Why would we claim 4 when Shaq wouldn’t have made it through the West without Kobe? Btw, when is Shaq gon start claiming one ring since he either shared the spotlight or was an outright sidekick for his other rings?
Well hell, he wouldn't have made in through the West without Horry either, but no one counts rings that way.
Jordan needed Pippen for every single one of his rings. Yet he doesn't get to count those and say "6>5".
That’s ridiculous, it was much more clear that Jordan and Pippen were one and two whereas those lines were blurred between Kobe and Shaq during the second title run.
Moreover, we have a decent sample size of Pippen without MJ and he had none of the success Kobe had without Shaq. Not even the same level player that Kobe was gtfoh.
It was absolutely clear with no doubt whatsoever that Shaq was #1 and Kobe was #2 in 2000. So why does that year count for Kobe, but none of Pippen's years count for him?
It just shows the stupidity of "5>4" or whatever else people say when ring-counting. The count is totally arbitrary.
Bad argument breh. Kobe willingly sacrificed his game and the volume scoring for the sake of the team and winning titles which is also grossly overlooked by the likes of you. Kobe was more than capable of adjusting his game to play alongside other great players without missing a beat himself. KD and Steph like to shoot, no problem there right?
Btw it’s pretty hilarious you brought Shaq up in this seeing as how he’d refuse to rebound or play defense if he didn’t get his touches and score his points. Yet somehow Kobe was able to make it work with a volume scorer like that. Imagine that...:hugohmm:
Shaq as a volume scorer?
In 2001 Shaq, the most dominant player in the game, only takes 19 shots/game (shooting 57%). Kobe took 22 shots/game (46%).
2002: Shaq 18 shots/game, Kobe 20 shots/game
2003: Shaq 18 shots'game, Kobe 24 shots/game
Yeah, Kobe was such a magnagimous soul, look at how he allowed the MVP to get his 18-19 shots/game while he took 20-24.
You can only argue 2000, outside of that you have no argument breh. Kobe doesn’t drop off without Shaq and Vice versa. You act as if Phil wouldn’t have reconfigured to Triangle to go through Kobe and create more of a Kobe/Pau dynamic with bigs like KG/Dirk or more of a MJ dynamic with Pierce and T-Mac. Also, they aren’t on the clock to win right there in 2000 because Shaq was the one with the pressure to win it all not Kobe. Kobe could’ve grown together with those players and won a slew of titles.
How would I have no argument in 2002, when Duncan regularly owned Garnett and Shaq was a much worse matchup for the Kings than any of the other guys you named?
How would the Lakers have overcome Duncan in ANY of those years if they didn't have Shaq? What would they have done down low?
Another terrible take breh. What does Pau beating his matchup have to do with anything. Pau never sniffs any of that without Kobe. We can save the myth of Kobe’s Game 7 for another thread but that’s also a bullshyt talkin point.
What does Pau beating his matchup have to do with anything?
Let me break it down for you:
In both the 2009 Finals and the 2010 Finals, Pau was matched up against the best player on the other team.
In both the 2009 Finals and the 2010 Finals, Pau definitively WON that matchup and outplayed everyone on the other team.
Therefore Kobe was lucky enough to have the best player on the court be on HIS team...and that's not an argument that that's a great sidekick to have?
"
Shaq had like seven years on Kobe. He was basically done after the Heat title.
