This fails to account for context. How can we blame Kobe for having Shaq during his first three championships, yet fail to give him credit for proving his ability to lead a team to championships? Kobe proved he can win without Shaq by doing so, twice in a row. You can't blame him for Shaq in one breath and not give him credit in the next.
No one is "blaming" Kobe for Shaq. Kobe simply doesn't get credit for something he didn't do. Wade doesn't get treated like a Larry Bird with 3 rings because everyone knows that he was 2nd-fiddle to Lebron for two of them. No one really cares whether Shaq has 4 rings, they just know that he was the dominant player for 3 championships. If the Blazers had made 2 more shots and Scottie Pippen ended up with a Finals MVP in 2000, it wouldn't mean he'd suddenly get counted as leading his team to 7 rings because everyone knows that Jordan was the main guy for 6 of those.
Kobe gets credit for rings when he was the most important player on the team. He doesn't get the same credit for rings where he wasn't. Why is it that of all the fan bases in the world, only Kobestan has trouble figuring that one out?
There's something to be said about repeating, which is why the game's greats like Isiah, Jordan, Shaq aspired to do so. Michael Jordan is quoted as saying there's only one thing more difficult than winning an NBA championship and that's defending it. I think his statement's hold credibility - so he cares, if you want to know who cares. I can cite you the source. It only means that your consecutively playing into June. Not playing into June, then the next year going home in April or early May.
Jordan said whatever the hell he could in order to make himself look good. If defending a championship was really so difficult, then why is it that Jordan NEVER failed to do so? He was 4 for 4 when defending a championship, and only 2 for 11 when not defending it. How you going to take seriously his claim that defending a championship is so much harder when he managed to do it successfully every single time?
You seriously acting like these guys are really trying harder in even years or something. It's got to be the single dumbest narrative I've ever heard to try to prop one player up above another.
And don't talk about this tired crap. Duncan won in 2014 after going 7 in the Finals in 2013, so he had no problem playing into June in consecutive seasons. Between 2003 and 2008 Duncan played 107 playoff games, by far the most of anyone in the NBA, and he won 3 championships in that stretch. And he was playing 80+ regular season games most of those years too.
In the 2002 Spurs Lakers series (I use this series because it's at a time that both players are at or near the peak of their talents)....
This series was more of an NBA Finals than the actual NBA finals.
That was a 5-game Western Conference Semifinal, before the 7-game Western Conference Finals that the Lakers only won with the magical "28-free throw 4th quarter" game. Claiming it was like an NBA Finals is ridiculous. The Spurs only had 3 guys averaging double-digits that season...and they were 36-year-old David Robinson, 32-year-old Steve Smith, and Prime Duncan who scored more than both of those guys combined. TP was a teenage rookie, Ginobli wasn't even in America yet, and they were starting Mark Bryant and Malik Rose in playoff games....it was another "Duncan and a bunch of role players" team.
Your original claim was that Kobe dominated in the final 5 minutes of those games, while Shaq had to be subbed out. I already showed you that both of those statements were lies.
Now your new claim is, "Well, Kobe dominated in the 4th quarter of 3 of those games", ignoring that most of those points were racked up in the early parts of the 4th and had nothing to do with what was going on down the stretch. That's called, "Moving the Goalposts". In the ONE game where Kobe made a bunch of shots down the stretch, all 8 points were set up by Shaq.
I also showed you that Shaq was MORE important than Kobe in the final stretches of Games 1 and 2, that Game 3 was already a blowout down the stretch, and that Game 4 Shaq was at least as important in setting up Kobe's 3 shots as Kobe was in hitting them. So you're left with Game 5. Whoop de do.
And you probably don't want to go to 2001 either...there was only 1 close game, and who had the huge block on David Robinson with 2:16 to go and a 2-point lead? Who scored the biggest bucket of the game to extend the lead from 2 to 4 with 1:53 left? And who drew in the defense and assisted Kobe's three with 1:11 left to push the lead to 7 and put the game away?
2003 doesn't look good either....there were 3 close games, with Kobe scoring the most down the stretch one (Game 1) and them being basically equal, 7/6 and 8/5 in the other two (Games 4 and 5). In both games 4 and 5 Kobe and Shaq traded big shots at the end.
And this is all going with the super Kobe-positive narrative that suddenly only 4th quarters matter, and only scoring matters, and ignoring the fact that Shaq not only had vastly superior stats and impact over the whole game, but was also the guy who the defense and rebounding revolved around even in those final 5 minutes. He did NOT check in and out of the games as you falsely tried to claim.
Shaq was at least as important as Kobe down the stretch of tight games, and when you factor in rebounding and defense he was arguably more so. And that kills your ONE argument, since it was already clear that Shaq was the dominant figure on the team for the rest of the game and Duncan had far less help.
I've already conceded and countered that Kobe was second fiddle to Shaq during the first Three-peat, sh1t, any player not named Jordan would be second fiddle to Shaq, including Duncan.
Except that Duncan somehow magically won two MVPs during that three-peat and played at least as well as Shaq in their matchups.
The Lakers beat the Spurs a few times in that stretch because they had Shaq AND Kobe at the same time which the Spurs just had Duncan, not because either Kobe or Shaq ever proved that they were better than Duncan mano-a-mano.
Kobe won after Shaq left. What part of that don't you understand? I asked you to name player(s) and you name one player? Gasol. Gasol was nice bruh, but he made All-NBA third team during that run. Gasol like his All-NBA team selections suggest, was a third-rate all-star big man. Gasol wasn't no Shaq, he wasn't a Duncan, he wasn't a Garnett, and the list of better big man during that era goes on..
Yes, I name one player even for Kobe's two most "low support" championships....and you can't even name 1 such All-NBA player for Duncan's two most low-support championships. Gasol "wasn't no Shaq", but he was certainly a better second-fiddle than a teenage Tony Parker.
You sit here and act like Manu Ginobolli isn't going to be a sure fire Hall of famer, as if Tony (who has way more All-NBA appearances than Gasol) Parker isn't a sure fire hall of famer. You refer to the 1999 title, leaving out the fact that Duncan played a short-handed Knick team in a strike-shortened NBA season which would benefit a player like David Robinson. You act as if Duncan didn't play along side Hall-of-Famer David Robinson, who by the way gave the Spurs 16 ppg, 10 rebounds, 2.4 blocked shots per game, 1.7 steals, on 48% from the field with 73% from the line during that title run. Are you serious?
Manu and Parker are HOFers for what they did AFTER 2005. If their careers end there, they never even get noticed on a ballot. By the time Duncan had two MVPs, three Finals MVPs, and had been the dominant player in 3 championship runs, while Parker and Ginobli were barely 25 and had ONE all-star appearance COMBINED.
A lot of players don't make any All-NBA teams, there's only so many slots and often-times players either get in on past reputation or don't get in because even though they deserved it, they haven't built up enough of a resume. Let's be honest here.
Are you just throwing shyt at the wall hoping it sticks? You were responding to my comment about 33-year-old David Robinson. Those excuses are obviously awful in that context.
