Tmac: 'Replace me with Kobe and I'm with Shaq, I don't win a championship?'

[Phoenix]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2qhmGMn9vc&ab_channel=ESPN

I'm surprised this soundbite ( starts at 4:52) didn't get any traction here. It's not exactly new ground but retreading well-worn talking arguments is an ISH past-time, so how are we feeling about this one?

This was of course a common argument years ago that between 2000-2002 you could have replaced Kobe with a Tmac/Vince/A.I and the Lakers would have still won a few of those chips.

[SouBeachTalents]

I’d prob rather have peak Shaq than Mike Miller, or whoever the fvck his best teammate was in Orlando :lol

[Phoenix]

I’d prob rather have peak Shaq than Mike Miller, or whoever the fvck his best teammate was in Orlando :lol

Depending on the year, it was either Miller or Darrell Armstrong.

:lol

That said, I think this conversation comes down to which version of Tmac and which year. 2000 Kobe wasn't quite there yet, so at the very least I think you could have replaced 2001-2003 Tmac there, especially 2003. 2001 Kobe took it up a notch over his 2000 self, but I think 2003 Tmac could have replaced him. The difference would mainly be the level of playoff domination, Shaq/Tmac aren't going 15-1 in the playoffs and sweeping the Spurs with 20-30 point blow-outs. The big thing people will often point to is, outside of hard to define things like 'intangibles' is defense, but they tend to forget that Tmac was a defensive-oriented player when he came into the league and that side of his game dropped off when he took on more offensive responsibilities in Orlando( which frankly, the same thing happened with Kobe because he was a better defender in 2000 and 2001 with Shaq holding down the middle than in 2006 when he was completely carrying the offense and had to pick his spots on defense). A similar thing happened with Kawhi, his offensive and defensive peak didn't occur in the same seasons. Now to be clear, none of this is to say that TMac= Kobe overall or anything like that, but that debate in the early 2000s did exist for a reason.

[tpols]

It would be disappointing if they didn't win 1 or 2 rings. They'd definitely win one at least. Even if they lost earlier 2003 would be ripe.

[ShawkFactory]

I think 2000 and 2001 they could have/should have won with TMac. Probably not in 2002, don't think they win that Kings series, but potentially in 2003.

[LAL]

Wonder how many rings would he have won if he replaced lebum those 4y with the heatles, 2/4?

Wonder how many Kobe would've with won Yao Ming and that supporting cast in Houston?

How many would KD win on the cavs from 15 to 18?

What if Jordan played for Boston from 86 to 91? Or Barkley?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Almost everyone that watched ball through the '00s thinks McGrady could have won with Shaq but I doubt this convo helps him because no one's mind is going to change. Who is just now discovering that McGrady was a great player or that Shaq was one of the two (along with Duncan) dominant forces of the era? Instead there will be some people that read his comments and take it as disrespect to Kobe. I don't take it that way myself but it has/will happen.

[Gudo]

Even if he gets one, which he likely will, I don't know that that will define his greatness exactly. Anchoring a ring with Shaq will not be enough, he has to be able to show his greatness in that organization for a long time.

[John8204]

It really depends on if it's the season when Shaq was motivated or when Shaq was coasting

[GOBB]

This was literally the argument back then. Tmac must have a bad memory. Then again he probably does when he said he cooked Kmart everytime he saw him. Dropping 40 40 30 etc. And it never happened. What a hot take there Tmac. Guess what? Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen were also SGs that if you took Kobe off and replace him with them? They would win a ring.

Your consistently didn’t get out the first rd tho. Then strangely enough you get hurt in Houston and that team makes it past first rd. Lol What’s his point exactly? You didn’t win but we should consider you a champion? Not how that works bud.

[GOBB]

Even if he gets one, which he likely will, I don't know that that will define his greatness exactly. Anchoring a ring with Shaq will not be enough, he has to be able to show his greatness in that organization for a long time.

Which is what Kobe faced until he got Shaq up outta there to show he could win without him. So not quite sure what Tmac is saying here. Plenty of great players. Hall of Fame players that didn’t win a ring. No one ever said he wasn’t a great player. But when you are compared to other greats like MJ, Kobe, Wade? Championships are apart of it and the role you played in winning them.

[E_Stamkos]

Yes Tracey, you would have won a ring with Shaq. There were several others who arguably would have won as said tandem. The more salient question is, whether you would have won in 2008-2010?

[RogueBorg]

Wonder how many Kobe would've with won Yao Ming and that supporting cast in Houston?



McGrady couldn't get out of the 1st round with that 55-win Houston team. He's a poor man's George Gervin at best. No defensive teams, none, zilch. So no T-Mac, you wouldn't have won with Shaq.

[SouBeachTalents]

McGrady couldn't get out of the 1st round with that 55-win Houston team. He's a poor man's George Gervin at best. No defensive teams, none, zilch. So no T-Mac, you wouldn't have won with Shaq.
You clearly don't know anything about McGrady. He was actually a good defender in Toronto, before having to dial back his defensive effort in Orlando carrying the offense on a trash team. He even did a great job defending Dirk in one of their playoff series in Houston. Marion & Sheed never made All-Defense either, that doesn't automatically mean they weren't very good defenders.

Believing peak Orlando McGrady isn't winning even one title with peak Shaq is frankly an atrocious take. The difference between Kobe & McGrady during that timeframe was virtually non-existent, even if you felt Kobe was better, the difference isn't enough to cause a 3-0 ring disparity next to a player like Shaq.

[j3lademaster]

I remember Kobe being very comparable to AI and Tmac in the early 2000’s. It wasn’t until his insane 2006 stint where he started to leave them in the dust, and when he won 2 with Pau he cemented that.

[iamgine]

Greatness is also about proving it in the biggest stage. If you don't get the opportunity because your teammates were trash, or unfortunate injuries, or your country doesn't allow you to play in the NBA due to cold war, then sucks for you.

[sdot_thadon]

There was a few years stretch before Tmacs body began to fall apart that there was a legit debate about who was better with Kobe. With that Shaq Tmac could win. I dont think thats a silly statement at all. Tmac was a baaad dude.

[ImKobe]

Unfortunately for T-Mac he was never in that situation to prove himself. Does he step it up in crunch time in the POs before his prime in 2000 to save the Lakers like Kobe did? We'll never know. He had the talent for sure. Kobe didn't just put up the numbers he did but was also clutch when the Lakers needed it, and I'm not talking last-second shots but just coming through in 4th quarters consistently. I do think he'd have won it in 2001 in Kobe's place as well he was that good.

[LAL]

There was a few years stretch before Tmacs body began to fall apart that there was a legit debate about who was better with Kobe. With that Shaq Tmac could win. I dont think thats a silly statement at all. Tmac was a baaad dude.
We know Tmac was impressive for 3 years.

But what if Kobe, Kawhi or KD for example played 23 healthy years with superteams like Lebron? 3 + 1 bubble ring?

[RRR3]

https://i.makeagif.com/media/4-24-2016/vzsDiL.gif
:roll:

[Hey Yo]

Unfortunately for T-Mac he was never in that situation to prove himself. Does he step it up in crunch time in the POs before his prime in 2000 to save the Lakers like Kobe did? We'll never know. He had the talent for sure. Kobe didn't just put up the numbers he did but was also clutch when the Lakers needed it, and I'm not talking last-second shots but just coming through in 4th quarters consistently. I do think he'd have won it in 2001 in Kobe's place as well he was that good.

Exactly how did Kobe save the Lakers in 2000?

[LAL]

Unfortunately for T-Mac he was never in that situation to prove himself. Does he step it up in crunch time in the POs before his prime in 2000 to save the Lakers like Kobe did? We'll never know. He had the talent for sure. Kobe didn't just put up the numbers he did but was also clutch when the Lakers needed it, and I'm not talking last-second shots but just coming through in 4th quarters consistently. I do think he'd have won it in 2001 in Kobe's place as well he was that good.

You shouldn't even entertain this crap, they only seem to be doing it with Kobe. You don't hear KG complaining about not being in Duncan's position or some shit like that.

[LAL]

:roll:

I know why you're mad and i love it.

[LAL]

:roll:

I know why you're mad and i love it.

[ImKobe]

Exactly how did Kobe save the Lakers in 2000?

He was their best player in Game 7 against Portland, a game where they needed to come back from 15 down in the 4th which was a lot for that era. Hit the go-ahead FTs and then crossed Pippen to put them up by 4, crossed him again which set up the lob to Shaq that's been replayed a million times by now. Shaq also fouled out on the road in the Finals and Kobe closed it out playing on one leg which put the Lakers up 3 - 1 instead of having it tied 2 - 2 and giving Indy a chance to go up 3 - 2 at home (they won Game 5).

That's what I'm questioning. T-Mac was never put in those positions. He was a great player but does he come through in do or die situations? Would he have been ready to do what Kobe did in 2000, or the years that followed it? It's one thing to put up numbers on a team that has no expectations and where the offense is built around one player, but Kobe delivered under pressure more often than not.

[RRR3]

He was their best player in Game 7 against Portland, a game where they needed to come back from 15 down in the 4th which was a lot for that era. Hit the go-ahead FTs and then crossed Pippen to put them up by 4, crossed him again which set up the lob to Shaq that's been replayed a million times by now. Shaq also fouled out on the road in the Finals and Kobe closed it out playing on one leg which put the Lakers up 3 - 1 instead of having it tied 2 - 2 and giving Indy a chance to go up 3 - 2 at home (they won Game 5).

That's what I'm questioning. T-Mac was never put in those positions. He was a great player but does he come through in do or die situations? Would he have been ready to do what Kobe did in 2000, or the years that followed it? It's one thing to put up numbers on a team that has no expectations and where the offense is built around one player, but Kobe delivered under pressure more often than not.
T-Mac was a year younger than Kobe. At the same age as Kobe in 2000, T-Mac was putting up ~27/8/5, they wouldn't have needed a game 7 with 21 year old T-Mac.

[SouBeachTalents]

T-Mac was a year younger than Kobe. At the same age as Kobe in 2000, T-Mac was putting up ~27/8/5, they wouldn't have needed a game 7 with 21 year old T-Mac.
McGrady didn't have the killer instinct/mamba mentality that Kobe had.

[ImKobe]

T-Mac was a year younger than Kobe. At the same age as Kobe in 2000, T-Mac was putting up ~27/8/5, they wouldn't have needed a game 7 with 21 year old T-Mac.

I do think he wins one with Shaq btw, just saying we don't know how these guys fit together or if they can perform in pressure moments in the POs. If he started his career with Shaq like Wade did and then got Bron I'm sure he could've replicated Wade's career. T-Mac is one of the bigger what-ifs in NBA history, but we judge players on their accomplishments.

[Meticode]

All-Defense Teams

Kobe: 12 (9 first, 3 second)
T-Mac: 0

These players aren't in the same category overall when factoring both sides of the ball. McGrady was offensively gifted just as Kobe was if not more, but Kobe became more skillful midway to the later parts of his career...especially with his post footwork. And let's not even talk about defense. Maybe T-Mac wins a ring with Shaq, but he's not three-peating.

[RRR3]

McGrady didn't have the killer instinct/mamba mentality that Kobe had.
Hand down. MAN DOWN.

[LAL]

T-Mac was a year younger than Kobe. At the same age as Kobe in 2000, T-Mac was putting up ~27/8/5, they wouldn't have needed a game 7 with 21 year old T-Mac.
No that was 2001 you dipshit. In 2000 he was toronto and wanted his own team, now he's crying. Why didn't he stick it out with Vince? Like Kobe did in LA? And no he was never as skilled as Kobe honestly and like the other poster mentioned, Defense.

Think he could average those 27/8/5 with Vince? Kobe did with Shaq and everyone knew he was being held back offensively.

Kobe & Shaq will be remembered as the most dominant duo for a long long time and for obvious reasons, those are the facts. Then you have Kobe's career as whole.

Gilbert nodding his head like the bron nut huging kluch slave he is, ugh.

[97 bulls]

Didn't Tmac play with Yuo Ming? He was better than Pau Gasol.

[sdot_thadon]

Didn't :oldlol:Tmac play with Yuo Ming? He was better than Pau Gasol.

Uh Yao ming was made of walking paper mache during that time and Tmac was made of popsicle sticks himself. He was great when he played but when did they actually play? I went to maybe 7 rockets games when we had both. I saw Tmac once, Yao once and the supporting cast the other 5 games lol. I'll never forget the one time I got to watch Yao the thing rhat immediately struck me a few minutes into the game was how painful just getting up the floor looked for him.

[sdot_thadon]

We know Tmac was impressive for 3 years.

But what if Kobe, Kawhi or KD for example played 23 healthy years with superteams like Lebron? 3 + 1 bubble ring?

I dunno what's more impressive your inability to get over Lebron or the way you post under other accounts like we dont know who you are you angry midget.

[Da_Realist]

Replace Kobe with rookie TMac in 1997, I don't think they'd win anything. Shaq didn't win with a better player (Penny) in Orlando. I don't think TMac had the drive or the fire to push the boundaries like Kobe did. I don't think TMac would have stepped on any toes to get a win like Kobe did and that's because I don't think TMac wanted to win as much as Kobe did. I don't think TMac worked as hard as Kobe did. He certainly didn't play defense the way Kobe did. And as talented as TMac was offensively, I don't think his game fit quite as well in the Triangle as Kobe's did.

Replace Kobe with TMac in 1997 (which is where it should start, not at the mountaintop like TMac wants us to do), they would have kept getting swept by the Jazz and then the Spurs and maybe beaten by the Blazers and Kings too. Shaq was also a force in 1997 and 1998. But until Shaq had a guy that lifted the competitive spirit of the team and was willing to take on the pressure of big games, he was going to keep getting swept. Kobe's fire burned. Maybe too hot at times but that's better than nothing.

I think TMac should have won a playoff series before asking us to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

[L.Kizzle]

Young T-Mac would also have Phil Jackson as his coach and not whoever was in Orlando (was it Doc Rivers?)

[Tavr]

I think people take issue with TMac saying he's never had an opportunity to win in his prime, which absolves him of blame. They also take exception with Tmac ignoring intangibles and defense. Kobe had over 10 all-defensive teams in his career (his best defensive seasons were with Shaq). Tmac? 0.

Of course Mcgrady COULD win a ring with Shaq, just like Allen Iverson, Vince Carter and a few other players back then COULD. I doubt he 3-peats with Shaq though. And definitely wouldn't bet on him winning with Pau Gasol.

[90sgoat]

I remember back in 2006/7 ish, in Kobe's crap Lakers years, there was definitely A LOT of discussion of Kobe vs T-Mac and then Lebron up and coming but no one really considering him in the run yet.

My criticism of T-Mac is he pioneered the hyper-ball dominant playstyle. Walk the ball up slowly so you don't have the full shot clock, then iso or shoot a 3, no one touching the ball. Gilbert Arenas was even worse, but didn't have the same skill.

I'd say T-Mac had that same Kobe ability to hit bad shots consistently, but he did shoot a lot of bad shots.

In any case, T-Mac is probably his generation Dominique Wilkins. Everyone who watched T-Mac knows how great he was, but he's all but forgotten in the talks and NBA lore.

Does he win one with Shaq? Probably, I think a lot of guards win one. Does he 3-peat with Shaq? Not so sure about that.

The one I'd have liked to see was Grant Hill without injuries with Shaq. We talk about if Tim Duncan came to Orlando, but if Hill with no injuries play with Shaq, it's going to be crazy.

[L.Kizzle]

I think people take issue with TMac saying he's never had an opportunity to win in his prime, which absolves him of blame. They also take exception with Tmac ignoring intangibles and defense. Kobe had over 10 all-defensive teams in his career (his best defensive seasons were with Shaq). Tmac? 0.

Of course Mcgrady COULD win a ring with Shaq, just like Allen Iverson, Vince Carter and a few other players back then COULD. I doubt he 3-peats with Shaq though. And definitely wouldn't bet on him winning with Pau Gasol.
The post right above, I mentioned Phil Jackson. He's very important in Shaq and Kobe's development that doesn't get enough attention.

That plays a factor. How does Kobe do if he comes up in Charlotte instead of LA.

[LAL]

I dunno what's more impressive your inability to get over Lebron or the way you post under other accounts like we dont know who you are you angry midget.

Never in my life did i create multiple accounts, that's mostly a lebum stan thing, it's funny to see on social media where you guys pretend to be fans of other random teams to bring him up for no ****ing reason in discussions and to defend his legacy all day long.

I know it's crazy to you i don't post a lot.

[LAL]

The post right above, I mentioned Phil Jackson. He's very important in Shaq and Kobe's development that doesn't get enough attention.

That plays a factor. How does Kobe do if he comes up in Charlotte instead of LA.
Yes Phil is important and Kobe would've sucked and never won if he was the number option on another team starting from 97. Great argument.

[Phoenix]

Replace Kobe with rookie TMac in 1997, I don't think they'd win anything. Shaq didn't win with a better player (Penny) in Orlando. I don't think TMac had the drive or the fire to push the boundaries like Kobe did. I don't think TMac would have stepped on any toes to get a win like Kobe did and that's because I don't think TMac wanted to win as much as Kobe did. I don't think TMac worked as hard as Kobe did. He certainly didn't play defense the way Kobe did. And as talented as TMac was offensively, I don't think his game fit quite as well in the Triangle as Kobe's did.

Replace Kobe with TMac in 1997 (which is where it should start, not at the mountaintop like TMac wants us to do), they would have kept getting swept by the Jazz and then the Spurs and maybe beaten by the Blazers and Kings too. Shaq was also a force in 1997 and 1998. But until Shaq had a guy that lifted the competitive spirit of the team and was willing to take on the pressure of big games, he was going to keep getting swept. Kobe's fire burned. Maybe too hot at times but that's better than nothing.

I think TMac should have won a playoff series before asking us to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

Good post. There are some things assumed (not from you specifically, just in general) around how this hypothetical scenario would play out. I will touch on a few of your points:

- You said Shaq didn't win with a better player in Penny( Orlando), but 1) while Orlando Shaq was dominant he was unquestionably a better player by 2000,at least a more cerebral one, so eventually Tmac would have had access to the best version of Shaq( and I would say 2003-2005 Tmac was better than Penny ever was until his body failed). I would also argue that the Shaq/Penny duo never maxed out because they happened to run into a historically great Bulls team in 96( if they managed to get past Chicago that year, I'd have taken them over Seattle. Shaq would have feasted and neutralized Kemp and Penny/Anderson/Scott are more than a match for Payton/Hawkins/Detlef, the rosters otherwise didn't feature any major edges one way or another). Shaq then leaves and Penny's last great year is 97. They 'should' have been the next dynasty after the Bulls reign ended, but neither here nor there at this point.

- Are the same roster moves happening if Tmac is on the squad? Eddie Jones was moved for Glen Rice to open up the SG spot for Kobe. I wonder if there's a scenario where Tmac starts at the 3 and Jones is kept at the 2. What does that mean for how things shook out? Well Rice provided floor spacing but I would have preferred Jones overall floor game in this scenario. He and Tmac form an interesting offense/defense duo where Tmac is able to take off the gas a little on offense and be a better defender( which as stated previously, he was a good defender in Toronto, and he and Jones would be able to switch defensively depending on matchups). They would be dynamic on the break and then you have Shaq anchoring everything in the halfcourt. No idea if that ever comes to fruition but the whole conversation is a hypothetical.

- How does TMac adjust to the triangle? What is his relationship with Shaq likely to be( TMac went to Orlando originally to play 2nd fiddle to Grant Hill, so he obviously wouldn't have any issue doing so for Shaq). How much does Phil improve his approach to the game( Phil is on record as saying Kobe was uncoachable at one point, something I don't think I've ever heard applied to TMac)? As great as Shaq/Kobe was at their best, their battle for control of the team from 2001 probably cost them 2 titles. What 'should' have happened is Shaq gradually hand over control of the team to Kobe in 2004, the former exiting his peak as the latter enters his, and revitalize the supporting cast with quality pieces to keep them in contention. Since these are all assumptions, maybe TMac's back holds just a wee bit longer since he's not carrying the weight of an offense? The Lakers are still contending for titles from 2000 through, I don't know, 2005? 2006? I have a hard thinking at least one of those years LA doesn't pull through.



Otherwise, basically everything you're saying about Kobe and Tmac, asides from health, was the difference in that Kobe just had much greater competitive fire. health and there are circumstances where he rose to the occasion that I simply can't just slide Tmac into and say he does as well, like game 7 vs the Blazers in 2000 and 2001 WCFs vs the Spurs off the top of my head. But then you'd have to also play the game that THOSE exact scenarios play out the same way, and we know that a move of this magnitude is going to play out differently in terms of the 'pebble in the lake' ripple effect. Generally you are right that Tmac's inability to get out of the first round( if I recall he had three 3-1 leads in his playoffs career and lost the series ALL three times), makes it hard for him to just say 'sure, you put me in Kobe's spot and I'm doing the same shit'. No, he wouldn't just off the intangibles. I do think he manages one ring though, which of course doesn't equate to what Kobe managed. And it would probably come down to those intangible differences you outline. But even with a single ring, based on the 'rings culture' argument it doesn't do much for his personal legacy. Despite not having any team success, under Shaq his numbers would have been capped and he'd have been seen as a 'Robin' just as Kobe was. I'm not sure winning a title changes much of how people would see him in a vacuum as far as career rankings and whatnot, except he wouldn't have the '2nd round virgin' tag.

[SouBeachTalents]

People really think McGrady is winning zero titles with peak Shaq? Y'all are tripping :lol

[Meticode]

People really think McGrady is winning zero titles with peak Shaq? Y'all are tripping :lol

Correct. Kobe > McGrady as an overall basketball player. Maybe they get one, but not threepeat.

[SouBeachTalents]

Correct. Kobe > McGrady as an overall basketball player. Maybe they get one, but not threepeat.
In the early 2000's? He really, really wasn't. The idea 3peat Kobe was discernably better than Orlando McGrady is just patently false, it's rewriting history.

I'm sure in 10 years they'll be making this claim about Kobe & Wade too.

[Phoenix]

People really think McGrady is winning zero titles with peak Shaq? Y'all are tripping :lol

Lol. I mean I get the argument that Kobe in some situations had an 'it' factor which drove his greatness, TMac always seemed, comparatively speaking, to coast more on his natural gifts and not as hyper-competitive. It's harder to pinpoint talent/skill differences in that 2002-2005 period than just seeing how each one approached the competitive scenarios they found themselves in. Still, if Tmac joins Shaq in 97 and has Shaq through 2005 or 6( meaning Shaq doesn't go to Miami), if you assume he still becomes as good as we saw, there's probably two titles in there. I had a hard time imagining at least not one. I don't know how good Tmac would have been in 2000, but 2000 Kobe was a step behind his 2001 version and the rest of the starting lineup was 35 year old AC Green, 36 year old Ron Harper, and 33 year old end of prime Rice. That team didn't exactly need *peak* Kobe to win that title( they would have had to get past the Blazers and as I said, Kobe was great in that game 7). But between 2001 and 2005? Gotta be at least a title or two in there.

[Phoenix]

In the early 2000's? He really, really wasn't. The idea 3peat Kobe was discernably better than Orlando McGrady is just patently false, it's rewriting history.

I'm sure in 10 years they'll be making this claim about Kobe & Wade too.

They already are now. You have people at this very moment acting like 2009 Wade, Kobe and Lebron wasn't a legit conversation. Or that alot of people didn't thought Wade was the best player in 2007 coming off the title/FMVP before his shoulder injury. Or that Wade wasn't staring right down the barrel at Lebron between like 2005-2011. People view these things in hindsight acting like these weren't conversations happening in real time back then.

[SouBeachTalents]

Lol. I mean I get the argument that Kobe in some situations had an 'it' factor which drove his greatness, TMac always seemed, comparatively speaking, to coast more on his natural gifts and not as hyper-competitive. It's harder to pinpoint talent/skill differences in that 2002-2005 period than just seeing how each one approached the competitive scenarios they found themselves in. Still, if Tmac joins Shaq in 97 and has Shaq through 2005 or 6( meaning Shaq doesn't go to Miami), if you assume he still becomes as good as we saw, there's probably two titles in there. I had a hard time imagining at least not one. I don't know how good Tmac would have been in 2000, but 2000 Kobe was a step behind his 2001 version and the rest of the starting lineup was 35 year old AC Green, 36 year old Ron Harper, and 33 year old end of prime Rice. That team didn't exactly need *peak* Kobe to win that title( they would have had to get past the Blazers and as I said, Kobe was great in that game 7). But between 2001 and 2005? Gotta be at least a title or two in there.
I've always had beef with the 2000 WCF argument because they wouldn't have needed Kobe's heroics in the first place if he had played better earlier in the series.

12 points on 2/9 in a Game 2 loss

17 points on 4/13 & 6 TO's in a Game 5 loss

I'm confident Orlando McGrady is performing better than that, esp with Shaq being the focus of the defense.

[Meticode]

Are the same roster moves happening if Tmac is on the squad? Eddie Jones was moved for Glen Rice to open up the SG spot for Kobe. I wonder if there's a scenario where Tmac starts at the 3 and Jones is kept at the 2. What does that mean for how things shook out? Well Rice provided floor spacing but I would have preferred Jones overall floor game in this scenario. He and Tmac form an interesting offense/defense duo where Tmac is able to take off the gas a little on offense and be a better defender( which as stated previously, he was a good defender in Toronto, and he and Jones would be able to switch defensively depending on matchups). They would be dynamic on the break and then you have Shaq anchoring everything in the halfcourt. No idea if that ever comes to fruition but the whole conversation is a hypothetical.

The same rosters moves definitely don't happen. For example, Horry, Salley and Shaw were brought in to be professional vets and to be mediators between Shaq and Kobe's tenuous relationship and to keep the peace. If Horry isn't there the Lakers don't beat the Kings and move on to win the Finals. Also, the whole reason Phil Jackson was brought in was because Shaq and Kobe wanted him since neither of them connected to Del Harris or Kurt Rambis. Jerry West hated Jackson ever since he got elbowed in the face and broke his nose back in the day. West brought Jackson in for two reasons. One, Shaq and Kobe wanted him. Two, he thought Jackson could control their egos that clashed. Jackson was the one behind bringing in Shaw, Horry and Salley and he was the one that told Kobe point blank that he needs to differ to Shaq because he was the Lakers' biggest advantage against everyone or he would be traded. So Kobe differed.

If McGrady and Shaq played together who's to say the Jackson ever comes in.

[SouBeachTalents]

They already are now. You have people at this very moment acting like 2009 Wade, Kobe and Lebron wasn't a legit conversation. Or that alot of people didn't thought Wade was the best player in 2007 coming off the title/FMVP before his shoulder injury. Or that Wade wasn't staring right down the barrel at Lebron between like 2005-2011. People view these things in hindsight acting like these weren't conversations happening in real time back then.
People will always let a players all-time status affect their perception of where they stood in the league when they played. Since Kobe is like 50 spots ahead of McGrady on the all-time list, there's no way they could've been equals when they played. I'm sure Wade & Kawhi will meet the same fate when people act like Kobe was clearly better than both of them.

[Meticode]

In the early 2000's? He really, really wasn't. The idea 3peat Kobe was discernably better than Orlando McGrady is just patently false, it's rewriting history.

I'm sure in 10 years they'll be making this claim about Kobe & Wade too.

Kobe was a better overall basketball player than McGrady. You put Kobe on the Magic at the same time without having to differ like he had to in Los Angeles to Shaq during the threepeat he's putting up the same or better numbers. Plus, Kobe plays both sides of the ball. McGrady never did. Ever.

[Tavr]

The post right above, I mentioned Phil Jackson. He's very important in Shaq and Kobe's development that doesn't get enough attention.

That plays a factor. How does Kobe do if he comes up in Charlotte instead of LA.

Sure. Phil DID help Kobe and Shaq to some degree, "massaging" their egos so they could co-exist. Regardless of that, though, I think we can all agree Kobe and Shaq were just better all-around players.


In the early 2000's? He really, really wasn't. The idea 3peat Kobe was discernably better than Orlando McGrady is just patently false, it's rewriting history.

I'm sure in 10 years they'll be making this claim about Kobe & Wade too.

The only season that really sticks out was in 2003. Who was saying Tmac was better than Kobe in 2001? Lol not even Shaq did who actually called Kobe the best player in the world.

IMO Shaq and TMac could win multiple, and likely win AT LEAST 1, but its hilarious how people flatout ignore defense. You mentioned the word discernably...well there's a discernable gap defensively. :lol

[SouBeachTalents]

People genuinely don't know what they're talking about acting like McGrady wasn't at least capable of good defense. His last season in Toronto he finished just outside the top 10 in blocks per game, just shy of 2 a night. Like a lot of stars who do everything offensively on shit teams, including Kobe in '06/'07, he had to dial back his defensive effort in order to carry those garbage Magic teams entirely.

Then in Houston he did a great job defending Dirk in their playoff series, holding him to 16/48 shooting when guarding him directly.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Znpf7nl_0&ab_channel=BrittanieBode

I'm not even trying to argue McGrady was on Kobe's level defensively, but the notion he couldn't play defense is wrong. I'm confident he would've been putting in good defensive effort if he had the luxury of playing with peak Shaq.

[Tavr]

All-Defensive Teams:

Kobe - 12
TMac - 0

I mean, what are we doing here? :lol

[Meticode]

All-Defensive Teams:

Kobe - 12
TMac - 0

I mean, what are we doing here? :lol

I already brought it up earlier. People either ignore the other side of the ball or they undervalue it.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?521916-Tmac-Replace-me-with-Kobe-and-I-m-with-Shaq-I-don-t-win-a-championship&p=15017574&viewfull=1#post15017574

[RRR3]

I already brought it up earlier. People either ignore the other side of the ball or they undervalue it.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?521916-Tmac-Replace-me-with-Kobe-and-I-m-with-Shaq-I-don-t-win-a-championship&p=15017574&viewfull=1#post15017574
More like you ignored soubbeachtalents posts

[tpols]

All-Defensive Teams:

Kobe - 12
TMac - 0

I mean, what are we doing here? :lol

That... doesn't mean much when we're talking about a short window here. 2001-2005 tmac Shaq should win at least 1 ring.

Kobe is better thats why he went 5 time champ, but tmac in his short prime was like a 6'10 SGA.

[SouBeachTalents]

I'm not even trying to argue McGrady was as good as Kobe defensively, I would cede that argument. But using Kobe's All-Defensive Teams as indicative of how good he was as a defender is a terrible argument. That would indicate he was literally the greatest perimeter defender ever, and most fans know the majority of those selections were completely undeserved.

And I was showing McGrady was a good defender when he put his mind to it, while he may not have been as good as Kobe, I believe he could've been a potential All-Defensive player with the Lakers, esp playing in the biggest market and if they achieved success.

[Phoenix]

I've always had beef with the 2000 WCF argument because they wouldn't have needed Kobe's heroics in the first place if he had played better earlier in the series.

12 points on 2/9 in a Game 2 loss

17 points on 4/13 & 6 TO's in a Game 5 loss

I'm confident Orlando McGrady is performing better than that, esp with Shaq being the focus of the defense.

Yeah that's true and what I touched on earlier: some of the arguments I see presented assumes Tmac is just being plugged into the exact same situations. I mean, Kobe wasn't even completely healthy for the 2000 finals, asides from that game 4 clutch performance when Shaq fouled out, there's no reason to think Tmac couldn't have exceeded that performance overall( if you also assume they get to the finals). I think people underestimate just how fukking dominant Shaq was in 2000. You can point to scenarios here and there where Kobe showed up glimpses of things to come, but Shaq was like Thanos that year, there was a feeling of inevitability playing against him.

[Phoenix]

The same rosters moves definitely don't happen. For example, Horry, Salley and Shaw were brought in to be professional vets and to be mediators between Shaq and Kobe's tenuous relationship and to keep the peace. If Horry isn't there the Lakers don't beat the Kings and move on to win the Finals. Also, the whole reason Phil Jackson was brought in was because Shaq and Kobe wanted him since neither of them connected to Del Harris or Kurt Rambis. Jerry West hated Jackson ever since he got elbowed in the face and broke his nose back in the day. West brought Jackson in for two reasons. One, Shaq and Kobe wanted him. Two, he thought Jackson could control their egos that clashed. Jackson was the one behind bringing in Shaw, Horry and Salley and he was the one that told Kobe point blank that he needs to differ to Shaq because he was the Lakers' biggest advantage against everyone or he would be traded. So Kobe differed.

If McGrady and Shaq played together who's to say the Jackson ever comes in.

I mean, that's if you take the view that Phil only and strictly came on-board because of Kobe's presence and those ego dynamics, and doesn't take the job if TMac or some other up and coming wing was there in his place. I mean in 1999, Kobe was still fairly raw and Shaq was the constant, so if anything I would imagine he was the main reason Phil joined them regardless unless there's something out there saying otherwise. Phil's timing in terms of joining teams 'right' on the cusp of greatness does have historical precedence, after-all.

Also, just because those role players you mentioned were brought in for those reasons doesn't mean other players couldn't have been brought in and the same net result happens. Yes, Horry hits the shot against the Kings but that's not to say that's the only possible scenario under which the Lakers win the series. We simply have no way of knowing how the roster is built around Shaq and Tmac over time. It's like saying the only reason Shaq won a title is because of Phil Jackson when he was in the finals at 23 and just happened to run into peak Hakeem and Nick Anderson's historical free throw meltdown. I mean, the Rockets probably still win if Anderson hits them and they go on to take game 1, but these aren't zero sum, binary events for which there are no other branching paths leading to the same net result.

[ShawkFactory]

McGrady was very talented defensively.

It's already been said but in Orlando he was tasked with doing so much offensively that he didn't empty the tank as much on that end. When he was locked in though he was certainly very strong.

[LAL]

I've always had beef with the 2000 WCF argument because they wouldn't have needed Kobe's heroics in the first place if he had played better earlier in the series.

12 points on 2/9 in a Game 2 loss

17 points on 4/13 & 6 TO's in a Game 5 loss

I'm confident Orlando McGrady is performing better than that, esp with Shaq being the focus of the defense.

Did you know Tmac averaged 17 in the 2000 PO's with Vince? And 15ppg in the regular season.

Why is everyone saying Tmac would win the first one?

[ShawkFactory]

Did you know Tmac averaged 17 in the 2000 PO's with Vince? And 15ppg in the regular season.

Why is everyone saying Tmac would win the first one?

Different circumstances. Obviously seeing what he did immediately in 2001 it's clear if he didn't play with Vince (worried about stepping on his toes, didn't get enough shots, etc.) that he was certainly capable of more than his 2000 output.

[Phoenix]

Did you know Tmac averaged 17 in the 2000 PO's with Vince? And 15ppg in the regular season.

Why is everyone saying Tmac would win the first one?

Well for one, the trajectory for Tmac joining a lottery Raptors team and spending his first 3 years playing behind Vince is likely different than TMac joining the Lakers where he probably gets more opportunity to showcase his skills right away playing off prime Shaq. You may have seen a better version of TMac in 2000 than the one you saw on the Raptors at the same point, if you take the view that his talent was innate and going to surface sooner or later based on the circumstances. If anything, Shaq consuming like 85% of the defensive attention frees up Tmac way more than playing next to Vince, he was completely warping the defensive gravity towards the paint and opening up the perimeter. It benefited young Kobe, it would have benefited Tmac. To the point of winning a title? Maybe, maybe not.


Different circumstances. Obviously seeing what he did immediately in 2001 it's clear if he didn't play with Vince (worried about stepping on his toes, didn't get enough shots, etc.) that he was certainly capable of more than his 2000 output.

Bingo.

[LAL]

Different circumstances. Obviously seeing what he did immediately in 2001 it's clear if he didn't play with Vince (worried about stepping on his toes, didn't get enough shots, etc.) that he was certainly capable of more than his 2000 output.




Well for one, the trajectory for Tmac joining a lottery Raptors team and spending his first 3 years playing behind Vince is likely different than TMac joining the Lakers where he probably gets more opportunity to showcase his skills right away playing off prime Shaq. You may have seen a better version of TMac in 2000 than the one you saw on the Raptors at the same point, if you take the view that his talent was innate and going to surface sooner or later based on the circumstances. If anything, Shaq consuming like 85% of the defensive attention frees up Tmac way more than playing next to Vince, he was completely warping the defensive gravity towards the paint and opening up the perimeter. It benefited young Kobe, it would have benefited Tmac. To the point of winning a title? Maybe, maybe not.



Bingo.

So he couldn't be a starter and didn't want to step on Vince's toes, averaged 15 but would have been an all star with Shaq instead?

Vince was in the way and Kobe had plenty of opportunities, didn't have issues with playing time or stepping on Shaq and his veteran teammates toes in 2000?

[LAL]

Different circumstances. Obviously seeing what he did immediately in 2001 it's clear if he didn't play with Vince (worried about stepping on his toes, didn't get enough shots, etc.) that he was certainly capable of more than his 2000 output.

No, he couldn't do it with Vince, he did in Orlando in 2001, Kobe did it with Shaq in 2001 with everyone trying to hold him back, still carried them whenever they needed to win. Please shut up bron stan.

[Phoenix]

So he couldn't be a starter and didn't want to step on Vince's toes, averaged 15 but would have been an all star with Shaq instead?

Vince was in the way and Kobe had plenty of opportunities, didn't have issues with playing time or stepping on Shaq and his veteran teammates toes in 2000?

I mean, Shawfactory explained it simply enough. He went from 15ppg in 2000 to 27ppg immediately the following season, and 34ppg against the Bucks who went onto the ECFs. Very clearly 2000 Tmac was capable of more, you don't jump THAT much from one season to the next. Is it that hard to imagine that Tmac in 2000 next to Shaq puts up similar production to Kobe? If anything, I'm not sure why Doug Christie was the starting SG in 2000, unless they just needed TMac for offensive punch off the bench, because Vince is listed as the starting SF. Who's to say what happens if Vince is the starting 2 and TMac starting 3 that year?

[Tavr]

I already brought it up earlier. People either ignore the other side of the ball or they undervalue it.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?521916-Tmac-Replace-me-with-Kobe-and-I-m-with-Shaq-I-don-t-win-a-championship&p=15017574&viewfull=1#post15017574

Yeah seems like the latter. Now all-defensive teams are irrelevant and shouldn't be used lol. These same posters though will be the first to bring up MVPs, All-NBAs, and other accomplishments. But only when they do matter...


That... doesn't mean much when we're talking about a short window here. 2001-2005 tmac Shaq should win at least 1 ring.

Kobe is better thats why he went 5 time champ, but tmac in his short prime was like a 6'10 SGA.

In that "short window" Kobe was at his best defensively, making 1st team all-defense. I know. I know. I know... Defense doesn't matter. :lol

[Phoenix]

This is Tmac in Game 1 2000 vs Knicks:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhvZmBHIsf8&ab_channel=gearmast3r


Now, that was really his only good game of the series( best of 5), but the point being.....I can see a reality where Tmac on the Lakers from day 1 develops faster than spending two of his first three seasons behind Vince. Eddie Jones was moved expressly to put Kobe into the starting lineup which no doubt accelerated his growth vs letting him develop slowly on the bench. By year 4 he already had a good deal of playoff experience. These guys first 3-4 years played out under different scenarios. It's very clear Tmac had oodles of talent bubbling under the surface, and the INSTANT he's the featured player he's 6th in MVP voting, all-NBA 2nd team, averaging 27/8/5 and we're saying he couldn't have showcased any of that in 2000 under different conditions? And again, I think if TMac is on the team from day one it's possible Jones is kept and then you've got an explosive perimeter duo with Shaq. I think Tmac and Eddie Jones may have proven a better overall combo than Kobe and past prime Glen Rice in 2000, because Jones was a better player in 2000 than Rice was. We just don't know how this would have played out.

[LAL]

I mean, Shawfactory explained it simply enough. He went from 15ppg in 2000 to 27ppg immediately the following season, and 34ppg against the Bucks who went onto the ECFs. Very clearly 2000 Tmac was capable of more, you don't jump THAT much from one season to the next. Is it that hard to imagine that Tmac in 2000 next to Shaq puts up similar production to Kobe? If anything, I'm not sure why Doug Christie was the starting SG in 2000, unless they just needed TMac for offensive punch off the bench, because Vince is listed as the starting SF. Who's to say what happens if Vince is the starting 2 and TMac starting 3 that year?

I'm more impressed with Kobe's jump from 2000 to 2001 with everyone holding him back and did on both ends and played winning basketball. Tmac did it in Orlando but couldn't in toronto with Vince the same season in 2000... what's so hard to understand for you? More what ifs on top of what ifs... the facts are he couldn't start in Toronto, averaged 15 in 32min and you can ponder all day long why christie or whoever was starting and how unfair it was for poor tmac.

[LAL]

This is Tmac in Game 1 2000 vs Knicks:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhvZmBHIsf8&ab_channel=gearmast3r


Now, that was really his only good game of the series( best of 5), but the point being.....I can see a reality where Tmac on the Lakers from day 1 develops faster than spending two of his first three seasons behind Vince. Eddie Jones was moved expressly to put Kobe into the starting lineup which no doubt accelerated his growth vs letting him develop slowly on the bench. By year 4 he already had a good deal of playoff experience. These guys first 3-4 years played out under different scenarios. It's very clear Tmac had oodles of talent bubbling under the surface, and the INSTANT he's the featured player he's 6th in MVP voting, all-NBA 2nd team, averaging 27/8/5 and we're saying he couldn't have showcased any of that in 2000 under different conditions? And again, I think if TMac is on the team from day one it's possible Jones is kept and then you've got an explosive perimeter duo with Shaq. I think Tmac and Eddie Jones may have actually proven a better overall combo than Kobe and end of prime Glen Rice that year. We just don't know how this would have played out

Idiot

Dude's just fantasizing. Sorry i don't speak lebum

[Phoenix]

Idiot

Dude's just fantasizing. Sorry i don't speak lebum

Ok, and you've just shown the extent of your intellect jumping to needless insults when this was otherwise a fairly innocent exchange, and referencing Lebron. That says more about you than anything else being said here. So, I guess I'll just call you a c*nt and go about my day? Not much more needs to be discussed when the conversation turns that direction.

[Phoenix]

I'm more impressed with Kobe's jump from 2000 to 2001 with everyone holding him back and did on both ends and played winning basketball. Tmac did it in Orlando but couldn't in toronto with Vince the same season in 2000... what's so hard to understand for you? More what ifs on top of what ifs... the facts are he couldn't start in Toronto, averaged 15 in 32min and you can ponder all day long why christie or whoever was starting and how unfair it was for poor tmac.

Obviously the whole thing is a what if, IDIOT. What's so hard for YOU to understand that a players circumstances can seriously undermine what they're able to showcase? Look at what James Harden did in his last season in OKC and his first one in Houston, the leap is similar to Tmac. You don't just 'suddenly' become that good from the end of one season to the start of another.

[LAL]

Ok, and you've just shown the extent of your intellect jumping to needless insults when this was otherwise a fairly innocent exchange, and referencing Lebron. That says more about you than anything else being said here. So, I guess I'll just call you a c*nt and go about my day? Not much more needs to be discussed when the conversation turns that direction.

We are talking about nothing, it's crap. But i know why this topic interests you.

Maan Lakers should have traded Eddie Jones and let Kobe start from day one in 97, 5 rings easily with Shaq, easily!! You saw the jump he made in 2001, would've happened much sooner.



Tell me am i doing this right bro?

[LAL]

Obviously the whole thing is a what if, IDIOT. What's so hard for YOU to understand that a players circumstances can seriously undermine what they're able to showcase? Look at what James Harden did in his last season in OKC and his first one in Houston, the leap is similar to Tmac. You don't just 'suddenly' become that good from the end of one season to the start of another.

You still don't get it LOL

[Phoenix]

We are talking about nothing, it's crap. But i know why this topic interests you.

Maan Lakers should have traded Eddie Jones and let Kobe start from day one in 97, 5 rings easily with Shaq, easily!! You saw the jump he made in 2001, would've happened much sooner.



Tell me am i doing this right bro?

So if its nothing, why are you posting in this topic? Go talk about 'Lebum' or whatever gets you through the day.

[Phoenix]

You still don't get it LOL

Nor do you LOL. Am I doing it right 'bro'?

[LAL]

So if its nothing, why are you posting in this topic? Go talk about 'Lebum' or whatever gets you through the day.

HaRdEn CiRcUmStAnCeS TmAc HaD vInCe, hAd CiRcUmStAnCe

[Phoenix]

:lebroncry:

https://i.redd.it/xh5jwxtks1pd1.gif

[LAL]

Rookie Tmac and Eddie Jones would've been so amazing together! Poor tmac and his circumstances in Toronto.

[Phoenix]

Thatta girl :cheers:

[ShawkFactory]

No, he couldn't do it with Vince, he did in Orlando in 2001, Kobe did it with Shaq in 2001 with everyone trying to hold him back, still carried them whenever they needed to win. Please shut up bron stan.

You are such a dumb person to talk to. My mistake for even responding.

[LAL]

As far as all time perimeter players goes, i doesn't get any better than 2001 Kobe.

2000 Kobe had to facilitate in a ball moving system with shaq, 2nd all D, and close out games in the 4th. 2000 tmac wasn't there yet. If ever, he played streetball and was slower in getting his shots off but was a bucket with very good handles. 2001 Kobe was scoring for fun and guarding the best players. Again was told to stop scoring so much.

All these guys faced circumstances.

[sdot_thadon]

This idiot couldn't tell any of you what Tmac was doing in Toronto, his head was already too far up Kobe's ass to have a worthwhile thought about anything else. The angry thrashing about anytime Kobes name is mentioned is a dead give away. Time to let go lil guy.

[LAL]

This idiot couldn't tell any of you what Tmac was doing in Toronto, his head was already too far up Kobe's ass to have a worthwhile thought about anything else. The angry thrashing about anytime Kobes name is mentioned is a dead give away. Time to let go lil guy.

I love how you guys and klutch media entertain these dumb discussions until Harden (who wasn't even starting then), KD or Kawhi come out one day and say they could've won more and as many as lebron on the Heatles in the weak east. See how you guys will react then.

Btw i actually watched most of those Toronto NY po games in 2000, even 2000 Vince wasn't ready for the big stage (first rounds) and had a very decent team (15 in g1 & 16 in G3). Kobe was ready.

[sdot_thadon]

I love how you guys and klutch media entertain these dumb discussions until Harden (who wasn't even starting then), KD or Kawhi come out one day and say they could've won more and as many as lebron on the Heatles in the weak east. See how you guys will react then.

Btw i actually watched most of those Toronto NY po games in 2000, even 2000 Vince wasn't ready for the big stage (first rounds) and had a very decent team (15 in g1 & 16 in G3). Kobe was ready.

Umm maybe its because at that point in time Kobe and Tmac could do similar things and play a similar role on a team. None of those guys can do all the things Lebron did for the heat. And even with that said im sure other guys could have won with those heat teams, big whoop. You really need to get over this shit, you look like a retard in every thread regardless of which account you show up with.

[LAL]

Umm maybe its because at that point in time Kobe and Tmac could do similar things and play a similar role on a team. None of those guys can do all the things Lebron did for the heat. And even with that said im sure other guys could have won with those heat teams, big whoop. You really need to get over this shit, you look like a retard in every thread regardless of which account you show up with.

:roll:

[LAL]

Now i remember you shod tatum. You're mad because i made you look a little stupid couple days ago.

Dude get over it.

[sdot_thadon]

:roll:

Harden could score and playmake but was laughable on defense.

Kawhi could score and play elite defense but couldn't playmake.

Kd could score and defend but not like Lebron in miami. Nor could he playmake like lebron.


Now i remember you shod tatum. You're mad because i made you look a little stupid couple days ago.

Dude get over it.
Boi what in the high hell you talking about?

[LAL]

Miami had enough playmakers, including wade, or wade could play off ball.

Your arguments are not convincing enough, especially when everyone would sag off from him to shoot or shut him down in the finals. Anyone could replace lebron playing with wade and bosh and a great supporting cast, at least those guys were ELITE scorers, lebron was even scared of the free throw line. They won 2 with luck.


So now the difference in defense is important?

[Da_Realist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQbyIS7k08M

[LAL]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQbyIS7k08M

There we go

[sdot_thadon]

There we go

You would be here cosigning a video this hypocritically stupid. Without picking it apart piece by piece I'll just make a single point of the many that can be made about this video. The Kobe stan that made it said he had superstar syndrome. That he left Toronto because he wanted to be the no.1 option, while failing to realize that he was going to Orlando to be with both Grant Hill AND Tim Duncan. How stupid is that? Especially considering that Kobe had Shaq shipped so he could be "the Superstar" i love Kobe man, but his stans are soupy dumpster juice.

[ImKobe]

You would be here cosigning a video this hypocritically stupid. Without picking it apart piece by piece I'll just make a single point of the many that can be made about this video. The Kobe stan that made it said he had superstar syndrome. That he left Toronto because he wanted to be the no.1 option, while failing to realize that he was going to Orlando to be with both Grant Hill AND Tim Duncan. How stupid is that? Especially considering that Kobe had Shaq shipped so he could be "the Superstar" i love Kobe man, but his stans are soupy dumpster juice.

Kobe wanted out, Shaq wanted to be paid like he was still in his prime but he was washed in 2004.. Shaq's ego wasn't going to let him be a #2 to Kobe even though he should've embraced that role.


“[Shaq] wanted an amount of money that was legal under the CBA but it wasn’t what my Dad wanted to pay him. And so it came to the point where the decision was made to trade Shaq. A lot of people want to put that blame on Kobe. It wasn’t. It was purely a money situation.” - Jeanie Buss

[LAL]

Kobe wanted out, Shaq wanted to be paid like he was still in his prime but he was washed in 2004.. Shaq's ego wasn't going to let him be a #2 to Kobe even though he should've embraced that role.

- Jeanie Buss

2003 for sure, all fat with those wristbands. These kids don't remember. The big diesel was coasting since the summer of 2000.

[Phoenix]

Kobe wanted out, Shaq wanted to be paid like he was still in his prime but he was washed in 2004.. Shaq's ego wasn't going to let him be a #2 to Kobe even though he should've embraced that role.

- Jeanie Buss

That team was done after the 2004 finals no matter what. Especially after the Colorado incident the team was split between 'Shaq' and 'Kobe' camps. Kobe drew alot of heat for not inviting teammates to his wedding and not attending team functions, Kobe was upset that Shaq didn't reach out to him during his legal issues, etc.

[ShawkFactory]

Kobe wanted out, Shaq wanted to be paid like he was still in his prime but he was washed in 2004.. Shaq's ego wasn't going to let him be a #2 to Kobe even though he should've embraced that role.

- Jeanie Buss

Wasn't he like...almost MVP in 2005? :lol

He wasn't peak Shaq anymore, one of if not the most dominant forces the league has ever seen, but he was still among the best players in the league. He wasn't "washed" until 2008 or so.

[LAL]

You would be here cosigning a video this hypocritically stupid. Without picking it apart piece by piece I'll just make a single point of the many that can be made about this video. The Kobe stan that made it said he had superstar syndrome. That he left Toronto because he wanted to be the no.1 option, while failing to realize that he was going to Orlando to be with both Grant Hill AND Tim Duncan. How stupid is that? Especially considering that Kobe had Shaq shipped so he could be "the Superstar" i love Kobe man, but his stans are soupy dumpster juice.

Why didn't he get to start in toronto? Why didn't he want to step in Vince's toes when Vince was having 15 point games in a first round sweep out east in 2000?

He tried to form a superteam in Orlando, didn't work out AT ALL. Now What?

Kobe will always be remembered for ****ing up teams by himself those 2 years with Kwame and Smush, 81, 62 vs 61 in 3Q, 50 point streak, 12 3ptm NBA record, ALL 1st D. All tmac is remembered y is his 30 seconds vs The spurs, where he wasn't shit in Houston and never got past the first round in his life. Go away.

[ImKobe]

Wasn't he like...almost MVP in 2005? :lol

He wasn't peak Shaq anymore, one of if not the most dominant forces the league has ever seen, but he was still among the best players in the league. He wasn't "washed" until 2008 or so.

He was significantly worse. MVP is not an individual award.

[sdot_thadon]

Why didn't he get to start in toronto? Why didn't he want to step in Vince's toes when Vince was having 15 point games in a first round sweep out east in 2000?

He tried to form a superteam in Orlando, didn't work out AT ALL. Now What?

Kobe will always be remembered for ****ing up teams by himself those 2 years with Kwame and Smush, 81, 62 vs 61 in 3Q, 50 point streak, 12 3ptm NBA record, ALL 1st D. All tmac is remembered y is his 30 seconds vs The spurs, where he wasn't shit in Houston and never got past the first round in his life. Go away.

See what im saying about Kobe stans? You guys are the basic bitch of nba fandom. All that emotional ranting and failed to address what I actually said. The video was trash and had pretty hypocritical content. You couldn't even refute point no.1: how did Tmac have "superstar syndrome" and Kobe didn't? One went to for sure not be the 1st option and one got rid of his 1st option. Make it make sense. Also you're not a smart guy. Thats all.:oldlol:

[sdot_thadon]

Kobe wanted out, Shaq wanted to be paid like he was still in his prime but he was washed in 2004.. Shaq's ego wasn't going to let him be a #2 to Kobe even though he should've embraced that role.

- Jeanie Buss

And this still doesn't somehow exclude Kobe from the narrative that video tried to paint on tmac in contrast to Kobe lol. Why did Kobe want out? We all know what went on and how the sheets have been smoothed out as the years go. But remember in real time it was a him or me decision.

[LAL]

See what im saying about Kobe stans? You guys are the basic bitch of nba fandom. All that emotional ranting and failed to address what I actually said. The video was trash and had pretty hypocritical content. You couldn't even refute point no.1: how did Tmac have "superstar syndrome" and Kobe didn't? One went to for sure not be the 1st option and one got rid of his 1st option. Make it make sense. Also you're not a smart guy. Thats all.:oldlol:

The video was extremely interesting, didn't say it was flawless or whatever??

Are you trying to use the legoofy stan tricks on me? You couldn't even defend
legoofy being replaced on the Heatles superteam in a extreme weak conference

[sdot_thadon]

The video was extremely interesting, didn't say it was flawless or whatever??

Are you trying to use the legoofy stan tricks on me? You couldn't even defend
legoofy being replaced on the Heatles superteam in a extreme weak conference

Nah B, actually I broke it down in as basic as possible terms for your remedial ass but apparently it still whooshed clean over your head. Come back when you're ready to actually discuss the topic.

[LAL]

Nah B, actually I broke it down in as basic as possible terms for your remedial ass but apparently it still whooshed clean over your head. Come back when you're ready to actually discuss the topic.

You said Kawhi, Harden or KD coudn't do what legoofy did from 11 to 14 on the Heatles superteam (or 15 to 18 Cavs).

Please explain in depth because your previous reasons sucked, and why you thought
you felt you were confident enough to believe tmac would've been as successful as Kobe with Shaq.

Most bron stans would be honest enough to stay away from these type of discussions but your love
for delonte's son makes you look stupid and pathetic as f.

[LAL]

Don't put your foot in your mouth again by mentioning defense then go back and hide again.

Man you bron stans fight for every great teammate or opponent of MJ & Kobe's time.

[RogueBorg]

TMac couldn't get 2 games against a 2001-2002 Hornets team that had Baron Davis, David Wesley, Elden Campbell, and PJ Brown. Not exactly a Murder's Row of a lineup. Put Kobe on this Magic team and they're winning this series.
In 2003, they're up 3-1 on Detroit, and in game 7 TMac took a sh--- shooting 7-24 for 21 points.
In 2003-2004 they won 21 games.

TMac is no where near on Kobe Bryant's level. There's a reason he never won a series, he's not clutch, at all. I explicitly recall back in the early to mid 2000's the likes of Mark Jackson claiming Kobe Bryant being better than Michael Jordan. I never once heard that claim with McGrady.

Stop it already.

[tpols]

TMac couldn't get 2 games against a 2001-2002 Hornets team that had Baron Davis, David Wesley, Elden Campbell, and PJ Brown. Not exactly a Murder's Row of a lineup. Put Kobe on this Magic team and they're winning this series.
In 2003, they're up 3-1 on Detroit, and in game 7 TMac took a sh--- shooting 7-24 for 21 points.
In 2003-2004 they won 21 games.

TMac is no where near on Kobe Bryant's level. There's a reason he never won a series, he's not clutch, at all. I explicitly recall back in the early to mid 2000's the likes of Mark Jackson claiming Kobe Bryant being better than Michael Jordan. I never once heard that claim with McGrady.

Stop it already.

I wouldn't say hes not clutch after that sequence he had vs the Spurs. Which is probably the best clutch stretch ever.

But he definitely didn't have Kobes long term discipline. Which isnt a knock because 99.999% of people never will. He was still phenomenal talent though in his own right.

[LAL]

I wouldn't say hes not clutch after that sequence he had vs the Spurs. Which is probably the best clutch stretch ever.

But he definitely didn't have Kobes lingerie term discipline. Which isnt a knock because 99.999% of people never will. He was still phenomenal talent though in his own right.

Are you like to trying to be honest or be seen as "neutral" and friendly?
Who tf cares about 1 reg season clutch shot?

[tpols]

Are you like to trying to be honest or be seen as "neutral" and friendly?
Who tf cares about 1 reg season clutch shot?

It wasn't just a shot. You exposed yourself.


https://youtu.be/e3EqY5gPrcU?si=Qaa3WvWbRLR64H2K

That's on prime Bowen Duncan.

[SouBeachTalents]

TMac couldn't get 2 games against a 2001-2002 Hornets team that had Baron Davis, David Wesley, Elden Campbell, and PJ Brown. Not exactly a Murder's Row of a lineup. Put Kobe on this Magic team and they're winning this series.
I think Kobe won one playoff series as the underdog in his entire career, which McGrady was in that series. To just claim he wins that series is pretty presumptuous. Kobe also consistently struggled against East teams in the Finals in the early 2000's.


In 2003, they're up 3-1 on Detroit, and in game 7 TMac took a sh--- shooting 7-24 for 21 points.
Kobe would never do that, or play that badly in a Game 7.


I explicitly recall back in the early to mid 2000's the likes of Mark Jackson claiming Kobe Bryant being better than Michael Jordan. I never once heard that claim with McGrady.
Literally one person claiming something idiotic is an irrelevant point to make. I could provide several examples of people saying all kinds of nonsensical shit.

[LAL]

You think these bronsexuals who defend Tmac (most weren't old enough or born) give af about how many clutch shots other superstars had during bron's time?

[ShawkFactory]

TMac couldn't get 2 games against a 2001-2002 Hornets team that had Baron Davis, David Wesley, Elden Campbell, and PJ Brown. Not exactly a Murder's Row of a lineup. Put Kobe on this Magic team and they're winning this series.
In 2003, they're up 3-1 on Detroit, and in game 7 TMac took a sh--- shooting 7-24 for 21 points.
In 2003-2004 they won 21 games.

TMac is no where near on Kobe Bryant's level. There's a reason he never won a series, he's not clutch, at all. I explicitly recall back in the early to mid 2000's the likes of Mark Jackson claiming Kobe Bryant being better than Michael Jordan. I never once heard that claim with McGrady.

Stop it already.

Oh, word? Well that settles it...

[LAL]

It wasn't just a shot. You exposed yourself.


https://youtu.be/e3EqY5gPrcU?si=Qaa3WvWbRLR64H2K

That's on prime Bowen Duncan.

You really thought i didn't know it was more than one shot

[sdot_thadon]

Don't put your foot in your mouth again by mentioning defense then go back and hide again.

Man you bron stans fight for every great teammate or opponent of MJ & Kobe's time.
More like why is it only Mj and Kobes teammates that get bumped down lower than what they actually were at the time. You literally have a thread on top of the 1st page trying to downplay freaking SHAQ for the love of God. Shaq is in tbe pantheon, stfu. Pippen was regarded as the greatest sidekick ever.....until Kobe came along. Stfu. These are legends.


You said Kawhi, Harden or KD coudn't do what legoofy did from 11 to 14 on the Heatles superteam (or 15 to 18 Cavs).

Please explain in depth because your previous reasons sucked, and why you thought
you felt you were confident enough to believe tmac would've been as successful as Kobe with Shaq.

Most bron stans would be honest enough to stay away from these type of discussions but your love
for delonte's son makes you look stupid and pathetic as f.
Go back and read my previous post on this. I purposely formatted it like a children's book attempting to reach you on a level you can compute. Im not wasting another post trying to explain what you're making out to be quantum physics to a dunce. If anyone else who can carry a debate addresses it i might but you? Nah. Im good. Go read the kids book I wrote you.

[sdot_thadon]

It wasn't just a shot. You exposed yourself.


https://youtu.be/e3EqY5gPrcU?si=Qaa3WvWbRLR64H2K

That's on prime Bowen Duncan.

You gotta excuse him he probably was like 6.

[Baller234]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQbyIS7k08M

I mean just shut the whole thing down.

[LAL]

More like why is it only Mj and Kobes teammates that get bumped down lower than what they actually were at the time. You literally have a thread on top of the 1st page trying to downplay freaking SHAQ for the love of God. Shaq is in tbe pantheon, stfu. Pippen was regarded as the greatest sidekick ever.....until Kobe came along. Stfu. These are legends.


Go back and read my previous post on this. I purposely formatted it like a children's book attempting to reach you on a level you can compute. Im not wasting another post trying to explain what you're making out to be quantum physics to a dunce. If anyone else who can carry a debate addresses it i might but you? Nah. Im good. Go read the kids book I wrote you.


I tried but you're not worth it. Please ignore me.

[StrongLurk]

Bro peak 2003 T-Mac 100% wins if he replaces Kobe on the 2000 Lakers. It's not even a debate.

01 and 02 are uncertain though.

[Phoenix]

Bro peak 2003 T-Mac 100% wins if he replaces Kobe on the 2000 Lakers. It's not even a debate.

01 and 02 are uncertain though.

Yes, but that's basically creating a scenario where you're picking the best version of Tmac to pair with the best version of Shaq. I think there are more interesting and realistic scenarios to consider, like what happens if Tmac is drafted to LA in 97 ( he came a year after Kobe) and played with Shaq until 2005. If you assume Shaq is the same guy between 99 and 2002, then it's really more about how Tmac develops in that situation, the roster, the coaching, etc. Like are we literally just plugging Tmac into Kobe's spot, or is there likely to be other changes? Case in point, I said earlier that Eddie Jones was moved to make a spot for Kobe. Do they keep Jones and put Tmac at the SF spot? Do they still trade him but for someone else? Maybe a better PF than the likes of past prime AC Green and Horace Grant ( considering the gauntlet of PFs in the west at that time) and then stick Tmac at the two? I don't think it's as simple as just taking out Kobe, replacing with Tmac and everything else stays the same. Was it really Phil that got Shaq over the line, or was he gonna win regardless with any decent coach and it was just his time in 2000? I'm not saying yes or no one way or another, just saying there are various factors involved. Like, on paper Tmac by 2002 may have been good enough to win with 2002 Shaq, but Tmac also didn't have Kobe's personality to ruffle Shaq's feathers ( which was both what drove them to greatness as a pair but also part of why they split). It's why I think there is one title likely in this scenario, less likely two and definitely not three.

[Phoenix]

Bro peak 2003 T-Mac 100% wins if he replaces Kobe on the 2000 Lakers. It's not even a debate.

01 and 02 are uncertain though.

Yes, but that's basically creating a scenario where you're picking the best version of Tmac to pair with the best version of Shaq. I think there are more interesting and realistic scenarios to consider, like what happens if Tmac is drafted to LA in 97 ( he came a year after Kobe) and played with Shaq until 2005. If you assume Shaq is the same guy between 99 and 2002, then it's really more about how Tmac develops in that situation, the roster, the coaching, etc. Like are we literally just plugging Tmac into Kobe's spot, or is there likely to be other changes? Case in point, I said earlier that Eddie Jones was moved to make a spot for Kobe. Do they keep Jones and put Tmac at the SF spot? Do they still trade him but for someone else? Maybe a better PF than the likes of past prime AC Green and Horace Grant ( considering the gauntlet of PFs in the west at that time) and then stick Tmac at the two? I don't think it's as simple as just taking out Kobe, replacing with Tmac and everything else stays the same. Was it really Phil that got Shaq over the line, or was he gonna win regardless with any decent coach and it was just his time in 2000? I'm not saying yes or no one way or another, just saying there are various factors involved. Like, on paper Tmac by 2002 may have been good enough to win with 2002 Shaq, but Tmac also didn't have Kobe's personality to ruffle Shaq's feathers ( which was both what drove them to greatness as a pair but also part of why they split). It's why I think there is one title likely in this scenario, less likely two and definitely not three.

[Da_Realist]

Two flawed stars can win but not if they have the same flaw. Shaq was never a good leader. He was big and strong and athletic but had a terrible habit of allowing his super talented teams to get swept or lose in 5 games.

TMac was also never a leader. That's why he couldn't get out of the first round. Ever.

Talent alone doesn't win titles. Drexler was just as physically gifted and talented as MJ. But he wasn't MJ. The difference wasn't their physical gifts. Same with TMac and Kobe.

Some say the same with Drexler. "Replace MJ with Drexler on the championship Bulls..." after all the initial hard work was done. No, it should start with his rookie year with the same cast MJ started with. The Bulls would have never become 6 time champions. They would have been the Chicago version of the Blazers. Good but not quite good enough. Proof? The Blazers were just as talented as the Bulls if not more so.

So it is with Kobe and TMac.

Kobe burned but at least he leaned into his masculinity. He challenged. TMac was more passive-aggressive, whining and crying behind the scenes while publicly making excuses for 15 years.

That makes a difference.

[SouBeachTalents]

If you think McGrady was never as good as Penny you just completely underrate him, you’ll never be able to have a reasonable discussion about him.

And McGrady is FAR closer to Kobe than Drexler was to Jordan, that was frankly a terrible analogy.

[Baller234]

Two flawed stars can win but not if they have the same flaw. Shaq was never a good leader. He was big and strong and athletic but had a terrible habit of allowing his super talented teams to get swept or lose in 5 games.

TMac was also never a leader. That's why he couldn't get out of the first round. Ever.

Talent alone doesn't win titles. Drexler was just as physically gifted and talented as MJ. But he wasn't MJ. The difference wasn't their physical gifts. Same with TMac and Kobe.

Some say the same with Drexler. "Replace MJ with Drexler on the championship Bulls..." after all the initial hard work was done. No, it should start with his rookie year with the same cast MJ started with. The Bulls would have never become 6 time champions. They would have been the Chicago version of the Blazers. Good but not quite good enough. Proof? The Blazers were just as talented as the Bulls if not more so.

So it is with Kobe and TMac. TMac was never as good as Penny, especially late 90's TMac. Yet we saw Shaq and Penny get swept multiple times when they were talented enough to win it all.

Kobe burned but at least he leaned into his masculinity. He challenged. TMac was more passive-aggressive, whining and crying behind the scenes while publicly making excuses for 15 years.

That makes a difference.

I appreciate what you're saying and I agree but I don't think the Drexler comparison is apt. I don't think Drexler was as talented as MJ. To me there was a clear gap in skill, creativity and fundamentals.

Kobe and TMac on the other hand in terms of talent were close to being dead equals. That I've always agreed with.

[Baller234]

If you think McGrady was never as good as Penny you just completely underrate him, you’ll never be able to have a reasonable discussion about him.

And McGrady is FAR closer to Kobe than Drexler was to Jordan, that was frankly a terrible analogy.

I would have to agree with him. Penny > Tmac and it's not a super tough choice for me.

TMac was a more talented scorer in isolation but Penny had a complete game himself on top of all the other things he did. He was a leader and game manager.

TMac was the best player on a team that lost 19 straight. I know the Magic weren't a great team but still... :oldlol:

[Tavr]

TMac was the best player on a team that lost 19 straight. I know the Magic weren't a great team but still... :oldlol:

That losing streak happened during the 2004 season, right? I actually completely forgot about that. Wow :lol

Thinking about how everything would line up if you replaced Kobe with TMac... I believe the Lakers best opportunities to win had to be in 2001 and 2005. Again, assuming we just plug and play both players with equal coaches, comp and teammates. Looking back it'd definitely have to be those years.

[Phoenix]

Two flawed stars can win but not if they have the same flaw. Shaq was never a good leader. He was big and strong and athletic but had a terrible habit of allowing his super talented teams to get swept or lose in 5 games.

TMac was also never a leader. That's why he couldn't get out of the first round. Ever.

Talent alone doesn't win titles. Drexler was just as physically gifted and talented as MJ. But he wasn't MJ. The difference wasn't their physical gifts. Same with TMac and Kobe.

Some say the same with Drexler. "Replace MJ with Drexler on the championship Bulls..." after all the initial hard work was done. No, it should start with his rookie year with the same cast MJ started with. The Bulls would have never become 6 time champions. They would have been the Chicago version of the Blazers. Good but not quite good enough. Proof? The Blazers were just as talented as the Bulls if not more so.

So it is with Kobe and TMac.

Kobe burned but at least he leaned into his masculinity. He challenged. TMac was more passive-aggressive, whining and crying behind the scenes while publicly making excuses for 15 years.

That makes a difference.

Drexler wasn't as talented or skilled. Even in terms of physical gifts he didn't quite have MJ's speed in a half-court situation. Now in a full court sprint where he's on the wing, yeah his athleticism shines through and he was a talented leaper. Wasn't MJ equal in those respects though, and definitely didn't have his motor or tenacity. Tmac lacks those latter attributes in comparison to Kobe, but ( when healthy) was a more impressive athlete( Kobe was a bit quicker) and was more naturally gifted. Did everything Kobe did but was 6'9( Kobe's own words). Now that may have been 'slightly' generous because Kobe's overall skill ceiling eventually outpaced Tmac's as the 2000s went on, but in that 2001 to like 2005 period, the difference between them wasn't as big as Jordan/Drexler.

[Tavr]

Well Shaq was traded before the 2005 season, so that wouldn't work. In my hypothetical I presumed TMac wouldn't run Shaq out of LA :lol Either way not exactly a fair assumption.

But yeah, I'd say 2001 would be their best chance. LA ran through the playoffs that year and weren't tested like they were in 2002. Or even in 2000 vs Portland.

[Phoenix]

That losing streak happened during the 2004 season, right? I actually completely forgot about that. Wow :lol

Thinking about how everything would line up if you replaced Kobe with TMac... I believe the Lakers best opportunities to win had to be in 2001 and 2005. Again, assuming we just plug and play both players with equal coaches, comp and teammates. Looking back it'd definitely have to be those years.

Well yeah, because if we just assume everything happens as it did Tmac fell off hard from 2006 onwards. Even though he had a decent 08 campaign, his best was clearly in the rear mirror by then. I think more than anything, it's about who's coaching the Lakers between 2002 and 2004. Because Kobe was in Shaq's ass to stay in shape and Tmac wasn't going to do that. I wonder if Phil would have gotten through to him or another coach. 2003 Tmac was dynamic but Shaq by 2003 was getting injured on company time and shit like that, that's the year Kobe took over as the main scorer and ran off that nine game streak of 40+. And the Lakers got bounced by the Spurs even with Kobe playing out of his mind, so 2003 Tmac put in that spot doesn't do any better. I really think alot of this comes down to Shaq in that 2003-2005 period, and who's on the coaching/roster. Neither Shaq or Tmac were great 'leaders' per se, but we've seen times where the best player wasn't the leader and the team won. Draymond was pretty much the leader of the Warriors as far as its emotional core. Kawhi was the opposite of a leader on the 2019 Raptors, that fell mostly to Kyle Lowry. Even last year's Celtics team, the two best players were Tatum and Brown. The actual 'leaders' of the team probably swung moreso to Al Hortford and Jrue Holiday.

So with a Shaq/Tmac pairing, they would have needed a third and maybe 4th person to step up as the locker-room leader.

[Phoenix]

Well Shaq was traded before the 2005 season, so that wouldn't work. In my hypothetical I presumed TMac wouldn't run Shaq out of LA :lol Either way not exactly a fair assumption.

But yeah, I'd say 2001 would be their best chance. LA ran through the playoffs that year and weren't tested like they were in 2002. Or even in 2000 vs Portland.

That's another thing. In a year like 2004 do Payton and Malone still end up on the Lakers? So you've got Shaq, Tmac, Malone and Payton? Or do they go another route in terms of roster moves. That's the thing, I don't think it's JUST about Tmac replacing Kobe.

[tpols]

If you think McGrady was never as good as Penny you just completely underrate him, you’ll never be able to have a reasonable discussion about him.

And McGrady is FAR closer to Kobe than Drexler was to Jordan, that was frankly a terrible analogy.

Its not a terrible analogy at all. Kobe was more ruthlessly discplined than tmac. If tmac had kobes work ethic and psycopathic drive to be the best hed probably be the GOAT. But he didn't and wasn't. That analogy was actually perfect because Clyde had unreal athleticism but wasnt as much of a sociopath as MJ. And same ting for Kobe and tmac.

[SouBeachTalents]

Its not a terrible analogy at all. Kobe was more ruthlessly discplined than tmac. If tmac had kobes work ethic and psycopathic drive to be the best hed probably be the GOAT. But he didn't and wasn't. That analogy was actually perfect because Clyde had unreal athleticism but wasnt as much of a sociopath as MJ. And same ting for Kobe and tmac.
The gap between McGrady & Kobe in the early 2000's was virtually nonexistent, the gap between Jordan & Drexler was always enormous. I know the media tried to create a "debate" between the 2 of them in '92, but they were never remotely comparable as players, Kobe & McGrady were essentially equals.

[Tavr]

That's another thing. In a year like 2004 do Payton and Malone still end up on the Lakers? So you've got Shaq, Tmac, Malone and Payton? Or do they go another route in terms of roster moves. That's the thing, I don't think it's JUST about Tmac replacing Kobe.

Of course. There's definitely a lot more to it than TMac's original hypothetical. Which was just wanting to replace Kobe with his absolute BEST years lol. Voila...championship. I personally like the idea of TMac beginning his career in LA and working his way up. You give everything Kobe had to work with to him. Coaching staff, management, players etc. Its more fair and simple enough to debate.

Everything here is speculative, but I'd imagine Phil pushing TMac to maximize his talent, getting the best out of him defensively. Shaq credits Phil with his 2000 MVP season, because it was Phil who challenged him to be ALL-NBA on that end. Would be interesting to see what that duo could accomplish. TMac's expectations would absolutely rise though, and there's a chance he doesn't win anything. So one also has to wonder if he simply benefits just from this hypothetical.

[Tavr]

The gap between McGrady & Kobe in the early 2000's was virtually nonexistent, the gap between Jordan & Drexler was always enormous. I know the media tried to create a "debate" between the 2 of them in '92, but they were never remotely comparable as players, Kobe & McGrady were essentially equals.

You keep saying the 2000s, but you should narrow it down like you did with with MJ and Drexler. The conversation between Kobe and TMac lasted for 3 years tops. If even that. From my vantage point, the debate only really got serious from 2002-2003. I don't know many people who thought TMac was better or equal to Kobe in 2005.

[SouBeachTalents]

You keep saying the 2000s, but you should narrow it down like you did with with MJ and Drexler. The conversation between Kobe and TMac lasted for 3 years tops. If that. From my vantage point, the debate only really got serious from 2002-2003. I don't know many people who thought TMac was better or equal to Kobe in 2005.
Bro, I literally said early 2000's, I understand by like '06 it wasn't a debate anymore :lol

[Tavr]

Bro, I literally said early 2000's, I understand by like '06 it wasn't a debate anymore :lol

That's fair, but honestly who was really debating Kobe and TMac in 2000 and 2001? lol. I definitely heard the AI vs Kobe talks, but Mcgrady didn't really get that kind of love until 2002ish. And the debate peaked in 2003.

[Phoenix]

Of course. There's definitely a lot more to it than TMac's original hypothetical. Which was just wanting to replace Kobe with his absolute BEST years lol. Voila...championship. I personally like the idea of TMac beginning his career in LA and working his way up. You give everything Kobe had to work with to him. Coaching staff, management, players etc. Its more fair and simple enough to debate.

Everything here is speculative, but I'd imagine Phil pushing TMac to maximize his talent, getting the best out of him defensively. Shaq credits Phil with his 2000 MVP season, because it was Phil who challenged him to be ALL-NBA on that end. Would be interesting to see what that duo could accomplish. TMac's expectations would absolutely rise though, and there's a chance he doesn't win anything. So one also has to wonder if he simply benefits just from this hypothetical.

I think it was Meticode a few pages back who said Phil was specifically brought in to soothe Shaq and Kobe's egos. If that's the case, then it does begs the question of whether he ends up the coach. And then that has a cascading effect of someone like Ron Harper being brought in with his championship knowledge and experience with the Triangle. I'm inclined to think the roster doesn't quite end up the same so it's really tough to speculate as to how it all comes together. You basically have to start with the premise that Shaq and Tmac as a duo are good enough to build a title team around( not in terms of basketball ability, moreso the intangibles) along with the right coaching and roster composition. I mean,pretty much common logic for any championship team when it's all said and done.


You keep saying the 2000s, but you should narrow it down like you did with with MJ and Drexler. The conversation between Kobe and TMac lasted for 3 years tops. If even that. From my vantage point, the debate only really got serious from 2002-2003. I don't know many people who thought TMac was better or equal to Kobe in 2005.

2005 could have been a toss-up as well, because that was the first year post-Shaq and the Lakers missed the playoffs. Kobe played 66 games ( as did Lamar Odom, which pretty much killed their playoff chances) and averaged 28/6/6 on 43%. By comparison, Tmac was 26/6/6 on 43% and went out in the first round. Both 3rd team selections....not a ton of individual separation there. I think it was mostly 2006 where that comparison definitively died. As an aside, I'd have liked to have seen a healthy Tmac in 2006 after the perimeter rule changes. Everyone remembers Kobe going off for 35ppg and the 81 game, but forget Iverson himself averaged 33. You'd have to imagine Tmac would have been right in that mix at 26-27 years old if his body hadn't failed him.


That's fair, but honestly who was really debating Kobe and TMac in 2000 and 2001? lol. I definitely heard the AI vs Kobe talks, but Mcgrady didn't really get that kind of love until 2002ish. And the debate peaked in 2003.

Vince and Kobe was a conversation too between like 2000 and 2001, before VC started having knee issues and then played his way out of Toronto. Iverson definitely, he was winning MVP and scoring titles while Kobe was winning his 2nd chip. Tmac and Kobe was more like 2002 to 2004, 2005 it died down a bit but it was still a thing, 2006 it was over. One of the best things you can say about Kobe is he outlasted his contemporaries.

[red1]

tmac was unguardable but he was fragile as ****


kobe was an ironman



cant really compare the two. kobe >>> mcgrady for that one reason alone

[ArbitraryWater]

tmac was unguardable but he was fragile as ****


kobe was an ironman



cant really compare the two. kobe >>> mcgrady for that one reason alone

this is the kind of in depth analysis I come to ISH for

[Tavr]

I think it was Meticode a few pages back who said Phil was specifically brought in to soothe Shaq and Kobe's egos. If that's the case, then it does begs the question of whether he ends up the coach. And then that has a cascading effect of someone like Ron Harper being brought in with his championship knowledge and experience with the Triangle. I'm inclined to think the roster doesn't quite end up the same so it's really tough to speculate as to how it all comes together. You basically have to start with the premise that Shaq and Tmac as a duo are good enough to build a title team around( not in terms of basketball ability, moreso the intangibles) along with the right coaching and roster composition. I mean,pretty much common logic for any championship team when it's all said and done.

Yup, if we go this route there are many uncertainties. Its doubtful Phil comes out of retirement, because Mcgrady was a nonchalant type of dude and unlike Kobe nowhere near as stubborn. Shaq and him assumingly get along with one other, playing more seasons together. Not having Phil or an "equal" roster though is why I like the plug and play method. Where TMac mirrors Kobe's career in LA. Less question marks and more of a direct comparison, but to each their own.


2005 could have been a toss-up as well, because that was the first year post-Shaq and the Lakers missed the playoffs. Kobe played 66 games ( as did Lamar Odom, which pretty much killed their playoff chances) and averaged 28/6/6 on 43%. By comparison, Tmac was 26/6/6 on 43% and went out in the first round. Both 3rd team selections....not a ton of individual separation there. I think it was mostly 2006 where that comparison definitively died. As an aside, I'd have liked to have seen a healthy Tmac in 2006 after the perimeter rule changes. Everyone remembers Kobe going off for 35ppg and the 81 game, but forget Iverson himself averaged 33. You'd have to imagine Tmac would have been right in that mix at 26-27 years old if his body hadn't failed him.

I thought the comparison was buried when Kobe went berserk during their H2H in 2004. Kobe was playing with a sprained shoulder (remember those games he wore that compression sleeve?) and wasn't having a particularly good game thru 3 quarters. In that 4th quarter though dude went postal and scored a blistering 24 points with clutch defensive stops (one was a nasty weakside block on TMac), leading the Lakers to a comeback win. While TMac had a good game in his own right what Kobe did here was pretty spectacular. And imo really spotlighted the difference between the two.

Classic game, I'm sure you remember it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DANYOY5L7zo

When I mentioned 2005, the year 2005 was in my head moreso than the ACTUAL season. I'm thinking of that October 2005 opener Kobe had in Denver, which ended with a game-winner. The 04-05 season you could probably argue was a toss up. Statistically anyway. I'd go back to defense though and like you mentioned, Kobe's injuries kind of derailed him. I believe Rudy Tomtonavic was LA's coach to begin that season, but he abruptly retired midway because of a health issue. Rough season all-around. Kobe was very fortunate Phil returned to the fold just a year later.


Vince and Kobe was a conversation too between like 2000 and 2001, before VC started having knee issues and then played his way out of Toronto. Iverson definitely, he was winning MVP and scoring titles while Kobe was winning his 2nd chip. Tmac and Kobe was more like 2002 to 2004, 2005 it died down a bit but it was still a thing, 2006 it was over. One of the best things you can say about Kobe is he outlasted his contemporaries.

Good call. Vince was 100% in that conversation.