2000 Shaquille O'Neal vs 1991 Michael Jordan

[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.

[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)