League is changing fast. We've never seen so many guards and perimeter players dominate the games at least not to this extent. Big men are fading quick. He'll a 6"6 dude in Draymond Green is your small ball center for the defending champs. The last truly dominant center at least offensively was a healthy Andrew Bynum. Injuries robbed Drew from being a dominant force. I don't think it's any coincidence since he left so has true centers in this game. Dwight was pretty much done as a dominant player after his back surgery. Even then those were really the only two dominant centers. The days of Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, etc are gone.
I don't mind the change of game ... Some of you may have forgotten the 90es featured some very ugly ball . The post up is still used ... mainly to get three points looks ... Let's put our bias aside here : Did you seriously prefer watching our Shaq led Lakers teams over the current Warriors ?
I'm not sure I understand that Shaq Lakers vs current warriors question, but taken literal, yes I do. I prefer a balanced game, inside out basketball. I loved the power Shaq played with, the dunks, the hook shots, how you could dump it into him and let him go to work, or he would pass it out to open guys for easy shots. Inside out basketball, balanced basketball between bigs and guards working together, I miss it. I enjoy the big man battles too, Shaq vs Duncan/Robinson, Hakeem, Mutombo, Sabonis, Vlade, etc. That said I have no problem with these All-Star starting lineups at all, they're just the strangest I've ever seen in over 20 years of watching the NBA now. It's a different league now, no big deal.
Did I prefer watching our team with Shaq vs. any other team since then? Yes. Undoubtedly. Not even close. Did I prefer watching Shaq/Kobe to Showtime? Hmm. I don't know.
There was a magical feeling when Shaq and Kobe were on the team together. I never thought we were out of a game. I've told this story before: I lived in PA for most of the Shaq/Kobe years (was in TX when Detroit beat us). Like now, because I'm on the east coast, I would often turn off games at the half because a 10:30 start is too late if I have an early morning. Now I go to bed expecting a 20-point loss (like last night). Then, no matter what the score, I'd figure we'd probably win. And we usually did. That teams was so good it was ridiculous.
Queens in early 2000s were easier on the eyes than the Shaq / Kobe Lakers, IMO. What's more effective and what's funner to watch aren't necessarily the same thing. Of course, winning is fun to watch too. As for the current small ball going on right now: more emphasis on 3s and analytics. Shaq is a once in a generation player. If you don't have one, better draft some shooters.
I preferred the Shaq and Kobe team to any team except Showtime because you were watching probably THE two most dynamic players in the NBA on the same team. The game might not always be pretty, but you had a good chance of seeing something special on any given night. These Warriors play great team ball but outside of Curry there's not another player that fits that bill. And even then he's not going to attack you in the diverse ways Kobe could. Kobe could do a lot of what Curry does, but also rise up and dunk on you at any given time. Now obviously Kobe is nowhere near the pure shooter that Curry is and his handle wasn't quite as tight, but Kobe was every bit as creative and entertaining. So yeah I enjoyed those teams more than this Warriors one. Curry is the most electric player I've seen since Kobe, but that's since till SINCE Kobe.
We can discuss theory and beautiful basketball and all that - but then we can look at the hardware and see that the proof is in the pudding. THREE RINGS.
Absolutely did. Shaq was the most dominant player of the last thirty years probably. The ferocity he played with, his brute strength combined with great skill and just a freak of a nature and then you add in a young Kobe who was the most athletic player in the game before LeBron and even early in his career as a better closer than the latter ever dreamed of being. Their ability to play off each other. Kobe's ability penetrate and dish. Their two man game. Teams wanna double Shaq? No big deal. Kobe will go to work, get into the teeth of the defense and dunk in your face or dump it off to Shaq. You had great shooters like Shaw, Fox, Horry, Fisher, etc so the lane was rarely clogged. Shaq was also great at finding cutters in the triangle. Not saying Golden State isn't fun to watch, but it gets a little old when nobody on that team really posts up with any type of consistent or when you have a guy Kobe's size often times playing center.
I never really enjoyed watching Shaq play. It was more often than not brute power over skill. But we had Kobe, which completely changes everything. If you are asking the Shaq lead teams without Kobe, compared to current GS, I prefer GS.
I agree. I like watching skilled big men. There are only a handful left and even those are a year or 2 away from retirement.
Yes, absolutely yes. Watching Shaq's dominance was incredible. Also about the 90s, that featured the most dominant performance that I've seen with Hakeem Olajuwon dominating against David Robinson. That was a thing of beauty. I much prefer watching that over the guard oriented play of today.
I didn't like Shaq on the Magic. Wasn't overly thrilled when the Lakers got him actually. However, Phil motivated him to heights we had not seen before, and he was very likeable. However, I was always on Kobe's side if we heard about issues because Snaq was fat, and he was lazy, and he was not as dedicated as Kobe. If he had been, there would be no records left. It's unacceptable to be a 50% free throw shooter in the NBA IMHO, but it was a small issue overall. It was sad to see continuous bad exits from the Magic, the Lakers, the Heat, etc, and end up jumping around teams at the end.
