NBA Playoffs Thread

I'd say 7-footers have "skilled" themselves out of being centers. Dirk is a 7-footer, but he ain't a center. Kevin Garnett is 6-11. Chris Bosh is 6-11. But these aren't centers.

 

Honestly, Shaq's legacy would have been much greater if he had retired, say, three years ago. Like many athletes, he outlived his prime so much that it's become harder to remember how good he was in his best days.

 

Of course his teams won more playoff games. They play four 7-game series today (maximum 28 games) vs. one 5-game series and two 7-game series for much of the 1960s. If your team got a first-round bye in the six-team playoffs, you played a maximum 14 games.

And he's in his 19th season (the last 5 basically meaningless, but collecting several "playoff wins" along the way). Wilt played 14 years, all meaningful (he played 82 games his last season).

 

You miss the point - the point is his teams won a ton of playoff games with him as a central figure, so this "liability" at the end of games is way overstated, if not just straight up bullshit.

 

Seriously? You're trotting out the "guy from the '90s and '00s won more playoff games than the guy from the '60s" argument? Last year's Celtics won 15 playoff games before falling short. The 1965 Celtics won eight playoff games and took the title.

 

Then state your point correctly.

Say "he won a shitload of playoff games," not "he won a shitload MORE playoff games" than a person to whom we are comparing him.

It doesn't work because a 50 percent free-throw shooter will still get you, on average, one point --- which is pretty much the NBA average per team per possession.

But it stops the clock, and maybe he'll miss two, so if you're down 7 with 50 seconds left, you try it. It's the basketball version of the Hail Mary. Probably won't work, but probably the only chance you have if you are trying it.

 

I think it's a bit of both. He was a liability in the final two minutes, which is why I think he had one buzzer-beater in his career, a regular season game against the Jazz in '97, I believe. His teams stopped going to him late.

He was lucky in that regard to have Kobe to close the games, which is also why it's ludicrous when people try to denigrate Kobe's first three titles by saying "Yeah, anyone could have won with Shaq." Kobe was the one taking over in the final moments for those title teams, whether against Phoenix in round 2 in 2000, Game 4 against the Pacers, against the Spurs in Games 1, 3 and 4 in 2002 and on and on. And then Wade performed the same function in 2006. So in that regard, guys like Kareem and Hakeem have a bit of an edge. Kareem was frickin 40 and the Lakers were still dumping the ball down to him with the season on the line - with the repeat on the line - in Game 6 of the 1988 Finals, and he produced by getting fouled by Laimbeer ("fouled" if you're a Pistons fan) and knocking down the winning free throws.

But Shaq's dominance for the majority of the game was so overwhelming he's gotta be in the discussion with those other guys.

And like Zag said the Hack a Shaq hardly ever worked as far as letting the other team win. Most times he'd make maybe 1 of 2. Still, that'd be like scoring a field goal every other possession, which makes it hard to make a comeback if you're the opposition. I can't really remember Dallas (under Nellie) winning because of Hack a Shaq and two of the most famous examples - Game 1 of the 2000 WCF and in the 2000 Finals against the Pacers - became farces in the fourth quarter but did nothing to help those teams rally.

And while Shaq's "I make them when I need to" proclamation was absurd, as he missed plenty of big ones, he did convert in some of the most critical moments. In Game 7 of the 2000 WCF, he hit two in the final minutes to tie the game with about 2:40 to go. He bricks those, maybe the famous rally falls short. THen in Game 4 of the 2002 WCF, the Lakers trailed by 3 when he knocked down a pair with 40 seconds left. Vlade then made 1 of 2 and Horry hit his 3 for the victory.

I'd take Kareem over Shaq. Hakeem was perhaps more skilled and certainly destroyed a young Shaq in 1995 but those Houston teams had a lot of down years with a young, dominant Hakeem. Shaq's teams were always a threat. Probably take him over Wilt too.

 

also, russell, chamberlain, kareem, walton -- the centers of the '60s, '70s, most of the '80s -- also spent much more time warring with centers who couve 'em a game. shaq has been an all-time great, no question, but for the most part was a man among boys when it came to the other centers of his era. 8)

 

Does This Make Dampier No. 3?

 

Shaq is no way better than Kareem, Russell or Wilt.

Rip on Wilt all you want but the man averaged 50 ppg and then averaged 8.6 assists per game another year.

Kareem was a shot blocker as well as the most unstoppable offensive force ever.

Russell? He neutralized Wilt in the Finals and won 9 rings. That's enough for me.

Shaq was a brute force who then developed a nice soft touch around the rim and a pretty post good passer. But IMHO he was never a dominating defensive presence nor a superior rebounder and he should have been. To me, that was all about effort. Shaq has been an all-time great but not 1 or 2.

 

Shaq's a first ballot Hall of Famer. After that, I begin to believe that comparing athletes gets kind of silly. Could you win titles with him as your star? Yes. So why worry who's better?

 

I'd take Kareem, Wilt, Russell and Olajuwon before I'd take Shaq. And that's not a diss to Shaq.