Shaquille O'neal vs Larry Bird - New Franchise

[tsherkin]

I think it's a lot muddier than you make it out to be. Shaq led his Magic to the Finals against Olajuwon's Rockets right in Dream's prime and put it right in Olajuwon's face in that series. Dream did a lot worse defensively on Shaq than was true of the reverse, Olajuwon just shot a lot more.

I think that if Shaq's roleplayers hadn't shown up to the series without testicles, you would have seen a very different series. The big problem in that matchup wasn't Dream vs. Shaq, it was Nick Anderson versus Sam Cassell and Dennis Scott versus Robert Horry, etc. The roleplayers on the Magic SUCKED in the Finals and that wasn't Shaq's fault.

Shaq did his business against every other good center in that era. Offensively, he was more dangerous overall than any of the others, IMO, even if he wasn't as refined or did have as much range. Yeah, he wasn't as effective defensively as Dream, Admiral or even Ewing but at the end of the day, you'd still go Shaq over any of them.

I HATE when people talk about Shaq in the 90s as if he was some 15 and 7 player and then exploded once all the good centers went down. I know that's not what you mean but you imply that Shaq's success is as a result of their retirement and that's BLATANTLY incorrect.

[conleyorbust]

-= original quote snipped =-



To be fair, Bird did a great deal of work out of the post, it's not like he was a guy who worked only out of the face up. He was on the right block ALL the time, mostly in the high post but sometimes down on the blocks.

Right, probably should have been more clear. I meant that Bird's scoring efficiency could match a more traditional PF or C who did all their damage out of the low post because his jumper was accurate enough to not bring his %s down when he was away from the basket.

[TrueLAfan]

I HATE when people talk about Shaq in the 90s as if he was some 15 and 7 player and then exploded once all the good centers went down. I know that's not what you mean but you imply that Shaq's success is as a result of their retirement and that's BLATANTLY incorrect.

That

[Jemini80]

-= original quote snipped =-



Right, probably should have been more clear. I meant that Bird's scoring efficiency could match a more traditional PF or C who did all their damage out of the low post because his jumper was accurate enough to not bring his %s down when he was away from the basket.

Oh sure, I agree completely.

-= original quote snipped =-



That

[Jemini80]

Knicks fan here.

Shaq was a better player in his rookie year than Ewing ever was. It hurts to say, but it is true. I remember discussing with my dad before the draft how we both felt it would be a good deal to trade Ewing straight up for the rights to draft Shaq. The ONLY center from that time period that compared to Shaq was Hakeem (who IMO was better than him). Shaq did dominate the era he played, the problem was the fact that it doesn't take just one player to win a championship. Hakeem had great players around him, and so did MJ.

as much as Larry is a sexy man, you have to take the dominant center. If I'm redoing the MJ draft, I still take Hakeem over him because it is easier to build around Hakeem than Jordan.

[tsherkin]

Shaq did dominate the era he played, the problem was the fact that it doesn't take just one player to win a championship. Hakeem had great players around him, and so did MJ.

In '95, anyway. In '94, though, Hakeem was just patently ridiculous and all his little nobody teammates randomly decided to step up in the playoffs while Hakeem was going completely insane.

[Bruh Man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnyWar8uOTI

[pillwenney]

I take Bird for one main reason--crunch time. As much as I hate Kobe, and as much I do agree that Shaq was really the guy that lead those Lakers to championships, you have to wonder where they would be if they didn't have another go-to guy in crunch time. I think it would have often been hack-a-Shaq city, and that the Lakers wouldn't have been able to do much (not that it's not obvious that the Lakers wouldn't have won without Kobe, but the point is the type of player that Kobe needed to be). With Bird, you wouldn't have that worry.

[tsherkin]

I take Bird for one main reason--crunch time. As much as I hate Kobe, and as much I do agree that Shaq was really the guy that lead those Lakers to championships, you have to wonder where they would be if they didn't have another go-to guy in crunch time. I think it would have often been hack-a-Shaq city, and that the Lakers wouldn't have been able to do much (not that it's not obvious that the Lakers wouldn't have won without Kobe, but the point is the type of player that Kobe needed to be). With Bird, you wouldn't have that worry.

Well, the titles were never about one guy. Shaq was usually the guy that carried them for like 44 minutes and then Kobe would assassinate teams at the end. And of course, whenever Shaq was in foul trouble. Or when he was in a bad mood. Or whenever. Kobe was nasty, he was a partner, not a sidekick.

[Harry Palmer]

Based on positional effect on the game, I'd probably take Shaq.

Based on experience, I'd probably watch Larry make me regret it.

I'd take Hakeem over either, though. Shaq's 'dominance' imo is a misnomer, by virtue of the definition;

Exercising the most influence or control.

IMO Hakeem pretty handily exercised more influence or control over the game when he was on the floor. I think you can argue that Shaq was harder to stop from scoring physicaly...though imo he also greatly benefited from almost constantly having star support that Hakeem only dreamed of...but when you factor in zones of influence, defenses (both inside and perim, primary and help) etc., Hakeem dominated the game more, and arguably more than anyone ever.

People have grabbed that word because Shaq likes to say it in commercials, but it's misapplied, imo. 'Unstoppable on offense' would be closer, but even there people like Wilt and KAJ would be in the discussion.

And from his mid-career onwards, Shaq benefited from a Moses Malone like 'dominance' by virtue of their being no other great centers in their prime, unlike Hakeem who played in probably the best center era ever virtually throughout his career.

Bird though...god I hated him. But he might have also scared me more than any player ever, when his team lined up on the other side. MJ, Magic, etc. might be arguably better all around players. But Larry's ability to rise to the occasion and just stick it to you was greater than any basketball player I've seen, and puts him on a par with the likes of Montana and Gretzky in sports overall.

God I hated him.

So I'd take Hakeem over either, Shaq over Larry, and be completely unsurprised as Bird sticks a game winning 3 or makes a miracle pass or steals an inbounds pass with fractions left to beat my team in the Finals.

[tsherkin]

People have grabbed that word because Shaq likes to say it in commercials, but it's misapplied, imo. 'Unstoppable on offense' would be closer, but even there people like Wilt and KAJ would be in the discussion.

Actually, it was considerably easier to slow Kareem than it was to do so to a prime Shaq. A lot of physical defenders were able to harry Kareem. Take Dave Cowens, for example.

Wilt would certainly be in the discussion, probably as "the guy above Shaq" but yeah, Shaq is certainly the most unstoppable scorer from the 5 since Wilt.

So I'd take Hakeem over either, Shaq over Larry, and be completely unsurprised as Bird sticks a game winning 3 or makes a miracle pass or steals an inbounds pass with fractions left to beat my team in the Finals.

Actually, with the exception of the Hakeem-over-Shaq bit (something on which I routinely waffle, I must admit), I generally agree with this sentiment. I'd take the big guy but I'd be completely unsurprised to see Bird do his heart-tearing routine.