All players in their prime, which team is best?

[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.