Retro POY '98-99 (Voting Complete)

[ronnymac2]

All right.....

I'm not going to go through a player-to-player comparison breaking down what Shaq and Malone and Duncan and ZO can do. Everybody knows.

How much better do you (everybody) think Shaq was in 2000 as opposed to 1999? 2000 Shaq was not THAT much better than Shaq in 1999. The biggest differences between 1999 and 2000 were: coaching, team success (mainly due to having better teammates, coaching, and self-improvement on Shaq's part, no doubt), and he improved certain parts of his game. He didn't improve as a passer in a technical sense, but he improved ito patience. He played better defense (or at least, more consistent defense). He attacked a defense more quickly so that he wouldn't have to resort to the baseline jumpers as much...he was better at attacking the middle of the defense (again, this is possibly related to coaching more than anything).

2000 Shaq is obviously better, but not THAT much better.

So the question becomes- is Shaqof2000-lite (Not a peak year, but most definitely a prime year) a better basketball player than 2nd year Tim Duncan, prime Alonzo Mourning, or latter-prime Karl Malone? I'd say so.

I don't know if it is on Youtube, but there is a game from the 99 regular season on certain internet spots- Lakers vs. Sonics. Shaq's defense is actually good in the game (outside of the pick-n-roll defense). He's talking, rebounding, affecting shots, etc. I understand it is only one game. FWIW, Shaq also had a game-saving blocked shot in game 1 of the first round series against Houston. He blocked a lay-up attempt by Mobley at the buzzer IIRC.

This brings me to my next point....the Lakers situation in 1999 (for once, a year where Kobe vs. Shaq has nothing to do with LA drama). A coaching change mid-season (in a lock-out season) brought on Kurt Rambis. This wasn't the Rambis with experience under GOAT coach Phil Jackson. This Rambis isn't a very good coach. They have the Rodman fiasco (IIRC, he was removed from the team after showing up late to practice in his pajamas). They trade Eddie Jones for Glen Rice mid-season.

Where is this team's defense? They aren't going to get a strong defensive concept with a bad interim coach. Kobe is NOT Kobe of 2000 defensively. He is inexperienced on that end and mainly relying on athletic ability. Eddie Jones was a very good defender, but Glen Rice was bad. His legs were shot at this point. So that's a major downgrade. Derek Harper was too old (IIRC, was cut by Phil at next's year's training camp, which is weird considering Phil likes tall guards). So it's basically Shaq with bad perimeter defenders, and no 2001 HoGrant next to him either. Nothing like it. Shaq himself obviously is a weak perimeter defender. Thus, the team isn't that good on defense.

Just to note something....Lakers were second in pace this year. Shaq was playing 3 quarters of a game at a faster pace than just about anybody else in the league, and he played in 98% of the REG SEASON games and all the playoff games, so this isn't a year where that counts against him.


Now on to the real reason why I think people are taking Tim Duncan over Shaq...the post-season matchup.

Do you honestly think the team I just described- offensively talented, but with many issues, poor defense, and bad coaching- can beat a team with the best interior defense ever, great chemistry, good coaching, and good matchups? Mind you, David Robinson at this point is better than Kobe Bryant.

Robert Horry shoots 1-4 from 3 and sees his minutes decrease in the series for some reason. Fox shoots 1-11 from 3. Fisher shoots 2-11 from 3. Rice (who I believe was having elbox issues the series before) shoots 5-15 from 3. And really, what else is Rice supposed to offer at this point besides shooting? Kobe isn't good enough yet to take advantage of any mismatch. So Shaq has to go up against David Robinson and Tim Duncan in the middle, with his shooters misfiring and J.R. Reid next to him. Reid scored 11 points in the series and couldn't defend anybody. Obviously, "Duncan outplays Shaq." What the hell is supposed to happen?

Two all-time great defensive bigs can slow down an all-time great big. This isn't unprecedented.

Not using this example to bring Duncan down....just using it to explain what happens when one great big has to go up against two great bigs......Tim Duncan in the 04 playoffs had to face a Laker team that actually had a great post defender besides O'neal to match up against him, and this time, Tim didn't have the Admiral. Duncan had to go up against Karl Malone and Shaq, while Duncan had Nesterovic. Now, Duncan is at his peak here, and Shaq is at the latter-part of his prime. What happens? Shaq puts up 22.5/14.5 with 4.5 blocks on over 60% shooting. Duncan puts up 20.7/12.2 with 2 block on 47% shooting. Lakers win the series. They guard each other as much as they guarded each other in 99; that is, mainly on switches and for short stretches.

FWIW, we (correctly) put Tim Duncan ahead of Shaq in 2004.

So I think we can conclude that having D-Rob there helped Duncan "outplay" Shaq by the numbers.

Shaq did a pretty damn good job controlling Robinson that series. Robinson had 13.3/6.5 on 50% shooting. He had him in foul trouble a lot, too.

O'neal struggled shooting (though he shot over 50% the final 3 games), but he still put 23.7/13 and got to the foul line a ton. He dropped 36/14 in the final game. It's just difficult to win when your guys shoot 2-17 from 3, you don't have a second guy to lean on, and you allow Jaren Jackson to hit 6-11 from downtown.


Duncan is a good passer at this point, but not as good as he would become a little later. This is an outstanding year for TD, but it is not peak Tim. It's early-stage prime Duncan. Is this version of Duncan the best player in the league? Over Shaq? Not this year.

[mysticbb]

PER is a stat Hollinger made up

Why did he "made" that stat up?

[An Unbiased Fan]

How much better do you (everybody) think Shaq was in 2000 as opposed to 1999? 2000 Shaq was not THAT much better than Shaq in 1999. The biggest differences between 1999 and 2000 were: coaching, team success (mainly due to having better teammates, coaching, and self-improvement on Shaq's part, no doubt), and he improved certain parts of his game. He didn't improve as a passer in a technical sense, but he improved ito patience. He played better defense (or at least, more consistent defense). He attacked a defense more quickly so that he wouldn't have to resort to the baseline jumpers as much...he was better at attacking the middle of the defense (again, this is possibly related to coaching more than anything).

2000 Shaq is obviously better, but not THAT much better.

I have to take issue with this. 2000 Shaq was leaps & bounds better than 1999 Shaq. 97'-99' Shaq was lazy and bad on defense most of the time. Karl Malone actually had a radio show in LA one year , and openly talked about how the Jazz would just pick n roll Shaq because they knew he wouldn't even try to place D. The 97'-99' squads actually had alot more talent, BUT Phil Jackson called Shaq out when he came to LA, and that's when Shaq finally got into shape and played D.

This brings me to my next point....the Lakers situation in 1999 (for once, a year where Kobe vs. Shaq has nothing to do with LA drama). A coaching change mid-season (in a lock-out season) brought on Kurt Rambis. This wasn't the Rambis with experience under GOAT coach Phil Jackson. This Rambis isn't a very good coach. They have the Rodman fiasco (IIRC, he was removed from the team after showing up late to practice in his pajamas). They trade Eddie Jones for Glen Rice mid-season.

Shaq got Harris fired. Shaq disrepested Rambis all year long. Shaq wanted Eddie(and Kobe for that matter) gone, and got his Rice trade. He had a major hand in disrupting that season.


Not saying Shaq had a bad year, just that there were some big issues with him in 99'.

[An Unbiased Fan]

PER is a stat Hollinger made up

Why did he "made" that stat up?

To rate statistical performance.

[mysticbb]

To rate statistical performance.

Is there a connection between the stats in the boxscore and the player's actual performance on the court?

[An Unbiased Fan]

To rate statistical performance.

Is there a connection between the stats in the boxscore and the player's actual performance on the court?

Somewhat. But there are many other factors to consider when evaluating performance though, including the manner those stats were acquired.

[shawngoat23]

1. Tim Duncan
2. Karl Malone
3. Shaquille O'Neal
4. Alonzo Mourning
5. David Robinson (weak #5 choice, but I can't think of anyone else)

[ElGee]

There isn't much discussion -- not sure why.

I'll throw out for fodder that I have Duncan, Malone and Shaq in a group at the top (probably in that order) and a group after that for the final two spots, including Hill, KIdd, Mourning, Iverson and maybe even David Robinson and Gary Payton.

ronny - you make a compelling argument for Shaq as a player, but his circumstance still affected his play. He may have been best in a vacuum in 1999 (I definitely buy that), he may be first in a draft (OK too), but he didn't necessarily play the best, even if Rambis or whatnot is to blame...and in that sense he WAS much better in 2000. Especially defensively.

[ronnymac2]

How much better do you (everybody) think Shaq was in 2000 as opposed to 1999? 2000 Shaq was not THAT much better than Shaq in 1999. The biggest differences between 1999 and 2000 were: coaching, team success (mainly due to having better teammates, coaching, and self-improvement on Shaq's part, no doubt), and he improved certain parts of his game. He didn't improve as a passer in a technical sense, but he improved ito patience. He played better defense (or at least, more consistent defense). He attacked a defense more quickly so that he wouldn't have to resort to the baseline jumpers as much...he was better at attacking the middle of the defense (again, this is possibly related to coaching more than anything).

2000 Shaq is obviously better, but not THAT much better.

I have to take issue with this. 2000 Shaq was leaps & bounds better than 1999 Shaq. 97'-99' Shaq was lazy and bad on defense most of the time. Karl Malone actually had a radio show in LA one year , and openly talked about how the Jazz would just pick n roll Shaq because they knew he wouldn't even try to place D. The 97'-99' squads actually had alot more talent, BUT Phil Jackson called Shaq out when he came to LA, and that's when Shaq finally got into shape and played D.

This brings me to my next point....the Lakers situation in 1999 (for once, a year where Kobe vs. Shaq has nothing to do with LA drama). A coaching change mid-season (in a lock-out season) brought on Kurt Rambis. This wasn't the Rambis with experience under GOAT coach Phil Jackson. This Rambis isn't a very good coach. They have the Rodman fiasco (IIRC, he was removed from the team after showing up late to practice in his pajamas). They trade Eddie Jones for Glen Rice mid-season.

Shaq got Harris fired. Shaq disrepested Rambis all year long. Shaq wanted Eddie(and Kobe for that matter) gone, and got his Rice trade. He had a major hand in disrupting that season.


Not saying Shaq had a bad year, just that there were some big issues with him in 99'.

Not saying you are making it up, but do you have any articles regarding Shaq getting people traded and fired? LA front office doesn't usually cave to stuff like that.


As for the first part....Sure, the Lakers had more cumulative offensive talent from 97-99. But the team was poorly constructed. Watch a game from 97 or 98 against Utah...they can't even get the ball in to Shaq half the time. NVE chucks and is very hit-or-miss. The offensive system is predictable. It's great regular season basketball, but come playoff time, smart teams can execute the **** out of that brand of ball.

I don't understand how Shaq gets too much blame against the Stockton-Malone pick-n-roll. Shaq isn't usually guarding a PF, especially Karl Malone. The only way Shaq is really at fault is that since Malone and Stockton could get whatever they want against even good defenses (let alone LA's pedestrian perimeter d at the time), Shaq needs to help more on drives into the paint. What should be held against him is that Shaq was so-so at coming over from one side of the floor to the other- or rather, once he did, if he didn't make an initial play, it was hard for him to make another move to defend a counter, a fake, etc. In that regard, yes, Shaq is responsible for not being able to help enough. But the blame can't be all on him when he's guarding his man on one side of the floor and Karl Malone and John Stockton are executing a side pick-n-roll on the other side of the floor.

I believe there is a game from 97 or 98...LA vs. Utah on youtube. You can see what I mean.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Shaq '99 vs Shaq '00. Something I'm not seeing mentioned: Shaq's minutes went up from 34.8 MPG to 40.0 MPG. Now, I'm okay with saying a guy played 35 mins is as good as another playing 40, but this is the same guy here we're talking about before you get into his best-of-career attitude and effort that came in the 40 minute year. There is a very big gap between them.

Mind you, I still think Shaq was overlooked by MVP voters, but it's not hard to pick Duncan over this version of Shaq with the tear that Duncan and the Spurs went on in a playoffs that makes up significantly more in this season than in other seasons.

[Baller 24]

Okay, so far I've got Duncan, Malone, Shaq, Mourning, Kidd, GP, Hill, and AI in the mix.

Right off the back I've got Duncan, Malone, Shaq, and Mourning as for sure, the 5th spot will be decided on the players I mentioned, the Rockets were 31-19 that season (same as the Lakers), with Olajuwon having his last good season, don't know if he's in conversation also. EDIT: Never mind, was god-awful in the playoff series against the Lakers, I guess Barkley might have been the best overall player if you include Playoffs.

[semi-sentient]

I sorta mentioned minutes in my original post when I talked about both Duncan and Malone playing considerably more, in addition to more games. I typically add up RS and PS games/minutes and judge them based on how they perform throughout. Understandably, PS games is a matter of how far you get, but if you get farther and still play at a high level then that simply holds more value than playing extra games in the RS, which in this case Shaq didn't.

I'm not exactly a huge Malone fan because I don't think he's the type of guy that can carry a team (and how much easier does Stockton make it for him? hard to say...), but in this case it's hard for me to give Shaq a higher ranking based on what both did and how they were viewed in terms of award recognition. It's still up in the air though and I might change my mind, but I'm fairly certain I'll have Duncan at #1.

BTW, looking forward to reading some of those SI articles, if there are any.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Not saying you are making it up, but do you have any articles regarding Shaq getting people traded and fired? LA front office doesn't usually cave to stuff like that.

It's widely known in LA. There really aren't many internet articles from this time though.

As for the first part....Sure, the Lakers had more cumulative offensive talent from 97-99. But the team was poorly constructed. Watch a game from 97 or 98 against Utah...they can't even get the ball in to Shaq half the time. NVE chucks and is very hit-or-miss. The offensive system is predictable. It's great regular season basketball, but come playoff time, smart teams can execute the **** out of that brand of ball.

That 99' team was constructed specifically for Shaq. It was Shaq, Kobe, and spot up shooters to spread the floor. Shaq had 26.3 ppg, but Kobe added 19.9, and Rice added 17.5. Before that, both Van Exel & Jones made the all-star team.

LA's issue was always defense, not offense. I agree that their offense was predictable, but the same can be said of the LA tri-offense too.

I don't understand how Shaq gets too much blame against the Stockton-Malone pick-n-roll. Shaq isn't usually guarding a PF, especially Karl Malone. The only way Shaq is really at fault is that since Malone and Stockton could get whatever they want against even good defenses (let alone LA's pedestrian perimeter d at the time), Shaq needs to help more on drives into the paint. What should be held against him is that Shaq was so-so at coming over from one side of the floor to the other- or rather, once he did, if he didn't make an initial play, it was hard for him to make another move to defend a counter, a fake, etc. In that regard, yes, Shaq is responsible for not being able to help enough. But the blame can't be all on him when he's guarding his man on one side of the floor and Karl Malone and John Stockton are executing a side pick-n-roll on the other side of the floor.

LA's perimeter defense was actually their strong suit back then. Though still not elite.

-LA was #23 in Post defense
-LA was #11 in Perimeter defense

Eddie, Kobe, Fox, and even Fisher back then were good defenders.

[Baller 24]

Payton is out for me, absolutely sucked team success wise as they didn't make the playoffs despite Payton playing in all 50 games. Kidd had a great regular season, but getting swept by Portland, while not necessarily having a good post-season himself kind of hurts his case. If Hardaway was in anyones list, he should be out, terrible in the playoffs, absolutely god-awful.

Iverson had a pretty decent overall resume for himself, not bad at all IMO, so I guess I won't eliminate him completely off of my list. Webber was horrible in the playoffs, as his production went down, so he's out for me too. Grant Hill had a SOLID season, good throughout the entire season carrying a sub-par cast that's battling age and injuries, took the team to 5 games against the Hawks, and played solid in the playoffs.

5th spot is down to Kidd, Iverson, and Hill for me. I've got Duncan, Malone, Shaq, and Zo as the for sure ones, 5th is still being debated.

EDIT: Iverson's out, terrible series against the Pacers who absolutely smothered him throughout their sweep of the Sixers. I'm down to Kidd or Hill, help me out people!

[Dr Positivity]

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shaq
3. Karl Malone
4. Allen Iverson
5. Alonzo Mourning

I think regular season wise Duncan, Malone, Shaq, Zo were all really close. So I'm picking Duncan first because he succeeded in the playoffs and the other 3 flamed out quite badly. Shaq is 2nd, I don't think he's that far off from his prime form whereas Malone saw a clear offensive drop-off this year culminating in his series against the Blazers. I think Shaq is definitely the better offensive player this year. Does Malone's d make up the difference? Almost, not quite.

For the regular season I'd easily have put Mourning over Iverson but the playoffs made me swap. I have to punish a player for being the leader of a 1st vs 8th upset. Mourning's stats weren't bad compared to some of his teammates, but he didn't elevate his game either, and he just didn't have the offensive game to give when they needed it most. Miami's biggest problems in the series was Hardaway sucking (9ppg on 27% shooting!) and not hitting any 3s (whereas in the regular season they ranked 6th in 3PM). Too much of the Heat's offense relied on factors Mourning couldn't help. Meanwhile the Sixers upset Orlando who tied with Miami for 1st in the East with Iverson averaging 33ppg in their 3 wins. Iverson took his team farther with less help.

[Gongxi]

I really don't understand how people can have Duncan so high, but especially over Shaq. We all read the part where we don't reward the guy simply because his team went farther in the playoffs, right?

[Doctor MJ]

I really don't understand how people can have Duncan so high, but especially over Shaq. We all read the part where we don't reward the guy simply because his team went farther in the playoffs, right?

It's not like the guy was nowhere to be found in the regular season. I mean the dude finished 3rd in WS, 3rd in the MVP race while being the star player on the best team in the league.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not exactly a huge Malone fan because I don't think he's the type of guy that can carry a team (and how much easier does Stockton make it for him? hard to say...),

Just wanted to chime in here. Something that really impresses me about Malone at the peak of the Jazz is how his production didn't fall, and his assists actually improved, while Stockton's primacy fell considerably with age. It was quite understandable to wonder who was better between the two earlier on in their career, but at this point Malone is the clear superstar, and Stockton is just part of his entourage.

[Baller 24]

1) Tim Duncan
2) Shaquille O'Neal
3) Karl Malone
4) Alonzo Mourning
5) Grant Hill

Zo has a case as 2nd best here IMO, but he did what Dirk did in '07, and if he's going to be penalized, Mourning should rightfully so too. Malone, I honestly don't see behind the reasoning to why he won the MVP, it wasn't one of his "best" seasons to say the least. As for the 5th pick, I was down to either Hill or Kidd, but that sweep looks really bad on Kidd's part, while he didn't perform to on par to his RS averages. I'm going with Hill, he easily put up an outstanding RS, performed very well in the playoffs and pushed his team to the elimination game. It was a down year for the guards during the season, while the forwards actually had a solid overall season in 1999. I'm picking Hill.

[ronnymac2]

Not saying you are making it up, but do you have any articles regarding Shaq getting people traded and fired? LA front office doesn't usually cave to stuff like that.

It's widely known in LA. There really aren't many internet articles from this time though.

As for the first part....Sure, the Lakers had more cumulative offensive talent from 97-99. But the team was poorly constructed. Watch a game from 97 or 98 against Utah...they can't even get the ball in to Shaq half the time. NVE chucks and is very hit-or-miss. The offensive system is predictable. It's great regular season basketball, but come playoff time, smart teams can execute the **** out of that brand of ball.

That 99' team was constructed specifically for Shaq. It was Shaq, Kobe, and spot up shooters to spread the floor. Shaq had 26.3 ppg, but Kobe added 19.9, and Rice added 17.5. Before that, both Van Exel & Jones made the all-star team.

LA's issue was always defense, not offense. I agree that their offense was predictable, but the same can be said of the LA tri-offense too.

I don't understand how Shaq gets too much blame against the Stockton-Malone pick-n-roll. Shaq isn't usually guarding a PF, especially Karl Malone. The only way Shaq is really at fault is that since Malone and Stockton could get whatever they want against even good defenses (let alone LA's pedestrian perimeter d at the time), Shaq needs to help more on drives into the paint. What should be held against him is that Shaq was so-so at coming over from one side of the floor to the other- or rather, once he did, if he didn't make an initial play, it was hard for him to make another move to defend a counter, a fake, etc. In that regard, yes, Shaq is responsible for not being able to help enough. But the blame can't be all on him when he's guarding his man on one side of the floor and Karl Malone and John Stockton are executing a side pick-n-roll on the other side of the floor.

LA's perimeter defense was actually their strong suit back then. Though still not elite.

-LA was #23 in Post defense
-LA was #11 in Perimeter defense

Eddie, Kobe, Fox, and even Fisher back then were good defenders.

I don't know....I've heard stuff about that, too. I have to take that with a grain of salt though. We as fans rarely ever know what is going on behind those boardroom doors. I don't doubt that Shaq WOULD be a bit of an ass and have some involvement in some decent-at-best coach's firing, but I'm not sure if he actually did.

Yes, L.A. was constructed for Shaq- but not well. Not yet anyway. in 97 and 98, you have a chucking point guard who is handling the ball a lot. Eddie Jones is good offensively, but he isn't really a playmaker or shot creator or free throw line demon. He's a shooter. Offensively, he's a more athletic Allan Houston with a worse shot (still a very good shooter though). They just had guys that could put points up on the board individually....not guys who could work together in a real offense. The way L.A. was built for Shaq in later years was optimal. That was team offense.

99....I already explained what happened to those shooters. They weren't shooting too well. And Kobe wasn't Kobe yet either. I know you'll agree with this: Kobe's development was a huge reason why the Lakers improved greatly from 1999-2000. Kobe was at least a top 10 player in 2000. He was great.

Kobe didn't even make the all-star team in 99.

I agree that L.A.'s defense was a huge problem, too.

How is LA's triangle offense predictable?

Kobe and Fish were not good defenders in 97 and 98. Fox wasn't on the team in 97. Jones was very good, but I don't think he was the one guarding Stockton either.