2000 Shaquille O'Neal vs 1991 Michael Jordan

[Big#50]

Shaq's 2000 season is overrated because of the finals. The Spurs would have beaten LA if Tim didn't get injured. The Spurs beat LA three out of four that season. Robinson was still a great defender and could put up 20 and 10 in any game. Lakers were pretty lucky.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq's 2000 season is overrated because of the finals. The Spurs would have beaten LA if Tim didn't get injured. The Spurs beat LA three out of four that season. Robinson was still a great defender and could put up 20 and 10 in any game. Lakers were pretty lucky.

One of the Spurs wins was a meaningless end of the season game that went OT yet Shaq only played 32 minutes in. Yeah, Duncan didn't play, but it's obvious the Lakers didn't really care about that game having easily locked up the best record in the league. It was also their last game of the season.

The Lakers were a 67-15 team and the Spurs were a 53-29 team.

With Shaq, the Lakers were a 66-13 team and with Shaq and Kobe the Lakers were a 54-10 team.

The Spurs were a 48-26 team with Duncan and a 46-26 team with Duncan and Robinson.

There's nothing to suggest that's a guaranteed victory for the Spurs. Didn't Orlando just go 3-1 vs Boston in 2010 and then get beat in 6 in the ECF?

By your logic, Duncan's 2003 season is overrated because Dirk was out for half of the WCF and the Mavs W/L record was equal to the Spurs were 2-2 vs Dallas in the regular season with Dallas outscoring the Spurs by 20 in those 4 games.

Instead of stating speculation as fact, why not look at what they actually did that season?

[OldSchoolBBall]

Jordan gives you comparable/superior production in the regular and postseasons and on top of that gives you Kobe on steroids in the 4th quarter and clutch time, which was always Shaq's liability due to his FT shooting (and to a lesser extent a center's comparative lack of ability to generate offense). He was also able to raise his game on command more frequently than Shaq when needed and just win games himself. Not sure how you don't take him here. I'm certainly not saying the gap is large (it's not at all), only that I don't see the case for Shaq.

[catch24]

Jordan gives you comparable/superior production in the regular and postseasons and on top of that gives you Kobe on steroids in the 4th quarter and clutch time, which was always Shaq's liability due to his FT shooting (and to a lesser extent a center's comparative lack of ability to generate offense). He was also able to raise his game on command more frequently than Shaq when needed and just win games himself. Not sure how you don't take him here. I'm certainly not saying the gap is large (it's not at all), only that I don't see the case for Shaq.

100% agreed.

[D.J.]

Jordan. Better player and he had more of a will to win. No one wanted to win more than Michael Jordan. 1999-00 was a very impressive season from Shaq, but no one compares to a prime Michael Jordan, regardless of stats.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Jordan gives you comparable/superior production in the regular and postseasons and on top of that gives you Kobe on steroids in the 4th quarter and clutch time, which was always Shaq's liability due to his FT shooting (and to a lesser extent a center's comparative lack of ability to generate offense). He was also able to raise his game on command more frequently than Shaq when needed and just win games himself. Not sure how you don't take him here. I'm certainly not saying the gap is large (it's not at all), only that I don't see the case for Shaq.

Good post, pretty spot on summary. I'll give '91 Jordan the edge.

[Samurai Swoosh]

Jordan gives you comparable/superior production in the regular and postseasons and on top of that gives you Kobe on steroids in the 4th quarter and clutch time, which was always Shaq's liability due to his FT shooting (and to a lesser extent a center's comparative lack of ability to generate offense). He was also able to raise his game on command more frequently than Shaq when needed and just win games himself. Not sure how you don't take him here. I'm certainly not saying the gap is large (it's not at all), only that I don't see the case for Shaq.

Exactly ..

[Big#50]

One of the Spurs wins was a meaningless end of the season game that went OT yet Shaq only played 32 minutes in. Yeah, Duncan didn't play, but it's obvious the Lakers didn't really care about that game having easily locked up the best record in the league. It was also their last game of the season.

The Lakers were a 67-15 team and the Spurs were a 53-29 team.

With Shaq, the Lakers were a 66-13 team and with Shaq and Kobe the Lakers were a 54-10 team.

The Spurs were a 48-26 team with Duncan and a 46-26 team with Duncan and Robinson.

There's nothing to suggest that's a guaranteed victory for the Spurs. Didn't Orlando just go 3-1 vs Boston in 2010 and then get beat in 6 in the ECF?

By your logic, Duncan's 2003 season is overrated because Dirk was out for half of the WCF and the Mavs W/L record was equal to the Spurs were 2-2 vs Dallas in the regular season with Dallas outscoring the Spurs by 20 in those 4 games.

Instead of stating speculation as fact, why not look at what they actually did that season?

Robinson could still hold Shaq to about 25 points back then. Kobe was not the Kobe of 01 yet. No doubt in my mind the Lakers would have lost.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Robinson could still hold Shaq to about 25 points back then. Kobe was not the Kobe of 01 yet. No doubt in my mind the Lakers would have lost.

Oh yeah, and one of the Lakers losses vs the Spurs came with Shaq sitting out and I already mentioned that one of them was the last game of the season with the Lakers easily having locked up and in the first 2 games he played vs the Spurs(the 2 meaningful ones), he had 31 points in each game, not 25.

[Big#50]

Oh yeah, and one of the Lakers losses vs the Spurs came with Shaq sitting out and I already mentioned that one of them was the last game of the season with the Lakers easily having locked up and in the first 2 games he played vs the Spurs(the 2 meaningful ones), he had 31 points in each game, not 25.

I still believe The Spurs would have beat them. Duncan could not be stopped. Shaq would have to get 40 plus points to beat them. That was not happening. The Lakers were way better than the rest of the league because of Shaq. But against the Spurs he couldn't be as dominant. The Spurs were the defending champs and had the edge over the Lakers after sweeping them the year before.

[eliteballer]

^LOL. In one of those games Shaq didn't play, in the other Duncan didn't and they split the other two.

[Sarcastic]

I think the NBA as a league was a little weaker in 1999-2000. All the stars of the 1990s were either old or retired, and the players who would become stars of the 2000s were either really young, or hadn't even entered the league. In the 1990-1991 season, you still had an incredible amount of star players in the league, and the NBA hadn't expanded yet.

Just in Jordan's 1991 playoff run alone he went through Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, and Patrick Ewing. That's pretty incredible when you think about it.

[Big#50]

^LOL. In one of those games Shaq didn't play, in the other Duncan didn't and they split the other two.

Thanks for bringing up something already said more than once.

[kuzdeen]

Jordan because of his will to win and work ethic. He never took a night off

[ShaqAttack3234]

I still believe The Spurs would have beat them. Duncan could not be stopped. Shaq would have to get 40 plus points to beat them. That was not happening. The Lakers were way better than the rest of the league because of Shaq. But against the Spurs he couldn't be as dominant. The Spurs were the defending champs and had the edge over the Lakers after sweeping them the year before.

The Lakers beat the 59-23 Blazers with Shaq averaging 26/12/4. They could beat teams without Shaq going for 30-40 points and 15-20 rebounds. Granted, that series did expose a flaw that the Lakers had which was not being able to make Portland pay and think twice about constant double and triple teams.

Kobe wasn't in his prime yet, but he was still a top 10 player, you could argue top 9 and they had the league's best player. The Spurs had the 2nd best player(Duncan) and another top 13 player(Robinson).

So both teams had excellent duos, and I do think the match up would have been interesting. Green and Horry couldn't guard Duncan, so they would have had to double often or have Shaq guard him which would be risky due to foul trouble.

But Robinson didn't guard Shaq 1 on 1 throughout the games either, and neither did Duncan. Regardless, I would have loved to have seen a series of Shaq and Duncan going head to head like they did on that Christmas game in 1999-2000. But unfortunately, that wasn't going to happen regardless.

But, what exactly does the sweep in '99 mean? The Lakers swept the Spurs in '01. Yeah, Kobe was better in 2001 than 2000, but Shaq was also better in 2000 than 1999 and they had Phil Jackson.

That 2000 Laker team could have been even better had they kept Rodman and had Phil gotten Scottie Pippen like he wanted. Rice was a bad fit and well past his prime. Rice could've been a great asset for the team had he accepted his role as a spot up shooter instead of bitching about not having plays run for him.