With the recent Shaquille O’neal trade to the Phoenix Suns there’s been a lot of talk in regards to why teams have won Championships with or without The Diesel. Was it Shaq alone, or because Shaq had the privilege of playing with Dwayne Wade and Kobe Bryant? First I will fill the contrasts and face the myths between the two and then I’ll lay down the facts. Was Shaq the primary reason for his Championships?

 I will be the first to say that Shaquille O'neal is the most physically dominant center in NBA history. No other center has had the impact, physically, that Shaq has had on the NBA. In his prime he was an immovable force that coaches feared more than any other player. He was also half of arguably the greatest duo in NBA history. If I were to measure him up to the greatest centers of all time, I would say he is one of the best. Wilt Chamberlain would probably be the most comparable. Both were what I call “power centers” and both were opposing team’s worst nightmare during their respected eras. Wilt had the privilege of playing at a time in which he was by far the biggest and tallest player in the league that, at his prime, was made up of only nine teams. Shaq on the other hand, played against a few great centers in an ever evolving league. But no one physically dominated the way Shaq did. At 36 it would seem that Shaq would have a couple more seasons in him. But years of a lack luster conditioning regiment has limited a once powerful career.

FACT. Shaq has never taken a team to the playoffs that didn’t have another All Star on it.  

FACT. Kobe Bryant has taken a team without another All Star to the playoffs twice. It would have been three times before the Pau Gasol deal.

 As for the other half of this Championship duo Kobe Bryant. Contrary to popular belief among objectively inept Kobe haters, is their ridiculous argument that Kobe without the rings is just a Tracy Mcgrady, a Paul Pierce, a Ray Allen, a Vince Carter. That argument is as ludicrous as saying those guys are all 1st Team NBA defenders.

 The only thing Vince and Kobe have in common is a Dunk Contest.  

I’ve never seen Paul Pierce put together four 50 point games in a row or average 43.4 points in an entire month. I’ve never seen Ray Allen make 12 three pointers in a game, or 9 in a row (both NBA Records), even though the three is Allen’s game. I’ve never seen Vince Carter win a Scoring Championship or get All Defense honors. I’ve never seen Mcgrady score 62 in three quarters, 30 in one quarter twice, or 81 points in a game and carry his team on his back through an entire season.

 As a matter of fact I’ve never seen Michael Jordan do any of those things.

 Using this absurd logic one could say Magic without the rings is just a John Stockton. Kareem without the rings is just a Patrick Ewing. Michael Jordan without the rings is an Allen Iverson. Do you see how absolutely nonsensical that sounds?

 Using the correct meaning of revisionist history. These “anybody but Kobe” zealots do exactly what a revisionist would do; Since historical FACT is not inaccurate, revisionism of the Kobe/Shaq era is foolish. You can’t argue the fact that Kobe Bryant played with Shaquille O’neal for 8 years. If you want to get technical, Eddie Jones was better than Kobe Bryant for the first two seasons of Bryant’s career. These revisionists or “negationists” attempt to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. In this case a negationist would say Kobe Bryant could have been replaced by any of the above players and the outcome would have been the same. Well, prove it! To do that you would need a time machine and you would have to persuade the 1999 Lakers to trade Kobe for Carter, Mcgrady, Pierce, or Allen. You would have to convince Phil Jackson to give up the only player he’s ever deemed better than Jordan.......

Or......if Carter, Mcgrady, Pierce, or Allen played with a dominant center and won three Championships at the same time Kobe and Shaq did and contributed on offense and defense the way Bryant did, there could have possibly been an argument for a swap with those players then. But that never happened. Kobe was by far a better all around player than any of them in 1999 to 2004 and was able to prove it so even playing along side this behemoth of a presence in Shaquille O'neal.

But if you still think Kobe was transposable you would have to say, if Kobe had Tim Duncan in place of Shaq he would have still won 3 rings. Duncan would have been perfect for the triangle offense. And since Duncan’s ego is a fraction of what Shaq’s is, and Shaq's commitment to conditioning is a fraction of what Duncan's is, the Lakers with Duncan could have possibly won more. 

The fact is I’m not here to deny Shaq’s contributions to the Lakers, I’m here to defend Kobe’s. Using the same fairy tale scenario, Kobe supporters could also say the Lakers would have won if Shaq was replaced by Wilt Chamberlain. Though it would have been impossible, the same existential logic applies. But true Lakers fans won’t because Shaq was irreplaceable as was Bryant. And since a couple of you “so called” Lakers fans/Kobe haters, and you know who you are, have backed Jerry Buss’s moves because he knows what he’s doing. You would have to back his decision to let Shaq go. We know this to have been the right decision today.

 Now the aspect of Wade replacing Bryant wasn’t and isn’t revisionist because up until a week ago it was a reality. Is Wade a player of Bryant’s caliber? No. Kobe was a master of every basketball aspect very young. Even though Wade and Shaq won in Miami, it wasn’t a dynasty. Could they have done the same thing in the West? No way! I’m not saying it was inevitable but with a team of that much talent, at least a couple are expected. But it wasn’t happening. And out of all the puzzle pieces, the only one that didn’t fit was the one that got too big in the off season. Everybody else lived up to their end of the deal except for the 20 million dollar one. The one that was supposed to more than any other player.

And to think that 3 and a half seasons after Shaq left the Lakers are still without a Title! How could they! I guess Kobe is a horrible player after all if he hasn’t won a Title in an ENTIRE THREE SEASONS with the Championship caliber players he’s had! You mean to tell me Kobe couldn’t win a Title with Kwame Brown, or Smush Parker? Not even with those monsters!!!!

Can you believe that people actually have this logic? I love one "so called" Lakers fan comment on the fact that the management got Kobe help when they stole Kwame Brown from the Wizards. Wow, that "Lakers fan" sure does know his stuff.

Anyway.

Let’s revisit the Lakers during those runs from 2000 to 2004.

Let’s start off by saying out of the gate that Shaq’s lack of conditioning was a problem during the last few regular seasons of those years. This is the main reason we were even discussing his impact on the Suns. At 36, Shaq should still have at least a couple decent seasons left. But he has been in decline for a couple years now.

As for the doubters. The ones that say Kobe was transposable. He could be replaced and the Lakers would have still won three titles with four Finals appearances.

Who was really the one that produced for the Lakers during their title runs? During the playoffs? Was it Kobe or Shaq? Almost all of you would say Shaq. Even most us Lakers fans would say Shaq. The facts might surprise you.

In 1999 Kobe at 21 years old averaged 21 points per game to Shaq's 30 throughout the playoffs. Kobe suffered an injury which lead to him missing a game. He also played 4.5 minutes less per game because of his injury. This isn’t bad for a kid in his second year as a starter dealing with an injury during the Western Conference Playoffs and NBA Finals.

But from 2000 till Shaq left at the end of 2004 it was a little different. Kobe was healthy.

In the playoffs of 2000-2001

Kobe averaged 29.4 points 7 rbs, and 6 assts.

Shaq averaged 30.4 points and 15 rbs.

In the playoffs of 2001-2002

Kobe averaged 27 pts 6 rbs, and 5 assts.

Shaq averaged 28.5 pts and 12.6 rbs

In the Playoffs of 2002-2003

Kobe averaged 32 pts 5 rbs, 5 assts.

Shaq averaged 27 pts and 15 rbs

In the Playoffs of 2003-2004 including the Finals

Kobe averaged 24.5 pts 5 rbs, and 6 assts.

Shaq averaged 21.5 pts and 13 rbs

Now let’s average it out.

From 2000 to 2004 their playoff averages including the FINALS are as follows:

Kobe Bryant - 27.6 points 6 rbs, and 5.5 assists.

Playing avg 17 playoff games per season and avg 44 minutes per game.

Shaq O'neal - 26.4 points 14 rebounds. Playing avg 17 playoff games per season and avg 41 minutes per game.

^ v .5

 As for the CLUTCH performer of the two during those playoff games. That’s too easy. Everybody knows Bryant was CLUTCH. Everybody knows who the team depended on with the game on the line.

But to defend Shaq. It's kind of hard to be CLUTCH when you're sitting on the bench in the final minutes of a close playoff game because he couldn’t make a freethrow.

These are the facts.

Now who was more productive in leading their team throughout the playoffs during those years? Numbers say Kobe Bryant. Not only did Kobe average more points but he led the team in playoff assists from 2000 to 2004, he also gave more time to his team averaging 3 more minutes per game than Shaq.

Like I said before. Both players were equally responsible for the Lakers success. I will never deny what Shaq did during his time in L.A. I will also defend what Kobe did. 

Kobe is still here. He is still committed. All of the Lakers are. Love Kobe or hate him. He is still committed to his team and always sacrificed for them. Can you say the same about Shaq?