Shaq: (Kobe) had room to operate cuz I got 3 people on me. I coulda got 3 in a row w/ T-Mac. 2 w/ Vince. 6 w/ steph

[CobraCommander]

2001-2004:

Kobe with Shaq (7,957 minutes): 65.2% at the rim; 34.5% from three; 56.5% TS
Kobe without Shaq (3,757 minutes): 59.5% at the rim; 31.1% from three; 52.5% TS

Shaq with Kobe (7,957 minutes): 73.9% at the rim; 58.4% TS
Shaq without Kobe (2,391 minutes): 75.8% at the rim; 59.2% TS

People need to stop acting like Shaq wasn’t SHAQ….

Shaq gets 3 with tmac and maybe 6 in a row with Steph IF Shaq not on the Zion meal plan

Steph open is automatic 3 and Shaq with a double is 2!

Yao and Hakeem were the only men that actually could deal with Shaq but only kinda

[Optms]

Defenses would self implode with Shaq and Curry on the same team. All I know is the supporting players would become all stars with how open they'd be.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Shaq was literally ringless until Kobe became a full-time starter.

He had Penny, Vane Exel/Jones, Wade, Nash, Lebron, and only won 1 rings without Kobe.

One could easily say Kobe would have won 7+ rings if LA replaced Shaq with Duncan, but well....what's the point of hypotheticals.

[tsherkin]

Shaq was literally ringless until Kobe became a full-time starter.

He had Penny, Vane Exel/Jones, Wade, Nash, Lebron, and only won 1 rings without Kobe.

Somewhat without context, of course. Discussing his ring count from post-prime years seems disingenuous. It's clear that both of these guys won quite a lot when they had appropriate talent relative to their competition. It's clear who was the primary focus on the three-peat team, and that Kobe did a wonderful job in the years after the trade once he had a strong frontline again and some shooters, for sure.

Van Exel/Jones wasn't a stunning backcourt. I don't think that even merits much of a reply. And given Wade's health, I don't think that's a particularly salient discussion to have either. And then in Phoenix, Shaq was 35, 36, at which point Kobe was also well done relevance to contention, so it isn't really a fair standard. Same same with mentioning Lebron, with whom Shaq played as a 37 year-old in his second-last season: that's not relevant at all.

Penny was relevant, but they played three years together... and they lost to Hakeem/Drexler, and then to the 96 Bulls. That's not really a sin; that team literally held the record for most wins in an NBA season for like 20 years.

If anything, what we're seeing in that history is that Shaq was pretty competitive for a very long time. Made the Finals with three different teams. Was an All-Star on four different teams. All-NBA and an All-Star even at 36.

Much as is the case with Kobe, we need to apply some common sense filters to how we choose to approach a player's career. With the three-peat, it's possible that they win as many or more with a couple of other players replacing Kobe. That isn't sinful to say. There were some remarkable guys in the league at the time, and it's no disservice to suggest that those guys could win rings with Shaq. Like, he didn't mention Ray Allen, but that's another guy who probably could have won at least a couple with Shaq.

But yeah, we also need to stop talking about Kobe before he became Kobe, or after age took him, because otherwise that's a double standard.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Shaq was literally ringless until Kobe became a full-time starter.

He had Penny, Vane Exel/Jones, Wade, Nash, Lebron, and only won 1 rings without Kobe.

Somewhat without context, of course. Discussing his ring count from post-prime years seems disingenuous. It's clear that both of these guys won quite a lot when they had appropriate talent relative to their competition. It's clear who was the primary focus on the three-peat team, and that Kobe did a wonderful job in the years after the trade once he had a strong frontline again and some shooters, for sure.

Van Exel/Jones wasn't a stunning backcourt. I don't think that even merits much of a reply. And given Wade's health, I don't think that's a particularly salient discussion to have either. And then in Phoenix, Shaq was 35, 36, at which point Kobe was also well done relevance to contention, so it isn't really a fair standard. Same same with mentioning Lebron, with whom Shaq played as a 37 year-old in his second-last season: that's not relevant at all.

Penny was relevant, but they played three years together... and they lost to Hakeem/Drexler, and then to the 96 Bulls. That's not really a sin; that team literally held the record for most wins in an NBA season for like 20 years.

If anything, what we're seeing in that history is that Shaq was pretty competitive for a very long time. Made the Finals with three different teams. Was an All-Star on four different teams. All-NBA and an All-Star even at 36.

Much as is the case with Kobe, we need to apply some common sense filters to how we choose to approach a player's career. With the three-peat, it's possible that they win as many or more with a couple of other players replacing Kobe. That isn't sinful to say. There were some remarkable guys in the league at the time, and it's no disservice to suggest that those guys could win rings with Shaq. Like, he didn't mention Ray Allen, but that's another guy who probably could have won at least a couple with Shaq.

But yeah, we also need to stop talking about Kobe before he became Kobe, or after age took him, because otherwise that's a double standard.

You can take his later years out and he still only had 1 ring w/o Kobe. The larger point is Shaq hasn't pretty much always had talent around him outside of his rookie season.

Saying Van Exel/Jones wasn't a really good backcourt is just not the case. That team was already a 50+ win squad before he arrived. They "should" have made the finals every year but Shaq's lackluster defense, and inability to have an impact in crucnhtime prevented that. I know this as a Laker fan and guy who rooted for Shaq hard back then. Karl Malone flatout said when he did radio out here that the Jazz targeted Shaq on pNr endlessly in the playoffs, because he was lazy on D.

Case in point, 2000 WCFs...game 6 Shaq disappears in a closeout game to finally get LA to the FInals. Then in game 7...LA is dead to rights until the supporting casts saves the Lakers. No doubt Shaq beat the hell out of the East centers, but LA doesn't make it out of the West without Kobe, imo.

Was Tmac a great player, sure. But also less efficient, a weaker defender, and had half the motor/heart Kobe did back then. Iverson? nope. Vince? don't see it. As for Curry, that team would get torched on the perimeter. Again, it would be like me saying that TD or KG could replace Shaq, both great players, but I don't see the point in the what ifs. It always comes off as cope from players who didn't win, or players pumping up their own egos.

[LeBronSpaghetti]

Shaq is correct in this case. And it’s why Kobe is not a top 10 player of all time.

[tsherkin]

You can take his later years out and he still only had 1 ring w/o Kobe.

It's true, but rings are won by teams, and his team quality outside of Kobe was often not title level, especially relative to competition faced.

Saying Van Exel/Jones wasn't a really good backcourt is just not the case. That team was already a 50+ win squad before he arrived. They "should" have made the finals every year but Shaq's lackluster defense, and inability to have an impact in crucnhtime prevented that. I know this as a Laker fan and guy who rooted for Shaq hard back then. Karl Malone flatout said when he did radio out here that the Jazz targeted Shaq on pNr endlessly in the playoffs, because he was lazy on D.

Shaq had his weaknesses, but they faced Utah twice. The first time, Van Exel was terrible and Eddie Jones was worse. Shaq also struggled, of course, but he had no actual offensive support at all. The second time around, he was kicking Utah's teeth in, while Eddie choked, Van Exel sucked and a young Kobe struggled.

Case in point, 2000 WCFs...game 6 Shaq disappears in a closeout game to finally get LA to the FInals. Then in game 7...LA is dead to rights until the supporting casts saves the Lakers. No doubt Shaq beat the hell out of the East centers, but LA doesn't make it out of the West without Kobe, imo.

If you want to go back and forth about individual bad games, that won't end in Kobe's favor at all.

Was Tmac a great player, sure. But also less efficient, a weaker defender, and had half the motor/heart Kobe did back then.

They title in 2003, no question. And odds are, if McGrady was playing with Shaq instead of those G-League-level Orlando teams, he would have looked a little better in terms of his personal efficiency as well.

Vince? don't see it.

There are two very specific seasons of relevance for Vince. If you don't remember them, that's forgivable because you're not a Raptors guy. But in 2000 and 2001, he was very much on the same level as Kobe (particularly in 01). After, considerably less so.

As for Curry, that team would get torched on the perimeter.

Hyperbole. And given Curry's offensive potence, even less relevant IMHO.

Again, it would be like me saying that TD or KG could replace Shaq, both great players, but I don't see the point in the what ifs. It always comes off as cope from players who didn't win, or players pumping up their own egos.

This assumes it's a dig at Kobe. It doesn't have to be. The point is that a strong perimeter player alongside what Shaq was at the time inside the triangle is an excellent recipe for a contender.

Kobe fans are very right to look at his performance in the WC and talk it up, but they are also frequently very quick to forget how poorly he's played in most of the Finals series he's made. Gotta have both sides of that conversation when we're discussing what's happening here. Or like, Kobe was nothing special in the 2000 RS relative to these other guys. He would later become a very impressive player, but that was a pretty standard "second option star guard" kind of season. He wasn't especially impressive relative to his peers that postseason, either. He had a great first round, was pretty crap against Phoenix, was ultra-hot from 3 against the Blazers and was huge in that Game 6, and then sucked a lot of ass against the Pacers. That's nothing we couldn't have seen from Vince that year, or Ray Allen, or Steph. And a year later, they handled his absence pretty well during the RS (11-3), and then kicked it up together really nicely in a dominant playoff run. To me, it almost didn't matter which AS guard the Lakers would have had that year, they were going to win regardless. And that was still another bad Finals performance from Bryant.

Again, I don't want this to be about ripping on Kobe. Quite the opposite. I would like to see a fair look at his career, and for others. We should be looking at them when they were playing in their strong years. We shouldn't even be discussing 2016, except to remark on his ability to still be in the league at all at the time. Just the same, we shouldn't be talking about Cleveland Shaq (or that he played with Lebron), because that's irrelevant nonsense. And when we discuss his time in Miami, we should have fair discussions of roster health and how that impacted their success, because that's a major thing for any team. And then when we speak of his brief time as an old man in Phoenix, we should look at the fact that they ran into the defending champion Spurs in the playoffs that first year, AND traded Raja Bell and Boris Diaw for Jason Richardson, AND Amare missed 27 games, AND they were only .500 when Nash didn't play. And Shaq was 36 and playing 30 mpg, which was impressive given his injury history and everything else. It was his last All-Star appearance, but he certainly wasn't any kind of dominant... and that's normal. Neither was Kobe at the same age.

Just a little perspective and balance would be nice. Not mentioning irrelevant things, while adding context to whatever it is we're discussing, to both sides.

[dhsilv2]

Shaq is correct in this case. And it’s why Kobe is not a top 10 player of all time.

How on earth does this prove or show anything about Kobe? If you pair Shaq at his apex with a REALLY good player, he'll win a lot. That doesn't diminish kobe what so ever.

[tsherkin]

Shaq is correct in this case. And it’s why Kobe is not a top 10 player of all time.

How on earth does this prove or show anything about Kobe? If you pair Shaq at his apex with a REALLY good player, he'll win a lot. That doesn't diminish kobe what so ever.

Yes, I have to agree that this isn't a good reason to hold Kobe from the top-10. I don't have him there either, but it's not because other guys could have won with Shaq. That's a weird argument. Kobe, without Shaq, was an MVP who made three straight Finals appearances and won repeat titles. That's a pretty impressive resume regardless. Between that and his scoring titles, his longevity and then what he did WITH Shaq, he's got a remarkable career which stands well on its own merits in whatever position you rank him all-time.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

Thor: is he wrong tho?

I kinda think its fun to speculate what a Steph/Shaq run would look like and where they'd rank in terms of all time players if they played together.

[An Unbiased Fan]

You can take his later years out and he still only had 1 ring w/o Kobe.

It's true, but rings are won by teams, and his team quality outside of Kobe was often not title level, especially relative to competition faced.

Sure, but the topic comes from Shaq saying he could have won 3 with Tmac. That 3peat team wasn't deep. It was essentially Shaq/Kobe and role-players, which is fine, I loved those te4ams, but no one would say that cast compares to other great teams.

Shaq had his weaknesses, but they faced Utah twice. The first time, Van Exel was terrible and Eddie Jones was worse. Shaq also struggled, of course, but he had no actual offensive support at all. The second time around, he was kicking Utah's teeth in, while Eddie choked, Van Exel sucked and a young Kobe struggled.

In both series Shaq was god awful on defense. I do agree that Eddie was lackluster in 1998, but wouldn't say Van Exel was bad in 97'. Nick fell off after because of his feud with Del Harris, before that he was a stellar player in the playoffs, ask Sonic fans.

If you want to go back and forth about individual bad games, that won't end in Kobe's favor at all.

It's not about individual games solely, but that 2000 team was about to lose yet again without reaching the Finals. Shaq has disappeared, and really only popped his head back in at moments during the G7 run. I don't think Tmac helps thar situation considering his 4th quarter woes in the playoffs. He would have given up in the 3rd quarter.

They title in 2003, no question. And odds are, if McGrady was playing with Shaq instead of those G-League-level Orlando teams, he would have looked a little better in terms of his personal efficiency as well.

How in the world do they title in 2003 when that's the year the Spurs actually beat LA in the 2000s? lol

There are two very specific seasons of relevance for Vince. If you don't remember them, that's forgivable because you're not a Raptors guy. But in 2000 and 2001, he was very much on the same level as Kobe (particularly in 01). After, considerably less so.

No not really. Kobe was the more complete player. Vince was the better dunker, but that's about it. His efficiency wasn't any better than Tmac or AI's outside of 01'. Defensively he was much weaker. Kobe's facilitating is also getting overlooked.

Hyperbole. And given Curry's offensive potence, even less relevant IMHO.

Curry's weak defense is not hyperbole, how would LA defend other teams? They would get torched, and Shaq would be in foul trouble all game with guards going at the rim. The only two guys who ever yelled at Shaq to ever play defense was Kobe in LA and Riles in Miami.

This assumes it's a dig at Kobe. It doesn't have to be. The point is that a strong perimeter player alongside what Shaq was at the time inside the triangle is an excellent recipe for a contender.

Kobe fans are very right to look at his performance in the WC and talk it up, but they are also frequently very quick to forget how poorly he's played in most of the Finals series he's made. Gotta have both sides of that conversation when we're discussing what's happening here. Or like, Kobe was nothing special in the 2000 RS relative to these other guys. He would later become a very impressive player, but that was a pretty standard "second option star guard" kind of season. He wasn't especially impressive relative to his peers that postseason, either. He had a great first round, was pretty crap against Phoenix, was ultra-hot from 3 against the Blazers and was huge in that Game 6, and then sucked a lot of ass against the Pacers. That's nothing we couldn't have seen from Vince that year, or Ray Allen, or Steph. And a year later, they handled his absence pretty well during the RS (11-3), and then kicked it up together really nicely in a dominant playoff run. To me, it almost didn't matter which AS guard the Lakers would have had that year, they were going to win regardless. And that was still another bad Finals performance from Bryant.

Again, I don't want this to be about ripping on Kobe. Quite the opposite. I would like to see a fair look at his career, and for others. We should be looking at them when they were playing in their strong years. We shouldn't even be discussing 2016, except to remark on his ability to still be in the league at all at the time. Just the same, we shouldn't be talking about Cleveland Shaq (or that he played with Lebron), because that's irrelevant nonsense. And when we discuss his time in Miami, we should have fair discussions of roster health and how that impacted their success, because that's a major thing for any team. And then when we speak of his brief time as an old man in Phoenix, we should look at the fact that they ran into the defending champion Spurs in the playoffs that first year, AND traded Raja Bell and Boris Diaw for Jason Richardson, AND Amare missed 27 games, AND they were only .500 when Nash didn't play. And Shaq was 36 and playing 30 mpg, which was impressive given his injury history and everything else. It was his last All-Star appearance, but he certainly wasn't any kind of dominant... and that's normal. Neither was Kobe at the same age.

Just a little perspective and balance would be nice. Not mentioning irrelevant things, while adding context to whatever it is we're discussing, to both sides.

I didn't take it as a dig, like I said hypotheticals only appeal to former stars who like to cope, or pump up their own egos. No different from when people used to say Peyton or Aaron would have won replacing Brady back in the day. My point was more directed at Shaq, because we both know he would get upset if someone suggested Kobe would have won more next to TD. The reality is we'll never know, too many intangibles to factor in. But when Shaq says he would have won 3 with Tmac, 6 with Curry, that's all about self-promotion and saying how great he is.

[Rainwater]

It's funny how people talk about the perceived "hatred" that guys like Shaq and T-Mac had for Kobe. At the 49 min mark T-Mac talks about his friendship with Kobe and the internet chatter and narrative being spread online regarding his recent comments.

Watch on YouTube

[flytimes11]

I saw another post say who is to say that Kobe and Duncan don't do better than Kobe and Shaq? I understand Shaq was dominant but Kobe got doubled also. Without Shaq Kobe averaged 35 ppg, had 62 in 3 quarters, 81, 4 games in a row over 50. Im guessing he was able to do that because the defense was focused on kwame and smush?

[Jedi32]

It sounds good, but I'd be more inclined to believe that Kobe and someone like KG get five or six before I believe shaq wins three with tmac or 6 with curry.

[tsherkin]

Sure, but the topic comes from Shaq saying he could have won 3 with Tmac. That 3peat team wasn't deep. It was essentially Shaq/Kobe and role-players, which is fine, I loved those te4ams, but no one would say that cast compares to other great teams.

Depends on which team you were discussing. The 2000 and 2001 teams definitely had solid peripheral talent. It started to erode a little thereafter, though, and was very different once they lost Horry.

In both series Shaq was god awful on defense. I do agree that Eddie was lackluster in 1998, but wouldn't say Van Exel was bad in 97'. Nick fell off after because of his feud with Del Harris, before that he was a stellar player in the playoffs, ask Sonic fans.

I would say he was bad in 97 because he couldn't hit shots and was inefficient. Now, if you want to counter with "that's what you get for playing him 42 mpg," then there's some back and forth we can have, because that's a valid comment as well. There wasn't a lot of depth there to spell him as a primary playmaker. And lacking strong playmaking is definitely an issue with an offense centered around a low-post center. And Del Harris wasn't exactly a legend of a coach.

Yes, attacking Shaq in the PnR is a good way to expose his weakness. He didn't defend well in space. He was also 7'1 and 300 pounds, so that was somewhat inevitable. Utah had strong execution , and Shaq was a volume scorer exhausting himself on offense... who was also sometimes lazy about closing out. That defense, though? Very much not what lost them the series.

Getting SPANKED on the offensive glass and having no offensive support were both much larger issues. Utah played almost 4 points per 100 possessions worse than their regular season selves; they weren't exactly dominating on O in 97. And Karl Malone was flaming garbage on offense.

In 1998, they were the top-2 teams in the league offensively, and it was a disaster at either end for the Lakers. In that series, there's no wiggle room to defend Van Exel: he just sucked, as did Eddie Jones, while Shaq had figured out Utah's scheme to defend him.

It's not about individual games solely, but that 2000 team was about to lose yet again without reaching the Finals. Shaq has disappeared, and really only popped his head back in at moments during the G7 run. I don't think Tmac helps thar situation considering his 4th quarter woes in the playoffs. He would have given up in the 3rd quarter.

Kobe was very clearly a positive contributor in that moment, absolutely. He was an excellent player, and 2000 was essentially his early breakout.

I think it depends on which Mcgrady you're talking about. In actual 2000, I think I agree with you that McGrady hadn't quite managed it yet. But 01-03 McGrady was another story entirely, flexing his scoring muscle in Orlando. I think he'd have had no trouble coming up big in that game.

How in the world do they title in 2003 when that's the year the Spurs actually beat LA in the 2000s? lol

Because McGrady had an ATG season that year better than anything we've seen from Kobe, and that was on a horrible Orlando team? And because I think McGrady carries LA without Shaq in the games he missed better than year, and doesn't have the same chemistry issues with him. I think McGrady's shooting in that season helps carry them.

No not really. Kobe was the more complete player. Vince was the better dunker, but that's about it. His efficiency wasn't any better than Tmac or AI's outside of 01'.

"Outside of 01" is irrelevant to 2000 and 2001. Carter led the league in OBPM and VORP in 2001 and was a 40.8% shooter on 5.8 3PA/g with no other offensive threat on the team. He was starting alongside Charles Oakley, Antonio Davis, Alvin Williams and Morris Peterson or Mark Jackson. Bit of Corliss Williamson.

Meantime, Kobe's facilitation was good, but unless raw APG is your main focus, Carter was doing just fine in that context and he could have played post/re-post with Shaq in the triangle just fine... and would have looked better had he any talent alongside him who could finish meaningfully. He was a DOMINANT player in those seasons.

Curry's weak defense is not hyperbole, how would LA defend other teams? They would get torched, and Shaq would be in foul trouble all game with guards going at the rim. The only two guys who ever yelled at Shaq to ever play defense was Kobe in LA and Riles in Miami.

This is definitely hyperbole. Steph isn't actually a bad defender (though of course far from All-D), and the Lakers weren't getting smoked on the regular because the SG talent they faced wasn't that interesting outside of the 00 and 01 Finals... and they could force AI to bomb 20-footers at 40% all night long without a lot of issue. And Reggie lit them up for 24 on like 59% TS, in his 30s. LA was dealing with Duncan and Sheed and Dirk and so forth a lot more.

I saw another post say who is to say that Kobe and Duncan don't do better than Kobe and Shaq

That does seem odd to much. Duncan was healthier and a better defender, and didn't need to worry about scoring so much. I think they'd have paired quite well.

Without Shaq Kobe averaged 35 ppg, had 62 in 3 quarters, 81, 4 games in a row over 50. Im guessing he was able to do that because the defense was focused on kwame and smush?

He was able to do that taking 27 FGA/g, bombing volume from deep. It also wasn't a winning strategy, because there's a minimum threshold of team talent required to win. Wasn't far different from 87 Jordan in approach and result.

[WargamesX]

Honestly he is probably right about getting 6 with Steph they are both freaks of nature and teams usually have to design their defense to slow down one, there would be no way to slow down both

[Yank3525]

The basketball gods should have worked their magic and gave us these pairings in the early 2000s.

Shaq/T-Mac
Duncan/Kobe
Dirk/Vince
KG/AI

Would have been fun.

[tsherkin]

The basketball gods should have worked their magic and gave us these pairings in the early 2000s.

Shaq/T-Mac
Duncan/Kobe
Dirk/Vince
KG/AI

Would have been fun.

Those would have been interesting pairings, for sure.

KG/AI would be the worst of them, but there would have been some nutso battles while Mac was healthy, and from Dirk/Vince for a minute. Kobe/Duncan is probably the best pairing of the lot.

[JustBuzzin]

He's not lying lol

If you watched Shaq in his prime you would know he was the most dominant player in basketball.

When MJ retired it became Shaq's league for a good 5 years straight.

[John Murdoch]

What happend in 04 ShaQ? Ben Wallace shut u down