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

[Striders]

There seems to be a lot of contention about the pecking order for the Shaq-Kobe Laker Dynasty.

Was it truly "1A/1B"? Is there a point where you would have considered Kobe to legitimately be Shaq's equal? If not, how big was the gap between them during those years? Who was more responsible for the Lakers dominance?

[Matt15]

I think in 2001 and 2003 they were like 1a/1b. The other years Kobe was more of 2nd option. The closest I felt that Kobe was to being Shaq’s equal was in the 2001 Playoffs when he was arguably the Lakers best player up until the Finals. Overall I give Shaq more credit for the Lakers dominance but Kobe was a huge factor as well.

[Stalwart]

They were a 1a/1b situation starting in 2001. There is really no debating that.

In 2000 Shaq was the best player. However, Kobe performed as a 1b for about half of the playoff games that year. Averaged 27ppg in round 1. Had big games in the 2nd round. Had a strong Conference finals performance including a 25/11 game 7 while Shaq only put up 18. He closed out a game in OT in the Finals when Shaq fouled out. Kobe was still Kobe just not every night out that year like Shaq was. Should be noted that he was injured in the Finals.

[70sFan]

Shaq was significantly better in 1999 and 2000, that's not up to debate.

Kobe made a giant leap in 2001, but I'd still say that Shaq was better in RS. In postseason they were truly 1A/1B, Bryant had spectacular run.

2002 is also relatively close, because Shaq dealt with different kind of injuries and missed some time in RS, but he was still the man when he played. Kobe didn't have that good postseason run, that's where Shaq still had clear edge outside of Spurs series. So overall, Shaq was still better player but Kobe was critical for this team.

2003 is the first year you can argue that Kobe was as impactful as Shaq and he played more games. I'd rather stay away from 2004 mess.

[feyki]

Kobe was at MVP level since 2001, just Shaq was playing at the historic level.

[LAL1947]

1999-00: Shaq (1), Kobe (2)
2000-01: Shaq (1A), Kobe (1B)
2001-02: Shaq (1), Kobe (1)
2002-03: Kobe (1), Shaq (2)
2003-04: Kobe (1A), Shaq (1B)

You asked about specific years, 1999-2004... I'm taking that to mean 1999-00 to 2003-04. I've listed my thoughts as a Lakers fan on how the dynamic changed. The stats may say otherwise but this is how I viewed it back then. The first two seasons are easy to understand, while the latter three seasons may not be as clear... so I'll explain below.

In 1999-00, Shaq was clear #1 and Kobe #2.

In 2000-01, Kobe improved to an extent where I considered him a 1B to Shaq instead of a #2.

In 2001-02, Shaq declined a little and Kobe continued improving, so I considered them joint #1s, i.e., on equal footing... but I would list Shaq first since it was still his team. I mean, I'd refer to that team as the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, not the Kobe-Shaq Lakers.

In 2002-03, Kobe became the best player on the team (and in the league), aided by Shaq's laziness and toe surgery... so AFAIC he was #1 and Shaq was now #2 on the Lakers.

However, in 2003-04, because of Shaq's ego and lack of graciousness when it came to handing over the keys to Kobe, the Lakers had to re-elevate Shaq back to being a 1B... and that was the beginning of the end.

[Texas Chuck]

No they were not. Shaq was the driving force that made them a three time champion. Kobe was important obviously, but nobody calls Pippen a 1b, nobody calls Manu or Parker a 1b and for very good reason. Those were Mike and Duncan driven teams.

No disrespect to Kobe, but it was about Shaq.

[LAL1947]

Kobe was important obviously, but nobody calls Pippen a 1b, nobody calls Manu or Parker a 1b and for very good reason.

Nobody also puts Pippen, Manu or Parker in the same tier as Kobe... but apparently you just tried to.

[Texas Chuck]

Kobe was important obviously, but nobody calls Pippen a 1b, nobody calls Manu or Parker a 1b and for very good reason.

Nobody also puts Pippen, Manu or Parker in the same tier as Kobe... but apparently you just tried to.

No, I didn't. Feel free to disagree, but its lame to put words in my mouth.

I didn't compare Kobe to those guys as players, but compared the difference in importance between them and the best players on their respective teams.

I have Kobe as clearly having a better career than those three players as I typically have Kobe at 10 or 11 all-time, Pippen somewhere between 25-30 and Manu and Parker well behind that.

This isn't Kobe hate so his defense force doesn't need to rise up. This is simply about how dominant Shaq and was and how he was the primary driving force behind that period of Lakers teams.

[LAL1947]

Kobe was important obviously, but nobody calls Pippen a 1b, nobody calls Manu or Parker a 1b and for very good reason.

Nobody also puts Pippen, Manu or Parker in the same tier as Kobe... but apparently you just tried to.

No, I didn't. Feel free to disagree, but its lame to put words in my mouth.

I didn't compare Kobe to those guys as players, but compared the difference in importance between them and the best players on their respective teams.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but trying to interpret the meaning of the statement that you made.

You're doing it again here by saying stuff like, "compared the difference in importance between them and the best players on their respective teams". Are you implying that the difference in importance between Pippen and Jordan or Manu/Parker and Duncan was the same as the difference in importance between Kobe and Shaq?

If yes, that is not at all accurate IMO. First, Jordan was better than Shaq. Second, Kobe was better than Pippen, Manu and Parker. Thirdly, all three of Jordan, Shaq and Kobe were better players than Duncan... although Duncan ended up having as great a career as the latter two because of the quality depth on his teams and the best coach/FO in the league. So how are you attempting to draw a parallel between such unequal scenarios? What you said is true for the 1999-00 season only, i.e., Kobe was not a 1A in that season only... but it is not true for the other 2 title winning years or for the 2 years that followed the three-peat. The OP asked about seasons 1999-00 to 2003-04... not about years prior to 1999-00.

[Woodsanity]

Nobody also puts Pippen, Manu or Parker in the same tier as Kobe... but apparently you just tried to.

No, I didn't. Feel free to disagree, but its lame to put words in my mouth.

I didn't compare Kobe to those guys as players, but compared the difference in importance between them and the best players on their respective teams.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but trying to interpret the meaning of the statement that you made.

You're doing it again here by saying stuff like, "compared the difference in importance between them and the best players on their respective teams". Are you implying that the difference in importance between Pippen and Jordan or Manu/Parker and Duncan was the same as the difference in importance between Kobe and Shaq?

If yes, that wouldn't be accurate IMO. First, Jordan was better than Shaq. Second, Kobe was better than Pippen, Manu and Parker. Thirdly, all three of Jordan, Shaq and Kobe were better players than Duncan... although Duncan ended up having as great a career as the latter two because of the quality depth on his teams and the best coach/FO in the league. So how are you attempting to draw a parallel between such unequal scenarios? What you said is true for the 1999-00 season only but not for the other 2 trophy winning years or the 2 years that followed the three-peat. The OP asked about seasons 1999-00 to 2003-04... not about years prior to 1999-00.

Kobe was not better than Duncan and its debatable whether Shaq had a better career too.

[LAL1947]

Kobe was not better than Duncan and its debatable whether Shaq had a better career too.

Says you and some people here on RealGM. I say otherwise and pretty much anyone who played with them says the same as me. So I'll take comfort in that.

Btw, I never said Shaq had a better career... I said Duncan ended up having as good a career. Two different things.

[LAL1947]

22-year old Kobe giving Timmy and the Spurs the bizness in the 2001 WCF... after he gave it to Portland and Sacramento... and before he gave it to the 76ers in the final after dispatching the Spurs.

The "kid" had 45 Points, 10 Rebounds, 3 Assists, 1 Steal, 1 Block... and we're trying to say that the difference in importance between him and Shaq was the same as Pippen/Manu/Parker to Jordan/Duncan? That's just blasphemous.

Watch on YouTube

[Doctor MJ]

There seems to be a lot of contention about the pecking order for the Shaq-Kobe Laker Dynasty.

Was it truly "1A/1B"? Is there a point where you would have considered Kobe to legitimately be Shaq's equal? If not, how big was the gap between them during those years? Who was more responsible for the Lakers dominance?

So I'll answer it like this:

1. '99-00 was pre-prime Kobe, where he really should not be seen as a superstar level player.

2. After that Kobe's in prime, but is far less reliable in his impact than Shaq. In the '01 playoffs he was completely locked in and has a case for the MVP of the team, but other than that, if we go simply by on-court impact, it's Shaq by a mile every time even when Kobe can reasonably be seen as a Top 5 player.

3. However, beginning in '00-01, Shaq became toxic off-court just as a matter of course, and while Kobe deserves some blame too for how things went, Shaq's behavior was such that it just made sense to prioritize Kobe as the franchise player even though he couldn't reliably provide the same type of impact as Shaq.

[Texas Chuck]

Are you implying that the difference in importance between Pippen and Jordan or Manu/Parker and Duncan was the same as the difference in importance between Kobe and Shaq?

If yes, that is not at all accurate IMO.

Still not what I'm doing. This is going to be fun isn't it? You are going to keep choosing to interpret me in a way so you can argue instead of asking for clarification or even just taking me at face value.

I'm not interested in getting into an argument over the degree to which the best player on those teams is better than the 2nd one. I pretty well covered how I see those 2nd(3rd) best players and made it clear I had Kobe well ahead of them.

But I still believe that Shaq was far more important than Kobe to those championship level teams and thus don't see Kobe as a near equal co-star. I get you disagree and I respect that. But kindly stop telling me what I'm implying. I'm well known for being quite direct and saying what I mean. I don't shy from potentially unpopular takes, nor do I feel the need to shade what I'm saying. I say it.

[Texas Chuck]

Oh and Kobe can't hold a candle to Timmy Duncan. So if you honestly think Kobe was a better player or had a better career, no need to respond further to me. That just tells me your valuation of Kobe is so far above mine that no wonder you are responding the way you are. I have Duncan one of 5 GOAT candidates. Kobe is not close to that in my estimation.

[LAL1947]

Are you implying that the difference in importance between Pippen and Jordan or Manu/Parker and Duncan was the same as the difference in importance between Kobe and Shaq?

If yes, that is not at all accurate IMO.

Still not what I'm doing. This is going to be fun isn't it? You are going to keep choosing to interpret me in a way so you can argue instead of asking for clarification or even just taking me at face value.

I'm not interested in getting into an argument over the degree to which the best player on those teams is better than the 2nd one. I pretty well covered how I see those 2nd(3rd) best players and made it clear I had Kobe well ahead of them.

But I still believe that Shaq was far more important than Kobe to those championship level teams and thus don't see Kobe as a near equal co-star. I get you disagree and I respect that. But kindly stop telling me what I'm implying. I'm well known for being quite direct and saying what I mean. I don't shy from potentially unpopular takes, nor do I feel the need to shade what I'm saying. I say it.

I'm not telling you what you're implying, Chuck... I'm asking you what you're implying and I'm not trying to make this an argument either. Apologies if it's coming across wrong. Anyway, if that's your opinion about their importance, fair enough. I disagree with it though, except for the 1999-00 season, and I've tried to explain why.

[LAL1947]

Oh and Kobe can't hold a candle to Timmy Duncan. So if you honestly think Kobe was a better player or had a better career, no need to respond further to me. That just tells me your valuation of Kobe is so far above mine that no wonder you are responding the way you are. I have Duncan one of 5 GOAT candidates. Kobe is not close to that in my estimation.

Yeah, I know you feel this way about Duncan... and that you also let your bias for Timmy affect your other views without even realizing the extent that you allow them to affect you... for example, in how highly you elevate Gasol beyond what he was because you can't admit/see that Kobe was as good as he was.

If you feel that I don't need to respond to you further because I believe Kobe was better... well, that's harsh.. but so be it. Before I sign off though, I am going to respond to that bolded statement by saying Timmy can't hold a candle to Kobe in terms of talent and he'd ruin Timmy 1-on-1. Timmy was very ably supported by a team with the best quality in depth, by the best coach, and by the best front office in the league that gave him the most ideal system and conditions to succeed. He didn't have to deal with a bully and egotistical ass like Shaq or have his prime/team sabotaged by anyone in the way that Shaq did to Kobe and the Lakers when he went to Miami. If Shaq had some graciousness and had passed the torch on to Kobe with dignity, then Timmy and the Spurs wouldn't have won diddly squat in the 2000s.

[70sFan]

Duncan was so lucky with his coach and organization compared to Kobe. It's not like Kobe won all of his rings with arguably the GOAT coach Phil freaking Jackson, playing whole career in the biggest organization in NBA history on extremely rich city.

[LAL1947]

Duncan was so lucky with his coach and organization compared to Kobe. It's not like Kobe won all of his rings with arguably the GOAT coach Phil freaking Jackson, playing whole career in the biggest organization in NBA history on extremely rich city.

Kobe also had a lot of fortune, I fully admit it... playing for the Lakers, playing with Shaq, coached by Phil (2nd best coach at that time), etc. Yet he also had less stability and had to overcome a lot more adversity than Duncan, especially when Shaq tried to sabotage "Kobe's Lakers" in 2004 and left him with a team of bums for 3 years of his absolute prime. Hope that you will not attempt to deny this. I'd also say that Shaq's behavior and the consequences of it was one of the main reasons why Kobe went "solo" for those 3 seasons before he became more of a leader and more team-oriented.