Did Shaq make Kobe better?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

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


Joined: 01 Apr 2012
Posts: 1253

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:55 am    Post subject:

They both made life pretty easy for each other. Which is why there's no excuse for them to not have won 5 rings together.

But if I had to choose I'd say Kobe. You didn't want Shaq slamming it all night but you couldn't double him because Kobe was deadly from EVERY where on the court.

Kobe will be the last player we see like that. A guy that focuses on footwork, post moves, fadeaways, midrange, 3-pointers, everything. Which is why it always cracked me up when people said Wade/Lebron were better. We saw what happened to Wade when his athleticism went away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24852

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:58 am    Post subject:

They were both great players who had success together and success apart. Neither was the ideal complement to the other but each was so great that don't really matter

Last edited by activeverb on Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
pio2u
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 26 Dec 2012
Posts: 25925

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:58 am    Post subject:

SDLakersFan wrote:
They both made life pretty easy for each other. Which is why there's no excuse for them to not have won 5 rings together.

But if I had to choose I'd say Kobe. You didn't want Shaq slamming it all night but you couldn't double him because Kobe was deadly from EVERY where on the court.

Kobe will be the last player we see like that. A guy that focuses on footwork, post moves, fadeaways, midrange, 3-pointers, everything. Which is why it always cracked me up when people said Wade/Lebron were better. We saw what happened to Wade when his athleticism went away.
TRU DAT!

_________________
www.trendydeckpost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
nbcbballthemesong
Sixth Man
Sixth Man


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:20 am    Post subject:

According to Kobe, he claims he was forced to sacrifice certain aspects of his game during the 3 peat years.

But obviously they both help each other in the sense that their man can never leave to help w/out paying a price.

Shaq was the main focus of the offense, and Kobe was the facilitator/finisher. It was a fun time to be a fan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kobeandgary
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 5476
Location: virginia

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:52 pm    Post subject:

ReaListik wrote:
Kobe's life was easier because of the open looks Shaq provided because he demanded so much defensive attention from players that tried to stop him.


Kobe had open looks back then? I certainly don't remember them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
Luminous8
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 26 Apr 2017
Posts: 107

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:26 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Shaq was a top player in the game before Kobe was in the league.


Yeah and Shaq didn't win anything until Kobe was elite and unleashed. Shaq didn't do anything to make Kobe better. He was simply a guy being dominant. He didn't create thing for Kobe. I can remember at the time reading a basketball magazine and Kobe was actually ranked 3rd SG behind I believe AI and VC. Kobe had his most Dominant years without the diesel. Kobe was the one who dictated the game and created for others.

As someone else pointed out before, everyone knows back then the WCF was more of a challenge than the Finals and it was Kobe in the fourth closing games and making the big shots. So while I don't think either necessarily made the other better players (they're both going to be dominant regardless), I think it was Kobe who effected Shaq more than the alternative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
deal
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 9392
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:41 pm    Post subject:

Let's not get confused;


Shaq was a great player

Kobe was a great player


Bad news, they had no idea what they actually had going.
_________________
The move
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
City_Dawg
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 46575
Location: Coming soon and striking at your borders.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:16 pm    Post subject:

Ask the Spurs.
_________________
LAVAR 3:16...

Hypebeasts we know aboutchea'
Don't rep the Lakers unless they popular...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
idrinkhaterade
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 315

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:48 pm    Post subject:

shaq and kobe "coexisted" like lebron and kyrie. i don't think they made each other better.
_________________
i drink haterade. and i drink it by the gallons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 118738
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:49 pm    Post subject:

Luminous8 wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Shaq was a top player in the game before Kobe was in the league.


Yeah and Shaq didn't win anything until Kobe was elite and unleashed. Shaq didn't do anything to make Kobe better. He was simply a guy being dominant. He didn't create thing for Kobe. I can remember at the time reading a basketball magazine and Kobe was actually ranked 3rd SG behind I believe AI and VC. Kobe had his most Dominant years without the diesel. Kobe was the one who dictated the game and created for others.

As someone else pointed out before, everyone knows back then the WCF was more of a challenge than the Finals and it was Kobe in the fourth closing games and making the big shots. So while I don't think either necessarily made the other better players (they're both going to be dominant regardless), I think it was Kobe who effected Shaq more than the alternative.


I wouldn't call going to the Finals not winning anything. I agree that Shaq was dominant and the double- and triple-teams did open up the floor for his teammates. And I agree that the WCFs were tougher than the Finals in 2000-2002. Shaq battled Dunca and Robinson at the same time and he battled Vlade and Webber at the same time. That was why Horace Grant was a big pickup, teams had to battle our PF too. Nothing against Kobe, it just wasn't his time, that came later.
_________________
#lakerclownshow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 17729

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:04 pm    Post subject:

I doubt a 19/20 yr old Kobe was making a prime Shaq better. Cmon guys.

In the latter part of their time together, their presence was closer to mutually beneficial but for the majority of the time, Shaq was primary offensive option for a reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 118738
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:21 pm    Post subject:

Even at that age Kobe was good at getting Shaq going. He knew how to feed the big dog.
_________________
#lakerclownshow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Luminous8
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 26 Apr 2017
Posts: 107

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:41 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Even at that age Kobe was good at getting Shaq going. He knew how to feed the big dog.


That's the point I'm making. When it came to actually making them better, I think.kobe knew how to do things directly for Shaq that made him better whereas Shaq battled great players as well, but didn't directly make Kobe better. The double and triple teams were huge all together, but they weren't directly making Kobe better, he still caught doubles himself. I know what you're saying, Shaqs play DID make Kobe better, but to me, Kobe like you said, just knew how to get Shaq rolling. Heck, Shaq himself has stated this on numerous occasions .

Honestly It doesn't matter, because neither guy k ew how to bring the complete best out in the other. Kobe didn't know how to get the best out of Shaq in keeping him away from the Krispy Kreme a and Shaq couldn't get Kobe to just wait another year or so to get the torch. While they might have been the best things for each other, they were equally the worst.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 17729

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:48 pm    Post subject:

Luminous8 wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Even at that age Kobe was good at getting Shaq going. He knew how to feed the big dog.


That's the point I'm making. When it came to actually making them better, I think.kobe knew how to do things directly for Shaq that made him better whereas Shaq battled great players as well, but didn't directly make Kobe better. The double and triple teams were huge all together, but they weren't directly making Kobe better, he still caught doubles himself. I know what you're saying, Shaqs play DID make Kobe better, but to me, Kobe like you said, just knew how to get Shaq rolling. Heck, Shaq himself has stated this on numerous occasions .

Honestly It doesn't matter, because neither guy k ew how to bring the complete best out in the other. Kobe didn't know how to get the best out of Shaq in keeping him away from the Krispy Kreme a and Shaq couldn't get Kobe to just wait another year or so to get the torch. While they might have been the best things for each other, they were equally the worst.


Feeding the big dog isn't making them better.

If that's the logic, then Shaq could never have made anyone better and we'd all have to thank Rick Fox, Derek Fisher, and Kobe (among others) for making Shaq the pkayer he was.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 11348

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:52 pm    Post subject:

They both made each other better. But Kobe kept the motivation and work ethic, while Shaq's dropped off after winning his first ring. Had he decided to recover BEFORE "company time" and get himself fixed up he and Kobe may have had 4-5 rings.
_________________
My 2K18 One Year Rebuild of the Brooklyn Nets(Lakers coming soon):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR-2rwSoRP4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24852

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:14 pm    Post subject:

Darth Los Angeles wrote:
Shaq couldn't close the deal with almost the identically architected team he had in Orlando. He got the same team in Los Angeles and the only difference was Kobe instead of Penny. .


I don't agree with your reasoning.

Shaq played with Hardaway for only three years -- Hardaway's rookie year when he wasn't anything special; the second year they made the finals; the third year they got beat by Jordan's 72-10 Bulls.

I wouldn't say that's an apples-to-apples comparison with the 8 years Kobe and Shaq spent together (not winning a ring til their fourth year).

Plus you are not factoring in the contribution of Phil Jackson, which I think was substantial to Shaq's improvement.

They both showed they could win without the other. But, like everyone else, they both needed talent around them (plus neither of them ever won a ring without one of the best coaches in NBA history running the team).

That said, I am not a fan of woulda-coulda-shouldsas -- especially of people who declare with absolute certainty how a hypothetical situation which can never be tested would have panned out. Replace Kobe with McGrady -- maybe the Lakers still threepeat, maybe they don't. I have no idea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 24852

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:43 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
They both made each other better. But Kobe kept the motivation and work ethic, while Shaq's dropped off after winning his first ring. Had he decided to recover BEFORE "company time" and get himself fixed up he and Kobe may have had 4-5 rings.


I'd say Shaq started dropping off after the second ring, but he was still at a very high level.

The thing about Shaq was he had other interests. He wanted to cut rap songs, appear on TV shows, do his law enforcement thing and basically enjoy him. I'm not sure that if he had dedicated himself to basketball 24-7 and won another ring or two he would have enjoyed the trade. Kobe, in contrast, really had no interests outside basketball. I don't think either choice is right or wrong.

Ultimately, both came away from their careers with tremendous success, a lot of rings, and hundreds of millions of dollars. Would their lives be different today if they had won another ring or two? Probably not
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
slavavov
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 3652
Location: Santa Monica

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:01 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
They both made each other better. But Kobe kept the motivation and work ethic, while Shaq's dropped off after winning his first ring. Had he decided to recover BEFORE "company time" and get himself fixed up he and Kobe may have had 4-5 rings.

I doubt if Shaq and Kobe would've won another ring had they stayed together. Shaq was declining and while he was a really good player, he wasn't dominant anymore. But more importantly, the Lakers would've been over the cap. Their supporting cast had pretty much dried up. All they had left was an 80 yr old Malone and Payton, plus Derek Fisher. They would've had huge holes at SF, backup PF/C, backup SG and maybe more. With no cap space, no real assets and low draft picks I don't know how they would've replenished that team quickly.
_________________
"Lindsay Hunter is starting to make Devean George look like John Stockton" - Bill Walton, Game 4 of the 2002 WCFs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MickMgl
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Jan 2013
Posts: 1459

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:32 pm    Post subject:

SOLakerFan wrote:
They obviously made each other better. Shaq was such a dominant force that Kobe had a ton of space to work with.


In the paint?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JIFISH
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 9242
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:02 pm    Post subject:

Kobe always liked to say whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

So if stronger = better, and if Kobe was able to survive playing with Shaq, then yes Shaq made Kobe better.
_________________
I love basketball! - Metta World Peace
I love Metta World Peace! - Basketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kobeandgary
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 5476
Location: virginia

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:22 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Luminous8 wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Shaq was a top player in the game before Kobe was in the league.


Yeah and Shaq didn't win anything until Kobe was elite and unleashed. Shaq didn't do anything to make Kobe better. He was simply a guy being dominant. He didn't create thing for Kobe. I can remember at the time reading a basketball magazine and Kobe was actually ranked 3rd SG behind I believe AI and VC. Kobe had his most Dominant years without the diesel. Kobe was the one who dictated the game and created for others.

As someone else pointed out before, everyone knows back then the WCF was more of a challenge than the Finals and it was Kobe in the fourth closing games and making the big shots. So while I don't think either necessarily made the other better players (they're both going to be dominant regardless), I think it was Kobe who effected Shaq more than the alternative.


I wouldn't call going to the Finals not winning anything. I agree that Shaq was dominant and the double- and triple-teams did open up the floor for his teammates. And I agree that the WCFs were tougher than the Finals in 2000-2002. Shaq battled Dunca and Robinson at the same time and he battled Vlade and Webber at the same time. That was why Horace Grant was a big pickup, teams had to battle our PF too. Nothing against Kobe, it just wasn't his time, that came later.


Going to the finals and losing isn't winning anything, and Shaq may have opened up shots for Horry or Fisher, but he clogged the lane and post for Kobe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
LakerEric
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 7002
Location: Vegas

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:06 am    Post subject:

Kobe allowed Shaq the room to be dominant and IMO Kobe had to tone down his game (he avg 28 pts a game despite that...which is insane!). Kobe's individual legacy took a hit because of this and why idiots speak of LeBron MORE than Kobe despite the 5 titles. Only Laker fans know how great Kobe was and Kobe despite his "selfish" label would have had insane statistics as the #1 option with a strong #2 rather than being the #2 with a dominant teammate. FWIW.
_________________
Do you believe it now, Trinity? - Morpheous
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BadGuy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 1125

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:46 am    Post subject:

Did Phil Jackson make MJ better? Did the existence of clay make Michelangelo better? Did papyrus make Aristotle better? Shaq was an underachieving bum, who was gifted with a supreme level of talent and athleticism that even his piss-poor work ethic could not squander. This argument is D.O.A. and is borderline blasphemous to even discuss. Where was Shaq in the 4th? Where was Shaq on D? Where was Shaq when it really mattered? Shaq was a dominant, yet overrated, bully similar to Mike Tyson. Plain and simple.

Is Kobe winning less than 3 rings without Shaq? No. Put ANY (and I truly mean any) all-star on his team (including AI), and Kobe will get you 3. Kobe's previous opponents would not even dare to think they could beat him absent a stacked team (and/or with injuries). Even Pop would routinely double-team or triple-team Kobe because he feared the inevitable, incoming, incineration from the Mamba. OP's premise is not even really worthy of discussion for Lakers fans that watched this era.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 118738
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:40 am    Post subject:

BadGuy wrote:
Did Phil Jackson make MJ better? Did the existence of clay make Michelangelo better? Did papyrus make Aristotle better? Shaq was an underachieving bum, who was gifted with a supreme level of talent and athleticism that even his piss-poor work ethic could not squander. This argument is D.O.A. and is borderline blasphemous to even discuss. Where was Shaq in the 4th? Where was Shaq on D? Where was Shaq when it really mattered? Shaq was a dominant, yet overrated, bully similar to Mike Tyson. Plain and simple.

Is Kobe winning less than 3 rings without Shaq? No. Put ANY (and I truly mean any) all-star on his team (including AI), and Kobe will get you 3. Kobe's previous opponents would not even dare to think they could beat him absent a stacked team (and/or with injuries). Even Pop would routinely double-team or triple-team Kobe because he feared the inevitable, incoming, incineration from the Mamba. OP's premise is not even really worthy of discussion for Lakers fans that watched this era.


Gotta agree on the papyrus, very underrated
_________________
#lakerclownshow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 17729

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:31 am    Post subject:

BadGuy wrote:
Did Phil Jackson make MJ better? Did the existence of clay make Michelangelo better? Did papyrus make Aristotle better? Shaq was an underachieving bum, who was gifted with a supreme level of talent and athleticism that even his piss-poor work ethic could not squander. This argument is D.O.A. and is borderline blasphemous to even discuss. Where was Shaq in the 4th? Where was Shaq on D? Where was Shaq when it really mattered? Shaq was a dominant, yet overrated, bully similar to Mike Tyson. Plain and simple.

Is Kobe winning less than 3 rings without Shaq? No. Put ANY (and I truly mean any) all-star on his team (including AI), and Kobe will get you 3. Kobe's previous opponents would not even dare to think they could beat him absent a stacked team (and/or with injuries). Even Pop would routinely double-team or triple-team Kobe because he feared the inevitable, incoming, incineration from the Mamba. OP's premise is not even really worthy of discussion for Lakers fans that watched this era.


Its unfortunate the incinerating Kobe had to play with a bum like Shaq.
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  Next
Page 2 of 3
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
© 1995-2010 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