Question: Why is it always held against Kobe that he played with Shaq when Magic had Kareem?

[2Quik4UHoes]

Well hell, he wouldn't have made in through the West without Horry either, but no one counts rings that way.

So now we saying Horry = Kobe? This is a discussion of ATGs, come on breh.

Jordan needed Pippen for every single one of his rings. Yet he doesn't get to count those and say "6>5".

Who said his rings don’t count? No, his rings count. But in the dynamic with which he won them he actually was a clear number 2 to Jordan’s 1. Kobe and Shaq traded that spot depending on the situation. Some games Kobe had to take the lead and other games it was Shaq.

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.

Because Kobe proved that he was a truly ATG player when he won without Shaq that’s why. Had Pippen won a ring without Jordan his whole shyt might be spoken of differently. Kobe afforded himself that by going back to three straight finals and winning two.

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.

Obviously it was sarcasm on my end, but you didn’t answer my question on how a player with the type of volume shooting vices that Kobe had could manage to play facilitator on a 3 straight champion all while dealing with an egomaniac that refused to do his job if he didn’t get his points?

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?

Like a typical Bron stain ignoring context. KG didn’t have the type of team Duncan had of course he’d get dominated. Him + Kobe is a different situation especially with the right players adds around them.

All these hypotheticals are being asked as if a team with the right pieces around them wouldn’t be built? Where does Shaq end up? We don’t even know if he’d had the team around him to be a threat.

Spurs would’ve had no answer for Kobe on the perimeter especially with more free reign as the focal point so him and Duncan would’ve offset. I’m taking KG over anyone else on the Spurs.

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?

You don’t get my question, wtf does that have to do with anything? Good great he did a good job as a sidekick. You bring this up as if Kobe was outplayed by Pau and carried to his titles. What does him beating his matchup have to do with anything? Of course he beat his matchup, we would’ve lost if he didn’t do that.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Can we put Duncan's greatness in the correct context. He was a top 5 player from 98-05. He wasn't an elite player after 07.

Duncan got MVP votes in 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. He would have been Finals MVP in 2013 if Ray misses that shot, and had a case for it in 2014. He was 1st-team All-NBA in 2013 and 2nd or 3rd team in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2015.

Saying that he wasn't elite after 2007.

Kobe was a top 5 player from 00-13.

Not in 2000, 2001, or 2005.

Kobe is 4-2 vs Duncan in the playoffs. When they matched up I never felt Tim was the best player on the court.

In 5 of those 6 meetings you had Duncan with no other stars going up against Kobe AND prime Shaq, and Duncan won twice, but Duncan wasn't the best player on the court? How does that work?

In the three times the Lakers won, you had Duncan and Shaq as the two main players canceling each other out, and Kobe was just better than the utter shyt that the Spurs had out on the perimeter. Pop chose to focus the defense around stopping Shaq and left Kobe out on a single-coverage island hoping he would shoot the Lakers out of the game. And it worked a couple times.

The fact that the Kobe/Shaq Lakers lost ANY series to Tim Duncan's Spurs is a testament to how much that pair underachieved.

 

[Yungin]

His defense was decent but the media overrated it, kobe was getting 1st team all defense off name and made it over wade a couple seasons when he shouldn't have

the media dumb af they gave westbrook mvp over harden based off averaging a triple double

Ok so for every kobe accomplishment you’re just gonna try to diminish it by bringing up something ridiculous








U do realize kobe was like the most hated nicca in sports after that rape and snitching sh*t. Don’t act like they loved kobe his entire career he had to do some great sh*t to get them back on his side. And I see he is still living that down til this day because people like u will always find some way to discredit his greatness

 

[Yungin]

Shaq won more in LA as THE MAN though.

Kobe = Wesley Person with a green light

Martha

You’re a shaq fan I get it. I ain’t even mad at u

 

[Professor Emeritus]

So now we saying Horry = Kobe? This is a discussion of ATGs, come on breh.

But Kobe didn't play like an ATG in 2000, therefore that ring should not be counted the same in an ATG discussion. Listing 5 rings with no context is stupid.

Who said his rings don’t count? No, his rings count. But in the dynamic with which he won them he actually was a clear number 2 to Jordan’s 1. Kobe and Shaq traded that spot depending on the situation. Some games Kobe had to take the lead and other games it was Shaq.

They "don't count" to the degree that no one is allowed to say 6>5 when talking about Pippen.

Because Kobe proved that he was a truly ATG player when he won without Shaq that’s why. Had Pippen won a ring without Jordan his whole shyt might be spoken of differently. Kobe afforded himself that by going back to three straight finals and winning two.

So rings get counted retroactively.

Obviously it was sarcasm on my end, but you didn’t answer my question on how a player with the type of volume shooting vices that Kobe had could manage to play facilitator on a 3 straight champion all while dealing with an egomaniac that refused to do his job if he didn’t get his points?

Because he still took 20+ shots.

ike a typical Bron stain ignoring context. KG didn’t have the type of team Duncan had of course he’d get dominated. Him + Kobe is a different situation especially with the right players adds around them.

All these hypotheticals are being asked as if a team with the right pieces around them wouldn’t be built? Where does Shaq end up? We don’t even know if he’d had the team around him to be a threat.

I'm the one who is ignoring context? I said from the beginning that you have no idea what would happen because 2 guys don't win a title by themselves. But if they had the same roster, then without Shaq there would be a hole too big to fill. And in all the tough series, Shaq was a MUCH harder matchup than any of the guys you names would have been.

You don’t get my question, wtf does that have to do with anything? Good great he did a good job as a sidekick. You bring this up as if Kobe was outplayed by Pau and carried to his titles. What does him beating his matchup have to do with anything? Of course he beat his matchup, we would’ve lost if he didn’t do that.

I'm not sure how to get this through your dumb head.

If your sidekick is so good that he singlehandedly outplays the best player on the other team, then how could you ask anything more out of your sidekick???

You said Pau was a worse sidekick than what Shaq had. But Shaq REPEATEDLY had to deal with Kobe getting outplayed by someone on the other team in the Finals.

2000: Kobe outplayed by Reggie Miller AND Jalen Rose
2001: Kobe outplayed by Allen Iverson
2004: Kobe outplayed by Rip Hamilton AND Chancey Billups

Meanwhile

2009: Pau outplays Dwight Howard, the Magic's star player
2010: Pau outplays Kevin Garnett, the best player on the Celtics

It's bullshyt to claim that Pau was a worse sidekick than what Shaq had in that context.

 

[Yungin]

Shaq had his chances in ORL. Shaq also had a team with 4 all stars in the late 90s and kept losing to Utah and SA. It wasn't until Phil arrived and Kobe got to his twenties that Shaq was able to win.

1998 Lakers won 61 games and had 4 all stars and got swept in the CONF Finals.....this was when SHAQ was the leader without a seasoned Kobe to save him....

Quoted for emphasis

 

[Bryan Danielson]

You’re a shaq fan I get it. I ain’t even mad at u

I just hate how bad the Center/True Big Man position is now and cats dismiss or forget how bad of a boy Shaq was.

He’s was like the last true big man left in the game and when he retired an era TRULY ended.

Martha

 

[Professor Emeritus]

What are u implying here? Are u tryna act like pau gasol some all time great or something

Nope, just saying that in 2009 and 2010, the competition was so weak that you didn't need an ATG in order to win a title. If the two best players on the court are both on your team, then you're obviously starting out in a damn good place. Unless you are outcoached or have a major hole somewhere else, you should be able to put that away without the #1 player even having to play that good.

 

[10bandz]

The Dankster is out here having a breakdown

 

[Yungin]

Shaq being a supremely dominant force doesn’t negate that Kobe in his own right was a #1 level player and if the Lakers had a different elite player next to Kobe instead of Shaq the Lakers still win titles and vice versa.

You say Kobe happened to be there? No, Kobe happened to become an elite player at his position which afforded Shaq the opportunity to win three titles in a row. He had allstars before Kobe’s rise, no titles though for the clearly dominant player huh? Hell, Kobe was there before Shaq so as far as I’m concerned Shaq just happened to be there.

This is quality posting

 

[10bandz]

I just hate how bad the Center/True Big Man position is now and cats dismiss or forget how bad of a boy Shaq was.

He’s was like the last true big man left in the game and when he retired an era TRULY ended.

Martha

u right, Shaq was a once in a lifetime legend

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

But Kobe didn't play like an ATG in 2000, therefore that ring should not be counted the same in an ATG discussion. Listing 5 rings with no context is stupid.

Do you only mean in the Finals when Jalen intentionally injured him or throughout the season and the playoffs? Because Kobe was still playing at an exceptional level and the only difference between 2000 and the later years is that he wasn’t as polished and physically strong.

They "don't count" to the degree that no one is allowed to say 6>5 when talking about Pippen.

What about how Kobe and Shaq won titles as a 1a/1b tandem like Magic/Kareem and Steph/KD? Those don’t count for Kobe right?

So rings get counted retroactively.

So with all the bullshyt criteria y’all been ranking Kobe with its suddenly out of line to do that? People like you said he was nothing but a sidekick and couldn’t do it without Shaq and he did. Pippen never did that. Tough titty.

Because he still took 20+ shots.

So in other words, those so called vices didn’t really mean much of anything seeing as how both of them got their shots up. Again, you still fail to address how Shaq willingly admitted he’d tank if he didn’t get his shots.

I'm the one who is ignoring context? I said from the beginning that you have no idea what would happen because 2 guys don't win a title by themselves. But if they had the same roster, then without Shaq there would be a hole too big to fill. And in all the tough series, Shaq was a MUCH harder matchup than any of the guys you names would have been.

Why do you think the Lakers would be stupid enough to keep the team as constituted if there was no Shaq in the picture? Don’t you think the front office would’ve put the right players around the combo of Kobe and whoever they had next to him? If he follows the same trajectory and Kobe and this player are together as long then they definitely build the right team around them and they go on to win.

I'm not sure how to get this through your dumb head.

If your sidekick is so good that he singlehandedly outplays the best player on the other team, then how could you ask anything more out of your sidekick???

You said Pau was a worse sidekick than what Shaq had. But Shaq REPEATEDLY had to deal with Kobe getting outplayed by someone on the other team in the Finals.

2000: Kobe outplayed by Reggie Miller AND Jalen Rose
2001: Kobe outplayed by Allen Iverson
2004: Kobe outplayed by Rip Hamilton AND Chancey Billups

Meanwhile

2009: Pau outplays Dwight Howard, the Magic's star player
2010: Pau outplays Kevin Garnett, the best player on the Celtics

It's bullshyt to claim that Pau was a worse sidekick than what Shaq had in that context.

Ahhhhh so basically what your saying is according to a small sample size of games Pau Gasol is > threepeat Kobe? I’m sure if given the choice Shaq would much prefer Pau Gasol over Kobe.

Shoot yourself....

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Quoted for emphasis

Shaq averaged 32 and 9 on 56% shooting in that series.

Kobe averaged 10-1-1 on 37% shooting in that series and was so bad that Phil Jackson basically benched him by game 4.

Only in Kobestan does that somehow prove Kobe's greatness.



And "4 all-stars" is a bad talking point.

One of those 4 all-stars was Kobe, so you want to count his weak ass as an all-star but then put all the blame on Shaq as if Kobe wasn't even there.

Another all-star was Nick van Exel averaging 13 and 7 on 42% shooting that year, often listed as one of the weakest all-star picks in history.

And the last was Eddie Jones with his 17-3-3 stats.

In a normal year that would have been ZERO all-stars other than Shaq.

 

[god shamgod]

Ok so for every kobe accomplishment you’re just gonna try to diminish it by bringing up something ridiculous








U do realize kobe was like the most hated nicca in sports after that rape and snitching sh*t. Don’t act like they loved kobe his entire career he had to do some great sh*t to get them back on his side. And I see he is still living that down til this day because people like u will always find some way to discredit his greatness

I don’t know what you’re rambling about

I just called it like it was, nobody discrediting kobe he’s top 10 all time, top 3 greatest scorer the 2nd greatest sg in league history.

 

[Yungin]

Not in 2000 he sure as hell wasn't. Not even Laker fans treat him that way, otherwise his Finals performance would be considered a WOAT-level performance for a #1 level player
.

Not worse than Lebron’s 2011 performance