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

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;15017756]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Da_Realist;15017699]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.[/QUOTE]

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 '[I]sure, you put me in Kobe's spot and I'm doing the same shit[/I]'. 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.

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

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15017815]People really think McGrady is winning zero titles with peak Shaq? Y'all are tripping :lol[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Meticode;15017816]Correct. Kobe > McGrady as an overall basketball player. [I]Maybe[/I] they get one, but not threepeat.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15017815]People really think McGrady is winning zero titles with peak Shaq? Y'all are tripping :lol[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15017817]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.

[B]I'm sure in 10 years they'll be making this claim about Kobe & Wade too[/B].[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15017818]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15017788]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15017820]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15017817]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;15017756]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote]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.[/quote]

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

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.

[video=youtube;l2Znpf7nl_0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Znpf7nl_0&ab_channel=BrittanieBode[/video]

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.

All-Defensive Teams:

Kobe - 12
TMac - 0

I mean, what are we doing here? :lol

[QUOTE=Tavr;15017831]All-Defensive Teams:

Kobe - 12
TMac - 0

I mean, what are we doing here? :lol[/QUOTE]

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

[url]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[/url]

[QUOTE=Meticode;15017833]I already brought it up earlier. People either ignore the other side of the ball or they undervalue it.

[url]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[/url][/QUOTE]
More like you ignored soubbeachtalents posts

[QUOTE=Tavr;15017831]All-Defensive Teams:

Kobe - 12
TMac - 0

I mean, what are we doing here? :lol[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15017821]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Meticode;15017822]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.

[B]If McGrady and Shaq played together who's to say the Jackson ever comes in.[/B][/QUOTE]

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.

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.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15017821]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

[B][SIZE=4]17 points[/SIZE][/B] 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.[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=LAL;15017859]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=LAL;15017859]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15017860]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.[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15017860]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.[/QUOTE]



[QUOTE=Phoenix;15017861]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.[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15017860]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=LAL;15017867]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?[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=Meticode;15017833]I already brought it up earlier. People either ignore the other side of the ball or they undervalue it.

[url]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[/url][/QUOTE]

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 [I]do matter[/I]...

[QUOTE=tpols;15017840]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.[/QUOTE]

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

This is Tmac in Game 1 2000 vs Knicks:


[video=youtube;rhvZmBHIsf8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhvZmBHIsf8&ab_channel=gearmast3r[/video]


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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15017873]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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15017879]This is Tmac in Game 1 2000 vs Knicks:


[video=youtube;rhvZmBHIsf8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhvZmBHIsf8&ab_channel=gearmast3r[/video]


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[/QUOTE]

Idiot

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

[QUOTE=LAL;15017881]Idiot

Dude's just fantasizing. Sorry i don't speak lebum[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=LAL;15017880]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15017882]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.[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15017885]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.[/QUOTE]

You still don't get it LOL

[QUOTE=LAL;15017886]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?[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=LAL;15017887]You still don't get it LOL[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15017888]So if its nothing, why are you posting in this topic? Go talk about 'Lebum' or whatever gets you through the day.[/QUOTE]

HaRdEn CiRcUmStAnCeS TmAc HaD vInCe, hAd CiRcUmStAnCe

[QUOTE=LAL;15017890]:lebroncry:[/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://i.redd.it/xh5jwxtks1pd1.gif[/IMG]

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