Does this Kobe stance have real merit

[Cavsfansince84]

Man we have gone over the 08-10 lakers many times and people keep rewriting history as if that was not a top 2 supporting cast for the time lol

You've gone over it all those times and you're still wrong.

The 08 Lakers don't even sniff the postseason without Kobe. With him? 58 wins, 7.4 SRS, and the #1 seed in the best conference in history. 9.7 full-strength SRS (one of the highest marks ever). Make the Finals and come within two games of winning it all against GOAT level postseason competition.

The 09 Lakers don't even make the postseason without him. And if they do? They're a #8 seed that gets destroyed in the first round. With him? They're a top fifteen team OAT with the #1 offense in the league.

Try again.

If a team is built around a high volume scorer who doubles as the primary playmaker and who has spent 10+ years in that system it can be both bad without him and title worthy with him while being a very strong supporting cast. That's not a hard thing to understand in this context. It was a team built to play defense and rebound around Kobe with Pau helping to carry the scoring/playmaking load. So taking Kobe off it doesn't work at all without a decent scorer to fill that void.

[tone wone]

Man we have gone over the 08-10 lakers many times and people keep rewriting history as if that was not a top 2 supporting cast for the time lol

Yeh, the one thing worth noting is that Celtics also had a super team at the time. Unfortunately im 09 KG got hurt and missed the end of the season, and was never really the same again. The 09 injury marked the end of KGs prime. However, I'd say the 08 Celtics supporting cast was maybe even better than the Lakers support cast.

Celtics supporting cast was the other team i meant in my top 2, and i dont think anyone else is close with orlando maybe a distant 3rd

Denver. That team is kinda loaded (for that era) but Melo's not a true superstar so they just get that one WCF run where they truly push LA.

Swap Melo for someone like Dirk and Denver wins 60+ games and a chip in 2009.

Quietly, the West was pretty weak at the top from '08-'10. The conference had depth of solid, good teams but the Lakers were the only true title level team. Funny enough the "weak" East had the other title level teams...BOS-CLE-ORL (DET in '08)

[Primedeion]

Man we have gone over the 08-10 lakers many times and people keep rewriting history as if that was not a top 2 supporting cast for the time lol

You've gone over it all those times and you're still wrong.

The 08 Lakers don't even sniff the postseason without Kobe. With him? 58 wins, 7.4 SRS, and the #1 seed in the best conference in history. 9.7 full-strength SRS (one of the highest marks ever). Make the Finals and come within two games of winning it all against GOAT level postseason competition.

The 09 Lakers don't even make the postseason without him. And if they do? They're a #8 seed that gets destroyed in the first round. With him? They're a top fifteen team OAT with the #1 offense in the league.

Try again.

Sure

So can you point to a non boston celtics team that you would confidently argue was better than kobe's cast? (under the obvious disclaimer of missing their star too)

2008 lakers quite literally were the worst performing team against boston somehow in a slate that included the .500 joe johnson hawks, not sure it is a point to make here

2009 lakers were pretty great, they also had a legitimate top 10-15 player as a sidekick and 2 guys with sub-all star impact making a stacked front court in odom and bynum + a strong wing stopper in ariza, that team legitimately may win 50+ games without kobe nor anyone replacing him

Those teams wouldn’t even make the playoffs without Bryant—especially not the ’08 Lakers. And yeah, the average team they faced in the ’08 postseason had a +6 SRS. That’s GOAT-level competition. Get the point? Also, lol at the Bynum mention—dude missed 30+ games and was absolutely awful in the playoffs. Ariza played a whopping 24 minutes per game and didn’t even start until very late in the season. They had zero chance of winning 50+ games without Bryant. With him? They're a top fifteen team OAT with the #1 offense in the league. Try again.

[falcolombardi]

You've gone over it all those times and you're still wrong.

The 08 Lakers don't even sniff the postseason without Kobe. With him? 58 wins, 7.4 SRS, and the #1 seed in the best conference in history. 9.7 full-strength SRS (one of the highest marks ever). Make the Finals and come within two games of winning it all against GOAT level postseason competition.

The 09 Lakers don't even make the postseason without him. And if they do? They're a #8 seed that gets destroyed in the first round. With him? They're a top fifteen team OAT with the #1 offense in the league.

Try again.

Sure

So can you point to a non boston celtics team that you would confidently argue was better than kobe's cast? (under the obvious disclaimer of missing their star too)

2008 lakers quite literally were the worst performing team against boston somehow in a slate that included the .500 joe johnson hawks, not sure it is a point to make here

2009 lakers were pretty great, they also had a legitimate top 10-15 player as a sidekick and 2 guys with sub-all star impact making a stacked front court in odom and bynum + a strong wing stopper in ariza, that team legitimately may win 50+ games without kobe nor anyone replacing him

Those teams wouldn’t even make the playoffs without Bryant—especially not the ’08 Lakers. And yeah, the average team they faced in the ’08 postseason had a +6 SRS. That’s GOAT-level competition. Get the point? Also, lol at the Bynum mention—dude missed 30+ games and was absolutely awful in the playoffs. Ariza played a whopping 24 minutes per game and didn’t even start until very late in the season. They had zero chance of winning 50+ games without Bryant. With him? They're a top fifteen team OAT with the #1 offense in the league. Try again.

Pau gasol + shane battier was a perennial low seed playoff team so why wouldnt pau gasol + lamar odom be one? Specially once you add bynum or ariza/artest late on being ahead of memphis 3rd best players through pau era there

Pau took those teams to 48~49 wins at times btw

Sure, they faced an average +6 team in 2008 because the +9 celtics beat them in six (while going seven with cleveland and hawks*) the teams they actually beat in 2008 were not an average +6 team, spurs were a defending champion to be sure so that was still a really good win

And teams that can win 50+ games with their best player replaced by nothingh (specially in teams built around their skillset without a decent role backup) are excedingly rare in the first place lol, that is far from a baseline for title level teams to have and you know that lol

Try again

[migya]

All I'll say is my point is that it is not a right comparison to say Kobe's teams were stacked. They were pretty well built, obviously, as it worked and players that play roles are good fits, but that can be said for all good teams.

Teams with two or three stars always perform well. The Curry/Durant titles do not elevate both those players at all, likewise with the Lebron/Wade titles.

It must be given more credit to teams that were built without attaining players already established. The 80s Lakers did get a number of good players in the draft and were able to add to what they had, while other teams missed out, but that's much of a not so sure thing than adding established stars. Truth is that The superteams of the last decade are frauds. The Kobe Shaq Lakers were built by adding unknown young players, Kobe the most key. It could have not turned out like it did. In their case, had they added an already established star wing, such as Grant Hill, winning wouldn't be the same.

[Primedeion]

Sure

So can you point to a non boston celtics team that you would confidently argue was better than kobe's cast? (under the obvious disclaimer of missing their star too)

2008 lakers quite literally were the worst performing team against boston somehow in a slate that included the .500 joe johnson hawks, not sure it is a point to make here

2009 lakers were pretty great, they also had a legitimate top 10-15 player as a sidekick and 2 guys with sub-all star impact making a stacked front court in odom and bynum + a strong wing stopper in ariza, that team legitimately may win 50+ games without kobe nor anyone replacing him

Those teams wouldn’t even make the playoffs without Bryant—especially not the ’08 Lakers. And yeah, the average team they faced in the ’08 postseason had a +6 SRS. That’s GOAT-level competition. Get the point? Also, lol at the Bynum mention—dude missed 30+ games and was absolutely awful in the playoffs. Ariza played a whopping 24 minutes per game and didn’t even start until very late in the season. They had zero chance of winning 50+ games without Bryant. With him? They're a top fifteen team OAT with the #1 offense in the league. Try again.

Pau gasol + shane battier was a perennial low seed playoff team so why wouldnt pau gasol + lamar odom be one? Specially once you add bynum or ariza/artest late on being ahead of memphis 3rd best players through pau era there

Pau took those teams to 48~49 wins at times btw

Sure, they faced an average +6 team in 2008 because the +9 celtics beat them in six (while going seven with cleveland and hawks*) the teams they actually beat in 2008 were not an average +6 team, spurs were a defending champion to be sure so that was still a really good win

And teams that can win 50+ games with their best player replaced by nothingh (specially in teams built around their skillset without a decent role backup) are excedingly rare in the first place lol, that is far from a baseline for title level teams to have and you know that lol

Try again

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around. Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it? And when he did (barely) get in they got obliterated in the first round, which is the absolute best case scenario for the 09 Lakers.

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The 08 Lakers don't sniff the postseason without him, and 09 Lakers scrape and claw their way to the #8 seed AT BEST and get obliterated in the first round. With him? They're one of the fifteen best teams in NBA history.

Nice try tho.

[One_and_Done]

Those teams wouldn’t even make the playoffs without Bryant—especially not the ’08 Lakers. And yeah, the average team they faced in the ’08 postseason had a +6 SRS. That’s GOAT-level competition. Get the point? Also, lol at the Bynum mention—dude missed 30+ games and was absolutely awful in the playoffs. Ariza played a whopping 24 minutes per game and didn’t even start until very late in the season. They had zero chance of winning 50+ games without Bryant. With him? They're a top fifteen team OAT with the #1 offense in the league. Try again.

Pau gasol + shane battier was a perennial low seed playoff team so why wouldnt pau gasol + lamar odom be one? Specially once you add bynum or ariza/artest late on being ahead of memphis 3rd best players through pau era there

Pau took those teams to 48~49 wins at times btw

Sure, they faced an average +6 team in 2008 because the +9 celtics beat them in six (while going seven with cleveland and hawks*) the teams they actually beat in 2008 were not an average +6 team, spurs were a defending champion to be sure so that was still a really good win

And teams that can win 50+ games with their best player replaced by nothingh (specially in teams built around their skillset without a decent role backup) are excedingly rare in the first place lol, that is far from a baseline for title level teams to have and you know that lol

Try again

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around. Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it? And when he did (barely) get in they got obliterated in the first round, which is the absolute best case scenario for the 09 Lakers.

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The 08 Lakers don't sniff the postseason without him, and 09 Lakers scrape and claw their way to the #8 seed AT BEST and get obliterated in the first round. With him? They're one of the fifteen best teams in NBA history.

Nice try tho.

I mean, this isn't even a rational response. Pau missed the postseason in his first 2 years because he was a 1st and 2nd year player, playing on a young team that wasn't ready to win. He then got better and led the Grizzlies to 3 straight playoff runs as a 50-ish win team. The year afterwards he and other guys got hurt and the season was derailed, and after that it was much the same; except the Grizzlies actively tanked as well, ultimately moving Pau. Even in 07, the Grizzlies management forced the coaches to play inexperienced young guys big minutes, which caused them to hemorage wins. Rudy Gay for instance was a guy who only learned to contribute to winning late in his career as a role player. It goes without saying that the 20 year old version was absolutely counter productive to winning, as were guys like Hakim Warrick.

Bynum did indeed miss 30 games in 09 in the RS, but Pau led the 06 Grizzlies to 49 wins with Lorenzen Wright and Jake T as his starters at the 5, and those guys aren't even real NBA players, so pretty sure they'd be fine.

[falcolombardi]

Those teams wouldn’t even make the playoffs without Bryant—especially not the ’08 Lakers. And yeah, the average team they faced in the ’08 postseason had a +6 SRS. That’s GOAT-level competition. Get the point? Also, lol at the Bynum mention—dude missed 30+ games and was absolutely awful in the playoffs. Ariza played a whopping 24 minutes per game and didn’t even start until very late in the season. They had zero chance of winning 50+ games without Bryant. With him? They're a top fifteen team OAT with the #1 offense in the league. Try again.

Pau gasol + shane battier was a perennial low seed playoff team so why wouldnt pau gasol + lamar odom be one? Specially once you add bynum or ariza/artest late on being ahead of memphis 3rd best players through pau era there

Pau took those teams to 48~49 wins at times btw

Sure, they faced an average +6 team in 2008 because the +9 celtics beat them in six (while going seven with cleveland and hawks*) the teams they actually beat in 2008 were not an average +6 team, spurs were a defending champion to be sure so that was still a really good win

And teams that can win 50+ games with their best player replaced by nothingh (specially in teams built around their skillset without a decent role backup) are excedingly rare in the first place lol, that is far from a baseline for title level teams to have and you know that lol

Try again

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around. Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it? And when he did (barely) get in they got obliterated in the first round, which is the absolute best case scenario for the 09 Lakers.

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The 08 Lakers don't sniff the postseason without him, and 09 Lakers scrape and claw their way to the #8 seed AT BEST and get obliterated in the first round. With him? They're one of the fifteen best teams in NBA history.

Nice try tho.

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around.

Good we both agree kobe is better than gasol and is judged in a different standard than him, for a moment i thought you may disagree

Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it

But he was there in their 09 and 10 runs was not he? and wether you see him as his team 3rd or 4th best player there is no non-boston team in the league with a better player at that 3rd spot in those seasons and most likely no team with a "4th best player" comparable in 09-10

For a guy who was arguanly not even in their top 3, he was incredibly good of a 4th best player to have (while missing 08 playoffs*)

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The best teans they beat were a +5 spurs and +6 utah both of which are very fringe contenders those years. Is beating two good teams more impressive for you than beating a great team?

If that is goat level competition what is lebron beating the 16 warriors? Or okc fscing 73 win warriors and 67 win spurs that same year?

Goat +?, Goatest?

Like the pacers/haliburton in 2025 faced (and lost like kobe too) to a +13 srs team in 7.

what does that make them with this reasoking, they beat a circs +9 srs cavs team and a +5 srs knicks team too btw so technicslly more impressibe than lakers run in 08 by your own reasoning

[f4p]

The 2008 to 2010 West definitely wasn't weak. The Lakers beat about 20 SRS worth of opponents in 2009 and 2010, which is well in the upper end of champions historically. Having to beat three +5 or so teams can trip anyone up, even if they might be the overall favorite.

[f4p]

Pau gasol + shane battier was a perennial low seed playoff team so why wouldnt pau gasol + lamar odom be one? Specially once you add bynum or ariza/artest late on being ahead of memphis 3rd best players through pau era there

Pau took those teams to 48~49 wins at times btw

Sure, they faced an average +6 team in 2008 because the +9 celtics beat them in six (while going seven with cleveland and hawks*) the teams they actually beat in 2008 were not an average +6 team, spurs were a defending champion to be sure so that was still a really good win

And teams that can win 50+ games with their best player replaced by nothingh (specially in teams built around their skillset without a decent role backup) are excedingly rare in the first place lol, that is far from a baseline for title level teams to have and you know that lol

Try again

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around. Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it? And when he did (barely) get in they got obliterated in the first round, which is the absolute best case scenario for the 09 Lakers.

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The 08 Lakers don't sniff the postseason without him, and 09 Lakers scrape and claw their way to the #8 seed AT BEST and get obliterated in the first round. With him? They're one of the fifteen best teams in NBA history.

Nice try tho.

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around.

Good we both agree kobe is better than gasol and is judged in a different standard than him, for a moment i thought you may disagree

Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it

But he was there in their 09 and 10 runs was not he? and wether you see him as his team 3rd or 4th best player there is no non-boston team in the league with a better player at that 3rd spot in those seasons and most likely no team with a "4th best player" comparable in 09-10

For a guy who was arguanly not even in their top 3, he was incredibly good of a 4th best player to have (while missing 08 playoffs*)

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The best teans they beat were a +5 spurs and +6 utah both of which are very fringe contenders those years. Is beating two good teams more impressive for you than beating a great team?

If that is goat level competition what is lebron beating the 16 warriors? Or okc fscing 73 win warriors and 67 win spurs that same year?

Goat +?, Goatest?

Like the pacers/haliburton in 2025 faced (and lost like kobe too) to a +13 srs team in 7.

what does that make them with this reasoking, they beat a circs +9 srs cavs team and a +5 srs knicks team too btw so technicslly more impressibe than lakers run in 08 by your own reasoning

Kobe has beaten the most combined SRS of anyone in history not named Robert horry. We will need to see more from Hali and Indy to know if we should treat this year as a fluke or truly on the level of teams like the 08 Lakers (of course we might never see this Indy team again).

[Primedeion]

Pau gasol + shane battier was a perennial low seed playoff team so why wouldnt pau gasol + lamar odom be one? Specially once you add bynum or ariza/artest late on being ahead of memphis 3rd best players through pau era there

Pau took those teams to 48~49 wins at times btw

Sure, they faced an average +6 team in 2008 because the +9 celtics beat them in six (while going seven with cleveland and hawks*) the teams they actually beat in 2008 were not an average +6 team, spurs were a defending champion to be sure so that was still a really good win

And teams that can win 50+ games with their best player replaced by nothingh (specially in teams built around their skillset without a decent role backup) are excedingly rare in the first place lol, that is far from a baseline for title level teams to have and you know that lol

Try again

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around. Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it? And when he did (barely) get in they got obliterated in the first round, which is the absolute best case scenario for the 09 Lakers.

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The 08 Lakers don't sniff the postseason without him, and 09 Lakers scrape and claw their way to the #8 seed AT BEST and get obliterated in the first round. With him? They're one of the fifteen best teams in NBA history.

Nice try tho.

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around.

Good we both agree kobe is better than gasol and is judged in a different standard than him, for a moment i thought you may disagree

Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it

But he was there in their 09 and 10 runs was not he? and wether you see him as his team 3rd or 4th best player there is no non-boston team in the league with a better player at that 3rd spot in those seasons and most likely no team with a "4th best player" comparable in 09-10

For a guy who was arguanly not even in their top 3, he was incredibly good of a 4th best player to have (while missing 08 playoffs*)

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The best teans they beat were a +5 spurs and +6 utah both of which are very fringe contenders those years. Is beating two good teams more impressive for you than beating a great team?

If that is goat level competition what is lebron beating the 16 warriors? Or okc fscing 73 win warriors and 67 win spurs that same year?

Goat +?, Goatest?

Like the pacers/haliburton in 2025 faced (and lost like kobe too) to a +13 srs team in 7.

what does that make them with this reasoking, they beat a circs +9 srs cavs team and a +5 srs knicks team too btw so technicslly more impressibe than lakers run in 08 by your own reasoning

Glad we agree that Pau without Bryant is't making the postseason. 50+ wins is ludicrous.

Bynum missed 30 games in 2009 and averaged around 7 PPG and 5 RPG with crap scoring efficiency across the 2009 and 2010 postseasons, so using him to discredit Bryant is hilarious. He also missed the ENTIRE 08 postseason and Kobe STILL led them to the Finals against GOAT level comp. Plenty of teams get more than that. Calling that “incredible” is ludicrous, even by PC Board standards. This is even more laughable than suggesting that prime Kobe rarely guarded stars.

None of this nonsense changes the fact that facing an average team with a +6 SRS across a Finals run is absolutely insane. In fact, it’s right up there with any team in history—and they had a full-strength SRS of 9.7 across the regular season and postseason. One of the highest marks ever, in the best conference ever! Without Kobe?

They don’t even sniff the postseason. Facts.

[One_and_Done]

The 2008 to 2010 West definitely wasn't weak. The Lakers beat about 20 SRS worth of opponents in 2009 and 2010, which is well in the upper end of champions historically. Having to beat three +5 or so teams can trip anyone up, even if they might be the overall favorite.

Again with this clear misuse of SRS. It lacks any context. For instance, when the Lakers took 7 games to beat a Rockets team with both Yao and T-Mac out with injuries, were they really beating a 53 win team with a 3.7 SRS? You can't just add up SRS totals to get a firm understanding of how strong the teams they played were.

[f4p]

The 2008 to 2010 West definitely wasn't weak. The Lakers beat about 20 SRS worth of opponents in 2009 and 2010, which is well in the upper end of champions historically. Having to beat three +5 or so teams can trip anyone up, even if they might be the overall favorite.

Again with this clear misuse of SRS. It lacks any context. For instance, when the Lakers took 7 games to beat a Rockets team with both Yao and T-Mac out with injuries, were they really beating a 53 win team with a 3.7 SRS? You can't just add up SRS totals to get a firm understanding of how strong the teams they played were.

Actually you pretty much can.

[Primedeion]

Pau gasol + shane battier was a perennial low seed playoff team so why wouldnt pau gasol + lamar odom be one? Specially once you add bynum or ariza/artest late on being ahead of memphis 3rd best players through pau era there

Pau took those teams to 48~49 wins at times btw

Sure, they faced an average +6 team in 2008 because the +9 celtics beat them in six (while going seven with cleveland and hawks*) the teams they actually beat in 2008 were not an average +6 team, spurs were a defending champion to be sure so that was still a really good win

And teams that can win 50+ games with their best player replaced by nothingh (specially in teams built around their skillset without a decent role backup) are excedingly rare in the first place lol, that is far from a baseline for title level teams to have and you know that lol

Try again

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around. Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it? And when he did (barely) get in they got obliterated in the first round, which is the absolute best case scenario for the 09 Lakers.

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The 08 Lakers don't sniff the postseason without him, and 09 Lakers scrape and claw their way to the #8 seed AT BEST and get obliterated in the first round. With him? They're one of the fifteen best teams in NBA history.

Nice try tho.

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around.

Good we both agree kobe is better than gasol and is judged in a different standard than him, for a moment i thought you may disagree

Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it

But he was there in their 09 and 10 runs was not he? and wether you see him as his team 3rd or 4th best player there is no non-boston team in the league with a better player at that 3rd spot in those seasons and most likely no team with a "4th best player" comparable in 09-10

For a guy who was arguanly not even in their top 3, he was incredibly good of a 4th best player to have (while missing 08 playoffs*)

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The best teans they beat were a +5 spurs and +6 utah both of which are very fringe contenders those years. Is beating two good teams more impressive for you than beating a great team?

If that is goat level competition what is lebron beating the 16 warriors? Or okc fscing 73 win warriors and 67 win spurs that same year?

Goat +?, Goatest?

Like the pacers/haliburton in 2025 faced (and lost like kobe too) to a +13 srs team in 7.

what does that make them with this reasoking, they beat a circs +9 srs cavs team and a +5 srs knicks team too btw so technicslly more impressibe than lakers run in 08 by your own reasoning

The 08 Jazz had a 6.86 SRS. That's a clear contender level mark and that was their SECOND round opponent. That is insane.

And LOL @ rounding them down to +6. You aren't slick bruh

[One_and_Done]

The 2008 to 2010 West definitely wasn't weak. The Lakers beat about 20 SRS worth of opponents in 2009 and 2010, which is well in the upper end of champions historically. Having to beat three +5 or so teams can trip anyone up, even if they might be the overall favorite.

Again with this clear misuse of SRS. It lacks any context. For instance, when the Lakers took 7 games to beat a Rockets team with both Yao and T-Mac out with injuries, were they really beating a 53 win team with a 3.7 SRS? You can't just add up SRS totals to get a firm understanding of how strong the teams they played were.

Actually you pretty much can.

Uhuh. Scenario.

Team A sweeps a team with -1 SRS in the first round, then sweeps two teams with an SRS of 8 in the next 2 rounds, and finally beats a team with an SRS of 8 in the finals in 5 games.

Team B beats fours teams with an SRS of 6, two of whom have major injuries to their stars, and they need an average of 6 games per series.

By your contextless approach Team B had the more impressive performance, when in reality that's clearly absurd. Of course there are like 5 additional problems with this form of logic that I've repeatedly explained to you, but you just keep rehashing this same illogical formula.

I get that this formula makes Hakeem look good, but it just isn't a sound approach.

[falcolombardi]

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around. Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it? And when he did (barely) get in they got obliterated in the first round, which is the absolute best case scenario for the 09 Lakers.

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The 08 Lakers don't sniff the postseason without him, and 09 Lakers scrape and claw their way to the #8 seed AT BEST and get obliterated in the first round. With him? They're one of the fifteen best teams in NBA history.

Nice try tho.

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around.

Good we both agree kobe is better than gasol and is judged in a different standard than him, for a moment i thought you may disagree

Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it

But he was there in their 09 and 10 runs was not he? and wether you see him as his team 3rd or 4th best player there is no non-boston team in the league with a better player at that 3rd spot in those seasons and most likely no team with a "4th best player" comparable in 09-10

For a guy who was arguanly not even in their top 3, he was incredibly good of a 4th best player to have (while missing 08 playoffs*)

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The best teans they beat were a +5 spurs and +6 utah both of which are very fringe contenders those years. Is beating two good teams more impressive for you than beating a great team?

If that is goat level competition what is lebron beating the 16 warriors? Or okc fscing 73 win warriors and 67 win spurs that same year?

Goat +?, Goatest?

Like the pacers/haliburton in 2025 faced (and lost like kobe too) to a +13 srs team in 7.

what does that make them with this reasoking, they beat a circs +9 srs cavs team and a +5 srs knicks team too btw so technicslly more impressibe than lakers run in 08 by your own reasoning

The 08 Jazz had a 6.86 SRS. That's a clear contender level mark and that was their SECOND round opponent. That is insane.

And LOL @ rounding them down to +6. You aren't slick bruh

If you want to die on the hill of how impressive the deron williams jazz is be my guest i guess?

[homecourtloss]

All I'll say is my point is that it is not a right comparison to say Kobe's teams were stacked. They were pretty well built, obviously, as it worked and players that play roles are good fits, but that can be said for all good teams.

Teams with two or three stars always perform well. The Curry/Durant titles do not elevate both those players at all, likewise with the Lebron/Wade titles.

It must be given more credit to teams that were built without attaining players already established. The 80s Lakers did get a number of good players in the draft and were able to add to what they had, while other teams missed out, but that's much of a not so sure thing than adding established stars. Truth is that The superteams of the last decade are frauds. The Kobe Shaq Lakers were built by adding unknown young players, Kobe the most key. It could have not turned out like it did. In their case, had they added an already established star wing, such as Grant Hill, winning wouldn't be the same.

Define “well.”

[falcolombardi]

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around. Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it? And when he did (barely) get in they got obliterated in the first round, which is the absolute best case scenario for the 09 Lakers.

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The 08 Lakers don't sniff the postseason without him, and 09 Lakers scrape and claw their way to the #8 seed AT BEST and get obliterated in the first round. With him? They're one of the fifteen best teams in NBA history.

Nice try tho.

Pau missed the postseason in a bunch of seasons in Mem and he's missing the postseason without Bryant around.

Good we both agree kobe is better than gasol and is judged in a different standard than him, for a moment i thought you may disagree

Bynum missed 30+ games in 09. How many times do I have to say it

But he was there in their 09 and 10 runs was not he? and wether you see him as his team 3rd or 4th best player there is no non-boston team in the league with a better player at that 3rd spot in those seasons and most likely no team with a "4th best player" comparable in 09-10

For a guy who was arguanly not even in their top 3, he was incredibly good of a 4th best player to have (while missing 08 playoffs*)

Yeah, the average team they played in 08 was at +6 SRS. That's GOAT level postseason competition. Losing to the Celtics doesn't change that fact, buddy.

The best teans they beat were a +5 spurs and +6 utah both of which are very fringe contenders those years. Is beating two good teams more impressive for you than beating a great team?

If that is goat level competition what is lebron beating the 16 warriors? Or okc fscing 73 win warriors and 67 win spurs that same year?

Goat +?, Goatest?

Like the pacers/haliburton in 2025 faced (and lost like kobe too) to a +13 srs team in 7.

what does that make them with this reasoking, they beat a circs +9 srs cavs team and a +5 srs knicks team too btw so technicslly more impressibe than lakers run in 08 by your own reasoning

The 08 Jazz had a 6.86 SRS. That's a clear contender level mark and that was their SECOND round opponent. That is insane.

And LOL @ rounding them down to +6. You aren't slick bruh

You could round utah up to a +8 srs team and it wouldnt change my overall point or make utah more impressive than the fringe contender it was

But instead of engaging the argument being made, you avoided it by being disingenous about rounded numbers

[One_and_Done]

It's almost like the SRS of a team isn't always a reliable indicator for how good they are as a team, especially come playoff time. The playoffs are almost a different sport in some ways. Guys who thrived in the RS become unplayable.

[Cavsfansince84]

It's almost like the SRS of a team isn't always a reliable indicator for how good they are as a team, especially come playoff time. The playoffs are almost a different sport in some ways. Guys who thrived in the RS become unplayable.

It always worked that way when LeBron was beating eastern teams with high srs such as the 60 win Hawks, Bulls, Pacers or Raptors. It just doesn't work like that when it comes to some other players and the teams they beat. Then srs becomes the true strength of any team.