2003 Kobe Bryant. Greatest "Side-Kick" Season Ever?

[NoName22]

He clearly wasn't a sidekick that season. If anything, it was Shaq who was one

[laronprofit9]

Magic in his rookie year was hands down the #2 player on that team and won the MVP as a "side-kick".



This, I remember the term "greatest 1-2 punch in NBA history" being thrown around a lot that year.

Kobe was a sidekick to Shaq. Eveybody on the Lakers would tell you that, and even Kobe would admit it.

Just about every single player would've been a sidekick to Shaq, even Michael Jordan could've possibly been a sidekick to Shaq.

[ShaqAttack3234]

He clearly wasn't a sidekick that season. If anything, it was Shaq who was one

Shaq wasn't even close to a sidekick. The team went 5-10 without him and Shaq was their best player in the playoffs.

Regular season
Kobe- 30 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 5.9 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.8 bpg, 3.5 TO, 45.1 FG%, 48.3 eFG%, 55 TS%
Shaq- 27.5 ppg, 11.1 rpg, 3.1 apg, 2.4 bpg, 0.6 spg, 2.9 TO, 57.4 FG%, 60.2 TS%

You could make a case for either player being better that season, therefor, neither was a sidekick.

[PHILA]

I prefer Bryant from late 2001.

[NoName22]

Shaq wasn't even close to a sidekick. The team went 5-10 without him and Shaq was their best player in the playoffs.

Regular season
Kobe- 30 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 5.9 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.8 bpg, 3.5 TO, 45.1 FG%, 48.3 eFG%, 55 TS%
Shaq- 27.5 ppg, 11.1 rpg, 3.1 apg, 2.4 bpg, 0.6 spg, 2.9 TO, 57.4 FG%, 60.2 TS%

You could make a case for either player being better that season, therefor, neither was a sidekick.

Of course he wasn't.

However, Shaq wasn't as good that season as his numbers suggest & Kobe wasn't a sidekick either.

[laronprofit9]

Shaq was always the 1st option on offense, and the rest of the team played off of him(including Kobe). Kobe was obviously the most-effective at his role over anyone else.

Dominant paint scoring is always more reliable than dominant perimeter scoring due to much higher efficiency. It was always smarter to throw the ball into Shaq first.

The Lakers team suited Shaq's talents more than Kobe's. Because the team was made for Shaq. Not Kobe. This should indicate that he was the main man, and Kobe was the sidekick.

Just how Kobe is clearly the main man now over Pau Gasol.

[kizut1659]

Shaq wasn't even close to a sidekick. The team went 5-10 without him and Shaq was their best player in the playoffs.

Regular season
Kobe- 30 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 5.9 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.8 bpg, 3.5 TO, 45.1 FG%, 48.3 eFG%, 55 TS%
Shaq- 27.5 ppg, 11.1 rpg, 3.1 apg, 2.4 bpg, 0.6 spg, 2.9 TO, 57.4 FG%, 60.2 TS%

You could make a case for either player being better that season, therefor, neither was a sidekick.

Exactly - classic 1A/1B situation. The notion that there could be no 1A/1B situation with Shaq just because he was so special is silly. I would argue that the Lakers were a 1A/1B team from 2000-2001 season on, with the fight for 1A during the first half of the season, then Shaq establishing himself as 1A and relegating Bryant to 1B untill the 2002-2003 season, then the resumed uncertainty over who is 1A in the 2002-2003 season, and finally resumed public bickering but Bryant somehow becoming 1A during the 2003-2004 season despite having his worst season since 1999-2000.

[laronprofit9]

I prefer Bryant from late 2001.

2001 is his best playoff run with Shaq.

But I give 2003 the nod for these reasons
[LIST][*]Kobe bested his 2001 averages in every single category in 2003.[*]Kobe reached 2nd-team all nba and 2nd team all defense in 2001. Kobe was 1st team all nba and 1st team all defense in 2003.[*]Kobe played only 66 games in 2001. Kobe played all 82 games in 2003.[*]Kobe played more selfishly in the first half of 2001, and 2003 Kobe was an excellent overall playmaker throughout the entire season.[*]I might give the late 2001 Kobe a very small/marginal edge over 2003 Kobe. But if you look at the full season, 2003 Kobe was mainly better.[/LIST]

To be honest, I had a hard deciding if 2001 or 2003 was a better season for Kobe. It's real close, and 2001 certainly has valid arguments over 2003.

I'd say 2001 was the best Shaq/Kobe played together.
2003 was Kobe's best individual year while he was with Shaq.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Of course he wasn't.

However, Shaq wasn't as good that season as his numbers suggest & Kobe wasn't a sidekick either.

Well, I agree to some extent, he had lost a bit as far as mobility and explosiveness(this started in 2002 actually) due to the weight gain and his defense wasn't as good despite finishing among the league leaders in blocks and making the all-defensive second team.

But, he was still by far the best low post scorer in the game(and the most efficient elite scorer), one of the best passing big men, one of the best rebounders and fouling him wasn't as effective as previous seasons because he hit a subpar, but much better than usual 62%. Plus, despite his defense slipping, a 7'1", 375 pound shot blocker will always make a big impact.

I prefer Bryant from late 2001.

That's one of my 3 favorite versions of Kobe along with 2006 and 2008. I like the 2000 version a lot because he was at his defensive peak, IMO, but he was a more dominant overall player and a much bigger offensive threat in the other 3 seasons I mentioned.

Shaq and Kobe in the latter half of the 2001 season and the playoffs were the best duo ever, IMO. Kobe had figured out how to incorporate his individual brilliance without disrupting the team's chemistry or really going away from Phil's game plan while Shaq was pretty much at his 2000 level. That's why I ranked Kobe as the 3rd best player in the entire league in 2001 in my top 25 lists(2nd best in the entire playoffs).

Exactly - classic 1A/1B situation. The notion that there could be no 1A/1B situation with Shaq just because he was so special is silly. I would argue that the Lakers were a 1A/1B team from 2000-2001 season on, with the fight for 1A during the first half of the season, then Shaq establishing himself as 1A and relegating Bryant to 1B untill the 2002-2003 season, then the resumed uncertainty over who is 1A in the 2002-2003 season, and finally resumed public bickering but Bryant somehow becoming 1A during the 2003-2004 season despite having his worst season since 1999-2000.

Eh, 1A/1B to me is when you can make a legitimate argument for either player being better, that wasn't the case until 2003. Though those Laker teams were unique in 2001 and 2002 with the best player in the league, another top 3 player in 2001 and top 4 player in 2002.

While I view Kobe as number 2, I definitely don't view his contributions to those title teams as your typical number 2 guy. Only in 2000, was that really the case. So in a sense, I get where you're coming from.

[KobeKlutch]

Kobe wasn't a sidekick because the media was all over Kobe that it bruised Shaq's ego.

I have never seen a sidekick get more coverage than Kobe.

He wasn't a sidekick, even though the stats may make it look that way.

[creepingdeath]

I hope you're gonna get the sh*t negged out of you, ol' buddy TheLogo. Your style of writing is so atrociously unique, you would recognize it among millions of posts.

[laronprofit9]

I really don't understand how it's a bad thing Kobe was a sidekick to Shaq.

Most players in NBA history would be a sidekick to Shaq. When you have a guy who can give you 28 points a night on near 60% shooting, drawing most of the team's defensive attention with double and triple teams, forcing the opposing team to intentionally foul him, and just plain dominating an entire team on his own. You should by all means be the 1st option, and Phil Jackson made it so.

Most teams adjusted their teams for Shaq, not Kobe. Shaq caused more problems overall against the opposing team. Heck, I don't know one player past or present that would cause as many problems as Shaq. Even Michael Jordan.

Kobe Bryant being #2 to Shaq should hurt him in no way. He was still in the argument for being among the best players in the league, and he was probably the most productive #2 option in NBA history.

[indiefan24]

I really don't understand how it's a bad thing Kobe was a sidekick to Shaq.

Most players in NBA history would be a sidekick to Shaq. When you have a guy who can give you 28 points a night on near 60% shooting, drawing most of the team's defensive attention with double and triple teams, forcing the opposing team to intentionally foul him, and just plain dominating an entire team on his own. You should by all means be the 1st option, and Phil Jackson made it so.

Most teams adjusted their teams for Shaq, not Kobe. Shaq caused more problems overall against the opposing team. Heck, I don't know one player past or present that would cause as many problems as Shaq. Even Michael Jordan.

Kobe Bryant being #2 to Shaq should hurt him in no way. He was still in the argument for being among the best players in the league, and he was probably the most productive #2 option in NBA history.

[laronprofit9]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN-5PgSKCEw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64TQw4BUwA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IyCD1B-9js

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOqVm-cKHjk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=007Sw-mmUgU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uKvd8lqUgk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2S_2yrMywo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BPM9cpcTeI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaYTvH4xUxk

Destroying people this season.

[Roundball_Rock]

Has a side-kick ever had a better individual season?

Scottie Pippen?
Elgin Baylor/Jerry West?
James Worthy?
Kevin McHale?

1996 Scottie Pippen.