Originally Posted by baller562
So your conclusion for this hypothetical situation, was using hypothetical evidence.... nice. All I know is what happened, first he DID win 3 championships in a row.... and second he DID win 2 more championships as the primary option. That's what the history books will remember and that's what I observed. Its really pointless of arguing IF he didn't have Shaq, lakers would never have made the finals... IF he didn't play in a league that was blah blah...
What was hypothetical about what I said? I just pointed out the makeup of the league was different from '08-'10. What you said...that's what we all should remember. Kobe was the best or second best player in the NBA from '08-'10. My point was, he didn't need Shaq anymore.
I'm not having this argument anymore because I've done it over and over. All I try to do is put things into context. Just because Shaq didn't win without Kobe doesn't mean he couldn't win without Kobe when you actually put his career - as a whole - in context.
For all I know you're an alt account of one of these other Kobe fanboys I've gotten into this very same argument with before. 50 posts in 5 years....something smells fishy.