Shaq, Kobe, and Pau didn't win until being put in a winning system with an all time great coach, so that's actally the most important thing. Kobe is a lot more replacable than Shaq and Pau because there are a lot of good swingmen on the league but a dearth of bigs. The threepeat Lakers did worse when Kobe played than when he was out. They probably win without him and most certainly do if he's replaced with him with any number of capable swingmen (eg Carter, McGrady, Allen, etc). You saw what happened when Shaq went to Miami, which was a mediocre team the year before. ECF and then championship. Kobe went lotto, first round, first round. That the current Lakers have two of the best bigs in the game and are still losing is the fault of the system and, to a large degree, Kobe, since he is insisting on making himself the focal point of the team when their mismatches lie elsewhere. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that a team can be better just because a playe with gaudy stats isn't there. Look at the Nuggets post Carmelo. Swingmen simply have less of an impact on wins and losses because their production can be replaced by any number of players.
This is just a typical response from someone who gets all of their basketball knowledge from box scores and sportscenter. You could learn a lot from me but I have nothing to learn from you so engaging with you is pointless.
But Sportscenter would much prefer one guy to get 50 than five guys to get 10. That's why no one watches the Spurs or the old Pistons, or why this year's Nuggets and Grizzlies aren't getting any coverage. Even the Clippers, with their marwuee players, are having their best year ever because they spread the offense. Yet despite them sweeping the Lakers evryone still believes in the Kobe system.
Pau could have been replaced with a lot of players and the Lakers could have won. That is absolute nonsense. Those Lakers don't get a single ring without Kobe. Yes let's ignore that Shaq went to go play with another hall of fame player that had possibly the most dominant finals performance of all time. It's hard to believe the points you make because you litter them with garbage over the top statements about Kobe because you hate him so strongly.
You assume I hate Kobe because I make controversial statements about his value to the team, which is perceived as crazy and disrespecting a legend. But take what I am saying in a vacuum and tell me, why do his teams do so well when he sits out? The sample size isn't insignificant (i believe on the neighborhood of 80 game during the two contending eras). Do you even consider it to be possible that his production could be replaced by some combination of existing or new players? I have absolutely no doubt that the threepeat team would have won if you replaced Kobe with an above average swingman. Certainly the stars like Allen or Carter, but also guys like Peja. That team had very capable pieces and was anchored by a player who demanded a constant double, evn triple. In the absence of Kobe, guys like Horry, Fox, Rice, and Fisher would simply get a few more shots a game, and this is exactly what happened when Kobe did sit during that period. But sit Shaq and the whole dynamic changes. This team is the same. If they had Phil or had listened to Brown, they would have instilled an offense around the post play of Gasol and Howard, and it would have been much more successful. They also mos likely would have been more motivated defensively as that is just human nature. But it would have marginalized Kobe's one on one talents and that isn't what he or the fans want.
I assume you hate Kobe because you make dumb statements like the 3peat Lakers would have probably won without him. That is just flat out dumb. I get arguing that his value is overstated amongst fans and the media but to act like he has so little is just stupid.
You said Kobe is worthless and isn't a winner. That is factually untrue. Sorry if I, and millions of other people, find that silly. If you want to say Kobe is overrated then you will hear no argument from me, because I'd agree with that, but to say that he's "worthless as a winner" is just dumb.
Clippy is basically proving to be a Skip Bayless clone....a dude who does nothing but offer contrarian viewpoints to stir the pot. You're acting like Kobe provided little to no value to the Lakers. That is wrong, you know it's wrong, and that's all that needs to be said.
You guys continue to make personal attacks but you still haven't answered my question about why the Lakers do fine when Kobe doesn't play. That's kind of relevant since it's hoW I'm quantifying worth. To be clear, in terms of revenue produced for the league, and even entertainment value, Kobe is far from worthless. In terms of wins, he's worth about the same as an average to above average swingman in this league. That anyone would consider him a top tier great shows how little people know about the game.
Durvasa already went over this with you in the past and I have done the same so I have no interest in going over the stats and arguments related to Kobe being out all over again. Also, you are using regular season wins to determine playoff success which is a flawed way to go about things. The Blazers and Kings were good teams and without Kobe they do not win 7 game series against them. Rick Fox was asked whether or not Kobe was a positive or negative after he had already left the team and he laughed at the thought that Kobe didn't make the game easier for him and his teammates. Thinking that the 3peat Lakers win if you just take Kobe off the team is flat out stupid. You can take that as a personal attack if you want.
Well of course players aren't going to burn bridges so they will be complementary when asked questions. What do you expect Fox to say... that Kobe is an overrated chucker? Use your head, man. You hear Pau and Dwight subtely criticize Kobe all the time but they always do so in a very nonconfrontational way and never call him out specifically (see the wuote I linked above... And keep in mind this was after a Laker win in which Kobe played great!) Yet I have never heard anyone say this kind of thing about LeBron or Magic or Bird or Shaq. We can't change history and observation will always be subjective so all we can really go by are the numbers. And the numbers say the Lakers do fine without Kobe. Maybe in the playoffs this changes as defenses can prepare better, but I submit that if you swapped Kobe with a lesser scorer that plays within a system, like Peja Stojakovic, they would do great. I don't see why they wouldn't; those teams had the best player in the league, the best coach in the league, and many capable shooters to space the floor. The Magic got to the Finals with a much worse player and a much worse coach using the same approach.
Shaq bashed Kobe, Phil bashed Kobe, Cartwright bashed Jordan and so on and so on. What does Rick Fox care about how Kobe feels after he's retired and gone from the Lakers. Yes just "throw" in a great shooter like Peja. That's the same as just taking Kobe off the team. And there is no history that shows that the Lakers could have been as good in the playoffs without Kobe. I'd be shocked if you could find a single NBA player that didn't have something against Kobe that would agree with you on this. NBA greats like Magic, LeBron, Bird and Shaq wouldn't agree with you on this. That would show how little people that actually never played or coached the game know about basketball. If we are going by regular season victories the championship banners would look a lot different than they do.
The regular season is the barometer for the playoffs, and barring numbers for the playoffs (that we lack since Kobe hasn't missed games there), we can only go off the regular season. And there is plenty of evidence that shows the Lakers play just fine without Kobe (but not without Shaq... I would have to lookup Gasol but I bet they do poorly when he sits too). Again, don't you find this unusual? I mean, even if you don't think this reliably predicts the playoffs, how do you rationalize it? Just consider for a moment the possibilities that "superstar" players who dominate the ball with intent primarily to score aren't as valuable as the highlights would make you think.
Anybody that has played ball knows it can suck to play with somebody that dominates the ball. When that guy isn't playing it can be a lot more fun and the team can thrive. But more often than not that newness wears off and opponents figure you out and the winning slows down. Take a look at the Celtics without Rondo. Sure they were better without him at first but that just wasn't sustainable over a long period of time. Your few games at a time analysis is not enough to show that the Lakers were a better long term team without Kobe.
Finally a response, and a good one. However, I look at your Rondo example the other way, because the Celtics have been consistently better and are only underperforming recently due to the KG injury (again, a big being the most important element to their team). Like Kobe, Rondo dominates the ball in a one dimensional fashion and, like Kobe, his contributions can be handled by commitee. The most valuable players as far as win rates go are 1) impact bigs, 2) multidimensional threats like Paul or LeBron, and 3) specialist role players. One dimensional scorers or passers are predictable and easier for a team to defend. This is why Jason Kidd never won until recently as a role player. You may argue that Kobe isn't one dimensional since he does have good assist totals, but it is clear from watching him that he predetermines how he is going to play based on the time of the game and not the conditions (this is why he'll go entire quarters without taking a shot, and then without making a pass). This is predictable.
I don't really want to go into MJ because in my opinion he's the 2nd most overrated player of all time, behind only Kobe. However, he was extraordinarily efficient and talented-- much more than Kobe-- so he was able to break some of the boundaries ballhogs usually face. Drexler, Wade, and Durant have never been ball dominant players. Drexler played most of his career with a traditional ball dominant PG in Porter. Durant obviously doesn't handle the ball as much with Westbrook. And Wade has always been very efficient on and off the ball (watch him off ball and the watch Kobe off ball and you'll see the difference); MJ was the same way btw.
