All players in their prime, which team is best?

[DPG21920]

RJ didn't win a le.

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]

, 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.

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....

[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!

[BUMP]

I think some people forget how dominant Shaq really was