2000 Shaquille O'Neal vs 1991 Michael Jordan

[B]Their First Championship, Finally Over the Hump[/B]

[IMG]http://denisesays.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/jordan-and-da.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.lakersuniverse.com/campeon/shaqtrofeo.jpg[/IMG]

[B][U]Shaquille O'Neal[/U][/B]

Regular Season

29.7ppg/13.6rpg/3.8apg/0.5spg/3.0bpg on 57%FG/0%3P/52%FT/58%TS

Playoffs

30.7ppg/15.4rpg/3.1apg/0.6spg/2.4bpg on 57%FG/0%3P/46%FT/56%TS

vs

[B][U]Michael Jordan[/U][/B]

Regular Season

31.5ppg/6.0rpg/5.5apg/2.7spg/1.0bpg on 54%FG/31%3P/85%FT/61%TS

Playoffs

31.1ppg/6.4rpg/8.4apg/2.4spg/1.4bpg on 52%FG/39%3P/85%FT/60%TS

[B]2000 Shaquille O'Neal[/B]
NBA Champion
NBA Scoring Champion
Regular Season MVP
NBA Finals MVP
All-Star Game MVP
All-NBA First Team
All-Defensive Second Team
Lakers 67-15

[B]1991 Michael Jordan[/B]
NBA Champion
NBA Scoring Champion
Regular Season MVP
NBA Finals MVP
All-NBA First Team
All-Defensive First Team
Bulls 61-21

They were 27 years old entering their respective seasons. Jordan was entering his 7th season, and Shaq was entering his 8th season. Considered to be arguably the best in the league, Shaq and Jordan gave dominant performances seemingly every night, but they still haven't won the championship.

Entering their seasons with a chip on their shoulder, Jordan just suffered his worst and most-disappointing defeat in his career against the Pistons in a close 7-game series. While Shaq got swept out of the playoffs in embarrassing fashion by rival big-man Tim Duncan.

Phil Jackson arrived a season before for Jordan, and he had just arrived for Shaq. His coaching marked a turning point in each players' career. Under the triangle offense, Phil Jackson led the '91 Bulls and '00 Lakers to their best season record-wise under Jordan and Shaq.

Maybe among Phil Jackson's most remarkable accomplishments were allowing two rising stars in Scottie Pippen and Kobe Bryant to develop into the best side-kicks that Jordan and Shaq could ever hope for. Kobe Bryant was quickly becoming one of the best all-around players in the league. However, his biggest improvement under Phil Jackson would be his defense. While already being an all-star, Kobe earned his first-ever All-Defensive first team honor while playing for Jackson in his first year of coaching. Phil Jackson's arrival to the Bulls allowed Scottie Pippen to flourish into his 1st-ever All-Star team selection. Next season(1990-1991) Scottie would earn his first of many All-Defensive Team Selections . Scottie, like Kobe, was becoming one of the NBA's premier all-around players, and best perimeter defender of his time.

With a new coach Phil Jackson and blossoming teammates in Kobe Bryant and Scottie Pippen, Jordan and Shaq were finally ready to get the monkey off their backs. They posted up arguably the best season ever in their careers combing regular season, playoffs, and finals success. Their memorable performances earned them recognition among the greatest players of all-time.

Who had a more impressive and dominant season 2000 Shaq or 1991 Michael Jordan?

Putting Shaq's 3 point % made me :oldlol:

Jordan by a mile.

He never played with a Kobe cailber player like Shaq did.

[QUOTE=Birmingham1955]Jordan by a mile.

He never played with a Kobe cailber player like Shaq did.[/QUOTE]

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.

This is a very good debate. However, Jordan's clutchness really puts him a little bit different higher tier of immorality. Shaq you could just hack at the end of games.

[QUOTE=Birmingham1955]Jordan by a mile.

He never played with a Kobe cailber player like Shaq did.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying Shaq was better, but this is aweak argument. 2000 Kobe was nowhere near prime Kobe. Prime Kobe was/is definitely better than Pippen, but 2000 Kobe wasn't.

Not to mention that due to the injury, the Lakers got 15.6 ppg, 4.6 rpg and 4.2 apg on 36.7% shooting in the finals. His totals are lowered due to him leaving game 2 early so I'm not trying to make Kobe look worse, but that's completely irrelevant to how much help Shaq got in the finals. Of course, Shaq averaged 38/17/3 on 61% shooting and had double digit 4th quarters in all of the wins, including game 6 when he shot 6/6 from the field in the 4th to clinch a title and Indiana actually had a 5 point lead entering the 4th.

And after Kobe? Horace Grant was much better than Rice circa 2000. Rice was a good 3rd option in the regular season(though he shot only 43% and made just 1 three per game), but in the playoffs, dropped to 12/4/2 on 41% while still making around 1 three per game and even worse in the finals. Of course, he didn't impact the games outside of his scoring.

Grant provide defense, rebounding, underrated passing, a knack for putting himself in the right spot to finish off of Jordan and Pippen's passes and he was mobile back then.

If you want to cite reasons why Jordan was better, that's fine with me, I'm not going to debate that, but don't show your ignorance by suggesting Shaq had much more help, which is blatantly false.

[QUOTE=O.J A 6'4Mamba]This is a very good debate. However, Jordan's clutchness really puts him a little bit different higher tier of immorality. Shaq you could just hack at the end of games.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say Jordan was at higher tier.

Shaq delivered one of the greatest Finals Performances of all-time that year. 38ppg/17rpg/2apg on 61%FG.

Jordan did the same with 31ppg/7rpg/11apg on 56%FG

You could argue Shaq was just as clutch. Plus there is unique advantage the Lakers get for other teams being forced to foul Shaq that Jordan didn't have.

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

Michel Jordan

33pts/7rebs/13asts 15/18 fgs and 13 consecutive FGs made(NBA-Record).


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

Shaquille O'Neal

43pts/19rebs/4asts 21/32 fgs followed by 40pts/24rebs/4asts 11/18 fgs

:bowdown: :bowdown:

My favorite season from Shaq, but I'd have to go with Jordan. The clutch shots, playmaking, defense, and the ability to hit freethrows consistently seals the deal for me. Jordan was the better all around player, while Shaq, IMO, was more dominant putting the ball in the hoop.

First three peat Jordan, and Peak Shaq circa 99-2002 are the two most dominant players anyone ever SAW. #Fact.

Jordan by quite a bit. He was just a better player, could score more, pass better, a better defender. He was in his prime, and he is the best player ever, so it's not really [I]that[/I] terribly close.

These years are good comparisons. That was the most impressive year for Shaq in the playoffs imo of his whole career. He certainly carried the Lakers. . .especially in the Finals. Replace Shaq with any other center in the league at that time, and the Lakers sure as hell don't win.

I don't think the whole FT thing for Shaq was really making him a more dominant scorer, Jordan was more efficiant (60% TS% vs Shaq's 55.6%). Who was more impactful defensively is impossible to determine since it's different positions.

Shaq destroyed people on the glass, Jordan created more for his team.

Very very difficult to chose between one of the two. I always tend to feel the impact of big men is more than guards, but Jordan was just smashing people that year.

Reluctantly, I'll go with Shaq since he won with less on his team that season. Shaq by a very slim margin. But just for that one run.

[QUOTE=BFRESH44]First three peat Jordan, and Peak Shaq circa 99-2002 are the two most dominant players anyone ever SAW. #Fact.[/QUOTE]

Agreed IMO.

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

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

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

Ain't losing to the Pistons in '04.

Give me Shaq. Gotta go with the dominant big man.

Jordan on the 96-2004 Lakers wins more titles than Shaq IMO.

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

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

That team would probably win 7-9 titles IMO.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Agreed IMO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who do you double?

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

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

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Agreed IMO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Smak

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

Who do you double?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Smak[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kobe is better than Pippen

Fisher is better than Paxson/Harper/Kerr

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

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

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

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

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

Kobe is better than Pippen

Fisher is better than Paxson/Harper/Kerr

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

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

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

Rodman is better than Horry.

Horry was a bench player (2000)averaging

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

Meanwhile Rodman with the Bulls had

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

Regardless Rodman never played in 1991.

Meanwhile Horace Grant from 91-93 posted up

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

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

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

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

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

Bulls had the advantage at point.

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

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

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

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

Jordan had an all-star caliber teammate in Pippen.

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

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

2000 Kobe and 1991 Pippen were just about equal.

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

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

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

Lmao shaq had just as much to do with it u werent in la fool

LMAO @ "Shaq had [b]just as much[/b] to do with it". :oldlol: (emphasis mine) No. Shaq was partly to blame, but not nearly to the same extent Kobe was.

Regarding the 2004 Finals.

Kobe was part of the problem, but [B]not the only reason[/B] why the Lakers lost to Pistons. There were a lot.

1. Gary Payton was getting killed by Chauncey Billups that series. He was helpless against him.

2. The Pistons Defense just shut down everybody on the Lakers outside of Shaq.

3. The Lakers as a team shot 41.6%FG against the Pistons.

4. No Player on the Lakers shot above 40% other than Rick Fox and Shaq. [I]Note: Rick Fox only played 30 minutes that entire series.
[/I]
Shaq shot 63%
Fox shot 57% (Note: He only attempted 7 Field Goal Attemps the entire series making 4 of them.)

Do you know which Laker player had the next highest fg%?
Devean George Shooting 39%

Here are the Laker Field Goal% during the 2004 NBA Finals

1. Shaquille O'Neal 63%
2. Rick Fox 57% (4 for 7)
[B]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%[/B]

The entire team played like dog $4it that series outside of Shaq.

5. Karl Malone got injured.

6. The Lakers were averaging 81.8ppg that series as a team.

7. While the Lakers offense struggled, the Pistons had 5 players averaging double-figure points that series.

It was just an ugly series all-around for the Lakers. People act like only Kobe played bad for the Lakers. The entire team basically played bad except Shaq. Even Shaq's brilliance wouldn't be enough to save them, it was just to big of a disparity between the teams.

Now continue on about '91 Jordan vs '00 Shaq :)

As far as the answer to the OP, I'll have to watch a few more random regular season games to really decide.

I don't have the same perspective on Jordan's 1991 season as I do on Shaq's having watched the NBA regularly in 2000. But I did go back and download a ton of 1989-1990 Jordan games, and did it randomly to not just pick out the best to evaluate his season so I could do the same with the 1991 Jordan.

A little trivia is that Jordan and Shaq are 2 of only 4 players to win a scoring title and championship in the same season.

[QUOTE=O.J A 6'4Mamba]This is a very good debate. However, Jordan's clutchness really puts him a little bit different higher tier of immorality. Shaq you could just hack at the end of games.[/QUOTE]

Not true in 2000. Indiana tried to hack Shaq in game 2 of the 2000 finals and they lost the game, particularly with Shaq struggling early at the line, but upping his FT% in the 4th quarter.

Portland tried this in game 1 of the WCF and they actually fell behind even more after starting the hack a Shaq.

As I've mentioned, Shaq more often than not in the 2000 playoffs seemed to have double digit 4th quarters, unfortunately myths have started since then that he was on the bench in crunch time because that's what happened when he got older and was no longer the same dominant force.

[QUOTE=SinJackal]
I don't think the whole FT thing for Shaq was really making him a more dominant scorer, Jordan was more efficiant (60% TS% vs Shaq's 55.6%). Who was more impactful defensively is impossible to determine since it's different positions.[/QUOTE]

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.

most dominant O'neal because there was no competition anymore in 00, and most impressive MJ of course.

[QUOTE=necya]most dominant O'neal because there was no competition anymore in 00, and most impressive MJ of course.[/QUOTE]

No competition? Take a look at this game.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JVqhtV3xww"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JVqhtV3xww[/URL]

He goes head to head with Tim Duncan throughout most of the game and winds up with 32 points, 11 rebounds, 5 blocks and 2 assists on 13/22 shooting with just 2 turnovers compared to Duncan's 28 points, 9 rebounds, 1 block and 1 assist on 8/23 shooting with 4 turnovers.

Even more impressive is that Duncan was just 2/14 with Shaq guarding him and Shaq blocked 3 of his shots. The previous season, Duncan was the best player in the NBA and in 1999-2000, he was still the second best. That's impressive.

Not only that, but David Robinson was still a force whose stats were lowered due to play with a dominant post player like Duncan on a slow paced team as well as Popovich limiting his minutes when he could.

People forget about twin towers Robinson, that year, he was one of the premier defensive players in the league and he led the Spurs in blocks and steals. He also led the Spurs in scoring in the second half of the season with almost 21 ppg and without Duncan, he led the Spurs to a 5-3 record and upped his scoring to 22 ppg on 53% shooting in those games while the Spurs still only allowed 90.5 ppg. Robinson was still without a doubt a top 15 player, IMO and I have him ranked at 13 for that year.

Then there was Alonzo Mourning out in Miami who was peaking. He averaged 22/10/4 on 55% shooting. Mourning was the 3rd best player in the league.

Dikembe Mutombo was still in his prime and averaged 11.5 ppg as well as over 14 rpg and 3 bpg on 56% shooting.

Unlike now, most teams still had either a skilled low post center with size who could average double figures or atleast a bulky 7 footer who could block shots and rebound. Not only that, but it seemed like Shaq faced less single coverage than anyone in the league.

More impoortantly, in any era, how many truly great centers are there? You can usually count them on one hand, and throughout an 82 game season, that won't make all that much of a difference in terms of a player's averages. That will make more of a difference with all-nba teams, blocked shots and rebounding leaders and defensive player of the year voting.

I respect you for your amazing collection of games, but this is not really a valid point. The irony is that Kobe fans use the competition argument against Jordan and most Jordan fans argue that, yet someone is using it against Shaq? In both cases, I don't think the argument is all that valid.

If you want to get into an argument of eras then I'll just bring up that the average team's defensive rating in '91 was 107.9 while the average team's defensive rating in 2000 was 104.1.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]No competition? Take a look at this game.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JVqhtV3xww"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JVqhtV3xww[/URL]

He goes head to head with Tim Duncan throughout most of the game and winds up with 32 points, 11 rebounds, 5 blocks and 2 assists on 13/22 shooting with just 2 turnovers compared to Duncan's 28 points, 9 rebounds, 1 block and 1 assist on 8/23 shooting with 4 turnovers.

Even more impressive is that Duncan was just 2/14 with Shaq guarding him and Shaq blocked 3 of his shots. The previous season, Duncan was the best player in the NBA and in 1999-2000, he was still the second best. That's impressive.

Not only that, but David Robinson was still a force whose stats were lowered due to play with a dominant post player like Duncan on a slow paced team as well as Popovich limiting his minutes when he could.

People forget about twin towers Robinson, that year, he was one of the premier defensive players in the league and he led the Spurs in blocks and steals. He also led the Spurs in scoring in the second half of the season with almost 21 ppg and without Duncan, he led the Spurs to a 5-3 record and upped his scoring to 22 ppg on 53% shooting in those games while the Spurs still only allowed 90.5 ppg. Robinson was still without a doubt a top 15 player, IMO and I have him ranked at 13 for that year.

Then there was Alonzo Mourning out in Miami who was peaking. He averaged 22/10/4 on 55% shooting. Mourning was the 3rd best player in the league.

Dikembe Mutombo was still in his prime and averaged 11.5 ppg as well as over 14 rpg and 3 bpg on 56% shooting.

Unlike now, most teams still had either a skilled low post center with size who could average double figures or atleast a bulky 7 footer who could block shots and rebound. Not only that, but it seemed like Shaq faced less single coverage than anyone in the league.

More impoortantly, in any era, how many truly great centers are there? You can usually count them on one hand, and throughout an 82 game season, that won't make all that much of a difference in terms of a player's averages. That will make more of a difference with all-nba teams, blocked shots and rebounding leaders and defensive player of the year voting.

I respect you for your amazing collection of games, but this is not really a valid point. The irony is that Kobe fans use the competition argument against Jordan and most Jordan fans argue that, yet someone is using it against Shaq? In both cases, I don't think the argument is all that valid.

If you want to get into an argument of eras then I'll just bring up that the average team's defensive rating in '91 was 107.9 while the average team's defensive rating in 2000 was 104.1.[/QUOTE]

yeah i know this game...
don't missunderstand my thoughts, i liked shaq, when he entered the league, he took part of the best battles in the paint with all you know. but hey, honestly, shaq is a very lucky player, he was born at the right time to be a 27yo when all the best came down. please remember shaq went to LA for many reasons : leadership issue with Penny, LA was a better place for shaq's business and to avoid the bulls until the finals. what's happened? Malone and his Jazz defeated the lakers 4-1 and 4-0...then 99, bad year, bad coach...etc

what i'm trying to underline is shaq needed the departure / advanced age of the best rob, olajuwon, malone, jordan to get his chance. of course he faced the blazers in 00 and the spurs. but nothing better than the guys named. he didn't have the same issues as robinson or malone or olajuwon who have fought the WC in the 90's. i read magnax who said malone failed in crucial moments (ok you can always mention his FT missed in 3-4 games of playoffs) but all teams failed in those years!
rockets, sonics, jazz, spurs, suns : all have a great team between 90-97. but sonics failed in 94, 95 (but WCF in 93, 96) suns in 94, 95 (but WCF in 90, 93) rockets in 92, 93, 96 (but WCF in 94, 95) jazz 93, 95 (but WCF in 92, 94, 96, 97) spurs in 91, 92 (rob injured) and 94 (but WCSF in 90, 93, 95 please note that the spurs had the worst supporting cast compared to the other teams)

you mentionned Robinson (34yo) in the 2000 season : he still had a good game, but honestly he wasn't the Robinson i'm talking about, the one who dominated shaq 2 times in 93/94, 2 times in 94/95 and 1 time in 96. after his back injury, he wasn't the same anymore and it was natural, ask to LJ.

then, morning, okay shaq use to abuse of him like Rob and Olajuwon did too...
Mutombo, 33yo, 33yo is the last good season for shaq but nothing compare with a younger model, you see that at this age the center aren't anymore the one they were.
so rest in his conference, a magnificent PF (yeah a PF, for all the morons here, duncan is a C in the 2000 cause there is no true C anymore) but who was injured for the playoffs...

so in a 82 games season, shaq in 95 played Olajuwon 32yo twice, rob 29yo twice, mutombo 28yo twice, mourning 24yo 4 times, ewing 32yo 5 times. everyone were in good shape, that make the game harder, no?
in 00, he faced mourning 29yo twice, mutombo 33yo twice and rob 33yo post injury. he battled only one guy in good shape...
more of that, every teams had a 7-0 C, and he wasn't good, they had a freaking PFs.
the difference in the all nba teams, i have already said that if you try to rank the best defensive C of 00's in the 90's, you will see how poor is the league today. Howard won't be in the first 4 all nba team or defensive team, behind rob, olajuwon, mutombo, mourning.

so for me, no competition, the game was very poor in the 00's. then the 96-97 class of volume scorer came to maturity and destroy the game spirit imo.

finally, concerning your last paragraph about the average defensive rating, you know i hate those stats and even more here cause people like it here but don't know how to estimate them and they will never tell the story of a game.
defense was much better in 2nd part of 80's and 1st part of 90's and the points allow per game won't give you the righ answer IMO.
take the cavs of 95 or 96 with Fratello. they were very well organised and control the low tempo cause they weren't enough athletic to play 48min on higher tempo. the bulls of 89 were a much better team defense but allow more points to their opponents, like the bucks in the 85-87. they were very good at defense, the lakers of 85-87 too. but the offensive weapons in the 80's were too much. they played team basketball, and the systems were more based on looking for a good balanced jumshot. the sreeens were set a lot better too, that help a lot. the isolation and dribbles are too much used now we know that the game is faster with passes than with dribbles...the skill set of the average player in 80's 90's is a lot better than today. today, they just don't know how to defend a pick and roll, even the basics are not used.
guards used to bring confidence in controling the possession, set the play, moving on the systems and take free shots, now the guards use to make 20 dribbles, between the legs, between the legs again, cross over one time, 2 times...
the more you used the guards at scoring the more the game is poor and it tends to increase. the basketball game is generally set for big men, on the mid court game and the transition game is set for the big (trailers).


as i'm not american with an english who knows his limits, it's hard for me to explain myself with specific vocabulary so excuse me if some points are not well developped or a bit confused.

i like your post shaqattack, cause you are well educated and know enough to rob other people with some "smart" arguments :D

[QUOTE=necya]yeah i know this game...
don't missunderstand my thoughts, i liked shaq, when he entered the league, he took part of the best battles in the paint with all you know. but hey, honestly, shaq is a very lucky player, he was born at the right time to be a 27yo when all the best came down. please remember shaq went to LA for many reasons : leadership issue with Penny, LA was a better place for shaq's business and to avoid the bulls until the finals. what's happened? Malone and his Jazz defeated the lakers 4-1 and 4-0...then 99, bad year, bad coach...etc[/QUOTE]

Well, Shaq became a much better player in 2000 than the previous years due to Phil Jackson's leadership motivating him. And lets be honest, in 1998, Shaq's supporting cast choked big time in the WCF, Nick Van Exel shot 24% from the field, Kobe shot 37%, Horry shot 36% and his second option Eddie Jones only produced 15 ppg on 41% shooting. Shaq was the only player on the team who could produce offensively, he averaged 32 ppg on 56% shooting that series and 30.5 ppg on 61% shooting in the playoffs that year.

I do blame Shaq for performing below his standard when they lost to Utah in '97 and San Antonio in '99.

I don't think it was so much the era that changed Shaq's career, I think it was Phil Jackson who motivated Shaq, taught him to make his teammates better and motivated him to more minutes, rebound more and play better defense.

[QUOTE]what i'm trying to underline is shaq needed the departure / advanced age of the best rob, olajuwon, malone, jordan to get his chance. of course he faced the blazers in 00 and the spurs. but nothing better than the guys named. he didn't have the same issues as robinson or malone or olajuwon who have fought the WC in the 90's. i read magnax who said malone failed in crucial moments (ok you can always mention his FT missed in 3-4 games of playoffs) but all teams failed in those years!
rockets, sonics, jazz, spurs, suns : all have a great team between 90-97. but sonics failed in 94, 95 (but WCF in 93, 96) suns in 94, 95 (but WCF in 90, 93) rockets in 92, 93, 96 (but WCF in 94, 95) jazz 93, 95 (but WCF in 92, 94, 96, 97) spurs in 91, 92 (rob injured) and 94 (but WCSF in 90, 93, 95 please note that the spurs had the worst supporting cast compared to the other teams)[/QUOTE]

Malone was still very good in 2000. He averaged 25.5 ppg, 9.5 rpg and 3.7 apg and he had a 50 point playoff games.

But lets be honest, people use the same criticism for Jordan winning titles after Bird was done and Magic in his last year as well as the Pistons decline. I don't agree with this logic either, a championship is a championship to me, especially when you perform at the level Jordan and Shaq did.

People also criticize Olajuwon for only winning with Jordan retired/coming back late in '95. I don't agree with that either.

[QUOTE]you mentionned Robinson (34yo) in the 2000 season : he still had a good game, but honestly he wasn't the Robinson i'm talking about, the one who dominated shaq 2 times in 93/94, 2 times in 94/95 and 1 time in 96. after his back injury, he wasn't the same anymore and it was natural, ask to LJ.[/QUOTE]

Of course it wasn't the same Robinson, but he was still very good and he teamed up with Duncan in the paint to form the best defensive duo in the paint I've ever seen.

And don't forget that young Shaq dominated Robinson once in '95 too. He had 36/12 on 15/27 shooting one game compared to Robinson's 24/14/4/5 on 7/24 shooting and some other games they played pretty close.

But that was peak David Robinson, Shaq peaked when Phil Jackson became coach in 2000 and 2001 before he fell out of shape. That Shaq was more skilled, smarter, stronger and more mature than the Orlando version that was faster and more athletic, but not as polished or smart.

[QUOTE]then, morning, okay shaq use to abuse of him like Rob and Olajuwon did too...[/QUOTE]

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]
finally, concerning your last paragraph about the average defensive rating, you know i hate those stats and even more here cause people like it here but don't know how to estimate them and they will never tell the story of a game.
defense was much better in 2nd part of 80's and 1st part of 90's and the points allow per game won't give you the righ answer IMO.
take the cavs of 95 or 96 with Fratello. they were very well organised and control the low tempo cause they weren't enough athletic to play 48min on higher tempo. the bulls of 89 were a much better team defense but allow more points to their opponents, like the bucks in the 85-87. they were very good at defense, the lakers of 85-87 too. but the offensive weapons in the 80's were too much. they played team basketball, and the systems were more based on looking for a good balanced jumshot. the sreeens were set a lot better too, that help a lot. the isolation and dribbles are too much used now we know that the game is faster with passes than with dribbles...the skill set of the average player in 80's 90's is a lot better than today. today, they just don't know how to defend a pick and roll, even the basics are not used.
guards used to bring confidence in controling the possession, set the play, moving on the systems and take free shots, now the guards use to make 20 dribbles, between the legs, between the legs again, cross over one time, 2 times...
the more you used the guards at scoring the more the game is poor and it tends to increase. the basketball game is generally set for big men, on the mid court game and the transition game is set for the big (trailers).[/QUOTE]

I think that defensive rating is an excellent stat. I don't like many of the new stats, but defensive rating measures the points a team allows per 100 possessions which is a good way to judge a team defensively because it doesn't penalize a team for playing at a fast pace.

[QUOTE]as i'm not american with an english who knows his limits, it's hard for me to explain myself with specific vocabulary so excuse me if some points are not well developped or a bit confused.[/QUOTE]

It's ok, I understand the points you're trying to make.

[QUOTE]i like your post shaqattack, cause you are well educated and know enough to rob other people with some "smart" arguments :D[/QUOTE]

Thank you and I appreciate the games you post, I've downloaded many and I love old school basketball.

[QUOTE=Birmingham1955]Jordan by a mile.

He never played with a Kobe cailber player like Shaq did.[/QUOTE]


90-91 Pippen was as every bit as good as Kobe during those first couple of runs

[QUOTE=laronprofit9]Regarding the 2004 Finals.

Kobe was part of the problem, but [B]not the only reason[/B] why the Lakers lost to Pistons. There were a lot.

1. Gary Payton was getting killed by Chauncey Billups that series. He was helpless against him.

2. The Pistons Defense just shut down everybody on the Lakers outside of Shaq.

3. The Lakers as a team shot 41.6%FG against the Pistons.

4. No Player on the Lakers shot above 40% other than Rick Fox and Shaq. [I]Note: Rick Fox only played 30 minutes that entire series.
[/I]
Shaq shot 63%
Fox shot 57% (Note: He only attempted 7 Field Goal Attemps the entire series making 4 of them.)

Do you know which Laker player had the next highest fg%?
Devean George Shooting 39%

Here are the Laker Field Goal% during the 2004 NBA Finals

1. Shaquille O'Neal 63%
2. Rick Fox 57% (4 for 7)
[B]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%[/B]

The entire team played like dog $4it that series outside of Shaq.

5. Karl Malone got injured.

6. The Lakers were averaging 81.8ppg that series as a team.

7. While the Lakers offense struggled, the Pistons had 5 players averaging double-figure points that series.

It was just an ugly series all-around for the Lakers. People act like only Kobe played bad for the Lakers. The entire team basically played bad except Shaq. Even Shaq's brilliance wouldn't be enough to save them, it was just to big of a disparity between the teams.

Now continue on about '91 Jordan vs '00 Shaq :)[/QUOTE]


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