2000 Shaquille O'Neal vs 1991 Michael Jordan [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

laronprofit9

09-28-2010, 09:03 PM

Their First Championship, Finally Over the Hump

http://denisesays.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/jordan-and-da.jpg

http://www.lakersuniverse.com/campeon/shaqtrofeo.jpg

Shaquille O'Neal

Regular Season

29.7ppg/13.6rpg/3.8apg/0.5spg/3.0bpg on 57%FG/0%3P/52%FT/58%TS

Playoffs

30.7ppg/15.4rpg/3.1apg/0.6spg/2.4bpg on 57%FG/0%3P/46%FT/56%TS

vs

Michael Jordan

Regular Season

31.5ppg/6.0rpg/5.5apg/2.7spg/1.0bpg on 54%FG/31%3P/85%FT/61%TS

Playoffs

31.1ppg/6.4rpg/8.4apg/2.4spg/1.4bpg on 52%FG/39%3P/85%FT/60%TS

2000 Shaquille O'Neal
NBA Champion
NBA Scoring Champion
Regular Season MVP
NBA Finals MVP
All-Star Game MVP
All-NBA First Team
All-Defensive Second Team
Lakers 67-15

1991 Michael Jordan
NBA Champion
NBA Scoring Champion
Regular Season MVP
NBA Finals MVP
All-NBA First Team
All-Defensive First Team
Bulls 61-21

They were 27 years old entering their respective seasons. Jordan was entering his 7th season, and Shaq was entering his 8th season. Considered to be arguably the best in the league, Shaq and Jordan gave dominant performances seemingly every night, but they still haven't won the championship.

Entering their seasons with a chip on their shoulder, Jordan just suffered his worst and most-disappointing defeat in his career against the Pistons in a close 7-game series. While Shaq got swept out of the playoffs in embarrassing fashion by rival big-man Tim Duncan.

Phil Jackson arrived a season before for Jordan, and he had just arrived for Shaq. His coaching marked a turning point in each players' career. Under the triangle offense, Phil Jackson led the '91 Bulls and '00 Lakers to their best season record-wise under Jordan and Shaq.

Maybe among Phil Jackson's most remarkable accomplishments were allowing two rising stars in Scottie Pippen and Kobe Bryant to develop into the best side-kicks that Jordan and Shaq could ever hope for. Kobe Bryant was quickly becoming one of the best all-around players in the league. However, his biggest improvement under Phil Jackson would be his defense. While already being an all-star, Kobe earned his first-ever All-Defensive first team honor while playing for Jackson in his first year of coaching. Phil Jackson's arrival to the Bulls allowed Scottie Pippen to flourish into his 1st-ever All-Star team selection. Next season(1990-1991) Scottie would earn his first of many All-Defensive Team Selections . Scottie, like Kobe, was becoming one of the NBA's premier all-around players, and best perimeter defender of his time.

With a new coach Phil Jackson and blossoming teammates in Kobe Bryant and Scottie Pippen, Jordan and Shaq were finally ready to get the monkey off their backs. They posted up arguably the best season ever in their careers combing regular season, playoffs, and finals success. Their memorable performances earned them recognition among the greatest players of all-time.

Who had a more impressive and dominant season 2000 Shaq or 1991 Michael Jordan?

Rondo'd

09-28-2010, 09:08 PM

Putting Shaq's 3 point % made me :oldlol:

Birmingham1955

09-28-2010, 09:09 PM

Jordan by a mile.

He never played with a Kobe cailber player like Shaq did.

laronprofit9

09-28-2010, 09:13 PM

Jordan by a mile.

He never played with a Kobe cailber player like Shaq did.

2001 Kobe and on was better than Scottie Pippen.

However, 2000 Kobe wasn't quite a superstar yet, he was borderline at that time. He could be considered a superstar if you include his defense.

2000 Kobe is very comparable to a 1991 Scottie Pippen as a sidekick.

O.J A 6'4Mamba

09-28-2010, 09:17 PM

This is a very good debate. However, Jordan's clutchness really puts him a little bit different higher tier of immorality. Shaq you could just hack at the end of games.

ShaqAttack3234

09-28-2010, 09:19 PM

Jordan by a mile.

He never played with a Kobe cailber player like Shaq did.

I'm not saying Shaq was better, but this is aweak argument. 2000 Kobe was nowhere near prime Kobe. Prime Kobe was/is definitely better than Pippen, but 2000 Kobe wasn't.

Not to mention that due to the injury, the Lakers got 15.6 ppg, 4.6 rpg and 4.2 apg on 36.7% shooting in the finals. His totals are lowered due to him leaving game 2 early so I'm not trying to make Kobe look worse, but that's completely irrelevant to how much help Shaq got in the finals. Of course, Shaq averaged 38/17/3 on 61% shooting and had double digit 4th quarters in all of the wins, including game 6 when he shot 6/6 from the field in the 4th to clinch a title and Indiana actually had a 5 point lead entering the 4th.

And after Kobe? Horace Grant was much better than Rice circa 2000. Rice was a good 3rd option in the regular season(though he shot only 43% and made just 1 three per game), but in the playoffs, dropped to 12/4/2 on 41% while still making around 1 three per game and even worse in the finals. Of course, he didn't impact the games outside of his scoring.

Grant provide defense, rebounding, underrated passing, a knack for putting himself in the right spot to finish off of Jordan and Pippen's passes and he was mobile back then.

If you want to cite reasons why Jordan was better, that's fine with me, I'm not going to debate that, but don't show your ignorance by suggesting Shaq had much more help, which is blatantly false.

laronprofit9

09-28-2010, 09:22 PM

This is a very good debate. However, Jordan's clutchness really puts him a little bit different higher tier of immorality. Shaq you could just hack at the end of games.

I wouldn't say Jordan was at higher tier.

Shaq delivered one of the greatest Finals Performances of all-time that year. 38ppg/17rpg/2apg on 61%FG.

Jordan did the same with 31ppg/7rpg/11apg on 56%FG

You could argue Shaq was just as clutch. Plus there is unique advantage the Lakers get for other teams being forced to foul Shaq that Jordan didn't have.

laronprofit9

09-28-2010, 09:41 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBseRlgoSLc

Michel Jordan

33pts/7rebs/13asts 15/18 fgs and 13 consecutive FGs made(NBA-Record).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k

Shaquille O'Neal

43pts/19rebs/4asts 21/32 fgs followed by 40pts/24rebs/4asts 11/18 fgs

:bowdown: :bowdown:

catch24

09-28-2010, 10:14 PM

My favorite season from Shaq, but I'd have to go with Jordan. The clutch shots, playmaking, defense, and the ability to hit freethrows consistently seals the deal for me. Jordan was the better all around player, while Shaq, IMO, was more dominant putting the ball in the hoop.

BFRESH44

09-28-2010, 10:30 PM

First three peat Jordan, and Peak Shaq circa 99-2002 are the two most dominant players anyone ever SAW. #Fact.

magnax1

09-28-2010, 10:34 PM

Jordan by quite a bit. He was just a better player, could score more, pass better, a better defender. He was in his prime, and he is the best player ever, so it's not really that terribly close.

SinJackal

09-28-2010, 10:41 PM

These years are good comparisons. That was the most impressive year for Shaq in the playoffs imo of his whole career. He certainly carried the Lakers. . .especially in the Finals. Replace Shaq with any other center in the league at that time, and the Lakers sure as hell don't win.

I don't think the whole FT thing for Shaq was really making him a more dominant scorer, Jordan was more efficiant (60% TS% vs Shaq's 55.6%). Who was more impactful defensively is impossible to determine since it's different positions.

Shaq destroyed people on the glass, Jordan created more for his team.

Very very difficult to chose between one of the two. I always tend to feel the impact of big men is more than guards, but Jordan was just smashing people that year.

Reluctantly, I'll go with Shaq since he won with less on his team that season. Shaq by a very slim margin. But just for that one run.

Soundwave

09-28-2010, 11:25 PM

First three peat Jordan, and Peak Shaq circa 99-2002 are the two most dominant players anyone ever SAW. #Fact.

Agreed IMO.

I'd take Jordan simply because 4th quarter, close game ... I think he's a far superior player in that situation, and that situation inevitably arises several times if you want to win a title.

Shaq got swept and beat in the playoffs with some pretty stacked teams, Jordan never got beat in the playoffs once he had a solid team around him (we'll exclude '95 because he was not 100%, and that was a .500 supporting cast).

C- Paris Hilton (sub anyone in here)
PF- Malone
SF- Kobe
SG- Jordan
PG- Payton

Ain't losing to the Pistons in '04.

1987_Lakers

09-28-2010, 11:37 PM

Give me Shaq. Gotta go with the dominant big man.

Soundwave

09-28-2010, 11:43 PM

DuMa

09-28-2010, 11:46 PM

Agreed IMO.

I'd take Jordan simply because 4th quarter, close game ... I think he's a far superior player in that situation, and that situation inevitably arises several times if you want to win a title.

Shaq got swept and beat in the playoffs with some pretty stacked teams, Jordan never got beat in the playoffs once he had a solid team around him (we'll exclude '95 because he was not 100%, and that was a .500 supporting cast).

C- Paris Hilton (sub anyone in here)
PF- Malone
SF- Kobe
SG- Jordan
PG- Payton

Ain't losing to the Pistons in '04.

They lose as well if Kobe decides to chuck again. Not really Shaq's fault they lost that NBA Finals.

but as for the question, Jordan was a complete player. I'd pick Shaq before Jordan if i never knew how their careers were going to turn out. it was an absolute no brainer to pick Shaq because of how easy it was to build around him.

laronprofit9

09-28-2010, 11:51 PM

Jordan on the 96-2004 Lakers wins more titles than Shaq IMO.

They'd probably keep Elden Campbell ... though Elden was definitely no Shaq, he was far better than any center Jordan played with in Chicago.

C- Campbell > Cartwright/Longley
PF- Horry = Grant/Rodman
SF- Kobe > Pippen (sorry Pip)
SG- Jordan = Jordan
PG- Fisher > Paxson/Harper (slightly)

That team would probably win 6-8 titles IMO.

Not sure about that, Shaq and Kobe is a better fit than Jordan and Kobe.

If you swap Shaq and Jordan. Shaq/Pippen would do better than Jordan/Kobe. Imo. Kobe and Jordan are just too similar.

Soundwave

09-28-2010, 11:54 PM

They lose as well if Kobe decides to chuck again. Not really Shaq's fault they lost that NBA Finals.

but as for the question, Jordan was a complete player. I'd pick Shaq before Jordan if i never knew how their careers were going to turn out. it was an absolute no brainer to pick Shaq because of how easy it was to build around him.

That's the thing though ... as a guard, Jordan simply had more control of the game.

With Shaq ... because of his limited shooting range, poor free throw shooting, etc. ... sometimes the game got out of his control.

Whereas with Jordan, 2 minutes left, your team down by two .... you have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen.

Shaq lost to teams in the playoffs with supporting casts that Jordan never would lose to IMO.

Soundwave

09-28-2010, 11:55 PM

Not sure about that, Shaq and Kobe is a better fit than Jordan and Kobe.

If you swap Shaq and Jordan. Shaq/Pippen would do better than Jordan/Kobe. Imo. Kobe and Jordan are just too similar.

Well Pippen and Jordan were pretty similar too ... besides how the hell would you stop Jordan and Kobe on the floor at one time?

Who do you double?

You have to play one of them single coverage .... good luck with that.
The other nightmare would be that Phil could keep 1 of the 2 on the floor at all times ... your bench? Gonna get torched one way or another.

Kobe would score more than Pippen, but that's OK, since Horry/Fisher/Campbell aren't exactly guys who demand shots.

ILLsmak

09-29-2010, 12:05 AM

Agreed IMO.

I'd take Jordan simply because 4th quarter, close game ... I think he's a far superior player in that situation, and that situation inevitably arises several times if you want to win a title.

Shaq got swept and beat in the playoffs with some pretty stacked teams, Jordan never got beat in the playoffs once he had a solid team around him (we'll exclude '95 because he was not 100%, and that was a .500 supporting cast).

C- Paris Hilton (sub anyone in here)
PF- Malone
SF- Kobe
SG- Jordan
PG- Payton

Ain't losing to the Pistons in '04.

there's no way you could have MJ and Kobe on the same team... lol. That'd be stupid.

And you do realize it was Kobe's fault they lost that year... period.

-Smak

laronprofit9

09-29-2010, 12:06 AM

Well Pippen and Jordan were pretty similar too ... besides how the hell would you stop Jordan and Kobe on the floor at one time?

Who do you double?

You have to play one of them single coverage .... good luck with that.
The other nightmare would be that Phil could keep 1 of the 2 on the floor at all times ... your bench? Gonna get torched one way or another.

Kobe would score more than Pippen, but that's OK, since Horry/Fisher/Campbell aren't exactly guys who demand shots.

I think that on talent alone Kobe and Jordan coul out play Shaq and Pippen.
Jordan is the best player playing off-the ball out of the 4. If need be, Kobe could ball-handle, and Jordan could play off of him. Jordan was fantastic moving without the basketball, that is probably the main area where he has an advantage over Kobe in terms of approach to the game. Jordan did a lot of his scoring off-the ball in his second three-peat. Plus his jumper was money. Because Kobe's jumper is just as or even more consistent than Jordan's, Jordan would receive pass from Kobe in high post, Jordan gets doubled. Passes back to Kobe for an open elbow-wing 15-18 footer.

Everything about the Pippen and Shaq combo would be perfect though. Great Defense, and Pippen is more of a play-maker than Jordan or Kobe imo. The only weakness is that Pippen wasn't that great of shooter and definitely not as good as Kobe and Jordan. I think a good jump-shooter that doesn't haven't to get in a clogged up paint with Shaq in it to score would be far more helpful in the long run for both players.

I think the jump-shot factor might tip the scales toward Jordan and Kobe. However, I still prefer a wing/bigman combo over wing/wing.

Soundwave

09-29-2010, 12:10 AM

there's no way you could have MJ and Kobe on the same team... lol. That'd be stupid.

And you do realize it was Kobe's fault they lost that year... period.

-Smak

Jordan wouldn't lose that series even if he had to break Kobe's knees to stop him from chucking (though I imagine Kobe would probably stop before it got to that :oldlol: ... he could get easy points playing the Pistons bench).

That's one thing about Shaq/Kobe Lakers ... when things are going good ... it's great. But when things go bad ... it can fall off the tracks and sometimes got really ugly.

Jordan simply had a overpowering will to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat every time the Bulls looked like they were teetering on the brink, he'd usually bring them back.

Shaq is great, but he never had that level of control over the game.

Soundwave

09-29-2010, 12:13 AM

I think that on talent alone Kobe and Jordan coul out play Shaq and Pippen.
Jordan is the best player playing off-the ball out of the 4. If need be, Kobe could ball-handle, and Jordan could play off of him. Jordan was fantastic moving without the basketball, that is probably the main area where he has an advantage over Kobe in terms of approach to the game. Jordan did a lot of his scoring off-the ball in his second three-peat. Plus his jumper was money. Because Kobe's jumper is just as or even more consistent than Jordan's, Jordan would receive pass from Kobe in high post, Jordan gets doubled. Passes back to Kobe for an open elbow-wing 15-18 footer.

Everything about the Pippen and Shaq combo would be perfect though. Great Defense, and Pippen is more of a play-maker than Jordan or Kobe imo. The only weakness is that Pippen wasn't that great of shooter and definitely not as good as Kobe and Jordan. I think a good jump-shooter that doesn't haven't to get in a clogged up paint with Shaq in it to score would be far more helpful in the long run for both players.

I think the jump-shot factor might tip the scales toward Jordan and Kobe. However, I still prefer a wing/bigman combo over wing/wing.

Except in the clutch ... I hate to say it ... but Scottie could be rattled.

There's a reason why pretty much every single huge clutch shot during the Bulls runs was either from Jordan, or wide open looks to Paxson or Kerr.

I don't think Shaq/Pippen would be all that much different from Shaq/Penny and look what the '96 Bulls did to them.

Jordan never lost a series where he had equal or more talent on paper going into a series. Shaq lost several.

laronprofit9

09-29-2010, 12:18 AM

Except in the clutch ... I hate to say it ... but Scottie could be rattled.

There's a reason why pretty much every single huge clutch shot during the Bulls runs was either from Jordan, or wide open looks to Paxson or Kerr.

I don't think Shaq/Pippen would be all that much different from Shaq/Penny and look what the '96 Bulls did to them.

We're talking about 2000 Shaq not Magic Shaq. This is the ultimate version of Shaq plus they had Phil Jackson coaching. Makes a big difference.

2000 Shaq is arguably the greatest year by a single player. It's comparable to any season by Jordan or any other all-time great.

Soundwave

09-29-2010, 12:21 AM

We're talking about 2000 Shaq not Magic Shaq. This is the ultimate version of Shaq plus they had Phil Jackson coaching. Makes a big difference.

2000 Shaq is arguably the greatest year by a single player. It's comparable to any season by Jordan or any other all-time great.

You mean you get either one only for one year? Even that case it's a wash, because you're winning the championship either way as long as you have a decent-to-good supporting cast.

If it's a situation where you have them for multiple years, I take Jordan, just because his will to dominate the game would make the difference in probably more than a few of the series' in which Shaq got beat.

Especially if you're starting a franchise from scratch ... the Lakers were really lucky to poach Kobe from the Hornets like that ... if they didn't, 4th quarter ... close game ... Shaq becomes a much more limited option.

If you sub the same age Jordan for Shaq, I think the Lakers chances of winning the title in '96, '97, '98, '99, 2003, 2004 (years that Shaq lost) are much, much higher.

Outside of maybe his rookie season, I don't think Shaq has ever played on a team that wasn't at least "above average" in talent if not flat-out stacked.

laronprofit9

09-29-2010, 12:33 AM

You mean you get either one only for one year? Even that case it's a wash, because you're winning the championship either way as long as you have a decent-to-good supporting cast.

If it's a situation where you have them for multiple years, I take Jordan, just because his will to dominate the game would make the difference in probably more than a few of the series' in which Shaq got beat.

Especially if you're starting a franchise from scratch ... the Lakers were really lucky to poach Kobe from the Hornets like that ... if they didn't, 4th quarter ... close game ... Shaq becomes a much more limited option.

If you sub the same age Jordan for Shaq, I think the Lakers win the title in '96, '97, '98, '99, 2003, 2004 (years that Shaq lost) with the same supporting players.

Look Jordan never played with anbody as good as Kobe. However, I think Jordan's Bulls had better role players than the Lakers.

Kobe>Pippen
Bulls Rest of supporting Cast>Lakers Rest of supporting Cast

Rodman and Grant were better rebounders than anbody on the Lakers outside of Shaq. Lakers didn't have anyone like Kukoc, and the best player the Lakers had after Kobe in 2000 was Glen Rice. Who hardly did anything in the playoffs.

I'd take 91 Jordan over 2001 and 2002 Shaq especially during the regular season. Playoffs is a lot closer, but I would have a hard time picking any season from Jordan over 2000 Shaq without it being a close debate. I could see either going vice-versa. But no way, is one side clearly favored.

Put a 2000 form Shaq on any of the Bulls teams during the 90s, and they will win the championship that year.

2000 Kobe was a borderline allstar/superstar player. He didn't become a true superstar until the 2000-2001 season. Kobe was probably a top 15 player in the 2000. After that he's been about top 5 every year since.

2000 Kobe was about equal to 1991 Pippen. This is no smite at Kobe, 1991 Pippen is a great player. Should be a compliment for Kobe at such a young age.

Soundwave

09-29-2010, 12:38 AM

Look Jordan never played with anbody as good as Kobe. However, I think Jordan's Bulls had better role players than the Lakers.

Kobe>Pippen
Bulls Rest of supporting Cast>Lakers Rest of supporting Cast

Rodman and Grant were better rebounders than anbody on the Lakers outside of Shaq. Lakers didn't have anyone like Kukoc, and the best player the Lakers had after Kobe in 2000 was Glen Rice. Who hardly did anything in the playoffs.

I'd take 91 Jordan over 2001 and 2002 Shaq especially during the regular season. Playoffs is a lot closer, but I would have a hard time picking any season from Jordan over 2000 Shaq without it being a close debate. I could see either going vice-versa. But no way, is one side clearly favored.

Put a 2000 form Shaq on any of the Bulls teams during the 90s, and they will win the championship that year.

2000 Kobe was a borderline allstar/superstar player. He didn't become a true superstar until the 2000-2001 season. Kobe was probably a top 15 player in the 2000. After that he's been about top 5 every year since.

2000 Kobe was about equal to 1991 Pippen. This is no smite at Kobe, 1991 Pippen is a great player. Should be a compliment for Kobe at such a young age.

Elden Campbell obviously wouldn't be traded if there was no Shaq though, and he's better than any center Jordan ever played with.

Horry is about equal to Rodman (better offense), Grant (better clutch play).

Kobe is better than Pippen

Fisher is better than Paxson/Harper/Kerr

Rick Fox is comparable to Kukoc. Better probably if you factor in defense.

Shaq's always had very good supporting casts. Penny + Grant + Anderson + Scott is probably deeper than the Bulls if you put Jordan in there.

I doubt Shaq would win the title in any of the years Jordan lost with the same supporting cast (ie-- 7-14 ppg "migrane" version Pippen as the no.2 option).

laronprofit9

09-29-2010, 01:06 AM

Elden Campbell obviously wouldn't be traded if there was no Shaq though, and he's better than any center Jordan ever played with.

Horry is about equal to Rodman (better offense), Grant (better clutch play).

Kobe is better than Pippen

Fisher is better than Paxson/Harper/Kerr

Rick Fox is comparable to Kukoc. Better probably if you factor in defense.

Shaq's always had very good supporting casts. Penny + Grant + Anderson + Scott is probably deeper than the Bulls if you put Jordan in there.

2000 Kobe wasn't better than 1991 Pippen. If he was, it was by the slimest of margins that it doesn't even matter.

Rodman is better than Horry.

Horry was a bench player (2000)averaging

5.7ppg/4.8rpg/1.6apg on 44%FG

Meanwhile Rodman with the Bulls had

5.5ppg/14.9rpg/2.5apg on 45%FG

Regardless Rodman never played in 1991.

Meanwhile Horace Grant from 91-93 posted up

14ppg/9rpg/2apg on 55%FG
15ppg/10rpg/3apg on 58%FG
13ppg/10rpg/3apg on 51%FG

Starting PG's Ron Harper(Lakers) John Paxson(Bulls)

Harper
7ppg/4rpg/3apg on 40%FG/31%3P/68%FT 26mpg
Paxson
9ppg/1rpg/4apg on 55%FG/44%3P/83%FT 24mpg

Back-up PG Derek Fisher(Lakers) B.J. Armstrong(Bulls)

Fisher
6ppg/2rpg/3apg on 35%FG/31%3P/72%FT 23mpg
Armstrong
9ppg/2rpg/4apg on 48%FG/50%3P/87%FT 21mpg

Bulls had the advantage at point.

I don't think you can really justify the Lakers having a better supporting cast than the Bulls.

The 2000 Lakers supporting cast outside of Kobe/Shaq were at best only as good or worse than the supporting of the 1991 Bulls supporting cast outside of Pippen/Jordan.

StarJordan

09-29-2010, 01:22 AM

laronprofit9

09-29-2010, 01:53 AM

Shaq shot 57% as a center. Jordan as a GUARD had a 54% FG average. amazing. Most importantly, Jordan won it all without an elite center in '91. Even in 2000, Shaq needs an allstar caliber guard to compete for a title (infact always be it penny, kobe, dwyane wade). Case closed right there. Winner is 91 Jordan.

Jordan had an all-star caliber teammate in Pippen.

Jordan's '91 teammates were about as good or you could even argue slightly better than Shaq's '00 teammates.

Remember 2000 Kobe wasn't quite a superstar yet, but he was really damn close to that level.

2000 Kobe and 1991 Pippen were just about equal.

However 2001 and on, Kobe would be/was a better player than Pippen would ever be.

RazorBaLade

09-29-2010, 02:04 AM

OldSchoolBBall

09-29-2010, 02:48 AM

LMAO @ "Shaq had just as much to do with it". :oldlol: (emphasis mine) No. Shaq was partly to blame, but not nearly to the same extent Kobe was.

laronprofit9

09-29-2010, 06:28 AM

Regarding the 2004 Finals.

Kobe was part of the problem, but not the only reason why the Lakers lost to Pistons. There were a lot.

1. Gary Payton was getting killed by Chauncey Billups that series. He was helpless against him.

2. The Pistons Defense just shut down everybody on the Lakers outside of Shaq.

3. The Lakers as a team shot 41.6%FG against the Pistons.

4. No Player on the Lakers shot above 40% other than Rick Fox and Shaq. Note: Rick Fox only played 30 minutes that entire series.

Shaq shot 63%
Fox shot 57% (Note: He only attempted 7 Field Goal Attemps the entire series making 4 of them.)

Do you know which Laker player had the next highest fg%?
Devean George Shooting 39%

Here are the Laker Field Goal% during the 2004 NBA Finals

1. Shaquille O'Neal 63%
2. Rick Fox 57% (4 for 7)
3. Devean George 39%
4. Luke Walton 39%
5. Kobe Bryant 38%
6. Stanislav Medvedenko 35%
7. Karl Malone 33%
8. Gary Payton 32%
9. Kareem Rush 32%
10. Derek Fisher 31%
11. Brian Cook 17%
12. Bryon Russell 0%

The entire team played like dog $4it that series outside of Shaq.

5. Karl Malone got injured.

6. The Lakers were averaging 81.8ppg that series as a team.

7. While the Lakers offense struggled, the Pistons had 5 players averaging double-figure points that series.

It was just an ugly series all-around for the Lakers. People act like only Kobe played bad for the Lakers. The entire team basically played bad except Shaq. Even Shaq's brilliance wouldn't be enough to save them, it was just to big of a disparity between the teams.

Now continue on about '91 Jordan vs '00 Shaq :)

ShaqAttack3234

09-29-2010, 11:31 AM

As far as the answer to the OP, I'll have to watch a few more random regular season games to really decide.

I don't have the same perspective on Jordan's 1991 season as I do on Shaq's having watched the NBA regularly in 2000. But I did go back and download a ton of 1989-1990 Jordan games, and did it randomly to not just pick out the best to evaluate his season so I could do the same with the 1991 Jordan.

A little trivia is that Jordan and Shaq are 2 of only 4 players to win a scoring title and championship in the same season.

This is a very good debate. However, Jordan's clutchness really puts him a little bit different higher tier of immorality. Shaq you could just hack at the end of games.

Not true in 2000. Indiana tried to hack Shaq in game 2 of the 2000 finals and they lost the game, particularly with Shaq struggling early at the line, but upping his FT% in the 4th quarter.

Portland tried this in game 1 of the WCF and they actually fell behind even more after starting the hack a Shaq.

As I've mentioned, Shaq more often than not in the 2000 playoffs seemed to have double digit 4th quarters, unfortunately myths have started since then that he was on the bench in crunch time because that's what happened when he got older and was no longer the same dominant force.

I don't think the whole FT thing for Shaq was really making him a more dominant scorer, Jordan was more efficiant (60% TS% vs Shaq's 55.6%). Who was more impactful defensively is impossible to determine since it's different positions.

As far as TS%, well, that can be deceptive for a power player.

Here's an example. If you convert a lot of and 1s then that makes it skewed because even if you missed the extra free throw on the and 1, you wouldn't be using up any more of a possession anyway.

I'll use game 1 of the finals as an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k

His first basket was a dunk and a foul, he made that free throw, making it the same as if he had made a 3 as far as possessions used.

At about 1:00, he converts the basket and draws a foul on Smits, so despite missing the free throw, that was a bonus to begin with.

He converts another basket with the foul around 2:12, and again despite missing the free throw, no extra possession was used.

And around 4:20 he's fouled again and he gets the basket.

So at most, his six FTA were the equivalent of one missed field goals because atleast 4 of them came on and 1s.

If you were to calculate his FT using the standard TS% formula then his TS% for game 1 would have 63.9%., but knowing what we know his TS% was really equal to 67.2% in terms of using up possessions to score.

An example of how stats can be deceptive. And to me, a missed free throw has never been as bad as a missed field goal, particularly if you miss a long jumper which can give the other team a transition opportunity. And when you're fouled, you can set up your defense as well as pile up fouls on the other team and when you have a physical force like Shaq, those fouls also wear down the other team.

I believe some sites track and 1s now, Lebron has a ton of them so I'll have to see how efficient he truly is using this same method.

necya

09-29-2010, 12:00 PM

most dominant O'neal because there was no competition anymore in 00, and most impressive MJ of course.

ShaqAttack3234

09-29-2010, 12:52 PM

most dominant O'neal because there was no competition anymore in 00, and most impressive MJ of course.

No competition? Take a look at this game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JVqhtV3xww

He goes head to head with Tim Duncan throughout most of the game and winds up with 32 points, 11 rebounds, 5 blocks and 2 assists on 13/22 shooting with just 2 turnovers compared to Duncan's 28 points, 9 rebounds, 1 block and 1 assist on 8/23 shooting with 4 turnovers.

Even more impressive is that Duncan was just 2/14 with Shaq guarding him and Shaq blocked 3 of his shots. The previous season, Duncan was the best player in the NBA and in 1999-2000, he was still the second best. That's impressive.

Not only that, but David Robinson was still a force whose stats were lowered due to play with a dominant post player like Duncan on a slow paced team as well as Popovich limiting his minutes when he could.

People forget about twin towers Robinson, that year, he was one of the premier defensive players in the league and he led the Spurs in blocks and steals. He also led the Spurs in scoring in the second half of the season with almost 21 ppg and without Duncan, he led the Spurs to a 5-3 record and upped his scoring to 22 ppg on 53% shooting in those games while the Spurs still only allowed 90.5 ppg. Robinson was still without a doubt a top 15 player, IMO and I have him ranked at 13 for that year.

Then there was Alonzo Mourning out in Miami who was peaking. He averaged 22/10/4 on 55% shooting. Mourning was the 3rd best player in the league.

Dikembe Mutombo was still in his prime and averaged 11.5 ppg as well as over 14 rpg and 3 bpg on 56% shooting.

Unlike now, most teams still had either a skilled low post center with size who could average double figures or atleast a bulky 7 footer who could block shots and rebound. Not only that, but it seemed like Shaq faced less single coverage than anyone in the league.

More impoortantly, in any era, how many truly great centers are there? You can usually count them on one hand, and throughout an 82 game season, that won't make all that much of a difference in terms of a player's averages. That will make more of a difference with all-nba teams, blocked shots and rebounding leaders and defensive player of the year voting.

I respect you for your amazing collection of games, but this is not really a valid point. The irony is that Kobe fans use the competition argument against Jordan and most Jordan fans argue that, yet someone is using it against Shaq? In both cases, I don't think the argument is all that valid.

If you want to get into an argument of eras then I'll just bring up that the average team's defensive rating in '91 was 107.9 while the average team's defensive rating in 2000 was 104.1.

necya

09-29-2010, 03:41 PM

No competition? Take a look at this game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JVqhtV3xww

He goes head to head with Tim Duncan throughout most of the game and winds up with 32 points, 11 rebounds, 5 blocks and 2 assists on 13/22 shooting with just 2 turnovers compared to Duncan's 28 points, 9 rebounds, 1 block and 1 assist on 8/23 shooting with 4 turnovers.

Even more impressive is that Duncan was just 2/14 with Shaq guarding him and Shaq blocked 3 of his shots. The previous season, Duncan was the best player in the NBA and in 1999-2000, he was still the second best. That's impressive.

Not only that, but David Robinson was still a force whose stats were lowered due to play with a dominant post player like Duncan on a slow paced team as well as Popovich limiting his minutes when he could.

People forget about twin towers Robinson, that year, he was one of the premier defensive players in the league and he led the Spurs in blocks and steals. He also led the Spurs in scoring in the second half of the season with almost 21 ppg and without Duncan, he led the Spurs to a 5-3 record and upped his scoring to 22 ppg on 53% shooting in those games while the Spurs still only allowed 90.5 ppg. Robinson was still without a doubt a top 15 player, IMO and I have him ranked at 13 for that year.

Then there was Alonzo Mourning out in Miami who was peaking. He averaged 22/10/4 on 55% shooting. Mourning was the 3rd best player in the league.

Dikembe Mutombo was still in his prime and averaged 11.5 ppg as well as over 14 rpg and 3 bpg on 56% shooting.

Unlike now, most teams still had either a skilled low post center with size who could average double figures or atleast a bulky 7 footer who could block shots and rebound. Not only that, but it seemed like Shaq faced less single coverage than anyone in the league.

More impoortantly, in any era, how many truly great centers are there? You can usually count them on one hand, and throughout an 82 game season, that won't make all that much of a difference in terms of a player's averages. That will make more of a difference with all-nba teams, blocked shots and rebounding leaders and defensive player of the year voting.

I respect you for your amazing collection of games, but this is not really a valid point. The irony is that Kobe fans use the competition argument against Jordan and most Jordan fans argue that, yet someone is using it against Shaq? In both cases, I don't think the argument is all that valid.

If you want to get into an argument of eras then I'll just bring up that the average team's defensive rating in '91 was 107.9 while the average team's defensive rating in 2000 was 104.1.

yeah i know this game...
don't missunderstand my thoughts, i liked shaq, when he entered the league, he took part of the best battles in the paint with all you know. but hey, honestly, shaq is a very lucky player, he was born at the right time to be a 27yo when all the best came down. please remember shaq went to LA for many reasons : leadership issue with Penny, LA was a better place for shaq's business and to avoid the bulls until the finals. what's happened? Malone and his Jazz defeated the lakers 4-1 and 4-0...then 99, bad year, bad coach...etc

what i'm trying to underline is shaq needed the departure / advanced age of the best rob, olajuwon, malone, jordan to get his chance. of course he faced the blazers in 00 and the spurs. but nothing better than the guys named. he didn't have the same issues as robinson or malone or olajuwon who have fought the WC in the 90's. i read magnax who said malone failed in crucial moments (ok you can always mention his FT missed in 3-4 games of playoffs) but all teams failed in those years!
rockets, sonics, jazz, spurs, suns : all have a great team between 90-97. but sonics failed in 94, 95 (but WCF in 93, 96) suns in 94, 95 (but WCF in 90, 93) rockets in 92, 93, 96 (but WCF in 94, 95) jazz 93, 95 (but WCF in 92, 94, 96, 97) spurs in 91, 92 (rob injured) and 94 (but WCSF in 90, 93, 95 please note that the spurs had the worst supporting cast compared to the other teams)

you mentionned Robinson (34yo) in the 2000 season : he still had a good game, but honestly he wasn't the Robinson i'm talking about, the one who dominated shaq 2 times in 93/94, 2 times in 94/95 and 1 time in 96. after his back injury, he wasn't the same anymore and it was natural, ask to LJ.

then, morning, okay shaq use to abuse of him like Rob and Olajuwon did too...
Mutombo, 33yo, 33yo is the last good season for shaq but nothing compare with a younger model, you see that at this age the center aren't anymore the one they were.
so rest in his conference, a magnificent PF (yeah a PF, for all the morons here, duncan is a C in the 2000 cause there is no true C anymore) but who was injured for the playoffs...

so in a 82 games season, shaq in 95 played Olajuwon 32yo twice, rob 29yo twice, mutombo 28yo twice, mourning 24yo 4 times, ewing 32yo 5 times. everyone were in good shape, that make the game harder, no?
in 00, he faced mourning 29yo twice, mutombo 33yo twice and rob 33yo post injury. he battled only one guy in good shape...
more of that, every teams had a 7-0 C, and he wasn't good, they had a freaking PFs.
the difference in the all nba teams, i have already said that if you try to rank the best defensive C of 00's in the 90's, you will see how poor is the league today. Howard won't be in the first 4 all nba team or defensive team, behind rob, olajuwon, mutombo, mourning.

so for me, no competition, the game was very poor in the 00's. then the 96-97 class of volume scorer came to maturity and destroy the game spirit imo.

finally, concerning your last paragraph about the average defensive rating, you know i hate those stats and even more here cause people like it here but don't know how to estimate them and they will never tell the story of a game.
defense was much better in 2nd part of 80's and 1st part of 90's and the points allow per game won't give you the righ answer IMO.
take the cavs of 95 or 96 with Fratello. they were very well organised and control the low tempo cause they weren't enough athletic to play 48min on higher tempo. the bulls of 89 were a much better team defense but allow more points to their opponents, like the bucks in the 85-87. they were very good at defense, the lakers of 85-87 too. but the offensive weapons in the 80's were too much. they played team basketball, and the systems were more based on looking for a good balanced jumshot. the sreeens were set a lot better too, that help a lot. the isolation and dribbles are too much used now we know that the game is faster with passes than with dribbles...the skill set of the average player in 80's 90's is a lot better than today. today, they just don't know how to defend a pick and roll, even the basics are not used.
guards used to bring confidence in controling the possession, set the play, moving on the systems and take free shots, now the guards use to make 20 dribbles, between the legs, between the legs again, cross over one time, 2 times...
the more you used the guards at scoring the more the game is poor and it tends to increase. the basketball game is generally set for big men, on the mid court game and the transition game is set for the big (trailers).

as i'm not american with an english who knows his limits, it's hard for me to explain myself with specific vocabulary so excuse me if some points are not well developped or a bit confused.

i like your post shaqattack, cause you are well educated and know enough to rob other people with some "smart" arguments :D

ShaqAttack3234

09-29-2010, 04:06 PM

yeah i know this game...
don't missunderstand my thoughts, i liked shaq, when he entered the league, he took part of the best battles in the paint with all you know. but hey, honestly, shaq is a very lucky player, he was born at the right time to be a 27yo when all the best came down. please remember shaq went to LA for many reasons : leadership issue with Penny, LA was a better place for shaq's business and to avoid the bulls until the finals. what's happened? Malone and his Jazz defeated the lakers 4-1 and 4-0...then 99, bad year, bad coach...etc

Well, Shaq became a much better player in 2000 than the previous years due to Phil Jackson's leadership motivating him. And lets be honest, in 1998, Shaq's supporting cast choked big time in the WCF, Nick Van Exel shot 24% from the field, Kobe shot 37%, Horry shot 36% and his second option Eddie Jones only produced 15 ppg on 41% shooting. Shaq was the only player on the team who could produce offensively, he averaged 32 ppg on 56% shooting that series and 30.5 ppg on 61% shooting in the playoffs that year.

I do blame Shaq for performing below his standard when they lost to Utah in '97 and San Antonio in '99.

I don't think it was so much the era that changed Shaq's career, I think it was Phil Jackson who motivated Shaq, taught him to make his teammates better and motivated him to more minutes, rebound more and play better defense.

what i'm trying to underline is shaq needed the departure / advanced age of the best rob, olajuwon, malone, jordan to get his chance. of course he faced the blazers in 00 and the spurs. but nothing better than the guys named. he didn't have the same issues as robinson or malone or olajuwon who have fought the WC in the 90's. i read magnax who said malone failed in crucial moments (ok you can always mention his FT missed in 3-4 games of playoffs) but all teams failed in those years!
rockets, sonics, jazz, spurs, suns : all have a great team between 90-97. but sonics failed in 94, 95 (but WCF in 93, 96) suns in 94, 95 (but WCF in 90, 93) rockets in 92, 93, 96 (but WCF in 94, 95) jazz 93, 95 (but WCF in 92, 94, 96, 97) spurs in 91, 92 (rob injured) and 94 (but WCSF in 90, 93, 95 please note that the spurs had the worst supporting cast compared to the other teams)

Malone was still very good in 2000. He averaged 25.5 ppg, 9.5 rpg and 3.7 apg and he had a 50 point playoff games.

But lets be honest, people use the same criticism for Jordan winning titles after Bird was done and Magic in his last year as well as the Pistons decline. I don't agree with this logic either, a championship is a championship to me, especially when you perform at the level Jordan and Shaq did.

People also criticize Olajuwon for only winning with Jordan retired/coming back late in '95. I don't agree with that either.

you mentionned Robinson (34yo) in the 2000 season : he still had a good game, but honestly he wasn't the Robinson i'm talking about, the one who dominated shaq 2 times in 93/94, 2 times in 94/95 and 1 time in 96. after his back injury, he wasn't the same anymore and it was natural, ask to LJ.

Of course it wasn't the same Robinson, but he was still very good and he teamed up with Duncan in the paint to form the best defensive duo in the paint I've ever seen.

And don't forget that young Shaq dominated Robinson once in '95 too. He had 36/12 on 15/27 shooting one game compared to Robinson's 24/14/4/5 on 7/24 shooting and some other games they played pretty close.

But that was peak David Robinson, Shaq peaked when Phil Jackson became coach in 2000 and 2001 before he fell out of shape. That Shaq was more skilled, smarter, stronger and more mature than the Orlando version that was faster and more athletic, but not as polished or smart.

then, morning, okay shaq use to abuse of him like Rob and Olajuwon did too...

Actually, I think Mourning played pretty well vs Olajuwon because Mourning use to struggle with the bigger elite centers, but Olajuwon was closer to his size despite being listed at 7 feet.

finally, concerning your last paragraph about the average defensive rating, you know i hate those stats and even more here cause people like it here but don't know how to estimate them and they will never tell the story of a game.
defense was much better in 2nd part of 80's and 1st part of 90's and the points allow per game won't give you the righ answer IMO.
take the cavs of 95 or 96 with Fratello. they were very well organised and control the low tempo cause they weren't enough athletic to play 48min on higher tempo. the bulls of 89 were a much better team defense but allow more points to their opponents, like the bucks in the 85-87. they were very good at defense, the lakers of 85-87 too. but the offensive weapons in the 80's were too much. they played team basketball, and the systems were more based on looking for a good balanced jumshot. the sreeens were set a lot better too, that help a lot. the isolation and dribbles are too much used now we know that the game is faster with passes than with dribbles...the skill set of the average player in 80's 90's is a lot better than today. today, they just don't know how to defend a pick and roll, even the basics are not used.
guards used to bring confidence in controling the possession, set the play, moving on the systems and take free shots, now the guards use to make 20 dribbles, between the legs, between the legs again, cross over one time, 2 times...
the more you used the guards at scoring the more the game is poor and it tends to increase. the basketball game is generally set for big men, on the mid court game and the transition game is set for the big (trailers).

I think that defensive rating is an excellent stat. I don't like many of the new stats, but defensive rating measures the points a team allows per 100 possessions which is a good way to judge a team defensively because it doesn't penalize a team for playing at a fast pace.

as i'm not american with an english who knows his limits, it's hard for me to explain myself with specific vocabulary so excuse me if some points are not well developped or a bit confused.

It's ok, I understand the points you're trying to make.

i like your post shaqattack, cause you are well educated and know enough to rob other people with some "smart" arguments :D

Thank you and I appreciate the games you post, I've downloaded many and I love old school basketball.

Calabis

09-29-2010, 04:21 PM

Jordan by a mile.

He never played with a Kobe cailber player like Shaq did.

90-91 Pippen was as every bit as good as Kobe during those first couple of runs

Calabis

09-29-2010, 04:30 PM

necya

09-29-2010, 04:35 PM

i agree with you, Phil Jackson helped a llot shaq, in the leadership and the defensive hand. but don't you that this factor plus the end of the big men help him a lot?
i mean, at the beginning of this season, i remember saying that the lakers will dominate and win the title (incredible it happened, i use to pick the wrong horse) we knew that even if mourning, mutombo would have great season, shaq would demolish them easily. the only question was what will do the last champion...shaq was promised to lead the league as soon as the old generation retired. it would be more impressive if he won his titles against the beast.
For the 98 WCF, yeah the Jazz defended very well on Van Exel. horry was like absent...it's in this case, i like olajuwon who can make dribble and move with the ball. when shaq is playing in the low post, the offense doesn't move anymore.
for my part, 94/95 shaq is the second best season i've seen of him, behind the 99/00. i have 4 of the 5 nyk-orl meeting and he litteraly killed the old Pat on each game !

i really don't like advanced stats, and all stats, in this case of the defensive rating, you don't know how many mid court attack, transition basket and fastbreak points there are...i find all stats too reducer and always incomplete.

hope you enjoyed the games i upped. unfortunately, i was tired of some people who upload all my and preben's games on other site like mixmakers...some games cost a lot, they understand/respect nothing...

now you can type "necya" on google and find until the 16th page games i have ripped !!:oldlol:

ILLsmak

09-29-2010, 04:39 PM

Kobe was not going to win if Shaq got the MVP... it's as simple as that.

Another thing about Shaq and his comp is you have to take into account direct comp is not applicable for a C. The teams that were good against Shaq had a large front line and someone who could bang with him. When you take that into account... Mutombo, Zo... and even Hakeem were not as good as someone like Sabonis. The best competition for Shaq would be a C that was huge and could bang and also would make him go out to guard him and take him out of his game.

It's just totally different. As Shaq said in his quote about Kobe, guards have the ball more. Cs need to be delivered the ball at the right time, and if the defense knows what's happening the help can come almost instantly. Take that into account and that Shaq was still murdering... it's pretty amazing.

But like I said before, you can't really be a GOAT level player as a C because of what I listed. Your team can starve you off from the ball or the defense can deny you the ball or force you to give it up so much more easily than if you are a guard.

-Smak

laronprofit9

09-29-2010, 05:12 PM

I think you should rewatch that series, Kobe Bryant's shot jacking is much to blame for the Lakers offensive woes, he took too many ill advised shots, spent to much time trying to go one on one,.... this detracted from the offense, guys need balls in spots by running the offense, Bryant killed any hope of running a offense with his "me first" attitude. You need consistency on offense...he failed to provide that by not taking shots created by the offense for himself and teammates.

10-27
14-27
4-13
8-25
7-21

Kobe 113 shots, Shaq who was dominating 84 shots

I did watch that series. Yes Kobe was PART of the problem, but there were a bunch of other factors.

The Pistons had better speed and athleticism on their entire roster. The Lakers were old and the Pistons had youth on their side. The Lakers just looked a step slower than the Pistons the entire series watching them play against each other. When you watched the game, even the ABC commentators were mentioning it. The Pistons had the Lakers number that year. It was a bad matchup more than anything for the Lakers just going by position by position. Sort of like how the Warriors had the Mavericks number in 2007 playoffs.

Payton was getting absolutely destroyed by Billups that series.

It was going to take more than just Kobe giving up shots to Shaq. The Lakers lost by big margins in the series.

Yes it would've helped, Kobe giving the ball to Shaq to make the game closer. But the Pistons had an advantage that the Lakers could nothing about. They exploited it the entire series. They were losing by double-digits seemingly the entire time.

laronprofit9

09-29-2010, 05:59 PM

Shaq would've been dominant regardless of competition.

I hate when people say Olajuwon just schooled Shaq.

Shaq posted up arguably equal stats in that '95 Finals.

Shaq '95 Finals
28ppg/12.5rpg/6.3apg/0.3spg/2.5bpg on 60%FG

Hakeem '95 Finals
32.8ppg/11.5rpg/5.5apg/2.0spg/2.0bpg on 48%FG

Mind you this was against Hakeem at his absolute peak, and he is widely considered one of the greatest centers of all-time. And 2000 Shaq was a better player than 1995 Shaq.

Shaq proceeded to DOMINATE DPOY Mutombo in the 2001 Finals
33ppg/15.8rpg/4.8apg/0.4spg/3.4bpg on 57%FG

I don't know one player who actually held Shaq to under his statisical averages by a margin that was significant to impact the game. He was absolutely un-containable. Maybe even more so than Jordan.

A 2000 Shaq would've put up 30ppg on 57%FG on any center in the league. I Don't think anybody could stop him.

Considering a 1995 Shaq put up 28ppg on 60%FG against Prime Hakeem. What makes people think a 2000 Shaq couldn't do the same or better against Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, etc...

Jacks3

09-29-2010, 06:15 PM

lol @ morons continuing to blame kobe for the 04 finals when that series wasn't even close and everybody played like garbage outside of shaq. kobe could have put up his usual averages from that year (24/5/5/43%) and the lakers still would have lost. the pistons blew them out in that series. it wasn't even close.

3. Devean George 39%
4. Luke Walton 39%
5. Kobe Bryant 38%
6. Stanislav Medvedenko 35%
7. Karl Malone 33%
8. Gary Payton 32%
9. Kareem Rush 32%
10. Derek Fisher 31%
11. Brian Cook 17%
12. Bryon Russell 0%

yup. its all kobe's fault. :oldlol:

DatWasNashty

09-29-2010, 08:27 PM

Actually, I think Mourning played pretty well vs Olajuwon because Mourning use to struggle with the bigger elite centers, but Olajuwon was closer to his size despite being listed at 7 feet.

Perfect example of statistics not telling the whole story since 'Zo stated Hakeem was the toughest center he played against.

--Mourning said Hakeem Olajuwon was the toughest player he ever played against. Mourning agrees with Dan that Hakeem is above Shaq and Ewing.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/blog/58862/index.html?eref=fromSI

Myth

09-29-2010, 11:45 PM

As I've stated before, I don't think there is a large gap between prime Shaq and prime Jordan. What really separates the two is that Jordan's prime lasted much longer than Shaq's prime (that and it is Jordan's skill that made him so great while Shaq's physical presence is what made him so great).

laronprofit9

09-30-2010, 01:24 AM

This is a very close comparison, and it comes down to Jordan's versatility vs Shaq's Big-Man Physical Presence.

Shaq couldn't dribble the ball up court or shoot free throws well. But Shaq commanded triple teams that Michael Jordan didn't. I mean Jordan got tripled at times, but not at the rate Shaq did. Also by teams fouling Shaq intentionally it would thin-out the big men on the opposing team. Shaq was flat-out intimidating in the paint, Jordan doesn't have that type of menacing presence Shaq did.

A Big Man can generally effect a game in a lot of ways a guard cant. Which is the type of advantage that Shaq has over Jordan.

However, Jordan was a more complete well-rounded player. Making him more versatile as opposed to his peers at the sg position. As opposed to Shaq's versatility opposed to his peers at the C position.

Who you pick, I think matters on the type of personell you have. You'd probably win the championship with either players.

laronprofit9

09-30-2010, 01:41 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-7hwDaBbaE

Game 1 2000 Playoffs Lakers vs Kings

Shaq

46 Points 17 Rebounds 1 Assist 5 Blocks 21/33 FGS(64%)

StarJordan

09-30-2010, 03:22 AM

Since shaq came into the league in 1992, i think Jordan led teams have a overall winning record against shaq led teams.

N0Skillz

09-30-2010, 03:27 AM

Shaq by a mile. Shaq was unstoppable, constant double and triple teams on him through the whole season.

ShaqAttack3234

09-30-2010, 06:59 AM

for my part, 94/95 shaq is the second best season i've seen of him, behind the 99/00. i have 4 of the 5 nyk-orl meeting and he litteraly killed the old Pat on each game !

I think that 2000-2001 was easily Shaq's second best year. He was basically the same player as 1999-2000, though he started slower. I don't want to criticize Kobe too much, because he was unbelievable in the 2001 playoffs, the second best player in those playoffs behind O'Neal, IMO, but part of the Lakers slow start was Kobe's early season chucking when some teammates claimed that he stated he wanted an MVP and scoring title like Shaq the previous year.

But in the end, Shaq had a monster year. He averaged 29/13/4/3 on a league leading 57% from the field and had his second straight playoff run with over 30 ppg and 15 rpg.

He stepped up big in Kobe's absence during the season, leading the Lakers to an 11-3 record without Kobe while averaging 32/12/4/3 on 56% shooting in those games.

In the playoffs, he was unbelievable.

He opened up the Sacramento series with 44 points, 21 rebounds, 4 assists and 7 blocks. In game 2, he followed that up with 43 points, 20 rebounds and 3 blocks on 69% shooting. In game 3 vs the Spurs, he had 35 points, 17 rebounds and 3 assists on 70% shooting in just 35 minutes as the Lakers blew out the Spurs by 39 points. He opened up the finals vs the defensive player of the year Dikembe Mutombo with 44 points, 20 rebounds and 5 blocks and followed it up with a near quadruple double posting a line 28 points, 20 rebounds, 9 assists and 8 blocks. For the series, he averaged 33/16/5/3 on 57% shooting vs Mutombo who won his 4th DPOY award that year and made the 7 of his 8 career all-star teams.

Overall in those playoffs, he had five 20/20 games, three of which were 40/20 games.

So here are my rankings for Shaq's 3 best seasons.

1.1999-2000
2.2000-2001
3.2001-2002

After the first 2, it becomes trickier. He had a great year in 1994-1995, he had improved his skills from his first 2 seasons, become a better franchise player, improved his passing which was integral to Orlando's 3 point attack.

But in 2001-2002, his cast wasn't as good and with him they were 51-16, but without him, just 7-8. And his offensive game was more polished by that point, he also had a big 41/17 game facing elimination for Sacramento and in the game, he had 12 fourth quarter points. He followed it up with 35/13/4 to win game 7 on the road in OT. In the finals, he had another historic series averaging 36/12/4/3 on 60% shooting. Also, despite being injured in the WCSF, he did an excellent job defensively on Duncan, particularly late in games. Duncan was abusing Horry and Samaki Walker at times, but O'Neal's post defense was very impressive. In fact, Duncan was criticized for his play down the stretch in the series, but some of the credit has to go to Shaq. And he shot 65% from the line in the playoffs, much better than what he normally shot.

I also think the '98 version was one of the best, he was more skilled than the Orlando version, but injuries killed his MVP chances. However, he did average 30.5 ppg on 61% shooting in the playoffs and he was the best player on a 61 win team.

The 1993-1994 version was right up there statistically, he averaged 29/13/3, on a league best 60% shooting had a 53/18/4 game on 71% shooting in just 36 minutes and he also had 24/28/15 on 63% shooting in just 36 minutes. But ultimately, he was raw compared to the older versions and relied more on athleticism for more dunks and less post moves. He also lacked the maturity as evidenced by his subpar playoff performance, but I'll excuse that to some extent because it was his first series.

i really don't like advanced stats, and all stats, in this case of the defensive rating, you don't know how many mid court attack, transition basket and fastbreak points there are...i find all stats too reducer and always incomplete.

I hate advanced stats most of the time, particularly when used to evaluate individual players, but in the case of defensive rating for teams, I think it's excellent.

Here are some examples.

The 1986 Celtics allowed 104.7 ppg and were the best defensive team in the league with a defensive rating of 102.6.
The 1983 Nets allowed 103 ppg and were the best defensive team in the league with a defensive rating of 98.9.

The 2010 Bobcats allowed just 93.8 ppg and were the best defensive team in the league, however their defensive rating was 102.8.

As you can see, despite the 80's examples allowing much more points than the 2010 Bobcats, they played at a much faster pace and as a result, more possessions for the other team to score. Defensive rating factors this in and determines that the '83 Nets and '86 Celtics were better defensive teams.

But in general, more fastbreaks often do mean weaker defense because it's harder to score vs a set up half court defense than it is in transition.

By the way, what do you think Jordan's best season was? I can't decide between 1990 or 1991, I have to watch some more 1991 games.

Regarding the 2004 finals, I think the majority of the blame should be placed on Kobe considering the amount of shots he was taking. Shaq dropped 34/11 on 13/16 shooting while Kobe had 25/4/4, but on 10/27 shooting and this wasn't a game they couldn't have won, they led at halftime and still only trailed by six entering the 4th.

In game 4, they were actually tied heading into the 4th, and they could've tied the series. Shaq had 36/20 on 16/21 shooting while Kobe had 20/0/2 on 8/25 shooting.

Kobe doesn't deserve all of the blame, Payton embarrassed himself at both ends and nobody else aside from Shaq stepped up, but considering the ridiculous amount of shots he took, the type of shots he took and the lack of success on those shots, he deserves more blame for that series than anyone else. Shaq's lack of shots can be partially attributed to Kobe's selfish play.

But Shaq was also responsible for the Laker break up and chemistry problems, so Kobe can't be the only one blamed for that.

Soundwave

09-30-2010, 08:05 AM

laronprofit9

09-30-2010, 04:02 PM

Shaq lost in '95, '96, '97, '98, '99, '03, and '04 on some very talented teams.

Lets not forget that when saying "unstoppable". Obviously teams found a way to beat him.

Jordan never lost a playoff series once he got a good supporting cast around him. Teams could beat him, but only when he had a garbage supporting cast or no All-Star player to compliment him.

I think Shaq was amazing, he and Jordan are the most dominant individual forces of the past 30 years in the NBA (in their prime), but if you're splitting hairs ... to me this is a rather important difference.

Teams could find a way to beat Shaq in his prime, but not Jordan.

Not entirely true, the 1990 Bulls were pretty talented, the 1991 team was better. But Scottie Pippen was an all-star for the 1990 season, and this team was coached by Phil Jackson.

Although, the Bulls could've still won the championship this year, had they advanced passed the Pistons in that 7 game series in the ECF.

Yes, Jordan never lost in the Finals and never lost with HCA, so that can be a good argument for him.

However we are comparing 1 year from each player mainly. That is 2000 Shaq vs 1991 Jordan. Other years, Jordan mainly had the advantage over Shaq. However, just looking at these seasons alone, makes a very close comparison.

laronprofit9

09-30-2010, 04:06 PM

What other players do you think had a comparable season to 2000 Shaq in terms of accomplishments, success, and stats in one season?

SinJackal

09-30-2010, 04:16 PM

As far as TS%, well, that can be deceptive for a power player.

Here's an example. If you convert a lot of and 1s then that makes it skewed because even if you missed the extra free throw on the and 1, you wouldn't be using up any more of a possession anyway.

I'll use game 1 of the finals as an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k

His first basket was a dunk and a foul, he made that free throw, making it the same as if he had made a 3 as far as possessions used.

At about 1:00, he converts the basket and draws a foul on Smits, so despite missing the free throw, that was a bonus to begin with.

He converts another basket with the foul around 2:12, and again despite missing the free throw, no extra possession was used.

And around 4:20 he's fouled again and he gets the basket.

So at most, his six FTA were the equivalent of one missed field goals because atleast 4 of them came on and 1s.

If you were to calculate his FT using the standard TS% formula then his TS% for game 1 would have 63.9%., but knowing what we know his TS% was really equal to 67.2% in terms of using up possessions to score.

An example of how stats can be deceptive. And to me, a missed free throw has never been as bad as a missed field goal, particularly if you miss a long jumper which can give the other team a transition opportunity. And when you're fouled, you can set up your defense as well as pile up fouls on the other team and when you have a physical force like Shaq, those fouls also wear down the other team.

I believe some sites track and 1s now, Lebron has a ton of them so I'll have to see how efficient he truly is using this same method.

I agree with that, but Jordan was one of the best players for getting And 1's that I can remember in the 18 years I've been watching basketball intently. So if anything his TS% is skewed too since his FTAs would be counting against his efficiancy even though he made them. :D

You only get the small window of .12 taken off 2 FTAs against the TS% equation. That doesn't account for players like Jordan whom had far more than 10% of their FTAs being off And 1s. So in reality, TS% inaccurately displays the real efficiancy of players like MJ, as opposed to more current ones who just throw the ball over their head after being touched for a foul call to get FTAs that really weren't in the act of an actual shot.

I have the same qualms about TS% as you. I wish they'd keep a "shot attempts" stat, and not "FGAs", since that alone is a flawed stat. It'd be much easier to tell just how efficiant a player really is/was. Like in baseball how there are seperate stats for "At bats" and "plate appearances". When you get walked, it's a plate appearance, not an At Bat, and hence, does not count against your average, but gets tallied towards your on base percentage. :P

In any case, I picked Shaq's year over Jordan's, if you missed that. :P I just think Jordan was a bit more efficiant a scorer back then. They have different roles, so it's more difficult to discern who was a better defender for overall game impact since that's very objective, but as far as putting the ball in the hole per possession consumed to do so, simple math lets you know who's more efficiant. It's not objective at all. Shaq being slightly less efficiant than (imo) the best scorer of all time, shouldn't be seen as a slap in the face :P

Jordan, Shaq, and (possible homer pick here) prime DRob, were the most unstoppable scorers I can remember in my lifetime (he got a lot of easy buckets with off the ball movement).

Soundwave

09-30-2010, 05:11 PM

Not entirely true, the 1990 Bulls were pretty talented, the 1991 team was better. But Scottie Pippen was an all-star for the 1990 season, and this team was coached by Phil Jackson.

Although, the Bulls could've still won the championship this year, had they advanced passed the Pistons in that 7 game series in the ECF.

Yes, Jordan never lost in the Finals and never lost with HCA, so that can be a good argument for him.

However we are comparing 1 year from each player mainly. That is 2000 Shaq vs 1991 Jordan. Other years, Jordan mainly had the advantage over Shaq. However, just looking at these seasons alone, makes a very close comparison.

That's true about 1990, but they went to game 7 against the Pistons in 1990 and Pippen let the team down with his migraine headaches in game 7 ... so Pippen wasn't yet *the* Pippen yet, his game still needed another year of polish.

The next year the Bulls trounced the Pistons in 4 straight.

ShaqAttack3234

09-30-2010, 05:13 PM

Shaq lost in '95, '96, '97, '98, '99, '03, and '04 on some very talented teams.

Well, lets be honest, not all of those teams played like talented teams in the series they were eliminated. I'm not excusing Shaq for all of the losses, just pointing out that rarely in those losses did his cast play like a talented cast.

I'll focus on '96, '98 and '04.

1996- Horace Grant was injured in game 1 and he'd never return in the series. So for the series they got 0 points and 1 rebound in 28 minutes out of their 3rd best player and starting power forward.

In game 1, it was shocking how inept the supporting cast of a 60 win team was offensively. While Penny had a huge game 38 points on 15/21(72%) shooting and Shaq had 27 points and 6 assists on 13/21(62%) shooting, the rest of the starting lineup combined for 2 points on 0 for 11 shooting with just 2 assists and 3 turnovers In fact outside of Shaq and Penny, the rest of the team scored just 18 points on 7/31 shooting.

Now, Shaq didn't have a perfect game either, his 6 rebounds and 1/7 free throw shooting were poor, but the biggest issue here was nobody other than Shaq or Penny being able to do anything positive and the rest of the team was bricking free throws as well. The Magic excluding Shaq, still shot just 7/17 from the line.

In game 2, Shaq had 36 points, 16 rebounds and 4 assists on 16/22(73%) shooting. In this game, even Penny struggled finishing with just 18/2/3 on 6/15(40%) shooting. Outside of Shaq, the team shot just 18/49 and despite Shaq easily leading the game in rebounds, the Magic were still outrebounded by 7 in a 5 point loss showing how much Grant's absence hurt the team.

In game 3, Shaq did have a horrible offensive game with 17 points on 8/19 from the field and 1/9 from the line, but again his cast didn't play like a talented team. For the 3rd straight game, Penny managed only 3 assists and he ended up with 18 points on 8/24 shooting. Shaq's cast shot 18/53 and despite Shaq posting a solid 12 rebounds, his team was outrebounded by 11 which again emphasizes the impact of Grant's injury.

In game 4, Shaq had 28 points, 9 rebounds, 3 assists and 3 blocks on 11/13(85%) from the field and a decent 6/9 from the line. Penny struggled with his shooting again going 9/21(43%) from the field. This was the only game where the role players actually produced a respectable amount of points. The Magic were again outrebounded by 7, and in this case, some of the blame for that goes to Shaq who I'd expect more than 9 rebounds from.

Shaq certainly could've played better, but, I don't see it making much of a difference because other than game 2(when it was hard to blame Shaq), none of the other games were close besides game 4 when the series was basically over anyway, and in that game, O'Neal still had a great offensive game, blocked shots and had a respectable amount of rebounds, though again, I blame him to some extent for not dominating the boards in that situation.

With Orlando playing without Grant, O'Neal totaling just 1 less assist than Penny that series and the cast shooting unbelievably poor vs the team with the most wins in NBA history as well as arguably the best player and coach of all time, I don't see much O'Neal could have done.

In 1998, Shaq was the only player who could put the ball in the basket with regularity on the Lakers. Shaq averaged 31.8 ppg on 56% shooting, but after him? Jones was the number 2 guy and produced just 15 ppg on 41% shooting, and after that? It gets, much, much worse. Kobe was the only other player to average double figures on the Lakers in that series with an even 10 ppg on 37% shooting, Fox averaged 9.8 ppg on 41% shooting, Van Exel averaged 9 ppg on 24% shooting, Fisher averaged 5.5 ppg on 35% shooting and Horry averaged 4.5 ppg on 36% shooting.

Just a pathetic display by the cast offensively.

In 2004? That team that was in the finals was not the talented team that they looked like on paper, not even close. Karl Malone was injured, missed 1 game altogether and he might as well have not even been on the court. We all know about Kobe in that series and Payton had the most disgusting performance, he averaged 4 ppg on 32% shooting while getting torched at the other end by Billups who had 20+ on good efficiency.

So in several of those seasons, despite how they looked on paper, Shaq didn't end up with a productive cast, certainly not championship-caliber production in those years I've specified, more so when you consider that they faced a 72-10 team one of those years.

Teams could find a way to beat Shaq in his prime, but not Jordan.

Well for the duration of their primes, that's what seperated Jordan from Shaq. He played at closer to his peak level for longer, but as laronprofit mentioned, this is just '91 Jordan vs '00 Shaq when both of them won.

What other players do you think had a comparable season to 2000 Shaq in terms of accomplishments, success, and stats in one season?

I take it you mean championships, individual awards, great playoff production ect.?

Well, Wilt in '67 and Olajuwon in '94 come to mind.

PHILA

09-30-2010, 07:55 PM

I take it you mean championships, individual awards, great playoff production ect.?

Well, Wilt in '67 and Olajuwon in '94 come to mind..
You should have listed KAJ in '80 before Dream. Finals MVP award should have been his & the DPOY award did not exist yet.

alexandreben

10-01-2010, 06:12 AM

Shaq by a mile. Shaq was unstoppable, constant double and triple teams on him through the whole season.
with referee's help and faced against weak competitors, they both were unstoppable...

ImmortalD24

10-01-2010, 06:55 AM

Who had the better PER?

Pointguard

10-01-2010, 12:09 PM

Shaq lost in '95, '96, '97, '98, '99, '03, and '04 on some very talented teams.

Lets not forget that when saying "unstoppable". Obviously teams found a way to beat him.

Jordan never lost a playoff series once he got a good supporting cast around him. Teams could beat him, but only when he had a garbage supporting cast or no All-Star player to compliment him.

I think Shaq was amazing, he and Jordan are the most dominant individual forces of the past 30 years in the NBA (in their prime), but if you're splitting hairs ... to me this is a rather important difference.

Teams could find a way to beat Shaq in his prime, but not Jordan.

If you play on as many good teams as Shaq does eventually you are going to get a wedge. Not to say he wasn't dominant and great but at some point something is going to happen. Shaq was more dominant but Jordan could adapt, adjust and overcome. Jordan would have found a way to win. To me his Will Power was other planetary that year - this is something that doesn't reach me in youtube quality videos. He had more weapons and his team was moreso connected to him than Shaq's team was.

You would have needed a truck to stop Jordan that year and Shaq is close to a truch but he isn't a truck. Jordan was too versatile, too focused, too athletic, too ruthless and destined. You also have to factor in that in the overlap it wasn't questionable as to who was better.

laronprofit9

10-01-2010, 04:25 PM

I take it you mean championships, individual awards, great playoff production ect.?

Well, Wilt in '67 and Olajuwon in '94 come to mind.

Do you think

'86 Bird
'87 Magic
'03 Duncan

would fit in that category with '91 MJ and '00 Shaq?

bdreason

10-01-2010, 04:50 PM

Jordan gets the automatic nod because he was able to close out games.

chris2010

10-01-2010, 04:56 PM

umm 1 on 1? Obviously Shaq. Not to take anything from Jordan, but at 6-6 and Shaq 7-1. Jordan goes to the rim a few times Shaq is going to throw all his weight on him and I dont think Jordan will survive that more than once

PHILA

10-01-2010, 04:56 PM

'86 Bird
'87 Magic
'03 Duncan

Indeed, I also neglected the obvious in '71 KAJ. Apparently the Dream at his peak was better than any version of the Captain. :facepalm

ShaqAttack3234

10-01-2010, 05:52 PM

Do you think

'86 Bird
'87 Magic
'03 Duncan

would fit in that category with '91 MJ and '00 Shaq?

'03 Duncan isn't quite in the category '91 Jordan and '00 Shaq are, IMO. Remarkable season, but not quite. With Jordan in '91 and Shaq in '00, there was no doubt who the best player in the league was and that's pretty telling. To me, Duncan in 2003 was the best in the league, no question in my mind, but the fact that there were debates makes a difference to me and I think Jordan and Shaq's big advantages as scorers also makes a difference.

Unfortunately for Kareem, his peak didn't come in a championship season, IMO, but in terms of success, performance in the playoffs and overall level of play, 1980 has to be up there. I've seen a lot of games from that season, so I have a better perspective regarding that year than other prime Kareem season. His 1971 season is hard to exclude because of the Bucks team success and his regular season, the one thing that hurts the season is that his playoff numbers were noticeably lower than his regular season numbers.

Bird's peak belongs among the elite for sure, when you factor in Bird's 24/10/10 finals series, his 26/10/7/2 regular season on 50/42/90 as well his playoff run when he averaged 26/9/8 on 52/41/93 and the fact that he was easily the best player on the team that I consider to be the greatest.

Magic's impact is so hard to compare to the others, which isn't to say he was better or worse, but it's hard to compare. If you asked me to pick, I'd pick '91 Jordan, '00 Shaq and '86 Bird above him, though. Jordan and Shaq's defensive impact and dominant scoring clinches it. I've always favored Bird over Magic as well to be honest. He was a SF grabbing 10 boards a game alongside Parish and McHale, he was probably the best shooter of his era, a dominant scorer and the best passing forward of all time.

Magic's '87 season ranks among the best ever, though and his finals series is also high up the list.

Kareem's peak could be the greatest of them all, but again it didn't come in a championship season and I think the criteria you set out included similar success, even so, his '71 and '80 seasons are still in the discussion.

When you get to the players this dominant at their peaks, it becomes so hard to rank them. I guess it depends on what the criteria is which will differ depending on who you talk to.

Jordan gets the automatic nod because he was able to close out games.

By close out games, do you mean play throughout the 4th in general or game winners? While I don't remember any particular game winners from Shaq in 2000, he was great in 4th quarters. Wouldn't surprise me if he averaged double figures in the 4th during the 2000 playoffs.

MaxFly

10-01-2010, 06:25 PM

2001 Kobe and on was better than Scottie Pippen.

However, 2000 Kobe wasn't quite a superstar yet, he was borderline at that time. He could be considered a superstar if you include his defense.

2000 Kobe is very comparable to a 1991 Scottie Pippen as a sidekick.

Shaq likely wouldn't have won in 2000 had Bryant not lead the Lakers in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks in game 7 of the WCF against Portland. Bryant wasn't a superstar at that point, but he was on his way...

Da_Realist

10-01-2010, 06:35 PM

Shaq likely wouldn't have won in 2000 had Bryant not lead the Lakers in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks in game 7 of the WCF against Portland. Bryant wasn't a superstar at that point, but he was on his way...

(Just looked) Not steals...but very impressive. Didn't realize that. :applause:

Hadn't seen that game in a while. Think I'll watch it tonight.

kizut1659

10-01-2010, 07:21 PM

Shaq likely wouldn't have won in 2000 had Bryant not lead the Lakers in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks in game 7 of the WCF against Portland. Bryant wasn't a superstar at that point, but he was on his way...

I agree. Shaq had 18/9/5 as compared to 25/11/7 for Bryant. Shaq also got fortunate that Sabonis - who had some success defending Shaq this series (as opposed to ironically 1997 and 1998) - fouled out (on a somewhat bs call). Lakers would also have lost if not for 3 threes by Bryan Shaw in the fourth quarter which started the comeback. None of Jordan's championship teams were ever that close to elimination.

ShaqAttack3234

10-01-2010, 07:47 PM

I agree. Shaq had 18/9/5 as compared to 25/11/7 for Bryant. Shaq also got fortunate that Sabonis - who had some success defending Shaq this series (as opposed to ironically 1997 and 1998) - fouled out (on a somewhat bs call). Lakers would also have lost if not for 3 threes by Bryan Shaw in the fourth quarter which started the comeback. None of Jordan's championship teams were ever that close to elimination.

Lets not forget that Shaq did have 9 fourth quarter points himself to help lead LA to the comeback. And throughout the game, Snapper Jones was commenting about how poor of a job LA was doing getting Shaq the ball. Magic Johnson commented on this too, and O'Neal only got 9 shots in the game. Part of that has to be put on O'Neal's shoulders. He should've been more aggressive, but when you're a center, you need the guards to get you the ball.

And with a 3-1 lead, Shaq did what he could do give LA a chance to clinch the series in 5. He had 31/21/3 on 12/20 shooting while Kobe had 17/5/3 on 4/13 shooting and Glen Rice turned in a pathetic performance with just 4/2/1 on 1/8 shooting and LA's PF combo of Horry and Green combined for 7 points on 3/13 shooting while Sheed had 22/10 and Pippen had 22/6/3/6/4 on 8/12 shooting. And despite Shaq's 21 rebounds, the Lakers only outrebounded Portland by 1.

And in the finals, Shaq carried LA in all of the wins(except game 4 when Kobe had a very good game) and even in game 4, Shaq had 36/21 and 14 points in the 4th quarter. He was also basically the only Laker to show up in the losses.

Jordan's team dominated the postseason much more, but Jordan got more help consistently. Pippen had a better playoff run in '91 than Kobe in '00 and Grant was much better in the '91 playoffs than Rice was in the '00 playoffs.

kizut1659

10-01-2010, 09:09 PM

Lets not forget that Shaq did have 9 fourth quarter points himself to help lead LA to the comeback. And throughout the game, Snapper Jones was commenting about how poor of a job LA was doing getting Shaq the ball. Magic Johnson commented on this too, and O'Neal only got 9 shots in the game. Part of that has to be put on O'Neal's shoulders. He should've been more aggressive, but when you're a center, you need the guards to get you the ball.

And with a 3-1 lead, Shaq did what he could do give LA a chance to clinch the series in 5. He had 31/21/3 on 12/20 shooting while Kobe had 17/5/3 on 4/13 shooting and Glen Rice turned in a pathetic performance with just 4/2/1 on 1/8 shooting and LA's PF combo of Horry and Green combined for 7 points on 3/13 shooting while Sheed had 22/10 and Pippen had 22/6/3/6/4 on 8/12 shooting. And despite Shaq's 21 rebounds, the Lakers only outrebounded Portland by 1.

And in the finals, Shaq carried LA in all of the wins(except game 4 when Kobe had a very good game) and even in game 4, Shaq had 36/21 and 14 points in the 4th quarter. He was also basically the only Laker to show up in the losses.

Jordan's team dominated the postseason much more, but Jordan got more help consistently. Pippen had a better playoff run in '91 than Kobe in '00 and Grant was much better in the '91 playoffs than Rice was in the '00 playoffs.

Most if not all of Shaq's 9 fourth quarter points came after Sabonis fouled out (on bs call) and after Lakers got back all of the momentum. Also, while Shaq had a good game 5, he had pretty bad game 6 with 17 points on 7/17 shooting. Shaq's game 2 (23 points, 5/17 fts) was also not all that. I think Pippen in 91 had marginally better playoffs than Kobe in 91 but Kobe had more big/clutch moments - game winner against Phoenix in game 2, best player on the Lakers in game 7 against Portland, and game 4 overtime takeover against Indiana. While I agree that Grant was better in 91 playoffs than Rice in 00 playoffs, the level of competition Lakers faced in 2000 was worse than the Bulls in 1999. Detroit and (to a lesser degree) Lakers were ageing but neither Portland not even Indiana had players the caliber of Magic Johnson or even Isiah Thomas.

I am not trying to take anything away from Shaq's playoff run in 2000 - i think he was the best player in the league by some margin that year. . . I just don't think he was quite equal to Jordan. . .and the fact that the Lakers almost (and should have been) beat by a Portland team that did not have a single superstar is what seals the deal for me on this.

ShaqAttack3234

10-01-2010, 09:37 PM

Most if not all of Shaq's 9 fourth quarter points came after Sabonis fouled out (on bs call) and after Lakers got back all of the momentum. Also, while Shaq had a good game 5, he had pretty bad game 6 with 17 points on 7/17 shooting. Shaq's game 2 (23 points, 5/17 fts) was also not all that. I think Pippen in 91 had marginally better playoffs than Kobe in 91 but Kobe had more big/clutch moments - game winner against Phoenix in game 2, best player on the Lakers in game 7 against Portland, and game 4 overtime takeover against Indiana. While I agree that Grant was better in 91 playoffs than Rice in 00 playoffs, the level of competition Lakers faced in 2000 was worse than the Bulls in 1999. Detroit and (to a lesser degree) Lakers were ageing but neither Portland not even Indiana had players the caliber of Magic Johnson or even Isiah Thomas.

I am not trying to take anything away from Shaq's playoff run in 2000 - i think he was the best player in the league by some margin that year. . . I just don't think he was quite equal to Jordan. . .and the fact that the Lakers almost (and should have been) beat by a Portland team that did not have a single superstar is what seals the deal for me on this.

Shaq was instrumental in getting the momentum back in the 4th. Here's a recap. Highlighted are the key plays that involve Shaq.

Shaq hit a jump hook off the glass, Kobe then blocked a shot and kept the ball in play and the Lakers got a wide open 3 by Brian Shaw to cut the lead to 10. After a time out Pippen missed a 3 and Kobe leaked out for a fastbreak opportunity and got fouled and hit 1 out of 2. Shaq got a big offensive rebound and got fouled and hit 1 for 2. Horry got an offensive rebound and went behind the 3 point line and hit the shot. Kobe then hit a contested jump shot. Shaq sent back Brian Grant's shot emphatically, portland recovered and Pippen tried to penetrate, but Shaq and Shaw cut him off and he threw the ball back to Rasheed with the shot clock winding down and he missed. Shaq got the ball and got triple teamed and passed the ball to Shaw and brian Shaw tied the game with a 3. That completed their 15-0 run to tie the game. Rasheed Wallace gave Portland the lead again, but Sabonis fouled out and Shaq hit 2 free throws to tie the game on the next possession. Shaq hit a jump hook off the glass over a double team to give the Lakers the lead. After Portland tied the game again, Kobe got to the line and hit both free throws. Kobe then hit a jump shot to extend the lead to 4 after Sheed missed 2 free throws. Of course Bryant threw the alley oop to Shaq to extend the lead to 6.

Regarding competition, well, the superstars Jordan faced were better, but teams? That's hard to judge, a lot of that is based on health and chemistry. Jordan faced a 39 win team in the first round, a 44 win team in the second round, a 50 win team in the conference finals and a 58 win team in the finals.

But that Pistons team was not at their championship level as evidenced by their 50-32 record, and even with Isiah, they were still just 31-17. And Isiah was nowhere near his prime form in those playoffs either.

LA also had to deal with injuries to Worthy and Scott as well, granted, I think Chicago would have won anyway, just figured I'd mention it.

LA faced a 44 win team in the first round, a 53 win team in the second round, a 59 win team in the conference finals and a 56 win team in the finals.

I'm not sure 2000 Shaq was as good as 1991 Jordan either, just stating my views on the situations they won championships with.

kizut1659

10-01-2010, 10:19 PM

Shaq was instrumental in getting the momentum back in the 4th. Here's a recap. Highlighted are the key plays that involve Shaq.

Shaq hit a jump hook off the glass, Kobe then blocked a shot and kept the ball in play and the Lakers got a wide open 3 by Brian Shaw to cut the lead to 10. After a time out Pippen missed a 3 and Kobe leaked out for a fastbreak opportunity and got fouled and hit 1 out of 2. Shaq got a big offensive rebound and got fouled and hit 1 for 2. Horry got an offensive rebound and went behind the 3 point line and hit the shot. Kobe then hit a contested jump shot. Shaq sent back Brian Grant's shot emphatically, portland recovered and Pippen tried to penetrate, but Shaq and Shaw cut him off and he threw the ball back to Rasheed with the shot clock winding down and he missed. Shaq got the ball and got triple teamed and passed the ball to Shaw and brian Shaw tied the game with a 3. That completed their 15-0 run to tie the game. Rasheed Wallace gave Portland the lead again, but Sabonis fouled out and Shaq hit 2 free throws to tie the game on the next possession. Shaq hit a jump hook off the glass over a double team to give the Lakers the lead. After Portland tied the game again, Kobe got to the line and hit both free throws. Kobe then hit a jump shot to extend the lead to 4 after Sheed missed 2 free throws. Of course Bryant threw the alley oop to Shaq to extend the lead to 6.

Regarding competition, well, the superstars Jordan faced were better, but teams? That's hard to judge, a lot of that is based on health and chemistry. Jordan faced a 39 win team in the first round, a 44 win team in the second round, a 50 win team in the conference finals and a 58 win team in the finals.

But that Pistons team was not at their championship level as evidenced by their 50-32 record, and even with Isiah, they were still just 31-17. And Isiah was nowhere near his prime form in those playoffs either.

LA also had to deal with injuries to Worthy and Scott as well, granted, I think Chicago would have won anyway, just figured I'd mention it.

LA faced a 44 win team in the first round, a 53 win team in the second round, a 59 win team in the conference finals and a 56 win team in the finals.

I'm not sure 2000 Shaq was as good as 1991 Jordan either, just stating my views on the situations they won championships with.

Good summary of the 2000 game - i always wanted a rundown of how exactly Lakers were able to come back. Ok so yes, i am convinced, Shaq clearly played a part but he still scored only 3 out of 15 points that tied the game + of course his big assist to Shaw. The foul on Sabonis when the game was tied and that resulted in 2 free thows was bs in my opinon as i said. I guess all I am trying to say that without improbably threes by role players, Kobe's solid play, Portland's choke, and some bad calls by refs Lakers would have lost. Also, 44-win Sacramento Kings took the Lakers to 5 games.

Pistons in 1990 were on the decline but i think they were better than their record suggests -they started 33-13 during which they had two 10/11 game winning streaks, then finished the season 17-19, and then recovered in the playoffs to beat a 56-win Boston in conference semis. I think 1991 pistons are somewhat similiar to 2010 celtics, if not quite as good.

The 58-win Laker team with still a top 5 player in the league and that beat a 62-win Portland team in conference finals was better than 2000 Portland, let alone Indiana. I know Scott was injured but was Worthy's injury that bad?- he still averaged 19.3 points on 48%. Lakers also got 18.6 points from Divac on 56%.

OldSchoolBBall

10-01-2010, 10:56 PM

Wait, why are we talking about game 7 vs. Portland again?

Maybe we wouldn't even be discussing game 7 if Kobe hadn't averaged just 19.7 pts/43% FG through the first 6 games as compared to Shaq's 27.2 pts/54% FG. Kobe scored just 13, 12, and 17 points in three games that series, the later two coming in losses.

Please don't try to act like Kobe was the reason they won that series. If Shaq plays as poorly as Kobe did, Portland wins that series in 4-5 games.

aj242

10-01-2010, 11:02 PM

PHILA

10-02-2010, 04:52 PM

He was also basically the only Laker to show up in the losses.
Lucky for him his name is not Wilt, or he'd be accused of padding his statistics in that 5th game. Lakers were down 19 at half time and Shaq had 19 points. Considering they could never get the lead down to single digits and the Pacers kept adding on to it, an old sports writer might have written that he padded 16 points (or 12 following the Lakers 15-7 run to open the 3rd period) on his average "after the game was decided in the first half".

'Russell held Chamberlain to 13 first half points while Boston was building a 21 point lead. The Celtics needed that margin when Chamberlain fired a late game comeback that slashed a 29 point Boston bulge to as little as 12 points.'

At least Chamberlain led his team to a comeback attempt in that 3rd game of the '62 series, which likely carried the Warriors momentum over to the 4th game, where he had 41 points & 34 rebounds in a 4 point victory. Of course all this while neglecting that the game was faster then resulting in less half court sets for Chamberlain to go down low. Plus the fact that Boston was a running team at the time and on offense Chamberlain was set up at the high post (FT line) by design, unlike O'Neal who was down low all series. Switch the names, and Shaq (as well as every other player in professional basketball history) is hailed as an "unselfish team player." This foolish numbers padding accusation can be used against any great in NBA history.

laronprofit9

10-02-2010, 06:01 PM

'03 Duncan isn't quite in the category '91 Jordan and '00 Shaq are, IMO. Remarkable season, but not quite. With Jordan in '91 and Shaq in '00, there was no doubt who the best player in the league was and that's pretty telling. To me, Duncan in 2003 was the best in the league, no question in my mind, but the fact that there were debates makes a difference to me and I think Jordan and Shaq's big advantages as scorers also makes a difference.

Unfortunately for Kareem, his peak didn't come in a championship season, IMO, but in terms of success, performance in the playoffs and overall level of play, 1980 has to be up there. I've seen a lot of games from that season, so I have a better perspective regarding that year than other prime Kareem season. His 1971 season is hard to exclude because of the Bucks team success and his regular season, the one thing that hurts the season is that his playoff numbers were noticeably lower than his regular season numbers.

Bird's peak belongs among the elite for sure, when you factor in Bird's 24/10/10 finals series, his 26/10/7/2 regular season on 50/42/90 as well his playoff run when he averaged 26/9/8 on 52/41/93 and the fact that he was easily the best player on the team that I consider to be the greatest.

Magic's impact is so hard to compare to the others, which isn't to say he was better or worse, but it's hard to compare. If you asked me to pick, I'd pick '91 Jordan, '00 Shaq and '86 Bird above him, though. Jordan and Shaq's defensive impact and dominant scoring clinches it. I've always favored Bird over Magic as well to be honest. He was a SF grabbing 10 boards a game alongside Parish and McHale, he was probably the best shooter of his era, a dominant scorer and the best passing forward of all time.

Magic's '87 season ranks among the best ever, though and his finals series is also high up the list.

Kareem's peak could be the greatest of them all, but again it didn't come in a championship season and I think the criteria you set out included similar success, even so, his '71 and '80 seasons are still in the discussion.

When you get to the players this dominant at their peaks, it becomes so hard to rank them. I guess it depends on what the criteria is which will differ depending on who you talk to.

By close out games, do you mean play throughout the 4th in general or game winners? While I don't remember any particular game winners from Shaq in 2000, he was great in 4th quarters. Wouldn't surprise me if he averaged double figures in the 4th during the 2000 playoffs.

2003 Duncan was probably just a level below 91 Jordan and '00 Shaq. 86 Bird and 87 Magic individually might've not has big of an overall impact as Jordan and Shaq especially if you consider Defense.

ShaqAttack3234

10-02-2010, 06:32 PM

Good summary of the 2000 game - i always wanted a rundown of how exactly Lakers were able to come back. Ok so yes, i am convinced, Shaq clearly played a part but he still scored only 3 out of 15 points that tied the game + of course his big assist to Shaw. The foul on Sabonis when the game was tied and that resulted in 2 free thows was bs in my opinon as i said. I guess all I am trying to say that without improbably threes by role players, Kobe's solid play, Portland's choke, and some bad calls by refs Lakers would have lost. Also, 44-win Sacramento Kings took the Lakers to 5 games.

Pistons in 1990 were on the decline but i think they were better than their record suggests -they started 33-13 during which they had two 10/11 game winning streaks, then finished the season 17-19, and then recovered in the playoffs to beat a 56-win Boston in conference semis. I think 1991 pistons are somewhat similiar to 2010 celtics, if not quite as good.

The 58-win Laker team with still a top 5 player in the league and that beat a 62-win Portland team in conference finals was better than 2000 Portland, let alone Indiana. I know Scott was injured but was Worthy's injury that bad?- he still averaged 19.3 points on 48%. Lakers also got 18.6 points from Divac on 56%.

The Kings took the Lakers to 5 games, but this isn't an issue for me because they won the series and won the title. And in game 5, Shaq had 32/18/4 on 63% shooting in just 35 minutes as the Lakers blew out Sacramento by 27.

And in 1990, Isiah averaged 13.5 ppg, 4.2 rpg and 8.5 apg on 40% shooting, just to back up my point about Isiah not being near his prime form.

As far as the 2010 Celtics, well I don't think that team was any better than the 2000 Blazers.

And as far as Portland's choke? Well, that's what seperates the champions from the contenders in game 7s. Despite Shaq having a poor game up to that point, he didn't roll over in a very tough situation with his reputation on the line. Shaq and the Lakers stepped up to the challenge and responded very well to adversity which is impressive, atleast to me.

Lucky for him his name is not Wilt, or he'd be accused of padding his statistics in that 5th game. Lakers were down 19 at half time and Shaq had 19 points. Considering they could never get the lead down to single digits and the Pacers kept adding on to it, an old sports writer might have written that he padded 16 points (or 12 following the Lakers 15-7 run to open the 3rd period) on his average "after the game was decided in the first half".

'Russell held Chamberlain to 13 first half points while Boston was building a 21 point lead. The Celtics needed that margin when Chamberlain fired a late game comeback that slashed a 29 point Boston bulge to as little as 12 points.'

At least Chamberlain led his team to a comeback attempt in that 3rd game of the '62 series, which likely carried the Warriors momentum over to the 4th game, where he had 41 points & 34 rebounds in a 4 point victory. Of course all this while neglecting that the game was faster then resulting in less half court sets for Chamberlain to go down low. Plus the fact that Boston was a running team at the time and on offense Chamberlain was set up at the high post (FT line) by design, unlike O'Neal who was down low all series. Switch the names, and Shaq (as well as every other player in professional basketball history) is hailed as an "unselfish team player." This foolish numbers padding accusation can be used against any great in NBA history.

Will you shut the hell up about Wilt? First of all, I'm going to destroy this garbage.

In game 5, Shaq left the game with 4:24 remaining, just about 30 seconds after Indiana's star Reggie Miller left and Kobe wouldn't leave until there were 3 minutes remaining in the game.

And lets look at game 1.

LA was up by 6 entering the 4th. Shaq had 12 points in the 4th and he scored or assisted on every basket in the first 9 minutes of the 4th except for 2 Rick Fox jumpers. That extended the lead from 6 to 17 with about 3 minutes, and Shaq sat down with 43/19/4/3 on 68% shooting and 3 minutes left. Had he had Wilt's mentality, he would've stayed in the game to get the 50/20 game, then again, if he had Wilt's mentality, he probably doesn't have such a clutch 4th quarter.

Another Bizarro Wilt moment came in game 2 when he went 4/4 from the field and his free throw shooting improved dramatically in the 4th compared to the 3rd to give him 16th 4th quarter points to counter the hack a Shaq and give LA a close game 2 win.

And he closed the series out in game 6 with another Bizarro Wilt moment. He went 6/6 from the field in the 4th and finished with 13 points in the quarter to lead LA back from a 5 point deficit entering the 4th. He finished with 41/12/4 to clinch the title.

And I know it must be hard typing about Wilt with one hand, but the reason Wilt is called a stat padder is because he use to debate his statistics with the official scorer, keep track of his stats throughout the game and even recaps from people who were paid to watch those games vs Russell stated that many of his points came after the game was no longer in doubt.

Not to mention that in '62, Wilt played every minute in all of twenty seven 15+ point blowouts, every minute in all sixteen 20+ blowouts, every minute in all five 30+ point blowouts, every minute in all three 40+ point blowouts and every minute in the 51 point blowout they had.

PHILA

10-02-2010, 07:25 PM

Will you shut the hell up about Wilt? First of all, I'm going to destroy this garbage.

In game 5, Shaq left the game with 4:24 remaining, just about 30 seconds after Indiana's star Reggie Miller left and Kobe wouldn't leave until there were 3 minutes remaining in the game.
And as expected, none of them were accused of padding their statistics either.

And lets look at game 1.

LA was up by 6 entering the 4th. Shaq had 12 points in the 4th and he scored or assisted on every basket in the first 9 minutes of the 4th except for 2 Rick Fox jumpers. That extended the lead from 6 to 17 with about 3 minutes, and Shaq sat down with 43/19/4/3 on 68% shooting and 3 minutes left.
Nice game from Shaq, but I did not use Game 1 as an example.

Had he had Wilt's mentality, he would've stayed in the game to get the 50/20 game, then again, if he had Wilt's mentality, he probably doesn't have such a clutch 4th quarter.
Shaq was not the head coach of the Lakers in 2000, therefore he was not authorized to make these decisions. One would think this apparent mentality Chamberlain had would show in the game when he became the NBA's all time scoring leader in 1966. Why not go after it right away and cost the team a possible victory? Would it have been for him to score what could possibly be meaningless points in the first half, like Kobe Bryant in the 7th game of the 2006 Phoenix series? Either way he'd be accused of something. Could it possibly be that Boston just flat out had a better gameplan than Philadelphia? It was already noted that the Warriors starters outscored the Celtic starters in that series, but their 3 key bench players were killed by the Celtics 3 key men off the bench. Could this be better substitution management on Auerbach's part? Remember there were no assistant coaches then.

The Nevada Daily Mail - Feb 15, 1966 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rJIfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V9QEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2664,2025179&dq)

This was the big one Wilt Chamberlain wanted most. And now he's got it - all-time leading scorer in the National Basketball Association.

"Sure, this has to be the big one for me and it is," the 7-foot-1 Philadelphia 76ers ace said Monday night after collecting 41 points to break the career mark set by Bob Pettit of the St. Louis Hawks

Wilt's scoring splurge powered the 76ers past the Detroit Pistons 149-123 and spiraled Chamberlain's seven-year NBA total to 20,884, four over Pettit's standard.

"This means more to me than anything, even more than scoring 100 points," Wilt said, referring to his 100-point performance against New York in a game four years ago.

"The scorers are getting better and better and I think someone will score 100 points, or maybe more," he said. "But this one may stick around for a while. And this means a lot because it means a sustained performance over a long time. Yep I really wanted this."

Before some 5,000 fans in the Charleston Civic Center he played the role of playmaker in he first half and tallied only 10 joints as Philadelphia ran up a 70-51 margin.

"That was the way it was supposed to be," Wilt said. "We looked real bad in our last two games and we wanted to shake the offense loose. This was the best way to do it but it meant I wasn't going to do much scoring.

"Oh sure, I went after the record when we were way out in front in the last quarter and the guys started to move the ball to me," Wilt said.

He went into the last 12 minutes with 22 points and then they started to come furiously. He dropped in six field goals and a free throw and the crowd started to chant, "give it to Wilt."

A stuff shot with 2:46 remaining gave him 37 points to tie Pettit's record and a free throw with one minute and 32 seconds left gave him the record.

Another Bizarro Wilt moment came in game 2 when he went 4/4 from the field and his free throw shooting improved dramatically in the 4th compared to the 3rd to give him 16th 4th quarter points to counter the hack a Shaq and give LA a close game 2 win.

And he closed the series out in game 6 with another Bizarro Wilt moment. He went 6/6 from the field in the 4th and finished with 13 points in the quarter to lead LA back from a 5 point deficit entering the 4th. He finished with 41/12/4 to clinch the title. Bizarro Wilt moment? My mistake if you meant Shaq. This is nice, and it was an all time great series for him, but it is irrelevant in this discussion as I am not critiquing Shaq. Just trying to show one of the many double standards that are so often used against Chamberlain, whether or not you would have responded to this post.

PHILA

10-02-2010, 07:26 PM

And I know it must be hard typing about Wilt with one hand, but the reason Wilt is called a stat padder is because he use to debate his statistics with the official scorer, keep track of his stats throughout the game and even recaps from people who were paid to watch those games vs Russell stated that many of his points came after the game was no longer in doubt. Michael Jordan was known for this as well in his early days. How would his career have turned out without Phil Jackson? Nobody will ever know. Plus by all accounts, the stat keepers back in the 60's would rob Chamberlain of rebounds and assists on the road (and probably inflated his field goal attempts too, lowering his shooting efficiency from the field). How many superstars in NBA history wouldn't be upset?

NBA.com (http://www.nba.com/encyclopedia/pollack_wilt.html)

I went to a Boston-Warriors game in the Boston Garden and secretly kept track of the rebounds of both Wilt and Russell. When the game ended, I went to the press table and asked what the rebound totals were for Wilt and Russell. The response: "Russell 35, Wilt 22." My response, "Well my totals are Wilt 34, Russell 21." They sat open mouthed when I produced my evidence of the time and type of every rebound that each player had. A Sports Illustrated writer nearby heard the conversation and asked me what it was all about. I told him and the next week SI had a story about the incident. Wilt and I chuckled on reading it, but Red Auerbach didn't. For many years thereafter he didn't talk to me, but how we were reconciled is another story that doesn't concern Wilt.

Sports Illustrated - March 11, 1968 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1080922/index.htm)

Currently Wilt Chamberlain is leading the league in complaining about statistics, and probably with good reason. Philadelphia Statistician Harvey Pollack is one of the few well-regarded scorers in the NBA. He won't favor anyone, including Wilt, but he thinks Chamberlain probably has a valid complaint. To check for himself, Pollack decided two Sundays ago to keep his own box score as he watched the telecast of a game between the 76ers and the Hawks in St. Louis. The official statistics showed Wilkens with 13 assists and Chamberlain with four. Pollack, however, credited eight to Wilkens and nine to Chamberlain. "I knew it was coming," Pollack said, "because Chamberlain was catching Wilkens in total assists."

Sports Illustrated - April 19, 1965 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077138/3/index.htm)

[I]Pollack is one of those basketball buffs caught up in the game-within-a-game drama being played at the moment between Wilt Chamberlain of the 76ers and Bill Russell of the Boston Celtics. Officially

laronprofit9

10-14-2010, 09:42 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EefJHAWigvY

catch24

10-14-2010, 10:17 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfPvC3p4kJ4 :cheers:

Papaya Petee

11-04-2010, 03:42 PM

ShaqAttack3234

11-04-2010, 04:44 PM

Bump

The fact that Shaquille received only 1 MVP is sickening to me. Can anyone with a straight face tell me he didn't deserve it in 2000-2001 or 2001-2002? In 1995 he could of won it as well. In 2005 I didn't believe he was the best player on his team but he could of won it there too.

O'Neal was hurt by the fact that he missed 12 games due to injury in 2002 and 3 due to a suspension. Though in terms of value, the fact that the team was 51-16 with him and just 7-8 without him helps.

But because of the games Shaq missed, Duncan was the right choice, IMO.

I agree with 2001, and he was my choice in 2005 as well.

In 1995, he had a good case, but the fact that Robinson won more games with a cast that didn't seem to have more talent made him deserving, though using that as the criteria can be deceptive because O'Neal was a better scorer and rebounder, and Orlando's offense relied on Shaq's interior dominance a lot because he was their first scoring option and his double teams were a reason why they got so many 3s.

Micku

11-04-2010, 04:46 PM

Bump

The fact that Shaquille received only 1 MVP is sickening to me. Can anyone with a straight face tell me he didn't deserve it in 2000-2001 or 2001-2002? In 1995 he could of won it as well. In 2005 I didn't believe he was the best player on his team but he could of won it there too.

He had great cases for it, but I could understand why other stars won.

In 00-01 Allen Iverson did took that team to have the same record as the Lakers that year, and they were very impressive. Iverson had no second option equaling to Kobe. Shaq did. Kobe was a superstar who was top 4 in scoring. Only behind Shaq, Stackhouse and Iverson. If Iverson would have a star comparable with Kobe then they would've won more.

01-02, Duncan just carried that team. No all-stars at all, and that team had the same record as the Lakers with better defense. Plus Shaq was out for a few games. He played only 67 games in comparison to Duncan's 82 games. If Duncan was out, the Spurs would've probably lose.

In 05, he was the best player on his team. He was their first option until late in the playoffs. He brought to team to have the best record in the East. They won 59 games as oppose to 41 the year before he got there. Nash lead his team to even more wins. Before Nash got there, Suns only had 29 wins. When Nash got there, they had 62 wins. Huge difference. More of a difference than Shaq.

MVPs don't really mean you're the best player obviously.

Samurai Swoosh

11-04-2010, 04:47 PM

Jordan ...

Only person to say otherwise is Jordan Haters, Laker Fans, and ShaqAttack

Ne 1

11-04-2010, 05:05 PM

Shaq ...

Only person to say otherwise is Shaq Haters, Bull Fans, and Samurai Swoosh

ShaqAttack3234

11-04-2010, 07:49 PM

In 00-01 Allen Iverson did took that team to have the same record as the Lakers that year, and they were very impressive. Iverson had no second option equaling to Kobe. Shaq did. Kobe was a superstar who was top 4 in scoring. Only behind Shaq, Stackhouse and Iverson. If Iverson would have a star comparable with Kobe then they would've won more.

How do you know? For all we know, Iverson would have been less effective playing with another star. His cast complemented his skillset perfectly. And he had a great defensive cast. Not to mention that Shaq led the Lakers to an 11-3 record without Kobe and the West was among the toughest it's ever been while the East was the polar opposite.

In 05, he was the best player on his team. He was their first option until late in the playoffs. He brought to team to have the best record in the East. They won 59 games as oppose to 41 the year before he got there. Nash lead his team to even more wins. Before Nash got there, Suns only had 29 wins. When Nash got there, they had 62 wins. Huge difference. More of a difference than Shaq.

Well, it's not that simple. Amare Stoudemire played 55 games in '04, and 80 in '05, so that certainly helped their improvement. They also added Quentin Richardson who averaged 15/6/2 and made three 3s per game and Nash came over as a free agent while Miami traded for Shaq. They traded Lamar Odom(arguably their best player in '04), Caron Butler and Brian Grant.

Jordan ...

Only person to say otherwise is Jordan Haters, Laker Fans, and ShaqAttack

I don't remember picking Shaq over Jordan in this thread. :oldlol:

laronprofit9

11-07-2010, 07:03 AM

Here are reasons why Shaq had an all-time great level season that year.

2000 Shaquille O'Neal

NBA Champion
NBA Scoring Champion
NBA MVP
NBA Finals MVP
NBA ALL-Star Game MVP
1st-Team All-NBA
2nd-Team All-Defense
Best Record in the League.

Anyways Statistically here are more reasons: (I feel its hard to judge all-around numbers. It depends a lot on a players role on the team, position they play, minutes played, ball touches, offensive playbooks, teammates and personel, and many other factors. I don't think a single formula is the best way to sum all these stats together, but I'll post them just for arguments sake):

29.7 ppg 13.6 rpg 3.8 apg 57%fg

League Ranks:

#1 Scoring Average 29.7ppg
#1 Points Scored 2344
#1 Field Goals Made 956 (788 2nd Place)
#1 Field Goal Pct. 57.4%
#1 Player Efficiency Rating 30.6
#1 Offensive Win Shares 11.7
#1 Defensive Win Shares 7.0
#1 Overall Win Shares 18.6
#1 Win Shares per 48 minutes - 0.283
#2 Total Rebounds1078
#2 Offensive Rebounds 336
#2 Defensive Rebounds 742
#2 Rebound Average 13.6rpg
#2 Defensive Rating 94.6
#3 Blocks 239
#3 Block Average 3.0bpg
Lakers #1 Defense Rating (2000)

Big#50

11-07-2010, 04:41 PM

ShaqAttack3234

11-07-2010, 05:22 PM

Shaq's 2000 season is overrated because of the finals. The Spurs would have beaten LA if Tim didn't get injured. The Spurs beat LA three out of four that season. Robinson was still a great defender and could put up 20 and 10 in any game. Lakers were pretty lucky.

One of the Spurs wins was a meaningless end of the season game that went OT yet Shaq only played 32 minutes in. Yeah, Duncan didn't play, but it's obvious the Lakers didn't really care about that game having easily locked up the best record in the league. It was also their last game of the season.

The Lakers were a 67-15 team and the Spurs were a 53-29 team.

With Shaq, the Lakers were a 66-13 team and with Shaq and Kobe the Lakers were a 54-10 team.

The Spurs were a 48-26 team with Duncan and a 46-26 team with Duncan and Robinson.

There's nothing to suggest that's a guaranteed victory for the Spurs. Didn't Orlando just go 3-1 vs Boston in 2010 and then get beat in 6 in the ECF?

By your logic, Duncan's 2003 season is overrated because Dirk was out for half of the WCF and the Mavs W/L record was equal to the Spurs were 2-2 vs Dallas in the regular season with Dallas outscoring the Spurs by 20 in those 4 games.

Instead of stating speculation as fact, why not look at what they actually did that season?

OldSchoolBBall

11-07-2010, 05:35 PM

Jordan gives you comparable/superior production in the regular and postseasons and on top of that gives you Kobe on steroids in the 4th quarter and clutch time, which was always Shaq's liability due to his FT shooting (and to a lesser extent a center's comparative lack of ability to generate offense). He was also able to raise his game on command more frequently than Shaq when needed and just win games himself. Not sure how you don't take him here. I'm certainly not saying the gap is large (it's not at all), only that I don't see the case for Shaq.

catch24

11-07-2010, 05:45 PM

D.J.

11-07-2010, 06:04 PM

Jordan. Better player and he had more of a will to win. No one wanted to win more than Michael Jordan. 1999-00 was a very impressive season from Shaq, but no one compares to a prime Michael Jordan, regardless of stats.

ShaqAttack3234

11-07-2010, 06:10 PM

Samurai Swoosh

11-07-2010, 07:36 PM

Big#50

11-07-2010, 11:49 PM

One of the Spurs wins was a meaningless end of the season game that went OT yet Shaq only played 32 minutes in. Yeah, Duncan didn't play, but it's obvious the Lakers didn't really care about that game having easily locked up the best record in the league. It was also their last game of the season.

The Lakers were a 67-15 team and the Spurs were a 53-29 team.

With Shaq, the Lakers were a 66-13 team and with Shaq and Kobe the Lakers were a 54-10 team.

The Spurs were a 48-26 team with Duncan and a 46-26 team with Duncan and Robinson.

There's nothing to suggest that's a guaranteed victory for the Spurs. Didn't Orlando just go 3-1 vs Boston in 2010 and then get beat in 6 in the ECF?

By your logic, Duncan's 2003 season is overrated because Dirk was out for half of the WCF and the Mavs W/L record was equal to the Spurs were 2-2 vs Dallas in the regular season with Dallas outscoring the Spurs by 20 in those 4 games.

Instead of stating speculation as fact, why not look at what they actually did that season?
Robinson could still hold Shaq to about 25 points back then. Kobe was not the Kobe of 01 yet. No doubt in my mind the Lakers would have lost.

ShaqAttack3234

11-08-2010, 01:09 AM

Robinson could still hold Shaq to about 25 points back then. Kobe was not the Kobe of 01 yet. No doubt in my mind the Lakers would have lost.

Oh yeah, and one of the Lakers losses vs the Spurs came with Shaq sitting out and I already mentioned that one of them was the last game of the season with the Lakers easily having locked up and in the first 2 games he played vs the Spurs(the 2 meaningful ones), he had 31 points in each game, not 25.

Big#50

11-08-2010, 01:47 AM

Oh yeah, and one of the Lakers losses vs the Spurs came with Shaq sitting out and I already mentioned that one of them was the last game of the season with the Lakers easily having locked up and in the first 2 games he played vs the Spurs(the 2 meaningful ones), he had 31 points in each game, not 25.
I still believe The Spurs would have beat them. Duncan could not be stopped. Shaq would have to get 40 plus points to beat them. That was not happening. The Lakers were way better than the rest of the league because of Shaq. But against the Spurs he couldn't be as dominant. The Spurs were the defending champs and had the edge over the Lakers after sweeping them the year before.

eliteballer

11-08-2010, 02:09 AM

^LOL. In one of those games Shaq didn't play, in the other Duncan didn't and they split the other two.

Sarcastic

11-08-2010, 02:21 AM

I think the NBA as a league was a little weaker in 1999-2000. All the stars of the 1990s were either old or retired, and the players who would become stars of the 2000s were either really young, or hadn't even entered the league. In the 1990-1991 season, you still had an incredible amount of star players in the league, and the NBA hadn't expanded yet.

Just in Jordan's 1991 playoff run alone he went through Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, and Patrick Ewing. That's pretty incredible when you think about it.

Big#50

11-08-2010, 02:22 AM

^LOL. In one of those games Shaq didn't play, in the other Duncan didn't and they split the other two.
Thanks for bringing up something already said more than once.

kuzdeen

11-08-2010, 02:23 AM

Jordan because of his will to win and work ethic. He never took a night off

ShaqAttack3234

11-08-2010, 10:23 AM

I still believe The Spurs would have beat them. Duncan could not be stopped. Shaq would have to get 40 plus points to beat them. That was not happening. The Lakers were way better than the rest of the league because of Shaq. But against the Spurs he couldn't be as dominant. The Spurs were the defending champs and had the edge over the Lakers after sweeping them the year before.

The Lakers beat the 59-23 Blazers with Shaq averaging 26/12/4. They could beat teams without Shaq going for 30-40 points and 15-20 rebounds. Granted, that series did expose a flaw that the Lakers had which was not being able to make Portland pay and think twice about constant double and triple teams.

Kobe wasn't in his prime yet, but he was still a top 10 player, you could argue top 9 and they had the league's best player. The Spurs had the 2nd best player(Duncan) and another top 13 player(Robinson).

So both teams had excellent duos, and I do think the match up would have been interesting. Green and Horry couldn't guard Duncan, so they would have had to double often or have Shaq guard him which would be risky due to foul trouble.

But Robinson didn't guard Shaq 1 on 1 throughout the games either, and neither did Duncan. Regardless, I would have loved to have seen a series of Shaq and Duncan going head to head like they did on that Christmas game in 1999-2000. But unfortunately, that wasn't going to happen regardless.

But, what exactly does the sweep in '99 mean? The Lakers swept the Spurs in '01. Yeah, Kobe was better in 2001 than 2000, but Shaq was also better in 2000 than 1999 and they had Phil Jackson.

That 2000 Laker team could have been even better had they kept Rodman and had Phil gotten Scottie Pippen like he wanted. Rice was a bad fit and well past his prime. Rice could've been a great asset for the team had he accepted his role as a spot up shooter instead of bitching about not having plays run for him.