Kobe wasn't passing Shaq the ball. Well, and everybody, too, I guess. They all took their turns missing shots.
OK so the nerd in me kicked-in and I had to go back and check the 2004 finals box score. I had forgotten how horrible Kobe played that series. Shaq shot at least 50% in every game. Kobe, not so much.
kobe
FGM-A %
game 1 10-27 37%
game 2 14-27 52%
game 3 4-13 31%
game 4 8-25 32%
game 5 7-21 33%
shaq
FGM-A %
game 1 13-16 81%
game 2 10-20 50%
game 3 7-14 50%
game 4 16-21 76%
game 5 7-13 54%
Just goes to show how much of a beast Shaq was when you can put up those numbers against prime Ben + Rasheed Wallace.
you took the words out of my head. exactly.
he's basically trying to say "kobe would have 6 rings, 6 finals mvps, dpoy, 5 league mvps, 10 straight scoring les....if not for shaq"
i've just come to accept that JamStone is a huge kobe/laker rider and MJ hater.
i 100% agree with most of your points here
but i just want to add that i've seen MJ's hall of fame speech 3 times, and i never got a bad vibe out of it. MJ was poking fun, not "angrily taking revenge"
i've come to suspect that the people who hear MJ's speech and make a big deal about it need to be around real men more or just have an agenda. grown men poke fun at each other and laugh at we used to do all the time.
Wow. That's not at all what I said or suggested.
I said Michael wouldn't be the GOAT if he played with Shaq. If you want to debate that, fine. But don't put words in my mouth.
Men poke fun with each when they're friends, when they actually are cool with one another.
Michael probably hadn't spoken to that high school kid that took his spot on the high school varsity squad since high school, 25 or so years before the HOF speech. What was the reason to fly him all the way to the induction just to make fun of him?
Do you think Bryon Russell and Michael Jordan are friendly with each other?
It was tacky and petty. It wasn't friendly ribbing between a couple of buddies. It was Michael manifesting a childish and awkward grudge on a national stage.
Last edited by JamStone; 07-26-2010 at 07:30 PM.
no, you didn't say those words. it's just what it sounds like.
this is your post
Jordan was the #3 pick overall. NBA Ready from Day one. He was top 5 in the NBA FROM THE GET GO.
Jordan's Rookie Stats : 28.2 PPG, 5.9 APG, 6.5 RPG, 2.39 steals per game, 51% FG% AS A MOTHER IN ROOKIE
Kobe was a mid-first round pick, a project player who was not NBA ready. He had to ride the bench for his first 2 or 3 seasons cause he wasn't good enough.
It's not even close to the same. There is NO WAY MJ takes "Pippen #2 role". We can even get past the amazing talent MJ had, and just go into his compe ive spirit.
Shaq would accept #2, or at best, share co-star spotlight.
Hilarious JamStone.
"MJ would retire with 0 finals mvp, maybe 1 league mvp"
hahahshasajshadjhsjdhdfd
Exactly.There is NO WAY MJ takes "Pippen #2 role".
But, let's go back to the hypothetical of the original post.
Michael Jordan as a rookie. Same off season, Shaq joins that team as a 24 year old. Assuming the analogy is supposed to be consistent with the cir stances of which Shaq joined the Lakers, we're talking about a 24 year old, 4 year NBA veteran Shaquille O'Neal, who had already established himself as a dominant 26-29 point per game scorer on 57% shooting from the field and had led his two seasons prior to the NBA Finals.
That Shaq.
And you're suggesting that Shaq would have accepted #2 to a rookie Jordan.
Riiiiight.
Yeah I didn't think it was a big deal but if I were that guy who made the HS team over him I woulda felt awkward and somewhat humiliated by it. My overall point is that the grudge MJ holds from HS is typical behavior of most people.
Wrong. See: Peyton Manning, potential GOAT at his position.
better analogy what would jordan do if he was drafted into a team with a prime eddie jones and nick van exel?
Why is it the better analogy? Kobe had one of the best big men of all time at the ripe age of 24 to play with as a rookie.
ya but he didnt start. he was playing behind two all stars in their prime.
seriously bro, you usually post pretty good ideas but are you intentionally trying to be a ing idiot?
No, I'm not trying to be a ing idiot. And for those of you who disagree with my opinion, it's fine. But instead of slinging insults, at least explain what specifically you disagree with.
My contention is that if Michael Jordan was drafted in the same summer a 24 year old Shaquille O'Neal joined that same team, after Shaq had just established himself as an all star player who dominated the game putting up 26-29 ppg, 11 rpg, while shooting 57%+ from the field and leading a team to the NBA Finals just two summers prior as the franchise and go-to guy, that Shaquille O'Neal would not have been ok at being the second option to a then rookie Michael Jordan, no matter how much hype Jordan had coming into the league.
That's my position.
And I do believe Jordan had a similar ego as a Kobe Bryant where he would none be too pleased being that second option. And a similar power struggle would occur, especially because they would both similarly be young and ready to be in the prime of their basketball careers. This wouldn't be a similar situation to having a 32 year old Kareem Abdul Jabbar who had already won a championship and won 5 or 6 League MVPs and had no problem relinquishing keys to the franchise to a young Magic Johnson. This wouldn't be the same as a 32 year old David Robinson who had already won a League MVP, a DPOY, and was a multiple all star who was ready to share the s om and glory with another great player before starting his decline in his career.
This would be a 20 year old Michael Jordan joining a 24 year old Shaquille O'Neal who had not yet built his Hall of Fame legacy yet. I don't think they or either respective ego would have been able to co-exist for 6-10 championship seasons.
Now if you want to argue against that, fine. Go ahead and explain how it would work, with either Michael taking second fiddle or the most offensively dominant big man in the modern era of NBA basketball at just 24 years of age would have cowered to a younger rookie Jordan. Explain that and make it a sincere and thoughtful debate.
It's unnecessary to call me a ing idiot without even trying to present an argument. So you and whoever else wants to disagree, I'm all for you posting the counter argument.
I didn't call you a ing idiot for suggesting that there would be conflict, I called you that for suggesting that MJ would play 2nd fiddle to Shaq, or that a Shaq/Jordan combo would win less les than Jordan won by himself just because "it's in the 2000's" like that was some super era of basketball that the GOAT wouldn't have been able to dominate. The east was so weak throughout most of the 2000's that they would have had a free pass to the finals every single year, who's going to stop them, the Nets? You're always trying to take subliminal shots at Jordan and it hasn't gone unnoticed, I just think it's stupid.
I suggested Michael would play second fiddle to Shaq because if there wouldn't be a power struggle/conflict between the two, that's how it would have to be. As great as Michael Jordan was, there was no defender, no team, that could stop Shaquille O'Neal in his prime. Shaq would be the #1 go-to guy on a team with him and Michael Jordan, ESPECIALLY based on the hypothetical where Shaq was a four year veteran when Jordan was a rookie NBA player. It would be Shaq's team. If they made it work, Jordan would have to be the second option. Would that team put Jordan in the midpost and have Shaq out by the three point line in the triangle offense? Of course not. Shaq in the post getting the majority of the touches. Jordan the second option getting secondary opportunities. Any other way, and then the conflict starts.
That's why I suggested Michael would be the second fiddle, because if he weren't there would definitely have been a conflict between the two that would have probably forced one of them to be traded.
I said if you put Shaq on those Bulls teams in the 90s, they win 6 or more easily so I didn't say Jordan would have won less than he did by himself in the 90s. I don't think the compe ion in the 2000s has been the greatest era of basketball or anything like that, but I do think the 2000s have offered better compe ion than the 90s did against the Bulls. If it's the 2000s, then it's the Lakers and they still face some great teams in the Spurs, Mavs, early 2000 Kings, Blazers, later in the decade Suns. There's no free pass to the Finals for Shaq-Jordan, at least not every single year. Saying Shaq-Jordan in the 2000s would win 5-6 les when they had to get through the 2000 Western Conference doesn't strike me as a ridiculous statement.
I admit that I hate on Jordan. I can even admit that I am biased against him. You can think whatever you want, view my comments and opinions however you want. For someone so biased against Jordan, I do provide explanation and evidence as to why I believe something. I give you reasons why I think something. It's not just pure hate on Jordan or intended subliminal shots at the guy. If I want to hate on Jordan, I'll simply do it without having to hide it in between the lines. He was a ing asshole, still is. But that's not why I said the things I did about how many les he'd win if teamed up with Shaq.
But hey, it doesn't really matter if you merely think I'm just trying to be a ing idiot.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
