2000 Shaquille O'Neal vs 1991 Michael Jordan

i agree with you, Phil Jackson helped a llot shaq, in the leadership and the defensive hand. but don't you that this factor plus the end of the big men help him a lot?
i mean, at the beginning of this season, i remember saying that the lakers will dominate and win the title (incredible it happened, i use to pick the wrong horse) we knew that even if mourning, mutombo would have great season, shaq would demolish them easily. the only question was what will do the last champion...shaq was promised to lead the league as soon as the old generation retired. it would be more impressive if he won his titles against the beast.
For the 98 WCF, yeah the Jazz defended very well on Van Exel. horry was like absent...it's in this case, i like olajuwon who can make dribble and move with the ball. when shaq is playing in the low post, the offense doesn't move anymore.
for my part, 94/95 shaq is the second best season i've seen of him, behind the 99/00. i have 4 of the 5 nyk-orl meeting and he litteraly killed the old Pat on each game !

i really don't like advanced stats, and all stats, in this case of the defensive rating, you don't know how many mid court attack, transition basket and fastbreak points there are...i find all stats too reducer and always incomplete.

hope you enjoyed the games i upped. unfortunately, i was tired of some people who upload all my and preben's games on other site like mixmakers...some games cost a lot, they understand/respect nothing...

now you can type "necya" on google and find until the 16th page games i have ripped !!:oldlol:

Kobe was not going to win if Shaq got the MVP... it's as simple as that.

Another thing about Shaq and his comp is you have to take into account direct comp is not applicable for a C. The teams that were good against Shaq had a large front line and someone who could bang with him. When you take that into account... Mutombo, Zo... and even Hakeem were not as good as someone like Sabonis. The best competition for Shaq would be a C that was huge and could bang and also would make him go out to guard him and take him out of his game.

It's just totally different. As Shaq said in his quote about Kobe, guards have the ball more. Cs need to be delivered the ball at the right time, and if the defense knows what's happening the help can come almost instantly. Take that into account and that Shaq was still murdering... it's pretty amazing.

But like I said before, you can't really be a GOAT level player as a C because of what I listed. Your team can starve you off from the ball or the defense can deny you the ball or force you to give it up so much more easily than if you are a guard.

-Smak

[QUOTE=Calabis]I think you should rewatch that series, Kobe Bryant's shot jacking is much to blame for the Lakers offensive woes, he took too many ill advised shots, spent to much time trying to go one on one,.... this detracted from the offense, guys need balls in spots by running the offense, Bryant killed any hope of running a offense with his "me first" attitude. You need consistency on offense...he failed to provide that by not taking shots created by the offense for himself and teammates.

10-27
14-27
4-13
8-25
7-21

Kobe 113 shots, Shaq who was dominating 84 shots[/QUOTE]

I did watch that series. Yes Kobe was PART of the problem, but there were a bunch of other factors.

The Pistons had better speed and athleticism on their entire roster. The Lakers were old and the Pistons had youth on their side. The Lakers just looked a step slower than the Pistons the entire series watching them play against each other. When you watched the game, even the ABC commentators were mentioning it. The Pistons had the Lakers number that year. It was a bad matchup more than anything for the Lakers just going by position by position. Sort of like how the Warriors had the Mavericks number in 2007 playoffs.

Payton was getting absolutely destroyed by Billups that series.

It was going to take more than just Kobe giving up shots to Shaq. The Lakers lost by big margins in the series.

Yes it would've helped, Kobe giving the ball to Shaq to make the game closer. But the Pistons had an advantage that the Lakers could nothing about. They exploited it the entire series. They were losing by double-digits seemingly the entire time.

Shaq would've been dominant regardless of competition.

I hate when people say Olajuwon just schooled Shaq.

Shaq posted up arguably equal stats in that '95 Finals.

Shaq '95 Finals
28ppg/12.5rpg/6.3apg/0.3spg/2.5bpg on 60%FG

Hakeem '95 Finals
32.8ppg/11.5rpg/5.5apg/2.0spg/2.0bpg on 48%FG

Mind you this was against Hakeem at his absolute peak, and he is widely considered one of the greatest centers of all-time. And 2000 Shaq was a better player than 1995 Shaq.

Shaq proceeded to DOMINATE DPOY Mutombo in the 2001 Finals
33ppg/15.8rpg/4.8apg/0.4spg/3.4bpg on 57%FG

I don't know one player who actually held Shaq to under his statisical averages by a margin that was significant to impact the game. He was absolutely un-containable. Maybe even more so than Jordan.

A 2000 Shaq would've put up 30ppg on 57%FG on any center in the league. I Don't think anybody could stop him.

Considering a 1995 Shaq put up 28ppg on 60%FG against Prime Hakeem. What makes people think a 2000 Shaq couldn't do the same or better against Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, etc...

lol @ morons continuing to blame kobe for the 04 finals when that series wasn't even close and everybody played like garbage outside of shaq. kobe could have put up his usual averages from that year (24/5/5/43%) and the lakers still would have lost. the pistons blew them out in that series. it wasn't even close.

3. Devean George 39%
4. Luke Walton 39%
5. Kobe Bryant 38%
6. Stanislav Medvedenko 35%
7. Karl Malone 33%
8. Gary Payton 32%
9. Kareem Rush 32%
10. Derek Fisher 31%
11. Brian Cook 17%
12. Bryon Russell 0%


yup. its all kobe's fault. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Actually, I think Mourning played pretty well vs Olajuwon because Mourning use to struggle with the bigger elite centers, but Olajuwon was closer to his size despite being listed at 7 feet.
[/QUOTE]
Perfect example of statistics not telling the whole story since 'Zo stated Hakeem was the toughest center he played against.
[QUOTE]--[b]Mourning said Hakeem Olajuwon was the toughest player he ever played against.[/b] Mourning agrees with Dan that Hakeem is above Shaq and Ewing.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/blog/58862/index.html?eref=fromSI[/url]

As I've stated before, I don't think there is a large gap between prime Shaq and prime Jordan. What really separates the two is that Jordan's prime lasted much longer than Shaq's prime (that and it is Jordan's skill that made him so great while Shaq's physical presence is what made him so great).

This is a very close comparison, and it comes down to Jordan's versatility vs Shaq's Big-Man Physical Presence.

Shaq couldn't dribble the ball up court or shoot free throws well. But Shaq commanded triple teams that Michael Jordan didn't. I mean Jordan got tripled at times, but not at the rate Shaq did. Also by teams fouling Shaq intentionally it would thin-out the big men on the opposing team. Shaq was flat-out intimidating in the paint, Jordan doesn't have that type of menacing presence Shaq did.

A Big Man can generally effect a game in a lot of ways a guard cant. Which is the type of advantage that Shaq has over Jordan.

However, Jordan was a more complete well-rounded player. Making him more versatile as opposed to his peers at the sg position. As opposed to Shaq's versatility opposed to his peers at the C position.

Who you pick, I think matters on the type of personell you have. You'd probably win the championship with either players.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-7hwDaBbaE[/url]

Game 1 2000 Playoffs Lakers vs Kings

Shaq

46 Points 17 Rebounds 1 Assist 5 Blocks 21/33 FGS(64%)

Since shaq came into the league in 1992, i think Jordan led teams have a overall winning record against shaq led teams.

Shaq by a mile. Shaq was unstoppable, constant double and triple teams on him through the whole season.

[QUOTE=necya]
for my part, 94/95 shaq is the second best season i've seen of him, behind the 99/00. i have 4 of the 5 nyk-orl meeting and he litteraly killed the old Pat on each game ![/QUOTE]

I think that 2000-2001 was easily Shaq's second best year. He was basically the same player as 1999-2000, though he started slower. I don't want to criticize Kobe too much, because he was unbelievable in the 2001 playoffs, the second best player in those playoffs behind O'Neal, IMO, but part of the Lakers slow start was Kobe's early season chucking when some teammates claimed that he stated he wanted an MVP and scoring title like Shaq the previous year.

But in the end, Shaq had a monster year. He averaged 29/13/4/3 on a league leading 57% from the field and had his second straight playoff run with over 30 ppg and 15 rpg.

He stepped up big in Kobe's absence during the season, leading the Lakers to an 11-3 record without Kobe while averaging 32/12/4/3 on 56% shooting in those games.

In the playoffs, he was unbelievable.

He opened up the Sacramento series with 44 points, 21 rebounds, 4 assists and 7 blocks. In game 2, he followed that up with 43 points, 20 rebounds and 3 blocks on 69% shooting. In game 3 vs the Spurs, he had 35 points, 17 rebounds and 3 assists on 70% shooting in just 35 minutes as the Lakers blew out the Spurs by 39 points. He opened up the finals vs the defensive player of the year Dikembe Mutombo with 44 points, 20 rebounds and 5 blocks and followed it up with a near quadruple double posting a line 28 points, 20 rebounds, 9 assists and 8 blocks. For the series, he averaged 33/16/5/3 on 57% shooting vs Mutombo who won his 4th DPOY award that year and made the 7 of his 8 career all-star teams.

Overall in those playoffs, he had five 20/20 games, three of which were 40/20 games.

So here are my rankings for Shaq's 3 best seasons.

1.1999-2000
2.2000-2001
3.2001-2002

After the first 2, it becomes trickier. He had a great year in 1994-1995, he had improved his skills from his first 2 seasons, become a better franchise player, improved his passing which was integral to Orlando's 3 point attack.

But in 2001-2002, his cast wasn't as good and with him they were 51-16, but without him, just 7-8. And his offensive game was more polished by that point, he also had a big 41/17 game facing elimination for Sacramento and in the game, he had 12 fourth quarter points. He followed it up with 35/13/4 to win game 7 on the road in OT. In the finals, he had another historic series averaging 36/12/4/3 on 60% shooting. Also, despite being injured in the WCSF, he did an excellent job defensively on Duncan, particularly late in games. Duncan was abusing Horry and Samaki Walker at times, but O'Neal's post defense was very impressive. In fact, Duncan was criticized for his play down the stretch in the series, but some of the credit has to go to Shaq. And he shot 65% from the line in the playoffs, much better than what he normally shot.

I also think the '98 version was one of the best, he was more skilled than the Orlando version, but injuries killed his MVP chances. However, he did average 30.5 ppg on 61% shooting in the playoffs and he was the best player on a 61 win team.

The 1993-1994 version was right up there statistically, he averaged 29/13/3, on a league best 60% shooting had a 53/18/4 game on 71% shooting in just 36 minutes and he also had 24/28/15 on 63% shooting in just 36 minutes. But ultimately, he was raw compared to the older versions and relied more on athleticism for more dunks and less post moves. He also lacked the maturity as evidenced by his subpar playoff performance, but I'll excuse that to some extent because it was his first series.

[QUOTE]i really don't like advanced stats, and all stats, in this case of the defensive rating, you don't know how many mid court attack, transition basket and fastbreak points there are...i find all stats too reducer and always incomplete.
[/QUOTE]

I hate advanced stats most of the time, particularly when used to evaluate individual players, but in the case of defensive rating for teams, I think it's excellent.

Here are some examples.

The 1986 Celtics allowed 104.7 ppg and were the best defensive team in the league with a defensive rating of 102.6.
The 1983 Nets allowed 103 ppg and were the best defensive team in the league with a defensive rating of 98.9.

The 2010 Bobcats allowed just 93.8 ppg and were the best defensive team in the league, however their defensive rating was 102.8.

As you can see, despite the 80's examples allowing much more points than the 2010 Bobcats, they played at a much faster pace and as a result, more possessions for the other team to score. Defensive rating factors this in and determines that the '83 Nets and '86 Celtics were better defensive teams.

But in general, more fastbreaks often do mean weaker defense because it's harder to score vs a set up half court defense than it is in transition.

By the way, what do you think Jordan's best season was? I can't decide between 1990 or 1991, I have to watch some more 1991 games.

Regarding the 2004 finals, I think the majority of the blame should be placed on Kobe considering the amount of shots he was taking. Shaq dropped 34/11 on 13/16 shooting while Kobe had 25/4/4, but on 10/27 shooting and this wasn't a game they couldn't have won, they led at halftime and still only trailed by six entering the 4th.

In game 4, they were actually tied heading into the 4th, and they could've tied the series. Shaq had 36/20 on 16/21 shooting while Kobe had 20/0/2 on 8/25 shooting.

Kobe doesn't deserve all of the blame, Payton embarrassed himself at both ends and nobody else aside from Shaq stepped up, but considering the ridiculous amount of shots he took, the type of shots he took and the lack of success on those shots, he deserves more blame for that series than anyone else. Shaq's lack of shots can be partially attributed to Kobe's selfish play.

But Shaq was also responsible for the Laker break up and chemistry problems, so Kobe can't be the only one blamed for that.

Shaq lost in '95, '96, '97, '98, '99, '03, and '04 on some very talented teams.

Lets not forget that when saying "unstoppable". Obviously teams found a way to beat him.

Jordan never lost a playoff series once he got a good supporting cast around him. Teams could beat him, but only when he had a garbage supporting cast or no All-Star player to compliment him.

I think Shaq was amazing, he and Jordan are the most dominant individual forces of the past 30 years in the NBA (in their prime), but if you're splitting hairs ... to me this is a rather important difference.

Teams could find a way to beat Shaq in his prime, but not Jordan.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Shaq lost in '95, '96, '97, '98, '99, '03, and '04 on some very talented teams.

Lets not forget that when saying "unstoppable". Obviously teams found a way to beat him.

Jordan never lost a playoff series once he got a good supporting cast around him. Teams could beat him, but only when he had a garbage supporting cast or no All-Star player to compliment him.

I think Shaq was amazing, he and Jordan are the most dominant individual forces of the past 30 years in the NBA (in their prime), but if you're splitting hairs ... to me this is a rather important difference.

Teams could find a way to beat Shaq in his prime, but not Jordan.[/QUOTE]

Not entirely true, the 1990 Bulls were pretty talented, the 1991 team was better. But Scottie Pippen was an all-star for the 1990 season, and this team was coached by Phil Jackson.

Although, the Bulls could've still won the championship this year, had they advanced passed the Pistons in that 7 game series in the ECF.

Yes, Jordan never lost in the Finals and never lost with HCA, so that can be a good argument for him.

However we are comparing 1 year from each player mainly. That is 2000 Shaq vs 1991 Jordan. Other years, Jordan mainly had the advantage over Shaq. However, just looking at these seasons alone, makes a very close comparison.

What other players do you think had a comparable season to 2000 Shaq in terms of accomplishments, success, and stats in one season?

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]As far as TS%, well, that can be deceptive for a power player.

Here's an example. If you convert a lot of and 1s then that makes it skewed because even if you missed the extra free throw on the and 1, you wouldn't be using up any more of a possession anyway.

I'll use game 1 of the finals as an example.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k[/URL]

His first basket was a dunk and a foul, he made that free throw, making it the same as if he had made a 3 as far as possessions used.

At about 1:00, he converts the basket and draws a foul on Smits, so despite missing the free throw, that was a bonus to begin with.

He converts another basket with the foul around 2:12, and again despite missing the free throw, no extra possession was used.

And around 4:20 he's fouled again and he gets the basket.

So at most, his six FTA were the equivalent of one missed field goals because atleast 4 of them came on and 1s.

If you were to calculate his FT using the standard TS% formula then his TS% for game 1 would have 63.9%., but knowing what we know his TS% was really equal to 67.2% in terms of using up possessions to score.

An example of how stats can be deceptive. And to me, a missed free throw has never been as bad as a missed field goal, particularly if you miss a long jumper which can give the other team a transition opportunity. And when you're fouled, you can set up your defense as well as pile up fouls on the other team and when you have a physical force like Shaq, those fouls also wear down the other team.

I believe some sites track and 1s now, Lebron has a ton of them so I'll have to see how efficient he truly is using this same method.[/QUOTE]

I agree with that, but Jordan was one of the best players for getting And 1's that I can remember in the 18 years I've been watching basketball intently. So if anything his TS% is skewed too since his FTAs would be counting against his efficiancy even though he made them. :D

You only get the small window of .12 taken off 2 FTAs against the TS% equation. That doesn't account for players like Jordan whom had far more than 10% of their FTAs being off And 1s. So in reality, TS% inaccurately displays the real efficiancy of players like MJ, as opposed to more current ones who just throw the ball over their head after being touched for a foul call to get FTAs that really weren't in the act of an actual shot.

I have the same qualms about TS% as you. I wish they'd keep a "shot attempts" stat, and not "FGAs", since that alone is a flawed stat. It'd be much easier to tell just how efficiant a player really is/was. Like in baseball how there are seperate stats for "At bats" and "plate appearances". When you get walked, it's a plate appearance, not an At Bat, and hence, does not count against your average, but gets tallied towards your on base percentage. :P

In any case, I picked Shaq's year over Jordan's, if you missed that. :P I just think Jordan was a bit more efficiant a scorer back then. They have different roles, so it's more difficult to discern who was a better defender for overall game impact since that's very objective, but as far as putting the ball in the hole per possession consumed to do so, simple math lets you know who's more efficiant. It's not objective at all. Shaq being slightly less efficiant than (imo) the best scorer of all time, shouldn't be seen as a slap in the face :P

Jordan, Shaq, and (possible homer pick here) prime DRob, were the most unstoppable scorers I can remember in my lifetime (he got a lot of easy buckets with off the ball movement).

[QUOTE=laronprofit9]Not entirely true, the 1990 Bulls were pretty talented, the 1991 team was better. But Scottie Pippen was an all-star for the 1990 season, and this team was coached by Phil Jackson.

Although, the Bulls could've still won the championship this year, had they advanced passed the Pistons in that 7 game series in the ECF.

Yes, Jordan never lost in the Finals and never lost with HCA, so that can be a good argument for him.

However we are comparing 1 year from each player mainly. That is 2000 Shaq vs 1991 Jordan. Other years, Jordan mainly had the advantage over Shaq. However, just looking at these seasons alone, makes a very close comparison.[/QUOTE]

That's true about 1990, but they went to game 7 against the Pistons in 1990 and Pippen let the team down with his migraine headaches in game 7 ... so Pippen wasn't yet *the* Pippen yet, his game still needed another year of polish.

The next year the Bulls trounced the Pistons in 4 straight.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Shaq lost in '95, '96, '97, '98, '99, '03, and '04 on some very talented teams.[/QUOTE]

Well, lets be honest, not all of those teams played like talented teams in the series they were eliminated. I'm not excusing Shaq for all of the losses, just pointing out that rarely in those losses did his cast play like a talented cast.

I'll focus on '96, '98 and '04.

[B]1996-[/B] Horace Grant was injured in game 1 and he'd never return in the series. So for the series they got 0 points and 1 rebound in 28 minutes out of their 3rd best player and starting power forward.

In game 1, it was shocking how inept the supporting cast of a 60 win team was offensively. While Penny had a huge game 38 points on 15/21(72%) shooting and Shaq had 27 points and 6 assists on 13/21(62%) shooting, [B]the rest of the starting lineup combined for 2 points on 0 for 11 shooting with just 2 assists and 3 turnovers[/B] In fact outside of Shaq and Penny, the rest of the team scored just 18 points on 7/31 shooting.

Now, Shaq didn't have a perfect game either, his 6 rebounds and 1/7 free throw shooting were poor, but the biggest issue here was nobody other than Shaq or Penny being able to do anything positive and the rest of the team was bricking free throws as well. The Magic excluding Shaq, still shot just 7/17 from the line.

In game 2, Shaq had 36 points, 16 rebounds and 4 assists on 16/22(73%) shooting. In this game, even Penny struggled finishing with just 18/2/3 on 6/15(40%) shooting. Outside of Shaq, the team shot just 18/49 and despite Shaq easily leading the game in rebounds, the Magic were still outrebounded by 7 in a 5 point loss showing how much Grant's absence hurt the team.

In game 3, Shaq did have a horrible offensive game with 17 points on 8/19 from the field and 1/9 from the line, but again his cast didn't play like a talented team. For the 3rd straight game, Penny managed only 3 assists and he ended up with 18 points on 8/24 shooting. Shaq's cast shot 18/53 and despite Shaq posting a solid 12 rebounds, his team was outrebounded by 11 which again emphasizes the impact of Grant's injury.

In game 4, Shaq had 28 points, 9 rebounds, 3 assists and 3 blocks on 11/13(85%) from the field and a decent 6/9 from the line. Penny struggled with his shooting again going 9/21(43%) from the field. This was the only game where the role players actually produced a respectable amount of points. The Magic were again outrebounded by 7, and in this case, some of the blame for that goes to Shaq who I'd expect more than 9 rebounds from.

Shaq certainly could've played better, but, I don't see it making much of a difference because other than game 2(when it was hard to blame Shaq), none of the other games were close besides game 4 when the series was basically over anyway, and in that game, O'Neal still had a great offensive game, blocked shots and had a respectable amount of rebounds, though again, I blame him to some extent for not dominating the boards in that situation.

With Orlando playing without Grant, O'Neal totaling just 1 less assist than Penny that series and the cast shooting unbelievably poor vs the team with the most wins in NBA history as well as arguably the best player and coach of all time, I don't see much O'Neal could have done.

In 1998, Shaq was the only player who could put the ball in the basket with regularity on the Lakers. Shaq averaged 31.8 ppg on 56% shooting, but after him? Jones was the number 2 guy and produced just 15 ppg on 41% shooting, and after that? It gets, much, much worse. Kobe was the only other player to average double figures on the Lakers in that series with an even 10 ppg on 37% shooting, Fox averaged 9.8 ppg on 41% shooting, Van Exel averaged 9 ppg on 24% shooting, Fisher averaged 5.5 ppg on 35% shooting and Horry averaged 4.5 ppg on 36% shooting.

Just a pathetic display by the cast offensively.

In 2004? That team that was in the finals was not the talented team that they looked like on paper, not even close. Karl Malone was injured, missed 1 game altogether and he might as well have not even been on the court. We all know about Kobe in that series and Payton had the most disgusting performance, he averaged 4 ppg on 32% shooting while getting torched at the other end by Billups who had 20+ on good efficiency.

So in several of those seasons, despite how they looked on paper, Shaq didn't end up with a productive cast, certainly not championship-caliber production in those years I've specified, more so when you consider that they faced a 72-10 team one of those years.

[QUOTE]Teams could find a way to beat Shaq in his prime, but not Jordan.[/QUOTE]

Well for the duration of their primes, that's what seperated Jordan from Shaq. He played at closer to his peak level for longer, but as laronprofit mentioned, this is just '91 Jordan vs '00 Shaq when both of them won.

[QUOTE=laronprofit9]What other players do you think had a comparable season to 2000 Shaq in terms of accomplishments, success, and stats in one season?[/QUOTE]

I take it you mean championships, individual awards, great playoff production ect.?

Well, Wilt in '67 and Olajuwon in '94 come to mind.

[quote]I take it you mean championships, individual awards, great playoff production ect.?

Well, Wilt in '67 and Olajuwon in '94 come to mind..[/quote]
You should have listed KAJ in '80 before Dream. Finals MVP award should have been his & the DPOY award did not exist yet.

[QUOTE=N0Skillz]Shaq by a mile. Shaq was unstoppable, constant double and triple teams on him through the whole season.[/QUOTE]
with referee's help and faced against weak competitors, they both were unstoppable...

Who had the better PER?

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Shaq lost in '95, '96, '97, '98, '99, '03, and '04 on some very talented teams.

Lets not forget that when saying "unstoppable". Obviously teams found a way to beat him.

Jordan never lost a playoff series once he got a good supporting cast around him. Teams could beat him, but only when he had a garbage supporting cast or no All-Star player to compliment him.

I think Shaq was amazing, he and Jordan are the most dominant individual forces of the past 30 years in the NBA (in their prime), but if you're splitting hairs ... to me this is a rather important difference.

Teams could find a way to beat Shaq in his prime, but not Jordan.[/QUOTE]

If you play on as many good teams as Shaq does eventually you are going to get a wedge. Not to say he wasn't dominant and great but at some point something is going to happen. Shaq was more dominant but Jordan could adapt, adjust and overcome. Jordan would have found a way to win. To me his Will Power was other planetary that year - this is something that doesn't reach me in youtube quality videos. He had more weapons and his team was moreso connected to him than Shaq's team was.

You would have needed a truck to stop Jordan that year and Shaq is close to a truch but he isn't a truck. Jordan was too versatile, too focused, too athletic, too ruthless and destined. You also have to factor in that in the overlap it wasn't questionable as to who was better.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]


I take it you mean championships, individual awards, great playoff production ect.?

Well, Wilt in '67 and Olajuwon in '94 come to mind.[/QUOTE]

Do you think


'86 Bird
'87 Magic
'03 Duncan

would fit in that category with '91 MJ and '00 Shaq?

Jordan gets the automatic nod because he was able to close out games.

umm 1 on 1? Obviously Shaq. Not to take anything from Jordan, but at 6-6 and Shaq 7-1. Jordan goes to the rim a few times Shaq is going to throw all his weight on him and I dont think Jordan will survive that more than once

[quote]
'86 Bird
'87 Magic
'03 Duncan [/quote]

Indeed, I also neglected the obvious in '71 KAJ. Apparently the Dream at his peak was better than any version of the Captain. :facepalm

[QUOTE=laronprofit9]Do you think


'86 Bird
'87 Magic
'03 Duncan

would fit in that category with '91 MJ and '00 Shaq?[/QUOTE]

'03 Duncan isn't quite in the category '91 Jordan and '00 Shaq are, IMO. Remarkable season, but not quite. With Jordan in '91 and Shaq in '00, there was no doubt who the best player in the league was and that's pretty telling. To me, Duncan in 2003 was the best in the league, no question in my mind, but the fact that there were debates makes a difference to me and I think Jordan and Shaq's big advantages as scorers also makes a difference.

Unfortunately for Kareem, his peak didn't come in a championship season, IMO, but in terms of success, performance in the playoffs and overall level of play, 1980 has to be up there. I've seen a lot of games from that season, so I have a better perspective regarding that year than other prime Kareem season. His 1971 season is hard to exclude because of the Bucks team success and his regular season, the one thing that hurts the season is that his playoff numbers were noticeably lower than his regular season numbers.

Bird's peak belongs among the elite for sure, when you factor in Bird's 24/10/10 finals series, his 26/10/7/2 regular season on 50/42/90 as well his playoff run when he averaged 26/9/8 on 52/41/93 and the fact that he was easily the best player on the team that I consider to be the greatest.

Magic's impact is so hard to compare to the others, which isn't to say he was better or worse, but it's hard to compare. If you asked me to pick, I'd pick '91 Jordan, '00 Shaq and '86 Bird above him, though. Jordan and Shaq's defensive impact and dominant scoring clinches it. I've always favored Bird over Magic as well to be honest. He was a SF grabbing 10 boards a game alongside Parish and McHale, he was probably the best shooter of his era, a dominant scorer and the best passing forward of all time.

Magic's '87 season ranks among the best ever, though and his finals series is also high up the list.

Kareem's peak could be the greatest of them all, but again it didn't come in a championship season and I think the criteria you set out included similar success, even so, his '71 and '80 seasons are still in the discussion.

When you get to the players this dominant at their peaks, it becomes so hard to rank them. I guess it depends on what the criteria is which will differ depending on who you talk to.

[QUOTE=bdreason]Jordan gets the automatic nod because he was able to close out games.[/QUOTE]

By close out games, do you mean play throughout the 4th in general or game winners? While I don't remember any particular game winners from Shaq in 2000, he was great in 4th quarters. Wouldn't surprise me if he averaged double figures in the 4th during the 2000 playoffs.

[QUOTE=laronprofit9]2001 Kobe and on was better than Scottie Pippen.

However, 2000 Kobe wasn't quite a superstar yet, he was borderline at that time. He could be considered a superstar if you include his defense.

2000 Kobe is very comparable to a 1991 Scottie Pippen as a sidekick.[/QUOTE]

Shaq likely wouldn't have won in 2000 had Bryant not lead the Lakers in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks in game 7 of the WCF against Portland. Bryant wasn't a superstar at that point, but he was on his way...

[QUOTE=MaxFly]Shaq likely wouldn't have won in 2000 had Bryant not lead the Lakers in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks in game 7 of the WCF against Portland. Bryant wasn't a superstar at that point, but he was on his way...[/QUOTE]

(Just looked) Not steals...but very impressive. Didn't realize that. :applause:

Hadn't seen that game in a while. Think I'll watch it tonight.

[QUOTE=MaxFly]Shaq likely wouldn't have won in 2000 had Bryant not lead the Lakers in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks in game 7 of the WCF against Portland. Bryant wasn't a superstar at that point, but he was on his way...[/QUOTE]

I agree. Shaq had 18/9/5 as compared to 25/11/7 for Bryant. Shaq also got fortunate that Sabonis - who had some success defending Shaq this series (as opposed to ironically 1997 and 1998) - fouled out (on a somewhat bs call). Lakers would also have lost if not for 3 threes by Bryan Shaw in the fourth quarter which started the comeback. None of Jordan's championship teams were ever that close to elimination.

[QUOTE=kizut1659]I agree. Shaq had 18/9/5 as compared to 25/11/7 for Bryant. Shaq also got fortunate that Sabonis - who had some success defending Shaq this series (as opposed to ironically 1997 and 1998) - fouled out (on a somewhat bs call). Lakers would also have lost if not for 3 threes by Bryan Shaw in the fourth quarter which started the comeback. None of Jordan's championship teams were ever that close to elimination.[/QUOTE]

Lets not forget that Shaq did have 9 fourth quarter points himself to help lead LA to the comeback. And throughout the game, Snapper Jones was commenting about how poor of a job LA was doing getting Shaq the ball. Magic Johnson commented on this too, and O'Neal only got 9 shots in the game. Part of that has to be put on O'Neal's shoulders. He should've been more aggressive, but when you're a center, you need the guards to get you the ball.

And with a 3-1 lead, Shaq did what he could do give LA a chance to clinch the series in 5. He had 31/21/3 on 12/20 shooting while Kobe had 17/5/3 on 4/13 shooting and Glen Rice turned in a pathetic performance with just 4/2/1 on 1/8 shooting and LA's PF combo of Horry and Green combined for 7 points on 3/13 shooting while Sheed had 22/10 and Pippen had 22/6/3/6/4 on 8/12 shooting. And despite Shaq's 21 rebounds, the Lakers only outrebounded Portland by 1.

And in the finals, Shaq carried LA in all of the wins(except game 4 when Kobe had a very good game) and even in game 4, Shaq had 36/21 and 14 points in the 4th quarter. He was also basically the only Laker to show up in the losses.

Jordan's team dominated the postseason much more, but Jordan got more help consistently. Pippen had a better playoff run in '91 than Kobe in '00 and Grant was much better in the '91 playoffs than Rice was in the '00 playoffs.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Lets not forget that Shaq did have 9 fourth quarter points himself to help lead LA to the comeback. And throughout the game, Snapper Jones was commenting about how poor of a job LA was doing getting Shaq the ball. Magic Johnson commented on this too, and O'Neal only got 9 shots in the game. Part of that has to be put on O'Neal's shoulders. He should've been more aggressive, but when you're a center, you need the guards to get you the ball.

And with a 3-1 lead, Shaq did what he could do give LA a chance to clinch the series in 5. He had 31/21/3 on 12/20 shooting while Kobe had 17/5/3 on 4/13 shooting and Glen Rice turned in a pathetic performance with just 4/2/1 on 1/8 shooting and LA's PF combo of Horry and Green combined for 7 points on 3/13 shooting while Sheed had 22/10 and Pippen had 22/6/3/6/4 on 8/12 shooting. And despite Shaq's 21 rebounds, the Lakers only outrebounded Portland by 1.

And in the finals, Shaq carried LA in all of the wins(except game 4 when Kobe had a very good game) and even in game 4, Shaq had 36/21 and 14 points in the 4th quarter. He was also basically the only Laker to show up in the losses.

Jordan's team dominated the postseason much more, but Jordan got more help consistently. Pippen had a better playoff run in '91 than Kobe in '00 and Grant was much better in the '91 playoffs than Rice was in the '00 playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Most if not all of Shaq's 9 fourth quarter points came after Sabonis fouled out (on bs call) and after Lakers got back all of the momentum. Also, while Shaq had a good game 5, he had pretty bad game 6 with 17 points on 7/17 shooting. Shaq's game 2 (23 points, 5/17 fts) was also not all that. I think Pippen in 91 had marginally better playoffs than Kobe in 91 but Kobe had more big/clutch moments - game winner against Phoenix in game 2, best player on the Lakers in game 7 against Portland, and game 4 overtime takeover against Indiana. While I agree that Grant was better in 91 playoffs than Rice in 00 playoffs, the level of competition Lakers faced in 2000 was worse than the Bulls in 1999. Detroit and (to a lesser degree) Lakers were ageing but neither Portland not even Indiana had players the caliber of Magic Johnson or even Isiah Thomas.

I am not trying to take anything away from Shaq's playoff run in 2000 - i think he was the best player in the league by some margin that year. . . I just don't think he was quite equal to Jordan. . .and the fact that the Lakers almost (and should have been) beat by a Portland team that did not have a single superstar is what seals the deal for me on this.

[QUOTE=kizut1659]Most if not all of Shaq's 9 fourth quarter points came after Sabonis fouled out (on bs call) and after Lakers got back all of the momentum. Also, while Shaq had a good game 5, he had pretty bad game 6 with 17 points on 7/17 shooting. Shaq's game 2 (23 points, 5/17 fts) was also not all that. I think Pippen in 91 had marginally better playoffs than Kobe in 91 but Kobe had more big/clutch moments - game winner against Phoenix in game 2, best player on the Lakers in game 7 against Portland, and game 4 overtime takeover against Indiana. While I agree that Grant was better in 91 playoffs than Rice in 00 playoffs, the level of competition Lakers faced in 2000 was worse than the Bulls in 1999. Detroit and (to a lesser degree) Lakers were ageing but neither Portland not even Indiana had players the caliber of Magic Johnson or even Isiah Thomas.

I am not trying to take anything away from Shaq's playoff run in 2000 - i think he was the best player in the league by some margin that year. . . I just don't think he was quite equal to Jordan. . .and the fact that the Lakers almost (and should have been) beat by a Portland team that did not have a single superstar is what seals the deal for me on this.[/QUOTE]

Shaq was instrumental in getting the momentum back in the 4th. Here's a recap. Highlighted are the key plays that involve Shaq.

[B]Shaq hit a jump hook off the glass[/B], Kobe then blocked a shot and kept the ball in play and the Lakers got a wide open 3 by Brian Shaw to cut the lead to 10. After a time out Pippen missed a 3 and Kobe leaked out for a fastbreak opportunity and got fouled and hit 1 out of 2. [B]Shaq got a big offensive rebound and got fouled and hit 1 for 2[/B]. Horry got an offensive rebound and went behind the 3 point line and hit the shot. Kobe then hit a contested jump shot.[B] Shaq sent back Brian Grant's shot emphatically, portland recovered and Pippen tried to penetrate, but Shaq and Shaw cut him off and he threw the ball back to Rasheed with the shot clock winding down and he missed. Shaq got the ball and got triple teamed and passed the ball to Shaw and brian Shaw tied the game with a 3.[/B] That completed their 15-0 run to tie the game. Rasheed Wallace gave Portland the lead again, but [B]Sabonis fouled out and Shaq hit 2 free throws to tie the game on the next possession. Shaq hit a jump hook off the glass over a double team to give the Lakers the lead.[/B] After Portland tied the game again, Kobe got to the line and hit both free throws. Kobe then hit a jump shot to extend the lead to 4 after Sheed missed 2 free throws. [B]Of course Bryant threw the alley oop to Shaq to extend the lead to 6.[/B]

Regarding competition, well, the superstars Jordan faced were better, but teams? That's hard to judge, a lot of that is based on health and chemistry. Jordan faced a 39 win team in the first round, a 44 win team in the second round, a 50 win team in the conference finals and a 58 win team in the finals.

But that Pistons team was not at their championship level as evidenced by their 50-32 record, and even with Isiah, they were still just 31-17. And Isiah was nowhere near his prime form in those playoffs either.

LA also had to deal with injuries to Worthy and Scott as well, granted, I think Chicago would have won anyway, just figured I'd mention it.

LA faced a 44 win team in the first round, a 53 win team in the second round, a 59 win team in the conference finals and a 56 win team in the finals.

I'm not sure 2000 Shaq was as good as 1991 Jordan either, just stating my views on the situations they won championships with.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Shaq was instrumental in getting the momentum back in the 4th. Here's a recap. Highlighted are the key plays that involve Shaq.

[B]Shaq hit a jump hook off the glass[/B], Kobe then blocked a shot and kept the ball in play and the Lakers got a wide open 3 by Brian Shaw to cut the lead to 10. After a time out Pippen missed a 3 and Kobe leaked out for a fastbreak opportunity and got fouled and hit 1 out of 2. [B]Shaq got a big offensive rebound and got fouled and hit 1 for 2[/B]. Horry got an offensive rebound and went behind the 3 point line and hit the shot. Kobe then hit a contested jump shot.[B] Shaq sent back Brian Grant's shot emphatically, portland recovered and Pippen tried to penetrate, but Shaq and Shaw cut him off and he threw the ball back to Rasheed with the shot clock winding down and he missed. Shaq got the ball and got triple teamed and passed the ball to Shaw and brian Shaw tied the game with a 3.[/B] That completed their 15-0 run to tie the game. Rasheed Wallace gave Portland the lead again, but [B]Sabonis fouled out and Shaq hit 2 free throws to tie the game on the next possession. Shaq hit a jump hook off the glass over a double team to give the Lakers the lead.[/B] After Portland tied the game again, Kobe got to the line and hit both free throws. Kobe then hit a jump shot to extend the lead to 4 after Sheed missed 2 free throws. [B]Of course Bryant threw the alley oop to Shaq to extend the lead to 6.[/B]

Regarding competition, well, the superstars Jordan faced were better, but teams? That's hard to judge, a lot of that is based on health and chemistry. Jordan faced a 39 win team in the first round, a 44 win team in the second round, a 50 win team in the conference finals and a 58 win team in the finals.

But that Pistons team was not at their championship level as evidenced by their 50-32 record, and even with Isiah, they were still just 31-17. And Isiah was nowhere near his prime form in those playoffs either.

LA also had to deal with injuries to Worthy and Scott as well, granted, I think Chicago would have won anyway, just figured I'd mention it.

LA faced a 44 win team in the first round, a 53 win team in the second round, a 59 win team in the conference finals and a 56 win team in the finals.

I'm not sure 2000 Shaq was as good as 1991 Jordan either, just stating my views on the situations they won championships with.[/QUOTE]

Good summary of the 2000 game - i always wanted a rundown of how exactly Lakers were able to come back. Ok so yes, i am convinced, Shaq clearly played a part but he still scored only 3 out of 15 points that tied the game + of course his big assist to Shaw. The foul on Sabonis when the game was tied and that resulted in 2 free thows was bs in my opinon as i said. I guess all I am trying to say that without improbably threes by role players, Kobe's solid play, Portland's choke, and some bad calls by refs Lakers would have lost. Also, 44-win Sacramento Kings took the Lakers to 5 games.

Pistons in 1990 were on the decline but i think they were better than their record suggests -they started 33-13 during which they had two 10/11 game winning streaks, then finished the season 17-19, and then recovered in the playoffs to beat a 56-win Boston in conference semis. I think 1991 pistons are somewhat similiar to 2010 celtics, if not quite as good.

The 58-win Laker team with still a top 5 player in the league and that beat a 62-win Portland team in conference finals was better than 2000 Portland, let alone Indiana. I know Scott was injured but was Worthy's injury that bad?- he still averaged 19.3 points on 48%. Lakers also got 18.6 points from Divac on 56%.

Wait, why are we talking about game 7 vs. Portland again?

Maybe we wouldn't even be discussing game 7 if Kobe hadn't averaged just 19.7 pts/43% FG through the first 6 games as compared to Shaq's 27.2 pts/54% FG. Kobe scored just 13, 12, and 17 points in three games that series, the later two coming in losses.

Please don't try to act like Kobe was the reason they won that series. If Shaq plays as poorly as Kobe did, Portland wins that series in 4-5 games.

[QUOTE=kizut1659]I agree. Shaq had 18/9/5 as compared to 25/11/7 for Bryant. Shaq also got fortunate that Sabonis - who had some success defending Shaq this series (as opposed to ironically 1997 and 1998) - fouled out (on a somewhat bs call). Lakers would also have lost if not for 3 threes by Bryan Shaw in the fourth quarter which started the comeback. None of Jordan's championship teams were ever that close to elimination.[/QUOTE]

Sabonis didn't do anything but lay on Shaq until the double team came. They didn't guard AC Green or Robert Horry at all the entire series. I almost throw up when people say Sabonis had success.

Look at the stats. Sabonis that series or in 97 or 98 had ZERO success guarding Shaq.

[quote] He was also basically the only Laker to show up in the losses.[/quote]
Lucky for him his name is not Wilt, or he'd be accused of padding his statistics in that 5th game. Lakers were down 19 at half time and Shaq had 19 points. Considering they could never get the lead down to single digits and the Pacers kept adding on to it, an old sports writer might have written that he padded 16 points (or 12 following the Lakers 15-7 run to open the 3rd period) on his average [I]"after the game was decided in the first half"[/I].


[I]'Russell held Chamberlain to 13 first half points while Boston was building a 21 point lead. The Celtics needed that margin when Chamberlain fired a late game comeback that slashed a 29 point Boston bulge to as little as 12 points.'[/I]


At least Chamberlain led his team to a comeback attempt in that 3rd game of the '62 series, which likely carried the Warriors momentum over to the 4th game, where he had 41 points & 34 rebounds in a 4 point victory. Of course all this while neglecting that the game was faster then resulting in less half court sets for Chamberlain to go down low. Plus the fact that Boston was a running team at the time and on offense Chamberlain was set up at the high post (FT line) by design, unlike O'Neal who was down low all series. Switch the names, and Shaq (as well as every other player in professional basketball history) is hailed as an [I]"unselfish team player."[/I] This foolish numbers padding accusation can be used against any great in NBA history.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]'03 Duncan isn't quite in the category '91 Jordan and '00 Shaq are, IMO. Remarkable season, but not quite. With Jordan in '91 and Shaq in '00, there was no doubt who the best player in the league was and that's pretty telling. To me, Duncan in 2003 was the best in the league, no question in my mind, but the fact that there were debates makes a difference to me and I think Jordan and Shaq's big advantages as scorers also makes a difference.

Unfortunately for Kareem, his peak didn't come in a championship season, IMO, but in terms of success, performance in the playoffs and overall level of play, 1980 has to be up there. I've seen a lot of games from that season, so I have a better perspective regarding that year than other prime Kareem season. His 1971 season is hard to exclude because of the Bucks team success and his regular season, the one thing that hurts the season is that his playoff numbers were noticeably lower than his regular season numbers.

Bird's peak belongs among the elite for sure, when you factor in Bird's 24/10/10 finals series, his 26/10/7/2 regular season on 50/42/90 as well his playoff run when he averaged 26/9/8 on 52/41/93 and the fact that he was easily the best player on the team that I consider to be the greatest.

Magic's impact is so hard to compare to the others, which isn't to say he was better or worse, but it's hard to compare. If you asked me to pick, I'd pick '91 Jordan, '00 Shaq and '86 Bird above him, though. Jordan and Shaq's defensive impact and dominant scoring clinches it. I've always favored Bird over Magic as well to be honest. He was a SF grabbing 10 boards a game alongside Parish and McHale, he was probably the best shooter of his era, a dominant scorer and the best passing forward of all time.

Magic's '87 season ranks among the best ever, though and his finals series is also high up the list.

Kareem's peak could be the greatest of them all, but again it didn't come in a championship season and I think the criteria you set out included similar success, even so, his '71 and '80 seasons are still in the discussion.

When you get to the players this dominant at their peaks, it becomes so hard to rank them. I guess it depends on what the criteria is which will differ depending on who you talk to.



By close out games, do you mean play throughout the 4th in general or game winners? While I don't remember any particular game winners from Shaq in 2000, he was great in 4th quarters. Wouldn't surprise me if he averaged double figures in the 4th during the 2000 playoffs.[/QUOTE]

2003 Duncan was probably just a level below 91 Jordan and '00 Shaq. 86 Bird and 87 Magic individually might've not has big of an overall impact as Jordan and Shaq especially if you consider Defense.

[QUOTE=kizut1659]Good summary of the 2000 game - i always wanted a rundown of how exactly Lakers were able to come back. Ok so yes, i am convinced, Shaq clearly played a part but he still scored only 3 out of 15 points that tied the game + of course his big assist to Shaw. The foul on Sabonis when the game was tied and that resulted in 2 free thows was bs in my opinon as i said. I guess all I am trying to say that without improbably threes by role players, Kobe's solid play, Portland's choke, and some bad calls by refs Lakers would have lost. Also, 44-win Sacramento Kings took the Lakers to 5 games.

Pistons in 1990 were on the decline but i think they were better than their record suggests -they started 33-13 during which they had two 10/11 game winning streaks, then finished the season 17-19, and then recovered in the playoffs to beat a 56-win Boston in conference semis. I think 1991 pistons are somewhat similiar to 2010 celtics, if not quite as good.

The 58-win Laker team with still a top 5 player in the league and that beat a 62-win Portland team in conference finals was better than 2000 Portland, let alone Indiana. I know Scott was injured but was Worthy's injury that bad?- he still averaged 19.3 points on 48%. Lakers also got 18.6 points from Divac on 56%.[/QUOTE]

The Kings took the Lakers to 5 games, but this isn't an issue for me because they won the series and won the title. And in game 5, Shaq had 32/18/4 on 63% shooting in just 35 minutes as the Lakers blew out Sacramento by 27.

And in 1990, Isiah averaged 13.5 ppg, 4.2 rpg and 8.5 apg on 40% shooting, just to back up my point about Isiah not being near his prime form.

As far as the 2010 Celtics, well I don't think that team was any better than the 2000 Blazers.

And as far as Portland's choke? Well, that's what seperates the champions from the contenders in game 7s. Despite Shaq having a poor game up to that point, he didn't roll over in a very tough situation with his reputation on the line. Shaq and the Lakers stepped up to the challenge and responded very well to adversity which is impressive, atleast to me.

[QUOTE=PHILA]Lucky for him his name is not Wilt, or he'd be accused of padding his statistics in that 5th game. Lakers were down 19 at half time and Shaq had 19 points. Considering they could never get the lead down to single digits and the Pacers kept adding on to it, an old sports writer might have written that he padded 16 points (or 12 following the Lakers 15-7 run to open the 3rd period) on his average [I]"after the game was decided in the first half"[/I].


[I]'Russell held Chamberlain to 13 first half points while Boston was building a 21 point lead. The Celtics needed that margin when Chamberlain fired a late game comeback that slashed a 29 point Boston bulge to as little as 12 points.'[/I]


At least Chamberlain led his team to a comeback attempt in that 3rd game of the '62 series, which likely carried the Warriors momentum over to the 4th game, where he had 41 points & 34 rebounds in a 4 point victory. Of course all this while neglecting that the game was faster then resulting in less half court sets for Chamberlain to go down low. Plus the fact that Boston was a running team at the time and on offense Chamberlain was set up at the high post (FT line) by design, unlike O'Neal who was down low all series. Switch the names, and Shaq (as well as every other player in professional basketball history) is hailed as an [I]"unselfish team player."[/I] This foolish numbers padding accusation can be used against any great in NBA history.[/QUOTE]

Will you shut the hell up about Wilt? First of all, I'm going to destroy this garbage.

In game 5, Shaq left the game with 4:24 remaining, just about 30 seconds after Indiana's star Reggie Miller left and Kobe wouldn't leave until there were 3 minutes remaining in the game.

And lets look at game 1.

LA was up by 6 entering the 4th. Shaq had 12 points in the 4th and he scored or assisted on every basket in the first 9 minutes of the 4th except for 2 Rick Fox jumpers. That extended the lead from 6 to 17 with about 3 minutes, and Shaq sat down with 43/19/4/3 on 68% shooting and 3 minutes left. Had he had Wilt's mentality, he would've stayed in the game to get the 50/20 game, then again, if he had Wilt's mentality, he probably doesn't have such a clutch 4th quarter.

Another Bizarro Wilt moment came in game 2 when he went 4/4 from the field and his free throw shooting improved dramatically in the 4th compared to the 3rd to give him 16th 4th quarter points to counter the hack a Shaq and give LA a close game 2 win.

And he closed the series out in game 6 with another Bizarro Wilt moment. He went 6/6 from the field in the 4th and finished with 13 points in the quarter to lead LA back from a 5 point deficit entering the 4th. He finished with 41/12/4 to clinch the title.

And I know it must be hard typing about Wilt with one hand, but the reason Wilt is called a stat padder is because he use to debate his statistics with the official scorer, keep track of his stats throughout the game and even recaps from people who were paid to watch those games vs Russell stated that many of his points came after the game was no longer in doubt.

Not to mention that in '62, Wilt played every minute in all of twenty seven 15+ point blowouts, every minute in all sixteen 20+ blowouts, every minute in all five 30+ point blowouts, every minute in all three 40+ point blowouts and every minute in the 51 point blowout they had.

[quote]Will you shut the hell up about Wilt? First of all, I'm going to destroy this garbage.

In game 5, Shaq left the game with 4:24 remaining, just about 30 seconds after Indiana's star Reggie Miller left and Kobe wouldn't leave until there were 3 minutes remaining in the game.[/quote]
And as expected, none of them were accused of padding their statistics either.

[quote]And lets look at game 1.

LA was up by 6 entering the 4th. Shaq had 12 points in the 4th and he scored or assisted on every basket in the first 9 minutes of the 4th except for 2 Rick Fox jumpers. That extended the lead from 6 to 17 with about 3 minutes, and Shaq sat down with 43/19/4/3 on 68% shooting and 3 minutes left. [/quote]
Nice game from Shaq, but I did not use Game 1 as an example.

[quote]Had he had Wilt's mentality, he would've stayed in the game to get the 50/20 game, then again, if he had Wilt's mentality, he probably doesn't have such a clutch 4th quarter.[/quote]
Shaq was not the head coach of the Lakers in 2000, therefore he was not authorized to make these decisions. One would think this apparent mentality Chamberlain had would show in the game when he became the NBA's all time scoring leader in 1966. Why not go after it right away and cost the team a possible victory? Would it have been for him to score what could possibly be meaningless points in the first half, like Kobe Bryant in the 7th game of the 2006 Phoenix series? Either way he'd be accused of something. Could it possibly be that Boston just flat out had a better gameplan than Philadelphia? It was already noted that the Warriors starters outscored the Celtic starters in that series, but their 3 key bench players were killed by the Celtics 3 key men off the bench. Could this be better substitution management on Auerbach's part? Remember there were no assistant coaches then.



[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rJIfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V9QEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2664,2025179&dq"]The Nevada Daily Mail - Feb 15, 1966[/URL][I]

This was the big one Wilt Chamberlain wanted most. And now he's got it - all-time leading scorer in the National Basketball Association.

"Sure, this has to be the big one for me and it is," the 7-foot-1 Philadelphia 76ers ace said Monday night after collecting 41 points to break the career mark set by Bob Pettit of the St. Louis Hawks

Wilt's scoring splurge powered the 76ers past the Detroit Pistons 149-123 and spiraled Chamberlain's seven-year NBA total to 20,884, four over Pettit's standard.

"This means more to me than anything, even more than scoring 100 points," Wilt said, referring to his 100-point performance against New York in a game four years ago.

"The scorers are getting better and better and I think someone will score 100 points, or maybe more," he said. "But this one may stick around for a while. And this means a lot because it means a sustained performance over a long time. Yep I really wanted this."

Before some 5,000 fans in the Charleston Civic Center he [SIZE=-1]played the role of playmaker in he first half and tallied only 10 joints as Philadelphia ran up a 70-51 margin.[/SIZE]

"That was the way it was supposed to be," Wilt said. "We looked real bad in our last two games and we wanted to shake the offense loose. This was the best way to do it but it meant I wasn't going to do much scoring.

"Oh sure, I went after the record when we were way out in front in the last quarter and the guys started to move the ball to me," Wilt said.

He went into the last 12 minutes with 22 points and then they started to come furiously. He dropped in six field goals and a free throw and the crowd started to chant, "give it to Wilt."

A stuff shot with 2:46 remaining gave him 37 points to tie Pettit's record and a free throw with one minute and 32 seconds left gave him the record.[/I]

[quote]
Another Bizarro Wilt moment came in game 2 when he went 4/4 from the field and his free throw shooting improved dramatically in the 4th compared to the 3rd to give him 16th 4th quarter points to counter the hack a Shaq and give LA a close game 2 win.

And he closed the series out in game 6 with another Bizarro Wilt moment. He went 6/6 from the field in the 4th and finished with 13 points in the quarter to lead LA back from a 5 point deficit entering the 4th. He finished with 41/12/4 to clinch the title.[/quote] Bizarro Wilt moment? My mistake if you meant Shaq. This is nice, and it was an all time great series for him, but it is irrelevant in this discussion as I am not critiquing Shaq. Just trying to show one of the many double standards that are so often used against Chamberlain, whether or not you would have responded to this post.