Reply With Quote
rockets and pistons
rockets and pistons
I've never seen him play, but from what I read, most people would put Kareem ahead of Tim at this point. Though Tim's career is far from over. And at age 29, they both had identical stats, but Tim's accomplishments greatly eclipsed Hakeem's.
Can't say that, by your logic, Isiah = Magic, Magic > Bird, Jordan > Magic (which I don't agree, but a whole lot of you do), Russell > Wilt, Reed > Wilt.
Hakeem burned Shaq with 33 ppg, with Grant doubling him. Hakeem KILLED Shaq in that series, it was 4-0. And Shaq, at least in terms of statistical production, was equivalent to his "peak" years. Having better teammates and a better system, for some reason, makes you look like you play better.
Shaq also played since 92, that's an extra 5 years under his belt. Also, Shaq got swept in one of them, and lost 4-1 in the other one, where he was neutralized by a PF sized center.
Duncan was playing on two bad ankles and was constantly doubled or even tripled. Watch Game 7 again, the whole Pistons team collapsed on Duncan when he put the ball on the floor, how else did you think Horry, Ginobili and Bowen got those wide open 3 pters? And Robinson, by singling Shaq, forced Shaq to average 22 ppg in 2002 (or was it 01?)
Besides, the other Wallace singled Shaq in 04.
How about defensive first teams? Shaq ever been on any of those? Shaq has a very notable weakness in guarding the pick and roll, Duncan does not have anything like that. Shaq is a good help defender, not a good one-on-one defender. Duncan is superior in both aspects.
Shaq is a good passer, no question, and yes, Duncan is turnover prone in some situations, so I would have to go along with that.
And that's why Shaq was a perennial THIRD team selection behind Hakeem and Robinson. Which means that he wouldn't make the 1st team even if there were two spots.
Later on in his career, when Hakeem, Robinson and Ewing got old, Shaq started getting those first team selection. But then again, who else could have gone there? Rik Smits? Mutombo?
And any person who had any knowledge would know that Shaq was never even close to Wilt. And comparisons with MJ is the FIRST I have ever heard. Those who claim that Shaq is/was the best ever is just ignorant on the history of the game. Look up tapes, look up stats, Shaq does not measure up in any of them.
And in Tim Duncan's heyday, we KNOW that he IS better than Malone, better than Barkley, better than Baylor, better than Pe te, we KNOW that he is the best PF of all time. Shaq, at his best, is no better than 5th best in his position.
The vast majority of all-time NBA greats are Centers. Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, and Hakeem are all top 10 NBA players of all time.
So being #5 in that list, even if you have Shaq that low (which he is at worst #5), is arguably more impressive than being the best PF of all time when your best compe ion is Karl Malone and Charles Barkley, 2 very good players with 0 rings between them and who weren't exactly Michael Jordan or Robert Horry or Reggie Miller in the clutch.
Also, Shaq's performance against the Pistons in the 04 Finals was much, much better than what Duncan came up with this year against DET. Just look at the ppg and FG%, not even close. Shaq wasn't neutralized by Wallace in any respect. Kobe Bryant is the reason LA was hammered as Tayshaun Bowened him.
Not sure why Spurs fans think only there players are double teamed (same BS argument we hear in here about Hakeem-DRob 95 despite hakeem averaging 6.5 assists per gamed, spurs fans claim he was always single teamed). Tim DUncan absolutely has not gotten more defensive attention over his career than O'Neal. Teams have no way to prepare for Shaq. WIth Duncan, if you have the right personnel you can contain him by being physical and can hold him down. With O'Neal, you can't do that.
O'Neal averaged way more than 22 ppg against SA in 2001. Also, most of those games were such blowouts that Shaq didn't have to play 42 minutes a game. He flat out dominated the series.
Duncan NOW is better than Shaq now that Shaq has declined in his game. At his peak, Shaq was completely unstoppable.
No question centres are generally more dominating than PF, but does that mean that the best PF is not as good as the 5th best C? (I won't even rank Shaq #5) That's flawed logic.
Besides, you left out Baylor, Pet e and McHale, who are great PF and players in their own right.
And the reason is because Wallace can single Shaq, while allowing the wing players to concentrate on Kobe. Do you actually think Ginobili is better than Kobe? Prince didn't Bowened Kobe, the whole Pistons defense did, they concentrated on Kobe rather than Shaq.
I am surprised you asked. Because clearly, in that series, the Spurs were playing 4 on 5 on both ends of the floor. Rodman, on offense, was a non-factor, allowing the Houston front line to double, or even triple DR, while on defense, Rodman was hanging around the basket area, leaving Horry wide open for threes. This left other player scrambling to cover for Rodman's constant missed assignments, and left other players such as Smith for threes too. Besides, Olajuwon averaged 5 assists in that series, not 6.5, still significant and great numbers for a centre, just not as great as you proclaimed.
It's little question that O'Neal is a slightly better offensive player in that he is difficult to stop, and yet he has never averaged more than 30 ppg, and led the league in scoring only once. With all his scoring prowess, this stood out as a sore spot.
Besides, you probably just missed the playoffs, in which entire teams collapsed on Duncan in the playoffs, and Duncan, on two bad ankles, still managed to score 23.6ppg. He is not unstoppable, but he is great a creating opportunities when certain options are closed.
Game 1: 86 -80 Lakers
Shaq - 35 minutes, 23 points, 2 fouls
Duncan - 45 minutes, 26 points
Game 2: 88-85 Spurs
Shaq - 40 minutes, 22 points, 5 fouls
Duncan - 46 minutes, 27 points
Game 3: 99-89 Lakers
Shaq - 40 minutes, 22 points, 3 fouls
Duncan - 45 minutes, 28 points
Game 4: 87-85, Lakers
Shaq - 40 minutes, 22 points, 5 fouls
Duncan - 42 minutes, 30 points
Game 5: 93-87, Lakers
Shaq - 40 minutes, 21 points, 3 fouls
Duncan - 45 minutes, 34 points.
Your memory has probably got the best of you. As you can see, none of them were blowouts (you can argue Game 3), and Shaq didn't play 42 minutes per not because he was not needed, but because he just doesn't play that long. 42 mpg is a lot of minutes, and Shaq usually average far less than that in the regular season and the playoffs. To pull out an arbitrarily high number and claim Shaq didn't play that high amount of minutes because he was so dominant that he destroyed the Spurs when he played was ludircrous. He still averaged 39 mpg, about on par with his average after factoring in foul trouble that kept him out of the floor. While Duncan, due to his team's struggles, have to average 44.6 mpg.
In terms of scoring, Shaq averaged 21.4, significantly lower than his regular season average, while Duncan got 29, markedly higher than his season average.
And as that series showed, Shaq, at his absolute prime, was not unstoppable. Kobe killed the Spurs, Shaq didn't.
Any particular reason you dug up the 2002 series #'s when the discussion is about the 2001 playoffs? Perhaps because 2000 and 2001 were Shaq's peak years and all the 2001 WCF games but 1 were massive blowouts and Shaq was just dominating while Duncan was getting neutralized by Horry? Also, Shaq's assignment of scoring on DRob was much tougher than Duncan's task of scoring on a weak Horry.
Not sure what crack you are smoking to suggest Hakeem wasn't doubled in 95 or that the Pistons weren't doubling Shaq last year. Those guys got just as much if not more defensive attention than TD because both were more unstoppable scorers who both scored more and shot a higher percentage from the floor. The difference is that in Hakeem's case even if you double him he spins to the baseline and shoots a high percentage fallaway and in Shaq's case he goes through double teams to score.
Shaq killed the Spurs in both 2001 and 2004. In 2002 the series came down to some close games where Bryant took over in the clutch. Duncan's FT shooting sure didn't help the cause and the Spurs, Duncan included, could not hit clutch shots in the 4th Q of the games that series. In that series, the Lakers used Horry on Duncan for 3 quarters, then Shaq on Duncan in the 4th Quarter and Shaq completely shut down Tim in the 4th Quarter of every game.
I disagree...Charles BARRRRRRKKKLEEEEEEEYYYYYY (as Manu might say) is the Top PF...Malone is a hack
I think Duncan is overall a better player than Shaq even though Shaq is more dominant. If Shaq played the rest of the game as well like guarding his man, get back on defense quicker, and get more rebounds he could be the greatest ever but he didn't do that. Duncan is much quicker on defense so I think Duncan is better. Duncan never had a superstar to go with him like Shaq did also.
Because you brought out 22 ppg, and naturally assume you were talking about 2002, where "the unstoppable" Shaq was singled by Robinson and still only averaged 21.5 ppg.
But fine, if you want to talk about 2001, it's fine with me. Shaq averaged 38.5 mpg in that series, and the reason it was so low was because in Game 4, Shaq had 5 fouls.
He played 44, 44 35 and 31 minutes in four games.
Sure, both players were amazing, but that doesn't change the fact that Bob Hill's refusal to put double teams on Hakeem cost the Spurs the series. It's not a surprise that Hill never had another head coaching gig in the league after he was fired.
Last year, Larry Brown took a conscious effort to not double-team Shaq, and since there is no point doing the he said/she said thing between us, I did a simple google search on the Pistons defensive scheme in that year's playoffs.
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stori...40612049.shtml
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...28/ai_n6126961
It's possible all these writers smoked the same crack I did, but it's unlikely.
As for articles about the Spurs-Rockets series, I have trouble finding it due to the fact that it was a series that happened a decade ago.
You do mean Shaq plus the whole collapsing Lakers team. Shaq did cover Duncan in fourth quarters, but it was the constant attention from 4 other Lakers that stopped Duncan from driving to the basket. Shaq was too big for Duncan to post him, but not quick enough to guard him off the dribble, so Jackson put Shaq on Duncan to force Duncan to face up Shaq, then throw in 2 to 3 other guys to cut off his passing lanes.
The Spurs cannot collapse on Shaq because Bryant destroyed the Spurs.
In 2004, of course you realized how Karl Malone was the one who bothered Duncan. And Shaq, by averaging his 22.5 ppg, including the 21 ppg in the wins, sure did "kill" the Spurs.
And it's nice that you didn't even mention the 2003 playoffs, where Duncan destroyed the Lakers when he had a little help.
Last year, they cracked down on hand-checking perimeter players. Maybe someday, they'll crack down on Shaq's ass-fouling.
Sure, only Spurs like DRob and Duncan get double teams. Other teams are just plain stupid so they let more prolific scorers like Hakeem and Shaq get singled all the time.
Horry, Elie, K. Smith, Cassell, D. Fisher, B. Shaw always gets wide open 3's not because SHaq and Hakeem command so much attention but because they are just awesome at creating their own shots.
Hakeem averaged 5.5 assists in the 95 WCF (I looked up the correct # and it was indeed not 6.5), but still almost double his career average, but somehow we are to believe he was never double teamed. SImply amazing. Logic defying, but true apparently. Hakeem was great, but not exactly the Vlade Divac of passing big men, so when he got an assist it typically meant a double or triple followed by a pass out to an open spot up shooter. Why did DRob not get more assists than Hakeem if it really is true that he was doubled and tripled and hakeem was never doubled? That whole thing is a joke concocted by homer Spurs fans to avoid facing the blatant reality that Hakeem just dominated RObinson in every phase of the game that series. The whole reason Hakeem developed the turnaround jumper was to counteract double teams because he can spin to the baseline before the doubler can force him to give up the ball. DRob didn't have a game where he could do things like that.
Duncan was singled much of the time this year against DET but the defense of Rasheed and Ben affected him and caused him to shoot poorly. Manu was the true MVP of the series along with Horry. Duncan just did not play well and was terrible in the clutch at the FT line. Still funny how you won't look at Shaq's #'s in the 2001 WCF when he was at his peak. He killed the Spurs that year and Games 3 and 4 were such blowouts that he played less minutes as you saw yourself. Shaqs peak was 2000 and 2001; SPurs didnt play LA in 2000 so the only year of Shaqs peak vs. SA was 2001 and he was just too much and yes was unstoppable.
Nice of you to now only address the aspect of the argument where I couldn't find articles due to the fact that it was a decade old, while totally ignoring the Wallace on Shaq one-on-one after I found backing articles.
I can't argue with you, it's all a he said she said argument. I can't sit together with you and watch all the games together while arguing which one is a double team and which one is not, but Bob Hill was largely criticised that year for not doubling Hakeem, leading to teh Spurs demise. How else could he be fired a year after winning 62 games and never get another heading coaching gig again?
Shaq played 31 minutes in Game 4 because of 5 fouls. First you said Shaq played minimal minutes in the series because of blowouts, now I have showed you how he played 38.5mpg, with 44/44/35/31 minutes, it was just the last two games that this happened. And it's just works out so well that Shaq has exactly TWO years of peak performance. It just so happens Duncan peaked at 99, went bad for a few years, then went back to his peak in 03! Want to compare those numbers? The very fact that Shaq only had TWO years of dominance in his 12 year career, while Duncan has been consistently good for 8 years should probably tell you who is better.
Duncan was unstoppable in 2003 vs. the Lakers too, want to talk about that?
Absurd. Shaq did not only have TWO years of dominance.
Do you not understand the very basic concept that a player's PEAK is defined as when he maximizes his play? For Jordan his peak was 92-93. This doesn't mean he only dominated for but 2 years. For hakeem it was 94-95. That doesn't mean he didn't dominate in 86 when he got past showtime and took the 86 Celts to 6 games.
As said earlier, Duncan had the much easier task in scoring on a weak defender like Horry where Shaq was going up against a top 5 defensive Center of all time in Big Dave. We saw what happened in 04 when Duncan had some real comp in a 39 year old Karl Malone. He struggled. He did play very well against LA in both 99 and 2003, but LA's weakness was the PF position, not so for SA at the C position.
Suggesting that Hakeem wasn't doubled in 95 is just asinine. Dude averages 5.5 assists per game and you claim he wasn't double teamed? Man, that's just so crazy it's laughable. You can argue all day about Bob hill but it's common sense that if a Center averages 5.5 assists a game in a series and your team is killed by Horry, Elie, etc launching wide open 3's that there were sure as many double teams. You don't any articles. I can send you links for 100 articles from the national media which note the obvious: That David Robinson was just obliterated by Hakeem in 95 WCF; none will post this qualification about it being Bob Hill's fault. Bottomline is you shouldn't need any articles when Hakeem's assist total is so out of line with the rest of his career. He was just playing that well that it didnt matter how you defended him.
Explain to me how a Center averages 5.5 assists per game in a series without extensive double teams? It's just illogical.
Did you even watch Games 3 and 4 of the 2001 WCF? They were 30 and 40 point blowouts. Shaq and Kobe didn't play in the 4th Q's at all because it was extensive garbage time. You still don't want to address his stats that series because he torched SA. At his peak, he was clearly unstoppable. Duncan has always been very good, but when faced with quality defenders like a Ben Wallace, Rasheed, or even a 39 year old Karl Malone, he's certainly been slown off his game. That's really the difference between him and Shaq.
When Shaq was at his peak, he went right through Mutombo and David Robinson and Tim Duncan, not an easy task at all, but he went right through them.
Shaq has been good for much more than just 2 years. He got to the Finals very early in his career and held his own vs. a top 5 Center of all time. I'm sorry but if Duncan had to face Hakeem in his first Finals instead of Larry Johnson, he'd have had a tough time as well. Then in 96, Shaq lost to MJ and the 72 win Bulls team. Again, Tim DUncan would have fared no better. 97 and 98 Shaq lost to Malone and Stockton in his prime.
Shaq's early years were in a much touger era of bball than what DUncan has ever had to face. I don't think you'll find a soul outside of SA who truly believes that Duncan at his peak eclipses Shaq at his peak. Nothing to be ashamed of either as Shaq IMO is arguably the best big man of all time. I would rate DUncan the best PF of all time which is nothing to sneeze at. I know there's a lot of animosity towards O'Neal because of the way he's dissed SA and DRob at every opportunity but in terms of his dominance and ability, he doesn't take a back seat to Tim.
So how would one explain Duncan's inability to play well in 2001 vs. the Lakers when LA had a weak defensive PF? By your own admission, it is absurd to single team a dominant post player, and yet you constantly bring out LA having weak defensive PFs as the reason for Duncan's dominance. So your rationale is that Duncan is so weak, LA elected to single cover him, and yet he STILL sucked in 2001 and 2004?
And alright, if you define peak and dominance seperately, it's fine with me, but I just find it very convenient to have Shaq had his two peak years where one year was when he didn't play the Spurs in the playoffs, while the next year is the only dominanting effort he pulled against the Spurs in the playoffs in 4 tries.
Yes, Olajuwon absolutely outplayed Robinson in 1995, no question about that, but the fact was Olajuwon was singled most of the series. As explained in previous posts, Rodman often left Horry wide open for jumpers while he was trying to hang around the basket, doing nothing and wait for a rebound. This left 3 Spurs defender trying to cover 4 Rockets perimeter players, and it constantly left the Rockets open for jumpers. This was not an isolated incident, Rodman had problems throughout the year.
Then maybe I can pull the Duncan is not at his peak argument in 2005 too (two twisted ankles probably did something). Why does it only apply to Shaq? Duncan killed Shaq in 2003, destroyed the Nets with Mutombo in 2003, and scored 21.1 ppg on 54.9% shooting vs Malone in the 1998 playoffs during his ROOKIE season.
But of course, the Spurs played the Lakers to get to the finals, the defending champs Pistons in 2005.
You want to pull out weak compe ion in the Finals? How about the 6ers? Or the Pacers? Or the Nets (who the Spurs played the following year). Larry Johnson? Ever heard of Marcus Camby, who is at least a decent defender?
Saying that Shaq lost to MJ and Hakeem is OK, while totally dismissing Duncan losing to teams with TWO HoF (the Jazz, Lakers) at their peaks is hypocritical at best.
I have stated earlier that the years of Shaq dominance was brilliant, his stats were clearly better than Duncan, and nobody in the world will argue that. But longevity factors into my arguments. Bill Walton was brilliant until his foot problems, but I will never say that he is a top 5 centre because of his two years on top.
And I struggle to understand how you would call Shaq the best Big Man of all time, when under your own admission that Shaq had problems with Robinson (his best year was 2001, where he averaged 28.5 ppg, and he averaged 21.5 in 2002 and 22.5 in 2003), where Hakeem absolutely destroyed Robinson at his prime (1995 was Robinson's MVP year), scoring a 35 ppg in that series. Don't you value the "peak" years?
Last edited by ambchang; 07-18-2005 at 11:41 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions