Whats brons argument over shaq?

[Bronbron23]

it seems most bron stans argue that bron is better than mj because he was better in more areas. Other than scoring lebron was better at everything basically. This dosnt ring true when compared to shaq though. Other than passing shaq is pretty much better at everything. Better scorer or at least as good. Better defender and better rebounder. He also has the Same amount of chips as the best player which shouldn't be relevant anyway.

[Lebron23]

More regular season mvp, and lebron is going to surpass him for number of finals mvp after this season. And he is also more durable than Shaq.

[ArbitraryWater]

Do you have anything to back those claims with?

Sounds like a load of shit.

What do you base Shaq being a better scorer or defender on?

[Roundball_Rock]

Shaq is underrated but he has no case over LeBron or the "big 5" all-time. 4 MVP's versus 1, all-NBA, longevity, prime dominance, just go on down the list. Shaq has a better peak but that is it. Shaq arguably has the GOAT peak and it doesn't get him into the top 5 overall (I have him 6th--most people at the tail end of the top 10). Shaq has huge team impact but LeBron is equal or better in that regard (definitely better for floor, not for ceiling).

[Shooter]

1 MVP Shaq?

Next

[Bronbron23]

Do you have anything to back those claims with?

Sounds like a load of shit.

What do you base Shaq being a better scorer or defender on?

well i said better or as good. Other than wilt is the most dominant scorer of all time. He faced way more doubles and tripples than bron or mj but still scored as many points per game.

As far as defense hes a dominant center. almost every great center has more of impact defensively on the game than a perimeter defender which is what bron is alot of the time. not only are they defending their man they're often the help defender so they end up stopping or altering others offense. I realize there is no stat for this so as a bron stan you cant comprehend this fact but trust me its a real thing dude.

[Bronbron23]

1 MVP Shaq?

Next

Right but bron stans dont take this into account when comparing mj and bron. Mj has 1 more mvp qnd 3 more fmvps.

[Roundball_Rock]

As far as defense hes a dominant center. almost every great center has more of impact defensively on the game than a perimeter defender which is what bron is alot of the time. not only are they defending their man they're often the help defender so they end up stopping or altering others offense

True--but doesn't this logic also apply to MJ, a perimeter player posited as the GOAT against mostly centers (all who were elite defenders)?

[Bronbron23]

Shaq is underrated but he has no case over LeBron or the "big 5" all-time. 4 MVP's versus 1, all-NBA, longevity, prime dominance, just go on down the list. Shaq has a better peak but that is it. Shaq arguably has the GOAT peak and it doesn't get him into the top 5 overall (I have him 6th--most people at the tail end of the top 10). Shaq has huge team impact but LeBron is equal or better in that regard (definitely better for floor, not for ceiling).

Right but bron stans totally ignore the mvp and fmvp argument when it comes to mj qnd bron comparisons so it cant be used here. Ill give you the longevity though but im not sure how important it is if all its really doing is padding his overall stats. Its not like hes dominating 5he competition longer. The more he plays the more he loses.

[Bronbron23]

True--but doesn't this logic also apply to MJ, a perimeter player posited as the GOAT against mostly centers (all who were elite defenders)?

yes definitely

[tpols]

They're very similar players. Both GOAT athletically, with exploitable skill deficiency and poor team intangibles.

Big time team hoppers as well. Same plane for them, back end top 10.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Right but bron stans totally ignore the mvp and fmvp argument when it comes to mj qnd bron comparisons so it cant be used here. Ill give you the longevity though but im not sure how important it is if all its really doing is padding his overall stats. Its not like hes dominating 5he competition longer. The more he plays the more he loses.

Hes the best player in his 17th year.. still dominating young guys in the playoffs every single season. It matters a lot little guy, lol @ trying to spin it some other way

[Roundball_Rock]

The difference between 4 and 5 MVP's is the same as MJ's 5 versus Kareem's 6. That isn't the same as 4 versus 1.

FMVP is team dependent. Only MJ had a team in his prime that was a contender without him. That is due to Krause, Jackson and not MJ as his record in Charlotte and DC proves.

LeBron is a top 5 player in year 17. That isn't dominant? He is out there competing for chips and MVP's (likely 2nd in MVP this year). He is a basketball player. If he can still play at a high level, why should he quit?

[AlternativeAcc.]

The difference between 4 and 5 MVP's is the same as MJ's 5 versus Kareem's 6. That isn't the same as 4 versus 1.

FMVP is team dependent. Only MJ had a team in his prime that was a contender without him. That is due to Krause, Jackson and not MJ as his record in Charlotte and DC proves.

LeBron is a top 5 player in year 17. That isn't dominant? He is out there competing for chips and MVP's (likely 2nd in MVP this year). He is a basketball player. If he can still play at a high level, why should he quit?
Hard to argue against him not being the best. When was the last time he wasn't the best in the playoffs? Can't remember. (Excluding last year with the injury and joke of a roster)

I still don't see anyone outplaying him this year in the playoffs. He's coasting in the reg season and averaging like 26/11/8 on great efficiency... there's nobody I'd rather have over lebron

[tpols]

Steve Nash has double the MVP's Shaq has.

Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook, and James Harden have an equal amount.

Doesnt mean shit... it's a media driven narrative award that constantly flip flops between best league player and most valuable to his respective team.

[ArbitraryWater]

well i said better or as good. Other than wilt is the most dominant scorer of all time. He faced way more doubles and tripples than bron or mj but still scored as many points per game.

As far as defense hes a dominant center. almost every great center has more of impact defensively on the game than a perimeter defender which is what bron is alot of the time. not only are they defending their man they're often the help defender so they end up stopping or altering others offense. I realize there is no stat for this so as a bron stan you cant comprehend this fact but trust me its a real thing dude.

Yea thats horseshit mate.

Can you actually show him averaging as many ppg?

Most of your statements are generalities. You don‘t know anything about this topic, better not to „open your mouth“ on it.

[Bronbron23]

Hes the best player in his 17th year.. still dominating young guys in the playoffs every single season. It matters a lot little guy, lol @ trying to spin it some other way

Its irrelevant if hes not winning. As you say hes still the best player but hes still losing alot. All it does is highlight the fact that hes one of the best individual players but not one of the best winners. If your the goat you should have more than 3 chips after that many peak years. I know bron stans dont like it but its about stacking chips not stats.

[Bronbron23]

Yea thats horseshit mate.

Can you actually show him averaging as many ppg?

Most of your statements are generalities. You don‘t know anything about this topic, better not to „open your mouth“ on it.

shaq? During their peaks the basically have tbe same scoring stats. Only difference is shaq did vs it 2 or 3 people everytime. What are talking about dude?

[ArbitraryWater]

shaq? During their peaks the basically have tbe same scoring stats. Only difference is shaq did vs it 2 or 3 people everytime. What are talking about dude?

This isn't about peaks though, is it?

What are talking about dude?

There would seem to be a MASSIVE difference in playmaking/assists, what area is it that Shaq makes up that gap?

I really have no idea why I always entertain your braindead takes.

[Bronbron23]

This isn't about peaks though, is it?

What are talking about dude?

There would seem to be a MASSIVE difference in playmaking/assists, what area is it that Shaq makes up that gap?

I really have no idea why I always entertain your braindead takes.

Its prerty simple dude. Shaq was a better scorer, much better rebounder and he had a bigger impact defensively. Yes bron was a better passee and playmaker but shaq makes that up by the attention he demands. Think about how many guys were open because of all the double and tripple teams. So shaq had a bigger offensive impact and defensive impact. Its prerty straight foward dude

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Do you have anything to back those claims with?

Sounds like a load of shit.

What do you base Shaq being a better scorer or defender on?

Shaq has been a scoring champion 2 times and LeBron only 1 time scoring champion

- shaq has led league in FG% 8 times in his prime and 10 times in his career

- shaq won a finals series averaging 22.4 PPG more then anybody on his team (2000)

- shaq anchored Lakers to #1 defense in 2000. I don't think LeBron has done this either.

[StrongLurk]

I don't think Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem, or Bird are better than Shaq.

Shaq has an amazing prime, peak, and yes, LONGEVITY. Dude was a superstar for 12-13 years. How many players can say that?

Idk why, but Shaq is almost always underrated in all-time discussions.

[Shooter]

The difference between 4 and 5 MVP's is the same as MJ's 5 versus Kareem's 6. That isn't the same as 4 versus 1.

FMVP is team dependent. Only MJ had a team in his prime that was a contender without him. That is due to Krause, Jackson and not MJ as his record in Charlotte and DC proves.

LeBron is a top 5 player in year 17. That isn't dominant? He is out there competing for chips and MVP's (likely 2nd in MVP this year). He is a basketball player. If he can still play at a high level, why should he quit?

/thread

[AlternativeAcc.]

Its irrelevant if hes not winning. As you say hes still the best player but hes still losing alot. All it does is highlight the fact that hes one of the best individual players but not one of the best winners. If your the goat you should have more than 3 chips after that many peak years. I know bron stans dont like it but its about stacking chips not stats.

He has been winning... just because he doesn't single handedly beat the Durant Warriors (most stacked team in sports history) doesn't mean he's not winning. So either you beat the Durant Warriors by yourself or it doesn't matter? Thats the argument? Lmao, thats weak even for you dawg

[deathawaitu]

Nothing, except final losses
General consensus have Shaq over LeBron

[SATAN]

Terrible thread. LeBron is better. Get over it.

[Axe]

Shaq has been a scoring champion 2 times and LeBron only 1 time scoring champion

- shaq has led league in FG% 8 times in his prime and 10 times in his career

- shaq won a finals series averaging 22.4 PPG more then anybody on his team (2000)

- shaq anchored Lakers to #1 defense in 2000. I don't think LeBron has done this either.
It's funny that you still chose to enumerate them when a childish monster like him would never even acknowledge those. :lol

[Bronbron23]

He has been winning... just because he doesn't single handedly beat the Durant Warriors (most stacked team in sports history) doesn't mean he's not winning. So either you beat the Durant Warriors by yourself or it doesn't matter? Thats the argument? Lmao, thats weak even for you dawg

by yourself? He had love and kyrie. James frauden and old ass cp3 had them beat if cp3 dosnt get hurt. So its not like they were unbeatable. Bron couldn't even make it close.

Hes most likely gonna lose again this year in a very even battle. I wonder what your excuse will be then? Actually i already know:facepalm

[Bronbron23]

Terrible thread. LeBron is better. Get over it.

I could care less if its a terrible thread and no hes not. Get over it.

[SATAN]

You think Shaq is better, you're wrong but no one really gives a shit about your opinions anyway. Why even bother making the (shit) thread? It's pointless. Dumbass.

[Bronbron23]

You think Shaq is better, you're wrong but no one really gives a shit about your opinions anyway. Why even bother making the (shit) thread? It's pointless. Dumbass.

if you didnt care why did you respond? But im the dumbass:facepalm

[SATAN]

"Hey, I'm going to make a thread that's already been made before and try again to make LeBron fans angry! That will be really funny and not a waste of time at all :oldlol: !! I'm so clever! :applause:"

[Turbo Slayer]

Longevity, prime, and comparable peaks. It is debatable if Shaq’s peak is better than LeBron’s though. And obviously more career awards and accomplishments in general.

[Bronbron23]

"Hey, I'm going to make a thread that's already been made before and try again to make LeBron fans angry! That will be really funny and not a waste of time at all :oldlol: !! I'm so clever! :applause:"

Just bringing up facts dude. If that makes bron stans angry thats not my fault. The truth hurts. If your scared go to church fakkit

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Better durability and a longer prime.

Shaq might have peaked higher BUT Lebron's prime has lasted, what, 11-12 years? That's a big argument in his favor.

Say your front office screws up when building around them? You know that Lebron does more with less. So assuming both are loyal, I think you gotta roll with Bron. Another thing that doesn't get talked about enough is Lebron's turnaround in the finals. Not the win percentage, or an argument that he was better than Shaq there, but his respective play. Since 2011, Lebron has become one of the best on that stage. To ever play.

[Axe]

If there's one thing lebron has a definite edge over shaq in the court, it's that he can shoot a lot of threes, which is only a given because he's a forward.

[SATAN]

Just bringing up facts dude. If that makes bron stans angry thats not my fault. The truth hurts. If your scared go to church fakkit

Not many people in the world actually agree with your "facts". Low IQ dumbass.

[Shooter]

Playoff MVP - Leading league in playoff win shares

LBJ = 9 occurrences (18, 17, 16, 15, 13, 12, 09, 07)
MJ = 7 occurrences (98, 97, 96, 92, 91, 90, 89)
Russell = 5 occurrences (66, 65, 63, 62, 60)

Shaq = 3 occurrences (04, 02, 00)
Magic = 3 occurrences (88, 97, 85)
West = 3 occurrences (70, 69, 68)
Kareem = 3 occurrences (80, 74, 71)

Duncan = 2 occurrences (03, 99)
Bird = 2 occurrences (86, 84)
Moses = 2 occurrences (83, 81)
Frazier = 2 (73, 72)

Shaq still has to pass Russell or MJ.

#GoodLuckShaq

[Bronbron23]

Not many people in the world actually agree with your "facts". Low IQ dumbass.

im a low iq dumbass but you think someone who only has 3 chips and more finals loses than the other goat candidates combined is the goat. Ok buddy whatever makes you feel better:facepalm

[SATAN]

I don't believe in a definitive "goat" in a game like basketball actually. It's nonsensical rubbish for many reasons.

[kawhileonard2]

More regular season mvp, and lebron is going to surpass him for number of finals mvp after this season. And he is also more durable than Shaq.

Yeah this makes sense but Kawhi will win the title this year.

[Bronbron23]

I don't believe in a definitive "goat" in a game like basketball actually. It's nonsensical rubbish for many reasons.

i actually agree with that

[dbugz]

none

because of the obvious that libron is not a top 10 player.

mod close this thread already. there's nothing to talk here.

[light]

Bron is 1 through 5.

All Star/All NBA at every position.

The same thing that separates LeBron from anyone else.

[Axe]

I don't believe in a definitive "goat" in a game like basketball actually. It's nonsensical rubbish for many reasons.
Oh the irony :lol

[SouBeachTalents]

Its irrelevant if hes not winning. As you say hes still the best player but hes still losing alot. All it does is highlight the fact that hes one of the best individual players but not one of the best winners. If your the goat you should have more than 3 chips after that many peak years. I know bron stans dont like it but its about stacking chips not stats.
I love how in a discussion about which two players was better, this argument hinges entirely on team results :lol OP was probably the type of guy to argue Isiah was better than Jordan in the late 80's because he was a better winner

And if we've reached a point where winning 3 championships is considered both not winning and still losing a lot, players are going to be continued to be incentivized to team up and form superteams, since fans will still rank you based on how many rangz you won. Even after 3 you're still considered a loser

[Bronbron23]

I love how in a discussion about which two players was better, this argument hinges entirely on team results :lol OP was probably the type of guy to argue Isiah was better than Jordan in the late 80's because he was a better winner

And if we've reached a point where winning 3 championships is considered both not winning and still losing a lot, players are going to be continued to be incentivized to team up and form superteams, since fans will still rank you based on how many rangz you won. Even after 3 you're still considered a loser

Its not entirely on team results. Stats obviously matter. As long as both players in question had elite stats and had a decent peak and Longevity its about who was best during there peak and who was more dominant and who was a better winner. Bron is a great stat stuffer and hes a good winner but hes not a great winner. Shaq and someone like bird also had great stats but they were better winners at there best. They have just as many wins with much less peak play. That said career totals do matter and that makes up for them being better winners so its an interesting comparison imo.

So no to answer to your question isiah isnt better than mj because mj's stats chips and accolades far surpass his. At that time however i would say isiah, bird and magic were better players. Ive always said phil was extremely important in mj's rings. He got him to sacrifice his personal stats a bit for team play and chips and showed him how to be a better player and winner. He was the most the most talented player in the 80's but he wasnt the best.

[Roundball_Rock]

I love how in a discussion about which two players was better, this argument hinges entirely on team results

Where Shaq has 1 more ring to date (LeBron has a good shot at #4 this year) and it can be argued LeBron's teams overall had more team success (9 finals trips versus 6, etc.). Shaq didn't exactly play with scrubs throughout his career.


And if we've reached a point where winning 3 championships is considered both not winning and still losing a lot, players are going to be continued to be incentivized to team up and form superteams, since fans will still rank you based on how many rangz you won. Even after 3 you're still considered a loser

Sadly, that's where we are. The only thing that will change this is if LeBron (or Kawhi or Luka or Giannis) gets to 6, maybe even 5, and suddenly rings won't be the be all end all. :lol

[Phoenix]

As far as peaks go, I would take 2000 Shaq over Lebron. I actually think I would take, as a singular force for one season, 2000 Shaq over anyone that I've seen. And that's mostly because you depleted your entire frontline playing him. You legitimately needed 3 bigs and 18 fouls for him. Your interior defense was compromised. I guess that's not important nowadays because interior defense is an afterthought. The only thing with him was being a late game liability, and that's not a small thing to overlook of course.

Lebron definitely has the more consistent and durable prime, and wins the longevity argument. Shaq's longevity has become underrated though. And he's becoming a bit underrated in general because the last 10 years have been spent telling people that centers like him no longer matter. So every argument now is 'Shaq couldn't play like that today' which trivializes how much of a wrecking ball he was in a non-pussified era.

[tpols]

As far as peaks go, I would take 2000 Shaq over Lebron. I actually think I would take, as a singular force for one season, 2000 Shaq over anyone that I've seen. And that's mostly because you depleted your entire frontline playing him. You legitimately needed 3 bigs and 18 fouls for him. Your interior defense was compromised. I guess that's not important nowadays because interior defense is an afterthought. The only thing with him was being a late game liability, and that's not a small thing to overlook of course.

Lebron definitely has the more consistent and durable prime, and wins the longevity argument. Shaq's longevity has become underrated though. And he's becoming a bit underrated in general because the last 10 years have been spent telling people that centers like him no longer matter. So every argument now is 'Shaq couldn't play like that today' which trivializes how much of a wrecking ball he was in a non-pussified era.

i know that 2000 shaq was really motivated to play defense under phil that year and had his best year but can we really act like late 90s shaq was much worse? what? like a 99 instead of a 100. Especially offensively, Shaq was Shaq in 2000 and when he was getting toasted by Utah. And less not forget shaq was a hair away from losing in 2000 too... down 15 in a 4th quarter game 7.

i think the real thing was that the teams he ran into in the Finals were a joke especially at his position and he ran them over so bad that people think he was better than he was when he was losing when he really wasnt. Kobe blossoming was the main difference.

[Phoenix]

i know that 2000 shaq was really motivated to play defense under phil that year and had his best year but can we really act like late 90s shaq was much worse? what? like a 99 instead of a 100. Especially offensively, Shaq was Shaq in 2000 and when he was getting toasted by Utah. And less not forget shaq was a hair away from losing in 2000 too... down 15 in a 4th quarter game 7.

i think the real thing was that the teams he ran into in the Finals were a joke especially at his position and he ran them over so bad that people think he was better than he was when he was losing when he really wasnt. Kobe blossoming was the main difference.

You got me reading through all that and were smart enough to drop your main point at the end, which was Kobe. Nice touch. So since I've read enough of your posts to know you don't particularly care for either Shaq or Lebron, which one is your lesser evil within the context of this conversation?

[HBK_Kliq_2]

i know that 2000 shaq was really motivated to play defense under phil that year and had his best year but can we really act like late 90s shaq was much worse? what? like a 99 instead of a 100. Especially offensively, Shaq was Shaq in 2000 and when he was getting toasted by Utah. And less not forget shaq was a hair away from losing in 2000 too... down 15 in a 4th quarter game 7.

i think the real thing was that the teams he ran into in the Finals were a joke especially at his position and he ran them over so bad that people think he was better than he was when he was losing when he really wasnt. Kobe blossoming was the main difference.

Shaq had to do most of the heavy lifting against the elite teams as well. 2002 vs kings was when Shaq did all the work and Kobe continued to throw up bricks.

Pacers were a pretty weak finals team but they are just as good of a team as anybody LeBron ever had to face in the east. Shaq also beat Pacers by himself, Kobe was hurt and averaged 22PPG less then Shaq.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

You got me reading through all that and were smart enough to drop your main point at the end, which was Kobe. Nice touch. So since I've read enough of your posts to know you don't particularly care for either Shaq or Lebron, which one is your lesser evil within the context of this conversation?

And Kobe's peak season was beating Dwight Howard in the finals, so he didn't have it very tough either.

[tpols]

You got me reading through all that and were smart enough to drop your main point at the end, which was Kobe. Nice touch. So since I've read enough of your posts to know you don't particularly care for either Shaq or Lebron, which one is your lesser evil within the context of this conversation?

was that really a lot... it was a couple sentences.

it's pretty much a coin flip for me. shaq didn't have to dominate the ball to score and attracted double teams big time, but he also had a huge hole with the FT shooting stuff. H2H I dont see anyway Shaq could lose however, you cant just stiff arm outmuscle that guy at the rim.

[tpols]

Shaq had to do most of the heavy lifting against the elite teams as well. 2002 vs kings was when Shaq did all the work and Kobe continued to throw up bricks.

Pacers were a pretty weak finals team but they are just as good of a team as anybody LeBron ever had to face in the east. Shaq also beat Pacers by himself, Kobe was hurt and averaged 22PPG less then Shaq.

no he didn't lol... Kobe was playing at MVP levels in the West and was the main reason they got over the hump.

[Lebron23]

no he didn't lol... Kobe was playing at MVP levels in the West and was the main reason they got over the hump.

2001 and 2002 Kobe was arguably the best sidekick of all time. Having a Shaq on his team made the game easier for the Lakers. After Shaq was traded to the Heat. Kobe and the lakers missed the playoffs in 2005. Lakers were a first round fodders until they acquired Pau Gasol in 2008.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

no he didn't lol... Kobe was playing at MVP levels in the West and was the main reason they got over the hump.

But Kobe was always the sidekick and it led to 3 straight titles. Once Kobe went away from that in 03 and 04, they never won again.

2002 vs Kings

Shaq averages 31 points on 56% TS

Kobe averages 27 points on 49% TS

4 more PPG and a +7 on TS even though Shaq is an awful free throw shooter. Lets look at their eFG%

Shaq: 53%
Kobe: 44%

Shaq had to do all the heavy lifting and that was the toughest series of the 3peat, they were nearly eliminated on like three different occasions.

And in the 2000 finals when Pacers outplayed Lakers because Kobe was so bad.

Pacers during 2000 finals: 106PPG on 114 offensive rating

Lakers during 2000 finals: 104PPG on 112 offensive rating

Pacers were out playing Lakers as a team because Kobe was hurt and it was a 1 man carry job.

30.6 GmSc for Shaq
9.7 GmSc for Kobe

[tpols]

Kobe got hurt in the Pacers series...

and won them the swing game that could've made the series a coin flip when Shaq foul'ed out.

nice try mate.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSdhzK-ud3U

[Roundball_Rock]

And that's mostly because you depleted your entire frontline playing him. You legitimately needed 3 bigs and 18 fouls for him. Your interior defense was compromised

Good point. Plus while he was a poor FT shooter it got his team's in the bonus and got better FT shooters to the line more. It also allowed his team to set up its defense on the other end when he went to the line, reducing transition opportunities.


. Shaq's longevity has become underrated though. And he's becoming a bit underrated in general because the last 10 years have been spent telling people that centers like him no longer matter. So every argument now is 'Shaq couldn't play like that today' which trivializes how much of a wrecking ball he was in a non-pussified era.

Agreed. Plus that is wrong--who is going to stop Shaq today? You can't single cover him and if you double him he will kick it out to four shooters. He would have issues on defense but on offense he would be a monster.


i think the real thing was that the teams he ran into in the Finals were a joke especially at his position

Yes, the reigning DPOY was "a joke" as was Rik Smits (ask Ewing and Shaq about Smits). :facepalm


But Kobe was always the sidekick and it led to 3 straight titles. Once Kobe went away from that in 03 and 04, they never won again.

This says it all about the two player's respective value:

Lakers with Shaq/without Shaq

2001: 51-23 (69%), 5-3 (62.5%) without him.
2002: 51-16(76%), 7-8 (47%) without him.
2003: 45-22 (67%), 5-10 (33%) without him.
2004: 49-18 (73%), 7-8 (47%) without him.
Totals: 196-79 (71%), 24-29 (45%) without him.

How did the Lakers do with Shaq, without Kobe, though? Kobe missed significant time in 2000, 2001 and 2004 so let's examine those years.

2000: 12-4 (75%). The Lakers also were 4-0 in games Kobe came off the bench, although he averaged 30 mpg in those games.
2001: 11-3 (79%)
2004: 6-4 (60%). The Lakers went 1-0 with Kobe as a reserve (he played 31 minutes that game)
Total: 29-11 (73%)

How about the Lakers with Kobe, without Shaq?

2001: 5-3 (62.5%)
2002: 7-8 (47%). The Lakers went 1-0 with Shaq coming off the bench (Shaq played 37 minutes).
2003: 5-10 (33%). They went 1-0 with Shaq as a reserve (he played 21 minutes).
2004: 5-3 (62.5%)
Total: 22-24 (48%)

So without Kobe they did the same (actually slightly better than they did overall); without Shaq, even with Kobe, they had a losing record.

[tpols]

Mutumbo was washed by 2001. And stick thin... Ostertag and karl malone, while far worse defenders posed a bigger threat because they actually had some girth and strength. Ditto Rik Smits who was generally nowhere near the defender mutumbo was, but because he was a solidly built guy could actually bang with shaq and ewing, two fellas who scored a lot through brute force.

Everybody knows the east comp for the Lakers 3 peat was a joke. It's not even debatable.

[Roundball_Rock]

Mutumbo literally was DPOY in 01'--winning easily over KG and Duncan. :oldlol: at the revisionism.

[Phoenix]

was that really a lot... it was a couple sentences.

it's pretty much a coin flip for me. shaq didn't have to dominate the ball to score and attracted double teams big time, but he also had a huge hole with the FT shooting stuff. H2H I dont see anyway Shaq could lose however, you cant just stiff arm outmuscle that guy at the rim.

No it wasn't alot, but if you wanted to get to the point of making it about Kobe you could have led with that and spared the fluff.

As important as Kobe was to those teams, especially 2001 and 2002 in terms of scoring and playmaking, you'd have a harder time finding a replacement for Shaq relative to other centers in the league, then you would have finding a guard to replace alot of what Kobe did and still being in position to win.There was quite literally no center remotely in Shaq's stratosphere. That's a huge advantage for LA

[tpols]

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DistortedSerpentineCopepod-max-1mb.gif

that could pretty much summarize the whole series.

Mutumbo was outweighed by 100+ lbs but never flopped in the face of countless offensive fouls. He was african tough you have to say though.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Kobe got hurt in the Pacers series...

and won them the swing game that could've made the series a coin flip when Shaq foul'ed out.

nice try mate.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSdhzK-ud3U

Shaq won game 2 when Kobe played 8 minutes!

Kobe had that great game 4 and still managed a 9 GmSc average for the series, that should tell you how he played.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Good point. Plus while he was a poor FT shooter it got his team's in the bonus and got better FT shooters to the line more. It also allowed his team to set up its defense on the other end when he went to the line, reducing transition opportunities.



Agreed. Plus that is wrong--who is going to stop Shaq today? You can't single cover him and if you double him he will kick it out to four shooters. He would have issues on defense but on offense he would be a monster.



Yes, the reigning DPOY was "a joke" as was Rik Smits (ask Ewing and Shaq about Smits). :facepalm



This says it all about the two player's respective value:

Lakers with Shaq/without Shaq

2001: 51-23 (69%), 5-3 (62.5%) without him.
2002: 51-16(76%), 7-8 (47%) without him.
2003: 45-22 (67%), 5-10 (33%) without him.
2004: 49-18 (73%), 7-8 (47%) without him.
Totals: 196-79 (71%), 24-29 (45%) without him.

How did the Lakers do with Shaq, without Kobe, though? Kobe missed significant time in 2000, 2001 and 2004 so let's examine those years.

2000: 12-4 (75%). The Lakers also were 4-0 in games Kobe came off the bench, although he averaged 30 mpg in those games.
2001: 11-3 (79%)
2004: 6-4 (60%). The Lakers went 1-0 with Kobe as a reserve (he played 31 minutes that game)
Total: 29-11 (73%)

How about the Lakers with Kobe, without Shaq?

2001: 5-3 (62.5%)
2002: 7-8 (47%). The Lakers went 1-0 with Shaq coming off the bench (Shaq played 37 minutes).
2003: 5-10 (33%). They went 1-0 with Shaq as a reserve (he played 21 minutes).
2004: 5-3 (62.5%)
Total: 22-24 (48%)

So without Kobe they did the same (actually slightly better than they did overall); without Shaq, even with Kobe, they had a losing record.

Exactly. Shaq was the be all end all of that offense, they dumped it to him in the post and went wherever he took them.

[DoctorP]

Kobe got hurt in the Pacers series...

and won them the swing game that could've made the series a coin flip when Shaq foul'ed out.

nice try mate.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSdhzK-ud3U


Kobe saved Shaqs ass here.

R.I.P

[Phoenix]

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DistortedSerpentineCopepod-max-1mb.gif

that could pretty much summarize the whole series.

Mutumbo was outweighed by 100+ lbs but never flopped in the face of countless offensive fouls. He was african tough you have to say though.

Kobe was 25 on 42% shooting. Whatever you think of the methodology, the Lakers aren't winning if Shaq isn't flat-out steamrolling Mutumbo or it's a much closer series.

[Doranku]

lol @ the revisionist history of "just dump it down to Shaq haha"

Random game that no one here probably remembers, 2002 WCF game 1 against the Kings since that series was brought up in this thread.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBTUu3c8BLk

Walton calling Kobe the most skilled since Jordan. Listen to the announcers for game context. It's Kobe making all the momentum killing plays late in the game. There is no dumping it down to Shaq every play in the 4th. People don't remember how much Kobe had the ball in his hands during the 3peat. He was the only perimeter player on that team who could break down a defense off the dribble. "Dumping it down to Shaq" in reality was "Kobe breaking down the defense and dumping it off to Shaq"



Just a sidekick doe.

[tpols]

Kobe was 25 on 42% shooting. Whatever you think of the methodology, the Lakers aren't winning if Shaq isn't flat-out steamrolling Mutumbo or it's a much closer series.

That isn't basketball. They wouldn't call blatant offensive fouls on Shaq.

Wilt could've done that to Russell, but the game back then was still an exhibition of skill.

[tpols]

Kobe was 25 on 42% shooting. Whatever you think of the methodology, the Lakers aren't winning if Shaq isn't flat-out steamrolling Mutumbo or it's a much closer series.

The lakers were winning that series no matter what. Sixers blew their david vs goliath load in the first game and were easy work thereafter.

[Doranku]

The lakers were winning that series no matter what. Sixers blew their david vs goliath load in the first game and were easy work thereafter.

I've been rewatching some of the early '00 Lakers playoff series and Kobe was actually great in the finals that year outside of game 1. 27/9/6 after game 1. Played phenomenal defense most of the series against Iverson as well.

[Phoenix]

That isn't basketball. They wouldn't call blatant offensive fouls on Shaq.

Wilt could've done that to Russell, but the game back then was still an exhibition of skill.

You act like guys weren't mauling Shaq on the other side of the argument. He was impossible to officiate evenly. That's besides the point being made though.

[Phoenix]

The lakers were winning that series no matter what. Sixers blew their david vs goliath load in the first game and were easy work thereafter.

As I said, if Shaq isn't going off for 33 and 16 or whatever it was, it's a closer series.

[Roundball_Rock]

Kobe had that great game 4 and still managed a 9 GmSc average for the series, that should tell you how he played.

He struggled in the series.

6 for 13 for 14 points
1 for 3 for 2 points (injured, played only 8 minutes)
DNP
14 for 27 for 28 points
4 for 20 for 8 points
8 for 27 for 26 points

Those last three games are brutal. 26 for 74 (35%) to generate 62 points.


Exactly. Shaq was the be all end all of that offense, they dumped it to him in the post and went wherever he took them.

Yeah, he has become very underrated. Orlando, LA all went down the tubes without him. Miami also sucked whenever Shaq was hurt (but not when they had Shaq, no Wade).


Kobe was 25 on 42% shooting. Whatever you think of the methodology, the Lakers aren't winning if Shaq isn't flat-out steamrolling Mutumbo or it's a much closer series.

The Lakers weren't even .500 without Shaq those years so if Shaq somehow went down early in Game 1 the Lakers lose.

The issue with players like Kobe is their style of play detracts from teammates. So when these players are removed from the equation the hit isn't as bad as their talent would suggest because teams offset it by sharing the ball and better shot selection. In contrast, Shaq was additive and it's no coincidence his teams always suffered a lot without him there.


Just a sidekick doe.

By the definition of a sidekick, e.g., the clear 2nd best player he was.

[tpols]

I've been rewatching some of the early '00 Lakers playoff series and Kobe was actually great in the finals that year outside of game 1. 27/9/6 after game 1. Played phenomenal defense most of the series against Iverson as well.

Kobe literally outperformed a peak shaq statistically in that playoff run. He was bascially on michael jordan level.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cTb-tOmJ9UI/hqdefault.jpg

I do think it's entirely possible Lebron & Kobe wouldve been an even better tandem than Kobe & Shaq though because Lebron was much more serious discipline wise.

Can you imagine what peak Kobe and Lebron would do to the league?

[tpols]

You act like guys weren't mauling Shaq on the other side of the argument. He was impossible to officiate evenly. That's besides the point being made though.

they weren't at all in this discussion.

Mutumbo was not "mauling" shaq lmao... he was getting the lion's share of the punishment.

Jason Collins and Todd McCallough weren't mauling Shaq.

:facepalm

THEY were getting mauled.

[DoctorP]

Kobe literally outperformed a peak shaq statistically in that playoff run. He was bascially on michael jordan level.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cTb-tOmJ9UI/hqdefault.jpg

I do think it's entirely possible Lebron & Kobe wouldve been an even better tandem than Kobe & Shaq though because Lebron was much more serious discipline wise.

Can you imagine what peak Kobe and Lebron would do to the league?

Basically thats like giving Jordan a better three point shot and a Super-Pippen. It's ovah

[Phoenix]

they weren't at all in this discussion.

Mutumbo was not "mauling" shaq lmao... he was getting the lion's share of the punishment.

Jason Collins and Todd McCallough weren't mauling Shaq.

:facepalm

THEY were getting mauled.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMERbM6ek6Y

Cry more. I see alot of Shaq simply being too big and strong to stop. Not his fault that when he spins on guys they get knocked back 5 feet. Some of those shots he was just getting deep position and dropping baby hooks or the little fadeaway in the lane. No mauling. You're exaggerating because you want those championships chiefly credited to Kobe. You're taking a few bumps into guys chests or elbows and stretching that out like that happened on every play.

[Carbine]

TPOLS is one of the most agenda driven non trolls here. Def top tier

[tpols]

TPOLS is one of the most agenda driven non trolls here. Def top tier

what's my agenda mate. i post on pretty much the widest selection of topics here.

[Roundball_Rock]

You're exaggerating because you want those championships chiefly credited to Kobe.

I have never heard an explanation for why they were .730 with Shaq (slightly better than their overall win rate of .710 those years), without Kobe but .480 with Kobe, without Shaq. How can the team be much better with the supposedly inferior player? That is a massive drop-off sans Shaq and zero drop-off without Kobe, supposedly the GOAT or second GOAT.

[Phoenix]

I have never heard an explanation for why they were .730 with Shaq (slightly better than their overall win rate of .710 those years), without Kobe but .480 with Kobe, without Shaq. How can the team be much better with the supposedly inferior player? That is a massive drop-off sans Shaq and zero drop-off without Kobe, supposedly the GOAT or second GOAT.

I'm awaiting the explanation on that myself.

[tpols]

Regular season win loss isn't going to tell you much.

The specific +/- sample size is small, the stakes are low, and the choice picked games are arbitrary and without SRS definition.

The craziest thing to me is Eddie Jones. In '97 and '98 he put up better efficiencies than prime Kobe... and was a great defender to boot.

And Shaq got SWEPT. by the Jazz. 1-8 in those years.

That's incredible.

[SouBeachTalents]

Regular season win loss isn't going to tell you much.

The specific +/- sample size is small, the stakes are low, and the choice picked games are arbitrary and without SRS definition.

The craziest thing to me is Eddie Jones. In '97 and '98 he put up better efficiencies than prime Kobe... and was a great defender to boot.

And Shaq got SWEPT. by the Jazz. 1-8 in those years.

That's incredible.
Shaq didn't have his best series, esp in '97, but his supporting casts were pretty ass. Eddie Jones put up 10 ppg on 50%TS and 15 ppg on 52%TS in those series series, and it's not like Van Exel or Kobe were doing much better

[Roundball_Rock]

Regular season win loss isn't going to tell you much.

The specific +/- sample size is small,

It is literally the only data we have about teams minus players. Playoffs would be better but how many playoff games did these guys miss?

40 games and 46 games aren't small sample sizes. That is half a season in one case and half a season plus in the latter.

It strongly implies Shaq>>>Kobe in value for the team. Maybe there is an alternative explanation but I have never heard it.


The craziest thing to me is Eddie Jones. In '97 and '98 he put up better efficiencies than prime Kobe... and was a great defender to boot.

And Shaq got SWEPT. by the Jazz

Shaq got swept? The only Laker who showed up in the series? :wtf:

Kobe did put the Lakers over the top but that doesn't mean he was equal to Shaq. Gasol put the Lakers over the top a decade later. Does that mean he was equal to Shaq?


Shaq didn't have his best series, esp in '97, but his supporting casts were pretty ass

In 97' he was subpar (they lost 4-1, not 4-0 that year) but in 98' he was 32/9/1 on 56%. What else is he supposed to do? The assists are low--but look at the FG % of his teammates:

Jones 41%
Kobe 37%
Fox 41%
Van Exel 24%
Fisher 35%
Horry 36%
Campbell 21%

That explains the lack of assists...

[Doranku]

Kobe literally outperformed a peak shaq statistically in that playoff run. He was bascially on michael jordan level.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cTb-tOmJ9UI/hqdefault.jpg

I do think it's entirely possible Lebron & Kobe wouldve been an even better tandem than Kobe & Shaq though because Lebron was much more serious discipline wise.

Can you imagine what peak Kobe and Lebron would do to the league?

Yup, I remember Kobe was asked what player he would team up with if he could choose any player in NBA history and he chose LeBron. He knows how deadly they would be together. A perfect match from their game on the court to their mentality. Wade explained how Kobe motivated him, Bron, and Bosh during the '08 Olympics with his intense practice regimen. Imagine year after year training Bran training with Mamba, pushing each other to get better and continue collecting hardware.

They'd be near unbeatable.

[Roundball_Rock]

Unbeatable--just like Shaq and Kobe would be on paper--and we know how that turned out. Kobe is going to accept being a "sidekick" to LeBron? I doubt it. Ask Shaq and Phil.

[Kblaze8855]

If I have to pick one to play from 95-05 I’d take Shaq and not need long to decide. If I needed one for 10-20 I’d take Lebron and it wouldn’t take long to decide. But that’s considering only the players not the abstract “greatness” which involves accolades and all.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

lol @ the revisionist history of "just dump it down to Shaq haha"

Random game that no one here probably remembers, 2002 WCF game 1 against the Kings since that series was brought up in this thread.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBTUu3c8BLk

Walton calling Kobe the most skilled since Jordan. Listen to the announcers for game context. It's Kobe making all the momentum killing plays late in the game. There is no dumping it down to Shaq every play in the 4th. People don't remember how much Kobe had the ball in his hands during the 3peat. He was the only perimeter player on that team who could break down a defense off the dribble. "Dumping it down to Shaq" in reality was "Kobe breaking down the defense and dumping it off to Shaq"



Just a sidekick doe.

Shaq was always clear cut finals MVP, by far best player vs kings (check their efficiency), not to mention Shaq was blocking shots 2 or 3 times and 13 rebounds, shaq was the best player during the blazers 2000 series as well.

So I don't really see an argument for Kobe. He was still a great player and probably top 5 in the league in 2001/2002 years. Shaq was just the best or at worst 2nd best to only Duncan during those years, the offense was built around Shaq. I would say Shaq also had more impact defensively and was elite at times on that end.

So all in all, its similar to Jordan/Pippen duo.

Jordan/Shaq = top 1 or 2 every year

Pippen/Kobe = top 5 or 7 every year

The only main difference is I don't see 91-93 or 96-98 Pippen as ever a worse player then 2000 Kobe. In 2000, Kobe just wasn't quite an elite player yet and Shaq had to carry in the finals.

[Axe]

2001 and 2002 Kobe was arguably the best sidekick of all time. Having a Shaq on his team made the game easier for the Lakers. After Shaq was traded to the Heat. Kobe and the lakers missed the playoffs in 2005. Lakers were a first round fodders until they acquired Pau Gasol in 2008.
2001 would probably be the best playoff run in the 00s.

[RoseCity07]

Where do I begin...

Lebron is a better scorer, passer, defender, and shooter. He's faster and has a better basketball IQ. Lebron is also a damn fine rebounder seeing as Shaq is about a half foot taller.

Lebron has more MVPs. He's the clearly the more dominant Finals performer.

[Meticode]

Watching Orlando Shaq was so fun. Way more athletic for a 7'1" player than was given credit to him. Imagine if he actually stayed in shape and took care of himself during the off-season.

[Roundball_Rock]

So I don't really see an argument for Kobe. He was still a great player and probably top 5 in the league in 2001/2002 years. Shaq was just the best or at worst 2nd best to only Duncan during those years, the offense was built around Shaq. I would say Shaq also had more impact defensively and was elite at times on that end.

So all in all, its similar to Jordan/Pippen duo.

Jordan/Shaq = top 1 or 2 every year

Pippen/Kobe = top 5 or 7 every year

Agreed--the difference being Jordan/Pippen lasted and won 6 while Shaq/Kobe broke up prematurely and won half that.


The only main difference is I don't see 91-93 or 96-98 Pippen as ever a worse player then 2000 Kobe. In 2000, Kobe just wasn't quite an elite player yet and Shaq had to carry in the finals.

The difference I see is Pippen kept the Bulls afloat without Jordan (in fact the drop-off without MJ was less than it was without Pippen in 98'), Kobe couldn't without Shaq (even though they didn't skip a beat when it was Shaq, no Kobe).

Bulls with Jordan in 93': 56-22 (59 win pace)
Bulls w/out MJ, with Pippen in 94': 51-21 (58 win pace)

Lakers with Shaq in 01'-04': 196-79 (58 win pace)
Lakers w/out Shaq, with Kobe in 01'-04': 22-24 (39 win pace)

So no drop-off in winning percentage (there was an erosion in offensive performance, though) in the first case but in the second case the team goes from contenders to lottery status without Shaq.

[Doranku]

Shaq was always clear cut finals MVP, by far best player vs kings (check their efficiency), not to mention Shaq was blocking shots 2 or 3 times and 13 rebounds, shaq was the best player during the blazers 2000 series as well.

So I don't really see an argument for Kobe. He was still a great player and probably top 5 in the league in 2001/2002 years. Shaq was just the best or at worst 2nd best to only Duncan during those years, the offense was built around Shaq. I would say Shaq also had more impact defensively and was elite at times on that end.

So all in all, its similar to Jordan/Pippen duo.

Jordan/Shaq = top 1 or 2 every year

Pippen/Kobe = top 5 or 7 every year

The only main difference is I don't see 91-93 or 96-98 Pippen as ever a worse player then 2000 Kobe. In 2000, Kobe just wasn't quite an elite player yet and Shaq had to carry in the finals.


Huh? You realize Pip averaged 16 ppg on 34% shooting in the '96 finals, right? He also averaged 16 ppg on 33% shooting that year in the 2nd round against the Knicks. :oldlol: Kobe had one bad series in 2000 because Jalen Rose intentionally injured him. Still took over a pivotal game 4 with Shaq fouled out and sealed the series for the Lakers. Meanwhile Pippen was getting outplayed by Rodman. Yikes.

2000 Kobe >>> 1996 Pippen

[Roundball_Rock]

Why couldn't Kobe keep the Lakers above .500 without Shaq then? Shaq had zero problem without Kobe.

The issue is Kobe's playing style...I bet the rest of the team shot a lot more efficiently in those Kobe-less games.


2000 Kobe >>> 1996 Pippen

One of these players was 1st team all-NBA and top 5 in MVP--it wasn't Kobe.

[Doranku]

One of these players was 1st team all-NBA and top 5 in MVP--it wasn't Kobe.

That's great. Which player was better in the playoffs? I'll give you a hint-- it wasn't Scottie.

Kobe torched the Kings in the first round, hit a game winner against the Suns to protect HCA and go up 2-0, best player on the floor in game 7 WCF, and of course the takeover against Indy in game 4 without Shaq.

What'd Scottie do in '96? He looked pretty good against the 42 win Heat I guess.

[Roundball_Rock]

I guess this week won't be the week we finally hear why the Lakers did fine with Shaq, without Kobe but crumbled with Kobe, without Shaq. :oldlol:

Yes, the healthy player was better than the player who had 3 injuries in the playoffs. That is important insight.


What'd Scottie do in '96?

Be a MVP candidate, get compared to MJ before he got hurt, help win 72 games, not get called out by the rest of the team for being a team chemistry cancer in a team meeting for ball hogging.

[Doranku]

It's not that hard to figure out why the Lakers played well without Kobe but not without Shaq.

Who was Shaq's replacement? Those Lakers teams at least had reliable wing players in Fish, Fox, Horry, Rice for a bit who could knock down shots and run the triangle in Kobe's absence.

Meanwhile if Shaq was out, Lakers were throwing out Horace Grant's corpse for 40 minutes, Greg Foster, Samaki Walker, and Stanislav ****ing Medvedenko. The Lakers big men depth back then was Shaq. That's it.

[tpols]

Pippen was such ass in the late 90's on offense. it's actually incredible how bad he was at shooting.

2000 Kobe is the guy who, as head to head as anything could ever possibly be, sent him to the retirement home. :lol

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ClearcutAmusingKoi-size_restricted.gif

scottie was like the anti-horry. zero clutch moments for 6 rings??

:biggums:

[Phoenix]

It's not that hard to figure out why the Lakers played well without Kobe but not without Shaq.

Who was Shaq's replacement? Those Lakers teams at least had reliable wing players in Fish, Fox, Horry, Rice for a bit who could knock down shots and run the triangle in Kobe's absence.

Meanwhile if Shaq was out, Lakers were throwing out Horace Grant's corpse for 40 minutes, Greg Foster, Samaki Walker, and Stanislav ****ing Medvedenko. The Lakers big men depth back then was Shaq. That's it.

You actually just proved why Shaq was the more indispensable component as far as keeping the team afloat if the duo wasn't on the floor together. There was no replacement for him, not only on the team but in the league. Kobe was also great and crucial to the success of the team. Theses concepts don't contradict each other.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's not that hard to figure out why the Lakers played well without Kobe but not without Shaq.

Who was Shaq's replacement?

Who was Kobe's replacement? MJ? Drexler? Wade? No, it was a vastly inferior player.


You actually just proved why Shaq was the more indispensable component as far as keeping the team afloat if the duo wasn't on the floor together. There was no replacement for him, not only on the team but in the league. Kobe was also great and crucial to the success of the team. Theses concepts don't contradict each other.

Yup. It also was because of Kobe's style of play IMO. When a player like Kobe is removed from the equation those 20-25 shots don't all go to any given player. They get distributed across the entire team. The ball will move around more to generate those 20-25 shots and they will be of higher quality (all things being equal--which isn't the case since these players were much less talented than Kobe) than the shots player with ball hog tendencies like Kobe would take. In other words, no Kobe=more open shots taken.

So on the one hand Kobe is this GOAT-level player, equal or better than peak Shaq and >>>>>another top 20-30 all-time player--but on the other replace him with a bench player and zero problem. :confusedshrug:

Some of it seems to be the SG position, for whatever reason. The same thing happened with Wade (big decline without Shaq or LeBron, no decline without Wade) and Drexler (no change in 93' and 94' sans Drexler for Portland) and Iverson (Denver got better without him, Detroit worse with him, ec.).

[ArbitraryWater]

Huh? You realize Pip averaged 16 ppg on 34% shooting in the '96 finals, right? He also averaged 16 ppg on 33% shooting that year in the 2nd round against the Knicks. :oldlol: Kobe had one bad series in 2000 because Jalen Rose intentionally injured him. Still took over a pivotal game 4 with Shaq fouled out and sealed the series for the Lakers. Meanwhile Pippen was getting outplayed by Rodman. Yikes.

2000 Kobe >>> 1996 Pippen

injured so badly he sucked in games 5 and 6 but had his best game in game 4? sure :lol

very badly injured there

[HBK_Kliq_2]

That's great. Which player was better in the playoffs? I'll give you a hint-- it wasn't Scottie.

Kobe torched the Kings in the first round, hit a game winner against the Suns to protect HCA and go up 2-0, best player on the floor in game 7 WCF, and of course the takeover against Indy in game 4 without Shaq.

What'd Scottie do in '96? He looked pretty good against the 42 win Heat I guess.

Pippen crushes Kobe in advanced stats for their playoff runs

Pippen: 7.8 BPM, 1.8 VORP, 3.0 win shares

Kobe: 4.2 BPM, 1.4 VORP, 2.1 win shares

Pippen has .4 higher VORP and .9 higher win shares despite playing 115 less minutes

Even old Pippen in 2000 nearly eliminated Kobe when he had peak Shaq on his team.

[Roundball_Rock]

Pippen crushes Kobe in advanced stats for their playoff runs

The only stat that counts is PPG. :lol Good point. We hear about Pippen's FG % in 1996-1998 all the time (mainly driven by him taking more threes and injuries in 96' and 98' reducing his efficiency--he was hurt in 97' too but overcame it) but not that his advanced stats were better in 1996-1998 than in 1991-1993. They played similar games (Pippen 58, Kobe 57 from 1996-1998 and 2000-2002) so here are the advanced stats:

VORP: Pippen 4.8, Kobe 4.2
BPM: Pippen 6.1, Kobe 4.9
WS: Kobe 8.4, Pippen 8.2


I think more than stats is their team impact. The Bulls got markedly worse without Pippen as teammates across the board saw their efficiency decrease in 98'. Pippen is a rare case of a superstar increasing teammate scoring by expanding the pie for all.

Kobe? The data doesn't show any team impact. The RS record with/without Kobe is the same. In theory, they need Kobe against tougher comp but that is speculation since all we have to go by is basically 2 playoff games without Kobe (one he missed completely, another he missed 40 minutes of). Maybe there is an explanation for it but as I and others have noted, we have never heard it.


injured so badly he sucked in games 5 and 6 but had his best game in game 4? sure

:lol

He also said "one bad series." If we comb through Kobe series for series (like bringing up the Knicks in 96', a 47 win team against a 72 win team--no one cared about the series) we are going to find more than one bad series. The guy was a career 41% FG shooter in the finals. That was his average.

[Doranku]

injured so badly he sucked in games 5 and 6 but had his best game in game 4? sure :lol

very badly injured there

He played 8 minutes in one game and missed one game completely. Can only imagine the excuses you'd be making for Bran if he missed a finals game after getting intentionally undercut on a jumper. :oldlol:

@Roundball, the one bad series comment was in reference to Kobe's 2000 playoff run. Obviously he's had other bad series throughout his career.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

The only stat that counts is PPG. :lol Good point. We hear about Pippen's FG % in 1996-1998 all the time (mainly driven by him taking more threes and injuries in 96' and 98' reducing his efficiency--he was hurt in 97' too but overcame it) but not that his advanced stats were better in 1996-1998 than in 1991-1993. They played similar games (Pippen 58, Kobe 57 from 1996-1998 and 2000-2002) so here are the advanced stats:

VORP: Pippen 4.8, Kobe 4.2
BPM: Pippen 6.1, Kobe 4.9
WS: Kobe 8.4, Pippen 8.2


I think more than stats is their team impact. The Bulls got markedly worse without Pippen as teammates across the board saw their efficiency decrease in 98'. Pippen is a rare case of a superstar increasing teammate scoring by expanding the pie for all.

Kobe? The data doesn't show any team impact. The RS record with/without Kobe is the same. In theory, they need Kobe against tougher comp but that is speculation since all we have to go by is basically 2 playoff games without Kobe (one he missed completely, another he missed 40 minutes of). Maybe there is an explanation for it but as I and others have noted, we have never heard it.



:lol

He also said "one bad series." If we comb through Kobe series for series (like bringing up the Knicks in 96', a 47 win team against a 72 win team--no one cared about the series) we are going to find more than one bad series. The guy was a career 41% FG shooter in the finals. That was his average.

No disrespect to Kobe but enough is enough with the under selling of Pippen's impact by some people.

Even looking at their career primes, Pippen holds his own. Kobe is a better shooter and has higher scoring volume but Pippen is better at every other aspect of basketball.

Pippen by himself in 1994: bulls with a 2.87 SRS

Kobe by himself in 2006: lakers with a 2.53 SRS

[SouBeachTalents]

No disrespect to Kobe but enough is enough with the under selling of Pippen's impact by some people.

Even looking at their career primes, Pippen holds his own. Kobe is a better shooter and has higher scoring volume but Pippen is better at every other aspect of basketball.

Pippen by himself in 1994: bulls with a 2.87 SRS

Kobe by himself in 2006: lakers with a 2.53 SRS
Do you think Pippen wins in Kobe's place in '09 & '10?

[Roundball_Rock]

No disrespect to Kobe but enough is enough with the under selling of Pippen's impact by some people.

Even looking at their career primes, Pippen holds his own. Kobe is a better shooter and has higher scoring volume but Pippen is better at every other aspect of basketball.

Pippen by himself in 1994: bulls with a 2.87 SRS

Kobe by himself in 2006: lakers with a 2.53 SRS

That SRS is deflated for 94' because it includes them sucking without Pippen (-9 point differential). The healthy 94' Bulls had a 4.9 SRS; in 95' before MJ they were 3.8 (despite losing Grant too by then). These marks would be 2nd best in the East in each season.

Knicks' SRS in 94' and 95': 6.5, 2.8
Pacers' SRS in 94' and 95': 3.3, 3.4
Cavs' SRS in 94' and 95': 3.6, 0.6
Hawks' SRS in 94' and 95': 4.9, 1.1
Magic's SRS in 94' and 95': 3.7, 6.4
Hornets' SRS in 94' and 95': -0.2, 2.9

People like to denigrate those Bulls' performances but ignore the context of the rest of the competition. The Pacers are instructive as a comp, a team lionized by the same people who say those Bulls teams sucked.

Pippen missed 12 games from 94' and 95' (before MJ) and the Bulls went 4-8 in those games. They lost a game to a 17 win Clippers team when Pippen played but was ejected in the second quarter, so essentially 4-9 in the "no Pip" situation when MJ was retired.


Do you think Pippen wins in Kobe's place in '09 & '10?

Kobe missed 9 games in 10'--they went 6-3, yet again showing no drop-off. Maybe the playoffs would be different but this is a recurring trend throughout Kobe's career. I have never heard an explanation for it.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Do you think Pippen wins in Kobe's place in '09 & '10?

2009: Face Rockets without Yao Ming for majority of the series. Basically beat a Ron Arrest and Aaron Brooks led team? That's a cakewalk.

Pippen > Carmello
Pau > Billups

I see them winning there as well

And then the finals where they face Dwight magic which is basically a poor man's Ewing Knicks. Pippen took Ewing to 7 and now he has Pau instead of Horace, I see them winning that series as well.

2010: This gets a little tougher with Nash/Amare in the way. But every time Nash is in a conference finals, his team gets absolutely torched on defense. 2010 Pau would kill them like Duncan normally does. I see them making the finals and playing a coinflip series with Celtics. Pippen can slow Pierce down and Pau owned older KG in 2010, so I may lean towards Lakers winning the finals as well.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

That SRS is deflated for 94' because it includes them sucking without Pippen (-9 point differential). The healthy 94' Bulls had a 4.9 SRS; in 95' before MJ they were 3.8 (despite losing Grant too by then). These marks would be 2nd best in the East in each season.

Knicks' SRS in 94' and 95': 6.5, 2.8
Pacers' SRS in 94' and 95': 3.3, 3.4
Cavs' SRS in 94' and 95': 3.6, 0.6
Hawks' SRS in 94' and 95': 4.9, 1.1
Magic's SRS in 94' and 95': 3.7, 6.4
Hornets' SRS in 94' and 95': -0.2, 2.9

People like to denigrate those Bulls' performances but ignore the context of the rest of the competition. The Pacers are instructive as a comp, a team lionized by the same people who say those Bulls teams sucked.

Pippen missed 12 games from 94' and 95' (before MJ) and the Bulls went 4-8 in those games. They lost a game to a 17 win Clippers team when Pippen played but was ejected in the second quarter, so essentially 4-9 in the "no Pip" situation when MJ was retired.



Kobe missed 9 games in 10'--they went 6-3, yet again showing no drop-off. Maybe the playoffs would be different but this is a recurring trend throughout Kobe's career. I have never heard an explanation for it.

Exactly, makes my point even further. Pippen while hurt has a higher SRS then lakers 06. Pippen when healthy is clearly ahead.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

No disrespect to Kobe but enough is enough with the under selling of Pippen's impact by some people.

Even looking at their career primes, Pippen holds his own. Kobe is a better shooter and has higher scoring volume but Pippen is better at every other aspect of basketball.

Pippen by himself in 1994: bulls with a 2.87 SRS

Kobe by himself in 2006: lakers with a 2.53 SRS

Do you understand the stats you posted?

Kobe had worse help by far. The Bulls weren't worldbeaters either but they also had championship experience.

Turiaf/Odom/Kwame/Smush were starters for LA that season :lol

[Roundball_Rock]

2005 Lakers with Kobe: 28-38 (35 win pace)
2005 Lakers w/out Kobe: 6-10 (31 win pace)

"No help" yet they basically matched what they did with Kobe (4 games isn't significant).

The Lakers went 0-2 without Kobe in 06' but 3-2 without him in 07', albeit small samples both times (less than 10% of a season).

Pick a year and it is the same thing over and over: no large drop-off sans Kobe. 2010 was mentioned earlier so here it is:

2010 Lakers with Kobe: 51-22 (57 win pace)
2010 Lakers w/out Kobe: 6-3 (55 win pace)

[SouBeachTalents]

2005 Lakers with Kobe: 28-38 (35 win pace)
2005 Lakers w/out Kobe: 6-10 (31 win pace)

"No help" yet they basically matched what they did with Kobe (4 games isn't significant).

The Lakers went 0-2 without Kobe in 06' but 3-2 without him in 07', albeit small samples both times (less than 10% of a season).

Pick a year and it is the same thing over and over: no large drop-off sans Kobe. 2010 was mentioned earlier so here it is:

2010 Lakers with Kobe: 51-22 (57 win pace)
2010 Lakers w/out Kobe: 6-3 (55 win pace)
Do you have the data on the with & without W/L record for guys like Duncan, Magic, Bird, Hakeem etc? I know LeBron & Shaq's teams usually had a big drop off in winning % without them in the lineup

[Roundball_Rock]

Do you have the data on the with & without W/L record for guys like Duncan, Magic, Bird, Hakeem etc? I know LeBron & Shaq's teams usually had a big drop off in winning % without them in the lineup

The only one of those I looked at is Hakeem. Here it is:

86' Rockets with Hakeem: 44-24 (53 win pace)
86' Rockets w/out Hakeem: 7-7 (41 win pace)

91' Rockets with Hakeem: 36-20 (53 win pace)
91' Rockets w/out Hakeem: 16-10 (50 win pace)

92' Rockets with Hakeem: 40-30 (47 win pace)
92' Rockets w/out Hakeem: 2-10 (14 win pace)

95' Rockets with Hakeem: 44-28 (50 win pace)
95' Rockets w/out Hakeem: 3-7 (25 win pace)

96' Rockets with Hakeem: 47-25 (54 win pace)
96' Rockets w/out Hakeem: 1-9 (8 win pace)

From this I think you have to conclude he did have a massive team impact. There is a lack of ceiling (47-54 wins) but the floor fell out without him the last three times. Those are LeBron-like results of sky high floor, limited ceiling.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Do you understand the stats you posted?

Kobe had worse help by far. The Bulls weren't worldbeaters either but they also had championship experience.

Turiaf/Odom/Kwame/Smush were starters for LA that season :lol

Odom is comparable as 2nd fiddle to Horace, that's the main thing I was looking at.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Odom is comparable as 2nd fiddle to Horace, that's the main thing I was looking at.

Horace was a better player that season. And an all-star. I'm looking @ it from top to bottom, but definitely their respective starters.

With Kobe off the Floor, LA had a 92.4 Off Rtg which is worse than ANY team in the league. And the 3rd worst offensive rating of ALL TIME.

With Kobe they had an 111.3 Offensive Rating. Good for the 3rd best offense that year, behind Dallas and Phoenix.

His impact that season was incredible. Pippen never had that kind of effect, even in his wildest dreams.

[tpols]

Horace was a better player that season. And an all-star. I'm looking @ it from top to bottom, but definitely their respective starters.

With Kobe off the Floor, LA had a 92.4 Off Rtg which is worse than ANY team in the league. And the 3rd worst offensive rating of ALL TIME.

With Kobe they had an 111.3 Offensive Rating. Good for the 3rd best offense that year, behind Dallas and Phoenix.

His impact that season was incredible. Pippen never had that kind of effect, even in his wildest dreams.

that dude's retarded bro... no need to even engage.

[Roundball_Rock]

Odom was 19/11/5 and 19/13/2 in the playoffs in 06' and 07'. Grant was 16/7/2 in 94' (his main job was rebounding and he was outrebounded by a SF while the guy he replaced, Oakley, averaged 12 RPG in the same playoff run).

Odom was productive. I love these shooting guards and their fans. What happens to "will to win" and "mentality" and all that BS when their teams lose? You can't take all the credit for the winning and zero of the blame for losing...

[Doranku]

Kobe hit SEVEN game winners in 2010 lmao. Delusional if you think Pippen is coming anywhere close to that.

[Roundball_Rock]

Kobe shot 25% on game winners. Kobe was this great "game winner" guy is one of the biggest myths. If you take every shot (even with 2 or 3 guys in your face :lol ), inevitably some of them will go in. Look how far down you have to scroll to find someone who shot worse on game winners https://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm .

[tpols]

Odom was 19/11/5 and 19/13/2 in the playoffs in 06' and 07'. Grant was 16/7/2 in 94' (his main job was rebounding and he was outrebounded by a SF while the guy he replaced, Oakley, averaged 12 RPG in the same playoff run).

Odom was productive. I love these shooting guards and their fans. What happens to "will to win" and "mentality" and all that BS when their teams lose? You can't take all the credit for the winning and zero of the blame for losing...

you're comparing numbers between a guy who faced an all time bad suns defense to another who faced the 90s knicks.

:biggums:

this fella is retarded folks.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

that dude's retarded bro... no need to even engage.

Peep the other cheerleader making it about "shooting guard fans". Paranoid freak :oldlol:

Posting facts that highlight an awful supporting cast is AGENDA! Whether you think Kobe "did it all" is up for you to conclude. Bottom line is, outside of Kobe the 2006 Lakers were woeful.

[Roundball_Rock]

An awful "supporting cast" that did essentially the same without the great Kobe. It is simple mathematics (i.e., facts): their winning percentage without him was about the same as with him. If they sucked, it doesn't erase that Kobe failed to elevate them in any fashion. Kobe can't take all the credit for the winning and zero blame for this failure by disassociating from the other players. Shaq on that team would elevate them. LeBron would. Kobe is supposed to be better, no?


you're comparing numbers between a guy who faced an all time bad suns defense to another who faced the 90s knicks.


This guy flip flops every thread. :lol So now the Knicks' defense matters. The sad thing is this guy can't even grasp the regular inconsistencies. He isn't a troll. Just dumb.

Good point. A real #2 option would have been 26/17/9 against the Suns! That is what every other #2 option did against the same defense, right? :facepalm

[tpols]

Peep the other cheerleader making it about "shooting guard fans". Paranoid freak :oldlol:

Posting facts that highlight an awful supporting cast is AGENDA! Whether you think Kobe "did it all" is up for you to conclude. Bottom line is, outside of Kobe the 2006 Lakers were woeful.

He's become unhinged since the MJ doc came out. :lol

mother****er has lost it.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

An awful supporting cast that did the same without the great Kobe. It is simple mathematics: their winning percentage without him was about the same as with him. If you do the math a few times you may be be able to process it. :lol

They were 0-2 without Kobe in 2006. And had the worst ORTG in the league without him. The 3rd WORST of all time.

You don't know how to do math. And have no idea what you're talking about either :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

Let's humor this clown. First, the Suns' defense was 16th in 06' and 13th in 07'. Remember what you were told:


you're comparing numbers between a guy who faced an all time bad suns defense

13th and 16th in the league. "All-time bad" defense. :roll: Sadly, I don't think he is even being deliberately dishonest.

#2 Options against the Suns 2006-2007

06' Mavs Howard 19/8/1 57% TS, 13.9 game score
06' Clippers Cassell 20/5/6 57% TS, 14.9 game score
06' Lakers Odom 19/11/5 53% TS, 15.4 game score
07' Lakers Odom 19/13/2 51% TS, 14.7 game score
07' Spurs Parker 20/3/6 49% TS, 12.2 game score

Math may be hard for some here, but most can see which player had the highest game score.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

He's become unhinged since the MJ doc came out. :lol

mother****er has lost it.

lol

Guy looks over his shoulder after every Jordan thread. Gotten so bad he's now mixing up posters :lol

[Axe]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/7260ad7de2d77fa3b597026aee82b391/tenor.gif?itemid=9265562

[Roundball_Rock]

Here are how Kobe's teams did without him in his prime when he missed at least 10% of the season.

2000: 55-11 with Kobe (68 win pace)
2000: 12-4 without Kobe (62 win pace)

2001: 45-23 with Kobe (54 win pace)
2001: 11-3 without Kobe (64 win pace)

2004: 48-17 with Kobe (61 win pace)
2004: 8-9 without Kobe (39 win pace)

2005: 28-38 with Kobe (35 win pace)
2005: 6-10 without Kobe (31 win pace)

2010: 51-22 with Kobe (57 win pace)
2010: 6-3 without Kobe (55 win pace)

2012: 36-22 with Kobe (51 win pace)
2012: 5-3 without Kobe (51 win pace)

What dominance. :lol Can any Kobe come up with an explanation for the lack of team impact? These are not the numbers a player with his reputation should have...

Just look at the guy he is being compared to here. That other guy lifted his "cast" from a -9 point differential to +5 and he is a bum per dozens of ISH posters (a true ATG would have went from -9 to +15!). So why not the great Mamba?

[LAL]

Wow so pippen is better than kobe and kblaze is a bronsexual. Had no idea.

[Roundball_Rock]

What's your explanation for Kobe's apparently low (for a player of his caliber) team impact numbers?

[Axe]

Backreading in this thread, i find it hilarious how it has become derailed to be a pippen vs. bryant discussion recently. :lol

[HylianNightmare]

Peak for peak definitely close. Overall I'll take lebron for bringing it every single year

[Bronbron23]

Peak for peak definitely close. Overall I'll take lebron for bringing it every single year

that's fair

[HoopsNY]

The thing about Shaq is that his peak comes with the decline of the best centers in the NBA (Zo, Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson, Mutombo). Not to mention, his peak years were filled with top scoring, but also consistent offensive fouls.

I'm not sure but someone else mentioned this on the forum (it may have been Kblaze), that Shaq's numbers were remarkable, but anyone who watched that era saw how the refs just allowed Shaq to throw elbows and toss his weight around, without ever calling an offensive foul.

When you combine those two, you come to understand the lack of competition+lack of offensive fouls=peak dominance. I might be nitpicking, but I wasn't a Pacers, Sixers, or Nets fan, and kept yelling at the screen "wtf, isn't that an offensive foul?"

[HoopsNY]

No one claim LeBron didn't face great competition in his prime. No one can say that LeBron didn't have great competition for his position. And no one can also claim that LeBron got away with excessive offensive fouls (though he did do a ton of flopping and traveling). Shaq was an offensive foul half the time back then.

[Phoenix]

The thing about Shaq is that his peak comes with the decline of the best centers in the NBA (Zo, Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson, Mutombo). Not to mention, his peak years were filled with top scoring, but also consistent offensive fouls.

I'm not sure but someone else mentioned this on the forum (it may have been Kblaze), that Shaq's numbers were remarkable, but anyone who watched that era saw how the refs just allowed Shaq to throw elbows and toss his weight around, without ever calling an offensive foul.

When you combine those two, you come to understand the lack of competition+lack of offensive fouls=peak dominance. I might be nitpicking, but I wasn't a Pacers, Sixers, or Nets fan, and kept yelling at the screen "wtf, isn't that an offensive foul?"

There had to be some give and take with Shaq officiating because you could put your arms on him to stop him from dunking. What ends up happening is he takes you with him. If games featuring Shaq were called right down the line for every thing on him and vice versa, I cant imagine the number of stoppages. Games would be impossible to watch. Theres a reason refs say he was tough to officiate. An elbow against Shaq barely causes a flinch. An elbow from Shaq knocks you back 10 feet. Same thing happens with Lebron to a degree. In most paint collisions you're gonna end up on the losing end trying to match forces.

[Roundball_Rock]

The thing about Shaq is that his peak comes with the decline of the best centers in the NBA (Zo, Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson, Mutombo).

His peak came the same way it does for 90-95% of NBA players (with a few outliers like Hakeem): when he turned 27 years old.

[Phoenix]

Shaqs peak in 2000-2002 would have been too much for all the other 90s centers anyway. People act like Shaq wasnt dropping numbers in the mid 90s when playing Hakeem or Robinson. He was 28 and 12 in the 95 finals against Hakeem. Yeah he got 'outplayed' but look at how the other centers performed. Ewing in 94 was like 18ppg on 30 something percent shooting. Robinson got destroyed. Shaq played Dream closer than anyone else did well before he hit his peak.

[Roundball_Rock]

Shaqs peak in 2000-2002 would have been too much for all the other 90s centers anyway. People act like Shaq wasnt dropping numbers in the mid 90s when playing Hakeem or Robinson. He was 28 and 12 in the 95 finals against Hakeem. Yeah he got 'outplayed' but look at how the other centers performed. Ewing in 94 was like 18ppg on 30 something percent shooting. Robinson got destroyed. Shaq played Dream closer than anyone else did well before he hit his peak.

Good points. Shaq was going to beast no matter what. He arguably had the GOAT peak period. Era is irrelevant at that level.

[HoopsNY]

Here are how Kobe's teams did without him in his prime when he missed at least 10% of the season.

2000: 55-11 with Kobe (68 win pace)
2000: 12-4 without Kobe (62 win pace)

2001: 45-23 with Kobe (54 win pace)
2001: 11-3 without Kobe (64 win pace)

2004: 48-17 with Kobe (61 win pace)
2004: 8-9 without Kobe (39 win pace)

2005: 28-38 with Kobe (35 win pace)
2005: 6-10 without Kobe (31 win pace)

2010: 51-22 with Kobe (57 win pace)
2010: 6-3 without Kobe (55 win pace)

2012: 36-22 with Kobe (51 win pace)
2012: 5-3 without Kobe (51 win pace)

What dominance. :lol Can any Kobe come up with an explanation for the lack of team impact? These are not the numbers a player with his reputation should have...

Just look at the guy he is being compared to here. That other guy lifted his "cast" from a -9 point differential to +5 and he is a bum per dozens of ISH posters (a true ATG would have went from -9 to +15!). So why not the great Mamba?

So since Shaq left, the Lakers had a .622 win % with Kobe and a .500 win % without him? How is that a lack of team impact?

[HoopsNY]

There had to be some give and take with Shaq officiating because you could put your arms on him to stop him from dunking. What ends up happening is he takes you with him. If games featuring Shaq were called right down the line for every thing on him and vice versa, I cant imagine the number of stoppages. Games would be impossible to watch. Theres a reason refs say he was tough to officiate. An elbow against Shaq barely causes a flinch. An elbow from Shaq knocks you back 10 feet. Same thing happens with Lebron to a degree. In most paint collisions you're gonna end up on the losing end trying to match forces.

We're acting like Shaq became large in 2000. He was pretty big from 1995 onward. What changed? His stats were almost identical from 1995-1999 as opposed to 1999-2004.

I honestly believe the refs just allowed for the offensive fouls to go uncalled. You couple that with smaller, not-so-great defensive centers, and you have a more dominant Shaq.

[HoopsNY]

Shaqs peak in 2000-2002 would have been too much for all the other 90s centers anyway. People act like Shaq wasnt dropping numbers in the mid 90s when playing Hakeem or Robinson. He was 28 and 12 in the 95 finals against Hakeem. Yeah he got 'outplayed' but look at how the other centers performed. Ewing in 94 was like 18ppg on 30 something percent shooting. Robinson got destroyed. Shaq played Dream closer than anyone else did well before he hit his peak.

That's true, but it doesn't compare to the numbers he put up against Indiana, Philadelphia, and New Jersey. Shaq averaged something like 36/15 on 60% in the finals between 2000-02.

My point is that his numbers are inflated in large part due to officiating and the lack of quality big men in the league at the time.

[Phoenix]

We're acting like Shaq became large in 2000. He was pretty big from 1995 onward. What changed? His stats were almost identical from 1995-1999 as opposed to 1999-2004.

I honestly believe the refs just allowed for the offensive fouls to go uncalled. You couple that with smaller, not-so-great defensive centers, and you have a more dominant Shaq.

Having roughly equal stats in 95 or 2000 doesnt mean he was the same player. Shaq was more cerebral in 2000. Better at making the right plays out of double teams. Had a better 2nd option in Kobe and better coaching than he ever had. So its not just a simple case of saying 'why did he lose with 29/13 in 95 but win with those numbers in 2000'. Its wasnt because all the elite centers faded, because the only elite center who directly kept him from a title before 2000 was Hakeem in 95. It's not like he was annually running into Ewing or prime Robinson year in, year out in the playoffs and losing to them. Prior to 2000, he was losing to teams with Rik Smits, Luc Longley and Greg Ostertag. Lost in 99 to the Spurs but Robinson doing 13/8 in the center matchup certainly wasnt a hurdle.

[Phoenix]

That's true, but it doesn't compare to the numbers he put up against Indiana, Philadelphia, and New Jersey. Shaq averaged something like 36/15 on 60% in the finals between 2000-02.

My point is that his numbers are inflated in large part due to officiating and the lack of quality big men in the league at the time.

I'm not arguing that Shaq didnt have it easier in the 2000s. What I'm saying is, Shaq more than held his own in the 90s and the only elite center who bested him in playoff competition was Hakeem. One could just as easily make the reverse argument that Dream never had to deal with peak Shaq. Because Ewing and Robinson as the other elite centers of that era were both seriously outplayed by Hakeem in 94 and 95. A raw, 3rd year Shaq held his own. A peak 2000 Shaq does better. You seem to be arguing that Shaq in 95 is as good as 2000 because the surface numbers say he is. You seem too smart a poster to draw that conclusion.

[Roundball_Rock]

Having roughly equal stats in 95 or 2000 doesnt mean he was the same player. Shaq was more cerebral in 2000. Better at making the right plays out of double teams. Had a better 2nd option in Kobe and better coaching than he ever had.

Yeah, and he was more motivated than ever in 2000.

Also, people forget that while we had Hakeem, Robinson, and Ewing there were several other all-star C's then who weren't superstars. Smits, Daughtery, Mourning, Mutumbo weren't roadkill to the superstars (e.g., Smits outplayed Ewing in the 93' and 95' playoffs, Ewing outplayed him in 94') so peak Shaq wouldn't have a problem with prime Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing--especially since young Shaq played solid against them.

[Phoenix]

Yeah, and he was more motivated than ever in 2000.

Also, people forget that while we had Hakeem, Robinson, and Ewing there were several other all-star C's then who weren't superstars. Smits, Daughtery, Mourning, Mutumbo weren't roadkill to the superstars (e.g., Smits outplayed Ewing in the 93' and 95' playoffs, Ewing outplayed him in 94') so peak Shaq wouldn't have a problem with prime Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing--especially since young Shaq played solid against them.

Yep. The idea that he 'won when the elite center competition faded' ignores that Dream was the only elite center in his prime to win titles period in the 90s. Ewing lost to the Bulls like 4 times. Robinson was underperforming multiple times in the early to mid 90s. Peak Shaq is quite comfortably winning head to head with Robinson and Ewing in their primes had they matched up. He may have gotten the better of Hakeem too but it's close. At worst he matches him and then it's about how the role players fill in the gaps.

[HoopsNY]

I'm not arguing that Shaq didnt have it easier in the 2000s. What I'm saying is, Shaq more than held his own in the 90s and the only elite center who bested him in playoff competition was Hakeem. One could just as easily make the reverse argument that Dream never had to deal with peak Shaq. Because Ewing and Robinson as the other elite centers of that era were both seriously outplayed by Hakeem in 94 and 95. A raw, 3rd year Shaq held his own. A peak 2000 Shaq does better. You seem to be arguing that Shaq in 95 is as good as 2000 because the surface numbers say he is. You seem too smart a poster to draw that conclusion.

I agree with your assessment. I'm certainly not arguing that 2000 Shaq and 1995 Shaq are the same. They weren't. However, unlike with Shaq, Hakeem had other HOF centers in their prime to compare him to - in the biggest stages - during his peak. In those situations, he flourished.

In Shaq's case, there was an obvious difference where the best the league was offering was Arvydas Sabonis. You didn't have a low block defender, in his prime, matched up against him. That is the difference.

[Roundball_Rock]

Mutumbo was the reigning DPOY in 01'. It is a myth that he was washed up. In 2000 Shaq faced Rik Smits, a past his prime Smits, but still a solid player who led the team in usage even in 00' (26.8% for Smits, 23.2% for Rose; Miller was 4th at 20.5%).

Some of these second-tier star centers faced superstars in the playoffs. Here is what happened (Shaq excluded, who shrunk against Smits in 94' but played well in 95'):

1997 ECSF: Mourning 19/9/1 47%, Ewing 24/12/1 49%
1995 ECSF: Smits 23/6/1 60%, Ewing 19/9/3 50%
1995 1st Rnd.: Mutumbo 6/6/0 60%, Robinson 19/7/3 43%
1994 ECF: Smits 16/6/1 52%, Ewing 22/11/3 46%
1993 ECSF: Mourning 24/10/2 45%, Ewing 26/11/3 50%
1993 1st Rnd: Smits 23/8/2 58%, Ewing 24/11/1 51%

If these guys could hold their own, why couldn't peak Shaq? You have to compare these numbers to their norms. Smits, Mourning expanded their production although Zo's efficiency took a hit (Smits remained efficient); Ewing probably regressed slightly or stayed the same offensively but was giving ground defensively to his counterpart. Robinson shrunk against Mutumbo, although Mutumbo didn't do much offensively (not surprising--and while he averaged 6 boards, he kept Robinson at only 7).

We never saw Daughtery face Ewing in the PO, surprisingly but in the RS Daughtery basically got his normal production against Ewing.

Also, one reason Ewing was not a MVP candidate in 94' despite being on a 57 win team is he kept getting annihilated by Hakeem and Robinson (hard to be MVP if you are 3rd or 4th best at your own position). What is he going to do against peak Shaq then?


Peak Shaq is quite comfortably winning head to head with Robinson and Ewing in their primes had they matched up. He may have gotten the better of Hakeem too but it's close. At worst he matches him and then it's about how the role players fill in the gaps.

Yup.

[HoopsNY]

Yeah, and he was more motivated than ever in 2000.

Also, people forget that while we had Hakeem, Robinson, and Ewing there were several other all-star C's then who weren't superstars. Smits, Daughtery, Mourning, Mutumbo weren't roadkill to the superstars (e.g., Smits outplayed Ewing in the 93' and 95' playoffs, Ewing outplayed him in 94') so peak Shaq wouldn't have a problem with prime Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing--especially since young Shaq played solid against them.

Take a look at these playoff performances:

1999 Shaq faced off against Robinson and averaged 23.8 pts on 49%

2000 Shaq faced off against Sabonis and averaged 25.9 pts on 54%

2001 Shaq faced off against Sabonis and averaged 27.0 pts on 48%

2001 Shaq faced off against Robinson and averaged 27 pts on 54% (with an aging Robinson)

2002 Shaq faced off against Robinson and averaged 21 points on 44% (Shaq had a finger injury in this series, but still underachieved overall)

2004 Shaq faced off against Yao and averaged 16 points on 51%

Do these look like 36-38 point performances on 60%+ fgs that we saw against Smits, a 38 year old Mutombo, and Todd Maccolluch? And all of these performances are against an aged David Robinson, Arvydas Sabonis (who was 35 by 1999), or a rookie Yao Ming.

You mean to tell me if the league has peak/prime Robinson, Zo, Ewing, Hakeem, Daughtery, Smits, Mutombo, that Shaq is putting up the same numbers or even close to it? No way.

[Phoenix]

I agree with your assessment. I'm certainly not arguing that 2000 Shaq and 1995 Shaq are the same. They weren't. However, unlike with Shaq, Hakeem had other HOF centers in their prime to compare him to - in the biggest stages - during his peak. In those situations, he flourished.

In Shaq's case, there was an obvious difference where the best the league was offering was Arvydas Sabonis. You didn't have a low block defender, in his prime, matched up against him. That is the difference.

Mutumbo in 2001, while not 'peak' Deke, provided a reasonable approximation of what someone like 95 Robinson would be like as a post defender for Shaq. We have to bear in mind that Shaq was an absolute monster in that 2000 era. None of the best centers in the 90s are a physical equal for him 5 feet from the basket. I mean, he was doing this to Admrial in 99:

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DecimalMerryEland-small.gif

No, that's not peak Robinson and I know a single clip doesn't provide comprehensive and definitive proof. But it does highlight the physical difference here. I dont think theres a ton of difference between that version of Robinson and MVP Robinson 4 years earlier in terms of defending Shaq straight up. I mean bear in mind that both Duncan AND Robinson as a combined interior force could keep Shaq from dropping 27/13 54% in 2001. That version of Shaq isnt being contained by any singular defender.

[HoopsNY]

Mutumbo was the reigning DPOY in 01'. It is a myth that he was washed up. In 2000 Shaq faced Rik Smits, a past his prime Smits, but still a solid player who led the team in usage even in 00' (26.8% for Smits, 23.2% for Rose; Miller was 4th at 20.5%).

Surely you don't think a 1994 Mutombo and a 2001 Mutombo are the same players? Similarly, Smits was much older and wasn't the same, either. It would be like me saying, "Look at what Hakeem did to Kareem!" in the 1986 playoffs, while not factoring in Kareem being 38. Kareem was All-NBA 1st team that year and an all-star, but what was he 1979 Kareem? Certainly not.


If these guys could hold their own, why couldn't peak Shaq?

I'm not saying Shaq falls off the cliff. He wouldn't. He would hold his own, but we're comparing LeBron to Shaq here, and some are bringing up Shaq's peak without context.

The lack of competition (particularly defensively) coupled with bad officiating, led to inflated numbers, which in turn makes Shaq's peak look better than it actually was.


We never saw Daughtery face Ewing in the PO, surprisingly but in the RS Daughtery basically got his normal production against Ewing.

It's interesting you mention that. Look at Daughter's numbers head-to-head against Shaq in their only six matchups.

Shaq: 24.0/12.2/2.2 with 0.7 stls and 2.7 blks on 53%

But look at Shaq's RS numbers in the 1993-94 season: 29.3/13.2/2.4 with 0.9 stls and 2.9 blks on 60%.

Clearly there's something going on here. And one thing that I think both you and Phoenix are leaving out is that those centers mentioned not only provided a defensive presence, speed, and overall agility, but they offer offensive production as well.

Part of the reason that Shaq was so successful was because there wasn't a viable option on the other end of the floor running the 5. With no threat of a dominant big man to pound the low post, Shaq would barely have to work. Couple that with his lack of physical fitness and it makes even more sense as to why he dominated as much as he did in that period of time, offensively.

[Phoenix]

Take a look at these playoff performances:

1999 Shaq faced off against Robinson and averaged 23.8 pts on 49%

2000 Shaq faced off against Sabonis and averaged 25.9 pts on 54%

2001 Shaq faced off against Sabonis and averaged 27.0 pts on 48%

2001 Shaq faced off against Robinson and averaged 27 pts on 54% (with an aging Robinson)

2002 Shaq faced off against Robinson and averaged 21 points on 44% (Shaq had a finger injury in this series, but still underachieved overall)

2004 Shaq faced off against Yao and averaged 16 points on 51%

Do these look like 36-38 point performances on 60%+ fgs that we saw against Smits, a 38 year old Mutombo, and Todd Maccolluch? And all of these performances are against an aged David Robinson, Arvydas Sabonis (who was 35 by 1999), or a rookie Yao Ming.

You mean to tell me if the league has peak/prime Robinson, Zo, Ewing, Hakeem, Daughtery, Smits, Mutombo, that Shaq is putting up the same numbers or even close to it? No way.

Those arent bad numbers. David Robinson in the late 90s was still a very good defender. He had mostly stopped being a scorer and deferred to Duncan. But bear in mind that Shaq wasn't dropping 27 on Robinson in 2001. He was doing it on Robinson and Duncan. He wasnt dropping 26 on Sabonis. He was doing it on Sabonis, Rasheed, Brian Grant. Or 33/17 in 01 on Divac and Webber. These are strong frontlines.

[HoopsNY]

Those arent bad numbers. David Robinson in the late 90s was still a very good defender. He had mostly stopped being a scorer and deferred to Duncan. But bear in mind that Shaq wasn't dropping 27 on Robinson in 2001. He was doing it on Robinson and Duncan. He wasnt dropping 26 on Sabonis. He was doing it on Sabonis, Rasheed, Brian Grant. Or 33/17 in 01 on Divac and Webber. These are strong frontlines.

Rasheed wasn't a good defensive player with Portland, let alone a great defensive player. Briant Grant offered little size, so it wasn't a fair matchup by any means.

Again, I am not saying Shaq wouldn't hold his own against better competition. He most certainly would. But his peak years is lauded by many, if not most, largely due to his performances in the finals, which won him 3 finals MVPs. Those finals performances saw him averaging about 36 points and 15 rebounds shooting 60%. Those are inflated numbers.

[Phoenix]

Clearly there's something going on here. And one thing that I think both you and Phoenix are leaving out is that those centers mentioned not only provided a defensive presence, speed, and overall agility, but they offer offensive production as well.



I havent left that part out, but I'll ask you this. In a matchup of 95 Robinson and 2001 Shaq, who do you think is winning that matchup? You are also leaving out one component. Look at the numbers peak David Robinso was dropping on 94 and 95. Theres a reason he has a reputation of being an under achiever in the playoffs. He was dropping 20ppg on 41% in the 94 playoffs, the very apex of his career. Those numbers came against Felton Spencer and Utah. Felton Spencer is not 2001 Shaquille O'neal.

[HoopsNY]

I havent left that part out, but I'll ask you this. In a matchup of 95 Robinson and 2001 Shaq, who do you think is winning that matchup? You are also leaving out one component. Look at the numbers peak David Robinso was dropping on 94 and 95. Theres a reason he has a reputation of being an under achiever in the playoffs. He was dropping 20ppg on 41% in the 94 playoffs, the very apex of his career. Those numbers came against Felton Spencer and Utah. Felton Spencer is not 2001 Shaquille O'neal.

But I'm not arguing for David Robinson's offensive production here. There's a difference. What I'm saying is that a prime or peak Robinson offers A LOT more work for Shaq. Prime Robinson in a 7 game series matched up against Shaq is simply not the same as a 34 year old Rik Smits, 35 year old Arvydas Sabonis, or freaking Todd Maccolluch.

When you have a league with stronger, quicker, more offensively grounded big men, it creates problems for players like Shaq who are forced to work harder for their buckets and also forced to exert a lot more energy on the defensive end.

C'mon bros, this isn't rocket science. Shaq ain't puttin up 38/17 against those guys.

[Phoenix]

Rasheed wasn't a good defensive player with Portland, let alone a great defensive player. Briant Grant offered little size, so it wasn't a fair matchup by any means.

Again, I am not saying Shaq wouldn't hold his own against better competition. He most certainly would. But his peak years is lauded by many, if not most, largely due to his performances in the finals, which won him 3 finals MVPs. Those finals performances saw him averaging about 36 points and 15 rebounds shooting 60%. Those are inflated numbers.

The argument isnt that he drops 38 and 16 on 95 Hakeems head, or 94 Robinson. The argument is whether he wins those matchups. David Robinson for example was dropping subpar numbers against much worse centers than Shaq in the mid 90s. But I'm to believe he looks peak Shaq dead in the eye? This is not computing. Its reasonable to assume peak Shaq outplays Robinson. He outplays prime Ewing. We're left with Hakeem in 95 who beat Shaq before he was ready for primetime. Dream is literally the only elite center in the 90s, especially at his peak, where his level of play rose in the playoffs and was at a level where it's not clear that Shaq has a decided edge. 94 and 95 Hakeem. That's it. None of the other elite centers in the 90s did anything which makes me question whether or not peak Shaq wins the matchup. And by wins, I'm not saying 38 and 16 numbers, but he would outplay them. Thats the obvious counter argument to your points. Peak Shaq didnt face peak Dream, Admiral or Ewing. But...........they never faced peak Shaq. That argument swings both ways.

[Phoenix]

But I'm not arguing for David Robinson's offensive production here. There's a difference. What I'm saying is that a prime or peak Robinson offers A LOT more work for Shaq. Prime Robinson in a 7 game series matched up against Shaq is simply not the same as a 34 year old Rik Smits, 35 year old Arvydas Sabonis, or freaking Todd Maccolluch.

When you have a league with stronger, quicker, more offensively grounded big men, it creates problems for players like Shaq who are forced to work harder for their buckets and also forced to exert a lot more energy on the defensive end.

C'mon bros, this isn't rocket science. Shaq ain't puttin up 38/17 against those guys.

You were making an argument for his offensive production earlier when you made a comment about ' they offer offensive production as well'. Were you not including Robinson in that context?

I'm asking you a simple question. 2001 Shaq or 95 Robinson: who wins the matchup? We're going in circles here. And outside of him and 94 and 95 Dream, who else in the 90s warrants that much consideration? Shaq vs Daugherty? Ewing? Come on dude...... you KNOW Shaq wins these matchups. You seem stuck on the idea that we're saying he drops 38 and 16 on them. That's....not what is being said. I'm saying he wins the matchup.

[HoopsNY]

The argument isnt that he drops 38 and 16 on 95 Hakeems head, or 94 Robinson. The argument is whether he wins those matchups. David Robinson for example was dropping subpar numbers against much worse centers than Shaq in the mid 90s. But I'm to believe he looks peak Shaq dead in the eye? This is not computing. Its reasonable to assume peak Shaq outlays Robinson. He outplayed prime Ewing. We're left with Hakeem in 95 who beat Shaq before he was ready for primetime. Dream is literally the only elite center in the 90s, especially at this peak, where his level of play rose in the playoffs and was at a level where it's not clear that Shaq has a decided edge on it. 94 and 95 Hakeem. That's it. None of the other elite centres in the 90s did anything which makes me question whether or not peak Shaq wins the matchup. And by wins, I'm not saying 38 and 16 numbers, but we would outplay them. Thats the obvious counter argument to your points. Peak Shaw didnt face peak Dream, Admiral or Ewing. But...........they never faced peak Shaq. That argument swings both ways.

Those finals numbers got the Lakers a 3 peat. Indiana was lucky to win 2 games, while the Sixers and Nets barely competed. When people think of Shaq's peak years, they remember these years and what he did in the playoffs, particularly the NBA finals.

If the opponent has a viable big man, in his prime, and Shaq does his usual 25-26 pts on 11-12 rebounds with 52-54% shooting, there is no question that the OP doesn't even create this post. And Shaq most likely dips in the all-time rankings, ESPECIALLY if the Lakers lose in 2000.

Now I understand that the numbers are what they are and the accolades (like his 3 FMVPs), are there for eternity. But since we're comparing players, context does matter.

[HoopsNY]

You were making an argument for his offensive production earlier when you made a comment about ' they offer offensive production as well'. Were you not including Robinson in that context?

I wasn't arguing for the sake of arguing that Robinson would necessarily score 30 ppg in a 7 game series. My point was that a player with Robinson's skillset requires MUCH more work on the defensive end than a guy like Sabonis, Mutombo, or Macculloch. That's just a fact.


I'm asking you a simple question. 2001 Shaq or 95 Robinson: who wins the matchup? We're going in circles here. And outside of him and 94 and 95 Dream, who else in the 90s warrants that much consideration? Shaq vs Daugherty? Ewing? Come on dude...... you KNOW Shaq wins these matchups. You seem stuck on the idea that we're saying he drops 38 and 16 on them. That's....not what is being said. I'm saying he wins the matchup.

It's not about winning the matchups. Look, people can't compare LeBron and Shaq and hinge the argument on Shaq's peak years, but completely ignore context. That is my point. Of course Shaq wins the matchup between him and Robinson. But when we hinge arguments on peak years, especially where it comes to statistics of playoff and finals production, there has to be a little more investigation and consideration of the context.

Why does Bill Russell get a few points deleted? Don't people argue the same about competition? Why is Shaq any different?

[Phoenix]

Those finals numbers got the Lakers a 3 peat. Indiana was lucky to win 2 games, while the Sixers and Nets barely competed. When people think of Shaq's peak years, they remember these years and what he did in the playoffs, particularly the NBA finals.

If the opponent has a viable big man, in his prime, and Shaq does his usual 25-26 pts on 11-12 rebounds with 52-54% shooting, there is no question that the OP doesn't even create this post. And Shaq most likely dips in the all-time rankings, ESPECIALLY if the Lakers lose in 2000.

Now I understand that the numbers are what they are and the accolades (like his 3 FMVPs), are there for eternity. But since we're comparing players, context does matter.

I'm just asking you who wins these matchups. I'm asking again. I'm not sure youre avoiding the question. Because you're the one saying Shaqs dominance is diminished if his peak coincided with the peaks of the elite 90s guys. The natural question then becomes who wins these matchups. Still hoping for any answer to that.

[tpols]

There's no way defenders hit Shaq more than he hit them. I've seen all of these games live, and rewatched them at an older age. The guy was 12-6 elbowing dudes and generally knocking them out of perfectly legal position without consequence. Go watch tape of wilt chamberlain... he didn't need to do that to be a GOAT scorer. And dont mistake it, if wanted to play like that, he very easily could have. But the rules in his day were strict... guards and all players for that matter had to dribble palm down (which is why it looks so funny), there was no "hotdogging" it or you got punished. Offensive players couldnt just violently crowd out defenders in good position. It was more an exhibition of skill back then.

[Phoenix]

I wasn't arguing for the sake of arguing that Robinson would necessarily score 30 ppg in a 7 game series. My point was that a player with Robinson's skillset requires MUCH more work on the defensive end than a guy like Sabonis, Mutombo, or Macculloch. That's just a fact.



It's not about winning the matchups. Look, people can't compare LeBron and Shaq and hinge the argument on Shaq's peak years, but completely ignore context. That is my point. Of course Shaq wins the matchup between him and Robinson. But when we hinge arguments on peak years, especially where it comes to statistics of playoff and finals production, there has to be a little more investigation and consideration of the context.

Why does Bill Russell get a few points deleted? Don't people argue the same about competition? Why is Shaq any different?

The conversation has expanded beyond comparing Shaq and Lebron at this point. You brought up that his dominance isnt quite in the 90s as it was in 2000 because of better competition. So it's not even about Shaq and Lebron now. We're talking Shaq vs Hakeem and Robinson. You took the conversation there.

[HoopsNY]

I'm just asking you who wins these matchups. I'm asking again. I'm not sure youre avoiding the question. Because you're the one saying Shaqs dominance is diminished if his peak coincided with the peaks of the elite 90s guys. The natural question then becomes who wins these matchups. Still hoping for any answer to that.

I agree that Shaq wins those matchups, but I don't think you're quite understanding my point here. I apologize for not being clear enough.

[RRR3]

There's no way defenders hit Shaq more than he hit them. I've seen all of these games live, and rewatched them at an older age. The guy was 12-6 elbowing dudes and generally knocking them out of perfectly legal position without consequence. Go watch tape of wilt chamberlain... he didn't need to do that to be a GOAT scorer. And dont mistake it, if wanted to play like that, he very easily could have. But the rules in his day were strict... guards and all players for that matter had to dribble palm down (which is why it looks so funny), there was no "hotdogging" it or you got punished. Offensive players couldnt just violently crowd out defenders in good position. It was more an exhibition of skill back then.
We all know why you hate Shaq :lol

[HoopsNY]

There's no way defenders hit Shaq more than he hit them. I've seen all of these games live, and rewatched them at an older age. The guy was 12-6 elbowing dudes and generally knocking them out of perfectly legal position without consequence. Go watch tape of wilt chamberlain... he didn't need to do that to be a GOAT scorer. And dont mistake it, if wanted to play like that, he very easily could have. But the rules in his day were strict... guards and all players for that matter had to dribble palm down (which is why it looks so funny), there was no "hotdogging" it or you got punished. Offensive players couldnt just violently crowd out defenders in good position. It was more an exhibition of skill back then.

Which is half of my argument. People can't laud Shaq's peak years and use it as a main argument for where they rank him or against another player's dominance/peak or ranking. When you factor in the officiating and the lack of competition, his peak isn't as impressive as some make it out to be. And if he doesn't have his dominance and peak years to live on, then the comparisons to players like LBJ simply don't hold up.

[Phoenix]

I agree that Shaq wins those matchups, but I don't think you're quite understanding my point here. I apologize for not being clear enough.

I dont think we're quite understanding each other all along, but it's fine. I understand what you are trying to say in reference to comparing Shaqs dominance vs Lebrons and contextualizing their respective competitions. It just ended up taking the discussion to where we are now debating prime Shaq and prime Hakeem etc etc etc.

[tpols]

There's no way defenders hit Shaq more than he hit them. I've seen all of these games live, and rewatched them at an older age. The guy was 12-6 elbowing dudes and generally knocking them out of perfectly legal position without consequence. Go watch tape of wilt chamberlain... he didn't need to do that to be a GOAT scorer. And dont mistake it, if wanted to play like that, he very easily could have. But the rules in his day were strict... guards and all players for that matter had to dribble palm down (which is why it looks so funny), there was no "hotdogging" it or you got punished. Offensive players couldnt just violently crowd out defenders in good position. It was more an exhibition of skill back then.


We all know why you hate Shaq :lol

I dont hate shaq.

that's just how it was.

[HoopsNY]

I dont think we're quite understanding each other all along, but it's fine. I understand what you are trying to say in reference to comparing Shaqs dominance vs Lebrons and contextualizing their respective competitions. It just ended up taking the discussion to where we are now debating prime Shaq and prime Hakeem etc etc etc.

Look back on this forum and just in general across the sports world how Shaq is viewed. He's remembered for those years, almost exclusively. You would think prior to the 1999-00 season, that Shaq was almost a nobody in the rankings.

People are in love with his peak years. But I remember those peak years. I remember watching how he played and what he got away with, and I remember thinking to myself how the league really lacked quality big men as every team was trying to draft the next Jordan. It was truly a guards game, despite the big men continuing to win everything, (Duncan and Shaq).

In fact, the early 2000s really saw a demise of quality centers like what he had never seen in the NBA. I can't recall a period of time where there were so few quality centers.

[Roundball_Rock]

Mutumbo in 2001, while not 'peak' Deke, provided a reasonable approximation of what someone like 95 Robinson would be like as a post defender for Shaq

We also saw Shaq against prime Ben Wallace in the playoffs twice (Wallace the DPOY both years). Shaq was older but did fine:

2005 ECF: Shaq 21/8/2 59% (23/10/3 on 60% in the RS)
2006 ECF: Shaq 22/11/0 66% (20/9/2 on 60% in the RS)


Those arent bad numbers.

He had series like that in the 90's too. You could find that with any legend. For example:

Shaq vs. Smits in 94': 21/13/2 on 51% (he averaged 29 PPG on 60% in the RS)

People keep ignoring prime Smits' success against prime Ewing in the playoffs (Ewing is presented/seen as this flawless legend, like others from the 90's). If Smits was eating against Ewing, why do we think he would give peak Shaq trouble?

Shaq and Dwight overlapped as useful players only briefly but here is what happened when they played each other from 2007-2009:

3/18/07: Shaq 20/4/4 60%, Dwight 17/11/0 100% (6 for 6)
11/24/07: Shaq 20/6/1 53%, Dwight 17/13/2 86%
03/03/09: Shaq 19/11/0 69%, Dwight 21/8/0 50%

Dwight is getting the better of these, not surprising given the stages of their careers, but Shaq is definitely holding his own, especially offensively. The big difference is the younger player dominating on the glass.


Shaq: 24.0/12.2/2.2 with 0.7 stls and 2.7 blks on 53%

But look at Shaq's RS numbers in the 1993-94 season: 29.3/13.2/2.4 with 0.9 stls and 2.9 blks on 60%.

You are going across two years for those match ups. 3 of those 6 games came during Shaq's rookie year, when he was 23/14/2 on 56%. Here are their logs for those 6 games:

Shaq 25/7/0 69%, Daughtery 17/11/5 46% (wash?)
Shaq 19/14/2 44%, Daughtery 21/11/3 45% (wash?)
Shaq 24/18/3 52%, Daughtery 19/10/5 38% (Shaq?)

Shaq 23/15/2 57%, Daughtery 10/15/6 29% (Shaq?)
Shaq 22/9/2 40%, Daughtery 25/9/4 53% (Daughtery?)
Shaq 31/10/4 58%, Daughtery 18/16/5 38% (Shaq?)


Shaq held Daughtery to poor shooting (especially for a C) but Daughtery got solid scoring numbers along with good rebounding and passing numbers. Shaq's numbers were down across the board but I would say their first two match ups were washes on net but Shaq won 3 of the next 4.

Here is Ewing vs. Daughtery (30 games, 1987-1994):

Ewing 24/10/2 53% (norm was 24/10/2 53%)
Daughtery 18/9/2 53% (norm was 19/10/4 on 53%)

Both basically got their normal numbers against each other (Daughtery's are career numbers, retired in 94'; Ewing's for 1987-1994).

How about Hakeem vs. Ewing (28 RS games)?

Hakeem 21/11/2 50% (norm 22/11/3 51%)
Ewing 18/9/1 46% (norm 21/10/2 50%)

Hakeem got his normal numbers but Ewing regressed.

[RRR3]

Shaq faced prime Ben Wallace in 04 too and put up huge numbers

[HoopsNY]

We also saw Shaq against prime Ben Wallace in the playoffs twice (Wallace the DPOY both years). Shaq was older but did fine:

2005 ECF: Shaq 21/8/2 59% (23/10/3 on 60% in the RS)
2006 ECF: Shaq 22/11/0 66% (20/9/2 on 60% in the RS)



He had series like that in the 90's too. You could find that with any legend. For example:

Shaq vs. Smits in 94': 21/13/2 on 51% (he averaged 29 PPG on 60% in the RS)

People keep ignoring prime Smits' success against prime Ewing in the playoffs (Ewing is presented/seen as this flawless legend, like others from the 90's). If Smits was eating against Ewing, why do we think he would give peak Shaq trouble?

Shaq and Dwight overlapped as useful players only briefly but here is what happened when they played each other from 2007-2009:

3/18/07: Shaq 20/4/4 60%, Dwight 17/11/0 100% (6 for 6)
11/24/07: Shaq 20/6/1 53%, Dwight 17/13/2 86%
03/03/09: Shaq 19/11/0 69%, Dwight 21/8/0 50%

Dwight is getting the better of these, not surprising given the stages of their careers, but Shaq is definitely holding his own, especially offensively. The big difference is the younger player dominating on the glass.



You are going across two years for those match ups. 3 of those 6 games came during Shaq's rookie year, when he was 23/14/2 on 56%. Here are their logs for those 6 games:

Shaq 25/7/0 69%, Daughtery 17/11/5 46% (wash?)
Shaq 19/14/2 44%, Daughtery 21/11/3 45% (wash?)
Shaq 24/18/3 52%, Daughtery 19/10/5 38% (Shaq?)

Shaq 23/15/2 57%, Daughtery 10/15/6 29% (Shaq?)
Shaq 22/9/2 40%, Daughtery 25/9/4 53% (Daughtery?)
Shaq 31/10/4 58%, Daughtery 18/16/5 38% (Shaq?)


Shaq held Daughtery to poor shooting (especially for a C) but Daughtery got solid scoring numbers along with good rebounding and passing numbers. Shaq's numbers were down across the board but I would say their first two match ups were washes on net but Shaq won 3 of the next 4.

Here is Ewing vs. Daughtery (30 games, 1987-1994):

Ewing 24/10/2 53% (norm was 24/10/2 53%)
Daughtery 18/9/2 53% (norm was 19/10/4 on 53%)

Both basically got their normal numbers against each other (Daughtery's are career numbers, retired in 94'; Ewing's for 1987-1994).

How about Hakeem vs. Ewing (28 RS games)?

Hakeem 21/11/2 50% (norm 22/11/3 51%)
Ewing 18/9/1 46% (norm 21/10/2 50%)

Hakeem got his normal numbers but Ewing regressed.

My point isn't to discuss who wins matchups. Shaq is an all-time great. No one was going to stop him. Having said that, his peak years are held amongst the greatest ever. But when we dig a little deeper into them, we can see why they were that good - and it wasn't all just Shaq's skills.

[Roundball_Rock]

Shaq is an all-time great. No one was going to stop him. Having said that, his peak years are held amongst the greatest ever. But when we dig a little deeper into them, we can see why they were that good - and it wasn't all just Shaq's skills.

What fall-off would you anticipate for him if Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson were all 5-6 years younger and still elite players in 2000-2002? Shaq did play with overlap between him and them as effective players; he faced only Hakeem in the playoffs (once). These players wouldn't impact his RS numbers since he would play them only for a small percentage of games but they could impact his PO numbers if he faced them fairly often in the PO (higher percentage of his PO sample then). The problem is that likely would be rare. The first thought is the Spurs--but if Robinson is 5-6 years younger they never draft Duncan since in this timeline he doesn't conveniently get hurt in 97'.

Robinson, Ewing had large declines in their own playoff production. Robinson faced Hakeem once and got annihilated. Robinson shrunk against Mutumbo (Mutumbo did little--but he held Robinson to a fraction of his normal scoring on low efficiency.) Ewing met the same fate against Hakeem. Ewing had a shaky record against Smits and mixed results against Mourning.

We have some Ewing/Parish series--Ewing dominated the last two but Parish was old so not sure how much we can glean from them. In 88' Parish was 34 and held Ewing to 19/13/3 on 49% (20/8/2 on 56% in the RS--so a large decrease in efficiency but improvements elsewhere).

All we have for Hakeem is Hakeem versus 39 year old Kareem in 86':

Hakeem 31/11/2 52%
Kareem 27/7/3 50%

This goes down as a feather in Hakeem's cap historically but it isn't great IMO. Kareem is 39 and hanging 27 PPG on Hakeem? Hakeem beat him on the glass, but KAJ was last a double digit rebounder in 81' so Hakeem wasn't doing anything special having KAJ at 7 RPG (he averaged 6 RPG in the RS in 86'). When Hakeem was old facing a young Shaq--Hakeem got decimated in the similar scenario in 99', going 13/7/1 on 43% (Hakeem 36 then).

Shaq was 30/15/3 on 55% in 00'-02' in the PO; he was 27/11/3 on 57% from 94'-99'. So his scoring increased only 3 PPG, although there was a big increase in RPG. His efficiency actually fell. What are Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson being around for a couple series bringing these numbers down to? 29/14/3 on 56%? 28/13/3 on 55%?

[Axe]

Nice avatar, Roundball_Rock. :pimp:

Where did you get it from?

[HoopsNY]

What fall-off would you anticipate for him if Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson were all 5-6 years younger and still elite players in 2000-2002? Shaq did play with overlap between him and them as effective players; he faced only Hakeem in the playoffs (once). These players wouldn't impact his RS numbers since he would play them only for a small percentage of games but they could impact his PO numbers if he faced them fairly often in the PO (higher percentage of his PO sample then). The problem is that likely would be rare. The first thought is the Spurs--but if Robinson is 5-6 years younger they never draft Duncan since in this timeline he doesn't conveniently get hurt in 97'

I mentioned this previously


1999 Shaq faced off against Robinson and averaged 23.8 pts on 49%

2000 Shaq faced off against Sabonis and averaged 25.9 pts on 54%

2001 Shaq faced off against Sabonis and averaged 27.0 pts on 48%

2001 Shaq faced off against Robinson and averaged 27 pts on 54% (with an aging Robinson)

2002 Shaq faced off against Robinson and averaged 21 points on 44% (Shaq had a finger injury in this series, but still underachieved overall)

2004 Shaq faced off against Yao and averaged 16 points on 51%


Shaq put up monster numbers against guys like Divac, 38 year old Mutombo, 34 year old Smits, 35-37 year old Sabonis, and Maccolluch. I think it's reasonable to think his ppg and shooting numbers fall a fair amount, which heavily impacts how we view his peak years. Those years are viewed this way due to how dominant he was in the playoffs and particularly the finals.

Will he hold his own? Sure. 25-26 ppg on 50-54% shooting is nothing to laugh at. But 35-38 ppg on 60-65% is an entirely different world.


Robinson, Ewing had large declines in their own playoff production. Robinson faced Hakeem once and got annihilated. Robinson shrunk against Mutumbo (Mutumbo did little--but he held Robinson to a fraction of his normal scoring on low efficiency.) Ewing met the same fate against Hakeem. Ewing had a shaky record against Smits and mixed results against Mourning.

While this may be true, Shaq would still be forced to work a lot more if there are an additional 5-6 quality centers in the league. That's around 18-24 extra RS games on top of the games he would play against Sabonis, Yao, or Ben Wallace. And then there is the playoffs.

I'm not saying that Shaq doesn't win the majority of those matchups, but we might very well not be seeing a 3 peat, 3 FMVPs, and 36/15 a night - which tends to influence the way we view his career.

And someone mentioned his numbers against Wallace in the two series he had in L.A. and Miami. Yes, he had a high fg%, but we still see notable drops in pts, rebs, assists, stls, blks, and a slightly lower fth%. With higher volume, you'd probably expect his fg% to drop further.

[Roundball_Rock]

Sure. 25-26 ppg on 50-54% shooting is nothing to laugh at. But 35-38 ppg on 60-65% is an entirely different world.

The problem is he was 27/11/3 on 57% from 1994-1999 (you can parse it other ways--he was basically the same from 1995-1999 in the PO--poor rookie appearance) so you would be projecting a decline greater than what he did as a lesser player with all those guys around. I suspect you mean in particular series, but how often would he face those guys? Two of them were in his conference and Ewing only made the finals once and melted down when he got there.

What we usually here are his finals numbers, which>>>>his PO numbers but you would need Ewing to 1) get there 2) actually show up for the games while there to change the narrative that Shaq created in the actual finals during this time.

If you are talking RS then the impact would be greater--but we saw Shaq's RS numbers stay consistent. He was 29/13/2 in 94' with all three of the other centers in their primes. He was 28/12/3 on 58% from 1994-1999, 29/12/4 on 58% from 2000-2002. His RS numbers didn't move in his peak years.


That's around 18-24 extra RS games on top of the games he would play against Sabonis, Yao, or Ben Wallace.

That's with the two timelines being merged. If everyone moves 5-6 years, those guys aren't around in 2000.


And someone mentioned his numbers against Wallace in the two series he had in L.A. and Miami. Yes, he had a high fg%, but we still see notable drops in pts, rebs, assists, stls, blks, and a slightly lower fth%. With higher volume, you'd probably expect his fg% to drop further.

2004 Finals: Shaq 27/11/2 63% (22/12/3 on 58% in the RS)
2005 ECF: Shaq 21/8/2 59% (23/10/3 on 60% in the RS)
2006 ECF: Shaq 22/11/0 66% (20/9/2 on 60% in the RS)

His scoring went +5, -2, +2. His FG % +5, -1, +6. His RPG went -1, -2, +2. His assists slipped each time. On net, these numbers improved against Wallace relative to the league as a whole, except for the notable decline in assists.

I don't think we can credit Wallace for FT % changes.

[HoopsNY]

The problem is he was 27/11/3 on 57% from 1994-1999 (you can parse it other ways--he was basically the same from 1995-1999 in the PO--poor rookie appearance) so you would be projecting a decline greater than what he did as a lesser player with all those guys around. I suspect you mean in particular series, but how often would he face those guys? Two of them were in his conference and Ewing only made the finals once and melted down when he got there.

What we usually here are his finals numbers, which>>>>his PO numbers but you would need Ewing to 1) get there 2) actually show up for the games while there to change the narrative that Shaq created in the actual finals during this time.

If you are talking RS then the impact would be greater--but we saw Shaq's RS numbers stay consistent. He was 29/13/2 in 94' with all three of the other centers in their primes. He was 28/12/3 on 58% from 1994-1999, 29/12/4 on 58% from 2000-2002. His RS numbers didn't move in his peak years.



That's with the two timelines being merged. If everyone moves 5-6 years, those guys aren't around in 2000.

You're right about timelines merging. The way I see it is that the game had a fundamental shift in trying to make it a Jordan-centric league, where front offices were seeking that next big perimeter player (like a Penny, Kobe, Hill, TMac, Vince, AI, Stackhouse, etc). Getting the next best guard to become competitive seemed to be where the league was headed.

For decades the league operated as a big man's game. By 1999, things seemed to shift. I don't think that is by coincidence. I just feel that a more center-centric league where centers face off against other great centers and dominate (like the Wilts, Kareems, and Hakeems) has more value and ranks higher than what Shaq managed to do during his peak years.

While you are correct in how often would top centers face Shaq, I do believe it's significant enough in terms of impact (18-24 RS games, for example).

If Shaq squares off against just one top center in the finals, I don't think he's putting up the numbers that he did. And if he did do his 27/11 on 57% regularly, but lost one or more finals as a result of a drop off, then everyone would view him much differently.

Not to mention, we're leaving out of the equation the horrible officiating here.

[HoopsNY]

2004 Finals: Shaq 27/11/2 63% (22/12/3 on 58% in the RS)
2005 ECF: Shaq 21/8/2 59% (23/10/3 on 60% in the RS)
2006 ECF: Shaq 22/11/0 66% (20/9/2 on 60% in the RS)

His scoring went +5, -2, +2. His FG % +5, -1, +6. His RPG went -1, -2, +2. His assists slipped each time. On net, these numbers improved against Wallace relative to the league as a whole, except for the notable decline in assists.

I don't think we can credit Wallace for FT % changes.

Shaq's numbers in the finals between 2000-02:
35.9/15.2/3.5 with 0.7 stls and 3 blks, 3.1 fouls

Shaq's numbers against Ben Wallace 2004-06 playoffs:
22.6/9.4/1.2 with 0.4 stls and 1.7 blks, 3.7 fouls

Shaq shot a higher fg% but on lower volume against Wallace. And even if we accept the shooting, then there is a significant drop off in rebounding, assists, stls, and blks. You can say that Shaq was older and past his peak, but I think a greater part of it was due to Ben Wallace's defense.

Not to mention, there is a lot to be said about drawing fouls, something a solid low-post offensive player can do (Mourning, Robinson, Ewing, Daughtery, Hakeem), which also creates problems for Shaq.

[HoopsNY]

Shaq faced prime Ben Wallace in 04 too and put up huge numbers

Certainly not 35-38 ppg, 15-17 rebs, 4+ assists, 3+ blks that he was doing. And from 2004-06, he did 22.6/9.4/1.2/0.4/1.7 with more fouls.

Shaq was 30.0/14.5/3.0/0.5/2.4 in the playoffs those three years ('00-'02). I watched those playoffs; the elbow throwing, knocking players down intentionally, and repeated offensive fouls were just allowed by the refs.

I believe the league was going through a desperate attempt at saving its ratings and needed a big market dynasty to carry them - insert L.A.L.

[72-10]

there's no convincing argument that could be made

[Roundball_Rock]

For decades the league operated as a big man's game. By 1999, things seemed to shift. I don't think that is by coincidence. I just feel that a more center-centric league where centers face off against other great centers and dominate (like the Wilts, Kareems, and Hakeems) has more value and ranks higher than what Shaq managed to do during his peak years.

True--but it was a gradual change. People think it was a drastic change overnight simply because of the dearth of superstars centers in the 21st century. Teams kept drafting big men high--they just didn't pan out, outside of cases like Dwight, Yao, Embiid. Andrew Bogut was the #1 pick in the 2005 draft, for instance.


While you are correct in how often would top centers face Shaq, I do believe it's significant enough in terms of impact (18-24 RS games, for example).

If Shaq squares off against just one top center in the finals, I don't think he's putting up the numbers that he did. And if he did do his 27/11 on 57% regularly, but lost one or more finals as a result of a drop off, then everyone would view him much differently.


Fair enough.

It is a shame Shaq's prime overlapped briefly with Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson and not at all with Howard. We can use year-by-year "against" data is a quick proxy, with the caveat that you would have to check to see who actually played in the specific match up (e.g., in 94' Ewing had a big game against either HOU or SAS--but the other superstar C didn't play in that game). Still, we will have enough data to get an idea. Let's look at 1994-1997. Shaq was a top 5 player by 94' and Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson were all going strong throughout this time (although Robinson played only 6 games in 97').

1994

vs. CHA 28/11/3 64% (Mourning)
vs. CLE 29/12/3 62% (Daughtery)
vs. HOU 24/10/3 55% (Hakeem)
vs. DEN 26/16/1 45% (Mutumbo)
vs. NYK 28/12/3 58% (Ewing)
vs. SAS 27/15/2 54% (Robinson)

1995

vs. CHA 36/17/3 58% (Mourning)
vs. DEN 22/10/4 58% (Mutumbo)
vs. HOU 25/14/4 61% (Hakeem)
vs. NYK 35/12/1 62% (Ewing)
vs. SAS 32/13/2 49% (Robinson)

1996

vs. DEN 25/12/1 52% (Mutumbo)
vs. HOU 26/17/4 59% (Hakeem)
vs. MIA 31/12/3 45% (Mourning)
vs. NYK 26/10/3 53% (Ewing)
vs. SAS 26/12/3 50% (Robinson)

1997

vs. ATL 19/18/4 45% (Mutumbo)
vs. HOU 29/13/1 63% (Hakeem)
vs. MIA 34/14/4 58% (Mourning)
vs. NYK 26/13/1 52% (Ewing)

Hakeem, Mutumbo (when young) appeared to give him trouble but he did well vs. Ewing, Mourning, Daughtery. He was about par against Robinson in counting stats--but his efficiency declined.


Shaq's numbers in the finals between 2000-02:
35.9/15.2/3.5 with 0.7 stls and 3 blks, 3.1 fouls

Shaq's numbers against Ben Wallace 2004-06 playoffs:
22.6/9.4/1.2 with 0.4 stls and 1.7 blks, 3.7 fouls

You are comparing a declining player with his peak. The proper comp is to his norms that year. By that measure, he stacked up well.