drza wrote:
I'm not so down on Kobe for the 11-3 that the Lakers went without him. After all, I was championing KG in '08 when the Celtics went 9 - 2 without him. I don't know if the level of competition that the Lakers faced was as miserable as what the Celtics beat up on, but in the end I don't know that a great team's record over a short period without one of their stars is really that compelling.
The games played argument, I can see used as a tie-breaker among players that were otherwise close. And I guess if the Lakers' record without Kobe can convince you that he was more expendable to the Lakers than, say, Duncan or Garnett were to their teams, then I can also see how that could be a tie-breaker.
But for the most part, unless someone misses 30 games like Webber did in '02 or KG did in '09 I tend to vote more for just who I think was the better player, not so much about the games played.
the difference between Garnett and Kobe in these situations are that after in-depth look into Garnett's situation you can see this tendency just didn't hold up. KG dominated +/- ballpark which is a better metric than games with/without because it takes larger sample and also there was some crappy ass competition. I have no such data in Kobe's case. I don't know whether it was competition or if his +/- numbers dominated. I don't know... so why would I assume it is the case as well ?
see, if I didn't know about KG's +/- dominance and Celtics' piss poor competition, I would severely punish Garnett because of that. in fact, I might not have included him in TOP5 at all. what completely swayed me is those two things... that I don't know in Kobe's case.
what I know, though, is how big Shaq's impact was on those teams. there's a large sample of Kobe playing without Shaq and as far as I can tell it wasn't pretty at all. we also have Kobe missing games during that season and Lakers still being a great team. all of this points to one conclusion: Shaq was clear star on those teams and he was much more irreplacable than Kobe.
it's very chaotic but I hope you understand me guys. the point is that if someone checks the competition and it's really that crap, I'll sure reconsider my stance and most likely give Kobe much more credit than I did so far. as for now, it looks like Kobe doesn't have as much impact as truly elite players that year.
honestly I don't know how Lakers would have two super-dominant players on the team and not be head and shoulder above everybody else. I think if you paired Garnett with Duncan, it's a lock for 65-70W seasons every year. the way Lakers were playing doesn't support the notion that Kobe is quite on their level. you will rarely see me give huge credit to two guys on the same team unless it's truly all-time.
)
