Who wouldn't be called a sidekick playing along with Prime Shaq?

[LakersDaBEst]

Shaq O'Neal 41 pts,17 reb,
Kobe 31 pts,11 reb, playoffs 2002


Dropping 31 points is already a superstar level, but prime Shaq just on another universe.Stop discrediting Kobe for having the GOAT center for the first 3peat, prime Shaq was just too much. However, both of them needed each other in order to 3 peat.

Seriously, even GOAT MJ will be prime Shaq's sidekick,

[DuMa]

GOAT MJ a sidekick? Kobe stans fail again :facepalm

[LakersDaBEst]

GOAT MJ a sidekick? Kobe stans fail again :facepalm

You really think GOAT MJ will snatch all 3 FMVP from prime Shaq if they paired up?

[LongLiveTheKing]

http://sarcasticdbag.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/kobeandshaq_580x435.jpg

[ZMonkey11]

DWade, Lebron, and Steve Nash come to mind.

[The Rock]

Jordan Would Also Be A Sidekick. Because Phil Loves To Work The Ball Inside Out, He's A Big Man At Heart. And Aside From Wilt, Shaq Was A Dominant Force Down Low.

Only Players Who Wouldn't Be Sidekicks

Wilt And Kaj. It Would Be The Twin Tours Duo More Than A Sidekick.

[LakersDaBEst]

DWade, Lebron, and Steve Nash come to mind.

You seriously don't know what the word "PRIME" means. Sad sad.

[LosScandalous]

Shaq is getting at least 1 fmvp whoever he plays with during the 3 peat...

[ZMonkey11]

You seriously don't know what the word "PRIME" means. Sad sad.

my b my b.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Kareeem, Hakeem, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, David Robinson

Just because the offense might be garnered to Shaq, ie pound it inside so Shaq scores a lot of points, does that mean everyone else is his sidekick?

[LakersDaBEst]

Kareeem, Hakeem, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, David Robinson

Just because the offense might be garnered to Shaq, ie pound it inside so Shaq scores a lot of points, does that mean everyone else is his sidekick?


That's the theory haters been using against Kobe :confusedshrug:

[Bandito]

Lebron is so great and handsome that there is no way he would be Shaq's sidekick.

[KNOW1EDGE]

That's the theory haters been using against Kobe :confusedshrug:

I don't get it.

Shaq and Kobe were both amazing when they played together. They needed each other. Neither was a "sidekick" to the other. They were teammates.

[lakerspng]

any guard would be considered his "sidekick" by idiots. In Phil's offense it went through Shaq, that in and of itself gives the impression who's team it is, regardless of who created the scoring opportunities or tempo and momentum of the game. Even Magic or Jordan would have been in the same position as Kobe, feeding the post and working off of it. But people are too simpleminded, there has to be all or none. Can't possibly be two legendary stars working off each other to dominate the rest of the world. no, not possible.

[Inferno]

I don't get it.

Shaq and Kobe were both amazing when they played together. They needed each other. Neither was a "sidekick" to the other. They were teammates.

:applause:

[Bandito]

I don't get it.

Shaq and Kobe were both amazing when they played together. They needed each other. Neither was a "sidekick" to the other. They were teammates.
They were 1a and 1b like Jordan and Pippen were back in the day.

[WayOfWade]

Prime Kobe wouldn't have any of that.

[Nash]

27/8/7 Lebron would never be a sidekick, especially if he's shooting at 56%. That is almost prime Shaq efficiency with Shaq being a big man and Lebron being a perimeter player.

[ihoopallday]

I hate all that sidekick talk. Kobe was just as important in winning those championships as Shaq was. I'm not a Kobe fan by any means, but it's just foolish when people call him a sidekick.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Kobe in the 2000 season is clearly a sidekick.

Kobe in the 2001, 2002, and 2003 season the lines between sidekick and two headed monster get very blurry.

Shaq and Kobe both needed each other to get it done. Same way LeBron and Wade in 2011, neither was a true sidekick. They were a two headed monster of near equal importance and dominance.

2012 and 2013, Wade was truly in beta sidekick mode. Pippen at no point in any of the Bulls 6 championships was a true equal of Jordan. The closest is probably 1996. But he was always in that beta role. Same way Gasol was for the Lakers in 2009 and 2010. Clear cut hierarchy sidekick status.

[LakersDaBEst]

27/8/7 Lebron would never be a sidekick, especially if he's shooting at 56%. That is almost prime Shaq efficiency with Shaq being a big man and Lebron being a perimeter player.


LOL
PPG RB Blocks
38.0 16.0 2.7
33.0 15.8 3.4
36.3 12.3 2.8

The 3-peat :bowdown:

Lebron first final :
35.6% FG 20.% 3s .690FT 7.00 rebounds 5.75 TURN OVERS 22.0 pts

[Young X]

Any coach would be dumb to make MJ a 2nd option to Shaq offensively - MJ is a much better, more efficient offensive player than Shaq - same with Lebron.

If prime MJ, Kobe, Lebron would be sidekicks to Shaq it would be because of defense and rebounding, not offense. Shaq does not impact the game offensively like those guys can especially MJ.

[G-Funk]

You really think GOAT MJ will snatch all 3 FMVP from prime Shaq if they paired up?

No because it will defeat the system, Shaq was the biggest mismatch in da league and Phil ran the offense through him.

[G-Funk]

Any coach would be dumb to make MJ a 2nd option to Shaq offensively - MJ is a much better, more efficient offensive player than Shaq - same with Lebron.

If prime MJ, Kobe, Lebron would be sidekicks to Shaq it would be because of defense and rebounding, not offense. Shaq does not impact the game offensively like those guys can especially MJ.
:facepalm u obviously dont understand basketball, Shaq was too dominant not to be a 1st option, he had zero competition @ center. you go inside out, u make the defense collapse inside with Shaq, u can't do that with a perimeter player.

[Odinn]

I don't get it.

Shaq and Kobe were both amazing when they played together. They needed each other. Neither was a "sidekick" to the other. They were teammates.
In 2001 and 2002, Kobe was too good to be called a (classical) sidekick. He was more of a 1B. But in 2000, he was clearly sidekick.

And I do not understand this sensitivity. What's wrong being a sidekick at the age of 21-23 while playing next to one of the most dominant, if not the most, player? Why this sensitivity still going on to look Kobe's resume better than its actual.

[Young X]

:facepalm u obviously dont understand basketball, Shaq was too dominant not to be a 1st option, he had zero competition @ center. you go inside out, u make the defense collapse inside with Shaq.Zero competition doesn't change the fact that MJ was a much more effective scorer, and much better playmaker. Making MJ - the greatest offensive player in NBA history a 2nd option on offense is beyond stupid. LOL @ "inside out" :oldlol:

[lakerspng]

Zero competition doesn't change the fact that MJ was a much more effective scorer, and much better playmaker. Making MJ - the greatest offensive player in NBA history a 2nd option on offense is beyond stupid. LOL @ "inside out" :oldlol:

Well, you would play it your way and Phil Jackson would play it the other... I wonder who'd win more championships.

Your way, Shaq and Jordan wouldn't last on the same team for one season (talk about a collision of egos). Phil's way, they'd last about as long as Kobe and Shaq did... but at least they'd have won championships like Kobe and Shaq did.

[G-Funk]

Zero competition doesn't change the fact that MJ was a much more effective scorer, and much better playmaker. Making MJ - the greatest offensive player in NBA history a 2nd option on offense is beyond stupid.


zero competition only means ur dominating ur opposite.Shaq was scoring 60% in the Finals consistently why go to anyone else? some ppl r stupid

[ShaqAttack3234]

Any coach would be dumb to make MJ a 2nd option to Shaq offensively - MJ is a much better, more efficient offensive player than Shaq - same with Lebron.

:oldlol:


If prime MJ, Kobe, Lebron would be sidekicks to Shaq it would be because of defense and rebounding, not offense. Shaq does not impact the game offensively like those guys can especially MJ.

Uh, Shaq WAS the first option on the Lakers offensively, that only changed for a bit midseason in 2003 when Phil gave Kobe more freedom offensively and he went on those 35 and 40 point streaks.

:oldlol: at Shaq not being able to have that same impact offensively. You think it's a coincidence that Shaq is one of only 4 players along with MJ, Kareem and Mikan to win a scoring title and championship in the same season? It's because Shaq's individual offense was one of the most effective we've seen in a team concept. Unlike some, Shaq getting the ball a ton and scoring a ton was in his team's best interests. That's because you couldn't stop him from getting a high percentage shot 1 on 1, and he became an excellent passer out of double teams. He was a master of getting deep position and going up with a quick jump hook as well as knowing when to pass out and re-post.

Only one of those players I'd take over Shaq offensively is MJ.

[Doranku]

Not a single player in NBA history would win Finals MVP over Shaq during 2000-2002.

[sportjames23]

Shaq O'Neal 41 pts,17 reb,
Kobe 31 pts,11 reb, playoffs 2002


Dropping 31 points is already a superstar level, but prime Shaq just on another universe.Stop discrediting Kobe for having the GOAT center for the first 3peat, prime Shaq was just too much. However, both of them needed each other in order to 3 peat.

Seriously, even GOAT MJ will be prime Shaq's sidekick,


Um, no.

MJ, Bird, Magic off the top of my head would NOT be sidekicks to Shaq.

[Doranku]

Um, no.

MJ, Bird, Magic off the top of my head would NOT be sidekicks to Shaq.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[sportjames23]

Not a single player in NBA history would win Finals MVP over Shaq during 2000-2002.


Oh, so prime MJ (6 for 6, mind you) who was clutch as fvck (something you can't say about Shaq) and a better offensive and defensive player than Shaq (with his size, Shaq should have been a defensive BEAST) wouldn't win Finals MVP over prime Shaq?

[sportjames23]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Never saw Bird play, I see.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Um, no.

MJ, Bird, Magic off the top of my head would NOT be sidekicks to Shaq.

Actually, Magic might, and based on Magic's history, he'd be willing to do so if it was what was best for the team. In fact, he was Kareem's sidekick for the first 7 seasons of his career, until the 1986-1987 season despite the fact that he was arguably the Lakers best player by '84 or so.


Oh, so prime MJ (6 for 6, mind you) who was clutch as fvck (something you can't say about Shaq) and a better offensive and defensive player than Shaq (with his size, Shaq should have been a defensive BEAST) wouldn't win Finals MVP over prime Shaq?

I wouldn't say MJ was better defensively than prime Shaq was when he was motivated, as he was during the 2000 season, or the second half/playoffs in 2001.


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

What's funny about that?

[Doranku]

Oh, so prime MJ (6 for 6, mind you) who was clutch as fvck (something you can't say about Shaq) and a better offensive and defensive player than Shaq (with his size, Shaq should have been a defensive BEAST) wouldn't win Finals MVP over prime Shaq?

Assuming they face the '00 Pacers, '01 76ers, and '02 Nets, no, I don't think Jordan would win any of those finals MVPs.

Like others have said, Phil ran the offense through Shaq down low during those years. And he absolutely FEASTED on those teams. No one had a hope of stopping him during those years. He made the DPOY Dikembe look like a child during '01.

Jordan simply wouldn't have outplayed Shaq against any of those teams.

[Young X]

:oldlol:
I really don't see how Shaq was a more efficient player than MJ or Lebron. He scores less efficiently, doesn't create nearly as many open shots, easy layups, turns the ball over more etc.
Uh, Shaq WAS the first option on the Lakers offensively, that only changed for a bit midseason in 2003 when Phil gave Kobe more freedom offensively and he went on those 35 and 40 point streaks.I was talking about prime Kobe.
:oldlol: at Shaq not being able to have that same impact offensively. You think it's a coincidence that Shaq is one of only 4 players along with MJ, Kareem and Mikan to win a scoring title and championship in the same season? It's because Shaq's individual offense was one of the most effective we've seen in a team concept. Unlike some, Shaq getting the ball a ton and scoring a ton was in his team's best interests. That's because you couldn't stop him from getting a high percentage shot 1 on 1, and he became an excellent passer out of double teams. He was a master of getting deep position and going up with a quick jump hook as well as knowing when to pass out and re-post.I don't see how Shaq has the same impact offensively over the course of an 82 game season as MJ or Lebron - they're more efficient scorers, much better ball handlers, much better playmakers. The main reason why the 2000 Lakers were as successful as they were was because of their #1 ranked defense and #1 ranked rebounding (led by Shaq), not their offense.

I just really don't see how Shaq is a better option offensively than MJ, or Lebron over the course of an 82 game season. Not only are they more efficient, but they can do EVERYTHING, Shaq is a dominant offensive player, but unless he's in the paint, he doesn't come close to matching MJ or Lebron's impact on an offense.

[Doranku]

I really don't see how Shaq was a more efficient player than MJ or Lebron. He scores less efficiently, doesn't create nearly as many open shots, easy layups, turns the ball over more etc.I was talking about prime Kobe.I don't see how Shaq has the same impact offensively over the course of an 82 game season as MJ or Lebron - they're more efficient scorers, much better ball handlers, much better playmakers. The main reason why the 2000 Lakers were as successful as they were was because of their #1 ranked defense and #1 ranked rebounding (led by Shaq), not their offense.

I just really don't see how Shaq is a better option offensively than MJ, or Lebron over the course of an 82 game season. Not only are they more efficient, but they can do EVERYTHING, Shaq is a dominant offensive player, but unless he's in the paint, he doesn't come close to matching MJ or Lebron's impact on an offense.



:roll: :roll: :roll: @ the first bolded statement.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: @ the second one. What kind of stupid f*cking statement is that? That's like saying unless LeBron is driving to the basketball, he doesn't come close to matching _______'s offensive impact... Wow. :oldlol:

[Young X]

:roll: :roll: :roll: @ the first bolded statement.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: @ the second one. What kind of stupid f*cking statement is that? That's like saying unless LeBron is driving to the basketball, he doesn't come close to matching _______'s offensive impact... Wow. :oldlol:I'm not just talking about individual scoring idiot, I'm talking about scoring, ball handling, and playmaking. If 2 players are similar scorers, but one is a better playmaker, and ballhandler, doesn't that guy have more impact offensively?

Idiot.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Assuming they face the '00 Pacers, '01 76ers, and '02 Nets, no, I don't think Jordan would win any of those finals MVPs.

Like others have said, Phil ran the offense through Shaq down low during those years. And he absolutely FEASTED on those teams. No one had a hope of stopping him during those years. He made the DPOY Dikembe look like a child during '01.

Jordan simply wouldn't have outplayed Shaq against any of those teams.

It's possible. I think peak 2000 Shaq, or motivated second half/playoff 2001 Shaq was probably AS good as Jordan was prime early 90's MJ, but not sure I'd say better.


I really don't see how Shaq was a more efficient player than MJ or Lebron. He scores less efficiently, doesn't create nearly as many open shots, easy layups, turns the ball over more etc.

First of all, I said I agree with MJ being the better offensive player prime vs prime, though it is difficult to compare dominant centers and great perimeter players.

I wasn't referring to efficiency in particular, but I'll say this as nice as Lebron's efficiency was this season(27 ppg, 57 FG%, 60 eFG%, 64 TS%), it was no longer so historic in the postseason(26 ppg, 53 eFG%, 59 TS%) And that's because of how much Lebron cherry picks for transition baskets and how he was clearly conscious of his FG% during this season, especially his FG% streak.

He doesn't really score less efficiently, just check out Lebron's postseason when his efficiency came down to reality more, not to mention that Shaq's peak(2000) and prime('98-'03) both came during more low scoring, tough defensive eras than Lebron plays in.

Shaq doesn't turn the ball over more than Lebron either, and he created a lot of open shots considering he was doubled more than either MJ or Lebron.


I don't see how Shaq has the same impact offensively over the course of an 82 game season as MJ or Lebron - they're more efficient scorers, much better ball handlers, much better playmakers. The main reason why the 2000 Lakers were as successful as they were was because of their #1 ranked defense and #1 ranked rebounding (led by Shaq), not their offense.

Lakers were also top 5 offensively, and that was while they started slower offensively due to adjusting to the triangle and Kobe missing the first month of the season with a broken hand. Not to mention, the fact that the Lakers were the 5th worst 3 point shooting team at 32.9% which put even more pressure on Shaq.


I just really don't see how Shaq is a better option offensively than MJ, or Lebron over the course of an 82 game season. No only are they more efficient, but they can do EVERYTHING, Shaq is a dominant offensive player, but unless he's in the paint, he doesn't come close to matching MJ or Lebron's impact.

And who was able to stop Shaq from getting into the paint? He was often able to get in front and of the rim and seal his man before he even got the ball.

One reason I prefer Shaq's offense over Lebron is besides being the more dominant scorer and drawing more double teams than Lebron, you can run a much smoother offensive through Shaq due to Lebron's ball-dominance.

[Asiantastic]

Prime Shaq was probably one of the most dominant players, offensively, in NBA history. You pretty much had to just foul him in order to stop him, otherwise you'd be ****ed.

Arguing that Prime LeBron > Prime Shaq offensively? Lol.

[Legends66NBA7]

I agree with OP. I just don't see Shaq being sidekick at his peak to anybody, including Jordan. It's not about ability and moves, it's about direct impact. Why would you not use a low post player of Shaq's presence to get the best looks possible, cause mismatches, and put the other team in the penalty ?

How about this for another emotional stance... exactly who is going to get into Shaq's way ? Jordan, Bird, Magic, etc.. ? Their not going to front with Shaq and make Shaq a 2nd option, that would just be wrong from a team standpoint to begin with.


Never saw Bird play, I see.

What does that mean ? Bird was a great offensive player, but Shaq would score more effectively than him at their best. Bird was a team first guy too, so why would he care about first/second options ?

[Lakers2877]

GOAT MJ a sidekick? Kobe stans fail again :facepalm
Absolutely. That's no knock on jordan. Shaq was putting up 40-20's. Yes even Jordan would have been a sidekick to absolute prime, beasting shaq

[Lakers2877]

Um, no.

MJ, Bird, Magic off the top of my head would NOT be sidekicks to Shaq.
lol COME ON......I love Magic. By far my fave player of alltime. He would have been a sidekick. No doubt about it. Bird? Lol

[Legends66NBA7]

lol COME ON......I love Magic. By far my fave player of alltime. He would have been a sidekick. No doubt about it. Bird? Lol

Yeah, Bird and Magic are team first guys too. Why wouldn't they give the ball to a peak Shaq and get out of the way ? :oldlol:

[Lakers2877]

27/8/7 Lebron would never be a sidekick, especially if he's shooting at 56%. That is almost prime Shaq efficiency with Shaq being a big man and Lebron being a perimeter player.
Kobe put up 29-7-6 in the playoffs including a 33-7-7 against the spurs in the wcf and I see clowns saying kobe gets no credit. It was all shaq

Honestly if you didn't see 00-02 shaq play that's fair. But if you did and you think lebron would have been the lead dog you're either dumb or the biggest homer ever

[Sharmer]

Kobe should have kept eating Shaq ass that way he'd have a lot more rings by now.

[Young X]

This is what I'm basically saying:

MJ is a better scorer than Shaq - higher volume, higher efficiency.

Prime Kobe (notice I said prime), Lebron and Shaq are similar scorers - similar volume, similar efficiency, similar results.

But, all 3 especially MJ and Lebron are better playmakers than Shaq and clearly better at getting teammates high % shots along with being better ballhandlers.

MJ is a better scorer than Shaq and a better playmaker and ballhandler
Lebron is a similar scorer to Shaq, but a better playmaker and ballhandler
Prime Kobe is a similar scorer to Shaq, but a better playmaker and ballhandler.

Why am I crazy for saying a guy like MJ has more impact on an offense and a better option than Shaq? :oldlol:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Kobe should have kept eating Shaq ass that way he'd have a lot more rings by now.

He has 5 of them, so I'd say he did pretty well in the ring department.


This is what I'm basically saying:

MJ is a better scorer than Shaq - higher volume, higher efficiency.

Prime Kobe (notice I said prime), Lebron and Shaq are similar scorers - similar volume, similar efficiency, similar results.

But, all 3 especially MJ and Lebron are better playmakers than Shaq and clearly better at getting teammates high % shots along with being better ballhandlers.

MJ is a better scorer than Shaq and a better playmaker and ballhandler
Lebron is a similar scorer to Shaq, but a better playmaker and ballhandler
Prime Kobe is a similar scorer to Shaq, but a better playmaker and ballhandler.

So you're comparing Shaq's ability as a ball-handler to perimeter players? :facepalm: Yet no mention of the advantages of a big man, such as drawing more double teams and in Lebron's case, being an even better scorer while dominating the ball less.


Why am I crazy for saying a guy like MJ has more impact on an offense and a better option than Shaq? :oldlol:

:confusedshrug: I also called MJ a better offensive player. I'm not arguing about MJ.

[Nash]

Kobe put up 29-7-6 in the playoffs including a 33-7-7 against the spurs in the wcf and I see clowns saying kobe gets no credit. It was all shaq

Honestly if you didn't see 00-02 shaq play that's fair. But if you did and you think lebron would have been the lead dog you're either dumb or the biggest homer ever
I just say that Lebron would have still gotten his MVP's. They'd just see Lebron being as efficient as big man Shaq and more versatile.

Also, Lebron is being mentioned as one of the best player in history and being compared to the greatest player of all time. Thinking Lebron would be lead dog isn't being controversial, his defence, scoring, impressive efficiency and playmaking would put him ahead of Shaq's bully ball in many people's eyes. Lebron would be a different story for Shaq than what Kobe was.

[NumberSix]

They were 1a and 1b like Jordan and Pippen were back in the day.
Semantics. :rolleyes:

1a & 1b is just another way to say #1 & #2.

[Young X]

So you're comparing Shaq's ability as a ball-handler to perimeter players? :facepalm: Yet no mention of the advantages of a big man, such as drawing more double teams and in Lebron's case, being an even better scorer while dominating the ball less.No, I'm comparing their impact on a teams offense. Playmaking and ballhandling are advantages perimeter players have over big men in terms of offensive impact. Guys like MJ, Lebron, Magic, Kobe all have that advantage over Shaq and it shouldn't be ignored when talking about offensive impact.

Just curious to know your opinion:

Did Hakeem have more offensive impact then Magic Johnson?

Did Tim Duncan have more offensive impact than Steve Nash or CP3?

[ILLsmak]

No, I'm comparing their impact on a teams offense. Playmaking and ballhandling are advantages perimeter players have over big men in terms of offensive impact. Guys like MJ, Lebron, Magic, Kobe all have that advantage over Shaq and it shouldn't be ignored when talking about offensive impact.

Just curious to know your opinion:

Did Hakeem have more offensive impact then Magic Johnson?

Did Tim Duncan have more offensive impact than Steve Nash or CP3?


Shaq impacted defense way more than LeBron did. You must have not seen the games. Bron can push the ball in transition and no doubt that's great, but it doesn't compare to what Shaq did.

Dunno why people are even arguing with you because you're not making any sense.

-Smak

[HorryIsMyMVP]

If Kobe shot 50% he would have scored more then Shaq. Half of Shaq's points come off of Kobe misses. So MJ would have won FMVP.

[ShaqAttack3234]

No, I'm comparing their impact on a teams offense. Playmaking and ballhandling are advantages perimeter players have over big men in terms of offensive impact. Guys like MJ, Lebron, Magic, Kobe all have that advantage over Shaq and it shouldn't be ignored when talking about offensive impact.

Yes, just as playmaking can come out of the post as well, particularly with big men drawing doubles and finding cutters or opening up wide open 3s.


Did Hakeem have more offensive impact then Magic Johnson?

More? No. Though I wouldn't say mid 90s Hakeem was THAT far off from late 80s/early 90s Magic as far as offensive impact, and Hakeem was every bit as important to Houston's offense as Magic was to LA's.

To start a team, I'd take prime Magic just speaking about offense, although Magic is unusual in his ability to run a fastbreak or finish it, ability to make himself useful without the ball whether it's cutting to the basket or getting offensive boards, his ability(later) to make outside shots or his ability to have an offense run through him in the post both with his scoring and passing.

Not sure what this is supposed to prove with Shaq and Lebron/Kobe, though. I'd take prime Magic over either Lebron/Kobe offensively, and prime Shaq over prime Hakeem offensively.


Did Tim Duncan have more offensive impact than Steve Nash or CP3?

Well, Duncan is a step down from Shaq offensively, but given Paul's ball-dominance and what I saw from Duncan during the Spurs 2003 title run(including his playmaking in the post) I' be hesitant to choose running my offense through Paul over Duncan. Nash in the specialized system with D'Antoni had more impact on his own team offensively, but was less successful when he didn't have everything going through him and an up-tempo offense, neither of which even got his team to the finals.

Again, ball-dominant players, especially point guards are often overrated. The irony is that they're often praised for making teammates better, but it's only when they have the ideal players to complement them is that true, and they seem to have more trouble co-existing with post players and other guards or small forwards who can create than players at other positions do because most of these point guards have very little impact in offenses where they don't have the ball in their hands constantly.

[secund2nun]

LOL Please post Kobe's FG% and the number of shots per game he took to average 31 PPG??

31 PPG on low fg% and high shots per game means nothing, especially when the GOAT in prime Shaq is taking up double and triple teams in the paint.

Kobe was riding on Shaq's coattails.

Kobe, in his prime in 3 seasons, could not even win a playoff series even once LOL :roll:

[tpols]

27/8/7 Lebron would never be a sidekick, especially if he's shooting at 56%. That is almost prime Shaq efficiency with Shaq being a big man and Lebron being a perimeter player.
lol with lebron being afraid to shoot it, and general passiveness, he would defer to shaq a lot more than the other way around.

And look at shaqs finals stats.. bron aint beating that ever. Especially with his tendency to go all out pass mode in the Finals and forget how to shoot.

[Young X]

Yes, just as playmaking can come out of the post as well, particularly with big men drawing doubles and finding cutters or opening up wide open 3s.So would you argue that Lebron isn't a clearly better passer and playmaker than Shaq?
To start a team, I'd take prime Magic just speaking about offense, although Magic is unusual in his ability to run a fastbreak or finish it, ability to make himself useful without the ball whether it's cutting to the basket or getting offensive boards, his ability(later) to make outside shots or his ability to have an offense run through him in the post both with his scoring and passing.^Agreed.

Well, Duncan is a step down from Shaq offensively, but given Paul's ball-dominance and what I saw from Duncan during the Spurs 2003 title run(including his playmaking in the post) I' be hesitant to choose running my offense through Paul over Duncan. Nash in the specialized system with D'Antoni had more impact on his own team offensively, but was less successful when he didn't have everything going through him and an up-tempo offense, neither of which even got his team to the finals.^This is where we disagree, under no circumstance would I take Duncan over Nash or Paul to start an offense, he's far less efficient and doesn't provide the passing/playmaking that they do. The reason why Nash's teams never got to the finals were because of defense and rebounding, not offense. Those Nash led Suns teams were some of the best offensive teams of all time.

All I'm saying is throughout the course of an 82 game season, guys like MJ, Bird, Lebron help their teams offenses just as much if not more than Shaq does by being either better or comparable scorers and being better at getting teammates open looks (even tho Shaq was a great passer for a center). I really don't understand how that's crazy.

[sdot_thadon]

It would definitely have to be someone who is a primary playmaker, I can barely fathom the thought of prime Mj as a sidekick but prime Shaq was that dominant. No scorer would be placed ahead of him in the offense.

[ShaqAttack3234]

So would you argue that Lebron isn't a clearly better passer and playmaker than Shaq?

That's not what I said. I was making the statement in general terms when you mentioned big men and perimeter players as far as getting teammates good shots. You throw a dominant big man the ball in the post, and either on the catch, or after a dribble, he's doubled, and if he's a good passer, he can find a shot that easy. That is one of the advantages because perimeter players are often handling the ball more since they start farther out whether it's with screen/rolls and they're typically dribbling a lot more to draw the extra defender.

Playmaking typically implies more of a ball-handler and perimeter player, so almost by default that goes to the perimeter player, but that's different than overall impact on teammates. Passing, even for their positions, I'd give the advantage to Lebron.

But what doesn't really fall into either category of scoring or passing exclusively is something I weigh pretty heavily. And that's the ability to dominate while fitting your game into a system as well as alongside another great player without taking away from their game, or from your dominance. I give a significant advantage to Shaq here.


^This is where we disagree, under no circumstance would I take Duncan over Nash or Paul to start an offense, he's far less efficient and doesn't provide the passing/playmaking that they do. The reason why Nash's teams never got to the finals were because of defense and rebounding, not offense. Those Nash led Suns teams were some of the best offensive teams of all time.

The thing is, I really don't necessarily care about having a playmaker at either of their levels because if I have a choice, I'm not choosing my offense to revolve around a point guard with the exception being Magic who transcends the position and is simply on another level.

That's a valid point about Nash's Phoenix teams and I do like his ability a lot, both as a passer and even a scorer due to his incredible ability as a shooter. But the thing about those Phoenix teams is that they were ideal for Nash's strengths, and part of building that type of team cost them defensively and on the boards and overall, that brings into question the effectiveness of such an offense. Also, what about a situation where Nash doesn't have such an ideal cast to complement him offensively? I mean a team where you don't have a finisher like Stoudemire and a guy like Marion who can score 20 without having a play called for him.

I question Nash's ability to play with a post player, or with another player that needs the ball in their hands and still have a superstar impact.

The same is true for Paul, except to a greater extent because he never led the type of offenses that Nash did in Phoenix.


All I'm saying is throughout the course of an 82 game season, guys like MJ, Bird, Lebron help their teams offenses just as much if not more than Shaq does by being either better or comparable scorers and being better at getting teammates open looks (even tho Shaq was a great passer for a center). I really don't understand how that's crazy.

I called MJ a better offensive player. And I didn't say it was crazy to pick Lebron, I took objection to Shaq in your words not being able to make the same type of impact offensively as both Lebron and Kobe, as well as statements like "much better."

Over an 82 game season? That's tough because then we're talking about a different thing due to Shaq's questionable motivation at times during the regular season and the amount of games he frequently missed. However, with the postseason in mind, I'm taking Shaq over Lebron offensively.

[Doranku]

I'm taking Shaq over Lebron offensively.

All that really needs to be said. No one in their right mind is taking LeBron over Prime Shaq offensively.

The Spurs were a miracle 3 away from beating LeBron's team while playing Rondo defense on him. You want to take a guy with that kind of glaring weakness over arguably the most dominant offensive force the game has ever seen?

Give me a break.

[iamgine]

Perhaps no one because it was a really weak era for big men.

[Young X]

@ShaqAttack3234

Few questions I always wanted to ask:

When you consider FT shooting, is 2003 Shaq's best season offensively?

'90 or '91 MJ? And would you take Shaq over him?

'87, '89 or '90 Magic?

'93, '94 or '95 Hakeem?

'04 or '05 KG

?

[juju151111]

Assuming they face the '00 Pacers, '01 76ers, and '02 Nets, no, I don't think Jordan would win any of those finals MVPs.

Like others have said, Phil ran the offense through Shaq down low during those years. And he absolutely FEASTED on those teams. No one had a hope of stopping him during those years. He made the DPOY Dikembe look like a child during '01.

Jordan simply wouldn't have outplayed Shaq against any of those teams.
What Kobr was taking more shots then Shaq and Mj numbers would be crazy with somebody else taking the offensive load off. Mj avg 31 on 55% with 11asts.

[ShaqAttack3234]

When you consider FT shooting, is 2003 Shaq's best season offensively?

Absolutely not, despite the free throw shooting improvement, at 31 years old and somewhere around 375 pounds, Shaq had clearly lost some of the quickness and explosiveness he had during his first 2 championships. Those things made Shaq more dominant in 2000 and 2001 offensively despite the free throw shooting.


'90 or '91 MJ? And would you take Shaq over him?

This is REALLY close. One of the common misconceptions is that '91 was the season MJ finally made the necessary adjustments in his approach to win a title. Truthfully, he did that in '90, but Pippen was still inconsistent compared to '91 when he showed noticeable improvements with his mid-range/outside shot, defense and playmaking and the Piston team they faced in '90 was a much tougher opponent than the injury-plagued '91 Pistons they faced who also happened to be aging fast. The Bulls were also more comfortable in the triangle in '91, and it was fully implemented by that point as opposed to Phil more gradually adjusting the team to the offense.

The only real differences in these seasons are that MJ shot 3s in '90, and the Bulls were finally able to limit his minutes to some degree due to an improved team which caused MJ to look for his shot more early in games.

To get really ****, I'd say MJ was slightly stronger in '91 and slightly quicker in '90, but neither to an extent that affected his game.

Very tough, he had to do more in '90, but had more success in '91. I go back and forth on this one, and really can't choose looking purely at his level of play. I like the addition of the 3 point shot for '90, but he didn't need it in '91 when he won, and I doubt he lost that ability in a season. Maybe '91 with the tiebreaker being the championship.

As far as peak MJ vs peak Shaq. I don't know, I can't really say one was clearly better than the other. MJ is better considering more than just a single year, but looking at what Shaq did at both ends throughout the '00 season and the results, it's difficult for me to take anyone over Shaq for just that season.

I'd give MJ the edge offensively, and Shaq the edge defensively. While Shaq didn't always dominate defensively, 2000 was a year he dominated both defensively and on the boards, and probably made a bigger impact at that end than a perimeter player is capable of.

Overall, I'll have to think about this more. When you get to the level of either at their peak, I think you'd have to think long and hard about taking anyone ahead of them. They were at that type of rare level. The freakish thing about MJ is it wasn't just a peak single season for him, he was at his peak for 3-4 seasons. Hakeem and Lebron are the only other 2 players the last 20 or so years who have peaked at a comparable level, imo.


'87, '89 or '90 Magic?

Very close. I like the addition of the 3 point shot for '89 and even more '90, as well as Magic posting up a lot more and the Lakers running so much of their offense through his great post game, but he showed the post game in '87 as well when he got opportunities, and he already had a very consistent outside shot out to about 20 feet, which is all you needed in '87. Plus, he was still leading the great fastbreak more than in '89 and especially '90, and he was quicker. While I never considered Magic a great defender, he seemed worse by about '90, though it may have had to do with the league changing, particularly with better 3 point shooters and more explosive perimeter players. But the icing on the cake is the title in '87 as well as Magic calling that his best season, and who am I to argue with Magic about his own best season?


'93, '94 or '95 Hakeem?

'95 was probably his absolute best offensively, and his playoff run may have been the best of all-time, especially considering the competition, but his offensive game from a skill standpoint was pretty much identical in '93 and '94, and he was better defensively and on the boards. So I'd narrow it down to '93 and '94. This is tough because Houston got a lot more coverage in '94 so I can judge that season better. While I don't believe the title in '94 is necessarily the result of anything different in Hakeem, I'll use it as the tiebreaker, as well as being more knowledgeable about his '94 season than '93.


'04 or '05 KG

'04. The best seasons I've seen from KG were 2003 and 2004. He just seemed more aggressive and dominant those years than at any other time.

[Young X]

^Thanks for the response.

I can't decide '90 and '91 MJ for the same reasons but I lean towards '90 because he was quicker and shot more 3's. That's the most complete version of MJ IMO, the years prior he wasn't as skilled, but the years after he wasn't as quick/worse slasher.

Same thing with Magic, but I lean towards '90 because he didn't lose any ability while becoming a better 3 pt and FT shooter, plus his playoff run was pretty crazy (back to back 43 pt games).

[ShaqAttack3234]

^Thanks for the response.

I can't decide '90 and '91 MJ for the same reasons but I lean towards '90 because he was quicker and shot more 3's. That's the most complete version of MJ IMO, the years prior he wasn't as skilled, but the years after he wasn't as quick/worse slasher.

Same thing with Magic, but I lean towards '90 because he didn't lose any ability while becoming a better 3 pt and FT shooter, plus his playoff run was pretty crazy (back to back 43 pt games).

I actually think '92 MJ has a good case. Pippen improved further, Grant improved a lot and BJ became a factor making his cast easily the best of his career in addition to the confidence and experience that comes with being the defending champs, so MJ's numbers dropped a bit since he didn't have to carry the Bulls as much on a nightly basis as he had prior, but as far as being a complete player, I'm not sure he was ever more complete as far as his strength, mid-range game and defense in addition to almost all the athleticism he ever had.

As far as Magic, well, I will say this about the back to back 43 games, the Suns wanted Magic to be more of a scorer that series. They guarded him 1 on 1 much more in the post, and had a good defender in Dan Majerle to do it, and their strategy proved effective as Magic's teammates weren't nearly as effective as usual, particularly with Tom Chambers strangely doing a good job guarding Worthy. That's through no real fault of Magic, he took what the defense gave him, and it's more reflective of the Lakers being used to Magic getting them easy shots by picking apart double teams. But I think the context is important when comparing Magic's scoring explosion to his play in other seasons.

Regardless, '90 is a valid choice for Magic's best year.

[Odinn]

Perhaps no one because it was a really weak era for big men.
There was no all-time great center in his prime other than Shaq. But your post is straight up BS when we think about your claim. Shaq faced tough frontcourts in his title years.

[LakersDaBEst]

Perhaps no one because it was a really weak era for big men.

Lol weak era for big man :facepalm

[AintNoSunshine]

MJ, Bird, Magic, Lebron

[GrapeApe]

MJ, Bird, Magic, Lebron

Bird, Magic, and LeBron are instinctively team oriented. They would definitely defer to Shaq. I could see MJ and Shaq clashing though.

[AintNoSunshine]

Bird, Magic, and LeBron are instinctively team oriented. They would definitely defer to Shaq. I could see MJ and Shaq clashing though.


what does that have to do with being a sidekick, the offense will be initiate thru them and they will be the ones who run the team's offense while putting up similar number and being the leader on the floor, both Kobe failed to do.

[Asukal]

I think MJ would win FMVP over Shaq if they teamed up. Only because if teams would double team Shaq which they probably would since he is a center, then MJ would fill the stat sheet if he was played 1v1.

[Lebron23]

But they would put up efficient FG's % and superior stars in the finals if they played with Shaq.

[guy]

If Jordan played with Shaq for his first 8 years, I'd say the dynamic as far as leadership and focus goes like this:

85-86 Jordan sidekick to 97-98 Shaq (00-02 Shaq/Kobe)
87-90 Jordan equal to 99-02 Shaq (03-04 Shaq/Kobe, 05 Shaq/Wade, 08 KG/Pierce, 11 Lebron/Wade, 13 Duncan/Parker) (big difference is they'd be winning every year though)
91-92 Jordan first option over 03-04 Shaq (06-07 Wade/Shaq, 12-13 Lebron/Wade, 13 Kobe/Howard)

[KOBE143]

Prime Kobe would never be a sidekick to Prime Shaq.. Thats why Shaq left LA because he knew Kobe was entering his prime and he's afraid Kobe would overshadow his primes in LA.. Smart moves by Shaq..