Can Anyone Explain how Kobe was "1b" in 2002?

[T_L_P]

...Not in the sense that he ran the offense with Shaq, but that he was just as important as Shaq.

I see a lot of people say, "2000 was a sidekick ring, but Kobe and Shaq were neck-and-neck as the best players during the next two."

The 2002 Playoffs saw Kobe take worse shots, shoot at a much lower rate, and stop playing the lock-down defense we had seen in the previous year. He overall production took a noticeable drop, and you could see that the defenses were starting to play him differently.

Note: this isn't a Kobe hate thread. I think I've been very fair to Kobe, who I said has a legitimate argument as the best player in the league in 01, and clearly the 1b to Shaq's 1a. I just want to hear your thoughts on 02 specifically, because he took a few steps back imo.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

...Not in the sense that he ran the offense with Shaq, but that he was just as important as Shaq.

I see a lot of people say, "2000 was a sidekick ring, but Kobe and Shaq were neck-and-neck as the best players during the next two."

The 2002 Playoffs saw Kobe take worse shots, shoot at a much lower rate, and stop playing the lock-down defense we had seen in the previous year. He overall production took a noticeable drop, and you could see that the defenses were starting to play him differently.

Note: this isn't a Kobe hate thread. I think I've very fair to Kobe, who I said has a legitimate argument as the best player in the league in 01, and clearly the 1b to Shaq's 1a. I just want to hear your thoughts on 02 specifically, because he took a few steps back imo.

I felt he took steps back in 2002 as well. His 3 point shot was abysmal that season at 25%. Came back very strong in 2003 though!

My favorite season of Kobe was 2001 by far especially his playoffs vs Spurs and Kings. I also respected him when he said it wasn't fair to compare him to MJ because MJ was in a class of his own (I'm rephrasing it but I do remember him responding to that when he was asked about MJ comparisons).

[Stringer Bell]

Shaq was always the more important player during the 3-peat.

Even though Kobe had some great performances, he still just didn't have the overall impact and importance as Shaq did.

Very few players did.

[Lebronxrings]

This was shaqs team and he carried them. Only kobe tards think otherwise

[DonDadda59]

That '1B' nonsense is just some revisionist History bullshit cooked up by people who didn't watch a minute of basketball before January 2006.

[T_L_P]

Shaq was always the more important player during the 3-peat.

Even though Kobe had some great performances, he still just didn't have the overall impact and importance as Shaq did.

Very few players did.

I agree. In 00 Shaq did, in a sense, carry his team. In 2002 he officially (and easily) became the most important player.

But 2001 is a slightly different story. Maybe it's just because there were so few games, but Kobe did something amazing. His defense was probably as important as Shaq's (although I've never, ever been a fan of Shaq's defense), and he was pretty much matching his production.

I still think the Lakers win the title that year with Kobe playing more like his 2000-self, so I see where you're coming from, but underselling what Kobe did that postseason is not smart.

[Droid101]

That '1B' nonsense is just some revisionist History bullshit cooked up by people who didn't watch a minute of basketball before January 2006.
Oh yeah?

2001 Playoffs - First 3 Rounds
Kobe - 31.6 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 6.3 APG, .492 FG%
Shaq - 29.3 PPG, 15.3 RPG, 2.5 APG, .547 FG%

What a complete sidekick!

[HOoopCityJones]

That '1B' nonsense is just some revisionist History bullshit cooked up by people who didn't watch a minute of basketball before January 2006.

How Ironic. :roll:


It's clear none of you Jizz stains watched the Lakers..

[SpecialQue]

That '1B' nonsense is just some revisionist History bullshit cooked up by people who didn't watch a minute of basketball before January 2006.

Wow.

[HOoopCityJones]

Tell me something OP, why was Duncan not even the third option on a recent Championship Team, yet his stans wanna act like he sky rocketed above almost every All-Time great.

[navy]

Kobe was a top 10 player but he was never better than Shaq when they played together. It is what it is.

He was very important to that three peat, but only Kobe stans think that winning a ring where another player was clearly better than you somehow makes you second to Michael Jordan.

You cant take away Kobe's rings or accomplishments. But dont sit here and act like he wasnt playing with Shaq for peat's sake. Have you seen other people's teams? :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

Oh yeah?

2001 Playoffs - First 3 Rounds
Kobe - 31.6 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 6.3 APG, .492 FG%
Shaq - 29.3 PPG, 15.3 RPG, 2.5 APG, .547 FG%

What a complete sidekick!

Shaq was better in 01, but Kobe was so damn good that he deserves more credit than he gets. He was not a sidekick. It was two all time great players dominating the league...

In 02? Kobe was not a normal sidekick again, but in this year he was clearly worse than Shaq. No shame in that, but Shaq was just better.

29/13/3 57% TS and constantly demanding double teams and defensive attention few players in NBA history have gotten...simply trumps Kobe's 27/6/5 51% TS and slipping defense.

The reason why Kobe gets some hate...not really hate, but honesty...is that Kobe wasn't winning a ring without Shaq or Duncan those years. Instead of having to try and beat Shaq, the clear best player in the league, he got be on his team.

Put Kobe as the best player on any other team in the league that is realistic from 97 through 05 and he's not winning 1 ring. It's just impossible. That is what Kobe stans don't get. He wasn't beating Shaq and Duncan...and then other teams like the 02 Kings and Pistons..etc. without playing with 1 of them.

So while a guy like Lebron played his first 7 years with very little to no chance to win...Kobe had 3 rings playing for Phil and peak Shaq.

It's just context and proper reasoning...

[T_L_P]

Tell me something OP, why was Duncan not even the third option on a recent Championship Team, yet his stans wanna act like he sky rocketed above almost every All-Time great.

Not even third option, what on Earth do you mean? Parker ran the offense, Duncan second, then Manu ran the bench. The Spurs ran everything through Duncan when they had nothing to give (like, you know, an entire set of post plays in the most important period [OT in OKC] of the Playoffs).

This championship doesn't do much for his legacy (aside from adding to his longevity). Whoever thinks Duncan>Kobe probably did so before this season.

But what I will say is this: Duncan was the most important Spur this season. Second leading scorer, leading in rebounds and blocks, defensive anchor, leading in all the big advances stats.

That's what I'm asking you to explain for Kobe. Not which option he was on the offense. Don't get salty: address my post.

[NuggetsFan]

The thing with the whole Kobe/Shaq thing is no matter how good of a perimeter player you are, a big man is always going to open the game up for you. The amount of help your going to get from a 7'1 athletic beast like Shaq is going to be almost impossible to top.

It was never at any point a 1a/1b type situation to me so that doesn't change in '02. The game of basketball wouldn't allow it. Doesn't mean Kobe doesn't deserve credit. I don't give out "sidekick" rings. That to me is stupid. I just look at things with context and don't place the same value to everything. Including MVP's, All-NBA teams, rings etc. so within context Kobe won that ring as the 2nd best player who was a great player in his own right.

Kobe was a great player, one the greatest. He brought his own value to the table. That type of value that was needed. That value was never going to exceed Shaq's any year, including 2002. Therefore he was always going to be the 2nd best player on those championship teams and never a 1b.

He was a 1st option talent, that was a 2nd option during those championships. Like alot of 2nd options usually are during championships.

[HOoopCityJones]

Shaq was better in 01, but Kobe was so damn good that he deserves more credit than he gets. He was not a sidekick. It was two all time great players dominating the league...

In 02? Kobe was not a normal sidekick again, but in this year he was clearly worse than Shaq. No shame in that, but Shaq was just better.

29/13/3 57% TS and constantly demanding double teams and defensive attention few players in NBA history have gotten...simply trumps Kobe's 27/6/5 51% TS and slipping defense.

The reason why Kobe gets some hate...not really hate, but honesty...is that Kobe wasn't winning a ring without Shaq or Duncan those years. Instead of having to try and beat Shaq, the clear best player in the league, he got be on his team.

Put Kobe as the best player on any other team in the league that is realistic from 97 through 05 and he's not winning 1 ring. It's just impossible. That is what Kobe stans don't get. He wasn't beating Shaq and Duncan...and then other teams like the 02 Kings and Pistons..etc. without playing with 1 of them.

So while a guy like Lebron played his first 7 years with very little to no chance to win...Kobe had 3 rings playing for Phil and peak Shaq.

It's just context and proper reasoning...

So Kobe is the ONLY Player who should get penalized for who he played with and for , but not Duncan? :biggums:


Shaq's dominance < Consistency and Chemistry

9/10

[Ne 1]

2002 MVPs:
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 watching the series again 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)
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)


I agree, Kobe wasn't as great as he was in '01, but it was still very close.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

25.2 / 5.5 / 5.5 on .469% shooting is about as good as most 1st options.

Not only that, but some of Kobe's playoff series were fantastic that year(vs Spurs, Kings and Nets). He was never better than Shaq (respectable gap between them), but he wasn't a "sidekick" either. Not after 2000, imo

[Shih508]

talking about 2002 NBA Champs!

Ref was the only reason Lakers were in the Final! without ref, Kobe might only have 2 rings at best for his whole career playing with that much of helps.

Most overrated player of all time!

Duncan > Kobe ! not even close

[HOoopCityJones]

talking about 2002 NBA Champs!

Ref was the only reason Lakers were in the Final! without ref, Kobe might only have 2 rings at best for his whole career playing with that much of helps.

Most overrated player of all time!

:lol You can't even put together a sentence much less comprehend All-Time Great Basketball.

[SpecialQue]

talking about 2002 NBA Champs!

Ref was the only reason Lakers were in the Final! without ref, Kobe might only have 2 rings at best for his whole career playing with that much of helps.

Most overrated player of all time!

Here you go, retard. Some homework:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=335485

Money quote:

[QUOTE]Pollard: You can blame the loss on the referees in Game 6 and have a valid argument. But the bottom line is, we still had Game 7 and we choked and we didn

[Shih508]

:lol You can't even put together a sentence much less comprehend All-Time Great Basketball.

So what does that have to do with what i stated!

A FACT IS A FACT!

[DonDadda59]

Oh yeah?

2001 Playoffs - First 3 Rounds
Kobe - 31.6 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 6.3 APG, .492 FG%
Shaq - 29.3 PPG, 15.3 RPG, 2.5 APG, .547 FG%

What a complete sidekick!

Nice first 3 rounds run, but yes he was clearly the 2nd option on the Lakers. Clearly. Teams weren't focused on stopping Kobe or drafting guys in the second round solely to be 6 fouls to use on Shaq in the playoffs. That's part of the reason Bean was so successful against SA- they're strategy focused on limiting Shaq, doubling/sometime triple teaming him with Duncan/Robinson, hacking-a-Shacking, etc which freed up the sidekick to work.

And I love how one 3 round sample all of a sudden means they were equals when they played several seasons together. But don't let me get in the way of rewriting History.

[NuggetsFan]

25.2 / 5.5 / 5.5 on .469% shooting is about as good as most 1st options.

Not only that, but some of Kobe's playoff series were fantastic that year(vs Spurs, Kings and Nets). He was never better than Shaq (respectable gap between them), but he wasn't a "sidekick" either. Not after 2000, imo

He put those numbers up as the 2nd best player on his team. Things were easier because of Shaq. Still great and like I said I don't do "sidekicks" but when comparing it to other players you have to use the proper context in how those rings were won.

Fair or unfair Kobe was clearly the 2nd best player on those teams. He was needed and was HUGE in winning them but came nowhere near Shaq. What Shaq provided went beyond numbers IMO. Maybe the most dominant player ever.

[Shih508]

Here you go, retard. Some homework:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=335485

Money quote:

Since u bookmarked a quote from a role player to protect ur GodBe alrdy proved how insecure u kobe fans are.

Game 6 = end of lakers season. Everyone who's not kobe fans know it for a fact!

[Shih508]

Real 1A & 1B for that year were Chris Webber & Mike Biby

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

He put those numbers up as the 2nd best player on his team. Things were easier because of Shaq. Still great and like I said I don't do "sidekicks" but when comparing it to other players you have to use the proper context in how those rings were won.

Fair or unfair Kobe was clearly the 2nd best player on those teams. He was needed and was HUGE in winning them but came nowhere near Shaq. What Shaq provided went beyond numbers IMO. Maybe the most dominant player ever.

I caught the end of Jordan's peak 92-93ish, but 2000-02 Shaq is the most dominant player I ever saw. THAT guy was a demolition expert.. :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

:oldlol: at this "sidekick" talk. Kobe was a top 10 player in 2000 and top 3-5 in 2001 and 2002. He put up superstar numbers and people want to penalize him--not for what he did--but for who happened to be on his team. Meanwhile, Duncan has been hyped all week for winning while putting up 15/10/2 and players like Billups, Dennis Johnson, and Tony Parker have "rings as the man."

[Shih508]

:oldlol: at this "sidekick" talk. Kobe was a top 10 player in 2000 and top 3-5 in 2001 and 2002. He put up superstar numbers and people want to penalize him--not for what he did--but for who happened to be on his team. Meanwhile, Duncan has been hyped all week for winning while putting up 15/10/2 and players like Billups, Dennis Johnson, and Tony Parker have "rings as the man."

His number would be worse than AI if he was defense primary focus from 2001-2002.

So he's not top 5 in those years. Shaq, Duncan, KG, AI, Dirk, TMac, Vince were all better. Cuz they were the man on their team and still puttting up similar if not better stats than Kobe.

Kobe has never prove he could carry a team to just 2nd round without great supports. So there's no way he's top 5 in any of those year until late 2000s

[VIntageNOvel]

2002 MVPs:
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 watching the series again 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)
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)


I agree, Kobe wasn't as great as he was in '01, but it was still very close.

somehow this post was skipped :rolleyes:

[Ne 1]

That '1B' nonsense is just some revisionist History bullshit cooked up by people who didn't watch a minute of basketball before January 2006.
Well I'm a big Kobe fan myself and I'm not even so sure I'd say it was 1a/1b in 2001/2002. It was very close to that, but I reserve 1a/1b for situations where it's just too difficult to determine who was truly better and IMO Shaq was definitely the best player in the league, and that's what the general consensus was back then, but Kobe was a top 2-3 player in his own right, so it shouldn't even matter that he was playing with someone who was slightly better at the time. I think what most people mean by "1b" is that while he wasn't better than or quite equal to Shaq, he was still better than "#2" (if that makes sense) as far as his value and production goes. Either way, it was far more of a two headed monster L.A. in 2001/2002 and much closer to Co-MVPs than just Shaq and his little side-kick Robin aka Kobe Bryant as detractors of Kobe like to believe. The problem is some people with an agenda like to put a qualifier on Kobe's rings he won with Shaq and just write them off as "side-kick rings" and that's diminishing what he actually was.

[Rubio2Gasol]

Thing is, other than T-Mac and A.I, he was the best perimiter player in the game. It was a duo, anyone who watched the games knows this, and they ain't winning anything without Kobe.

I was a Kings fan back in the day, and I feared Kobe more than Shaq because Vlade gave him so much trouble. They had just started letting teams play zone and Shaq was having some trouble adjusting (something that actually makes peak Shaq even better)

But the fact is, you had ways to manage. You could play the free throw game, or you could try to foul him out, use his pick and roll defense and at the end of games he always represented an opportunity to get back in the game.

But when Kobe was on, that was it, let's go home.

[NuggetsFan]

I caught the end of Jordan's peak 92-93ish, but 2000-02 Shaq is the most dominant player I ever saw. THAT guy was a demolition expert.. :oldlol:

Yeah. In terms of players primes If I could choose one guy to play for any team in the league for one season it'd be Shaq. You could throw him onto a lottery team and he'd make life easier for everybody and get better results that anybody else IMO.

[JUDGE WITNESS]

if it was a scenario where kobe went rogue and his team went 55+ wins ala mj they would have a better case for detracting kobe

[97 bulls]

Kobe was great, but the problem is you can't go solely on stats. During that run Shaq was the focal point of the opposition. Kobe made them pay for that. Which was what he was supposed to do.

Saying that, Kobe was never a "sidekick". They don't win without him.

[navy]

Kobe was great, but the problem is you can't go solely on stats. During that run Shaq was the focal point of the opposition. Kobe made them pay for that. Which was what he was supposed to do.

Saying that, Kobe was never a "sidekick". They don't win without him.
He was a "sidekick" in 2000.

2001 and 2002 he was a dominant force. Not as good as Shaq, but definitely top 5 worthy in the nba. Which is what should really matter.

[HOoopCityJones]

He was a "sidekick" in 2000.

2001 and 2002 he was a dominant force. Not as good as Shaq, but definitely top 5 worthy in the nba. Which is what should really matter.

22.5 6.3 4.9 Season

4.5 4.4 1.5 1.5 21.1 Playoffs

Plus his Defensive numbers went up for the post season. Try again.

Leonard just won Finals MVP putting up worse numbers than this.

[T_L_P]

2000 is a sidekick ring. Not because of Kobe's numbers, but because of Shaq.

There's no way you can average 10 less PPG over a Playoff run and not be the sidekick. Pippen had some great numbers, and he was always a sidekick.

[tpols]

2000 is a sidekick ring. Not because of Kobe's numbers, but because of Shaq.

There's no way you can average 10 less PPG over a Playoff run and not be the sidekick. Pippen had some great numbers, and he was always a sidekick.
Duncan this year scored less than Kobe in 2000

Guess Duncan's got a sidekick ring as well :lol

[VIntageNOvel]

Duncan this year scored less than Kobe in 2000

Guess Duncan's got a sidekick ring as well :lol

:lol

[Lord Bean]

Duncan this year scored less than Kobe in 2000

Guess Duncan's got a sidekick ring as well :lol
But intangibles and leadership though!

Kobe's 2001 "sidekick" playoff run > anything Duncan has done since 2005-06.

[T_L_P]

Duncan this year scored less than Kobe in 2000

Guess Duncan's got a sidekick ring as well :lol

Did you not read my post? Who was he sidekicking, a guy who scored 1 more PPG?

Like I said, if you score 10 less points per game over an entire Playoff run, you are very clearly the sidekick.

And Kobe is supposed to be a scorer anyway.

[DMAVS41]

Duncan this year scored less than Kobe in 2000

Guess Duncan's got a sidekick ring as well :lol

Do you understand what the definition of sidekick is?

Who was Duncan the sidekick of this year?

00 Kobe vs 14 Duncan is a legit debate in my opinion. I personally think Duncan was a little better of a player, but not worries either way.

But how was Duncan a sidekick? He was arguably the best player on his team and if he wasn't, that other player was not clear cut.

Kobe, without a doubt, was clearly the 2nd best player on the 00 Lakers.

[HOoopCityJones]

2000 is a sidekick ring. Not because of Kobe's numbers, but because of Shaq.

There's no way you can average 10 less PPG over a Playoff run and not be the sidekick. Pippen had some great numbers, and he was always a sidekick.

Answer me this , his numbers dropped in Playoffs because of injury, you're saying that has no meaning to the convo correct? The fact his numbers dropped automatically mean he was a sidekick? Answer me those questions.

[HOoopCityJones]

Do you understand what the definition of sidekick is?

Who was Duncan the sidekick of this year?

00 Kobe vs 14 Duncan is a legit debate in my opinion. I personally think Duncan was a little better of a player, but not worries either way.

But how was Duncan a sidekick? He was arguably the best player on his team and if he wasn't, that other player was not clear cut.

Kobe, without a doubt, was clearly the 2nd best player on the 00 Lakers.


Ok, Duncan wasn't a sidekick.


He was a role Player.

How does it help your argument?

[tpols]

Did you not read my post? Who was he sidekicking, a guy who scored 1 more PPG?

Like I said, if you score 10 less points per game over an entire Playoff run, you are very clearly the sidekick.

And Kobe is supposed to be a scorer anyway.

He was sidekicking one of the best passing and shooting perimeter offenses of all time

[Roundball_Rock]

Like I said, if you score 10 less points per game over an entire Playoff run, you are very clearly the sidekick.

I disagree. Consider this scenario:

Player A: 28/5/3
Player B: 18/9/8

Aren't they at least comparable? If you count assists as being worth 2.2-2.3 points then B actually is contributing more direct offense and that is before factoring in rebounding.

[AlphaWolf24]

Duncan this year scored less than Kobe in 2000

Guess Duncan's got a sidekick ring as well :lol


the end......

[T_L_P]

Answer me this , his numbers dropped in Playoffs because of injury, you're saying that has no meaning to the convo correct? The fact his numbers dropped automatically mean he was a sidekick? Answer me those questions.

Yes, they dropped off because of injury. But he was the sidekick in the regular season too.

Do you Kobe stans have selective reading? I said he was a sidekick because of Shaq, not just his numbers.

How on earth can you score 33% less points than the next guy and not be the sidekick, at best?

Pippen was always a sidekick...not because he wasn't great, but because he was playing with the GOAT.

[T_L_P]

He was sidekicking one of the best passing and shooting perimeter offenses of all time

Nope, nice try though.

He scored 1 less PPG than the leading scorer. A sidekick is a player-player thing (ala Pippen and Jordan, Shaq and Kobe).

Kobe was a sidekick in 2000. It's a fact.

Here's one: 2003. Parker scored exactly 10 less points per game than Duncan, was he not the sidekick?

[tpols]

Nope, nice try though.

He scored 1 less PPG than the leading scorer. A sidekick is a player-player thing (ala Pippen and Jordan, Shaq and Kobe).

Kobe was a sidekick in 2000. It's a fact.

Dude what's the difference?

A peak 30/15 Shaq or a perimeter oriented offense that breaks shooting and efficiency records leading to massive leads and eventually blowouts.

[HOoopCityJones]

Yes, they dropped off because of injury. But he was the sidekick in the regular season too.

Do you Kobe stans have selective reading? I said he was a sidekick because of Shaq, not just his numbers.

How on earth can you score 33% less points than the next guy and not be the sidekick, at best?

Pippen was always a sidekick...not because he wasn't great, but because he was playing with the GOAT.


Tim Duncan is a role player because of Tony and Kawhi , not his numbers.


Arguable Best PG in the League and Young FMVP fenom who has underrated success guarding the Two best players in the NBA.

[VIntageNOvel]

Yes, they dropped off because of injury. But he was the sidekick in the regular season too.

Do you Kobe stans have selective reading? I said he was a sidekick because of Shaq, not just his numbers.

How on earth can you score 33% less points than the next guy and not be the sidekick, at best?

Pippen was always a sidekick...not because he wasn't great, but because he was playing with the GOAT.


^so which one is better?

a sidekick to Most Dominant Peak Ever

or sidekick to a mute who chew his own tongue?

kawhi isnt even comparable to pippen, so 14 duncan is a sidekick to sidekick?

[T_L_P]

Tim Duncan is a role player because of Tony and Kawi , not his numbers.


Arguable Best PG in the League and Young fenom who has underrated success guarding the Two best players in the NBA.

But you see, statistically Duncan was the best Spur this postseason...

:facepalm

[T_L_P]

^so which one is better?

a sidekick to Most Dominant Peak Ever

or sidekick to a mute who chew his own tongue?

kawhi isnt even comparable to pippen, so 14 duncan is sidekick to sidekick?

This is the problem with Kobe stans.

When did I say it was a bad thing to be Shaq's sidekick? I was simply stating the facts.

But I'll say it again: statistically Duncan was the best Spur this postseason.

He lead his team in rebounding and blocked shots, as well as PER and WS.

Kobe lead his team in assists and steals (and turnovers). Nothing else.

[HOoopCityJones]

But you see, statistically Duncan was the best Spur this postseason...

:facepalm

:roll:


I'm through bro.


Why didn't he win FMVP then? If he had the best stats and Impact.

[navy]

I disagree. Consider this scenario:

Player A: 28/5/3
Player B: 18/9/8

Aren't they at least comparable? If you count assists as being worth 2.2-2.3 points then B actually is contributing more direct offense and that is before factoring in rebounding.
Efficiencies? In any case I could see a solid argument made for that Player B, but those arent Kobe and Shaq's stats in question. Where no case can be made. :confusedshrug:

[riseagainst]

That '1B' nonsense is just some revisionist History bullshit cooked up by people who didn't watch a minute of basketball before January 2006.

i always thought you were pretty intelligent. But this is just pathetic.

[T_L_P]

:roll:


I'm through bro.


Why didn't he win FMVP then? If he had the best stats and Impact.

That's one series, not all four. Are you being serious right now?

Who was the best Spur statistically? Kawhi, who was behind Duncan is every category besides steals?

What's next, Parker was the best Spur statistically in 07 because he won the FMVP? Do you know how stupid that sounds?

[Lord Bean]

This "sidekick" label is so meaningless. Ok, Duncan might not have been a sidekick this year. That doesn't change the fact that he was placed on the greatest offensive system of the past 15-20 years with the GOAT coach, surrounded by elite shooters everywhere. Duncan may not have been a sidekick to anyone, but he was clearly a glorified role player.

His stats are pedestrian as can be for a top 5 all time player...and people are going to dismiss that on the basis of "impact and intangibles". Well as for impact, how do you explain the Spurs defense being 1.4 points better with being off the floor? How about them scoring 1.8 points more with him on the bench? How about his team shooting on better efficiency without him, and holding the opponent to lower shooting with him off the floor?

But all that's regular season, Duncan really stepped it up in the playoffs. In the playoffs, the Spurs offense was only 0.8 points better with Duncan off the floor as opposed to the 1.8 in the regular season. Their defense was dead even 104.1-104.1 with him on or off the floor. The Spurs also had a higher assist% and steal% with him off the court, while allowing the opposition to have a higher assist%, steal%, and turnover% with him on the court. Stepping up when it matters most :applause:

And yet, we're going to denigrate the value of Kobe's 2001 ring where he produced 29-7-6-2-1, with 33-7-7-2-1 against Duncan's own Spurs. Or his 2002 ring when he was producing 27-6-5-1-1. Both of which are runs better than anything Duncan has done in the past 7 or so years.

[VIntageNOvel]

This is the problem with Kobe stans.

When did I say it was a bad thing to be Shaq's sidekick? I was simply stating the facts.

But I'll say it again: statistically Duncan was the best Spur this postseason.

He lead his team in rebounding and blocked shots, as well as PER and WS.

Kobe lead his team in assists and steals (and turnovers). Nothing else.

exactly!
if you're saying the ring isnt all the same, (you guys make it complicated with sidekick term)
then you must be agree that sidekick isnt all the same,
theres a goat sidekick a.ka 0,75 ring (who can win FMVP playing with peak shaq? :confusedshrug: )
there's also a sidekick to sidekick ring ak.a 0.3 rings ala 14 duncan

Leonard FMVP count as 0.5 ring (shutting down bran, the offensive half was credited to pop) and his stat was meh for FMVP
duncan's 0.3 rings
the rest for manu, diaw

you guys want to make it complicated right? let get more detail then :confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

Ok, Duncan wasn't a sidekick.


He was a role Player.

How does it help your argument?

It's not my argument.

I think Duncan in 14 vs Kobe in 00 in the playoffs is an interesting debate.

I personally think Duncan was the overall more impactful player and more important to his team, but could go either way.

My point was that you can't be a sidekick without someone existing to be a sidekick to.

i don't care to argue kobe in 00 vs duncan in 14.

[VIntageNOvel]

That's one series, not all four. Are you being serious right now?

Who was the best Spur statistically? Kawhi, who was behind Duncan is every category besides steals?

What's next, Parker was the best Spur statistically in 07 because he won the FMVP? Do you know how stupid that sounds?

kobe was arguably better than shaq in post season in 2001 aside from final against joke east

you're a spurs fans right? you should know better what happened in WCF if you watch it (not via boxscore)

[T_L_P]

kobe was arguably better than shaq in post season in 2001 aside from final against joke east

you're a spurs fans right? you should know better what happened in WCF if you watch it (not via boxscore)

Are you being ****ing serious right now? Go read the OP: I literally said Kobe has an argument for being the best player in the league in 01.

You act like I'm being unfair here or something. Kobe was a sidekick in 2000, Duncan was the most important piece of a very, very well balanced team in 2014. I didn't once say one was more important than the other, I was just establishing the facts.

[AlphaWolf24]

This is the problem with Kobe stans.

When did I say it was a bad thing to be Shaq's sidekick? I was simply stating the facts.

But I'll say it again: statistically Duncan was the best Spur this postseason.

He lead his team in rebounding and blocked shots, as well as PER and WS.

Kobe lead his team in assists and steals (and turnovers). Nothing else.


Now you Backtracking.....straw man.

Kobe was 1rst team all NBA defense in 2000...lead the team in assists and steals...

2000 the offense did go more through Shaq....Kobe was moving into his role as l the #1 option in crunchtime / 4th quarter. ( similar role MJ had on the Bull's title teams)

Tim Duncan this year had none of that responsibility.... Timmy played a much smaller role then Kobe did in 2000...Kobe was the teams primary facilitator/closer/on the ball defender

[Lord Bean]

Are you being ****ing serious right now? Go read the OP: I literally said Kobe has an argument for being the best player in the league in 01.

You act like I'm being unfair here or something. Kobe was a sidekick in 2000, Duncan was the most important piece of a very, very well balanced team in 2014. I didn't once say one was more important than the other, I was just establishing the facts.
Except that he wasn't. Every on/off metric that quantifies variable impact shows that Kawhi was a more crucial player to their success than Duncan.

[Cone]

kobe wasnt 1b. not even close

shaq carried kobe, plain and simple. kobe fizzled in the playoffs and shaq rose

[riseagainst]

kobe wasnt 1b. not even close

shaq carried kobe, plain and simple. kobe fizzled in the playoffs and shaq rose

ironic coming from a Durant fan.

[AlphaWolf24]

kobe wasnt 1b. not even close

shaq carried kobe, plain and simple. kobe fizzled in the playoffs and shaq rose


hey what's up Dmavs other brother

[Lord Bean]

This "sidekick" label is so meaningless. Ok, Duncan might not have been a sidekick this year. That doesn't change the fact that he was placed on the greatest offensive system of the past 15-20 years with the GOAT coach, surrounded by elite shooters everywhere. Duncan may not have been a sidekick to anyone, but he was clearly a glorified role player.

His stats are pedestrian as can be for a top 5 all time player...and people are going to dismiss that on the basis of "impact and intangibles". Well as for impact, how do you explain the Spurs defense being 1.4 points better with being off the floor? How about them scoring 1.8 points more with him on the bench? How about his team shooting on better efficiency without him, and holding the opponent to lower shooting with him off the floor?

But all that's regular season, Duncan really stepped it up in the playoffs. In the playoffs, the Spurs offense was only 0.8 points better with Duncan off the floor as opposed to the 1.8 in the regular season. Their defense was dead even 104.1-104.1 with him on or off the floor. The Spurs also had a higher assist% and steal% with him off the court, while allowing the opposition to have a higher assist%, steal%, and turnover% with him on the court. Stepping up when it matters most :applause:

And yet, we're going to denigrate the value of Kobe's 2001 ring where he produced 29-7-6-2-1, with 33-7-7-2-1 against Duncan's own Spurs. Or his 2002 ring when he was producing 27-6-5-1-1. Both of which are runs better than anything Duncan has done in the past 7 or so years.
T_L_P your response?

[Quizno]

shaq was the better player, but you're either lying or don't remember or didn't watch basketball if you can't admit he was a liability at the end of close games. kobe was the closer

[AlphaWolf24]

T_L_P your response?


I don't think he's talking about 2001 - 02'

he's bashing Kobe for 2000 being a " sidekick":lol

when even the most blind haters.....can see 2000 Kobe was better then 14' Duncan

better scorer....1rst team all NBA defense....was the Lakers primary facilitator and had closing duties.

Yes Shaq was a beast!....yes shaq was a offensive and rebounding weapon.....But Kobe did everything! and was easily more important to the Lakers then Duncan was to the Spurs this year.

[T_L_P]

I don't think he's talking about 2001 - 02'

he's bashing Kobe for 2000 being a " sidekick":lol

when even the most blind haters.....can see 2000 Kobe was better then 14' Duncan

better scorer....1rst team all NBA defense....was the Lakers primary facilitator and had closing duties.

Yes Shaq was a beast!....yes shaq was a offensive and rebounding weapon.....But Kobe did everything! and was easily more important to the Lakers then Duncan was to the Spurs this year.

I'll say this again: I didn't once bash Kobe for being the sidekick. Do you have trouble reading or something?

Secondly, you could easily twist the stats he was the better scorer. In the seven extra minutes Kobe played, he scored 4.8 more PPG on .050 worse TS%...he also played on a team with an ORtg of 115, compared to the Spurs 110.

Duncan is the defensive anchor, had a lower DRtg and more DWS...

So, Kobe was the facilitator and closer. Duncan was the defensive anchor, relied on scorer in the most vital moments (OT in OKC), as well as the leader.

He beats Kobe statistically, and he was the more consistent performer.

But again, I don't know has to do with any of this. Can't you stans argue Kobe was not a sidekick (ala Pippen) without bringing some else's name into it. Is it really that hard?

[AlphaWolf24]

I'll say this again: I didn't once bash Kobe for being the sidekick. Do you have trouble reading or something?

Secondly, you could easily twist the stats he was the better scorer. In the seven extra minutes Kobe played, he scored 4.8 more PPG on .050 worse TS%...he also played on a team with an ORtg of 115, compared to the Spurs 110.

Duncan is the defensive anchor, had a lower DRtg and more DWS...

So, Kobe was the facilitator and closer. Duncan was the defensive anchor, relied on scorer in the most vital moments (OT in OKC), as well as the leader.

He beats Kobe statistically, and he was the more consistent performer.

But again, I don't know has to do with any of this. Can't you stans argue Kobe was not a sidekick (ala Pippen) without bringing some else's name into it. Is it really that hard?


2000 KB 22.5 PPG 6.3 RB 4.9AST 1.6STL

2014 TD 15.1PPG 9.7RB 3AST 1.9BLK


Kobe 1st team all defense , Lakers primary ball handler/closer ( Portland WCFinals)

Kobe was just as important if not more so then Duncan

[ArbitraryWater]

Should have posted some stats in the OP.. but yeah, he clearly took a step back from 2001.. was good in the 2nd round, great in the finals against arguably the WOAT finals team, and trash in the WCF.. in game 7 he missed 13 straight shots at one point.

[TheCorporation]

He's won 2 Finals MVPs in 7 trips, what more do you want to know?

[BlackVVaves]

His number would be worse than AI if he was defense primary focus from 2001-2002.

So he's not top 5 in those years. Shaq, Duncan, KG, AI, Dirk, TMac, Vince were all better. Cuz they were the man on their team and still puttting up similar if not better stats than Kobe.

Kobe has never prove he could carry a team to just 2nd round without great supports. So there's no way he's top 5 in any of those year until late 2000s

http://media.giphy.com/media/asKgALccPDUFW/giphy.gif

[NumberSix]

"1b" is just a game a semantics. Nothing more than an attempt to label "#2" as something other than "#2".

Whatever you wanna call it.

1 > 2
A > B
1a > 1b
A1 > A2
Shaq > Kobe

[JT123]

"1b" is just a game a semantics. Nothing more than an attempt to label "#2" as something other than "#2".

Whatever you wanna call it.

1 > 2
A > B
1a > 1b
A1 > A2
Shaq > Kobe
:applause:

[Stringer Bell]

I agree. In 00 Shaq did, in a sense, carry his team. In 2002 he officially (and easily) became the most important player.

But 2001 is a slightly different story. Maybe it's just because there were so few games, but Kobe did something amazing. His defense was probably as important as Shaq's (although I've never, ever been a fan of Shaq's defense), and he was pretty much matching his production.

I still think the Lakers win the title that year with Kobe playing more like his 2000-self, so I see where you're coming from, but underselling what Kobe did that postseason is not smart.

2001 was definitely great, but I still don't think his impact/importance was quite like Shaq's. It's just so hard to have to impact as a great big man. He commanded so much attention and got so many players in foul trouble.

I'm not a fan of Shaq's defense either. Not good at the pick and roll, sometimes just plain lazy to challenge shots.

The Lakers were so dominant in 2001, but not so much in 2000 and 2002.

A little off tangent, but Kobe deserves a lot of credit for those rings and all his "sidekick" stuff is pretty stupid. The Lakers teams really weren't all that deep. They barely made it out of the West in 00' and 02'. And Kobe was a big part of why they were able to survive. He was still growing into an elite player in 2000, there was a big gap in statistical production from 99-00 and 00-01, but he was a big part of that rally against Portland in 00' that saved their season. He made some big plays in that quarter and had an outstanding game with 25, 11, and 7.

And in 2002 against the Kings? He had 31, 11 and 5 in game 6 and 30, 10, and 7 in game 7.

[Shih508]

Tim Duncan is a role player because of Tony and Kawhi , not his numbers.


Arguable Best PG in the League and Young FMVP fenom who has underrated success guarding the Two best players in the NBA.

If you really watch the finals, you know the real alpha on that spurs squad are Timmy and Manu.

Kawhi did great and Tony has always been overrated for his whole career!

Manu > Parker

Duncan > Kobe