Originally Posted by swag2011
You can have a seat with the other haters too sir. I've read plenty of you're posts and it's clear that you are one of them kobe haters that this thread is about.
It does prove something. Fact of the matter is, if shaq was so dominant, if shaq was most dominant ever, if he basically 3 peated by himself, then why couldn't he do it until kobe came along? Better yet, why did he need Kobe to be a starter to win something? Since mr dominant, was so dominant lol, why didn't he win an MVP until Kobe was a starter? You haters like to blatantly ignore everything Kobe did during the 3 peat, so why should we blatantly ignore that Shaq didn't win a Finals game or MVP until Kobe became a starter?
Go head hater, respond. In the meantime have a seat with the rest of them.
I've argued this point countless other times in other threads, so I'm not going to do it again. And if you've read my other posts, you would know I'm not a Kobe "hater." I've never said Shaq "carried" Kobe during the 3-peat. I know Kobe was an integral part of those teams, and odds are Shaq never wins a title without Kobe.
My problem and "hate" is for the Kobe stans who latch on to things like "Shaq couldn't win without Kobe" as gospel without putting anything into context; like how his time in Orlando coincided with Michael Jordan's reign over the league and Hakeem Olajuwon at his peak. Shaq was very good before he joined the Lakers and Kobe emerged but he didn't win all because Kobe became a starter and was so good. While his stats in Orlando and LA were similar, he wasn't the same player his first 5-6 years in the league. It wasn't until he joined the Lakers did he become a more disciplined and dedicated defender, and developed a more refined post game; and about that same time another top 10 player all-time emerged and it created a dominant team.