Reply With Quote
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.
^ 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.
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.
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.
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.
There is always the hack a shaq.
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?
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.
Celtics, Spurs, Lakers, and possibly Dallas over Cleveland.
cleveland lakers spurs and possibly portland ove celtics
No, he was playing against high school kids when he did that last year.
Not as much as Shaq because once again RJ and Dice would be role players. Parker and Ginobili played in that series.
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.
Cavs. They'd go to the line 50 times every single night.
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.
Lame
He was definitely not playing against an all star team of athletes in their prime
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.
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 o. All of this 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.
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 at udes.
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 at ude. 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.
Last edited by DPG21920; 08-29-2009 at 05:59 PM.
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?
This thread is lame.
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.
Last edited by DPG21920; 08-29-2009 at 06:23 PM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
