Kobe's 2001-2002 season

[ShaqAttack3234]

So that excuses him being out of shape, lazy, putting off surgeries to miss regular season time, etc.?

I've never defended him putting off that surgery, I've criticized him for it many times. Funny how I'll never once hear you criticize Kobe for chucking and going out of the offense, refusing to accept the role at times that his legendary coach thought was best, and history proved was best.

And you do realize why that is correct? Way to not address the rest of the post. They were built around Shaq. The back ups were terrible. Obviously they would fare worse without Shaq than they would with out Kobe. Significant drop off in defense and rebounding, no?

Now maybe you'll realize how valuable he was because he was leading the team in scoring, drawing the most double teams and as you alluded to, the team relied on him so much for defense and rebounding.

Who exactly did they have to back up Kobe? You just said that the team didn't have talent outside of Shaq/Kobe.

You clearly have no idea how to separate skills(which will always favor a perimeter player) over who was a more effective player. Hence your ridiculous assertion that Iverson was better than Shaq even including the playoffs in 2001, and Kobe being better than Duncan in 2003.

And you're not clearly all over Shaq's d1ck?



The career underachiever.

Who wouldn't have won d1ck if he didn't play with 2 of the top 3 SG's of ALL - TIME ?!?!

The man who went H.A.M. for one season in his entire career (1999 - 2000)

Shaq for all he achieved was a massive waste of one of the physical wonders of the world.

Because he was soft, massively egotistical, and straight out lazy. He should've won every year in the league if he had a brain transplant and had the motivational fire of the Birds, Jordans, Bryants, Magics of the world.

Actually, I'm reasonable when it comes to Shaq. For example, I don't claim he was better than players he clearly wasn't such as Duncan in 2003 or 1999, and have argued with people who said he was better than Duncan in '99, another season I'm critical of Shaq for.

But you get like a schoolgirl when you talk about Kobe's "killer instinct" and his scoring streaks.

LOL at Shaq being soft. That is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard on these boards.

As far as Shaq not winning anything if he hadn't played with two top 3 shooting guards of all time....first of all, you know damn well that Kobe wasn't near that level yet in 2000, more importantly, you also acknowledge that the Lakers were pretty much a 2 man team, so how should playing with 1 great player on those 2001 and 2002 teams discredit him vs other players who won with a player not as good as Kobe, but more talent(and in some cases much more talent) around them overall?

And Wade is not a top 3 shooting guard of all time, plus it's funny that you act like Shaq didn't do shit to earn that ring yet that team went just 10-11 without Shaq even when Wade was playing. And don't try to angle that into me saying Shaq was better that year because he wasn't, but you severely undervalue how much Shaq meant to that team.

[Bring-Your-Js]

LMAO @ Comparing Bryant to Shaq.

For all of Shaq's flaws, he was infinitely more dominant/efficient/impactful than Bryant.

LMAO @ Shaq putting 27/11/63% on the 04 Pistons, taking whatever the **** he wanted, while the ****ing perimeter superstar shotjacked them totally out of the series.

[Samurai Swoosh]

I've never defended him putting off that surgery, I've criticized him for it many times. Funny how I'll never once hear you criticize Kobe for chucking and going out of the offense, refusing to accept the role at times that his legendary coach thought was best, and history proved was best.

Actually I just addressed it the other day, IE his selfish play in the 2004 Finals, that was destructive to the team. A Finals they absolutely should have won.

Now maybe you'll realize how valuable he was because he was leading the team in scoring, drawing the most double teams and as you alluded to, the team relied on him so much for defense and rebounding.

Where did I say he wasn't valuable?

I'm just tired of your ridiculous back handed compliments of records with or without Shaq. Because when you include the context, it doesn't make any sense. Of course anyteam would be worse without one of their top two best players.

Who exactly did they have to back up Kobe? You just said that the team didn't have talent outside of Shaq/Kobe.

But the team was built with the low post threat in mind as the main option, offensively and defensively.

Shaq's back ups were significanly worse than Devean George, Kareem Rush, Ron Harper, Derek Fisher, etc.

Those guys are servicable pros as role players. Shaq's replacements were GOD AWFUL.

How can you even question this?

You clearly have no idea how to separate skills(which will always favor a perimeter player)

Not unless you're Kareem, Hakeem, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Chris Webber, Sabonis etc

So yea we will go ahead and pretend those players don't exist for the sake of your argument for your boy.

Who really did dominate because of his overwhelming size more than anything. Which you refuse to just conceed. He was born a freak of nature. That's it.

But yea, I don't know how to seperate skill from production.

Hence your ridiculous assertion that Iverson was better than Shaq even including the playoffs in 2001, and Kobe being better than Duncan in 2003.

Hence your d1ck sucking agenda to your wet dreams about "big men" ...

In context, Iverson is EASILY the 2001 MVP.

Dude didn't play with another top five player. A player who makes signicant impact on defense and offense.

Iverson was a one man wrecking crew. For as dominant as Shaq was ... you had another dominating piece standing right next to him.

Shaq was not MVP in 2001, and obviously I'm in the majority on that one. Seeing as Iverson and the Big Lazy have the same number of MVP trophies.

Actually, I'm reasonable when it comes to Shaq.

You're really not ...

You claimed Shaq > Wade both in 2005 and the 2005 playoffs ... and I'm even sure you thought so as well for the 2006 regular season.

When it was clear as day, yes Shaq may have been the vocal leader ... but Wade was absolutely the best player on the floor.

But you get like a schoolgirl when you talk about Kobe's "killer instinct" and his scoring streaks.

Yes, I think its far more fascinating for someone to be an overachiever. I think its far more compelling for someone to maximize and exceed what god gave them. I find it far more interesting and admirable that a player who wasn't born as a pure freak of nature did more than someone who was born as King Kong in human form.

Yes, Kobe's scoring streaks are amazing. Much more amazing that a 6'6 SG scored 81 pts, 62 pts in 3, 56 pts in 3, 52 pts in 3, 65 pts, 60 pts, 61 pts. And the Big Slacker aka the Human King Kong aka the Big Dirty Cop managed to drop 60 ... ONE TIME ... on the worst team in the league, on Michael Olawakandi.

LOL at Shaq being soft. That is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard on these boards.

He is soft. You take away that size and what is he? A mental midget. A slacker. A bum ... lazy as all get out. No internal drive. Guy couldn't even learn to shoot free throws. Guy never averaged OVER 30 ppg as a 7'2 550 lbs man in a league where there was NO ONE physically to defend him. In a league where there WAS NO elite centers anymore. That's beyond pathetic. The most "dominant force" ever couldn't average over 30 ppg one time, let alone for the duration of his career? He should be flat out embarassed.

And Wade is not a top 3 shooting guard of all time

Uhhh, yea he is. And he's for sure to go down as #3, too. Who is better than Wade?

Drexler? West?

No. And he's already accomplished more, and still has at least 3 or 4 years left as an elite player.

plus it's funny that you act like Shaq didn't do shit to earn that ring yet that team went just 10-11 without Shaq.

Like I said any team will struggle when you take away one of their top two players.

Wade won an NBA championship without Shaquille O'Neal.

Who was busy being shut down by Erika Dampier.



Finals MVP and best playoff performer for the Heat on CONSECUTIVE years matches and exceeds your stupid little quip about the Heat going 10 - 11 during the regular season w/o Shaq.

If Wade doesn't go down in 2005 v.s. the Pistons, fairly certain they go to the Finals. He was DOMINATING that series. And what did Shaq do to pick up the slack when Wade was injured to get them over the hump?

Nothing. Or not near enough for the "MDE" ...

Fukk outta here ...

MLE

Most Lazy Ever

[Juges8932]

My favorite version of Kobe was 2008.

He just seemed to have a great balance on the court.

He matured a lot coming into the season and it showed. He became a good leader and knew how to motivate his guys. His play was a lot of fun to watch. He knew when to attack, when to facilitate, and when he needed to put the team on his back.

He had a great feel for the game. Often, he would have < 5 FGA in the first half and 6-8 assists. He would still be aggressive, penetrating the D and getting in the lane, opening up the floor for the shooters on the wing or the pass to Pau right by the basket for the easy two. Then, once he got the team going, he would look for his shot in the second half and be more assertive from a scoring standpoint.

That sole reason is why I think he was the best version and my favorite version. For those that want to bring up the Finals and them not winning: it certainly wasn't due to a lack of his effort. Simply the team that showed up for him in '09 and '10 was a lot more hardened, seasoned, and ready for the moment. In '08 they looked scared and got punked (particularly Pau, who was night and day different in the following two years).

He has not been as good at balancing out his style of play (facilitator, scorer, etc) as he was back then. He still does it, of course, just not with the consistency that he displayed in '08. There seems to be a lot more poor chucking nights and fewer of the great all-around games. But that's the dual-edged sword that is Kobe Bryant. When he is hot and hitting from everywhere, you love it; but when those same shots are clanking and they just keep going up, you hate it and it is enraging to watch, lol.

If I had to rank the seasons:

08
06
07
09
03
10
01
02
04
05

Had a hard time to debate between placement of '07 and '09 & '03 and '10. Many people will probably have '06 as his best season and as an individual scorer, that is true. I would just take the overall package of '08 for a player to lead my team to the title.

However, to be honest, 02 is really the season where my memory is not as good. '05 and '04 were not good (by his standards) for obvious reasons and were certainly his two worst (IMO). '04 he really was trying to be the man and it probably cost the Lakers a title (or at least a close series). '05 was him trying to prove that he could do everything by himself.

Like ShaqAttack said, I probably don't recall the specifics of '02, of all his star seasons, because that is the one that is not brought up very often, while 01 and 03 are brought up frequently and so I get a chance to review the season and his play in them a lot. '04 and '05 are brought up a lot and not easy to forget for obvious reasons as well.

As far as the 'chucker' title he has been tagged with between the Shaq and Gasol eras, it is stupid. It wasn't like he was averaging less assists and watching him play, it wasn't like he refused to pass entirely. Only difference is, instead of passing and setting up to Shaq or Gasol, he was passing to Kwame Brown or Smush Paker I'm not saying that Kobe can't get in chucker mode, because lord knows he can (particularly if he was just on a hot streak and went cold. He will just keep on chucking, lol. This goes back to how enraging it can be to watch him), but I feel it gets overblown a lot as far as defining him as a player overall. In '04, there was certainly some unnecessary chucking being done, when he was trying to prove himself as the man. He also had trust issues with those teammates (post-Shaq, pre-Gasol) and you really can't blame him for that. I wouldn't have trusted them in crucial game situations to get the job done either. That has certainly changed since he got Gasol and the return of Fisher. There have been a number of game-winning shots that have not been shot by him (most of those being shot by Fisher).

[ThaSwagg3r]

He played better defense in 2008, was more athletic, attacked the basket more and that was his peak as a playmaker, imo.

I don't think any of that is true except that he attacked the basket more. And I am not sure how you decline as a playmaker, but he did a great job playmaking in 2009 too. He didn't really play better defense, because he still had the ability in 2009, I guess he was more willing on that end but that was because he wasn't playing next to Trevor Ariza in 2008 (i.e. no defensive specialist). More athletic? Not sure if that is true either, he was still very athletic in 2009, maybe he was slightly more athletic, but nothing significant.

I really have no problem with someone saying Kobe in 2008 was better than Kobe in 2009. I just don't see the difference. Kobe could have easily won the MVP in 2009 if LeBron didn't improve so much.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm just tired of your ridiculous back handed compliments of records with or without Shaq. Because when you include the context, it doesn't make any sense. Of course anyteam would be worse without one of their top two best players.

They're not back handed compliments, but worth noting because Kobe by that point was good enough that he couldn't really be compared to other second options, so how well he was able to lead a team at that point is important, imo, particularly vs later versions of Kobe.

But the team was built with the low post threat in mind as the main option, offensively and defensively.

So wait....the team was built around Shaq, yet you argue that Shaq was the man on those teams?

Shaq's back ups were significanly worse than Devean George, Kareem Rush, Ron Harper, Derek Fisher, etc.

Those guys are servicable pros as role players. Shaq's replacements were GOD AWFUL.

How can you even question this?

Harper was a starter. George wasn't even remotely a factor before 2002 so irrelevant to when Kobe missed extended stretches(2000 and 2001) and Rush wasn't on the team yet, Fisher shot under 35% for the entire 2000 season, and he was the guy who stepped into the starting lineup in 2000.

Not unless you're Kareem, Hakeem, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Chris Webber, Sabonis etc

So yea we will go ahead and pretend those players don't exist for the sake of your argument for your boy.

Who really did dominate because of his overwhelming size more than anything. Which you refuse to just conceed. He was born a freak of nature. That's it.

But yea, I don't know how to seperate skill from production.

Yet you'd look stupid arguing any of those guys except Kareem, Hakeem and Duncan were as good as Shaq. And Kareem is the only one I'd say was better with Hakeem being right there peak vs peak.

Hence your d1ck sucking agenda to your wet dreams about "big men" ...

I don't have an agenda, no matter how hard you try to make it seem like I have one.

First, it's me diminishing Kobe, despite me arguing with you that Kobe was a better player than Iverson and top 3 in 2001, when you'll only go as far as calling him top 5. Oh, and then, it's me being an Iverson hater just because I'm logical and don't think he was as good as prime Shaq, despite me defending him against those who call him a cancer because he wasn't going outside the gameplan in his prime, but I call it like I see it and don't think his skillset was ideal for building a winning team around.

In context, Iverson is EASILY the 2001 MVP.

Dude didn't play with another top five player. A player who makes signicant impact on defense and offense.

Iverson was a one man wrecking crew. For as dominant as Shaq was ... you had another dominating piece standing right next to him.

Shaq was not MVP in 2001, and obviously I'm in the majority on that one. Seeing as Iverson and the Big Lazy have the same number of MVP trophies.

Right, a one man wrecking crew when his team starts the eason 12-2 with him averaging just 22/5/5/38 FG% in those games, yet he didn't have any help.

You're really not ...

You claimed Shaq > Wade both in 2005 and the 2005 playoffs ... and I'm even sure you thought so as well for the 2006 regular season

No, I said 2005 regular season, not the playoffs. Which I still maintain, and many others agree, and if you're going to cite MVP voting for Shaq vs Iverson, then it's pretty convenient that you ignore it here when Shaq easily finished above Wade in 2005 MVP voting.

Yes, I think its far more fascinating for someone to be an overachiever. I think its far more compelling for someone to maximize and exceed what god gave them. I find it far more interesting and admirable that a player who wasn't born as a pure freak of nature did more than someone who was born as King Kong in human form.

Yes, Kobe's scoring streaks are amazing. Much more amazing that a 6'6 SG scored 81 pts, 62 pts in 3, 56 pts in 3, 52 pts in 3, 65 pts, 60 pts, 61 pts. And the Big Slacker aka the Human King Kong aka the Big Dirty Cop managed to drop 60 ... ONE TIME ... on the worst team in the league, on Michael Olawakandi.

I find Kobe's scoring streaks very entertaining as well, but you act like it's equal to sex and get even more ridiculous when you talk about Jordan. If either of us is a stan, it's you.

He is soft. You take away that size and what is he? A mental midget. A slacker. A bum ... lazy as all get out. No internal drive. Guy couldn't even learn to shoot free throws. Guy never averaged OVER 30 ppg as a 7'2 550 lbs man in a league where there was NO ONE physically to defend him. In a league where there WAS NO elite centers anymore. That's beyond pathetic. The most "dominant force" ever couldn't average over 30 ppg one time, let alone for the duration of his career? He should be flat out embarassed.

The lack of intelligence in this post is incredible. Right, the guy who played more physically than anyone in league history is soft, He took more of a pounding than anyone else, and still kept playing his game, dishing out plenty of physicality and trying to tear down the basket. There's literally no way to call him soft. It's not like you can call him a choker either.

How many people were averaging 30 during Shaq's prime? The few who were took quite a few more shots. Shaq is one of only 3 players in the shot clock era to win a scoring title and championship in the same year(I think Mikan did it before shot clock era, if not then my mistake). He won 2 scoring titles, was leading in 1994 as well, though Robinson went for the scoring title on the last day while Shaq couldn't have cared less. He was top 2 or 3 in scoring pretty much every year from 1994-2002. If you're going to criticize Shaq for something, scoring definitely shouldn't be it. He could have been a better defender throughout his career, but scoring? Hell, he probably could have scored more, but would it have helped the team? He wasn't in a situation like late 80's Jordan or Kobe circa 2006 where scoring any more would have been necessary. Look at what guys score on championship teams or championship contenders.

Uhhh, yea he is. And he's for sure to go down as #3, too. Who is better than Wade?

Drexler? West?

No. And he's already accomplished more, and still has at least 3 or 4 years left as an elite player.



Like I said any team will struggle when you take away one of their top two players.

Wade won an NBA championship without Shaquille O'Neal.

Who was busy being shut down by Erika Dampier.



Finals MVP and best playoff performer for the Heat on CONSECUTIVE years matches and exceeds your stupid little quip about the Heat going 10 - 11 during the regular season w/o Shaq.

If Wade doesn't go down in 2005 v.s. the Pistons, fairly certain they go to the Finals. He was DOMINATING that series. And what did Shaq do to pick up the slack when Wade was injured to get them over the hump?

Nothing. Or not near enough for the "MDE" ...

Fukk outta here ...

MLE

Most Lazy Ever

West>Wade.

West won a title too in case you forgot, and also could have won another in 1969 when he was so good that he won finals MVP on a losing team and certainly would have won had Baylor or Wilt showed up.

[bl2k8]

The next season(his best season) is when he turned into the Kobe all know today

[Jacks3]

2001? Nah. Good series, but he was better in 2002, put up better numbers, was more consistent and better in the 4th quarter, iirc. 2010? Kind of hard to compare considering he was the man on that team and facing a better team than the Nets.

His last 4 games of the 2001 series were just as good as 02, he played better defense, and he did against better competition. His 02 Finals are overrated just because his FG%.

[Samurai Swoosh]

His last 4 games of the 2001 series were just as good as 02, he played better defense, and he did against better competition. His 02 Finals are overrated just because his FG%.

Pretty much, exactly.

[Jacks3]

LMAO @ Comparing Bryant to Shaq.

For all of Shaq's flaws, he was infinitely more dominant/efficient/impactful than Bryant.

LMAO @ Shaq putting 27/11/63% on the 04 Pistons, taking whatever the **** he wanted, while the ****ing perimeter superstar shotjacked them totally out of the series.

lol @ this garbage. Shaq isn't "infinitely" more dominant, nor did Kobe shot-jack them out in 2004. The rest of the Lakers shot 34% outside of Kobe/Shaq that series. I like how you fail to mention to that.

[Samurai Swoosh]

West>Wade.

West won a title too in case you forgot, and also could have won another in 1969 when he was so good that he won finals MVP on a losing team and certainly would have won had Baylor or Wilt showed up.

But the point was he didn't ...

Wade won as the best player on his team. And he had a LEGIT case for MVP in 2009. Wade's also the VASTLY superior defender. Like there isn't even an argument.

To act like their resumes aren't comprable shows your agenda with the Big Lazy.

At worst he's what? ... the 4th best SG all-time?

So Shaq NEEDED 2 of the top 5 all-time at their position, and two of the best clutch / closer players of all-time to get his four rings.

Kobe got two rings with his next best player being Pau Gasol.

Who isn't even a top five player in today's league, let alone top ten or five at his position all time.

Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.

Shaq's an underachieving, lazy, ring chasing, immature, insecure fat ass.

[ShaqAttack3234]

But the point was he didn't ...

Wade won as the best player on his team. And he had a LEGIT case for MVP in 2009. Wade's also the VASTLY superior defender. Like there isn't even an argument.

To act like their resumes aren't comprable shows your agenda with the Big Lazy.

No, Wade did not have a case for MVP in 2009 over Lebron who led that Cav team to 66 wins, definitely not when Wade won only 43 games.

And no, Wade shouldn't be ranked over West yet. He's in just his 8th season and has had several seasons where injuries played a major factor. In several years, if he remains elite, then I'll be open to this discussion.

At worst he's what? ... the 4th best SG all-time?

So Shaq NEEDED 2 of the top 5 all-time at their position, and two of the best clutch / closer players of all-time to get his four rings.

Kobe got two rings with his next best player being Pau Gasol.

And the the rest of his roster was definitely more talented than the 3peat Lakers, and Shaq scoring pretty close to what his 2nd and 3rd options Kobe and Rice did combined, those titles shouldn't be question, he was putting up historic numbers. I've said many times that Kobe deserves more credit than just about any other 2nd option for the 2001 and 2002 titles due to the Lakers lack of a 3rd option, but that also means that Shaq shouldn't get any less credit than other first options. Look at his numbers, look at all of the defensive attention he received. He didn't have it easy, he dominated to get those rings, just like the other greats. He wasn't coasting by only having to put up 20/10 and receiving single coverage during the 3peat.

The team was just built differently, they relied on 2 players more while teams such as the '05/'07 Spurs, '04 Pistons, '08 Celtics ect. had a more balanced attack. .

Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.

Shaq's an underachieving, lazy, ring chasing, immature, insecure fat ass.

Very few had anywhere near the talent that Shaq did anyway so it doesn't really matter in the end. He's still hands down among the very best to ever play the game.

[Jacks3]

why do people say 2001-2002 was his best finals performance? because he shot above 50%?

anyways to answer the op question, i would say is his 5th best season imo.

1. 2005-2006
2. 2006-2007
3. 2007-2008
4. 2002-2003
5. 2001-2002

where is 08-09. easily better than 01-02.

[Heilige]

But the point was he didn't ...

Wade won as the best player on his team. And he had a LEGIT case for MVP in 2009. Wade's also the VASTLY superior defender. Like there isn't even an argument.

To act like their resumes aren't comprable shows your agenda with the Big Lazy.

At worst he's what? ... the 4th best SG all-time?

So Shaq NEEDED 2 of the top 5 all-time at their position, and two of the best clutch / closer players of all-time to get his four rings.

Kobe got two rings with his next best player being Pau Gasol.

Who isn't even a top five player in today's league, let alone top ten or five at his position all time.

Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.

Shaq's an underachieving, lazy, ring chasing, immature, insecure fat ass.

Who do you think is a better player between a prime Kobe and prime Shaq?

[catch24]

Who do you think is a better player between a prime Kobe and prime Shaq?

Why do you feel the need to ask this?