94 & 95 Shaq on the 94 & 95 Rockets

[SHAQ32]

Do they still win?

Assume Hakeem is on the 94 & 95 Magic.

[Ol Roy]

The Magic win

[SHAQ32]

The Magic win

N. Anderson and D. Scott weren't clutch like K. Smith, M. Elie and R. Horry

[AEnigma]

The Magic win

N. Anderson and D. Scott weren't clutch like K. Smith, M. Elie and R. Horry

Irrelevant when Shaq gets taken out by the Jazz yet again.

[SHAQ32]

The Magic win

N. Anderson and D. Scott weren't clutch like K. Smith, M. Elie and R. Horry

Irrelevant when Shaq gets taken out by the Jazz yet again.

No Ostertag tho.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

The Magic win

N. Anderson and D. Scott weren't clutch like K. Smith, M. Elie and R. Horry

Irrelevant when Shaq gets taken out by the Jazz yet again.

Exactly. Very lousy PnR defender. Even when Stockton and Malone were older and into their 30s they still ran circles around him.

He was never great enough to win without a legit #2 all star perimeter player so he isn't winning vs utah in 94.

He surely isn't winning in 95 with only 2 months of Clyde. He couldn't win right off the bat with Kobe and he couldn't win right off the bat Wade.

Heck, Houston wouldn't have even beaten Phoenix in 94 with Shaq. They were better than the Rockets at every position outside of the Center position. You'll never see anywhere in Shaq's career his team winning a series with such a talent disparity position wise.

Not even 3peat Shaq wins a title on any of Hakeems title teams. I don't think he ever figured out how to play defensively vs the likes of Utah....with his flaws he just had ro hope they didn't meet.

[1993Playoffs]

They lose a lot on overall defense

though Shaq was a good post defender and Hakeem wasn’t quite at his defensive peak during the rings (especially 95) .

Imo they may lose to the Jazz like others have said. .

[MacGill]

Obviously they don't win, you have to give Hakeem his credit as the anchor for those 2 years, but 'holy Shaq insecurities' by many of the posters here acting like Shaq was a scrub or just a standing pole on the court. You'd think that after 30 years of Hakeem's great run we'd cover it all and that this question wasn't asked 100 times prior.

That team was constructed (even as poorly as some will mention) for Hakeem and allowed him to maximize his skill sets with no overlap. And he did just that. I have Shaq/Hakeem higher than most on this board but acting like there is a huge gap of seperation is plain silly. It wasn't Shaq's time, he learned and grew, same as Hakeem had to.

[Big NBA Fan]

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

People forget what a monster Shaq was because of his ugly and lengthy decline and his HORRIBLE performances on TNT.

[SHAQ32]

N. Anderson and D. Scott weren't clutch like K. Smith, M. Elie and R. Horry

Irrelevant when Shaq gets taken out by the Jazz yet again.

Exactly. Very lousy PnR defender.

You're thinking of the wrong Shaq.

[SHAQ32]

That team was constructed (even as poorly as some will mention) for Hakeem and allowed him to maximize his skill sets with no overlap.

Who would say the Rockets were poorly constructed for Hakeem? He was surrounded by shooters. And Shaq was a better passer. Robert Horry was a cheat code.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Irrelevant when Shaq gets taken out by the Jazz yet again.

Exactly. Very lousy PnR defender.

You're thinking of the wrong Shaq.

Puhleeze. I don't think he ever fixed this flaw. Any version of him could be exploited by Utah.

[AEnigma]

In these specific years against Shaq, the Pacers put up a +5 (three-game sweep) and then a +12 (tight seven-game loss) relative offensive rating. His defence was not some sudden issue that only manifested when he joined the Lakers.

[SHAQ32]

In these specific years against Shaq, the Pacers put up a +5 (three-game sweep) and then a +12 (tight seven-game loss) relative offensive rating. His defence was not some sudden issue that only manifested when he joined the Lakers.

Indiana, Reggie in Particular, was known for turning it up another level in the playoffs. And they were a ~top 10 offense in the regular season, so they were no pushover. Smits played Shaq tough.

But it's widely acknowledged that Shaq was more mobile and engaged, defensively, in Orlando.

[70sFan]

Irrelevant when Shaq gets taken out by the Jazz yet again.

Exactly. Very lousy PnR defender.

You're thinking of the wrong Shaq.

I really don't think that's a good argument. Shaq was more mobile in Orlando, but his fundamentals were even worse and his engagement was also very questionable.

I don't think there are many (if any) reasons to believe that Shaq didn't peak defensively in LA.

[AEnigma]

In these specific years against Shaq, the Pacers put up a +5 (three-game sweep) and then a +12 (tight seven-game loss) relative offensive rating. His defence was not some sudden issue that only manifested when he joined the Lakers.

Indiana, Reggie in Particular, was known for turning it up another level in the playoffs. And they were a ~top 10 offense in the regular season, so they were no pushover. Smits played Shaq tough.

Still specifically thrived against Shaq, and that was true even looking at Shaq’s 2000 defensive peak.

But it's widely acknowledged that Shaq was more mobile and engaged, defensively, in Orlando.

Mobile, yes — but we have seen how in that era improved mobility for Shaq was not inherently advantageous. “Engaged”, no, but even if for the sake of argument he were (leaning much harder on 1995 there), being “engaged” does not fix fundamental issues with understanding or ability to cover space to the necessary extent.

David Robinson struggled against the Jazz too, and he was better than Shaq on defence in nearly every trait aside from lower body strength.

[tsherkin]

David Robinson struggled against the Jazz too, and he was better than Shaq on defence in nearly every trait aside from lower body strength.

Other than the triangle, they were basically the most advanced and best-spaced offense in the mid/late 90s. With shooters around a big who could score in and out PLUS was a good passer, coupled to excellent corner shooters, they were generally brutal to defend.

[MacGill]

That team was constructed (even as poorly as some will mention) for Hakeem and allowed him to maximize his skill sets with no overlap.

Who would say the Rockets were poorly constructed for Hakeem? He was surrounded by shooters. And Shaq was a better passer. Robert Horry was a cheat code.

Meaning none to virtually only one all-star teammate in comparison to other ATG teams.

[SHAQ32]

Exactly. Very lousy PnR defender.

You're thinking of the wrong Shaq.

I really don't think that's a good argument. Shaq was more mobile in Orlando, but his fundamentals were even worse and his engagement was also very questionable.

I don't think there are many (if any) reasons to believe that Shaq didn't peak defensively in LA.

Mobility trumps fundamentals when it comes to Centers guarding the perimeter. You can have all the experience and fundamentals, but if you don't have the mobility, or in Shaq's case, massively overweight, it doesn't matter.

And Shaq might have peaked, on paper, defensively in 2000, but that's because he had a much better defensive cast and coaching. And the league in general was more defensive oriented during that era - teams were struggling to score 95 points. But most people that were watching the NBA in the early 90s will tell you otherwise - those were the years where Shaq was more engaged defensively. Those were the years where he was diving for loose balls, and giving it all that he had.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

You're thinking of the wrong Shaq.

I really don't think that's a good argument. Shaq was more mobile in Orlando, but his fundamentals were even worse and his engagement was also very questionable.

I don't think there are many (if any) reasons to believe that Shaq didn't peak defensively in LA.

Mobility trumps fundamentals when it comes to Centers guarding the perimeter. You can have all the experience and fundamentals, but if you don't have the mobility, or in Shaq's case, massively overweight, it doesn't matter.

And Shaq might have peaked, on paper, defensively in 2000, but that's because he had a much better defensive cast and coaching. And the league in general was more defensive oriented during that era - teams were struggling to score 95 points. But most people that were watching the NBA in the early 90s will tell you otherwise - those were the years where Shaq was more engaged defensively. Those were the years where he was diving for loose balls, and giving it all that he had.

Even when he was younger and more lean in Orlando that wavered. On the biggest stage possible in Game 4 of the Finals Bill Walton commentating rightfully said during the game: "Shaq has not been effective in transition in the Finals".

His 1 on 1 defense on Hakeem was very good in the series, but lethargic in terms of getting back off of missed shots and fastbreaks by Houston or defending outside of the paint.

Inexcusable given it was the Finals and he was on the younger team on average age wise.