Since the 1996-97 season, the Lakers are 55-45 (.550) when Kobe plays while Shaq is out; the Lakers are 41-12 (.774) over the same period of time while Shaq plays and Kobe is out. Interesting. I suppose you'd have to weight that a bit for the surrounding cast during the respective outages, but it looks a lot to me like Shaq's more capable of singularly carrying a team than Kobe, which, as a guy who came up during the Hakeem years, just reinforces my belief that you go with the big man. Kobe's younger and has some serious potential, but I think LA's going with the wrong guy here. Especially given the chance that the only penetration Kobe will be concerned with next year is that imposed by prison inmates.
Kobe for 10 more years or Shaq for 3-4 more years? I take Kobe. Good move by the Lakers, specially given the fact that they got a great deal for Shaq.
I'm surprised the record is that high with Shaq out. I think the stats from like '98-'99 or '99-'00 on would be more meaningful though, as Bryant wasn't really that good before that.
Lakers was built around Shaq, not Kobe. If the role players complemented Kobe better, the results might not be so skewed.
Kobe is going to flame out, without Shaq on that team, he will not be near as dominant. Shaq made Kobe not vice versa. DD
That's because Shaq makes a different on the defensive end of the floor where Kobe isn't as much of a factor. Shaq, along with all premiere bigs just has the ability to change the game so much more from so many different areas.
Bingo. Agreed. However, look at how much more specific Jordan's needs were than Hakeem's-- he needed another Hall of Famer (Pippen) plus the best player at his specific role (Rodman) to win many of his titles. Hakeem won one title with rags, man. I think you can build a team around Kobe and he can win more titles, but I think that, like Hakeem, you can plug role players in around Shaq and win another title. In other words, you get a group like the 1994 Rockets, you better have Shaq. You add a Drexler-caliber player and I think Kobe can win.
Shaq can have tons of REGULAR season success by himself, however come playoff time he isn't carrying anyone to a title because he is probably the least clutch superstar in NBA history.
Brian, Shaq NEEDS a clutch player to win Rings, Hakeem didn't... Pippen won 55 games without Jordan, finished 2nd or 3rd in MVP voting without Jordan, best defensive SF in NBA history. He would of been fine without Jordan at least individually, Jordan was fine individually without Pippen as well, team wise, hmm....
The team was built for Shaq, though. You build around a big man quite differently. And your figure doesn't account for Shaq's decline. We're not just predicting decline - it's already occurring with Shaq. So your figure is not representative of current ability. I think it's a choice between 2 years of Shaq and another 10 of Kobe. Easy decision, even if Shaq might have been a tiny bit better initially.
It's no secret that a great big man is better than a great small man. But notice the records. While Shaq has a much higher winning percentage, he produces fewer wins. In other words, he misses a lot more games than Kobe. The age factor is very important now. The Lakers aren't willing to pay Shaq big money after the current contract expires. It makes sense. BTW, I hate to say this. Malone was the difference maker last season. When he was out, they were a little better than .500. When he was in, they were over .700. It's not an accident that the Lakers got trashed in the finals when Malone was out.
Shaq is not that injury-prone. He faked many injuries though. On the other hand, if he does have injury, he'll rehabilitate in company time.
I think Shaq's non-clutchness is actually misconception. Shaq makes 60%+ of free throws in clutch time, which translates to 60% FGP. That's better than most clutch shooters. In fact, hack-a-shaq has had very little success.
No it's not, he doesn't want the ball in the clutch and when he has it the best you could hope for is one point according to your stats.
