Diminishing Shaq because of his superstar guards?

[Roundball_Rock]

Shaq frequently is diminished by some because he played with Penny, Kobe, and Wade. This is particularly the case whenever he is compared to Duncan. However, is this justified? What does the record say about how Shaq fared without his superstar wings? What does the record say about how they did without him? Was Shaq just along for the ride or did he have immense impact? Let's look at the data up to 2007. Shaq played 81 games in his first two seasons and 79 in his third. He also played 79 in 2000. I will throw those years out simply because the sample is so small and I don't feel like looking up such small samples. Anyone reading this is free to do so, though. For the rest of his career he never played more than 75 games (2009).

Orlando Magic

1996: 40-14 (74%) with Shaq, 22-8 (73%) without him.

1996 is the one outlier. That is because Penny had a MVP campaign--he was 3rd in MVP voting--and also because Shaq played in games where Horace Grant was injured. In games where Shaq played but Grant did not the Magic went 8-8.

1997: 45-37.

In 1997 Shaq left for L.A. and the Magic were able to get a 17/10 center, Rony Seikley, to replace him. Seikley was not a superstar but he was a good player and the best realistic replacement they could have found for Shaq. Think Deng replacing LeBron. Yet despite that they slipped to 45-37 and were promptly defeated in the first round, although Grant did not play and Seikley went down in Game 3 (ORL was down 2-0 at that point but rallied to force a Game 5 between a pair of 40+ games by Penny). This was after making the ECF in 96' and the Finals in 95' with Shaq.

Los Angeles Lakers

2001: 51-23 (69%), 5-3 (62.5%) without him.
2002: 51-16(76%), 7-8 (47%) without him.
2003: 45-22 (67%), 5-10 (33%) without him.
2004: 49-18 (73%), 7-8 (47%) without him.
Totals: 196-79 (71%), 24-29 (45%) without him.

How did the Lakers do with Shaq, without Kobe, though? Kobe missed significant time in 2000, 2001 and 2004 so let's examine those years.

2000: 12-4 (75%). The Lakers also were 4-0 in games Kobe came off the bench, although he averaged 30 mpg in those games.
2001: 11-3 (79%)
2004: 6-4 (60%). The Lakers went 1-0 with Kobe as a reserve (he played 31 minutes that game)
Total: 29-11 (73%)

How about the Lakers with Kobe, without Shaq?

2001: 5-3 (62.5%)
2002: 7-8 (47%). The Lakers went 1-0 with Shaq coming off the bench (Shaq played 37 minutes).
2003: 5-10 (33%). They went 1-0 with Shaq as a reserve (he played 21 minutes).
2004: 5-3 (62.5%)
Total: 22-24 (48%)

Miami Heat

2005: 53-20 (73%), 6-3 (67%) without him.
2006: 42-17 (71%), 10-13 (43%) without him. 1-0 with Shaq on the bench (23 minutes).
2007: 25-15 (62.5%), 19-23 (45%) without him. 0-1 with Shaq on the bench (14 minutes).
Totals: 120-52 (70%), 35-39 (47%) without him.

How about the Heat with Shaq, without Wade? Wade missed 7 games in 2006 and 31 in 2007.

2006: 4-1 (80%)
2007: 16-8 (67%)
Total: 20-9 (69%)

How about the Heat with Wade, without Shaq?

2005: 5-3 (62.5%)
2006: 11-11 (50%)
2007: 18-17 (51%)
Total: 34-31 (52%)

Recap


1996 Magic: 40-14 (74%) with Shaq, 22-8 (73%) without him.
1997 Magic: 45-37.

2000's Lakers with Shaq, without Kobe: 29-11 (73%)
2000's Lakers with Kobe, without Shaq: 22-24 (48%)

2005-2007 Heat with Shaq, without Wade: 20-9 (69%)
2005-2007 Heat with Wade, without Shaq: 34-31 (52%)

It is worth noting Kobe and Wade combined to have three 5-3 stretches without Shaq. However, when Shaq missed double digit games Kobe went 7-8, 5-10 and Wade went 11-11 and 18-17.

Shaq managed to keep the Lakers and Heat at a high level without Kobe and Wade; they failed to do so without Shaq. Without Kobe and Wade Shaq's winning percentage was the same; without him they plummeted to 0.500 even though the Lakers won 71% of the time with Shaq during the above years and the Heat 70% of the time. Does this mean they were just along for the ride? No. As I have always noted, they were indispensable to winning championships and making deep playoff runs. However, it does shatter the myth that Shaq was just along for the ride, which actually has been suggested to some. It also illustrates Shaq's impact goes beyond raw numbers. Look at 2007. By then Wade was posting much better numbers than Shaq's 17/7--but Shaq led the Heat to a 16-8 record without Wade while Wade could only muster 18-17 without Shaq.

How "stacked" were the Lakers and Heat if they played 0.500 basketball without Shaq despite having a superstar SG?

[Akrazotile]

Shaq frequently is diminished by some because he played with Penny, Kobe, and Wade.


Stopped reading here.

That is only done by insecure Komesexuals. Everyone else knows what a beast the Diesel was.

[Roundball_Rock]

That is only done by insecure Komesexuals. Everyone else knows what a beast the Diesel was.

It is done by others, especially Duncan proponents. It is held against him all-time by some others outside of Kobe/Duncan fans: yeah he won but he played with Penny, Kobe, and Wade (sometimes they will add Nash, LeBron too since he played with them post-prime)--as if the other top players of all-time didn't play on great teams with great players. :lol

[305Baller]

It was a symbiotic relationship.

[Soundwave]

Is Shaq really diminished from anything?

Anyone who saw him play, and it's not like it was that long ago, near or at his prime knows how good he was, and any 2 minute Youtube highreel of his will put hair on any 13 year goof's nut sack who thinks he knows otherwise. Especially that dunk on Robinson in the All-Star game :oldlol:

The thing is though I think Shaq hasn't done his legacy too many favors by acting like a bit of a bit of a clown in the years since. He also probably should've retired a year or two earlier and should've taken care of his diet a lot better after 2002.

Outside of Jordan though, I'd take Shaq over any player when starting a franchise from the last 30 years.

[Roundball_Rock]

I think he is underrated. He generally is placed in the same group as Hakeem/Kobe/Duncan and it is rare to see a list where he is above Magic/Bird. His prime overlapped with Kobe's and Duncan's and it was clear Shaq was better than both of them. He also fought peak Hakeem to essentially a draw in his third year. As to Magic and Bird, Shaq won as much as they did, had a superior peak and superior longevity so why is it that they are viewed by most as being above him? Shaq is top 5 all-time on my list.

[knicksman]

and?? arent you diminishing jordan for playing pippen while you think kareem is GOAT when he has magic or bran the future GOAT with wade and bosh..Really??How low is your IQ OP. Based on your posting style, youre a loser in real life whos happiness is dependent on lebron winning.

[JT123]

and?? arent you diminishing jordan for playing pippen while you think kareem is GOAT when he has magic or bran the future GOAT with wade and bosh..Really??How low is your IQ OP. Based on your posting style, youre a loser in real life whos happiness is dependent on lebron winning.
:facepalm They really need to stop letting the special ed kids use the computer lab.

[MisterAmazing]

I think he is underrated. He generally is placed in the same group as Hakeem/Kobe/Duncan and it is rare to see a list where he is above Magic/Bird. His prime overlapped with Kobe's and Duncan's and it was clear Shaq was better than both of them. He also fought peak Hakeem to essentially a draw in his third year. As to Magic and Bird, Shaq won as much as they did, had a superior peak and superior longevity so why is it that they are viewed by most as being above him? Shaq is top 5 all-time on my list.


:applause: :cheers:

[Soundwave]

I think he is underrated. He generally is placed in the same group as Hakeem/Kobe/Duncan and it is rare to see a list where he is above Magic/Bird. His prime overlapped with Kobe's and Duncan's and it was clear Shaq was better than both of them. He also fought peak Hakeem to essentially a draw in his third year. As to Magic and Bird, Shaq won as much as they did, had a superior peak and superior longevity so why is it that they are viewed by most as being above him? Shaq is top 5 all-time on my list.

To be fair, a lot of this is Shaq's own fault.

He could have a very strong case for GOAT if he wanted it bad enough and trained hard in the summer (or at the very least kept a sensible diet).

And really Shaq-Kobe should be the GOAT duo, they had all the opportunity in the world and are the only 2 top ten players to be able play with each other both in their 20s, but they blew it because of their egos and petty nonsense.

In a way "only" 3 championships together is kind of a let down.

[knicksman]

:facepalm They really need to stop letting the special ed kids use the computer lab.

JT123 another beta bran stan to the rescue.

[SouBeachTalents]

To be fair, a lot of this is Shaq's own fault.

He could have a very strong case for GOAT if he wanted it bad enough and trained hard in the summer (or at the very least kept a sensible diet).

And really Shaq-Kobe should be the GOAT duo, they had all the opportunity in the world and are the only 2 top ten players to be able play with each other both in their 20s, but they blew it because of their egos.

In a way "only" 3 championships together is kind of a let down.

:applause:

If Shaq had Jordan's mentality he could have been close to GOAT

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Its idiotic. Just like when people diminish Kobe because of his frontcourts or Mj because of Pippen and Lebron because of Wade etc....almost every great player ever has played with other great players

[Soundwave]

:applause:

If Shaq had Jordan's mentality he could have been close to GOAT

He would be GOAT if he had that mentality. I have no doubt about that. That mentality though is exceptionally rare and can't be taught.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I got Shaq in my top 5 All Time BTW:

1. MJ
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
5. Shaq

[Soundwave]

First of all, no one hates on Shaq.


After MJ:

1) LeBron
2) Shaq
3) Duncan
4) Kobe
5) Garnett

I'd take Shaq over LeBron. Just too dominant just by being on the floor. 3/5 in the Finals is better than 2/5 too (which really came about as close to being 1/5 as you can possibly get).

[T_L_P]

Its idiotic. Just like when people diminish Kobe because of his frontcourts or Mj because of Pippen and Lebron because of Wade etc....almost every great player ever has played with other great players

Of course. But it's definitely a component of ranking players.

If one player win two rings with 4 Hall of Famers in their prime, and another wins three rings with 5 Hall of Famers, the argument swings in the latter player's favour (obviously forgetting things like statistics and other accomplishments).

The simple fact is Shaq played with more Hall of Famers than anyone else, and he had one guy who was able to score about three times as many points as him in a Finals. Did Jordan or Duncan ever have that?

BTW, I still have Shaq in my top 5. Number 6 at worst.

[G.O.A.T]

Thank you for putting this together. I had this perception, but its nice to put numbers to it. Thanks very much.

[Roundball_Rock]

and?? arent you diminishing jordan for playing pippen

When and where?


He could have a very strong case for GOAT if he wanted it bad enough and trained hard in the summer (or at the very least kept a sensible diet).

And really Shaq-Kobe should be the GOAT duo, they had all the opportunity in the world and are the only 2 top ten players to be able play with each other both in their 20s, but they blew it because of their egos and petty nonsense.

In a way "only" 3 championships together is kind of a let down.

All that is true but what he actually accomplished was sufficient to give him a strong case for being top 5 all-time.



almost every great player ever has played with other great players

Exactly. :applause:


I got Shaq in my top 5 All Time BTW:

1. MJ
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
5. Shaq

That is similar to mine:

1) KAJ/MJ
3) Russell
4) Wilt
5) Shaq


he had one guy who was able to score about three times as many points as him in a Finals. Did Jordan or Duncan ever have that?


No but Jordan had a guy who kept the Bulls elite without him (51-21 in 94' for a 71% winning percentage). Kobe couldn't do that. Wade couldn't. McHale couldn't. Worthy couldn't. Penny couldn't for more than 25 or so games.

I don't see how Wade and Kobe can continuously be invoked vis-a-vis Shaq. We saw them in several seasons play for an extended period without Shaq and both struggled to get to 0.500 without Shaq. Yeah, they won later but that was under different circumstances with completely different squads. It is revealing that both Kobe and Wade following the same trajectory after they no longer had Shaq: missing the playoffs in the first year and then struggling to crack 0.500 and losing in the first round for two more. This was with both Kobe and Wade at their peaks too.

How about Shaq when he left Penny, Kobe, and Wade? Orlando was a 21 win team before Shaq. As a rookie he turned them into a 41 win team and had them in the Finals in his third year. Shaq went to LA and made them contenders. He went to Miami and made them contenders. Only by the time he was 35 did he fail to elevate a franchise, Phoenix in this case, to the next level. What he did need Kobe and Wade was to become champions. Without them he could have teams contending but he needed them to seal the deal. Still, that could be said about almost any legend. Jordan needed Pippen to put Chicago over the top, Kareem needed Magic or Oscar, LeBron needed Wade, and so on.


The simple fact is Shaq played with more Hall of Famers than anyone else

Is that true? Also, if it is are you counting Nash, LeBron, KG, Pierce, and Allen? Shaq had them post-prime.


Thank you for putting this together. I had this perception, but its nice to put numbers to it. Thanks very much.

:cheers:

[tmacattack33]

I think everyone knows Shaq was amazing. I haven't heard many people say he wasn't that great and got carried by his super-star guards.

The only knock people have on Shaq, and the reason he isn't a top 5 GOAT, is because he declined too fast around 2004 as he started getting out of shape and it was obvious he wasn't conditioning like he should have been.

[305Baller]

I think everyone knows Shaq was amazing. I haven't heard many people say he wasn't that great and got carried by his super-star guards.

The only knock people have on Shaq, and the reason he isn't a top 5 GOAT, is because he declined too fast around 2004 as he started getting out of shape and it was obvious he wasn't conditioning like he should have been.

That and the refs made him no favors.

[Soundwave]

When and where?



All that is true but what he actually accomplished was sufficient to give him a strong case for being top 5 all-time.




Exactly. :applause:



That is similar to mine:

1) KAJ/MJ
3) Russell
4) Wilt
5) Shaq



No but Jordan had a guy who kept the Bulls elite without him (51-21 in 94' for a 71% winning percentage). Kobe couldn't do that. Wade couldn't. McHale couldn't. Worthy couldn't. Penny couldn't for more than 25 or so games.

I don't see how Wade and Kobe can continuously be invoked vis-a-vis Shaq. We saw them in several seasons play for an extended period without Shaq and both struggled to get to 0.500 without Shaq. Yeah, they won later but that was under different circumstances with completely different squads. It is revealing that both Kobe and Wade following the same trajectory after they no longer had Shaq: missing the playoffs in the first year and then struggling to crack 0.500 and losing in the first round for two more. This was with both Kobe and Wade at their peaks too.

How about Shaq when he left Penny, Kobe, and Wade? Orlando was a 21 win team before Shaq. As a rookie he turned them into a 41 win team and had them in the Finals in his third year. Shaq went to LA and made them contenders. He went to Miami and made them contenders. Only by the time he was 35 did he fail to elevate a franchise, Phoenix in this case, to the next level. What he did need Kobe and Wade was to become champions. Without them he could have teams contending but he needed them to seal the deal. Still, that could be said about almost any legend. Jordan needed Pippen to put Chicago over the top, Kareem needed Magic or Oscar, LeBron needed Wade, and so on.



Is that true? Also, if it is are you counting Nash, LeBron, KG, Pierce, and Allen? Shaq had them post-prime.



:cheers:

A few things first of all, I think teams that are built around a center are so tailored around the center that the loss of a center has a more immediate impact.

Given time to properly adjust, Kobe did lead the Lakers to titles without Shaq and Penny had a few good seasons without Diesel too before injuries completely caught up to him.

We also don't know how good the Bulls would have been in the long term without Jordan, they did have one solid season without him, but they were also a mediocre fringe playoff team the other season without him (granted they lost Horace Grant, but still). I know you will never want to admit it, but it is possible the Bulls may have played a bit over their heads in 93-94 taking advantage of some teams that took them for granted.

I think they dogged it a bit in 92-93, just wanting to get to the playoffs so they could threepeat.

[kshutts1]

? I don't understand the point of this thread. Not saying it was not a fun read, but does anyone actually put Shaq outside the top 10?

[Roundball_Rock]

The only knock people have on Shaq, and the reason he isn't a top 5 GOAT, is because he declined too fast around 2004 as he started getting out of shape and it was obvious he wasn't conditioning like he should have been.

Yeah I hear that cited a lot but is it fair? Shaq was an elite player from 1993-2006 and had a prime that lasted from 1994-2005. Magic played only 12 seasons and Bird had a substantially shorter prime than Shaq. Yet longevity is not used against them. Shaq was no longer dominant after 2005 but he was elite in 2006, a 17/7 player in 2007 who kept Miami strong without Wade and even as late as 2009 he put up 18/8 and was an all-star.


We also don't know how good the Bulls would have been in the long term without Jordan, they did have one solid season without him, but they were also a mediocre fringe playoff team the other season without him (granted they lost Horace Grant, but still).

They weren't a fringe playoff team. They were battling for the #5 seed and had a 10 game cushion on 9th place (they were 3 games out of 5th and 6 games out of 3rd/the division lead). Not great--but that was better than Kobe without Shaq and Wade without Shaq and that was after losing Jordan and Grant. How does 1995 help the argument ? They lost both their best player and third best player--did not replace either with any legitimate replacement--and were still a 5th-6th place team. That is like the Heat losing LeBron, Bosh and filling LeBron's spot with a D-leaguer and still remaining a 45 or so win team.

What is with the MJ stan talking point that teams did not take them seriously? They were at or near the top of the standings practically all season (by Christmas they were right in it for the #1 spot). If they started out hot and then cooled off like the 13' Knicks that would have some validity but actually the worst part of the season was the early part (they started out 4-7). The Bulls actually had a better record against elite teams than the Knicks did. No one looked past them as a non-contender because they could see the standings and the production on the court. To the exent that did happen, it would have been early in the season when Pippen was out and the Bulls struggled anyway.

Why are MJ stans obsessed with diminishing the 94' Bulls? That same basic group, with the only significant change being Rodman replacing Grant, won 72 games with MJ in 96'.

How about Chicago without Pippen, with Jordan? In 98' they went 24-11. That is comparable (actually slightly worse by 2-3%) to Pippen going 51-21 in 94'. Now compare that to the disparities in Shaq without Kobe/Wade and Kobe/Wade without Shaq.

Here is what Chicago did when Pippen missed more than 5 games:

1989: 4-5
1994: 4-6 (while playing the softest part of their schedule)
1998: 24-11 (they should have been 29-6 if they maintained their 97' winning percentage)

In terms of an 82 game pace they were +12 with Pippen in 89', +25 in 94' and +11 in 98'.


Given time to properly adjust, Kobe did lead the Lakers to titles without Shaq and Penny had a few good seasons without Diesel too before injuries completely caught up to him.

Penny had one elite individual season without Shaq, 97', and even then lost in the first round. After that, unfortunately, he was a shell due to injuries. Orlando as a team was irrelevant for a decade after Shaq left until Howard arrived.

The Lakers did not become competitive again until 2008--4 years after Shaq left. The Heat were nowhere until LeBron as well.

Your theory regarding centers is interesting. I wonder what the data would show if one looked at other great centers.


I don't understand the point of this thread. Not saying it was not a fun read, but does anyone actually put Shaq outside the top 10?

He is underrated relative to his resume. He is on the level of Bird/Magic--and slightly ahead of them imo--but most people have Shaq below them and in the Hakeem/Duncan/Kobe tier.

[magnax1]

Idk if anyone credible has really said this. I mean, no one thinks Shaq was the reason they won that championship in Miami, but the only people who say anything about him having so much help or being a second option are just kobe stans. Most people agree that he's had the best prime since Jordans retirement.

[SHAQisGOAT]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[ILLsmak]

He would be GOAT if he had that mentality. I have no doubt about that. That mentality though is exceptionally rare and can't be taught.

Shaq out-alpha'd MJ though. He kept him out of the paint cuz he didn't wanna run into the big man.

Shaq was extremely driven. The part he missed was the whole 'beating a dead horse' winning. Like nah I wanna win AGAIN. It is human nature to let other people win or ease up... some people live for the excitement of competition. Some people live for winning.

Shaq would never have been GOAT IMO and I don't think he underachieved. The Kobe situation was just 'something that happened' and I'm a huge Shaq fan. I don't think it ended anything prematurely. 3 peat is good enough. Maybe MJ wasn't any more driven than Shaq... but he just got re-focused when he quit.

If anything, Shaq got bored... but MJ is an outlier. Think about Kobe and Bron. Kobe and Bron both have endorsements, but will they be relevant after the NBA, as people? I don't know. MJ isn't, but MJ is still 'teh god.' So he stays on people's minds. Shaq, however, is. Shaq has a charisma that can't be taught... that's why his objectively bad jokes still tend to make you laugh. There's something like "It's just yaboy Shaq" about him. That also cannot be taught.

He had hype, but I think he made his brand. He did work. MJ is MJ. Look at what Bron is trying to do and compare it to what Shaq did as a non-MJ and player that few could relate to physically.

Lastly, I think people saying Shaq retired too late were just haters. People were so mad at Shaq, moreso than probably MJ. Why? I dunno. I guess people felt he didn't take his life seriously enough, but looking at it from my angle, I think that's bullshit.

Looking back and saying, "I coulda won 6 rings instead of 4." Obviously, more rings is better, but the fact that he largely lived his life, was a goofball, maybe put in a lot more weightroom work than we think, but didn't let it dominate his life... I think that's GG. He did him.

-Smak

[Roundball_Rock]

Lastly, I think people saying Shaq retired too late were just haters.

He was a legitimate all-star in his 17th season. People underrate his longevity. His last two years were bad but he remained elite in his 14th season and had all-star production in years 15 and 17. Why retire when you are still productive? It was only in Boston in his 19th season that he was not productive at all.

[Anaximandro1]

TOP 5

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Wilt
4. Kareem
5. Duncan


Shaq frequently is diminished by some because he played with Penny, Kobe, and Wade. This is particularly the case whenever he is compared to Duncan...

Shaq was undoubtedly a great player, but he always had margin for error.

elite teams routinely exposed the Spurs' severe lack of perimeter punch. Tim Duncan never had margin for error after the first round.

Although things gradually improved with Manu and Parker, the Spurs' perimeter still lagged behind their counterparts at the end of Duncan's prime. They won 4 titles from 1999 to 2007 because, among other things, # 21 could squeeze water out stone. Tim was a better basketball player than Shaq.. Simple as that.


1) 2007 - Duncan's fourth ring

He delivered the goods in the real NBA Finals

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TxngChhWlH4/U7lZqiJMMiI/AAAAAAAADOo/a2U5ddsDOd0/s1600/8.jpg



2) 2006 - Shaq's fourth ring

Duncan never had the luxury of playing with Wade.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xbjixVTc4PU/U7lZqAs04CI/AAAAAAAADOk/1s3uMKa2z9o/s1600/7.jpg


Do you know what happened in the Western Conference Semifinals ? The Mavs' perimeter had more firepower.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--PZT25MK2-4/U70q1_PmdVI/AAAAAAAADSQ/EkgRKAgq8Ik/s1600/10.jpg



3) 2005 - Duncan's third ring

The numbers speak for themselves.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bD4AmGLi6zU/U8s6MFmnshI/AAAAAAAADX0/7jnFSZH1GVk/s1600/1.jpg


4) 2004

Duncan outscored the Lakers 8

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Nah, I think the platform was set for Shaq.

He was immediately post-MJ when the world was looking for another. His peak came when the internet really started to become popular (if I'm remembering correctly, right around the new millennium, no?). His peak also came when the center position started to die down, but he played well enough against the likes of Hakeem, Ewing, DRob, etc that you could always point to it. And he landed in a situation where he could have dominated the league in terms of winning, and do so in what used to be the biggest market in the NBA at that time.

It was there for the taking, imo. But he still had a great career anyway.

[mehyaM24]

Of course. But it's definitely a component of ranking players.

If one player win two rings with 4 Hall of Famers in their prime, and another wins three rings with 5 Hall of Famers, the argument swings in the latter player's favour (obviously forgetting things like statistics and other accomplishments).

The simple fact is Shaq played with more Hall of Famers than anyone else, and he had one guy who was able to score about three times as many points as him in a Finals. Did Jordan or Duncan ever have that?

BTW, I still have Shaq in my top 5. Number 6 at worst.

actually, no, the simple fact is from top to bottom, shaq didnt get to play on stacked teams like duncan or jordan did.

if shaq played in the spurs system (est. 1998), he would be sitting on 6-7 chips right now.

fact

[sportjames23]

The gall of OP. He's usually one of ones here who diminishes MJ because of his superstar small forward. :facepalm

[Mure]

I have Shaq number 5.

MJ
KAJ
Wilt
Magic
Shaq

[T_L_P]

actually, no, the simple fact is from top to bottom, shaq didnt get to play on stacked teams like duncan or jordan did.

if shaq played in the spurs system (est. 1998), he would be sitting on 6-7 chips right now.

fact

Of course he would. :oldlol:

[SHAQisGOAT]

He was a legitimate all-star in his 17th season. People underrate his longevity. His last two years were bad but he remained elite in his 14th season and had all-star production in years 15 and 17. Why retire when you are still productive? It was only in Boston in his 19th season that he was not productive at all.

Well said

[ImKobe]

What? If anything, no one ever diminishes him for playing with those guys. He is considered top 5-7 GOAT by most posters, which is very generous considering the amount of help he had for his championships.

How many threads on ISH talk about Shaq's help for his 4 titles? YOu might get a rare thread once in a month...

[Roundball_Rock]

Shaq was undoubtedly a great player, but he always had margin for error.

Relative to Duncan but relative to who else? Shaq had 7 game WCF's in 2000 and 2002. Had Shaq not been his dominant self Portland and Sacremento would have won rings.


Duncan never had the luxury of playing with Wade.


Where was Wade without Shaq? Meanwhile, Shaq did fine without Wade while on the Heat.

Props to you for doing research and presenting facts, though, Anaximandro1. :cheers:


He's usually one of ones here who diminishes MJ because of his superstar small forward.

When and where? MJ stans are the ones who invoke this issue by constantly pointing out the superstars other legends have played with, i.e. KAJ with Magic, Kobe with Shaq, LeBron with Wade. It is only natural for people to then examine what MJ himself did without his superstar teammate. No one diminishes MJ for playing with Pippen.


which is very generous considering the amount of help he had for his championships.

How did he have more help than other greats? This is what I was getting at. People act as if Shaq had unusually great help relative to other legends.

[ILLsmak]

He was a legitimate all-star in his 17th season. People underrate his longevity. His last two years were bad but he remained elite in his 14th season and had all-star production in years 15 and 17. Why retire when you are still productive? It was only in Boston in his 19th season that he was not productive at all.

You mean on PHX? Yeah, he balled. He was able to be productive as a big body. If he wouldn't have gotten injured, he could have played much longer as just an enforcer. For some reason, he wanted to. He was as good as Perk even in his last year... and that's a compliment because I like Perk.

But people are mad. They hate Shaq. Say the same shit "Shaq was a liability." It's like ok...

Edit: Also Shaq's 2000 ring is just as valuable, in my eyes, as any "won by self" rings. He was in the paint with AC Green. lol. That team was not a playoff team without him, realtalk.

-Smak

[Roundball_Rock]

You mean on PHX? Yeah, he balled. He was able to be productive as a big body. If he wouldn't have gotten injured, he could have played much longer as just an enforcer. For some reason, he wanted to. He was as good as Perk even in his last year... and that's a compliment because I like Perk.

But people are mad. They hate Shaq. Say the same shit "Shaq was a liability." It's like ok...

Edit: Also Shaq's 2000 ring is just as valuable, in my eyes, as any "won by self" rings. He was in the paint with AC Green. lol. That team was not a playoff team without him, realtalk.

-Smak

:applause:

Think about it...Shaq was a legitimate all-star in his 17th season. MJ played a total of 15 years; Magic 13, and that is if you count their partial comeback seasons. MJ was an all-star his first year in Washington and a borderline one in his second. Bird played 13 seasons and had a prime from 1980-1988. Magic's prime was from 1982-1991. MJ's was from 1987-1993 and 1996-1998. Shaq's prime was from 1994-2005 and he played for 19 seasons, 16 of them being quality years and 13 of them at a top 5 player level. Yet people hold longevity against Shaq and never say anything about Magic and Bird or even MJ, relative to Shaq, in this regard? The guy was a top 5 player as long as Magic and Bird played in total and was a top 10 player as long as Jordan played in total.

[GODbe]

He needed the top 2 all-time shooting guards in their pre-prime/prime states to win his rings. Godbe only needed a top 5 and later a top 30 center.:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[JtotheIzzo]

Shaq frequently is diminished by some because he played with Penny, Kobe, and Wade.

Only Kobetards do that and the only time it holds water was his last chip in Miami.

[GimmeThat]

He isn't diminished by anything when his FT% is horrendous

[Da_Realist]

Shaq at his best was the more dominant player, for sure. With his size and talent, he was capable of anchoring more dominant teams. Add a guy or two that can make the defense pay for focusing on Shaq along with some effort guys and you got a team capable of winning the title. Add an elite talent with him and you will have an elite team.

Duncan, because he was more consistent with his effort, took off-season training more seriously, had a less polar personality with no less of a competitive drive and a bigger focus on defense (which keeps his teams in games when he isn't putting up 40/20 nights), has been able to challenge for more championships. Dominant for a 8 or 9 year stretch vs consistently great (or good enough) for 15. Their careers played out like they should have. Shaq left a huge footprint and dominated the league for a stretch while Tim Duncan quietly made more Finals and has more rings over a longer stretch.

Tim Duncan is a textbook example of why we shouldn't be so quick to determine "legacy". At the end of the 2002 season, Shaq had 3 rings to Duncan's 1. Duncan has won 4 titles and 2 Finals MVP's since then with an excellent chance to win again next year.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

[QUOTE=Anaximandro1]TOP 5




Shaq was undoubtedly a great player, but he always had margin for error.

elite teams routinely exposed the Spurs' severe lack of perimeter punch. Tim Duncan never had margin for error after the first round.

Although things gradually improved with Manu and Parker, the Spurs' perimeter still lagged behind their counterparts at the end of Duncan's prime. They won 4 titles from 1999 to 2007 because, among other things, # 21 could squeeze water out stone. Tim was a better basketball player than Shaq.. Simple as that.


1) 2007 - Duncan's fourth ring

He delivered the goods in the real NBA Finals

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TxngChhWlH4/U7lZqiJMMiI/AAAAAAAADOo/a2U5ddsDOd0/s1600/8.jpg



2) 2006 - Shaq's fourth ring

Duncan never had the luxury of playing with Wade.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xbjixVTc4PU/U7lZqAs04CI/AAAAAAAADOk/1s3uMKa2z9o/s1600/7.jpg


Do you know what happened in the Western Conference Semifinals ? The Mavs' perimeter had more firepower.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--PZT25MK2-4/U70q1_PmdVI/AAAAAAAADSQ/EkgRKAgq8Ik/s1600/10.jpg



3) 2005 - Duncan's third ring

The numbers speak for themselves.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bD4AmGLi6zU/U8s6MFmnshI/AAAAAAAADX0/7jnFSZH1GVk/s1600/1.jpg


4) 2004

Duncan outscored the Lakers 8

[Tainted Sword]

People need to get off Duncan's d*ck. Foreal, shit is disgusting.

Shaq 3 finals mvps
Duncan 3 Finals mvps

Let's stop pretending Duncan was the sole reason the Spurs won this year. He was a cog on a very well rounded team.

[Tainted Sword]

Greatest post I've ever read. All anyone needs to do is read this post to see that Duncan is clearly a top 5 player of all time. Outplayed Shaq every time they met and only lost because Shaq had tons more help. Duncan has pretty much never been outplayed in his career, his teammates often times are just outmatched. If Duncan had as much help throughout his career as the other top 10 players, he'd have 10+ rings easily.
Wipe your face, homer.

[JellyBean]

:facepalm They really need to stop letting the special ed kids use the computer lab.

:roll:

[Roundball_Rock]

Tim Duncan is a textbook example of why we shouldn't be so quick to determine "legacy". At the end of the 2002 season, Shaq had 3 rings to Duncan's 1. Duncan has won 4 titles and 2 Finals MVP's since then with an excellent chance to win again next year.

Exactly. :lol at people making declarations about LeBron when the guy is only 29.

[Dresta]

Shaq frequently is diminished by some because he played with Penny, Kobe, and Wade. This is particularly the case whenever he is compared to Duncan. However, is this justified? What does the record say about how Shaq fared without his superstar wings? What does the record say about how they did without him? Was Shaq just along for the ride or did he have immense impact? Let's look at the data up to 2007. Shaq played 81 games in his first two seasons and 79 in his third. He also played 79 in 2000. I will throw those years out simply because the sample is so small and I don't feel like looking up such small samples. Anyone reading this is free to do so, though. For the rest of his career he never played more than 75 games (2009).

Orlando Magic

1996: 40-14 (74%) with Shaq, 22-8 (73%) without him.

1996 is the one outlier. That is because Penny had a MVP campaign--he was 3rd in MVP voting--and also because Shaq played in games where Horace Grant was injured. In games where Shaq played but Grant did not the Magic went 8-8.

1997: 45-37.

In 1997 Shaq left for L.A. and the Magic were able to get a 17/10 center, Rony Seikley, to replace him. Seikley was not a superstar but he was a good player and the best realistic replacement they could have found for Shaq. Think Deng replacing LeBron. Yet despite that they slipped to 45-37 and were promptly defeated in the first round, although Grant did not play and Seikley went down in Game 3 (ORL was down 2-0 at that point but rallied to force a Game 5 between a pair of 40+ games by Penny). This was after making the ECF in 96' and the Finals in 95' with Shaq.

Los Angeles Lakers

2001: 51-23 (69%), 5-3 (62.5%) without him.
2002: 51-16(76%), 7-8 (47%) without him.
2003: 45-22 (67%), 5-10 (33%) without him.
2004: 49-18 (73%), 7-8 (47%) without him.
Totals: 196-79 (71%), 24-29 (45%) without him.

How did the Lakers do with Shaq, without Kobe, though? Kobe missed significant time in 2000, 2001 and 2004 so let's examine those years.

2000: 12-4 (75%). The Lakers also were 4-0 in games Kobe came off the bench, although he averaged 30 mpg in those games.
2001: 11-3 (79%)
2004: 6-4 (60%). The Lakers went 1-0 with Kobe as a reserve (he played 31 minutes that game)
Total: 29-11 (73%)

How about the Lakers with Kobe, without Shaq?

2001: 5-3 (62.5%)
2002: 7-8 (47%). The Lakers went 1-0 with Shaq coming off the bench (Shaq played 37 minutes).
2003: 5-10 (33%). They went 1-0 with Shaq as a reserve (he played 21 minutes).
2004: 5-3 (62.5%)
Total: 22-24 (48%)

Miami Heat

2005: 53-20 (73%), 6-3 (67%) without him.
2006: 42-17 (71%), 10-13 (43%) without him. 1-0 with Shaq on the bench (23 minutes).
2007: 25-15 (62.5%), 19-23 (45%) without him. 0-1 with Shaq on the bench (14 minutes).
Totals: 120-52 (70%), 35-39 (47%) without him.

How about the Heat with Shaq, without Wade? Wade missed 7 games in 2006 and 31 in 2007.

2006: 4-1 (80%)
2007: 16-8 (67%)
Total: 20-9 (69%)

How about the Heat with Wade, without Shaq?

2005: 5-3 (62.5%)
2006: 11-11 (50%)
2007: 18-17 (51%)
Total: 34-31 (52%)

Why do you keep posting these simplistic and idiotic threads that ignore the plethora of other factors at play than just one guy being out for so many games? Lets take a look at those 5 games Shaq played without Wade in 06:

Game 1: blowout loss against Pheonix (only good or average team played over without Wade), Shaq 8 points and 4 fouls in 23 minutes: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=260106021

Game 2: Close win against the 11-33 Bobcats (at the time), Shaq with 23/7/5/3 http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=260127030

Game 3: 2 point win over the 19-39 Hawks, Shaq fouled out and had 5 TO's in 26 mins: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=260304014

Game 4: Miami scrape overtime win over the 16-45 Bobcats, Shaq with his only really dominant game without Wade 35/12/3: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=260306030

Game 5: Single digit win against the 26-52 Raptors, Shaq with 15/11/10, Toine with 32/8/5: http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=260411014

So yeah, Miami did have a good record without Wade and with Shaq in 06, but all 4 wins came against absolutely terrible teams, one of which he fouled out against. I don't have time to go through 06/07, but Shaq played less than half of it, and played only 28mpg in the games he did play, so granting him all the credit for Miami's end of season improvement is idiotic. The whole team was utterly lacklustre the first half of the season (aside from Wade) as they were a bunch of old vets who just won their first chip.

Basically, just cut out the reductionist bullshit, it's tedious to the extreme.