Kobe's deepest team myth 2008/09 & 2009/10

[PickernRoller]

And Lebron had Wade and Bosh, and much better role players. Plus, the competition was missing Rose, Deng, and Kirk; and Granger; and Parker got hurt early in the series. So, it's much more help, much less competition, and still came down to a miracle shot.

Lebrons fan logic never works bro. 3-peat Lakers, Barkley Suns, Malone Jazz would mop the floor with 2 peat Heat.

Comparable to today's competition the cHeat are the most stacked team in the league - a travesty really. Everything is relative as you mentioned.

[Doranku]

If you're referring to 2008, at least be smart enough to realize the Lakers were better than a 57 win team due to getting Gasol. After the Gasol trade, the Lakers went 22-5 (.815) which is roughly a 67 win pace. Not saying they should've necessarily been favored over the Celtics in 2008, but they were absolutely better than a 57 win team by the time the playoffs started.

At least be smart enough to... not make things up?

The Lakers were 27-9 (.750) which is roughly a 61 win pace. Which is still less than 66 wins. And the Lakers still didn't have HCA in a 2-3-2 format which heavily favors the team with HCA.

[KG215]

At least be smart enough to... not make things up?

The Lakers were 27-9 (.750) which is roughly a 61 win pace. Which is still less than 66 wins. And the Lakers still didn't have HCA in a 2-3-2 format which heavily favors the team with HCA.

I'm not making things up. Gasol missed 9 games after being traded to the Lakers.

Anyway, you do the math....



There it is: Gasol played 27 games with the Lakers in 2007-2008, and they went 22-5. Oh, and in those 9 games without Gasol, they went 5-4. Lost nearly as many games in 9 games without Gasol as they did in 27 games with Gasol.

[TonyMontana]

Yawn...

Kobe stans making the foundation of their argument stats.

I don't see any stat for interior defense(something the Lakers were elite at). Gasol, Bynum, and Odom were all VERY GOOD 7 footers that could play on both sides of the floor. Incredibly valuable. The top frontcourt trio since the 80s Celtics. You don't think the Cavs would trade Mo Williams Delonte West and Illgauskas for Gasol,Bynum, Odom?

[KG215]

You know, looking at this, Gasol actually/basically missed 10 games after being traded to LA. Played 2.5 minutes on March 14th, got hurt, and they went on to lose the game. So if I wanted to get real technical, I could say the Lakers went 22-4 with Gasol and 5-5 without Gasol.

[DMAVS41]

You know, looking at this, Gasol actually/basically missed 10 games after being traded to LA. Played 2.5 minutes on March 14th, got hurt, and they went on to lose the game. So if I wanted to get real technical, I could say the Lakers went 22-4 with Gasol and 5-5 without Gasol.

I was just about to point that. Doranku speechless....LOL

[guy]

DMAVs agreed on your overall premise..

But.. I want you to apply that same logic to Michael Jordan.


Did Michael have a better supporting cast than his adversaries?

Who was ewing's second option in the early 90s? John Starks? Ewing had the equivalent of what 2011 Derrick Rose had.. a bunch of defensive role players and one offensive talent except Patrick was the one who made their defense and rebounding elite, on TOP of being the guy they leaned on offensively.

Ewings second option was basically JR Smith.

First of all, you're really underrating those Knicks, second of all, Derrick Rose did have one of the best supporting casts in 2011. Jordan clearly had the better 2nd option, but the game isn't played 2 on 2. The top 3 players out of the two teams in 92 and 93 were clearly Jordan, Ewing, Pippen, but after that, in 92 you could argue that the Knicks had 5 of the next 6 best players in Starks, Jackson, Xavier, Oakley, and Mason and in 93 you could argue that they had 4 of the next 5 best players in Starks, Oakley, Mason, Rivers. All of those players I mentioned made all star games at some point of their career and at that time on the Knicks were in their mid-20s to early-30s, the most relevant ages for most players at the time. After the top 2 players, the Knicks were clearly a better and more talented team. Now obviously, having the more talented top 2 is much more impactful then having a more talented 4-5, but Patrick Ewing being completely outmatched as far as help goes is revisionist history. Ewing couldn't beat Jordan mainly cause Jordan was better.

Charles Barkley? He had the pieces for 1 or 2 years and gave jordan one of his most competitive Finals series. Still never had a second option on Scotties level, nor the coaching, nor the overall teams over a signifigant time span

Barkley also wasn't as good as Jordan at a younger age when he clearly had more help with teammates like Moses, Dr. J, and Cheeks or at an older age when he was playing with Hakeem and Clyde. If he was, I don't think people would ever argue that he didn't have the pieces.

Hakeem? Not much even has to be said..

Much of the same can be said for Hakeem that I said for Barkley, but I will admit not to the same extent.

Shaq? Had some good talent, but again didnt have near the depth, as good a number two, or coaching to glue it all together.

If Shaq was as good from 96-98 as he was from 00-02, where he was just as great or arguably better then Jordan was in the 2nd three-peat, I don't think anyone would argue that Shaq didn't have the help Jordan had, except for maybe 96 when Grant got injured.

David Robinson? Again nothing has to be said.

Won't argue here.

If you switch MJ out to the knicks and make him have to work with John Starks while Ewing gets pippen.. I dont see how the bulls with ewing lose there. Ewing had much less to work with but still led his team to wins and competitive series. You swap pieces and the odds are greatly in his favor.

If you switch Jordan and Ewing, Knicks might actually win those series since they were that close already. This is a flawed comparison anyway since both teams were built around each superstar. Lets say the Bulls also have a Bill Cartwright-level SG like Mario Elie and the Knicks have a John Starks-level center instead (not Bill Cartwright), like Hot Rod Williams, Rik Smits, Kevin Duckworth, Robert Parish, Moses Malone, etc. and I definitely would still bet on the Knicks.

And overall MJ had the best teams, second option, and coach of ANY other superstar in the 90s... yet no one seems to ever bring it up.

What are you talking about? Its brought up constantly. I've seen this post a million times.

I see what you're getting at. Kobe may have not had that much better of a supporting cast, if better at all, then alot of players. But no one was comparing him to dudes like Melo, Deron, Roy, etc. at the time. Wasn't even an argument that I recall. These weren't arguable top 20-30 players of all-time like everyone you mentioned in the Jordan comparison. There's really only a few players from 09 and 10 that people were comparing to Kobe and thats Wade and Lebron, and those two clearly didn't have the support in those years that he had. Thats why this argument comes up, fairly or unfairly.

[TonyMontana]

You know, looking at this, Gasol actually/basically missed 10 games after being traded to LA. Played 2.5 minutes on March 14th, got hurt, and they went on to lose the game. So if I wanted to get real technical, I could say the Lakers went 22-4 with Gasol and 5-5 without Gasol.

LOL

Doranku ethered. "at least be smart enough not to make stuff up"

22-4 with Gasol
5-5 without Gasol

In 2007-2008 as a whole, the Lakers were 46-15(.754) with two elite bigs(out of Gasol,Bynum,Odom) while with only one of them playing they were 11-10(.524).

Without that elite frontcourt player Kobe is only good enough for .500 ball. Lets check back when it was Shaqs team.

With Shaq AND Kobe: 261-101(.721)
With Shaq NO Kobe: 32-10(.762)
NO Shaq WITH KOBE: 23-25(.479)

below.500 ball without Shaq, team is elite with or without Kobe.

[TheMarkMadsen]

You know, looking at this, Gasol actually/basically missed 10 games after being traded to LA. Played 2.5 minutes on March 14th, got hurt, and they went on to lose the game. So if I wanted to get real technical, I could say the Lakers went 22-4 with Gasol and 5-5 without Gasol.

what was Memphis record at the time they traded Gasol?

[tpols]

LOL

Doranku ethered. "at least be smart enough not to make stuff up"

22-4 with Gasol
5-5 without Gasol

In 2007-2008 as a whole, the Lakers were 46-15(.754) with two elite bigs(out of Gasol,Bynum,Odom) while with only one of them playing they were 11-10(.524).

Without that elite frontcourt player Kobe is only good enough for .500 ball. Lets check back when it was Shaqs team.

With Shaq AND Kobe: 261-101(.721)
With Shaq NO Kobe: 32-10(.762)
NO Shaq WITH KOBE: 23-25(.479)

below.500 ball without Shaq, team is elite with or without Kobe.

Yawn...

Kobe stans making the foundation of their argument stats.
:

LOL

[DMAVS41]

LOL

Is winning now a stat? Not that I have a dog in the fight about stats...I like stats, but now "winning/losing" is just..."stats"???

[TonyMontana]

LOL

These are team records

Not comparing players entirely on PPG like your boy was doing.

[branslowski]

Yawn...

Kobe stans making the foundation of their argument stats.

I don't see any stat for interior defense(something the Lakers were elite at). Gasol, Bynum, and Odom were all VERY GOOD 7 footers that could play on both sides of the floor. Incredibly valuable. The top frontcourt trio since the 80s Celtics. You don't think the Cavs would trade Mo Williams Delonte West and Illgauskas for Gasol,Bynum, Odom?

Stats don't matter now huh? How convient.

Just like All NBA teams don't matter because the media votes, yet LeBron's MVPs matter that are also media votes.

Kobe was a top 6 player in the league on Shaqs Lakers and dominated in the playoffs exc....Got carried

The gap between Kobe and Gasol was bigger with Kobe being a top player, yet, Gasol carried Kobe?


That troll logic doe

[KG215]

what was Memphis record at the time they traded Gasol?

I'm guessing pretty terrible since they only won 20-something games the whole season. But does it matter?

I wasn't trying to say Gasol was LA's most valuable player or anything. I was just pointing out Doranku's flawed logic that a 57 Laker team shouldn't have been favored over a 66 win Celtic team in the Finals, because the Lakers were noticeably better than a 57 win team with Gasol.

[DMAVS41]

Stats don't matter now huh? How convient.

Just like All NBA teams don't matter because the media votes, yet LeBron's MVPs matter that are also media votes.

Kobe was a top 6 player in the league on Shaqs Lakers and dominated in the playoffs exc....Got carried

The gap between Kobe and Gasol was bigger with Kobe being a top player, yet, Gasol carried Kobe?


That troll logic doe

It all depends. Of course Gasol did not carry Kobe.

But when a player (doesn't matter who) makes an all defensive team without evidence to back it up. The notion doesn't mean anything in reality in my opinion.

At some point...what is actually happening on the court and perception have to map. If not...I'll go with reality rather than confirmation bias.