Shaq breaks on all the other centers...

[NugzHeat3]

what?



Good post, here are some examples I've used to show how much Portland's entire team focused on him right from the start of that series.

First touch of the series- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=3m28s

Despite getting good position, the help comes as soon as he puts the ball on the floor- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=4m30s

Doubled almost as soon as he catches the ball- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=5m44s

Pippen is completely playing off Harper- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=8m23s

Again, as soon as he catches the ball, Pippen runs over to double- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyt48...elated#t=9m09s

That's just the 1st quarter of the first game, and it continued.

Entire team is focused on Shaq, whether it's the initial double, or the repost and the move into the lane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt...elated#t=1m16s

Even in transition, they get back and triple him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt...elated#t=1m43s

As was the case the majority of the series, Pippen was concerned with his man(Shaw) and was there to double Shaq before he put the ball on the floor- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ljR...elated#t=1m33s

That was typical, teams often wouldn't worry about AC Green or Ron Harper's offense and with Portland, Rasheed Wallace was obviously matched up with AC Green and Scottie Pippen was put on Harper for that reason, so you pretty much had 2 elite defensive forwards focusing on Shaq often before he could put the ball on the floor.

So I don't understand the logic that Sabonis had some success against Shaq in 2000 or 2001 so that means a younger Sabonis would own him, when Sabonis was younger and better in '97 and '98 and Shaq wasn't as good as the '00 or '01 version yet, and he put up huge numbers against him back then.

Which proves that the help defenders and defensive schemes are more important.

If you just look at head to head stats on basketball-reference, then you'll see that often when a center is out of his prime, he "holds" a center in his prime to lower numbers than when he was in his own prime. That's because usually when 2 centers faced each other in their prime and they were both expected to score a lot, their teams didn't want them risking foul trouble trying to shut down the other center as Fatal stated so they'd use different match ups or double a lot.

And for further proof of why looking at "head to head" stats in a box score proves nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F2380F9FF5EA2DD

Posted that game a while ago, and you can see that Jr Reid and Antoine Carr guarded Hakeem most of the game, and while Hakeem guarded Robinson more than Robinson guarded him, Otis Thorpe also guarded Robinson quite a bit.



Another excellent post, and yes, the recaps you've read about game 2 are accurate. Shaq got in foul trouble in the first half of game 2 trying to guard Hakeem with more single coverage and Hakeem dominated the first half when the game was ultimately decided while Orlando couldn't really make a serious threat in the second half when Shaq got most of his numbers making them look at least even in the box score when in reality, Hakeem clearly outplayed Shaq.

As far as who I give the edge to individually.

Game 1- Shaq
Game 2- Hakeem
Game 3- Basically even
Game 4- Hakeem

Hakeem's advantage in games 2 and 4 was decisive and ultimately, he swept Shaq(though game 1 was all but in the bag and the game going to OT had nothing to do with either center), so Hakeem definitely got the better of the match up for the series, it was not even, but Shaq wasn't schooled either. I think most on this board acknowledge both facts by now.

Great stuff man with all the links and references man. Portland really focused on Shaq; team was probably tailor built to deal with him.

It's annoying that people pretend Sabonis was guarding Shaq in single coverage and could hold him below his standards. Shaq was rarely guarded in single coverage and the teams that did so would later find out the hard way.

I didn't know that channel was yours. I've watched quite a few videos on there, some rare classics like the Knicks-Heat 2000 series.

[BMOGEFan]

why are you guys doing those statistical measurements. Stats rarely show how much a player dominated in a game. IE. lebron in the finals.

I bet the only people who are using these stats as a measurement didn't even have pubs when hakeem retired.

[Pointguard]

Ok, so you think Duncan would've won more if he had Shaq's teams, right?

If so, lets say rookie Duncan is drafted onto the '92-'93 Magic and follows Shaq's career path through 14 seasons(4 years with Orlando, 8 with LA, 2 with Miami). How many rings do you see him winning?

I give him a 50/50 chance to win in '98, I'll give '99 probable, '02 possible, but unlikely they get by the Kings with 10th year Duncan('07 version) in 10th year Shaq's place. '03 is possible with 11th year Duncan, but also unlikely. Not much of a chance after that.


So probably 1-2 titles if his career followed the same path as Shaq's, with a chance(albeit a slim chance) of duplicating Shaq's 4.

Anything you disagree with?

'95, '00 - 2004? He's a much better mix with the LA teams and a superior team player in the triangle. And he definitely wins in '04 at 38 years old if need be. Duncan's game falls off a bit in his 14th year the equivalent to '06 with Shaq. So throw that one in there as well. I have a very possible 7 there (10 if you include the other non-Jordan year and maybe the last three peat in Chicago would be in jeopardy along with '05 on either the LA team Duncan would have not gotten traded from or the Miami team that did very well) but I'd say six as a safe number. Duncan is the one guy you look at and say how the heck did he pull that off with that talent. Duncan definitely won with less talent than the 10 teams I mentioned. And that's excluding the Jordan years.

[Bosnian Sajo]

Exactly why I put Hakeem so high in my all time list, its not only about accomplishments people, we are rating players based by their skill too you know...and Hakeem was one of if not the best center to ever play the game.

[Bosnian Sajo]

why are you guys doing those statistical measurements. Stats rarely show how much a player dominated in a game. IE. lebron in the finals.

I bet the only people who are using these stats as a measurement didn't even have pubs when hakeem retired.

Honestly thats all it is, next generation will look at bruce bowen and say "how could this scrub be one of the best defenders of the 00's? He never even averaged more than 4reb, 1 stl, 1blk per game!"

[ShaqAttack3234]

'95, '00 - 2004? He's a much better mix with the LA teams and a superior team player in the triangle. And he definitely wins in '04 at 38 years old if need be. Duncan's game falls off a bit in his 14th year the equivalent to '06 with Shaq. So throw that one in there as well. I have a very possible 7 there (10 if you include the other non-Jordan year and maybe the last three peat in Chicago would be in jeopardy along with '05 on either the LA team Duncan would have not gotten traded from or the Miami team that did very well) but I'd say six as a safe number. Duncan is the one guy you look at and say how the heck did he pull that off with that talent. Duncan definitely won with less talent than the 10 teams I mentioned. And that's excluding the Jordan years.

You're kidding, right?

Ok, so 3rd year Duncan is leading Orlando over Hakeem's Rockets with Hakeem playing all time great basketball? Not to mention that Duncan wasn't healthy enough to perform in the playoffs in his 3rd year.

8th year Duncan(2005) is not leading the 2000 Lakers over Portland either and probably not Indiana. They don't approach 67 wins with 8th year Duncan in Shaq's place either.

The team had to playing the first 15 games without Kobe in 2000, and they went 11-3 in the 14 that Shaq played while losing the one that he was suspended.

The Lakers were already the best defensive team in the league in 2000 with Shaq focusing more on that end, so I don't see them improving much at that end, however, it's clear that they'd fall off quite a bit offensively with Duncan in Shaq's place.

Duncan himself missed 16 games in his 8th year, while Shaq missed just 3. Duncan was also already getting his minutes limited to 33 per game, while Shaq was playing 40 per game and 43.5 per game in the playoffs. I brought up missed games when it worked in Duncan's favor so it's only fair to use it when it works against him.

You saw the clips of how much Portland focused on Shaq, and we know that Shaq had to average 38/17 to beat Indiana in a close 6 game series with Kobe essentially missing 2 of those games and only playing well in one of the 4 that he did play. Shaq ended up winning the scoring title, finishing 1 vote shy of a unanimous MVP and finishing 2nd in DPOY voting. That's pretty much impossible to replace.

It's clear that 2005 Duncan wouldn't have been able to carry the 2000 Lakers like Shaq did.

2001 is possible, but fairly unlikely, imo. He probably doesn't feud with Kobe, but then again Kobe was also having problems with Phil, remember that was the year when Kobe was telling Phil that the triangle was too boring and limited his game. Then there was the problems at the guard position with Isaiah Rider being a cancer who caused problems right away being late for practices and not producing much when he did play before ultimately being left off the playoff roster. Ron Harper was done after 47 games and Fisher didn't return until the final 20. And Kobe also missed 14 games in an ultra competitive West and I'm not betting on 2006 Duncan to carry that team to an 11-3 record without Kobe like Shaq did.

Duncan's 9th year was also the year that his numbers were way down due to plantar fasciitis, and despite playing 6 more games than Shaq, was playing significantly fewer minutes per game and not producing at near the same level as prime Shaq was.

It's possible if the Lakers reinvented themselves as a dominant defensive team, but that's the only way because Duncan at his peak wasn't able to carry the same offensive load that 2001 Shaq was, much less 2006 Duncan.

But in the playoffs, the Shaq/Kobe problems were also gone and the result was Shaq playing at his 2000 level, Kobe playing some of the best ball of his career and the team playing with chemistry.

2002 is possible, Duncan didn't miss 15 games in his 10th year like Shaq did, but the fact that the 2002 Lakers were only 7-8 without Shaq should tell you something. Their 3rd option(Fisher) shot 36% for the playoffs, and Duncan's minutes were still much more limited compared to Shaq's at the time(36 vs 34 in the regular season and 41 vs 37 in the playoffs).

I doubt they get past Sacramento, they barely did with Shaq putting up 30/14 vs an enormous amount of defensive attention.

2003 is possible since it removes the team that knocked them out(the Spurs), and Shaq was lazier at that point, and Duncan isn't sitting out the first 12 games like Shaq did(especially since Shaq didn't have to himself). Kobe also improved and played at an unbelievable level midseason and carried the team a lot. But Shaq's 28/11 on elite efficiency(2nd in FG% and TS%) isn't easy to replace, and the rest of the team was falling apart by that point with Fox's injury, Devean George's injury and Horry missing left and right in the playoffs. Duncan was also declining in his 11th season.

at them winning in 2004 with 12th year Duncan. Granted, the Shaq/Kobe feud was part of the problem, but how about Malone missing half the season, playing injured in the playoffs and then injuring himself again and being unable to contribute anything in the finals? Or Payton averaging 4 ppg on 32% shooting in the finals? Duncan's decline was also more noticeable in his 12th season(2009). He wore down as the season progressed and was a borderline top 10 player in the league by that point.

Now you think 13 year Duncan(2010) is winning in either LA(the year without Phil when the Lakers won 34 games) or Miami(when Shaq nearly won MVP). You're forgetting about Wade's injury that prevented them from beating Detroit. No chance 10th year Duncan who was a top 15 player or so is winning in either situation.

And as far as the 2006 title? No chance, Duncan lost in the first round this year and that's the version that would be replacing Shaq. That 2006 Miami team only went 10-11 without Shaq even when Wade played. They'd have a pretty good team with Zo backing up Duncan, but Shaq was still playing at a much higher level than Duncan did this year. There was his 22/11 series on 65% shooting with 2.3 bpg to help beat the 64 win Pistons.

6-7 titles, possibly 10? No, as I said more likey 1-2, with a slimmer chance in 2 or 3 other seasons.

You're not even considering that Duncan peaked earlier than Shaq, and entered the league with better teams and worse competition his first 2 seasons, and that Shaq's contending teams in the 90's faced better competition such as Hakeem's Rockets in '95 who had beaten two 60+ win teams and another 59 win team prior to the finals with hakeem playing GOAT level basketball that run and then the 72 win Bulls the following season.

[swi7ch]

Shaq shouldn't feel bad about Hakeem dominating him. Hakeem destroyed David Robinson, too.

[millwad]

Shaq shouldn't feel bad about Hakeem dominating him. Hakeem destroyed David Robinson, too.

Of course he shouldn't feel bad about the fact that he got outplayed by Hakeem, he still had an amazing year in '95 and he proved to be a tough challenge for Hakeem during the finals.

[Pointguard]

You're kidding, right?

Ok, so 3rd year Duncan is leading Orlando over Hakeem's Rockets with Hakeem playing all time great basketball? Not to mention that Duncan wasn't healthy enough to perform in the playoffs in his 3rd year.

LOL, you aren't serious are you? My argument would be that he wouldn't be injured because he wouldn't be carrying the load. But I hear you. Bringing up injuries is the only way you can go with your argument.

Duncan on that 95 Magic team is much more impressive five than Houston's. Orlando just lacked confidence and leadership with Shaq. Duncan never had a team where over two years the starting five averaged over 13 ppg.

8th year Duncan(2005) is not leading the 2000 Lakers over Portland either and probably not Indiana. They don't approach 67 wins with 8th year Duncan in Shaq's place either.

Since you think he aged so much in 07 Duncan was still killing and I'd rather have Shaq surrounding crew in '00 of Rice and Kobe with (Fisher, Horry, Fox, Shaw and the last legs on AC Green, Sally, Harper,) than Parker and Gin with (the last legs on Bowen Finley and Horry) any day of the week.

The team had to playing the first 15 games without Kobe in 2000, and they went 11-3 in the 14 that Shaq played while losing the one that he was suspended.

The Lakers were already the best defensive team in the league in 2000 with Shaq focusing more on that end, so I don't see them improving much at that end, however, it's clear that they'd fall off quite a bit offensively with Duncan in Shaq's place.

Duncan was a better leader, smarter player, more complimentrary and players responded better to him.

You saw the clips of how much Portland focused on Shaq, and we know that Shaq had to average 38/17 to beat Indiana in a close 6 game series with Kobe essentially missing 2 of those games and only playing well in one of the 4 that he did play. Shaq ended up winning the scoring title, finishing 1 vote shy of a unanimous MVP and finishing 2nd in DPOY voting. That's pretty much impossible to replace.

Kobe would have played better with Duncan - unquestionably. Duncan would have had support that he didn't have a couple years before and after.

2001 is possible, but fairly unlikely, imo. He probably doesn't feud with Kobe, but then again Kobe was also having problems with Phil, remember that was the year when Kobe was telling Phil that the triangle was too boring and limited his game. Then there was the problems at the guard position with Isaiah Rider being a cancer who caused problems right away being late for practices and not producing much when he did play before ultimately being left off the playoff roster. Ron Harper was done after 47 games and Fisher didn't return until the final 20. And Kobe also missed 14 games in an ultra competitive West and I'm not betting on 2006 Duncan to carry that team to an 11-3 record without Kobe like Shaq did.

I was more impressed with what Duncan did in 99 and 03 than what Shaq did inbetween. Sure Shaq posted some incredible numbers. If Duncan had a Kobe like player from '00 to - '02. No way does Shaq get a three peat. Shaq play was great those three years but Duncan was just a winner. Shaq was really foul. I was doin work with Eric B and Rakim around that time and I seen Shaq, several times with his boy Chris Childs at several parties and I never seen Shaq with friend much at all. I know his teammates know that. For the sake of team chemistry??? However Shaq was the most dominant player I seen those three years. But give Duncan that team with those role players and he's definitely beats Shaq one of those years if not two. Duncan had some hard to calculate thing going on.


He did much more with much less his entire career. While one could make an argument that Shaq had about eight years years of playing with a top three player while Duncan never played with a top twenty and accomplished the same amount of rings as a contemporary. I can't get into the injuries and smaller details because its kind of crazy. I see your point but putting a top three player next to Duncan might just make him a notch better and that's the only big point to be made here - injuries and such are too much to get into. They should be next to each other on people's GOAT list. Shaq rarely played without a top 5 player and Duncan rarely played with a top 15 and they played as contemporaries.

[ShaqAttack3234]

LOL, you aren't serious are you? My argument would be that he wouldn't be injured because he wouldn't be carrying the load. But I hear you. Bringing up injuries is the only way you can go with your argument.

Duncan on that 95 Magic team is much more impressive five than Houston's. Orlando just lacked confidence and leadership with Shaq. Duncan never had a team where over two years the starting five averaged over 13 ppg.

I used injuries when they hurt Shaq and helped Duncan's argument, funny how you didn't object then.

Injuries are a part of the game. And Shaq in '95 didn't have to carry less of the load than Duncan. He averaged a league leading 29.3 ppg, 11.4 rpg(3rd in the NBA), 2.7 apg and 2.4 bpg(6th). He averaged 20 field goal attempts and 11 free throws per game. Sound like a light load to carry?

Duncan in 2000 averaged 23.2 ppg(9th), 12.4 rpg(3rd), 3.2 apg and 2.2 bpg(7th). He averaged 17 field goal attempts and 8 free throw attempts.

Hakeem in '95 was better than either '95 Shaq or '00 Duncan, and he also had Clyde Drexler who was the best shooting guard outside of Jordan who played 17 games that year, Horry was arguably playing the best ball of his career, Smith and Cassell were a good point guard duo and Elie was a solid role player.

When you beat teams that won 60, 59, 62 and 57 games including many of the game's top players, you're a legit team.

Since you think he aged so much in 07 Duncan was still killing and I'd rather have Shaq surrounding crew in '00 of Rice and Kobe with (Fisher, Horry, Fox, Shaw and the last legs on AC Green, Sally, Harper,) than Parker and Gin with (the last legs on Bowen Finley and Horry) any day of the week.

'07 Duncan doesn't end up with Shaq's '00 cast, that'd be '05 Duncan and Duncan's '07 cast was unquestionably better than Shaq's '00 cast. Picture Shaq being able to play just 34 mpg in the 2000 regular season and 37 in the 2000 playoffs. It wasn't going to happen because he didn't have the support necessary to rest that much.

The 2000 Lakers were more of a 2 man team. This is not revisionist history at all either. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw

Harper and Green often weren't even guarded by opposing teams because they weren't offensive threats, and their 3rd option Glen Rice disappeared for most of the playoffs, put up just 12/4/2 on 41% that run, and was benched late in some games for being a defensive liability and standing around without the ball.

Kobe in 2000 was already a borderline top 10 player, but not prime Kobe and not enough to make up for Duncan having 2 all-star caliber teammates in Parker and Ginobili instead of just 1 like Shaq in 2000, arguably the best perimeter defender in the league(Bowen) and superior 3 point shooting.

In fact, the 2007 Spurs were the 3rd best 3 point shooting team while the 2000 Lakers were the 5th worst. The Lakers lack of 3 point shooting and lack of scoring options outside Shaq and Bryant was what allowed Portland to focus so much on Shaq in the WCF.

And how exactly is 2007 Duncan going to beat Indiana if by some miracle they get by Portland?

In case you're forgetting, This is the production the Lakers got out of Kobe that series.

Game 1- 14/3/5, 6/13 FG, 1/2 FT
Game 2- 2/1/4, 1/3 FG (played just 9 minutes
Game 3- Didn't play
Game 4- 28/4/5, 14/27 FG
Game 5- 8/5/3, 4/20 FG
Game 6- 26/10/4, 8/27 FG, 2/6 3P, 8/9 FT

That's why Shaq had to average 38/17/3 on 61% shooting including 11.5 ppg in the 4th quarters that series. And the 1 good game that Kobe did have when he took over in the 4th quarter wouldn't have been possible without a 36/21 game by Shaq or a 14 point 4th quarter.

Duncan was a better leader, smarter player, more complimentrary and players responded better to him.

True, but O'Neal was far more dominant individually, drew more defensive attention and was a tougher, more unique match up to game plan for. They both had advantages and were both legitimate franchise players, but different. They peaked at different stages of their careers and had different casts built around them because they excelled in different areas.

Kobe would have played better with Duncan - unquestionably. Duncan would have had support that he didn't have a couple years before and after.

Shaq wasn't holding Kobe back as evidenced by his phenomenal 2001 playoff run or his incredible 2003 season.

I was more impressed with what Duncan did in 99 and 03 than what Shaq did inbetween. Sure Shaq posted some incredible numbers. If Duncan had a Kobe like player from '00 to - '02. No way does Shaq get a three peat. Shaq play was great those three years but Duncan was just a winner. Shaq was really foul. I was doin work with Eric B and Rakim around that time and I seen Shaq, several times with his boy Chris Childs at several parties and I never seen Shaq with friend much at all. I know his teammates know that. For the sake of team chemistry??? However Shaq was the most dominant player I seen those three years. But give Duncan that team with those role players and he's definitely beats Shaq one of those years if not two. Duncan had some hard to calculate thing going on.

I don't think Shaq would've won with Duncan's casts from '98-'04 assuming he entered the league at the same time because I don't think he'd work well with Robinson, but Shaq peaked in his 8th season and that would've been when Ginobili and Parker were coming into their own, he definitely could have won multiple rings from 2005-2011 with Duncan's casts had he been drafted in 1997.

He did much more with much less his entire career. While one could make an argument that Shaq had about eight years years of playing with a top three player while Duncan never played with a top twenty and accomplished the same amount of rings as a contemporary. I can't get into the injuries and smaller details because its kind of crazy. I see your point but putting a top three player next to Duncan might just make him a notch better and that's the only big point to be made here - injuries and such are too much to get into. They should be next to each other on people's GOAT list. Shaq rarely played without a top 5 player and Duncan rarely played with a top 15 and they played as contemporaries.

Your best teammate alone doesn't define how good a cast is, I don't know why that's so complicated.

And talking about Shaq's first 14 years, he did not play with a top 3 player for 8 seasons.

Definitely not in '93 or '94. Penny was probably top 10 in '95 and '96, but not top 5. None of Shaq's teammates were top 10 players in '97, '98 or '99. Kobe was borderline top 10 in '00. Though I'll give Kobe top 3 in 2001, top 3-4 in 2002, top 4-5 in 2003 and top 4-5 in 2004. Wade was borderline top 5 in 2005 and top 2-3 in 2006.

So that's 8, maybe 9 seasons with a top 10 player through 14 seasons and 5, maybe 6 with a top 5 player and 2, maybe 3 with a top 3 player.

He does beat Duncan in terms of his best teammate, but again, 1 player does not make up a cast, not at all. That doesn't even cover 3rd best players, overall depth, how the team's are constructed ect.

And Duncan has had top 20 teammates. Robinson was borderline top 5 in 1998, borderline top 10 in 1999, top 15 in 2000 and top 20 in 2001. Ginobili was borderline top 15 in 2005, 2008 and top 20 the last 2 seasons. Parker was borderline top 15 in 2009 and arguably top 20 several seasons.