What if we were all wrong, and Kobe was the main reason the Lakers won?

[Kobe187]

Is this in the back of your mind? Or just mine?

I'm one of Kobe's biggest detractors, however (I'm aging myself here), I watched Shaq from his rookie season. He was at the best combination of mobility and strength, and his conditioning peaked, however was he really that much better? Shaq really played at an MVP level from 93-94 to 02-03, and was top 10 in the league 92-93 and 03-05 (possibly 05-06 but by the playoffs he was a lower tier all-star imo).

The difference: Kobe Bryant.

Am I nuts?

(To a lesser degree, I credit Phil Jackson, and not facing the Stockton-Malone Jazz.)

Kobe was 1A to Shaq’s 1A, similar to AD & LeBron during the last Lakers win, both were equally as important to the teams success. Shaq was a better player in Orlando but he had nobody close to Kobe’s level to play with. In LA during close games when teams would hack’a’shaq Kobe simply closed out for the Lakers.

[LakerLegend]

Kobe won 5 rings without any talent around him for 3 years of his peak.

If Bynum and Ariza are healthy in 08 he has 6 rings.

If he and Malone are healthy in 04 possibly 7 rings, they beat a team possibly better than the Pistons in the 04 Spurs a couple of rounds earlier before they ran out of gas.

Also, check his and Shaq's numbers in Game 7 of the 2000 WCF..

[Masigond]

I'm too busy checking the numbers of games like Game 2 of the 2000 Finals.

Somehow Kobe gets all the credit for single great performances (and Shaq gets all the blame for mediocre ones) while games like these get ignored (and true stinkers like Game 5 of the 2000 Finals, for that matter) for an overall valuation.
Regarding Game 7 of the WCF 2000: Every superstar needs teammates to bail him out from time to time, so what?

[nzd07]

Kobe & Shaq needed each other. It's as simple as that.

As a Heat fan I witnessed Shaq's limitations firsthand. He simply could not win games as the 4th quarter closer. It took being down 0-2 for Riley to finally decide to put the ball in Wade's hands and the rest is history, but that 2006 Finals would've been otherwise a serious referendum on Shaq as a lead guy on a championship team

We're talking about 00-02 Shaq vs 05-06 Shaq here, though. It's pretty clear that late 90's/early 2000's Shaq was a different animal than mid 2000's Shaq. The +/- stats back that up as well. He was notoriously bad at staying in shape during the offseason and it caught up with him as he aged a bit.

[Sakkreth]

I'm too busy checking the numbers of games like Game 2 of the 2000 Finals.

Somehow Kobe gets all the credit for single great performances (and Shaq gets all the blame for mediocre ones) while games like these get ignored (and true stinkers like Game 5 of the 2000 Finals, for that matter) for an overall valuation.
Regarding Game 7 of the WCF 2000: Every superstar needs teammates to bail him out from time to time, so what?

Refs bailed them out in 2000 WCF.

[dhsilv2]

How losing is success ? The only success on NBA is claiming the title, vice champion and worst team have nothing to show

So basically everyone on earth is a massive loser who's never had any success unless they're the absolute best at what they're doing?

No, winning is different from being the best. And, our carreers are pretty different than professional players. You have your tasks, if you minimally complete it, its okay, you might not be the best, and you will still get the job done.

Sports are a different case. The objective is winning, if you dont achieve it well you just losing.

Sports are to entertain. That's their job. Winning is a tool by which they entertain, but not the only method. But even here, you're listing Winning. Shaq won, a HELL of a lot. He didn't win an NBA title up to that point but he was having massive success winning in the playoffs, in the regular season, and even winning multiple playoff series. This is also winning and by your logic success.