Shaq: 2001 Lakers would beat 2016 Warriors

[Hizack]

Source link (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BKN_NBA_FINALS_SHAQ_SPEAKS)


If you're using those rules, we'd win. Now we use these rules these days, we'd still win, because you wouldn't be allowed to touch me, you wouldn't be allowed to touch Kobe. So yeah, that's how I always look at it.



2001 Lakers VS 2016 Warriors. Discuss.

[JohnnySic]

Warriors would probably win but Shaq would average 45/25.

[livinglegend]

I don't agree with the '' you wouldn't be allowed to touch me'' part.
Kevin Love gets hacked on his post ups with no call.
Post defenders get away with a lot under today's rules.

[MP.Trey]

They can't stop Shaq. Lakers in 6.

[Remix]

Bogut would pick up three fouls within the first three minutes. Varejao comes in and does the same. Draymond guards Shaq.

[elementally morale]

I hate it when old farts are coming out and talking shit.

I'm a Laker fan and was very much alive in 2001. I was 27. We have no way of knowing. It's a cheapshot and not much else. I also hate hearing what 'MJ in ths league would do'. We don't know.

Each and every retired player comes across as either insecure or full of himself when saying such things. Usually both.

[tpols]

it would be interesting .. shaq has never been good at defending PnR, so it might be pretty tough to guard the splash bros. And I wonder if kerr would just hack a shaq any time he or the team got into rythym, they have plenty of big men to use up fouls on him.

[NBAGOAT]

I would lean Lakers since they were dominant in the playoffs. Could seriously beat most of the Bulls teams too besides 96 and maybe 92. However people definitely are exaggerating how much a guy could dominate a game against a mismatch. Idc who you are and who's guarding you, it's really hard to get 40-45 and teams could always double. For example, Shaq put up 36 and 26 against Milwaukee in 01 who played Earvin Johnson at center or went small and had a bad defense. Same goes for Curry even if a pnr against Fisher and Shaq would be really bad for the Lakers.

[COnDEMnED]

I wouldn't bet against 2001 Shaq and Kobe. Draymond Green guards Shaq?? PFFFFFFF

[dazzer87]

Bogut, Green and Ezeli will all foul out by the end of the game playing vs Shaq.

[LebronsHairline]

This is hilarious. Shaq wouldn't be able to keep up with the pace, he'd be too tired to run. 3s > Shaqfool's 2s.

Shaq would destroy bogut, but with GW run and gun style 3s, Lakers would get destroyed.

These old fools keep bringing up hand checking and old rules, like GW wouldn't be able to do it too.

All these old timers shook af with their legacies on the line because GW on path to be all time greatest. :lol

[bigkingsfan]

Vlade/Pollard did okay on Shaq 53% shooting, doubt Shaq would Molest Bogut, who's a much better defender than those two.

[LebronsHairline]

If it was Orlando Shaq, maaaaayyyybeeee. But fat fvck Laker BurgerShack Shaq, no fvcking way.

[COnDEMnED]

This is hilarious. Shaq wouldn't be able to keep up with the pace, he'd be too tired to run. 3s > Shaqfool's 2s.

Shaq would destroy bogut, but with GW run and gun style 3s, Lakers would get destroyed.

These old fools keep bringing up hand checking and old rules, like GW wouldn't be able to do it too.

All these old timers shook af with their legacies on the line because GW on path to be all time greatest. :lol
Here ya go young fella.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVsWuHblBwU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUtIUnj37NE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xREPAcRSpE

[imnew09]

The water is wet.


GSW struggled against Thunder because of Steve Adams. STEVEN ADAMS.


Prime Shaq would destroy GSW and the golden gate.


2001 Lakers with Kobe and Shaq was the most dominant team ever.

[GrapeApe]

The Warriors would probably let Shaq get his and focus on slowing down Kobe. You're not stopping Shaq so you may as well just concede that matchup. The Lakers would have serious trouble defensively. As someone else mentioned, Shaq wasn't great against PnR's, and he's be routinely pulled away from the basket against the Warriors.

That being said, I'm not sure I'd bet against 2001 Shaq. He was arguably the single most impactful player in the history of the game. It's hard to say how the Warriors would handle a great big man because they've never faced one.

[Bankaii]

Funny how no one has mentioned how Shaq would foul out in the 1st quarter.
Guess people only bitch about offensive fouls with certain players.

[COnDEMnED]

Funny how no one has mentioned how Shaq would foul out in the 1st quarter.
Guess people only bitch about offensive fouls with certain players.
It was mentioned that every GS Center would have fouled out. Hack-a-Shaq or otherwise. Green has zero chance of guarding Shaq in the paint.

[Bankaii]

It was mentioned that every GS Center would have fouled out. Hack-a-Shaq or otherwise. Green has zero chance of guarding Shaq in the paint.
No I'm saying SHAQ would foul out.
Do you not remember the 2001 Finals specifically?
Shaq did destroy Dike but he cleared out with his elbows all the time. That wouldn't be tolerated today.

[raprap]

Warriors in 5.

[90sgoat]

Prime Shaq would obliterate the Warriors centers.

[tpols]

Funny how no one has mentioned how Shaq would foul out in the 1st quarter.
Guess people only bitch about offensive fouls with certain players.

shaq would face much tougher repercussions in todays league where they review everything. All the bows he threw would get looked at, and consistent with what weve seen called, would be flagrant 1's at worst.

and honestly, they should be. You shouldnt be allowed to plow through someones face to get a dunk. Shaq couldve thrown up a little jump hook, but he gets greedy with his size and commits a lot of offensive fouls going for the sure thing.

[Cold soul]

Yes, 01 Lakers beat them along with 00 and maybe even 02 Lakers.

[GoatBoy]

I hate it when old farts are coming out and talking shit.

I'm a Laker fan and was very much alive in 2001. I was 27. We have no way of knowing. It's a cheapshot and not much else. I also hate hearing what 'MJ in ths league would do'. We don't know.

Each and every retired player comes across as either insecure or full of himself when saying such things. Usually both.
You've been making some great posts lately :applause:

[soots]

well to be honest... no one slowed down Shaq in 2001 anyways. So its not as if he would have much more impact against this small team relative to 2001

[97 bulls]

I think the Bryant/Gasol Lakers would be a better matchup.

[IGOTGAME]

Vlade/Pollard did okay on Shaq 53% shooting, doubt Shaq would Molest Bogut, who's a much better defender than those two.

In 2001 Shaq averaged 33 points on 60% shooting while sweeping the Kings. He would have scored more if Kobe wasn't busy giving them dudes 48 one game.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2001-nba-western-conference-semifinals-kings-vs-lakers.html

[elementally morale]

You've been making some great posts lately :applause:

Thx. I rarely post these days but I thought I'd give it a try.

[LebronsHairline]

Here ya go young fella.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVsWuHblBwU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUtIUnj37NE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xREPAcRSpE

One possession per game, sure, but I don't think Shaq can keep up when GW disregards the shot clock. I can't see Shaq running end to end after multiple fast breaks.

GW will take a quick in the paint 2 from diesel then run the other end and hit a 3. Shaq had terrible handles, double team him, knock the ball out -- fast break to another 3.

Shaq will be benched by Phil and listening to his Fu Schnickens tape on walkman.

[bigkingsfan]

In 2001 Shaq averaged 33 points on 60% shooting while sweeping the Kings. He would have scored more if Kobe wasn't busy giving them dudes 48 one game.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2001-nba-western-conference-semifinals-kings-vs-lakers.html
If you combine both series, Shaq is still below his season averages in shooting. Kobe also shot something like 45%, which isn't exactly great either. There's no way Shaq is molesting this Warriors team to the tune of 40/15 like other people are implying.

[AintNoSunshine]

Meh, Sacramento almost took them and this Warriors team is even better.

[IGOTGAME]

Meh, Sacramento almost took them and this Warriors team is even better.

they sweept Sacramento.

[bigkingsfan]

they sweept Sacramento.
That was with J-Will, they were only 3rd seed that year. Not exactly the same team...

[IGOTGAME]

That was their first year with Mike Bibby, they were only 3rd seed that year. Not exactly the same team...

I'm just stating a fact. The only Kings team that ever played the 2001 Lakers got sweep and this thread only cares about the 2001 team, which was the strongest Shaq/Kobe team.

[Soundwave]

He's not wrong.

Warriors are a great team still though I think it'd be

96 Bulls > 01 Lakers > 16 Warriors

[bigkingsfan]

I'm just stating a fact. The only Kings team that ever played the 2001 Lakers got sweep and this thread only cares about the 2001 team, which was the strongest Shaq/Kobe team.
I'm just citing both runs. People are so caught up with 2001. 2002, they were equally good. I don't care about their playoff record.

[Bake_Show]

it would be interesting .. shaq has never been good at defending PnR, so it might be pretty tough to guard the splash bros. And I wonder if kerr would just hack a shaq any time he or the team got into rythym, they have plenty of big men to use up fouls on him.

That approach didn't work then, and wouldn't work now....

[sportjames23]

Source link (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BKN_NBA_FINALS_SHAQ_SPEAKS)





2001 Lakers VS 2016 Warriors. Discuss.

Diesel ain't lying.

[ILLsmak]

The Warriors would probably let Shaq get his and focus on slowing down Kobe. You're not stopping Shaq so you may as well just concede that matchup. The Lakers would have serious trouble defensively. As someone else mentioned, Shaq wasn't great against PnR's, and he's be routinely pulled away from the basket against the Warriors.

That being said, I'm not sure I'd bet against 2001 Shaq. He was arguably the single most impactful player in the history of the game. It's hard to say how the Warriors would handle a great big man because they've never faced one.

I think Shaq would be exactly what was necessary to beat the Warriors. Plus the Lakers had a bunch of other perimeter dudes.

The thing is, everyone says this like "Let Shaq get his" but even when defensive studs like Ben Wallace or huge dudes like Sabonis got matched up 1v1 vs Shaq... they got beat up. It's not about the points, it's just that your C is gonna break down over a 7 game series. The Warriors have no other C but Bogut that can keep Shaq from dunking on the catch every time.

Plus I think Shaq would lay Curry out if he had to. Shaq's impact is beyond just bball, he hurt a bunch of dudes. Not even playing completely dirty, but just by being large.

That being said, I can't say for sure they would win, anything can happen esp with 3s, but I believe over a 7 game series, that it would normalize and they would win.

I also think Kobe could do an ok job on Steph.

Edit: Dude's saying Shaq doesn't get 40/15? If we're gonna make it something, then it'd have to be at least the NBA Finals, but more fitting it would be some game where all players knew they were in some time-warp to prove who is better all time. I think Shaq gets 40/15 every game unless he gets in foul trouble.

-Smak

[scandisk_]

Bean would definitely haunt Curry all game long.

What a match up

[Cold soul]

He's not wrong.

Warriors are a great team still though I think it'd be

96 Bulls > 01 Lakers > 16 Warriors

96 Bulls vs 01 Lakers is my dream fantasy matchup no two teams in history I rather see face off than those two.

[PWB15]

Just want to remind everyone that not only did the 2001 sixers win Game 1, but they could have won Game 2 and Game 3


And that was a team that only had 1 star so..................

[The_Yearning]

2001 Lakers would get dismantled by GS fundamentally with a 100% Curry.

[Bosnian Sajo]

Absolutely.

[kamil]

I don't agree with the '' you wouldn't be allowed to touch me'' part.
Kevin Love gets hacked on his post ups with no call.
Post defenders get away with a lot under today's rules.

Love plays for the Warriors?

[jstern]

Teams back then were built to stop Shaq. As in getting enough big bodies because he was going to put them in foul trouble. It's either hack him or let him score in an overpowering manner.

[jstern]

I hate it when old farts are coming out and talking shit.

I'm a Laker fan and was very much alive in 2001. I was 27. We have no way of knowing. It's a cheapshot and not much else. I also hate hearing what 'MJ in ths league would do'. We don't know.

Each and every retired player comes across as either insecure or full of himself when saying such things. Usually both.
We're talking about high testosterone alpha males. Why is it that everyone has to say that the Warriors would kick their asses, else they're just hating. I mean we're talking about Shaq and the those 2000 Lakers.

The Cavs is an actual team that probably has no chance of of beating Golden State. If they ask Lebron if he thinks his team could win, wouldn't he be a hater then for saying yes? Why must everyone say that they have no chance against the Warriors, if not they are haters?

How is it a cheap shot when they ask them the question?

[atljonesbro]

Shaq would pass out after the first 5 minutes begging for a cheeseburger trying to run with Goldenstate.

[Goofsta Knicca]

Dependz on who signz Tim Donaghy and crew.

[livinglegend]

Love plays for the Warriors?

Along with your hair, you also lost neurons.

[DCL]

the 2001 lakers were just "coasting" during the regular season and only won 56 games. their margin of victory was only 3 points. then they bulldozed everyone in the playoffs.

[sportjames23]

For those of you too young to remember the 2001 Lakers (or too stupid to recognize they'd wreck this Warriors team):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTeXsiV-l5Q

[Soundwave]

They key to beating Golden State is

1.) Having length on your perimeter defence, both the 01 Lakers (Kobe, Horry, Fox) and Bulls (Jordan, Pippen, Harper) causes problems for Curry/Klay.

2.) Winning the battle on the boards. Shaq would ensure that for the Lakers, Rodman for the Bulls. If you extend the number of possessions you have, that negates their three point shooting to a degree and slows the game down.

3.) Having a dynamic scorer that can stem the tide, especially in a half court set. Both Shaq and Kobe could do this, and Jordan is the greatest at it probably in NBA history.

OKC basically almost pulled it off by doing all three of the above, but Westbrook/Durant simply aren't quite as good as Shaq/Kobe or Jordan/Pippen.

[elementally morale]

We're talking about high testosterone alpha males. Why is it that everyone has to say that the Warriors would kick their asses, else they're just hating. I mean we're talking about Shaq and the those 2000 Lakers.


But they don't have to say they would lose. They could also tell the truth: Too bad but we don't have a way to figure that out.




How is it a cheap shot when they ask them the question?

If he was asked it's not cheap, you're right. Still, I'd prefer an answer along the lines of 'both teams played hard' if you are involved in the question. It may be just a Euro thing though.

[Soundwave]

Shaq would pass out after the first 5 minutes begging for a cheeseburger trying to run with Goldenstate.

More like he'd just eat GS' interior defence like a McDonalds cheeseburger.

Thing with having Shaq is you can't run against him all day.

His presence on the floor slows the game down automatically, you have to foul him on like half the possessions, the other half the Lakers would just slow down the game, dribble the ball around, get it down to Shaq in the post, and then it's turn and dunk.

Plus all the rebounds he would get also slow down the game.

You can't run the basketball wily nilly if you're getting hammered in the post or you're putting the guy on the free throw line all the time.

[Cleverness]

"Nobody can stop Shaq" lol

More like "nobody could stop 3s from the best shooters ever"

1998 Lakers had 4 all-stars and Shaq was swept by Greg Ostertag and 6'9" Antoine Carr. DOPY candidate Andrew Bogut and DOPY Draymond Green are way better than those two scrubs. Hell, even Andersen Varajao could channel his inner Vlade and flop, just like Vlade successfully did against him.

It would be a good matchup we'll never see

[SouBeachTalents]

"Nobody can stop Shaq" lol

More like "nobody could stop 3s from the best shooters ever"

1998 Lakers had 4 all-stars and Shaq was swept by Greg Ostertag and 6'9" Antoine Carr. DOPY candidate Andrew Bogut and DOPY Draymond Green are way better than those two scrubs. Hell, even Andersen Varajao could channel his inner Vlade and flop, just like Vlade successfully did against him.

It would be a good matchup we'll never see

'98 Lakers are irrelevant to this discussion. Shaq still managed to average 32/9 that series with the rest of his team playing like absolute shit. Also, '01 Lakers >>>>>>>>>> '98 Lakers

[sportjames23]

I will say a fun series would be these Dubs vs the 2012 Heat. :rockon:

[Cleverness]

'98 Lakers are irrelevant to this discussion. Shaq still managed to average 32/9 that series with the rest of his team playing like absolute shit. Also, '01 Lakers >>>>>>>>>> '98 Lakers

Point is 98 Shaq averaged 32/9 against scrubs (it's not like he's a completely unstoppable God). Even 2001 Shaq wouldn't be any better against DOPY guys guarding him. Nor would he be better at shooting 3s or defending the pick & roll. Outside of Kobe and Shaq, Warriors destroy 'em

[KobesFinger]

Point is 98 Shaq averaged 32/9 against scrubs (it's not like he's a completely unstoppable God). Even 2001 Shaq wouldn't be any better against DOPY guys guarding him. Nor would he be better at shooting 3s or defending the pick & roll. Outside of Kobe and Shaq, Warriors destroy 'em

DPOY guys like David Robinson and Dikembe Mutombo?

[iamgine]

The 2016 Warriors don't lose to any team in NBA history under today's rule. Not that they automatically win, but you can't rule them out against anybody. Not 96 Bulls, not 01 Lakers, not 80s Lakers and Celtics. It would always be at least close because this team is that good.

The reason is simple. The old teams are not really used to defending the 3 point line. And against the GOAT 3 pt team it's not like those teams can suddenly gameplan for it. You can't suddenly learn defending against plays you've never practiced for or familiar with. It takes plenty of time. I'd even say those old teams would have a very hard time with 2016 Spurs.

[ImKobe]

old Kobe had 44 on these Warriors

Shaq would average 35+

easy win

[sportjames23]

The 2016 Warriors don't lose to any team in NBA history under today's rule. Not that they automatically win, but you can't rule them out against anybody. Not 96 Bulls, not 01 Lakers, not 80s Lakers and Celtics. It would always be at least close because this team is that good.

The reason is simple. The old teams are not really used to defending the 3 point line. And against the GOAT 3 pt team it's not like those teams can suddenly gameplan for it. You can't suddenly learn defending against plays you've never practiced for or familiar with. It takes plenty of time. I'd even say those old teams would have a very hard time with 2016 Spurs.


Ok, so no old team will watch game footage and think, "Hey, we gotta defend the three with these guys!"?

And this tired Spurs team with an old Duncan is gonna give them trouble? :oldlol:

[ImKobe]

If you combine both series, Shaq is still below his season averages in shooting. Kobe also shot something like 45%, which isn't exactly great either. There's no way Shaq is molesting this Warriors team to the tune of 40/15 like other people are implying.

Kobe shot 47% against the Kings 51% against the Spurs and 49% in the first 3 rounds

Shaq and Kobe molested everyone that year, you're not going to stop them.

[Smoke117]

Kobrick Cryant would definitely end up trying to chuck them out of a series vs the Warriors, so almost probably not.

[CAstill]

The 2016 Warriors don't lose to any team in NBA history under today's rule. Not that they automatically win, but you can't rule them out against anybody. Not 96 Bulls, not 01 Lakers, not 80s Lakers and Celtics. It would always be at least close because this team is that good.

The reason is simple. The old teams are not really used to defending the 3 point line. And against the GOAT 3 pt team it's not like those teams can suddenly gameplan for it. You can't suddenly learn defending against plays you've never practiced for or familiar with. It takes plenty of time. I'd even say those old teams would have a very hard time with 2016 Spurs.

Too bad this team plays like the 2002 kings and the Lakers have already beat them. This would not be the first time the Lakers would play a team that loves to shoot threes.

[sportjames23]

Too bad this team plays like the 2002 kings and the Lakers have already beat them. This would not be the first time the Lakers would play a team that loves to shoot threes.


Right? The 1993 Suns liked to shot a lot of threes. We all know what happened when they ran into a team that played defense in the Finals.

[NBAGOAT]

Too bad this team plays like the 2002 kings and the Lakers have already beat them. This would not be the first time the Lakers would play a team that loves to shoot threes.

02 Kings didn't have the defense the warriors had, Also, they weren't near the 3 point shooting team the Warriors with 3 instead of 4 shooters in the starting lineup and only one great one in peja. Peja was also injured vs the Lakers and the 02 Lakers weren't as good as the 01 Lakers so this comparison doesn't help as much as you think.

[Dragonyeuw]

Whats Shaq's percentages going to be with GSW defending? I would literally dump it into him every time until Bogut/ Green/ speights are in foul trouble. Obviously the Warriors have the edge on 3, but its not like the 2001 Lakers couldnt make you pay from there if you doubled Shaq. Fisher made pretty much everything he threw up that postseason. Fox can make you pay, Horry could make you pay. Who can contend with Kobe's all-around game? Didnt old ass Kobe drop 40 on this team? 2001 Kobe was the version dunking all over Duncan and Robinson hanging 48 and 16 or whatever it was.

I get the point that nobody back then needed to gameplan for a team that shoots 30 plus 3s a night at 40 plus %. But there's noone remotely approaching Shaq's level of dominance that GSW has had to plan for either. Heck, at times you had Steven Adams last round being a presence for OKC, we really gonna act like Shaq wouldnt avg 40/20 on this team? Kobe? You couldnt keep him from the rim 15 years ago, with these weak-ass rules today you think you can do so now? Sure, you got Igodola and Barnes for defensive purposes, nothing beyond guys like Tony Allen, Battier, Bowen, Artest that Kobe has hung big numbers on before.

Lakers in 6.

[Lebron23]

Lakers in 6 unless Kobe Bryant with his below poverty Basketball IQ sabotage the Lakers team ala 2004 NBA Finals.

[bigkingsfan]

Kobe shot 47% against the Kings 51% against the Spurs and 49% in the first 3 rounds

Shaq and Kobe molested everyone that year, you're not going to stop them.
The only decent defender is Christie from that entire group. Warriors have the entire kitchen sink to throw at Kobe in a series.

[Dragonyeuw]

The only decent defender is Christie from that entire group. Warriors have the entire kitchen sink to throw at Kobe in a series.

None of the guys they have to throw at Kobe are going to do any better than make him work for his points. Kobe is going to present a different matchup issue than Lebron would, for starters the 'let him shoot' tactic isn't going to work. There's only so much contact that can be initiated nowadays, so good luck keeping him out of the paint. Foul? No problem, 85% free throw shooter. Lebron has made himself containable by not being a great iso scorer, and leaving his jumpshot in Miami. Kobe is one of the top 5 iso scorers in the history of the league, and he was lights out that playoffs.

[bigkingsfan]

None of the guys they have to throw at Kobe are going to do any better than make him work for his points. Kobe is going to present a different matchup issue than Lebron would, for starters the 'let him shoot' tactic isn't going to work. There's only so much contact that can be initiated nowadays, so good luck keeping him out of the paint. Foul? No problem, 85% free throw shooter. Lebron has made himself containable by not being a great iso scorer, and leaving his jumpshot in Miami. Kobe is one of the top 5 iso scorers in the history of the league, and he was lights out that playoffs.
Kobe shot 47% for that entire run, which isn't amazing itself. He could also rest on defense, none of the Kings/Spurs guards were a threat. Imagine if he had chase Curry/Thompson around, his production will dip.

[Dragonyeuw]

Kobe shot 47% for that entire run, which isn't amazing itself. He could also rest on defense, none of the Kings/Spurs guards were a threat. Imagine if he had chase Curry/Thompson around, his production will dip.

He shot 47% for the entire playoff run, but he shot 51% vs the Spurs. The likely worst case scenario would be him doing what he did vs Philly, which was 25 on 42% shooting chasing around Allen Iverson while having to deal with tough defenders like Lynch, Mckie, Jumaine Jones, and Raja Bell. You also can't discount the era in question: if it was under today's rules Kobe would be living on the free throw line. Under yesteryear's rules, and guys like Kobe and Fisher could be more aggressive defensively without worrying about ticky-tack fouls. But all in all-this isn't about Kobe. There is NO answer for Shaq. If Shaq can run through Sabonis, Divac/Webber, Robinson/Duncan, and Mutumbo, he's going to feast on the Warrior bigs. He completely overmatches anyone they could possibly throw at them.

[bigkingsfan]

There is NO answer for Shaq. If Shaq can run through Sabonis, Divac/Webber, Robinson/Duncan, and Mutumbo, he's going to feast on the Warrior bigs. He completely overmatches anyone they could possibly throw at them.
Shaq will get his no matter what. Let him shoot 60% and clank his ft's in the process. Warriors just needs to wear Kobe out.

[Dragonyeuw]

Shaq will get his no matter what. Let him shoot 60% and clank his ft's in the process. Warriors just needs to wear Kobe out.

Shaq was doing those numbers against frontlines far superior to what Golden state can throw at him. He's going to be more like 65-70% against the Warriors. Question: has Curry and Thompson ever gone off in the same game, especially a high stakes affair? Because we know Kobe and Shaq can, they had a perfect yin/yang connection that playoffs. You can pretty much count on shaq and Kobe for 70 points in this series. Also bear in mind that Kobe alone isn't going to be exclusively guarding either Curry or Thompson. Fox, Harper, George, Fisher will be getting their turns.

[bigkingsfan]

Shaq was doing those numbers against frontlines far superior to what Golden state can throw at him. He's going to be more like 65-70% against the Warriors.
Oh please, no he isn't. :facepalm He didn't put that on Divac/Pollard, Bogut is easily the best out of the bunch.

[Dragonyeuw]

Oh please, no he isn't. :facepalm He didn't put that on Divac/Pollard, Bogut is easily the best out of the bunch.

He shot 62% vs a frontline of Sabonis/Wallace. Bogut is neither the best of the bunch in that instance, or capable of keeping Shaq from at least matching and likely exceeding those percentages, especially in this era with how fouls are called.

On another note, You just had a series where Golden state had to pull out all the stops just to beat OKC, who shot 32% from 3, and won as much through their own resilience as they did Durant/Wesbrook choking in key moments. It's not as if you need to match GS from long-range to have a shot at beating them. Nor do you need a team full of defensive stoppers, Andre Robertson was the only consistent perimeter presence that entire series. Nor do you even need a superior inside presence, you had Steven Adams putting up 10/9 and we're supposed to believe that Shaq's presence inside isn't a major game-changer? The 2001 Lakers, unlike OKC and Cleveland, were a poised, championship-level team. They're not going to choke the series away like OKC, or play passively like Cleveland is doing.

[bigkingsfan]

He shot 62% vs a frontline of Sabonis/Wallace.
What? In 2000 he shot 54% and 48% in 2001.

[GINOBILI!]

Shaq probably wins this by himself.

[Dragonyeuw]

What? In 2000 he shot 54% and 48% in 2001.

Ah shit, my bad, was looking at his free-throw stats :lol. Anyways, Shaq is going to get Bogut in foul trouble. Those early 2000 teams tried to game plan for Shaq by loading up on bigs to have enough fouls. Who does GS have when Bogut is on the bench? Varajeo? Speights......yeah. 35/15 on 65%.

[tpols]

Shaq was doing those numbers against frontlines far superior to what Golden state can throw at him. He's going to be more like 65-70% against the Warriors.


I dont think shaq has never shot 70% in any series in his career ... now he's shooting 70% against a 7 foot DPOY candidate? pure nostalgia.. Shaq will get his no doubt, but no more than he got when he used to play. He's a 56 TS efficiency player.. went 105/200 from the line in 2001. Shaq is not a model of efficiency, especially with the hack a ___ strategy which has been more prevalent today and has been taking guys out of games (drummond, dwight, etc).

You guys just wont give any credit at all to this Golden State defense. They have a bunch of 7 footers, they are littered with all nba caliber defenders to help, and they have sophisticated rotations.. they are a historically elite defense, and you guys act like Shaq would do better against them than he did against worst defenses. There's no logic, just nostalgia.



has Curry and Thompson ever gone off in the same game, especially a high stakes affair


well.. theyre coming off a series where both had to explode for 30 ppg averages to crawl out of a 3-1 deficit.. so yea, they have both gone off in a high stakes affair. It happened like 2 weeks ago. :facepalm .. and Kobe's my boy, but he's never put up stats like even klay did in that elimination game. In fact, I've never seen shaq, or kobe go off like that when the chips were that down. Even Portland game 7 didnt feel as improbable as OKC game 6.



Also bear in mind that Kobe alone isn't going to be exclusively guarding either Curry or Thompson. Fox, Harper, George, Fisher will be getting their turns.


I dont think the issue is Lakers perimeter defenders. The issue is Shaq and his inability to step out on and guard PnRs all game long. Shaq never had to deal with guys who have unconcious shooting and handles that far out because nobody took shots like that back then. It's a really big weakness they can exploit.

Either Shaq steps out and starts to burn a lot of energy trapping (which is going to lead to iggy , draymond, and barnes getting wide open looks), or he plays like he usually does and Curry / Klay bomb on them. I dont think it would be pretty.. but it would come down to them making those shots. We saw them start to drill them on much more mobile big men by the end of the WCFs.. I dont see how shaq would even stand a chance trying to move with them.

[bigkingsfan]

Just the thought of Shaq switching on Curry like we saw with Adams/Thompson :roll:

[Dragonyeuw]

I dont think shaq has never shot 70% in any series in his career ... now he's shooting 70% against a 7 foot DPOY candidate? pure nostalgia.. Shaq will get his no doubt, but no more than he got when he used to play. He's a 56 TS efficiency player.. went 105/200 from the line in 2001. Shaq is not a model of efficiency, especially with the hack a ___ strategy which has been more prevalent today and has been taking guys out of games (drummond, dwight, etc).

You guys just wont give any credit at all to this Golden State defense. They have a bunch of 7 footers, they are littered with all nba caliber defenders to help, and they have sophisticated rotations.. they are a historically elite defense, and you guys act like Shaq would do better against them than he did against worst defenses. There's no logic, just nostalgia.




Nostalgia has nothing to do with. I'm not a Lakers fan, so I have no stakes in this matchup at all. It's the nostalgia vs 'prisoner of the moment' argument as far as I can see.

Bogut being a DPOY candidate is irrelevant in an era with few standout post presences to contend with. What Bogut does against the current crop has no bearing on what he'd do vs prime Shaq.

They have ONE 7-footer, Bogut, 6"10 flopper Varajeo, and 6"11 Speights who plays one side of the court. So no, they don't "have a bunch of 7 footers", unless you want to stretch that definition to the 6"11/6"10 range, and those two players would be effectively useless. What do you expect either of those two to do once Bogut goes to the bench? And, their historically elite defense almost lost last round without a major flop-job aiding their comeback. The point about Shaq's porous p-n-r defense is a fair point, but overall it really comes down to who exploits the mismatches better. For my money, the interior mismatches are more prevelant and game-changing than any perimeter ones.

[bigkingsfan]

You're leaving out Ezeli, who's their first big off the bench, and is no slouch on defense either.

[tpols]

Nostalgia has nothing to do with. I'm not a Lakers fan, so I have no stakes in this matchup at all. It's the nostalgia vs 'prisoner of the moment' argument as far as I can see.

Bogut being a DPOY candidate is irrelevant in an era with few standout post presences to contend with. What Bogut does against the current crop has no bearing on what he'd do vs prime Shaq.

They have ONE 7-footer, Bogut, 6"11 flopper Varajeo, and 6"11 Speights who plays one side of the court. What do you expect either of those two to do once Bogut goes to the bench? And, their historically elite defense almost lost last round without a major flop-job aiding their comeback.

You forgot 7'0 Ezeli. And Andrew Bogut is just a great defender dude. He's big, he's strong, tough aussie. He's not soft Vlade Divac, Todd MacCulloch, stick thin Dikembe Mutumbo etc. Bogut is as good a matchup as Shaq could possibly see. He has as much or more girth as any of the big guys that used to defend him in the past.

And their historically great defense almost lost because Klay and Curry were wetting the bed to start that series. The mobility of Steven Adams and Serge Ibaka was shutting down their 3 pt attack, but once they got accustomed to those guys movements they were dominating them by the end of the series. They wouldn't need much time to accustom them selves to a lumbering Shaq 30 feet out.

[Dragonyeuw]

You forgot 7'0 Ezeli. And Andrew Bogut is just a great defender dude. He's big, he's strong, tough aussie. He's not soft Vlade Divac, Todd MacCulloch, stick thin Dikembe Mutumbo etc. Bogut is as good a matchup as Shaq could possibly see. He has as much or more girth as any of the big guys that used to defend him in the past.

And their historically great defense almost lost because Klay and Curry were wetting the bed to start that series. The mobility of Steven Adams and Serge Ibaka was shutting down their 3 pt attack, but once they got accustomed to those guys movements they were dominating them by the end of the series. They wouldn't need much time to accustom them selves to a lumbering Shaq 30 feet out.

He's 6"11 too, but I won't belabor the point. Again regarding Bogut, I'm not going to rate his defense against Shaq on the basis of the current crop of centers, irrespective of his physical dimensions. I'll just say he doesn't present any special skillset or prowess that Shaq didn't have to deal with, or that I can see wouldn't be able to adjust to. I'd like to see their head to head stats, taking into account that Shaq was 2-3 years past his prime when Bogut entered the league, and extrapolate from there.

I would say Kudos to you, FWIW, for being a Lakers fan but not picking them like it's obvious, or an insult not to, 'just because' like I see with so many others here.

[dynasty1978]

He shot 47% for the entire playoff run, but he shot 51% vs the Spurs. The likely worst case scenario would be him doing what he did vs Philly, which was 25 on 42% shooting chasing around Allen Iverson while having to deal with tough defenders like Lynch, Mckie, Jumaine Jones, and Raja Bell. You also can't discount the era in question: if it was under today's rules Kobe would be living on the free throw line. Under yesteryear's rules, and guys like Kobe and Fisher could be more aggressive defensively without worrying about ticky-tack fouls. But all in all-this isn't about Kobe. There is NO answer for Shaq. If Shaq can run through Sabonis, Divac/Webber, Robinson/Duncan, and Mutumbo, he's going to feast on the Warrior bigs. He completely overmatches anyone they could possibly throw at them.

Good point. For the entire 01 playoff run, Kobe was at 29, 7, 6 on 47% while Shaq had 30, 15, and 3 on 55% FG. That easily tops what Klay and Curry have been providing in comparison.

Finally, when looking at the x-factors, the Lakers supporting cast of Horry, Fisher, Fox and Grant take a backseat to no one, not even these warriors.

Fisher was absolutely lights out in the 01 playoffs. 13, 4, 3 shooting 48% FG and 53% from 3. You really can't understate how well the Lakers role players played in the big moments.

[GINOBILI!]

Ah shit, my bad, was looking at his free-throw stats :lol. Anyways, Shaq is going to get Bogut in foul trouble. Those early 2000 teams tried to game plan for Shaq by loading up on bigs to have enough fouls. Who does GS have when Bogut is on the bench? Varajeo? Speights......yeah. 35/15 on 65%.
Dray may be their best defender on Shaq. Shaq struggled with shorter defenders more than defenders who were closer to his size.

[Dragonyeuw]

Dray may be their best defender on Shaq. Shaq struggled with shorter defenders more than defenders who were closer to his size.

Perhaps, like a Rodman... but Draymond doesn't have the same lower body strength that Rodman had to keep Shaq far from the basket at times.

[dynasty1978]

Dray may be their best defender on Shaq. Shaq struggled with shorter defenders more than defenders who were closer to his size.

Which shorter defenders are you referring to?

The ones that come to mind are Ben Wallace, but Shaq usually had his way with him. The 04 pistons, collectively, did a decent job of ball denial, but Shaq had little trouble after the catch. You could say the same for the 01 Blazers, excellent at denying the post.

Where Shaq could be exploited is on high screens and the PnR.

[GINOBILI!]

Which shorter defenders are you referring to?

The ones that come to mind are Ben Wallace, but Shaq usually had his way with him. The 04 pistons, collectively, did a decent job of ball denial, but Shaq had little trouble after the catch. You could say the same for the 01 Blazers, excellent at denying the post.

Where Shaq could be exploited is on high screens and the PnR.
Most teams through bigs at him, but Shaq himself stated that shorter defenders were harder for him. In the clip below just after the 5 minute mark, he names Malone, Oakley, and Barkley, with Rick Mahorn being the hardest for him. Rodman also comes to mind. So, strong PFs seemed to be the hardest. I remember Brian Grant also being decent on him. Ben Wallace was also a strong PF sized center.

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_tv/2016/02/13/20160213-open-court-center.nba/

[nineiron]

if teams from older generations were better than the teams of today, no one would be watching the sport anymore. who wants to watch a product that's getting worse?

EVERY sport evolves and the players/teams get better. that's what evolution is.

i feel sorry for us basketball fans if we're watching a lower level of ball than 20 years ago.

also, i can't believe the stupidity on this forum with guys agreeing with, what is essentially just old man hate, coming from Shaq Pippen, Barkley and Tmac.

[Chadwin]

The fewer possessions there are, the more it benefits the 2001 Lakers. Slowing down Shaq means slowing down the game. And when most of the game is in the half court against set defenses, Shaq is going get his points a lot easier than Curry will.

[choppermagic]

if teams from older generations were better than the teams of today, no one would be watching the sport anymore. who wants to watch a product that's getting worse?

EVERY sport evolves and the players/teams get better. that's what evolution is.

i feel sorry for us basketball fans if we're watching a lower level of ball than 20 years ago.

also, i can't believe the stupidity on this forum with guys agreeing with, what is essentially just old man hate, coming from Shaq Pippen, Barkley and Tmac.


No. Not every sport evolves and the players get better.

I think Boxing is probably at a low point now, with hardly any giants of the field left. Most of the glory is in the past.

Other sports have historic figures as well, and people watch for entertainment and stories, and hope to see another giant take the stage someday too. Perhaps a current star can remind you of your hero when you grew up, etc. It is not dependent of players having to be better each year. Sports is also about history and lore that binds past stars into future stars.

[Disaprine]

hes right. :applause:

bran stans thinking kobe is the reason the lakers will lose. :roll:

[iamgine]

Ok, so no old team will watch game footage and think, "Hey, we gotta defend the three with these guys!"?

And this tired Spurs team with an old Duncan is gonna give them trouble? :oldlol:
They can think that but still won't be able to stop em. Without enough practice, the 2016 Warriors and Spurs will pretty much get open shots all day long.

[Levity]

that lakers team wasnt 3 pt heavy, more methodical with their offense. so i see them dictating the pace of the game, and forcing both teams into a half court game. if so, advantage LA.

[HurricaneKid]

If you put todays refs back in 2001 Shaq has 20 offensive fouls a game. You can't just use your shoulders and elbows as battering rams today. Defenders are given the right to stand their ground.

On the other side of the floor, GOOD LUCK to Shaq out on an island against Curry. Bogut/Dray PnRs with Curry would give Curry wide open 3s every time down the floor and that's gotta be 1.6+ points/possession. Shaq FTs on the other hand would get him about 1pt/poss. 96 possessions a game that would be a beatdown. And having Klay and Iggy derfending Kobe is about as good as you can get on that side of the ball. Add in the fact that Golden State would be be able to help off the rest of the team... Just no.

The Lakers also had an ancient Ho Grant, Ron Harper, Brian Shaw in their rotation that would have NO HOPE of playing in pace and space. And Ty Lue couldn't exactly switch PnRs. And that's half their rotation.

I don't even like Golden State. But they are MILES closer to optimal basketball than the 01 Lakers.

[GINOBILI!]

Shaq would dominate for a while, but would become exhausted due to the running Warriors. Shaq would either trail behind getting down the court on D or would wear himself down over the course of the game as he tries to keep up. He'd also get tired chasing any switches on screens, and if he doesn't switch, open jumpers for the Warriors. I do think the Lakers would win, but it would be close.

[Soundwave]

If you put todays refs back in 2001 Shaq has 20 offensive fouls a game. You can't just use your shoulders and elbows as battering rams today. Defenders are given the right to stand their ground.

On the other side of the floor, GOOD LUCK to Shaq out on an island against Curry. Bogut/Dray PnRs with Curry would give Curry wide open 3s every time down the floor and that's gotta be 1.6+ points/possession. Shaq FTs on the other hand would get him about 1pt/poss. 96 possessions a game that would be a beatdown. And having Klay and Iggy derfending Kobe is about as good as you can get on that side of the ball. Add in the fact that Golden State would be be able to help off the rest of the team... Just no.

The Lakers also had an ancient Ho Grant, Ron Harper, Brian Shaw in their rotation that would have NO HOPE of playing in pace and space. And Ty Lue couldn't exactly switch PnRs. And that's half their rotation.

I don't even like Golden State. But they are MILES closer to optimal basketball than the 01 Lakers.

Shaq wouldn't have to bowl anyone over on Golden State, he'd just turn and dunk on them.

I'd keep Kobe and Horry on Curry no matter what. Let Draymond Green beat you, but I'll tell you right now, Draymond Green ain't beating Shaq and Kobe.

[Soundwave]

if teams from older generations were better than the teams of today, no one would be watching the sport anymore. who wants to watch a product that's getting worse?

EVERY sport evolves and the players/teams get better. that's what evolution is.

i feel sorry for us basketball fans if we're watching a lower level of ball than 20 years ago.

also, i can't believe the stupidity on this forum with guys agreeing with, what is essentially just old man hate, coming from Shaq Pippen, Barkley and Tmac.

What magical rule states that team's have to get better? We still watch the NBA today because it's still fun to watch, Golden State has some unique attributes on their own.

That doesn't mean they are better than the Shaq-Kobe Lakers though, unique circumstances led to that team being put together and that might never happen quite the same way again.

I can state the damn obvious, but there isn't a player like Shaquille O' Neal in the NBA right now, not even close.

[NBAGOAT]

that lakers team wasnt 3 pt heavy, more methodical with their offense. so i see them dictating the pace of the game, and forcing both teams into a half court game. if so, advantage LA.

i really don't know about that. The Warriors always could push off misses. Ofc Shaq usually had more makes than miss but the Lakers took a lot of outside shots when Shaq got doubled or tripled and there could be a lot of misses there.

[jstern]

Wow, time is really passing by fast. I can't believe the 2001 Lakers were inferior due to evolution talk is already starting. I mean, 5 years ago seems like yesterday, and then people used to put those Lakers as part of the modern, evolved athletes era.

I think today's product is inferior, but not because of anything other than the current rules makes the game more simplistic, where a really skilled team could easily lose to a technically less skilled team of spot up shooters, due to 3 point shooters.

In nature, if an environment changes and a species now has it to easy, kind of like softer rules, they're not going to get bigger, stronger, faster.

[HurricaneKid]

Shaq wouldn't have to bowl anyone over on Golden State, he'd just turn and dunk on them.

I'd keep Kobe and Horry on Curry no matter what. Let Draymond Green beat you, but I'll tell you right now, Draymond Green ain't beating Shaq and Kobe.

And just how do you do that? On a simple high PnR with Bogut setting the pick on Kobe/Horry how are you just going to leave them on no matter what? Because the defender on the pick is where your problem is. Because Shaq can't step up to Curry. So you either leave him walking into a wide open 3 or Shaq getting humiliated in the open court. Either way you are ****ed.

Its like Laker fans don't even understand the game.

[JBSptfn]

And again, I am proved correct: The 2001 Flukers are the most overrated team in NBA History.

[Dro]

They can't stop Shaq. Lakers in 6.
This....

[Dro]

if teams from older generations were better than the teams of today, no one would be watching the sport anymore. who wants to watch a product that's getting worse?

EVERY sport evolves and the players/teams get better. that's what evolution is.

i feel sorry for us basketball fans if we're watching a lower level of ball than 20 years ago.

also, i can't believe the stupidity on this forum with guys agreeing with, what is essentially just old man hate, coming from Shaq Pippen, Barkley and Tmac.
:biggums:

[MJistheGOAT]

To stop GSW in offense, you need elite perimeter defense and bigs who are good in PnR defense and switches.

In perimeter D you have only Kobe, rest are old and bench is inexistent, remember that outside Shaq & Kobe, rest of team is average. Lakers

[HighFlyer23]

7 game series with LA winning


Prime Shaq isn't going to lose to Curry

[MJistheGOAT]

7 game series with LA winning


Prime Shaq isn't going to lose to Curry

Of course not
He would be the MVP of the series
But LAL is going to lose to GSW, this is a team game.

[Chadwin]

if teams from older generations were better than the teams of today, no one would be watching the sport anymore. who wants to watch a product that's getting worse?

EVERY sport evolves and the players/teams get better. that's what evolution is.

i feel sorry for us basketball fans if we're watching a lower level of ball than 20 years ago.

also, i can't believe the stupidity on this forum with guys agreeing with, what is essentially just old man hate, coming from Shaq Pippen, Barkley and Tmac.

We could be, I mean the GOAT stopped playing years ago and there hasn't been anything on his level since.

[Dresta]

Shaq would dominate for a while, but would become exhausted due to the running Warriors. Shaq would either trail behind getting down the court on D or would wear himself down over the course of the game as he tries to keep up. He'd also get tired chasing any switches on screens, and if he doesn't switch, open jumpers for the Warriors. I do think the Lakers would win, but it would be close.
Why are people acting like prime Shaq had no stamina and couldn't run the court? It's complete rubbish. Guy regularly averaged 40+ minutes in the playoffs, and played 44mpg in 00 playoffs and 42mpg in 01 playoffs. His lateral quickness wasn't the best sure, but he was still an otherworldly athlete. Your post reads like you've only ever seen Miami and post-Miami Shaq play.