Bill Russell didn't play with Hall of Famers, Bill Russell turned role players into Hall of Famers. Everyone on that team was a better player because of Bill Russell, they won games because of Bill Russell, and they won championship after championship because of Bill Russell.
Hey, weren't you the guy arguing the other side of Havlicek with me last week, how he was a feature player and all of that? Now he's a role player? Which is it? I'm looking forward to knowing which argument you're conceding to me.
Nash's teammates become somewhat better players, they win games because of Nash, but they tend to fall flat on their face when push comes to shove and its put up or shut up time.
Okay, now which side are you arguing here - that Nash's teammates are All-Stars in their own right, or that they're much improved because of playing with Nash?
As for Iverson in 2001, it could definitely be argued that he was the best player that year. He was the leader in scoring, the leader in steals, among the elite in assists, among the leaders in minutes. The team thrived on what he did and how he did it on BOTH sides of the court.
I'll give you that - Iverson was the best player *THAT* *YEAR*. And Nash is the best player *THIS* *YEAR*. That doesn't make him the player I'd pick if I were starting a team, or the best for the future, or anything other than the best player *THIS* *YEAR*. Not the most complete. Not the most dominant. Just the best.
Jordan had that same mentality, especially in the 95 through 98 years. Flip the switch in the fourth quarter and win the game. I wonder how many games Utah lead in the 4th quarter in those two Finals, just to lose when Jordan decided to "flip the switch." Not only did people not bash Jordan for that, they heralded him as the greatest clutch player of all time and gave him MVP after MVP. Not to say he didn't deserve it. Just to say that there is something to be said for working hard and working smart.
Jordan didn't just flip the switch when the playoffs came around - he diligently tried to get his team the best record and home court advantage every year. And if the team started to stink in the first quarter, Jordan would make sure to flip the switch then - not wait until it was too late. Winning was important to Jordan - whereas Shaq takes winning as being inevitable the moment he decides he wants to win. It's not like he's worried about winning the first minute. I'll criticize Jordan for a lot of things, but not for his level of desire and commitment.
I refuse to believe that everytime someone beat the Lakers, it was because Shaq wasn't trying. The old "Shaq is soooooo good that if he ever gave it all he's got, no one would beat his team, ever, never!!" When the Lakers got beat it was because the other team was the BETTER team. And the blame for the Lakers loss falls squarely on the shoulders of the Lakers as a whole. Not just Shaq, but Kobe, Malone, Payton, George, Rush, Slava, Fisher, Phil Jackson, etc. Basketball is a *team* game, when the *team* loses, the *team* is to blame. Shaq being the best player on that team has to swallow a good share of that blame, but by no means should he swallow all of it. After all, the team had three other Hall of Famers, right??
I never said that the only reason the Lakers lost games was because of Shaq's level of commitment. However, I think the Lakers won less games than they should have - especially during the regular seasons - due to Shaq's lack of commitment. And as for being part of a *TEAM*, part of that is the commitment to your teammates and letting them know that you won't let them down in their realistic expectations. So tell me - even though it was a team game, was Shaq a real part of the *TEAM*, or not? I know that if I were his teammate, I'd be at least somewhat upset with him. And don't tell me that if you were his teammate, you wouldn't, because I know you *WAY* too well to believe that.
As for the Lakers having other Hall Of Famers, I agree - they did. However, SHAQ was - or should have been - the focal point for the offense (and in a lot of ways, for the defense). Shaq's lack of commitment meant that the focal point wasn't working as it should have.
Bottom line: Over the years, Shaq has been lazier than he should have been, and it's hurt his reputation. We never know if Shaq - this year - was a 22.9/10.4 player, or if he was a 29.7/13.6 player who gave 22.9/10.4 effort.
