Kobe had one thing that MJ and Lebron didn't have.

LA media at work. When the Lakers were winning 3 titles, the LA media needed a story. This is the same media that turned the mediocre Kardasian family into celebrities. Drama is key with the Lakers. If Harden and Howard were playing in LA, the story would be "could Harden and Howard co-exist?" I mean, look at James Hardens' body language in game 6 vs Blazers. He was not happy running plays to Howard in the 4th quarter. LA media would be all over that, but in Houston, nobody gives a damn.

 

and what about Will Purdue?

 

Lakers supporting cast individually weren't great players.

Lakers supporting cast were great role players, and team players, fit to coexist along with the two titans of Shaq/Kobe.

Take Kobe off that team, Lakers maybe don't even make the playoffs. Whose the 3rd best player in 2001 & 2002 Lakers? Derek Fisher, who averaged 11 points a game barely shooting 40% from the field? Robert Horry, averaging 6 points a game on 38% from the field (as a 6'10" power forward who could only shoot the occasional 3 pointer)? Go down the list of players they had those years, they were great role players, but nothing close to what Lebron/MJ had.

Who could have even come close to filling in the scoring void of Kobe during those runs? Lakers had a team completely centered on two guys, and everyone takes away Kobe's accomplishments because of Shaq, but if it was just Shaq and the rest of their guys, that Lakers team was NOT good.

Lebron's supporting cast and MJ's supporting cast were miles and miles better than Kobe & Shaq's. Case in point, Wade played barely more than half a season this year and Miami still was the #2 team in the East. As I said, if Kobe was merely just along for the ride with Shaq, then you must think the Lakers had a team of all time great stars, when that was actually not the case.

 

Kobe actually had a hot wife unlike Lebron and MJ (his first wife).

 

The problem with your post is that you compare a pakers team without there 2 best players (shaq and kobe) to the bulls and heat without their best player. That is not fair.

The lakers team without kobe would make the play offs. I think you really forgot how dominant shaq was. The best player in the nba with great role players generally make the play offs.

On top of that most of us have said kobe was important. We just say he was the second best player in that team. There is nothing wrong with that pippe was also a important player for the bulls. Do you disagree that shaq was a better player than kobe during those years?

And do you agree that when comparing all time greats a championship won as the second best player is less important than a championship won as the best player?

 

Should be

Michael Jordan 1986-87 starting lineup
Steve Paxon
Michael Jordan
Gene Banks
Charles Oakley
Dave Corzine

I'd take Odom over all those guys

 

Kobe was in his third season. Second as a starter. Under the spotlight, I'd say he did very well given his physical circumstances. McGrady at that point was fresh out of highschool, and was known mostly for dunks and leaps. I find it hard to argue that replacing Kobe with him will get the Lakers the three rings. Mind you, Shaq had Penny, a star guard, early on in his career, and failed to win even one. Jerry West, who I assume knows more basketball than most of us, chose to pair Kobe with Shaq instead of forming a twin tower with Shaq & Divac. There must be a reason for that, unless West thought that 3 championships were better than "looking at 5 or 6 titles".

You can speculate and suppose all you want, but reality is that Kobe contributed to his team and won. It doesn't matter if you say things like "no ifs or buts", because it's still speculation, and speculation doesn't hold weight. In the same way some Kobe fans underrate Shaq, Clutch fans has a nasty streak of not giving Kobe credit where credit is due.

 

Shaq was in his prime (whereas Kobe was a few years prior to his prime) but he could not do it without Kobe and Kobe couldn't do it without him. They were meant to be for each other in a love/hate relationship. But make no mistake Kobe was more important for the Lakers than Pippen was to the Bulls.

Imagine if both guys were in their prime though, Kobe would have been the alpha player. Kobe was 21, 22, and 23 when they 3-peated. Shaq was 28, 29, & 30. Kobe did some absolutely extraordinary things when he entered his prime, and then ended up winning 2 titles on his own.

I just don't get why people knock Kobe for having Shaq, Kobe was as important to those championships as Shaq was, without Kobe, Shaq was not a champion. Lebron lovers think that somehow its better to go 2-3 in the finals over a guy who went 5-2.

 

You have not answered my questions.
1: was kobe the second best player in 3 of his5 championships?

2: when comparing all time greats should championships won as the second best player count less than championships won as the best player?

 

1) Shaq was better at the time only because he was in his prime, but it doesn't mean Kobe wasn't an alphadog, superstar player, him and Iverson were the two best SGs in the league those years (in the era of SGs) and he was a top 5 player in the NBA in 2001 & 2002.

2) Yes, absolutely 1000% because he was an alpha dog himself, Kobe carried that team as much as Shaq did. Look through the box scores whenever Shaq sat or sucked in a game, Kobe filled them up usually scoring in the 30's with the Lakers winning. Look at the playoff series stats, whenever a team defended Shaq like the Spurs, the reason the Lakers won was because of KOBE. Look at his numbers against the Spurs those 2001 and 2002 playoffs, he absolutely killed them because Shaq was held down by Duncan/Robinson.

He is an all time great, he's not MJ but jesus you Kobe haters are relentless. Lakers were an unstoppable force because of Shaq AND Kobe.

 

By the way, looking back at the 4 playoff series between the Spurs & Lakers, with the Lakers winning 3 of those 4, Kobe was the leading scorer in all of those series.

And anyone with any knowledge of the NBA knows that the Spurs-Lakers series from 2001-2004 were the 2 best teams in the NBA. Forget the finals, Kobe was the MVP in the most important series 4 times for the Lakers.

 

Do you think that if Kobe were replaced with Iverson, McGrady, Vince Carter, or any other star wing at the time, the Lakers would still have won multiple championships?

 

Nope.

Iverson would never have coexisted with Phil Jackson or Shaq, was a cancer to a team even though he was a great individual talent

McGrady - I love T-Mac, but lets be honest, the guy never even won a playoff series, let alone a championship?

Vince Carter - No way

 

It does for Tim Duncan

 

But not for Kobe?

 

No. Because none of those guys were on Kobe's level. Even if you put Lebron on that list, I don't think the Lakers win that man championships.

 

Yall are true revisionists. LeBron hasn't willed his teams to anything extraordinary. Reaching 4 straight finals in the east is NOT impressive with wade and bosh and every star veteran playing for you for cheap. He's only won 2 finals ... Shld not be mentioned with Kobe and Jordan as a winner. Great overall player, but not a closer on their level

 

Yep, but this past season has been the only championship season where Duncan wasn't clearly the best player on the team. You could still argue that he was the best, but the gap isn't as wide as it was in past years.

 

?? Lebrons wife is attractive for an African american woman

 

I don't necessarily agree that Kobe was the 2nd best player on all 3 championships with Shaq. I was simply answering your question. Duncan's CLEARLY not the best player on all his championship teams. Yet he's arguably considered the greatest at his position. Does this logic apply to Duncan as well?