Were the 99-04 Lakers really a 1a/1b situation with Kobe and Shaq? How big was the gap between them?

[Stalwart]

The thing people don't realize about that Lakers-Celtics game 7 was that it was a battle of attrition. Most of the key players on both teams were getting into their 13th, 14th, 15th season. Everyone was dragging and almost everyone shot poorly including Pau Gasol.

Kobe 25%
Pau 37%
Odom 37%
Metta 38%
Bynum 20%

Brown/Vujacic/Farmer 0%

Pierce 33%
Allen 21%

So as you see this wasn't a case of Kobe and everyone else just choking it up. Its a case of everyone running on fumes. That's why is important to point out that despite the poor shooting Kobe still led all scorers with 23 points including 10 points in the 4th. He also pulled down 15 big rebounds.

That was actually an inspiring performance when you consider the context. He pushed his team through on heart and effort. He was still the best player on the court that day. Gasol of course came up big as well but he also struggled for much of the game.

[Jaivl]

That Finals G7 Kobe scored like crap, defended like crap and got bailed out. Happens to everybody once in a while.

It's ironic that the champion of CLUTCH ASSASSIN KILLER MENTALITY happened to have one of the worst meltdowns ever for a superstar player in a Finals G7 (and I do mean it "happened", I don't think that Kobe shrinks in big moments or anything, just that luck goes both ways).

[70sFan]

That Finals G7 Kobe scored like crap, defended like crap and got bailed out. Happens to everybody once in a while.

It's ironic that the champion of CLUTCH ASSASSIN KILLER MENTALITY happened to have one of the worst meltdowns ever for a superstar player in a Finals G7 (and I do mean it "happened", I don't think that Kobe shrinks in big moments or anything, just that luck goes both ways).

Impossible, Kobe carried his team through tough moments. Duncan or Russell would never accomplish that!

[G35]

That Finals G7 Kobe scored like crap, defended like crap and got bailed out. Happens to everybody once in a while.

It's ironic that the champion of CLUTCH ASSASSIN KILLER MENTALITY happened to have one of the worst meltdowns ever for a superstar player in a Finals G7 (and I do mean it "happened", I don't think that Kobe shrinks in big moments or anything, just that luck goes both ways).

That would be a valid argument if the Lakers had lost that game.

But they didn't, they won and they won because Kobe came up big in the 4th quarter, so it comes off more like you have a personal grudge. You are only saying Kobe played like crap when everyone in that game struggled offensively... but you know what you don't speak about? Kobe's defense. Ray Allen shot 3-14 and Paul Pierce shot 5-15, the two players Kobe would have likely been guarding. Then the other thing I never hear is if Kobe got bailed out...typically you hear it was Pau who bailed him out...how did Pau bail him out? Wasn't Kevin Garnett on the other side? Why isn't the immortal KG defense ever put on blast as been crap in this game?

This is an example of where context is applied conditionally...what is that condition? If you like that player or not.

Let's look at two players and see who had the better game. This is a closeout game in the finals and these two players are considered the two best players on their respective teams:

Player 1: 45 PTS, 15-35 FGA, 12-15 FTA, 1 REB, 1 AST, 4 STL, TS% .541, USG 55.1, ORTG 110, DRTG 111, BPM 11.5

Player 2: 31 PTS, 11-19 FGA, 9-11 FTA, 11 REB, 7 AST, 1 STL, TS% .650, USG 36.2, ORTG 126, DRTG 112, BPM 15.5


Player 2 had the more efficient game maximizing his shot attempts, far greater efficiency...more well rounded game grabbing 11 rebounds and handing out seven assists. Thus having a greater plus/minus.

Player 1 basically was a gunner the whole game, shooting well under 50% but balancing it out by getting to the free throw line 15 times and making 12 free throws. But other than steals and points, this player did not contribute much to the team.


So I think most people know that Player 1 is Michael Jordan and Player 2 is Karl Malone. That was another defensive oriented game where the final score was 87-86 and points were at a premium and each possession meant a lot.

Karl Malone is said to be a poor playoff performer...how? Where in that statline says he is a poor performer? In a G7 in the finals, anyone would take statline and be happy. He was far more efficient than Jordan, shot a higher percentage than Jordan from the free throw line and was the leading rebounder in the game and this is going up against Dennis Rodman. The Bulls in the entire game had 22 rebounds...that is insane to only have 22 rebounds. The average amount of rebounds in a game in 2022 is 44.5.

Is luck a factor is games, maybe but we can't accurately calculate it and factor it into player performance. But all that matters is luck only gives you the opportunity, the player still has to close the deal.....

[Jaivl]

That Finals G7 Kobe scored like crap, defended like crap and got bailed out. Happens to everybody once in a while.

It's ironic that the champion of CLUTCH ASSASSIN KILLER MENTALITY happened to have one of the worst meltdowns ever for a superstar player in a Finals G7 (and I do mean it "happened", I don't think that Kobe shrinks in big moments or anything, just that luck goes both ways).

That would be a valid argument if the Lakers had lost that game.

But they didn't, they won and they won because Kobe came up big in the 4th quarter, so it comes off more like you have a personal grudge. You are only saying Kobe played like crap when everyone in that game struggled offensively... but you know what you don't speak about? Kobe's defense. Ray Allen shot 3-14 and Paul Pierce shot 5-15, the two players Kobe would have likely been guarding. Then the other thing I never hear is if Kobe got bailed out...typically you hear it was Pau who bailed him out...how did Pau bail him out? Wasn't Kevin Garnett on the other side? Why isn't the immortal KG defense ever put on blast as been crap in this game?

This is an example of where context is applied conditionally...what is that condition? If you like that player or not.

Kobe was on Rondo most of the time lol, way to admit you haven't even analyzed the game. Rest of the post is empty as usual. Yeah Garnett was heavily outplayed as well, don't know what that has to do with anything.

[LAL1947]

That Finals G7 Kobe scored like crap, defended like crap and got bailed out. Happens to everybody once in a while.

It's ironic that the champion of CLUTCH ASSASSIN KILLER MENTALITY happened to have one of the worst meltdowns ever for a superstar player in a Finals G7 (and I do mean it "happened", I don't think that Kobe shrinks in big moments or anything, just that luck goes both ways).

Impossible, Kobe carried his team through tough moments. Duncan or Russell would never accomplish that!

Easy now, tigress. Nobody is saying your beloved Timmy Dee or Russell could never accomplish that.

We're simply saying that Kobe was better at carrying his team through tougher moments and more of them too... because he was a better player than both.

[70sFan]

That Finals G7 Kobe scored like crap, defended like crap and got bailed out. Happens to everybody once in a while.

It's ironic that the champion of CLUTCH ASSASSIN KILLER MENTALITY happened to have one of the worst meltdowns ever for a superstar player in a Finals G7 (and I do mean it "happened", I don't think that Kobe shrinks in big moments or anything, just that luck goes both ways).

Impossible, Kobe carried his team through tough moments. Duncan or Russell would never accomplish that!

Easy now, tigress. Nobody is saying your beloved Timmy Dee or Russell could never accomplish that.

We're simply saying that Kobe was better at carrying his team through tougher moments and more of them too... because he was a better player than both.

That's why Russell won all games 7 in his career and he won 11 rings in 13 seasons. That's why his team always came up strong in tougher moments.

You are wrong on so many accounts here. You have no credible argument for Kobe over Russell, outside of volume scoring.

[tsherkin]

That's why Russell won all games 7 in his career and he won 11 rings in 13 seasons. That's why his team always came up strong in tougher moments.

You are wrong on so many accounts here. You have no credible argument for Kobe over Russell, outside of volume scoring.

With due credit to both players, that comparison is a PHENOMENAL example of why cross-era stuff is so hard. Russell retired nearly a decade before Kobe was born. There was no 3pt line. There were 14 teams in the entire league, let alone a given conference. Skill development of certain sorts was quite different, which of course was influenced by rules differences which were quite considerable. The NBA had racial integration like 7 years prior to the start of Russell's career. The money was different, the rims were different, the shoes, the travel... There's a humongous difference in how the game was played. Russ was objectively amazing and did all one could ever ask of him in his own era, no question. And it's wild stuff. But to compare a player like that to a dude who was drafted 3 decades later, give or take, there are just so many challenges. And in the end, you'll find yourself disrespecting one player, the other, or both by failing to properly account for context.

Do you compare how Russ would perform today? He wouldn't have anything like his collection of rings or MVPs as a focal player today. That's just obvious. Does that actually change anything? What does it matter if his skillset wouldn't have the same overall level of impact in the contemporary environment? Do we factor in that, of the defenders from the pre-3pt era, his is the impact that would likely remain the strongest in the contemporary age due to how he blocked shots and his mobility? What do we do with his offensive value relative to focal players in almost every era? Etc etc etc.

There really, really isn't a good way to look at two players who played so far apart from one another and in such wildly differing contexts. So the fervor and vitriol in his defense can't really be that effective. And of course the same applies to people supporting Bryant, naturally.

[Black Feet]

Impossible, Kobe carried his team through tough moments. Duncan or Russell would never accomplish that!

Easy now, tigress. Nobody is saying your beloved Timmy Dee or Russell could never accomplish that.

We're simply saying that Kobe was better at carrying his team through tougher moments and more of them too... because he was a better player than both.

That's why Russell won all games 7 in his career and he won 11 rings in 13 seasons. That's why his team always came up strong in tougher moments.

You are wrong on so many accounts here. You have no credible argument for Kobe over Russell, outside of volume scoring.

Those 50/60’s players can’t really be compared to modern players, if you feel that way then i’m guessing Russell is your goat because no one will ever win 11 rings in the modern era.

[70sFan]

Easy now, tigress. Nobody is saying your beloved Timmy Dee or Russell could never accomplish that.

We're simply saying that Kobe was better at carrying his team through tougher moments and more of them too... because he was a better player than both.

That's why Russell won all games 7 in his career and he won 11 rings in 13 seasons. That's why his team always came up strong in tougher moments.

You are wrong on so many accounts here. You have no credible argument for Kobe over Russell, outside of volume scoring.

Those 50/60’s players can’t really be compared to modern players, if you feel that way then i’m guessing Russell is your goat because no one will ever win 11 rings in the modern era.

Russell is 3rd on my all-time list, because he didn't have Kareem or LeBron like longevity. That said, I do think he has the best prime ever.

Why do you think that way about 1960s players but not about 1980s players?

[Black Feet]

That's why Russell won all games 7 in his career and he won 11 rings in 13 seasons. That's why his team always came up strong in tougher moments.

You are wrong on so many accounts here. You have no credible argument for Kobe over Russell, outside of volume scoring.

Those 50/60’s players can’t really be compared to modern players, if you feel that way then i’m guessing Russell is your goat because no one will ever win 11 rings in the modern era.

Russell is 3rd on my all-time list, because he didn't have Kareem or LeBron like longevity. That said, I do think he has the best prime ever.

Why do you think that way about 1960s players but not about 1980s players?

80’s is a bit closer to modern era but same applies to a lesser extent, honestly most player comparisons aren’t going to be fair across era/position/team. Winning a title is the ultimate goal but its impossible to compare titles from the beginning of the league to modern competition.

[70sFan]

Those 50/60’s players can’t really be compared to modern players, if you feel that way then i’m guessing Russell is your goat because no one will ever win 11 rings in the modern era.

Russell is 3rd on my all-time list, because he didn't have Kareem or LeBron like longevity. That said, I do think he has the best prime ever.

Why do you think that way about 1960s players but not about 1980s players?

80’s is a bit closer to modern era but same applies to a lesser extent, honestly most player comparisons aren’t going to be fair across era/position/team. Winning a title is the ultimate goal but its impossible to compare titles from the beginning of the league to modern competition.

Then you should compare them relative to their eras and in this case, Russell crushes Kobe.

[G35]

That Finals G7 Kobe scored like crap, defended like crap and got bailed out. Happens to everybody once in a while.

It's ironic that the champion of CLUTCH ASSASSIN KILLER MENTALITY happened to have one of the worst meltdowns ever for a superstar player in a Finals G7 (and I do mean it "happened", I don't think that Kobe shrinks in big moments or anything, just that luck goes both ways).

That would be a valid argument if the Lakers had lost that game.

But they didn't, they won and they won because Kobe came up big in the 4th quarter, so it comes off more like you have a personal grudge. You are only saying Kobe played like crap when everyone in that game struggled offensively... but you know what you don't speak about? Kobe's defense. Ray Allen shot 3-14 and Paul Pierce shot 5-15, the two players Kobe would have likely been guarding. Then the other thing I never hear is if Kobe got bailed out...typically you hear it was Pau who bailed him out...how did Pau bail him out? Wasn't Kevin Garnett on the other side? Why isn't the immortal KG defense ever put on blast as been crap in this game?

This is an example of where context is applied conditionally...what is that condition? If you like that player or not.

Kobe was on Rondo most of the time lol, way to admit you haven't even analyzed the game. Rest of the post is empty as usual. Yeah Garnett was heavily outplayed as well, don't know what that has to do with anything.

Wrong, Kobe was not on Rondo most of the time. Kobe was playing free safety and running the defense. You should re-watch the game.

- when Kobe and Fisher were in the game, Kobe would guard Rondo and Fisher would guard Allen, but it was situational. Kobe was not designated on Rondo
- when either Shannon Brown, Jordan Farmar were in the game they would guard Rondo and Kobe would take Ray Allen
- in the 4th quarter, Kobe primarily guarded Ray Allen or played free safety defense

Good to hear that you recognize that Garnett was heavily outplayed in that game, which means your analysis is not hopeless.

In that game the Celtics went with the Jordan Rules and double and triple teamed Kobe every chance they could. They tried to be as physical with the Lakers as they could hoping to wear them down.

Fortunately, Kobe was able to win the game in more ways than one. I agree with another poster that the Lakers winning a game like this when Kobe was not at his best is more inspiring and more of memorable game.....

The Celtics had 25 fouls, leading to 37 FTA's for the Lakers. At the end of the game you could hear Mark Jackson saying that the Celtics were going to look back at this game say they didn't make the Lakers make shots but gave them points from the free throw line. If the Lakers didn't shoot like crap from the line this game would not have been as close. Kobe and Pau missed ten FT's between them, that allowed the Celtics to stay in the game and play physical defense.

[falcolombardi]

That Finals G7 Kobe scored like crap, defended like crap and got bailed out. Happens to everybody once in a while.

It's ironic that the champion of CLUTCH ASSASSIN KILLER MENTALITY happened to have one of the worst meltdowns ever for a superstar player in a Finals G7 (and I do mean it "happened", I don't think that Kobe shrinks in big moments or anything, just that luck goes both ways).

Impossible, Kobe carried his team through tough moments. Duncan or Russell would never accomplish that!

Easy now, tigress. Nobody is saying your beloved Timmy Dee or Russell could never accomplish that.

We're simply saying that Kobe was better at carrying his team through tougher moments and more of them too... because he was a better player than both.

tim duncan won a ring without all star help (2003)

timmy D > kobe in carrying teams

[Black Feet]

Russell is 3rd on my all-time list, because he didn't have Kareem or LeBron like longevity. That said, I do think he has the best prime ever.

Why do you think that way about 1960s players but not about 1980s players?

80’s is a bit closer to modern era but same applies to a lesser extent, honestly most player comparisons aren’t going to be fair across era/position/team. Winning a title is the ultimate goal but its impossible to compare titles from the beginning of the league to modern competition.

Then you should compare them relative to their eras and in this case, Russell crushes Kobe.

disagree because the level of competition was really poor back then, to me winning 5 rings in the 2000’s is more impressive than what Russell did or MJ winning 6 in the 90’s, and Magic winning 5 in the 80’s are all more impressive imo.

[70sFan]

80’s is a bit closer to modern era but same applies to a lesser extent, honestly most player comparisons aren’t going to be fair across era/position/team. Winning a title is the ultimate goal but its impossible to compare titles from the beginning of the league to modern competition.

Then you should compare them relative to their eras and in this case, Russell crushes Kobe.

disagree because the level of competition was really poor back then, to me winning 5 rings in the 2000’s is more impressive than what Russell did or MJ winning 6 in the 90’s, and Magic winning 5 in the 80’s are all more impressive imo.

So you decide which era is better? I certainly don't feel confident enough to make such claims.

Besides, not all 1960s and 2000s years are the same. I'd say that Russell had to beat considerably stronger competition in 1969 than Kobe in 2009 for example.

[LAL1947]

Then you should compare them relative to their eras and in this case, Russell crushes Kobe.

disagree because the level of competition was really poor back then, to me winning 5 rings in the 2000’s is more impressive than what Russell did or MJ winning 6 in the 90’s, and Magic winning 5 in the 80’s are all more impressive imo.

So you decide which era is better? I certainly don't feel confident enough to make such claims.

Besides, not all 1960s and 2000s years are the same. I'd say that Russell had to beat considerably stronger competition in 1969 than Kobe in 2009 for example.

Russell had superb athleticism... but the skills of an oaf compared to the others in the top 10. Are you not able to distinguish the levels of skill level? For example, when Lebron makes his really lame attempts at faking left-right before taking a fade-away, do you really think he's fooling any defender? He's 37, been playing for 20 years and still hasn't figured out how to do it right. Contrast that to when players with natural skill do it (like MJ, Kobe, T-Mac, Kyrie, etc) and defenders literally have no idea which way they will go. If you think both are the same thing, then we look at skills differently.

Also, you keep saying "Russell beat"... but no, more so than in any other case, it should be the "Celtics beat".

Kobe probably gave us more moments and brilliance in single seasons than Russell has in his whole career.

Watch on YouTube

[70sFan]

disagree because the level of competition was really poor back then, to me winning 5 rings in the 2000’s is more impressive than what Russell did or MJ winning 6 in the 90’s, and Magic winning 5 in the 80’s are all more impressive imo.

So you decide which era is better? I certainly don't feel confident enough to make such claims.

Besides, not all 1960s and 2000s years are the same. I'd say that Russell had to beat considerably stronger competition in 1969 than Kobe in 2009 for example.

Russell had superb athleticism... but the skills of an oaf compared to the others in the top 10. Are you not able to distinguish the levels of skill level? For example, when Lebron makes his really lame attempts at faking left-right before taking a fade-away, do you really think he's fooling any defender? He's 37, been playing for 20 years and still hasn't figured out how to do it right. Contrast that to when players with natural skill do it (like MJ, Kobe, T-Mac, Kyrie, etc) and defenders literally have no idea which way they will go. If you think both are the same thing, then we look at skills differently.

Also, you keep saying "Russell beat"... but no, more so than in any other case, it should be the "Celtics beat".

Kobe probably gave us more moments and brilliance in single seasons than Russell has in his whole career.

Watch on YouTube

I'm afraid you live in a bubble, it's time to wake up.