RealGM

The pre Phil Jackson Lakers couldn't hold a candle to the teams from 2000-2004. They were a significantly better team after that 99 season, exemplified by the fact that they played a similar Spurs team in 01 and beat them in 4, winning each game by an average margin of 22 points. If you honestly think the Spurs team would sweep, or would even be favored to win that series, you weren't watching basketball in 2000.

That 00-01 Spurs team was not "similar" to the 98-99 team. Robinson was two years older, Elliott was a shelf of his former self with the kidney disease. You think Kobe would go off like that, if he had (pre-kidney disease) Elliott checking him? Sean Elliott was like Bowen to Kobe, who could shoot 3s, penetrate and make plays. I mean saying they're the same is like saying that Zo is the same player, after his kidney disease.

By your logic, the 02-03 Lakers must be similar to the 00-01 Lakers, and in fact, they WERE very similar, except for the fact that everyone was two years older.

BattleTested wrote:

aol4532 wrote:
Jordan came back and lost to the Magic in 94-95, who then got swept by the Rockets. You can argue that he was out of shape, but even if he was in shape, it would have been a stretch to say that he would have been able to beat both the Magic, and then the Rockets.

Also, Jordan had several 40 or less win seasons(he never missed the playoffs because the East was so weak), including his rookie year(why shouldn't you include it? If you don't include it, then you're penalizing Hakeem). He was injured his 2nd season, but you know, when you're injured, then that's a negative against you. If I'm going to build around anyone, then I want that guy to be as durable as possible.

Anyway, you can tell that if it weren't for Pippen and Phil, he was just going to flounder around that 40-50 wins area. There was nothing special about Jordan, when he didn't have a two Hall-of-Famers/All-Stars advantage, over the rest.

Thanks for the sig.

Your bitterness is flattering

BattleTested wrote:Yes I am saying that. All of the guys you mentioned besides Smith were still very, very good defensive players. When you mixed them together you had an incredibly versatile, deep defensive team. The reason that team couldn't get it done was not age or defense like you're implying, it was because they lacked a go to scorer in the clutch.

You also have to remember that that was the era of zone defense + hand checking, arguably the toughest defensive period in NBA history. Shaq had 3 quiet quarters, then had a great 4th quarter and the Lakers won. You're going to diminish his season because of a game in which he came through in the clutch and his team won? They shouldn't have even been in that position. In Game 5, the game they should've closed the Blazers out in, Shaq went for 31/21/3/2 on 61% TS. If Kobe and Rice don't combine to go 5/21 with 7 turnovers, they're never in Game 7 in the first place.

And if you're so intent on pointing out single games to determine a player's entire season, why not look at his closeout performance vs Indiana, one in which he scored 41 points, grabbed 12 rebounds, and blocked 4 shots en route to his first championship? What about the pivotal game in that series that everyone credits Kobe for (game 4) when Shaq went for 36/21?

That '00 Blazer team was overrated and had no continuity like a great team should, they were either aging (Pippen, Smith, Sabonis, Schrempf, Davis), volatile (Wallace, Wells) or inexperienced (J. O'neal). And it showed as that team fell off the face of the earth after that series, never to be heard from again. They surely aren't a team people will remember or on par with any of those teams I mentioned either offensively or defensively that Jordan and Hakeem faced.

I'll give Shaq credit for posting those numbers. Had he posted such perfomances on Hakeem or Duncan who got the better of him on the way to titles without needing to defer to anyone, I'd surely be championing him as a GOAT. Instead it was Rik Smits who couldn't wait fast enough for that Game 6 to be over with so he could announce his retirement (which he did!) due to battling through shin splints and bone spurs in his legs. When Smits was younger and healthy he actually gave Shaq a good fight in the playoffs.

aol4532 wrote:

The pre Phil Jackson Lakers couldn't hold a candle to the teams from 2000-2004. They were a significantly better team after that 99 season, exemplified by the fact that they played a similar Spurs team in 01 and beat them in 4, winning each game by an average margin of 22 points. If you honestly think the Spurs team would sweep, or would even be favored to win that series, you weren't watching basketball in 2000.

That 00-01 Spurs team was not "similar" to the 98-99 team. Robinson was two years older, Elliott was a shelf of his former self with the kidney disease. You think Kobe would go off like that, if he had (pre-kidney disease) Elliott checking him? Sean Elliott was like Bowen to Kobe, who could shoot 3s, penetrate and make plays. I mean saying they're the same is like saying that Zo is the same player, after his kidney disease.

You think a healthy Sean Elliot was making up over 22 points a game for his team? Lol, keep dreaming. Sean Elliot pre-kidney disease had only played against a teenage Kobe Bryant. Dude was not Bruce Bowen. Hell, even Bruce Bowen got burned by Kobe more often then not in the 4 playoff series they played against each other in.

David Robinson was very similar in 99 to who he was in 01. 16/10 on 56% TS vs 14/9 on 56% TS. His aging was not the difference in those two sweeps. Nor was Sean Elliot (though he was certainly a bigger hit to San Antonio's chances than D-Rob.) The difference was Phil Jackson coming to town and instilling the confidence which turned Shaq from a perennial playoff loser into one of the highest peaking, most dominant players ever. Moreso than that, Kobe's growth from a borderline top 15 guy in 99 to a top 3 player in the world in 01 marked the difference in those series.

2000 would have been a good series if Duncan was healthy, but the Spurs would have certainly been underdogs. Remember that these two teams played 21 times over the next 4 postseasons. The Lakers went 14-7 even though the Spurs had HCA in 3 of the 4 series. The Lakers would have had HCA in 2000.

aol4532 wrote:
Your bitterness is flattering

Bitterness? Dude, you literally said Michael Jordan wasn't anything special. Lol.

Robinson was not the same player. Not only were his stats down across the board, his defensive rating, which showed things like defensive rotations, was down also. It's like saying Shaq is the same player in 02-03 as he was in 00-01, and in fact, Shaq's numbers were even closer.

And you don't seriously believe that the Lakers were 22 points better than the Spurs, do you? The Spurs quit in the last two games.

As far as Kobe improving, we're talking about how they'd do in 99-00 right, that year, he was merely a 21 PPG scorer.

Robinson didn't decline much from 99-01.

Compare his playoff stats from 99 to 01.

99 : 15 / 10 / 2.4bpg on 48% shooting.
01 : 17 / 12 / 2.4bpg on 47% shooting.

He was still an incredible defensive player in 01 and physically he was completely healthy and hadn't broken down yet.

The fact that Shaq managed to outplay that incredible duo of Robinson (who was still very potent) and Prime Duncan is amazing.

Other then maybe Peak Kareem/Hakeem I can't even imagine any other C performing so well against arguably the GOAT post defensive duo.

FuShengTHEGreat wrote:

GreenHat wrote:

FuShengTHEGreat wrote:
Kobe bailed Shaq's subpar performance out by leading LA in every facet in that Game 7:

Pts: 25 -18
Rebs: 11-9
Blks: 4-1
Asts: 7-5

If defending Finals MVP Tim Duncan wasn't injured those '00 Lakers would've had to have waited another year to win a title and nobody would've been raving about how great Shaq played.

Fine and then you agree that if the defending Finals MVP Michael Jordan wasn't out of the league those Rockets would've had to wait forever to win a title and nobody would've raved about how great Hakeem was?

Your agenda is always so obvious.

Yeah because Jordan dominated the Rockets before he retired and swept them outta the playoffs on the way to a NBA title like Duncan did to LA?

So Shaq would have been better off in in your mind losing earlier in the playoffs like Hakeem did than to the Spurs. That makes so much sense.

aol4532 wrote:

GreenHat wrote:

FuShengTHEGreat wrote:
Kobe bailed Shaq's subpar performance out by leading LA in every facet in that Game 7:

Pts: 25 -18
Rebs: 11-9
Blks: 4-1
Asts: 7-5

If defending Finals MVP Tim Duncan wasn't injured those '00 Lakers would've had to have waited another year to win a title and nobody would've been raving about how great Shaq played.

Fine and then you agree that if the defending Finals MVP Michael Jordan wasn't out of the league those Rockets would've had to wait forever to win a title and nobody would've raved about how great Hakeem was?

Your agenda is always so obvious.

Jordan came back and lost to the Magic in 94-95, who then got swept by the Rockets. You can argue that he was out of shape, but even if he was in shape, it would have been a stretch to say that he would have been able to beat both the Magic, and then the Rockets.

Also, Jordan had several 40 or less win seasons(he never missed the playoffs because the East was so weak), including his rookie year(why shouldn't you include it? If you don't include it, then you're penalizing Hakeem). He was injured his 2nd season, but you know, when you're injured, then that's a negative against you. If I'm going to build around anyone, then I want that guy to be as durable as possible.

Anyway, you can tell that if it weren't for Pippen and Phil, he was just going to flounder around that 40-50 wins area. There was nothing special about Jordan, when he didn't have a two Hall-of-Famers/All-Stars advantage, over the rest.

It was a post directed at a Hakeem homer but your reply is priceless.

aol4532 wrote:

GreenHat wrote:

FuShengTHEGreat wrote:
Kobe bailed Shaq's subpar performance out by leading LA in every facet in that Game 7:

Pts: 25 -18
Rebs: 11-9
Blks: 4-1
Asts: 7-5

If defending Finals MVP Tim Duncan wasn't injured those '00 Lakers would've had to have waited another year to win a title and nobody would've been raving about how great Shaq played.

Fine and then you agree that if the defending Finals MVP Michael Jordan wasn't out of the league those Rockets would've had to wait forever to win a title and nobody would've raved about how great Hakeem was?

Your agenda is always so obvious.

Jordan came back and lost to the Magic in 94-95, who then got swept by the Rockets. You can argue that he was out of shape, but even if he was in shape, it would have been a stretch to say that he would have been able to beat both the Magic, and then the Rockets.

Also, Jordan had several 40 or less win seasons(he never missed the playoffs because the East was so weak), including his rookie year(why shouldn't you include it? If you don't include it, then you're penalizing Hakeem). He was injured his 2nd season, but you know, when you're injured, then that's a negative against you. If I'm going to build around anyone, then I want that guy to be as durable as possible.

Anyway, you can tell that if it weren't for Pippen and Phil, he was just going to flounder around that 40-50 wins area. There was nothing special about Jordan, when he didn't have a two Hall-of-Famers/All-Stars advantage, over the rest.

It was a post directed at a Hakeem homer but your reply is priceless.

GreenHat wrote:So Shaq would have been better off in in your mind losing earlier in the playoffs like Hakeem did than to the Spurs. That makes so much sense.

Yeah its kinda hard to lose earlier in the playoffs as you say when your best years are spent with peak Penny, Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade in succession. And yet still he couldn't be bothered to stay playing with any of these guys. In addition to burning bridges with 2 of the 3 greatest coaches in NBA history.....in succession.

Yeah I'm sure he'd have lost a lot less earlier in his best years with Clyde in his twighlight, Vernon "jailbird" Maxwell and Sleepy the chucker Floyd.

Ironic thing is, Shaq lost a lot earlier than Hakeem in the 95 Finals.

FuShengTHEGreat wrote:Yeah its kinda hard to lose earlier in the playoffs as you say when your best years are spent with peak Penny, Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade in succession.

Yeah because Shaq is the only guy to ever have a great or good #2.
Also Shaq played with Young Kobe and Prime (not Peak) Wade.

Yeah I'm sure he'd have lost a lot less earlier in his best years with Clyde in his twighlight, Vernon "jailbird" Maxwell and Sleepy the chucker Floyd.

Hakeem's 95 cast was better then O'neals 95, 00 and 02 cast and his competition was much weaker.

Give Peak Shaq Prime Drexler and some awesome roleplayers in some weak years and you better believe he will be bringing home some titles.

The lengths you go to trying to discredit all of Hakeem's supporting players while hyping up Shaq's are quite amusing.

Ironic thing is, Shaq lost a lot earlier than Hakeem in the 95 Finals.

Shaq leading a team to the Finals in his 3rd year is pretty damn impressive.
So is finishing 2nd in MVP voting and almost playing on par with Hakeem at his absolute peak.

If you switched Hakeem onto Orlando and Shaq onto the Rockets it would have been O'neal holding the FMVP trophy that year.

Shaq from 93-97 has a huge edge over Hakeem in their overall h2h matchups.

charity stripe wrote:52% ft shooting, 45% in the playoffs is a huge weakness.

Exactly Shaq had to many flaws to be labeled the goat.

Some throw the goat label like it's nothing. To be label a goat you need to earn it, like Michael Jordan who was fudamentaly sound and pretty efficient in all aspects in his game. Shaq wasn't, his game is flawed, their is a reason he couldn't win with Orlando, because he was known to be a choke artist. Good things he teamed up with super stars like Kobe and Wade to take over games down the stetch. MJ didn't have that issue.

Shaq should be happy they squeaked by Portland in game 7 with a weak performance by him, being outrebounded by Kobe and thankful for Kobe taking that game over and advancing to the finals vs a weaker opponent.


So again, goat ? No chance. There is no case for goat peak.

The Infamous1 wrote:Plus shaq padded his numbers in game 2 garbage time when Hakeem dominated him in the first half and had the rockets leading by 22 at half and 19 through 3 Quarters(Shaq scored 23 in the 2nd half)

That game is a classic example of the box score not telling the whole story

Shaq wasn't padding his stats in garbage time. His team came within 9 points with 5:40 left

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_3OtmByXMQ

I'm in the middle of a Shaq vs Hakeem 95 finals project right now. I'm rewatching that finals to see how they did when they guarded each other.

2000 shaq was beast ,a goat performance.if you says no...either you didnt watch him or you are shaq hater.

odeski wrote:2000 shaq was beast ,a goat performance.if you says no...either you didnt watch him or you are shaq hater.

Shaq had below average mediocre game 6 and 7 vs the Blazers.

Kobe saved Shaq butt in game 7 vs Blazers to advance to the finals.

Shaq had a great season, but I don't forget his bad games, which rules out the case imo of having a goat season.

Shaq fouled out in a pivotal game 4 vs the Pacers in the finals, Goats don't make stupid moves like that, luckily Kobe took over that game to take control of the series.

GAME TIME wrote:

odeski wrote:2000 shaq was beast ,a goat performance.if you says no...either you didnt watch him or you are shaq hater.

Shaq had below average mediocre game 6 and 7 vs the Blazers.

Kobe saved Shaq butt in game 7 vs Blazers to advance to the finals.

Shaq had a great season, but I don't forget his bad games, which rules out the case imo of having a goat season.

Shaq fouled out in a pivotal game 4 vs the Pacers in the finals, Goats don't make stupid moves like that, luckily Kobe took over that game to take control of the series.

shaq finals average 38.0/16.7/2.3 with high efficiency,won championship and finals mvp with constant doubled or tripled team..and i know kobe was great,but it was shaq the main reason they won the championship...dominance.

GAME TIME wrote:

odeski wrote:2000 shaq was beast ,a goat performance.if you says no...either you didnt watch him or you are shaq hater.

Shaq had below average mediocre game 6 and 7 vs the Blazers.

Kobe saved Shaq butt in game 7 vs Blazers to advance to the finals.

Shaq had a great season, but I don't forget his bad games, which rules out the case imo of having a goat season.

Shaq fouled out in a pivotal game 4 vs the Pacers in the finals, Goats don't make stupid moves like that, luckily Kobe took over that game to take control of the series.

Watch the ball games 1st...

Do you know what is consistently double and triple teamed ? Even Shaq played good in Game 3 and Game 4 vs Blazers, but he was only allowed to take ONE shot in 1st quarter of those games. In Game 7, Shaq showed up in big time, scored 9 pts in 4rh quarter.

In Finals Game 4, Shaq got 36pts and 20rebs before fouling out. And fouling out is stupid moves ? Wilt never fouls out. I guess he was a better playoffs performer than Shaq LOL.

The Infamous1 wrote:Plus shaq padded his numbers in game 2 garbage time when Hakeem dominated him in the first half and had the rockets leading by 22 at half and 19 through 3 Quarters(Shaq scored 23 in the 2nd half)

That game is a classic example of the box score not telling the whole story

Stupid comment. Olajuwon averaged 29 shots per game in the series while Shaq with 18.

Hakeem had a better three year peak than Shaq.

Hakeem peaked at separate times defensively in 93' and offensively 95', Shaq did both in one year. If you compare Hakeem's peak 3 years with peak three peat Shaq 00'-02'

Three year Peaks: Hakeem 92'-95' vs Shaq 99'-02'

Regular Season





Hakeem TS% .568
Shaq TS% .580

Almost a wash with Shaq having better TS% and a small rebounding & point per game edge, but Hakeem has a tiny passing edge, better blocks, steals and slightly more turnovers. Hakeem won Defensive Player of the year two years in this peak. Shaq wasn't even close defensively.

Playoffs





Hakeem TS% .564
Shaq TS% .562

Shaq had a clear rebounding edge and slightly less turnovers, but Hakeem had slightly better TS%, better passing, steals, blocks and played much tougher competition with less help. As well as his peak defensive playoffs.

If you combine thier offensive and defensive peaks, Hakeem had a better three year peak in total combined impact.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... uha01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lsh01.html

How is .5 a slight difference when one guy has 2.8? That's nearly 20% more. We're talking about 200+ games that's more than 100 extra turnovers.

You also use Hakeem winning DPOY as evidence of his defense but ignore that Shaq finished second in the same award. DPOY isn't a great indicator but at least decide if you want it to be used as evidence or not.

You use TS% which clearly understates the overall efficiency of bad free throw shooters who are intentionally fouled. Its curious that you would use basic box score stats for everything but then switch to TS% when its convenient for Hakeem.

Not only was Shaq a better rebounder but he was also a lot better on the offensive glass. No easy boards or stealing rebounds from your teammates there.

Also not sure why you are looking at an arbitrary length of time that is cherry picked to fit Hakeem.