Shaquille O' Neal Is Actually The Second Best Player Ever

[Soundwave]

Yup, I said it. After Jordan, a prime Shaq is the best NBA player ever.

Above LeBron, Kareem, Wilt, etc.

Too much emphasis is put on longevity, just because you have a longer career doesn't mean you were actually a better player. Yes Shaq didn't age that great past 34 or so, but he still played a long time, had 12+ dominant seasons, and has more rings than LeBron, Bird, Wilt, Durant, and others.

3 titles as the no.1 option + 3 Finals MVPs is as good or better than most others, there's only one other player in the modern era is Jordan.

Only player to lead a team to a threepeat other than Jordan in the modern era.

Incredibly dominant and punishing, complete game changer when ever he was on the court.

Most unstoppable individual force. If you took all the top players and put them onto one court in their primes, it wouldn't take long before it would become clear Shaq is the 2nd best player period. He's become underrated which is a shame.

[SATAN]

:sleeping

[Axe]

Shaquille O' Neal Is Actually The Second Best Player Ever

With one 3pm throughout his career? Lol.

[Soundwave]

With one 3pm throughout his career? Lol.

Are you saying 3 peat? The only other player thats been able to do that in the modern era is Jordan. I mean really I think the only players that have ever done it period as leaders of their team are Jordan, Shaq, and Russell.

Nobody else.

[RRR3]

I think he means one 3 pointer made.

[SouBeachTalents]

Peak wise? I think a lot of people would agree with that. The FT shooting is a pretty glaring flaw, but even with that he was essentially unstoppable at his peak

[Soundwave]

Peak wise? I think a lot of people would agree with that. The FT shooting is a pretty glaring flaw, but even with that he was essentially unstoppable at his peak

Yes prime for prime.

Though people act like Shaq had like 2 peak seasons or something, he was dominant for a long, long time, maybe not as long as he could have been had he taken his diet and training more serious, but bottom line is there's no player in NBA history that would want any piece of this guy from 93-04 which is a good long stretch.

He's the 2nd best player the sport of basketball has ever seen IMO.

[LeCroix]

1 MVP hurts his legacy
So does the above average longevity
So does playing on 6 teams (team jump)
So does goatbe as a #2 option

He top 5 tho

[RRR3]

Yes prime for prime.

Though people act like Shaq had like 2 peak seasons or something, he was dominant for a long, long time, maybe not as long as he could have been had he taken his diet and training more serious, but bottom line is there's no player in NBA history that would want any piece of this guy from 93-04 which is a good long stretch.

He's the 2nd best player the sport of basketball has ever seen IMO.
You should probably throw 05 in there if you’re including 93 and 04.

[Soundwave]

1 MVP hurts his legacy
So does the above average longevity
So does playing on 6 teams (team jump)
So does goatbe as a #2 option

He top 5 tho

Yeah but all this stuff is bull sh*t politics. Who's actually the 2nd best player to play in the NBA -- it's Shaq. Steve Nash and Allen Iverson won MVPs over Shaq were they actually better players ... no way.

Best career and who actually was the best player I think often get confused.

There are not 4 NBA players better than Shaq in his peak. There's only 1 and even that is because of his utility as a game closer/finisher.

[Reggie43]

Peak Shaq is the best player I have ever seen. *Was too young for peak Jordan and we barely got any games around my parts.

[Axe]

Too bad shaq became out of shape and just continued to decline as time went on after reaching his 10th year mark in the league.

Also, his career totals in blocks and rebounds could have been more for someone his own size.

[Soundwave]

Too bad shaq became out of shape and continued to decline as time went on after his 10th year mark in the league.

This stuff is a bit overrated though, he was dominant for a long enough time, it's not like he had some weird 2 year peak where he overachieved or something.

Yeah better longevity would've been nice, but he's better than a lot of guys that get ranked above him.

4 championships is still more than a lot of guys have and no one other than Jordan and Russell can say they led a team to a 3 peat, in the modern era it's only Jordan and Shaq.

It's not a weird coincidence ... the reason only Jordan and Shaq have been able to do it is because they're the two best players.

[Roundball_Rock]

I don't agree with your conclusion but I find a lot of merit to your points. I have Shaq 5th-6th all-time, much higher than most people.


Too much emphasis is put on longevity, just because you have a longer career doesn't mean you were actually a better player. Yes Shaq didn't age that great past 34 or so, but he still played a long time, had 12+ dominant seasons, and has more rings than LeBron, Bird, Wilt, Durant, and others.

He actually had very good longevity. It is funny people think otherwise. He was a top 5 player from 1994-2005 and a top 10 player from 1993-2006. He was an all-star as late as 2009. How many guys in the top 10-12 all-time can top that?


Most unstoppable individual force. If you took all the top players and put them onto one court in their primes, it wouldn't take long before it would become clear Shaq is the 2nd best player period. He's become underrated which is a shame.

I did a lengthy post on this years ago but his team's performance with/without him is staggering. We have a lot of this type of data with him because he was injury prone and changed teams a couple times while an elite player. His teams sucked, .500 or so consistently (the one--only one--exception was 96'). Kobe, Wade. Could not keep the team afloat. Conversely, when Kobe or Wade were out, Shaq kept the team chugging along at around their normal performance level.

Shaq joined a 20 win Orlando team; immediately got them to 41 wins. LA was a good team when he got there but he quickly got them to the WCF. Miami was 47 or so wins when he got there. Shaq had them at 58 wins and the ECF.

It is hard to find a player who had more team impact. He is no worse top 3-4 all-time in this category.

Ultimately Shaq seems to have the same problem KAJ, Wilt, and Russell have: their games aren't flashy. People like perimeter players' games. Hakeem is the only big man who has escaped this trap thanks to YouTube.


3 titles as the no.1 option + 3 Finals MVPs is as good or better than most others, there's only one other player in the modern era is Jordan.


LeBron and Duncan too (both have 3 FMVPs but Duncan has 4 rings as the best player).

[SATAN]

Hakeem owned him

[Soundwave]

I'm not talking about "career story" ... just who is actually the 2nd best player ... to me it's Shaq. He's a better player at his peak/prime than anyone else outside Jordan.

If you put the 10 best players ever onto a basketball court in their prime and watched them play long enough, IMO it would become apparent those two are a bit better than everyone else.

[Axe]

This stuff is a bit overrated though, he was dominant for a long enough time, it's not like he had some weird 2 year peak where he overachieved or something.

Yeah better longevity would've been nice, but he's better than a lot of guys that get ranked above him.
Lol you talk about shaq being dominant back in his days. It only makes me remember that the big nikka actually used to say that he'd rather win games than become a scoring hero in games yet still lose but when he was much younger, he was clearly prioritizing offense and scoring over equally or more important aspects like blocking, defense and rebounding. There was even a moment where hof coach pj used to yell at him, telling that he shouldn't be afraid to block a shot at all. And probably, that became a contributing factor why he and kobe often clashed about the offense back then until it reached the boiling point but we all know what kind of an immature brat the latter used to be back then.

[Soundwave]

Hakeem owned him

He didn't really. Shaq was young and Hakeem was at his absolute peak.

People act like Shaq was dominated in that 95 Finals, nope, this is this mofo's 1st freaking NBA Finals:

28 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 6.3 assists per game, 2.5 blks per game on almost 60% FG.

That's him being "owned", this is a young player in his 2nd playoffs, lol.

[FultzNationRISE]

Yup, I said it. After Jordan, a prime Shaq is the best NBA player ever.

Above LeBron, Kareem, Wilt, etc.

Too much emphasis is put on longevity, just because you have a longer career doesn't mean you were actually a better player. Yes Shaq didn't age that great past 34 or so, but he still played a long time, had 12+ dominant seasons, and has more rings than LeBron, Bird, Wilt, Durant, and others.

3 titles as the no.1 option + 3 Finals MVPs is as good or better than most others, there's only one other player in the modern era is Jordan.

Only player to lead a team to a threepeat other than Jordan in the modern era.

Incredibly dominant and punishing, complete game changer when ever he was on the court.

Most unstoppable individual force. If you took all the top players and put them onto one court in their primes, it wouldn't take long before it would become clear Shaq is the 2nd best player period. He's become underrated which is a shame.


I agree altho Lebron is in that #1 spot

[Soundwave]

I agree altho Lebron is in that #1 spot

Nope. Not even at 3 ... that's either Kareem or Wilt. Then LeBron comes after those two.

[Roundball_Rock]

He didn't really. Shaq was young and Hakeem was at his absolute peak.

People act like Shaq was dominated in that 95 Finals, nope, this is this mofo's 1st freaking NBA Finals:

28 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 6.3 assists per game, 2.5 blks per game on almost 60% FG.

That's him being "owned", this is a young player in his 2nd playoffs, lol.

It is a huge myth. Hakeem crushed Robinson and Ewing--but Shaq held his own.

[Overdrive]

Lol you talk about shaq being dominant back in his days. It only makes me remember that the big nikka actually used to say that he'd rather win games than become a scoring hero in games yet still lose but when he was much younger, he was clearly prioritizing offense and scoring over equally or more important aspects like blocking, defense and rebounding. There was even a moment where hof coach pj used to yell at him, telling that he shouldn't be afraid to block a shot at all. And probably, that became a contributing factor why he and kobe often clashed about the offense back then until it reached the boiling point but we all know what kind of an immature brat the latter used to be back then.

Sure Jackson had to tell a guy who blocked 15 shots as a rookie to block shots.

[LeCroix]

1. Leborn
2. Jerdon
3. Kareem
4. Shaq
5. Magic

Somethin like that

[dankok8]

Shaq was actually outplayed by Hakeem in the 1995 Finals. Not dominated or by a big margin but outplayed none the less. Shaq's legacy has also been somewhat elevated by his three insanely dominant finals during the Lakers threepeat but those performances had a lot to do with how weak the competition was as well. In those years the teams that came out of the East came to lose. His shellacking of Mutombo was impressive but Dale Davis and Jason Collins a lot less so. The real finals in a lot of those years were against the Spurs and while Shaq did play well at times we saw nothing like the sort of domination we saw in the finals.

I rank Shaq higher than most around the top 5 or 6 but he isn't #2 all time.

[Mr Feeny]

This stuff is a bit overrated though, he was dominant for a long enough time, it's not like he had some weird 2 year peak where he overachieved or something.

Yeah better longevity would've been nice, but he's better than a lot of guys that get ranked above him.

4 championships is still more than a lot of guys have and no one other than Jordan and Russell can say they led a team to a 3 peat, in the modern era it's only Jordan and Shaq.

It's not a weird coincidence ... the reason only Jordan and Shaq have been able to do it is because they're the two best players.

Agree. When you 3peat as lead dog, who cares about "longevity"?
In a 3 year stretch, he accomplished what most havent been able to do in 20 year careers.

Not only does he have a peak REALLY close to peak Jordan's, and on par with lebron's best, but the 3FMVPs he had in that stretch is tied for most the most anyone has except for Jordan.

For perspective, this is a list of guys who have won the most titles as the number 1 option since the merger:

Jordan - 6
Shaq - 3 (all consecutive, in a super dominant peak period)
Magic - 3 (in an 8 year stretch)
Duncan - 3 (in a 7 year stretch)
Lebron - 3 (in a 6 year stretch. Peak on par with Shaq's)

I have him 4th all time. And sometimes I, too, think that he should be ranked higher.

[Mr Feeny]

Shaq was actually outplayed by Hakeem in the 1995 Finals. Not dominated or by a big margin but outplayed none the less. Shaq's legacy has also been somewhat elevated by his three insanely dominant finals during the Lakers threepeat but those performances had a lot to do with how weak the competition was as well. In those years the teams that came out of the East came to lose. His shellacking of Mutombo was impressive but Dale Davis and Jason Collins a lot less so. The real finals in a lot of those years were against the Spurs and while Shaq did play well at times we saw nothing like the sort of domination we saw in the finals.

I rank Shaq higher than most around the top 5 or 6 but he isn't #2 all time.

There really wasn't much in it. And to get outplayed by 95 Hakeem (who was obliterating everyone) as a 3rd year player isnt really a knock.

For context, Kareem got humiliated by Moses Malone who isn't as good as Hakeem but nonetheless outplayed Kareem by a wider margin than Hakeem outplayed Shaq.

Lebron got outplayed by Paul Pierce. Duncan was outplayed by Dirk.

This happens.

[FultzNationRISE]

Nope. Not even at 3 ... that's either Kareem or Wilt. Then LeBron comes after those two.


:biggums:


You tryna see my hands bro??

[Round Mound]

With one 3pm throughout his career? Lol.

Fans of today put too much emphasis on three pointers as if you can't hit a three you no longer are a good player. Lets look at Leonard he is basically a mid range player like the old days and he has a ring as a 1st option 2019 and also back in 2014 the old Spurs with a passing game similar to the 86 Celtics where also succesfull. The NBA is not even close to as a good as it was in the golden age from 1983 to 1993.

[HylianNightmare]

Peak for peak he's up with anyone. Overall career though is just home wasting his talent

[FultzNationRISE]

Peak for peak he's up with anyone. Overall career though is just home wasting his talent

:biggums:

He played in 5 finals. 3 FMVP.

[Sulico]

Everything Shaq could do, Duncan could do better.

[Dragonyeuw]

Shaq played Hakeem more straight-up than any of the other great centers at the time, and he was still pretty much raw in terms of experience and what he would become. So while the center position had thinned out by 2000, I think Peak Shaq would have had a slight edge on peak Hakeem and would have outplayed Robinson and Ewing so I doubt his domination during the 3peat would be much different than what it was. I feel like those 2001 Lakers beat the Rockets and they definitely beat Robinsons Spurs and Ewings Knicks.

Frankly the Magic lost that 95 series moreso from the difference between Shaqs supporting cast versus Hakeems, moreso than the difference between Hakeem and Shaq head to head. There's a reason there's more highlights of Dream twisting Robinson and Ewing into a pretzel during their playoff matchups than him doing it to Shaq.

[Reggie43]

Shaq is easily the most underrated all time great in terms of how skilled he was. Extremely smart and fundamentally sound on both ends this is all overshadowed by his size/athleticism.

[Phoenix]

Shaq is easily the most underrated all time great in terms of how skilled he was. Extremely smart and fundamentally sound on both ends this is all overshadowed by his size/athleticism.

He is. Shaq always had great footwork for starters, even as a rookie. The fact that guys bounced off him when he went up for a finish overshadows how he often got into position to begin with.

[Mr Feeny]

Everything Shaq could do, Duncan could do better.

That's an insane take. Shaq was a much better offensive player.

[ArbitraryWater]

Shaq was outscored by Jason Terry in the finals by 8 points

[Mr Feeny]

Shaq was outscored by Jason Terry in the finals by 8 points

Stick to Iraqi football.

A washed up Shaq was outscored by Jason Terry.
5 years later, a washed up Terry outscored a 26 year old Lebron.

Not a good argument.

[ArbitraryWater]

washed up huh? what season was that

[Mr Feeny]

washed up huh? what season was that

5 years before you started watching basketball.

[ArbitraryWater]

nice dodge, ya bum

[Rysio]

I don't think so shaq at his peak got outplayed by his own teammate.

[tpols]

Nope.

gave inconsistent effort on defense.
hack a shaq was game breaking at times. (big weakness)
was not a closer.
Couldnt win without the best of the best SG help two top 5 all time players ~ Kobe and Wade. (while kobe won with pau who is not even remotely close to top 5 all time PF)

Shaq is on the lower end of my list with wilt and lebron. MJ, Russell, Bird, Magic, Duncan, Kobe, Kareem top 7.

[StrongLurk]

Shaq is higher all time than Kobe and Duncan. I'll never change my mind about that.

Also, Shaq DID have elite longevity. His prime was straight up 14 years long, 92-06. Yes I include his rookie year because he was dominant from the instant he stepped foot into the league.

[Lebron23]

He's top 5. LeBron, MJ, Kareem, Magic and Shaq.

[RogueBorg]

Hard to argue against most comments, but, Shaq has been the leader of multiple teams that when they got knocked out, it was by a sweep;

Orlando 1993-1994
Orlando 1994-1995
Orlando 1995-1996
Los Angeles 1997-1998
Los Angeles 1998-1999

In 1996-1997, Los Angeles lost 4-1 to Utah.

One game away from 6 straight years of being swept.

[StrongLurk]

Hard to argue against most comments, but, Shaq has been the leader of multiple teams that when they got knocked out, it was by a sweep;

Orlando 1993-1994
Orlando 1994-1995
Orlando 1995-1996
Los Angeles 1997-1998
Los Angeles 1998-1999

In 1996-1997, Los Angeles lost 4-1 to Utah.

One game away from 6 straight years of being swept.

Buddy, we are judging individuals. Your rebuttal cannot simply be the team result. You are starting to sound like the idiots on this board who keep parroting 1-9 when talking about MJ.

[SouBeachTalents]

Buddy, we are judging individuals. Your rebuttal cannot simply be the team result. You are starting to sound like the idiots on this board who keep parroting 1-9 when talking about MJ.
The big difference there is, Jordan was a colossal underdog in those series. Outside of facing the '96 Bulls, Shaq was either the betting favorite ('94, '95, '98) or the slight underdog ('99)

I'm with you, it's a team sport, but getting swept that many times when you're expected to win and be competitive is really weird

[Mr Feeny]

Hard to argue against most comments, but, Shaq has been the leader of multiple teams that when they got knocked out, it was by a sweep;

Orlando 1993-1994
Orlando 1994-1995
Orlando 1995-1996
Los Angeles 1997-1998
Los Angeles 1998-1999

In 1996-1997, Los Angeles lost 4-1 to Utah.

One game away from 6 straight years of being swept.

In 1997 and 1998, he was the only guy who showed up against Utah. In 1999, Kobe single handidly lost them game 2 (?) When he turned the ball over consecutive times with seconds to play. And was awful all series.

I don't think he played badly against Hakeem in 1995, either. Outplayed but it wasn't one sided. It certainly wasnt his fault that Anderson missed 4 consecutive free throws with seconds to play.

[tpols]

Hard to argue against most comments, but, Shaq has been the leader of multiple teams that when they got knocked out, it was by a sweep;

Orlando 1993-1994
Orlando 1994-1995
Orlando 1995-1996
Los Angeles 1997-1998
Los Angeles 1998-1999

In 1996-1997, Los Angeles lost 4-1 to Utah.

One game away from 6 straight years of being swept.

his game was exploitable, but people are enamored with the ferocity and spectacle of his buckets, but 2 points is 2 points.

GOATs dont get swept year after year like that. and he had plenty talent on his teams.

[Mr Feeny]

The big difference there is, Jordan was a colossal underdog in those series. Outside of facing the '96 Bulls, Shaq was either the betting favorite ('94, '95, '98) or the slight underdog ('99)

I'm with you, it's a team sport, but getting swept that many times when you're expected to win and be competitive is really weird

1 think I agree, for the most part. They should have beaten Indiana but the Houston and Utah series weren't so lopsided in terms of expectations.

Some people expected the young lakers to dethrone Chicago that year but others still saw Utah as the NBA's best team. The sweep was terrible, ofcourse. But if you look into some of those games, Shaq wasn't bad at all.

They got hammered in game 1 but games 3 and 4 were relatively close going into the final stretch and his role players were awful. He got 3 consecutive and-1 plays in game 4 to keep them alive in the final minute and a half, but the rest of the Lakers weren't at their best.

I remember Jerry West hammering Horry and Kobe for not shooting when they were open and instead passing the ball to Shaq who was overwhelmed down low.

[Mr Feeny]

his game was exploitable, but people are enamored with the ferocity and spectacle of his buckets, but 2 points is 2 points.

GOATs dont get swept year after year like that. and he had plenty talent on his teams.

Nobody is saying that he's the greatest ever. The argument is whether he is the 2nd best ever.

Everyone loses. His individual performances in the big games are what matter here since we are discussing Shaq, not his team.

He was the best player in 97 and 98 and they only won 1 game in 2 series against Utah because your hero wet the bed. That isnt on Shaq and doesnt detract from his accomplishment.

[RogueBorg]

Buddy, we are judging individuals. Your rebuttal cannot simply be the team result. You are starting to sound like the idiots on this board who keep parroting 1-9 when talking about MJ.

When considering all-time greats everything is considered. I have never just considered stats or rings or accolades in a vacuum. What I mean by that is you can't take 6-0 and automatically make the case that that's the best ever. Or, you can't simply take 38k+ points scored and say that's the best ever. You have to take a granular look at everything and consider everything. For example, Bill Russell has 11 rings yet he was so abysmal on offense very few consider him the GOAT. The posts here have been about Shaq's stats and longevity and I began my post by stating that "I can't argue with what's been said," but when comparing players stats, and rings, and accomplishments and it's close between the players YOU HAVE to start nit-picking. I grew up in Chicago, love everything Chicago, Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls, pizza, hotdogs, Jordan, Pippen, Rodman. The 1-9 argument is a stain, just as is LeBron's 3-6 Finals record. Conversely, Bill Russell's 11-1 Finals record is a shining light and is part of his accomplishments, but it's not the end all to the argument.

To your point, 1-9, 3-6, and Shaq getting swept is not a good argument in and of itself and that's not how I was trying to come across.

Was LeBron and that Cavs team going to beat the KD/Steph Warriors squad who some consider the greatest team ever? No way. Everyone knows that yet 3-6 is still argued.

Was Jordan's Bulls going to beat what some consider the greatest team of all-time in the 1985-'86 Boston Celtics? No way. Everyone knew that. But if Jordan gets all the credit for 6-0 then you know he's going to get all the blame for 1-9. Basketball is a team game. No one player wins or loses it all by themselves.

When comparing the greats to eachother, everything needs to be considered.

[Mr Feeny]

When considering all-time greats everything is considered. I have never just considered stats or rings or accolades in a vacuum. What I mean by that is you can't take 6-0 and automatically make the case that that's the best ever. Or, you can't simply take 38k+ points scored and say that's the best ever. You have to take a granular look at everything and consider everything. For example, Bill Russell has 11 rings yet he was so abysmal on offense very few consider him the GOAT. The posts here have been about Shaq's stats and longevity and I began my post by stating that "I can't argue with what's been said," but when comparing players stats, and rings, and accomplishments and it's close between the players YOU HAVE to start nit-picking. I grew up in Chicago, love everything Chicago, Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls, pizza, hotdogs, Jordan, Pippen, Rodman. The 1-9 argument is a stain, just as is LeBron's 3-6 Finals record. Conversely, Bill Russell's 11-1 Finals record is a shining light and is part of his accomplishments, but it's not the end all to the argument.

To your point, 1-9, 3-6, and Shaq getting swept is not a good argument in and of itself and that's not how I was trying to come across.

Was LeBron and that Cavs team going to beat the KD/Steph Warriors squad who some consider the greatest team ever? No way. Everyone knows that yet 3-6 is still argued.

Was Jordan's Bulls going to beat what some consider the greatest team of all-time in the 1985-'86 Boston Celtics? No way. Everyone knew that. But if Jordan gets all the credit for 6-0 then you know he's going to get all the blame for 1-9. Basketball is a team game. No one player wins or loses it all by themselves.

When comparing the greats to eachother, everything needs to be considered.

That's an awful post. Losing to the greatest 80s team and one of the 3 greatest teams ever when you're playing with scrubs is expected and certainly isnt a "stain".

Winning when you aren't prohibitive favourite is exactly what makes you the GOAT. We arent talking about the Warriors of the past few years. The Bulls weren't ahead of their competition during the 1st 3 peat and definitely weren't prohibitive favourites ahead of the 98 Jazz whom many thought would eliminate the Bulls.

No 1 player wins and loses by himself but you can look at that player's individual performances. When Jordan averages close to 44 points per game against the Celtics and loses, ofcourse he isn't going to be criticized.

[ralph_i_el]

I think the whole "Shaq got so out of shape he wasn't that great" stuff is a bs knock on him. Imagine trying to keep a cardio regime up when you're that massive. Your feet, knees, and back probably hurt 100% of the time. That's tough.

I read that Hakeem never had significant knee pain until his mid 30's. That had to be a massive advantage in terms of being able to practice and train more.

[Mr Feeny]

I think the whole "Shaq got so out of shape he wasn't that great" stuff is a bs knock on him. Imagine trying to keep a cardio regime up when you're that massive. Your feet, knees, and back probably hurt 100% of the time. That's tough.

I read that Hakeem never had significant knee pain until his mid 30's. That had to be a massive advantage in terms of being able to practice and train more.

I'm not even sure what difference it made. He supposedly showed up out of shape season after season in which he was almost single handodly winning titles.
"That's why Sacremento had a better record. Because lazy bum Shaq was out of shape". Then, he'd show up and win the title without homecourt advnatage.

A guy wins 3 titles and people are whinging about why he isn't going at 100% during the regular season? Lebron didn't either in 2016 and proved that he was the best player during the playoffs. The title is what they're aiming for. Making sure that they're in pristine condition come the final is their goal - not going full out for meaningless regular season games.

[Whoah10115]

Hakeem crushed Shaq. There's no myth.

The thing of is that Shaq gets his points, his numbers, no matter what. The thing about him during the great Laker years is that the impact was greater. Also true that his direct opposition wasn't good, and he got away with a ton of offensive fouls. In every sense, Hakeem outplayed Shaq...like Walton over Kareem :D

But really, you put him on the floor with all these greats and he gets away with less.

[Roundball_Rock]

Peak for peak he's up with anyone. Overall career though is just home wasting his talent

14x all-NBA, 15x all-star. He did a lot outside of 2000-2002.


Everything Shaq could do, Duncan could do better.

Duncan never came close to Shaq's peak dominance.


Orlando 1993-1994
Orlando 1994-1995
Orlando 1995-1996
Los Angeles 1997-1998
Los Angeles 1998-1999

So the NBA finals, ECF, and WCF. It would have been better to lose in the first or second round than to advance and get swept? Is it his fault his teammates did nothing in the 98' WCF, for example?

1998 WCF

Shaq 32/9/1 on 56%
Jones 15/43 on 41%
Kobe 10/2/1 on 37%
Fox 10/4/3 on 41%
Van Exel 9/2/4 on 24%

Fisher 35%, Horry 36%, Cambpell 21%. This is on Shaq? :biggums:


The big difference there is, Jordan was a colossal underdog in those series.

That is a function of seeding. Shaq didn't have that problem since he never went to the playoffs as an 8 or 7 seed. Shaq joined a 20 win team and had them at 41 as a rookie and then 50 and then 57.

Why do we keep penalizing players for taking their teams further and losing there? It sounds like (not you but generally speaking) fans think 40 wins and losing in the first round>60 wins and losing in the finals.

[RogueBorg]

Why do we keep penalizing players for taking their teams further and losing there? It sounds like (not you but generally speaking) fans think 40 wins and losing in the first round>60 wins and losing in the finals.

I understand getting swept by the '96 Bulls, but going up against Rik Smits and the 47-win 1993-'94 Pacers....really? Can't get one game?

Even the Rockets in '95, they were a 47 win team. Not one?

Hell Iverson stole one against the 56-win Lakers in the '01 Finals almost by himself.

[Roundball_Rock]

I understand getting swept by the '96 Bulls, but going up against Rik Smits and the 47-win 1993-'94 Pacers....really? Can't get one game?

Even the Rockets in '95, they were a 47 win team. Not one?

Shaq was a second year player, Penny a rookie in 95' and while the Pacers were a 47 win team Orlando was a 50 win team so there was no big disparity. Smits was the C but the second best player on the team. Miller was the best player.

The Rockets were the NBA champions. It isn't great that they got swept but is it Shaq's fault Nick Anderson pulled an all-time choke? The bigger story is they were in the NBA finals by Shaq's third year. His teams made big improvements consistently and quickly.

[Soundwave]

He's top 5. LeBron, MJ, Kareem, Magic and Shaq.

The dirty little secret -- LeBron, Kareem, and Magic are not better than Shaq peak for peak.

Longevity and all that stuff thrown in OK, but Shaq is actually the 2nd best player in that group if you take them in their primes.

[Soundwave]

Hakeem crushed Shaq. There's no myth.

The thing of is that Shaq gets his points, his numbers, no matter what. The thing about him during the great Laker years is that the impact was greater. Also true that his direct opposition wasn't good, and he got away with a ton of offensive fouls. In every sense, Hakeem outplayed Shaq...like Walton over Kareem :D

But really, you put him on the floor with all these greats and he gets away with less.

Why would he get away "with less". You can't stop him from turning and dunking. He would get his against anyone. He is probably the most difficult to guard player in the history of the NBA.

[Roundball_Rock]

Debatable. Numbers aren't everything but let's compare. One issue with Shaq it is clear cut when his peak was but not with some other legends because they lasted longer at that type of level.

Peak Three Year Run

Shaq 00'-02': 29/12/4 (1 MVP)
MJ 89'-93': 32/7/6 (2 MVPs)
KAJ 71'-75': 31/16/4 (3 MVPs)
LeBron 09'-13': 28/8/7 (4 MVPs)
Magic 87'-91': 22/7/12 (3 MVPs)
Bird 84'-86': 26/10/7 (3 MVPs)
Wilt 60'-64': 42/25/3 (1 MVP)

It is harder to parse when KAJ, Wilt and MJ had their peaks so you have 3 MVPs for KAJ and 3 for Wilt outside that time frame. Bird had a clear peak with 3 consecutive MVPs but remained similarly dominant for a few years bracketing that run.

Shaq has a case but the dominance of other players at their peaks (except one) tend to be downplayed and forgotten. With Shaq his peak is hyped but the rest of his career is underrated.

[Soundwave]

Debatable. Numbers aren't everything but let's compare. One issue with Shaq it is clear cut when his peak was but not with some other legends because they lasted longer at that type of level.

Peak Three Year Run

Shaq 00'-02': 29/12/4 (1 MVP)
MJ 89'-93': 32/7/6 (2 MVPs)
KAJ 71'-75': 31/16/4 (3 MVPs)
LeBron 09'-13': 28/8/7 (4 MVPs)
Magic 87'-91': 22/7/12 (3 MVPs)
Bird 84'-86': 26/10/7 (3 MVPs)
Wilt 60'-64': 42/25/3 (1 MVP)

It is harder to parse when KAJ, Wilt and MJ had their peaks so you have 3 MVPs for KAJ and 3 for Wilt outside that time frame. Bird had a clear peak with 3 consecutive MVPs but remained similarly dominant for a few years bracketing that run.

Shaq has a case but the dominance of other players at their peaks (except one) tend to be downplayed and forgotten. With Shaq his peak is hyped but the rest of his career is underrated.

MVPs are fraught with dumb politics, the best player doesn't get the trophy over 50% of the time, it's not a metric for who actually is the best player.

I'm talking about who's actually the best player, not even career accolades or circumstantial stuff. Shaq is the best player after Jordan IMO and his peak was a lot longer than just 3 years.

You put the 10 best players ever in their prime on a court and IMO it wouldn't take long before Shaq stands out as the 2nd best player on that court.

He is the hardest player to defend in NBA history, the most punishing. He would demolish the late 60s/early 70s if he played in that era.

Shaq is underrated period, many of the players that get ranked above him only do so because of circumstantial crap, not because they were ever actually at any point in their career better than prime Shaq.

[dankok8]

There really wasn't much in it. And to get outplayed by 95 Hakeem (who was obliterating everyone) as a 3rd year player isnt really a knock.

For context, Kareem got humiliated by Moses Malone who isn't as good as Hakeem but nonetheless outplayed Kareem by a wider margin than Hakeem outplayed Shaq.

Lebron got outplayed by Paul Pierce. Duncan was outplayed by Dirk.

This happens.

What does a 36 year old Kareem getting outplayed by Moses have to do with anything? Lebron never got outplayed by Paul Pierce in any of their playoff series.

And way to ignore the rest of my post. Look at Shaq's numbers against Spurs from 1999-2004. He didn't play badly but it's a far cry from his shellacking of East opponents in the finals.

[Whoah10115]

Why would he get away "with less". You can't stop him from turning and dunking. He would get his against anyone. He is probably the most difficult to guard player in the history of the NBA.

Offensive foul after offensive foul. He won't get away with it against peak guys.

[Soundwave]

Offensive foul after offensive foul. He won't get away with it against peak guys.

Says who? It's not like the 90s was officiated that much differently from the 2000s or 80s or 70s. And a lot of those are not offensive fouls, he's simply much stronger than other players not his fault that they go flying like Barbie dolls trying to defend him.

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm talking about who's actually the best player, not even career accolades or circumstantial stuff. Shaq is the best player after Jordan IMO and his peak was a lot longer than just 3 years.

That is why put the numbers up. The reason Shaq has 1 MVP is he was injury prone and it is hard to win MVP if you miss 12-15 games every year. 2000 was one of his rare full seasons.

Shaq's peak was 2000-2002. His prime was a lot longer but those three years are when Shaq was on another level from the rest of the league.


What does a 36 year old Kareem getting outplayed by Moses have to do with anything?

I love how he said "for context" but then doesn't mention KAJ was 36 and Moses 27 (reigning back-to-back MVP). :lol

[Soundwave]

MVP is a bull sh*t trophy when deciding which player is actually better we know that they don't give it to the actual best player.

BEST player is a different thing. First video starts slow just skip to 2 minutes in


https://youtu.be/Y0grIbJ5O-8?t=141


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj60RlGlkqc

This sh*t is ridiculous, there's never been a player that strong who could do all that and punished players instead of letting them off the hook. Some of his passes even are remarkable for a 7 foot player, great vision.

Olajuwon, Ewing, Mourning, Robinson look like children in some of those clips and these are big dudes.

[dbugz]

Can't be GOAT if you can't shoot FTs to save your effin life.

Better than LeBron though, that's for sure.

[dankok8]

To be fair Shaq should have won another MVP in 2001. Yes he missed a bunch of games but so did Iverson and it didn't stop AI from winning it that year. There is no doubt Shaq was a better player than Iverson.

The problem with Shaq's GOAT argument is that he was only really motivated for a few years. In 2002 his defensive effort already began to wane compared to 2000 and 2001. His fans like to pretend that his prime was 10+ years long because the stats are similar from 1994 to 2003 but truth is Shaq was only the monstrous GOAT-level force in 2000 and 2001. By 2003, his conditioning fell apart and we started to see a clear decline with age. In other years apart from his peak, he wasn't so interested in running back on defense and doing little things to help the team win. Some of it was surely his coaches and the makeup of the teams. The late 90's Lakers were flawed. Van Exel was a chucker, young Kobe too and there was no frontcourt apart from Shaq. Nobody to help rebound and so on. In 1996 Jordan's Bulls were too strong. But I do believe that Shaq's legacy was boosted because most of what people remember was the three consecutive finals in which he went bonkers against Dale Davis, Dikembe Mutombo and Jason Collins.

Just to be clear, Shaq would play well against any center in history. He was that physically gifted and no one could deal with him but he wouldn't (and didn't...) put up nearly the same numbers or have nearly the same impact against the likes of Olajuwon, Robinson etc. that he did during those finals.

[RogueBorg]

Shaq was a second year player, Penny a rookie in 95' and while the Pacers were a 47 win team Orlando was a 50 win team so there was no big disparity. Smits was the C but the second best player on the team. Miller was the best player.

The Rockets were the NBA champions. It isn't great that they got swept but is it Shaq's fault Nick Anderson pulled an all-time choke? The bigger story is they were in the NBA finals by Shaq's third year. His teams made big improvements consistently and quickly.

You're making excuses. They couldn't get one game against the weaker of the two Houston championship teams and you're going to blame that on 4 free throws in game 1? What about the other three games? I've heard Shaq say he was intimidated by Olajuwon and didn't play as hard as he could.

Also, the Pacers didn't have a single All-Star on their roster, Orlando had a better record and couldn't get one game. Who are you going to blame that on Stuff the Magic Dragon? This is Shaq averaging 29.3-13.2 and nearly 3 blocks per game in the regular season.They couldn't get one game against the Pacers with Rik Smits as the 2nd best player on the team? See the problem yet?

[tpols]

Says who? It's not like the 90s was officiated that much differently from the 2000s or 80s or 70s. And a lot of those are not offensive fouls, he's simply much stronger than other players not his fault that they go flying like Barbie dolls trying to defend him.

yup... he's just stronger mate.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DistortedSerpentineCopepod-max-1mb.gif

:roll:

Shaq got away with shit no other center has.

[Soundwave]

You're making excuses. They couldn't get one game against the weaker of the two Houston championship teams and you're going to blame that on 4 free throws in game 1? What about the other three games? I've heard Shaq say he was intimidated by Olajuwon and didn't play as hard as he could.

Also, the Pacers didn't have a single All-Star on their roster, Orlando had a better record and couldn't get one game. Who are you going to blame that on Stuff the Magic Dragon? This is Shaq averaging 29.3-13.2 and nearly 3 blocks per game in the regular season.They couldn't get one game against the Pacers with Rik Smits as the 2nd best player on the team? See the problem yet?

Every player has some stretches in their career where you can point to "well they didn't do good enough in that period" in terms of winning.

What was Hakeem doing for many years prior to 1994? How'd he get waxed that badly by the Sonics in 96?

I still think Shaq is the 2nd most dominant force ever put onto a basketball court.

And I think Hakeem is also another one of those players who is actually higher on a "who's actually the best player" list as well. He's more like the 6th or 7th best player ever not 10/11/12. He's a better player prime for prime than Bill Russell (era inflated) or Tim Duncan.

[Soundwave]

yup... he's just stronger mate.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DistortedSerpentineCopepod-max-1mb.gif

:roll:

Shaq got away with shit no other center has.

That are about 1000 examples where he made players like Mutombo, Olajwuon, Robinson look like children off legitimate plays, see the two videos above. Weak ass pansy era where people cry like b*tches over every little thing, Shaq would eat this NBA alive.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvmf228wvQ

Where's the foul here? Can't go crying to mommy. He'd do the same to anyone, David Robinson is not a small dude, he's lucky he didn't get broken in half there.

[SouBeachTalents]

You're making excuses. They couldn't get one game against the weaker of the two Houston championship teams and you're going to blame that on 4 free throws in game 1? What about the other three games? I've heard Shaq say he was intimidated by Olajuwon and didn't play as hard as he could.

Also, the Pacers didn't have a single All-Star on their roster, Orlando had a better record and couldn't get one game. Who are you going to blame that on Stuff the Magic Dragon? This is Shaq averaging 29.3-13.2 and nearly 3 blocks per game in the regular season.They couldn't get one game against the Pacers with Rik Smits as the 2nd best player on the team? See the problem yet?
It's just strange when you're that dominant of a player, and you're playing in series where the talent is on relatively similar levels, that you not just lose, but get swept so many times. Losing a series is one thing, and it'd be more understandable. But to get swept so consistently, when you're not even facing a huge disparity in talent, is very difficult to explain

[RogueBorg]

Every player has some stretches in their career where you can point to "well they didn't do good enough in that period" in terms of winning.

What was Hakeem doing for many years prior to 1994? How'd he get waxed that badly by the Sonics in 96?

I still think Shaq is the 2nd most dominant force ever put onto a basketball court.

And I think Hakeem is also another one of those players who is actually higher on a "who's actually the best player" list as well. He's more like the 6th or 7th best player ever not 10/11/12. He's a better player prime for prime than Bill Russell (era inflated) or Tim Duncan.

I think Shaq could have been that player. Kobe's frustration with the Big Aristotle says it all, he was too aloof. Kobe was all business while Shaq clowned around. If Shaq had Kobe's killer instinct he's possibly where you think he should be.

[tpols]

That are about 1000 examples where he made players like Mutombo, Olajwuon, Robinson look like children off legitimate plays, see the two videos above. Weak ass pansy era where people cry like b*tches over every little thing, Shaq would eat this NBA alive.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvmf228wvQ

Where's the foul here? Can't go crying to mommy. He'd do the same to anyone, David Robinson is not a small dude, he's lucky he didn't get broken in half there.


Shaq got swept out the playoffs EVERY YEAR in the 90s mate.

We know what he'd do in that era. Against legit center competition, his teams got smacked.

Even an old 6'7 dennis rodman locked his ass up.

[hold this L]

Hakeem owned him
2001 Shaq would have destroyed prime Hakeem

[tpols]

It's just strange when you're that dominant of a player, and you're playing in series where the talent is on relatively similar levels, that you not just lose, but get swept so many times. Losing a series is one thing, and it'd be more understandable. But to get swept so consistently, when you're not even facing a huge disparity in talent, is very difficult to explain

its not really though, he had a critical weakness... FT shooting and not being able to do much of anything outside 10 feet from the hoop.

A guy like Hakeem or Kareem could kill you from anywhere. It helps to conserve energy when you can hit jumpers and longer range shots.

[SouBeachTalents]

its not really though, he had a critical weakness... FT shooting and not being able to do much of anything outside 10 feet from the hoop.

A guy like Hakeem or Kareem could kill you from anywhere. It helps to conserve energy when you can hit jumpers and longer range shots.
Idk bro, for an ATG to get swept they typically need to face some laughable disparity in talent (early Jordan, '07/'18 LeBron). I'm sure there are other one series flukes where a top 10 player got swept outside of those circumstances, but this dude getting swept 5 fcking times in 6 years, only once against a truly ATG team, is unprecedented. I don't dispute what you say, but it just seems like it something that goes beyond just that

[RogueBorg]

Idk bro, for an ATG to get swept they typically need to face some laughable disparity in talent (early Jordan, '07/'18 LeBron). I'm sure there are other one series flukes where a top 10 player got swept outside of those circumstances, but this dude getting swept 5 fcking times in 6 years, only once against a truly ATG team, is unprecedented. I don't dispute what you say, but it just seems like it something that goes beyond just that

How about this, the Lakers go from getting swept regularly to winning the championship immediately upon hiring Phil Jackson.
And don't get me wrong, players win games for sure, but PJ Three-Peats in Chicago and rides off into the sunset. Lakers are getting swept. Phil Jackson rides into LA and the Lakers immediately Three-Peat.

[Soundwave]

I think Shaq could have been that player. Kobe's frustration with the Big Aristotle says it all, he was too aloof. Kobe was all business while Shaq clowned around. If Shaq had Kobe's killer instinct he's possibly where you think he should be.

Kobe is talking about long term longevity ... that's not what I'm talking about. Even Kobe basically conceeds Shaq is the most dominant player he has ever seen.

THAT is what I'm talking about.

Yes it would've been nice if committed more to physical fitness in the 2nd half of his career, but it does not somehow change how dominant he actually was for a long period of time.

It's not like this dude just had like 2 strong seasons and then nothing, he had a long enough stretch of dominance for us to see what kind of player he was. And that player is better than virtually every other NBA player IMO other than a pure prime Jordan.

He was that player, maybe it wasn't for as long as you would have liked but that doesn't change the fact that he was there.

The "top 10s" are usually ranked is not really who's the best actual player, it factors in stuff like career accolades, longevity, etc. but to me that doesn't actually tell which of these players was actually better. Shaq probably is the actual 2nd best player, if you could some how put all them in the same league all in their prime I think it wouldn't even take long for that to become evident.

[StrongLurk]

I wish the whole hype job of "98 Lakers had 4 all stars" would DIE. So many dumb young people think EJ, NVE and Kobe must have been amazing that year just because they were all stars when they have no idea that none of them should have been all stars that year.

I swear, there is NO top 10-20 player of all time who gets their pre-prime years more hyped than Kobe Bryant.

Also Shaq's in the playoffs from 94-06 put up 26/12/3 on 56.6%. How many players have that long of a dominant playoff run?

Kobe for reference averaged 27/5/5 on 45/33/82 from 00-12. How can anyone say Shaq has worse longevity than Kobe?

[Soundwave]

I wish the whole hype job of "98 Lakers had 4 all stars" would DIE. So many dumb young people think EJ, NVE and Kobe must have been amazing that year just because they were all stars when they have no idea that none of them should have been all stars that year.

I swear, there is NO top 10-20 player of all time who gets their pre-prime years more hyped than Kobe Bryant.

Also Shaq's in the playoffs from 94-06 put up 26/12/3 on 56.6%. How many players have that long of a dominant playoff run?

Kobe for reference averaged 27/5/5 on 45/33/82 from 00-12. How can anyone say Shaq has worse longevity than Kobe?

How the f**k did Nick Van Exel even make that team, lol. Kobe was voted in because the fans wanted a flashy player not because he actually deserved to be there *that* year.

[SouBeachTalents]

I wish the whole hype job of "98 Lakers had 4 all stars" would DIE. So many dumb young people think EJ, NVE and Kobe must have been amazing that year just because they were all stars when they have no idea that none of them should have been all stars that year.

I swear, there is NO top 10-20 player of all time who gets their pre-prime years more hyped than Kobe Bryant.

Also Shaq's in the playoffs from 94-06 put up 26/12/3 on 56.6%. How many players have that long of a dominant playoff run?

Kobe for reference averaged 27/5/5 on 45/33/82 from 00-12. How can anyone say Shaq has worse longevity than Kobe?
That's why I don't know how anyone ranks Kobe ahead of Shaq. His peak is clearly worse, and he barely has an edge in longevity if he does at all. I guess it'd have to literally come down to rangs

[Soundwave]

Kobe's a great player, one of the greatest offensive talents ever, that said, I feel like Shaq going to LA was a mistake.

Penny was a better compliment to Shaq and more of secondary personality. With Kobe there were always going to be problems because he was too good to be a second banana player and he had high ambitions, which were always going to clash with Shaq.

If Shaq stays in Orlando maybe Penny doesn't get hurt and they start winning titles by about 98-99.

[StrongLurk]

That's why I don't know how anyone ranks Kobe ahead of Shaq. His peak is clearly worse, and he barely has an edge in longevity if he does at all. I guess it'd have to literally come down to rangs

Kobe is ranked over Shaq because of hype.

"Kobe looks like MJ and has five rangz, he's the second best player ever" - that's literally all the thought process that occurs.

In my opinion, Shaq is in the third tier of GOATs with Magic and Wilt. Kobe is in the 4th tier with Bird, Hakeem, and Duncan.

[Soundwave]

Kobe is ranked over Shaq because of hype.

"Kobe looks like MJ so much and has five rangz, he's the second best player ever" - that's literally all the thought process that occurs.

In my opinion, Shaq is in the third tier of GOATs with Magic and Wilt. Kobe is in the 4th tier with Bird, Hakeem, and Duncan.

I think Magic is the one who's honestly overrated.

Great player, but because of his and Bird's impact on the league and his charismatic personality he gets rated a lot higher I think. I get it, it's hard not to like Magic.

Kobe is legit, but yes because of his style of play, persona being attractive to some people he's probably rated a little more highly in some circles.

To be able to score 81 points in a modern NBA game is incredible. You might not see that again for another 40-50 years.

[StrongLurk]

I think Magic is the one who's honestly overrated.

Great player, but because of his and Bird's impact on the league and his charismatic personality he gets rated a lot higher I think.

Kobe is legit, but yes because of his style of play, persona being attractive to some people he's probably rated a little more highly in some circles.

To be able to score 81 points in a modern NBA game is incredible.

I can see someone saying Magic is overrated, but he is basically the MJ of passing/floor ability. He was an efficient scorer too. Don't get me wrong, there is not a lot of difference between the best players ever.

Also to answer your OP, even I don't think Shaq is the second best player ever. I have him highest as the 4th best player of all time.

My top three is without a doubt:
1. MJ
2. Kareem/Lebron
3. Kareem/Lebron

[Soundwave]

I can see someone saying Magic is overrated, but he is basically the MJ of passing/floor ability. He was an efficient scorer too. Don't get me wrong, there is not a lot of difference between the best players ever.

Also to answer your OP, even I don't think Shaq is the second best player ever. I have him highest as the 4th best player of all time.

My top three is without a doubt:
1. MJ
2. Kareem/Lebron
3. Kareem/Lebron

The thing is I think a prime Shaq would bully even Kareem. Too strong, too big too agile for that size. And I'd take my chances with LeBron instead of having to deal with a prime Shaq.

Shaq is the most unguardable player in the NBA. There's a reason only he and Jordan were able to lead teams to a 3peat ... because they are the two best actual players.

Now people can throw in career narratives and all that other crap, but that's largely influenced by factors outside of a player's control. Shaq can't control the media handing Iverson an MVP over him even though he's a way better player than Iverson.

Peak Shaq is better than peak Kareem or LeBron. Shaq would win 3, maybe 4 titles with Wade and Bosh at the same age as LeBron and could win one with Kyrie too.

Shaq basically is the player Wilt was hyped to be, Wilt's numbers are inflated by the era he played in.

[StrongLurk]

The thing is I think a prime Shaq would bully even Kareem. Too strong, too big too agile for that size. And I'd take my chances with LeBron instead of having to deal with a prime Shaq.

Shaq is the most unguardable player in the NBA. There's a reason only he and Jordan were able to lead teams to a 3peat ... because they are the two best actual players.

Now people can throw in career narratives and all that other crap, but that's largely influenced by factors outside of a player's control. Shaq can't control the media handing Iverson an MVP over him even though he's a way better player than Iverson.

Peak Shaq is better than peak Kareem or LeBron. Shaq would win 3, maybe 4 titles with Wade and Bosh at the same age as LeBron.

Shaq basically is the player Wilt was hyped to be, Wilt's numbers are inflated by the era he played in.

Kareem vs Shaq would be a constant game of them scoring on each other. Shaq wouldn't stop Kareem either. I would take Kareem because it would come down to who has the most exploitable weaknesses, which would be Shaq (Kareem is a better passer and free throw shooter).

But again, we are talking about the PEAKS of top 5 players ever...we will eventually be splitting hairs.

[dankok8]

The thing is I think a prime Shaq would bully even Kareem. Too strong, too big too agile for that size. And I'd take my chances with LeBron instead of having to deal with a prime Shaq.

Shaq is the most unguardable player in the NBA. There's a reason only he and Jordan were able to lead teams to a 3peat ... because they are the two best actual players.

Now people can throw in career narratives and all that other crap, but that's largely influenced by factors outside of a player's control. Shaq can't control the media handing Iverson an MVP over him even though he's a way better player than Iverson.

Peak Shaq is better than peak Kareem or LeBron.

Shaq basically is the player Wilt was hyped to be, Wilt's numbers are inflated by the era he played in.

Shaq would be able to score against Kareem if they played 1 on 1 because he's just too strong but on the other end Shaq couldn't stop Kareem either. Outside of his peak in 2000 and 2001, Shaq didn't play the type of defense consistently that Kareem played throughout his prime. Shaq was lazy to run back on defense, lazy to stay in shape, and often didn't give a crap about doing small things to win. Rap music, parties etc. was on Shaq's mind as much as basketball. A guy like Kareem always had a winning mentality from day 1 in the NBA so regardless of the individual matchup, my money would be on Kareem's team to win the game between their teams. Shaq talent-wise may be as good or even better than Kareem but not in terms of results on the court. Not in terms of what they did in their careers. Kareem made more with his talent than Shaq did. It's hard to argue that. Like people said in this thread, Shaq fans like to pretend like Shaq played at his best for 12 years. He didn't. He definitely could have and he probably would have been the outright GOAT if he did. But he didn't...

[DoctorP]

he's actually not but Shaqs a good dude.

[Soundwave]

Shaq would be able to score against Kareem if they played 1 on 1 because he's just too strong but on the other end Shaq couldn't stop Kareem either. Outside of his peak in 2000 and 2001, Shaq didn't play the type of defense consistently that Kareem played throughout his prime. Shaq was lazy to run back on defense, lazy to stay in shape, and often didn't give a crap about doing small things to win. Rap music, parties etc. was on Shaq's mind as much as basketball. A guy like Kareem always had a winning mentality from day 1 in the NBA so regardless of the individual matchup, my money would be on Kareem's team to win the game between their teams. Shaq talent-wise may be as good or even better than Kareem but not in terms of results on the court. Not in terms of what they did in their careers. Kareem made more with his talent than Shaq did. It's hard to argue that. Like people said in this thread, Shaq fans like to pretend like Shaq played at his best for 12 years. He didn't. He definitely could have and he probably would have been the outright GOAT if he did. But he didn't...

He would be the outright GOAT if he could have co-existed with Kobe and took better care of his body after age 32 ... still doesn't change the fact that ages 21-31 still happened and that's more than long enough of a time span to see how good of a player he was.

It's not like he was only good for two years, that's bullsh*t. The only player actually more dominant on an actual basketball court than a pre-age 32 Shaquille O' Neal is a prime Michael Jordan. And that's basically it.

Shaq had a way bigger defensive impact than he is given credit for, just because he didn't hype up that side of his game doesn't mean just by the sheer force of his size and presence that it wasn't a massive impact. Teams played completely different when he was off the floor on the offensive end which shows how big of a difference he was down there. Teams were scared of him defensively.

[dankok8]

He would be the outright GOAT if he could have co-existed with Kobe and took better care of his body after age 32 ... still doesn't change the fact that ages 21-31 still happened and that's more than long enough of a time span to see how good of a player he was.

It's not like he was only good for two years, that's bullsh*t. The only player actually more dominant on an actual basketball court than a pre-age 32 Shaquille O' Neal is a prime Michael Jordan. And that's basically it.

Shaq had a way bigger defensive impact than he is given credit for, just because he didn't hype up that side of his game doesn't mean just by the sheer force of his size and presence that it wasn't a massive impact. Teams played completely different when he was off the floor on the offensive end which shows how big of a difference he was down there. Teams were scared of him defensively.

Shaq wasn't a great defensive player except in the 1999-2000 regular season and 2000 and 2001 playoffs. He just wasn't. Like I said he didn't run back in transition, he was lazy defending P&R, didn't box out for rebounds, didn't even block many shots. It's telling that a guy as physically dominant as Shaq never led the league in rebounding or blocks. Not that stats are best at showing defense but in his playoff career before 2000, Shaq was hovering around 10-11 rebounds a game and ~2 blocks a game. And note that even at his absolute peak when he put the effort in he's still the worst defensive player among the top five best centers ever.

Again the problem here isn't acknowledging that peak Shaq (2000 and 2001) is arguably GOAT. No one sane who actually saw him play would question that. Even though there are some holes that people can point at Shaq was insanely dominant, end of discussion. The problem is when people pretend that this peak version of Shaq was around for 10-12 years. He simply wasn't. For players routinely ranked above Shaq on the all-time list (Jordan, Lebron, Kareem, Russell...), these guys maintained their best level (which was arguably a bit lower or not than Shaq's...) for a much longer time. To be the second best player ever it's not just about how great you are but how long you maintain it. The bottom line is I would always draft any of those four guys over Shaq because over a 20 year period, I'm confident they will win me more championships. Who's better one or two best years is very subjective and less important.

[SouBeachTalents]

Shaq wasn't a great defensive player except in the 1999-2000 regular season and 2000 and 2001 playoffs. He just wasn't. Like I said he didn't run back in transition, he was lazy defending P&R, didn't box out for rebounds, didn't even block many shots. It's telling that a guy as physically dominant as Shaq never led the league in rebounding or blocks. Not that stats are best at showing defense but in his playoff career before 2000, Shaq was hovering around 10-11 rebounds a game and ~2 blocks a game. And note that even at his absolute peak when he put the effort in he's still the worst defensive player among the top five best centers ever.

Again the problem here isn't acknowledging that peak Shaq (2000 and 2001) is arguably GOAT. No one sane who actually saw him play would question that. Even though there are some holes that people can point at Shaq was insanely dominant, end of discussion. The problem is when people pretend that this peak version of Shaq was around for 10-12 years. He simply wasn't. For players routinely ranked above Shaq on the all-time list (Jordan, Lebron, Kareem, Russell...), these guys maintained their best level (which was arguably a bit lower or not than Shaq's...) for a much longer time. To be the second best player ever it's not just about how great you are but how long you maintain it. The bottom line is I would always draft any of those four guys over Shaq because over a 20 year period, I'm confident they will win me more championships. Who's better one or two best years is very subjective and less important.
You'd really draft Russell over Shaq?

[Soundwave]

Shaq wasn't a great defensive player except in the 1999-2000 regular season and 2000 and 2001 playoffs. He just wasn't. Like I said he didn't run back in transition, he was lazy defending P&R, didn't box out for rebounds, didn't even block many shots. It's telling that a guy as physically dominant as Shaq never led the league in rebounding or blocks. Not that stats are best at showing defense but in his playoff career before 2000, Shaq was hovering around 10-11 rebounds a game and ~2 blocks a game. And note that even at his absolute peak when he put the effort in he's still the worst defensive player among the top five best centers ever.

Again the problem here isn't acknowledging that peak Shaq (2000 and 2001) is arguably GOAT. No one sane who actually saw him play would question that. Even though there are some holes that people can point at Shaq was insanely dominant, end of discussion. The problem is when people pretend that this peak version of Shaq was around for 10-12 years. He simply wasn't. For players routinely ranked above Shaq on the all-time list (Jordan, Lebron, Kareem, Russell...), these guys maintained their best level (which was arguably a bit lower or not than Shaq's...) for a much longer time. To be the second best player ever it's not just about how great you are but how long you maintain it. The bottom line is I would always draft any of those four guys over Shaq because over a 20 year period, I'm confident they will win me more championships. Who's better one or two best years is very subjective and less important.

Nah I don't buy it. Shaq 99 and 2000 was not the only dominant version of Shaq, that's absurd. And he did average over 11 rpg many times in career.

So what if he didn't run back in transition a few times, that was hardly some reoccuring issue with him.

He is underrated defensively IMO, he scared the crap out of other teams and kept them out of the lane because players were afraid of him. When he would go off the court every guard/wing player and even PF grew about 4-5 inches and played a lot more free.

00 and 01 Shaq was great, but that version of Shaq is not that far above even 96 or 97 Shaq for example, it's the same player.

It's not like 98 Shaq somehow couldn't play against Kareem or something, 98 Shaq would be the hardest player Kareem ever faced in his career by a large margin.

[Roundball_Rock]

Kareem vs Shaq would be a constant game of them scoring on each other. Shaq wouldn't stop Kareem either. I would take Kareem because it would come down to who has the most exploitable weaknesses, which would be Shaq (Kareem is a better passer and free throw shooter).

Agreed. Kareem has more skills and KAJ actually had range with his sky hook. Shaq was limited to operating immediately around the rim. KAJ had a lot more ways to score on Shaq than vice versa.


Kobe is ranked over Shaq because of hype.

"Kobe looks like MJ and has five rangz, he's the second best player ever" - that's literally all the thought process that occurs.

Yup. If Kobe spent his career in Charlotte he wouldn't be considered so highly. Kobe's achievements are basically identical to Duncan's yet if said Duncan is 2nd or 3rd GOAT you would get laughed out the room.


They couldn't get one game against the weaker of the two Houston championship teams

Keyword: championship teams.


the Pacers didn't have a single All-Star on their roster, Orlando had a better record and couldn't get one game

A lot to read into a 3 game data set in the 4/5 series. This was Orlando's first playoff appearance, Penny was a rookie. Indiana beat the 1 seed in the next series and then took the ECF champ to 7. It wasn't like they lost a fluke overdog/underdog series like the Sonics/Nuggets that year or something.


Shaq is the most unguardable player in the NBA. There's a reason only he and Jordan were able to lead teams to a 3peat ... because they are the two best actual players.

Russell had an 8peat.

MJ is litigated daily so no need to rehash but Shaq threepeating wasn't solely due to how great he was. He had stacked teams in Orlando and Miami and didn't come close to that there. The difference in LA was he had Kobe instead of Penny or Wade. Sure, Shaq being at his peak was a factor but he also had very favorable team circumstances. Kobe was a top 5 guy in 01' and 02'. In 00' Kobe was a top 10 guy but they had a stronger third option in Glen Rice that year. Instead of facing a Rockets team with Hakeem-Drexler he got tomato cans with 0 or 1 superstar in the finals.


Shaq would win 3, maybe 4 titles with Wade and Bosh at the same age as LeBron and could win one with Kyrie too.

Possibly but pure speculation. What we know is he did not win with Penny and only 1 with Wade. Yeah, Shaq declined by 07' but they couldn't get out the first round as defending champs. I am sympathetic to your position but you are overselling Shaq.


I think Hakeem is also another one of those players who is actually higher on a "who's actually the best player" list as well. He's more like the 6th or 7th best player ever not 10/11/12. He's a better player prime for prime than Bill Russell (era inflated) or Tim Duncan.

Hakeem's problem (compared to the top 10 all-time) is he played for 18 years, not 2, like his advocates want us to think.

[Soundwave]

Agreed. Kareem has more skills and KAJ actually had range with his sky hook. Shaq was limited to operating immediately around the rim. KAJ had a lot more ways to score on Shaq than vice versa.



Yup. If Kobe spent his career in Charlotte he wouldn't be considered so highly. Kobe's achievements are basically identical to Duncan's yet if said Duncan is 2nd or 3rd GOAT you would get laughed out the room.



Keyword: championship teams.



A lot to read into a 3 game data set in the 4/5 series. This was Orlando's first playoff appearance, Penny was a rookie. Indiana beat the 1 seed in the next series and then took the ECF champ to 7. It wasn't like they lost a fluke overdog/underdog series like the Sonics/Nuggets that year or something.



Russell had an 8peat.

MJ is litigated daily so no need to rehash but Shaq threepeating wasn't solely due to how great he was. He had stacked teams in Orlando and Miami and didn't come close to that there. The difference in LA was he had Kobe instead of Penny or Wade. Sure, Shaq being at his peak was a factor but he also had very favorable team circumstances. Kobe was a top 5 guy in 01' and 02'. In 00' Kobe was a top 10 guy but they had a stronger third option in Glen Rice that year. Instead of facing a Rockets team with Hakeem-Drexler he got tomato cans with 0 or 1 superstar in the finals.



Possibly but pure speculation. What we know is he did not win with Penny and only 1 with Wade. Yeah, Shaq declined by 07' but they couldn't get out the first round as defending champs. I am sympathetic to your position but you are overselling Shaq.



Hakeem's problem (compared to the top 10 all-time) is he played for 18 years, not 2, like his advocates want us to think.

Hakeem in his peak is easily a top 10 player for ability as well.

Again longevity and all this other crap is fine, but there should also be a discussion on who's actually the better player, Hakeem is up there in that case.

There are a million things out of a player's control that can impact longevity (like getting gift wrapped a Magic Johnson in the 2nd half of your career) ... but you can't "fluke out" into being the best player in the world even for 1-2 years. You only get there by actually being that good.

In a 12 year stretch Hakeem's "worst" season was 21.2 ppg, 13.8 rpg, basically 4 blocks per game on 50.8% shooting, lol ... like that's his worst season in that stretch, this would be a very good season for Tim Duncan. Yet Duncan is considered better than Olajuwon. Better career, fine, but don't tell me Tim Duncan is better than Hakeem Olajuwon peak for peak.

[Roundball_Rock]

you can't "fluke out" into being the best player in the world even for 1-2 years. You only get there by actually being that good.

Sure you can: if the actual best player has a fluke retirement.


like getting gift wrapped a Magic Johnson in the 2nd half of your career

Hakeem got Drexler at the very same age KAJ got Magic. Yet he began declining the very next year.


Hakeem in his peak is easily a top 10 player for ability as well.

Arguable. Kareem, MJ, LeBron, Shaq, Wilt, Russell, Bird, Magic were all better and then Kobe, Duncan, Oscar have cases over him peak wise.

Robinson was considered equal or better during Hakeem's prime. Even in 94' and 95' Robinson was right with him in the best player debate, which is forgotten now. The other guys mentioned, other than Russell and Oscar had points where they were the consensus best player in the world.

[LeCroix]

Shaq got 1 MVP bruh

Try again with that noise :lol

[dankok8]

Nah I don't buy it. Shaq 99 and 2000 was not the only dominant version of Shaq, that's absurd. And he did average over 11 rpg many times in career.

So what if he didn't run back in transition a few times, that was hardly some reoccuring issue with him.

He is underrated defensively IMO, he scared the crap out of other teams and kept them out of the lane because players were afraid of him. When he would go off the court every guard/wing player and even PF grew about 4-5 inches and played a lot more free.

00 and 01 Shaq was great, but that version of Shaq is not that far above even 96 or 97 Shaq for example, it's the same player.

It's not like 98 Shaq somehow couldn't play against Kareem or something, 98 Shaq would be the hardest player Kareem ever faced in his career by a large margin.

I'm not saying he never averaged over 11 rpg but he generally didn't. He wasn't as great a rebounder or defender as you'd expect.

2000 and 2001 Shaq was far above any other version of Shaq. He rebounded like a fiend, was focused on defending the basket, and just generally played with a ton of effort. Shaq in the 90's had the same talent but he didn't put it all together. Don't believe me if you don't want to. I don't want to sound arrogant but I lived through this era and watched Shaq play. You are entitled to your opinion.

As for Kareem never facing someone as good as 1998 Shaq. I don't know about that either. Kareem faced Wilt when he was in his mid 30's. Ordinarily at that age, players are physically well past their prime but Wilt was an exceptional physical specimen and really took care of his body. He was an incredibly difficult matchup for anyone. Wilt at 35 years of age used to block Kareem's skyhooks out of the sky at the top of their arc. He may not have been a scoring machine he once was but Wilt in the 70's was still an incredible physical presence. And he presented similar physical challenges that Shaq does. Kareem also faced peak Bill Walton. He faced peak Moses Malone. He faced a young but athletic and hungry Hakeem Olajuwon.

[Mr Feeny]

What does a 36 year old Kareem getting outplayed by Moses have to do with anything? Lebron never got outplayed by Paul Pierce in any of their playoff series.

And way to ignore the rest of my post. Look at Shaq's numbers against Spurs from 1999-2004. He didn't play badly but it's a far cry from his shellacking of East opponents in the finals.

36? A 33 year old Kareem got outplayed by Moses and lost with homecourt advantage.

The point is that we can do that with everyone. All time greats get outplayed. Shaq atleast nearly held his own against a top 10 player all time.

[Mr Feeny]

I'm not saying he never averaged over 11 rpg but he generally didn't. He wasn't as great a rebounder or defender as you'd expect.

2000 and 2001 Shaq was far above any other version of Shaq. He rebounded like a fiend, was focused on defending the basket, and just generally played with a ton of effort. Shaq in the 90's had the same talent but he didn't put it all together. Don't believe me if you don't want to. I don't want to sound arrogant but I lived through this era and watched Shaq play. You are entitled to your opinion.

As for Kareem never facing someone as good as 1998 Shaq. I don't know about that either. Kareem faced Wilt when he was in his mid 30's. Ordinarily at that age, players are physically well past their prime but Wilt was an exceptional physical specimen and really took care of his body. He was an incredibly difficult matchup for anyone. Wilt at 35 years of age used to block Kareem's skyhooks out of the sky at the top of their arc. He may not have been a scoring machine he once was but Wilt in the 70's was still an incredible physical presence. And he presented similar physical challenges that Shaq does. Kareem also faced peak Bill Walton. He faced peak Moses Malone. He faced a young but athletic and hungry Hakeem Olajuwon.

Please tell me you arent comparing an old Wilt with 1998 Shaq.
No, Wilt at 35 wasn't nearly as much of a challenge as the guys Shaq was facing in the late 90s. Or even close.

"Wilt faced peak Bill Walton". And got swept against Walton and....no other HOF players. Meanwhile, Shaq is getting pelted for getting swept by better players. Hakeem. Duncan.

"He faced peak Moses". And got outplayed, outscored, and out rebounded both times. Lost the 1st time as defending champion in the first round against Moses' 40 win team. He isnt9 getting point for having his behind handed to him on a plate.

"He faced a young but but but but athletic Hakeem". Shaq nearly played the best version of Hakeem to a standstill. Kareem was comprehensively outplayed by Hakeem when he faced him and lost as overwhelming favourite. Again, not sure why on earth we are giving points for losing.

Shaq wasn't Moses or Walton. He was a different breed. He would have had a field day with Kareem.

[Mr Feeny]

Sure you can: if the actual best player has a fluke retirement.



Hakeem got Drexler at the very same age KAJ got Magic. Yet he began declining the very next year.



Arguable. Kareem, MJ, LeBron, Shaq, Wilt, Russell, Bird, Magic were all better and then Kobe, Duncan, Oscar have cases over him peak wise.

Robinson was considered equal or better during Hakeem's prime. Even in 94' and 95' Robinson was right with him in the best player debate, which is forgotten now. The other guys mentioned, other than Russell and Oscar had points where they were the consensus best player in the world.

Is this a joke?

You are comparing Drexler with Magic? Magic is a top 5 GOAT who carried Kareem and the Lakers to multiple titles, while winning mvps and being the best in the world for a stretch.

Drexler isn't even top 20 and has never been the best player in the world at any point in time. Never led his team to any title as the lead dog and certainly hasn't been an mvp or a finals mvp.

[dankok8]

Mr. Feeny

Your posts about 70's Wilt are pure ignorance. Not even gonna bother responding. And why don't you post Kareem's numbers against those centers in those series? And make a note of his age as well. You probably doesn't realize that Kareem in his mid to late 30's getting outplayed by an all-timer in their prime is not exactly an indictment against him but in fact proof of his greatness. Tell me how Shaq did against great centers in his mid and late 30's. Did Shaq at age 39 lead his team in scoring in the playoffs?

[Roundball_Rock]

Your posts about 70's Wilt are pure ignorance. Not even gonna bother responding. And why don't you post Kareem's numbers against those centers in those series? And make a note of his age as well. You probably doesn't realize that Kareem in his mid to late 30's getting outplayed by an all-timer in their prime is not exactly an indictment against him but in fact proof of his greatness. Tell me how Shaq did against great centers in his mid and late 30's. Did Shaq at age 39 lead his team in scoring in the playoffs?

The Moses thing is funny because we had a similar scenario with Hakeem at 36 (same age KAJ was in the 83' finals) and Shaq was similar to Moses' age (Shaq was 26, Moses 27). Here is how the two aging players fared in the two series:

Hakeem: 13/7/1 on 43%. 1 block.
Shaq: 30/10/4 on 52%. 4 blocks.

Kareem: 24/8/3 on 55%. 2 blocks.
Moses: 25/18/2 on 51%. 2 blocks.

People don't even remember let alone mention how Shaq destroyed a 36 year old Hakeem but we hear about Moses outplaying (on the glass--everything else was similar, slight edge to KAJ) 36 year old Kareem. Of course, they don't have much to use against Kareem so have to scrape.

[TAZORAC]

Aside from Lebron James, Shaquille O'neal was the only other person who you could have put anybody on their team and they automatically go the playoffs.

[John8204]

For me he's not even top twenty...I would rank him between Hakeem and David Robinson...nobody has more rings against weaker teams than Shaq. For the role he played he was very good but his conditioning makes me consider him a glass cannon. In other words he can score on any player in the league...and he can dominant for a quarter but in iso play over a game the guy would lose to the entire top fifty all-time.

[Rysio]

One on one he had the easiest time scoring of all time but without kobe or wade or guys like that great teams figure him out and he gets swept.

[rawimpact]

Hakeem feasted when zone defense was illegal...

[RRR3]

For me he's not even top twenty...I would rank him between Hakeem and David Robinson...nobody has more rings against weaker teams than Shaq. For the role he played he was very good but his conditioning makes me consider him a glass cannon. In other words he can score on any player in the league...and he can dominant for a quarter but in iso play over a game the guy would lose to the entire top fifty all-time.
No one cares about your braindead opinion.

[John8204]

No one cares about your braindead opinion.

I'm sorry you feel that way...perhaps one day you'll grow up and learn to have a conversation like an adult.

[3ba11]

He was too easy to beat and needed Jordan as a teammate to win (Kobe or Wade)

That's why Kobe is superior - he clearly proved to need less help

[StrongLurk]

He was too easy to beat and needed Jordan as a teammate to win (Kobe or Wade)

That's why Kobe is superior - he clearly proved to need less help

Yeah Shaq REALLY needed Kobe's 15.6ppg on 41.1 TS% in the 2000 finals...

Go die in a hole you loser.

[TheMan]

Yup, I said it. After Jordan, a prime Shaq is the best NBA player ever.

Above LeBron, Kareem, Wilt, etc.

Too much emphasis is put on longevity, just because you have a longer career doesn't mean you were actually a better player. Yes Shaq didn't age that great past 34 or so, but he still played a long time, had 12+ dominant seasons, and has more rings than LeBron, Bird, Wilt, Durant, and others.

3 titles as the no.1 option + 3 Finals MVPs is as good or better than most others, there's only one other player in the modern era is Jordan.

Only player to lead a team to a threepeat other than Jordan in the modern era.

Incredibly dominant and punishing, complete game changer when ever he was on the court.

Most unstoppable individual force. If you took all the top players and put them onto one court in their primes, it wouldn't take long before it would become clear Shaq is the 2nd best player period. He's become underrated which is a shame.

I've been watching the NBA since the mid 80s, Shaq is the most dominant player after MJ that I watched in that time span.