Kobe's and Shaq's 4th quarter roles in the 2000-2002 playoffs

[BlueandGold]

So seeing how some anonymous mod deleted the "Let shaq get his, let kobe and co. beat us" thread (right when i wrote up a thoughtful reply to shaqattack in the thread, no less), I decided to make this more refined and detailed thread so that we can continue to have this discussion.. yet in a troll-free/flame-free/homer free setting.

I know I have a tenancy towards defending kobe and the Lakers but here is my response to shaqattack's post in the no longer existent thread, he makes a good point as well but didn't bring up certain points that I felt obligated to bring up.

Anyways here it is: Regarding Kobe and Shaq's 4th quarter point production through 2000-2002 playoffs


Not quite, but I can pretty much tell you about their 4th quarter play.

2000- Shaq was a much bigger 4th quarter scorer. Kobe came up with some classic clutch moments in the playoffs, but Shaq averaged 11.5 ppg in the finals and 9.1 ppg in the WCF during the 4th quarters, and the Lakers really relied on Shaq heavily this year.

2001- The Lakers were so dominant that the 4th quarter was rarely an issue. Both Shaq and Kobe had maybe 1 or 2 memorable 4th quarters each, but not much more than that since it wasn't really an issue. I think Kobe's numbers might have been slightly better in the 4th.

2002- Kobe had a big advantage in 4th quarter numbers during this run. It was the year Kobe really established himself as perhaps the game's best clutch player while Shaq's 4th quarter numbers were very subpar in the WCSF and WCF outside of maybe 3 games, though they were fine in the 1st round and finals, iirc.

So to recap in 4th quarters. It's Shaq in 2000, tossup or negligible in 2001 and Kobe in 2002.

I agree with some of what you said.. but.. 2000 Kobe and Shaq's numbers were also similar in the 4th (Kobe was mainly the one that fueled the epic comeback vs the blazers, and then also it was Kobe who had that amazing 4th quarter/OT game vs the pacers in the finals, injured no less). Thus it would be fair to say that in 2000 it was a tossup as well.

Also your not taking into consideration the fact that Shaq's point production in the 4th mainly came off of points in the paint, with him throwing around big men like ragdolls. Kobe's point production, however, came mostly from jumpers and from him driving to the rim.

I think degree of difficulty should be taken into consideration when factoring both Kobe and Shaq's point totals in the 4th, and with that in mind I would have to argue that Kobe was the superior closer in both 2000, 2001 and 2002. As I've stated on here many times before (starting to sound like a broken record), there were just some things that big men (even such a dominant one such as shaq) can't do, such as hit clutch FTs and late-game jumpers.. responsibilities that Kobe more than lived up to.

[Punpun]

I dunno what's your point. It has been widely accepted that Kobe was the closer during the threepeat.

[9erempiree]

I don't know why it was deleted either. It was getting into a good discussion with a lot of the haters negging me for no reason.

One good thing is the neg reps are off and I lost a red bar.:rockon:

[Hands of Iron]

What did Kobe do in the Blazers series through the first five games? Shaq dropped 31/21 in what should've been the close out. He also shot better from the FT line in that game seven. Had a better series too. Got all of the defensive attention too. The game, results and successful possessions don't take degree of difficulty into consideration.

TS% does to a degree. There wasnt a Playoff run, Finals or Elimination Game over the threepeat in which Kobe posted a better one than Shaq.

[ThunderStruk022]

Also your not taking into consideration the fact that Shaq's point production in the 4th mainly came off of points in the paint, with him throwing around big men like ragdolls. Kobe's point production, however, came mostly from jumpers and from him driving to the rim.

I think degree of difficulty should be taken into consideration when factoring both Kobe and Shaq's point totals in the 4th, and with that in mind I would have to argue that Kobe was the superior closer in both 2000, 2001 and 2002.

That' some incredibly stupid and flawed reasoning. If you actually believe that, because a player was getting just a little less, as many, or a few more 4th quarter points by taking higher degree of difficulty shots he's the better closer, then may God bless you..

Seriously, what kind of retarded ass logic is that? You're not fooling anyone. You try and mask your Kobe bias by sounding knowledgeable (which you are to an extent) and come off as objective, but this part of your post reeks of Kobe bias.

Who the hell cares how they're getting their points? Shaq should be discredited because he was so overpowering and unguardable in the post and was able to get his shots right around the basket?

[Freedom Kid7]

Hands of Iron, you confuse me.

One day you're a Hakeem man.
The next you're a Bird man.
Then you're a Shaq man.

To be fair though, each time you put up great arguments supporting said player, but it just makes me confused. Also, which of these players do you think would be good with metal music mix?

[ThunderStruk022]

I don't know why it was deleted either. It was getting into a good discussion with a lot of the haters negging me for no reason.

One good thing is the neg reps are off and I lost a red bar.:rockon:

Good for you! You worked hard and deserve to lose that one red bar for no good reason!!

[ThunderStruk022]

Hands of Iron, you confuse me.

One day you're a Hakeem man.
The next you're a Bird man.
Then you're a Shaq man.

To be fair though, each time you put up great arguments supporting said player, but it just makes me confused. Also, which of these players do you think would be good with metal music mix?

At least he's more objective than he hordes of Kobe stans that have overrun ISH.

[Freedom Kid7]

At least he's more objective than he hordes of Kobe stans that have overrun ISH.
I like Hands of Iron. His posts are great and actually have content and meaning. He makes great arguments. Hell, Hands of IRon is one of my favorite posters here. THe switching of favorite players confuses me though :confusedshrug:

[Nevaeh]

I like Hands of Iron. His posts are great and actually have content and meaning. He makes great arguments. Hell, Hands of IRon is one of my favorite posters here. THe switching of favorite players confuses me though :confusedshrug:

I think that HOI is a lot like poster Legends66NBA7, in that they're both objective Posters who are just big fans of the game, period, and not just particular players. They're just the kind of posters needed here to keep trolls in check that are hellbent on polluting the board with "Please love my favorite Player" agendas.

[Thorn]

What did Kobe do in the Blazers series through the first five games? Shaq dropped 31/21 in what should've been the close out. He also shot better from the FT line in that game seven. Had a better series too. Got all of the defensive attention too. The game, results and successful possessions don't take degree of difficulty into consideration.

TS% does to a degree. There wasnt a Playoff run, Finals or Elimination Game over the threepeat in which Kobe posted a better one than Shaq.
Kobe wasn't that bad in the first five games of the WCF - had a great game 3 with 25/7/7 plus the game saving block on Sabonis and had an okay Game 1/4/5. Game 2 (the blowout) everyone sucked in except Shaq, who posted a below average (for him) 23/12. If you're penalizing Kobe for his Game 5, then you must also point out that Kobe had a great Game 6 with 33/2/6 plus 4 steals whereas Shaq only had 17/11. I'm aware of the importance of Shaq's presence, but it can't be ignored that Kobe had a stellar Game 7 with 25/11/7 - the difference of 2 FTs at the line is irrelevant.

I will say that Shaq shot FTs considerably better than his average in huge pressure situations - Game 7 against Portland 8/12 FTs, Game 4 Sac 9/13 FT (including 2 huge FTs with 27 seconds to go), Game 6 Sac 13/17 FT Game 7 Sac 11/15 FT, Game 4 Indiana 10/17 FT.



I agree with some of what you said.. but.. 2000 Kobe and Shaq's numbers were also similar in the 4th (Kobe was mainly the one that fueled the epic comeback vs the blazers, and then also it was Kobe who had that amazing 4th quarter/OT game vs the pacers in the finals, injured no less). Thus it would be fair to say that in 2000 it was a tossup as well.

Also your not taking into consideration the fact that Shaq's point production in the 4th mainly came off of points in the paint, with him throwing around big men like ragdolls. Kobe's point production, however, came mostly from jumpers and from him driving to the rim.

I think degree of difficulty should be taken into consideration when factoring both Kobe and Shaq's point totals in the 4th, and with that in mind I would have to argue that Kobe was the superior closer in both 2000, 2001 and 2002. As I've stated on here many times before (starting to sound like a broken record), there were just some things that big men (even such a dominant one such as shaq) can't do, such as hit clutch FTs and late-game jumpers.. responsibilities that Kobe more than lived up to.
In 2000 it wasn't a tossup. Peak Shaq vs not quite superstar yet Kobe isn't close. Even Kobe's shining moment of Game 4 of the Finals wouldn't have happened without Shaq putting up a 36/21. Kobe played great in Game 7 against Portland but they're not even in that situation without Shaq. Difficulty of how you get those points is moot. Shaq's post arsenal had an element of finesse that was overlooked due to their enormous power. At any rate I saw what SA34 said regarding "closer" in the threepeat years and I can't say that I disagree with it.

[Freedom Kid7]

I think that HOI is a lot like poster Legends66NBA7, in that they're both objective Posters who are just big fans of the game, period, and not just particular players. They're just the kind of posters needed here to keep trolls in check that are hellbent on polluting the board with "Please love my favorite Player" agendas.
Probably so. I'm just so used to the Kobe vs LeBron war, the propping up of players, it's surprising to see someone argue fairly for each of the players he finds good and all.

It's all good. :cheers:

[Hands of Iron]

Kobe wasn't that bad in the first five games of the WCF - had a great game 3 with 25/7/7 plus the game saving block on Sabonis and had an okay Game 1/4/5. Game 2 (the blowout) everyone sucked in except Shaq, who posted a below average (for him) 23/12. If you're penalizing Kobe for his Game 5, then you must also point out that Kobe had a great Game 6 with 33/2/6 plus 4 steals whereas Shaq only had 17/11. I'm aware of the importance of Shaq's presence, but it can't be ignored that Kobe had a stellar Game 7 with 25/11/7 - the difference of 2 FTs at the line is irrelevant.

I'm not, I'm acting as ridiculous as the OP. The degree of difficulty comment really killed it.


I will say that Shaq shot FTs considerably better than his average in huge pressure situations - Game 7 against Portland 8/12 FTs, Game 4 Sac 9/13 FT (including 2 huge FTs with 27 seconds to go), Game 6 Sac 13/17 FT Game 7 Sac 11/15 FT, Game 4 Indiana 10/17 FT.

Precisely. And other than those types of situations, I honestly don't see where it's so significant in games that were in hand in which Shaq probably dropped 40/20 or something along those lines. His impact over the duration of a game outweighs his FT shooting so much that it probably doesn't even merit a mention, especially when they're going down in pressure spots. There wasn't another volume scorer more efficient from the field, either.

[ThunderStruk022]

I'm not, I'm acting as ridiculous as the OP. The degree of difficulty comment really killed it.



Precisely. And other than those types of situations, I honestly don't see where it's so significant in games that were in hand in which Shaq probably dropped 40/20 or something along those lines. His impact over the duration of a game outweighs his FT shooting so much that it probably doesn't even merit a mention, especially when they're going down in pressure spots. There wasn't another volume scorer more efficient from the field, either.

But Kobe was taking and making harder shots in the 4th quarter so he's the better closer!!!!

Am I right?

[amfirst]

It really depends on the opponent. If Lakers are up against a bunch of small players than Shaq would dominate the offense. If Shaq is up against a team that can match his size like the Spurs, Kobe would dominate. It was a switch off. Greatest dual ever.

[ThunderStruk022]

I think degree of difficulty should be taken into consideration when factoring both Kobe and Shaq's point totals in the 4th, and with that in mind I would have to argue that Kobe was the superior closer in both 2000, 2001 and 2002.


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I think I figured it out...that was meant to be a joke the entire time, right? Like we weren't supposed to take this seriously and it was meant to get a laugh out of everyone. Correct?

"Better closer because he was taking higher degree difficulty shots." :oldlol: :oldlol: That's good stuff man.

[ThunderStruk022]

It really depends on the opponent. If Lakers are up against a bunch of small players than Shaq would dominate the offense. If Shaq is up against a team that can match his size like the Spurs, Kobe would dominate. It was a switch off. Greatest dual ever.

Pretty sure Shaq dominated teams with formidable frontlines throwing constant double teams at him during the 3-peat, too.

[StateOfMind12]

I think degree of difficulty should be taken into consideration when factoring both Kobe and Shaq's point totals in the 4th, and with that in mind I would have to argue that Kobe was the superior closer in both 2000, 2001 and 2002. As I've stated on here many times before (starting to sound like a broken record), there were just some things that big men (even such a dominant one such as shaq) can't do, such as hit clutch FTs and late-game jumpers.. responsibilities that Kobe more than lived up to.
And this is exactly why Kobe fans are by far the dumbest and most delusional.

Only they care about the way someone scores, rather than the player simply just scoring.

According to Kobe fans, a stupid 2 point shot that was a 21 ft fadeaway with the defense draped all over on them is worth more points than a drive to the basket for a layup/dunk.

Too bad in the NBA, they both count as 2 points.

[BlueandGold]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I think I figured it out...that was meant to be a joke the entire time, right? Like we weren't supposed to take this seriously and it was meant to get a laugh out of everyone. Correct?

"Better closer because he was taking higher degree difficulty shots." :oldlol: :oldlol: That's good stuff man.
Well your obviously trolling and normally I wouldn't respond to someone who has to use 6 emoticons to make his point but obviously degree of difficulty plays a huge factor in demoralizing your opponent. Degree of difficulty is what separates good players from great players. It's what gives Jordan the GOAT status, because of his degree of difficulty in obtaining those championships with no dominant center and much less of a supporting cast than the Magic/Kareem/Bird/Russell's that came before him. Degree of difficulty is what allows a player like Bryant to change the game around, by making tough shots against dominant defenses.

I'm not sure if you just started watching professional sports a week ago or your considered clinically retarded or something but you've obviously never touched a basketball in your life. Just imagine for a second that your playing defense on someone and you're playing the best defense that you possibly can that your literally draped over him before he hits an impossible 20 foot turnaround jumper. What does that say to your confidence level when someone does that to you, when your playing at your best no less? Also think about energy expenditure and how much energy that great defensive effort takes away from a player.

Either way it looks like your pretty upset by my posts, bro. But thanks for bumping this thread 10 times over before i got to check it.

[KingBeasley08]

what an awful thread, good lord. points are points. lets discredit shaq for being so good that he could create such good looks LOL

[BlueandGold]

what an awful thread, good lord. points are points. lets discredit shaq for being so good that he could create such good looks LOL
ISH, where giving credit to one player means discrediting another.

Anyways where are the good/real posters at?

All this kobe talk seems to have drawn out all the Lebron ******gers.

[KingBeasley08]

ISH, where giving credit to one player means discrediting another.

Anyways where are the good/real posters at?

All this kobe talk seems to have drawn out all the Lebron ******gers.
Note: You were the first person to say Lebron in this entire thread :oldlol: :facepalm

[DatAsh]

Well your obviously trolling and normally I wouldn't respond to someone who has to use 6 emoticons to make his point but obviously degree of difficulty plays a huge factor in demoralizing your opponent. Degree of difficulty is what separates good players from great players. It's what gives Jordan the GOAT status, because of his degree of difficulty in obtaining those championships with no dominant center and much less of a supporting cast than the Magic/Kareem/Bird/Russell's that came before him. Degree of difficulty is what allows a player like Bryant to change the game around, by making tough shots against dominant defenses.

I'm not sure if you just started watching professional sports a week ago or your considered clinically retarded or something but you've obviously never touched a basketball in your life. Just imagine for a second that your playing defense on someone and you're playing the best defense that you possibly can that your literally draped over him before he hits an impossible 20 foot turnaround jumper. What does that say to your confidence level when someone does that to you, when your playing at your best no less? Also think about energy expenditure and how much energy that great defensive effort takes away from a player.

Either way it looks like your pretty upset by my posts, bro. But thanks for bumping this thread 10 times over before i got to check it.

You could say the same thing with Shaq though.

Just imagine for a second that you're playing defense on someone and you're playing the best defense that you possibly can on that person, but he just keeps smashing into you until both of you are right below the hoop, at which point he just turns around and lays it up. Every single time he does the exact same thing. You know exactly what's coming, but you're just not strong enough to stop it. You're pushing back as hard as you possibly can, but you're just too weak. What does that say to your confidence level?

[ThunderStruk022]

Well your obviously trolling and normally I wouldn't respond to someone who has to use 6 emoticons to make his point but obviously degree of difficulty plays a huge factor in demoralizing your opponent.
I'm not trolling, I'm jsut calling out a delusional Kobe stan for trying to manipulate facts to make others think Kobe was the better closer all three years because the shots he was shooting were more difficult.


Degree of difficulty is what separates good players from great players. It's what gives Jordan the GOAT status, because of his degree of difficulty in obtaining those championships with no dominant center and much less of a supporting cast than the Magic/Kareem/Bird/Russell's that came before him. Degree of difficulty is what allows a player like Bryant to change the game around, by making tough shots against dominant defenses.
No, Jordan's the GOAT for a number of reasons. He's arguably the GOAT closer, though, because he understood the difference between a good shot and an aesthetically pleasing more difficult shot. Prime Jordan picked his spots masterfully in crunch time and could and would get to the lane and to his spot at will.


I'm not sure if you just started watching professional sports a week ago or your considered clinically retarded or something but you've obviously never touched a basketball in your life. Just imagine for a second that your playing defense on someone and you're playing the best defense that you possibly can that your literally draped over him before he hits an impossible 20 foot turnaround jumper. What does that say to your confidence level when someone does that to you, when your playing at your best no less? Also think about energy expenditure and how much energy that great defensive effort takes away from a player.
The f*ck outta here with that crap. You have no idea about my basketball background. And I know exactly how demoralizing a 20-foot fader with suffocating defense can be. It doesn't make that player the better closer.

The better closer is the player who's putting the ball in the basket at the most efficient rate in crunch time of close games. I, nor anyone else that knows basketball, do not give two shits whether or not that player is making 28 foot faders over triple teams, or making a bunch of dunk shots 2-feet from the basket. Whoever is putting the ball in the basket and scoring the most point more efficiently...that's the better closer.


Either way it looks like your pretty upset by my posts, bro. But thanks for bumping this thread 10 times over before i got to check it.
You're damn right I'm mad. The entire premise behind your thread is incredibly stupid and I shudder to think what someone like you would be like as a coach. You're the worst kind of Kobe stan. You try and mask it by attempting to be objective and semi-knowledgeable. Then you make a thread like this and that whole charade goes out the window.

I can see it now..."Guys, I know Steve has 32 points, has only missed four shots, and they don't have anyone who can guard him, but we're down by 2 with 2:00 to go, and I want Karl to go iso at the top of the key and take a contested 3-pointer. If he makes it, those guys in the other huddle will be so demoralized, there's no way in hell they'll comeback and win."

[BlueandGold]

You could say the same thing with Shaq though.

Just imagine for a second that you're playing defense on someone and you're playing the best defense that you possibly can on that person, but he just keeps smashing into you until both of you are right below the hoop, at which point he just turns around and lays it up. Every single time he does the exact same thing. You know exactly what's coming, but you're just not strong enough to stop it. You're pushing back as hard as you possibly can, but you're just too weak. What does that say to your confidence level?
Yep, good point, I should have been clearer in my OP.. I'm not trying to diminish Shaq in the least.. he was the reason the Lakers won those championships from 00-02. Shaq definitely grinded down defenses like no center ever could. I'm just talking about the 4th quarter in this thread.. and pointing out how there are just certain things center can't do.. like hit clutch FTs and tough jumpers over playoff defenses down the stretch.

[juju151111]

So seeing how some anonymous mod deleted the "Let shaq get his, let kobe and co. beat us" thread (right when i wrote up a thoughtful reply to shaqattack in the thread, no less), I decided to make this more refined and detailed thread so that we can continue to have this discussion.. yet in a troll-free/flame-free/homer free setting.

I know I have a tenancy towards defending kobe and the Lakers but here is my response to shaqattack's post in the no longer existent thread, he makes a good point as well but didn't bring up certain points that I felt obligated to bring up.

Anyways here it is: Regarding Kobe and Shaq's 4th quarter point production through 2000-2002 playoffs



I agree with some of what you said.. but.. 2000 Kobe and Shaq's numbers were also similar in the 4th (Kobe was mainly the one that fueled the epic comeback vs the blazers, and then also it was Kobe who had that amazing 4th quarter/OT game vs the pacers in the finals, injured no less). Thus it would be fair to say that in 2000 it was a tossup as well.

Also your not taking into consideration the fact that Shaq's point production in the 4th mainly came off of points in the paint, with him throwing around big men like ragdolls. Kobe's point production, however, came mostly from jumpers and from him driving to the rim.

I think degree of difficulty should be taken into consideration when factoring both Kobe and Shaq's point totals in the 4th, and with that in mind I would have to argue that Kobe was the superior closer in both 2000, 2001 and 2002. As I've stated on here many times before (starting to sound like a broken record), there were just some things that big men (even such a dominant one such as shaq) can't do, such as hit clutch FTs and late-game jumpers.. responsibilities that Kobe more than lived up to.
What in the actual ****? Degree of difficulty:biggums: are you serious

[ShaqAttack3234]

I agree with some of what you said.. but.. 2000 Kobe and Shaq's numbers were also similar in the 4th (Kobe was mainly the one that fueled the epic comeback vs the blazers, and then also it was Kobe who had that amazing 4th quarter/OT game vs the pacers in the finals, injured no less). Thus it would be fair to say that in 2000 it was a tossup as well.

2 things, their numbers were definitely not similar in the 2000 4th quarters. I will go back and get as complete 4th quarter numbers as I can for both, but I will bet money Shaq has a clear advantage for that run in 4th quarter scoring. So I definitely can't call that a toss up.

Also, it's not true that Kobe mainly fueled the 4th quarter comeback vs Portland. You can call Kobe the MVP of that game, and I'd agree, but, Shaq came on very strong in the 4th quarter too. Both had 9 points, and Shaq also made some big defensive plays as well as passing out of double teams which led to some of the big shots by the role players.


Also your not taking into consideration the fact that Shaq's point production in the 4th mainly came off of points in the paint, with him throwing around big men like ragdolls. Kobe's point production, however, came mostly from jumpers and from him driving to the rim.

Of course I'm not factoring this in. To me it makes no sense to. I'm not going to penalize Shaq for being a post player and having such an overwhelming physical advantage. His size and post game made him the best player and best scorer in the league in 2000. All I care about his effectiveness, and Shaq's game was certainly effective. I don't give points for style.

But I read your response later in this thread, and I think I understand your point a little better.

You mean Kobe being a perimeter player makes him more capable of getting a shot late in games since big men can be doubled easier and are doubled more? That I agree with.

But I meant I'm not going to credit Kobe more for the points he actually scored because they were more difficult. Comparing their 4th quarter numbers in 2000, Shaq obviously overcame the limitations of a big man in the 4th quarter to score more, so I'm not going to take away from the actual points Shaq did score. Speaking of 2000, the limitations mentioned apply more in theory since Kobe's perimeter skills didn't make him a better 4th quarter scorer.

Although there is a difference between 4th quarter scoring and game-winners. Kobe was always the better option for the game-winner since Shaq would likely get doubled. But 4th quarter scoring in general wasn't as much of a limitation for Shaq. His teams always went to him until he got older with Miami because he was still an excellent scoring option, and his double teams got his teammates shots.

For example, in the '98 WCF vs Utah, Shaq was the only player on the Lakers who came to play, and in the elimination game, Shaq scored 19 points in the 4th, iirc to try to keep the Lakers alive pretty much by himself, including 11 consecutive points at one point down the stretch.


I dunno what's your point. It has been widely accepted that Kobe was the closer during the threepeat.

It's besides the point, but one reason I miss 2000-2002 is because nobody tried to use the word "closer" for basketball. :oldlol: The term makes a lot more sense for baseball, but for some reason, it's become very popular in basketball the last 6 years or so.

[Odinn]

A Kobe-stan starts a thread to criticize ShaqAttack3234.:rockon: :oldlol: :rolleyes: :facepalm :no:

[BoutPractice]

As far as I know, you don't get extra points for shooting contested fadeaways, but I could be wrong.

[Rubio2Gasol]

Phil told Kobe during that Blazers game * and the same philosophy applied for the rest of the time Kobe was there)

"Do not change your game just to go into Shaq"

[longtime lurker]

Kobe, Shaq, Shaq, Kobe. My god you people need to give it a rest. It's no slight to Shaq saying that Kobe is the better 4th quarter closer(he is) and it's no slight to Kobe saying that Shaq's dominance helped open up the game for him. In the end these two complimented each other, but clowns on ISH constantly want to argue back and forth :facepalm

[Ne 1]

2002- Kobe had a big advantage in 4th quarter numbers during this run. It was the year Kobe really established himself as perhaps the game's best clutch player while Shaq's 4th quarter numbers were very subpar in the WCSF and WCF outside of maybe 3 games, though they were fine in the 1st round and finals, iirc.

Wanted to mention that I don’t think Shaq played poorly late in games because he was “choking” and he wasn't a liability late in games like Alpha Wolf suggested, he just wasn’t well conditioned enough to play tough, physical series that season. He had a bunch of nagging injuries (foot and index finger) he was dealing with and wasn't in great shape. You can see most of his shots came short.

But anyway, speaking of this, the Lakers would have lost if it weren't for Kobe's fourth quarter play in the last 3 games against the Spurs in '02. Something to think about for those who just think Kobe was just some dispensable side-kick that could have eaisly been replaced by any all-star level guard/swingman and the Lakers would still 3-peat.

[ShaqAttack3234]

[QUOTE=Ne 1]Wanted to mention that I don