Both were physically dominant players who, when playing in major markets, recieved the 'treatment' that goes with being a star in a major market in the NBA, although Shaq's ref protection pales in comparison with the ridiculous Jordan stuff...but all things equal, I'd have to say Shaq. It is a testament to how good MJ was that it's close, but I have more faith that Shaq would have dominated had he stayed in Orlando than I have that MJ would have had he played in Portland.
Shaq. If the 92 Shaq just started his career today he would be unstopable. There were alot of big men when Shaq was younger now there is 0. (Yao is on the rise) If the 92 Shaq could come into todays league he would be considered an mvp canadite and he would be arguably the best player in the game, not bad for a ROOKIE. No question its Shaq.
Shaq by far. MJ's bulls would have been slaughtered by LA. Who the hell would have guarded Shaq. The notion that MJ was by far the best player ever is a media joke. I'd take Shaq in his prime of a couple years ago over MJ of any year and not think twice about it.
Hell yeah I'd take Shaq. I mean, look at all the big men he's gone through during his 'prime': Divac, R. Wallace, Sabonis, Yao, Robinson, OsterFag, and Smits. P.S. Just don't ask him what the pythagorean theorem is....
I'm kind of surprised so many of you are choosing Shaq. Yeah, he's big. Yeah, he's strong. Yeah, he's the best center in the game right now. But it's almost like some of you forgot what Jordan could do. The man just won. Pure and simple. Almost like a force of will. For the last few seasons, Shaq has been hampered by injuries. Shaq seems to have to create motivation or desire. Sometimes he just seems lazy on the court. And being able to bull people over and score doesn't = willing your team to victory. Look at this year's playoffs. Shaq looked lazy and at times unmotivated. He was held in check quite a few times by the Spurs. And yeah, he's won....but he still had Kobe there to help. It's much harder to find instances where Jordan was unmotivated, lazy, or relying on someone else to help a big portion of the workload. (As in, having another 'best in the game' superstar vs. a good roleplayer). I don't know...I don't think the choice is quite as cut and dried as some of you make it out to be.
well i hate them both so i don't think i'm biased either way. i'm torn. on the one hand, i think jordan is the best ever (i also think he is the most overhyped/overrated/ref protected ever and is made out to be a god that he isn't, he's just a little better than all the others, not god). on the other, i think i'd pick shaq for the best 6 to 7 years of his career. on the other hand, for their entire careers i'd probably pick jordan b/c he didn't become unmotivated ever and he was damn good the whole time. i have to pick shaq at his best b/c he's a center and (even though he didn't try that much) affects a game defensively more than jordan could ever do from sg and he was simply overwhelming on O like jordan. supporting casts being equal (and ref protection being equal, which jordan never had to experience, though shaq never being called for charging or 3 seconds helps A LOT) and their teams facing off, i'd rather have a prime shaq destroying people b/c it just seems like more of a sure thing. of course i'd take 92-96 hakeem over both of them so there. pippen was another "best in the game" superstar back then. or WAY closer to that than good roleplayer. too many people think of the pippen after the bulls broke up (as if they weren't all old and getting broken down, even jordan isn't the same) instead of the 93-94 pippen that led the bulls to two less wins than the previous season while losing jordan with no replacement. they made it to the 2nd round, and if not for a bad call (not that they didn't deserve a bad call after the treatment jordan got) may have been in the conference finals or finals (to lose to us). he led them in scoring, steals, and assists and was 2nd in rebounding and blocks i believe. he could play. he wasn't thought of as top 5 player material for nothing. then he looks worse after leaving (he was breaking down a little in 98 even) and people make him out to be a scrub who jordan made look great instead of just realizing he wasn't the same athlete he once was (it's amazing when you see some old first 3-peat or 96/97 quitten and see how fast and powerful he was on the break). jordan was not lacking for a supporting cast in his title years. 2 all-nba defenders, the best rebounder in the game, the sixth man of the year, good 3 point shooters everywhere, great defenders in brown and harper. only real bad thing was the centers and even longley could stroke from 15. all that being said, i hate quitten too. quite a thread for people i hate.
With Jordan's will to win, I firmly believe that he would shine anywhere he landed. Talking about being lucky, I think Shaq's way more lucky. He always went to a situation where there was a great guard (Penny and then Kobe) and the guard won games in the clutch for him because he couldn't hit FTs and wasn't clutch himself. Jordan by a landslide for me.
no brainer: Shaq. Shaq is a sure 40-15 without Kobe hogging all the shots. Jordan could not sustain 40pt performances the way Shaq could if he was the true focus of the offense.
This is simple, Jordan wins hands down. I understand why some of you pick Shaq and if I had a pick up game, I would take Shaq in a heartbeat over Jordan. But this isn't the play ground. What we are talking about is politics and the economics of the game. Out of the two players (Shaq/Jordan), Jordan possessed everything that the NBA wanted their image to be. Jordan was: 1) A great athlete. He didn't get his name, "Air Jordan" for nothing. 2) Great looking. Women adored him, children worshiped him, and men wanted to be him. An NBA clip interviewed a whole list of players and asked who was a perfect 10 in regards to looks. Most if not all of them said, Jordan. Based on looks alone, Jordan was what the NBA wanted people to first think about when thinking about basketball/ the league. 3) Intelligence. Jordan spoke with poise and elegance during interviews which has never been matched since (although Kobe desperately tries to be like Mike). He was also a master of working the refs. He would question calls but showed enough respect to not undermined their authority. I do not know of any other player in the NBA who was more well respected or got more favorable calls than Jordan. 4) Dominating Personality. Jordan, had one of the greatest basketball minds of all time. He simply wanted it more then the other guy. I'm not even sure if he was the best athlete during his runs but simply showed on the outside that if you wanted it, you better prepare for a freaking war. And when an opponent/ team would step up to the challenge, Jordan would simply take his game to another level. This is why I liked to watch Jordan and at the same time hated Jordan. Just when you thought the opponent had a chance, Jordan would come back to take their hearts out in the next game. It was like he was playing with everyone’s minds. 5) Style of play. I must admit, Jordan was one of the most exciting players to have played the game. He was intense, played smart, and whatever he did on the court just seemed mesmerizing. It was hard not to watch Jordan perform on the court and not be amazed. Shaq's style of play, although effective, is not as graceful or ascetically pleasing to watch. Conclusion: Jordan not only possed the rare athletic talent and skills to be one of the very best but it's those other attributes (intelligence, good looks, his will to win, style of play) which puts him on top of any other player who has played in the game. Jordan had a marriage with the NBA league. It was a symbiotic relationship which made both partners very rich and popular. Ratings were high, the league was becoming globular and Jordan was arguably the most famous athlete, aside from Mohammad Ali. The capitalistic values were the driving force and are/was very much a part of the NBA and Jordan was the perfect partner. If Jordan and Shaq had shared the same era Shaq would not have been as dominating as he has in the past 4-3 years. Instead, the refs would have forced Shaq to play a more finess game, hence a less dominating Shaq, rather then a brute style he has adopted over the past few years. There would be no way the league would have allowed Shaq to dominate simply because Jordan was the perfect image, something they could not pass up on. Lots of people talk about Kobe, T-mac, and now Lebron James being the next Jordan. I'm not even sure if there can be another Jordan. He simply was the perfect basketball player from any angle you look at it. All three of these players might be better athletes then Jordan, heck they might be even better all around basketball player then Jordan, but it will be very difficult for any of these player, or any player in the future, to match all of Jordan's attributes some of which has to be earned (see respect from Peers).
This is exactly why I would not take Shaq over Jordan or Dream. You don’t have to say, “put Jordan in this era for him to be the best”. Of course Shaq would cream everyone today….THERE ARE NO OTHER CENTERS IN THE LEAGUE. On the other hand, Jordan was dusting the teams that Shaq couldn’t get past. No, I do not think Mike was the best ever. Yes, I think a team with a center could have given the Bulls a run for their money…but not Shaq…a center with a jumper (like Dream, Ewing or Robinson). True, Mike never played a team with a center, but ya gotta give him and the Bulls props for who they beat: The Bad Boys….enough said. Magic and the Lakers. Even though they were old, they were still a better team than the 2000 Sixers, the 2001 Pacers and the 2002 Nets. A Blazers team with Clyde….definitely better than the headcase Portland team that the lakers beat Barkley & KJ Kemp (at his best) and Payton. As Rockets fans, we all know how tough that team was. Stockton & Malone, twice (and they used to beat the crap out of Shaq and LA). When you consider that Jordan was a guard (meaning it isn’t as hard to get him the ball) and the economic standpoint, I would take Mike every time.
................. It's this ****in' close? BTW--If you are going to do this "fresh out of college" bull****--why don't we take Michael Olowokandi over Paul Pierce? If you interpret it like "fresh out of college" it is a bull**** question because college success means **** in the pros. If you interpret it as the best player, it's Jordan, hands down. I find it funny that so few people have mentioned Kobe Bryant--a player that right now is better than Pippen ever was. ****....I don't know if I'd take Shaq over Duncan right now, screw comparing him to Jordan.
It's a tough choice but I went with Michael Jordan. Of course, the underlying question is who else is on my roster.
What?!? Did you ever see Jordan play? Not only was Jordan a better scorer than Shaq, but when he had freethrows(which he did often) he drained them at a high clip. I GUARANTEE that Jordan had more 40 and 50 point games than Shaq has in the post season, lets not even get into 60 point games. Does anyone remember Jordan sweeping Shaq's Magic out of the 96 playoffs? I do...the average Bulls win margin was by more than 16 points per game.
Even Kobe broke Jordan's 40-pt game record while he was the focus of the offense. Do you think Shaq could put up a longer string of 40 pt games with his high FG%? I think I hear a Y-E-S in the background. When you consider Shaq could easily average 15rb a game a couple of blocks per game, it's easy to see who could do more for his team. Shaq without Kobe: 40pt/15rbs/3blocks per game easily Jordan: around 35/8rb/3 steals I'm not saying Shaq by a mile, but Shaq was and is more dominant and can do more things for the team than Jordan could. Hell, Shaq can even bring the ball up the court and lead the break if he wanted to...I think we've all seen him do that more than a handful of times.
That's fine and dandy and all, but Jordan had been in the league 10 years at that point, and Shaq only 3 years. Not a fair comparison.
