2000 Shaquille O'Neal vs 1991 Michael Jordan

[quote]
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.[/quote] Michael Jordan was known for this as well in his early days. How would his career have turned out without Phil Jackson? Nobody will ever know. Plus by all accounts, the stat keepers back in the 60's would rob Chamberlain of rebounds and assists on the road (and probably inflated his field goal attempts too, lowering his shooting efficiency from the field). How many superstars in NBA history wouldn't be upset?


[URL="http://www.nba.com/encyclopedia/pollack_wilt.html"]NBA.com[/URL]

[I]I went to a Boston-Warriors game in the Boston Garden and secretly kept track of the rebounds of both Wilt and Russell. When the game ended, I went to the press table and asked what the rebound totals were for Wilt and Russell. The response: "Russell 35, Wilt 22." My response, "Well my totals are Wilt 34, Russell 21." They sat open mouthed when I produced my evidence of the time and type of every rebound that each player had. A Sports Illustrated writer nearby heard the conversation and asked me what it was all about. I told him and the next week SI had a story about the incident. Wilt and I chuckled on reading it, but Red Auerbach didn't. For many years thereafter he didn't talk to me, but how we were reconciled is another story that doesn't concern Wilt.[/I]


[URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1080922/index.htm"]Sports Illustrated - March 11, 1968[/URL]

[I]Currently Wilt Chamberlain is leading the league in complaining about statistics, and probably with good reason. Philadelphia Statistician Harvey Pollack is one of the few well-regarded scorers in the NBA. He won't favor anyone, including Wilt, but he thinks Chamberlain probably has a valid complaint. To check for himself, Pollack decided two Sundays ago to keep his own box score as he watched the telecast of a game between the 76ers and the Hawks in St. Louis. [B]The official statistics showed Wilkens with 13 assists and Chamberlain with four. Pollack, however, credited eight to Wilkens and nine to Chamberlain. [/B]"I knew it was coming," Pollack said, "because Chamberlain was catching Wilkens in total assists."[/I]



[URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077138/3/index.htm"]Sports Illustrated - April 19, 1965[/URL]

[I]Pollack is one of those basketball buffs caught up in the game-within-a-game drama being played at the moment between Wilt Chamberlain of the 76ers and Bill Russell of the Boston Celtics. Officially

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EefJHAWigvY[/url]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfPvC3p4kJ4[/url] :cheers:

Bump

The fact that Shaquille received only 1 MVP is sickening to me. Can anyone with a straight face tell me he didn't deserve it in 2000-2001 or 2001-2002? In 1995 he could of won it as well. In 2005 I didn't believe he was the best player on his team but he could of won it there too.

[QUOTE=Papaya Petee]Bump

The fact that Shaquille received only 1 MVP is sickening to me. Can anyone with a straight face tell me he didn't deserve it in 2000-2001 or 2001-2002? In 1995 he could of won it as well. In 2005 I didn't believe he was the best player on his team but he could of won it there too.[/QUOTE]

O'Neal was hurt by the fact that he missed 12 games due to injury in 2002 and 3 due to a suspension. Though in terms of value, the fact that the team was 51-16 with him and just 7-8 without him helps.

But because of the games Shaq missed, Duncan was the right choice, IMO.

I agree with 2001, and he was my choice in 2005 as well.

In 1995, he had a good case, but the fact that Robinson won more games with a cast that didn't seem to have more talent made him deserving, though using that as the criteria can be deceptive because O'Neal was a better scorer and rebounder, and Orlando's offense relied on Shaq's interior dominance a lot because he was their first scoring option and his double teams were a reason why they got so many 3s.

[QUOTE=Papaya Petee]Bump

The fact that Shaquille received only 1 MVP is sickening to me. Can anyone with a straight face tell me he didn't deserve it in 2000-2001 or 2001-2002? In 1995 he could of won it as well. In 2005 I didn't believe he was the best player on his team but he could of won it there too.[/QUOTE]

He had great cases for it, but I could understand why other stars won.

[B]In 00-01[/B] Allen Iverson did took that team to have the same record as the Lakers that year, and they were very impressive. Iverson had no second option equaling to Kobe. Shaq did. Kobe was a superstar who was top 4 in scoring. Only behind Shaq, Stackhouse and Iverson. If Iverson would have a star comparable with Kobe then they would've won more.

[B]01-02[/B], Duncan just carried that team. No all-stars at all, and that team had the same record as the Lakers with better defense. Plus Shaq was out for a few games. He played only 67 games in comparison to Duncan's 82 games. If Duncan was out, the Spurs would've probably lose.

[B]In 05[/B], he was the best player on his team. He was their first option until late in the playoffs. He brought to team to have the best record in the East. They won 59 games as oppose to 41 the year before he got there. Nash lead his team to even more wins. Before Nash got there, Suns only had 29 wins. When Nash got there, they had 62 wins. Huge difference. More of a difference than Shaq.

MVPs don't really mean you're the best player obviously.

Jordan ...

Only person to say otherwise is Jordan Haters, Laker Fans, and ShaqAttack

Shaq ...

Only person to say otherwise is Shaq Haters, Bull Fans, and Samurai Swoosh

[QUOTE=Micku]
[B]In 00-01[/B] Allen Iverson did took that team to have the same record as the Lakers that year, and they were very impressive. Iverson had no second option equaling to Kobe. Shaq did. Kobe was a superstar who was top 4 in scoring. Only behind Shaq, Stackhouse and Iverson. [B]If Iverson would have a star comparable with Kobe then they would've won more.[/B][/QUOTE]

How do you know? For all we know, Iverson would have been less effective playing with another star. His cast complemented his skillset perfectly. And he had a great defensive cast. Not to mention that Shaq led the Lakers to an 11-3 record without Kobe and the West was among the toughest it's ever been while the East was the polar opposite.

[QUOTE][B]In 05[/B], he was the best player on his team. He was their first option until late in the playoffs. He brought to team to have the best record in the East. They won 59 games as oppose to 41 the year before he got there. Nash lead his team to even more wins. Before Nash got there, Suns only had 29 wins. When Nash got there, they had 62 wins. Huge difference. More of a difference than Shaq.[/QUOTE]

Well, it's not that simple. Amare Stoudemire played 55 games in '04, and 80 in '05, so that certainly helped their improvement. They also added Quentin Richardson who averaged 15/6/2 and made three 3s per game and Nash came over as a free agent while Miami traded for Shaq. They traded Lamar Odom(arguably their best player in '04), Caron Butler and Brian Grant.

[QUOTE=Samurai Swoosh]Jordan ...

Only person to say otherwise is Jordan Haters, Laker Fans, and ShaqAttack
[/QUOTE]

I don't remember picking Shaq over Jordan in this thread. :oldlol:

Here are reasons why Shaq had an all-time great level season that year.

2000 Shaquille O'Neal

NBA Champion
NBA Scoring Champion
NBA MVP
NBA Finals MVP
NBA ALL-Star Game MVP
1st-Team All-NBA
2nd-Team All-Defense
Best Record in the League.

Anyways Statistically here are more reasons: (I feel its hard to judge all-around numbers. It depends a lot on a players role on the team, position they play, minutes played, ball touches, offensive playbooks, teammates and personel, and many other factors. I don't think a single formula is the best way to sum all these stats together, but I'll post them just for arguments sake):

29.7 ppg 13.6 rpg 3.8 apg 57%fg

League Ranks:

#1 Scoring Average 29.7ppg
#1 Points Scored 2344
#1 Field Goals Made 956 (788 2nd Place)
#1 Field Goal Pct. 57.4%
#1 Player Efficiency Rating 30.6
#1 Offensive Win Shares 11.7
#1 Defensive Win Shares 7.0
#1 Overall Win Shares 18.6
#1 Win Shares per 48 minutes - 0.283
#2 Total Rebounds1078
#2 Offensive Rebounds 336
#2 Defensive Rebounds 742
#2 Rebound Average 13.6rpg
#2 Defensive Rating 94.6
#3 Blocks 239
#3 Block Average 3.0bpg
Lakers #1 Defense Rating (2000)

Shaq's 2000 season is overrated because of the finals. The Spurs would have beaten LA if Tim didn't get injured. The Spurs beat LA three out of four that season. Robinson was still a great defender and could put up 20 and 10 in any game. Lakers were pretty lucky.

[QUOTE=Big#50]Shaq's 2000 season is overrated because of the finals. The Spurs would have beaten LA if Tim didn't get injured. The Spurs beat LA three out of four that season. Robinson was still a great defender and could put up 20 and 10 in any game. Lakers were pretty lucky.[/QUOTE]

One of the Spurs wins was a meaningless end of the season game that went OT yet Shaq only played 32 minutes in. Yeah, Duncan didn't play, but it's obvious the Lakers didn't really care about that game having easily locked up the best record in the league. It was also their last game of the season.

The Lakers were a 67-15 team and the Spurs were a 53-29 team.

With Shaq, the Lakers were a 66-13 team and with Shaq and Kobe the Lakers were a 54-10 team.

The Spurs were a 48-26 team with Duncan and a 46-26 team with Duncan and Robinson.

There's nothing to suggest that's a guaranteed victory for the Spurs. Didn't Orlando just go 3-1 vs Boston in 2010 and then get beat in 6 in the ECF?

By your logic, Duncan's 2003 season is overrated because Dirk was out for half of the WCF and the Mavs W/L record was equal to the Spurs were 2-2 vs Dallas in the regular season with Dallas outscoring the Spurs by 20 in those 4 games.

Instead of stating speculation as fact, why not look at what they actually did that season?

Jordan gives you comparable/superior production in the regular and postseasons and on top of that gives you Kobe on steroids in the 4th quarter and clutch time, which was always Shaq's liability due to his FT shooting (and to a lesser extent a center's comparative lack of ability to generate offense). He was also able to raise his game on command more frequently than Shaq when needed and just win games himself. Not sure how you don't take him here. I'm certainly not saying the gap is large (it's not at all), only that I don't see the case for Shaq.

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Jordan gives you comparable/superior production in the regular and postseasons and on top of that gives you Kobe on steroids in the 4th quarter and clutch time, which was always Shaq's liability due to his FT shooting (and to a lesser extent a center's comparative lack of ability to generate offense). He was also able to raise his game on command more frequently than Shaq when needed and just win games himself. Not sure how you don't take him here. I'm certainly not saying the gap is large (it's not at all), only that I don't see the case for Shaq.[/QUOTE]

100% agreed.

Jordan. Better player and he had more of a will to win. No one wanted to win more than Michael Jordan. 1999-00 was a very impressive season from Shaq, but no one compares to a prime Michael Jordan, regardless of stats.

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Jordan gives you comparable/superior production in the regular and postseasons and on top of that gives you Kobe on steroids in the 4th quarter and clutch time, which was always Shaq's liability due to his FT shooting (and to a lesser extent a center's comparative lack of ability to generate offense). He was also able to raise his game on command more frequently than Shaq when needed and just win games himself. Not sure how you don't take him here. I'm certainly not saying the gap is large (it's not at all), only that I don't see the case for Shaq.[/QUOTE]

Good post, pretty spot on summary. I'll give '91 Jordan the edge.

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Jordan gives you comparable/superior production in the regular and postseasons and on top of that gives you Kobe on steroids in the 4th quarter and clutch time, which was always Shaq's liability due to his FT shooting (and to a lesser extent a center's comparative lack of ability to generate offense). He was also able to raise his game on command more frequently than Shaq when needed and just win games himself. Not sure how you don't take him here. I'm certainly not saying the gap is large (it's not at all), only that I don't see the case for Shaq.[/QUOTE]
Exactly ..

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]One of the Spurs wins was a meaningless end of the season game that went OT yet Shaq only played 32 minutes in. Yeah, Duncan didn't play, but it's obvious the Lakers didn't really care about that game having easily locked up the best record in the league. It was also their last game of the season.

The Lakers were a 67-15 team and the Spurs were a 53-29 team.

With Shaq, the Lakers were a 66-13 team and with Shaq and Kobe the Lakers were a 54-10 team.

The Spurs were a 48-26 team with Duncan and a 46-26 team with Duncan and Robinson.

There's nothing to suggest that's a guaranteed victory for the Spurs. Didn't Orlando just go 3-1 vs Boston in 2010 and then get beat in 6 in the ECF?

By your logic, Duncan's 2003 season is overrated because Dirk was out for half of the WCF and the Mavs W/L record was equal to the Spurs were 2-2 vs Dallas in the regular season with Dallas outscoring the Spurs by 20 in those 4 games.

Instead of stating speculation as fact, why not look at what they actually did that season?[/QUOTE]
Robinson could still hold Shaq to about 25 points back then. Kobe was not the Kobe of 01 yet. No doubt in my mind the Lakers would have lost.

[QUOTE=Big#50]Robinson could still hold Shaq to about 25 points back then. Kobe was not the Kobe of 01 yet. No doubt in my mind the Lakers would have lost.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, and one of the Lakers losses vs the Spurs came with Shaq sitting out and I already mentioned that one of them was the last game of the season with the Lakers easily having locked up and in the first 2 games he played vs the Spurs(the 2 meaningful ones), he had 31 points in each game, not 25.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Oh yeah, and one of the Lakers losses vs the Spurs came with Shaq sitting out and I already mentioned that one of them was the last game of the season with the Lakers easily having locked up and in the first 2 games he played vs the Spurs(the 2 meaningful ones), he had 31 points in each game, not 25.[/QUOTE]
I still believe The Spurs would have beat them. Duncan could not be stopped. Shaq would have to get 40 plus points to beat them. That was not happening. The Lakers were way better than the rest of the league because of Shaq. But against the Spurs he couldn't be as dominant. The Spurs were the defending champs and had the edge over the Lakers after sweeping them the year before.

^LOL. In one of those games Shaq didn't play, in the other Duncan didn't and they split the other two.

I think the NBA as a league was a little weaker in 1999-2000. All the stars of the 1990s were either old or retired, and the players who would become stars of the 2000s were either really young, or hadn't even entered the league. In the 1990-1991 season, you still had an incredible amount of star players in the league, and the NBA hadn't expanded yet.

Just in Jordan's 1991 playoff run alone he went through Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, and Patrick Ewing. That's pretty incredible when you think about it.

[QUOTE=eliteballer]^LOL. In one of those games Shaq didn't play, in the other Duncan didn't and they split the other two.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for bringing up something already said more than once.

Jordan because of his will to win and work ethic. He never took a night off

[QUOTE=Big#50]I still believe The Spurs would have beat them. Duncan could not be stopped. Shaq would have to get 40 plus points to beat them. That was not happening. The Lakers were way better than the rest of the league because of Shaq. But against the Spurs he couldn't be as dominant. The Spurs were the defending champs and had the edge over the Lakers after sweeping them the year before.[/QUOTE]

The Lakers beat the 59-23 Blazers with Shaq averaging 26/12/4. They could beat teams without Shaq going for 30-40 points and 15-20 rebounds. Granted, that series did expose a flaw that the Lakers had which was not being able to make Portland pay and think twice about constant double and triple teams.

Kobe wasn't in his prime yet, but he was still a top 10 player, you could argue top 9 and they had the league's best player. The Spurs had the 2nd best player(Duncan) and another top 13 player(Robinson).

So both teams had excellent duos, and I do think the match up would have been interesting. Green and Horry couldn't guard Duncan, so they would have had to double often or have Shaq guard him which would be risky due to foul trouble.

But Robinson didn't guard Shaq 1 on 1 throughout the games either, and neither did Duncan. Regardless, I would have loved to have seen a series of Shaq and Duncan going head to head like they did on that Christmas game in 1999-2000. But unfortunately, that wasn't going to happen regardless.

But, what exactly does the sweep in '99 mean? The Lakers swept the Spurs in '01. Yeah, Kobe was better in 2001 than 2000, but Shaq was also better in 2000 than 1999 and they had Phil Jackson.

That 2000 Laker team could have been even better had they kept Rodman and had Phil gotten Scottie Pippen like he wanted. Rice was a bad fit and well past his prime. Rice could've been a great asset for the team had he accepted his role as a spot up shooter instead of bitching about not having plays run for him.

2000 Shaq. He also finished 2nd in defensive player of the year voting.

[QUOTE]That 2000 Laker team could have been even better had they kept Rodman and had Phil gotten Scottie Pippen like he wanted. Rice was a bad fit and well past his prime. Rice could've been a great asset for the team had he accepted his role as a spot up shooter instead of bitching about not having plays run for him.[/QUOTE]

Webber also wanted to go there when he was traded from Washington in 1998. Imagine C-Webb with Shaq and Kobe (I think that Elden Campbell and Eddie Jones were going to go to Washington in this proposed trade) and Pippen in 1999-00.

Also, there was a fan on You Tube (8301TheJMan) that was upset when they traded for Pippen and Steve Smith:

[QUOTE]Walt was such an underrated player throughout his career, but especially while at Portland. Nowadays he's remembered as a pure outside shooter, but that's just not the case what so ever. Sure his outside shot was his best attribute, but he was deceptively quick and athletic, and seeing as how deadly a shooter he was, he was great at faking the shot and then driving past the defender to the hoop and back then was still athletic enough to finish at the rim over most rotating help-defenders. And cuz of his size, he was also decent in the post. All in al - he was a much more versatile scorer thn he ever got credit for. His PPG had been creeping up towards 20 a game during his time in Sacramento and then Toronto, and though at Portland his numbers dropped considerably, it had to do entirely with the fact that the 98 and then 99 Blazers teams had one of the deepest stable of SG's and SF's in NBA history. Other than Walt, they also had Isaiah Rider, (who certainly was difficult to work with off the court, but regardless was one of the most talented and versatile scoring 2-guards in the league at the time and though he was a headcase - he was much more impactful on the court than Smitty was by the time Portland got him. Then on top of that - they also had Jimmy Jackson, Stacy Augmon, and a young Bonzi Wells.

That 99 team was so damn stacked good to great players at every positions, not just at the wing. I mean, Sheed was, (and still is), one of the most skilled and versatile PF's in NBA history. As deadly of an outside shooter that he was, he was unstoppable in the post - to go with being a phenomenal defender and rebounder. His biggest problem (aside for getting so many tech-fouls of course) was that he simply was never comfortable with being THE Man and was simply far too unselfish. If he had KG's or Duncan's assertiveness and willingness to step up and be that go-to scorer - demanding the ball every time down the court, then he would have been the legit best PF of all time! He had every bit as many unstoppable post moves as either Tim or Kevin, was much quicker and more athletic than Tim also a much better mid-rage and outside jump shot. Then was maybe not quite as athletic and fast and KG, but was much stronger and was a much better overall post defender. After Sheed they had Sabonis (one of the the top five Centers in the league during the late 90's), Brian Grant - who is one of the most underrated PF's in the league back then, and woulda put up much better number while at Portland, but similar Walt - he was having to share a bunch of PT with Sheed and a young Jermaine O'Neal. Then there was Damon, who was easily one of the top 3 or 4 best scoring PG's in the league at the time, though that teams actually needed more of a pass-first floor general, due to them already having plenty of guys who can scorer. Though he became much more of a true PG while in Portland than he ever was anywhere else, they also had the extremely underrated Greg Anthony, who imo the much more of the sort of PG that that team needed, a pass-first flor general who was also a ridiculously good on-ball defender.

That team was way better than the 2000 and then 2001 teams. They traded the troubled Rider along with the highly underrated Jimmy Jackson, who had knee injuries earlier in his career which was why he wasn't nearly the elite SG that he was in Dallas , but was still a great all-around SG/SF, who was - like Rider, a much more complete and versatile player than Steve Smith at that point in each of their careers. Trading just Rider would have been a bad trade by itself, but to give away both Rider and Jimmy, that was a travesty. Smith was never the most versatile player who was a crap defender and a very one-dimensional offensive skill-set - even back when he was in his prime a few years earlier, and by the time Portland got him he was pretty washed up, and was nothing more than a deadly outside shooter. To trade Walt, Stace, Greg Anthony, Cato, and the kitchen sink in order to acquire the even more washed-up Pippen was a compete waste. If they had kept that team together, they without any doubt would have eventually won the title and would have been contenders for at least another three or so seasons. Where as, by bringing in old over-the hill guys who weren't much, (if any at all), improvements on the slue of younger players they dealt away to get these dinosaurs, they pretty much doomed any and all potential longevity. Sorry for the rant, but that team was the Blazers team that I grew up with and made me become the hardcore Blazers fan that I am today, and I was devastated when I found out Portland traded away nearly half their effing team in order to get two over the hill former greats in Pippen and Smith. Watching this vid triggered the intense hatred I had, and still to this day - have towards Whitsitt for ruining a team that obviously was on the previous of becoming a major power in the western conference for a significantly longer period of time than they ended up being as a result of those idiotic trades.

[/QUOTE]

Pippen made Jordan average 41 ppg to 3-peat and 5 more PPG than everyone in playoff history... If a team needs 41 ppg from the top guy, then it's a BAD cast... 2 + 2 = 4.... And both the Bulls and Suns averaged exactly 106.7 ppg in that series, so all of Jordans 41 was needed... Pippen also shot 47% true shooting, so he couldn't handle additional load.

History shows that Pippen was a Shawn Marion level player... Or Iguodala.. Larry Nance... That type of player... So the idea that he was the perfect sidekick is bs... Shaq would've been a better sidekick.. Or Duncan... Hundreds of guys... Kemp... Marion... Iggy... Hundreds more

I take Jordan '91 just because he can control a game late in the 4th quarter and have the ball in his hands, whereas Shaq could be a liability with his free throws.

But Shaq was a monster that year, I might take 2000 Shaq over any version of LeBron or Kareem.

That said ... if Pippen could make a damn jump shot, Portland should have been in the 2000 Finals. That's where he needed to step up and hit some shots to stem the tide for the Blazers, you're a 6 time champion dude. Make a damn shot and settle your group down.