Can you name 15 players in NBA history better than Kobe?

[italianleather]

Kobe was not #2 on the 2nd and 3rd rings, check their playoff and finals stats. he was not a clear #1 but it was a kobe/shaq duo, which is why they won

Kobe had great stats but those teams were built around Shaq. That automatically put Kobe as #2 but I also firmly believe they don't win without Kobe's playoff performances.

Yup, Kobe can make his case as a GOAT 2nd option, he is as close as a 1st option as a number 2 guy. However, he is still a 2nd option.

[jaypo]

You know, the more people argue about Kobe not being the 2nd option for the 3 peat makes me laugh. And you can label me a "hater" (as so many of you love to do), but let me point out some facts:

1. The Lakers ran the triangle offense which operated THRU Shaq. Therefore, by default, Shaq was the 1st option. There is no disputing that. It is a FACT. Therefore, by default, if Shaq didn't create the scoring opportunity for himself, the offensive flow dictated the #2 option, which resulted in Kobe being #2 most of the time because he could create his own shot.

2. Phil Jackson PUBLICLY stated that Shaq was the #1 option and leader of the Lakers. Fact. Not opinion. Not something that can really be argued.

3. Kobe even friggin' admitted in his exit interview that he "was tired of being a sidekick". Even he knew he was a sidekick!!

So let's review, people. And let's also realize that this isn't done out of hate, because I have absolutely nothing to do with any of the above FACTS! Phil publicly determined that Shaq was the #1 option in a offense that ran THRU Shaq on a Lakers team that Shaq was the leader of. Kobe admitted that he was tired of being a sidekick, meaning that he realized himself that he was one! What is there to argue? But I'm sure there will be a bunch of you arguing that point anyhow, and I'm sure I'll be branded a hater because I refuse to cast Kobe as the almighty!

Maybe importance to the team is a better argument. Well, I guess the only way to measure that is to show how important both pieces were to their teams. What was the Lakers' record with Shaq and without Kobe? And what was their record with Kobe and without Shaq?

Secondly, look at their years together and show their respective MVP shares for those years, and tell me who the best player was.

Again, you can argue with me if you like. But I watched their entire careers. And I take into affect the FACTS that I mentioned above. But I'm sure many of you will try to call me a troll, hater, etc. That's cool, but you can't erase the facts!

[Vincent 666]

Bryant obviously didnt play at the level of "2nd option" on the 2001 and 2002 title teams.

[jaypo]

Bryant obviously didnt play at the level of "2nd option" on the 2001 and 2002 title teams.

Neither did Shaq. But what Bryant DID do was play the #2 role in the offense. Because as I mentioned above, the Lakers ran the offense thru Shaq.

Just for fun, a few months ago in another thread, I posted stats for both players during their title years for the playoffs. And it basically debunked all those that say that Kobe was the only reason that the Lakers got TO the finals by his brilliant play during those other serieses. It showed that while Kobe did play well in those serieses, he didn't outshine Shaq as many of you would like to make it seem. Shaq played below his average in a couple of them (because of the improved defense in the Western Conference), but he was still able to get good efficient numbers.

Oh yeah, for the record, in their 8 year span, MVP shares were 2.62 for Shaq and .678 for Kobe, or an average of .33 to .08 per year. Just sayin!

[Vincent 666]

Bryant obviously didnt play at the level of "2nd option" on the 2001 and 2002 title teams.

Because as I mentioned above, the Lakers ran the offense thru Shaq.
!

Not in the 4th quarter aka winning time they didnt.

[jaypo]

Bryant obviously didnt play at the level of "2nd option" on the 2001 and 2002 title teams.

Because as I mentioned above, the Lakers ran the offense thru Shaq.
!

Not in the 4th quarter aka winning time they didnt.

So in the famous 2000 WCF against Portland, for example, was it Kobe's 9 points that feuled the 15 point comeback?

Why do you think those games were within reach during that stretch? Maybe Shaq's dominance had something to do with it. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Vincent 666]

So in the famous 2000 WCF against Portland, for example, was it Kobe's 9 points that feuled the 15 point comeback?

The game where Bryant lead the Lakers in points,rebounds,assists, and blocks?

People focus to much on labels like "2nd option".

The Lakers had two players who played at the level of a 1st option........even if one of those players outplayed the other.

[USA]

You know, the more people argue about Kobe not being the 2nd option for the 3 peat makes me laugh. And you can label me a "hater" (as so many of you love to do), but let me point out some facts:

1. The Lakers ran the triangle offense which operated THRU Shaq. Therefore, by default, Shaq was the 1st option. There is no disputing that. It is a FACT. Therefore, by default, if Shaq didn't create the scoring opportunity for himself, the offensive flow dictated the #2 option, which resulted in Kobe being #2 most of the time because he could create his own shot.

2. Phil Jackson PUBLICLY stated that Shaq was the #1 option and leader of the Lakers. Fact. Not opinion. Not something that can really be argued.

3. Kobe even friggin' admitted in his exit interview that he "was tired of being a sidekick". Even he knew he was a sidekick!!

So let's review, people. And let's also realize that this isn't done out of hate, because I have absolutely nothing to do with any of the above FACTS! Phil publicly determined that Shaq was the #1 option in a offense that ran THRU Shaq on a Lakers team that Shaq was the leader of. Kobe admitted that he was tired of being a sidekick, meaning that he realized himself that he was one! What is there to argue? But I'm sure there will be a bunch of you arguing that point anyhow, and I'm sure I'll be branded a hater because I refuse to cast Kobe as the almighty!

Maybe importance to the team is a better argument. Well, I guess the only way to measure that is to show how important both pieces were to their teams. What was the Lakers' record with Shaq and without Kobe? And what was their record with Kobe and without Shaq?

Secondly, look at their years together and show their respective MVP shares for those years, and tell me who the best player was.

Again, you can argue with me if you like. But I watched their entire careers. And I take into affect the FACTS that I mentioned above. But I'm sure many of you will try to call me a troll, hater, etc. That's cool, but you can't erase the facts!

Good post except for the bold. That is not a good way to determine importance considering the team was built for Shaq's strenghts and weaknesses not Kobe's.

You know I only label you a hater at your version of the Shaq/Kobe breakup. Kobe was the second option, regardless of how well he played.

[Vincent 666]

How is a player who averages 29 7 and 6 47% on one of the title teams (and the 1st option in the 4th quarter) classified as a "2nd option"

Makes no sense.

[USA]

It does make sense. Regardless of how good Kobe's stats were, those teams were built around Shaq as the center piece, aka #1 option. BTW, Shaq's numbers weren't to shabby either.

[Vincent 666]

It does make sense. Regardless of how good Kobe's stats were, those teams were built around Shaq as the center piece, aka #1 option. BTW, Shaq's numbers weren't to shabby either.

Not disputing that at all.

For some reason in peoples minds a team can only have one 1st option and the 2nd best player is automatically a "2nd option". Thats the logic I dont agree with.

For example, if a team has a player averaging 32 6 and 6 and another player averaging 30 5 and 5.......the 30 5 and 5 player to me is not a "2nd option"

[Vinsanity420]

How is a player who averages 29 7 and 6 47% on one of the title teams (and the 1st option in the 4th quarter) classified as a "2nd option"

Makes no sense.

Here's a fact people need to digest - Shaq was just that good. It's hardly Kobe's fault... Shaq is arguably the most dominant player post NBA/ABA merger. Unless you're MJ, Shaq would have been the MAN on those three peat teams.

[USA]

It does make sense. Regardless of how good Kobe's stats were, those teams were built around Shaq as the center piece, aka #1 option. BTW, Shaq's numbers weren't to shabby either.

Not disputing that at all.

For some reason in peoples minds a team can only have one 1st option and the 2nd best player is automatically a "2nd option". Thats the logic I dont agree with.

For example, if a team has a player averaging 32 6 and 6 and another player averaging 30 5 and 5.......the 30 5 and 5 player to me is not a "2nd option"

No offense, but I think that is an elementary way of looking at it. It is not that cut and dry. Your hypothetical situation, sure, they could both be #1 options but #1 & #2 options are determined by more than just stats. I think Kobe's leadership was lacking at the time and that is another reason why I put him as the #2 option.

I do think Kobe was playing as good as a first option in those playoff runs but he was the second option. That is why Shaq/Kobe split. Kobe was ready to be a first option and Shaq wasn't ready to be a second option to Kobe like he was to Wade.

I know I am not going to change your mind but maybe something I say will make you look at it a little different.

[cloud king]

technically Shaq was more #1 than Kobe, but people use that argument to say that Kobe's 3 rings don't count as much or don't matter, which is just crazy when they both had about the same points and 2x each others rebounds/assists.

compare that to kobe/pau or wade/shaq to see what a real 2nd option is

[Vincent 666]

they could both be #1 options but #1 & #2 options are determined by more than just stats.
.

I agree with that.

Like how Bryant was the 1st option in the 4th quarter and whenever the Lakers needed a big shot with under a minute.

[jaypo]

How is a player who averages 29 7 and 6 47% on one of the title teams (and the 1st option in the 4th quarter) classified as a "2nd option"

Makes no sense.

Because he had a center averaging better numbers leading the team. And see the examples I mentioned above!!

USA- you made a very good point above. You mentioned that the team was built around Shaq- that is further indication that I am correct!

Also, USA, I know you disagree with my take on the breakup, but I posted on another thread a link to the Wiki page about the breakup. If you missed it, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryan ... 7Neal_feud

There are things that I blame both of them for, but reading that page with all the references furthers most of my points. In a nutshell, I view it this way- Shaq was the leader of that team, mostly because he was one of the best players in the league at that time. Kobe believed that because he worked the hardest in the league and was the most TALENTED, that he should be put in the #1 role. And it caused problems with Shaq, his other teammates, and even his coach. You can see in that article that Kobe had grown tired of running the offense because it didn't display his talents, and that's when Shaq started barking back. Most of the comments made initially had to do with Kobe's selfish play, a sentiment backed up by Phil Jackson. Kobe then shot back with comments about not needing help with the guard position. Then it became a pissing match. It became serious during the rape situation. It has been discovered that Shaq knew about Kobe telling the police about him shortly after it happened. So for all that crap about "Shaq was horrible because he didn't call to offer support to Kobe" is moot- would you want to give your support to a man that just, as Shaq pointed out in his rap, cost him his marriage??

USA- the reason I have the opinions I have on the situation is because of articles like that. There are links to most of the information on that page. Read it and let me know what you think.

[jaypo]

It does make sense. Regardless of how good Kobe's stats were, those teams were built around Shaq as the center piece, aka #1 option. BTW, Shaq's numbers weren't to shabby either.

Not disputing that at all.

For some reason in peoples minds a team can only have one 1st option and the 2nd best player is automatically a "2nd option". Thats the logic I dont agree with.

For example, if a team has a player averaging 32 6 and 6 and another player averaging 30 5 and 5.......the 30 5 and 5 player to me is not a "2nd option"

But in your example, Kobe had another player averaging similar points but more rebounds on a far better fg% and anchoring a defense. And if you counter with "well, Kobe was the man in clutch time"- then I offer you Horry and Fisher, because they hit the majority of the clutch shots during that run. And I also counter you with the fact that Shaq had to manage the paint the whole game, so I'd say his contribution during 99.9% of the time was more important than the .01% of the time that Kobe had to impose his will.

[Vincent 666]

Kobe believed that because he worked the hardest in the league and was the most TALENTED, that he should be put in the #1 role. And it caused problems with Shaq, his other teammates, and even his coach. You can see in that article that Kobe had grown tired of running the offense because it didn't display his talents, and that's when Shaq started barking back

Nope.

Bryant never made any comments about wanting the #1 role or wanting the offense to go through him.

Those comments always came from Shaq.

Anyway, those comments about wanting a bigger role in the offense were made in 2001. Bryant said that instead of beating teams in 6 or 7 they would win in sweeps.

He was 100% right.

[Vincent 666]

But in your example, Kobe had another player averaging similar points but more rebounds on a far better fg% and anchoring a defense. And if you counter with "well, Kobe was the man in clutch time"- then I offer you Horry and Fisher, because they hit the majority of the clutch shots during that run. And I also counter you with the fact that Shaq had to manage the paint the whole game, so I'd say his contribution during 99.9% of the time was more important than the .01% of the time that Kobe had to impose his will.

Fisher?

Fisher really didnt start hitting big shots until recently.

A role player being clutch is completly different than a superstar being clutch. Role players play off the attention superstars get.

Its not a coincidence to me that the Lakers have won as many close games as they have in the playoffs the past decade with Bryant on the court.

Even Fishers .4 shot was made possible because of Bryants presence on the court.

Those 2000 Laker teams had two 1st option superstars. We all saw the results that Shaq got with the Lakers when he had two perimeter all stars (and true 2nd option type players in Jones and Van Exel) but Bryant was still a bench player.........he was getting swept.

[Wavy Q]

this thread is getting more dragged out than i thought it would