Here's the Problem When You Penalize Kobe for Playing with Shaq

[eliteballer]

You're basically cutting his career in half and only saying half "counts" when comparing him to other greats....05-now...and hell since 2010 Kobe has been on the downside of his career.

Also because Kobe played on those Shaq/Kobe teams and the Lakers had to go through a rebuilding process, he lost 3 years of his prime(05, 06,07) on bad teams. Yes they missed the playoffs in 05, but they were in the playoffs before Kobe and Odom went down, if there was a better team around they might have played better with them out. Those years are also arguably his peak as a player.

You also don't know what Kobe might have accomplished from 97-04 in terms of bigger individual accomplishments...or contending with another team. He himself said "my stats would have been crazy"...so obviously he believes he would have had bigger numbers. Hell, in 01 he was averaging 30 ppg before he was asked to step back because Shaq was annoyed.

If anything, accomplishing a 3 peat at the ages of 21-23 should be damn impressive...and you would think people would appreciate how hard it is to win titles after seeing what this Heat team has gone through. Especially when those Laker teams did not have an overwhelming talent advantage over their competition.

[stalkerforlife]

Kobe was the closer during the Shaq years and he absolutely tore it up in the playoffs leading up to the finals. There are no finals appearances without the GOAT closer, Kobe Bryant.

Go check game 7 against the Blazers or the series against the Spurs, etc. The REAL finals were the western conference finals and Kobe did WORK.

[kennethgriffin]

let the little babies cut kobes career in half..

i dont care


hakeem is top 10 all time


even if you took away kobes 3 titles with shaq, his all nba teams with shaq, his all defensive teams with shaq, his allstar games with shaq. and anything else with shaq.. he still has a better career than hakeem



kobe 2005-2013
2 championships
2 finals mvps
1 season mvp
8 first team all nba's
6 first team all defense's
9 time allstar starter


hakeem his whole life

2 championships
2 finals mvps
1 season mvp
6 first team all nba's
5 first team all defense's
8 time allstar starter



so who gives a crap...


kobes top 10 with or without shaq


with shaq he has a top 5-6 all time resume

[NumberSix]

Not cutting his career in half. Just not putting #2 rings on the same level as #1 rings.

[kennethgriffin]

kobes top 10 with or without shaq


but is lebron top 10 with or without wade/bosh?

:oldlol: :roll: :lol

[stalkerforlife]

Not cutting his career in half. Just not putting #2 rings on the same level as #1 rings.

Check the real finals, the west conference finals.

I'll give you a few days to go watch all those games, which is how long it will take you. Run along now. You don't have much time.

Check who the closer is.

[eliteballer]

Not cutting his career in half. Just not putting #2 rings on the same level as #1 rings.

Check Kobe and Shaq's stats in Game 7 vs. the Blazers....and Kobe played as well in 01 as LeBron did in either of his title runs...and he was 21-23 in those title runs, not in his prime.

[NumberSix]

Check Kobe and Shaq's stats in Game 7 vs. the Blazers....and Kobe played as well in 01 as LeBron did in either of his title runs...and he was 21-23 in those title runs, not in his prime.
Don't care. Shaq was winning unanimous FMVPs. Kobe was a clear #2. Get over it.

[Warfan]

No one cuts his career in half, rational fans give Kobe props for his huge role in the 3peat. But when most Kobe fans just say 5>4 or something like that, you have to add some context.

[kennethgriffin]

Not cutting his career in half. Just not putting #2 rings on the same level as #1 rings.

thats fair. but the prestige of a 2nd banana ring averaging 30/7/6 isnt far off from a fmvp ring

i'd give kobe 60% of a ring in 2000

95% of a ring in 2001
90% of a ring in 2002

so maybe kobe doesnt have 5 rings. but i'd give him atleast 4.45 prestige

kobe was the mvp of the series that mattered in 2001 and 2002

[kennethgriffin]

Don't care. Shaq was winning unanimous FMVPs. Kobe was a clear #2. Get over it.


2001 finals against philly? 2002 finals against jersey? lol who cares... theyre 1st round competition out west

[DaSeba5]

People do that to counter Kobe stan's arguments of 5 > Duncan's 4 or LeBron's 2 or something like that. Kobe stans want people to respect his 5 rings as a player (he was a really good player in the 3-peat), but they bash everyone else.

[NumberSix]

thats fair. but the prestige of a 2nd banana ring averaging 30/7/6 isnt far off from a fmvp ring

i'd give kobe 60% of a ring in 2000

95% of a ring in 2001
90% of a ring in 2002

so maybe kobe doesnt have 5 rings. but i'd give him atleast 4.45 prestige

kobe was the mvp of the series that mattered in 2001 and 2002
No, he has exactly 5 rings. They all count.

[buddha]

kobes top 10 with or without shaq


but is lebron top 10 with or without wade/bosh?

:oldlol: :roll: :lol

he ain't even top 100.

[fpliii]

It's incredibly impressive. Kobe was the closer in a lot of the big playoff series. He was certainly not some also-ran, or role player, and you can probably count the number of wings in the league at the time that you could replace him with and have similar success on one hand (if that).

However, I don't think you can give him as much credit as Shaq, though. He was the first option during the threepeat, and that's not something that we can ignore.

That being said, people who dismiss his first three rings are foolish (though ring counting in general is pretty lame too...each playoff or championship run isn't just a tally mark, it's all about the journey).

[IllegalD]

Not cutting his career in half. Just not putting #2 rings on the same level as #1 rings.


Based on what criteria exactly?

Does Bird only have 2 #1 rings, since Cedric "Cornbread" Maxwell was Finals MVP for his first one, with Gasol-esque averages of 18 and 10 on 56% shooting? While Bird shot 42%?

Does Kareem only have 2 #1 rings since he only has 2 Finals MVPs to show for his 6 rings?

Kobe-haters want to argue that Gasol was the real MVP of the 09-10 teams, but the truth is that Kobe was closer to a 1B option in those threepeat teams with Shaq than Gasol was on those 09-10 teams. Gasol was way more of a sidekick in those championship teams than Kobe was in the threepeat teams.

Find me another "sidekick" who put up the averages that Kobe had during the threepeat. Find me another sidekick that lead his team in 4th quarter scoring, like Kobe did in the 2nd and 3rd title runs. Even the first ring, in which Kobe's averages were at their lowest and closest to a "2nd banana" than in any of the other years, he still had 1B option/go-to-guy moments: game-winner against Suns, best player on the floor in Game 7 against the Blazers, Take-Over in OT of Game 4 of Finals after Shaq fouled out.

Also, Kobe managed to win 2 SANS Shaq as the man of his own team. While Shaq was never able to win one as the man without Kobe, even though he's had talented teams all of his career. Sort of "flips the tables" on the hater's argument, don't it...? :confusedshrug:

Most of these opinions of devaluing Kobe's first 3 rings come from insecure Jordan/LeBron Stans who feel threatened by a guy who achieved comparable, legendary success and career accolades without having any clear physical/athletic advantage over either Jordan or LeBron. And did it in one of the most criminally underrated eras of competition (underrated because it directly followed the "Golden Jordan Era" of general fan/global interest in the NBA) and doing it while playing in a conference which has been stacked throughout his entire career with little-to-no letdown.

[fpliii]

Based on what criteria exactly?

Does Bird only have 2 #1 rings, since Cedric "Cornbread" Maxwell was Finals MVP for his first one, with Gasol-esque averages of 18 and 10 on 56% shooting? While Bird shot 42%?

Does Kareem only have 2 #1 rings since he only has 2 Finals MVPs to show for his 6 rings?

Kobe-haters want to argue that Gasol was the real MVP of the 09-10 teams, but the truth is that Kobe was closer to a 1B option in those threepeat teams with Shaq than Gasol was on those 09-10 teams. Gasol was way more of a sidekick in those championship teams than Kobe was in the threepeat teams.

Find me another "sidekick" who put up the averages that Kobe had during the threepeat. Find me another sidekick that lead his team in 4th quarter scoring, like Kobe did in the 2nd and 3rd title runs. Even the first ring, in which Kobe's averages were at their lowest and closest to a "2nd banana" than in any of the other years, he still had 1B option/go-to-guy moments: game-winner against Suns, best player on the floor in Game 7 against the Blazers, Take-Over in OT of Game 4 of Finals after Shaq fouled out.

Also, Kobe managed to win 2 SANS Shaq as the man of his own team. While Shaq was never able to win one as the man without Kobe, even though he's had talented teams all of his career. Sort of "flips the tables" on the hater's argument, don't it...? :confusedshrug:

Most of these opinions of devaluing Kobe's first 3 rings come from insecure Jordan/LeBron Stans who feel threatened by a guy who achieved comparable, legendary success and career accolades without having any clear physical/athletic advantage over either Jordan or LeBron. And did it in one of the most criminally underrated eras of competition (underrated because it directly followed the "Golden Jordan Era" of general fan/global interest in the NBA) and doing it while playing in a conference which has been stacked throughout his entire career with little-to-no letdown.
Just two notes:

1) Bird put up 15/15/7 in that series. Doesn't excuse his poor shooting (and it wasn't the only series in his career during which his jumper wasn't falling), but he wasn't a scrub.

2) Kareem was literally robbed of FMVP in 1980. We say that a lot, but that actually was the case:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=301909

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on either point BTW (and I do think the Gasol FMVP talk is silly...though in general, media awards are meaningless), just felt the need to respond to both.

[eliteballer]

Based on what criteria exactly?

Does Bird only have 2 #1 rings, since Cedric "Cornbread" Maxwell was Finals MVP for his first one, with Gasol-esque averages of 18 and 10 on 56% shooting? While Bird shot 42%?

Does Kareem only have 2 #1 rings since he only has 2 Finals MVPs to show for his 6 rings?

Kobe-haters want to argue that Gasol was the real MVP of the 09-10 teams, but the truth is that Kobe was closer to a 1B option in those threepeat teams with Shaq than Gasol was on those 09-10 teams. Gasol was way more of a sidekick in those championship teams than Kobe was in the threepeat teams.

Find me another "sidekick" who put up the averages that Kobe had during the threepeat. Find me another sidekick that lead his team in 4th quarter scoring, like Kobe did in the 2nd and 3rd title runs. Even the first ring, in which Kobe's averages were at their lowest and closest to a "2nd banana" than in any of the other years, he still had 1B option/go-to-guy moments: game-winner against Suns, best player on the floor in Game 7 against the Blazers, Take-Over in OT of Game 4 of Finals after Shaq fouled out.

Also, Kobe managed to win 2 SANS Shaq as the man of his own team. While Shaq was never able to win one as the man without Kobe, even though he's had talented teams all of his career. Sort of "flips the tables" on the hater's argument, don't it...? :confusedshrug:

Most of these opinions of devaluing Kobe's first 3 rings come from insecure Jordan/LeBron Stans who feel threatened by a guy who achieved comparable, legendary success and career accolades without having any clear physical/athletic advantage over either Jordan or LeBron. And did it in one of the most criminally underrated eras of competition (underrated because it directly followed the "Golden Jordan Era" of general fan/global interest in the NBA) and doing it while playing in a conference which has been stacked throughout his entire career with little-to-no letdown.

Does one of Duncan's rings not count because Parkers finals MVP:lol

[stalkerforlife]

Based on what criteria exactly?

Does Bird only have 2 #1 rings, since Cedric "Cornbread" Maxwell was Finals MVP for his first one, with Gasol-esque averages of 18 and 10 on 56% shooting? While Bird shot 42%?

Does Kareem only have 2 #1 rings since he only has 2 Finals MVPs to show for his 6 rings?

Kobe-haters want to argue that Gasol was the real MVP of the 09-10 teams, but the truth is that Kobe was closer to a 1B option in those threepeat teams with Shaq than Gasol was on those 09-10 teams. Gasol was way more of a sidekick in those championship teams than Kobe was in the threepeat teams.

Find me another "sidekick" who put up the averages that Kobe had during the threepeat. Find me another sidekick that lead his team in 4th quarter scoring, like Kobe did in the 2nd and 3rd title runs. Even the first ring, in which Kobe's averages were at their lowest and closest to a "2nd banana" than in any of the other years, he still had 1B option/go-to-guy moments: game-winner against Suns, best player on the floor in Game 7 against the Blazers, Take-Over in OT of Game 4 of Finals after Shaq fouled out.

Also, Kobe managed to win 2 SANS Shaq as the man of his own team. While Shaq was never able to win one as the man without Kobe, even though he's had talented teams all of his career. Sort of "flips the tables" on the hater's argument, don't it...? :confusedshrug:

Most of these opinions of devaluing Kobe's first 3 rings come from insecure Jordan/LeBron Stans who feel threatened by a guy who achieved comparable, legendary success and career accolades without having any clear physical/athletic advantage over either Jordan or LeBron. And did it in one of the most criminally underrated eras of competition (underrated because it directly followed the "Golden Jordan Era" of general fan/global interest in the NBA) and doing it while playing in a conference which has been stacked throughout his entire career with little-to-no letdown.

Ether.

[NumberSix]

Based on what criteria exactly?

Does Bird only have 2 #1 rings, since Cedric "Cornbread" Maxwell was Finals MVP for his first one, with Gasol-esque averages of 18 and 10 on 56% shooting? While Bird shot 42%?

Does Kareem only have 2 #1 rings since he only has 2 Finals MVPs to show for his 6 rings?

Kobe-haters want to argue that Gasol was the real MVP of the 09-10 teams, but the truth is that Kobe was closer to a 1B option in those threepeat teams with Shaq than Gasol was on those 09-10 teams. Gasol was way more of a sidekick in those championship teams than Kobe was in the threepeat teams.

Find me another "sidekick" who put up the averages that Kobe had during the threepeat. Find me another sidekick that lead his team in 4th quarter scoring, like Kobe did in the 2nd and 3rd title runs. Even the first ring, in which Kobe's averages were at their lowest and closest to a "2nd banana" than in any of the other years, he still had 1B option/go-to-guy moments: game-winner against Suns, best player on the floor in Game 7 against the Blazers, Take-Over in OT of Game 4 of Finals after Shaq fouled out.

Also, Kobe managed to win 2 SANS Shaq as the man of his own team. While Shaq was never able to win one as the man without Kobe, even though he's had talented teams all of his career. Sort of "flips the tables" on the hater's argument, don't it...? :confusedshrug:

Most of these opinions of devaluing Kobe's first 3 rings come from insecure Jordan/LeBron Stans who feel threatened by a guy who achieved comparable, legendary success and career accolades without having any clear physical/athletic advantage over either Jordan or LeBron. And did it in one of the most criminally underrated eras of competition (underrated because it directly followed the "Golden Jordan Era" of general fan/global interest in the NBA) and doing it while playing in a conference which has been stacked throughout his entire career with little-to-no letdown.
I'm not "devaluing" his rings. I just had to tell a kobetard troll that ALL his rings count. He has exactly 5. None of this fraction business.

[stalkerforlife]

Does one of Duncan's rings not count because Parkers finals MVP:lol

Double ether.

[Kblaze8855]

Forget Kobe. John Havlicek would be like a 3 time finals MVP with 8 rings if we counted his work done as #2. Hell he was the leading scorer on like 4 title teams. Won 2 rings as his teams leader. Put up 27/6/6 on 48% shooting winning the first one.

Im sure hes a big proponent of full credit being given to rings won as a superstar bigmans #2.

And briefly he got it. He was voted the #1 celtics of all time in I believe 1980.

I bet Russell was somewhere pissed off.

But over time people got back to reality.

Kobes never getting 100% credit for the Shaq rings. Nobody would. Its a lost cause.

Not like hes at fault. Did what he was supposed to do...won. The rings exist. But hes just not getting that full 5 ring status in history. He may like Hondo get it briefly when the emotion of his recent retirement getting the hyperbole going.

Down the line? 10-20 years? 40? 50?

This sport is heading down the baseball path far as numbers love. Future fans see Shaq giving 30+ and 15+ to everyone in his path....Kobe getting equal credit is out the window.

Just be happy Magic Johnson will smile and ay "5 rings for that man Kobe Bryant!" on ABC now and then. Thats gonna have to do.

I will say its curious Magic gets full credit for his 5 when Kareem played about as well as Shaq in 1980 and was still a beast and finals MVP many years later.

That legendary game 6 helps Magic a lot. The out the gate finals MVP blinds a lot of people to who was that teams best player.

[Rodmantheman]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/24/248388d7d90a3c7f03750ae6f013b3e42c9398b83945b56067 87192b5afcf887.jpg

[kennethgriffin]

Forget Kobe. John Havlicek would be like a 3 time finals MVP with 8 rings if we counted his work done as #2. Hell he was the leading scorer on like 4 title teams. Won 2 rings as his teams leader. Put up 27/6/6 on 48% shooting winning the first one.

Im sure hes a big proponent of full credit being given to rings won as a superstar bigmans #2.

And briefly he got it. He was voted the #1 celtics of all time in I believe 1980.

I bet Russell was somewhere pissed off.

But over time people got back to reality.

Kobes never getting 100% credit for the Shaq rings. Nobody would. Its a lost cause.

Not like hes at fault. Did what he was supposed to do...won. The rings exist. But hes just not getting that full 5 ring status in history. He may like Hondo get it briefly when the emotion of his recent retirement getting the hyperbole going.

Down the line? 10-20 years? 40? 50?

This sport is heading down the baseball path far as numbers love. Future fans see Shaq giving 30+ and 15+ to everyone in his path....Kobe getting equal credit is out the window.

Just be happy Magic Johnson will smile and ay "5 rings for that man Kobe Bryant!" on ABC now and then. Thats gonna have to do.

I will say its curious Magic gets full credit for his 5 when Kareem played about as well as Shaq in 1980 and was still a beast and finals MVP many years later.

That legendary game 6 helps Magic a lot. The out the gate finals MVP blinds a lot of people to who was that teams best player.


and we'd also count cousys career as top 10 all time if 60's titles werent such trash... we give russell the benefit of the doubt cause big men are comparable to today


havlicek in todays nba wouldnt be nearly as good.. and ontop of that. when did havlicek ever average 30ppg in the playoffs as a 2nd option


sometimes there exceptions made... like kobe/shaq was a 2 man team

the celtics always won with a legendary team. even in the 70's they were somewhat stacked


but the final nail in the coffin for havlicek is that he had a wade like career with no mvp and only 4 first team all nba's


rings aint everything. theyre just tie breakers between comparable players

[Kblaze8855]

Im sure like Kobe....on his own team his numbers would be crazy. Which is fairly obvious since in his first 3 years as leader put up 24/8/7, 29/9/8, and 28/8/8. And he had already started slowing down. He spent his prime winning rings he wont get credit for and not putting up the numbers he could have.

But he was a good to great player for 15 years. He came out in 1962 and at 38 had 29/8/5 in his final game vs players we dont discredit Bird, Magic, Gervin, and lots of 80s greats playing against.

Hondo was hitting floaters over guys who played in 89....

But....never getting credit for all those rings.

Thats life.

[6 for 24]

Another fascinating, original discussion here at ISH!

I admit, it sickens me to see people refer to the threepeat Lakers as "Shaq's team", when we experts know that it was really "Kobe's team". I shall attempt to dumb down the argument to explain it for those of you new to the sport.

In Shaq's prime years, he was an unstoppable force in the paint. However, in order to score from the paint, one must receive the ball there. And it is basically impossible to give a player the ball when there are people surrounding him. You can try this for yourself at home to see (you will need a ball and two or three colleagues). So for many years-- prior to Kobe becoming his teammate-- Shaq languished in obscurity; a powerful giant unable to get the ball in the painted area. Surely you could give the ball to Shaq behind the three-point line, but he has no proficiency there.

Then the great Kobe Bryant came around, and all changed. You see, the defending players could no longer pack the paint to guard Shaq, because Kobe is simply an unstoppable offensive force, capable of hitting a reliable 34-43% from anywhere on the court. Kobe's signature move-- the fadeaway three with the hand in the face-- just shows how potent he is.

During the threepeat years, teams would regularly guard Kobe with two, three, sometimes four players, leaving Shaq open in the paint. Shaq would then receive the touches he wanted via "Kobe assists"-- when Kobe would take the shot over two, three, sometimes four players and the ball would ricochet into Shaq's monstrous hands. That is just good team basketball. Sometimes, this would cause Shaq to have "better" numbers, but we experts understood the cause. And, like Kobe, we were willing to sacrifice the awards and accolades. But it can be irksome when people try to "rewrite" history and tell a different story.

Hopefully that has cleared things up.

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye

[Mr Feeny]

Another fascinating, original discussion here at ISH!

I admit, it sickens me to see people refer to the threepeat Lakers as "Shaq's team", when we experts know that it was really "Kobe's team". I shall attempt to dumb down the argument to explain it for those of you new to the sport.

In Shaq's prime years, he was an unstoppable force in the paint. However, in order to score from the paint, one must receive the ball there. And it is basically impossible to give a player the ball when there are people surrounding him. You can try this for yourself at home to see (you will need a ball and two or three colleagues). So for many years-- prior to Kobe becoming his teammate-- Shaq languished in obscurity; a powerful giant unable to get the ball in the painted area. Surely you could give the ball to Shaq behind the three-point line, but he has no proficiency there.

Then the great Kobe Bryant came around, and all changed. You see, the defending players could no longer pack the paint to guard Shaq, because Kobe is simply an unstoppable offensive force, capable of hitting a reliable 34-43% from anywhere on the court. Kobe's signature move-- the fadeaway three with the hand in the face-- just shows how potent he is.

During the threepeat years, teams would regularly guard Kobe with two, three, sometimes four players, leaving Shaq open in the paint. Shaq would then receive the touches he wanted via "Kobe assists"-- when Kobe would take the shot over two, three, sometimes four players and the ball would ricochet into Shaq's monstrous hands. That is just good team basketball. Sometimes, this would cause Shaq to have "better" numbers, but we experts understood the cause. And, like Kobe, we were willing to sacrifice the awards and accolades. But it can be irksome when people try to "rewrite" history and tell a different story.

Hopefully that has cleared things up.

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye


You're insane, right?

[aj1987]

hakeem is top 10 all time


even if you took away kobes 3 titles with shaq, his all nba teams with shaq, his all defensive teams with shaq, his allstar games with shaq. and anything else with shaq.. he still has a better career than hakeem



kobe 2005-2013
2 championships
2 finals mvps
1 season mvp
8 first team all nba's
6 first team all defense's
9 time allstar starter


hakeem his whole life

2 championships
2 finals mvps
1 season mvp
6 first team all nba's
5 first team all defense's
8 time allstar starter
Why are you ignoring Hakeem's 2 DPOY's and 2 MVP's?

[el gringos]

Penalize? No logical person would do that. Recognize? Sure you have to. Shaq was such a force that it changes the way teams defend and how long they last.


But you are completely ok with shaq being "penalized" for playing w Kobe, wade, and penny right?


Obama is the greatest television star of all time, and Kobe has made more dudes fall in love with him than anybody ever.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

If the worst thing they can say about is that you weren't better than the greatest peak player of all time in order to argue against you in a comparison with the consensus overall greatest player of all time you are doing something right. :confusedshrug:

The undeniable truth is [(3(Shaq + scrubs)+ 2(Gasol+scrubs)]/5 is no better than the average championships teammates of any other legend.

[Ne 1]

I wonder if people 10, 15, or 20 years from now will even care about this "#1" thing as much as we do today regarding the early 00's Lakers. I have seen this discussed regarding the 80's Lakers, but even then it was because it suited the agenda of fans of a certain retired player. Usually, though, people always say "Magic has 5 rings" without a qualifier, even though like Kobe, he won his first few with a superior player. Whenever Kobe's rings are mentioned here an immediate asterisk is attached. It is ironic. The asterisk is based on classification of "#1" and "#2.' Heck, Kobe was a lot closer to Shaq in 2001 and 2002 than Magic was to Kareem in 1980, yet all 5 of Magic's rings "count?" :oldlol:

[T_L_P]

If the worst thing they can say about is that you weren't better than the greatest peak player of all time in order to argue against you in a comparison with the consensus overall greatest player of all time you are doing something right. :confusedshrug:

The undeniable truth is [(3(Shaq + scrubs)+ 2(Gasol+scrubs)]/5 is no better than the average championships teammates of any other legend.

The Lakers had very good role players in both sets of runs...they weren't just scrubs.

Other than that I agree with your post, though there were better players over a three year stretch than Shaq.

[Knoe Itawl]

The problem with Kobe Groupies, is that they're so wrapped up in rings (ironically because of a player they dislike, Jordan). Jordan was the one who really brought rings into the forefront as this all important factor in judging a player, when before rings were obviously considered prestigious, but not the end all/be all determining factor. Then the Kobe Groupies exploded with it because Kobe won 5 rings and they could just keep saying "5 rings, 5 rings" over and over again like mindless, hero worshiping sheep.

I pointed out before that some random Miami announcer was already calling Jordan GOAT after his SECOND ring. Jordan himself retired after 3 rings saying he "had nothing left to prove" though he hadn't won as many as Magic and Kareem, and tied Bird. Yet, he was confident enough that he would be seen as the better player than them despite "only" 3 rings? Why is that? Because his rings weren't the end all/be all, it was how good of a PLAYER he was.

I do agree that for the higher echelon all time players, there should be a number of championships to go along with other honors. However, Bryant groupies have bastardized the ring argument so much that context doesn't matter to them.

I don't care if Jordan had won 3 rings, or went on to win 6. He was GOAT because of the body of work he'd put in and how he'd won his rings, and his peak performances, especially in the playoffs.

No one "penalizes" Kobe for his rings with Shaq any more than people "penalize" Scottie for his rings with Jordan. They simply point out that Shaq was the better, more impactful player during the entirety of his tenure with the Lakers. This is a simple truth that is only lost on Kobe Stans, because well they're Kobe Stans.

[The Magics]

Another fascinating, original discussion here at ISH!

I admit, it sickens me to see people refer to the threepeat Lakers as "Shaq's team", when we experts know that it was really "Kobe's team". I shall attempt to dumb down the argument to explain it for those of you new to the sport.

In Shaq's prime years, he was an unstoppable force in the paint. However, in order to score from the paint, one must receive the ball there. And it is basically impossible to give a player the ball when there are people surrounding him. You can try this for yourself at home to see (you will need a ball and two or three colleagues). So for many years-- prior to Kobe becoming his teammate-- Shaq languished in obscurity; a powerful giant unable to get the ball in the painted area. Surely you could give the ball to Shaq behind the three-point line, but he has no proficiency there.

Then the great Kobe Bryant came around, and all changed. You see, the defending players could no longer pack the paint to guard Shaq, because Kobe is simply an unstoppable offensive force, capable of hitting a reliable 34-43% from anywhere on the court. Kobe's signature move-- the fadeaway three with the hand in the face-- just shows how potent he is.

During the threepeat years, teams would regularly guard Kobe with two, three, sometimes four players, leaving Shaq open in the paint. Shaq would then receive the touches he wanted via "Kobe assists"-- when Kobe would take the shot over two, three, sometimes four players and the ball would ricochet into Shaq's monstrous hands. That is just good team basketball. Sometimes, this would cause Shaq to have "better" numbers, but we experts understood the cause. And, like Kobe, we were willing to sacrifice the awards and accolades. But it can be irksome when people try to "rewrite" history and tell a different story.

Hopefully that has cleared things up.

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye


We are all truly witnessing greatness.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[GimmeThat]

it really is a problem when you don't watch the game my lad.

[Knoe Itawl]

The other things idiot Kobe Stans don't get is that it isn't about whether Kobe's teams had historically great talent (his teams with Shaq certainly did), but only how the talent was compared to the league at that time.

The front courts of Gasol + Odom + Artest + Bynum (when he was able to play) plus the coaching of Phil and leadership of Fish + Bryant were better than anything the league had to offer at the time, save Boston (which were hampered by injuries during that run). Further, they had the most diverse front line in the league - size plus skills

I can't count how many times I almost threw a cinder block at the screen during those Laker teams' runs - not because of heroics by Bryant but because one of the front court players would get key offensive rebounds, or make a big defensive play, etc. As I said, at that time only Boston had anything to counter that - and they were injured 2 out of the 3 Lakers Finals runs.

This isn't to say Kobe isn't a great player, blah blah blah, but he hardly had to carry that squad in the same fashion as Lebron had had to carry the Heat for stretches during these championship runs, and we know that traditionally bigs win basketball games but the Heat have a very weak front court.

It's this type of context that Bryant fans are incapable of, because they are only interested in legacy as opposed to how good/impactful a player Kobe Bryant actually was. It's why they don't care about his actual clutch abilities, only the myth of them, his actual defensive capabilities, only the myth of them, etc. It's why the dismiss any stat that is negative towards, him, yet extol his stats when they suit their purpose (ie, 62 in 3 quartes, 81 points, etc. when he was never able to duplicate these scoring outbursts in the playoffs). etc.

[Roundball_Rock]

No, he has exactly 5 rings. They all count.

Exactly. This "rings as the man" obsession is odd. What percentage of a team's points, rebounds, assist, steals, and blocks does "the man" account for? The notion that there are one man teams or that one person can have a preponderant influence over a team's success when any team will have 8-9 players in his rotation is unrealistic.


I will say its curious Magic gets full credit for his 5 when Kareem played about as well as Shaq in 1980 and was still a beast and finals MVP many years later.

Great point. People don't account for things beyond scoring. Player X can score 30 ppg and Player Y 20 ppg but the gap is closer if Player Y is contributing more rebounds, assists, steals and is the better defender.

Years ago I proposed a standard of indispensability. That is, could the team have won a ring that year if the player in question was replaced by the average player at his position? That is a better metric than being "the man," which looks almost exclusively at scoring. "The man" may not even be the team's leader in terms of locker-room, on court leadership, etc.


I wonder if people 10, 15, or 20 years from now will even care about this "#1" thing as much as we do today regarding the early 00's Lakers. I have seen this discussed regarding the 80's Lakers, but even then it was because it suited the agenda of fans of a certain retired player. Usually, though, people always say "Magic has 5 rings" without a qualifier, even though like Kobe, he won his first few with a superior player. Whenever Kobe's rings are mentioned here an immediate asterisk is attached. It is ironic. The asterisk is based on classification of "#1" and "#2.' Heck, Kobe was a lot closer to Shaq in 2001 and 2002 than Magic was to Kareem in 1980, yet all 5 of Magic's rings "count?"

:applause:


Jordan was the one who really brought rings into the forefront as this all important factor in judging a player

See Russell, Bill.

[julizaver]

I think Kobe should be thankfull for playing alongside Shaq, and winning 3 rings. It is quite an achievement, esspeccially for a young man in his early 20s. I don't think that Shaq pressence robbed him of anything.
About Kobe having bigger numbers without Shaq - his numbers were good enough for him to earn superstar status. After Shaq departure he was the undisputed leader of the team but it also means that opponent defense attention shifted mostly on him. Between '99 and '02 his FG % was career high (roughly 46,8 %) while after the rape case and Shaq departure his FG % took a dip to 43.3 % in '04-05 season. So I don't think his numbers will be like crazy without Shaq pressense given Kobe's very young age. Not to mention that Kobe's best scoring year was in 2006 or two years since Shaq departure.

[ralph_i_el]

Without Shaq he's just a great SG putting up big numbers on a bad team for a lot of those years. Nobody gave Paul Peirce props when the Celtics sucked.

Kobe is not top 10. Plenty of guys you could drop in LA in '96 and replicate or come close to that success.

[Knoe Itawl]

According to Kobe Stans, the presence of the most dominant inside player of all time in his prime, does absolutely NOTHING for a perimeter player. Kobe did not enjoy:

A. Reduced defensive pressure
B. The ability to conserve energy at certain points given the behemoth inside that you could pass the ball into for practically an instant bucket
C. The ability to have defensive mistakes minimized, and gamble more due to the intimidation factor of Shaq inside
D. Protection from harder fouls because of the Big Aristotle's presence

None of these things happened, and any mention of the possibility of any of these things happening means you're "hating" on Bryant as opposed to pointing out the inherent advantages that would be in effect for ANY perimeter player playing with prime Shaq.

In fact, Shaq actually benefited MORE from Bryant's presence than vice versa.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

he lost 3 years of his prime(05, 06,07) on bad teams.[/B]

awww what a poor baby ! poor Kobe, the mean old NBA gave him bad teams for 3 years =( =( =(


meanwhile..... Garnett in Minnesota for 12 years, LeBron in Cleveland for 7 years, etc.....

[chazzy]

It's no so much "penalizing" as it is putting his rings in perspective. Obviously it's not like he won 5 rings in '09 fashion, so there needs to be some context. But on the flipside, non-idiot fans can see he played like an elite player for 2 titles and an all star for one. You can't just pretend that 29/7/6 in '01 or his clutch '02 run and great finals didn't happen, or dismiss his performance beacuse "uhh but but Shaq." Creating the premise of dismissing performance because of help would force you to go back and reevaluate some accomplishments of the greats in the past. Which is very tricky, especially with Magic and Kareem for example.

[Knoe Itawl]

It's no so much "penalizing" as it is putting his rings in perspective. Obviously it's not like he won 5 rings in '09 fashion, so there needs to be some context. But on the flipside, non-idiot fans can see he played like an elite player for 2 titles and an all star for one. You can't just pretend that 29/7/6 in '01 or his clutch '02 run and great finals didn't happen, or dismiss his performance beacuse "uhh but but Shaq." Creating the premise of dismissing performance because of help would force you to go back and reevaluate some accomplishments of the greats in the past. Which is very tricky, especially with Magic and Kareem for example.

No one "penalizes" Kobe for his rings with Shaq any more than people "penalize" Scottie for his rings with Jordan. They simply point out that Shaq was the better, more impactful player during the entirety of his tenure with the Lakers. This is a simple truth that is only lost on Kobe Stans, because well they're Kobe Stans.

The bottom line is that Kobe put up some nice statlines here and there but he was not the best player on the Lakers at any point during Shaq's years there. And the only people who think he has an argument for it are (yup, you guessed it), Kobe Stans!

Further, non Kobe Stans also use context to show what a dominant presence like Shaq does for a perimeter players' game (something that Kobe Stans refuse to even consider, because to them doing so is somehow taking away from Bryant's game, instead of just stating the TRUTH). TMac, Pierce, Iverson Wade and even Jordan would have all benefited in the same ways playing with prime Shaq so why Stans act like it's some great insult to Bryant is beyond me - oh wait I do know. They can't recognize or accept ANYTHING that may be considered to be detracting from his legacy.

[chazzy]

No one "penalizes" Kobe for his rings with Shaq any more than people "penalize" Scottie for his rings with Jordan. They simply point out that Shaq was the better, more impactful player during the entirety of his tenure with the Lakers. This is a simple truth that is only lost on Kobe Stans, because well they're Kobe Stans.

The bottom line is that Kobe put up some nice statlines here and there but he was not the best player on the Lakers at any point during Shaq's years there. And the only people who think he has an argument for it are (yup, you guessed it), Kobe Stans!

Further, non Kobe Stans also use context to show what a dominant presence like Shaq does for a perimeter players' game (something that Kobe Stans refuse to even consider, because to them doing so is somehow taking away from Bryant's game, instead of just stating the TRUTH). TMac, Pierce, Iverson Wade and even Jordan would have all benefited in the same ways playing with prime Shaq so why Stans act like it's some great insult to Bryant is beyond me - oh wait I do know. They can't recognize or accept ANYTHING that may be considered to be detracting from his legacy.
Are you responding to my specific post, or going on a general rant?

[Ne 1]

The Lakers had very good role players in both sets of runs...they weren't just scrubs.

Other than that I agree with your post, though there were better players over a three year stretch than Shaq.
Well the 2000-2002 Lakers? The other 3 starters on the team while solid role players, they were below average compared to the other starters at their position. The 2000 team was probably the most talented team they had outside of their duo and even then, in the WCF vs Portland the Lakers were called "two deep" compared to the Blazers who were called "too deep." And this is what Phil Jackson had to say about the 2000 team:
"we were far from being the most talented team in the league. Indiana, Portland, Phoenix, Sacramento, and New York were all ball clubs whose top eight or nine players had more talent than we had in our regular rotation." I wouldn't describe the other 3 starters on the team as being scrubs but the reality is that while solid, they were below average at their position and pretty much dispensable. There wasn't anyone else on those teams outside of Kobe and Shaq who would be in the top 50 during those years. The 2009 Lakers? Odom and Ariza I'd say say were very good role players, especially Odom, although inconstant, he was a legit borderline All-Star/third fiddle that year. I definitely wouldn't describe them as scrubs. The 2010 team, it might be a bit more fair to say the team outside of Kobe and Gasol were scrubs. Odom was still a solid role player, but he struggled all year long though and regressed from
the previous year. Ariza was gone and replaced by Artest who was a shell of his former self. (He was still pretty good defensively but his man defense meant little in a 2-4 series, and he was often a liability on offense, perhaps the worst offensives starting PF in the league) their bench was amount at the worst in the league too.

[Im so nba'd out]

thats fair. but the prestige of a 2nd banana ring averaging 30/7/6 isnt far off from a fmvp ring

i'd give kobe 60% of a ring in 2000

95% of a ring in 2001
90% of a ring in 2002

so maybe kobe doesnt have 5 rings. but i'd give him atleast 4.45 prestige

kobe was the mvp of the series that mattered in 2001 and 2002
he averaged 15 points while shaq averaged 40 :coleman:

[LBJ 23]

The REAL finals were the western conference finals and Kobe did WORK.


What a stupid thing to say...

[Im so nba'd out]

Kobe was the closer during the Shaq years and he absolutely tore it up in the playoffs leading up to the finals. There are no finals appearances without the GOAT closer, Kobe Bryant.

Go check game 7 against the Blazers or the series against the Spurs, etc. The REAL finals were the western conference finals and Kobe did WORK.Cause thats when kobe played the best....and i love kobe.....and i want his in my mouth
No im pretty sure the real finals were the finals :confusedshrug:

[ImKobe]

Kobe in 01 led the Playoffs in winshares and had the same WS/48 as Shaq. To take that away from him would be ridiculous
In 02 he wasn't as impressive as a whole, probably due to playing a lot more games in some of those series, but he closed out the series against the Queens and he had a very impressive Finals series, especially Game 3, that's as good as Lebron's Game 2 against the Spurs.

Even when he had less impact in 2000, he showed up in the biggest game of that Playoff run, leading the team in 4 categories (points, rebounds, assists, blocks) while prime Shaq had 18/9 in Game 7 against the Blazers. Game 4 against Indiana was also very good and he won the game in OT without Shaq even playing.

[LBJ 23]

No im pretty sure the real finals were the finals :confusedshrug:


Excatly. And I've heard that being said by many Kobe fans on here.

That's like me saying that in 11' the real Finals were Miami against Chicago(MVP's team that year) or Boston because before the playoffs started both teams were clearly seen as bigger threat to Miami than Dallas. And against both Chicago and Boston Lebron played great and was extremely clutch, he was playing so good that even Pippen's mind was overshadowed by it and he called him better player than MJ.

Yet I don't see any people saying that for Lebron and ironically you Kobe fans give him the most shit for 11' Finals even though we could easily use your stupid logic and say that Chicago series or Boston series were the real Finals :facepalm

[ImKobe]

Excatly. And I've heard that being saying by many Kobe fans on here.

That's like me saying that in 11' the real Finals were Miami against Chicago(MVP's team that year) or Boston because before the playoffs started both teams were clearly seen as bigger threat to Miami than Dallas. And against both Chicago and Boston Lebron played great and was extremely clutch, he was playing so good that even Pippen's mind was overshadowed by it and he called him better player than MJ.

Yet I don't see any people saying that for Lebron and ironically you Kobe fans give him the most shit for 11' Finals even though we could easily use your stupid logic and say that Chicago series or Boston series were the real Finals :facepalm

Dallas was better than any other team the Heat faced in 2011. The Lakers from 00-02 faced better teams in the West than they did in the East. You want to tell me the 2000 Pacers, 01 Sixers and 02 Nets could even be compared to the teams Lakers faced in the Western Conference Playoffs those years?

Let's just compare the WCF teams to the Finals teams they faced

2000: Portland 5th offense 3rd defense, Pacers 1st offensively 13th defense, Portland were up 13 pts on the Lakers in the 4th quarter of a Game 7, before Kobe took over, in the Finals it could have gone 7 games, but may I remind you that in one of those losses Kobe wasn't there to play

2001: Spurs 6th offensively, 1st defensively, Sixers 13th offense 5th defense, Sixers were a one man show with AI, who had a great Game 1 while Kobe struggled in the first game, then Kobe played like he usually does and the Lakers win comfortably the next 4 games, Spurs were also an easy win, but it was largely due to Kobe playing out of his mind in that series

2002: Kings 3rd offense, 6th defense, Nets 17th offense :oldlol:, 1st defense - Nets were a good defensive team, but their offense was weak shit, Kidd's a great passer, but they had no one to score the points that he couldn't, Kings pushed us to the brink of elimination after 5 games and we would have lost easily had a few calls went their way or had Horry missed the shot or had Peja not airballed a wide open corner 3 to win the game...Kobe shined in both series and the Nets series looked closer than it really was, 3 games came down to crunch time, Kobe was an amazing closer that series and put up some godlike numbers, Game 3 was just bananas for him.


Lakers had tougher opponents in the WC Playoffs than they did in the Finals - that is a fact. Lebron has had it the other way with the exception of the 2012 Celtics, who pushed them to the brink of elimination after 5 games. OKC was actually a much more talented team and probably had the better regular season, but they lacked the experience and the coaching to compete with Miami.

[DMAVS41]

Nobody penalizes him.

You just properly rank him.

He won in 00 without being a great player. His 00 ring is simply worth nowhere near as much as a normal championship first option ring...especially when he was truly horrendous in the finals.

Then 01/02 are very close to championship first option rings, but not fully...he had ****ing peak Shaq dominating teams.

To not put them into proper context is so stupid. Also, the 16-1 domination in 01 in which the Lakers had one of the biggest margins of error en route to a title ever? Those first two titles just came so easy for Kobe. Granted, Kobe deserves credit in 01 for being a big part of why they were so good, but come on...

Kobe stans are the ****ing worst about this. 8 years with prime Shaq. 3 rings and 4 finals. It's a huge boost to Kobe's legacy. There wasn't another situation Kobe could have been in for this first 8 years and had even close to that success...well, he could have done that with Duncan. But put it this way, there was no team Kobe could have been the clear cut best player on for his first 9 years in my opinion...and they win the title. that is how tough the league was back then. Imagine Kobe having to beat Shaq...rather than playing with him. Going through Shaq and Duncan...rofl

[coin24]

Bran stan logic: derp kobes first 3 rings don't count cause of shaq.

Reality: bran couldn't win shit without bosh wade and a stacked team. :oldlol:

[truhooper]

Don't care. Shaq was winning unanimous FMVPs. Kobe was a clear #2. Get over it.

:cheers:

[SexSymbol]

It's incredibly impressive. Kobe was the closer in a lot of the big playoff series. He was certainly not some also-ran, or role player, and you can probably count the number of wings in the league at the time that you could replace him with and have similar success on one hand (if that).

However, I don't think you can give him as much credit as Shaq, though. He was the first option during the threepeat, and that's not something that we can ignore.

That being said, people who dismiss his first three rings are foolish (though ring counting in general is pretty lame too...each playoff or championship run isn't just a tally mark, it's all about the journey).
You couldn't replace Kobe with anybody from that era

[SexSymbol]

Nobody penalizes him.

You just properly rank him.

He won in 00 without being a great player. His 00 ring is simply worth nowhere near as much as a normal championship first option ring...especially when he was truly horrendous in the finals.

Then 01/02 are very close to championship first option rings, but not fully...he had ****ing peak Shaq dominating teams.

To not put them into proper context is so stupid. Also, the 16-1 domination in 01 in which the Lakers had one of the biggest margins of error en route to a title ever? Those first two titles just came so easy for Kobe. Granted, Kobe deserves credit in 01 for being a big part of why they were so good, but come on...

Kobe stans are the ****ing worst about this. 8 years with prime Shaq. 3 rings and 4 finals. It's a huge boost to Kobe's legacy. There wasn't another situation Kobe could have been in for this first 8 years and had even close to that success...well, he could have done that with Duncan. But put it this way, there was no team Kobe could have been the clear cut best player on for his first 9 years in my opinion...and they win the title. that is how tough the league was back then. Imagine Kobe having to beat Shaq...rather than playing with him. Going through Shaq and Duncan...rofl
01 Kobe was half the reason they were so good, what do you mean they came easy for Kobe.
I know you hate Kobe with all your heart and deep down Hope that someday somebody puts Dirk above Kobe, but be objective for once, it's pathetic

[Ne 1]

Kobe in 01 led the Playoffs in winshares and had the same WS/48 as Shaq. To take that away from him would be ridiculous
In 02 he wasn't as impressive as a whole, probably due to playing a lot more games in some of those series, but he closed out the series against the Queens and he had a very impressive Finals series, especially Game 3, that's as good as Lebron's Game 2 against the Spurs.

Even when he had less impact in 2000, he showed up in the biggest game of that Playoff run, leading the team in 4 categories (points, rebounds, assists, blocks) while prime Shaq had 18/9 in Game 7 against the Blazers. Game 4 against Indiana was also very good and he won the game in OT without Shaq even playing.
If there was an MVP for each series in '01 and '02 this is how it would go down...

'01:
vs. Blazers - Either, hard to pick.
vs. Kings - Could go with either, Shaq dominated first two games and Kobe the last two.
vs. Spurs - Kobe, but Shaq played well too.
vs. Sixers - Shaq, but Kobe played well too.
'02:
vs. Blazers - Shaq
vs. Spurs - Kobe (Shaq was injured in this series which was the reason for his low offensive output, the Lakers would have lost this series if it weren't for Kobe's fourth quarter play in the last 3 games)
vs. Kings - I'll say Shaq, but after going back and watching the series it was way closer than the stats say (Kobe was just as important as Shaq in the wins, but Shaq played better than him in the losses and Kobe had some horrific shooting nights in those games they lost).
vs. Nets - Shaq, but Kobe played well and had probably the best Finals performance not be awarded MVP in a winning effort (besides Kareem in 1980 who was literally robbed of that award by CBS)

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

[fpliii]

You couldn't replace Kobe with anybody from that era
That's why I said "if that" in parentheses. Didn't want to come off as a homer/stan, but it'd be pretty tough. Not sure if any other wing wins you 3 rings from 00-04.

Kobe gets disrespected a bit, but if someone is calling him a role player during the threepeat or saying he only has two "real" rings, they're straight trolling and not worth the time.

[DMAVS41]

01 Kobe was half the reason they were so good, what do you mean they came easy for Kobe.
I know you hate Kobe with all your heart and deep down Hope that someday somebody puts Dirk above Kobe, but be objective for once, it's pathetic

I just gave Kobe credit for that.

The problem is that you morons want to count Kobe's 00 ring the same as Duncan's 03 ring or Dirk's 11 ring.

It's absurd. Be objective for once. Realize that Kobe got his ass carried to a ring in 00...and then was the clear cut 2nd best player for 2 more.

In total, Kobe made 4 finals and won 3 titles as the 2nd best player on his teams.

Now, that doesn't mean Kobe's play during that time should be compared to current Wade or Pippen or something...Kobe was better (outside of 00) those years.

The problem, however, is that other players didn't have that luxury. Dirk was playing on way worse teams. Duncan was playing on worse teams. No other elite player in the league back then had someone even close to prime/peak Shaq with Jackson coaching.

So please, try to be objective. Try to see why it's annoying to listen to;

Boiled down;

Kobe 5
Duncan 4

You really don't see this?

[Ne 1]

btw for all this talk about "#1 options" usually, when a guy is the clear cut #1, he's the player taking the last shots, closing out games, being a go to guy when the game is on the line among many other things. For the Lakers, that was often Kobe Bryant. That isn't often examined... Kobe was generally "plan B" throughout the game as far as scoring goes. However in the 4th quarter, he often became "plan A" and sometimes, "plan AA" if Phil sat Shaq because of hack-a-Shaq. In the history of the game, how often were guys who were riding the coattails of other players asked to take over so consistently? People are acting like Kobe was a role player or a Tony Parker level 2nd option.
He was part of a one-two punch duo, and he averaged 21/5/4, 29/7/6, 27/6/5 in in the playoffs while closing out games and being the Lakers facilitator/play-maker and defensive stopper. The fact of the matter is that the 3-peat Lakers were far more of a two-headed monster than just Shaq and his little side-kick Robin aka Kobe Bryant.

[Im so nba'd out]

You couldn't replace Kobe with anybody from that era
Lies you put tmac on those Laker teams they still win at least 2 rings.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Bran stan logic: derp kobes first 3 rings don't count cause of shaq.

Reality: bran couldn't win shit without bosh wade and a stacked team. :oldlol:

Yeah, I really dont understand this.

Not a fan of either player, but LeBron homers (knoeitawl) using "perspective" on Kobe's rings ala making a tally on ALL the players he needed (role players, front court, who hit big shots, etc)...its all too comical.

Double standards by reason of agenda...dat transparency :oldlol:

[Knoe Itawl]

I just gave Kobe credit for that.

The problem is that you morons want to count Kobe's 00 ring the same as Duncan's 03 ring or Dirk's 11 ring.

It's absurd. Be objective for once. Realize that Kobe got his ass carried to a ring in 00...and then was the clear cut 2nd best player for 2 more.

In total, Kobe made 4 finals and won 3 titles as the 2nd best player on his teams.

Now, that doesn't mean Kobe's play during that time should be compared to current Wade or Pippen or something...Kobe was better (outside of 00) those years.

The problem, however, is that other players didn't have that luxury. Dirk was playing on way worse teams. Duncan was playing on worse teams. No other elite player in the league back then had someone even close to prime/peak Shaq with Jackson coaching.

So please, try to be objective. Try to see why it's annoying to listen to;

Boiled down;

Kobe 5
Duncan 4

You really don't see this?

Haha, after all these years you're really asking them to be objective and take things into context? You know damn well that that won't happen because it's not about how good Kobe really was as a player, it's about making him better than Lebron, comparable to Jordan, top 5, etc. etc. And to do that, they CAN'T be objective. They CAN'T use context. So it's "Kobe 5 rings, 35PPG, 81, defensive 1st team awards!!, Kobe ClutchGawd, Kobe wuz robbed of 3 MVPs!!", etc. etc.

[tpols]

Nobody penalizes him.

You just properly rank him.

He won in 00 without being a great player. His 00 ring is simply worth nowhere near as much as a normal championship first option ring...especially when he was truly horrendous in the finals.

Then 01/02 are very close to championship first option rings, but not fully...he had ****ing peak Shaq dominating teams.

To not put them into proper context is so stupid. Also, the 16-1 domination in 01 in which the Lakers had one of the biggest margins of error en route to a title ever? Those first two titles just came so easy for Kobe. Granted, Kobe deserves credit in 01 for being a big part of why they were so good, but come on...

Kobe stans are the ****ing worst about this. 8 years with prime Shaq. 3 rings and 4 finals. It's a huge boost to Kobe's legacy. There wasn't another situation Kobe could have been in for this first 8 years and had even close to that success...well, he could have done that with Duncan. But put it this way, there was no team Kobe could have been the clear cut best player on for his first 9 years in my opinion...and they win the title. that is how tough the league was back then. Imagine Kobe having to beat Shaq...rather than playing with him. Going through Shaq and Duncan...rofl

Kenneth Griff had a post earlier about Kobe VS Hakeem. Kobe post Shaq has as many all nba teams, MVPs, all star games, and Fmvps/rings as hakeems entire career.

And yet, even with 29/7/6 and 27/6/5 playoff runs tacked onto that many still have their careers neck and neck.. Which makes no sense if any credit for those middle two rings was applied.


Also the early 2000s Kobe could've been on plenty of teams as first option to contend for titles. He'd win FMVP over garnett of he was on the wolves, Dirk if he was on the Mavs, Kidd if he was on the nets and even Duncan if he was on the Spurs since scoring is the most deciding factor in getting the award and Shaq was the only scorer better than Kobe in the early 2000s.

[Ne 1]

Haha, after all these years you're really asking them to be objective and take things into context? You know damn well that that won't happen because it's not about how good Kobe really was as a player, it's about making him better than Lebron, comparable to Jordan, top 5, etc. etc. And to do that, they CAN'T be objective. They CAN'T use context. So it's "Kobe 5 rings, 35PPG, 81, defensive 1st team awards!!, Kobe ClutchGawd, Kobe wuz robbed of 3 MVPs!!", etc. etc.
"Kobe isn't capable of winning a ring as the best player on the team" - Knoe after the Gasol trade in '08.

[SexSymbol]

Lies you put tmac on those Laker teams they still win at least 2 rings.
They don't get to the finals with Tmac

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

"Kobe isn't capable of winning a ring as the best player on the team" - Knoe after the Gasol trade in '08.

Haha.. THIS is why I call him the biggest hypocrite on ISH.. :oldlol: Kid whines about posters inability to be objective, yet says shit like this.

You'd think he was Kobe's scorned lover the way he goes on about him..

[Ca$H]

Haha.. THIS is why I call him the biggest hypocrite on ISH.. :oldlol: Kid whines about posters inability to be objective, yet says shit like this.

You'd think he was Kobe's scorned lover the way he goes on about him..

LOL. He even made fun of Gasol in that thread.

[Knoe Itawl]

Just as an FYI, because I see so many of them come in right after I post. I'll go back and forth with anyone as I have ever since I started posting here.

However, once someone falls into the category of what I call a mindless dikkriding Stan then on ignore they go. I also put people on ignore who follow me around for the sole purpose of attacking me, rather than offering a substantive argument.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy This user is on your Ignore List.
Ne 1 This user is on your Ignore List.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Better put me on ignore, weak n*gga. :oldlol:

[ArbitraryWater]

I woulda thought you 2 would be posters that'd respect each other https://stylishcorpse.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/homer_thinking.gif

[Ca$H]

Just as an FYI, because I see so many of them come in right after I post. I'll go back and forth with anyone as I have ever since I started posting here.

However, once someone falls into the category of what I call a mindless dikkriding Stan then on ignore they go. I also put people on ignore who follow me around for the sole purpose of attacking me, rather than offering a substantive argument.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy This user is on your Ignore List.
Ne 1 This user is on your Ignore List.


Kobe is too polarizing for anyone to be objective. An argument between a Kobe stan and a kobe hater is an exercise in futility. Peak Kobe is pretty much comparable to second three peat Jordan. Don't fool yourself. Even second three peat Jordan would have been the second option to Shaq. If Shaq didn't exist and you replaced him with Prime Kidd and Prime ZO then the 2000-2002 Lakers would three peat with Kobe likely getting two FMVPs and maybe 2 regular season MVPs.

[Mr Feeny]

Kobe is too polarizing for anyone to be objective. An argument between a Kobe stan and a kobe hater is an exercise in futility. Peak Kobe is pretty much comparable to second three peat Jordan. Don't fool yourself. Even second three peat Jordan would have been the second option to Shaq. If Shaq didn't exist and you replaced him with Prime Kidd and Prime ZO then the 2000-2002 Lakers would three peat with Kobe likely getting two FMVPs and maybe 2 regular season MVPs.

Drugs are a powerful thing:facepalm

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I woulda thought you 2 would be posters that'd respect each other https://stylishcorpse.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/homer_thinking.gif

You ain't a fan of LeBron? Cool. Hate Kobe? For sure.

Using a set of principles on one player and not the other..by virtue of fandom...is weak. I have no respect for clowns with double standards AND definitely no issue calling them out on their BS..

[JT123]

Kobe is too polarizing for anyone to be objective. An argument between a Kobe stan and a kobe hater is an exercise in futility. Peak Kobe is pretty much comparable to second three peat Jordan. Don't fool yourself. Even second three peat Jordan would have been the second option to Shaq. If Shaq didn't exist and you replaced him with Prime Kidd and Prime ZO then the 2000-2002 Lakers would three peat with Kobe likely getting two FMVPs and maybe 2 regular season MVPs.
:facepalm Kobe can't play with a ball dominant point guard like Jason Kidd. We are talking about the guy turned Steve Nash into a mere spot up shooter for crying out loud. :oldlol: And don't try and tell me Nash was old and done, cause he was still putting up All Star numbers in Phoenix the season before he came to the Lakers. :no: Kobe is not capable of being effective without the ball in his hands.

[Knoe Itawl]

Kobe is too polarizing for anyone to be objective. An argument between a Kobe stan and a kobe hater is an exercise in futility. Peak Kobe is pretty much comparable to second three peat Jordan. Don't fool yourself. Even second three peat Jordan would have been the second option to Shaq. If Shaq didn't exist and you replaced him with Prime Kidd and Prime ZO then the 2000-2002 Lakers would three peat with Kobe likely getting two FMVPs and maybe 2 regular season MVPs.

If you put TMac with a prime KG and Kidd, the 2000-2002 Lakers 3peat with Tmac getting two FMVPS and maybe 2 regular season MVPs If you replace Kobe with TMac on those teams, if you replace Manu with Tmac on the Spurs, if you replace Parker with Iverson, if TMac and Vince stay together with a prime Zo, if Wade could've stayed healthy his whole career, if Lebron played with a prime Shaq. blah blah blah. Also, I don't know shyt about those Lakers teams winning with Zo and Kidd. Shaq was that much of a beast and the whole NBA landscape would be different.

Also, I haven't forgotten your pms dude. You're one of those bordering on psycho Kobe Stans.

[stalkerforlife]

Kobe led 4 of those title teams in 4th quarter scoring. Closing, which is the most important part of a basketball game, Kobe dominated. Kobe led every single one of his 5 title teams in assists.

Kobe has more first team all-nba selections than anyone in NBA history.

Kobe has more first team all-defensive selections than anyone in NBA history.

Kobe is top 5 all time and that door has been shut.

[aj1987]

Kobe has more first team all-nba selections than anyone in NBA history.
Malone.


Kobe has more first team all-defensive selections than anyone in NBA history.
He truly deserved ~3-4. MJ, GP, and KG.


Kobe is top 5 all time and that door has been shut.
:oldlol:

[T_L_P]

Kobe led 4 of those title teams in 4th quarter scoring. Closing, which is the most important part of a basketball game, Kobe dominated. Kobe led every single one of his 5 title teams in assists.

Kobe has more first team all-nba selections than anyone in NBA history.

Kobe has more first team all-defensive selections than anyone in NBA history.

Kobe is top 5 all time and that door has been shut.

If it's strictly resume, Kobe probably is in the top 5. If it's a list of the best/most impactful players, Kobe definitely isn't a lock for the top 5.

Is Kobe one of the five greatest defenders ever? The number of defensive selections suggests he is, but I don't even think the most biased Kobe fans would put him anywhere near the all time great defenders...therefore all those selections are somewhat bogus.

[ralph_i_el]

Closing, which is the most important part of a basketball game, Kobe dominated.

If you think this you are an idiot and beyond saving.

Being the beneficiary of good teams and being the most famous player of your era doesn't move the needle in my book. I'm putting someone in my top 5 when I'd take at least 10 people over him to start a team with.

[Anaximandro1]

- Prior to the 2007–08 season, Duncan and Shaq had dominated the NBA over the past decade ... Kobe doesn't even belong in this conversation.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ExOD3LNu9tE/U5d6tAOzz0I/AAAAAAAAC74/WGllX1DjVa0/s1600/1.jpg


- Is Kobe better than Dirk ? IDK


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dN4FopxJQkA/U5d0-mk56DI/AAAAAAAAC7s/tZ7eE36dvHw/s1600/2.jpg


- Kobe only played three years at TOP 10 level (2008 - 2010) ... Pau Gasol and the NBA rule changes saved Kobe's career.


Kobe's resume as leader

- 2 Titles

- 1 MVP

- 2 FMVP

TOP 15 all-time

[riseagainst]

[QUOTE=Anaximandro1]- Prior to the 2007

[MMM]

If closing is so important why is it ignored for other great players like Hondo or Sam Jones or countless other guys who stepped into that role???

Kobe playing the closing role is important but if you don't have one of the most dominant players of all time in the middle of an all time run than those closing opportunities don't present themselves. I think some of you guys forget that even Superstar players are role players and it should not take away from their legacies if they are asked to step back or forward.

[K Xerxes]

let the little babies cut kobes career in half..

i dont care


hakeem is top 10 all time


even if you took away kobes 3 titles with shaq, his all nba teams with shaq, his all defensive teams with shaq, his allstar games with shaq. and anything else with shaq.. he still has a better career than hakeem



kobe 2005-2013
2 championships
2 finals mvps
1 season mvp
8 first team all nba's
6 first team all defense's
9 time allstar starter


hakeem his whole life

2 championships
2 finals mvps
1 season mvp
6 first team all nba's
5 first team all defense's
8 time allstar starter



so who gives a crap...


kobes top 10 with or without shaq


with shaq he has a top 5-6 all time resume

This is absurd. There is only one centre for all nba, all defense teams and all star starters. Two for guards. Not to mention that Hakeem was competing for one spot with all time great centres in his time in the league... Kareem, Moses, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq. Hakeem separated himself from the pack in the playoffs, so quoting meaningless regular season awards isn't going to give him the credit he deserves.

Hakeem's 94 and 95 run > anything Kobe has done.