telecomguy wrote:Perhaps one of the reason why Olajuwon's perimeter players hit for such a high % was because the Magic was forced to double-team Olajuwon due to the inability of Shaq to cover Hakeem one-on-one with the silky smooth post moves (Dream Shake!) that Hakeem pulled on Shaq time and time again. And I doubt that Shaq was double-teamed as often as Hakeem
Yes, the Rockets used single-coverage on Shaq more often than not, because they knew that the other guys weren't going to burn them hard enough in isolation for it to matter. Drexler took everyone on Orlando to school and Dream wasn't the only one opening things up for them; Horry was a fairly significant player in that serious.
The Magic didn't put together a good defensive scheme against Olajuwon either, Brian Hill isn't a good coach.
You can argue that Pop made some great picks late in the rounds getting Parker and Gino and picking up Bowen out of scrap heap but what does that have to do with how great a coach Pop was/is? I am not saying he is a bad coach although there are quite a few Spurs fans and analysts who couldn't figure out why SPurs went small against the Mavs who had Diop and Dirk & Josh Howard grabbing offensive rebounds after offensive rebounds as only Duncan was left as the lone Big! Or how about using Finley or Manu to try to defend Diaw or Odom in the paint area even though they (especailly poor Finely) got torched repeatedly. And why was Kurt Thomas and Barry sitting on the bench so much against the Lakers???? These are some potentially big mistakes that Pop MAY have made. I say "made" because one can never really know since past cannot be changed
It has to do with how he contributed to the team's chances of victory. Every coach will make mistakes but Pop has historically prepared his teams with tight defensive rotations and clean, smooth offensive systems.
OK i understand and agree that Shaq was not a POOR defender but he was nowhere near teh Help defender that Duncan was/is and this is very important, especially today when the guards are allowed to penetrate willy/nilly
Yes, Duncan is a much more consistent team defender, not just as a shot-blocker but in all aspects of defense. He is a far superior defender, I'm just trying to react to some of your statements, which actively attack Shaq as a poor defender.
Are you saying that Duncan is not "dominant" or a huge part of Spurs offensive strategy? That is an incredible statement to make.
Duncan is not a dominant offensive tool; he is not THAT far separated from Garnett, or Al Jefferson, for that matter.
He's pretty efficient, he draws fouls pretty well and he's a brilliant big passer but he's not a dominant offensive force. He is, of course,
CLEARLY "central" to their offense, but that's a different story.
Duncan does not traditionally take over games with his offensive ability, he doesn't overpower you with his scoring prowess the way Shaq could, Instead, he's a steady presence who quietly helps align the offense and helps it to run smoothly.
Why do you think Pop got so many 3 pt shooters and why did Spurs become a 3pt shooting team if they supposedly had the two best slashers in Parker and Gino as you allude? Because for the most part, the offense ran through Duncan in the form of 4-Down where Duncan would wait for the inevitable double team and then pass it out for a wide-open uncontested 3 pt shot by Gino/Finley/Jackson/Elliott/Kerr/Barry/Udoka/etc.etc. In fact if anything, Spurs rely too much on Duncan for their offense and sometimes it gets stale as the ball gets dumped into him in the paint and all the Spurs stand around waiting for their open shots. Shaq NEVER had to shoulder as much offense as Duncan in terms of touches and controlling the ball.
To the first part, that's being central to the offense, not offensively dominant. That is something that is true of maybe two dozen players in this league.
As to the second, you're blatantly wrong, couldn't be further from the truth unless you're talking about Shaq in the Miami and Phoenix era. The man has averaged just over 30 possessions a game on his career and had an 8-year stretch where he averaged something like a third of his team's possessions. Duncan has never averaged 30% USG or higher, though he's come close. He doesn't get the ball forced into him as often as did Shaq, so that last bit is completely wrong.
That's becuase he alwyas had Penny, Kobe, and Wade......3 superstars who could CREATE and make their own shots almost anytime they wanted. Spurs never had that on a consistent basis. The player that Spurs relied on to CREATE and make things happen on the offensive end mostof the time in the past decade was in fact Duncan
Actually, because of the depth of Duncan's teams, more guys touch the ball more often deeper into the bench, which overcomes the time-on-ball of a dominant superstar like Kobe or Penny or Wade.
I beg to differ. Until recently (last year) Parker was not even allowed to do anything in the crunch time other than dribble the ball up and dump it into Duncan if he got decent position in the paint (first option) of if not, hand if off to Gino for Gino to create. Parker was not and even now, is not the go-to guy in the 4th quarter. Everyone knows that.
Yeah, because it's Manu; the point is, Parker is able to handle the ball in backcourt and make the post entry pass to start the offense while Manu and Duncan set up, that's still significant. He may not be a clutch scorer but he's still filling a setup role ala Duane Ward.
This is why its' all the more a credit to DUncan that Spurs went to him in the post even in crunch time -- guards are supposed to handle the ball but I don't know how many times Spurs had to rely on Duncan in the paint time and time again in big games down the stretch when the opposing defense shut the lanes/paint area to prevent Gino from penetrating
Duncan doesn't do anything offensively down the stretch that Shaq did not do when he was a primary scorer.
Simply not true. Especially in the past. I agree that more recently, Gino has gotten more calls but Duncan still is a big big part of the spurs offensive scheme down the stretch because if he gets the ball in the paint, the opposing team almost always have to double team Duncan or he will torch the defense with his patented post moves
Buckets out of timeouts are usually called for Ginobili; buckets in the last two minutes are usually called for Manu or a shooter like Bowen or Barry.
Yes, the Spurs run their offense late into the fourth quarter because it facilitates ball movement and attacks the defense effectively but those shots that are considered "clutch" are usually from their shooters.
No. Shaq does NOT touch the ball in the final few minutes of the game unless he is left wide-open under the basket and even then Kobe is reluctant to pass it to him because the defense will simply do the Hack-A-Shaq.
Based on 16 years of watching Shaq, I can say you're definitely wrong on this account. Hack-a-Shaq HAPPENS because he's in the game and when he's in the game, it's been foolish NOT to go to him because he has as good a chance as any to complete on his FGA while getting fouled.
WHat kind of dominant player gets hacked on purpose as it happend in the Suns-Spurs series and other series in prior years that the coach actually had to SIT Shaq on the bench because he became such a liability? And you call that dominant when he has to sit down during the most important minutes of the game that decides the outcome? When do you see Duncan getting benched in the 4th quarter? almost never unless he has 5 fouls and Pop wants to save him for the last few minutes or potential overtime
No, because Shaq's 35 years old, in his 16th season in the league and not dominant any longer because he's past his prime; why are you focusing on old Shaq? He's dealt with injuries, age and adjustment to a new offensive role. We are discussing dominant Shaq, to whom such coaching did not occur.
Hmm......that may have been true last year against Cleveland because TP was being guarded by half-crippled Hughes!! Anyone who has followed the Spurs and Parker in particular knows that until last year, Parker made a habit of dissapearing in key games and dissapearing in 4th quarters or then entire second half when the game is won or lost. And I guess you didn't see Duncan basically carry his team on both offense and defense against Pistons in the 7th game in 2005 championship game from halfway 3rd qtr when Spurs were down 9 pts.,
I did, yes. But again, you're trying to use specific examples to compare Duncan in his prime to Shaq at the end of his career, which is foolish and ridiculous. You're also overcrediting Duncan for his body of work as if what he's doing is special next to what Shaq has achieved. Naturally, Duncan is an incredible player, one of the 10 or 11 best to play the game but you continue to fail to account for differences in career stage in this conversation and seem simply incapable of acknowledging that what Duncan's done, so to has Shaq, it's just been a few years.
YOu conveniently forget that Parker schooled Payon in the first two home games when Spurs beat the Lakers handily and then the Lakers (Jackson) shut the paint down when the series went back to LA, daring Parker to hit open jumpers and basically Parker choked big time and dissappeared even as DUncan tried to pick up all the slack and will his team to victory with that amazing fadeaway jumper in the 5th game only to see Fisher hit that miracle shot to win. Parker sucked in that series after the 2nd game and was one of the reason why Spurs lost, not Duncan. I can't believe you picked 2004 to support your argument that Praker was a star for the Spurs. In fact its only the last year that Parker finallly started to hit the jumper under pressure and even then, sometimes he would be very erratic and his jumpers still come & go and is not reliable enough to depend on in the crunch time
I didn't conveniently forget anything, Payton couldn't defend my mom that year because he was old and washed the Hell up by that point, though it is certainly true that Parker took great advantage of that to torch Payton before the Spurs lost.
Yes, his jumper is erratic but it's developing, as is the rest of his game. You're unwillingness to credit Parker, a guy who was scored well for three years now and continues to improve in his role in the postseason, is rather remarkable.
Manu was not nearly as good back then. He was just learning how to play NBA and in Pop's system. Also he didn't play that many minutes. and Jackson apart from few games was very erratic and hurt Spurs as much as he helped them
No, he wasn't as good but he was still a very good player and they still had a lot of help. Stephen Jackson had some very good games throughout that postseason and did not hurt the Spurs as much as he helped them.
I don;t think Parker ever gets double teamed.
I don't see why he should, nor do I see it happen a lot.
And in fact because Duncan gets double teamed so much and draws so much attention, Parker is able to slither in to the paint area because if the opposing defender leaves to try to cut Parker off, Duncan would be left free (unfortunately this happens more now due to Parker's penetrating skills but Parker isn't able to or is unwilling to lay off the pass to Duncan for easy layups...instead Parker still tries to bull into the rim and he is quite good at it now but he should be laying the ball off more like Chris Paul or Nash or Billups or Kidd or Deron or.......you get my drift!
Sure, but he's not a pure point guard and it's to be expected. He's milking his one skill, but don't forget that his APG and his AST% are on an upward trend over the last half-decade. He's improving, he's just not an epic playmaker.
OK lets say Shaq was average or slightly above average defender. DEFENSE is huge in any game, especially in the playoffs.
Nope, you're already starting off on the wrong foot.
In Shaq's prime, in the best years of his career, he was the second-best defensive center in the league for three years running. That's a lot more than "slightly above average."
Give him his due.
If Duncan is much better on defense and Shaq is only marginally better than Duncan on offense (and don't quote pts because being a great offensive player is more than just about scoring or dunking) then overlal Duncan has the edge no?
You're definitely wrong on this account; no sane individual would say Duncan is a comparable offensive player. Shaq is a superior volume scorer, he's considerably better at putting the opposition frontcourt into foul trouble, he's a comparable passer and he shoots something like 8-10% better from the floor, which is of significance. Moreover, he routinely gets deeper into the post and that warps the defense more than does Duncan's positioning in the mid-post.
You cannot just pick few years of outstanding play. You have to look at all 10 years after Jordan retired.
See, you're being awkward; we're having a discussion that actively notes (repeatedly) that we believe Duncan to be the guy who, over the longer time-span, has achieved more and been the better player because he has more years where he's at his peak level but we're also recognizing the simple truth that Shaq, at HIS peak, was a lot better than Duncan. That's true.
You, however, are unwilling to accept that there was such a time... for whatever reason. And that's just stubbornness.
Who cares? We are not debating whose peak was better although even this is highly contentious.
YES, we are. Because the determination of who is best is based on a subjective definition of 'best' that can include either who was the most dangerous play at any single point in the decade or who was more consistently skilled. Shaq was better than Duncan, this was consensus league-wide and amongst all analysts and what-not. Everyone who talked ball knew that Shaq in his hey-day was better than Duncan.
defense, setting great picks, running the floor, attracting double teams, being the focal point/quaterback on both offense and defense, and defending not just the rim but pick'n'roll and altering many shots even out to the perimeter (which Duncan does quite regularly), the answe could be that Duncan may even had higher PEAK than Shaq because of all the things DUncan did that was not obvious to the average fan.
Nope, that's also wrong. Shaq was noted for his ability to run the floor, he screened better than Duncan because of his frame and he was constantly involved in post splits and cross screens because they are key parts of the triangle, he attracted more double teams than did or does Duncan because he was a much more dangerous scorer, he was even MORE of a focal point on offense (both as a scorer and as a passer) and in his prime, the defensive gap was not so large as to be significant, espeically when Shaq was blocking as many shots as he did in that stretch.
Maybe this is why Duncan has won 2 MVP's during regular season and Shaq only won one? Nash and many coaches have basically said the best basketball player is Duncan flat out....if you count both ends of the floor and actually staying in the game during crunch time and not fouling out or getting benched by your coach because you cant hit foul shots
Shaq primarily didn't win MVPs because he wasn't on the floor quite enough to justify it, though media perception of other players (like the ridiculous Iverson MVP) certainly hurt him. Moreover, he was so dominant, it came to be expected and didn't stand out as a singularly potent performance in any given season. Too, the bulk of Shaq's most noteworthy years came in an era dominated by Jordan, Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson in terms of MVP finishes.
Heh heh....why didn't you just say that in your first sentence and we would have avoided all this bantering, although it has been fun and you have been a good adversary!!
Because it is not sufficient to make only that statement.
Did you watch that finals against Mavericks? Shaq did not have to play pick n roll because that was NOT how Mavericks played.
I watched all 6 games; the Mavs didn't use it as much that series as they did during other portions of the playoffs, no. But there were reasons for that. When Jason Terry was hot, they used it a lot because those shots were basically unguarded. It's revisionist history to say otherwise.
In point of fact, there is video evidence that completely overturns your comment. Terry consistently used Dirk, Dampier, anyone to get a screen so he could get a shot or a lane to the basket.
Here is a good starting point; the NBA.com recaps of the Finals games each have video, some of which will show the screen-and-rolls.
Dirk's bread-and-butter play is the high sidescreen, there's no sense to them going away from what has worked so well thus far.
Well....you said Shaq played great defense against the Mavs and that was why they won! All Shaq had to do was defend Diop or Dampier......i wouldnt call that the most difficult job considering they hardly ever touched the ball
No I didn't. I said Shaq played better pick-and-roll defense than usual... primarily because he had such simple man-on assignments.
Yes they do pick n roll but rarely does Parker pass out to Duncan for whatever reason.....well for one reason, they lay off Parker and go underneath the pick daring him to make the jumper and Parker doesnt hit jumpers reliably enough so most of his penetration comes off DUncan, using his body to get around his defender but this is not true pick and roll because Parker rarely dishes it off to Tim for easy shot
Not actually relevant, since they run the play and you were spending a lot of time discussing that they didn't.
Point guard rant
Yawn. You entirely missed my point and chose not to address my comment that Shaq did come out and cut off the lane to the basket on the pick-and-roll during that postseason, which means Nash, Paul, Billups or whomever would have had trouble because he was playing fundamental defense.
That is so over-rated it's not even funny. Many have argued that in fact it is more difficult to win 4 rings in 9 years with 4 totally different teams (when you consider parker and ginobilli were non-factors in 2003 and didnt play in 1999
How many teams have repeated in NBA history?
The Celtics of the 60s, the Lakers of the 80s, the Isiah Thomas-led Pistons, the Bulls, the Rockets... and the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.
Of those, only the 60s Celtics, Bulls and Shaq/Kobe Lakers have won three in a row.
It takes a lot to win in consecutive seasons, something that Duncan has never done. As management has continuously rebuilt the team around Duncan, reloading on the fly over the years, they have continued to play at a very high level, absolutely, but they have also failed to achieve something that is incredibly hard. Not in and of itself an indictment but certainly so when laid next to Shaq's achievements.
Shaq was in the Finals in 4 of 5 years as well, you know. And the Lakers were pretty much known to be going to the Finals before those seasons started; Duncan hasn't ever made the Finals in consecutive seasons, let alone won it that way.
You have a way with words.......very eloquent. Unfortunately the logic isn't as sound. If Shaq was truely unguardable, why didn't they just dump the ball to shaq ALL THE TIME? If Shaq was truely unguardable, he would have been like Wilt. He would have averaged 55 pts a game and he WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PULLED OUT OF THE GAME DURING CRUNCH TIME. How does an unguardable player
get pulled out of crunch time.....interesing concept!
See, you're wrong. The Lakers DID dump the ball into Shaq at every opportunity, he was the focus for their offense, taking up to a third of their possessions every game, which is a monstrous amount. You understand that Shaq's 8th all-time in NBA history in usage rate, right? He got the ball more than almost anyone in NBA history. The only guys to get it more are T-Mac, 'Nique, Iceman, Kobe, Lebron, AI and Jordan, all ball-dominant perimeter scorers... and most of them the predominant scorers on their team (who was the significant volume scorer that played with any of those guys>); Shaq did that even next to Kobe because he got the ball so often.
See, you keep focusing on this "pulled out of the game in crunch time" thing, which is more a reality for Shaq as a player on Phoenix and less so on his previous teams, certainly less so on his title teams. You don't actually have a real argument that bears out under observation and recollection of what actually happened during those title runs.
nd please don't tell me Parker compares to guys like Kobe, Nash, Dwayne, or even Penny because I may throw up (like this past year with the Suns!!)
I didn't say any of the individual players matched up to Shaq's help, I said the overall depth and chemistry of the teams were consierably superior at that the core has been together for a very long time. Remember, Kobe started playing at a noteworthy level in the lockout season, which means Shaq had him for 6 seasons... 6 fairly turbulent seasons. Duncan's had Manu, Parker and Bowen for about that long now and they haven't had any of the drama between them, so their development as a core has been a much smoother transition into a more well-oiled and tighter squad.
I think anyone that saw the playoff run can say that Pierce was the go-to guy and the guy with the ball most of the time. Not only that Pierce even defended incredibly well. No Pierce and Lakers win. Garnett cannot take over a game. Bottom line
Conveniently ignoring the rest of my argument, clever. Pierce was indeed a go-to guy at the end of games but again, big men do not traditionally close out games because of time required to run offense through them, that's why most teams with great bigs (Olajuwon's Rockets, Shaq's Lakers, Kareem's Bucks and early Lakers and yes, Duncan's Spurs) have guards to whom they go for those key shots.
Garnett was the first option offensively for 46 minutes a night throughout the playoffs and their best defender. Pierce did well and I don't think anyone really begrudges him the Finals MVP at all but to fail to acknowledge how important Garnett was and his actual role on the team is to attempt to rewrite history to favor your argument.
I doubt that Garnett gets double teamed as much as DUncan or Shaq.
He gets double-teamed comparably, but not always in the same spots. Shaq gets double-teamed a lot more often than either of them, of course.
In fact if you look at Dunca's playoff numbers versus regular season, you will see a huge jump in every statistic you can think of....pts, rebounds, blocks, assists......simply put, when the playoffs start, Duncan takes over. You won't see the same increase in productivity for Garnett I am sure although I did not look up his stats to know this for sure
...
+1.8 ppg, +0.9 rpg, +0.4 apg. Notable, not spectacular. Duncan is, of course, an excellent postseason performer. Little increase in FTA/FGA, too, which is nice.
Garnett? +1.4 ppg, +1.2 rpg, +0.0 apg.
Mostly pretty comparable; nearly identical rise in scoring, larger rise in rebounding and he's already a more productive passer than Duncan, so the lack of rise there is hardly a surprise or an issue. Checking your facts instead of making baseless and incorrect assertions is always a good thing.
OK what about when Garnett had Cassell and Sprewell and made their run.....who was the go-to guy in the 4th quarter? CASSELLS. who was the next guy. Sprewell. Garnett usually did not take too many shots in the 4th quarter
*sigh*
There is a difference between playing intelligent basketball and not being the go-to guy. Garnett was the first option until the end of the game, where it makes a lot of sense to have your smaller guys take those shots. Duncan does it just as often, yet in your blind homerism, you fail to see the similarities because you refuse to acknowledge that the Spurs run weakside reversals for shooters and all kinds of plays engineered for their smaller guys. Sometimes they start their offense through Duncan in the clutch, sure, but no more often than did the Wolves or Celtics do so for Garnett or the Lakers do for Shaq.
Cassell was indeed a very clutch scoring option but he wasn't the first option scorer, he was a small dude who could shoot well or break down a defense from the wing or the point when a play broke down or under a time limit at the end of the game... kind of like Manu.
I would put Garnett even behind Kobe because at least Kobe has won....albeit with Shaq as the main man
Won what? Kobe has won nothing as the first option... Garnett has.
And, even if you decide to run counter to fact and claim that Garnett wasn't the main option, then he still has a title as the second man, equivalent to Kobe's achievement with Shaq and completely invalidating the notion that Kobe is ahead of KG because he won, the foundation of that last comment of yours.
