All players in their prime, which team is best?

[Leetonidas]

Saw this on realgm, thought it was interesting.

Cavs

PG Williams
SG Parker
SF James
PF Varejao
Cc Shaq

Celtics

PG Rondo
SG Allen
SF Pierce
PF Garnett
Cc Sheed

Spurs

PG Parker
SG Ginobili
SF Finley / Jefferson
PF Duncan
Cc McDyess

Lakers

PG Fisher
SG Bryant
SF Artest
PF Gasol
Cc Bynum

Magic

PG Nelson
SG Carter
SF Lewis
PF Bass
Cc Howard

Heat

PG Chalmers
SG Wade
SF Beasley
PF Haslem
Cc O'Neal

Suns

PG Nash
SG Richardson
SF Hill
PF Frye
Cc Amare

Mavericks

PG Kidd
SG Howard / Terry
SF Marion
PF Dirk
Cc Dampier

Portland

PG Miller
SG Roy
SF Batum
PF Aldridge
Cc Oden

[resistanze]

Cavs. Or Spurs, tough choice.

[Fabbs]

Spurs by a landslide.

[Leetonidas]

I'm gonna go with the homer pick and pick the Spurs. Offensively and defensively, the Spurs are just sick. Prime Duncan and Dice patrolling the paint? Sheeeeyit. A prime Ginobili and Parker backcourt with prime Finley and Jefferson at the SF. Pretty sick.

The Celtics are pretty sick too, but prime Dice >>>>> prime Wallace and prime TD > prime KG, prime Parker >>> prime Rondo, and prime Ginobili > prime Allen.

Cavs are also sweet, but Shaq and LeBron aren't enough because the other three players were nothing special in their primes.

[resistanze]

My initial thought was that a prime Shaq and LeBron team is unstoppable. But then again, the rest of their team is shit even their prime.

Prime Duncan is the second most dominant player on that list, and with a primer Parker, Manu, Finley, and Dice? Damn. I change my pick.

[Leetonidas]

That Maverick team looks pretty sick too. Prime Jason Kidd is a top 5 all-time PG. Playing with prime Nowitzki and Marion, he would have a field day.

[Bob Lanier]

prime Dice >>>>> prime Wallace and prime TD > prime KG, prime Parker >>> prime Rondo, and prime Ginobili > prime Allen.

:lol

[JamStone]

Cavs.

Having Shaq in his prime and putting him next to LeBron in his prime pretty much seals the deal no matter who the other three players are as long as they are NBA players, even low end NBA caliber players. 2 of the most dominant, most unstoppable players in modern NBA history. All the other three guys need to do is hit open shots, make clean passes, play solid defense.

The problem with some of the younger players listed on those teams is you're trying to guess what they'll be like in their prime. There's no guarantee guys like Greg Oden or Andrew Bynum will be dominant players in their prime. One could argue it's not even likely, much less a guarantee. Or with Michael Beasley, how do we know what he'll be in his prime? He could range from Jamal Mashburn or Derrick Coleman to Rodney White or Marcus Fizer. The question asks to guess on some of these players' potential.

Also, I think you should have stopped after the first four teams anyway. Cavs, Celtics, Spurs, and Lakers. The other teams shouldn't be in the discussion.

[23LeBronJames23]

Cavs, magic, spurs ,celtics and mavs would be the scariest teams.

Shaq and LeBron would of had a 10 peat!lol

[Amaso]

I don't think it would be the Lakers, even though they're the best right now. Pretty much everyone on the team is in their prime right now, except for Kobe and Bynum (we haven't seen it so theres no way to judge). It might be the Cavs, with Lebron and Shaq... you'd have 2 of the top 3 or 2 best players in the league. Spurs with a prime Duncan and Ginobli and McDyess would be really good. The Celtics with a prime Ray Allen, KG, Paul Pierce, and Rasheed Wallace would be sick too.

[23LeBronJames23]

^ :tu

[DPG21920]

I would probably go Celtics. But I think the Spurs would be right there and then the Cavs.

[Lars]

Celtics

[OceaNus]

Celtics

[Ghazi]

Cavs easily. They would have the top 2 players in the league. If they're a 60-65 win team as currently constructed then they're a 70+ win team (in theory) with prime Shaq.

[DPG21920]

Cavs easily. They would have the top 2 players in the league. If they're a 60-65 win team as currently constructed then they're a 70+ win team (in theory) with prime Shaq.

Please tell me you see the fallacy in this post. Please.

[IronMexican]

The team with 2000 Shaq.

[DPG21920]

Is prime Shaq better than prime Duncan?

[The Franchise]

Is prime Shaq better than prime Duncan?

Yes. Well I should say he has more of an impact on the flow of the game, but skillset wise no. I would definitely rather have prime Shaq though.

[IronMexican]

DPG, not trying to diss you but when did you become a fan? You didn't get to see Shaq in 2000?

[DPG21920]

I think prime Tim and prime RJ could at least do some damage to the Shaq/Lebron combo defensively. Not shut them down, but at least compete at a high level. They would also make it tough for Shaq & Bron to guard them.

That would leave a prime Andy to guard a prime McDyess? McDyess was a fantastic player and athlete in his prime. He would destroy Andy and on defense he could help out on Shaq because Andy is such a liability on that end. Given, McDyess was not quite the mid range shooter in his prime as he is today, but he was a pretty legit number one option in his prime.

Then you have prime Ginobili/Parker vs a prime Mo Williams/Anthony Parker? That is not close either. Both in talent and in winning.

The only thing you could argue is how much better Lebron could co exist with Shaq and how much better Shaq in his prime was better than Duncan in his prime.

[DPG21920]

DPG, not trying to diss you but when did you become a fan? You didn't get to see Shaq in 2000?

Yup, and I have watched the Lakers for just as long as the Spurs because my older brother has been a Laker fan since Magic for some reason. Given, at that point in time, there was no league pass and I did not get to see the Lakers as much as the Spurs, but I still watched.

I am a huge fan of Shaq's game, but I do not think Shaq's best is much better than Duncan's, if at all.

[Blackjack]

Is prime Shaq better than prime Duncan?

Better basketball player?

No.

More dominant and unguardable?

Absolutely.

Just glancing at the teams and more specifically the Spurs and Celtics, who look to be better overall teams, I can't really get over the idea of a prime Shaq and LeBron; a LeBron who'd be even more evolved than he is now if we're talking prime.

Duncan, 'Dyess, Garnett and Wallace would have a hard time staying on the court defending Shaq, and if LeBron's going to get to play against a defense that's already overloaded and on it's heels defensively? Well.. If they weren't already in foul-trouble, they'd soon be.

Shaq and LeBron are the two most physically dominant player players I've ever witnessed. And while I think the Spurs team could beat them given a fair whistle and the Celtics might as well, I figure a prime Shaq still gets away with lowering the shoulder and ever so gently using the elbows.;) And if the rules of today are in effect, no contact on the perimeter, you've got a Shaq-sized problem with LeBron.

I guess it'd really come down to officiating, is what I'm really trying to say.

I'm just sure as hell glad LeBron's not getting a prime Shaq.

[JJ Hickson]

A prime Shaq with a prime LeBron by a landslide. I can't believe some of you Spurs homers. :lmao

[DPG21920]

Not to mention, you have a group of guys in Duncan/McDyess/Ginobili who are almost disgustingly perfect from a chemistry standpoint for superstars. They put it out there every night and are great competitors with almost 0 ego.

Parker/Gino/RJ/Duncan have all been to or won the finals. Only Shaq on that team has. I know it is about primes, but everyone except Lebron has already seen their primes in this scenario and none tasted the finals except for Shaq and Bron.

[DPG21920]

A prime Shaq with a prime LeBron by a landslide. I can't believe some of you Spurs homers. :lmao

Every time there is a debate, someone comes along and plays the "homer" card. GTFO.

It is much closer than you give credit for girl.

[La Peace]

Prime LBJ and Shaq is ridiculous. Doesn't matter who you have got get out of the lane or you're getting dunked on vicious like. Doesn't matter.

They have two unstoppables. Every other team only has one.

[DPG21920]

I don't think Shaq could guard Duncan very effectively either. Shaq is definitely more foul prone than Duncan and Shaq has never been good in the pick and roll defense.

[Cry Havoc]

You're telling me a team with Varejao at the PF is going to beat a Spurs team with Parker, Manu, Jefferson, Duncan, and Dice in their primes?

Are you kidding?

Shaq and LeBron can get 35 a game, a piece. It won't matter. Who's going to guard Duncan on the Cavs? Who's going to guard Parker? Manu? LeBron is either going to have to play passively on defense or either a) foul a lot or b) use a lot of his energy.

Sure, the Spurs have no one who can guard the James or Shaq. The Cavs have no one who can guard anyone on the Spurs outside of Shaq vs. Dice. It would be murder every trip up the court for the Cavs defense. Manu and Parker running the fast break and flying off pick and rolls would decimate Cleveland. It would be a hell of a series.

Boston looks pretty tenacious with that lineup as well.

[ginobili's bald spot]

Spurfan doesn't realize that this title is nothing to brag about. It just means that your team has the most washed up players.

[TheMACHINE]

id choose the MAVS

[Culburn369]

Spurfan doesn't realize that this title is nothing to brag about.

Those kind of titles always get their shit goin'.

[LakeShow]

Cleveland. Shaq and Lebron in their prime or at the top of their game, is unstoppable.

[BWS-1994]

Honest question: Prime Shaq + prime LBJ or Prime Shaq + prime Kobe?

Or is this an "apples and oranges" question?

Team-wise, I'll pick the Spurs or the Cavs to win the Larry. I like the Mavs but they somehow remind me of the fast breaking Suns, good in the regular season but questionable in the post season.

[eisfeld]

Spurs, Mavs or Celtics.

[Sportstudi]

Team-wise, I have to admit to go with the Celtics or the Spurs. In terms of the most dominant players, the choice is pretty easy: Cavs. A 2000-Shaq together with LeBron? That's just sick!

Concerning the Mavs:
Kidd (1998-2003)
Howard (2007)
Marion (2004-2006)
Dirk (2005-2007)
Dampier (2003-04; in his double-double season with GSW)

They would be sweet as well. Probably not on the top, but definitely a very nice team though.

[Kamnik]

Cleveland. Shaq and Lebron in their prime or at the top of their game, is unstoppable.

Other team players would have nightmares the night before and after a game against them :lol

[carrao45]

I'm gonna go with the homer pick and pick the Spurs. Offensively and defensively, the Spurs are just sick. Prime Duncan and Dice patrolling the paint? Sheeeeyit. A prime Ginobili and Parker backcourt with prime Finley and Jefferson at the SF. Pretty sick.

The Celtics are pretty sick too, but prime Dice >>>>> prime Wallace and prime TD > prime KG, prime Parker >>> prime Rondo, and prime Ginobili > prime Allen.

Cavs are also sweet, but Shaq and LeBron aren't enough because the other three players were nothing special in their primes.

Prime Wallace was better than Dice ever was. And we don't know Rondo's prime yet, so it's impossible to tell. And Prime Allen>Prime Ginobili

[Darrin]

I can't do this.

[polysylab1k]

Arguments are inexorable no matter which team in prime version is considered best, as we'll never know how well the prime Sheed would work with Ray/KG/Paul Pierce, and it's also impossible to judge if the prime Finley gobbling that many shots a game would be a contributor or a tumor for the Spurs.

The Celtics and Spurs would be the most talented teams, in terms of the individuals' talents only while leaving alone the issues of chemistry and strategies. Apparently it's unfair to involve the Mavs in such a retarded simulated comparison. The boys in blue are plumply all in their primes, or not very far past their primes like Kidd and Marion, while the likes of Finley, Sheed, Shaq.. are already lightyears ahead of their peaks.

[resistanze]

Prime Wallace was better than Dice ever was. And we don't know Rondo's prime yet, so it's impossible to tell. And Prime Allen>Prime Ginobili

Pre-knee surgery Dice was a 20/10 beast with crazy athleticism. It'd be close.

Basically, they're compelling arguments for the Cavs, Celtics and Spurs. Very close between these three.

[JamStone]

Parker/Gino/RJ/Duncan have all been to or won the finals. Only Shaq on that team has. I know it is about primes, but everyone except Lebron has already seen their primes in this scenario and none tasted the finals except for Shaq and Bron.

Both LeBron and Anderson Varejao have been to the finals. They played the Spurs.



I don't think Shaq could guard Duncan very effectively either. Shaq is definitely more foul prone than Duncan and Shaq has never been good in the pick and roll defense.

Even a past-his-prime Shaq does a relatively decent job on Duncan. What he is able to do is keep Duncan further from the basket than 99% other guys that guard him. Duncan will still score, but Shaq can do a reasonable job without requiring double team help.



You're telling me a team with Varejao at the PF is going to beat a Spurs team with Parker, Manu, Jefferson, Duncan, and Dice in their primes?

AC Green and Samaki Walker say yes.



Are you kidding?

Shaq and LeBron can get 35 a game, a piece. It won't matter. Who's going to guard Duncan on the Cavs? Who's going to guard Parker? Manu? LeBron is either going to have to play passively on defense or either a) foul a lot or b) use a lot of his energy.

You talk as if Mo Williams, Anthony Parker, and Anderson Varejao are Larry, Curly, and Mo. They're not superstars or even perennial all stars. But, they are more than adequate NBA players. None of them perfect and none of them equal to the task of completely shutting down those Spurs players, but you imply that the Spurs will be shooting 90% from the field against them. Come on now. Anthony Parker is even a solid defender.



Sure, the Spurs have no one who can guard the James or Shaq. The Cavs have no one who can guard anyone on the Spurs outside of Shaq vs. Dice. It would be murder every trip up the court for the Cavs defense. Manu and Parker running the fast break and flying off pick and rolls would decimate Cleveland. It would be a hell of a series.

Shaq would guard Duncan. And, Duncan would get into as much foul trouble as Shaq would unless you're going to argue that Dice would guard Shaq, and a Shaq in his prime would dunk every single time down.

You underestimate the sheer dominance of Shaq in his prime. Absolutely no one could stop him. Double teams couldn't stop him. And, you have two 40% three-pointers on the perimeter awaiting kick-outs in Mo Williams and Anthony Parker. Oh, shit, forgot to mention they also got LeBron fucking James. No team listed with players all in their prime is stopping the Cavs on offense. None.

[stretch]

1. Cavs
2. Celtics
3. Mavs

[KidCongo]

Celtics is pretty beastly with their big 3 + Sheed, but prime Shaq and LBJ are too hard to pass up.

[ambchang]

People don't seem to remember how ridiculous a young McDyess was. He was a 20/12 guy who had a 42" vertical.

BTW, Duncan, Parker, Ginobili and McDyess in their prime > LeBron, Shaq and scrubs in their primes.

To me, it's between Celtics and Spurs.

[4down]

People don't seem to remember how ridiculous a young McDyess was. He was a 20/12 guy who had a 42" vertical.

BTW, Duncan, Parker, Ginobili and McDyess in their prime > LeBron, Shaq and scrubs in their primes.

To me, it's between Celtics and Spurs.

I absolutely agree with you on this one. - Although a prime Shaq and Lebron would be hard to handle even surrounded by scrubs.

[A_Duke]

Spurs would be the best all around easy, celts come in close second.. prime 99-00 Finley was a monster and so was Jefferson in 04-05 with the nets, Dyess was a beast with the Nuggets 10 years ago, these 3 guys averaged 22 ppg each in their primes, Dies with 12 boards !!! Theo Ratliff was 12 and 8 with 4bpg with Philly.. Oh yeah those are only the role players :)

[JamStone]

Dyess in his prime was an athletic freak without the consistent jumper he has now.

He was still giving up around 100 lbs to Shaq and still couldn't guard him. And, in his prime, Dice wouldn't be the jump shot threat Shaq or Varejao couldn't help off of if they wanted to double team Duncan.

[DPG21920]

Parker/Gino/RJ/Duncan have all been to or won the finals. Only Shaq on that team has. I know it is about primes, but everyone except Lebron has already seen their primes in this scenario and none tasted the finals except for Shaq and Bron.


Both LeBron and Anderson Varejao have been to the finals. They played the Spurs.


I meant only Shaq on the team had won. I said later in the same quote that Lebron had reached the finals. Left out only Andy.


Originally Posted by DPG21920 View Post

I don't think Shaq could guard Duncan very effectively either. Shaq is definitely more foul prone than Duncan and Shaq has never been good in the pick and roll defense.


Even a past-his-prime Shaq does a relatively decent job on Duncan. What he is able to do is keep Duncan further from the basket than 99% other guys that guard him. Duncan will still score, but Shaq can do a reasonable job without requiring double team help.


Not really. Shaq does average against a past-his-prime Tim. Even a prime Shaq was not known as a defensive dynamo. A prime Tim was an offensive wizard. It would have been difficult for Shaq, especially if you put him in the PnR with a prime Tim and TP/Ginobili.

[JamStone]

RJ didn't win a title.

[DPG21920]

RJ didn't win a title.


Parker/Gino/RJ/Duncan have all been to or won the finals. Only Shaq on that team has. I know it is about primes, but everyone except Lebron has already seen their primes in this scenario and none tasted the finals except for Shaq and Bron

Just left out Andy, because I mentioned Bron going to the finals in there.

[BeeGee]

Celtics easy. Spurs fans, please stop with this foolishness.

Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Sheed in their prime?

Lmao...game over. Any other choice is completely asinine.

Garnett, Pierce, and Allen are sure-bet Hall of Famers. The Sheed from 2000 (when he used to play in the post) was a complete beast, Rondo is a great young point guard years from his prime.

Tim Duncan is the only Hall of Famer from that Spurs squad. Parker can be. Manu, Finley, RJ, and Dice don't have a chance.

You gotta be kidding me picking ANYBODY over that Celtics team. Leave your "homer" at the door on threads like these, if you're capable.

[Hornets1]

Nola deserves to be in there instead of portland
In their PRIME:
Paul>>>>>>>>Miller
Mo-Pete<<<<<<<<Roy
Peja>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Batum
West>>Aldridge
Okafor>>Oden

[benefactor]

lmao Laker homers picking the Cavs just because of Shaq.

Celtics. Both the Cavs and Spurs could challenge, but prime Sheed was one of the best players to ever pick up a basketball. Putting him together with Garnett, Pierce and Allen is just too much for any team.

[DPG21920]

Shit, and I left out McDyess who went to the finals in 2005. That makes for every single member of the Spurs team (with either Finley or RJ) that have played in the finals. If you use Finley over RJ, that would mean 4 out of the 5 would have a ring.

Only Shaq would have a ring for CLE and only Lebron/Andy would have made it to the finals in addition.

Same with Celtics. All of their players would have a ring.

[benefactor]

Man it's close though. Prime Theo Ratliff and prime Michael Finley coming off the bench?

I'd probably go Celts, Spurs and Cavs in that order.

[BeeGee]

In their prime, the Celtics starting five would be illegal. That would be cheating.

[JamStone]

I meant only Shaq on the team had won. I said later in the same quote that Lebron had reached the finals. Left out only Andy.

Doesn't make sense for you to say that though if that was the point you were trying to make. Should have left out in the first part and just said "have won." Because it's not congruent to talk about the Spurs players that have gone to or won a finals, and then draw a distinction with Cavs players who have only "won a finals." If you include RJ to talk about players that have gone or won a finals, then when you compare, you talk about Cavs players that have gone or won a finals. But, if you did that, the point looks pretty silly. Either way, you presented a weak point.




Not really. Shaq does average against a past-his-prime Tim. Even a prime Shaq was not known as a defensive dynamo. A prime Tim was an offensive wizard. It would have been difficult for Shaq, especially if you put him in the PnR with a prime Tim and TP/Ginobili.

Shaq does better than average against a past-his-prime Tim. When Shaq and the Suns met the Spurs in the 2008 playffs, Shaq played Tim pretty well actually. It was when Shaq wasn't guarding Tim, that Tim could take over offensively. At any rate, both in their prime, Shaq could guard Tim as effectively as Tim could guard Shaq, which is neither would do all that well, but both would do better than most. Shaq from 2000-02 still had some agility for his size. He was never a defensive stopper because he never consistently put in the effort. But, he could play solid defense when he had to. You can pick-and-roll Shaq all you want, you already know he's going to stay low, stay under the PNR action and allow his guard defender to play through without him showing too hard, and let Tim have a midrange jumpers. Teams put Shaq in the pick-and-roll his entire career and he still got teams to championship and deep in playoff runs. There's no counter defense for Shaq barreling his way with brute force for dunks. Dunks still a higher percentage shot than midrange jumpers.

[Udokafan05]

Easily Spurs.

[DPG21920]

Doesn't make sense for you to say that though if that was the point you were trying to make. Should have left out in the first part and just said "have won." Because it's not congruent to talk about the Spurs players that have gone to or won a finals, and then draw a distinction with Cavs players who have only "won a finals." If you include RJ to talk about players that have gone or won a finals, then when you compare, you talk about Cavs players that have gone or won a finals. But, if you did that, the point looks pretty silly. Either way, you presented a weak point.

That makes absolutely no sense. How does finals experience in their primes not a good indicator of talent? Especially when each of the players played major roles?

If you are getting caught up with the possibly awkward way I wrote, please. I didn't just say the Cavs or Spurs players that won the finals. I said "who have either been to or won a finals". Could I have made it easier to understand? Yes. Did I clarify? Yes.






Shaq does better than average against a past-his-prime Tim. When Shaq and the Suns met the Spurs in the 2008 playffs, Shaq played Tim pretty well actually. It was when Shaq wasn't guarding Tim, that Tim could take over offensively. At any rate, both in their prime, Shaq could guard Tim as effectively as Tim could guard Shaq, which is neither would do all that well, but both would do better than most. Shaq from 2000-02 still had some agility for his size. He was never a defensive stopper because he never consistently put in the effort. But, he could play solid defense when he had to. You can pick-and-roll Shaq all you want, you already know he's going to stay low, stay under the PNR action and allow his guard defender to play through without him showing too hard, and let Tim have a midrange jumpers. Teams put Shaq in the pick-and-roll his entire career and he still got teams to championship and deep in playoff runs. There's no counter defense for Shaq barreling his way with brute force for dunks. Dunks still a higher percentage shot than midrange jumpers.

So thanks for making my point. Your point about "a past his prime Shaq" doing above average on a "past his prime Tim" is a silly/weak point to make and completely irrelevant because you self admittedly said that he would not do well against a prime Tim.

[23LeBronJames23]

Parker/Gino/RJ/Duncan have all been to or won the finals. Only Shaq on that team has. I know it is about primes, but everyone except Lebron has already seen their primes in this scenario and none tasted the finals except for Shaq and Bron.

How about Daniel Gibson, Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Anderson Varejao they have all played vs spurs in 2007 finals.

link?
www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CLE/2007.html

[024]

a prime tim duncan was sick and mcdyess pre injury was basically amare stoudemire with defense.

a first reaction would be to choose the cavs because of lebron and shaq but after those two, the rest of the cavs' roster is pretty mediocre. it's between the celtics and spurs. if you're counting bench players then spurs are better because prime finley coming of the bench would be incredible. a frontcourt of garnett and wallace versus duncan and mcdyess (pre injuries) would be pretty even with the spurs having the advantage in the backcourt and bench.

[resistanze]

While Shaq was dominant during his prime, the Lakers weren't extremely dominant/unbeatable. The only year they ran a train though the league, in 2001, Kobe did a lot of the heavy lifting. Shaq struggled in many games against the Blazers and Pacers in 2000, Kings in 2002. It's not inconceivable that the defense of the Spurs or Celtics would give Shaq troubles.

If we assume that a prime LeBron would develop a consistent jumper, then I can see why the Cavs would be clearly first. Kobe took over on a lot of games, especially in the 4th quarter during the 3-peat. Could LeBron provide the same role? How? Asking Shaq to get out of the paint and let him steamroll to the basket?

[manufan10]

It's close with the Spurs, Celtics, and Cavs. I'll even throw in the Lakers because of Kobe. Dallas would be like the run n gun Suns. It would be interesting to see the playoff battles that would happen with everyone in their primes on the teams that they're on now.

[DPG21920]

How about Daniel Gibson, Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Anderson Varejao they have all played vs spurs in 2007 finals.

link?
www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CLE/2007.html

Since when did the bench come into play? This is about the primes of the starting 5 listed. Keep up.

[JamStone]

That makes absolutely no sense. How does finals experience in their primes not a good indicator of talent? Especially when each of the players played major roles?

If you are getting caught up with the possibly awkward way I wrote, please. I didn't just say the Cavs or Spurs players that won the finals. I said "who have either been to or won a finals". Could I have made it easier to understand? Yes. Did I clarify? Yes.


Still should have just left out RJ and said players who "won finals" because you didn't draw a congruent parallel. Period.





So thanks for making my point. Your point about "a past his prime Shaq" doing above average on a "past his prime Tim" is a silly/weak point to make and completely irrelevant because you self admittedly said that he would not do well against a prime Tim.

My point still stands. In his prime, Shaq could do as well or better defensively against Duncan as any other big man in the league, because he forces Duncan further from the basket. I didn't call 2008 Tim Duncan "past his prime." You're doing that. That's why the point is pertinent. A past-his-prime Shaq defending Tim Duncan who isn't past his prime shows quite a bit.

What Shaq in his prime could do against Tim in his prime is defend him without double team help. That allows for his teammates not to have to collapse off of good jumpshooters. Yeah, Duncan could still score against Shaq. The benefit comes from not needing double teams. And, again, dunks are a higher percentage shot than midrange jumpers off the glass.

[DPG21920]

Still should have just left out RJ and said players who "won finals" because you didn't draw a congruent parallel. Period.

Finals experience and winning the finals are not congruent? If you are getting to the finals, there are parallels there. Getting to the finals is a large part of the game.

If I left RJ out, I would have to leave Lebron and Andy out, and I felt that their journey to the finals was an event of significance.







My point still stands. In his prime, Shaq could do as well or better defensively against Duncan as any other big man in the league, because he forces Duncan further from the basket. I didn't call 2008 Tim Duncan "past his prime." You're doing that. That's why the point is pertinent. A past-his-prime Shaq defending Tim Duncan who isn't past his prime shows quite a bit.

What Shaq in his prime could do against Tim in his prime is defend him without double team help. That allows for his teammates not to have to collapse off of good jumpshooters. Yeah, Duncan could still score against Shaq. The benefit comes from not needing double teams. And, again, dunks are a higher percentage shot than midrange jumpers off the glass.

LMAO at you acting like Tim is in his "prime". So I guess his MVP years were not his prime, but 2008. That is too funny and a real stretch to try and make your point "pertinent". Tim is clearly past his prime rendering your point invalid.

He would not do that great of a job at keeping Tim from the basket. He might make him work on occasion, but Tim would still find high percentage shots. Would Shaq shoot a higher percentage; yes more than likely. Tim would still shoot over 50%.

Shaq in his prime could not guard Duncan without help if he hoped to force Tim to shoot sub 50%. Now, what Shaq in his prime would have to do because the rest of his team is help them out.

There is absolutely no way that the Cavs could just play man to man, no help defense because Parker, Ginobili, Dice and either Finley or RJ to a certain degree would have a field day against their match ups and they could still go to Tim if they were in trouble and he can get a high percentage shot.

[timtonymanurich]

Celtics easy. Spurs fans, please stop with this foolishness.

Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG/Sheed in their prime?

Lmao...game over. Any other choice is completely asinine.

Garnett, Pierce, and Allen are sure-bet Hall of Famers. The Sheed from 2000 (when he used to play in the post) was a complete beast, Rondo is a great young point guard years from his prime.

Tim Duncan is the only Hall of Famer from that Spurs squad. Parker can be. Manu, Finley, RJ, and Dice don't have a chance.

You gotta be kidding me picking ANYBODY over that Celtics team. Leave your "homer" at the door on threads like these, if you're capable.
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Phil Jackson as the Best coach ever??? More like most FORTUNATE coach ever! Homeboy has needed the best players in their Genre just to get the rings he has. You put Jeff Van Gundy as MJ's coach and as Shaqs and Kobe's coach and all of a sudden NO ONES talking about Phil Jacko anymore. Gimme a break! Phil Jackson as the best coach....:smokin

[My Fault]

Hard to say cause a Celtic and Spurs with the weapons they have would be sick. Still have to go with the Cavs cause Shaq and Lebron would be unstoppable. Doesn't matter the scrubs around them. Still have shooters in Parker and Williams

[DPG21920]

I am not trying to say Shaq never gave Tim problems defensively. He has held Tim to more than his far share of sub 50% nights.

I am strictly speaking of prime vs prime. Over the course of their careers, Shaq has probably held Tim to modest shooting numbers, but prime Tim(which imo is only a few years) I am sure fared much better.

[DPG21920]

Hard to say cause a Celtic and Spurs with the weapons they have would be sick. Still have to go with the Cavs cause Shaq and Lebron would be unstoppable. Doesn't matter the scrubs around them. Still have shooters in Parker and Williams


Well, I think this is where the vast majority of people are disagreeing. Normally this would be correct, but in this scenario, where everyone is in their primes, the talent does matter, because even though Shaq is probably the most dominant player ever, he is not the best player ever.

Prime front lines of Duncan/McDyess / Sheed / KG are close enough defensively all around to where the other guys would have to come into play imo.

Not to mention on the defensive end where Shaq would have to guard them.

[JamStone]

Finals experience and winning the finals are not congruent? If you are getting to the finals, there are parallels there. Getting to the finals is a large part of the game.

If I left RJ out, I would have to leave Lebron and Andy out, and I felt that their journey to the finals was an event of significance.

You leaving out LeBron in the second sentence and Andy out completely made the point incongruent. Your point has little merit if you're going to say, "Spurs have Parker/Gino/RJ/Duncan who have had finals experience or won the finals, while the Cavs only have Shaq, LeBron, and Varejao."

That's not much of a difference at all. Both teams have multiple guys with finals experience. So why draw the distinction at all? You leaving out Andy in the first place and then forgetting to mention LeBron initially is why you drew the distinction, otherwise, it's not much of a distinction at all.




LMAO at you acting like Tim is in his "prime". So I guess his MVP years were not his prime, but 2008. That is too funny and a real stretch to try and make your point "pertinent". Tim is clearly past his prime rendering your point invalid.

Your opinion. I don't think 2008 Duncan was in his best years of his prime. But, I don't call him "past his prime" just yet. I'd call him at the tail end of his prime. But, that's a difference in opinion then. The 2008 playoffs still saw a Tim Duncan average 20 points and 14.5 rebounds. His career playoff numbers are 23 points and 12.6 rebounds.

But, if you say so.



He would not do that great of a job at keeping Tim from the basket. He might make him work on occasion, but Tim would still find high percentage shots. Would Shaq shoot a higher percentage; yes more than likely. Tim would still shoot over 50%.

That's part of my point. Shaq would make Duncan work harder than almost any other big man. When the two met in the playoffs when both were in their prime, Shaq's teams often held Duncan under 50%. Hard to break down every single possession of every single game to know how well Shaq defended Duncan. But, Tim shooting over 50% on Shaq is no guarantee at all.



Shaq in his prime could not guard Duncan without help if he hoped to force Tim to shoot sub 50%. Now, what Shaq in his prime would have to do because the rest of his team is help them out.

There is absolutely no way that the Cavs could just play man to man, no help defense because Parker, Ginobili, Dice and either Finley or RJ to a certain degree would have a field day against their match ups and they could still go to Tim if they were in trouble and he can get a high percentage shot.

Neither Finley or RJ would have a field day against LeBron. Stop it. Dice in his prime didn't have the consistent jump shot he has now. Varejao or Shaq could force him to shoot jumpers. Parker is an adequate defender. None of those guys would completely shut down any of them, but you're talking like each would be scoring 40 points a game on 80% FG shooting. You need to really think about what you're arguing. Tony Parker would have a very good advantage. But, as long as Mo Williams counters offensively, which he will get plenty of open looks, that match-up won't kill the Cavs.

The Spurs would not be able to contain Shaq or LeBron at all, not even remotely. And, because of that, Mo Williams and Anthony Parker will get plenty of open looks. Anthony Parker is a career 41.5% three point shooter. Mo Williams over 38% from three point range. They're not stopping Shaq. They're not stopping LeBron. They have very good jump-shooters for kick-outs. What's stopping Shaq and LeBron from dunking 25 times each in a game? Duncan, RJ/Finley will foul out in the first 5 minutes of the game. No, no team is beating a team that has Shaq in his prime AND LeBron in his prime. It's not happening.

[DPG21920]

Neither Finley or RJ would have a field day against LeBron. Stop it. Dice in his prime didn't have the consistent jump shot he has now. Varejao or Shaq could force him to shoot jumpers. Parker is an adequate defender. None of those guys would completely shut down any of them, but you're talking like each would be scoring 40 points a game on 80% FG shooting. You need to really think about what you're arguing. Tony Parker would have a very good advantage. But, as long as Mo Williams counters offensively, which he will get plenty of open looks, that match-up won't kill the Cavs.

The Spurs would not be able to contain Shaq or LeBron at all, not even remotely. And, because of that, Mo Williams and Anthony Parker will get plenty of open looks. Anthony Parker is a career 41.5% three point shooter. Mo Williams over 38% from three point range. They're not stopping Shaq. They're not stopping LeBron. They have very good jump-shooters for kick-outs. What's stopping Shaq and LeBron from dunking 25 times each in a game? Duncan, RJ/Finley will foul out in the first 5 minutes of the game. No, no team is beating a team that has Shaq in his prime AND LeBron in his prime. It's not happening.

No one to shut down Lebron? Lebron was shut down by Bowen before. It can be done and a prime defensive RJ has the size and athleticism to stay in front of Lebron pretty well. He could sag off and dare Lebron to shoot jumpers. That would be easier than having Andy do it to McDyess. Lebron still does not have a consistent jumper or low post game. He is a FT machine and with Shaq in that space, it could cause problems.

Who said anything about averaging 40 points and shooting 80%? Kobe drops 30's on Bruce Bowen and he does not shoot 80%, yet he still is considered to have an advantage. It would be the same for Parker and Ginobili and Dice and yes even Finley. Finley was an amazing athlete and offensive player in his prime. Given, it would not be the same advantages as the others, but he would still have to work on that end of the floor.

I wrote first that Dice's jump shot was not nearly as refined as it was now, but it was not piss poor like you make it out to be. Also, he is way to mobile and athletic for Andy to stay in front of him. You are acting like Andy could just sag off and stand underneath the rim and dare Dice to shoot. Dice would ram it straight down his throat.

[timtonymanurich]

You leaving out LeBron in the second sentence and Andy out completely made the point incongruent. Your point has little merit if you're going to say, "Spurs have Parker/Gino/RJ/Duncan who have had finals experience or won the finals, while the Cavs only have Shaq, LeBron, and Varejao."

That's not much of a difference at all. Both teams have multiple guys with finals experience. So why draw the distinction at all? You leaving out Andy in the first place and then forgetting to mention LeBron initially is why you drew the distinction, otherwise, it's not much of a distinction at all.





Your opinion. I don't think 2008 Duncan was in his best years of his prime. But, I don't call him "past his prime" just yet. I'd call him at the tail end of his prime. But, that's a difference in opinion then. The 2008 playoffs still saw a Tim Duncan average 20 points and 14.5 rebounds. His career playoff numbers are 23 points and 12.6 rebounds.

But, if you say so.




That's part of my point. Shaq would make Duncan work harder than almost any other big man. When the two met in the playoffs when both were in their prime, Shaq's teams often held Duncan under 50%. Hard to break down every single possession of every single game to know how well Shaq defended Duncan. But, Tim shooting over 50% on Shaq is no guarantee at all.




Neither Finley or RJ would have a field day against LeBron. Stop it. Dice in his prime didn't have the consistent jump shot he has now. Varejao or Shaq could force him to shoot jumpers. Parker is an adequate defender. None of those guys would completely shut down any of them, but you're talking like each would be scoring 40 points a game on 80% FG shooting. You need to really think about what you're arguing. Tony Parker would have a very good advantage. But, as long as Mo Williams counters offensively, which he will get plenty of open looks, that match-up won't kill the Cavs.

The Spurs would not be able to contain Shaq or LeBron at all, not even remotely. And, because of that, Mo Williams and Anthony Parker will get plenty of open looks. Anthony Parker is a career 41.5% three point shooter. Mo Williams over 38% from three point range. They're not stopping Shaq. They're not stopping LeBron. They have very good jump-shooters for kick-outs. What's stopping Shaq and LeBron from dunking 25 times each in a game? Duncan, RJ/Finley will foul out in the first 5 minutes of the game. No, no team is beating a team that has Shaq in his prime AND LeBron in his prime. It's not happening.

WOW! Chiggity-check out how supa-OVER confident this imbecile is!! Gives the Spurs revamped roster with three proven, multi-champion players and coach in Ginobili, Duncan and Parker, and Popovich, NO CHANCE against a team that had just thrown in the addition of a 4 time champ in Shaq who is in more need of retirement than Phil Jackson, combined with a spectacular reg. season player and still unproven playoff player in LeBron and a coach who is (just like Phil Jackson) is riding on the coat-tails of his players! C'MON!! SA wouldnt SWEEP the Cavs, but they would brutally beat the Cavs in a 4-2 series win where Joey Crawford and Ben Salvatore throw two games for the Cavs. SA is the Obvious favorite in this matchup. Try, Try again bubble-head!:ihit:ihit:ihit:ihit

[BUMP]

I think some people forget how dominant Shaq really was

sUE_0LRxtpU

[BUMP]

Shaq who is in more need of retirement than Phil Jackson

Wow, looks like you missed the entire point of this thread.

Congrats :tu

[DPG21920]

but you're talking like each would be scoring 40 points a game on 80% FG shooting.

What's stopping Shaq and LeBron from dunking 25 times each in a game?

That is some awesome self ownage right there as well. I say players like Parker/Ginobili/RJ or Finley/McDyess all have offensive advantages over the Cavs. You say "you are acting like they would score 40 points a game on 80% shooting". When I never said anything close to that.

Then you say "whats stopping Shaq and Lebron from dunking 25 TIMES EACH IN A GAME" :lmao

So Shaq and Lebron would each average 50 PPG on 100% shooting? Listen to yourself and be real. Did either of them ever average anywhere close to that? Especially against a team with one of the best defensive anchor big men ever? Man.......

[DPG21920]

I think some people forget how dominant Shaq really was

sUE_0LRxtpU

uN9FQ3RGjX8

[My Fault]

Well, I think this is where the vast majority of people are disagreeing. Normally this would be correct, but in this scenario, where everyone is in their primes, the talent does matter, because even though Shaq is probably the most dominant player ever, he is not the best player ever.

Prime front lines of Duncan/McDyess / Sheed / KG are close enough defensively all around to where the other guys would have to come into play imo.

Not to mention on the defensive end where Shaq would have to guard them.
Yet there's still Lebron... You can't focus your team purely to stop Shaq cause another unstoppable force in Lebron will make you pay. Those two would just be a nightmare for all other teams.

[DPG21920]

Yet there's still Lebron... You can't focus your team purely to stop Shaq cause another unstoppable force in Lebron will make you pay. Those two would just be a nightmare for all other teams.

I agree it would be a tough match up. But Lebron still has a shaky jump shot and an average at best low post game. His game is predicated on using size and speed to get to the rim and draw fouls while finishing. Shaq will occupy that same space.

Let me ask you this: Who is more well equipped to stop someone in these match ups in their primes?

Richard Jefferson trying to stop Lebron?

Mo Williams trying to stop Tony Parker?

Anthony Parker trying to stop Manu Ginobili?

Anderson Varejao trying to stop Antonio McDyess?


Also, rank them in tiers of who has the best advantage and why?

Also, in case you never have seen McDyess play in his prime:

SQC5g7yezgs

[TheMACHINE]

I agree it would be a tough match up. But Lebron still has a shaky jump shot and an average at best low post game. He is game is predicated on using size and speed to get to the rim and draw fouls while finishing. Shaq will occupy that same space.

Let me ask you this: Who is more well equipped to stop someone in these match ups in their primes?

Richard Jefferson trying to stop Lebron?

Mo Williams trying to stop Tony Parker?

Anthony Parker trying to stop Manu Ginobili?

Anderson Varejao trying to stop Antonio McDyess?


Also, rank them in tiers of who has the best advantage and why?

Also, in case you never have seen McDyess play in his prime:

SQC5g7yezgs

I agree...everyone but Shaq, even in thier prime really hasnt showed much compared to the other teams listed.

[BUMP]

Well let's narrow it down

The Mavs/Blazers/Magic aren't really in the discussion

The Lakers you could make a small case for because of Bryant, Gasol, Artest, Odom and the defense of Fisher, Bynum, and Artest

But it comes down to the Cavs/Spurs/Celtics ultimately as the last three standing.

I see the Spurs as the weakest of the three. A prime Michael Finley, and Parker starting would make for a strong backcourt but Mo Williams is no slouch in his prime either. LeBron and Jefferson is really no contest. It would be much harder for Jefferson to get in a rhythm when guarding a player of that calibre. Tim Duncan and Shaq pretty much wash each other out but Shaq will get anybody in foul trouble and when Tim isn't in there, nobody will even slow him down.

The best two teams IMO are the Cavs/Celtics.

With a prime Shaq and a prime Lebron, they resemble the early 00 Lakers. The only difference is defense. The Lakers played incredible defense, and had tall physical bodies to throw at people while the Cavs really don't.

The Celtics have a bunch of guys they could throw at Shaq. Perkins, Garnett, Wallace, Davis. The talent on Boston would be just too much. A prime Sheed would eat up Varejao inside, while Garnett could take Shaq outside. LeBron would still get his, but the Celtics have bigger defenders that would make him work a little more than SA would

[DPG21920]

But McDyess would not eat up Varejao Bump? Also, while Mo Williams in his prime is a good offensive player, TP is an above average defender, while Mo is not.

Anthony Parker is a good 3 point shooter, but not much else and Ginobili is an above average defender when not having to guard someone that is good down low and dedicated to the low block.

Richard Jefferson can be a number one option on offense and his prime defense was better than his offense. He would make Lebron work just about harder than anyone could.

All 5 players on the Spurs could be #1 offensive options or close 2nds.

[TheMACHINE]

Well let's narrow it down

The Mavs/Blazers/Magic aren't really in the discussion

The Lakers you could make a small case for because of Bryant, Gasol, Artest, Odom and the defense of Fisher, Bynum, and Artest

But it comes down to the Cavs/Spurs/Celtics ultimately as the last three standing.

I see the Spurs as the weakest of the three. A prime Michael Finley, and Parker starting would make for a strong backcourt but Mo Williams is no slouch in his prime either. LeBron and Jefferson is really no contest. It would be much harder for Jefferson to get in a rhythm when guarding a player of that calibre. Tim Duncan and Shaq pretty much wash each other out but Shaq will get anybody in foul trouble and when Tim isn't in there, nobody will even slow him down.

The best two teams IMO are the Cavs/Celtics.

With a prime Shaq and a prime Lebron, they resemble the early 00 Lakers. The only difference is defense. The Lakers played incredible defense, and had tall physical bodies to throw at people while the Cavs really don't.

The Celtics have a bunch of guys they could throw at Shaq. Perkins, Garnett, Wallace, Davis. The talent on Boston would be just too much. A prime Sheed would eat up Varejao inside, while Garnett could take Shaq outside. LeBron would still get his, but the Celtics have bigger defenders that would make him work a little more than SA would

Its the Celtics..2 prime palyers in Lebron and Shaq cant DOMINATE teams with 4-5 awesome PRIME players.

[Muser]

Celtics
Cavs
Spurs
Lakers
The rest

[BUMP]

Its the Celtics..2 prime palyers in Lebron and Shaq cant DOMINATE teams with 4-5 awesome PRIME players.

Thats what i said....did you stop reading or something?

[BUMP]

But McDyess would not eat up Varejao Bump? Also, while Mo Williams in his prime is a good offensive player, TP is an above average defender, while Mo is not.

Anthony Parker is a good 3 point shooter, but not much else and Ginobili is an above average defender when not having to guard someone that is good down low and dedicated to the low block.

Richard Jefferson can be a number one option on offense and his prime defense was better than his offense. He would make Lebron work just about harder than anyone could.

All 5 players on the Spurs could be #1 offensive options or close 2nds.

Honestly, I wouldn't really think so.

He would have the advantage, but when you have prime Jefferson, Duncan, Parker, Ginobli, and Finley on the court at the same time as you, your not gonna get many touches :lol

[timtonymanurich]

Wow, looks like you missed the entire point of this thread.

Congrats :tu

Way to notice my side-comment about the old and aged Shaq.

It is noted that this thread is entirely about the starting lineups in their prime. So way to try and make yourself sound important. :pimpslap

Now I see why you're a Mavs fan.

[TheMACHINE]

Thats what i said....did you stop reading or something?

im agreeing with u

[A_Duke]

Well let's narrow it down

The Mavs/Blazers/Magic aren't really in the discussion

The Lakers you could make a small case for because of Bryant, Gasol, Artest, Odom and the defense of Fisher, Bynum, and Artest

But it comes down to the Cavs/Spurs/Celtics ultimately as the last three standing.

I see the Spurs as the weakest of the three. A prime Michael Finley, and Parker starting would make for a strong backcourt but Mo Williams is no slouch in his prime either. LeBron and Jefferson is really no contest. It would be much harder for Jefferson to get in a rhythm when guarding a player of that calibre. Tim Duncan and Shaq pretty much wash each other out but Shaq will get anybody in foul trouble and when Tim isn't in there, nobody will even slow him down.

The best two teams IMO are the Cavs/Celtics.

With a prime Shaq and a prime Lebron, they resemble the early 00 Lakers. The only difference is defense. The Lakers played incredible defense, and had tall physical bodies to throw at people while the Cavs really don't.

The Celtics have a bunch of guys they could throw at Shaq. Perkins, Garnett, Wallace, Davis. The talent on Boston would be just too much. A prime Sheed would eat up Varejao inside, while Garnett could take Shaq outside. LeBron would still get his, but the Celtics have bigger defenders that would make him work a little more than SA would

You don't even take Ginobli into account, and underestimate how good of a player pre-injury Mcdyess was. Prime Dyess > Prime Sheed.

Btw Mo Williams who happens to be in his prime right now is a slouch when compared to Parker(also in his prime), Ginobli, or Finley in their primes.

but yeah i take back my earlier statement of Spurs taking this easily and say it is a toss up between the Celts and Spurs. :toast

[BUMP]

im agreeing with u

:toast

[ffadicted]

Spurs by far

[TheMACHINE]

:toast

except for putting Cavs at #2....Spurs got # 2...i even think the Mavs would beat the Cavs. :downspin:

[23LeBronJames23]

except for putting Cavs at #2....Spurs got # 2...i even think the Mavs would beat the Cavs. :downspin:

not gonna happen

[Mark Jackson]

When you look at all these teams, how can you not say its the Boston Celtics?

Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Kevin Gawnett, Rasheed Wallace, Rajon Rondo are you kidding me?

Turn out the lights, game over, Not on my watch!

[DPG21920]

Mark Jackson FTW

[My Fault]

Well let's narrow it down

The Mavs/Blazers/Magic aren't really in the discussion

The Lakers you could make a small case for because of Bryant, Gasol, Artest, Odom and the defense of Fisher, Bynum, and Artest

But it comes down to the Cavs/Spurs/Celtics ultimately as the last three standing.

I see the Spurs as the weakest of the three. A prime Michael Finley, and Parker starting would make for a strong backcourt but Mo Williams is no slouch in his prime either. LeBron and Jefferson is really no contest. It would be much harder for Jefferson to get in a rhythm when guarding a player of that calibre. Tim Duncan and Shaq pretty much wash each other out but Shaq will get anybody in foul trouble and when Tim isn't in there, nobody will even slow him down.

The best two teams IMO are the Cavs/Celtics.

With a prime Shaq and a prime Lebron, they resemble the early 00 Lakers. The only difference is defense. The Lakers played incredible defense, and had tall physical bodies to throw at people while the Cavs really don't.

The Celtics have a bunch of guys they could throw at Shaq. Perkins, Garnett, Wallace, Davis. The talent on Boston would be just too much. A prime Sheed would eat up Varejao inside, while Garnett could take Shaq outside. LeBron would still get his, but the Celtics have bigger defenders that would make him work a little more than SA would
I agree with most of this except Spurs being the weakest cause it seem as you forgot about Ginobili who in his prime could take over a game and once caught fire nobody could stop him.

[mfanatic]

Ok simple break down:

IN THEIR PRIMES:

Parker > Rondo
Manu > Allen
RJ + Finely off the bench > Paul Pierce + Tony Allen?
Duncan > KG
Big Mike < Sheed

bench, PRIME Theo Ratliff + Finely + BOWEN (If resigns) + Mason + Hill >
Prime Perkins, House, and Davis.

Spurs > Celtics easily.

Parker > Williams
Manu > Parker
RJ < Lebron
Duncan > AV
Ratliff + Big Mike off the bench > Shaq

Cavs have no bench at all anyway.

You guys aren't giving any credit to how good a PRIME Duncan, Manu 2-3 years ago, Parker NOW, and Big Mike/Ratliff in their PRIME would be.

[Muser]

Ratliff + Big Mike off the bench > Shaq

Cavs have no bench at all anyway.

You guys aren't giving any credit to how good a PRIME Duncan, Manu 2-3 years ago, Parker NOW, and Big Mike/Ratliff in their PRIME would be.


Pot/Kettle/Black

You're not giving shaq any credit.

[JamStone]

Ratliff + Big Mike off the bench > Shaq


Lol what???

[DPG21920]

Lol what???

For once we agree :lol

[BUMP]

:rollin^

[23LeBronJames23]

[QUOTE=mfanatic;3658532]Ok simple break down:

IN THEIR PRIMES:

Parker > Rondo
Manu > Allen
RJ + Finely off the bench > Paul Pierce + Tony Allen?
Duncan > KG
Big Mike < Sheed

bench, PRIME Theo Ratliff + Finely + BOWEN (If resigns) + Mason + Hill >
Prime Perkins, House, and Davis.

Spurs > Celtics easily.

Parker > Williams
Manu > Parker
RJ < Lebron
Duncan > AV
Ratliff + Big Mike off the bench > Shaq

there is no way dice>shaq u must be high or mentaly retarded

and Ray>Ginobli jus sayin the truth

[mfanatic]

Shaq isn't going to play 48 Minutes a game. Big Z was trash in his Prime anyway. Prime Theo Ratliff + Mcdyess > Shaq + Big Z. We'd be up and down the court faster than they could make it to half-court

[Muser]

Shaq isn't going to play 48 Minutes a game. Big Z was trash in his Prime anyway. Prime Theo Ratliff + Mcdyess > Shaq + Big Z. We'd be up and down the court faster than they could make it to half-court

You haven't been watching NBA too long have you?

[DJB]

Honestly, I wouldn't really think so.

He would have the advantage, but when you have prime Jefferson, Duncan, Parker, Ginobli, and Finley on the court at the same time as you, your not gonna get many touches :lol


You do realize that there's only 5 players allowed on the court per team in basketball right?

[My Fault]

Shaq isn't going to play 48 Minutes a game. Big Z was trash in his Prime anyway. Prime Theo Ratliff + Mcdyess > Shaq + Big Z. We'd be up and down the court faster than they could make it to half-court
Wtf??

[23LeBronJames23]

Since when did the bench come into play? This is about the primes of the starting 5 listed. Keep up.

the title of this thread say " ALL PLAYERS in their prime time, which teams the best"

^^you see it says All! not starting 5

[23LeBronJames23]

You do realize that there's only 5 players allowed on the court per team in basketball right?

:lmao he must be talkin bout sumthing else certainley not the NBA :lmao

[BUMP]

:lmao he must be talkin bout sumthing else certainley not the NBA :lmao

Are you two going out?

[23LeBronJames23]

Are you two going out?

who?

[Leetonidas]

I can't believe everyone here is really picking the Cavs over the Celts or Spurs because it's one of them, not the Cavs.

Yes Shaq was extremely dominant in his heyday and LeBron will be too, but the rest of that roster blows. PRIME Tim Duncan, circa 2002, averaged 25.5 points, 12.7 rebounds, and 2.5 blocks. Timmy D in his prime was the best PF of all-time and a defensive mastermind. He could hold his own versus Shaq defensively. Prime RJ could do his best on LeBron. But you have to think of it this way. The Cavs have two amazing players in their primes. Outside of James and O'Neal, they got nothing.

The Spurs, meanwhile have the greatest PF ever, a prime Dice which like most have said is Stoudemire with defense, and add in prime versions of Ginobili and Parker as well as Finley off the bench? You wouldn't be able to contain that offense and their defense would still be impressive with Duncan and McDyess holding down the paint.

Shaq and LeBron ain't gonna do it by themselves.

[DPG21920]

Dude, Big Z was a freaking beast before injuries are you kidding me? That would be a disgusting combo in their primes.

[resistanze]

Wait, who the fuck is Big Mike?

[JamStone]

Here's where I see the Cavs being the team to beat.

Teams of five superstars just don't work. Teams with four main guys don't really work either. Until the Spurs, teams with three star players were perceived to have too many guys that needed the ball. That's why two superstars with the right role players often did the job. Michael and Scottie then Shaq and Kobe. Even early Spurs with Tim and David. We've seen these super teams before with the 2004 Lakers and the early 2000 Kings where there's an all star caliber player at basically every position. They'll be very, very good teams. But, they won't necessarily win it all or be unbeatable.

Would McDyess have the advantage over Varejao? Sure, offensively. But, how much will he dominate with 10 shot attempts a game? Could Richard Jefferson hold his own against LeBron? Maybe compared to other small forwards, but not enough to call it even, and he won't really be able to make LeBron work on defense too much unless you're going to really take the ball out of Parker's, Ginobili's, and Duncan's hands on offense. RJ would probably get 10 or so FGA as well. You don't dominate a match-up when you don't have enough touches to make it a huge difference.

Even in this hypothetical, this is still basketball and still a team game. Dice in his prime and RJ in his prime are very good players. Dice isn't going to put up 20/10 on a team where he's the fourth or fifth option on offense and on a team he plays next to Tim Duncan. He just won't. With his three prime years in Denver, none of those three Nuggets teams had winning records or went to the playoffs. On a better team with better teammates, even the athletic freak that McDyess was would not put up those same numbers. Does he have an advantage over Varejao? Absolutely. You're still talking probably the difference between Dice putting up something like 11 points and 9 rebounds to Varejao putting up 8 points and 8 rebounds. Not the difference some of you think it is because of the fact that basketball is still a team game.

Despite the fact that Duncan and Parker and Ginobili are selfless team players, they are still the main guys who will get most of the touches and shots. That's just how it is.

When you realize that, you can see why a team that has two dominant players who will together carry the scoring load can actually work better. And, to say the Cavs have nothing after Shaq and LeBron is really naive and lacks bigger picture analysis. Mo Williams and Anthony Parker are 40% three point shooters. They will get plenty of kickouts for open jumpers. Varejao can finish inside when teams double team Shaq. He's actually a better player than some would give him credit for. And both Anthony Parker and Anderson Varejao are above average defenders. They aren't going to stop the likes of Manu and Dice, but they'll do solid jobs without requiring too much help from teammates.

Parker would and should dominate Mo Williams, but not more so than LeBron should dominate RJ/Finley. Same thing with Duncan and Shaq.

Two of the most unstoppable basketball players in this generation of NBA basketball on the same team, both in their prime with role players that know how to be role players. That's why the Cavs would win.

[Phenomanul]

People will crucify me for this... but the season Shaq produced in 2000 is overrated... Don't get me wrong, the guy truly deserved an MVP award that year, but to say that he produced the most dominant season of the decade (and thus make a hyperbole of his supposed greatness) is stretching the truth beyond reality. That word, "dominance," only comes to mind because The 'Big' Mouth himself (aka Shaq) coined it as a means of self-glorification... everybody latched on to it since.

How was Shaq that much better only one year removed from being swept in the 1999 Playoffs??? Does one year much difference make in the context of primes??? The reason why the Lakers were so much better than everyone else from 2000-2002 is because they began to incorporate Tex Winter's offense, because of Phil Jackson's arrival, Kobe's exponential growth, and because Lakers management decided to surround Shaq with the clutchest 3-point bombers in the league (Horry, Fox, Fisher, Rice, Shaw), while getting rid of Van-Exel's cancerous locker-room personality...

And if they had been as dominant as some Laker fans here are suggesting then the Lakers wouldn't have needed miracles to get past the 2000 Blazers and the 2002 Kings (talk about revisionist-history)... In fact, I don't recall the 1996 Bulls being taken to 7 games at all... now that was dominance.

Duncan was producing near quadruple doubles in his prime... statistically speaking of course... Which is why I would take Duncan in his prime over Shaq.... Duncan was a greater player than Shaq IMO, simply because he posessed excellent footwork and could take you off-the dribble, shoot from 17ft in, work with either hand, boasted a forray of up and under moves around the basket, and was deadly shooting off the glass... to top it off, he anchored one of the best defensive teams in the history of the league... Shaquille simply overpowered and dunked over folks while possessing a variety of baby-hooks 5 feet around the bucket... their free-throw defficiencies were notorious - so that's a wash (even though Duncan's numbers are several percentage points higher than Shaq's)...

Fact of the matter is that the Spurs have won titles with a core of three players... Duncan dominated in 1999 and 2003, Ginobili dominated in 2005, and Parker dominated in 2007... now imagine all of them at their peak... and then add a pre-injury Dice, an all-star level Finley and Richard Jefferson to the mix... This is way too much talent, way too much versatility, and proven chemistry....

No matter how great two players are.... 5 great players will always trump 2 great players any day of the week...

Spurs vs. Celtics

Duncan will end up with 6 championship rings before it's all said and done... no one will dare undervalue or underrate him then...

[DPG21920]

Typically 5 superstars won't work, but prime McDyess and RJ are still selfless and would not care too much one can assume. That is why they would be better. You have guys with incredible talent, with advantages over most of the positions that do not care what options they are and that are all versatile.

If Shaq got into foul trouble or was off, it would have to be Lebron. The Spurs team would have guys who can step up at any given time. Yes, on average, Dice and RJ might have limited touches, but on any given night they could dominate the guy guarding them.

You cannot say the same for the Cavs.

[benefactor]

Typically 5 superstars won't work, but prime McDyess and RJ are still selfless and would not care too much one can assume. That is why they would be better. You have guys with incredible talent, with advantages over most of the positions that do not care what options they are and that are all versatile.

If Shaq got into foul trouble or was off, it would have to be Lebron. The Spurs team would have guys who can step up at any given time. Yes, on average, Dice and RJ might have limited touches, but on any given night they could dominate the guy guarding them.

You cannot say the same for the Cavs.
This was the first thing that came to my mind when the too many superstars argument was brought up. Don't forget that Finley off the bench would dominate any other teams best bench player offensively and Ratliff down low would keep the Spurs from having any sort of dropoff defensively around the rim.

[JamStone]

You can enter in countless other wrinkles to the arguments once you start talking about players fouling out and what players are on the bench. The original post and discussion is about the starting five of each team. And, thus, that's what we have been basing our arguments on predominantly.

The fact that RJ and Dice are selfless players doesn't change the fact that on a team with Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili, they are role players. Being role players, despite any advantage they have in their match-ups, they can't expose it nearly as much as if they were the #1 or #2 option on offense. They simply can't do that with 8-12 shot attempts a game. The mismatche advantages are mitigated because of that.

Once you start talking about "if" this or that, the discussion takes a turn into more and more hypothetical scenarios. "If Shaq fouls out, you only have LeBron." Well, what if Shaq doesn't get into foul trouble but Duncan does? What then?

Look, I know Spurs fans desperately want to feel like they are justified in giving the edge to the Spurs team. So, it's fine if that's what you truly believe.

Fact is, no one on any of the teams mentioned is stopping Shaq or LeBron. In their primes, they are the two most dominant players of all the players on all the teams mentioned. And, you have them on the same team. They have two high percentage three point shooters and two solid to very good defenders as role players who are not only accustomed to playing secondary roles, but are comfortable with playing secondary roles. To me, that trumps the other teams.

[DPG21920]

Since when in their primes has anyone dunked 25 times a game Jam? You are giving far too much credit to the "unstoppable" part of your argument.

If that were the case Shaq would have gotten the ball every time and scored. Same with the Lebron. Yet Shaq did not and Lebron got shut down by Bruce Bowen. It has been done.

The Spurs could certainly double Lebron in this scenario and get away with it. The Cavs have no way to stop the Spurs from scoring. None.

[JamStone]

Hyperbole. And, that was a post from much earlier.

The Spurs can double the same way teams doubled Duncan with 40% shooters all out on the three point line. Wasn't a good strategy for many teams.

[spursfan1000]

I would have to say either the Celtics/Spurs

[DPG21920]

In the 2007, the team Lebron got to the finals with:

Sasha Pavlovic shot 40% from 3
Daniel Gibson shot 42% from 3

That is comparable to what Antony Parker gives you (and Sasha is just as good at getting to the rim as him) and what Mo gives you (although Mo is a better all around scorer). But from a spacing and keeping guys honest standpoint, it is comparable. It did not work and the Spurs could double then and in this scenario. Tim could do enough against Shaq. Especially if you are not going to bring up the hypothetical situations like foul trouble as you mentioned.

[DPG21920]

Hyperbole. And, that was a post from much earlier.

The Spurs can double the same way teams doubled Duncan with 40% shooters all out on the three point line. Wasn't a good strategy for many teams.

Except the teams weren't full of uber athletic, committed defenders with skill and size and speed. And Tim is a much better passer than most. Shaq and Lebron are both excellent though.

[DPG21920]

Anderson Varejao is just too much of a liability on offense. The Spurs can choose to leave him open and force him to beat them. It can be done, especially with the recovery speed and athleticism of Dice and RJ and Manu.

Same cannot be said with the Spurs. You cannot double and leave anyone on the Spurs. You might say McDyess, but he is 10x better on offense than Andy. He could get to the rim much better and he had a serviceable jump shot. Not nearly as good as now, but still decent.

[The Franchise]

^ Actually Verajao seems to have been working on his jump shot, because it is much improved from years past.

[DPG21920]

^ Actually Verajao seems to have been working on his jump shot, because it is much improved from years past.

I have watched him play numerous games in the NBA last year and I just watched his latest NT game for Brazil. It has not improved enough to be considered a threat you have to game plan against. Look at his nba hotspots chart from last year.

[024]

cavs shouldn't really be in the discussion. lebron and shaq is a very lethal combination but the team doesn't have much depth or bench. the "five superstars can't play together" argument is pretty useless against the spurs since duncan, ginobili, jefferson, and mcdyess are all unselfish players. parker maybe and i don't know much about finley in his prime. argument also doesn't work against the celtics since they did win an NBA championship sharing the ball. this argument is also weak as shaq and lebron have the two biggest egos in the league. as nba fans can see, when kobe developed his superstar ego in 2003 and clashed with shaq, the lakers couldn't contain the two.

celtics and spurs will be pretty close as they both have stacked teams. cletics starting five is about even with the spurs. people forget that mcdyess was dominant during his pre injury days. he had the athleticism and offensive potency of amare stoudemire but rebounded and played defense. his basketball iq is also very high, unlike stoudemire. a frontcourt of a prime duncan and mcdyess would pretty much shut down the paint much like a wallace and garnett frontcourt. offensively, duncan and mcdyess might even overpower wallace and garnett.

the tipping point is probably finley since parker + ginobili + jefferson + finley off the bench is a better backcourt than rondo + pierce + allen + tony allen/eddie house off the bench. ratliff was a pretty good player in his prime days as well, definitely a better asset than glen davis. spurs would be getting post defense from ratliff and even more offensive firepower from finley off the bench.

[JamStone]

In the 2007, the team Lebron got to the finals with:

Sasha Pavlovic shot 40% from 3
Daniel Gibson shot 42% from 3

That is comparable to what Antony Parker gives you (and Sasha is just as good at getting to the rim as him) and what Mo gives you (although Mo is a better all around scorer). But from a spacing and keeping guys honest standpoint, it is comparable. It did not work and the Spurs could double then and in this scenario. Tim could do enough against Shaq. Especially if you are not going to bring up the hypothetical situations like foul trouble as you mentioned.

Shaq completely changes that. Let's be real. The last two games, the Spurs won by 3 points and 1 point. The first two games were decided by 9 points each. If you don't think Shaq makes a difference, you're pretty crazy.

Tim could not do enough for Shaq to make 1 to 3 point difference in two of those games.

[JamStone]

Anderson Varejao is just too much of a liability on offense. The Spurs can choose to leave him open and force him to beat them. It can be done, especially with the recovery speed and athleticism of Dice and RJ and Manu.

Same cannot be said with the Spurs. You cannot double and leave anyone on the Spurs. You might say McDyess, but he is 10x better on offense than Andy. He could get to the rim much better and he had a serviceable jump shot. Not nearly as good as now, but still decent.

Teams already leave Varejao him open. What he does when that happens is run straight to the rim. He shot 53.6% from the field last year. You add Shaq, and he'll get even more open lay-ups and dunks from the weakside.

[Muser]

There is always the hack a shaq.

:)

[DPG21920]

Teams already leave Varejao him open. What he does when that happens is run straight to the rim. He shot 53.6% from the field last year. You add Shaq, and he'll get even more open lay-ups and dunks from the weakside.

Possibly, but was he playing against freak athletes dedicated to defense such as Dice and against one of the best defensive big man anchors ever in Duncan every game?

[DPG21920]

Shaq completely changes that. Let's be real. The last two games, the Spurs won by 3 points and 1 point. The first two games were decided by 9 points each. If you don't think Shaq makes a difference, you're pretty crazy.

Tim could not do enough for Shaq to make 1 to 3 point difference in two of those games.

Shaq does help, but I can live with Shaq going one on one with Tim and having to guard Tim the entire game one on one as well.

But by that logic, having a prime McDyess and Richard Jefferson and Parker and Ginobili would have driven that 1-3 point difference even further.

[Sdayi135]

Celtics, Spurs, Lakers, and possibly Dallas over Cleveland.

[23LeBronJames23]

Celtics, Spurs, Lakers, and possibly Dallas over Cleveland.

cleveland lakers spurs and possibly portland ove celtics

[JamStone]

Possibly, but was he playing against freak athletes dedicated to defense such as Dice and against one of the best defensive big man anchors ever in Duncan every game?


No, he was playing against high school kids when he did that last year.

[JamStone]

Shaq does help, but I can live with Shaq going one on one with Tim and having to guard Tim the entire game one on one as well.

But by that logic, having a prime McDyess and Richard Jefferson and Parker and Ginobili would have driven that 1-3 point difference even further.


Not as much as Shaq because once again RJ and Dice would be role players. Parker and Ginobili played in that series.

[diego]

I got bogged down by the back and forth around page 3 but, IMO

there's only one ball. teams like the celts and spurs look great on paper but they'd likely have to give several players small roles or have really dynamic coaching lineups to really maximize their strengths. I just think its too difficult for a team to have that many personalities.

so that goes in favor of cleveland.

but against cleveland... lebron and shaq do so much of their damage at the basket, on offense. i think they end up getting in the way of each other, and that unless one of them sacrifices and focuses on another aspect of his game, like defence- its probably not going to add up 1 for 1.

If i were a coach I'd want the celtics. They complement each other perfect, especially if prime ray is actually taking it to the basket. It also helps if prime Wallace also means focused-every-minute-of-every-game-Wallace. The spurs have a great argument too. A coach could do whatever he wanted with a roster like that. But I think if Lebron and Shaq meshed right they'd have a monster team, too good at one thing for an all around team like the spurs or celtics would probably be.

[baseline bum]

Cavs. They'd go to the line 50 times every single night.

[j-money24]

IMO, it comes down to Celtics/Cavs.
A prime Shaq and a prime Lebron would be better then Shaq-Kobe in 2000-2002 because kobe wasn't in his prime with shaq yet and they were still arguably one of the best duo ever in NBA history so imagine how much better Lebron/Shaq would be. Also, Mo Williams is a borderline All Star and have some really good role players.

But I'd rather have a Shaq prime and Kobe Prime over a Shaq prime and Lebron prime.

And plus who is going to stop Garnett, Pierce, Allen and Wallace in their prime plus this team would have great chemistry together with good role players.

[DPG21920]

No, he was playing against high school kids when he did that last year.

Lame :td

He was definitely not playing against an all star team of athletes in their prime


Not as much as Shaq because once again RJ and Dice would be role players. Parker and Ginobili played in that series.

Your opinion not backed up by anything of substance. Were Parker and Ginobili both in their primes? Because clearly I said a prime version of all players as framed in the OP.

[JamStone]

What is lame is your attempt to paint a picture that Antonio McDyess in his prime was somehow early 1990s Charles Barkley on offense and mid 2000s Ben Wallace on defense. Look, Dice was very athletic and a great, great player in his prime. Despite his athleticism, he was never considered a defensive stopper at the PF position. And, even as good as he was, his prime years where he was putting up 20/10 were all on teams with losing records that didn't go to the playoffs. On this Spurs team, even in his prime, he'd still be a role player. You make it sound like the Spurs team is some super all generation superstar team. It's not. Tim Duncan is the only superstar on the Spurs team even with all the players in their prime.

As for my opinion not having any substance. Uhhhh hello. All of this shit is conjecture. The suggestions of this topic is based on guessing how all those players in their primes would play with each other. Every single person making an opinion in this thread doesn't have anything backed up by substance. Come on now.

[DPG21920]

What is lame is using hyperbole to frame your arguments and make stuff up. You say "Come on, you are acting like those guys would average 40 points on 80% shooting...", but then you say Shaq and Lebron are unstoppable forces that would score at will and dunk 25 times each a game . You are making it seem that no one could guard those guys at all. Ever. You are failing to acknowledge that those guys would be playing against a stellar defensive team overall full of great athletes with great attitudes.

False. Please quote where I said that? Where did I say Dice was amazing on offense and defense? I have clearly said he was a superior athlete with size and a good attitude. I said he was focused on defense, even if he was not the best. I said he had a serviceable jump shot, but he lived at the rim.


Of course this is all speculation, but people usually give reasons behind why they think a certain way. Just saying "Not as much as Shaq" is coming up lame. Please explain why that adding a prime McDyess and Richard Jefferson would not have pushed the 1-3 point difference in the Cavs series further?

You said that Shaq added to that team, which is comparable to this scenario would have erased that deficit. I said adding a prime RJ and Dice would have pushed it further apart, meaning Shaq would of had to make up more than 1-3 points.

[JamStone]

In the 2007 NBA Finals, Zydrunas Ilgauskas averaged 7.8 points and 10.8 rebounds.

In Shaq's prime in the playoffs, he was putting up 30 points and 15 rebounds.

I don't think the difference between Finley/Bowen/Oberto/Horry and RJ/McDyess as role players would make up that 22 point difference Shaq in his prime would have for that 2007 Cavaliers team.

Is that better substance?

[dickface]

This thread is lame.

[DPG21920]

That is some fancy math right there. You keep clinging to the term "role player". It is much nicer to have "role players" that can pick up the pace of the game and score efficiently as well as defend.

The numbers don't directly translate such as you illustrated. The Spurs, with everyone in their primes certainly would increase the team shots per game. The pace would definitely pick up with Parker, Gino, RJ, Dice and Duncan all able to get up and down the floor.

The Cavs role players would have a tough time catching up and defending and the "role players". Shot attempts would increase naturally, so you would be able to see the effects of their abilities more than Oberto/Finley/Horry/Bowen even though it would not be like having them as top options individually.

So it is not as simple as you laid out with Shaq's scoring added onto Big Z's.

But there is no changing our minds. I just like having these debates with you and this was an interesting topic. I just wish we could see these teams play somehow.

[JamStone]

You were the one who tried to roll with the "make up the points" argument after I merely suggested Shaq would make up the difference. Now, you want to keep adding different variables to the equation. Of course the numbers don't translate completely. There are different factors. I never suggested otherwise. You wanted some sort of substance. So I gave you some. Now that I did, you want to change the argument.

The "role player" argument is important because even as good as they might be in their prime, Richard Jefferson and Antonio McDyess aren't going to get that many shot attempts per game with Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili still being the main options on offense. They just won't. It's an easy thing to comprehend. Dice and RJ aren't going to be averaging 20 points each. Simply impossible with Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker all in their prime and being the #1, #2, and #3 options. That's why their difference to whoever they're replacing won't be as significant of an upgrade as Shaq in his prime will be. Shaq in his prime automatically becomes the #1 option on the Cavs. Either #1 or co-#1 with LeBron. Shaq WILL get the number of touches a true #1 would get.

It's a huge distinction which demonstrates how his impact is more significant than two role players, no matter how good those role players could be.

You wanted evidence, substance to back my argument in a discussion that is based on hypotheticals and conjecture. And, when I give it to you, you discredit it. What evidence is there that McDyess and Jefferson make more of an impact than Shaq? Do you have irrefutable empirical evidence? Of course not. And, yet you tried to shoot down my opinion in such a manner.

[DPG21920]

Where did I say they make more of a difference? I simply said that if you added the prime players the difference of 1-3 PPG the Spurs won by would increase and Shaq would have to make that amount up, not the 1-3 PPG. I also never said Dice and RJ would average 20 PPG. I said they are talented players that would score more than the guys they are replacing, but less than if they were number 1 options, because they won't be.

I also said the pace would more than likely go up, meaning that they would average more shot attempts as a team which would allow for everyone to score a little more. I also said, that those guys on any given night could take over easier than CLE's supporting cast. In basketball, that happens.

I am not adding variables at all. It is a hypothetical based on match ups. I did not want concrete evidence as you keep yaking about. I said I wanted coherent and logical reasons and assumptions and explanations for these opinions. That is not asking you to prove something that cannot be proven. That is asking you to explain your thoughts.

Also, you were doing that up until the one Shaq would make up the difference thing. That is the only time I ever brought up "evidence". You extrapolated that onto the entire argument.

[JamStone]

Now you're just arguing in semantics.

And, you never asked for "coherenet and logical reasons and assumptions and explanations for these opinions." Now if you're going to go into semantical arguments, let's get it straight. All you said was that my opinion wasn't backed by anything of substance. Now you're adding things you didn't say. You want to get into semantics. Fine, let's get into semantics.

Shaq in his prime makes a more significant difference to overcome whatever upgrades Richard Jefferson and Antonio McDyess because he automatically will end up AVERAGING 30 or so touches, 20 or so shot attempts, and another 6-10 free throw attempts. Richard Jefferson and Antonio McDyess won't come close to that combined being the fourth and fifth options. On any given night, sure either one could have a breakout game. But, on average, their impact combined doesn't come close to the impact a Shaq in his prime would have on the Cavs.

There's your logic. There's your reason. There's your explanation. It's something I've been basically saying the whole time but apparently something you needed spelled out for you.

[picc84]

Prime Shaq gets extremely romanticized. During his prime years we lost to and almost lost to teams much worse than a team of prime Duncan/McDyess/Finley/Jefferson/Gino/Parker or KG/Sheed/Pierce/Allen/Rondo. Those teams would be the monsters of this scenario. Between prime Shaq and prime Duncan we're talking about two top 10 players. There isnt that much difference between them.

[resistanze]

Prime Shaq gets extremely romanticized. During his prime years we lost to and almost lost to teams much worse than a team of prime Duncan/McDyess/Finley/Jefferson/Gino/Parker or KG/Sheed/Pierce/Allen/Rondo. Those teams would be the monsters of this scenario. Between prime Shaq and prime Duncan we're talking about two top 10 players. There isnt that much difference between them.
I agree, and made this point earlier in the thread.

I think a main determinant of which team is the best is actually what a prime LeBron is. We don't know how many of these young guys will be in their prime as JamStone said. Is a prime LeBron a greater perimeter threat? If so, they'll be pretty damn unstoppable. If not, I think they still have some holes.

Also, how LeBron works with Shaq this year might give us a glimpse of things could've been with Shaq in his prime.

[picc84]

Lebron will work great with Shaq. Thats not the point.

"Prime Shaq" has become some kind of legendary mythical beast on the internet, that clobbered all before him with no resistance and steamrolled all in his path. As dominant as he was the only time we as a TEAM were dominant was in 2001 when Horry and Fisher shot 150% from 3, Kobe averaged 80ppg, and the other role players played like superstars. Otherwise we were a very beatable team. Prime Shaq isn't going to guarantee you a championship, much less against competition the likes of a prime Celtics or Spurs team.

With a different roll of the dice in the Kings and Blazers series we'd be talking about the one-peat Lakers. With a Fisher buzzer beater miss we're talking about Spurs/Pistons in 2004 finals as well as 2005. The year before Phil Jackson arrived in LA we got swept out of the playoffs with a Shaq who was pretty much the same "Prime Shaq" who carried us to the title in 2000. If the guy I watched from 97-04 was the person I read about on the internet message boards we would have had 6 championships.

The point i'm trying to make is that as great as Shaq and Lebron are, they are two players. With Boston and SA we're talking about teams with an entire starting lineup of allstars and hall of famers. There's no comparison. And then you take Tim Duncan and you've got a 9 to Shaq's 10. And with KG an 8. This is a relatively small disparity considering how badly the rest of the Boston/SA teams blow the rest of the Cleveland team out of the water, King James or not.

[resistanze]

I've already expressed those sentiments about the so-called unbeatable Lakers myth with a prime Shaq. But we're not talking about a team with a young Kobe, we're talking about a prime LeBron as well, who may very well be just as dominant, or even more so than Shaq was.

If Lebron further advances his game to the point where he can be a more reliable perimeter threat in his prime, he will be unstoppable (with Shaq), regardless if you have a stacked Spurs or Celtics team. So I think how LeBron develops is even more important than comparing just Shaq in his prime with the 2000-02 LAkers.

[picc84]

I've already expressed those sentiments about the so-called unbeatable Lakers myth with a prime Shaq. But we're not talking about a team with a young Kobe, we're talking about a prime LeBron as well, who may very well be just as dominant, or even more so than Shaq was.

If Lebron further advances his game to the point where he can be a more reliable perimeter threat in his prime, he will be unstoppable (with Shaq), regardless if you have a stacked Spurs or Celtics team. So I think how LeBron develops is even more important than comparing just Shaq in his prime with the 2000-02 LAkers.

Thats a pure hypothetical. Lebron may or may not get better, but as far as this topic is concerned I was assuming "prime Lebron" meant right now. And Lebron right now is not that much better than Kobe from the 2002 team that almost and probably should have lost to Sacramento. Not to the tune of making up for the stacked lineups of the other teams we're talking about.

Boston would have three 25ppg players in Allen/Pierce/Garnett, one 20ppg player in Wallace, a triple double machine in Rondo, and undoubtedly the best defensive team maybe in basketball history. SA would have five 20ppg players AND Tim Duncan. Both of these teams have at least 4 players that can command a double team. lol. I mean, these teams are cheating. Shaq is incredible but he isn't that good, and neither are the Cavs. They won 66 games beating botton rung teams and losing to every good team they played. This isn't adding Shaq to the 96 Bulls here.

Unless Lebron develops into Michael Jordan's lord and savior, I don't even see how this is a question. The Cavs are beat on athleticism, defense, offense, talent, experience, intangibles, rebounding, etc. etc. We're talking about actual all-star teams here. Teams that could actually be sent to the olympics to compete for the Gold. And win.. Shaq and Lebron plus Anderson Flopajao and Anthony Parker doesn't even compare.

[mystargtr34]

My initial thought was that a prime Shaq and LeBron team is unstoppable. But then again, the rest of their team is shit even their prime.

Prime Duncan is the second most dominant player on that list, and with a primer Parker, Manu, Finley, and Dice? Damn. I change my pick.

That was my initial thought too. I looked at the thread and didnt bother reading it because Shaq + LeBron in their primes is unbeatable.

But when you look at the Spurs and Celtics, they are definately in the discussion. I think the Spurs have slightly better prime talent than the Celts so its probably between the Spurs and Cavs.

Who has the bigger advantage?

Shaq + LeBron --- Duncan + Finley

OR

Parker + Manu + Jefferson + Dyess --- Williams + Parker + Varejao + Big Z

The second comparison is an enormous advantage for the Spurs, much bigger than the first comparison, so I actually think the Spurs win quite comfortably, in terms of talent anyway. But would you want 6 20+ point scorers in your lineup? Obviously having a lineup of Parker, Manu, Finley, McDyess and Duncan isnt ideal in terms of balance though, so your probably better off with role players surrounding two mega stars like Shaq and LeBron.

On paper, i think the Spurs line up is the most talented, but the Cavs might have had the better balance and team.

[Sdayi135]

I've already expressed those sentiments about the so-called unbeatable Lakers myth with a prime Shaq. But we're not talking about a team with a young Kobe, we're talking about a prime LeBron as well, who may very well be just as dominant, or even more so than Shaq was.


:wtf

[DPG21920]

Now you're just arguing in semantics.

And, you never asked for "coherenet and logical reasons and assumptions and explanations for these opinions." Now if you're going to go into semantical arguments, let's get it straight. All you said was that my opinion wasn't backed by anything of substance. Now you're adding things you didn't say. You want to get into semantics. Fine, let's get into semantics.

Shaq in his prime makes a more significant difference to overcome whatever upgrades Richard Jefferson and Antonio McDyess because he automatically will end up AVERAGING 30 or so touches, 20 or so shot attempts, and another 6-10 free throw attempts. Richard Jefferson and Antonio McDyess won't come close to that combined being the fourth and fifth options. On any given night, sure either one could have a breakout game. But, on average, their impact combined doesn't come close to the impact a Shaq in his prime would have on the Cavs.

There's your logic. There's your reason. There's your explanation. It's something I've been basically saying the whole time but apparently something you needed spelled out for you.

When did Jamstone turn into an emo pinata? With most people, at least normal people, you do not have to spell certain things out. But I guess JS needs things spelled out.

Even though I explicitly never asked for "coherenet and logical reasons and assumptions and explanations for these opinions", it should be pretty fucking self explanatory that you should provide this in an theoretical argument such as this. You are now the king of semantics for playing dumb.

I never said your opinion was not backed up by anything of substance. I said in the context of our debate, that your one comment of "uh-ah Shaq would add more..." was not backed up. It was a weak take that you did not explain. So quit being butt hurt and making it seem like I called out everything you said. It was one comment. Quit clinging to it Mr. 25 dunks each....

So once again, prime Shaq could not be guarded by anyone, which is why he shot 70% and dunked 25 times a game and averaged 35 points a game. Let alone playing against a team with Tim Duncan in his prime every game along with a prime team of unselfish, superior athletes in Parker, Manu, RJ and Dice.

Nice. Shaq was unstoppable which is why he is the all time best scorer and champion.

[Fernando TD21]

Spurs = Celtics > Cavs

[JamStone]

When did Jamstone turn into an emo pinata? With most people, at least normal people, you do not have to spell certain things out. But I guess JS needs things spelled out.

Even though I explicitly never asked for "coherenet and logical reasons and assumptions and explanations for these opinions", it should be pretty fucking self explanatory that you should provide this in an theoretical argument such as this. You are now the king of semantics for playing dumb.

Lol wtf? You were the one getting all twisted saying "I never said" this "tell me where I said" that. I've been saying the same shit the whole entire time, and you kept making those comments but I'm the emo? Wow.



I never said your opinion was not backed up by anything of substance. I said in the context of our debate, that your one comment of "uh-ah Shaq would add more..." was not backed up. It was a weak take that you did not explain. So quit being butt hurt and making it seem like I called out everything you said. It was one comment. Quit clinging to it Mr. 25 dunks each....

This is what you wrote:


Your opinion not backed up by anything of substance. Were Parker and Ginobili both in their primes? Because clearly I said a prime version of all players as framed in the OP.

It was in a response to me saying:


Not as much as Shaq because once again RJ and Dice would be role players. Parker and Ginobili played in that series.

You never made what you were saying clear at all actually. And, you're the one who kept asking "where did I say" this or that. SMH.

I gave a reason, a logical reason distinguishing Shaq as a main offensive weapon versus RJ and Dice as role players. You chose to ignore it, you kept ignoring it, and when you even remotely touched on it, you tried to discredit it unsuccessfully, and then asked for me to spell it out again.



So once again, prime Shaq could not be guarded by anyone, which is why he shot 70% and dunked 25 times a game and averaged 35 points a game. Let alone playing against a team with Tim Duncan in his prime every game along with a prime team of unselfish, superior athletes in Parker, Manu, RJ and Dice.

Nice. Shaq was unstoppable which is why he is the all time best scorer and champion.

See, now where did I say Shaq averaged 35 points on 70% shooting? This is the same shit you were crying about. So now you do it? And again, I expressly said dunking 25 times a game was hyperbole.

And what do the "superior athleticism" of Parker, Manu, and RJ have anything to do with Shaq being able to play well? Very little. Now, McDyess in his prime, is he going to do a better job than the "athletic freak" that was David Robinson would do? Because David Robinson even in his prime wasn't going to contain Shaq. And, the only thing Dice in his prime had on David Robinson was jumping ability.

Against a Duncan/Dice frontcourt, even if they took turns on Shaq, Shaq would have his way. Neither guy could hold their ground against Shaq.

But apparently, you suggest that the superior athletes of Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, and Richard Jefferson would be the ones to contain Shaq. Uh ok? And, somehow Antonio McDyess in his prime was a defensive stopper. Newsflash, he wasn't. He was a guy that could jump really high. In his prime, he wasn't a defensive stopper. In Dice's three best years in Denver, the Nuggets were among the worst defensive teams in the league. In those three years (1998-2001) where he was putting up 20/10 seasons from the ages of about 24-26 before he was injured, his defensive win share average was 2.27. To put that in perspective, Dirk Nowitzki's career defensive win share is 3.58. In his prime, Dice was a worse defender than Dirk. But, somehow Dice's superior athleticism was going to counter Shaq in his prime. That's like thinking Amare Stoudemire's superior athleticism makes him a great defender.

Thanks for that.

[BeeGee]

Lol wtf? You were the one getting all twisted saying "I never said" this "tell me where I said" that. I've been saying the same shit the whole entire time, and you kept making those comments but I'm the emo? Wow.




This is what you wrote:



It was in a response to me saying:



You never made what you were saying clear at all actually. And, you're the one who kept asking "where did I say" this or that. SMH.

I gave a reason, a logical reason distinguishing Shaq as a main offensive weapon versus RJ and Dice as role players. You chose to ignore it, you kept ignoring it, and when you even remotely touched on it, you tried to discredit it unsuccessfully, and then asked for me to spell it out again.




See, now where did I say Shaq averaged 35 points on 70% shooting? This is the same shit you were crying about. So now you do it? And again, I expressly said dunking 25 times a game was hyperbole.

And what do the "superior athleticism" of Parker, Manu, and RJ have anything to do with Shaq being able to play well? Very little. Now, McDyess in his prime, is he going to do a better job than the "athletic freak" that was David Robinson would do? Because David Robinson even in his prime wasn't going to contain Shaq. And, the only thing Dice in his prime had on David Robinson was jumping ability.

Against a Duncan/Dice frontcourt, even if they took turns on Shaq, Shaq would have his way. Neither guy could hold their ground against Shaq.

But apparently, you suggest that the superior athletes of Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, and Richard Jefferson would be the ones to contain Shaq. Uh ok? And, somehow Antonio McDyess in his prime was a defensive stopper. Newsflash, he wasn't. He was a guy that could jump really high. In his prime, he wasn't a defensive stopper. In Dice's three best years in Denver, the Nuggets were among the worst defensive teams in the league. In those three years (1998-2001) where he was putting up 20/10 seasons from the ages of about 24-26 before he was injured, his defensive win share average was 2.27. To put that in perspective, Dirk Nowitzki's career defensive win share is 3.58. In his prime, Dice was a worse defender than Dirk. But, somehow Dice's superior athleticism was going to counter Shaq in his prime. That's like thinking Amare Stoudemire's superior athleticism makes him a great defender.

Thanks for that.ownage

[resistanze]

Thats a pure hypothetical. Lebron may or may not get better, but as far as this topic is concerned I was assuming "prime Lebron" meant right now. And Lebron right now is not that much better than Kobe from the 2002 team that almost and probably should have lost to Sacramento. Not to the tune of making up for the stacked lineups of the other teams we're talking about.

Boston would have three 25ppg players in Allen/Pierce/Garnett, one 20ppg player in Wallace, a triple double machine in Rondo, and undoubtedly the best defensive team maybe in basketball history. SA would have five 20ppg players AND Tim Duncan. Both of these teams have at least 4 players that can command a double team. lol. I mean, these teams are cheating. Shaq is incredible but he isn't that good, and neither are the Cavs. They won 66 games beating botton rung teams and losing to every good team they played. This isn't adding Shaq to the 96 Bulls here.

Unless Lebron develops into Michael Jordan's lord and savior, I don't even see how this is a question. The Cavs are beat on athleticism, defense, offense, talent, experience, intangibles, rebounding, etc. etc. We're talking about actual all-star teams here. Teams that could actually be sent to the olympics to compete for the Gold. And win.. Shaq and Lebron plus Anderson Flopajao and Anthony Parker doesn't even compare.

Well that's your assumption, mine wasn't. Of course it's purely hypothetical, so is the entire question. If you assume that a prime LeBron means right now, along with the other young players that haven't reached their prime, then it's a pretty unfair comparison. What's the point of comparing KG/TD/Shaq at their peak with players that haven't reached theirs?

And LeBron is clearly a superior player than Kobe was in 2000-02, don't kid yourself. In terms of overall impact on a game (scoring, playmaking, rebounding, reading defenses) - it's not even close. We don't know how a 24 year old Lebron will improve in the next 5 seasons - maybe he's even better.

[picc84]

Well that's your assumption, mine wasn't. Of course it's purely hypothetical, so is the entire question. If you assume that a prime LeBron means right now, along with the other young players that haven't reached their prime, then it's a pretty unfair comparison. What's the point of comparing KG/TD/Shaq at their peak with players that haven't reached theirs?

Because Lebrons peak, unlike everyone else in this topic, is an unknown. Taking your stance on the topic we could assign "prime Lebron" as anywhere from now to 2x Michael Jordan. I dont really see the point in engaging in argument where conjecture has that much influence when what we already know would work just fine.


And LeBron is clearly a superior player than Kobe was in 2000-02, don't kid yourself. In terms of overall impact on a game (scoring, playmaking, rebounding, reading defenses) - it's not even close.

If you mean 2000 Kobe, yes. Not 2001 and 2002. He averaged 29, 7, 6 and 27, 6, 5 during those playoff runs, including series averages of 35, 9, 4 against Sacramento and 33, 7, 7 against San Antonio. Lebron is better than he was at that point, but say it "wasnt even close" and i'll respectfully bow out of the debate.

Much less so much better it supercedes the talent deficit of the rest of the Cavs compared to the rest of the Celtics and Spurs.


We don't know how a 24 year old Lebron will improve in the next 5 seasons - maybe he's even better.

He probably will. But until he does and we can put a pin on it I think we're better off going with what we know.

[Hornets1]

1. Celtics
2. Cavs or Spurs

In his prime, Shaq was easily the most dominant player in the league. More dominant than anyone else in this generation of players. Most dominant since MJ.

[Leetonidas]

You guys are arguing about this still?

That Spurs or Celtics team would own that Cavs team. Yes LeBron and Shaq are dominant, but prime Tim is just as good as O'Neal, just slightly less dominant on the offensive end. However, on the defensive end of the court, Duncan >>> O'Neal. Timmy could hang with Shaq one-on-one, especially in his prime days. Shit, Tim has back-to-back MVPs while O'Neal only has one.

As for the rest of the team, you can already see how the big three would play well together, especially considering that Manu and Tim don't need to score much to make a huge impact. Guys like Jefferson and Dice would be amazing role players, especially considering their talents. Prime Duncan playing the high-low game with a prime Dice would be nasty. And with Finley off the bench in his prime, dude could shoot like no other and was athletic as hell back then.

Also, back in their prime days, Tim and Dice were EXTREMELY quick. Tim has probably the best foot work of any big man ever. LeBron wouldn't be able to just jam it at the rim and overpower the defense like he does nowadays. And hell, at 6'9", a prime Antonio McDyess is probably fast enough to cover him.

Spurs and Celtics are interchangeable in the top 2, but the Cavs are the obvious number three. And shit, a prime VC with a prime Howard could be just as devastating as Shaq and LeBron.

[BadOdor]

Shit, Tim has back-to-back MVPs

So does nash:toast

[DPG21920]

Lol wtf? You were the one getting all twisted saying "I never said" this "tell me where I said" that. I've been saying the same shit the whole entire time, and you kept making those comments but I'm the emo? Wow.




This is what you wrote:



It was in a response to me saying:



You never made what you were saying clear at all actually. And, you're the one who kept asking "where did I say" this or that. SMH.

I gave a reason, a logical reason distinguishing Shaq as a main offensive weapon versus RJ and Dice as role players. You chose to ignore it, you kept ignoring it, and when you even remotely touched on it, you tried to discredit it unsuccessfully, and then asked for me to spell it out again.




See, now where did I say Shaq averaged 35 points on 70% shooting? This is the same shit you were crying about. So now you do it? And again, I expressly said dunking 25 times a game was hyperbole.

And what do the "superior athleticism" of Parker, Manu, and RJ have anything to do with Shaq being able to play well? Very little. Now, McDyess in his prime, is he going to do a better job than the "athletic freak" that was David Robinson would do? Because David Robinson even in his prime wasn't going to contain Shaq. And, the only thing Dice in his prime had on David Robinson was jumping ability.

Against a Duncan/Dice frontcourt, even if they took turns on Shaq, Shaq would have his way. Neither guy could hold their ground against Shaq.

But apparently, you suggest that the superior athletes of Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, and Richard Jefferson would be the ones to contain Shaq. Uh ok? And, somehow Antonio McDyess in his prime was a defensive stopper. Newsflash, he wasn't. He was a guy that could jump really high. In his prime, he wasn't a defensive stopper. In Dice's three best years in Denver, the Nuggets were among the worst defensive teams in the league. In those three years (1998-2001) where he was putting up 20/10 seasons from the ages of about 24-26 before he was injured, his defensive win share average was 2.27. To put that in perspective, Dirk Nowitzki's career defensive win share is 3.58. In his prime, Dice was a worse defender than Dirk. But, somehow Dice's superior athleticism was going to counter Shaq in his prime. That's like thinking Amare Stoudemire's superior athleticism makes him a great defender.

Thanks for that.

Once again, for at least the fourth time, I used the substance thing for only one sentence out of everything you have typed. I have explained this, but you keep clinging to it and making a it a bigger deal than it is.

Once again, me saying the "70% shooting" was a jab at you for constantly using hyperbole to make your points. It was a joke and an obvious poke at you, which you tried to make look like a hypocritical statement. Since you have said:

"You are acting like they average 40 PPG and on 80% shooting"
"What would stop Shaq and Lebron from dunking 25 times a game each"
"What is lame is you trying to make Dice's offense a version of 1990's Charles Barkley and his defense like 2000 Ben Wallace"

Where did I say anything like that? Find me one quote. You keep going on and on about these things and you do not even understand you are the joke when I am saying some of these things to poke at you. You are the only one using hyperbole as an argument and painting Shaq to be the best player of all time that could win and no one could stop him.

Is Shaq the all time leading scorer? Did he score the most points in a single game ever? Did he score the most points ever for a season? He played with guys in real life that were comparable to the talent he would have on the Cavs. If he was the most dominant player ever, and a prime version of Duncan with a team full of prime athletes (who will help defend their guys) cannot stop him, who can?

The reason I keep saying superior athletes is because when you have a team of guys in their prime, that are all great athletes, that all want to defend, it makes a difference as a team.

Will they be able to stop Shaq? No, but he won't post better numbers against a team like the Spurs in this scenario than he did on a normal team in real life that is not full of unselfish guys in their prime. In fact, what I am trying to argue is that he would perform a little worse because the team defense and offense (him having to play defense every single possession) from the Spurs.

Then, the rest of his team would have a much harder time guarding the Spurs players, role players or not. Will they all average 20 PPG, no. But they would exploit the worst match up every night and there would not be a direct 1st, 2nd...options because they are unselfish and all options are close to number 1 options anyways.

[picc84]

Just out of curiousity, I looked up Shaq's #'s vs the Spurs from 99-2004.

2004: 22ppg in WCSF vs Duncan and Rasho Nesterovic
2003: 25ppg in WCSF vs Duncan and DRob
2002: 21ppg in WCSF vs Duncan, Malik Rose, and DRob for 3 games
2001: 27ppg in WCF vs Duncan and DRob
1999: 24ppg in WCF vs Duncan and Drob

Call me crazy, but those arent exactly mind-boggling #'s from the unstoppable scoring force known as prime Shaq, and those Spurs teams were not on the same planet as the Spurs team from this scenario. The simple act of existing in the vicinity of prime Shaq isn't going to render your team helpless and your bigs to 40mpg on the bench in foul trouble.

Somehow, someway, these Spurs teams managed to compete against us even with Shaq averaging a devastating 24ppg and relegating Tim Duncan to a crushing 5 minutes spent on the bench per game.

Duncan has always been able to do at least a manageable job against Shaq, and is probably the best defensive player of this whole scenario. He and Shaq will come close to canceling each other out, like they usually did, and Lebron will be left to try to match and exceed the output of the Spurs 5 other 20ppg players (who will not all average 20ppg but this is the caliber of player they are) with the help of Jamario Moon, Andersen Flopajao, Delonte West, and Mo Williams.

[JamStone]

Shaq also a combined 53.6% from the field in all of those games. In those same series, Duncan shot a combined 47.4% from the field. Shaq and Duncan could play close to even in many of the games. Then again, I think David Robinson had to do a lot with Shaq not scoring great numbers in many of those series. The 2004 series is the only one above that David Robinson didn't play in, and that was when Kobe was ball hogging. Yet, Shaq shot over 63% from the field. Consequently, Tim Duncan having to take on the role of defending Shaq much more averaged his fewest points of any of those 5 series at 20.7 ppg. And, once again, Antonio McDyess even in his prime was not David Robinson defensively.


While we're at it, let's assume since Mo Williams has entered his prime this past year and Tony Parker is also in his prime, that Mo and Tony would play pretty much at a draw. This past season when the Cavs met the Spurs, this is how that match-up broke down:

Mo Williams
game 1: 4-9 FG, 9 points
game 2: 9-15 FG, 22 points

Tony Parker
game 1: 3-16 FG, 11 points
game 2: 9-16 FG, 24 points

I guess that match-up isn't that huge of an advantage after all. So let's call that one about even, right?




Once again, for at least the fourth time, I used the substance thing for only one sentence out of everything you have typed. I have explained this, but you keep clinging to it and making a it a bigger deal than it is.

Once again, you didn't make that altogether clear as I showed when I quoted all those posts. And, once again, I did give substance by explaining Shaq would be a #1 scoring option while RJ and Dice would be role players. That is an explanation with substance. Why do you continue to ignore that?



Once again, me saying the "70% shooting" was a jab at you for constantly using hyperbole to make your points. It was a joke and an obvious poke at you, which you tried to make look like a hypocritical statement. Since you have said:

"You are acting like they average 40 PPG and on 80% shooting"
"What would stop Shaq and Lebron from dunking 25 times a game each"
"What is lame is you trying to make Dice's offense a version of 1990's Charles Barkley and his defense like 2000 Ben Wallace"

Where did I say anything like that? Find me one quote. You keep going on and on about these things and you do not even understand you are the joke when I am saying some of these things to poke at you. You are the only one using hyperbole as an argument and painting Shaq to be the best player of all time that could win and no one could stop him.

This is why you were amusingly hypocritical calling me an emo. You've done this several times with the "where did I say anything like that" shit. And, then you do the same shit at me, and now try to twist it by saying it was an "obvious" poke at me.

I only used one hyperbole, and qualified it as such. Your comments have been exaggerated as well. Shit like "has Varejao did that against superior athletes?" As if no NBA team has superior athletes on their rosters except a super Spurs team of players in their prime. You make suggestions like Manu Ginobili is David Thompson incarnate athletically and Antonio McDyess is Ben Wallace in his prime defensively. Yes, you use exaggeration. You just try to be subtle about it and don't admit it. When I used my hyperbole, I wasn't trying to hide the fact that it was hyperbole.



Is Shaq the all time leading scorer? Did he score the most points in a single game ever? Did he score the most points ever for a season? He played with guys in real life that were comparable to the talent he would have on the Cavs.

Shaq is not the all time leading scorer. And he did not score the most points in a single game ever. Why do you ask?

The Shaq-Kobe three-peat Lakers didn't have two starters that shot 40% from three point range. The season where they almost had two 40% three point shooting starters in Fisher and Fox, they cruised through the 2001 playoffs with a 15-1 record with an average winning margin of 13 points. In the playoffs. 13 points. In the playoffs. That type of three point shooting, Anthony Parker is a career 40% from three point range and Mo Williams shot 43% last season completely distinguishes what you call as "comparable talent."



If he was the most dominant player ever, and a prime version of Duncan with a team full of prime athletes (who will help defend their guys) cannot stop him, who can?

That's my point. Duncan in his prime with Parker/Ginobili/RJ/Dice isn't stopping Shaq in his prime.



The reason I keep saying superior athletes is because when you have a team of guys in their prime, that are all great athletes, that all want to defend, it makes a difference as a team.

No, the reason you keep saying "superior athletes" is because you're trying to make a point that doesn't make sense. Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili and Richard Jefferson and their superior athleticism would do very little in helping to stop Shaq in his prime. Very, very little. And, now you want to add a wrinkle to your argument saying "great athletes that all want to defend." First of all, that's not the same argument. And, second of all, being athletic and wanting to defend doesn't automatically make players good defenders, and it doesn't matter when you're up against Shaq. Antonio McDyess for all his athleticism in his prime before his injuries would not be much of a factor at all against Shaq. Dice in his prime didn't defend anyway. So there goes your whole theory about wanting to defend. Dice didn't want to defend in his prime.

And, this is where you counter argue, well, playing for Pop and playing next to Tim, he'll have to defend better. That's as much conjecture as the opinions I have that you've been criticizing. He could want to defend, McDyess is not helping to stop Shaq in his prime. There's no way.



Will they be able to stop Shaq? No, but he won't post better numbers against a team like the Spurs in this scenario than he did on a normal team in real life that is not full of unselfish guys in their prime. In fact, what I am trying to argue is that he would perform a little worse because the team defense and offense (him having to play defense every single possession) from the Spurs.

Opinion versus opinion. I say Shaq is closer to the 63% field goal shooter he was in the 2004 series where Tim Duncan had to be the primary defender on Shaq, which ended up hurting his offense because Antonio McDyess couldn't help as much as David Robinson could to help guard Shaq.



Then, the rest of his team would have a much harder time guarding the Spurs players, role players or not. Will they all average 20 PPG, no. But they would exploit the worst match up every night and there would not be a direct 1st, 2nd...options because they are unselfish and all options are close to number 1 options anyways.

Did you forget this Cavs team has some guy named LeBron James?

RJ and Dice would each average anywhere from 8-12 ppg. It's not that much of an upgrade over Bruce/Finley and Oberto/Rasho or whoever they take playing time from. Each could have a big night and score 20+, but that doesn't take away from other role players. If they have games like that, that takes away touches from Duncan/Parker/Ginobili. That's why Shaq makes the bigger difference. He's taking away touches from Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Anderson Varejao, maybe a few touches from Mo Williams. He's not taking away touches from LeBron.

[ajh18]

In the context of this little exercise, I think last year's Suns team beats all these teams. I tend to be on the side of the argument that favors these Spurs and Celtics teams over the Cavs one, but last year's Suns team? Prime versions of Shaq, Amare, Grant Hill, Nash, and Richardson? I think that team is better than the Spurs and Celtics teams here, and I think it's significantly better than the Cavs team here. Grant Hill was amazing in his prime.

[DPG21920]

Shaq also a combined 53.6% from the field in all of those games. In those same series, Duncan shot a combined 47.4% from the field. Shaq and Duncan could play close to even in many of the games. Then again, I think David Robinson had to do a lot with Shaq not scoring great numbers in many of those series. The 2004 series is the only one above that David Robinson didn't play in, and that was when Kobe was ball hogging. Yet, Shaq shot over 63% from the field. Consequently, Tim Duncan having to take on the role of defending Shaq much more averaged his fewest points of any of those 5 series at 20.7 ppg. And, once again, Antonio McDyess even in his prime was not David Robinson defensively.


While we're at it, let's assume since Mo Williams has entered his prime this past year and Tony Parker is also in his prime, that Mo and Tony would play pretty much at a draw. This past season when the Cavs met the Spurs, this is how that match-up broke down:

Mo Williams
game 1: 4-9 FG, 9 points
game 2: 9-15 FG, 22 points

Tony Parker
game 1: 3-16 FG, 11 points
game 2: 9-16 FG, 24 points

I guess that match-up isn't that huge of an advantage after all. So let's call that one about even, right?

Who has shown more ability in the playoffs, not just one series? Tony Parker as evidenced by his finals MVP. At least with Shaq vs Tim we have multiple playoff series to make judgments on. IMO, one series is not enough to draw a conclusion.

Kobe was ball hogging? Shaq usually averaged around 18 shot attempts per game. That year he averaged around 14. So, even if you give Shaq 4 more attempts he would not have been throwing up all time numbers. How many more shots playing with Lebron would Shaq average vs playing with Kobe? Or would no one else on the Cavs shoot besides Lebron or Shaq?








Once again, you didn't make that altogether clear as I showed when I quoted all those posts. And, once again, I did give substance by explaining Shaq would be a #1 scoring option while RJ and Dice would be role players. That is an explanation with substance. Why do you continue to ignore that?

You did give substance and I did acknowledge it. You just turned it into a huge ordeal claiming the woe is me. I am not ignoring it, I am debating it. I have not said anything since you explained about providing substance for your one opinion.



This is why you were amusingly hypocritical calling me an emo. You've done this several times with the "where did I say anything like that" shit. And, then you do the same shit at me, and now try to twist it by saying it was an "obvious" poke at me.

I only used one hyperbole, and qualified it as such. Your comments have been exaggerated as well. Shit like "has Varejao did that against superior athletes?" As if no NBA team has superior athletes on their rosters except a super Spurs team of players in their prime. You make suggestions like Manu Ginobili is David Thompson incarnate athletically and Antonio McDyess is Ben Wallace in his prime defensively. Yes, you use exaggeration. You just try to be subtle about it and don't admit it. When I used my hyperbole, I wasn't trying to hide the fact that it was hyperbole.


LMAO, me saying where did I say this was a direct reference at you using hyperbole either for you or against me. That was not emo, that was asking to provide proof of what I said instead of making wild claims, hyperbole or not.

You used multiple hyperboles both to support your own arguments and to shoot mine down:

1) Shaq and Lebron dunking 25 times each per game
2) Saying I am acting like they would all average 40 PPG on 80% shooting
3) Saying I am acting like Dice is Barkley and Wallace meshed into one.
4) The newest on being Ginobili is David Thompson

That is not one hyperbole, it is 4. I never said anything like that. You are just taking things to the extreme for what ever reason.


Shaq is not the all time leading scorer. And he did not score the most points in a single game ever. Why do you ask?

I ask, because if Shaq is the most dominate player ever and not even a prime Duncan can slow him, you would think he would own these records or at least be close. But he isn't because people were able to stop him from scoring at will every time. He played with Kobe Bryant, who is comparable to Lebron.


The Shaq-Kobe three-peat Lakers didn't have two starters that shot 40% from three point range. The season where they almost had two 40% three point shooting starters in Fisher and Fox, they cruised through the 2001 playoffs with a 15-1 record with an average winning margin of 13 points. In the playoffs. 13 points. In the playoffs. That type of three point shooting, Anthony Parker is a career 40% from three point range and Mo Williams shot 43% last season completely distinguishes what you call as "comparable talent."

So Kobe is not comparable to Lebron talent wise? 3 point shooting is not the only factor. Is Mo Williams+Anthony Parker+Andy in their primes much better in overall talent than Derick Fisher+Glen Rice+Horry or a combo from another team in that 3 peat run?





That's my point. Duncan in his prime with Parker/Ginobili/RJ/Dice isn't stopping Shaq in his prime.

I never said they would. I said, at best, more than likely Shaq would do no better than his best, which was 30 PPG. That is a lot for Lebron and his team to make up because the Spurs will score.

Do this for me. Break down how many shots the starters on each team would get and factor in what you think the pace would be for both. Then how much each guy will average.





No, the reason you keep saying "superior athletes" is because you're trying to make a point that doesn't make sense. Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili and Richard Jefferson and their superior athleticism would do very little in helping to stop Shaq in his prime. Very, very little. And, now you want to add a wrinkle to your argument saying "great athletes that all want to defend." First of all, that's not the same argument. And, second of all, being athletic and wanting to defend doesn't automatically make players good defenders, and it doesn't matter when you're up against Shaq. Antonio McDyess for all his athleticism in his prime before his injuries would not be much of a factor at all against Shaq. Dice in his prime didn't defend anyway. So there goes your whole theory about wanting to defend. Dice didn't want to defend in his prime.

So having all of those players in their primes would not be an excellent overall team defensively? You can't tell me the reason I am saying something. I explained they would not stop Shaq, but Shaq would not average more than 30 PPG which was his best.

Dice would not defend in his prime? So he had no blocks and was abused? Or was his team poor?

In 1997-98, McDyess was 17th in the league in Blocks Per Game. He was 10th in the league in Defensive rating behind only Robinson, Duncan, Kemp, Rodman, Big Z, Charles Oakley, Sabonis, Knight and Charlie Ward. He was 13th in the league in defensive win shares.


And, this is where you counter argue, well, playing for Pop and playing next to Tim, he'll have to defend better. That's as much conjecture as the opinions I have that you've been criticizing. He could want to defend, McDyess is not helping to stop Shaq in his prime. There's no way.

I did not criticize the conjecture of OPINIONS. Just one opinion that I have said over and over again.

Dice would not help stop Shaq, Tim would do his best. I never said he would have to. I said that playing next to Tim helps and the overall team defense would be excellent.



Opinion versus opinion. I say Shaq is closer to the 63% field goal shooter he was in the 2004 series where Tim Duncan had to be the primary defender on Shaq, which ended up hurting his offense because Antonio McDyess couldn't help as much as David Robinson could to help guard Shaq.

We have seen guys other than DRob next to Tim that have done a serviceable job. Shaq was not averaging 30+ every time he played. Shaq's offense would struggle as well constantly having to guard Duncan and Shaq would have to help a lot for TP+Manu+Dice and RJ to a lesser extent beating their guys.



Did you forget this Cavs team has some guy named LeBron James?

RJ and Dice would each average anywhere from 8-12 ppg. It's not that much of an upgrade over Bruce/Finley and Oberto/Rasho or whoever they take playing time from. Each could have a big night and score 20+, but that doesn't take away from other role players. If they have games like that, that takes away touches from Duncan/Parker/Ginobili. That's why Shaq makes the bigger difference. He's taking away touches from Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Anderson Varejao, maybe a few touches from Mo Williams. He's not taking away touches from LeBron.

So please do what I asked. Show me the break down for both teams and who would average what.

[TIMMYD!]

Shaq has no skills, he just dunks. Same with Dwight Howard.

[DPG21920]

Shaq was very skillful and it is an insult to compare him to Dwight. Dwight is a nice player, but other than size and athleticism, he is nothing like Shaq.

[JamStone]

Honestly, don't really feel like going back and forth much anymore, so I'll just skip responding to those points we're just arguing where neither will compromise or back down from their opinion.

But, I'll answer your question.

Tony Parker - 15 FGA, 5 FTA, 19.1 ppg
Manu Ginobili - 12 FGA, 4 3PA, 4 FTA, 18.8 ppg
Richard Jefferson - 11 FGA, 2.5 3PA, 2 FTA, 14.5 ppg
Antonio McDyess - 8 FGA, 2 FTA, 10.4 ppg
Tim Duncan - 17 FGA, 7 FTA, 21.9 ppg

Mo Williams - 11 FGA, 5 3PA, 2 FTA, 13.3 ppg
Anthony Parker - 8 FGA, 4 3PA, 1 FTA, 10.3 ppg
LeBron James - 21 FGA, 10 FTA, 28.5 ppg
Anderson Varejao - 6 FGA, 1 FTA, 6.7 ppg
Shaquille O'Neal - 22 FGA, 10 FTA, 32.4 ppg

[DPG21920]

Honestly, don't really feel like going back and forth much anymore, so I'll just skip responding to those points we're just arguing where neither will compromise or back down from their opinion.

But, I'll answer your question.

Tony Parker - 15 FGA, 5 FTA, 19.1 ppg
Manu Ginobili - 12 FGA, 4 3PA, 4 FTA, 18.8 ppg
Richard Jefferson - 11 FGA, 2.5 3PA, 2 FTA, 14.5 ppg
Antonio McDyess - 8 FGA, 2 FTA, 10.4 ppg
Tim Duncan - 17 FGA, 7 FTA, 21.9 ppg

Mo Williams - 11 FGA, 5 3PA, 2 FTA, 13.3 ppg
Anthony Parker - 8 FGA, 4 3PA, 1 FTA, 10.3 ppg
LeBron James - 21 FGA, 10 FTA, 28.5 ppg
Anderson Varejao - 6 FGA, 1 FTA, 6.7 ppg
Shaquille O'Neal - 22 FGA, 10 FTA, 32.4 ppg


Fair enough, thanks for putting the numbers down.

So you think Shaq will average more than he ever has against a prime Tim and outscore him by more than he ever has before? Also, you think that Duncan/Parker/Ginobili, whom all averaged close to 20 PPG each in 2008 will average about the same?

Also, you have those Spurs taking 63 total shots, and the Cavs taking 68. You think they would average more shot attempts than a team with Parker who will run out, Ginobili that will run out, RJ that will run out, a big like McDyess that can run and Tim? You don't think the Spurs would average more shots than the Cavs?

[picc84]

Shaq also a combined 53.6% from the field in all of those games. In those same series, Duncan shot a combined 47.4% from the field. Shaq and Duncan could play close to even in many of the games. Then again, I think David Robinson had to do a lot with Shaq not scoring great numbers in many of those series. The 2004 series is the only one above that David Robinson didn't play in

In 2002, David played in 3 of the 5 games it took LA to beat the Spurs. In the 2 games he missed, SA started Duncan and Malik Rose in the frontcourt and Shaq scored 19 and 23 points.

In addition, during these spurs/lakers years Robinson was way past his prime and Duncan had surpassed him as an offensive and defensive player since 1999. Duncan is capable of doing at least as good a job as Robinson did, and often took responsibility guarding Shaq anyway despite David's presence.


and that was when Kobe was ball hogging.During that series, Kobe "ballhogged" to the tune of 21 shots per game.

Conversely, vs Detroit that same year in the series that became universally known as the "Kobe Ballhog" finals, Kobe shot 22 shots per game, one more than in the SA series, and Shaq still averaged 26ppg - 4 more than in the series vs San Antonio.

The previous year vs San Antonio, Kobe shot the ball 26 times per game (5 more shots than in 2004) and Shaq still averaged 25ppg, 3 more than the 2004 series.

What we can infer from this is that, generally, there is little to no correlation of the # of shots Kobe Bryant took to Shaq's scoring average in any given series, and that his performances were primarily determined by how he himself played and how the defense strategized against him. And in this, San Antonio always managed to make his scoring manageable whether their primary defender was Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Rasho Nesterovic, or Malik Rose. Pairing Antonio McDyess with Tim Duncan would not serve to alter that substantially at all. History shows that no matter who SA had in their frontcourt, Shaq was not overwhelmingly dominant against them, if at all.


Yet, Shaq shot over 63% from the field. Consequently, Tim Duncan having to take on the role of defending Shaq much more averaged his fewest points of any of those 5 series at 20.7 ppg.24ppg from Shaq opposed to 21ppg and DPOY defense from Duncan is not a large difference, and it is a deal that San Antonio will take. The rest of the Spurs team will outplay the rest of the Cavs team by a much more significant margin and, like I said, Shaq and Duncan will effectively neutralize each others contributions. Thus it becomes Lebron, Williams, etc. vs. 5 all-star caliber players. Like the Cavs vs Orlando series this spring but magnifiedx5.


And, once again, Antonio McDyess even in his prime was not David Robinson defensively.And in the early 2000's David Robinson was not David Robinson as you're thinking of him defensively either. He was a shell of his former self on both ends of the court, and not far beyond (if at all) a peak McDyess at all.


While we're at it, let's assume since Mo Williams has entered his prime this past year and Tony Parker is also in his prime, that Mo and Tony would play pretty much at a draw. This past season when the Cavs met the Spurs, this is how that match-up broke down:

Mo Williams
game 1: 4-9 FG, 9 points
game 2: 9-15 FG, 22 points

Tony Parker
game 1: 3-16 FG, 11 points
game 2: 9-16 FG, 24 points

I guess that match-up isn't that huge of an advantage after all. So let's call that one about even, right?


You're comparing two regular season games of Williams vs Parker to 5 years of extended playoff series' between Shaq and Tim Duncan?

Lets try to stay reasonable.

[DPG21920]

Ya, I don't agree with the Dice was a poor defender take. He was not a beast, but he was ok as evidenced by:

In 1997-98, McDyess was 17th in the league in Blocks Per Game. He was 10th in the league in Defensive rating behind only Robinson, Duncan, Kemp, Rodman, Big Z, Charles Oakley, Sabonis, Knight and Charlie Ward. He was 13th in the league in defensive win shares.

[picc84]

The idea that Shaq is going to average 32ppg, or anywhere near it, against the Spurs is one that is overwhelmingly opposed by history provided that Tim Duncan is on the team, regardless of who else is. It never happened in half a decades worth of playoffs and it won't happen here. This is what I mean when I talk about the romanticized "Prime Shaq". Usually people have to die to get this kind of treatment.

[Sdayi135]

The Shaq-Kobe three-peat Lakers didn't have two starters that shot 40% from three point range. The season where they almost had two 40% three point shooting starters in Fisher and Fox, they cruised through the 2001 playoffs with a 15-1 record with an average winning margin of 13 points. In the playoffs. 13 points. In the playoffs. That type of three point shooting, Anthony Parker is a career 40% from three point range and Mo Williams shot 43% last season completely distinguishes what you call as "comparable talent."


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Fernando TD21]

In 2002, David played in 3 of the 5 games it took LA to beat the Spurs. In the 2 games he missed, SA started Duncan and Malik Rose in the frontcourt and Shaq scored 19 and 23 points.

In addition, during these spurs/lakers years Robinson was way past his prime and Duncan had surpassed him as an offensive and defensive player since 1999. Duncan is capable of doing at least as good a job as Robinson did, and often took responsibility guarding Shaq anyway despite David's presence.

During that series, Kobe "ballhogged" to the tune of 21 shots per game.

Conversely, vs Detroit that same year in the series that became universally known as the "Kobe Ballhog" finals, Kobe shot 22 shots per game, one more than in the SA series, and Shaq still averaged 26ppg - 4 more than in the series vs San Antonio.

The previous year vs San Antonio, Kobe shot the ball 26 times per game (5 more shots than in 2004) and Shaq still averaged 25ppg, 3 more than the 2004 series.

What we can infer from this is that, generally, there is little to no correlation of the # of shots Kobe Bryant took to Shaq's scoring average in any given series, and that his performances were primarily determined by how he himself played and how the defense strategized against him. And in this, San Antonio always managed to make his scoring manageable whether their primary defender was Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Rasho Nesterovic, or Malik Rose. Pairing Antonio McDyess with Tim Duncan would not serve to alter that substantially at all. History shows that no matter who SA had in their frontcourt, Shaq was not overwhelmingly dominant against them, if at all.

24ppg from Shaq opposed to 21ppg and DPOY defense from Duncan is not a large difference, and it is a deal that San Antonio will take. The rest of the Spurs team will outplay the rest of the Cavs team by a much more significant margin and, like I said, Shaq and Duncan will effectively neutralize each others contributions. Thus it becomes Lebron, Williams, etc. vs. 5 all-star caliber players. Like the Cavs vs Orlando series this spring but magnifiedx5.

And in the early 2000's David Robinson was not David Robinson as you're thinking of him defensively either. He was a shell of his former self on both ends of the court, and not far beyond (if at all) a peak McDyess at all.



You're comparing two regular season games of Williams vs Parker to 5 years of extended playoff series' between Shaq and Tim Duncan?

Lets try to stay reasonable.
:lobt:

[JamStone]

Fair enough, thanks for putting the numbers down.

So you think Shaq will average more than he ever has against a prime Tim and outscore him by more than he ever has before? Also, you think that Duncan/Parker/Ginobili, whom all averaged close to 20 PPG each in 2008 will average about the same?

Also, you have those Spurs taking 63 total shots, and the Cavs taking 68. You think they would average more shot attempts than a team with Parker who will run out, Ginobili that will run out, RJ that will run out, a big like McDyess that can run and Tim? You don't think the Spurs would average more shots than the Cavs?


You wanted numbers, I gave you numbers. I don't know what you expected. Did you think I'd somehow change my mind and put the numbers in favor of the Spurs?and those numbers are based on how many minutes I think they'll all play, anywhere from 30-40 mpg for each player, taking into consideration they'll still rest.

63 shot attempts for the Spurs because I think the Spurs will use their bench more and the Cavs will ride their starters more. And yes that's what I think Shaq will average. I think he'll get those amount of touches in his prime and against Duncan as the primary defender, Shaq will shoot in the high 50% or low 60% just like when he shot 63% against the Spurs in the 2004 playoffs against the Spurs when they didn't have Robinson and Duncan had to take more responsibilty defending Shaq.

So yes.

[JamStone]

In that 2004 series, Shaq shot 63% on that DPOY Duncan defense while Duncan shot 47% on Shaq and a hobbled Karl Malone. I see a distinction.

Also, compare Kobe's 21 shot attempts to Shaq's 14 shot attempts in that Spurs series. Shooting 63% from the field, one would expect him to get the most shot attempts on the team... Or at the very least comparable to the number of shot attempts Kobe had.

[DPG21920]

You wanted numbers, I gave you numbers. I don't know what you expected. Did you think I'd somehow change my mind and put the numbers in favor of the Spurs?and those numbers are based on how many minutes I think they'll all play, anywhere from 30-40 mpg for each player, taking into consideration they'll still rest.

63 shot attempts for the Spurs because I think the Spurs will use their bench more and the Cavs will ride their starters more. And yes that's what I think Shaq will average. I think he'll get those amount of touches in his prime and against Duncan as the primary defender, Shaq will shoot in the high 50% or low 60% just like when he shot 63% against the Spurs in the 2004 playoffs against the Spurs when they didn't have Robinson and Duncan had to take more responsibilty defending Shaq.

So yes.

Ok.... I said thanks for putting the numbers down. I thought you might look at things when putting the numbers down that shed light on something. I did not know what you would do, but I thought you would be honest, but try and defend what you have been saying.

Then I asked questions. So now you are adding the bench variable for some reason? When we have never discussed it?

Also, even if you wanted to bring in a random variable, why would the Spurs defer more to their bench? Just like in the playoffs, the best players play the vast majority of the minutes and rotations are shortened. Why would the Spurs let their best players sit while the Cavs play theirs?

[DPG21920]

So you are also using just one series and saying pretty much for sure that DRob is the sole reason for the difference every other time Shaq played Duncan?

[JamStone]

Ok.... I said thanks for putting the numbers down. I thought you might look at things when putting the numbers down that shed light on something. I did not know what you would do, but I thought you would be honest, but try and defend what you have been saying.

Then I asked questions. So now you are adding the bench variable for some reason? When we have never discussed it?

Also, even if you wanted to bring in a random variable, why would the Spurs defer more to their bench? Just like in the playoffs, the best players play the vast majority of the minutes and rotations are shortened. Why would the Spurs let their best players sit while the Cavs play theirs?

Would you rather me put down each players numbers as if they'd each play 48 minutes each game? I'll do that if you want me to. I put down stats that I thought were realistic in a regular game format.

In Shaq's prime when he was the clear #1, in those three championship years, 2000,2001, 2002, in the playoffs, Shaq averaged 21 FGA and 12 FTA. In the first four playoff series against the Spurs (1999, 2001, 2002, 2003), Shaq averaged 18 FGA and 9.9 FTA. I think not having Robinson defend Shaq, it's reasonable to think Shaq in his prime could get off a handful more shot attempts on Duncan/Dice. If you don't, that's your opinion.

And, I don't see why you would infer earlier that I'm not being honest. It's an opinion. And, it's a reasonable one.

[DPG21920]

Are you self conscious or something? Where did I say you weren't honest? I said fair enough and thanked you for putting the numbers down.

You got an attitude after my reply and asked "what did you expect me to do"? I said "Ok...I told you thanks". I was not being rude or implying you were dishonest. When you asked what did you expect me to do, I said I expected you to be honest and defend your take, which you did. I never implied otherwise, I just answered your strange response.

Moving on....

I do think Shaq would get a good number of attempts, but I doubt he would average more PPG than he ever has before. Shaq in 2000 averaged 22 shots per game and only 30.7 PPG. But now, against a team anchored by a prime Tim he is expected to go above that?

Also, pic posted this earlier:



2004: 22ppg in WCSF vs Duncan and Rasho Nesterovic
2003: 25ppg in WCSF vs Duncan and DRob
2002: 21ppg in WCSF vs Duncan, Malik Rose, and DRob for 3 games
2001: 27ppg in WCF vs Duncan and DRob
1999: 24ppg in WCF vs Duncan and Drob

The lowest point totals from Shaq came without Drob, or where Drob played the least in 2004 and 2002.

Saying they won't play 48 minutes is quite different from saying the Spurs would rely on their bench more than the Cavs without explanation. Also I disagree the Cavs would average more shot attempts is all.

I never said you were being unreasonable, and I don't know if the tone of my posts would lead you to think that, but I assure you that was not the intention.

And if you were going to say the Spurs would rely on their bench more, you should have put down how much you thought the benches would add to the starters points to determine who would win.

[Leetonidas]

Just out of curiousity, I looked up Shaq's #'s vs the Spurs from 99-2004.

2004: 22ppg in WCSF vs Duncan and Rasho Nesterovic
2003: 25ppg in WCSF vs Duncan and DRob
2002: 21ppg in WCSF vs Duncan, Malik Rose, and DRob for 3 games
2001: 27ppg in WCF vs Duncan and DRob
1999: 24ppg in WCF vs Duncan and Drob

Call me crazy, but those arent exactly mind-boggling #'s from the unstoppable scoring force known as prime Shaq, and those Spurs teams were not on the same planet as the Spurs team from this scenario. The simple act of existing in the vicinity of prime Shaq isn't going to render your team helpless and your bigs to 40mpg on the bench in foul trouble.

Somehow, someway, these Spurs teams managed to compete against us even with Shaq averaging a devastating 24ppg and relegating Tim Duncan to a crushing 5 minutes spent on the bench per game.

Duncan has always been able to do at least a manageable job against Shaq, and is probably the best defensive player of this whole scenario. He and Shaq will come close to canceling each other out, like they usually did, and Lebron will be left to try to match and exceed the output of the Spurs 5 other 20ppg players (who will not all average 20ppg but this is the caliber of player they are) with the help of Jamario Moon, Andersen Flopajao, Delonte West, and Mo Williams.

:toast

Yeah, those sure are some out-of-this-world numbers by Shaq on Duncan. :rolleyes

[JamStone]

This is where you inferred I wasn't being honest. Thats how it read.


Ok.... I said thanks for putting the numbers down. I thought you might look at things when putting the numbers down that shed light on something. I did not know what you would do, but I thought you would be honest, but try and defend what you have been saying.

[JamStone]

In 2004, Shaq had yielded to Kobe as the #1 option.

Shaq shot 63% from the field on Duncan without Robinson. In Shaq's prime in the playoffs, he averaged 21 FGA and 12 FTA. The numbers I posted are perfectly reasonable.

[DPG21920]

Yes, I read it and did I not quote exactly what I said? You asked me what I thought you would do and I said I thought you would be honest and defend your position.

I did not say "I thought you would be honest but you werent and all you did was throw numbers up to back yourself no matter what". Get real.

So now what about the rest of what I said?

1) What about 2002?
2) What about 2000 where Shaq averaged 22 SPG and 20.7 PPG? He would be even better against a prime Spurs?
3) What about the 48 MPG comment and why do you think the Spurs would rely more on their bench than the Cavs? If you are going to throw that out there, who's bench would be better? By how many PPG?

[JamStone]

In 2000 Kobe wasn't in his prime and nowhere near the player LeBron would be in his prime. And against a frontcourt without Robinson and with LeBron in his prime, yes, I believe he could and would average what I posted.

[DPG21920]

Baby stepping...........What about number 3?

[JamStone]

My goodness. You're being extremely anal about a hypothetical scenario based on conjecture and opinion.

In a series, the Spurs bench would have the advantage by 4.1457532186 ppg.

[DPG21920]

It was a pretty big assumption to make is all. I just wanted to know why you thought, with Shaq and Lebron being so dominant, why the Spurs would not have their best players going minute for minute with them?

Especially when you throw in a random variable we have not discussed.

[JamStone]

I had the Spurs best players going minute for minute with Shaq and LeBron. I didn't put a mpg distribution anyway. Only that collectively, all five, that the Spurs bench would have more field goal attempts than the Cavs bench. It's not simply a minutes difference. It's not that the Spurs bench would play that much more than the Cavs bench, but they'd take more shot attempts. Just an opinion. It could be wrong. I don't care anymore.

But it doesn't even matter at this point. Look, I actually took the time and effort to give you a real opinion on the stats. I actually did look up playoff stats of the players even. Its not conclusive when applied to this hypothetical. It's not concrete, written in stone. And it's not irrefutable. But that's this whole, entire discussion topic. Had you been the one to post what you think the stats would be, I could similarly go through every stat and poke holes as to how you come up with the numbers, because it's conjecture and opinion that in this hypothetical scenario cannot be proven.

That's why I was done with this. I was trying to appease you by answering your stats question so you wouldn't think I was punking out of the arguments. But honestly. How is either one of going to prove out respective opinions conclusively? We can't. We'll just go back and forth claiming what's wrong with the other's opinion. At this point, it's senseless.

[DPG21920]

I agree that you could poke holes and I know that you took the time. It was just interesting and it was one of those things when you answered one question another one arose type deal. There is not much else to talk about and I have debates like this with friends sometimes that are funny that we carry on while partying or something.

[JamStone]

Btw I kept editing that post because of al the misspellings. I'm typing on my itouch in bed and it autocorrects words it thinks I mispell, like changing stats to state or punking to pinking. I'm so annoyed by it.

[DPG21920]

Jam, you know what this reminded me of?

GR6rRyBNqWw

You think its over, then Bam, you get hit with a chair.

[DAF86]

Parker, Ginobili, Finley, McDyess and Duncan are all all-star players in their primes.

[j-money24]

Btw I kept editing that post because of al the misspellings. I'm typing on my itouch in bed and it autocorrects words it thinks I mispell, like changing stats to state or punking to pinking. I'm so annoyed by it.


I have the same problem with my Iphone.

[picc84]

In that 2004 series, Shaq shot 63% on that DPOY Duncan defense while Duncan shot 47% on Shaq and a hobbled Karl Malone. I see a distinction.

Sure there's a distinction. 3 points more on better shooting. That is a distinction, yes....but its not a dominating distinction. And it does nothing to dissolve the point of this matter - that Shaq would not post dominating scoring #'s against the Spurs, contrary to the statistical expectations you've outlined for this projected matchup.

(insignificant but curious sidenote: Malone wasn't injured until the following series vs the Minnesota Timberwolves)


Also, compare Kobe's 21 shot attempts to Shaq's 14 shot attempts in that Spurs series. Shooting 63% from the field, one would expect him to get the most shot attempts on the team... Or at the very least comparable to the number of shot attempts Kobe had.

Therein lies the problem. You're projecting Shaq's performance on the Cavs from what you would expect. Not from what would actually happen. As history shows, regardless of how many times Kobe Bryant shot the ball vs San Antonio, Shaq himself never took an extraordinary amount of shots, no matter his touches, and neither did he score an extraordinary amount of points, no matter his defender.

This is what we should expect were he were to join the Cavs in his prime, because this is what has always happened vis-a-vis prime Shaquille O'Neal versus the Duncan-led San Antonio Spurs.

[hater]

In 2003 Spurs beat prime Shaq+Kobe team. And that was with no ginobili or parker in their primes. This Spurs team in their prime would be way, way, way better than 2003 Spurs.

Spurs then Cavs, then Celtics

[JamStone]

Sigh. Against my better judgment... I respond.

In Shaq's prime, which he would be in this hypothetical, and in the playoffs, Shaq averaged 21 FGAs even with Kobe getting his share of shot attempts. Against a Spurs team without David Robinson to help defend him, Shaq shot 63% from the field. My expectations are based on those two things. Shaq being in his prime and the Spurs not having Robinson to slow him down. Some of you keep talking about specific series as if those two things couldn't change things. As I already stated, it's conjecture on both sides of the argument. And both sides of the argument are inconclusive opinions neither of which can be proven to the point of irrefutability. That's why I was supposed to be done with.

As for 2003, well Shaq arguably no longer in his prime and the Lakers beat the Spurs with Tony and Manu in 2004.

Also, Karl Malone was injured before the Minnesota series. But it was in the Minnesota series that he aggravated his injuryto the point he shouldn't have been playing.

Smh @ myself. I don't know why I can't not respond...

[hater]

Dice was as good or better defender than Robinson in his prime.

Cavs vs. Spurs would be close. but Spurs just have too much firepower for even Shaq and Bron

We are talking about Tim Duncan in his prime. Duncan and Dice > Shaq.

[DAF86]

Sigh. Against my better judgment... I respond.

In Shaq's prime, which he would be in this hypothetical, and in the playoffs, Shaq averaged 21 FGAs even with Kobe getting his share of shot attempts. Against a Spurs team without David Robinson to help defend him, Shaq shot 63% from the field. My expectations are based on those two things. Shaq being in his prime and the Spurs not having Robinson to slow him down. Some of you keep talking about specific series as if those two things couldn't change things. As I already stated, it's conjecture on both sides of the argument. And both sides of the argument are inconclusive opinions neither of which can be proven to the point of irrefutability. That's why I was supposed to be done with.

As for 2003, well Shaq arguably no longer in his prime and the Lakers beat the Spurs with Tony and Manu in 2004.

Also, Karl Malone was injured before the Minnesota series. But it was in the Minnesota series that he aggravated his injuryto the point he shouldn't have been playing.

Smh @ myself. I don't know why I can't not respond...

2003 LA team >> Cavs with everybody on their primes

Spurs with everybody on their primes >>>>>>>>> 2003 Spurs team

2003 Spurs team > 2003 LA team

so...

Spurs with everybody on their primes >>>>>>>>>>>> Cavs with everybody on their primes

[JamStone]

I formally request that you put this statement in your sig.


Dice was as good or better defender than Robinson in his prime.

[picc84]

Sigh. Against my better judgment... I respond.

In Shaq's prime, which he would be in this hypothetical, and in the playoffs, Shaq averaged 21 FGAs even with Kobe getting his share of shot attempts. Against a Spurs team without David Robinson to help defend him, Shaq shot 63% from the field. My expectations are based on those two things. Shaq being in his prime and the Spurs not having Robinson to slow him down. Some of you keep talking about specific series as if those two things couldn't change things. As I already stated, it's conjecture on both sides of the argument. And both sides of the argument are inconclusive opinions neither of which can be proven to the point of irrefutability. That's why I was supposed to be done with.

Whatever Shaq's shot attempts, whatever Kobe's, whoever the Spurs guarded him with, whatever year they played in, it all ended in the same thing. Shaq scoring in the mid to low 20's per game on high fg%.

That is a constant that didnt change even when the defenders did. Shaq's performance vs the Spurs is not correlated to his teammates' performances or their shot attempts. Whether they played good or bad, whether they shot a lot or a little, it did not substantially influence Shaq's scoring average or shot attempts.

Robinson and no Robinson - prime Shaq never scored more than 27ppg against a Tim Duncan Spurs team, no matter how many times he shot the ball or who defended him. Thats a fact. The only conjecturing done throughout this argument has come from the hypothetical statistic projections that you've based off your idea of what should happen, that is in direct contradiction of what actually did.

This is the scoring average of prime Shaq's games vs SA, during Tim Duncans era, compared to games in which David Robinson did not play at all:

vs. Spurs without David Robinson: 22ppg
vs. Spurs with D.R.: 26ppg
Average: 24ppg

Shaq actually scored more points vs SA when Robinson was playing. I tried to convey a little earlier why this might not have been unusual when I pointed out that 2000's David Robinson, who was vastly removed from his prime, was not a great defensive player anymore, but merely tall.

However, these facts illustrate a few things.

1. David Robinsons presence was of little influence to how Shaq scored, shot, and performed.
2. How much Kobe Bryant shot the ball was of little influence to Shaq's scoring, shooting, and performance.

Throughout the entirety of the Spurs/Lakers playoff battles there was only one fixed constant in opposition to Shaq's scoring - Tim Duncan. Everything else changed, everything else switched around, but what never changed is that as long as Tim Duncan played for the Spurs, Shaq would score 24ppg against them.

Antonio McDyess will not change this any more than Malik Rose, Mark Bryant, Rasho Nesterovic, or broken-down David Robinson did. Duncan was the constant in Shaq's scoring average - not anyone else on the Spurs or on the Lakers. It is impossible for you to prove he would average 30+ per game against this Spurs team because he's simply never shown the capability to do so as long as Tim Duncan was on the other end.


As for 2003, well Shaq arguably no longer in his prime

In 2003 Shaq averaged 28/11/3 in the reg season. Those are identical to his championship caliber averages in 2002 of 28/11/3.

In the first round vs Minnesota in 2003, he averaged 29ppg. Those are "prime Shaq" numbers as you see fit to judge them. Then vs SA in the semi's he averaged 25ppg as I pointed out. He was in his prime. We just lost.


and the Lakers beat the Spurs with Tony and Manu in 2004.

Yes, and...?


Also, Karl Malone was injured before the Minnesota series. But it was in the Minnesota series that he aggravated his injuryto the point he shouldn't have been playing.

He was "injured" vs SA in the same way Kobe's finger made him "injured" in the playoffs last year. The fact Malone's ailment didnt become debilatating until Minnesota makes this an insignificant issue.


Smh @ myself. I don't know why I can't not respond...

About this. I find it odd that you have it within yourself to become exasperated when you are literally rewriting history to make your points. Every projection and idea you've put forth into this debate has been pure conjecture in direct opposition to everything the facts have indicated. You dont have the merit of position to be exasperated. At least present an argument based on more than your personal opinion before you begin to huff.

[sonic21]

a team with prime Shaq and prime lebron would be a lock to the championship (even with a really average supporting cast) .

1-cavs
2-spurs
3-celtics

[JamStone]

I'm not going point by point.

I'll just make my points. Everything in this thread, this discussion is rewriting history. We'Re all rewriting things that didn't happen. Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, RJ, and Dice never all played together all in their prime.

Shaq didn't play against a Spurs team without Robinson while he was in his prime. By 2003, Shaq had relinquished being the Lakers #1 option to Kobe. Kobe was taking more shot attempts.

I'm rewriting history because what we are discussing never happened before. The Cavs players and the Spurs players never played each other with all players in their prime. So past statistics are not exactly translated or applicable. We take that information and make a guess on what might happen. It's my opinion that in his prime, Shaq would get 22 FGA and put up 32 points on a Spurs team without Robinson even with Tim in his prime. It's an opinion, conjecture. If you disagree, fine. But you can't say with certainty that it could not happen, just the same as I couldn't say it could because no matter how many times you refuse to acknowledge or understand it, neither of us can prove it because it is hypothetical opinions based on conjecture. How do you continue to not understand that?

I look at the 2001 playoff series between the Lakers and Spurs where Shaq averaged 27 points on 21 FGA and Kobe averaged 33 points on 26 FGA and I think the numbers I estimated are reasonable, only I had Shaq with more attempts and points and LeBron with fewer.

But again, it's conjecture and I can't prove it without any doubt. Nor can you with your past stats because none of them are completely and exactly based on the same set of of variables dealing with all players in their prime, no matter how much you want to believe it.

In his prime I have plenty of reason to believe Shaq could get up 22 shot attempts against a frontline of Duncan and Dice. And with free throws and 60% FG shooting, I have reason to believe he could average 32 points, again in his prime without facing Robinson. If you don't agree, fine. The problem is neither of can prove without a doubt and to complete certainty either way. We can't. That's why I'm exsasperated. Because it's a pointless back-and-forth at this point.

[Hornets1]

Spurs Celtics
Parker>Rondo
Allen=Ginobilli
Pierce>Finley or RJ
Garnett<Duncan(barely)(Duncan's accomplished a whole lot more, but Garnett's talent is very close to that of TD
Sheed>Dice

I'd take the Celts, BARELY
Celts are better at 2 position, Spurs are better at 2 position, and 1 is tied IMO.

Either way, THAT WOULD BE A DAMN GREAT GAME!

Although the Cavs would have the most dominant duo, I think the Spurs and Celts are the top 2 in this discussion. My proof is the 2004 Pistons anal-raping of the Lakers that year in the Finals

[picc84]

I'll just make my points. Everything in this thread, this discussion is rewriting history. We'Re all rewriting things that didn't happen. Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, RJ, and Dice never all played together all in their prime.

Thats not true. I'm not rewriting history when I reference Shaq vs Tim Duncan. That happened, and the results were consistent regardless of who accompanied Tim in the Spurs frontcourt.

Shaq averaging 24ppg vs Duncan Spurs is actual history.

Shaq averaging more points vs Duncan/Robinson Spurs than otherwise is actual history.

Shaq averaging 32ppg vs Duncan Spurs is revisionist history and unsupportable given the facts.


Shaq didn't play against a Spurs team without Robinson while he was in his prime. By 2003, Shaq had relinquished being the Lakers #1 option to Kobe. Kobe was taking more shot attempts.

1. 2003 Robinson was not a great defender.

2. Kobe had been taking more shot attempts than Shaq since the 2000-2001 season, when he shot 22 times a game to Shaq's 19. Then in 2001-2002 he took 20 to Shaq's 18. Kobe having more fga in that series in no way meant he was either the #1 option or that Shaq was past his prime, any more than it did in 2001-2002.

Kobe's fga went up as he got better as a player, not as Shaq got worse. This is generally what happens when teams get better, as evidenced by Kobe following up his 24 fga per game in 2003 with 18 fga per game in 2004 with the addition of Payton and Malone.

3. Shaqs prime lasted until at least the 2005 season, as he averaged identical #'s in 2003 to his #'s in 2002, and both he and Kobe Bryant only saw a statistical dip in 2004 because the Lakers added Karl Malone and Gary Payon.


It's my opinion that in his prime, Shaq would get 22 FGA and put up 32 points on a Spurs team without Robinson even with Tim in his prime.

This is the difference. My opinion is supported by facts and history. Your's is supported by nothing but your imagination. Neither of our stances are proveable beyond a shadow of a doubt, but mine is the (much) stronger and more supportable based on actual tangible information, while your's is based only on conjecture.


It's an opinion, conjecture. If you disagree, fine. But you can't say with certainty that it could not happen, just the same as I couldn't say it could because no matter how many times you refuse to acknowledge or understand it, neither of us can prove it because it is hypothetical opinions based on conjecture. How do you continue to not understand that?

I understand this. If I put on brass knuckles and punch a brick wall 10 times and it doesn't break, its fairly reasonable to assume that the 11th time will be no different. I dont know for sure - I haven't yet punched the wall again - but from the physical facts presented, that is the logical conclusion to come to.

My theory that the wall won't break is just as unproveable as your idea that it will, provided that the 11th wall punch has not happened yet. But in the absence of empirical proof, the more likely theory is the one supported by the preponderance of history.

In this case, that is the wall not breaking. And Shaq not posting dominating scoring averages versus the Tim Duncan-led Spurs.


That's why I'm exsasperated. Because it's a pointless back-and-forth at this point.

Its only pointless because you refuse to concede even an inch where you are off a mile.

If you were willing to acknowledge/accept even the most minute of the facts and statistics i've presented related to prime Shaq vs Tim Duncan teams, instead of either completely ignoring them or rationalizing them with more revisionism (Robinson being responsible for Shaq's low averages, Kobe taking more shots meaning Shaq was past his prime), this discussion would have progressed much further and we might even have reached a mutually acceptable conclusion.

[JamStone]

In Shaq's prime, he averaged 21 FGA and 12 FTA in the playoffs. In a playoff series against the Spurs without Robinson, Shaq shot 63% from the field. Those are also facts. Shaq never played the Spurs without Robinson while in his prime. This is where you and I differ. Shaq as the clear #1 option did not extend to 2005 in my opinion. In 2004, Shaq averaged only 14 FGA against the Spurs in that series. Shaq in his prime would have averaged over 20 FGA.

Once again, you ignore that these hypothetical change things. And none of the past series are perfect indicators of what might happen. You choose to believe nothing changes. I believe differently.

[picc84]

In Shaq's prime, he averaged 21 FGA and 12 FTA in the playoffs.

And still never scored over 27ppg against the Spurs, nevermind 32+.


In a playoff series against the Spurs without Robinson, Shaq shot 63% from the field. Those are also facts.

One i've already conceded, which is much, much more than you can say for anything you've been willing to do, even in the face of much more extensive fact sets.


Shaq never played the Spurs without Robinson while in his prime.

This is where you and I differ. Shaq as the clear #1 option did not extend to 2005 in my opinion.

Shaq averaged the exact same scoring, rebounding, etc. in 2003 as he did in 2002. In 2004 his averages dipped because of talent additions to the team - so did Kobe's. So thats not an indication of decline either, especially since he played so well in the finals that year vs Detroit.

Furthermore, Shaq's shot attempts vis-a-vis Kobe are irrelevant to his status as #1 option since Kobe had been averaging more shot attempts than him since 2000-2001.


In 2004, Shaq averaged only 14 FGA against the Spurs in that series.

Again, this happened because the Lakers added Gary Payton and Karl Malone. Everyone's shot attempts and scoring went down when they joined the team - both during the regular season and during the playoffs. Kobe only shot 21 times per game in that 2004 series when during the 2003 series he shot 27 times per game. Was he passing his prime? No.

The point is, Shaq's FGA's going down was not due to him declining, it was due to shots going to the new team additions. Every reason you have for thinking he was declining after 2001 is either outright false or was a result of a number of factors having nothing to do with Shaq himself.


Shaq in his prime would have averaged over 20 FGA.

Shaq in your isolated vision of his prime wasn't sharing shots with Karl Malone and Gary Payton.

In addition, every series Shaq did shoot over 20 FG's per game against the Spurs, he still never managed to reach 30ppg. Thats one constant that never changed.

[hater]

gotta say picc84 makes sense

[JamStone]

If Shaq's shot attempts went down because additions of talent like GP and Malone, then it makes sense they wouldn't while he's in his prime with Varejao and Anthony Parker as teammates in the starting line up. When Shaq averaged 20 FGa in a series against the Spurs, they always had Robinson. When they didn't, he shot 63% from the field. Put Shaq in his prime getting 20+ FGA a game shooting 60%, he's going to average 32 points a game.

You keep wanting to only look at certain things while disregarding other things that happened in those series.

[picc84]

If Shaq's shot attempts went down because additions of talent like GP and Malone, then it makes sense they wouldn't while he's in his prime with Varejao and Anthony Parker as teammates in the starting line up.

Correct.

I wasn't saying that he would average 14fga playing with Parker and Varejao. I was refuting your assertion that he was declining because he was shooting less. Thats it.

I can concede that Shaq will shoot around 20 times per game on this hypothetical team. What you don't seem to be able or willing to acknowledge is that this does not mean he will reach 30ppg, any more than it did during the Spurs/Lakers series'. He may shoot 20 times per game, but Duncan-led defenses have always - always - held him to below 30ppg (well below it on average), no matter who else played in the frontcourt with him. I will address your FG% argument below.


When Shaq averaged 20 FGa in a series against the Spurs, they always had Robinson. When they didn't, he shot 63% from the field. Put Shaq in his prime getting 20+ FGA a game shooting 60%, he's going to average 32 points a game.

Shaq shot a higher % when he took less FG's and shot a lower % when he took more - when does that ever happen in the NBA?

Why not have Shaq shoot 30 times a game? Since he's gonna be shooting 63% no matter how many shot attempts he puts up, he'll score 36ppg. Or how about 40 field goal attempts per game? He'll score 48ppg. GOAT.

If Shaq could have shot 63% against the Spurs while shooting the ball 20 times a game, he would have. But just like every other player in the history of the NBA, as his shooting volume increases, his FG% decreases.

And as we've already seen, David Robinsons presence had little effect on Shaq's scoring average or shot attempts. During the 2002 series, the two games SA played without Robinson saw Shaq average 19 shots per game on 42% shooting, for 21ppg.

When David rejoined the team, the 3 remaining games Shaqs shot attempts remained at 19 per game, on 46% for 22ppg.

Why you keep referencing washed up David Robinson I have no idea, since it seems like if anything Shaq played better against him, and at best the effect he had was neutral compared to others.

From what we can see, the more Shaq shot against the Spurs the worse his fg% was, and the less he shot the better. You propose he'd shoot 60% plus vs the Spurs on the Cavs, but fail to take into consideration that:

1. He is only capable of that % vs the Spurs if his shot attempts go down accordingly, just like every other player in the history of the NBA. And
2. The talent level of the LA team in 2004 with Kobe, Malone, and Payton served to take a substantial chunk of defensive attention off of him, which is a luxury the Cavs would not provide.


You keep wanting to only look at certain things while disregarding other things that happened in those series.

If anyone is cherry-picking, its you. "He does this from this series, and combines it with this from this series, and that makes his average." This is why we cant arbitrarily cherrypick stats, because there are variables and other factors to consider that explain why people perform the way they do. Why did Shaq shoot 63% in 2004? Why did Shaq shoot 44% in 2002? Etc. Etc. These are important things to know, but you simply refuse to do any kind of critical thinking. You just look at a stat sheet, pick the ones you like, and put them together. It doesn't work like that.

[JamStone]

Of the 25 games of the five playoffs series Shaq played against the Spurs as a Laker (1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), Shaq attempted 20 or more FGA in 9 of them.

In those (9) games Shaq attempted 20 or more FGA, he shot 54.2% from the field.

In those (16) games Shaq attempted less than 20 FGA, he shot 53.3% from the field.

There goes your theory that the more shot attempts, the lower the FG%. Oops. Looks like the more shots he took, the higher the field goal percentage.

I keep referencing David Robinson because even a David Robinson in his decline is a better defensive match up against Shaquille O'Neal than Antonio McDyess. David Robinson is still taller, stronger, and longer than McDyess. By 2003, you didn't have to outjump Shaq to defend him. You had to be able to use strength to keep him away from the basket as much as possible. Antonio McDyess in his prime was still 6-foot-9 and 230 lbs. and no match for Shaq. In 2003, David Robinson was still 7-foot-1 and anywhere from 250-260. He's still a better defensive match-up. He would still be able to provide more defensive resistance than Antonio McDyess in his prime.


1. When Shaq shot more, he actually shot a higher percentage.
2. This Cavs team's role players are both 40% three point shooters which would absolutely keep the perimeter defenders more honest when it comes to helping on the double team. LeBron's ability to attack the basket would make it hard for the big man help defender to help both Shaq's defender and LeBron's defender. That's where Kobe being more of a jumpshooter actually didn't help Shaq when it came to double teams.



This is why we cant arbitrarily cherrypick stats, because there are variables and other factors to consider that explain why people perform the way they do.

This is exactly the same argument against your opinions. Basically, that's what I've been saying in many of my recent posts. We cannot take any of the past stats and know for sure how they will apply with these different variables added. We can't conclusively say either way. Thanks for finally understanding.

[DPG21920]

We have seen Mo shrivel up in the playoffs with his 40% shooting.

[JamStone]

As poorly as he played, he still shot 37% from three point range in the playoffs. Now, in this scenario, where he doesn't have the pressure of being the second option, I would expect his percentages and his play to be better. In Tony Parker's first two post seasons, he shot 41.8% from the field. I'm pretty sure he got better over the years with more playoff experience and with Manu developing into the player he became over the next few seasons. Adding Shaq in his prime takes a whole lot of pressure off of Mo Williams.

[DPG21920]

We are talking about primes. We have seen Mo's and TP's or at least the start of TP's. TP was a finals MVP, so we can judge his prime. In Mo's prime, he shriveled up overall. But I get what you are saying about not having the pressure.

[JamStone]

To be honest, the only players being in their prime that really and truly matter on the Cavs are Shaq and LeBron. Mo Williams basically needs to be a spot up shooter and an infrequent facilitator/ball handler on offense, and put some effort on defense. The success of the Cavs would still depend way more on LeBron and Shaq. It's like saying McDyess in his prime would be horrible for the Spurs because in his prime at Denver, he was on teams all with losing records that didn't make the playoffs, so he wouldn't know how to play effectively and contribute in a playoff series.

Once again, it's all based on conjecture.

[DPG21920]

True, but you can easily say that Dice is a better player than Mo. Even out of his prime, he did not shrivel in the playoffs.

Mo would have to be pretty damn effective, because if not, the doubles would shut Bron down considerably, like in 2007 where Lebron shot 25%, 43%, 39% and 33%.

[JamStone]

He was bad these past playoffs and still shot 37% from three point range. If all he does is shoot three pointers off of double team kickouts and still only shoots 37%, it's effective, when you got Shaq and LeBron both in their prime, and my personal opinion is with all those open looks, he'll shoot higher than 37% from three point range. And, Mo won't need to be "pretty damn effective" if LeBron is off because they have a guy inside that on the vast majority of nights will shoot 50% from the field as a #1 option and on good nights will shoot 60% or better from the field.

Now you see how things with the Cavs all work together. Shaq will open things up for LeBron and vice versa, and the two of them as difficult defensive match-ups will open things up for the three point shooting role players. Hey, any of them could have bad games and they all could have bad games in the same game. But, odds are, having both Shaq and LeBron in their primes, on most nights, will make for the offense click really great.

[DPG21920]

Ok, but what stops the Spurs as a team from shooting a better percentage over all than the Cavs?

[JamStone]

On any given night, the Spurs could shoot a better percentage overall than the Cavs. And, vice versa is the same, imo. With Shaq and LeBron will take most of the shot attempts, the Cavs team's FG% could be very high on any given night. What would stop the Spurs from having a better shooting percentage is Shaq and LeBron dominating the paint on offense. Not that they would every game or that the Spurs couldn't shoot a better percentage, but that's what would stop them.

Not sure what you're looking for, but once again, we're getting into forecasting numbers based on conjecture.

[DPG21920]

I also think the Spurs starters would average just as many shots overall as the Cavs starters.

[DPG21920]

Lebron is not a higher percentage shooter than TP, who is better for his career.

Lebron:
2004 - 41%
2005 - 47%
2006 - 48%
2007 - 47%
2008 - 48%
2009 - 49%

Then he would be playing with a guy like Shaq who occupies the space he lives in. Shaq really benefits guys with spacing. Sure he will get some interior work done, but a guy with a good jumper will benefit more.

TP:
2002 - 41%
2003 - 46%
2004 - 44%
2005 - 48%
2006 - 54%
2007 - 52%
2008 - 49%
2009 - 50%

I don't see why TP would not get as many shots as Lebron and Mo Williams IMO would have less success trying to stop TP than RJ would trying to stop Lebron. Plus, Tim helps TP's game more than Shaq's does Lebron's for the reason I stated above imo.

[JamStone]

Shaq occupying the paint area really hurt Dwyane Wade's game, especially since back then Wade did not have a consistent jumper either.

Are you serious?

Last year was the first time Tony Parker shot 50% or better for a post-season. He's a career 46% field goal shooter in the playoffs, and that's with having Tim and Manu for most of those post seasons. LeBron hasn't had squat and gets doubled and tripled every game, and his FG% in the playoffs is 45%. You give him just one second option like Mo Williams who you already admitted performed poorly in last year's playoffs, and LeBron shoots 51% from the field.

Come on with that. You can do better than that.

[DPG21920]

I did not say it would hurt his game, I said it would not elevate it nearly as much as if Lebron was a shooter. Also, Wade's jumper at that point> Lebron's now. Lebron is a better 3 point shooter, but Wade a better 2 PT shooter.

The Kobe vs Wade argument. Who did Shaq help more, Kobe or Wade?

TP has also been the number one option on offense for about 2 years now and if last year was his first year, he was legitimately the number one option and was by far the main focus it is damn impressive. Especially with everyone else shitting themselves. He shot nearly 55%.


TP in the finals against Lebron's Cavs was the main concern on offense and he shot 51%, 65%, 41% and 71% and was the focus as evidenced by his MVP award.

[DPG21920]

I still fail to see how Parker, Manu, RJ, Dice and Tim would fail to get up just as many, if not more shots as the Cavs?

[DAF86]

And I still fail to see why people keep puting RJ instead of Finley at his prime.

Finley at his prime >>>>> RJ at his prime

[DPG21920]

Also, keep in mind, Lebron played a terrible Detroit team that quit and a mediocre Hawks team.

In the Hawks series, Mo shot from 3: 50%, 38%, 16% and 57%. Two games out of 4 over 50% and one at a respectable 38%. Only one bad game. West had 2 games at over 50% as well. The other games he did not shoot a three or was 0-1.

In the Detroit series, Mo shot from 3: 28%, 40%, 0% and 57%. So two bad games, but two that were excellent from 3. Same with West.

Given, TP had a hobbled Tim who still managed to shoot 50%+

[carrao45]

I can't believe everyone here is really picking the Cavs over the Celts or Spurs because it's one of them, not the Cavs.

Yes Shaq was extremely dominant in his heyday and LeBron will be too, but the rest of that roster blows. PRIME Tim Duncan, circa 2002, averaged 25.5 points, 12.7 rebounds, and 2.5 blocks. Timmy D in his prime was the best PF of all-time and a defensive mastermind. He could hold his own versus Shaq defensively. Prime RJ could do his best on LeBron. But you have to think of it this way. The Cavs have two amazing players in their primes. Outside of James and O'Neal, they got nothing.

The Spurs, meanwhile have the greatest PF ever, a prime Dice which like most have said is Stoudemire with defense, and add in prime versions of Ginobili and Parker as well as Finley off the bench? You wouldn't be able to contain that offense and their defense would still be impressive with Duncan and McDyess holding down the paint.

Shaq and LeBron ain't gonna do it by themselves.

Nobody could hold their own against Shaq those days

[DPG21920]

But I am done with this, again..............for now.

[carrao45]

Who has shown more ability in the playoffs, not just one series? Tony Parker as evidenced by his finals MVP. At least with Shaq vs Tim we have multiple playoff series to make judgments on. IMO, one series is not enough to draw a conclusion.

Kobe was ball hogging? Shaq usually averaged around 18 shot attempts per game. That year he averaged around 14. So, even if you give Shaq 4 more attempts he would not have been throwing up all time numbers. How many more shots playing with Lebron would Shaq average vs playing with Kobe? Or would no one else on the Cavs shoot besides Lebron or Shaq?









You did give substance and I did acknowledge it. You just turned it into a huge ordeal claiming the woe is me. I am not ignoring it, I am debating it. I have not said anything since you explained about providing substance for your one opinion.





LMAO, me saying where did I say this was a direct reference at you using hyperbole either for you or against me. That was not emo, that was asking to provide proof of what I said instead of making wild claims, hyperbole or not.

You used multiple hyperboles both to support your own arguments and to shoot mine down:

1) Shaq and Lebron dunking 25 times each per game
2) Saying I am acting like they would all average 40 PPG on 80% shooting
3) Saying I am acting like Dice is Barkley and Wallace meshed into one.
4) The newest on being Ginobili is David Thompson

That is not one hyperbole, it is 4. I never said anything like that. You are just taking things to the extreme for what ever reason.



I ask, because if Shaq is the most dominate player ever and not even a prime Duncan can slow him HeCouldnt, you would think he would own these records or at least be close. But he isn't because people were able to stop him from scoring at will every time:lmao:lmao:lmao Perhaps the least intelligent thing that I have ever heard. He played with Kobe Bryant, who is comparable to Lebron.



So Kobe is not comparable to Lebron talent wise? 3 point shooting is not the only factor. Is Mo Williams+Anthony Parker+Andy in their primes much better in overall talent than Derick Fisher+Glen Rice+Horry or a combo from another team in that 3 peat run?






I never said they would. I said, at best, more than likely Shaq would do no better than his best, which was 30 PPG. That is a lot for Lebron and his team to make up because the Spurs will score.

Do this for me. Break down how many shots the starters on each team would get and factor in what you think the pace would be for both. Then how much each guy will average.






So having all of those players in their primes would not be an excellent overall team defensively? You can't tell me the reason I am saying something. I explained they would not stop Shaq, but Shaq would not average more than 30 PPG which was his best.

Dice would not defend in his prime? So he had no blocks and was abused? Or was his team poor?

In 1997-98, McDyess was 17th in the league in Blocks Per Game. He was 10th in the league in Defensive rating behind only Robinson, Duncan, Kemp, Rodman, Big Z, Charles Oakley, Sabonis, Knight and Charlie Ward. He was 13th in the league in defensive win shares.



I did not criticize the conjecture of OPINIONS. Just one opinion that I have said over and over again.

Dice would not help stop Shaq, Tim would do his best. I never said he would have to. I said that playing next to Tim helps and the overall team defense would be excellent.




We have seen guys other than DRob next to Tim that have done a serviceable job. Shaq was not averaging 30+ every time he played. Shaq's offense would struggle as well constantly having to guard Duncan and Shaq would have to help a lot for TP+Manu+Dice and RJ to a lesser extent beating their guys.




So please do what I asked. Show me the break down for both teams and who would average what.

[DPG21920]

So, Shaq does have the scoring records? Because logically, you can assume if no one could stop him he would score more than anyone.

Shaq was a beast. He has an unbelievable career FG%, although when you look at his true FG% he loses some luster, but he is not some kind of creature that was any more dangerous than the other career greats on that end of the floor.

[JamStone]

Over the course of his playoff career, how often has Tony Parker been double teamed, much less triple teamed. Looking for an honest answer. If you say anything but almost never or extremely rarely, you're full of it.

Now, during his playoff career, even last post season, how often is LeBron double and triple teamed.

[DPG21920]

TP was not double teamed last year? Or in the finals against the Cavs? Other than that, no he is not doubled nearly as much as Lebron if at all, and Lebron is the better player. I am just talking about FG%, adding Shaq would not allow for Lebron to be any less doubled than he is now.

Tim would do work 1 on 1. With a few small flashes to probably keep Shaq off balance by Dice or Manu...

[DPG21920]

Spurs would let Shaq get his and shut everyone else down. If Shaq can score more than he ever has before, even in his prime, against a prime TD, then you tip your hat. But I don't see how they could stop the Spurs from scoring all around? I think the Spurs would out run them and out score them and have a better defensive game plan as well.

You can't really double anyone on the Spurs because TP, Manu, RJ and to a lesser extent Dice, are all very good options offensively.

Mo, Parker and Varejao, not so much.

[picc84]

Of the 25 games of the five playoffs series Shaq played against the Spurs as a Laker (1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), Shaq attempted 20 or more FGA in 9 of them.

In those (9) games Shaq attempted 20 or more FGA, he shot 54.2% from the field.

In those (16) games Shaq attempted less than 20 FGA, he shot 53.3% from the field.

Nice work. :toast


There goes your theory that the more shot attempts, the lower the FG%. Oops. Looks like the more shots he took, the higher the field goal percentage.Yep. By 1%, up from 53 to 54 percent. A victory in the sense that it proves he wont necessarily see a drop in his FG% by taking 20+ shot attempts.

I can't refute that Shaq could shoot a normal percentage (apparently even slightly higher than normal, as you've proven) if his shot attempts increase to 20+ per game.

What I refute is that he will shoot 63% - a full 10 percentage points better - while taking 20+ shots per game, and will average 32+ppg doing it. Thats a very large difference - much larger than the 1% raise you evidenced. Especially since the only time he's shot that high a % against the Spurs is when he played with Kobe, Payton, and Malone. 3 elite playmakers. With the Cavs he'll be playing with 1.


I keep referencing David Robinson because even a David Robinson in his decline is a better defensive match up against Shaquille O'Neal than Antonio McDyess.Thats hard to prove, especially since during the Spurs/Lakers playoff years Shaq normally scored more in games that David Robinson played in than in games he did not. Whether it makes sense to you or not, Robinson's defense during that time was not at an elite level, regardless of his height and weight.


David Robinson is still taller, stronger, and longer than McDyess. By 2003, you didn't have to outjump Shaq to defend him. You had to be able to use strength to keep him away from the basket as much as possible. Antonio McDyess in his prime was still 6-foot-9 and 230 lbs. and no match for Shaq. In 2003, David Robinson was still 7-foot-1 and anywhere from 250-260. He's still a better defensive match-up. He would still be able to provide more defensive resistance than Antonio McDyess in his prime.David Robinson minutes averages:

28mpg in 1999 - Shaq averaged 24ppg
29mpg in 2001 - Shaq averaged 27ppg
25mpg in 3 games in 2002 - Shaq averaged 22ppg in those 3 games
21mpg in 2003 - Shaq averaged 25ppg

Thats 26mpg in the series' vs the Lakers, on average. Shaq was playing 40+ minutes nightly throughout the same time. And from the numbers, Shaq actually scored higher numbers the more minutes Robinson played. (weird)

Assuming that Duncan and Robinsons backups played the remaining 14mpg against Shaq, alongside whatever time Duncan spent on Shaq while Robinson was in the game, that leaves David Robinson's 26mpg to a split between McDyess and Theo Ratliff, who would be backing up either of the starting frontcourt players.

Thats not a large decline player to player, considering both of the Spurs centers, along with Duncan, are in their primes and Robinson was way past his - height and weight difference notwithstanding, since those apparently werent deterrents to Shaq scoring.

Its actually not a decline at all if you go by the numbers posted, which indicate that DRob was largely ineffective in guarding Shaq at all. Nevermind the offensive difference between McDyess and 2000's Robinson.

If Shaq has his way with either of them, they can just switch Duncan over and he'd be at least as effective as the theoretical David Robinson we've been discussing.


1. When Shaq shot more, he actually shot a higher percentage.Yep. A slightly higher one of 1 percentage point. Still quite a ways to go from the 63% you are proposing.


2. This Cavs team's role players are both 40% three point shooters which would absolutely keep the perimeter defenders more honest when it comes to helping on the double team.Not necessarily. During the 2001 season, LA had 3 players shooting 40% from 3 and Shaq scored 27ppg against the Spurs, 3 less than his playoff average of 30ppg. In 2003 we had 4 players shooting 37 plus % from 3 and SA held Shaq to 25ppg, which less 2 less than his playoff average that year.


LeBron's ability to attack the basket would make it hard for the big man help defender to help both Shaq's defender and LeBron's defender. That's where Kobe being more of a jumpshooter actually didn't help Shaq when it came to double teams.Kobe attacked the basket much more in those years. Not as much as Lebron but comparably for this scenario. He didnt become a strict jumpshooter until the mid 2000's.

[JamStone]

You changed your point. First it was all about how if Shaq shot more, his FG% would go down. Now, it's that it wouldn't be 63%. The one time Shaq shot over 20+ shots in a game in the 2004 series where Robinson had already retired, he shot 15-for-21. You can do the math. Yes, that's one game. But, there's reason to suggest that when Shaq got on a roll offensively and ended up getting more and more touches, he was more and more effective.

The thing with Robinson was that he could defend Shaq adequately enough for however minutes he was in the games so that Tim Duncan wouldn't have to guard Shaq. That's almost as important as stopping Shaq himself. Without David Robinson to help share the load of defending Shaq, Tim Duncan averaged 21 ppg against the Lakers in 2004 when in those previous 4 playoff series between the Lakers and Spurs, Duncan averaged anywhere from 25-29 ppg. That's the toll of defending Shaq. And, that's when Shaq wasn't even getting the amount of touches he was just a few years earlier. That effect on Duncan looms huge in this hypothetical match-up. Duncan has to worry more about Shaq, worry about foul trouble, and still have to be the low post anchor on offense. That's why David Robinson being able to do most of the defending on Shaq is huge. McDyess cannot offer that. You can downplay David Robinson all you want with his age and decline, his size made for a better defensive match-up than Antonio McDyess in his prime. Spurs can't play Dice on Shaq, so Duncan has to be the primary defender. Duncan being the primary defender on Shaq, it hurts the rest of his game.

[JamStone]

Spurs would let Shaq get his and shut everyone else down. If Shaq can score more than he ever has before, even in his prime, against a prime TD, then you tip your hat. But I don't see how they could stop the Spurs from scoring all around? I think the Spurs would out run them and out score them and have a better defensive game plan as well.

You can't really double anyone on the Spurs because TP, Manu, RJ and to a lesser extent Dice, are all very good options offensively.

Mo, Parker and Varejao, not so much.

Shaq would not allow for LeBron to be any less doubled than he is now?

Are you nuts? I'm not even going to justify that foolishness with a response.


Mo, Parker, and Varejao are not great one-on-one players. But, you double off them, Mo and Parker make open three pointers. You double off Varejao, he goes straight to the rim, and you have him under the basket with whoever is defending Shaq. Leave Shaq for Varejao? Double teaming LeBron will still get the Spurs burnt just like most teams.

If you really think the Spurs let Shaq get his and try to shut everyone else down, I don't know why you questioned earlier that how Shaq in his prime would be able to average 32 ppg on the Spurs. Heck, maybe more if you really believe the Spurs just let Shaq get his. And, was that how the Spurs defended the Shaq-Kobe Lakers? Because if that were the case, why did Kobe average 33.25 ppg, 26.2 ppg, and 32.3 ppg in the four playoff series between the Lakers and Spurs in 2001, 2002, and 2003 during Shaq's prime?

In Shaq's prime, Shaq's and Kobe's combined scoring in the playoffs against the Spurs:

2001: 60.25 ppg
2002: 47.8 ppg
2003: 57.6 ppg

They weren't just letting Shaq get his and shutting everyone else down. Both Shaq and Kobe got theirs. And, Shaq and LeBron, especially with both being in their prime, would get theirs, likely more so than Shaq and Kobe. I look at that 2001 Lakers team for reference. Where Shaq was not as much of a fatass he later became, Kobe being more of a co-#1 guy, and Shaq and Kobe and Lakers still hungry going for that repeat. That's the similarity I draw, that 2001 Lakers team. No real clear cut third option, maybe Fisher, and then Rick Fox. Two dominant superstars each averaging about 30 points in the playoffs in a 15-1 playoff record cruise to the title.

Cavs wouldn't double team anyone on the Spurs. They'll let them each do their thing. And, here's the thing. When both Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili started to assert themselves as go-to players, that's when the unselfish Tim Duncan took a few steps back. In the playoffs, Duncan started to be a 20-22 ppg guy when Tony and Manu started to get featured more. That's the thing about unselfishness. And, now you got all three in their primes, each capable of having big nights. And, that's the thing about Shaq. Even when Kobe was starting to assert himself as top dog, Shaq was still putting up 25-30 ppg in the playoffs. And, that's the difference between having to share between two versus sharing among three. It's less of a chance that any one of the three will "average" crazy numbers. That's why all three, even all three being in their prime, will all float around 20 ppg each. While having to split the spotlight between two, both Shaq and LeBron can average 28-30+ ppg. That's a reason why those two can dominate more than the Spurs top three. You have to share among three, and when one gets hot, the other two lose touches, one or maybe both of the other two lose rhythm. And, shit, you add two more that require more than just nominal touches and shot attempts, then you have more possible problems With two, it's splitting touches while maintaining rhythm, so all you really need are role players, shooters on offense and guys who will defend at the other end.

[DPG21920]

They will only average more with 2 because they will take more shots. I keep questioning why you think the Cavs starting 5 will get more total shots than the Spurs?

[DPG21920]

Shaq would not be commanding the doubles imo, Lebron would. Now, if you are saying Shaq would have to be doubled, then yes it opens up Lebron.

But I am saying the Spurs would live with Tim guarding him one-on-one. It is not so much "letting him get his" but more so "living with what he gets with Tim guarding him 1v1". So in that sense, Lebron would not be opened up any more, he could still be doubled.

I am also not arguing that Lebron and Shaq would not average close to what you are saying. I think Lebron might struggle a little more with double teams because he is not the "pure scorer" Kobe is. .

Lebron is a medicore/streaky 3 point shooter. He is an average jump shooter, and a below average post game. He is great off of the dribble and great at finishing around the rim and great at getting to the line.

It is similar, but I think Lebron would struggle a little bit more. Maybe saying "let them get theirs" is misleading. Lebron and Shaq would still put up excellent numbers, but I disagree with the fact there would be less shots for the Spurs 5. That is where I think the difference will be made up. I think those extra shots will not go to Tim, but TP and Manu or Dice.

[JamStone]

LeBron sucks. He won't be able to do shit.

Change my projected stats for him to 8 FGA and 6.5 ppg.

[23LeBronJames23]

LeBron sucks. He won't be able to do shit.

Change my projected stats for him to 8 FGA and 6.5 ppg.

hater

[picc84]

You changed your point. First it was all about how if Shaq shot more, his FG% would go down.

That point wasn't accurate, as you showed, so I dropped it. Just because his fg% wont necessarily drop with more shots doesn't mean it will skyrocket to 63%. From the stats you posted, we could expect it to stay the same or raise a percentage point or so, on average. The reason we cant just assume it will blastoff is because--


Now, it's that it wouldn't be 63%. The one time Shaq shot over 20+ shots in a game in the 2004 series where Robinson had already retired, he shot 15-for-21. You can do the math. Yes, that's one game. But, there's reason to suggest that when Shaq got on a roll offensively and ended up getting more and more touches, he was more and more effective.After looking it up, in the 2004 playoffs, 76% of Shaq's made field goals were assisted by teammates. No wonder he shot such a ridiculously high percentage. So its not like he was just getting the ball in the post, backing his man down, getting in rhythm, and shooting fireballs every time he wanted. He was getting easy baskets at a much higher rate than normal, presumably because he was playing on an all-star team with playmakers like Kobe, Gary Payton, and Karl Malone.

Its reasonable to assume that on a more conventional team with one elite playmaker in Lebron, as opposed to 3 on the 2004 Lakers, he would receive more defensive attention and find it harder to score as efficiently, is it not?


The thing with Robinson was that he could defend Shaq adequately enough for however minutes he was in the games so that Tim Duncan wouldn't have to guard Shaq. That's almost as important as stopping Shaq himself. Without David Robinson to help share the load of defending Shaq, Tim Duncan averaged 21 ppg against the Lakers in 2004 when in those previous 4 playoff series between the Lakers and Spurs, Duncan averaged anywhere from 25-29 ppg. That's the toll of defending Shaq.Here's the thing with that. Duncan guarding Shaq doesn't hurt the Spurs nearly as much in this scenario, because the Spurs team we are discussing doesn't really need Duncans scoring. They have five other 20ppg scorers in both the backcourt and the frontcourt to compensate for whatever offense they lose with Tim defending Shaq. They aren't just relying on Parker and Ginobili here, they have an entire lineup worth of scorers to pick up the slack. Thats part of why this Spurs team would be better than the Cavs - their depth is out of this world. Duncan can average in the high-teens per game scoring-wise and they could still win comfortably.


That's the toll of defending Shaq. And, that's when Shaq wasn't even getting the amount of touches he was just a few years earlier.He wasn't getting as many touches because we had 3 other players with large offensive responsibility to create for both him and themselves. The Cavs do not. Hence why he probably would shoot more but would not see the same %.

[Leetonidas]

Bump, for the fuck of it.

[Killakobe81]

Dominant wise ...CAVS that would be a scary one-two punch of course. in reality though i think the other 3 would be better teams and here is why.

1. Defense Spurs would be All time great on defense in this scenario and Celts if they had KG and wallace in their primes ...would be just as tough some may argue tougher.
2. Team fit a dominant shaq and Lebron both would feed off the paint Lebron only improved his shot last year but made his living in the paint lane would be crowded spurs and celts could limit those guys ...
3. Overall talent on cavs sucks Spurs lakers Celts and even Mavs hav better all-around talent ...
4. plus i take a "prime" Pop or Phil over mike Brown anyday hell he cant even outoach Van Gundy
5. last dont sleep onm a "prime" Magic VCin his prime with Dwight would be almostas scary as Cavs plus their supporting cast is better ...Dwight better than shaq on defense prime vince would be a nightmare for LBJ (and vice versa)

[Killakobe81]

Shaq would not allow for LeBron to be any less doubled than he is now?

Are you nuts? I'm not even going to justify that foolishness with a response.


Mo, Parker, and Varejao are not great one-on-one players. But, you double off them, Mo and Parker make open three pointers. You double off Varejao, he goes straight to the rim, and you have him under the basket with whoever is defending Shaq. Leave Shaq for Varejao? Double teaming LeBron will still get the Spurs burnt just like most teams.

If you really think the Spurs let Shaq get his and try to shut everyone else down, I don't know why you questioned earlier that how Shaq in his prime would be able to average 32 ppg on the Spurs. Heck, maybe more if you really believe the Spurs just let Shaq get his. And, was that how the Spurs defended the Shaq-Kobe Lakers? Because if that were the case, why did Kobe average 33.25 ppg, 26.2 ppg, and 32.3 ppg in the four playoff series between the Lakers and Spurs in 2001, 2002, and 2003 during Shaq's prime?

In Shaq's prime, Shaq's and Kobe's combined scoring in the playoffs against the Spurs:

2001: 60.25 ppg
2002: 47.8 ppg
2003: 57.6 ppg

They weren't just letting Shaq get his and shutting everyone else down. Both Shaq and Kobe got theirs. And, Shaq and LeBron, especially with both being in their prime, would get theirs, likely more so than Shaq and Kobe. I look at that 2001 Lakers team for reference. Where Shaq was not as much of a fatass he later became, Kobe being more of a co-#1 guy, and Shaq and Kobe and Lakers still hungry going for that repeat. That's the similarity I draw, that 2001 Lakers team. No real clear cut third option, maybe Fisher, and then Rick Fox. Two dominant superstars each averaging about 30 points in the playoffs in a 15-1 playoff record cruise to the title.

Cavs wouldn't double team anyone on the Spurs. They'll let them each do their thing. And, here's the thing. When both Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili started to assert themselves as go-to players, that's when the unselfish Tim Duncan took a few steps back. In the playoffs, Duncan started to be a 20-22 ppg guy when Tony and Manu started to get featured more. That's the thing about unselfishness. And, now you got all three in their primes, each capable of having big nights. And, that's the thing about Shaq. Even when Kobe was starting to assert himself as top dog, Shaq was still putting up 25-30 ppg in the playoffs. And, that's the difference between having to share between two versus sharing among three. It's less of a chance that any one of the three will "average" crazy numbers. That's why all three, even all three being in their prime, will all float around 20 ppg each. While having to split the spotlight between two, both Shaq and LeBron can average 28-30+ ppg. That's a reason why those two can dominate more than the Spurs top three. You have to share among three, and when one gets hot, the other two lose touches, one or maybe both of the other two lose rhythm. And, shit, you add two more that require more than just nominal touches and shot attempts, then you have more possible problems With two, it's splitting touches while maintaining rhythm, so all you really need are role players, shooters on offense and guys who will defend at the other end.

Thisoine of the few times i would take a sPurs fan's take over Jamstone's

Duncan in his prime as dominant as shaq was ...was still an all-arund more consistently dominant player. i just re-watched Lakers vs. Kings 2002, vs. blazers and Pacers in 2000 Shaq was a BEAST no doubt ...but how many games did he need to get bailed out due to foul trouble? Or how many times did the role players have to make clutch plays because Shaq and Kobe were limited by double teams? My point is Spurs (hate to admit it) would have the best role players out of this scenario ...because manu and Parker have ,made clutch championship plays when called onm when NO ONE onthe cavs outside of Shaq has done so ...
Many time sover the years the tiltle comes to the rol players hitting shots. So in this dream scenario ...the players with the best gus in those spots are going to win when the other team's talent is equal ...

I would take Manu, Fisher and ray allen hitting clutch shots over Mo williams Delonte west or anything the cavs have to offer (anthony parker or moon?)

I dont feel the lakers talent wise is the best but because like the celts and spurs they are proven i would take their "prime" lineup as well ...i'd rank them like this:
1. Celts (Perkins, rasheed and Kg hell inside Ray/Pierce clutch Rondo quick)
2. Spurs (Duncan/Dice/RJ would be even tougher on Lebron than in Finals)
3. Lakers Prime Kobe/Artes would be might mare on any 2 3's in the league a prime bynum gets destroyed by shaq but i like the matchups everywhere else
4. Magic (VC, howrd and Lewis would be sick Jameer of last year would help)
5. Cavs (Best 1-2 punch since Kobe/shaq, rest very unproven)

I think Lebron again has the talent to be "better than Jordan and Kobe" BUt that has not been proven yet in my book. Titles matter sorry he now has a big man and sizze on the wings no excuses he wants to be best than get it done.