Shaq 96-2002 versus 87-93 Jordan

[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.

Jordan's playmaking and clutchness in the last two minutes puts him over Shaq imo. Both have a similar impact outside of that, but Jordan really separates himself in the closing minutes.

Jordan had comparable/superior statistical impact and was far better in the 4th/clutch, and more capable of winning games by sheer force of will. Therefore, it's Jordan.

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Jordan had comparable/superior statistical impact and was far better in the 4th/clutch, and more capable of winning games by sheer force of will. Therefore, it's Jordan.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you and fatal9. Roundball does make a legitimate case for Shaq being just as effective/reliable though -- makes sense.

Jordan because of his clutch ability, as opposed to Shaq's anti-clutch free throw shooting ability.

But Shaq is as dominant as any player ever. He by himself dominated and controlled the paint on offense AND defense.

Just from a "holy crap" standpoint, he used to go up and dunk with like 2 or 3 players hanging on to him. Guards used to drive into the paint, see Shaq, and just dribble back out. He instilled the Fear of Shaq into the league for the better part of his career.

But Mike is probably the greatest player of all time. And those were his prime years.

[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 - [B]I guess that's why His Airness also became most hyped and promoted NBA player of all time[/B], 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]

Your hate for Jordan sticks out like dogballs.

Jordan 87-93 better than any player at their peak...