2012NadalShadow wrote:Also, people on here seem to have a selective memory on Shaq and how close the Lakers were to losing in 2000 and 2002.
in game 7 of the 2000 WCF against the Blazers, Shaq only had 9 points entering the 4th quarter. The blazers had basically shut him down. If Brian Shaw doesn't hit those threes and the Blazers don't end up missing 12 straight shots, the Lakers would have lost. Shaq game 7 performance would have gone down as one of the worst collapse an MVP ever had in playoffs history.
In 2002, the Lakers were not more talented than the Kings. The Lakers needed to come back from 24 points down in game 4, had questionable officiating in game 6, and needed the Kings to miss 16 free throws and a wide open Peja 3 near the end of regulation just to beat the Kings.
As great as Shaq was from 2000-2002, he needed a lot of help especially in the 2000 and 2002 WCF to get past the Blazers and Kings.
Yea, seriously, Shaq is great, dominant player, but he had series where he was contained (relative to his regular abilities), he had games where he couldn't get going as much on offense, his team was getting swept before Kobe developed, some people talk about the Lakers as if Shaq was just carrying everyone else for the ride. Yes, they are contenders with any other top guard, duh, of course, but to say they just win as much with players who can't bring as much to the table as Kobe when the Lakers had series that they legitimately could have lost, and where they were mere moments away from losing, that just makes no sense. They only season they steamrolled through everyone was 2001, which is the year I can certainly say they would still with AI.
I think some people take the fact that Shaq was extremely advantaged matchup wise in the finals and dominated extra in those series with how every series before the finals must also have been.
Sign5 wrote: og15 wrote:
Sign5 wrote:They get AT LEAST 2, I'm certain of that. Shaq was that dominant to cover the gap between Kobe and AI (which isn't THAT sizable to begin with).
I don't know, the gap is pretty decent, Kobe was better on both ends, and it's not like they walked to championships. As dominant as Shaq was, he was getting first round exits before Kobe developed. How good is AI in the triangle? However good that is, is he as good as Kobe? Don't think anyone argues "yes". Then defensively, Kobe's contributions there was part of what put the Lakers over the edge in series', and AI just can't give you that, he's not anywhere as good defensively, and he makes you smaller in the backcourt.
Can AI get them over the hump vs the Blazers and the Kings? I'd say with AI they get one, but certainly not three.
Then with the Gasol teams, they aren't getting anything championships with AI instead of Kobe.
The gap is almost all on defense but Lakers role players were pretty stout overall that he could be covered. Scoring and facilitating-wise, Kobe wouldn't be as missed.
Gotta love the notion that Iverson was a bigger ball hog when he had several paltry scoring options throughout his career. Meanwhile Kobe garnered that label WITH arguably the most dominant player ever.
I can see they them struggling against a team like the Kings but I genuinely believe Shaq drags them to 2.
They win 0 with Gasol for sure.
I don't know where AI being a ball hog was in my post. My question is whether based on his specific skill set vs Kobe's and based on his playstyle, Iverson is as good as Kobe in the triangle. I don't believe he is, but that doesn't mean he would be bad, just not as good as Kobe was.
Phil was not meleable with the triangle, he wouldn't instill an offense that maximized Iverson, he would have Iverson playing in the triangle, because he was very rigid about the triangle being the best thing ever.
I'd give them 1 at a minimum and then 50/50 chance on a second one, but a definite no on getting three, Kobe's defensive advantage was critical in finishing some series' on the road to thne finals, and I can't just conclude that very close series' are all still won.