Tim Duncan has consistently dominated Shaq statistcally in their head-2-head matchups

[k0kakw0rld]

https://i.postimg.cc/Y04qc7Sy/Screenshot-2025-08-25-225105.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Tim Duncan got 5 rings to Shaq's 4
They got the same amount of FMVPs (3)
Tim Duncan got 2 MVPs to Shaq's 1
Tim Duncan gets the edge on All NBA team selections with 15 to Shaq's 14
Tim Duncan gets the edge on All NBA defensive team selections with 15 to Shaq's 3
Tim Duncan never missed the playoffs in his entire NBA career

When people comfortably rank Shaq over Duncan, I cringe. They do it based on Shaq's offensive peak (2000-2001-2002).
Forgetting that longevity, defense are also factors.

[RRR3]

so now you’re a Spurs fan again eh

[eliteballer]

Shaq locked down Duncan a couple of times in crunchtime of playoff games, and we know Duncan couldnt guard him.

Also, is this including games where Shaq was way past his prime? Probably.

[j3lademaster]

Shaq locked down Duncan a couple of times in crunchtime of playoff games, and we know Duncan couldnt guard him.

Also, is this including games where Shaq was way past his prime? Probably.Of course, which is why the page wasn't linked (https://www.landofbasketball.com/games_between/tim_duncan_vs_shaquille_oneal.htm).

[Overdrive]

https://i.postimg.cc/Y04qc7Sy/Screenshot-2025-08-25-225105.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Tim Duncan got 5 rings to Shaq's 4
They got the same amount of FMVPs (3)
Tim Duncan got 2 MVPs to Shaq's 1
Tim Duncan gets the edge on All NBA team selections with 15 to Shaq's 14
Tim Duncan gets the edge on All NBA defensive team selections with 15 to Shaq's 3
Tim Duncan never missed the playoffs in his entire NBA career

When people comfortably rank Shaq over Duncan, I cringe. They do it based on Shaq's offensive peak (2000-2001-2002).
Forgetting that longevity, defense are also factors.

That's what it comes down to: Head-2-head as if basketball was played 1v1. Duncan never played prime Shaq straight up. You're one of these guys who only rates players based on matchups. In the unpopular opinion thread I said that every star is overrated ny most fans, because people like you act like basketball is won by a single person.

That aside, being a Shaqfan, I'd still draft Duncan over him. Better culture and leadershio, game that better translates to a career's twilight years, better defense.

[SouBeachTalents]

He did not. Even including games Shaq was clearly past his prime, those numbers in no way indicate any individual domination.

[Baller234]

Shaq was the more impressive specimen but it should be obvious by this point that Duncan was the better player.

Not long ago people were debating if Shaq would have won those laker rings with another guard instead of Kobe. I really don't think he would have. Kobe elevated that team not just with his talent, but spiritually as well. Maybe Iverson? That's the only one you can even debate and even still I don't think it's guaranteed.

But if Kobe had gotten to play with Duncan instead of Shaq, absolutely nothing changes. In fact they probably win like 7-8 because those two wouldn't have had the same ego clash. Duncan would have had no problem with Kobe being "the man".

[rmt]

Shaq was the more impressive specimen but it should be obvious by this point that Duncan was the better player.

Not long ago people were debating if Shaq would have won those laker rings with another guard instead of Kobe. I really don't think he would have. Kobe elevated that team not just with his talent, but spiritually as well. Maybe Iverson? That's the only one you can even debate and even still I don't think it's guaranteed.

But if Kobe had gotten to play with Duncan instead of Shaq, absolutely nothing changes. In fact they probably win like 7-8 because those two wouldn't have had the same ego clash. Duncan would have had no problem with Kobe being "the man".

Probably not. One pro being TD and Kobe are closer in age than Shaq/Kobe. One con being that TD, TP and Manu all took less money so they could fill out team - don't know if Kobe would be as unselfish (both on and off court).


Duncan Contract Terms:
3 yr(s) / $10,239,080
3 yr(s) / $31,902,500
7 yr(s) / $122,007,706
2 yr(s) / $40,000,000
3 yr(s) / $30,361,446
2 yr(s) / $10,850,000


Kobe Contract Terms:
3 yr(s) / $3,501,240
5 yr(s) / $56,255,000
7 yr(s) / $136,434,375
3 yr(s) / $83,547,447
2 yr(s) / $48,500,000

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/player/_/id/2514/kobe-bryant

[warriorfan]

so now you’re a Spurs fan again eh

:roll:

[Baller234]

Probably not. One pro being TD and Kobe are closer in age than Shaq/Kobe. One con being that TD, TP and Manu all took less money so they could fill out team - don't know if Kobe would be as unselfish (both on and off court).


Duncan Contract Terms:
3 yr(s) / $10,239,080
3 yr(s) / $31,902,500
7 yr(s) / $122,007,706
2 yr(s) / $40,000,000
3 yr(s) / $30,361,446
2 yr(s) / $10,850,000


Kobe Contract Terms:
3 yr(s) / $3,501,240
5 yr(s) / $56,255,000
7 yr(s) / $136,434,375
3 yr(s) / $83,547,447
2 yr(s) / $48,500,000

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/player/_/id/2514/kobe-bryant

They wouldn't need to fill out the team. They have Kobe and Duncan. They're contending even if you fill out the roster with WNBA players.

[Norcaliblunt]

Duncan vs Shaq is a wash

[k0kakw0rld]

so now you’re a Spurs fan again eh
So anybody who loves/loved Michael Jordan, are/were Bulls fans? I thought he was globally known.

Pat Riley retired his jersey in Miami, does that make him a Bulls fan?

You are an idiot period.

[RRR3]

So anybody who loves/loved Michael Jordan, are/were Bulls fans? I thought he was globally known.

Pat Riley retired his jersey in Miami, does that make him a Bulls fan?

You are an idiot period.
Listen bub don’t act like you didn’t use to be a Spurs/Warriors/Nets/Raptors fan. I remember it well.

[tpols]

Probably not. One pro being TD and Kobe are closer in age than Shaq/Kobe. One con being that TD, TP and Manu all took less money so they could fill out team - don't know if Kobe would be as unselfish (both on and off court).


Duncan Contract Terms:
3 yr(s) / $10,239,080
3 yr(s) / $31,902,500
7 yr(s) / $122,007,706
2 yr(s) / $40,000,000
3 yr(s) / $30,361,446
2 yr(s) / $10,850,000


Kobe Contract Terms:
3 yr(s) / $3,501,240
5 yr(s) / $56,255,000
7 yr(s) / $136,434,375
3 yr(s) / $83,547,447
2 yr(s) / $48,500,000

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/player/_/id/2514/kobe-bryant


No offense but Kobe and Duncan would go together like peanut butter and jelly. They compliment each other perfectly and Duncan wouldn't give a single shit about his ppg. Prime peak Kobe is also worth more than Parker and Manu combined. All Star talents are a dime a dozen. MVP talents are rare, much less having two on one team.

[Phoenix]

Any combo of Kobe with Duncan/Garnett would, chemistry-wise, have been a more consistent duo in terms of year in,year out contention. I don't think you'd see the outright peak dominance of 2001 Shaq/Kobe, but they'd definitely have a spread of some chips between 2010 and 2011.

[rmt]

Any combo of Kobe with Duncan/Garnett would, chemistry-wise, have been a more consistent duo in terms of year in,year out contention. I don't think you'd see the outright peak dominance of 2001 Shaq/Kobe, but they'd definitely have a spread of some chips between 2010 and 2011.

I assume you mean 2000. But 7-8 rings (what I objected to) is a bit much - who wins 7-8 rings (no one save Bill Russell back in the day). And Spurs did win 3 during that time and contended much of the other years. The difference is the ring before (1999) and the contention/ring years of 2013 and 2014 - those probably wouldn't have happened (I liked the spread).

[Phoenix]

I assume you mean 2000. But 7-8 rings (what I objected to) is a bit much - who wins 7-8 rings (no one save Bill Russell back in the day). And Spurs did win 3 during that time and contended much of the other years. The difference is the ring before (1999) and the contention/ring years of 2013 and 2014 - those probably wouldn't have happened (I liked the spread).

Yes, meant 2000. In these conversations there is a habit of just throwing people together in some kind of perfect scenario( not saying you, mean in general) and acting like there's no ripple effects. Like, if Kobe and Duncan are on the same team, where is Shaq? Does some other elite player join him? We saw end of prime Shaq win with a young Wade. We just have no way of really knowing how the early 2000s play out if Kobe and Duncan are together. There's a 'logic' that well, if Duncan could win 3 titles in the 2000s with Ginobli and Parker then he's EASILY winning that and more with Kobe. Very likely and probable but it's a more nuanced conversation than 1+1=2, and has nothing to do with whether Kobe by himself is better than Ginobli/Parker or whatever else. There's alot of unforseen and unknowable shit that can happen which dictates who wins every year beyond the names on the back of the jersey. But the base question of Kobe and Duncan, through game and personality being a great fit goes without question.

Like you though, I'm just going to fall short of saying they win 7,8,9 titles in the decade like nobody else in the league is going to build rosters to combat them, or injuries don't kick in. Kobe's achilles went out and Duncan spent the 2nd half of his career with Plantar fasciitis. They very well could end up with 5 titles regardless, just together and probably condensed within a shorter window. We really just don't know. KD and Steph joined forces at 28 with 26 year old Klay and Dray. Imagine if we in 2025 hypothesized that scenario instead of it actually happening. You can hear it now... "Steph, KD and Klay together in their primes???!!!! EASILY 7/8 chips." Nope..... they won two, the third was disrupted by KD's injury, and he's off to Brooklyn because team chemistry broke down in year 3 and he wanted to play with Kyrie. Oh, and Harden joins them. EASILY 3-4 titles, yeah? Didn't make a single conference finals. Yeah alot of 'circumstances' in that but point being, shit happens.

Now do I think something like that happens with Kobe and Duncan? No, but chiefly because Duncan's game and personality ceded to the moment in order to win. Kobe would have been Kobe, but winning championships ain't easy. Winning one is hard. Some damn great players never did. Winning 2 is even harder. A three-peat? Happened 3 times in league history. 7,8,9 titles? In no decade past the 60s is that possible. I'd give the pairing 5, and that would be an all time great accomplishment.

[Baller234]

You said it though, KD was 28 when he joined the warriors. In a parallel universe where Kobe got drafted to a Laker team with Duncan on it, that would have made them 18 and 21. That's a huge head start.

Every finals of the 00's saw either Kobe or Duncan. If they played with each other while they were young and in their prime, there's no telling how many they could have won. It would have been like Magic and Bird playing with each other. 7-8 definitely would have been in the cards for them. It was probably in the cards for the bulls too if MJ didn't retire twice.

[Phoenix]

You said it though, KD was 28 when he joined the warriors. In a parallel universe where Kobe got drafted to a Laker team with Duncan on it, that would have made them 18 and 21. That's a huge head start.

Every finals of the 00's saw either Kobe or Duncan. If they played with each other while they were young and in their prime, there's no telling how many they could have won. It would have been like Magic and Bird playing with each other. 7-8 definitely would have been in the cards for them. It was probably in the cards for the bulls too if MJ didn't retire twice.

KD and Steph were ready made, MVP talents when they got together. Unless injuries derailed them early on, with their talents and the way they game was trending they'd have had to try to NOT win titles from day one.

The question with this Kobe/Duncan thing is which parallel universe are we talking about? Because KD on the Warriors was a reality, it happened and we saw how it played out. Is Kobe on the 99 Spurs team with Robinson as well? Obviously in that scenario, adding 99 Kobe to a team that we saw actually win a title isn't much of a stretch to say they also win with Kobe at the SG spot. But what if Duncan and Kobe are on the Lakers, or a different team entirely? And the trajectory is the same, Kobe doesn't become an all-nba player untill 2000? There are some perfect scenarios you can create if you want to argue hard that they go on some 60s Celtics runs, but I very much doubt that's how it plays out. The problem is we're acting like 'only' winning 5 titles is some under-achievement. The Spurs winning 5 titles between 99 and 2014 is perhaps the third greatest accomplishment in NBA history from a team POV, behind the 60s Celtics and 90s Bulls. I'm saying Kobe and Duncan together very well could have won 5 titles between 2000 and 2010 or 2011 if we pretend nothing else changes around the league. Detroit maybe still gets a title, the Celtics may or may not win in 08, the Heat may or may not win. Or maybe alot of different things happen in terms of teams creating rosters and it shakes out differently, and it's actually hard to predict off something completely unknowable and arguing in circles about something we have no chance of proving one way or another.

As for the Bulls, there's nothing to say they aren't burnt out by 96 if we just play the game where MJ doesn't retire, they remain perfectly healthy or at least healthy enough, Grant doesn't leave, etc etc. It's very likely that Jordan retiring in 94 allowed for that 2nd threepeat to be possible, then thinking they just start winning titles from 91 and run the table through 98. The only time that happened in league history, the champion got first round byes. There's just way too much that can happen that disrupts a team's title run in any given season and again doesn't have as much to do with how good the players are being discussed, and a combination of health, chemistry, players coming and going via free agency, etc. I don't look at these things as some zero sum game to where what happened is the only way it could have happened.

[Baller234]

You're overthinking it. Obviously these are all just made up scenarios and you'll never what changes each time you alter history, but I think we have a big enough sample size to make some educated guesses.

Duncan was just as good if not better than Shaq. He also had more drive and less ego. You have to remember that Kobe won in SPITE of Shaq. He literally had to fight the guy 1 on 1 as a young buck because Shaq was too much of a bitch. And yet despite all that they still won 3 in a row and made 4 finals. Yea I know, parallel universe and who knows and yadda yadda, but sorry I think Kobe and Duncan dominate for a huge stretch. Doesn't matter if you put Kobe on the spurs or Duncan on the lakers.

And yes if Jordan doesn't leave to play baseball and the bulls hold onto Ho Grant, more championships were definitely in the cards for them.

[Phoenix]

You're overthinking it. Obviously these are all just made up scenarios and you'll never what changes each time you alter history, but I think we have a big enough sample size to make some educated guesses.

Duncan was just as good if not better than Shaq. He also had more drive and less ego. You have to remember that Kobe won in SPITE of Shaq. He literally had to fight the guy 1 on 1 as a young buck because Shaq was too much of a bitch. And yet despite all that they still won 3 in a row and made 4 finals. Yea I know, parallel universe and who knows and yadda yadda, but sorry I think Kobe and Duncan dominate for a huge stretch. Doesn't matter if you put Kobe on the spurs or Duncan on the lakers.

And yes if Jordan doesn't leave to play baseball and the bulls hold onto Ho Grant, more championships were definitely in the cards for them.

I don't think so, because those are real considerations when attempting any hypothetical like this. I can just as easily say you're under-thinking it. Who's on the team with Kobe and Duncan, injuries, free agency, how the league responds are absolutely part of the equation and has never not been factors to varying degrees.

The question isn't if they win. The question is to what extent. 5 rings is a shit-ton of winning. That's like, everything has to go right levels of winning. And I'm not even saying they do that shit between 99 and 2014, I'm saying they could possibly do that just between 2000 and 2010. The last 2-3 rings you think they get aren't things I need to prove otherwise. 7-8 titles is the league basically rolling over and allowing Kobe/Duncan to run the table. That's assuming at some point, we don't see some crazy Avengers team-up to put the brakes on it. Who saw Garnett and Allen joining Pierce back in like 2005? Who saw Lebron joining Wade and Bosh back in 2009? Hands up. We have absolutely no clue what happens here but sure, don't stop at 8 rings. Go all the way and say they win 10-12 because the league will just roll over for a dozen years. If you think I'm over-engineering it, then I'd suggest the entire exercise is useless and we're both better off doing whatever we were each doing before we crossed paths on the topic. I say they probably win 5. You say they win 8. How much of your day do you think is worth it? We're not arguing shit in the present, we're arguing hypotheticals from 20 years ago that can go any number of ways. We can each make educated guesses on either side of the argument and it's irrelevant.

Yes, if Jordan doesn't retire in 93 and Horace stays on, they definitely keep winning titles. That's wasn't the argument. My point was that kind of run very likely doesn't last through 98 unless Jordan retires and the team retools, so there's nothing to say they end up with more titles than they did. If Jordan doesn't retire and Grant stays on, they probably win in 94. I don't think they win in 95. And if they did, who knows from there. Does Rodman still come onboard? Likely not if Grant is there, and Rodman's importance especially in 96 can't be understated. That could very well be the difference in whether the Bulls avenge their loss to the Magic. I'm sure it was a not insignificant factor in 72 wins. And the role he played in the 96 finals, Horace isn't duplicating that and guys like Shawn Kemp himself said Rodman was the main reason they won above all else. Like, Jordan was Jordan the first 3 games, less so the last 3, but what Rodman did throughout was the shit they had no effective counter for. I'm much less certain about what happens between 96 and 98 than I am 91-95.

[SouBeachTalents]

Yeah, I don't care what the pairing is, you can't just predict a duo is going to win 7-8 championships, esp if they realistically only have a 10 year window :lol Kobe & Duncan would obv wreck havoc on the league and would be a perfect fit, but there's just too many variables that go into winning a title. Look at Shaq & Kobe, two of their 3 titles came under extremely miraculous circumstances, it's fvcking hard to win championships. I'd put the over/under on a Kobe/Duncan tandem at 5 titles from 2001-2010.

[Baller234]

Yeah, I don't care what the pairing is, you can't just predict a duo is going to win 7-8 championships, esp if they realistically only have a 10 year window :lol Kobe & Duncan would obv wreck havoc on the league and would be a perfect fit, but there's just too many variables that go into winning a title. Look at Shaq & Kobe, two of their 3 titles came under extremely miraculous circumstances, it's fvcking hard to win championships. I'd put the over/under on a Kobe/Duncan tandem at 5 titles from 2001-2010.

Magic and Bird couldn't win 7-8 rings in the 80's? Lol the only reason they don't have 7-8 themselves is because of each other.

The same could almost be said for Duncan and Kobe. I'm glad you're willing to give them a chance for 5 at least.

[Phoenix]

Magic and Bird couldn't win 7-8 rings in the 80's? Lol the only reason they don't have 7-8 themselves is because of each other.

The same could almost be said for Duncan and Kobe. I'm glad you're willing to give them a chance for 5 at least.

Magic and Bird met in the finals 3 times. Most of the decade someone else was in the way of whether they won a title or not. Magic winning 5 with Kareem and Worthy, or he wins 5 with Bird on some other team that we're gonna end up either overthinking their teammates or underthink that you can simply pair two great players together in any context and they collect rings like stamps.

[rmt]

I agree with much of what Phoenix said.

Remember that Spurs had a good chance of a 5-peat but for Fisher/0.4 and Manu's foul on Dirk. I'm very confident of them winning in 2006 (very good matchup vs 06 Heat) - not so much vs 04 Piston (TP still young/Manu 2nd year player/brutal 7 game series a year later). So while I don't deny that Kobe/TD duo gives an EXCELLENT chance (in a smaller range of years) - the 2013 and 2014 Finals probably would not have happened. It's SO hard to win rings - everything has to go right, lack of injuries, LUCK. I'm very happy with the way things turned out.

It's nice to dream of Kobe/Duncan but as another poster pointed out - what's going on with Shaq at the same time? I do think it mattered whether KB/TD duo in LA or SA - LA had money/willing to spend. SAS was stingy - did some crazy stuff to save money and not go into luxury tax territory.

Regarding Magic/Bird - it's also very difficult to compare eras especially with the LONGEVITY factor (and current mobility - although this doesn't apply to KB or TD). Same with other sports like tennis where players used to retire at age 30 - compared to late 30s these days or in Lebron's case, early 40s.

[j3lademaster]

I agree with much of what Phoenix said.

Remember that Spurs had a good chance of a 5-peat but for Fisher/0.4 and Manu's foul on Dirk. I'm very confident of them winning in 2006 (very good matchup vs 06 Heat) - not so much vs 04 Piston (TP still young/Manu 2nd year player/brutal 7 game series a year later). So while I don't deny that Kobe/TD duo gives an EXCELLENT chance (in a smaller range of years) - the 2013 and 2014 Finals probably would not have happened. It's SO hard to win rings - everything has to go right, lack of injuries, LUCK. I'm very happy with the way things turned out.

It's nice to dream of Kobe/Duncan but as another poster pointed out - what's going on with Shaq at the same time? I do think it mattered whether KB/TD duo in LA or SA - LA had money/willing to spend. SAS was stingy - did some crazy stuff to save money and not go into luxury tax territory.

Regarding Magic/Bird - it's also very difficult to compare eras especially with the LONGEVITY factor (and current mobility - although this doesn't apply to KB or TD). Same with other sports like tennis where players used to retire at age 30 - compared to late 30s these days or in Lebron's case, early 40s.

You can’t throw out all of these hypotheticals without considering the 2007 rigging against the Suns.

[rmt]

You can’t throw out all of these hypotheticals without considering the 2007 rigging against the Suns.

Much of this thread is hypothetical.

You see it as rigging. I see it as the Spurs having the Suns' number with the perfect recipe and personnel to do it - cover the 3 point shooters and let Nash/Amare try to out-score the Spurs.

[sdot_thadon]

Eh, are we including the seasons and matchups Duncan spent hiding at PF too?

[Phoenix]

I agree with much of what Phoenix said.

Remember that Spurs had a good chance of a 5-peat but for Fisher/0.4 and Manu's foul on Dirk. I'm very confident of them winning in 2006 (very good matchup vs 06 Heat) - not so much vs 04 Piston (TP still young/Manu 2nd year player/brutal 7 game series a year later). So while I don't deny that Kobe/TD duo gives an EXCELLENT chance (in a smaller range of years) - the 2013 and 2014 Finals probably would not have happened. It's SO hard to win rings - everything has to go right, lack of injuries, LUCK. I'm very happy with the way things turned out.

It's nice to dream of Kobe/Duncan but as another poster pointed out - what's going on with Shaq at the same time? I do think it mattered whether KB/TD duo in LA or SA - LA had money/willing to spend. SAS was stingy - did some crazy stuff to save money and not go into luxury tax territory.

Regarding Magic/Bird - it's also very difficult to compare eras especially with the LONGEVITY factor (and current mobility - although this doesn't apply to KB or TD). Same with other sports like tennis where players used to retire at age 30 - compared to late 30s these days or in Lebron's case, early 40s.

Yeah, I raised that above in my first reply to you. And this is what I gather, not because it's been explicitly stated...Kobe was the baseline for whether the Lakers were gonna win 2000-2002. You could have paired him with Alonzo Mourning and they'd still win. Shaq on the other hand? If Kobe isn't there to 'coax' him with his indomitable spirit, he's not winning any titles. Ever. That was only possible with Kobe. It's not been said....but it's been said. I'm just preparing myself for it to be said out loud.

[rmt]

Eh, are we including the seasons and matchups Duncan spent hiding at PF too?

Do you mean with DRob, Nazr, Rasho, Blair, Willis, Oberto, Elson, Splitter, Aron Baynes? - yielded 5 rings. Or are they all PFs?

I never did understand the knock against being able to play 2 positions, adapt as the game changed and offer flexibility in roster.

[Baller234]

Yeah, I raised that above in my first reply to you. And this is what I gather, not because it's been explicitly stated...Kobe was the baseline for whether the Lakers were gonna win 2000-2002. You could have paired him with Alonzo Mourning and they'd still win. Shaq on the other hand? If Kobe isn't there to 'coax' him with his indomitable spirit, he's not winning any titles. Ever. That was only possible with Kobe. It's not been said....but it's been said. I'm just preparing myself for it to be said out loud.

Also worth noting that Shaq did in fact win another title but only because he was paired with the closest thing to Kobe at the time.

[rmt]

Yeah, I raised that above in my first reply to you. And this is what I gather, not because it's been explicitly stated...Kobe was the baseline for whether the Lakers were gonna win 2000-2002. You could have paired him with Alonzo Mourning and they'd still win. Shaq on the other hand? If Kobe isn't there to 'coax' him with his indomitable spirit, he's not winning any titles. Ever. That was only possible with Kobe. It's not been said....but it's been said. I'm just preparing myself for it to be said out loud.

IMO, Shaq was a beast and the main reason for the 3-peat. The proof against Kobe argument is that Shaq won with Wade (past his dominant years).

[rmt]

Also worth noting that Shaq did in fact win another title but only because he was paired with the closest thing to Kobe at the time.

I read Phoenix's post as sarcasm (meaning misplaced Kobe love) but maybe I'm wrong? Funny how you see Shaq winning with Wade as backing it up while I see the very same as a refute against Kobe's importance.

[Phoenix]

Also worth noting that Shaq did in fact win another title but only because he was paired with the closest thing to Kobe at the time.

Yes, but I'm referring specifically to Shaq's peak period of 99-02. A few weeks back Tmac stirred up a hornets nest suggesting that he could have won titles in Kobe's place alongside Shaq. Now, I'm not here to re-ignite that conversation, but as the years pass there seem to be efforts to rewrite history to understate Shaq's dominance expressly in order to boost Kobe, to the effect of essentially saying you could have paired Kobe with any good big in 2001 and LA wins, because Kobe was the baseline. Shaq, on the other hand, lazy. Unmotivated. No chance of ever winning titles unless Kobe was there to light a fire under his ass. And without Kobe on his team, he'd have little to do with the title picture in that time period. Again, its not been said....but I'm reading between the lines. Not just this conversation specifically, I'm recalling several conversations I've seen here recently about Shaq and Kobe and tying it all together.

[Phoenix]

I read Phoenix's post as sarcasm (meaning misplaced Kobe love) but maybe I'm wrong? Funny how you see Shaq winning with Wade as backing it up while I see the very same as a refute against Kobe's importance.

Yes, that was sarcasm or rather, I'm taking the position of what I believe the Kobe fanbase want to say without outright saying it. That the most important player on that Lakers 2000-2002 team was Kobe, and Shaq could have been replaced with any all-star big( and as said above, we had a big conversation a few weeks ago around Tmac suggesting others, himself among them, could have teamed with Shaq to win titles). The Kobe fanbase will hear no such thing. And I'm going to name them 'exhibit A', B, C' etc as soon as they pop up in here.

[Baller234]

IMO, Shaq was a beast and the main reason for the 3-peat. The proof against Kobe argument is that Shaq won with Wade (past his dominant years).

"Main reason" implies he was an irreplaceable part of the equation. The championship equation for the lakers was Shaq/Kobe/Phil. Everyone else was playing a role.

- Phil was pretty damn close to being irreplaceable. Not saying another great coach couldn't get it done with Shaq & Kobe but he was the only one with the resume and the cache to make Shaq listen. Riley would have been the only other coach in the convo during that time and big surprise Shaq won with him too.

- Kobe I think might have been replaceable with AI because they were similar in terms of talent, but as we know Iverson had extreme maturity issues himself. Not the best guy you wanna pair with Shaq. Don't see them being a tight pair. Don't see Iverson "taming" Shaq the way Kobe did. Definitely wasn't happening with T-Mac or Vince.

- Shaq I think you could probably replace with Duncan and expect similar results. I think Timmy dominates with Kobe & Phil just the same. But by 02-03ish Kobe had taken a huge leap and I think there are probably a few players the lakers could have won with other than Shaq. There were a lot of really good bigs in the league at that time. Do the Lakers win 3 in a row, impossible to say, but I wouldn't totally discount the possibility.

Shaq was a dominant force, and of course he was a gigantic piece to the puzzle, but you can make the case that from 00-03 the most replaceable person in that 3 man equation was Shaq.

[Phoenix]

"Main reason" implies he was an irreplaceable part of the equation. The championship equation for the lakers was Shaq/Kobe/Phil. Everyone else was playing a role.

- Phil was pretty damn close to being irreplaceable. Not saying another great coach couldn't get it done with Shaq & Kobe but he was the only one with the resume and the cache to make Shaq listen. Riley would have been the only other coach in the convo during that time and big surprise Shaq won with him too.

- Kobe I think might have been replaceable with AI because they were similar in terms of talent, but as we know Iverson had extreme maturity issues himself. Not the best guy you wanna pair with Shaq. Don't see them being a tight pair. Don't see Iverson "taming" Shaq the way Kobe did. Definitely wasn't happening with T-Mac or Vince.

- Shaq I think you could probably replace with Duncan and expect similar results. I think Timmy dominates with Kobe & Phil just the same. But by 02-03ish Kobe had taken a huge leap and I think there are probably a few players the lakers could have won with other than Shaq. There were a lot of really good bigs in the league at that time. Do the Lakers win 3 in a row, impossible to say, but I wouldn't totally discount the possibility.

Shaq was a dominant force, and of course he was a gigantic piece to the puzzle, but you can make the case that from 00-03 the most replaceable person in that 3 man equation was Shaq.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTZjMDliOTUyOXJta3Y4a283Nnd4d3MzaHg4NDVpN2s 1bzAzcWpnNGtuamZqYXhxcCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjd D1n/5UB7rGI71YHBsuRQdi/giphy.gif


You know what I find interesting though, and I'll move the conversation past Shaq and Kobe because that's really a whatever at this point. But Phil Jackson to me. Great coach, great motivator of talent with his smoking sage behind the scenes and whatever else he did to soothe egos. I always find it interesting how people tie Jordan/Pippen and Shaq/Kobe's winning titles so intricately with him, but I see less conversations that he also lucked into some really great timing taking on Shaq and Jordan at 26/27 years old when they were very clearly on the cusp of winning, with the young guns Kobe and Pippen as their running mates. Sort of like running a 100 metre race up to the 90 metre line and someone drags you over the last 10. And then we say 30 years later that's the only way they finish the race. Nobody in 1991 that I'm aware of was saying Jordan only won because Phil Jackson came onboard, but I love hindsight. I just don't know where the line starts and ends with him. Great coach though.

[SouBeachTalents]

"Main reason" implies he was an irreplaceable part of the equation. The championship equation for the lakers was Shaq/Kobe/Phil. Everyone else was playing a role.

- Phil was pretty damn close to being irreplaceable. Not saying another great coach couldn't get it done with Shaq & Kobe but he was the only one with the resume and the cache to make Shaq listen. Riley would have been the only other coach in the convo during that time and big surprise Shaq won with him too.

- Kobe I think might have been replaceable with AI because they were similar in terms of talent, but as we know Iverson had extreme maturity issues himself. Not the best guy you wanna pair with Shaq. Don't see them being a tight pair. Don't see Iverson "taming" Shaq the way Kobe did. Definitely wasn't happening with T-Mac or Vince.

- Shaq I think you could probably replace with Duncan and expect similar results. I think Timmy dominates with Kobe & Phil just the same. But by 02-03ish Kobe had taken a huge leap and I think there are probably a few players the lakers could have won with other than Shaq. There were a lot of really good bigs in the league at that time. Do the Lakers win 3 in a row, impossible to say, but I wouldn't totally discount the possibility.

Shaq was a dominant force, and of course he was a gigantic piece to the puzzle, but you can make the case that from 00-03 the most replaceable person in that 3 man equation was Shaq.
I strongly disagree with the Kobe take. I think McGrady would be far more likely to win with Shaq than Iverson would, ditto guys like Ray, Pierce, maybe Vince.

[Phoenix]

Just as an aside, Phil Jackson is on record in one of his books as saying Kobe was un-coachable at one point. To the degree that we have the well-known story of Jordan being brought in around 99 expressly to talk to him about letting the game come to him. But the story is that he made Shaq a champion. Kobe though? Could have won with a chimpanzee drawing up Triangle plays.

[rmt]

"Main reason" implies he was an irreplaceable part of the equation. The championship equation for the lakers was Shaq/Kobe/Phil. Everyone else was playing a role.

- Phil was pretty damn close to being irreplaceable. Not saying another great coach couldn't get it done with Shaq & Kobe but he was the only one with the resume and the cache to make Shaq listen. Riley would have been the only other coach in the convo during that time and big surprise Shaq won with him too.

- Kobe I think might have been replaceable with AI because they were similar in terms of talent, but as we know Iverson had extreme maturity issues himself. Not the best guy you wanna pair with Shaq. Don't see them being a tight pair. Don't see Iverson "taming" Shaq the way Kobe did. Definitely wasn't happening with T-Mac or Vince.

- Shaq I think you could probably replace with Duncan and expect similar results. I think Timmy dominates with Kobe & Phil just the same. But by 02-03ish Kobe had taken a huge leap and I think there are probably a few players the lakers could have won with other than Shaq. There were a lot of really good bigs in the league at that time. Do the Lakers win 3 in a row, impossible to say, but I wouldn't totally discount the possibility.

Shaq was a dominant force, and of course he was a gigantic piece to the puzzle, but you can make the case that from 00-03 the most replaceable person in that 3 man equation was Shaq.

I STRONGLY disagree - IMO, Shaq was the most irreplaceable of the 3. Please state who (other than your stated Duncan) could have replaced Shaq for a 3-peat.

And "taming"? - smh. They are BOTH at fault - why make ego super cede winning and waste your PEAK in the "lost years" (before the miraculous arrival of Gasol)?

[Baller234]

I strongly disagree with the Kobe take. I think McGrady would be far more likely to win with Shaq than Iverson would, ditto guys like Ray, Pierce, maybe Vince.

:oldlol:

Yea okay.

T-Mac is squaring up with Shaq in a 1 on 1 fight? T-Mac is elevating the the team with his suicidal desire to win? Guy never made it out of the 1st round. Guy was the best player on a team that lost 19 straight. He was an amazing TALENT but never proved he was a leader or a winner. Shaq needed both.

Shaq couldn't even figure it out with Penny who was an all-decade type talent, but he would be able to figure it out with Vince, Pierce, Allen?? Sorry but Penny was better than all of those guys. Maybe depending on the circumstances he lucks out and wins one year but he's definitely not winning 3 in a row with any of those guys. :oldlol:

[Baller234]

Just as an aside, Phil Jackson is on record in one of his books as saying Kobe was un-coachable at one point. To the degree that we have the well-known story of Jordan being brought in around 99 expressly to talk to him about letting the game come to him. But the story is that he made Shaq a champion. Kobe though? Could have won with a chimpanzee drawing up Triangle plays.

Kobe came into the league as a child. He needed to mature. I already said that Phil was an invaluable part of the equation.

Also we're not talking about 1999, we're talking about the championship years. We're talking about 00-02. If we're keeping it to that time frame you could absolutely make the case that Kobe was more irreplaceable. Especially towards the end of the run.

[SouBeachTalents]

"Main reason" implies he was an irreplaceable part of the equation. The championship equation for the lakers was Shaq/Kobe/Phil. Everyone else was playing a role.

- Phil was pretty damn close to being irreplaceable. Not saying another great coach couldn't get it done with Shaq & Kobe but he was the only one with the resume and the cache to make Shaq listen. Riley would have been the only other coach in the convo during that time and big surprise Shaq won with him too.

- Kobe I think might have been replaceable with AI because they were similar in terms of talent, but as we know Iverson had extreme maturity issues himself. Not the best guy you wanna pair with Shaq. Don't see them being a tight pair. Don't see Iverson "taming" Shaq the way Kobe did. Definitely wasn't happening with T-Mac or Vince.

- Shaq I think you could probably replace with Duncan and expect similar results. I think Timmy dominates with Kobe & Phil just the same. But by 02-03ish Kobe had taken a huge leap and I think there are probably a few players the lakers could have won with other than Shaq. There were a lot of really good bigs in the league at that time. Do the Lakers win 3 in a row, impossible to say, but I wouldn't totally discount the possibility.

Shaq was a dominant force, and of course he was a gigantic piece to the puzzle, but you can make the case that from 00-03 the most replaceable person in that 3 man equation was Shaq.
I didn't even notice this last part, then he responds with a laughing emoji at how a top 5 player in McGrady could win with peak Shaq :lol

Dude is clearly not capable of a rational discussion on this topic.

Claiming Penny was better than McGrady is also ridiculous.

[Phoenix]

Kobe came into the league as a child. He needed to mature. I already said that Phil was an invaluable part of the equation.

Also we're not talking about 1999, we're talking about the championship years. We're talking about 00-02. If we're keeping it to that time frame you could absolutely make the case that Kobe was more irreplaceable. Especially towards the end of the run.

Yes but he wasn't referring to teenager Kobe. He was referring to him just prior to when he stopped coaching the Lakers in 2004. It's one reason he stopped coaching LA to begin with, not because Kobe was tough to coach at 19. It should also be noted that the purpose of implementing the Triangle was based around the idea of a dominant post presence, and Shaq was considered the ideal player type to build the offense around. It's why both Jordan and Kobe operated alot in the post during the years they won( Kobe in 2008-2010 especially), but the concept of the Triangle was based around a dominant big.

You could also make the case that Shaq's presence on the team is largely what drew Phil to be there in the first place, not a 19 year old still raw Kobe, and they aren't title contenders to begin with unless Shaq is there. Really, anyone with a bit of flair and alot fo passion for a particular viewpoint could make just about any case they want. May or may not be rooted in reality, but it keeps things interesting. As for Kobe being more irreplaceable, I think it's a conversation for 2003 and 2004 because Shaq had come off his absolute peak, north of 30, becoming more out of shape and Kobe was entering the zenith of his powers and prime. Which has nothing to do with 00-02, since you say that's the time frame being discussed.

[Baller234]

I didn't even notice this last part, then he responds with a laughing emoji at how a top 5 player in McGrady could win with peak Shaq :lol

Dude is clearly not capable of a rational discussion on this topic.

Claiming Penny was better than McGrady is also ridiculous.

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZTQwNzBjY2QtN2JiZC00YTRhLTk3NmQtODM3NGYzZWE5MD BiXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg

[Baller234]

Yes but he wasn't referring to teenager Kobe. He was referring to him just prior to when he stopped coaching the Lakers in 2004. It's one reason he stopped coaching LA to begin with, not because Kobe was tough to coach at 19.

You could also make the case that Shaq's presence on the team is largely what drew Phil to be there in the first place, not a 19 year old still raw Kobe, and they aren't title contenders to begin with unless Shaq is there. Really, anyone with a bit of flair and alot fo passion for a particular viewpoint could make just about any case they want. May or may not be rooted in reality, but it keeps things interesting. As for Kobe being more irreplaceable, I think it's a conversation for 2003 and 2004 because Shaq had come off his absolute peak, north of 30, becoming more out of shape and Kobe was entering the zenith of his powers and prime. Which has nothing to do with 00-02, since you say that's the time frame being discussed.

This is true. You can't prove anything in these arguments.

But I think my case still stands. If I am a general manager and I have the advantage of hindsight, and I absolutely had to drop just one person from that 3 man equation... it's Shaq. To me Phil and Kobe proved they were more invaluable. They went to the finals multiple times without him after all and won two.

[ShawkFactory]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZTQwNzBjY2QtN2JiZC00YTRhLTk3NmQtODM3NGYzZWE5MD BiXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg

Are you the kid saying the darndest thing?

Before the injuries started piling up on McGrady? Yea saying Penny was better than he was IS ridiculous. I suppose I could see an argument on how they were similar level players, even though I'd still disagree that it's splitting even hairs. Similar levels maybe but McGrady at his peak was clearly superior to me.

He did things that literally no one else could do aside from perhaps Kobe.

[SouBeachTalents]

Are you the kid saying the darndest thing?

Before the injuries started piling up on McGrady? Yea saying Penny was better than he was IS ridiculous. I suppose I could see an argument on how they were similar level players, even though I'd still disagree that it's splitting hairs.

He did things that literally no one else could do aside from perhaps Kobe.
Did you see him claim out of Shaq/Kobe/Phil Shaq was the most replicable person of the Lakers 3peat? He is indeed :lol

[Phoenix]

This is true. You can't prove anything in these arguments.

But I think my case still stands. If I am a general manager and I have the advantage of hindsight, and I absolutely had to drop just one person from that 3 man equation... it's Shaq. To me Phil and Kobe proved they were more invaluable. They went to the finals multiple times without him after all and won two.

But these things don't happen in hindsight. The choices you made 10 years ago weren't done in hindsight, they were done based off the information you had in the moment. And in 2000,2001, 2002, the reality of that moment was that Shaq was individually the most dominant player in the league. You're not dropping 2001 Shaq to pair Kobe with someone worse. Nobody would have dropped him in 2001 for Duncan either. Its weird to say you'd swap Shaq (or even Kobe, for that matter) with hindsight, because we know what that duo achieved, a threepeat. I'm not jumping into a Delorean to swap out Shaq with someone else and hedge my bets on the same net results. Hindsight tells me that duo won.... alot. The potential of effecting a worse result by swapping out either of them for some odd need to prove which one was the baseline for the teams success isn't a question I need answered enough to risk it. It's even more nebulous with Phil because his entire coaching legacy is tied to Jordan, Shaq and Kobe, 3 top ten GOATs. There's no record of him achieving anything outside that context to over-assign credit for those titles moreso than being gift-wrapped the outright best players in the league as they were hitting their prime. Again, we need to be clear about where the line starts and ends with that.

[Baller234]

Are you the kid saying the darndest thing?

Before the injuries started piling up on McGrady? Yea saying Penny was better than he was IS ridiculous. I suppose I could see an argument on how they were similar level players, even though I'd still disagree that it's splitting even hairs. Similar levels maybe but McGrady at his peak was clearly superior to me.

He did things that literally no one else could do aside from perhaps Kobe.

I can already tell you weren't old enough to experience watching Penny during his prime in real time.

McGrady was a better scorer in isolation and a better shooter, which admittedly is very important, but Penny was better than him in every other category. He wasn't the pure scorer that T-Mac was but he was pretty damn close to being an elite 1 on 1 player himself. He used to COOK Pippen. He was just more of a facilitator and play-maker.

Penny does way more for your team. If Penny and four bums played McGrady and four bums in a best of seven, and they were both in their primes, I would bet all my money on Penny's team. In 95-96 Penny led the team to a 17-5 record without Shaq and was putting up 27/6/5.

Meanwhile T-Mac was on a team that lost 19 straight. T-Mac the guy who never made it past the first round. Amazing talent no question. The 13 pts in 33 seconds might be the single greatest thing I've ever witnessed on a basketball court. But he just wasn't that guy.

[Phoenix]

This is true. You can't prove anything in these arguments.

But I think my case still stands. If I am a general manager and I have the advantage of hindsight, and I absolutely had to drop just one person from that 3 man equation... it's Shaq. To me Phil and Kobe proved they were more invaluable. They went to the finals multiple times without him after all and won two.

Thinking more about the bolded.....I mean Shaq went to the finals in his third year with a player worse than Kobe (you argued above that Penny was better than Tmac, or at least more conducive to winning...I'm sure you'll agree Kobe from 2001 onwards was better than any version of Penny) and young Dwyane Wade. Kobe only went to the finals w/o Shaq with Phil Jackson. Shaq managed to go to the finals with 3 different rosters and same number of coaches. Now, as you argue that Kobe's track record post-Shaq proved he was more invaluable, there's a viewpoint that Shaq being in championship contention and/or winning titles wasn't as strictly tied to one player and/or coach. I could argue that, fairly strongly, but I wouldn't. It just harkens back to what I said earlier that with a bit of flair you can pretty much make any case you want in service of the argument. Some people resort to outlandish claims, I generally try to stay without reasonable boundaries and not get too crazy with it just to make a point.

Now in Miami, he relegated himself to more of a 1b to Wade, so the status he occupied on those Heat teams obviously isn't one to one with what he was in Orlando or the Lakers, but the fact that Wade couldn't get out of the first round after Shaq left should speak to his inherent value, just as Kobe's inability to do so until he landed Gasol. We have stats to tell us that Kobe's record without Shaq was 22-24 between 2001-2004. It's important to specify that timeframe because those years represent the best of Kobe that Shaq would have played with. I'm not going to be disingenuous with it and show the Lakers record with Kobe and no Shaq from, like, 1996-99 when Kobe was young and his effect on winning would obviously be exponentially lower. Conversely, Shaq's record without Kobe in the same 2001-2004 period was 19-7. Now, these aren't 'huge' sample sizes, but enough to show a general trend that in this time frame, the Lakers could better withstand Kobe's absence than Shaq's, at least over the course of the season. It goes without saying that I'm not saying this to infer that you can remove Kobe from the Lakers with no substitute and win, or the reverse. It does suggest that over a 82 game season in that timeframe, Shaq w/o Kobe would have led the Lakers to a winning record rather comfortably, and Kobe w/o Shaq would have had them flirting with .500. Which is consistent with what we saw between 2005 and 2008. You could even argue that, as great as young Wade was in 2004, Shaq was still the leader of the team and was 2nd in MVP voting, not Wade. The baton in Miami wasn't fully passed until the 2006 season.

[rmt]

This is true. You can't prove anything in these arguments.

But I think my case still stands. If I am a general manager and I have the advantage of hindsight, and I absolutely had to drop just one person from that 3 man equation... it's Shaq. To me Phil and Kobe proved they were more invaluable. They went to the finals multiple times without him after all and won two.

I don't know how anyone could argue that ANY coach is more valuable than Shaq especially during the 3-peat years. No matter how good a coach is - it's the players that play the game. And Shaq was so consequential that the STINGY Spurs paid a stiff like Rasho $42 million to replace DRob (because of the existence of Shaq in the West).

Where, why and when do you think he got the Most Dominant Ever moniker?

[Baller234]

I don't know how anyone could argue that ANY coach is more valuable than Shaq especially during the 3-peat years. No matter how good a coach is - it's the players that play the game. And Shaq was so consequential that the STINGY Spurs paid a stiff like Rasho $42 million to replace DRob (because of the existence of Shaq in the West).

Where, why and when do you think he got the Most Dominant Ever moniker?

You're not just talking about any coach though, you're talking about a pantheon level all timer. Phil is higher on all the all time list of coaches than Shaq is on the all time list of players. By the time he got to the Lakers he was a seasoned vet with eleven years under his belt and six rangz.

Shaq played 3 seasons with the Lakers before Phil got there. He had a solid team and solid supporting cast but no rangz. Phil becomes coach, now all of a sudden he's got rangz and em-vee-pee's.

I'm just saying at that point in time, if one of them had to be replaced... you would have had an easier time replacing Shaq. There were other bigs in the league during that time who could score and rebound. Bigs that could shoot free throws.

But you would have been hard pressed to find a coach who had Phil's resume. Someone that Shaq would have no choice but to listen to.

[RRR3]

2000 finals

Shaq: 38.0/16.7 on 57.6 TS%
Kobe: 15.6/4.6 on an all-time bad 41.1 TS%



Bawler: Kobe was more irreplaceable









Holy **** is this guy dumb :oldlol:

[Baller234]

3tard you were in diapers during the 2000 playoffs.

If you were old enough to watch you would have known that the Lakers don't even make the finals if not for Bean. You might wanna watch that WCF against the Blazers again.

Shaq wasn't the only big man in the league who could score and rebound, but Kobe was the only guard in the league with that combination of skillset, leadership and fearlessness. By the 2nd or 3rd ring not only was Kobe just as dominant as Shaq but he was dominant without being a liability at the FT line.

You got a bad memory Beansie.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_YXiXsT8ls

[RRR3]

Kobe stans love to pretend that Kobe is the reason they won that series against Portland because of game 7 but the fact of the matter is they were up 3-1 with a chance to end it in game 5 and Kobe pooped his pants, which is the reason they needed a game 7 in the first place. In that pivotal game 5 up 3-1, Kobe was 4-13 with 6 turnovers and fouled out. Shaq meanwhile had an efficient 31/21. Sorry Kobe doesn't get credit for finally pulling his weight after making the series go on longer than it had to by crapping the bed in a pivotal game.

[rmt]

You're not just talking about any coach though, you're talking about a pantheon level all timer. Phil is higher on all the all time list of coaches than Shaq is on the all time list of players. By the time he got to the Lakers he was a seasoned vet with eleven years under his belt and six rangz.

Shaq played 3 seasons with the Lakers before Phil got there. He had a solid team and solid supporting cast but no rangz. Phil becomes coach, now all of a sudden he's got rangz and em-vee-pee's.

I'm just saying at that point in time, if one of them had to be replaced... you would have had an easier time replacing Shaq. There were other bigs in the league during that time who could score and rebound. Bigs that could shoot free throws.

But you would have been hard pressed to find a coach who had Phil's resume. Someone that Shaq would have no choice but to listen to.

Phil is higher on the all time coach list than Shaq on player list by virtue of having 3 top 10 players of all time play for him - including who I consider the GOAT. MJ isn't recognized by many as the GOAT because he played for Phil - it's Phil who's considered as a top coach because of MJ, Shaq and Kobe.

[Phoenix]

Phil is higher on the all time coach list than Shaq on player list by virtue of having 3 top 10 players of all time play for him - including who I consider the GOAT. MJ isn't recognized by many as the GOAT because he played for Phil - it's Phil who's considered as a top coach because of MJ, Shaq and Kobe.

Exactly. At the very least, as individual talents MJ, Shaq and Kobe are all-time greats regardless of who's coaching them. Shaq had been to the finals and was an MVP level player as early as his 2nd year. Jordan literally won MVP before Phil came on. Those guys trajectories as historically great talents were already established. That wasn't the case with Kobe who was 21 and still ascending as a player, but there's no reason to think he wasn't going to be historically great even if Phil doesn't join the Lakers in 2000.

Phil, on the other hand, enjoyed the benefit of having both Jordan and Shaq, 6 years into their career at 26-27 years old, as building blocks with a young upcoming star ascending beside them. I give him credit for being the cherry on top and helping to instill a system that maxed them out( and more specifically, maxed out the team around them), but he can only be judged with the context that he had a running start joining teams with GOAT level players as they were hitting their stride. Go join the 90s Clippers and get them to the playoffs. That would take some coaching.

He's a master of timing, if anything, as much as he was a master in basketball Xs' and Os' ( which on that note, the brains behind the triangle was Tex Winters).

[John8204]

"Main reason" implies he was an irreplaceable part of the equation. The championship equation for the lakers was Shaq/Kobe/Phil. Everyone else was playing a role.



Jerry West built a team of superstars to get Shaq a ring, Pat Riley did the same thing in Miami.

Shaq without an all-time great GM get's swept out of the playoffs like he did more than every other player in the top 75.

[rmt]

Jerry West built a team of superstars to get Shaq a ring, Pat Riley did the same thing in Miami.

Shaq without an all-time great GM get's swept out of the playoffs like he did more than every other player in the top 75.

Is this what it's evolved to now? Shaq being chopped liver without an all-time great coach and GM?

BTW, I could say the same thing about Kobe - that Jerry West, a GM (from an opposing team) gifted Gasol to Kobe. Or what has Kobe ever won without Phil?

I cannot believe I'm reduced to defending Shaq of all players.

[SouBeachTalents]

3tard you were in diapers during the 2000 playoffs.

If you were old enough to watch you would have known that the Lakers don't even make the finals if not for Bean. You might wanna watch that WCF against the Blazers again.

Shaq wasn't the only big man in the league who could score and rebound, but Kobe was the only guard in the league with that combination of skillset, leadership and fearlessness. By the 2nd or 3rd ring not only was Kobe just as dominant as Shaq but he was dominant without being a liability at the FT line.

You got a bad memory Beansie.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_YXiXsT8ls
Prior to Game 7 Kobe had games of

13 points on 4/9
12 points on 2/9
18 points on 5/15
17 points on 4/13 & 6 turnovers

If he had even a below average series to that point, they never would've needed a Game 7.

[RRR3]

Prior to Game 7 Kobe had games of

13 points on 4/9
12 points on 2/9
18 points on 5/15
17 points on 4/13 & 6 turnovers

If he had even a below average series to that point, they never would've needed a Game 7.
Like I said earlier that 17 points on 4/13 with 6 turnovers was with a chance to win the series too. And Shaq had 31/21 that game :lol