Kobe being held down individually by Shaq is way overblown

[guy]

First of all, from 97-00, he clearly wasn't that good, which has nothing to do with Shaq. I think everyone can agree on that. He became a dominating superstar in 2001.

His statlines from 2001-2004 with Shaq

2001 - 28.5 ppg/5.9 rpg/5 apg on 46 FG%
2002 - 25.2 ppg/5.5 rpg/5.5 apg on 47 FG%
2003 - 30 ppg/6.9 rpg/5.9 apg on 45 FG%
2004 - 24 ppg/5.5 rpg/5 apg on 44 FG%

His statlines from 2005-2009 without Shaq

2005 - 27.6 ppg/5.9 rpg/6 apg on 43 FG%
2006 - 35.4 ppg/5.3 rpg/4.5 apg on 45 FG%
2007 - 31.6 ppg/5.7 rpg/5.4 apg on 46 FG%
2008 - 28.3 ppg/6.3 rpg/5.4 apg on 46 FG%
2009 - 26.8 ppg/5.2 rpg/4.9 apg on 47 FG%

If I had to rank the 9 statistically , it would go something like this from top to bottom:
2006
2003
2007
2008
2001
2009
2005
2002
2004

And some of these are arguable, but I think this would be somewhat of the consensus. Although I would consider his 03 season as his second best, many consider that his best. The point is if Kobe was getting held back so much, which he was but to a much smaller degree then people make it out be, then all 5 of his seasons without Shaq would be at the very top and the 4 seasons with Shaq would be at the very bottom. But instead, 2 of the seasons with Shaq are in the top 5, and 2 of the seasons without Shaq are in the bottom 4. The stats from 01-04 with Shaq are not that much different from 05-09 without Shaq. 01 is not much different from 08, 02 is not much different from 05 or 09, and 03 is not much different from 07. And although I think Kobe's stats without Shaq are overall better then with Shaq, it's not that much better and much of that can be attributed to Kobe hitting his prime during that time. The presence of ONE player, even someone as dominating as Shaq, can't impact someone else's stats that much, especially someone as great as Kobe's.

As far as MVPs goes, even if he didn't play with Shaq, there's still a really good chance he wouldn't have won MVPs in that time. From 97-00, he just clearly wasn't that great, and in 00, 01, and 04 he missed way too many games to injuries to really be considered. That leaves 02 and 03. In 03, even though he played with Shaq, do people really think he had unfair shot at MVP? Kobe had great enough stats, better stats then in 08 when he did win, yet even with Shaq for most of the season, the team really wasn't that great, while Duncan on the other hand clearly deserved it. So the only season you can really say Kobe was held back from winning an MVP by nothing else then the fact he played with Shaq is 02, but does anyone really think he was as good as Duncan that year anyway?

So anyway, this idea that some people have, especially Kobe fans, that Kobe would've added about 4 more ppg to his career average and won 2-3 MVPs if he didn't play with Shaq i.e. his legacy might've been better off playing without Shaq is really farfetched and ridiculous.

[dr8ked]

Meh, I think they might be right, Phil jackson doesn't go to LA if Shaq was not a laker. He was the main focus of the Offense..

[ShaqAttack3234]

Kobe without playing with Shaq may ahve had a few extra ppg, but you wouldn't have seen him shooting around 47% like he was during the 3peat and you wouldn't have seen him playing deep into the playoffs and winning championships. In reality his legacy would be worse without the 3 extra rings. Kobe would never trade those 3 rings for 3 extra ppg for is career.

[purple8gold]

Kobe without playing with Shaq may ahve had a few extra ppg, but you wouldn't have seen him shooting around 47% like he was during the 3peat and you wouldn't have seen him playing deep into the playoffs and winning championships. In reality his legacy would be worse without the 3 extra rings. Kobe would never trade those 3 rings for 3 extra ppg for is career.

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so.

[plowking]

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so.

No, Shaq would have won if he had any other of the 4 or 5 top SG's at the time.

[raptorfan_dr07]

The presence of ONE player, even someone as dominating as Shaq, can impact someone else's stats that much, especially someone as great as Kobe's.

If you're saying Kobe's stats were affected positively by Shaq's presence alone, then I whole heartedly agree with you. A dominant post presence will always make people's stats a bit inflated. It's one of the reasons why I think Hedo Turkoglu has become so overrated, even though he's on my team now. Playing with a dominant big like Dwight Howard makes everyone look good. Tim Duncan's mere presence in the 07 Finals allowed Tony Parker to explode. Duncan was also responsible for a lot of Parker and Ginobili's development. What a lot of people don't realize is that a bunch of Kobe's top playoff games came as a result of Shaq's mere presence. Similar to the aforementioned 07 Finals with TD and Tony Parker, and the 06 Finals with Shaq and Dwyane Wade. The Mavericks game plan was to concentrate their whole defense on Shaq, which in turn gave Wade the opportunity to attack. Same with Kobe, team's entire gameplans revolved around stopping Shaq, which allowed Kobe to wreak havoc.

[raptorfan_dr07]

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so.

It probably would be the same. Shaq was too good a player and too dominant to not eventually win a few championships. It's much easier to build a winning team around a dominant big. It's why even Phil Jackson said this past year that if he were to build a team from scratch, he would pick Dwight Howard over Kobe and Lebron. It's why I believe that Houston made the right pick in taking Hakeem over MJ, and if they could do it all over again, I'm sure they'd do the same.

Besides, who's to say the Lakers don't trade for or sign some other star guard during that time? After all, don't you guys always say that the Lakers will always be relevent and will always be able to snag some young superstar player just because they're the Lakers??? I'm sure a team like LA would have had no problems snagging some other talented young wing to pair up with Shaq.

[All Net]

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so.

Shaq's legacy has certainly been boasted alot by getting to play with top tier shooting guards throughout his career no doubt.

[imdaman99]

No, Shaq would have won if he had any other of the 4 or 5 top SG's at the time.

What was Penny the year they got swept in the Finals?

[Collie]

What was Penny the year they got swept in the Finals?

A young PG who was on his way to greatness.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Turning the table, wouldn't you agree that Shaq's legacy (whatever that means) wouldn't be the same without Kobe either? I thought so.

Yes, but I could see him still winning some titles. In 2000, Kobe was a 22.5, 6 and 5 player who missed 16 games(the Lakers were 12-3 in those games not including the 1 Shaq missed). Here are some perimeter players with atleast similar production that season.

Grant Hill- 25.8 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 5.2 apg, 1.4 spg, 48.9 FG%, 34.7 3P%, 79.5 FT%, 74 games
Vince Carter- 25.7 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.3 spg, 1.1 bpg, 46.5 FG%, 40.3 3P%, 79.1 FT%, 82 games
Gary Payton- 24.2 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 8.9 apg, 1.9 spg, 44.8 FG%, 34 3P%(177 made 3's), 73.5 FT%, 82 games, all-defensive first team
Allen Iverson- 28.4 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 4.7 apg, 2.1 spg, 42.1 FG%, 34.1 3P%, 71.3 FT%, 70 games
Michael Finley- 22.6 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 5.3 apg, 1.3 spg, 45.7 FG%, 40.1 3P%, 82 FT%, 82 games
Ray Allen- 22.2 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 3.8 apg, 45.5 FG%, 42.3 3P%(172 made 3's), 88.7 FT%, 82 games
Jerry Stackhouse- 23.6 ppg, 42.8 FG%, 28.8 3P%, 81.5 FT%, 82 games
Eddie Jones- 20.1 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.2 apg, 2.7 spg, 42.7 FG%, 37.5 3P%(128 made 3's), 86.4 FT%, 72 games, all-defensive second team
Stephon Marbury- 22.2 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 8.4 apg, 1.5 spg, 43.2 FG%, 28.3 3P%, 81.2 FT%, 74 games

However you can't find anyone who could match Shaq's production(30, 14, 4, 3 on 57% shooting). He led the league in scoring and FG% plus he finished 2nd and 3rd in blocks and rebounds, respectively.

Granted I don't think all of those players were good enough to win a title with Shaq. For example it's unknown if Iverson could be effective with a player who needs the ball as much as Shaq, plus he wasn't the defender that Bryant was. There's similar questions for Marbury and Stackhouse. Jones also wasn't exactly known as a clutch playoff performer.

But does anyone really doubt that Shaq could win a title in 2000 with Grant Hill, Vince Carter, Gary Payton, Ray Allen or Michael Finley? All of those players also played all 82 games.

In 2001 it's very tough to find players who could match Kobe's production(28.5 ppg, 6 rpg, 5 apg, all defensive second team), but considering the fact that the Lakers breezed through the playoffs(15-1) and they did fine in the regular season in the games Kobe missed(11-3). I see no reason why the following players couldn't replace Kobe and have the Lakers still win a title that season.

Vince Carter- 27.6 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.5 spg, 1.1 bpg, 46 FG%, 40.8 3P%(162 made 3's), 76.5 FT%, 75 games
Tracy McGrady- 26.8 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.5 spg, 1.5 bpg, 45.7 FG%, 35.5 3P%, 73.3 FT%, 77 games
Paul Pierce- 25.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 3.1 apg, 1.7 spg, 45.4 FG%, 38.3 3P%(147 made 3's), 74.5 FT%, 82 games
Ray Allen- 22 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.5 spg, 48 FG%, 43.3 3P%(202 made 3's), 88.8 FT%, 82 games
Gary Payton- 23.1 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 8.1 apg, 1.6 spg, 45.6 FG%, 37.5 3P%, 76.6 FT%, 79 games

Don't forget that Carter and Allen led their teams with impressive playoff runs of their own that season. Pierce would have one of his own just the next season. Then you have other players with excellent production, but with question marks.

Allen Iverson- 31.1 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 4.6 apg, 2.5 spg, 42 FG%, 32 3P%, 81.4 FT%, 71 games
Jerry Stackhouse- 29.8 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.2 spg, 40.2 FG%, 35.1 3P%(166 made 3's), 82.2 FT%, 80 games
Stephon Marbury- 23.9 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 7.6 apg, 1.2 spg, 44.1 FG%, 32.8 3P%(110 made 3's), 79 FT%, 67 games

Who could match Shaq's production(29, 13, 4, 3, 57%)? Nobody and I could only see LA replacing him with Duncan or Garnett and still winning a title. More likely Duncan. And that all depends on what team Shaq ends up on.

In 2002, Kobe was probably the most irreplaceable of his career as he played 80 games, averaged 25, 5.5 and 5.5, was all-defensive second team and LA just barely squeaked by LA in 7. The only possible replacements I see are.

Paul Pierce- 26.1 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.9 spg, 1 bpg, 45.4 FG%, 40.4 3P%(210 made 3's), 80.9 FT%, 82 games
Tracy McGrady- 25.6 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 5.3 apg, 1.6 spg, 1 bpg, 45.1 FG%, 35.7 3P%(103 made 3's), 74.8 FT%, 76 games

As for Shaq, it's tough to imagine him being replaced because he was the best player in the league and they barely beat Sacramento in OT. Maybe Duncan could replace him. The Lakers were 51-16 with Shaq in the regular season, so it's tough to find someone who could match that.

So, it is plausible for the Lakers to win titles without Kobe and other great perimeter players in his place. But outside of 2001(and only with Duncan, possibly KG) it's very tough to see the Lakers winning with anyone in Shaq's place. So it's not really a fair comparison.

[Fatal9]

There's certain things you learn and develop quicker when you are the #1 guy. In Kobe's case it would be his intelligence, passing (or rather willingness to do it), leadership, creativity (would definitly have to create more for others), skill, all of which improved rapidly when he was given the team. If he had this privilege since 2001ish...one can only wonder how many 33+ ppg seasons we could have seen. He also would have had the chance to wait and have a contending team built around him so years like 2006 and 2007 (ages at which Jordan won rings...and prime ages for most players) wouldn't be completely wasted.

Ideal situation for maximizing your legacy is getting a chance to put up mind blowing stats early on in your career as you wait for your team to improve. If you lose in the playoffs, it's because of the cast so you're excused. Then as you get around 26-27, management should have put nice pieces around you (unless they fck up) and you are on a contender for your prime and late-prime years (as #1 option, which is key). Helps even more if the competition at the top of the league wanes as your team gets better. This gives you all those early individual accomplishments and then later on the team ones as well.

[Heilige]

There's certain things you learn and develop quicker when you are the #1 guy. In Kobe's case it would be his intelligence, passing (or rather willingness to do it), leadership, creativity (would definitly have to create more for others), skill, all of which improved rapidly when he was given the team. If he had this privilege since 2001ish...one can only wonder how many 33+ ppg seasons we could have seen. He also would have had the chance to wait and have a contending team built around him so years like 2006 and 2007 (ages at which Jordan won rings...and prime ages for most players) wouldn't be completely wasted.

Ideal situation for maximizing your legacy is getting a chance to put up mind blowing stats early on in your career as you wait for your team to improve. If you lose in the playoffs, it's because of the cast so you're excused. Then as you get around 26-27, management should have put nice pieces around you (unless they fck up) and you are on a contender for your prime and late-prime years (as #1 option, which is key). Helps even more if the competition at the top of the league wanes as your team gets better. This gives you all those early individual accomplishments and then later on the team ones as well.

What do you consider late prime years?

[juju151111]

There's certain things you learn and develop quicker when you are the #1 guy. In Kobe's case it would be his intelligence, passing (or rather willingness to do it), leadership, creativity (would definitly have to create more for others), skill, all of which improved rapidly when he was given the team. If he had this privilege since 2001ish...one can only wonder how many 33+ ppg seasons we could have seen. He also would have had the chance to wait and have a contending team built around him so years like 2006 and 2007 (ages at which Jordan won rings...and prime ages for most players) wouldn't be completely wasted.

Ideal situation for maximizing your legacy is getting a chance to put up mind blowing stats early on in your career as you wait for your team to improve. If you lose in the playoffs, it's because of the cast so you're excused. Then as you get around 26-27, management should have put nice pieces around you (unless they fck up) and you are on a contender for your prime and late-prime years (as #1 option, which is key). Helps even more if the competition at the top of the league wanes as your team gets better. This gives you all those early individual accomplishments and then later on the team ones as well.

Kobe wasn't good enough to put up mind blowing stats in his first 2-3 years.

[BallersTalk]

Kobe wasn't good enough to put up mind blowing stats in his first 2-3 years.

Let's stop feeding the troll. This is all you need to know about Fatal9:

1. He's one of the biggest Kobe homers ever.
2. Because he's a Kobe homer, he has to hate on Jordan.

We can ignore anything he says that directly or indirectly has to do with Kobe.