2000-2001 Season Average's: 28.5 points, 5.9 rebounds and 5.0 assists in 40.9 minutes 2001-2002 Season Average's: 25.2 points, 5.5 rebounds and 5.5 assists in 38.3 minutes 2002-2003 Season Average's: 30.0 points, 6.9 rebounds and 5.9 assists in 41.5 minutes 2003-2004 Season Average's: 24.0 points, 5.5 rebounds and 5.1 assists in 37.6 minutes
Was just looking at some numbers for Shaq:
2000-2001 Season Average's: 28.7 points, 12.7 rebounds and 3.7 assists in 39.5 minutes 2001-2002 Season Average's: 27.2 points, 10.7 rebounds and 3.0 assists in 36.1 minutes 2002-2003 Season Average's: 27.5 points, 11.1 rebounds and 3.1 assists in 37.8 minutes 2003-2004 Season Average's: 21.5 points, 11.5 rebounds and 2.9 assists in 36.8 minutes
(In the 2003-2004 Season both of their numbers are down because of Karl Malone and Gary Payton's addition to the team)
Can you honestly tell me the 3 championships the Lakers won in the early part of this decade belong to Shaq? Every player needs their partner, I do not feel that you can honestly say these three championships belong to Shaq alone.
Kobe and Shaq needed each other. If Kobe didn't play the other team could put a lot more pressure on Shaq defensively and the Lakers could not finish games in the fourth quarter because of his free throw shooting. If Shaq didn't play the Lakers had no inside presence forcing Bryant to jack up to many shots.
Shaq would not have won without Kobe, Kobe would not have won without Shaq. In my opinion they both won the three championships, Shaq doesn't deserve more credit than Kobe, and Kobe does not deserve more credit than Shaq.
How many points did Shaq score in the fourth quarter of those finals games? Who closed out those finals games? Shaq definetly dominated every single year he was in LA, but there is no way he wins one championship if he did not have Kobe producing the numbers he was doing.
Paul Pierce won the finals MVP in 07-08. Therefore we should take away KG's ring because that was obviously not his team and Pierce did a lot more to help the Celtics win than Kevin Garnett did.
Tony Parker won the finals MVP in 06-07. Therefore we should take away Tim Duncans ring becuse that was obviously not his team and Parker did a lot more to help the Spurs win than Tim Duncan did.
Kareem Abdul Jabar won the finals MVP in 84-85. Therefore we should take away Magic Johnsons ring because that was obviously not his team and Kareem did a lot more to help the Lakers win than Magic Johnson did.
Besides these numbers you selected I personally deem of the utmost importance the quality of your offensive yield rather than the volume...
See there is a limited numbers of possessions a team has available on a certain game, the more effectively you use your possession the better for your team:
To demonstrate this I will gladly post the yield for Bryant in those series that have make or break his legacy, the finals or them times when he has faced a championship quality opponent since the Lakers became a force to be recon with:
Kobe 2000 finals:
33-90 from the floor 36.7 fg%, 18 shot attempts per game.
Notice a trend? As Shaquille O'Neal was less pervasive Kobe took a larger chunk of the offense like in 2003 and 2004 (last two year with Shaq)...
Surely I don't have to remind you how efficient Shaq was with his possessions... The argument that he didn't participate much on the fourth quarter neglects the fact that basketball is accumulative, points scored on the first minute of play count towards the end. The fact that Kobe was shooting all these shots at his subpar percent goes to show you that the opponents preferred either Shaq on the line or Kobe shooting than Shaq on the post.
When you have a chunk of your offense shooting below par with 42% and another 'second' (if only in point averages) shooting well above 60% you know who you don't want with the ball.
All in all, Kobe shot 42% from the floor in 21 shots per in all the finals he participated with Shaq. He also averaged 42 and 22 shots per in the ones he played alone.
In 2003 Shaq was unusually stopped by Tim Duncan and the Spurs, he shot a subpar 55% from the field... In 2004 he was back to his usual self with 63% but only took 10.6 shots per game in the finals... Kobe was the definite offensive leader of the club.
To me it is more than clear who was the entrée for the Lakers and who was the side dish.
To replace Kobe Shaq found Dwyane Wade, and now possibly LeBron James... to replace Shaq Kobe needs Andrew Bynum, Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol. Still shots inefficiently and still is bailed out by their effective post play. Shaq did earned his Finals MVPs.
I know you will have a ton of reasons why this isn't the case but numbers and history agree with this.
To replace Kobe Shaq found Dwyane Wade , and now possibly LeBron James ... to replace Shaq Kobe needs Andrew Bynum , Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol . Gasol, Odom, and Bynum combine to be a Wade or a LeBron James? I think Wade or LeBron with Kobe would win it all. So I don't get your point here. So all Shaq has to do is find a top 3 player in the game and he can win a title? Yeah great point Oracle lol.
Who kept them in those by dominating anybody that tried defending him? I'm as much of a Kobe fan as the next dude but it was clear that Shaq was the better player in those three ships. Shaq was so dominate then you could've put any 20 ppg SG with him and the results would be the same.
Gasol, Odom, and Bynum combine to be a Wade or a LeBron James? I think Wade or LeBron with Kobe would win it all. So I don't get your point here. So all Shaq has to do is find a top 3 player in the game and he can win a title? Yeah great point Oracle lol. My statement means that a good perimeter player can be substituted quite easily. That's not the case for a truly outstanding post player. The Lakers have a committee of players to patrol the lane and did win the ring but against questionable talent in the Magic. Definitely a healthy Celtics squad would have created havoc through the Lakers lines with a healthy Kevin Garnett, Kendrick Perkins, Leon Powe & Glen Davis. The Magic have a center and 4 guards around him.
However, none of these players can win it all (LBJ, Kobe or Wade) if they don't sport a reliable post presence. Case in point LeBron James. He got a team full of capable role players but he is lacking only one thing. A proved, established, dominating post presence. Ergo the result the Cavaliers are having sans such a player. Their 'luck' will change with a healthy Shaq inside. Dwyane Wade is having trouble taking his team places without such player. No coincidence he got a ring with Shaq. Kobe Bryant got some limited help but never got over the hurdle (being eliminated by the Suns twice) until Pau Gasol got into town. Andrew Bynum and Lamar Odom were wanting exactly what Gasol added to the mix.
On the flip side Shaquille O'Neal takes his teams without one of the top players in the league to the promised land... He did it with Penny Hardaway (far from a top perimeter player) did it with Dwyane Wade (at the time a prospect but in not Kobe or LeBron caliber at that time). Tim Duncan has taken the Spurs to 4 rings with the likes of Sean Elliot Avery Johnson and Mario Elie as his perimeter players, did it with Stephen Jackson and a young Manu Ginobili, then a combo of Tony Parker (who is more of a slasher than a complete perimeter player) Manu and aging Brent Barry. So in essense you don't need a top perimeter player to win it all, but you surely need a top post presence to do it. Such as your Lakers of 2009 or the 2004 Pistons (Rasheed Wallace, Ben Wallace, Corliss Williamson and Mehmet Okur) with their three headed post monsters.
I'm not arguing that Kobe meant more to Shaq, not even close. Shaq in my opinion is one of the most dominant big men to ever play the game. Im arguing that Kobe had an extremely large part to do with Shaq and the Lakers 3 championship rings. Certain Kobe haters argue that Kobe only has one real ring, which I find ridiculous. This post was just to show that the team was Kobe's and Shaq's not just Kobe's or not just Shaq's.
Any basketball fan or analysist pretty much knows that NBA games come down to the fourth quarter. Shaq could not dominate the fourth quarter like Kobe could, just like Kobe could not dominate the first three quarters like Shaq could. Yin and Yang, Ash and Pikachu, Beavis and Butthead, Lewis and Clark, Shaq and Kobe. All of these teams needed each individual. Sorry I don't care if Kobe shot 10% from the field, if hes averaging 25 points a game over 4 years in the playoffs he had a very large impact on the championships.
Who kept them in those by dominating anybody that tried defending him? I'm as much of a Kobe fan as the next dude but it was clear that Shaq was the better player in those three ships. Shaq was so dominate then you could've put any 20 ppg SG with him and the results would be the same. Amen DJ
Exactly my point. Even if Kobe Bryant would have been named the Finals MVP on the finals he played with Shaquille O'Neal we will know who was the man just like we know that Kevin Garnett runs the Celtics. They do have great perimeter players in Paul Pierce and Ray Allen but Garnett does so much on both ends that any flaws these might have are covered by Garnett. Same with Tim Duncan.
People fail to see that a great scoring average can be attenuated to how effective you can be from the floor and the help you can provide to the other players in your team. A post presence opens easy shots for perimeter shooters much more than a slashing perimeter with a 42% average. That doesn't cover the rebounds the blocks the picks and even the help defense that covers the mistakes of bad defenders on the team.
Post play is the key to winning a ring, with very few and rare exceptions.
I think the argument about Kobe's one ring...should be Kobe's one MVP. He has four rings. He played an important role in all those rings; however, the last ring was his most important role. He was the star of the team; the MVP. Just like Shaq was the years they won rings together. Everyone is important on any team that wins a championship; but it is the MVP that cannot be replaced. Shaq has that 3 times to Kobe's one time. Just the way it is. Shaq is a dominant force.
It is like Jordan won 6 rings and MVPs but Pippen played an important role. But Jordan was the MVP cause he was the guy that couldn't be replaced. Could Jordan win without Pippen? No. But Pippen was easier to replace than a Jordan. That is the key.
Shaq couldn't be replaced in the Lakers lineup. Kobe could. Which is why Shaq was MVP.
So yeah, Kobe has four rings as does Shaq and Duncan. But if you want to know the most valuable guy of those three; the debate is between Shaq and Duncan as they are the MVP guys for most of their rings. Kobe needs at least another MVP to be in that discussion, I'd think.
DWade and Lebron won't carry a similar burden as Kobe about winning without Shaq. (one Kobe has now shed) Simply because DWade was the MVP of his championship and well deserved and if they bring one to Cleveland; Lebron will be. The table is turned. Shaq is now the Kobe...while DWade (and possibly Lebron) get the credit they deserve.
However, if Shaq gets another ring in Cleveland; you've got to be impressed with what this guy brings post-prime. Just another example of this guy's dominance and the fact you cannot replace him.
Certain Kobe haters argue that Kobe only has one real ring, which I find ridiculous.
I am not a Kobe Bryant hater but I will beg to know what else does a good perimeter player adds to the mix that can't be surpassed by a dominating post player...
Three point shooting at 32%?
This post was just to show that the team was Kobe's and Shaq's not just Kobe's or not just Shaq's. Well this post was based on averages of points scored, which is a very incomplete way to weight the value of a player to a team. Specially when numbers show that Shaquille O'Neal was averaging almost the same scoring wise while taking way less attempts (18 to Kobe's 22). Kobe was only matching the points due to his freethrow shooting.
In fact, that mentality is what split perhaps the greatest team the 2000 had seen... When Kobe got the impression his act was more important than Shaq's.
Any basketball fan or analyst pretty much knows that NBA games come down to the fourth quarter. Shaq could not dominate the fourth quarter like Kobe could, just like Kobe could not dominate the first three quarters like Shaq could. That is an unfortunate side effect of entertainment. We live for drama. We crave it. Specially in sports. We tend to value more those things that make the results unpredictable than those who give us reliable results all the time.
I am pretty sure those same fans and analyst will select Shaq before Kobe in a draft anytime of the day.
Sorry I don't care if Kobe shot 10% from the field, if hes averaging 25 points a game over 4 years in the playoffs he had a very large impact on the championships.
Well maybe you don't care about it, but the score does. Ineffective offenses produce lackadaisical results.
You must be a great fan of Allen Iverson then. You are describing the guy. 27.1 points, 42 percent, and their offense is never outstanding. low to mid 90s in scoring and a point differential of 2 to 4 points. Teams that shoot par for the course (94s for the late 90 and early 2000s and 99 for the late 2000s.) but are not truly effective when it comes to point differential. Their defense is suspect while the steals numbers are good. Doomed to loose as long as they are the best players in their teams, perennial sidekicks.
I for one like my teams to be real boring and just massacre the opposition.
However, if Shaq gets another ring in Cleveland; you've got to be impressed with what this guy brings post-prime. Just another example of this guy's dominance and the fact you cannot replace him.I agree. I personally think Shaq will help LeBron immensly as he knows he is extremely close to another championship ring. Hes still dominant, and hes still a 300+ pound beast that can pass extremely well that teams will have to contend with,
My statement means that a good perimeter player can be substituted quite easily. That's not the case for a truly outstanding post player. Still you examples of LeBron and Wade weren't very good because they are considered by most to be 2 of the top 3 players in the league. Not just top 2 or 3 wing players, but in the entire NBA. I get you used them because he played with Wade and now LeBron but using them doesn't help prove your point.
If you replace Gasol and Bynum with Howard or Tim Duncan and the Lakers win it all this year. That is a true statement just like yours with the LeBron/Wade.
I do think Shaq could have won a title without Kobe if he had another very good SG, but he would not have won 3 IMO. I do agree Shaq was the more important role on the team no doubt, but I still don't think replacing Kobe would be easy. You could have replaced him and won a title, not 3.
All I know when I was watching the Lakers play in those years, Shaq was the man. Everything went through him, all offensive possesions went through him, the team was built around him. I will always believe it was Shaq's team. Did they need each other? Yes, but Shaq might have got the job done without Kobe back then, Kobe would never have won a ring in those years without Shaq. Now Kobe and LeBron are the best players in the league by far, the reason Kobe got a ring this year is again his supporting cast. I am not taking anything away from Kobe, this year he led his team to the championship, but the Lakers are much more than just Kobe. They are the best total team in the league, a large part of that is due to Kobe, but all the pieces together make them the best team.
the reason Kobe got a ring this year is again his supporting cast. Every superstar needs a supporting cast. Why is this just brought up when talking about Kobe?
Anyway, the point of this thread was not to say who was the most dominant on the Lakers. Everyone knows that was Shaq. No one is arguing that. People need to get that through their heads. The problem is, people like to minimize Kobe's role on those championship. Yes, Shaq was batman and Kobe was robin, but in no way Kobe was a Pippen. Kobe was more important to the Lakers than Pippen was.( im willing to debate this if you want).
Shaq meant more because a big man is always more important than a wingman, but that doesn't mean it was just Shaq's team. The Bulls were Jordan's team. The Lakers were Shaq and Kobe's team. You never heard anybody in the media say "Shaq's Lakers" or "Kobe's Lakers". You always "heard Shaq and Kobe's Lakers". Shaq was the Finals MVP, but you can also say that Kobe was the MVP of the West playoffs.
SOme nights, Shaq was the man, some nights it was Kobe. When those games went to the wire, Kobe was the man.
I don't feel like getting into all of this, but Shaq wouln't won without Kobe and vice versa.
It seem like Kobe is the only player in the history of basketball that gets punish for having help on his team.
Kobe 4 rings, deal with it Go Lakers Go Clippers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At the end of the day, Shaq was the one who teams were scared of, who was going to make the big play, or draw the attention to open space for Kobe. He was Batman. Kobe was a little more important that just a player enjoying the ride ala Robert Horry, Rick Fox, etc. but Shaq is the reason he has those 3 rings.
The Egotistical Rapist Kobe earned this title. Say what you want about Shaq but this would be Kobes 1st ring without him. Teams focused on the most dominent player at the time (Shaq) All of you Kobe lovers shouldnt take Shaqs role on the championship teams lightly. Stop your whining jealous idiots.
it was shaq's team i think. but whoever had a bad game the other was there to pick them up and make the big shot when it was needed. now is lebron and shaq the next kobe and shaq
Every superstar needs a supporting cast. Why is this just brought up when talking about Kobe?
Anyway, the point of this thread was not to say who was the most dominant on the Lakers. Everyone knows that was Shaq. No one is arguing that. People need to get that through their heads. The problem is, people like to minimize Kobe's role on those championship. Yes, Shaq was batman and Kobe was robin, but in no way Kobe was a Pippen. Kobe was more important to the Lakers than Pippen was.( im willing to debate this if you want).
Shaq meant more because a big man is always more important than a wingman, but that doesn't mean it was just Shaq's team. The Bulls were Jordan's team. The Lakers were Shaq and Kobe's team. You never heard anybody in the media say "Shaq's Lakers" or "Kobe's Lakers". You always "heard Shaq and Kobe's Lakers". Shaq was the Finals MVP, but you can also say that Kobe was the MVP of the West playoffs.
SOme nights, Shaq was the man, some nights it was Kobe. When those games went to the wire, Kobe was the man.
I don't feel like getting into all of this, but Shaq wouln't won without Kobe and vice versa.
It seem like Kobe is the only player in the history of basketball that gets punish for having help on his team. Couldn't have said it any better. Shaq at the time was the more dominant player but like Lakers+USC said, it was never Shaq's team. It was both of theirs. What had Shaq won before Kobe and Phil? What did Shaq win without Riley and Wade? Shaq might be the most dominant player to ever play the game but he needed Phil, Riley, Kobe, and Wade to win his championships. No way does he win won championship if one of those players or coachs are missing.
The team was Shaq and Kobe's or Kobe's and Shaq, anyway you want to put it. It would be like giving credit to all of the Yankee's recent championships and discounting Mariano Rivera's impact on the Yankees.
