Los Angeles Lakers wouldn’t have won more rings with Shaq and Kobe
By Robert Marvi
3. The rest of the NBA was getting stronger and catching up to the Los Angeles Lakers
In the late-1990s and early 2000s, the level of talent and quality of play in the NBA was at an all-time low. But that was starting to change by 2004.
First came the 2003 NBA Draft, with such future Hall of Famers as LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Carmelo Anthony and Chris Bosh. Then came the Phoenix Suns, who revolutionized the way the NBA game was played with their fast-break, 3-point shot oriented offense.
The Dallas Mavericks, who were already a contender, also got better at mid-decade by improving at the defensive end.
Simply put, the Lakers probably would’ve needed more talent to keep winning titles with O’Neal and Bryant than they had early in the decade.
Some of head coach Phil Jackson’s assistant coaches felt that the 2000 Lakers had the lowest amount of talent of any championship team they had ever seen. Charley Rosen, a close friend of Jackson’s, mentioned this in Roland Lazenby’s book “Showboat: The Life of Kobe Bryant.”
Another thing to remember is that the game itself was changing. When the Lakers won their three straight championships, almost all teams, including the Lakers, played at a very slow pace and looked for the fast break as little as possible.
Around mid-decade, that began to change with the influence of teams like the Suns, Mavs and Sacramento Kings.
In 2003-04, NBA teams scored an average of just 93.4 points per game. The next season, that number increased to 97.2, and it would go up to 99.9 in 2007-08.
The teams that maintain their spot at the top of their league change and adapt to stay ahead of the posse. Simply put, the Lakers failed to do so in the early 2000s.