1996 Chicago Bulls vs 2001 Los Angeles Lakers [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

NugzHeat3

08-01-2011, 04:07 PM

There was a pretty good article by Sam Smith about how to beat the 96 Bulls. Long as **** but a good read.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n18_v220/ai_18237541/?tag=mantle_skin;content

cliffs: Need size and quickness, two weaknesses of that team.

I know back in 1996, the only two teams given a chance to beat the Bulls were the 1996 Rockets and Magic.

The Bulls swept the Magic but they had a few injuries (Grant was out after game 1 and Anderson got injured midway).

IIRC, the Bulls played a lot of full court pressure defense to force turnovers since Anderson and Scott couldn't handle the ball.

Pippen took Penny and slowed him down and they let Shaq get his but had enough bodies to throw at him.

The 2001 Lakers are kind of similar to that Magic team but obviously have superior coaching, schemes and players.

Hard to say, you can't judge the 2001 Lakers by their season record. But the Bulls are the Bulls at the same time.

Theoo's Daddy

08-01-2011, 04:30 PM

Lakers have the two best players in the series so I'm gonna go with them. inbefore10pages

2 of the best players were not good enough here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvumJ3X7u5Y

Also Jordan bulls ran the triangle perfectly than the lakers have ever been able to..

catch24

08-01-2011, 04:31 PM

2 of the best players were not good enough here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg-cJsg5UQA

Also Jordan bulls ran the triangle perfectly than the lakers have ever been able to..

I don't see Shaq or Kobe anywhere in that video.

97 bulls

08-01-2011, 04:34 PM

Lakers have the two best players in the series so I'm gonna go with them. inbefore10pages
Like hell they do. Scottie pippen was every bit as dominant as kobe bryant. And id still take jordan over shaq. Just be glad shaq never had to go against any good centers during the lakers championship run. Otherwise, they probably have no rings.

Bring-Your-Js

08-01-2011, 04:38 PM

Like hell they do. Scottie pippen was every bit as dominant as kobe bryant. And id still take jordan over shaq. Just be glad shaq never had to go against any good centers during the lakers championship run. Otherwise, they probably have no rings.

:lol

catch24

08-01-2011, 04:40 PM

:lol

Am I the only one who notices he goes full retard every other post? If Shaq went up against "a better center" he'd have ZERO rings? Holy strawman.

Bring-Your-Js

08-01-2011, 04:43 PM

Am I the only one who notices he goes full retard every other post? If Shaq went up against "a better center" he'd have ZERO rings? Holy strawman.

I'm ****IN dying over here man

:roll: :roll: :roll:

gengiskhan

08-01-2011, 04:46 PM

1996 Bulls beat 2001 Lakers. 4-2

That 72-10 Bulls was something very special. Driven by a Leader on a come back who was previously embarrassed by Magic in the playoffs.

MJ was too much possessed to win it all that year. Shaq never was that driven. He was always part hollywood partly Bball driven.

Its so scary the way 1996 Bulls swept 1996 shaq's Magic which was well balanced, nothing could've stopped them from destroying 2001 Lakers.

Nothing.

MJ on a mission to prove he is back on top as king.
Rodman turned loose on Shaq.
Pippen roaming around on defense complete shut down of Kobe.
Kukoc, Kerr, Harper hitting outside shots.

That 1996 bulls beat lakers 4-1 if not guaranteed 4-2.

Mr. I'm So Rad

08-01-2011, 04:50 PM

Am I the only one who notices he goes full retard every other post? If Shaq went up against "a better center" he'd have ZERO rings? Holy strawman.

:roll: :applause: :roll:

ShaqAttack3234

08-01-2011, 05:31 PM

Chicago would win, better talent, better chemistry and more consistent.

Like hell they do. Scottie pippen was every bit as dominant as kobe bryant. And id still take jordan over shaq. Just be glad shaq never had to go against any good centers during the lakers championship run. Otherwise, they probably have no rings.

:oldlol: at this troll.

Am I the only one who notices he goes full retard every other post? If Shaq went up against "a better center" he'd have ZERO rings? Holy strawman.

No, you're not the only one who noticed that. :roll:

kaiiu

08-01-2011, 05:47 PM

Mj would be the 3rd best player in the series

Bring-Your-Js

08-01-2011, 05:52 PM

Chicago would win, better talent, better chemistry and more consistent.

:oldlol: at this troll.

No, you're not the only one who noticed that. :roll:

Inb4 someone claims youre just downplaying Shaq's supporting cast. :rolleyes:

Samurai Swoosh

08-01-2011, 05:54 PM

Would love to see this matchup go down.

97 bulls

08-01-2011, 06:03 PM

Chicago would win, better talent, better chemistry and more consistent.

:oldlol: at this troll.

No, you're not the only one who noticed that. :roll:
What's shaqs excuse? He played 8 years in the 90s, he had some of the best teams, they were relatively injury free. What's the excuse?

93-94 lost to rik smits and the pacers
94-95 lost to olajuwan
96 lost to the bulls
97 lost to the jazz. And greg ostertag gave him a hard time
98 the same
99 lost to the spurs david robinson and duncan.

And I believe his teams were swept out of the playoffs almost every year.

And before you bombard me with stats, its never been shaqs offense. Its his defense. His lackluster attitude towards that side of the court is what cost his teams most of the time.

ShaqAttack3234

08-01-2011, 06:40 PM

What's shaqs excuse? He played 8 years in the 90s, he had some of the best teams, they were relatively injury free. What's the excuse?

93-94 lost to rik smits and the pacers
94-95 lost to olajuwan
96 lost to the bulls
97 lost to the jazz. And greg ostertag gave him a hard time
98 the same
99 lost to the spurs david robinson and duncan.

And I believe his teams were swept out of the playoffs almost every year.

And before you bombard me with stats, its never been shaqs offense. Its his defense. His lackluster attitude towards that side of the court is what cost his teams most of the time.

1994- That was Shaq's second year, he was not the player he was in 2001, and that was his first playoff series. Had a poor series, disappointing in fact, but this means very little when discussing what Shaq in 2001 would do, especially when Shaq played much better vs the same team the next season.

1995- Hakeem in his prime/peak isn't just any center. Besides, Shaq played well against him, especially compared to Ewing and Robinson. Hakeem had a much tougher time scoring than he did against Robinson(an all-time great defensive player). It was also Shaq's first extended playoff run as a 23 year old and most of Orlando's key players first extended playoff run, aside from Horace Grant. And if you're going to use Rik Smits as some kind of obstacle, he beat Smits team in the ECF to get to Houston.

1996- I thought this was about Shaq not being able to beat teams with centers? So how are the Bulls some example when their center play was not that great? Actually, Longley was a better match up vs Shaq than most because he had more size, which is more important vs Shaq than just being a "better center". Shaq played pretty well that series anyway, he didn't dominate, but he didn't choke and wasn't the reason his team lost. And since when are a 60-22 team expected to beat a 72-10 team?

1997- Shaq had a poor series, but again, lost to a team with a better record(Utah was 64-18, LA was 56-26). And what happened to this better center crap you were spewing before? Shaq destroyed Sabonis in the first round who was a much better center than Ostertag, once again proving this theory is crap.

1998- Take a look at Shaq's cast that series.

Jones- 15 ppg, 4 rpg, 3.3 apg, 41.2 FG%
Kobe- 10 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 1 apg, 36.7 FG%
Fox- 9.8 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 40.6 FG%
Van Exel- 9 ppg, 2 rpg, 4 apg, 23.8 FG%
Fisher- 5.5 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.8 apg, 34.8 FG%
Horry- 4.5 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 1.8 apg, 36.4 FG%
Corie Blount- 2.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 0.5 apg, 50 FG%

That's everyone of Shaq's teammates that played over 20 mpg that series. Shaq didn't defend and rebound as well as he could've, but that's simply not enough offensive support to win. Shaq was the only one providing it at 32 ppg on 56% shooting.

here are quotes from that series. From game 3...

Shaquille O'Neal powered his way to 39 points and 15 rebounds but got little help from his teammates Friday night in a 109-98 loss

While O'Neal did everything he could to get the Lakers back in the series, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel and the other Lakers shooters were missing in action most of the night.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DvIyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1QgGAAAAIBAJ&pg=6564,5019202&dq=shaq+39+points+15+rebounds&hl=en

From game 4

Shaq did end up with 38 points, including 19 in the fourth.

And once again, I thought your point was about Shaq not being to beat real centers? He destroyed Sabonis in 1998 once again, who was much better than Utah's centers.

1999- Yes, he played poorly vs San Antonio. But once again, this isn't 2001 Shaq. 1999 Shaq was lazy anyway, probably his laziest prime year. Not the same force we saw once Phil took over. And again, your point was that he couldn't beat real centers, but you're ignoring that he annihilated Hakeem(who was still a 19/10, 2.5 bpg center that year) in the first round. And he beat Robinson/Duncan in the 2001 WCF.

Once again, the point that Shaq couldn't beat real centers wasn't proven here.

If the point was, that Shaq has lost some series that he could've played a lot better in, then sure, who hasn't?

Papaya Petee

08-01-2011, 07:10 PM

ShaqAttack3234

08-01-2011, 07:17 PM

You are an awful awful poster.

2001 Shaq > 1996 Jordan
2001 Kobe > 1996 Pippen

Lakers in 6 or 7

I agree with the first 2 parts, but I have the Bulls winning that series.

The Lakers were unbelievable as long as Shaq and Kobe were getting along, but what happens when they face a team that challenges them? That's why i don't trust them vs Chicago.

Grant's value is severely diminished as well when going against a team like Chicago rather than Portland, Sacramento and San Antonio where he made his impact guarding Sheed, Webber and Duncan.

Bring-Your-Js

08-01-2011, 07:25 PM

I agree with the first 2 parts, but I have the Bulls winning that series.

The Lakers were unbelievable as long as Shaq and Kobe were getting along, but what happens when they face a team that challenges them? That's why i don't trust them vs Chicago.

Grant's value is severely diminished as well when going against a team like Chicago rather than Portland, Sacramento and San Antonio where he made his impact guarding Sheed, Webber and Duncan.

It's tough to pick against prime Shaq though. Kobe was absolutely elite here as well. I can't even call it.

rodman91

08-01-2011, 07:54 PM

10x91= 5 Rings

08-01-2011, 08:02 PM

Let`s just say that the Lakers profited from the dismantling of the Bulls.

Boston C's

08-01-2011, 08:51 PM

I agree with the first 2 parts, but I have the Bulls winning that series.

The Lakers were unbelievable as long as Shaq and Kobe were getting along, but what happens when they face a team that challenges them? That's why i don't trust them vs Chicago.

Grant's value is severely diminished as well when going against a team like Chicago rather than Portland, Sacramento and San Antonio where he made his impact guarding Sheed, Webber and Duncan.

This... although most ppl who were saying kobe is the second best player in this series are mistaken
1. Shaq
2. Jordan
3. Kobe
4. Pippen

I agree with the bolded especially and I also think its important to who has phil jackson this series lol that could really swing the outcome as well

Micku

08-01-2011, 09:18 PM

My guess would be the 96 Bulls. It would interesting to see what will happen in how they would defend the Lakers 01. While the Bulls did play the 90s Lakers and everything, the 01 Lakers would be a bit different.

The Bulls will see similar plays like their own, and they have two superstars on the team that they have to contain. They had Rodman going against Shaq in 96, and Rodman will definitely help fight the boards against him. Rodman actually may be one of the best at guarding Shaq.

I also wonder if Jordan and Pippen could contain Kobe. And if the Lakers could contain Jordan. And the Bulls had some good roleplayers too.

So, it would be a fun matchup.

ShaqAttack3234

08-01-2011, 09:31 PM

Bulls easily.

Rodman & Luc Longley had good games against Shaq.Rodman did pretty good job guarding Shaq when they head to head from detroit years to Bulls.Shaq couldn't have big series against Bulls.

2001 Kobe couldn't play well against Eric Snow.96 Pippen would do more damage both defense and offense to Kobe than Eric Snow.:lol

Who is gonna guard Jordan or Pippen?

Bulls bench is better than Lakers as well.

It would not be 7 game.If Bulls take it seriously, it would end 4-0,4-1 or 4-2 at best.

Why do people use logic like "Well Kobe only did this against Snow so he'd be even worse against Pippen?" That's something you can't predict, it all depends on the series.

And lets look at that Philadelphia, series, after a horrendous game 1 which brought his averages down a lot, Kobe played quite well after that. The chances of slowing down both Shaq and Kobe in the same series are very slim.

Game 1 vs Philadelphia
Shaq- 44 points, 20 rebounds, 5 assists, 4 turnovers, 17/28 FG, 10/22 FT
Kobe- 15 points, 3 rebounds, 5 assists, 6 turnovers, 7/22 FG, 1/1 FT

Game 2 vs Philadelphia
Shaq- 28 points, 20 rebounds, 9 assists, 8 blocks, 5 turnovers, 12/19 FG, 4/10 FT
Kobe- 31 points, 8 rebounds, 6 assists, 2 turnovers, 11/23 FG, 8/8 FT

Game 3 vs Philadelphia
Shaq- 30 points, 12 rebounds, 3 assists, 4 blocks, 3 turnovers, 11/20 FG, 8/9 FT
Kobe- 32 points, 6 rebounds, 3 assists, 3 turnovers, 13/30 FG, 6/6 FT

Game 4 vs Philadelphia
Shaq- 34 points 14 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 turnovers, 13/25 FG, 8/16 FT
Kobe- 19 points, 10 rebounds, 9 assists, 4 turnovers, 6/13 FG, 7/12 FT

Game 5 vs Philadelphia
Shaq- 29 points, 13 rebounds, 2 assists, 5 blocks, 5 turnovers, 10/18 FG, 9/19 FT
Kobe- 26 points, 12 rebounds, 6 assists, 3 turnovers, 7/18 FG, 10/11 FT

And of course, there wasn't really a series in the first 2 rounds where either were contained and they won every game in those series.

You might be able to contain one or the other, but I think that would require so much energy and defensive attention that the other would go off. The Bulls might have the personnel with Longley and Rodman to slow down 2001 Shaq a bit, but he was much more of a force on the boards than 1996 Shaq and much more active defensively as well as a better offensive player.

And even though 2001 Horace Grant was nowhere near the player that 1996 Grant was, he was at least healthy in 2001 as opposed to 1996 when he pretty much missed the entire series except game 1 when he had 0 points and 1 rebound.

I have the Bulls winning, but :oldlol: at you thinking that Shaq "can't have a big series" and then acting like Kobe will be shut down at the same time.

It'd be an interesting series as far as match ups. My guess would be that the Bulls assign Pippen to Kobe more because of how much Jordan scored for them, and because Pippen had guarded Penny more in the '96 ECF. But who the Lakers would put on Jordan is interesting.

Fisher would have to guard Harper, which would leave Bryant and Fox to deal with Jordan and Pippen. Pippen's size might cause problems for Kobe, but then again, you don't really want Kobe to have to use up so much energy guarding Jordan when he was 1 of only 2 Laker players who could create their own offense and the Lakers only real playmaker.

97 bulls

08-01-2011, 10:30 PM

1994- That was Shaq's second year, he was not the player he was in 2001, and that was his first playoff series. Had a poor series, disappointing in fact, but this means very little when discussing what Shaq in 2001 would do, especially when Shaq played much better vs the same team the next season.

1995- Hakeem in his prime/peak isn't just any center. Besides, Shaq played well against him, especially compared to Ewing and Robinson. Hakeem had a much tougher time scoring than he did against Robinson(an all-time great defensive player). It was also Shaq's first extended playoff run as a 23 year old and most of Orlando's key players first extended playoff run, aside from Horace Grant. And if you're going to use Rik Smits as some kind of obstacle, he beat Smits team in the ECF to get to Houston.

1996- I thought this was about Shaq not being able to beat teams with centers? So how are the Bulls some example when their center play was not that great? Actually, Longley was a better match up vs Shaq than most because he had more size, which is more important vs Shaq than just being a "better center". Shaq played pretty well that series anyway, he didn't dominate, but he didn't choke and wasn't the reason his team lost. And since when are a 60-22 team expected to beat a 72-10 team?

1997- Shaq had a poor series, but again, lost to a team with a better record(Utah was 64-18, LA was 56-26). And what happened to this better center crap you were spewing before? Shaq destroyed Sabonis in the first round who was a much better center than Ostertag, once again proving this theory is crap.

1998- Take a look at Shaq's cast that series.

Jones- 15 ppg, 4 rpg, 3.3 apg, 41.2 FG%
Kobe- 10 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 1 apg, 36.7 FG%
Fox- 9.8 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 40.6 FG%
Van Exel- 9 ppg, 2 rpg, 4 apg, 23.8 FG%
Fisher- 5.5 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.8 apg, 34.8 FG%
Horry- 4.5 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 1.8 apg, 36.4 FG%
Corie Blount- 2.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 0.5 apg, 50 FG%

That's everyone of Shaq's teammates that played over 20 mpg that series. Shaq didn't defend and rebound as well as he could've, but that's simply not enough offensive support to win. Shaq was the only one providing it at 32 ppg on 56% shooting.

here are quotes from that series. From game 3...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DvIyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1QgGAAAAIBAJ&pg=6564,5019202&dq=shaq+39+points+15+rebounds&hl=en

From game 4

And once again, I thought your point was about Shaq not being to beat real centers? He destroyed Sabonis in 1998 once again, who was much better than Utah's centers.

1999- Yes, he played poorly vs San Antonio. But once again, this isn't 2001 Shaq. 1999 Shaq was lazy anyway, probably his laziest prime year. Not the same force we saw once Phil took over. And again, your point was that he couldn't beat real centers, but you're ignoring that he annihilated Hakeem(who was still a 19/10, 2.5 bpg center that year) in the first round. And he beat Robinson/Duncan in the 2001 WCF.

Once again, the point that Shaq couldn't beat real centers wasn't proven here.

If the point was, that Shaq has lost some series that he could've played a lot better in, then sure, who hasn't?
You always post what the "help" failed to do offensively during shaq non championship runs. But truth be told, aside from 01, the lakers core players never really had great playoff runs. Even when they won their championships. I just wouldn't take shaq over any version of jordan when he won his championships. Shaq really won cuz the bulls team were dismantled. He had opportunities to win over a great bulls team, and got destroyed. And that orlando team was much better than the laker teams.

ShaqAttack3234

08-01-2011, 10:42 PM

You always post what the "help" failed to do offensively during shaq non championship runs. But truth be told, aside from 01, the lakers core players never really had great playoff runs. Even when they won their championships. I just wouldn't take shaq over any version of jordan when he won his championships. Shaq really won cuz the bulls team were dismantled. He had opportunities to win over a great bulls team, and got destroyed. And that orlando team was much better than the laker teams.

You ever think that Shaq won with less talent from 2000-2002 because he had become a better player from age 27-30 then he was in his early/mid 20's? That's usually the case, or that he had a better coach? Or that while his casts had less weapons and less overall talent/depth, they performed better under pressure? And that Shaq was better playing under pressure due to experience and maturing?

Shaq really didn't have an opportunity to beat Chicago in 1996 either. Certainly not with the injuries to his team while facing the team with the best record ever.

I can't think of any series from the Lakers 3peat, aside from maybe the 2000 finals(and even then Kobe had the big game 4 and came up big when Shaq fouled out), where Shaq got as little help as he did in the '98 WCF. Even if that was just due to Kobe being a consistent 20-25 ppg even in his "bad" series, he still showed up pretty consistently.

I mean think about this for example, how much different is the momentum in the 2002 WCF if Horry misses that 3? Or how much different is it in '95 if Anderson hits just 1 free throw to close out that game?

97 bulls

08-01-2011, 11:20 PM

You ever think that Shaq won with less talent from 2000-2002 because he had become a better player from age 27-30 then he was in his early/mid 20's? That's usually the case, or that he had a better coach? Or that while his casts had less weapons and less overall talent/depth, they performed better under pressure? And that Shaq was better playing under pressure due to experience and maturing?
I think this is something were just gonna have to agree to disagree on. Shaqs game never evolved as much as your trying to make it seem. Sure he developed a nice jumphook, but his game was still power and brut force. And to me, pre 00s shaq was much more in shape and athletiic.

Shaq really didn't have an opportunity to beat Chicago in 1996 either. Certainly not with the injuries to his team while facing the team with the best record ever.

I can't think of any series from the Lakers 3peat, aside from maybe the 2000 finals(and even then Kobe had the big game 4 and came up big when Shaq fouled out), where Shaq got as little help as he did in the '98 WCF. Even if that was just due to Kobe being a consistent 20-25 ppg even in his "bad" series, he still showed up pretty consistently.

I mean think about this for example, how much different is the momentum in the 2002 WCF if Horry misses that 3? Or how much different is it in '95 if Anderson hits just 1 free throw to close out that game?
Well never know about either outcomes if the scenarios change. But what we do know is that even with grant, the bulls would've trounced the magic. Maybe ill give them one game. And even without grant, the magic had a better team than the lakers.

Don't get me wrong shaqattack. Shaq would be the most dominant player in this matchup, but he's not the best player. That's still jordan. And kobe and pippen are a wash. They have noone to keep rodman off the boards, they have noone to stop kukoc, and the bulls have very good jumpshooting centers to pull shaq away from the paint. And shaq is a non factor in the 4th. So it becomes jordan and pippen vs kobe.

lefthook00

08-01-2011, 11:28 PM

2001 Shaq > 1996 MJ
2001 Kobe > 1996 Pippen

It doesn't always work out like that.

Wade+LeBron > Dirk+who ever, who won the ring?

Shaq+Kobe > Any two of the pistons, who won the ring?

I can't pick a winner, either team in 7 games. But I'm rooting for the Lakers.

Eric Cartman

08-01-2011, 11:30 PM

LA couldn't even beat Portland properly, on the other hand that Chicago team doesn't have anything atleast to slow down Shaq.

My guess is your thinking 2000-2001 Lakers. 2001-2002 Lakers beat the sh*t out of everyone in dominating style.

d.bball.guy

08-01-2011, 11:39 PM

Ron Harper and Phil Jackson wins.

ShaqAttack3234

08-01-2011, 11:40 PM

Well never know about either outcomes if the scenarios change. But what we do know is that even with grant, the bulls would've trounced the magic. Maybe ill give them one game. And even without grant, the magic had a better team than the lakers.

Don't get me wrong shaqattack. Shaq would be the most dominant player in this matchup, but he's not the best player. That's still jordan. And kobe and pippen are a wash. They have noone to keep rodman off the boards, they have noone to stop kukoc, and the bulls have very good jumpshooting centers to pull shaq away from the paint. And shaq is a non factor in the 4th. So it becomes jordan and pippen vs kobe.

Shaq certainly wasn't in better shape in 1996 than 2001. 1996 was the first year Shaq bulked up and he reported to camp at 332 pounds and spent a good chunk of the season injured.

Shaq as a scorer was pretty close. He always had the jump hook, but the short one-handed turnaround he added and continued to get better at made him a better scorer in his Laker days.

His passing definitely improved, he was already good at that by his 3rd year in Orlando and showing signs in his second year, but ask Phil, he'll tell you how much Shaq improved his passing when he coached him.

He was also a better defensive player during the 3peat and he was more committed to rebounding in 2001 than 1996.

Shaq averaged 11 rpg in 36 mpg in 1996 and had a TRB% of 17.8%. While he didn't improve that much in the 2001 regular season averaging 12.7 rpg in 39.5 mpg for a TRB% of 18.1%, look at the difference in the playoffs.

1996- 10 rpg, 16.5 TRB% 38.3 mpg
2001- 15.4 rpg, 19.8 TRB%, 42.3 mpg

And that's while averaging nearly 5 more ppg. And if you want to talk about opposing big men, he definitely faced better big men in his 2001 run than 1996.

I think it's pretty obvious that he was better in 2001, his game was better and he was more durable that year.

As far as athleticism? His first 2, maybe 3 seasons in the NBA were his most athletic, but the noticeable decline didn't really come until after his second championship. For a guy 7'1" and between 325-340 pounds, he was running and jumping very well in 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xREPAcRSpE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymhEWrLDXYA#t=3m10s

As far as most dominant? To me, that means the same thing as best, which is why I don't call Shaq the most dominant ever, because I don't think he's the best player ever. But I do think that 2001 Shaq was a better player than 1996 Jordan.

97 bulls

08-01-2011, 11:54 PM

Shaq certainly wasn't in better shape in 1996 than 2001. 1996 was the first year Shaq bulked up and he reported to camp at 332 pounds and spent a good chunk of the season injured.

Shaq as a scorer was pretty close. He always had the jump hook, but the short one-handed turnaround he added and continued to get better at made him a better scorer in his Laker days.

His passing definitely improved, he was already good at that by his 3rd year in Orlando and showing signs in his second year, but ask Phil, he'll tell you how much Shaq improved his passing when he coached him.

He was also a better defensive player during the 3peat and he was more committed to rebounding in 2001 than 1996.

Shaq averaged 11 rpg in 36 mpg in 1996 and had a TRB% of 17.8%. While he didn't improve that much in the 2001 regular season averaging 12.7 rpg in 39.5 mpg for a TRB% of 18.1%, look at the difference in the playoffs.

1996- 10 rpg, 16.5 TRB% 38.3 mpg
2001- 15.4 rpg, 19.8 TRB%, 42.3 mpg

And that's while averaging nearly 5 more ppg. And if you want to talk about opposing big men, he definitely faced better big men in his 2001 run than 1996.

I think it's pretty obvious that he was better in 2001, his game was better and he was more durable that year.

As far as athleticism? His first 2, maybe 3 seasons in the NBA were his most athletic, but the noticeable decline didn't really come until after his second championship. For a guy 7'1" and between 325-340 pounds, he was running and jumping very well in 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xREPAcRSpE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymhEWrLDXYA#t=3m10s

As far as most dominant? To me, that means the same thing as best, which is why I don't call Shaq the most dominant ever, because I don't think he's the best player ever. But I do think that 2001 Shaq was a better player than 1996 Jordan.
Your comparing stats that are 5 years apart. Shaq should had a better rebounding % cuz his competition was a lot worse.

And domminant doesn't mean the best. That just the way he played. Think of tyson (shaq) and ali (jordan). Tyson was more domiant, but ali was the better fighter.

dee-rose

08-02-2011, 12:03 AM

Ron Harper and Phil Jackson wins.
Smart man.:applause:

In all honesty though, I'd take the Bulls in 6-7.
There's no way of stopping Shaq but Pippen would do a great job on Kobe and Mj would get his. Everyone talks about the two best players but it goes a lot further then that. Toni Kukoc > everyone on the lakers not named Shaq/Kobe

97 bulls

08-02-2011, 12:11 AM

Smart man.:applause:

In all honesty though, I'd take the Bulls in 6-7.
There's no way of stopping Shaq but Pippen would do a great job on Kobe and Mj would get his. Everyone talks about the two best players but it goes a lot further then that. Toni Kukoc > everyone on the lakers not named Shaq/Kobe
And don't forget rodman. The lakers don't have an answer for four guys. The bulls 1.

DuMa

08-02-2011, 12:21 AM

i just have this feeling if phil jackson was ever going to get the opportunity to coach against himself in a playoff series, he would find the certain irony in the matchup. the winner would be determined in collusion of both jacksons, for their personal preference of players. and its pretty evident phil likes MJ more.

ShaqAttack3234

08-02-2011, 12:21 AM

Your comparing stats that are 5 years apart. Shaq should had a better rebounding % cuz his competition was a lot worse.

And domminant doesn't mean the best. That just the way he played. Think of tyson (shaq) and ali (jordan). Tyson was more domiant, but ali was the better fighter.

It's the exact opposite you blind 90's fanboy. If anything, it was harder to put up numbers in the early 2000's than in the mid 90s'.

Even with your idiotic insistence, that "better" big men will always make it harder to put up numbers(without ever factoring in team defenses and how individuals match up), the big men he faced in the 2001 run were undeniably better and Shaq was the leading rebounder every single series. He outrebounded Mutombo by 3.6 boards per game in the 2001 finals, and not only had Mutombo led the NBA in rebounding with 13.5 that year, but Philly was a great rebounding team who had outrebounded opponents by 4 boards per game during the regular season.

Every team he faced that postseason had a big frontline and were an above average defensive team(including 2 top 5 defensive teams) and every single team he faced had at least 1 all-star big man.

He had more rebounds than Duncan or Robinson in the WCF, he had 15.7 rpg vs Portland's big and physical frontline and he had 17.3 rpg vs Sacramento(while averaging 33.3 ppg, 3.3 bpg, 60 FG%, btw) and Chris Webber(the league's leading rebounder 2 seasons earlier) didn't come close at 12.8.

Shaq crushed great defenses and big quality frontlines throughout the 2001 playoffs. That's all there is to it.

Samurai Swoosh

08-02-2011, 12:27 AM

If anything, it was harder to put up numbers in the early 2000's than in the mid 90s'.
I wouldn't say that at all ...

Mr. I'm So Rad

08-02-2011, 12:38 AM

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc185/Strikeninja95/popcorn_yes.gif

Blzrfn

08-02-2011, 01:00 AM

96 Bulls in 4. No contest.

The 2001 Lakers were overrated.

97 bulls

08-02-2011, 01:14 AM

It's the exact opposite you blind 90's fanboy. If anything, it was harder to put up numbers in the early 2000's than in the mid 90s'.

Even with your idiotic insistence, that "better" big men will always make it harder to put up numbers(without ever factoring in team defenses and how individuals match up), the big men he faced in the 2001 run were undeniably better and Shaq was the leading rebounder every single series. He outrebounded Mutombo by 3.6 boards per game in the 2001 finals, and not only had Mutombo led the NBA in rebounding with 13.5 that year, but Philly was a great rebounding team who had outrebounded opponents by 4 boards per game during the regular season.

Every team he faced that postseason had a big frontline and were an above average defensive team(including 2 top 5 defensive teams) and every single team he faced had at least 1 all-star big man.

He had more rebounds than Duncan or Robinson in the WCF, he had 15.7 rpg vs Portland's big and physical frontline and he had 17.3 rpg vs Sacramento(while averaging 33.3 ppg, 3.3 bpg, 60 FG%, btw) and Chris Webber(the league's leading rebounder 2 seasons earlier) didn't come close at 12.8.

Shaq crushed great defenses and big quality frontlines throughout the 2001 playoffs. That's all there is to it.
First of all, stop the insults. I have a point of view just like you. The fact that your reducing yourself to this is a direct sign that I'm winning this debate.

If you reread my first post, I said the problem wasn't shaqs offense. It was his defense. Him constantly going against the an old divacs, an old sabonis, an old robinson, an old smits, and an old mutombo, meant he didn't need to do much on defense. Truth be told, the best center he faced, was 6'9 ben wallace. And ben wallace had an amazing series against him. And won.

So all those stats your quoting are great, but like everything, you must put it into context. Shaq feasted on a bunch of past prime over the hill centers. And the best you can do is start to include the power forwards the lakers faced.

sekachu

08-02-2011, 01:49 AM

LA couldn't even beat Portland properly, on the other hand that Chicago team doesn't have anything atleast to slow down Shaq.

Shaq is unstoppable, but people forgot how insane the bulls help defense was, With MJ, Pippen, harper, their hands will be all over around shaq, strip the ball, forcing turnover....These 3 guys were really good hand than you can imagine. More than that, they were quick enough to recover their opponent if shaq was forced to pass it out. About Rodman, we all know how dirty he was, he ll do anything to stop shaq with his little cheat moves. His acting and mind game will be the most significant problem for shaq. As for kobe, he ll get his points either against pippen or MJ but it wont be efficiency against two of the best perimeter defender. On the other side, kobe would be having difficulty guarding MJ or pippen in the post. let along MJ, even pippen literally abused kobe in the post.

I ll take bulls in 4-2 win

ShaqAttack3234

08-02-2011, 01:54 AM

First of all, stop the insults. I have a point of view just like you. The fact that your reducing yourself to this is a direct sign that I'm winning this debate.

If you reread my first post, I said the problem wasn't shaqs offense. It was his defense. Him constantly going against the an old divacs, an old sabonis, an old robinson, an old smits, and an old mutombo, meant he didn't need to do much on defense. Truth be told, the best center he faced, was 6'9 ben wallace. And ben wallace had an amazing series against him. And won.

So all those stats your quoting are great, but like everything, you must put it into context. Shaq feasted on a bunch of past prime over the hill centers. And the best you can do is start to include the power forwards the lakers faced.

First of all, post defense wasn't Shaq's problem, he's always been a good post defender. Centers like Divac, Robinson and Sabonis were considered potential match up problems for Shaq because they could all shoot, and Shaq didn't like to go too far out of the post.

I've seen Shaq guard Duncan well on a number of occasions as well.

And no, you're not winning this debate, that's obvious. If you knew anything about Shaq, you'd know that the centers who were the best match ups were legit 7 footers with bulk who could prevent him from getting the best position(so that the double could come) and guys who could step out and shoot, particularly Sabonis who had 3 point range.

Bring-Your-Js

08-02-2011, 02:36 AM

Shaq certainly wasn't in better shape in 1996 than 2001. 1996 was the first year Shaq bulked up and he reported to camp at 332 pounds and spent a good chunk of the season injured.

Shaq as a scorer was pretty close. He always had the jump hook, but the short one-handed turnaround he added and continued to get better at made him a better scorer in his Laker days.

His passing definitely improved, he was already good at that by his 3rd year in Orlando and showing signs in his second year, but ask Phil, he'll tell you how much Shaq improved his passing when he coached him.

He was also a better defensive player during the 3peat and he was more committed to rebounding in 2001 than 1996.

Shaq averaged 11 rpg in 36 mpg in 1996 and had a TRB% of 17.8%. While he didn't improve that much in the 2001 regular season averaging 12.7 rpg in 39.5 mpg for a TRB% of 18.1%, look at the difference in the playoffs.

1996- 10 rpg, 16.5 TRB% 38.3 mpg
2001- 15.4 rpg, 19.8 TRB%, 42.3 mpg

And that's while averaging nearly 5 more ppg. And if you want to talk about opposing big men, he definitely faced better big men in his 2001 run than 1996.

I think it's pretty obvious that he was better in 2001, his game was better and he was more durable that year.

As far as athleticism? His first 2, maybe 3 seasons in the NBA were his most athletic, but the noticeable decline didn't really come until after his second championship. For a guy 7'1" and between 325-340 pounds, he was running and jumping very well in 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xREPAcRSpE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymhEWrLDXYA#t=3m10s

As far as most dominant? To me, that means the same thing as best, which is why I don't call Shaq the most dominant ever, because I don't think he's the best player ever. But I do think that 2001 Shaq was a better player than 1996 Jordan.

Heh, he isnt too far off. That he's "7'1, 325" doesn't change the fact that he has a massive impact on the court. It's a big man's game, and no coincidence any Top 10 or 15 list is stacked to the brim with primarily Centers and Forwards.

97 bulls

08-02-2011, 03:16 AM

First of all, post defense wasn't Shaq's problem, he's always been a good post defender. Centers like Divac, Robinson and Sabonis were considered potential match up problems for Shaq because they could all shoot, and Shaq didn't like to go too far out of the post.

I've seen Shaq guard Duncan well on a number of occasions as well.

And no, you're not winning this debate, that's obvious. If you knew anything about Shaq, you'd know that the centers who were the best match ups were legit 7 footers with bulk who could prevent him from getting the best position(so that the double could come) and guys who could step out and shoot, particularly Sabonis who had 3 point range.
Lol I've watched shaq. Like I said, I think he's great. But his competition was at best mediocre. Which means he didn't have to do much on defense. Hell people attack the SGs jordan faced. And he faced guys like dumars, annderson, drexler, starks, hawkins, majrle, and hornacek.

And I agree that the best way to matchup with shaq was to have a center that could hit a jumpshot. Going back to this matchup, longley had a very good jumpshot from 19 feet out. Which helped jordan and pippen when they were posting up. And he had size to at least give shaq a workout. And the bulls backup center wennington, also had a solid jupshot and was big and strong.I just don't see how the lakers could overccome so many matchup problems.

eliteballer

08-02-2011, 03:23 AM

This ISHiot 97 Bulls:oldlol: As if Shaq didnt prove himself with monsters numbers in the 90's. Hell, the guy was voted as a 50 greatest in 96 after 4 years in the league.

As if the shooting guards Jordan was facing in his playoff runs(tracy murray, starks etc) were some superstars.

Because dan majerle is a tougher defensive matchup than Mutombo.

Bring-Your-Js

08-02-2011, 03:39 AM

Shaq's 2000-2002 run among other things, is forever etched into NBA history and its among the greatest of the greatest. It didn't come when teams averaged 130-possessions per game, didn't come when there were 71 Rebounds available... dude 3-Peated as 'The Man' with a historically dominant Finals each time.

madmax

08-02-2011, 04:47 AM

Peak Shaq would be too much for any 90's team...LA sweep is very possible and probably even inevitable

Odinn

08-02-2011, 05:10 AM

2001 Shaq-Kobe duo > 1996 Jordan-Pippen duo

But, 1996 Bulls were the better one. Supporting casts matter.

DMAVS41

08-02-2011, 05:10 AM

Smoke117

08-02-2011, 05:40 AM

The 2001 Lakers team is so overrated. That 2001 season was probably the worst the league had ever been as far as quality teams. Defense's weren't necessarily so much better in the early 00's then it was that it was a transitional period in the early 00's and teams just plain weren't that good. Just look at that Sixers and those two Nets teams that made it to the finals? Both of those teams would be crushed by the Heat, Celtics and Bulls of this past season.

Bring-Your-Js

08-02-2011, 05:47 AM

I have no idea who would win. I think the safe play is to not bet against MJ, but the 01 Lakers have one of the very few players in the history of the game that might be the best player on the floor in a series with MJ.

It would be a fascinating series to watch.

I think people forget just how dominant/great Shaq was at that time....and Kobe was playing elite ball on both ends as well. The question would be whether or not they could keep that up playing an all time great team like the 96 Bulls.

I'll lean towards MJ coming through in game 6 or 7....but it would be close.

Who else would you have in mind, Olajuwon? Who compared to O'Neal was better defensively, more skilled offensively with abilities to take over down the stretch much like an MJ, Kobe, Dirk, Bird; a much better FT shooter (matters in crunch time).... the skillset really does it for me. Keem was deadly whether in low post or face up 15-18ft from the basket. He could get looks at will, anytime he wanted.

All Net

08-02-2011, 07:08 AM

I think it would go the distance with lakers winning

Shaq would of had a field day

Doranku

08-02-2011, 07:11 AM

I have no idea who would win. I think the safe play is to not bet against MJ, but the 01 Lakers have one of the very few players in the history of the game that might be the best player on the floor in a series with MJ.

It would be a fascinating series to watch.

I think people forget just how dominant/great Shaq was at that time....and Kobe was playing elite ball on both ends as well. The question would be whether or not they could keep that up playing an all time great team like the 96 Bulls.

I'll lean towards MJ coming through in game 6 or 7....but it would be close.

I don't think there's ever a safe bet to be made with Michael Jordan on one side of the floor and prime Shaq on the other.

That being said, it'd be an extremely close series to call. But hey, Shaq beat him before. Give me the 2001 Lakers in 6-7.