Replace Shaq with Webber on the 00-02 Lakers

[SouBeachTalents]

For the sake of argument, let's say Shaq isn't in the NBA, how many titles do a Kobe-Webber Lakers team win in the early 2000's?

[iTare]

1-2

[VIntageNOvel]

2 or 3 (who replace webber on kings?)

lets be real, the real final was in WCF where kobe absolutely going ham,
kobe webber would beat any team that come out of east

[Akrazotile]

0 titles, lets be real here

[RoundMoundOfReb]

0-0

[navy]

1 maybe.

[bigkingsfan]

Webber was up there with KG and Duncan back then, but he was no defense specialist, one ring at most.

[IllegalD]

At least two. Most likely 3.

We saw what happened when you gave a past his athletic prime Kobe a 20 and 10 guy in Gasol. Everyone shat themselves when that trade went down because they knew what it meant a still in his relative prime Kobe a 20, 10 all-star caliber player.

Give 2000-2010 Kobe any 20, 10 guy and he's contending for a championship every year.

[Rooster]

2 or 3 (who replace webber on kings?)

lets be real, the real final was in WCF where kobe absolutely going ham,
kobe webber would beat any team that come out of east

Most definitely plus Webber would be a great fit for triangle. Finals were for formality those days. The only reason East won games during those three peat was Kobe was injured in the first Finals and Sixers got a fluke game.

[Myth]

Maybe they win in 2001.

[Rocketswin2013]

So you take Shaq out of the league?It would be like saying KD would win "at least one" with LeBron out of the league. Basically it's not saying much.

A better question would be switch Peak Shaq and Webber :lol

And guess what, they run the league too.

[IllegalD]

So you take Shaq out of the league?It would be like saying KD would win "at least one" with LeBron out of the league. Basically it's not saying much.

A better question would be switch Peak Shaq and Webber :lol

And guess what, they run the league too.

Well, Shaq never won as the man without Kobe, even with having talented teammates his whole career. Only other time he won without Kobe was as a sidekick and with a player that is Kobe-esque when in top form.

So Shaq ain't winning with anyone else from that era that isn't Kobe, unless that someone else happens to be called Tim Duncan. (don't give me any of this TMac, Carter, Iverson nonsense. Shaq couldn't win with Penny, or the talented Laker teams of the mid-later 90's, he ain't winning with those fools)

[Roundball_Rock]

The 2000-2002 Lakers were 0.500 when Shaq did not play.

[riseagainst]

01 and 02 are guaranteed.
00 Kobe wasn't the player he was in starting in 01.
But his power level doubled in 1 off season.... crazy.

[Rocketswin2013]

Would Kobe be the best player on the team from '00 to '01? I am being genuine. The stats are very close with Webber having the edge in PER, WS, and DRTG. Almost as many asists and points, just on better efficiency and his rebounds are much better.

[navy]

The 2000-2002 Lakers were 0.500 when Shaq did not play.
:banana:

[T_L_P]

Webber was up there with KG and Duncan back then, but he was no defense specialist, one ring at most.

His shooting and defense didn't come close to Duncan's. He wasn't quite on his level.

[Ne 1]

There's no way of really knowing for sure, but I think Kobe would mesh together really well with a finesse guy like C-Webb much like he did with Pau and although Webber wasn't nearly as dominant as 2000-2002 Shaq, he was a top 6 player in 2000, top 5-7 range in 2001 and top 4-5 in 2002. Phenomenal talent. Webber was arguably as good of a passer as there's ever been at PF or C. Great scorer due in large part to his unusually good ball handling skills for his position and athleticism. He had a good post game too when he used it, but he settled for too many jumpers. Had he constantly attacked the basket and used his post game more, he may have been in the discussion for best player in the league at one point. His jumper was pretty good, and he had range, but it was a flat shot and not good enough to justify the amount of them that he took. Solid defender and a good rebounder as well. Aside from shot selection, my other complaint is that I wouldn't trust him in a big game, but with Kobe that shouldn't be too much of a concern.

[bigkingsfan]

His shooting and defense didn't come close to Duncan's. He wasn't quite on his level.

I watched them head to head, he always held up his own vs Duncan. It was only a three year span.

[Ne 1]

The 2000-2002 Lakers were 0.500 when Shaq did not play.
Well those Lakers teams weren't very talented outside of Shaq/Kobe ... you take either one of those guys out and they are going to suffer some loses. Of course
more specifically taking Shaq out because the team was built primarily around him, and you remove him and you have a significant drop off in defense and rebounding. LA's back up centers were TERRIBLE (Travis Knight, Greg Foster and Mark Madsen/Stanislav Medvedenko) obviously because they didn't need to be real good because the team was built around Shaq.

[Rooster]

His shooting and defense didn't come close to Duncan's. He wasn't quite on his level.

He was a better shooter than Duncan.:facepalm Only his defense is nowehere close to Duncan's level.

[TheMarkMadsen]

2 in that period.

[TheMarkMadsen]

However, Kobe & KG is more interesting. Especially if they play together from 02-09

[SOD 21]

Chris Webber in the early 2000s was a very underrated player and over a four-year period from 2000 through 2003, he averaged:

25 ppg, 11 rpg, five assists and 48% fg

With his outside shooting touch and ability to space the floor combined with his one holy passing skills, I believe he would have been a great fit alongside of Kobe Bryant and it would have been a seamless transition with him much like Pau Gasol.

I do believe that they would contend for a championship with just a couple of minor roster tweaks.

[Bigsmoke]

those Kings would have been :eek:

[T_L_P]

He was a better shooter than Duncan.:facepalm Only his defense is nowehere close to Duncan's level.

No, he wasnt. :facepalm

[Bigsmoke]

Webber was up there with KG and Duncan back then, but he was no defense specialist, one ring at most.

he was up there with KG because he wasn't in his prime yet and Webber was at his peak. Duncan always been better than Webber throughout his career

[guy]

Well, Shaq never won as the man without Kobe, even with having talented teammates his whole career. Only other time he won without Kobe was as a sidekick and with a player that is Kobe-esque when in top form.

So Shaq ain't winning with anyone else from that era that isn't Kobe, unless that someone else happens to be called Tim Duncan. (don't give me any of this TMac, Carter, Iverson nonsense. Shaq couldn't win with Penny, or the talented Laker teams of the mid-later 90's, he ain't winning with those fools)

This is such a ridiculously stupid and terrible argument with horribly flawed logic and its amazing that its always used around here :oldlol:

[bigkingsfan]

he was up there with KG because he wasn't in his prime yet and Webber was at his peak. Duncan always been better than Webber throughout his career

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=webbech01&p2=duncati01

Look at from 2000 to 2003, right before he tore his ACL. He was at Duncan's level before that incident.

[ProfessorMurder]

They don't get past Portland in 2000.

They probably don't beat Philly in 2001, because Mutombo will be free to actually defend instead of getting his face smashed every possession.

They could win in 2002, depending on who's on the Kings in place of Webber.

So, maybe 1.

[J Shuttlesworth]

Does that mean Shaq is on the Kings?

0 rings for Kobe, 3 for Shaq

[Smoke117]

0. Webber is one of the most overrated scorers ever. Shaq was by far the most dominant scorer during that three year period and he made a bigger impact defensively. If we are assuming the team everywhere else is the same than they have absolutely no chance of winning a championship.

[jaybee682]

1 or 2 if lucky. CWebb was nowhere near as dominate as Shaq, not even close. Shaq's dominance balanced out Kobe's immaturity and low bball IQ.

[Crown&Coke]

Webber would have been absolutely perfect in the triangle

But Shaq was just a beast.

The West was stacked with 4's who could either check Web, or make him work on defense to a pretty much negate what he brought on offense. His passing would probably be an edge over the rest of the 4's

There was no one able to deal with Shaq at that time. Teams loaded up on bigs to contain him and he still ate everyone alive.

If the got to the finals they would have won it, but getting out of the West would have been tough sledding

[Rooster]

No, he wasnt. :facepalm

Webber had a better midrange than Duncan, the Sac Town version anyways. Seeing them so many times against the Lakers, I was more comfortable watching Duncan trying to make jumpshots ( except the angle shots when he used the glass) than Webber.

[SouBeachTalents]

Does that mean Shaq is on the Kings?

0 rings for Kobe, 3 for Shaq

Lol, I couldn't really come up with a good alternate for where to put Shaq, I didn't want to swap him with Webber because almost everybody would pick the Kings to 3peat

[Kiddlovesnets]

They aint winning anything lmao. It was Shaq's team, the 2000 title was absolutely Shaq's one man show, and the 2001-2002 was largely due to Shaq's dominance as well. Replace Shaq by any big man in that era and they aint even making it to NBA Finals.

[Keno]

if they get extremely lucky, 1. in reality tho 0.