PDA

View Full Version : 96-98 Lakers



DJHUFF2000
01-11-2013, 05:36 PM
The 96-98 Lakers that had a team of Shaq,VanExel,Eddie Jones,Elden Campbell,Robert Horry,Rick Fox,Derek Fisher & Kobe(not yet the Kobe we know now)imho was better than the 00-02 title teams.Coaching(Del Harris)was the issue with the 96-98 team.With either P.J. or Pat Riley coaching that team,I think they would have won more titles then the 00-02 title teams,what's your opinion?

TmacBryant
01-11-2013, 05:41 PM
the 96-98 lakers that had a team of shaq,vanexel,eddie jones,elden campbell,robert horry,rick fox,derek fisher & kobe(not yet the kobe we know now)imho was better than the 00-02 title teams.coaching(del harris)was the issue with the 96-98 team.with either p.j. Or pat riley coaching that team,i think they would have won more titles then the 00-02 title teams,what's your opinion?

'merica

LAcowBOMBER
01-11-2013, 05:48 PM
The 96-98 Lakers that had a team of Shaq,VanExel,Eddie Jones,Elden Campbell,Robert Horry,Rick Fox,Derek Fisher & Kobe(not yet the Kobe we know now)imho was better than the 00-02 title teams.Coaching(Del Harris)was the issue with the 96-98 team.With either P.J. or Pat Riley coaching that team,I think they would have won more titles then the 00-02 title teams,what's your opinion?

my opinion is this thread will probably be closed, but they were not better. The championship team had Kobe, Shaq, Fox, and Horry anyway, but Kobe was a lot better and the bench was solid and experienced. HAving a better power forward on those teams would have been nice though

lakers4sho
01-11-2013, 06:23 PM
Shaq wasnt on good terms with many of those guys.

richiesaurus310
01-11-2013, 06:56 PM
Those teams werent as good, but better coaching would have helped without question.

jayjay33
01-11-2013, 06:57 PM
Lol.....I talk about this all the time. The answer is simple, it's because shaq is one of the most co-dependent superstars of all time. Shaq needs to play with a guy who is good enough to just give the ball to and let take over the game down the stretch, on is own, when needed. Those where allstar level player but they weren't good enough to just take over and become the "go to guy" on a championship team, whenever needed.....

That's what shaq needed a "go to guy". Like a Kobe or a wade. Everybody needs help but you got to put shaq needs more than help. You have to put him with and all time great, because that so-called "second guy" is gonna be on his own down the stretch.

LAcowBOMBER
01-11-2013, 07:11 PM
Lol.....I talk about this all the time. The answer is simple, it's because shaq is one of the most co-dependent superstars of all time. Shaq needs to play with a guy who is good enough to just give the ball to and let take over the game down the stretch, on is own, when needed. Those where allstar level player but they weren't good enough to just take over and become the "go to guy" on a championship team, whenever needed.....

That's what shaq needed a "go to guy". Like a Kobe or a wade. Everybody needs help but you got to put shaq needs more than help. You have to put him with and all time great, because that so-called "second guy" is gonna be on his own down the stretch.

Are you saying Shaq wasn't good down the stretch?

nickdymez
01-11-2013, 07:14 PM
Are you saying Shaq wasn't good down the stretch?

He's saying that Shaq needed a perimeter go to guy down the stretch that could create his own shot and take some pressure off shaq late in games.

TyrionLannister
01-11-2013, 07:21 PM
They also would have had to go through Jordan's Bulls, so no, I don't think they'd have won more titles with better coaching.

Would have been a fantastic finals though, in hindsight.

Chronz
01-11-2013, 07:28 PM
I see those names and all I can remember is the immaturity, inflated egos, lack of heart/commitment. I mean my god man do you even remember Van Exel's "Hawaii!!" chant?

You can blame that on coaching if you wish but I think you underrate the importance of quality role players. Outside that one year as a super-sub, I cant recall Van Exel ever living up to his "talent".

I loathed Eddie Jones, not his attitude because hes the consummate pro but because it seemed like he choked every where he went.

Elden Cambell was an enigma, very talented guy but Horace Grant was superior in every way.

Outside of Shaq, they had no one who could step up when it truly mattered (the playoffs). Im sure they could have done better with Phil but if you show me both rosters, Im taking 00, 01 any time.

Chronz
01-11-2013, 07:32 PM
They also would have had to go through Jordan's Bulls, so no, I don't think they'd have won more titles with better coaching.

Would have been a fantastic finals though, in hindsight.

True but at least taking Phil weakens one team while strengthening another. If anyone knows how to beat Pippen+MJ+Phil, its the most productive player to ever eliminate them.

jayjay33
01-11-2013, 07:33 PM
Lol.....I talk about this all the time. The answer is simple, it's because shaq is one of the most co-dependent superstars of all time. Shaq needs to play with a guy who is good enough to just give the ball to and let take over the game down the stretch, on is own, when needed. Those where allstar level player but they weren't good enough to just take over and become the "go to guy" on a championship team, whenever needed.....

That's what shaq needed a "go to guy". Like a Kobe or a wade. Everybody needs help but you got to put shaq needs more than help. You have to put him with and all time great, because that so-called "second guy" is gonna be on his own down the stretch.

Are you saying Shaq wasn't good down the stretch?

He was a liability. He was trying his hardest "NOT" to get fouled. Lol

To me it's like batman beating up all the minions, then needing robin to handle the joker for him......lol

sep11ie
01-11-2013, 07:35 PM
They also would have had to go through Jordan's Bulls, so no, I don't think they'd have won more titles with better coaching.

Would have been a fantastic finals though, in hindsight.

And HCA!!!

Chronz
01-11-2013, 07:44 PM
He was a liability. He was trying his hardest "NOT" to get fouled. Lol

To me it's like batman beating up all the minions, then needing robin to handle the joker for him......lol

proof?

b-ballistic
01-11-2013, 07:56 PM
i agree with OP

TheMoneyTeam
01-11-2013, 08:02 PM
Los Angeles Eclipse.

Kevj77
01-11-2013, 08:30 PM
Campbell and Shaq couldn't play together. Campbell played better when Shaq was resting or injured and he got to play C. He had to go.

Kobe wasn't ready to be the second option yet. Jones and Van Exel just didn't have that killer instinct. Go back and watch the Kobe 3 airballs vs. Jazz if you can find the unedited footage you will see them passing up open shots. Kobe put up airballs, but he wasn't afraid of the moment. They were afraid to shoot, but Horry and Fish weren't afraid to take big shots.

Finally Del Harris vs Phil the Lakers had huge egos only Phil could have coached them.

jayjay33
01-11-2013, 08:55 PM
He was a liability. He was trying his hardest "NOT" to get fouled. Lol

To me it's like batman beating up all the minions, then needing robin to handle the joker for him......lol

proof?

Lol you just like to argue anything don't you.

Everyone hear can decide for themselves if they think shaq wanted to get fouled and go to the line down the stretch or not. An if his free throw shooting made him a liability at the end of games.

Chronz
01-11-2013, 09:01 PM
Lol you just like to argue anything don't you.

Everyone hear can decide for themselves if they think shaq wanted to get fouled and go to the line down the stretch or not. An if his free throw shooting made him a liability at the end of games.

1 word and you get so defensive, it was an honest question.

Andrew32
01-11-2013, 10:47 PM
Those late 90's Laker teams were overrated and had bad coaching.

-Eddie Jones was a low level All-Star and a choker.
-Van Exel was a huge diva with no heart and at times (like 98) a gigantic choker.
-Kobe was young and not very good yet.

Those Utah teams they faced were better coached, more stable and more experienced.
Plus they had a strong Super-Star of their own in Prime Malone.

That 99 Spurs team was stacked and far better then the Laker squad they faced.
They had the perfect team to beat the Lakers with Prime Duncan and Prime Robinson.
That allowed them to slow Shaq down and no one else on the Lakers really did much damage.

Andrew32
01-11-2013, 10:55 PM
1 word and you get so defensive, it was an honest question.
He is a Kobe stan Troll.

Shaq was a dominant 4th Q scorer and Hack-A-Shaq was not effective outside of a last second shot situation.

Shaquille had no issues scoring down the stretch of games and was the first option in those sort of situations during his Orlando and Laker days.

Look below to see Shaq & Kobe's 4th Quarter scoring numbers from the 2000 playoffs.
You don't have to read my recaps if you don't want but you can still examine the numbers.


Most Points Per 4th Quarter
NBA Finals Past 20 Seasons

1995 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5
2000 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5
1997 Michael Jordan 10.7
2011 Dirk Nowitzki 10.3
1993 Michael Jordan 10.3

____________________________________


00 First-Round VS SAC 4QScoring

Shaq
G1 : 12 ||| (6-8 | FT = 0/0)
G2 : 8 ||| 1AST (4-4 | FT = 0/0)
G3 : 2 ||| (1-4| FT = 0/2)
G4 : 5 ||| (1-2 | FT = 3/4)
G5 : 4 ||| 1AST (2-3 | FT = 0/1)
Combined : 31 / 6.2ppg

Kobe
G1 : 4 ||| ( 2-3 0-0 | FT = 0-0 )
G2 : 2 ||| ( 1-3 0-0 | FT = 0-0 )
G3 : 16 ||| (5-9 1-2 | FT = 5-6 )
G4 : 11 ||| (5-12 0-3 | FT = 1-3)
G5 : 0 |||
Combined : 33 / 6.6ppg

G1 : Score at start of 4th : 79 - 91 LA Leads 12 Point Lead (W)
G2 : Score at start of 4th : 64 - 83 LA Leads - 19 Point Lead (W)
G3 : Score at start of 4th : 71 - 66 LA Leads - 5 Point Lead (L)
G4 : Score at start of 4th : 66 - 73 SAC Leads - 7 Point Deficit (L)
G5 : Score at start of 4th : 62 - 89 LA Leads - 27 Point Lead (W)

Who was the Closer? : There was no "Closer" in this series.

They had large leads (10+) in all 3 of their wins.
If I had to name a closer for this series it would be Shaq since he contributed and scored far more points in the 3 Wins.

Shaq scored 24 Points on 12-15 shooting and had 2 Assists in the 3 Wins ||| Kobe had 6 Points on 3-6 shooting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

00 Semi-Finalz VS PHO 4QScoring

Shaq
G1 : 7
G2 : 10 ||| 1AST (4-5 | FT = 2/4)
G3 : 11
G4 : No DATA Avaliable
G5 : 0 |||
Combined : 21 / 7ppg

Kobe
G1 : No DATA Avaliable
G2 : 3 ||| 3AST ( 1-3 0-1 | FT = 1-2 )
G3 : 10
G4 : No DATA Avaliable
G5 : 0 ||| ( 0-1 0-0 | FT = 0-0 )
Combined : 13 / 4.33ppg

G1 : Score at start of 4th : 60 - 75 - LA Leads 15 Point Lead (W)
G2 : Score at start of 4th : 65 - 74 LA Leads - 9 Point Lead (W)
G3 : Score at start of 4th : 75 - 76 PHO Leads - 1 Point Deficit (W)
G4 : Score at start of 4th : 71 - 93 PHO Leads - 22 Point Deficit (L)
G5 : Score at start of 4th : 40 - 68 LA Leads - 28 Point Lead (W)

Who was the Closer? : Dont have the full Data for this series but I'd say Shaq for now.

They contributed about the same amount on offense in Games 2 and 3 which were still relatively close by the start of the 4th with Shaq contributing slightly more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

00 CNFinalz VS Portland 4QScoring

Shaq
G1 : 16 ||| 2AST
G2 : 14 ||| --- (5-6 | FT = 4/10)
G3 : 5 ||| --- FT = 1/1
G4 : 10 ||| 1AST --- (2-4 | FT = 6/6)
G5 : 6 ||| --- (2-2 | FT = 2/5)
G6 : 4 ||| 3AST --- FT = 1/1
G7 : 9 ||| 1AST --- (3-3 | FT = 3/4)
Combined : 64 / 9.14ppg

Kobe
G1 : 0
G2 : 0 ||| 1AST
G3 : 5 ||| 1AST
G4 : 2 ||| ( 0-2 0-1 | FT = 2-2 )
G5 : 4 ||| ( 1-2 0-1 | FT = 2-3)
G6 : 12 ||| 1AST (4-8 4-6 | FT = 0-2)
G7 : 9 ||| 1AST (3-6 0-1 | FT = 3-6)
Combined : 32 / 4.57 ppg

G1 : Score at start of 4th : 72 - 85 LA Leads - 13 Point Lead (W)
G2 : Score at start of 4th : 76 - 53 POR Leads - 23 Point Deficit (L)
G3 : Score at start of 4th : 72 - 71 LA Leads - 1 Point Lead (W)
G4 : Score at start of 4th : 76 - 66 LA Leads - 10 Point Lead (W)
G5 : Score at start of 4th : 80 - 67 POR Leads 13 Point Deficit (L)
G6 : Score at start of 4th : 63 - 71 POR Leads - 8 Point Deficit (L)
G7 : Score at start of 4th : 71 - 58 POR Leads - 13 Point Deficit (W)

Who was the Closer? : Shaq was the closer in this series.

He doubled Kobes production in the 4th Quarters over the series (64 - 32) and contributed more in key wins.

In Game 1 he carried the Lakers with an insane 41/11/7/5 performance and scored 16 in the 4th to keep Portland from making any sort of comeback.

In Game 3 both Shaq and Kobe contributed an equal amount on offense in the victory.

In Game 4 Portland was still within striking distance at the start of the 4th but was put away by Shaq who had 10 Points and an Assist and hit all 6 of his FT's in the final period. Kobe only had 2 points that game and was 0-2 from the field.

In Game 7 Kobe came up big "slightly" out producing Shaq statistically and contributing 9 Points in the Final Quarter.

Shaq however had to deal with constant double and triple teams and (team meetings) that Portland held around him throughout the entire game.
This obviously aided a young Kobe who thanks to Shaq had an excess of space on the floor in which to create and score and didnt have to worry much about double teams.

Shaq was just as big as Kobe in terms of being clutch in that Game 7 matching Kobe's 4th quarter production with 9 Points and doing so more efficiently.
He was practically flawless offensively going 3-3 from the field and 3-4 from the FT Line in the final quarter as opposed to Bryant who went 3-6 from the field and 3-6 from the line.
I find it odd how many people choose to forget Shaqs contribution in this game and only bring up Kobe saying how "Clutch" he was when in reality Shaq was by far the Clutchest player in this game and far more Clutch throughout the entire series.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

00 Finalz VS Indiana 4QScoring

Shaq
G1 : 12
G2 : 17
G3 : 7
G4 : 16
G5 : 6
G6 : 13
Combined : 71 / 11.83 ppg

Kobe
G1 : 2
G2 : 0
G3 : 0
G4 : 12
G5 : 0
G6 : 8
Combined : 22 / 3.67 ppg

G1 : Score at start of 4th : 71 - 77 LA Leads - 6 Point Lead (W)
G2 : Score at start of 4th : 69 - 73 LA Leads - 4 Point Lead (W)
G3 : Score at start of 4th : 66 - 79 IND Leads - 13 Point Deficit (L)
G4 : Score at start of 4th : 80 - 77 LA Leads - 3 Point Lead (W)
G5 : Score at start of 4th : 67 - 86 IND Leads - 19 Point Deficit (L)
G6 : Score at start of 4th : 84 - 79 IND Leads - 5 Point Deficit (W)

Who was the Closer? : Shaquille Oneal.

Shaq scored far more points in the 4th Quarters over the series (71-22) and contributed far more points in Clutch time situations then Bryant did.
Shaq scored 58 Points in the 4th over the 4 LA wins all which were still very close by the start of the 4th as opposed to Kobe who produced 22 Points in the same games.

Even in Game 4 where Kobe stepped up after Shaq fouled out and led the team to a win it was Shaq's utter dominance on the 0ffensive end that kept the Lakers in the game before he fouled out. Shaq scored an incredible 16 4th Quarter Points before he fouled out, 4 more then Kobe did in the same game.

jayjay33
01-12-2013, 04:52 AM
1 word and you get so defensive, it was an honest question.
He is a Kobe stan Troll.

Shaq was a dominant 4th Q scorer and Hack-A-Shaq was not effective outside of a last second shot situation.

Shaquille had no issues scoring down the stretch of games and was the first option in those sort of situations during his Orlando and Laker days.

Look below to see Shaq & Kobe's 4th Quarter scoring numbers from the 2000 playoffs.
You don't have to read my recaps if you don't want but you can still examine the numbers.


Most Points Per 4th Quarter
NBA Finals Past 20 Seasons

1995 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5
2000 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5
1997 Michael Jordan 10.7
2011 Dirk Nowitzki 10.3
1993 Michael Jordan 10.3

____________________________________


00 First-Round VS SAC 4QScoring

Shaq
G1 : 12 ||| (6-8 | FT = 0/0)
G2 : 8 ||| 1AST (4-4 | FT = 0/0)
G3 : 2 ||| (1-4| FT = 0/2)
G4 : 5 ||| (1-2 | FT = 3/4)
G5 : 4 ||| 1AST (2-3 | FT = 0/1)
Combined : 31 / 6.2ppg

Kobe
G1 : 4 ||| ( 2-3 0-0 | FT = 0-0 )
G2 : 2 ||| ( 1-3 0-0 | FT = 0-0 )
G3 : 16 ||| (5-9 1-2 | FT = 5-6 )
G4 : 11 ||| (5-12 0-3 | FT = 1-3)
G5 : 0 |||
Combined : 33 / 6.6ppg

G1 : Score at start of 4th : 79 - 91 LA Leads 12 Point Lead (W)
G2 : Score at start of 4th : 64 - 83 LA Leads - 19 Point Lead (W)
G3 : Score at start of 4th : 71 - 66 LA Leads - 5 Point Lead (L)
G4 : Score at start of 4th : 66 - 73 SAC Leads - 7 Point Deficit (L)
G5 : Score at start of 4th : 62 - 89 LA Leads - 27 Point Lead (W)

Who was the Closer? : There was no "Closer" in this series.

They had large leads (10+) in all 3 of their wins.
If I had to name a closer for this series it would be Shaq since he contributed and scored far more points in the 3 Wins.

Shaq scored 24 Points on 12-15 shooting and had 2 Assists in the 3 Wins ||| Kobe had 6 Points on 3-6 shooting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

00 Semi-Finalz VS PHO 4QScoring

Shaq
G1 : 7
G2 : 10 ||| 1AST (4-5 | FT = 2/4)
G3 : 11
G4 : No DATA Avaliable
G5 : 0 |||
Combined : 21 / 7ppg

Kobe
G1 : No DATA Avaliable
G2 : 3 ||| 3AST ( 1-3 0-1 | FT = 1-2 )
G3 : 10
G4 : No DATA Avaliable
G5 : 0 ||| ( 0-1 0-0 | FT = 0-0 )
Combined : 13 / 4.33ppg

G1 : Score at start of 4th : 60 - 75 - LA Leads 15 Point Lead (W)
G2 : Score at start of 4th : 65 - 74 LA Leads - 9 Point Lead (W)
G3 : Score at start of 4th : 75 - 76 PHO Leads - 1 Point Deficit (W)
G4 : Score at start of 4th : 71 - 93 PHO Leads - 22 Point Deficit (L)
G5 : Score at start of 4th : 40 - 68 LA Leads - 28 Point Lead (W)

Who was the Closer? : Dont have the full Data for this series but I'd say Shaq for now.

They contributed about the same amount on offense in Games 2 and 3 which were still relatively close by the start of the 4th with Shaq contributing slightly more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

00 CNFinalz VS Portland 4QScoring

Shaq
G1 : 16 ||| 2AST
G2 : 14 ||| --- (5-6 | FT = 4/10)
G3 : 5 ||| --- FT = 1/1
G4 : 10 ||| 1AST --- (2-4 | FT = 6/6)
G5 : 6 ||| --- (2-2 | FT = 2/5)
G6 : 4 ||| 3AST --- FT = 1/1
G7 : 9 ||| 1AST --- (3-3 | FT = 3/4)
Combined : 64 / 9.14ppg

Kobe
G1 : 0
G2 : 0 ||| 1AST
G3 : 5 ||| 1AST
G4 : 2 ||| ( 0-2 0-1 | FT = 2-2 )
G5 : 4 ||| ( 1-2 0-1 | FT = 2-3)
G6 : 12 ||| 1AST (4-8 4-6 | FT = 0-2)
G7 : 9 ||| 1AST (3-6 0-1 | FT = 3-6)
Combined : 32 / 4.57 ppg

G1 : Score at start of 4th : 72 - 85 LA Leads - 13 Point Lead (W)
G2 : Score at start of 4th : 76 - 53 POR Leads - 23 Point Deficit (L)
G3 : Score at start of 4th : 72 - 71 LA Leads - 1 Point Lead (W)
G4 : Score at start of 4th : 76 - 66 LA Leads - 10 Point Lead (W)
G5 : Score at start of 4th : 80 - 67 POR Leads 13 Point Deficit (L)
G6 : Score at start of 4th : 63 - 71 POR Leads - 8 Point Deficit (L)
G7 : Score at start of 4th : 71 - 58 POR Leads - 13 Point Deficit (W)

Who was the Closer? : Shaq was the closer in this series.

He doubled Kobes production in the 4th Quarters over the series (64 - 32) and contributed more in key wins.

In Game 1 he carried the Lakers with an insane 41/11/7/5 performance and scored 16 in the 4th to keep Portland from making any sort of comeback.

In Game 3 both Shaq and Kobe contributed an equal amount on offense in the victory.

In Game 4 Portland was still within striking distance at the start of the 4th but was put away by Shaq who had 10 Points and an Assist and hit all 6 of his FT's in the final period. Kobe only had 2 points that game and was 0-2 from the field.

In Game 7 Kobe came up big "slightly" out producing Shaq statistically and contributing 9 Points in the Final Quarter.

Shaq however had to deal with constant double and triple teams and (team meetings) that Portland held around him throughout the entire game.
This obviously aided a young Kobe who thanks to Shaq had an excess of space on the floor in which to create and score and didnt have to worry much about double teams.

Shaq was just as big as Kobe in terms of being clutch in that Game 7 matching Kobe's 4th quarter production with 9 Points and doing so more efficiently.
He was practically flawless offensively going 3-3 from the field and 3-4 from the FT Line in the final quarter as opposed to Bryant who went 3-6 from the field and 3-6 from the line.
I find it odd how many people choose to forget Shaqs contribution in this game and only bring up Kobe saying how "Clutch" he was when in reality Shaq was by far the Clutchest player in this game and far more Clutch throughout the entire series.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

00 Finalz VS Indiana 4QScoring

Shaq
G1 : 12
G2 : 17
G3 : 7
G4 : 16
G5 : 6
G6 : 13
Combined : 71 / 11.83 ppg

Kobe
G1 : 2
G2 : 0
G3 : 0
G4 : 12
G5 : 0
G6 : 8
Combined : 22 / 3.67 ppg

G1 : Score at start of 4th : 71 - 77 LA Leads - 6 Point Lead (W)
G2 : Score at start of 4th : 69 - 73 LA Leads - 4 Point Lead (W)
G3 : Score at start of 4th : 66 - 79 IND Leads - 13 Point Deficit (L)
G4 : Score at start of 4th : 80 - 77 LA Leads - 3 Point Lead (W)
G5 : Score at start of 4th : 67 - 86 IND Leads - 19 Point Deficit (L)
G6 : Score at start of 4th : 84 - 79 IND Leads - 5 Point Deficit (W)

Who was the Closer? : Shaquille Oneal.

Shaq scored far more points in the 4th Quarters over the series (71-22) and contributed far more points in Clutch time situations then Bryant did.
Shaq scored 58 Points in the 4th over the 4 LA wins all which were still very close by the start of the 4th as opposed to Kobe who produced 22 Points in the same games.

Even in Game 4 where Kobe stepped up after Shaq fouled out and led the team to a win it was Shaq's utter dominance on the 0ffensive end that kept the Lakers in the game before he fouled out. Shaq scored an incredible 16 4th Quarter Points before he fouled out, 4 more then Kobe did in the same game.









When you can explain to me, how Kobe was a low level all star when shaq won. But Odom an his 9 points a game was an "all star" then you can call me a troll.

You are by far the biggest Kobe hater I have ever seen. An it is only trumped by your shaq fanboy obsession. Only the biggest fanboy in the history of history would say shaq is more clutch than Kobe. ANDREW 32 is the only person on the plant who wants the ball in Shaq's hands at the end of the game rather than Kobe, cause shaq is more clutch. Lmao! That is officially the dumbest thing anyone has ever said about basketball, an I mean ever!


Now I got a question for you. Why would anyone Who knows even a little about basketball think 4q scoring and down the stretch or the "clutch" are even remotely the same thing. Why don't you go ahead and throw in the 3q scoring too. Matter of fact do the whole game that will really show shaq a is closer down the stretch. Lol

Either you know nothing about basketball or you just posted something you knew had no relevance. Because your a shaq fanboy and you hate Kobe.

Your Crap is so ridiculous that you even gave shaq credit for "closing" the game when he wasn't even playing down the stretch. Because shaq had more points "total" in the 4th. That should have been your first clue that what you just posted did not make any sense what so ever. Wow and lol at the same damn time.....

But this is just par for the course, from the same guy who thinks Odom (all star caliber) was more help for Kobe, than Kobe ( low- level) all star was for shaq.


You know what I take it back. That Kobe, Odom thing is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said about basketball. But this is a close second.


Now take your head out of Shaq's jock strap for 2 seconds. An stop saying these ridiculous things.

"At the end of the game forget kobe, get the ball to shaq"! Like Really? Seriously, WTH is wrong with you man?

I don't even know why I wasted my time everybody already knows what your about. You are an embarrassment.

JasonJohnHorn
01-12-2013, 01:24 PM
I don't think coaching was the issue. Harris was a good coach. I do agree that perhaps PJ or Riley could have gotten more out of them (or Sloan for that matter), but the team played against some great teams in that period. Had they had Jackson when Rodman showed up, I think Jackson would have been able to make that experiment work, but c'est la vie. Shaq was still very young and I'm not sure he was the leader they needed. He was having a lot of fun off the court, lots of side projects in film and music, and I don't think he was as focused on basketball as he could have been, or at least that is how I perceived it at the time.

Chronz
01-12-2013, 02:23 PM
Shaq was still very young and I'm not sure he was the leader they needed.
Very young?



He was having a lot of fun off the court, lots of side projects in film and music, and I don't think he was as focused on basketball as he could have been, or at least that is how I perceived it at the time.
LOL compared to Van Exel, Rodman, Elden Cambell etc... he was the only guy taking basketball seriously, he was the one who called Nick out after his Hawaii chant, your nuts if you dont think he was tired of losing and people using him as the scapegoat, read up on those teams for a glimpse into that locker room, check my post for the real reason those teams lost.


Im noticing a trend in some of your posts, you ignore the vastly more important ON COURT PERFORMANCE in hopes that you can vaguely point out less relevant off matters that you seemingly have very little to speak about. Why not focus on what we can actually look into as reasons for teams winning and losing? What ever happened to accountability? Shaq was the only guy who showed up when it counted, and you think he could have done more? Instead of asking of mountains from Shaq why not ask for guys to do whats expected? Like showing up for the playoffs/practice?

AnthonyTyrael
01-12-2013, 07:40 PM
I don't think coaching was the issue. Harris was a good coach. I do agree that perhaps PJ or Riley could have gotten more out of them (or Sloan for that matter), but the team played against some great teams in that period. Had they had Jackson when Rodman showed up, I think Jackson would have been able to make that experiment work, but c'est la vie. Shaq was still very young and I'm not sure he was the leader they needed. He was having a lot of fun off the court, lots of side projects in film and music, and I don't think he was as focused on basketball as he could have been, or at least that is how I perceived it at the time.

That's how it seemed to me too, back in the days. He let himself get too distracted by pursueing his every profession (better said hobbies). Noneheless I don't think they could have beaten the Bulls, Jazz or Spurs in a championship defining series.

rockbottom2010
01-12-2013, 08:24 PM
this remember this squad.....this team was good.....

Wes_Craven
01-12-2013, 08:24 PM
When I read the thread title I thought it was a Laker victory.

Andrew32
01-13-2013, 01:58 AM
When you can explain to me, how Kobe was a low level all star when shaq won.
20 / 4.5apg on 51%TS is the production of a low level All-Star.


But Odom an his 9 points a game was an "all star" then you can call me a troll.
Odom averaged 19 / 13 / 2apg in the 2006 playoffs.
That is certainly at worst the production of a low level All-Star.

Perhaps he was only a border-line All-Star or an elite roleplayer in 08-10 where his averages of 12 / 9 / 2apg on 50% shooting.


Shaq is more clutch than Kobe.
Shaq is better at taking over an entire 4th Quarter.
Kobe is better in a last second shot situation.

For me that makes Shaq more clutch.
Any points scored in a 4th Quarter of a close game is clutch.


That you even gave shaq credit for "closing" the game when he wasn't even playing down the stretch.
Except for the fact that he was playing in those moments and he was the primary scorer down the stretch of games and in the 4th Q in general in the 2000 playoffs.
In 2001 and 2002 the load was more equally shared between the two.

You can pretend Shaq wasn't on the floor during those moments and wasn't involved in the offense but the actual game tape proves you wrong.


Now take your head out of Shaq's jock strap for 2 seconds.
Very mature. How old are you 12?

Oh and btw.


2010 Gasol >>> 2002 Kobe >> 2000 Kobe
2009 Gasol >= 2002 Kobe
2008 Gasol = 2002 Kobe

2008-2010 Odom >>> any 3rd option Shaq had from 00-02

Early 00's West >>> Late 00's West

Shaq won his titles with far weaker supporting casts and (outside of 01) a significantly weaker #2 option all while playing against much tougher teams and with the league changing its rules to restrict not aid him.

Shaq >>> Kobe

hidalgo
01-13-2013, 02:02 AM
Jordan's Bulls would have beat them, even if both teams had phil jackson coaching them by some paradox

Hellcrooner
01-13-2013, 02:34 AM
Too many people caring too much for the name on the back of the jersey instead of teh name on the front.

A bit like right now too.

naps
01-13-2013, 03:00 AM
When you can explain to me, how Kobe was a low level all star when shaq won. But Odom an his 9 points a game was an "all star" then you can call me a troll.

You are by far the biggest Kobe hater I have ever seen. An it is only trumped by your shaq fanboy obsession. Only the biggest fanboy in the history of history would say shaq is more clutch than Kobe. ANDREW 32 is the only person on the plant who wants the ball in Shaq's hands at the end of the game rather than Kobe, cause shaq is more clutch. Lmao! That is officially the dumbest thing anyone has ever said about basketball, an I mean ever!


Now I got a question for you. Why would anyone Who knows even a little about basketball think 4q scoring and down the stretch or the "clutch" are even remotely the same thing. Why don't you go ahead and throw in the 3q scoring too. Matter of fact do the whole game that will really show shaq a is closer down the stretch. Lol

Either you know nothing about basketball or you just posted something you knew had no relevance. Because your a shaq fanboy and you hate Kobe.

Your Crap is so ridiculous that you even gave shaq credit for "closing" the game when he wasn't even playing down the stretch. Because shaq had more points "total" in the 4th. That should have been your first clue that what you just posted did not make any sense what so ever. Wow and lol at the same damn time.....

But this is just par for the course, from the same guy who thinks Odom (all star caliber) was more help for Kobe, than Kobe ( low- level) all star was for shaq.


You know what I take it back. That Kobe, Odom thing is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said about basketball. But this is a close second.


Now take your head out of Shaq's jock strap for 2 seconds. An stop saying these ridiculous things.

"At the end of the game forget kobe, get the ball to shaq"! Like Really? Seriously, WTH is wrong with you man?

I don't even know why I wasted my time everybody already knows what your about. You are an embarrassment.

Andrew provided FACTS to support his claim and you got mad because you couldn't refute what he said in civil manner. #StoryOfKobephiles

jayjay33
01-13-2013, 07:09 PM
[QUOTE=jayjay33;25063400]When you can explain to me, how Kobe was a low level all star when shaq won. But Odom an his 9 points a game was an "all star" then you can call me a troll.

You are by far the biggest Kobe hater I have ever seen. An it is only trumped by your shaq fanboy obsession. Only the biggest fanboy in the history of history would say shaq is more clutch than Kobe. ANDREW 32 is the only person on the plant who wants the ball in Shaq's hands at the end of the game rather than Kobe, cause shaq is more clutch. Lmao! That is officially the dumbest thing anyone has ever said about basketball, an I mean ever!


Now I got a question for you. Why would anyone Who knows even a little about basketball think 4q scoring and down the stretch or the "clutch" are even remotely the same thing. Why don't you go ahead and throw in the 3q scoring too. Matter of fact do the whole game that will really show shaq a is closer down the stretch. Lol

Either you know nothing about basketball or you just posted something you knew had no relevance. Because your a shaq fanboy and you hate Kobe.

Your Crap is so ridiculous that you even gave shaq credit for "closing" the game when he wasn't even playing down the stretch. Because shaq had more points "total" in the 4th. That should have been your first clue that what you just posted did not make any sense what so ever. Wow and lol at the same damn time.....

But this is just par for the course, from the same guy who thinks Odom (all star caliber) was more help for Kobe, than Kobe ( low- level) all star was for shaq.


You know what I take it back. That Kobe, Odom thing is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said about basketball. But this is a close second.


Now take your head out of Shaq's jock strap for 2 seconds. An stop saying these ridiculous things.

"At the end of the game forget kobe, get the ball to shaq"! Like Really? Seriously, WTH is wrong with you man?

I don't even know why I wasted my time everybody already knows what your about. You are an embarrassment.

Andrew provided FACTS to support his claim and you got mad because you couldn't refute what he said in civil manner. #StoryOfKobephiles[/QUOTE

We were talking about down the stretch as the person closing late in the game. His "FACTS" were irrelevant to what I was discussing. Therefore there was nothing to refute. The entire 4q is not the clutch to me or really anybody else, for that matter. This is no different than when he uses odom 06 Stats as " FACTS" of how great he was in 2008, 2009, 2010 . Lol


If you asked every GM, coach and player in the league who do you want with the ball for oh say the last 4mins of a game . Kobe or shaq not one would say shaq. So if thinking kobe is a better closer than shaq (somehow) makes you a kobephile then I guess that makes everyone in the league (and pretty much everywhere else) a kobephile. Cause nobody thinks shaq is even closer, let alone a better closer than Kobe. I don't know why all you shaq fanboys, Cant just except shaq for who he was flaws and all.

You two fanboys really need to stop. Oh an just for the record this is not about Kobe, it's about shaq. So I guess I must be a pierce, Nash, billups, Paul, dirk, wade, everybodyphile. Cause there are aleast 100 guys or more I would rather have closing than shaq.

If you made a thread right now, on here or anywhere else. Asking who are the top 50, not 5 or 10 top 50 closers in nba history shaq still won't come close to making the list. You and yo boy Andrew are a hot mess.

Shaq wouldn't even want shaq with the ball. Lol #shaqfanboysunite



.

beliges
01-13-2013, 07:27 PM
The 96-98 Lakers that had a team of Shaq,VanExel,Eddie Jones,Elden Campbell,Robert Horry,Rick Fox,Derek Fisher & Kobe(not yet the Kobe we know now)imho was better than the 00-02 title teams.Coaching(Del Harris)was the issue with the 96-98 team.With either P.J. or Pat Riley coaching that team,I think they would have won more titles then the 00-02 title teams,what's your opinion?

The 96-98 Lakers team were nowhere as good as the 00-02 teams. Kind of.silly to think so. I can.even make am.argument that the 01.Lakers team was the greatest team ever. I say that meaning they could.and probably would beat any other team ever in a 7 game series. They had Jo holes.

Andrew32
01-13-2013, 07:33 PM
The entire 4q is not the clutch to me or really anybody else, for that matter.
You only speak for yourself buddy.
2000 Shaq was the clear #1 option in the Final minutes of games in the majority of their games.

Even in 01 and 02 he was always heavily involved and productive in the offense in the Final minutes of games.

In 2002 he actually shot well from the line also which you obviously ignore or weren't aware of.


If you asked every GM, coach and player in the league who do you want with the ball for oh say the last 4mins of a game.
Shaq is a better option except for a last second shot or if there is like 30 seconds left.

Shaq in those 4 minutes will take over better then Kobe.
Who took over in the last 4 minutes of G7 2010 Finals? His name is Gasol.
Kobe always relying on his bigs for everything.


The 96-98 Lakers team were nowhere as good as the 00-02 teams.
Agreed.
2000 Kobe alone was better then 98 Jones and Van Exel combined and Phil Jackson was 100x the coach Harris was.
Shaq had also improved.
They also had much better chemistry.

jayjay33
01-13-2013, 09:05 PM
The entire 4q is not the clutch to me or really anybody else, for that matter.
You only speak for yourself buddy.
2000 Shaq was the clear #1 option in the Final minutes of games in the majority of their games.

Even in 01 and 02 he was always heavily involved and productive in the offense in the Final minutes of games.

In 2002 he actually shot well from the line also which you obviously ignore or weren't aware of.


If you asked every GM, coach and player in the league who do you want with the ball for oh say the last 4mins of a game.
Shaq is a better option except for a last second shot or if there is like 30 seconds left.

Shaq in those 4 minutes will take over better then Kobe.
Who took over in the last 4 minutes of G7 2010 Finals? His name is Gasol.
Kobe always relying on his bigs for everything.


The 96-98 Lakers team were nowhere as good as the 00-02 teams.
Agreed.
2000 Kobe alone was better then 98 Jones and Van Exel combined and Phil Jackson was 100x the coach Harris was.
Shaq had also improved.
They also had much better chemistry.

Speak for my self? Everybody knows Closing or "crunch time" means the last few minutes. Not the whole entire 4q. Hell most teams still have all there back ups in the game at the start of the fourth. How in the blue hell do you think thats, crunch time. C'mon dude You are so over the top for shaq it's crazy. You would use the whole second half if you had too. Lol


Like I said, if people made a list of all time great closers shaq would be "NOWHERE" on it. Only the most delusional, out of touch with reality, way over the top fanboy would try to turn "shaq" of all people into some kind of all time great closer.


Wait the final minutes in 2010 game 7 gasol took over? Didn't Kobe have the ball running the offense through him and lead the team back gettingt the celts in foul trouble and scored or assisted on pretty everything bucket in those last few mins? Is that what your talking about? That must be the same logic your using with shaq? Lol

Now I see the problem you just don't know what your talking about. You can't even tell who the offense is being ran through, that's why you think shaq is a closer. Lol


Finally van exel and jones were both VERY good players and both actual all stars. Not that fake all star bs you use with Odom. You say Kobe was better than both of them combine. But yet to give shaq a bunch of extra credit, you say he is a low level all star. You got one set of rules for shaq and a different set for everybody else. Stop flip flopping.

You are way over the top. An it's really sad.

jayjay33
01-13-2013, 09:54 PM
The entire 4q is not the clutch to me or really anybody else, for that matter.
You only speak for yourself buddy.
2000 Shaq was the clear #1 option in the Final minutes of games in the majority of their games.

Even in 01 and 02 he was always heavily involved and productive in the offense in the Final minutes of games.

In 2002 he actually shot well from the line also which you obviously ignore or weren't aware of.


If you asked every GM, coach and player in the league who do you want with the ball for oh say the last 4mins of a game.
Shaq is a better option except for a last second shot or if there is like 30 seconds left.

Shaq in those 4 minutes will take over better then Kobe.
Who took over in the last 4 minutes of G7 2010 Finals? His name is Gasol.
Kobe always relying on his bigs for everything.


The 96-98 Lakers team were nowhere as good as the 00-02 teams.
Agreed.
2000 Kobe alone was better then 98 Jones and Van Exel combined and Phil Jackson was 100x the coach Harris was.
Shaq had also improved.
They also had much better chemistry.


An stop making all those freaking excuse, the man had three freaking all star besides himself plus fish, horry , campbell and foxy? Thats a loaded squad, An you acting like he was out there with smush, kwame and luke. He'll kobe did a better job with smush, kwame and Luke. Lol


Now Phil would have made a difference, no doubt. But stop trying to act like shaq has a bunch of scrubs, if anything they had too much talent.

Andrew32
01-13-2013, 10:01 PM
An stop making all those freaking excuse, the man had three freaking all star Thats a loaded squad.
Players are judged by their play not by their popularity or names.

Neither Jones and certainly not Kobe or Van Exel played like All-Stars in that 1998 playoff series against Utah.

1998 VS Utah
Van Exel : 9 / 4apg on 23% shooting
Kobe : 9 / 1apg on 36% shooting
Jones : 15 / 3apg on 41% shooting


He'll kobe did a better job with smush, kwame and Luke. Lol
Yeah because losing in the 1st round is way better then losing in the Conference Finals.


Now Phil would have made a difference, no doubt. But stop trying to act like shaq has a bunch of scrubs, if anything they had too much talent.
Everyone on his team did play like scrubs in elimination except for Jones who simply played like mid level or borderline elite roleplayer.

jayjay33
01-13-2013, 11:39 PM
An stop making all those freaking excuse, the man had three freaking all star Thats a loaded squad.
Players are judged by their play not by their popularity or names.

Neither Jones and certainly not Kobe or Van Exel played like All-Stars in that 1998 playoff series against Utah.

1998 VS Utah
Van Exel : 9 / 4apg on 23% shooting
Kobe : 9 / 1apg on 36% shooting
Jones : 15 / 3apg on 41% shooting


He'll kobe did a better job with smush, kwame and Luke. Lol
Yeah because losing in the 1st round is way better then losing in the Conference Finals.


Now Phil would have made a difference, no doubt. But stop trying to act like shaq has a bunch of scrubs, if anything they had too much talent.
Everyone on his team did play like scrubs in elimination except for Jones who simply played like mid level or borderline elite roleplayer.



1. lol I new you were gonna do! I was waiting on it. You have reaptedly used Lamar odom's stats from other years to show how good he was and how he was "all star caliber" even thought their was none of that when he actually woin with Kobe. But that doesn't matter you claim cause it show the "caliber" of player he supposedly was.

But now you just did a complete 180 in your logic for shaq and now you say we'll his players who were all stars THE SAME YEAR. Didn't play like it. So when Kobe wins anybody that was ever "all star" caliber is still just that, even though they did not play like it when he won. But with shaq, and guys who were actual all stars that same year. It's well they didn't play like it. Well why the change why aren't they still "all star" caliber like odom? An to make matters worse they were actual all stars and Odom never was.

Same exact scenario two different view points I wanna know why? Why is odom all star caliber 3 and 4 years after 06, even though he didnt play like it. But you dont have the same view for guys that were "actual" all stars the same damn year" with shaq. They are srcubs. Lmao!

That is bias beyond belief. An I wanna know why. Don't try to retract it or change it. Be a man and tell me why, tell me why your an all star whether you play like it or not with Kobe, but that's not the case with shaq, especially when we are talking about the same year with shaq guys. An you went to different years for Odom. Lol

I dare you to say your not bias after that. Stop making excuses......

2. Yes call me crazy I think it's more impressive pushing the one seed to 7 with a d- league team. Than losing with a stacked squad.


3. Players are judged by there play not Their names? They got those names because of there play in the NBA. They got those names because they were in fact "REAL" all star caliber players. That team was stacked you know it and I know it.

I cant see any other prime top 10 player losing with a team like that. You got a damn all star team plus 4 excellent role players ? An your actually pulling the he had no help card. Boo freaking who.........