2000 Shaquille O'Neal vs 1991 Michael Jordan

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Agreed IMO.

I'd take Jordan simply because 4th quarter, close game ... I think he's a far superior player in that situation, and that situation inevitably arises several times if you want to win a title.

Shaq got swept and beat in the playoffs with some pretty stacked teams, Jordan never got beat in the playoffs once he had a solid team around him (we'll exclude '95 because he was not 100%, and that was a .500 supporting cast).

C- Paris Hilton (sub anyone in here)
PF- Malone
SF- Kobe
SG- Jordan
PG- Payton

Ain't losing to the Pistons in '04.[/QUOTE]

They lose as well if Kobe decides to chuck again. Not really Shaq's fault they lost that NBA Finals.

but as for the question, Jordan was a complete player. I'd pick Shaq before Jordan if i never knew how their careers were going to turn out. it was an absolute no brainer to pick Shaq because of how easy it was to build around him.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Jordan on the 96-2004 Lakers wins more titles than Shaq IMO.

They'd probably keep Elden Campbell ... though Elden was definitely no Shaq, he was far better than any center Jordan played with in Chicago.

C- Campbell > Cartwright/Longley
PF- Horry = Grant/Rodman
SF- Kobe > Pippen (sorry Pip)
SG- Jordan = Jordan
PG- Fisher > Paxson/Harper (slightly)

That team would probably win 6-8 titles IMO.[/QUOTE]

Not sure about that, Shaq and Kobe is a better fit than Jordan and Kobe.

If you swap Shaq and Jordan. Shaq/Pippen would do better than Jordan/Kobe. Imo. Kobe and Jordan are just too similar.

[QUOTE=DuMa]They lose as well if Kobe decides to chuck again. Not really Shaq's fault they lost that NBA Finals.

but as for the question, Jordan was a complete player. I'd pick Shaq before Jordan if i never knew how their careers were going to turn out. it was an absolute no brainer to pick Shaq because of how easy it was to build around him.[/QUOTE]

That's the thing though ... as a guard, Jordan simply had more control of the game.

With Shaq ... because of his limited shooting range, poor free throw shooting, etc. ... sometimes the game got out of his control.

Whereas with Jordan, 2 minutes left, your team down by two .... you have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen.

Shaq lost to teams in the playoffs with supporting casts that Jordan never would lose to IMO.

[QUOTE=laronprofit9]Not sure about that, Shaq and Kobe is a better fit than Jordan and Kobe.

If you swap Shaq and Jordan. Shaq/Pippen would do better than Jordan/Kobe. Imo. Kobe and Jordan are just too similar.[/QUOTE]

Well Pippen and Jordan were pretty similar too ... besides how the hell would you stop Jordan and Kobe on the floor at one time?

Who do you double?

You have to play one of them single coverage .... good luck with that.
The other nightmare would be that Phil could keep 1 of the 2 on the floor at all times ... your bench? Gonna get torched one way or another.

Kobe would score more than Pippen, but that's OK, since Horry/Fisher/Campbell aren't exactly guys who demand shots.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Agreed IMO.

I'd take Jordan simply because 4th quarter, close game ... I think he's a far superior player in that situation, and that situation inevitably arises several times if you want to win a title.

Shaq got swept and beat in the playoffs with some pretty stacked teams, Jordan never got beat in the playoffs once he had a solid team around him (we'll exclude '95 because he was not 100%, and that was a .500 supporting cast).

C- Paris Hilton (sub anyone in here)
PF- Malone
SF- Kobe
SG- Jordan
PG- Payton

Ain't losing to the Pistons in '04.[/QUOTE]

there's no way you could have MJ and Kobe on the same team... lol. That'd be stupid.

And you do realize it was Kobe's fault they lost that year... period.

-Smak

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Well Pippen and Jordan were pretty similar too ... besides how the hell would you stop Jordan and Kobe on the floor at one time?

Who do you double?

You have to play one of them single coverage .... good luck with that.
The other nightmare would be that Phil could keep 1 of the 2 on the floor at all times ... your bench? Gonna get torched one way or another.

Kobe would score more than Pippen, but that's OK, since Horry/Fisher/Campbell aren't exactly guys who demand shots.[/QUOTE]

I think that on talent alone Kobe and Jordan coul out play Shaq and Pippen.
Jordan is the best player playing off-the ball out of the 4. If need be, Kobe could ball-handle, and Jordan could play off of him. Jordan was fantastic moving without the basketball, that is probably the main area where he has an advantage over Kobe in terms of approach to the game. Jordan did a lot of his scoring off-the ball in his second three-peat. Plus his jumper was money. Because Kobe's jumper is just as or even more consistent than Jordan's, Jordan would receive pass from Kobe in high post, Jordan gets doubled. Passes back to Kobe for an open elbow-wing 15-18 footer.

Everything about the Pippen and Shaq combo would be perfect though. Great Defense, and Pippen is more of a play-maker than Jordan or Kobe imo. The only weakness is that Pippen wasn't that great of shooter and definitely not as good as Kobe and Jordan. I think a good jump-shooter that doesn't haven't to get in a clogged up paint with Shaq in it to score would be far more helpful in the long run for both players.

I think the jump-shot factor might tip the scales toward Jordan and Kobe. However, I still prefer a wing/bigman combo over wing/wing.

[QUOTE=ILLsmak]there's no way you could have MJ and Kobe on the same team... lol. That'd be stupid.

And you do realize it was Kobe's fault they lost that year... period.

-Smak[/QUOTE]

Jordan wouldn't lose that series even if he had to break Kobe's knees to stop him from chucking (though I imagine Kobe would probably stop before it got to that :oldlol: ... he could get easy points playing the Pistons bench).

That's one thing about Shaq/Kobe Lakers ... when things are going good ... it's great. But when things go bad ... it can fall off the tracks and sometimes got really ugly.

Jordan simply had a overpowering will to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat every time the Bulls looked like they were teetering on the brink, he'd usually bring them back.

Shaq is great, but he never had that level of control over the game.

[QUOTE=laronprofit9]I think that on talent alone Kobe and Jordan coul out play Shaq and Pippen.
Jordan is the best player playing off-the ball out of the 4. If need be, Kobe could ball-handle, and Jordan could play off of him. Jordan was fantastic moving without the basketball, that is probably the main area where he has an advantage over Kobe in terms of approach to the game. Jordan did a lot of his scoring off-the ball in his second three-peat. Plus his jumper was money. Because Kobe's jumper is just as or even more consistent than Jordan's, Jordan would receive pass from Kobe in high post, Jordan gets doubled. Passes back to Kobe for an open elbow-wing 15-18 footer.

Everything about the Pippen and Shaq combo would be perfect though. Great Defense, and Pippen is more of a play-maker than Jordan or Kobe imo. The only weakness is that Pippen wasn't that great of shooter and definitely not as good as Kobe and Jordan. I think a good jump-shooter that doesn't haven't to get in a clogged up paint with Shaq in it to score would be far more helpful in the long run for both players.

I think the jump-shot factor might tip the scales toward Jordan and Kobe. However, I still prefer a wing/bigman combo over wing/wing.[/QUOTE]

Except in the clutch ... I hate to say it ... but Scottie could be rattled.

There's a reason why pretty much every single huge clutch shot during the Bulls runs was either from Jordan, or wide open looks to Paxson or Kerr.

I don't think Shaq/Pippen would be all that much different from Shaq/Penny and look what the '96 Bulls did to them.

Jordan never lost a series where he had equal or more talent on paper going into a series. Shaq lost several.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Except in the clutch ... I hate to say it ... but Scottie could be rattled.

There's a reason why pretty much every single huge clutch shot during the Bulls runs was either from Jordan, or wide open looks to Paxson or Kerr.

I don't think Shaq/Pippen would be all that much different from Shaq/Penny and look what the '96 Bulls did to them.[/QUOTE]

We're talking about 2000 Shaq not Magic Shaq. This is the ultimate version of Shaq plus they had Phil Jackson coaching. Makes a big difference.

2000 Shaq is arguably the greatest year by a single player. It's comparable to any season by Jordan or any other all-time great.

[QUOTE=laronprofit9]We're talking about 2000 Shaq not Magic Shaq. This is the ultimate version of Shaq plus they had Phil Jackson coaching. Makes a big difference.

2000 Shaq is arguably the greatest year by a single player. It's comparable to any season by Jordan or any other all-time great.[/QUOTE]

You mean you get either one only for one year? Even that case it's a wash, because you're winning the championship either way as long as you have a decent-to-good supporting cast.

If it's a situation where you have them for multiple years, I take Jordan, just because his will to dominate the game would make the difference in probably more than a few of the series' in which Shaq got beat.

Especially if you're starting a franchise from scratch ... the Lakers were really lucky to poach Kobe from the Hornets like that ... if they didn't, 4th quarter ... close game ... Shaq becomes a much more limited option.

If you sub the same age Jordan for Shaq, I think the Lakers chances of winning the title in '96, '97, '98, '99, 2003, 2004 (years that Shaq lost) are much, much higher.

Outside of maybe his rookie season, I don't think Shaq has ever played on a team that wasn't at least "above average" in talent if not flat-out stacked.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]You mean you get either one only for one year? Even that case it's a wash, because you're winning the championship either way as long as you have a decent-to-good supporting cast.

If it's a situation where you have them for multiple years, I take Jordan, just because his will to dominate the game would make the difference in probably more than a few of the series' in which Shaq got beat.

Especially if you're starting a franchise from scratch ... the Lakers were really lucky to poach Kobe from the Hornets like that ... if they didn't, 4th quarter ... close game ... Shaq becomes a much more limited option.

If you sub the same age Jordan for Shaq, I think the Lakers win the title in '96, '97, '98, '99, 2003, 2004 (years that Shaq lost) with the same supporting players.[/QUOTE]

Look Jordan never played with anbody as good as Kobe. However, I think Jordan's Bulls had better role players than the Lakers.

Kobe>Pippen
Bulls Rest of supporting Cast>Lakers Rest of supporting Cast

Rodman and Grant were better rebounders than anbody on the Lakers outside of Shaq. Lakers didn't have anyone like Kukoc, and the best player the Lakers had after Kobe in 2000 was Glen Rice. Who hardly did anything in the playoffs.

I'd take 91 Jordan over 2001 and 2002 Shaq especially during the regular season. Playoffs is a lot closer, but I would have a hard time picking any season from Jordan over 2000 Shaq without it being a close debate. I could see either going vice-versa. But no way, is one side clearly favored.

Put a 2000 form Shaq on any of the Bulls teams during the 90s, and they will win the championship that year.

2000 Kobe was a borderline allstar/superstar player. He didn't become a true superstar until the 2000-2001 season. Kobe was probably a top 15 player in the 2000. After that he's been about top 5 every year since.

2000 Kobe was about equal to 1991 Pippen. This is no smite at Kobe, 1991 Pippen is a great player. Should be a compliment for Kobe at such a young age.

[QUOTE=laronprofit9]Look Jordan never played with anbody as good as Kobe. However, I think Jordan's Bulls had better role players than the Lakers.

Kobe>Pippen
Bulls Rest of supporting Cast>Lakers Rest of supporting Cast

Rodman and Grant were better rebounders than anbody on the Lakers outside of Shaq. Lakers didn't have anyone like Kukoc, and the best player the Lakers had after Kobe in 2000 was Glen Rice. Who hardly did anything in the playoffs.

I'd take 91 Jordan over 2001 and 2002 Shaq especially during the regular season. Playoffs is a lot closer, but I would have a hard time picking any season from Jordan over 2000 Shaq without it being a close debate. I could see either going vice-versa. But no way, is one side clearly favored.

Put a 2000 form Shaq on any of the Bulls teams during the 90s, and they will win the championship that year.

2000 Kobe was a borderline allstar/superstar player. He didn't become a true superstar until the 2000-2001 season. Kobe was probably a top 15 player in the 2000. After that he's been about top 5 every year since.

2000 Kobe was about equal to 1991 Pippen. This is no smite at Kobe, 1991 Pippen is a great player. Should be a compliment for Kobe at such a young age.[/QUOTE]

Elden Campbell obviously wouldn't be traded if there was no Shaq though, and he's better than any center Jordan ever played with.

Horry is about equal to Rodman (better offense), Grant (better clutch play).

Kobe is better than Pippen

Fisher is better than Paxson/Harper/Kerr

Rick Fox is comparable to Kukoc. Better probably if you factor in defense.

Shaq's always had very good supporting casts. Penny + Grant + Anderson + Scott is probably deeper than the Bulls if you put Jordan in there.

I doubt Shaq would win the title in any of the years Jordan lost with the same supporting cast (ie-- 7-14 ppg "migrane" version Pippen as the no.2 option).

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Elden Campbell obviously wouldn't be traded if there was no Shaq though, and he's better than any center Jordan ever played with.

Horry is about equal to Rodman (better offense), Grant (better clutch play).

Kobe is better than Pippen

Fisher is better than Paxson/Harper/Kerr

Rick Fox is comparable to Kukoc. Better probably if you factor in defense.

Shaq's always had very good supporting casts. Penny + Grant + Anderson + Scott is probably deeper than the Bulls if you put Jordan in there.[/QUOTE]

2000 Kobe wasn't better than 1991 Pippen. If he was, it was by the slimest of margins that it doesn't even matter.

Rodman is better than Horry.

Horry was a bench player (2000)averaging

5.7ppg/4.8rpg/1.6apg on 44%FG

Meanwhile Rodman with the Bulls had

5.5ppg/[B]14.9rpg[/B]/2.5apg on 45%FG

Regardless Rodman never played in 1991.

Meanwhile Horace Grant from 91-93 posted up

14ppg/9rpg/2apg on 55%FG
15ppg/10rpg/3apg on 58%FG
13ppg/10rpg/3apg on 51%FG

Starting PG's Ron Harper(Lakers) John Paxson(Bulls)

Harper
7ppg/4rpg/3apg on 40%FG/31%3P/68%FT 26mpg
Paxson
9ppg/1rpg/4apg on 55%FG/44%3P/83%FT 24mpg

Back-up PG Derek Fisher(Lakers) B.J. Armstrong(Bulls)

Fisher
6ppg/2rpg/3apg on 35%FG/31%3P/72%FT 23mpg
Armstrong
9ppg/2rpg/4apg on 48%FG/50%3P/87%FT 21mpg

Bulls had the advantage at point.

I don't think you can really justify the Lakers having a better supporting cast than the Bulls.

The 2000 Lakers supporting cast outside of Kobe/Shaq were at best only as good or worse than the supporting of the 1991 Bulls supporting cast outside of Pippen/Jordan.

Shaq shot 57% as a center. Jordan as a GUARD had a 54% FG average. amazing. Most importantly, Jordan won it all without an elite center in '91. Even in 2000, Shaq needs an allstar caliber guard to compete for a title (infact always be it penny, kobe, dwyane wade). Case closed right there. Winner is 91 Jordan.

[QUOTE=StarJordan]Shaq shot 57% as a center. Jordan as a GUARD had a 54% FG average. amazing. Most importantly, Jordan won it all without an elite center in '91. Even in 2000, Shaq needs an allstar caliber guard to compete for a title (infact always be it penny, kobe, dwyane wade). Case closed right there. Winner is 91 Jordan.[/QUOTE]

Jordan had an all-star caliber teammate in Pippen.

Jordan's '91 teammates were about as good or you could even argue slightly better than Shaq's '00 teammates.

Remember 2000 Kobe wasn't quite a superstar yet, but he was really damn close to that level.

2000 Kobe and 1991 Pippen were just about equal.

However 2001 and on, Kobe would be/was a better player than Pippen would ever be.