Garnett instead of Shaq

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Imagine Garnett ending up having exactly the same teams Shaq had throughout his career...
How many rings? Where could he be possibly ranked?

[Jaivl]

Around the same. '04-'05 KG instead of '01-'02 Shaq still cleans house. Probably gives offensive primacy to Kobe and they win '04 too. They probably don't beat the Blazers in '00, but they probably slice through the Pistons in '05. Maybe the '10 Cavs (with DPOY-caliber '13 KG) can edge out the Celtics? Doubt they beat the Lakers anyway.

Of course some tweaks would have to be made on the supporting casts, but considering he has the same stars (Kobe, Wade, LeBron...) and the same overall caliber of teammates... 3-5 rings as a rough estimate.

[No-more-rings]

Probably gives offensive primacy to Kobe and they win '04 too.

This part really makes no sense. With how bad Kobe was on offense in that finals how would giving him more make them win?

[sp6r=underrated]

96-99 really needs to be evaluated carefully by Shaq supporters. Those were loaded teams he was playing on that imploded in large part because of flaws with Shaq.

[Owly]

96-99 really needs to be evaluated carefully by Shaq supporters. Those were loaded teams he was playing on that imploded in large part because of flaws with Shaq.

I'd be interested if you could expand here.

Is the implosion a reference to playoff losses (sweeps)? My impression, based mainly on the (his) numbers, was that Shaq carried his weight (again, at least boxscore-wise) and the likes of Van Exel didn't.

[Jaivl]

Probably gives offensive primacy to Kobe and they win '04 too.

This part really makes no sense. With how bad Kobe was on offense in that finals how would giving him more make them win?

I meant it as "there are no chemistry problems, hence Kobe plays better". If he played the same no way he wins, of course.

[No-more-rings]

Probably gives offensive primacy to Kobe and they win '04 too.

This part really makes no sense. With how bad Kobe was on offense in that finals how would giving him more make them win?

I meant it as "there are no chemistry problems, hence Kobe plays better". If he played the same no way he wins, of course.

If they win that finals it's because of how massive the defensive upgrade is. Your reasoning isn't it imo.

But then again, most were saying that they still don't win with Hakeem, so Garnett shouldn't be any different.

[sp6r=underrated]

96-99 really needs to be evaluated carefully by Shaq supporters. Those were loaded teams he was playing on that imploded in large part because of flaws with Shaq.

I'd be interested if you could expand here.

Is the implosion a reference to playoff losses (sweeps)? My impression, based mainly on the (his) numbers, was that Shaq carried his weight (again, at least boxscore-wise) and the likes of Van Exel didn't.

Quick Bullet Points
1. Supporting cast from 96-99 played at a championship level for a superstar supporting cast from 96-99 53-29, +3.07 MOV
2. Shaq missing RS games forced them into tougher matchups earlier in the post.
3. Shaq's lack of conditioning and also missing games made their defensive rotations much weaker than they should have been. Main reason they were so vulnerable to Jazz offense.

[Amare_1_Knicks]

This part really makes no sense. With how bad Kobe was on offense in that finals how would giving him more make them win?

I meant it as "there are no chemistry problems, hence Kobe plays better". If he played the same no way he wins, of course.

If they win that finals it's because of how massive the defensive upgrade is. Your reasoning isn't it imo.

But then again, most were saying that they still don't win with Hakeem, so Garnett shouldn't be any different.

Kobe in 04 was coming off the best season of his career, having averaged 30/7/6 on +3.1%TSr. He clearly had a mindset that it was his time to be the man and that was only compounded by having another dominant player alongside him at that point. Kobe played poorly, but a lot of it seemed to be him not wanting to defer to Shaq — so I definitely think there’s reason to believe substituting Shaq with KG will make for a smoother offense(just for that year anyway).

Indiana and New Jersey were both super game in their respective series’(even with Kidd having a miserable series, shooting 28%FG and 14%3pt, it still went 7).

Anyway, I’d still probably lean Detroit in 7 with KG there instead of Shaq; but I could see it going either way. It just seems as though there would be far less chemistry’s issues.

[penbeast0]

Probably gives offensive primacy to Kobe and they win '04 too.

This part really makes no sense. With how bad Kobe was on offense in that finals how would giving him more make them win?

I meant it as "there are no chemistry problems, hence Kobe plays better". If he played the same no way he wins, of course.

I don't think it's even close to a given that there won't be chemistry problems. Garnett and Kobe are two of the most intense players I've ever seen; both have been known to scream at teammates and Kobe, at least, has been known for something of a thin skin. It might work great, it might implode even faster and harder than Shaq/Kobe.

[eminence]

Nash'd have a ring baby!

'98, '00, '01, '02, '04, '05, '08, '09, '10 all look like fairly serious contender years to me. I'd guess favorites for '00, '01, '02, '05, '08, '10.

[PharmD]

This part really makes no sense. With how bad Kobe was on offense in that finals how would giving him more make them win?

I meant it as "there are no chemistry problems, hence Kobe plays better". If he played the same no way he wins, of course.

I don't think it's even close to a given that there won't be chemistry problems. Garnett and Kobe are two of the most intense players I've ever seen; both have been known to scream at teammates and Kobe, at least, has been known for something of a thin skin. It might work great, it might implode even faster and harder than Shaq/Kobe.

KG was also always willing to let his teammates do whatever they were good at while he plugged the leaks.

[An Unbiased Fan]

This part really makes no sense. With how bad Kobe was on offense in that finals how would giving him more make them win?

I meant it as "there are no chemistry problems, hence Kobe plays better". If he played the same no way he wins, of course.

I don't think it's even close to a given that there won't be chemistry problems. Garnett and Kobe are two of the most intense players I've ever seen; both have been known to scream at teammates and Kobe, at least, has been known for something of a thin skin. It might work great, it might implode even faster and harder than Shaq/Kobe.

Kobe really didn't have issues with people like that. Shaq had issues with Penny, Vane Exel/Jones, Kobe, Wade, Nash. His personality is to seek out conflict, you can even see it somewhat on TNT.

Kobe/KG would fit well like Kobe/Pau, but be even better.

[sp6r=underrated]

Shaq had issues with Penny, Vane Exel/Jones, Kobe, Wade, Nash. His personality is to seek out conflict

The above is why Shaq probably has the biggest gap between their ranking on a best players list rather than who would you start a team with list. There are quite a few elites in NBA history who don't have patience for even a mild rebuild but most of them are fine when they are in a good situation. Shaq was blowing up good situations throughout his career.

[hyoyatika23]

Finally! Shaq is a real POS who is disruptive to team chemistry. Not many people recognize that due to the persona of "big friendly giant" he portrays. Shaq loves starting nonsense-he even admitted that he started the whole beef with David Robinson; of all people, David Robinson!

KG and Kobe were friends; it was said that Kobe rang up KG to ask about skipping college and declaring for draft. The two would had gotten along and KG had never been one who wants to hog the spotlight/demands to be the first option on offense. KG is also loyal to the bone. If we had KG/Kobe, I'm sure they would had lasted all the way.

I don't want to be the guy who go all fantasy NBA mode or think this is 2K, but they would have a good chance of winning a title all the way from 2000 to 2012. As for Kobe not being ready in 2000, I would beg to differ. He has shown that he is capable of rising to the test (Suns winner, Blazers Game 7 heroics and Pacers OT heroic). He wasn't given the opportunity to shine in 2000.

Also, with a defense of KG and Kobe, I think the Lakers are set on both ends of the floors.

[Prokorov]

Imagine Garnett ending up having exactly the same teams Shaq had throughout his career...
How many rings? Where could he be possibly ranked?

0 rings.

[Bklynborn682]

96-99 really needs to be evaluated carefully by Shaq supporters. Those were loaded teams he was playing on that imploded in large part because of flaws with Shaq.

I'd be interested if you could expand here.

Is the implosion a reference to playoff losses (sweeps)? My impression, based mainly on the (his) numbers, was that Shaq carried his weight (again, at least boxscore-wise) and the likes of Van Exel didn't.

Quick Bullet Points
1. Supporting cast from 96-99 played at a championship level for a superstar supporting cast from 96-99 53-29, +3.07 MOV
2. Shaq missing RS games forced them into tougher matchups earlier in the post.
3. Shaq's lack of conditioning and also missing games made their defensive rotations much weaker than they should have been. Main reason they were so vulnerable to Jazz offense.

The above part about rotating players is true in the regular season but in the playoffs in particular 97-99 lakers role players fall off big time also conditioning was not an issue in any of these years they were in the first half of 01 the whole of 02 and all of 03 for example Shaq in 98 was in the best shape he was in since early Orlando. His issues defensively were obviously size and either an inability or an unwillingness to defend the pick and roll also in terms of defensive recognition and/or rotations this is where there is no argument Garnett takes any Shaq team to another level defensively.

[Bklynborn682]

Finally! Shaq is a real POS who is disruptive to team chemistry. Not many people recognize that due to the persona of "big friendly giant" he portrays. Shaq loves starting nonsense-he even admitted that he started the whole beef with David Robinson; of all people, David Robinson!

KG and Kobe were friends; it was said that Kobe rang up KG to ask about skipping college and declaring for draft. The two would had gotten along and KG had never been one who wants to hog the spotlight/demands to be the first option on offense. KG is also loyal to the bone. If we had KG/Kobe, I'm sure they would had lasted all the way.

I don't want to be the guy who go all fantasy NBA mode or think this is 2K, but they would have a good chance of winning a title all the way from 2000 to 2012. As for Kobe not being ready in 2000, I would beg to differ. He has shown that he is capable of rising to the test (Suns winner, Blazers Game 7 heroics and Pacers OT heroic). He wasn't given the opportunity to shine in 2000.

Also, with a defense of KG and Kobe, I think the Lakers are set on both ends of the floors.

Shaq is a real POS who is disruptive to team chemistry? while Shaq has had problems in particular with Kobe their are loads of examples of ex players talking about how great having Shaq on their team was and how he made coming to work (practice) fun and entertaining which is a extremely hard thing to do in the middle of an 82 game regular season.
As a matter of fact Kobe even had a article in the la times around the time Shaq statue was erected on how much he learned from shaq about leadership whether it be buying the 12th man on the team rolexes or when to call out a teammate. Shaq as a bad teammate is extremely over exaggerated he clashed occasionally with his 1b’s and again even this is exaggerated as it was mostly with Kobe though he did have occasional squabbles with penny and wade the relationships he had and built with roster guys 3-12 was exemplary.
Your original post seems like your searching for confirmation bias.
Also showing the samples where Kobe did well is selective memory there were a number of times when Kobe had opportunities to succeed and he didn’t which people tend to forget for some reason though.

[hyoyatika23]

Shaq is a real POS who is disruptive to team chemistry? while Shaq has had problems in particular with Kobe their are loads of examples of ex players talking about how great having Shaq on their team was and how he made coming to work (practice) fun and entertaining which is a extremely hard thing to do in the middle of an 82 game regular season.
As a matter of fact Kobe even had a article in the la times around the time Shaq statue was erected on how much he learned from shaq about leadership whether it be buying the 12th man on the team rolexes or when to call out a teammate. Shaq as a bad teammate is extremely over exaggerated he clashed occasionally with his 1b’s and again even this is exaggerated as it was mostly with Kobe though he did have occasional squabbles with penny and wade the relationships he had and built with roster guys 3-12 was exemplary.
Your original post seems like your searching for confirmation bias.
Also showing the samples where Kobe did well is selective memory there were a number of times when Kobe had opportunities to succeed and he didn’t which people tend to forget for some reason though.

Shaq was great fun in practice, yes, but he also had issues with players-his fellow stars as you stated. And this is extremely crucial. Being friendly and on good terms with Brian Shaw won't win you rings. Also, if he was so lovable, why was it that he left every team on bad terms? In during his final ring-chasing years when he was no longer the big dog and reasons to kick up a major fuss is literally none? People always claim that Kobe's ego broke up the duo but forgot that Shaq was the one who was all jelly of Penny.

I'm not saying that Shaq isn't a good player. He is, in fact he is elite. However, he has many failings that many fail to realize. Despite trying to portray a friendly image, he had a huge ego and struggles to form a healthy relationship alongside his co-star-which he needs. Shaq never enjoyed any form of success without a fellow co-star; he is not a Nowitzki or Olajuwon who can lead teams to titles with a deep squad rather than a co-star. Again, this is not a knock on Shaq's greatness; it is just his style of play. This is like Kobe never being able to win without a competent big.

Many people simply see Shaq as this offensive unstoppable force. But he was letting up easy points on D as well. The 04 Pistons were happy to run their PnR against Shaq because they knew he was too lazy and slow to rotate and stop Billups. This was why Billups had such a good Finals showing and won FMVP.

[Bklynborn682]

Shaq is a real POS who is disruptive to team chemistry? while Shaq has had problems in particular with Kobe their are loads of examples of ex players talking about how great having Shaq on their team was and how he made coming to work (practice) fun and entertaining which is a extremely hard thing to do in the middle of an 82 game regular season.
As a matter of fact Kobe even had a article in the la times around the time Shaq statue was erected on how much he learned from shaq about leadership whether it be buying the 12th man on the team rolexes or when to call out a teammate. Shaq as a bad teammate is extremely over exaggerated he clashed occasionally with his 1b’s and again even this is exaggerated as it was mostly with Kobe though he did have occasional squabbles with penny and wade the relationships he had and built with roster guys 3-12 was exemplary.
Your original post seems like your searching for confirmation bias.
Also showing the samples where Kobe did well is selective memory there were a number of times when Kobe had opportunities to succeed and he didn’t which people tend to forget for some reason though.

Shaq was great fun in practice, yes, but he also had issues with players-his fellow stars as you stated. And this is extremely crucial. Being friendly and on good terms with Brian Shaw won't win you rings. Also, if he was so lovable, why was it that he left every team on bad terms? In during his final ring-chasing years when he was no longer the big dog and reasons to kick up a major fuss is literally none? People always claim that Kobe's ego broke up the duo but forgot that Shaq was the one who was all jelly of Penny.

I'm not saying that Shaq isn't a good player. He is, in fact he is elite. However, he has many failings that many fail to realize. Despite trying to portray a friendly image, he had a huge ego and struggles to form a healthy relationship alongside his co-star-which he needs. Shaq never enjoyed any form of success without a fellow co-star; he is not a Nowitzki or Olajuwon who can lead teams to titles with a deep squad rather than a co-star. Again, this is not a knock on Shaq's greatness; it is just his style of play. This is like Kobe never being able to win without a competent big.

Many people simply see Shaq as this offensive unstoppable force. But he was letting up easy points on D as well. The 04 Pistons were happy to run their PnR against Shaq because they knew he was too lazy and slow to rotate and stop Billups. This was why Billups had such a good Finals showing and won FMVP.

Shaq has never had success without a secondary star is Silly because throughout his prime he was never without a secondary star unless your talking about the 97-99 Lakers and honestly if you give them any kind of quality coach from Phil Jackson to Stan Van Gundry and theyd have been successful everyone from Magic Johnson to chick Hearn were complaining about the lack of adjustments made from game to game by Del Harris and from what we’ve seen of Kurt Rambis he seems like a worse coach. Also bringing up the 04 lakers pistons series you should check out what Chauncey had to say about Kobe.
If we single team shaq we know the lakers are going to give it to him every time in the first quarter Kobe will play nice second quarter still nice but you’ll start to see small changes and then by the third quarter if Kobe is not getting his shots we know he’ll throw the entire game plan out the window and we’ve got them right where we want them. ( that is off memory I’ll look for the exact quote and post it but essentially that’s exactly what he said.)
Also I’d love to know how you’ve come to the conclusion that having issues with your other star leads to more success than with the last man on the roster as a matter of fact I’d argue I’d rather my leading man have good relationships with teammates 3-12 than his 1b because they are the ones that need to be motivated and/or lifted by their superstar if your lucky enough to have a second superstar chances are they don’t need to be coddled and don’t need to be led like the roster players do.
P.S. shaqs record with and without Kobe and Wade
(Shaq-Kobe)
Lakers record in total from 2000-04 (287-123 .700 win perceentage)
Lakers record with Shaq and Kobe both playing (2000-04 230-82)
(.731 win percentage)
Lakers record from 2000-04
With Kobe but no Shaq (23-26)
(.47% win percentage)
Lakers with Shaq but no Kobe (32-10) (.76% win percentage)
Lakers record without Shaq or Kobe
(2-5) (.285 win percentage)
(Shaq-Wade)
04-08 Heat record with and without Shaq
03-04 before shaq arrives in Miami 42-40 Dwyane Wade misses 21 games
05) 53-20 with 6-3 without
06) 42-17 10-13 without *champs*
07) 25-15 with 19-23 without
120-52 70% winning percentage with 35-39 47% winning percentage without
So shaq didn’t have a problem winning without another superstar