Shaqs prime years

[The Iron Fist]

when were they?

[32Dayz]

Prime = 95-02
Peak = 00-02

04 and 05 Regular Season would also be close to Prime Shaq (imo)

Prime Shaq was gone for good after that severe thigh injury at the end of the 05 RS.
Although he still had some Dominant series in the 05 and 06 Playoffs and a very good regular season in 06.

[The Iron Fist]

Prime = 95-02
Peak = 00-02

04 and 05 Regular Season would also be close to Prime Shaq (imo)

Prime Shaq was gone for good after that severe thigh injury at the end of the 05 RS.
Although he still had some Dominant series in the 05 and 06 Playoffs and a very good regular season in 06.
So, if anyone "could win with a prime Shaq",


where are the 95 to 99 titles?

[32Dayz]

So, if anyone "could win with a prime Shaq",


where are the 95 to 99 titles?

Teams win Championships not individuals.

3rd Year Shaq had a good team in 95 and they made the Finalz.
3rd Year Shaq almost played Prime Hakeem to a Wash but his roleplayers got outplayed so they lost.

Shaq had nothing but trash in the Late 90's.

He didn't have a single player on his team to help support him 0ffensively when he got swarmed.

He was still the best player in most of the series they lost in.

[The Iron Fist]

Teams win Championships not individuals.

3rd Year Shaq had a good team in 95 and they made the Finalz.
3rd Year Shaq almost played Prime Hakeem to a Wash but his roleplayers got outplayed so they lost.

Shaq had nothing but trash in the Late 90's.

He didn't have a single player on his team to help support him 0ffensively when he got swarmed.

He was still the best player in most of the series they lost in.


So why come people always say, "Kobe had a prime Shaq, replace him with so and so, and the Lakers still win 3 in a row".


You just said Shaqs prime years started in 95.

Where are the other titles?

[32Dayz]

So why come people always say, "Kobe had a prime Shaq, replace him with so and so, and the Lakers still win 3 in a row".


You just said Shaqs prime years started in 95.

Where are the other titles?

Are you retarded?

No player can win alone, Shaq had garbage Casts in the late 90's so his teams didnt contend. He still was incredibly dominant and played very well in the playoffs outside of maybe 97 and 99.


When Shaq got swept in the playoffs it was usually because his supporting Casts sucked bawls and played terribly.

Pretty much every ATGreat has lost 6+ times in the playoffs.

Shaq only once failed to lead his team past the first round while most ATGreats have lost multiple times in the 1st round.

Its better to get swept in the 2nd Round, CNFinalz or Finalz then it is to lose in 5-7 games in the first round.

If Jordan was so great how come he lost 7 times in the playoffs.
How come he got swept 3 times in the first round?
How come he got swept by the Shaq led Magic in 95?

Trying to judge individuals by team failures or even successes is very stupid imo.

Shaq was usually the best player in those series in which they lost

[Micku]

Teams win Championships not individuals.

3rd Year Shaq had a good team in 95 and they made the Finalz.
3rd Year Shaq almost played Prime Hakeem to a Wash but his roleplayers got outplayed so they lost.

Shaq had nothing but trash in the Late 90's.

He didn't have a single player on his team to help support him 0ffensively when he got swarmed.

He was still the best player in most of the series they lost in.


I wouldn't say that he had nothing but trash. He had a good team with the Magic and the Lakers in the mid to late 90s. Especially in 1996 with Penny, Grant and himself.

The Lakers were talented too in the 90s. Eddie Jones, a young Kobe, Nick Van Excel and few others. They were just too arrogant and didn't know how to play team ball at times.

Shaq played every well in the Finals in 95. The team couldn't pull it out. The next year he faced one of the best teams in NBA history, and the Bulls went on another 3 peat.

[32Dayz]

Kobe's Production and Impact outside of Maybe 01 was not that specactular and could have been replaced with a large number of guards.

Shaq's production from 98-02 can only be matched by MJ.

There are maybe 2-3 Centers in the history of the game who come even remotely close to his Production those years.

Shaq >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kobe from 00-02.
Playoff PER

A's (Main Star) :
Shaq (00-02) : 29
Jordan (91-93 + 96-98) : 28.53

B's (Side-Kicks) :
Kobe (00-02) : 21
Pippen (91-93 + 96-98) : 19.5

The difference is clear and obvious.

If you give Shaq
TMac, Wade, Lebron, Pierce, Allen, Carter, Iverson or really just one or two players that can provide some 0ffensive support for him in the playoffs when he gets double and triple teamed you will have a contender.

[32Dayz]

I wouldn't say that he had nothing but trash. He had a good team with the Magic and the Lakers in the mid to late 90s. Especially in 1996 with Penny, Grant and himself.

The Lakers were talented too in the 90s. Eddie Jones, a young Kobe, Nick Van Excel and few others. They were just too arrogant and didn't know how to play team ball at times.

Shaq played every well in the Finals in 95. The team couldn't pull it out. The next year he faced one of the best teams in NBA history, and the Bulls went on another 3 peat.

Maybe on paper they looked decent but Young Kobe, Van Exel and Rice consistently played like hot trash in the playoffs especially in the series where they got eliminated in.

Shaq would be getting swarmed and they could do nothing but brick shot after shot.
If one of them could of stepped up and provided a consistent 2nd option for Shaq 0ffensively those teams would have contended for the title yearly.

They also had poor coaching and chemistry at times.

@Micku : I do agree he had a decent team in 96 but outside of Penny none of the roleplayers really played well and losing to the 96 Bullz is understandable.

[Sarcastic]

So, if anyone "could win with a prime Shaq",


where are the 95 to 99 titles?

Who said "anyone could win with prime Shaq"?

[32Dayz]

Who said "anyone could win with prime Shaq"?

No one did but give Shaq from 95-02 a decent second option or one or two players that can consistently provide 0ffense when teams swarm him in the Playoffs and your basically guaranteed a Finalz appearance.

Its really sad how many of his best years were wasted surrounded by Trash or Regular Season All-Stars.

[Micku]

Maybe on paper they looked decent but Young Kobe, Van Exel and Rice consistently played like hot trash in the playoffs especially in the series where they got eliminated in.

Shaq would be getting swarmed and they could do nothing but brick shot after shot.
If one of them could of stepped up and provided a consistent 2nd option for Shaq 0ffensively those teams would have contended for the title yearly.

They also had poor coaching and chemistry at times.

@Micku : I do agree he had a decent team in 96 but outside of Penny none of the roleplayers really played well and losing to the 96 Bullz is understandable.

They did suck in the playoffs, but they did have more talent than a lot of other teams. Nick Van Exel was always more style than substance and efficiency. Eddie Jones was a solid player all around, and Kobe was young. Campbell was solid and they got Horry too. I wouldn't call them trash, and they definitely had talent. But they didn't play as a team and they played selfish sometimes.

But I felt that they had a lot of talent, but they couldn't execute it in the playoffs against the higher tier teams. And never lost to crappy teams. They just got schooled by championship contender teams. The Jazz and the Spurs schooled them. Like the Lakers had more talent than the Spurs in 1999, but the Spurs were a better team IMO.

[32Dayz]

I hated Van Exel.

I always knew secretly he wanted to be "The Man" on those teams and he failed so badly in trying for it.

If they had been coached better and utilized correctly those teams might have done better but you cant really blame that on Oneal.

Part of having a good Cast is having a Coach who can use it correctly.

Either way each player has to take the blame on himself.

Kobe, Van E and Eddie J all did play terribly and thats on them mostly.

Cant blame Shaq that they couldn't knock down their shots.

outside of 97 and 99 Shaq was always incredibly Dominant and usually the best player in the series even when they lost.

[Micku]

I hated Van Exel.

I always knew secretly he wanted to be "The Man" on those teams and he failed so badly in trying for it.

If they had been coached better and utilized correctly those teams might have done better but you cant really blame that on Oneal.

Part of having a good Cast is having a Coach who can use it correctly.

Either way each player has to take the blame on himself.

Kobe, Van E and Eddie J all did play terribly and thats on them mostly.

Cant blame Shaq that they couldn't knock down their shots.

outside of 97 and 99 Shaq was always incredibly Dominant and usually the best player in the series even when they lost.

Eddie Jones was solid in the playoffs. Kobe and Nick Van Exel didn't play too well.

I don't really blame Shaq as much as I blame the team and coaching. They just got outplayed by better teams, that's all. Shaq was still a great player and he had talent on his teams in the 90s, it just that they couldn't play together to beat the elite teams.

[32Dayz]

Eddie Jones was solid in the playoffs. Kobe and Nick Van Exel didn't play too well.

I don't really blame Shaq as much as I blame the team and coaching. They just got outplayed by better teams, that's all. Shaq was still a great player and he had talent on his teams in the 90s, it just that they couldn't play together to beat the elite teams.

Not really.

I can remember Eddie playing "decently" in one elimination series in the Late 90's
The other ones I am pretty sure he was mediocre to just plain bad like the rest of the crew.

[Micku]

Not really.

I can remember Eddie playing "decently" in one elimination series in the Late 90's
The other ones I am pretty sure he was mediocre to just plain bad like the rest of the crew.

You can check his stats for the playoffs.

1997: 11.2 ppg on 45.8% FG 57.8% TS

1998: 17.0 ppg on 46.6% FG 60.9% TS

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jonesed02.html

You might be right on the elimination series tho. But he played ok. He was the Lakers second best player, and he was a solid player. Always has been. You shouldn't expect TOO much from the guy, but he'll give your 15-20 ppg.

[iamgine]

So why come people always say, "Kobe had a prime Shaq, replace him with so and so, and the Lakers still win 3 in a row".


You just said Shaqs prime years started in 95.

Where are the other titles?
That was strictly for the year 00-02 when the competition wasn't that good.

If they replace Kobe, they might have won more.

[magnax1]

98-03. 98 was the first year he really had that turn around mutilated jumpshot down (I don't know what else to call it lol) You could maybe add 05 in there, or take away 03.

[The Iron Fist]

Who said "anyone could win with prime Shaq"?
You obviously haven't read boards for a very long time. It has been said for about a decade now.

[The Iron Fist]

That was strictly for the year 00-02 when the competition wasn't that good.

If they replace Kobe, they might have won more.


So now the competition wasn't that good?

So how does that make Shaq so great then?

[iamgine]

So now the competition wasn't that good?

So how does that make Shaq so great then?
Because he killed the good competition before that. Only his team wasn't good enough.

[Jacks3]

If they replace Kobe, they might have won more.
:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq's true prime was '98-'02 and extended prime was '95-'03. The '99 lockout year being the oddseason in between where he was below his other prime seasons. He definitely had talented teams during that time, more talented than the 3peat, but they weren't as well built, and Shaq for the most part, wasn't as good of a leader or playoff performer before Phil got there. However, Shaq was great in the '98 playoffs and his team more or less crumbled that year. Particularly Van Exel who shot 24% in the WCF and supposedly was talking about his vacation plans during a timeout in the elimination game. Jones was mediocre in the Utah series as well averaging 15 ppg on 41% shooting and has had a reputation as a playoff choker.

Shaq was disappointing in the '97 and '99 playoffs, though. Great 1st round series each season, but poor semifinals.

[TheFan]

So why come people always say, "Kobe had a prime Shaq, replace him with so and so, and the Lakers still win 3 in a row".


You just said Shaqs prime years started in 95.

Where are the other titles?

also he missed many games in that period...

95-96 54 games played
96-97 51 games played
97-98 60 games played

[magnax1]

Shaq's true prime was '98-'02 and extended prime was '95-'03. The '99 lockout year being the oddseason in between where he was below his other prime seasons. He definitely had talented teams during that time, more talented than the 3peat, but they weren't as well built, and Shaq for the most part, wasn't as good of a leader or playoff performer before Phil got there. However, Shaq was great in the '98 playoffs and his team more or less crumbled that year. Particularly Van Exel who shot 24% in the WCF and supposedly was talking about his vacation plans during a timeout in the elimination game. Jones was mediocre in the Utah series as well averaging 15 ppg on 41% shooting and has had a reputation as a playoff choker.

Shaq was disappointing in the '97 and '99 playoffs, though. Great 1st round series each season, but poor semifinals.
I definitely wouldn't say he was much worse in 99 then 98. He played less minutes, and probably was worse on defense, but I don't think he was really much worse overall. If you gave him the same minutes, he'd probably come really close to equaling his 98 production in 99.

[PTB Fan]

95-05. He was remarkable in those years. 00-03 was his peak IMO.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I definitely wouldn't say he was much worse in 99 then 98. He played less minutes, and probably was worse on defense, but I don't think he was really much worse overall. If you gave him the same minutes, he'd probably come really close to equaling his 98 production in 99.

He was a clear step below in '99. One reason is his defense as you mentioned, and just overall laziness, similar to '03 vs '02, except he was better in '03 than '99.

He was also much better in the '98 playoffs than the '99 playoffs, and there's no excuse for a 26/27 year old Shaq not even playing 35 mpg in '99. His team also underachieved in the '99 season.

Granted, some of these things probably had to do with the lockout, but the result was still a '99 season completely inferior to his '98 season.

The only years that Shaq was clearly better than he was in '98 were '00 and '01, maybe '02 as well. While '99 is not in the discussion for one of his top 5 seasons.

[TheFan]

imo

prime: Athletic prime, when the player is at his best athletically, which is 21-23 years old for most human beings.

peak: when a players understand the game and he is still a very athletic guy.

when your past your 23 - 25 your body start a slow process of deterioration.

for example: 23 years old Jordan is a better athlete than 28 years old Jordan, but because 28 years Jordan is still a damn great athlete and have a better understanding of the game, 28 years old Jordan is a better player.

Having this in mind.

Shaq prime: First 3 years in the league
Shaq peak: 98 - 2003.

[AlphaWolf24]

So, if anyone "could win with a prime Shaq",


where are the 95 to 99 titles?

He had many many many great teams outside of the Lakers....not sure why that other F@qqit is saying "teams" win.....Snaq had many great "teams" and lost over and over again.




outside of playing with the 2nd greatest SG and top 5 alltime player Kobe Bean.....

his career is a huge waste IMO.....the man had all the tools to be much better then his career ended up being....


lack of work ethic and discipline made him waste alot of his physical talent...

[32Dayz]

Shaq the great had many great "teams" and lost over and over again.

his career is a huge waste IMO.....the man had all the tools to be much better then his career ended up being....


lack of work ethic and discipline made him waste alot of his physical talent...

Actually outside of 95,96 Shaq didn't have a single player beside him in the 90's that could consistently knock down a shot or provide 0ffense beside him in the playoffs.

I dont know how you could say he had good or even decent casts outside of those two years considering that.

When they did lose in 95 it was due to the failure of his supporting Cast.
in 96 his Cast outside of Penny played terribly even worse then they did in the previous year but losing to the 96 bullz is not exactly shameful especially with Shaq being the best player in that series even in defeat.

His Career was a huge waste?
99% of people rank him from 4-7 on the GOAT list and he is one of the few players with a legitmate argument as the GOAT.
He is the 2nd best playoff performer in the history of the game after Jordan and is top 3-4 in most statistical catergorys when your looking at the greats in the playoffs.
Greatest Finals performer of all Time.

Bean is nothing but a Joke or a used daiper in comparison to the great Oneal and if not for riding him for 8 years he probably wouldnt even be considered a top 15 player. No one ranks Kobe in the top 5 and practically no one ranks him above 9 or 10.

Also one of the bigger reasons the late 90's Lakers sucked was due to the failure of Kobe in the playoffs and his consistent and epic brick laying partys.

[ShaqAttack3234]

basically the years he played with kobe. otherwise he was a worthless of sack of shit

Are you and the Iron Fist really trying to twist this into a "Kobe made Shaq" sort of thing?

That becomes even more laughable when you consider 2000 when the gap between Shaq and Kobe was massive and he led the team to a 12-3 record without Kobe and he carried them in the finals with Kobe only playing well in game 4 and essentially missing 2 games.

Those who discredit players to support their own agenda are idiots regardless. I say the same things when clowns try to diminish Kobe with Gasol, or those who act like he was an expendable role player with Shaq.

Shaq started playing with Kobe at 24, and he was 32 by the time he wasn't playing with Kobe anymore. I'm not sure why it should surprise us that he played most of his best ball from age 24-32.

And why is he expected to win a title every year? He won 3 as the man on his team, that's a lot. Bird also won 3. Magic won only 2 as the clear man on the team, 3 if you think he was better than Kareem in '85. Why didn't they win more if 3 is so insignificant? I could go down the list of top 10 greats with the exception of Russell and Jordan and Duncan, the only players to win more than 3 as the undisputed best player. Kareem is debatable as well because of '85 and he's arguably the best player ever.

It's not easy to win titles.

[JMT]

Next thread will be about his last 5 seasons:

Shaq's Prime Rib Years

[32Dayz]

Next thread will be about his last 5 seasons:

Shaq's Prime Rib Years

http://oregoncommentator.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/funny-sports-pictures-asante-troll-face-nfl-football-philadelphia-daniels-eagles-u-mad.jpg

Playoff PER

A's (Main Star) :
Shaq (00-02) : 29
Jordan (91-93 + 96-98) : 28.53

B's (Side-Kicks) :
Kobe (00-02) : 21
Pippen (91-93 + 96-98) : 19.5

The difference is clear and obvious.

Comparison Between Kobe/Gasol in 2010.

Regular Season PER / WShares
Gasol : 22.9 ||| 11
Kobe : 21.9 ||| 9.4

Playoff PER / WShares
Gasol : 24 ||| 4.7
Kobe : 24.7 ||| 3.6

2010 Playoff Summary.
Gasol better in 12/23 Games.
Kobe better in 10/23 Games.

Gasol >= Kobe in 2010

Kobe Stan's = :mad:

[JMT]

[Playoff PER

A's (Main Star) :
Shaq (00-02) : 29
Jordan (91-93 + 96-98) : 28.53

B's (Side-Kicks) :
Kobe (00-02) : 21
Pippen (91-93 + 96-98) : 19.5

The difference is clear and obvious.

Comparison Between Kobe/Gasol in 2010.

Regular Season PER / WShares
Gasol : 22.9 ||| 11
Kobe : 21.9 ||| 9.4

Playoff PER / WShares
Gasol : 24 ||| 4.7
Kobe : 24.7 ||| 3.6

2010 Playoff Summary.
Gasol better in 12/23 Games.
Kobe better in 10/23 Games.

Gasol >= Kobe in 2010

Kobe Stan's = :mad:

It's a joke, sweetheart. Unbunch your panties.

[32Dayz]

It's a joke, sweetheart. Unbunch your panties.

Ah... good one. :cheers:

[rodman91]

94-2005.

[AlphaWolf24]

Actually outside of 95,96 Shaq didn't have a single player beside him in the 90's that could consistently knock down a shot or provide 0ffense beside him in the playoffs.

I dont know how you could say he had good or even decent casts outside of those two years considering that.

When they did lose in 95 it was due to the failure of his supporting Cast.
in 96 his Cast outside of Penny played terribly even worse then they did in the previous year but losing to the 96 bullz is not exactly shameful especially with Shaq being the best player in that series even in defeat.

His Career was a huge waste?
99% of people rank him from 4-7 on the GOAT list and he is one of the few players with a legitmate argument as the GOAT.
He is the 2nd best playoff performer in the history of the game after Jordan and is top 3-4 in most statistical catergorys when your looking at the greats in the playoffs.
Greatest Finals performer of all Time.

Bean is nothing but a Joke or a used daiper in comparison to the great Oneal and if not for riding him for 8 years he probably wouldnt even be considered a top 15 player. No one ranks Kobe in the top 5 and practically no one ranks him above 9 or 10.

Also one of the bigger reasons the late 90's Lakers sucked was due to the failure of Kobe in the playoffs and his consistent and epic brick laying partys.


huh?..by his 3rd year in the NBA he had a championship caliber team....played with Penny , Scott , Anderson and Horace Grant....and still destroyed team chemistry...



came to L.A. and had a allstar back court immediately...couldn't win sh!t until Kobe was a starter and considered the best allaround player/first team all defense.....

won 3 FMVP's against the weak East, while Kobe carried the team in crunchtime and was the best player in 2 outta the 3 REAL NBA Finals ...the Western Conference Finals....

he eventually destroyed team chemistry in L.A.......a few years Later was replaced by a soft Euro who never even won 1 playoff game....Kobe still went to 3 straight Finals...


joined Miami and Lost with Wade , Haslem and Mourning.....won 1 title as a fat wall, while Wade got 37 FT's....the following year he destroyed team chemistry again and won 15 games.....his Big toe was sore or something:confusedshrug:


went to PHX.....destroyed team chemistry with the 2X NBA MVP..they did better without him...

went to Cleveland with the 2X NBA MVP again....still destroyed team chemistry....and left.

went to Boston with KG , Ray , PP and Rondo......they did better without him...





judging on his career.....without Kobe....he's the "Big Disappointment"

[32Dayz]

Kobe = Used Daiper without Shaq.
Kobe + Shaq = Shaq 3x FMVP + MVP

Playoff PER

A's (Main Star) :
Shaq (00-02) : 29
Jordan (91-93 + 96-98) : 28.53

B's (Side-Kicks) :
Kobe (00-02) : 21
Pippen (91-93 + 96-98) : 19.5

The difference is clear and obvious.

Comparison Between Kobe/Gasol in 2010.

Regular Season PER / WShares
Gasol : 22.9 ||| 11
Kobe : 21.9 ||| 9.4

Playoff PER / WShares
Gasol : 24 ||| 4.7
Kobe : 24.7 ||| 3.6

2010 Playoff Summary.
Gasol better in 12/23 Games.
Kobe better in 10/23 Games.

Gasol >= Kobe in 2010
AlphaMutt = :mad:

Kobe has only been the best player on his own team 7/14 years and for 1/5 Championships.

Shaq has been the best player on his team 13/14 years and for 3/4 Championships.

-Owned (Try again Tomorrow)

[The Iron Fist]

The difference is clear and obvious.

)

You're right,



5 has always been better and more than 4.

[32Dayz]

You're right,



5 has always been better and more than 4.

Yup

Russell > Sam Jones > Horry > Jordan > Fisher/Kobe

[ItsTwisted]

Kobe = Used Daiper without Shaq.
Kobe + Shaq = Shaq 3x FMVP + MVP

Playoff PER

A's (Main Star) :
Shaq (00-02) : 29
Jordan (91-93 + 96-98) : 28.53

B's (Side-Kicks) :
Kobe (00-02) : 21
Pippen (91-93 + 96-98) : 19.5

The difference is clear and obvious.

Comparison Between Kobe/Gasol in 2010.

Regular Season PER / WShares
Gasol : 22.9 ||| 11
Kobe : 21.9 ||| 9.4

Playoff PER / WShares
Gasol : 24 ||| 4.7
Kobe : 24.7 ||| 3.6

2010 Playoff Summary.
Gasol better in 12/23 Games.
Kobe better in 10/23 Games.

Gasol >= Kobe in 2010
AlphaMutt = :mad:

Kobe has only been the best player on his own team 7/14 years and for 1/5 Championships.

Shaq has been the best player on his team 13/14 years and for 3/4 Championships.

-Owned (Try again Tomorrow)


Surprise, someone is bringing up stats again. Man you cant mage a logical argument without stats. You still didnt answer me how Shaq qualifies for GOAT, I have been waiting to hear your thoughts ever since you mentioned that ludicrous statement.

Bean is nothing but a Joke or a used daiper in comparison to the great Oneal and if not for riding him for 8 years he probably wouldnt even be considered a top 15 player. No one ranks Kobe in the top 5 and practically no one ranks him above 9 or 10.

Also one of the bigger reasons the late 90's Lakers sucked was due to the failure of Kobe in the playoffs and his consistent and epic brick laying partys.


Wow, and then you tell me in the other thread you are not biased. Just showed how much you know about basketball right there in those two statements along with the GOAT one. What has the " Great ONeal" done since leaving Bryant. Yea thats right, he played with Wade wong a ring(a championship ring thats very questionable due to certain circumstances that I will not go into) , he played on a Suns team very capable of winning but lost, he played on a team with LEBRON and guess what still managed to lose, then he goes to a stacked team like Boston and still doesnt do anything.

I am not trying to descredit Oneal, as I enjoyed watching him and still enjoy him as a player, but come one to say Kobe was useless and it was all Oneal, you must be blind. Whether you like it or not, the minute Kobe got another Big that is productive, he won a championship. I will say the Lakers team over the last 4 years has been stacked, but Kobe and Gasol were still 1 and 2. Oneal had many other superstars besides Kobe and only managed to win with one. Stop with your insecurities or you will become the new laughing stock of the forum.

[magnax1]

He was a clear step below in '99. One reason is his defense as you mentioned, and just overall laziness, similar to '03 vs '02, except he was better in '03 than '99.

He was also much better in the '98 playoffs than the '99 playoffs, and there's no excuse for a 26/27 year old Shaq not even playing 35 mpg in '99. His team also underachieved in the '99 season.

Granted, some of these things probably had to do with the lockout, but the result was still a '99 season completely inferior to his '98 season.

The only years that Shaq was clearly better than he was in '98 were '00 and '01, maybe '02 as well. While '99 is not in the discussion for one of his top 5 seasons.
Like I said before, excluding his defense he seemed like basically the same player to me. If you gave him similar minutes I think he would've basically equaled his 98 production in 99. I'm not saying he wasn't worse, but I don't think there is a big gap there.
Also, I don't really think his team underachieved. They did well in the beginning when they had Rodman, and then he got suspended (IIRC) injuries started to pile up, and there were a couple trades and the team just kind of fell off the map. They probably look better on paper because yes, they were talented, but a lot of the talent they had never really played together.

[32Dayz]

Uhm why is Shaq the GOAT?

Greatest and most unstoppable 0ffensive player the league has ever seen or had.
One of the best defensive C's ever.
2nd greatest playoff performer of all time after Jordan.

I judge players based on Playoff Production/Intagibals and Performances.
In this regards Jordan and Shaq are clearly the Top 2.

I dont even rank Shaq as the GOAT he is #2 behind Jordan.

And btw dont fu***** lecture me with your 72 posts you dumbass rand.

I was obviously mocking a Troll if you really think I equate Bryant to being a used daiper or being useless then your just to stupid to notice whats going on around you.

Winning rings is about consistently having good supporting casts + luck it has no bearing on individual greatness in my book.

As a playoff performer Shaq's 10 best years trump Kobe's best year there is no comparison between the two players.

When Shaq's teams failed it was 99% of the time because of his teammates he was usually the best player on the court in those series.

Also when Oneal and Bryant split seperate Ways Oneal was declining and in the final years of his Prime thats why Bryant had more sucuess. Put Shaq from 95-04 on any team in the late 00's and they are practically guranteed the championship.

even Grandpa Shaq + Wade almost won 2 rings together.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Like I said before, excluding his defense he seemed like basically the same player to me. If you gave him similar minutes I think he would've basically equaled his 98 production in 99. I'm not saying he wasn't worse, but I don't think there is a big gap there.
Also, I don't really think his team underachieved. They did well in the beginning when they had Rodman, and then he got suspended (IIRC) injuries started to pile up, and there were a couple trades and the team just kind of fell off the map. They probably look better on paper because yes, they were talented, but a lot of the talent they had never really played together.

It was a tough year due to the coaching change, Rodman distraction, a big midseason trade during a shortened season ect. So I can understand the struggles, I still think he has to be held accountable to some degree.

The team would've been better off keeping Eddie Jones instead of trading him for Rice as well as keeping Rodman. Having those guys the following year with Phil could've made them even better and an amazing defensive team(they were the best defensive team in 2000 as it was).

[Doctor Rivers]

Greatest and most unstoppable 0ffensive player the league has ever seen or had.

can't really argue with that (in his prime), but he's still not #2 all time

[Doctor Rivers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObgYw_L7FI8

>>

anything Dwight Howard has ever done

[magnax1]

It was a tough year due to the coaching change, Rodman distraction, a big midseason trade during a shortened season ect. So I can understand the struggles, I still think he has to be held accountable to some degree.

The team would've been better off keeping Eddie Jones instead of trading him for Rice as well as keeping Rodman. Having those guys the following year with Phil could've made them even better and an amazing defensive team(they were the best defensive team in 2000 as it was).
Yeah, I definitely agree. If they kept those two, that might've been the best team ever in 00. Especially since Jones had an incredible season in 00. The only problem is that I don't think Jones and Kobe really fit well, but I think that would've been pretty minor.

[EnoughSaid]

That makes D-Wade even more of a beast. :bowdown:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yeah, I definitely agree. If they kept those two, that might've been the best team ever in 00. Especially since Jones had an incredible season in 00. The only problem is that I don't think Jones and Kobe really fit well, but I think that would've been pretty minor.

Yeah, Jones had a career season in 2000(though he continued his disappointing playoff career with a poor series and 1st round exit). With Shaq and Kobe having their best defensive seasons, it's hard to imagine how good they could've been.

Regardless of how Jones fit, it's not like Rice was a good fit himself. Phil and Glen both talked about that. The one thing Rice brought was a guy who was a threat to make 3s(though he wasn't as good as he was pre-elbow surgery), but would stand around when he didn't have the ball and kind of resisted the role of spot up shooter.

Jones was also a capable 3 point shooter while being an elite defender, which was the opposite of Rice who got benched late in some games for being a defensive liability.

I'm also not sure Jones playoff struggles would've been a problem. He'd be the 3rd option instead of the 2nd option like he had been in LA or 1st option like he was when he went to Charlotte and Miami so his offense would be much less important. Especially since Rice didn't have a great regular season and then fell off dramatically himself in the playoffs and they still won.

I think that even an old Dennis Rodman would've helped as well. The reason that Sacramento took them to 5 and Portland almost beat them was because Green got abused by C-Webb and Sheed, and Horry was better as a team defender than as a 1 on 1 defender vs big, athletic PF, imo. I don't see C-Webb playing as well or Sheed having the series of his life with Rodman there.

Phil also wanted Pippen instead of Rice which would've helped as well considering 2000 Pippen was still elite defensively and very good overall, just not quite the player he was with Chicago, but a great fit in the system.

As it is, I find it hard to believe that the Lakers won 67 games and could've gone 69-13, but Phil said they didn't see the significance of tying the franchise record. Considering they had clear weaknesses, it was their first season learning the triangle and Kobe missed the first 15 games, I'd think they'd have won 10 fewer games.

Interesting is with those long streaks, Phil said that they won early and during that 16 game streak more due to their defense and the 19 game streak later due to their offense. Goes to show the adjustment period when it comes to the triangle. Shaq himself averaged 36 ppg the last 20 games which I'm wondering if it has more to do with him getting more comfortable in the triangle or "playing his way into shape" which he seemed to do a lot, though he seemed to be in good shape to start the season.

[ItsTwisted]

Uhm why is Shaq the GOAT?

Greatest and most unstoppable 0ffensive player the league has ever seen or had.
One of the best defensive C's ever.
2nd greatest playoff performer of all time after Jordan.

I judge players based on Playoff Production/Intagibals and Performances.
In this regards Jordan and Shaq are clearly the Top 2.

I dont even rank Shaq as the GOAT he is #2 behind Jordan.

And btw dont fu***** lecture me with your 72 posts you dumbass rand.

I was obviously mocking a Troll if you really think I equate Bryant to being a used daiper or being useless then your just to stupid to notice whats going on around you.

Winning rings is about consistently having good supporting casts + luck it has no bearing on individual greatness in my book.

As a playoff performer Shaq's 10 best years trump Kobe's best year there is no comparison between the two players.

When Shaq's teams failed it was 99% of the time because of his teammates he was usually the best player on the court in those series.

Also when Oneal and Bryant split seperate Ways Oneal was declining and in the final years of his Prime thats why Bryant had more sucuess. Put Shaq from 95-04 on any team in the late 00's and they are practically guranteed the championship.

even Grandpa Shaq + Wade almost won 2 rings together.

I think you are misunderstanding me, I am not attacking you or in lecturing mode. I am a fellow Shaq fan, and I actually believe Shaq could have had a case for GOAT if he tried harder, maintained his body longer and put more effort in at certain games, and he only has himself to blame.

I will agree with you that like Jordan, Shaq was a force on the offensive side, and was unguardable most of the time. However, Jordan was just dominant from the get go. His rookie year I believe he averaged 28.2 points per game on a 51.5 fg %. I believe that season he scored more points than any other player and he was a rookie. People say Jordan couldnt have done it without Pippen but if we go back and look, Jordan was dominant from the start, and slowly but surely was bringing the Chicago Bulls back up on his own. His first years, he truly didnt have great players to rely on. His first year they made the playoffs, while going 27-55 the year before. Shaq however truly become who he is today once he joined the Lakers. In his years with Orlando, he was dominant but he had Hardaway, Anderson and etc. and I believe this hurt his chances to excel. From the get go, you could see Shaq had the desire to be the man, Jordan HAD to be the man, and he rose to the occasion immediately. He made the Bulls what they were, even before Pippen, Rodman and etc.

What discredits Shaq is the fact that he had Kobe for the championships. Even though Shaq was the main, many people will use it against him at the fact that he had Kobe who was already blossiming into an exceptional player himself. Pippen never outplayed Jordan in a series, but the same cant be said for Shaq and Kobe. Jordan had Pippen and Rodman, but you knew at the end of the game, the ball was in Jordans hands. However, the same cant be said for Shaq, the offense did run through him I will agree, but during closing minutes, or when it was time to step it up, Phil trusted Kobe more. Had Shaq been alone on those championship teams, and had Kobes production been less, he could have a strong case, and that is very unfortunate for both of them. However, had they stayed together, both of them could be very well in the top 10 by now with who knows how many championships, but thats the beauty of basketball.

When Shaq left the Lakers, I got the sense that he almost didnt care. He cared to the point where he wanted to win a championship but that was only to prove to people that he can do it without Kobe. His prime wouldnt have ended as soon as it did had he worked hard, but thats what separates him and Jordan. Jordan prided himself on staying in shape and working hard, and proving everyone wrong. At age 40 playing for the Wizads he averaged 20 ppg and was the only player on the roster to play in all 82 games. Very sad considering he was the oldest, but thats what makes him the greatest. If we went by stats alone, Shaq might have a case, but if you go by their careers, there is no question Jordan is better and rightfully number 1.

Again this is my opinion, I am sure yours may be different. Also just because I have a low post count does not mean I dont know basketball. Ish certainly isnt my life, but I do like to come here from time to time, unfortunately because it is so flooded with morons, you cant have a reasonable argument and thats all I was trying to get out of you, instead of just getting stats thrown in my face. I also dont understand why you have to go insult my intelligence when you dont know me, and I know I havent stated anything that many people dont agree with.

[magnax1]

Yeah, Jones had a career season in 2000(though he continued his disappointing playoff career with a poor series and 1st round exit). With Shaq and Kobe having their best defensive seasons, it's hard to imagine how good they could've been.

Regardless of how Jones fit, it's not like Rice was a good fit himself. Phil and Glen both talked about that. The one thing Rice brought was a guy who was a threat to make 3s(though he wasn't as good as he was pre-elbow surgery), but would stand around when he didn't have the ball and kind of resisted the role of spot up shooter.

Jones was also a capable 3 point shooter while being an elite defender, which was the opposite of Rice who got benched late in some games for being a defensive liability.

I'm also not sure Jones playoff struggles would've been a problem. He'd be the 3rd option instead of the 2nd option like he had been in LA or 1st option like he was when he went to Charlotte and Miami so his offense would be much less important. Especially since Rice didn't have a great regular season and then fell off dramatically himself in the playoffs and they still won.

I think that even an old Dennis Rodman would've helped as well. The reason that Sacramento took them to 5 and Portland almost beat them was because Green got abused by C-Webb and Sheed, and Horry was better as a team defender than as a 1 on 1 defender vs big, athletic PF, imo. I don't see C-Webb playing as well or Sheed having the series of his life with Rodman there.

Phil also wanted Pippen instead of Rice which would've helped as well considering 2000 Pippen was still elite defensively and very good overall, just not quite the player he was with Chicago, but a great fit in the system.

As it is, I find it hard to believe that the Lakers won 67 games and could've gone 69-13, but Phil said they didn't see the significance of tying the franchise record. Considering they had clear weaknesses, it was their first season learning the triangle and Kobe missed the first 15 games, I'd think they'd have won 10 fewer games.

Interesting is with those long streaks, Phil said that they won early and during that 16 game streak more due to their defense and the 19 game streak later due to their offense. Goes to show the adjustment period when it comes to the triangle. Shaq himself averaged 36 ppg the last 20 games which I'm wondering if it has more to do with him getting more comfortable in the triangle or "playing his way into shape" which he seemed to do a lot, though he seemed to be in good shape to start the season.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. I think the only question would be what to do with Rodman. He was a pretty big offensive liability at that point, as he wasn't really the same offensive rebounding threat he used to be so played didn't have to stick on him in quite the same way. He also wasn't really the amazing defender he used to be either. He was still great at getting guys angry and playing mind games, but in just plain defensive terms, he was not that fantastic. He was obviously still a good player and an asset to a team, but I think he was better suited to coming off the bench so that his lack of offense wouldn't have been as big of an issue.
Also, I definitely don't think Shaq was playing into shape at all that year. That was one of maybe 3 seasons (with an emphasis on maybe) where he came in at the start of the season being at 100% in terms of conditioning.
Anyway, that team with Rodman and Jones would've been really cool to watch. I wish it would've happened.

[La Frescobaldi]

This is the exact argument I have been having for 40 years.

Wilt Chamberlain's teams could never beat the no-free-agency era Celtics teams. They were stacked, totally stacked at every single position and off the bench. No matter how great Wilt was, no matter how far above everybody else HE was, his teams were pathetically weak. Why else would a coach ever tell his team 'in order for us to win, your center has to get 50 points a game' ?? Crazy weak teams

People been calling Chamberlain a loser, a choker or whatever all these years. That's nothing but the full load. Basketball fans that know the game always knew better.

You understand that perfectly talking about the early Shaq teams.

Ya Penny was the man all right but him and Shaq had some real fall down on the job guys around them

[The Iron Fist]

Yup

Russell > Sam Jones > Horry > Jordan > Fisher/Kobe


Yup, Fisher>>>>Shaq

[ILLsmak]

As someone who was a Shaq fan and watched all of those series (without as much bias as you'd think; I have the ability to look at a situation objectively), I can say that it was never Shaq's fault when they lost.

Just like you can say with someone like MJ that it was NEVER his fault. The way things unfolded, when people are missing wide open jump shots or not giving you the ball when you should get it, or when you finally get the ball you know if you pass it they are going to mess it up, so you just force it over a double.

Nick the quick was trash. Eddie Jones was okay... he was a good spot up shooter. Glen Rice was not as good of a spot up shooter as he should have been. All Shaq needed was a player alongside him that could HIT a midrange J and box out his man. Remember, Shaq won with AC Green as his PF.

The teams Shaq had COULD have won in 95. 96-98 nobody was beating the bulls. But they could have gone further if people didn't choke. 99 was the lockout, then he won 3 in a row.

It's like this, you can take the the 11 greatest players and put them on a team with Shaq and if, in their moment, they don't do their job then they lose.

A role player operates in a small role, the ball is kicked out to role player A and nobody is guarding him. He shoots the jumper. If he makes it, he's a good role player. If the defense is closer, he has to make a decision, hit Shaq on the re-post, try to make a play himself by driving, or swing the ball. And making the WRONG decision (such as shooting it over the defense when he could have penetrated or driving only to turn the ball over by trying to do too much) is a loss. I think stats are very misleading, but if you look at the shooting percentages of the teams when Shaq lost and other things such as turnovers, they were pretty telling.

-Smak