Revisiting Kobe Bryant`s first three-peat

[gts]

look at the 2000-2001 playoff numbers and you'll see there was no second fiddle

kobe, 29.4 ppg 7.3 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 3.8 win shares, 25 steals 12 blocks, 51 turnovers
shaq, 30.4 ppg 15.4 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 3.7 winshares, 38 blocks 7 steals 57 turnovers

clearly kobe by this time was every bit as important to winng as shaq was, both players needed the other to win games, neither could have carried the team without the other

[Bring-Your-Js]

Was Kareem a second fiddle for all but two of his six titles? Magic for all but three of his five? Does the 1988 championship belong to James Worthy?

Lmao. Bird Shit Logic 101.

[jstern]

Very interesting how watching the Lakers back then, live, able to comprehend basketball being old enough, Shaq was clearly the man of those teams. Nobody argued that. Just too dominant. But back then you never imagine that in just a few years future kids who were probably around 8 during that time were going to try so hard to basically change history. And for what really? Makes you wonder what new phenomenom there's going to be in 8 years.

This Kobe phenomenon of trying to make him much better than he really is, is just so unbelievable. It's truly a phenomenon that I've never seen before, and quite fascinating.

[Desperado]

look at the 2000-2001 playoff numbers and you'll see there was no second fiddle

kobe, 29.4 ppg 7.3 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 3.8 win shares, 25 steals 12 blocks, 51 turnovers
shaq, 30.4 ppg 15.4 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 3.7 winshares, 38 blocks 7 steals 57 turnovers

clearly kobe by this time was every bit as important to winng as shaq was, both players needed the other to win games, neither could have carried the team without the other

Great post.

The first year I would agree he was the clear second option but in 2001 and 2002 it was closer to a 1a/1b situation and the gap between them was much smaller then some people would like to believe.

It's just funny when someone says you could just eaisly replace Kobe with a player like Iverson who was a sub-par defensive player.

Also don't forget a problem Shaq had with Kobe before was he felt that Kobe was taking too many shots. How the hell do you think that would have worked out with a shot first, pass second player that dosen't play defense like AI?

Do you really think Shaq could have co-existed with Iverson who has always had a me-first, defenseless, chucking playing style if he had a problem with Kobe taking too many shots at times?

[catch24]

look at the 2000-2001 playoff numbers and you'll see there was no second fiddle

kobe, 29.4 ppg 7.3 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 3.8 win shares, 25 steals 12 blocks, 51 turnovers
shaq, 30.4 ppg 15.4 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 3.7 winshares, 38 blocks 7 steals 57 turnovers

clearly kobe by this time was every bit as important to winng as shaq was, both players needed the other to win games, neither could have carried the team without the other

Pretty much. While Shaq was the focal point of the offense, and yes, clearly their leader, Kobe was their playmaker (averaging numbers that a first option would have on any other squad). Old, but here's a quote that sums up Kobe's 2001 run:

I think it's the best that I've ever seen a player of mine play with an overall court game. I'm asking him to do so much, and he's accomplishing it. I never asked Michael to be a playmaker. That's the greatest player that I've ever had, that I could consider the greatest player in the game, and I never asked him to be a playmaker in those terms. I asked him to be playmaker when he was doubled or tripled. But Kobe has to set up the offense, to advance the ball, to read the defense, to make other players happy, and he's doing a great job of that.

[olddangerfield]

First three-peat wouldn't happen without Shaq's legendary dominance, so who cares what Kobe did since he played second fiddle.

Be happy with the current 2-peat and possible 3-peat this upcoming season.

lol mad

[olddangerfield]

look at the 2000-2001 playoff numbers and you'll see there was no second fiddle

kobe, 29.4 ppg 7.3 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 3.8 win shares, 25 steals 12 blocks, 51 turnovers
shaq, 30.4 ppg 15.4 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 3.7 winshares, 38 blocks 7 steals 57 turnovers

clearly kobe by this time was every bit as important to winng as shaq was, both players needed the other to win games, neither could have carried the team without the other

This, rep'd.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Get outta here!

Which part are you arguing with, that he was the second option, or the best second option of all time in those years?

As great as Kobe was, it's revisionist history to suggest he wasn't the second option during the 3peat. However, in 2001 and 2002, he had the load of a first option. I'd consider him a top 5 player in 2001 and 2002 regardless, arguably top 3 behind Shaq and Duncan and in the 2001 and 2002 playoffs, he was more impressive than Duncan, IMO.

Because Kobe's production was on par with first options in the 2001 and 2002 championship seasons, I don't think it's fair to write those off as "sidekick rings". The Lakers didn't have a legit 3rd scorer, so despite Shaq scoring more than many other players in championship years, Kobe also scored more and did more than many other first options.

I don't agree with 1.A/1.B because I think that should be reserved when it's too close to decide who was the best player on the team.

But great point about Magic's rings, Desperado. He was as clear of a sidekick in 1980 as Kobe was in 2000. And if you look at 1982 objectively< Kareem was still the best player and in 1985, it was atleast 1.A/1.B. Yet nobody says Magic has only 2 or 3 rings or puts a qualifier on them. Why the double standard?

[jstern]

Which part are you arguing with, that he was the second option, or the best second option of all time in those years?

As great as Kobe was, it's revisionist history to suggest he wasn't the second option during the 3peat. However, in 2001 and 2002, he had the load of a first option. I'd consider him a top 5 player in 2001 and 2002 regardless, arguably top 3 behind Shaq and Duncan and in the 2001 and 2002 playoffs, he was more impressive than Duncan, IMO.

Because Kobe's production was on par with first options in the 2001 and 2002 championship seasons, I don't think it's fair to right those off as "sidekick rings". The Lakers didn't have a legit 3rd scorer, so despite Shaq scoring more than many other players in championship years, Kobe also scored more and did more than many other first options.

I don't agree with 1.A/1.B because I think that should be reserved when it's too close to decide who was the best player on the team.

But great point about Magic's rings, Desperado. He was as clear of a sidekick in 1980 as Kobe was in 2000. And if you look at 1982 objectively< Kareem was still the best player and in 1985, it was atleast 1.A/1.B. Yet nobody says Magic has only 2 or 3 rings or puts a qualifier on them. Why the double standard?

I'm sure there would people arguing that about Magic, but since that was back in the 80s, it's not a current topic since they both don't play anymore. Those are things that I've noticed about Magic and his rings, but again, it never comes up in conversation. Most Magic fans who saw him play are not constantly trying to put other players down, so they don't antagonize others into a debate. In other words, it's not a double standards, since I'm sure similar arguments would happen in similar situations. Then again I can't imagine a Laker fan back then bashing Kareem just to put Magic in a better light.

Kobe would probably be respect by all if it weren't for his fans. They're the ones who make people think about his flaws.

[Desperado]

I don't agree with 1.A/1.B because I think that should be reserved when it's too close to decide who was the best player on the team.

Well anyone who watched basketball back then knows Shaq was obviously ''the man'' but Kobe's level of play in 2001 and 2002 was just on another level and especially with some of the performances he had against the Spurs and Kings in the playoffs it just kind of feels wrong to call Kobe a side-kick, which is why I think some people consider it more of a 1a/1b situation rather than one being the clear cut 1st option while the other was just the side-kick like in 2000.

[stickfigure87]

look at the 2000-2001 playoff numbers and you'll see there was no second fiddle

kobe, 29.4 ppg 7.3 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 3.8 win shares, 25 steals 12 blocks, 51 turnovers
shaq, 30.4 ppg 15.4 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 3.7 winshares, 38 blocks 7 steals 57 turnovers

clearly kobe by this time was every bit as important to winng as shaq was, both players needed the other to win games, neither could have carried the team without the other

this.

[necya]

First three-peat wouldn't happen without Shaq's legendary dominance, so who cares what Kobe did since he played second fiddle.

Be happy with the current 2-peat and possible 3-peat this upcoming season.

let this thread for the kobe lovers...they are 17 and watch nba since 1962

[Bring-Your-Js]

Well anyone who watched basketball back then knows Shaq was obviously ''the man'' but Kobe's level of play in 2001 and 2002 was just on another level and especially with some of the performances he had against the Spurs and Kings in the playoffs it just kind of feels wrong to call Kobe a side-kick, which is why I think some people consider it more of a 1a/1b situation rather than one being the clear cut 1st option while the other was just the side-kick like in 2000.

Well, it's obviously an attempt to keep him out of where he belongs: In the conversation amongst the greatest players in history. It's foul.

[iamgine]

Part of the problem was big man has always been a more impact position that swingman, at least up till the rule change around 04-05.

[triangleoffense]

Which part are you arguing with, that he was the second option, or the best second option of all time in those years?

As great as Kobe was, it's revisionist history to suggest he wasn't the second option during the 3peat. However, in 2001 and 2002, he had the load of a first option. I'd consider him a top 5 player in 2001 and 2002 regardless, arguably top 3 behind Shaq and Duncan and in the 2001 and 2002 playoffs, he was more impressive than Duncan, IMO.

Because Kobe's production was on par with first options in the 2001 and 2002 championship seasons, I don't think it's fair to right those off as "sidekick rings". The Lakers didn't have a legit 3rd scorer, so despite Shaq scoring more than many other players in championship years, Kobe also scored more and did more than many other first options.

I don't agree with 1.A/1.B because I think that should be reserved when it's too close to decide who was the best player on the team.

But great point about Magic's rings, Desperado. He was as clear of a sidekick in 1980 as Kobe was in 2000. And if you look at 1982 objectively< Kareem was still the best player and in 1985, it was atleast 1.A/1.B. Yet nobody says Magic has only 2 or 3 rings or puts a qualifier on them. Why the double standard?

Great post.. I don't understand why a lot of posters seem to have to discredit kobe.. maybe to put Lebron on a peddle-stool? It seems a lot of kobe homers do the same to Jordan, even though his resume is impeccable.