Sick of people downplaying Kobe's role in his first 3 championships

[Baller234]

"He was Shaq's sidekick..."

Fukk outta here.

That team doesn't win jack shit without Kobe.

Shaq was a dominant scorer but he couldn't win you the game in crunch time. He was also a goof who liked to have fun and didn't take winning as seriously.

Kobe was the pitbull. Kobe was the guy the team fed off. Kobe was the one who had to step up in crunch time. Shaq did NOT want that burden.

Was Shaq dominant? Absolutely. Could he have won with ANY other all-star as his teammate? I don't know. I think he needed a special player. Someone who could score but also someone who could take the lead and be the emotional leader of the team. Once that fear was gone, Shaq was able to focus on what he did best and not have to worry. The battery in his back was energized.

I really don't think it's comparable to the MJ/Pippen situation. Pippen wasn't filling in any blanks. Pippen was there to offer assistance. On offense he was there to either take pressure off MJ or get the ball to MJ. On defense fine it was more of a co-star situation but again he wasn't filling in a blank. Jordan already played amazing defense, he just needed help.

So yea, Kobe has 5 rings and 3 of them are with Shaq. Big deal. Doesn't fukking matter. 5 rings is 5 rings. Nobody holds Magic's first ring against him because he had Alcindor. And don't give me Game 6, that was one fukking game. They aren't in the finals without Alcindor.

Kobe wasn't no damn "sidekick". He was one half of the equation. A third of the equation if you want to include Phil.

[SATAN]

https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExeHkwdTh1bXhoYmlicncweGhiZng2cGs wbm1nMHY4NDBveGliZGp5aSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfY nlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/l0MYHtdLjWW6eIMVO/giphy.gif

:roll:

[warriorfan]

I wouldn’t sweat it, it’s a good litmus test to who knows two shits about ball and who doesn’t.

[John8204]

Yeah I never got the whole "sidekick" thing with Shaq. Shaq needed elite talent to win...he got swept and dominated many times in the playoffs without it. The bigger stain for those five rings is the Kings and Blazers conference finals series that were all-time tainted. We have pretty damning evidence of corruption in the officiating department during that time period.

[1987_Lakers]

The internet is why Kobe gets shit on for his 3 peat titles. Media/fans didn't care who was the best player on those 80's Lakers titles between Magic & Kareem, but at the same time the internet wasn't around then. The internet gave people a platform to speak their minds and new narratives were created, even if it wasn't fair. He wasn't the best player on those 3 peat teams, but Kobe was still a bonafide superstar at the time, at least in '01 and '02.

[90sgoat]

Shaq hasn't won anything without playing with a top 3 all time shooting guard. Penny was also on his way to being an all time great guard.

[ArbitraryWater]

Sidekick means being the worse player dummie.

He was quite obviously worse than Shaq.

[warriorfan]

Sidekick means being the worse player dummie.

He was quite obviously worse than Shaq.

Sidekick is a bit of a disingenuous term for the situation, being that most often of the time the “sidekick” is considerably worse.

So when you use sidekick to describe Kobe here you are using a term which usually refers to something quite differently.

[Kblaze8855]

Im not sure a title team exists that wins without its second best player. Doesn’t mean sidekicks don’t exist. It means you need the whole squad. I’m not sure the Bulls could’ve won a title without Horace Grant in the first 3 feet. And him being on the magic instead of the bulls is damn near the whole reason we lost in 95. The game has always been too individualized.

The word sidekick is often thrown out disrespectfully about any number of key players. But it doesn’t make the underlying concept wrong. People just go too far. Kobe was definitely the sidekick. That was Shaq’s team and that was a fairly common belief at the time. Doesnt mean Kobe was a minion along for the ride. Thats too far even in 2000 when the difference was massive compared to the next two.

[warriorfan]

Im not sure a title team exists that wins without its second best player. Doesn’t mean sidekicks don’t exist. It means you need the whole squad. I’m not sure the Bulls could’ve won a title without Horace Grant in the first 3 feet. And him being on the magic instead of the bulls is damn near the whole reason we lost in 95. The game has always been too individualized.

The word sidekick is often thrown out disrespectfully about any number of key players. But it doesn’t make the underlying concept wrong. People just go too far. Kobe was definitely the sidekick. That was Shaq’s team and that was a fairly common belief at the time. Doesnt mean Kobe was a minion along for the ride. Thats too far even in 2000 when the difference was massive compared to the next two.

It is subjective and kinda silly but I would say that calling Kobe a sidekick to Shaq is a misnomer. Maybe you can use 1a or 1b or some other term. But sidekick in my opinion isn’t an appropriate term. That’s reserved for someone who is considerably worse.

Like, Shaq was a sidekick to Wade during their heat run. That is a way better use of the word rather than using it to describe Shaq and Kobe Lakers.

(And btw I didn’t pick out the Shaq and Wade example to troll or anything. I have no problem with Shaq. Was just the first example that I came up with)

[Andrei89]

Vince Carter, T-Mac, Wade, Clyde De Glide would have all won a three peat if they replaced Koby

Sidekick he was, nothing else. Shaq was getting triple teamed, imagine how easy it was to score with nobody paying you no mind

[ShawkFactory]

It's all just a part of the Kobe/Lebron discourse.

Not really something to worry about or take seriously.

[SouBeachTalents]

I mean, this has been argued SO many times :lol

2000 he was the clear sidekick, and was outscored in the Finals by a historic margin
'01 & '02 it was more of a 1a/1b situation, with Kobe ascending to top 3-5 in the league

And while it's pure speculation, I do think McGrady, Vince, Allen, Pierce etc. could have won multiple titles with Shaq in Kobe's place

[StrongLurk]

Kobe won 4 rings as a superstar (01/02 and 09/10), which is all the matters in that all-time great discussions.

He was dogshit in 2000 finals so I don't even count that one.

[sdot_thadon]

The only people this chafes are guys that want so bad to say Kobe is better than/as good as xyz. In real time he was Shaqs sidekick that grew into a co-captain by the end of things. The thing that always amazed me was Kobe had an unprecedented career arc. Not a lottery pick, started out as a reserve that amazingly made an allstar team from there(a rare feat). Won a chip as a starter but clear sidekick, then grew into a player so good that we asked who was the better of the 2. Then Shaq was Kobed! Into the trash bin and he became a guy with legitimate arguments for best in the game. An MVP, Fmvp, legend. I don't think any other player in the arguable top 10 goat list started from the bench.

[90sgoat]

I mean, this has been argued SO many times :lol

2000 he was the clear sidekick, and was outscored in the Finals by a historic margin
'01 & '02 it was more of a 1a/1b situation, with Kobe ascending to top 3-5 in the league

And while it's pure speculation, I do think McGrady, Vince, Allen, Pierce etc. could have won multiple titles with Shaq in Kobe's place

Not McGrady and not Vince, two known choking cousins.

Allen and Pierce maybe, but only because young Allen was more of a slasher. Shaq needed someone who could set him up too. In fact I doubt it.

[tpols]

I remember a thread from last year where somebody said Kobes 2000 title is worth nothing because he got (purposely) hurt in The Finals.

He was All NBA, All Star, and All 1st team Defense that year.

[SouBeachTalents]

Not McGrady and not Vince, two known choking cousins.

Allen and Pierce maybe, but only because young Allen was more of a slasher. Shaq needed someone who could set him up too. In fact I doubt it.
I understand I can't undo the reputation he now has in 2024, but McGrady was basically on Kobe's level during that timeframe, he'd be the one I'd be most confident in being able to replicate Kobe's success.

[tpols]

I would hope Shaq could win titles with peak Tmac. Kobe won titles with less star help than that.

[sdot_thadon]

I remember a thread from last year where somebody said Kobes 2000 title is worth nothing because he got (purposely) hurt in The Finals.

He was All NBA, All Star, and All 1st team Defense that year.

Probably meant in the goat debate because rings as the best player was an Mj-born concept that persists lol. And if you're riding that particular narrative then his 2000 title is a Scottie Pippen title, which by no means can hold any value lol.

[tpols]

Probably meant in the goat debate because rings as the best player was an Mj-born concept that persists lol. And if you're riding that particular narrative then his 2000 title is a Scottie Pippen title, which by no means can hold any value lol.

Except when you realize Scottie Pippen has been ranked top 25 all time by some media outlets because of his rings so they obviously hold weight in the court of public opinion.

[sdot_thadon]

Except when you realize Scottie Pippen has been ranked top 25 all time by some media outlets because of his rings so they obviously hold weight in the court of public opinion.

Not in the modern goat debate. His contributions have been diminshed into dust to prop up the goat. I never understood why he needed to be downplayed to say Mj was great to this day. He's literally the 2nd best player on one of the greatest NBA dynasties ever.

[HoopsNY]

I mean, this has been argued SO many times :lol

2000 he was the clear sidekick, and was outscored in the Finals by a historic margin
'01 & '02 it was more of a 1a/1b situation, with Kobe ascending to top 3-5 in the league

And while it's pure speculation, I do think McGrady, Vince, Allen, Pierce etc. could have won multiple titles with Shaq in Kobe's place

If we mean the entirety of the 2000 season, then I'd agree. However, you isolated the finals. Kobe got injured in that finals due to Jalen Rose (though one could argue that he was somewhat recovered after game 5). And it was Kobe who rose to the occasion when Shaq fouled out in OT.

I would also argue that the real finals was the WCF. Portland was a stacked team and Kobe came up big in that series, particularly game 7. He put up more points, rebounds, assists, and had fewer turnovers than Shaq in that game. In addition, he somehow had a better TS% than Shaq for the series, though by a hair.

Kobe was their primary playmaker and while Shaq was solid defensively that year (probably his best defensive year), Kobe was stellar as well.

[Baller234]

Im not sure a title team exists that wins without its second best player. Doesn’t mean sidekicks don’t exist. It means you need the whole squad. I’m not sure the Bulls could’ve won a title without Horace Grant in the first 3 feet. And him being on the magic instead of the bulls is damn near the whole reason we lost in 95. The game has always been too individualized.

The word sidekick is often thrown out disrespectfully about any number of key players. But it doesn’t make the underlying concept wrong. People just go too far. Kobe was definitely the sidekick. That was Shaq’s team and that was a fairly common belief at the time. Doesnt mean Kobe was a minion along for the ride. Thats too far even in 2000 when the difference was massive compared to the next two.

Robin would occasionally bail Batman out of a jam but Batman was the one who usually finished the job.

Pippen was Robin, Grant was Batgirl.

It's hard for me to really call Kobe a Robin.

[tpols]

Robin would occasionally bail Batman out of a jam but Batman was the one who usually finished the job.

Pippen was Robin, Grant was Batgirl.

It's hard for me to really call Kobe a Robin.

Shaq was Superman and Kobe was Spiderman. Wasn't no Robins.

[ArbitraryWater]

Sidekick is a bit of a disingenuous term for the situation, being that most often of the time the “sidekick” is considerably worse.

So when you use sidekick to describe Kobe here you are using a term which usually refers to something quite differently.


Stop the semantics, Kobe was indeed clearly the 2nd best player.

[sdot_thadon]

Shaq was Superman and Kobe was Spiderman. Wasn't no Robins.

He absolutely was Robin, he just outgrew that role and became Nightwing. I can't think of a 19 year in NBA history that isn't Robin to THAT Shaq.

[FKAri]

Wasn't Kobe just a bench warmer for those runs? For the first 2 I'm not even sure if he made the playoff roster.

[SouBeachTalents]

Wasn't Kobe just a bench warmer for those runs? For the first 2 I'm not even sure if he made the playoff roster.
No Luis, it's not him, you're mistaken.

[FKAri]

Not McGrady and not Vince, two known choking cousins.

Allen and Pierce maybe, but only because young Allen was more of a slasher. Shaq needed someone who could set him up too. In fact I doubt it.

TMac was a much better set up man than Kobe. A healthy TMac absolutely wins with Shaq. In fact Shaq probably stays in LA if it was TMac.

[StrongLurk]

I remember a thread from last year where somebody said Kobes 2000 title is worth nothing because he got (purposely) hurt in The Finals.

He was All NBA, All Star, and All 1st team Defense that year.

I am that person. Kobe's 2000 ring is worth nothing ONLY when it comes to all-time great discussions/GOAT discussions.

Otherwise we'd hold MJ and Scottie as equals since they went 6/6.

Kobe played like shit in the 2000 finals and the Lakers won that series in spite of Kobe. Also Kobe took 25 shots per game the last 3 games of the series. Never seen an "injured" player shot 25 times per game before...oh wait, it's because he was fine by that point.

[Axe]

Sidekick is a bit of a disingenuous term for the situation, being that most often of the time the “sidekick” is considerably worse.

So when you use sidekick to describe Kobe here you are using a term which usually refers to something quite differently.
Sidekick sounds more like stephen curry in the playoffs during his first three championships. :whatever: