Remember when Shaq was swept 3 straight yrs with rich man's Pip & peak Horace Grant?

[3ba11]

Horace arrived in 95' and 96', which added to rich man's Pippen and 20 point snipers like Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott.

Why was Shaq swept for 3 straight years with the most stacked roster in the league?

And then he was swept for another 3 straight years with further Pippen-like teammates, such as all-stars Eddie Jones and Kobe, along with all-star Nick Van Exel, plus Fox, Fisher & Horry

[SouBeachTalents]

I remember when he beat Jordan and carried Kobe to 3 rings.

[3ba11]

.
01' Western Playoffs

Kobe (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01/gamelog/2001/#51-61-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs)........... 31.6..... 7.0... 6.2
Shaq (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01/gamelog/2001/#90-100-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs)........... 29.3... 15.3... 2.5


02' Western Playoffs

Kobe (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01/gamelog/2002/#67-81-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs)........... 26.6..... 5.9... 4.4
Shaq (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01/gamelog/2001/#90-100-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs)........... 26.4... 12.7... 2.5





I remember when he beat Jordan and carried Kobe to 3 rings.


Everyone knew that the 01' and 02' Finals were a bigger foregone conclusion against the weak East than the 07' or 09' Finals, so the only thing that mattered was the Western Playoffs, which Kobe led as the stats show above - Kobe carried the Lakers to the Finals as "that guy" in 01' and 02' - it's clear as day...

And Kobe was only 21 in 2000, which is a year younger than the age-pass that you give Lebron for the 07' Finals.. Yet Kobe still led the league in clutch points for the 00' Playoffs (https://www.nba.com/stats/players/clutch-traditional?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&dir=A&sort=PTS) and set the record for clutch ppg in the 00' Finals with 8.0 (https://www.nba.com/stats/players/clutch-traditional?PORound=4&Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&dir=A&sort=PTS) ppg of clutch points.

[Nowoco]

It is one of the biggest wtfs in NBA history that prime Shaq got swept 5 times in 6 years.

[John8204]

I remember when he beat Jordan and carried Kobe to 3 rings.

Pepperidge Farms remembers the officiating of that Kings and Trailblazers series.

But yeah good on Shaq for winning that one ring without shady officiating.

[3ba11]

It is one of the biggest wtfs in NBA history that prime Shaq got swept 5 times in 6 years.


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1Hc5Bub6MQM

[ShawkFactory]

It is one of the biggest wtfs in NBA history that prime Shaq got swept 5 times in 6 years.

Shaq was kind of an enigma in that way I think and it was kind of his fault not in his talent as a player but his relative selfishness at the time. He was someone who demanded the ball (mostly for good reason obviously) but in tight games defenses had an easy out with him.

I don’t know this was his mindset for sure, but maybe if he were more willing to give up the reigns and play decoy things would have worked out better.

He did that later on but he could have won more probably.

[Overdrive]

.
01' Western Playoffs

Kobe (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01/gamelog/2001/#51-61-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs)........... 31.6..... 7.0... 6.2
Shaq (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01/gamelog/2001/#90-100-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs)........... 29.3... 15.3... 2.5


02' Western Playoffs

Kobe (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01/gamelog/2002/#67-81-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs)........... 26.6..... 5.9... 4.4
Shaq (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01/gamelog/2001/#90-100-sum:pgl_basic_playoffs)........... 26.4... 12.7... 2.5







Everyone knew that the 01' and 02' Finals were a bigger foregone conclusion against the weak East than the 07' or 09' Finals, so the only thing that mattered was the Western Playoffs, which Kobe led as the stats show above - Kobe carried the Lakers to the Finals as "that guy" in 01' and 02' - it's clear as day...

And Kobe was only 21 in 2000, which is a year younger than the age-pass that you give Lebron for the 07' Finals.. Yet Kobe still led the league in clutch points for the 00' Playoffs (https://www.nba.com/stats/players/clutch-traditional?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&dir=A&sort=PTS) and set the record for clutch ppg in the 00' Finals with 8.0 (https://www.nba.com/stats/players/clutch-traditional?PORound=4&Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&dir=A&sort=PTS) ppg of clutch points.

So it's Shaq now?

Kobe played off of Shaq and Shaq off of Kobe. Everything else is agenda driven BS.

[ILLsmak]

It is one of the biggest wtfs in NBA history that prime Shaq got swept 5 times in 6 years.

I dunno, I watched those games. It was easy to see why they lost haha. In a lot of those games, like with Van Exel at the point, if they overplayed Shaq and he couldn't get him the ball, Nick would just shoot it. Vs the Jazz that's not a good look. In the Finals, they could have won. They definitely don't get swept AT LEAST, but I bet they win, if Nick doesn't miss all those FTs. The 96 Bulls are crazy and they just lost a year earlier.

It sucks, but like I said, in real time it was more like fuhhh than I don't see how this is happening! I was just like how can they possibly not get Shaq the ball. But even if he averages 40 and 15, I don't think they win. Who was the other team to sweep them, SAS in the lockout?

-Smak

[ILLsmak]

Pepperidge Farms remembers the officiating of that Kings and Trailblazers series.

But yeah good on Shaq for winning that one ring without shady officiating.

you sound like a democrat haha

-Smak

[Nowoco]

I dunno, I watched those games. It was easy to see why they lost haha. In a lot of those games, like with Van Exel at the point, if they overplayed Shaq and he couldn't get him the ball, Nick would just shoot it. Vs the Jazz that's not a good look. In the Finals, they could have won. They definitely don't get swept AT LEAST, but I bet they win, if Nick doesn't miss all those FTs. The 96 Bulls are crazy and they just lost a year earlier.

It sucks, but like I said, in real time it was more like fuhhh than I don't see how this is happening! I was just like how can they possibly not get Shaq the ball. But even if he averages 40 and 15, I don't think they win. Who was the other team to sweep them, SAS in the lockout?

-Smak

No team with prime Shaq on it should get swept. Especially as none of those teams were a one man army. Far from it, he had plenty of firepower with him. I can look the other way in 1994 when Penny was a rookie and with no Horace. Also you can also make an exception for 1996 also for obvious reasons.

The 1998 Lakers though won 61 games and had four all-stars. It's egregious that the Jazz swept them. Especially as the geriatric Rockets took them to a game 5 and the Kemp-less Sonics got a game off them.

[tpols]

I remember when he beat Jordan and carried Kobe to 3 rings.

Why sweep though? Why only performance B+?

Prease enlighten me.

[tpols]

It is one of the biggest wtfs in NBA history that prime Shaq got swept 5 times in 6 years.

If a team gets up on Shaq he's toast. He has no comeback ability as a superstar. It's like the running game in the NFL. If youre down two scores and it's late you can't run as much, if you're up you run a lot. Shaq is the ultimate run game, he works best ahead where he can topple teams. His momentum is extreme in both directions negative and positive.

[1987_Lakers]

Horace arrived in 95' and 96', which added to rich man's Pippen and 20 point snipers like Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott.

Why was Shaq swept for 3 straight years with the most stacked roster in the league?

You fail to mention Horace got injured in '96.

[ILLsmak]

If a team gets up on Shaq he's toast. He has no comeback ability as a superstar. It's like the running game in the NFL. If youre down two scores and it's late you can't run as much, if you're up you run a lot. Shaq is the ultimate run game, he works best ahead where he can topple teams. His momentum is extreme in both directions negative and positive.

This is exactly it. I know a lot of you guys aren't Shaq fans, and I think you are at best luke warm on him, but spot on.

It's not easy to be a shooter in the NBA, and shooters are different, like in Chicago, the shooters would get fewer shots (imo?) because the offense ran and they were an outlet. Shaq required that shooters punish the defense, and after a few misses, shit just fell apart. Penny was good enough to be 'that guy,' but his shooters just didn't step up. That 94-95 ORL team was capable of winning the championship, but they did face a really good Houston team. Still, they were stacked in all of the right ways. Penny played well, Shaq played well, but they got swept.

That's why I think people are crazy who say Shaq wouldn't succeed in today's NBA. First of all, he's mobile enough to face up so he could have high post giannis touches, and secondly, the quality of spot up shooter has really gone up, IMO. IF you have guys who make their shots, you don't really need a perimeter scorer, but the issue is that you will be launching 3s. Like if you give Shaq a team that is gonna either have him dunking or shooting and they shoot 50 3s with him on the boards and decent fast break defense, I think they would be really tough for anyone to beat.

-Smak

[tpols]

This is exactly it. I know a lot of you guys aren't Shaq fans, and I think you are at best luke warm on him, but spot on.

It's not easy to be a shooter in the NBA, and shooters are different, like in Chicago, the shooters would get fewer shots (imo?) because the offense ran and they were an outlet. Shaq required that shooters punish the defense, and after a few misses, shit just fell apart. Penny was good enough to be 'that guy,' but his shooters just didn't step up. That 94-95 ORL team was capable of winning the championship, but they did face a really good Houston team. Still, they were stacked in all of the right ways. Penny played well, Shaq played well, but they got swept.

That's why I think people are crazy who say Shaq wouldn't succeed in today's NBA. First of all, he's mobile enough to face up so he could have high post giannis touches, and secondly, the quality of spot up shooter has really gone up, IMO. IF you have guys who make their shots, you don't really need a perimeter scorer, but the issue is that you will be launching 3s. Like if you give Shaq a team that is gonna either have him dunking or shooting and they shoot 50 3s with him on the boards and decent fast break defense, I think they would be really tough for anyone to beat.

-Smak

Shaq would still be absurdly dominant today but I worry with all the instant slow mo replay and hyper focus on reviewing things he wouldn't be able to get away with playing as violently as he did in the late 90s and early 2000s. He was throwing elbows that would be flagrant 2s today but we're no calls back then. Ask Dikembe.

[Phoenix]

Shaq would still be absurdly dominant today but I worry with all the instant slow mo replay and hyper focus on reviewing things he wouldn't be able to get away with playing as violently as he did in the late 90s and early 2000s. He was throwing elbows that would be flagrant 2s today but we're no calls back then. Ask Dikembe.

At worst he'd play like Giannis, because Freak does some of the same things to create contact and he's at the top of the league with Jokic.