All players in their prime, which team is best?

[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 compe ion 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 le 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 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.

[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 ing 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 ing 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 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 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 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 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. , 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 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 , 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 , a prime VC with a prime Howard could be just as devastating as Shaq and LeBron.

[BadOdor]

, Tim has back-to-back MVPs

So does nash

[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 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 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" . And, then you do the same 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. 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" . And, then you do the same 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. 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 s 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.