Shaq's teams with and without him from 2001-2007

[Roundball_Rock]

Shaq is top 5 all-time and the most underrated top 10 player. One thing that is underappreciated about him is his impact on teams, which tends to be lost in the dazzle of the big names he played with. Just look at what happened to his Lakers and Heat teams without him.

Keep in mind Shaq joined a 21 win team and Shaq turned them to a 41 win team as a rookie--and this was Shaq before he became a top 5 player. Imagine a prime Shaq on that team and how much he would have elevated it!

LAL with Shaq in 2001: 51-23 (69%)
LAL without Shaq in 2001: 5-3 (63%)
57 wins versus 52 wins.

LAL with Shaq in 2002: 51-16 (76%)
LAL without Shaq in 2002: 7-8 (47%)
62 wins versus 38.

LAL with Shaq in 2003: 45-22 (67%)
LAL without Shaq in 2003: 5-10 (33%)
55 wins versus 27.

LAL with Shaq in 2004: 49-18 (73%)
LAL without Shaq in 2004: 7-8 (47%)
60 wins versus 38.

MIA with Shaq in 2005: 53-20 (73%)
MIA without Shaq in 2005: 6-3 (67%)
60 wins versus 55.

MIA with Shaq in 2006: 42-17 (71%)
MIA without Shaq in 2007: 10-13 (43%)
58 wins versus 35.

MIA with Shaq in 2007: 25-15 (63%)
MIA without Shaq in 2007: 19-23 (45%)
51 wins versus 37.

It is remarkable how these teams, all of which were contenders except the 07' squad, fell off so dramatically without Shaq. Shaq was contending with teams that struggled to reach 0.500 without him. :bowdown:

Yet people usually barely have him in their top 10? Why? Shaq had arguably the GOAT peak, a lengthy prime that lasted from 1994-2005, was a top 5 player every year from 1994-2005, was a top 10 player every year from 1994-2006 and was an all-star player in his 17th season, when he was 36. His longevity is comparable to or superior to anyone else in the top 10 all-time, other than KAJ and Duncan.

What is the case for someone like Magic, Bird over Shaq? Some people even put Hakeem over Shaq. Shaq is comparable or superior in winning, had a greater peak and had better longevity.

[Jacks3]

You've made this same thread multiple times. :oldlol:

[TheMarkMadsen]

Shaq is top 5 all-time and the most underrated top 10 player. One thing that is underappreciated about him is his impact on teams, which tends to be lost in the dazzle of the big names he played with. Just look at what happened to his Lakers and Heat teams without him.

Keep in mind Shaq joined a 21 win team and Shaq turned them to a 41 win team as a rookie--and this was Shaq before he became a top 5 player. Imagine a prime Shaq on that team and how much he would have elevated it!

LAL with Shaq in 2001: 51-23 (69%)
LAL without Shaq in 2001: 5-3 (63%)
57 wins versus 52 wins.

LAL with Shaq in 2002: 51-16 (76%)
LAL without Shaq in 2002: 7-8 (47%)
62 wins versus 38.

LAL with Shaq in 2003: 45-22 (67%)
LAL without Shaq in 2003: 5-10 (33%)
55 wins versus 27.

LAL with Shaq in 2004: 49-18 (73%)
LAL without Shaq in 2004: 7-8 (47%)
60 wins versus 38.

MIA with Shaq in 2005: 53-20 (73%)
MIA without Shaq in 2005: 6-3 (67%)
60 wins versus 55.

MIA with Shaq in 2006: 42-17 (71%)
MIA without Shaq in 2007: 10-13 (43%)
58 wins versus 35.

MIA with Shaq in 2007: 25-15 (63%)
MIA without Shaq in 2007: 19-23 (45%)
51 wins versus 37.

It is remarkable how these teams, all of which were contenders except the 07' squad, fell off so dramatically without Shaq. Shaq was contending with teams that struggled to reach 0.500 without him. :bowdown:

Yet people usually barely have him in their top 10? Why? Shaq had arguably the GOAT peak, a lengthy prime that lasted from 1994-2005, was a top 5 player every year from 1994-2005, was a top 10 player every year from 1994-2006 and was an all-star player in his 17th season, when he was 36. His longevity is comparable to or superior to anyone else in the top 10 all-time, other than KAJ and Duncan.

What is the case for someone like Magic, Bird over Shaq? Some people even put Hakeem over Shaq. Shaq is comparable or superior in winning, had a greater peak and had better longevity.

they weren't liabilities in the 4th quarter of close games

[Roundball_Rock]

You've made this same thread multiple times. :oldlol:

I made one similar to this, but much longer and accompanied with far more writing, about five years ago. A Shaq thread certainly is welcome amid the usual daily 25 threads on LeBron, Kobe, and MJ. :lol

[ArbitraryWater]

they weren't liabilities in the 4th quarter of close games

Prove this shit talking..

show me multiple games in the playoffs where they took out Shaq due to his FT shooting.

[KobesFinger]

In what world is Shaq underrated? People always acknowledge his GOAT peak and his dominance. People rarely talk about his first round exits, his ring chasing, the players he's played with or the fact it was his way or the high way

[Prime_Shaq]

:applause:
While Shaq did have some monster stats, alot of what he did couldn't even be quantified with stats

[ArbitraryWater]

In what world is Shaq underrated? People always acknowledge his GOAT peak and his dominance. People rarely talk about his first round exits, his ring chasing, the players he's played with or the fact it was his way or the high way

Shaq is hideously underrated on all time lists.. somehow he's always mentioned around 8-10, hell, doesn't Simmons have him 13, or 11 was it? :oldlol:

[T_L_P]

I personally have Shaq ranked 5th or 6th all-time.

One of the greatest peaks ever and extremely underrated longevity. Basically came into the league a superstar (though he was quite raw).

Main negatives being his distinct lack of leadership at times and I personally didn't think much of his defense.

[Prime_Shaq]

I personally have Shaq ranked 5th or 6th all-time.

One of the greatest peaks ever and extremely underrated longevity. Basically came into the league a superstar (though he was quite raw).

Main negatives being his distinct lack of leadership at times and I personally didn't think much of him defensively.
If you're talking about his career as a whole then I'm ok with it, but from 2000 to 2006-2007 his defense was pretty underrated. Moving on to the Suns team didn't really help either.

[Roundball_Rock]

In what world is Shaq underrated? People always acknowledge his GOAT peak and his dominance. People rarely talk about his first round exits, his ring chasing, the players he's played with or the fact it was his way or the high way

Half of ISH has Hakeem over Shaq. :roll: Shaq also almost always is listed behind Magic, Bird. There also are a few who have Kobe over Shaq. I don't think Duncan>Shaq but Duncan has a legitimate case (greater winner, greater longevity) over Shaq in a way someone like Hakeem or Bird does not imo. Maybe I am the one who is off and am overrating Shaq but I view Shaq as the "best of class" of the next group that comes after MJ/KAJ/Wilt/Russell (LeBron conceivably could join this group but is not there yet).

First round exits? Hakeem is the king of first round exits and no one holds that against him. Prime Shaq lost in the first round only in 94', his second year. Other than that he was at least in the second round every year from 1995-2006 and he won 4 rings, reached 6 Finals and 9 conference finals during this span.

[T_L_P]

If you're talking about his career as a whole then I'm ok with it, but from 2000 to 2006-2007 his defense was pretty underrated. Moving on to the Suns team didn't really help either.

I am mainly talking about his overall prime (so, what, 95-04?).

That's not to say he was bad defensively. In actual fact he was very good. I just meant I didn't think much of it in comparison to other all-time great big men (Hakeem, Duncan, Russell, Robinson, etc). :cheers:

His defensive play in Miami was def. underrated.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Duncan has a legitimate case (greater winner, greater longevity) over Shaq in a way someone like Hakeem or Bird does not imo.

Finally someone with reason. :applause:

Bird has no argument over either Duncan or Shaq. :no:

[sd3035]

https://i.imgur.com/4cadS6Q.gif

[TheMarkMadsen]

Prove this shit talking..

show me multiple games in the playoffs where they took out Shaq due to his FT shooting.

this is common knowledge to anybody who basketball prior to Dirk winning his ring, Shaq was always a liability in the 4th quarter of close games.

ever heard of hack a Shaq? this was a huge liability towards the end of games which prevented the Lakers from being able to dump the ball down to Shaq towards the end of close games


2002 Spurs-Lakers series:

Kobe averaged 9.2 ppg on 64% shooting in fourth quarters. Shaq averaged 4.5 ppg on 29%.

In the last three games of the series (all of which LA won), Lakers went in trailing in the fourth quarter or second half. In game 3, Kobe took over in the fourth, shot 5/5 and outscored the entire Spurs team by himself for a long stretch in the fourth. In game 4, Kobe outscored the Spurs by himself in the fourth quarter and hit the game winning shot. And in game 5, Kobe scored 10 pts in the fourth (on 4/7) and made the assist on Horry’s game clinching three. Lakers won those three games by 10, 2 and 6 pts.

Shaq in these last three wins averaged 1.7 ppg on 11% (1/9 from floor). Kobe meanwhile averaged 11 ppg on 67%, also hit a game winner and outscored the Spurs single handedl for long stretches in the fourth. Duncan choking was another big factor, and I'm sure Shaq was taking care of business on defense but offensively the difference in production is so huge.

2002 Kings-Lakers series:

Kobe averaged 8.6 ppg on 43%, 96% on FTs and had just 5 turnovers. Shaq averaged just 5.4 ppg on 31%, 68% FTs and had 8 turnovers. Kobe’s lowest scoring fourth quarter was in the game 7, he had 4 pts but took only 2 shots (one a bailout three, another a tip in attempt at the buzzer). But he spoonfed Shaq and others in the quarter. Shaq was 2/7 in the fourth (and had 2 TOs), and his only two made shots came when Kobe spoonfed him a dunk and a layup. He did step up in OT though (6 pts on 2/5).

props to fatal


There's a reason Kobe was leading the league in 4th quarter playoff scoring for b2b championship runs, he was the closer, he had to close because Shaq wasn't reliable in late game situations where the other team could just foul him and put him on the line where he's going to make 50% of those shots..

[Bless Mathews]

Great op.

People get caught up on stats and just rings.

Puts things in perspective when you see his teams that won :competed for rings and how mediocre they were without him.

[34-24 Footwork]

this is common knowledge to anybody who basketball prior to Dirk winning his ring, Shaq was always a liability in the 4th quarter of close games.

ever heard of hack a Shaq? this was a huge liability towards the end of games which prevented the Lakers from being able to dump the ball down to Shaq towards the end of close games





props to fatal


There's a reason Kobe was leading the league in 4th quarter playoff scoring for b2b championship runs, he was the closer, he had to close because Shaq wasn't reliable in late game situations where the other team could just foul him and put him on the line where he's going to make 50% of those shots..


The Shaq "carrying" narrative is waaay too easy to disprove. The only problem is that there's waaaaay too much evidence out there to decide what to use.

Bottom line - Shaq had the most individual and team success with Kobe Bryant.

After playing with Wade, Hardaway, Nash, LeBron and the Celtics, he still only came up with one ring.

[Bless Mathews]

The Shaq "carrying" narrative is waaay too easy to disprove. The only problem is that there's waaaaay too much evidence out there to decide what to use.

Bottom line - Shaq had the most individual and team success with Kobe Bryant.

After playing with Wade, Hardaway, Nash, LeBron and the Celtics, he still only came up with one ring.

Ever heard of the term "peak" ??

Smh. Smh.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Ever heard of the term "peak" ??

Smh. Smh.

no coincidence that Shaq's "peak" begins when Kobe became an all nba player and ends when Kobe has a torn labrum in the playoffs

tbh Shaq and Kobe's supporting cast was beyond awful in 03

really none.

[Prime_Shaq]

no coincidence that Shaq's "peak" begins when Kobe became an all nba player and ends when Kobe has a torn labrum in the playoffs

tbh Shaq and Kobe's supporting cast was beyond awful in 03

really none.
Shaq's team success began when Kobe developed. Shaq's peak was around 1995 where he led his team to the Finals. Shaq and Kobe's cast were awful from 2000-2003, they only won because they had 2 top ended players.

[nathanjizzle]

if anything, people overrate shaq on these boards.

[ArbitraryWater]

this is common knowledge to anybody who basketball prior to Dirk winning his ring, Shaq was always a liability in the 4th quarter of close games.

ever heard of hack a Shaq? this was a huge liability towards the end of games which prevented the Lakers from being able to dump the ball down to Shaq towards the end of close games



props to fatal


There's a reason Kobe was leading the league in 4th quarter playoff scoring for b2b championship runs, he was the closer, he had to close because Shaq wasn't reliable in late game situations where the other team could just foul him and put him on the line where he's going to make 50% of those shots..


Sooo, where is the Lakers taking Shaq out of the game for being a liability?

All you showed was a poor 4th quarter series.... You could do the same for Kobe, or show a good one for Shaq.

[HOoopCityJones]

Sooo, where is the Lakers taking Shaq out of the game for being a liability?

All you showed was a poor 4th quarter series.... You could do the same for Kobe, or show a good one for Shaq.


I notice you didn't quote the info he posted you fuccing fraud ass ni99a. :lol

[AintNoSunshine]

Kobe stans getting nervous and uncomfortable despite his name never showed up in OP:oldlol:

[ArbitraryWater]

I notice you didn't quote the info he posted you fuccing fraud ass ni99a. :lol

That's how ISH works.. It's a quote... notice how from my reply Mark Madsen's quote isn't in your post (this one), either? Try quoting him and adding fatals quote so it shows up, dumbass.

[mehyaM24]

kobe admits being shaq's sidekick during lakers championships

“The challenge for me was to show [Shaq] and show everybody else that I could win without him,” Bryant continued. “Point proven.”

“I took it as an honor and as a challenge to be a player that could play the supporting role.

It may have taken nearly a decade since Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal went through a public divorce, but the former seems to be content with his role as sidekick to the latter during the time they played together.

:confusedshrug:

[The Iron Sheik]

a top heavy team that doesn't have it's best player doesn't play as well as they do with him? who would have known?

[j3lademaster]

Yet people usually barely have him in their top 10? Why? Shaq had arguably the GOAT peak, a lengthy prime that lasted from 1994-2005, was a top 5 player every year from 1994-2005, was a top 10 player every year from 1994-2006 and was an all-star player in his 17th season, when he was 36. His longevity is comparable to or superior to anyone else in the top 10 all-time, other than KAJ and Duncan.

What is the case for someone like Magic, Bird over Shaq? Some people even put Hakeem over Shaq. Shaq is comparable or superior in winning, had a greater peak and had better longevity.Just curious, what does your top 10 look like?

[Roundball_Rock]

Sooo, where is the Lakers taking Shaq out of the game for being a liability?

All you showed was a poor 4th quarter series.... You could do the same for Kobe, or show a good one for Shaq.

Exactly. The fact is Shaq was not a liability at the end of games. Was he limited on the offensive end due to his FT shooting? Of course but he was not a liability. One can argue that Magic indeed was a liability at the defensive end, though for 48 minutes.

Too much is made of "end of game" situations on ISH. Very few games even go down to the final 2 minutes. Shaq arguably was the MDE for the first 45-46 minutes of games and we are quibbling over rare games that are close in the final couple of minutes?


a top heavy team that doesn't have it's best player doesn't play as well as they do with him? who would have known?

:coleman:

Was Shaq Miami's best player in 2006 and 2007? Was he Los Angeles' best player in 2004?

The interesting thing is those teams with Shaq, without Kobe or Wade did fine so it is not simply about top heavy squads being exposed without one of their stars.


Just curious, what does your top 10 look like?

1) KAJ/MJ
3) Wilt
4) Russell
5) Shaq
6) Duncan
7) Bird
8) Magic
9) Kobe
10) LeBron

[TheMarkMadsen]

Sooo, where is the Lakers taking Shaq out of the game for being a liability?

All you showed was a poor 4th quarter series.... You could do the same for Kobe, or show a good one for Shaq.

I never said they took Shaq out at then end of game. I said he was a liability in the forth quarter of close games due to his poor free throw shooting which he was.

You literally made up a claim, and then asked me to disprove it

:biggums: :lol

Take the L and move on

[Roundball_Rock]

Arbitrary is right. If he was a liability he would have been taken out. He was not a liability, though, and he was not benched. He was limited, not a liability. Remember, it was Shaq who provided the iconic moment of that dynasty when he (with an assist from Kobe) sealed the Lakers' win over Portland in Game 7 of 2000.

[TheMarkMadsen]

We'll say this again, simply because the point isn't getting through. The Lakers need to go to O'Neal consistently through the first three quarters, then to Bryant in the fourth.

O'Neal still does more to affect the other team--he's always the focal point of their defensive strategy--and sending the ball inside opens more shots for rest of the team. But his free-throw shooting makes him a fourth-quarter liability, while Bryant's one-on-one skills and clutch shooting make him a perfect go-to guy in crunch time.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/11/sports/sp-10977



But O'Neal became a liability when the Pacers deployed the Hack-a-Shaq strategy judiciously down the stretch

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/reggie-indy-free-pass-shaq-fouls-rally-line-article-1.858108



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


Good post, pretty spot on summary.


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191566&page=7


http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/gif/08515847a454470c492def31c7ad34c9e08a776.gif

[Roundball_Rock]

We are engaging in semantics. To me and Arbitrary "liability" means being a net negative, hence requiring your removal to the bench. Frankly I wish Shaq was on the bench at the end of Game 7 in 2000! :oldlol:

[LeBird]

Neither Shaq nor Duncan have a case for me over Bird and Magic; they factor in afterwards from about 6-10. I have Shaq slightly higher than Duncan.

Simply put, a professional Shaq could have been GOAT but because he rarely was he falls short of that caliber/group of players. Shaq, considering the era, should have had a Jordanesque ring count, MVP count and to go a career with such an abysmal free-throw shooting record is a disgrace.

I just can't imagine guys like Russell, Bird or Magic not pushing the limits so as to get to a victory. That's the difference, they did it by any means necessary. Getting Shaq to stay fit and not disrupt the team unity is another weakness that might not show up in the numbers but says a lot about him as a competitor. I guess this is where Duncan also is superior to Shaq but I think overall Shaq was a more dominant player than Duncan.

[ArbitraryWater]

I never said they took Shaq out at then end of game. I said he was a liability in the forth quarter of close games due to his poor free throw shooting which he was.

You literally made up a claim, and then asked me to disprove it

:biggums: :lol

Take the L and move on

Wait.. so you say Shaq was a liability in 4th quarters (unlike Magic, Bird, Shaq), and all you can offer is show a poor clutch series to support your myth? :biggums: :lol

Okay, excuse me for thinking you weren't that dumb.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Wait.. so you say Shaq was a liability in 4th quarters (unlike Magic, Bird, Shaq), and all you can offer is show a poor clutch series to support your myth? :biggums: :lol

Okay, excuse me for thinking you weren't that dumb.

way to dodge the impossible to miss post on this page and instead respond to the post on the last page

:roll: :roll:

...


We'll say this again, simply because the point isn't getting through. The Lakers need to go to O'Neal consistently through the first three quarters, then to Bryant in the fourth.

O'Neal still does more to affect the other team--he's always the focal point of their defensive strategy--and sending the ball inside opens more shots for rest of the team. But his free-throw shooting makes him a fourth-quarter liability, while Bryant's one-on-one skills and clutch shooting make him a perfect go-to guy in crunch time.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/11/sports/sp-10977



But O'Neal became a liability when the Pacers deployed the Hack-a-Shaq strategy judiciously down the stretch

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/reggie-indy-free-pass-shaq-fouls-rally-line-article-1.858108



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


Good post, pretty spot on summary.


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191566&page=7

[TheMarkMadsen]

Shaq being a 4th quarter liability due to poor free throw shooting is common knowledge

as much as you want to try and revise history THE LINKS STILL EXIST from 00 & 01 from the LA times all calling for the ball to go to Kobe in the 4th due to Shaq being a liability.

62% FT shooting in the 4th quarter isn't helping your argument, that's still horrible.

and it's funny that you would bring up 2001, Kobe absolutly dominated the first 3 rounds averaging 32/7/6 on 50% while leading the entire league in 4th quarter playoff scoring. The only game the Lakers lost that entire post season was the only bad game Kobe played..Shaq went 10 of 22 from the line and 2/6 in the 4th quarter/OT once again being a liability in late games at the line

Lakers were going to Kobe in the 4th quarters, not Shaq

[mehyaM24]

data isn't available for 2000, and 2002 is already accounted for (shaq shot 62.5% from the FT line in clutch situations during the 4th qtr, which is hardly a liability - this according to john schuhmann (http://www.nba.com/archive/news/features/john_schuhmann/news_archive.html) who writes for the nba).

however, we can delve back into the 2000-01 postsesaon. when kobe played arguably his best basketball of the 3-peat. here are shaq's FT numbers per series.

sixers 2001
game 1 - 2/6
game 2 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 3 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
gane 4 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 5 - 3/6 = 50%

spurs 2001
game 1 2/2 = 100%
game 2 1/1 = 100%
game 3 never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 4 never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)

kings 2001
game 1 - 2/6
game 2 - 4/7 = 57%
game 3 - 3/10 (lakers were winning by ~20 points for most of that quarter)
game 4 - 3/5

blazers 2001
game 1 - 5/7 = 71%
game 2 - 1/1 = 100%
game 3 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/pbp/200105130SAC.html#q4 (play-by-play data for every series)

^^ 7/16 of these playoff games were decided through the first 3 quarters (:oldlol: at 4th quarter playoff scoring - the lakers took care of business early half the time). double lol @ peak shaq EVER being a "liability" from the free throw line WHEN IT COUNTED.

when we combine these facts with shaq being CLEARLY the best player on the lakers, and finals mvp for every championship, his MDE moniker only becomes stronger.

[mehyaM24]

Shaq being a 4th quarter liability due to poor free throw shooting is common knowledge

as much as you want to try and revise history THE LINKS STILL EXIST from 00 & 01 from the LA times all calling for the ball to go to Kobe in the 4th due to Shaq being a liability.

62% FT shooting in the 4th quarter isn't helping your argument, that's still horrible.

and it's funny that you would bring up 2001, Kobe absolutly dominated the first 3 rounds averaging 32/7/6 on 50% while leading the entire league in 4th quarter playoff scoring. The only game the Lakers lost that entire post season was the only bad game Kobe played..Shaq went 10 of 22 from the line and 2/6 in the 4th quarter/OT once again being a liability in late games at the line

Lakers were going to Kobe in the 4th quarters, not Shaq

^^^^ kobe fans holding onto "the first 3 rounds" because they know he wets the bed in the finals. LMFAO

btw, as the stats show, shaq was FAR from a liability. you lost all credibility brah.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

data isn't available for 2000, and 2002 is already accounted for (shaq shot 62.5% from the FT line in clutch situations during the 4th qtr, which is hardly a liability - this according to john schuhmann (http://www.nba.com/archive/news/features/john_schuhmann/news_archive.html) who writes for the nba).

however, we can delve back into the 2000-01 postsesaon. when kobe played arguably his best basketball of the 3-peat. here are shaq's FT numbers per series.

sixers 2001
game 1 - 2/6
game 2 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 3 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
gane 4 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 5 - 3/6 = 50%

spurs 2001
game 1 2/2 = 100%
game 2 1/1 = 100%
game 3 never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 4 never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)

kings 2001
game 1 - 2/6
game 2 - 4/7 = 57%
game 3 - 3/10 (lakers were winning by ~20 points for most of that quarter)
game 4 - 3/5

blazers 2001
game 1 - 5/7 = 71%
game 2 - 1/1 = 100%
game 3 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/pbp/200105130SAC.html#q4 (play-by-play data for every series)

^^ 7/16 of these playoff games were decided through the first 3 quarters (:oldlol: at 4th quarter playoff scoring - the lakers took care of business early half the time). double lol @ peak shaq EVER being a "liability" from the free throw line WHEN IT COUNTED.

when we combine these facts with shaq being CLEARLY the best player on the lakers, and finals mvp for every championship, his MDE moniker only becomes stronger.

Hold this L, Kobe fans. Ouch :oldlol:

[TheMarkMadsen]

^^^^ kobe fans holding onto "the first 3 rounds" because they know he wets the bed in the finals. LMFAO

btw, as the stats show, shaq was FAR from a liability. you lost all credibility brah.

:roll: :roll:

what stats? the stats that show Shaq was a horrible free throw shooter, the stats that show Kobe as being the LEAGUE LEADER in 4th quarter playoff scoring for 2001 and 2002?

oh and for this final dose of ether (as if the other links weren't enough) here is Shaq himself acknowledging his stigma of being a 4th quarter liability as early as 97


The source says O'Neal believes there are times, such as during the fourth quarter, when the ball should find its way into his hands so he can show his poor free-throw shooting is not a liability.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1997-01-06/sports/9701050326_1_van-exel-shaquille-oneal-nick-van

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

:roll: :roll:

what stats? the stats that show Shaq was a horrible free throw shooter, the stats that show Kobe as being the LEAGUE LEADER in 4th quarter playoff scoring for 2001 and 2002?

oh and for this final dose of ether (as if the other links weren't enough) here is Shaq himself acknowledging his stigma of being a 4th quarter liability as early as 97

Being a 62% shooter isn't a FT liability. Shooting under 50% aka Deandre Jordan is a legit threat to miss both free throws (a REAL liability).

You've taken many L's on this site, I would wear this one with honor. :oldlol:

[AirBourne92]

TheMarkMadson is just going on a killing spree

never seen so many ethers is 1 thread.

dude's legit going 06 kobe mode with the killer streaks here

[mehyaM24]

what stats?

the stats that show he wasn't a liability. the stats that show shaq put away other teams half the time, and when he didn't, was still by far the teams best player as RAPM, PER, and his FMVP accolades suggest.

:cheers:

[AirBourne92]

Being a 62% shooter isn't a FT liability.


wow

you should be banned from posting

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

wow

you should be banned from posting
Attacking me with your alts doesn't change the fact shooting 62% from the FT line doesn't make you a liability.

DeAndre Jordan and Ben Wallace are what we call FT liabilities.

[mehyaM24]

Attacking me with your alts doesn't change the fact shooting 62% from the FT line doesn't make you a liability.

DeAndre Jordan and Ben Wallace are what we call FT liabilities.
let the idiots parrot their nonsense. the facts do not lie.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Being a 62% shooter isn't a FT liability. Shooting under 50% aka Deandre Jordan is a legit threat to miss both free throws (a REAL liability).

You've taken many L's on this site, I would wear this one with honor. :oldlol:



sixers 2001
game 1 - 2/6
game 2 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 3 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
gane 4 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 5 - 3/6 = 50%

total= 5/12 = 42%

spurs 2001
game 1 2/2 = 100%
game 2 1/1 = 100%
game 3 never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 4 never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)

total= 3/3 = 100%

kings 2001
game 1 - 2/6
game 2 - 4/7 = 57%
game 3 - 3/10 (lakers were winning by ~20 points for most of that quarter)
game 4 - 3/5

total= 12/28= 42%

blazers 2001
game 1 - 5/7 = 71%
game 2 - 1/1 = 100%
game 3 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)

toal= 6/8= 75%


Shaq's FT numbers for the 4th quarter of the 2001 playoffs = 26 /51= 51%


:roll: :roll:

[AirBourne92]

Attacking me with your alts doesn't change the fact shooting 62% from the FT line doesn't make you a liability.

DeAndre Jordan and Ben Wallace are what we call FT liabilities.

claiming that i have an alt account doesn't change the fact that you don't know shit about basketball

at the end of a close game, 62% is a huge liability whether you want to believe it or not.

it's not going to change that fact

leads change with that percentage when he misses a shot or 2.

when a team is up by 2-3 points, fouling shaq would be the smartest thing to do.

derp

[AirBourne92]

Shaq's FT numbers for the 4th quarter of the 2001 playoffs = 26 /51= 51%


:roll: :roll:


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



:cheers:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Shaq's FT numbers for the 4th quarter of the 2001 playoffs = 26 /51= 51%


:roll: :roll:
I'm obviously referring to his 2002 stats, where he shot ~62% from the line.

Hold another L, your alt can wear it after you.

[AirBourne92]

I'm obviously referring to his 2002 stats, where he shot ~62% from the line.

Hold another L, your alt can wear it after you.


62% from the line is liability

derp

[TheMarkMadsen]

I'm obviously referring to his 2002 stats, where he shot ~62%.

Hold another L, your alt can wear it after you.

oh are you?

[QUOTE]2002 Spurs-Lakers series:

Kobe averaged 9.2 ppg on 64% shooting in fourth quarters. Shaq averaged 4.5 ppg on 29%.

In the last three games of the series (all of which LA won), Lakers went in trailing in the fourth quarter or second half. In game 3, Kobe took over in the fourth, shot 5/5 and outscored the entire Spurs team by himself for a long stretch in the fourth. In game 4, Kobe outscored the Spurs by himself in the fourth quarter and hit the game winning shot. And in game 5, Kobe scored 10 pts in the fourth (on 4/7) and made the assist on Horry

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

oh are you?




L's L's L's L's everwhere

:roll: :roll:

my only alt is MastaKilla, stay paranoid

Those aren't stats for his freethrow shooting, you ignoramus.

Shaq shot ~62% from the line in the 2002 postseason. Tell your alt not to prematurely cream himself next time.

[Overdrive]

claiming that i have an alt account doesn't change the fact that you don't know shit about basketball

at the end of a close game, 62% is a huge liability whether you want to believe it or not.

it's not going to change that fact

leads change with that percentage when he misses a shot or 2.

when a team is up by 2-3 points, fouling shaq would be the smartest thing to do.

derp

On the other hand a big guy in the paint takes away the most probable two point shot opportunity(dunk/lay up).

If the other team and the own team don't have a TS above Shaq's FT rate it doesn't matter. The chance to score point on that possession would be lower.

On the long run 62% FT is more than sufficient.

[mehyaM24]

62% from the line is liability

derp
nope. http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/02/evaluating-hack-shaq.html

^^ this article explains why intentionally fouling a 60% shooter from the ft line is insuficcient and beyond retarded. you idiots cannot deal with the facts, so you rather strawman.

doesn't work here buddy :no:

[AirBourne92]

On the other hand a big guy in the paint takes away the most probable two point shot opportunity(dunk/lay up).

If the other team and the own team don't have a TS above Shaq's FT rate it doesn't matter. The chance to score point on that possession would be lower.

On the long run 62% FT is more than sufficient.

and that's all based off an "if" scenario

i agree shaq's defensive presence would make a difference, but let's not act like he wasn't a liability in the 3 peat


shaq gave kobe the chance to make a name for himself as to being clutch, which he reigned as king for a decade.

all thanks to shaq

[DatAsh]

claiming that i have an alt account doesn't change the fact that you don't know shit about basketball

at the end of a close game, 62% is a huge liability whether you want to believe it or not.

it's not going to change that fact

leads change with that percentage when he misses a shot or 2.

when a team is up by 2-3 points, fouling shaq would be the smartest thing to do.

derp

How is 62% a liability? A team that can convert on 62% would be the best team ever, and that's not even taking into account that they're getting the other team into foul trouble.

[ArbitraryWater]

data isn't available for 2000, and 2002 is already accounted for (shaq shot 62.5% from the FT line in clutch situations during the 4th qtr, which is hardly a liability - this according to john schuhmann (http://www.nba.com/archive/news/features/john_schuhmann/news_archive.html) who writes for the nba).

however, we can delve back into the 2000-01 postsesaon. when kobe played arguably his best basketball of the 3-peat. here are shaq's FT numbers per series.

sixers 2001
game 1 - 2/6
game 2 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 3 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
gane 4 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 5 - 3/6 = 50%

spurs 2001
game 1 2/2 = 100%
game 2 1/1 = 100%
game 3 never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 4 never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)

kings 2001
game 1 - 2/6
game 2 - 4/7 = 57%
game 3 - 3/10 (lakers were winning by ~20 points for most of that quarter)
game 4 - 3/5

blazers 2001
game 1 - 5/7 = 71%
game 2 - 1/1 = 100%
game 3 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/pbp/200105130SAC.html#q4 (play-by-play data for every series)

^^ 7/16 of these playoff games were decided through the first 3 quarters (:oldlol: at 4th quarter playoff scoring - the lakers took care of business early half the time). double lol @ peak shaq EVER being a "liability" from the free throw line WHEN IT COUNTED.

when we combine these facts with shaq being CLEARLY the best player on the lakers, and finals mvp for every championship, his MDE moniker only becomes stronger.


And you people still dare to post after this?

Madsen, this isn't like any other time.. just take the L and move on.

[AirBourne92]

How is 62% a liability? A team that can convert on 62% would be the best team ever, and that's not even taking into account that they're getting the other team into foul trouble.



shooting 62% from the line??

a close game situation where chances are the guy is gonna miss??

id rather have kobe take a contested fadeaway over 3 people than send shaq to the foul line if it was a choice with the lakers being down by 2-3 points.

[TheMarkMadsen]

nope. http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/02/evaluating-hack-shaq.html

^^ this article explains why intentionally fouling a 60% shooter from the ft line is insuficcient and beyond retarded. you idiots cannot deal with the facts, so you rather strawman.

doesn't work here buddy :no:

Shaq shot 49% in the 4th quarters and OT of the 2000 playoffs

51% in 2001

Shaq shot well from the line in games 6 & 7 of the WCF which helps get that to 62%, props to him

but Kobe was the go to guy in the 4th and everybody knew this, he was the one taking the shots, and getting to the line at a higher rate.

which is why he led the league in 4th quarter playoff scoring that year wtih 8ppg on 49% and 50% from 3. Just beasted

[Real14]

Shaq without Kobe from 2000-2004 tho. Lets talk about that shit:coleman:

[Overdrive]

and that's all based off an "if" scenario

i agree shaq's defensive presence would make a difference, but let's not act like he wasn't a liability in the 3 peat


shaq gave kobe the chance to make a name for himself as to being clutch, which he reigned as king for a decade.

all thanks to shaq

The if scenario is that the other team would score. Even if the Lakers were tied putting Shaq on the line would be stupid. The other team would need to convert at the same rate. 105 points per 100 possessions would equal a FT rate of 52,5%. I don't have the stats at hand, but I doubt the Lakers where that much of a defensive liability.

btw I don't want to take away from Kobe, he was damn important in all 3 title runs.

[mehyaM24]

Shaq shot 49% in the 4th quarters and OT of the 2000 playoffs
source?


51% in 2001

9/16 playoff games came close, and shaq didn't shoot enough freethrows to become a liablity. do you understand what a sample size is? :oldlol:

[TheMarkMadsen]

The if scenario is that the other team would score. Even if the Lakers were tied putting Shaq on the line would be stupid. The other team would need to convert at the same rate. 105 points per 100 possessions would equal a FT rate of 52,5%. I don't have the stats at hand, but I doubt the Lakers where that much of a defensive liability.

btw I don't want to take away from Kobe, he was damn important in all 3 title runs.

your thinking in terms of hypotheticals

but what actually happened was late in games during 01 and 02 the ball was in Kobe's hands more often than not, because Shaq was just not reliable from the line.

Shaq shot 49% from the line for the 4th quarter and OT of the playoffs in 2000

51% in 2001

[Overdrive]

Shaq shot 49% in the 4th quarters and OT of the 2000 playoffs

51% in 2001

Shaq shot well from the line in games 6 & 7 of the WCF which helps get that to 62%, props to him

but Kobe was the go to guy in the 4th and everybody knew this, he was the one taking the shots, and getting to the line at a higher rate.

which is why he led the league in 4th quarter playoff scoring that year wtih 8ppg on 49% and 50% from 3. Just beasted

League scored 104.1 points per 100 possessions in 2000, equals a 52.05% FT-rate. so marginally more than Shaq. 103 in 2001 which would make it 51,5% vs 51%. Will try to find Lakers' opponents pp100.

It's 98,2 for 2000 and 104.8 in 2001(97,2 in the POs, though).

[DatAsh]

shooting 62% from the line??

a close game situation where chances are the guy is gonna miss??

id rather have kobe take a contested fadeaway over 3 people than send shaq to the foul line if it was a choice with the lakers being down by 2-3 points.

So you'd take a (likely)40-45% chance over a 62% chance? Why?

If a player can shoot 60% from the line, and teams are stupid enough to repeatedly and intentionally foul that player in the 4th, then that player is going to be one of the best 4th quarter players ever. I want that guy on my team in crunch time.

[TheMarkMadsen]

source?



9/16 playoff games came close, and shaq didn't shoot enough freethrows to become a liablity. do you understand what a sample size is? :oldlol:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=325097

4th quarter FTA over an entire playoff run is a large enough sample size, 51 attempts.. :facepalm :facepalm

he shot 51% from the line in 4th quarters of the 2001 playoffs, im glad you brought that to our attention

[TheMarkMadsen]

League scored 104.1 points per 100 possessions in 2000, equals a 52.05% FT-rate. so marginally more than Shaq. 103 in 2001 which would make it 51,5% vs 51%. Will try to find Lakers' opponents pp100.

i don't care about points per 100 possesions, i care about what actually happened during the games dude.

[Overdrive]

i don't care about points per 100 possesions, i care about what actually happened during the games dude.

What happened during the games was that Shaq, Kobe and the Lakers won 3 championchips in a row. Without Shaq they would have none and most likely none without Kobe either. It's stans who battle this shit out ever since the early 2000s.

[mehyaM24]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=325097

that's not a source. where does it conclude shaq shot 49% from the freethrow line? i want links, sir.


4th quarter FTA over an entire playoff run is a large enough sample size, 51 attempts.

he shot 51% from the line in 4th quarters of the 2001 playoffs, im glad you brought that to our attention

hitting half your freethrows and only attempting about 2 or 3 per 4th quarter doesn't make you a liability.

are you honestly this dense? :oldlol:

[TheMarkMadsen]

that's not a source. where does it say shaq shot 41% from the free throw line? i want links, sir.

i never said 41% i said 49% :facepalm :facepalm

the op's source is at the bottom of the page, stop playing dumb



hitting half your freethrows and only attempting about 2 or 3 per quarter doesn't make a liability.




we're talking about the 4th quarter, where Shaq shot 51% on 26/51 attempts and 42% in the only series where he actually went to the line more than 12 times during the 4th quarter

[mehyaM24]

i don't care about points per 100 possesions, i care about what actually happened during the games dude.
you have no leg to stand on after that points per possession factoid.

100 possessions = what teams average ~per. :oldlol:


the op's source is at the bottom of the page, stop playing dumb

broken links =/= source

[mehyaM24]

i never said 41% i said 49% :facepalm :facepalm

the op's source is at the bottom of the page, stop playing dumb





we're talking about the 4th quarter, where Shaq shot 51% on 26/51 attempts and 42% in the only series where he actually went to the line more than 12 times during the 4th quarter
you're quoting stuff that's not even there. read my post again... :wtf:

[TheMarkMadsen]

you're quoting stuff that's not even there. read my post again... :wtf:

will do


kings 2001
game 1 - 2/6
game 2 - 4/7 = 57%
game 3 - 3/10 (lakers were winning by ~20 points for most of that quarter)
game 4 - 3/5


that equals 42% for the series, 51% overall for 01

and deuces link is pretty clear, take it up with him

[iamgine]

Half of ISH has Hakeem over Shaq. :roll: Shaq also almost always is listed behind Magic, Bird. There also are a few who have Kobe over Shaq. I don't think Duncan>Shaq but Duncan has a legitimate case (greater winner, greater longevity) over Shaq in a way someone like Hakeem or Bird does not imo. Maybe I am the one who is off and am overrating Shaq but I view Shaq as the "best of class" of the next group that comes after MJ/KAJ/Wilt/Russell (LeBron conceivably could join this group but is not there yet).

First round exits? Hakeem is the king of first round exits and no one holds that against him. Prime Shaq lost in the first round only in 94', his second year. Other than that he was at least in the second round every year from 1995-2006 and he won 4 rings, reached 6 Finals and 9 conference finals during this span.
Rightly so because Hakeem never exactly had great supporting casts. If you put him in Chicago instead of MJ, pretty sure he would win plenty of rings alongside Pippen, Grant and Phil.

[mehyaM24]

will do

that equals 42% for the series, 51% overall for 01

attempting only 2-3 free throws per 4th quarter, and with 7/16 playoff games decided in the 3rd quarter, shooting 51% from the line doesn't make you a liability whatsoever. its why phil never subbed him out (look at the play-by-play data).

http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/02/evaluating-hack-shaq.html

^^^ facts


and deuces link is pretty clear, take it up with him
deuces link isn't a valid link. still waiting on you to post a VALID source.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yikes.. Madsen and his alt are still taking L's? This has gotta be a record for most sonnings done in one thread. :oldlol:

[AirBourne92]

shaq shooting under 70% from the free throw line made him the biggest liability ever

if it wasn't for shaq, no one would ever recognize kobe for being such a dominant clutch player for a decade


thank you shaq for being a liability

[mehyaM24]

data isn't available for 2000, and 2002 is already accounted for (shaq shot 62.5% from the FT line in clutch situations during the 4th qtr, which is hardly a liability - this according to john schuhmann who writes for the nba).

however, we can delve back into the 2000-01 postsesaon. when kobe played arguably his best basketball of the 3-peat. here are shaq's FT numbers per series.

sixers 2001
game 1 - 2/6
game 2 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 3 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
gane 4 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 5 - 3/6 = 50%

spurs 2001
game 1 2/2 = 100%
game 2 1/1 = 100%
game 3 never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)
game 4 never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)

kings 2001
game 1 - 2/6
game 2 - 4/7 = 57%
game 3 - 3/10 (lakers were winning by ~20 points for most of that quarter)
game 4 - 3/5

blazers 2001
game 1 - 5/7 = 71%
game 2 - 1/1 = 100%
game 3 - never shot free throws in the 4th quarter (game out of reach/blowout)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...130SAC.html#q4 (play-by-play data for every series)

^^ 7/16 of these playoff games were decided through the first 3 quarters ( at 4th quarter playoff scoring - the lakers took care of business early half the time). double lol @ peak shaq EVER being a "liability" from the free throw line WHEN IT COUNTED.

when we combine these facts with shaq being CLEARLY the best player on the lakers, and finals mvp for every championship, his MDE moniker only becomes stronger.


And you people still dare to post after this?

Madsen, this isn't like any other time.. just take the L and move on.

they got no rebuttal to this. i feel for them though. being a kobe zealot has its benefits, but its negatives outweigh all of them.

[AirBourne92]

if shaq wasnt such a liability on offense in the 4th quarter

kobe's clutch career would have never jump started that quick

thanks shaq for choking in the 4th

[Roundball_Rock]

Rightly so because Hakeem never exactly had great supporting casts. If you put him in Chicago instead of MJ, pretty sure he would win plenty of rings alongside Pippen, Grant and Phil.

Hakeem simply was not as dominant as Shaq, especially outside of 1993-1995. Hakeem dominated less, won less, achieved less individually, had an inferior peak and had worse longevity.

Shaq, as the OP illustrates, was contending with teams that were below 0.500 without him. Hakeem, outside of three years, could not do that.

:oldlol: at arguing that Shaq was a net negative on his teams, even in the final 2 minutes.

Kobe without Shaq from 2001-2004: 24-29
Shaq without Kobe from 2001-2004: 25-6

In 2000 Kobe missed 16 games and came off the bench in 4 games. In 19 of those games Shaq played. Los Angeles went 16-3 in those games. Yet Shaq was a "liability" being dragged across the finish line by Kobe? :wtf:

[mehyaM24]

Hakeem simply was not as dominant as Shaq, especially outside of 1993-1995. Hakeem dominated less, won less, achieved less individually, had an inferior peak and had worse longevity.

Shaq, as the OP illustrates, was contending with teams that were below 0.500 without him. Hakeem, outside of three years, could not do that.

:oldlol: at arguing that Shaq was a net negative on his teams, even in the final 2 minutes.

Kobe without Shaq from 2001-2004: 24-29
Shaq without Kobe from 2001-2004: 25-6

In 2000 Kobe missed 16 games and came off the bench in 4 games. In 19 of those games Shaq played. Los Angeles went 16-3 in those games. Yet Shaq was a "liability" being dragged across the finish line by Kobe? :wtf:

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-npi-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html

^^ and as we see with the DATA, rapm, which strictly measures impact, suggests whatever shaq "didn't do" in 4th quarters per freethrows, was completely irrelevant to being the lakers BEST & most impactful player during the 3-peat.

facts & logic > mythology and hyperbole. every time. i'm happy we established shaq made his freethrows went they counted though.

[Roundball_Rock]

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-npi-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html

^^ and as we see with the DATA, rapm, which strictly measures impact, suggests whatever shaq "didn't do" in 4th quarters per freethrows, was completely irrelevant to being the lakers BEST & most impactful player during the 3-peat.

facts & logic > mythology and hyperbole. every time. i'm happy we established shaq made his freethrows went they counted though.

Good stuff. Also, check out this old thread on this issue. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=275884


Not quite, but I can pretty much tell you about their 4th quarter play.

2000- Shaq was a much bigger 4th quarter scorer. Kobe came up with some classic clutch moments in the playoffs, but Shaq averaged 11.5 ppg in the finals and 9.1 ppg in the WCF during the 4th quarters, and the Lakers really relied on Shaq heavily this year.

2001- The Lakers were so dominant that the 4th quarter was rarely an issue. Both Shaq and Kobe had maybe 1 or 2 memorable 4th quarters each, but not much more than that since it wasn't really an issue. I think Kobe's numbers might have been slightly better in the 4th.

2002- Kobe had a big advantage in 4th quarter numbers during this run. It was the year Kobe really established himself as perhaps the game's best clutch player while Shaq's 4th quarter numbers were very subpar in the WCSF and WCF outside of maybe 3 games, though they were fine in the 1st round and finals, iirc.

So to recap in 4th quarters. It's Shaq in 2000, tossup or negligible in 2001 and Kobe in 2002.



Also, it's not true that Kobe mainly fueled the 4th quarter comeback vs Portland. You can call Kobe the MVP of that game, and I'd agree, but, Shaq came on very strong in the 4th quarter too. Both had 9 points, and Shaq also made some big defensive plays as well as passing out of double teams which led to some of the big shots by the role players.



You mean Kobe being a perimeter player makes him more capable of getting a shot late in games since big men can be doubled easier and are doubled more? That I agree with.

But I meant I'm not going to credit Kobe more for the points he actually scored because they were more difficult. Comparing their 4th quarter numbers in 2000, Shaq obviously overcame the limitations of a big man in the 4th quarter to score more, so I'm not going to take away from the actual points Shaq did score. Speaking of 2000, the limitations mentioned apply more in theory since Kobe's perimeter skills didn't make him a better 4th quarter scorer.

Although there is a difference between 4th quarter scoring and game-winners. Kobe was always the better option for the game-winner since Shaq would likely get doubled. But 4th quarter scoring in general wasn't as much of a limitation for Shaq. His teams always went to him until he got older with Miami because he was still an excellent scoring option, and his double teams got his teammates shots.

For example, in the '98 WCF vs Utah, Shaq was the only player on the Lakers who came to play, and in the elimination game, Shaq scored 19 points in the 4th, iirc to try to keep the Lakers alive pretty much by himself, including 11 consecutive points at one point down the stretch.


Does the above sound like a "liability"?

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Hakeem simply was not as dominant as Shaq, especially outside of 1993-1995. Hakeem dominated less, won less, achieved less individually, had an inferior peak and had worse longevity.

Shaq, as the OP illustrates, was contending with teams that were below 0.500 without him. Hakeem, outside of three years, could not do that.

:biggums:

Shaq had GOAT level guards damn near his whole career. If anything, he should have a lot more rings to show for it. Hakeem also had GOAT level defense during his peak. Shaq had great defense during his, but not like Hakeem. I'd like to see what Hakeem could have done being paired next to a prime Penny, Kobe, Wade, etc for most of his career. Guarantee he'd have more than 2 rings, that's for sure.

[Quickening]

this is common knowledge to anybody who basketball prior to Dirk winning his ring, Shaq was always a liability in the 4th quarter of close games.

ever heard of hack a Shaq? this was a huge liability towards the end of games which prevented the Lakers from being able to dump the ball down to Shaq towards the end of close games



props to fatal


There's a reason Kobe was leading the league in 4th quarter playoff scoring for b2b championship runs, he was the closer, he had to close because Shaq wasn't reliable in late game situations where the other team could just foul him and put him on the line where he's going to make 50% of those shots..

Yes because Shaq destroying teams in the first 3 quarters and putting them in foul trouble won't have helped a good free throw shooter like Kobe in the 4th, brb can't play good defence on Kobe because don't have any fouls to give... :coleman:

[Roundball_Rock]

Shaq had GOAT level guards damn near his whole career. If anything, he should have a lot more rings to show for it. Hakeem also had GOAT level defense during his peak. Shaq had great defense during his, but not like Hakeem. I'd like to see what Hakeem could have done being paired next to a prime Penny, Kobe, Wade, etc for most of his career. Guarantee he'd have more than 2 rings, that's for sure.

True but how often are teams factored in when assessing legacies? The guy who won more, especially if he did so considerably more, almost always is given he edge in the winning category. If not Wilt should be everyone's GOAT.

Rings: Shaq 4, Hakeem 2
Finals: Shaq 6, Hakeem 3
Conference finals: Shaq 9, Hakeem 4
Best record: Shaq 1, Hakeem 0

The thing about Hakeem is people today assume 1993-1995 Hakeem approximates all of prime Hakeem. The fact is at the time prime Hakeem was viewed as on par with D. Robinson (even peak Hakeem was) and Ewing. Only in retrospect is Hakeem viewed as being another tier above them. Hakeem was losing out on all-NBA teams to those guys, especially Robinson, and then Shaq joined the group in 1994.

Plus, it isn't as if Hakeem's squads were good but not great in their performance. His teams lost in the first round perennially, including for four consecutive years in his prime. Do you really think prime Shaq would spent four years at 42, 46, 45, 41, 52 wins and lose in the first round in four of them? Hakeem simply was not elevating his team then in the same way he did when from 1993-1995. Imagine a superstar today whose teams perennially were 0.500 and first round fodder. How much flack would such a player get?

Plus, what did those superstar guards do without Shaq? Look at the OP. Those "great" Laker and Heat teams were not even 0.500 without Shaq. Shaq did fine whenever Kobe or Wade got hurt, though, in contrast--even as late as 2007.

Shaq is the greater winner, had superior longevity, had a greater prime, and had the higher peak. What case does Hakeem have over Shaq?

[ThePhantomCreep]

Regular season records...how illuminating. I'd muster a "meh" but I'm too busy not caring.

Tell me why "underrated" "greater than Bird" Shaquille O'Neal was getting swept damn near every year from 1994-1999? His teams were supremely stacked.

The blemishes on Shaq's resume are almost never brought up. Shaq will always 2000-2002 great in everyone's eyes. Underrated, my ass.

[TheMarkMadsen]

they got no rebuttal to this. i feel for them though. being a kobe zealot has its benefits, but its negatives outweigh all of them.

i already replied to that moron, the stats you posted showed that shaq shot 51% in the 4th :facepalm :facepalm

[TheMarkMadsen]

Good stuff. Also, check out this old thread on this issue. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=275884







Does the above sound like a "liability"?

i'm talking about 01 & 02.

nobody has yet to address any of the links or stats i've posted

straight dodging and accusing me of having alts

stay shook

[mehyaM24]

i already replied to that moron, the stats you posted showed that shaq shot 51% in the 4th :facepalm :facepalm
on 2-3 attempts per 4th quarter, 7/16 games being out of reach by the 4th quarter, along with phil jackson never subbing shaq out. otoh, shaq has better impact numbers across the board despite said 2-3 fta in the 4th quarter.

dat liability

[TheMarkMadsen]

Yes because Shaq destroying teams in the first 3 quarters and putting them in foul trouble won't have helped a good free throw shooter like Kobe in the 4th, brb can't play good defence on Kobe because don't have any fouls to give... :coleman:

Kobe outscored Shaq through the first 3 quarters and finished 1 point behind him overall for the playoffs, while leading the team in assist


Shaq wasn't the only person destroying the opposing team through the first three quarters

[mehyaM24]

shaq- 30.4ppg on better shooting %'s
kobe- 29.4ppg on worse shooting %'s

shaq fans stay winning :rockon:

[TheMarkMadsen]

on 2-3 attempts per 4th quarter, 7/16 games being out of reach by the 4th quarter, along with phil jackson never subbing shaq out. otoh, shaq has better impact numbers across the board irrelevant of 2-3 fta in the 4th quarter.

dat liability



We'll say this again, simply because the point isn't getting through. The Lakers need to go to O'Neal consistently through the first three quarters, then to Bryant in the fourth.

O'Neal still does more to affect the other team--he's always the focal point of their defensive strategy--and sending the ball inside opens more shots for rest of the team. But his free-throw shooting makes him a fourth-quarter liability, while Bryant's one-on-one skills and clutch shooting make him a perfect go-to guy in crunch time.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/11/sports/sp-10977

how are you going to deny that Shaq was seen as a liability in the 4th quarter of close games. The Lakers obviously didn't want Shaq's FT shooting to be the deciding factor in the 4th quarter of games, so they went to Kobe more often than not.. which explains why kobe led the league in 4th quarter scoring during those 2 runs

not that hard to understand

[mehyaM24]

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/11/sports/sp-10977

how are you going to deny that Shaq was seen as a liability in the 4th quarter of close games. The Lakers obviously didn't want Shaq's FT shooting to be the deciding factor in the 4th quarter of games, so they went to Kobe more often than not.. which explains why kobe led the league in 4th quarter scoring during those 2 runs

not that hard to understand

because phil rarely, if EVER, subbed shaq out of games. hitting ~1.5 ft's per 2-3 fta in 4th quarters doesn't make you a liabilty, evidenced by shaq's rapm numbers, which strictly measure impact - they are ~#1 across the board every championship run from 2000-02

http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/02/evaluating-hack-shaq.html

^^ along with rapm & gamelogs, suggesting phil & shaq didn't care about his ft shooting.

oh and just for good measure - kobe admits to being a sidekick (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/triple-threat/Lakers-Kobe-Bryant-Shaq-sidekick-video-191065851.html)

[ThePhantomCreep]

shaq- 30.4ppg on better shooting %'s
kobe- 29.4ppg on worse shooting %'s

shaq fans stay winning :rockon:

29.4 PPG is ample proof that Shaq needed a top 10 HOFer to win titles. Even an all-star backcourt (Van Exel, Jones) wasn't close to enough.

Dream? Otis Thorpe and Vernon Maxwell were enough.

[ThePhantomCreep]

because phil rarely, if EVER, subbed shaq out of games. hitting ~1.5 ft's per 2-3 fta in 4th quarters doesn't make you a liabilty, evidenced by shaq's rapm numbers, which strictly measure impact - they are ~#1 across the board every championship run from 2000-02

http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/02/evaluating-hack-shaq.html

^^ along with rapm & gamelogs, suggesting phil & shaq didn't care about his ft shooting.

oh and just for good measure - kobe admits to being a sidekick (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/triple-threat/Lakers-Kobe-Bryant-Shaq-sidekick-video-191065851.html)


Shaq's low FTAs says more about his lack of touches in the 4th than anything.

Dream? You could throw the ball to him on every play in the 4th.

[mehyaM24]

29.4 PPG is ample proof that Shaq needed a top 10 HOFer to win titles. Even an all-star backcourt (Van Exel, Jones) wasn't close to enough.

Dream? Otis Thorpe and Vernon Maxwell were enough.
:confusedshrug:

don't think anyone claimed shaq didn't need help, but to be fair, he did win a title with kobe averaging 15ppg in the finals. just saying.

i'm not comparing him to dream, who shaq completely destroyed h2h in the 1999 playoffs - but that's another topic for a different time.

[ThePhantomCreep]

:confusedshrug:

don't think anyone claimed shaq didn't need help, but to be fair, he did win a title with kobe averaging 15ppg in the finals. just saying.

i'm not comparing him to dream, who shaq completely destroyed h2h in the 1999 playoffs - but that's another topic for a different time.

That's the finals, where Kobe missed all but 9 minutes of one game due to injury, skewing his averages. He missed the next game which the Lakers lost.

For the season 23/6/5
ALL-NBA 2nd Team
ALL-DEFENSE 1st Team

And wow, he destroyed 36 year old Hakeem in 1999. Impressive. Coincidentally, Shaq at 36 destroyed the 2008 Suns.

[mehyaM24]

That's the finals, where Kobe missed all but 9 minutes of one game due to injury, skewing his averages. He missed the next game which the Lakers lost.

For the season 23/6/5
ALL-NBA 2nd Team
ALL-DEFENSE 1st Team

And wow, he destroyed 36 year old Hakeem in 1999. Impressive. Coincidentally, Shaq at 36 destroyed the 2008 Suns.
yes, the finals. you know? where the winner is given a championship? the lakers played the second best team, with kobe producing like a weaker version of clyde drexler in 1995 (who coincidentally had better all-around numbers and impact than kobe did in 2000), and was essentially a role player, evidenced by austin croshere outscoring him (lmfao)

ofc, the lakers still won a title in 2000 - yes, shaq was just THAT great, and arguably MDE.

we'll leave hakeem out of the discussion, as shaq actually as a case for MDE, and, well, hakeem does not.... :cheers:

[ThePhantomCreep]

The 2nd best team in 2000 was clearly Portland, and without Kobe pacing the Lakers in points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks in Game 7, Shaq's dream season ends without a ring. But congrats to Shaq on destroying Rik Smits in the Finals.

Interesting you bring up 1995 Clyde. Didn't Shaq have an even better Penny Hardaway that year? The alleged MDE couldn't win a ring with a talent like that? But he's the MDE! Pair him with peanut butter and he win titles! Or so I've been told.

[AirBourne92]

cliffs of the thread


-shaq was a monstrous force of liability in the 4th quarter, which was a pivotal point in shaping kobe's career

[mehyaM24]

The 2nd best team in 2000 was clearly Portland, and without Kobe pacing the Lakers in points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks in Game 7, Shaq's dream season ends without a ring. But congrats to Shaq on destroying Rik Smits in the Finals.

portland matched up well with LA because they had bodies to throw at shaq. but the best team were the pacers (#1 offensive-rating in the league)

and yes, without shaq's production, kobe would be somewhere he was without pau, another elite big man - either out of the playoffs (2005) or multiple first round exits (2006 & 2007).

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/triple-threat/Lakers-Kobe-Bryant-Shaq-sidekick-video-191065851.html

^^ ofc, kobe knows this, as he has repeatedly called himself the sidekick of his first 3 titles under MDE.


Interesting you bring up 1995 Clyde.
clyde who had more impact per RAPM numbers than 2000 kobe? it is interesting. i agree. :eek:

[mehyaM24]

cliffs of the thread


-shaq was a monstrous force of liability in the 4th quarter, which was a pivotal point in shaping kobe's career
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-npi-rapm

^^^^ not according to his teams impact, which debunks this myth. when shaq was on the floor, for all quarters, he was still the best & most dominant laker. phil himself never thought it was a big deal, as he RARELY, if ever subbed him out! :bowdown:

[AirBourne92]

http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-npi-rapm

^^^^ not according to his teams impact, which debunks this myth. when shaq was on the floor, for all quarters, he was still the best & most dominant laker. phil himself never thought it was a big deal, as he RARELY, if ever subbed him out! :bowdown:


sub 70% free throw shooter

/thread


fouls out, kobe takes over

[mehyaM24]

sub 70% free throw shooter

/thread


fouls out, kobe takes over
phil rarely, if ever subbed him out - yet shaq still had the better impact numbers. MDE! MDE!! MDE!!! :bowdown:


http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-npi-rapm

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Are people seriously trying to debate Kobe vs Shaq? Or is it just Kobe fans trying to undermine Shaq's contributions to those 3 rings?

[AirBourne92]

phil rarely, if ever subbed him out - yet shaq still had the better impact numbers. MDE! MDE!! MDE!!! :bowdown:


sub 70% shooter


better numbers because triangle was centered around him


without kobe, shaq is a scrub with 1 ring.

without shaq, kobe finds a way to get 5

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Are people seriously trying to debate Kobe vs Shaq? Or is it just Kobe fans trying to undermine Shaq's contributions to those 3 rings?
Kobe fans are a crazy bunch. It's best to ignore their stupditiy, although mehyA has done a pretty damn good job owning these fools. With facts too. Props for once, popcorn. :pimp:

[mehyaM24]

sub 70% shooter


better numbers because triangle was centered around him


without kobe, shaq is a scrub with 1 ring.

without shaq, kobe finds a way to get 5
once again, i'll repeat, phil rarely, if ever subbed him out - yet and still, shaq had the better impact numbers. mothe****ing MDE!!

why 2-3 fta per 4th quarter was basically irrelevant
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/02/evaluating-hack-shaq.html

why shaq still had more impact per ALL quarters:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-npi-rapm

:bowdown:

[mehyaM24]

Kobe fans are a crazy bunch. It's best to ignore their stupditiy, although mehyA has done a pretty damn good job owning these fools. With facts too. Props for once, popcorn. :pimp:
these bitches getting slayed like craiglist hoes :cheers:

[AirBourne92]

once again, i'll repeat, phil rarely, if ever subbed him out - yet and still, shaq had the better impact numbers. mothe****ing MDE!!

why 2-3 fta per 4th quarter was basically irrelevant
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/02/evaluating-hack-shaq.html

why shaq still had more impact per ALL quarters:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/2000-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm
https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-npi-rapm

:bowdown:


how many rings does shaq have without kobe?


put kobe on the orlando magic team shaq was on and he'd have at least 5 rings without shaq

[mehyaM24]

how many rings does shaq have without kobe?


put kobe on the orlando magic team shaq was on and he'd have at least 5 rings without shaq
kobe = first round virgin without big men. otoh, shaq = finals appearances with three different 2 guards

say it with me brah.... MDE!!!!

[AirBourne92]

kobe = first round virgin without big men. otoh, shaq = finals appearances with three different 2 guards

say it with me brah.... MDE!!!!


kobe in the eastern conference = finals appearance every year

[mehyaM24]

kobe in the eastern conference = finals appearance every year
kobe shoots worse/averages less production against the eastern conference, as his career splits suggest. fail.

/thread

[AirBourne92]

kobe shoots worse/averages less production against the eastern conference, as his career splits suggest. fail.

/thread


kobe in the eastern conference would have about 10 rings by now

[24-Inch_Chrome]

kobe in the eastern conference would have about 10 rings by now

Check the stats, mehyaM24 is right. Kobe's splits are worse in the East.

[AirBourne92]

Check the stats, mehyaM24 is right. Kobe's splits are worse in the East.


kobe would have seen the finals 13 times minimum in the east

[24-Inch_Chrome]

kobe would have seen the finals 13 times minimum in the east

I can't take you seriously when you make statements like that. The stan is too strong.

[AirBourne92]

I can't take you seriously when you make statements like that. The stan is too strong.


rotfl.

tbh i would make a legit post as to kobe's playing style and why his stats are less against certain teams etc, but it would take too long and no one would believe me.

for the record, my favorite player is kobe, but i dont deny shaq's importance


best 1-2 punch ever


they complimented eachother perfectly

[24-Inch_Chrome]

rotfl.

tbh i would make a legit post as to kobe's playing style and why his stats are less against certain teams etc, but it would take too long and no one would believe me.

for the record, my favorite player is kobe, but i dont deny shaq's importance


best 1-2 punch ever


they complimented eachother perfectly

Please, make a "legit" post explaining why he "would have seen the finals 13 times minimum in the East." I'm waiting with bated breath

[ThePhantomCreep]

portland matched up well with LA because they had bodies to throw at shaq. but the best team were the pacers (#1 offensive-rating in the league)

and yes, without shaq's production, kobe would be somewhere he was without pau, another elite big man - either out of the playoffs (2005) or multiple first round exits (2006 & 2007).

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/triple-threat/Lakers-Kobe-Bryant-Shaq-sidekick-video-191065851.html

^^ ofc, kobe knows this, as he has repeatedly called himself the sidekick of his first 3 titles under MDE.


clyde who had more impact per RAPM numbers than 2000 kobe? it is interesting. i agree. :eek:

Ah, Hollinger acolytes. You can spot them a mile away. Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) thought the Pacers were better than the Blazers in 2000. Not a soul. The fact that Portland won more games in a tougher conference should be a massive clue as to who was better, but apparently it isn't. :facepalm

RAPM? LOL @ that ESPN Insider factoid bullshit. If you want to make a case for Shaq, stick to tall tales of how he destroyed whoever the hell was playing center for the 2002 Nets. More interesting that way.

[ThePhantomCreep]

otoh, shaq = finals appearances with three different 2 guards

Two who are HOF-bound, and one who would be were it not for injuries.

Unfortunately, Shaq couldn't get to the Finals with Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel. Not Hall-of-Famy enough.

[mehyaM24]

shaq got to the finals without a HOF 2-guard. can't say the same for kobe when it comes to bigmen. bwhahaha.


Ah, Hollinger acolytes. You can spot them a mile away. Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) thought the Pacers were better than the Blazers in 2000. Not a soul. The fact that Portland won more games in a tougher conference should be a massive clue as to who was better, but apparently it isn't. :facepalm

RAPM? LOL @ that ESPN Insider factoid bullshit. If you want to make a case for Shaq, stick to tall tales of how he destroyed whoever the hell was playing center for the 2002 Nets. More interesting that way.
rapm has nothing to do with espn or box score stats. its the best metric to date, hence gm's across the league using it.

whether portland was better than indiana isn't of my concern. that is certainly subjective. rapm, which strictly measures impact & impact alone, is not. its a fact - shaq's impact had his teams competing on both ends at a degree in which kobe did not match. the +/- in both offense and defense says it all (shaq effected the lakers' points on both ends more-so than kobe did).

carry on with your kobe "more than a sidekick" nonsense (despite kobe himself admitting he was :oldlol:)

[ThePhantomCreep]

Yeah, because Penny wasn't HOF bound before the injuries hit.

He actually made the All-NBA 1st Team in 1995; Shaq didn't. :lol

[mehyaM24]

Yeah, because Penny wasn't HOF bound before the injuries hit.

He actually made the All-NBA 1st Team in 1995; Shaq didn't. :lol
what ifs don't hold water in a debate. btw, shaq made the 2nd team and hakeem the 3rd team, further proving, shaq > hakeem.

you got nothing. :oldlol:

[ThePhantomCreep]

what ifs don't hold water in a debate. btw, shaq made the 2nd team and hakeem the 3rd team, further proving, shaq > hakeem.

you got nothing. :oldlol:

Penny got All-NBA 1st team the following year too (Shaq 3rd team), so he was clearly HOF-caliber before the injuries wrecked him. Goes to show what an embarrassment of riches Shaq was blessed with as super-stacked teams go.

As for Dream, he consoled himself by winning Finals MVP that year. He also finished ahead of Shaq in All-NBA votes in 1996 and 1997 (aged 34!). The "Most Dominant Evah" didn't make an All-NBA 1st team until 1998, when Dream(35), Ewing(36), and Robinson(33, bad back) were in steep decline.

[mehyaM24]

Penny got All-NBA 1st team the following year too (Shaq 3rd team), so he was clearly HOF-caliber before the injuries wrecked him. Goes to show what an embarrassment of riches Shaq was blessed with as super-stacked teams go.

injuries plague many players, so that's not really an excuse, as penny continued to play all the way through the 2007-08 season.

btw, is a penny a HOFer?


As for Dream, he consoled himself by winning Finals MVP that year.
voting process is after the finals, so despite hakeem's performance, the media still considered shaq a better player.

me personally? i'm not a huge proponent of all-teams, but the fact you used them in a debate, and it bit you in the ass, makes me using them all the more hilarious.

[34-24 Footwork]

So many hypotheticals. Lol.

Shaq with Penny, Nash, Wade, Lebron, Van Exel, Eddie Jones = 1 ring

Shaq with Kobe = 3 rings.

There's nothing that can change this fact.

[knicksman]

nah. all we need to know is bosh>>gasol yet kobe delivered same amount of rings. 2/5<<5/7

[mehyaM24]

So many hypotheticals. Lol.

Shaq with Penny, Nash, Wade, Lebron, Van Exel, Eddie Jones = 1 ring

Shaq with Kobe = 3 rings.

There's nothing that can change this fact.^^^ there's also no debating that shaq took his team to the finals without a HOF sg. kobe hasn't been able to do that without a HOF center/bigman.

ofc, what i'm saying is backed by the fact shaq's impact eclipsed kobe's every championship season from 2000-02. op's numbers (lakers without shaq) help provide the necessary context as well.

[34-24 Footwork]

After 2008 Finals:

"Kobe can't do it without Shaq. He'll never win another one......"

2 Championships later....

"Kobe can't do it without a good big man."
"Pau Gasol is a top 5 center in the 2000's...."

With Kobe Bryant, the goal post is always hovering, ready to move at any given notice. Pretty awful...

[34-24 Footwork]

^^^ there's also no debating that shaq took his team to the finals without a HOF sg. kobe hasn't been able to do that without a HOF center/bigman.

ofc, what i'm saying is backed by the fact shaq's impact eclipsed kobe's every championship season from 2000-02. op's numbers (lakers without shaq) help provide the necessary context as well.


Lol. Were you REALLY considering Paul Gasol a HOF Center before Kobe dragged him along for the championship ride? How did you feel about Pau when the Lakers loss with him in 2008? Was he a HOF center then? Was he as"dominant" (lol) as you're trying to make yourself believe?

[mehyaM24]

you could make any hypothetical you want. very true. i could say without phil jackson, shaq has 2 finals appearances and 1 ring. otoh, kobe has BOTH 0 finals appearances and 0 rings. this is why rapm, which measures TRUE unabated impact, tells all. according to this metric, which is used by all nba scouts & gm's throughout the league, shaq was the best and most important player to the lakers success via 2000-02. kobe agrees.

ofc, op's off/on numbers simply back that up.

[34-24 Footwork]

Shaq was calling Kobe the best player in the WORLD, circa 2001-2003

Lol. Come on bro. Now you're talking about coaching. lol

[mehyaM24]

Shaq was calling Kobe the best player in the WORLD, circa 2001-2003

Lol. Come on bro. Now you're talking about coaching. lol
shaq appeased kobe's ego. phil & everyone who watched at the time, said shaq was the best & most dominant player on the lakers. this is backed by data & accolades (3 fmvps to kobe's nil) - and ofc, kobe himself saying he was shaq's sidekick.

suggesting kobe was ever better than shaq from 2000-02 is flat out sacrilegious & honestly troll bait.

[Roundball_Rock]

Regular season records...how illuminating. I'd muster a "meh" but I'm too busy not caring.

Tell me why "underrated" "greater than Bird" Shaquille O'Neal was getting swept damn near every year from 1994-1999? His teams were supremely stacked.

One of those sweeps came in the Finals (where third year Shaq fought peak Hakeem to a draw) and two others came in the conference finals. In one of those series he faced the GOAT team, the 72-10 Bulls, without his third best player, who went down halfway into the first game and in the other Jones, Van Exel and Kobe were abysmal. It isn't as if Shaq playing poorly was responsible for these sweeps.

Is it better to get swept in the Finals or conference finals or to lose 4-2 in the second round?



Interesting you bring up 1995 Clyde. Didn't Shaq have an even better Penny Hardaway that year? The alleged MDE couldn't win a ring with a talent like that? But he's the MDE! Pair him with peanut butter and he win titles! Or so I've been told.

Hakeem (at his absolute peak) 33/12/6 on 48%
Shaq (as a 22 year old) 28/13/6 on 60%

How about their "supporting casts"? Let's see if Hakeem "did it by himself."

Drexler 22/10/7
Horry 18/10/4
Elie 16/4/3
Cassell 14/2/3

Penny 26/5/8
Grant 14/12/2
Shaw 13/3/3
Anderson 12/9/4

Who had more "help"?


If you want to make a case for Shaq, stick to tall tales of how he destroyed whoever the hell was playing center for the 2002 Nets. More interesting that way.

How about the center for the 01' Sixers? You know, the DPOY that year and an all-time great defender. The MDE lit him up for 33/16/5 on 57%.

:oldlol: at bringing the 1998 WCF up repeatedly.

Shaq 32/9/1 on 56%
Jones 15/4/3 on 41%
Kobe 10/2/1 on 37%
Van Exel 9/2/4 on 24% (not a typo, he actually shot 24%!)

Fisher shot 35%, Horry 36%, Campbell 21% and Fox 41%--yet it was Shaq's fault? Yeah, I am sure Hakeem or prime Kobe would be winning with that kind of "help."

[Soundwave]

He's the second best player I've seen in the last 25 years after Jordan.

That said he did lose a lot of playoff rounds where he had a fairly talented supporting cast and when his teams imploded .... they reeeeeeally imploded.

He left a lot on the table too by getting lazy and being immature. Could've been the GOAT if he really wanted it bad enough, but he never did.

[Roundball_Rock]

That said he did lose a lot of playoff rounds where he had a fairly talented supporting cast and when his teams imploded .... they reeeeeeally imploded.

True but how many times was Shaq at fault? Look at the 98' WCF stats above, for example. What could Shaq do if his teammates struggled? In 95' he fought peak Hakeem to a draw as a 22 year old (yet Hakeem>Shaq :biggums: ? ). Is it his fault the team got swept? People get caught up in the big names he played with but those big names did not always have big production in the playoffs.

Also, look at his losses. To a team with peak Hakeem, to the 72-10 Bulls, to the Spurs dynasty, to the Malone-Stockton Jazz, to the reigning champion Pistons with Wade going down. So it isn't as if he was losing in inexplicable upsets to trash teams.