Peak Shaq vs. Peak Jordan

[SpecialQue]

This deserves its own thread. Who do YOU think was better, and why?

[oarabbus]

Peak Jordan was better, but Peak Shaq was more impactful on the court.

Why: he's over 7ft and >300lbs.

[iTare]

i'd take shaq's peak over anyone elses. he could change any modern team into an instant contender.

[fpliii]

Shaq against any non-big.

Put up near 40-20 games in the Finals, and a ridiculous post presence. Nothing scarier as a defender than Shaq coming at you. Can't stop him without fouling, and he was great at passing out of the double team.

[deja vu]

Jordan. He's the GOAT nuff said.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

2000 Shaq = GOAT

[COnDEMnED]

Tough call. If they're playing against each other in their peak, who gets the better of whom? I suspect Shaq

[mehyaM24]

ive never seen anyone more skilled than peak shaq...and the footage doesnt lie

go to youtube and type in "shaqs gangsta move on michael jordan". name ONE big man in the nba that can do that...i dont mean on michael jordan, just alone in an empty gym. :oldlol: i started watching shaq a year before he was drafted and was baffled even then when people questioned his skills. i had never seen such skills.

peak shaq = greatest player of alltime

[Prometheus]

Said this in moe's thread and I'll say it again:

I'll take Jordan by a hair, ONLY because he could be relied on in crunch time. Too many basketball games are close down the stretch, and Jordan was a huge asset in those situations. Shaq became a liability in crunch time because of his free throw shooting.

If it weren't for this crucial point, I would give Shaq the slight edge. His physical dominance was worth every bit of Jordan's skill and competitive spirit. Nature > nurture.

[Hands of Iron]

Shaq against any non-big.

Put up near 40-20 games in the Finals, and a ridiculous post presence. Nothing scarier as a defender than Shaq coming at you. Can't stop him without fouling, and he was great at passing out of the double team.

This.

He was also a legitimate defensive anchor over those years. Shaq put a whole hell of a lot of effort into his game at his peak, very very few of the criticisms consistently leveled at him were valid then and he'll always have his 3-peat and Finals performances. His peak has come to really define his legacy.

[played0ut]

ive never seen anyone more skilled than peak shaq...and the footage doesnt lie


He's not more skilled. But a combination of his skills and size makes him more impactful than more skilled people.



Said this in moe's thread and I'll say it again:

I'll take Jordan by a hair, ONLY because he could be relied on in crunch time. Too many basketball games are close down the stretch, and Jordan was a huge asset in those situations. Shaq became a liability in crunch time because of his free throw shooting.

If it weren't for this crucial point, I would give Shaq the slight edge. His physical dominance was worth every bit of Jordan's skill and competitive spirit. Nature > nurture.


I agree with this.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

2000 and 2001 playoffs were the only time Shaq really gave a shit on defense and he was the best defender in the league. He intimidated the shit out of everyone and locked down the paint, protected the rim. Scoring wise they were even but MJ was a better passer. Shaq had more defensive attention he literally drew triples regularly and even quadruples in the playoffs at times. He was also a much better rebounder and his size/speed was monstrous. It really comes down to MJ not being able to reach Shaqs level of dominance on the defensive end but its close these are the 2 greatest peak players by far in history

[j3lademaster]

Peak Jordan was better, but Peak Shaq was more impactful on the court.

Why: he's over 7ft and >300lbs.Huh? So "better" = more skilled? Because if so TJ Ford and Jamal Tinsley are "better" than Shaq as well. Isn't impact what makes a player better at the end of the day?

[Soundwave]

Jordan strictly because sooner or later you will have to play in a close game down the stretch and Jordan was the best big time crunch player in the game, the Bulls had several games they probably should have lost that he single handedly turned into wins. Shaq in those situations not only is not as good but is a liability because of his free throws.

Shaq would be my no.2 choice for starting a franchise though, above anyone else.

[CHi1PriDe]

Umm jordan obviously, was a tough mf and a superior leader. Beasted on both ends of the floor and having no glaring weaknesses. Don't forget about clutch factor too.


jordan rules >>> hackashaq

AINEC

[AintNoSunshine]

Shaq was extremely dominant and a threat to foul out your entire front court.

But Jordan was better and had no weakness, especially in the 4th where Shaq could be a little shaky due to his FT shooting.

I will take Jordan, he's the GOAT after all.

[KOBE143]

Peak Le2/5 <<< Both

[SHAQisGOAT]

That's extremely tough to pick but I'd go with Shaq. I'd go with Shaq above anyone, as far as peaks.

Both top5 peaks of all-time, along with KAJ, Bird and Wilt.

[Soundwave]

I'd probably go

Jordan > Shaq > Duncan > Kobe = LeBron

If we're talking players from the last 20-25 years to build a team around.

Duncan I'd honestly have to think about as my second choice, such a low maintenance guy who does nothing but win. Kobe/LeBron is a toss up.

[Harison]

Shaq has a good argument for being more dominant for first 3Q of the game.

Jordan was overall better IMO:

* MJ was arguably the most clutch player of All-time, Shaq not so much.

* MJ had no weaknesses to exploit, Shaq was liability at FT (especially at the end of the game) and pick'n'roll defense.

* MJ was a much better leader by either example, or lighting fire if they sucked. Shaq wasnt a good leader by neither example, nor imposing his will on teammates.

Therefore individually I can see the argument Shaq as more dominant force, but Shaq's team perform worse than Jordan's, and have weaknesses to exploit.

[Ne 1]

Shaq became a liability in crunch time because of his free throw shooting.

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

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

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

[havoc33]

This.

He was also a legitimate defensive anchor over those years. Shaq put a whole hell of a lot of effort into his game at his peak, very very few of the criticisms consistently leveled at him were valid then and he'll always have his 3-peat and Finals performances. His peak has come to really define his legacy.What are you talking about? Shaq was only OCCASIONALLY a good defender. His 2000 season was superb overall, but after that he fell off big time. Shaq was absolutely horrible in the pick and roll defense, which is why the Lakers were continously getting lit up by opposing guards. Tex Winter was so exasperated by Shaq's refusal to commit himself on the defensive end, that he once famously shouted to Phil Jackson that he would expose Shaq for the fraud that he was. This is very well documented. You don't find it strange that a player as physical and big as Shaq never managed to make an All Defensive First team? The reason is simple; a lack of effort.

2000 version of Shaq is incredibly close to MJ ala 91, but I still take MJ. Like others have pointed out, Shaq had flaws in his game that you had to cover from. He could be a liability down to stretch due to poor foul shooting, sometimes got taken out of games due to foul trouble and his defense was lacking, especially in the pick and roll. MJ on the other hand had a near perfect overall game, he just didn't have any real weaknesses.

[AirFederer]

MJ because of his need to win, clutch abilities and ft %.
All missing with Shaq, who undoubtedly was a great great player.

But there`s only one GOAT :pimp:

[Hands of Iron]

What are you talking about? Shaq was only OCCASIONALLY a good defender. His 2000 season was superb overall, but after that he fell off big time. Shaq was absolutely horrible in the pick and roll defense, which is why the Lakers were continously getting lit up by opposing guards. Tex Winter was so exasperated by Shaq's refusal to commit himself on the defensive end, that he once famously shouted to Phil Jackson that he would expose Shaq for the fraud that he was. This is very well documented. You don't find it strange that a player as physical and big as Shaq never managed to make an All Defensive First team? The reason is simple; a lack of effort.

2000 version of Shaq is incredibly close to MJ ala 91, but I still take MJ. Like others have pointed out, Shaq had flaws in his game that you had to cover from. He could be a liability down to stretch due to poor foul shooting, sometimes got taken out of games due to foul trouble and his defense was lacking, especially in the pick and roll. MJ on the other hand had a near perfect overall game, he just didn't have any real weaknesses.

Yes, and peak is the discussion right? That's what was specified. Shaq's career, his effort and conditioning as a whole is a very different story. He underachieved in a lot of different respects and aspects of his game. He did manage to make All-Defensive (2nd) teams during 2000-2001 and they were well earned. I don't think I would actually expect better than that considering there were all-time stalwarts such as Mutombo and Mourning in the league who didn't carry the same offensive load Shaq did and were all vying for essentially one spot as opposed to guards and forwards.

If you want the best of both worlds then go with Olajuwon, who can be called on during crunch time, who isn't a liability at the FT line and unequivocally brings more impact to floor defensively than Mike, is more potent than Duncan offensively and more versatile than Shaquille (on both ends) if a bit less efficient. Hell, in terms of peak he even proved he could score at comparable levels to 23 in May and June despite invariably having the tougher positional H2H match-ups. He went through some of the best 5's - and front court tandems in general - the decade had to offer while leaving no doubt and he did it one year with 0 All-Stars alongside him and then as the lowest seeded team in NBA history to pull it off the next. Dude didn't even get another crack at reaching a Finals after the '86 implosion until he was 30 years old FFS and even then he won with some of the least amount of help in terms of star power as anybody you could mention being arguable top ten on a GOAT list.

[SOD 21]

What are you talking about? Shaq was only OCCASIONALLY a good defender. His 2000 season was superb overall, but after that he fell off big time. Shaq was absolutely horrible in the pick and roll defense, which is why the Lakers were continously getting lit up by opposing guards. Tex Winter was so exasperated by Shaq's refusal to commit himself on the defensive end, that he once famously shouted to Phil Jackson that he would expose Shaq for the fraud that he was. This is very well documented. You don't find it strange that a player as physical and big as Shaq never managed to make an All Defensive First team? The reason is simple; a lack of effort.

2000 version of Shaq is incredibly close to MJ ala 91, but I still take MJ. Like others have pointed out, Shaq had flaws in his game that you had to cover from. He could be a liability down to stretch due to poor foul shooting, sometimes got taken out of games due to foul trouble and his defense was lacking, especially in the pick and roll. MJ on the other hand had a near perfect overall game, he just didn't have any real weaknesses.

Co-sign.

One other point to bring up about Shaquille O'Neal was his immature off the court antics that would make me wary of him over someone like Michael Jordan. Shaq famously said that he was hurt on company time and that he would only rehab on company time, too. This meant that he delayed surgery because he didn't want to affect his summer and cost his team, not to mention that he would routinely come into training camp fat and out of shape.

Shaquille O'Neal was also highly insecure and that could lead to a very divisive locker room. While we all know that Kobe Bryant can be a pre-Madonna and difficult to get along with himself because of how stubborn, not to mention selfish he can be, Shaq also carries some of the blame for this.

Michael Jordan had no weaknesses, as others have said, and this is an easy decision.

Although I will say that an angry Shaq was a frightening thought for opponents that could cause them to go into the fetal position when he was at his absolute best.

[havoc33]

Yes, and peak is the discussion right? That's what was specified. Shaq's career, his effort and conditioning as a whole is a very different story. He underachieved in a lot of different respects and aspects of his game. He did manage to make All-Defensive (2nd) teams during 2000-2001 and they were well earned. I don't think I would actually expect better than that considering there were all-time stalwarts such as Mutombo and Mourning in the league who didn't carry the same offensive load Shaq did and were all vying for essentially one spot as opposed to guards and forwards.

If you want the best of both worlds then go with Olajuwon, who can be called on during crunch time, who isn't a liability at the FT line and unequivocally brings more impact to floor defensively than Mike, is more potent than Duncan offensively and more versatile than Shaquille (on both ends) if a bit less efficient. Hell, in terms of peak he even proved he could score at comparable levels to 23 in May and June despite invariably having the tougher positional H2H match-ups. He went through some of the best 5's - and front court tandems in general - the decade had to offer while leaving no doubt and he did it one year with 0 All-Stars alongside him and then as the lowest seeded team in NBA history to pull it off the next. Dude didn't even get another crack at reaching a Finals after the '86 implosion until he was 30 years old FFS and even then he won with some of the least amount of help in terms of star power as anybody you could mention being arguable top ten on a GOAT list.
You don't get it. Even in 2000 his defense was suspect. Sure he made an effort at the rim at least, but he was still a terrible pick and roll defender. This was rarely ever reported by the main stream media until later on when the Lakers started struggling more, but everyone in LA knew what was up. So even if you are talking about a peak YEAR, I still wouldn't take 2000 Shaq over 91 Jordan. You still had to deal with the weaknesses in Shaq's game, while MJ had none. Remember how poorly Shaq played at times in the 2000 WCF as well. The Blazers basically laid the blueprint on how to take Shaq out of his game. NO ONE took MJ out of his game in 1991.

[Jlamb47]

Im taking MJ
he is GOAT
Shaq is top 5 tho

[Roundball_Rock]

Peak Shaq>peak Jordan.
Prime Shaq<prime Jordan.


The Blazers basically laid the blueprint on how to take Shaq out of his game.

They had a great series but had the personnel to "limit" Shaq. Pippen's help defense was a key. However, Shaq proceeded to dominate the Finals that year and the playoffs in 2001 and 2002 so the Blazers in 2000 were outliers, not game breakers who exposed Shaq.

[Derka]

Shaq for me.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Jordan. Similar statistical impact and more able to raise his game on command (could summon a 20-25 point quarter almost at will when needed). Better playmaker/passer, smarter player overall. Similar or slightly worse defensive impact in prime.

[havoc33]

Peak Shaq>peak Jordan.
Prime Shaq<prime Jordan.

They had a great series but had the personnel to "limit" Shaq. Pippen's help defense was a key. However, Shaq proceeded to dominate the Finals that year and the playoffs in 2001 and 2002 so the Blazers in 2000 were outliers, not game breakers who exposed Shaq.
Shaq could be limited and taken out of his game, period. Not for a whole series obviously, but for a game here and there. This due to his poor foul shooting, him being foul prone and getting exploited in the pick and roll. The Blazers did it in 2000, and so did the Spurs in 2001 and Kings in 2002. The East were weak even back then, and they didn't have anyone to match up with Shaq, so obviously he dominated those Finals series. Which was also the gameplan from Phil's side; pound it in to Shaq.

But I'm sure you can tell me otherwise and name three major weaknesses to MJ's game in 1991? No?

So if we cut out the wishful thinking it's hard to see how prime Shaq was better than prime MJ. People tend to forget how fragile that threepeat really was. The Blazers were actually the better team in 2000, and if not for a total mental breakdown (Dunleavy is a horrible coach btw) they would have ousted the Lakers in that game 7 (with Shaq playing poorly in game 6 AND 7). Same with the Kings in 2002; one could easily say that the Kings were the better team and that the Lakers got lucky. Prime MJ and Bulls were never threatened in this way. The closest would probably be the 93 series vs the Knicks, but even that can't compare.

So either way you cut it, peak year, prime whatever.. it is difficult to argue that Shaq was better than MJ. 91 MJ beats 00 Shaq for reasons stated above. And 91-93 MJ has a clear advantage over Shaq 00-02 overall IMO.

[Roundball_Rock]

Shaq could be limited and taken out of his game, period. Not for a whole series obviously, but for a game here and there.

Of course--but the same can be said about every player in history, at least with respect to their real-life iterations, not the mythical player. The real-life MJ had several sub-par series when he faced top defenses.


People tend to forget how fragile that threepeat really was. The Blazers were actually the better team in 2000, and if not for a total mental breakdown (Dunleavy is a horrible coach btw) they would have ousted the Lakers in that game 7 (with Shaq playing poorly in game 6 AND 7). Same with the Kings in 2002; one could easily say that the Kings were the better team and that the Lakers got lucky. Prime MJ and Bulls were never threatened in this way. The closest would probably be the 93 series vs the Knicks, but even that can't compare.


Of course they were. The 92' Knicks (51 wins against a the 67 win Bulls) took them to 7 games in the ECSF. In the NBA Finals the Bulls were down 17 with 12 1/2 minutes left and it took Pippen and 4 bench players to lead a miraculous comeback that erased that game to avoid a Game 7. The 93' Knicks were up 2-0 with HCA and MJ shot 17% in Game 3 but fortunately Pippen had 29 points on 83% and other players stepped up. Game 6 went down to the wire and if not for some major Pippen baskets down the stretch there would have been a Game 7--in New York. The 93' Finals were a Paxson three pointer away from a 7th game--in Phoenix. So they were threatened, although concededly not as much as the Lakers--but this is a team sport. The Lakers without Shaq were literally a .500 team during 2000-2002; the Bulls without MJ were battling for the top seed so of course the Lakers had less margin for error.

[Hands of Iron]

You don't get it. Even in 2000 his defense was suspect. Sure he made an effort at the rim but he was still a terrible pick and roll defender. This was rarely ever reported by the main stream media until later on when the Lakers started struggling more, but everyone in LA knew what was up. So even if you are talking about a peak YEAR, I still wouldn't take 2000 Shaq over 91 Jordan. You still had to deal with the weaknesses in Shaq's game, while MJ had none. Remember how poorly Shaq played at times in the 2000 WCF as well. The Blazers basically laid the blueprint on how to take Shaq out of his game. NO ONE took MJ out of his game in 1991.

Unless you're suggesting Shaq actually had a negative impact on what was coincidentally (or not) the league's best defense that season - and that would frankly be ridiculous - then I'm not sure what's being debated considering I have no issue taking '91 Jordan over. Simply by stepping up his overall effort, rim protection, man defense and intimidation factor, it produced positive results in spades for the Lakers, regardless of suspect PnR and really transition D as well while we're on it. His impact there was still greater than the 2-guard's, in addition to the force he was on the boards while dropping 30+ nightly on ridiculous efficiency playing all but the entire full season and the biggest thing that was up was the Lakers winning percentage. I'm not bothered who picks who though, really. Next week I could answer Jordan if asked again and you're on point in regards to a flawless make up that includes a bevy of intangibles. Kobe also had poor games against the Blazers: much poorer, and that certainly didn't help their predicament considering how reliant those teams were on their duo, all revisionist heroics aside.

[havoc33]

Of course--but the same can be said about every player in history, at least with respect to their real-life iterations, not the mythical player. The real-life MJ had several sub-par series when he faced top defenses.

Of course they were. The 92' Knicks (51 wins against a the 67 win Bulls) took them to 7 games in the ECSF. In the NBA Finals the Bulls were down 17 with 12 1/2 minutes left and it took Pippen and 4 bench players to lead a miraculous comeback that erased that game to avoid a Game 7. The 93' Knicks were up 2-0 with HCA and MJ shot 17% in Game 3 but fortunately Pippen had 29 points on 83% and other players stepped up. Game 6 went down to the wire and if not for some major Pippen baskets down the stretch there would have been a Game 7--in New York. The 93' Finals were a Paxson three pointer away from a 7th game--in Phoenix. So they were threatened, although concededly not as much as the Lakers--but this is a team sport. The Lakers without Shaq were literally a .500 team during 2000-2002; the Bulls without MJ were battling for the top seed so of course the Lakers had less margin for error.
Threatened yes, but like you admit yourself not in the same manner as the Lakers, which we could argue should have lost both in 2000 and 2002 in the WCF.

And MJ had several sub par series? In 91 he didn't have one. And which ones are you referring to in 92 and 93 then? The two Knicks series?? 93 he admittedly struggled somewhat with his shot. You could start seeing cracks in the armour that year by the way, indicating a slight decline.

But you completely ignore my point about Shaq having three weaknesses in his game, even in his prime year. Jordan didn't have a major weakness; in his peak he was the most dominant, and best allround player next to Pippen. So I just don't see the '00 Shaq over '91 Jordan, sorry.

[MavsPoke]

Easy thread.

GOAT > Hack-a-Shaq

[ILLsmak]

But I'm sure you can tell me otherwise and name three major weaknesses to MJ's game in 1991? No?



Thing is, Shaq was a pretty big dude. Those 'weaknesses' were consistent with his body type. It is what it is.

The fact that Shaq could get 30-40 points on a collapsed defense plus pass it out when he felt like it, to me, negates his free throw issues.

Give me a feet set 3 over a on the move pick and roll midrange J.

Shaq's pick and roll D was simple, fall back every time. He wouldn't trap because dudes would get a lay up due to the fact that he was the only person who could protect the rim on the court as well as the fact that players would just run into him.

Long story short, I don't think we can say Shaq's weaknesses (which were also his greatest strengths) mean he isn't worth of mention for top peak play. I wonder if you also say such things as... Hakeem > Shaq... due to defense and FTs.

Shaq had a bigger mental edge on players and teams than MJ did. Or maybe anyone in NBA history.

-Smak

[BoutPractice]

Shaq was better for most of the game (but not by that much, which says all you need to know about Jordan), but as others have said, when it gets close the poor FT shooting becomes a liability, a problem MJ didn't have.

[Asukal]

Shaq didn't start winning till the great bigs of the 90s got old. He was so dominant because nobody was there to stop him. Who was his greatest defender? Old Mutombo? Old Robinson? :oldlol:

[DCL]

peak shaq = atomic bomb.

game over.

[bdreason]

Peak Shaq for the first 3 quarters. Peak MJ for the 4th.

[beastee]

Peak Shaq for the first 3 quarters. Peak MJ for the 4th.

This is it really. Peak Shaq was insanely good, but between hack a shaq and MJ's godmode clutch skills, this would be the perfect player.

[havoc33]

Thing is, Shaq was a pretty big dude. Those 'weaknesses' were consistent with his body type. It is what it is.

The fact that Shaq could get 30-40 points on a collapsed defense plus pass it out when he felt like it, to me, negates his free throw issues.

Give me a feet set 3 over a on the move pick and roll midrange J.

Shaq's pick and roll D was simple, fall back every time. He wouldn't trap because dudes would get a lay up due to the fact that he was the only person who could protect the rim on the court as well as the fact that players would just run into him.

Long story short, I don't think we can say Shaq's weaknesses (which were also his greatest strengths) mean he isn't worth of mention for top peak play. I wonder if you also say such things as... Hakeem > Shaq... due to defense and FTs.

Shaq had a bigger mental edge on players and teams than MJ did. Or maybe anyone in NBA history.

-Smak

Oh don't get me wrong. Shaq certainly deserves a mention when it comes to top peak play. He was absolutely dominant. Just not on Jordan's level, that's all. Shaq could be taken out of his game, either by hack a shaq, or even getting him frustrated and getting him into foul trouble. That, together with his spotty pick and roll d make is very hard to put him above MJ. 91 MJ basically didn't have any weaknesses. He scored at will, played amazing D both on ball and as a help defender, and even outplayed Magic Johnson as a facilitator in the Finals (probably his best Finals series ever: 31.2 points, 11.4 assists, 6.6 rebounds, 2.8 steals and 1.4 blocks per game on 55.8 percent field goal shooting while spending a ton of energy guarding Magic for extended periods of time).

[jayfan]

Game 7, for all the marbles, which player would you take for your squad?

Makes it easy, doesn't it? MJ all day, every day.

[mehyaM24]

how is this even debatable? its peak shaq

never had the luxury of shooting under 45% (jordan had 6 games alone in the 93 playoffs where he shot in the ~40% range, including 3 games where shot in the 30% range and 1 where he actually shot 16%, 3/18 FG :facepalm).

played better competition too as i said earlier

mutombo, smits >>> majerle and byron scott

[riseagainst]

how is this even debatable? its peak shaq

never had the luxury of shooting under 45% (jordan had 6 games alone in the 93 playoffs where he shot in the ~40% range, including 3 games where shot in the 30% range and 1 where he actually shot 16%, 3/18 FG :facepalm).

played better competition too as i said earlier

mutombo, smits >>> majerle and byron scott

so you would choose Shaq only because of FG%.

:coleman:

[mehyaM24]

so you would choose Shaq only because of FG%.

:coleman:

no

i choose shaq because he actually had more impact. 30 and 14 with elite skills and defense? too dominant

[jayfan]

Shaq against any non-big.

Put up near 40-20 games in the Finals, and a ridiculous post presence. Nothing scarier as a defender than Shaq coming at you. Can't stop him without fouling, and he was great at passing out of the double team.

But you can't stop Jordan even with fouling. The fact is, fouling Shaq was basically a stop.

[veilside23]

how is this even debatable? its peak shaq

never had the luxury of shooting under 45% (jordan had 6 games alone in the 93 playoffs where he shot in the ~40% range, including 3 games where shot in the 30% range and 1 where he actually shot 16%, 3/18 FG :facepalm).

played better competition too as i said earlier

mutombo, smits >>> majerle and byron scott


this guy is a LeBron lover of course he would pick shaq...

Shaq isn't even better than prime olajuwan my goodness..

there is only 1 goat boy ..

[JUDGE WITNESS]

1-9

[La Frescobaldi]

ive never seen anyone more skilled than peak shaq...and the footage doesnt lie

go to youtube and type in "shaqs gangsta move on michael jordan". name ONE big man in the nba that can do that...i dont mean on michael jordan, just alone in an empty gym. :oldlol: i started watching shaq a year before he was drafted and was baffled even then when people questioned his skills. i had never seen such skills.

peak shaq = greatest player of alltime

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5U0Klz-uk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4rJ_907q9g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPHxgWYlF-M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dddoRMXZh8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbc6HE_S-ck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIsh7e9DAOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha9j5_HkKCM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6exqbkKAj4

Few old timers who had actual outside skills that were routinely shown on the court -as in driving from perimeter - Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Elvin Hayes, Chamberlain, Jabbar, Garnett, Haywood, both Malones + plenty more

Shaq's game was far more impressive under the basket than any of that clip you showed.

[T_L_P]

2000 and 2001 playoffs were the only time Shaq really gave a shit on defense and he was the best defender in the league. He intimidated the shit out of everyone and locked down the paint, protected the rim. Scoring wise they were even but MJ was a better passer. Shaq had more defensive attention he literally drew triples regularly and even quadruples in the playoffs at times. He was also a much better rebounder and his size/speed was monstrous. It really comes down to MJ not being able to reach Shaqs level of dominance on the defensive end but its close these are the 2 greatest peak players by far in history

Stopped reading at best defender in the league. :facepalm

Im taking Shaq though.

[mehyaM24]

this guy is a LeBron lover of course he would pick shaq...

Shaq isn't even better than prime olajuwan my goodness..

there is only 1 goat boy ..

or that he averaged 30-14 from 2000-2002 with elite defense...accumulating by FAR the greatest finals performances of any player in history

LOL at "olajuwan". a raw shaq outplayed a peak olajuwon in the finals

idiot

[mehyaM24]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5U0Klz-uk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4rJ_907q9g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPHxgWYlF-M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dddoRMXZh8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbc6HE_S-ck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIsh7e9DAOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha9j5_HkKCM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6exqbkKAj4

Few old timers who had actual outside skills that were routinely shown on the court -as in driving from perimeter - Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Elvin Hayes, Chamberlain, Jabbar, Garnett, Haywood, both Malones + plenty more

Shaq's game was far more impressive under the basket than any of that clip you showed.

:facepalm at those ringless centers. ringless ewing and robinson (at the time)...wow!....shaq went through the ****ing twin towers, understand?

again, type "shaqs gangsta move on michael jordan" OR "shaq coast to coast" into youtube

do you think cousins can move like that? lol

shaq had guard skills. he has gone coast to coast more than any center in history. more crossovers and more thrown alley oops (not the recipient) than anybody at his position.

[Lamar Odumbb]

Peak Shaq is probably the most dominant athlete ever.

I would pick peak Shaq over Jordan and Kobe but its 50/50 with Magic.

[guy]

Of course--but the same can be said about every player in history, at least with respect to their real-life iterations, not the mythical player. The real-life MJ had several sub-par series when he faced top defenses.



Of course they were. The 92' Knicks (51 wins against a the 67 win Bulls) took them to 7 games in the ECSF. In the NBA Finals the Bulls were down 17 with 12 1/2 minutes left and it took Pippen and 4 bench players to lead a miraculous comeback that erased that game to avoid a Game 7. The 93' Knicks were up 2-0 with HCA and MJ shot 17% in Game 3 but fortunately Pippen had 29 points on 83% and other players stepped up. Game 6 went down to the wire and if not for some major Pippen baskets down the stretch there would have been a Game 7--in New York. The 93' Finals were a Paxson three pointer away from a 7th game--in Phoenix. So they were threatened, although concededly not as much as the Lakers--but this is a team sport. The Lakers without Shaq were literally a .500 team during 2000-2002; the Bulls without MJ were battling for the top seed so of course the Lakers had less margin for error.

:oldlol: If you consider SEVERAL of Jordan's series as sub-par, then you must consider Pippen as an absolute scrub in comparison.

[La Frescobaldi]

:facepalm at those ringless centers. ringless ewing and robinson (at the time)...wow!....shaq went through the ****ing twin towers, understand?

again, type "shaqs gangsta move on michael jordan" OR "shaq coast to coast" into youtube

do you think cousins can move like that? lol

shaq had guard skills. he has gone coast to coast more than any center in history. more crossovers and more thrown alley oops (not the recipient) than anybody at his position.
Shifting the talk to rings now.
Have a good day.

[guy]

Peak Jordan, and I don't see how its even that debatable. They both had similar dominance, yet Jordan didn't have a weakness that was repeatedly exposed and made him a liability at times, he was probably the most clutch player of all-time, and he was obviously a better leader.

And I know people will ask if that means I think someone like peak Kobe or Lebron should be considered better as well. Kobe lacks the same level of dominance and leadership, and Lebron might have the same statistical dominance but he's not close to the closer Jordan was and he lacks the same level of aggression both Jordan and Shaq had (and I'd actually say peak Lebron vs peak Shaq is still debatable.)