Replace Kobe With Westbrook - How Many Rings Does WB Have?

[Lawyershawn]

0.

Shaq had similar talent on Eddie Jones, Nick the Quick, Penny Hardaway (they were not enough).

[PMONSTER]

Well the efficiency of the players during sex time wasn't as high as it is now. So that means Brodie would actually be considered more efficient in comparison to the players around the league during that, correct? His lack of 3pt shooting is minimized because nobody else is shooting a lot of threes.

Plus Russ is no Jordan or Kobe in the post but he's a big guard who has shown he can play in the post, the league just doesn't allow for that anymore for guards. At least routinely.

What's holding me up is if they ever best the Spurs. But I'm going to say, because that would be the perfect league for Brodie, they win 2 maybe 3. Call me crazy, but one of the ones they win is against the Pistons. Kobe was on a mission to lose that series.

Anyway Brodie has flaws, some major because of the current NBA, but he's still an all time great.

[NZB2323]

The Lakers still win it all in 2001. In 2000 they probably lose to the Trailblazers and in 2002 they probably lose to the Kings.

In 2004 egos clashed and Kobe shot the Lakers out of the series...but the Lakers with Westbrook still probably lose to the Pistons.

Assuming WB is on the same teams as Kobe and the Lakers still trade Shaq, then the Lakers probably still lose in 2008, win in 2009, and lose in 2010.

If WB and Shaq stayed together though they’d have a good chance at winning in 2005, 2006, or 2007.

So I guess I’d put the over/under at 2.5.

EDIT: Kobe was 18 his rookie year and WB was 20, so that would make WB 32 in 2009 when Kobe won his first title with Gasol...the same age WB is now...

But with him joining Shaq in 97 as a 20 year old that may have worked out well because WB make it to the Finals with the Thunder when he was 22 in a shortened season so maybe the Lakers win it all in 1999 with a 22 year old WB instead of a 20 year old Kobe.

[karkinos]

zero
he wouldn't know how to play in the triangle

[KGtabake]

0.
The only "big" i could see russ winning a ring with, is Dirk. Because he could shoot.
He's a bad fit with traditional bigs, who are not working outside the paint.
Shaq was dominant yes, but he needed a guard who could complement him. Russ isn't that guard. Shaq would remain ringless in LA.

[theforumblue]

0. Dude is just too dumb to operate in a Phil Jackson team let alone run it in pressure situations. Threepeat team woulda made it deep into playoffs but don't see them winning. With pau/lamar he would've been just stuffing his own stats, and as impressive as the stats are they're not winning anything.

[Onlytimewilltel]

0.

Shaq had similar talent on Eddie Jones, Nick the Quick, Penny Hardaway (they were not enough).

That was not prime MDE shaq like he was in those championship years. Let’s be real.

[Asianiac_24]

0. If Westbrook never breaks 55 TS% in an era where all the elite guards are putting up 60 TS% or above on the regular, imagine Westbrook playing in the early 2000s. He would make AI look efficient. Westbrook is not someone you can win championships with. He has had ridiculously good teams and is still a goose egg.

[dodongo]

0 because he's a loser

his losing style has won more than CP, Dame, and as much as Harden though.
There isn't really a situation where their team clearly underachived. Just terrible luck and timing with injuries.

It's kinda crazy that 0 is leading, just because of how dominant Shaq was then.

Kobe had a far larger scoring arsenal, but he wasn't exactly a sniper and efficient either.

I think could've gotten 1-3 with Shaq? 0-1 with Pau?

[TheShow2021]

I think a fair over/ under is 1.5

1 or 2 is a very close decision for me given the dominance of Shaq. 3+ seems highly unlikely.

[Bornstellar]

Probably none, giving the Spurs 2 extra rings and making Tim Duncan the GOAT. Kobe was absolutely lethal against SA, I just don't see Westbrook torching them the same way

[xinxin]

probably zero. as a lifetime lakers fan, the reason why Shaq & Kobe did so well, was that they could rely on Kobe during crunch time, & you dont want Shaq shooting those free throws, (even though Shaq did deliver mind you) . you at least had the luxury of a super star who can take the last shot/ or at least get fouled with the confidence of making free throws. changed the complexion of games. especially when it counted the most. it was also the same during Pau's time (who was a better FT shooter than Shaq but still shaky). Not sure if WB, even with all his out of this world athleticism provided that. WB couldnt shoot mid range shots not shoot FTs ..

[art_tatum]

Oh I didn't see that a poll was added. Well I change my original post of 2 to 7+. Clearly.

[timO]

1 for sure, 2 possible and 3 maybe.

That team win close games, kings-portland etc

[NO-KG-AI]

Kobe won titles in his 12th and 13th season. People here think LA would have even a snowballs chance in hell if you replace that with Westbrook’s 12th and 13th?

Russell’s 4th, 5th and 6th season is what would be the 3 peat years. I can see them winning the first. I think he nukes them in 2-3 with inconsistent offense and not hsving Kobe’s shooting gravity or defense.

[Doranku]

None. Still lose to the Jazz in '97 and '98, still lose to Spurs in '99, lose to Portland in 2000, Spurs in 2001, Kings in 2002, Spurs in 2003, Spurs in 2004.. not even a remote chance with any Laker team past '04.

The Kobe/Gasol Laker teams were way too dependent on Kobe's ability to knock down jumpers for Westbrook to work on those teams, and that's ignoring the obvious struggle he'd have playing in the triangle to begin with.

[KayDee35]

Considering Westbrook has always understood who is the best player on the team and willing to defer to them and elevate them (see Durant, George, Harden and Beal having some of their best years with him) I would say at least 3. While he couldn't be as dominant as Bryant on 2nd set of championships he would be a better player to elevate Gasol. Also it's safe to assume he would never hit heads as hard as Kobe and Shaq did. So 3 maybe 4. Westbrook is just remotely not as capable scorer (or defender early years) as Bryant, but makes up some of that ground with superior playmaking that Laker teams never really had.

The player with the career usage second only to MJ knows who the best player on his team is.

[Baski]

I'm dying at the idea that Westbrook would maintain his **** efficiency in a more inefficient era . It would go down just like those from that era would go up if they played today. Just

They win 0 if you match Westbrook year for year with Kobe. Take 26-28 yo WB to 2000-2002 and they might win 1

[OdomFan]

Well if the Lakers have Westbrook instead of Kobe things would have been very different considering he's a point guard and Kobes a shooting guard, but anyway honestly? I think the Lakers don't take Westbrook in the draft in 96 so there'd never be a Westbrook/Shaq in the early 00s or Westbrook/Pau in the late 00s, but if they did him Westbrook and Van Exel would be competing for the starting point guard spot, and with that change Eddie Jones likely never leaves the Lakers as he'd get to remain the starting shooting guard. If the Lakers choose to run with Westbrook over Nick the Quick then they'd probably try to move Van Exel for a different deal than what they did with Kobe so there's no telling what happens there.

Moving to the Kobe side with the Thunder, I think it be a better fit. Kobe and Durant would be a good duo together. With Kobe on the team the Thunder probably draft somebody else instead of Harden. So that's up in the air on who they'd go with. Maybe they grab a point guard instead. Curry perhaps, Ricky Rubio, Johnny Flynn. It be a shame if they chose anyone other than Curry tbh but either way they'd still be a good team that should be able to win some championships.

[Baski]

Considering Westbrook has always understood who is the best player on the team and willing to defer to them and elevate them (see Durant, George, Harden and Beal having some of their best years with him) I would say at least 3. While he couldn't be as dominant as Bryant on 2nd set of championships he would be a better player to elevate Gasol. Also it's safe to assume he would never hit heads as hard as Kobe and Shaq did. So 3 maybe 4. Westbrook is just remotely not as capable scorer (or defender early years) as Bryant, but makes up some of that ground with superior playmaking that Laker teams never really had.

The player with the career usage second only to MJ knows who the best player on his team is.

right? And this isn't even about turnovers. WB made it a point to outshoot vastly better scorers than himself, including Kevin Durant, who used to initiate a lot of offense himself

Just imagining a Shaq posted up downlow, completely at the mercy of Westbrook to get him the ball from the 3pt line is killing me. He'd have to be the GOAT offensive rebounder to equal his scoring numbers with Kobe