What if we were all wrong, and Kobe was the main reason the Lakers won?

[druggas]

I'll say this, against San Antonio (who we always a roadblock for the Lakers) Kobe was always the finisher. Seemed like Shaq would often run out of gas in the 4th. And, it was always about how the refs were calling the game. Either Shaq was allowed to run over defenders, or he was sitting on the bench in foul trouble.

I'm just glad those two made up and would tell us how they really perceived each other.

[Blacksheep25]

Definitely. Please join our AC Green was da real MVP of Showtime Lakers forum when you get a chance.

[Catchall]

Kobe couldn't lead the Lakers out of the 1st round without an All Star big, whether it was Shaq or Pau. Kobe was a great scorer, who became a better passer as defenses collapsed on him, but no one player can do it all on his own.

[GoodBehavior]

I think both deserve credit equally. Whether one had more impact (than the other) is up for debates. I think the difference (in impact) is much smaller than perceived. What is forgotten in all the debate is how bad the supporting case were. Fisher was their best player besides the duo. Malone had a good run until he was hurt, but really the rest was so underwhelming.

I also thought Bryan'ts supporting case was overrated, and Bryant's ability to make his team better (w/ Phil Jackson's mentorship) is very underrated. Lamar Odom has to be one of the most overrated Lakers in history. Without Bryant, no one would remember him. Pau was nothing to write about outside of Kobe's sphere. I don't think Pau outplayed Howard as common believed. I think the Magics didn't care about Pau and just focused on Byrant. Looking bad, it's surprising how far and well that Laker team went with that roster.

[AussieRules]

They were 1a and 1b. Superman and Batman. Both on equal footing, both alpha males although Kobe was the better leader on and off the court. Shaq was already Shaq when he started playing with Kobe, Kobe had to grow and develop into the unstoppable force he was.

By the time Kobe was ready, the league was in trouble and it took a childish Shaq and incompetent front office to break them up. Kobe never got over Shaq’s bullying when he was just a young pup coming up, by the time Shaq tried to make up for it by becoming Kobe’s #1 fan, it was too late, Kobe was already soaring individually and needed to prove he could achieve the same level of success without his so called “big brother”

[norcocredo]

Long time Lakers season ticket holder and Shaq hater.

Shaq was the key to the 3 peat. There is no argument otherwise. Kobe was extremely important but not the key.

1000% Kobe was the key to the back to back.

[Plossum]

Basketball is a team sport. All this conversation about Shaq or Kobe being the main the reason the Lakers won is inane. The Lakers won that title. Everyone on the team contributed. Some play a bigger role than others but they all have to contribute.

[bbalnation]

He made the NBA finals in 1995 in his 3rd year...

maybe your definition of success is a little different to mine

If it's title or nothing...that's an insane view of success. Basically makes the term meaningless when discussing players. Shaq lost back to back years to the eventual champ on the magic. Making a finals and conference finals. That IS success, it's a LOT of it.

Its a great point, but Penny Hardaway wasn't half bad from what I've heard.

[theforumblue]

Basketball is a team sport. All this conversation about Shaq or Kobe being the main the reason the Lakers won is inane. The Lakers won that title. Everyone on the team contributed. Some play a bigger role than others but they all have to contribute.

Hm..

[_qubik]

He made the NBA finals in 1995 in his 3rd year...

maybe your definition of success is a little different to mine

If it's title or nothing...that's an insane view of success. Basically makes the term meaningless when discussing players. Shaq lost back to back years to the eventual champ on the magic. Making a finals and conference finals. That IS success, it's a LOT of it.

How losing is success ? The only success on NBA is claiming the title, vice champion and worst team have nothing to show

[dhsilv2]

maybe your definition of success is a little different to mine

If it's title or nothing...that's an insane view of success. Basically makes the term meaningless when discussing players. Shaq lost back to back years to the eventual champ on the magic. Making a finals and conference finals. That IS success, it's a LOT of it.

How losing is success ? The only success on NBA is claiming the title, vice champion and worst team have nothing to show

So basically everyone on earth is a massive loser who's never had any success unless they're the absolute best at what they're doing?

[Bash1676]

Shaq played with a ton of all star wings

He didn't achieve success until Kobe/Phil and then with DWade.

Based on that, Shaq needed at least a superstar wing to get him rings, and not just any all star wing.

And not just on the offensive end either, Kobe and Wade were elite defensive players in the one package as well.

And for those that actually knows basketball,the western conference was the final then. Kobe was the mvp for the lakers all through the western conference as shag had the likes of sabonis,Dale davis,Rasheed wallace,Tim Duncan, David Robinson and Co that were good enough to force him to play defense a d also guard him very well and also, enough big man to foul him to force him to go to the free throw line.

The east had most of the Allstars shooting guards to make Kobe earn his keep. Shag was the match up problem then, and in basketball,u have to exploit the match up to your advantage. Shag had the Collin brother(average of 5point a game) and the likes of Mutombo who was a good defensive player but average on offense. Shag was literally coasting on defense and saving his energy on offense. Kobe had Richard jefferson,Jefferson, kittle,Aaron mckey, Eric snow and some dogged defender to put him to work!! Check all the series the lakers lost ,the team that beat them had astounding big man to keep shag in check. San Antonio finally beat d lakers when they got Bruce bowen from Miami to help slow down Kobe!

[lakerz12]

Kobe won 5 championships as either the best or second best player on the team.

That is rare company.

You simply don’t have that kind of success unless you’re having a very high net positive impact on winning.

But some realgm’s limit their analysis to certain analytics and ignore others. How do you quantify leadership, for example? Besides with winning.

[Optms]

Kobe couldn't lead the Lakers out of the 1st round without an All Star big, whether it was Shaq or Pau. Kobe was a great scorer, who became a better passer as defenses collapsed on him, but no one player can do it all on his own.

At least he didn't need a superteam. I see many guys right now playing with All-star bigs who can't do squat.

Kobe + any other All-star = Guaranteed titles

[Tor_Raps]

Kobe fan boys continue to be the most irrational fanbase of all time lol.

[Flash4thewin]

Kobe couldn't lead the Lakers out of the 1st round without an All Star big, whether it was Shaq or Pau. Kobe was a great scorer, who became a better passer as defenses collapsed on him, but no one player can do it all on his own.

At least he didn't need a superteam. I see many guys right now playing with All-star bigs who can't do squat.

Kobe + any other All-star = Guaranteed titles

[The4thHorseman]

Kobe couldn't lead the Lakers out of the 1st round without an All Star big, whether it was Shaq or Pau. Kobe was a great scorer, who became a better passer as defenses collapsed on him, but no one player can do it all on his own.

At least he didn't need a superteam. I see many guys right now playing with All-star bigs who can't do squat.

Kobe + any other All-star = Guaranteed titles

Pau was an All-star, plus All-NBA in 2011 and LA still got swept in the 2nd round.

[thebigbird]

Kobe couldn't lead the Lakers out of the 1st round without an All Star big, whether it was Shaq or Pau. Kobe was a great scorer, who became a better passer as defenses collapsed on him, but no one player can do it all on his own.

At least he didn't need a superteam. I see many guys right now playing with All-star bigs who can't do squat.

Kobe + any other All-star = Guaranteed titles

Pau was an All-star, plus All-NBA in 2011 and LA still got swept in the 2nd round.

Also Dwight was an all-star, plus all-NBA in 2013 and the Lakers were a 7 seed.

[_qubik]

If it's title or nothing...that's an insane view of success. Basically makes the term meaningless when discussing players. Shaq lost back to back years to the eventual champ on the magic. Making a finals and conference finals. That IS success, it's a LOT of it.

How losing is success ? The only success on NBA is claiming the title, vice champion and worst team have nothing to show

So basically everyone on earth is a massive loser who's never had any success unless they're the absolute best at what they're doing?

No, winning is different from being the best. And, our carreers are pretty different than professional players. You have your tasks, if you minimally complete it, its okay, you might not be the best, and you will still get the job done.

Sports are a different case. The objective is winning, if you dont achieve it well you just losing.

[NZB2323]

I think it's pretty clear that in 2000 Shaq was the main reason the Lakers won. If you look at playoff stats from that year:

Shaq: 31, 15, and 3, 56 TS%.
Kobe: 21, 5, and 4, 52 TS%.

And it's clear that in the 2004 Finals, the Lakers lost because of Kobe. Stats from that playoff series:

Shaq: 27, 11, and 2, 63 FG%.
Kobe: 23, 3, and 4, 38 FG%.

Kobe deserves some credit, but Shaq was the main reason they won and Kobe was the main reason they lost.