Shaq stayed in Orlando how does Kobe's look

[migya]

Had Shaq stayed in Orlando and not gone to the Lakers, same player movements for arguments sake, no championships 00-03, how does Kobe's career look? Where is he rated alltime?

[prolific passer]

Lakers keep Eddie Jones and have their own version of a Jordan/Pippen duo in Jones and Kobe? Also still have Elden Campbell, Horry, and Fisher. Fox off the bench.

[No-more-rings]

Well we need to remember he still wins 2 rings with Pau assuming everything else remains the same. He’d still be viewed as a top 20 all time player pretty easily imo. If you take both Shaq and Pau out of the equation the conversation could change, though not sure that would be a useful conversation as you could do that to a lot of great players in an attempt to discredit them.

[HeartBreakKid]

His general perception would be a top 15-20 guys with a few people being high on him placing him in the top ten (similar to here). Some people would go "WOAAAAH, top ten slow down nerd" like they do with Kevin Garnett probably.

The way he would be covered in the media would be drastically different without his first 3 rings, so the whole "he's like Jordan but with an afro!" thing wouldn't really exist, and the GOAT argument wouldn't exist in the 00s.

You have to keep in mind that he would be in LA for 12 years or so before he won a title, including many seasons where the Lakers are a first round team at best. That's a lot of years where he will be heavily scrutinized and asked "can he play winning basketball?" before he is ultimately validated.

[Primedeion]

He'd have better stats and still be one of the ten best players in history. Kids assuming the Lakers couldn't have been a championship caliber roster around him is pretty funny.

[HeartBreakKid]

He'd have better stats and still be one of the ten best players in history. Kids assuming the Lakers couldn't have been a championship caliber roster around him is pretty funny.

It says the players are the same...

[Stalwart]

The real question is how would Shaq look if he didn't get to play with Kobe. Its very possible Shaq doesn't win any rings in his career had he stayed in Orlando.

[HeartBreakKid]

The real question is how would Shaq look if he didn't get to play with Kobe. Its very possible Shaq doesn't win any rings in his career had he stayed in Orlando.

If the rules were the same for Shaq then he would have had Tracy McGrady.

[Masigond]

The real question is how would Shaq look if he didn't get to play with Kobe. Its very possible Shaq doesn't win any rings in his career had he stayed in Orlando.

If the rules were the same for Shaq then he would have had Tracy McGrady.

The whole prerequisite that everything else stays the same is very unrealistic. With Shaq still on the team the Magic wouldn't try a clear rebuild like they did when they traded injured Penny for picks and scrubs in 1999. They would have tried to get a star wing player earlier than the signings of Hill and McGrady (they would not have had the cap space to sign both with Shaq's contract on the team) a whole year later, so that would arguably never have happened.

Same with the Lakers: It's hard to imagine them doing the very same moves without Shaq on the team. Arguably no Glen Rice but a run at Duncan or at another established superstar player as early as 2000.

[joudre]

Before he couldn’t win without shaq now what you are asking the same question to another way smh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[migya]

The real question is how would Shaq look if he didn't get to play with Kobe. Its very possible Shaq doesn't win any rings in his career had he stayed in Orlando.

If the rules were the same for Shaq then he would have had Tracy McGrady.

He almost won in 95, his third year, with second year Penny and young Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott. Likely they come back in 97 after getting spanked and play much better against the Bulls. From 99 onwards they could win at least three.

[Stalwart]

The real question is how would Shaq look if he didn't get to play with Kobe. Its very possible Shaq doesn't win any rings in his career had he stayed in Orlando.

If the rules were the same for Shaq then he would have had Tracy McGrady.

He almost won in 95, his third year, with second year Penny and young Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott. Likely they come back in 97 after getting spanked and play much better against the Bulls. From 99 onwards they could win at least three.

After 95 he got swept or gentleman swept every year until 2000. And his teams were always loaded. If Orlando is able to replace injured Penny with another superstar like Tracey Mcgrady, Vince Carter, or Ray Allen then he could potentially win 2 or 3 titles. However, the same can be said for Kobe. If the Lakers are able to pair young Kobe with another superstar like Garnett, Duncan, Nash, Kidd, Dirk, ect then he could win 2 or 3 himself.

[HeartBreakKid]

If the rules were the same for Shaq then he would have had Tracy McGrady.

He almost won in 95, his third year, with second year Penny and young Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott. Likely they come back in 97 after getting spanked and play much better against the Bulls. From 99 onwards they could win at least three.

After 95 he got swept or gentleman swept every year until 2000. And his teams were always loaded. If Orlando is able to replace injured Penny with another superstar like Tracey Mcgrady, Vince Carter, or Ray Allen then he could potentially win 2 or 3 titles. However, the same can be said for Kobe. If the Lakers are able to pair young Kobe with another superstar like Garnett, Duncan, Nash, Kidd, Dirk, ect then he could win 2 or 3 himself.

Right...but that isn't the scenario. You know the thread isn't asking Shaq vs Kobe right?

You're saying if Shaq could get another player like Tracy McGrady he could potentially win 2 or 3 titles. That is what would happen...the player movement doesn't change. Either your statement is a contradiction or you were too lazy to read the thread and just wanted to complain.

The thread isn't even about Shaq in Orlando. It's like you have to change any topic that you think makes Kobe Bryant look bad.

[Colbinii]

He almost won in 95, his third year, with second year Penny and young Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott. Likely they come back in 97 after getting spanked and play much better against the Bulls. From 99 onwards they could win at least three.

After 95 he got swept or gentleman swept every year until 2000. And his teams were always loaded. If Orlando is able to replace injured Penny with another superstar like Tracey Mcgrady, Vince Carter, or Ray Allen then he could potentially win 2 or 3 titles. However, the same can be said for Kobe. If the Lakers are able to pair young Kobe with another superstar like Garnett, Duncan, Nash, Kidd, Dirk, ect then he could win 2 or 3 himself.

Right...but that isn't the scenario. You know the thread isn't asking Shaq vs Kobe right?

You're saying if Shaq could get another player like Tracy McGrady he could potentially win 2 or 3 titles. That is what would happen...the player movement doesn't change. Either your statement is a contradiction or you were too lazy to read the thread and just wanted to complain.

The thread isn't even about Shaq in Orlando. It's like you have to change any topic that you think makes Kobe Bryant look bad.

It's almost as if some of us need to see a reality we want to see versus a reality that actually exists.

[Stalwart]

He almost won in 95, his third year, with second year Penny and young Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott. Likely they come back in 97 after getting spanked and play much better against the Bulls. From 99 onwards they could win at least three.

After 95 he got swept or gentleman swept every year until 2000. And his teams were always loaded. If Orlando is able to replace injured Penny with another superstar like Tracey Mcgrady, Vince Carter, or Ray Allen then he could potentially win 2 or 3 titles. However, the same can be said for Kobe. If the Lakers are able to pair young Kobe with another superstar like Garnett, Duncan, Nash, Kidd, Dirk, ect then he could win 2 or 3 himself.

Right...but that isn't the scenario. You know the thread isn't asking Shaq vs Kobe right?

You're saying if Shaq could get another player like Tracy McGrady he could potentially win 2 or 3 titles. That is what would happen...the player movement doesn't change. Either your statement is a contradiction or you were too lazy to read the thread and just wanted to complain.

Keeping the player movement the same doesn't make any sense as that's not what would happen. We have no idea if Orlando still acquires Mcgrady in this alternate timeline. They may or may not. Also, its quite unlikely the Lakers leave Kobe with Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, and Rick Fox for 12 years. And if they did that theres no reason to think they acquire Gasol in 08.

The thread isn't even about Shaq in Orlando. It's like you have to change any topic that you think makes Kobe Bryant look bad.

We all know the answer the this question. If Kobe didn't have Shaq then he would be a 2x NBA Champion with much better stats. He would be a consensus top 15-20 instead of top 10. We all know this and I don't think that makes him look bad.

The far more interesting question is what does Shaq look like without Kobe.

[AEnigma]

If player movement stays the same (Stal is right to the extent that salaries make that framing pretty irrational), then I think the Magic have something of a conference dynasty 1999-2003. They were the 2-seed without Shaq in 1999, and the conference winner was the Ewing-less Knicks. Spurs still win the Finals though. McGrady breaks out in 2001 (for hypothetical salary cap reasons we can say they never pick up Grant Hill), and with peak Shaq I do not see the Magic falling to the 76ers. If they win the conference, they likely meet the Spurs in the Finals. The Spurs would struggle to stop McGrady as they did Kobe, but with comparatively weaker defensive support and bench depth (not to mention coaching), I would still take the Spurs. However, if they win any year, it probably would be this year; the team’s defence, the team’s depth, and Shaq himself all decline over the next two years as the Spurs make slight improvements. Then again, the Spurs never repeat, so maybe they bow out against the Kings in 2002, and that matchup suits the Magic a bit better.

Still, stal’s broader point that it hurts Shaq’s legacy more to stay with the Magic than it does for Kobe to lose the Shaq titles is probably correct — if everything else stays the same as best it can.

[Colbinii]

If player movement stays the same (Stal is right to the extent that salaries make that framing pretty irrational), then I think the Magic have something of a conference dynasty 1999-2003. They were the 2-seed without Shaq in 1999, and the conference winner was the Ewing-less Knicks. Spurs still win the Finals though. McGrady breaks out in 2001 (for hypothetical salary cap reasons we can say they never pick up Grant Hill), and with peak Shaq I do not see the Magic falling to the 76ers. If they win the conference, they likely meet the Spurs in the Finals. The Spurs would struggle to stop McGrady as they did Kobe, but with comparatively weaker defensive support and bench depth (not to mention coaching), I would still take the Spurs. However, if they win any year, it probably would be this year; the team’s defence, the team’s depth, and Shaq himself all decline over the next two years as the Spurs make slight improvements. Then again, the Spurs never repeat, so maybe they bow out against the Kings in 2002, and that matchup suits the Magic a bit better.

Still, stal’s broader point that it hurts Shaq’s legacy more to stay with the Magic than it does for Kobe to lose the Shaq titles is probably correct — if everything else stays the same as best it can.

Does a rival of the Heat willingly trade Shaq to the Heat? Thats another interning point. You have to imagine the Heat/Magic games get competitive and heated [hehe] with the Zo/Shaq battles.

[tsherkin]

Keeping the player movement the same doesn't make any sense as that's not what would happen. .

But that's patently irrelevant. There are unrealistic and non-sensical comparisons and hypotheticals all the time. The point is to work within the confines of the given structure, not to derail the thread with what it was explicitly was never meant to be...

[Stalwart]

Keeping the player movement the same doesn't make any sense as that's not what would happen. .

But that's patently irrelevant. There are unrealistic and non-sensical comparisons and hypotheticals all the time. The point is to work within the confines of the given structure, not to derail the thread with what it was explicitly was never meant to be...

I find this intense pushback to be quite strange. You guys are accusing me of trying to change the topic to protect Kobe when none of this even reflects negatively on him. Its almost like its you guys trying to people from making the obvious point that all great players look different if you take away their best teammates and replace them with nothing.

We all know the answer to this aggressively specific topic. The answer is that Kobe most likely has less titles, better stats, and falls out of the top 10. Theres nothing else to discuss. He's not winning a title with Derek Fisher and Ron Harper.

The far more interesting question is what Shaq looks like without Kobe.

[tsherkin]

I find this intense pushback to be quite strange. You guys are accusing me of trying to change the topic to protect Kobe when none of this even reflects negatively on him.

I don't care to make a guess about your motivation; I'm not a psychologist. What you are doing is derailing the thread by working against the root concept of the original post, though.

The far more interesting question is what Shaq looks like without Kobe.

Then start a thread about that instead of messing with this one.