Where would Kobe rank if he won one os Shaq's FMVPs?

[sportjames23]

Solid Top Ten spot?


Edit: Mods, could you fix the thread title? "of" instead of "os". :banghead:

[SouBeachTalents]

While not necessarily the same thing, it'd be reminiscent of Pippen winning one of Jordan's Finals MVP's, both would greatly change the perception of those teams, and Kobe/Pippen would obviously get a lot more credit for their roles in their title runs

[Milbuck]

Considering Shaq's level during the 3-peat was higher than anyone in history aside from Jordan, it would boost his legacy quite a bit. But it's essentially meaningless imo, again, there's virtually zero players in history not named Michael Jordan who could've matched or exceeded what Shaq did in those finals, so to analyze that hypothetical is like asking where KG would rank if he won multiple championships with those TWolves teams. It just wasn't going to happen under the circumstances, and if it did it'd be insane, historic shit.

[sbw19]

Still top 10.

He averaged 25/8/6 in '01 and 27/6/5 in '02 Finals. Very few players on title-winning teams have put up similar or better numbers without winning FMVP.

Come to think of it, not a whole lot had averaged 25+ppg on title-winning teams in the Finals period.

[dubeta]

About 2-5 spots higher






So at 10-12 all time

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Instead of only 4 players in NBA history having more Finals MVPs than him their would be only 1.

So if someone relies on that statistic only to rank player he would go from 5th to 2nd.

:confusedshrug:

[daily]

While not necessarily the same thing, it'd be reminiscent of Pippen winning one of Jordan's Finals MVP's, both would greatly change the perception of those teams, and Kobe/Pippen would obviously get a lot more credit for their roles in their title runsif it takes a media driven award for you to realize their importance what can I say other than you just don't know that much about the game

[DaRkJaWs]

Shaq's finals MVP awards mean nothing to me, in particular his 01 and 02 season (his 00 one is fair, mainly because he played that way in the regular season as well). The Lakers were going to beat the 76ers and Nets anyway, the question was how was it going to get done. Shaq decided he wanted to act all alpha on clearly inferior teams that had zero chance of winning, and we act like those MVP's actually mean something. The only thing it tells me is that Shaq played well and deserves some accolades for getting his team there, but once they were in the finals it didn't matter, the real finals were always in the conf finals (with exception of 2001, where nobody stood a chance against a good LAKERS team, of whom Shaq was one of out five players that made the Lakers an awesome team in those playoffs...sometimes I wonder if you guys actually watched any of the games prior to the finals, seriously).

I wish Kobe had decided to chuck away in those finals so that Shaq wouldn't have gotten the award, because those finals MVPs were meaningless anyway. Seriously do you guys have a brain? I can't believe that I'm probably the first person to point out the obvious about the 01 and 02 finals.

[DaRkJaWs]

Considering Shaq's level during the 3-peat was higher than anyone in history aside from Jordan, it would boost his legacy quite a bit. But it's essentially meaningless imo, again, there's virtually zero players in history not named Michael Jordan who could've matched or exceeded what Shaq did in those finals, so to analyze that hypothetical is like asking where KG would rank if he won multiple championships with those TWolves teams. It just wasn't going to happen under the circumstances, and if it did it'd be insane, historic shit.
Rofl, this commentary is terrible, what are you a 1 year old who never saw any of those playoff games or at the very least know that the finals winner was determined prior to 1st game against both the 76ers and nets?

[bballnoob1192]

Shaq's finals MVP awards mean nothing to me, in particular his 01 and 02 season (his 00 one is fair, mainly because he played that way in the regular season as well). The Lakers were going to beat the 76ers and Nets anyway, the question was how was it going to get done. Shaq decided he wanted to act all alpha on clearly inferior teams that had zero chance of winning, and we act like those MVP's actually mean something. The only thing it tells me is that Shaq played well and deserves some accolades for getting his team there, but once they were in the finals it didn't matter, the real finals were always in the conf finals (with exception of 2001, where nobody stood a chance against a good LAKERS team, of whom Shaq was one of out five players that made the Lakers an awesome team in those playoffs...sometimes I wonder if you guys actually watched any of the games prior to the finals, seriously).

I wish Kobe had decided to chuck away in those finals so that Shaq wouldn't have gotten the award, because those finals MVPs were meaningless anyway. Seriously do you guys have a brain? I can't believe that I'm probably the first person to point out the obvious about the 01 and 02 finals.
I'm a kobe fan, but come on if kobe started chucking like crazy in those finals I'm pretty sure his image/status is not gonna be better than what he actually did (ex. 2004 against the pistons).

[Milbuck]

Rofl, this commentary is terrible, what are you a 1 year old who never saw any of those playoff games or at the very least know that the finals winner was determined prior to 1st game against both the 76ers and mavs?
I don't know who you are, but from the 5 posts of yours I've seen, you seem to have an irrational hatred of Shaq.

Peak Shaq > your favorite player at any point ever (unless it's Jordan), let it go.

[DaRkJaWs]

Don't compare 01 and 02 to 04. Everyone knew the 76ers and nets would not win, the east was terrible back then and Kobe was making his shots and played great in those playoffs.

[DaRkJaWs]

I don't know who you are, but from the 5 posts of yours I've seen, you seem to have an irrational hatred of Shaq.

Peak Shaq > your favorite player at any point ever (unless it's Jordan), let it go.
My irrational hatred is not of shaq but you shaq fanboys, who ignore shaqs real record and constantly bring up the 2000 season as indicative of everything he did from 00 to 02, never mind his entire career before 2007. So I'll say it again: you shaq fanboys are awful lucky he won vs the blazers, who committed one of the most epic game 7 chokes ever, and where would your invincible Shaquille o'neal be then in the all time rankings? Then the officials colluded for the lakers to beat the kings in 02, and that 06 finals he won as a role player, vs a mavs who beat themselves inexplicably; if the 00 blazers choked in game 7, the mavs choked from game 3 to game 6, to this day it amazes me that I was watching what it was I watched. As for shaqs many many losing seasons, we know the record there, and it isn't pretty. Again, so much for dominance.

[Milbuck]

My irrational hatred is not of shaq but you shaq fanboys, who ignore shaqs real record and constantly bring up the 2000 season as indicative of everything he did from 00 to 02, never mind his entire career before 2007. So I'll say it again: you shaq fanboys are awful lucky he won vs the blazers, who committed one of the most epic game 7 chokes ever, and where would your invincible Shaquille o'neal be then in the all time rankings? Then the officials colluded for the lakers to beat the kings in 02, and that 06 finals he won as a role player, vs a mavs who beat themselves inexplicably; if the 00 blazers choked in game 7, the mavs choked from game 3 to game 6, to this day it amazes me that I was watching what it was I watched. As for shaqs many many losing seasons, we know the record there, and it isn't pretty. Again, so much for dominance.
I think it's cute that you wrote all of that out.

1) I'm not a Shaq fanboy.
2) Peak Shaq > anyone outside of MJ.

[DaRkJaWs]

Actually I think skill wise shaq was one of the top players of all time, but anyone who dares to put a shaq over a wilt or even a Kareem is simply making blasphemous statements.

If there is one player that I differ with the crowd, it's Tim duncan, who had peak seasons until 2004 and from that moment on was just a fundamental player who used his size appropriately. Skill wise I think Malone was much better, but not as blessed to have Duncan's length and height.

[DaRkJaWs]

I think it's cute that you wrote all of that out.

1) I'm not a Shaq fanboy.
2) Peak Shaq > anyone outside of MJ.
If you think that way about shaq then yes you are, you're a kid incapable of understanding what it was you were watching.

[Fire Colangelo]

Rofl, this commentary is terrible, what are you a 1 year old who never saw any of those playoff games or at the very least know that the finals winner was determined prior to 1st game against both the 76ers and nets?

Well, the reason why everyone knew who was going to win the Finals was because Shaq was on the team...?

Yeah, we all knew the Lakers were winning in 01 and 02, but that doesn't mean there were games that were ridiculously close and could've gone either way had it not been Shaq having a monster series.

[DaRkJaWs]

Well, the reason why everyone knew who was going to win the Finals was because Shaq was on the team...?

Yeah, we all knew the Lakers were winning in 01 and 02, but that doesn't mean there were games that were ridiculously close and could've gone either way had it not been Shaq having a monster series.
No and no. Shaq could have had an average Series and they still would have handily won, because many other players were capable of scoring.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

No and no. Shaq could have had an average Series and they still would have handily won, because many other players were capable of scoring.
Wrong, moron. They would NOT have. Unluckily for you, us non-prepubescents watched those series - and LA needed every single one of Shaq's big performances to escape. Especially in the Finals.

[Legends66NBA7]

If he won it in 2001 ? Probably would have cemented himself Top 10, argument for Top 5 perhaps. He was playing at a high level throughout the playoffs and a great finals performance would be the icing on the cake.

[DaRkJaWs]

Wrong, moron. They would NOT have. Unluckily for you, us non-prepubescents watched those series - and LA needed every single one of Shaq's big performances to escape. Especially in the Finals.
Oh you mean to escape with a 4-1 win in 2001 and a 4-0 sweep in 2002? Oh my oh my! They most certainly would have lost had shaq had an average game and he had let Kobe get more of the points!!

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Oh you mean to escape with a 4-1 win in 2001 and a 4-0 sweep in 2002? Oh my oh my! They most certainly would have lost had shaq had an average game and he had let Kobe get more of the points!!
No I mean when nearly every game in those series' were decided in the final minutes, while Shaq averaged ~33 points, 16 rebounds and 5 assists. Find your brain.

[dubeta]

Sorry but Kobe and great Finals performances dont go well together

Lets take baby steps first, Kobe needs to consistently shoot over 40% in a finals series before we can increase expectations

[DaRkJaWs]

No I mean when nearly every game in those series' were decided in the final minutes, while Shaq averaged ~33 points, 16 rebounds and 5 assists. Find your brain.
And maybe it would have been decided earlier had shaq not taken so much of the offensive burden. The lakers beat every team in 01 and 02 playoffs with a balanced team effort until the finals. You tell me why that changed in the finals from 00-02? An accident? No, shaq wanted to dominate and changed the lakers offense so he would benefit with a finals MVP.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

And maybe it would have been decided earlier had shaq not taken so much of the offensive burden. The lakers beat every team in 01 and 02 playoffs with a balanced team effort until the finals. You tell me whether why that changed in the finals from 00-02? An accident? No, shaq wanted to dominate and changed the lakers offense so he would benefit with a finals MVP.
Wrong yet again. It wouldn't as Phil Jackson himself stated Shaq and Kobe were the two focal points on offense, and more importantly were the only two consistent Lakers who could create their own shot. The difference between them being that Shaq was a bit more consistent far as finding an easy deuce, hence Phil running the triangle and most of LA's possessions through Shaq.

So no, the Lakers do not win w/ Kobe scoring more and Shaq scoring less, nor do they win with "the others" replacing Shaq's production. We're not debating your fantasies, but rather what actually happened in REALITY.

[DaRkJaWs]

Well the nets had no-one to defend shaq so he was the obvious choice in the offense, true. And let's be real here, you are only referring to the 02 finals series, not the 01...so in that year my analysis stands. So for 02, Let's not forget that Kobe and shaqs scoring totals were about the same in the matchup vs the kings, a much superior team to the nets. Shaq deserved the finals MVP, but for you to imply that they would have lost vs a much inferior nets team had the offense been catered to Kobe a little more is simply ridiculous. I don't care how close the games were, everyone knew the nets had no chance in hell to win, that series was like someone expecting the 07 cavs to beat the 07 spurs.

[TheMilkyBarKid]

Similarly to how has been touched on, Kobe would have had to have had one of the greatest finals performances of all time to get the fmvp out of Shaq's hands.

It's hard to give a definitive answer as to how it would effect his ranking, with variables such as the opponent, his performance itself, was the decision unanimous? etc.

[DaRkJaWs]

Actually in the pivotal game 3, which actually was tied all the way until the end, Kobe scored a point more than shaq. Game 4 it appears the game got away from the nets in the 4th because of Kobe, not shaq. So much for your hypothesis that if it wasn't for shaq they would have lost...and btw, all of Kobe's assists went straight to shaq for the easy bucket every time.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Well the nets had no-one to defend shaq so he was the obvious choice in the offense, true. And let's be real here, you are only referring to the 02 finals series, not the 01...so in that year my analysis stands. So for 02, Let's not forget that Kobe and shaqs scoring totals were about the same in the matchup vs the kings, a much superior team to the nets. Shaq deserved the finals MVP, but for you to imply that they would have lost vs a much inferior nets team had the offense been catered to Kobe a little more is simply ridiculous. I don't care how close the games were, everyone knew the nets had no chance in hell to win, that series was like someone expecting the 07 cavs to beat the 07 spurs.

Nope. Educate yourself dude. I am referencing BOTH the 2001 and 2002 playoff runs. In 2001, every game in the finals BUT game 4 was won in the final minutes - and Kobe struggled to find his shot in big chunks of those games (multiple quarters of horrid shooting). So no, Kobe would NOT have been able to outscore Shaq in either finals and be more effective doing so.. If you want to argue that was because the lack of competition Shaq faced and that those rosters had pretty good perimeter talent, I won't argue w/ you, but Shaq was their best player for a reason. Simply put he was more effective.

I also wanted to correct you on the offense supposedly being more "balanced" up until the finals. From 2001-02, prior to the finals, Shaq averaged ~29 points and 14 boards. Dude was dominant throughout, he just shined when the lights were at their brightest. :confusedshrug:

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Around where John Havlicek ranks

[DaRkJaWs]

Everyone knows shaqs numbers went up in the finals, and again that was no fluke or accident, shaq looked to position himself on every possession and his teammates, including Kobe, rewarded him. Had he had a series like he did against the kings, they still would have beat both the 76ers and nets, even if not in a sweep. That has been my only contention all along. If it was good enough to beat better teams in both playoffs, it would have been good enough in the finals.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Everyone knows shaqs numbers went up in the finals, and again that was no fluke or accident, shaq looked to position himself on every possession and his teammates, including Kobe, rewarded him. Had he had a series like he did against the kings, they still would have beat both the 76ers and nets, even if not in a sweep. That has been my only contention all along. If it was good enough to beat better teams in both playoffs, it would have been good enough in the finals.
His stats barely went up though. Prior to the finals, Shaq was already a 29 and 13 player on roughly 60% shooting. Those numbers are about as dominant as anyone ever in the postseason.

[Milbuck]

Everyone knows shaqs numbers went up in the finals, and again that was no fluke or accident, shaq looked to position himself on every possession and his teammates, including Kobe, rewarded him. Had he had a series like he did against the kings, they still would have beat both the 76ers and nets, even if not in a sweep. That has been my only contention all along. If it was good enough to beat better teams in both playoffs, it would have been good enough in the finals.
I swear you've never played basketball in your life. When you have a 7'1" 330 pound monster on your team who the other team absolutely CANNOT STOP, why the hell would you not feed him constantly?

You understand the point of being in the NBA finals is to win the NBA finals, right?

This dumbass argument can be applied to every ATG with a legendary finals series..."Jordan was just stat padding in 91, I mean they backdoor swept the Lakers, he could've played poorly and they still would've won. Overrated series"

[tpols]

I swear you've never played basketball in your life. When you have a 7'1" 330 pound monster on your team who the other team absolutely CANNOT STOP, why the hell would you not feed him constantly?

You understand the point of being in the NBA finals is to win the NBA finals, right?

This dumbass argument can be applied to every ATG with a legendary finals series..."Jordan was just stat padding in 91, I mean they backdoor swept the Lakers, he could've played poorly and they still would've won. Overrated series"

Thats not even what he's saying.. He's saying LA could've beat the sixers and Nets without Shaq going off.. And they absolutely could have. Theyve won series against much better teams than NJ and philly with Shaq playing much worse than he did in those finals.


As for op.. It wouldn't change anything. He'd be in the same spot goat wise 7-10.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I swear you've never played basketball in your life. When you have a 7'1" 330 pound monster on your team who the other team absolutely CANNOT STOP, why the hell would you not feed him constantly?

You understand the point of being in the NBA finals is to win the NBA finals, right?

This dumbass argument can be applied to every ATG with a legendary finals series..."Jordan was just stat padding in 91, I mean they backdoor swept the Lakers, he could've played poorly and they still would've won. Overrated series"

And even then it would be illogical. You can re-watch those finals on tape (or DVD) and see that despite Jordan's production, each game in that series was in the final minutes as well. What this goof and anyone else missing Y chromosomes don't understand is, the Bulls and Lakers wouldn't even be in position to win these games if not for their franchise players playing arguably the greatest and most efficient basketball we'll ever see.

Shaq and Jordan averaging monster numbers en-route to multiple championships and Final MVPs...is supposedly a bad thing?

[DaRkJaWs]

Lakers were a great team around shaq, that shaq boosted his numbers in the finals was due to weaker competition, and that created separation between him and Bryant to get unanimous finals MVP. I've been a little fuzzy with my arguments here so I'll state that of course it was a good idea for them to go to shaq, and of course he played great and deserved finals MVP (also was solid in the playoffs). But it's not as if they would have lost had Kobe had numbers closer to shaqs, they won with their greatest advantage but the lakers had answers for teams if shaq didn't have a line to the hoop. That is my contention, and that is why I say we overrate the finals mvp in 01 and 02, no matter how well shaq played. Because again, their competition was weak.

And I only go to prove my point by showing that Kobe in 02 was the go to person in the 4th quarter and had one more point than shaq in the pivotal game 3.

[Milbuck]

Thats not even what he's saying.. He's saying LA could've beat the sixers and Nets without Shaq going off.. And they absolutely could have. Theyve won series against much better teams than NJ and philly with Shaq playing much worse than he did in those finals.
Which doesn't go against my Jordan reference. Could the Bulls have beat the Lakers without MJ playing exactly as well as he did? For sure...they lost game 1 by 2 points, and swept the next 4 by an average of 13 points. They absolutely could have won that series with Jordan playing at his average level, instead of going god mode. Would've been much tighter, probably would've lost a game or two, perhaps even the series..but still could have won that series. But I'm not going to use that to bring down his performance, that's just silly.

I don't understand how it matters at all, or why that should be used to temper appreciation for these performances. Those teams did make the finals...it's not like he was torching some scrub ass team. They may have been weak finals opponents but they were still very good to elite teams, at worst.

[DaRkJaWs]

Which doesn't go against my Jordan reference. Could the Bulls have beat the Lakers without MJ? For sure...they lost game 1 by 2 points, and swept the next 4 by an average of 13 points. They absolutely could have won that series with Jordan playing at his average level, instead of going god mode. Would've been much tighter, probably would've lost a game or two, perhaps even the series..but still could have won that series. But I'm not going to use that to bring down his performance, that's just silly.

I don't understand how it matters at all, or why that should be used to temper appreciation for these performances. Those teams did make the finals...it's not like he was torching some scrub ass team. They may have been weak finals opponents but they were still very good to elite teams, at worst.
Good teams, I wouldn't categorize the 76ers or nets as great. And your Jordan reference misses the point, see my post above.

[Milbuck]

And even then it would be illogical. You can re-watch those finals on tape (or DVD) and see that despite Jordan's production, each game in that series was in the final minutes as well. What this goof and anyone else missing Y chromosomes don't understand is, the Bulls and Lakers wouldn't even be in position to win these games if not for their franchise players playing arguably the greatest and most efficient basketball we'll ever see.

Shaq and Jordan averaging monster numbers en-route to multiple championships and Final MVPs...is supposedly a bad thing?
Well yeah I'm not actually saying the Jordan thing, just a similar argument to his to prove how stupid it is.

[DaRkJaWs]

The bigger point of mine of course being that one shouldn't bring Kobe down for not winning fmvp when he had the capability to do so had the nets and 76ers ha the personnel to force shaq to pass out. Because don't be mistaken, both Kobe and shaq benefitted from the other being the floor.

[tpols]

Which doesn't go against my Jordan reference. Could the Bulls have beat the Lakers without MJ? For sure...they lost game 1 by 2 points, and swept the next 4 by an average of 13 points. They absolutely could have won that series with Jordan playing at his average level, instead of going god mode. Would've been much tighter, probably would've lost a game or two..but still could've won that series. But I'm not going to use that to bring down his performance, that's just silly.

I don't understand how it matters at all, or why that should be used to temper appreciation for these performances. Those teams did make the finals...it's not like he was torching some scrub ass team. They may have been weak finals opponents but they were still very good to elite teams, at worst.

It's not about bringing down Shaq... It's about people acting like Kobe could have never won a FMVP playing next to Shaq because LA was supposedly incapable of beating such powerhouses like the sixers without Shaq going for 35+/15.

Kobe has outplayed Shaq in a handful of series throughout their pairing.. He's had better advanced stats through whole playoff runs. It was completely possible for Kobe to have snagged a fmvp trophy but when the frontcourt competition you're facing is so weak it makes no sense to go away from shaq(even though they would've won doing that anyway.. Just maybe not sweeps).

If LA saw David Robinson and the spurs in the finals it's almost a certainty Kobe would have a fmvp since duncan and drob could contain Shaq and no one on that team could contain Kobe.

[DaRkJaWs]

It's not about bringing down Shaq... It's about people acting like Kobe could have never won a FMVP playing next to Shaq because LA was supposedly incapable of beating such powerhouses like the sixers without Shaq going for 35+/15.

Kobe has outplayed Shaq in a handful of series throughout their pairing.. He's had better advanced stats through whole playoff runs. It was completely possible for Kobe to have snagged a fmvp trophy but when the frontcourt competition you're facing is so weak it makes no sense to go away from shaq(even though they would've won doing that anyway.. Just maybe not sweeps).

If LA saw David Robinson and the spurs in the finals it's almost a certainty Kobe would have a fmvp since duncan and drob could contain Shaq and no one on that team could contain Kobe.

Win. And FYI, Kobe was going in between Duncan and Robinson for dunks, most amazing series Kobe has ever had IMO.

Btw this is last time I argue with my telephone lol.

[Milbuck]

It's not about bringing down Shaq... It's about people acting like Kobe could have never won a FMVP playing next to Shaq because LA was supposedly incapable of beating such powerhouses like the sixers without Shaq going for 35+/15.Well now we're changing the argument..I never said that, nor did I see any rational poster in this thread say that..maybe I just missed it.

I'm not saying Kobe couldn't win FMVP because of what the Lakers were or were not capable of doing without Shaq playing at a god-tier level. When I say Kobe couldn't have won FMVP, I'm saying it according to what actually happened.

Of course hypothetically I could definitely see scenarios in which 2001 or 2002 Kobe wins FMVP, if he plays to his absolute best and Shaq for whatever reason doesn't play at his. I just don't see how that's relevant here.

Kobe has outplayed Shaq in a handful of series throughout their pairing.. He's had better advanced stats through whole playoff runs. It was completely possible for Kobe to have snagged a fmvp trophy but when the frontcourt competition you're facing is so weak it makes no sense to go away from shaq(even though they would've won doing that anyway.. Just maybe not sweeps).Again...we're entering a completely different discussion here. Kobe in 2001 and 2002 was clearly at a level where he could've won FMVP over Shaq had things gone differently. When I say he couldn't win FMVP, I'm obviously saying it with the assumption that we don't change what Shaq did, that we keep that element of actuality constant.

If LA saw David Robinson and the spurs in the finals it's almost a certainty Kobe would have a fmvp since duncan and drob could contain Shaq and no one on that team could contain Kobe.Sure.. that is entirely realistic..I still don't see how what that has to do with what I was taking issue with in the other guys' posts..

[JohnFreeman]

Maybe top 10

[DaRkJaWs]

Some of you have a strange sense of reality. Kobe had the potential to win fmvp had the faced a different team, and now everyone acknowledges that. Hence it's pointless to diminish Kobe's contributions when he was doing the best thing for his team given the team they were facing. Just because he didn't win one although he had the skills and potential to do so does not diminish Kobe vis-vis other greats who did win fmvp. Ie context matters and what actually happened needs that context. History is not what happened at the end, its what led to that end. Get it now?

[DaRkJaWs]

Hence why I will continue to berate dumb threads like this one. Kobe would rank where he is now even with a finals mvp, as would shaq. The numbers, video, and context is there for us to see, we don't need narratives that give particular players hero status. Which is why some of you dumbos rate shaq so highly all time (ie in the top 4 or 5 all time)

[tpols]

Some of you have a strange sense of reality. Kobe had the potential to win fmvp had the faced a different team, and now everyone acknowledges that. Hence it's pointless to diminish Kobe's contributions when he was doing the best thing for his team given the team they were facing. Just because he didn't win one although he had the skills and potential to do so does not diminish Kobe vis-vis other greats who did win fmvp. Ie context matters and what actually happened needs that context. History is not what happened at the end, its what led to that end. Get it now?

Yes. That is the main point. And why adding a fmvp to his resume would not have mattered. You'd still get the same sidekick talk since he only would've won one while Shaq won two.. You'd have the same trolls calling kobes fmvp a Tony Parker or Chauncey Billups award. It really wouldn't change anything at all.. Arguments would just be framed a little different.

[Milbuck]

You guys are just completely changing the arguments now, and defending near-obvious truths that most reasonable, semi intelligent fans would accept or at least consider with sincerity.

Of course trolls are going to throw out the sidekick shit even if he wins a FMVP, to Shaq's 2. That's what makes trolls, trolls. I don't see why that matters whatsoever or why that even warrants consideration. Anyone who would shit on Kobe for winning a FMVP over 2000-2002 Shaq isn't worth the conversation.

The original point the dude made was that somehow Shaq was overrated at his peak because the Lakers could've won without him playing the way he did, that somehow his production was inflated due to him exploiting the certainty of a series victory. Which is fundamentally just an irrational opinion, guided by warped criteria on what constitutes on-court greatness.

[DaRkJaWs]

Oops n/t, nothing to see here.

[tpols]

The original point the dude made was that somehow Shaq was overrated at his peak because the Lakers could've won without him playing the way he did, that somehow his production was inflated due to him exploiting the certainty of a series victory. Which is fundamentally just an irrational opinion, guided by warped criteria on what constitutes on-court greatness.

I had responded to what was going on in the second page going forward.. But I just read the guys first post on the first page and, to your bolded that is not what he was doing.

He wasn't saying Shaq at his peak was overrated.. He's saying Shaq's FMVP awards are overrated.. Which they are. The team's LA faced in the finals were among the weakest teams they saw throughout their whole playoff runs.

How you play against the Kings spurs and Blazers.. The toughest competition >> how you play against the sixers and Nets. But because of how the playoffs were structured there has been placed an arbitrary importance on the finals. Probably because the finals usually includes two powerhouse teams and thus the toughest competition. That was never the case for the three peat Lakers.

[Milbuck]

I had responded to what was going on in the second page going forward.. But I just read the guys first post on the first page and, to your bolded that is not what he was doing.
It's not just the first post, and this thread isn't the only one where I've seen him talk about Shaq. Read through it.

He wasn't saying Shaq at his peak was overrated.. He's saying Shaq's FMVP awards are overrated.. Which they are. The team's LA faced in the finals were among the weakest teams they saw throughout their whole playoff runs.

How you play against the Kings spurs and Blazers.. The toughest competition >> how you play against the sixers and Nets. But because of how the playoffs were structured there has been placed an arbitrary importance on the finals. Probably because the finals usually includes two powerhouse teams and thus the toughest competition. That was never the case for the three peat Lakers.
..Ok, so the FMVP award in those contexts weren't as meaningful?..I fail to see how that diminishes the level he was playing at.


The lakers beat every team in 01 and 02 playoffs with a balanced team effort until the finals. You tell me why that changed in the finals from 00-02? An accident? No, shaq wanted to dominate and changed the lakers offense so he would benefit with a finals MVP.

Everyone knows shaqs numbers went up in the finals, and again that was no fluke or accident, shaq looked to position himself on every possession and his teammates, including Kobe, rewarded him.

^His quotes. Apparently, Shaq selfishly took a series that was a certain win, and used it to get his numbers. It's not like he was just flat out unstoppable, or anything.

So yeah, he didn't explicitly, word-for-word say "peak Shaq is overrated". But we're deluding ourselves if we're gonna say that's not the underlying theme of his posts. Moreso when you read his posts from that top 10 thread.

[DaRkJaWs]

I would say that I would take back what I said in the first post you quoted, but that it is possible for shaq to be unstoppable and for what I said to both be true. Remember that I did clarify much earlier that I was not trying to diminish what shaq did, and I still hold him in high regard, having him just below Kobe in my all time ranking. My issue is when you use these finals appearances against teams that couldn't matchup as proof somehow that a Shaquille o'neal was better than a wilt chamberlain peak wise or even prime wise or all time career. Or of course even to say Kobe was second banana. And on shaqs career, there's a lot left to be desired.

[Milbuck]

I would say that I would take back what I said in the first post you quoted, but that it is possible for shaq to be unstoppable and for what I said to both be true.
And if they are both true, why does that matter at all?

I love how we can just so casually say "well yeah he knew he was unstoppable, so he exploited that for his numbers and an award"...as if the initial fact that he WAS unstoppable isn't what actually matters :oldlol:

[tpols]

..Ok, so the FMVP award in those contexts weren't as meaningful?..I fail to see how that diminishes the level he was playing it.




^His quotes. Apparently, Shaq selfishly took a series that was a certain win, and used it to get his numbers. It's not like he was just flat out unstoppable, or anything.

So yeah, he didn't explicitly, word-for-word say "peak Shaq is overrated". But we're deluding ourselves if we're gonna say that's not the underlying theme of his posts. Moreso when you read his posts from that top 10 thread.



All he ever said was Shaq took advantage of weak teams and especially weak front court matches to get the awards he got. And he did. I'd be more impressed seeing Shaq score 30 ppg on David Robinson than 38ppg on Todd McCullough and Jason Collins.


You act like Shaq had this finals switch he could turn on to make him 'flat out unstoppable'... When the logical reason for his enhanced play is the decreased level of competition he faced in his frontcourt matchups in those finals series.

[DaRkJaWs]

And if they are both true, why does that matter at all?

I love how we can just so casually say "well yeah he knew he was unstoppable, so he exploited that for his numbers and an award"...as if the initial fact that he WAS unstoppable isn't what actually matters :oldlol:
Not when the team proved on multiple occasions that it was the total team effort and not shaq alone that made the team win games against great teams. That shaq dominated speaks badly on the team they played, it doesn't speak to shaq himself forcing the issue to win a championship they would otherwise lose, because there was zero chance of them losing. Funny how you said you understand what we are saying but then try to take it all back to shaqs actual numbers rather than how he got them and whether they were absolutely pivotal to them winning vs weak teams.

[DaRkJaWs]

So we don't get into he said she said again because milbuck wants to win the argument, I'll admit that I initially put too much agency into shaqs results, and not enough focus on the structure of the team (ie why I said shaq did this or that purposefully, when in fact that is how the team was designed to operate, but it operated the way it did due to weak competition). As I said, I was a little fuzzy with my argument early on but repeatedly tried to take it to my main point. I did what i set out to do, see you in the next thread

[Milbuck]

All he ever said was Shaq took advantage of weak teams and especially weak front court matches to get the awards he got. And he did. I'd be more impressed seeing Shaq score 30 ppg on David Robinson than 38ppg on Todd McCullough and Jason Collins.


You act like Shaq had this finals switch he could turn on to make him 'flat out unstoppable'... When the logical reason for his enhanced play is the decreased level of competition he faced in his frontcourt matchups in those finals series.
What was the monstrous matchup Kobe couldn't exploit in the 2001 finals? Say what you will about Shaq's match ups but he did go against the reigning DPOY..

And are we seriously going to act like Indiana and Philly weren't throwing everything they had at him? Like the dude was just dunking in an open paint without double and triple teams, like he had Bargs jumping 5 feet away from him and Boozer playing his patented screaming defense?

The worst part about all of this is that I agree with most of the stuff you've said about Kobe and his value on those teams, and have expressed those views myself..but I just can't get behind this notion that Shaq didn't clearly elevate his level of play in the finals, and that it was purely the exploitation of poor match ups.

[DaRkJaWs]

If you don't have the length to bother shaq some bodies wouldn't effect him unless they were strong. So what, wilt averaged 50 ppg with people hitting him all the time.

Good lord so you're just agreeing my initial sentiment, shaq was TRYING to ensure he got finals mvp, and he was exploiting a bad team.

[Milbuck]

If you don't have the length to bother shaq some bodies wouldn't effect him unless they were strong. So what, wilt averaged 50 ppg with people hitting him all the time.
I don't see how Wilt's dominance somehow takes away Shaq's..?

[DaRkJaWs]

I don't see how Wilt's dominance somehow takes away Shaq's..?
Because wilts was seemingly necessary for his team to win, while shaqs was not. Again, weak finals mvp, not weak shaq.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Because wilts was seemingly necessary for his team to win, while shaqs was not. Again, weak finals mvp, not weak shaq.
And again, that is bullshit. I've yet to see any LEGIT counter arguments to the stuff I've debunked in your earlier posts.

[fpliii]

Hence why I will continue to berate dumb threads like this one. Kobe would rank where he is now even with a finals mvp, as would shaq. The numbers, video, and context is there for us to see, we don't need narratives that give particular players hero status.
:applause:

I agree with this 100%. Accolades aren't changing anything, we know how both guys played. If a committee voted one guy over the other, makes no difference. We all watched the same series, and it would make no difference to any of us if an award was hand-waved to one guy as opposed to the other.

[Milbuck]

Because wilts was seemingly necessary for his team to win, while shaqs was not. Again, weak finals mvp, not weak shaq.
Just come out and say Shaq was a statpadder. You can keep toeing the fence, but reading your posts both in this thread and in that other one, we both know you aren't too fond of the dude. I don't know who you're trying to fool.

[tpols]

What was the monstrous matchup Kobe couldn't exploit in the 2001 finals? Say what you will about Shaq's match ups but he did go against the reigning DPOY..

And are we seriously going to act like Indiana and Philly weren't throwing everything they had at him? Like the dude was just dunking in an open paint without double and triple teams, like he had Bargs jumping 5 feet away from him and Boozer playing his patented screaming defense?

The worst part about all of this is that I agree with most of the stuff you've said about Kobe and his value on those teams, and have expressed those views myself..but I just can't get behind this notion that Shaq didn't clearly elevate his level of play in the finals, and that it was purely the exploitation of poor match ups.

Kobe was going against Allen Iverson mvp at the time.. And Eric snow who was a very good defender. Kobe could've torched them though.. He just didn't. Maybe he blew his load in the series against SAC and the spurs.. Idk. But his matchups definitely weren't as weak as Shaq's. All the talent on those East finals teams was on the perimeter.. Reggie, Iverson, kidd etc.

Regarding mutumbo.. He was catching mma elbows all series.. In addition to primarily being a help defender and having a slim build. The West had much better front courts to deal with Shaq.

Drob and Duncan..
Sabonis(ridiculously big body) and Rasheed..
Vlade and Webber
Even Ostertag and Karl Malone in the late 90s

Not only bigger bodies but offensively talented big guys who made Shaq work on defense. Compared to the east guys??

If Shaq comes off series averaging 30 against these guys it shouldn't come as a surprise he rapes a bunch of nobodies in the finals. But people still run with the narrative that shaq just 'got up' for the finals..

[DaRkJaWs]

And again, that is bullshit. I've yet to see any LEGIT counter arguments to the stuff I've debunked in your earlier posts.
I think you need to read again, everything has been addressed, if you want to quote something after having read everything, then feel free and I'll get back to u.

[Fire Colangelo]

Kobe took just as many shots as Shaq did in the 2001 finals while averaging like 10 points less.

It's not like Kobe wasn't getting his shots, he was just bricking 60% of them while Shaq was making 60% of them.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I think you need to read again, everything has been addressed, if you want to quote something after having read everything, then feel free and I'll get back to u.
I think you need to come up with better arguments because everything you have presented in my direction has been torn to shreds. Whether or not you "feel" Shaq's production wasn't needed doesn't actually match what happened. A harsh reality for your ilk.


Kobe took just as many shots as Shaq did in the 2001 finals while averaging like 10 points less.

It's not like Kobe wasn't getting his shots, he was just bricking 60% of them while Shaq was making 60% of them.
And...another pipe bomb.

[DaRkJaWs]

Just come out and say Shaq was a statpadder. You can keep toeing the fence, but reading your posts both in this thread and in that other one, we both know you aren't too fond of the dude. I don't know who you're trying to fool.
Nope, not going to let you misconstrue an argument that has been clearly established by this point. If I were to lay it all out again I'd just be repeating myself.

[DaRkJaWs]

Kobe took just as many shots as Shaq did in the 2001 finals while averaging like 10 points less.

It's not like Kobe wasn't getting his shots, he was just bricking 60% of them while Shaq was making 60% of them.
Lol, as if nobody here knew that shaq as a center is more efficient than Kobe. And this also misconstrues the argument as it's been laid out multiple times now, you're veering off-Topic here.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Lol, as if nobody here knew that shaq as a center is more efficient than Kobe. And this also misconstrues the argument as it's been laid out multiple times now, you're veering off-Topic here.
Shaq wasn't only more efficient than Kobe, but MUCH more efficient. Kobe shot below league average (2001) in that series.. This despite taking the same number of field goals. :oldlol:

[DaRkJaWs]

I think you need to come up with better arguments because everything you have presented in my direction has been torn to shreds. Whether or not you "feel" Shaq's production wasn't needed doesn't actually match what happened. A harsh reality for your ilk.


And...another pipe bomb.
Actually I agreed with some of the stuff you said but apparently you can't see that. You're just angry that your point about structure actually helped my argument. AND...we already established, that is we already came to agreement that the lakers were going to win anyway vs clearly inferior teams. I mean who on earth would argue otherwise after Kobe destroyed the spurs 4-0 in the previous series, a series with a much tougher team than the 76ers? Seriously?

[DaRkJaWs]

Shaq wasn't only more efficient than Kobe, but MUCH more efficient. Kobe shot below league average (2001) in that series.. This despite taking the same number of field goals. :oldlol:
Off-topic.

But FYI, if finals mvp was decided in the spurs/lakers matchup, Kobe would have been the clear winner. Which actually goes straight to my point.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Actually I agreed with some of the stuff you said but apparently you can't see that. You're just angry that your point about structure actually helped my argument. AND...we already established, that is we already came to agreement that the lakers were going to win anyway vs clearly inferior teams. I mean who on earth would argue otherwise after Kobe destroyed the spurs 4-0 in the previous series, a series with a much tougher team than the 76ers? Seriously?
I actually enjoy educating Kobe fans like yourself. I never agreed that LA was winning with Shaq playing average in 2001 and 2002, as I have repeatedly shown that 80% of those finals series were won in the FINAL minutes. This illustrates what I have been saying... Shaq's historical production was NEEDED to secure those chips.

[Milbuck]

Kobe was going against Allen Iverson mvp at the time.. And Eric snow who was a very good defender. Kobe could've torched them though.. He just didn't. Maybe he blew his load in the series against SAC and the spurs.. Idk. But his matchups definitely weren't as weak as Shaq's. All the talent on those East finals teams was on the perimeter.. Reggie, Iverson, kidd etc.

Regarding mutumbo.. He was catching mma elbows all series.. In addition to primarily being a help defender and having a slim build. The West had much better front courts to deal with Shaq.

Drob and Duncan..
Sabonis(ridiculously big body) and Rasheed..
Vlade and Webber
Even Ostertag and Karl Malone in the late 90s

Not only bigger bodies but offensively talented big guys who made Shaq work on defense. Compared to the east guys??

If Shaq comes off series averaging 30 against these guys it shouldn't come as a surprise he rapes a bunch of nobodies in the finals. But people still run with the narrative that shaq just 'got up' for the finals..
It isn't a narrative just because you say it is.. I don't understand how you can use "Eric Snow was a very good defender" and then on the other end trash Shaq's match ups just because they weren't flashy names like AI. In 2000 still went up against a 6'11" 250 pound tough, rugged, physical defender in Dale Davis, 7'4" giant in Smits, etc. None of these guys were HOFers but again, it's not like Shaq was feasting on some 8th graders. And are we to act like 1 on 1 match ups, exactly who these guys went up against is all that matters? Like Shaq didn't collapse defenses whatsoever, draw help constantly, etc.? The series went to 6 games and 3 of their 4 wins were by an average of under 5 points..Shaq's play was a direct factor in them winning, when things easily could've gone the other way in just a few plays.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Off-topic.

But FYI, if finals mvp was decided in the spurs/lakers matchup, Kobe would have been the clear winner. Which actually goes straight to my point.
Not at all. LA simply played a better team (#1 rated defense) in the finals. In 2002? Point taken, but in the end that becomes negligent knowing that Shaq abused the Kings...himself.

[DaRkJaWs]

I actually enjoy educating Kobe fans like yourself. I never agreed that LA was winning with Shaq playing average in 2001 and 2002, as I have repeatedly shown that 80% of those finals series were won in the FINAL minutes. This illustrates what I have been saying... Shaq's historical production was NEEDED to secure those chips.
Playing average means having average stats, roughly speaking. And if you disagree that they could not have won with shaq averaging the same as he did during the first three playoff series then you are in fact saying their wins vs better teams was somehow a fluke, because you sure as he'll aren't giving his team credit for being great. Yes, that is the illogic of this comment, which is mind-numbingly stupid.

[tpols]

It isn't a narrative just because you say it is.. I don't understand how you can use "Eric Snow was a very good defender" and then on the other end trash Shaq's match ups just because they weren't flashy names like AI. In 2000 still went up against a 6'11" 250 pound tough, rugged, physical defender in Dale Davis, 7'4" giant in Smits, etc. None of these guys were HOFers but again, it's not like Shaq was feasting on some 8th graders. And are we to act like 1 on 1 match ups, exactly who these guys went up against is all that matters? Like Shaq didn't collapse defenses whatsoever, draw help constantly, etc.? The series went to 6 games and 3 of their 4 wins were by an average of under 5 points..Shaq's play was a direct factor in them winning, when things easily could've gone the other way in just a few plays.
Okay. Please answer these two questions for me.

Who had the stronger front courts, LA's western or eastern opponents?

Who had the better backcourt in the same comparison?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Playing average means having average stats, roughly speaking. And if you disagree that they could not have won with shaq averaging the same as he did during the first three playoff series then you are in fact saying their wins vs better teams was somehow a fluke, because you sure as he'll aren't giving his team credit for being great. Yes, that is the illogic of this comment, which is mind-numbingly stupid.
During the "first three playoff series", Shaq put up historical numbers only a select few have averaged (hence why his PEAK is celebrated). Hardly average.

Your post doesn't make sense, then again most of your posts haven't in this thread.

[Milbuck]

Don't forget the DPOY on that Sixer team (and league wide), Mutombo.

Another good post though.
Yeah I mentioned Deke in the post prior to that one, all I got was that he was too slim to effectively guard Shaq, and was taking elbows to the face. Which are fair points, but imo leans more towards being sympathetic to Deke than giving the necessary respect to how monstrous a matchup nightmare Shaq was. I don't see people bringing down Lebron's 2012 finals, when he was terrific, despite 22 year old twig KD guarding him for significant time that series.

[T_L_P]

Wouldn't change that much.

I give Kobe a lot of credit for 01; he was the second best player in the league that season. He was LA's best player in the Western Playoffs. It was his peak in my opinion because he wasn't a great two-way player after that.

His play in the 02 Playoffs was beyond disappointing when compared to what he did the previous year (especially on defense, which is when he stopped being elite).

If you're gonna just talk about the Western Playoffs because that's where the best teams are/were, you need to do it every year. Kobe's TS% in the 02 Western Playoffs was .487. Kobe from 02-07 was a scorer and playmaker. When you're that inefficient, and you're only sharing the ball at an average rate for a guard, you're not bringing all time great value to your team.

[Milbuck]

Okay. Please answer these two questions for me.

Who had the stronger front courts, LA's western or eastern opponents?

Who had the better backcourt in the same comparison?
Not disagreeing with you on those points...find where I did.

I'm just saying that that doesn't cover the whole story. Saying matchup strength was the sole factor and Shaq didn't elevate his game individually, is just not the whole truth imo.

[DaRkJaWs]

During the "first three playoff series", Shaq put up historical numbers only a select few have averaged (hence why his PEAK is celebrated). Hardly average.

Your post doesn't make sense, then again most of your posts haven't in this thread.
No, his #s were a little higher in the finals....when I talked about "average" I was clearly referring to SHAQs normal average during that time frame (as meaning anything else is illogical). His team had higher scoring averages outside the finals, which is why they beat those playoff teams in 01 and 02. And Kobe was the main man in some of those series due to shaq having to pass back out against superior defenses.

[eliteballer]

Too bad Kobe had bad teams or injuries at the ages most players peaks come(24-28)

[Mr. Jabbar]

wouldn't change much, 5-7 depending on what you had for breakfast

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

No, his #s were a little higher in the finals....when I talked about "average" I was clearly referring to SHAQs normal average during that time frame (as meaning anything else is illogical). His team had higher scoring averages outside the finals, which is why they beat those playoff teams in 01 and 02. And Kobe was the main man in some of those series due to shaq having to pass back out against superior defenses.

Yes, we know his numbers were a "little higher" in the finals, but again, that does NOT take away from the fact, Shaq was playing at a level not many before and since have performed at. And again, for the nth time, the Lakers played better TEAM defenses in the finals. In other words, LA outside of Kobe and Shaq adjusted their play accordingly.

[Fire Colangelo]

Lol, as if nobody here knew that shaq as a center is more efficient than Kobe. And this also misconstrues the argument as it's been laid out multiple times now, you're veering off-Topic here.

He's much more efficient.

I don't know what your main arguments are since I'm too lazy to read through pages 2-3 to find out. But from what I've found on page 1:


Shaq's finals MVP awards mean nothing to me, in particular his 01 and 02 season (his 00 one is fair, mainly because he played that way in the regular season as well). The Lakers were going to beat the 76ers and Nets anyway, the question was how was it going to get done. Shaq decided he wanted to act all alpha on clearly inferior teams that had zero chance of winning, and we act like those MVP's actually mean something. The only thing it tells me is that Shaq played well and deserves some accolades for getting his team there, but once they were in the finals it didn't matter, the real finals were always in the conf finals (with exception of 2001, where nobody stood a chance against a good LAKERS team, of whom Shaq was one of out five players that made the Lakers an awesome team in those playoffs...sometimes I wonder if you guys actually watched any of the games prior to the finals, seriously).

I wish Kobe had decided to chuck away in those finals so that Shaq wouldn't have gotten the award, because those finals MVPs were meaningless anyway. Seriously do you guys have a brain? I can't believe that I'm probably the first person to point out the obvious about the 01 and 02 finals.

Again, Kobe was taking the same amount of shots Shaq was in the finals against the Sixers. It's not like Shaq magically decided to isolate Bryant. The difference was Shaq made 57% of his shots, while Kobe missed 59% of his shots.

Quiet a few of those final games in 01 and 02 ended in single digits. What makes you think it didn't take a historic performance from Shaq to get them through?

This is the NBA FFS, nothing is taken for granted. Nobody knows what would've happened had Shaq not put up 36/16 in game one in a 5 point win agains the Nets at home. Maybe the momentum would've been on the Nets side coming into game 2. Had Shaq not put up 35/11 on 63% in a 3 point win in game 3? What if Shaq didn't put up 34/10/4 on 60% in game 4 in a 6 point win in game 4 while Bryant shot 44%?

You think they would've won in 4 had Shaq not played the way he did?


Rofl, this commentary is terrible, what are you a 1 year old who never saw any of those playoff games or at the very least know that the finals winner was determined prior to 1st game against both the 76ers and nets?

Again, nothing is predetermined. The Sixers won 56 games in an Eastern Conference that was stronger than what you give credit for. Had Shaq not played the way he did, the Sixers and the Nets would've found a way to get back into the series.


Don't compare 01 and 02 to 04. Everyone knew the 76ers and nets would not win, the east was terrible back then and Kobe was making his shots and played great in those playoffs.

There were three 50+ win teams in the East in 01, two in 02 and two in 04.

Not sure what made the eastern conference in 04 that much stronger in 01. Oh yeah, because Pistons won the chip that year thanks to Kobe taking over.

He made 41% of his shots in 01. Decent series in 02 where his numbers were largely skewed by a 36/6/4 performance on 61% in game 3. A game where Shaq had to put up 35/11/2 on 62% to win by 3 points btw.


Like I said, I'm not gonna go through the other pages to find your "arguments", because your arguments on the first page were pretty weak.

Basically what you were trying to say was that Shaq's numbers were unneeded to win because the Sixers and the Nets sucked.

Going by your logic, let's take off Tim Duncan's 1999 FMVP and Kareem's 1971 FMVP off their resumes as well, since they played shitty teams in the finals.

Again, nothing is predetermined in the NBA. The only reason the Lakers beat the Sixers and Nets so easily was because of Shaq.

[tpols]

The way I break it down..

Duncan/Robinson, Sabonis/Sheed, Vlade/Webber
>>>
Jason Collins/ Todd Mccoulough/Kmart, mutumbo/Tyrone hill, Dale davis/Austin croshere/risk Smits.

Western front courts Shaq faced > eastern front courts.


And if you do the same comparison for Kobe? Kidd, AI, Reggie > most if not all western backcourts. In fact all of the great guards were out east..Iverson, Ray Allen, tmac, kidd, Vince Carter, packed with elite guard talent. Inversely the West was loaded with great big men.. KG, duncan, dirk, webber, Shaq himself of course.

Do I think Kobe dominated out west because he faced lighter guard competition and struggled in the finals because he had higher caliber opponents directly across from him? Yes I think there's a connection there. Same way I think Shaq dominated in the finals more so as a result of the eastern front courts being much weaker than what he faced in the west

[PsychoBe]

what a horrible argument this has become, let's look at the facts.

fact: shaq won more rings next to kobe than with any other perimeter player, even with wade when they played in a much weaker conference.

fact: kobe won more rings without shaq than shaq did with him.

fact: shaq faced easier matchups in the frontcourt of his fmvp runs at the time vs the eastern teams than in the west.

shaq's time were the finals. shaq even said it himself on open court when reggie said "you were the number one option", shaq corrected him and replied "no i wasn't. i just took advantage of my opportunities." he knew that he had to exploit his inferior match-ups in the finals as often as possible.

also the argument about "nothing is predetermined" can go both ways. if kobe doesn't go off in ot against the pacers in the 2000 finals when shaq fouls off. they lose, period. no ifs ands or buts.

[DaRkJaWs]

Anyway I'm done here, no matter how many times I've shared "the point" of why I'm bringing up these bullet points, you guys ignore it and act like shaq himself is being diminished, again no matter how many times we tell you we aren't. The point is if a different team were facing the lakers in the finals, Kobe had the skills to win a finals mvp. It just so happens that the team they faced, which had no chance of winning no matter how much some of you cry that the lakers were going to lose, played to shaqs strength while shaq simultaneously raised his game. Even though I'm impressed by what shaq did on the offensive side because it was dominant, it's not that impressive due to who they had to face, and the play of Kobe and the lakers in tougher series in the western conference prove that.

Personally I do believe certain aspects of shaqs career is glossed over and ignored in all time rankings, but that is a separate argument I was making on page 1 of this thread. I'm sad that some of you focused on that because my fingers are about to break on this phone trying to get some of U focused. B

[DaRkJaWs]

Anyway all this talk of shaqs #s being pivotal in winning is funny to me considering shaq would have lost half those games had it not been for Kobe's 4th quarter and final minute heroics. Sometimes we seem to forget that great performances sometimes lose out, and shaq was very fortunate that Kobe and the lakers finished off what shaq started, many players in nba history would killed for that.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

what a horrible argument this has become, let's look at the facts.

fact: shaq won more rings next to kobe than with any other perimeter player, even with wade when they played in a much weaker conference.

This clown talking about "horrible arguments" and then posts this. :oldlol: Hey jerk off, maybe the reason Shaq won more with Kobe than with Dwyane is because he was exiting his physical prime? I don't know? Just a thought...


fact: kobe won more rings without shaq than shaq did with him.

Same thing above. Turd.


fact: shaq faced easier matchups in the frontcourt of his fmvp runs at the time vs the eastern teams than in the west.

Kobe faced easier matchups before the finals. Fact: Team defenses were better in the finals during the years discussed ITT.

Like that? You ****ing masochist. :oldlol:


shaq's time were the finals. shaq even said it himself on open court when reggie said "you were the number one option", shaq corrected him and replied "no i wasn't. i just took advantage of my opportunities." he knew that he had to exploit his inferior match-ups in the finals as often as possible.

Shaq's "time" was throughout the regular season and playoffs ~ 2000-2002 Laker dynasty - where he finished higher than Kobe in MVP voting each one of those years.

This lesson was free of charge, btw.

[DaRkJaWs]

This clown talking about "horrible arguments" and then posts this. Hey jerk off, maybe the reason Shaq won more with Kobe than with Dwyane is because he was exiting his physical prime? I don't know? Just a
.
Yo uh, I don't think you want to go over shaqs record without Kobe, because it's pretty bad.

[Fire Colangelo]

The way I break it down..

Duncan/Robinson, Sabonis/Sheed, Vlade/Webber
>>>
Jason Collins/ Todd Mccoulough/Kmart, mutumbo/Tyrone hill, Dale davis/Austin croshere/risk Smits.

Western front courts Shaq faced > eastern front courts.


And if you do the same comparison for Kobe? Kidd, AI, Reggie > most if not all western backcourts. In fact all of the great guards were out east..Iverson, Ray Allen, tmac, kidd, Vince Carter, packed with elite guard talent. Inversely the West was loaded with great big men.. KG, duncan, dirk, webber, Shaq himself of course.

Do I think Kobe dominated out west because he faced lighter guard competition and struggled in the finals because he had higher caliber opponents directly across from him? Yes I think there's a connection there. Same way I think Shaq dominated in the finals more so as a result of the eastern front courts being much weaker than what he faced in the west

At no point did Shaq "struggle" in the playoffs. The only series Kobe played better than Shaq was in the Spurs series, where the Spurs lost by an average of 22 points.

Shaq was the better player throughout the playoffs in 01 and 02, nothing's gonna change that. He was most valuable player in the finals, and the most valuable player in the playoffs.

It's not like Kobe played better throughout the playoffs, and Shaq all of a sudden decided to isolate Kobe in the Finals and stat pad against a weak team.

You guys are making it sound like this is a Tony Parker tier of FMVP.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yo uh, I don't think you want to go over shaqs record without Kobe, because it's pretty bad.
Unless you think Kobe is better than Shaq and carries more impact, this is completely irrelevant.

[DaRkJaWs]

Kobe played better vs an elite spurs team, consistently, while shaq was beating up on weaker competition, and I'm sorry you don't like it but those are the facts. But the lakers team deserves the credit the most for everything in 2001 because they were just hitting everything. Best team I had ever seen in the past 14 years.

[Fire Colangelo]

Kobe played better vs an elite spurs team, consistently, while shaq was beating up on weaker competition, and I'm sorry you don't like it but those are the facts. But the lakers team deserves the credit the most for everything in 2001 because they were just hitting everything. Best team I had ever seen in the past 14 years.

Elite Spurs team that lost by an average of 22 points :lol :lol :lol they weren't that elite in 2001

[DaRkJaWs]

Unless you think Kobe is better than Shaq and carries more impact, this is completely irrelevant.
It's relevant to your discussion with that guy you berated. But in fact yes, I do rank Kobe one spot ahead of shaq in the all time ranks, #s 7 and 8.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Kobe played better vs an elite spurs team, consistently, while shaq was beating up on weaker competition, and I'm sorry you don't like it but those are the facts. But the lakers team deserves the credit the most for everything in 2001 because they were just hitting everything. Best team I had ever seen in the past 14 years.
Kobe played worse against a better defensive ball club in 2001. People forget, but Shaq went thru BOTH Duncan and Robinson. Kobe didn't face shit out on the perimeter via the Spurs.

[DaRkJaWs]

Elite Spurs team that lost by an average of 22 points :lol :lol :lol they weren't that elite in 2001
Aaahahahaahahahah look at you trying to get away with murder.

[Fire Colangelo]

Aaahahahaahahahah look at you trying to get away with murder.

Bruh, I know you came in trying to sound object and all.

We all know you're a closet kobe stan by now. No need hiding it, I like Kobe as much as the next guy, he just wasn't as good/impactful/dominant as Shaq was.

[PsychoBe]

This clown talking about "horrible arguments" and then posts this. Hey jerk off, maybe the reason Shaq won more with Kobe than with Dwyane is because he was exiting his physical prime? I don't know? Just a thought...



Same thing above. Turd.

against weaker competition? and losing when he had penny hardaway and d-scott doesn't mean anything either? especially in a sweep? :facepalm




Kobe faced easier matchups before the finals. Fact: Team defenses were better in the finals during the years discussed ITT.

Like that? You ****ing masochist. :oldlol:

the perimeter defense was much better yes, but not in the frontcourt. kobe was hounded by reggie and jalen rose (who intentionally injured him) and eric snow. shaq had to deal with the intimidating rik smits who, in the words of reggie, shaq would throw the bow and "take rik smit's head off"



Shaq's time was throughout the playoffs and regular season during the 2000-2002 Laker dynasty - where he finished higher than Kobe in MVP voting each one of those years.

This lesson was free of charge, btw.

i know it's hard for you to think about basketball before 2010 and you're doing your best to do your research but let me give you a real lesson.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BESnCrgCAAEHKku.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTId0VHCAAA6yfD.jpg

(2001) 48pts 16rbds classic vs Sacramento in game 4 of conference semi-finals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpArN4LbTI0

(2002) Wester conference semi-finals game 4: Kobe= 28pts incl the game winner with 5 seconds left: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWPWvJ2wr44

note: Final score: 87-85 L.A with Kobe outscoring the Spurs in the entire 4th 12 to 10

(2002) game 3 vs spurs. kobe= 31-6-6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8HgzXLQCTM (shaq had a whopping 22 points :oldlol: )

game 4: kobe had 28, shaq had another fmvp worthy 22

game 5: kobe had 26, shaq had 21.

need i go on?

[coin24]

Already top 5 GOAT.. 19th season and still the best:bowdown:

Shaq was nothing without kobe, just a ring chasing slob..

MJ
Kareem
Russell
Bird
Kobe
Magic
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Wilt

[T_L_P]

Kobe played better vs an elite spurs team, consistently, while shaq was beating up on weaker competition, and I'm sorry you don't like it but those are the facts. But the lakers team deserves the credit the most for everything in 2001 because they were just hitting everything. Best team I had ever seen in the past 14 years.

See my above post for 01. He was dominant.

But people are expanding that to the other two years for some reason. In the 9 Western series from 00-02, Kobe was the best Laker in three of them (01 Blazers, 01 Spurs, 02 Spurs)

Why are people acting like Kobe was the best in all 9 and Shaq just happened to pick it up in the Finals?

And regarding the Spurs: Derek Anderson (Duncan's second option) went down before the series.

Shaq was being guarded by two of the three best defenders in the league (and had to defend them on the other end). Kobe was being guarded by Antonio Daniels and a post-kidney surgery Sean Elliott. :biggums:

Talk about mismatches all you want: that one was far more glaring than any Shaq had in the Finals. And Kobe couldn't even guard role player Daniels effectively (the only three Spurs who produced in that series were All-NBAers Duncan and Robinson, and scrub-ass Daniels).

[DaRkJaWs]

Kobe played worse against a better defensive ball club in 2001. People forget, but Shaq went thru BOTH Duncan and Robinson. Kobe didn't face shit out on the perimeter via the Spurs.
:lol :lol :roll: :roll:

Dude you obv didn't watch that series, Kobe was dunking and putting layups all over Duncan and Robinson.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QVnDLP8xKE4

[PerfectCell]

The problem with MVP's and FMVP's is that if player X is marginally better than player Y 10 straight seasons X deserves to win the award 10 straight seasons(although many people will cry that Y should get one just because he deserves it). This makes Y's accomplishments look so much worse even though he would have won the award had he put up the same stats and X did not exist.

BTW not claiming that Shaq was only marginally better than Kobe or that Kobe would have put up the same numbers and accomplish the same things if Shaq didn't exist, just including those two scenarios to really illustrate my point.

[DaRkJaWs]

Bruh, I know you came in trying to sound object and all.

We all know you're a closet kobe stan by now. No need hiding it, I like Kobe as much as the next guy, he just wasn't as good/impactful/dominant as Shaq was.
Definitely a lower peak, but better prime and def. more impactful. If you want to see shaqs impact, go check how many times he got swept :lol :lol :lol

[PsychoBe]

Already top 5 GOAT.. 19th season and still the best:bowdown:

Shaq was nothing without kobe, just a ring chasing slob..

MJ
Kareem
Russell
Bird
Kobe
Magic
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Wilt

i wouldn't put kobe over magic but i don't disagree with your list for the most part :applause:

[houston]

dude already top 5 all-time

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

against weaker competition? and losing when he had penny hardaway and d-scott doesn't mean anything either? especially in a sweep? :facepalm

Against weaker competition? The Pistons in 2005 and in 2006 are better than all the teams the Lakers faced in the finals.

Not sure what Shaq did before Kobe has to do with anything (the comparison was w/ Dwyane), but you're a moron, so I'll just go ahead and move on.


the perimeter defense was much better yes

All that needs to be said, plus defensive rank per DRTG. Glad we agree.





i know it's hard for you to think about basketball before 2010 and you're doing your best to do your research but let me give you a real lesson.

Kobe was great in the 2001 and 2002 playoffs. Thank you for adding nothing of value.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It's relevant to your discussion with that guy you berated. But in fact yes, I do rank Kobe one spot ahead of shaq in the all time ranks, #s 7 and 8.
We have nothing to discuss. You're a full blown Kobe stan.

[6 for 24]

I rank Kobe #1, so that wouldn't change, but more accolades never hurt!

Now, in my book, Kobe should have received the Finals MVP in '04. I know that the usual precedent is to give it to a player on the winning side, but Kobe's chucking so far exceeded anything we had previously seen on that grandest of stages that it should have been rewarded. Why, I have even heard Pistons fans say that their MVP in that series was none other than Kobe "the self-proclaimed Black Mamba" Bryant! What an honor and a blessing.

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye

[Quickening]

2/5 fmvps... That matters a lot especially when people rank kobe over Shaq all time.

[dubeta]

I rank Kobe #1, so that wouldn't change, but more accolades never hurt!

Now, in my book, Kobe should have received the Finals MVP in '04. I know that the usual precedent is to give it to a player on the winning side, but Kobe's chucking so far exceeded anything we had previously seen on that grandest of stages that it should have been rewarded. Why, I have even heard Pistons fans say that their MVP in that series was none other than Kobe "the self-proclaimed Black Mamba" Bryant! What an honor and a blessing.

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye


:oldlol: