ISH's #7 Player of Alltime [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Inception28

10-29-2011, 04:14 PM

I guess that depends on your definition of a player's prime.

Shaq's true prime may have been '98-'02, or you could extend it from '95-'03.

Hakeem's true prime may have been '93-'95, but you could extend it earlier, he was a top 5 player by his second season when he led Houston to the finals.

Duncan also had a couple of seasons that stand out from the rest of his career('02 and '03), but his level of play in general wasn't that different from '99-'07. Though Duncan started having more nagging injuries post-'03-'04 that prevented him from playing the same amount of minutes.

But Duncan certainly wasn't elite any longer than Hakeem or Shaq.

Anyway, my top 3-5 is pretty interchangeable between Hakeem, Shaq and Bird. But lately, I lean towards Hakeem.

So my vote goes to Hakeem Olajuwon.
-To me, what you are referring to is peak. In my definition of prime, a prime can last up to 5-10 seasons to me. This is when a player performed at or close to their best. While a peak can last up to 3 seasons at their very best. It is probably strange although I do see a few people follow my criteria.

For example, I believe Kobe's prime lasted from 02-09. His peak on the other hand was probably from 06-08.

Like you just listed, Duncan's prime probably lasted from 99-07 but his one of his peak or best seasons was 02-03.

Hakeem doesn't have the accolades or accomplishments to be in this debate if you ask me. He should be 9th or 10th with Kobe while Wilt gets that 8th spot.

6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Wilt
9. Hakeem/Kobe
10. Kobe/Hakeem

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 04:18 PM

I guess that depends on your definition of a player's prime.

Shaq's true prime may have been '98-'02, or you could extend it from '95-'03.

Hakeem's true prime may have been '93-'95, but you could extend it earlier, he was a top 5 player by his second season when he led Houston to the finals.

Duncan also had a couple of seasons that stand out from the rest of his career('02 and '03), but his level of play in general wasn't that different from '99-'07. Though Duncan started having more nagging injuries post-'03-'04 that prevented him from playing the same amount of minutes.

But Duncan certainly wasn't elite any longer than Hakeem or Shaq.

Anyway, my top 3-5 is pretty interchangeable between Hakeem, Shaq and Bird. But lately, I lean towards Hakeem.

So my vote goes to Hakeem Olajuwon.
Duncan may be the most complete player to ever come out of college.

He was doing the same numbers in his rookie year that he was in his prime after they made him the focal point of the offense and David took a backseat post All-Star break. They realized that was the way to go since that was a better and more natural fit for either. Duncan was already taking control and leading the team.

The only thing I can say got better is his passing out of double teams which naturally improves with experience as one gets used to reading NBA defenses.

25.2 ppg
12.4 rpg
3.0 apg
2.7 bpg
54.0 FG%

Harison

10-29-2011, 04:28 PM

Hakeem

Inception28

10-29-2011, 04:32 PM

Here is what we have so far, OP.

Duncan - 4
Shaq - 5
Hakeem - 3
Oscar - 1

ShaqAttack3234

10-29-2011, 04:33 PM

-To me, what you are referring to is peak. In my definition of prime, a prime can last up to 5-10 seasons to me. This is when a player performed at or close to their best. While a peak can last up to 3 seasons at their very best. It is probably strange although I do see a few people follow my criteria.

For example, I believe Kobe's prime lasted from 02-09. His peak on the other hand was probably from 06-08.

Like you just listed, Duncan's prime probably lasted from 99-07 but his one of his peak or best seasons was 02-03.

Hakeem doesn't have the accolades or accomplishments to be in this debate if you ask me. He should be 9th or 10th with Kobe while Wilt gets that 8th spot.

6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Wilt
9. Hakeem/Kobe
10. Kobe/Hakeem

I consider a player's peak to be their best single season.

I think that accolades and "accomplishments" depend heavily on circumstances and I think he was less fortunate than Shaq or Duncan as far as the situation he was in. Though that's just my personal opinion.

Kobe's prime was from '01-'10, imo. Though you could argue that it was a bit shorter from '03-'09 for example.

Duncan may be the most complete player to ever come out of college.

He was doing the same numbers in his rookie year that he was in his prime after they made him the focal point of the offense and David took a backseat post All-Star break. They realized that was the way to go since that was a better and more natural fit for either. Duncan was already taking control and leading the team.

The only thing I can say got better is his passing out of double teams which naturally improves with experience as one gets used to reading NBA defenses.

25.2 ppg
12.4 rpg
3.0 apg
2.7 bpg
54.0 FG%

I agree, Duncan pretty much entered the league as a finished product, or close to it. I do think that he became more dominant defensively and improved in little areas, but you could even argue that his prime started in his rookie season.

millwad

10-29-2011, 04:37 PM

KGMN

10-29-2011, 04:39 PM

Hakeem Olajuwon

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 04:40 PM

I consider a player's peak to be their best single season.

I think that accolades and "accomplishments" depend heavily on circumstances and I think he was less fortunate than Shaq or Duncan as far as the situation he was in. Though that's just my personal opinion.

Kobe's prime was from '01-'10, imo. Though you could argue that it was a bit shorter from '03-'09 for example.

I agree, Duncan pretty much entered the league as a finished product, or close to it. I do think that he became more dominant defensively and improved in little areas, but you could even argue that his prime started in his rookie season.
I agree with you about Hakeem's accolades. I think he should've won 1 more MVP (1993) and 2-3 more DPoYs.

I've been critical of his 1987-1992 stretch but I think he was underrated back then because big men defense wasn't seen the same way as it is now or more so, the right way.

Man defense was considered just as important as well as how much exposure/coverage you got which is influenced by the market you play in. Guys like Rodman and Cooper were excellent man defenders but they aren't impacting the team defense as much as Hakeem. Lakers/Celtics rivarly is big plus Bird called Cooper his toughest match up so media gives him the award. Rodman, great man defender, best in the league but he has a great defensive system around him and the Rockets were still on their level defensively.

Eaton, Hakeem and Robinson definitely deserved more love than they got.

There is no really explanation for Cooper winning the DPoY over him in 1987 or Rodman winning in 1990. I'd have Eaton in the two years in between. Robinson in 1991 and 1996 to add to his 1992 award.

Jan95

10-29-2011, 04:42 PM

Tim Duncan

JMT

10-29-2011, 04:42 PM

Duncan. Sustained excellence and did more with less than Shaq, who inexplicably is the other guy in the running for this spot.

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 04:44 PM

Duncan. Sustained excellence and did more with less than Shaq, who inexplicably is the other guy in the running for this spot.
:oldlol:

ShaqAttack3234

10-29-2011, 04:53 PM

I agree with you about Hakeem's accolades. I think he should've won 1 more MVP (1993) and 2-3 more DPoYs.

I've been critical of his 1987-1992 stretch but I think he was underrated back then because big men defense wasn't seen the same way as it is now or more so, the right way.

Man defense was considered just as important as well as how much exposure/coverage you got which is influenced by the market you play in. Guys like Rodman and Cooper were excellent man defenders but they aren't impacting the team defense as much as Hakeem. Lakers/Celtics rivarly is big plus Bird called Cooper his toughest match up so media gives him the award. Rodman, great man defender, best in the league but he has a great defensive system around him and the Rockets were still on their level defensively.

Eaton, Hakeem and Robinson definitely deserved more love than they got.

There is no really explanation for Cooper winning the DPoY over him in 1987 or Rodman winning in 1990. I'd have Eaton in the two years in between. Robinson in 1991 and 1996 to add to his 1992 award.

Yeah, Hakeem definitely deserved DPOY in 1990, imo. Not to take anything away from Rodman, but Rodman's man to man defense wasn't equal in terms of impact to Hakeem's overall defense. Detroit and Houston were tied as the best defensive teams, and it's obvious that Houston relied on Hakeem more for that. He had improved his defense, though I don't think he was quite at his peak. Detroit was a great defensive team regardless.

While, a lot of defense(and a player's value in general), can't be demonstrated in stats, Hakeem leading the league in blocks(4.6 per game), defensive rebounds(10.4 per game), DRB% and 8th in steals while his team was tied as the best defensive team. I can't see an argument against him. Particularly with him being out on the court for 9 more minutes than Rodman.

And from what I've seen of Hakeem in '90, he was all over the court defensively.

As far as the '93 MVP? I'm fine with Barkley winning, but I can't argue against Dream either.

I understand criticism for some of Hakeem's years, but on some of those teams, the offense was just terrible. Painful to watch, Dream had a pretty complete skill set before Houston won, but it wasn't utilized and the way the offense was run had a lot to do with that.

But the fact that Hakeem almost always showed up in the playoffs has always impressed me. He has less series losses where he can be blamed than probably any top 10 player outside of Russell. Whether it's going down with 49/26/7 in game 6 in '87, his amazing run in '86, losing while averaging 38/17 on 57% shooting in '88(though I haven't seen that series vs Dallas) ect.

One of the few series where his offensive output was limited was 1990 and he was swarmed by the Lakers with constant double/triple teams while making a huge impact defensively(though he did have some foul trouble in the series, iirc).

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 05:04 PM

Yeah, Hakeem definitely deserved DPOY in 1990, imo. Not to take anything away from Rodman, but Rodman's man to man defense wasn't equal in terms of impact to Hakeem's overall defense. Detroit and Houston were tied as the best defensive teams, and it's obvious that Houston relied on Hakeem more for that. He had improved his defense, though I don't think he was quite at his peak. Detroit was a great defensive team regardless.

While, a lot of defense(and a player's value in general), can't be demonstrated in stats, Hakeem leading the league in blocks(4.6 per game), defensive rebounds(10.4 per game), DRB% and 8th in steals while his team was tied as the best defensive team. I can't see an argument against him. Particularly with him being out on the court for 9 more minutes than Rodman.

And from what I've seen of Hakeem in '90, he was all over the court defensively.

As far as the '93 MVP? I'm fine with Barkley winning, but I can't argue against Dream either.

I understand criticism for some of Hakeem's years, but on some of those teams, the offense was just terrible. Painful to watch, Dream had a pretty complete skill set before Houston won, but it wasn't utilized and the way the offense was run had a lot to do with that.

But the fact that Hakeem almost always showed up in the playoffs has always impressed me. He has less series losses where he can be blamed than probably any top 10 player outside of Russell. Whether it's going down with 49/26/7 in game 6 in '87, his amazing run in '86, losing while averaging 38/17 on 57% shooting in '88(though I haven't seen that series vs Dallas) ect.

One of the few series where his offensive output was limited was 1990 and he was swarmed by the Lakers with constant double/triple teams while making a huge impact defensively(though he did have some foul trouble in the series, iirc).
Good point about the minutes Rodman was playing. I didn't consider that, it makes the argument all the more stronger.

That's actually true for Cooper as well. Definitely a fundamental flaw in the way they were giving out the award though not to be harsh on these guys since they were all terrific defenders in their own right.

Do you think Hakeem deserves some blame for the offense during those years? I've read reports that he was a unwilling passer and took bad shots, often forcing things. I see some of the stuff about his shot selection and lack of leadership in the games but I don't see him as a unwilling passer. The shooters around him were pretty poor. At the beginning of game 2 of the 1990 playoffs (you brought up the series), Hubie Brown showed a chart that showcased Hakeem being triple teamed every time he touched the ball (33 times IIRC) and he passed it out like he was supposed to but the Rockets only shot 28% from the perimeter. Can't really blame Hakeem in that situation.

I would've actually preferred to see how the Rockets do if they don't lose John Lucas, Lewis Lloyd and Mitchell Wiggins to drugs and Sampson wasn't injury prone. That would've been a nice long rivarly with LA but that team broke apart really quickly.

Inception28

10-29-2011, 05:05 PM

:oldlol:
What is so laughable about that post? :confusedshrug:

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 05:08 PM

What is so laughable about that post? :confusedshrug:
Look at the way he worded it.

Implying that its inexplicable for Shaq to be in consideration.

You tell me whats wrong.

Inception28

10-29-2011, 05:09 PM

Look at the way he worded it.

Implying that its inexplicable for Shaq to be in consideration.

You tell me whats wrong.
Oh I didn't see that part, sorry. :hammerhead:

Inception28

10-29-2011, 05:19 PM

I consider a player's peak to be their best single season.
As do I, it can last from 1-3 years though if you ask me. Hakeem was no different in 94-95 than he was in 93-94. It was a two year peak at the least with Hakeem.

I think that accolades and "accomplishments" depend heavily on circumstances and I think he was less fortunate than Shaq or Duncan as far as the situation he was in. Though that's just my personal opinion.
I agree with accomplishments not being the best way to determine much which is why I never believe that one having more MVPs than the other makes that player better than another.

It's the same reason why I believe Shaq should be above Wilt. Yeah Wilt has better stats and yeah Wilt has more RS MVPs, but that doesn't mean he was better than him or should be ranked above him. I have always valued playoff dominance over regular season dominance.

If MVPs determined rankings then we would be saying how Nash is greater than Shaq, or how Derrick Rose is greater than Wade. The Bird-Moses comparison would be legit too since they both have 3 MVPs, yet about 99% of the world would tell you that Bird was easily the greater player of the two and that it is a laughable comparison.

Championship rings and finals MVP mean a hell lot more than MVPs. Although we have to look into the context. Wade's finals MVP and championship means more to me than Lebron's MVP, but Tony Parker's finals MVP and championship does not.

Kobe's prime was from '01-'10, imo. Though you could argue that it was a bit shorter from '03-'09 for example.
.
He was out of his prime in 09-10, that should be obvious. 01-09 is a pretty good list though.

ShaqAttack3234

10-29-2011, 05:35 PM

Good point about the minutes Rodman was playing. I didn't consider that, it makes the argument all the more stronger.

That's actually true for Cooper as well. Definitely a fundamental flaw in the way they were giving out the award though not to be harsh on these guys since they were all terrific defenders in their own right.

Do you think Hakeem deserves some blame for the offense during those years? I've read reports that he was a unwilling passer and took bad shots, often forcing things. I see some of the stuff about his shot selection and lack of leadership in the games but I don't see him as a unwilling passer. The shooters around him were pretty poor. At the beginning of game 2 of the 1990 playoffs (you brought up the series), Hubie Brown showed a chart that showcased Hakeem being triple teamed every time he touched the ball (33 times IIRC) and he passed it out like he was supposed to but the Rockets only shot 28% from the perimeter. Can't really blame Hakeem in that situation.

I would've actually preferred to see how the Rockets do if they don't lose John Lucas, Lewis Lloyd and Mitchell Wiggins to drugs and Sampson wasn't injury prone. That would've been a nice long rivarly with LA but that team broke apart really quickly.

Well, I haven't seen that many Hakeem games from those years due to the fact that less is available and I didn't start watching basketball regularly until the mid 90's.

The season I've seen the most of is 1990 post-'86 and pre-championship years and from that season I've seen about a handful of regular season games plus the Lakers/Rockets series.

But from what I've seen, he was a fairly willing passer by '90. Maybe he'd force a shot now or then, but I think a lot of that had to do with poor offense. Most of the blame goes to coaching and Hakeem being underutilized, imo.

As do I, it can last from 1-3 years though if you ask me. Hakeem was no different in 94-95 than he was in 93-94. It was a two year peak at the least with Hakeem.

In terms of level of play? I wouldn't argue, but I think his offensive game was even better in '95, but his defense was better in '94. His best season from start to finish factoring in the championship was '94, but the highest level I've seen him play at was probably the '95 playoffs. But he was pretty much just as good as the championship years in '93.

I agree with accomplishments not being the best way to determine much which is why I never believe that one having more MVPs than the other makes that player better than another.

Yeah, MVPs are the worst way to go, imo because it's a very subjective award, particularly when comparing media voted MVPs to MVPs voted by players in the earlier years. The criteria was also much different back then(Moses winning 2 of his on teams that didn't win 50 games, or Kareem winning on a sub .500 team, Walton winning while playing just 58 games ect. would never happen now).

It's the same reason why I believe Shaq should be above Wilt. Yeah Wilt has better stats and yeah Wilt has more RS MVPs, but that doesn't mean he was better than him or should be ranked above him. I have always valued playoff dominance over regular season dominance.

Agreed, in particular, stats across eras are very difficult to compare. Stats even in the same era can reflect the situation more as well.

Championship rings and finals MVP mean a hell lot more than MVPs. Although we have to look into the context. Wade's finals MVP and championship means more to me than Lebron's MVP, but Tony Parker's finals MVP and championship does not.

Exactly.

He was out of his prime in 09-10, that should be obvious. 01-09 is a pretty good list though.

Well, I'm not sure because of how well Kobe played the first 2+ months of the '09-'10 season before injuries. He was scoring at will in the post and had to be doubled. He was averaging 30/6/5, 48 FG%, 57 TS%, slowed down due to injuries, but then was back playing some of the best ball of his career after getting his knee drained late in the OKC series. He killed Utah and Phoenix. The Phoenix series was arguably his best ever.

Lebron23

10-29-2011, 05:38 PM

Shaquille O'Neal

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 05:42 PM

Well, I haven't seen that many Hakeem games from those years due to the fact that less is available and I didn't start watching basketball regularly until the mid 90's.

The season I've seen the most of is 1990 post-'86 and pre-championship years and from that season I've seen about a handful of regular season games plus the Lakers/Rockets series.

But from what I've seen, he was a fairly willing passer by '90. Maybe he'd force a shot now or then, but I think a lot of that had to do with poor offense. Most of the blame goes to coaching and Hakeem being underutilized, imo.
I haven't seen that many games either. I'm just going off the research I like doing.

To be honest, there aren't a lot of games available from that stretch.

I can buy him being underutilized in 1991 and 1992 but that's only because of how well the guards performed in the open court after he had the eye injury (15-10 in that stretch, 12-3 in the last 15 games). That of course didn't work out as evidenced by LA sweeping them with Maxwell taking more shots than Hakeem.

I don't really see him being underutilized earlier because he's taking more shots per game in less minutes in 1990 than he is in 1993. The problem may have been the quality of shooters in 1990 (Horry, Kenny Smith ect came later) but I don't think a lack of touches is the concern.

ShaqAttack3234

10-29-2011, 05:45 PM

I haven't seen that many games either. I'm just going off the research I like doing.

To be honest, there aren't a lot of games available from that stretch.

I can buy him being underutilized in 1991 and 1992 but that's only because of how well the guards performed in the open court after he had the eye injury (15-10 in that stretch, 12-3 in the last 15 games). That of course didn't work out as evidenced by LA sweeping them with Maxwell taking more shots than Hakeem.

I don't really see him being underutilized earlier because he's taking more shots per game in less minutes in 1990 than he is in 1993. The problem may have been the quality of shooters in 1990 (Horry, Kenny Smith ect came later) but I don't think a lack of touches is the concern.

I was referring more to the 80's in terms of Hakeem being underutilized, '92 as well. As far as 1990, the offense was just really poor, and the lack of shooters was a problem as you said.

LJJ

10-29-2011, 05:48 PM

Tim Duncan.

Inception28

10-29-2011, 05:48 PM

Update on the votes

Duncan - 7
Shaq - 6
Hakeem - 4
Oscar - 1

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 05:50 PM

I was referring more to the 80's in terms of Hakeem being underutilized, '92 as well. As far as 1990, the offense was just really poor, and the lack of shooters was a problem as you said.
1987 and 1988?

That is plausible. I remember reading Hakeem complaining about Sleepy Floyd and Bill Fitch which may have been because of a lack of touches. Their entry passing probably got weaker too with the team breaking apart.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 05:51 PM

Update on the votes

Duncan - 7
Shaq - 6
Hakeem - 4
Oscar - 1

Im surprised Kobe has not even been voted once yet

MichaelCheazley

10-29-2011, 05:52 PM

Shaq

Sarcastic

10-29-2011, 05:54 PM

Sha Qweel O'Neal

inclinerator

10-29-2011, 05:54 PM

elgin baylor

Inception28

10-29-2011, 05:58 PM

In terms of level of play? I wouldn't argue, but I think his offensive game was even better in '95, but his defense was better in '94. His best season from start to finish factoring in the championship was '94, but the highest level I've seen him play at was probably the '95 playoffs. But he was pretty much just as good as the championship years in '93.
There is a difference between having a better season and being a better player. I see no difference as far as what Hakeem was capable of doing in 94 that he wouldn't have been able to do in 95 and vice versa.

It's like this...

Kevin Garnett was never a better player than Tim Duncan was before the 07-08 season. He was never the better player. However, Garnett did have a better season than Duncan did in '03-'04, but I don't think he was a better overall player than him. Because what really changed in Duncan's game from 02-03 to 03-04?? Pretty much nothing other than being less successful.

It's the same thing in today's era.

If we were to talk about the 2010-2011 season and who was the best then? It would be Dirk easily. However, I don't think he is the best overall player though. He is just too one-dimensional, I'll take Howard, Wade, and maybe even Lebron over Dirk as far as being the better overall player.

And with this.....

Well, I'm not sure because of how well Kobe played the first 2+ months of the '09-'10 season before injuries. He was scoring at will in the post and had to be doubled. He was averaging 30/6/5, 48 FG%, 57 TS%, slowed down due to injuries, but then was back playing some of the best ball of his career after getting his knee drained late in the OKC series. He killed Utah and Phoenix. The Phoenix series was arguably his best ever.

Kobe had the best season in 09-10 including Lebron and Wade but he wasn't a better overall player than either Lebron or Wade then. I would say Lebron was a better overall player in 09-10 than he was in 08-09, but Lebron had a better season in 08-09.

That being said, you will remembered more for being best that season than being the best overall player then.

Agreed, in particular, stats across eras are very difficult to compare. Stats even in the same era can reflect the situation more as well.
Well Wilt does have the higher PER and that pretty much adjusts minutes and pace and such I believe. Wilt is 2nd in PER of all-time only to be behind Michael Jordan.

Yeah, MVPs are the worst way to go, imo because it's a very subjective award, particularly when comparing media voted MVPs to MVPs voted by players in the earlier years. The criteria was also much different back then(Moses winning 2 of his on teams that didn't win 50 games, or Kareem winning on a sub .500 team, Walton winning while playing just 58 games ect. would never happen now).
It's the same reason why I don't put heavy emphasis in All-NBA Teams because it is just other people's opinions.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 05:58 PM

Kenny Smith, Hakeem's teammate said Kobe is more dominant than Hakeem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQkYxfenDHA
this was in 2009

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 06:00 PM

elgin baylor

I'll add him in the candidates list for the next voting okay.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 06:01 PM

Im voting for Shaq on this one

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 06:05 PM

Kenny Smith, Hakeem's teammate said Kobe is more dominant than Hakeem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQkYxfenDHA
this was in 2009
Robert Horry, Hakeem's teammate said Hakeem was better than both Shaq and Duncan while playing next to those guys.

Mario Elie, Hakeem's teammate said Hakeem was the best he played with and he won a championship with prime Duncan.

So if you're going to vote Kobe over Hakeem based on that, be consistent and vote Hakeem over those two as well.

BoogieWoogieMan

10-29-2011, 06:06 PM

Shaq

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 06:08 PM

Robert Horry, Hakeem's teammate said Hakeem was better than both Shaq and Duncan while playing next to those guys.

Mario Elie, Hakeem's teammate said Hakeem was the best he played with and he won a championship with prime Duncan.

So if you're going to vote Kobe over Hakeem based on that, be consistent and vote Hakeem over those two as well.

I think Hakeem is better than Duncan for sure, but not Shaq
Even though we all know what happened in '95, but that was not a peak Shaq

Inception28

10-29-2011, 06:13 PM

I think Hakeem is better than Duncan for sure, but not Shaq
Even though we all know what happened in '95, but that was not a peak Shaq
You could argue that Hakeem in '93-'95 was better than peak Shaq.

Reasons would be as simple as Hakeem wasn't a liability in the FT line and had practically no defensive weaknesses while Shaq was practically a liability in the FT line and couldn't defend the pick n roll.

That being said this is how I judge players...

Prime > Longevity > Peak

Prime determines who you are as a player, not your peak. Longevity would be next so people can tell how long you sustained your dominance and success. Peak means the least because it shows the least.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 06:16 PM

You could argue that Hakeem in '93-'95 was better than peak Shaq.

Reasons would be as simple as Hakeem wasn't a liability in the FT line and had practically no defensive weaknesses while Shaq was practically a liability in the FT line and couldn't defend the pick n roll.

That being said this is how I judge players...

Prime > Longevity > Peak

Prime determines who you are as a player, not your peak. Longevity would be next so people can tell how long you sustained your dominance and success. Peak means the least because it shows the least.

I agree with all that you said
but Shaq offensively is too much to ignore, and you can also say that Hakeem never got to play with Kobe so its close

ShaqAttack3234

10-29-2011, 06:21 PM

There is a difference between having a better season and being a better player. I see no difference as far as what Hakeem was capable of doing in 94 that he wouldn't have been able to do in 95 and vice versa.

Well, I don't know, I think players can just play better in certain aspects of the game certain seasons depending on their growth as a player, focus on that aspect, age/athleticism/injuries ect. I do think player's capabilities can vary on a season to season basis.

It's like this...

Kevin Garnett was never a better player than Tim Duncan was before the 07-08 season. He was never the better player. However, Garnett did have a better season than Duncan did in '03-'04, but I don't think he was a better overall player than him. Because what really changed in Duncan's game from 02-03 to 03-04?? Pretty much nothing other than being less successful.

Well, Duncan's free throw problems arose again in '04 and he had more injuries which it seemed was the start of minutes dropping and maybe aging. other than that, he didn't seem different watching him play. But going from 71% at the line to 59.9% matters when talking about effectiveness as well as durability.

It's the same thing in today's era.

Kobe had the best season in 09-10 including Lebron and Wade but he wasn't a better overall player than either Lebron or Wade then. I would say Lebron was a better overall player in 09-10 than he was in 08-09, but Lebron had a better season in 08-09.

Wade may have been a better player than Kobe in '09(not sure about that, it could be a toss up), but his level of play fell off in 2010. Part of that was that he seemed lazier for the first few months(Pat Riley called him out on this), but his jump shot which had been good in 2009 fell off a lot throughout 2010 which made him less dominant, imo.

Lebron looked like the same player to me in 2009 and 2010 as far as what he was capable of, maybe he was a slightly better shooter in 2010, but slightly quicker and better defensively in 2010. So a virtual toss up for overall ability, but I agree that his '09 season was better.

Well Wilt does have the higher PER and that pretty much adjusts minutes and pace and such I believe. Wilt is 2nd in PER of all-time only to be behind Michael Jordan.

I do use stats, but I've never been an advanced stats/formula guy. PER isn't horrible like win shares, imo, but I've never found PER useful.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 06:23 PM

The #7 spot is probally the toughest spot in the top 10 IMO
Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, and Duncan all can go there

Dragonyeuw

10-29-2011, 06:38 PM

Shaquille Oneal

millwad

10-29-2011, 06:40 PM

The #7 spot is probally the toughest spot in the top 10 IMO
Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, and Duncan all can go there

I have no problem with anyone taking Shaq over Hakeem or the other way around, personally I have them both at same place. But I really don't think Duncan was better than any of those 2 players and Duncan should be happy he didn't enter the league in the late 80's or early 90's. Having to battle prime Malone, prime Barkley, prime Hakeem, prime Robinson, prime Ewing and young and beasty Shaq would probably hurt his legacy big time and good luck getting MVP's against Jordan.

http://p.twimg.com/AY2FCzKCEAEddM8.jpg

Inception28

10-29-2011, 07:18 PM

I agree with all that you said
but Shaq offensively is too much to ignore, and you can also say that Hakeem never got to play with Kobe so its close
He got to play with Clyde in his 2nd championship in '95, but he is no Kobe.

Hakeem and Shaq are a lot closer offensively than you would think. Hakeem was clearly more versatile and could space the floor better. They were also pretty close as far as scoring efficiency goes.

I have no idea what years people believe Hakeem's prime was but I do know that his peak years were '93-'95

Hakeem's '93-'94 RS shooting efficiency: 27.3 ppg with 52.8% FG and 56.5% TS
Hakeem's '93-'94 PS shooting efficiency: 28.9 ppg with 51.9% FG and 56.8% TS

Keep in mind that in '94-'95 Hakeem was injured which was one of the reasons why the Rockets faltered to the 6th seed and traded for Clyde Drexler

Hakeem's '94-'95 RS shooting efficiency: 27.8 ppg with 51.7% FG and 56.3% TS
Hakeems' '94-'95 PS shooting efficiency: 33.0 ppg with 53.1% FG and 56.0% TS

Shaq's two clear peak season were '99-'00 and '00-'01

Shaq's '99-'00 RS shooting efficiency: 29.7 ppg with 57.4% FG and 57.8% TS
Shaq's '99-'00 PS shooting efficiency: 30.7 ppg with 56.6% FG and 55.6% TS

Shaq's '00-'01 RS shooting efficiency: 28.7 ppg with 57.2% FG and 57.4% TS
Shaq's '00-'01 PS shooting efficiency: 30.4 ppg with 55.5% FG and 56.4% TS

Hakeem and Shaq in their peaks actually generated very close and similar TS% which determines their scoring efficiency. Sorry, but we have to include their FT shooting ability. Shaq clearly has the edge in FG% and a lot of that has to do with Shaq playing much closer to the paint than Hakeem, but they are equally efficient at scoring.

People say that '99-'00 was Shaq's best season because that was the season where he put the most work and effort in defensively. Shaq was pretty much the same offensively for most of his career.

JMT

10-29-2011, 07:22 PM

Look at the way he worded it.

Implying that its inexplicable for Shaq to be in consideration.

You tell me whats wrong.

I can tell you. There are 3-4 guys on the candidate list that belong ahead of Shaq.

Duncan, Robertson and Bryant are easily ahead. You can debate Hakeem and West.

That's what makes it so absurd that Shaq is in consideration.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 07:23 PM

I have no problem with anyone taking Shaq over Hakeem or the other way around, personally I have them both at same place. But I really don't think Duncan was better than any of those 2 players and Duncan should be happy he didn't enter the league in the late 80's or early 90's. Having to battle prime Malone, prime Barkley, prime Hakeem, prime Robinson, prime Ewing and young and beasty Shaq would probably hurt his legacy big time and good luck getting MVP's against Jordan.

http://p.twimg.com/AY2FCzKCEAEddM8.jpg

Where's Shaq's taco bell?

RRR3

10-29-2011, 07:23 PM

Where's Shaq's taco bell?
It's Shaq, he obviously already ate 5 of them :lol

ShaqAttack3234

10-29-2011, 07:24 PM

He got to play with Clyde in his 2nd championship in '95, but he is no Kobe.

Hakeem and Shaq are a lot closer offensively than you would think. Hakeem was clearly more versatile and could space the floor better. They were also pretty close as far as scoring efficiency goes.

I have no idea what years people believe Hakeem's prime was but I do know that his peak years were '93-'95

Hakeem's '93-'94 RS shooting efficiency: 52.8% FG and 56.5% TS
Hakeem's '93-'94 PS shooting efficiency: 51.9% FG and 56.8% TS

Keep in mind that in '94-'95 Hakeem was injured which was one of the reasons why the Rockets faltered to the 6th seed and traded for Clyde Drexler

Hakeem's '94-'95 RS shooting efficiency: 51.7% FG and 56.3% TS
Hakeems' '94-'95 PS shooting efficiency: 53.1% FG and 56.0% TS

Shaq's two clear peak season were '99-'00 and '00-'01

Shaq's '99-'00 RS shooting efficiency: 57.4% FG and 57.8% TS
Shaq's '99-'00 PS shooting efficiency: 56.6% FG and 55.6% TS

Shaq's '00-'01 RS shooting efficiency: 57.2% FG and 57.4% TS
Shaq's '00-'01 PS shooting efficiency: 55.5% FG and 56.4% TS

Hakeem and Shaq in their peaks actually generated very close and similar TS% which determines their scoring efficiency. Sorry, but we have to include their FT shooting ability. Shaq clearly has the edge in FG% and a lot of that has to do with Shaq playing much closer to the paint than Hakeem, but they are equally efficient at scoring.

People say that '99-'00 was Shaq's best season because that was the season where he put the most work and effort in defensively. Shaq was pretty much the same offensively for most of his career.

I do think that Shaq was the better offensive player, though Dream's advantage defensively was bigger than Shaq's advantage offensively.

However, I'll definitely disagree that Shaq was pretty much the same offensively for most of his career. As a scorer, he was pretty much as good as he would become by '98, maybe slightly improvements after, but not much. He was already an above average passer by '95, but improved a lot once Phil coached him.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 07:28 PM

He got to play with Clyde in his 2nd championship in '95, but he is no Kobe.

Hakeem and Shaq are a lot closer offensively than you would think. Hakeem was clearly more versatile and could space the floor better. They were also pretty close as far as scoring efficiency goes.

I have no idea what years people believe Hakeem's prime was but I do know that his peak years were '93-'95

Hakeem's '93-'94 RS shooting efficiency: 27.3 ppg with 52.8% FG and 56.5% TS
Hakeem's '93-'94 PS shooting efficiency: 28.9 ppg with 51.9% FG and 56.8% TS

Keep in mind that in '94-'95 Hakeem was injured which was one of the reasons why the Rockets faltered to the 6th seed and traded for Clyde Drexler

Hakeem's '94-'95 RS shooting efficiency: 27.8 ppg with 51.7% FG and 56.3% TS
Hakeems' '94-'95 PS shooting efficiency: 33.0 ppg with 53.1% FG and 56.0% TS

Shaq's two clear peak season were '99-'00 and '00-'01

Shaq's '99-'00 RS shooting efficiency: 29.7 ppg with 57.4% FG and 57.8% TS
Shaq's '99-'00 PS shooting efficiency: 30.7 ppg with 56.6% FG and 55.6% TS

Shaq's '00-'01 RS shooting efficiency: 28.7 ppg with 57.2% FG and 57.4% TS
Shaq's '00-'01 PS shooting efficiency: 30.4 ppg with 55.5% FG and 56.4% TS

Hakeem and Shaq in their peaks actually generated very close and similar TS% which determines their scoring efficiency. Sorry, but we have to include their FT shooting ability. Shaq clearly has the edge in FG% and a lot of that has to do with Shaq playing much closer to the paint than Hakeem, but they are equally efficient at scoring.

People say that '99-'00 was Shaq's best season because that was the season where he put the most work and effort in defensively. Shaq was pretty much the same offensively for most of his career.

So Kobe was just as efficiency as both of them for 2 of his championships?
2009 PO - .564 TS%
2010 PO - .567 TS%

and for a Finals apperance,
Kobe's 2008 PO - .577 TS% compared to Shaq's 1995 PO - .575 TS% compared to Hakeem's 1986 PO - .566 TS%
If your going by true shooting %

Inception28

10-29-2011, 07:31 PM

So Kobe was just as efficiency as both of them for 2 of his championships?
2009 PO - .564 TS%
2010 PO - .567 TS%
If your going by true shooting %
Yes. TS% determines your scoring efficiency, eFG% determines your shooting efficiency, and FG% probably determines your shot selection. Sometimes it is better to have a miss shot so one of your teammates can get the rebound and maybe get a better shot selection. That is just me though.

RRR3

10-29-2011, 07:32 PM

So Kobe was just as efficiency as both of them for 2 of his championships?
2009 PO - .564 TS%
2010 PO - .567 TS%

and for a Finals apperance, Kobe's 2008 PO - .577 TS% compared to Shaq's 1995 PO - .575 TS%
If your going by true shooting %
OP did you just start this project to try and prop Kobe up? :facepalm

Odinn

10-29-2011, 07:33 PM

I don't trust to TS%. I calculate player's efficiency like that;

Shaq tried 1228 2-pointers, 1 3-pointer and 717 free throws in 2001-02 regular season. He scored 1822 points in total. 1822 / ( (1228*2) + (1*3) +717 ) = 0.574.

By using that formula;
Shaq's efficiency were 0.564(rs) - 0.547(po) in threepeat years.
Hakeem's efficiency were 0.552(rs) - 0.553(po) in repeat years.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 07:33 PM

OP did you just start this project to try and prop Kobe up? :facepalm

How am I proping Kobe "up"?

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 07:41 PM

Inception28

10-29-2011, 07:42 PM

colts19

10-29-2011, 07:54 PM

Oscar ahead of Shaq?

Having been the only one to vote for Oscar, let me answer your question.
Shaq didn't have the drive to be truly great, I can't vote for someone who didn't even try to live up to his talent. Say what you want about Big O and his lack of championships. He was the standard for what a great all around player was for 30 years.:bowdown: :bowdown:

JMT

10-29-2011, 07:59 PM

Oscar ahead of Shaq?

Yes. As a guy who saw both, I believe Robertson was unquestionably a better basketball player.

Let's start with the fact that I'm a Shaq fan. Immensely entertaining and, at his best, a truly dominant player. But in one of the weakest eras of big men in league history, Shaq wasn't a dominant rebounder for an extended period during his career. He was never a great shot blocker, and for half his career was a real liability as a pick & roll defender. He was essentially a power player on the offensive end, and only really increased his repetoire as his age and conditioning dictated. And his lack of conditioning accelerated his decline. His last 5 years in the league he was a shadow of his former self who survived because of the lack of quality bigs in the NBA.

Robertson was as complete a basketball player as has ever stepped on the floor. He faced up and shot the ball effectively; had a post game that Shaq should have aspired to (and that would make LeBron James an all time great if he developed); defended, often the best scorer on the other side; rebounded like a much bigger player; and did it all, for the most part, with an inferior cast of teammates. Yes, he won with Kareem at the tail end of his career, but he certainly never played with guys the caliber that Shaq did.

I kind of lost faith in this list when Magic came in at #4 ( a great player and unique to this day, but not close to the 4th best player of all time). I chalk it up to the youth of the people voting in your poll. Their knowledge of players prior to Jordan is obviously pretty spotty, and they appear to be more influenced by threads on Ish than how well guys actually played the game.

Just my .02. Thanks for asking.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 07:59 PM

17 - Shaquille O'Neal
11 - Tim Duncan
5 - Hakeem Olajuwon
3 - Oscar Robertson
2 - Kobe Bryant

Total - 38 votes

Orlando Magic

10-29-2011, 08:00 PM

Shaq had an excellent career and his prime shits on anyone left, not to mention the players already picked above him.

Shaq.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 08:03 PM

Inception28

10-29-2011, 08:09 PM

I kind of lost faith in this list when Magic came in at #4 ( a great player and unique to this day, but not close to the 4th best player of all time). I chalk it up to the youth of the people voting in your poll. Their knowledge of players prior to Jordan is obviously pretty spotty, and they appear to be more influenced by threads on Ish than how well guys actually played the game.
.
:facepalm Magic is arguably the greatest offensive player to ever play the game, and yes that includes MJ. MJ is my favorite player of all-time, but recently I am starting to lean towards saying Magic is the greatest offensive player ever. There is nobody that can anchor an entire offense like him.

ShaqAttack3234

10-29-2011, 08:13 PM

That being said, I usually like to use eFG% when calculating perimeter player's shooting/scoring efficiency. There isn't too much of a point in using eFG% with big men specifically Hakeem and Shaq because it is not like either one of those guys were capable of hitting 3s outside of luck pretty much.

Kobe in '08 playoffs: 51.4 eFG%
Kobe in '09 playoffs: 49.2 eFG%
Kobe in '10 playoffs: 50.6 eFG%

Hakeem in '94 playoffs: 52.1 eFG%
Hakeem in '95 playoffs: 53.3 eFG%

Shaq in '00 playoffs: 56.6 eFG%
Shaq in '01 playoffs: 55.5 eFG%

Kobe pretty much was less efficient as far as shooting is concerned, not scoring.

The opponents defenses and the volume of shots also have to be factored in, imo.

Kobe
'08- 30.1 ppg, 22 FGA
'09- 30.2 ppg, 23 FGA
'10- 29.2 ppg, 22.2 FGA

'08 defenses
Denver- 106.3 defensive rating
Utah- 106.5 defensive rating
San Antonio- 101.8 defensive rating
Boston- 98.9 defensive rating

'09 defenses
Utah- 107.3 defensive rating
Houston- 104 defensive rating
Denver- 106.8 defensive rating
Orlando- 101.9 defensive rating

'10 defenses
Oklahoma City- 104.6 defensive rating
Utah- 105 defensive rating
Phoenix- 110.2 defensive rating
Boston- 103.8 defensive rating

Shaq
'00- 30.7 ppg, 22 FGA
'01- 30.4 ppg, 21.5 FGA
'02- 28.5 ppg, 20.2 FGA

'00 defenses
Sacramento- 102.1 defensive rating
Phoenix- 99 defensive rating
Portland- 100.8 defensive rating
Indiana- 103.6 defensive rating

'01 defenses
Portland- 101.8 defensive rating
Sacramento- 99.6 defensive rating
San Antonio- 98 defensive rating
Philadelphia- 98.9 defensive rating

'02 defenses
Portland- 104 defensive rating
San Antonio- 98.7 defensive rating
Sacramento- 101.1 defensive rating
New Jersey- 98.5 defensive rating

Hakeem
'94- 28.9 ppg, 22.3 FGA
'95- 33 ppg, 26.2 FGA

'94 defenses
Portland- 105.5 defensive rating
Phoenix- 106.8 defensive rating
Utah- 104.1 defensive rating
New York- 98.2 defensive rating

'95 defenses
Utah- 105.7 defensive rating
Phoenix- 110.4 defensive rating
San Antonio- 105.4 defensive rating
Orlando- 107.8 defensive rating

There are some things defensive rating doesn't tell you, for example, the '95 season is skewed somewhat due to the shortened 3 point line. Also, Boston's defense was even better than their defensive rating suggests, imo, this is probably due to all of those blowouts during the regular season where they rested their starters. Also worth noting is that Portland defended Shaq tougher than any other team, imo, despite them not being the best defensive team he faced statistically.

All 3 had some of the best playoff runs of all time, Kobe before the finals in '08 was doing whatever he wanted. 32 ppg on 51 FG%/61 TS% in the first 3 rounds of '08.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 08:14 PM

Magic led the Lakers to an NBA record highest team FG% of .545 in the 1984-85 season
:bowdown:

JMT

10-29-2011, 08:15 PM

Whats wrong with Magic at 4?

and for those who say he had Kareem:

1987 Playoffs
Magic - 21.8 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 12.2 apg on 53.9 FG%
Kareem - 19.2 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 2.0 apg on 53 FG%

1988 Playoffs
Magic - 19.9 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 12.6 apg on 51.4 FG%
Kareem - 14.1 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 1.5 apg on 46.4 FG%

Not just Kareem (and it's not really fair to simply look at playoff stats; the season is a long one, and the Big Guy made those glossy w-l records and accompanying seeding a lot easier to attain). Worthy. Cooper. McAdoo. Scott. Great teammates.

Magic was a fantastic player and, as I said earlier, still unique to this day. Don't really mean to knock him; he's a top 10. But placing him over Wilt is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever seen.

JMT

10-29-2011, 08:16 PM

:facepalm Magic is arguably the greatest offensive player to ever play the game..

Then let's hear the argument. It'll be the first.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 08:18 PM

Not just Kareem (and it's not really fair to simply look at playoff stats; the season is a long one, and the Big Guy made those glossy w-l records and accompanying seeding a lot easier to attain). Worthy. Cooper. McAdoo. Scott. Great teammates.

Magic was a fantastic player and, as I said earlier, still unique to this day. Don't really mean to knock him; he's a top 10. But placing him over Wilt is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever seen.

I disagree, Wilt is not a great playoff performer like Magic

guess who shot 1-11 from the freethrow line in a game 7 of the NBA Finals?

Inception28

10-29-2011, 08:24 PM

Then let's hear the argument. It'll be the first.
Ok.

-Magic was one of the biggest, if not the biggest mismatch to ever play the game. He was a PG at 6'9 and 250 lbs.
-Magic ran some of the greatest offenses of all-time
-Magic made the best use of his teammates better than anyone else ever did.
-Magic was the greatest passer/playmaker/creator of all-time, averaged 11.2 apg in the RS and 12.3 apg in the PS in his career.
-Magic was an ultra efficient scorer, shooting a TS% of 61.0%. Magic could have scored more points if he actually wanted to, but realize that it was better for the sake of the team to set his teammates up and make them better.

Nobody could anchor an offense better than him. You could probably surround him with a bunch of nobodies and his team offensively would still be elite.

Give me some players you think were better than Magic offensively.

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 08:29 PM

Inception28, only 83 posts but already 2 green boxes of reputation :applause:

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 08:32 PM

I can tell you. There are 3-4 guys on the candidate list that belong ahead of Shaq.

Duncan, Robertson and Bryant are easily ahead. You can debate Hakeem and West.

That's what makes it so absurd that Shaq is in consideration.

On a scale of 1-10, how delusional would you describe yourself?

I'm not even dealing with Oscar and West here because I don't know about them as players though I've researched enough to rank Oscar over West as the best guard of his era.

Hakeem is the only guy out of Duncan and Bryant I can see over Shaq. But that's looking at Hakeem's peak, he's not quite at that level if you extend their primes.

Duncan was neither as good in his prime or peak and doesn't have the edge in longevity either. I guess Duncan being a more stable, consistent leader helps his case because I don't see him bolting anywhere though he did come close to signing with Orlando early in his career. Who would you rather have on your team or who would you rather draft, if that matters then Duncan definitely closes the gap.

Kobe just wasn't as good. Its the best way I can put it and I like Kobe. He's fun to watch when he's on his scoring binges but I draw a line at some point when it comes to how good a player is, their playoff performances and then their career. Kobe just isn't as good as Shaq.

Inception28

10-29-2011, 08:39 PM

Duncan was neither as good in his prime or peak and doesn't have the edge in longevity either. I guess Duncan being a more stable, consistent leader helps his case because I don't see him bolting anywhere though he did come close to signing with Orlando early in his career. Who would you rather have on your team or who would you rather draft, if that matters then Duncan definitely closes the gap. .
Duncan also has the intangibles and was a consistently better regular season performer than Shaq was. I would say they were a push when it comes down to playoff performances. Neither one of Duncan's or Shaq's playoff performances stand out over the other. They were both consistently excellent when it came down to the post-season.

It's hard to ignore that Duncan had the better intangibles though. How much you value them is up to you.

RRR3

10-29-2011, 08:41 PM

Deuce Bigalow

10-29-2011, 08:42 PM

On a scale of 1-10, how delusional would you describe yourself?

I'm not even dealing with Oscar and West here because I don't know about them as players though I've researched enough to rank Oscar over West as the best guard of his era.

Hakeem is the only guy out of Duncan and Bryant I can see over Shaq. But that's looking at Hakeem's peak, he's not quite at that level if you extend their primes.

Duncan was neither as good in his prime or peak and doesn't have the edge in longevity either. I guess Duncan being a more stable, consistent leader helps his case because I don't see him bolting anywhere though he did come close to signing with Orlando early in his career. Who would you rather have on your team or who would you rather draft, if that matters then Duncan definitely closes the gap.

Kobe just wasn't as good. Its the best way I can put it and I like Kobe. He's fun to watch when he's on his scoring binges but I draw a line at some point when it comes to how good a player is, their playoff performances and then their career. Kobe just isn't as good as Shaq.

People can make a case for Kobe because of his 2008-2010 run without Shaq
2 championships and 3 Finals in a row

Also for Duncan, he never had as good as a teammate as Kobe like Shaq did and still managed to get 4

But I still got Shaq over both of them

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 08:43 PM

Yes. As a guy who saw both, I believe Robertson was unquestionably a better basketball player.

Let's start with the fact that I'm a Shaq fan. Immensely entertaining and, at his best, a truly dominant player. But in one of the weakest eras of big men in league history, Shaq wasn't a dominant rebounder for an extended period during his career. He was never a great shot blocker, and for half his career was a real liability as a pick & roll defender. He was essentially a power player on the offensive end, and only really increased his repetoire as his age and conditioning dictated. And his lack of conditioning accelerated his decline. His last 5 years in the league he was a shadow of his former self who survived because of the lack of quality bigs in the NBA.

Robertson was as complete a basketball player as has ever stepped on the floor. He faced up and shot the ball effectively; had a post game that Shaq should have aspired to (and that would make LeBron James an all time great if he developed); defended, often the best scorer on the other side; rebounded like a much bigger player; and did it all, for the most part, with an inferior cast of teammates. Yes, he won with Kareem at the tail end of his career, but he certainly never played with guys the caliber that Shaq did.

I kind of lost faith in this list when Magic came in at #4 ( a great player and unique to this day, but not close to the 4th best player of all time). I chalk it up to the youth of the people voting in your poll. Their knowledge of players prior to Jordan is obviously pretty spotty, and they appear to be more influenced by threads on Ish than how well guys actually played the game.

Just my .02. Thanks for asking.
The weak big men theory has been shattered on several occasions but lets begin.

- The guy averaged 40 points on Ewing in the 1995 season over the span of 4 games.

- The only big man that he didn't outplay was Hakeem in the 1995 finals and that's hardly a shame with the level he was playing at.

- He easily got the better off the Duncan/Robinson Spurs in 2001. 27/13 on 54% FG. He often played good defense on Duncan too when switched onto him save for the 2003 series.

- Half the time the great defensive big isn't what matters; its the team defense, how well they rotate, quality of help and weakside defense, quick double teams ect. You tell me who guarded Shaq better; the 2000 Blazers or the 2001 Sixers with their DPoY Mutombo?

Shaq was definitely a dominant rebounder to me. He's finished runner up a few times and a lot of times he didn't bother crashing the defensive glass because he had a PF to clean it up like Horace Grant in Orlando. Shaq beasted the glass in his rookie year but he wasn't required to. Not his role. A lot of defensive rebounds go unchallenged. We've seen Shaq dominate the boards in the playoffs; like his 2000, 2001 and 2003 runs. When it was required, he generally did it.

The point about shot blocking has a lot to do with how much he makes guards adjust at the rim and how much he got contested. His BPG peaked in his rookie year because that's when he got challenged the most. People don't want to drive in and get fouled hard by Shaq. LA's paint defense (hoopdata.com) has also been good in Shaq's best years. Wonder why.

His lack of conditioning and underachieving is irrelevant anyway because he peaked and played at a higher level than some of the guys you are bringing up despite not playing to his potential. Talent means something.

Inception28

10-29-2011, 08:43 PM

:wtf:
It has to do with health. Shaq would half ass and would sit out of games under injuries that weren't bothering him much. Shaq more than likely would have played with if it was a playoff game instead of a regular season game though. If you followed Shaq's career you would know this.

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 08:45 PM

People can make a case for Kobe because of his 2008-2010 run without Shaq
2 championships and 3 Finals in a row

Also for Duncan, he never had as good as a teammate as Kobe like Shaq did and still managed to get 4

But I still got Shaq over both of them
They can make a case but I disagree. Reaching a certain level matters to me and its not like Shaq was a one hit wonder.

You should see some of the teams Duncan beat too. His competition hasn't been that impressive though you can't really hold that against him because he can only play who he faces. Its just that it makes the others' and their runs look more impressive.

Fazotronic

10-29-2011, 08:50 PM

Vote: Hakeem!

him or shaq are easily the next two. no way a gm would ever take duncan over those two. shaq was way more dominant and ther is nothing hakeem can't do better than duncan besides doing a bank shot.

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 08:52 PM

Duncan also has the intangibles and was a consistently better regular season performer than Shaq was. I would say they were a push when it comes down to playoff performances. Neither one of Duncan's or Shaq's playoff performances stand out over the other. They were both consistently excellent when it came down to the post-season.

It's hard to ignore that Duncan had the better intangibles though. How much you value them is up to you.
I don't know about better regular season performer. He was less injury prone IIRC but not necessarily playing at a higher level.

Also, leadership isn't the only intangible out there. An intangible is anything that can't be measured in stats. I'm sure you've followed both these guys extensively. Can you say Duncan drew more attention than Shaq, how much pressure he put on the defense, how much fouls he drew putting teams in penalty early causing the opposing team to play less aggressive on defense?

Its the mental edge Shaq gives your team knowing others have to deal with him. Its something I can show you by giving you an example of their peers and one of my own. If you guard a like Shaq in a pick up game as opposed to Duncan, you'll know they'll both get theirs but you know Shaq is going to leave you hopeless while Duncan is the guy you want to try and guard. Its a gut feeling that you have knowing you'll stop him even though you won't.

Here's one where Ben Wallace and McDyess compare these two right after the Heat vs Pistons ECF and before the Spurs vs Pistons series.

The 6-foot-9 Wallace, the Pistons' defensive player of the year the past two seasons, could not see how any other challenge could be bigger.

''Bigger than Shaq?'' Wallace said, shaking his head.

Thirty minutes after the Pistons' 88-82 victory on Miami's home court in Game 7, Wallace was still revved.

''Tim Duncan's a great player,'' he said. ''He's a Hall of Famer. But Shaq, he's Shaq. That's a tall task.''

Rasheed Wallace played his best in the clutch despite battling foul trouble, and he may take turns with Wallace guarding Duncan, the Spurs' 7-foot center. Duncan may revel in his unassuming profile, but his pure post game makes him the man to watch as he goes for his third championship in seven years.

''I think Shaq set us up for Tim Duncan,'' the Pistons reserve power forward Antonio McDyess said Monday night. He was smiling despite having hyperextended his right knee and said he felt little pain.

''He prepared us well,'' McDyess said of O'Neal. ''You can't compare anybody to Shaq.''

He said of Duncan: ''I think it's a little easier. He's more mobile. He can go out on the floor a little better.''

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00911F6385C0C7B8CDDAF0894DD4044 82

JMT

10-29-2011, 09:10 PM

The weak big men theory has been shattered on several occasions but lets begin.

- The guy averaged 40 points on Ewing in the 1995 season over the span of 4 games.

- The only big man that he didn't outplay was Hakeem in the 1995 finals and that's hardly a shame with the level he was playing at.

- He easily got the better off the Duncan/Robinson Spurs in 2001. 27/13 on 54% FG. He often played good defense on Duncan too when switched onto him save for the 2003 series.

- Half the time the great defensive big isn't what matters; its the team defense, how well they rotate, quality of help and weakside defense, quick double teams ect. You tell me who guarded Shaq better; the 2000 Blazers or the 2001 Sixers with their DPoY Mutombo?

Shaq was definitely a dominant rebounder to me. He's finished runner up a few times and a lot of times he didn't bother crashing the defensive glass because he had a PF to clean it up like Horace Grant in Orlando. Shaq beasted the glass in his rookie year but he wasn't required to. Not his role. A lot of defensive rebounds go unchallenged. We've seen Shaq dominate the boards in the playoffs; like his 2000, 2001 and 2003 runs. When it was required, he generally did it.

The point about shot blocking has a lot to do with how much he makes guards adjust at the rim and how much he got contested. His BPG peaked in his rookie year because that's when he got challenged the most. People don't want to drive in and get fouled hard by Shaq. LA's paint defense (hoopdata.com) has also been good in Shaq's best years. Wonder why.

His lack of conditioning and underachieving is irrelevant anyway because he peaked and played at a higher level than some of the guys you are bringing up despite not playing to his potential. Talent means something.

I've never seen the weak big men fact refuted.

4 games vs Ewing doesn't a career make. You give a lot of weifght to those, but excuse his performance vs Hakeem. Which is it? Do a few games matetr or not?

Again, one series where he got the better of Duncan matters, but the one where he couldn't guard him doesn't.

You then go on to make excuses for his shot blocking, declare big man defense unimportant :eek: , and poor conditioning and underachieving not a big deal. Maybe not if we're talking about rank & file players, but we're not. We're discussing the all time best of the best. What separates those guys from everyone else? Commitment. Playing at their peak for an extended period. Bringing their best every night, not just when it's easy.

I have Shaq a Top 12 player all time. I just believe those factors...which you don't deny, jujst whitewash as unimportant...are what make the difference.

JMT

10-29-2011, 09:14 PM

I disagree, Wilt is not a great playoff performer like Magic

guess who shot 1-11 from the freethrow line in a game 7 of the NBA Finals?

Then I suppose Paul Pierce should rank ahead of everyone. Didn't he have the best Finals FT% for a single game?

I know you're smarter than to look at that as a defining factor in Wilt's career.

JMT

10-29-2011, 09:16 PM

Ok.

Give me some players you think were better than Magic offensively.

Already listed them, but OK. Wilt. Oscar.

Magic was a generational playmaker who was surrounded by great players. That's not a knock, just a fact.

You've chosen to focus solely on his offense, which is smart because his defense speaks for itself as well.

A great player. Not as great a player as Wilt.

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 09:23 PM

I've never seen the weak big men fact refuted.

4 games vs Ewing doesn't a career make. You give a lot of weifght to those, but excuse his performance vs Hakeem. Which is it? Do a few games matetr or not?

Again, one series where he got the better of Duncan matters, but the one where he couldn't guard him doesn't.

You then go on to make excuses for his shot blocking, declare big man defense unimportant :eek: , and poor conditioning and underachieving not a big deal. Maybe not if we're talking about rank & file players, but we're not. We're discussing the all time best of the best. What separates those guys from everyone else? Commitment. Playing at their peak for an extended period. Bringing their best every night, not just when it's easy.

I have Shaq a Top 12 player all time. I just believe those factors...which you don't deny, jujst whitewash as unimportant...are what make the difference.
Actually, he's dominated Ewing ever since that year. Those are just an example. You also didn't refute how an individual defender doesn't constitute a great defense. More often than not a team defense can overcome the limitations at a certain position.

I do put consideration into that series with Hakeem but Shaq is 23 years old and had room to improve and he's going up against a guy people were saying played the game as well as anybody ever did. Shaq still played very well in the series and had nothing to do with the sweep.

Well, Duncan is not Shaq's man plus Shaq at that point was too overweight to keep up with Duncan. I'd like to see Orlando Shaq go up agianst him. But Shaq has shut down Duncan on occasions. There's a Christmas Day Lakers vs Spurs game where Duncan ends up shootin 2/14 or along the lines of it. That was sort of selective stats on my behalf of though. I admit. Shaq didn't really do that well against the Spurs in 1999 or 2002(injury IIRC) but he still made an impact just because of his presence.

I never declared big man defense unimportant. Show me where I did. You can't do it. What I was saying is Shaq made a bigger impact defensively than you think. His shot blocking numbers aren't elite but neither are Duncan's which is proof BPG does not equal great defense. Marcus Camby blocked a lot of shots by excessively gambling.

If conditioning and playing up to one's potential mattered that much, I'd guess you'd take Patrick Ewing over Shaq too because he was much more of a hard worker. I'm ranking Shaq for who he was anyway, not based on what he could have potentially done. In that case, he may have been the GOAT.

JMT

10-29-2011, 09:35 PM

I never declared big man defense unimportant. Show me where I did. You can't do it.

"Half the time the great defensive big isn't what matters"

You go on to say he couldn't guard Duncan because he was overweight. Conditioning.

Again, it's not a big deal...until we're trying to separate the elite of the elite. When we're gtting that particular, looking for that final factor that separates one player from another, a commitment to the game and staying in the best shape possible absolutely is a factor imo.

asdf1990

10-29-2011, 09:46 PM

shaq .

NugzHeat3

10-29-2011, 09:58 PM

"Half the time the great defensive big isn't what matters"

You go on to say he couldn't guard Duncan because he was overweight. Conditioning.

Again, it's not a big deal...until we're trying to separate the elite of the elite. When we're gtting that particular, looking for that final factor that separates one player from another, a commitment to the game and staying in the best shape possible absolutely is a factor imo.
You badly misinterpreted that quote though I did a poor job explaining it to be honest. Let me give you a few more examples.

A great defensive big isn't required to have a great defensive team. That's my point.

Look at the 1996 Seattle Sonics. They had Ervin Johnson who was a scrub and Sam Perkins, sure good length, good post defender but he's not a great defensive C. Why was that team so successful at guarding Hakeem in the playoffs that year?

Swarming defense. Help from the perimeter, guards executing their traps well, double teaming right at the entry pass and often without the ball which was illegal back then. After double teaming, recovering right after to get to the shooters.

So they were able to limit Hakeem without a great defensive C. It's the perimeter that did the job.

Same with the 2000 Blazers. Its not Sabonis though he was a good initial defender. Its Pippen dropping down from the perimeter, Sheed helping from the weakside as well as Sabonis doing well in holding his own position that's bothering Shaq. TEAM defense overcoming the lack of individual defense.

Hakeem vs Robinson 1995 WCF. Hakeem was double teamed but they were soft double teams and he was guarded one on one for some games. You know the result. Great defensive C got SMOKED.

Shaq vs Mutombo like I mentioned earlier.

Shaq vs Ben Wallace 2004 finals. 1 on 1, Shaq had his way and would've done better if he got more touches.

As for your second point, that's a rather obscure example. Saying Shaq couldn't guard Duncan in 2003 is like saying Jordan couldn't do a good job on Magic in 1991 though for different reasons.

The only thing you can point to his conditioning his injuries which caused him to miss season games thus hurting his MVP chances. I don't think home court was decided by Shaq's conditioning issues. Conditioning was definitely an issue in Miami where he had to be taken out of games and couldn't log heavy minutes.

JMT

10-30-2011, 11:32 AM

You badly misinterpreted that quote though I did a poor job explaining it to be honest. Let me give you a few more examples.

A great defensive big isn't required to have a great defensive team. That's my point.

As for your second point, that's a rather obscure example. Saying Shaq couldn't guard Duncan in 2003 is like saying Jordan couldn't do a good job on Magic in 1991 though for different reasons.

The only thing you can point to his conditioning his injuries which caused him to miss season games thus hurting his MVP chances. I don't think home court was decided by Shaq's conditioning issues. Conditioning was definitely an issue in Miami where he had to be taken out of games and couldn't log heavy minutes.

(1)You're right. A great defense doesn't require a great defensive big. Which doesn't change at all the fact that the guy being presented as the #7 player all time wasn't a great, or even particularly good, defender. Which is a big strike against in my book.

(2) Maybe an obscure example...but one that you brought up, not me.

(3) His conditioning issues were brought about by his decision that he didn't need preseason or the first half of the regular season, and could play himself into shape by the playoffs. And you want to limit it to Miami? You brought up 2002-03 when he was too overweight vs Spurs. 2003-04 vs Detroit. Cleveland. Phoenix. Boston, though that one may have been more injury driven. So basically, from the age of 30 he wasn't fit enough to play full time minutes or defense against other top players at his position.

Again, we're discussing the all time best of the best. Taking that laissez faire attitude toward conditioning, team and responsibility isn't a trait befitting a player ranked this high imo.

Vienceslav

10-30-2011, 11:52 AM

Shaq.

kaiteng

10-30-2011, 11:56 AM

Oscar Robertson

chains5000

10-30-2011, 12:00 PM

As much as I love Shaq my vote goes to Tim Duncan.
Same here, Duncan.

pauk

10-30-2011, 01:06 PM

Oscar Robertson

aau

10-30-2011, 01:16 PM

shaq

OmniStrife

10-30-2011, 01:40 PM

This was hard for me but Timmy.

Shaq has the better peak but he's half the player Duncan is on defense.
Plus, Duncan is the GOAT at his position.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/files/2008/04/l83729-2.jpg

7_cody

10-30-2011, 02:16 PM

If you want great team chemistry, an ultimate team player, an unselfish leader, and a much better defender along with superior intangible assets, you gotta go with Tim Duncan over Shaq.

Statistically, Shaq is probably better, as he was a more dominant scorer and only a slightly worse rebounder. Shaq has never shot below 50% in his career, while Tim has a few times. Shaq's prime years are also more impressive.

IMO, Tim Duncan achieved more with a worse supporting cast. He never had Kobe Bryant or Dwyane Wade on his team.

This is a hard choice, but I'm voting for Tim Duncan.

Fazotronic

10-30-2011, 02:20 PM

Inception28

10-30-2011, 02:22 PM

Update for the vote so far

17 - Shaquille O'Neal
10 - Tim Duncan
6 - Hakeem Olajuwon
3 - Oscar Robertson

what about hakeem? nothing he can't do better than duncan.
Duncan was a better and a more willing passer than Hakeem. Duncan also made his teammates better than both Hakeem and Shaq did. That being said, I don't think Duncan had a better peak than Hakeem did. If we were just talking about peaks, Hakeem would be top 3 or 5 on my list and he would have a case for #1.

HylianNightmare

10-30-2011, 02:24 PM

shaq

Deuce Bigalow

10-30-2011, 04:22 PM

Update for the vote so far

17 - Shaquille O'Neal
10 - Tim Duncan
6 - Hakeem Olajuwon
3 - Oscar Robertson

Duncan was a better and a more willing passer than Hakeem. Duncan also made his teammates better than both Hakeem and Shaq did. That being said, I don't think Duncan had a better peak than Hakeem did. If we were just talking about peaks, Hakeem would be top 3 or 5 on my list and he would have a case for #1.

Where did you get the 17th vote for Shaq from?
and the 6th vote for Hakeem?

My count is this

16 - Shaquille O'Neal
10 - Tim Duncan
5 - Hakeem Olajuwon
3 - Oscar Robertson

Total - 34 votes

Yung D-Will

10-30-2011, 04:22 PM

http://i40.tinypic.com/25q8wnp.png

One of these two.

7-8 respectively

Inception28

10-30-2011, 04:23 PM

Where did you get the 17th vote for Shaq from?

My count is this
Shaq is pretty much going to win either way. How much longer do we have to vote?

Deuce Bigalow

10-30-2011, 04:25 PM

Shaq is pretty much going to win either way. How much longer do we have to vote?

12 ET, that is for all of them except if the voting isn't even close

SuperPippen

10-30-2011, 04:55 PM

Tim Duncan

aau

10-30-2011, 05:06 PM

12 ET, that is for all of them except if the voting isn't even close

deuce

this one's a rap

let's get into #8 while we chillin
on a sunday watchin football

Deuce Bigalow

10-30-2011, 05:08 PM

http://i40.tinypic.com/25q8wnp.png

One of these two.

7-8 respectively

you got to pick one of them

Deuce Bigalow

10-30-2011, 05:09 PM

deuce

this one's a rap

let's get into #8 while we chillin
on a sunday watchin football

idk maybe its too early

Fazotronic

10-30-2011, 05:52 PM

Update for the vote so far

17 - Shaquille O'Neal
10 - Tim Duncan
6 - Hakeem Olajuwon
3 - Oscar Robertson

Duncan was a better and a more willing passer than Hakeem. Duncan also made his teammates better than both Hakeem and Shaq did. That being said, I don't think Duncan had a better peak than Hakeem did. If we were just talking about peaks, Hakeem would be top 3 or 5 on my list and he would have a case for #1.

so duncan being a more willing passer and making his teammates better is enough to rank him higher?
hakeem is better at offence and defense in almost every aspect of the game. what more does he need?

Inception28

10-30-2011, 06:04 PM

so duncan being a more willing passer and making his teammates better is enough to rank him higher?
hakeem is better at offence and defense in almost every aspect of the game. what more does he need?
Are we comparing their peaks here or what? I said Hakeem was better during their peaks. But Duncan accomplished and did more than Hakeem did, that makes him above Hakeem in my opinion. It's not like Hakeem blows Duncan away in prime/peak play either. Duncan on the other hand does blow Hakeem away in longevity and accomplishments.

millwad

10-30-2011, 06:30 PM

Are we comparing their peaks here or what? I said Hakeem was better during their peaks. But Duncan accomplished and did more than Hakeem did, that makes him above Hakeem in my opinion. It's not like Hakeem blows Duncan away in prime/peak play either. Duncan on the other hand does blow Hakeem away in longevity and accomplishments.

Duncan does not blow Hakeem away in longevity, not even close. And accomplishments based on winning, yes, based on personal accolades no. I can barely see Duncan winning 1 MVP in Hakeem's era, absolutely not 2..

Back to longevity, just look at Duncan now, he is 34 and a corpse compared to the younger version of himself. 2010-2011 season he averaged 13.4 points (50% shooting), 8.9 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.9 blocks per game.

Hakeem at the same age, 34, was still balling and he averaged 23.2 points (51% shooting), 9.2 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2.5 blocks per game.

And I'd take prime Hakeem over prime Duncan without no doubt and especially considering the guy's Hakeem outplayed compared to the guy's Duncan outplayed during their runs.

G.O.A.T

10-30-2011, 06:32 PM

If I could re-arrange the top 7 it would probably be this

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Shaq

Wilt shouldn't be on here yet, but I assume a lot of people are naive about him and just look at his numbers.

Why would Bird, Magic, Kareem, Duncan or Shaq be clearly ahead of Wilt?

RRR3

10-30-2011, 06:34 PM

Why would Bird, Magic, Kareem, Duncan or Shaq be clearly ahead of Wilt?
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-bu-bu-bu-but Wilt was a choking statpadder!!!!!!!!

PistonsFan#21

10-30-2011, 06:48 PM

Shaq :pimp:

Inception28

10-30-2011, 06:55 PM

Why would Bird, Magic, Kareem, Duncan or Shaq be clearly ahead of Wilt?
They are all better playoff performers and every bit as accomplished, if not more accomplished than Wilt was. Wilt is more talented sure, he is more talented than anyone who has ever played but that isn't enough.

Deuce Bigalow

10-30-2011, 07:17 PM

Duncan does not blow Hakeem away in longevity, not even close. And accomplishments based on winning, yes, based on personal accolades no. I can barely see Duncan winning 1 MVP in Hakeem's era, absolutely not 2..

Back to longevity, just look at Duncan now, he is 34 and a corpse compared to the younger version of himself. 2010-2011 season he averaged 13.4 points (50% shooting), 8.9 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.9 blocks per game.

Hakeem at the same age, 34, was still balling and he averaged 23.2 points (51% shooting), 9.2 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2.5 blocks per game.

And I'd take prime Hakeem over prime Duncan without no doubt and especially considering the guy's Hakeem outplayed compared to the guy's Duncan outplayed during their runs.

Even a 36 year old Hakeem was better than a 34 year old Duncan
18.9 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.5 bpg on .519 FG%

G.O.A.T

10-30-2011, 07:28 PM

They are all better playoff performers and every bit as accomplished, if not more accomplished than Wilt was. Wilt is more talented sure, he is more talented than anyone who has ever played but that isn't enough.

I don't think you can say they are better playoff performers. Certainly you can't just say it and assume people will accept it as fact.

Wilt's teams went to more conference finals and NBA finals than Bird, Shaq or Duncan and Kareem and Magic did 80% of their prime damage together.

None of them ever had a playoffs that rivals Wilt's '67 campaign. And really you can barely find a bad game Wilt had in a pressure spot ('68 game seven is the only one I really hold against him).

Wilt won more MVP's than anyone besides Kareem, his Prime averages of 35-24-4 are other worldly.

Yes his numbers dipped in the playoffs, and that is a good reason to suggest maybe he was lacking a quality that guys like MJ, Russ, Bird, Duncan and Magic had, but Kareem didn't have it either so that can't be it.

Wilt scored just as much in the playoffs as Kareem, averaged twice as many rebounds, more assists and if they kept the numbers probably at least twice as many blocks. His teams were also upset less often and certainly he didn't have the amount of Sweeps against him that Shaq's teams did.

I just don't see how those guys have a stronger case, let alone an obvious one.

millwad

10-30-2011, 07:36 PM

Even a 36 year old Hakeem was better than a 34 year old Duncan
18.9 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.5 bpg on .519 FG%

He definitely was, many seem to think that Hakeem just came from no where and played GOAT-like for 2 years when he lead the Rockets to them back-to-backs and then he just disappeared.

Very few ever give him cred for how good he was in the 80's or how he lead his team to the finals in his 2nd pro season while outplaying players like Abdul-Jabbar and Parish or that he still played basketball at a very high level even after the back to backs.

Inception28

10-30-2011, 07:40 PM

I don't think you can say they are better playoff performers. Certainly you can't just say it and assume people will accept it as fact.
Sure if you are completely naive about Wilt and his failures.

Wilt's teams went to more conference finals and NBA finals than Bird, Shaq or Duncan and Kareem and Magic did 80% of their prime damage together.
And how many times did he win the championship? The argument that I got further than someone else but I still failed to win it all doesn't hold much weight to me. Cause it is not like we are comparing Wilt to Tmac here, we are comparing Wilt to other all-time greats like Magic, Shaq, Duncan, and Bird.

None of them ever had a playoffs that rivals Wilt's '67 campaign. And really you can barely find a bad game Wilt had in a pressure spot ('68 game seven is the only one I really hold against him).
So one dominant post-season makes up for all the other shortcomings he had?

Wilt won more MVP's than anyone besides Kareem, his Prime averages of 35-24-4 are other worldly.
I already talked about how MVPs don't mean that much to me. Wilt won less MVPs than Russell and MJ by the way.

Here is what I said earlier about the MVPs when I was talking to ShaqAttack
http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6444159#post6444159

I agree with accomplishments not being the best way to determine much which is why I never believe that one having more MVPs than the other makes that player better than another.

It's the same reason why I believe Shaq should be above Wilt. Yeah Wilt has better stats and yeah Wilt has more RS MVPs, but that doesn't mean he was better than him or should be ranked above him. I have always valued playoff dominance over regular season dominance.

If MVPs determined rankings then we would be saying how Nash is greater than Shaq, or how Derrick Rose is greater than Wade. The Bird-Moses comparison would be legit too since they both have 3 MVPs, yet about 99% of the world would tell you that Bird was easily the greater player of the two and that it is a laughable comparison.

Championship rings and finals MVP mean a hell lot more than MVPs. Although we have to look into the context. Wade's finals MVP and championship means more to me than Lebron's MVP, but Tony Parker's finals MVP and championship does not.

Wilt scored just as much in the playoffs as Kareem, averaged twice as many rebounds, more assists and if they kept the numbers probably at least twice as many blocks. His teams were also upset less often and certainly he didn't have the amount of Sweeps against him that Shaq's teams did.
A loss is a loss, why am I suppose to care if he got swept or not. Why should something hold more weight just because you win 1, 2, or 3 more games but you still lose the series? If you lose the series you lose the series.

I just don't see how those guys have a stronger case, let alone an obvious one.
Sure, they were better playoff performers.

G.O.A.T

10-30-2011, 07:59 PM

Sure, they were better playoff performers.

Let me offer a counterpoint that is the equivalent to what you presented:

No they're not!

Inception28

10-30-2011, 08:05 PM

Let me offer a counterpoint that is the equivalent to what you presented:

No they're not!
Well is it not true that Wilt Chamberlain won the least championships and least finals MVP out of the group?

G.O.A.T

10-30-2011, 08:11 PM

Well is it not true that Wilt Chamberlain won the least championships and least finals MVP out of the group?

Now we're getting somewhere, discussion, yes!

Same number of Finals MVP's as Kareem and Bird if you give him '67 (anyone would)

Same number of titles as an alpha as Kareem and Magic, only one fewer than Shaq and Bird and for nearly Wilt's entire career he had Russell ad the Celtics in his way. Shaq only had MJ to worry about for three prime seasons, same with Bird and Magic, Kareem played in the weakest era on NBA hoops post-shot clock.

If you take Russell out of the Picture Wilt gets at least three more rings ('68, '69, '64) And probably five or six ('65, '62, '66).

There is no one else who was so consistently foiled by such a nemesis. Certainly there is no shame in being second best to Russell.

Inception28

10-30-2011, 08:18 PM

Now we're getting somewhere, discussion, yes!

Same number of Finals MVP's as Kareem and Bird if you give him '67 (anyone would)
True, but lets face it. Kareem and Bird were the best player's on a championship team more than twice.

Same number of titles as an alpha as Kareem and Magic, only one fewer than Shaq and Bird
How many times were Magic and Kareem the alphas on their respective team? That being said I actually hold account into winning as a 2nd option. It's not worth a grain of salt to me like most people treat it.

and for nearly Wilt's entire career he had Russell ad the Celtics in his way. Shaq only had MJ to worry about for three prime seasons, same with Bird and Magic, Kareem played in the weakest era on NBA hoops post-shot clock.

If you take Russell out of the Picture Wilt gets at least three more rings ('68, '69, '64) And probably five or six ('65, '62, '66).

There is no one else who was so consistently foiled by such a nemesis. Certainly there is no shame in being second best to Russell.
What is the point of this hypothetical? I don't live on what ifs, I live on what actually happened. That being said, it's nice to see for a change that Russell is being put on a high standard and I don't see the same excuses such as Wilt's teammates were a bunch of D-Leaguers and what not.

Wilt's stats did not help his team as much as one would think it would.

millwad

10-30-2011, 08:21 PM

If you take Russell out of the Picture Wilt gets at least three more rings ('68, '69, '64) And probably five or six ('65, '62, '66).

There is no one else who was so consistently foiled by such a nemesis. Certainly there is no shame in being second best to Russell.

What a terrible argument..:facepalm

SpecialQue

10-30-2011, 08:23 PM

Fvck it, I'll be the lone wolf here and throw in my vote for Kobe at #7.

G.O.A.T

10-30-2011, 08:52 PM

True, but lets face it. Kareem and Bird were the best player's on a championship team more than twice.

Kareem wasn't '71 and '80 are the only seasons he was the highest MVP vote getter on his team during title years. Magic also received higher all-NBA recognition during the other 4 title runs.

How many times were Magic and Kareem the alphas on their respective team?

Kareem 1971, 1980
Magic 1987, 1988

You can go either way in '82 and '85. I give Magic's performance a slight edge in the former and Kareem's in the later.

That being said I actually hold account into winning as a 2nd option. It's not worth a grain of salt to me like most people treat it.

I am with you, but I don't think it's usually anymore a sign of greatness than being the best player on a runner-up or a team that losses a competitive series to the eventual Champs. Look at the following seasons and tell me which players you think proved more and whose season meant more.

2009 -Dwight Howard (best player on runner-up or Pau Gasol (second best on Champs)

2008 - Kobe Bryant (best player on runner-up) or Paul Pierce (second best on Champs)

2001 - Allen Iverson (best player on runner-up) or Kobe Bryant (second best on Champs)

1995 - Shaq (best player on runner-up) or Clyde Drexler (second best on Champs)

1993 - Charles Barkley (best player on runner-up) or Scottie Pippen (second best on Champs)

1986 - Hakeem Olajuwon (best player on runner-up) or Kevin McHale (second best on Champs)

What is the point of this hypothetical? I don't live on what ifs, I live on what actually happened. That being said, it's nice to see for a change that Russell is being put on a high standard and I don't see the same excuses such as Wilt's teammates were a bunch of D-Leaguers and what not.

Wilt's stats did not help his team as much as one would think it would.

We're on the same page here. I don't think the 50-27 Wilt was the best version of him or even a good version relative to his potential. And I do think he lacked the mental strength to fulfill his potential, but all that said, what he did achieve is in my opinion arguably greater than all but two players. Like Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Duncan and Shaq all struggled to stay atop once they made it. Distractions, injuries or competition exceeding them eventually made all of them come up short in seasons where they had a legit chance to win.

Wilt had 38-35 (or something close) in a game seven, he has nine playoff quadruple doubles I am aware of, he is the only made to lead his team past a healthy Russell and the Celtics. Wilt's teammates were very good, but not greater and usually not as great as the other guys in this discussion had. Wilt rarely played poorly when his team lost. When Havlicek stole the ball, it was Hal Greer's pass to Chet Walker. In '62 Wilt scored the final five points to tie i and just missed swatting Sam Jones game winner away. In '64 he took a team without any legit stars in their prime to the Finals. In '72 Russell himself said Wilt was playing how Russell would have played in Wilt's body.

I understand your and anyone's frustration dealing with Wilt fans. They often miss the greater point and focus on the numbers. Russell played to win and still accumulated all-time great numbers, Wilt played to post amazing numbers and still accumulated an all-time great winning record.

millwad

10-30-2011, 08:58 PM

Kareem wasn't '71 and '80 are the only seasons he was the highest MVP vote getter on his team during title years. Magic also received higher all-NBA recognition during the other 4 title runs.

In that case, '67 was the only season Wilt was the highest MVP vote getter on his teams during title years.

Deuce Bigalow

10-30-2011, 09:16 PM

I don't think you can say they are better playoff performers. Certainly you can't just say it and assume people will accept it as fact.

Wilt's teams went to more conference finals and NBA finals than Bird, Shaq or Duncan and Kareem and Magic did 80% of their prime damage together.

None of them ever had a playoffs that rivals Wilt's '67 campaign. And really you can barely find a bad game Wilt had in a pressure spot ('68 game seven is the only one I really hold against him).

Wilt won more MVP's than anyone besides Kareem, his Prime averages of 35-24-4 are other worldly.

Yes his numbers dipped in the playoffs, and that is a good reason to suggest maybe he was lacking a quality that guys like MJ, Russ, Bird, Duncan and Magic had, but Kareem didn't have it either so that can't be it.

Wilt scored just as much in the playoffs as Kareem, averaged twice as many rebounds, more assists and if they kept the numbers probably at least twice as many blocks. His teams were also upset less often and certainly he didn't have the amount of Sweeps against him that Shaq's teams did.

I just don't see how those guys have a stronger case, let alone an obvious one.

Here is his free-throw shooting in the 1970 Finals
gm 1: 1-10
gm 2: 1-3
gm 3: 7-13
gm 4: 4-7
gm 5: 4-9
gm 6: 5-14
gm 7: 1-11

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1970.htm

and Wilt also shot 4-13 at the free-throw line in Game 7 of the 1969 Finals

G.O.A.T

10-30-2011, 09:21 PM

Here is his free-throw shooting in the 1970 Finals
gm 1: 1-10
gm 2: 1-3
gm 3: 7-13
gm 4: 4-7
gm 5: 4-9
gm 6: 5-14
gm 7: 1-11

27% yuck!

And here it is in '67 when his team won the title.

gm 1: 4-9
gm 2: 2-17
gm 3: 2-9
gm 4: 4-9
gm 5: 2-12
gm 6: 8-16

27% and the sweet taste of victory.

Inception28

10-30-2011, 09:23 PM

Kareem 1971, 1980
Magic 1987, 1988

You can go either way in '82 and '85. I give Magic's performance a slight edge in the former and Kareem's in the later.
Giving one each would mean that both would have 3 which would mean that both of them would have more than Wilt.

I am with you, but I don't think it's usually anymore a sign of greatness than being the best player on a runner-up or a team that losses a competitive series to the eventual Champs. Look at the following seasons and tell me which players you think proved more and whose season meant more.
Sure but it does mean something and that was the point I was trying to make. It's better to win one as a 2nd option to never win it all. It's like choosing paths between Scottie Pippen's career and Dominique Wilkins's. Pippen was clearly the superior of the two.

Like Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Duncan and Shaq all struggled to stay atop once they made it. Distractions, injuries or competition exceeding them eventually made all of them come up short in seasons where they had a legit chance to win.
I don't think winning 3 championships in a row (Shaq) is struggling to stay atop.

Magic and Kareem had seasons where he won back to back, at least Magic as the alpha in 87 and 88.

We're on the same page here. I don't think the 50-27 Wilt was the best version of him or even a good version relative to his potential. And I do think he lacked the mental strength to fulfill his potential, but all that said, what he did achieve is in my opinion arguably greater than all but two players.

I understand your and anyone's frustration dealing with Wilt fans. They often miss the greater point and focus on the numbers. Russell played to win and still accumulated all-time great numbers, Wilt played to post amazing numbers and still accumulated an all-time great winning record.
So it sounds like you would understand why I would take those 4-5 over Wilt then.

triangleoffense

10-30-2011, 09:25 PM

kobe

PHILA

10-30-2011, 09:32 PM

Sure, they were better playoff performers.

How can RG say this and then have the nerve to rank Jabbar ahead of Russell?

G.O.A.T

10-30-2011, 09:34 PM

Giving one each would mean that both would have 3 which would mean that both of them would have more than Wilt.

Considering that they played a decade (7 mutual prime seasons) together and that Wilt spent less than half that much time with a prime West, I'd say not to bad. The point is it's very close in terms of which of these guys was better suited to guide your team to a title.

Sure but it does mean something and that was the point I was trying to make. It's better to win one as a 2nd option to never win it all. It's like choosing paths between Scottie Pippen's career and Dominique Wilkins's. Pippen was clearly the superior of the two.

I don't follow you here. Nique never came close to a title or Scottie's overall accolades. Wilt was always close to the title and was the second most decorated player of his era. Nique is not on Pips level, Wilt is right there with Magic/Kareem/Bird/Duncan/Shaq.

I don't think winning 3 championships in a row (Shaq) is struggling to stay atop.

I would say his inability to stay healthy throughout his prime and stop feuding with Kobe certainly lead to a premature break-up and fewer titles than they could/should have won.

Magic and Kareem had seasons where he won back to back, at least Magic as the alpha in 87 and 88.

Indeed Magic did, but it took a blown call and a perfectly timed injury for that to happen. In Wilt's case, only the same type of perfectly timed injury stopped him from repeating. Magic deserves the credit, but it's not some great chasm between he and Wilt.

So it sounds like you would understand why I would take those 4-5 over Wilt then.

I can see the argument, but I can't see it as a clear cut thing and I certainly don't agree with the conclusion.

To me Wilt achieved nearly as much on a team level and far more on an individual level just based on what happened. No hypotheticals, what-if's etc, just reality, as we both prefer. I am surprised if you can't see how I would feel that way even if you don't agree.

Pointguard

10-31-2011, 12:06 AM

Giving one each would mean that both would have 3 which would mean that both of them would have more than Wilt.

If you are counting like this, making a great distinction out of one are you really looking at the player? the performer? or are you just justifying your preconceived notions? Russell was the greatest team sport winners ever - he was a great obstacle for anybody. If you are going by Playoff play why isn't Russell ahead of Kareem on your list? Kareem, without Magic, is just like Wilt in your accomplishment category, except Kareem pulled it off without a great winner opposite him, nevermind the greatest winner in all sports. If you are not measuring the team accomplishment above the individual what are you measuring?

Russell is the only one that has great separation in the winning department so he is the exception and should be acknowledged as such. Magic, Jordan and Duncan are the only others that should be getting points for exceptional winning ways, everybody else in the top ten its too minimal to call. Everybody else (Shaq, Kobe, Bird, Hakeem,Kareem, Wilt, Oscar, West) it seems to be a calculation of your own bias, as they were all in the right situation (coaches, teammates) at the right time they proved they could win it, but they didn't have championship on speed dial and aren't a guarantee trip to the finals or more magical in winning. This group only differs in team support and coaching.

If Jordan plays those two years and Hakeem comes away with nothing he is no less of a player. Some guys just ran up against great dynasties. So do we add more value to them because of this? Outside of the big four winners, everybody else seems to get five or six rings in a very good situation, four in a good situations and two on average. Really, that seems consistent (Hakeem would be the exception).

Wilt shouldn't be on here yet, but I assume a lot of people are naive about him and just look at his numbers... They are all better playoff performers and every bit as accomplished, if not more accomplished than Wilt was. Wilt is more talented sure, he is more talented than anyone who has ever played but that isn't enough.
Naive??? And then you said they were better playoff performers? Do you know of Wilt's performances? Serious question.

Asukal

10-31-2011, 01:58 AM

Shaq. :cheers:

jlauber

11-02-2011, 02:27 AM

Here is his free-throw shooting in the 1970 Finals
gm 1: 1-10
gm 2: 1-3
gm 3: 7-13
gm 4: 4-7
gm 5: 4-9
gm 6: 5-14
gm 7: 1-11

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1970.htm

and Wilt also shot 4-13 at the free-throw line in Game 7 of the 1969 Finals

One of the WORST arguments I have EVER read.

So, players like Shaq and Russell, who won 15 rings among them, and who were only MARGINALLY better FT shooters in BOTH the regular season, AND the post-season, are considered "winners", while Wilt is considered a "choker?"

So, let's conveniently overlook these facts. That a PRIME "scoring" Wilt averaged 32 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 (in league's that averaged about .430 shooting) in his first six post-seasons (his first seven seasons) ...COMBINED! Or that in his first eight straight post-seasons (covering his first nine seasons), all he did was average 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg (yes, 4.8 apg) and on .518 shooting (in league's that averaged about .435 shooting)...COMBINED!

I tell you what...you find me ONE player, who EVER had even ONE post-season of 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and on .518 shooting. And yet, here was Wilt, who supposedly "declined" in his post-seasons, who AVERAGED that over the course of EIGHT straight post-seasons...COMBINED!

How about Wilt with entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg (on .543 shooting), 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg? Or how about Wilt with post-season series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, and a staggering seven game series of 38.6 ppg, on .559 shooting, and with 23.0 rpg.Or how about Wilt with FOUR post-season series, just against Russell, of 30+ ppg...including a seven game series in the '65 ECF's in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg? Or how about Wilt with FOUR post-season games of 50+ points (which is second to MJ's eight...all-time...in the post-season?) And one of them was a 56-35 game five in a best-of-series, and the other was a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting) against Russell in a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's.

Oh, and BTW, Wilt had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russell, in his post-season career, including a 46-34 game in a "must-win" game five in the '66 ECF's. AND, in the '70 Finals, and on ONE leg, and in a "must-win" game, he hung a 45 point, on 20-27 shooting, 27 rebound game.

How about Wilt with TWO complete playoff series in which he AVERAGED a TRIPLE-DOUBLE? And in that post-season, all he did was average 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and on .579 shooting.

Defense? Of course the "anti-Wilt" clan with bring up Wilt's "decline" in the post-season...but how about these facts? In the '62 Finals, Russell shot 50% against the Lakers. However, in the '62 ECF's, and against Wilt, he was at about .420 shooting. In the '64 Finals, Wilt averaged 29 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .517 against Russell. Meanwhile, Russell averaged 11 ppg and 25 rpg against Wilt. And while we don't have Russell's H2H FG% against Wilt, we do know that Russell shot .356 in his entire post-season...and half of those ten game came against Wilt.

In the '65 Finals, Russell hung an 18 ppg .702 FG% on the Lakers. However, in the previous round against Wilt...15 ppg on .475 shooting (while Wilt averaged a 30-31 series against Russell.) In the '66 Finals, Russell LED Boston in scoring with a 23.6 ppg average against the Lakers. BUT, against Wilt in the ECF's that season? 14 ppg (while Wilt hung a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series on Russell.)

In the '67 ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 32.0 rpg to 23.0 rpg; outassisted Russell, per game, 10 apg to 6 apg; and outshot Russell in that series, .556 to .358 (and Russell had shot .454 during the regular season.) Then, in the Finals, and against Thurmond, Wilt outscored Nate, per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounded Nate, per game, 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg; and outshot Nate by a mind-boggling, .560 to .343 margin. BTW, Wilt squared of against Thurmond in three playoff series, and he outrebounded Nate in all three, as well as outshot Nate in all three by margins of .500 to .398, .550 to .392, and .560 to .343.

In the '68 regular season, Walt Bellamy shot .541. Against Wilt in the playoffs? How about .421???

In the '71 regular season, Kareem averaged 31.7 ppg on .577 shooting. Against a 34 year-old Wilt, who was a year removed from major surgery? 25 ppg on .481 shooting!

In the '72 regular season, Kareem averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting. In the WCF's, Wilt held Kareem to 33 ppg on .457 shooting, which included holding him to .414 over the course of the last four pivotal games of that series. And, BTW, Wilt also blocked some 15+ "unblockable" sky-hooks in that series.

Rebounding in the post-season? Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 playoff series. Included in those 29 series were eight against Russell, and in some of those, he just crushed Russell. He also outrebounded the likes of Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Thurmond, and Kareem...in EVERY H2H series...some by massive margins.

But, yes, he should only be judged by his FT shooting in a few of those contests...

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

PHILA

11-02-2011, 02:53 AM

27% and the sweet taste of victory.

Russell Rules: 11 Lessons on Leadership From the Twentieth Century's Greatest Winner - Bill Russell

http://i.imgur.com/ShnzQ.png

Deuce Bigalow

11-02-2011, 03:05 AM

One of the WORST arguments I have EVER read.

So, players like Shaq and Russell, who won 15 rings among them, and who were only MARGINALLY better FT shooters in BOTH the regular season, AND the post-season, are considered "winners", while Wilt is considered a "choker?"

So, let's conveniently overlook these facts. That a PRIME "scoring" Wilt averaged 32 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 (in league's that averaged about .430 shooting) in his first six post-seasons (his first seven seasons) ...COMBINED! Or that in his first eight straight post-seasons (covering his first nine seasons), all he did was average 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg (yes, 4.8 apg) and on .518 shooting (in league's that averaged about .435 shooting)...COMBINED!

I tell you what...you find me ONE player, who EVER had even ONE post-season of 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and on .518 shooting. And yet, here was Wilt, who supposedly "declined" in his post-seasons, who AVERAGED that over the course of EIGHT straight post-seasons...COMBINED!

How about Wilt with entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg (on .543 shooting), 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg? Or how about Wilt with post-season series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, and a staggering seven game series of 38.6 ppg, on .559 shooting, and with 23.0 rpg.Or how about Wilt with FOUR post-season series, just against Russell, of 30+ ppg...including a seven game series in the '65 ECF's in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg? Or how about Wilt with FOUR post-season games of 50+ points (which is second to MJ's eight...all-time...in the post-season?) And one of them was a 56-35 game five in a best-of-series, and the other was a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting) against Russell in a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's.

Oh, and BTW, Wilt had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russell, in his post-season career, including a 46-34 game in a "must-win" game five in the '66 ECF's. AND, in the '70 Finals, and on ONE leg, and in a "must-win" game, he hung a 45 point, on 20-27 shooting, 27 rebound game.

How about Wilt with TWO complete playoff series in which he AVERAGED a TRIPLE-DOUBLE? And in that post-season, all he did was average 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and on .579 shooting.

Defense? Of course the "anti-Wilt" clan with bring up Wilt's "decline" in the post-season...but how about these facts? In the '62 Finals, Russell shot 50% against the Lakers. However, in the '62 ECF's, and against Wilt, he was at about .420 shooting. In the '64 Finals, Wilt averaged 29 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .517 against Russell. Meanwhile, Russell averaged 11 ppg and 25 rpg against Wilt. And while we don't have Russell's H2H FG% against Wilt, we do know that Russell shot .356 in his entire post-season...and half of those ten game came against Wilt.

In the '65 Finals, Russell hung an 18 ppg .702 FG% on the Lakers. However, in the previous round against Wilt...15 ppg on .475 shooting (while Wilt averaged a 30-31 series against Russell.) In the '66 Finals, Russell LED Boston in scoring with a 23.6 ppg average against the Lakers. BUT, against Wilt in the ECF's that season? 14 ppg (while Wilt hung a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series on Russell.)

In the '67 ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 32.0 rpg to 23.0 rpg; outassisted Russell, per game, 10 apg to 6 apg; and outshot Russell in that series, .556 to .358 (and Russell had shot .454 during the regular season.) Then, in the Finals, and against Thurmond, Wilt outscored Nate, per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounded Nate, per game, 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg; and outshot Nate by a mind-boggling, .560 to .343 margin. BTW, Wilt squared of against Thurmond in three playoff series, and he outrebounded Nate in all three, as well as outshot Nate in all three by margins of .500 to .398, .550 to .392, and .560 to .343.

In the '68 regular season, Walt Bellamy shot .541. Against Wilt in the playoffs? How about .421???

In the '71 regular season, Kareem averaged 31.7 ppg on .577 shooting. Against a 34 year-old Wilt, who was a year removed from major surgery? 25 ppg on .481 shooting!

In the '72 regular season, Kareem averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting. In the WCF's, Wilt held Kareem to 33 ppg on .457 shooting, which included holding him to .414 over the course of the last four pivotal games of that series. And, BTW, Wilt also blocked some 15+ "unblockable" sky-hooks in that series.

Rebounding in the post-season? Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 playoff series. Included in those 29 series were eight against Russell, and in some of those, he just crushed Russell. He also outrebounded the likes of Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Thurmond, and Kareem...in EVERY H2H series...some by massive margins.

But, yes, he should only be judged by his FT shooting in a few of those contests...

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

1-11 from the freethrow line in game 7 of the nba finals, and they lose
that is terrible, no matter how you look at it

and about the numbers you posted, of course nobody ever did post those kind of numbers like Wilt did, or never will because players like Shaq and Hakeem played in the 90s and 00s not the 60s

All I am saying is that he didnt play that good in game 7 of the '69 and '70 finals, thats all

jlauber

11-02-2011, 03:42 AM

1-11 from the freethrow line in game 7 of the nba finals, and they lose
that is terrible, no matter how you look at it

and about the numbers you posted, of course nobody ever did post those kind of numbers like Wilt did, or never will because players like Shaq and Hakeem played in the 90s and 00s not the 60s

All I am saying is that he didnt play that good in game 7 of the '69 and '70 finals, thats all

Did you watch that game seven in the '70 Finals? Wilt was the ONLY Laker player who played a decent game. BTW, he was 1-8 from the line in the first half...and while he shot 5-10 from the field, his teammates collectively shot 33%...en route to a 69-42 halftime deficit. As it was, he scored 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, and with 24 rebounds (BTW, the "hero" Reed scored 4 points with 3 rebounds.)

BTW, Wilt averaged 22.5 rpg in 17 post-season games in his LAST year. That was the LAST time any other player ever averaged over 20 rpg in the playoffs. In fact, Kareem's 76-77 post-season, covering 11 games, is the next highest, at 17.7 rpg.

A couple of other points about Wilt's "inflated" stats in the 60's. In his 68-69 season, his new coach (the incompetent Butch Van Breda Kolf) didn't have a clue on how to use Wilt. He had him playing the high post, and even BENCHED him at times. PHILA posted one of the most comical quotes that I have ever read. "When we pass the ball to Wilt, he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch." So, Van Breda Kolf preferred the shot-jacking of Elgin Baylor, who shot .447 in the regular season, and then an awful .385 in the playoffs (while Wilt shot .583 in the regular season, and .545 in the playoffs.)

In any case, it got so bad that SI ran an article claiming that Wilt could no longer score. Wilt then went out and put up a 60 point game, and followed that up a few days later with a 66 point game (on a staggering 29-35 shooting...which is, by far-and-away, the highest FG% for a 60+ point game in NBA history.) In fact, over the course of 17 straight games, Wilt averaged 31.1 ppg...including a 35 point game on Russell, which was his highest against Russell since his 46 point game in game five of the '66 ECF's, a 30 point game on ROY nd HOFer Elvin Hayes, and a 33 point game on Bob Rule (look him up...he was another "McAdoo.")

Unfortunately, Van Breda Kolf once again put the shackles on Wilt in the post-season. If there was ever a better example of his horrible coaching, it came in game seven of the Finals. Russell picked up his 5th foul early in the 4th quarter. In the next possession, LA went to Wilt, who went around Russell for an uncontested basket. That was about the last time Wilt touched the ball on the offensive end. And, of course, we know that Van Breda Kolf left Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of that game...while Chamberlain's replacement, Mel Counts, missed a couple of shots down the stretch...en route to a 4-13 game (while Wilt had scored 18 points on 7-8 shooting in his 43 minutes...along with 27 rebounds)...in a two point loss.

Keep in mind, however, that the NBA averaged 112.3 in that 68-69 season. And yet, Wilt clearly proved that he could have scored 30+ ppg had he been allowed to do so. And, BTW, those two 60+ point games came against the same centers that Kareem would face the very next season. And Kareem never approached those numbers in his entire 20 year career. And, yet, those two games were just two of Wilt's 32 60+ point games.

Then, in the 69-70 season, Wilt's next new coach, Joe Mullaney, asked that Wilt become the focal point of the offense. In his first nine games, Wilt averaged a league-leading 32.2 ppg, and on 60% shooting (along with 20 rpg.) Included in those nine games were games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 points. That 38 point game was against reigning MVP Wes Unseld, and his 42 point game came against Bob Rule (once again, look him up), and his 37 point game was against 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle. He also had a 25 point game, on 9-14 shooting, with 25 rebounds, against rookie Lew Alcindor (Kareem)...in a game in which he decisively outplayed Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. Unfortunately, Wilt shredded his knee in that ninth game (in a game in which he had scored 33 points on 13-13 shooting), and was never the same again.

Here again, Wilt was on pace for a 30+ point season, in a league that Kareem averaged 28.8 ppg in. Furthermore, Kareem's high season was 34.8 ppg just a couple of years later.

Then, think about this...Kareem faced a way-past his prime Wilt in 27 of their 29 H2H games. And, Wilt was playing on a surgically repaired knee in those 27 games. And over the course of their 28 H2H games, Wilt held Kareem to an overall .464 FG%. This, from a Kareem who would average .559 over his entire career. AND, then, a 38 year old Kareem would dump 33 ppg on an eye-popping .634 FG%, over the course of FIVE H2H games against a 23 year old Hakeem. Included in those five games, were games of 42 and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting and in only 37 minutes.) Even in the playoffs, Kareem averaged 27 ppg against Sampson and Hakeem. In fact, Kareem, from ages 38 thru 41 shot .599 against Hakeem-led teams, covering 22 games. And we know that Kareem also hung a 40 point game on rookie Hakeem in the 84-85 season, too. Not only that, but within a few games of that 46 point explosion against Hakeem, Kareem also murdered Ewing in a game in which he outscored Patrick, 40-9 (and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.)

Then, think about this... A PRIME "scoring" Wilt had THREE games of 50+ points on Willis Reed (and several more of 40+), with a HIGH of 58 points. And Chamberlain also had THREE games of 60+ points against 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy (and a season of 55 ppg), with a HIGH of 73 points! And Wilt also had several 30+ games, in a limited number of games in his "scoring seasons" against 6-11 HOFer Nate Thurmond, including one game in which he outscored Nate, 45-13.

Now, Kareem faced all of those guys many times in his career, and he never came close to games like that against them. In fact, he faced Thurmond in 50+ H2H games, and his high game was only 34 points. In fact, he probably shot well under 45% against Nate in those 50+ H2H games (and in three straight playoff series, he shot .486, .405, and .428 against Thurmond.)

How come a 38 year old Kareem could just devour players like Hakeem (with THREE games of 40+), and on staggering FG%'s...and yet, he struggled mightily against a way-past his prime Wilt, and an aging Thurmond? And how come Kareem, who faced many of the same centers that Wilt faced, could not come close to the domination that a PRIME Wilt bombed those centers with?