Bigger dropoff: 3peat Lakers w/o Kobe or current Heat w/o Lebron?

[Mr. Jabbar]

I say current Heat still make the finals maybe even win them. 3peat Lakers would get bounced in the west.

[LongLiveTheKing]

Lebron's the best player on the Heat , Shaq was the best player on the Lakers, so the Heat will drop off more.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Lebron's the best player on the Heat , Shaq was the best player on the Lakers, so the Heat will drop off more.

Lol shaq and kobe were carrying role players, in the heat they're all all-stars and borderline all stars, sh1ts not even funny :facepalm ...

[selrahc]

i agree. wade and bosh would clearly still make it to the finals.

[fpliii]

i agree. wade and bosh would clearly still make it to the finals.

:cheers:

Wade is still one of the best handful of players in the game, and has been much better than his numbers would indicate.

[DonDadda59]

Lakers record w/o Kobe during threepeat: 25-7 (78%), compared to 12-11 w/o Shaq (52%).

Lakers won championship in '00 with Bean averaging 15.6 PPG on 37% shooting. Those are 3rd or 4th option #s on terrible shooting and the Lakers still won the title.

Shaq was the man on those teams, Kobe was the help. Better question would be 3peat Lakers w/o Kobe or current Heat w/o Wade.

[che guevara]

Lakers record w/o Kobe during threepeat: 25-7 (78%), compared to 12-11 w/o Shaq (52%).

Lakers won championship in '00 with Bean averaging 15.6 PPG on 37% shooting. Those are 3rd or 4th option #s on terrible shooting and the Lakers still won the title.

Shaq was the man on those teams, Kobe was the help. Better question would be 3peat Lakers w/o Kobe or current Heat w/o Wade.
Pretty much this.

[Trollsmasher]

Lakers would play a different scrub off the bench:confusedshrug:

[Mr. Incredible]

The Heat would not beat the Knicks without LeBron.

/Thread

[MisterAmazing]

Lakers record w/o Kobe during threepeat: 25-7 (78%), compared to 12-11 w/o Shaq (52%).

Lakers won championship in '00 with Bean averaging 15.6 PPG on 37% shooting. Those are 3rd or 4th option #s on terrible shooting and the Lakers still won the title.

Shaq was the man on those teams, Kobe was the help. Better question would be 3peat Lakers w/o Kobe or current Heat w/o Wade.

:applause:

shaq :bowdown:

[Suguru101]

Lakers record w/o Kobe during threepeat: 25-7 (78%), compared to 12-11 w/o Shaq (52%).

Lakers won championship in '00 with Bean averaging 15.6 PPG on 37% shooting. Those are 3rd or 4th option #s on terrible shooting and the Lakers still won the title.

Shaq was the man on those teams, Kobe was the help. Better question would be 3peat Lakers w/o Kobe or current Heat w/o Wade.

Why? I mean, at least let us discuss... don't end it like that man...

:bowdown:

[TheReal Kendall]

i agree. wade and bosh would clearly still make it to the finals.

This forum is crazy! I said this in my thread some weeks ago and I got flamed. Heat still come out the East. Lakers wouldn't

[DonDadda59]

Why? I mean, at least let us discuss... don't end it like that man...

:bowdown:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mebmn2wvdi1rkt54ro1_500.gif

[red1]

I say current Heat still make the finals maybe even win them. 3peat Lakers would get bounced in the west.
LOL this dumbass doesnt even realize that his question weakens his agenda. Heat without bron have a MUCH bigger dropoff

[SilkkTheShocker]

I don't know if Wade's body can hold up another season doing the heavy lifting for the regular and postseason. Definitely has the ability still.

[NBASTATMAN]

I say current Heat still make the finals maybe even win them. 3peat Lakers would get bounced in the west.


The Heat would lose to the Knicks that I am sure of. The Lakers needed both players to win. The Lakers were horrible when Shaq was out during that period . When Kobe was out they had a very good record.. The West was much harder so I would say the Lakers would have only reached the second round without Kobe. If Shaq was out they would not have made the playoffs.. :rockon:


WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE FREE THROWS THE LAKERS WERE TAKING DURING THE REGULAR SEASON? Stern got them in the playoffs but can't help them anymore.. Too many people watching.:roll:

[chazzy]

Lakers were less balanced in 01 and 02. Look at how much of the offensive load the two had to carry. Who becomes the consistent #2 guy? At least with Miami you get Wade as your superstar and Bosh plays very well as a 2nd option.

[lebeast666]

They ain't beating Bulls/Pacers/Knicks/Celtics without LeBron. Lol they'd prob go to 7 games vs Bucks.

[KyleKong]

Lakers record w/o Kobe during threepeat: 25-7 (78%), compared to 12-11 w/o Shaq (52%).

Lakers won championship in '00 with Bean averaging 15.6 PPG on 37% shooting. Those are 3rd or 4th option #s on terrible shooting and the Lakers still won the title.

Shaq was the man on those teams, Kobe was the help. Better question would be 3peat Lakers w/o Kobe or current Heat w/o Wade.

All hail the Kazaam. :bowdown:

[GrapeApe]

Most would agree that there were other players who could have filled the "Kobe role" on the '00-'02 Lakers (Ray Allen, Vince Carter, etc..) and they would have had similar success due to Shaq's dominance. No one currently in the league is capable of doing what LeBron does for the Heat. Yes, a Wade/Bosh led team might be a title contender, but LeBron makes them a potential dynasty/GOAT type team.

[NBASTATMAN]

They ain't beating Bulls/Pacers/Knicks/Celtics without LeBron. Lol they'd prob go to 7 games vs Bucks.


Yea those teams would be hard to beat but they would beat the Celts and maybe the bulls..

[Lebron23]

Is this even a serious question? LeBron led his team in points, rebounds, steals, assists in the 2012 NBA Playoffs. The Lakers won an NBA title with Kobe averaging 15.6 ppg on 37 FG%.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Most would agree that there were other players who could have filled the "Kobe role" on the '00-'02 Lakers (Ray Allen, Vince Carter, etc..) and they would have had similar success due to Shaq's dominance. No one currently in the league is capable of doing what LeBron does for the Heat. Yes, a Wade/Bosh led team might be a title contender, but LeBron makes them a potential dynasty/GOAT type team.
No

[HelterSkelter]

Without LeBron, Heat's shooters wouldn't have open looks like it is now. Wade couldn't get to the basket that much anymore.

[chazzy]

Yeah, one misleading series average from the first championship is all the proof you need :oldlol:. I guess Wade isn't as good as you guys say

[miles berg]

Lakers would still be great, it was Shaq that was the reason they won.

Heat would fall back down to a 45-55 win team (depends on how many games Wade plays) without LeBron.

Nothing like Lakers falling into the lottery without Shaq.

[Lebron23]

Without LeBron, Heat's shooters wouldn't have open looks like it is now. Wade couldn't get to the basket that much anymore.


Repped

[Mr. Jabbar]

Dondadda99 just ended this thread.

lol you wish :oldlol: , theres a reason riley keeps bringing elite talent, he knows he cant count on lebron if it gets tough, team needs to be lebron-less ready, which it is :applause:

[GrapeApe]

No

Maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I remember at the time it was widely speculated that any all star guard along side Shaq would make the Lakers a perrenial championship contender. That's not so much a knock on Kobe as it is a testament to Shaq's dominance during those years. Kobe was great, but I think LeBron is more akin to Shaq on their respective teams.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I remember at the time it was widely speculated that any all star guard along side Shaq would make the Lakers a perrenial championship contender. That's not so much a knock on Kobe as it is a testament to Shaq's dominance during those years.
Of course the team would be contenders with Shaq.

[Smoke117]

Taking the 2nd best player on a team (kobe) vs the best player on a team (lebron)...how is this relevant? The league was extremely weak in the early 2000s in general more than it is so now.

[#number6ix#]

lol you wish :oldlol: , theres a reason riley keeps bringing elite talent, he knows he cant count on lebron if it gets tough, team needs to be lebron-less ready, which it is :applause:
Or maybe it's because it's his job:confusedshrug:

[Xiao Yao You]

Miami still plays for the title if Wade's body is up to it.

[GrapeApe]

Of course the team would be contenders with Shaq.

Yeah, that's pretty obvious lol. I guess I'm trying to say that a better comparison would be removing Kobe from those Laker teams versus removing Wade from the current Heat team.

[chazzy]

Do you guys not remember who Shaq and Kobe played with in 01 and 02? They each averaged 29 in 01 and their 3rd option was Fisher :oldlol: they were literally surrounded by role players, and you would be asking one of them to step up and be a #2 guy.

[TonyMontana]

If you replace current LeBron with 2000 Kobe the Lakers become the best team of all-time upgrading to Prime LeBron from Kobe. That team already won 67 games(around there) and was loaded with talent on top of having Prime Shaq, the player with the best peak of all-time.

Replace current LeBron with 00 Kobe and the Heat are no longer the favorites. Thats what it comes down to.

[Mr. Jabbar]

If you replace current LeBron with 2000 Kobe the Lakers become the best team of all-time upgrading to Prime LeBron from Kobe. That team already won 67 games(around there) and was loaded with talent on top of having Prime Shaq, the player with the best peak of all-time.

Replace current LeBron with 00 Kobe and the Heat are no longer the favorites. Thats what it comes down to.

Replace Lebron in the 2011 Heat with Trevor Ariza and they win the Finals :bowdown:

Replace an april 2013 gimmick with anything and you have a better poster :bowdown:

[KOBE143]

Heat without LeBron is still a title contender

3peat Lakers without Kobe = 2nd round at best

Remember, Kobe was the main reason why 3peat Lakers made the finals.. He was a beast against western conference team where the real competition and finals happens.. He dominated the Spurs, Kings, Blazers like they were nothing.. If not for Kobe, Shaq would still be ringless by now.. Kobe was the MVP in the PO against tougher western team aka the real competition while Shaq was the MVP in the finals against weak east team.. Shaq dominated the Pacers, Sixers, Nets like they were a threat..:facepalm In short it was Kobe who carried Shaq to finals..

[spacebump]

Shaq was the best player in the NBA during the 3peat Lakers seasons. LeBron is the best player in the NBA during his Heat seasons. The Heat would miss LeBron more than the Lakers would miss Kobe.

[Rose'sACL]

Yeah, one misleading series average from the first championship is all the proof you need :oldlol:. I guess Wade isn't as good as you guys say
keep in mind that this guy believes that game 6 of 2002 wasn't rigged. only reply after knowing this.

Replace Lebron in the 2011 Heat with Trevor Ariza and they win the Finals :bowdown:

Replace an april 2013 gimmick with anything and you have a better poster :bowdown:
keep in mind that this guy posts more about lebron than kobe even though he has an avatar with kobe in it.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Of course the team would be contenders with Shaq.

Pretty much this. They might be contenders, but what exactly does that mean. They actually WON 3 titles with Kobe. There's a big difference between the 2. Yeah, if you put other excellent SG/SF along with Shaq, Phil Jackson coaching and good, defensive-minded role players who knew their roles, you'd have a formidable team.

But what's more important than speculating about what they may have done, why not look around the league and try to find me a SG/SF who was actually as good as Kobe?


If you replace current LeBron with 2000 Kobe the Lakers become the best team of all-time upgrading to Prime LeBron from Kobe. That team already won 67 games(around there) and was loaded with talent on top of having Prime Shaq, the player with the best peak of all-time.

The Lakers weren't "loaded with talent ON TOP of having Shaq" in 2000. They had been loaded with talent around Shaq and Kobe, but pretty much dumped the other players you'd call talented(Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel and Elden Campbell) while getting nowhere near equal talent in return. That team's talent was primarily Shaq and Kobe. Rice was still a good shooter and a fairly talented scorer and they had a few good defensive-minded role players after that, but not particularly talented role players, just gritty, unselfish veterans like Horry, Harper and Brian Shaw who did their jobs. That team during the regular season was also one of the 5 worst 3 point shooting teams at 33% with only 1 player averaging 1 made 3 per game or at least 35%(Rice at 1.1 3PM, 36.7%). They also had one of the 5 lowest scoring benches.

The team was still quite top-heavy, though, here was their top 7 in minutes during the playoffs
Shaq- 31/15/3, 2.4 bpg 57%
Kobe- 21/5/4, 1.5 spg, 1.5 bpg, 44%
Glen Rice- 12/4/2, 41%
Ron Harper- 9/4/3, 1 spg, 43%
Horry- 8/5/3, 41%
AC Green- 4/4/1, 41%
Shaw- 5/2/3, 43%

Hmm, now that's funny, it seems the gap between Kobe and the 3rd option in scoring is a similar gap to the one between Shaq and Kobe, and Kobe was an all around player while their 3rd option was one-dimensional.

But that doesn't make sense because I've been told Kobe was just one of the role players on the 2000 team. It's not like he was among the absolute best defensive guards and most talented scorers in the league or anything....that wouldn't make sense, because then he wouldn't be a role player. But he must have been a role player because some guys on the internet told me he was!

[BlackVVaves]

If you're going to objectively look at it...

The drop off isn't so grand in 2000, as it would be in 2001 and 2002. With a prime Shaq, you still have a perennial contender every year. But, the Lakers had no one that was giving them 29 and 26 points per game on that roster. The Lakers also didn't have anyone that could effectively guard the opposing team's best perimeter player like Kobe (2000-2002, back when Kobe actually played elite defense night in and night out, especially in 2000 and 2001).

The Lakers aren't getting pass the Spurs in 2001 without Kobe; the same could go for the Kings series in 2002, but that's far more debatable. So, in terms of dropoff, going from a 3 time champion to a 2 or 1 year champion is pretty significant, no?

The Heat would be worst too. Lebron is the best player in the league, and does more for the Heat than Kobe did for the Lakers back then. The difference is, the Heat have Wade who (if healthy) could mimic some of Bron's impact from a facilitator and scoring role. And, they have Bosh, who would be able to produce more as his usage would increase.

The Lakers had horrible depth, and really it was Shaq and Kobe's dominance those years that compensated for it. 2 players on the same team giving you 30 points almost every game. But, it caught up to them eventually, and their lack of depth is the reason they got beat by the Spurs in 2003. So, the posters claiming the Lakers were "stacked," are......well, they're idiots.

I don't think the Heat get to the Finals last year without Bron. Actually, I know they wouldn't (Game 6, ECF versus Boston :eek: )But, I think they could get to the Finals this year without him. That's not to belittle him or his impact though - he's the best player in the league playing on the best team. But, I could see Wade with a more increased role putting up big numbers, and with Bosh and Ray I think they'd be able to make it to the Finals in the pretty average East.

[BlackVVaves]

Pretty much this. They might be contenders, but what exactly does that mean. They actually WON 3 titles with Kobe. There's a big difference between the 2. Yeah, if you put other excellent SG/SF along with Shaq, Phil Jackson coaching and good, defensive-minded role players who knew their roles, you'd have a formidable team.

But what's more important than speculating about what they may have done, why not look around the league and try to find me a SG/SF who was actually as good as Kobe?



The Lakers weren't "loaded with talent ON TOP of having Shaq" in 2000. They had been loaded with talent around Shaq and Kobe, but pretty much dumped the other players you'd call talented(Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel and Elden Campbell) while getting nowhere near equal talent in return. That team's talent was primarily Shaq and Kobe. Rice was still a good shooter and a fairly talented scorer and they had a few good defensive-minded role players after that, but not particularly talented role players, just gritty, unselfish veterans like Horry, Harper and Brian Shaw who did their jobs. That team during the regular season was also one of the 5 worst 3 point shooting teams at 33% with only 1 player averaging 1 made 3 per game or at least 35%(Rice at 1.1 3PM, 36.7%). They also had one of the 5 lowest scoring benches.

The team was still quite top-heavy, though, here was their top 7 in minutes during the playoffs
Shaq- 31/15/3, 2.4 bpg 57%
Kobe- 21/5/4, 1.5 spg, 1.5 bpg, 44%
Glen Rice- 12/4/2, 41%
Ron Harper- 9/4/3, 1 spg, 43%
Horry- 8/5/3, 41%
AC Green- 4/4/1, 41%
Shaw- 5/2/3, 43%

Hmm, now that's funny, it seems the gap between Kobe and the 3rd option in scoring is a similar gap to the one between Shaq and Kobe, and Kobe was an all around player while their 3rd option was one-dimensional.

But that doesn't make sense because I've been told Kobe was just one of the role players on the 2000 team. It's not like he was among the absolute best defensive guards and most talented scorers in the league or anything....that wouldn't make sense, because then he wouldn't be a role player. But he must have been a role player because some guys on the internet told me he was!

Ahh, someone who actually watched basketball pre-2003.

As usual, great analysis, and spot on.

[BlackVVaves]

If you replace current LeBron with 2000 Kobe the Lakers become the best team of all-time upgrading to Prime LeBron from Kobe. That team already won 67 games(around there) and was loaded with talent on top of having Prime Shaq, the player with the best peak of all-time.

Replace current LeBron with 00 Kobe and the Heat are no longer the favorites. Thats what it comes down to.

Replace peak Lebron, a 10 year veteran, with a 21 year old Kobe with only 3 years experience in the NBA.

Yeah, that's what it comes down to. You're a basketball genius, give yourself a round of applause :applause:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Ahh, someone who actually watched basketball pre-2003.

As usual, great analysis, and spot on.

Thanks. :cheers: But I didn't really analyze much. :oldlol: I'd be happy to analyze that team, at least from my perspective for anyone who cared to hear, but I didn't think it was necessary for the topic. I did really enjoy that 2000 season, though and since it was the best season from my favorite player, and such an interesting season with Phil taking over the Lakers who had been known as immature, selfish, underachievers for years, I paid close attention to that team.

[duatjsghd]

a player that leads the team in scoring+rebounding+assists+fg%


vs


a player that is the 2nd option

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

[BlackVVaves]

Thanks. :cheers: But I didn't really analyze much. :oldlol: I'd be happy to analyze that team, at least from my perspective for anyone who cared to hear, but I didn't think it was necessary for the topic. I did really enjoy that 2000 season, though and since it was the best season from my favorite player, and such an interesting season with Phil taking over the Lakers who had been known as immature, selfish, underachievers for years, I paid close attention to that team.

Do you believe the Lakers could have won championships in 2001 and 2002 if Kobe had remained the same player he was in 2000?

Bonus: do you think this Heat team could get to the Finals led by this year's Wade (healthy) and Bosh?

[Myth]

Kobe fans:

Step 1: Spend years talking down Kobe's teammates.

Step 2: Once Kobe is for sure not the top player, talk about him in his prime.

Step 3: Start talking up the teammates of players Kobe stans feel threatened by.

Step 4: Print 2 pictures of Kobe.

Step 5: Stare at 1 of the pictures.

Step 6: Wrap other picture around *****.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Kobe fans:

Step 1: Spend years talking down Kobe's teammates.

Step 2: Once Kobe is for sure not the top player, talk about him in his prime.

Step 3: Start talking up the teammates of players Kobe stans feel threatened by.

Step 4: Print 2 pictures of Kobe.

Step 5: Stare at 1 of the pictures.

Step 6: Wrap other picture around *****.

Lebron fans:

Step 1: Cleveland fans.

Step 2: Miami fans.

Step 3: ?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Do you believe the Lakers could have won championships in 2001 and 2002 if Kobe had remained the same player he was in 2000

2002? No. Kobe was the MVP of the Spurs series, and they barely got by the Kings who overall were the deepest and most talented team in the league. They probably don't have HCA in the Spurs series which was more competitive than people remember, and the deciding factor was really Kobe's incredible play late in games.

2001? Probably. No way do they approach 15-1 in the playoffs, but they may have actually had a better regular season record than they did. But looking at the competition, the Kings weren't ready yet, the Spurs were really lacking on the perimeter with Derek Anderson injured and the Sixers competed hard, but just weren't good enough.


Bonus: do you think this Heat team could get to the Finals led by this year's Wade (healthy) and Bosh?

No. They'd clearly be inferior to the Knicks and Pacers, imo. Wade is still a top 10 player, but I don't see him being able to carry a team quite like he did in his prime, though we'd probably see him average about 25, and while Bosh would give them more offense than he has to now, Miami's deficiencies would become exposed such as lack of size(. They're a poor rebounding team now, and Lebron is their leading rebounder. They'd still have shooters, but that would decline to some extent as well without Lebron to get them looks, plus, I see them being pretty average defensively without Lebron's team defense and versatility. A lot of the things that makes Miami great now such as forcing turnovers, being so unstoppable in transition because of the Lebron/Wade duo, each player being able to cut and find the other ect. would be largely gone.

They wouldn't be an easy team to eliminate in the East, but Miami isn't overcoming Indiana's size without Lebron, and they end up looking like a lesser version of the Knicks, imo, except with a superstar(Wade) who I feel at this stage is less capable of carrying a team than Melo, no big man who will truly provide the interior presence Chandler does and a point guard who is not as capable as Felton at penetrating.

Probably a 2nd round loss without Lebron.

[FiveRings]

Lakers would still be great, it was Shaq that was the reason they won.

Heat would fall back down to a 45-55 win team (depends on how many games Wade plays) without LeBron.

Nothing like Lakers falling into the lottery without Shaq.
LMAO the Raptors won 41 games in 08. You're telling me that if Dwyane Wade, a top four shooting guard of all time, FMVP, and current best non-injured SG in the league signed with Toronto, the result would have been 4 more wins? Wade, Bosh, and Allen are going to the Finals almost surely, while Shaq wasn't beating the Spurs by himself.

[alleykat]

Doesn't matter.

....lakers with Kobe wouldn't get through first round today...James with heat gets to finals....

Since when did u guys care about losing and dropping off? Sad...

[Myth]

Lebron fans:

Step 1: Cleveland fans.

Step 2: Miami fans.

Step 3: ?

Step 4: Profit

[VIntageNOvel]

Lebron fans:

Step 1: Cleveland fans.

Step 2: Miami fans.

Step 3: ?

beautifully ethered :applause:

[Rose'sACL]

Kobe fans:

Step 1: Spend years talking down Kobe's teammates.

Step 2: Once Kobe is for sure not the top player, talk about him in his prime.

Step 3: Start talking up the teammates of players Kobe stans feel threatened by.

Step 4: Print 2 pictures of Kobe.

Step 5: Stare at 1 of the pictures.

Step 6: Wrap other picture around *****.

nice one.
also, on topic
Up to 2003 - Shaq led LA in Win Share = 3 Finals win
2004 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = Finals loss
2005 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = miss playoffs
2006 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = First round loss
2007 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = First round loss
2008 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = Finals loss
2009 - Gasol led LA in Win Share = Finals win
2010 - Gasol led LA in Win Share = Finals win

[HeatFanSince88]

Kobe fans:

Step 1: Spend years talking down Kobe's teammates.

Step 2: Once Kobe is for sure not the top player, talk about him in his prime.

Step 3: Start talking up the teammates of players Kobe stans feel threatened by.

Step 4: Print 2 pictures of Kobe.

Step 5: Stare at 1 of the pictures.

Step 6: Wrap other picture around *****.

LMAO


nice one.
also, on topic
Up to 2003 - Shaq led LA in Win Share = 3 Finals win
2004 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = Finals loss
2005 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = miss playoffs
2006 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = First round loss
2007 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = First round loss
2008 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = Finals loss
2009 - Gasol led LA in Win Share = Finals win
2010 - Gasol led LA in Win Share = Finals win

It appears that when Kobe leads the team in win shares, the Lakers get owned, but when he gets carried by a hall of fame big the Lakers win titles. Good stats, thanks for sharing with us. :applause: :applause:

[HeatFanSince88]

Pretty much this. They might be contenders, but what exactly does that mean. They actually WON 3 titles with Kobe. There's a big difference between the 2. Yeah, if you put other excellent SG/SF along with Shaq, Phil Jackson coaching and good, defensive-minded role players who knew their roles, you'd have a formidable team.

But what's more important than speculating about what they may have done, why not look around the league and try to find me a SG/SF who was actually as good as Kobe?



The Lakers weren't "loaded with talent ON TOP of having Shaq" in 2000. They had been loaded with talent around Shaq and Kobe, but pretty much dumped the other players you'd call talented(Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel and Elden Campbell) while getting nowhere near equal talent in return. That team's talent was primarily Shaq and Kobe. Rice was still a good shooter and a fairly talented scorer and they had a few good defensive-minded role players after that, but not particularly talented role players, just gritty, unselfish veterans like Horry, Harper and Brian Shaw who did their jobs. That team during the regular season was also one of the 5 worst 3 point shooting teams at 33% with only 1 player averaging 1 made 3 per game or at least 35%(Rice at 1.1 3PM, 36.7%). They also had one of the 5 lowest scoring benches.

The team was still quite top-heavy, though, here was their top 7 in minutes during the playoffs
Shaq- 31/15/3, 2.4 bpg 57%
Kobe- 21/5/4, 1.5 spg, 1.5 bpg, 44%
Glen Rice- 12/4/2, 41%
Ron Harper- 9/4/3, 1 spg, 43%
Horry- 8/5/3, 41%
AC Green- 4/4/1, 41%
Shaw- 5/2/3, 43%

Hmm, now that's funny, it seems the gap between Kobe and the 3rd option in scoring is a similar gap to the one between Shaq and Kobe, and Kobe was an all around player while their 3rd option was one-dimensional.

But that doesn't make sense because I've been told Kobe was just one of the role players on the 2000 team. It's not like he was among the absolute best defensive guards and most talented scorers in the league or anything....that wouldn't make sense, because then he wouldn't be a role player. But he must have been a role player because some guys on the internet told me he was!

Shut the fvck up.

The Lakers won over 65 games. That team was stacked. 1999-2000 Prime Shaq could've been playing with 3 middle schoolers and your drug addicted ass and the team would've still won the title.

Think you've done a little too much cocaine there Mr. Bulimia.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Shut the fvck up.

The Lakers won over 65 games. That team was stacked. 1999-2000 Prime Shaq could've been playing with 3 middle schoolers and your drug addicted ass and the team would've still won the title.

Think you've done a little too much cocaine there Mr. Bulimia.
Heat fan since 88? More like born in 98.

[ShaqAttack3234]

nice one.
also, on topic
Up to 2003 - Shaq led LA in Win Share = 3 Finals win
2004 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = Finals loss
2005 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = miss playoffs
2006 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = First round loss
2007 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = First round loss
2008 - Kobe led LA in Win Share = Finals loss
2009 - Gasol led LA in Win Share = Finals win
2010 - Gasol led LA in Win Share = Finals win

Win shares? :roll:


Shut the fvck up.

The Lakers won over 65 games. That team was stacked. 1999-2000 Prime Shaq could've been playing with 3 middle schoolers and your drug addicted ass and the team would've still won the title.

Think you've done a little too much cocaine there Mr. Bulimia.

Learn the meaning of stacked, kid. Phil Jackson himself said something to the effect of "We won because of Shaq's dominance, Kobe's creativity and because the team bought in defensively." His other words, and I'm not paraphrasing were "We were far from the most talented team in the league" and "We won 67 games on Shaq's back." Not what you say about a stacked team. Again, what made that team special first and foremost was the 1-2 punch and a great coach.

But I can see that you can't even grasp the simple meaning of the word stacked since you try to use their win/loss record as proof and then claim anyone with Shaq could win a title which kind of kills your win/loss argument now doesn't it? You see what you can learn when you actually think. A stunning revelation, I know, but just think, there's a whole new world out there for you.

Of course, I'm talking to some kid who actually puts stock in win shares, though as bad as the stat is, you probably only acknowledge it in this case because it suits your agenda. Then again, it's pretty obvious someone has nothing remotely intelligent to contribute to an argument when they resort to random, completely unprovoked insults instead of trying to counter specific points made, or bring new information to the table.

The sad thing is, I think you replied to yourself back there with the Rose's ACL account. Both are clearly alternate accounts, my guess is Silkk, but it doesn't really matter, because whoever you are, there's not much between the eras.

[Magic 32]

Lakers record w/o Kobe during threepeat: 25-7 (78%), compared to 12-11 w/o Shaq (52%).


Ahhh yes, that old wonderful stat. Works every time.

Too bad Kobe's solo games were mostly at the beginning of the seasons (when the roleplayers played like dogs), and Shaq's were at the end of the regular seasons (when everyone was in playoff mode).

The end of the 00-01 season (when Kobe was out) and the beginning of the 02-03 season (when Shaq was out) is a perfect example.

Pathetic and manipulative stat.

[comerb]

Lakers record w/o Kobe during threepeat: 25-7 (78%), compared to 12-11 w/o Shaq (52%).

Lakers won championship in '00 with Bean averaging 15.6 PPG on 37% shooting. Those are 3rd or 4th option #s on terrible shooting and the Lakers still won the title.

Shaq was the man on those teams, Kobe was the help. Better question would be 3peat Lakers w/o Kobe or current Heat w/o Wade.

Poor Kobe stans. It's no wonder they hate actual statistical data.



Too bad Kobe's solo games were mostly at the beginning of the seasons (when the roleplayers played like dogs), and Shaq's were at the end of the regular seasons (when everyone was in playoff mode).


And here come the excuses... right on queue.

[Rose'sACL]

Win shares? :roll:



Learn the meaning of stacked, kid. Phil Jackson himself said something to the effect of "We won because of Shaq's dominance, Kobe's creativity and because the team bought in defensively." His other words, and I'm not paraphrasing were "We were far from the most talented team in the league" and "We won 67 games on Shaq's back." Not what you say about a stacked team. Again, what made that team special first and foremost was the 1-2 punch and a great coach.

But I can see that you can't even grasp the simple meaning of the word stacked since you try to use their win/loss record as proof and then claim anyone with Shaq could win a title which kind of kills your win/loss argument now doesn't it? You see what you can learn when you actually think. A stunning revelation, I know, but just think, there's a whole new world out there for you.

Of course, I'm talking to some kid who actually puts stock in win shares, though as bad as the stat is, you probably only acknowledge it in this case because it suits your agenda. Then again, it's pretty obvious someone has nothing remotely intelligent to contribute to an argument when they resort to random, completely unprovoked insults instead of trying to counter specific points made, or bring new information to the table.

The sad thing is, I think you replied to yourself back there with the Rose's ACL account. Both are clearly alternate accounts, my guess is Silkk, but it doesn't really matter, because whoever you are, there's not much between the eras.
i gave the stat. i didn't say anything about which team would do well. you interpret the stat as you like it.
Also, stop calling others "kid" given that you don't know their age. you will be taken more seriously.
If i really wanted to give worthless stats, i would have given PER. Win shares does show some part of the picture, not the complete one but part of it.
Also, phil once called kobe "uncoachable". stop giving words of phil as reasons even though i agree that 2012-13 miami team is stacked but miami doesn't have prime shaq either. you can go further with a great big man in his prime than a great SG like wade who isn't even in his prime.the bosh factor put both those teams close though.

[Magic 32]

Poor Kobe stans. It's no wonder they hate actual statistical data.

And here come the excuses... right on queue.

Great, you now I'm right. Excellent.

[Haks]

If you're going to objectively look at it...

The drop off isn't so grand in 2000, as it would be in 2001 and 2002. With a prime Shaq, you still have a perennial contender every year. But, the Lakers had no one that was giving them 29 and 26 points per game on that roster. The Lakers also didn't have anyone that could effectively guard the opposing team's best perimeter player like Kobe (2000-2002, back when Kobe actually played elite defense night in and night out, especially in 2000 and 2001).

The Lakers aren't getting pass the Spurs in 2001 without Kobe; the same could go for the Kings series in 2002, but that's far more debatable. So, in terms of dropoff, going from a 3 time champion to a 2 or 1 year champion is pretty significant, no?

The Heat would be worst too. Lebron is the best player in the league, and does more for the Heat than Kobe did for the Lakers back then. The difference is, the Heat have Wade who (if healthy) could mimic some of Bron's impact from a facilitator and scoring role. And, they have Bosh, who would be able to produce more as his usage would increase.

The Lakers had horrible depth, and really it was Shaq and Kobe's dominance those years that compensated for it. 2 players on the same team giving you 30 points almost every game. But, it caught up to them eventually, and their lack of depth is the reason they got beat by the Spurs in 2003. So, the posters claiming the Lakers were "stacked," are......well, they're idiots.

I don't think the Heat get to the Finals last year without Bron. Actually, I know they wouldn't (Game 6, ECF versus Boston :eek: )But, I think they could get to the Finals this year without him. That's not to belittle him or his impact though - he's the best player in the league playing on the best team. But, I could see Wade with a more increased role putting up big numbers, and with Bosh and Ray I think they'd be able to make it to the Finals in the pretty average East.
:applause: :applause: great post

[comerb]

Great, you now I'm right. Excellent.

You know what I know?

That 4x scrubs + Kobe = not worried. We've seen that, it's unimpressive and barely a playoff team.

But

4x scrubs + prime Shaq = very worried

[Bigsmoke]

it depends on Wade's body.

Wade will have to sacrific his body more which might lead to him getting injured more often.

at the end of the day, i think the Lakers would drop off more because teams can live off the "hack a shaq" method. i just think 2 stars and the Heat's bench which includes Ray Allen and ect is better than Shaq and garbage. What if Shaq gets into foul trouble?

but that doesn't mean Kobe better than LeBron. I'm sure the 86 Celtics will do better without Bird than the 94 Rockets without Hakeem would so does that mean Hakeem > Bird?

[lilgodfather1]

LeBron is so much better than the 3peat Kobe, so it's unfair to compare them. It's obviously the Heat.

[Darius]

Can someone explain why OP isn't banned yet?

[pegasus]

Lebron fans:

Step 1: Cleveland fans.

Step 2: Miami fans.

Step 3: ?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Bigsmoke]

LeBron is so much better than the 3peat Kobe, so it's unfair to compare them. It's obviously the Heat.

i like LeBron a lot more than i like Kobe and i think LeBron is better but the Lakers need other options if the wanna win without Kobe. The other teams can just foul Shaq all day long.

[DonDadda59]

Pathetic and manipulative stat.

How so? :confusedshrug:

It's a big sample size (32 games), not just a handful. The Lakers won at a clip of nearly 80% of the games that Kobe missed and were able to win the championship with him putting up 3rd or 4th option numbers on terrible shooting and him even missing a game in the finals in '00. So obviously there was no real dropoff when he was gone or playing like absolute shit.

If Lebron put up 15.6 PPG on 36.7% FG shooting, how do you think MIA fares in the finals? He doesn't have the luxury of the Big Eraser to gloss over a series that pathetic.

Also, in the vein of the OP's premise- which city would experience more crime: Gotham city w/o Robin or Metropolis w/o Superman?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

How so? :confusedshrug:

It's a big sample size (32 games), not just a handful. The Lakers won at a clip of nearly 80% of the games that Kobe missed and were able to win the championship with him putting up 3rd or 4th option numbers on terrible shooting and him even missing a game in the finals in '00. So obviously there was no real dropoff when he was gone or playing like absolute shit.

If Lebron put up 15.6 PPG on 36.7% FG shooting, how do you think MIA fares in the finals? He doesn't have the luxury of the Big Eraser to gloss over a series that pathetic.

Also, in the vein of the OP's premise- which city would experience more crime: Gotham city w/o Robin or Metropolis w/o Superman?

:oldlol:

[Doranku]

How so? :confusedshrug:

It's a big sample size (32 games), not just a handful. The Lakers won at a clip of nearly 80% of the games that Kobe missed and were able to win the championship with him putting up 3rd or 4th option numbers on terrible shooting and him even missing a game in the finals in '00. So obviously there was no real dropoff when he was gone or playing like absolute shit.

If Lebron put up 15.6 PPG on 36.7% FG shooting, how do you think MIA fares in the finals? He doesn't have the luxury of the Big Eraser to gloss over a series that pathetic.

Also, in the vein of the OP's premise- which city would experience more crime: Gotham city w/o Robin or Metropolis w/o Superman?
Kobe's 2000 finals was better than LeBron's 2011 finals (and probably 2007 finals for that matter). :roll:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Ahhh yes, that old wonderful stat. Works every time.

Too bad Kobe's solo games were mostly at the beginning of the seasons (when the roleplayers played like dogs), and Shaq's were at the end of the regular seasons (when everyone was in playoff mode).

The end of the 00-01 season (when Kobe was out) and the beginning of the 02-03 season (when Shaq was out) is a perfect example.

Pathetic and manipulative stat.

'02-'03 season wasn't included in those records since he specified 3peat. But actually, Kobe missed the first month of the '99-'00 season after he broke his hand during the preseason.

As far as 2000-2001? Considering, the Lakers had underachieved and then played much better with Kobe sidelined causing Kobe to change his approach, I don't really see the excuse as too valid in this case. Most of the games Kobe played without Shaq were from late January until the all-star break in 2001. The Lakers really hadn't been on a role all season. What I will say is that the Lakers strong play late in the season coincided with Derek Fisher's return. Fisher had worked a lot on his shooting when he was out and gave the Lakers some much needed shooting when he returned.

In 2001-2002, the Lakers started off 19-4 before Shaq's first missed game, and the first game Shaq missed was around Christmas, he missed 5 games with an injury from Christmas on, was suspended for 3 games in mid January, missed another stretch in early February around the all-star break and another 2 in April.

Whatever you want to make out of those records is up to you, I don't care to argue too much at the moment, but your statement itself was not correct.


i gave the stat. i didn't say anything about which team would do well. you interpret the stat as you like it.
Also, stop calling others "kid" given that you don't know their age. you will be taken more seriously.
If i really wanted to give worthless stats, i would have given PER. Win shares does show some part of the picture, not the complete one but part of it.
Also, phil once called kobe "uncoachable". stop giving words of phil as reasons even though i agree that 2012-13 miami team is stacked but miami doesn't have prime shaq either. you can go further with a great big man in his prime than a great SG like wade who isn't even in his prime.the bosh factor put both those teams close though.

When someone throws out unprovoked insults rather than trying to engage in any sort of valid discussion, calling them kid is the more positive of the 2 possible scenarios, because at least a kid still has time to mature. An adult who creates gimmicks and behaves so immaturely is much sadder.

Sorry, but PER and win shares are from the same family of "stats." Just ridiculous formulas with subjective values given to other stats and subjective adjustments by the person who made the formula. Personally, I think both are terrible, but I'd argue win shares are even worse.

And you have the balls to post some garbage like win shares while trying to angle for a Pau>Kobe agenda for the championships and then tell me Phil Jackson's words were irrelevant?

A big problem with your example is that Phil and Kobe were obviously having problems during the 2004 time, and on and off leading up to it. Phil was frustrated with his own contract extension talks having broken down as well as his observation that the Lakers were catering to Kobe in the final year of his contract.

Phil's words about the 2000 team were far less emotional, and don't contain a single outlandish statement. They were from his book "More Than A Game" which was published after the 2000 season. He had been very satisfied with that season and called it one of his top 3 coaching jobs(along with the Bulls first title and the '94 season) and was merely stating the Lakers strengths, weaknesses, how they won, and what they overcame to accomplish this. He knows much more basketball than either of us do, and was with that team everyday so he'd know better than anyone else.

But this is ISH, where Phil Jackson's analysis of his own team are deemed irrelevant and win shares are somehow considered relevant. :rolleyes:

[DonDadda59]

Kobe's 2000 finals was better than LeBron's 2011 finals (and probably 2007 finals for that matter). :roll:

If by 'better' you mean he had Shaq averaging 38 PPG (61% FG) and 17 RPG that made his poor play irrelevant, then yes, I agree with you.

Again... how would MIA fare if Lebron put up 15.6 PPG on 36.7% FG and missed a game?

Be honest now.

[Doranku]

If by 'better' you mean he had Shaq averaging 38 PPG (61% FG) and 17 RPG that made his poor play irrelevant, then yes, I agree with you.

Again... how would MIA fare if Lebron put up 15.6 PPG on 36.7% FG and missed a game?

Be honest now.
Why are you asking this as a hypothetical?

He basically did this on better percentages in 2011. LeBron averaged like 18 ppg while Kobe averaged 19 ppg (unless for some odd reason you want to factor in the game where he played 9 minutes), and LeBron actually missed a game and a half when you total up all 6 of the fourth quarters.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Why are you asking this as a hypothetical?

He basically did this on better percentages in 2011. LeBron averaged like 18 ppg while Kobe averaged 19 ppg (unless for some odd reason you want to factor in the game where he played 9 minutes), and LeBron actually missed a game and a half when you total up all 6 of the fourth quarters.

Well, the Lakers only got 15.6 ppg and 37% out of him in 5 games, or you could look at it as 19 ppg and 37% in 4 games. The 9 minute game is relevant for the purposes of fairly evaluating Kobe's own level of play, but the Lakers didn't get 19 ppg in 5 games out of Kobe.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

This is assuming no outsiders are filling in? Right? If so, IMO it's the Lakers. Shaq was great BUT nobody wins by themselves (aside from Shaq/Kobe, that's exactly what the Lakers had..nobody).

[DonDadda59]

Why are you asking this as a hypothetical?

He basically did this on better percentages in 2011. LeBron averaged like 18 ppg while Kobe averaged 19 ppg (unless for some odd reason you want to factor in the game where he played 9 minutes), and LeBron actually missed a game and a half when you total up all 6 of the fourth quarters.

It's hilarious how you say I'm talking about hypotheticals and then you turn around and try to inflate Kobe's terrible finals #s :oldlol:

Kobe didn't average 19 PPG, he averaged 15.6 on 36.7% shooting which is much worse than any series Bron had, let alone in the finals. And of course I factor in the game where Kobe played 9 minutes and scored only 2 points, because that just further proves my point- the Lakers still won because Shaq put up 40 points and 24 Rbs.

[tpols]

It isn't really about kobe versus Lebron as much as its about shaq and scrubs versus wade and Bosh..

Shaq is better than wade and Bosh in a stand alone comparison but Wade and Bosh are a duo and would probably go farther based on that alone.

Wade would be 25+ppg and Bosh would be 20/10ish without Bron.

[daj0264]

both would win the championship

[Mr Exlax]

Lakers record w/o Kobe during threepeat: 25-7 (78%), compared to 12-11 w/o Shaq (52%).

Lakers won championship in '00 with Bean averaging 15.6 PPG on 37% shooting. Those are 3rd or 4th option #s on terrible shooting and the Lakers still won the title.

Shaq was the man on those teams, Kobe was the help. Better question would be 3peat Lakers w/o Kobe or current Heat w/o Wade.

Wait wait wait! Did everybody read this? Why is this thread still going? Did the OP ever respond to this one?

[chazzy]

Who becomes the 2nd and 3rd option in 01 and 02? Who's playmaking on the perimeter?

[BlackVVaves]

It isn't really about kobe versus Lebron as much as its about shaq and scrubs versus wade and Bosh..

Shaq is better than wade and Bosh in a stand alone comparison but Wade and Bosh are a duo and would probably go farther based on that alone.

Wade would be 25+ppg and Bosh would be 20/10ish without Bron.

Something Lebron stans in this thread have been incapable of grasping, because they are too consumed with perpetuating "Lebron > Kobe" after every corner.

Not sure why the insecurities exist. Kobe stans I can slightly understand, as Lebron has clearly surpassed Kobe as the best player in the league, seasons and seasons ago. But, for April 2013 posters to feel so completely inadequate....

Like ShaqAttack alluded, just a bunch of immature kids.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Who becomes the 2nd and 3rd option in 01 and 02? Who's playmaking on the perimeter?

Same goes for 2000 actually. People continually diminish Kobe's role on that team(obviously not you) but he was already a top 10 type player, among the best defensive guards, the one Laker perimeter player who could really get his own shot, and probably the most talented 1 on 1 perimeter scorer in the league in addition to being a guard who could rebound and the one true Laker playmaker on the perimeter. Harper was more a guy who helped them get into the triangle, but wasn't going to break down a defense the way Kobe could.

[chazzy]

Same goes for 2000 actually. People continually diminish Kobe's role on that team(obviously not you) but he was already a top 10 type player, among the best defensive guards, the one Laker perimeter player who could really get his own shot, and probably the most talented 1 on 1 perimeter scorer in the league in addition to being a guard who could rebound and the one true Laker playmaker on the perimeter. Harper was more a guy who helped them get into the triangle, but wasn't going to break down a defense the way Kobe could.
"Two deep vs too deep"

[tpols]

Something Lebron stans in this thread have been incapable of grasping, because they are too consumed with perpetuating "Lebron > Kobe" after every corner.

Not sure why the insecurities exist. Kobe stans I can slightly understand, as Lebron has clearly surpassed Kobe as the best player in the league, seasons and seasons ago. But, for April 2013 posters to feel so completely inadequate....

Like ShaqAttack alluded, just a bunch of immature kids.
Problem with this thread is that op is trying to say that because a team of wade and bosh would go farther than a team of just Shaq that Kobe's help<Brons help.

But when you add another great player to Shaq it changes the whole dynamic of comparison since bosh is bumped into a third mans role and is marginalized.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Just came in here to remind everyone that LeBron is a better player than Kobe ever was. k bye

[chosen_wun]

Kobe was a very integral piece to that Laker dynasty...but he was not irreplaceable. LeBron is.

[ShaqAttack3234]

"Two deep vs too deep"

:oldlol: Yep, 2000 WCF. With Pippen playing off Harper to double Shaq, Sheed able to come off AC Green whenever he wanted(while punishing him and Horry at the other end), Rice pretty much invisible(even during that 4th quarter comeback, I don't remember anything he did) where would they have been without Kobe? People forget that Kobe was hounding Damon Stoudamire all series defensively as well, he didn't take plays off defensively back then. They often put him on the point guard and I remember Kobe regularly pressuring point guards and often times forcing them to commit turnovers, or surprising them with his length and blocking a shot.

2000 playoffs had a number of big moments. Everyone remembers Kobe's game 4 vs Indiana, or his big 4th quarter(and overall game) vs Portland in game 7, but he also had the game-ending block on Sabonis in game 3, and the game-winning jumper over Kidd in game 2 of the Phoenix series, in addition to a 28 ppg, 50% series in the 1st round vs Sacramento that went the maximum 5 games.

[Micku]

The Lakers would have the biggest drop off.

The Heat have better talent. The Heat second and third best player are Wade and Bosh, which are all stars. And they have better role players than the 3peat Lakers. Ray Allen> not Kobe, Shaq. Ray Allen is >/= to Glen Rice possibly. And if you take Shaq out, then the Lakers don't really have that much to go on.

The Heat have role players who don't get to see the floor, but are good like Rashard Lewis, Mike Miller, and James Jones.

The Lakers have Kobe, but then a bunch of role players after that. Plus I would think missing a big like Shaq would impact than more than missing LeBron.

[Element]

LA clearly

Shaq with role players who were average shooters at best


vs

D-Wade and Bosh with great shooters and Ray Allen as a legit sixth man

Lakers were devastating, overwhelming due to the synergy between Shaq and Kobe, at least on the court. Heat are simply stacked.

[BlackVVaves]

Kobe was a very integral piece to that Laker dynasty...but he was not irreplaceable. LeBron is.

But, the question isn't who is more irreplaceable. The question seems to be, after subtracting Kobe from the 2000-2002 Lakers, and Lebron from this season's Heat, which team struggles more?

The Heat have Wade and Bosh to carry this Heat team in that hypothetical scenario, with an array of above average role players (Ray Allen, Shane Battier, and Rashard Lewis would be starting on many teams).

The Lakers have Shaq....and that's it. The Lakers role players were big in key moments, but they were by and large average to below average individual players.

The Heat have two franchise players to take the reigns in Bron's absense in that scenario.

The Lakers have Shaq and....Mitch Richmond? Brian Shaw? Robert Horry?

Shaq was never able to reach the Finals without an elite guard next to him. So, I'm inclined to believe that he would not without Kobe on that roster (again, we are not talking about replacing him with another player. We are just erasing him from that roster).

I think the Heat still could make the Finals this year. It would extremely depend on Wade being a 26, 6, and 6 player again, and on Bosh returning to his 20 and 10 form, but outside of the Knicks, I don't think a true threat would really remain in their path to the Finals.

Shaq minus Kobe against the Pacers in 2000 suddenly becomes a series. Does anyone want to argue that without Kobe's 28 points on +50% shooting in Game 4 -- a game that Shaq fouled out of and went to overtime, a game that Kobe made a game winning basket in -- that the Lakers would still win? No, they don't. It's likely the Lakers still win the series, but that series is going 7 games without that performance from an INJURED Kobe Bryant.

I'm of the mind that the Lakers don't beat the Spurs in 2001 without Kobe, a series he was able to dominate thanks to the Spurs incapable of stopping his prowl on the perimeter. Nor do they get passed the best TEAM in the league, the Sacramento Kings, in 2002 without that 1-2 punch.

Anyone trying to infer that the Lakers could still win championships every single one of those years with only Shaq, no Kobe, and their cast of role players is either not being truthful with themselves, or didn't watch basketball before 2003.

Lebron is more important to the Heat than Kobe was to those Lakers. However, Lebron's team is far more adequate from top to bottom than the Lakers were from 2000-2002.

This should tell you two things:

1) Lebron is a once in a lifetime type of player.
2) Shaq and Kobe were quite possibly the most dominant duo in NBA history.

[crisoner]

Check Kobe's stats during the WCF (Which were the REAL Finals back then)....all those people saying he rode Shaq's coattails need to STFU after.
I bet most of these lil Kobe haters on these boards now was like 7 back then.

[Rose'sACL]

Check Kobe's stats during the WCF (Which were the REAL Finals back then)....all those people saying he rode Shaq's coattails need to STFU after.
I bet most of these lil Kobe haters on these boards now was like 7 back then.
uses the word "lil" and calls others too young to understand basketball.English isn't even my first language and i haven't raped it like you just did.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq minus Kobe against the Pacers in 2000 suddenly becomes a series. Does anyone want to argue that without Kobe's 28 points on +50% shooting in Game 4 -- a game that Shaq fouled out of and went to overtime, a game that Kobe made a game winning basket in -- that the Lakers would still win? No, they don't. It's likely the Lakers still win the series, but that series is going 7 games without that performance from an INJURED Kobe Bryant.

Actually, the Lakers/Pacers was a legit series as it was. Game 1 ended in a blowout after Shaq took over the 4th quarter, but it was a 6 point game entering the 4th. Game 2 was closer than that(though Kobe had gone down in the 1st quarter) and Indiana was right in that game, but went to the hack-a-Shaq and it backfired in the 4th. We all know game 4 ended in OT after Kobe took over, and Reggie Miller still had a chance to win the game with one final shot that he missed. And Indiana was close to taking the series 7, in fact, they had a 4th quarter lead late, and it was like a 3 point game with about a minute and a half left when Reggie Miller took an ill-advised 3.

That was a close 6 game series, and Indiana was a really dangerous offensive team due to their 3 point shooting and how well their players complemented each other. Plus, they had a lot of experience from appearing in the conference finals the 2 years before that.

The Lakers didn't just breeze through the 2000 playoffs, that team was still learning how to become champions, and even if they did, Kobe was already enough of a difference maker, especially given the roster that they'd have been severely weakened without him.

[chosen_wun]

@BlackVVaves

I'm inclined to agree with you that Lakers would see the bigger drop off, as it's true that Shaq wasn't able to win without an elite shooting guard..tough to prove otherwise. Although in the Indiana series Shaq was far and away the best player, and even without Kobe I firmly believe Lakers would be able get that series, going the full 7 games.

In 2000 I saw Kobe as a luxury and not a complete necessity to winning the title as he later became years after.

[BlackVVaves]

Actually, the Lakers/Pacers was a legit series as it was. Game 1 ended in a blowout after Shaq took over the 4th quarter, but it was a 6 point game entering the 4th. Game 2 was closer than that(though Kobe had gone down in the 1st quarter) and Indiana was right in that game, but went to the hack-a-Shaq and it backfired in the 4th. We all know game 4 ended in OT after Kobe took over, and Reggie Miller still had a chance to win the game with one final shot that he missed. And Indiana was close to taking the series 7, in fact, they had a 4th quarter lead late, and it was like a 3 point game with about a minute and a half left when Reggie Miller took an ill-advised 3.

That was a close 6 game series, and Indiana was a really dangerous offensive team due to their 3 point shooting and how well their players complemented each other. Plus, they had a lot of experience from appearing in the conference finals the 2 years before that.

The Lakers didn't just breeze through the 2000 playoffs, that team was still learning how to become champions, and even if they did, Kobe was already enough of a difference maker, especially given the roster that they'd have been severely weakened without him.

I agree, 2000 wasn't a breeze to any extent. It was a tough series regardless, but my point was to illustrate how much tougher it would have been without Bryant in the series.

[BlackVVaves]

@BlackVVaves

I'm inclined to agree with you that Lakers would see the bigger drop off, as it's true that Shaq wasn't able to win without an elite shooting guard..tough to prove otherwise. Although in the Indiana series Shaq was far and away the best player, and even without Kobe I firmly believe Lakers would be able get that series, going the full 7 games.

In 2000 I saw Kobe as a luxury and not a complete necessity to winning the title as he later became years after.

I agree :cheers:

[Doranku]

It's hilarious how you say I'm talking about hypotheticals and then you turn around and try to inflate Kobe's terrible finals #s :oldlol:

Kobe didn't average 19 PPG, he averaged 15.6 on 36.7% shooting which is much worse than any series Bron had, let alone in the finals. And of course I factor in the game where Kobe played 9 minutes and scored only 2 points, because that just further proves my point- the Lakers still won because Shaq put up 40 points and 24 Rbs.
What IS your point, exactly? That prime LeBron is better than an injured 2000 Kobe?

Great insight. :oldlol:

[Doranku]

dbl post

[G-Funk]

Lakers actually had competition, the Heat don't, AT ALL.

[DonDadda59]

What IS your point, exactly? That prime LeBron is better than an injured 2000 Kobe?

Great insight. :oldlol:

My point is that the Lakers were able to win the championship with an injured Kobe putting up 15.6 PPG on 36.7% FG but the Heat wouldn't sniff a championship with Lebron playing that terribly.

And for the record, Bron is better than any version of Bean- 3peat, post threepeat, injured, healthy, whatever :D

[longtime lurker]

The answer is Kobe for anyone who doesn't have their tongue firmly planted in Lebron's prostate. People forget that Shaq with 2 all star guards was getting swept in the playoffs 2 years in a row. Now without Kobe he's not getting past the 2nd round. The Heat are stacked and incredibly deep. They are still contenders without Lebron, just not title favourites. And this isn't a negative towards Lebron more of a positive to Pat Riley for building such a balanced team.

[Gotterdammerung]

Lakers record w/o Kobe during threepeat: 25-7 (78%), compared to 12-11 w/o Shaq (52%).

Lakers won championship in '00 with Bean averaging 15.6 PPG on 37% shooting. Those are 3rd or 4th option #s on terrible shooting and the Lakers still won the title.

Shaq was the man on those teams, Kobe was the help. Better question would be 3peat Lakers w/o Kobe or current Heat w/o Wade.
Proof why homers/stans/trolls do not care about logic or evidence, for their intent is strictly ideological and rhetorical.

Keep up the hard work! :cheers:

[longtime lurker]

Proof why homers/stans/trolls do not care about logic or evidence, for their intent is strictly ideological and rhetorical.

Keep up the hard work! :cheers:

Let's see Kobe averages:
27.8,4.4,3.6 during the first round series
21.0,3.8,3.4 ,2.0,1.4 during the second round
20.4,4.9,5.9,1.6,2.1 during the WCF including leading an epic 4th quarter come back in the deciding game yet you idiots want to reduce him to only averaging 15 points in the Finals? WTF One game he played only 9 minutes, missed a game(which the Lakers lost) and lead the Lakers to a win when Shaq fouled out in one game.

Facts Lakers don't even make the finals without Kobe and yes he was averaging double the numbers of the next player in every series until the finals. I honestly wonder if people on this board are just trolling or are genuinely this stupid since it seems most can't be objective yet claim to have basketball knowledge.

[Element]

LA clearly

Shaq with role players who were average shooters at best


vs

D-Wade and Bosh with great shooters and Ray Allen as a legit sixth man

Lakers were devastating, overwhelming due to the synergy between Shaq and Kobe, at least on the court. Heat are simply stacked.

People neg me for this?

P.ussies lol.