How is Shaq not at least top 5 all-time? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 12:53 AM

Under what criteria is Shaq not top 5 all-time at minimum? On most people's lists here he is usually 5-7. Why?

Here is how he has fared in other lists:

Elliot Kalb: #1
Bill Simmons: #12
Slam Magazine: #4
ISH: #7

Why so much variance? No top-tier great sees his ranking vary that much. Shaq's peak is comparable to anyone's. He has had longevity, as ShaqAttack has explained so well numerous times here. He won.

In his book Elliot Kalb points out Shaq's teams won an average of 56 games from 1993-2003 (the number would be higher when you adjust for games Shaq missed. He compares that to Russell's average of 58 wins (Kareem's average is 57). Here are his team's performance with him (with the 82 game pace in parentheses):

41-40 (42)
49-32 (50)
55-24 (57)
40-14 (61)
38-13 (61)
46-14 (63)
31-18 (52, lockout season)
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
53-20 (60)
42-17 (58)
25-15 (51)
25-36 (34)
44-31 (48)
10-5 (55)

His career winning percentage translates to approximately 55 wins per year. If you look at his record from 1993-2006 his teams were on pace for 59 wins over 82 games. That is a remarkable record of such a long period of time. His teams were 50 win caliber teams with him on the floor every year during that period; they were 55+ caliber 11 times; 60+ win caliber 7 times. These are amazing numbers.

Did he do this with great teams?

Shaq turning franchises around

Orlando before Shaq: 18, 31, 21 wins
Orlando with Shaq: 41, 50, 57 (NBA finals, #1 seed), 60 (ECF, #2 seed behind 72 win Bulls)
Orlando after Shaq: 45, 41, 54** (0 trips out the first round)

Los Angeles before Shaq: 33, 48 (WCSF), 53 (first round)
Los Angeles with Shaq: 56, 61 (WCF), 51**, 67, 56, 58 (champions) , 50, 56 (NBA finals)
Los Angeles post-Shaq: 34, 45, 42 (0 trips out the first round)

Miami before Shaq: 36, 25, 52
Miami with Shaq: 59 (ECF), 52 (champions), 44
Miami post-Shaq: 15, 43, 45 (projected)

Shaq in the playoffs

What did Shaq do when it counted?

Missed playoffs
First round
NBA finals
Conference finals

WCSF
Conference finals
WCSF
Champion
Champion
Champion
WCSF
NBA finals

Conference finals
Champion
First round

First round
Missed playoffs

When he was in or near his prime he had an extremely good playoff record: 4 championships, 6 NBA finals, and 9 conference finals appearances. This record is comparable to that of anyone not named Russell.

The only area where Shaq is not strong vis-a-vis top-tier greats is MVP's. He won "only" 1. Of course, as seen earlier he was often hurt and this damaged his MVP chances in several seasons. His quality of player was sufficient to win multiple MVP's so I don't see the logic of using MVP awards against him.

So why do so many people have Shaq outside their top 5? It is hard for me to see any consistently applied criteria that keeps Kareem, Shaq, or Jordan out of a top 5 list. I consider Shaq top 3 all-time.

My theory is Shaq, like Duncan, is underrated because he is still playing. Once they retire people will appreciate them more and be able to assess their records more objectively with the passage of time and the cooling of whatever passions against Shaq some may have had.

joe

12-10-2009, 01:08 AM

Batman

12-10-2009, 01:12 AM

OldSchoolBBall

12-10-2009, 01:12 AM

There's no criteria to rank Shaq ahead of Wilt at the very least dude. Wilt had better numbers, at least an equal peak (which lasted longer, too), more winning, and more accolades across the board. He was also a superior defender. So the highest I could see Shaq is 4th, ahead of Magic/Bird/Russell (depending where you rank Russell).

STATmanLAKERFAN

12-10-2009, 01:15 AM

There's no criteria to rank Shaq ahead of Wilt at the very least dude. Wilt had better numbers, more winning, and more accolades across the board. He was also a superior defender. So the highest I could see Shaq is 4th, ahead of Magic/Bird/Russell (depending where you rank Russell).

I personally rank Wilt over Shaq, but how has Wilt won more than Shaq?

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 01:17 AM

People also place Shaq lower on their list because he had so much more potential.. that sounds crazy to say about someone with Shaq's resume but it's true.. If he would have stayed in shape, if he would have been more of a team guy, he might be clearly the best player of all time right now. But because he didn't, people feel he should suffer for that.

Obviously like you said, time will erase many of those stains and his ranking should stop being so erratic from person to person..

I'm not saying I agree with that but that's just how it is

I agree. In Simmons' case that is very clear. I think it is a ridiculous thing to do, though. So what if he did not fulfill his potential? You have to assess what he actually did and his record is great.

There's no criteria to rank Shaq ahead of Wilt at the very least dude. Wilt had better numbers, more winning, and more accolades across the board. He was also a superior defender. So the highest I could see Shaq is 4th, ahead of Magic/Bird/Russell (depending where you rank Russell).

Well that is a bit off track. The OP was about him being top 5. I can see him not being top 3 but I can't think of any consistently applied criteria that has him outside the top 5. Maybe someone has one and can share it in this thread.

The top 3 thing was my opinion. I have him ahead of Wilt because I consider him a greater winner (not just 4 rings over 2. Look at Shaq's yearly record in the OP). Who would you rather build a team around? Who would you want in your foxhole going into the playoffs? Shaq, who consistently raised his game in the playoffs or someone his scoring average declined every year in the playoffs--sometimes by significant amounts (i.e. the famous 50 ppg year. In the playoffs his product slipped by a third to 35 ppg.).

Regarding numbers, Wilt's numbers are inflated due to pace. Adjusted for pace Shaq is comparable, although concededly does not equal Wilt. Still, we need to remember that Wilt produced many of his stats at the expense of his team whereas Shaq's numbers were in the team's interest.

Wilt has more accolades but Shaq's were reduced due to numerous minor injuries. He had had good health his accolades would have been up there with the rest of the top-tier greats.

Bodhi

12-10-2009, 01:18 AM

It's hard to put someone top 5 all time when you can't say that they did everything they could over their career to maximize their talent and win championships.

Scribbles

12-10-2009, 01:18 AM

Because 4 franchises, soon to be 5th, doesn't like Shaq

MMKM

12-10-2009, 01:22 AM

Top 5 in no p[articular order

Wilt
Kareem
Russell
Hakeem
Shaq

He has to be there. Simply because, head to head, in his prime, he takes ANY center who ever played on the low block and dunks it down their throat, at will, over and over again. No center has ever been strong enough to keep prime Shaq away from the rim, Wilt included. For that reason he makes top 5.

Abraham Lincoln

12-10-2009, 01:25 AM

He should be. At peak form he was as good a player as anyone in league history.

joe

12-10-2009, 01:26 AM

It's hard to put someone top 5 all time when you can't say that they did everything they could over their career to maximize their talent and win championships.

why not? if what they produced is equal to top 5 status, he should be up there regardless of what he could have done

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 01:28 AM

It's hard to put someone top 5 all time when you can't say that they did everything they could over their career to maximize their talent and win championships.

You could say the same thing about Wilt or even Jordan (two premature retirements). Why is Shaq singled out?

Because 4 franchises, soon to be 5th, doesn't like Shaq

Shaq made Orlando and Miami relevant and he resurrected the Lakers. He had little impact either way in Phoenix. As to Cleveland, it remains to be seen how that ends. If Shaq is key in them getting past Orlando and has a decent playoff run overall does that move him up?

Top 5 in no p[articular order

Wilt
Kareem
Russell
Hakeem
Shaq

I presume that is for centers only?

MMKM

12-10-2009, 01:31 AM

You could say the same thing about Wilt or even Jordan (two premature retirements). Why is Shaq singled out?

Shaq made Orlando and Miami relevant and he resurrected the Lakers. He had little impact either way in Phoenix. As to Cleveland, it remains to be seen how that ends. If Shaq is key in them getting past Orlando and has a decent playoff run overall does that move him up?

Jordan???

Uh, I was just talking centers, I didnt know this was all positions...

OldSchoolBBall

12-10-2009, 01:32 AM

I personally rank Wilt over Shaq, but how has Wilt won more than Shaq?

Yeah, I misspoke there. I was thinking MVPs in my head, not titles.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 01:33 AM

Great thread and OP RR. Shaq should be in most top 5 lists. His peak numbers (adjusted for pace) are as great as anyone in league history.

Abraham Lincoln

12-10-2009, 01:38 AM

Still, we need to remember that Wilt produced many of his stats at the expense of his team.

:lol

Keep spreading the myths.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 01:38 AM

To clear up any confusion, "adjusted for pace" would mean in contrast to the other great bigs in history, not Shaq. Minor error in my previous post.

ShaqAttack3234

12-10-2009, 01:43 AM

Good question.

He's won more titles than Bird, Chamberlain and Olajuwon.
Many consider his peak to be the best ever
He's had superior longevity to Magic, Bird, Chamberlain and Russell
Best player on the only non-Bulls or Celtics 3peat ever
Won 2 scoring titles(narrowly missed 3 more(lost to Robinson by 0.5 ppg in '94, by 0.4 ppg to Jordan in '98 and 0.3 ppg to Iverson in '99). And it's important to note that if Robinson hadn't padded his stats on the last day of the season, O'Neal would have had 3.

Shaq's mix of individual dominance didn't come at the expense of the team. O'Neal is one of only 4 players to win a scoring title and championship in the same season. The other 3 are Jordan, Abdul-Jabbar and Mikan.

Shaq is also now 5th on the all time scoring list and he's led the league in FG% more times than anyone else.

It's true that O'Neal wasn't an Olajuwon or Russell type defender, but the impact he made defensively was huge and superior to that of Magic or Bird. Don't forget that just by standing in the paint, scaring everyone away, blocking 3 shots per game and grabbing 13 boards per game he was eliminating a lot of scoring oppurtunities. Shaq also anchored the number 1 ranked defense in 2000 and he finished 2nd in defensive player of the year voting that season behind only a prime Alonzo Mourning. Even all of his free throw attempts and high percentage shots allowed his teams to set up their defense and prevent transition oppurtunities for the opposition.

Offensively, O'Neal can be compared to any player.

Look at what he did during the 3peat.

1999-2000
Regular Season- 29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.0 bpg, 57.4 FG%
Playoffs- 30.7 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.1 apg, 2.4 bpg, 56.6 FG%
Finals- 38.0 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 2.7 bpg, 61.1 FG%

2000-2001
Regular Season- 28.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.7 apg, 2.8 bpg, 57.2 FG%
Playoffs- 30.4 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.5 bpg 55.5 FG%
Finals- 33.0 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 4.8 apg, 3.4 bpg, 57.3 FG%

2001-2002
Regular Season- 27.2 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.0 bpg, 57.9 FG%
Playoffs- 28.5 ppg, 12.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.5 bpg, 52.9 FG%
Finals- 36.3 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.8 bpg, 59.5 FG%

3 seasons combined
Regular Season- 28.6 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.6 bpg, 57.5 FG%
Playoffs- 29.9 ppg, 14.5 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.4 bpg, 55.2 FG%
Finals- 35.9 ppg, 15.2 rpg, 3.5 apg, 3.2 bpg, 59.5 FG%

Shaq was consistently flirting with 40/20 games in the playoffs like it was nothing. He was pretty much putting up Wilt Chamberlain numbers in the modern era in the playoffs.

Shaq's teams were also consistently in contention. He's played in 6 NBA finals, 9 conference finals, won 60+ games 3 times and 55+ 10 times.

In 1995 people love to point out Shaq(in his 3rd year at 23) getting swept by Olajuwon, but do they point out his 28.3 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 6.3 apg, 2.5 bpg or 59.5 shooting %? In reality if Nick Anderson makes 1 of 4 free throws that could have been a much different series. Anderson's stunning choke job broke the young Magic and caused them to lose homecourt advantage.

Does anyone point out Shaq averaging 30.5 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 2.9 apg and 2.6 bpg on 61.2% shooting during the 1998 playoffs when they were swept in the WCF? Does anyone point out that Nick Van Exel shot 23.8%, Kobe shot 36.7% and Eddie Jones shot 41.2% in the WCF. The 3 combined for about as many points as O'Neal scored by himself. Yet O'Neal is blamed for getting swept with this "great supporting cast".

In 2004, O'Neal was doing his job averaging 26.6 ppg and 10.8 rpg and 63.1% shooting and just 16.6 FGA while his teammate, Kobe was jacking up contested shot after contested shot to the tune of 22.5 ppg on 38.1% shooting and 22.5 FGA.

Now people almost pretend that O'Neal's 2006 title doesn't count? Why? 20/9/2/2 on 60% shooting in under 31 mpg isn't damn good? Did his 21.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.3 bpg, 65.3 FG% ECF vs the DPOY, Ben Wallace and the 64 win Pistons not count? It was Avery Johnson's constant double teaming of Shaq that allowed Wade to go off like he did in the finals. Shaq didn't force anything, shot 61% averaged 14 ppg, 10 rpg and 3 apg while letting his emerging teammate shine.

I have Shaq at number 3 all time(behind Jordan and Abdul-Jabbar) and I can't see a good argument for him any higher, but I can't see a particularly good argument for him any lower than 4th(with Wilt having an argument for 3rd depending on how much you value winning).

Listen to what Pete Newell had to say about Shaq. Newell is one of the most respected people in basketball history.

"People think it's all power with Shaq, but they're wrong," says 86-year-old Pete Newell, the big-man guru who coached against Wilt and who schooled Shaq at his offseason camp in the early '90s. "Here's what I've seen [O'Neal] do in one game: Bank off the glass. Little lob hook in the paint. Step-back move on the baseline. Quick spin move when he comes out on the other side to shoot. And a neat step-through move when he was doubled or tripled. You go over the history of centers and can you remember anyone, except maybe Hakeem Olajuwon, showing all that? And Hakeem didn't have the power game. I don't like to rate players according to who's best, but none of the great centers had Shaq's moves and counters, and none of them, including Wilt, had his strength."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/jack_mccallum/news/2002/06/12/insider/

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 01:50 AM

Abraham Lincoln

12-10-2009, 01:53 AM

'62 was Wilt's 5th best season.

GP_20

12-10-2009, 01:56 AM

He should be. At peak form he was as good a player as anyone in league history.
And isn't Peak the reason you have Wilt at #1? But Shaq isn't Top 5? Double standards?

ShaqAttack3234

12-10-2009, 01:58 AM

Thanks, KD.

Shaq's 2000 season versus Wilt's 1962 season adjusted for pace

Here are his 2000 stats adjusted to 1962's record pace (Wilt's 50 ppg year):

Wilt's team had a pace factor of 129.7; Shaq's 93.3. That is a ratio of 1.4 (1.39 to be precise) to 1.

Shaq's 2000 line: 30/14/4 57%
Shaq adjusted for pace: 42/20/6

Wilt's 1962 line: 50/26/2 (all those shots but only 2 assists...) 51% shooting

How about in the playoffs?

Shaq's 2000 playoffs line: 31/15/3 57%
Shaq adjusted for pace: 43/21/4

Wilt's 1962 playoffs line: 35/27/3 47%

Shaq raised his game in the playoffs; Wilt declined considerably. His scoring plummeted by a third and his shooting percentage fell by 10 points.

How about Shaq in the finals?

Shaq in the 2000 finals: 38/17/3 61%
Adjusted for pace: 53/24/4

Adjusting for pace is not perfect but it is a way of comparing apples to apples. When you do that Wilt's regular season is better than Shaq's but it is no contest when it counted. The higher the stakes got, the better Shaq got.

We must consider that Wilt played 48.5 mpg, no way he does that in the modern era. If a big man plays 40 in the modern era that's rare, hell any star player. Jordan only played about 40 mpg at the most.

Playing at Shaq's pace and minutes, Wilt would have averaged 29.9 ppg, 15.2 rpg, 1.4 apg, 50.6 FG%, 61.2 FT%.

Amazingly despite Shaq playing at such a slower pace and playing 43 more playoff games, Shaq has averaged 25.2 ppg compared to Wilt's 22.5 ppg.

I'm not saying Shaq is better(although I have him ranked slightly higher), but you can definitely make a case for it. But '67 is Wilt's true peak and in the discussion for greatest peak ever along with O'Neal in 2000.

Abraham Lincoln

12-10-2009, 02:02 AM

And isn't Peak the reason you have Wilt at #1? But Shaq isn't Top 5? Double standards?
Yes overall as mentioned earlier he was better than anyone in league history during the spring of '67. His team humilated the Celtics & Russell off the floor to the extent that they had never really done to him. But Shaq in '00 & the spring of '01 was as effective a force relative to era. On top of that he would matchup very well with mid-60's Wilt physically. Shaq was a more potent post player and stronger in the lower body & core, while Wilt had the upper body strength advantage and displayed his strength in a more graceful manner. Wilt was indeed better on the defensive end and rebounding on both backboards. I prefer Wilt but strictly viewing peak level talent and performance, one can legitimately argue players like Jabbar, Russell, Jordan, Bird, O'Neal, Magic, & even Robertson in my opinion. No one man can inarguably be held above the rest.

I never said Shaq was not top 5.

Big#50

12-10-2009, 02:04 AM

KAJ
MJ
Duncan
Shaq
Kobe

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 02:09 AM

Good question.

He's won more titles than Bird, Chamberlain and Olajuwon.
Many consider his peak to be the best ever
He's had superior longevity to Magic, Bird, Chamberlain and Russell
Best player on the only non-Bulls or Celtics 3peat ever
Won 2 scoring titles(narrowly missed 3 more(lost to Robinson by 0.5 ppg in '94, by 0.4 ppg to Jordan in '98 and 0.3 ppg to Iverson in '99). And it's important to note that if Robinson hadn't padded his stats on the last day of the season, O'Neal would have had 3.

Shaq's mix of individual dominance didn't come at the expense of the team. O'Neal is one of only 4 players to win a scoring title and championship in the same season. The other 3 are Jordan, Abdul-Jabbar and Mikan.

Shaq is also now 5th on the all time scoring list and he's led the league in FG% more times than anyone else.

It's true that O'Neal wasn't an Olajuwon or Russell type defender, but the impact he made defensively was huge and superior to that of Magic or Bird. Don't forget that just by standing in the paint, scaring everyone away, blocking 3 shots per game and grabbing 13 boards per game he was eliminating a lot of scoring oppurtunities. Shaq also anchored the number 1 ranked defense in 2000 and he finished 2nd in defensive player of the year voting that season behind only a prime Alonzo Mourning. Even all of his free throw attempts and high percentage shots allowed his teams to set up their defense and prevent transition oppurtunities for the opposition.

Offensively, O'Neal can be compared to any player.

Look at what he did during the 3peat.

1999-2000
Regular Season- 29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.0 bpg, 57.4 FG%
Playoffs- 30.7 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.1 apg, 2.4 bpg, 56.6 FG%
Finals- 38.0 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 2.7 bpg, 61.1 FG%

2000-2001
Regular Season- 28.7 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 3.7 apg, 2.8 bpg, 57.2 FG%
Playoffs- 30.4 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.5 bpg 55.5 FG%
Finals- 33.0 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 4.8 apg, 3.4 bpg, 57.3 FG%

2001-2002
Regular Season- 27.2 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.0 bpg, 57.9 FG%
Playoffs- 28.5 ppg, 12.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.5 bpg, 52.9 FG%
Finals- 36.3 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.8 bpg, 59.5 FG%

3 seasons combined
Regular Season- 28.6 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.6 bpg, 57.5 FG%
Playoffs- 29.9 ppg, 14.5 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.4 bpg, 55.2 FG%
Finals- 35.9 ppg, 15.2 rpg, 3.5 apg, 3.2 bpg, 59.5 FG%

Shaq was consistently flirting with 40/20 games in the playoffs like it was nothing. He was pretty much putting up Wilt Chamberlain numbers in the modern era in the playoffs.

Shaq's teams were also consistently in contention. He's played in 6 NBA finals, 9 conference finals, won 60+ games 3 times and 55+ 10 times.

In 1995 people love to point out Shaq(in his 3rd year at 23) getting swept by Olajuwon, but do they point out his 28.3 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 6.3 apg, 2.5 bpg or 59.5 shooting %? In reality if Nick Anderson makes 1 of 4 free throws that could have been a much different series. Anderson's stunning choke job broke the young Magic and caused them to lose homecourt advantage.

Does anyone point out Shaq averaging 30.5 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 2.9 apg and 2.6 bpg on 61.2% shooting during the 1998 playoffs when they were swept in the WCF? Does anyone point out that Nick Van Exel shot 23.8%, Kobe shot 36.7% and Eddie Jones shot 41.2% in the WCF. The 3 combined for about as many points as O'Neal scored by himself. Yet O'Neal is blamed for getting swept with this "great supporting cast".

In 2004, O'Neal was doing his job averaging 26.6 ppg and 10.8 rpg and 63.1% shooting and just 16.6 FGA while his teammate, Kobe was jacking up contested shot after contested shot to the tune of 22.5 ppg on 38.1% shooting and 22.5 FGA.

Now people almost pretend that O'Neal's 2006 title doesn't count? Why? 20/9/2/2 on 60% shooting in under 31 mpg isn't damn good? Did his 21.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.3 bpg, 65.3 FG% ECF vs the DPOY, Ben Wallace and the 64 win Pistons not count? It was Avery Johnson's constant double teaming of Shaq that allowed Wade to go off like he did in the finals. Shaq didn't force anything, shot 61% averaged 14 ppg, 10 rpg and 3 apg while letting his emerging teammate shine.

I have Shaq at number 3 all time(behind Jordan and Abdul-Jabbar) and I can't see a good argument for him any higher, but I can't see a particularly good argument for him any lower than 4th(with Wilt having an argument for 3rd depending on how much you value winning).

Listen to what Pete Newell had to say about Shaq. Newell is one of the most respected people in basketball history.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/jack_mccallum/news/2002/06/12/insider/

:bowdown:

'62 was Wilt's 5th best season.

Plug in whatever season you like. Shaq is still comparable. 62' was Wilt's best statistical year. It is his 50 ppg and other stats most people point to when talking about his dominance. Dominance does not occur in a vacuum. Moving beyond stats, who was close to Shaq's level during his peak? Wilt had Russell. In terms of relative dominance Shaq was more dominant than Wilt, although statistically they are comparable and we can't penalize Wilt for playing in the same era as Russell. That said, Shaq held his own against Hakeem and outplayed Robinson, Ewing, and Mourning. He did well against Yao until he got old. Looking beyond rivals at his position, during his peak there was no real debate on who the best player in the league was. During Wilt's prime he was usually losing the MVP award to Russell.

We must consider that Wilt played 48.5 mpg, no way he does that in the modern era. If a big man plays 40 in the modern era that's rare, hell any star player. Jordan only played about 40 mpg at the most.

Great point. Plus, with advanced scouting and other coaching and defensive tools and strategies Shaq faced more sophisticated defenses than Wilt.

Amazingly despite Shaq playing at such a slower pace and playing 43 more playoff games, Shaq has averaged 25.2 ppg compared to Wilt's 22.5 ppg.

That is because Wilt's production slipped considerably in the playoffs. That has to be factored in when discussing dominance. How dominant was a player whose effectiveness could be reduced to a substantial degree in the playoffs (-25% for instance in scoring)? In not a single year did Wilt score more in the playoffs than he did in the regular season.

Another reason I used 62' is because bballreference posted the pace numbers for that year once. I don't have the pace for 67'. Let's try using average team FGA as a proxy. The ratio is 1.24 to 1.

Wilt in 67' in the regular season: 24/24/8 68%
Shaq in 00' in the regular season: 30/15/3 57%
Shaq's 00' stats adjusted: 37/19/4

Wilt in the 67' playoffs: 22/29/9 58%
Shaq in the 00' playoffs adjusted: 38/19/4 57%

Shaq raised his game; Wilt's scoring declined and his shooting percentage plummeted 10% (the same as in 62'). He did improve his rebounding and average one more assist, though. Shaq in 00' is comparable to Wilt in 67'.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 02:12 AM

KAJ
MJ
Duncan
Shaq
Kobe

Kobe is not in the top 5.

Bigsmoke

12-10-2009, 02:14 AM

yea he's top 5 maybe. Still cant decides who's better between him and Duncan

MMKM

12-10-2009, 02:21 AM

KAJ
MJ
Duncan
Shaq
Kobe

Duncan over Magic Johnson and his FIVE rings...

Abraham Lincoln

12-10-2009, 02:21 AM

Plug in whatever season you like. Shaq is still comparable. 62' was Wilt's best statistical year. It is his 50 ppg and other stats most people point to when talking about his dominance. Dominance does not occur in a vacuum. Moving beyond stats, who was close to Shaq's level during his peak? Wilt had Russell. In terms of relative dominance Shaq was more dominant than Wilt, although statistically they are comparable and we can't penalize Wilt for playing in the same era as Russell. That said, Shaq held his own against Hakeem and outplayed Robinson, Ewing, and Mourning. He did well against Yao until he got old. Looking beyond rivals at his position, during his peak there was no real debate on who the best player in the league was.

That's the problem with statgeeks, you cannot directly relate statistical ppg to performance. Would you not think Greer stepping up in the playoffs had something to with Wilt's scoring in '67? The shift change at PG with Costello's injury midway through the season? Plus the numerous scoring weapons in the halfcourt like Greer, Walker, & Cunningham that were all required to be in proper sync as well? If you think his performance declined that year in the playoffs then you are horribly mistaken. Especially against centers like Russell & Thurmond.

During Wilt's prime he was usually losing the MVP award to Russell.

The same prime during which he won 3 consecutive MVP's?

allball

12-10-2009, 02:26 AM

Shaq is not a better basketball player than:

Magic, Bird, Isiah, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Walt Frazier, Erving or even Kobe in his prime.

why? 95% of Shaq's points came from within 5 feet of the basket.

for his size Shaq is/was just an average rebounder.

name a memorable game in which Shaq hit the game winning shot.

of all the top 5 centers Shaq is probably the worst defender. has good block numbers but average footwork and recovery.

Shaq became a better passer later in his career but was never spectacular.

if not for a bad job of coaching by Dunleavy in the 4th quarter of the 2000 semis Shaq never sees his 1st ship.

if not for a Kings meltdown at the FT line and a last minute 3 by Horry in game 4 of the 2002 semis Shaq never plays for his 3rd.

sure Shaq dominated the post in his era but what prime HOF centers was he playing against?

Shaq is one the best in terms of offensive dominance and presence but too many holes in his skillset to be considered a top 5 player IMO.

ShaqAttack3234

12-10-2009, 02:34 AM

Shaq is not a better basketball player than:

Magic, Bird, Isiah, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Walt Frazier, Erving or even Kobe in his prime.

:roll: Kobe???? Dr. J???? Walt Frazier?????!!! :lol

why? 95% of Shaq's points came from within 5 feet of the basket.

Who cares? If he could get that shot then why not take it? He was able to get that close to the basket often enough to finish top 3 in scoring 10 times. But yeah, it'd be much better to step out to 18 feet and shoot a lower % like Olajuwon, Duncan, Ewing and Robinson. :rolleyes:

I'll take a 5 foot shot over an 18 footer any time.

for his size Shaq is/was just an average rebounder.

Who cares about "for his size"? 13-14 rpg is damn good no matter who you are, much less 15+ in back to back title runs. I guess Yao must be trash since he's bigger than Shaq and has never averaged 11.

Shaq became a better passer later in his career but was never spectacular.

Yes he was, he was among the best passing big men in the league. Bill Walton use to praise him for this routinely and compare him to the best passing big men ever, and I'd say Walton knows a thing or two about passing....

if not for a bad job of coaching by Dunleavy in the 4th quarter of the 2000 semis Shaq never sees his 1st ship.

if not for a Kings meltdown at the FT line and a last minute 3 by Horry in game 4 of the 2002 semis Shaq never plays for his 3rd.

Who cares about ifs? You could go down the line and take away numerous titles from a ton of players if we went into "what ifs" like that.

sure Shaq dominated the post in his era but what prime HOF centers was he playing against?

Hmmm. Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo and Tim Duncan(call him a PF or a C, but Shaq played against him all the time).

Big#50

12-10-2009, 02:36 AM

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 02:41 AM

That's the problem with statgeeks, you cannot directly relate statistical ppg to performance. Would you not think Greer stepping up in the playoffs had something to with Wilt's scoring in '67?

You can if there is a a decade and a half worth of a consistent trend. What are your excuses for 60', 61', 62', 63', 64'-66', 68'-73'? Was it just a coincidence that every year his scoring declined in the playoffs? The most "dominant", the most "unstoppable" force year after year declined when it counted (career regular season: 30 ppg on 54% shooting; career playoffs: 22.5 ppg on 46.5% shooting)?

:roll: :roll: :roll: @ the irony of a Wilt fan (at least this is the position of your gimmick) complaining about too much emphasis being placed on stats.

The same prime during which he won 3 consecutive MVP's?

He had a three year prime? You are confusing peak with prime.

Shaq is not a better basketball player than:

Magic, Bird, Isiah, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Walt Frazier, Erving or even Kobe in his prime.

Would you rather build a team around prime Isiah or Frazier over Shaq?

Regarding luck, that is a factor in all championships so that can't be held against Shaq. What if KG didn't get hurt last year? What if the Cavs shot 2% better in Game 7 of the ECSF? What if the Cheap Shot Rob incident didn't happen in the 07' WCSF? And so on.

sure Shaq dominated the post in his era but what prime HOF centers was he playing against?

Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, Yao, and Mutumbo. The last three are borderline to get into the HOF but if Mourning and Yao had healthy full careers they would have been near locks, or at least likely to get in.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 02:43 AM

We must consider that Wilt played 48.5 mpg, no way he does that in the modern era. If a big man plays 40 in the modern era that's rare, hell any star player. Jordan only played about 40 mpg at the most.

Playing at Shaq's pace and minutes, Wilt would have averaged 29.9 ppg, 15.2 rpg, 1.4 apg, 50.6 FG%, 61.2 FT%.

Amazingly despite Shaq playing at such a slower pace and playing 43 more playoff games, Shaq has averaged 25.2 ppg compared to Wilt's 22.5 ppg.

I'm not saying Shaq is better(although I have him ranked slightly higher), but you can definitely make a case for it. But '67 is Wilt's true peak and in the discussion for greatest peak ever along with O'Neal in 2000.

Great posts all around (you too RR). Playoff performances are a huge factor when comparing the two. One went into the tank (respectfully) during the post season; one dominated and exceeded expectations during the post season.

Shaq anchored LA, Miami and Orlando (Miami is debatable) to win their division 9 times, went past the 1st round 13 times, 9 conference finals appearance, 6 NBA finals appearances, 4 NBA titles, 3 finals MVPs. When it comes down to winning, maybe the most important attribute that defines a player, Shaq wins hands down.

For how great Wilt's stats were, he only won 2 titles and 1 Finals MVP, compared to Shaq’s 4 titles and 3 finals MVPs. Wilt was known for choking under pressure/underachieving, especially during pressure-playoff games. On the other hand, Shaq hasn’t been known for any of these (for the most part). Wilt played with some good teams and 8 HoFers over the course of his career, and had a number of opportunities to gain more titles. "The Big Dipper" never had the killer instinct that Shaq had and constantly underachieved (no disrespect of course).

Even though Shaq was a greater winner, some people still say that Chamberlain's stats were so great that he has to be considered the greatest; however, during the early 60s when Chamberlain put up his best numbers, the rules were so different. Besides that playing in the NBA was fairly new to African Americans back then. The first African American had only broken the color barrier in the NBA in in 1950 and even then many potential great players weren't playing in the NBA. I don’t see how Chamberlain can be considered better than Shaq, when Shaq, the most dominant of his era, is a better winner than Chamberlain, the most dominant of his.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 03:05 AM

I do believe Shaq is a top 2 Center (top 5 player), I can understand how people can make arguments for Kareem and Wilt having better careers than him. However, I believe that Shaq, in his prime from 2000-2002, was the second-greatest player of all time, behind Jordan. During his 3 peat with the Lakers, he was the most dominant force to ever play in the NBA (once again, this is my opinion). He was consistently doubled and triple teamed, yet he could not be stopped.

For his size, Shaq is a one of a kind athlete who is unmatched by any player in any sport. No 7'1 player, who weighs 300+ pounds, has ever had as good footwork, been as powerful, had as good lift, and been able to move as quickly as Shaq has.

Solid Snake

12-10-2009, 03:10 AM

How is Shaq not at least top 5 all-time?

His effort and lack of dedication. End of story. Close the book. Go to sleep.

In that order.

plowking

12-10-2009, 03:20 AM

His effort and lack of dedication. End of story. Close the book. Go to sleep.

In that order.

So if a player averaged 50ppg and 20rpg for his career, though didn't try his best and put all effort forward, he wouldn't be considered the best ever?

Feck off kent.

Abraham Lincoln

12-10-2009, 03:21 AM

You can if there is a a decade and a half worth of a consistent trend. What are your excuses for 60', 61', 62', 63', 64'-66', 68'-73'? Was it just a coincidence that every year his scoring declined in the playoffs? The most "dominant", the most "unstoppable" force year after year declined when it counted (career regular season: 30 ppg on 54% shooting; career playoffs: 22.5 ppg on 46.5% shooting)?

:roll: :roll: :roll: @ the irony of a Wilt fan (at least this is the position of your gimmick) complaining about too much emphasis being placed on stats.

His prime years were not with the Warriors. He was playing for a managment that told him to play a certain way, directly as well as through the owner's several puppet head coaches. He was skinnier & weaker than he was in his Sixer/Laker days. Unlike you, I do not mask my lack of knowledge with stats. You would not think that the playoffs is played with 5 men in a more team oriented system? Just because his ppg were down, you think his performance declined? You fail to factor in his roles during his best years with the Sixers & Lakers. But as a Kobe fan the only aspect of the game that appeases you is statistical ppg. By your standards Iverson is the #2 playoff performer in league history & Bird's performance declined in the '81, '85, & '87 playoffs, while not improving in the '86 playoffs.

He had a three year prime? You are confusing peak with prime.
His best years were not with the Warriors. I will have to quit replying to you until you learn to discuss real basketball in an objective manner & argue for or against a point or topic that is actually relevant. Do not address the wise man until you learn the proper game of basketball and it's history.

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 03:21 AM

Great posts all around (you too RR). Playoff performances are a huge factor when comparing the two. One went into the tank (respectfully) during the post season; one dominated and exceeded expectations during the post season.

Shaq anchored LA, Miami and Orlando (Miami is debatable) to win their division 9 times, went past the 1st round 13 times, 9 conference finals appearance, 6 NBA finals appearances, 4 NBA titles, 3 finals MVPs. When it comes down to winning, maybe the most important attribute that defines a player, Shaq wins hands down.

For how great Wilt's stats were, he only won 2 titles and 1 Finals MVP, compared to Shaq’s 4 titles and 3 finals MVPs. Wilt was known for choking under pressure/underachieving, especially during pressure-playoff games. On the other hand, Shaq hasn’t been known for any of these (for the most part). Wilt played with some good teams and 8 HoFers over the course of his career, and had a number of opportunities to gain more titles. "The Big Dipper" never had the killer instinct that Shaq had and constantly underachieved (no disrespect of course).

Even though Shaq was a greater winner, some people still say that Chamberlain's stats were so great that he has to be considered the greatest; however, during the early 60s when Chamberlain put up his best numbers, the rules were so different. Besides that playing in the NBA was fairly new to African Americans back then. The first African American had only broken the color barrier in the NBA in in 1950 and even then many potential great players weren't playing in the NBA. I don’t see how Chamberlain can be considered better than Shaq, when Shaq, the most dominant of his era, is a better winner than Chamberlain, the most dominant of his.

Good post. :applause:

Wilt was great but a poster said he couldn't see placing Shaq above him. I think it has been established that their primes are comparable and there are compelling reasons to prefer Shaq over Wilt.

Good point. There were few African American players in the 60's; there were no international players. Shaq's best years came in a decade in which several top teams were led by international players (Phoenix and Dallas) or featured international players in key roles (San Antonio obviously has two*, Portland had Sabonis). Shaq's biggest rival at the center position this decade was a 7'6" foreign player. Shaq produced similar individual stats and more wins despite facing a far deeper talent pool. He played the best of the best from around the globe. Wilt to a large degree only faced the best white Americans.

The 50's and to a lesser extent the 60's are viewed as weaker because of a lack of minority players. My guess is the 70's-90's will be viewed the same way by future generations because of a lack of international players.

His best years were not with the Warriors. I will have to quit replying to you until you learn to discuss real basketball in an objective manner & argue for or against a point or topic that is actually relevant. Do not address the wise man until you learn the proper game of basketball and it's history.

:roll: Lectures from a gimmick/sock. Wise man? You can't figure out that I am not a Kobe fan (unless one qualifies as a "fan" if a player is 10-15 among your favorite current players). You can't even figure out that I am not Fatal9 so I wouldn't go around calling myself "wise" if I were you.

Ok. So Wilt's scoring magically declined by 25% in the playoffs and he declined every single year. There is no trend. There is nothing behind it. It just coincidentally happened--every year. Wilt's poor record in game 7's. Again, coincidence. And so on.

Objectivity? From you. :roll: I didn't address you. You clicked on my thread. I would be best if you stay out. The thread was doing fine until you began trolling, as usual.

*I don't consider Duncan and international player

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 03:40 AM

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 03:40 AM

Top 10 players and their scoring in the regular season compared to their playoff scoring

Their career average for the playoffs is listed first.

Jordan 33 49%/30 50%
Hakeem 26 53%/22 51%
Shaq 25 50%/24.5 58%
Kobe 25 45%/25 45.5%
Kareem 24 53%/25 56%
Bird 24 47%/24 50%
Duncan 23 50%/21 51%
Wilt 22.5 46.5%/30 54%
Magic 19.5 51%/19.5 52%

Which one is not like the others wise guy? The discrepancy is even worse if you compare their best seasons. Wilt had several David Robinson-like declines in the playoffs.

ProfessorMurder

12-10-2009, 03:48 AM

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 03:56 AM

Shaq is not top 5, because there were at least 5 players better than him. Thos 5 players are:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Michael Jordan
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain

Four out of this five I saw play. They were better than Shaq, even if Shaq might have had a higher peak than all, as is said. I'm nopt sure Shaq at his peak was better than Bird or Jordan were at theirs though.

In addition to these 5 players, I can name 3 other players having a case over Shaq:

Russell
Olajuwon
Duncan

That leaves Shaq anywhere between #6 and #9 on the list. I personally put him at #8 (behing Russell and Olajuwon but ahead of Duncan).

Shaq is easily top 10. And not top 5. No amount of statwhoring will change that.

Shaq versus Hakeem:

Olajuwon: 18 seasons
Career: 21.8 ppg, 51.2 FG%, 11.1 RPG, 2.5 APG 3.1 BPG, 1.7 SPG
Single-season peak: 27.3 PPG, 14 RPG, 4.6 BPG

Only averaged more than 25 points per game in a season four times

Shaq: in his 17th seasons
25.2 PPG , 58.1 FG%, 11.5 RPG, 2.4 BPG, 2.7 APG, .6 SPG
Averaged over 25 points per game 10 times
Single-season peak: 29.7 PPG 3.5 BPG 13.9 RPG

The main difference between the two is that Shaq is a better scorer, while Hakeem is a better defender. However, individual offensive power is more important than individual defensive power. For example, who would you rather have on your team: a great defender like Bruce Bowen (in his prime), or a great offensive player like Tmac (prime)? Team defense, not individual defenders, win you championships, while individual offensive superstars win you championships as well. Now let’s see who’s a better winner.

Hakeem Olajuwon

Won his division 3 times, 7 times past the 1st round of the playoffs, 4 conference finals appearances, 3 NBA finals appearances, 2 NBA titles, 2 Finals MVPs

Shaquille O’Neal

Won his division 9 times, 13 times past the first round of the playoffs, 9 conference finals appearances, 6 NBA finals appearances, 4 NBA titles, 3 finals MVPs. When it comes down to winning, maybe the most important attribute that defines a player, Shaq wins hands down. Keep in mind, if Michael Jordan hadn’t retired in 1993, Olajuwon more than likely wouldn’t have won any titles, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. I don’t understand how anyone can say Olajuwon is better than Shaq when he isn’t nearly as good of a scorer or more importantly a winner. I’m not going to compare the statistics of Shaq vs. Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar because the eras were so different and have been thoroughly discussed in the thread (well, Wilt has at least).

It's not about "statwhoring". His impact, peak, consistency, longevity, etc are that of a top 5 player. I can go on about Russel and Duncan (talked about in the other thread) but that would be meaningless.

Gifted Mind

12-10-2009, 04:02 AM

I place Shaquille O'Neal anywhere from 3-7.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 04:10 AM

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

You won't convince me, sorry.

I know Hakeem and Shaq are arguable and the debate can go either way. Hakeem gets my vote and I don't care what stats anyone is going to bring up. I saw all their careers, I can decide for myself. If you have a different opinion, I can live with that.

While I think Ducan and Shaq is also arguable, I have Shaq above Duncan. As for Russell... I can live with not ranking him at all (I'm not old enough to have been able to see him play) but I just can't place him below Shaq. Dude just won way too much for that.

As a matter of fact I don't really get why anyone is not satisfied with a player being a clear cut top 10 player of all time. That's nice, isn't it? Shaq didn't do anything to warrant a top 3 or a GOAT position. Yes, he is up there with some greats.

Second tier to me, one notch below MJ, Bird, Kareem and Magic. (And Wilt and Russell, probably.) That's nothing to be ashamed of though.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 04:15 AM

You won't convince me, sorry.

I know Hakeem and Shaq are arguable and the debate can go either way. Hakeem gets my vote and I don't care what stats anyone is going to bring up. I saw all their careers, I can decide for myself. If you have a different opinion, I can live with that.

While I think Ducan and Shaq is also arguable, I have Shaq above Duncan. As for Russell... I can live with not ranking him at all (I'm not old enough to have been able to see him play) but I just can't place him below Shaq. Dude just won way too much for that.

As a matter of fact I don't really get why anyone is not satisfied with a player being a clear cut top 10 player of all time. That's nice, isn't it? Shaq didn't do anything to warrant a top 3 or a GOAT position. Yes, he is up there with some greats.

Second tier to me, one notch below MJ, Bird, Kareem and Magic. (And Wilt and Russell, probably.) That's nothing to be ashamed of though.

The consensus top 3 players are Jordan, KAJ, and Wilt, correct? Shaq won more than Wilt, was a better player during the post season than Wilt, adjusted for pace and competition, Shaq's stats were/are more impressive than Wilt's. You're so convinced otherwise though and that's perfectly understandable. I just think Wilt/Shaq is fair to argue and debate over.

Mark Madsen

12-10-2009, 04:26 AM

I place Shaquille O'Neal anywhere from 3-7.

this

people have guys magic johnson ahead of him :lol :lol :lol

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 04:26 AM

The consensus top 3 players are Jordan, KAJ, and Wilt, correct? Shaq won more than Wilt, was a better player during the post season than Wilt, adjusted for pace and competition, Shaq's stats were/are more impressive than Wilt's. You're so convinced otherwise though and that's perfectly understandable. I just think Wilt/Shaq is fair to argue and debate over.

It's fair, sure. I won't do that because I've seen none of Wilt save for very little footage. I think you are not old enough to have seen Wilt play, right? So what are you trying to argue? Numbers?

Are you going to watch this season's playoffs? Because I can send you the stats in Mid June and you can save lots of time that way.

Arguing all time greatness through numbers... I want none of that. It's like talking about movies using the box office stats, PR and merchandise stuff, without having seen the moviesor talking about the scenes themselves. Rather pointless.

Yes, adjusted to [s]pace, Shaq may have the best numbers in this world. I don't care. He was not as good as Bird, Magic, Kareem or MJ. Or Hakeem for that matter.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 04:37 AM

It's fair, sure. I won't do that because I've seen none of Wilt save for very little footage. I think you are not old enough to have seen Wilt play, right? So what are you trying to argue? Numbers?

Are you going to watch this season's playoffs? Because I can send you the stats in Mid June and you can save lots of time that way.

Arguing all time greatness through numbers... I want none of that. It's like talking about movies using the box office stats, PR and merchandise stuff, without having seen the moviesor talking about the scenes themselves. Rather pointless.

Yes, adjusted to [s]pace, Shaq may have the best numbers in this world. I don't care. He was not as good as Bird, Magic, Kareem or MJ. Or Hakeem for that matter.

I've seen my share of Wilt footage (VHS compilations, Youtube, Classic games on ESPN etc). It isn't about numbers but sheer dominance verse their respectable competition. What do the playoffs have to do with anything this year? He's half the dominant force he used to be. Hell one can argue he's a defensive liability. Numbers have a lot do with with comparing and contrasting careers/legacies, not solely but a chunk for sure.

I do believe Shaq is a top 2 Center (top 5 player), I can understand how people can make arguments for Kareem and Wilt having better careers than him. However, I believe that Shaq, in his prime from 2000-2002, was the second-greatest player of all time, behind Jordan. During his 3 peat with the Lakers, he was the most dominant force to ever play in the NBA (once again, this is my opinion). He was consistently doubled and triple teamed, yet he could not be stopped.

For his size, Shaq is a one of a kind athlete who is unmatched by any player in any sport. No 7'1 player, who weighs 300+ pounds, has ever had as good footwork, been as powerful, had as good lift, and been able to move as quickly as Shaq has.

We can simply agree to disagree. Shaq should be a top 5 player (I presented facts to back my case). While you, in ur opinion believe he is not. That's fair.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 04:45 AM

What do the playoffs have to do with anything this year?

I asked if you were going to watch or just take a look at the numbers. Not Shaq's numbers just the numbers in general. I do not get why people are trying to argue greatness through numbers. Or accolades.

No, winning 5 rings instead of 4 did not make Magic automatically better than Shaq. Magic was better though. Magic won more than Bird but I think he was not any better than Bird. Hakeem won less than Shaq, but he was not a worse player. I could go on.

A few % difference in FG%, a few ppg here and there, a few more or less rebounds... it says nothing. Stats depend on your era, your teammates, your coach's strategy (mpg for example), etc. Arguing Shaq was better than Wilt, because adjusted to pace...................:sleeping

But it's all right. To each his own. Shaq is between #6 and #9 in my book, and I have him at #8. I won't argue it any further, I don't hink it makes sense.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 04:48 AM

I asked if you were going to watch or just take a look at the numbers. Not Shaq's numbers just the numbers in general. I do not get why people are trying to argue greatness through numbers. Or accolades.

No, winning 5 rings instead of 4 did not make Magic automatically better than Shaq. Magic was better though. Magic won more than Bird but I think he was not any better than Bird. Hakeem won less than Shaq, but he was not a worse player. I could go on.

A few % difference in FG%, a few ppg here and there, a few more or less rebounds... it says nothing. Stats depend on your era, your teammates, your coach's strategy (mpg for example), etc. Arguing Sgqa was better than Wilt, because adjusted to pace...................:sleeping

But it's all right. To each his own. Shaq is between #6 and #9 in my book, and I have him at #8. I won't argue it any further, I don't hink it makes sense.

I rank players by what I've seen personally. Stats, accolades and all that junk stuff back my opinion when using them in the proper context. Definitely isn't a crutch for my argument, that's for certain.

Toizumi

12-10-2009, 04:52 AM

Roundball_Rock, I remember a Pippen thread in which you posted that people rank players based on different criteria and that also goes for Shaq. Rankings are completely subjective.. So people will always have a good case if they rank Shaq anywhere between 1 and 8 or so (definitely not lower). You might disagree, but you cants say they're wrong .. it's their opinion right?

I don't know where I'd rank Shaq. He's a legend and one of my favorite players ever. He should always be mentioned among the greatest to ever play this game. Isnt that good enough?

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 04:54 AM

I rank players by what I've seen with these two eyes. Stats, accolades and all that junk stuff just back my opinion when using them in the proper context.

OK.

We disagree then. It's not the end of the world, I can understand why someone has Shaq in their top 5. I don't.

On a sidenote, I find it interesting, that people who think extremely highly of Shaq usually dislike Kobe. (Shaqattack being an exception.) I don't know why that is, one is a center and the other a guard. Both won 4 rings. They have a high opinion of the other, I think. It's absolutely possible to have both players in one's top 10. (Kobe is borderline top 10 on my list. Not quite there, but he has a chance of being there by the end of the season.) So I don't get it. Whatever.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 05:04 AM

OK.

We disagree then. It's not the end of the world, I can understand why someone has Shaq in their top 5. I don't.

On a sidenote, I find it interesting, that people who think extremely highly of Shaq usually dislike Kobe. (Shaqattack being an exception.) I don't know why that is, one is a center and the other a guard. Both won 4 rings. They have a high opinion of the other, I think. It's absolutely possible to have both players in one's top 10. (Kobe is borderline top 10 on my list. Not quite there, but he has a chance of being there by the end of the season.) So I don't get it. Whatever.

Ok. This has nothing to do with KB, don't even know where that came from :confusedshrug:. I have Kobe in my personal top 10 of all time list. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're a Kobe Bryant fan.

raptorfan_dr07

12-10-2009, 05:06 AM

You know just when Roundball Rock was making me think he didn't know much about what he was talking about with his constant Pippen overrating, he goes and surprises me with a good thread like this. :cheers:

I've often times said that Shaq is probably the most underappreciated and disrespected superstar in NBA history. People really don't realize how good Shaq actually was. Just look at his dominance during the Lakers three peat. He was like a man amongst boys out there. This was his league and everybody knew it. Arguably the most dominant player of all time. He had a complete low post game offensively. He was better defensively than people give him credit for and he was nowhere near the liability in crunch time that people try and pretend he was. Not saying that I have him ranked top 5 all time, but you aren't completely out of your mind if you do rank him that high. You can definitely make a case for it.

Toizumi

12-10-2009, 05:08 AM

On a sidenote, I find it interesting, that people who think extremely highly of Shaq usually dislike Kobe. (Shaqattack being an exception.) I don't know why that is, one is a center and the other a guard. Both won 4 rings. They have a high opinion of the other, I think. It's absolutely possible to have both players in one's top 10. (Kobe is borderline top 10 on my list. Not quite there, but he has a chance of being there by the end of the season.) So I don't get it. Whatever.

This also works the other way around. There have been a lot of times that fans of either of these players try to downplay the other players role during the threepeat and the other players play/career in general, just to make a good case fot 'their' player to be better than the other.
The Kobe/Shaq beef back then also started a discussion about who is better and who was being a b*tch'. This made a lot of (lame) fans pick a side. lol.

Both are greats and top 10 players (I don't have a ranking, but both are up there) :bowdown: I have Shaq a notch higher than Kobe though.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 05:13 AM

This also works the other way around. There have been a lot of times that fans of either of these players try to downplay the other players role during the threepeat and the other players play/career in general, just to make a good case fot 'their' player to be better than the other.
The Kobe/Shaq beef back then also started a discussion about who is better and who was being a b*tch'. This made a lot of (lame) fans pick a side. lol.

Both are greats and top 10 players (I don't have a ranking, but both are up there) :bowdown: I have Shaq a notch higher than Kobe though.

Great post, QFT. I'm not a huge fan of either player, I just appreciate and respect both their talents/legacies. It'll be interesting to see where Bryant ranks in the next 3-4 years.

ShaqAttack3234

12-10-2009, 05:26 AM

On a sidenote, I find it interesting, that people who think extremely highly of Shaq usually dislike Kobe. (Shaqattack being an exception.) I don't know why that is, one is a center and the other a guard. Both won 4 rings. They have a high opinion of the other, I think. It's absolutely possible to have both players in one's top 10. (Kobe is borderline top 10 on my list. Not quite there, but he has a chance of being there by the end of the season.) So I don't get it. Whatever.

It's because fans get too attached to their favorite players and have to either take sides or diminish one player to boost the other. I've seen it happen to a lesser extent with Jordan/Pippen fans and Magic/Kareem fans although not to the same extent because there was never a feud between those duos.

Laker4Lyfe

12-10-2009, 05:29 AM

He should be. At peak form he was as good a player as anyone in league history.

What year/s did he lead the league in rebounds or blocks????? I'm not talking about individual games I'm talking about for the season. What year/s did he lead the league in rebounds or blocks or both???? :confusedshrug:

ThaRegul8r

12-10-2009, 07:12 AM

I'm conflicted regarding Shaq. I've never been a big Shaq fan, however, I try to put that aside and not let it color my perception and go about this objectively.

Vis-a-vis Wilt Chamberlain, here's some of what I've written in my own NBA all-time rankings:

Scoring. Chamberlain won a record seven consecutive scoring titles, a record later tied by Michael Jordan. Wilt won titles over scorers like Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Rick Barry. Shaq won two scoring titles, and finished second [to David Robinson (29.8)] in 1993-94 (29.3), [to Michael Jordan (28.7) in]

ThaRegul8r

12-10-2009, 07:14 AM

Playoff Performance. O’Neal is the third-most prolific scorer in NBA playoff history with 5,121 points, trailing only Michael Jordan (5,987) and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (5,762), and has the eighth-highest scoring average at 25.2 ppg. He ranks fourth in postseason rebounds (2,447) behind Bill Russell (4,104), Chamberlain (3,913) and Kareem (2,481), third in blocked shots (446) behind Kareem (476) and Hakeem Olajuwon (472), third in field goals made (1,992) behind Kareem (2,356) and Jordan (2,188), fourth in field goals attempted (3,532), and sixth in field-goal percentage (.564). O’Neal averaged 32.6 points on 60.1 percent shooting (59.7% TS), 13.8 rebounds, 3.6 assists and 2.38 blocked shots in 44.0 minutes in the NBA Finals with the Magic and the Lakers, 33.6 points on 60.2 percent shooting, 14.1 rebounds, 3.1 assists and 2.35 blocked shots in 43.9 minutes in four NBA Finals with the Lakers, and 35.9 points on 59.5 percent shooting (59.1% TS), 15.2 rebounds, 3.5 assists and 2.93 blocked shots in 44.3 minutes per game during the three-peat. That separates Shaq from Wilt. Dr. Jack Ramsay said, "I really think that Shaq was more of a team player. Wilt was a stats collector. He would decide before the season in what stats he wanted to lead the league” (http://www.probasketballnews.com/friedman_052206.html).

Chamberlain played in 160 postseason games during his career, and averaged 22.5 points per game. However, since his career can be divided into several stages due to how he changed his game, each stage must be looked at individually. From 1959-60 to 1965-66, Chamberlain won seven consecutive scoring titles, averaging 39.6 points per game. He played 52 playoff games during this period (32.5%), averaging 32.8 points, 26.4 rebounds and 3.2 assists. He played 108 playoff games (67.5%) after his seven scoring titles, during which time he averaged 19.8 points per game in the regular season. So only a third of his playoff games came while he was a big scorer, with the majority of his postseason coming after he stopped being the superscorer.

He played 28 playoff games (17.5%) in 1966-67 and 1967-68, during which time he averaged 24.2 points on 63.5 percent shooting and 59.4 percent true shooting, 24.0 rebounds and 8.2 assists. He averaged 22.6 points on 55.6 percent shooting and 53.2 percent true shooting, 27.1 rebounds and 7.9 assists in the playoffs during this span.

He played 80 playoff games (50%) from 1968-69 to 1972-73, during which time he averaged 17.7 points on 60.5 percent shooting and 59.0 percent true shooting, 19.2 rebounds and 4.3 assists in the regular season. He averaged 15.8 points on 53.1 percent shooting and 52.6 percent true shooting, 22.3 rebounds and 3.6 assists in the playoffs.

Shaq has the edge in being a more efficient scorer than Wilt, while Wilt was better all-around, a far better rebounder and defender, and more durable. But Wilt didn't have a killer instinct while Shaq had no problem with jamming the ball down your throat, and Shaq was the better playoff performer. You can't name the amount of big playoff games for Wilt that you can for Shaq.

But then again, of Wilt's 160 playoff games, 49 came against Russell, meaning that 30% of Wilt's playoff games were against the greatest defensive center of all time. Wilt played 62 games after 1969 when Russell retired, meaning that while Russell was in the league, exactly half of Wilt's playoff games were against the greatest defensive center of all time.

Wilt faced Russell in the playoffs in 1960 (ECF), 1962 (ECF), 1964 (Finals), 1965 (ECF), 1966 (ECF), 1967 (ECF), 1968 (Finals), and 1969 (Finals), Willis Reed in 1968 (EC Semifinals), 1970 (Finals), and 1973 (Finals), Jerry Lucas in 1972 (Finals), Nate Thurmond in 1967 (Finals), 1969 (Western Conference Semifinals), and 1973 (WCF), and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in 1971 (WCF), 1972 (WCF). Every year Wilt was facing a Hall of Fame center and Top 50 Player of All Time in the playoffs. Wilt played 49 games against Russell, 17 against Willis Reed, 17 against Nate Thurmond, 11 against Kareem, and five against Jerry Lucas. That's 99 of his 160 playoff games (61.9%). As of 2007 when I first calculated it as I was working on my Shaq/Wilt comparison, Shaq faced a Hall of Fame center and Top 50 player of all time in 27 of his 198 postseason games, or 13.6 percent. So while Shaq was unquestionably a better playoff performer than Wilt, he also wasn't facing the competition Wilt was, who was going up against another Hall of Famer at his position in over 60% of his playoff games.

O’Neal made six NBA Finals with three different teams (Orlando, Los Angeles, Miami), averaging 28.8 points, 13.1 rebounds, 3.4 assists, 2.07 blocked shots, 60.2 percent shooting from the floor and 59.0 percent true shooting in 42.2 minutes per game in 30 Finals games. In the 1992-93 season, he took an Orlando Magic team that was 21-61 the previous year to a 41-41 record, and in four years took them to their first NBA Finals appearance in only the fifth year of their existence. He joined the Lakers, taking them from 48-34 to 53-29, and four NBA Finals appearances and three NBA titles in eight years. He then joined a Miami team that was 42-40 and took them to an Eastern Conference-best 59-23 record. A season later, they won their first NBA title in franchise history. It was proven that a team could win a title with Shaq scoring (one of only four men in history who were able to do it) as he did it within the team concept, whereas Wilt didn't win anything until he cut down his scoring.

I have Wilt over Shaq in my rankings, but at times I can see a case for Shaq over Wilt based on the fact that he had more success and got more results. But I can't get over the fact that he never led the league in rebounding and blocks as all the other G.O.A.T. centers above him on my list and even some below him on the list did, and like Bill Simmons said, he left something on the table. Other top 10 G.O.A.T.s there are "if only"'s like: "if only Bird didn't have a bad back." "If only Magic didn't contract HIV." But there are too many "if only"s with Shaq that were completely within his control. When you're talking about the greatest of the great, that matters.

billybadass

12-10-2009, 07:59 AM

mj, wilt, bird, shaq kobe.

in that order

kumquat

12-10-2009, 08:02 AM

Can anybody imagine Shaq in wilts era.... I'd be shocked at averaging anything less than 50points

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 08:06 AM

Ok. This has nothing to do with KB, don't even know where that came from :confusedshrug:. I have Kobe in my personal top 10 of all time list. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you're a Kobe Bryant fan.

Where did it come from? It's an observation, and it has nothing to do with you personally. As for me? I'm a Laker fan and Kobe happens to be on the Lakers, so yes I guess I'm a fan of his. He entertains me a lot and that's the reason I watch basketball -- to be enetertained.

I'd say I'm a Nash-fan though. That's closer to the truth.

Go Getter

12-10-2009, 08:07 AM

Prime Shaq is best center ever period.

It's easy for ****s that never played ball to tell a 33 year old 7 foot man with leg/foot problems to stay in shape but it ain't as easy as it sounds.

Not making excuses for his not being in shape when he needed to be but putting his career in prospective I'd rather have prime Shaq over any other center....it's hard to argue against the physicality and passing ability.

kumquat

12-10-2009, 08:11 AM

mj, wilt, bird, shaq kobe.

in that order

What's Kobe done to make it that high?Been shaqs side kick?

The finals against Orlando should have been against KG and the celtics who would have given LA a lesson like the year before.

Lebron23

12-10-2009, 08:52 AM

He's the 6th greatest player in NBA History.

I'd take Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Bird, and Wilt over Shaq.

Dizzle-2k7

12-10-2009, 11:09 AM

Dizzle-2k7

12-10-2009, 11:11 AM

Shaq would also be the only top 10 player that a) didnt play great defense b)wasnt clutch

plowking

12-10-2009, 11:29 AM

Shaq would also be the only top 10 player that a) didnt play great defense b)wasnt clutch

LOL, Magic was a great defender now? Bird wasn't that much better either.

Jordan
Kareem
Bird
Shaq
Magic
Hakeem
Duncan
Russel
Wilt
Kobe

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 11:52 AM

Kareem vs Shaq:

Kareem may have the edge in titles won, but Shaq has the 3-2 edge in Finals MVPs won and played with less great players during his titles runs. Kareem played with HoFers like Bob McAdoo, Magic Johnson, James Worthy, and Oscar Robertson during his title runs. Shaq won rings with only two players who are most likely going to be in the Hall of Fame one day in Kobe Bryant (a top 10 player NOW) and Wade. One game in particular sums up why Shaq has a case of being a better player than Kareem in my opinion. During Game 6 of the 1980 Finals, with the Lakers up 3-2 against the Sixers, Kareem, who was in his prime, couldn’t play because of an ankle injury. Magic Johnson thus took his place at center and led the Lakers to a championship clinching victory. Imagine if Shaq got injured in the playoffs during his 3-peat with the Lakers and they still managed to beat a team comparable to Julius Erving’s Sixers in a clinching game, a championship game for that matter? This is unimaginable to me.

If you took Shaq off the Lakers during their runs, LA would not be a shoe in for the post season. When Shaq was injured during his 3 peats, the Lakers had a regular-season record of 12-11 (.5217%). When Kobe was injured, the Lakers regular season record was 25-7 (.78%). Interestingly, the Lakers entire regular season record during their 3 peat was 181-65 (.735%), which is a lower record than when Kobe wasn’t playing. The Lakers actually had a better record when Kobe wasn’t playing. If you took Kareem off his team during his third to sixth title runs, I believe his teams would still have gone deep in the playoffs, considering how much talent he had on his teams, with James Worthy and Magic Johnson as his teammates (1991 is a prime example).

During Kareem's last 2 titles, which separate him from Shaq, he only averaged 16pts a game during the season and wasn’t even one of the two best players on his team. During Shaq’s title runs, he was more important to his team than Kareem was. One of the MOST important things that Shaq does that statistics do not record is the amount of fouls he draws. Nearly every player who EVER guarded Shaq was constantly in foul trouble. Some teams would have to put their 4th string big in to guard Shaq because all their other big men would be in foul trouble. The guy epitomizes the word unstoppable.

As I said, it's arguable. KAJ is probably the better Center.

Dizzle-2k7

12-10-2009, 12:11 PM

LOL, Magic was a great defender now? Bird wasn't that much better either.

Jordan
Kareem
Bird
Shaq
Magic
Hakeem
Duncan
Russel
Wilt
Kobe

Yea, but they were both clutch as heck.

Cerebral Jedi

12-10-2009, 12:16 PM

http://rsltothecore.com/rslblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/kazaam.jpg

That's why.

plowking

12-10-2009, 12:20 PM

Yea, but they were both clutch as heck.

Shaq isn't clutch? Putting up 38 and 16 in a finals series isn't clutch? Not to mention his other two ridiculous series...

Dizzle-2k7

12-10-2009, 12:24 PM

Shaq isn't clutch? Putting up 38 and 16 in a finals series isn't clutch? Not to mention his other two ridiculous series...

Guess we define clutch differently..clutch to most people is showing up big in the final minutes of a close game. :confusedshrug:

There were many games (even FINALS games) where Shaq wasnot in the game due to foul trouble, inability to shoot freethrows, etc.

plowking

12-10-2009, 12:34 PM

Dizzle-2k7

12-10-2009, 12:36 PM

Plowking, let me show you how a bigman is clutch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DYJKoCjWrQ

:bowdown:

You just got served.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 12:42 PM

Guess we define clutch differently..clutch to most people is showing up big in the final minutes of a close game. :confusedshrug:

There were many games (even FINALS games) where Shaq wasnot in the game due to foul trouble, inability to shoot freethrows, etc.

Being clutch isn't just about freethrows. Shaq has shot better from the field (58.2 percent) than from the free throw line (52.8 percent) during the course of his 17 year career. His woeful % from the FT line (the league average since his rookie season has been 74.8 percent) has led to the often used "Hack-a-Shaq" strategy.

A few years ago (during the 3-peat), when Shaq was questioned about his FT percentage, he said, "I make them when they count." First of all, the idea that a free throw late in the game is more important than a free throw early in the game is questionable. They're both worth one point. But for the sake of this argument, let's look at Shaq's "clutchness" (whether he's a better FT shooter late in close games than he is at other times). Obviously, he doesn't turn into Mark Price at the line, but he can at least turn into Tim Duncan, a career 69 % shooter.

For clutch situations, lets look at the last five minutes of a game (82 games criteria), with a scoring margin of 5 points or less:

2001-02
FTA/FTM: 40/64 - 62.5% Regular Season (other situations) 493/861 - 57.3%

+5.2%

This is only for the 2001 / 2002 seasons, but that is still considered "clutch", for his standards at least.

plowking

12-10-2009, 12:45 PM

How did I get served? I didn't mention anything about Duncan... You're just a flaming homer who knows jack all about basketball.

How is Duncan any clutcher than Shaq? Just because he made some lucky shots during the end of a match. Shaq has done that too... awesome.

You just need to get over the fact that Shaq was a far better player than Duncan.

Abraham Lincoln

12-10-2009, 12:59 PM

Bigsmoke

12-10-2009, 01:03 PM

Shaq is not a better basketball player than:

Frazier, Erving or even Kobe in his prime.

to me he is

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 01:11 PM

Russell was a horrific FT shooter, yet arguably the most clutch player to play the sport. Clutch is coming up big during a key stretch of a game or playoff series, something O'Neal did. Much more than top of the key iso buzzer beaters of FT's.

The myth that Kobe always had the ball, or shot during the clutch. Shaq is underrated in the clutch.

:cheers:

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 01:16 PM

According to 82games (4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points).

22.9pts (11 attempts) 54% 72%FTs 2stl 2blk

ShaqAttack3234

12-10-2009, 02:50 PM

prime shaq was incredible.. but prime shaq only lasted 3 years. so is lebron top 10 all time now because of what he's done these past 3 years? what if the rest of lebrons career is tarnished by missing playoffs, sweeps in the 1st round, alienating teammates, coaches, etc... is he still top 10?

It's not like Shaq was only dominant during the 3peat. Shaq in the mid 90's with Orlando and the Lakers was still better than Duncan was any year except maybe '02 and '03.

Shaq would also be the only top 10 player that a) didnt play great defense b)wasnt clutch

Shaq made a great defensive impact(greater than Magic, Bird or Kobe) and he was a flat out better defensive player than Magic or Bird. Shaq was no stiff defensively, he was always an elite shot blocker and rebounder which is extremely valuable and you can't overlook his post defense or intimidation. To this day he remains a solid post defender, he did a good job on Duncan when he was with Phoenix and he still does a good job on Dwight Howard.

There were many games (even FINALS games) where Shaq wasnot in the game due to foul trouble, inability to shoot freethrows, etc.

Every player, not just Shaq is benched for a bit when they get their 5th foul. And prime Shaq wasn't on the bench for free throw shooting. He was too valuable to the team. That's why in the playoffs he was playing 42+ mpg. The hack a Shaq strategy usually backfired on teams anyway. Not because Shaq was a great free throw shooter, but because he'd usually hit some of them meaning teams were giving away free points, their entire frontline would be in foul trouble and the Lakers would be able to control the tempo and set up their defense.

The only time Shaq wasn't in the game during the final seconds was if the Lakers were up by 3 and they were guarding against the 3 specifically.

Plowking, let me show you how a bigman is clutch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DYJKoCjWrQ

:bowdown:

You just got served.

Come on, we all know that was a lucky shot. There's a reason why Phoenix left him wide open for that. If Phoenix could have had any Spur taking a 3 they would have chosen Duncan because he's 24-131 in his career on 3's and 3-27 in his playoff career.

guy

12-10-2009, 03:18 PM

I posted something about this in another thread. I completely agree with Roundball Rock. Shaq is underappreciated. To me, it seems like the majority of fans consider Jordan, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Wilt, Russell to be in a class of their own. I don't understand why Shaq isn't part of that. IMO he's as high as 3rd (behind Jordan and Kareem) and as low as 7th behind all those guys but at the very least he deserves to be in the discussion with them. It doesn't really make sense to me.

ThaRegul8r

12-10-2009, 04:28 PM

Russell was a horrific FT shooter, yet arguably the most clutch player to play the sport.

People always say this, but how many people know this?:

Red Auerbach: When you talk about character, you’re talking about the clutch shot, the last-second shot that’s going to decide whether you go home a winner or a loser.

Take my word for it, there have been many great stars in the NBA who avoided that shot like a plague. They just didn’t want the responsibility of possibly failing when all eyes were on them.

[...]

We always had guys who wanted—who welcomed—the responsibility of taking the final shot. The challenge excited them. The pressure just aroused their pride. “Hey, give me the ball. I’ll shoot the damned thing up there, and I’ll live with the consequences.”

Bob Cousy. Frank Ramsey. Tommy Heinsohn. Sam Jones. John Havlicek. They loved being forced to rise to any occasion. That’s when they were at their best. In the tightest of situations, when many so-called stars looked for ways to retreat, these guys came on like gangbusters.

Even Russell merits a mention here. Sure, everyone knew what he would do at his end of the court in a spot like that. You knew he’d make the big defensive play, or block the shot, or grab the rebound. But offensively he was just as tough in the clutch. If the game hung in the balance when he stepped up to the line, he’d drop those shots right into the hole. That’s character.

But that's his coach. Biased, right?

Fred Schaus, coach of the LA Lakers for four of their six NBA Finals defeats at the hands of Russell and the Celtics: “What told me so much about Russell was his foul shooting. For most of the game you wanted him at the line. He was lucky to hit 60 percent. He had terrible form, sort of flinging the ball instead of shooting it. But down the stretch, he never missed a clutch free throw. [...] Foul shooting was the weakest part of his game, yet it wasn’t something he’d let defeat him.”

Example: 1962 NBA Finals. Game 7. Boston wins 110-107. Russell makes 14 of 17 free throws. The game was a close game, and making free throws could mean the difference between winning and losing. So Russell made them. Because he always did whatever the team needed done in order to win. Russell also shot 75.4 percent from the line for the whole series. He went to the line more than any other player on the Celtics, and only Baylor and West went to the line more often than him for the series. Russell averaged a personal best 22.4 points during that postseason and shot 72.6 percent from the line. In the 1965 Finals, Russell led the Celtics in scoring and shot 74 percent from the line. Why does no one talk about this? Russell actually did make them when they counted, and the evidence is there for anyone actually interested in finding out the truth. While of course we know about things like Karl Malone blowing important free throws in a finals game which enabled the Bulls to win.

Da_Realist

12-10-2009, 04:32 PM

A simple question cries for a simple answer.

Shaq is not top 5, because there were at least 5 players better than him. Thos 5 players are:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Michael Jordan
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain

Four out of this five I saw play. They were better than Shaq, even if Shaq might have had a higher peak than all, as is said. I'm nopt sure Shaq at his peak was better than Bird or Jordan were at theirs though.

In addition to these 5 players, I can name 3 other players having a case over Shaq:

Russell
Olajuwon
Duncan

That leaves Shaq anywhere between #6 and #9 on the list. I personally put him at #8 (behing Russell and Olajuwon but ahead of Duncan).

You may ask why, and if I can prove it. No, I can't prove it and I don't want to. There is no need to prove an opinion. I saw these guys play (not Wilt and Russell, but the rest), and I can assure anyone that Shaq has not had as good a basketball career as those other players mentioned.

The farthest I can go is say Shaq was a top 5 player if only the absolute primes are concerned. (MJ, Bird and Wilt above, Hakeem arguable, Magic arguable...)

Shaq is easily top 10. And not top 5. No amount of statwhoring will change that.

It's fair, sure. I won't do that because I've seen none of Wilt save for very little footage. I think you are not old enough to have seen Wilt play, right? So what are you trying to argue? Numbers?

Are you going to watch this season's playoffs? Because I can send you the stats in Mid June and you can save lots of time that way.

Arguing all time greatness through numbers... I want none of that. It's like talking about movies using the box office stats, PR and merchandise stuff, without having seen the moviesor talking about the scenes themselves. Rather pointless.

Yes, adjusted to [s]pace, Shaq may have the best numbers in this world. I don't care. He was not as good as Bird, Magic, Kareem or MJ. Or Hakeem for that matter.

I asked if you were going to watch or just take a look at the numbers. Not Shaq's numbers just the numbers in general. I do not get why people are trying to argue greatness through numbers. Or accolades.

No, winning 5 rings instead of 4 did not make Magic automatically better than Shaq. Magic was better though. Magic won more than Bird but I think he was not any better than Bird. Hakeem won less than Shaq, but he was not a worse player. I could go on.

A few % difference in FG%, a few ppg here and there, a few more or less rebounds... it says nothing. Stats depend on your era, your teammates, your coach's strategy (mpg for example), etc. Arguing Shaq was better than Wilt, because adjusted to pace...................:sleeping

But it's all right. To each his own. Shaq is between #6 and #9 in my book, and I have him at #8. I won't argue it any further, I don't hink it makes sense.

:applause: I pretty much agree with all these points.

IInvented

12-10-2009, 04:33 PM

Batchoy

12-10-2009, 04:52 PM

It's all about personal preference. In my opinion, Shaq should be in everyone's top 10, but that's just me. I'm not going to argue him in the top 5, but I don't think he has it to be in the top 3. I actually have him 6th on my list, though on other lists he could easily drop to 8th-9th or go up to 4th and I won't mind.

ShaqAttack3234

12-10-2009, 04:54 PM

Under what criteria is Shaq not top 5?

Championships as "the man" Well that'd leave you with.

1.Russell
2.Jordan
3.Duncan
4.Magic or Kareem(depending on who you consider the MVP of the '82 and '85 titles)
5.Shaq/Bird

Championships among star players.

1.Russell
2.Jordan/Kareem
4.Magic
5.Shaq/Kobe

Peak/Prime

In no order: Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Jordan, Bird

Stats

Chamberlain, Abdul-Jabbar, Jordan, Shaq, Bird

Longevity

Kareem, Jordan, Karl Malone, Shaq, Moses Malone(?)

AirJordan23

12-10-2009, 06:13 PM

I'm not going to bother about ranking Shaq at an all time scale. I never watched Wilt, Russell, Oscar, Magic, Bird etc play so I don't have a proper opinion on them. I've been watching ball since the early-mid 90s so I didn't get a chance to witness some of the legends that embraced the path for some of the players today. I was glad that I watched Magic in his 1996 comeback, though. Anyway, I rank Shaq as the 3rd greatest player I had the chance of witnessing. My rankings look something like this:

1). MJ
2). Hakeem
3). Shaq
4). Duncan
5). Kobe

I think highly of Shaq. I actually feel there's a lack of appreciation for his astonishing peak. He was out there just dominating games, abusing centers and wreaking havoc. He was unguardable in the true sense. And his skill also gets underappreciated. Shaq had an array of low post moves including his famous dropstep, black tornado, nice spin move to the baseline, jumphook, bank off the glass and a nice step through move. Also, he's probably the most doubled and tripled player I've ever seen. In his days with Orlando, he had a very versatile offensive game. He'd go coast to coast, do some crazy and flashy passes and even had some mid range game. Guarding this guy was literally impossible. Sabonis did a great job of "limiting" him in the sense that Shaq didn't have that monster 30/15esque series. Sabonis had a lot of upper-body strength and did a good job of preventing Shaq from getting deep-post position. But really, Shaq was a gorilla. He'd humiliate you, take your pride away, dunk all over you and throw you off your game. His defense was solid as well. A lot more than solid, actually. He guarded the paint very well and was a very good shot blocker. Not a lot of guards had the balls to penetrate when they saw Shaq in the paint. His pick and roll defense was horrific, though especially in his later days with Miami, Phoenix and now the Cavs. His post-defense was solid.

A lot of people would disagree with the Dream being ranked above Shaq but I always felt Hakeem was better than him and had a more complete game. I wrote a very long post about it sometime ago. I'll just copy and paste it if anyone cares. Not that I think anyone is going to bother reading it. Here it is:

Shaq was an intimidating presence in the paint. There is not a single person that I've ever seen that guards the rim better than Shaq does. KJ does not have the BALLS to dunk on Shaq the way he did to Dream in game 4 of the '94 WCSF. Shaq was also more offensively dominant in the paint due to sheer size and strength. Shaq's ability to run the floor also gets underrated along with his footwork, skill and rebounding. Shaq had a real nice touch near the rim, great passer out of the low post and great at reading doubles. Also had some dominant rebounding seasons NEXT to Grant in 95 and 96. If he wasn't so offensively involved, his numbers could've been HIGHER. Statnerds won't know this.

Comparing their games, Shaq was more DOMINANT, bigger and stronger while Hakeem was much more agile, quicker, versatile and a better FT shooter. FT shooting was something that didn't allow Shaq to be a closer. Their passing was great. Hakeem wasn't a great passer until he was a part of Rudy T's system. Rudy made Hakeem a bit more of a focal point than he was in the late 80s. Shaq was a flashy passer in his Orlando days and all about style. Both were great but I'd say Shaq was a slightly better passer. Scoring is also going to Shaq but his efficiency is blown out of the proportion. When you factor in FT%, it's not a huge difference. Defense is definitely going to the Dream. He was a panther out there chasing down cats, stealing the ball and leading the break, having the ability to go for the block YET STILL recover in time, playing great post defense, denying position, guarding the pick and roll etc. Shaq was also an underrated defender but obviously not as good as Olajuwon.

Here's the thing that seperates Hakeem from Shaq as far as I'm concerned. Competition. I'm not knocking on Shaq because he destroyed his competition but whether he'd do that in Hakeem's years is the $ question. I think he would but there's no way to prove it. Shaq also didn't have competition like Olajuwon did. Look at Olajuwon's competition (PFs and Cs): Robinson, Barkley, malone, mourning, shaq, mutombo, ewing, tarpley etc. Compare this to shaq's competition and it's not that close. These are the players who Olajuwon made the all nba first team over: Moses in 1987, Ewing in 1988, 1989, 1993 and 1997, Robinson in 1994 and he SHOULD have made the first team over KAJ in 86. Compare that to the trash Shaq beat out, it's not that close. I'm not blaming Shaq for his time period, btw. He came into the league in 1992, he can't help it. Credit to Shaq for being named into the top 50 in 1996. Hakeem has some monstrous defensive seasons. 9 seasons of over 1.5 SPG and 3 BPG. A season where he recorded 4.6 BPG and 2.1 SPG.

Hakeem could also CARRY a team better. Shaq from 1994-2005 played on teams better than Olajuwon did in what are considered his bad years (1987-1992). Hell, Orlando in Shaq's rookie season wasn't that bad either. His impact on the team is overstated. That 20 win increase wasn't solely due to his presence. iirc, they had to deal with a lot of injuries in the previous season that landed them the #1 pick. I can guarantee you without checking the record, Orlando in 1991 didn't do as terrible as they did in 92. I would've liked to seen Shaq carry a team in the late 90s and early 00s. And I know people are going to bring up their record without Kobe which was great (11-3 in 2001 iirc) but I would've liked to seen a bigger sample like the whole season.

Olajuwon's teams were terrible. Sampson had to deal with knee injuries and several Rockets players fell out of the map. They retired or were suspended due to doing coke. Hakeem still had some great performances. Had something like 47/25 in a double ot game against Seattle in 87...put up some monstrous stats. Rockets made the playoffs every year save for 1992 where hakeem was suspended for several games and had issues with the organization..Hakeem was accused of faking an injury and there were chemistry issues...Everyone knows what he did post-1992. You ever see Shaq take one of the least TALENTED teams to the finals and win it all. Talkin 1994 here. Hakeem had one of the best UNITS in the league if not the best but they weren't very talented. They were clutch and hit big shots, played their role to perfection but not a lot of talent. Barkley called him the best player in the league back in 94. Hakeem was the stastical dream and could do everything on the court. Quadruple doubles, 5x5 etc show that. He had this rep of being selfish and lazy in the early 90s. But, anyone who closely followed Houston knew the TRASH Hakeem played with. Hakeem demanded a trade around 1991 and had some issues with the contract. Rockets suspended him and were terrible without him. They settled the issues later on.

Also, there's a myth that Olajuwon killed Shaq in the finals. He outplayed him but didn't kill him despite what Shaq suggests. That's utterly due to respect. Shaq called him the best center in the league in 1999. Yea, that aint no typo. Horry also said the Dream was the best big he ever played with which includes a prime shaq, prime hakeem and near prime Duncan. I don't see how one can't use his POINT OF VIEW as a legit argument. He played with all the 3, he would know much more than me or anyone else would ever know about them.

What I'll give Shaq is that his "peak" lasted longer than Hakeem's. Hakeem's prime only lasted from 1993-96. Part of it is due to Rudy T's system. Rudy had a substantial amount of impact on Olajuwon's game and the team around him. He and the team flourish and made several post season runs after that. The Rockets were actually robbed in game 7 of the 1993 WCSF against Seattle. A couple of terrible calls killed them and the game went to OT iirc. 1996, Hakeem was totally shut down due to the Sonics' illegal defense.

Anyway, this is just my stance on this subject. Arguments can be made for either player but nobody is going to change my stance of the Dream being greater than Shaq.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 06:17 PM

I've been watching ball since the early-mid 90s so I didn't get a chance to witness some of the legends that embraced the path for some of the players today. I was glad that I watched Magic in his 1996 comeback, though. Anyway, I rank Shaq as the 3rd greatest player I had the chance of witnessing. My rankings look something like this:

1). MJ
2). Hakeem
3). Shaq
4). Duncan
5). Kobe

Your list is perfect if you started watching in 1992-1993. By the time it is all said and done, Kobe is going to overtake a few guys on that list, I think. Oh, and Bird and Magic are below Jordan and above Hakeem, and Kareem has a case of having been better than Jordan.

Nice list. :applause:

AirJordan23

12-10-2009, 06:26 PM

Your list is perfect if you started watching in 1992-1993. By the time it is all said and done, Kobe is going to overtake a few guys on that list, I think. Oh, and Bird and Magic are below Jordan and above Hakeem, and Kareem has a case of having been better than Jordan.

Nice list. :applause:
Hey, that's all good. And that is around the time that I started watching ball. By looking at Kareem's stats longevity and accolades, you can say he is DEFINITELY greater than Hakeem and has a very convincing case over MJ but I'm not going to rank him above either. Or, actually, I'm not goint to rank him at all. That doesn't mean I don't have respect for him or that I don't appreciate his game; it's just that I never watched enough of him to form a respectable and coherent opinion about him.

ThaRegul8r

12-10-2009, 06:27 PM

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 06:29 PM

It's also refreshing to see someone admit they haven't seen some all-time greats and thus are not going to attempt an all-time list, but rather list the greatest players they've ever seen. If only more people thought that way.

:applause:

I made a habit out of NOT ranking anyone before 1980 when I started watching. I knew a few more guys with the same habit. Not too many though.

ThaRegul8r

12-10-2009, 06:30 PM

Hey, that's all good. And that is around the time that I started watching ball. By looking at Kareem's stats longevity and accolades, you can say he is DEFINITELY greater than Hakeem and has a very convincing case over MJ but I'm not going to rank him above either. Or, actually, I'm not goint to rank him at all. That doesn't mean I don't have respect for him or that I don't appreciate his game; it's just that I never watched enough of him to form a respectable and coherent opinion about him.

:applause:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying that one doesn't know enough about something to form an opinion. That's a sign of intelligence. Yet you have some people who make statements anyway despite possessing no knowledge about the subject.

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 06:31 PM

Shaq versus Hakeem:

Olajuwon: 18 seasons
Career: 21.8 ppg, 51.2 FG%, 11.1 RPG, 2.5 APG 3.1 BPG, 1.7 SPG
Single-season peak: 27.3 PPG, 14 RPG, 4.6 BPG

Only averaged more than 25 points per game in a season four times

Shaq: in his 17th seasons
25.2 PPG , 58.1 FG%, 11.5 RPG, 2.4 BPG, 2.7 APG, .6 SPG
Averaged over 25 points per game 10 times
Single-season peak: 29.7 PPG 3.5 BPG 13.9 RPG

The main difference between the two is that Shaq is a better scorer, while Hakeem is a better defender. However, individual offensive power is more important than individual defensive power. For example, who would you rather have on your team: a great defender like Bruce Bowen (in his prime), or a great offensive player like Tmac (prime)? Team defense, not individual defenders, win you championships, while individual offensive superstars win you championships as well. Now let’s see who’s a better winner.

Hakeem Olajuwon

Won his division 3 times, 7 times past the 1st round of the playoffs, 4 conference finals appearances, 3 NBA finals appearances, 2 NBA titles, 2 Finals MVPs

Shaquille O’Neal

Won his division 9 times, 13 times past the first round of the playoffs, 9 conference finals appearances, 6 NBA finals appearances, 4 NBA titles, 3 finals MVPs. When it comes down to winning, maybe the most important attribute that defines a player, Shaq wins hands down. Keep in mind, if Michael Jordan hadn’t retired in 1993, Olajuwon more than likely wouldn’t have won any titles, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. I don’t understand how anyone can say Olajuwon is better than Shaq when he isn’t nearly as good of a scorer or more importantly a winner. I’m not going to compare the statistics of Shaq vs. Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar because the eras were so different and have been thoroughly discussed in the thread (well, Wilt has at least).

It's not about "statwhoring". His impact, peak, consistency, longevity, etc are that of a top 5 player. I can go on about Russel and Duncan (talked about in the other thread) but that would be meaningless.

:bowdown:

It is astonishing to me how often people have Hakeem over Shaq. There are even a few people here who have Hakeem over Kareem. In reality Hakeem, while perhaps a superior player, has inferior credentials than Tim Duncan (half the rings, half the MVP's, etc.).

Stats depend on your era, your teammates, your coach's strategy (mpg for example), etc. Arguing Shaq was better than Wilt, because adjusted to pace...............

Stats=performance. To make it simple:

Shaq: raised his game in the playoffs, raised it yet again in the NBA finals
Wilt: got worse as the stakes got bigger (the year he averaged 50 ppg he averaged 35 ppg in the playoffs and scored 22 points in Game 7 against Russell, which he lost as usual)

It isn't as if there is some nefarious spin going on here. These trends are as clear as day. Would anyone seriously take Wilt over Shaq if they had to pick one to be on their team in the NBA finals?

Roundball_Rock, I remember a Pippen thread in which you posted that people rank players based on different criteria and that also goes for Shaq. Rankings are completely subjective.. So people will always have a good case if they rank Shaq anywhere between 1 and 8 or so (definitely not lower). You might disagree, but you cants say they're wrong .. it's their opinion right?

Sure. I am curious to see a criteria which has him outside the top 5. Maybe it will appear on page 5 or 6. Other than Jordan, no one else is always in people's top 5 lists. Some people even have Kareem as low as 7th. What I am curious about is what criteria people use to rank Shaq 7th or 12th or to claim Hakeem or even someone like Magic was better.

I've often times said that Shaq is probably the most underappreciated and disrespected superstar in NBA history. People really don't realize how good Shaq actually was. Just look at his dominance during the Lakers three peat. He was like a man amongst boys out there. This was his league and everybody knew it. Arguably the most dominant player of all time. He had a complete low post game offensively. He was better defensively than people give him credit for and he was nowhere near the liability in crunch time that people try and pretend he was.

:applause: The thing that stands out the most for me is at his peak there was no one in the league even close to Shaq.

I have Wilt over Shaq in my rankings, but at times I can see a case for Shaq over Wilt based on the fact that he had more success and got more results. But I can't get over the fact that he never led the league in rebounding and blocks as all the other G.O.A.T. centers above him on my list and even some below him on the list did, and like Bill Simmons said, he left something on the table. Other top 10 G.O.A.T.s there are "if only"'s like: "if only Bird didn't have a bad back." "If only Magic didn't contract HIV." But there are too many "if only"s with Shaq that were completely within his control. When you're talking about the greatest of the great, that matters.

Shaq is unfairly criticized for leaving on a table. Wilt and Jordan did the same. The latter walked off from teams fresh off three consecutive championships--twice.

prime shaq was incredible.. but prime shaq only lasted 3 years.

Prime Shaq lasted a decade from 1994-2003. People forget that he was a 29 ppg scorer by his second season. He remained an elite player until 2006. You are confusing peak with prime. Everyone has a peak of a few years. Primes have varying lengths. Shaq having such an extended period of excellence, and then several more seasons of very good play (1993, 2009 for example) should be a mark in his favor regarding his ranking.

Lebron isn't top 10 right now for the same reasons Shaq wasn't after 6-7 years. Longevity matters and so does winning a championship. If longevity and winning didn't matter Grant Hill would be one of the top 20-25 players ever.

Shaq would also be the only top 10 player that a) didnt play great defense b)wasnt clutch

Shaq was a very good defender in his prime. Not clutch? Did you see his final's performances?

The last clutch top 10 player of all-time is hands down Wilt Chamberlain. His is the only top 10 player whose production plummeted in the playoffs. Everyone else either held serve or slightly increased. Yet no one holds that against Wilt, even though every other player under the sun with such a record is crucified. Too bad Karl Malone didn't play in the 60's. :oldlol:

Kareem may have the edge in titles won, but Shaq has the 3-2 edge in Finals MVPs won and played with less great players during his titles runs. Kareem played with HoFers like Bob McAdoo, Magic Johnson, James Worthy, and Oscar Robertson during his title runs. Shaq won rings with only two players who are most likely going to be in the Hall of Fame one day in Kobe Bryant (a top 10 player NOW) and Wade. One game in particular sums up why Shaq has a case of being a better player than Kareem in my opinion.

FMVP's are vastly overrated imo. Kareem is the best example of why. In 1980 he averaged 33/14/3/5/1 on 55% shooting and last the FMVP because he missed one game. Magic's line was 21.5/9/11. Yet he won the FMVP?

The other problem I have with FMVP's is many people assume it means no one else made significant contributions to his team. 21.5/9/11. That sounds awfully like 21/9/8 doesn't it (especially if you adjust for pace...)? Yet people praise Magic for winning the FMVP and then some of these same people chide Pippen for not winning one even though he had lines of 21/9/8, 21/8/8, 21/9/7 in the finals--which he did playing world class defense unlike some others with FMVP's who had similar lines but played pedestrian defense.

It is true Kareem played with more talent in absolute terms but you have to look at relative talent. Kareem's opposition also had far more absolute talent because of the league was not as diluted as today. Shaq was playing in finals against a past his prime Reggie Miller and Rik Smits. Kareem was up against people like Havelick and Cowens or Bird and McHale. In relative terms they had similarly talented teams. Look at who Shaq's second best player was. His second best player was better than or equal to nearly every team's best player from 2001 forward and equal to or better than most in 2000. Kobe was similar to AI in 01' and Kidd in 02' for instance. This is a significant luxury. It is rare for two top 5 players to be on the same time (Jordan/Pippen, Kareem/Magic are some other examples).

During Game 6 of the 1980 Finals, with the Lakers up 3-2 against the Sixers, Kareem, who was in his prime, couldn’t play because of an ankle injury. Magic Johnson thus took his place at center and led the Lakers to a championship clinching victory. Imagine if Shaq got injured in the playoffs during his 3-peat with the Lakers and they still managed to beat a team comparable to Julius Erving’s Sixers in a clinching game, a championship game for that matter? This is unimaginable to me.

The Bulls were championship contenders without Jordan and that isn't held against him. Magic had one great game. Could that team have contended over the course of a season? The Bulls proved they could. Game 6, like 94', says more about the greatness of Magic and Pippen imo than it does about Kareem and Jordan.

You are correct that the Lakers collapsed without Shaq but in 96' the Magic remained an elite team when Shaq was hurt thanks to Penny pulling a Pippen-lite.

Kareem had long sustained dominance. He was the best player in basketball for about a decade. Shaq's window was about a half a decade.

Great post, though. I disagree with some of it but you presented a factual, well-reasoned case for Shaq over Kareem. :cheers:

Yea, but they were both clutch as heck.

Magic choked away a ring in 84'; Shaq never did.

Great post, ShaqAttack.

Under what criteria is Shaq not top 5?

Championships as "the man" Well that'd leave you with.

1.Russell
2.Jordan
3.Duncan
4.Magic or Kareem(depending on who you consider the MVP of the '82 and '85 titles)
5.Shaq/Bird

Championships among star players.

1.Russell
2.Jordan/Kareem
4.Magic
5.Shaq/Kobe

Peak/Prime

In no order: Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Jordan, Bird

Stats

Chamberlain, Abdul-Jabbar, Jordan, Shaq, Bird

Longevity

Kareem, Jordan, Karl Malone, Shaq, Moses Malone(?)

This is the question I posted in the OP and here we are on page 6 and no one has presented any consistently applied criteria that has him out the top 5.

I pretty much agree with all these points.

No surprise there. Saying "Player X was just better" is a great argument? For all his song and dance and speech against numbers (re: facts) he never explained his reasoning. Hakeem was arguably better than Shaq. Based on what? Footwork? Hakeem's impact was nowhere near Shaq's.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 06:32 PM

It is astonishing to me how often people have Hakeem over Shaq.

I have three questions:

1) How old are you?
2) When did you start watching games regularly?
3) For how long have you played (were you playing) organized basketball, say at least 5 practices and two games a week

Be honest, please.

magnax1

12-10-2009, 06:36 PM

Hakeem was in no way better than Shaq. Even in Hakeem's prime, and Shaq's Orlando days, they were at minimum equal. Hakeem was a shot blocker and obviously jump shooter, more clutch, and thats it.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 06:36 PM

For all his song and dance and speech against numbers (re: facts)

Numbers are not facts, numbers are DATA. There is a huge defference between facts and data.

I'm a physicist by training, so I have nothing against numbers... but numbers are only a way to measure SOMETHING. And we choose to measure what we want the way we want at the time we want. And we are not even perfect at that. Focusing solely on numbers can ruin your life.

Just saying.

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 06:38 PM

Here's the thing that seperates Hakeem from Shaq as far as I'm concerned. Competition. I'm not knocking on Shaq because he destroyed his competition but whether he'd do that in Hakeem's years is the $ question. I think he would but there's no way to prove it. Shaq also didn't have competition like Olajuwon did.

Great post, great points but this one was odd. Shaq was around during Hakeem's best years so how can you say he had no competition when he was playing at an extremely high level during Hakeem's peak? Yeah, Hakeem faced all those great centers but so did Shaq.

Regarding supporting casts, the same arguments could be made for Duncan over Shaq. Plus what did Shaq's "great" supporting casts do without him?

It is hard to speculate because Shaq always had a decent team around him but Hakeem lost in the first round, what, four or five years in a row. Can anyone envision a Shaq-led team doing that in his prime?

Numbers are not facts, numbers are DATA. There is a huge defference between facts and data.

I'm a physicist by training, so I have nothing against numbers... but numbers are only a way to measure SOMETHING. And we choose to measure what we want the way we want at the time we want. And we are not even perfect at that. Focusing solely on numbers can ruin your life.

Just saying.

Fact: 5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
Data: 1 : factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation

Statistics are both. Are they dispositive? Of course not but to dismiss them and then simply declare "Player X was better because I felt he was" is superior?

You are confusing skill with impact. Hakeem was more skilled than Shaq just as Yao is more skilled than Dwight. Who had more impact? The bottom line in basketball is to win games. Who brings you the best chance to do that? The guy with more skill or more impact?

AirJordan23

12-10-2009, 06:45 PM

Great post, great points but this one was odd. Shaq was around during Hakeem's best years so how can you say he had no competition when he was playing at an extremely high level during Hakeem's peak? Yeah, Hakeem faced all those great centers but so did Shaq.

Regarding supporting casts, the same arguments could be made for Duncan over Shaq. Plus what did Shaq's "great" supporting casts do without him?

It is hard to speculate because Shaq always had a decent team around him but Hakeem lost in the first round, what, four or five years in a row. Can anyone envision a Shaq-led team doing that in his prime?
Speculate = key word in your post.

Shaq was around Hakeem's best years. But, I was making a different point. You're on the right track but not really. I'm not saying Shaq wouldn't dominate. I'm just saying he didn't do it because he didn't get the chance. Not Shaq's fault because in his peak, there were hardly any quality centers left. I'm not holding that against Shaq but Olajuwon went through those centers and outplayed them. Shaq didn't really go up against a great big men in the playoffs during Dream's era.

Shaq in the 1990s had the teams to win but he was an immature prick who was known for making silly TOs. And I'm not totally putting his team's losses on him. Most of the times, Shaq did his part. Take game 1 in the '95 finals for example where Nick bricked 4 FTs in a row or the 1998 WCF where nobody except for Shaq showed up and Jazz killed them on the pick and roll defense. Shaq obviously took advantage of the lack of competition in 2000s but that's where the competition "point" comes from. Would Shaq have played at the level Olajuwon did while facing top notch competition in the playoffs? I think so but there's no way to prove it. It's basically hypothetical. Shaq and Hakeem both took advantage of their situations. One did it with MJ swinging a bat, the other when the league was a bit watered down.

Regardless, you made a good point and I should have been more specific in my earlier post.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 06:47 PM

The bottom line in basketball is to win games. Who brings you the best chance to do that? The guy with more skill or more impact?

Shaq had more impact for like 2-3 years and that's it. His peak was higher. Hakeem had more impact for like over a decade, mainly due to the following factors:

1) much better defense
2) better free throw shooting
3) better team player

Shaq's absolute prime was better, I agree. But it didn't last long enough to put him ahead of Hakeem on an all time GREATS list. Were it a 'best of all time'... maybe.

And you didn't answer my questions.

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 07:01 PM

We don't know what Shaq would have done against Robinson or Ewing in the playoffs because he never faced them in his primes but he did face Hakeem in the NBA finals and he did face Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, and Mutumbo in their primes in his career. We can look at that for an idea. Even when Shaq was not at his peak and Robinson and Hakeem were at theirs he did well against them. He did play against peak Mourning and Yao.

So Shaq did play against these players even though in some cases they were at their peaks and he was yet at his. He did very well against them. It is reasonable to conclude that he would have done the same if he played them in the playoffs given his playoff record. If he were a choker or a shaky playoff performer than perhaps he would have choked against Robinson but there is no reason to believe that based on his record.

Of course, Hakeem did crush Robinson and Ewing and held serve with Shaq in the playoffs. That has to be a point--a big point--in his favor. However, how does Hakeem's overall career compare to Shaq's?

Shaq had more impact for like 2-3 years and that's it. His peak was higher. Hakeem had more impact for like over a decade, mainly due to the following factors:

1) much better defense
2) better free throw shooting
3) better team player

The same things can be said regarding Duncan. Does it then follow than Duncan>Shaq? It can even perhaps be said about Yao over Shaq.

Would you rather have Shaq's 5th best season or Hakeem's 5th best?

Shaq's absolute prime was better, I agree. But it didn't last long enough to put him ahead of Hakeem on an all time GREATS list. Were it a 'best of all time'... maybe.

You're confusing peak with prime. Shaq had a ten year run of dominance and was very good for a couple more. Shaq's longevity, as ShaqAttack noted, is up there with anyone (as long as they are not named Kareem).

I saw all of Shaq's career and Hakeem's peak. Shaq had more impact on the court although Hakeem was more entertaining to watch.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 07:04 PM

Roundball_Rock

You still haven't answered my three questions to you upthread.

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 07:06 PM

You still haven't answered my three questions to you upthread.

Who cares? They are irrelevant.

1993-94, 26, 6 years.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 07:06 PM

I saw all of Shaq's career and Hakeem's peak. Shaq had more impact on the court although Hakeem was more entertaining to watch.

So it's safe to say you started watching 1992ish. I have a feeling you were less than 15 when Hakeem was in his peak years and more than 15 when Shaq was in his peak years.

Correct?

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 07:09 PM

Who cares? They are irrelevant.

Not at all irrelevant. Pretty important.
Things tend to make the deepest impression when we are 15-20. No kidding.

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 07:11 PM

Yet I have Kareem and Jordan ahead of Shaq. Again, relevance?

magnax1

12-10-2009, 07:14 PM

Not at all irrelevant. Pretty important.
Things tend to make the deepest impression when we are 15-20. No kidding.
Thats pretty interesting, though it doesn't really matter that much. Its not a real good reason to disclaim someones opinion. Though it does correlate to the years I watched Hakeem vs. Shaq. And I rank Shaq over Hakeem.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 07:18 PM

Yet I have Kareem and Jordan ahead of Shaq. Again, relevance?

I'm not sure you should rank Kareem, given the circumstances.

But I can live with you ranking Shaq top 5. I disagree but it is no sin putting the man there. What I find strange however, is that you don't understand how anyone can have Hakeem higher than Shaq.

Well, there are many people like that... even if the majority says Shaq was better there is a pretty big crowd thinking it is the other way round. And no opinion ever became any more 'valid' by counting the number of people sharing said opinion.

I have Shaq below Hakeem and Russell. At #8. Duncan is #9.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 07:21 PM

Thats pretty interesting, though it doesn't really matter that much. Its not a real good reason to disclaim someones opinion. Though it does correlate to the years I watched Hakeem vs. Shaq. And I rank Shaq over Hakeem.

I'm not disclaiming anyone's opinion, but I'm discaliming when anyone tries to present an opinion as if it was a fact.

BTW, I was 18 when Shaq came to the NBA and borderline 20 when Hakeem dominated. And around 15 when the Lakers won their last few championships with Magic and Kareem.

It sure had an effect on how I value players. And it should have. Why not? I'm not a machine and neither are any of you guys. We are influenced. I think it's great.

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 07:26 PM

But I can live with you ranking Shaq top 5. I disagree but it is no sin putting the man there. What I find strange however, is that you don't understand how anyone can have Hakeem higher than Shaq.

I can see that since all of this is opinion and Hakeem was more skilled. What I can't see--and 7 pages in have yet to see--any consistent criteria under which Shaq is not top 5.

I'm not sure you should rank Kareem, given the circumstances.

I have Shaq below Hakeem and Russell. At #8. Duncan is #9.

Typical. So I should not rank Kareem yet you can rank Russell? This is the hypocrisy I often see here from posters in their mid-30's (as if that is the ideal age. These people missed Kareem's prime and completely missed Russell and Wilt yet pull the age card out all the time). It is odd. Only among basketball fans do you see this. No one here ever "saw" George Washington yet 99.9% of people rank him as a great president.

Regarding bias, there is nothing wrong with that. We all have biases.

magnax1

12-10-2009, 07:29 PM

I'm not disclaiming anyone's opinion, but I'm discaliming when anyone tries to present an opinion as if it was a fact.

BTW, I was 18 when Shaq came to the NBA and borderline 20 when Hakeem dominated. And around 15 when the Lakers won their last few championships with Magic and Kareem.

It sure had an effect on how I value players. And it should have. Why not? I'm not a machine and neither are any of you guys. We are influenced. I think it's great.
Well opinions are basically the closest thing to facts in basketball. Stats aren't sure indicators of a players ability, so the only real way to rank a players ability is an opinion. Though obviously we're all biased.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 07:31 PM

Typical. So I should not rank Kareem yet you can rank Russell? This is the hypocrisy I often see here from posters in their mid-30's (as if that is the ideal age. These people missed Kareem's prime and completely missed Russell and Wilt yet pull the age card out all the time). It is odd. Only among basketball fans do you see this. No one here ever "saw" George Washington yet 99.9% of people rank him as a great president.

You are right, I shouldn't rank Russell. I usually don't. Neither him, nor Wilt or Robertson. My list usually looks like this:

1st tier since 1980:
Jordan
Kareem
Bird
Magic

2nd tier since 1980:
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Kobe

I have a strong feeling no 2nd tier player will make it to the 1st tier on my list, but I feel no need to make rankings within tiers.

That's the way I rank players usually. Thanks for pointing it out though.

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 07:39 PM

I noticed it because Da_Realist does the same thing (which is why he was cheering your post)--even though he is only 7 years older than me. Let's face it: 99% of this board never saw prime Kareem let alone prime Wilt or Russell. How many senior citizens are there surfing the net' on message boards?

That is an interesting way to look it. Here is how I would rank them since 1993-94 (the first tier is in order, second tier is not):

First tier

Jordan
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Kobe

Second tier

Pippen
Garnett
Malone
Iverson
Stockton
Lebron
Robinson
Payton
Ewing
Wade
Dirk
Nash
Webber

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 07:40 PM

No one here ever "saw" George Washington yet 99.9% of people rank him as a great president.

Can you rank composers though? Who was better, make me a list:

Beethoven
Bach
Mozart

Actors? Rank these, please:

Spencer Tracy
Robert de Niro
Al Pacino
Anthony Hopkins
Sean Penn
Edward Norton
Kevin Spacey

Be definitive and prove what you think. :cheers:

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 07:42 PM

I have zero interest in classical music and I've never been big on movies. I am big on history, though, so I could give you reasons for ranking presidents. My interest in history is why I am often in these "all-time ranking" threads. I couldn't give you a list of best baseball players but I could give you decent rankings for NASCAR and F1 drivers or NFL QB's.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 07:45 PM

haji_d_robertas

12-10-2009, 07:54 PM

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar career ft% .721
Larry Bird career ft% .886
Wilt Chamberlain career ft % .511
Tim Duncan career ft% .685
Julius Irving career ft% .777
Michael Jordan career ft% .835
Magic Johnson career ft% .848
Shaquille O'neal career ft% .527
Hakeem Olajuwon career ft% .712

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 08:10 PM

I should have been specific. I am primarily interested in US history, although I have cursory knowledge of several foreign countries. To save you the inevitable post I'll do it in this thread.

1) FDR: Most great presidents dealt with one major crisis. FDR successfully dealt with two. He forever changed the country with the New Deal, which reversed a century and a half of hands-off government. The New Deal set the stage for the advances that occurred under Truman and the 60's. He was prescient regarding World War 2. Had the public come around quicker perhaps much of the carnage of WW2 could have been averted.

2) Lincoln: The usual reasons: he saved the Union, ended slavery (he brilliant walked a tightrope on the issue and evolved in a more humane direction throughout his life on race). Lincoln was willing to listen to various ideas and not afraid to change course when needed. These are important traits for a wartime leader, as we sadly learned the hard way in recent years.

3) Washington: He set the precedent for his successors. He put the country on stable financial and administrative footing, although most of that credit belongs to Alexander Hamilton. The biggest thing Washington did was what he didn't do. He did not become a military dictator in 1783. He laid down his arms and retired. When elected president, he stepped down of his own accord. These are amazing things when you compare it to what has happened in other nations, especially post-colonial countries of the 20th century.

4) Truman: He finished the job in World War 2, brilliant dealt with post-war Japan and Europe and heroically risked his presidency for the sake of doing the right thing on the issue of civil rights. His biggest legacy is perhaps the policy he set forth vis-a-vis the Soviet Union that ultimately led to victory for the US in the Cold War.

5) Jefferson: He doubled the size of the country in a bargain, reduced the national debt by nearly a half, and didn't overreact and cave in or go to war with Britain.

Honorable mention: Jackson, Polk, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Eisenhower, L. Johnson
Overrated: Reagan, Kennedy
Underrated: Truman, Polk
Worst ever: Buchanan
Best "what if?": Nixon

* Napoleon Bonaparte
* Alexander the Great
* Ghengis Khan

One of them ended his career in crushing defeat. Napoleon shouldn't be considered on par with the other two, especially Alexander. Alexander conquered the entire "known" world and erased the most powerful empire in the world from the map practically overnight.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 08:14 PM

OK.

Shaq is #8. :oldlol:

Rambis

12-10-2009, 08:29 PM

I should have been specific. I am primarily interested in US history, although I have cursory knowledge of several foreign countries. To save you the inevitable post I'll do it in this thread.

1) FDR: Most great presidents dealt with one major crisis. FDR successfully dealt with two. He forever changed the country with the New Deal, which reversed a century and a half of hands-off government. The New Deal set the stage for the advances that occurred under Truman and the 60's. He was prescient regarding World War 2. Had the public come around quicker perhaps much of the carnage of WW2 could have been averted.

2) Lincoln: The usual reasons: he saved the Union, ended slavery (he brilliant walked a tightrope on the issue and evolved in a more humane direction throughout his life on race). Lincoln was willing to listen to various ideas and not afraid to change course when needed. These are important traits for a wartime leader, as we sadly learned the hard way in recent years.

3) Washington: He set the precedent for his successors. He put the country on stable financial and administrative footing, although most of that credit belongs to Alexander Hamilton. The biggest thing Washington did was what he didn't do. He did not become a military dictator in 1783. He laid down his arms and retired. When elected president, he stepped down of his own accord. These are amazing things when you compare it to what has happened in other nations, especially post-colonial countries of the 20th century.

4) Truman: He finished the job in World War 2, brilliant dealt with post-war Japan and Europe and heroically risked his presidency for the sake of doing the right thing on the issue of civil rights. His biggest legacy is perhaps the policy he set forth vis-a-vis the Soviet Union that ultimately led to victory for the US in the Cold War.

5) Jefferson: He doubled the size of the country in a bargain, reduced the national debt by nearly a half, and didn't overreact and cave in or go to war with Britain.

hehe ****ing great post...

Here's my problem with Shaq, he charged almost every single play of his career. When the refs called it, he had no alternative, no consistent secondary move. I am a huge Lakers fan, watched every game of his career until he was gone from the Lakers, and knew that if the refs called the game according to the rules (for example, when they played the Spurs), he was a walking foul-out-of-the-game-machine.

Now I never saw Wilt play, but for this alone Dream, Magic, and many others are superior players. He was also a disgustingly HORRIBLE defender on any pick and roll play. He never worked on free throws or other moves to extend his career. IMO, he is a tragedy and btw if you want to compare his record to others, remember that the Lakers usually had the superior team in terms of firepower.

Anyone who says he was/is a better player than Magic is just retarded, no two ways about it.

pierce2008mvp

12-10-2009, 08:33 PM

Many don't even put Shaq ahead of Hakeem.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 08:49 PM

OK.

Shaq is #8. :oldlol:

You really had him rank presidents?

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 08:53 PM

You really had him rank presidents?

He wanted to do that.... why should I have held him back? :oldlol:

Not that I'd think it's possible ranking presidents either.... but why not? It's a nice hobby. So far, I never wanted to rank scientests or rock bands.... but I know Shaq is #8.

:oldlol:

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 08:57 PM

You really had him rank presidents?

He asked me to rank classical composers and then three generals. It was inevitable that he was next going to ask me to rank US presidents when I said my interest was primarily US history so I did it anyway in that post. :oldlol: I did it to prove a point: the notion that you have to "see" someone to assess them historically is ridiculous (especially since most of the time you hear that one ISH it is from someone in his mid-30's!). I didn't do it just for EM. I'll bookmark that and use that whenever someone plays the age card.

Many don't even put Shaq ahead of Hakeem.

Some people even have Hakeem over Kareem. :roll:

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 09:01 PM

He wanted to do that.... why should I have held him back? :oldlol:

Not that I'd think it's possible ranking presidents either.... but why not? It's a nice hobby. So far, I never wanted to rank scientests or rock bands.... but I know Shaq is #8.

I don't understand how anyone can have the most dominant player of this ERA at #8. Well then again, Bill Simmons had him at 12, so can't say I'm surprised.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 09:05 PM

someone plays the age card

That ain't no card, man.

Are you here to win in arguments? If so, let us not do it again. You can win any time for all I care. It's not a war for me. I'm here to hear your opinion and not to 'win against someone using this or that card'.

As for age, all I wanted to say that something happening in your late teens usually has the most impact on you out of several 'similar' occurances [like many great ballplayers]. Your bias is usually towards things you experienced as a very old kid / very young adult.

But you can keep the card I just 'played', I don't need it.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 09:08 PM

I don't understand how anyone can have the most dominant player of this ERA at #8. Well then again, Bill Simmons had him at 12, so can't say I'm surprised.

Let's say he is #6 and I forgot Wilt and Russell.

kareem
jordan
bird
magic
hakeem
shaq
duncan
kobe

since 1980. I gave you the tiers before. Let's quit acting like I'm the only one not having Shaq in the top 5. Had I been the only one, there shouldn't have been a need to create this thread.

You know what?

The majority of analysts and fans do NOT have Shaq in their top 5 players of all time. Pretty sad, but I have to think life is still worth living.

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 09:08 PM

Relax. I wasn't referring to you but rather Da_Realist and others who make that claim. What you are saying is completely different and very legitimate.

plowking

12-10-2009, 09:09 PM

LOL at Hakeem over Shaq. Players can be more skilled all they like, when you have someone that big and with that much more impact, he's the better player.

Go look at the 94 finals which Hakeem supposedly dominated Shaq in. Their numbers were equal if anything, and yet this is what people call Shaq getting dominated? 29 and 14 I believe the numbers were lol. People simply created this myth that Hakeem dominated Shaq, since Shaq paid some respect, and said he got his ass "dusted". Most use this as the sole reason as to why Hakeem is better than Shaq. A prime Hakeem beating a 3 year experienced Shaq, yet the dude still held his own... Hell, if Shaq's team did end up winning, it would have been said that Hakeem got dusted by the numbers; I mean the guy didn't even shoot above 50% for the series I believe.

Shaq has longevity, peak, impact, dominance, stats and winning in the league. Also for those who act like there was some huge difference in defense, that's a complete joke. Shaq is one of the biggest deterrents and presences in the key on the defensive side ever. Guys knew they'd get knocked on their ass if they came in the key with Shaq there.

Shaq is clearly, yes clearly a better player than Hakeem and Magic and accordingly should be ranked higher, and will after his career is done.

plowking

12-10-2009, 09:11 PM

Let's say he is #6 and I forgot Wilt and Russell.

kareem
jordan
bird
magic
hakeem
shaq
duncan
kobe

since 1980. I gave you the tiers before. Let's quit acting like I'm the only one not having Shaq in the top 5. Had I been the only one, there shouldn't have been a need to create this thread.

You know what?

The majority of analysts and fans do NOT have Shaq in their top 5 players of all time. Pretty sad, but I have to think life is still worth living.

You rank Magic over Shaq?...

wow...

And no, Kobe will not ever be ranked higher than Shaq on an all time list, so the highest he can get is number 5, since he's never been a better player than Shaq.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 09:13 PM

He asked me to rank classical composers and then three generals. It was inevitable that he was next going to ask me to rank US presidents when I said my interest was primarily US history so I did it anyway in that post. :oldlol: I did it to prove a point: the notion that you have to "see" someone to assess them historically is ridiculous (especially since most of the time you hear that one ISH it is from someone in his mid-30's!). I didn't do it just for EM. I'll bookmark that and use that whenever someone plays the age card.

Really depends on how much of an historian you are. I'm sure there are a group of middle aged adults who know more about the Cold War than the latter who actually lived to witness it at the time. Same can be said about sports. If a person puts the time into a certain subject, it's irrelevant to what age they are just as long as they present their argument with some logic and facts.

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 09:13 PM

The majority of analysts and fans do NOT have Shaq in their top 5 players of all time.

A majority of fans don't but I am not sure if the same can be said for analysts. There are two books out there that dealt with the issue and a Slam Magazine list. Shaq is #1, #4, and #12 among these lists.

At any rate, it usually takes time for a person's historical legacy to solidify. Using the presidents example, you need at least 10 if not 15-20 years before you can get an idea of where historians will generally rank a particular president. As plowking, noted, the same is true for Shaq (and Duncan). Five years after he retires I would bet he becomes consensus top 5.

Really depends on how much of an historian you are. I'm sure there are a group of middle aged adults who know more about the Cold War than the latter who actually lived to witness it at the time. Same can be said about sports. If a person puts the time into a certain subject, it's irrelevant to what age they are just as long as they present their argument with some logic and facts.

Yup. What is amusing is people who say that then rank Russell and Wilt and completely dismiss Mikan (the most dominant player of the NBA's first decade). We are basketball fans. Of course we are going to have opinions on who the best players of today and all-time are (there are 3 threads on all-time rankings on the front page alone right now). I bet if you went to a NFL, NHL, or racing board they would have the same type of discussions.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 09:22 PM

You rank Magic over Shaq?...

Clearly. But why do we act as if I was the only one? 90% of people rank Magic over Shaq, come on. Bird, too. Why not? After all, they were better players, why should we rank them below Shaq?

:cheers:

As for Kobe.... I don't know. At the moment he is better than I thought he would ever be, so I definitely didn't think it was possible for him. I won't say anything until he wins some more and plays some more. He is very much in the business of proving people wrong though....

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 09:27 PM

Five years after he retires I would bet he becomes consensus top 5.

Maybe. But it may also go the other way. It also depends on how big a celebrity you end up being. It will help Nash a lot after he retires, and I'm not sure it helps Shaq. Shaq on TV is a bit awkward. He is great with one-liners after games, but when he needs to keep it up for longer periods.... not so much.

Part of a legacy is written after retirement, but I'm not sure Shaq will be considered a top 5 player. Actually, I think Kobe will be remembered as having been the better player, even if he wasn't. And Shaq is not likely to overtake Magic, Bird, Jordan and Wilt either. So I'm not sold on him being a consensus top 5 player ever.

There usually is no consensus on topics like this.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 09:31 PM

Let's say he is #6 and I forgot Wilt and Russell.

kareem
jordan
bird
magic
hakeem
shaq
duncan
kobe

Having him at #6 is fine. I believe having him at #8 is selling him short though.

Shaq vs Russel:

Was Russell the best center of his ERA? No, The Big Dipper was the better player, hands down. Wilt's stats were far superior to Russel and if you look at their numbers you cannot refute that. Russell may have 11 titles under his belt (which is the most by any player in NBA history), Wilt's stats are so much better than Russell’s that the number of rings can’t be a deciding factor. Just looking at NBA titles doesn’t prove anything on its own. Are Robert Horry, Rodman or even Kerr three of the best players of all time because of how many titles they've won?

In fact, Russell's teams were so good that in 1957 Boston feat 6 future HoFers on the same team. Comparisons between two players with relatively close statistics, like Olajuwon and Shaq, winning can be a deciding factor. But since Russell was clearly not as dominant as Wilt, winning cannot be a deciding factor. Because Russell isn’t even close to being as good as the most dominant big man of his era, Wilt Chamberlain was and Shaq is the most dominant of his era, the advantage has to go to Shaq.

Russell:
15.1 PPG, .440 FG%, 22.5 RPG, 4.3 APG
Single-season peak: 18.9 PPG, 24.7 RPG

Wilt:
30.1 PPG, .540 FG%, 22.9 RPG, 4.4 APG
Single-season peak: 50.4 PPG, 27.2 RPG

Kobe isn't in that TIER just yet. I think any realistic fan would tell you likewise.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 09:36 PM

Kobe isn't in that TIER just yet.

Who said he was? Certainly not me... You saw the tiers I gave you and Kobe was in the 2nd one. What's more, he is the least good in my second tier of 4 players (hakeem, shaq, duncan and kobe) and he has no business to do with players in the first tier (kareem, jordan, bird, magic). And that's w/o russell and wilt.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 09:41 PM

Who said he was? Certainly not me... You saw the tiers I gave you and Kobe was in the 2nd one. What's more, he is the least good in my second tier of 4 players (hakeem, shaq, duncan and kobe) and he has no business to do with players in the first tier (kareem, jordan, bird, magic). And that's w/o russell and wilt.

Didn't see your example. As I said in an earlier thread, it'll be interesting to see where Kobe ranks by the time his career is over (especially by the media).

2 more championships along with 2 more Finals MVPs would shake things up definitely.

elementally morale

12-10-2009, 09:55 PM

it'll be interesting to see where Kobe ranks by the time his career is over (especially by the media).

2 more championships along with 2 more Finals MVPs would shake things up definitely.

The media will try selling him as the GOAT if he has 6 rings, but the issue will be discussed right after he wins ring #5. (IF, of course.)

Roundball_Rock

12-10-2009, 10:01 PM

The media will try selling him as the GOAT if he has 6 rings, but the issue will be discussed right after he wins ring #5. (IF, of course.)

I agree. It was implicit in the "Kobe chasing MJ's 6" hype last summer. I don't think real fans will ever have Kobe as the GOAT but the media and casual fans may very well classify him as the GOAT if he can get to 6 but the issue will definitely come up this May and June when he chases #5. Jordan's reign as "consensus GOAT" has gone on for over a decade. It is old and boring and hyping Kobe or Lebron as the new GOAT will sell newspapers, magazines and bring television and radio ratings.

ThaRegul8r

12-10-2009, 11:13 PM

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Just looking at NBA titles doesn

magnax1

12-10-2009, 11:18 PM

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-10-2009, 11:25 PM

I hate this.

Despise it.

"The Horry Example" is an example of the "faulty comparison" fallacy of logic, because Horry was a role player, while Wilt and Russell were superstars and top 10 G.O.A.T. players. People who continue to use this fallacy are comparing apples with oranges to try to make their point rather than comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges, and look ignorant for attempting to draw a comparison between players who aren't even on the same level to begin with.

No one denies that Russell was a big part of the Celtics success. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was this GODLY player. The stats back this up. Wilt's playoff PPG was in the high 20s to the mid 30s for the first half of his career, which was more than double what Russell often averaged. This was during Russell's dynasty. Wilt's ppg did plummet in the second half of his career (regular season and playoffs), which is perfectly valid to point out. However it is clear that he played past his last legs in his final seasons and was not nearly the same player; those final seasons dragged his averages down (Wilt played to 36, while Russell retired at 34). Regardless, a difference of 6 ppg in the playoffs is significant. It's almost 40% of Russell's playoffs ppg average. Let's not ignore regular season: Wilt scored 30 ppg to Russell's 15 ppg.

Wilt was simply the better player; Russell was the better winner (his teams were stacked). Put the teams/ERA into context.

ThaRegul8r

12-10-2009, 11:43 PM

No one denies that Russell was a big part of the Celtics success. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was this GODLY player. The stats back this up.

Stats? Russell's game wasn't about stats, nor was the Celtics' success.

Auerbach had always ingrained in us that statistics are meaningless

Russell was about results. And he achieved what his goal was.

Wilt's playoff PPG was in the high 20s to the mid 30s for the first half of his career, which was more than double what Russell often averaged.

I know what his playoff averages were. If you'll look back, it was in this thread that I broke down Wilt's playoff averages in comparison to his regular season averages for each stage of his career. And Wilt won nothing until he stopped scoring as much.

This was during Russell's dynasty. Wilt's ppg did plummet in the second half of his career (regular season and playoffs), which is perfectly valid to point out. However it is clear that he played past his last legs in his final seasons and was not nearly the same player; those final seasons dragged his averages down (Wilt played to 36, while Russell retired at 34). Regardless, a difference of 6 ppg in the playoffs is significant. It's almost 40% of Russell's playoffs ppg average. Let's not ignore regular season: Wilt scored 30 ppg to Russell's 15 ppg.

So points are the end-all, be-all? Your whole argument is based on points scored. Wilt needed to bring that scoring down before he won championships. The first year he didn't win the scoring title was the first year he won the title. It's not about stats. It's about doing what your team needs done to win when it needs it, whatever that might be.

And Wilt played his last legs his final seasons? He was third in the league in MVP voting his next-to-last season and fourth his last season. Led the league in boards both times and was First Team All Defense both times. If that's "playing past your last legs" and being "not nearly the same player," then a lot of players would have liked to go out like that. You say he wasn't the same player solely because he didn't score as much as early years, even though he was more efficient (led the league in true shooting percentage both years).

indiefan23

12-11-2009, 12:25 AM

Uh, cuz he got swept out of the playoffs year after year and was pretty lazy. There were really only a few years in his career where he was in shape and fully trying hard for the duration. In those year's he dominated but in the rest he played way below his potential.

plowking

12-11-2009, 12:38 AM

Clearly. But why do we act as if I was the only one? 90% of people rank Magic over Shaq, come on. Bird, too. Why not? After all, they were better players, why should we rank them below Shaq?

:cheers:

As for Kobe.... I don't know. At the moment he is better than I thought he would ever be, so I definitely didn't think it was possible for him. I won't say anything until he wins some more and plays some more. He is very much in the business of proving people wrong though....

Bird definitely is, Magic isn't. He didn't have the impact Shaq did on defense, and offense is close.

The only reason he is rated higher is because Shaq is still playing and being thoroughly disrespected in most of these rankings. Hell even Bird is ranked below Magic by most kids today due to his more flashier style, and it means jack all seeing as Bird was a better player quite clearly during their time.

HighFlyer23

12-11-2009, 12:41 AM

magic is overrated ... even kobe > magic

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-11-2009, 12:50 AM

Stats? Russell's game wasn't about stats, nor was the Celtics' success.

So points are the end-all, be-all? Your whole argument is based on points scored. Wilt needed to bring that scoring down before he won championships. The first year he didn't win the scoring title was the first year he won the title. It's not about stats. It's about doing what your team needs done to win when it needs it, whatever that might be.

Russell came to the NBA having won 2 College championships and an Olympic gold medal. That's 13 championships in what 15 years (if you include his NBA career)? All this guy did was win. Those who state Russell, the greatest team player perhaps, was better than Chamberlain are sadly mistaken. Who was better, Wilt's teams or Russell's teams? The answer is simple: Russell's. His teams were STACKED. His college and Olympic teams feat fellow Hall of Famer K.C. Jones. His Celtics featured 7 future Hall of Famers including, ironically Jones.

Wilt's Sixers feat 2 HoFers and won the championship in 1967. A lot of people feel Wilt wasn't a team player, he won two championships though.. He played on the best team in league history at the time, the 1971-72 Lakers who won a Sports record 33 games in a row. The real challenge in comparing individuals in team sports is whether to include the amount of wins or championships? By this logic, Bill Russell would be the greatest basketball player ever (and many think that he is). If we compare individual statistics Wilt beats Russell hands down. Wilt Chamberlain was the most dominant player in NBA history. In head-to-head matchups vs. Russell, Chamberlain scored more points, grabbed more rebounds, passed for more assists...and lost more games. Wilt came into the league in 1959 and was named MVP and Rookie of the Year. Russell came into the league in 1956 and his teammate, Tom Heinsohn, was named Rookie of the Year. Most likely, Wilt's records are unreachable.

An NBA game lasts 48 minutes. Wilt avg'd 48.5 minutes a game in 1961-62. He avg'd 50pts a game in 1962. The same year he scored 100 points in a game. Russell averaged a career-best 18.9 points per game in 1962. He averaged 27 rebounds a game; Russell's career best was 24.7. A 7'1 center, Wilt led the league in assists in 1967-68, averaging 8.6 assists a game. Wilt is the only center to lead the league in assists; Russell's career-best average was 5.3 assists per game in 1964/65. He led the league in MPG per 9x. He still holds the record at 45.8 minutes per game for his career. Never has he fouled out of a game. Sounds like a team player to me. Bill was no slug. The guy was a great defender and rebounder. He just wasn't near Wilt's level. Wilt was a better all around player, offensive force, rebounder, and a great defender likewise, not better. For years, no team could beat Boston. This doesn't mean Wilt wasn't better than Russell. It only means that the Celtics were a great team.

ThaRegul8r

12-11-2009, 03:21 AM

Russell came to the NBA having won 2 College championships and an Olympic gold medal. That's 13 championships in what 15 years (if you include his NBA career)? All this guy did was win.

Which was all he cared about. Mission accomplished.

Those who state Russell, the greatest team player perhaps, was better than Chamberlain are sadly mistaken.

So when Russell was voted the Greatest Player of All Time in 1980, they were sadly mistaken? :confusedshrug: It's the people who came after the fact who makes these statements, which goes against what the people who were actually there said. Interesting.

Who was better, Wilt's teams or Russell's teams? The answer is simple: Russell's. His teams were STACKED. His college and Olympic teams feat fellow Hall of Famer K.C. Jones. His Celtics featured 7 future Hall of Famers including, ironically Jones.

No disrespect, but you've just taken the superficial without looking deeper, and just hurt your point. Let's take the example you used: K. C. Jones. He averaged only 7.4 points, 3.5 rebounds and 3.5 assists per game for his career. He shot 38.7 percent from the floor and 63.2 percent from the line. He never averaged more than 9.2 PPG in a single season or shot better than .409 from the field. Never once was he an All-Star. Now does that look like a Hall of Famer to you? Please explain to me how on earth you can never be an all-star during your career, but a Hall of Famer after?

*waits*

K.C. Jones got in the Hall because of Russell. I wrote something years ago about the Celtics Hall of Famers before Russell was officially named the G.O.A.T. in 1980, and afterwards. I'll see if I can find it. Suddenly all these Celtic players who were never voted to the Hall before after decades had passed were voted in. And now people say he had a stacked team full of HoFers but never actually take a look. 7/4/4 for a point guard is an example of the stacked team Russell played with.

:oldlol:

Wilt's Sixers feat 2 HoFers and won the championship in 1967.

I know. And I've said that Wilt's 1966-67 season was the greatest season anyone's ever had. That was the one year that he got it and put it all together. I will give praise when it's due, and criticism when it's due.

A lot of people feel Wilt wasn't a team player, he won two championships though.

He could never sustain it though, and wasn't focused on sustaining it once he broke through and finally beat Russell. He decided he'd done everything there was to do now, so decided he'd lead the league in assists because no one had ever done it before. He says this himself in his autobiography. Russell led the Celtics to multiple titles. Jordan led the Bulls to multiple titles. Magic led the Lakers to multiple titles. Bird led the Celtics to multiple titles. Shaq led the Lakers to multiple titles. They were never satisfied with one ring. Wilt was capable of leading a team to some of the greatest single-season records in NBA history for one year, yet was incapable of leading a team to championship after championship. He didn't have the mindset to do it, saying there were other things in life to get worked up in basketball.

He played on the best team in league history at the time, the 1971-72 Lakers who won a Sports record 33 games in a row. The real challenge in comparing individuals in team sports is whether to include the amount of wins or championships? By this logic, Bill Russell would be the greatest basketball player ever (and many think that he is).

The NBA came to this conclusion in 1980. I don't know if you're aware of that.

If we compare individual statistics Wilt beats Russell hands down. Wilt Chamberlain was the most dominant player in NBA history. In head-to-head matchups vs. Russell, Chamberlain scored more points, grabbed more rebounds, passed for more assists...and lost more games.

Bill Russell: In order to win you have to get yourself past a lot of things that may not be vital to winning but make you feel good [

ThaRegul8r

12-11-2009, 03:30 AM

He led the league in MPG per 9x. He still holds the record at 45.8 minutes per game for his career. Never has he fouled out of a game. Sounds like a team player to me.

[QUOTE]Chamberlain often seemed to be obsessed with his personal marks, to the detriment of his game

Dizzle-2k7

12-11-2009, 03:40 AM

good stuff, regul8r... really good stuff.

:applause:

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-11-2009, 11:54 AM

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Which was all he cared about. Mission accomplished.

So when Russell was voted the Greatest Player of All Time in 1980, they were sadly mistaken? :confusedshrug: It's the people who came after the fact who makes these statements, which goes against what the people who were actually there said. Interesting.

No disrespect, but you've just taken the superficial without looking deeper, and just hurt your point. Let's take the example you used: K. C. Jones. He averaged only 7.4 points, 3.5 rebounds and 3.5 assists per game for his career. He shot 38.7 percent from the floor and 63.2 percent from the line. He never averaged more than 9.2 PPG in a single season or shot better than .409 from the field. Never once was he an All-Star. Now does that look like a Hall of Famer to you? Please explain to me how on earth you can never be an all-star during your career, but a Hall of Famer after?

*waits*

K.C. Jones got in the Hall because of Russell. I wrote something years ago about the Celtics Hall of Famers before Russell was officially named the G.O.A.T. in 1980, and afterwards. I'll see if I can find it. Suddenly all these Celtic players who were never voted to the Hall before after decades had passed were voted in. And now people say he had a stacked team full of HoFers but never actually take a look. 7/4/4 for a point guard is an example of the stacked team Russell played with

I know. And I've said that Wilt's 1966-67 season was the greatest season anyone's ever had. That was the one year that he got it and put it all together. I will give praise when it's due, and criticism when it's due.

He could never sustain it though, and wasn't focused on sustaining it once he broke through and finally beat Russell. He decided he'd done everything there was to do now, so decided he'd lead the league in assists because no one had ever done it before. He says this himself in his autobiography. Russell led the Celtics to multiple titles. Jordan led the Bulls to multiple titles. Magic led the Lakers to multiple titles. Bird led the Celtics to multiple titles. Shaq led the Lakers to multiple titles. They were never satisfied with one ring. Wilt was capable of leading a team to some of the greatest single-season records in NBA history for one year, yet was incapable of leading a team to championship after championship. He didn't have the mindset to do it, saying there were other things in life to get worked up in basketball.

The NBA came to this conclusion in 1980. I don't know if you're aware of that.

Bill Russell: In order to win you have to get yourself past a lot of things that may not be vital to winning but make you feel good [

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-11-2009, 12:00 PM

Wilt's squads lost all 4 7th games against Bill's Celtics. Russell was 10/0 in game sevens during his eventful career. The margin of a loss in those 4 7th games were 9pts. Both were bad FT shooters, but even that wasn't something that Russell would allow to defeat him. For example, he hit 14 of 17 from the line in his 30 point/40 rebound game vs. the Lakers in game 7 of the 1962 finals. Of the 24 forty-rebound games in history, Wilt had 14, Russell had 8, Jerry Lucas and Nate Thurmond each had one. People who say Wilt and Russell's rebound numbers were "inflated" due to more shots taken/attempted, then, I'd point out those two did it the best and MOST during their ERA. In an earlier thread I was talking about "pace", but I can see why people think it's detrimental/faulting that player.

Most Rebounds, 1960s: (IN ORDER)
-Wilt - 19,112
- Russell - 17,501
- Baylor - 9,786
- Bellamy - 9,716
- Lucas - 8,831

Russell and Wilt were so great because they wanted the ball. In the end, Russell said it best I think. He said that Wilt was interested mostly in numbers (his management failed to bring in the quality of players Boston did...part of the reason) and Russell in victories, and when it came down to it, each had achieved what they wanted, without doing so at the expense of the other. Wilt had better all around skills. If that's your definition of better, then Wilt was better. How the Celtics would have done with Wilt vs. how the Warriors or Sixers would have done with Russell? We will never know the answer to that debate. Boston's players always said that, with Wilt, they would have won some titles, just not as many. Anyway, that's a whole different subject (on the other hand, with Red Auerbach as coach, Wilt might have been a different player). It's difficult enough to make sense of what DID happen out there, without going into the "what-if's". Never the less great posts all around, I admire your history of the game.

Here are some quotes dedicated to Wilt:

"Wilt was one of the greatest ever, and we will never see another one like him." – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

"When I started to play with him, he helped make me a better player. We seemed to have a real good feel together, I think it translated into a confidence with him. All players are generally judged by the number of championships they won. Unfortunately, he only won two. His greatness as a basketball player can't be questioned. He was fun, we used to laugh at him a lot, some of the things that would happen. I once told him, no one roots for Goliath." – Jerry West

"As I grew up, Wilt the Stilt was the player. Just the things he was able to do. I guess one year they told him he couldn't make as much money as he wanted because he couldn't pass the ball, so he went out and led the league in assists. Watching Wilt, you always kind of got the idea he was just playing with people. That he was on cruise control and still 10 times better than anybody else that was playing at that time." – Denver Nuggets Coach Dan Issel.

"Obviously, he was both literally and figuratively a larger-than-life sports figure of the 20th century. He dominated his sport like almost no one else." – Atlanta Hawks president Stan Kasten.

"He was the NBA. He was the guy on the top. Wilt was the guy you talked about – he and Bill Russell. He was the most dominating center – the best center to ever play in the NBA." – Former NBA center and Bulls coach Johnny "Red" Kerr, who played part of one season in Philly with Wilt and against him for six-plus years.

"He was always a person that I viewed as being bigger than life in more ways than one. I had recently heard through friends and associates that he hadn't been feeling well, but again, I felt Wilt was a person who was able to overcome anything, so I was totally shocked to hear of his death." – Al Attles, a former teammate of Chamberlain's with the Warriors and now the team's vice president and assistant general manager.

"Wilt Chamberlain had a great deal to do with the success of the NBA. His dominance, power, demeanor and the rivalry with Bill Russell says it all. He will be sorely missed by myself and everyone in the basketball community. Wilt was a great performer and a great athlete." – Former Boston Celtics coach Red Auerbach.

"He was a terrific guy. It is a great loss to the sports world. Wilt Chamberlain had a special place in basketball history and he will be missed. We had many battles with Wilt. He was a fun guy to be around; he was a 'Gentle Giant.' " – Boston Celtics great and Hall of Famer Tom Heinsohn.

"Wilt could do my role better than I could". - Bill Russell

“I believe that good things come to those who work.” - Wilt himself