All players in their prime, which team is best?

[DPG21920]

Ya, I don't agree with the Dice was a poor defender take. He was not a beast, but he was ok as evidenced by:

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.

[picc84]

The idea that Shaq is going to average 32ppg, or anywhere near it, against the Spurs is one that is overwhelmingly opposed by history provided that Tim Duncan is on the team, regardless of who else is. It never happened in half a decades worth of playoffs and it won't happen here. This is what I mean when I talk about the romanticized "Prime Shaq". Usually people have to die to get this kind of treatment.

[Sdayi135]

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."

[Fernando TD21]

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.

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.

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 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.



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.

[JamStone]

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?

You wanted numbers, I gave you numbers. I don't know what you expected. Did you think I'd somehow change my mind and put the numbers in favor of the Spurs?and those numbers are based on how many minutes I think they'll all play, anywhere from 30-40 mpg for each player, taking into consideration they'll still rest.

63 shot attempts for the Spurs because I think the Spurs will use their bench more and the Cavs will ride their starters more. And yes that's what I think Shaq will average. I think he'll get those amount of touches in his prime and against Duncan as the primary defender, Shaq will shoot in the high 50% or low 60% just like when he shot 63% against the Spurs in the 2004 playoffs against the Spurs when they didn't have Robinson and Duncan had to take more responsibilty defending Shaq.

So yes.

[JamStone]

In that 2004 series, Shaq shot 63% on that DPOY Duncan defense while Duncan shot 47% on Shaq and a hobbled Karl Malone. I see a distinction.

Also, compare Kobe's 21 shot attempts to Shaq's 14 shot attempts in that Spurs series. Shooting 63% from the field, one would expect him to get the most shot attempts on the team... Or at the very least comparable to the number of shot attempts Kobe had.

[DPG21920]

You wanted numbers, I gave you numbers. I don't know what you expected. Did you think I'd somehow change my mind and put the numbers in favor of the Spurs?and those numbers are based on how many minutes I think they'll all play, anywhere from 30-40 mpg for each player, taking into consideration they'll still rest.

63 shot attempts for the Spurs because I think the Spurs will use their bench more and the Cavs will ride their starters more. And yes that's what I think Shaq will average. I think he'll get those amount of touches in his prime and against Duncan as the primary defender, Shaq will shoot in the high 50% or low 60% just like when he shot 63% against the Spurs in the 2004 playoffs against the Spurs when they didn't have Robinson and Duncan had to take more responsibilty defending Shaq.

So yes.

Ok.... I said thanks for putting the numbers down. I thought you might look at things when putting the numbers down that shed light on something. I did not know what you would do, but I thought you would be honest, but try and defend what you have been saying.

Then I asked questions. So now you are adding the bench variable for some reason? When we have never discussed it?

Also, even if you wanted to bring in a random variable, why would the Spurs defer more to their bench? Just like in the playoffs, the best players play the vast majority of the minutes and rotations are shortened. Why would the Spurs let their best players sit while the Cavs play theirs?

[DPG21920]

So you are also using just one series and saying pretty much for sure that DRob is the sole reason for the difference every other time Shaq played Duncan?

[JamStone]

Ok.... I said thanks for putting the numbers down. I thought you might look at things when putting the numbers down that shed light on something. I did not know what you would do, but I thought you would be honest, but try and defend what you have been saying.

Then I asked questions. So now you are adding the bench variable for some reason? When we have never discussed it?

Also, even if you wanted to bring in a random variable, why would the Spurs defer more to their bench? Just like in the playoffs, the best players play the vast majority of the minutes and rotations are shortened. Why would the Spurs let their best players sit while the Cavs play theirs?

Would you rather me put down each players numbers as if they'd each play 48 minutes each game? I'll do that if you want me to. I put down stats that I thought were realistic in a regular game format.

In Shaq's prime when he was the clear #1, in those three championship years, 2000,2001, 2002, in the playoffs, Shaq averaged 21 FGA and 12 FTA. In the first four playoff series against the Spurs (1999, 2001, 2002, 2003), Shaq averaged 18 FGA and 9.9 FTA. I think not having Robinson defend Shaq, it's reasonable to think Shaq in his prime could get off a handful more shot attempts on Duncan/Dice. If you don't, that's your opinion.

And, I don't see why you would infer earlier that I'm not being honest. It's an opinion. And, it's a reasonable one.

[DPG21920]

Are you self conscious or something? Where did I say you weren't honest? I said fair enough and thanked you for putting the numbers down.

You got an at ude after my reply and asked "what did you expect me to do"? I said "Ok...I told you thanks". I was not being rude or implying you were dishonest. When you asked what did you expect me to do, I said I expected you to be honest and defend your take, which you did. I never implied otherwise, I just answered your strange response.

Moving on....

I do think Shaq would get a good number of attempts, but I doubt he would average more PPG than he ever has before. Shaq in 2000 averaged 22 shots per game and only 30.7 PPG. But now, against a team anchored by a prime Tim he is expected to go above that?

Also, pic posted this earlier:

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

The lowest point totals from Shaq came without Drob, or where Drob played the least in 2004 and 2002.

Saying they won't play 48 minutes is quite different from saying the Spurs would rely on their bench more than the Cavs without explanation. Also I disagree the Cavs would average more shot attempts is all.

I never said you were being unreasonable, and I don't know if the tone of my posts would lead you to think that, but I assure you that was not the intention.

And if you were going to say the Spurs would rely on their bench more, you should have put down how much you thought the benches would add to the starters points to determine who would win.

[Leetonidas]

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.

Yeah, those sure are some out-of-this-world numbers by Shaq on Duncan.

[JamStone]

This is where you inferred I wasn't being honest. Thats how it read.

Ok.... I said thanks for putting the numbers down. I thought you might look at things when putting the numbers down that shed light on something. I did not know what you would do, but I thought you would be honest, but try and defend what you have been saying.

[JamStone]

In 2004, Shaq had yielded to Kobe as the #1 option.

Shaq shot 63% from the field on Duncan without Robinson. In Shaq's prime in the playoffs, he averaged 21 FGA and 12 FTA. The numbers I posted are perfectly reasonable.

[DPG21920]

Yes, I read it and did I not quote exactly what I said? You asked me what I thought you would do and I said I thought you would be honest and defend your position.

I did not say "I thought you would be honest but you werent and all you did was throw numbers up to back yourself no matter what". Get real.

So now what about the rest of what I said?

1) What about 2002?
2) What about 2000 where Shaq averaged 22 SPG and 20.7 PPG? He would be even better against a prime Spurs?
3) What about the 48 MPG comment and why do you think the Spurs would rely more on their bench than the Cavs? If you are going to throw that out there, who's bench would be better? By how many PPG?

[JamStone]

In 2000 Kobe wasn't in his prime and nowhere near the player LeBron would be in his prime. And against a frontcourt without Robinson and with LeBron in his prime, yes, I believe he could and would average what I posted.

[DPG21920]

Baby stepping...........What about number 3?

[JamStone]

My goodness. You're being extremely anal about a hypothetical scenario based on conjecture and opinion.

In a series, the Spurs bench would have the advantage by 4.1457532186 ppg.

[DPG21920]

It was a pretty big assumption to make is all. I just wanted to know why you thought, with Shaq and Lebron being so dominant, why the Spurs would not have their best players going minute for minute with them?

Especially when you throw in a random variable we have not discussed.

[JamStone]

I had the Spurs best players going minute for minute with Shaq and LeBron. I didn't put a mpg distribution anyway. Only that collectively, all five, that the Spurs bench would have more field goal attempts than the Cavs bench. It's not simply a minutes difference. It's not that the Spurs bench would play that much more than the Cavs bench, but they'd take more shot attempts. Just an opinion. It could be wrong. I don't care anymore.

But it doesn't even matter at this point. Look, I actually took the time and effort to give you a real opinion on the stats. I actually did look up playoff stats of the players even. Its not conclusive when applied to this hypothetical. It's not concrete, written in stone. And it's not irrefutable. But that's this whole, entire discussion topic. Had you been the one to post what you think the stats would be, I could similarly go through every stat and poke holes as to how you come up with the numbers, because it's conjecture and opinion that in this hypothetical scenario cannot be proven.

That's why I was done with this. I was trying to appease you by answering your stats question so you wouldn't think I was punking out of the arguments. But honestly. How is either one of going to prove out respective opinions conclusively? We can't. We'll just go back and forth claiming what's wrong with the other's opinion. At this point, it's senseless.

[DPG21920]

I agree that you could poke holes and I know that you took the time. It was just interesting and it was one of those things when you answered one question another one arose type deal. There is not much else to talk about and I have debates like this with friends sometimes that are funny that we carry on while partying or something.

[JamStone]

Btw I kept editing that post because of al the misspellings. I'm typing on my itouch in bed and it autocorrects words it thinks I mispell, like changing stats to state or punking to pinking. I'm so annoyed by it.

[DPG21920]

Jam, you know what this reminded me of?



You think its over, then Bam, you get hit with a chair.

[DAF86]

Parker, Ginobili, Finley, McDyess and Duncan are all all-star players in their primes.

[j-money24]

Btw I kept editing that post because of al the misspellings. I'm typing on my itouch in bed and it autocorrects words it thinks I mispell, like changing stats to state or punking to pinking. I'm so annoyed by it.

I have the same problem with my Iphone.

[picc84]

In that 2004 series, Shaq shot 63% on that DPOY Duncan defense while Duncan shot 47% on Shaq and a hobbled Karl Malone. I see a distinction.

Sure there's a distinction. 3 points more on better shooting. That is a distinction, yes....but its not a dominating distinction. And it does nothing to dissolve the point of this matter - that Shaq would not post dominating scoring #'s against the Spurs, contrary to the statistical expectations you've outlined for this projected matchup.

(insignificant but curious sidenote: Malone wasn't injured until the following series vs the Minnesota Timberwolves)

Also, compare Kobe's 21 shot attempts to Shaq's 14 shot attempts in that Spurs series. Shooting 63% from the field, one would expect him to get the most shot attempts on the team... Or at the very least comparable to the number of shot attempts Kobe had.

Therein lies the problem. You're projecting Shaq's performance on the Cavs from what you would expect. Not from what would actually happen. As history shows, regardless of how many times Kobe Bryant shot the ball vs San Antonio, Shaq himself never took an extraordinary amount of shots, no matter his touches, and neither did he score an extraordinary amount of points, no matter his defender.

This is what we should expect were he were to join the Cavs in his prime, because this is what has always happened vis-a-vis prime Shaquille O'Neal versus the Duncan-led San Antonio Spurs.