2000-2002 Shaq Laker years

[Lakers2877]

During those years in the playoffs Shaq was arguably the most dominant force the game had ever seen. Just an absolute monster. Kobe was probably a top 5-10 player in the league, especially in 01 where he destroyed the west. I see a lot of people saying Kobe was " carried " and a " sidekick " and that's fine, Shaq was that dominant. It seems like some use shaqs dominance against Kobe. I've seen a couple, obviously clowns, but still say things like " I don't count Kobe's first 3 titles " and silly stuff like that. My question is, what player in nba history, magic ( my favorite all time player and GOAT Laker ), Bird, and yes even Jordan, wouldn't have been considered a " sidekick " to 2000-2002 Shaq? EVERY SINGLE PLAYER IN NBA HISTORY would have been shaqs sidekick when he was beasting the way he was during those years. He was that dominant. If Lebron ( who I believe to be the most talented athlete I've ever seen, outside of maybe a healthy Bo ) played on those teams he would have zero finals Mvps as well.

Wondering why some use Shaq against Kobe's legacy when Kobe coming into his own was exactly what Shaq needed to help him get to where he wanted to be. Seems silly and if you use Kobe's first 3 against him, IMO you lack credibility. And where does it end? Does Kareem only have 1 title? Does Pippen have 0? See how silly that sounds?

[AintNoSunshine]

During those years in the playoffs Shaq was arguably the most dominant force the game had ever seen. Just an absolute monster. Kobe was probably a top 5-10 player in the league, especially in 01 where he destroyed the west. I see a lot of people saying Kobe was " carried " and a " sidekick " and that's fine, Shaq was that dominant. It seems like some use shaqs dominance against Kobe. I've seen a couple, obviously clowns, but still say things like " I don't count Kobe's first 3 titles " and silly stuff like that. My question is, what player in nba history, magic ( my favorite all time player and GOAT Laker ), Bird, and yes even Jordan, wouldn't have been considered a " sidekick " to 2000-2002 Shaq? EVERY SINGLE PLAYER IN NBA HISTORY would have been shaqs sidekick when he was beasting the way he was during those years. He was that dominant. If Lebron ( who I believe to be the most talented athlete I've ever seen, outside of maybe a healthy Bo ) played on those teams he would have zero finals Mvps as well.

Wondering why some use Shaq against Kobe's legacy when Kobe coming into his own was exactly what Shaq needed to help him get to where he wanted to be. Seems silly and if you use Kobe's first 3 against him, IMO you lack credibility. And where does it end? Does Kareem only have 1 title? Does Pippen have 0? See how silly that sounds?


:confusedshrug: How exactly do you count 3 rings to against him? He's a 5 time champion but let's not act like the first 3 hold as much value as the latter two. Kobe will tell you the same thing.

[Rysio]

dominance by default. no great centers in the early 2000's

[ShaqAttack3234]

I doubt Jordan would have been considered a sidekick with Shaq, and I have serious doubts about prime Bird being considered a sidekick as well. Although lets not get things twisted either. Kobe may be referred to as Shaq's sidekick by a lot of people regarding those years, but he was also the consensus 2nd best player in the entire league behind only Shaq from 2001 on.

By that point, he certainly wasn't viewed like Pippen was for example. Not to take anything away from Pippen either, just stating a fact about the perception of Kobe at the time. In 2000? Well, he wasn't quite there yet, though still already arguably the best player at his position.


dominance by default. no great centers in the early 2000's

:oldlol: Not many centers have played at a level where they would have been considered better than 3peat Shaq regardless. And most don't consider him dominant because of accolades, it's because they saw him play during those years and saw how unstoppable he was, I know that's why I consider him so great during those years. Not because he was all-nba first team those years, and really, you can put any season a center has had next to Shaq's 2000 season, and I'm not sure any would get all-nba 1st team over him. Maybe Wilt's '67 season, but I'm definitely not sure about that.

[MisterAmazing]

:oldlol: Not many centers have played at a level where they would have been considered better than 3peat Shaq regardless. And most don't consider him dominant because of accolades, it's because they saw him play during those years and saw how unstoppable he was, I know that's why I consider him so great during those years. Not because he was all-nba first team those years, and really, you can put any season a center has had next to Shaq's 2000 season, and I'm not sure any would get all-nba 1st team over him. Maybe Wilt's '67 season, but I'm definitely not sure about that.

this

:bowdown: :bowdown:

:rockon: :cheers: :applause:

[Dragonyeuw]

Conventional basketball wisdom is if you have a star center/wing combo, work inside-out even with someone like Jordan on the team, and especially if you have someone like prime Shaq. Shaq in the early 2000's was simply too dominant compared to other centers at that point, for any offense to not feature him first and foremost, regardless of Jordan/Bird/Lebron/Kobe on the squad alongside him.

[Lakers2877]

I doubt Jordan would have been considered a sidekick with Shaq, and I have serious doubts about prime Bird being considered a sidekick as well. Although lets not get things twisted either. Kobe may be referred to as Shaq's sidekick by a lot of people regarding those years, but he was also the consensus 2nd best player in the entire league behind only Shaq from 2001 on.

By that point, he certainly wasn't viewed like Pippen was for example. Not to take anything away from Pippen either, just stating a fact about the perception of Kobe at the time. In 2000? Well, he wasn't quite there yet, though still already arguably the best player at his position.



:oldlol: Not many centers have played at a level where they would have been considered better than 3peat Shaq regardless. And most don't consider him dominant because of accolades, it's because they saw him play during those years and saw how unstoppable he was, I know that's why I consider him so great during those years. Not because he was all-nba first team those years, and really, you can put any season a center has had next to Shaq's 2000 season, and I'm not sure any would get all-nba 1st team over him. Maybe Wilt's '67 season, but I'm definitely not sure about that.

Shaq was routinely putting up 35-15 in the playoffs. Controlling the paint. I just don't see anyway he wouldn't be the best on any team with any players, during those years. He was that dominant

[longtime lurker]

Shaq was routinely putting up 35-15 in the playoffs. Controlling the paint. I just don't see anyway he wouldn't be the best on any team with any players, during those years. He was that dominant

Shaq was getting swept out of the playoffs before Kobe developed as a player. Coincidence?

[b0bab0i]

Shaq was getting swept out of the playoffs before Kobe developed as a player. Coincidence?
Shaq reached the NBA finals in 1995. What are you talking about?

[Lakers2877]

Shaq was getting swept out of the playoffs before Kobe developed as a player. Coincidence?
No, the Lakers were getting swept. Not Shaq

[Lakers2877]

Shaq reached the NBA finals in 1995. What are you talking about?
They were swept by Utah one year

[longtime lurker]

No, the Lakers were getting swept. Not Shaq

My post is a direct response to posts that Shaq single handidlly won 3 finals. If you want to give him credit for winning 3 finals despite playing with an all NBA team mate, he should get some criticism for get swept 2 years in a row when he came to LA despite having all star teammates.

[TheTenth]

Not because he was all-nba first team those years, and really, you can put any season a center has had next to Shaq's 2000 season, and I'm not sure any would get all-nba 1st team over him. Maybe Wilt's '67 season, but I'm definitely not sure about that.
Wilt 1962
Kareem 1971
Both would have received my vote over Shaq's 2000 but that's no insult to Shaq.

[Lakers2877]

My post is a direct response to posts that Shaq single handidlly won 3 finals. If you want to give him credit for winning 3 finals despite playing with an all NBA team mate, he should get some criticism for get swept 2 years in a row when he came to LA despite having all star teammates.
Huh? My post never said or even implied he won 3 titles by himself dude.

You completely missed the point of the thread

I'm a 35 year Laker fan and Kobe is my second favorite Laker of all time behind Magic

[longtime lurker]

Huh? My post never said or even implied he won 3 titles by himself dude.

You completely missed the point of the thread

I'm a 35 year Laker fan and Kobe is my second favorite Laker of all time behind Magic

My post wasn't a direct response to you. There is no doubt Shaq was dominant during that time, but he had one huge flaw. FT shooting. He had to sometimes be benched in close games. Dominance in numbers does not always correlate to championships.

[I<3NBA]

i'm counting Kobe's first 3 rings. i'm just counting it as Kobe being a sidekick winning a ring. what's so hard to udnerstand about that?

Kobe won 5 rings. 3 as a sidekick, and 2 as the man.
Lebron won 2 rings. 2 as the man. if Miami beat Dallas, Lebron would also have 1 as a sidekick.

[CavaliersFTW]

In what way was he more dominant than Wilt Chamberlain? Was he shattering records? Raising the bar? Was he even the best rebounder in the league? Who was his center competition? He was arguably the 2nd most dominant force to ever play. But he didn't dominate to the same degree that Wilt did.

[Ne 1]

i'm counting Kobe's first 3 rings. i'm just counting it as Kobe being a sidekick winning a ring. what's so hard to udnerstand about that?

Kobe won 5 rings. 3 as a sidekick, and 2 as the man.
Lebron won 2 rings. 2 as the man. if Miami beat Dallas, Lebron would also have 1 as a sidekick.

"Rings as the man" is a faux category. It's not even a real category, yet for some reason people throw it out as if it's a statistical category. Does anyone outside of ISH and similar websites comprised of a tiny fraction of hardcore elitist fans care about this? This is a rhetorical question. No one does. Rings are rings. Walk into the local sports bar tonight and ask people how many rings any all-time great player has: Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem etc. 6, 6, 11, 5, 3, 5, 4 and 2. It's hilarious how elitist fans obsess over a fictional category that is based on subjective factors and is irrelevant.



People are hypocritical about this. No one penalizes Dr. J or Oscar for never winning a championship as the best player. Wilt is considered to have 2 rings even though West was arguably better for 1. Then there is Magic/Kareem. What about cases where one player was better but another performed better in the Finals, like Pierce over Garnett in 2008 or Parker over Duncan in 2007? Look at Bird vs. Magic as an example. Magic is usually ranked ahead of Bird largely because he has 5 rings and Bird has 3. However, Magic was the undisputed best player on his team for only 2 of his championships. Yet all 5 "count" when comparing him to Bird? Heck, Kobe was actually closer to Shaq in 2001 and 2002 than Magic was to Kareem in 1980, but only 2 of Kobe's rings "count" (2009 and 2010), yet all 5 of Magic's "count"?

"Rings as the man" is not always clear. Why should it even matter? If one player was 40% responsible, another 30% responsible, and the other 10 players 30% responsible does that 10% really matter? I look at whether a player was indispensable. If you replaced a player with an above average player at his position would his team still win? If so, I give him less credit.

[Deuce Bigalow]

In what way was he more dominant than Wilt Chamberlain? Was he shattering records? Raising the bar? Was he even the best rebounder in the league? Who was his center competition? He was arguably the 2nd most dominant force to ever play. But he didn't dominate to the same degree that Wilt did.
http://dimemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shaq.jpg

[CavaliersFTW]

"Rings as the man" is a faux category. It's not even a real category, yet for some reason people throw it out as if it's a statistical category. Does anyone outside of ISH and similar websites comprised of a tiny fraction of hardcore elitist fans care about this? This is a rhetorical question. No one does. Rings are rings. Walk into the local sports bar tonight and ask people how many rings any all-time great player has: Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem etc. 6, 6, 11, 5, 3, 5, 4 and 2. It's hilarious how elitist fans obsess over a fictional category that is based on subjective factors and is irrelevant.



People are hypocritical about this. No one penalizes Dr. J or Oscar for never winning a championship as the best player. Wilt is considered to have 2 rings even though West was arguably better for 1. Then there is Magic/Kareem. What about cases where one player was better but another performed better in the Finals, like Pierce over Garnett in 2008 or Parker over Duncan in 2007? Look at Bird vs. Magic as an example. Magic is usually ranked ahead of Bird largely because he has 5 rings and Bird has 3. However, Magic was the undisputed best player on his team for only 2 of his championships. Yet all 5 "count" when comparing him to Bird? Heck, Kobe was actually closer to Shaq in 2001 and 2002 than Magic was to Kareem in 1980, but only 2 of Kobe's rings "count" (2009 and 2010), yet all 5 of Magic's "count"?

"Rings as the man" is not always clear. Why should it even matter? If one player was 40% responsible, another 30% responsible, and the other 10 players 30% responsible does that 10% really matter? I look at whether a player was indispensable. If you replaced a player with an above average player at his position would his team still win? If so, I give him less credit.

Jerry West himself, Gail Goodrich - Coach Bill Sharmon - Chick Hearn, heck even opposing players from Milwaukee - everyone all states quite clearly during interviews that WILT was the best player on the 72 Lakers and he was why they were as good a team as they were. It isn't really "arguable" that West was better unless you want to argue with the people who were there when that season happened. West was a scorer and ran the point. But scoring = / = better player. Wilt didn't win the playoffs MVP by mistake. He actually had votes as LEAGUE MVP that season. The only people who would try to argue that West was on par or better than Chamberlain in 72 are people who only look at scoring stats and assume that scoring points dictates who a better player is and fail to do more research beyond that. In every documentary about the 1972 Lakers it is always explicitly stated that Wilt and his new defensive role was the keystone of that team. Wilt played like Bill Russell that season.

[ispin69]

He was so dominant that they had to change the rules multiple times just to keep him from surpassing MJ.

[TheTenth]

Jerry West himself, Gail Goodrich - Coach Bill Sharmon - Chick Hearn, heck even opposing players from Milwaukee - everyone all states quite clearly during interviews that WILT was the best player on the 72 Lakers and he was why they were as good a team as they were. It isn't really "arguable" that West was better unless you want to argue with the people who were there when that season happened. West was a scorer and ran the point. But scoring = / = better player. Wilt didn't win the playoffs MVP by mistake. He actually had votes as LEAGUE MVP that season. The only people who would try to argue that West was on par or better than Chamberlain in 72 are people who only look at scoring stats and assume that scoring points dictates who a better player is and fail to do more research beyond that. In every documentary about the 1972 Lakers it is always explicitly stated that Wilt and his new defensive role was the keystone of that team. Wilt played like Bill Russell that season.
Indeed, Wilt played like Bill Russell with eye-popping efficiency in 72. Of course Wilt obviously would be the playoffs MVP because West put up rather pale numbers in those particular playoffs. I forget the reason (injuries, etc.) but playoff stats are many times just based on who you happen play.

[StocktonFan]

In what way was he more dominant than Wilt Chamberlain? Was he shattering records? Raising the bar? Was he even the best rebounder in the league? Who was his center competition? He was arguably the 2nd most dominant force to ever play. But he didn't dominate to the same degree that Wilt did.


He wasn't choking on c0ck in the finals like wilt, have you seen shaq's finals averages those years?

[TheTenth]

He wasn't choking on c0ck in the finals like wilt, have you seen shaq's finals averages those years?
^ playoff stats are often based on who you play. Shaq had easier competition in those finals (Smits, washed up Mutumbo, etc.) and thus would have better stats. Meanwhile Wilt went up against the greatest defensive center in Bill Russell in 64 and 69, another top 5 defensive center in Thurmond in 67 and HoF MVP winner Willis Reed in 70 and 73. Even in 72 he went up against HoF PF/C Jerry Lucas. It's unfair comparison.

[CavaliersFTW]

He wasn't choking on c0ck in the finals like wilt, have you seen shaq's finals averages those years?
Did u see his competition? Wilt was getting outed by the Celtics and Bill Russell and/or beating Russell and his Celtics then moving on to Nate Thurmond and Rick Barry's Warriors during his prime playoff/title runs. Meanwhile Shaq was padding his stats against the likes of Rik freaking Smits :oldlol:

Their opposing matchups aren't even close.

[riseagainst]

Did u see his competition? Wilt was getting outed by the Celtics and Bill Russell and/or beating Russell and on to Nate Thurmond in his prime. Meanwhile Shaq was padding his stats against the likes of Rik freaking Smits :oldlol:

so is it safe to say that Shaq was "dominant" against weak competition? That his numbers really were stat padded and he was a lesser player than his numbers suggested?

[TheTenth]

so is it safe to say that Shaq was "dominant" against weak competition? That his numbers really were stat padded and he was a lesser player than his numbers suggested?
I don't think so. It's just that playoff numbers are often skewed in a way that can either favor or hurt a player. Look at Larry Bird's playoff numbers... They are worse because of the competition that he faced and the weight (or number of games) applied to which competition he faces. Bird unfortunately played against the likes of Michael Cooper more than some of the other weaker defenders.

[CavaliersFTW]

so is it safe to say that Shaq was "dominant" against weak competition? That his numbers really were stat padded and he was a lesser player than his numbers suggested?
If you want to make comparisons - like they were making comparisons against Wilt and his finals/playoff performances - than things like that need to be considered. I'm not going to be making broad sweeping generalizations though. I just don't think Shaq would be putting up 35 and 15 on Nate Thurmond or Bill Russell in the NBA Finals/Playoffs.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq was getting swept out of the playoffs before Kobe developed as a player. Coincidence?

I don't see what that has to do with Shaq's dominance as an individual player. Though I definitely don't think it's a coincidence that he won his first ring and had his best season during his first year with Phil as coach.


Wilt 1962
Kareem 1971
Both would have received my vote over Shaq's 2000 but that's no insult to Shaq.

Well, with '62 Wilt, I couldn't give it to him with a 49-31 record over Shaq's 67-15, especially since the Lakers were 67-13 entering the last 2 games and had a shot at tying the '72 Lakers, but Phil said he didn't think the team realized the historical significance of that.

'71 Kareem's season is very similar on paper, so I'm not 100% on that, it's difficult to be objective and accurate having actually seen Shaq's 2000 season and not seen Kareem's '71.


^ playoff stats are often based on who you play. Shaq had easier competition in those finals (Smits, washed up Mutumbo, etc.) and thus would have better stats. Meanwhile Wilt went up against the greatest defensive center in Bill Russell in 64 and 69, another top 5 defensive center in Thurmond in 67 and HoF MVP winner Willis Reed in 70 and 73. Even in 72 he went up against HoF PF/C Jerry Lucas. It's unfair comparison.

Basketball is not a 1 on 1 game, and how was Mutombo washed up in 2001? He was DPOY, the league's leading rebounder and he had an excellent playoff run.

Funny how you call 2001 Mutombo washed up, yet mention nothing about how much Lucas had declined by '72 and how much Reed had declined by '73.


Did u see his competition? Wilt was getting outed by the Celtics and Bill Russell and/or beating Russell and his Celtics then moving on to Nate Thurmond and Rick Barry's Warriors during his prime playoff/title runs. Meanwhile Shaq was padding his stats against the likes of Rik freaking Smits :oldlol:

Their opposing matchups aren't even close.

Did YOU see his competition? If you did, you'd know that Smits wasn't the primary defender on Shaq in the 2000 finals, Dale Davis was. While not a star, Davis was always known as a good, physical defender and one of the best rebounders in the league. Not nearly as good of a player as legends like Russell and Thurmond of course, but at least get your facts straight.

And stat-padding? You're not even trying to be objective. The Pacers nearly took LA to 7. If Shaq didn't completely dominate that series, LA probably doesn't even win, so how is that stat-padding?

Of course, he put up 33/16/5/3 averages in the following finals vs the DPOY who was also 7 foot 2 and an elite defensive TEAM. Team being the key word because for you to act like the primary defender is all that matters with Shaq, or their status suggests you either don't know basketball or you're blinded by your bias. I suspect it's the latter.

It's funny how the 1 on 1 match up is brought up much more often for centers than perimeter players, when it applies much more to perimeter players who are doubled less.

[DMV2]

i'm counting Kobe's first 3 rings. i'm just counting it as Kobe being a sidekick winning a ring. what's so hard to udnerstand about that?

Kobe won 5 rings. 3 as a sidekick, and 2 as the man.
Lebron won 2 rings. 2 as the man. if Miami beat Dallas, Lebron would also have 1 as a sidekick.
That's an iffy one though because LeBron was slightly better than Wade through out the 2011 season and better during the first 3 rounds. Obviously, LeBron was trash in the Finals.

If they won, I would have looked at it more like the Garnett/Pierce/Allen 2008 ring. None were really sidekicks. Allen could have easily been named F-VP. Garnett was the best player through out the season.

[TheTenth]

Well, with '62 Wilt, I couldn't give it to him with a 49-31 record over Shaq's 67-15, especially since the Lakers were 67-13 entering the last 2 games and had a shot at tying the '72 Lakers, but Phil said he didn't think the team realized the historical significance of that.

I'll answer this with one of your quotes. Pretty simple really.

"Basketball is not a 1 on 1 game."


'71 Kareem's season is very similar on paper, so I'm not 100% on that, it's difficult to be objective and accurate having actually seen Shaq's 2000 season and not seen Kareem's '71.
Correct.




Basketball is not a 1 on 1 game, and how was Mutombo washed up in 2001? He was DPOY, the league's leading rebounder and he had an excellent playoff run.

Funny how you call 2001 Mutombo washed up, yet mention nothing about how much Lucas had declined by '72 and how much Reed had declined by '73.
You are correct in Mutombo was not washed up. You are not correct in Lucas having declined in 72. In fact; 72 was probably his 5th best scoring season. By 73 he declined; but that may have been because of Reed taking up many of his minutes and him adjusting to a different role. Reed may have declined in 73, but he could still rebound and play defense like he used to. He also had an added advantage in a great backup in Jerry Lucas, even a "declined version."




Did YOU see his competition? If you did, you'd know that Smits wasn't the primary defender on Shaq in the 2000 finals, Dale Davis was. While not a star, Davis was always known as a good, physical defender and one of the best rebounders in the league. Not nearly as good of a player as legends like Russell and Thurmond of course, but at least get your facts straight.
Still easy pickings for a guy as talented as Shaq.


And stat-padding? You're not even trying to be objective. The Pacers nearly took LA to 7. If Shaq didn't completely dominate that series, LA probably doesn't even win, so how is that stat-padding?
Not intentional stat padding, toughness of team does not equal harder stats for certain players.


Of course, he put up 33/16/5/3 averages in the following finals vs the DPOY who was also 7 foot 2 and an elite defensive TEAM. Team being the key word because for you to act like the primary defender is all that matters with Shaq, or their status suggests you either don't know basketball or you're blinded by your bias. I suspect it's the latter.

It's funny how the 1 on 1 match up is brought up much more often for centers than perimeter players, when it applies much more to perimeter players who are doubled less.
Even though you aren't directing this last part to me, I thought I'd still address it. Of course centers are played 1 on 1; but it makes a huge difference. For example in the 1962 Wilt season, Wilt vs. Russell/Celtics had a huge difference on his production while Wilt vs. Celtics w/o Russell had less of a difference, but still could contain him. Obviously with hyper skilled big men such as Shaq or Wilt; we are not talking about 1 vs. 1. It does; however, make a difference of who is leading the charge on the defensive end, the primary matchup who takes care of most of the work. I'm sure Cavs realizes that it wasn't just Shaq vs. Mutombo as well as anyone who knows their history knows it was never Wilt vs, Russell.

The last part about perimeter players being doubled less is also not always the case. Remember how the Sonics had a whole defense dedicated to defending Jordan? It's another classic case of how the 1 v 1 matchup still makes a difference. When GP matched up against Jordan, Jordan suddenly wasn't extremely dominant, although he was still great. The Sonics defense still focused on Jordan, it was just that they finally had a good first line of defense against him.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'll answer this with one of your quotes. Pretty simple really.

"Basketball is not a 1 on 1 game."

Yes, but the difference between a 50-51 win season(over the course of 82 games) and a 67 win season is pretty enormous. And it's not like the 2000 Lakers were a super team that would have won a lot of games without Shaq either. In fact, Phil Jackson himself said "we won 67 games on Shaq's back." This is made more impressive by the fact that Kobe missed the first month of the season with a broken hand, and the Lakers were 12-3 in the games Shaq played without Kobe.

I can respect your choice of '62 Wilt, all I'm saying is that I disagree with that season over 2000 Shaq. Though as I said I do consider '67 Wilt right at the top of the list, right up there with 2000 Shaq.


You are correct in Mutombo was not washed up. You are not correct in Lucas having declined in 72. In fact; 72 was probably his 5th best scoring season. By 73 he declined; but that may have been because of Reed taking up many of his minutes and him adjusting to a different role. Reed may have declined in 73, but he could still rebound and play defense like he used to. He also had an added advantage in a great backup in Jerry Lucas, even a "declined version."

I'll admit I was a bit confused with this one. I had '73 Lucas in mind more on this one I'll acknowledge a mistake on my part.

As far as a top 5 scoring season for him, well, it was the 8th highest scoring average of his career at 16.7 ppg, but numbers were deceptive on those teams coached by Red Holzman from what I know about them since they seem like the ideal example of a team game, both offensively and defensively.

As far as Reed, well, I've read/heard things said by both his teammates and his coach(I have 2 books by Red Holzman) that state Reed wasn't the same player he had been by '73 due to all the injuries.


Still easy pickings for a guy as talented as Shaq.

True, but a quality player and defender/rebounder in general. Part of this point was more about just getting the facts straight than saying Shaq should have had a tough time with Dale Davis(who was 3 inches shorter and about 80 pounds lighter). On a side note, Shaq also guarded Davis quite a bit because of Smits ability to take Shaq away from the basket with his jump shot.


Not intentional stat padding, toughness of team does not equal harder stats for certain players.

In any case, I have a difficult time diminishing a 38/17 series in a competitive NBA Finals series where Shaq had to carry his team. Especially since, this was a series where the Lakers didn't get anywhere near Kobe's usual production outside of the great game 4, most likely due to injuries that essentially kept him out of 2 games(he played 9 minutes or something like that in game 2)


Even though you aren't directing this last part to me, I thought I'd still address it. Of course centers are played 1 on 1; but it makes a huge difference. For example in the 1962 Wilt season, Wilt vs. Russell/Celtics had a huge difference on his production while Wilt vs. Celtics w/o Russell had less of a difference, but still could contain him. Obviously with hyper skilled big men such as Shaq or Wilt; we are not talking about 1 vs. 1. It does; however, make a difference of who is leading the charge on the defensive end, the primary matchup who takes care of most of the work. I'm sure Cavs realizes that it wasn't just Shaq vs. Mutombo as well as anyone who knows their history knows it was never Wilt vs, Russell.

The mere status of the defensive player or their greatness in general as a defender isn't necessarily the thing to look at when it comes to slowing a player down. Quite a bit of it has to do with how the players match up with each other, especially physically. There is no better example of this than Shaq who was arguably the biggest mismatch physically in NBA history, and I'd say exploited it and benefited from it more than anyone else in history.

Because of this, it's no surprise that some of the centers who were able to slow Shaq down more than most weren't necessarily known as the best defenders, but were some of the few that were pretty much as big as him, or around the legit 7 foot, 300+ pound area(Sabonis, Ostertag, Longley).

But even then, quite a bit of it still came down to team defense. A perfect example is Sabonis, whose size and ability to prevent Shaq from consistently getting deep position the way he usually did was a big part of the early 00's Blazers effective strategy against him. But, without Pippen doubling him on the catch, Sabonis having the size didn't matter as much. For proof of this, just see how Shaq use to dominate a younger Sabonis in the 90's.

The primary point I'm trying to make, is that they didn't face the same team defensive strategies either. Wilt did without question face greater big men, but I believe Shaq faced better team defenses overall.

Which is a bigger advantage/disadvantage is impossible to determine, and the belief will vary by the individual's views on the game, and in most cases, their individual bias. My main problem is other essential factors such as this not being brought up or considered, and just the repeated statements about Wilt facing better big men which imply that's all that matters.

Nate Thurmond is actually on record stating that he didn't think he could guard Shaq(or Yao for that matter) I actually am not convinced he was right myself, I consider Nate the greatest 1 on 1 post defender in NBA History(not overall defender...that would be Russell) and do think he would have been one of the better candidates to slow down prime Shaq. But Nate's statements are important because the reasoning he gave was the size of both Shaq and Yao, and that was the point I was making before about physical match ups.


The last part about perimeter players being doubled less is also not always the case. Remember how the Sonics had a whole defense dedicated to defending Jordan? It's another classic case of how the 1 v 1 matchup still makes a difference. When GP matched up against Jordan, Jordan suddenly wasn't extremely dominant, although he was still great. The Sonics defense still focused on Jordan, it was just that they finally had a good first line of defense against him.

It's not always the case. You're right about that. There have been series where the opposing teams have taken the strategy of "letting Shaq get his" and he wasn't doubled much as a result, with 2 prime examples being the '98 WCF vs Utah and the '04 Finals vs Detroit. Actually, to a lesser extent, the '01 finals applies, while Shaq did see a decent amount of doubles, it was less than usual as Larry Brown always preferred not to double.

But in general, dominant offensive big men are doubled more than dominant offensive perimeter players. Particularly true double teams. Part of that is due to it being easier to double team in the low post, and the other part being that shots in the low post are higher percentage shots than the average shot a perimeter player takes.

[TheTenth]

Yes, but the difference between a 50-51 win season(over the course of 82 games) and a 67 win season is pretty enormous. And it's not like the 2000 Lakers were a super team that would have won a lot of games without Shaq either. In fact, Phil Jackson himself said "we won 67 games on Shaq's back." This is made more impressive by the fact that Kobe missed the first month of the season with a broken hand, and the Lakers were 12-3 in the games Shaq played without Kobe.
Yes but Chamberlain's teams were last place teams without him, while lakers still had playoff runs without him. A little different in comparison since league sizes are vastly different, but I think that using records as an indicator of success is not a strong case.


I can respect your choice of '62 Wilt, all I'm saying is that I disagree with that season over 2000 Shaq. Though as I said I do consider '67 Wilt right at the top of the list, right up there with 2000 Shaq.
If you've ever seen any of my posts, you will know I think in my personal opinion that I think Wilt is the best player. But you don't need to give Wilt credit to impress me :lol , I like the arguments against my opinions more than opinions that fit my own... It helps me learn, hopefully.




I'll admit I was a bit confused with this one. I had '73 Lucas in mind more on this one I'll acknowledge a mistake on my part.
No shame, I did the same with Mutombo the post before.



As far as a top 5 scoring season for him, well, it was the 8th highest scoring average of his career at 16.7 ppg, but numbers were deceptive on those teams coached by Red Holzman from what I know about them since they seem like the ideal example of a team game, both offensively and defensively.
I used adjusted per36 minutes to come to this conclusion. Pace differences were rather large over the course of his career, thus ruining the validity his averages.


As far as Reed, well, I've read/heard things said by both his teammates and his coach(I have 2 books by Red Holzman) that state Reed wasn't the same player he had been by '73 due to all the injuries.
Again, I just used adjusted per36 minutes to come to this conclusion. Obviously this may not be the best since Reed would have been limited in his minutes due to the injury, but I still think that while his offensive production may have been weaker due the injury, I think his defense (at least against Wilt) was not hurt that much.

Btw, what books did you read by Holzman, and how good were they?



True, but a quality player and defender/rebounder in general. Part of this point was more about just getting the facts straight than saying Shaq should have had a tough time with Dale Davis(who was 3 inches shorter and about 80 pounds lighter). On a side note, Shaq also guarded Davis quite a bit because of Smits ability to take Shaq away from the basket with his jump shot.
Understandable.




In any case, I have a difficult time diminishing a 38/17 series in a competitive NBA Finals series where Shaq had to carry his team. Especially since, this was a series where the Lakers didn't get anywhere near Kobe's usual production outside of the great game 4, most likely due to injuries that essentially kept him out of 2 games(he played 9 minutes or something like that in game 2)
Even with the accolades and great defensive reputation, some players just do better against others regardless of what should be expected. Wilt ironically had more trouble playing against Johnny Kerr than Walt Bellamy, for instance.


The mere status of the defensive player or their greatness in general as a defender isn't necessarily the thing to look at when it comes to slowing a player down. Quite a bit of it has to do with how the players match up with each other, especially physically. There is no better example of this than Shaq who was arguably the biggest mismatch physically in NBA history, and I'd say exploited it and benefited from it more than anyone else in history.
Agreed. This goes with what I said above.


Because of this, it's no surprise that some of the centers who were able to slow Shaq down more than most weren't necessarily known as the best defenders, but were some of the few that were pretty much as big as him, or around the legit 7 foot, 300+ pound area(Sabonis, Ostertag, Longley).
When did Longley ever slow down Shaq? Maybe I don't know enough about that matchup, but didn't Shaq roast Longley/Rodman in the 96 ECF's? I thought I read somewhere also that Chuck Hayes (of all people) slowed down Shaq by a good amount. Maybe there is a lurking variable though...


But even then, quite a bit of it still came down to team defense. A perfect example is Sabonis, whose size and ability to prevent Shaq from consistently getting deep position the way he usually did was a big part of the early 00's Blazers effective strategy against him. But, without Pippen doubling him on the catch, Sabonis having the size didn't matter as much. For proof of this, just see how Shaq use to dominate a younger Sabonis in the 90's.
Yes, very true. Team defense is always overlooked.


The primary point I'm trying to make, is that they didn't face the same team defensive strategies either. Wilt did without question face greater big men, but I believe Shaq faced better team defenses overall.
I disagree with this in the playoffs. Some of the best team defenses ever played against Wilt. I wish I had the link, but the Celtic's of the 60s hold most of the top 10 defensive ratings (in terms of deviation from the mean) of all time.

The defenses Wilt faced:
Celtics: Best defensive center (Russell), best defensive forward (Sanders) and best defensive guard (KC Jones) of their time.
Knicks: HoF players based (mostly) on defense at each "position":
Guard: Frazier Forward: DeBusschere Center: Reed
Bucks: Largest team FG% - opponents FG% in history, anchored by Jabbar.

Of course, I am omitting a few, but sans the 96 Chicago Bulls, 01 Philadelphia 76ers, and 04 Detroit Pistons, I can't say Shaq's competition really is close in a team sense. And remember Shaq didn't face these defenses for nearly the percentage of his playoff games as Wilt did. I am probably omitting some other tough defenses Shaq faced too though.


Which is a bigger advantage/disadvantage is impossible to determine, and the belief will vary by the individual's views on the game, and in most cases, their individual bias. My main problem is other essential factors such as this not being brought up or considered, and just the repeated statements about Wilt facing better big men which imply that's all that matters.
Maybe they aren't explicitly stated, because teams like the Celtics were all around amazing defensive teams with some of the greatest defenders of all time (Russell, KC Jones, Sanders, Havlicek) - even guys like Sharman, Howell, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and Frank Ramsey were known to be above average denders.


Nate Thurmond is actually on record stating that he didn't think he could guard Shaq(or Yao for that matter) I actually am not convinced he was right myself, I consider Nate the greatest 1 on 1 post defender in NBA History(not overall defender...that would be Russell) and do think he would have been one of the better candidates to slow down prime Shaq. But Nate's statements are important because the reasoning he gave was the size of both Shaq and Yao, and that was the point I was making before about physical match ups.
I don't really put much weight on player testimony or opinion, but as we both agree, it would matter who his teammates are. If Nate had say KC Jones/Sydney Moncrief on his team, with some decent help defenders then I think he could. Just him? Maybe, maybe not. It's just guessing.




It's not always the case. You're right about that. There have been series where the opposing teams have taken the strategy of "letting Shaq get his" and he wasn't doubled much as a result, with 2 prime examples being the '98 WCF vs Utah and the '04 Finals vs Detroit. Actually, to a lesser extent, the '01 finals applies, while Shaq did see a decent amount of doubles, it was less than usual as Larry Brown always preferred not to double.
Shaq still was held down by Ben Wallace though (scoring wise, I don't think much in the FG% department though, although this is a feat since less shots usually = higher FG%), which does prove to some extent that an individual alone can make a difference defensively.


But in general, dominant offensive big men are doubled more than dominant offensive perimeter players. Particularly true double teams. Part of that is due to it being easier to double team in the low post, and the other part being that shots in the low post are higher percentage shots than the average shot a perimeter player takes.
Agreed.

I'm liking this debate though, what do you think? :cheers:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yes but Chamberlain's teams were last place teams without him, while lakers still had playoff runs without him. A little different in comparison since league sizes are vastly different, but I think that using records as an indicator of success is not a strong case.

You're right that records can't be compared without context. Even so 49-31 is nowhere near 67-15. Also the 2000 Lakers likely wouldn't have had much of a shot at the playoffs without Shaq. I doubt they'd have been last place, but I'd bet money the 2000 Lakers would have been a lottery team and well below .500. Even if they played .500 ball with Kobe in the lineup, he missed 16 games, and it's tough to imagine them winning much without Shaq or Kobe.



If you've ever seen any of my posts, you will know I think in my personal opinion that I think Wilt is the best player. But you don't need to give Wilt credit to impress me :lol , I like the arguments against my opinions more than opinions that fit my own... It helps me learn, hopefully.

Actually, I'm not really familiar with your posts before this thread, but you seem thoughtful with your arguments. :cheers:


I used adjusted per36 minutes to come to this conclusion. Pace differences were rather large over the course of his career, thus ruining the validity his averages.

Eh, I'm not a big fan of per minute stats. Largely because you don't score evenly per minute throughout a game, a good amount of scoring comes in spurts, and those lower minute players are deceptive when looking at them on a per minute basis. A good example is Ginobili, who even in his prime, played with reckless abandon that made it unlikely he'd sustain that for 36-40 minutes, or less likely. Then in the case of players who get into their 30s, they may be able to produce close to what they use to on a per minute basis, but one of the biggest differences is stamina.

I think that minutes and paces are obvious factors, as is the team's offense(which is especially relevant with the early 70's Knicks) Things that can't be ignored. But I just don't know of an accurate way to adjust for them statistically.


Again, I just used adjusted per36 minutes to come to this conclusion. Obviously this may not be the best since Reed would have been limited in his minutes due to the injury, but I still think that while his offensive production may have been weaker due the injury, I think his defense (at least against Wilt) was not hurt that much.

From what I understand, Willis could still help the team with his intangibles, and he was gritty, but I doubt he was the player he was when he was younger and healthier in any facet of the game. Doesn't mean he was easy to play against, though. Obviously not, since he was still voted the finals MVP in '73.


Btw, what books did you read by Holzman, and how good were they?

A View From The Bench, which is a book that he primarily talks about the great players he was around during his career and great rivalries and match ups between teams and players. And Red On Red, his autobiography, though the focus is mostly on basketball. I'd recommend both.


Even with the accolades and great defensive reputation, some players just do better against others regardless of what should be expected. Wilt ironically had more trouble playing against Johnny Kerr than Walt Bellamy, for instance.

Yeah, that's a good game example. Though I haven't heard Bellamy spoken of as a great defensive player. In fact, for all his talent, I've heard quite a bit of negatives about him, at least as far as how he could contribute to a winning team.


When did Longley ever slow down Shaq? Maybe I don't know enough about that matchup, but didn't Shaq roast Longley/Rodman in the 96 ECF's? I thought I read somewhere also that Chuck Hayes (of all people) slowed down Shaq by a good amount. Maybe there is a lurking variable though...

I'm not necessarily speaking about particular series. Just over the years watching the games, Longley did slow down Shaq at times. You could tell it wasn't as easy for Shaq to just roll over Longley in the post. Granted, Shaq would get his and Longley would get fouls, but that was the case against most. For example, Shaq seemed to have more trouble scoring against Longley than Alonzo Mourning.

Shaq didn't roast Rodman in the ECF. Quite the contrary actually. Rodman was surprisingly effective for stretches defending Shaq. As far as Chuck Hayes, it's important to remember that Shaq was past his prime by that point.


I disagree with this in the playoffs. Some of the best team defenses ever played against Wilt. I wish I had the link, but the Celtic's of the 60s hold most of the top 10 defensive ratings (in terms of deviation from the mean) of all time.

The defenses Wilt faced:
Celtics: Best defensive center (Russell), best defensive forward (Sanders) and best defensive guard (KC Jones) of their time.
Knicks: HoF players based (mostly) on defense at each "position":
Guard: Frazier Forward: DeBusschere Center: Reed
Bucks: Largest team FG% - opponents FG% in history, anchored by Jabbar.

Of course, I am omitting a few, but sans the 96 Chicago Bulls, 01 Philadelphia 76ers, and 04 Detroit Pistons, I can't say Shaq's competition really is close in a team sense. And remember Shaq didn't face these defenses for nearly the percentage of his playoff games as Wilt did. I am probably omitting some other tough defenses Shaq faced too though.

True to some extent, imo. The Celtics did dominate defensively, but I think that was more due to Russell's impact on the opposing team's entire offense, and not just the opposing center. Actually, I remember a quote from one of those Red Holzman books where he was talking about the Knicks team defense of the early 70's compared to Russell's Celtics, and he mentioned that the Celtics were great defensively, but carried by Russell at that end, while the Knicks played more of a team defense.

Funny enough, but a team that played tougher defense on Shaq than any of those you mentioned was the 2000 Blazers. They were elite defensively, but underrated these days, imo. They also really limited superstars in previous rounds, both Garnett and Karl Malone.


Maybe they aren't explicitly stated, because teams like the Celtics were all around amazing defensive teams with some of the greatest defenders of all time (Russell, KC Jones, Sanders, Havlicek) - even guys like Sharman, Howell, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and Frank Ramsey were known to be above average denders.

Again, I'm more referring more to double teaming and more recent defensive schemes.


I don't really put much weight on player testimony or opinion, but as we both agree, it would matter who his teammates are. If Nate had say KC Jones/Sydney Moncrief on his team, with some decent help defenders then I think he could. Just him? Maybe, maybe not. It's just guessing.

I think that's reasonable.


Shaq still was held down by Ben Wallace though (scoring wise, I don't think much in the FG% department though, although this is a feat since less shots usually = higher FG%), which does prove to some extent that an individual alone can make a difference defensively.

Actually, Shaq averaged 21.5 ppg on 58% during the 2004 season. he was 32 at the time and the Lakers tried the Malone/Payton experiment so his scoring was way down that year in general.

But his scoring and FG% actually rose considerably in the finals to almost 27 ppg on 63%, iirc.


Agreed.

I'm liking this debate though, what do you think? :cheers:

I've enjoyed it as well. Haven't posted here nearly as much in recent months, but it's nice to have a good discussion about basketball.

[Legends66NBA7]

If you've ever seen any of my posts, you will know I think in my personal opinion that I think Wilt is the best player. But you don't need to give Wilt credit to impress me :lol , I like the arguments against my opinions more than opinions that fit my own... It helps me learn, hopefully.

That's actually a great mind set to have on here.

Will future rep.

[TheTenth]

You're right that records can't be compared without context. Even so 49-31 is nowhere near 67-15. Also the 2000 Lakers likely wouldn't have had much of a shot at the playoffs without Shaq. I doubt they'd have been last place, but I'd bet money the 2000 Lakers would have been a lottery team and well below .500. Even if they played .500 ball with Kobe in the lineup, he missed 16 games, and it's tough to imagine them winning much without Shaq or Kobe.
Agreed, that's the difficult thing to compare because of all the confounding variables. I wonder what Wilt's record without Paul Arizin would be. Do you think Kobe > Arizin? I do. I also think Glen Rice > Tom Gola. I think those two players can account for some of the difference.


Eh, I'm not a big fan of per minute stats. Largely because you don't score evenly per minute throughout a game, a good amount of scoring comes in spurts, and those lower minute players are deceptive when looking at them on a per minute basis. A good example is Ginobili, who even in his prime, played with reckless abandon that made it unlikely he'd sustain that for 36-40 minutes, or less likely. Then in the case of players who get into their 30s, they may be able to produce close to what they use to on a per minute basis, but one of the biggest differences is stamina.
I agree with most of this, although Ginobili is an extreme case (as is other 6th men such as Frank Ramsey.) The difficult thing though is that Lucas played extreme minutes in the 60's yet in 72 still played a large amount (38) but not the crazy 60s MPG than many of the stars played. Jerry West is a case of per36 minutes being a good indicator as his adjusted + per36 were very similiar over the years.


I think that minutes and paces are obvious factors, as is the team's offense(which is especially relevant with the early 70's Knicks) Things that can't be ignored. But I just don't know of an accurate way to adjust for them statistically.
"All models are wrong" is one of the first things you learn in statistics, you just need to find the "least wrong" ones so to speak. :lol


From what I understand, Willis could still help the team with his intangibles, and he was gritty, but I doubt he was the player he was when he was younger and healthier in any facet of the game. Doesn't mean he was easy to play against, though. Obviously not, since he was still voted the finals MVP in '73.
I agree with that, although that 73 finals MVP is probably the worst one given out in history. The Knicks were truly a team.


A View From The Bench, which is a book that he primarily talks about the great players he was around during his career and great rivalries and match ups between teams and players. And Red On Red, his autobiography, though the focus is mostly on basketball. I'd recommend both.
I'll have to look into those. I've really gotten into 50s/60s basketball books lately. I've even bought KC Jones' and Bob Pettit's autobiographies. :facepalm



Yeah, that's a good game example. Though I haven't heard Bellamy spoken of as a great defensive player. In fact, for all his talent, I've heard quite a bit of negatives about him, at least as far as how he could contribute to a winning team.
His negatives are very exaggerated though, only for the fact that he never won. He may not have been a top 10 center of all time, but I'd certainly be happy to have him on my team. Actually, do you know where you found this information on him? I've only read a couple APBR stuff on him.




I'm not necessarily speaking about particular series. Just over the years watching the games, Longley did slow down Shaq at times. You could tell it wasn't as easy for Shaq to just roll over Longley in the post. Granted, Shaq would get his and Longley would get fouls, but that was the case against most. For example, Shaq seemed to have more trouble scoring against Longley than Alonzo Mourning.
Maybe it was harder, but with the way Longley racked up fouls, it makes that point moot.


Shaq didn't roast Rodman in the ECF. Quite the contrary actually. Rodman was surprisingly effective for stretches defending Shaq. As far as Chuck Hayes, it's important to remember that Shaq was past his prime by that point.
That makes sense about Chuck Hayes.


True to some extent, imo. The Celtics did dominate defensively, but I think that was more due to Russell's impact on the opposing team's entire offense, and not just the opposing center. Actually, I remember a quote from one of those Red Holzman books where he was talking about the Knicks team defense of the early 70's compared to Russell's Celtics, and he mentioned that the Celtics were great defensively, but carried by Russell at that end, while the Knicks played more of a team defense.
I think the Celtics could have evolved to become more of a team defense if they ever had a good backup to Russell (obviously not counting when they had a washed up Lovellette in 63 and 64.) Of course Russell carried them, but I think if Reed was put on the Celtics they could come within the vicinity they achieved with Russell.


Funny enough, but a team that played tougher defense on Shaq than any of those you mentioned was the 2000 Blazers. They were elite defensively, but underrated these days, imo. They also really limited superstars in previous rounds, both Garnett and Karl Malone.
That's to be expected though with Sabonis, Pippen, etc.


Actually, Shaq averaged 21.5 ppg on 58% during the 2004 season. he was 32 at the time and the Lakers tried the Malone/Payton experiment so his scoring was way down that year in general.

But his scoring and FG% actually rose considerably in the finals to almost 27 ppg on 63%, iirc.
:hammerhead: I forgot about those lurking variables. Research is always key. :facepalm



I've enjoyed it as well. Haven't posted here nearly as much in recent months, but it's nice to have a good discussion about basketball.
As have I.

[TheTenth]

That's actually a great mind set to have on here.

Will future rep.
Thanks, but I have to actually uphold that. I have to back it up, right?

[Dro]

All I know is he was destroying my Pacers. Seemed like he had 40 points and 20 rebs and 2-3 blocks every game. He was getting the entire team in foul trouble. Its the most dominating performance I've seen in my lifetime in a series and that includes all the other greats.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Agreed, that's the difficult thing to compare because of all the confounding variables. I wonder what Wilt's record without Paul Arizin would be. Do you think Kobe > Arizin? I do. I also think Glen Rice > Tom Gola. I think those two players can account for some of the difference.

I can't fairly compare Arizin and 2000 Kobe. Important to keep in mind that this wasn't near prime Kobe yet, but about a top 10 player already and arguably the best SG.

I'd like to give the edge to 2000 Kobe, but I feel I'm a bit too ignorant on Arizin to say that fairly. I know Arizin was a great player, but I'd like to know more, particularly about Arizin in that '62 season before trying to compare.

As far as Gola vs 2000 Glen Rice? I'll say pretty confidently that Gola was better. Rice had declined quite a bit by 2000. Both the facts that he was in his 30s and the '99 elbow surgery contributed to this. I don't know how closely you followed the 2000 Lakers, but some of this is reflected in the stats. Rice shot just 43% overall that year and had a solid, but not elite 3 point shooting season at 1.1 3PM and 36.7%.

Rice still could score in the post, but they wouldn't go to that more than a couple of times per game, and he wasn't great off the dribble. More importantly, he never fit into the triangle, or accepted his role as the 3rd guy and a role player, which can be damaging when it comes to aging players. What also hurt was his defense. He was benched late in games a number of times throughout the season.

I don't mean to make him sound like a bad player, because he wasn't. He was an average starting small forward by 2000, but nowhere near all-star level by that point and certainly not the player he had been in Charlotte and Miami. However, he simply wasn't that important to the 2000 Lakers success. I always thought Ron Harper and Robert Horry were more important to the 2000 Lakers, despite Rice probably being more talented than those 2, definitely more talented than Harper.

I could elaborate on this further, but a few things of note are that the Lakers didn't offer Rice a contract after the 2000 title. Ironically, Mark Cuban criticized them for this. It's ironic because Cuban didn't give Chandler much of an offer in 2011, and by that point, Tyson was much better and more important to the 2011 Mavs' success than Rice had been to the 2000 Lakers. Also worth noting is that Rice averaged just 12/4/2 on 41% during the 2000 playoffs, and topped 20 points just twice in 23 games, with his high being 21. Another example of his declining ability is that he didn't have a single 30 point game in 2000.

There was also the classic and bizarre feud if you will when Glen's Rice called out Phil during the finals for what she believed was Phil intentionally trying to sabotage Glen because he was upset LA hadn't gotten Pippen.

I watched Rice's decline continue the following year when he was a Knick, and he had many of the same problems he had as a Laker. He arrived in NY on the decline with Sprewell and Houston better players by that point and both all-star caliber, yet complained about playing time and coming off the bench.

As far as Tom Gola, well, I do know a bit about him. A poster who used to post here(and may still from time to time) G.O.A.T. posted some good information about him, and by all accounts, Gola was an excellent all around player known for his defense, but also passing and rebounding. He did end up in the hall of fame, and in '62, had made the 3rd of what would be 5 consecutive all-star games.


I'll have to look into those. I've really gotten into 50s/60s basketball books lately. I've even bought KC Jones' and Bob Pettit's autobiographies. :facepalm

Basketball books are among my favorites. I especially look forward to books written by coaches. Always interesting to hear their insight on the game, and I think I've learned quite a bit about basketball in general from that.


His negatives are very exaggerated though, only for the fact that he never won. He may not have been a top 10 center of all time, but I'd certainly be happy to have him on my team. Actually, do you know where you found this information on him? I've only read a couple APBR stuff on him.

I can't say for sure where I've heard/read what I know about Bellamy. Perhaps over the next few days I'll try to find some sources. I think some comments were from books, maybe either one of Phil Jackson's or Red Holzman. I know for a fact that Bellamy's competitiveness was questioned, and I believe his defense. Pretty sure this was from a Phil Jackson book.


Maybe it was harder, but with the way Longley racked up fouls, it makes that point moot.

I didn't want to give the impression that Longley shut him down, because he didn't. Just that he made it tougher for Shaq than most big men, and that's pretty much all you can hope for with a dominant player like Shaq. Even Phil Jackson has noted that Longley was among the best at defending Shaq.

Of course, when Shaq reached his peak and Longley was no longer in Chicago, he wasn't as effective defending Shaq. An example being the 2000 WCSF when LA played Phoenix. Although Phoenix did still have an excellent help defender to double Shaq in Jason Kidd. That was a pretty bizarre team, though because you'd have a big slow center like Longley for 15-20 mpg and then you'd see them go with a small lineup, sometimes with Clifford Robinson at the 5 and then Shawn Marion and Rodney Rogers as the forwards.


I think the Celtics could have evolved to become more of a team defense if they ever had a good backup to Russell (obviously not counting when they had a washed up Lovellette in 63 and 64.) Of course Russell carried them, but I think if Reed was put on the Celtics they could come within the vicinity they achieved with Russell.

Oh, I wasn't saying anything about the Celtics ability defensively. Just that Holzman said it was more about Russell anchoring the defense. I think this was probably more during the Cousy era, though. It's important to remember that Boston was different when they had Cousy than later with KC Jones, Havlicek ect.


That's to be expected though with Sabonis, Pippen, etc.

Yeah, imo, Pippen was still the best help defender on the perimeter in 2000 and having him play off his man and be the designated double teamer in the post is tough for any post player to deal with. Especially at 6'8" with a wingspan well over 7 feet. Sheed was also very mobile and versatile defensively at this time, and could come over and help if necessary because LA didn't have a power forward who would make him pay.

But the point was more about Sabonis being one of the best at defending Shaq, which shows it's not always about who the best defender is in general. But also how important the team defense can be.

[sundizz]

2001 Shaq would of dropped 40 and 20 on any version of Bill Russell. There is not even a chance that Billy could of stopped the Diesel.

[TheTenth]

I can't fairly compare Arizin and 2000 Kobe. Important to keep in mind that this wasn't near prime Kobe yet, but about a top 10 player already and arguably the best SG.

I'd like to give the edge to 2000 Kobe, but I feel I'm a bit too ignorant on Arizin to say that fairly. I know Arizin was a great player, but I'd like to know more, particularly about Arizin in that '62 season before trying to compare.
I will convert their numbers to the same base year and let you decide yourself. This is Kobe 99/00 and Arizin 61/62
Pts/Rebs/Asts/FG%/MPG

Arizin
18.3 / 4.6 / 2.5 / .445 / 35.7

Bryant
23.0 / 6.1 / 5.0 / .482 / 38.2


As far as Gola vs 2000 Glen Rice? I'll say pretty confidently that Gola was better. Rice had declined quite a bit by 2000. Both the facts that he was in his 30s and the '99 elbow surgery contributed to this. I don't know how closely you followed the 2000 Lakers, but some of this is reflected in the stats. Rice shot just 43% overall that year and had a solid, but not elite 3 point shooting season at 1.1 3PM and 36.7%.

Gola 61/62:
11.5 / 6.6 / 4.7 / .457 / 41.0

I'll have to calculate Rice's numbers but I'm almost positive easily Gola's in the regular season based on my quick look at them, especially in the per36 category because early 60s players played extreme minutes.

Also in the post season Gola had multiple injuries; making him underperform:

Gola 62 Postseason:
5.6 / 5.4 / 2.7 / .305 / 35.1 ... And I assure you that's converted! 5.6 pts on .305 shooting is just awful, agreed?



As far as Tom Gola, well, I do know a bit about him. A poster who used to post here(and may still from time to time) G.O.A.T. posted some good information about him, and by all accounts, Gola was an excellent all around player known for his defense, but also passing and rebounding. He did end up in the hall of fame, and in '62, had made the 3rd of what would be 5 consecutive all-star games.
Most late 50s players are very overrated by their peers; and because of the lack of talent compared to todays game (not diminishing the era because an 8 team league shouldn't have the same talent that a 25+ team league does,) the all-star game awards/all team awards should carry no weight in discussing a 50s player with today's players; at least with Gola level players. As I will post in a minute for you to see, Gola was a below average scorer, a good rebounder, and a decent passer but DOES NOT deserve HoF status, at least with the standards applied to some of todays players. I doubt his defense was all that amazing either, although I am sure he wasn't a liability.


Oh, I wasn't saying anything about the Celtics ability defensively. Just that Holzman said it was more about Russell anchoring the defense. I think this was probably more during the Cousy era, though. It's important to remember that Boston was different when they had Cousy than later with KC Jones, Havlicek ect.
Of course, although the advantage in the early60s/late 50s was that the Celtics had Cousy, Sharman, AND the Jones boys. Im surprised the 61 Celtics team is never talked about... Russell, Heinsohn, Luscotoff, Sharman, Cousy, Ramsey, Jones, Jones, Sanders. Talk about talent...




Yeah, imo, Pippen was still the best help defender on the perimeter in 2000 and having him play off his man and be the designated double teamer in the post is tough for any post player to deal with. Especially at 6'8" with a wingspan well over 7 feet. Sheed was also very mobile and versatile defensively at this time, and could come over and help if necessary because LA didn't have a power forward who would make him pay.
I've always wondered the exact wingspan Pippen had, him, Rodman, Jordan, and Harper had a forest of appendages.


But the point was more about Sabonis being one of the best at defending Shaq, which shows it's not always about who the best defender is in general. But also how important the team defense can be.
Agreed.

Also, I hope you don't mind that I didn't respond to some of the information, I thank you for it, but since I agree with most of it and didn't think each warranted a response.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I will convert their numbers to the same base year and let you decide yourself. This is Kobe 99/00 and Arizin 61/62
Pts/Rebs/Asts/FG%/MPG

Arizin
18.3 / 4.6 / 2.5 / .445 / 35.7

Bryant
23.0 / 6.1 / 5.0 / .482 / 38.2

I wouldn't decide based solely on numbers. I was aware of Arizin's numbers already. I'd guess Kobe based on his defense, individual scoring ability and athleticism, but the problem here is how difficult it is to compare eras, and their effectiveness during their own time. I know Paul was still highly regarded in '62 and had a very good postseason, iirc, but it's extremely difficult to compare perimeter players from the early 60's, except guys like Oscar and West.

I'm not making a claim either way on this one. As I said, I need more information, and may do some of the proper research when I have the time the next couple of days. I suspect I'll choose Kobe, but the era thing makes these type of comparisons tricky.


Gola 61/62:
11.5 / 6.6 / 4.7 / .457 / 41.0

I'll have to calculate Rice's numbers but I'm almost positive easily Gola's in the regular season based on my quick look at them, especially in the per36 category because early 60s players played extreme minutes.

Also in the post season Gola had multiple injuries; making him underperform:

Gola 62 Postseason:
5.6 / 5.4 / 2.7 / .305 / 35.1 ... And I assure you that's converted! 5.6 pts on .305 shooting is just awful, agreed?

I really could care less about Rice's numbers in 2000, and by that point he was a good, but not great scorer who never consistently incorporated his game into the Laker offense, a very good, but no longer elite shooter, average passer, poor rebounder and a terrible defender.

Given what I saw, and what Glen's own coach had to say about him, I'd have to go with Gola.

Quotes from Phil's book "More Than A Game"


They wanted to know why Glen hadn't played much. "Maybe he doesn't deserve to play," I told them. "He doesn't seem capable of playing without the ball, so he's just not doing the job."


Glen was still not comfortable moving without the ball. He also continued to vacate those spaces on the court where he'd historically scored his points.

Here's one from a 6/13/00 LA Times article about Phil benching Rice in the finals. One example of Rice being benched for his defense as Jalen Rose was destroying him.


"Glen had a real struggle that third quarter . . . I just went to Rick Fox because we needed some defense and change of venue, and with that group out there on the floor we got back in the game," he said. "So you stay with who plays."

Here's another quote from the time of the 2000 finals printed in various papers.


Rice is angry about being benched by Jackson during critical parts of the Finals including most of the fourth quarter in Game 3. Jackson, who largely used defense-minded Rick Fox is Rice's place, apparently sees him as a defensive liability.

The Lakers were also called "two deep" in the conference finals while Portland was called "too deep", obviously a reference to the Lakers being a two man team while Portland was a deep team. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw

Things like this show that Rice was completely disregarded as a star by that point. If you watched a decent amount of Laker games, it was easy to forget he was even on the court. He just wasn't a big impact player on that team, which is why they had no interest in re-signing him.


Most late 50s players are very overrated by their peers; and because of the lack of talent compared to todays game (not diminishing the era because an 8 team league shouldn't have the same talent that a 25+ team league does,) the all-star game awards/all team awards should carry no weight in discussing a 50s player with today's players; at least with Gola level players. As I will post in a minute for you to see, Gola was a below average scorer, a good rebounder, and a decent passer but DOES NOT deserve HoF status, at least with the standards applied to some of todays players. I doubt his defense was all that amazing either, although I am sure he wasn't a liability.

Some of these are fair points, but I'd still take him pretty easily during this period based on what his peers said and his accolades over 2000 Glen Rice who I saw play, and whose own coach/team didn't think too highly of. Especially seeing Glen a lot the following year when he went to NY.


Of course, although the advantage in the early60s/late 50s was that the Celtics had Cousy, Sharman, AND the Jones boys. Im surprised the 61 Celtics team is never talked about... Russell, Heinsohn, Luscotoff, Sharman, Cousy, Ramsey, Jones, Jones, Sanders. Talk about talent...

True, it's interesting though how Boston transitioned to more of a defensive team with more of the offense running through Russell once Cousy retired without falling off at all.


I've always wondered the exact wingspan Pippen had, him, Rodman, Jordan, and Harper had a forest of appendages.

I think Pippen was about 6'9" in shoes with a 7'2"-7'3" wingspan.


Also, I hope you don't mind that I didn't respond to some of the information, I thank you for it, but since I agree with most of it and didn't think each warranted a response.

No problem, I do the same thing. It makes it easier to respond more in-depth on the things worth discussing.

[TheTenth]

I wouldn't decide based solely on numbers. I was aware of Arizin's numbers already. I'd guess Kobe based on his defense, individual scoring ability and athleticism, but the problem here is how difficult it is to compare eras, and their effectiveness during their own time. I know Paul was still highly regarded in '62 and had a very good postseason, iirc, but it's extremely difficult to compare perimeter players from the early 60's, except guys like Oscar and West.
Paul's postseason was basically as good as his regular season. Adjusted - more points, lower FG%, more minutes, less rebounds. Actually I'd say it's a marginal decrease since he should have scored much more as McGuire was asking Wilt to score less in the playoffs.


I'm not making a claim either way on this one. As I said, I need more information, and may do some of the proper research when I have the time the next couple of days. I suspect I'll choose Kobe, but the era thing makes these type of comparisons tricky.
Make sure your research isn't player/coach opinion. Too much bias.


I really could care less about Rice's numbers in 2000, and by that point he was a good, but not great scorer who never consistently incorporated his game into the Laker offense, a very good, but no longer elite shooter, average passer, poor rebounder and a terrible defender.

Numbers paint a way better portrait than someone's opinion. I could care less about a coach's, sportswriter's, or teammates opinion of someone. So much bias comes in to play it's not worth it. Many times players say something bad about another player only to recant that statement. 50s/60s players have retroactive bias i.e.: Tom Gola is never mentioned as overrated for being a Philadelphia hometown hero with a successful college career but having only a marginal NBA career. The players from the 60s and especially 50s might overlook his many weaknesses and instead inflate how good the things he did well, in a form of confirmation bias.

I may not be a psychologist, but I do know that witness testimony is not considered to be credible at all. In forming memories, people can be "tricked" to see things that never actually happened and that's without emotions. Emotions as you know cloud up situations even further, making you see things you only want to see. Tom Gola was the hometown hero, no one wanted to see him fail. Maybe that had an impact?


Given what I saw, and what Glen's own coach had to say about him, I'd have to go with Gola.
Phil Jackson is not impervious to bias. In fact you said earlier that he might have been mad for not having Pippen. Maybe this is the truth, maybe it isn't. I could care less EVEN about Phil Jackson's opinion.

Also interestingly enough in that video of "Two Deep vs. Too Deep," the announcer address Rice as part of the big three. Not that it matters at all in his ability, but it's just another case of opinions being moot.


Some of these are fair points, but I'd still take him pretty easily during this period based on what his peers said and his accolades over 2000 Glen Rice who I saw play, and whose own coach/team didn't think too highly of. Especially seeing Glen a lot the following year when he went to NY.
Like I said; accolades are MUCH MUCH easier to get in the 1950s. Less competition for the award makes it much easier. Drop Glen Rice in there and he could easily win the same awards Gola did, especially if he won over the sportswriters :lol .



I think Pippen was about 6'9" in shoes with a 7'2"-7'3" wingspan.
Source? Every picture I've seen him in, he's barely taller than the "a shade under 6'7 Rodman."

[ShaqAttack3234]

Paul's postseason was basically as good as his regular season. Adjusted - more points, lower FG%, more minutes, less rebounds. Actually I'd say it's a marginal decrease since he should have scored much more as McGuire was asking Wilt to score less in the playoffs.

Well, the game usually slows down in the playoffs.


Make sure your research isn't player/coach opinion. Too much bias.

That will be part of my research, as it always is for players who played in the 60's.


Numbers paint a way better portrait than someone's opinion. I could care less about a coach's, sportswriter's, or teammates opinion of someone. So much bias comes in to play it's not worth it. Many times players say something bad about another player only to recant that statement. 50s/60s players have retroactive bias i.e.: Tom Gola is never mentioned as overrated for being a Philadelphia hometown hero with a successful college career but having only a marginal NBA career. The players from the 60s and especially 50s might overlook his many weaknesses and instead inflate how good the things he did well, in a form of confirmation bias.

I disagree 100% here. Numbers are useful to some extent, but they leave out so much, especially in basketball. For players I'm too young to have seen, and who appear in little or no actual game footage, I primarily go by the opinions of their peers as well as the recaps for games by the sportswriters of the day. Many of the quotes I go by are from actual recaps during the time, not necessarily 20-30 years later, so it won't always be a case of a player being biased towards their era. In these cases,


I may not be a psychologist, but I do know that witness testimony is not considered to be credible at all. In forming memories, people can be "tricked" to see things that never actually happened and that's without emotions. Emotions as you know cloud up situations even further, making you see things you only want to see. Tom Gola was the hometown hero, no one wanted to see him fail. Maybe that had an impact?

Obviously biases come into play, but I'd rather hear about players from those who actually saw him play than go by numbers.


Phil Jackson is not impervious to bias. In fact you said earlier that he might have been mad for not having Pippen. Maybe this is the truth, maybe it isn't. I could care less EVEN about Phil Jackson's opinion.

No, I didn't say that. I mentioned the ridiculous accusations made by Glen Rice's wife that Phil was trying to sabotage Glen for that reason. Pretty ridiculous to think Phil, a 6-time champion by that point would risk a championship his first season in LA because a trade wasn't made. The reality was, Phil wasn't happy with Glen's play, and for good reason. Glen wasn't doing everything he could to fit in and be an effective role player, and hadn't seemed to come to terms with his declining ability, so when his play was detrimental to the team, he benched him. Phil actually stated that he liked Glen as a person.


Also interestingly enough in that video of "Two Deep vs. Too Deep," the announcer address Rice as part of the big three. Not that it matters at all in his ability, but it's just another case of opinions being moot.

They were supposed to be a big 3, but everyone who follows that team knows it didn't end up being 3 stars as Glen in no way, shape or form was at star level during that point.

In any case, my opinion is primarily based on watching Glen that season. As I said, it was easy to forget he was even on the court due to him never adjusting to the triangle as well as him being a good, but not great individual offensive player by that point. Those 2 factors made him an average small forward by 2000 because even when he was a great shooter and scorer in his prime, he never impacted the game outside of that.

Obviously, he was not an all-star caliber player by 2000, and because of that, got no all-star consideration. Again, if you won't take my word for it, it speaks volumes that the Lakers didn't even consider re-signing him after a championship season.


Like I said; accolades are MUCH MUCH easier to get in the 1950s. Less competition for the award makes it much easier. Drop Glen Rice in there and he could easily win the same awards Gola did, especially if he won over the sportswriters :lol .

I'm talking about their effectiveness in their own era.


Source? Every picture I've seen him in, he's barely taller than the "a shade under 6'7 Rodman."

Rodman is probably a good 6'8" in shoes, MJ 6'6" in shoes and Pippen 6'9". I'll look for a source on Pippen later. But if Rodman is a shade under 6'7", it's definitely not in shoes.

[TheTenth]

Well, the game usually slows down in the playoffs.

Yes, but these are adjusted statistics based on the pace. It does not matter.



That will be part of my research, as it always is for players who played in the 60's.
It's fine to research it, just remember it's heavily flawed. Again, I'm no psychologist but I have taken courses on it and have seen many different experiments done in which personal testimony is discredited. Opinion is very malleable and can have more to do with external influences than what the people actually saw at hand.

Don't believe me? Look up eyewitness testimony and the numerous experiments done on it.


I disagree 100% here. Numbers are useful to some extent, but they leave out so much, especially in basketball.
They are useful to nearly all extents. Correct it's not 100%, but tell me who's a better rebounder, Dennis Rodman or Steve Kerr? Both can be deduced by player opinion, but a better rebounder between Dennis Rodman or Jayson Williams? That's when stats come into play. Statistics cover more of the game, are subject to MUCH less bias than player opinion, and actually indicators of maybe 90% of the game.


For players I'm too young to have seen, and who appear in little or no actual game footage, I primarily go by the opinions of their peers as well as the recaps for games by the sportswriters of the day. Many of the quotes I go by are from actual recaps during the time, not necessarily 20-30 years later, so it won't always be a case of a player being biased towards their era. In these cases,
So recaps of the game aren't subject to large amounts of bias? Bias comes into play just as much before, during, and after the events that are around. Depending on a person's temperament, the player/sportswriter will either prop up or bring down another depending on the relationship with another player.


Obviously biases come into play, but I'd rather hear about players from those who actually saw him play than go by numbers.
So you admit the obvious bias, but you'd rather use that then something that measures numerically nearly every facet of the game? I know this is a science discussion board, and we aren't using any algorithmic approaches to determine worth but I think you would understand the lunacy in using the worst approach at player evaluation.



No, I didn't say that. I mentioned the ridiculous accusations made by Glen Rice's wife that Phil was trying to sabotage Glen for that reason. Pretty ridiculous to think Phil, a 6-time champion by that point would risk a championship his first season in LA because a trade wasn't made. The reality was, Phil wasn't happy with Glen's play, and for good reason. Glen wasn't doing everything he could to fit in and be an effective role player, and hadn't seemed to come to terms with his declining ability, so when his play was detrimental to the team, he benched him. Phil actually stated that he liked Glen as a person.
Still moot, like I said. It doesn't matter if Phil stated this or that.




They were supposed to be a big 3, but everyone who follows that team knows it didn't end up being 3 stars as Glen in no way, shape or form was at star level during that point.
I know, just pointing out the MAJOR flaws of using personal testimonies.


Obviously, he was not an all-star caliber player by 2000, and because of that, got no all-star consideration. Again, if you won't take my word for it, it speaks volumes that the Lakers didn't even consider re-signing him after a championship season.
I'm not arguing whether or not Rice was an amazing player, I am arguing he is better than Gola, who btw was traded (like Rice) the next year after their respective year.



I'm talking about their effectiveness in their own era.
Yes, and I am talking it's incomparable to compare the accolades between them.


Rodman is probably a good 6'8" in shoes, MJ 6'6" in shoes and Pippen 6'9". I'll look for a source on Pippen later. But if Rodman is a shade under 6'7", it's definitely not in shoes.
Ok.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yes, but these are adjusted statistics based on the pace. It does not matter.

Of course it matters. I don't believe you can accurately adjust stats based on pace, I believe it's extremely flawed, same with adjusting based on minutes, especially for star players.


It's fine to research it, just remember it's heavily flawed. Again, I'm no psychologist but I have taken courses on it and have seen many different experiments done in which personal testimony is discredited. Opinion is very malleable and can have more to do with external influences than what the people actually saw at hand.

Don't believe me? Look up eyewitness testimony and the numerous experiments done on it.

Yes, I know about eye-witness testimony, and that it was responsible for many people being wrongfully convicted of crimes that DNA later exonerated them of. Of course, basketball is not comparable to witnesses in murder or rape trials. Some of the opinions regarding Gola were stated in articles written directly after games making his play fresh on the writer, player or coaches minds, or formed by seasons and years of watching Gola play, not one game, much less briefly such as a murder or rape, where you may see the suspect for just a few seconds, or in a dark environment.


They are useful to nearly all extents. Correct it's not 100%, but tell me who's a better rebounder, Dennis Rodman or Steve Kerr? Both can be deduced by player opinion, but a better rebounder between Dennis Rodman or Jayson Williams? That's when stats come into play. Statistics cover more of the game, are subject to MUCH less bias than player opinion, and actually indicators of maybe 90% of the game.

I still would have said Rodman. He's simply the best player I've seen. Granted, rebounding is probably the easiest category to measure in stats with TRB%. Of course, context still has to be applied since a lot of defensive rebounds go uncontested, while offensive rebounds are more difficult to get, though there have been a select few such as Moses Malone known to pad their offensive rebounds as well. And of course, you have to factor in the teams they play on as rebounding stats, including TRB% can be inflated on weak rebounding teams or teams that play small ball.

In general, you get a very good idea with TRB%, but even then, context is essential, and watching the games is still essential.

But for other stats? Scoring average and shooting percentages are affected greatly by your team's offensive system and how well you play within it. I'll use Michael Jordan as an example.

1988- 35.0 ppg, 53.5 FG%, 53.7 eFG% 60.3 TS%, team pace(95.5)
1989- 32.5 ppg, 53.8 FG%, 54.6 eFG%, 61.4 TS%, team pace(97.0)
1990- 33.6 ppg, 52.6 FG%, 55.0 eFG%, 60.6 TS%, team pace('96.7 pace)
1991- 31.6 ppg, 53.9 FG%, 54.7 eFG%, 60.5 TS%, team pace(95.6)
1992- 30.1 ppg, 51.9 FG%, 52.6 eFG%, 57.9 TS%, team pace(94.4)

So based on that we can conclude that Jordan was at his peak as a scorer in 1988, right?

Wrong. What those stats don't tell you is that Phil Jackson took over for the 1990 season and required Jordan to be less ball-dominant and play within the offense more as he was implementing the triangle. Particularly with an emerging Pippen.

This can obviously impact his stats because instead of having the ball in his hands more and being able to work for his ideal shot more often, he had to fit his game into the offense, and take more shots that didn't disrupt the flow, but weren't necessarily his ideal shot. Watch early 90's Phil Jackson era Bulls games and you'll see MJ taking more jumpers, playing off the ball more and making quicker decisions than he did in the 80's. Though in the 80's you'll see him go to the basket more, this is because the offense revolved more around him and his 1 on 1 game. It makes it easier to get your own high percentage shot, but leads to a much less effective brand of basketball for the team when one guy is dominating the ball more.

Stats can't show ball dominance, how you handle double teams, how long you hold the ball or how many dribbles you take before making a move. They also don't show if you cherry pick for easy transition baskets, if you stand around when you don't have the ball to make the offensive stagnant ect. These things make scoring impossible to judge based purely on stats.

Then there's assists, which leave a lot to be desired when talking about passing ability. Again, ball-dominance comes into play, as well as passing up shots for the purpose of padding your assist totals, and hockey assists aren't shown in stats either. Not to mention great passes that lead to 2 free throws, or more essentially, a facilitator who knows when to get the ball to his scorer or post player.

And defense pretty much can't be judged as stats at all. I mean there's blocks, but do I have to explain why those don't come close to telling the entire story? I can elaborate if necessary, but it's easier to point out that prime Duncan and 2009-2011 Dwight Howard were superior defensive players to guys like Ibaka and Camby despite inferior block numbers.


So recaps of the game aren't subject to large amounts of bias? Bias comes into play just as much before, during, and after the events that are around. Depending on a person's temperament, the player/sportswriter will either prop up or bring down another depending on the relationship with another player.

So what are you saying? Disregard anything said by those who actually saw Gola play and just go off stats? If you do that, then you end up knowing nothing about Tom Gola as a player and have no idea how good he was.


So you admit the obvious bias, but you'd rather use that then something that measures numerically nearly every facet of the game? I know this is a science discussion board, and we aren't using any algorithmic approaches to determine worth but I think you would understand the lunacy in using the worst approach at player evaluation.

Well, the best approach is watching the player's and deciding for yourself how good they are. Unfortunately, this isn't an option for Arizin who retired in 1962.

The worst approach at player evaluation would be going by nothing more than a stat sheet.


Still moot, like I said. It doesn't matter if Phil stated this or that.

Of course it does. He coached him, he saw him every game, and Phil is a legend whose knowledge and credentials speak for themselves. When he says something about basketball, I listen. Especially when it comes to a player he saw every game. Doesn't mean that will be how I form my opinion. If I can watch the player, that will be how I judge them first and foremost, but for the purposes of arguing, using statements by those clearly more qualified than you or I on the subject such as Jackson is an effective source for debating.


I know, just pointing out the MAJOR flaws of using personal testimonies.

It'd be foolish to base your entire opinion off of them, but foolish to completely disregard them in favor of stats.


I'm not arguing whether or not Rice was an amazing player, I am arguing he is better than Gola, who btw was traded (like Rice) the next year after their respective year.

And I have yet to hear a reasonable case for 2000 Rice being better than Gola. In fact, the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise.

Gola being traded is completely different since, LA was coming off a championship and didn't view Rice as a key part of it so they didn't even attempt to re-sign him. The Warriors on the otherhand were not coming off a title, and had just lost their second best player Paul Arizin and were then a bad team.


Yes, and I am talking it's incomparable to compare the accolades between them.

Accolades are always dependent on circumstances. Even so, we know that Gola was widely considered one of the best forwards in the league at the time, while we know Glen Rice wasn't in 2000. We also know that Gola was in his prime in 1962 meaning he was considered a hall of famer for level of play at that time. Glen Rice was noticeably past his prime in 2000, and as of now isn't even in the HOF for his prime play with Charlotte and Miami.


Ok.

Couldn't find a source for his actual wingspan, though I did find this from a June 23rd, 1987 Chicago Sun Times article.


"Scottie Pippen is 6-7 1/2, 212 pounds, a 74-inch wingspan - which is unreal.

6'7 1/2" would make him close to, if not 6'9" in shoes.

I'm guessing the wingspan was a typo and the writer meant ether 84 inches(7 feet) or 7'4". More likely the former.

[TheTenth]

Of course it matters. I don't believe you can accurately adjust stats based on pace, I believe it's extremely flawed, same with adjusting based on minutes, especially for star players.
Adjusting for pace is extremely useful and has not failed me yet in a player evaluation. In fact, I've done a few statistical studies with it.


Of course, basketball is not comparable to witnesses in murder or rape trials. Some of the opinions regarding Gola were stated in articles written directly after games making his play fresh on the writer, player or coaches minds, or formed by seasons and years of watching Gola play, not one game, much less briefly such as a murder or rape, where you may see the suspect for just a few seconds, or in a dark environment.
It's not just murder and rape there are many different ways to change someone's short term or long term memory. I'd really wish you'd read more into the subject other than assuming it's just seeing a suspect for a few seconds. It can happen in broad daylight with someone who saw something for a long time. Popular opinion can sway someone from saying the right answer, there's been experiments on it. :wtf: Implanting an idea after the event can make the person remember things THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. I think I'll have to research this more since it's such a crazy part of our life.

And as I've repeatedly stated, whether it's right after the game or not, bias is such a pervasive force that renders any of those accounts moot. Simply look at the Lebron/Kobe stans on this board. Confirmation bias is not simply localized with them.


I still would have said Rodman. He's simply the best player I've seen. Granted, rebounding is probably the easiest category to measure in stats with TRB%.
You might have, but would a player who likes Jayson Williams more than Rodman say that?


In general, you get a very good idea with TRB%, but even then, context is essential, and watching the games is still essential.
Only for entertainment.



1988- 35.0 ppg, 53.5 FG%, 53.7 eFG% 60.3 TS%, team pace(95.5)
1989- 32.5 ppg, 53.8 FG%, 54.6 eFG%, 61.4 TS%, team pace(97.0)
1990- 33.6 ppg, 52.6 FG%, 55.0 eFG%, 60.6 TS%, team pace('96.7 pace)
1991- 31.6 ppg, 53.9 FG%, 54.7 eFG%, 60.5 TS%, team pace(95.6)
1992- 30.1 ppg, 51.9 FG%, 52.6 eFG%, 57.9 TS%, team pace(94.4)

So based on that we can conclude that Jordan was at his peak as a scorer in 1988, right?
Not really, I don't use nominal statistics.


Wrong. What those stats don't tell you is that Phil Jackson took over for the 1990 season and required Jordan to be less ball-dominant and play within the offense more as he was implementing the triangle. Particularly with an emerging Pippen.
Maybe not these, but the difference is well defined in adjust statistics. The counfounding variable is also MPG.


This can obviously impact his stats because instead of having the ball in his hands more and being able to work for his ideal shot more often, he had to fit his game into the offense, and take more shots that didn't disrupt the flow, but weren't necessarily his ideal shot. Watch early 90's Phil Jackson era Bulls games and you'll see MJ taking more jumpers, playing off the ball more and making quicker decisions than he did in the 80's. Though in the 80's you'll see him go to the basket more, this is because the offense revolved more around him and his 1 on 1 game. It makes it easier to get your own high percentage shot, but leads to a much less effective brand of basketball for the team when one guy is dominating the ball more.
So he becomes a better scorer because he scores less? No. It doesn't matter if his shots are jumpshots or slam dunks. They are both worth two points.


Stats can't show ball dominance, how you handle double teams, how long you hold the ball or how many dribbles you take before making a move. They also don't show if you cherry pick for easy transition baskets, if you stand around when you don't have the ball to make the offensive stagnant ect. These things make scoring impossible to judge based purely on stats.
You just aren't looking into things at quite the same level. You have a wealth of information to use. Look at teammates effectiveness before and after in adjusted statistics and you can see the impact of a player. At least if there are no confounding variables.


Then there's assists, which leave a lot to be desired when talking about passing ability. Again, ball-dominance comes into play, as well as passing up shots for the purpose of padding your assist totals, and hockey assists aren't shown in stats either. Not to mention great passes that lead to 2 free throws, or more essentially, a facilitator who knows when to get the ball to his scorer or post player.
Statistics are more dynamic than that. I can evaluate a passer by how much they raise their teammates FG%, as is the case with many great passers. I can look at how much they raise team PPG also.


And defense pretty much can't be judged as stats at all. I mean there's blocks, but do I have to explain why those don't come close to telling the entire story? I can elaborate if necessary, but it's easier to point out that prime Duncan and 2009-2011 Dwight Howard were superior defensive players to guys like Ibaka and Camby despite inferior block numbers.
Wrong. I think I could prove to you that Russell was an amazing defender using stats, not using block shots or steals.


So what are you saying? Disregard anything said by those who actually saw Gola play and just go off stats? If you do that, then you end up knowing nothing about Tom Gola as a player and have no idea how good he was.
Player opinion is generally ok for qualities since things like Jamaal Wilkes' jump shot form shouldn't be used in player evaluation, just merely interesting anecdotes.




Well, the best approach is watching the player's and deciding for yourself how good they are. Unfortunately, this isn't an option for Arizin who retired in 1962. The worst approach at player evaluation would be going by nothing more than a stat sheet.
Unfortunately, the different qualities can sway someone's opinion so watching him may not be the best evaluation. I've had many an argument with someone who based their evaluation of skill based on how aesthetically pleasing their game is, not on their actual merit and production. This affects everyone on the conscious and subconscious level.


Of course it does. He coached him, he saw him every game, and Phil is a legend whose knowledge and credentials speak for themselves. When he says something about basketball, I listen. Especially when it comes to a player he saw every game. Doesn't mean that will be how I form my opinion. If I can watch the player, that will be how I judge them first and foremost, but for the purposes of arguing, using statements by those clearly more qualified than you or I on the subject such as Jackson is an effective source for debating.
I don't know your credentials and you don't know mine, so how can you say that? Well you know your credentials, but what about me? I could be David Stern. :lol Regardless, Jackson is not omniscient so I wouldn't take his word to the bank.


It'd be foolish to base your entire opinion off of them, but foolish to completely disregard them in favor of stats.
I'd disregard any personal opinion if stats told me something else. Although Wilt Chamberlain killing a mountain lion will never ever need to be confirmed to me.



And I have yet to hear a reasonable case for 2000 Rice being better than Gola. In fact, the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise.
It's simply a case of of being a better scorer of 9 to 5; which really sells me along with him you know, not shooting 30% in the playoffs on 5 PPG.


Gola being traded is completely different since, LA was coming off a championship and didn't view Rice as a key part of it so they didn't even attempt to re-sign him. The Warriors on the otherhand were not coming off a title, and had just lost their second best player Paul Arizin and were then a bad team.
The teams both thought they weren't getting what they need. Both Rice and Gola were movable parts, shocking to say about a "Hall of Famer" right?


Accolades are always dependent on circumstances. Even so, we know that Gola was widely considered one of the best forwards in the league at the time, while we know Glen Rice wasn't in 2000. We also know that Gola was in his prime in 1962 meaning he was considered a hall of famer for level of play at that time. Glen Rice was noticeably past his prime in 2000, and as of now isn't even in the HOF for his prime play with Charlotte and Miami.
OK but you must understand that being one of the best forwards in a NINE team league is not comparable to one with (27?) teams. Tom Gola is in the hall of fame for his college career, not his NBA career. Even so; it is remarkably easier for players to have gotten in if they retired before 1970; and even easier if they retired before 1960. Unless you want argue the legitimacy of KC Jones and Frank Ramsey being in the HoF; then HoF status holds no weight.

Btw, Gola's 62 season is nowhere close to his prime. Where did you get that from?


6'7 1/2" would make him close to, if not 6'9" in shoes.

Yes. Although I hate the shoe measurement being taken into account. It makes the wingspans seem less freakish.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Adjusting for pace is extremely useful and has not failed me yet in a player evaluation. In fact, I've done a few statistical studies with it.

I disagree about the effectiveness of this method, and that goes along with a common theme in this discussion which is how differently we view stats in his basketball.


It's not just murder and rape there are many different ways to change someone's short term or long term memory. I'd really wish you'd read more into the subject other than assuming it's just seeing a suspect for a few seconds. It can happen in broad daylight with someone who saw something for a long time. Popular opinion can sway someone from saying the right answer, there's been experiments on it. :wtf: Implanting an idea after the event can make the person remember things THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. I think I'll have to research this more since it's such a crazy part of our life.

I realize you can remember things more fondly after the fact, even shortly, but recaps for particular game aren't going to praise Gola's performance if he didn't play well. And Gola is most likely not going to be widely regarded as a very good defender, rebounder, passer and a great team guy if he wasn't those things. Which, by the way, the stats support with the exception of defense and team play which can't be measured at all from stats, especially since they didn't even track blocks and steals.

The premise that Gola's peers all just imagined he was a very good player is laughable.


And as I've repeatedly stated, whether it's right after the game or not, bias is such a pervasive force that renders any of those accounts moot. Simply look at the Lebron/Kobe stans on this board. Confirmation bias is not simply localized with them.

Yes, there are biases, but it's implausible that the majority of people who commented on Gola, vote for the all-star games ect. to be biased for Tom Gola to the point of elevating him from a nobody to the status he had. The Lebron/Kobe stan analogy doesn't work at all.


You might have, but would a player who likes Jayson Williams more than Rodman say that?

If they watched basketball, understood the game and weren't biased to the point of being delusional then yes.


Only for entertainment.

No, for entertainment and to see these things. A good example is Lebron's game 6 vs Boston in 2010. Yes, he had 19 rebounds, but nobody who watched that game thought he dominated the boards. In fact, most who did were surprised at how relatively empty his rebounding seemed

You simply can't accurately judge a player without watching them.


Not really, I don't use nominal statistics.

That included his team's pace, scoring average and shooting percentages. There's not really much more you can look at statistically for scoring, and yet those all point to '88 as his best scoring season statistically.


Maybe not these, but the difference is well defined in adjust statistics. The counfounding variable is also MPG.

MPG didn't become a factor until '91. That was the first year the Bulls made any successful effort to limit his minutes.

Even if you adjusted the statistics, his best scoring year would still be '88, and everyone who knows anything about Michael Jordan knows that wasn't the absolute best he was as a scorer.


So he becomes a better scorer because he scores less? No. It doesn't matter if his shots are jumpshots or slam dunks. They are both worth two points.

Having a better jump shot, playing better without the ball, and being more polished with his footwork while being physically stronger and still having his peak athleticism made him a better scorer in the early 90's than he was in the 80's.

And yes, it does matter to some extent how you do it because it matters how effect those shots are in the team concept.


You just aren't looking into things at quite the same level. You have a wealth of information to use. Look at teammates effectiveness before and after in adjusted statistics and you can see the impact of a player. At least if there are no confounding variables.

I've looked into the players we've discussed extensively with the exception of those who I've stated I didn't know enough about it, or those who I've stated my knowledge is limited of.


Statistics are more dynamic than that. I can evaluate a passer by how much they raise their teammates FG%, as is the case with many great passers. I can look at how much they raise team PPG also.

How would you know how much that player's FG% was actually raised by that particular player?

On/Off court stats are ok, but like all stats, they don't tell everything, and will depend on the situations players get their rests in, the rest of the team's rotation and can be skewed by good second units/a good back up or blowouts.

And on court/off court wouldn't tell you anything about their passing in particular, just their overall effectiveness offensively.


Wrong. I think I could prove to you that Russell was an amazing defender using stats, not using block shots or steals.

Well, sort of, you can look at Boston's estimated defensive rating, and most logical people would credit that to Russell. But how do we know to credit that to Russell? From the reputation he had as a great defensive player, which comes from the players, coaches and writers. Without that knowledge we wouldn't be able to give credit to any particular player for Boston's defensive excellence.

In cases where you have a clear defensive anchor like Hakeem on the Rockets, or Howard on the Magic, you can credit much of their team's defensive rating to them, particularly opposing team's stats in the paint, but those things are also dependent on how good/bad your teammates are defensively, how good your coaches schemes are ect.


Unfortunately, the different qualities can sway someone's opinion so watching him may not be the best evaluation. I've had many an argument with someone who based their evaluation of skill based on how aesthetically pleasing their game is, not on their actual merit and production. This affects everyone on the conscious and subconscious level.

This is definitely true. I agree with you here, though there will be examples this won't apply.


I don't know your credentials and you don't know mine, so how can you say that? Well you know your credentials, but what about me? I could be David Stern. :lol Regardless, Jackson is not omniscient so I wouldn't take his word to the bank.

Again, my opinion is based on watching Rice in 2000 first and foremost, but if we're going to bother debating this, other than giving a detailed descrption of his game in 2000(which I did and could elaborate on), posting Phil's statements is as useful as anything.


It's simply a case of of being a better scorer of 9 to 5; which really sells me along with him you know, not shooting 30% in the playoffs on 5 PPG.

12/4/2, 41% as a defensive liability is not pretty piss poor itself. Especially when Rice not moving without the ball consistently in the triangle is detrimental itself and makes his offense worse than the stats suggest.

And Gola did have a sprained ankle, which it would be reasonable to assume affected him since he missed 3 games and played so far below his usual level.

And I'm glad you did bring up stats in this case because during the Lakers 2000 playoff run, Robert Horry averaged 7.6 ppg on the same 41% Rice shot well outscoring Horry by almost 5 ppg, and that's while Rice made 1.2 threes per game compared to Horry's 0.7 and outshot him 80% to 70% from the line. Yet, I can state confidently that Horry played better during those playoffs than Rice despite the stats strongly suggesting otherwise. Why? Because he was the superior passer, the superior rebounder, the superior team player and the vastly superior defender. When comparing Gola to 2000 Glen Rice as players, it seems all these same things would apply.

Granted, I will have to concede Rice had the better playoff run. However, Tom Meschery picked up the slack averaged 20 ppg and 11.5 rpg on 40% and by all accounts, played very well, especially in the Boston series(which I have read game by game recaps for)


The teams both thought they weren't getting what they need. Both Rice and Gola were movable parts, shocking to say about a "Hall of Famer" right?

Again, completely different situations. The Warriors were 8-13 when they traded Gola and had just lost Paul Arizin in the offseason. The Lakers were fresh off a 67-15 season as well as their first championship in 12 years and first finals appearance in 9 years.


OK but you must understand that being one of the best forwards in a NINE team league is not comparable to one with (27?) teams. Tom Gola is in the hall of fame for his college career, not his NBA career. Even so; it is remarkably easier for players to have gotten in if they retired before 1970; and even easier if they retired before 1960. Unless you want argue the legitimacy of KC Jones and Frank Ramsey being in the HoF; then HoF status holds no weight.

Ramsey and KC Jones are bad examples because they were part of the Celtic dynasty. Valid point about college careers, though.


Btw, Gola's 62 season is nowhere close to his prime. Where did you get that from?

The fact that it was the 3rd of 5 consecutive all-star selections so right in the middle and the fact that he averaged 14/10/5, 42%, which also happened to be the numbers he averaged over the first 6 seasons of his career.

[TheTenth]

I disagree about the effectiveness of this method, and that goes along with a common theme in this discussion which is how differently we view stats in his basketball.
Right.



I realize you can remember things more fondly after the fact, even shortly, but recaps for particular game aren't going to praise Gola's performance if he didn't play well. And Gola is most likely not going to be widely regarded as a very good defender, rebounder, passer and a great team guy if he wasn't those things. Which, by the way, the stats support with the exception of defense and team play which can't be measured at all from stats, especially since they didn't even track blocks and steals.
The stats show him as a good rebounder and a decent passer and a poor scorer. And defense can still be measured, but I have yet to research Gola to full extent.


The premise that Gola's peers all just imagined he was a very good player is laughable.
Look, I am not a Kobe fan or a stan but many general managers consider him the best for a last second shot attempt. Yet he makes 1 in 3. It's not laughable at all.




Yes, there are biases, but it's implausible that the majority of people who commented on Gola, vote for the all-star games ect. to be biased for Tom Gola to the point of elevating him from a nobody to the status he had. The Lebron/Kobe stan analogy doesn't work at all.
He wasn't elevated from a nobody to all star status. He was a college star...
And like I said, 8-9 teams, there isn't much competition for 4 slots on the all star squad.


If they watched basketball, understood the game and weren't biased to the point of being delusional then yes.
Right, but we are talking about athletes and sportswriters; not academics and scientists.


No, for entertainment and to see these things. A good example is Lebron's game 6 vs Boston in 2010. Yes, he had 19 rebounds, but nobody who watched that game thought he dominated the boards. In fact, most who did were surprised at how relatively empty his rebounding seemed
Another example of preconceived notions affecting opinion. Do people pay more attention to LeBron's rebounding or scoring?


You simply can't accurately judge a player without watching them.
Depends on the judgement.


That included his team's pace, scoring average and shooting percentages. There's not really much more you can look at statistically for scoring, and yet those all point to '88 as his best scoring season statistically.
It had them to the side, not adjusted. If you have bread and meat, do you have a sandwich? No. You need to put them together, or in this case, use the data to adjust. Which I have.


MPG didn't become a factor until '91. That was the first year the Bulls made any successful effort to limit his minutes.
But they changed and did become a factor.


Even if you adjusted the statistics, his best scoring year would still be '88, and everyone who knows anything about Michael Jordan knows that wasn't the absolute best he was as a scorer.
Or maybe that's just a common opinion.


Having a better jump shot, playing better without the ball, and being more polished with his footwork while being physically stronger and still having his peak athleticism made him a better scorer in the early 90's than he was in the 80's.
Ok so I think Wilt's 1967 year was his best scoring year because of those same reasons. Even though he didn't score as much. Potential scoring ability does not mean actual scoring ability.


How would you know how much that player's FG% was actually raised by that particular player?
I've done a few 2-proportion t-tests of before and after a playmaker joins a team and the affect on the leading scorer's FG%. I'm not sure how much you can directly attribute to the player, but I gathered statistically significant data that the playmaker does raise the FG%.


On/Off court stats are ok, but like all stats, they don't tell everything, and will depend on the situations players get their rests in, the rest of the team's rotation and can be skewed by good second units/a good back up or blowouts.

And on court/off court wouldn't tell you anything about their passing in particular, just their overall effectiveness offensively.
Are you referring to plus minus statistics?




Well, sort of, you can look at Boston's estimated defensive rating, and most logical people would credit that to Russell. But how do we know to credit that to Russell? From the reputation he had as a great defensive player, which comes from the players, coaches and writers. Without that knowledge we wouldn't be able to give credit to any particular player for Boston's defensive excellence.
This shows your deep lack of understanding of statistics.


In cases where you have a clear defensive anchor like Hakeem on the Rockets, or Howard on the Magic, you can credit much of their team's defensive rating to them, particularly opposing team's stats in the paint, but those things are also dependent on how good/bad your teammates are defensively, how good your coaches schemes are ect.
Again, I refer you to the above. Isolate the variable! I'm sure you can figure this one out, you seem intelligent.


12/4/2, 41% as a defensive liability is not pretty piss poor itself. Especially when Rice not moving without the ball consistently in the triangle is detrimental itself and makes his offense worse than the stats suggest.
I would have got rid of Rice along with Gola :confusedshrug:


And Gola did have a sprained ankle, which it would be reasonable to assume affected him since he missed 3 games and played so far below his usual level.
Which I mentioned.


And I'm glad you did bring up stats in this case because during the Lakers 2000 playoff run, Robert Horry averaged 7.6 ppg on the same 41% Rice shot well outscoring Horry by almost 5 ppg, and that's while Rice made 1.2 threes per game compared to Horry's 0.7 and outshot him 80% to 70% from the line. Yet, I can state confidently that Horry played better during those playoffs than Rice despite the stats strongly suggesting otherwise. Why? Because he was the superior passer, the superior rebounder, the superior team player and the vastly superior defender. When comparing Gola to 2000 Glen Rice as players, it seems all these same things would apply.

Maybe, I have no idea about Horry vs. Rice, and it doesn't pertain much to Gola vs. Rice.


Granted, I will have to concede Rice had the better playoff run. However, Tom Meschery picked up the slack averaged 20 ppg and 11.5 rpg on 40% and by all accounts, played very well, especially in the Boston series(which I have read game by game recaps for)
He did not pick up all of the slack, and even then his small efficiency increase does not make up for the vast decrease Gola had.



Again, completely different situations. The Warriors were 8-13 when they traded Gola and had just lost Paul Arizin in the offseason. The Lakers were fresh off a 67-15 season as well as their first championship in 12 years and first finals appearance in 9 years.
Great, they still got traded.


Ramsey and KC Jones are bad examples because they were part of the Celtic dynasty. Valid point about college careers, though.
Right.


The fact that it was the 3rd of 5 consecutive all-star selections so right in the middle and the fact that he averaged 14/10/5, 42%, which also happened to be the numbers he averaged over the first 6 seasons of his career.
Again, you take nominal numbers which skew things in favor of 1962, the fastest pace of all time. His first 6 seasons had much better numbers than 1962, and if he received an all star in 64, then that's crazy - even then. At least you are using numbers though to make your argument, even though they are wrong in this case.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The stats show him as a good rebounder and a decent passer and a poor scorer. And defense can still be measured, but I have yet to research Gola to full extent.

I don't know how you expect to try to measure Gola's defense with statistics considering there's no play by play data available for those years and they didn't even keep blocks and steals or specify defensive rebounds for that matter.


Look, I am not a Kobe fan or a stan but many general managers consider him the best for a last second shot attempt. Yet he makes 1 in 3. It's not laughable at all.

People often pick Kobe because he's been around so long, he's won 5 rings, he's clearly unafraid to take them, and has made a number of game-winners in both the regular season and playoffs. Plus, he's been the most skilled scorer in the league for years now.

Many of the GMs who pick him have access to last second shot numbers, but still pick him. Likely for those reasons.

I'm not arguing either way on that. I think people focus too much on last second shots to be honest, and if I had to pick someone it'd depend on whether it was the regular season or playoffs. I'd probably pick Durant though regardless.


He wasn't elevated from a nobody to all star status. He was a college star...
And like I said, 8-9 teams, there isn't much competition for 4 slots on the all star squad.

There are a lot of college stars who never get praise in the NBA. Bottom line is if you don't produce in the NBA, that praise won't continue into your NBA career.

Valid point about the 9 team league, but even so, he was above average at his position compared to his competition.


Right, but we are talking about athletes and sportswriters; not academics and scientists.

Of course, this is a sports discussion after all.


Another example of preconceived notions affecting opinion. Do people pay more attention to LeBron's rebounding or scoring?

Scoring of course, and it's because he stands out far more as a scorer than he does as a rebounder. Though he's been impressing me more as a rebounder lately than he did when he was younger.

As far as at that game 6, it's also because he got a number of rebounds on missed free throws by the other team, a few on his own misses and in general, a lot of easy rebounds, some where he came flying in with no Celtic in sight to steal them from his teammates.

This is why nobody, myself included, who watched the game felt he dominated the boards. Certainly not to the extent the 19 rebounds suggest.


It had them to the side, not adjusted. If you have bread and meat, do you have a sandwich? No. You need to put them together, or in this case, use the data to adjust. Which I have.

Of course it had them to the side, for several reason. First, because I don't believe in those adjustments as I stated, and more importantly, even if I did, it was unnecessary because '88 was his team's second slowest pace during that time behind only '92 which wasn't close to his '88 season statistically as it is making it obvious that even with a pace adjustment, '88 still would have been far above it.


But they changed and did become a factor.

Yes, in '91, but that doesn't really matter considering '90 was still every bit as good as '91 statistically even on a per minute basis, in fact, he still scored slightly more per minute than in '91.


Or maybe that's just a common opinion.

Uh, no, it's obvious for reasons I already stated. There is no case that can be made with any real substance to it for MJ being a better scorer in '88 than he was in the early 90s.


Ok so I think Wilt's 1967 year was his best scoring year because of those same reasons. Even though he didn't score as much. Potential scoring ability does not mean actual scoring ability.

If you did actually think 1967 was Wilt's best scoring season and had points about what he could do and what was in his game to back it up, then this might be a good analogy. As far as Wilt, we know his free throw % had gone down the drain, and I've also heard people who saw that season state that Wilt didn't have the same touch on those fadeaway bank shots either. He also may have been a better athlete in his early days.

So from what we do know it doesn't appear to mirror Jordan's situation at all.

And take 1990 Jordan for example. He averaged 33.6 ppg on pretty much identical efficiency to 1988, and just 1.4 ppg less. Is there any reason to think he couldn't have scored that little amount more while playing less within an offense and more selfishly like he did in '88? And more importantly, would there be any reason for him to do that? Particularly against his coaches wishes?

I'm not talking potential scoring ability. I'm talking scoring ability, and Jordan had more of it around '90 or '91 than he did in '88.


I've done a few 2-proportion t-tests of before and after a playmaker joins a team and the affect on the leading scorer's FG%. I'm not sure how much you can directly attribute to the player, but I gathered statistically significant data that the playmaker does raise the FG%.

It would depend on the playmaker, and how their games fit with the leading scorer on their team. You'd have to give me some examples.

In the case of Nash/Amare, it was obvious watching those two that Nash and that system got Amare more high percentage shots. Any raise in FG% makes sense in this situation. Same with Malone/Stockton, though unfortunately we don't have much to go by statistically in this case other than the 17-18 games Stockton was out during the '98 season.


Are you referring to plus minus statistics?

Yes.


This shows your deep lack of understanding of statistics.

How? I don't see how anything I just said can be refuted. How do we know to credit Russell for Boston's defensive excellence? Because he was regarded as such a great defender, and his contemporaries as well as anyone who played regularly talked about how many shots he changed. This is also on display in some of the little game footage we have of Russell.

As far as statistics in addition to the estimated defensive ratings. Well all we have is his total rebounds, which are high enough that it's reasonable to assume he had a lot of defensive rebounds regardless of the exact number. As well as some assorted and incomplete unofficial block numbers, which were found through old newspaper recaps and basketball books, which once again, show the benefit of reading recaps from the time on those 60s players.


Again, I refer you to the above. Isolate the variable! I'm sure you can figure this one out, you seem intelligent.

Except we can only credit their team's defensive excellence to them because we know they're great defenders. And how do we know that? From watching them play.

For example, we can't just pick a great defensive team and assume their center is a great defender because their team is great defensively.


I would have got rid of Rice along with Gola :confusedshrug:

Well, based on what I know about Gola, I'd keep him if he was on my team in those days. Seems like he was a very good supporting player to have. Of course, this depends on who I was offered for him.


Which I mentioned.

Sorry, I missed that.


Maybe, I have no idea about Horry vs. Rice, and it doesn't pertain much to Gola vs. Rice.

It was used as an analogy since Horry wasn't much of a scorer, particularly after his Houston days, but he was a solid rebounder, good passer, good team defender and a very good team player overall, which seems like it describes Gola in those days.


He did not pick up all of the slack, and even then his small efficiency increase does not make up for the vast decrease Gola had.

Meschery came off a 12.1 ppg/9.1 rpg season and he increased his scoring exactly 8 ppg to 20.1 in the postseason and his rebounding by 2.4 boards to an even 11.5.

Gola's scoring fell by 7.3 ppg, less than Meschery's increase and his rebounding fell off by 1.6 rpg, also less than the increase Meschery saw in that category.


Great, they still got traded.

You don't see a difference in the situations?


Again, you take nominal numbers which skew things in favor of 1962, the fastest pace of all time. His first 6 seasons had much better numbers than 1962, and if he received an all star in 64, then that's crazy - even then. At least you are using numbers though to make your argument, even though they are wrong in this case.

Prior to 1960, he didn't play with Wilt, though, which would at the very least make it difficult to get as many rebounds once Wilt got there.

Gola's scoring, rebounding and assist numbers didn't vary much at all during this time, so it doesn't appear pace played a huge role in numbers compared to previous seasons.

[TheTenth]

I don't know how you expect to try to measure Gola's defense with statistics considering there's no play by play data available for those years and they didn't even keep blocks and steals or specify defensive rebounds for that matter.
I have a way. I might actually write a research paper on some of my methods. :lol Very statistical based if you couldn't guess, and having someone argue against me, or be my devil's advocate helps out a lot. Just leave the grading for the professor. :D


People often pick Kobe because he's been around so long, he's won 5 rings, he's clearly unafraid to take them, and has made a number of game-winners in both the regular season and playoffs. Plus, he's been the most skilled scorer in the league for years now.

Many of the GMs who pick him have access to last second shot numbers, but still pick him. Likely for those reasons.

I'm not arguing either way on that. I think people focus too much on last second shots to be honest, and if I had to pick someone it'd depend on whether it was the regular season or playoffs. I'd probably pick Durant though regardless.
But that's my point about preconceived notions blinding opinions to a point where it's almost an epidemic. I agree the whole concept is overrated also, it's just a place for me to prove my point.


There are a lot of college stars who never get praise in the NBA. Bottom line is if you don't produce in the NBA, that praise won't continue into your NBA career.
Times are different and the situation is very different. Why do you think the territorial draft was around in the early 50s. Just remember that Gola was a hometown hero
Local high school - Local college - Local pro team



Valid point about the 9 team league, but even so, he was above average at his position compared to his competition.
I'm not denying that, I just think accolades from the 50s/60s need to be taken with a grain of salt in comparison to later years.


Of course, this is a sports discussion after all.
Quasi-philosophical with a bit of science and pseudoscience thrown in. :lol


Scoring of course, and it's because he stands out far more as a scorer than he does as a rebounder. Though he's been impressing me more as a rebounder lately than he did when he was younger.

As far as at that game 6, it's also because he got a number of rebounds on missed free throws by the other team, a few on his own misses and in general, a lot of easy rebounds, some where he came flying in with no Celtic in sight to steal them from his teammates.

This is why nobody, myself included, who watched the game felt he dominated the boards. Certainly not to the extent the 19 rebounds suggest.
Deviations from the mean are to be expected, some games are worth their rebounding, others aren't. Maybe this game had a high z score. - Be sure to compliment girls on their z-score being high, trust me -

Jordan stuff:



28.68 0.515
26.52 0.521
28.84 0.511
28.69 0.525
26.39 0.508
28.22 0.483

^ Adjusted per 36 for the years you mentioned, listed chronologically.


, no, it's obvious for reasons I already stated. There is no case that can be made with any real substance to it for MJ being a better scorer in '88 than he was in the early 90s.
MJ was a better scorer in name one season, and ability in the other. Aren't we saying the same thing?


If you did actually think 1967 was Wilt's best scoring season and had points about what he could do and what was in his game to back it up, then this might be a good analogy. As far as Wilt, we know his free throw % had gone down the drain, and I've also heard people who saw that season state that Wilt didn't have the same touch on those fadeaway bank shots either. He also may have been a better athlete in his early days.
Another reason to disregard opinion. Wilt as you know, always proved those people wrong with some awesome point scoring games.


So from what we do know it doesn't appear to mirror Jordan's situation at all.
I know, it was hyperbole.


would depend on the playmaker, and how their games fit with the leading scorer on their team. You'd have to give me some examples.

In the case of Nash/Amare, it was obvious watching those two that Nash and that system got Amare more high percentage shots. Any raise in FG% makes sense in this situation. Same with Malone/Stockton, though unfortunately we don't have much to go by statistically in this case other than the 17-18 games Stockton was out during the '98 season.


? I don't see how anything I just said can be refuted. How do we know to credit Russell for Boston's defensive excellence? Because he was regarded as such a great defender, and his contemporaries as well as anyone who played regularly talked about how many shots he changed. This is also on display in some of the little game footage we have of Russell.
Look, I really don't want to reveal much of the work I've done (I've spent too much time on it, to be honest) so I am not going to give it outright. I'm not being patronizing when I say "You are intelligent enough to figure it out," I honestly do think you can. It took me a while but using statistics there is a way to figure it out. Think on a Macro scale instead of a Micro one.


far as statistics in addition to the estimated defensive ratings. Well all we have is his total rebounds, which are high enough that it's reasonable to assume he had a lot of defensive rebounds regardless of the exact number. As well as some assorted and incomplete unofficial block numbers, which were found through old newspaper recaps and basketball books, which once again, show the benefit of reading recaps from the time on those 60s players.
Right, I've read most recaps and the statistics they have are very beneficial besides satisfying my curiosity of how the games were played out.


Except we can only credit their team's defensive excellence to them because we know they're great defenders. And how do we know that? From watching them play.

For example, we can't just pick a great defensive team and assume their center is a great defender because their team is great defensively.
We can assume, but we must back it up for it to be valid.


, based on what I know about Gola, I'd keep him if he was on my team in those days. Seems like he was a very good supporting player to have. Of course, this depends on who I was offered for him.
I'd trade him for Woody Sauldsberry. Maybe it would have kept Wilt longer.



It was used as an analogy since Horry wasn't much of a scorer, particularly after his Houston days, but he was a solid rebounder, good passer, good team defender and a very good team player overall, which seems like it describes Gola in those days.
Horry played bigger, i.e. a PF, right? while Gola was the SG.



Meschery came off a 12.1 ppg/9.1 rpg season and he increased his scoring exactly 8 ppg to 20.1 in the postseason and his rebounding by 2.4 boards to an even 11.5.

Gola's scoring fell by 7.3 ppg, less than Meschery's increase and his rebounding fell off by 1.6 rpg, also less than the increase Meschery saw in that category.
Yes, but Meschery also gobbled many minutes up. Per36 it's not an increase. At least in a team concept.


to 1960, he didn't play with Wilt, though, which would at the very least make it difficult to get as many rebounds once Wilt got there.
Very correct and observant, it was part of one of the studies I did.


Gola's scoring, rebounding and assist numbers didn't vary much at all during this time, so it doesn't appear pace played a huge role in numbers compared to previous seasons.
Yes it did, Gola is one of the ones who saw a decreasing role/effectiveness while pace went up, covering up those facts if one views only in the nominal. Btw, Gola did go down in rebounding significantly when Wilt came.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I have a way. I might actually write a research paper on some of my methods. :lol Very statistical based if you couldn't guess, and having someone argue against me, or be my devil's advocate helps out a lot. Just leave the grading for the professor. :D

Well, as I've said, I simply don't see how this is possible since I know 2 things for facts. One is that blocks and steals were not recorded at the time, and the other is that play by play obviously isn't available for that time.


Times are different and the situation is very different. Why do you think the territorial draft was around in the early 50s. Just remember that Gola was a hometown hero
Local high school - Local college - Local pro team

Even so, I'd think that if Gola wasn't a good player, people would eventually realize it. Though this is neither here nor there since you said below that you're not denying he was above average


I'm not denying that, I just think accolades from the 50s/60s need to be taken with a grain of salt in comparison to later years.

That's reasonable, and I agree.


Jordan stuff:



28.68 0.515
26.52 0.521
28.84 0.511
28.69 0.525
26.39 0.508
28.22 0.483

^ Adjusted per 36 for the years you mentioned, listed chronologically.

Well, this shows '90 and '91 as the best, which I actually agree with, though I believe Jordan remained pretty much on par as a scorer in '92 despite the statistical decrease. Though Jordan became less ball-dominant that season as Pippen improved noticeably and stepped into his point forward role.


MJ was a better scorer in name one season, and ability in the other. Aren't we saying the same thing?

Pretty much


Another reason to disregard opinion. Wilt as you know, always proved those people wrong with some awesome point scoring games.

I know he still had big scoring performances from '67 on, although that still doesn't refute the statement that he had a better shooting touch early on. I've read numerous times that he stopped taking nearly as many(which makes sense given the huge FG% increase), though of course that doesn't prove he was less capable. However, it is a fact that his free throw shooting had gotten significantly worse.

In general, it's difficult to compare him as a scorer from '67 on since we both know his role changed. As far as ability, he was probably pretty similar until the knee injury in the '69-'70 season.


Look, I really don't want to reveal much of the work I've done (I've spent too much time on it, to be honest) so I am not going to give it outright. I'm not being patronizing when I say "You are intelligent enough to figure it out," I honestly do think you can. It took me a while but using statistics there is a way to figure it out. Think on a Macro scale instead of a Micro one.

To me it's just common sense. If we hadn't heard anything about Russell or seen any footage, we wouldn't be able to credit any particular player for Boston's defensive excellence. I really don't see how that can be argued.


We can assume, but we must back it up for it to be valid.

Well then it wouldn't be an assumption if we can back it up.


Horry played bigger, i.e. a PF, right? while Gola was the SG.

Not sure how much bigger Horry played. He wasn't really a traditional big man. He had been a small forward much of his career who bulked up to play the 4 in '98 and stayed there the rest of his career.


Yes, but Meschery also gobbled many minutes up. Per36 it's not an increase. At least in a team concept.

Well, I'm not a per 36 guy as I've said.


Yes it did, Gola is one of the ones who saw a decreasing role/effectiveness while pace went up, covering up those facts if one views only in the nominal. Btw, Gola did go down in rebounding significantly when Wilt came.

Do you have Gola's TRB% stats for his first 6 seasons, or more importantly, the 5 seasons from '58-'62?

[LAZERUSS]

If the NBA had a true HOF, Gola would be nowhere near it. His career NBA numbers, in slightly inflated era, (11.3 ppg, 8.0 rpg, and a .431 FG%) were only marginally decent-to-good. But not only that, he was arguably the worst post-season "HOF" player of all-time. And it was not just with Wilt, either. He was simply AWFUL in all of them. There is simply no excuse to have a post-season career FG% of .336. Ray Charles would have shot better.

Having said that, Gola's best seasons came with Chamberlain. So those that would somehow claim that Wilt's dominance detracted from his own teammates really have little ammunition to support it. Players like Gola, Meschery, Goodrich, Greer, and others' all had their best seasons playing alongside Chamberlain.

[Legends66NBA7]

Thanks, but I have to actually uphold that. I have to back it up, right?

Oops, saw this late.

It's an admirable stance to have. Off course, one must always uphold it as best as they can and I've enjoyed reading your posts here.

[LAZERUSS]

Regarding Glen Rice...

I remember how excited I was when LA landed him. Here was a player who was considered one of the premier shooters in the league at the time.

I then recall just how horrified I was when I actually saw him play. The man had to be open to shoot, and worse, he absolutely could not dribble. I mean not a lick. The second he would put the ball on the floor, it was a sure turnover.

One of the biggest disappointments ever in a Laker uniform.

[L.A. Jazz]

Regarding Glen Rice...

I remember how excited I was when LA landed him. Here was a player who was considered one of the premier shooters in the league at the time.

I then recall just how horrified I was when I actually saw him play. The man had to be open to shoot, and worse, he absolutely could not dribble. I mean not a lick. The second he would put the ball on the floor, it was a sure turnover.
absolutely right.

[Magic 32]

One of the biggest disappointments ever in a Laker uniform.

Well, that's a bit much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A85rtdjnhLE

[TheTenth]

Well, as I've said, I simply don't see how this is possible since I know 2 things for facts. One is that blocks and steals were not recorded at the time, and the other is that play by play obviously isn't available for that time.
If I don't get swamped by college this semester I'll probably pass it on to you. The reasons why I don't now:

A) Not enough words.
B) Still want more data and increase the sample size (something I'll say even after it's finished.)
C) I want to be at least 95% positive in the thesis.




Well, this shows '90 and '91 as the best, which I actually agree with, though I believe Jordan remained pretty much on par as a scorer in '92 despite the statistical decrease. Though Jordan became less ball-dominant that season as Pippen improved noticeably and stepped into his point forward role.
1992 could have been a natural deviation from the mean (ie, Jordan still had the same skill but just due of a variety of factors and randomness, he scored less. Wasn't "The Jordan Rules" published around that time? I'm sure that book wasn't too great for his psyche.)

Jordan also passed better in 92, and in 93 upped his scoring (per 36) but saw diminished FG%.


I know he still had big scoring performances from '67 on, although that still doesn't refute the statement that he had a better shooting touch early on. I've read numerous times that he stopped taking nearly as many(which makes sense given the huge FG% increase), though of course that doesn't prove he was less capable. However, it is a fact that his free throw shooting had gotten significantly worse.
True his free throw shooting was much worse at the time.


In general, it's difficult to compare him as a scorer from '67 on since we both know his role changed. As far as ability, he was probably pretty similar until the knee injury in the '69-'70 season.
Wilt's 1969-70 season is basically proof that he was still able to score. Adjusted, the 12 or so games where he was asked to score more, his stats looked similar to his 1965-66 season adjusted. This makes sense because even in 1965-66 he was asked to score less due to the talented scorers on the team (Greer, Cunningham, Jones, Walker.)


To me it's just common sense. If we hadn't heard anything about Russell or seen any footage, we wouldn't be able to credit any particular player for Boston's defensive excellence. I really don't see how that can be argued.
It is possible.


Not sure how much bigger Horry played. He wasn't really a traditional big man. He had been a small forward much of his career who bulked up to play the 4 in '98 and stayed there the rest of his career.
Horry was playing a 4 in 95 though, right? He torched Rodman in the 95 WCF.

But he is just bigger in position. Gola was a SG, Horry a SF/PF. Not to mention Horry was taller.




Well, I'm not a per 36 guy as I've said.
I know, but even you must see how this applies, because it is a team statistic. If Meschery is taking more minutes than before, he is also taking more than just Gola's. Meschery needs to produce what Gola is losing on his scoring average, and whoever else's minutes he is taking. Does that make sense?




Do you have Gola's TRB% stats for his first 6 seasons, or more importantly, the 5 seasons from '58-'62?
No, just adjusted/per36, which has margin of error, but the margin of error isn't big enough for the drop off that was seen when Wilt joined.

1955-56 7.18
1957-58 7.17
1958-59 7.49
1959-60 6.30
1960-61 5.93
1961-62 5.76
1962-63 3.05
1963-64 5.53
1964-65 4.60
1965-66 6.35


If the NBA had a true HOF, Gola would be nowhere near it. His career NBA numbers, in slightly inflated era, (11.3 ppg, 8.0 rpg, and a .431 FG%) were only marginally decent-to-good. But not only that, he was arguably the worst post-season "HOF" player of all-time. And it was not just with Wilt, either. He was simply AWFUL in all of them. There is simply no excuse to have a post-season career FG% of .336. Ray Charles would have shot better.

Having said that, Gola's best seasons came with Chamberlain. So those that would somehow claim that Wilt's dominance detracted from his own teammates really have little ammunition to support it. Players like Gola, Meschery, Goodrich, Greer, and others' all had their best seasons playing alongside Chamberlain.
I agree with all of this, but just remember Gola isn't the only one. They need to create a NBA hall of fame, not just a basketball hall of fame.


Oops, saw this late.

It's an admirable stance to have. Off course, one must always uphold it as best as they can and I've enjoyed reading your posts here.
Thanks, and these posts are only out because I have someone crazy/dedicated enough to debate with me on what has somewhat become almost completely off topic, but I think it's a good off topic. Shoutout to ShaqAttack3234.

[inclinerator]

shaq would put 3 guys through the hoop along with the ball then brick the freethrow

[Kiddlovesnets]

It was one of the most dominant individual performance in NBA history. The team was pretty much all about Shaq, the rosters are just Shaq and a bunch of role players. It was Shaq's one man show that brought Lakers three consecutive rings.

[Magic 32]

It was one of the most dominant individual performance in NBA history. The team was pretty much all about Shaq, the rosters are just Shaq and a bunch of role players. It was Shaq's one man show that brought Lakers three consecutive rings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF_LSQ50BWk&t=8m27s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF_LSQ50BWk&t=10m14s

[Jacks3]

Kobe 2000: 23/6/5/2 and was the best perimeter player defender in the league.
Kobe 2001: 29/6/5/2 RS followed by one of the best playoff runs in history: 29+/7+/6+/2+/1 and elite defense. Top 2 player in the league.
Kobe 2002: 26/6/6/2 RS followed by 27/6/5/2 PS. Another brilliant All-Defense season. Top 3 player.

Amazing. 3 straight titles. :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[KOBE143]

2000 - Shaq = 1st option, Kobe = 2nd option
2001 - Shaq1a, Kobe1b
2002 - Shaq = Kobe

Both were nearly equal in terms of importance in that team.. Shaq would never 3peat if he never team up with Kobe but I know for sure Kobe would still 3peat without Shaq.. Proof is, Kobe still won b2b with just Bynum and Gasoft even tho that version of him was already out of prime.. Give prime Kobe a decent big man and defensive team and Im sure he would still 3peat or more, maybe 6 chips at worst..

Kobe was unfortunate playing along Shaq.. If not for Shaq and those 3peat that lower his status and all time ranking, people would probably talk and put Kobe in GOAT discussion..

[Jacks3]

He won those chips with Odom and Pau. Bynum was largely irrelevant.

He didn't even play in 08 and the Lakers still made the Finals.

[poido123]

Shaq's sheer dominance in these years I consider to be equal to Jordan or best peak in NBA history.

Kobe was good too, but Shaq was clearly the dominant force in that team and was literally unstoppable.

[Jacks3]

Kobe's 08-10 run:

3 Finals
2 Championships
2 Finals MVP's.

30/6/6/2/57% TS/116 ORTG.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[DatAsh]

People mentioning Wilt's 62' season over his own 67' season just smells of ignorance really. Those without real basketball knowledge are far, far to fixated on box score statistics.

As for Wilt's best vs Shaq's best. I'll ackowledge that it's close, but I can't really see the case for Shaq here.

[TheCorporation]

People that say Kobe's first three rings don't "count" are obviously idiotic haters. Having said that, we know the FINALS MVP is what matters most, when you really get down to the nitty gritty of comparing players.

Derek Fisher has 5 rings, sure, but he is no where near the level of Kobe (5) Wade (3) LeBron (2) etc.

Finals MVPs can be used when you really get down to the minute BS when all of us NBA fanatics argue.

[Marchesk]

2001 Shaq would of dropped 40 and 20 on any version of Bill Russell. There is not even a chance that Billy could of stopped the Diesel.

You mean like how Shaq dropped 21.9 and 9.3 over 22 playoff games against Ben Wallace?

Or 27 and 10.8 against Rodman in 96 when the Bulls swept them and Rodman had 11.5 and 15.8?

[ShaqAttack3234]

If I don't get swamped by college this semester I'll probably pass it on to you. The reasons why I don't now:

A) Not enough words.
B) Still want more data and increase the sample size (something I'll say even after it's finished.)
C) I want to be at least 95% positive in the thesis.

Fair enough.


1992 could have been a natural deviation from the mean (ie, Jordan still had the same skill but just due of a variety of factors and randomness, he scored less. Wasn't "The Jordan Rules" published around that time? I'm sure that book wasn't too great for his psyche.)

I'm not sure Jordan was really bothered by "The Jordan Rules" or playing any less effectively than he had in '90 or '91. I think it was more due to his team improving and MJ having to do less individually.


Jordan also passed better in 92, and in 93 upped his scoring (per 36) but saw diminished FG%.

The increased scoring and lower FG% in '93 make sense considering it's well known that fatigue was a factor coming off the back to back titles, and in particular both MJ and Pippen having played for the Dream Team. Jordan was kind of willing his team a bit more during that regular season with his teammates coasting more than previous seasons. Combine that with MJ being 30 at the time and the league gradually changing during the 90's(the influence of the Bad Boy Pistons and Riley's Knicks)


Wilt's 1969-70 season is basically proof that he was still able to score. Adjusted, the 12 or so games where he was asked to score more, his stats looked similar to his 1965-66 season adjusted. This makes sense because even in 1965-66 he was asked to score less due to the talented scorers on the team (Greer, Cunningham, Jones, Walker.)

No real argument from here since as I said, I believe it was the career-threatening knee injury in '69-'70, particularly at 33 years old that ended Wilt's prime as an individual offensive player. However, I wouldn't read too much into such a short stretch statistically.


It is possible.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this then.


Horry was playing a 4 in 95 though, right? He torched Rodman in the 95 WCF.

Yes, Houston went to a small lineup during that postseason having just traded Thorpe for Drexler. Although Horry at this point was still the same player he had been before Houston went to that small lineup and 4 out/1 in approach. Athletic open court player and strong 3 point shooter exploiting that shortened line at the time.


But he is just bigger in position. Gola was a SG, Horry a SF/PF. Not to mention Horry was taller.

The point is, I wouldn't really say Horry had a big man impact on games. In fact, while he was a quality player, he certainly didn't play big for his position. It seemed like a mismatch when he was guarding Sheed and Webber in that postseason. Both players dominated LA, though part of that is on Ac Green who was splitting minutes with Horry.


I know, but even you must see how this applies, because it is a team statistic. If Meschery is taking more minutes than before, he is also taking more than just Gola's. Meschery needs to produce what Gola is losing on his scoring average, and whoever else's minutes he is taking. Does that make sense?

Having a guy who can step in and maintain that production over those minutes is significant itself, Plus, Philly dropped from 125.4 ppg during the regular season to 106.1 in the playoffs which is an extreme example of what has always been the case, which is scoring dropping and the games slowing down during the playoffs.


No, just adjusted/per36, which has margin of error, but the margin of error isn't big enough for the drop off that was seen when Wilt joined.

1955-56 7.18
1957-58 7.17
1958-59 7.49
1959-60 6.30
1960-61 5.93
1961-62 5.76
1962-63 3.05
1963-64 5.53
1964-65 4.60
1965-66 6.35

A drop off in rebounding is expected when you add Wilt who was averaging 26-27 rpg from '60-'62. It'd have been surprising if Gola kept grabbing as many rebounds with the addition of Wilt.


You mean like how Shaq dropped 21.9 and 9.3 over 22 playoff games against Ben Wallace?

Or 27 and 10.8 against Rodman in 96 when the Bulls swept them and Rodman had 11.5 and 15.8?

This is misleading. Those 22 games came when Shaq was already on the decline and 32-34 years old. In addition to Shaq being injured during the 2005 postseason. Shaq's overall regular season numbers during those 3 seasons were 21.9 ppg and 10.4 rpg, so representing Shaq's '04-'06 play vs Ben Wallace as prime Shaq is false.

As far as the '96 Orlando series. Again, the way you posted this is misleading. Rodman was not the primary defender on Shaq during that series. He got acclaim for guarding Shaq very effectively for stretches, and rightfully so, but you can't use Shaq's numbers for the entire series as Shaq vs Rodman when the majority of them didn't come vs Rodman. I'd actually imagine Shaq's numbers were worse that series when he actually was matched up with Rodman, fwiw. As far as Rodman's rebounding numbers, part of that can be attributed to the absence of Horace Grant in the series as well as Rodman just having a great postseason.

[TheTenth]

People mentioning Wilt's 62' season over his own 67' season just smells of ignorance really. Those without real basketball knowledge are far, far to fixated on box score statistics.

Quite to the contrary. Since Wilt's 62' season is the obvious choice for best season at first glance, people often try to put other seasons over it to prove their "knowledge." Don't worry though, I think anyone is just as smart if they put 1962 as Wilt's best season.

Btw, what does ignorance smell of? My olfactory bulbs aren't what they used to be...



I'm not sure Jordan was really bothered by "The Jordan Rules" or playing any less effectively than he had in '90 or '91. I think it was more due to his team improving and MJ having to do less individually.
A poor example... I was just trying to point out that seemingly random events could also play into his numbers.


The increased scoring and lower FG% in '93 make sense considering it's well known that fatigue was a factor coming off the back to back titles, and in particular both MJ and Pippen having played for the Dream Team. Jordan was kind of willing his team a bit more during that regular season with his teammates coasting more than previous seasons. Combine that with MJ being 30 at the time and the league gradually changing during the 90's(the influence of the Bad Boy Pistons and Riley's Knicks)
Right.


No real argument from here since as I said, I believe it was the career-threatening knee injury in '69-'70, particularly at 33 years old that ended Wilt's prime as an individual offensive player. However, I wouldn't read too much into such a short stretch statistically.
I might do a t test sometime to find the standard error, since it is a relatively small sample size.


Yes, Houston went to a small lineup during that postseason having just traded Thorpe for Drexler. Although Horry at this point was still the same player he had been before Houston went to that small lineup and 4 out/1 in approach. Athletic open court player and strong 3 point shooter exploiting that shortened line at the time.

The point is, I wouldn't really say Horry had a big man impact on games. In fact, while he was a quality player, he certainly didn't play big for his position. It seemed like a mismatch when he was guarding Sheed and Webber in that postseason. Both players dominated LA, though part of that is on Ac Green who was splitting minutes with Horry.
I know, I was just saying that Horry was a 4 and Gola was a 2. It had nothing to do with their playing styles.


Having a guy who can step in and maintain that production over those minutes is significant itself, Plus, Philly dropped from 125.4 ppg during the regular season to 106.1 in the playoffs which is an extreme example of what has always been the case, which is scoring dropping and the games slowing down during the playoffs.
The Philly one is extreme though because they faced two great defenses in Syracuse and Boston. They also changed their strategy. The league as a whole only dropped 6 PPG into the playoffs. I don't agree that Meschery was a solid contributor, it's just he didn't quite make up for the defecit that Gola brought.


A drop off in rebounding is expected when you add Wilt who was averaging 26-27 rpg from '60-'62. It'd have been surprising if Gola kept grabbing as many rebounds with the addition of Wilt.
I know... I think you are assuming I am always trying to refute your points, when I had earlier noted what you said on this was observant. Generally players lose RPG when another high level rebounder joins the team, it happened to Gola with Wilt, Wilt with Thurmond, West and Baylor with Wilt, Pippen and Jordan with Rodman and numerous other times.


This is misleading. Those 22 games came when Shaq was already on the decline and 32-34 years old. In addition to Shaq being injured during the 2005 postseason. Shaq's overall regular season numbers during those 3 seasons were 21.9 ppg and 10.4 rpg, so representing Shaq's '04-'06 play vs Ben Wallace as prime Shaq is false.

As far as the '96 Orlando series. Again, the way you posted this is misleading. Rodman was not the primary defender on Shaq during that series. He got acclaim for guarding Shaq very effectively for stretches, and rightfully so, but you can't use Shaq's numbers for the entire series as Shaq vs Rodman when the majority of them didn't come vs Rodman. I'd actually imagine Shaq's numbers were worse that series when he actually was matched up with Rodman, fwiw. As far as Rodman's rebounding numbers, part of that can be attributed to the absence of Horace Grant in the series as well as Rodman just having a great postseason.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the poster was using hyperbole to counter the hyperbole used to the person he was responding to, with the assertation that height does not mean better rebounder.

[ShaqAttack3234]

A poor example... I was just trying to point out that seemingly random events could also play into his numbers.

Yes, that's true.


The Philly one is extreme though because they faced two great defenses in Syracuse and Boston. They also changed their strategy. The league as a whole only dropped 6 PPG into the playoffs. I don't agree that Meschery was a solid contributor, it's just he didn't quite make up for the defecit that Gola brought.

You are right that they didn't get nearly as much out of Gola in the postseason as they were use to. I'll agree it's an enormous drop off, and that's a fair point about the particular defenses Philly faced.


Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the poster was using hyperbole to counter the hyperbole used to the person he was responding to, with the assertation that height does not mean better rebounder.

Probably, the thing is doing so in that way could lead to misinformation being spread. Besides, the poster he was replying to specifically mentioned 2001 Shaq, not 1996 Shaq and certainly not 2004-2006 Shaq.

[PHILA]

People mentioning Wilt's 62' season over his own 67' season just smells of ignorance really.

I wouldn't rank his '62 season in his top 5 seasons. His defense especially still had plenty of room to improve. Barring injuries, how many players peak in their 3rd season? It's like someone ranking Jordan's 1986-87 season as his best just due to the scoring average. Even on a newtork like ESPN, on the rare occassion they mention one of these old time players like Wilt or Big O, the discussion is simplified to their statistical achievements. Or the championship ring count in Russell's case. A few months ago I heard a discussion on ESPN discussing the 10 greatest PG's of all time. Not once was Oscar's name mentioned, even by accident.

[TheTenth]

I wouldn't rank his '62 season in his top 5 seasons. His defense especially still had plenty of room to improve. Barring injuries, how many players peak in their 3rd season? It's like someone ranking Jordan's 1986-87 season as his best just due to the scoring average. Even on a newtork like ESPN, on the rare occassion they mention one of these old time players like Wilt or Big O, the discussion is simplified to their statistical achievements. Or the championship ring count in Russell's case. A few months ago I heard a discussion on ESPN discussing the 10 greatest PG's of all time. Not once was Oscar's name mentioned, even by accident.
I still would rank 1962 in the top tier of his seasons. I'm not sure if it was you who I was replying to, but I feel that 62/67 are his best two seasons. The sheer magnitude of his dominance that year was off the charts.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I wouldn't rank his '62 season in his top 5 seasons. His defense especially still had plenty of room to improve. Barring injuries, how many players peak in their 3rd season? It's like someone ranking Jordan's 1986-87 season as his best just due to the scoring average. Even on a newtork like ESPN, on the rare occassion they mention one of these old time players like Wilt or Big O, the discussion is simplified to their statistical achievements. Or the championship ring count in Russell's case. A few months ago I heard a discussion on ESPN discussing the 10 greatest PG's of all time. Not once was Oscar's name mentioned, even by accident.

Great post. In the case of Oscar, the only time you hear the current media bring him up is the '62 season because he actually averaged the triple double. Yet as far as I can tell, he clearly had better seasons, including '64 which Oscar himself called his best.

[TheTenth]

Great post. In the case of Oscar, the only time you hear the current media bring him up is the '62 season because he actually averaged the triple double. Yet as far as I can tell, he clearly had better seasons, including '64 which Oscar himself called his best.
It was O's best rebounding season but not his best scoring/efficiency or passing season - the things typical point guards are known for.

[LAZERUSS]

I still would rank 1962 in the top tier of his seasons. I'm not sure if it was you who I was replying to, but I feel that 62/67 are his best two seasons. The sheer magnitude of his dominance that year was off the charts.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=080109/seasons

[ILLsmak]

lol @ originally posted by Phil Jackson.

-Smak

[LAZERUSS]

I still would rank 1962 in the top tier of his seasons. I'm not sure if it was you who I was replying to, but I feel that 62/67 are his best two seasons. The sheer magnitude of his dominance that year was off the charts.

I am really torn with Chamberlain. To be honest, he had so many outstanding seasons, that a case could be made for perhaps as many ten.

But his 61-62 season seems to have become almost a running joke with posters here. In a season in which he averaged 40 ppg in his h2h's with Russell, and 53 ppg in his h2h's with Bellamy.

And the uneducated will claim that Wilt was a "selfish" "stats-padder" that season. Here was the reality. Chamberlain came to a LAST-PLACE team in 59-60. He immediately pulled them to a 49-26 team, and had he not badly injured his hand in the EDF's, who knows?

By the 61-62 season, the core of that team had remained the same, except older, and worse. For those that can somehow muster even a pathetic argument claiming that Wilt had quality teammates (which he didn't), I ask them this: Why did Wilt's new coach in that 61-62 season, Frank McGuire, ask Chamberlain to take 40 shots per game??? (And remember, it was NOT Wilt's idea.) I will tell you why. Take a look at the 60-61 playoffs...when Wilt's Warriors were swept by Syracuse, 3-0. While Chamberlain averaged 37 ppg, 23.0 rpg, and shot .469 (in a league that shot .410)...how about the play of his teammates? HOFer Arizin managed to average 22.3 ppg in that series... on, get this,... .328 shooting. Guy Rodgers? 17.7 ppg on... and this was normal for him... .368 shooting. "HOFer" Tom Gola? 9.7 ppg...on, and you may have to look at it twice... .206 shooting (yes... .206 FG%.) The fact was, his teammates were simply AWFUL. Collectively his teammates shot .332 from the field in that series.

So, McGuire took one look at that inept cast of clowns, and decided that Philly's only hope was for Wilt to SHOOT. And it made perfect sense. In the '62 season, while Wilt's teammates collectively shot .402 from the field, Wilt shot .506. Furthermore, Wilt was probably being swarmed all season long, so his teammates likely were shooting those horrible percentages on wide open shots.

And while the "Chamberlain-bashers" love to point out that Wilt's playoff scoring and efficiency declined, they seldom point out that in the EDF's, Wilt was facing Russell, and his Celtics. In the 61-62 regular season, and in his 10 h2h's with Russell, Chamberlain had averaged 39.7 ppg on .471 shooting (again, in a league that shot .426 overall.) In the EDF's, and in a post-season that scored considerably less, and shot worse overall, Wilt averaged 33.6 ppg on .468 shooting against Russell. BTW, while Bill Simmons loves to point out how Russell "elevated" his scoring against Wilt in the post-season, he would never mention the fact that Russell's FG% dropped dramatically against Chamberlain. In the 61-62 regular season, Russell shot .457 against the NBA. Against Wilt in the 61-62 EDF's... .399.

In any case, in the first round of the playoffs in '62, for some odd reason, Chamberlain's coach completely changed his regular season formula, and had Wilt's teammates shooting more often. Of course, that almost cost the Warriors the series. In the clinching game five, of a best-of-five series, he finally came to his senses, and Chamberlain hung a 56 point, 35 rebound game on the Nats, and the Warrors escaped with a series win.

In the EDF's, Chamberlain had some monster games. In game two, he outscored Russell, 42-9; outshot Russell, 16-31 to 4-14; and outrebounded Russell, 37-20. The result? A narrow 113-106 win. THAT is what Chamberlain was up against.

And back to Wilt's defense in that series. While Russell had his swarming Celtic teammates to assist him on defense, Chamberlain not only had to defend Russell, he had to defend the entire Celtic team. In the game seven, two point loss, it was Sam Jones hitting the game-winner...over the outstretched fingertips of Chamberlain. Oh, and BTW, Jones hit was credited with a basket just a few seconds before, on a controversial Chamberlain goal-tend. BTW, as a sidenote, the 4th quarter of game four of the '64 Finals in on YouTube. With the score tied near the end of the game, Tommy Heinsohn pulls up for about a 12 footer, and Wilt leaps out to defend him. Heinsohn missed badly, but an unguarded Russell stuffed in the offensive rebound, which was ultimately the winner. So, once again, Wilt had to do it all.

And all anyone needs to know about Wilt's impact in that 61-62 post-season... he single-handedly carried his Warriors past the Nats, and then took them to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 HOF-laden Celtics...all with his teammates collectively shooting .354 from the field. Now, you tell me how that was possible.

So, yes, Chamberlain's 61-62 season was truly one for the ages. And ONLY Wilt would receive any criticism for having it. Once again, Wilt was EXPECTED to put up monumental numbers. If his team won, well, they should. The man was taller, bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic. If they lost, well, how could that happen? He was so much better than everyone else, it was expected that he could single-handedly beat stacked teams. Which, he almost did.

[TheTenth]

I am really torn with Chamberlain. To be honest, he had so many outstanding seasons, that a case could be made for perhaps as many ten.

But his 61-62 season seems to have become almost a running joke with posters here. In a season in which he averaged 40 ppg in his h2h's with Russell, and 53 ppg in his h2h's with Bellamy.

Do you have any idea why he absolutely dominated the Hawks/Knicks that year? Lovellette and Foust were injured, right? Wilt didn't "demolish" the Hawks when they had Lovellette any other year. So that would mean Pettit likely guarded Wilt some. What about the Knicks? They just had a pretty weak defense, right?

[LAZERUSS]

Do you have any idea why he absolutely dominated the Hawks/Knicks that year? Lovellette and Foust were injured, right? Wilt didn't "demolish" the Hawks when they had Lovellette any other year. So that would mean Pettit likely guarded Wilt some. What about the Knicks? They just had a pretty weak defense, right?

Chamberlain trashed the entire league that year. Here are two links that you might find fascinating...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdEpOeFRwY29NRTUtWVlFWVJ5TkFDY 3c#gid=0

http://www.nbastats.net/

On that second link...scroll down, and you will find Wilt's game logs (as well as Oscar's, Russell's, KAJ's, and other's.) Cick on that and it will bring up a spreadsheet.

BTW, I always liked this Imhoff story (and I won't take the time to look it up...so I am paraphrasing)...

Of course, Chamberlain shelled Imhoff and his other Knick centers in his historic 100 point game. A couple of days later the two teams met again. Imhoff was quoted something along these lines...

"I battled Wilt all game long. I fronted him; I backed him; I played my heart out. I finally fouled out near the end of the game, and when I came off the floor I received a standing ovation for the only time in my career. I had held Wilt to 58 points."

[TheTenth]

Chamberlain trashed the entire league that year. Here are two links that you might find fascinating...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdEpOeFRwY29NRTUtWVlFWVJ5TkFDY 3c#gid=0

http://www.nbastats.net/

On that second link...scroll down, and you will find Wilt's game logs (as well as Oscar's, Russell's, KAJ's, and other's.) Cick on that and it will bring up a spreadsheet.

BTW, I always liked this Imhoff story (and I won't take the time to look it up...so I am paraphrasing)...

Of course, Chamberlain shelled Imhoff and his other Knick centers in his historic 100 point game. A couple of days later the two teams met again. Imhoff was quoted something along these lines...

"I battled Wilt all game long. I fronted him; I backed him; I played my heart out. I finally fouled out near the end of the game, and when I came off the floor I received a standing ovation for the only time in my career. I had held Wilt to 58 points."
I know about both of those, and in fact I have done some extensive research of my own based using them that goes above and beyond what they have done. Chamberlain trashed everyone, but of course to different extents, this list is broken down on who he dominated from best to worst:

Tier 1: Knicks/Hawks
Tier 2: Lakers/Packers
Tier 3: Royals/Pistons
Tier 4: Nationals
Tier 5: Celtics

Btw, why don't you ever talk about Wilt's abuse of Bob Lanier in 71/72? It was quite incredible and I haven't seen you mention it before in detail...

[LA Lakers]

Shaq and Kobe greatest 1 2 punch?

[LAZERUSS]

I know about both of those, and in fact I have done some extensive research of my own based using them that goes above and beyond what they have done. Chamberlain trashed everyone, but of course to different extents, this list is broken down on who he dominated from best to worst:

Tier 1: Knicks/Hawks
Tier 2: Lakers/Packers
Tier 3: Royals/Pistons
Tier 4: Nationals
Tier 5: Celtics

Btw, why don't you ever talk about Wilt's abuse of Bob Lanier in 71/72? It was quite incredible and I haven't seen you mention it before in detail...

Actually I have brought it up a number of times. In fact, in Wilt's last two seasons, covering 11 h2h games against Lanier, he averaged 23.9 ppg on a mind-boggling .784 FG% against him.

Having said, though, Lanier had his share of success against Wilt, too. He even had a 42 point game against him in 71-72. However, I would like to know Lanier's FG%'s against Wilt in those two years. I suspect that he probably had his share of struggles. And Chamberlain really did a great job against him defensively in 72-73. I believe, and without taking the time to look it up, he held Lanier to something like 9 points in one meeting.

[LAZERUSS]

I know about both of those, and in fact I have done some extensive research of my own based using them that goes above and beyond what they have done. Chamberlain trashed everyone, but of course to different extents, this list is broken down on who he dominated from best to worst:

Tier 1: Knicks/Hawks
Tier 2: Lakers/Packers
Tier 3: Royals/Pistons
Tier 4: Nationals
Tier 5: Celtics

Btw, why don't you ever talk about Wilt's abuse of Bob Lanier in 71/72? It was quite incredible and I haven't seen you mention it before in detail...

Regarding the 61-62 Lakers...

I have always wondered what kind of numbers Wilt might have put up against them in the Finals that year, had his team managed to score three more points in game seven of the '62 EDF's?

Over the course of nine h2h's, Wlt averaged 51.5 ppg against LA, with three games of 60+. And how about this: Many here are aware of Russell's game seven of the '62 Finals, when he put up that historic 30-40 game. However, during the regular season, Wilt plastered the Lakers with a 78-43 game.

I suspect that Chamberlain would own the Finals scoring records had he had the good fortune to have faced LA in the '62 Finals.

[LA Lakers]

Also like to mention Robert Horry's help. Especially against the Sactown Queens. And Shaq's performance against Portland in that 4th quarter miracle comeback is the most dominant performance of Shaq's career. Dominant in the sense that Shaq single handedly put legacy on the line and said Im taking us to the Promised Land one way or the other.
Also, Kareem Abdul Jabbar 71-80 tough to top. Can't bring up Wilt's '72 season because he was already past his prime and guys like West and Goodrich and Happy Hairston were bringing lots of scoring to that team.

[TheTenth]

Also like to mention Robert Horry's help. Especially against the Sactown Queens. And Shaq's performance against Portland in that 4th quarter miracle comeback is the most dominant performance of Shaq's career. Dominant in the sense that Shaq single handedly put legacy on the line and said Im taking us to the Promised Land one way or the other.

Is there a good version of that game/quarter online?