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

[GetSomeMoney]

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

NO ONE outside of a few Kobe stans on the Coli say this, no one, top 5 has never been a serious discussion when it comes to Kobe.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

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.

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

If all rings are equal, then why aren't we mad-caping for John Havlicek and his 8-0 Finals record right now?

Why isn't Duncan universally considered to be better than Shaq, Hakeem, Bird, Wilt, etc.?

Why isn't Kareem considered to be Jordan's equal?

If Steph and Durant win a few more together will we be putting BOTH of them over LeBron and Magic and Kobe? Hell, if Steph gets to 7 then is he better than Jordan?

A single game- Game 4 of the 1984 Finals- earned him "Tragic Johnson."

That's not exactly true - Magic screwed up the endgame in every loss in that series.

 

[Cladyclad]

Kobe wasnt likable around that time so it stuck. Kobe is the only HOFer where this bought up.

Bird played with 20 Hofers
Isiah 2
Magic 3 or 4
Bron 4
Jordan 2

Mofos make it like Kobe is the only player to have a great teammate

 

[NoHalfWay]

NO ONE outside of a few Kobe stans on the Coli say this, no one, top 5 has never been a serious discussion when it comes to Kobe.

Oh I see and hear that shyt all the time, on and off the net.

Even in this thread you got guys rating Bean too high and ’n at the notion of dudes like Duncan or Hakeem being better than him...

Like uhhh ... they was

 

[GetSomeMoney]

Name 15 players better than Kobe.

I said top 15, not number 16 (or 15)

 

[chowism]

I don't deny Kobe's rings. 5 rings are 5 rings but when you try to act like Shaq wasn't the main reason for those 3 titles I have to call you out on your dikkriding. Not speaking directly to you OP but a couple of y'all Kobe stan's really tried to pretend like Shaq wasn't the primary player reason for the 3 peat.

 

[Osmosis]

Kobe wasnt likable around that time so it stuck. Kobe is the only HOFer where this bought up.

Bird played with 20 Hofers
Isiah 2
Magic 3 or 4
Bron 4
Jordan 2

Mofos make it like Kobe is the only player to have a great teammate

Kobe played with an MVP though. You really gonna compare the likes of Kevin Love, Joe Dumars, Dennis Rodman to the most dominant player to ever play in his prime?

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

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.

I and most Laker fans have been on record saying Kobe was more of a sidekick during the first championship.

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.

Bullshyt, Kobe and T-Mac would’ve worked, Kobe/Pierce would’ve worked, Kobe/KG, Kobe/Dirk. Kobe/Duncan arguably would’ve been the better duo over Kobe/Shaq as they would’ve fit each other’s personalities better.

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.

Kobe went 2/3 after Shaq left with a lesser sidekick than Shaq ever had in his career. I wonder what that proves.

Maybe just maybe, Kobe would’ve won with numerous all star perimeter/big players too if Shaq wasn’t in the picture.

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.

Let’s not even count the Magic Years. Why did Shaq need Kobe to make it to the finals when he had hella allstars on the Lakers in those years? Those Lakers were much more loaded talent wise than the three peat squad.

If all rings are equal, then why aren't we mad-caping for John Havlicek and his 8-0 Finals record right now?

With all due respect to him we talking modern NBA shyt.

Why isn't Duncan universally considered to be better than Shaq, Hakeem, Bird, Wilt, etc.?

Make the thread

Why isn't Kareem considered to be Jordan's equal?

Some do consider him to be Jordan’s equal. Not many, but some.

If Steph and Durant win a few more together will we be putting BOTH of them over LeBron and Magic and Kobe? Hell, if Steph gets to 7 then is he better than Jordan?

I can’t say, I’m not a fortune teller. I do know that Kobe’s three rings with Shaq shouldn’t be negated or devalued and it should no longer be accepted as an actual talking point in a serious basketball discussion.

 

[Cladyclad]

Kobe played with an MVP though. You really gonna compare the likes of Kevin Love, Joe Dumars, Dennis Rodman to the most dominant player to ever play in his prime?

Shaq ain’t win shyt prior to Kobe. nikkas even prop up Pau to shyt on Kobe. But Pau was the best big man at the time lol
A Spaniard who got swept all 3 of his playoff appearances lol

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

Kobe wasnt likable around that time so it stuck. Kobe is the only HOFer where this bought up.

Bird played with 20 Hofers
Isiah 2
Magic 3 or 4
Bron 4
Jordan 2

Mofos make it like Kobe is the only player to have a great teammate

That’s all I’m saying. It’s time to weed out the bullshyt.

I said top 15, not number 16 (or 15)

My bad breh, name 14?

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

I don't deny Kobe's rings. 5 rings are 5 rings but when you try to act like Shaq wasn't the main reason for those 3 titles I have to call you out on your dikkriding. Not speaking directly to you OP but a couple of y'all Kobe stan's really tried to pretend like Shaq wasn't the primary player reason for the 3 peat.

Breh Shaq was a huge part of that run, but so was Kobe. That’s all that’s being said. It’s just as ridiculous to downplay Shaq’s contributions as it is to downplay Kobe’s.

 

[Noah]

If all rings are equal, then why aren't we mad-caping for John Havlicek and his 8-0 Finals record right now?

Why isn't Duncan universally considered to be better than Shaq, Hakeem, Bird, Wilt, etc.?

Why isn't Kareem considered to be Jordan's equal?

If Steph and Durant win a few more together will we be putting BOTH of them over LeBron and Magic and Kobe? Hell, if Steph gets to 7 then is he better than Jordan?

Because rings aren't the end-all be-all, you've alluded to that in earlier posts in here. Their contributions aren't all equal (which is where FMVPs become important), but like I said, Kobe's earlier rings aren't invalidated just because he didn't play that well. I'm not looking at it from an all-rings-are-equal standpoint, but from the standpoint of performance. Maybe that plays into "all rings aren't equal," but that's sort of what I was getting at.

 

[chowism]

Breh Shaq was a huge part of that run, but so was Kobe. That’s all that’s being said. It’s just as ridiculous to downplay Shaq’s contributions as it is to downplay Kobe’s.

I never disagreed with that. Most people have Kobe as a top 5 player though so I don't understand where y'all feel he's being short changed at. Even with Shaq winning all those finals MVPS, most people I talk to have Kobe above Shaq. So I never understood the plight of some of Y'all fighting for Kobe's legacy like he was being disrespected.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

I never disagreed with that. Most people have Kobe as a top 5 player though so I don't understand where y'all feel he's being short changed at. Even with Shaq winning all those finals MVPS, most people I talk to have Kobe above Shaq. So I never understood the plight of some of Y'all fighting for Kobe's legacy like he was being disrespected.

Ima save that for another thread. For right now, I think most of us have come to agreement that in 2019 the “Kobe had Shaq” talking point is officially dead.

 

[10bandz]

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.

the point is FMVP is SUBJECTIVE and shouldn't be used as the definite way to characterize someones role on the team. Kareem not getting FMVP in 1980 DOES NOT negate the fact he was the best player on the team that year and NOT the sidekick

The only ones who gotta give it up is you dorks. "Top 15" interesting because everyone who actually played professional ball places him higher