Why does he score that low you ask? Becuase he's constantly doubled/tripled, especially by San Antonio, they have it down to an art. What that does do, however, is open it up for the Fishers and Foxs of the league, and that's why the Lakers have their third ring. (Cat, if you're reading this, restrain yourself.) And Hakeem is too short to guard Shaq effectively without help from another big man, something the 95 rox lack. Plus there's this tall guy named Kobe Bryant.
napster I beg to differ, Shaq's so-called improvement is really just the result of a decreased talent pool at the center position league wide. I've seen short guys guard Shaq effectively (rodman, antoine carr in jazz sweep) Ask yourself how would 95' Shaq fare in the 2002 NBA? Answer: The same as 2002 Shaq if not better. When Vlade Divac is the toughest competition how would you expect Shaq to fare. IMO Shaq is has actually regressed because A> He is out of shape, Hakeem would not come out of the game. So who guards him when Shaq takes his much needed breathers? Plus he actually has to play D chasing around a quicker more agile player. B> And if Shaq wasn't quick enough to stop Hakeem from scoring 33 ppg in 95, why would a bigger, slower Shaq have more success 80 lbs later? Dominating McCullough ain't like dominating a HOF Center in his prime, something Shaq never did. couldn't have said it better myself. C> Hakeem had no, none, not a single weakness in his game and an uncanny knack for stealling the ball. He would frustrate Shaq who seems to be getting a shorter fuse with age. D> Three things necessary to defend Shaq that Hakeem has. (1)Respect from the ref's. to not be a flopper(2) Ability to move feet quickly into position when shaq turns. (3) Strength to fight for position (no one has shaq strength, but you cant be a Camby) Olajuwon, Duncan, and Rodman have these three qualities and IMO they are they have been the best players at defending Shaq.
I'm sorry, but that's just pure BS. The Spurs strategy is to stay home on the perimeter guys. They do not double and triple Shaq at all. Duncan plays Shaq very well. Hell, Malik Rose often plays Shaq very well as well. Kobe is the guy that lights up SA. The reason Shaq is winning titles now as opposed to mid 90's is because of playing alongside the 2nd best player in the NBA (Kobe is actually clutch as opposed to Shaq's 19% 4th Q FG% this postseason until the Nets series). Shaq has weaknesses, believe it or not. He's slow footed defensively, can't defend the pick n roll (see Bibby), and used to get killed by Centers who could run the floor and beat him down the court (Hakeem and DRob back in the day). He's extremely fortunate that there's no one around to exploit them right now. And if not allowed to dislodge defenders illegally, his offensive game is nothing special. Again, how is Shaq better equipped to defend a much quicker Hakeem 80 lbs after 95?
napster don't fool yourslf into thinking hakeem was the same player back then as he is now. hakeem in 93-95 was as good a player as ANYONE in history. i plead ignorance to the older generation but that might have been the greatest single player run ever. like prettyricky said he had no weaknesses, he was one of the strongest men in the league and would be able to handle shaq. shaq is a more polished player now but that rubber tire will not help him at all against dream's quickness. as far as kobe-drexler, the egde goes to kobe but not by as much as you think. clyde was a few years past his prime but was still an all-star and had the hall-of-fame intelligence. this isn't kerry kittles here, you might be thinking too much about the lakers current competition. he would give kobe much more to handle offensively than anyone he faced this postseason. clyde was a BIG guard and would definitely put some muscle on him. kobe would still get his but clyde would too. i give it to the rockets in 5, no one was gonna beat that team.
Those would be the same basketball pundits that had a consensus that the Rockets would lose to Utah, Phoenix, San Antonio and again to Orlando. The pundits didn't believe the Rockets were going to do it to begin with, and didn't really give too much respect after it was done. It doesn't surprise me that they would continue favoring the opposition. The Rockets weren't really picked to win any of the series they won that year, but they did it. Pundits have a history of underestimating the Rockets, but I don't think anyone was going to stop the team that year.
Preach on, RapDynasty. Shaq '94-'95: 29.3 pts, 13.2 rebs, 2.4 blks, .583 fg% Shaq '01-'02: 27.2 pts, 10.7 rebs, 2.0 blks, .579 fg% Hakeem handled the '95 Shaq, there's no reason why he wouldn't have done the same with a bigger, slower Shaq. Shaq would've fallen on his ass from dizziness.
If you've watched Shaq you can see how he now understands the game better. He's not just using his athleticism anymore, he knows when to pass out of the double team, when to repost, etc (more and more as his understanding of the triangle increases...he doesn't have to spot the players, he knows where they will be). Shaq and Hakeem will cancel each other out, I believe Shaq has the slight edge, along with most basketball analysts (that's not saying much, I know), but I'm sure many here think Hakeem has the edge. People credit Clyde with too much. Kobe is too quick for Clyde to guard him effectively. The role players are the strong point for Houston, and their play will dictate the Rox chances. At least most of us can agree that the series would be a great one to watch though.
I would say the 95 orlando team was better than this years lakers and they did not put up much of a fight. Think about it. Anderson was a very good player at the time, but never recovered from his choke in game 1, never the same player again. Dennis Scott was the perfect three on that team, one of the best pure shooters in the game at the time. Penny was the second coming of magic back then, enough said Horace Grant was the missing link to their team, they got him and he lived up to the billing, doing all the dirty work, getting boards and playing D. Shaq was a much better player in 95 than now, because of wear and tear. He was much more of a dominating player then. He still gets similar stats but look at the level of competition now, washed up Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning. Who is he really getting comp. from now McCullough, Divac, Cato, etc. . I would take that 95 orlando team, pre-choke, over this Laker dynasty. They never recovered from the 4 missed free throws in game 1. Bickering internally and their own loss of confidence led to their demise, which i guess showed their character. But if they could have kept it together and got over the loss and learning curve, we would be comparing Chicago's 91-93, Houston's 94-95, Orlando's 2 or three peat and fill in the blank 02 My point is Houston and Hakeem ran through Shaq and his 95 Orlando team and they were a better team than this Laker squad. Hakeem was on top of his game and making everyone, including league MVP Robinson, look silly at the time. I don't think any of the modern-day champs could have beat the Rockets at that time.
While that is generally true, in a slightly pedantic manner, it still doesn't follow that their post-1995 analysis of the rockets are by default invalid and worthless. you're quilty of an all-too-hasty generalization based on whichever pundit you read back in 1995 that did not favor the rockets in whichever series. I could go with the unrepresentative sample fallacy as well. Most of the games the rockets won in 1995 were tight battles where their underrated championship verve shone through- a quality that Rudy Tomjanovich best summed up- and due to a few breaks (early elimination of their nemesis, Seattle Sonics & Charles Barkley getting injured in the 2nd round or was that the 94 series?). But that is neither here nor there when we're talking about the 21st century Lakers- a team i thoroughly despise BTW- who do possess that elusive championship clutch juice as well. NEXT! ~Absolute~
I'm inclined to agree, but does that also go for the absolutely dominant Shaquille O'Neal at the very peak of his game in 2000, or the "historically closest thing to a perfect playoff performance" 2001 Lakers?
