2001 Kobe vs number one options on championship teams

[DMAVS41]

Yeah.. Because Kobe was going absolutely insane..

The kings took the Lakers to a game 7 in 2000, (game 5) and this was with Shaq putting up incredible numbers 29/17..

Lakers swept the Kings in 2001 with Shaq averaging 33/19 and Kobe averaging 35/9... Every game besides game 3 was decided by 6 points or less..

Let than sink in, almost every game was decided by 6 points or less with Kobe/Shaq combing for 68/28/6 per game on incredible effeciency...

But according to you kobe could have played significantly worse and it wouldn't have been a problem for the lakers

And to top it off..

1999 playoffs vs the spurs, lakers get swept even with Shaq averaging 24/13 for the series & Kobe averaging 21/7/4 (which is give or take the 25% worse level you claim they could have cruised to the finals with)

00 Duncan is hurt, Lakers & Spurs meet again in the 01 playoffs..

Shaq averages 27/13 (3 more points per game than the 99 spurs series)

Kobe averages 33/7/7 and they sweep the series..

See the difference?

And what happened in the 00' & 02' when Kobe wasnt playing on this god mode of 32/7/6? Oh that's right Lakers got taken to game 7's each year..

Now please take this ether and STFU with your bogus claims.

This is not ether. The fact that you think that is absurd. They had 9 games in which they won by 12 or more. The margin of error was huge...they went 15-1 and swept 3 teams.

Of course Kobe was a big reason why. He was the 2nd most important reason.

I didn't say they could win without him. I said Kobe could have played worse and they still would have won. A simple fact that you seem to have missed. As usual with the likes of you. Attack a straw man...sadly because that is all you can do...and all the evidence actually allows for.

Also, did you happen to see where I posted that the Kings series would have been the only one in doubt? My guess is that the sweep turns into a 6 game series...perhaps 7, but I doubt it.

I'd guess they go something like 15-7 with Kobe playing worse. Still great, but not nearly as dominant.

Ether? GTFO...

[dubeta]

Post fg% and shaq's stats or GTFO

[TheMarkMadsen]

This is not ether. The fact that you think that is absurd. They had 9 games in which they won by 12 or more. The margin of error was huge...they went 15-1 and swept 3 teams.

Of course Kobe was a big reason why. He was the 2nd most important reason.

I didn't say they could win without him. I said Kobe could have played worse and they still would have won. A simple fact that you seem to have missed. As usual with the likes of you. Attack a straw man...sadly because that is all you can do...and all the evidence actually allows for.

Also, did you happen to see where I posted that the Kings series would have been the only one in doubt? My guess is that the sweep turns into a 6 game series...perhaps 7, but I doubt it.

I'd guess they go something like 15-7 with Kobe playing worse. Still great, but not nearly as dominant.

Ether? GTFO...

Oh so now they would go 15-7?

Not exactly "cruising to a championship" as you originally claimed.

[DMAVS41]

Oh so now they would go 15-7?

Not exactly "cruising to a championship" as you originally claimed.

Yea...it kind of is actually....especially as I don't think they would have ever been down in a series or ever gone to 7.

You are just arguing semantics.

I think they beat the blazers in 4, kings in 6, spurs in 5, and Sixers in 6.

So sorry....15-6 would be my number.

[SouBeachTalents]

Yea...it kind of is actually....especially as I don't think they would have ever been down in a series or ever gone to 7.

You are just arguing semantics.

I think they beat the blazers in 4, kings in 6, spurs in 5, and Sixers in 6.

So sorry....15-6 would be my number.

15-5

[DMAVS41]

15-5

I believe first rounds were best of 5 back then. So Blazers in 4 would not be a sweep.

[SouBeachTalents]

I believe first rounds were best of 3 back then. So Blazers in 4 would not be a sweep.

Ah, you're correct sir, read that thinking it was still best of 7

[TheMarkMadsen]

Yeah.. Because Kobe was going absolutely insane..

The kings took the Lakers to a game 7 in 2000, (game 5) and this was with Shaq putting up incredible numbers 29/17..

Lakers swept the Kings in 2001 with Shaq averaging 33/19 and Kobe averaging 35/9... Every game besides game 3 was decided by 6 points or less..

Let than sink in, almost every game was decided by 6 points or less with Kobe/Shaq combing for 68/28/6 per game on incredible effeciency...

But according to you kobe could have played significantly worse and it wouldn't have been a problem for the lakers

And to top it off..

1999 playoffs vs the spurs, lakers get swept even with Shaq averaging 24/13 for the series & Kobe averaging 21/7/4 (which is give or take the 25% worse level you claim they could have cruised to the finals with)

00 Duncan is hurt, Lakers & Spurs meet again in the 01 playoffs..

Shaq averages 27/13 (3 more points per game than the 99 spurs series)

Kobe averages 33/7/7 and they sweep the series..

See the difference?

And what happened in the 00' & 02' when Kobe wasnt playing on this god mode of 32/7/6? Oh that's right Lakers got taken to game 7's each year..

Now please take this ether and STFU with your bogus claims.

DMAVS you are getting straight up exposed.

Why don't you address any of my points in this post?

And I mean actually address them, not just talk in circles and go off on tangents about unrelated stuf like you normally do.

Explain how the lakers get by the kings so easily with Kobe playing 25% worse when it was a close series even with Kobe & Shaq going off

Explain how Shaq produced similar production in his 99 & 01 series with the only real difference on the lakers being Kobe upping his scoring by 13 points per game.

Explain how they still easily cruise to a title in 01 with Kobe playing 25% worse, considering the lakers were taken to 7 in 00 & 02

[DMAVS41]

DMAVS you are getting straight up exposed.

Why don't you address any of my points in this post?

Those points aren't relevant because I never said they'd win without Kobe.

I said Kobe could have played worse and they still would have won.

Which I have defended...and given evidence for.

Do you realize that playing worse overall does not mean playing worse every game? For example, Kobe had 50 in game 4 of the Kings series...I'm on my phone so please correct if I'm wrong...but I'm pretty sure he had 50 and just killed it.

Imagine Kobe just played like shit that game instead. He had 8 points on 10% shooting or something...and then he played average the next game and they lost both of them.

Then in game 6 he went nuts and dropped 45 in a win.

Well, Kobe would have had a worse series, but the end result is a Lakers win in 6 games.

That is what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that Kobe could have played exactly 25% worse in every second of every game. Reality doesn't work like that mate.


Also, your appeal to the 00 Blazers series and 02 Kings series are flawed. For starters, the 01 Lakers as a team were just better than 00...and the 02 Kings were way better than any team the Lakers faced those entire 3 years. Way better.

And your point about Kobe not playing "God mode" actually makes my point for me. Kobe shot 49% TS in that Kings series....and the Lakers still won. LOL...thanks for making my point.

[dubeta]

Kobe scoring with Shaq was similar to how chalmers was dropping 20-25 in the 2012 finals because of Bron

[Magic 32]

Funny how Kobe's greatest runs always culminate in the 2nd and 3rd round of the playoffs.

WCSF+WCF

2001: 34.1 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 5.6 apg, 49.5 FG%
2008: 31.4 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 5.6 apg, 51.3 FG%
2009: 30.1 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 4.3 apg, 46.3 FG%
2010: 33.0 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 7.3 apg, 52.2 FG%

Makes me hate Tim Thomas even more.