Kobe without Shaq

Think Robin w/o Batman.
Kobe would avgerage 32 a game.

 

He'd be the same dominant player. He doesn't feed off of Shaq in any way. You don't see Kobe spotting up for 3s, or Kobe cutting to the basket scoring off of a Shaq double team. Kobe scores his points on his own.

With that being said, obviously, the Lakers wouldn't be as good without Shaq. But, you have to remember if there's no Shaq, LA probably has an adequate player to put alongside Kobe. There is no player in the NBA, other than MAYBE Shaq, who could really be a one-man team who you build your entire team around. Although the Cat will say the Spurs can with Duncan only.

Kobe alone is probably the 2nd best player in the NBA after Shaq. Of course, Duncan could be the 2nd best player in the NBA. At the very least, Kobe is the best non-big man in the NBA.

 

They already did. Robinson was a good player, but hardly a star. His production that season was similar to that of Otis Thorpe in 93-94. Excluding Hakeem, who needs to retire, Duncan's the only active player who has successfully been the only true star on a championship team.

If you compare the talent around Tim Duncan to that around Shaquille O'Neal and Chris Webber (and compare the record of the three teams), you'll see just how remarkably important that one man is.

 

The Cat-I meant a one-man team in the sense that one man can win a title alone. Duncan is probably most valuable to his team, I don't dispute that at all. What I wonder is if SA will ever win with JUST Duncan. I don't think Duncan alone can win a title, though you say he did in 99.

I will say Olajuwon won it alone in 93-94, but were they the best team that year? Sea and Chi (if they had MJ) would beg to differ.

All in all, there is no player right now who can win a title alone. Duncan losing to Kobe and Shaq proves that.

 

Kidrock, Kobe may still be a dominant player without Shaq, but he wouldn't have 3 rings. It's tru that Kobe does not directly feed off Shaq. However, having the most dominant player in the game on your team takes off a lot of pressure and gives you a lot more opportunities to be successful. Whenever anybody is playing the lakers, prioroty #1 is trying to figure out how to stop Shaq. Without him, defenses could key in on Kobe like do do on AI, Vince, TMac and the other great 2 guards in the league. IMO, without Shaq, Kobe would still be putting up numbers, but he wouldn't be nearly as dominant.

 

Kobe would be every bit as dominant. I already admitted in my 1st post that Kobe wouldn't have rings without Shaq. But you have to remember that if LA doesn't have Shaq, they have someone else significant to go alongside Kobe.

Also, Kobe would still fare better than AI or T-Mac if defenses could focus more on him. Your point that they can't focus much on him because of Shaq really holds no weight, as Kobe isn't the on-court beneficiary of Shaq. If anything, Shaq clogs the lane, which prevents Kobe space to take it to the rack more often. Your argument would hold weight if Kobe were the beneficiary of nailing open 3s created by Shaq, or off of cuts to the baskets off of a Shaq double team.

Kobe is a one-on-one player, not some role player. Teams don't double team Kobe, because he's the best guard in the league at exploiting double teams. I can't remember how many times Kobe has split 2 defenders, to find an open shooter for a 3, or Shaq for a dunk.

If anything, Shaq gets more help from Kobe than Kobe does from Shaq. There are at least 5 plays a game where Kobe drives and dishes to Shaq for a dunk/layup attempt, or where Shaq draws a foul.

 

IMO, Bryant will likely be the best player in the NBA in 5 years. You never know, James or Ming might be all their hyped up to be... but Bryant has the physical ability and work ethic and intuition to be MJ II. The similarities in how they play are almost uncanny, imo. Of course, it's highly likely Bryant modelled his game, which might explain it .

Bryant, however, probably couldn't win a championship on his own any more than Jordan could. But I bet he could take a team of good role players all the way.

As kidrock mentioned, Kobe isn't a spot-up shooter. I don't think his #'s are inflated at all because of Shaq - they're probably a bit lower from having to be the 2nd option, and Shaq's presence in the lane.

I think the Lakers are going to undergo a transition in 2-3 years from being Shaq's team to being Kobe's team. It'll be interesting to see whether an aging Shaq can handle it. Or if Bryant can do it gracefully.

 

Haven- The Lakers have set themselves up to replace Shaq very well. As we all know the Lakers owner doesn't want the payroll to be over the lux tax of what, like 55 mill or so? If you take Shaq's payroll of of the Lakers, they have enough money to add somebody significant to replace Shaq. Obviously, if Shaq retired right now, there's no suitable replacement. But, a Shaq 2-3 years down the road, will be more replaceable.

The Lakers have been wise in only putting their big money on Shaq and Kobe. So that when they lose Shaq, they will be in great cap shape to replace him.

BTW, Shaq makes like 25-30 mill/year.

 

without shaq l.a would be like the magic.

 

Granted, Kobe wouldn't have won 3 rings without Shaq. On the other hand, Shaq wouldn't have won 3 rings without Kobe too. Substituting Kobe with another player with similar stats wouldn't make the Lakers win it all.

First of all, Kobe is a special player, Kobe and Shaq fed off each other. Second, Shaq didn't win jack with Penny, NVE and Eddie Jones. Third, Kobe saved Lakers ass with his clutchness numerous times in their championship run. Stats can be duplicated, clutch performences can't be copied. To say that Eddie Johnson shouldn't be credited for his last second shot against Utah because Dell Curry can do the same as a better 3 point shooter is way off base. Similarly, the argument of replacing Kobe with McGrady can also make the Lakers as successful as they are is also false. Even McGrady's got a lil higher stats, it's hard to say that he can hit so many last second shots as Kobe did, or makes his teammates better than Kobe does.

I bet the Kobe haters would cry if it's required to have Kobe as a Rocket, although they would vehemently deny it for sure.

 

T-Mac isn't even in Kobe's league. If anyone thinks that T-Mac and Kobe are interchangable, have been smoking out with Mo Taylor and Moochie Norris.

Offensively, they are somewhat similar, except for the fact that Kobe has hit more "nail in the coffin" shots than T-Mac ever has. As well as the fact that Kobe has a go-to shot in his fadeaway jumper. I'm not sure T-Mac has a trademark shot that he can get off when he must get a bucket.

Defensively, there's no comparison. Kobe is 3X's the defender T-Mac is. T-Mac plays great defense at times (against Big Dog in the 01 playoffs), but more often than not he doesn't show up on defense. Kobe brings his defensive effort every night.

 

Kobe 3 times better than T-Mac on D?

Kobe: 5.5 rpg, 1.48 steals, .44 blocks
T-Mac: 6.4 rpg, 1.23 steals, 1.36 blocks

T. Mac's numbers are better, and he does not have the game's best center to rely on. I would say you are just a lil bias kidrock.....

 

If you only need 1 reason to take Kobe over McGrady...this is it...

McGrady has the same back problems that David Robinson, Larry Bird, and numerous other veterans had at the end of their careers. In fact it was the back problem that pretty much forced the retirement of many players. And Mcgrady is how old? 21 or 22...That doesnt bode well for his future...I see him missing 15 games a season at least the rest of his career due to his back.

Nobody has ever come back from thsi type of back injury. Ive seen players liek baron Davis come back from ACL's...but the bad back...is a bad thing...Any of you older guys might know what i mean....

 

I find it funny that you think statistics make up how good of a defender a player is. Looking at Steve Francis' "defensive stats" makes him look like one of the best defenders in the NBA. I was not aware that by grabbing rebounds meant you played good man to man defense. Steals is also very misleading, as Francis, Iverson, and numerous poor defenders rack up a lot of steals.

I am saying that Kobe is a better defensive stopper than T-Mac. Kobe does not get credit for a rebound or a steal, when he forces his man to give the ball up, or to shoot a bad shot.

What I am saying has nothing to do with statistics, and everything to do with analysis.

 

Yes, "DEFENSIVE STATISTICS" help when assessing whether a player is a good defender. When I claim that Hakeem Olajuwon was a great defender, my argument is strengthened when I point out that he is tha all-time leader in blocked shots.

When a player get's a defensive rebound, he is keeping the ball away from the opposition. In other words, he is helping to prevent them from scoring, because you can't score without the ball. There is more to D than man-to-man D, such as team D, defensive rebounds, etc.

My analysis is that T-Mac's DEFENSIVE STATISTICS are better than Kobe's even though he does not have a center to rely on. In case you didn't know, centers usually help to make perimiter players better defenders because they can play up closer on their man, due to them knowing that they have extra support if their man drives by them.

I never said T-Mac was a better defender, even though I think he is (remember, Kobe's post D SUCKS......it's just that teams rarely get to post him due to Shaq). But to say that he is 3 times the defender that T-Mac is when T-Mac's defensive stats are better is a silly statement.

 

Kobe would still be a great player, but he's no Yao Ming.