Is Shaq top 5 ever? Why, why not?

[plowking]

I want to know people's opinion on this because a lot of people overlook Shaq and simply think he is a good basketball player due to his size. I mean the guy has:

4 championships
Named ROY (Rookie of Year) (1993)
Named All-NBA First Rookie Team (1993)
Named MVP (Most Valuable Player) NBA Regular Season (2000)
Named All-NBA First Team (1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)
Named All-NBA Second Team (1995, 1999)
Named All-NBA Third Team (1994, 1996, 1997)
Named MVP (Most Valuable Player) NBA Finals (2000, 2001, 2002)
Named All-NBA Second Defensive Team (2000, 2001, 2003)
Named IBM Award (2000, 2001)
Named NBA Top Scorer (1995, 2000)
Named NBA Best Field Goal Percentage (1994, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006)
2 times MVP NBA All-Star (2000, 2004)
Selected 14 times for the NBA All-Star game
3 of the greatest finals performances ever
25.2ppg, 11.5rpg, 2.7apg, 2.5bpg and 58% fg in the regular season.

[Collie]

I'd rank him just below the immortal six. You could make an argument for him as a top 5 of all time, depending on how you view his impact as opposed to Bill Russell. I think KAJ has the edge on him due to sheer longevity and virtually the same stats and wins, Wilt on pure statistical viewpoint, Magic and Bird in terms of impact to the game. Of course you have MJ.

You won't find me protesting though, if someone ranks him a top 5 all time.

[Mamba]

I'd rank him just below the immortal six. You could make an argument for him as a top 5 of all time, depending on how you view his impact as opposed to Bill Russell. I think KAJ has the edge on him due to sheer longevity and virtually the same stats and wins, Wilt on pure statistical viewpoint, Magic and Bird in terms of impact to the game. Of course you have MJ.

You won't find me protesting though, if someone ranks him a top 5 all time.
i agree with this, he's the best post-jordan (**** all the Tim Duncan homers) and he is the last person 2 beat jordan in a post-season series. very good player, u could easily put him in the top 5, but there are so many great NBA players that he is overlooked.

[plowking]

I'd rank him just below the immortal six. You could make an argument for him as a top 5 of all time, depending on how you view his impact as opposed to Bill Russell. I think KAJ has the edge on him due to sheer longevity and virtually the same stats and wins, Wilt on pure statistical viewpoint, Magic and Bird in terms of impact to the game. Of course you have MJ.

You won't find me protesting though, if someone ranks him a top 5 all time.


Agreed, though really I think he should be a lock.

Wilt is beyond overrated. All he has is his stats, he wasn't a winner. Shaq had everything in terms of the perfect centre. Plus he has more accomplishments then a guy like Bird, even though Bird was surrounded by more talent.

[Mamba]

thing is bird brought back the game of basketball.

and he's white

and good.

so we have to put him there u know

*please don't take this as racist*

[Brunch@Five]

I think the most compelling argument you can make for him being top 5 is that in his prime, he was surpassed by no one and matched only by MJ, Kareem and Wilt. He's arguably the best finals performer ever as well.

To me, he is top 6 for sure, with Kareem, MJ, Wilt, Magic and Bird.

[plowking]

I don't understand how people put Wilt in their top 5. There is a double standard it seems for Wilt. When talking about greatness and where a player ranks, people always say he needs to be dominant; which is what Wilt was but also be a winner and have many championships, etc; which is something Wilt doesn't have.

[Brunch@Five]

Doesn't Wilt also have like 3 championships? Only 1 less than Shaq, and Wilt was by far the MDE.

[biisak]

I don't understand how people put Wilt in their top 5. There is a double standard it seems for Wilt. When talking about greatness and where a player ranks, people always say he needs to be dominant; which is what Wilt was but also be a winner and have many championships, etc; which is something Wilt doesn't have.

True, but noone can touch his statistics.

There isn

[plowking]

Doesn't Wilt also have like 3 championships? Only 1 less than Shaq, and Wilt was by far the MDE.

2 and only 1 as the best player I believe.

[biisak]

Championships are overrated. And underrated.

People have the nerve to call Stockton and Malone loser i e when they were winners for every season they played and went far into the playoffs on numerous occasions while being contenders damn near every year. A loser is someone like Ricky Davis or Shareef who puts up stats on losing teams and never gets anywhere in their respective careers.


You wanna know who

[plowking]

[QUOTE=biisak]Championships are overrated. And underrated.

People have the nerve to call Stockton and Malone loser i e when they were winners for every season they played and went far into the playoffs on numerous occasions while being contenders damn near every year. A loser is someone like Ricky Davis or Shareef who puts up stats on losing teams and never gets anywhere in their respective careers.


You wanna know who

[Thorpesaurous]

I'd rank him just below the immortal six. You could make an argument for him as a top 5 of all time, depending on how you view his impact as opposed to Bill Russell. I think KAJ has the edge on him due to sheer longevity and virtually the same stats and wins, Wilt on pure statistical viewpoint, Magic and Bird in terms of impact to the game. Of course you have MJ.

You won't find me protesting though, if someone ranks him a top 5 all time.


That's where I have him too, clumped in with Hakeem, Duncan, and Malone. Of that group, I think he's got the highest peak, which makes him a little hard to guage. The thing that I think will affect his legacy is the lone MVP. It sort of reflects his turn it on/ turn it off approach, which I know belies questions about his drive.
The top six are the only guys with multiple MVPs, and multiple titles, along with Duncan, and probably Mikan, who for me is almost playing another sport. It's not a terribly deep way to look at it, but it is an interesting seperation on players who are nearly universally regarded as the top six.

[Young Money]

That's where I have him too, clumped in with Hakeem, Duncan, and Malone. Of that group, I think he's got the highest peak, which makes him a little hard to guage. The thing that I think will affect his legacy is the lone MVP. It sort of reflects his turn it on/ turn it off approach, which I know belies questions about his drive.
The top six are the only guys with multiple MVPs, and multiple titles, along with Duncan, and probably Mikan, who for me is almost playing another sport. It's not a terribly deep way to look at it, but it is an interesting seperation on players who are nearly universally regarded as the top six.


Co Sign. He could go anywhere between 4 - 8 depending on your preference of other prominent centers. But he did have a huge impact on the game when he entered the league off of physical presence alone. His biggest downfall will always be his work ethic and desire to play a fully motivated season in shape. He cost himself like 2 potential championships because of this.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

he's definitely a top 5 center.

probably top 10 player all-time. in my mind, he's remarkable lack of professionalism knocks him down the all-time list.

[guy]

he's definitely a top 5 center.

probably top 10 player all-time. in my mind, he's remarkable lack of professionalism knocks him down the all-time list.

I never understood that. We usually judge how great a player is by his skillset, impact, and achievements right? His lack of professionalism or attitude usually has an effect on those things, so he probably could've been better and achieved more if it wasn't for that. So when people penalize him for that, you're basically penalizing him TWICE in a way.

[DCL]

in terms of overall game impact, shaq is top 5.

[plowking]

I never understood that. We usually judge how great a player is by his skillset, impact, and achievements right? His lack of professionalism or attitude usually has an effect on those things, so he probably could've been better and achieved more if it wasn't for that. So when people penalize him for that, you're basically penalizing him TWICE in a way.


Agreed. Do we knock on Jordan because he punched his teammate in the face? Absolutely not, shouldn't happen to Shaq either.

[guy]

Agreed. Do we knock on Jordan because he punched his teammate in the face? Absolutely not, shouldn't happen to Shaq either.

Another thing, guys like Jordan and Kareem were considered a**holes by a lot of people when they played, but it wasn't that big of a deal cause it wasn't publicized in the media as much back then. If Shaq played 10-20 years before, we wouldn't even be talking about this stuff, so is it really fair to hold that against him?

And another thing is we never ever give credit to a player's greatness for having great professionalism/work ethic, so why should we discredit anyone for their lack of it? David Robinson is someone that had great work ethic, and is considered to have great professionalism. He never had problems with anyone and he was a very loyal player. But when we talk about his greatness we don't talk about that stuff. We talk about how he was a dominant scorer, rebounder, and defender, his 1 MVP, and his 2 championships, and we basically leave it at that.

[clayton]

He can't enter top 5 because:

1) Old school basketball fans are still alive. They hate modern basketball and love short shorts. True dat...

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

I never understood that. We usually judge how great a player is by his skillset, impact, and achievements right? His lack of professionalism or attitude usually has an effect on those things, so he probably could've been better and achieved more if it wasn't for that. So when people penalize him for that, you're basically penalizing him TWICE in a way.

not really. I dont think people really take into account being out-of-shape when they assess his "dominance". Indeed, look at the OP for example. For me, I take his on-court greatness/dominance/impact and then subtract for certain things.

Michael Jordan would have NEVER said, "I hurt my toe and company time, so I will fix it on company time". And even if he would say that, I dont believe MJ would actually DO that. Shaq actually did that.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Agreed. Do we knock on Jordan because he punched his teammate in the face? Absolutely not, shouldn't happen to Shaq either.

see prior post.
Has less to do with punching a teammate as opposed to showing up out of shape, "fixing toe on company time", etc etc

[AllenIverson3]

Michael Jordan
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Tim Duncan

[Lebron23]

He can't enter top 5 because:

1) Old school basketball fans are still alive. They hate modern basketball and love short shorts. True dat...


Best posts so far in this thread, and I think Shaq is definitely a top 8 best players of all time.

One of the most dominating Finals performance in the history of the NBA.

[boozehound]

Tell that to players who don't have one.
Yeah? Im sure darko or scalabrine (both nba champions) are real proud of their rings.

[guy]

not really. I dont think people really take into account being out-of-shape when they assess his "dominance". Indeed, look at the OP for example. For me, I take his on-court greatness/dominance/impact and then subtract for certain things.

In a way they do, cause he would've been even more dominant if he wasn't out-of-shape and alot of people like myself would probably rank him even higher as a result. If he stayed in better shape the dominance he had with the Lakers he might've had with the Heat, and he might still be a 20-10 player today. Wouldn't you rank him higher as a result and consider him even more dominant as a result. Shaq penalizes his own greatness by being out of shape by not being able to achieve as much as a result.



Michael Jordan would have NEVER said, "I hurt my toe and company time, so I will fix it on company time". And even if he would say that, I dont believe MJ would actually DO that. Shaq actually did that.

Even if he said that, what does that have to do with what he does on the court? And maybe if he didn't DO that, the Lakers would've had a greater record, had HCA against the Spurs, and won the title for the 4th straight year or at least gone further in the playoffs. My point is we're already penalizing him for less success which could've been a result of his work ethic, so why should we penalize him even more?

[PMshooter]

In his prime, Shaq was so insanely dominant that only Patrick Ewing and Hakeem came close to slowing him down. And they only came close. His last couple of seasons in Orlando and his first two in LA were RIDICULOUS! He's definitely in my top 10.

I've got a couple of gripes in that even when he saw that he was slowing down, he didn't develop an long hook or a jumper or something else to make up for his lost speed and explosiveness, and that he was a crappy free throw shooter his entire career. How dominant are you if you can force the other coach to sit you at crunch time?

Otherwise, the guy is clearly in the top 5 centers of all time (I've got him 4th) and in the top ten players of all time.

Though I do think the guy is a raging *******, and I'm glad that's been exposed in the last couple of years. And I did take a perverse joy in seeing him fail to advance in the playoffs last year.

[Psileas]

He has a case. He's generally considered top 4-9 among most fans. Too dominant 2000-02 Finals. I usually put him somewhere in #7, a position that would be higher if
1) he wasn't getting injured as much as he did (for a season, I'll take a guy who plays 80 games and is 90% as good as Shaq instead of a 55-60 game Shaq)
2) he had the defensive impact of a guy like Hakeem
3) he won his titles against stronger individual competition.


I don't understand how people put Wilt in their top 5. There is a double standard it seems for Wilt. When talking about greatness and where a player ranks, people always say he needs to be dominant; which is what Wilt was but also be a winner and have many championships, etc; which is something Wilt doesn't have.

I don't understand how anyone could leave him out of the top-5. Even if he had won 0 titles, he'd still rank among the greatest, thanks to his unsurpassed dominance on the game. After all, people were starting making GOAT claims for Jordan even after his first title (even more often after his second). Shaq was called the GOAT center by some after the 2000 Finals. Both by then had won less than Wilt did. So, if players who had played only for 7-8 years and hadn't matched Wilt's winning either had a claim, then Wilt does for sure.

When Wilt spent his prime, no-one except Boston was winning. So, if Wilt was branded a loser, because of not managing to win championships so should West, Baylor, Oscar, Willis Reed before '70, practically anyone not playing for Boston.

BTW, Wilt was the best player in both teams he won the championship. In 1967, it was a no-brainer. In 1972, you may argue either him or West for the regular season, but West had the worst playoffs of hs career, while Wilt was the Finals' MVP.

[Godfather]

I want to know people's opinion on this because a lot of people overlook Shaq and simply think he is a good basketball player due to his size. I mean the guy has:

4 championships
Named ROY (Rookie of Year) (1993)
Named All-NBA First Rookie Team (1993)
Named MVP (Most Valuable Player) NBA Regular Season (2000)
Named All-NBA First Team (1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)
Named All-NBA Second Team (1995, 1999)
Named All-NBA Third Team (1994, 1996, 1997)
Named MVP (Most Valuable Player) NBA Finals (2000, 2001, 2002)
Named All-NBA Second Defensive Team (2000, 2001, 2003)
Named IBM Award (2000, 2001)
Named NBA Top Scorer (1995, 2000)
Named NBA Best Field Goal Percentage (1994, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006)
2 times MVP NBA All-Star (2000, 2004)
Selected 14 times for the NBA All-Star game
3 of the greatest finals performances ever
25.2ppg, 11.5rpg, 2.7apg, 2.5bpg and 58% fg in the regular season.

Not to mention in his championship runs he proved he was one of the greatest clutch performers of all time.

[Godfather]

he's definitely a top 5 center.

probably top 10 player all-time. in my mind, he's remarkable lack of professionalism knocks him down the all-time list.

Give an example strong enough that should knock a man down this list. Dis raps against Kobe do not count.

[guy]

Named IBM Award (2000, 2001)


BTW, what the hell is that?

[boozehound]

Give an example strong enough that should knock a man down this list. Dis raps against Kobe do not count.
waiting the entire off season to address a medical issue. then when asked about it, said "I got hurt on company time, I can heal on company time". Maybe if you worked year round, but since you have 3-5 months of offseason every year.... very unprofessional.

[Godfather]

waiting the entire off season to address a medical issue. then when asked about it, said "I got hurt on company time, I can heal on company time". Maybe if you worked year round, but since you have 3-5 months of offseason every year.... very unprofessional.

And that is enough to drop him spots on the all time list...GTFO hater.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

And that is enough to drop him spots on the all time list...GTFO hater.

absolutely. remarkably unprofessional. to miss the 1st half of the season that way? regular season records do, in fact, mean something. home court is very important in the NBA. plus, it shows very poor leadership.

[Godfather]

absolutely. remarkably unprofessional. to miss the 1st half of the season that way? regular season records do, in fact, mean something. home court is very important in the NBA. plus, it shows very poor leadership.

Yeah and then he won 3 straight titles for the Lakers, as the leader and most dominant player...by far.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Yeah and then he won 3 straight titles for the Lakers, as the leader and most dominant player...by far.

no. the titles came before the big toe.
but that doesnt matter. regardless, it reflects upon his professionalism, or lack thereof.

can a player do ANYTHING as long as he wins championships?

[guy]

can a player do ANYTHING as long as he wins championships?

LOL, yea I believe they can if thats the case. All that matters is what they does on the court. Like I said, his unprofessionalism in 2003 played a great deal in ending that dynasty. Maybe they win a title if it wasn't for that, which means he would probably be ranked higher with another title. So like I said, we're already penalizing him due to his unprofessionalism.

I just think this argument that only seems to be attached to Shaq is pretty ridiculous. Lets be serious, Shaq had all the tools to win even more championships, MVPs, scoring titles, etc, which would've made him the GOAT, but his work ethic and attitude is probably what stopped that from happening. He's already penalized for it in that sense, so I don't see why we should penalize him even more.

[plowking]

He has a case. He's generally considered top 4-9 among most fans. Too dominant 2000-02 Finals. I usually put him somewhere in #7, a position that would be higher if
1) he wasn't getting injured as much as he did (for a season, I'll take a guy who plays 80 games and is 90% as good as Shaq instead of a 55-60 game Shaq)
2) he had the defensive impact of a guy like Hakeem
3) he won his titles against stronger individual competition.



I don't understand how anyone could leave him out of the top-5. Even if he had won 0 titles, he'd still rank among the greatest, thanks to his unsurpassed dominance on the game. After all, people were starting making GOAT claims for Jordan even after his first title (even more often after his second). Shaq was called the GOAT center by some after the 2000 Finals. Both by then had won less than Wilt did. So, if players who had played only for 7-8 years and hadn't matched Wilt's winning either had a claim, then Wilt does for sure.

When Wilt spent his prime, no-one except Boston was winning. So, if Wilt was branded a loser, because of not managing to win championships so should West, Baylor, Oscar, Willis Reed before '70, practically anyone not playing for Boston.

BTW, Wilt was the best player in both teams he won the championship. In 1967, it was a no-brainer. In 1972, you may argue either him or West for the regular season, but West had the worst playoffs of hs career, while Wilt was the Finals' MVP.

You mean the dominance that gave him 0 titles in his prime? He was only able to win later on in his career where he was on a stacked team.

[Scott Pippen]

You mean the dominance that gave him 0 titles in his prime? He was only able to win later on in his career where he was on a stacked team. To give you rough idea, imagine a playoff series with Kobe & 2006 Lakers vs the East All Star team (with everyone in prime). That is what it was like for Wilt and the Warriors/Sixers to play against Bill Russell's Celtics. At that time everyone in the NBA was building their team to take down Celtics.:applause:

[plowking]

To give you rough idea, imagine a playoff series with Kobe & 2006 Lakers vs the East All Star team (with everyone in prime). That is what it was like for Wilt and the Warriors/Sixers to play against Bill Russell's Celtics. At that time everyone in the NBA was building their team to take down Celtics.:applause:

Less teams to compete with at the time. You're acting as if every team was a pushover in Shaq's time as well.

[gts]

Give an example strong enough that should knock a man down this list. Dis raps against Kobe do not count.he did, but i'll add some more, showing up in camp out of shape taking half the season to get his game legs, letting imjuries that happened in may go until october to be repaired, telling the free throw shooting coach the lakers have hired to leave him alone... calling out tex winter in film rooms telling him to shut up old man when tex critized his lack of help defense... the man is a portrait of a person who had all the skills to be the greatest to ever play but settled... that's why he's not a top 5 player, you can't put him ahaed of guys that dedicated themselves to being the best they could be and succeeding, magic, bird, kareem wilt and jordan spent every possible moment becoming a better player and a better team mate, shaq didn't so that's why he is a top 5 center and a top 10 player

[plowking]

BTW, what the hell is that?

Its an award thats determines who is the most valuable to their team, though its worked out on the computer through a series of formulas and what not.

http://www.basketballattic.addr.com/ibm.htm

That's a list of all the winners.

[Allstar24]

...

[Kiddlovesnets]

I'd rank those players above Shaq:

1. Michael Jordan: The goat.
2. Wilt Chamberlain: The best NBA player in NBA franchise history before MJ showed up.
3. Magic Johnson: Best PG of all time.
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: The only Center who could ever challenge Wilt.
5. Larry Bird: Best SF of all time for sure.
6. Bill Russell: The one who won the most rings.
7. Oscar Robertson: Mr Triple-Double.
8. Jerry West: Second Best SG of all time and don't forget his figure is still on NBA's logo.

Therefore, I'd say Shaq is an elite top 10 NBA player of all time but he's not so close to the spot of Top 5 as some of you guys claimed before.

[Anti404]

I'd rank those players above Shaq:

1. Michael Jordan: The goat.
2. Wilt Chamberlain: The best NBA player in NBA franchise history before MJ showed up.
3. Magic Johnson: Best PG of all time.
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: The only Center who could ever challenge Wilt.
5. Larry Bird: Best SF of all time for sure.
6. Bill Russell: The one who won the most rings.
7. Oscar Robertson: Mr Triple-Double.
8. Jerry West: Second Best SG of all time and don't forget his figure is still on NBA's logo.

Therefore, I'd say Shaq is an elite top 10 NBA player of all time but he's not so close to the spot of Top 5 as some of you guys claimed before.
You do realize that just because you write or think something doesn't make it fact, right?
After reading a lot of your posts, I think you believe exactly that.

[starface]

shaq is one of the top 5 best basketball players ever. did he have one of the 5 best careers ever? maybe not.

[Kiddlovesnets]

You do realize that just because you write or think something doesn't make it fact, right?
After reading a lot of your posts, I think you believe exactly that.

Give me a reason why you'd rate Shaq above any of those franchise players I listed.


he's definitely a top 5 center.

probably top 10 player all-time. in my mind, he's remarkable lack of professionalism knocks him down the all-time list.

Agreed. Shaq is more than likely to be a Top 5 Center of all time but top 5 players? I'm not sure though.

[plowking]

I'd rank those players above Shaq:

1. Michael Jordan: The goat.
2. Wilt Chamberlain: The best NBA player in NBA franchise history before MJ showed up.
3. Magic Johnson: Best PG of all time.
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: The only Center who could ever challenge Wilt.
5. Larry Bird: Best SF of all time for sure.
6. Bill Russell: The one who won the most rings.
7. Oscar Robertson: Mr Triple-Double.
8. Jerry West: Second Best SG of all time and don't forget his figure is still on NBA's logo.

Therefore, I'd say Shaq is an elite top 10 NBA player of all time but he's not so close to the spot of Top 5 as some of you guys claimed before.

Jerry West - Please. OMG, hes on the NBA logo, who gives a damn?
Oscar Robertson - Stats. What else has he got? You can't rate him better because of one triple double season he's had. What else does he have over Shaq? MVP's? Championships? Finals MVP's?
Bill Russell- You have to play both sides of the floor to be considered truely great.
Larry Bird - Sure Larry impacted the game more then Shaq, but does he have more accomplishments? No.
Wilt - Have you seen him play? No, you've heard about his stats and simply agree with everyone to sound knowledgeable. If he was as dominant as people claim, he would have won more championships, and he would have won them when he was in his prime, not run down and playing with stars.

[plowking]

Give me a reason why you'd rate Shaq above any of those franchise players I listed.


Agreed. Shaq is more than likely to be a Top 5 Center of all time but top 5 players? I'm not sure though.

Reasons below kid.

Give me a reason as to why the 5 players I have bolded should be rated above Shaq? I've given you mine as to why Shaq should be above them.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Jerry West - Please. OMG, hes on the NBA logo, who gives a damn?
Oscar Robertson - Stats. What else has he got? You can't rate him better because of one triple double season he's had. What else does he have over Shaq? MVP's? Championships? Finals MVP's?
Bill Russell- You have to play both sides of the floor to be considered truely great.
Larry Bird - Sure Larry impacted the game more then Shaq, but does he have more accomplishments? No.
Wilt - Have you seen him play? No, you've heard about his stats and simply agree with everyone to sound knowledgeable. If he was as dominant as people claim, he would have won more championships, and he would have won them when he was in his prime, not run down and playing with stars.

Jerry West: The only Final MVP who wasn't not on a winning team.
Oscar Robertson: Even MJ wouldn't lead that Royals team to an NBA title.
Bill Russell: More and more people claimed that he's overrated since they're under 16.
Larry Bird: The first time when I see someone bashing on this great player, nice try.
Wilt: I didn't watch most of the games he played, but I did saw the game when a declining Wilt dominated a prime Kareem.

[Loki]

Jerry West - Please. OMG, hes on the NBA logo, who gives a damn?
Oscar Robertson - Stats. What else has he got? You can't rate him better because of one triple double season he's had. What else does he have over Shaq? MVP's? Championships? Finals MVP's?
Bill Russell- You have to play both sides of the floor to be considered truely great.
Larry Bird - Sure Larry impacted the game more then Shaq, but does he have more accomplishments? No.
Wilt - Have you seen him play? No, you've heard about his stats and simply agree with everyone to sound knowledgeable. If he was as dominant as people claim, he would have won more championships, and he would have won them when he was in his prime, not run down and playing with stars.

Agreed on not ranking West and Oscar above Shaq (I don't), but Bird certainly does have more accomplishments than Shaq. He has 3 straight MVP's, many more top 3 finishes in MVP voting, a similar number of all-NBA teams, and an equal number of titles. Shaq's one extra Finals MVP doesn't make up for that, especially considering that Bird was outright robbed for Finals MVP in 1981.

[AllenIverson3]

I'd rank those players above Shaq:

1. Michael Jordan: The goat.
2. Wilt Chamberlain: The best NBA player in NBA franchise history before MJ showed up.
3. Magic Johnson: Best PG of all time.
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: The only Center who could ever challenge Wilt.
5. Larry Bird: Best SF of all time for sure.
6. Bill Russell: The one who won the most rings.
7. Oscar Robertson: Mr Triple-Double.
8. Jerry West: Second Best SG of all time and don't forget his figure is still on NBA's logo.

Therefore, I'd say Shaq is an elite top 10 NBA player of all time but he's not so close to the spot of Top 5 as some of you guys claimed before.
explain me please how Bill Russell, Jerry West and Oscar Robertson are better than Shaquille O'Neal?

[AllenIverson3]

Jerry West - Please. OMG, hes on the NBA logo, who gives a damn?
Oscar Robertson - Stats. What else has he got? You can't rate him better because of one triple double season he's had. What else does he have over Shaq? MVP's? Championships? Finals MVP's?
Bill Russell- You have to play both sides of the floor to be considered truely great.
Larry Bird - Sure Larry impacted the game more then Shaq, but does he have more accomplishments? No.
Wilt - Have you seen him play? No, you've heard about his stats and simply agree with everyone to sound knowledgeable. If he was as dominant as people claim, he would have won more championships, and he would have won them when he was in his prime, not run down and playing with stars.
dont even say that about Larry Bird. Larry Bird is the second greatest player of all time behind Michael Jordan!

[plowking]

Agreed on not ranking West and Oscar above Shaq (I don't), but Bird certainly does have more accomplishments than Shaq. He has 3 straight MVP's, many more top 3 finishes in MVP voting, a similar number of all-NBA teams, and an equal number of titles. Shaq's one extra Finals MVP doesn't make up for that, especially considering that Bird was outright robbed for Finals MVP in 1981.

Shaq has 4 titles, 1 more then Larry. Seeing as how you said Larry was robbed of the Finals MVP in 1981, don't you think Shaq was robbed a few times of the regular season MVP?

[Kiddlovesnets]

Shaq has 4 titles, 1 more then Larry. Seeing as how you said Larry was robbed of the Finals MVP in 1981, don't you think Shaq was robbed a few times of the regular season MVP?

Horry has 7 titles, one more than Jordan...

[plowking]

Jerry West: The only Final MVP who wasn't not on a winning team.
Oscar Robertson: Even MJ wouldn't lead that Royals team to an NBA title.
Bill Russell: More and more people claimed that he's overrated since they're under 16.
Larry Bird: The first time when I see someone bashing on this great player, nice try.
Wilt: I didn't watch most of the games he played, but I did saw the game when a declining Wilt dominated a prime Kareem.

How am I bashing, I simply said Shaq has achieved more then Larry. I fail to see the bashing there. Yet you still didn't give me a reason as to why he deserves to be better the Shaq. You simply gave me the "how dare you? Larry? He is top 3". It's the safe answer.

[plowking]

Horry has 7 titles, one more than Jordan...

Does he play both ends of the floor? Does he have amazing stats? Does he dominate his era?

Shaq has all this, so don't try and bring that pathetic argument here.

[plowking]

dont even say that about Larry Bird. Larry Bird is the second greatest player of all time behind Michael Jordan!

Why? Can you give me a reason? That's all I'm asking for...

[omarnyc]

shaq is 2nd only to mj

[72-10]

He is top 10 but there is no way he is top 5 or top 7 for that matter.

These players are demonstrably greater:

Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Oscar Robertson

These players are arguably greater:
Jerry West
Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon (probably not)

[Loki]

Oscar Robertson had neither a more decorated/successful career nor more impact on games than Shaq. No way is Oscar above Shaq. No way.

[Kiddlovesnets]

He is top 10 but there is no way he is top 5 or top 7 for that matter.

These players are demonstrably greater:

Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Oscar Robertson

These players are arguably greater:
Jerry West
Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon (probably not)

:applause:

[plowking]

He is top 10 but there is no way he is top 5 or top 7 for that matter.

These players are demonstrably greater:

Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Oscar Robertson

These players are arguably greater:
Jerry West
Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon (probably not)

Oscar better then Shaq? Ask anyone who doesn't follow basketball and doesn't know much about it. Everyone will know Shaq, same can't be said for Oscar. So Shaq has a bigger impact on the game, and better stats, and more achievements.

[biisak]

Oscar better then Shaq? Ask anyone who doesn't follow basketball and doesn't know much about it. Everyone will know Shaq, same can't be said for Oscar. So Shaq has a bigger impact on the game, and better stats, and more achievements.

So what? There isn

[Collie]

Oscar rep is mostly because of his triple double season.

[biisak]

Oscar rep is mostly because of his triple double season.

Well he

[Collie]

[QUOTE=biisak]Well he

[plowking]

[QUOTE=biisak]Well he

[biisak]

Ah yes, the best way of determining which player was better then another.

Who said it was? Don

[Psileas]

You mean the dominance that gave him 0 titles in his prime? He was only able to win later on in his career where he was on a stacked team.

The same dominance that led him break about a million records and that led a mediocre Warrior team to the 1960 and 1962 ECF, losing to the 60+ win Celtics in 6 and 7 games (losing in the second case to the Celtics by only 2 points in game 7).
1967 is definitely during Wilt's prime. I don't know how you can possibly say that it wasn't. because he didn't win the scoring title? Big deal, he pretty much obliterated boxscores, recording one triple-double after another, won the MVP by a landslide. If that's a "past prime" player, OK...

The 1972 team wasn't as stacked as you think it was. Actually, they were overachivers. They were considered an old team, with Wilt being 35-36, West only a year younger, Elgin Baylor retired and a so-so bench. Among the big weaons, only Goodrich was in his prime. They had already lost to the Bucks in 1971 (though they played without West) and few gave them chances of winning it all. 69 wins? 33 in a row? If you told this to anyone before the start of the season, they'd think you're nuts.
BTW, Wilt was still an MVP contestant, would be a serious DPOY contestant if the award existed and easily won the Finals' MVP. He was still the best player of his team, even past his prime.


Bill Russell- You have to play both sides of the floor to be considered truely great.

Magic and Bird disagree. Oh, and Drazen, too.

[72-10]

Oscar better then Shaq? Ask anyone who doesn't follow basketball and doesn't know much about it. Everyone will know Shaq, same can't be said for Oscar. So Shaq has a bigger impact on the game, and better stats, and more achievements.

Apparently we should measure greatness in the basketball world by using the lack of knowledge of people outside of it as the ruler.:roll:

And you appear to be one of these people who doesn't follow basketball if you do not recognize that Oscar was more impressive statistically than Shaq. In fact Oscar is among that elite class statistically with Wilt and Michael. It should be self-evident that Oscar had considerably more skill than Shaq. If a point guard can change a game as much as a 7 foot center can, I'm going to give the point guard more credit. He has to work harder to achieve something great.:hammerhead: Oscar has more influence on the game, and has been the standard bearer of the "all-around" player (perhaps Jordan supplanted him).

[Thorpesaurous]

Originally Posted by plowking
Oscar better then Shaq? Ask anyone who doesn't follow basketball and doesn't know much about it. Everyone will know Shaq, same can't be said for Oscar. So Shaq has a bigger impact on the game, and better stats, and more achievements.

Really, a lot of that has to do with the fact that Oscar is 25 years older at this point. So it's not a particularly strong reason why. And Oscar's triple double is almost a little underrated, because if you aggregate his numbers over his first 5 years, he actually averaged a triple double over that whole span, which is remarkable really regardless of how you adjust the numbers.

That said, I still think Shaq is ahead of Oscar. I used to think Oscar was in the 7-10 range, with West, but I'm more inclined now to put the MVP caliber, multiple title leading bigs in there, namely Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, and Malone. I still feel all of them fall just behind the other six, mostly because of the multiple MVPs and multiple titles. Oscar and West to me are just behind them, probably in a tier to themselves, but perhaps lumpable into another small group.

[OutOfPlace]

Shaq during his prime had more on-court impact than any other player ever had or probably will.

To list Chamberlame, Bill "No Muscle" Russel or Magic "Misused His Johnson" Johnson ahead of Shaq is absurd.

[Rekindled]

players better than shaq

JOrdan
Bird
Magic
Wilt
Hakeem(shaq said so )
Kareem

same lvl as shaq

Barkley
pippen
Bill Russel
Pete Maravich
Oscar robertson
Moses Malone
Dr J
David Robinson

[Godfather]

players better than shaq

JOrdan
Bird
Magic
Wilt
Hakeem(shaq said so )
Kareem

same lvl as shaq

Barkley
pippen
Bill Russel
Pete Maravich
Oscar robertson
Moses Malone
Dr J
David Robinson
Why the hell are you on this thread...It is obvious you know nothing about basketball.

[AllenIverson3]

Why? Can you give me a reason? That's all I'm asking for...

I mean u can saying this but thats 100 % not true. Larry Bird is better than Shaquille O'neal

[plowking]

players better than shaq

JOrdan
Bird
Magic
Wilt
Hakeem(shaq said so )
Kareem

same lvl as shaq

Barkley
pippen
Bill Russel
Pete Maravich
Oscar robertson
Moses Malone
Dr J
David Robinson

And I'm the one that's delusional when Shaq is the one getting underrated in these types of threads.

[plowking]

Apparently we should measure greatness in the basketball world by using the lack of knowledge of people outside of it as the ruler.:roll:

And you appear to be one of these people who doesn't follow basketball if you do not recognize that Oscar was more impressive statistically than Shaq. In fact Oscar is among that elite class statistically with Wilt and Michael. It should be self-evident that Oscar had considerably more skill than Shaq. If a point guard can change a game as much as a 7 foot center can, I'm going to give the point guard more credit. He has to work harder to achieve something great.:hammerhead: Oscar has more influence on the game, and has been the standard bearer of the "all-around" player (perhaps Jordan supplanted him).

Lets rate David Robinson ahead of Tim Duncan then. It's only fair. He had better statistical seasons then Tim in his prime, so he obviously deserves to be ahead of him. I beleive he had a season where he averaged over 2 steals and 4 blocks per game, which is a very rare feat similar to that of Oscars triple double in terms of comparing it to Shaq.

So should David Robinson be rated above Tim Dunan?

[plowking]

The same dominance that led him break about a million records and that led a mediocre Warrior team to the 1960 and 1962 ECF, losing to the 60+ win Celtics in 6 and 7 games (losing in the second case to the Celtics by only 2 points in game 7).
1967 is definitely during Wilt's prime. I don't know how you can possibly say that it wasn't. because he didn't win the scoring title? Big deal, he pretty much obliterated boxscores, recording one triple-double after another, won the MVP by a landslide. If that's a "past prime" player, OK...

The 1972 team wasn't as stacked as you think it was. Actually, they were overachivers. They were considered an old team, with Wilt being 35-36, West only a year younger, Elgin Baylor retired and a so-so bench. Among the big weaons, only Goodrich was in his prime. They had already lost to the Bucks in 1971 (though they played without West) and few gave them chances of winning it all. 69 wins? 33 in a row? If you told this to anyone before the start of the season, they'd think you're nuts.
BTW, Wilt was still an MVP contestant, would be a serious DPOY contestant if the award existed and easily won the Finals' MVP. He was still the best player of his team, even past his prime.



Magic and Bird disagree. Oh, and Drazen, too.

Uhh Bird was in several All-Defensive teams. Drazen was no slouch, and held his own against much more athletically gifted guards. Averaged 1.3 steals per game in 37 mpg with New Jersey.

[72-10]

Uhh Bird was in several All-Defensive teams. Drazen was no slouch, and held his own against much more athletically gifted guards. Averaged 1.3 steals per game in 37 mpg with New Jersey.

Bird barely made 2 or 3 All-Defensive 2nd teams, and was never close to 1st team status... mediocre on-ball defender, good help defender.

[72-10]

Lets rate David Robinson ahead of Tim Duncan then. It's only fair. He had better statistical seasons then Tim in his prime, so he obviously deserves to be ahead of him. I beleive he had a season where he averaged over 2 steals and 4 blocks per game, which is a very rare feat similar to that of Oscars triple double in terms of comparing it to Shaq.

So should David Robinson be rated above Tim Dunan?

No... because Tim's achievements are signficantly more than David's, and David did not actually have much more skill than Tim. Oscar, however, had much more skill than Shaq. He was a complete offensive threat, close to the level of MJ. Shaq has achieved more, but not significantly more than Oscar. You can't overlook the fact that Oscar played on teams with relatively little help for most of his career. Shaq has always had that second fiddle.

[plowking]

No... because Tim's achievements are signficantly more than David's, and David did not actually have much more skill than Tim. Oscar, however, had much more skill than Shaq. He was a complete offensive threat, close to the level of MJ. Shaq has achieved more, but not significantly more than Oscar. You can't overlook the fact that Oscar played on teams with relatively little help for most of his career. Shaq has always had that second fiddle.


1. Shaq's are significantly more then Oscars. In fact 3 championships more, amazing finals stats, and 3 finals MVP's is the difference.
2. How can that be determined. David averaged better stats in his career, a better defensive player and was able to drop 71 points against a team. Dropping 71 points? You have to have more then one offensive move to do that.
3. Furthermore, Tim Duncan is also better then Oscar Robertson.

[Collie]

You can't overlook the fact that Oscar played on teams with relatively little help for most of his career.

Neither did David Robinson. And I'd say at 1 MVP and 2 championships as a second fiddle, his career achievements are near Oscar Robertson's.

I won't argue if a person thinks Oscar > Shaq, but saying that Duncan's achievements are much greater than Robinson's, and Shaq's are relatively close to Oscar's seems wrong.

[72-10]

1. Shaq's are significantly more then Oscars. In fact 3 championships more, amazing finals stats, and 3 finals MVP's is the difference.

And most of that is attributable to Shaq's significantly better supporting cast...


2. How can that be determined. David averaged better stats in his career, a better defensive player and was able to drop 71 points against a team. Dropping 71 points? You have to have more then one offensive move to do that.

Are you dense? Duncan is the one with better stats, go take a look for yourself, and he also has played most of his career through the slowest paced era in NBA history. This makes Duncan's stats all the more impressive in relation to D-Rob's. Do you even know the story behind the 71 points? It was a deliberate attempt to win a scoring title at the end of the season, and he was fed the ball the whole game. I don't think Duncan could score 71, but I'm sure that he could put in 60 if he had to, like most NBA greats. Robinson didn't show up in the playoffs nearly as much as Duncan has either, be it pulling down 25+ rebounds or blocking key shots, and Duncan's awards and honors are endless. 8 time All-Defensive 1st teamer, and it's an outrage that he didn't win DPOY in his prime. I could go on.



3. Furthermore, Tim Duncan is also better then Oscar Robertson.

No, he's not.

[plowking]

And most of that is attributable to Shaq's significantly better supporting cast...



Are you dense? Duncan is the one with better stats, go take a look for yourself, and he also has played most of his career through the slowest paced era in NBA history. This makes Duncan's stats all the more impressive in relation to D-Rob's. Do you even know the story behind the 71 points? It was a deliberate attempt to win a scoring title at the end of the season, and he was fed the ball the whole game. I don't think Duncan could score 71, but I'm sure that he could put in 60 if he had to, like most NBA greats. Robinson didn't show up in the playoffs nearly as much as Duncan has either, be it pulling down 25+ rebounds or blocking key shots, and Duncan's awards and honors are endless. 8 time All-Defensive 1st teamer, and it's an outrage that he didn't win DPOY in his prime. I could go on.




No, he's not.

No, no they're not.

Robinsons highest rebounding season > Duncan's
Robs highest FT% in season > Duncans
Robs FG % > Duncans
Robs 3pt > Duncans
Robs assists > Duncans
Robs steals > Duncans
Robs blocks > Duncans
Robs points > Duncans
Robs best season with least amount of turnovers (while playing over 35mpg) > Duncans

Thats every major statistical category. What more do you want? Furthermore Robinsons best statistical season > Duncans. Furthermore Robinson is probably one of only two players ever to average above 2 steals and 4 blocks in a season.

[plowking]

You also said that Duncan played in a slower era. You are contradicting yourself in terms of Shaq and Oscar then. He wouldn't have been able to achieve that triple double had the game been played at the pace Shaq played. Also if Shaq had played in Oscars day, his stats would be more impressive due to more points and rebounds.

[72-10]

Neither did David Robinson. And I'd say at 1 MVP and 2 championships as a second fiddle, his career achievements are near Oscar Robertson's.

Robertson is significantly ahead statistically... therein lies the main difference. However, I would have to say that with the likes of Sean Elliot, Dennis Rodman, and Avery Johnson before his "second fiddle" years, Robinson was better off with teammates than Robertson was.

[72-10]

You also said that Duncan played in a slower era. You are contradicting yourself in terms of Shaq and Oscar then. He wouldn't have been able to achieve that triple double had the game been played at the pace Shaq played. Also if Shaq had played in Oscars day, his stats would be more impressive due to more points and rebounds.

No, I'm not contradicting myself because Robertson is SIGNIFICANTLY better statistically than Shaq, it is an appreciable margin not a small one. You seem like someone who has not seen enough basketball to realize that statistics do not always correlate properly the skills and impact that a player has. I like statistics, but they work better for baseball. I have seen Shaq's entire career and his entire career he has been able to use his size to his advantage much more than any skill he has. You could count the number of shots he's taken outside of 5 feet with your hands.

[72-10]

No, no they're not.

Robinsons highest rebounding season > Duncan's
Robs highest FT% in season > Duncans
Robs FG % > Duncans
Robs 3pt > Duncans
Robs assists > Duncans
Robs steals > Duncans
Robs blocks > Duncans
Robs points > Duncans
Robs best season with least amount of turnovers (while playing over 35mpg) > Duncans

Thats every major statistical category. What more do you want? Furthermore Robinsons best statistical season > Duncans. Furthermore Robinson is probably one of only two players ever to average above 2 steals and 4 blocks in a season.
:wtf:

Why would I choose a single season when I can compare career averages?:banghead:

Scoring: Duncan
Rebounding: Duncan
Assists: Duncan
Steals: Robinson
Blocked shots: Robinson

and Duncan is way ahead when it comes to PLAYOFFS production.:hammerhead:

[stephanieg]

I'd rather have Hakeem because:

1. His free throw shooting is 71% for his career (career high 79%) compared to Shaq's career 52%.

2. He's more mobile and a better defensive player and famously shut down opposing centers in the playoffs.

3. They went head to head and we saw what happened (Shaq was more efficient but they effectively canceled each other out).

I'd also rather personally back a player who demonstrates supreme skill and doesn't commit an offensive foul as his go to move. But that's just my view. Shaq's FG% was definitely far more efficient so choosing him over Hakeem is no crime. They're pretty neck and neck IMO.

[plowking]

:wtf:

Why would I choose a single season when I can compare career averages?:banghead:

Scoring: Duncan
Rebounding: Duncan
Assists: Duncan
Steals: Robinson
Blocked shots: Robinson

and Duncan is way ahead when it comes to PLAYOFFS production.:hammerhead:

You get single seasons as it shows how good they were in their primes. Sure its easy to compare their numbers now when Duncan is still producing his 20 points and 10 rebounds. Wait untill Duncan is 35 and scoring 15 points one season, then 12 the next, then 8 the next. How about taking out those last 3 seasons of Robinson and compare their careers? Its only fair that way. I gaurantee Robinson will be ahead in the majority of the major statistical categories.

[72-10]

Anyone who chooses to analyze a player's legacy or a facet of his game based upon a single season of production rather than his career should not be analyzing a player's legacy period.

[plowking]

I'd rather have Hakeem because:

1. His free throw shooting is 71% for his career (career high 79%) compared to Shaq's career 52%.

2. He's more mobile and a better defensive player and famously shut down opposing centers in the playoffs.

3. They went head to head and we saw what happened (Shaq was more efficient but they effectively canceled each other out).

I'd also rather personally back a player who demonstrates supreme skill and doesn't commit an offensive foul as his go to move. But that's just my view. Shaq's FG% was definitely far more efficient so choosing him over Hakeem is no crime. They're pretty neck and neck IMO.

A young Shaq vs a prime Hakeem. Yet Shaq was more efficient and just as good as Hakeem in that series. Tells you something about Shaq.

Hakeem was a better defensive player, though this may have been due to a lot of players being scared to drive in the key with Shaq standing there.

[72-10]

Tells you something about Shaq.

Yes, it tells you that he was more capable of throwing his weight around and bulling his way in the paint for a dunk. It honestly sounds like you did not see much of Shaq's career.

[plowking]

Anyone who chooses to analyze a player's legacy or a facet of his game based upon a single season of production rather than his career should not be analyzing a player's legacy period.

Read above, how is it fair to analyse their careers in this point in time when one has gone through the process of aging and having 3 seasons of minimum productio, while the other is just now reaching the end of his prime?

You are the one that shouldn't be analyzing careers when you are not making fair assumptions.

I guess Elton Brand is just as good as Robinson now right? Similar career averages, so I guess its got to be right?

Pathetic. :rolleyes:

[plowking]

Yes, it tells you that he was more capable of throwing his weight around and bulling his way in the paint for a dunk. It honestly sounds like you did not see much of Shaq's career.

Read above, you seem to be filled with bright ways of comparing players.

[plowking]

Yes, it tells you that he was more capable of throwing his weight around and bulling his way in the paint for a dunk. It honestly sounds like you did not see much of Shaq's career.

So your saying Shaq is no where near as dominant or as good a player, despite being able to 3-peat. You cannot be serious.

[72-10]

Read above, how is it fair to analyse their careers in this point in time when one has gone through the process of aging and having 3 seasons of minimum productio, while the other is just now reaching the end of his prime?

You are the one that shouldn't be analyzing careers when you are not making fair assumptions.

I guess Elton Brand is just as good as Robinson now right? Similar career averages, so I guess its got to be right?

Pathetic. :rolleyes:

Read above, I already pointed out how Duncan has played most of his career through the slowest paced era in history and yet he stills comes out on top, ESPECIALLY in the all-important POSTSEASON. That is certainly a large compensating factor. Duncan's numbers are not final, but a career approach is still much more accurate by this point in his career than trying to compare with single seasons.

[72-10]

So your saying Shaq is no where near as dominant or as good a player, despite being able to 3-peat. You cannot be serious.

When did I ever say that? Don't put words in my mouth. And who are you comparing him to, Hakeem?

[plowking]

Read above, I already pointed out how Duncan has played most of his career through the slowest paced era in history and yet he stills comes out on top, ESPECIALLY in the all-important POSTSEASON. That is certainly a large compensating factor. Duncan's numbers are not final, but a career approach is still much more accurate by this point in his career than trying to compare with single seasons.

So that would be Oscars numbers are not that impressive seing as he played in an even faster era, where rebounds were coming down like rain, and points being scored at a far greater rate.

So Shaq would be better off in this era as well, with more rebounds and points. Not to mention FG% due to his size, as he'd be the biggest player ever seen at that time.

[plowking]

When did I ever say that? Don't put words in my mouth. And who are you comparing him to, Hakeem?

Oscar again.

And it seems as though you're the one that hasn't seen Shaq play in his prime when all you think he did is bully his way in the paint and dunk.

[72-10]

So that would be Oscars numbers are not that impressive seing as he played in an even faster era, where rebounds were coming down like rain, and points being scored at a far greater rate.

So Shaq would be better off in this era as well, with more rebounds and points. Not to mention FG% due to his size, as he'd be the biggest player ever seen at that time.

You're delving too far into speculation. Shaq's numbers would be inflated but they still would not match up favorably with Oscar's. Oscar's production matches up favorably against almost any player in any era.

[plowking]

You're delving too far into speculation. Shaq's numbers would be inflated but they still would not match up favorably with Oscar's. Oscar's production matches up favorably against almost any player in any era.

As far as I can see, you are brushing off every single argument. The number difference between Robinson and Duncan would be less then Shaq and Oscar seeing as their is a smaller difference in time between the two. Also the era's in which Duncan and Robinson played were not that different in terms of the pace.

Though if this is the case, are you saying that Kobe's 35.4ppg recently is more impressive then Jordan's 37.1ppg in the 80's?

[72-10]

Oscar again.

And it seems as though you're the one that hasn't seen Shaq play in his prime when all you think he did is bully his way in the paint and dunk.

You appear to lack reading comprehension. I said he bulled his way in the paint, not bully. And I was not referring to every play or half of the plays. I was referring to the difference in field goal percentages, and the difference largely stems from these plays where he used weight and girth to bull people out of his way, and he had several of those in each game. Shaq is considered almost universally one of the hardest players in history to referee. It's difficult to give him full credit for his achievements when you could make an argument that half of his plays are offensive fouls. Shaq is of course more dominant than Oscar, he has just as much impact in deciding factors in games despite some pitiful shortcomings, but he is not a better player, in fact he is not quite as good of a player. I've seen Shaq's entire career.

[plowking]

You appear to lack reading comprehension. I said he bulled his way in the paint, not bully. And I was not referring to every play or half of the plays. I was referring to the difference in field goal percentages, and the difference largely stems from these plays where he used weight and girth to bull people out of his way, and he had several of those in each game. Shaq is considered almost universally one of the hardest players in history to referee. It's difficult to give him full credit for his achievements when you could make an argument that half of his plays are offensive fouls. Shaq is of course more dominant than Oscar, he has just as much impact in deciding factors in games despite some pitiful shortcomings, but he is not a better player, in fact he is not quite as good of a player. I've seen Shaq's entire career.

LOL.

There is no need to argue here. Half of his plays are offensive fouls? Obvious agenda against Shaq if you actually believe this to be the case.

Shaq often had 3 players guarding him at one time, I never heard of Oscar ever getting that much attention. This alone shows that Shaq was a more effective, more influential, more dominant and in turn better player the Oscar.

[72-10]

This alone shows that Shaq was a more effective, more influential, more dominant and in turn better player the Oscar.

Wrong. You need to go back to Basketball 101 to learn this apparently.

[plowking]

Wrong. You need to go back to Basketball 101 to learn this apparently.

You'd find that most people agree that Shaq is the better player. His achievements enough show that he was the better player, whether or not he had a better supporting cast.

[EricForman]

Shaq can be argued to be in the top five. Although I would personally rank him #6.

But he is without a doubt in the top 8 and that is not arguable. If you don't have him in the top 8 you are just wrong.

[Psileas]

Uhh Bird was in several All-Defensive teams. Drazen was no slouch, and held his own against much more athletically gifted guards. Averaged 1.3 steals per game in 37 mpg with New Jersey.

Russell has finished top-10 in assists (more than once) and averaged 20+ ppg in multiple Finals' series (including the 1965 one, when he shot at a Finals' record clip of 70.2% FG). So, if you think Bird and Drazen (especially Drazen, whose 1.3 steals in 37 mpg is nothing to brag about anyway) qualify as good defenders, then Russell also qualifies offensively.

[Psileas]

LOL.

There is no need to argue here. Half of his plays are offensive fouls? Obvious agenda against Shaq if you actually believe this to be the case.

Shaq often had 3 players guarding him at one time, I never heard of Oscar ever getting that much attention. This alone shows that Shaq was a more effective, more influential, more dominant and in turn better player the Oscar.

No, it just shows that Shaq was more unstoppable going one-on-one and verifies the rule that centers get more defensive attention. After all, Shaq gets more attention than any guard ever. Doesn't make him greater than any guard ever.

That's despite my ranking Shaq over Oscar during these years.

[Da KO King]

Not even in my top 15.

Anyone who blatantly "half-asses it" and talks about it with no shame does not deserve to be called great in my book.

[guy]

You appear to lack reading comprehension. I said he bulled his way in the paint, not bully. And I was not referring to every play or half of the plays. I was referring to the difference in field goal percentages, and the difference largely stems from these plays where he used weight and girth to bull people out of his way, and he had several of those in each game. Shaq is considered almost universally one of the hardest players in history to referee. It's difficult to give him full credit for his achievements when you could make an argument that half of his plays are offensive fouls. Shaq is of course more dominant than Oscar, he has just as much impact in deciding factors in games despite some pitiful shortcomings, but he is not a better player, in fact he is not quite as good of a player. I've seen Shaq's entire career.

If thats the case you can also make an argument that there were just as many defensive fouls against Shaq that were never called. Shaq got so beat up but it never seemed to visibly affect him, so he didn't draw even more fouls. If it actually did visibly affect him, I'm sure alot more fouls would've been called in Shaq's favor.

And anyone who thinks Oscar is better due to a "significant statistical advantage" is wrong. 60s were inflated, especially in rebounding. For example, anyone honestly think that Oscar would average 12.5 rpg in a season during Shaq's era like he did in the triple double season? Not a chance. On the other hand, Shaq would've probably average 20+rpg easily in the 60s.

Another thing, which I forgot to mention. Even if you don't adjust for the inflated stats, where is this "significant statistical advantage?" Oscar: 25.7 ppg/7.5 rpg/9.5 apg in 14 seasons, Shaq: 25.2 ppg/11.5 rpg/2.7 apg in 16 seasons. They're just about equal in points, while Shaq has the advantage in rebounds and Oscar has the advantage in assists. Sounds about equal to me.

[plowking]

Russell has finished top-10 in assists (more than once) and averaged 20+ ppg in multiple Finals' series (including the 1965 one, when he shot at a Finals' record clip of 70.2% FG). So, if you think Bird and Drazen (especially Drazen, whose 1.3 steals in 37 mpg is nothing to brag about anyway) qualify as good defenders, then Russell also qualifies offensively.

In a whole series? Great, I mentioned whole seasons.

Also Drazen isn't mentioned ever in top 10 discussions, thoug you mentioned Magic as well. You do realise Magic has 2spg over his whole career, and that in a season he averaged 3.4spg. Like I said he was brilliant on the offensive end, and was a decent defender.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Not even in my top 15.

Anyone who blatantly "half-asses it" and talks about it with no shame does not deserve to be called great in my book.

I agree with this. These things have to be taken into account.

[plowking]

I agree with this. These things have to be taken into account.

Jordan punched a teammate in the face. How many spots does he lose for that? He also has a gambling problem. I put him in my top 50 barely.

Wilt slept with over 20,000 women, and is probably the father of many children who are not able to get by, due to single parenthood. How many spots does he lose?

[RidonKs]

Not even in my top 15.

Anyone who blatantly "half-asses it" and talks about it with no shame does not deserve to be called great in my book.
How is it relevant how good he could have been? Unless of course the two sentences above have no direct correlation. Even then though, Shaq's accomplished more than enough to warrant a top 15 selection in just about anyone's list.

[guy]

I agree with this. These things have to be taken into account.

But my point has been that they already have been taken into account since he didn't achieve more as a result, which would've made his ranking higher.

[plowking]

How is it relevant how good he could have been? Unless of course the two sentences above have no direct correlation. Even then though, Shaq's accomplished more than enough to warrant a top 15 selection in just about anyone's list.

Agreed.

I know Bird is a legend and all, but why do people act like its not close between Shaq and Larry? Shaq has more titles, more finals MVP's, less MVP's, more all star MVP's, and I think the same number of all NBA team selections.

Where is the great disparity that I am missing here? Someone fill me in? Is it simply because Bird is "the great white saviour"?

[EricForman]

72-10,

you really gotta give Shaq more credit.

You know a crazy Shaq stat that can't be put into numbers?

Well his last two season kinda ruined it but up until 2006 or so, you can say that Shaq's team is a legit title contender EVERY YEAR except his rookie year.

Every year of Shaq's career, his team is a top 4 or 5 ish title contender. He has been to what, 9 Conference Finals in his career. So 9 years of his career his team finished in the final four.

And he didn't do this in Bill Russell's era of like 8 team leagues. he was doing this against 26, 28, and 29 other teams throughout his career. He is a winner. I don't have exact numbers but I'm sure his regular season win record is among one of the highest out of any player. Off the top of my head I can only think Bill Russell and Duncan who would have a better win % and/or win-loss record in the regular season IN THEIR CAREER over Shaq. (and i'm only counting 1st or 2nd option, so guys like Kerr wouldn't qualify)

The man's impact on the game was almost inarguably greater than any guard in the history of the league not named Michael and Magic. Oscar Robertson and Jerry West don't stand a chance. How many rings have they won? How many rings have they won as the best guy on their team? (ZERO) Was there ever a time West and Oscar ruled the league the way Shaq ruled it for a three year stretch?

Shaq should be in the argument with LARRY AND MAGIC (check the accomplishments, Shaq rivals both of them easily). Not with guys a level lower like Hakeem and Oscar.

[Heilige]

72-10,

you really gotta give Shaq more credit.

You know a crazy Shaq stat that can't be put into numbers?

Well his last two season kinda ruined it but up until 2006 or so, you can say that Shaq's team is a legit title contender EVERY YEAR except his rookie year.

Every year of Shaq's career, his team is a top 4 or 5 ish title contender. He has been to what, 9 Conference Finals in his career. So 9 years of his career his team finished in the final four.

And he didn't do this in Bill Russell's era of like 8 team leagues. he was doing this against 26, 28, and 29 other teams throughout his career. He is a winner. I don't have exact numbers but I'm sure his regular season win record is among one of the highest out of any player. Off the top of my head I can only think Bill Russell and Duncan who would have a better win % and/or win-loss record in the regular season IN THEIR CAREER over Shaq. (and i'm only counting 1st or 2nd option, so guys like Kerr wouldn't qualify)

The man's impact on the game was almost inarguably greater than any guard in the history of the league not named Michael and Magic. Oscar Robertson and Jerry West don't stand a chance. How many rings have they won? How many rings have they won as the best guy on their team? (ZERO)

Shaq should be in the argument with LARRY AND MAGIC (check the accomplishments, Shaq rivals both of them easily). Not with guys a level lower like Hakeem and Oscar.

Co-sign.

:cheers:

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Jordan punched a teammate in the face. How many spots does he lose for that? He also has a gambling problem. I put him in my top 50 barely.

Wilt slept with over 20,000 women, and is probably the father of many children who are not able to get by, due to single parenthood. How many spots does he lose?

I think we already had this discussion. MJ's punching a teammate had no affect on his on-court performance...nor his gambling "problem". According to Kerr, it was not the big deal that everyone made it out to be.

[plowking]

Furthermore for those of you who are saying Shaq is around 6th or 7th on their list, if he won another title, would you consider him better then any of:
Larry
Wilt
Kareem
Magic

[plowking]

I think we already had this discussion. MJ's punching a teammate had no affect on his on-court performance...nor his gambling "problem". According to Kerr, it was not the big deal that everyone made it out to be.


How do you know Shaq's half arseing cost him anything. Rodman went out partying every night and he came to play and averaged amazing numbers. Same with Shaq; he was able to average amazing numbers even without the preperation most players needed.

[Psileas]

In a whole series? Great, I mentioned whole seasons.

Also Drazen isn't mentioned ever in top 10 discussions, thoug you mentioned Magic as well. You do realise Magic has 2spg over his whole career, and that in a season he averaged 3.4spg. Like I said he was brilliant on the offensive end, and was a decent defender.

My point is, you cherry picked to make your point. Your point was that Russell played only defense, which is just as (in)correct as Bird and Magic playing only offense. Russell was among the best big men passers ever, among the best offensive rebounders ever and raised his scoring in the playoffs, which means that, when needed, he could score. Trying to judge 60's Celtics' players by 20+ ppg seasons, we'd reach to the conclusion that only Sam Jones was a constantly good offensive player, and that's plain wrong.
I'm well aware that Magic was a good stealer and team defender (especially young Magic). I'd put him close to the level of Russell as an offensive player, but not higher.

[rs98762001]

Shaq is not top 5. His accomplishments, though great, were not as consistently maintained over the length of his career as the Big 6 (MJ, KAJ, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Russell). While at his peak with the Lakers he was a force like none other in history, he came up short numerous times in his early years, and has since had a late career more like Hakeem and Ewing than like Kareem and Russell. He had the potential to be the true MDE but his lack of discipline, his laziness, and his refusal to pay as much attention to the defensive side as he should have, has just kept him out of reach of the first-level greats. I have him somewhere between 7-10, fighting it out with Oscar, Duncan and Hakeem. Not too shabby.

[EricForman]

Shaq is not top 5. His accomplishments, though great, were not as consistently maintained over the length of his career as the Big 6 (MJ, KAJ, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Russell). While at his peak with the Lakers he was a force like none other in history, he came up short numerous times in his early years, and has since had a late career more like Hakeem and Ewing than like Kareem and Russell. He had the potential to be the true MDE but his lack of discipline, his laziness, and his refusal to pay as much attention to the defensive side as he should have, has just kept him out of reach of the first-level greats. I have him somewhere between 7-10, fighting it out with Oscar, Duncan and Hakeem. Not too shabby.


Every knock you had on Shaq applies to Wilt to an even greater degree. Shaq's output and accomplishments are more consistent than Wilt's. Wilt came up short a hell lot more often than Shaq too.

[Psileas]

Every knock you had on Shaq applies to Wilt to an even greater degree. Shaq's output and accomplishments are more consistent than Wilt's. Wilt came up short a hell lot more often than Shaq too.

What applies to Wilt even more? Lazyness? Refusal to check his defense? How were Shaq's accomplishments more consistent? Wilt was an MVP candidate from day 1 up to his last season, while being close to 37 years old. He made All-D teams up to the same age, as well. Shaq became 36 in 2008 and wasn't even close to matching this. Last season he was a valid MVP candidate was at the age of 33. Last season he made any All-D team was at 33, as well. You can't use the "Shaq didn't get much MVP love" argument, either, because neither did Wilt.

[AllenIverson3]

And most of that is attributable to Shaq's significantly better supporting cast...



Are you dense? Duncan is the one with better stats, go take a look for yourself, and he also has played most of his career through the slowest paced era in NBA history. This makes Duncan's stats all the more impressive in relation to D-Rob's. Do you even know the story behind the 71 points? It was a deliberate attempt to win a scoring title at the end of the season, and he was fed the ball the whole game. I don't think Duncan could score 71, but I'm sure that he could put in 60 if he had to, like most NBA greats. Robinson didn't show up in the playoffs nearly as much as Duncan has either, be it pulling down 25+ rebounds or blocking key shots, and Duncan's awards and honors are endless. 8 time All-Defensive 1st teamer, and it's an outrage that he didn't win DPOY in his prime. I could go on.




No, he's not.
yes he is

[ClutchCityReturns]

Not sure where I'd rank him overall, but I don't have him above Hakeem.

We all know Shaq is not one to admit that he's been outdone by an opponent, but this was his exact quote about the 1995 Finals against Hakeem...


"If I can't beat you, I'll be a man and say I can't beat you. I'm not going to [cry about it] ... I'm the first guy to say that somebody is better than me. I was the first guy to say Hakeem Olajuwon beat me in the [1995] NBA finals. He killed me. He dominated me. I didn't go, 'Oh, he's traveling. They had experience. Wah-wah-wah.' I'm a man. Hakeem Olajuwon dusted my butt."

Jordan also chose Hakeem over Shaq...


"If I had to pick a center, I would take Olajuwon. That leaves out Shaq, Patrick Ewing. It leaves out Wilt Chamberlain. It leaves out a lot of people. And the reason I would take Olajuwon is very simple: he is so versatile because of what he can give you from that position. It's not just his scoring, not just his rebounding or not just his blocked shots. People don't realize he was in the top seven in steals. He always made great decisions on the court. For all facets of the game, I have to give it to him."

So whose opinion should I value more? Jordan's, or people on this board that have never even played a game of HORSE with the players in question?

[Loki]

So whose opinion should I value more? Jordan's, or people on this board that have never even played a game of HORSE with the players in question?

Or - or - you could just form your own opinion based on watching them play.

Prime Hakeem did not have as much impact on games as prime Shaq, nor do his numbers, accolades, or team success stack up.

[RidonKs]

We all know Shaq is not one to admit that he's been outdone by an opponent, but this was his exact quote about the 1995 Finals against Hakeem was "He dusted my butt".
The Jordan quote is all fine and dandy, but this one doesn't really hold too much sway. Shaq was in his 3rd year at that point, going up against the 10-11 year veteran in Hakeem. Not really a completely fair comparison. And even then, Shaq more than held his own in that series stat-wise. I can't say I personally watched it, but he averaged 28/13/6/2.5 over the four games. Lots of TO's of course, but even then, I don't think you can call it a domination by Hakeem.

I also doubt young Shaq had anywhere near the ego he has at this point, so that might have a wee bit to do with the quote as well.

[ClutchCityReturns]

Or - or - you could just form your own opinion based on watching them play.

Prime Hakeem did not have as much impact on games as prime Shaq, nor do his numbers, accolades, or team success stack up.

Or - or - you could realize that my personal opinion, having been a Rockets fan all my life and watching Hakeem's career in person, is a factor in the post that I made. As for the opinions of strangers on a message board? Not so much.

And I disagree that Hakeem's impact on the game wasn't up to par with Shaq. Just because Hakeem wasn't 300lbs+ and every highlight we ever see of him isn't a dunk or a 2ft hook shot, doesn't mean he didn't dominate just the same, and on both ends for that matter. Plus Hakeem was never a liablility at the end of a game because of his inability to hit a damn free throw. And I don't buy the fact that Shaq couldn't shoot them because his hands were too big. Otis Thorpe had the biggest hands I've ever seen on a player, and he shot a decent % for a big man.

Also, Shaq never won a single championship without a star SG next to him, and in fact he got carried to one of his championships by that player. Hakeem won a ring when the second best player on his team was who? Otis Thorpe? Robert Horry?

And don't even bring accolades into the conversation without considering the eras that these guys played in. It's been said a million times, so you should know, Hakeem played (and bested) prime Ewing, prime Robinson, prime Mourning, and prime Mutombo among others. Shaq caught these players at the end of their careers and by the time he had peaked, who was left to face? Who was going to be a threat to All-Star appearances, NBA First Team selections, or the title of "Best Center In The Game?". He got hyped up because every center in the league either sucked, or converted to PF (a revolution of the position that was started by Hakeem Olajuwon). By the time someone came into the league to challenge him (Yao) Shaq was so deified that even when Yao outplayed him people still couldn't admit that he had been surpassed.

Don't get me wrong. Shaq is an amazing force in NBA history and is definitely one of the best to ever play the game, but he can be that without being better than Hakeem Olajuwon.

[ClutchCityReturns]

The Jordan quote is all fine and dandy, but this one doesn't really hold too much sway. Shaq was in his 3rd year at that point, going up against the 10-11 year veteran in Hakeem. Not really a completely fair comparison. And even then, Shaq more than held his own in that series stat-wise. I can't say I personally watched it, but he averaged 28/13/6/2.5 over the four games. Lots of TO's of course, but even then, I don't think you can call it a domination by Hakeem.

I also doubt young Shaq had anywhere near the ego he has at this point, so that might have a wee bit to do with the quote as well.

So what if I had only posted the Jordan quote?

[Loki]

My comment about forming your own opinion based on observation was not directed at you (since I'm sure you saw both Hakeem and Shaq), but at the general line of thinking that goes "look, player/coach X said this, so it must be true, because how can you know more than them!?" That's an appeal to authority, and it's specious. I didn't say your personal opinion was fully informed by such statements, only that it's faulty reasoning to try to point to statements made by others as evidence of anything.

[RidonKs]

So what if I had only posted the Jordan quote?
Then ISH would've lost out on the pleasure of watching me completely own and embarrass you.

:D

[plowking]

Not sure where I'd rank him overall, but I don't have him above Hakeem.

We all know Shaq is not one to admit that he's been outdone by an opponent, but this was his exact quote about the 1995 Finals against Hakeem...



Jordan also chose Hakeem over Shaq...



So whose opinion should I value more? Jordan's, or people on this board that have never even played a game of HORSE with the players in question?

Yer, Shaq said that after Hakeem beat him. Ask him now after 4 championships, I doubt he'll be saying Hakeem is better. :roll:

And I'm guessing that Jordan quote was before Shaq won any of his titles.

[DCL]

if you take a dirt bag garbage team with no help and put any single player from the list on it, are there more than 5 players who would produce more impact on that team than prime shaq?

i say no.

[plowking]

if you take a dirt bag garbage team with no help and put any single player from the list on it, are there more than 5 players who would produce more impact on that team than prime shaq?

i say no.

But, but, but... Oscar will average a triple double though. :bowdown:


:hammerhead:

[2LeTTeRS]

Personally yes I do rank Shaq top 5, yes i do. Call me crazy for underrating KAJ, but I just don't see him as the dominant force Shaq was, he just benefited from having unreal longevity. At his peak he was great, but he didn't really win much until Magic joined him in LA.

I only take MJ, Wilt, Bird and Magic over Shaq.


Or - or - you could just form your own opinion based on watching them play.

Prime Hakeem did not have as much impact on games as prime Shaq, nor do his numbers, accolades, or team success stack up.

I disagree. Prime Hakeem was as dominant as Prime Shaq. Hakeem just wasnt at his prime level, especially offensively, for very long. Defensively he can be argued as the best ever though and for as dominant as Shaq is/was you can't say that about him. I'd take Shaq over Hakeem because of sustained offensive dominance but I think Hakeem gets underrated in all time ranking threads.

[hito da god]

shaq's my favorite player of all time, i'm gonna be extremely upset the day he retires. i can't imagine the NBA without shaq. but one thing that always bothered me about shaq is the 'what could have been'... imagine shaq with an MJ or kobe work ethic? good god, we would have seen the most dominant athlete of all time, bar none

[Niquesports]

shaq's my favorite player of all time, i'm gonna be extremely upset the day he retires. i can't imagine the NBA without shaq. but one thing that always bothered me about shaq is the 'what could have been'... imagine shaq with an MJ or kobe work ethic? good god, we would have seen the most dominant athlete of all time, bar none

" What if" Muggys Bouges was 6'6 he would be the GOAT

[Niquesports]

Personally yes I do rank Shaq top 5, yes i do. Call me crazy for underrating KAJ, but I just don't see him as the dominant force Shaq was, he just benefited from having unreal longevity. At his peak he was great, but he didn't really win much until Magic joined him in LA.
ITs sad when people dont know the history of the game Shaqs is a mini me to Jabbar
I only take MJ, Wilt, Bird and Magic over Shaq.
So Russ leadership in winning 11 titles makes him a bum huh

I disagree. Prime Hakeem was as dominant as Prime Shaq. Hakeem just wasnt at his prime level, especially offensively, for very long. Defensively he can be argued as the best ever though and for as dominant as Shaq is/was you can't say that about him. I'd take Shaq over Hakeem because of sustained offensive dominance but I think Hakeem gets underrated in all time ranking threads.

ITs too hard to say Shaq pass any player that was already a top 5 player the best way to do it is just add to the list Top 10 top 15 top 20 as years go by. By 2020 MJ will get bump off the top 5 list by some little 3rd grader today

[plowking]

" What if" Muggys Bouges was 6'6 he would be the GOAT

You kidding?

[symbol33]

I think the most compelling argument you can make for him being top 5 is that in his prime, he was surpassed by no one and matched only by MJ, Kareem and Wilt. He's arguably the best finals performer ever as well.

To me, he is top 6 for sure, with Kareem, MJ, Wilt, Magic and Bird.

to me, 11 & 4 titles are a huge difference, Shaq had more chance to get the title, like 2004, but he did not success, you should not forgot that his first three titles in LA were based on weak Pacer, and Nets for twice. and lost to Piston.

so, Russ is before shaq.

[Waking_Life]

At his best Shaq was unstoppable, unfortunately, the big man domination of the type he had in 2001 is unique, because a man of that size and mobility cannot withstand the dominance for long...


But in the end Shaq for his whole career, should be tauted as top five for sure.

[symbol33]

Horry has 7 titles, one more than Jordan...

that's the point.

Bird got 3, but competed to strong LA, what does Shaq done? only Portland in WCF made them into trouble, and that's Kobe standed out and saved LA, not Shaq.

[DCL]

Bird got 3, but competed to strong LA, what does Shaq done? only Portland in WCF made them into trouble, and that's Kobe standed out and saved LA, not Shaq.

is english your 4th language? there has to be a reason.

[symbol33]

No... because Tim's achievements are signficantly more than David's, and David did not actually have much more skill than Tim. Oscar, however, had much more skill than Shaq. He was a complete offensive threat, close to the level of MJ. Shaq has achieved more, but not significantly more than Oscar. You can't overlook the fact that Oscar played on teams with relatively little help for most of his career. Shaq has always had that second fiddle.

imo, TD is absolutely nothing without DR, and if without DR, he could not get the title in 1999 (that shrink season) and NY only had rookie Camby to struggle the other two big guys. not consider 1999, TD did not get any back to back title, with johnson, elit, gino and parker, thinking that he seldom encouraged his teammates at the emergency moment but DR do that. TD was absolutely not a good leader but DR did, so that's Robinson > Tim D

[EricForman]

imo, TD is absolutely nothing without DR,


Yes. What has Duncan done since DRob retired in 2003? Dude basically disappeared off the face of the earth since then. :rolleyes:

[AItheAnswer3]

imo, TD is absolutely nothing without DR, and if without DR, he could not get the title in 1999 (that shrink season) and NY only had rookie Camby to struggle the other two big guys. not consider 1999, TD did not get any back to back title, with johnson, elit, gino and parker, thinking that he seldom encouraged his teammates at the emergency moment but DR do that. TD was absolutely not a good leader but DR did, so that's Robinson > Tim D

Wonder how he got the ring in 03 when DRob was absolutely washed up and averaging 9 points and 8 boards a game. That was basically a 1 man team

[Vendetta]

"Top 5 ever" begs a discussion regarding careers.

I'm not so sure if he's top 5, on that note.

But as far as actual peak for a season or two? There isn't a single player in league history I'd take over prime Shaq. Not one.

[ronnymac]

imo, TD is absolutely nothing without DR, and if without DR, he could not get the title in 1999 (that shrink season) and NY only had rookie Camby to struggle the other two big guys. not consider 1999, TD did not get any back to back title, with johnson, elit, gino and parker, thinking that he seldom encouraged his teammates at the emergency moment but DR do that. TD was absolutely not a good leader but DR did, so that's Robinson > Tim D
That has to be one of the dumbest thing i've ever read. duncan without Robinson has won a ring, won the MVP, defensive player of the year and he is one of the best players at making his teammates look great. there is no better two way big man in the nba then timmy right now.

[symbol33]

is english your 4th language? there has to be a reason.

yes, english is actually my 4th language. there may be some error in my spelling, but i do think that you know what i am talking about.

[plowking]

that's the point.

Bird got 3, but competed to strong LA, what does Shaq done? only Portland in WCF made them into trouble, and that's Kobe standed out and saved LA, not Shaq.

Yes, because Kobe would have been in that position without Shaq right?
1 game saved by Kobe, does not equal anywhere near the copious amount of games Shaq has brought L.A. back.

[RAPSCANWIN]

imo, TD is absolutely nothing without DR, and if without DR, he could not get the title in 1999 (that shrink season) and NY only had rookie Camby to struggle the other two big guys. not consider 1999, TD did not get any back to back title, with johnson, elit, gino and parker, thinking that he seldom encouraged his teammates at the emergency moment but DR do that. TD was absolutely not a good leader but DR did, so that's Robinson > Tim D

Camby wasn't a rookie, He went to the Knicks in his third season from Toronto.

On Shaq.... He has the awards and credentials to be considered a top 5 all time, but its very argueable....

Perhaps he is the most dominant player all time...but top 5 best is argueable. however if Shaq had played in the 70s or 80s, when i dont believe the players were as athletic as nowadays, then his stats would be even better.

[gpfanz]

yeah why not? :banghead:

[AllenIverson3]

Yes. What has Duncan done since DRob retired in 2003? Dude basically disappeared off the face of the earth since then. :rolleyes:

2 ****ing championships dumb****! thats wut he's done!

[Showtime]

In my opinion, there's more to being top 5 then just achievements. For me, the fact that Shaq took regular season games off because he wasn't dedicated is a big negative. I also think he is very limited as a player. He was never an elite post defender, despite his size and athleticism. He was limited offensively because he was only effective inside 8-10 feet. His offense consisted of establishing position, then making a strong move to the hoop. If he got in foul trouble, he could be rendered ineffective in a game. If the hack-a-shaq was implemented, the majority of the time he could be held in check. To me, these are big issues I have with putting him in top 5.

Also, if he's a top 5 player because of his effectiveness, then why hasn't he been a 20/10 player the past few years? He's been in good shape recently (aside from some injuries), and this year he's in great shape. He quit in Miami because he wasn't winning. He wasn't winning because he can't carry a team anymore if other guys get injured. Why is such a potent, top 5 force, so ineffective right now? Because he's not that good of a player. He was just abusing inferior opponents in his prime with brute force.

[rawimpact]

Michael Jordan
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Tim Duncan


Prime Duncan is no where near shaq's prime

and it's stupid to compare players like this, it should be by position...

[rawimpact]

In my opinion, there's more to being top 5 then just achievements. For me, the fact that Shaq took regular season games off because he wasn't dedicated is a big negative. I also think he is very limited as a player. He was never an elite post defender, despite his size and athleticism. He was limited offensively because he was only effective inside 8-10 feet. His offense consisted of establishing position, then making a strong move to the hoop. If he got in foul trouble, he could be rendered ineffective in a game. If the hack-a-shaq was implemented, the majority of the time he could be held in check. To me, these are big issues I have with putting him in top 5.

Also, if he's a top 5 player because of his effectiveness, then why hasn't he been a 20/10 player the past few years? He's been in good shape recently (aside from some injuries), and this year he's in great shape. He quit in Miami because he wasn't winning. He wasn't winning because he can't carry a team anymore if other guys get injured. Why is such a potent, top 5 force, so ineffective right now? Because he's not that good of a player. He was just abusing inferior opponents in his prime with brute force.

Did shaq hurt you?

i remember when mutumbo came in here crying...

[big baller]

2 ****ing championships dumb****! thats wut he's done!

ya.......forman, i acually think U dissapered, cuz duncan has been balling ever since d rob retired.....altho i hate d rob's and duncan's guts..

[Showtime]

Did shaq hurt you?

i remember when mutumbo came in here crying...
No, just putting my opinion on Shaq out there. He's one of the best at his position because of his achievements and production, but I feel there's more to it than that in regards to being in the highest spots.

[KINGK]

I take Shaq in his prime over evey single player in history including Jordan/KAJ/Wilt etc. Dude was literally unstopable.:bowdown:

[plowking]

In my opinion, there's more to being top 5 then just achievements. For me, the fact that Shaq took regular season games off because he wasn't dedicated is a big negative. I also think he is very limited as a player. He was never an elite post defender, despite his size and athleticism. He was limited offensively because he was only effective inside 8-10 feet. His offense consisted of establishing position, then making a strong move to the hoop. If he got in foul trouble, he could be rendered ineffective in a game. If the hack-a-shaq was implemented, the majority of the time he could be held in check. To me, these are big issues I have with putting him in top 5.

Also, if he's a top 5 player because of his effectiveness, then why hasn't he been a 20/10 player the past few years? He's been in good shape recently (aside from some injuries), and this year he's in great shape. He quit in Miami because he wasn't winning. He wasn't winning because he can't carry a team anymore if other guys get injured. Why is such a potent, top 5 force, so ineffective right now? Because he's not that good of a player. He was just abusing inferior opponents in his prime with brute force.

See thats what I don't get.

People complain about how he got his points. Brute strength, so what? Lebron gets a large number of points like that and no one complains.

Also you say he is ineffective now? He is one of the most efficient players when he is on the court. He is very productive in the 25 minutes he spends on court. You expect him to be scoring 20 and 10 now at his age? What were Wilt and Kareem averaging at this age?
His effectiveness spans to over 14 years of getting at least 20 and 10 each season. Furthermore the greatest finals numbers ever seen.

Implement the hack a Shaq the majority of the time? He is still doing his job, either way, getting other players in foul trouble and the team over the limit. This is the exact reason why Wade got soo many foul shots in the finals against Dallas. They kept fouling him and Wade dropped 40 a night.

Furthermore, he still averaged what, 14 and 8 last year. That is good enough for something like 3rd or 4th best center in the NBA.

[plowking]

In my opinion, there's more to being top 5 then just achievements. For me, the fact that Shaq took regular season games off because he wasn't dedicated is a big negative. I also think he is very limited as a player. He was never an elite post defender, despite his size and athleticism. He was limited offensively because he was only effective inside 8-10 feet. His offense consisted of establishing position, then making a strong move to the hoop. If he got in foul trouble, he could be rendered ineffective in a game. If the hack-a-shaq was implemented, the majority of the time he could be held in check. To me, these are big issues I have with putting him in top 5.

Also, if he's a top 5 player because of his effectiveness, then why hasn't he been a 20/10 player the past few years? He's been in good shape recently (aside from some injuries), and this year he's in great shape. He quit in Miami because he wasn't winning. He wasn't winning because he can't carry a team anymore if other guys get injured. Why is such a potent, top 5 force, so ineffective right now? Because he's not that good of a player. He was just abusing inferior opponents in his prime with brute force.

You act like Shaq was completely ineffective on defense. He is the sole reason a lot of teams took jumpshots instead of driving inside looking for a layup. Those who did drive, were forced to change shots mid air. He is one of the most underrated defenders, he was a force inside.

Furthermore Shaq has achievments over some of the players most people consider in the top 5. I think after Shaq retires he will finally get the respect he deserves.

[Da_Realist]

He has a case. He's generally considered top 4-9 among most fans. Too dominant 2000-02 Finals. I usually put him somewhere in #7, a position that would be higher if
1) he wasn't getting injured as much as he did (for a season, I'll take a guy who plays 80 games and is 90% as good as Shaq instead of a 55-60 game Shaq)
2) he had the defensive impact of a guy like Hakeem
3) he won his titles against stronger individual competition.

This mirrors my thoughts exactly.

Psileas, who is in your top 5?

[plowking]

This mirrors my thoughts exactly.

Psileas, who is in your top 5?

1. He only had 3 seasons at LA and Orlando where he played less then 60 games.

2. Half the players in the league were too scared to drive on Shaq, how is the for defensive presence?

3. That is beyond a stupid argument Psileas and you know it. I could say Wilt was only able to win one championship and none in the era where individual competition was at its worst (Wilt in his prime).

[Da_Realist]

Not sure where I'd rank him overall, but I don't have him above Hakeem.

We all know Shaq is not one to admit that he's been outdone by an opponent, but this was his exact quote about the 1995 Finals against Hakeem...



Jordan also chose Hakeem over Shaq... ["If I had to pick a center, I would take Olajuwon. That leaves out Shaq, Patrick Ewing. It leaves out Wilt Chamberlain. It leaves out a lot of people. And the reason I would take Olajuwon is very simple: he is so versatile because of what he can give you from that position. It's not just his scoring, not just his rebounding or not just his blocked shots. People don't realize he was in the top seven in steals. He always made great decisions on the court. For all facets of the game, I have to give it to him."]



So whose opinion should I value more? Jordan's, or people on this board that have never even played a game of HORSE with the players in question?

Thanks for the MJ quote. I actually feel the same way for the same reasons. I value the versatility that Hakeem brought to the game on both ends of the court. I would choose Hakeem over Shaq too. Hakeem was like a 7"0' Michael Jordan. He filled the stat line every night and his creativity was unmatched by anyone outside of MJ. He was an incredible player.

I could watch Hakeem play basketball all day long.

[Sir Charles]

He is the Greatest Offensively Center Ever but other than that there have been better Passing Centers, Better Shooting Centers (Mid Range or FT), Better Defensive Centers and Better Rebounding Centers etc

What is this Top 5? Counting MVPs? Titles? :rolleyes: Thats nonsense Shaq should have gotten 3 MVPs in his Career just as Barkley should have gotten 2, Stockton 1 (Malone not hardly 1), Payton 1 etc would that would have but him higher in your All-Time Lists? He is The Greatest Offensive Center Ever and He is a Top 3-4 All Time Greatest Center Regarding MVPs, Titles, Lack of Professionalism? :rolleyes: or whatever nonsense awards the NBA gives out.

[AItheAnswer3]

[: Thats nonsense Shaq should have gotten 3 MVPs in his Career just as Barkley should have gotten 2, Stockton 1 (Malone not hardly 1), Payton 1out.[/B]
Fact is that they didnt. Now deal with it.

[Sir Charles]

Jerry West - Please. OMG, hes on the NBA logo, who gives a damn?
Oscar Robertson - Stats. What else has he got? You can't rate him better because of one triple double season he's had. What else does he have over Shaq? MVP's? Championships? Finals MVP's?
Bill Russell- You have to play both sides of the floor to be considered truely great.
Larry Bird - Sure Larry impacted the game more then Shaq, but does he have more accomplishments? No.
Wilt - Have you seen him play? No, you've heard about his stats and simply agree with everyone to sound knowledgeable. If he was as dominant as people claim, he would have won more championships, and he would have won them when he was in his prime, not run down and playing with stars.

No Larry Bird did not impact the game more:no: :rolleyes: . Larry Bird was more skilled that is why he is in the top 10 EFF but if you take into account PER which meassure skills fitted into yield per minutes (which obviously takes into account physical attributes-athleticism-stamina etc which Bird did not have much to impact) then how can he have more impact than Bird?

Shaq had more Impact than Bird and was way more of a Preocupation Singley

Bird had more Skills than Shaq so he could could make others Better through Skills, Court Awareness, Rigth Desicions, Passing Game etc

[juju151111]

Yer, Shaq said that after Hakeem beat him. Ask him now after 4 championships, I doubt he'll be saying Hakeem is better. :roll:

And I'm guessing that Jordan quote was before Shaq won any of his titles.
LOL Shaq was asked of his all-time team and he put Hakeem in it.Hakeem is the only Center shaq doesn't bad mounth.He evn bad mounths kareem, but he no the deal with The dream.He can't keep up with him.

[Psileas]

This mirrors my thoughts exactly.

Psileas, who is in your top 5?

Wilt-Jordan-Kareem-Russell-Magic, followed by Bird, Shaq, Oscar.


1. He only had 3 seasons at LA and Orlando where he played less then 60 games.

This still makes him the most injury-prone among all players (in their prime, since you only included Orlando-Lakers Shaq) that I rank so high. Even Bird, with all his back issues, rarely missed games in his prime (27 in his first 9 years, to be exact). Magic Johnson, also a player who faced a few injuries here and there, once missed 45 games, but, apart from this, played in 92.8% of his games. Young and prime Shaq played in 85% of his available games. The only player whom I rank even close to Shaq and was as injury-prone is Jerry West, and I rank him below Shaq.


2. Half the players in the league were too scared to drive on Shaq, how is the for defensive presence?

That's the case with big intimidating centers and Shaq was a great intimidator, but that doesn't mean he was a great individual defender. At least, not in the ranks of Hakeem/Mutombo/Robinson/Ben Wallace, just to include the best defenders of his own era.


3. That is beyond a stupid argument Psileas and you know it. I could say Wilt was only able to win one championship and none in the era where individual competition was at its worst (Wilt in his prime).

If you said so,

1) you'd be lying, because Wilt won 2 championships, not 1.
2) with competition at its worst, Wilt still had to face Russell (and the Celtics) for like 15% of his regular season games and for more than 50% of his playoff games year after year, Clyde Lovelette for plenty of games and, by his 3rd year, Walt Bellamy. You can't compare this to facing Ben Wallace and past-prime Robinson as your best competitors (EDIT: yes, I know Robinson had Duncan next to him, but I didn't include him due to the position matter, and even if I did, I'd have to do the same with Lovelette and include Bob Pettit to Wilt's competition, as well).
Actually, regardless of competition, whenever Wilt lost the title, it was always against the eventual champions (except once).
3) Wilt was still in his prime when he won his first title.

[Godfather]

I want to know people's opinion on this because a lot of people overlook Shaq and simply think he is a good basketball player due to his size. I mean the guy has:

4 championships
Named ROY (Rookie of Year) (1993)
Named All-NBA First Rookie Team (1993)
Named MVP (Most Valuable Player) NBA Regular Season (2000)
Named All-NBA First Team (1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)
Named All-NBA Second Team (1995, 1999)
Named All-NBA Third Team (1994, 1996, 1997)
Named MVP (Most Valuable Player) NBA Finals (2000, 2001, 2002)
Named All-NBA Second Defensive Team (2000, 2001, 2003)
Named IBM Award (2000, 2001)
Named NBA Top Scorer (1995, 2000)
Named NBA Best Field Goal Percentage (1994, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006)
2 times MVP NBA All-Star (2000, 2004)
Selected 14 times for the NBA All-Star game
3 of the greatest finals performances ever
25.2ppg, 11.5rpg, 2.7apg, 2.5bpg and 58% fg in the regular season.

I think we all need to recognize he is a top 3 most dominant player with Wilt and Jordan.

[juju151111]

Wilt-Jordan-Kareem-Russell-Magic, followed by Bird, Shaq, Oscar.



This still makes him the most injury-prone among all players (in their prime, since you only included Orlando-Lakers Shaq) that I rank so high. Even Bird, with all his back issues, rarely missed games in his prime (27 in his first 9 years, to be exact). Magic Johnson, also a player who faced a few injuries here and there, once missed 45 games, but, apart from this, played in 92.8% of his games. Young and prime Shaq played in 85% of his available games. The only player whom I rank even close to Shaq and was as injury-prone is Jerry West, and I rank him below Shaq.



That's the case with big intimidating centers and Shaq was a great intimidator, but that doesn't mean he was a great individual defender. At least, not in the ranks of Hakeem/Mutombo/Robinson/Ben Wallace, just to include the best defenders of his own era.



If you said so,

1) you'd be lying, because Wilt won 2 championships, not 1.
2) with competition at its worst, Wilt still had to face Russell (and the Celtics) for like 15% of his regular season games and for more than 50% of his playoff games year after year, Clyde Lovelette for plenty of games and, by his 3rd year, Walt Bellamy. You can't compare this to facing Ben Wallace and past-prime Robinson as your best competitors (EDIT: yes, I know Robinson had Duncan next to him, but I didn't include him due to the position matter, and even if I did, I'd have to do the same with Lovelette and include Bob Pettit to Wilt's competition, as well).
Actually, regardless of competition, whenever Wilt lost the title, it was always against the eventual champions (except once).
3) Wilt was still in his prime when he won his first title.
Who says shaq was a bad defender??He just can't guard the pick and roll that good.

[Nash-tastic]

Wilt is overrated, in his 100-point game, there was nobody above 6'8"

[Showtime]

See thats what I don't get.

People complain about how he got his points. Brute strength, so what? Lebron gets a large number of points like that and no one complains.

I'm not complaining, just listing why I don't feel he's a top 5 player of all time. Do you think Lebron is top 5 all time?


Also you say he is ineffective now? He is one of the most efficient players when he is on the court. He is very productive in the 25 minutes he spends on court. You expect him to be scoring 20 and 10 now at his age? What were Wilt and Kareem averaging at this age?

Yeah, he's efficient with his 14/9 a game. I'm talking about if he's such a great player, then why isn't he more effective when he's in great shape now? Why can't he do more for a team?

KAJ, at 35, was putting up 22/8/3/2 on .588 FG%

Shaq at 35, last year total, put up 14/9/2/1 on .593 FG%

I don't expect Shaq to put up 33/15 ever night, but if he really is as good as people think he is, and better than KAJ, then why, when he's in good shape, can't he be more effective? With that being said, his current production isn't my only point.


His effectiveness spans to over 14 years of getting at least 20 and 10 each season. Furthermore the greatest finals numbers ever seen.

In my mind, it's not enough to be top 5 all time, because it still doesn't make up for his own ego getting in the way of fulfilling his potential.


Implement the hack a Shaq the majority of the time? He is still doing his job, either way, getting other players in foul trouble and the team over the limit. This is the exact reason why Wade got soo many foul shots in the finals against Dallas. They kept fouling him and Wade dropped 40 a night.

I didn't say he's useless, only that for a top 5 player of all time, he should be more productive and have more impact on his team.


Furthermore, he still averaged what, 14 and 8 last year. That is good enough for something like 3rd or 4th best center in the NBA.

14/8 is 3rd best center? Hell, Brad Miller put up 13/10/4 last year and was the west's best shooting center. Does that mean Miller is a top 5 center?


You act like Shaq was completely ineffective on defense.

That's not what I said. I said he was never the league's elite post defender despite his unmatched size and athleticism.


He is the sole reason a lot of teams took jumpshots instead of driving inside looking for a layup. Those who did drive, were forced to change shots mid air. He is one of the most underrated defenders, he was a force inside.

He wasn't a great individual defender, and his post defense that you describe is mainly on reputation, because perimeter players knew that if they attacked Shaq, they were probably going to get hammered by the 350+lb monster. Shaq was, again, never the elite post defender in the league. That doesn't mean he couldn't change shots or impact the post.


Furthermore Shaq has achievments over some of the players most people consider in the top 5. I think after Shaq retires he will finally get the respect he deserves.

So you feel that there are, at most, only 4 players that have ever lived that could be considered better?

[Psileas]

Wilt is overrated, in his 100-point game, there was nobody above 6'8"

Wrong (as if you even searched), Darrall Imhoff was 6'10 and Cleveland Buckner was 6'9.
And if you're trying to judge a Wilt from one game, you'd better leave it.

[Grinder]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3. Larry Bird/Magic Johnson
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Wilt Chamberlin

[BIZARRO]

Jerry West - Please. OMG, hes on the NBA logo, who gives a damn?
Oscar Robertson - Stats. What else has he got? You can't rate him better because of one triple double season he's had. What else does he have over Shaq? MVP's? Championships? Finals MVP's?
Bill Russell- You have to play both sides of the floor to be considered truely great.
Larry Bird - Sure Larry impacted the game more then Shaq, but does he have more accomplishments? No.Wilt - Have you seen him play? No, you've heard about his stats and simply agree with everyone to sound knowledgeable. If he was as dominant as people claim, he would have won more championships, and he would have won them when he was in his prime, not run down and playing with stars.


This is the second time in the thread where you have brought this point of "accomplishments" up between Bird and Shaq and I've got to call you on it. Which I would assume to mean championships as Bird has 3 MVP's to Shaq's 1. (Though Shaq has 3 Finals MVP's to Bird's 2.)

But the "accomplishments" meaning "championships" argument when comparing Shaq and Bird is absolute B.S. because Bird played in an an absolutely killer era where EVERY championship team was an all time great team.

3 titles in an era with the early '80's Sixers, Bad Boy Pistons, Showtime Lakers is = or > than 4 against an era with NBA Finals teams like 2000 Pacers, 2001 Sixers, and 2002 Nets and 2006 Mavericks making the Finals.

So Bird's accomplishments match up just fine, while playing fewer seasons.


P.S. I won't go into the fact that you actually said Bill Russell isn't truly great.
You may not think he is top 5 ever and that is fine.
But the guy doesn't have enough fingers for his rings, MEANING 11 , on a team he was the best player on. Please don't insult him by saying he isn't truly great. Especially considering you never saw him play.

Or Wilt and Oscar for that matter.

[plowking]

This is the second time in the thread where you have brought this point of "accomplishments" up between Bird and Shaq and I've got to call you on it. Which I would assume to mean championships as Bird has 3 MVP's to Shaq's 1. (Though Shaq has 3 Finals MVP's to Bird's 2.)

But the "accomplishments" meaning "championships" argument when comparing Shaq and Bird is absolute B.S. because Bird played in an an absolutely killer era where EVERY championship team was an all time great team.

3 titles in an era with the early '80's Sixers, Bad Boy Pistons, Showtime Lakers is = or > than 4 against an era with NBA Finals teams like 2000 Pacers, 2001 Sixers, and 2002 Nets and 2006 Mavericks making the Finals.

So Bird's accomplishments match up just fine, while playing fewer seasons.


P.S. I won't go into the fact that you actually said Bill Russell isn't truly great.
You may not think he is top 5 ever and that is fine.
But the guy doesn't have enough fingers for his rings, MEANING 11 , on a team he was the best player on. Please don't insult him by saying he isn't truly great. Especially considering you never saw him play.

Or Wilt and Oscar for that matter.

I've watched enough of Bill Russel. He is in my top 10, though not top 5.

Furthermore stop bringing up the era in which Bird played in. I can bring up Wilts era and say it was utter trash bar a few great players.

[plowking]

I'm not complaining, just listing why I don't feel he's a top 5 player of all time. Do you think Lebron is top 5 all time?



Yeah, he's efficient with his 14/9 a game. I'm talking about if he's such a great player, then why isn't he more effective when he's in great shape now? Why can't he do more for a team?

KAJ, at 35, was putting up 22/8/3/2 on .588 FG%

Shaq at 35, last year total, put up 14/9/2/1 on .593 FG%

I don't expect Shaq to put up 33/15 ever night, but if he really is as good as people think he is, and better than KAJ, then why, when he's in good shape, can't he be more effective? With that being said, his current production isn't my only point.



In my mind, it's not enough to be top 5 all time, because it still doesn't make up for his own ego getting in the way of fulfilling his potential.



I didn't say he's useless, only that for a top 5 player of all time, he should be more productive and have more impact on his team.



14/8 is 3rd best center? Hell, Brad Miller put up 13/10/4 last year and was the west's best shooting center. Does that mean Miller is a top 5 center?



That's not what I said. I said he was never the league's elite post defender despite his unmatched size and athleticism.



He wasn't a great individual defender, and his post defense that you describe is mainly on reputation, because perimeter players knew that if they attacked Shaq, they were probably going to get hammered by the 350+lb monster. Shaq was, again, never the elite post defender in the league. That doesn't mean he couldn't change shots or impact the post.



So you feel that there are, at most, only 4 players that have ever lived that could be considered better?

I'm not saying Lebron is top 5 ever. Are you dense? I said Lebron scores in a similar fashion to Shaq. Brute strength. So I guess Lebron isn't top 5 in the league due to not being as skilled as the other players and not being a great freethrow shooter.

You can be in good shape at 35, though its not the same as in good shape and 25. Shaq still shots 60% from the field. What more do you want him to do? He is 35 and a lot heavier.

So 14 seasons of 20 and 10 is not enough to put you in the top 5. A decade and a half of dominance and always being in the elite group of players and at times the greatest player. Well then, do you consider Wilt better then Shaq? If you do, you are a hypocrite as Wilt had the same longevity as Shaq pretty much.

KAJ was only a double double man for 12 seasons. Less then Shaq and Wilt.
Furthermore all 3 centers have very similar stats over 36 minutes with Shaq being the best scorer and really not too far off on the defensive end with Kareem only averaging .2 blocks more.

Are you saying that Brad Miller impacts the game as much as Shaq?

That's exactly what a good defender is. One that alters shots and movements. Shaq did that. Shaq played lazy D, though it was still good defense and he often led great centers to shoot poor numbers when playing against him.

[plowking]

LOL Shaq was asked of his all-time team and he put Hakeem in it.Hakeem is the only Center shaq doesn't bad mounth.He evn bad mounths kareem, but he no the deal with The dream.He can't keep up with him.

He also put Barkley on their ahead of Bird.

I guess Barkley>Bird now?

Also Hakeem> KAJ and Wilt.

[BIZARRO]

I've watched enough of Bill Russel. He is in my top 10, though not top 5.

Furthermore stop bringing up the era in which Bird played in. I can bring up Wilts era and say it was utter trash bar a few great players.


And top 10 of all time doesn't make Russell
"truly great"? :confusedshrug:

Secondly, my point about Bird's era is absolutely pertinent. It is harder to go through Doctor, Moses, The Bad Boys, Showtime, etc. than Dirk Nowitzki. :pimp:

[plowking]

Wilt-Jordan-Kareem-Russell-Magic, followed by Bird, Shaq, Oscar.



This still makes him the most injury-prone among all players (in their prime, since you only included Orlando-Lakers Shaq) that I rank so high. Even Bird, with all his back issues, rarely missed games in his prime (27 in his first 9 years, to be exact). Magic Johnson, also a player who faced a few injuries here and there, once missed 45 games, but, apart from this, played in 92.8% of his games. Young and prime Shaq played in 85% of his available games. The only player whom I rank even close to Shaq and was as injury-prone is Jerry West, and I rank him below Shaq.



That's the case with big intimidating centers and Shaq was a great intimidator, but that doesn't mean he was a great individual defender. At least, not in the ranks of Hakeem/Mutombo/Robinson/Ben Wallace, just to include the best defenders of his own era.



If you said so,

1) you'd be lying, because Wilt won 2 championships, not 1.
2) with competition at its worst, Wilt still had to face Russell (and the Celtics) for like 15% of his regular season games and for more than 50% of his playoff games year after year, Clyde Lovelette for plenty of games and, by his 3rd year, Walt Bellamy. You can't compare this to facing Ben Wallace and past-prime Robinson as your best competitors (EDIT: yes, I know Robinson had Duncan next to him, but I didn't include him due to the position matter, and even if I did, I'd have to do the same with Lovelette and include Bob Pettit to Wilt's competition, as well).
Actually, regardless of competition, whenever Wilt lost the title, it was always against the eventual champions (except once).
3) Wilt was still in his prime when he won his first title.

From watching Shaq over his career and his 2.5 blocks over his career tells me that he is a decent, above average defender.


Also you know what I meant about the Wilt thing. I meant win one championship as the main guy, which is all he has. The other one he was not the best player.

You are not dominant if you can't win titles and Wilt couldn't win unless he was on the best team (you said it yourself in another thread).

The fact that you put Wilt over Jordan is an outrage. How so? Jordan has better number, more accomplishments, was a better defender.

Also don't bring up all these names from the 60's and 70's saying they were better then the centers Shaq had to face simply because they are in the hall of fame. A lot of them are there simply for paving the way for basketball. The only center that was better then the competition Shaq had to face was Russel.

I mean centers such as Unseld are considered great from that period of time.

[plowking]

And top 10 of all time doesn't make Russell
"truly great"? :confusedshrug:

Secondly, my point about Bird's era is absolutely pertinent. It is harder to go through Doctor, Moses, The Bad Boys, Showtime, etc. than Dirk Nowitzki. :pimp:

Who did Wilt have to beat in the NBA finals? An injured Willis Reed?

Well MJ didn't have to face the same sort of competition as Bird either.

[BIZARRO]

Who did Wilt have to beat in the NBA finals? An injured Willis Reed?

Well MJ didn't have to face the same sort of competition as Bird either.


Wilt had to beat the greatest dynasty in NBA History almost every year.

And you're right MJ didn't face the same sort of competition as Bird either, but he has 6 titles as the 1st option. Whereas Bird and Shaq both have 3.


In truth, I don't measure players just by the "championships" or "MVP's", I do it just by watching them play, and then coming to a conclusion.
You may be right. Shaq at his best may have been better than Bird. Maybe.

But it isn't because of the Miami championship, etc. Or Bird isn't better because of his 3 MVP's. All this helps, but is secondary. It is because one was better by opinion from just watching them over a lot of time. It is only arguable as well if one has seen both play.

However, I would like to point out that it is almost impossible to get a clear truthful opinion of someone we never saw play. And to keep that in mind.

Anyway, IMO there are probably 10-12 players who can make a case for top 5if we include the old timers we didn't see play. And most have good arguments.

Other than MJ, everyone else of the next 10 or so seem pretty close IMO.

[Sir Charles]

He also put Barkley on their ahead of Bird.

I guess Barkley>Bird now?

Also Hakeem> KAJ and Wilt.

Barkley had way more impact than Bird but Bird was more skilled. They are both Greates

[plowking]

Wilt had to beat the greatest dynasty in NBA History almost every year.

And you're right MJ didn't face the same sort of competition as Bird either, but he has 6 titles as the 1st option. Whereas Bird and Shaq both have 3.


In truth, I don't measure players just by the "championships" or "MVP's", I do it just by watching them play, and then coming to a conclusion.
You may be right. Shaq at his best may have been better than Bird. Maybe.

But it isn't because of the Miami championship, etc. Or Bird isn't better because of his 3 MVP's. All this helps, but is secondary. It is because one was better by opinion from just watching them over a lot of time. It is only arguable as well if one has seen both play.

However, I would like to point out that it is almost impossible to get a clear truthful opinion of someone we never saw play. And to keep that in mind.

Anyway, IMO there are probably 10-12 players who can make a case for top 5if we include the old timers we didn't see play. And most have good arguments.

Other than MJ, everyone else of the next 10 or so seem pretty close IMO.

Who would you pick on your team first now knowing the way that each of their careers played out. I'd pick Shaq. Soo many times to the finals and great numbers each time.

I think people are hesitant to put Shaq in their top 5 either due to his attitude or the fact that he is still playing. Once he is said and done, people will realize the greatness that was once infront of them.

[plowking]

Barkley had way more impact than Bird but Bird was more skilled. They are both Greates

Don't kid yourself Sir Charles. Bird impacted the game far more then Barkley.

[RonySeikalyFTW]

1. MJ
2. Hakeem
3. Jabbar
4. Bird
5. Magic

Wilt, West, Duncan, Zeke, and then maybe Shaq. I'm probably being too hard on Shaq, but I absolutely hate his "game" and his attitude. Horrible for the game of basketball.

[plowking]

1. MJ
2. Hakeem
3. Jabbar
4. Bird
5. Magic

Wilt, West, Duncan, Zeke, and then maybe Shaq. I'm probably being too hard on Shaq, but I absolutely hate his "game" and his attitude. Horrible for the game of basketball.

Hakeem number 2? Are you serious?

Furthermore Duncan ahead of Shaq?

Just explain to me how you came to these conclusions.

Furthermore aren't you a Heat fan like myself. You would have seen Shaq in his first year here still a dominant force, even at his age at the time.

[RonySeikalyFTW]

Hakeem number 2? Are you serious?

Furthermore Duncan ahead of Shaq?

Just explain to me how you came to these conclusions.

Furthermore aren't you a Heat fan like myself. You would have seen Shaq in his first year here still a dominant force, even at his age at the time.

1 -- Jordan


YouTube - Michael Jordan - Stop the Comparisons

I read a book a few years ago, Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball? by Elliott Kalb, that ranked the top 50 players of all time. He had Jordan ranked #3. LOL. Highest career ppg, 5MVPs, 6 championships, 10 time All-NBA First Team, 9 time All-Defensive First Team. But hey, if you're gonna write a book that tells everyone what they already know -- that Jordan is the best player in history without a close second -- you probably aren't going to sell many copies.

If you want to understand Michael Jordan, try to understand domination. If you want to understand domination, here's a snapshot of Jordan dominating one of the top five shooting guards to ever play the game:
YouTube - Michael Jordan vs Clyde Drexler and Portland Trail Blazers

2 -- Hakeem Olajuwon


YouTube - Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwons Greatest Hits

I know this is a controversial choice, I just don't know why. Hakeem, along with Tim Duncan, has to be one of the most underrated and underappreciated legends in the history of sports. He spent the majority of his career dominating the league both offensively AND defensively, a career played during the golden era of juggernaut centers. Hakeem faced them all and defeated them all. In the playoffs, no center has scored at a higher rate. And no center has ever played better D. Olajuwon also had the footwork and moves that most All-Star forwards envy:

"The best footwork I've ever seen from a big man." -- Pete Newell

"Hakeem has five moves then four countermoves, that gives him 20 moves." -- Shaq O'Neal

"Hakeem? You don't solve Hakeem." -- David Robinson
YouTube - Olajuwon dominates Robinson

He was a basketball prodigy, he really didn't have a single weakness. The ONLY player in NBA history to finish a season top 10 in points, rebounds, blocks, and steals. The ONLY player in NBA history to win MVP, Finals MVP, and Defensive Player of the Year in the same season. The fact that no one criticizes Houston for taking Hakeem #1 when Jordan was on the board speaks volumes about The Dream.

3 -- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar



After Lew Alcinder's sophomore year at UCLA, the NCAA outlawed dunking. The rule wasn't intended to make Alcinder a better professional player, but it did. He was forced to work on other shots. So Alcinder developed the impossible-to-defend ambidextrous Sky Hook which to this day remains the game's most unstoppable move, a shot that has only ever been blocked by Wilt Chambelain and Hakeem Olajuwon. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar would go on score more career points than anyone before or after him, and win 6 MVPs and 6 championships. He utterly dominated the 70s and won multiple rings in the 80s.

The only knock I have against Jabbar is that he never convincingly overcame a legit challenge from a fellow 7-footer at a time when both centers were in their prime. His Lakers lost to Bill Walton's Trailblazers in 1977. He faced Wilt Chamberlain 27 times, winning 13 times. Through the first 11 games, they played to a virtual standstill. But by their 12th encounter, Wilt was fading into retirement, and Kareem put it on him. In his 1983 autobiography, Kareem wrote:

Toward the end of his career, when he was 36 and I was 25, I had it any way I wanted. The Bucks would play the Lakers at the Forum, and I'd be getting 50 points against him; he'd try the fadeaway, but I'd be there to block it, and he'd storm out to halfcourt. With his career being closed in his face, he must have taken the defeat to heart.

Much like Chamberlain in the 70s, Kareem was the one on the downside of his career when he faced Hakeem Olajuwon in the 1986 Playoffs. And Olajuwon ate his lunch.

Flame away

[RonySeikalyFTW]

And Duncan > Shaq for my honest opinion. Shaq is great when everything is going great, but the guy crumbles when faced with adversity.

[plowking]

And Duncan > Shaq for my honest opinion. Shaq is great when everything is going great, but the guy crumbles when faced with adversity.

Shaq has better career stats, better playoff stats, is more of an icon then Tim Duncan has ever been, way better finals stats.

[Psileas]

From watching Shaq over his career and his 2.5 blocks over his career tells me that he is a decent, above average defender.

Good, I never said that Shaq was a bad or below average defender. But he doesn't enter the territory of the best in their kind, either from his era or, obviously, ever.


Also you know what I meant about the Wilt thing. I meant win one championship as the main guy, which is all he has. The other one he was not the best player.

And I've argued against this. This wasn't a case like Shaq and Wade in 2006.
Care to compare?

West in R.S: 25.8 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 9.7 apg, 47.7% FG, 81.4% FT.
Wilt in R.S: 14.8 ppg, 19.2 rpg, 4.0 apg, 64.9% FG, 51.0% FT.

West has an 11 ppg, 5.7 apg edge, an unknown but obvious edge in steals and shot 30 perc. units better from the line. Wilt has a 15 rpg edge, also an obvious edge in blocks, shot 17.2 perc. units from the line and had a somewhat bigger defensive presence (both great defenders, but the big man affects the defensive game more than the small). That's not a 1-sided comparison at all.

West in PO: 22.9 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 8.9 apg, 37.6% FG, 83% FT.
Wilt in PO: 14.7 ppg, 21.0 rpg, 3.3 apg, 56.3% FG, 49.2% FT.

West's edge in scoring falls to 8.2 ppg, in passing to 3.3. Only the FT advantage grows to 33.8. Wilt's Rebounding advantage grows to 16.1, his FG% to 18.7. Note that this outcome is generous, since in the last 2 rounds, West posted even worse numbers and Wilt even better (winning the F.MVP).


You are not dominant if you can't win titles and Wilt couldn't win unless he was on the best team (you said it yourself in another thread).

What I said myself was that Wilt won the title with 2 of the best teams ever, meaning that they became so in a great degree because of him. The Lakers never during the 60's beat the Celtics and won the title. The Sixers never did, either. You're not among the best teams ever if you don't win the title. Magic played for some of the best teams ever, so did Bird, Jordan, Russell, Kareem. I'll consider this message read, so don't try to misquote me again.

On the other point, do you similarly not consider Jordan, Bird, Magic and Shaq dominant when they didn't win titles?


The fact that you put Wilt over Jordan is an outrage. How so? Jordan has better number, more accomplishments, was a better defender.

More accomplishments is the only thing I'll agree about, not the rest. I won't elaborate more, it's a long discussion and not on topic, anyway.


Also don't bring up all these names from the 60's and 70's saying they were better then the centers Shaq had to face simply because they are in the hall of fame. A lot of them are there simply for paving the way for basketball. The only center that was better then the competition Shaq had to face was Russel.

I mean centers such as Unseld are considered great from that period of time.

Paving the way isn't something that ceases to exist after some some degree of development. Julius Erving paved the way for a new generation of young exciting players, like Jordan and Dominique. Jordan paved the way for the "Jordan-heirs" Kobe, LeBron, Wade, etc. And it plays a major role when it comes to greatness. It means you're ahead of your era. And this topic is about greatness.
The only center better than Shaq's competition (who? Everyone?) was Russell? Who was better than Kareem?
Unseld wasn't considered great just because of his numbers, which weren't impressive in the scoring department. He led his team to the Finals 4 times at an era when there was a new champion every single season. Ben Wallace is considered great for a similar reason.


Who did Wilt have to beat in the NBA finals? An injured Willis Reed?

Willis Reed wasn't injured throughout the whole series. Actually, in the first 4 games, Reed was much healthier than Wilt, who missed almost the entire regular season because of a serious injury himself. But, of course, no-one remembers this today.

You know who Wilt had to beat:

1964: Prime Russell and a team that had won 6 titles in 7 years.
1967: Prime Thurmond.
1969: Russell and a team that had won 10 titles in 12 years.
1970: Prime Reed and a team still considered by many among the 10 best ever.
1972: The Knicks without Reed. The only time Wilt's individual competition can be described as not so strong. Of course, the Knicks as a team were still pretty strong. After all, they made the Finals without Reed, anyway, beating the Bullets and the Celtics convincingly.
1973: Reed and a team with a total of 5 players which were included in the 50 GOAT.

[plowking]

Good, I never said that Shaq was a bad or below average defender. But he doesn't enter the territory of the best in their kind, either from his era or, obviously, ever.



And I've argued against this. This wasn't a case like Shaq and Wade in 2006.
Care to compare?

West in R.S: 25.8 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 9.7 apg, 47.7% FG, 81.4% FT.
Wilt in R.S: 14.8 ppg, 19.2 rpg, 4.0 apg, 64.9% FG, 51.0% FT.

West has an 11 ppg, 5.7 apg edge, an unknown but obvious edge in steals and shot 30 perc. units better from the line. Wilt has a 15 rpg edge, also an obvious edge in blocks, shot 17.2 perc. units from the line and had a somewhat bigger defensive presence (both great defenders, but the big man affects the defensive game more than the small). That's not a 1-sided comparison at all.

West in PO: 22.9 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 8.9 apg, 37.6% FG, 83% FT.
Wilt in PO: 14.7 ppg, 21.0 rpg, 3.3 apg, 56.3% FG, 49.2% FT.

West's edge in scoring falls to 8.2 ppg, in passing to 3.3. Only the FT advantage grows to 33.8. Wilt's Rebounding advantage grows to 16.1, his FG% to 18.7. Note that this outcome is generous, since in the last 2 rounds, West posted even worse numbers and Wilt even better (winning the F.MVP).



What I said myself was that Wilt won the title with 2 of the best teams ever, meaning that they became so in a great degree because of him. The Lakers never during the 60's beat the Celtics and won the title. The Sixers never did, either. You're not among the best teams ever if you don't win the title. Magic played for some of the best teams ever, so did Bird, Jordan, Russell, Kareem. I'll consider this message read, so don't try to misquote me again.

On the other point, do you similarly not consider Jordan, Bird, Magic and Shaq dominant when they didn't win titles?



More accomplishments is the only thing I'll agree about, not the rest. I won't elaborate more, it's a long discussion and not on topic, anyway.



Paving the way isn't something that ceases to exist after some some degree of development. Julius Erving paved the way for a new generation of young exciting players, like Jordan and Dominique. Jordan paved the way for the "Jordan-heirs" Kobe, LeBron, Wade, etc. And it plays a major role when it comes to greatness. It means you're ahead of your era. And this topic is about greatness.
The only center better than Shaq's competition (who? Everyone?) was Russell? Who was better than Kareem?
Unseld wasn't considered great just because of his numbers, which weren't impressive in the scoring department. He led his team to the Finals 4 times at an era when there was a new champion every single season. Ben Wallace is considered great for a similar reason.



Willis Reed wasn't injured throughout the whole series. Actually, in the first 4 games, Reed was much healthier than Wilt, who missed almost the entire regular season because of a serious injury himself. But, of course, no-one remembers this today.

You know who Wilt had to beat:

1964: Prime Russell and a team that had won 6 titles in 7 years.
1967: Prime Thurmond.
1969: Russell and a team that had won 10 titles in 12 years.
1970: Prime Reed and a team still considered by many among the 10 best ever.
1972: The Knicks without Reed. The only time Wilt's individual competition can be described as not so strong. Of course, the Knicks as a team were still pretty strong. After all, they made the Finals without Reed, anyway, beating the Bullets and the Celtics convincingly.
1973: Reed and a team with a total of 5 players which were included in the 50 GOAT.

There is a difference between dominating a game and dominating your era. Shaq, Bird, Jordan all have the team and individual success to show for it. Where as Wilt doesn't. He could take over a game and be dominant in a game, though since he didn't win, he was not dominant in his era. Bill Russell on the other hand.

[Psileas]

There is a difference between dominating a game and dominating your era. Shaq, Bird, Jordan all have the team and individual success to show for it. Where as Wilt doesn't. He could take over a game and be dominant in a game, though since he didn't win, he was not dominant in his era. Bill Russell on the other hand.

That's your own definition. No-one from Wilt's era would agree with this, especially as long as Wilt in his first 6-7 seasons never had a team good enough to let him win a title. Still, despite this, he came very close when he brought the Celtics to 7 games in 1962. He also made the Finals in 1964.

Even if you believe so and that Russell dominated his era more, then why don't you put him higher on your al-time lists?

BTW, I can easily argue that if you don't consider Wilt's 2 titles and 6 trips to the Finals being team success but you do consider Bird's 3 titles and 5 trips to the Finals as being, then Wilt's records and 4 MVP's is a sign of individual dominance, whereas Bird's or Shaq's much less records and less MVP's (much less in Shaq's case) isn't...

[BIZARRO]

Who would you pick on your team first now knowing the way that each of their careers played out. I'd pick Shaq. Soo many times to the finals and great numbers each time.

I think people are hesitant to put Shaq in their top 5 either due to his attitude or the fact that he is still playing. Once he is said and done, people will realize the greatness that was once infront of them.

Shaq has gone 6 times and Bird 5 in fewer seasons. Once again, their accomplishments are similar.

I'd take Shaq too, because he has been dominant longer because Bird broke down. But if I was going to take a player for the first 8 seasons of their career I would take Bird.

[BIZARRO]

There is a difference between dominating a game and dominating your era. Shaq, Bird, Jordan all have the team and individual success to show for it. Where as Wilt doesn't. He could take over a game and be dominant in a game, though since he didn't win, he was not dominant in his era. Bill Russell on the other hand.

This is absolute BS. If Wilt and Russell switched teams it would be a completely different story and you know it.

Russell's teams were loaded and you know it. The face that Wilt usually outplayed Russell and took them to the limit so many times shows just how dominant Wilt was.

Listen I am one of the biggest MJ fans and backers of GOAT there is, but as far as dominance goes, NO ONE has ever been more dominant against their competition than Wilt Chamberlain.

[Showtime]

I'm not saying Lebron is top 5 ever. Are you dense? I said Lebron scores in a similar fashion to Shaq. Brute strength. So I guess Lebron isn't top 5 in the league due to not being as skilled as the other players and not being a great freethrow shooter.

The point I was trying to make is that there's more to being top 5 ever than just being a top player of the times. I don't care about the comparison to Lebron's scoring, because Lebron isn't top 5 all time, so it doesn't matter.


You can be in good shape at 35, though its not the same as in good shape and 25. Shaq still shots 60% from the field. What more do you want him to do? He is 35 and a lot heavier.

First off, he isn't heavier now than his prime in LA. That's just false. Second, I already said I didn't expect him to put up prime stats, but I expect a top 5 player ever to be more effective than he is right now.


So 14 seasons of 20 and 10 is not enough to put you in the top 5. A decade and a half of dominance and always being in the elite group of players and at times the greatest player. Well then, do you consider Wilt better then Shaq? If you do, you are a hypocrite as Wilt had the same longevity as Shaq pretty much.

It doesn't outweigh my other issues with him, no.


KAJ was only a double double man for 12 seasons. Less then Shaq and Wilt.

The question wasn't about double doubles; the question was brought up about production in advanced age, where KAJ clearly was better than Shaq now.


Furthermore all 3 centers have very similar stats over 36 minutes with Shaq being the best scorer and really not too far off on the defensive end with Kareem only averaging .2 blocks more.

I don't care about 36 minute averages if Shaq isn't on the floor for 36 minutes a game. What good is he if he is either unwilling, or unable to play at least 30 minutes a game?


Are you saying that Brad Miller impacts the game as much as Shaq?

You are the one who said a 14/8 center is 3rd or 4th best in the entire league. I was pointing out, from a production standpoint, how wrong that is.


That's exactly what a good defender is. One that alters shots and movements. Shaq did that. Shaq played lazy D, though it was still good defense and he often led great centers to shoot poor numbers when playing against him.

So, pure physical size = great defense?



And one more thing: for all the people who keep throwing out his finals stats with LA, look at the competition. He faced one guy who could have given him trouble in Mutombo. The rest were guys like Smits and Davis, Aaron Williams and Todd MacCulloch. He dominated weaker competition.

[plowking]

This is absolute BS. If Wilt and Russell switched teams it would be a completely different story and you know it.
Russell's teams were loaded and you know it. The face that Wilt usually outplayed Russell and took them to the limit so many times shows just how dominant Wilt was.

Listen I am one of the biggest MJ fans and backers of GOAT there is, but as far as dominance goes, NO ONE has ever been more dominant against their competition than Wilt Chamberlain.

All hypotheticals. How do you know?

Sure he could have, but he wasn't in that situation.

Shaq has achieved more in his career, and there is a reason why Wilt dominated his position in games, because the competition is not as good as people make it out to be. All these HOF names mean nothing, when compared to Wilt and Russel.

[plowking]

The point I was trying to make is that there's more to being top 5 ever than just being a top player of the times. I don't care about the comparison to Lebron's scoring, because Lebron isn't top 5 all time, so it doesn't matter.



First off, he isn't heavier now than his prime in LA. That's just false. Second, I already said I didn't expect him to put up prime stats, but I expect a top 5 player ever to be more effective than he is right now.



It doesn't outweigh my other issues with him, no.



The question wasn't about double doubles; the question was brought up about production in advanced age, where KAJ clearly was better than Shaq now.



I don't care about 36 minute averages if Shaq isn't on the floor for 36 minutes a game. What good is he if he is either unwilling, or unable to play at least 30 minutes a game?



You are the one who said a 14/8 center is 3rd or 4th best in the entire league. I was pointing out, from a production standpoint, how wrong that is.



So, pure physical size = great defense?



And one more thing: for all the people who keep throwing out his finals stats with LA, look at the competition. He faced one guy who could have given him trouble in Mutombo. The rest were guys like Smits and Davis, Aaron Williams and Todd MacCulloch. He dominated weaker competition.


So you expect Shaq to play that many minutes at his age with his injury history? Then he gets injured and you blame him for not playing. You are simply creating double standards to suit your rankings. He only recently started playing less then 36 minutes. Garnett only played 32, Tim Duncan plays less then 36 as well. So you can't put them in ahead of Shaq either, seeing as Tim is younger then Shaq and playing less minutes then Shaq did at that age.

He's not heavier then he was in L.A. but he is no where near as fit. He is a lot older. Are you telling me you have more energy when you are 40 and 300lbs or 25 and 340? Please...

Dominated weaker competition? Name me Wilts great competition when he played.

How is Shaq not the 3rd best center in the league? In terms of production and impact? And in the finals there is no center I would take over him bar Yao Ming at the moment. I'd take Shaq over Howard in a finals run.

[plowking]

That's your own definition. No-one from Wilt's era would agree with this, especially as long as Wilt in his first 6-7 seasons never had a team good enough to let him win a title. Still, despite this, he came very close when he brought the Celtics to 7 games in 1962. He also made the Finals in 1964.

Even if you believe so and that Russell dominated his era more, then why don't you put him higher on your al-time lists?
BTW, I can easily argue that if you don't consider Wilt's 2 titles and 6 trips to the Finals being team success but you do consider Bird's 3 titles and 5 trips to the Finals as being, then Wilt's records and 4 MVP's is a sign of individual dominance, whereas Bird's or Shaq's much less records and less MVP's (much less in Shaq's case) isn't...

I put Russell ahead of Wilt on my all time lists most of the time.

So I guess Nash dominated this era more then Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Wade right? I guess Duncan dominated more then Shaq as well right, simply because of 1 more MVP on his resume.

Shaq faced better competition, and had more rules implemented to stop him being as dominant as Wilt was in his era. First of all the goaltending rule, the widening of the key, back to basket.

Then you look over their whole careers and you realize that Shaq had very similar production to Wilt. In some cases better even with all these rules in place.

[VeeCee15]

Shaq is top 2..bottom line. Only behind MJ.

I don't care about Bird or Magic..they haven't done what Shaq did.

[Psileas]

Shaq has achieved more in his career, and there is a reason why Wilt dominated his position in games, because the competition is not as good as people make it out to be. All these HOF names mean nothing, when compared to Wilt and Russel.

Maybe that's a testament of how good Wilt and Russell were? Nah, it can't be, huh?


So I guess Nash dominated this era more then Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Wade right? I guess Duncan dominated more then Shaq as well right, simply because of 1 more MVP on his resume.

And I guess Duncan dominated more then Shaq because he won 1 more championship as the main man, Dave Cowens and Wes Unseld dominated just as much as Kareem in the 70's and Isiah dominated the 80's more than Jordan.

It's evidence that championships by themselves are completely insufficient to explain whether some player dominates his era or not.


Shaq faced better competition

No, he didn't, and it's funny how every time anyone mentions this, I'm the only one who brings up evidence either for or against it. All people do is mention Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, whom Shaq faced around a combined 10 times per season (when he played sufficient games in the season of course) and met them an "astonishing" number of 7 out of the 42 playoff series he's ever played (including only 1 series when all these players were in their primes). Want to add Ben Wallace, Yao, Zo and Mutombo? This adds 5 series more, and still not every series happened when all his opponents were in their primes. How's that anywhere close to Wilt's competition, especially after the early 60's?


and had more rules implemented to stop him being as dominant as Wilt was in his era. First of all the goaltending rule, the widening of the key, back to basket.

First of all, what do you mean with the "back to basket"?
The widening of the key was implemented in 1964 and didn't do much to stop Wilt whenever he decided to score. As for the rest:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:jKge7QuWEooJ:www.answerbag.com/q_view/116762+offensive+goaltending+Wilt&hl=el&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=gr


1945 Defensive goaltending is banned

1958 Offensive goaltending is banned.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:5IU2-NhJpuEJ:encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557999/wilt_chamberlain.html+offensive+goaltending+Wilt&hl=el&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=gr


Because of Chamberlain's height and offensive prowess, NCAA administrators instituted several rules changes to limit his impact. The most important new regulation was offensive goaltending. Under the new rules players could no longer guide the ball in or out of the basket by touching it while it was in the space directly above the rim. Other rules prohibited lobbing the ball over the backboard from behind it (so that a teammate could catch and dunk the ball), and taking a running leap from the free-throw line to make a layup during foul shots. Both had been favorite plays of Chamberlain.

They still didn't reduce his impact as much as they'd like to. What's funny is that Wilt was the last and probably the only player who had so many rules altered to reduce his dominance since his NCAA years, another testament of how much ahead of his time and dominant he was. He changed the game so much that the rules implemented to limit him have remained unchanged for 40-50 years of progress. If there had been a player since to dominate the game at an analogous degree, officials would try to do the same. But there's been no need to do so.


Then you look over their whole careers and you realize that Shaq had very similar production to Wilt. In some cases better even with all these rules in place.

I've already shown that Wilt was a greater rebounder, passer and, in his scoring prime, a bigger scorer than Shaq. Plus, it's well-known that he was a better shot-blocker, making All-D 1st teams past his prime. And all this stat dominance is a per minute comparison, where Shaq is supposed to be helped, since he plays less minutes per game and rests more. Hell, Wilt produced an (incomplete, mind you) PER of 31.8 in a gigantic 48.5 minutes of play in 1962. And PER isn't exactly generous with rebounding, one of Wilt's strongest points (neither is it with passing, where Wilt excelled after the early 60's).
Shaq has only had the advantage in FG%, and even here, Wilt's percentage in his high scorin days is still impressive, judging from the number and type of shots he took. Guys like Duncan or Garnett takes only 50-70% as many shots and still don't manage to shoot better.

[Psileas]

Shaq is top 2..bottom line. Only behind MJ.

I don't care about Bird or Magic..they haven't done what Shaq did.

Yeah, Bird didn't win 1 MVP, like Shaq, neither did Magic. Magic also didn't win 4 titles, didn't reach the Finals 6 times, won 3 Finals' MVP's and wasn't something that his position had never seen.

[Showtime]

So you expect Shaq to play that many minutes at his age with his injury history?

No, I expect you to understand that response was in the context of the 36 minute average stat that was brought up. I don't want to hear about a 36 minute stat if he's not on the floor for 36 minutes.


He's not heavier then he was in L.A. but he is no where near as fit. He is a lot older. Are you telling me you have more energy when you are 40 and 300lbs or 25 and 340? Please...

Then why have other players of advanced age proven to be more productive? Like I said, it's not about being one of the best CENTERS to play, it's about being among the 5 BEST TO EVER PLAY THE GAME. Is Shaq a top 5 center? I wouldn't argue with that. Top 5 all time is something I have issue with, and you have yet to address the other points brought up against him. As I have said before, production isn't the only thing I am looking at.


Dominated weaker competition? Name me Wilts great competition when he played.

I never brought up Wilt, so what does he have to do with this? You are totally disregarding the point that Shaq's best finals stats (which are a main point that is always brought up) came against inferior players with the exception of Mutombo.

Wilt was sent home after many playoff series losses to Russell in Boston, won a chip against Thurmond, and lost to Willis Reed and the Knicks in the finals. Shaq got beaten by Dream when he made the finals with Orlando, beat up on weak competition in his LA finals (except Mutombo), and got beaten by the Pistons with Wallace. Both centers got beat by great centers, but that wasn't the point because I never brought up Wilt in this discussion.


How is Shaq not the 3rd best center in the league? In terms of production and impact? And in the finals there is no center I would take over him bar Yao Ming at the moment. I'd take Shaq over Howard in a finals run.
That's your opinion. I don't feel Shaq is a top 3 center because even though he may be efficient, he can only stay on the floor for a limited amount of time, thus decreasing his impact. Also, he's still limited by his FT shooting, but this time, he can't make up for that with his scoring. Basically, his faults are now more exploitable because he can't counter them as much as he could in his prime.

So, limited PT = limited production, still can't shoot FT's which makes him an exploitable liability, and he can't counter that like he used to with production in other areas. He can't take over games, and he is liable at any time to quit on his teammates and take time off because he feels like it.

[juju151111]

All hypotheticals. How do you know?

Sure he could have, but he wasn't in that situation.

Shaq has achieved more in his career, and there is a reason why Wilt dominated his position in games, because the competition is not as good as people make it out to be. All these HOF names mean nothing, when compared to Wilt and Russel.
Wilt was better then russel tho.

[LarryLegend33]

Top 5 ever in order.
1. Jordan
2. Bird
3. Magic
4. Kareem
5. Russell

[ihatetmac2524]

a motivated shaq is definitely top 5. he's definitely in the top 3 of most dominant ever.