A Prime Shaq vs. Hakeem

[jlauber]

Hakeem at the peak of his powers was utterly unstoppable.The man played out of his mind for a couple of years.Since then, no one has dominated their peers to the level Olajuwon did.

Playoffs (1994 and 1995)






Shaq played 30 playoff games against the Spurs.He only scored 30+ points four times.It doesn't matter because he always had very talented teams.

LINK




Shaq only looked incredible dominant against the Kings and the weak East.You can say the same thing about prime Duncan against the Mavs.



LINK



Duncan was clearly the best player in '99


LINK


and from '03 - '05.


GM Survey: If you were starting a franchise today and could sign any player in the NBA, who would it be?




Sure,but Shaq benefited immensely from Duncan's injury that caused him to miss the playoffs in 2000,and the fact that the Spurs' second option was the 20-year-old rookie Tony Parker (2002)

Post Shaq's and Duncan's H2H FG%'s too. AND, how about their FOURTH QUARTER numbers, when they actually DEFENDED each other in those games. Without looking them up, I suspect that Duncan shot under 40% in those 4th quarters (and I believe the entire game logs are available at ESPN.com.)

[millwad]

Think about that the NEXT time I make a thread.

You're retarded, you don't understand how stupid you look.
So everytime anyone mentions Wilt's name you have to follow that up with writing 15 huge essays about him?

First you make a completely crappy thread about a 36 year old Olajuwon vs prime Shaq, something you've spammed a thousand times about.

And now you've written 15 posts about Wilt in this thread, are you mentally challenged? Do you have anything to do in your life other than spamming about Wilt? Do you have friends and family? I mean, the amount of time you spend on spamming about Wilt on the net is creepy and this ain't the only forum where you're active at. I remember Fatal9 posting a handful of other sites where you spammed about Wilt?

What about Wilt makes you so obsessed with him and why did it happend just a few years ago?

[jlauber]

Jlauber, I do think it's incredibly unfair you put a prime Shaq vs a past-prime Hakeem. I disagree with your analysis on the '95 Finals, but at the very least it's fair and logical analysis.

Well, it has long been a fallacy here that Hakeem outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals. It was Hakeem's TEAMMATES who BADLY outplayed Shaq's. Aside from the FACT that Hakeem's TEAMMATES badly outshot Shaq's from the field and the arc...



Think about this...

Game one. Houston wins 120-118 (with Anderson going 0-4 in the last ten seconds.) Hakeem's TEAMMATES outscored Shaq's from the line by an 11-7 margin.

Game two. Houston wins 117-106. Hakeem's TEAMMATES outscore Shaq's by a whopping 28-9 margin from the line.

Game three. Houston wins 106-103. Hakeem's TEAMMATES outscore Shaq's from the line by an 18-13 margin.

Game four. Houston wins 113-101. Hakeem's teammates outscore Shaq's from the line by a 17-8 margin (the only game in which the FT shooting did not completely save Hakeem.)


In any case, I get sick-and-tired of continually reading about how Hakeem outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals. Even if I were to concede that fact, (and I never will), this was a PRIME Hakeem, and going up against a 22 year old Shaq.

From that point on, Shaq just ABUSED Hakeem. And by the time this game took place, Shaq's career against Hakeem was a one-sided rout.

[millwad]

So when Wilt's teammates badly outplayed Kareem's in '72 and where Wilt got outscored with 23 points per game on better FG% you don't give a crap about teammates or stats, but when it's Olajuwon it's all about stats and all about his teammates ALTHOUGH everyone knows Olajuwon outplayed Shaq.

Such a hypocrite...

[jlauber]

So when Wilt's teammates badly outplayed Kareem's in '72 and where Wilt got outscored with 23 points per game on better FG% you don't give a crap about teammates or stats, but when it's Olajuwon it's all about stats and all about his teammates ALTHOUGH everyone knows Olajuwon outplayed Shaq.

Such a hypocrite...

Kareem shot .457 in that series, in a year in which he shot .574. Oh, and BTW, he shot .414 over the course of the last four games (three of them Laker wins.) Kareem outshot Wilt, .457 to .452, BUT, he missed 107 shots, while Chamberlain missed a TOTAL of 20. And, in the clinching game six win, Wilt scored 20 points on 12 shots, while Kareem scored 37 on 37.

Still, that was a PRIME Kareem, going up against a 35 year old Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee, and nowhere the player that destroyed many of the SAME centers that a PRIME Kareem would face, by a a FAR greater margin.

Meanwhile, a PRIME Hakeem barely outscored a YOUNG Shaq, 33 pp to 28 ppg, by taking TEN more FGAs per game, and in a series in which Shaq outshot him by an unfathomable .595 to .483 margin, while easily outrebounding, outassisting, and even outblocking him.

[jlauber]

You're retarded, you don't understand how stupid you look.
So everytime anyone mentions Wilt's name you have to follow that up with writing 15 huge essays about him?

First you make a completely crappy thread about a 36 year old Olajuwon vs prime Shaq, something you've spammed a thousand times about.

And now you've written 15 posts about Wilt in this thread, are you mentally challenged? Do you have anything to do in your life other than spamming about Wilt? Do you have friends and family? I mean, the amount of time you spend on spamming about Wilt on the net is creepy and this ain't the only forum where you're active at. I remember Fatal9 posting a handful of other sites where you spammed about Wilt?

What about Wilt makes you so obsessed with him and why did it happend just a few years ago?

What makes YOU so obsessed with Wilt that you have to enter EVERY topic in which his name is mentioned, and go out of your way to disparage him? Whether it be his UNEQUALED athleticism, scoring skills, shooting skills, rebounding skills, passing skills, and defensive skills?

[millwad]

Kareem shot .457 in that series, in a year in which he shot .574. Oh, and BTW, he shot .414 over the course of the last four games (three of them Laker wins.) Kareem outshot Wilt, .457 to .452, BUT, he missed 107 shots, while Chamberlain missed a TOTAL of 20. And, in the clinching game six win, Wilt scored 20 points on 12 shots, while Kareem scored 37 on 37.

He still outshot Wilt and outscored him with the huge margin of 23 points.

Still, that was a PRIME Kareem, going up against a 35 year old Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee, and nowhere the player that destroyed many of the SAME centers that a PRIME Kareem would face, by a a FAR greater margin.

Not my point, my point is that you overlook the fact that Wilt's teammates badly outplayed Kareem's and that stats is not important in that series. And your proof of Wilt "dominating" Kareem is two articles. Actually you called it, Wilt "murdering" Kareem..

But when it comes to Hakeem and Shaq in '95 you spam about cherry picked stats, never have you mentioned Shaq's crazy many TO's, and you are all about Shaq's teammate getting outplayed by Hakeem's. And your beloved media is suddenly nothing you care about, even though all media made it clear that Olajuwon outplayed Shaq you don't give a damn about it. But 2 articles about Wilt and Kareem suddenly means everything.

Meanwhile, a PRIME Hakeem barely outscored a YOUNG Shaq, 33 pp to 28 ppg, by taking TEN more FGAs per game, and in a series in which Shaq outshot him by an unfathomable .595 to .483 margin, while easily outrebounding, outassisting, and even outblocking him.

Why are you again talking about stats? Lets talk about stats in the '72 series where you claim that Wilt "murdered" Kareem when Kareem outscored Wilt with 23 points PER GAME, shot with a higher FG% and outassisted Wilt.. To you stats doesn't matter in that series..

You're such a hypocrite, stuff you use to prove that Wilt got the best of Kareem suddenly doesn't count when it is about Hakeem..

[jlauber]

Back to Simmons'...

The IDIOTIC Simmons is on record as claiming that Wilt was twice traded for "pennies on the dollar", including at mid-season in the 64-65 season. Actually, a panic-stricken Warrior team, told by their team doctors that Wilt had a heart condition, traded Chamberlain for THREE players and a BOATLOAD of cash (at the time.)

In any case, this is particularly interesting...

In Wilt's last full season with the Warriors, they went 48-32, and made it to the Finals, despite their only other talent being players like Meschery, Rodgers, and an under-rated Al Attles (who, despite his ordinary stats, was really Wilt's second best player that season.)

Chamberlain was traded to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and missed the playoffs. He immediately took that 40-40 team thru a first round romp over the 48-32 Royals, and then to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team at their PEAK. And in that series, Chamberlain averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and shot .555 from the field. Perhaps the greatest post-season series in NBA history, especially when you consider he was doing it against Russell and his swarming Celtics.

And, Wilt would then take that Sixer roster to the best record in the league in the next three seasons, including a dominating world title in '67.

Yet, where does Simmons mention anything about that?

Furthermore, how about Wilt's IMPACT with those crappy Warrior rosters from '60 thru the first half of '65?

Remember, in Wilt's LAST full season with SF, he led that team to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals. Now, he was basically replaced by Nate Thurmond, who would go on to have a HOF career himself. Then, the Warriors were so bad, that they were able to draft Rick Barry. The result in their first full season together, in '66? That Warrior team could only go 35-45. Here was Chamberlain replaced by TWO HOFers, and they could only go 35-45, while Chamberlain himself had taken the rest of that crappy roster to a 48-32 record just the full season before.

And it gets even better, too. After the '66 season, the Warriors, (and STILL with holdovers like Meschery and Attles) added players like high-scoring Jeff Mullins, rebounding force Clyde Lee, and talented Fred Hetzel to their '66 roster. Guess what? With all of that talent, the '67 Warriors could STILL only go 44-37 (and were blown out by Wilt's 68-13 Sixers in the Finals.)

Think about that Mr. Simmons. How come Chamberlain could SINGLE-HANDEDLY carry a Warrior team to a 48-32 record in '64, and yet, with many of the same holdovers (players like Meschery and Attles), a '67 Warrior team with HOFers Thurmond, Barry, and quality players like Mullins, Lee, and Hetzel...could only go 44-37. WHY?

Continued...

[Freedom Kid7]

Well, it has long been a fallacy here that Hakeem outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals. It was Hakeem's TEAMMATES who BADLY outplayed Shaq's. Aside from the FACT that Hakeem's TEAMMATES badly outshot Shaq's from the field and the arc...

No argument with the teammate portion. If I remember correctly, I think Kenny Smith set a record with 8 3-pointers in one of the games.

Think about this...

Game one. Houston wins 120-118 (with Anderson going 0-4 in the last ten seconds.) Hakeem's TEAMMATES outscored Shaq's from the line by an 11-7 margin.

Oh God those 4 shots . Those Freethrows were textbook choking. While Hakeem's teammates certainly did help him that game, Hakeem put the dagger in that thing with tipping in Clyde's miss with five seconds to go. In addition you could also argue that Hakeem outscored Shaq (albeit with lesser fg%) as well as turned the ball over less, along with the extra clutch play allowing him to outplay Shaq for that game, but I'll give you credit that Nick Anderson screwed up badly and that really changed the series moreso than anything else.

Game two. Houston wins 117-106. Hakeem's TEAMMATES outscore Shaq's by a whopping 28-9 margin from the line.

That they did. Also, Hakeem played solid D on Shaq, putting Shaq about 3.2% less than his average field goal percentage.

Game three. Houston wins 106-103. Hakeem's TEAMMATES outscore Shaq's from the line by an 18-13 margin.

Okay.

Game four. Houston wins 113-101. Hakeem's teammates outscore Shaq's from the line by a 17-8 margin (the only game in which the FT shooting did not completely save Hakeem.)

Okay.

Look, for both of these I understand your argument. Stats and jazz. Stats never tell the whole story. The fact that Shaq (who he himself admitted this in an interview) couldn't get into Hakeem's mind during when they played doesn't show in the stats. The fact that pissed the hell out of Shaq doesn't show in the stats. But it was there in the games. The thing about good players in there prime as well is that they bring the best out of there teammates. Hakeem certainly did it throughout that series making Sam Cassell able to get 30 points, making Clyde stay useful, etc. etc. Shaq wasn't close to his prime at this time so he couldn't get the best out of his teammates at this point. I tend to feel the leader of the team shows true importance once he helps his teammates get better (and yes, I do believe Shaq was pivotal in Kobe's development)

Another thing about the whole 'higher FG%' was Shaq had Goddamn Penny to set him up for good shots and positioning. Penny was an elite PG in those days. Hakeem had frikkin Sam Cassell and Kenny Smith. Sure as hell not elite. With a better PG, you're gonna get higher percentage shots.

Also, Shaq may have averaged more assists, but he turned the ball over quite a bit and Hakeem had a higher AST/TO ratio against him in those finals.

In any case, I get sick-and-tired of continually reading about how Hakeem outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals. Even if I were to concede that fact, (and I never will), this was a PRIME Hakeem, and going up against a 22 year old Shaq.

I understand your viewpoint and respect it. Just tryin' to say mine.

From that point on, Shaq just ABUSED Hakeem. And by the time this game took place, Shaq's career against Hakeem was a one-sided rout.

Of course though. Hakeem was past his heyday and Shaq entered his. That stuff is bound to happen.

I get your logic and hate towards Kareem, Hakeem and Bird, really I do. People tear down Wilt all the time yet the other three have similar flaws in their resume but people prop them up still. I just feel it's slightly unfair to attack Hakeem/Bird/Kareem for the same reasons those who bash Wilt use.
'Tis all.

[Owl]

The blog you cite does everything it accuses Simmons of doing but to a worse degree. A lot of the comparisons uses individual stats which is as flawed an argument as is possible when comparing players like Russell and Wilt.

I cited two blogs are you saying boths methodologies are flawed? In any case I'm happy to argue any specific point and am not wedded to nor do I take my opinions from a specific source. If there are specific issues you disagree with on the sites I'm happy to discuss them. I wasn't thinking particularly of a stat based section of the site when I reffered to it, which section are you thinking of?

It is not debatable that Wilt was a player who made his teammates stats worse and Russell a play who made his teammates stats better. Their styles of play dictated it so. That doesn't mean Wilt makes the teams he is on worse (he didn't) it just means you can't expect a team to have five guys scoring double figures when one guy is getting over 1/3 of the shots most nights and touching the ball nearly every possession.

This is debatable. Not over the totality of their careers, but because you're making a blanket statement there are caveats and points in their career where this is certainly not a clear and unquestionable fact. To be sure early Wilt damaged his teammates scoring averages. I suspect running an offense so heavily through a single player is unlikely to provide the hoped for increase in shooting from other players because they get "cold" from lack of participation in the offense. Note that the 50ppg season was the idea of Frank McGuire, not Wilt, though.

But I'm not sure if Philly Wilt was hurting his teammates statlines. The passer. The double team commander. Do we think near 70% shooter wasn't taking defensive attention away from Chet Walker, Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham? And the '72 Lakers thrived on a fast break started by Wilt (and Happy Hairston)'s rebounding and outlet passing led to easy baskets by Jerry West and Gail Goodrich (Goodrich's best years in terms of combining scoring and efficiency were in 72 and 73). Wilt probably cannibalised a lot of rebounds (i.e. got rebounds his team would have gotten anyway). But I would imagine Russell did too.

I would also question what you mean when you say Russell made his teammates stats better. Better than they were before he arrived then after he left? Better than they would have been with an average center. In any case the improvements to the fast break system (already in place) will have led to a few easy baskets. And Russell was a skilled passer (though later career Chamberlain seems to have been at least comparable). But a simple blanket "Russell made his teammates stats better" is a bit hard to swallow. Boston's field goal percentage fell in Russell's first year. This wasn't Russell being a worse shooter, he was marginally superior to his predecessor Ed Macauley. No this was teammates getting worse numbers. This doesn't seem prinarily to have been a matter of squad turnover though it could be a contributing factor (though of the squads 4 previous .400+ shooters, 3 remained on the club and Macauley was replaced by Russell himself).

And when Russell (and Sam Jones) retired John Havlicek's stock rose greatly. He increased his points per game whilst taking less shots. His field goal percentage increased by 6% on the previous year. He also grabbed more rebounds and passed for more assists. After Russell left Havlicek started getting better stats and more accolades including first team All-NBA selections and MVP votes.

None of this is to say that Chamberlain was a great positive influence on his teammates numbers, nor that Russell wasn't. But the points should be made with caveats and nuance. After leaving the Warriors I certainly don't think Wilt was harming his teammates numbers. Russell probably allowed players to leak out and get easier baskets and could pass well, but we should be specific as to what we mean when we say he was improving his teammates numbers, and be able to back it up.

That's Simmons point. Every team had a lot of talent, the Celtics did not have discernibly more than anyone as evidenced by their regular season win percentages relative to teams in the expansion era and the fact that most of their playoff series were highly competitive and very very rarely was there ever a sweep.

Talent is relative. If you were playing in a league with with 3 teams each with a 5 man roster , having Dirk Nowitzki (or whatever players are in the 10-15 range) would be a weakness rather than a strength. Psileas is rightly pointing out that every team had a larger portion of accolade winners back then because there were less teams, but more or less the same number of accolades. That doesn't make the league more equal.
I don't know how having tight series is a better proof of parity (given its tiny sample size) than points differential and SRS.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...rs#stats::none

Through to '65 it's unquestionably clear that Boston was a much better regular season team than any of its competitors. They didn't win in the playoff because Russell had some magic winning potion, nor because they "wanted it more". They won because they had the best team. Part of that is the top of the ticket, Russell was certainly better than most teams stars. But the Celtics were also stronger 2-12 than any other team. Every single year (up to and including 1965).

Post edited to correct typo

[jlauber]

Continuing...

As I have conclusively proven, Chamberlain was saddled with just horrible surrounding personnel in his first six seasons in the league. And, despite that lack of talent, he single-handedly carried THREE of those six teams to the ECF's, and one Final where he would run into the Dynastic HOF-laden Celtics. And, in those four series, his TEAM was beaten in one, 4-1, BUT, lost the last two games in the last seconds; were beaten 4-2 in another, and when Chamberlain badly injured his hand, they were wiped out in one of those games, or who knows how that series might have played out; were beaten in a game seven, by two points in another one; and were edged by ONE point in a game seven, in yet another.

Swap those six rosters and I am CONVINCED that it would have been WILT with a 6-0 margin in rings (and I seriously doubt ANY of those series would have been close, either.)

That brings us to the last four seasons in which Russell and Chamberlain went H2H.

Simmons would argue that since Wilt's TEAMs had better records, that Chamberlain naturally had better supporting casts...which was simply NOT true. I would argue that he finally had EQUAL supporting casts (and, they were not nearly as deep, either.)

Ok then, why did Russell's TEAMs STILL go 3-1 against Wilt's?

The ONLY one of those years that was perplexing was in '66. And even that is somewhat explainable. In the '66 season, Wilt's Sixers had to win their final 11 games to surpass Boston, 55-25 to 54-26. Of course, the seven-time defending Celtics were probably on cruise control, and were still far more experienced.

Of course, the goofball Simmons will point out that Chamberlain averaged 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, shot .540, and handed out 5.2 apg during the regular season...and "declined" in the ECF's against Russell.

Here are the REAL facts. In the '66 regular season, Chamberlain's Sixers went 6-3 against Russell's Celtics. And, in those nine games, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, and 30.7 rpg (yes, 30.7 rpg.) I don't have his FG%, but it won't matter in a moment.

In the '66 ECF's, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 from the field. And, yes, he "only" handed out 3.2 apg (instead of the 5.2 apg that he had in tyhe regular season.) Think about that, other than his apg, his playoff numbers against Russell were nearly IDENTICAL to those that he had against him in their nine regular season H2H's.

So, how come Wilt's Sixers, who had gone 6-3 against Boston in the regular season, were wiped out 4-1, in the ECF's? Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shot .352 from the field. Yes... .352 from the field. To a man they were AWFUL. And, THAT also explains why Wilt's apg were down. His teammates simply couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat.

BTW, in the clinching game five loss, all Chamberlain did was score 46 points, on 19-34 shooting (and yes, an awful 8-25 from the line), with 34 rebounds. More on that later.

The bottom line...Wilt's '66 Sixers were simply not as good as Russell's Celtics. That they were beaten by Boston had absolutely NOTHING to do with Chamberlain.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

We'll skip Chamberlain's '67 post-season for now.

Once again, in Wilt's last four H2H seasons with Russell's Celtics, the two had about equal rosters. Why did Russell still hold a 3-1 margin?

I already addressed '66. Ultimately, Russell's TEAM was actually SUPERIOR. And his TEAMMATES badly outplayed Chamberlain's in that series.

How about '68? Ok, I will be the first to admit that this Chamberlain team probably had a superior roster to Russell's. For the second straight season his Sixers just ran away with the best record in the league.

So, how did his TEAM lose to Russell's? Easy answer. The team that had romped to the best record in the league with a 62-20 mark (to Boston's 54-28) was NOT the team that would lose a game seven by four points to the Celtics in the ECF's.

For instance, HOFer Billy Cunningham was injured in the first round against the Knicks, and did not play again. Still, the Sixers were able to forge a 3-1 series lead. Even Red Auerbach had all but given up by that point ("It's a shame that people will probably forget just how good he (Russell) was.")

Then the unthinkable happened. In game five, the Sixers, already under-manned and with nowhere the depth that Boston had, lost BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones to leg injuries. Down 81-79 late in the third period, and with no depth, they were trounced in the 4th quarter.

To add to all of the above, Wilt, HIMSELF, was beset with a series of injuries, including a tear in his quad. Game recaps mentioned that Wilt was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game three on. Even Russell commented that "a lessor man would have not played"....which, of course meant that virtually NON ONE ELSE would have been playing. Not only did Wilt play (he would play every minute of that series) he played reasonably well. Overall, while it was not nearly his best series against Russell, he still put up a 22-25 .487 series.

The series went to a game seven, and for some mysterious reason, Chamberlain's teammates did NOT pass him the ball. He only touched the ball on the offensive end, in the second half, NINE times, and only TWICE in the 4th quarter. And with Wilt's teammates collectively shooting 25-74 in that game seven, Boston eked out a 100-96 win.

I am completely convinced that a healthy Sixer squad duplicates their previous season 4-1 destruction of Boston. Furthermore, just how bad would it have been for Boston had the roles been completely reversed, and Russell had been hobbled, with perhaps Havlicek not playing, and then Sanders and Siegfried crippled late in the series?

Continued...

[jlauber]

No argument with the teammate portion. If I remember correctly, I think Kenny Smith set a record with 8 3-pointers in one of the games.



Oh God those 4 shots . Those Freethrows were textbook choking. While Hakeem's teammates certainly did help him that game, Hakeem put the dagger in that thing with tipping in Clyde's miss with five seconds to go. In addition you could also argue that Hakeem outscored Shaq (albeit with lesser fg%) as well as turned the ball over less, along with the extra clutch play allowing him to outplay Shaq for that game, but I'll give you credit that Nick Anderson screwed up badly and that really changed the series moreso than anything else.


That they did. Also, Hakeem played solid D on Shaq, putting Shaq about 3.2% less than his average field goal percentage.


Okay.


Okay.

Look, for both of these I understand your argument. Stats and jazz. Stats never tell the whole story. The fact that Shaq (who he himself admitted this in an interview) couldn't get into Hakeem's mind during when they played doesn't show in the stats. The fact that pissed the hell out of Shaq doesn't show in the stats. But it was there in the games. The thing about good players in there prime as well is that they bring the best out of there teammates. Hakeem certainly did it throughout that series making Sam Cassell able to get 30 points, making Clyde stay useful, etc. etc. Shaq wasn't close to his prime at this time so he couldn't get the best out of his teammates at this point. I tend to feel the leader of the team shows true importance once he helps his teammates get better (and yes, I do believe Shaq was pivotal in Kobe's development)

Another thing about the whole 'higher FG%' was Shaq had Goddamn Penny to set him up for good shots and positioning. Penny was an elite PG in those days. Hakeem had frikkin Sam Cassell and Kenny Smith. Sure as hell not elite. With a better PG, you're gonna get higher percentage shots.

Also, Shaq may have averaged more assists, but he turned the ball over quite a bit and Hakeem had a higher AST/TO ratio against him in those finals.


I understand your viewpoint and respect it. Just tryin' to say mine.


Of course though. Hakeem was past his heyday and Shaq entered his. That stuff is bound to happen.

I get your logic and hate towards Kareem, Hakeem and Bird, really I do. People tear down Wilt all the time yet the other three have similar flaws in their resume but people prop them up still. I just feel it's slightly unfair to attack Hakeem/Bird/Kareem for the same reasons those who bash Wilt use.
'Tis all.

Excellent post.

I may not agree with all of it, but it was well thought out...which is refreshing...

[Freedom Kid7]

Excellent post.

I may not agree with all of it, but it was well thought out...which is refreshing...

. Always good to have a conversation with Mr. Jlauber

[Odinn]

Post Shaq's and Duncan's H2H FG%'s too. AND, how about their FOURTH QUARTER numbers, when they actually DEFENDED each other in those games. Without looking them up, I suspect that Duncan shot under 40% in those 4th quarters (and I believe the entire game logs are available at ESPN.com.)

With excluding 2008, 1999-2001-2002-2003-2004 Shaq vs. Duncan in the playoffs;

Shaq; 23.9ppg / 13.5rpg / 2.5apg / 2.8bpg / 0.6spg / 3.0tpg / .536fg% / .532ft% / 27.52eff
Tim; 25.8ppg / 12.9rpg / 4.1apg / 2.4bpg / 0.9spg / 4.0tpg / .483fg% / .727ft% / 29.44eff

basketball-reference.com has 4th fgs-fgas for 2001-2002-2003-2004 and your argument about Duncan shooting lower than 40% is pretty wrong. In those 4 series, Duncan shot exactly 40%(34/85) in the 4th quarters.

But what you wrong about is;
Duncan dominated the Spurs-Lakers series in 2003, his 4th q fg% .304 (7/23), but 3 of those 6 games were blow-out and Duncan didn't matchup Shaq as much as you claim. Duncan's 4th q fg% is .550(11/20) in 2004 series. He matched up with Shaq more than usual and he shot over .500. Yet 2004 Spurs-Lakers series arguably is the only choke-job Duncan had in his prime. So... I see so much fail in that post.