Bigger dropoff: 3peat Lakers w/o Kobe or current Heat w/o Lebron?

[comerb]

Lakers record w/o Kobe during threepeat: 25-7 (78%), compared to 12-11 w/o Shaq (52%).

Lakers won championship in '00 with Bean averaging 15.6 PPG on 37% shooting. Those are 3rd or 4th option #s on terrible shooting and the Lakers still won the title.

Shaq was the man on those teams, Kobe was the help. Better question would be 3peat Lakers w/o Kobe or current Heat w/o Wade.

Poor Kobe stans. It's no wonder they hate actual statistical data.

Too bad Kobe's solo games were mostly at the beginning of the seasons (when the roleplayers played like dogs), and Shaq's were at the end of the regular seasons (when everyone was in playoff mode).

And here come the excuses... right on queue.

[Rose'sACL]

Win shares?



Learn the meaning of stacked, kid. Phil Jackson himself said something to the effect of "We won because of Shaq's dominance, Kobe's creativity and because the team bought in defensively." His other words, and I'm not paraphrasing were "We were far from the most talented team in the league" and "We won 67 games on Shaq's back." Not what you say about a stacked team. Again, what made that team special first and foremost was the 1-2 punch and a great coach.

But I can see that you can't even grasp the simple meaning of the word stacked since you try to use their win/loss record as proof and then claim anyone with Shaq could win a title which kind of kills your win/loss argument now doesn't it? You see what you can learn when you actually think. A stunning revelation, I know, but just think, there's a whole new world out there for you.

Of course, I'm talking to some kid who actually puts stock in win shares, though as bad as the stat is, you probably only acknowledge it in this case because it suits your agenda. Then again, it's pretty obvious someone has nothing remotely intelligent to contribute to an argument when they resort to random, completely unprovoked insults instead of trying to counter specific points made, or bring new information to the table.

The sad thing is, I think you replied to yourself back there with the Rose's ACL account. Both are clearly alternate accounts, my guess is Silkk, but it doesn't really matter, because whoever you are, there's not much between the eras.

i gave the stat. i didn't say anything about which team would do well. you interpret the stat as you like it.
Also, stop calling others "kid" given that you don't know their age. you will be taken more seriously.
If i really wanted to give worthless stats, i would have given PER. Win shares does show some part of the picture, not the complete one but part of it.
Also, phil once called kobe "uncoachable". stop giving words of phil as reasons even though i agree that 2012-13 miami team is stacked but miami doesn't have prime shaq either. you can go further with a great big man in his prime than a great SG like wade who isn't even in his prime.the bosh factor put both those teams close though.

[Magic 32]

Poor Kobe stans. It's no wonder they hate actual statistical data.

And here come the excuses... right on queue.

Great, you now I'm right. Excellent.

[Haks]

If you're going to objectively look at it...

The drop off isn't so grand in 2000, as it would be in 2001 and 2002. With a prime Shaq, you still have a perennial contender every year. But, the Lakers had no one that was giving them 29 and 26 points per game on that roster. The Lakers also didn't have anyone that could effectively guard the opposing team's best perimeter player like Kobe (2000-2002, back when Kobe actually played elite defense night in and night out, especially in 2000 and 2001).

The Lakers aren't getting pass the Spurs in 2001 without Kobe; the same could go for the Kings series in 2002, but that's far more debatable. So, in terms of dropoff, going from a 3 time champion to a 2 or 1 year champion is pretty significant, no?

The Heat would be worst too. Lebron is the best player in the league, and does more for the Heat than Kobe did for the Lakers back then. The difference is, the Heat have Wade who (if healthy) could mimic some of Bron's impact from a facilitator and scoring role. And, they have Bosh, who would be able to produce more as his usage would increase.

The Lakers had horrible depth, and really it was Shaq and Kobe's dominance those years that compensated for it. 2 players on the same team giving you 30 points almost every game. But, it caught up to them eventually, and their lack of depth is the reason they got beat by the Spurs in 2003. So, the posters claiming the Lakers were "stacked," are......well, they're idiots.

I don't think the Heat get to the Finals last year without Bron. Actually, I know they wouldn't (Game 6, ECF versus Boston )But, I think they could get to the Finals this year without him. That's not to belittle him or his impact though - he's the best player in the league playing on the best team. But, I could see Wade with a more increased role putting up big numbers, and with Bosh and Ray I think they'd be able to make it to the Finals in the pretty average East.

great post

[comerb]

Great, you now I'm right. Excellent.

You know what I know?

That 4x scrubs + Kobe = not worried. We've seen that, it's unimpressive and barely a playoff team.

But

4x scrubs + prime Shaq = very worried

[Bigsmoke]

it depends on Wade's body.

Wade will have to sacrific his body more which might lead to him getting injured more often.

at the end of the day, i think the Lakers would drop off more because teams can live off the "hack a shaq" method. i just think 2 stars and the Heat's bench which includes Ray Allen and ect is better than Shaq and garbage. What if Shaq gets into foul trouble?

but that doesn't mean Kobe better than LeBron. I'm sure the 86 Celtics will do better without Bird than the 94 Rockets without Hakeem would so does that mean Hakeem > Bird?

[lilgodfather1]

LeBron is so much better than the 3peat Kobe, so it's unfair to compare them. It's obviously the Heat.

[Darius]

Can someone explain why OP isn't banned yet?

[pegasus]

Lebron fans:

Step 1: Cleveland fans.

Step 2: Miami fans.

Step 3: ?

[Bigsmoke]

LeBron is so much better than the 3peat Kobe, so it's unfair to compare them. It's obviously the Heat.

i like LeBron a lot more than i like Kobe and i think LeBron is better but the Lakers need other options if the wanna win without Kobe. The other teams can just foul Shaq all day long.

[DonDadda59]

Pathetic and manipulative stat.

How so?

It's a big sample size (32 games), not just a handful. The Lakers won at a clip of nearly 80% of the games that Kobe missed and were able to win the championship with him putting up 3rd or 4th option numbers on terrible shooting and him even missing a game in the finals in '00. So obviously there was no real dropoff when he was gone or playing like absolute shit.

If Lebron put up 15.6 PPG on 36.7% FG shooting, how do you think MIA fares in the finals? He doesn't have the luxury of the Big Eraser to gloss over a series that pathetic.

Also, in the vein of the OP's premise- which city would experience more crime: Gotham city w/o Robin or Metropolis w/o Superman?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

How so?

It's a big sample size (32 games), not just a handful. The Lakers won at a clip of nearly 80% of the games that Kobe missed and were able to win the championship with him putting up 3rd or 4th option numbers on terrible shooting and him even missing a game in the finals in '00. So obviously there was no real dropoff when he was gone or playing like absolute shit.

If Lebron put up 15.6 PPG on 36.7% FG shooting, how do you think MIA fares in the finals? He doesn't have the luxury of the Big Eraser to gloss over a series that pathetic.

Also, in the vein of the OP's premise- which city would experience more crime: Gotham city w/o Robin or Metropolis w/o Superman?

[Doranku]

How so?

It's a big sample size (32 games), not just a handful. The Lakers won at a clip of nearly 80% of the games that Kobe missed and were able to win the championship with him putting up 3rd or 4th option numbers on terrible shooting and him even missing a game in the finals in '00. So obviously there was no real dropoff when he was gone or playing like absolute shit.

If Lebron put up 15.6 PPG on 36.7% FG shooting, how do you think MIA fares in the finals? He doesn't have the luxury of the Big Eraser to gloss over a series that pathetic.

Also, in the vein of the OP's premise- which city would experience more crime: Gotham city w/o Robin or Metropolis w/o Superman?

Kobe's 2000 finals was better than LeBron's 2011 finals (and probably 2007 finals for that matter).

[ShaqAttack3234]

Ahhh yes, that old wonderful stat. Works every time.

Too bad Kobe's solo games were mostly at the beginning of the seasons (when the roleplayers played like dogs), and Shaq's were at the end of the regular seasons (when everyone was in playoff mode).

The end of the 00-01 season (when Kobe was out) and the beginning of the 02-03 season (when Shaq was out) is a perfect example.

Pathetic and manipulative stat.

'02-'03 season wasn't included in those records since he specified 3peat. But actually, Kobe missed the first month of the '99-'00 season after he broke his hand during the preseason.

As far as 2000-2001? Considering, the Lakers had underachieved and then played much better with Kobe sidelined causing Kobe to change his approach, I don't really see the excuse as too valid in this case. Most of the games Kobe played without Shaq were from late January until the all-star break in 2001. The Lakers really hadn't been on a role all season. What I will say is that the Lakers strong play late in the season coincided with Derek Fisher's return. Fisher had worked a lot on his shooting when he was out and gave the Lakers some much needed shooting when he returned.

In 2001-2002, the Lakers started off 19-4 before Shaq's first missed game, and the first game Shaq missed was around Christmas, he missed 5 games with an injury from Christmas on, was suspended for 3 games in mid January, missed another stretch in early February around the all-star break and another 2 in April.

Whatever you want to make out of those records is up to you, I don't care to argue too much at the moment, but your statement itself was not correct.

i gave the stat. i didn't say anything about which team would do well. you interpret the stat as you like it.
Also, stop calling others "kid" given that you don't know their age. you will be taken more seriously.
If i really wanted to give worthless stats, i would have given PER. Win shares does show some part of the picture, not the complete one but part of it.
Also, phil once called kobe "uncoachable". stop giving words of phil as reasons even though i agree that 2012-13 miami team is stacked but miami doesn't have prime shaq either. you can go further with a great big man in his prime than a great SG like wade who isn't even in his prime.the bosh factor put both those teams close though.

When someone throws out unprovoked insults rather than trying to engage in any sort of valid discussion, calling them kid is the more positive of the 2 possible scenarios, because at least a kid still has time to mature. An adult who creates gimmicks and behaves so immaturely is much sadder.

Sorry, but PER and win shares are from the same family of "stats." Just ridiculous formulas with subjective values given to other stats and subjective adjustments by the person who made the formula. Personally, I think both are terrible, but I'd argue win shares are even worse.

And you have the balls to post some garbage like win shares while trying to angle for a Pau>Kobe agenda for the championships and then tell me Phil Jackson's words were irrelevant?

A big problem with your example is that Phil and Kobe were obviously having problems during the 2004 time, and on and off leading up to it. Phil was frustrated with his own contract extension talks having broken down as well as his observation that the Lakers were catering to Kobe in the final year of his contract.

Phil's words about the 2000 team were far less emotional, and don't contain a single outlandish statement. They were from his book "More Than A Game" which was published after the 2000 season. He had been very satisfied with that season and called it one of his top 3 coaching jobs(along with the Bulls first title and the '94 season) and was merely stating the Lakers strengths, weaknesses, how they won, and what they overcame to accomplish this. He knows much more basketball than either of us do, and was with that team everyday so he'd know better than anyone else.

But this is ISH, where Phil Jackson's analysis of his own team are deemed irrelevant and win shares are somehow considered relevant.

[DonDadda59]

Kobe's 2000 finals was better than LeBron's 2011 finals (and probably 2007 finals for that matter).

If by 'better' you mean he had Shaq averaging 38 PPG (61% FG) and 17 RPG that made his poor play irrelevant, then yes, I agree with you.

Again... how would MIA fare if Lebron put up 15.6 PPG on 36.7% FG and missed a game?

Be honest now.