Shaq vs. Kobe
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Joe Pesci
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 3885

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 10:18 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Joe Pesci wrote:

And are we just going to ignore Magic as a rookie winning a closeout game in The Finals without Kareem. You can't punish Magic for having and submitting to Kareem, then ignore James forcing his way to play with a prime Wade to finally win a championship (only to find out Janes can only play effectively as the focal point thus forcing Wade to submit to him).



Magic had amazing talent around him, but he also played against super teams in an era of super teams. How does that compare against Lebron, MJ, Kobe, Bird etc. I don't really know. Seems like they all drew good hands team-mate-wise, which is one reason they're on the GOAT short list.

One of the most contentious topics is rating the talent that GOAT level guys had around them, as well as the talent they competed against.

It's extremely hard to do that, and I've never seen anyone do it in a compelling way. It usually just because an excuse for people to arbitrarily declare a player they like did more with less, or a player they don't like did less with more.

I agree. The biggest exception, although he didn't win, was LeBron James dragging that sorry-ass Cleveland team to The Finals. That truly was an example of a star having subpar teammates. But, again, they lost.
_________________
A creative scorer, a wing defender, and a shooter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
richsmith
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 1093

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 10:18 am    Post subject:

Shaq had a more dominating peak than Kobe (more dominating than anyone other than Wilt or Russell). Kobe had a longer and more meaningful second act than Shaq.

I have them -- along with Duncan -- as equals overall. I've not yet heard a convincing case to separate any of the three of them from each other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Joe Pesci
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 3885

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 10:31 am    Post subject:

The God Particle wrote:
Since you didn't specify what era that 1 year was in, I'll go with..

Kobe. His game would translate to close to 100% of the value he played at in any era. Kobe played in the dead-ball era, big man, 77-68 final type games. The worst era to be a guard, and still managed to play at a level that few ever have.

Shaq played in the perfect era for his game. His game doesn't translate dollar for dollar to today's era. Although he'd still be dominant no doubt, I'm not sure he extracts 100% of the value he showed in the dead-ball era. In today's era, Shaq's game is somewhatt devalued.


So, for those reasons, I go Kobe.

Shaq's mere presence changes the way the game is played. His presence creates the era. The game forms around transcendent players like Shaq, not the other way around.
_________________
A creative scorer, a wing defender, and a shooter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Joe Pesci
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 3885

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 10:39 am    Post subject:

richsmith wrote:
Shaq had a more dominating peak than Kobe (more dominating than anyone other than Wilt or Russell). Kobe had a longer and more meaningful second act than Shaq.

I have them -- along with Duncan -- as equals overall. I've not yet heard a convincing case to separate any of the three of them from each other.

Fair point. I'd only add that when you compare Finals performances Shaq and Duncan had multiple dominant Finals series' whereas Kobe had only one (the Orlando Finals series).

Duncan and Shaq in The Finals showed up in a grand way multiple times, whereas Kobe may have been a little too jacked up mentally, and it showed. Don't get me wrong. Kobe wasn't awful in The Finals, but short of a few sporadic games, he was never doninant except for that Orlando series.

I have Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe at 6, 7, and 8 respectively, so I completely agree with your take, but I give the edge to Duncan and Shaq because of their impact in The Finals.
_________________
A creative scorer, a wing defender, and a shooter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Joe Pesci
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 3885

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 10:46 am    Post subject:

I'm nowhere near a strict stat guy. I prefer eyes first and stats to confirm or disprove my eyes and intuition, but this article, based strictly on stats in the postseason, is very interesting, especially if you watched these series' like I did.

This article ranks the best postseason performances based strictly on stats: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23651740/ranking-50-greatest-individual-postseasons-modern-nba-history

Enjoy.
_________________
A creative scorer, a wing defender, and a shooter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 29355

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 11:20 am    Post subject:

Joe Pesci wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Joe Pesci wrote:

And are we just going to ignore Magic as a rookie winning a closeout game in The Finals without Kareem. You can't punish Magic for having and submitting to Kareem, then ignore James forcing his way to play with a prime Wade to finally win a championship (only to find out Janes can only play effectively as the focal point thus forcing Wade to submit to him).



Magic had amazing talent around him, but he also played against super teams in an era of super teams. How does that compare against Lebron, MJ, Kobe, Bird etc. I don't really know. Seems like they all drew good hands team-mate-wise, which is one reason they're on the GOAT short list.

One of the most contentious topics is rating the talent that GOAT level guys had around them, as well as the talent they competed against.

It's extremely hard to do that, and I've never seen anyone do it in a compelling way. It usually just because an excuse for people to arbitrarily declare a player they like did more with less, or a player they don't like did less with more.

I agree. The biggest exception, although he didn't win, was LeBron James dragging that sorry-ass Cleveland team to The Finals. That truly was an example of a star having subpar teammates. But, again, they lost.



True. But the counterargument is the Cavs just had to get past teams in the relatively weak east.

I am not sure which superstar actually won a ring with the weakest supporting cast, but my gut sense is to go with Bill Walton or Hakeem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Joe Pesci
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 3885

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 1:19 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Joe Pesci wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Joe Pesci wrote:

And are we just going to ignore Magic as a rookie winning a closeout game in The Finals without Kareem. You can't punish Magic for having and submitting to Kareem, then ignore James forcing his way to play with a prime Wade to finally win a championship (only to find out Janes can only play effectively as the focal point thus forcing Wade to submit to him).



Magic had amazing talent around him, but he also played against super teams in an era of super teams. How does that compare against Lebron, MJ, Kobe, Bird etc. I don't really know. Seems like they all drew good hands team-mate-wise, which is one reason they're on the GOAT short list.

One of the most contentious topics is rating the talent that GOAT level guys had around them, as well as the talent they competed against.

It's extremely hard to do that, and I've never seen anyone do it in a compelling way. It usually just because an excuse for people to arbitrarily declare a player they like did more with less, or a player they don't like did less with more.

I agree. The biggest exception, although he didn't win, was LeBron James dragging that sorry-ass Cleveland team to The Finals. That truly was an example of a star having subpar teammates. But, again, they lost.



True. But the counterargument is the Cavs just had to get past teams in the relatively weak east.

I am not sure which superstar actually won a ring with the weakest supporting cast, but my gut sense is to go with Bill Walton or Hakeem.

Definitely Olajuwon. Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Thorpe, Horry, and a rookie Cassell was all he had. It explains why they were such low seeds when they won their championships.
_________________
A creative scorer, a wing defender, and a shooter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 37931

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 1:21 pm    Post subject:

Here’s an article by David Friedman

http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-good-are-lakers-compared-to-recent.html
_________________
“God knew they couldn’t be on this Earth without each other. He had to bring them home to heaven together.”

— Vanessa Bryant
https://youtu.be/SX3IZULkWx8
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ericp6387
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 1736

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 1:30 pm    Post subject:

Joe Pesci wrote:
richsmith wrote:
Shaq had a more dominating peak than Kobe (more dominating than anyone other than Wilt or Russell). Kobe had a longer and more meaningful second act than Shaq.

I have them -- along with Duncan -- as equals overall. I've not yet heard a convincing case to separate any of the three of them from each other.

Fair point. I'd only add that when you compare Finals performances Shaq and Duncan had multiple dominant Finals series' whereas Kobe had only one (the Orlando Finals series).

Duncan and Shaq in The Finals showed up in a grand way multiple times, whereas Kobe may have been a little too jacked up mentally, and it showed. Don't get me wrong. Kobe wasn't awful in The Finals, but short of a few sporadic games, he was never doninant except for that Orlando series.

I have Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe at 6, 7, and 8 respectively, so I completely agree with your take, but I give the edge to Duncan and Shaq because of their impact in The Finals.


When I think of our rival in the 2000s I think Spurs. And Kobe had some of his most stellar game vs the Spurs. He killed them much more than Shaq did, granted that is because Shaq had the two big men to go up against. By the way, Kobe played very well in the Boston series in 2010 despite his subpar game 7. He was excellent in that series in carrying that mentally fragile team to a second straight ring. Shaq needed a Wade or a Kobe. Kobe got it done with Pau as a number two. That is why I take Kobe over Shaq by a slight margin.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ericp6387
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 1736

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 1:30 pm    Post subject:

Joe Pesci wrote:
richsmith wrote:
Shaq had a more dominating peak than Kobe (more dominating than anyone other than Wilt or Russell). Kobe had a longer and more meaningful second act than Shaq.

I have them -- along with Duncan -- as equals overall. I've not yet heard a convincing case to separate any of the three of them from each other.

Fair point. I'd only add that when you compare Finals performances Shaq and Duncan had multiple dominant Finals series' whereas Kobe had only one (the Orlando Finals series).

Duncan and Shaq in The Finals showed up in a grand way multiple times, whereas Kobe may have been a little too jacked up mentally, and it showed. Don't get me wrong. Kobe wasn't awful in The Finals, but short of a few sporadic games, he was never doninant except for that Orlando series.

I have Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe at 6, 7, and 8 respectively, so I completely agree with your take, but I give the edge to Duncan and Shaq because of their impact in The Finals.


When I think of our rival in the 2000s I think Spurs. And Kobe had some of his most stellar game vs the Spurs. He killed them much more than Shaq did, granted that is because Shaq had the two big men to go up against. By the way, Kobe played very well in the Boston series in 2010 despite his subpar game 7. He was excellent in that series in carrying that mentally fragile team to a second straight ring. Shaq needed a Wade or a Kobe. Kobe got it done with Pau as a number two. That is why I take Kobe over Shaq by a slight margin.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ericp6387
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 1736

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 1:31 pm    Post subject:

Joe Pesci wrote:
richsmith wrote:
Shaq had a more dominating peak than Kobe (more dominating than anyone other than Wilt or Russell). Kobe had a longer and more meaningful second act than Shaq.

I have them -- along with Duncan -- as equals overall. I've not yet heard a convincing case to separate any of the three of them from each other.

Fair point. I'd only add that when you compare Finals performances Shaq and Duncan had multiple dominant Finals series' whereas Kobe had only one (the Orlando Finals series).

Duncan and Shaq in The Finals showed up in a grand way multiple times, whereas Kobe may have been a little too jacked up mentally, and it showed. Don't get me wrong. Kobe wasn't awful in The Finals, but short of a few sporadic games, he was never doninant except for that Orlando series.

I have Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe at 6, 7, and 8 respectively, so I completely agree with your take, but I give the edge to Duncan and Shaq because of their impact in The Finals.


When I think of our rival in the 2000s I think Spurs. And Kobe had some of his most stellar game vs the Spurs. He killed them much more than Shaq did, granted that is because Shaq had the two big men to go up against. By the way, Kobe played very well in the Boston series in 2010 despite his subpar game 7. He was excellent in that series in carrying that mentally fragile team to a second straight ring. Shaq needed a Wade or a Kobe. Kobe got it done with Pau as a number two. That is why I take Kobe over Shaq by a slight margin.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ericp6387
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 1736

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 1:31 pm    Post subject:

Joe Pesci wrote:
richsmith wrote:
Shaq had a more dominating peak than Kobe (more dominating than anyone other than Wilt or Russell). Kobe had a longer and more meaningful second act than Shaq.

I have them -- along with Duncan -- as equals overall. I've not yet heard a convincing case to separate any of the three of them from each other.

Fair point. I'd only add that when you compare Finals performances Shaq and Duncan had multiple dominant Finals series' whereas Kobe had only one (the Orlando Finals series).

Duncan and Shaq in The Finals showed up in a grand way multiple times, whereas Kobe may have been a little too jacked up mentally, and it showed. Don't get me wrong. Kobe wasn't awful in The Finals, but short of a few sporadic games, he was never doninant except for that Orlando series.

I have Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe at 6, 7, and 8 respectively, so I completely agree with your take, but I give the edge to Duncan and Shaq because of their impact in The Finals.


When I think of our rival in the 2000s I think Spurs. And Kobe had some of his most stellar game vs the Spurs. He killed them much more than Shaq did, granted that is because Shaq had the two big men to go up against. By the way, Kobe played very well in the Boston series in 2010 despite his subpar game 7. He was excellent in that series in carrying that mentally fragile team to a second straight ring. Shaq needed a Wade or a Kobe. Kobe got it done with Pau as a number two. That is why I take Kobe over Shaq by a slight margin.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 29355

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 1:49 pm    Post subject:

Joe Pesci wrote:

Definitely Olajuwon. Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Thorpe, Horry, and a rookie Cassell was all he had. It explains why they were such low seeds when they won their championships.



That was the first ring team, and they weren't a low seed -- they won 58 games, which was second best in the league that year.

The next year's ring team won 47 games. That team had Clyde Drexler instead of Otis Thorpe. The second team wasn't as good, though Drexler was the bigger name.

In some ways, the Rockets are an example of the pitfalls by ranking teammates based on their individual reps. The Rockets were a defensive-oriented team, where the pieces fit together well, which sometimes is more important than the individual talent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
J.C. Smith
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 11041

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 2:42 pm    Post subject:

ericp6387 wrote:
However, Magic walked right into the best player in the league. Kareem was the go to guy on the Lakers until 86.


And when Kareem went down in the Finals it was that rookie Magic who had 42 points, 15 rebounds, and 7 assists to clinch the series. He wasn't exactly gravy training.

Kareem could be argued to be the best in the league in those first couple seasons that Magic was here, though he clearly was already starting the downslope of his career. He went from a guy who was grabbing 14.7 rebounds in 75-76 to 10.1 in Magic's rookie season, and he never hit double digits in any season after that. Just missing it (9.9) in Magic's second season and never hitting 9 rebounds in any season after that. Magic's rookie season was also Kareem's last 3 block season (at 3.2) though he stayed over 2 blocks a game until 85-86.

Where Kareem stayed steady though was in his scoring. The sky hook was an unstoppable shot, and he'd average between 23.3-25.3 until '85-86 (at age 38).

While I think most would agree Karrem was the best Laker in Magic's rookie season, it isn't so cut and dry after that. Kareem won his final League MVP during Magic's rookie season. Magic won the Finals MVP due to that 42 point performance while Kareem was hurt in '80 but Magic was also the Finals MVP in '82. In year #2 Magic averaged 21.6, 8.6, 8.6, with 3.4 steals and 0.7 blocks. Kareem averaged 25.3, 9.9, 3.3, with 2.8 blocks and 0.7 steals.

In Year 3 ('82) Magic stepped back on the scoring somewhat but nearly averaged a triple double with 18.6, 9.6, 9.5 with 2.7 steals and 0.4 blocks. Kareem put up 24.4, 8.9, 3, with 2.8 blocks and 0.8 steals. It's not really clear if the extra 6 points, can make up for the 7 less assist and 1 less rebound.

Kareem was Finals MVP in '85, but that could have also easily gone to Magic. Kareem put up 26-9-5 but only 1.5 blocks and I think it was clear he was nearing the end of his dominance and starting to show signs of decline. Magic averaged 18-14-7 with 2.2 steals and Magic drove the show. I think it was good that it went to Kareem because he was bitter about having not won it in 1980 due to his injury and he put in an epic performance in the finals. But by that point the Lakers were clearly Magic's team, and those 14 assists in the Finals were an all-time record (the previous was 11.5).

The next season Kareem was still a dominant scorer (25.3 points) but age was catching up to him as he only averaged 6.5 rebounds per game. The Lakers were upset in the Conference Finals. Kareem's scoring began to decline from there (20.1, 18.2, and 15.9) and Magic would go on to win the League MVP 3 times in the next four seasons. The Lakers would still reach the Finals three consecutive seasons, becoming the first team to win back to back titles in decades, and nearly becoming the first team to threepeat until Scott and Magic were both hurt in the Finals. You certainly can't credit Kareem for that. He was no longer the same dominant player. Magic's Lakers would return to the Finals the year after Kareem retired but lose to the Bulls.

So I guess I don't agree with your analysis there. While Kareem was clearly the man in 1980, Magic was already a star. Magic overtook Kareem early in his career. The reality is that Kareem had been a Laker for four years before Magic arrived. The results were a 40-42 record where they missed the playoffs, a first round loss, a second round loss, and a conference finals loss. Magic arrives and despite Kareem being 32 at the time and in his final league MVP season, the Lakers reach the finals 9 times in the next 12 years, winning five titles. And despite Kareem being a six time MVP who played with with the Big-O, and having not played with Magic until he was 32, 5 of his best 6 shooting seasons came playing alongside Magic. Magic made the game easier for him, and by his own admission Magic's energy was contagious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 12998

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 7:51 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Joe Pesci wrote:

Definitely Olajuwon. Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Thorpe, Horry, and a rookie Cassell was all he had. It explains why they were such low seeds when they won their championships.



That was the first ring team, and they weren't a low seed -- they won 58 games, which was second best in the league that year.

The next year's ring team won 47 games. That team had Clyde Drexler instead of Otis Thorpe. The second team wasn't as good, though Drexler was the bigger name.

In some ways, the Rockets are an example of the pitfalls by ranking teammates based on their individual reps. The Rockets were a defensive-oriented team, where the pieces fit together well, which sometimes is more important than the individual talent.


The 95 team was better than the 94 team, once Drexler was acquired and they had time to reinvent the system. They were no longer a defensive oriented squad with Drexler. They went small by putting Horry at PF and scored a lot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 29355

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2020 9:51 pm    Post subject:

Dreamshake wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Joe Pesci wrote:

Definitely Olajuwon. Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Thorpe, Horry, and a rookie Cassell was all he had. It explains why they were such low seeds when they won their championships.



That was the first ring team, and they weren't a low seed -- they won 58 games, which was second best in the league that year.

The next year's ring team won 47 games. That team had Clyde Drexler instead of Otis Thorpe. The second team wasn't as good, though Drexler was the bigger name.

In some ways, the Rockets are an example of the pitfalls by ranking teammates based on their individual reps. The Rockets were a defensive-oriented team, where the pieces fit together well, which sometimes is more important than the individual talent.


The 95 team was better than the 94 team, once Drexler was acquired and they had time to reinvent the system. They were no longer a defensive oriented squad with Drexler. They went small by putting Horry at PF and scored a lot


Hard to say. They went 17-16 with Clyde before the playoffs, so it's not like they rolled through the league. But I'm sure you can slice up the data points all sorts of ways to make a case for either one of those teams above the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kobeandgary
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 6290
Location: virginia

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 11:48 pm    Post subject:

81 point Kobe is the absolute greatest to ever touch a basketball. No other player in the world has ever been at that level, ever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
moonriver24
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 15156

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 1:59 am    Post subject:

kobeandgary wrote:
81 point Kobe is the absolute greatest to ever touch a basketball. No other player in the world has ever been at that level, ever.

This part of the missing points when people talked about how Shaq and Duncan seemed more dominant then Kobe. The 2005 thru 2007 and the only mvp Kobe in 2008 was probably the best Kobe outside the sexiest 2001 Kobe when he dominated the Kings and Spurs in the western conference. Too bad his best sidekick was unstable and timid Odom. Pau did come later in 2008 and you could see how with a more reliable and more forceful than Odom type gave Kobe the wings. Almost a three-peat. But who would label Kobe as dominant? Apparently none. However, many had foreseen the Kobe without Shaq: unleashed from restrictions to be the best he could be. Just sheer dominant. From anywhere.
It is no wonder that Shaq Admitted he could have 6 or 7 with Kobe. Kobe and the worst cast still managed to scare the Suns who escaped with a lucky offensive rebound and a damn lucky buzzer beater.
_________________
Kobe's Top 5 Dunks, 81 points, MJ last gm @Staples
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
67ShelbyGT
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 4040

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 8:05 am    Post subject:

ericp6387 wrote:
Joe Pesci wrote:
richsmith wrote:
Shaq had a more dominating peak than Kobe (more dominating than anyone other than Wilt or Russell). Kobe had a longer and more meaningful second act than Shaq.

I have them -- along with Duncan -- as equals overall. I've not yet heard a convincing case to separate any of the three of them from each other.

Fair point. I'd only add that when you compare Finals performances Shaq and Duncan had multiple dominant Finals series' whereas Kobe had only one (the Orlando Finals series).

Duncan and Shaq in The Finals showed up in a grand way multiple times, whereas Kobe may have been a little too jacked up mentally, and it showed. Don't get me wrong. Kobe wasn't awful in The Finals, but short of a few sporadic games, he was never doninant except for that Orlando series.

I have Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe at 6, 7, and 8 respectively, so I completely agree with your take, but I give the edge to Duncan and Shaq because of their impact in The Finals.


When I think of our rival in the 2000s I think Spurs. And Kobe had some of his most stellar game vs the Spurs. He killed them much more than Shaq did, granted that is because Shaq had the two big men to go up against. By the way, Kobe played very well in the Boston series in 2010 despite his subpar game 7. He was excellent in that series in carrying that mentally fragile team to a second straight ring. Shaq needed a Wade or a Kobe. Kobe got it done with Pau as a number two. That is why I take Kobe over Shaq by a slight margin.


Finals MVP argument on the first 3peat to me is the weakest argument. Expansions have rendered East watered down for awhile esp those 3peat years. Most b-ball fans know WCF was the real finals, usually vs Spurs. Finals were more like Rd1 of playoffs in the West, a mere formality. Dominating against washed up centers like Rick Smits and McCullough is not impressive. The real Finals MVP was whoever dominated against the WCF and Spurs. That was clearly Kobe. He was a Spurs killer. Kobe went 4-1 vs Duncan in playoff series. So no Timmy is not better than Kobe lol.

And I know some will rush to the old talking points, Kobe only dominated bc Shaq garnering attention from 2 bigs. Not exactly. Coaches’ sole objective is to win games not shut down one player. Pop to me is the GOAT coach. You think he just let Kobe dominate and get swept just so he can say well at least we stopped Shaq lol. No. Coaches knew Shaq was easier to neutralize in playoffs with bigs, fouls, fronting/zone. Blazers did so mostly with Sabonis, Kings with Vlade flopping, DRob for Spurs. Kobe, otoh, wasn’t as easy to neutralize. One, because perimeter ball handlers are lot harder to shut down. Two, and most importantly, Kobe’s the most skilled player ever!

Reality is, Bowen was 8-time all defensive team, Christie 4-times. Blazers had plethora of defensive swings including arguably the best perimeter defender ever, in Pippen, albeit it was an older Scottie. Yet, even with the top defenders none of those teams could shut down or even neutralize Kobe like they did with Shaq. Kobe would easily go by Elliot or Bowen and flush on Duncan routinely. Pop tried everything to stop Kobe but couldn’t. Shaq was easier to neutralize.

Shaq needed 1st ballot HOFer top 5 at their position type player to win rings. Kobe did it with a very good and future HOF player like a Pau. In playoffs, games slow down and it often comes down to one or two possession. It often came down to which team has the best closer. That was indisputably Kobe! Kobe > Duncan > Shaq.
_________________
Alltime lineup: Magic | Kobe | MJ | Hakeem | KAJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Runway8
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 21235
Location: La Jolla, San Diego

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 11:21 am    Post subject: Re: Shaq vs. Kobe

Joe Pesci wrote:
I have Shaq above Kobe as an all-time great.

Kobe was a "video game" and way more exciting to watch, but if I'm trying to win a ring, for one year, no doubt in mind Shaq was the better player.


Both at their peaks, I'd still go with Kobe. Even at Shaq's peak, we should have been bounced by the Blazers in 2000 and the Kings in 2002. They barely got a 3-peat by the hair of their chinny chin chin. And they wouldn't survive the West with just any other shooting guard. With the talent we had with Lake Show. I thought adding Shaq would do it, then we saw the reality of Shaq's game in situations where it matters most and he's not allowed to bulldoze for dunks. After getting waxed by Utah back to back, reality settled in, winning with Shaq ain't going to be as easy as I thought. MJ, Kobe, Wade, Bron, Kawhi, KD... there is a reason the dominant wings are hogging the chips.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sina
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2015
Posts: 1359

PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2020 2:37 pm    Post subject:

On the offense, Shaq is simply unstoppable. He is so impactful as he plays near the basket. But his free throw is a concern when we take into account of the rules. Kobe can score from everywhere but not that deadly. But his clutch plays are money, only few players in NBA history have reached this level.

On the defense, Shaq is great too in his prime but his position helping his impact again. But Kobe is much better defensive player overall.

Both are great but I would pick Kobe over Shaq.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4007

PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 9:07 am    Post subject:

Sina wrote:
On the offense, Shaq is simply unstoppable. He is so impactful as he plays near the basket. But his free throw is a concern when we take into account of the rules. Kobe can score from everywhere but not that deadly. But his clutch plays are money, only few players in NBA history have reached this level.

On the defense, Shaq is great too in his prime but his position helping his impact again. But Kobe is much better defensive player overall.

Both are great but I would pick Kobe over Shaq.

The Blazers of 2000 did a great job vs Shaq and really successfully limited his impact. This goes far too unmentioned. And this is in his prime. Pippen was brilliant against him and how he led that defense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4007

PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 9:21 am    Post subject:

67ShelbyGT wrote:
ericp6387 wrote:
Joe Pesci wrote:
richsmith wrote:
Shaq had a more dominating peak than Kobe (more dominating than anyone other than Wilt or Russell). Kobe had a longer and more meaningful second act than Shaq.

I have them -- along with Duncan -- as equals overall. I've not yet heard a convincing case to separate any of the three of them from each other.

Fair point. I'd only add that when you compare Finals performances Shaq and Duncan had multiple dominant Finals series' whereas Kobe had only one (the Orlando Finals series).

Duncan and Shaq in The Finals showed up in a grand way multiple times, whereas Kobe may have been a little too jacked up mentally, and it showed. Don't get me wrong. Kobe wasn't awful in The Finals, but short of a few sporadic games, he was never doninant except for that Orlando series.

I have Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe at 6, 7, and 8 respectively, so I completely agree with your take, but I give the edge to Duncan and Shaq because of their impact in The Finals.


When I think of our rival in the 2000s I think Spurs. And Kobe had some of his most stellar game vs the Spurs. He killed them much more than Shaq did, granted that is because Shaq had the two big men to go up against. By the way, Kobe played very well in the Boston series in 2010 despite his subpar game 7. He was excellent in that series in carrying that mentally fragile team to a second straight ring. Shaq needed a Wade or a Kobe. Kobe got it done with Pau as a number two. That is why I take Kobe over Shaq by a slight margin.


Finals MVP argument on the first 3peat to me is the weakest argument. Expansions have rendered East watered down for awhile esp those 3peat years. Most b-ball fans know WCF was the real finals, usually vs Spurs. Finals were more like Rd1 of playoffs in the West, a mere formality. Dominating against washed up centers like Rick Smits and McCullough is not impressive. The real Finals MVP was whoever dominated against the WCF and Spurs. That was clearly Kobe. He was a Spurs killer. Kobe went 4-1 vs Duncan in playoff series. So no Timmy is not better than Kobe lol.

And I know some will rush to the old talking points, Kobe only dominated bc Shaq garnering attention from 2 bigs. Not exactly. Coaches’ sole objective is to win games not shut down one player. Pop to me is the GOAT coach. You think he just let Kobe dominate and get swept just so he can say well at least we stopped Shaq lol. No. Coaches knew Shaq was easier to neutralize in playoffs with bigs, fouls, fronting/zone. Blazers did so mostly with Sabonis, Kings with Vlade flopping, DRob for Spurs. Kobe, otoh, wasn’t as easy to neutralize. One, because perimeter ball handlers are lot harder to shut down. Two, and most importantly, Kobe’s the most skilled player ever!

Reality is, Bowen was 8-time all defensive team, Christie 4-times. Blazers had plethora of defensive swings including arguably the best perimeter defender ever, in Pippen, albeit it was an older Scottie. Yet, even with the top defenders none of those teams could shut down or even neutralize Kobe like they did with Shaq. Kobe would easily go by Elliot or Bowen and flush on Duncan routinely. Pop tried everything to stop Kobe but couldn’t. Shaq was easier to neutralize.

Shaq needed 1st ballot HOFer top 5 at their position type player to win rings. Kobe did it with a very good and future HOF player like a Pau. In playoffs, games slow down and it often comes down to one or two possession. It often came down to which team has the best closer. That was indisputably Kobe! Kobe > Duncan > Shaq.

The argument that people use to go against Kobe...that he had Shaq. How come nobody says DUncan had Drob, Ginobli, Parker, Kawhi?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 86575
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 9:23 am    Post subject:

Or that Shaq had Kobe
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 137251
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2020 9:48 am    Post subject:

67ShelbyGT wrote:
ericp6387 wrote:
Joe Pesci wrote:
richsmith wrote:
Shaq had a more dominating peak than Kobe (more dominating than anyone other than Wilt or Russell). Kobe had a longer and more meaningful second act than Shaq.

I have them -- along with Duncan -- as equals overall. I've not yet heard a convincing case to separate any of the three of them from each other.

Fair point. I'd only add that when you compare Finals performances Shaq and Duncan had multiple dominant Finals series' whereas Kobe had only one (the Orlando Finals series).

Duncan and Shaq in The Finals showed up in a grand way multiple times, whereas Kobe may have been a little too jacked up mentally, and it showed. Don't get me wrong. Kobe wasn't awful in The Finals, but short of a few sporadic games, he was never doninant except for that Orlando series.

I have Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe at 6, 7, and 8 respectively, so I completely agree with your take, but I give the edge to Duncan and Shaq because of their impact in The Finals.


When I think of our rival in the 2000s I think Spurs. And Kobe had some of his most stellar game vs the Spurs. He killed them much more than Shaq did, granted that is because Shaq had the two big men to go up against. By the way, Kobe played very well in the Boston series in 2010 despite his subpar game 7. He was excellent in that series in carrying that mentally fragile team to a second straight ring. Shaq needed a Wade or a Kobe. Kobe got it done with Pau as a number two. That is why I take Kobe over Shaq by a slight margin.


Finals MVP argument on the first 3peat to me is the weakest argument. Expansions have rendered East watered down for awhile esp those 3peat years. Most b-ball fans know WCF was the real finals, usually vs Spurs. Finals were more like Rd1 of playoffs in the West, a mere formality. Dominating against washed up centers like Rick Smits and McCullough is not impressive. The real Finals MVP was whoever dominated against the WCF and Spurs. That was clearly Kobe. He was a Spurs killer. Kobe went 4-1 vs Duncan in playoff series. So no Timmy is not better than Kobe lol.

And I know some will rush to the old talking points, Kobe only dominated bc Shaq garnering attention from 2 bigs. Not exactly. Coaches’ sole objective is to win games not shut down one player. Pop to me is the GOAT coach. You think he just let Kobe dominate and get swept just so he can say well at least we stopped Shaq lol. No. Coaches knew Shaq was easier to neutralize in playoffs with bigs, fouls, fronting/zone. Blazers did so mostly with Sabonis, Kings with Vlade flopping, DRob for Spurs. Kobe, otoh, wasn’t as easy to neutralize. One, because perimeter ball handlers are lot harder to shut down. Two, and most importantly, Kobe’s the most skilled player ever!

Reality is, Bowen was 8-time all defensive team, Christie 4-times. Blazers had plethora of defensive swings including arguably the best perimeter defender ever, in Pippen, albeit it was an older Scottie. Yet, even with the top defenders none of those teams could shut down or even neutralize Kobe like they did with Shaq. Kobe would easily go by Elliot or Bowen and flush on Duncan routinely. Pop tried everything to stop Kobe but couldn’t. Shaq was easier to neutralize.

Shaq needed 1st ballot HOFer top 5 at their position type player to win rings. Kobe did it with a very good and future HOF player like a Pau. In playoffs, games slow down and it often comes down to one or two possession. It often came down to which team has the best closer. That was indisputably Kobe! Kobe > Duncan > Shaq.


I don’t buy that comparing teams equals comparing players. It doesn’t. Kobe wasn’t battling Duncan, Shaq and Pau were. Duncan might have been the best at his position and Kobe might have been the best at his. We were lucky to witness two all time greats.
_________________
“I loved playing music to his words” - John Densmore on Jim Morrison
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB