Hmm, how do you figure that? I think Kobe is a better scorer, but I would not take him over Pip. Kobe showed me what he could do when he had to be the man (nada). Pip lost Mike and still took his team deep into the playoffs. If Shaq could average 40 points and 15 boards easily, then why hasn't he ever done it? What does Kobe being there have to do with Shaq averaging 15 boards a game? I can't believe some of you would choose Shaq. I'm going with the man that I can give the ball to at the end of the game.
I thought you were talking the post season, but whatever. Also, shaq has never put together a string of 40 point games like Kobe or MJ, in his whole career, but after your hypothetical situation he 'should' be able to? Strange how he's in the triangle, like MJ, but he can't seem to do it. There is a reason why Shaq isn't the 'total' focus of the offense(neither was Jordan, see Pippen,Kukoc,Grant,and the triangle offense), its because you need another scorer to win,(isn't that what basketball is all about?)... if shaq was the whole focus all you have to do is double him in the post...hell he'd get more FTs(that he would miss) than FG attempts. And they'd lose. See Wilt Chamberlain. MJ was a much more versitile scorer than Shaq, MJ made his own offense, shaq needs others to get him the ball. Thats a big advantage when one guy can do it all. Anyways if Shaq is so dominate why is it only recently he's won his titles? He needed to be teamed with the 2nd best player in the league...and he still couldn't get it done this year? His last 3 years in Orlando he was teamed with a great Hardaway but he still couldn't win it, despite his great dominance? His last year in Orlando(which was his 4th year, not 3rd.) he was smoked by MJ's bulls...he was a vet, he'd been to the finals, but still wasn't dominant enough. I think you WAY overestimate 'The Diesel'.
Same here. MJ is well known to be the greatest player EVER, yet some bball fans on this board think Shaquille Oneal is. Strange.
I love how the Pro-MJ people keep saying, "I can't believe people are voting for Shaq." I'd like for someone to try and argue against my points. I think my logic is sound in saying that MJ's teams were so good because they luckily never had to face a truly dominant center. The Bulls always had troubles against the Rockets. The Rockets of the mid-90's and the Lakers of 2000-2002 are very similar. It seems to make sense to think that a Shaq led Lakers team would be able to at the very least, take a series to 7 against the Bulls. I will take a dominant center over a dominant guard every single chance I get... I don't think MJ was the greatest ever, maybe most successful, but not the greatest...
Your logic? Look at my last post, 96'playoffs Bulls swept Oneal's/Hardaway's Magic by an average of 16 points per game.Hell, they held the magic and the 'dominant' shaq to only 67 points one game... MJ regularly thrashed Ewing's Knicks. Ewing was one of the 50 greatest players and was in his prime through most of the MJ years. He of course wasn't as great as Hakeem, but if you don't call stomping through two centers(in there primes, Oneal in his 4th year with finals experience) on the 50 greatest players list an accomplishment, then you probably just don't like MJ.
I don't think Shaq reached his potential until he went to LA. Even when he lost in the Finals, he definitely wasn't nearly the player he became... No comment on Ewing... Prime Lakers ~ Prime Rockets Prime Rockets held their own against the Bulls. Prime Lakers would have held their own against the Bulls.
Really? Shaq's FG%, ppg, rebounding, and even FT% was slightly higher in Orlando than in LA. I think the emergence of Kobe Bryant lead to the titles, not Shaq's dominance. Shaq can't finish games, MJ could. Thats what LA needs Kobe for...in addition to his 'other' skills.
The fact that you use stats to back up your claim, makes your argument useless. Shaq didn't become a team player until 99-00. He is possibly the best passer from the low post in the NBA.
Michael Jordan Because he has a stronger will to win. I don't think this statement is so speculative when comparing the two. Jordan challenged his teammates to play hard even during practices and his teammates accepted that challenge. But with Shaq, you hear about his lack of discipline in the offseason and the constant criticism by his coach during the season. Many other posters mention that Shaq could do this or that with greater ease than Jordan. That's the problem with Shaq. He could be the best but he's not. When Michael started, he could have also been the best. That's the difference...Michael is the best.
Hmmm. 99-00? The same year Bryant stepped up his game as well. You think that might have had something to do with it? It still doesn't explain how the most dominate player 'ever'(according to some people here), couldn't win an NBA title against the San Antonio Spurs, even when he had the 2nd(3rd if Duncan is 1st or 2nd) best player in the league. How is that dominant? Don't you think that taints his best player status a bit?
Well as far as supporting cast, I think Jordan had a better one than Shaq, by far. So all your arguments about "well Shaq had the 2nd best player in the game" doesn't hold up because as someone else pointed out, having 2 of the best players on a team doesn't = championship, because other teams know who to focus their defense on, and they don't have to worry about the kukoc's, and the kerr's, and the paxons draining 3s on their heads. Kukoc, Kerr, Paxon, Armstrong, rodman, grant > the everyone on the lakers not named kobe and shaq....COMBINED.
So he was good enough to get to the Finals one yr, but the next year that they lost, he wasn't living up to his potential? I think the difference between Shaq in Finals appearance 1 and Shaq in Finals appearance's 2-4 is that there was actually a real center that could play with Shaq in 95, and none in 2000, 2001 and 2002. You are hating on Jordan for never beating a team with a dominant center, as if Shaq did to win any of his titles. Now that I think about it, going through Ewing and Shaq (back then) is much harder than going against any center the Lakers faced during their three peat (the best was what...Mutombo?). I also think going through Barkley & KJ, Stockton & Malone, Kemp & Payton, and Drexler is touhger than going through any team LA beat during a title run. If you are using the lack of adequate comp as the basis of your argument, Mike wins hands down. How do you figure that. You actually think Kobe is going to school Jordan or Pippen (one of them would have been checking him). This dude can't destroy Bruce Bowen, and you think he is gonna have an advantage over either of those two? Do you think he would actually get any calls against either of those players (I know it's bs.....but let's just be real). How are using his rebounding and blocked shots as a point of reference useless? Shaq might be a better passer now, but his defense and board activity were obviously better back in the day. As far as being the best low post passer, what about Divac, Webber, KG, Sabonis, etc? Yeah, but look at all the talent that Shaq had on his teams when he was getting swept every year (when other centers could actually play). Name me one season, besides his rookie year, where he did not have a squad decked with talent?
SRF I like your "finish games" point on Shaq. That was a big problem with him, but if I remember correctly...most of the time he was put on the line at the end of the game, he'd hit his throws. He always managed to hit throse crucial free throws at the end of the game, unlike a certain MVP this year... I hate comparing stats. You can say Shaq's numbers were better with Orlando, but that doesn't really mean much to me. He was a better team player in LA. If Kobe was the main reason the Lakers won it all, then he should have won MVP. Yes. The year they went to the Finals, there wasn't a dominant team in the East. Jordan came back to his old form the next year and went back to the Finals. I'm not "hating" on Jordan. I actually liked those Bulls teams and this Lakers team. I'm simply pointing out that the Bulls were very fortunate to not have to face a true "takeover" center. Patrick Ewing had good regular season stats, but not once do I remember a team ever actually really fearing him in the playoffs. If you're going to argue that Shaq isn't that good because he hasn't faced any true centers, well you can go ahead with that, I think you'd be in the minority. If you really want to compare competition levels of the 2 teams, then I don't think there's much question that the Western Conference of the last few years is definitely much better than the Eastern Conference of the mid-late 90's. Shaq still had to play against the Twin Towers in San Antonio, which would be a tough assignment for any center of any generation. As I've said multiple times in this thread, the Rockets played well against the Bulls. The Rockets are extremely similar to the championship Lakers teams. Shaq would have dominated the Bulls much like Hakeem did in the mid 90's. The fact that the Rockets didn't even have a 2nd player of Kobe's ability emphasizes even more that a Lakers/Bulls series would have been extremely close. The closest guy was a post-prime Drexler, who isn't as good as a prime Kobe.
Once again, why are we comparing supporting casts? I don't know how it started, but it shouldn't have even been brought up. When comparing the two, MJ doesn't get Pippen and Shaq doesn't get Penny/Kobe. MJ is the all-time leading scorer, a better defender, a better scorer (ppg), a better shooter, a better free throw shooter, and a better passer. Taking a big guy that's not as good over a small guy that's better just doesn't make sense. Sure, you take Duncan over anyone else in the league because he's THE BEST player in the league--in addition to being a big guy. You take McGrady or Bryant over Webber because they are better players than Webber......the rule is universal when speaking of single player. The answer is too easy.
I say Shaq. Jordan was a great player, but there are so many players that could put up points even before Jordan came in the league, and there are still players now who share similar styles to MJ today. No one plays like Shaq. Whether it's pretty ball or not isn't the argument. Even in the 95' Finals, the greatest low post defender in the 90's (Hakeem) couldn't even keep Shaq from almost averaging 30 a game. Shaq may not have the same will to win that Jordan does, but then again he's never really needed to. He's proven he's the best in the league even being atleast 30 pounds overweight, with a bum toe, among other injuries, and still had some amazing games. Could you honestly say Jordan in his 30s would still put up the same numbers that Shaq does being overweight and carrying along injuries as well? I truly believe that if Shaq had the same will to win that Jordan did, or even half of it for that matter, he'd of already won 6 rings by now. Just Shaq has a lazy persona and knows he can get by as still the most dominant in the league carrying a tire around his waist throughout a whole season. It's just laziness got the better of him this season. Were he in shape from the start of the season and took better care of his body, we'd be talking about a 4 peat right now by the Lakers. Duncan's fantastic, but Shaq is still the best in the game.
Nah, Phil Jackson > MJ + Shaq is the only equation that will end this thread. That's my story and i'm sticking with it.
So you think Shaq's lazy, doesn't have jordan's will to win, and plays ugly(which nobody mentioned, because it didn't matter). And you also say Hakeem couldn't even hold Shaq, but fail to mention Shaq's D(one of the reason's his magic couldn't win), and use the fact that some of the new great players pattern their game after Jordan...against Jordan . But you'd still take Shaq over him? Man, there are a lot of Jordan haters in this room. You know, I really like Shaq, I think he's the best player in the league right now, but there's no way I'd take him over Jordan.
