Lakers record without Kobe

[tamaraw08]

Not sure if this is accurate but wikiAnswers says
Answer:



Without Kobe, the Lakers are 43-21 (including 0-1 in playoffs), as of Feb 1, 2012.
That includes a game where he played only 1 minute, as well as a game he played 6 minutes (going 1 for 2, scoring 2 pts total.
Can anybody validate? thanks

[TheMarkMadsen]

Well they were swept in the playoffs last year without him

And a 60 game sample size for a 17 year career? I wouldn't care if it was 10-50 that's 60 games compared to thousands.

[longtime lurker]

Well they were swept in the playoffs last year without him

And a 60 game sample size for a 17 year career? I wouldn't care if it was 10-50 that's 60 games compared to thousands.

This. And their record with him is even better so it's a moot point.

[Black and White]

Not sure if this is accurate but wikiAnswers says
Answer:



Without Kobe, the Lakers are 43-21 (including 0-1 in playoffs), as of Feb 1, 2012.
That includes a game where he played only 1 minute, as well as a game he played 6 minutes (going 1 for 2, scoring 2 pts total.
Can anybody validate? thanks

Your not trying to say the Lakers are better without Kobe right?

[0000000]

IMO, Lakers were never better without Kobe until now. Back when Shaq played, it was much easier for them to play without Kobe than without Shaq simply because the system was built around Shaq and they at least had some decent backups for Kobe while they never really had a center to backup Shaq.
Shaq was more important because the triangle was built around him but it's BS that he was overall more valuable than Kobe IMO. From 2001 onwards. People say put any other elite guard and Shaq wins. Well, no kidding. Put any other big man instead of Shaq and Kobe wins. Like he did with Gasol. This argument is only used to discredit Kobe though and not Shaq because well, a lot of people have an agenda against Kobe.

The whole Lakers are better without Kobe nonsense was always used by those that either hated him or had no idea about basketball.

Until this year IMO. I honestly think the Lakers are better without Kobe. But that's what age and a serious injury do, especially to a player who is as involved as Kobe. I already argued this in another topic so no need to go over it again.

[jstern]

IMO, Lakers were never better without Kobe until now. Back when Shaq played, it was much easier for them to play without Kobe than without Shaq simply because the system was built around Shaq and they at least had some decent backups for Kobe while they never really had a center to backup Shaq.
Shaq was more important because the triangle was built around him but it's BS that he was overall more valuable than Kobe IMO. From 2001 onwards. People say put any other elite guard and Shaq wins. Well, no kidding. Put any other big man instead of Shaq and Kobe wins. Like he did with Gasol. This argument is only used to discredit Kobe though and not Shaq because well, a lot of people have an agenda against Kobe.

The whole Lakers are better without Kobe nonsense was always used by those that either hated him or had no idea about basketball.

Until this year IMO. I honestly think the Lakers are better without Kobe. But that's what age and a serious injury do, especially to a player who is as involved as Kobe. I already argued this in another topic so no need to go over it again.
It's still,all relative. The Shaq Lakers still should have a much lower winning percentage without Kobe. Besides one of the things that has been constantly on my mind this season is how in the last few years the Lakers always seem to win without Kobe. The Lakers would have gotten swept last playoffs with Kobe playing. Spurs were just too good.

[0000000]

It's still,all relative. The Shaq Lakers still should have a much lower winning percentage without Kobe. Besides one of the things that has been constantly on my mind this season is how in the last few years the Lakers always seem to win without Kobe. The Lakers would have gotten swept last playoffs with Kobe playing. Spurs were just too good.

Heh, all I'm gonna say is...no way to know. I actually think the Lakers might've won but what can you do, no way to know and that's that.

Kobe was amazing last year IMO. Many superhuman performances. The team was awfully constructed and we're seeing shades of it this year. This is the first year IMO that Kobe is the problem with the Lakers.

[TheMilkyBarKid]

How would i look up shaq era lakers record for games played without kobe and compare them to games played without shaq? I remembr someone posted it on here a while back.

[D.J.]

How many of those games were back when Shaq was still a Laker? Shaq is the most dominant big man outside of Wilt. Shaq out of the lineup huts much more than Kobe out of the lineup.

[iamgine]

IMO, Lakers were never better without Kobe until now. Back when Shaq played, it was much easier for them to play without Kobe than without Shaq simply because the system was built around Shaq and they at least had some decent backups for Kobe while they never really had a center to backup Shaq.
Shaq was more important because the triangle was built around him but it's BS that he was overall more valuable than Kobe IMO. From 2001 onwards. People say put any other elite guard and Shaq wins. Well, no kidding. Put any other big man instead of Shaq and Kobe wins. Like he did with Gasol. This argument is only used to discredit Kobe though and not Shaq because well, a lot of people have an agenda against Kobe.

The whole Lakers are better without Kobe nonsense was always used by those that either hated him or had no idea about basketball.

Until this year IMO. I honestly think the Lakers are better without Kobe. But that's what age and a serious injury do, especially to a player who is as involved as Kobe. I already argued this in another topic so no need to go over it again.
Not true. In the early 00s, Duncan & Robinson would kill them if it was Gasol instead of Shaq.

[D.J.]

Not true. In the early 00s, Duncan & Robinson would kill them if it was Gasol instead of Shaq.


Definitely the case in 2000 and 2001 with Duncan at his athletic peak and Robinson with some legs left. If Duncan wasn't injured in 2000, Lakers/Spurs would have been a very good 2nd round matchup.

[magictricked]

It's not as simple as winning percentage with one out and the other in.

Early 2000s Lakers were deeper at the guard spot with vets in a system that loves gurds where the backup centers were guys like Travis Knight, 35 year old John Salley or AC Green playing center at 36... other backup centers ftom back then were guys like Greg Foster Jelani McCoy or even Slava.

Fact is the Lakers not only lost a dominate big man when Shaq went out but the drop off in talent at the position was massive compared to the serviceable players that could fill in when Kobe was out

You're comparing apples and oranges when you look at the position and depth at the position and the ability to fill the void

[0000000]

Not true. In the early 00s, Duncan & Robinson would kill them if it was Gasol instead of Shaq.


In 2001, Kobe looked better than Duncan and Robinson combined and multiplied by 10. He was that good. No version of Duncan or Robinson is stopping Kobe in 2001. He was humiliating them. That is at least my opinion of course, hate this hypothetical BS when we act like what we think would happen is an absolute certainty.

Rules favored big men and power game much more in the early 2000's. It is definitely a factor to consider. The role of a big man has been greatly diminished after the implementation of new rules. Still, Kobe was IMO that guard who was able to overcome the dominance of the big men. But then again, it's all hypothetical. Kobe has won with another big man, one far less dominant. And that's all that matters. The way I see it, both Kobe and Shaq have won with other players, therefore proving they were capable of doing it.

[BlackVVaves]

Like, do some of you guys get a kick outta trolling, or do you really suffer from the type of severe retardation that urges you to make such detracting claims against Kobe/Lebron?

That's a serious question.

[NumberSix]

Your not trying to say the Lakers are better without Kobe right?
No, I think he's trying to say they aren't as worse without him as some would like to think.

[0000000]

No, I think he's trying to say they aren't as worse without him as some would like to think.


Would like to think?

5 rings really is all there is to say. Someone who's not a big impact player doesn't win 5 rings. Ring thing is a cliche but like most cliches, it's true.

[NumberSix]

In 2001, Kobe looked better than Duncan and Robinson combined and multiplied by 10. He was that good. No version of Duncan or Robinson is stopping Kobe in 2001. He was humiliating them. That is at least my opinion of course, hate this hypothetical BS when we act like what we think would happen is an absolute certainty.

Rules favored big men and power game much more in the early 2000's. It is definitely a factor to consider. The role of a big man has been greatly diminished after the implementation of new rules. Still, Kobe was IMO that guard who was able to overcome the dominance of the big men. But then again, it's all hypothetical. Kobe has won with another big man, one far less dominant. And that's all that matters. The way I see it, both Kobe and Shaq have won with other players, therefore proving they were capable of doing it.
At no point in time have rules favoured big men. Its only a matter of how much the rules are designed to limit them. It's just natural that bigger guys are naturally better at this game. The rules were less limiting on bigs than they are now.

[NumberSix]

Would like to think?

5 rings really is all there is to say. Someone who's not a big impact player doesn't win 5 rings. Ring thing is a cliche but like most cliches, it's true.
Agreed. Derek Fisher has the exact same 5 rings that Kobe has. He's a big impact player.

[0000000]

Agreed. Derek Fisher has the exact same 5 rings that Kobe has. He's a big impact player.

True. Only one less than Jordan. More than LeBron. Fish is da man!