Mbenga. Neither was Vlad. He was traded to Charlotte.

[ThunderStruk022]

I'm just curious, here's the 2009 Lakers roster..


Trevor Ariza
Shannon Brown
Kobe Bryant
Andrew Bynum
Jordan Farmar
Derek Fisher
Pau Gasol
Didier Ilunga-Mbenga
Chris Mihm
Adam Morrison
Lamar Odom
Josh Powell
Vladimir Radmanovic
Sasha Vujacic
Luke Walton
Sun Yue


other than Kobe how many of these guys are still relevant/ contributing to an NBA team?

What the hell does what those players are doing 2013 have to do with what they were doing in 2009 and 2010?

:confusedshrug:


You realize that's not making any sort of compelling argument right? KG and Howard were DPOY winners and MVP contenders. Gasol was an average all star big man. Lamar Odom iwas a slightly above average starting PF, Shard and Perkins were role players who fit their system extremely well. At best its a wash. It's nowhere near the Lakers were "clearly" better.

Kobe Bryant had the worst backcourt (including SFs) support from 08-10 in the entire league. :confusedshrug:
:oldlol:

You're brilliant man. The way you just completely ignore context and logic, and own people that try to provide any sort of context is just....brilliant.

[red1]

You realize that's not making any sort of compelling argument right? KG and Howard were DPOY winners and MVP contenders. Gasol was an average all star big man. Lamar Odom iwas a slightly above average starting PF, Shard and Perkins were role players who fit their system extremely well. At best its a wash. It's nowhere near the Lakers were "clearly" better.

Kobe Bryant had the worst backcourt (including SFs) support from 08-10 in the entire league. :confusedshrug:
The mistake you are making is that you are comparing a duo to individual players. KG and dwight were obviously better than either of lamar or pau alone but the combination of the two resulted in a frontcourt with ridiculous offensive versatility and rebounding, not to mention excellent length on defense. Thus making them the best frontcourt.

Anyone who watched the games already knows this but we all know why this discussion is taking place in first place since we know that your only goal is to downplay all of kobe's teammates.

[Bigsmoke]

Odom, Gasol, and Kobe was a nice trio. :confusedshrug:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

The mistake you are making is that you are comparing a duo to individual players. KG and dwight were obviously better than either of lamar or pau alone but the combination of the two resulted in a frontcourt with ridiculous offensive versatility and rebounding, not to mention excellent length on defense. Thus making them the best frontcourt.

Anyone who watched the games already knows this but we all know why this discussion is taking place in first place since we know that your only goal is to downplay all of kobe's teammates.

:wtf:

Dwight Howard in 09 paired with anybody is a great defense. Garnett/Perkins were a great defensive duo. Lewis drained 3s regularly at a 40% clip. That's ridiculous offensive versatility for a duo. There is nothing unique about Pau/Odom that doesn't apply to the Celtics/Magic duos as well.

[NBASTATMAN]

Kobe's range is what made the Lakers length especially successful. Otherwise teams could just clog the paint.

Honesty there were probably 8-10 teams in the league with front-courts that would have been contenders with Kobe, while there was only 1 SG on Kobe's level in 2009 and 2010 (Dwayne Wade).

The Lakers front-court is usually just overrated by Kobe haters trying to diminish him. The "amazing" front-court and the Lakers didn't even finish top 5 in OREB%, DREB%, or rebounding differential. I especially like how they always bring up Bynum. I can understand Gasol/Odom, who wer4e both key for the Lakers during the 3 consecutive Finals runs, but including Bynum?

Bynum-
2008 Regular season: Only played 35 games. Lakers won 57 games and finished with the #1 seed in the stacked Western Conference.
2008 Playoffs: Didn't play. Lakers still made the Finals without him.

2009 Regular season: Only played 50 games.
2009 Playoffs: Averaged 6/3. Lakers still win championship

2010 Playoffs: Averaged 9/7. Lakers win championship.

there have been more teams that could pose front-courts on the Lakers level than guards that have been on kobe's level

These front-courts would have been contenders with a Kobe Bryant...
Hawks: Horford/Pachulia/Josh Smith/Kobe
Magic: Dwight/Gortat/Rashard/Kobe
Jazz: Okur/Jefferson/Millsap/Kobe
Boston: Garnett/Perkins/Wallace/Kobe
Portland: Pryzvvilla/Camby/Aldridge/Kobe
Nuggets: Nene/Martin/Andersen
Mavs: Nowitzki/Marion/Chandler/Haywood/Kobe
Bulls: Noah/Boozer/Deng/Kobe

and that's just off the type of my head...

Now keep in mind Kobe averaged 30/6/6 in the playoffs during the lakers last 3 Finals runs.

2010 Championship run, Odom/Gasol/Bynum combined: 36 PPG/24 RPG/4 APG

Hawks: Horford/Pazchila/Josh Smith season:34 PPG/23 RPG/6 APG

Dallas: Dirk/Haywood/Dampier: 39 PPG/22 RPG/4 APG

Orlando:Howard/Rashard/Gortat: 36 PPG/21 RPG/4 APG

Bulls: Boozer/Noah/Deng: 41 PPG/29 RPG/7 APG

That's at least 5 teams that can replace LA's front-court and still expect a ring. The Kobe Bryant's of the world are ridiculously hard to find. No SG could have replaced Kobe except perhaps Wade. That goes without saying Wade's skill set isn't suited for the triangle as well as Kobe's. Not saying he wouldn't be good in it, just not as good as Kobe. Wade doesn't have the range, nor is he as good off the ball.


but how many of those teams had superstar guards to lead them ?0

Kobe had by far the best teammates when you consider how great he was. I remember kobe and bynum were out for a couple of games and that Laker team played great without both of them. Having Phil Jackson was also a huge factor in making the Lakers a title team.

[Rysio]

kobe carrying scrubs to championships. what else is new op.

[red1]

:wtf:

Dwight Howard in 09 paired with anybody is a great defense. Garnett/Perkins were a great defensive duo. Lewis drained 3s regularly at a 40% clip. That's ridiculous offensive versatility for a duo. There is nothing unique about Pau/Odom that doesn't apply to the Celtics/Magic duos as well.
Why don't you start a new thread asking others to give their input on what the best frontcourt is between 2009 pau/odom kg/perkins and dwight/shard?

[Mr. Jabbar]

The only superstar to carry just an average cast to back to back titles and 3 finals with zero help from the refs. He didn't need to join competition or take any shortcuts, stayed loyal to his franchise.

Kobe carried Sun Yue to a title :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[ThunderStruk022]

I think we should all take time out of our day (every day) to recognize Kobe's greatness as the greatest human to ever live. The things he's accomplished as a basketball player never have been and never will be rivaled.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Why don't you start a new thread asking others to give their input on what the best frontcourt is between 2009 pau/odom kg/perkins and dwight/shard?

Because that's not the question. The question is Pau/Odom clearly a better frontcourt than KG/Perkins, Dwight/Shard. The answer is no.

[Money 23]

Looking back at those teams it seems like everyone at the same were saying how stacked those teams were but now in retrospective the cast on those teams don't seem all that impressive.
:biggums:

Oh they were impressive. Don't use current deteriorated versions of Odom, Artest and Ariza to shoot down the quality of the lineup.

They weren't as superstar studded as the current Heat, with big names, faces ... but many complementary games and critical big men and low post pieces that made the game SO much easier on Bryant.

2009: Odom + Ariza
2010: Odom + Artest

These two player combinations basically filled the "Scottie Pippen" role. Beta mentality players. Odom a SUPER long point forward, with handle, who could shoot when open and create offense with great playmaking abilities, could rebound at a high level and initiate an offense.

And then Ariza and Artest, two gritty athletic players who could lock down perimeter offensive players, relieving defensive stress on Kobe, and could guard multiple positions at a high level.

These Forward combinations provided what Pippen did. Both statistically, and in terms of all around impact on both sides of the ball.

And then you had Pau Gasol, a star center, who right there makes the game easier on everyone. Not to mention he was extremely talented offensively. Allowed Kobe to do his thing, but also covered up his efficiency mistakes and gambles on offense.

Bynum was in an out of the lineup, but in 2009 and 2010 was mostly effective off the bench. Providing great interior defense, shot blocking, and rebounding.

2 twin towers, and forward combinations that represent Scottie Pippen. Those Lakers were STACKED. Not top heavy superstar status like the Heat. But ridiculously well crafted around Kobe.

That's the god's honest truth of the matter in regards to the 2009 and 2010 Lakers. 2008 team was slightly less stacked, and less talented. Thus validating Kobe's more impressive season individually that year. He was a better player, better decision maker, and truly a fine leader that season. Played the game the RIGHT way.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Kobe was getting knocked out in the first round before Gasol. He did not carry anything. On top of that Gasol was the laker's best playoff performer in the 2010 playoffs and easily the real finals MVP in 2010.

Great post. Lakers are still contenders with no Kobe those seasons.

You don't need a traditionally stacked team, you just need role players to step up their game....

Kobe's never "carried" any team, he's had plenty of help collectively over his championship years.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Bill-Hader-Laughing.gif

[Whoah10115]

Artest was never very good for the Lakers. Ariza did everything better than him, including play defense. Artest was not an exceptional defender at any point with the Lakers.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Reading through this thread you would think those Lakers team were comprised of Charles Barkley & David Robinson down low and that Scottie pippen was holding down the 3 spot.

Odom + ariza = "basically" pippen? Please...

Combining the talents of 2 players and saying it = the talent of one player does not make a good case for that team being "stacked"

[ThunderStruk022]

Reading through this thread you would think those Lakers team were comprised of Charles Barkley & David Robinson down low and that Scottie pippen was holding down the 3 spot.

Odom + ariza = "basically" pippen? Please...

Combining the talents of 2 players and saying it = the talent of one player does not make a good case for that team being "stacked"
:facepalm

The hell you talking about? I just read through the thread. Plenty of people suggested that the team wasn't historically stacked, but the team was "stacked" when you look t the supporting casts of the other stars in the league at the time. How f***ing hard is it for you Kobe d***suckers to understand this? Put the 2009 and 2010 Lakers in the NBA in the 1980's and they don't sniff a championship. Hell, they'd probably struggle to make it out of the first round. The hell does that have to do with 2009 and 2010? It's not like Kobe and the Lakers were going through more "stacked" (relatively speaking) teams.

[Bandito]

I always though if that 2011 wasn't broken and they still got Sessions through a trade that team couldn't won it all in 2012 in hard fight against the heat+OKC. All they needed to win was a bench player like 2011 version of Odom to win it all.

[Celtic_Pride]

This argument of played only with 1 HOF teammate when compared with 80s greats is foolish

Kobe had the most stacked team for any star player during 2009-10. Oh, on top of this he also had the GOAT coach!

[ThunderStruk022]

This argument of played only with 1 HOF teammate when compared with 80s greats is foolish

Kobe had the most stacked team for any star player during 2009-10. Oh, on top of this he also had the GOAT coach!
Well sure, and any normal person knows and understands this. But when it comes to people like YMF, AlphaWolf, MarkMadsen, the OP, and that Griffin guy who have Kobe's d**k firmly planted up their ass and think about Kobe 24/7, they refuse to use logic and context. Instead, they resort to saying his team's are as stacked as other championship teams, as if that has anything to do with those teams and how they compared to the other teams in the league t the same time. I mean that's kindergarten level logic.

[NumberSix]

Garnett > Kobe

[Anaximandro1]

OP


His length is superior (Bynum).So is Pau Gasol. Together they are a heck of a defensive tandem down there. They do a great job. That is why they are NBA champions the last two years.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

OP

(On length that (Andrew) Bynum gives in the paint)

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Well sure, and any normal person knows and understands this. But when it comes to people like YMF, AlphaWolf, MarkMadsen, the OP, and that Griffin guy who have Kobe's d**k firmly planted up their ass and think about Kobe 24/7, they refuse to use logic and context. Instead, they resort to saying his team's are as stacked as other championship teams, as if that has anything to do with those teams and how they compared to the other teams in the league t the same time. I mean that's kindergarten level logic.

The Celtics trotted out 3 hall of famers a great bench and developed a 4th all star within that time frame. Kobe had Pau Gasol. :confusedshrug:

[ThunderStruk022]

The Celtics trotted out 3 hall of famers a great bench and developed a 4th all star within that time frame. Kobe had Pau Gasol. :confusedshrug:
:oldlol:

And they got their ass handed to them in LA by nearly 40 points in the 6th and decisive game. Two years later, after it was clear Garnett wasn't the same, and Pierce and Allen were two years older and two years further from their prime, the Lakers still needed 7 games to beat them; and even then it was narrow victory at home where the Celtics didn't have a key piece in the middle to help combat the Lakers size and length. That team was a shell of what it was in 2008. Garnett, especially, who still wasn't the same player he was on '08 after his knee injury.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

:oldlol:

And they got their ass handed to them in LA by nearly 40 points in the 6th and decisive game. Two years later, after it was clear Garnett wasn't the same, and Pierce and Allen were two years older and two years further from their prime, the Lakers still needed 7 games to beat them; and even then it was narrow victory at home where the Celtics didn't have a key piece in the middle to help combat the Lakers size and length. That team was a shell of what it was in 2008. Garnett, especially, who still wasn't the same player he was on '08 after his knee injury.

Hint: Kobe and Pau aged too. :facepalm

[NumberSix]

Puffy is good, but Wu-Tang is the best.

[STATUTORY]

weakest supporting cast to make 3 finals in a roll. flat out. not even contestable.

[red1]

Because that's not the question. The question is Pau/Odom clearly a better frontcourt than KG/Perkins, Dwight/Shard. The answer is no.
You are wrong. Pau/lamar> kg/perkins or dwight/shard

[JohnnySic]

You are wrong. Pau/lamar> kg/perkins or dwight/shard
Not in '08, hell no. After KG's injury, yes.

[JohnnySic]

People are underselling those Lakers teams because they didn't have a second superstar. What they did have was a ton of length that gave them an edge over every other team.

[red1]

Not in '08, hell no. After KG's injury, yes.
My discussion with yao ming is about the 2009 and 2010 versions, the two years that kobe won. He factually had the best front court in the league. Even for 2008 it is debatable because perkins is almost deadweight and kg alone is not greater than pau and odom combined.

[JohnnySic]

My discussion with yao ming is about the 2009 and 2010 versions, the two years that kobe won. He factually had the best front court in the league. Even for 2008 it is debatable because perkins is almost deadweight and kg alone is not greater than pau and odom combined.
Perkins was decent playing next to KG, before his injury in '10 knocked him down a notch or 2.

KG was considerably better than Pau in '08 which makes up for the fact that Odom was still a fine player.

[SilkkTheShocker]

They had the most stacked frontcourt in the league and the best coach.

[red1]

Perkins was decent playing next to KG, before his injury in '10 knocked him down a notch or 2.

KG was considerably better than Pau in '08 which makes up for the fact that Odom was still a fine player.
One can argue this both ways for 2008 but would you agree that for 2010 pau/lamar were clearly the best frontcourt in the league?

[JohnnySic]

One can argue this both ways for 2008 but would you agree that for 2010 pau/lamar were clearly the best frontcourt in the league?
Yes.

[ThunderStruk022]

Hint: Kobe and Pau aged too. :facepalm
:facepalm

Really? That was arguably Pau's best year. He was like 28 or 29. Kobe was 31. That's not the same thing as the Celtics Big 3 dumbass. And I guess I could maybe give you Kobe since he was only 1-3 years younger, but he hadn't been showing any real signs of slowing down. Not to the same extent as Pierce, Garnett, and Allen. They were already considered oldish and at the tail end of their primes in '08. And they were definitely not the same in '10, especially Garnett.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

One can argue this both ways for 2008 but would you agree that for 2010 pau/lamar were clearly the best frontcourt in the league?

2010 NBA Finals

Pau/Odom/Bynum

94.3 mpg 33.6 ppg 23.3 rebs 53.5 ts%

Garnett/Perkins/Davis/Wallace

96.4 mpg 33.1 ppg 21.6 rpg 53.1 ts%

2009 NBA Finals

Pau/Odom/Bynum

95.2 mpg 38.0 ppg 21.2 rpg 57.9 ts%

Howard/Lewis/Gortat

95.4 mpg 36.0 ppg 25.4 rpg 54.5 ts%

:confusedshrug:

[brownmamba00]

:rant :oldlol:

To be fair, no Garnett injury in 09 and I think we'd have beaten the Lakers in the Finals. The difference in 2010 was Artest (and I feel disgusting saying that).
'09 Ariza>>'10 Artest

Laker fans would agree with this