Before Kobe Bryant Became the Next Michael Jordan, He Was Shaq's Pippen
Goto page Previous  1, 2

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


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4017

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 4:22 pm    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
the mistake here is this idea that the spurs were easy because we rolled through them 4-0. some of you will say anything to win an argument.


My opinion wasn't that the Spurs were easy. It's that they weren't really any harder than the other teams we bulldozed through in the playoffs who all had similar regular season records.

I don't see this as a case of trying to "win" an argument. For me, this is an exchange of ideas, rather than a competition. I am always up for hearing an interesting take on the topic whether it is in agreement or disagreement with my own.

perhaps i overreacted.

But I've been here a long time, as have you, and I'm used to your arguments. You seem to be using this thread to indicate that the reason for Kobe's success vs the Spurs is due to either:
--the attention paid to Shaq by the Spurs, thus opening opportunities for Kobe
--Kobe is just a regular #2 player, like other #2 players in other situations

And what I am arguing against is Kobe as the #2 role. What I'm saying is that yes, Kobe is the Pippen role here, but also much more than the Pippen role. What you are not describing correctly is this:
At the time, when the playoffs started, it was considered by most to be one of the most competitive Western Conference playoffs in a long time. The WC at that time was already considered the strongest conference by far, and had been for a while, basically since the Bulls disbanded. So the inference here is that the WC was strong, not weak. The EC could be weak, but still competitive. In this case, the WC was very strong, and that was the hype and interest. THe other thing lost here is that EVERYBODY knew that whoever won the West was going to win the championship. SO this is very different from other years where MJ won or Lebron won, because it wasn't obvious with them that their conference would clearly have the champion.

And the argument is that in the toughest series of the playoffs (which would be in the West), it would be Kobe that outshined Shaq. Now, Shaq gets the Finals MVP because the weak east was too easy to beat, and they had no matchup for Shaq, unlike the West teams which were able to neutralize Shaq much better. And in the toughest series, it was Kobe who was the hero, not Shaq. Did Shaq provide the oppoirtunity? Yes, as did the rest of the team. But that's a messy area to debate, it's a team sport and everyone contributes to everything. So we have to be able to discern speicifics and distinguish things or else everything is the same in every series. I feel you guys typ[ically run to this argument whenever it comes to distinguishing Kobe. Whenever Kobe is to get credit, you guys want to take that away and attribute to anyone else: Shaq, a weaker team, etc. That's why I accuse you of trying to win the argument.

But in those WC series, it was Kobe providing the edge over the opponent. Against the Spurs, he killed them. He's the one who big man area during a broken play to grab the rebound over all the bigs and seal the win. Just because Shaq dominated the Nets doesn't make that performance greater than what Kobe did during the WC series. What Kobe did is arguably much more important.

You guys are also using the fact that the Lakers steamrolled that playoffs to indicate that the opponents were easy. They were not, again, they were considered the toughest WC in a long time, including the previous ones where the Lakers lost more games in the playoffs. The numbers don't tell the story. 15-1 doesn't mean the opponents were easier that 15-7, or whatever. These are number games.

And the overarching point in all this is that since MJ, no other player besides Kobe was doing this to powerful teams. Lebron doesn't do this. Nobody does. Curry does it only with a superteam that does most of the dirty work while he gets the credit. Kobe did the dirty work, and he did the heroics. He's a different cat than the others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 29390

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 5:44 pm    Post subject:

^
During the three peat I don't think Kobe did outperform Shaq in the Western Conference Finals. I think Shaq was better in the first and third finals during the 3-peat and Kobe was better
In the second finals.

And like I said, I'm not in the camp that believes the Western Conference Finals is the end-all-be-all anyway.

They're both great players. Like I said, I consider their overall careers more or less equivalent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
nomoreshaq
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 3734

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2020 7:16 pm    Post subject:

dries wrote:
emplay wrote:
Kobe pushed the Lakers past the Spurs but it took Shaq playing those dudes even to give the Lakers a shot

30/7/7 is not just "pushing". Smh, only in 2000 was he the best sidekick in the history.


Kobe went 33/7/7 in 2001 against the legendary spurs defense. totally totally torched them. he was no sidekick and easily the MVP of that series
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
moonriver24
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 15156

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 1:52 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Day wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
1hu2ren3dui4 wrote:
I dont wanna take anything away from Shaqs 3 finals mvps. He absolutely dominated those eastern conference teams.

But during those years, the battle for the the championship always peaked in the western conference finals. During which Kobe felt like the superhero and Shaq seemed like the sidekick.


Shaq battled two all time greats in Duncan and Robinson. That is no sidekick, that showed how dominant Shaq was.

except that is the one series where shaq was kobe's sidekick. lol


No, Kobe wouldn’t have had success if TD and Robinson were concentrating on stopping him as they were on Shaq. They knew that Shaq was who they needed to stop. Put someone like Divac at center and the Spurs win the series. All teams at that time were trying to shape their roster to stop Shaq.

And if they had a weaker guard they wouldn't have won the series either. Kobe was the MVP of the entirety of each of the last 2 championship runs, Shaq was the finals MVP because the Leastern conference.


Kobe was never MVP while Shaq was on the team. Definitely in the Pau days.

Well, we know pretty well Kobe just followed the order. After tearing down the Kings and Spurs in 2001, who else would be in the way? Phil Jackson could have ordered Shaq to defer to Kobe if he wanted Kobe to win the finals MVP. The 2001 Finals were just regular games. With the exception that the first game was a surprise. We knew who killed Iverson next while Shaq took care of the offense most of the time. But, yeah, it is silly to think Kobe could not be finals mvp. It was nit his job to be one because of deferring. He played within the commands of PJ.
_________________
Kobe's Top 5 Dunks, 81 points, MJ last gm @Staples
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 29390

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 9:52 am    Post subject:

moonriver24 wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Day wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
1hu2ren3dui4 wrote:
I dont wanna take anything away from Shaqs 3 finals mvps. He absolutely dominated those eastern conference teams.

But during those years, the battle for the the championship always peaked in the western conference finals. During which Kobe felt like the superhero and Shaq seemed like the sidekick.


Shaq battled two all time greats in Duncan and Robinson. That is no sidekick, that showed how dominant Shaq was.

except that is the one series where shaq was kobe's sidekick. lol


No, Kobe wouldn’t have had success if TD and Robinson were concentrating on stopping him as they were on Shaq. They knew that Shaq was who they needed to stop. Put someone like Divac at center and the Spurs win the series. All teams at that time were trying to shape their roster to stop Shaq.

And if they had a weaker guard they wouldn't have won the series either. Kobe was the MVP of the entirety of each of the last 2 championship runs, Shaq was the finals MVP because the Leastern conference.


Kobe was never MVP while Shaq was on the team. Definitely in the Pau days.

Well, we know pretty well Kobe just followed the order. After tearing down the Kings and Spurs in 2001, who else would be in the way? Phil Jackson could have ordered Shaq to defer to Kobe if he wanted Kobe to win the finals MVP. The 2001 Finals were just regular games. With the exception that the first game was a surprise. We knew who killed Iverson next while Shaq took care of the offense most of the time. But, yeah, it is silly to think Kobe could not be finals mvp. It was nit his job to be one because of deferring. He played within the commands of PJ.


Seems like this whole thread is just an exercise in semantics and making up labels.

People getting worked up about the term "sidekick,"

People making up titles: "MVP of the entirety of each of the last 2 championship runs"

People wanting to give MVP titles based on alternative realities.

Skins are thin around here!
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 11:44 pm    Post subject:

I don't remember Pippen being the number one option with the game on the line.
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 12:56 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
moonriver24 wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Day wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
1hu2ren3dui4 wrote:
I dont wanna take anything away from Shaqs 3 finals mvps. He absolutely dominated those eastern conference teams.

But during those years, the battle for the the championship always peaked in the western conference finals. During which Kobe felt like the superhero and Shaq seemed like the sidekick.


Shaq battled two all time greats in Duncan and Robinson. That is no sidekick, that showed how dominant Shaq was.

except that is the one series where shaq was kobe's sidekick. lol


No, Kobe wouldn’t have had success if TD and Robinson were concentrating on stopping him as they were on Shaq. They knew that Shaq was who they needed to stop. Put someone like Divac at center and the Spurs win the series. All teams at that time were trying to shape their roster to stop Shaq.

And if they had a weaker guard they wouldn't have won the series either. Kobe was the MVP of the entirety of each of the last 2 championship runs, Shaq was the finals MVP because the Leastern conference.


Kobe was never MVP while Shaq was on the team. Definitely in the Pau days.

Well, we know pretty well Kobe just followed the order. After tearing down the Kings and Spurs in 2001, who else would be in the way? Phil Jackson could have ordered Shaq to defer to Kobe if he wanted Kobe to win the finals MVP. The 2001 Finals were just regular games. With the exception that the first game was a surprise. We knew who killed Iverson next while Shaq took care of the offense most of the time. But, yeah, it is silly to think Kobe could not be finals mvp. It was nit his job to be one because of deferring. He played within the commands of PJ.


Seems like this whole thread is just an exercise in semantics and making up labels.

People getting worked up about the term "sidekick,"

People making up titles: "MVP of the entirety of each of the last 2 championship runs"

People wanting to give MVP titles based on alternative realities.

Skins are thin around here!

Thats why watching games is more important than watching stats.
I spoke based on the performances. I mentioned the Kings and Spurs.
Anyone seeing Kobe as sidekick needs to watch the series.
So again, could Kobe be the finals MVP if he was allowed to play differently?
It was always the coaches' decision to expose the mismatches.
Iverson vs Kobe, not good for Iverson because Kobe's assigned mission was to slow him down or to silent Iverson. Which he did. But that was not the criteria for MVP I suppose.
_________________
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 8:45 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
1hu2ren3dui4 wrote:
I dont wanna take anything away from Shaqs 3 finals mvps. He absolutely dominated those eastern conference teams.

But during those years, the battle for the the championship always peaked in the western conference finals. During which Kobe felt like the superhero and Shaq seemed like the sidekick.


Shaq battled two all time greats in Duncan and Robinson. That is no sidekick, that showed how dominant Shaq was.

except that is the one series where shaq was kobe's sidekick. lol


No, Kobe wouldn’t have had success if TD and Robinson were concentrating on stopping him as they were on Shaq. They knew that Shaq was who they needed to stop. Put someone like Divac at center and the Spurs win the series. All teams at that time were trying to shape their roster to stop Shaq.


One of the most asinine arguments that keeps getting regurgitated by low-info media and their sheeps. A dominant perimeter player is harder to double and game plan for. And what makes it harder with Kobe is he’s the most skilled player ever. Even if both twin towers were dedicated full time to Kobe they would have much less success than they had neutralizing Shaq.

Pop knew this and that’s he chose to neutralize the easier player. Pop is the GOAT coach and he wasn’t trying to get swept or dominate so badly by Kobe. He tried putting 8 time all defensive Bowen, Elliot, Jackson but he couldn’t slow down Kobe. Kobe is 4-1 vs Duncan for a reason. Beat him w/o Shaq. The GOAT coach had no answer for Kobe, but he did neutralize Shaq. Just as Sabonis did for Blazers and Vlade flopped for Kings. Unlike limited knowledge media members, man any of which Shaq invited to his home to grease, real b-ball minds like Pop and coaches knew who couldn’t be stopped!

Shaq needed top 5 all time perimeter player ever to win Kobe didn’t. You could make a strong argument Shaq actually clogged up the lanes for Kobe. That’s why Pau was a much better fit.
_________________
Alltime lineup: Magic | Kobe | MJ | Hakeem | KAJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4017

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 11:38 am    Post subject:

67ShelbyGT wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
1hu2ren3dui4 wrote:
I dont wanna take anything away from Shaqs 3 finals mvps. He absolutely dominated those eastern conference teams.

But during those years, the battle for the the championship always peaked in the western conference finals. During which Kobe felt like the superhero and Shaq seemed like the sidekick.


Shaq battled two all time greats in Duncan and Robinson. That is no sidekick, that showed how dominant Shaq was.

except that is the one series where shaq was kobe's sidekick. lol


No, Kobe wouldn’t have had success if TD and Robinson were concentrating on stopping him as they were on Shaq. They knew that Shaq was who they needed to stop. Put someone like Divac at center and the Spurs win the series. All teams at that time were trying to shape their roster to stop Shaq.


One of the most asinine arguments that keeps getting regurgitated by low-info media and their sheeps. A dominant perimeter player is harder to double and game plan for. And what makes it harder with Kobe is he’s the most skilled player ever. Even if both twin towers were dedicated full time to Kobe they would have much less success than they had neutralizing Shaq.

Pop knew this and that’s he chose to neutralize the easier player. Pop is the GOAT coach and he wasn’t trying to get swept or dominate so badly by Kobe. He tried putting 8 time all defensive Bowen, Elliot, Jackson but he couldn’t slow down Kobe. Kobe is 4-1 vs Duncan for a reason. Beat him w/o Shaq. The GOAT coach had no answer for Kobe, but he did neutralize Shaq. Just as Sabonis did for Blazers and Vlade flopped for Kings. Unlike limited knowledge media members, man any of which Shaq invited to his home to grease, real b-ball minds like Pop and coaches knew who couldn’t be stopped!

Shaq needed top 5 all time perimeter player ever to win Kobe didn’t. You could make a strong argument Shaq actually clogged up the lanes for Kobe. That’s why Pau was a much better fit.

great points again. I read the crazy statement above....and all I picture is that broken play where Kobe runs from the perimeter to sky for that rebound over the two great twin towers...and then jump back up to score over BOTH of them, thus sealing the series.

Shaq wasn't preventing DUncan and Robinson from defending Kobe. He was helping them not get destroyed by Kobe. LOLLLLLL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 137290
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 3:42 pm    Post subject:

SuperboyReformed wrote:
67ShelbyGT wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
1hu2ren3dui4 wrote:
I dont wanna take anything away from Shaqs 3 finals mvps. He absolutely dominated those eastern conference teams.

But during those years, the battle for the the championship always peaked in the western conference finals. During which Kobe felt like the superhero and Shaq seemed like the sidekick.


Shaq battled two all time greats in Duncan and Robinson. That is no sidekick, that showed how dominant Shaq was.

except that is the one series where shaq was kobe's sidekick. lol


No, Kobe wouldn’t have had success if TD and Robinson were concentrating on stopping him as they were on Shaq. They knew that Shaq was who they needed to stop. Put someone like Divac at center and the Spurs win the series. All teams at that time were trying to shape their roster to stop Shaq.


One of the most asinine arguments that keeps getting regurgitated by low-info media and their sheeps. A dominant perimeter player is harder to double and game plan for. And what makes it harder with Kobe is he’s the most skilled player ever. Even if both twin towers were dedicated full time to Kobe they would have much less success than they had neutralizing Shaq.

Pop knew this and that’s he chose to neutralize the easier player. Pop is the GOAT coach and he wasn’t trying to get swept or dominate so badly by Kobe. He tried putting 8 time all defensive Bowen, Elliot, Jackson but he couldn’t slow down Kobe. Kobe is 4-1 vs Duncan for a reason. Beat him w/o Shaq. The GOAT coach had no answer for Kobe, but he did neutralize Shaq. Just as Sabonis did for Blazers and Vlade flopped for Kings. Unlike limited knowledge media members, man any of which Shaq invited to his home to grease, real b-ball minds like Pop and coaches knew who couldn’t be stopped!

Shaq needed top 5 all time perimeter player ever to win Kobe didn’t. You could make a strong argument Shaq actually clogged up the lanes for Kobe. That’s why Pau was a much better fit.

great points again. I read the crazy statement above....and all I picture is that broken play where Kobe runs from the perimeter to sky for that rebound over the two great twin towers...and then jump back up to score over BOTH of them, thus sealing the series.

Shaq wasn't preventing DUncan and Robinson from defending Kobe. He was helping them not get destroyed by Kobe. LOLLLLLL


The play where Kobe has a path to the basket because Horry had blocked out both TD and Robinson. Good putback by Kobe but his big opened it up for him.
_________________
“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
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4017

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 8:21 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
67ShelbyGT wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
1hu2ren3dui4 wrote:
I dont wanna take anything away from Shaqs 3 finals mvps. He absolutely dominated those eastern conference teams.

But during those years, the battle for the the championship always peaked in the western conference finals. During which Kobe felt like the superhero and Shaq seemed like the sidekick.


Shaq battled two all time greats in Duncan and Robinson. That is no sidekick, that showed how dominant Shaq was.

except that is the one series where shaq was kobe's sidekick. lol


No, Kobe wouldn’t have had success if TD and Robinson were concentrating on stopping him as they were on Shaq. They knew that Shaq was who they needed to stop. Put someone like Divac at center and the Spurs win the series. All teams at that time were trying to shape their roster to stop Shaq.


One of the most asinine arguments that keeps getting regurgitated by low-info media and their sheeps. A dominant perimeter player is harder to double and game plan for. And what makes it harder with Kobe is he’s the most skilled player ever. Even if both twin towers were dedicated full time to Kobe they would have much less success than they had neutralizing Shaq.

Pop knew this and that’s he chose to neutralize the easier player. Pop is the GOAT coach and he wasn’t trying to get swept or dominate so badly by Kobe. He tried putting 8 time all defensive Bowen, Elliot, Jackson but he couldn’t slow down Kobe. Kobe is 4-1 vs Duncan for a reason. Beat him w/o Shaq. The GOAT coach had no answer for Kobe, but he did neutralize Shaq. Just as Sabonis did for Blazers and Vlade flopped for Kings. Unlike limited knowledge media members, man any of which Shaq invited to his home to grease, real b-ball minds like Pop and coaches knew who couldn’t be stopped!

Shaq needed top 5 all time perimeter player ever to win Kobe didn’t. You could make a strong argument Shaq actually clogged up the lanes for Kobe. That’s why Pau was a much better fit.

great points again. I read the crazy statement above....and all I picture is that broken play where Kobe runs from the perimeter to sky for that rebound over the two great twin towers...and then jump back up to score over BOTH of them, thus sealing the series.

Shaq wasn't preventing DUncan and Robinson from defending Kobe. He was helping them not get destroyed by Kobe. LOLLLLLL


The play where Kobe has a path to the basket because Horry had blocked out both TD and Robinson. Good putback by Kobe but his big opened it up for him.

wow...you will literally say anything to win.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 137290
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2020 9:38 am    Post subject:

Yes, like the truth. That is why I loved the 3 peat team, they played as a team. Shaq might have been a 3 time Finals MVP but guys like Horry and Fox were valuable for those titles. As when we added Pau, Aria and Fish in the late 2000’s. As with the recent Warrior teams. Team ball is fun to watch.
_________________
“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
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4017

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2020 1:41 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Yes, like the truth. That is why I loved the 3 peat team, they played as a team. Shaq might have been a 3 time Finals MVP but guys like Horry and Fox were valuable for those titles. As when we added Pau, Aria and Fish in the late 2000’s. As with the recent Warrior teams. Team ball is fun to watch.

The Truth and the Facts. Yes, for some reason, I always ignore that.
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
Page 2 of 2
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