# Three Peat MVP



## Affirmative Action (Aug 15, 2007)

During the Lakers' three peat run, who, in your opinion truthfully deserves the "Most Valuable Player" accolade?


Everyboard seems to have their own preference, but I have yet to read it from this board So pardon me if this question seems to be redundant.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

on the Lakers? Shaq. in the league? its hard to argue with Duncan in 01-02, but I think Shaq deserved it in both 00 and 01 (Iverson's year)


----------



## Affirmative Action (Aug 15, 2007)

I apologize for not making the intention of this thread clear.


What I meant is, during the Lakers' 3 peat run, who do you think is the Laker's Most Valuable Player?


Shaq or Kobe?


Seeing as Shaq won three NBA Finals MVP, the general and obvious consensus is that it is indeed Shaq. Do you guys agree with his notion?


Thanks.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

O'neal Shaquille


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Anyone who watched the Lakers in those years will tell you Shaq. Kobe was a great player, but Shaq in his prime was just something else.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

It was Shaq, but I think it was a lot closer during their second reign. Kobe was dominating every single series (as was Shaq, obviously).


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

I would say that it was Shaq but not by as large a margin over Kobe as most people may think.

*With the exception of the 1st chip of course in which Shaq just utterly dominated.


----------



## Dominate24/7 (Oct 15, 2006)

I agree that it was Shaq all three years, but Kobe closed the margin considerably from championship 1 to 3. Shaq was just downright nasty, dropping 40/20 on a given night.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

There were a few playoffs series(Spurs in the '01 and '02 series) where Kobe was the man. But Shaq was in his own world at that time.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Shaq and Kobe


----------



## L.A. Guy (Jun 8, 2007)

I thought Kobe deserved it in 02.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Shaq the 1st 2 years clearly no doubt but without Kobe in the Spurs series in year 3 there's no chance at a ring because Shaq struggled and was outplayed by Duncan and Drob Kobe destoryed the Spurs almost single handily.


----------



## Shaolin (Aug 6, 2004)

Horry. 

Its a tough question for me, as they (Shaq and Kobe) literally could not have won without each other.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

title 1 - shaq was mvp
title 2 - kobe was mvp
title 3 - toss-up, but kobe was the better player

All the people who talk about Shaq's finals mvp as an argument for him being the more valuable player are idiots because the Laker's faced tougher competition in round 1 and round 2 of the western conference then they ever did against the trash that the East offered. The Trailblazers, Kings and Spurs are significantly better than any team that got into the finals from the East; and arguably Kobe was the key player in those series.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

It was always Shaq, anyone saying Kobe is a Kobe Homer.

And this is from someone whos been defending Kobe for two years now.

It was Shaq, and its that simple.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

jazzy1 said:


> Shaq the 1st 2 years clearly no doubt but without Kobe in the Spurs series in year 3 there's no chance at a ring because Shaq struggled and was outplayed by Duncan and Drob Kobe destoryed the Spurs almost single handily.


Lakers won that series in 5 though.

Shaq all 3 years.

Series where Kobe outplayed Shaq-

Portland in 00.

Spurs in 01.

Spurs in 02.

That's it.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

It was usually Kobe's job to tear apart the Spurs, because they were one of the few teams to have an "answer" for Shaq. Timmy and Shaq had to battle it out while Kobe just dominated those series.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Affirmative Action said:


> Seeing as Shaq won three NBA Finals MVP, the general and obvious consensus is that it is indeed Shaq. Do you guys agree with his notion?
> 
> 
> Thanks.




I have no problem with Shaq taking away 3 Finals MVP's. Afterall, Shaq was in the prime of his career. But in the Playoffs, where credit is given based on *one* series, instead of assessing the quality of the player's value from the moment the playoffs starts, the award seems to make it like a sham.


Shaq won those three MVP's battling Rik Smits and Todd MCCullough. Mutombo is the only exception because he's a great defensive player, but other than that, it was a No Contest for Shaq.


Kobe IMO deserves at least one or maybe even two playoff MVP's if there is one. Kobe had the better series in 2001 WCFs against SA. He scored 45 in Gm1 against the Spurs to push them to a 14-pt win, that was a great momentum turner for LA. Kobe also scored 48 points on 52% shooting, while grabbing 16 rebounds (9 offensive, 7 defensive) in another series-clinching win against the Kings in 2001 as well.


Kobe had a lot of monster games, but those are jjust the few that comes to minf. so I just dont get it when people quickly dissolves that fact and starts spewing senseless hate, stating Kobe rode Shaq's cottails.



To me,If we where to based the MVP on which series counts the most (which is the WCF):


2000 Lakers vs Portland 

2001 Lakers vs spurs 

2002- Lakers vs Kings 


then acknolwedging Kobe's contribution and value would be easier to commend.


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

2001--Shaq
2002--Horry
2003--Shaq

3PeatMVP=THE DIESEL


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Truth34 said:


> 2001--Shaq
> 2002--Horry
> 2003--Shaq
> 
> 3PeatMVP=THE DIESEL


Lakers lost in the second round in 2003. And even though I am the biggest Horry fan on this board, his only stellar series in 02 was when he averaged a double-double versus the Kings.





> It was usually Kobe's job to tear apart the Spurs, because they were one of the few teams to have an "answer" for Shaq. Timmy and Shaq had to battle it out while Kobe just dominated those series.


Timmy and Shaq didn't battle it out. Shaq would guard Tim but Timmy was too timid to handle Diesel. That was DRob and 6'5" Malik Roses job.


----------



## nguyen_milan (Jun 28, 2005)

R-Star said:


> It was always Shaq, anyone saying Kobe is a Kobe Homer.
> 
> And this is from someone whos been *defending Kobe for two years now.
> *
> It was Shaq, and its that simple.


I thought you are a Kobe hater :biggrin: 
For me it was:
2000 Shaq 70 Kobe 30
2001 Shaq 60 Kobe 40
2002 Shaq 50,5 Kobe 49,5 :biggrin: 
But I really think Kobe should get one of those MVP Finals.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> I have no problem with Shaq taking away 3 Finals MVP's. Afterall, Shaq was in the prime of his career. But in the Playoffs, where credit is given based on *one* series, instead of assessing the quality of the player's value from the moment the playoffs starts, the award seems to make it like a sham.
> 
> 
> Shaq won those three MVP's battling Rik Smits and Todd MCCullough. Mutombo is the only exception because he's a great defensive player, but other than that, it was a No Contest for Shaq.
> ...


Kobe had a few good series in those runs and that warrants him getting playoff MVP 2/3 championships? I love Kobe as a player, but Shaq was something else those years and was much more consistently dominant in the playoffs.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Lakers won that series in 5 though.
> 
> Shaq all 3 years.
> 
> ...


They won that series in 5 because KObe killed the Spurs scoring and running point.Shaq always had trouble against the Spurs, he never dominated Duncan and Robinson and had trouble alot of times. Spurs were good enough had Kobe not been incredible to win the title. 


I thought Kobe was better in 00 against the Suns as well. The game winner over Jkidd, he really took Jkidd and Penny from pushing them that hard he outplayed them.

Kobe was still the MVP of the last title run though. I thought he had more quality games than Shaq through those playoffs. Shaq's numbers are sorta skewed because he beat up on athletically challenged Vlad, and Todd Mac of the Nets. Real big games. 

Shaq was best in his career against Dikembe in 01. He just ate him up a tough defender. 

Kobe always played against tough defenders every series. 

I thought Shaq was better in the 00 series against the Blazers but Kobe better the year after, when Horry hit the big 3 to send them home.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

R-Star said:


> It was always Shaq, anyone saying Kobe is a Kobe Homer.
> 
> And this is from someone whos been defending Kobe for two years now.
> 
> It was Shaq, and its that simple.


nah it's not that cut and dry. Shaq was the catalyst because he was the match up nightmare in most of those series. 

But Kobe was so good in so many series he would have been MVP of a bunch of them if they gave them out that way. 

The finals were a no brainer because of who Shaq was matched up against.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Drewbs said:


> Kobe had a few good series in those runs and that warrants him getting playoff MVP 2/3 championships? I love Kobe as a player, but Shaq was something else those years and was much more consistently dominant in the playoffs.


What do you mean few? Kobe was spectacular in almost all of the series in their final 2 championships. Shaq and Kobe's stats are almost identical, if you are going to take each players impact within their respective position and consider it in such context.


A "sidekick" does not give you 29.6 pts, 7.3 rpg 6.1 rpg in 16 games, en route to a championship. 


Kobe was as important if not even more than Shaq in one of their title runs. He was the consummate playmaker, a vital scorer and also a defensive asset.


If freaking Tony Parker can get a NBA Finals MVP, I dont see any problems why Kobe does not deserve at least one MVP recognition in one of LA's title runs.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> What do you mean few? Kobe was spectacular in almost all of the series in their final 2 championships. Shaq and Kobe's stats are almost identical, if you are going to take each players impact within their respective position and consider it in such context.
> 
> 
> A "sidekick" does not give you 29.6 pts, 7.3 rpg 6.1 rpg in 16 games, en route to a championship.
> ...


Which is why I said 2/3 not 3/3 in terms of performance over the course of the playoffs.



> If freaking Tony Parker can get a NBA Finals MVP, I dont see any problems why Kobe does not deserve at least one MVP recognition in one of LA's title runs.


Because Shaq was the dominant player in every finals they played in, and thus finals MVP every year. I don't like Tony Parker as a finals MVP but he played exceptionally well, averaged 6 more points than Duncan and shot nearly 57% from the field which is insane considering Duncan was hovering below 45%. No one is claiming Parker is a better player, but he played the best in that series.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Drewbs said:


> Which is why I said 2/3 not 3/3 in terms of performance over the course of the playoffs.


So am I. Im just reiterating my opinon on why Kobe deserves so much credit during the Laker's title run.




Drewbs said:


> Because Shaq was the dominant player in every finals they played in, and thus finals MVP every year. I don't like Tony Parker as a finals MVP but he played exceptionally well, averaged 6 more points than Duncan and shot nearly 57% from the field which is insane considering Duncan was hovering below 45%. No one is claiming Parker is a better player, but he played the best in that series.



OP specifically stated throughout the playoffs, not in the Finals alone. 

As I stated earlier, the disparity between Kobe and Shaq was magnified in the Finals because Shaq had an enormous advantage on whose guarding him down low.

Against Indiana, its Sam Perkins and Rik Smits , with an undersized Dale Davis taking turns on him, with the Nets it was either Kenyon Martin, McCullough or Jason Collins.


W/o taking just the performance in the Finals of each player into consideration, its easier to understand why Kobe deserves if not equal but more credit than Shaq.

Against the Blazers in 02 Kobe was monumnetal in dominating the Blazers series, dropping 34 pts, 7 boards and only 1 TO against Shaq's 25/9 and 4TO in the first game. Kobe had a slightly better mark, and played a much more balanced game than Shaq. He also posted career numbers of 26.5 pts 5.6 boards and 4.3 assts to Shaq's 25.6 and 11.3



In the next round, against the Spurs, Kobe dominated the series avg 26.2 ppg compared to Shaq's 21.4, which the Lakers won in 5 games.


Against the Kings, Kobe closed out the series in game 7 in a dramatic fashion, with 30 pts, 10 rebs, 7 assists, 2 stls and NO turnover. Shaq though equally impressive with 35 and 13 and 3 TO was bothered by his inability to cover the Pick and Roll, Kobe played an almost perfect game.



There's just no way, people can say Kobe rode Shaq's cottails with all the monumental plays and great series Kobe had. That being said, there's just no way people can deny Kobe the credit he deserves throughout his playoff career..


So please dont say Kobe only had a *FEW GOOD* series in the playoffs, because thats is such an understatement, and so far from the truth.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Shaq, because he has a bigger impact on the game, but Kobe has a strong case here... particularly due to his play in the 2nd round series against the Spurs... he made clutch plays the entire playoff stretch


----------



## Shaolin (Aug 6, 2004)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> So am I. Im just reiterating my opinon on why Kobe deserves so much credit during the Laker's title run.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This post tells the truth...Ruth.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> So am I. Im just reiterating my opinon on why Kobe deserves so much credit during the Laker's title run.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice stuff. :clap2:


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Shaq all 3 years.


----------



## Affirmative Action (Aug 15, 2007)

KOBEDUNKEDONSHAQ said:


> So am I. Im just reiterating my opinon on why Kobe deserves so much credit during the Laker's title run.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats a pretty fair assessment of the situation. Excellent post.

Though I still think Shaq deserves majority of the Laker's result of a dynasty, I think Kobe deserves a whole lot more of credit as well, I think the media has overlooked Kobe's contribution in their three peat run.


----------

