All players in their prime, which team is best?

[DPG21920]

Lebron is not a higher percentage shooter than TP, who is better for his career.

Lebron:
2004 - 41%
2005 - 47%
2006 - 48%
2007 - 47%
2008 - 48%
2009 - 49%

Then he would be playing with a guy like Shaq who occupies the space he lives in. Shaq really benefits guys with spacing. Sure he will get some interior work done, but a guy with a good jumper will benefit more.

TP:
2002 - 41%
2003 - 46%
2004 - 44%
2005 - 48%
2006 - 54%
2007 - 52%
2008 - 49%
2009 - 50%

I don't see why TP would not get as many shots as Lebron and Mo Williams IMO would have less success trying to stop TP than RJ would trying to stop Lebron. Plus, Tim helps TP's game more than Shaq's does Lebron's for the reason I stated above imo.

[JamStone]

Shaq occupying the paint area really hurt Dwyane Wade's game, especially since back then Wade did not have a consistent jumper either.

Are you serious?

Last year was the first time Tony Parker shot 50% or better for a post-season. He's a career 46% field goal shooter in the playoffs, and that's with having Tim and Manu for most of those post seasons. LeBron hasn't had squat and gets doubled and tripled every game, and his FG% in the playoffs is 45%. You give him just one second option like Mo Williams who you already admitted performed poorly in last year's playoffs, and LeBron shoots 51% from the field.

Come on with that. You can do better than that.

[DPG21920]

I did not say it would hurt his game, I said it would not elevate it nearly as much as if Lebron was a shooter. Also, Wade's jumper at that point> Lebron's now. Lebron is a better 3 point shooter, but Wade a better 2 PT shooter.

The Kobe vs Wade argument. Who did Shaq help more, Kobe or Wade?

TP has also been the number one option on offense for about 2 years now and if last year was his first year, he was legitimately the number one option and was by far the main focus it is damn impressive. Especially with everyone else ting themselves. He shot nearly 55%.


TP in the finals against Lebron's Cavs was the main concern on offense and he shot 51%, 65%, 41% and 71% and was the focus as evidenced by his MVP award.

[DPG21920]

I still fail to see how Parker, Manu, RJ, Dice and Tim would fail to get up just as many, if not more shots as the Cavs?

[DAF86]

And I still fail to see why people keep puting RJ instead of Finley at his prime.

Finley at his prime >>>>> RJ at his prime

[DPG21920]

Also, keep in mind, Lebron played a terrible Detroit team that quit and a mediocre Hawks team.

In the Hawks series, Mo shot from 3: 50%, 38%, 16% and 57%. Two games out of 4 over 50% and one at a respectable 38%. Only one bad game. West had 2 games at over 50% as well. The other games he did not shoot a three or was 0-1.

In the Detroit series, Mo shot from 3: 28%, 40%, 0% and 57%. So two bad games, but two that were excellent from 3. Same with West.

Given, TP had a hobbled Tim who still managed to shoot 50%+

[carrao45]

I can't believe everyone here is really picking the Cavs over the Celts or Spurs because it's one of them, not the Cavs.

Yes Shaq was extremely dominant in his heyday and LeBron will be too, but the rest of that roster blows. PRIME Tim Duncan, circa 2002, averaged 25.5 points, 12.7 rebounds, and 2.5 blocks. Timmy D in his prime was the best PF of all-time and a defensive mastermind. He could hold his own versus Shaq defensively. Prime RJ could do his best on LeBron. But you have to think of it this way. The Cavs have two amazing players in their primes. Outside of James and O'Neal, they got nothing.

The Spurs, meanwhile have the greatest PF ever, a prime Dice which like most have said is Stoudemire with defense, and add in prime versions of Ginobili and Parker as well as Finley off the bench? You wouldn't be able to contain that offense and their defense would still be impressive with Duncan and McDyess holding down the paint.

Shaq and LeBron ain't gonna do it by themselves.

Nobody could hold their own against Shaq those days

[DPG21920]

But I am done with this, again..............for now.

[carrao45]

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?









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.





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.



I ask, because if Shaq is the most dominate player ever and not even a prime Duncan can slow him HeCouldnt, 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 Perhaps the least intelligent thing that I have ever heard. He played with Kobe Bryant, who is comparable to Lebron.



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?






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.






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.



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.




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.




So please do what I asked. Show me the break down for both teams and who would average what.

[DPG21920]

So, Shaq does have the scoring records? Because logically, you can assume if no one could stop him he would score more than anyone.

Shaq was a beast. He has an unbelievable career FG%, although when you look at his true FG% he loses some luster, but he is not some kind of creature that was any more dangerous than the other career greats on that end of the floor.

[JamStone]

Over the course of his playoff career, how often has Tony Parker been double teamed, much less triple teamed. Looking for an honest answer. If you say anything but almost never or extremely rarely, you're full of it.

Now, during his playoff career, even last post season, how often is LeBron double and triple teamed.

[DPG21920]

TP was not double teamed last year? Or in the finals against the Cavs? Other than that, no he is not doubled nearly as much as Lebron if at all, and Lebron is the better player. I am just talking about FG%, adding Shaq would not allow for Lebron to be any less doubled than he is now.

Tim would do work 1 on 1. With a few small flashes to probably keep Shaq off balance by Dice or Manu...

[DPG21920]

Spurs would let Shaq get his and shut everyone else down. If Shaq can score more than he ever has before, even in his prime, against a prime TD, then you tip your hat. But I don't see how they could stop the Spurs from scoring all around? I think the Spurs would out run them and out score them and have a better defensive game plan as well.

You can't really double anyone on the Spurs because TP, Manu, RJ and to a lesser extent Dice, are all very good options offensively.

Mo, Parker and Varejao, not so much.

[picc84]

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.

Nice work.

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.

Yep. By 1%, up from 53 to 54 percent. A victory in the sense that it proves he wont necessarily see a drop in his FG% by taking 20+ shot attempts.

I can't refute that Shaq could shoot a normal percentage (apparently even slightly higher than normal, as you've proven) if his shot attempts increase to 20+ per game.

What I refute is that he will shoot 63% - a full 10 percentage points better - while taking 20+ shots per game, and will average 32+ppg doing it. Thats a very large difference - much larger than the 1% raise you evidenced. Especially since the only time he's shot that high a % against the Spurs is when he played with Kobe, Payton, and Malone. 3 elite playmakers. With the Cavs he'll be playing with 1.

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.

Thats hard to prove, especially since during the Spurs/Lakers playoff years Shaq normally scored more in games that David Robinson played in than in games he did not. Whether it makes sense to you or not, Robinson's defense during that time was not at an elite level, regardless of his height and weight.

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.

David Robinson minutes averages:

28mpg in 1999 - Shaq averaged 24ppg
29mpg in 2001 - Shaq averaged 27ppg
25mpg in 3 games in 2002 - Shaq averaged 22ppg in those 3 games
21mpg in 2003 - Shaq averaged 25ppg

Thats 26mpg in the series' vs the Lakers, on average. Shaq was playing 40+ minutes nightly throughout the same time. And from the numbers, Shaq actually scored higher numbers the more minutes Robinson played. (weird)

Assuming that Duncan and Robinsons backups played the remaining 14mpg against Shaq, alongside whatever time Duncan spent on Shaq while Robinson was in the game, that leaves David Robinson's 26mpg to a split between McDyess and Theo Ratliff, who would be backing up either of the starting frontcourt players.

Thats not a large decline player to player, considering both of the Spurs centers, along with Duncan, are in their primes and Robinson was way past his - height and weight difference notwithstanding, since those apparently werent deterrents to Shaq scoring.

Its actually not a decline at all if you go by the numbers posted, which indicate that DRob was largely ineffective in guarding Shaq at all. Nevermind the offensive difference between McDyess and 2000's Robinson.

If Shaq has his way with either of them, they can just switch Duncan over and he'd be at least as effective as the theoretical David Robinson we've been discussing.

1. When Shaq shot more, he actually shot a higher percentage.

Yep. A slightly higher one of 1 percentage point. Still quite a ways to go from the 63% you are proposing.

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.

Not necessarily. During the 2001 season, LA had 3 players shooting 40% from 3 and Shaq scored 27ppg against the Spurs, 3 less than his playoff average of 30ppg. In 2003 we had 4 players shooting 37 plus % from 3 and SA held Shaq to 25ppg, which less 2 less than his playoff average that year.

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.

Kobe attacked the basket much more in those years. Not as much as Lebron but comparably for this scenario. He didnt become a strict jumpshooter until the mid 2000's.

[JamStone]

You changed your point. First it was all about how if Shaq shot more, his FG% would go down. Now, it's that it wouldn't be 63%. The one time Shaq shot over 20+ shots in a game in the 2004 series where Robinson had already retired, he shot 15-for-21. You can do the math. Yes, that's one game. But, there's reason to suggest that when Shaq got on a roll offensively and ended up getting more and more touches, he was more and more effective.

The thing with Robinson was that he could defend Shaq adequately enough for however minutes he was in the games so that Tim Duncan wouldn't have to guard Shaq. That's almost as important as stopping Shaq himself. Without David Robinson to help share the load of defending Shaq, Tim Duncan averaged 21 ppg against the Lakers in 2004 when in those previous 4 playoff series between the Lakers and Spurs, Duncan averaged anywhere from 25-29 ppg. That's the toll of defending Shaq. And, that's when Shaq wasn't even getting the amount of touches he was just a few years earlier. That effect on Duncan looms huge in this hypothetical match-up. Duncan has to worry more about Shaq, worry about foul trouble, and still have to be the low post anchor on offense. That's why David Robinson being able to do most of the defending on Shaq is huge. McDyess cannot offer that. You can downplay David Robinson all you want with his age and decline, his size made for a better defensive match-up than Antonio McDyess in his prime. Spurs can't play Dice on Shaq, so Duncan has to be the primary defender. Duncan being the primary defender on Shaq, it hurts the rest of his game.

[JamStone]

Spurs would let Shaq get his and shut everyone else down. If Shaq can score more than he ever has before, even in his prime, against a prime TD, then you tip your hat. But I don't see how they could stop the Spurs from scoring all around? I think the Spurs would out run them and out score them and have a better defensive game plan as well.

You can't really double anyone on the Spurs because TP, Manu, RJ and to a lesser extent Dice, are all very good options offensively.

Mo, Parker and Varejao, not so much.

Shaq would not allow for LeBron to be any less doubled than he is now?

Are you nuts? I'm not even going to justify that foolishness with a response.


Mo, Parker, and Varejao are not great one-on-one players. But, you double off them, Mo and Parker make open three pointers. You double off Varejao, he goes straight to the rim, and you have him under the basket with whoever is defending Shaq. Leave Shaq for Varejao? Double teaming LeBron will still get the Spurs burnt just like most teams.

If you really think the Spurs let Shaq get his and try to shut everyone else down, I don't know why you questioned earlier that how Shaq in his prime would be able to average 32 ppg on the Spurs. Heck, maybe more if you really believe the Spurs just let Shaq get his. And, was that how the Spurs defended the Shaq-Kobe Lakers? Because if that were the case, why did Kobe average 33.25 ppg, 26.2 ppg, and 32.3 ppg in the four playoff series between the Lakers and Spurs in 2001, 2002, and 2003 during Shaq's prime?

In Shaq's prime, Shaq's and Kobe's combined scoring in the playoffs against the Spurs:

2001: 60.25 ppg
2002: 47.8 ppg
2003: 57.6 ppg

They weren't just letting Shaq get his and shutting everyone else down. Both Shaq and Kobe got theirs. And, Shaq and LeBron, especially with both being in their prime, would get theirs, likely more so than Shaq and Kobe. I look at that 2001 Lakers team for reference. Where Shaq was not as much of a fatass he later became, Kobe being more of a co-#1 guy, and Shaq and Kobe and Lakers still hungry going for that repeat. That's the similarity I draw, that 2001 Lakers team. No real clear cut third option, maybe Fisher, and then Rick Fox. Two dominant superstars each averaging about 30 points in the playoffs in a 15-1 playoff record cruise to the le.

Cavs wouldn't double team anyone on the Spurs. They'll let them each do their thing. And, here's the thing. When both Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili started to assert themselves as go-to players, that's when the unselfish Tim Duncan took a few steps back. In the playoffs, Duncan started to be a 20-22 ppg guy when Tony and Manu started to get featured more. That's the thing about unselfishness. And, now you got all three in their primes, each capable of having big nights. And, that's the thing about Shaq. Even when Kobe was starting to assert himself as top dog, Shaq was still putting up 25-30 ppg in the playoffs. And, that's the difference between having to share between two versus sharing among three. It's less of a chance that any one of the three will "average" crazy numbers. That's why all three, even all three being in their prime, will all float around 20 ppg each. While having to split the spotlight between two, both Shaq and LeBron can average 28-30+ ppg. That's a reason why those two can dominate more than the Spurs top three. You have to share among three, and when one gets hot, the other two lose touches, one or maybe both of the other two lose rhythm. And, , you add two more that require more than just nominal touches and shot attempts, then you have more possible problems With two, it's splitting touches while maintaining rhythm, so all you really need are role players, shooters on offense and guys who will defend at the other end.

[DPG21920]

They will only average more with 2 because they will take more shots. I keep questioning why you think the Cavs starting 5 will get more total shots than the Spurs?

[DPG21920]

Shaq would not be commanding the doubles imo, Lebron would. Now, if you are saying Shaq would have to be doubled, then yes it opens up Lebron.

But I am saying the Spurs would live with Tim guarding him one-on-one. It is not so much "letting him get his" but more so "living with what he gets with Tim guarding him 1v1". So in that sense, Lebron would not be opened up any more, he could still be doubled.

I am also not arguing that Lebron and Shaq would not average close to what you are saying. I think Lebron might struggle a little more with double teams because he is not the "pure scorer" Kobe is. .

Lebron is a medicore/streaky 3 point shooter. He is an average jump shooter, and a below average post game. He is great off of the dribble and great at finishing around the rim and great at getting to the line.

It is similar, but I think Lebron would struggle a little bit more. Maybe saying "let them get theirs" is misleading. Lebron and Shaq would still put up excellent numbers, but I disagree with the fact there would be less shots for the Spurs 5. That is where I think the difference will be made up. I think those extra shots will not go to Tim, but TP and Manu or Dice.

[JamStone]

LeBron sucks. He won't be able to do .

Change my projected stats for him to 8 FGA and 6.5 ppg.

[23LeBronJames23]

LeBron sucks. He won't be able to do .

Change my projected stats for him to 8 FGA and 6.5 ppg.

hater

[picc84]

You changed your point. First it was all about how if Shaq shot more, his FG% would go down.

That point wasn't accurate, as you showed, so I dropped it. Just because his fg% wont necessarily drop with more shots doesn't mean it will skyrocket to 63%. From the stats you posted, we could expect it to stay the same or raise a percentage point or so, on average. The reason we cant just assume it will blastoff is because--

Now, it's that it wouldn't be 63%. The one time Shaq shot over 20+ shots in a game in the 2004 series where Robinson had already retired, he shot 15-for-21. You can do the math. Yes, that's one game. But, there's reason to suggest that when Shaq got on a roll offensively and ended up getting more and more touches, he was more and more effective.

After looking it up, in the 2004 playoffs, 76% of Shaq's made field goals were assisted by teammates. No wonder he shot such a ridiculously high percentage. So its not like he was just getting the ball in the post, backing his man down, getting in rhythm, and shooting fireballs every time he wanted. He was getting easy baskets at a much higher rate than normal, presumably because he was playing on an all-star team with playmakers like Kobe, Gary Payton, and Karl Malone.

Its reasonable to assume that on a more conventional team with one elite playmaker in Lebron, as opposed to 3 on the 2004 Lakers, he would receive more defensive attention and find it harder to score as efficiently, is it not?

The thing with Robinson was that he could defend Shaq adequately enough for however minutes he was in the games so that Tim Duncan wouldn't have to guard Shaq. That's almost as important as stopping Shaq himself. Without David Robinson to help share the load of defending Shaq, Tim Duncan averaged 21 ppg against the Lakers in 2004 when in those previous 4 playoff series between the Lakers and Spurs, Duncan averaged anywhere from 25-29 ppg. That's the toll of defending Shaq.

Here's the thing with that. Duncan guarding Shaq doesn't hurt the Spurs nearly as much in this scenario, because the Spurs team we are discussing doesn't really need Duncans scoring. They have five other 20ppg scorers in both the backcourt and the frontcourt to compensate for whatever offense they lose with Tim defending Shaq. They aren't just relying on Parker and Ginobili here, they have an entire lineup worth of scorers to pick up the slack. Thats part of why this Spurs team would be better than the Cavs - their depth is out of this world. Duncan can average in the high-teens per game scoring-wise and they could still win comfortably.

That's the toll of defending Shaq. And, that's when Shaq wasn't even getting the amount of touches he was just a few years earlier.

He wasn't getting as many touches because we had 3 other players with large offensive responsibility to create for both him and themselves. The Cavs do not. Hence why he probably would shoot more but would not see the same %.

[Leetonidas]

Bump, for the of it.

[Killakobe81]

Dominant wise ...CAVS that would be a scary one-two punch of course. in reality though i think the other 3 would be better teams and here is why.

1. Defense Spurs would be All time great on defense in this scenario and Celts if they had KG and wallace in their primes ...would be just as tough some may argue tougher.
2. Team fit a dominant shaq and Lebron both would feed off the paint Lebron only improved his shot last year but made his living in the paint lane would be crowded spurs and celts could limit those guys ...
3. Overall talent on cavs sucks Spurs lakers Celts and even Mavs hav better all-around talent ...
4. plus i take a "prime" Pop or Phil over mike Brown anyday he cant even outoach Van Gundy
5. last dont sleep onm a "prime" Magic VCin his prime with Dwight would be almostas scary as Cavs plus their supporting cast is better ...Dwight better than shaq on defense prime vince would be a nightmare for LBJ (and vice versa)

[Killakobe81]

Shaq would not allow for LeBron to be any less doubled than he is now?

Are you nuts? I'm not even going to justify that foolishness with a response.


Mo, Parker, and Varejao are not great one-on-one players. But, you double off them, Mo and Parker make open three pointers. You double off Varejao, he goes straight to the rim, and you have him under the basket with whoever is defending Shaq. Leave Shaq for Varejao? Double teaming LeBron will still get the Spurs burnt just like most teams.

If you really think the Spurs let Shaq get his and try to shut everyone else down, I don't know why you questioned earlier that how Shaq in his prime would be able to average 32 ppg on the Spurs. Heck, maybe more if you really believe the Spurs just let Shaq get his. And, was that how the Spurs defended the Shaq-Kobe Lakers? Because if that were the case, why did Kobe average 33.25 ppg, 26.2 ppg, and 32.3 ppg in the four playoff series between the Lakers and Spurs in 2001, 2002, and 2003 during Shaq's prime?

In Shaq's prime, Shaq's and Kobe's combined scoring in the playoffs against the Spurs:

2001: 60.25 ppg
2002: 47.8 ppg
2003: 57.6 ppg

They weren't just letting Shaq get his and shutting everyone else down. Both Shaq and Kobe got theirs. And, Shaq and LeBron, especially with both being in their prime, would get theirs, likely more so than Shaq and Kobe. I look at that 2001 Lakers team for reference. Where Shaq was not as much of a fatass he later became, Kobe being more of a co-#1 guy, and Shaq and Kobe and Lakers still hungry going for that repeat. That's the similarity I draw, that 2001 Lakers team. No real clear cut third option, maybe Fisher, and then Rick Fox. Two dominant superstars each averaging about 30 points in the playoffs in a 15-1 playoff record cruise to the le.

Cavs wouldn't double team anyone on the Spurs. They'll let them each do their thing. And, here's the thing. When both Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili started to assert themselves as go-to players, that's when the unselfish Tim Duncan took a few steps back. In the playoffs, Duncan started to be a 20-22 ppg guy when Tony and Manu started to get featured more. That's the thing about unselfishness. And, now you got all three in their primes, each capable of having big nights. And, that's the thing about Shaq. Even when Kobe was starting to assert himself as top dog, Shaq was still putting up 25-30 ppg in the playoffs. And, that's the difference between having to share between two versus sharing among three. It's less of a chance that any one of the three will "average" crazy numbers. That's why all three, even all three being in their prime, will all float around 20 ppg each. While having to split the spotlight between two, both Shaq and LeBron can average 28-30+ ppg. That's a reason why those two can dominate more than the Spurs top three. You have to share among three, and when one gets hot, the other two lose touches, one or maybe both of the other two lose rhythm. And, , you add two more that require more than just nominal touches and shot attempts, then you have more possible problems With two, it's splitting touches while maintaining rhythm, so all you really need are role players, shooters on offense and guys who will defend at the other end.

Thisoine of the few times i would take a sPurs fan's take over Jamstone's

Duncan in his prime as dominant as shaq was ...was still an all-arund more consistently dominant player. i just re-watched Lakers vs. Kings 2002, vs. blazers and Pacers in 2000 Shaq was a BEAST no doubt ...but how many games did he need to get bailed out due to foul trouble? Or how many times did the role players have to make clutch plays because Shaq and Kobe were limited by double teams? My point is Spurs (hate to admit it) would have the best role players out of this scenario ...because manu and Parker have ,made clutch championship plays when called onm when NO ONE onthe cavs outside of Shaq has done so ...
Many time sover the years the tiltle comes to the rol players hitting shots. So in this dream scenario ...the players with the best gus in those spots are going to win when the other team's talent is equal ...

I would take Manu, Fisher and ray allen hitting clutch shots over Mo williams Delonte west or anything the cavs have to offer (anthony parker or moon?)

I dont feel the lakers talent wise is the best but because like the celts and spurs they are proven i would take their "prime" lineup as well ...i'd rank them like this:
1. Celts (Perkins, rasheed and Kg inside Ray/Pierce clutch Rondo quick)
2. Spurs (Duncan/Dice/RJ would be even tougher on Lebron than in Finals)
3. Lakers Prime Kobe/Artes would be might mare on any 2 3's in the league a prime bynum gets destroyed by shaq but i like the matchups everywhere else
4. Magic (VC, howrd and Lewis would be sick Jameer of last year would help)
5. Cavs (Best 1-2 punch since Kobe/shaq, rest very unproven)

I think Lebron again has the talent to be "better than Jordan and Kobe" BUt that has not been proven yet in my book. les matter sorry he now has a big man and sizze on the wings no excuses he wants to be best than get it done.