Shaq 96-2002 versus 87-93 Jordan

[catch24]

During this particular 6 year span (both players in their prime), as a GM, who would you build around competing for a title, and why?

Shaquille O'neal


Shaq's average from '96-02: 27 PPG 57 FG% 12 rebounds 3 assists 2.4 blocks

Best season from that time span?
2000: 29.7 PPG 57 FG% 13.6 rebounds 3.8 assists 3.0 blocks -- his entire game came together and his defense was very underrated this season.

How did he make his team better? Shaq Led 3 Lakers teams to the finals (2000-2002), winning all 3 of them. Doing so he picked up 3 finals mvps.

Michael Jordan


Jordan's average from '87-93: 33 PPG 52 FG% 6 rebounds 6 assists 2.8 steals

Best season from that time span?
1991: 31.5 PPG 54 FG% 6.0 rebounds 5.5 assists 2.7 steals -- Mike's entire game too came together and in my opinion, he never played better than this particular year.

How did he make his team better? Jordan led 3 Bulls teams to the finals (1991-1993), winning all 3 of them. Doing so he picked up 3 finals mvps.

edited *changed title*

[plowking]

This is a decent question. With Shaq you really only needed a solid guard and you were competing for a title each year. Jordan on the other hand was the most dominant player around and could carry his team on his back...

I'd probably go with Jordan seeing as he's the better player and more accessible in terms of being more readily available in end of game situations. By that I mean, able to do more things at the end of the game like making his free throws, hitting game winners, setting up a team mate.

[madmax]

It's Shaq and it's not even close really...dominant big > any perimeter guy, no matter how good he is

[Batman]

It's Shaq and it's not even close really...dominant big > any perimeter guy, no matter how good he is

clearly he is trolling. Jordan was the greatest player ever. You can't take anybody in front of him especially in his statistically prime. Shaq was a liability always in the clutch because of his 50-60% FT shooting. As a GM i can't have that when i could pick the GOAT. In fact i would have a Tim Duncan at that time rather than Shaq also

[madmax]

clearly he is trolling. Jordan was the greatest player ever. You can't take anybody in front of him especially in his statistically prime. Shaq was a liability always in the clutch because of his 50-60% FT shooting. As a GM i can't have that when i could pick the GOAT. In fact i would have a Tim Duncan at that time rather than Shaq also

well, it's your opinion...first of all perimeter guys are generally harder to build arround due to the fact that specific teammates are needed, while dominant and efficient bigs are pretty much a lock for the title with any squad, because they have ability to change the game in many ways

[sbw19]

[COLOR=Teal]Jordan by a hair. FT% is the decider here.
[/COLOR]

[Juges8932]

[COLOR=Teal]Jordan by a hair. FT% is the decider here.
[/COLOR]

That's how I feel. This wasn't a big deal for the Lakers because they had Kobe, but if it was just one or the other, Jordan because of all-around reliability.

[KG5MVP]

It's Shaq and it's not even close really...dominant big > any perimeter guy, no matter how good he is

except for when it's michael jordan

[ShaqAttack3234]

For 1 or 2 seasons? Shaq in 2000 and 2001, but for the entire 6 year period? Thats tough. Jordan was putting up monster numbers on teams that didnt do much frm '87-'89, but he was healthy every season.

[Samurai Swoosh]

For 1 or 2 seasons? Shaq in 2000 and 2001, but for the entire 6 year period? Thats tough. Jordan was putting up monster numbers on teams that didnt do much frm '87-'89, but he was healthy every season.

From '87 - '89 the Bulls got better every year, went to the ECF in '89 I believe ... with significantly less talent around him than Shaq from 1996 till 2000, so that statement makes little to no sense.

For 1 or 2 years? Jordan

For the whole period? Jordan

He's easily the better option. More durable, just as dominant, more versatile in his ability to dominate. Just from top to bottom you can DO more WITH Jordan.

[Alhazred]

Jordan, although I could understand someone picking Shaq over him. Having a prime Shaq on your team pretty much made you an instant title contender from 1996-2002.

[Samurai Swoosh]

Jordan, although I could understand someone picking Shaq over him. Having a prime Shaq on your team pretty much made you an instant title contender from 1996-2002.

How could you see taking Shaq over Jordan?

According to ShaqAttack's rules ... they didn't DO anything.

In 1995, got BOUNCED in the FINALS, in a SWEEP.

In 1996, got BOUNCED in the ECF, in a SWEEP (via past his prime Jordan)

In 1997, got BOUNCED by the Jazz in the Western Semis, 4 games to 1

In 1998 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Jazz, in a SWEEP

Noticing a pattern here?

And it wasn't like each one of these teams was lacking in talent.

In 1999 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Spurs, in get this ... a SWEEP

Once Kobe Bryant developed into a legit star caliber player ... the Lakers went onto win a ring in 2000

Then in 2001, when Kobe eclipsed star player status, and went to the "superstar" realm ... the Lakers became even more dominant.

So you could really see taking Shaq over Jordan? Prime Jordan doesn't go down in sweeps.

[Roundball_Rock]

This is a decent question. With Shaq you really only needed a solid guard and you were competing for a title each year. Jordan on the other hand was the most dominant player around and could carry his team on his back...

More Paul Bunyan myths surrounding Jordan. Look at Jordan's record:

38-44
9-9
40-42
50-32
47-35
55-27
61-21
67-15
57-25
13-4
72-10
69-13
62-20
30-30
37-45

He didn't "need" anything yet mysteriously his teams were average for a good chunk of his career then magically became dominant? Was 91' Jordan that much better than 87' or 88' Jordan? What changed was he needed a great team around him and he got it by 91'. @ the notion that MJ could carry a team by himself.

You want to talk about carrying teams look at Shaq. He showed up in Orlando and they improved from 21 wins to 41 wins in his first year (Jordan managed only an increase from 27 wins to 38 wins. Amazing stuff.). Shaq had the Magic in the NBA finals after three years. After Shaq left Orlando they collapsed. Shaq joined LA and made them champions. When he got hurt, they struggled. When he left they collapsed. Shaq joined Miami and made them instant contenders and then champions in his second season. Jordan retired 2 days before training camp so he had to be replaced by a D-League caliber SG since all the legit NBA starter caliber SG's were taken by then. What happened? The team remained a top 5 team. Can you imagine Shaq being replaced by a D-Leaguer and his team continuing to do well? Shaq was replaced by legit NBA talent when he left Orlando and LA and the teams collapsed. Imagine them replacing him with a guy who could not even make it as a 12th man in the previous two seasons! Yet you argue Jordan is the one who could carry a team "by himself"?

clearly he is trolling. Jordan was the greatest player ever. You can't take anybody in front of him especially in his statistically prime.

Trolling? Catch24 loves MJ.

Jordan may be the greatest player ever but that is another question. That does not mean he had the best peak. As far as absolute peak, Wilt>everyone. Wilt could do everything you could want on the court except make long J's, but he was a center so that is no big deal. He also sucked at FT's but so did Shaq. Wilt was the most dominant scorer in league history, led the league in assists, led the league in rebounding, led the league in FG % (seasons at 73% and 68% ), and was considered the best defender in the league. He did not do all this at once but it shows how great of an individual skill set he had. Jordan could lead the league in scoring and dominate defensively as much as a SG can and that is it. Prime Kareem could do everything Wilt could only on a lesser scale. Then there are others with cases over MJ's peak like Bird and Shaq.

first of all perimeter guys are generally harder to build arround due to the fact that specific teammates are needed, while dominant and efficient bigs are pretty much a lock for the title with any squad, because they have ability to change the game in many ways

Half this board thinks MJ "won by himself" so they don't realize that it took five or six years to build a contender around him. His record speaks for itself. At the beginning of his career he won nothing; at the end he won nothing. Yet in the middle he suddenly began to dominate? It is obvious 92' MJ was not 27 wins better than 87' MJ. What changed was Pippen and Grant emerged.

Great point. Look at all the great big men. They made huge impacts on their teams right off the bat because it is easier to build around them. Jordan needed an elite wing player and a all-star caliber PF around him to start winning. Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and Shaq just showed up and improved their teams instantly.

As to the OP, I assume you are talking about a random team. If that is the case I take Shaq for the reasons mentioned above regarding centers vs. perimeter players. They are comparable but Shaq would win more games with a random team than Jordan. If you have a team with an elite wing player a la Pippen and an all-star caliber PF a la Grant and Rodman then you can argue Jordan but I don't see how, looking at their histories, one can legitimately argue that prime Jordan would win more with a random team than prime Shaq would. You could plug Shaq into any team and he would make them solid immediately. The argument that he "needed" a great guard around him is purely speculation. Yeah, by coincidence he always had a great guard around him pre-Cleveland (exception: 1993 Orlando and even in 94' Penny was not yet great) but Jordan always had a great small forward with him. Does that mean Jordan "needed" a great small forward? Both players needed an elite teammate to win but the notion that Shaq "needed" a SG (Penny was a combo guard) is as false as saying Jordan "needed" a SF.

Aside from the traditional difficulties posed by building around a perimeter player versus a dominant center, Jordan comes with the added problem of not being able to function with traditional point guards. You would need to find: 1) a PG, or a SG listed as PG like Ron Harper, who can accept just standing in the corner and waiting for spot up crumbs or simply accept becoming a defensive specialist 2) someone else to serve as the team's primary ballhandler/playmaker. Jordan had the skills to do the latter but not the mentality. Just ask Phil Jackson and Doug Collins. Plus, even if he had the mentality needed for a PG it would cause him to expend too much energy if he had to be the primary scorer at a clip of 30+ ppg, primary playmaker and a dominant defender. So a traditional PG couldn't do it. You would need either a PG/SG who would be willing to forfeit shooting and driving the ball, which is rare, or a "point forward" like Pippen or Kukoc. Good luck finding these type of people on random teams!

Prime Jordan may have been a better player than prime Shaq. He was more clutch in late game situations, although we cannot ignore that Shaq from 2000-2002 arguably had the GOAT finals run. Jordan was better defensively relative to other SG's than Shaq was relative to C's (although one could argue Shaq had more impact defensively since he was a center). However, Shaq is a C and MJ was a SG and if it is close in terms of talent you have to go with the dominant C.

[Bigsmoke]

87-93 Jordan > [insert player]

[madmax]

Great great points Roundball... It's really amaizng how casual NBA fans don't realize the importance of dominant bigs and always fo for flash and flare of perimeter guards - I guess that's why His Airness also became most hyped and promoted NBA player of all time, Stern just couldn't resist of milking that name and making tons of money. Everyone seems to forget that he also needed great teammates and a GOAT coach to start winning. It's sad how people always choose flash over substance