RealGM

Happy Friday Y'all (my Friday at least hehe) and Y'all know what that means hehe, drinks are on me - Cheers

I'm tired of all the Kobe Haters <> you know who you're, who give Kobe so much hate because he was "Shaq's Side Kick" blah, blah, blah, An excuse for not being #1 option, but not like It was Kobe's fault you all can blame West for that - thanks West I love ya.

Kobe got so much hate with haters and media during the 3peat, Kobe can't win without shaq, Kobe finally wins with out Shaq but then It becomes "Kobe can't win without Pau" LOL - You just can't win and yet the so called "King" says "It's just bakeball" lol ... ...


In the 3peat 00, 01,02 who could have made Shaq a side kick? AND I'M ONLY REFERRING TO THOSE WHO PLAYED IN THOSE 3 YEARS.

the whole "sidekick" thing is a childish way to treat basketball anyway, its terminology for people that think they are watching Marvel and not a team sport. you have a center that is drawing a free double team every time down the floor, obviously you start by giving him the ball or forcing overinvestment in ball denial and play man up everywhere else.

It functionally doesn't make sense to not use Shaq as the primary focal point every single time down the floor because it takes a lot time you don't have late in the shot clock to get him posted and reposted the way he liked to get the ball, and then you don't have time to take advantage of him getting swarmed

you could have prime LeBron or Jordan on the court and if you're playing with Shaq it would still tactically be smarter to use the first 12 seconds of the clock to draw defense in with him versus having him just stand around on lob/cleanup duty

Shaq makes a much poorer "sidekick" than someone who works further from the basket because he draws doubles (or more) down giving everyone else more space. A great slasher like a Jerry West will also draw doubles but Shaq's already down under the basket so it's much easier to double off and back onto him (not that it would do you much good) and most teams don't hard double away from the basket.

So no, no one could as effectively make Shaq a "side kick" as they could make an offense in that day and age where Shaq was the primary focus and everyone played off him. Today, with the massive spamming of the 3, maybe it's different but in his day, no.

Early 90’s slashing MJ and peak Steph could get more shot attempts possibly but everything would revolve around Shaq.

Kobe literally did during the most important part of 2001

OhayoKD wrote:Kobe literally did during the most important part of 2001

But what about the RS and the other 3 series? And I'm not sure him scoring 2 extra ppg in the Kings series really counts as "making Shaq the sidekick." He literally took 5 more shots in that series.

Obviously, no one at that time. But Shaq, Kobe were 1a & 1b. It was peak Shaq, so the list is short on who you take over him but Kobe was a much needed teammate and active contributor to those chips as well!

MacGill wrote:Obviously, no one at that time. But Shaq, Kobe were 1a & 1b. It was peak Shaq, so the list is short on who you take over him but Kobe was a much needed teammate and active contributor to those chips as well!

I don't really think Kobe was 1b. I think it was pretty clear that Shaq was the focus. But Kobe's more dynamic movement helped him in closing out games and short-clock type situations. They had good synergy on the court. They were an extremely potent duo.

Sure; better players could, e.g prime Lebron.

Posted this last night while drinking, needed to get that off my chest It was bothering me haha. It's now Saturday morning probably most of Y'all Friday, so happy Friday. I'm a little tired 7am might take a nap b4 today's games pop up haha.

I know a lot of of players (who played In those 3 years) then, could have won championships with Shaq, but they too would most likely be Shaq's side kick for the most part - just get tired of all haters talking about how Kobe was Shaq's sidekick and using that for an excuse.

And @Tsherkin; you talked about how Shaq demanded double teams and even triple teams IMO, the same would be for today's game too IMO, the real question about today's game Is how would the REFS be reffing against/for Shaq? the way the game Is being played today.

SlimShady83 wrote:And @Tsherkin; you talked about how Shaq demanded double teams and even triple teams IMO, the same would be for today's game too IMO, the real question about today's game Is how would the REFS be reffing against/for Shaq? the way the game Is being played today.

He'd be fine. He'd bully guys with hard backdowns a little less, and emphasize post position, transition and offensive rebounding a little more, as he did when he was in Orlando. Shaq was a lot bigger in LA than he was in Orlando. He might also develop something like a Giannis-ish face-up game. He certainly had a handle sufficient for that, as long as he was attacking guys 6'10+.

To make him a sidekick means that he's not even seen as close to being the most valuable player on the team and I don't think any player in history could do that. There's a few players that might be seen as better than him(which is even harder in that era I would say where things were slowed down and 3pt shooting hadn't exploded yet) but you can't be a top 5-7 peak of all time and be a sidekick.

KembaWalker wrote:the whole "sidekick" thing is a childish way to treat basketball anyway, its terminology for people that think they are watching Marvel and not a team sport. you have a center that is drawing a free double team every time down the floor, obviously you start by giving him the ball or forcing overinvestment in ball denial and play man up everywhere else.

It functionally doesn't make sense to not use Shaq as the primary focal point every single time down the floor because it takes a lot time you don't have late in the shot clock to get him posted and reposted the way he liked to get the ball, and then you don't have time to take advantage of him getting swarmed

you could have prime LeBron or Jordan on the court and if you're playing with Shaq it would still tactically be smarter to use the first 12 seconds of the clock to draw defense in with him versus having him just stand around on lob/cleanup duty

Marvel doesn't really have side kicks. That's way more a DC thing.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:To make him a sidekick means that he's not even seen as close to being the most valuable player on the team and I don't think any player in history could do that. There's a few players that might be seen as better than him(which is even harder in that era I would say where things were slowed down and 3pt shooting hadn't exploded yet) but you can't be a top 5-7 peak of all time and be a sidekick.

Why do people insist on making these claims with absolutely zilch in the way of evidence or even a concept of how it could be tested?

You have zero way to determine an upper-limit in the gaps between the best players.

Yeah, but not many.

James Harden, Michael Jordan and Some Kobe years.

OhayoKD wrote:Why do people insist on making these claims with absolutely zilch in the way of evidence or even a concept of how it could be tested?

You have zero way to determine an upper-limit in the gaps between the best players.

You have yourself a nice day Ohayo.

In the NBA a that particular time, Tim Duncan and only Timmy.

The Lakers had a losing record in games Kobe played in but Shaq sat, but they were a 55 win team if Shaq played and Kobe sat. There's no way he was ever a side kick in actual NBA history.

tsherkin wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Kobe literally did during the most important part of 2001

But what about the RS and the other 3 series? And I'm not sure him scoring 2 extra ppg in the Kings series really counts as "making Shaq the sidekick." He literally took 5 more shots in that series.

Are you defining sidekick as shooting less? RS sure. Kobe was better all but one round of the playoffs.

OhayoKD wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Kobe literally did during the most important part of 2001

But what about the RS and the other 3 series? And I'm not sure him scoring 2 extra ppg in the Kings series really counts as "making Shaq the sidekick." He literally took 5 more shots in that series.

Are you defining sidekick as shooting less? RS sure. Kobe was better all but one round of the playoffs.

I don't think I agree with that.

OhayoKD wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Kobe literally did during the most important part of 2001

But what about the RS and the other 3 series? And I'm not sure him scoring 2 extra ppg in the Kings series really counts as "making Shaq the sidekick." He literally took 5 more shots in that series.

Are you defining sidekick as shooting less? RS sure. Kobe was better all but one round of the playoffs.

Can't say I agree with that.

Shaq was very perceptibly the focal option. "Sidekick" has a lot of scoring connotations, but also about team strategy. Shaq was a 30 ppg scorer who led the postseason with 15.4 rpg and was quality on defense. Kobe was not the primary option and wasn't the focus of opposing defenses. Shaq was the beginning of basically every LA possession and right up in the D's head every moment he was on the court.

Hard to really look at Kobe that postseason and call him the primary driver of anything, working off Shaq as he was. We know Kobe was good, we know he was critical to the title, but I don't really see a space where it makes sense not to call him the #2 on that team.