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

[2Quik4UHoes]

Bron fans all in here saying Magic was the alpha for 4 rings......SAME Bron fans who say Bron is better than Magic even tho he was less rings

I see Bron fans here shyt on Magic ALL the time now he was the alpha and Kareem didn't do shyt

All the lies just keep coming to light. This house of cards the media built on that nikka bout to fall and they gon be the main ones talkin shyt.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Because Shaq was clearly the dominant player on the team during every single title that Kobe happened to be there for.

While Magic was the dominant player on the team for most of his titles with Kareem.

That's the obvious answer and thread should have ended there.



That being said, Magic joining forces with the league MVP does affect the discussion. One of many reasons while simple ring-counting is stupid as hell.

The idea that straight ring-counting decides the better player didn't even come into the discussion until after MJ. Otherwise Kareem would have been considered a loser until Magic came, rather than already being the consensus greatest player in NBA history. Otherwise people in the 1990s would have been sayingthat MJ didn't surpass Magic until 1998, never surpassed Kareem, and still trails Havlicek. Shaq and Duncan (not to mention Russell) would be universally seen as superior to Wilt and Hakeem, as would Larry Bird, and Jerry West would be a trash loser and not the logo of the damn NBA.

It's not even used consistently now. How many of the ring-counters say that Duncan=Magic=Kobe and they're all superior to Shaq and Hakeem, or that Steph has already surpassed Wilt and Durant could do so this year too? Pretty much the only people who use RINGS!1 are doing it in the context of MJ or Kobe, and even then they're not consistent.

 

[bl2k8]

Everyone knows Kobe was the sidekick. He was 21-23 when they threepeated while Shaq was in his prime and unstoppable at ages 28-30. By the time Kobe hit his prime, Shaq was on the decline.

Sidekick is only applicable in 99.After that Shaq and Kobe were a 1a, 1b combo the same way KD and Steph are now

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

Because Shaq was clearly the dominant player on the team during every single title that Kobe happened to be there for.

While Magic was the dominant player on the team for most of his titles with Kareem.

That's the obvious answer and thread should have ended there.



That being said, Magic joining forces with the league MVP does affect the discussion. One of many reasons while simple ring-counting is stupid as hell.

The idea that straight ring-counting decides the better player didn't even come into the discussion until after MJ. Otherwise Kareem would have been considered a loser until Magic came, rather than already being the consensus greatest player in NBA history. Otherwise people in the 1990s would have been sayingthat MJ didn't surpass Magic until 1998, never surpassed Kareem, and still trails Havlicek. Shaq and Duncan (not to mention Russell) would be universally seen as superior to Wilt and Hakeem, as would Larry Bird, and Jerry West would be a trash loser and not the logo of the damn NBA.

It's not even used consistently now. How many of the ring-counters say that Duncan=Magic=Kobe and they're all superior to Shaq and Hakeem, or that Steph has already surpassed Wilt and Durant could do so this year too? Pretty much the only people who use RINGS!1 are doing it in the context of MJ or Kobe, and even then they're not consistent.

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.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

Sidekick is only applicable in 99.After that Shaq and Kobe were a 1a, 1b combo the same way KD and Steph are now

I don’t get what’s so hard for people to admit about that. No one bats an eye at KD and Steph. I’ve even seen nikkaz have the nerve to say KD better than Kobe. Meanwhile nikkaz act like Kobe was the one that ran to the enemy and hopped on after being up 3-1 with his own team vs said enemy.

 

[IsThatBrothaMouzone?]

Magic & Kareem
Magic - 3 FMVPs
Kareem - 1 FMVP

Shaq & Kobe
Shaq - 3 FMVPs
Kobe - 0 FMVPs

Plus, people remember the 1980 Finals (think it was '80) where Kareem got hurt and Magic carried the Lakers...with some timely help from Jamaal Wilkes. Magic played all five spots during those finals and was unquestionably "The Man." Kobe was an integral part of the 2000-2002 three-peat. The Lakers don't win without him. However, at no time did anyone think he was clearly the best player. It was Shaq.................then Kobe. Of course Shaq and Kobe weren't exactly MJ and Pip. Early 00's Kobe was more like a '1B' option to Shaq's 1A, while Pip was the clear #2 to Jordan's #1. Not sure that makes any sense but .

 

[Noah]

It's a fair question. Neither of these things should be thought of as a detriment to either player, because for the most part, it wasn't. (Not until ~1988 and ~2004 respectively, when Kareem started to get too old and Shaq-Kobe tension started to manifest on the court).

The truth is that Kareem would have been done a lot sooner had Magic not come along. There's a little bit of elaboration on that in Showtime by Jeff Pearlman, but Kareem would've retired in the early '80s. He was 32 when Magic was drafted. He wasn't the biggest fan of Magic's personality and play style at times, but he understood that Magic extended LA's window for title contention indefinitely. So Magic not only receives a lot of credit for becoming the leader and player he was by the mid 1980s, but for extending Kareem's career and elevating LA from a good team to a dynasty.

Kobe's rings aren't invalidated by being a college-aged kid and not playing as well as the best player in the world at that time. They shouldn't be, anyway. People forget Magic had his share of fukk-ups in the first half of his career. He played a role in getting Paul Westhead fired (essentially giving Jerry Buss an ultimatum: Trade me or get rid of Paul). Drama with Norm Nixon which led to Nixon getting traded and Magic getting accused of having too much say in front office decisions (sound familiar?). A single game- Game 4 of the 1984 Finals- earned him "Tragic Johnson." Of course none of these things should be held against them to the extent that they have been, but here we are.

 

[GetSomeMoney]

No because it's misleading. Kareem should've won FMVP in 1980

Ok, but he didn't, and Kobe still has no Finals MVP while playing with Shaq. You Kobe stans gotta give it up, he's a top 15 player, an all time great, what more are you all trying to prove? This is like the 100th thread on this topic.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

It's a fair question. Neither of these things should be thought of as a detriment to either player, because for the most part, it wasn't. (Not until ~1988 and ~2004 respectively, when Kareem started to get too old and Shaq-Kobe tension started to manifest on the court).

The truth is that Kareem would have been done a lot sooner had Magic not come along. There's a little bit of elaboration on that in Showtime by Jeff Pearlman, but Kareem would've retired in the early '80s. He was 32 when Magic was drafted. He wasn't the biggest fan of Magic's personality and play style at times, but he understood that Magic extended LA's window for title contention indefinitely. So Magic not only receives a lot of credit for becoming the leader and player he was by the mid 1980s, but for extending Kareem's career and elevating LA from a good team to a dynasty.

Kobe's rings aren't invalidated by being a college-aged kid and not playing as well as the best player in the world at that time. They shouldn't be, anyway. People forget Magic had his share of fukk-ups in the first half of his career. He played a role in getting Paul Westhead fired (essentially giving Jerry Buss an ultimatum: Trade me or get rid of Paul). Drama with Norm Nixon which led to Nixon getting traded and Magic getting accused of having too much say in front office decisions (sound familiar?). A single game- Game 4 of the 1984 Finals- earned him "Tragic Johnson." Of course none of these things should be held against them to the extent that they have been, but here we are.

I would say he was more than just a college aged kid. He was a college aged kid that had the drive and will to make himself one of the best players in the league and have a seat at the table while having to share the spotlight with a megastar like prime Shaq.

Other than that I totally agree. No ones rings should be held against them.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

Ok, but he didn't, and Kobe still has no Finals MVP while playing with Shaq. You Kobe stans gotta give it up, he's a top 15 player, an all time great, what more are you all trying to prove? This is like the 100th thread on this topic.

Name 15 players better than Kobe.

 

[NoHalfWay]

MJ
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Wilt
Lebron
Shaq
Hakeem
Russell
Duncan

Yeah all those guys have a case over Bean. Fact of the matter is Kobe is a fringe top 10 all time player

nikkas hype him up to be top 3 and top 5 all time with MJ, Magic, and Kareem and the like when he’s really more in the same tier as Moses Malone, where it could be debated that he is or isn’t top 10 all time.

Which is not an insult cuz that still makes him an elite generational talent

 

[Taadow]

Kareem was on the decline when Magic got there.

Thread should've ended here.

Magic won his first ring without Kareem (as a rookie, playing Kareem's position) because he was injured for the Finals.

 

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

It's a fair question. Neither of these things should be thought of as a detriment to either player, because for the most part, it wasn't. (Not until ~1988 and ~2004 respectively, when Kareem started to get too old and Shaq-Kobe tension started to manifest on the court).

The truth is that Kareem would have been done a lot sooner had Magic not come along. There's a little bit of elaboration on that in Showtime by Jeff Pearlman, but Kareem would've retired in the early '80s. He was 32 when Magic was drafted. He wasn't the biggest fan of Magic's personality and play style at times, but he understood that Magic extended LA's window for title contention indefinitely. So Magic not only receives a lot of credit for becoming the leader and player he was by the mid 1980s, but for extending Kareem's career and elevating LA from a good team to a dynasty.

Kobe's rings aren't invalidated by being a college-aged kid and not playing as well as the best player in the world at that time. They shouldn't be, anyway. People forget Magic had his share of fukk-ups in the first half of his career. He played a role in getting Paul Westhead fired (essentially giving Jerry Buss an ultimatum: Trade me or get rid of Paul). Drama with Norm Nixon which led to Nixon getting traded and Magic getting accused of having too much say in front office decisions (sound familiar?). A single game- Game 4 of the 1984 Finals- earned him "Tragic Johnson." Of course none of these things should be held against them to the extent that they have been, but here we are.

In 1988 Kareem was 40. He retired after the 89 season. Kareem didn't "start" to get old. He was old.

 

[Taadow]

Kareem was still the teams number one option on offense well into the mid 80s

No.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Shaq being a supremely dominant force doesn’t negate that Kobe in his own right was a #1 level player

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.

and if the Lakers had a different elite player next to Kobe instead of Shaq the Lakers still win titles and vice versa.

b-b-b-bullshyt.

Match Kobe with anyone other than Shaq or Duncan and they lose every one of those years. They BARELY won two of the three years even with Shaq being the most dominant player in the game and getting extremely advantageous reffing to bail them out in elimination games. And the 2001 team was dominant because Shaq was dominant and opposing teams focused all their energy on him. No one else would have drawn that kind of attention and the Lakers supporting cast wasn't good enough to come together without it.

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.

Shaq proved in 2000 that he could win a title without Kobe being an elite player most of the time. He would have won titles in those 2000-2002 years with numerous all-star perimeter players.

And blaming Shaq for not winning before Kobe? 1995 was the first year he had an elite sidekick, and Penny was a 2nd-year player in his first all-star season, Shaq was still just 23 himself, the team was poorly coached and they ran into an inspired Hakeem. The next year everyone on the team got hurt and after that it was the Shaq/Kobe show.