#1 Highest Peak of All Time (Jordan '91 wins)

[Doctor MJ]

I said this in the other Highest Peak thread...if you have a problem with the competition Shaq faced during the 2000 playoffs, use the 2001 playoffs to at least inform yourself about how Shaq reacts to different (or elite) defensive frontcourts. Smits and Longley were switched with Robinson/Duncan and Mutombo (Por and Sac stayed constant), yet Shaq's 2001 playoff numbers were remarkably similar to what they were in 2000.

The '00 vs '01 Shaq is interesting, and perhaps quite damaging to his candidacy given the single season criteria. First let's take a look at team offense and defense in the regular season of both seasons:

Offense:
'00 5th
'01 2nd

Defense:
'00 1st
'01 21st

This is an incredible defensive collapse, and it's hard to imagine any single player taking more of the blame than Shaq because we know how his attention waned.

Okay, now, same stats but in the playoffs:

Offense:
'00 1st
'01 1st

Defense:
'00 13th
'01 1st (by a huge margin)

So, just like before, the difference between the two seasons was huge defensive changes, except this time in the opposite direction. I wouldn't claim that difference was all Shaq focus by any stretch of the imagination, but I have a hard time believe that wasn't part of it.

This then means, that we never actually saw Shaq be full Shaq for any one season, which makes one ask if we really believe that any kind of partial Shaq could truly be the peak GOAT.

Of course there's a different perspective as well, if you are focused enough on the playoffs, then perhaps your peak GOAT is not '00 Shaq but rather '01 Shaq.

[SilkStream]

Interesting points Doc.

Shaq was playing DPOY defense throughout the 00 regular season and playoffs.
I'd say the same for him in the 01 playoffs.

Shaq was amazing in the 01 playoffs and definitely picked up his level of play.
Can't forget him dropping 28 / 20 / 9ast with 8blocks on 63% shooting against Prime DPOY Mutombo in G2 of the Finals.

[ThaRegul8r]

I think it just comes down to no player has ever had the impact that 00 Shaq had.

His offensive impact was GOAT worthy.
31ppg on 56% shooting (has anyone else ever done that?)

A Mr. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar would like a word with you, and would like to inform you that "31ppg on 56% shooting" has most assuredly been done before.

And, in general, this is one of my pet peeves with player advocates. They can give you stats up the yin-yang, carefully culled to present the player of their choice in the best possible light, but they completely lack the knowledge to put things in historical context, which results in people acting like something's never been done before, when it in fact has. Absence of knowledge about something does not mean it has never been done. I'm speaking in general here, not talking about any particular person. The usernames change, but what I said remains true.

[ThaRegul8r]

Shaq was amazing in the 01 playoffs and definitely picked up his level of play.
Can't forget him dropping 28 / 20 / 9ast with 8blocks on 63% shooting against Prime DPOY Mutombo in G2 of the Finals.

See, this is the thing for me that I've been pondering about Shaq.

He was actually more consistently dominant the entire way through the '01 playoffs, dropping 40/20s, etc. He didn't have the problem of underperforming in big games, and the Lakers won the title handily. There's nothing negative to be said. It's about what they did, not what any other team didn't do, and Shaq led the charge.

However, Shaq was a part of that whole regular season fiasco, for which I penalize both him AND Kobe heavily. So that puts me in a dilemma.

[Dr Positivity]

In regards to banging on Wilt 67 because of Wilt's questionable impact other seasons - That's fair, but I do think that

- Wilt 68 is the only one where it *really* feels fair to compare his impact to, considering the 30-40 shots a game Wilt was definitely a different guy in impact/style of game, and the Lakers definitely didn't use him in the same facilitating role in 69

- Wilt 68's impact looks pretty damn good and the team has a very similar season except for the blowing a 3-1 lead in the playoffs part. But if we're looking at 67 comparables he has two seasons where his impact seems immense, able to carry a loaded team to one of the best seasons in history up to that point

- 69 Sixers has a nice season, but there IS a 3.17 SRS drop-off, and 69 is 3.71 less than in 67 which may be a better comparable. I think ElGee has been a particularly big advocate of "It's harder to make big jumps when the team already has elite talent", so I don't think that fall-off is anything to sniff at. The team also goes down easily in the playoffs and it's fair to say Cunningham took it to another level this year in Wilt's absence. A note about the 68 Sixers as well, because Wilt gets so many FTA, his hilarious 38% that year, down from 44% in 67 (which was in itself bottom 3 in his career), cost the Sixers 0.7 points a game. So this and Wilt seemingly being better as a scorer in 67, fits in with the drop from 67 Sixers to 69 in terms of SRS being more likely to be a number approaching or over 4. Then consider Cunningham being a mini 94 Pippen in terms of filling the vacuum as an MVP candidate and the drop-off gets more significant

- 69 Lakers are again a different version of Wilt and there's a lot of 2004 Shaq/Lakers or 1977 Erving/Sixers in that season, so while it's definitely suspicious that they had such a weird non jump (mind you they still got it together enough to make G7 of the Finals so it's not like they were bad, a la 77 Sixers and 04 Lakers), I don't know if I'd trust it any more than the early 60s to say 67 Wilt couldn't be having a GOAT impact

I think Wilt had a ton of points in his career where his GOAT talent wasn't used properly... But IMO 1967 seems like the best way possible to use Chamberlain and max him out

[Doctor MJ]

Shaq was amazing in the 01 playoffs and definitely picked up his level of play.
Can't forget him dropping 28 / 20 / 9ast with 8blocks on 63% shooting against Prime DPOY Mutombo in G2 of the Finals.

See, this is the thing for me that I've been pondering about Shaq.

He was actually more consistently dominant the entire way through the '01 playoffs, dropping 40/20s, etc. He didn't have the problem of underperforming in big games, and the Lakers won the title handily. There's nothing negative to be said. It's about what they did, not what any other team didn't do, and Shaq led the charge.

However, Shaq was a part of that whole regular season fiasco, for which I penalize both him AND Kobe heavily. So that puts me in a dilemma.

I'm with you. I don't mind if others focus more on the playoffs than I do, but even though I count playoff games much more than the regular season, I cannot look at '01 Shaq's overall performance topping his '00 performance.

[Doctor MJ]

Interesting points Doc.

Shaq was playing DPOY defense throughout the 00 regular season and playoffs.
I'd say the same for him in the 01 playoffs.

Shaq was amazing in the 01 playoffs and definitely picked up his level of play.
Can't forget him dropping 28 / 20 / 9ast with 8blocks on 63% shooting against Prime DPOY Mutombo in G2 of the Finals.

Well, actually though, my post is pointing out something negative about '00. The team's elite defense from the regular season really struggled whereas in '01 they were on fire. If you're arguing for '00 Shaq based on him playing his very best all season long, I think you need to address this playoff dip. There might be a perfectly good rebuttal, but a rebuttal is needed.

[ElGee]

Offense:
'00 5th
'01 2nd

Defense:
'00 1st
'01 21st

This is an incredible defensive collapse, and it's hard to imagine any single player taking more of the blame than Shaq because we know how his attention waned.

Okay, now, same stats but in the playoffs:

Offense:
'00 1st
'01 1st

Defense:
'00 13th
'01 1st (by a huge margin)

Very interesting. LA in the 2000 PS was +0.8 on defense after its -6 in the RS. I was suspicious that a lot of that had to do with Reggie Miller in the Finals, who seems to be completely impervious to ANY kind of defense ever. Here are the results by series:

SAC (5g) +12.3 ORtg, +0.6 DRtg
Pho (5g) +10.6 ORtg, -3.5 DRtg
Por (7g) +6.5 ORtg, +1.6 DRtg
Ind (6g) +8.9 ORtg, +6.0 DRtg

So really what are we looking at here if we suggest the postseason defense is damning to O'Neal (as the anchor)? Sacramento hit 38% of 3's in that series, up from 32% in the RS, which covers 3.3 efficiency points by itself. The Kings ORtg was 0.3 worse in this series than it was during the RS v LA.

The Phoenix series doesn't look like anyone would take much issue with it.

The Portland series is clearly "won" by Portland. They were 7 pts/100 better than they were in the RS vs. LA. But again let's look at the variable stats that have less to do with O'Neal, FT% and 3p%. If the players shot their RS averages the Blazers ORtg drops almost 4 points and the stat to -2.2.

In the Finals, we see another Miller team winning out against a great offense.

Is that really the picture of someone who suddenly isn't a defensive anchor? (Keeping in mind this is independent of the his teammates and a smallish sample)?

[Doctor MJ]

So suffice to say, right now I'm leaning '91 Jordan.

I have a ton of respect for Shaq at full might, it seems like no matter where I look, I see a chink in the armor. With Jordan, year after year, he's a machine who just seems to crank it up further in the playoffs.

I have enough respect for Shaq's offense that I call him a best-in-the-game level talent there (something I rarely say for a big men), but that doesn't make him Jordan's equal, and his spotty defensive play makes me hesitant to rank him much ahead of Jordan on that front, because Jordan was exceptional. Not DPOY exception imho, but then neither was Shaq.

Regarding Wilt, I've mentioned before my uncertainty there. Why was there such an offensive drop off for the '76ers from '67 to '68? If it's because Wilt's simply not trying as hard, that's actually encouraging. On the other hand, if it's another factor, that might be a problem.

I'll ask: Is it possible that the impact of '67 Wilt had much to do with defenses simply playing poor defensive strategy in response to Wilt as a decoy, and that they later figured it out?

[Doctor MJ]

Very interesting. LA in the 2000 PS was +0.8 on defense after its -6 in the RS. I was suspicious that a lot of that had to do with Reggie Miller in the Finals, who seems to be completely impervious to ANY kind of defense ever. Here are the results by series:

SAC (5g) +12.3 ORtg, +0.6 DRtg
Pho (5g) +10.6 ORtg, -3.5 DRtg
Por (7g) +6.5 ORtg, +1.6 DRtg
Ind (6g) +8.9 ORtg, +6.0 DRtg

So really what are we looking at here if we suggest the postseason defense is damning to O'Neal (as the anchor)? Sacramento hit 38% of 3's in that series, up from 32% in the RS, which covers 3.3 efficiency points by itself. The Kings ORtg was 0.3 worse in this series than it was during the RS v LA.

The Phoenix series doesn't look like anyone would take much issue with it.

The Portland series is clearly "won" by Portland. They were 7 pts/100 better than they were in the RS vs. LA. But again let's look at the variable stats that have less to do with O'Neal, FT% and 3p%. If the players shot their RS averages the Blazers ORtg drops almost 4 points and the stat to -2.2.

In the Finals, we see another Miller team winning out against a great offense.

Is that really the picture of someone who suddenly isn't a defensive anchor? (Keeping in mind this is independent of the his teammates and a smallish sample)?

Strong rebuttal. That's basically what I was looking for. The Lakers went up against great offenses in '00, and actually did about what you expect. And like you said, what you expect is that the Lakers tear down all normal offenses, and can do nothing against the uncanny Reggie.

Question: How do you think the '00 Lakers would have done in the '01 playoffs against the teams the '01 Lakers faced?

[Dr Positivity]

So suffice to say, right now I'm leaning '91 Jordan.

I have a ton of respect for Shaq at full might, it seems like no matter where I look, I see a chink in the armor. With Jordan, year after year, he's a machine who just seems to crank it up further in the playoffs.

I have enough respect for Shaq's offense that I call him a best-in-the-game level talent there (something I rarely say for a big men), but that doesn't make him Jordan's equal, and his spotty defensive play makes me hesitant to rank him much ahead of Jordan on that front, because Jordan was exceptional. Not DPOY exception imho, but then neither was Shaq.

Regarding Wilt, I've mentioned before my uncertainty there. Why was there such an offensive drop off for the '76ers from '67 to '68? If it's because Wilt's simply not trying as hard, that's actually encouraging. On the other hand, if it's another factor, that might be a problem.

I'll ask: Is it possible that the impact of '67 Wilt had much to do with defenses simply playing poor defensive strategy in response to Wilt as a decoy, and that they later figured it out?

Well, with league averages in parenthesis:

67 - .483 FG% (+.042), .680 FT% (-.053)
68 - .471 FG% (+.025), .635 FT% (-.085)

According to my math, Wilt as his 67 FGA FG% and FT%, in the 68 season, would've added about .015% to the 68 Sixers FG% and +.02 to their FT%. So I think it's fair to say Wilt becoming a less efficient player is responsible for the difference in FG%/FT% at least, which coers a huge chunk of the difference in those categories

With that said it could be a chicken and egg thing where Wilt getting less efficient from the field was because the Sixers got figured out or they played a more defensive/halfcourt style or w/e and not the other way around, but the numbers seem to suggest the difference between 67 and 68 Sixers most derive from Wilt himself's efficiency. Knowing Wilt my guess is that after he won the title and he knew his team was going to cruise through the regular season, there was probably a lot more "You know what, I think I WILL treat myself to that that turnaround jumpshot that goes in 1/3 of the time" and "Hmm... I could spend 15 seconds expending energy getting in the low post... OR instead, I could hang out from 20 FT and work on my PG skills - Oh looks like I have to take a 20 ft jumpshot, well ok" in 68 when his team was 10 Ws ahead of anyone else and up 15 in a game

I also don't like splitting up ORTG/DRTG as you know, I tend to think energy spent on each end, strategy, pace, etc. can move those pins in opposite directions while the team's caliber doesn't change

[Doctor MJ]

I also don't like splitting up ORTG/DRTG as you know, I tend to think energy spent on each end, strategy, pace, etc. can move those pins in opposite directions while the team's caliber doesn't change

I don't think that makes sense here. The '67 leap forward on offense very clearly represented a leap forward in team offensive strategy, not an improved offensive effort. They found an easy way to score points, and while it's true that it required smart basketball that could have re-dumbed to some degree later on, there's absolutely no reason to think the team could only play smart on one side of the ball. After all, by modern standards, the '67 76ers were still extremely inefficient. There's no reason to think what they were doing was unsustainable simply based on the effort involved.

[Dipper 13]

Why was there such an offensive drop off for the '76ers from '67 to '68?

Injuries, plus Wilt chasing the assists title.


Injuries Link: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1144384#p29478569




Just Like Any Other 7-Foot Black Millionaire Who Lives Next Door - Wilt Chamberlain (1973)

I didn’t go into the 1967-68 season with any great enthusiasm. I’ve always been the kind of person who needs specific concrete goals and challenges; with them, I’m the most competitive guy in the world; without them, I tend to be lackadaisical. I’m just not naturally competitive and aggressive. I don’t have a killer instinct. In the past, I’d always been able to set challenging goals for myself—whether it was selling $200 worth of junk in one day as a kid or leading the league in scoring as an NBA rookie. But by my ninth year in the NBA, there really weren’t many goals I hadn’t already reached. I’d led the league in damn near everything more times than I could count. I’d broken my own records year after year. I’d even been on a championship team. What else could I do? With my attitude toward Philadelphia and [owner] Kosloff, I just wasn’t in the mood to work hard at dreaming up some goal. I couldn’t just go through the motions, though; I had too much pride in myself—and too much affection and respect for my teammates to do that. So I decided I’d lead the NBA in assists. That was the only category, except free throws, that I’d never led the league in, and it was the one category that no other center had ever led in either. For basketball’s greatest scorer to lead the league in assists would really be something, I thought. It would be like Babe Ruth leading the game in sacrifice bunts or Jim Brown leading the league in blocking.





Also he would pass to certain players with a catch & shoot tendency most of the time due to the strict assist rules of the era.


Tall Tales: The Glory Years of the NBA - Terry Pluto







Today he wouldn't have to worry about Walker's dribble. There is no doubt he would have a much easier time in the modern day NBA, perhaps not in accumulating video game statistics, but rather enjoying an abundance of team success. This is a legend who was born well ahead of his time, and it hurt his game in more ways than it helped.

[ronnymac2]

Well the obvious comeback to that is that he was better in 2001, when healthy and focused (2001 Lakers being the poster child for one of the most bi-polar teams of all time). Having said that, his stats are all slightly down that year... except for FTA, which rose by almost 3 per game... it's a big jump.... any insights?

No clue, especially about the free throw attempts. That change goes against what one would expect of somebody already drawing 10 FTAs per game for the majority of his career.

His stats went down a little, and his defensive effort waned a bit, so yeah, the regular season isn't as strong as in 2000.

[ronnymac2]

I said this in the other Highest Peak thread...if you have a problem with the competition Shaq faced during the 2000 playoffs, use the 2001 playoffs to at least inform yourself about how Shaq reacts to different (or elite) defensive frontcourts. Smits and Longley were switched with Robinson/Duncan and Mutombo (Por and Sac stayed constant), yet Shaq's 2001 playoff numbers were remarkably similar to what they were in 2000.

The '00 vs '01 Shaq is interesting, and perhaps quite damaging to his candidacy given the single season criteria. First let's take a look at team offense and defense in the regular season of both seasons:

Offense:
'00 5th
'01 2nd

Defense:
'00 1st
'01 21st

This is an incredible defensive collapse, and it's hard to imagine any single player taking more of the blame than Shaq because we know how his attention waned.

Okay, now, same stats but in the playoffs:

Offense:
'00 1st
'01 1st

Defense:
'00 13th
'01 1st (by a huge margin)

So, just like before, the difference between the two seasons was huge defensive changes, except this time in the opposite direction. I wouldn't claim that difference was all Shaq focus by any stretch of the imagination, but I have a hard time believe that wasn't part of it.

This then means, that we never actually saw Shaq be full Shaq for any one season, which makes one ask if we really believe that any kind of partial Shaq could truly be the peak GOAT.

Of course there's a different perspective as well, if you are focused enough on the playoffs, then perhaps your peak GOAT is not '00 Shaq but rather '01 Shaq.

Based on what Elgee brought up in response to your post, I do believe we saw full-throttle Shaq in the year 2000. The defensive dip in the playoffs had little to do with Shaq's effort, and more to do with matchups. I remember the Pacers going absolutely ape **** for a few games in the NBA Finals, particularly from 3-point land. I also remember Portland being able to feast on isolation plays that took advantage of the weaker 1 vs. 1 defenders L.A. had.

Remember, Glen Rice and A.C. Green were getting minutes for this Laker team, so that meant Fox and Horry, two superior defenders, were not getting as many minutes as in 2001. Horace Grant, who was still strong defensively in 2001, wasn't on the team either. So Sheed, Wells, Pippen, and Smith went to work in post up isolations, and they worked. Shaq had to stay within arm's length of a jump-shooting Sabonis. I remember even Hakeem in '94 had to stay next to Felton freakin' Spencer and wait for Karl Malone to make an aggressive move against poor Otis Thorpe before coming down to try and help out. That's Hakeem, and he still struggled to get down to Malone in time.

Under those rules, it would have been incredibly difficult to slow that Portland squad down. They had more post options that any team I've ever watched.

Kobe also hadn't bulked up; amazing perimeter defender, but Smith and Wells and Pip picked him apart when they got him inside and put him in foul trouble a few games. Kobe locked up Mighty Mouse though.

Shaq was going full throttle in the 2000 playoffs on both ends. Game 5 against PHX was one of the most disgusting/beautiful games I've ever seen, and Shaq's defense basically won the Lakers the game. He was pretty damn good throughout the playoffs defensively.

[Dr Positivity]

I also don't like splitting up ORTG/DRTG as you know, I tend to think energy spent on each end, strategy, pace, etc. can move those pins in opposite directions while the team's caliber doesn't change

I don't think that makes sense here. The '67 leap forward on offense very clearly represented a leap forward in team offensive strategy, not an improved offensive effort. They found an easy way to score points, and while it's true that it required smart basketball that could have re-dumbed to some degree later on, there's absolutely no reason to think the team could only play smart on one side of the ball. After all, by modern standards, the '67 76ers were still extremely inefficient. There's no reason to think what they were doing was unsustainable simply based on the effort involved.

I'm just saying that in general, there's enough reasons for me to believe ORTG and DRTG can react in wonky ways when split up because of teams playing a particularly more offensive style. For example the Spurs having their best seasons offensively after Duncan's prime is because IMO they had to convert to an offensive style of play - or how the Knicks got way better defensively last year, in part because they got Chandler, but also because when they had D'Antoni teams with weak talent, they pretty much went into "f*ck defense, let's score points" mode, especially during the Felton/Amare half season - while the present roster is much more defense first in mentality as much as personnel

In the case of the Sixers I would lean towards Wilt becoming more undisciplined, shooting FTs like a drunk, and the team having such an easy time dominating the regular season that the full throttle Sixers offense didn't come out. They still finished 2nd in FG%, ahead of Oscar's Royals, so it's not like their offense was bad, it would be a lot better without the FTs and probably at least 200 shots where Wilt the PG took a PG shot

[C-izMe]

Since I'm voting Jordan for my #2 spot I guess I'll jump in here.

The reason I think this season deserves heavy consideration is not that he was the most "impactful" player. It's because he was the most FLAWLESS player ever.

...

That being said I believe the GOAT SG season <<< GOAT C season.

Whoa. Hold on here, I want to get some things clear.

When you use "<<<<" to state your preference, that implies a ridiculously huge difference. If you're using hyperbole, and you just mean "#1 vs #2 is very clear for me", that's cool.

However, if you are putting Jordan at #2 simply because it's the best season by a non-big, this doesn't seem appropriate to me. I don't know your specific players off hand, but if you believe that the peaks of, say, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Russell all surpass Jordan's based on your measurement of peak, then they should all go above Jordan. Jordan got his MVPs (and POYs) by beating out big men, he should earn his place here the same way.

The >>>> is definetly hyperbole.
I have watched every playoff game from MJ in 91 and most of Shaq's games (I haven't seen the SAC series) and I will say that MJ was greater in the PS (due to consistency) but Shaq's best was way greater than Jordan's best. I personally picked Shaq because with his skillset and how teams had to play him he could fit on any team and not waste any part of his skillset. IMO Jordan couldn't be put on a team where he was the primary ball handler (for example) and have the same impact. He would skill be amazing and the best in the league but not GOAT level.
I'm also ranking Jordan over everyone else because of how great he was overall. No one else has seasons that impactful IMO. I'm seriously stuck between he and Shaq right now because as a personal preference I prefer Shaq but with the few question marks on his season and lack of questions on Jordan's makes Jordan's seem greater anyway. So I'm just going with my personal preference.



And for all of the questions about what Shaq did offensively, how many bigmen can you say honestly had a better season offensively then Shaq in 00 (29.7ppg, +5.6TS, +11ORTG, 19.3ast%, 9.9TO%). Couple that with anchoring a top ranked defense and he's up there with any other bigman.

[colts18]

It has to be pointed out that:

In 1997, Shaq missed almost half the season, the team didn't have their star from the previous year (Ceballos)).

How can you say they were missing their star from the previous season and not mention at all that in 97 they were missing Magic

[ElGee]

Very interesting. LA in the 2000 PS was +0.8 on defense after its -6 in the RS. I was suspicious that a lot of that had to do with Reggie Miller in the Finals, who seems to be completely impervious to ANY kind of defense ever. Here are the results by series:

SAC (5g) +12.3 ORtg, +0.6 DRtg
Pho (5g) +10.6 ORtg, -3.5 DRtg
Por (7g) +6.5 ORtg, +1.6 DRtg
Ind (6g) +8.9 ORtg, +6.0 DRtg

So really what are we looking at here if we suggest the postseason defense is damning to O'Neal (as the anchor)? Sacramento hit 38% of 3's in that series, up from 32% in the RS, which covers 3.3 efficiency points by itself. The Kings ORtg was 0.3 worse in this series than it was during the RS v LA.

The Phoenix series doesn't look like anyone would take much issue with it.

The Portland series is clearly "won" by Portland. They were 7 pts/100 better than they were in the RS vs. LA. But again let's look at the variable stats that have less to do with O'Neal, FT% and 3p%. If the players shot their RS averages the Blazers ORtg drops almost 4 points and the stat to -2.2.

In the Finals, we see another Miller team winning out against a great offense.

Is that really the picture of someone who suddenly isn't a defensive anchor? (Keeping in mind this is independent of the his teammates and a smallish sample)?

Strong rebuttal. That's basically what I was looking for. The Lakers went up against great offenses in '00, and actually did about what you expect. And like you said, what you expect is that the Lakers tear down all normal offenses, and can do nothing against the uncanny Reggie.

Question: How do you think the '00 Lakers would have done in the '01 playoffs against the teams the '01 Lakers faced?

The 2001 Lakers basically made the following changes:
-Kobe got better
-Fisher replaced Harper
-Rice was gone (Fox started now)
-One old man (Grant) replaced another (Green) as the starting 4

-I think the first series against Portland they would be fine. There was no strange shooting there, it was just Shaq and a better team vs. age. Don't see what the 2000 squad difference would be.

-In the second round it gets dicier, because I'm not sure how Harper would have helped. On the other hand, Rick Fox was 1-10 from 3 and I don't remember him locking up anyone so Rice may have helped the offense (LA actually shot 29.8% from 3 in this series).

-The Conference Finals against the Spurs is practically a loaded question, because it's utterly unrealistic to expect any team to go 32-72 from downtown in a series. Phil Jackson teams tend to defend the 3 well and the 2000 team was much better in that regard...so I don't see the Spurs perimeter players doing much against the 2000 team there (13-59 in 2001). There was no David Robinson so I see the Lakers exploiting the same mismatches. Despite being a lesser player, the matchup is still ripe for Kobe.

-The FInals are still a cakewalk.

Btw, The other side of the O'Neal defensive coin is to look at the centers of the opposing teams.

R1 Divac: 11-7-3 (36% FG, 4.7 FTA 1.8 TOV) down from 12-8-3 (50% FG 4.1 FTA 2.3 TOV)
R2 Longley: 5-3-1 (37% FG, 0.2 FTA, 0.2 TOV) down from 6-5-1 (47% FG, 1.3 FTA, 1.9 TOV)
R3 Sabonis: 8-6-2 (38% FG, 2.1 FTA, 0.7 TOV) down from 12-8-2 (51% FG, 3.0 FTA, 1.5 TOV)
R4 Smits: 10-4-1 (47% FG, 1.0 FTA, 1.3 TOV) down from 13-5-1 (48% FG, 2.7 FTA, 1.4 TOV)

These guys basically couldn't do a thing against him. Keep in mind Shaq posted a 27% DRB% and 4% Blk% for the postseason, a pretty rare statistical feat. http://bkref.com/tiny/yDEAT

and re: Shaq's foul rates in 2001, I believe it was called "Hack A Shaq"

[Doctor MJ]

It has to be pointed out that:

In 1997, Shaq missed almost half the season, the team didn't have their star from the previous year (Ceballos)).

How can you say they were missing their star from the previous season and not mention at all that in 97 they were missing Magic

Eh, Magic played less than half the year, and the team didn't fall apart without Magic. If you want to say that per minute Magic was the best player on the team I don't mind, but his absence is not an excuse for Shaq.