2000 Shaquille O'Neal vs 1991 Michael Jordan

[RazorBaLade]

They lose as well if Kobe decides to chuck again. Not really Shaq's fault they lost that NBA Finals.

but as for the question, Jordan was a complete player. I'd pick Shaq before Jordan if i never knew how their careers were going to turn out. it was an absolute no brainer to pick Shaq because of how easy it was to build around him.

Lmao shaq had just as much to do with it u werent in la fool

[OldSchoolBBall]

LMAO @ "Shaq had just as much to do with it". (emphasis mine) No. Shaq was partly to blame, but not nearly to the same extent Kobe was.

[laronprofit9]

Regarding the 2004 Finals.

Kobe was part of the problem, but not the only reason why the Lakers lost to Pistons. There were a lot.

1. Gary Payton was getting killed by Chauncey Billups that series. He was helpless against him.

2. The Pistons Defense just shut down everybody on the Lakers outside of Shaq.

3. The Lakers as a team shot 41.6%FG against the Pistons.

4. No Player on the Lakers shot above 40% other than Rick Fox and Shaq. Note: Rick Fox only played 30 minutes that entire series.

Shaq shot 63%
Fox shot 57% (Note: He only attempted 7 Field Goal Attemps the entire series making 4 of them.)

Do you know which Laker player had the next highest fg%?
Devean George Shooting 39%

Here are the Laker Field Goal% during the 2004 NBA Finals

1. Shaquille O'Neal 63%
2. Rick Fox 57% (4 for 7)
3. Devean George 39%
4. Luke Walton 39%
5. Kobe Bryant 38%
6. Stanislav Medvedenko 35%
7. Karl Malone 33%
8. Gary Payton 32%
9. Kareem Rush 32%
10. Derek Fisher 31%
11. Brian Cook 17%
12. Bryon Russell 0%

The entire team played like dog $4it that series outside of Shaq.

5. Karl Malone got injured.

6. The Lakers were averaging 81.8ppg that series as a team.

7. While the Lakers offense struggled, the Pistons had 5 players averaging double-figure points that series.

It was just an ugly series all-around for the Lakers. People act like only Kobe played bad for the Lakers. The entire team basically played bad except Shaq. Even Shaq's brilliance wouldn't be enough to save them, it was just to big of a disparity between the teams.

Now continue on about '91 Jordan vs '00 Shaq :)

[ShaqAttack3234]

As far as the answer to the OP, I'll have to watch a few more random regular season games to really decide.

I don't have the same perspective on Jordan's 1991 season as I do on Shaq's having watched the NBA regularly in 2000. But I did go back and download a ton of 1989-1990 Jordan games, and did it randomly to not just pick out the best to evaluate his season so I could do the same with the 1991 Jordan.

A little trivia is that Jordan and Shaq are 2 of only 4 players to win a scoring title and championship in the same season.

This is a very good debate. However, Jordan's clutchness really puts him a little bit different higher tier of immorality. Shaq you could just hack at the end of games.

Not true in 2000. Indiana tried to hack Shaq in game 2 of the 2000 finals and they lost the game, particularly with Shaq struggling early at the line, but upping his FT% in the 4th quarter.

Portland tried this in game 1 of the WCF and they actually fell behind even more after starting the hack a Shaq.

As I've mentioned, Shaq more often than not in the 2000 playoffs seemed to have double digit 4th quarters, unfortunately myths have started since then that he was on the bench in crunch time because that's what happened when he got older and was no longer the same dominant force.

I don't think the whole FT thing for Shaq was really making him a more dominant scorer, Jordan was more efficiant (60% TS% vs Shaq's 55.6%). Who was more impactful defensively is impossible to determine since it's different positions.

As far as TS%, well, that can be deceptive for a power player.

Here's an example. If you convert a lot of and 1s then that makes it skewed because even if you missed the extra free throw on the and 1, you wouldn't be using up any more of a possession anyway.

I'll use game 1 of the finals as an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k

His first basket was a dunk and a foul, he made that free throw, making it the same as if he had made a 3 as far as possessions used.

At about 1:00, he converts the basket and draws a foul on Smits, so despite missing the free throw, that was a bonus to begin with.

He converts another basket with the foul around 2:12, and again despite missing the free throw, no extra possession was used.

And around 4:20 he's fouled again and he gets the basket.

So at most, his six FTA were the equivalent of one missed field goals because atleast 4 of them came on and 1s.

If you were to calculate his FT using the standard TS% formula then his TS% for game 1 would have 63.9%., but knowing what we know his TS% was really equal to 67.2% in terms of using up possessions to score.

An example of how stats can be deceptive. And to me, a missed free throw has never been as bad as a missed field goal, particularly if you miss a long jumper which can give the other team a transition opportunity. And when you're fouled, you can set up your defense as well as pile up fouls on the other team and when you have a physical force like Shaq, those fouls also wear down the other team.

I believe some sites track and 1s now, Lebron has a ton of them so I'll have to see how efficient he truly is using this same method.

[necya]

most dominant O'neal because there was no competition anymore in 00, and most impressive MJ of course.

[ShaqAttack3234]

most dominant O'neal because there was no competition anymore in 00, and most impressive MJ of course.

No competition? Take a look at this game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JVqhtV3xww

He goes head to head with Tim Duncan throughout most of the game and winds up with 32 points, 11 rebounds, 5 blocks and 2 assists on 13/22 shooting with just 2 turnovers compared to Duncan's 28 points, 9 rebounds, 1 block and 1 assist on 8/23 shooting with 4 turnovers.

Even more impressive is that Duncan was just 2/14 with Shaq guarding him and Shaq blocked 3 of his shots. The previous season, Duncan was the best player in the NBA and in 1999-2000, he was still the second best. That's impressive.

Not only that, but David Robinson was still a force whose stats were lowered due to play with a dominant post player like Duncan on a slow paced team as well as Popovich limiting his minutes when he could.

People forget about twin towers Robinson, that year, he was one of the premier defensive players in the league and he led the Spurs in blocks and steals. He also led the Spurs in scoring in the second half of the season with almost 21 ppg and without Duncan, he led the Spurs to a 5-3 record and upped his scoring to 22 ppg on 53% shooting in those games while the Spurs still only allowed 90.5 ppg. Robinson was still without a doubt a top 15 player, IMO and I have him ranked at 13 for that year.

Then there was Alonzo Mourning out in Miami who was peaking. He averaged 22/10/4 on 55% shooting. Mourning was the 3rd best player in the league.

Dikembe Mutombo was still in his prime and averaged 11.5 ppg as well as over 14 rpg and 3 bpg on 56% shooting.

Unlike now, most teams still had either a skilled low post center with size who could average double figures or atleast a bulky 7 footer who could block shots and rebound. Not only that, but it seemed like Shaq faced less single coverage than anyone in the league.

More impoortantly, in any era, how many truly great centers are there? You can usually count them on one hand, and throughout an 82 game season, that won't make all that much of a difference in terms of a player's averages. That will make more of a difference with all-nba teams, blocked shots and rebounding leaders and defensive player of the year voting.

I respect you for your amazing collection of games, but this is not really a valid point. The irony is that Kobe fans use the competition argument against Jordan and most Jordan fans argue that, yet someone is using it against Shaq? In both cases, I don't think the argument is all that valid.

If you want to get into an argument of eras then I'll just bring up that the average team's defensive rating in '91 was 107.9 while the average team's defensive rating in 2000 was 104.1.

[necya]

No competition? Take a look at this game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JVqhtV3xww

He goes head to head with Tim Duncan throughout most of the game and winds up with 32 points, 11 rebounds, 5 blocks and 2 assists on 13/22 shooting with just 2 turnovers compared to Duncan's 28 points, 9 rebounds, 1 block and 1 assist on 8/23 shooting with 4 turnovers.

Even more impressive is that Duncan was just 2/14 with Shaq guarding him and Shaq blocked 3 of his shots. The previous season, Duncan was the best player in the NBA and in 1999-2000, he was still the second best. That's impressive.

Not only that, but David Robinson was still a force whose stats were lowered due to play with a dominant post player like Duncan on a slow paced team as well as Popovich limiting his minutes when he could.

People forget about twin towers Robinson, that year, he was one of the premier defensive players in the league and he led the Spurs in blocks and steals. He also led the Spurs in scoring in the second half of the season with almost 21 ppg and without Duncan, he led the Spurs to a 5-3 record and upped his scoring to 22 ppg on 53% shooting in those games while the Spurs still only allowed 90.5 ppg. Robinson was still without a doubt a top 15 player, IMO and I have him ranked at 13 for that year.

Then there was Alonzo Mourning out in Miami who was peaking. He averaged 22/10/4 on 55% shooting. Mourning was the 3rd best player in the league.

Dikembe Mutombo was still in his prime and averaged 11.5 ppg as well as over 14 rpg and 3 bpg on 56% shooting.

Unlike now, most teams still had either a skilled low post center with size who could average double figures or atleast a bulky 7 footer who could block shots and rebound. Not only that, but it seemed like Shaq faced less single coverage than anyone in the league.

More impoortantly, in any era, how many truly great centers are there? You can usually count them on one hand, and throughout an 82 game season, that won't make all that much of a difference in terms of a player's averages. That will make more of a difference with all-nba teams, blocked shots and rebounding leaders and defensive player of the year voting.

I respect you for your amazing collection of games, but this is not really a valid point. The irony is that Kobe fans use the competition argument against Jordan and most Jordan fans argue that, yet someone is using it against Shaq? In both cases, I don't think the argument is all that valid.

If you want to get into an argument of eras then I'll just bring up that the average team's defensive rating in '91 was 107.9 while the average team's defensive rating in 2000 was 104.1.

yeah i know this game...
don't missunderstand my thoughts, i liked shaq, when he entered the league, he took part of the best battles in the paint with all you know. but hey, honestly, shaq is a very lucky player, he was born at the right time to be a 27yo when all the best came down. please remember shaq went to LA for many reasons : leadership issue with Penny, LA was a better place for shaq's business and to avoid the bulls until the finals. what's happened? Malone and his Jazz defeated the lakers 4-1 and 4-0...then 99, bad year, bad coach...etc

what i'm trying to underline is shaq needed the departure / advanced age of the best rob, olajuwon, malone, jordan to get his chance. of course he faced the blazers in 00 and the spurs. but nothing better than the guys named. he didn't have the same issues as robinson or malone or olajuwon who have fought the WC in the 90's. i read magnax who said malone failed in crucial moments (ok you can always mention his FT missed in 3-4 games of playoffs) but all teams failed in those years!
rockets, sonics, jazz, spurs, suns : all have a great team between 90-97. but sonics failed in 94, 95 (but WCF in 93, 96) suns in 94, 95 (but WCF in 90, 93) rockets in 92, 93, 96 (but WCF in 94, 95) jazz 93, 95 (but WCF in 92, 94, 96, 97) spurs in 91, 92 (rob injured) and 94 (but WCSF in 90, 93, 95 please note that the spurs had the worst supporting cast compared to the other teams)

you mentionned Robinson (34yo) in the 2000 season : he still had a good game, but honestly he wasn't the Robinson i'm talking about, the one who dominated shaq 2 times in 93/94, 2 times in 94/95 and 1 time in 96. after his back injury, he wasn't the same anymore and it was natural, ask to LJ.

then, morning, okay shaq use to abuse of him like Rob and Olajuwon did too...
Mutombo, 33yo, 33yo is the last good season for shaq but nothing compare with a younger model, you see that at this age the center aren't anymore the one they were.
so rest in his conference, a magnificent PF (yeah a PF, for all the morons here, duncan is a C in the 2000 cause there is no true C anymore) but who was injured for the playoffs...

so in a 82 games season, shaq in 95 played Olajuwon 32yo twice, rob 29yo twice, mutombo 28yo twice, mourning 24yo 4 times, ewing 32yo 5 times. everyone were in good shape, that make the game harder, no?
in 00, he faced mourning 29yo twice, mutombo 33yo twice and rob 33yo post injury. he battled only one guy in good shape...
more of that, every teams had a 7-0 C, and he wasn't good, they had a freaking PFs.
the difference in the all nba teams, i have already said that if you try to rank the best defensive C of 00's in the 90's, you will see how poor is the league today. Howard won't be in the first 4 all nba team or defensive team, behind rob, olajuwon, mutombo, mourning.

so for me, no competition, the game was very poor in the 00's. then the 96-97 class of volume scorer came to maturity and destroy the game spirit imo.

finally, concerning your last paragraph about the average defensive rating, you know i hate those stats and even more here cause people like it here but don't know how to estimate them and they will never tell the story of a game.
defense was much better in 2nd part of 80's and 1st part of 90's and the points allow per game won't give you the righ answer IMO.
take the cavs of 95 or 96 with Fratello. they were very well organised and control the low tempo cause they weren't enough athletic to play 48min on higher tempo. the bulls of 89 were a much better team defense but allow more points to their opponents, like the bucks in the 85-87. they were very good at defense, the lakers of 85-87 too. but the offensive weapons in the 80's were too much. they played team basketball, and the systems were more based on looking for a good balanced jumshot. the sreeens were set a lot better too, that help a lot. the isolation and dribbles are too much used now we know that the game is faster with passes than with dribbles...the skill set of the average player in 80's 90's is a lot better than today. today, they just don't know how to defend a pick and roll, even the basics are not used.
guards used to bring confidence in controling the possession, set the play, moving on the systems and take free shots, now the guards use to make 20 dribbles, between the legs, between the legs again, cross over one time, 2 times...
the more you used the guards at scoring the more the game is poor and it tends to increase. the basketball game is generally set for big men, on the mid court game and the transition game is set for the big (trailers).


as i'm not american with an english who knows his limits, it's hard for me to explain myself with specific vocabulary so excuse me if some points are not well developped or a bit confused.

i like your post shaqattack, cause you are well educated and know enough to rob other people with some "smart" arguments

[ShaqAttack3234]

yeah i know this game...
don't missunderstand my thoughts, i liked shaq, when he entered the league, he took part of the best battles in the paint with all you know. but hey, honestly, shaq is a very lucky player, he was born at the right time to be a 27yo when all the best came down. please remember shaq went to LA for many reasons : leadership issue with Penny, LA was a better place for shaq's business and to avoid the bulls until the finals. what's happened? Malone and his Jazz defeated the lakers 4-1 and 4-0...then 99, bad year, bad coach...etc

Well, Shaq became a much better player in 2000 than the previous years due to Phil Jackson's leadership motivating him. And lets be honest, in 1998, Shaq's supporting cast choked big time in the WCF, Nick Van Exel shot 24% from the field, Kobe shot 37%, Horry shot 36% and his second option Eddie Jones only produced 15 ppg on 41% shooting. Shaq was the only player on the team who could produce offensively, he averaged 32 ppg on 56% shooting that series and 30.5 ppg on 61% shooting in the playoffs that year.

I do blame Shaq for performing below his standard when they lost to Utah in '97 and San Antonio in '99.

I don't think it was so much the era that changed Shaq's career, I think it was Phil Jackson who motivated Shaq, taught him to make his teammates better and motivated him to more minutes, rebound more and play better defense.

what i'm trying to underline is shaq needed the departure / advanced age of the best rob, olajuwon, malone, jordan to get his chance. of course he faced the blazers in 00 and the spurs. but nothing better than the guys named. he didn't have the same issues as robinson or malone or olajuwon who have fought the WC in the 90's. i read magnax who said malone failed in crucial moments (ok you can always mention his FT missed in 3-4 games of playoffs) but all teams failed in those years!
rockets, sonics, jazz, spurs, suns : all have a great team between 90-97. but sonics failed in 94, 95 (but WCF in 93, 96) suns in 94, 95 (but WCF in 90, 93) rockets in 92, 93, 96 (but WCF in 94, 95) jazz 93, 95 (but WCF in 92, 94, 96, 97) spurs in 91, 92 (rob injured) and 94 (but WCSF in 90, 93, 95 please note that the spurs had the worst supporting cast compared to the other teams)

Malone was still very good in 2000. He averaged 25.5 ppg, 9.5 rpg and 3.7 apg and he had a 50 point playoff games.

But lets be honest, people use the same criticism for Jordan winning titles after Bird was done and Magic in his last year as well as the Pistons decline. I don't agree with this logic either, a championship is a championship to me, especially when you perform at the level Jordan and Shaq did.

People also criticize Olajuwon for only winning with Jordan retired/coming back late in '95. I don't agree with that either.

you mentionned Robinson (34yo) in the 2000 season : he still had a good game, but honestly he wasn't the Robinson i'm talking about, the one who dominated shaq 2 times in 93/94, 2 times in 94/95 and 1 time in 96. after his back injury, he wasn't the same anymore and it was natural, ask to LJ.

Of course it wasn't the same Robinson, but he was still very good and he teamed up with Duncan in the paint to form the best defensive duo in the paint I've ever seen.

And don't forget that young Shaq dominated Robinson once in '95 too. He had 36/12 on 15/27 shooting one game compared to Robinson's 24/14/4/5 on 7/24 shooting and some other games they played pretty close.

But that was peak David Robinson, Shaq peaked when Phil Jackson became coach in 2000 and 2001 before he fell out of shape. That Shaq was more skilled, smarter, stronger and more mature than the Orlando version that was faster and more athletic, but not as polished or smart.

then, morning, okay shaq use to abuse of him like Rob and Olajuwon did too...

Actually, I think Mourning played pretty well vs Olajuwon because Mourning use to struggle with the bigger elite centers, but Olajuwon was closer to his size despite being listed at 7 feet.

finally, concerning your last paragraph about the average defensive rating, you know i hate those stats and even more here cause people like it here but don't know how to estimate them and they will never tell the story of a game.
defense was much better in 2nd part of 80's and 1st part of 90's and the points allow per game won't give you the righ answer IMO.
take the cavs of 95 or 96 with Fratello. they were very well organised and control the low tempo cause they weren't enough athletic to play 48min on higher tempo. the bulls of 89 were a much better team defense but allow more points to their opponents, like the bucks in the 85-87. they were very good at defense, the lakers of 85-87 too. but the offensive weapons in the 80's were too much. they played team basketball, and the systems were more based on looking for a good balanced jumshot. the sreeens were set a lot better too, that help a lot. the isolation and dribbles are too much used now we know that the game is faster with passes than with dribbles...the skill set of the average player in 80's 90's is a lot better than today. today, they just don't know how to defend a pick and roll, even the basics are not used.
guards used to bring confidence in controling the possession, set the play, moving on the systems and take free shots, now the guards use to make 20 dribbles, between the legs, between the legs again, cross over one time, 2 times...
the more you used the guards at scoring the more the game is poor and it tends to increase. the basketball game is generally set for big men, on the mid court game and the transition game is set for the big (trailers).

I think that defensive rating is an excellent stat. I don't like many of the new stats, but defensive rating measures the points a team allows per 100 possessions which is a good way to judge a team defensively because it doesn't penalize a team for playing at a fast pace.

as i'm not american with an english who knows his limits, it's hard for me to explain myself with specific vocabulary so excuse me if some points are not well developped or a bit confused.

It's ok, I understand the points you're trying to make.

i like your post shaqattack, cause you are well educated and know enough to rob other people with some "smart" arguments

Thank you and I appreciate the games you post, I've downloaded many and I love old school basketball.

[Calabis]

Jordan by a mile.

He never played with a Kobe cailber player like Shaq did.

90-91 Pippen was as every bit as good as Kobe during those first couple of runs

[Calabis]

Regarding the 2004 Finals.

Kobe was part of the problem, but not the only reason why the Lakers lost to Pistons. There were a lot.

1. Gary Payton was getting killed by Chauncey Billups that series. He was helpless against him.

2. The Pistons Defense just shut down everybody on the Lakers outside of Shaq.

3. The Lakers as a team shot 41.6%FG against the Pistons.

4. No Player on the Lakers shot above 40% other than Rick Fox and Shaq. Note: Rick Fox only played 30 minutes that entire series.

Shaq shot 63%
Fox shot 57% (Note: He only attempted 7 Field Goal Attemps the entire series making 4 of them.)

Do you know which Laker player had the next highest fg%?
Devean George Shooting 39%

Here are the Laker Field Goal% during the 2004 NBA Finals

1. Shaquille O'Neal 63%
2. Rick Fox 57% (4 for 7)
3. Devean George 39%
4. Luke Walton 39%
5. Kobe Bryant 38%
6. Stanislav Medvedenko 35%
7. Karl Malone 33%
8. Gary Payton 32%
9. Kareem Rush 32%
10. Derek Fisher 31%
11. Brian Cook 17%
12. Bryon Russell 0%

The entire team played like dog $4it that series outside of Shaq.

5. Karl Malone got injured.

6. The Lakers were averaging 81.8ppg that series as a team.

7. While the Lakers offense struggled, the Pistons had 5 players averaging double-figure points that series.

It was just an ugly series all-around for the Lakers. People act like only Kobe played bad for the Lakers. The entire team basically played bad except Shaq. Even Shaq's brilliance wouldn't be enough to save them, it was just to big of a disparity between the teams.

Now continue on about '91 Jordan vs '00 Shaq :)

I think you should rewatch that series, Kobe Bryant's shot jacking is much to blame for the Lakers offensive woes, he took too many ill advised shots, spent to much time trying to go one on one,.... this detracted from the offense, guys need balls in spots by running the offense, Bryant killed any hope of running a offense with his "me first" attitude. You need consistency on offense...he failed to provide that by not taking shots created by the offense for himself and teammates.

10-27
14-27
4-13
8-25
7-21

Kobe 113 shots, Shaq who was dominating 84 shots

[necya]

i agree with you, Phil Jackson helped a llot shaq, in the leadership and the defensive hand. but don't you that this factor plus the end of the big men help him a lot?
i mean, at the beginning of this season, i remember saying that the lakers will dominate and win the title (incredible it happened, i use to pick the wrong horse) we knew that even if mourning, mutombo would have great season, shaq would demolish them easily. the only question was what will do the last champion...shaq was promised to lead the league as soon as the old generation retired. it would be more impressive if he won his titles against the beast.
For the 98 WCF, yeah the Jazz defended very well on Van Exel. horry was like absent...it's in this case, i like olajuwon who can make dribble and move with the ball. when shaq is playing in the low post, the offense doesn't move anymore.
for my part, 94/95 shaq is the second best season i've seen of him, behind the 99/00. i have 4 of the 5 nyk-orl meeting and he litteraly killed the old Pat on each game !

i really don't like advanced stats, and all stats, in this case of the defensive rating, you don't know how many mid court attack, transition basket and fastbreak points there are...i find all stats too reducer and always incomplete.

hope you enjoyed the games i upped. unfortunately, i was tired of some people who upload all my and preben's games on other site like mixmakers...some games cost a lot, they understand/respect nothing...

now you can type "necya" on google and find until the 16th page games i have ripped !!

[ILLsmak]

Kobe was not going to win if Shaq got the MVP... it's as simple as that.

Another thing about Shaq and his comp is you have to take into account direct comp is not applicable for a C. The teams that were good against Shaq had a large front line and someone who could bang with him. When you take that into account... Mutombo, Zo... and even Hakeem were not as good as someone like Sabonis. The best competition for Shaq would be a C that was huge and could bang and also would make him go out to guard him and take him out of his game.

It's just totally different. As Shaq said in his quote about Kobe, guards have the ball more. Cs need to be delivered the ball at the right time, and if the defense knows what's happening the help can come almost instantly. Take that into account and that Shaq was still murdering... it's pretty amazing.

But like I said before, you can't really be a GOAT level player as a C because of what I listed. Your team can starve you off from the ball or the defense can deny you the ball or force you to give it up so much more easily than if you are a guard.

-Smak

[laronprofit9]

I think you should rewatch that series, Kobe Bryant's shot jacking is much to blame for the Lakers offensive woes, he took too many ill advised shots, spent to much time trying to go one on one,.... this detracted from the offense, guys need balls in spots by running the offense, Bryant killed any hope of running a offense with his "me first" attitude. You need consistency on offense...he failed to provide that by not taking shots created by the offense for himself and teammates.

10-27
14-27
4-13
8-25
7-21

Kobe 113 shots, Shaq who was dominating 84 shots

I did watch that series. Yes Kobe was PART of the problem, but there were a bunch of other factors.

The Pistons had better speed and athleticism on their entire roster. The Lakers were old and the Pistons had youth on their side. The Lakers just looked a step slower than the Pistons the entire series watching them play against each other. When you watched the game, even the ABC commentators were mentioning it. The Pistons had the Lakers number that year. It was a bad matchup more than anything for the Lakers just going by position by position. Sort of like how the Warriors had the Mavericks number in 2007 playoffs.

Payton was getting absolutely destroyed by Billups that series.

It was going to take more than just Kobe giving up shots to Shaq. The Lakers lost by big margins in the series.

Yes it would've helped, Kobe giving the ball to Shaq to make the game closer. But the Pistons had an advantage that the Lakers could nothing about. They exploited it the entire series. They were losing by double-digits seemingly the entire time.

[laronprofit9]

Shaq would've been dominant regardless of competition.

I hate when people say Olajuwon just schooled Shaq.

Shaq posted up arguably equal stats in that '95 Finals.

Shaq '95 Finals
28ppg/12.5rpg/6.3apg/0.3spg/2.5bpg on 60%FG

Hakeem '95 Finals
32.8ppg/11.5rpg/5.5apg/2.0spg/2.0bpg on 48%FG

Mind you this was against Hakeem at his absolute peak, and he is widely considered one of the greatest centers of all-time. And 2000 Shaq was a better player than 1995 Shaq.

Shaq proceeded to DOMINATE DPOY Mutombo in the 2001 Finals
33ppg/15.8rpg/4.8apg/0.4spg/3.4bpg on 57%FG

I don't know one player who actually held Shaq to under his statisical averages by a margin that was significant to impact the game. He was absolutely un-containable. Maybe even more so than Jordan.

A 2000 Shaq would've put up 30ppg on 57%FG on any center in the league. I Don't think anybody could stop him.

Considering a 1995 Shaq put up 28ppg on 60%FG against Prime Hakeem. What makes people think a 2000 Shaq couldn't do the same or better against Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, etc...

[Jacks3]

lol @ morons continuing to blame kobe for the 04 finals when that series wasn't even close and everybody played like garbage outside of shaq. kobe could have put up his usual averages from that year (24/5/5/43%) and the lakers still would have lost. the pistons blew them out in that series. it wasn't even close.

3. Devean George 39%
4. Luke Walton 39%
5. Kobe Bryant 38%
6. Stanislav Medvedenko 35%
7. Karl Malone 33%
8. Gary Payton 32%
9. Kareem Rush 32%
10. Derek Fisher 31%
11. Brian Cook 17%
12. Bryon Russell 0%


yup. its all kobe's fault.