Wow. There's so much stupidity here, I don't even know where to begin. First of all, Eddie Jones had just finished his 2nd season, and Van Exel had finished his 3rd. In other words, they were both very raw. Secondly, how can you credit the Lakers with having both Horry and Ceballos when they were traded for each other? In 1997, Ceballos played 8 games for the Lakers, and Horry played 22. And thirdly, Elden Campbell was so underwhelming that you didn't even spell his name right...
Too bad those stats don't show how many shots Hakeem changed, how many players he forced to take jumpers instead of driving in and getting swatted, or how well those players guarded their man (including the post/paint). Hakeem is top 3.
Since when aren't 3rd and 4th year players good? How many years do you have to be in the league by your standards before you can be considered a NBA ready player? Eddie Jones was a 3rd year starter and Van Exel was a 4th year starter. That comment is easily one of the dumbest I have ever had in response to something on this board. I can credit them as having both because they had both you jackass. They had Cedric and then they had Horry. Next time would you like me to say that they had Cedric for half the year and then Horry for the second year? I will next time even though it is apparent that you already knew that. And of course me spelling Elden with an I instead of an E changes the fact that he averaged 15/8 that year.
True, though WS/48 does attempt to account for this. The defensive component (DWS) includes team defense, though you're probably right that he isn't credited enough for his defensive contributions.
That's excellent. Most people who root for Kobe can't acknowledge this (with the addendum that LeBron has been playing better than Kobe ever has for five years). Undoubtedly he's better than those guys, but does that translate into wins? Because, on paper, the Lakers should have killed the Pistons in '04 and should be a lot better than the 8th seed today. Take a guy like Ray Allen-- sure, he was able to average 25/5/5 as the "man" on those Sonics teams but he also is a perfect complimentary piece because he's a great shooter and a great off-ball player. I submit that peak Ray Allen not only would have won 3 titles with Shaq but probably more, and he wouldn't driven Shaq out of town either. I can't really think of a better fit to prime Shaq's game than Ray Allen. There's nothing to "agree to disagree on" since what I presented was a fact. Kobe's teams outside of the 3-year window when they were irrelevant have always had a better record when he's sat out vs. when he's played. Doesn't that strike you as odd? When Bird, MJ, Magic, or LeBron have been out, their teams have been considerable worse-- I mean, it's not even close (ex: LeBron's teams have a 60+ win pace with him and a 20+ win pace without him). So no matter how talented Kobe may be, the fact is that he's not having the on-court impact that his numbers say. And it's pretty obvious this year that the Lakers would function fine without him because it would force them to run through Nash, which is like the whole point of getting D'antoni. It's clear this is what they want to do _with_ Kobe but Kobe is so bigheaded that he needs to be the guy demanding the ball all the time.
You need to go reread that paragraph that I said we can agree to disagree about. There is no way you can believe that everything you said in that paragraph is fact.
Actually, I just want you to use some critical thinking. Forget the 8 games that Ceballos played. The more you keep arguing that point, the stupider you look. Stop. You originally said that when Shaq joined the Lakers in 1997, they didn't have a bad team. On what grounds are you saying that? In 1996, Ceballos was by far their leading scorer at 21 ppg. Next were Van Exel and Magic at 15 ppg, followed by Campbell (14 ppg) and Divac/Jones (13 ppg). In 1997, 3 of their top 6 players were gone (Magic/Ceballos/Divac). Basically, when Shaq joined the Lakers, it was a roster full of role players with 2 young guys who had potential (Van Exel/Jones). That's not a good team. So for Shaq to lead them to a 56 win season in his first season with them proves that he can win without playing on stacked teams.
Where did you get this from? Check the record in 99/00, 03/04, 09/10. There were only 5 seasons where the Lakers Win% was higher with Kobe sitting out. 4 of those season came early in his career when LA had a prime Shaq. The 5th season was last year, when the Win% difference was negligible. Also,, W-L record in games played versus game not played is only meaningful if there is sizeable sample of each.
What Kobe has going for him is his greatness at a young age and the way he's sustained it. His peak wasn't that impressive when held up against other all-time greats.
If you look at the cumulative record of when Kobe has sat out vs when he has played during the two contending Laker eras, they have a better with him out than in. In 09/10 they were 6-3 without him and 51-22 with him, which is comparable. I didn't check the other years just now but when I ran the numbers last, the cumulative results showed as I said. But my point really is this: when a superstar sits out, the team usually gets a LOT worse; for them to be the same or better is telling. I mean, look at the Lakers record when Shaq sat out, or the Cavs/Heat when LeBron does.
How old are you? I ask because I'm wondering if you saw Van Exel and Eddie Jones actually play. They were both above average NBA players and not Steve Kerr like role players. They were also better in 97 than 96 because like you said they were younger guys. Eddie averaged 17 that year and went on to average about 17-20 for the rest of his prime years. Nick and Eddie never played much better basketball than they did in 96-97 season. They were good NBA players playing at a level about as high as they ever did in their careers. Elden Campbell was also a solid NBA player and it showed in his 15/8 that year. Then throw in that they had Horry for the last 22 games. (We won't count Cedric because his 8 games never happened.) That Lakers team was not a bad team. But on top of all that they were not a contender at all which is what this discussion was about. Throw Shaq on any team and it immediately contends was the original point made which i rebutted. The 96-97 Lakers were not real contenders.
Here are the records for the seasons in which the Lakers were "contenders": Code: W/ Kobe W/O Kobe Season W L Win% W L Win% ---------------------------------------------- 1996-97 48 23 67.6% 8 3 72.7% 1997-98 58 21 73.4% 3 0 100.0% 1998-99 31 19 62.0% 0 0 1999-00 55 11 83.3% 12 4 75.0% 2000-01 45 23 66.2% 11 3 78.6% 2001-02 56 24 70.0% 2 0 100.0% 2002-03 50 32 61.0% 0 0 2003-04 48 17 73.8% 8 9 47.1% 2007-08 57 25 69.5% 0 0 2008-09 65 17 79.3% 0 0 2009-10 51 22 69.9% 6 3 66.7% 2010-11 57 25 69.5% 0 0 2011-12 36 22 62.1% 5 3 62.5% total 65 281 70.0% 55 25 68.8% Really, your argument only applies for the seasons when they had Shaq in his prime. There's not going to be a steep drop-off if you still have the best player on the planet to go to.
First off, the year that stands out in your stats is 03-04, when the Lakers actually looked bad without Kobe. But if you take a closer look, you realize that Shaq missed a bunch of those games that Kobe missed too. In every other year, the Lakers are consistently just as good without Kobe as with him. Again, doesn't that seem a little strange considering that people have Kobe in the GOAT conversation? Or if, as you say "there's not going to be a steep drop-off if you still have the best player on the planet to go to", doesn't that kind of justify the fact that Kobe's role on the threepeat team wasn't as big as his fans make out to be? That is, if you were to sub him with any other adequate shooting guard, they would be fine? After all, they didn't seem to suffer when he sat out. Kobe is a fantastic talent but his game doesn't adapt well to team play. He's good as a complementary piece but he feels this need to dominate the ball so he can be in the spotlight, and that takes away from the rest of the team. This year's Lakers are simply better without him. There's no denying that Nash (who is the same player now as he was in the previous years) has done far more with less, and that if Kobe were to simply play the Raja Bell / Joe Johnson role in the Nash offense they'd be a lot better. But he won't have it that way because that would mean Nash or Howard would get most of the accolades and that's not how the "Kobe system" works.
And you don't care about critical thinking you are just trying to nit pick. Cedric and Hurry played 30 games combined so you want to dismiss them then you throw in magic who only played in 32 games the year before. Child please go somewhere with that double standard.
Since your original argument was that Shaq didn't join a bad Laker team, you should be looking at the stats for the 1996 Lakers' roster. You can argue that Van Exel/Jones peaked in 1997, but I could easily make the argument that having Shaq on their team made them better players. That's why you also have to ignore Horry (since he wasn't there in 1996) and Ceballos (since he only played 8 games in 1997). And if your argument hinges on the 8 games that Ceballos played in 1997, then it's a poor argument. Double standard? It's pretty clear you didn't read my post. Do you know why I brought up Magic Johnson? Remember, you said the Shaq didn't join a bad Lakers team. I said you couldn't reasonably make that argument since the 1997 Lakers were missing 3 of their best 6 players from 1996 (Magic/Ceballos/Divac). Like I said before, use some critical thinking.
The only thing that should be looked at is what players he had once he got there. And your Van Exel/Jones argument would be a bad one because those guys both left the Lakers and continued to play at a similar level on different teams. Also, I have no idea why we would be ignoring Horry when he played in the last 22 games of the season. He was a part of the team that Shaq played with that year. Horry not being on the opening day roster does not change the fact that he contributed when he did arrive. Arguing backwards is not critical thinking when the best players were young guys like you said. If you really want to be a critical thinker and analyze the roster Shaq had you should be looking at what those guys did that year and what they ended up doing the next few years.
It would be clutchcity all over again, only at a whole different level. Go to the most dominant big man in the last 30 years and if teams double Shaq, just dump the ball to the greatest 3pt shooter of all time waiting near the corner, wide open.
exactly, or how sam cassell/kenny smith/vernon maxwell/mario elie don't have to sell out on defense because you have such a dominant shot blocker. remember how good recent rocket teams were with camby, with dalembert, with mutumbo.
