NBA Finals

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Really the Shaq only dunks argument gets pretty old. He doesn't shoot 3's or anything like that, of course, but you don't want you center doing that.

shaq cant shoot much of anything. when was the last time he made a shot outside of the key other than a layup?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I really don't like basketball, but after listening to my roomate go on and on about how awesome Dallas was, and then how unbeatable the West is compared to the East, I'm watching the games so I can see the Pistons trounce the Lakers.

[Sava]

Malone doesn't deserve ****... I hope the Pistons win.

[cubbyphan1138]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


shaq cant shoot much of anything. when was the last time he made a shot outside of the key other than a layup?

Why would Shaq ever shoot outside the key? That's not his job. If you read the article it mentions all the different kind of shots Shaq can hit. He has the bank of the glass, the lob hook, the turn around. Shaq leads the league in FG% almost every year, often by a significant margin, and it's not just because of dunks. To say he can't shoot just because he isn't launching needless shots from 15-20 feet out is stupid.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by BustaMike


That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Sure sonny. Do you have the faintest idea of what Bill Russell did?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Why would Shaq ever shoot outside the key? That's not his job. If you read the article it mentions all the different kind of shots Shaq can hit. He has the bank of the glass, the lob hook, the turn around. Shaq leads the league in FG% almost every year, often by a significant margin, and it's not just because of dunks. To say he can't shoot just because he isn't launching needless shots from 15-20 feet out is stupid.

hey if i was 7 ft tall and 350 lbs, i took could lay it up too. shaq's got one move. post up, back down, and dunk/layup. i mean, he can hardly dribble, and cant play d. i too would lead the league in FG% if every shot was a layup or a dunk. and if you cant shoot from outside the key, you cant shoot. its simple.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Sure sonny. Do you have the faintest idea of what Bill Russell did?

Yeah, he played in a league that had only one other player with skills comparable to his own. Your point?

[Aeson]

I love basketball, and this finals has been entertaining... but highly frustrating too.

In Game 1, the Lakers should have won with anyone competent handling the ball. Shaq was 13 for 16... and shot 8 for 12 from the FT line. That's just an unreal stat. He shot the ball just about every time he got it on the low block. He shot 81%. He didn't get as many shots as Kobe! That's just stupid on the part of everyone playing on the Lakers. Shaq should have had 30 shots at least, and even if Detroit had started double teaming, that would have freed up so much more of the Laker's offense. Yah, Kobe (and Shaq) saved them at the end of game 2 (Walton saving them in the first half), but Kobe lost them game 1 by taking 27 shots and shooting half the percentage (37%) Shaq was.

Game 2... Detroit should have won. Shaq wasn't having the success down low, didn't have the (8 foot) shot going. Detroit went 4 straight times to Rasheed on the low block in the 3rd quarter. 3 point blank uncontested shots, and a wide open 3 pointer. 11 point Laker lead pretty much down the drain. Then they stopped. Part of the reason was Shaq guarded Rasheed for a lot of the 4th, but he wasn't always guarding him. Detroit's ball handlers needed to find Rasheed when he was being guarded by Malone. They only did once in the 4th, and the result? A layup for Hamilton.

Then Shaq caught the ball with ~11 seconds left, and the Lakers had no timeouts... he wasn't fouled! So what that he's shooting 66% from the line, even if he makes both you're in better shape then letting them get a set play for a 3 pointer. They'll foul you, your odds of making the free throws are better than Shaq's, and then they have to bring the ball up the whole length of the court, no timeout to set up the play, and try to hit a 3 (if they are lucky and Shaq hits as many free throws as Rip or Chauncey... obviously don't let Ben touch the ball) in much more durress than Kobe's shot (which wasn't that great a shot, it was situational pressure, but not contested... basically he hit a wide open 3). Odds are that it will be a 4 point lead at that point though, and game over.

NBA teams just seem to always try to make it harder on themselves than it needs to be.

-----------

Bill Russell was a great player who consistantly had better teammates than Wilt. One on one it was a great matchup, but the Celtics always won because outside that matchup they always had the advantage. Which one is 'better' would depend on the rest of your team. I'd take Russell if I already had a couple scorers, Wilt if I didn't.

Shaq is a great center (who I detest watching play because it's so predictable), but I think in general the style of the game has changed so much that you can't compare. Player's now get away with so much physical contact, and so much shuffling of the feet, that Shaq's "great" footwork is nothing more than bulling over whoever's guarding him to create space and usually travelling in the process. I don't hold it against him, as that is how the NBA officials seem to want to allow the game to be played. Shaq is just playing by the rules they set (or enforce), as are the players guarding him (they get away with a ton of stuff too). He is very agile for his size, and if the rules were enforced differently I wouldn't doubt his footwork would actually keep up. Anyone who puts Shaq's footwork up around Hakeem's or Kevin McHale's is dreaming.

[BustaMike]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Sure sonny. Do you have the faintest idea of what Bill Russell did?

Get ripped by John Havlicek and lose the championship .

I'm well aware of the ridiculous number of championships that Russell won. He was also playing against a league that was full of a small amount of great players and a whole buch of nobodies who wouldn't have the talent to play today. I'm not saying Shaq is the most skilled player, far from it. I'm saying he is the most physically dominant player EVER and had he played back in the 60's his team would have been absolutely invincible. Anyone who thinks the league of the NBA of the 60's could possibly compete today has no clue.

As far as calling my sonny and trying to insinuate that somehow that you're wiser with age or whatever all I can do is roll my eyes. Anyone here that tries to challenge me with knowledge of the game or its history is going to lose.

EDIT - just saw JohnT's post... EXACTLY

[BustaMike]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
hey if i was 7 ft tall and 350 lbs, i took could lay it up too. shaq's got one move. post up, back down, and dunk/layup. i mean, he can hardly dribble, and cant play d. i too would lead the league in FG% if every shot was a layup or a dunk. and if you cant shoot from outside the key, you cant shoot. its simple.

No. Have a good look at Jake Tsakilitis (spelling?) and tell me that again. He's on the Memphis currently.

[Aeson]

There have been other players who were physically as dominant as Shaq. Center isn't the only position, Jordan could have scored 100 points a game if he was being guarded by Shaq (and vice versa).

Wilt, while not a big as Shaq had more quickness and lift. Shaq on Wilt's teams (instead of Wilt) would probably still have lost to the Celtics. Their stats could have been pretty much the same I think. (assuming Shaq molded his game to fit the way it was officiated then... he'd be fouled out in 3 minutes playing the way he does now)

One main reason I say this is that Shaq isn't the ultra-competitive player that many other greats are. He doesn't seem to have that egomania that drives a player to always demand the ball, always control the game. He gets lost in the shuffle far too often, and while some of that is selfishness on the part of his teammates, he's partly responsible for it too.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Aeson
-----------

Bill Russell was a great player who consistantly had better teammates than Wilt. One on one it was a great matchup, but the Celtics always won because outside that matchup they always had the advantage. Which one is 'better' would depend on the rest of your team. I'd take Russell if I already had a couple scorers, Wilt if I didn't.

Shaq is a great center (who I detest watching play because it's so predictable), but I think in general the style of the game has changed so much that you can't compare. Player's now get away with so much physical contact, and so much shuffling of the feet, that Shaq's "great" footwork is nothing more than bulling over whoever's guarding him to create space and usually travelling in the process. I don't hold it against him, as that is how the NBA officials seem to want to allow the game to be played. Shaq is just playing by the rules they set (or enforce), as are the players guarding him (they get away with a ton of stuff too). He is very agile for his size, and if the rules were enforced differently I wouldn't doubt his footwork would actually keep up. Anyone who puts Shaq's footwork up around Hakeem's or Kevin McHale's is dreaming.

I'd agree with that. I think the point though is that the reason Wilt had a weaker supporting cast was because he didnt need them .................... except against Russell. Would Russell have owned Shaq, maybe not, the game has changed. But for my money, he would have. He was a much better 'big-man' athlete.

[Aeson]

On Nov 24th, 1960, Wilt Chamberlain had the most rebounds in a single game, 55, but lost to a Bill Russell led Boston Celtics team 132-129. Russell scored 18 points, 19rebounds and 5 assists. Chamberlain totals were 34 points, 55 rebounds and 4 assists. Again though, a Celtics victory happened which was typically the result when these 2 played eachother.

[BustaMike]

Originally posted by Aeson
One main reason I say this is that Shaq isn't the ultra-competitive player that many other greats are. He doesn't seem to have that egomania that drives a player to always demand the ball, always control the game. He gets lost in the shuffle far too often, and while some of that is selfishness on the part of his teammates, he's partly responsible for it too.

That is totally true, but I call it laziness .

[JohnT]

Aeson: All that proves is that Russell had a far better supporting cast than Wilt did.