What really happened in the 00-02 Laker championship seasons

[triangleoffense]

I'll put this as simply as possible, this the role of Shaq/Kobe in a nutshell during those seasons:

00: Shaq clear #1, Kobe clear #2. Shaq one of the most dominant finals ever (Also Kobe WAS injured and there wasn't as many quality big men in the finals)

01: Shaq 1a, Kobe 1b. Kobe had one of the most dominant WCF ever against Duncan/Drob while Shaq had one of the most dominant finals ever for the 2nd time). They however wouldn't have gotten to the championship without's Kobe's performance in the WCF. There also wasn't a clear definitive #2 or #3 option and Kobe's burden of responsibility as the 1b/2nd option is one of the greatest ever.

02: Same deal, 1a/1b, although this time both Kobe and Shaq's responsibilities were even greater due to the lack of depth, inconsistent production from role players and like the other 00s Laker teams, an undefined 3rd option outside of Kobe and Shaq. Kobe had a brilliant WCF for the 2nd straight season and Shaq had one of the most dominant finals performances of all time, averaging 36/12. Kobe was also incredibly dominant and efficient, averaging 27/5/5 on 51% FG.

[The Iron Fist]

Kobe was just as important to the threepeat. Anyone says otherwise is simply hurt by Kobes career.

[Sakkreth]

Refs were the most important tho.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

That's about right. And then, from there:
- Shaq could not handle sharing the spotlight
- Kobe was not going to put up with Shaq's insults (during practices) anymore
- Shaq became increasingly unprofessional: "I busted my toe on company time, so I will fix it on company time"...and he actually did this!

[The Iron Fist]

That's about right. And then, from there:
- Shaq could not handle sharing the spotlight
- Kobe was not going to put up with Shaq's insults (during practices) anymore
- Shaq became increasingly unprofessional: "I busted my toe on company time, so I will fix it on company time"...and he actually did this!
Shaq can share the spotlight. Just not with Kobe. Nothing pissed me off more than seeing Shaq goto Miami determined, focused and in shape. Everything he lost in the last year with the Lakers.

[LAClipsFan33]

Refs were the most important tho.

This.

[triangleoffense]

That's about right. And then, from there:
- Shaq could not handle sharing the spotlight
- Kobe was not going to put up with Shaq's insults (during practices) anymore
- Shaq became increasingly unprofessional: "I busted my toe on company time, so I will fix it on company time"...and he actually did this!
They did, the divide become much more deep until the point of no return (Shaq, and Kobe both essentially demanding that management trade the other player).

During the 03-04 seasons Kobe and Shaq's production and talent level also became nearly identical if not Kobe surpassing Shaq. In the 02-03 season Kobe averaged 30/7/6/2 a game while Shaq averaged 27/11/2.5 blocks. In 03-04 season Kobe averaged 24 ppg while Shaq averaged 22 ppg. That was a huge reason why the Lakers broke up, Shaq couldn't handle Kobe slowly becoming more dominant and the man of that team while Shaq was slowly deteriorating. Shaq's last championship in 2006 was essentially a shell of his early 2000 dominant self, averaging 17/9 in the finals while wade averaged 30 ppg.

If shaq would have stayed with the Lakers the 2006 finals would have been how his seasons there would have played out. Him slowly getting worse while Kobe would become more and more dominant. Shaq couldn't handle taking a backseat to Kobe so he decided he would rather win a championship with another dominant wing player (wade) rather than help Kobe win his first as the clear cut #1.

[Fudge]

Of course a Clippers fan would be in here to disagree. :roll:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq was the number 1 option on all 3 teams and the best and most important player in the league during those years. I remember Phil stating quite a few times that Shaq was the 1st option. Kobe became one of the top 3, or at worst, top 5 players during the last 2 titles.

Kobe's level of play was arguably greater than any other second option during '01 and '02, though. But he'd tell you himself that he wasn't the 1st option on those teams, I've heard him say it several times. In '03, Kobe was the 1st option by default with Shaq out for the first 12, then they went back to the offense going through Shaq first like they were use to, but the team was still not playing that well, and Phil gave Kobe more freedom in late January sparking those scoring streaks and getting the Lakers going, though he apparently made Shaq the 1st option again late in the season. As Kobe claimed, Phil had come to him and said that Shaq wasn't in the condition to carry the offensive load like in the past, so he asked Kobe to do it, and Kobe claimed Shaq got upset and Phil made him the 1st option again. You can kind of see this with Kobe's big February and then Shaq's player of the month in March.

'03 was the transition year, but quite a bit of confusion as to who was the man, not unlike Lebron/Wade in '11. Phil stated Shaq was the 1st option in '04, but it seemed to work out more to a 1.A/1.B situation. In '03, Kobe was really entering his prime averaging 30/7/6 and Shaq had a bit of a down year compared to the 3peat, though he did put up 28/11/3, 2+ bpg on 57%.

By '06, Kobe definitely would've been the man. When Shaq went to Miami in '05, he was initially the first option, but he got injured late in the season and Wade really took that role from him with his breakout performance in the playoffs. His minutes dropped to 31 per game, though he was still averaging 20/9/2/2 and had some big games in the 1st 3 rounds and a dominant ECF. By then, it was pretty clear who was the 2nd option, though the team still couldn't succeed without Shaq. They were under .500 without him(10-13, and 10-11 when Wade played) despite having Alonzo Mourning to fill in who averaged 12/9 with 4 bpg.

But there's some pretty one-sided analysis here, though. It wasn't just Shaq not wanting to share the spotlight, he made mistakes taking to the media and also the delayed surgery. But 2001 was primarily Kobe's fault. He talked about not getting enough recognition compared to other stars like AI, T-Mac and Carter, wanting a scoring title and MVP like Shaq had, quotes like "the triangle is boring" and in response to Phil telling Kobe he wanted to Shaq to remain the first option "turn my game down? I gotta turn my game up". Clearly defying his coaches orders and there's no condoning that. both Phil and Jerry West said he figured it out when the Lakers played better without him going 11-3.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Shaq can share the spotlight. Just not with Kobe. Nothing pissed me off more than seeing Shaq goto Miami determined, focused and in shape. Everything he lost in the last year with the Lakers.
That had more to do with trying to redeem himself....prove that he was still great and that the Lakers made a mistake in trading him.
Then he played for 4 teams in, what, 5 years?...or something like that.

[AlphaWolf24]

2000 was the last year it was Shaq's team...by early 2001 Kobe Bryant was the premiere player in the League..

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/user_images/2162000/AlphaWolf-2162827_499_650.jpg

2001 was perpetual start of the Lakers starting to use Kobe as the main option in the 2nd Half, and the clear #1 in the most important parts of the game...Kobe was basically in the exact same role as MJ during the Bull's titles runs...(get everyone involved early...Shaq, Fish etc...Take over in the 2nd half/4th) as shown earlier..the biggest Sports media outlet in the world was calling Kobe "the best player in the league"..anyone who claims it was still Shaq as the #1 is clearly blinded by something.

"Kobe is the best player in the World" - Shaq 2001 "Kobe is the best allaround player I ever coached" - Phil Jackson 2001

Both Phil and Shaq would tell you Kobe was the best player in the NBA in 2001, anyone disagreeing with that is just plain spiteful.

2002 once agin Kobe was the best allaround player in the League and L.A.'s clear go to guy and Leader...Shaq's inability to stay healthy and poor work ethic was once again showing itself to be a chemistry destroyer (Just like Orlando ,LA , Miami , PHX and Cleveland) ...in 2 short years Shaq would be traded to Miami and the Lakers would once again go to 3 straight Finals and win Back 2 Back Titles.

[Bigsmoke]

this topic is played out.

Shaq and Kobe were great and win championships. Shaq scored more points... good for him.

[t-rex]

What happened in the Kings/Lakers WCF left a black mark on the NBA. IMO, it was one of the worst days/controversies in the history of the NBA.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Shaq was the number 1 option on all 3 teams and the best and most important player in the league during those years. I remember Phil stating quite a few times that Shaq was the 1st option. Kobe became one of the top 3, or at worst, top 5 players during the last 2 titles.

Kobe's level of play was arguably greater than any other second option during '01 and '02, though. But he'd tell you himself that he wasn't the 1st option on those teams, I've heard him say it several times. In '03, Kobe was the 1st option by default with Shaq out for the first 12, then they went back to the offense going through Shaq first like they were use to, but the team was still not playing that well, and Phil gave Kobe more freedom in late January sparking those scoring streaks and getting the Lakers going, though he apparently made Shaq the 1st option again late in the season. As Kobe claimed, Phil had come to him and said that Shaq wasn't in the condition to carry the offensive load like in the past, so he asked Kobe to do it, and Kobe claimed Shaq got upset and Phil made him the 1st option again. You can kind of see this with Kobe's big February and then Shaq's player of the month in March.

'03 was the transition year, but quite a bit of confusion as to who was the man, not unlike Lebron/Wade in '11. Phil stated Shaq was the 1st option in '04, but it seemed to work out more to a 1.A/1.B situation. In '03, Kobe was really entering his prime averaging 30/7/6 and Shaq had a bit of a down year compared to the 3peat, though he did put up 28/11/3, 2+ bpg on 57%.

By '06, Kobe definitely would've been the man. When Shaq went to Miami in '05, he was initially the first option, but he got injured late in the season and Wade really took that role from him with his breakout performance in the playoffs. His minutes dropped to 31 per game, though he was still averaging 20/9/2/2 and had some big games in the 1st 3 rounds and a dominant ECF. By then, it was pretty clear who was the 2nd option, though the team still couldn't succeed without Shaq. They were under .500 without him(10-13, and 10-11 when Wade played) despite having Alonzo Mourning to fill in who averaged 12/9 with 4 bpg.

But there's some pretty one-sided analysis here, though. It wasn't just Shaq not wanting to share the spotlight, he made mistakes taking to the media and also the delayed surgery. But 2001 was primarily Kobe's fault. He talked about not getting enough recognition compared to other stars like AI, T-Mac and Carter, wanting a scoring title and MVP like Shaq had, quotes like "the triangle is boring" and in response to Phil telling Kobe he wanted to Shaq to remain the first option "turn my game down? I gotta turn my game up". Clearly defying his coaches orders and there's no condoning that. both Phil and Jerry West said he figured it out when the Lakers played better without him going 11-3.
Shaq & Kobe led the Lakers in points each in half the Playoffs (2 series each, 4 total) in the '01 & '02 Postseasons
And like I already said before that Kobe led the Lakers in 4th quarter PPG in the '02 Postseason ('01 as well, but there was a lot of blowouts) And that Kobe was leading scorer through the entire Western Conference Playoffs in '01 & '02
How was he not a 1B in '01 & '02?

[SwayDizzle]

They did, the divide become much more deep until the point of no return (Shaq, and Kobe both essentially demanding that management trade the other player).

During the 03-04 seasons Kobe and Shaq's production and talent level also became nearly identical if not Kobe surpassing Shaq. In the 02-03 season Kobe averaged 30/7/6/2 a game while Shaq averaged 27/11/2.5 blocks. In 03-04 season Kobe averaged 24 ppg while Shaq averaged 22 ppg. That was a huge reason why the Lakers broke up, Shaq couldn't handle Kobe slowly becoming more dominant and the man of that team while Shaq was slowly deteriorating. Shaq's last championship in 2006 was essentially a shell of his early 2000 dominant self, averaging 17/9 in the finals while wade averaged 30 ppg.

If shaq would have stayed with the Lakers the 2006 finals would have been how his seasons there would have played out. Him slowly getting worse while Kobe would become more and more dominant. Shaq couldn't handle taking a backseat to Kobe so he decided he would rather win a championship with another dominant wing player (wade) rather than help Kobe win his first as the clear cut #1.
Nice :applause: :applause: :applause:

[BEAST Griffin]

00-02 Lakers w/o Kobe = 28-6 record

00-02 Lakers w/o Shaq = 13-12 record

/thread

[Quickening]

Laker fans are just horrible... they're really pretending Kobe was as good as Shaq in 2001..:facepalm

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq & Kobe led the Lakers in points each in half the Playoffs (2 series each, 4 total) in the '01 & '02 Postseasons
And like I already said before that Kobe led the Lakers in 4th quarter PPG in the '02 Postseason ('01 as well, but there was a lot of blowouts) And that Kobe was leading scorer through the entire Western Conference Playoffs in '01 & '02
How was he not a 1B in '01 & '02?

He wasn't 1.A/1.B in either year because there was a player on his team that was better than him and the guy the offense went through first who was the primary focus of opposing defenses and the guy drawing most of the doubles.

Kobe was the MVP of the Spurs series each year, Shaq was better in the other 3.

1.A/1.B to me is when there isn't a guy who is known as the 1st option and when you can make a case for either player being better, and that simply wasn't the case those years, imo, I didn't think so at the time and I don't 10 years later. Shaq was winning the best player polls by a landslide until Duncan's second title in '03.


00-02 Lakers w/o Kobe = 28-6 record

00-02 Lakers w/o Shaq = 13-12 record

/thread

Actually, the Lakers were 25-7 w/o Kobe from '00-'02, but 25-6 in the games Shaq played. And 13-13 w/o Shaq, but 13-12 in the games Kobe played.

[BlackVVaves]

They did, the divide become much more deep until the point of no return (Shaq, and Kobe both essentially demanding that management trade the other player).

During the 03-04 seasons Kobe and Shaq's production and talent level also became nearly identical if not Kobe surpassing Shaq. In the 02-03 season Kobe averaged 30/7/6/2 a game while Shaq averaged 27/11/2.5 blocks. In 03-04 season Kobe averaged 24 ppg while Shaq averaged 22 ppg. That was a huge reason why the Lakers broke up, Shaq couldn't handle Kobe slowly becoming more dominant and the man of that team while Shaq was slowly deteriorating. Shaq's last championship in 2006 was essentially a shell of his early 2000 dominant self, averaging 17/9 in the finals while wade averaged 30 ppg.

If shaq would have stayed with the Lakers the 2006 finals would have been how his seasons there would have played out. Him slowly getting worse while Kobe would become more and more dominant. Shaq couldn't handle taking a backseat to Kobe so he decided he would rather win a championship with another dominant wing player (wade) rather than help Kobe win his first as the clear cut #1.

:applause:

Though I think Kobe's unwillingness to allow Shaq to be the undisputed leader of the team was detrimental to the team's potential, untapped success (Shaq and Kobe should have and could have won in 2004, 2005, and or 2006 with proper roster management and Phil remaining HC), I think it was essential for Kobe and Shaq to split for their individual growth and careers -- particularly a young Kobe. They both wanted to prove to the other, the media, and themselves that they were All-Time greats, and could be champions without the other.

What I don't understand as a NBA fan. Shaq won his last title in Miami as second fiddle to Dwayne Wade, specifically in the Finals. Was Kobe's desire to be great, even greater than Shaq, so troubling to the Diesel's ego that he could allow Kobe to be the #1 option as he was in the 02-03 and 03-04
seasons? Was it the fact that Wade was quiet about his ability in comparison to Kobe's demeanor?

Even so, what Shaq and Wade experienced in the 04-05, 05-06, and 06-07 seasons was the "honeymoon" phase, much like Shaq and Kobe's first few years and titles together. One thing about Shaq back then that was constant -- he never left those teams/cities in good grace. There was always conflict involved, whether with Kobe in LA or Riley in Miami, that surrounded his departure. Which leads me to believe that Shaq himself was as much reason to blame for the dynasty 2000 Lakers fall as Kobe. Common denominator.

[LAClipsFan33]

Shaq was definitely 1st option. He commanded the double. The 1st time Kobe got the 1st option like double was in the Finals series against the Pistons.

Larry Brown had a simple strategy that other coaches hadn't bothered to implement because of fear of Shaq. He doubled Kobe and Kobe decided he would still shot jack over two defenders. We saw how that turned out...

[The Iron Fist]

What happened in the Kings/Lakers WCF left a black mark on the NBA. IMO, it was one of the worst days/controversies in the history of the NBA.
I agree. Seeing Sac get 40 freethrows in game three was simply disgusting.

[LAClipsFan33]

Shaq himself was as much reason to blame for the dynasty 2000 Lakers fall as Kobe. Common denominator.

Also his jealousy of Penny in Orlando. Shaq is a punkass...plain and simple

[The Iron Fist]

Shaq was definitely 1st option. He commanded the double. The 1st time Kobe got the 1st option like double was in the Finals series against the Pistons.

Larry Brown had a simple strategy that other coaches hadn't bothered to implement because of fear of Shaq. He doubled Kobe and Kobe decided he would still shot jack over two defenders. We saw how that turned out...
Yup. Got rid of Shaq and ended up with three straight finals and back to back fmvps. Shaqs presence corraled Kobes greatness. Once freed from the fatass, Kobe dominated the league.

[LAClipsFan33]

Yup. Got rid of Shaq and ended up with three straight finals and back to back fmvps. Shaqs presence corraled Kobes greatness. Once freed from the fatass, Kobe dominated the league.

Kobe is no different as a player with or without Shaq if you ask me.

The way he played this year in the playoffs pretty much confirms it. Same old player. The same things Shaq and Phil Jackson used to complain about with Kobe was on display this playoff season.

[Odinn]

Shaq was the number 1 option on all 3 teams and the best and most important player in the league during those years. I remember Phil stating quite a few times that Shaq was the 1st option. Kobe became one of the top 3, or at worst, top 5 players during the last 2 titles.

Kobe's level of play was arguably greater than any other second option during '01 and '02, though. But he'd tell you himself that he wasn't the 1st option on those teams, I've heard him say it several times. In '03, Kobe was the 1st option by default with Shaq out for the first 12, then they went back to the offense going through Shaq first like they were use to, but the team was still not playing that well, and Phil gave Kobe more freedom in late January sparking those scoring streaks and getting the Lakers going, though he apparently made Shaq the 1st option again late in the season. As Kobe claimed, Phil had come to him and said that Shaq wasn't in the condition to carry the offensive load like in the past, so he asked Kobe to do it, and Kobe claimed Shaq got upset and Phil made him the 1st option again. You can kind of see this with Kobe's big February and then Shaq's player of the month in March.

'03 was the transition year, but quite a bit of confusion as to who was the man, not unlike Lebron/Wade in '11. Phil stated Shaq was the 1st option in '04, but it seemed to work out more to a 1.A/1.B situation. In '03, Kobe was really entering his prime averaging 30/7/6 and Shaq had a bit of a down year compared to the 3peat, though he did put up 28/11/3, 2+ bpg on 57%.

By '06, Kobe definitely would've been the man. When Shaq went to Miami in '05, he was initially the first option, but he got injured late in the season and Wade really took that role from him with his breakout performance in the playoffs. His minutes dropped to 31 per game, though he was still averaging 20/9/2/2 and had some big games in the 1st 3 rounds and a dominant ECF. By then, it was pretty clear who was the 2nd option, though the team still couldn't succeed without Shaq. They were under .500 without him(10-13, and 10-11 when Wade played) despite having Alonzo Mourning to fill in who averaged 12/9 with 4 bpg.

But there's some pretty one-sided analysis here, though. It wasn't just Shaq not wanting to share the spotlight, he made mistakes taking to the media and also the delayed surgery. But 2001 was primarily Kobe's fault. He talked about not getting enough recognition compared to other stars like AI, T-Mac and Carter, wanting a scoring title and MVP like Shaq had, quotes like "the triangle is boring" and in response to Phil telling Kobe he wanted to Shaq to remain the first option "turn my game down? I gotta turn my game up". Clearly defying his coaches orders and there's no condoning that. both Phil and Jerry West said he figured it out when the Lakers played better without him going 11-3.
Another Kobe fap fap thread owned by ShaqAttack.:applause: :bowdown:

Just start using tissues Kobetards, like you used to before posting.

[The Iron Fist]

Kobe is no different as a player with or without Shaq if you ask me.

The way he played this year in the playoffs pretty much confirms it. Same old player. The same things Shaq and Phil Jackson used to complain about with Kobe was on display this playoff season.
Now post his averages for the playoffs.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Kobe ran Shaq and Phil outta town. The end.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq was definitely 1st option. He commanded the double. The 1st time Kobe got the 1st option like double was in the Finals series against the Pistons.

Larry Brown had a simple strategy that other coaches hadn't bothered to implement because of fear of Shaq. He doubled Kobe and Kobe decided he would still shot jack over two defenders. We saw how that turned out...

Brown did play Shaq 1 on1 almost exclusively, but Kobe wasn't getting doubled much either, he was played by Prince 1 on 1 more often than not and almost always shooting doubles.

I agree that Kobe was Kobe regardless of who he played with though. His individual ability is not a question. He was close to as skilled and capable individually by the '03 season as he'd ever get. But he clearly became much more of a leader in recent years than when he was young and more introverted.


Also his jealousy of Penny in Orlando. Shaq is a punkass...plain and simple

The Shaq/Penny thing wasn't a big issue to me. Penny himself said he was devastated when Shaq signed with LA and when they played Phoenix with Penny on the team 4 years later in the WCF, Penny was speaking fondly about the years with Shaq on the Magic.

The guys Shaq really took shots at when he signed with LA were Brian Hill who he said the players didn't respect(and Penny supposedly got him fired a year later), and Nick Anderson, who I think he called out for choking.

The guy who Shaq had the big feud with was Kobe, other than that, it was him taking a shot here or there, such as at Ricky Davis/Chris Quinn, and he did claim to get Van Exel traded after '98. Not sure how true that is because I remember hearing some of it had to do with the Del Harris feud. Though I'm sure Van Exel talking about vacation plans in a timeout during the elimination game of the WCF, a series he shot 24% in didn't help.

[LAClipsFan33]

Now post his averages for the playoffs.

I don't need to post them to know that they are similar. I watched all of it live

[LAClipsFan33]

Brown did play Shaq 1 on1 almost exclusively, but Kobe wasn't getting doubled much either, he was played by Prince 1 on 1 more often than not and almost always shooting doubles.


They decided that if they brought a double it would be on Kobe and never Shaq. That's what I was saying. To my knowledge no one had ever used this strategy on those Lakers.

[triangleoffense]

Shaq was the number 1 option on all 3 teams and the best and most important player in the league during those years. I remember Phil stating quite a few times that Shaq was the 1st option. Kobe became one of the top 3, or at worst, top 5 players during the last 2 titles.

Kobe's level of play was arguably greater than any other second option during '01 and '02, though. But he'd tell you himself that he wasn't the 1st option on those teams, I've heard him say it several times. In '03, Kobe was the 1st option by default with Shaq out for the first 12, then they went back to the offense going through Shaq first like they were use to, but the team was still not playing that well, and Phil gave Kobe more freedom in late January sparking those scoring streaks and getting the Lakers going, though he apparently made Shaq the 1st option again late in the season. As Kobe claimed, Phil had come to him and said that Shaq wasn't in the condition to carry the offensive load like in the past, so he asked Kobe to do it, and Kobe claimed Shaq got upset and Phil made him the 1st option again. You can kind of see this with Kobe's big February and then Shaq's player of the month in March.

'03 was the transition year, but quite a bit of confusion as to who was the man, not unlike Lebron/Wade in '11. Phil stated Shaq was the 1st option in '04, but it seemed to work out more to a 1.A/1.B situation. In '03, Kobe was really entering his prime averaging 30/7/6 and Shaq had a bit of a down year compared to the 3peat, though he did put up 28/11/3, 2+ bpg on 57%.

By '06, Kobe definitely would've been the man. When Shaq went to Miami in '05, he was initially the first option, but he got injured late in the season and Wade really took that role from him with his breakout performance in the playoffs. His minutes dropped to 31 per game, though he was still averaging 20/9/2/2 and had some big games in the 1st 3 rounds and a dominant ECF. By then, it was pretty clear who was the 2nd option, though the team still couldn't succeed without Shaq. They were under .500 without him(10-13, and 10-11 when Wade played) despite having Alonzo Mourning to fill in who averaged 12/9 with 4 bpg.

But there's some pretty one-sided analysis here, though. It wasn't just Shaq not wanting to share the spotlight, he made mistakes taking to the media and also the delayed surgery. But 2001 was primarily Kobe's fault. He talked about not getting enough recognition compared to other stars like AI, T-Mac and Carter, wanting a scoring title and MVP like Shaq had, quotes like "the triangle is boring" and in response to Phil telling Kobe he wanted to Shaq to remain the first option "turn my game down? I gotta turn my game up". Clearly defying his coaches orders and there's no condoning that. both Phil and Jerry West said he figured it out when the Lakers played better without him going 11-3.

Well this would be the other side of the argument. Either way both parties made mistakes. I'm not disputing the majority of what you said but there's much more to it than 1st option and 2nd option. Shaq was always the 1st option in the playoffs because it's much more important to dominant the paint in the playoffs but Kobe was definitely always the #1 option on the perimeter.

There was essentially nobody else who could play-make on the wing/perimeter and Kobe engulfed the majority of the playmaking responsibilities out there. That's why all the announcers at the time kept on calling the duo "the best 1-2 punch of all time". Shaq, as important as he was to the team, still couldn't dominant the perimeter/wing like Kobe (which needs to happen for the triangle to work) and wasn't someone you would want on the court in the closing seconds because of his FT shooting liability. Jackson would deliberately pull O'Neal out of the game during essential closing minutes of 4th quarters just so the opposing coach couldnt go hack-a-shaq in the waning seconds of the 4th.

That's why the tandem was so effective. The dominance of the paint by Shaq coupled with the dominance of the wing/perimeter by Kobe. You could argue which one had more of an impact on the game but either way too much of one couldn't live without the other.



He wasn't 1.A/1.B in either year because there was a player on his team that was better than him and the guy the offense went through first who was the primary focus of opposing defenses and the guy drawing most of the doubles.

Kobe was the MVP of the Spurs series each year, Shaq was better in the other 3.

1.A/1.B to me is when there isn't a guy who is known as the 1st option and when you can make a case for either player being better, and that simply wasn't the case those years, imo, I didn't think so at the time and I don't 10 years later. Shaq was winning the best player polls by a landslide until Duncan's second title in '03.


I think your nitpicking at the definition there. I see the "1a/1b" definition as the case when both players have near equal impact on their team and their numbers and impact show enough to warrant the distinction. As I stated earlier.. those teams had no clear cut 3rd option, no other playmaking ability on the perimeter and the numbers during the ending stretch of that dynasty showcase that point, in Kobe having better overall numbers (season and certain playoff series) than Shaq.

To draw a similar comparison I never ever saw Pippen dominant an entire series like Kobe during multiple stretches of those championship runs and never did i see Pippen outperform MJ on the stat sheet.

[triangleoffense]

Another Kobe fap fap thread owned by ShaqAttack.:applause: :bowdown:

Just start using tissues Kobetards, like you used to before posting.
See my response, I'm still trying to reply to other posts.

[longtime lurker]

Kobe was just as important to the threepeat. Anyone says otherwise is simply hurt by Kobes career.

/thread. Both players are idiots for not trying to work things out.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Though I think Kobe's unwillingness to allow Shaq to be the undisputed leader of the team was detrimental to the team's potential,
:roll:
Shaq WAS the undisputed leader and Kobe WAS playing under that role.
Several things though.....
1. Shaq habitually belittled Kobe in practices, beyond the point of professional acceptability (this according to Tex Winter).

2. The MEDIA raised up Kobe to Shaq's level (or thereabouts), thereby making Shaq sensitive to Kobe's relative greatness. Shaq did not handle that well...and that is NOT Kobe's fault.

3. Shaq became increasingly UNprofessional. Showing up out of shape. Getting lazy. etc. Kobe found that to be frustrating and, well, unprofessional.

[Micku]

I think how Phil Jackson got them to play together in the 1999-2000 season and how they imploded their last season is more interesting than their championship ride.

The 1997-1999 Lakers had more talent than any of the championship teams IMO. They even had Dennis Rodman for a little while. They were a team without direction tho. Rodman even commented on how he really disliked the backstage drama on the Lakers while he was there. Regardless, I always thought that they were more fun to watch back then than their championship run. They were probably the most talented teams in the league around that stretch, but they strangely kept getting swept by the Jazz or the Spurs. They were definitely more talented than the Spurs in 1999, but the Spurs were the better team.
----
1999-2000:
When Phil Jackson came in, he had to deal with the ego of Shaq, Kobe, and Glen Rice. Egos were all over the place. Granted, it was worse when Nick Van Exel was there probably. Even when he came in, it was still a bit shaky. Watch the interview of Kobe after one of P.Jax practice runs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnvtz0Ok_0o#t=05m06s

P.Jax also wanted to improve the Lakers defense, starting with Shaq. I think one of P.Jax books he mentioned that Shaq would complain about doing something for a little while, but eventually agrees. This could be one of those things.

It's also no coincidence that Kobe and Shaq were on the all defensive team when P.Jax wanted them to focus on defense. And with the combination of Phil Jackson to contain the egos, him and his assistant coach Tex Winter triangle offense, which force them to play as a team by sharing the basketball, and additions of veterans like Ron Harper and AC Green to remind them that they need to play as a team, it helped them out tremendously. Especially Ron Harper who sacrifice offense and changed his game on defense, and he knew how to play within the triangle and team from the Bulls. There were reports around saying how Harper had to remind the Lakers to play as a team and not break out of the offense.

While the Lakers offense was always good (they were top 2 in 1998 and 1999) it was more due to them being raw and incredibly talented with Shaq and the crew. Phil Jackson and Tex Winter polished it up. They also made some changes that help them out. They traded Eddie Jones for Glen Rice. While Eddie Jones was awesome, Glen Rice was the type of shooter they needed when Shaq was face with double-triple teams. Of course, Harper was good addition. They got rid of Elden Campbell (him and Eddie were a tough loss). They wanted to get more shooters to surround Shaq I.E like Howard and the Magic.

The Lakers of 1999-2000 wouldn't have won anything without Phil Jackson. Shaq wouldn't been as good and Kobe wouldn't been as good that year without him. They probably would get swept again or the Blazers would've knocked them out.
----


2000-01

The Lakers dealt with injuries most of the year. Rice got out, Fisher was out, Kobe missed a few games, and Shaq did as well. Kobe exploded this year, but he kind'a did more than what he had to. He sometimes played out of the offense, took some bad shots, but he was still great. Once they were all healthy, they amazingly swept everybody except for Philly. IMO, while Kobe did played amazing, Shaq was still the main guy. They won more with him, and he was more of a mismatch and a threat. They all came together in the playoffs and they took turns dominating teams. I think the playoffs they were closer to 1a and 1b than the regular season until the finals.


2002
The Kings were better.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Well this would be the other side of the argument. Either way both parties made mistakes. I'm not disputing the majority of what you said but there's much more to it than 1st option and 2nd option. Shaq was always the 1st option in the playoffs because it's much more important to dominant the paint in the playoffs but Kobe was definitely always the #1 option on the perimeter.

I wasn't primarily responding to you with the criticism of Shaq exclusively. Sorry for any confusion, there were several posts that were just pointing out Shaq's mistakes and don't like seeing just one side displayed, so I kind of made that a general reply.


There was essentially nobody else who could play-make on the wing/perimeter and Kobe engulfed the majority of the playmaking responsibilities out there. That's why all the announcers at the time kept on calling the duo "the best 1-2 punch of all time". Shaq, as important as he was to the team, still couldn't dominant the perimeter/wing like Kobe (which needs to happen for the triangle to work) and wasn't someone you would want on the court in the closing seconds because of his FT shooting liability. Jackson would deliberately pull O'Neal out of the game during essential closing minutes of 4th quarters just so the opposing coach couldnt go hack-a-shaq in the waning seconds of the 4th.

I'm not denying Kobe was essential to those teams, both were, there are always multiple players who are essential to a championship team. And as I said, I consider '01 and '02 Kobe just about as good as any 2nd option, if not better.

As far as Shaq getting pulled in 4th quarters, well, this was not really common. The times that Shaq would sit on the bench are when he was shooting free throws very badly(not even making 1 of 2), and the team was going to the hack-a-Shaq strategy, but the strategy was not used that often. It was used more once in a while. And even then, Phil would usually only sit Shaq for a minute or 2 until the 2 minute mark when teams could no longer use the strategy.

And the other times are when the Lakers were up and the other team had to foul with less than a minute remaining, or when the Lakers were guarding against a 3 exclusively.


That's why the tandem was so effective. The dominance of the paint by Shaq coupled with the dominance of the wing/perimeter by Kobe. You could argue which one had more of an impact on the game but either way too much of one couldn't live without the other.

Well, the one part I disagree with is that I just don't think a debate could be had to who made a bigger impact. The only player during those 3 years who I think was ever close to Shaq's impact was Duncan in '02. I think it's a legitimate debate in '03, though.


I think your nitpicking at the definition there. I see the "1a/1b" definition as the case when both players have near equal impact on their team and their numbers and impact show enough to warrant the distinction. As I stated earlier.. those teams had no clear cut 3rd option, no other playmaking ability on the perimeter and the numbers during the ending stretch of that dynasty showcase that point, in Kobe having better overall numbers (season and certain playoff series) than Shaq.

Well, the difference is that I don't agree their impact was nearly equal in '01 and '02. This doesn't mean I think that Kobe was anything less than an elite player and one of the top 3-4 in the league.

I don't see Kobe as having better numbers for the season either. He did in the Spurs series in '01 and '02, though.

I agree that no 3rd option made Kobe's role more significant than just about any other second option, though.


To draw a similar comparison I never ever saw Pippen dominant an entire series like Kobe during multiple stretches of those championship runs and never did i see Pippen outperform MJ on the stat sheet.

Well, there's a difference. Both Shaq and Kobe were among the top scorers, Pippen was a very good one, but not in the same category as MJ, Shaq and Kobe as a scorer, so the gap between their scoring was always more significant.

There were a few series where Pippen was arguably the team's MVP, though, such as the '93 ECF. And I don't see more than 2 series in the entire 3peat when Kobe was the MVP of the series, and both came during the Spurs. It's not always the case that the team's best player is the MVP in every series if you look at a lot of series.

But look at Bird/McHale in the '86 playoffs for example, the gap between their scoring was the same as '01 Shaq and Kobe, and smaller than '02 Shaq and Kobe. '05 Duncan and Manu, and '07 Duncan and Parker didn't have a much bigger gap statistically or in scoring. And if you look at the Spurs '99 run, Robinson led them in scoring during the WCF and even Avery Johnson led them in scoring during the 1st round, but Duncan was still clearly the man on that team and the best player in the league.

[triangleoffense]

:roll:
Shaq WAS the undisputed leader and Kobe WAS playing under that role.
Several things though.....
1. Shaq habitually belittled Kobe in practices, beyond the point of professional acceptability (this according to Tex Winter).

2. The MEDIA raised up Kobe to Shaq's level (or thereabouts), thereby making Shaq sensitive to Kobe's relative greatness. Shaq did not handle that well...and that is NOT Kobe's fault.

3. Shaq became increasingly UNprofessional. Showing up out of shape. Getting lazy. etc. Kobe found that to be frustrating and, well, unprofessional.
That was not the case during the entire time. As Micku pointed out, even as early as the 99-00 season, Frank Hamblen, assistant coach of the Lakers at the time stated that there was "a shaq faction on one side" and a "kobe faction on the other". This dynamic would continue to exist during the entire span of the early 00s Laker dynasty and the favor of the team would sometimes swing from one to the other. Not everyone was cool with Shaq showing up to training camp out of shape, it wasn't just Kobe. Just like not a lot of people were cool with Kobe, snitching (or at least dry snitching), on shaq sometime during their title runs.

This is the clip of Hamblen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnvtz0Ok_0o#t=05m06s

[Micku]

The Lakers in the later years is more interesting in how they imploded. I'm still very shocked that they lost to the Spurs in 03 and the Pistons 04. In 2003, Kobe was getting closer to be the "main guy" of the team. I think around that time, more ppl started to call him the best player on the Lakers, but Shaq was still dominating like no other.

In 03-04, that year was a strange year overall. Especially for the Lakers. Shaq and Kobe were throwing jabs at each other, Payton didn't understand the offense, Phil Jackson was getting frustrated with Kobe. I think Shaq got even more lazy and not in shape. Karl Malone was the only guy who fit right (without backstage drama I believe), and played well within the triangle but even he got into with Kobe after the season. And they lost the Pistons, which still amaze me to this day.

[triangleoffense]

Well, the difference is that I don't agree their impact was nearly equal in '01 and '02. This doesn't mean I think that Kobe was anything less than an elite player and one of the top 3-4 in the league.

I don't see Kobe as having better numbers for the season either. He did in the Spurs series in '01 and '02, though.

I agree that no 3rd option made Kobe's role more significant than just about any other second option, though.

I would have to agree with you on this point, relatively speaking Shaq's paint dominance was much more critical to the team's success, especially during the Finals, which is obviously the most important series (with the most at stake) of the playoffs. Hell he dominated the finals during those years better than arguably any center or even one player during the height of the run, what I'm stating is that Kobe is what allowed him to do so.

With Kobe you couldn't double or triple team Shaq on every possession because then you had a legitimate threat on the wing. While Shaq dominated the paint unlike any center I've ever seen during that run it was Kobe's will that got them through a large number of games as well (not to say Shaq doesn't have a similar strong will). Kobe also made the triangle run brilliantly, like many have stated, the triangle needs a dominant wing player who can open up room in the paint and block for the two cutters to get open.



Well, there's a difference. Both Shaq and Kobe were among the top scorers, Pippen was a very good one, but not in the same category as MJ, Shaq and Kobe as a scorer, so the gap between their scoring was always more significant.

There were a few series where Pippen was arguably the team's MVP, though, such as the '93 ECF. And I don't see more than 2 series in the entire 3peat when Kobe was the MVP of the series, and both came during the Spurs. It's not always the case that the team's best player is the MVP in every series if you look at a lot of series.

But look at Bird/McHale in the '86 playoffs for example, the gap between their scoring was the same as '01 Shaq and Kobe, and smaller than '02 Shaq and Kobe. '05 Duncan and Manu, and '07 Duncan and Parker didn't have a much bigger gap statistically or in scoring. And if you look at the Spurs '99 run, Robinson led them in scoring during the WCF and even Avery Johnson led them in scoring during the 1st round, but Duncan was still clearly the man on that team and the best player in the league.

That's true, scoring isn't always significant. Like with Durant and Westbrook. But looking at where both types of point production come from you can see the significance. As I recently stated, Kobe's point production comes mostly from the wing and perimeter while Shaq from the paint. This is why they worked beautifully together offensively. As for Pippen it's debatable whether he would have been better in 93, the case could be made but the tie breaker for the FMVP has mainly mostly been ppg scored, although there are exceptions with big men. I do agree with your point about the impact of Pippen during that year and subsequent years.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I would have to agree with you on this point, relatively speaking Shaq's paint dominance was much more critical to the team's success, especially during the Finals, which is obviously the most important series (with the most at stake) of the playoffs. Hell he dominated the finals during those years better than arguably any center or even one player during the height of the run, what I'm stating is that Kobe is what allowed him to do so.

We're pretty much on the same page now. I just wouldn't phrase it that Kobe allowed Shaq to dominate. I think both could and would dominate games individually regardless of who they were playing with, but without Kobe, Shaq would've got to the point in the playoffs where he averaged his 35-40 or whatever, and the team would lose vs the true championship contenders because you can't win with one player getting his, and you obviously need another look, and Kobe provided that from the perimeter.


With Kobe you couldn't double or triple team Shaq on every possession because then you had a legitimate threat on the wing. While Shaq dominated the paint unlike any center I've ever seen during that run it was Kobe's will that got them through a large number of games as well (not to say Shaq doesn't have a similar strong will). Kobe also made the triangle run brilliantly, like many have stated, the triangle needs a dominant wing player who can open up room in the paint and block for the two cutters to get open.

Agreed, and this came into play a lot on last second shots, and it's the main reason why I think Kobe was usually the preferred option on gamewinners. Gregg Popovich said something like "You know where Shaq is going to be so you can double him and get the ball out of his hands, but what makes Kobe so dangerous on these shots is that it's much tougher to double him and get the ball out his hands". I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

What people overlook when acting like the recent Laker frontcourts are an extension of the Shaq era, or similar is that Kobe has become the primary focus of opposing defenses. He has always drawn more doubles than Gasol or Bynum and still does.


That's true, scoring isn't always significant. Like with Durant and Westbrook. But looking at where both types of point production come from you can see the significance. As I recently stated, Kobe's point production comes mostly from the wing and perimeter while Shaq from the paint. This is why they worked beautifully together offensively. As for Pippen it's debatable whether he would have been better in 93, the case could be made but the tie breaker for the FMVP has mainly mostly been ppg scored, although there are exceptions with big men. I do agree with your point about the impact of Pippen during that year and subsequent years.

Durant and Westbrook is interesting because Durant is their best player and scorer, but Westbrook has become at least as much of the 1st option.

I agree that it was amazing to watch an inside/outside duo of that caliber in the triangle, both were the 2 most dominant scorers in the game at that time and great passers as well, which added to their success.

It was one of the things that made Phil take the Lakers job, he wanted to see what the triangle would be like with a dominant center. He had always preferred centers who were big targets in the post and could seal off their man and get position like Cartwright and Longley, but neither were dominant. Longley was more of a passer, and Cartwright wasn't a very good passer. But they did look to establish Bill early in games in the post, so he was really their 3rd scoring option, but less as his career went on. I really liked the sideline triangle as a way to feed the post, the heat used it to feed Shaq at times. They didn't run the triangle offense, but used it as an effective way to get the ball to Shaq in the post.

In most cases, you need to be a capable and willing passer to fit in the triangle, all of the stars were. Whether it was Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, Kobe or Gasol. It's one of the reasons why I believe Phil limited Bynum's offensive role so much. And why Tex Winter didn't have that much success implementing it with the '72 Rockets when Elvin Hayes was his star and too selfish.

I found it interesting that on a team built around a dominant big man with a star guard who specialized in penetrating and taking his man off the dribble playing in an offense that Phil called "essentially a shooter's offense", that they didn't put a good shooting team around them. It got better after 2000, when they were the 5th worst and had 1 3 point shooter(Glen Rice who made 1.1 per game). Still in the bottom 10 by '01, but they improved in the playoffs with Fox actually matching Rice's shooting and Fisher getting hot and giving them shooting.

I would like to see the offense with a different, unique collection of talent, so I'm hoping to see Brian Shaw get a head coaching job and use it, or ideally Phil return. I was hoping for him to come here to NY, but that pipe dream is over. :facepalm

As far as Pippen, well, Jordan was clearly their best and most important player, I was just saying that there were certain series where it was debatable who their MVP was. They had some of the most memorable runs as a duo too. Pippen really emerged in the second half of the '91 season and the playoffs growing into the point forward role, improving his defense and improving his outside shot and provided the perfect complement to Jordan who had a historic playoff run that year himself. And '92 was their best playoff run together as Pippen took his game to another level becoming without question one of the top 10 players in the game, while Jordan was still at the top of his game and they took out better competition than in '91. That was Pippen's best year of the first 3peat.

Not that I agree with it, but it is interesting that there were a few calling Pippen the best player in the game during '96 such as Doug Collins. He was slowed by an ankle injury in the second half of the playoffs, but you could argue that both were top 5 by that point with Jordan being the best in the league.

What Pippen brought was so unique, whether it's his help defensive, which is among the best ever, and to a lesser extent, his versatile man to man defense, his rebounding which was comparable to some power forwards, his role as the primary playmaker, and also his ability as a 20-22 ppg scorer. Scoring wasn't what made him great, but being one of the all-time great open court players, a capable outside shot, a good ball handler for a legitimate 6'8" player, a great athlete and later, a good post player with the jump hook and bank shot made him more than capable of scoring. When I think of all around players, Pippen is one of the first that come to mind. Not to mention his leadership and basketball IQ. He's a very hard guy to replace.

[97 bulls]

Kobe was never ever on shaqs level during the lakers threepeat. NEVER. He was a great player, but i dont remember people ever even implying that they were a 1A/1B type duo. Nor was he top five. Duncan, Shaq, Iverson, Tmac, Kidd, even Mourning were ranked higher. To name a few.

[The Choken One]

It's incredibly hard to win a championship without 2 star players.

Lakers had 2 superstar players for their 3-peat... take either away and you're not making the finals once in that span. The Lakers ran the offense through Shaq, but Kobe was just an important and you're an idiot if you disagree.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Kobe was never ever on shaqs level during the lakers threepeat. NEVER. He was a great player, but i dont remember people ever even implying that they were a 1A/1B type duo. Nor was he top five. Duncan, Shaq, Iverson, Tmac, Kidd, even Mourning were ranked higher. To name a few.

Most of those guys were only better in '00, and T-Mac obviously wasn't that year since he hadn't developed as much as Kobe by that point.

You're right that he wasn't top 5 in 2000, but I don't agree that Iverson was better. Kobe was imo, the best perimeter defender in 2000, and a more versatile scorer who already had a comparable amount of individual scoring ability to any perimeter player in the league, he just wasn't in a role where he could showcase it like Iverson. But he was a bigger and more versatile player who was much more efficient, and I could see Kobe having a much better shot at duplicating Iverson's success on the 2000 Sixers than Iverson fitting in as the 2nd option on a championship team like Kobe, and obviously that's more important than leading a team to 49 wins and the second round.

Kidd is debatable in 2000, he had some injuries, though I'd lean towards him because he was in his prime, the premier playmaker at the time, the highest basketball IQ and the ultimate intangible guy.

So I'd go with Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Mourning, Malone, Webber, Grant Hill, Payton and maybe Kidd over Kobe in 2000.

Only Shaq and Duncan were better in '01. KG is debatable too, but I'd go with Kobe. And an argument can be made for Kobe as 2nd on the strength of his playoff play, but I'd lean towards Duncan because of the entire season and I'd rather build around him at that point. Same with '02, only Shaq and Duncan were clearly better, KG has a case again, a stronger one than '01.

So he was definitely top 5 in '01 and '02.


It's incredibly hard to win a championship without 2 star players.

Lakers had 2 superstar players for their 3-peat... take either away and you're not making the finals once in that span. The Lakers ran the offense through Shaq, but Kobe was just an important and you're an idiot if you disagree.

:rolleyes: Some clown calling me an idiot for not agreeing with his revionist history. The Lakers aren't making the finals from '08-'10 without Pau, or even Lamar for that matter, but it doesn't change the fact that Kobe was the best and most important player on those teams.

[97 bulls]

Most of those guys were only better in '00, and T-Mac obviously wasn't that year since he hadn't developed as much as Kobe by that point.

You're right that he wasn't top 5 in 2000, but I don't agree that Iverson was better. Kobe was imo, the best perimeter defender in 2000, and a more versatile scorer who already had a comparable amount of individual scoring ability to any perimeter player in the league, he just wasn't in a role where he could showcase it like Iverson. But he was a bigger and more versatile player who was much more efficient, and I could see Kobe having a much better shot at duplicating Iverson's success on the 2000 Sixers than Iverson fitting in as the 2nd option on a championship team like Kobe, and obviously that's more important than leading a team to 49 wins and the second round.

Kidd is debatable in 2000, he had some injuries, though I'd lean towards him because he was in his prime, the premier playmaker at the time, the highest basketball IQ and the ultimate intangible guy.

So I'd go with Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Mourning, Malone, Webber, Grant Hill, Payton and maybe Kidd over Kobe in 2000.

Only Shaq and Duncan were better in '01. KG is debatable too, but I'd go with Kobe. And an argument can be made for Kobe as 2nd on the strength of his playoff play, but I'd lean towards Duncan because of the entire season and I'd rather build around him at that point. Same with '02, only Shaq and Duncan were clearly better, KG has a case again, a stronger one than '01.

So he was definitely top 5 in '01 and '02.



:rolleyes: Some clown calling me an idiot for not agreeing with his revionist history. The Lakers aren't making the finals from '08-'10 without Pau, or even Lamar for that matter, but it doesn't change the fact that Kobe was the best and most important player on those teams.
Perhaps in your opinion he was top 5. And I think that has more to do with Bryants exploits after shaqs departure. But at that time, he was not considered a clear cut top five player. I hate to use it, but he only made top five in the mvp voting during those three seasons once. I remeber players like Ray Allen publicly stating kobe was a product of playing alongside shaq and that he and a plethora of other guards couldve done the exact dame thing he did if they had shaq down low relieving pressure off of him. Phil Jackson saying he was uncoachable.

Which brings me to my next point. You cant say kobe was a better player just because he was more skilled than the players mentioned. Iverson for example made a living through heart and determination. Not skill. I know this is off topic, but you do the same thing when we talk about the 00 Blazers. They were probably the most talented team in the league but the Lakers were the best team. My point is, and i cant stress this enough, player butter their bread in different ways.

[eliteballer]

Kobe was never ever on shaqs level during the lakers threepeat. NEVER. He was a great player, but i dont remember people ever even implying that they were a 1A/1B type duo. Nor was he top five. Duncan, Shaq, Iverson, Tmac, Kidd, even Mourning were ranked higher. To name a few.


You're full of crap. Mourning was never the same after 00 and NO ONE EVER said Kidd was as good, let alone better. Analysts used to routinely say the Lakers had the two best in the L.

Game 7 2000 WCF Kobe carries the Lakers. Also hits gamewinners against Pho and Indiana.

2001 and 2002 pretty equal partnership.

[tpols]

Kobe was never ever on shaqs level during the lakers threepeat. NEVER.
No one in the HISTORY of basketball was ever on peak 00-02 Shaq's level besides maybe Michael Jordan.. and Wilt Chamberlain.:oldlol:

The 'average' first option on a title winning team does not put up better than 29/7/6 or 27/5+/5+.. thats the point. Kobe wasnt better than peak Shaq, but he was better than damn near everyone else on the planet for two of those three titles.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Perhaps in your opinion he was top 5. And I think that has more to do with Bryants exploits after shaqs departure. But at that time, he was not considered a clear cut top five player. I hate to use it, but he only made top five in the mvp voting during those three seasons once. I remeber players like Ray Allen publicly stating kobe was a product of playing alongside shaq and that he and a plethora of other guards couldve done the exact dame thing he did if they had shaq down low relieving pressure off of him. Phil Jackson saying he was uncoachable.

Actually, he was considered top 5 by almost everyone. I specifically remember people regularly calling Shaq and Kobe the 2 best players in the league starting in '01 and '02. I don't completely agree because Duncan has to be considered, but they were in the '01 and '02 playoffs.

I posted these surveys to back up my argument that Shaq was the consensus best player during those years in a separate argument, which I knew to be a fact from following the league closely at the time, but they also show that Kobe was clearly regarded as a top 5 player by most. They do seem to heavily weigh what occurred the previous season into these, so I'll include '03 as well.

GM survey from March '03

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_9_226/ai_83667190/

Shaq got 16 of 19 votes for best player, and Kobe finished as the second best player in the voting, he only got 1 first place vote, but there weren't many available.

GM survey from March '03

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_9_227/ai_98172075/?tag=content;col1

Shaq finished 1st again and Kobe was 2nd again, apparently neck and neck with Duncan in the voting.

And here's another survey from April 2002 from NBA insiders

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/survey/2002-04-19-fan-insider-results.htm

Shaq got 56% of the vote for best player, T-Mac got 16%, Kobe got 10% and others got 18%.


Which brings me to my next point. You cant say kobe was a better player just because he was more skilled than the players mentioned. Iverson for example made a living through heart and determination. Not skill. I know this is off topic, but you do the same thing when we talk about the 00 Blazers. They were probably the most talented team in the league but the Lakers were the best team. My point is, and i cant stress this enough, player butter their bread in different ways.

I don't deny that the Lakers were the better team, what I frequently say is simply that the Blazers were more talented. Though I do add that the Lakers/Blazers were so close as far as better team as evidenced by how close the series was. Can you have a closer series? And 9 times out of 10, a team is not blowing a 15+ 4th quarter lead, much less a great team with a lot of offensive firepower.

But yeah, my point is really that Portland was the more talented team, not necessarily better.

As far as Kobe and Iverson, I know that skills aren't simply how to evaluate a player, if they were, Shaq wouldn't have been the best in the league for several years, and big men in general frequently wouldn't.

My point was that Kobe could impact a game in more ways than Iverson in 2000, and that Kobe fit better on a championship team, plus from watching him play, I saw more than enough ability for me to believe Kobe could at least score a similar amount in Iverson's role. I care more about who could contribute more to most teams and particularly, a championship-caliber team, Iverson had to have more a specialized cast, imo. But I don't think that Iverson was even necessarily better for a 1st option role at that point, but he certainly didn't seem as good for a 2nd option role.



No one in the HISTORY of basketball was ever on peak 00-02 Shaq's level besides maybe Michael Jordan.. and Wilt Chamberlain.:oldlol:

The 'average' first option on a title winning team does not put up better than 29/7/6 or 27/5+/5+.. thats the point. Kobe wasnt better than peak Shaq, but he was better than damn near everyone else on the planet for two of those three titles.

Summed it up perfectly. Though I'd add mid/late 70's Kareem and '93-'95 Hakeem as guys comparable or on the same level as '00-'02 Shaq.

[97 bulls]

No one in the HISTORY of basketball was ever on peak 00-02 Shaq's level besides maybe Michael Jordan.. and Wilt Chamberlain.:oldlol:

The 'average' first option on a title winning team does not put up better than 29/7/6 or 27/5+/5+.. thats the point. Kobe wasnt better than peak Shaq, but he was better than damn near everyone else on the planet for two of those three titles.
Id agree. Dont post that to me. Post it to those that feel they were 1A and 1B. But like I stated earlier, if he was undoubtedly the second best player in the game, why did he get no higher than fifth in the MVP voting those three years?

[tpols]

Id agree. Dont post that to me. Post it to those that feel they were 1A and 1B. But like I stated earlier, if he was undoubtedly the second best player in the game, why did he get no higher than fifth in the MVP voting those three years?
Because you cant really be MVP with peak Shaq on your team.. by default. Wade couldve put up 30/6/6 last year and he wasnt winning an MVP with Lebron James coming over to his squad. It's just by the definition of the award. It doesnt, in every case, determine the best player in the game as we have seen in the past few years with Rose and Nash winning it multiple times.

And I personally think Kobe was better for his 01 title than his 10 title.. but when anyone brings up Kobe, they only talk about his titles as the 'man', despite the fact that he was a better, more impactful player on another championship team even if he was only a second option.
It's stupid honestly.

[jlauber]

Shaq was the number 1 option on all 3 teams and the best and most important player in the league during those years. I remember Phil stating quite a few times that Shaq was the 1st option. Kobe became one of the top 3, or at worst, top 5 players during the last 2 titles.

Kobe's level of play was arguably greater than any other second option during '01 and '02, though. But he'd tell you himself that he wasn't the 1st option on those teams, I've heard him say it several times. In '03, Kobe was the 1st option by default with Shaq out for the first 12, then they went back to the offense going through Shaq first like they were use to, but the team was still not playing that well, and Phil gave Kobe more freedom in late January sparking those scoring streaks and getting the Lakers going, though he apparently made Shaq the 1st option again late in the season. As Kobe claimed, Phil had come to him and said that Shaq wasn't in the condition to carry the offensive load like in the past, so he asked Kobe to do it, and Kobe claimed Shaq got upset and Phil made him the 1st option again. You can kind of see this with Kobe's big February and then Shaq's player of the month in March.

'03 was the transition year, but quite a bit of confusion as to who was the man, not unlike Lebron/Wade in '11. Phil stated Shaq was the 1st option in '04, but it seemed to work out more to a 1.A/1.B situation. In '03, Kobe was really entering his prime averaging 30/7/6 and Shaq had a bit of a down year compared to the 3peat, though he did put up 28/11/3, 2+ bpg on 57%.

By '06, Kobe definitely would've been the man. When Shaq went to Miami in '05, he was initially the first option, but he got injured late in the season and Wade really took that role from him with his breakout performance in the playoffs. His minutes dropped to 31 per game, though he was still averaging 20/9/2/2 and had some big games in the 1st 3 rounds and a dominant ECF. By then, it was pretty clear who was the 2nd option, though the team still couldn't succeed without Shaq. They were under .500 without him(10-13, and 10-11 when Wade played) despite having Alonzo Mourning to fill in who averaged 12/9 with 4 bpg.

But there's some pretty one-sided analysis here, though. It wasn't just Shaq not wanting to share the spotlight, he made mistakes taking to the media and also the delayed surgery. But 2001 was primarily Kobe's fault. He talked about not getting enough recognition compared to other stars like AI, T-Mac and Carter, wanting a scoring title and MVP like Shaq had, quotes like "the triangle is boring" and in response to Phil telling Kobe he wanted to Shaq to remain the first option "turn my game down? I gotta turn my game up". Clearly defying his coaches orders and there's no condoning that. both Phil and Jerry West said he figured it out when the Lakers played better without him going 11-3.

This.

I am a HUGE Kobe fan, and he was instrumental in the WCF's in those years, but only the uneducated would not claim that Shaq was the major force in those three titles. And, if Kobe would not have shot-jacked horribly in the '04 Finals, it might have been another ring and FMVP for Shaq (who put up a HUGE Finals, and against DPOY Ben Wallace.)

[97 bulls]

Actually, he was considered top 5 by almost everyone. I specifically remember people regularly calling Shaq and Kobe the 2 best players in the league starting in '01 and '02. I don't completely agree because Duncan has to be considered, but they were in the '01 and '02 playoffs.

I posted these surveys to back up my argument that Shaq was the consensus best player during those years in a separate argument, which I knew to be a fact from following the league closely at the time, but they also show that Kobe was clearly regarded as a top 5 player by most. They do seem to heavily weigh what occurred the previous season into these, so I'll include '03 as well.

GM survey from March '03

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_9_226/ai_83667190/

Shaq got 16 of 19 votes for best player, and Kobe finished as the second best player in the voting, he only got 1 first place vote, but there weren't many available.

GM survey from March '03

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_9_227/ai_98172075/?tag=content;col1

Shaq finished 1st again and Kobe was 2nd again, apparently neck and neck with Duncan in the voting.

And here's another survey from April 2002 from NBA insiders

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/survey/2002-04-19-fan-insider-results.htm

Shaq got 56% of the vote for best player, T-Mac got 16%, Kobe got 10% and others got 18%.



I don't deny that the Lakers were the better team, what I frequently say is simply that the Blazers were more talented. Though I do add that the Lakers/Blazers were so close as far as better team as evidenced by how close the series was. Can you have a closer series? And 9 times out of 10, a team is not blowing a 15+ 4th quarter lead, much less a great team with a lot of offensive firepower.

But yeah, my point is really that Portland was the more talented team, not necessarily better.

As far as Kobe and Iverson, I know that skills aren't simply how to evaluate a player, if they were, Shaq wouldn't have been the best in the league for several years, and big men in general frequently wouldn't.

My point was that Kobe could impact a game in more ways than Iverson in 2000, and that Kobe fit better on a championship team, plus from watching him play, I saw more than enough ability for me to believe Kobe could at least score a similar amount in Iverson's role. I care more about who could contribute more to most teams and particularly, a championship-caliber team, Iverson had to have more a specialized cast, imo. But I don't think that Iverson was even necessarily better for a 1st option role at that point, but he certainly didn't seem as good for a 2nd option role.




Summed it up perfectly. Though I'd add mid/late 70's Kareem and '93-'95 Hakeem as guys comparable or on the same level as '00-'02 Shaq.
Interesting. But those polls were done after the seasons in question regardless. Its obvious kobe was arguably top five status in 02. But not before. And he was never on shaqs level.

[97 bulls]

Because you cant really be MVP with peak Shaq on your team.. by default. Wade couldve put up 30/6/6 last year and he wasnt winning an MVP with Lebron James coming over to his squad. It's just by the definition of the award. It doesnt, in every case, determine the best player in the game as we have seen in the past few years with Rose and Nash winning it multiple times.

And I personally think Kobe was better for his 01 title than his 10 title.. but when anyone brings up Kobe, they only talk about his titles as the 'man', despite the fact that he was a better, more impactful player on another championship team even if he was only a second option.
It's stupid honestly.
Good point. I cant debate anything youve stated

[ShaqAttack3234]

This.

I am a HUGE Kobe fan, and he was instrumental in the WCF's in those years, but only the uneducated would not claim that Shaq was the major force in those three titles. And, if Kobe would not have shot-jacked horribly in the '04 Finals, it might have been another ring and FMVP for Shaq (who put up a HUGE Finals, and against DPOY Ben Wallace.)

Well, there were a lot more problems than just Kobe's shot selection, though his shot selection was horrible and a major problem, he really should've been more aggressive when he looked to score rather than shooting long jumpers which were well contested by a much longer defender(Tayshaun Prince). But I will credit Kobe for his defense on Rip Hamilton that series, nobody talks about it, and I think it's at least somewhat notable because Rip was the Piston's 1st option and best offensive player at the time, and no other Laker, Shaq included played particularly well defensively.

But other problems were Gary Payton's embarrassing play. He had declined, and he never fit into the triangle, which was a common problem among veterans who joined Phil's teams late in their career(Dennis Hopson...well he wasn't late in his career, but also Glen Rice and Mitch Richmond). But Payton's play was still inexcusable because he was a capable player. The disparity between Billups and Payton was too big. Billups averaged 21/3/5 on 51% from the field, 47% on 3s and 93% from the line, while Payton averaged just 4/3/4 on 32% from the field, 2/10 on 3s and 1/2 from the line for the series.

And finally, Karl Malone couldn't really play at all in the finals due to his injury, and he had been very important to the Lakers run to the finals with his post defense, mid-range jumpers, passing and rebounding. He was by far the best and most important 3rd guy the Lakers had during the Shaq/Kobe/Phil era from '00-'04, so his injury was devastating. They needed a 3rd guy more than ever since Shaq was 32 and not quite the player he had been from '98-'02, and Kobe had a down year due to injuries and off the court issues. They were still the 3rd and 4th best players in the league, respectively, but they needed Malone. And it's tough to win with such a big disparity at the PG position.


Interesting. But those polls were done after the seasons in question regardless. Its obvious kobe was arguably top five status in 02. But not before. And he was never on shaqs level.

Well, I'm surprised you don't think Kobe was top 5 in '01. I can name 2 players better, and just 1 in the playoffs. I wouldn't have ranked him top 5 based on the regular season, though he was clearly top 5 in individual ability, but after the playoffs, it was clear to me that he was one of the top 3-5 players.

[Deuce Bigalow]

2002 NBA Playoffs - 2nd Half+OT
Bryant - 97/214 FG, 17/37 3PT, 45.3 FG%, 49.3 eFG%, 45.9 3PT% in 19 games
O'Neal - 85/186 FG, 0/0 3PT, 45.7 FG%, 45.7 eFG%, 0.0 3PT% in 19 games

2002 NBA Playoffs - 4th Quarter+OT
Bryant - 52/106 FG, 12/24 3PT, 49.1 FG%, 54.7 eFG%, 50.0 3PT% in 19 games
O'Neal - 32/85 FG, 0/0 3PT, 37.6 FG%, 37.6 eFG%, 0.0 3PT% in 18 games

http://bkref.com/tiny/WFkKl
http://bkref.com/tiny/4c88A

I'll just leave that

[AlphaWolf24]

2002 NBA Playoffs - 2nd Half+OT
Bryant - 97/214 FG, 17/37 3PT, 45.3 FG%, 49.3 eFG%, 45.9 3PT% in 19 games
O'Neal - 85/186 FG, 0/0 3PT, 45.7 FG%, 45.7 eFG%, 0.0 3PT% in 19 games

2002 NBA Playoffs - 4th Quarter+OT
Bryant - 52/106 FG, 12/24 3PT, 49.1 FG%, 54.7 eFG%, 50.0 3PT% in 19 games
O'Neal - 32/85 FG, 0/0 3PT, 37.6 FG%, 37.6 eFG%, 0.0 3PT% in 18 games

http://bkref.com/tiny/WFkKl
http://bkref.com/tiny/4c88A

I'll just leave that

Exactly...

Like I said....By 2001 Kobe was the best allaround player in the league....

Shaq and Phil both echoed this statement...and the biggest sports media outlet in the world called Kobe the "Best player in the NBA at only 22 years old"...


all these Kobe Haters trying to rewrite history is sad...

- The whole reason Kobe vs Shaq fued was boiling over was because nearly the whole basketball community saw how great both Kobe and Shaq were...."who's team was it?"..."who was the best player?"....

Shaq was in his prime and Kobe was barely outta highschool...and people were calling Kobe better....that alone burned Shaq's massive ego.


anyone saying 2001 was clearly Shaq as a better player is crazy. Kobe was Dominating in 01'...that's when the Fued between him and Shaq started to really heat up...if Shaq was clearly better then there would have never been a fued.....but he wasn't...and Kobe was easily the better all around player , the hungrier player , the better leader , and the best player vs the best teams.

Like I have shown with stats and facts (quotes and pics from ESPN)..Kobe was widely viewed as the best player in 2001.....hence why the Fued started in the first place!!!!!

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

2002 NBA Playoffs - 2nd Half+OT
Bryant - 97/214 FG, 17/37 3PT, 45.3 FG%, 49.3 eFG%, 45.9 3PT% in 19 games
O'Neal - 85/186 FG, 0/0 3PT, 45.7 FG%, 45.7 eFG%, 0.0 3PT% in 19 games

2002 NBA Playoffs - 4th Quarter+OT
Bryant - 52/106 FG, 12/24 3PT, 49.1 FG%, 54.7 eFG%, 50.0 3PT% in 19 games
O'Neal - 32/85 FG, 0/0 3PT, 37.6 FG%, 37.6 eFG%, 0.0 3PT% in 18 games

http://bkref.com/tiny/WFkKl
http://bkref.com/tiny/4c88A

I'll just leave that

Kobe's 2001 second half and/or 4th qtr/OT stats are also pretty damn impressive.

http://bit.ly/Nf1z8t
http://bit.ly/NEEDNF

[DirtySanchez]

Let us not forget game 5 in the 2000 Finals in Indy.

The series was 2-1 and Shaq fouled out in the 4th with Indy on the verge of a comeback. Kobe told Shaq to relax that he got this. He then hit clutch shots to put out the Pacers and the Lakers went up 3-1. The very next game the Lakers got blown out by the Pacers in one of the most lop sided defeats in Laker playoff history. They won the next game to clinch the series.
Point is without Kobe's performance in game 5 this could of been a difference series. Yes Shaq was the best player but do not talk or act like Kobe had nothing to do with those first three titles because it is beyond BS.

[DirtySanchez]

The feud started because of two things...

Shaq's lack of work ethic (coming to the season out of shape...getting his big toe surgery on company time)
and Kobe wanting to bring his game to another level.

Those are the two factors. We can all complain that they should of won more etc. etc. but hey they dominated the NBA for 3 straight years. No team has been able to do that since (Kobe's Lakers 2 peat the closest).

[AlphaWolf24]

Let us not forget game 5 in the 2000 Finals in Indy.

The series was 2-1 and Shaq fouled out in the 4th with Indy on the verge of a comeback. Kobe told Shaq to relax that he got this. He then hit clutch shots to put out the Pacers and the Lakers went up 3-1. The very next game the Lakers got blown out by the Pacers in one of the most lop sided defeats in Laker playoff history. They won the next game to clinch the series.
Point is without Kobe's performance in game 5 this could of been a difference series. Yes Shaq was the best player but do not talk or act like Kobe had nothing to do with those first three titles because it is beyond BS.


forget the Finals....(vs weaker Eastern Conf teams)..

Game 7 WCFinals 200 Kobe was by far the best player and scored or assisted on the Lakers Finals 6 points to seal the comback....Kobe was the one who fueled the 15 point comeback and started the whole Laker Dynasty.

the Kobe slighting here is silly...

Kobe was far and away just as dominate to go along with bieng the best "allaround" player....The man has been the premire player for over a decade....Shaq was Great also....But Kobe was on another level.

[NuggetsFan]

No one in the HISTORY of basketball was ever on peak 00-02 Shaq's level besides maybe Michael Jordan.. and Wilt Chamberlain.:oldlol:

The 'average' first option on a title winning team does not put up better than 29/7/6 or 27/5+/5+.. thats the point. Kobe wasnt better than peak Shaq, but he was better than damn near everyone else on the planet for two of those three titles.

I think this sums it up nicely. Shaq was clearly the best players on those teams. He was an athletic 7'1 beast of a big man. During those 3 years there wasn't a team in the league who wouldn't have ran their offense through him.

That being said Kobe wasn't your average "sidekick". Probably the best 2nd option ever. And that's just going be definition of being the 2nd option on offense, in terms of player caliber L.A just had two franchise players.

[BlackVVaves]

Interesting. But those polls were done after the seasons in question regardless. Its obvious kobe was arguably top five status in 02. But not before. And he was never on shaqs level.

Who was your top 5 players in 2001 then?

[Shaquille O'Neal]

Shaq and Phil both echoed this statement...and the biggest sports media outlet in the world called Kobe the "Best player in the NBA at only 22 years old"...


I've seen you post this before on here, and here's why it's stupid.

#1 - Shaq also said DWade was the best player in the world with the Heat.
#2 - Coaches and teammates will say anything to pump up one of their players. It's called feeding their egos. You really think Phil Jackson, today, having no affiliation with either Michael or Kobe, would still say Kobe was ever better than Mike?

Also, do you guys not remember watching all of these games LIVE? I was 27 in 2000 - I remember almost thinking how UNFAIR it was for any team to have a single player as dominant as Shaq was at the time. He would get double and triple teamed and still put up sick numbers. I remember telling a girlfriend at the time that they could play Shaq with only 3 other players on the floor and still probably win. He was...that dominant.

[returnofthemack]

Kobe was just as important to the threepeat. Anyone says otherwise is simply hurt by Kobes career.


pretty much this.


im no lakers fan and by the end of the three peak i was actively rooting for the lakers to lose. yeah shaq was the shit but those lakers teams never would have won those rings if kobe wasnt playing as well as he did.

at the time there was no question about it. you werent going up agaisnt shaq if you were playing the lakers you were going up agaisnt shaq and kobe. they needed each othr to win and win they did

[The Iron Fist]

I've seen you post this before on here, and here's why it's stupid.

#1 - Shaq also said DWade was the best player in the world with the Heat.
#2 - Coaches and teammates will say anything to pump up one of their players. It's called feeding their egos. You really think Phil Jackson, today, having no affiliation with either Michael or Kobe, would still say Kobe was ever better than Mike?

Also, do you guys not remember watching all of these games LIVE? I was 27 in 2000 - I remember almost thinking how UNFAIR it was for any team to have a single player as dominant as Shaq was at the time. He would get double and triple teamed and still put up sick numbers. I remember telling a girlfriend at the time that they could play Shaq with only 3 other players on the floor and still probably win. He was...that dominant.
He was so dominant, that he couldnt win a single finals game until Kobe became a premier player. This dominance you speak of, is incredibly over rated. Nobody was claiming him to be this dominant monster until he named bimself MDE.

[Shaquille O'Neal]

He was so dominant, that he couldnt win a single finals game until Kobe became a premier player. This dominance you speak of, is incredibly over rated. Nobody was claiming him to be this dominant monster until he named bimself MDE.

Did you watch entire NBA seasons as an adult in 2000-2002?

[The Iron Fist]

Did you watch entire NBA seasons as an adult in 2000-2002?
As an adult, since 93. As a kid, since 85.


HIS DOMINANCE IS OVERRATED. Had be been as dominant as you guys make him out to be, he'd have won well before Kobe became a premier player. He did have Eddie Jones, Van Exel, Elden Campbell, etc.

Somehkw this self proclaimed MDE, just couldnt win.

Doesnt appear so dominant after all.

[Horatio33]

As an adult, since 93. As a kid, since 85.


HIS DOMINANCE IS OVERRATED. Had be been as dominant as you guys make him out to be, he'd have won well before Kobe became a premier player. He did have Eddie Jones, Van Exel, Elden Campbell, etc.

Somehkw this self proclaimed MDE, just couldnt win.

Doesnt appear so dominant after all.

so you are in your late 30's and you act like a teenager in regards to Kobe?

[caliman]

As an adult, since 93. As a kid, since 85.


HIS DOMINANCE IS OVERRATED. Had be been as dominant as you guys make him out to be, he'd have won well before Kobe became a premier player. He did have Eddie Jones, Van Exel, Elden Campbell, etc.

Somehkw this self proclaimed MDE, just couldnt win.

Doesnt appear so dominant after all.


Not a consistent player among those that you mentioned. As a matter of fact, while the early Shaq Laker teams had great individual talent, their was no one that could be counted on to step up game after game.

[The Iron Fist]

Not a consistent player among those that you mentioned. As a matter of fact, while the early Shaq Laker teams had great individual talent, their was no one that could be counted on to step up game after game.
If one is so dominant, why the need for another player?most dominant ever shouldnt have to count on others, but Shaq, like everyone else, did.

[The Iron Fist]

so you are in your late 30's and you act like a teenager in regards to Kobe?
If stating facts is acting lime a teenager, im 13.

[triangleoffense]

We're pretty much on the same page now. I just wouldn't phrase it that Kobe allowed Shaq to dominate. I think both could and would dominate games individually regardless of who they were playing with, but without Kobe, Shaq would've got to the point in the playoffs where he averaged his 35-40 or whatever, and the team would lose vs the true championship contenders because you can't win with one player getting his, and you obviously need another look, and Kobe provided that from the perimeter.




Yea it seems so. The only difference might be that I believe Kobe played more of an impact than you argued for, although we both agree that Kobe did play a major impact, much more so than a "normal 2nd option on a dynasty team". This is why I made the distinction between a 1/2 scenario and a 1a/1b scenario, but like you have stated this probably is just coming down to semantics at this point.



Agreed, and this came into play a lot on last second shots, and it's the main reason why I think Kobe was usually the preferred option on gamewinners. Gregg Popovich said something like "You know where Shaq is going to be so you can double him and get the ball out of his hands, but what makes Kobe so dangerous on these shots is that it's much tougher to double him and get the ball out his hands". I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

What people overlook when acting like the recent Laker frontcourts are an extension of the Shaq era, or similar is that Kobe has become the primary focus of opposing defenses. He has always drawn more doubles than Gasol or Bynum and still does.

This was pretty much the main part of my argument, Kobe provided things that Shaq just couldn't do(close games, dominant the wing, provide production from the perimeter), and of course vice versa.

The significance that both players played will always be looked at from both perspectives because of the polarizing nature of the two personalities and also because of the fact that both draw huge fanbases, are superstars both in their own right and also top10 players as well as first ballot hall of famers.

Like one poster pointed out the real tragedy is both of them not coming to terms and seeing if they both be in the top5 right now (like magic and kareem).

[The Iron Fist]

Yea it seems so. The only difference might be that I believe Kobe played more of an impact than you argued for, although we both agree that Kobe did play a major impact, much more so than a "normal 2nd option on a dynasty team". This is why I made the distinction between a 1/2 scenario and a 1a/1b scenario, but like you have stated this probably is just coming down to semantics at this point.



This was pretty much the main part of my argument, Kobe provided things that Shaq just couldn't do(close games, dominant the wing, provide production from the perimeter), and of course vice versa.

The significance that both players played will always be looked at from both perspectives because of the polarizing nature of the two personalities and also because of the fact that both draw huge fanbases, are superstars both in their own right and also top10 players as well as first ballot hall of famers.

Like one poster pointed out the real tragedy is both of them not coming to terms and seeing if they both be in the top5 right now (like magic and kareem).i truly think as of right now, Shaq regrets not coming to terms with Kobe being the focal point of the team.

[ILLsmak]

i truly think as of right now, Shaq regrets not coming to terms with Kobe being the focal point of the team.

I don't. He might regret not being able to work it out, but running an offense through a SG when you have a great C is dumb. Who has ever done that?

The reason it was seen as Kobe's fault is he wanted the team to deviate from a very fundamental basketball strategy to accommodate him.

I'm a huge Shaq fan because I love the whole big man game and I saw Shaq as I thought it should be done. He wasn't a ball hog. He did everything right.

For all of the beef, it was Kobe that started wiling out, not Shaq.

-Smak

[ShaqAttack3234]

I've seen you post this before on here, and here's why it's stupid.

#1 - Shaq also said DWade was the best player in the world with the Heat.
#2 - Coaches and teammates will say anything to pump up one of their players. It's called feeding their egos. You really think Phil Jackson, today, having no affiliation with either Michael or Kobe, would still say Kobe was ever better than Mike?

I wasn't going to waste my time, but that idiot misquoting Phil again has led to misinformation, so I'll just tell you right now that Phil never called Kobe the best player he coached. Phil was specifically referring to Kobe's playmaking, in the same quote that clown is misquoting, Phil called Jordan the best player he ever coached.

Here is the exact quote, as you can see, in this quote, Michael Jordan was the player Phil called the best he ever coached, not Kobe.


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

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020212.html

So now you know, never take that moron at his word, always make sure to read the quote for yourself, and if he doesn't provide a link, simply disregard the quote because he may be lying, like he is right now. To make it even better, not only does Phil call Michael the best player he coached in that quote, but the best player of all-time!

Phil on Shaq finishing 3rd in MVP votes in 2001 "That's a real slap in the face to the most dominant player in the game."

Yeah...really sounds like Phil thought Kobe was his best player that year. :roll:

[BlackVVaves]

I wasn't going to waste my time, but that idiot misquoting Phil again has led to misinformation, so I'll just tell you right now that Phil never called Kobe the best player he coached. Phil was specifically referring to Kobe's playmaking, in the same quote that clown is misquoting, Phil called Jordan the best player he ever coached.

Here is the exact quote, as you can see, in this quote, Michael Jordan was the player Phil called the best he ever coached, not Kobe.



http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020212.html

So now you know, never take that moron at his word, always make sure to read the quote for yourself, and if he doesn't provide a link, simply disregard the quote because he may be lying, like he is right now. To make it even better, not only does Phil call Michael the best player he coached in that quote, but the best player of all-time!

Phil on Shaq finishing 3rd in MVP votes in 2001 "That's a real slap in the face to the most dominant player in the game."

Yeah...really sounds like Phil thought Kobe was his best player that year. :roll:

:applause:

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

I don't. He might regret not being able to work it out, but running an offense through a SG when you have a great C is dumb. Who has ever done that?

The reason it was seen as Kobe's fault is he wanted the team to deviate from a very fundamental basketball strategy to accommodate him.

I'm a huge Shaq fan because I love the whole big man game and I saw Shaq as I thought it should be done. He wasn't a ball hog. He did everything right.

For all of the beef, it was Kobe that started wiling out, not Shaq.

-Smak
The above is incorrect, according to Tex Winters.
Just wrong.
Kobe never demanded that the offense run thru him.
Shaq had real issues with Kobe becoming a superstar. THAT was the problem and that's the fact, according to Tex Winters. Shaq regularly belittled Kobe in practices and Kobe put up with it for years. Then Shaq became increasingly unprofessional. THAT was something Kobe could NOT put up with. Rightfully so.

[The Iron Fist]

The above is incorrect, according to Tex Winters.
Just wrong.
Kobe never demanded that the offense run thru him.
Shaq had real issues with Kobe becoming a superstar. THAT was the problem and that's the fact, according to Tex Winters. Shaq regularly belittled Kobe in practices and Kobe put up with it for years. Then Shaq became increasingly unprofessional. THAT was something Kobe could NOT put up with. Rightfully so.
Beat me to it.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The above is incorrect, according to Tex Winters.
Just wrong.
Kobe never demanded that the offense run thru him.
Shaq had real issues with Kobe becoming a superstar. THAT was the problem and that's the fact, according to Tex Winters. Shaq regularly belittled Kobe in practices and Kobe put up with it for years. Then Shaq became increasingly unprofessional. THAT was something Kobe could NOT put up with. Rightfully so.

Phil claimed several times that Kobe wanted to be the first option. He's stated that he tried using the Magic/Kareem situation as a model for how he wanted the duo to be since Magic waited until '86-'87 when Kareem was older to take over the team.

Remember "Turn my game down, I gotta turn my game up" in response to Phil telling Kobe he wanted Shaq to be the first option in the '00-'01.

It's not even like this one is just Phil's word, Kobe said it in an interview.


Bryant was quoted as recounting a conversation with Jackson in which the coach privately asked him to continue making O'Neal the focal point of the offense.

"Turn my game down? I need to turn it up. I've improved. How are you going to bottle me up?" Bryant told the magazine.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=99956&page=1#.T86oStVfGWk

We'll save a lot of time by not pretending either have been ideal teammates.

[The Iron Fist]

Phil claimed several times that Kobe wanted to be the first option. He's stated that he tried using the Magic/Kareem situation as a model for how he wanted the duo to be since Magic waited until '86-'87 when Kareem was older to take over the team.

Remember "Turn my game down, I gotta turn my game up" in response to Phil telling Kobe he wanted Shaq to be the first option in the '00-'01.

It's not even like this one is just Phil's word, Kobe said it in an interview.



http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=99956&page=1#.T86oStVfGWk

We'll save a lot of time by not pretending either have been ideal teammates.
We'll save even more time pretending Shaq was completely faultless. Oh no, we won't. One player saying he needs to turn his game up pales when compared to "the big dog don't get feel the big dog don't guard the house."

[ShaqAttack3234]

We'll save even more time pretending Shaq was completely faultless. Oh no, we won't. One player saying he needs to turn his game up pales when compared to "the big dog don't get feel the big dog don't guard the house."

Are you this stupid? I don't believe you can be, I don't believe you're intelligent by any stretch, but I see what you're trying to do. I never once said Shaq didn't deserve blame in that feud, I have consistently maintained that both deserve blame.

But you have to be a pathetic apologist to condone Kobe defying the coaches orders for selfish purposes, and look what happened? They fell off greatly after the 67-15 championship team until Kobe missed a stretch, and they went 11-3 and he changed his approach. That was flat out cancerous behavior, and we saw proof that the Lakers were better without Kobe when he had his early season '01 attitude.

But of course, you pretend things like that didn't happen and it was all Shaq.

[ILLsmak]

I do think Shaq was at fault; although, I think being belittled in practice is not a big deal.

All players get belittled in practice. I'd have to know exactly what was said because if it was a "He can't talk to me like that I'm KOBE BRYANT" then that's also his fault as much as it was Shaq's.

It should have never happened, period. But I do think that Kobe was out of line for what he did. I don't care how good he was, if they were winning and Shaq was the vet, then why should they have to change how they are playing?

I could see if Kobe was like damn it Shaq you're out there ****ing up gimme a try, but I don't ever remember Shaq being in that position. It baffles me that two men can let their egos get in the way, although I think that Shaq getting traded was more due to his wanting a bigger contract. That, to me, is his largest fault.

He should have never been like PAY ME. He should have come to camp in shape, etc etc, but it is just baffling that Kobe wanted to be "the first option"; How much better could he have played? He wanted the accolades. He wanted a FMVP, period. Cuz I don't think there was a problem with Kobe getting 30 and Shaq getting 25.

Honestly, think about it for a second and try to figure out what you would do with those pieces... and how you would make it so that Kobe was put in a position to be more successful than he was with Shaq being in the post and catching the ball?

-Smak

[The Iron Fist]

Are you this stupid? I don't believe you can be, I don't believe you're intelligent by any stretch, but I see what you're trying to do. I never once said Shaq didn't deserve blame in that feud, I have consistently maintained that both deserve blame.

But you have to be a pathetic apologist to condone Kobe defying the coaches orders for selfish purposes, and look what happened? They fell off greatly after the 67-15 championship team until Kobe missed a stretch, and they went 11-3 and he changed his approach. That was flat out cancerous behavior, and we saw proof that the Lakers were better without Kobe when he had his early season '01 attitude.

But of course, you pretend things like that didn't happen and it was all Shaq.
Defying coaches orders? When did Kobe ever stop facilitating? Never. He always played for the sake of the team.

However, it was Shaq who routinely came into seasons out of shape and rarely showed a willingness to work as a team. Need I remind you that the big dog refused to guard the house?

If I was Kobe I'd be pissed that I'm working my tail off while the other half is loafing around.

But I guess wanting the team to excel in all phases is Kobe just being selfish. Who gives a **** if he expressed a desire to expand his game? He was fully capable of doing so and won back to back titles when he was allowed to unleash his full potential.

[BEAST Griffin]

Lakers were a LOSING TEAM without Shaq and with Kobe (23-25) in all their seasons together at the Lakers. They were still a top seed in the Western Conference in all their seasons together without Kobe and with Shaq (32-10).

Counting just the championship seasons the Lakers were 25-6 (28-6 if you count the three games Kobe played as a reserve) without Kobe and with Shaq (1st seed anyone?) but a mere 13-12 without Shaq but with Kobe (likely to miss the playoffs. Check the standings back then. Not to mention they'd drop more games do direct competitors).

Shaquille O'Neal was the dominant force and the clear cut most impactful player on the Lakers.

How anyone tries to argue that Kobe Bryant brought even close to the impact as Shaquille O'Neal to the Lakers is just :facepalm

[The Iron Fist]

Lakers were a LOSING TEAM without Shaq and with Kobe (23-25) in all their seasons together at the Lakers. They were still a top seed in the Western Conference in all their seasons together without Kobe and with Shaq (32-10).

Counting just the championship seasons the Lakers were 25-6 (28-6 if you count the three games Kobe played as a reserve) without Kobe and with Shaq (1st seed anyone?) but a mere 13-12 without Shaq but with Kobe (likely to miss the playoffs. Check the standings back then. Not to mention they'd drop more games do direct competitors).

Shaquille O'Neal was the dominant force and the clear cut most impactful player on the Lakers.

How anyone tries to argue that Kobe Bryant brought even close to the impact as Shaquille O'Neal to the Lakers is just :facepalm
So give me the links to Shaq titles before Kobe became who be is.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Defying coaches orders? When did Kobe ever stop facilitating? Never. He always played for the sake of the team.

Did you read the link I posted? Phil told him he wanted the offense run through Shaq again and he didn't listen for the first couple of months of the season. That's a fact that Kobe didn't even bother denying.


However, it was Shaq who routinely came into seasons out of shape and rarely showed a willingness to work as a team. Need I remind you that the big dog refused to guard the house?

If I was Kobe I'd be pissed that I'm working my tail off while the other half is loafing around.

And I'd be pissed if I was at the height of my career coming off one of the great seasons in NBA history when I led my team to a title, and another player is selfishly trying to take over a team that wasn't broken and the team is struggling.

I acknowledge Kobe had reasons to be angry at Shaq during various points throughout the time they played together, but I can't even begin to come up with an excuse for his behavior at the time in question. And I'd definitely side with Shaq in '00-'01.


But I guess wanting the team to excel in all phases is Kobe just being selfish. Who gives a **** if he expressed a desire to expand his game? He was fully capable of doing so and won back to back titles when he was allowed to unleash his full potential.

Kobe wasn't playing in a way that was best for the team by any stretch of the imagination early in the '00-'01 season. Who are you kidding? You're really so delusional that you're going to try to claim his approach was for the team? :roll:

He wanted to show that he improved, he said that. Those were his motivations, before they played better without him, which probably saved the Lakers season and made that 15-1 playoff run possible because it sure as hell wasn't happening with Kobe playing how he was early in the season.

But I'm done with you, you're too stupid and delusional to have any sort of discussion with.

[BEAST Griffin]

So give me the links to Shaq titles before Kobe became who be is.

Kobe was a missing piece to the puzzle and Shaq was the clear cut most impactful player on the Lakers.

[The Iron Fist]

Did you read the link I posted? Phil told him he wanted the offense run through Shaq again and he didn't listen for the first couple of months of the season. That's a fact that Kobe didn't even bother denying.



And I'd be pissed if I was at the height of my career coming off one of the great seasons in NBA history when I led my team to a title, and another player is selfishly trying to take over a team that wasn't broken and the team is struggling.

I acknowledge Kobe had reasons to be angry at Shaq during various points throughout the time they played together, but I can't even begin to come up with an excuse for his behavior at the time in question. And I'd definitely side with Shaq in '00-'01.



Kobe wasn't playing in a way that was best for the team by any stretch of themselves imagination early in the '00-'01 season. Who are you kidding? You're really so delusional that you're going to try to claim his approach was for the team? :roll:

He wanted to show that he improved, he said that. Those were his motivations, before they played better without him, which probably saved the Lakers season and made that 15-1 playoff run possible because it sure as hell wasn't happening with Kobe playing how he was early in the season.

But I'm done with you, you're too stupid and delusional to have any sort of discussion with.
Did the Lakers win three straight with or without Kobe?

No. Thats weird.

They only won when Kobe reached his potential. You know why?


Because Shaq wasnt that dominant.

[The Iron Fist]

Kobe was a missing piece to the puzzle and Shaq was the clear cut most impactful player on the Lakers.
He was the most impactful, but didnt win until Kobe became a star?

Ok. If it makes you feel better.

Just curious though, can you tally up the ring count for each? Im pretty sjre tbat will measure thier impact.

[BEAST Griffin]

He was the most impactful, but didnt win until Kobe became a star?

Ok. If it makes you feel better.

Just curious though, can you tally up the ring count for each? Im pretty sjre tbat will measure thier impact.

Shaq would've been a top seed without Kobe. Kobe would've missed the playoffs without Shaq.

I think it's pretty clear who was the most impactful player.

[TheFan]

My opinion.

Shaq was the man, but without Kobe they don't come out of the west.

[Heilige]

Because you cant really be MVP with peak Shaq on your team.. by default. Wade couldve put up 30/6/6 last year and he wasnt winning an MVP with Lebron James coming over to his squad. It's just by the definition of the award. It doesnt, in every case, determine the best player in the game as we have seen in the past few years with Rose and Nash winning it multiple times.

And I personally think Kobe was better for his 01 title than his 10 title.. but when anyone brings up Kobe, they only talk about his titles as the 'man', despite the fact that he was a better, more impactful player on another championship team even if he was only a second option.
It's stupid honestly.


Why do you feel Kobe was better for his 01 title than his 10 title? Also, how would you rank all of Kobe's title runs?

[NumberSix]

You know what a 1b is? That's right. A #2.

[tpols]

Why do you feel Kobe was better for his 01 title than his 10 title? Also, how would you rank all of Kobe's title runs?
I think Kobe was a better/ more impactful basketball player in his prime in 01 than slightly out of his prime 10. He was a better defender, played with more energy, was better in the clutch, and had better numbers. He was the 'man' and a true leader in 2010, but still.. I'd take 01 Kobe over 10 Kobe.

09 Kobe
01 Kobe
10 Kobe
02 Kobe
00 Kobe

[Big#50]

2000 was the last year it was Shaq's team...by early 2001 Kobe Bryant was the premiere player in the League..

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/user_images/2162000/AlphaWolf-2162827_499_650.jpg

2001 was perpetual start of the Lakers starting to use Kobe as the main option in the 2nd Half, and the clear #1 in the most important parts of the game...Kobe was basically in the exact same role as MJ during the Bull's titles runs...(get everyone involved early...Shaq, Fish etc...Take over in the 2nd half/4th) as shown earlier..the biggest Sports media outlet in the world was calling Kobe "the best player in the league"..anyone who claims it was still Shaq as the #1 is clearly blinded by something.

"Kobe is the best player in the World" - Shaq 2001 "Kobe is the best allaround player I ever coached" - Phil Jackson 2001

Both Phil and Shaq would tell you Kobe was the best player in the NBA in 2001, anyone disagreeing with that is just plain spiteful.

2002 once agin Kobe was the best allaround player in the League and L.A.'s clear go to guy and Leader...Shaq's inability to stay healthy and poor work ethic was once again showing itself to be a chemistry destroyer (Just like Orlando ,LA , Miami , PHX and Cleveland) ...in 2 short years Shaq would be traded to Miami and the Lakers would once again go to 3 straight Finals and win Back 2 Back Titles.
Not this shit again. Ban.

[Heilige]

I think Kobe was a better/ more impactful basketball player in his prime in 01 than slightly out of his prime 10. He was a better defender, played with more energy, was better in the clutch, and had better numbers. He was the 'man' and a true leader in 2010, but still.. I'd take 01 Kobe over 10 Kobe.

09 Kobe
01 Kobe
10 Kobe
02 Kobe
00 Kobe


That makes sense, but isn't 2001 a little early to be considered Kobe's prime? Most say his prime started in 2006 or 2003 at the earliest.

[BEAST Griffin]

Lakers were a LOSING TEAM without Shaq and with Kobe (23-25) in all their seasons together at the Lakers. They were still a top seed in the Western Conference in all their seasons together without Kobe and with Shaq (32-10).

Counting just the championship seasons the Lakers were 25-6 (28-6 if you count the three games Kobe played as a reserve) without Kobe and with Shaq (1st seed anyone?) but a mere 13-12 without Shaq but with Kobe (likely to miss the playoffs. Check the standings back then. Not to mention they'd drop more games do direct competitors).

Shaquille O'Neal was the dominant force and the clear cut most impactful player on the Lakers.

How anyone tries to argue that Kobe Bryant brought even close to the impact as Shaquille O'Neal to the Lakers is just :facepalm

Bump for delusional Kobe fans.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Originally Posted by Deuce Bigalow
2002 NBA Playoffs - 2nd Half+OT
Bryant - 97/214 FG, 17/37 3PT, 45.3 FG%, 49.3 eFG%, 45.9 3PT% in 19 games
O'Neal - 85/186 FG, 0/0 3PT, 45.7 FG%, 45.7 eFG%, 0.0 3PT% in 19 games

2002 NBA Playoffs - 4th Quarter+OT
Bryant - 52/106 FG, 12/24 3PT, 49.1 FG%, 54.7 eFG%, 50.0 3PT% in 19 games
O'Neal - 32/85 FG, 0/0 3PT, 37.6 FG%, 37.6 eFG%, 0.0 3PT% in 18 games

http://bkref.com/tiny/WFkKl
http://bkref.com/tiny/4c88A

Bump

[bwink23]

Bump for delusional Kobe fans.



Originally Posted by BEAST Griffin
Lakers were a LOSING TEAM without Shaq and with Kobe (23-25) in all their seasons together at the Lakers. They were still a top seed in the Western Conference in all their seasons together without Kobe and with Shaq (32-10).

Counting just the championship seasons the Lakers were 25-6 (28-6 if you count the three games Kobe played as a reserve) without Kobe and with Shaq (1st seed anyone?) but a mere 13-12 without Shaq but with Kobe (likely to miss the playoffs. Check the standings back then. Not to mention they'd drop more games do direct competitors).

Shaquille O'Neal was the dominant force and the clear cut most impactful player on the Lakers.

How anyone tries to argue that Kobe Bryant brought even close to the impact as Shaquille O'Neal to the Lakers is just :facepalm



BUMP

[ShaqAttack3234]

I think Kobe was a better/ more impactful basketball player in his prime in 01 than slightly out of his prime 10. He was a better defender, played with more energy, was better in the clutch, and had better numbers. He was the 'man' and a true leader in 2010, but still.. I'd take 01 Kobe over 10 Kobe.

09 Kobe
01 Kobe
10 Kobe
02 Kobe
00 Kobe

Kobe's true prime was '03-'09, imo, it's when his skill set was the most complete without losing too much physically. But '01-'10 is close too.

I can agree with your rankings, though. '09 is the best for consistency from round to round. '01 was among the best all around basketball he's played(playmaking, defense, rebounding) outside of probably 2008. He wasn't as complete of a scorer as later when he added the 3 point shot and was more crafty.

'01 and '10 are about even to me, he didn't have his best series in either first round(but it didn't matter in '01 since they swept Portland), had 2 very good/great series, and finals series that weren't bad like some claim, but obviously not his best.

His '10 series vs the Suns and '01 vs the Spurs are arguably his best series, or among them. '10 vs Jazz was also very good.


Originally Posted by Deuce Bigalow
2002 NBA Playoffs - 2nd Half+OT
Bryant - 97/214 FG, 17/37 3PT, 45.3 FG%, 49.3 eFG%, 45.9 3PT% in 19 games
O'Neal - 85/186 FG, 0/0 3PT, 45.7 FG%, 45.7 eFG%, 0.0 3PT% in 19 games

2002 NBA Playoffs - 4th Quarter+OT
Bryant - 52/106 FG, 12/24 3PT, 49.1 FG%, 54.7 eFG%, 50.0 3PT% in 19 games
O'Neal - 32/85 FG, 0/0 3PT, 37.6 FG%, 37.6 eFG%, 0.0 3PT% in 18 games

http://bkref.com/tiny/WFkKl
http://bkref.com/tiny/4c88A

Bump

Everyone who knows about that run knows how good Kobe was late in games, it was probably when he did the most to establish himself as one of the best clutch players.

But what about the overall numbers? Shaq's were definitely better for the overall playoffs. The rest of the games matter too, if Kobe shot that well late in games and he still shot 43%, it means his percentage before then was very poor. And you can argue that if he plays well through 3 quarters, the late game heroics aren't as necessary. In fact, it was the case that he wasn't playing all that well early in games outside of numbers, Phil wanted him to be more aggressive early in games to get him going earlier.

Shaq did struggle late in games that year, which is strange that the year he had problems in 4th quarters was the year he shot FTs easily the best of the 3peat, probably due to injuries and conditioning, he was pretty much healthy a few games into the Sacramento series.

But it's also somewhat by design. Phil has talked about going into Shaq early to see how the defense is playing him since he's the guy getting double teams, and if they're doubling him a lot, then they usually would look for Kobe to score more in the 2nd half, if not, then Shaq would often have some of his bigger games.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Everyone who knows about that run knows how good Kobe was late in games, it was probably when he did the most to establish himself as one of the best clutch players.

But what about the overall numbers? Shaq's were definitely better for the overall playoffs. The rest of the games matter too, if Kobe shot that well late in games and he still shot 43%, it means his percentage before then was very poor. And you can argue that if he plays well through 3 quarters, the late game heroics aren't as necessary. In fact, it was the case that he wasn't playing all that well early in games outside of numbers, Phil wanted him to be more aggressive early in games to get him going earlier.

Shaq did struggle late in games that year, which is strange that the year he had problems in 4th quarters was the year he shot FTs easily the best of the 3peat, probably due to injuries and conditioning, he was pretty much healthy a few games into the Sacramento series.

But it's also somewhat by design. Phil has talked about going into Shaq early to see how the defense is playing him since he's the guy getting double teams, and if they're doubling him a lot, then they usually would look for Kobe to score more in the 2nd half, if not, then Shaq would often have some of his bigger games.

Overall numbers from 2001 & 2002 Playoffs

Shaq: 29.4 ppg, 14.4 rpg, 3.0 apg, 0.5 spg, 2.5 bpg, 54.1 FG%, 54.1 eFG%, 56.6 TS%
Kobe: 27.9 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 5.3 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.8 bpg, 45.0 FG%, 47.1 eFG%, 53.1 TS%

2001 Playoffs

Shaq: 30.4 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.2 apg, 0.4 spg, 2.4 bpg, 55.5 FG%, 56.4 TS%
Kobe: 29.4 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 6.1 apg, 1.6 spg, 0.8 bpg, 46.9 FG%, 55.5 TS%

2002 Playoffs

Shaq: 28.5 ppg, 12.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 0.5 spg, 2.5 bpg, 52.9 FG%, 56.9 TS%
Kobe: 26.6 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 43.4 FG%, 51.1 TS%

In the 2nd half and 4th quarter/OT Kobe made more FG and shot more efficiently than Shaq.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Overall numbers from 2001 & 2002 Playoffs

Shaq: 29.4 ppg, 14.4 rpg, 3.0 apg, 0.5 spg, 2.5 bpg, 54.1 FG%, 54.1 eFG%, 56.6 TS%
Kobe: 27.9 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 5.3 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.8 bpg, 45.0 FG%, 47.1 eFG%, 53.1 TS%

2001 Playoffs

Shaq: 30.4 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.2 apg, 0.4 spg, 2.4 bpg, 55.5 FG%, 56.4 TS%
Kobe: 29.4 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 6.1 apg, 1.6 spg, 0.8 bpg, 46.9 FG%, 55.5 TS%

2002 Playoffs

Shaq: 28.5 ppg, 12.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 0.5 spg, 2.5 bpg, 52.9 FG%, 56.9 TS%
Kobe: 26.6 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.4 spg, 0.9 bpg, 43.4 FG%, 51.1 TS%

In the 2nd half and 4th quarter/OT Kobe made more FG and shot more efficiently than Shaq.

Yes, I'm already aware of that information. You've not only posted it now 3 times in this thread by my count, but I was aware of the 4th quarter numbers before you did because you can get an idea from ESPN's play by play.

If I needed numbers to decide who was better(which I don't having watched those teams), I'd favor the entire games over a quarter, and the entire numbers as you can see favor Shaq.

[The Iron Fist]

Originally Posted by BEAST Griffin
Lakers were a LOSING TEAM without Shaq and with Kobe (23-25) in all their seasons together at the Lakers. They were still a top seed in the Western Conference in all their seasons together without Kobe and with Shaq (32-10).

Counting just the championship seasons the Lakers were 25-6 (28-6 if you count the three games Kobe played as a reserve) without Kobe and with Shaq (1st seed anyone?) but a mere 13-12 without Shaq but with Kobe (likely to miss the playoffs. Check the standings back then. Not to mention they'd drop more games do direct competitors).

Shaquille O'Neal was the dominant force and the clear cut most impactful player on the Lakers.

How anyone tries to argue that Kobe Bryant brought even close to the impact as Shaquille O'Neal to the Lakers is just :facepalm



BUMP
Shaq was so dominant he won ___ titles before Kobe became a premeir player.


Fill in the blank. Easy game.


Go!

[AlphaWolf24]

Did you read the link I posted? Phil told him he wanted the offense run through Shaq again and he didn't listen for the first couple of months of the season. That's a fact that Kobe didn't even bother denying.



And I'd be pissed if I was at the height of my career coming off one of the great seasons in NBA history when I led my team to a title, and another player is selfishly trying to take over a team that wasn't broken and the team is struggling.

I acknowledge Kobe had reasons to be angry at Shaq during various points throughout the time they played together, but I can't even begin to come up with an excuse for his behavior at the time in question. And I'd definitely side with Shaq in '00-'01.



Kobe wasn't playing in a way that was best for the team by any stretch of the imagination early in the '00-'01 season. Who are you kidding? You're really so delusional that you're going to try to claim his approach was for the team? :roll:

He wanted to show that he improved, he said that. Those were his motivations, before they played better without him, which probably saved the Lakers season and made that 15-1 playoff run possible because it sure as hell wasn't happening with Kobe playing how he was early in the season.

But I'm done with you, you're too stupid and delusional to have any sort of discussion with.


why do you cry like a little **** every time someone mentions how much better Kobe Bryant was then Shaq during 00's 3 peat??

we get it ...Shaq is your favorite player and you like to preach how "dominant" he was while Kobe was just trying to "hog":rolleyes:


once again ..the whole basketball community has spoken....hardly anyone views Shaq as a better player then Kobe....nearly all of the basketball community understands Kobe was a much better allaround player and a better player on the alltime rankings.

and rightfully so.....your name calling and slighting of the greatest player of his Generation is silly and sad.




next

[BEAST Griffin]

So give me the links to Shaq titles before Kobe became who be is.

I guess we could apply your same logic to Kobe and Gasol then. What did Kobe win post Shaq without Gasol?

Damn, I didn't know you considered Kobe and Gasol 1a/1b.

[BEAST Griffin]

Lakers were a LOSING TEAM without Shaq and with Kobe (23-25) in all their seasons together at the Lakers. They were still a top seed in the Western Conference in all their seasons together without Kobe and with Shaq (32-10).

Counting just the championship seasons the Lakers were 25-6 (28-6 if you count the three games Kobe played as a reserve) without Kobe and with Shaq (1st seed anyone?) but a mere 13-12 without Shaq but with Kobe (likely to miss the playoffs. Check the standings back then. Not to mention they'd drop more games do direct competitors).

Shaquille O'Neal was the dominant force and the clear cut most impactful player on the Lakers.

How anyone tries to argue that Kobe Bryant brought even close to the impact as Shaquille O'Neal to the Lakers is just :facepalm



Shaq / Kobe Lakers without Shaq = losing record

Kobe / Gasol Lakers without Kobe = winning record



:roll: :roll: :roll: