One speculation I've often heard is how many more Lakers championships Shaquille O'Neil and Kobe Bryant could have won together in the 2000's if only they had gotten along. Because they didn't, Shaq left in 2004 and head coach Phil Jackson left was temporarily dismissed. It's a three-peat team but people still wonder what might have been.
I doubt they would have won any more. Even during the three-peat, there were some close calls where they faced elimination. They weren't that much better than any other team. By the mid-2000's, Shaq was approaching his mid-30's. He was no longer in his peak years, and Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki were entering theirs in the Western Conference. Perhaps they could have won it all in 2006, as Shaq did with Dwyane Wade and the Miami Heat. But it's not obvious. When the Lakers acquired prime Pau Gasol and won back-to-back championship in 2009-2010 they had a better player than Shaq was at the time.
You could say that Shaq and Kobe's lost championships were when they were together. Maybe if Shaq was "more committed," and maybe if Kobe was more pleasant, they could have won five straight. But those "what if" situations don't really make sense. "What if this person had a different personality" is as ridiculous as saying "what if this person was taller." Athletes are who they are.
We can look at a Shaq, and think "what if he was as committed to his sport as a Tom Brady or Jerry Rice, whose accomplishments surpass their on-paper ability?" But my theory is that if Shaq was like that, he wouldn't have won any championships at all. Basketball wouldn't have been fun. When a pro athlete views his job as "I'm so gifted, I can't let my teammates and fans down," he will tend to collapse under the stress. If he goes out there and thinks, "let's have fun," he's more likely to succeed.
So I don't think the Shaq-Kobe Lakers under-achieved. I think they were the best as they could be, together and separate.
I doubt they would have won any more. Even during the three-peat, there were some close calls where they faced elimination. They weren't that much better than any other team. By the mid-2000's, Shaq was approaching his mid-30's. He was no longer in his peak years, and Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki were entering theirs in the Western Conference. Perhaps they could have won it all in 2006, as Shaq did with Dwyane Wade and the Miami Heat. But it's not obvious. When the Lakers acquired prime Pau Gasol and won back-to-back championship in 2009-2010 they had a better player than Shaq was at the time.
You could say that Shaq and Kobe's lost championships were when they were together. Maybe if Shaq was "more committed," and maybe if Kobe was more pleasant, they could have won five straight. But those "what if" situations don't really make sense. "What if this person had a different personality" is as ridiculous as saying "what if this person was taller." Athletes are who they are.
We can look at a Shaq, and think "what if he was as committed to his sport as a Tom Brady or Jerry Rice, whose accomplishments surpass their on-paper ability?" But my theory is that if Shaq was like that, he wouldn't have won any championships at all. Basketball wouldn't have been fun. When a pro athlete views his job as "I'm so gifted, I can't let my teammates and fans down," he will tend to collapse under the stress. If he goes out there and thinks, "let's have fun," he's more likely to succeed.
So I don't think the Shaq-Kobe Lakers under-achieved. I think they were the best as they could be, together and separate.
Comments
Post a Comment