Is Shaq forgotten about?

[Marchesk]

With all the talk of Lebron having potentially the greatest NBA finals, Shaq in 2000 put up:

38/16.7/2.3 with 1 steal and 2.7 blocks on 61.1%

[LAZERUSS]

With all the talk of Lebron having potentially the greatest NBA finals, Shaq in 2000 put up:

38/16.7/2.3 with 1 steal and 2.7 blocks on 61.1%

GOAT Finals.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[SilkkTheShocker]

When you take into account supporting casts, LeBron's numbers are way more impressive. There is no legit 2nd option on that team. Hell, not even a real 3rd option.

[LAZERUSS]

When you take into account supporting casts, LeBron's numbers are way more impressive. There is no legit 2nd option on that team. Hell, not even a real 3rd option.

Three games.

[DCL]

when shaq raped the shit out of rik smits or mutombo, there were no upsets since the lakers were such heavy and powerful favorites. the story went accordingly as planned. there was no shocking element to the results.

if lebron wins the ring this year though, it would be one of the greatest upsets in nba finals history. that's really where the "greatness" discussion is based on. it's not derived on his line of production or 40% shooting or level of efficiency, obviously.

[edrick]

Shaq's team versus Lebron's team.

Shaq was dominate as all hell, no doubt. He also had great people around him too.

[sd3035]

60% >>>>> 40%

[Taller than CP3]

Nowadays, Shaq is known for his Icy Hot commercials.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Shaq was the most dominant player I ever seen in the NBA.

It was so fuhcking frustrating watching him literally throw around the Blazers big men in the playoffs. Sabas played him well, but there was nothing you could do.

Shaq = MDOAT most dominant of all time

[Dresta]

Sorry, but no guy who's shooting a TS% of below 50 could ever be in the discussion for the best ever - there are at least 20 finals performances that were better, and that's assuming his production stays the same the whole series. Comparing it to Shaq's finals performances is an insult.

[warriorfan]

With all the talk of Lebron having potentially the greatest NBA finals, Shaq in 2000 put up:

38/16.7/2.3 with 1 steal and 2.7 blocks on 61.1%

33 year old rik smits

/thread

[Marchesk]

Shaq's team versus Lebron's team.

Shaq was dominate as all hell, no doubt. He also had great people around him too.

Kobe as the 2nd option averaged 15.6 ppg on 36.7% that series. He was only 21. Then you had 32 year old Glen Rice with 11.5 shooting 40%, and Ron Harper at 36 for your fourth scoring option.

Let's not pretend like that Lakers team was super stacked. They were good, but come on. Shaq was unstoppable.

[Marchesk]

When you take into account supporting casts, LeBron's numbers are way more impressive. There is no legit 2nd option on that team. Hell, not even a real 3rd option.

21 year old Kobe shooting 36.7% on 15.6 is a great 2nd option for a championship team?

[Prime_Shaq]

He's widely regarded as the MDE so its kinda acceptable. Weak competition but he absolutely destroyed whoever they put on him. Not only the Finals as well, RS + Playoffs too.

[Mr Feeny]

Kobe as the 2nd option averaged 15.6 ppg on 36.7% that series. He was only 21. Then you had 32 year old Glen Rice with 11.5 shooting 40%, and Ron Harper at 36 for your fourth scoring option.

Let's not pretend like that Lakers team was super stacked. They were good, but come on. Shaq was unstoppable.


Incidently, Lebron at 21 was beating the Pistons single handily and dragging scrubs to 50 wins and the NBA finals.

[T_L_P]

Sorry, but no guy who's shooting a TS% of below 50 could ever be in the discussion for the best ever - there are at least 20 finals performances that were better, and that's assuming his production stays the same the whole series. Comparing it to Shaq's finals performances is an insult.

I wouldn't go as far as saying 20, but you have a good point.

The Cavs are winning because of their defense, and LeBron isn't the most important cog on that end of the floor this series. And his 4th Qs have been underwhelming.

This version of LeBron doesn't hold a candle to 2012 LeBron.

[Mr Feeny]

I wouldn't go as far as saying 20, but you have a good point.

The Cavs are winning because of their defense, and LeBron isn't the most important cog on that end of the floor this series. And his 4th Qs have been underwhelming.

This version of LeBron doesn't hold a candle to 2012 LeBron.

Which is a scary thought, seeing as how he's the biggest reason they're beating the number one team in he league. His defense has been outstanding but more importantly, it's his leadership. Knick rejects and D-leaguers seem to have picked up on his intensity and it's rubbed off on them. They're playing like their lives depend on it. THAT is the impact of Lebron James.

He's been marvellous so far.

[HylianNightmare]

He wrecked a Sixers team that they should've swept woo hoo

[1~Gibson~1]

Well he did lead Kobe to 3 rings so..... yeah.

[Rocketswin2013]

I wouldn't go as far as saying 20, but you have a good point.

The Cavs are winning because of their defense, and LeBron isn't the most important cog on that end of the floor this series. And his 4th Qs have been underwhelming.

This version of LeBron doesn't hold a candle to 2012 LeBron.
'12 LeBron was on another level.

[SHAQisGOAT]

GOAT peak

[pastis]

silly comparison.

shaq was physically unique. nobody was able to block him or whatever.
2.16 height and more than 330 lb weight. enough said.

secondly shaq scored maybe from 1-5 feet all his points?

[Tainted Sword]

To all of those discounting Shaq's numbers because of his team- Kobe played injured that series and was not very effective. Without a healthy Kobe, that Lakers team might as well been this years Cavs as there was no one else who could consistently create their own shot on that team outside of Shaq and Kobe.

Lebron is having an all-time great finals series, but the hyperbole from the media is ridiculous. The crazy thing is that these same people will be disrespecting Lebron 15 years down the road when the next generational superstar is the new media darling.