Shaq 96-2002 versus 87-93 Jordan

During this particular 6 year span (both players in their prime), as a GM, who would you build around competing for a title, and why?

[I]Shaquille O'neal[/I]
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jo0rv-fSdsI/SY456ToaQ9I/AAAAAAAABt4/FcLaFAgS-lI/s400/shaqlakers.jpg[/IMG]

Shaq's average from '96-02: 27 PPG 57 FG% 12 rebounds 3 assists 2.4 blocks

Best season from that time span?
[B]2000: 29.7 PPG 57 FG% 13.6 rebounds 3.8 assists 3.0 blocks[/B] -- his entire game came together and his defense was very underrated this season.

How did he make his team better? Shaq Led 3 Lakers teams to the finals (2000-2002), winning all 3 of them. Doing so he picked up 3 finals mvps.

[I]Michael Jordan[/I]
[IMG]http://jefferykrit.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/michael_jordan.jpg[/IMG]

Jordan's average from '87-93: 33 PPG 52 FG% 6 rebounds 6 assists 2.8 steals

Best season from that time span?
[B]1991: 31.5 PPG 54 FG% 6.0 rebounds 5.5 assists 2.7 steals[/B] -- Mike's entire game too came together and in my opinion, he never played better than this particular year.

How did he make his team better? Jordan led 3 Bulls teams to the finals (1991-1993), winning all 3 of them. Doing so he picked up 3 finals mvps.

edited *changed title*

This is a decent question. With Shaq you really only needed a solid guard and you were competing for a title each year. Jordan on the other hand was the most dominant player around and could carry his team on his back...

I'd probably go with Jordan seeing as he's the better player and more accessible in terms of being more readily available in end of game situations. By that I mean, able to do more things at the end of the game like making his free throws, hitting game winners, setting up a team mate.

It's Shaq and it's not even close really...dominant big > any perimeter guy, no matter how good he is

[QUOTE=madmax]It's Shaq and it's not even close really...dominant big > any perimeter guy, no matter how good he is[/QUOTE]

clearly he is trolling. Jordan was the greatest player ever. You can't take anybody in front of him especially in his statistically prime. Shaq was a liability always in the clutch because of his 50-60% FT shooting. As a GM i can't have that when i could pick the GOAT. In fact i would have a Tim Duncan at that time rather than Shaq also

[QUOTE=Batman]clearly he is trolling. Jordan was the greatest player ever. You can't take anybody in front of him especially in his statistically prime. Shaq was a liability always in the clutch because of his 50-60% FT shooting. As a GM i can't have that when i could pick the GOAT. In fact i would have a Tim Duncan at that time rather than Shaq also[/QUOTE]
well, it's your opinion...first of all perimeter guys are generally harder to build arround due to the fact that specific teammates are needed, while dominant and efficient bigs are pretty much a lock for the title with any squad, because they have ability to change the game in many ways

[COLOR=Teal][B]Jordan by a hair. FT% is the decider here.
[/B][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=sbw19][COLOR=Teal][B]Jordan by a hair. FT% is the decider here.
[/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

That's how I feel. This wasn't a big deal for the Lakers because they had Kobe, but if it was just one or the other, Jordan because of all-around reliability.

[QUOTE=madmax]It's Shaq and it's not even close really...dominant big > any perimeter guy, [B]no matter how good he is[/B][/QUOTE]

except for when it's michael jordan:pimp:

For 1 or 2 seasons? Shaq in 2000 and 2001, but for the entire 6 year period? Thats tough. Jordan was putting up monster numbers on teams that didnt do much frm '87-'89, but he was healthy every season.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]For 1 or 2 seasons? Shaq in 2000 and 2001, but for the entire 6 year period? Thats tough. Jordan was putting up monster numbers on teams that didnt do much frm '87-'89, but he was healthy every season.[/QUOTE]
From '87 - '89 the Bulls got better every year, went to the ECF in '89 I believe ... with significantly less talent around him than Shaq from 1996 till 2000, so that statement makes little to no sense.

For 1 or 2 years? Jordan

For the whole period? Jordan

He's easily the better option. More durable, just as dominant, more versatile in his ability to dominate. Just from top to bottom you can DO more WITH Jordan.

Jordan, although I could understand someone picking Shaq over him. Having a prime Shaq on your team pretty much made you an instant title contender from 1996-2002.

[QUOTE=Alhazred]Jordan, although I could understand someone picking Shaq over him. Having a prime Shaq on your team pretty much made you an instant title contender from 1996-2002.[/QUOTE]
How could you see taking Shaq over Jordan?

According to ShaqAttack's rules ... they didn't DO anything.

In 1995, got BOUNCED in the FINALS, in a [B]SWEEP[/B].

In 1996, got BOUNCED in the ECF, in a [B]SWEEP[/B] (via past his prime Jordan)

In 1997, got BOUNCED by the Jazz in the Western Semis, 4 games to 1

In 1998 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Jazz, in a [B]SWEEP[/B]

Noticing a pattern here?

And it wasn't like each one of these teams was lacking in talent.

In 1999 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Spurs, in get this ... a [B]SWEEP[/B]

Once Kobe Bryant developed into a legit star caliber player ... the Lakers went onto win a ring in 2000

Then in 2001, when Kobe eclipsed star player status, and went to the "superstar" realm ... the Lakers became even more dominant.

So you could really see taking Shaq over Jordan? Prime Jordan doesn't go down in sweeps.

[QUOTE=plowking]This is a decent question. With Shaq you really only needed a solid guard and you were competing for a title each year.[B] Jordan on the other hand was the most dominant player around and could carry his team on his back...[/B][/QUOTE]

More Paul Bunyan myths surrounding Jordan. :oldlol: Look at Jordan's record:

38-44
9-9
40-42
50-32
47-35
55-27
61-21
67-15
57-25
13-4
72-10
69-13
62-20
30-30
37-45

He didn't "need" anything yet mysteriously his teams were average for a good chunk of his career then magically became dominant? Was 91' Jordan that much better than 87' or 88' Jordan? What changed was he needed a great team around him and he got it by 91'. :roll: @ the notion that MJ could carry a team by himself.

You want to talk about carrying teams look at Shaq. He showed up in Orlando and they improved from 21 wins to 41 wins in his first year (Jordan managed only an increase from 27 wins to 38 wins. Amazing stuff.). Shaq had the Magic in the NBA finals after three years. After Shaq left Orlando they collapsed. Shaq joined LA and made them champions. When he got hurt, they struggled. When he left they collapsed. Shaq joined Miami and made them instant contenders and then champions in his second season. Jordan retired 2 days before training camp so he had to be replaced by a D-League caliber SG since all the legit NBA starter caliber SG's were taken by then. What happened? The team remained a top 5 team. Can you imagine Shaq being replaced by a D-Leaguer and his team continuing to do well? Shaq was replaced by legit NBA talent when he left Orlando and LA and the teams collapsed. Imagine them replacing him with a guy who could not even make it as a 12th man in the previous two seasons! Yet you argue Jordan is the one who could carry a team "by himself"? :wtf:

[QUOTE]clearly he is trolling. Jordan was the greatest player ever. You can't take anybody in front of him especially in his statistically prime.[/QUOTE]

Trolling? Catch24 loves MJ.

Jordan may be the greatest player ever but that is another question. That does not mean he had the best peak. As far as absolute peak, Wilt>everyone. Wilt could do everything you could want on the court except make long J's, but he was a center so that is no big deal. He also sucked at FT's but so did Shaq. Wilt was the most dominant scorer in league history, led the league in assists, led the league in rebounding, led the league in FG % (seasons at 73% and 68% :bowdown: ), and was considered the best defender in the league. He did not do all this at once but it shows how great of an individual skill set he had. Jordan could lead the league in scoring and dominate defensively as much as a SG can and that is it. Prime Kareem could do everything Wilt could only on a lesser scale. Then there are others with cases over MJ's peak like Bird and Shaq.

[QUOTE]first of all perimeter guys are generally harder to build arround due to the fact that specific teammates are needed, while dominant and efficient bigs are pretty much a lock for the title with any squad, because they have ability to change the game in many ways[/QUOTE]

Half this board thinks MJ "won by himself" so they don't realize that it took five or six years to build a contender around him. His record speaks for itself. At the beginning of his career he won nothing; at the end he won nothing. Yet in the middle he suddenly began to dominate? It is obvious 92' MJ was not 27 wins better than 87' MJ. What changed was Pippen and Grant emerged.

Great point. Look at all the great big men. They made huge impacts on their teams right off the bat because it is easier to build around them. Jordan needed an elite wing player and a all-star caliber PF around him to start winning. Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and Shaq just showed up and improved their teams instantly.

As to the OP, I assume you are talking about a random team. If that is the case I take Shaq for the reasons mentioned above regarding centers vs. perimeter players. They are comparable but Shaq would win more games with a random team than Jordan. If you have a team with an elite wing player a la Pippen and an all-star caliber PF a la Grant and Rodman then you can argue Jordan but I don't see how, looking at their histories, one can legitimately argue that prime Jordan would win more with a random team than prime Shaq would. You could plug Shaq into any team and he would make them solid immediately. The argument that he "needed" a great guard around him is purely speculation. Yeah, by coincidence he always had a great guard around him pre-Cleveland (exception: 1993 Orlando and even in 94' Penny was not yet great) but Jordan always had a great small forward with him. Does that mean Jordan "needed" a great small forward? Both players needed an elite teammate to win but the notion that Shaq "needed" a SG (Penny was a combo guard) is as false as saying Jordan "needed" a SF.

Aside from the traditional difficulties posed by building around a perimeter player versus a dominant center, Jordan comes with the added problem of not being able to function with traditional point guards. You would need to find: 1) a PG, or a SG listed as PG like Ron Harper, who can accept just standing in the corner and waiting for spot up crumbs or simply accept becoming a defensive specialist 2) someone else to serve as the team's primary ballhandler/playmaker. Jordan had the skills to do the latter but not the mentality. Just ask Phil Jackson and Doug Collins. Plus, even if he had the mentality needed for a PG it would cause him to expend too much energy if he had to be the primary scorer at a clip of 30+ ppg, primary playmaker and a dominant defender. So a traditional PG couldn't do it. You would need either a PG/SG who would be willing to forfeit shooting and driving the ball, which is rare, or a "point forward" like Pippen or Kukoc. Good luck finding these type of people on random teams!

Prime Jordan may have been a better player than prime Shaq. He was more clutch in late game situations, although we cannot ignore that Shaq from 2000-2002 arguably had the GOAT finals run. Jordan was better defensively relative to other SG's than Shaq was relative to C's (although one could argue Shaq had more impact defensively since he was a center). However, Shaq is a C and MJ was a SG and if it is close in terms of talent you have to go with the dominant C.

87-93 Jordan > [insert player]

Great great points Roundball...:applause: It's really amaizng how casual NBA fans don't realize the importance of dominant bigs and always fo for flash and flare of perimeter guards - I guess that's why His Airness also became most hyped and promoted NBA player of all time, Stern just couldn't resist of milking that name and making tons of money. Everyone seems to forget that he also needed great teammates and a GOAT coach to start winning. It's sad how people always choose flash over substance:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=madmax]Great great points Roundball...:applause: It's really amaizng how casual NBA fans don't realize the importance of dominant bigs and always fo for flash and flare of perimeter guards - I guess that's why His Airness also became most hyped and promoted NBA player of all time, Stern just couldn't resist of milking that name and making tons of money. Everyone seems to forget that he also needed great teammates and a GOAT coach to start winning. It's sad how people always choose flash over substance:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
You could say the same exact things for Shaq.

Bigs can't get the ball without solid guards.

Jordan could do it all. As a guard who had as much if not more dominance than Shaquille O'Neal.

And Jordan had a rookie Phil Jackson as coach. When Shaq got him he was on his way to GOAT pro coach. Huge difference there, wouldn't you say?

Jordan was still getting into ECF in the Playoffs, and not going down in sweeps without Phil Jackson. Once everyone picked up their weight on that team ... once Ho Grant became reliable, once Pippen manned up stopped with the idiotic mistakes / migraines / pu$$y attitude and took that next level step to a star player ... thats what put the Bulls over the hump.

That isn't media fabrication or hype. Jordan always lived up to and exceeded hype. He was flasy but he was also fundamental. I mean hitting free throws is fundamental, no? Jordan's the GOAT on his own merits. He doesn't need myths or marketing to make that statement for him.

Shaq.... without Pippen Jordan was nothing but a bald-headed Dominique Wilkins

[QUOTE=Desperado]Shaq.... without Pippen Jordan was nothing but a bald-headed Dominique Wilkins[/QUOTE]

Kobe and Wade > Pippen

MJ wins by a little.

Shaquille O'Neal playoff Resume from 1995 till his 1st Ring

[QUOTE=Samurai Swoosh]
In 1995, got BOUNCED in the FINALS, in a [B]SWEEP[/B].

In 1996, got BOUNCED in the ECF, in a [B]SWEEP[/B] (via past his prime Jordan)

In 1997, got BOUNCED by the Jazz in the Western Semis, [I]4 games to 1[/I]

In 1998 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Jazz, in a [B]SWEEP[/B]

In 1999 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Spurs, in a [B]SWEEP[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Bigsmoke]Kobe and Wade > Pippen[/QUOTE]
Yeah ...

Let's also not forget

Penny Hardaway
Nick Anderson
Dennis Scott

Eddie Jones
Nick Van Excel

Glenn Rice
Robert Horry

Gary Payton
Karl Malone

Kobe and Wade ... two players on their way to potentially being in the top five all-time at their position.

[QUOTE=Samurai Swoosh]Yeah ...

Let's also not forget

Penny Hardaway
Nick Anderson
Dennis Scott

Eddie Jones
Nick Van Excel

Glenn Rice
Robert Horry

Kobe and Wade ... two players on their way to potentially being in the top five all-time at their position.[/QUOTE]

if anything, I think MJ was the one who developed Pippen into the player he was.

[QUOTE=Bigsmoke]if anything, MJ was the one who developed Pippen into the player he was.[/QUOTE]
He did ...

[QUOTE]I guess that's why His Airness also became most hyped and promoted NBA player of all time, Stern just couldn't resist of milking that name and making tons of money[/QUOTE]

He came along at the perfect time. Great point about Stern. Had MJ came along when Larry O'Brien was the commish he would not have become MJ the cultural icon he became. He would have been just another great players with a case for GOAT.

[QUOTE]Bigs can't get the ball without solid guards.

Jordan could do it all. As a guard who had as much if not more dominance than Shaquille O'Neal.[/QUOTE]

He had as much dominance with the caveat that he needed a custom built team around him. Can you really argue that MJ would win more with a random team than Shaq would?

[QUOTE]And Jordan had a rookie Phil Jackson as coach. When Shaq got him he was on his way to GOAT pro coach. Huge difference there, wouldn't you say?[/QUOTE]

Shaq made the NBA finals with Brian Hill!

[QUOTE]Jordan was still getting into ECF in the Playoffs, and not going down in sweeps without Phil Jackson. Once everyone picked up their weight on that team ... once Ho Grant became reliable, once Pippen manned up stopped with the idiotic mistakes / migraines / pu$$y attitude and took that next level step to a star player ... thats what put the Bulls over the hump.[/QUOTE]

It took MJ five years to reach the ECF. Shaq made it to the NBA finals in three.

You make fair points except the migraine point. Pippen should not have been playing in that game. Of course, Jordan bullied him into playing and now MJ fans 20 years later blame Pippen for playing poorly when he could barely see even though their hero is the reason he was in the game! The smart thing would be to have a guy whose vision was so poor he could barely distinguish between his teammates and the Pistons was to have him sit out. Yeah, Pippen caved into MJ's bullying and he deserves blame for that but that is irrelevant to the MJ fan hypocrisy of acting as if MJ had nothing to do with the migraine game.

How about extending that logic to Shaq's teams? It wasn't Shaq who played poorly in the 95' finals. It wasn't Shaq who caused LA to keep losing before 2000. If you blame MJ's teammates whenever he lost you have to look at Shaq's teammates when he lost and if you do you will find it was Shaq's teammates who let him down.

[QUOTE]That isn't media fabrication or hype.[/QUOTE]

Saying Jordan could "win by himself" is a fabrication and hype. Saying he was by far the most dominant player ever at his peak is fabrication and hype.

[QUOTE]Kobe and Wade > Pippen[/QUOTE]

Really? As far as peaks go yes but Pippen in 96' and 97'>Kobe from 00'-02'. How about third teammates? Did Shaq have a third HOFer like Dennis Rodman half the time?

Plus this "Kobe>Pippen" thing ignores team roles. Jordan could not function with Kobe or Wade. Jordan needed a superstar willing to let him lead the league in FGA every year. Jordan needed someone to serve as the primary ballhandler/playmaker who was not a traditional PG. Kobe and Wade could not fill these roles. Saying "Kobe>Pippen" is too simplistic. Pippen was the perfect player for Jordan: a superstar who wasn't concerned with scoring 25+ ppg and a forward who could allow Jordan to have people like John Paxson and even a SG like Ron Harper in the back court with Jordan because MJ could not function with a normal PG.

[QUOTE]In 1995, got BOUNCED in the FINALS, in a SWEEP.

In 1996, got BOUNCED in the ECF, in a SWEEP (via past his prime Jordan)

In 1997, got BOUNCED by the Jazz in the Western Semis, 4 games to 1

In 1998 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Jazz, in a SWEEP

In 1999 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Spurs, in a SWEEP[/QUOTE]

Tally: 1 NBA finals trip, 4 conference finals trips, 5 conference semi trips

How about MJ's record before his first ring?

In 1985 lost in four games in the first round
In 1986 got swept in the first round
In 1987 got swept again in the first round
In 1988 lost in five games in the second round
In 1989 ECF
In 1990 ECF

Shaq's record prior to his championship>Jordan's. Yeah, he get swept but are we to penalize Shaq for reaching the NBA finals? That is better than losing in the first or second round, no?

[QUOTE]if anything, I think MJ was the one who developed Pippen into the player he was.[/QUOTE]

More Paul Bunyan myths. This is another example of why MJ is overrated. Pippen made Pippen. Did Jordan help him? Yeah, but teammates help teammates all the time and even retired players help others. Only MJ fans claim that MJ "made" another player. No other fan group makes such an absurd claim. The hilarious thing is MJ fans only do it in the case of one player. Why hasn't Jordan "made" a HOFer in Washington and Charlotte? He can show up in practice and teach them what he did with Pippen. The "Jordan made Pippen" myth also ignores the fact that coaches exist and that other teammates exist. Collins played a huge role in developing Pippen and Grant. Other players like Oakley helped Pippen.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]More Paul Bunyan myths surrounding Jordan. :oldlol: Look at Jordan's record:

38-44
9-9
40-42
50-32
47-35
55-27
61-21
67-15
57-25
13-4
72-10
69-13
62-20
30-30
37-45

He didn't "need" anything yet mysteriously his teams were average for a good chunk of his career then magically became dominant? Was 91' Jordan that much better than 87' or 88' Jordan? What changed was he needed a great team around him and he got it by 91'. :roll: @ the notion that MJ could carry a team by himself.[/quote]

"Magically" became dominant? That track record clearly shows that by 88 the Bulls were on their way to becoming a great team, after a mere three(more like two) seasons with Jordan. What had they won beforehand?

[quote]You want to talk about carrying teams look at Shaq. He showed up in Orlando and they improved from 21 wins to 41 wins in his first year (Jordan managed only an increase from 27 wins to 38 wins. Amazing stuff.). [b]Shaq had the Magic in the NBA finals after three years[/b]. After Shaq left Orlando they collapsed. Shaq joined LA and made them champions. When he got hurt, they struggled. [b]When he left they collapsed.[/b][/quote]

Shaq had an all-star backcourt with Penny, Anderson and Scott plus he had prime Horace Grant in the frontcourt with him, one of Jordan's ex-teammates. Also, LA collapsed due to Shaq, Malone, GP [i]and[/i] Phil Jackson leaving which magnified the collapse much moreso than if Shaq alone had left.

[quote]Half this board thinks MJ "won by himself" so they don't realize that it took five or six years to build a contender around him.[/quote]

3-4, actually. That was also with a dud franchise that had won crap it's whole existence.

[quote]Great point. Look at all the great big men. They made huge impacts on their teams right off the bat because it is easier to build around them. Jordan needed an elite wing player and a all-star caliber PF around him to start winning. Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and Shaq just showed up and improved their teams instantly.[/quote]

Those guys had teams that fit them better. Also, didn't the Celtics make it to the second round of the playoffs the year before Russell showed up with Bill Sharman and Bob Cousy? Russell joining the Celtics was the equivalent of Michael Jordan joining the Spurs in 1998.

Those guys were great and all, but their situations were much different than Jordan's was in 84.

[quote]As to the OP, I assume you are talking about a random team. If that is the case I take Shaq for the reasons mentioned above regarding centers vs. perimeter players. They are comparable but Shaq would win more games with a random team than Jordan. If you have a team with an elite wing player a la Pippen and an all-star caliber PF a la Grant and Rodman then you can argue Jordan but I don't see how, looking at their histories, one can legitimately argue that prime Jordan would win more with a random team than prime Shaq would. You could plug Shaq into any team and he would make them solid immediately. The argument that he "needed" a great guard around him is purely speculation. Yeah, by coincidence he always had a great guard around him pre-Cleveland (exception: 1993 Orlando and even in 94' Penny was not yet great) but Jordan always had a great small forward with him. Does that mean Jordan "needed" a great small forward? Both players needed an elite teammate to win but the notion that Shaq "needed" a SG (Penny was a combo guard) is as false as saying Jordan "needed" a SF.

Aside from the traditional difficulties posed by building around a perimeter player versus a dominant center, Jordan comes with the added problem of not being able to function with traditional point guards. You would need to find: 1) a PG, or a SG listed as PG like Ron Harper, who can accept just standing in the corner and waiting for spot up crumbs or simply accept becoming a defensive specialist 2) [b]someone else to serve as the team's primary ballhandler/playmaker. Jordan had the skills to do the latter but not the mentality. Just ask Phil Jackson and Doug Collins.[/b] Plus, even if he had the mentality needed for a PG it would cause him to expend too much energy if he had to be the primary scorer at a clip of 30+ ppg, primary playmaker and a dominant defender. So a traditional PG couldn't do it. You would need either a PG/SG who would be willing to forfeit shooting and driving the ball, which is rare, or a "point forward" like Pippen or Kukoc. Good luck finding these type of people on random teams!
[/QUOTE]


See, this is what confuses me. Why was Michael dishing out nearly 11 assists a game during the 91 Finals, then? Just for kicks?

Also, with Shaq you need an ALL-NBA guard like Penny, Kobe or Wade, then you would need to surround him with three point shooters like Robert Horry, Rick Fox and Glen Rice. You'd also need role players like Ron Harper or Horace Grant. Hey, who did those last guys play with again?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Tally: 1 NBA finals trip, 4 conference finals trips, 5 conference semi trips

How about MJ's record before his first ring?

In 1985 lost in four games in the first round
In 1986 got swept in the first round
In 1987 got swept again in the first round
In 1988 lost in five games in the second round
In 1989 ECF
In 1990 ECF

Shaq's record prior to his championship>Jordan's. Yeah, he get swept but are we to penalize Shaq for reaching the NBA finals? That is better than losing in the first or second round, no?[/QUOTE]
Not when taking into account the talents that surrounded Shaq as opposed to the talents that surrounded Jordan. Jordan didn't have a legit star caliber player next to him till 1991. Shaq in 1995 had possibly the best guard in the game on his team. Getting swept in a round of the Playoffs is like not even getting there at all. They didn't even put up a fight, basically. Jordan faced superior teams as well on his way to the ECF. The late 80's Pistons, the late 80's / early 90's Cavs, the early 90's Knicks, the late 80's Celtics ... you kidding me?

Sometimes it feels like talking to a brick wall with all these Jordan stans and fanatics:hammerhead: We get it - guy was great, has a case for being the GOAT, as some other playes in history too, but is there really a need to mystify him and put him on pedestal? Dude couldn't win ANYTHING in the 80's, apart from ballhoging and stat padding all the time, yet he is considered the "winner", and a guy like Shaq isn't one? GTFO of here with this nonsense.

Roundball, Samurai and Alhazred...The three of you make great points and back your arguments with 'proof', I guess you can say. As to why or who I'd take personally? It's tough, but I'd give the nod to MJ given he was very clutch at the end of games (with him making most of his shots, he generally was the reason Chicago would be in close games playing with his rather sub par teammates). Mike was a better overall player (skilled), better shooter, better passer, just as dominant scoring, better defender etc. With all that said Shaq was better at finishing near the rim (obviously), better at passing out of doubles, stronger physically, opened up the floor with his body. He was tough to guard, an unreal presence inside.

You MJ fans can't have it both ways. When Jordan loses it his teammates but when Shaq loses it is because of him? Look at what Shaq did in the playoffs those years.

1994: 21/13/2 51%
1995: 26/12/3 58% and 28/13/6 on 60% with 3 blocks in the 95' finals
1996: 26/10/5 61%
1997: 27/11/3 51%
1998: 31/10/2 61%
1999: 27/12/2 51%

Other than 94' he always performed well in the playoffs. Yeah, 51% in 97' and 99' is down but it is the playoffs and you are facing better defenses.

[QUOTE]"Magically" became dominant? That track record clearly shows that by 88 the Bulls were on their way to becoming a great team, after a mere three(more like two) seasons with Jordan. What had they won beforehand?
[/QUOTE]

In other words, he needed a great team custom built around him to start winning and that took time.

[QUOTE]Shaq had an all-star backcourt with Penny, Anderson and Scott plus he had prime Horace Grant in the frontcourt with him, one of Jordan's ex-teammates[/QUOTE]

Grant went down in Game 1 of the 96' ECF. You can't cite Grant and then attack him for getting swept by the 72-10 Bulls. Anderson? Scott? ANDERSON! :roll: They choked in the NBA finals.

[QUOTE]Also, LA collapsed due to Shaq, Malone, GP and Phil Jackson leaving which magnified the collapse much moreso than if Shaq alone had left.[/QUOTE]

Really? Look at LA's record when Shaq was hurt from 2001-2003.

[QUOTE]See, this is what confuses me. [/QUOTE]

Ask Phil Jackson or Doug Collins the next time you see them. Jordan shot the ball more than [U]anyone[/U] in history. That is who you want as a PG? :wtf:

[QUOTE]Also, with Shaq you need an ALL-NBA guard like Penny, Kobe or Wade, then you would need to surround him with three point shooters like Robert Horry, Rick Fox and Glen Rice. You'd also need role players like Ron Harper or Horace Grant.[/QUOTE]

That is speculation. Just because he always had a great guard with him until Cleveland doesn't mean he "needed" one. Could he have won with a great SF like Lebron or Pippen? Yes. Using your logic Jordan "needed" a great SF and an all-star caliber PF. You are being too specific. Yeah, they both needed a great second teammate and good teams as a whole around them but to say they needed a particular position simply because Kobe, Wade happened to be SG's and Penny a combo guard is inaccurate as saying Jordan "needed" a SF and an all-star caliber PF. He needed a PF to rebound and play interior defense. He could get that from a C. What he needed Pippen for had little to do with being a SF and as we know Pippen was not a traditional SF.

[QUOTE]Jordan faced superior teams as well on his way to the ECF.[/QUOTE]

Shaq faced absolute peak Hakeem in 95', a 72-10 team in 96', the 60+ win Malone-Stockton Jazz in 97' and 98' and the Duncan-Robinson Spurs in 99'. It isn't as if Shaq was losing to Golden State a la the 07' Mavs.

[QUOTE]guy was great, has a case for being the GOAT, as some other playes in history too, but is there really a need to mystify him and put him on pedestal? Dude couldn't win ANYTHING in the 80's, apart from ballhoging and stat padding all the time, yet he is considered the "winner", and a guy like Shaq isn't one? GTFO of here with this nonsense.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]More Paul Bunyan myths surrounding Jordan. :oldlol: Look at Jordan's record:

38-44
9-9
40-42
50-32
47-35
55-27
61-21
67-15
57-25
13-4
72-10
69-13
62-20
30-30
37-45

He didn't "need" anything yet mysteriously his teams were average for a good chunk of his career then magically became dominant? Was 91' Jordan that much better than 87' or 88' Jordan? What changed was he needed a great team around him and he got it by 91'. :roll: @ the notion that MJ could carry a team by himself.

[/QUOTE]


LOL wow you are so damn sensitive. I'm pretty sure plowking didn't mean it literally. From the rest of his post, it sounds like he's saying that Shaq was way more dependent on his teammates then Jordan, which is absolutely true because of the fact that at times he was just a complete liability at the end of games.

As far as the topic goes, I'd go with Jordan for the above reason and he wasn't injured so much like Shaq was.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]He came along at the perfect time. Great point about Stern. Had MJ came along when Larry O'Brien was the commish he would not have become MJ the cultural icon he became. He would have been just another great players with a case for GOAT.[/quote]

That would be the same for every other great player that joined the NBA from 1980 and beyond, so....?



[quote]Shaq made the NBA finals with Brian Hill![/quote]

And prime Penny, prime Anderson, prime Grant....

[quote]Really? As far as peaks go yes but Pippen in 96' and 97'>Kobe from 00'-02'. How about third teammates? Did Shaq have a third HOFer like Dennis Rodman half the time?[/quote]

Actually, Shaq had Rodman in 1999! Guess what? Rodman hated it and left the team midseason. :lol



[quote]More Paul Bunyan myths. This is another example of why MJ is overrated. Pippen made Pippen. Did Jordan help him? Yeah, but teammates help teammates all the time and even retired players help others. [b]Only MJ fans claim that MJ "made" another player. No other fan group makes such an absurd claim.[/b] The hilarious thing is MJ fans only do it in the case of one player. Why hasn't Jordan "made" a HOFer in Washington and Charlotte? He can show up in practice and teach them what he did with Pippen. The "Jordan made Pippen" myth also ignores the fact that coaches exist and that other teammates exist. Collins played a huge role in developing Pippen and Grant. Other players like Oakley helped Pippen.[/QUOTE]

Here's an excerpt from [i]Who's Better, Who's Best?[/i] by Elliot Kalb.

[Quote]James Worthy had the television exposure, the flashy nickname("Big Game James") and the pedigree of Dean Smith from North Carolina. But Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were the reasons the Lakers won those titles. Put Jerome Kersey in Worthy's spot and Kersey has the rings.[/quote]

:(

[QUOTE]I'm pretty sure plowking didn't mean it literally.[/QUOTE]

Plowking thinks Jordan is [I]far and away[/I] the best basketball player ever so he probably did mean it.

You can argue Shaq was more dependent on his teammates in late game situations but over the course of 48 minutes and 82 games it can be argued Jordan was more dependent on having the "right" team around him.

[QUOTE]That would be the same for every other great player that joined the NBA from 1980 and beyond, so....?[/QUOTE]

No. Only MJ was the "chosen one."

[QUOTE]And prime Penny, prime Anderson, prime Grant....
[/QUOTE]

Prime Penny? How often is a player in his prime in his second season? Anderson choked in the NBA finals so bad that he never recovered from it.

[QUOTE]James Worthy had the television exposure, the flashy nickname("Big Game James") and the pedigree of Dean Smith from North Carolina. But Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were the reasons the Lakers won those titles. Put Jerome Kersey in Worthy's spot and Kersey has the rings.[/QUOTE]

And? He didn't say Kareem made Worthy a #1 draft pick. He didn't say Magic made him an elite player. All he said is he won rings because of them. He is wrong btw. Just compare Worthy's finals performances to Kersey's.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]

In other words, he needed a great team custom built around him to start winning and that took time.[/quote]

2-3 seasons to start winning 50+, and that was after missing the playoffs for multiple seasons beforehand.



[quote]Grant went down in Game 1 of the 96' ECF. You can't cite Grant and then attack him for getting swept by the 72-10 Bulls. Anderson? Scott? ANDERSON! :roll: They choked in the NBA finals.[/quote]

I was citing the 95 season, not 96. Also, Pippen has choked before too, but that doesn't make him any less great, does it?



[quote]Really? Look at LA's record when Shaq was hurt from 2001-2003.[/quote]

Yeah, I know. He was a major factor, but do you think a healthy Lakers roster and Phil Jackson couldn't have won 40-50 games the next season? Note that I said "healthy".

[quote]Ask Phil Jackson or Doug Collins the next time you see them. Jordan shot the ball more than [U]anyone[/U] in history. That is who you want as a PG?[/quote]

Yet he averaged 11 assist a game in the Finals? Did Phil chastise him for passing so much? If not, why? I thought Jordan couldn't be trusted to handle the ball and make plays?

[quote]That is speculation. Just because he always had a great guard with him until Cleveland doesn't mean he "needed" one. Could he have won with a great SF like Lebron or Pippen? Yes. Using your logic Jordan "needed" a great SF and an all-star caliber PF. You are being too specific. Yeah, they both needed a great second teammate and good teams as a whole around them but to say they needed a particular position simply because Kobe, Wade happened to be SG's and Penny a combo guard is inaccurate as saying Jordan "needed" a SF and an all-star caliber PF. He needed a PF to rebound and play interior defense. He could get that from a C. What he needed Pippen for had little to do with being a SF and as we know Pippen was not a traditional SF.[/quote]

So we both agree that they needed a great player to be on their side. Thanks.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]

No. Only MJ was the "chosen one."[/quote]

Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron? Really, they'd all be the same? Bird and Magic were the golden boys back in the 80s. Shaq, Kobe and Lebron have been the same for this past decade.

[quote]Prime Penny? How often is a player in his prime in his second season? Anderson choked in the NBA finals so bad that he never recovered from it.[/quote]

Penny was 21/7/4 and Anderson was 15/4/4. Also, check Pippen's early choke moments. I understand he had a migraine and that's not his fault, but that also means Jordan had a teammate who could barely see the rim, and that guy is the one who's supposed to be the team's second option. Plus, Pip had a bad game six in 89, too.

[quote]And? He didn't say Kareem made Worthy a #1 draft pick. He didn't say Magic made him an elite player. All he said is he won rings because of them. He is wrong btw. Just compare Worthy's finals performances to Kersey's.[/QUOTE]

I agree he's wrong. He's also implying that Kersey would have basically done the exact same things as Worthy, though, like scoring 20 points a game on 55% shooting. That's what I got from his comment.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]

You can argue Shaq was more dependent on his teammates in late game situations but over the course of 48 minutes and 82 games it can be argued Jordan was more dependent on having the "right" team around him.
[/QUOTE]

Not really. IMO if two teams are pretty close in talent, its most of the time going to be a close game through at least the first 3-3.5 quarters and the thing that eventually separates two teams is how well they closeout. Take the Spurs-Suns rivalry for example. Almost every game those two teams have is a close game, and it usually ends with a Spurs win. Why's that? Cause they closeout better cause there one of the best defensive teams while the Suns are one of the worst.

You can say one needed a better team around them for certain parts of the games, but the difference isn't that significant EXCEPT for the end of games where both of them were almost exact opposites. Both Shaq and Jordan no matter what team they were on usually made games close and when they lost its just cause the other team had the overall firepower to close out better. Now I'm not saying the first 3.5 quarters don't matter, it clearly does. All I'm saying is even if you want to argue that Jordan needed more help through the first 3.5 quarters, which I don't necessarily agree with, that insignificant difference would not outweigh the enormous difference there is at the end of a game.

[QUOTE]2-3 seasons to start winning 50+, and that was after missing the playoffs for multiple seasons beforehand.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah--50. This is a thread comparing him to Shaq. Shaq inherited a 21 win team (Jordan inherited a 27 win team) that had been in the NBA for only a few years and never sniffed the playoffs. Shaq took them to 41 wins in year one, 50 in his second year, 57 and the NBA finals in his third. That does not compare to going from 27 to 38, going 9-9, then coming back for a full season and lifting your team only 10 more wins from the previous year (40-42). Of course, Shaq did luck into Penny in his second year to be fair.

[QUOTE]I was citing the 95 season, not 96.[/QUOTE]

Yeah--and Anderson and Scott played poorly in the NBA finals.

[QUOTE]Also, Pippen has choked before too, but that doesn't make him any less great, does it?[/QUOTE]

No, but it makes him the excuse for Jordan losing in 1990 even though Jordan's bullying is the reason he was playing in the first place when he was in no condition to play. The point is this: if we blame teammates whenever Jordan lost (and we know when he won it was all him) we need to look at the teammates of the player he is being compared to. What MJ fans consistently do is blame the team for Jordan losing from 1985-1990 and 2002-03 yet attack Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, or anyone else being compared to MJ for losing. Why? They lost, period. MJ fans never look at their teammates or context in their cases.

[QUOTE]Yeah, I know. He was a major factor, but do you think a healthy Lakers roster and Phil Jackson couldn't have won 40-50 games the next season? Note that I said "healthy".[/QUOTE]

Here is what the Lakers did without Shaq from 2001-03:

2001: 51-23 (69%) with him, 5-3 (63%) without him
2002: 51-16 (76%) with him, 7-8 (47%) without him
2003: 45-22 (67%) with him, 5-10 (33%) without him

Hell, let's add 2004. 49-18 (73%) with him, 7-18 (47%) without him. The record speaks for itself. With him they were championship caliber teams; without him they were not even 0.500. They were a measely 24-39. I am sorry, I just don't believe Jordan added this much value to his team. Shaq was replaced by a legit NBA player. Imagine if they replaced him with a D-League level player...

[QUOTE]Yet he averaged 11 assist a game in the Finals? Did Phil chastise him for passing so much? If not, why? I thought Jordan couldn't be trusted to handle the ball and make plays?[/QUOTE]

You cherry picked a five game sample. AI was top 10 in assists four times and top 5 once. He shot the ball less than Jordan. Yet he is considered a ballhog? Would you really want the player who took more shots than[B] anyone[/B] in the history of the league to be your PG? You may say yes but I strongly doubt you actually believe that.

[QUOTE]So we both agree that they needed a great player to be on their side.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but that is not the point of contention. The dispute is over who is easier to build around and the record strongly suggests Shaq is. So does history with respect to building around dominant centers versus dominant guards. In other words, imo the odds of winning with Shaq are greater than Jordan. Jordan has more "needs." Shaq just needs a good perimeter player and that is pretty much it. Jordan needs a special kind of faux PG like Paxson or Harper (a career SG...) and some mystery person to serve as the primary ballhandler who doesn't need the ball as much as a traditional PG. Think about this. In effect you cannot have a great PG with MJ. That means you are not going to have a great player at the position since every great PG functions like a typical PG who needs the ball a lot to be effective. That leaves three positions. You need to strike lightening with a great SF, PF, or C--and one of them probably has to be versatile enough to serve as the primary ballhandler. That all but eliminates the C option. Even if you give him a great C you need someone to run the offense. You basically would need a Pippen, Hill, or Garnett type to win with Jordan.

[QUOTE]Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron? Really, they'd all be the same? Bird and Magic were the golden boys back in the 80s. Shaq, Kobe and Lebron have been the same for this past decade.[/QUOTE]

MJ paved the way for Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron. Bird and Magic were not on the same level as MJ as far as marketing goes. Read Halberstam. He talks about the confluence of events that combined to make MJ the icon he is and that includes Stern and timing. If he showed up in 1980 he would not stand out over Magic and Bird. If he showed up in 1974 or 1964 he simply could not become the marketing phenomenon he became due to racism.

[QUOTE]Penny was 21/7/4 and Anderson was 15/4/4.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but Penny lacked experience. He had a total of 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995. Anderson was a very good player--until the 95' finals and he never recovered from that epic chokejob.

[QUOTE]check Pippen's early choke moments. I understand he had a migraine and that's not his fault, but Jordan had a teammate who could barely see the rim[/QUOTE]

Exactly. So why did Jordan bully him into playing? Did he do it so he could have the safety valve of his fans blaming his teammate for him losing 20 years later? Well, he was always clutch. :oldlol:

[QUOTE]Pip had a bad game six in 89, too. [/QUOTE]

Yeah--since he was injured. This is what annoys me about MJ fans. I like you btw but even you do this. When it comes to everyone else all that matters is what they did. Shaq lost, period. Kareem won only once on the 70's, period. Pippen played bad, period. And on and on. Yet when it comes to St. Michael we have to look at context. We have to look at his teammates. Pippen was freaking injured and MJ fans ignore that and shamefully call a guy who performed extraordinarily in the NBA finals year after year a choker. Even in 1990 he had a very good playoff run until the migraine. You condemn Pippen for a poor game when he was injured yet ignore Nick Anderson pulling off a world-class choke when healthy in the 95' finals when it comes to Shaq? :confusedshrug:

BTW, Jordan had some choke moment" too yet MJ fans act as if he always played well in big games. Yeah, he was one of the most clutch players ever but he was not a god. Everyone has some bad games, whether it is Jordan Pippen or legends in other sports like Joe Montana (clutch but again even he had some bad games).

[QUOTE]You can say one needed a better team around them for certain parts of the games, but the difference isn't that significant EXCEPT for the end of games where both of them were almost exact opposites. Both Shaq and Jordan no matter what team they were on usually made games close and when they lost its just cause the other team had the overall firepower to close out better. Now I'm not saying the first 3.5 quarters don't matter, it clearly does. All I'm saying is even if you want to argue that Jordan needed more help through the first 3.5 quarters, which I don't necessarily agree with, that insignificant difference would not outweigh the enormous difference there is at the end of a game.[/QUOTE]

Once they had great teams around them Shaq was a bit more team dependent for the reasons you stated. What I am arguing is Shaq could do more with a random team and is easier to build around.

lol @ Roundball's incessant anti-MJ trolling. Every topic, he's there with the same shtick. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]lol @ Roundball's incessant anti-MJ trolling. Every topic, he's there with the same shtick. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Your take on the OP?

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]lol @ Roundball's incessant anti-MJ trolling. Every topic, he's there with the same shtick. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

This coming from a guy who supposedly (Loki?) has been banned previously for trolling. :roll:

Shaq has a case for being more valuable to his team in his prime than Jordan. Deal with it.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]

Once they had great teams around them Shaq was a bit more team dependent for the reasons you stated. What I am arguing is Shaq could do more with a random team and is easier to build around.[/QUOTE]

What? He was more dependent for those reasons regardless of teams. It would've been even worse for Shaq if he was on bad teams and didn't have other players to go to in the clutch. Thats not the case with Jordan on bad teams, who many times would actually carry a team to make it close and then be the primary reason for still having a great chance on actually winning the game, which is why I have to disagree on the Shaq being able to do more with a random team claim.

And I really don't think Shaq is easier to build around. Sure Shaq was the dominant C but the guy had way more shortcomings then Jordan: horrible FT shooting, injury-prone, out of shape at times, foul-prone, dramatic, etc. Jordan, Magic, and Bird, and maybe Lebron and Kobe are the exception to the "always take a dominant big over small" rule.