RealGM

Hey Lakers fan congrats on your recent surge (wish I can say the same for my team) Anyways I'm debating with a friend who hates Kobe for some strange reason SMFH. He claims Lakers been playing better without him, he's a box score whore. I'm curious whats Lakers record this year without Kobe and who did they beat? If possible can you provide there record last year without Kobe as well? Thanks

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but this year I'm pretty sure we've only been without Kobe twice and we won both games but to say that the Lakers are better off without Kobe is insane and not even a topic worth bringing up, the main reason people hate Kobe is that he's awesome and they don't like seeing him own their team.....

had to look it up but 5-2 for last season and this season its only been these last 2 gms (Indy/Sac). Last season was interesting, both Bynum/Pau ppg increased by an avg. of 4 a game but there shooting % shot down quite a bit, Bynum goes from 58% from the field to 46% and Pau goes from 51% to 47%. So yes record speaking and points do reflect haters assumption that we are better w/o Kobe but as shooting % goes down and fg attempts goes up, it shows our players become more inefficient. I'm far from a Kobe fan but I would NEVER say we're better w/o him, w/o him we could still win a decent amt. of regular season games but come playoff time is where it will shut people up. You need elite star power like Kobe to have any serious shot at winning, Den is beasting right now but I bet you come playoff time when games slow down and you need a go to guy, Den wont look as good as they do now.

I agree we are not better without Kobe and it'll become evident once the playoffs start. but we're still trying to find that balance where Kobe can let his guys play freely and still take over the fourth-quarter when need be. And for the most part coach d agrees with me

Yeah I guess the answer is 1-0 without him. He started the one of these first two games. You can't deny the impact of him trying for his team had on the team's effort so you can't exclude him from that win. So 1-0 is the answer. Which was at home, again a bottom 5 team in the nba without their starting center. What an accomplishment.

We are also 16-7 with steve blake

steve blake > kobe ?

Kobe had zero impact on that win against Indiana infact one could argue he had a negative impact. 0-4 from the field, couple turnovers and no defense. also Kobe has never been an inspirational leader so we can throw that out the window. The fact is everybody just plays with a sense of urgency, rhythm and are engaged from the tip. So again we just need Kobe to find that balance so he's not predetermining what's he going to do

Until the lakers play an over .500 team without kobe besides indiana(to assume that was not a fluke) it will be hard to determine if the lakers are better team wise without kobe.

Sent via tapatalk 2

one thing that annoys me most is when these lakers players would go deep into double digits scoring alone making easy open 3p's and they ALL fail to repeat this on a elite team. They seemingly get the same wide open shots but they just never fall.

It was only a matter of days before they write about the lakers record with/without kobe LOL, do this in the playoffs and see what happens when teams really lock in on your offense.

stunnar0b wrote:The fact is everybody just plays with a sense of urgency, rhythm and are engaged from the tip. So again we just need Kobe to find that balance so he's not predetermining what's he going to do

erhm no not really, we just need to play consistent defense. the offense has never been a problem and kobe has never been a problem within the offense no matter what he does. there is no real argument otherwise. regardless the lakers have been playing well above .500 ball since january (winning 70% of their games) and the only thing we really needed was health and howard to play like his old self.

tbh if we had any semblance of perimeter defense we might be serious contenders.

GeneralNash wrote:Until the lakers play an over .500 team without kobe besides indiana(to assume that was not a fluke) it will be hard to determine if the lakers are better team wise without kobe.

Sent via tapatalk 2

there is no argument that could me be made that the lakers are a better team without kobe. even if they go on to win every game while he sits it's meaningless. to think that a team could be better without a top 10-20 player in the league is pretty (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

Doormatt wrote:
tbh if we had any semblance of perimeter defense we might be serious contenders.

no doubt thats why i keep harping for kobe to start the game with defense and ball movement, set the tone. dont let guys you dont respect get into a shooting rhythm. now as far as nash, theres only so much we can get on the guy even after getting destroyed by opposing pg but at the very least he puts in effort on d. where i cant always say the same for kobe. yes i know hes 58 years old and its harder on the legs when you play defense, i hope now he can trust his guys to carry more of the offense so hes not dead tired once we truly need him in the fourth.

but its not like this hasnt been said before so w/e

i dont think it has much to do with effort or energy i just dont think kobe is very good defensively unless the coach focuses him to play team defense.

Really this season it's been 2-1, since Kobe basically had no impact on winning the game he hobbled onto the court and then left. I remember there were alot of comparisons during the Shaq/Kobe years, where one could find data that showed when Kobe missed time, the Lakers did much better than when Shaq missed time, and it wasd just Kobe.

Doormatt wrote:i dont think it has much to do with effort or energy i just dont think kobe is very good defensively unless the coach focuses him to play team defense.

Lakers have lost games because of kobe falling asleep on D or letting his man spot up for three. Nash has also been owned by opposing guards. The difference is kobe is the lack of effort while nash is the lack of quickness. Kobe is more to blame on the defensive end.

Sent via tapatalk 2

Lakers 1-1 w/o Kobe

1 win with Kobe hobbled but played entire 4th quarter.

As far as the Lakers being better w/o Nash/Dwight/Gasol, it really has to do with chemistry and health. The Lakers are better with all players and Gasol taking on a 6th man role.

GeneralNash wrote:

Doormatt wrote:i dont think it has much to do with effort or energy i just dont think kobe is very good defensively unless the coach focuses him to play team defense.

Lakers have lost games because of kobe falling asleep on D or letting his man spot up for three. Nash has also been owned by opposing guards. The difference is kobe is the lack of effort while nash is the lack of quickness. Kobe is more to blame on the defensive end.

Sent via tapatalk 2

It's not a Kobe or Nash problem... It's a Kobe AND Nash, and MWP and Clark and Dwight problem.
There's no team commitment/trust on D. There's no defensive identity. Our offense runs about the same every game, our Defense is all over the map.
Our guys don't commit to D and they don't communicate on D.
The only guys we have who are fundamentally sound on Defense are Dwight and MWP. The rest of the team acts like no one ever showed them how to play D...

It's everyone's fault, but I do tend to agree with Doormatt and put more of the blame on the coaching staff.

Still don't think you can count the Indiana game as a game the Lakes won without kobe if he started that game. Doesn't matter what his impact is. Can I look at fg% and subtract shots that were full court shots because they were harder to make? Interpretation of stats is one thing, but if you are gonna post a stat, you can't bend it. Otherwise all stats would be adjusted for garbage time stats which also have no impact on the result of the game, yet garbage time stats are considered, say, in Kareem's career averages. If Kobe sits out a game but helps coach the team to a victory, because he had a positive impact on the game can it then be considered a win with kobe in the lineup? Feel free to interpret the stat all you want and discuss it, but you can't pre adjust a stat with interpretation built into it, that's a huge no no.

Truth is we could never truly 100% for sure know whether lakers would have won the game or not if kobe played zero minutes, therefore it's not right to count it. You can't prove that kobe's play didnt inspire the team. It's true you can't prove that it did also, but burden of proof lies on the person trying to change the facts here which is that Lakers won the game with kobe starting and playing some minutes.

If you really want, just post a stat with "Lakers record with kobe playing 5 or less minutes" or something.

Your right, I'm just going off the eye test, and being how we were down double digits in the first with Kobe playing didn't bode to well for him. It wasn't until metta Ron peace started knocking down threes that got us out of the hole. so to say the Lakers would've won that game without him is a little Kobe hate on my part. But to me it sent the message that Kobe didnt trust his guys to compete and win a road game without him, and we clearly saw that wasn't the case.

I swear after watching Kobe the last 13 years I still haven't figured that cat out. yeah I know he'll do anything to win it just seem like sometimes he means well he just don't know well. And It goes back to round peg square hole