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

[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.