Does Giannis surpass players like Pippen, Barkley, Kobe, Ewing with a second ring?

[Sgt Major]

I like Pau but he is not that much better than Brook Lopez.

The **** did I just read??? Are you aware who Pau Gasol was as a player?

[cupcakesnake]

I really wish (some) Kobe fans would drop the schtick of taking a dump on every player Kobe played with. Ask yourself why you view Pau and Odom differently than everyone else. They were good and that's not a threat to your guy. Everyone who ever won a championship had really good teammates. Kobe having them too doesn't hurt him.

Its not about whether Pau is a threat to Kobe (he isnt). Its the inconsistencies and double standards being used in said arguments. For example, the narrative that Pau deserved the 2010 FMVP which floats around here quite often is disingenuous at best considering how everyone but Bean disappeared in games 3-5 at Boston and there was discussion on whether or not Bean would be the first FMVP on a losing team since Jerry West.

For comparison purposes that LAL1987 did, is the Kobe/Pau/Odom trio clearly superior to any of KG/Pierce/Allen, Lebron/Wade/Bosh, Lebron/Kyrie/Love, Durant/Curry/Klay, Duncan/Manu/Parker, Giannis/Middleton/Jrue, Durant/Harden/Kyrie, Lebron/Davis/Westbrook?

So why is that only the typical realgm whipping boys get continuously slandered for who they play with, yet the others are exempt? Nobody is taking a dump on Pau, but this is the equivalent of saying Wade drove the bus when the Heatles won titles! C'mon man.

Yeah you're pushing back on a bunch of points I never made in this thread. You're arguing with other people here and my post wasn't an endorsement of those views, rather one specific point about the clear motivations of some Kobe fans that I keep seeing over the years (and yes in this thread).

I don't agree that the supporting cast of the 2008-2010 Lakers stands out as weaker than average. You can weigh the quality of the names in any subjective manner you want. I look at those Lakers and see a team that had a major size advantage. Top 5 rebounding team on both ends. Excellent paint protection team. Low turnover team due to running plenty of offense out of the high post with very good passers. Putting lineups out there with combinations of Gasol, Odom, World Peace, Bynum just allowed them to play massive at all-time around Kobe's devastating shot making. All of this was on display in the 2010 championship when the Lakers were able to bully Boston on the boards as a way to gain an advantage while Boston's defense was disrupting LA's preferred offensive strategies.

If you don't recognize the greatness of the 2010 LA team (with Kobe as their best player), we just disagree. If you don't think Gasol had a good finals and deserves to have a few random message board posters giving him some credit... so be it! The numbers support Kobe or Gasol as being deserving of FMVP consideration. I'm glad it went Kobe mostly because I wish the FMVP was a playoff MVP, but I wouldn't be like AGAST if Gasol got it, especially not in a world where FMVP has gone to Billups, Parker, Iguodala etc. Sometimes the sidekick has a good series that coincides with a shooting slump and there goes the award in a small sample. But Kobe did win and it was well deserved.

I just don't trust the intentions behind the analysis that aims to show Kobe's supporting cast was weak. I think it just smells of boosting Kobe's legacy at the expense of whoever stands in the way. Kobe is a great great great player regardless of how good Pau, Odom, Artest were. Great teams win championships and those LA Lakers were a great team. If you want all the credit to go to one player, follow tennis.

[battifole]

I really wish (some) Kobe fans would drop the schtick of taking a dump on every player Kobe played with. Ask yourself why you view Pau and Odom differently than everyone else. They were good and that's not a threat to your guy. Everyone who ever won a championship had really good teammates. Kobe having them too doesn't hurt him.

Its not about whether Pau is a threat to Kobe (he isnt). Its the inconsistencies and double standards being used in said arguments. For example, the narrative that Pau deserved the 2010 FMVP which floats around here quite often is disingenuous at best considering how everyone but Bean disappeared in games 3-5 at Boston and there was discussion on whether or not Bean would be the first FMVP on a losing team since Jerry West.

For comparison purposes that LAL1987 did, is the Kobe/Pau/Odom trio clearly superior to any of KG/Pierce/Allen, Lebron/Wade/Bosh, Lebron/Kyrie/Love, Durant/Curry/Klay, Duncan/Manu/Parker, Giannis/Middleton/Jrue, Durant/Harden/Kyrie, Lebron/Davis/Westbrook?

So why is that only the typical realgm whipping boys get continuously slandered for who they play with, yet the others are exempt? Nobody is taking a dump on Pau, but this is the equivalent of saying Wade drove the bus when the Heatles won titles! C'mon man.

Yeah you're pushing back on a bunch of points I never made in this thread. You're arguing with other people here and my post wasn't an endorsement of those views, rather one specific point about the clear motivations of some Kobe fans that I keep seeing over the years (and yes in this thread).

I don't agree that the supporting cast of the 2008-2010 Lakers stands out as weaker than average. You can weigh the quality of the names in any subjective manner you want. I look at those Lakers and see a team that had a major size advantage. Top 5 rebounding team on both ends. Excellent paint protection team. Low turnover team due to running plenty of offense out of the high post with very good passers. Putting lineups out there with combinations of Gasol, Odom, World Peace, Bynum just allowed them to play massive at all-time around Kobe's devastating shot making. All of this was on display in the 2010 championship when the Lakers were able to bully Boston on the boards as a way to gain an advantage while Boston's defense was disrupting LA's preferred offensive strategies.

If you don't recognize the greatness of the 2010 LA team (with Kobe as their best player), we just disagree. If you don't think Gasol had a good finals and deserves to have a few random message board posters giving him some credit... so be it! The numbers support Kobe or Gasol as being deserving of FMVP consideration. I'm glad it went Kobe mostly because I wish the FMVP was a playoff MVP, but I wouldn't be like AGAST if Gasol got it, especially not in a world where FMVP has gone to Billups, Parker, Iguodala etc. Sometimes the sidekick has a good series that coincides with a shooting slump and there goes the award in a small sample. But Kobe did win and it was well deserved.

I just don't trust the intentions behind the analysis that aims to show Kobe's supporting cast was weak. I think it just smells of boosting Kobe's legacy at the expense of whoever stands in the way. Kobe is a great great great player regardless of how good Pau, Odom, Artest were. Great teams win championships and those LA Lakers were a great team. If you want all the credit to go to one player, follow tennis.

I dont think his supporting cast was weak either. All things considered, Boston's trio was on the same level or better if we're being honest. But those Laker squads in terms of talent also werent superior to that of other players in subsequent teams that won multiple championships during his era or after (Duncan Spurs, Curry/KD Warriors, Lebron's Heat/Cavaliers). Basketball at the end of the day is still a team game and I dont believe the conclusion youve drawn about me is remotely accurate. The PC board never has the 2008-2010 Laker teams amongst the greatest teams of all time discussion - if anything I think those Laker TEAMs dont get enough respect.

I think Pau was the perfect number 2, and can at times score at the level of a true number 1. Look at the Finals stats - Pau was a clear number 2, moreso than that of Curry to KD, or even Kyrie to Lebron. If anyone was to argue Kyrie should be considered 2016 FMVP (and he had a GREAT series, and actually performed better for the Cavs than Pau did for the Lakers, clearly outplaying anyone on GSW including Curry or Green), you'd be laughed out of the forum here. Let's call it for what it is - we all know realgm plays favorites and certain stars will always be slandered, while others will be given the benefit of the doubt like it was a one man show in 2016 even tho it was a 1/1a dynamic on an iso heavy Cavs team.

[cupcakesnake]

I really wish (some) Kobe fans would drop the schtick of taking a dump on every player Kobe played with. Ask yourself why you view Pau and Odom differently than everyone else. They were good and that's not a threat to your guy. Everyone who ever won a championship had really good teammates. Kobe having them too doesn't hurt him.

The point AussieRules is trying to make is that while Pau Gasol was a really good player, he is not as good as some pretend... and he's right about that. (See my reply below to FluLikeSymptoms.)

Giannis vs Kobe
Middleton vs Pau
Jrue vs Odom
Portis vs Artest
BroLo vs Bynum
PJ Tucker vs Derek Fisher
DiVincenzo vs Luke Walton
Connaughton vs Shannon Brown

This isn't really how basketball works though. These players don't have set values that we can face off in a series of individual weigh ins. Players have different values on different teams based on the strengths. Pau as a post-hub in the triangle offense was just a better player than Memphis post-up Pau was. The system highlighted his passing strengths in a new way. Odom was a better player in Miami where he got to be more of a point-forward in the starting lineup, but LA still had a role that made good use of his skills. Not sure how Portis ever got into a conversation with Artest, who was pretty garbage offensively in LA but still one of the NBA's very best defensive forwards. Divencenzo didn't play in those playoffs.

In general I find this: He was our #3, this guy was our #4... is not high-quality analysis. Team offense and defense is more complicated than that, and slotting guys into a singular hierarchy, usually based on individual scoring, doesn't help us understand why a player or a team was good or great or bad. Guys have roles. How do you rank a team's primary wing defender vs. their best rebounder vs. their best shooter, for example. There's no question that Kobe, and then Pau were the teams primary offensive options. But that doesn't help us understand that team very much.

When Giannis was out injured for games against Atlanta in the playoffs last season, who stepped up to help Milwaukee beat them? That's right, 32-year old Brolo, with 30+ points as a floor-spacing Center.

If Kobe ever missed any of our playoff-deciding games back then, what do you think would have happened? Do you think Pau, Odom, Artest, Bynum, Derek Fisher, etc would have lead us to victory in a Conference Semi-final series... or would we have gotten dumped out on our asses?

If I'm picking a guy more likely to drop 30 points on the Atlanta Hawks in the playoffs, yes I'll take prime-Pau over a 33-year old Brook Lopez. How could this possibly be an advantage for Brook. I love Brook Lopez, but he's not the better #1 scoring option. Maybe you're not scaling for opponent?

Look regardless of all these little points, I know you're a huge Kobe fan. You talk about lots of other stuff too, and you're smart about basketball. But in Kobe discussions, imo you argue backwards. Your conclusion is already: Kobe is the greatest (or you know, he's a top 3-10 player or whatever, however great you think he is) and any argument you make pre-assumes the conclusion. I know you feel a responsibility to support your guy and push back on an anti-Kobe narratives. There are plenty of bad Kobe narratives that require push back on. But I think you'll go hard no matter what. You're not the most biased fan I've met, but you do very much want the conclusion of the argument to be: kobe is great and underrated.

[tsherkin]

Look regardless of all these little points, I know you're a huge Kobe fan. You talk about lots of other stuff too, and you're smart about basketball. But in Kobe discussions, imo you argue backwards. Your conclusion is already: Kobe is the greatest (or you know, he's a top 3-10 player or whatever, however great you think he is) and any argument you make pre-assumes the conclusion. I know you feel a responsibility to support your guy and push back on an anti-Kobe narratives. There are plenty of bad Kobe narratives that require push back on. But I think you'll go hard no matter what. You're not the most biased fan I've met, but you do very much want the conclusion of the argument to be: kobe is great and underrated.

These are the words I have been looking for...

[khufure]

is peak Giannis more valuable than peak Kobe? did we see peak Giannis yet? they play different positions in different eras its like apples & oranges. Giannis had a really really good 2021 & 2022 run though, especially obviously 2021. 35/13/5 with great defense and final MVP. Kobe in 2009 finals 32.4 / 5.6 / 7.4 (edit also finals MVP with defense!). it's not an out-of-this-world conversation like super Kobe fans are making...

[CobraCommander]

I think Giannis has already surpassed all those guys - MVPs and best player on a championship team kinda trumps damn near anything but someone doing those two things more often than the next man

[An Unbiased Fan]

How does a thread where Kobe gets lumped in with Ewing, Pippen, and his 2010 title disregarded. Become about "Kobe fans"???

The 09 & 10 supporting casts were weak. No diss to the players, but they clearly were. Artest was washed, Odom on drugs and never was all-star caliber, Fisher was useless on defense, Bynum was always hurt. Pau was a solid #2 on offense but had defensive lapses, and wasn't a great rebounder

[An Unbiased Fan]

is peak Giannis more valuable than peak Kobe? did we see peak Giannis yet? they play different positions in different eras its like apples & oranges. Giannis had a really really good 2021 & 2022 run though, especially obviously 2021. 35/13/5 with great defense and final MVP. Kobe in 2009 finals 32.4 / 5.6 / 7.4 (edit also finals MVP with defense!). it's not an out-of-this-world conversation like super Kobe fans are making...

Using this logic how does Giannis compare to MJ? Nearly all of this stat lines in the Finals is around the same outside of 93'.

Kobe went to three straight finals in the West with two separate casts, and it the only player other than Russell and MJ to have two sets of back 2 backs. He's also 3rd to those two in championship percentage on quality squads. Giannis has contenders how many years? And how many rings to show for it?

[tsherkin]

How does a thread where Kobe gets lumped in with Ewing, Pippen, and his 2010 title disregarded. Become about "Kobe fans"???

Same tired arguments being repeated without regard for context or detail, mostly. Kobe fans are absolutely right to wonder why Kobe is being lumped in with that group, but then they (those posters specifically, not Kobe fans in general) lose it when the actual discuss certain elements of the comparisons.

The 09 & 10 supporting casts were weak. No diss to the players, but they clearly were.

Compared to what? They had a big playmaking forward who could handle and post. Off-court issues aside, he played well. Pau was hilariously effective for the Lakers and made an immediate, MAJOR impact in their team success upon his arrival. Ariza/Artest depending on the year were effective in their roles. Fisher had his utility, though of course was no All-Star or 6MOY or anything, just a wily veteran with pros and cons of his own. Bynum was routinely hurt but was there for 23 postseason games both years.

This is the kind of argument where people end up getting weary with Kobe fans, the hyperbole. They didn't have a super team, this is true. They had a pretty good team whose parts fit reasonably well together.

Artest was washed, Odom on drugs and never was all-star caliber, Fisher was useless on defense, Bynum was always hurt. Pau was a solid #2 on offense but had defensive lapses, and wasn't a great rebounder

He was a 9.3, 10.8 and 11.1 rpg player for the Lakers from 08-10 in the playoffs. His rebounding was critical for them. Yeah, he wasn't Rodman, so maybe you mean he wasn't an All-Time Great rebounder? But also consider that he had a strong rebounding wing, and that they had Odom. In 08, Odom averaged 10.6 rpg, then in 09 he averaged 8.2 (mostly from the bench) and in 10, he posted 9.8 (again, mostly from the bench). Lakers were 19th and 18th in offensive and defensive rebounding in 2008 (Pau playing only a quarter of the season or so for them). In 09, they were the third-best offensive rebounding team in the league (and 18th in DRB). In 2010, 7th and 9th. Pau made a clear and LARGE impact on their team rebounding.

[Down3223]

Check out their career numbers. Brook actually has better numbers per36. I’m not saying Brook is the better player, Pau is better but not by a wide margin, the margin is very slim to be frank.

Brook is actually the 4th best player on the Bucks, that’s how ridiculously stacked Milwaukee is. Kobe did more with less.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?player_id2=gasolpa01&player_id1=lopezbr01&sum=0&request=1

As one of the larger Brook supporters on RealGM. Wtf are you talking about? You're really going to sit there and use career PPG as an argument with a straight face?

Well, I agree that Pau was better than BroLo, but you are making it seem like BroLo was a scrub or something.

Here's a Giannis vs BroLo "battle", since we're going down memory lane.

Watch on YouTube

Lopez is solid as a role player but Gasol before he even played with Kobe, was leading teams to 50 wins in the West back when it was loaded with elite PF's. Gasol is a tier above Lopez lol.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Compared to what? They had a big playmaking forward who could handle and post. Off-court issues aside, he played well. Pau was hilariously effective for the Lakers and made an immediate, MAJOR impact in their team success upon his arrival. Ariza/Artest depending on the year were effective in their roles. Fisher had his utility, though of course was no All-Star or 6MOY or anything, just a wily veteran with pros and cons of his own. Bynum was routinely hurt but was there for 23 postseason games both years.

This is the kind of argument where people end up getting weary with Kobe fans, the hyperbole. They didn't have a super team, this is true. They had a pretty good team whose parts fit reasonably well together.

I agree with you that they had a team where the parts fit reasonably well, but again they weren't a strong cast. Fisher was a PG with no defense, and no playmaking. In 2010 his TS% was sub 50%. Odom was a nice utility guy, but wildly unreliable form game to game. Ariza was coming into his own but was young in 09. Artest conversely was washed in 2010. Bynum was always hurt, and playing limited.

And Pau's numbers jump paying WITH Kobe. Because Kobe's style for a big is like a dominant center's impact on 3pt shooters. Pau had only 1 all-star game and no All-NBA teams pre-Kobe. And while a nice #2 option, he was never a 20+ scorer, and not a great defender or rebounder. He did pass well.

Compared to other title teams, that cast was weak, and yet still won back 2 back rings.

Artest was washed, Odom on drugs and never was all-star caliber, Fisher was useless on defense, Bynum was always hurt. Pau was a solid #2 on offense but had defensive lapses, and wasn't a great rebounder

He was a 9.3, 10.8 and 11.1 rpg player for the Lakers from 08-10 in the playoffs. His rebounding was critical for them. Yeah, he wasn't Rodman, so maybe you mean he wasn't an All-Time Great rebounder? But also consider that he had a strong rebounding wing, and that they had Odom. In 08, Odom averaged 10.6 rpg, then in 09 he averaged 8.2 (mostly from the bench) and in 10, he posted 9.8 (again, mostly from the bench). Lakers were 19th and 18th in offensive and defensive rebounding in 2008 (Pau playing only a quarter of the season or so for them). In 09, they were the third-best offensive rebounding team in the league (and 18th in DRB). In 2010, 7th and 9th. Pau made a clear and LARGE impact on their team rebounding.

Well again, I said Pau wasn't a great rebounder, not that he was bad at it. Many games his rebounding WAS an issue. As was his defense at times. Odom was a good rebounder at his position, as was Kobe at SG, but largely they needed to be because Pau wasn't controlling the boards. And LA was #4 in rebounding in 2008(despite all the injuries), and #12 in 2007.

[dhsilv2]

I like Pau but he is not that much better than Brook Lopez..

Check out their career numbers. Brook actually has better numbers per36. I’m not saying Brook is the better player, Pau is better but not by a wide margin, the margin is very slim to be frank.

Brook is actually the 4th best player on the Bucks, that’s how ridiculously stacked Milwaukee is. Kobe did more with less.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?player_id2=gasolpa01&player_id1=lopezbr01&sum=0&request=1

*scrolls through stats*

stats say Pau's career value is 100% more than Brooks.

Why did you post that?

[tsherkin]

I agree with you that they had a team where the parts fit reasonably well, but again they weren't a strong cast. Fisher was a PG with no defense, and no playmaking.

Attacking Fisher's playmaking in the context of the triangle is non-sensical. He wasn't there to drive playmaking, that's what Kobe and Odom were for, and actually Pau as a passing hub. Fisher was there for veteran leadership and some 3pt shooting. He fit into the Paxson/Kerr role. He played 31.6, 28.9 and 32.8 mpg in those postseasons, and averaged 9.5 ppg, and 35.4% 3pt on 2.9 3PA/g. He did what he was there for.

In 2010 his TS% was sub 50%.

Of course it was, he took 7.4 FGA/g and 2.9 of them were 3s, and he drew 2.5 FTA/g in the playoffs while shooting 48.1% inside the arc. He was never going to be hella efficient, he was there for spacing and triangle knowledge.

Odom was a nice utility guy, but wildly unreliable form game to game. Ariza was coming into his own but was young in 09. Artest conversely was washed in 2010. Bynum was always hurt, and playing limited.

You're reaching pretty hard at this point to wash the cast. They weren't all All-Stars, only Pau was. But the pieces fit and did what they were designed to do. The Lakers crushed it in the regular season for a reason, and made three deep playoff runs because the cast was a good fit around its main star. You're working too hard to denigrate them in order to prop up Kobe.

And Pau's numbers jump paying WITH Kobe. Because Kobe's style for a big is like a dominant center's impact on 3pt shooters. Pau had only 1 all-star game and no All-NBA teams pre-Kobe. And while a nice #2 option, he was never a 20+ scorer, and not a great defender or rebounder. He did pass well.

Crapping on Pau isn't a help. He was an All-Star caliber player. He was not a sensible primary scoring option. Playing in the triangle with some decent spacing and a key focal offensive player was great because he wasn't asked to create everything for himself.

Compared to other title teams, that cast was weak, and yet still won back 2 back rings.

Which title teams? Certainly not the 2011 Mavs or the 2003 Spurs or the 94 Rockets. Or a lot of the teams from the 70s. Wasn't even that much of a stunner compared to the 06 Heat. The Lakers were very good. Teams don't make that many consecutive Finals appearances without being good. Yeah, LA wasn't a super team. In no way were those teams so good that they somehow diminish what Kobe accomplished leading those teams into the Finals (and winning rings), though I think it's a dumb argument to begin with to crap on team quality when that's actually a major goal for every franchise. In any case, it's inappropriate and inaccurate to try and tear the team down beneath its actual level of value. As a unit, they were a very, very effective team. They started winning at a 65-win pace once Pau started to play, then actually did it in 2009. Losing Ariza sucked, particularly replacing him with Artest, and obviously Kobe's health in 2010 wasn't as good, and Pau was even less healthy... and they still won 57 games. None of that really jives with this idea that it was only an okay cast, and certainly their postseason performance reinforces that.

Well again, I said Pau wasn't a great rebounder, not that he was bad at it. Many games his rebounding WAS an issue. As was his defense at times. Odom was a good rebounder at his position, as was Kobe at SG, but largely they needed to be because Pau wasn't controlling the boards. And LA was #4 in rebounding in 2008(despite all the injuries), and #12 in 2007.

I was looking at DRB% and ORB%, for number context. They were 4th in TRB in 2008, but 19th in ORB% and 15th in DRB%, which are better indicators. They were the 6th-fastest team in the league and 6th in FGA, so even with their shooting efficacy, their raw available rebounds were going to be different than other teams. The rate stat is more revealing.

[G35]

How does a thread where Kobe gets lumped in with Ewing, Pippen, and his 2010 title disregarded. Become about "Kobe fans"???

Same tired arguments being repeated without regard for context or detail, mostly. Kobe fans are absolutely right to wonder why Kobe is being lumped in with that group, but then they (those posters specifically, not Kobe fans in general) lose it when the actual discuss certain elements of the comparisons.

The 09 & 10 supporting casts were weak. No diss to the players, but they clearly were.

Compared to what? They had a big playmaking forward who could handle and post. Off-court issues aside, he played well. Pau was hilariously effective for the Lakers and made an immediate, MAJOR impact in their team success upon his arrival. Ariza/Artest depending on the year were effective in their roles. Fisher had his utility, though of course was no All-Star or 6MOY or anything, just a wily veteran with pros and cons of his own. Bynum was routinely hurt but was there for 23 postseason games both years.

This is the kind of argument where people end up getting weary with Kobe fans, the hyperbole. They didn't have a super team, this is true. They had a pretty good team whose parts fit reasonably well together.

Artest was washed, Odom on drugs and never was all-star caliber, Fisher was useless on defense, Bynum was always hurt. Pau was a solid #2 on offense but had defensive lapses, and wasn't a great rebounder

He was a 9.3, 10.8 and 11.1 rpg player for the Lakers from 08-10 in the playoffs. His rebounding was critical for them. Yeah, he wasn't Rodman, so maybe you mean he wasn't an All-Time Great rebounder? But also consider that he had a strong rebounding wing, and that they had Odom. In 08, Odom averaged 10.6 rpg, then in 09 he averaged 8.2 (mostly from the bench) and in 10, he posted 9.8 (again, mostly from the bench). Lakers were 19th and 18th in offensive and defensive rebounding in 2008 (Pau playing only a quarter of the season or so for them). In 09, they were the third-best offensive rebounding team in the league (and 18th in DRB). In 2010, 7th and 9th. Pau made a clear and LARGE impact on their team rebounding.

I am big Kobe fan and I do think he gets underrated by some other insecure fanbases. But that's the way fanbases are...we all want our guy to be praised and reject all criticism.

But the line I would like to point out is how Pau was not seen as a top 10-15 player when he was with Memphis. Pau did come to LA and he became highly effective, had his best years and was an All NBA player.

A comparison I would make to give some context is this:

When Durant joined the Warriors he made an immediate impact and the team won b2b titles. But many people felt Curry was a better player NOT because of stats but because of some intangible called "gravity". But you may not remember, but I remember when people called BS on the term "Kobe assists".

https://grantland.com/features/how-kobe-bryant-missed-shots-translate-new-nba-statistic-kobe-assist/

Many people don't even want to give Durant credit for how he played in the finals, outplaying Lebron and getting FMVP twice. Why? Because the Warriors team made everything easier for KD. Why don't other fanbases give Kobe that credit? Why doesn't Kobe get credit for making it work to the tune of going to the finals, when Pau joined the team midseason. You would think with all these super team failures, that its not as easy as people make it seem to create a cohesive environment, where ALL the players have a high impact in their role

What makes Kobe special is that he is so versatile...he had a high impact no matter where you put him:
- sidekick/option B/1B next to Shaq...threepeat
- primary option/1A three finals and back to back titles

Very few players can play outside of their comfort zone.

In fact. Name another player that was the best 1B and the best 1A player that won multiple titles.

Maybe Magic is the only one...no one else has the same level of success. Kobe has had unique career of coming in and playing next to a top 10 player in their prime and then going on and rebuilding a team and winning multiple titles. But Kobe made it work without having to have a super team. This is where the tired narrative that Kobe had so much help when that is not the case.

Kobe's versatility is what made those teams look better than the individual parts. Kobe could let the bigs run the high low passing game between Pau/Bynum,Odom/Pau, or Odom/Bynum. This was a dominant part of the Lakers attack but that meant the middle was clogged with big bodies and the floor was not spread.

What does that mean for a perimeter player?

Does Lebron like the paint clogged?
Does Steph like the paint clogged?
Does Giannis like the paint clogged?
Does Luka like the paint clogged?

Fans felt that Kobe benefitted from the bigs, but those bigs benefitted just as much or more from teams giving attention to Kobe. This it the weak narrative that Kobe fans get tired of......

[An Unbiased Fan]

I agree with you that they had a team where the parts fit reasonably well, but again they weren't a strong cast. Fisher was a PG with no defense, and no playmaking.

Attacking Fisher's playmaking in the context of the triangle is non-sensical. He wasn't there to drive playmaking, that's what Kobe and Odom were for, and actually Pau as a passing hub. Fisher was there for veteran leadership and some 3pt shooting. He fit into the Paxson/Kerr role. He played 31.6, 28.9 and 32.8 mpg in those postseasons, and averaged 9.5 ppg, and 35.4% 3pt on 2.9 3PA/g. He did what he was there for.

Huh? every player on the court needs to playmake under the triangle. The reason Odom and Pau were good fits for it is their ability to pass. Same for Pippen, Kukoc in Chicago. Fisher was not a good passing, or facilitator. He had wide open shots all game long and did ok with them, that's about all he contributed. He wasn't a 3pt specialist.

Of course it was, he took 7.4 FGA/g and 2.9 of them were 3s, and he drew 2.5 FTA/g in the playoffs while shooting 48.1% inside the arc. He was never going to be hella efficient, he was there for spacing and triangle knowledge.

Kobe's gravity created spacing. And there's nothing special about Fisher's triangle knowledge when he's not facilitating. Again he shot under 50% TS. This is what I mean about people overrating player's Kobe played with. In what other context would we be trying to make Derek Fisher a good player?

You're reaching pretty hard at this point to wash the cast. They weren't all All-Stars, only Pau was. But the pieces fit and did what they were designed to do. The Lakers crushed it in the regular season for a reason, and made three deep playoff runs because the cast was a good fit around its main star. You're working too hard to denigrate them in order to prop up Kobe.

I'm not trying to wash the cast, the 2009 team is my favorite Laker title team. But it's no different than a Spurs fan commenting on the 2003 squad. I could list the names on it, but we all know many were old or really young.

The 09/10 teams fit nicely, but as you admit only Pau was an all-star. So what are we talking about here? This isn't about propping up Kobe, I'm just stating facts about the team. It's cast was weak in comparison to most titles teams. That's all that's bene said.

Crapping on Pau isn't a help. He was an All-Star caliber player. He was not a sensible primary scoring option. Playing in the triangle with some decent spacing and a key focal offensive player was great because he wasn't asked to create everything for himself.

Again, pointing out Pau's actually numbers is not "crapping on him". He was a good #2 option.

Which title teams? Certainly not the 2011 Mavs or the 2003 Spurs or the 94 Rockets. Or a lot of the teams from the 70s. Wasn't even that much of a stunner compared to the 06 Heat. The Lakers were very good. Teams don't make that many consecutive Finals appearances without being good. Yeah, LA wasn't a super team. In no way were those teams so good that they somehow diminish what Kobe accomplished leading those teams into the Finals (and winning rings), though I think it's a dumb argument to begin with to crap on team quality when that's actually a major goal for every franchise. In any case, it's inappropriate and inaccurate to try and tear the team down beneath its actual level of value. As a unit, they were a very, very effective team. They started winning at a 65-win pace once Pau started to play, then actually did it in 2009. Losing Ariza sucked, particularly replacing him with Artest, and obviously Kobe's health in 2010 wasn't as good, and Pau was even less healthy... and they still won 57 games. None of that really jives with this idea that it was only an okay cast, and certainly their postseason performance reinforces that.

The 2011 Mav had a weak supporting cast too. It's funny that you concede that on a team that had Kidd, Chandler, Terry, Marion on it. Is it crapping on them to same that cast was weak? no. It's reality. That team even had Peja coming off the bench. But despite the names and hyperbole we can all see it was a weak cast, so why can't you do the same for the Lakers? I mean when we're talking about the "spacing" Fisher brings..aren't we grasping at straws?

And the 03 Spurs and 94 Rockets were weak too. I said LA was on the lower spectrum of NBA champions, there's been 70+ winners. The 2009 cast was certainly on the low end in terms of supporting cast, and yet still won back 2 back titles.

I was looking at DRB% and ORB%, for number context. They were 4th in TRB in 2008, but 19th in ORB% and 15th in DRB%, which are better indicators. They were the 6th-fastest team in the league and 6th in FGA, so even with their shooting efficacy, their raw available rebounds were going to be different than other teams. The rate stat is more revealing.

2008 is hard to know because Bynum got hurt and LA spent a good amount of time with a really weak rebounding frontcourt. Clearly adding Pau was a benefit to rebounding because it added length, but he was never great on the boards. He wasn't Top 20 in DREB pct. either season, and bottom Top 20 in OREB pct.

[tsherkin]

I am big Kobe fan and I do think he gets underrated by some other insecure fanbases. But that's the way fanbases are...we all want our guy to be praised and reject all criticism.

Yes. It's frustrating sometimes, particularly from certain repetitive actors in conversation.

But the line I would like to point out is how Pau was not seen as a top 10-15 player when he was with Memphis. Pau did come to LA and he became highly effective, had his best years and was an All NBA player.

I don't think Pau WAS a top-10 player in Memphis. I don't think he was a top-10 player in LA. I think he was an extremely valuable piece to the Lakers whose valuable was increased by how he was deployed by Phil in the triangle with his specific skill sets. So to speak, the Pops treatment. I don't think Pau was ever going to play as well as he did in LA if he were anywhere else as the focal offensive player.

When Durant joined the Warriors he made an immediate impact and the team won b2b titles. But many people felt Curry was a better player NOT because of stats but because of some intangible called "gravity". But you may not remember, but I remember when people called BS on the term "Kobe assists".

I remember Kobe assists, lol. It's a weird way of phrasing things, because missing a shot is always worse than hitting a shot. But at the time that article was written, the Lakers really didn't have the tools to be an especially good team. NAsh/Howard/Kobe was just... blech. Not a smart plan.

Many people don't even want to give Durant credit for how he played in the finals, outplaying Lebron and getting FMVP twice. Why? Because the Warriors team made everything easier for KD. And voters aren't especially clever, or in-depth about how they evaluate.

Durant got to play in single coverage due to defensive draw from Steph, and he put up a bunch of ppg. 35 ppg is a big number, so people assume from the Jordan Principle that he was the best player on the team. Never mind that Steph was putting up 27/9 on 62% TS. But whatever, KD was good enough that it wasn't a stupid selection like the Iguodala selection. One might disagree, but it wasn't INAPPROPRIATE to select Durant for those Finals MVPS. It was a bit more of an interesting argument in 2018. KD was a very, very good player. Steph opened the door for him and he murdered people in the Finals because you can't put a scorer of that quality in single coverage and expect him not to go bananas. And Durant went bananas, to Golden State's benefit. Hyper-efficient volume scoring which just destroyed the opposition.

[quote
Why don't other fanbases give Kobe that credit? Why doesn't Kobe get credit for making it work to the tune of going to the finals, when Pau joined the team midseason. You would think with all these super team failures, that its not as easy as people make it seem to create a cohesive environment, where ALL the players have a high impact in their role[/quote]

Sure. This isn't really salient to anything I've said because I have always valued Kobe's role as the central star for the post-Shaq title Lakers. He was a very good player. He didn't have those titles handed to him, the team was built around him and he wasn't working with an embarrassment of riches like the 2017 and 2018 Warriors (not that this really diminishes Golden State's titles, of course), but a quality title cast. And he did his thing and it worked, they won titles and were in the Finals in three straight seasons. Because Kobe is an ATG player.

Very few players can play outside of their comfort zone.

I don't know that this is the argument you want to make. It's a rare situation and he caused a lot of strife in the process precisely because he didn't WANT to play like that, but wanted to be the 1A guy. It worked out, but it required a lot of work from Phil. Ultimately, Kobe's talent bore out but like, yes it has been 20 years but there was a LOT going on with those Lakers teams. Kobe basically played Kobe ball the whole time.

Maybe Magic is the only one

Was he? Sure, he shared ball-handling duties with Norm Nixon early on but like, he was never trying to be a volume scorer, so Kareem's early shooting volume wasn't ever really an issue for a guy whose main skill set was giving UP the ball.

This is where the tired narrative that Kobe had so much help when that is not the case.

Again, I'm given to wonder why you're saying this quoting ME. I don't think Kobe had "so much help." I think he had a good team. I have explicitly stated that I think his team was just a good-quality contender roster, so this is a lot of non sequitur where are my particular comments concerned.

Fans felt that Kobe benefitted from the bigs, but those bigs benefitted just as much or more from teams giving attention to Kobe. This it the weak narrative that Kobe fans get tired of......

Kobe benefited from teams that were assembled in a sensible way to maximize on court team efficacy. That's not something anyone should hold against Kobe. I understand that there was some lingering malice towards Bryant in-era, of course. Shaq fans were grumbly with him. A lot of people didn't want anything to do with him after the court proceedings in 2004. He was look at as a wild gunner and a Jordan wannabe for a long time (and a lot of Jordan fans were unkind to Kobe). There's the Kobe/Lebron fanbase rivalry, though that is mostly constrained to those on both sides who argue poorly. So some people definitely come at Kobe harder than they need to. Obviously, there's always going to be some disagreement as far as any given player's place/ranking. Different criteria, different ways of viewing things, wanting to count/discount whatever inclusion. That's sort of a given and that's fine, that's all talk and this is ultimately subjective after a given threshold regardless.

But like, some of the egregiously bad arguments (from anyone, really) are just so frustrating.

[Duke4life831]

I come to this thread to see what its up to, to find the first post I see is someone saying there isnt much of a gap between Pau Gasol and Brook Lopez...

Sometimes you need to layoff the Basketball Reference and catch some air haha. I mean there is no debate to be had about Pau and Lopez, the gap is pretty considerable and that is being nice to Brook. Prime Gasol was a perennial all star guy and was making All NBA teams every other year.

[tsherkin]

Huh? every player on the court needs to playmake under the triangle. The reason Odom and Pau were good fits for it is their ability to pass. Same for Pippen, Kukoc in Chicago. Fisher was not a good passing, or facilitator. He had wide open shots all game long and did ok with them, that's about all he contributed. He wasn't a 3pt specialist.

No, the triangle primarily relies on wing initiators and the post as far as major hubs of creation. That's not new. It can adapt a little to account for PG talent and whatever, but certainly with Phil, the ball has gone primarily through the SG and SF and then into the post and what have you. None of his PGs have ever really been tasked with significant creation. Making correct reads and reversing the ball well, sure, but Fisher did that fine. He was a role player, and not a hyper-effective one. He was certainly not a high-end talent, but he wasn't dragging the team down in-era.

This is what I mean about people overrating player's Kobe played with. In what other context would we be trying to make Derek Fisher a good player?

I don't think he was a remarkable player. You're trying to describe him as trash. I'm trying to describe him as a player who hit open shots and had limited responsibilities while not holding the team back from winning. You're attempting to modify that into me discussing him as an especially good roster piece, which is an example of the sort of disingenuous discourse I do not enjoy.

I'm not trying to wash the cast, the 2009 team is my favorite Laker title team. But it's no different than a Spurs fan commenting on the 2003 squad. I could list the names on it, but we all know many were old or really young.

2003 Spurs were noticeably worse around Duncan than the 08-10 Lakers around Kobe. They were still effective enough in the playoffs to win a title, of course, and not a trash team, but their overall talent level was lower. Such teams are rare, and the era was also a little different for the 03 title versus the 09 and 10 titles in terms of how the Spurs were able to play. 05 and later, they needed the eventual development from Parker and Manu to keep going, which fortunately for San Antonio they were able to do. In 2003, however, they were not those same players as they'd later become.

The 09/10 teams fit nicely, but as you admit only Pau was an all-star. So what are we talking about here? This isn't about propping up Kobe, I'm just stating facts about the team. It's cast was weak in comparison to most titles teams. That's all that's bene said.

Every time I say "the Lakers around Kobe were pretty" good, you complain and take shots at his teammates in an attempt to diminish them and make it appear like Kobe had crap help. He didn't not have crap help. That's inaccurate. He had good help. Not wild, stacked-ATG help, but good help. He had good fit and players who performed well. That's all I've been saying, and I've been very clear about this.

Again, pointing out Pau's actually numbers is not "crapping on him". He was a good #2 option.

When you couch everything with subtle shots at the player, it's wearisome. You never acknowledge the quality of a player's contribution to those Lakers without a minimizing statement, which is what I've been addressing.

The 2011 Mav had a weak supporting cast too. It's funny that you concede that on a team that had Kidd, Chandler, Terry, Marion on it. Is it crapping on them to same that cast was weak? no. It's reality. That team even had Peja coming off the bench. But despite the names and hyperbole we can all see it was a weak cast, so why can't you do the same for the Lakers? I mean when we're talking about the "spacing" Fisher brings..aren't we grasping at straws?

2011 Mavs had a very good defensive and rebounding cast. They had an acceptable offensive cast in the RS which contributed in a big way in the playoffs... but they were only ever able to do that in one postseason.

And the 03 Spurs and 94 Rockets were weak too. I said LA was on the lower spectrum of NBA champions, there's been 70+ winners. The 2009 cast was certainly on the low end in terms of supporting cast, and yet still won back 2 back titles.

And I disagree that they were on the lower end. Vehemently, as it happens.

2008 is hard to know because Bynum got hurt and LA spent a good amount of time with a really weak rebounding frontcourt.

He was injured all three of those seasons.

Clearly adding Pau was a benefit to rebounding because it added length, but he was never great on the boards. He wasn't Top 20 in DREB pct. either season, and bottom Top 20 in OREB pct.

He was a 10.0 and 11.4% ORB guy in 09 and 10. There were 9 guys in the league in 2009 who played 30+ mpg and managed 10% ORB while qualifying for the MP/g leaderboard. In 2010, there were 10. He was a very good offensive rebounder those seasons. He was 6th on that list in 2010 and 9th in 2009, but of course playing more minutes per game than all of them in 09 and second-most in 2010.

[skones]

Well, I agree that Pau was better than BroLo, but you are making it seem like BroLo was a scrub or something.

Here's a Giannis vs BroLo "battle", since we're going down memory lane.

Watch on YouTube

How exactly am I doing that?

hint: I'm not.