"The Lakers have a 46-42 record in the 88 regular-season games they've played without O'Neal since he joined them in 1996." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/news/2002/11/12/hawks_lakers_ap/ Without the Big Guy...they're just another team hoping for the playoffs. Kobe is good, but he is no leader.
THANK YOU! This is what I've been trying to prove to those ignorant people who think "Kobe is #1" and that "it's because of Kobe that the Lakers win." Finally, now they'll shut up. Thanks for bringing it up 3814.
Don't be stupid. The team is built around Shaq. If it were built around Kobe they'd be alot better. If you were to put T-Mac or anyone on the Shaq-less Lakers, they'd be just as bad or significantly worse. Kobe is the best non-Shaq, non-Duncan player in the league.
A young Mcgrady led his Magic to a 43-39 record in his first year with the team (before he was this good too). the lineup? starters Andrew DeClercq Bo Outlaw Tracy McGrady Mike Miller (not as good as now) Darrell Armstrong other key players Michael Doleac John Amaechi Pat Garrity (he wasn't good at all back then) Monty Williams Troy Hudson not real impact Don Reid Grant Hill (4 games) Dee Brown (7 games) Cory Alexander (played 26 games) i'm pretty sure the Lakers have a better supporting cast this year than Mcgrady had...and the Magic were better than the 2-6 Lakers are now. Why? T-Mac is a better leader, even before he became a superstar.
Shooter, do you actually think the Lakers would win if Kobe wasnt on the team? Kobe is arguably a top 3 player in the NBA. The same goes for Shaq. Neither one can win without the other. 3814, of course they are just another team without the "big guy". Take away the best player on any team and they suck. However, in this case, they are still above .500. Take Francis away from the Rockets and they win 3% of their games. Take McGrady away from the Magic and they win 10% of their games.
Kobe isn't Top 3 in the league, I can think of 5 better then him, Shaq, McGrady, Kidd, Duncan, Garnett. Shaq has proven he can win without Kobe, the Lakers record I would bet is much better without Kobe then Kobe's record without Shaq. In fact I remember about 2 years ago when Kobe was out and the Lakers went on a tear including beating San Antonio, who had the best record in the NBA.
The Lakers would win if they didn't have Kobe...Shaq would be getting a lot more touches ( he'd average around 35 ppg); they'd still find a complementary player, and they'd definitely make the playoffs....something that can't be said if they just had Kobe and not Shaq.
This is funny. Shaq would win a championship without Kobe? LOL. Ask ANY NBA analyst and they will tell you that Kobe is as dominant as any player in the league. Throw in the fact that he is a guard and that makes him that much better.
why does being a guard make him that much better? guards are a dime a dozen. there are probably more "star" sg's than any other position in the league. carter, kobe, jones, allen, iverson, francis (sg IMO), finley, and so on. Yes, they are over .500 in the past...but look at this year! Also, Raptors went on a tear without their main man VC. Sacramento can hold their own without Webber and Bibby at the same time. All i'm saying...is T-Mac is a LOT more valuable to his team than Kobe is to the Lakers. Lakers can dominate without Kobe when Shaq is healthy...but when it's the other way around, Kobe just doesn't get it done.
TMac had no support? Let's see who can run a fast break on the Lakers minus Shaq Devean George. Slava Medvedenko. Maybe Robert Horry in June. The players are there to complement Shaq's strengths. Kobe doesn't have that here. T-Mac did and does.
If memory serves me correctly, that was the year of John Amaechi for that Orlando team as well - he was an offensive spark-plug wasn't he? And Darrell Armstrong is a better player than anyone on the Lakers (Kobe and Shaq aside) - he can pass, score and defend... I would argue that Tracy McGrady had the better supporting cast. Regardless, nobody is going to argue that just because the Magic didn't win it all that year means that McGrady is over-rated are they? Aren't we giving him concessions and admitting that he had no supporting cast but did very well to get the Magic a winning record? Doesn't the same logic apply to Kobe? The team has no supporting cast, but they still have a winning record without Shaq. Isn't that a plus for Kobe? Why is it that you say it's a good thing for McGrady but not for Kobe? I'm confused....
I think he means that you just don't see many "dominant(as in putting points on the board 75% of the time they get the ball)" guards. Kobe is probably the closest to being a dominant guard since MJ retired the second time.
yeah, but a top notch center is much more valuable than a top notch shooting guard (with the MJ exception). Because they are more rare.
I agree, but if I were able to find a SG that was had Shaq-like efficiency, I would definitely take the SG over the C. In crunch time, your guards are more likely to be able to take over the game, simply because they handle the ball more. It's not often that Shaq can run the ball down the court, and then get good post position... A guard, on the other hand, could take it up the court, set up an offense, and still improvise if needed. Now, the trouble is finding a guard with Shaq-like efficiency.
