Why was Kobe ranked over Shaq post Death??

[Lebron23]

Shaq was a better player than Kobe. Won more Finals MVP, and put up better stats in the NBA Finals than Kobe.

[Kblaze8855]

https://youtu.be/p6TrQzNTrRA



https://www.hostpic.org/images/2303120411450110.jpeg

[Kblaze8855]

That said there has been an inevitable shift towards recognizing great guards over bigs. Younger generations don’t respect the old ways of playing. It’s natural. People always rep whatever style they associate with their day. And Shaqs style is long gone.

[Lebron23]

https://youtu.be/p6TrQzNTrRA



https://www.hostpic.org/images/2303120411450110.jpeg

True. ESPN, Slam, and NBC ranked Kobe over Shaq. But watching their careers Shaq was just a better basketball player than Kobe. Shaq elevated his game in the playoffs.

[Lebron23]

Shaquille O'Neal averaged 33.6 points, 14.1 rebounds and 3.1 assists in 20 games for the Lakers in the NBA Finals in his career.


Kobe Bryant averaged 24.5 points, 5.4 rebounds and 5.1 assists in 14 games in the NBA Finals between the 2000-01 and 2003-04 seasons.

https://scontent.fmnl4-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/335328093_1115395149310358_5721346073834479878_n.j pg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=6LL9MNJ6LF8AX8ZQhqM&_nc_ht=scontent.fmnl4-2.fna&oh=00_AfBm_CVWvi9hR-3GJ4aZxA9JRbdyiK2ae45h3LoawKu9Ug&oe=641245E7

[John8204]

Kobe is higher ranked in his position than Shaq is, Shaq also ring chased for his career and only ended up with four...Kobe stuck around with one team and won five.

[kawhileonard2]

It was a way to hype up Lebron after losing to every elite big in his era with HCA at that. Dwight, KG, Dirk, Duncan, Kawhi and then some other guards like Booker who broke him and Steph.

[Hey Yo]

Kobe is higher ranked in his position than Shaq is, Shaq also ring chased for his career and only ended up with four...Kobe stuck around with one team and won five.

Kobe was ring chasing before he was even drafted. Refused to sign with the lottery Nets

[ImKobe]

Kobe's been ranked ahead of Shaq since like '09 lol.. He literally won the 2000s decade poll by a landslide and Shaq wasn't even 2nd in it.

KB won 2 as the best player without Shaq while Shaq never won as the guy without KB & has less rings despite ring chasing.

[Kblaze8855]

Shaq peaked the first year of the 2000s and declined from 03 or so. Miami Shaq even as mvp runner up wasn’t Orlando Shaq never mind lakers. Us being obsessed with 10 year runs ending in zero doesn’t make those more significant periods of time. Being the best of the 2000s means no more than being best 94-03.

[Wally450]

Kobe's been ranked ahead of Shaq since like '09 lol.. He literally won the 2000s decade poll by a landslide and Shaq wasn't even 2nd in it.

KB won 2 as the best player without Shaq while Shaq never won as the guy without KB & has less rings despite ring chasing.

While having another reliable big man in Pau Gasol. Someone who should've realistically won the FMVP on 2010.

[ImKobe]

While having another reliable big man in Pau Gasol. Someone who should've realistically won the FMVP on 2010.

No he shouldn't have. KB had the better numbers. You only remember Game 7 but overlook how bad Pau was on the road in that series. KB was more consistent and by far the best player on the team in those runs. Pau was a 1x All-Star with 0 Playoff wins before joining KB. I love how the haters still act as if Pau was anything but a #2 on that team.

[ShawkFactory]

Shaq peaked the first year of the 2000s and declined from 03 or so. Miami Shaq even as mvp runner up wasn’t Orlando Shaq never mind lakers. Us being obsessed with 10 year runs ending in zero doesn’t make those more significant periods of time. Being the best of the 2000s means no more than being best 94-03.

Yea I never understood this. Kobe’s prime aligning perfectly from 2000-2010 doesn’t make him better than someone who’s didn’t.

It’s not an argument.

[John8204]

While having another reliable big man in Pau Gasol. Someone who should've realistically won the FMVP on 2010.

Shaq tried coattailing 3 MVP's (Nash, Lebron, KG) along with Wade (overrated but higher rated than Gasol)


Kobe was ring chasing before he was even drafted. Refused to sign with the lottery Nets

Jerry West was like a father to him, it wasn't about rings it was about going to the basketball GOAT

[Johnny32]

idk but i'd rather talk about kamikaze pharmaceutical pilots.

[Manny98]

I've always had Kobe ranked ahead of Shaq

Shaq had the better peak but Kobe had the better overall career

[StrongLurk]

Kobe was simply more exciting for the average fan...that's it.

His career is in no way DEFINITELY better than Shaq or even Duncan's. Shaq and Duncan were winning MVPs/FMVPs WAY before Kobe was.

[Soundwave]

Kobe was simply more exciting for the average fan...that's it.

His career is in no way DEFINITELY better than Shaq or even Duncan's. Shaq and Duncan were winning MVPs/FMVPs WAY before Kobe was.

To be honest you can say the same about Bird and Magic ... why are they defacto ranked over guys like Shaq and Duncan? Because they "saved the NBA" and they have a fun dynamic.

[SouBeachTalents]

To be honest you can say the same about Bird and Magic ... why are they defacto ranked over guys like Shaq and Duncan? Because they "saved the NBA" and they have a fun dynamic.
I have Shaq & Duncan ranked over Magic & Bird.

[Axe]

Kobe was simply more exciting for the average fan...that's it.

His career is in no way DEFINITELY better than Shaq or even Duncan's. Shaq and Duncan were winning MVPs/FMVPs WAY before Kobe was.
This. He was a flashy player when he entered the league bt.

[John8204]

I have Shaq & Duncan ranked over Magic & Bird.

https://gifdb.com/images/high/kristen-wiig-no-way-wow-kays2mhz2ziikd2d.gif

Two of the most consistent well rounded players of a decade aren't as good as the players you watched growing up.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Shaqs longevity is fine(14 times all nba), and Kobe his last few years was a massive liability. His first couple he was worthless.

Shaq carrying Kobe to rings is the only thing that props Kobe up in these arguments. That should tell you who should be ranked higher.

Shaq and its not close.
.

[SouBeachTalents]

Shaqs longevity is fine(14 times all nba), and Kobe his last few years was a massive liability. His first couple he was worthless.

Shaq carrying Kobe to rings is the only thing that props Kobe up in these arguments. That should tell you who should be ranked higher.

Shaq and its not close.
.
The poster above you doesn't even have Shaq top 20 :lol

[AlternativeAcc.]

The poster above you doesn't even have Shaq top 20 :lol

Would love to see the 20 players he has above him. :lol

[John8204]

Shaqs longevity is fine(14 times all nba), and Kobe his last few years was a massive liability. His first couple he was worthless.

Shaq carrying Kobe to rings is the only thing that props Kobe up in these arguments. That should tell you who should be ranked higher.

Shaq and its not close.
.

The refs carried both of them through those shady ass seasons

[Soundwave]

Honestly Magic probably gets the biggest bounce of anyone in the top 10-15 based on flash and personality. Dude is quite often no.3 or 4 on a lot of people's lists and he couldn't even shoot that well while being a guard, and it almost pains me to type that because Magic is such a likable personality and does many other things well but still.

[John8204]

Would love to see the 20 players he has above him. :lol

SG - Jordan (1), Kobe (9), West (11)
PG - Magic (6), Oscar (10), Curry (15), Stockton (16)
SF - Bird (4), Erving (17), Havlicek (19)
PF - Lebron (3), Duncan (12), Dirk (17), Pettit(20)
C - Wilt (2), Kareem (5), Mikan (8), Malone (13), Hakeem (14)

[guy]

Kobe has been ranked over Shaq for like the last 10 years at least. Not saying it’s correct or not, cause both have arguable cases over each other but it just has nothing to do with his death. In fact, oddly he hasn’t really gotten a post-death boost like most of us would’ve expected.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Kobe has been ranked over Shaq for like the last 10 years at least. Not saying it’s correct or not, cause both have arguable cases over each other but it just has nothing to do with his death. In fact, oddly he hasn’t really gotten a post-death boost like most of us would’ve expected.

This simply isn't true.

ESPN famously had Kobe ranked 12th in like 2015 or 2016.

Many mainstream lists had Kobe behind Shaq. It was pretty much consensus. Until Kobes death.

Everything you said it literally just wrong lol.

[FilmyCogTurner]

Persona and legend status give Kobe an added boost as well - whatever ranking he was at the time he was still the final boss to vets and rookies all around the league. He played that role perfectly.

[Phoenix]

Kobe is higher ranked in his position than Shaq is, Shaq also ring chased for his career and only ended up with four...Kobe stuck around with one team and won five.

I'm assuming you were joking while making this particular bullet point.

[SouBeachTalents]

I'm assuming you were joking while making this particular bullet point.
Nah, he makes that asinine point repeatedly. He's really, really dumb :lol

[Phoenix]

Kobe has been ranked over Shaq for like the last 10 years at least. Not saying it’s correct or not, cause both have arguable cases over each other but it just has nothing to do with his death. In fact, oddly he hasn’t really gotten a post-death boost like most of us would’ve expected.

ESPN had Shaq (9th) above Kobe (12th) in their 2016 list.

[John8204]

I'm assuming you were joking while making this particular bullet point.

The only SG that you can rank ahead of Kobe is MJ...and right behind Kobe is Jerry West

When you look at the Center position Shaq is a little better than David Robinson and a little worse than Hakeem Olajuwon...which puts him behind Wilt, Bill, KAJ, Mikan, and Moses

I would love to hear from all you really smart posters what shooting guards were better than Kobe other than Jordan. Because I can and have made cases for 6 centers over Shaq.

[John8204]

ESPN had Shaq (9th) above Kobe (12th) in their 2016 list.

ESPN hired Skip Bayless and Kendrick Perkins to do basketball analysis

[John8204]

Nah, he makes that asinine point repeatedly. He's really, really dumb :lol

And yet you've never managed to make any sort of argument other than...bro you had to see him


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gycHkO3LmtI

[SouBeachTalents]

And yet you've never managed to make any sort of argument other than...bro you had to see him
There's no argument that needs to be made over that. You're apparently too stupid to piece together that some positions are historically greater than others, and that should have literally no bearing on determining which player was better or which one ranks higher. Clyde Drexler would probably rank as the 5th-6th best SG ever on a lot of lists, that doesn't mean he's as good or should rank as high as Shaq, Hakeem, Moses or Robinson. I refuse to believe you can't comprehend this :lol

[Phoenix]

The only SG that you can rank ahead of Kobe is MJ...and right behind Kobe is Jerry West

When you look at the Center position Shaq is a little better than David Robinson and a little worse than Hakeem Olajuwon...which puts him behind Wilt, Bill, KAJ, Mikan, and Moses

I would love to hear from all you really smart posters what shooting guards were better than Kobe other than Jordan. Because I can and have made cases for 6 centers over Shaq.

Kobe being higher on the SG list compared to Shaq on the Center list doesn't have anything to do with how they rank against each other. You don't have to be a 'really smart poster' or even of average smarts to understand that.

[John8204]

There's no argument that needs to be made over that. You're apparently too stupid to piece together that some positions are historically greater than others, and that should have literally no bearing on determining which player was better or which one ranks higher. Clyde Drexler would probably rank as the 5th-6th best SG ever on a lot of lists, that doesn't mean he's as good or should rank as high as Shaq, Hakeem, Moses or Robinson. I refuse to believe you can't comprehend this :lol

So what you're saying is you can't do it so it's dumb. I don't have Clyde in my 5 or 6...I have George Gervin at 5 and Allen Iverson at 5. And while it's true not every position or generation is equal I don't just ignore years of players or different positions because of my feelings like you do.

Then again I actually speak for myself and don't have to follow people around like the creepy ex girlfriend like you do. You are a grown man who can't justify his own opinions and obsessed with someone elses. And you are to gutless to make your own because it exposes you for being the sad cowardly person that you are.

[Phoenix]

So what you're saying is you can't do it so it's dumb. I don't have Clyde in my 5 or 6...I have George Gervin at 5 and Allen Iverson at 5. And while it's true not every position or generation is equal I don't just ignore years of players or different positions because of my feelings like you do.



Duncan is the highest ranked PF on your list at 12th, which would suggest you consider him the GOAT PF. So with that said, if Duncan is higher among PFs than Kobe is among SGs, then why do you have Kobe three spots ahead of him?

[John8204]

Kobe being higher on the SG list compared to Shaq on the Center list doesn't have anything to do with how they rank against each other. You don't have to be a 'really smart poster' or even of average smarts to understand that.

Okay well let's look at a secondary generational lists...

1. Kobe, 2. Duncan, 3. Dirk, 4. Shaq, 5. KG, 6. Kidd, 7. Iverson

Because the alternative is what you and SouthBeach are preaching which seems to be STUPID DUMB NO UNDERSTAND DERP DERP I SEES HIM PLAY GREAT

[SouBeachTalents]

Okay well let's look at a secondary generational lists...

1. Kobe, 2. Duncan, 3. Dirk, 4. Shaq, 5. KG, 6. Kidd, 7. Iverson

Because the alternative is what you and SouthBeach are preaching which seems to be STUPID DUMB NO UNDERSTAND DERP DERP I SEES HIM PLAY GREAT
Just about sums it up.

[Axe]

Nah, he makes that asinine point repeatedly. He's really, really dumb :lol
He's a weird ass poster. He seems to be a kobe stan but it can't be overlooked that he somewhat resents jordan in his posts when those stans usually adore him also.

[Phoenix]

Okay well let's look at a secondary generational lists...

1. Kobe, 2. Duncan, 3. Dirk, 4. Shaq, 5. KG, 6. Kidd, 7. Iverson

Because the alternative is what you and SouthBeach are preaching which seems to be STUPID DUMB NO UNDERSTAND DERP DERP I SEES HIM PLAY GREAT

I'm not preaching anything. You created a 'logic' for Kobe over Shaq that isn't consistent just looking at your list. Instead of the non-reply you gave above, I'm just asking you to explain why you don't have Duncan over Kobe. In fact, based on your logic the top 5 players on your list should be whoever you consider the GOAT of each position. Duncan at minimum should be top 5 based on your argument, but you don't even have him top 10. Explain....

[Phoenix]

Actually I just realized, you have Lebron at PF. :confusedshrug:

Query.... why is Dirk, the 4th ranked PF(17th overall) on your list lower than Hakeem, the 5th ranked center ( 14th overall)? Shouldn't Dirk be ranked higher since he ranks higher positionally per your Kobe> Shaq argument? No? Why not?! Why isn't Havlicek higher than Stockton, Moses and Hakeem on account of relative positional ranking?

[John8204]

Duncan is the highest ranked PF on your list at 12th, which would suggest you consider him the GOAT PF. So with that said, if Duncan is higher among PFs than Kobe is among SGs, then why do you have Kobe three spots ahead of him?

I classify Lebron as PF and Larry a SF, though you could also make the case for Larry as a PF and Lebron as SF. Small Forwards in my opinion tend to be either shooters or defensive players Power Forwards are more interior or big point guards.

PF - Lebron, Duncan, Dirk, Pettit, Barkley, Giannis, K. Malone, Mchale, Schayes, Hayes
SF - Bird, Erving, Havlicek, Baylor, Durant, Barry, Leonard, Arizin, Pippen, English
SG - Jordan , Kobe , West, Gervin, Iverson, Wade, Harden, Maravich, Miller, Drexler
PG - Magic, Oscar, Curry, Stockton, CPIII, Frazier, Kidd, Isiah, Archibald, Payton
C - Wilt, KAJ, Bill, Mikan, M. Malone, Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Reed, Jokic

I don't mind if you don't agree with it but to act like it's stupid and fail to justify why it's stupid and to bring it up all the time. That's just kinda pathetic.

[Phoenix]

I classify Lebron as PF and Larry a SF, though you could also make the case for Larry as a PF and Lebron as SF. Small Forwards in my opinion tend to be either shooters or defensive players Power Forwards are more interior or big point guards.

PF - Lebron, Duncan, Dirk, Pettit, Barkley, Giannis, K. Malone, Mchale, Schayes, Hayes
SF - Bird, Erving, Havlicek, Baylor, Durant, Barry, Leonard, Arizin, Pippen, English
SG - Jordan , Kobe , West, Gervin, Iverson, Wade, Harden, Maravich, Miller, Drexler
PG - Magic, Oscar, Curry, Stockton, CPIII, Frazier, Kidd, Isiah, Archibald, Payton
C - Wilt, KAJ, Bill, Mikan, M. Malone, Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Reed, Jokic

I don't mind if you don't agree with it but to act like it's stupid and fail to justify why it's stupid and to bring it up all the time. That's just kinda pathetic.

I've shown the folly of your talking points by highlighting ranking inconsistencies based on the argument you presented. If you're going to apply 'Kobe ranks higher than Shaq on the all-time list because Kobe ranks higher on the SG list than Shaq does on the Center list', then you need to apply that logic across the board which then makes for a different list than the one you presented. Otherwise you fall victim to your own argument and get exposed for making up mental gymnastics to justify your end position. If it's not stupid it's intellectually dishonest and you could spare us all the time of just saying your 'logic' is being applied when it suits you.

[John8204]

Actually I just realized, you have Lebron at PF. :confusedshrug:

Query.... why is Dirk, the 4th ranked PF(17th overall) on your list lower than Hakeem, the 5th ranked center ( 14th overall)? Shouldn't Dirk be ranked higher since he ranks higher positionally per your Kobe> Shaq argument? No? Why not?! Why isn't Havlicek higher than Stockton, Moses and Hakeem on account of relative positional ranking?

Because I don't apply a single metric but also a generational rankings...how did they perform compared to who they played against

Jordan - Hakeem - Stockton - Barkley - Robinson - if I put Shaq on this list I'm putting him between Stockton and Barkley

Kobe - Duncan - Dirk - Shaq - Garnett - if I put Shaq on this list I'm putting him between Dirk and KG

Now let's look at Hondo

60's
Wilt - Bill - Oscar - West - Hondo - Pettit - Baylor

70's
KAJ - West - Dr. J - Hondo - Frazier - Barry -Gervin

Now some people would say Shaq was on the same level of Bird and Magic and I guess Hakeem and Jordan and etc. But if I'm being impartial...he's on the same level as Baylor, Pettit, Havlicek, Barkley, Garnett. He wasn't like John Stockton the greatest pure point guard in NBA history, or Dr. J the second best small forward and a constant title challenger throughout his career who could win on his own. He's not Curry the greatest shooter of all-time or Kobe the second best Shooting Guard of all-time.

And because I'm not 3ball and you missed the thread here is the link to where I go into detail on my feelings on Shaq

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?510011-My-issues-with-Shaq-as-an-quot-all-time-quot-great

[John8204]

I've shown the folly of your talking points by highlighting ranking inconsistencies based on the argument you presented. If you're going to apply 'Kobe ranks higher than Shaq on the all-time list because Kobe ranks higher on the SG list than Shaq does on the Center list', then you need to apply that logic across the board which then makes for a different list than the one you presented. Otherwise you fall victim to your own argument and get exposed for making up mental gymnastics to justify your end position. If it's not stupid it's intellectually dishonest and you could spare us all the time of just saying your 'logic' is being applied when it suits you.

Well what would be the summation of your point. Because from what I've gathered the counterpoints for Shaq are based on accomplishments and the "eye test". Which is fine for some but for me I try and put those accomplishments in a proper context. I'm not looking for exact but roughly because if you go with exact you can twisting yourself into a logic pretzel. I like my system because it affords me flexibility and by using two metrics I'm not beholden to statistics, awards, recency bias, or nostalgia.

Not sure why that's such a huge deal to so many of you.

[ShawkFactory]

Because I don't apply a single metric but also a generational rankings...how did they perform compared to who they played against

Jordan - Hakeem - Stockton - Barkley - Robinson - if I put Shaq on this list I'm putting him between Stockton and Barkley

Kobe - Duncan - Dirk - Shaq - Garnett - if I put Shaq on this list I'm putting him between Dirk and KG

Now let's look at Hondo

60's
Wilt - Bill - Oscar - West - Hondo - Pettit - Baylor

70's
KAJ - West - Dr. J - Hondo - Frazier - Barry -Gervin

Now some people would say Shaq was on the same level of Bird and Magic and I guess Hakeem and Jordan and etc. But if I'm being impartial...he's on the same level as Baylor, Pettit, Havlicek, Barkley, Garnett. He wasn't like John Stockton the greatest pure point guard in NBA history, or Dr. J the second best small forward and a constant title challenger throughout his career who could win on his own. He's not Curry the greatest shooter of all-time or Kobe the second best Shooting Guard of all-time.

And because I'm not 3ball and you missed the thread here is the link to where I go into detail on my feelings on Shaq

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?510011-My-issues-with-Shaq-as-an-quot-all-time-quot-great

That's the exact opposite of what you're being.

[Phoenix]

Because I don't apply a single metric but also a generational rankings...how did they perform compared to who they played against

Jordan - Hakeem - Stockton - Barkley - Robinson - if I put Shaq on this list I'm putting him between Stockton and Barkley

Kobe - Duncan - Dirk - Shaq - Garnett - if I put Shaq on this list I'm putting him between Dirk and KG

Now let's look at Hondo

60's
Wilt - Bill - Oscar - West - Hondo - Pettit - Baylor

70's
KAJ - West - Dr. J - Hondo - Frazier - Barry -Gervin

Now some people would say Shaq was on the same level of Bird and Magic and I guess Hakeem and Jordan and etc. But if I'm being impartial...he's on the same level as Baylor, Pettit, Havlicek, Barkley, Garnett. He wasn't like John Stockton the greatest pure point guard in NBA history, or Dr. J the second best small forward and a constant title challenger throughout his career who could win on his own. He's not Curry the greatest shooter of all-time or Kobe the second best Shooting Guard of all-time.

And because I'm not 3ball and you missed the thread here is the link to where I go into detail on my feelings on Shaq

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?510011-My-issues-with-Shaq-as-an-quot-all-time-quot-great

None of this allows for any degree of consistency with respects to your rankings though. If you're going to say that Curry is ranked ahead of Shaq because he's the GOAT shooter, then he should be also ranked above other players on the list that weren't the GOAT at any one thing. What is Oscar and West GOAT in? Were they more dominant in their era than Steph is? They certainly didn't win more. The more you try to explain your position you just create more fallacies and then have to introduce more 'reasoning' once other reasoning has been shown to create unintended consequences.

[Phoenix]

Well what would be the summation of your point. Because from what I've gathered the counterpoints for Shaq are based on accomplishments and the "eye test". Which is fine for some but for me I try and put those accomplishments in a proper context. I'm not looking for exact but roughly because if you go with exact you can twisting yourself into a logic pretzel. I like my system because it affords me flexibility and by using two metrics I'm not beholden to statistics, awards, recency bias, or nostalgia.

Not sure why that's such a huge deal to so many of you.

Which is literally what you're doing. 'Oh, the Kobe>Shaq logic doesn't apply in these other rankings, so I'll apply some other arbitrary bullshit to move the goalposts'.

Your system allows you an 'out' whenever a contradiction is found so I'm sure you do like it, but you're gonna be called on it. It's not a big deal for any of us but when you post on a forum and someone disagrees with you, you're going to be quoted and challenged. You new to the internet?

[kawhileonard2]

I have Shaq & Duncan ranked over Magic & Bird.

Along with Kobe they all above Lebron as is Kawhi.

[Phoenix]

That's the exact opposite of what you're being.

Exactly. It's clear that poster has some inherent bias against Shaq so whatever shit he can come up with to justify the likes of John Stockton being over him is fair game.

[SouBeachTalents]

Exactly. It's clear that poster has some inherent bias against Shaq so whatever shit he can come up with to justify the likes of John Stockton being over him is fair game.
I admire your persistence, but you are searching for logic where there is absolutely none to be found :lol

[John8204]

That's the exact opposite of what you're being.

Well it's the best methodology in my opinion. It's easy to say something is stupid or that you don't agree with it. But what is the alternative?


None of this allows for any degree of consistency with respects to your rankings though. If you're going to say that Curry is ranked ahead of Shaq because he's the GOAT shooter, then he should be also ranked above other players on the list that weren't the GOAT at any one thing.

He's an active player he might move up or down based on what he does in his next few years. If he retired today I wouldn't say he was better than Hakeem, Moses, Oscar, West, and Duncan. But as the GOAT shooter he might overtake them with rings, MVP's, and hitting career numbers.


What is Oscar and West GOAT in? Were they more dominant in their era than Steph is? They certainly didn't win more. The more you try to explain your position you just create more fallacies and then have to introduce more 'reasoning' once other reasoning has been shown to create unintended consequences.

Jerry was in the MVP discussion every year and was always in contention for a title. The second he came into the league he turned the Lakers around and put them in a position to win every year. Oscar was on a bad team and put up constant triple double numbers trying to elevate his team to a win. Once he played out his contract he joined a team and won it all with Kareem.

Jerry and Oscar are career PPG at 7 and 10 with Curry at 19. While stats aren't the end all be all when you are top ten at certain things I think that's important.




Your system allows you an 'out' whenever a contradiction is found so I'm sure you do like it, but you're gonna be called on it. It's not a big deal for any of us but when you post on a forum and someone disagrees with you, you're going to be quoted and challenged. You new to the internet?

What are the contradictions? I think my system allows flexibility because when arguing who is better all-time that's something that I feel is important. You might not be able to get something exact but I'm okay with close. I completely support people having their own opinions...as they should. The difference is as an adult I like to speak to other adults with respect because I wish to respect your opinion.


Exactly. It's clear that poster has some inherent bias against Shaq so whatever shit he can come up with to justify the likes of John Stockton being over him is fair game.

John Stockton has two unbreakable career records in assists and steals. He played a 19 year career where he consistently showed up for one franchise. He's likely the best pure point guard to play the game and the only man to break 14 assists per season.

My biases against Shaq well...he was out of shape would have likely lost 1 on 1 to all the best players of all-time. He also dominated in an era with weaker competition on a team that was built around him after the first team that was built around him failed. Finally he played in an era where the officials were engaging in cheating/gambling and several of Shaq's series are historically questionable compared to every one else.

The thing about biases though...mine are based on facts. Perhaps you could call it selective bias...but isn't that the point of this discussion. To see what is valued and what isn't. The problem that I have here is that once again I welcome to hear a different opinion.

[John8204]

I admire your persistence, but you are searching for logic where there is absolutely none to be found :lol

Grown ups are talking, when you have something of value to say I'll respond.

[RRR3]

Shaq got John8204 absolutely raging, tears splashing down his face as he pounds his keyboard.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Imagine a "grown ass man" typing all that BS just to troll. :lol

You basically removed TWO rings off Shaq's resume. Bet you don't do that with Kobe though. Also ranking off positions is totally fine. I personally dont but know a few people that do. Be consistent with your criteria though. Not... Well, the guy is different because he makes me feel a certain way.

But who am I kidding. This is probably another 3ball alt

[Phoenix]

He's an active player he might move up or down based on what he does in his next few years. If he retired today I wouldn't say he was better than Hakeem, Moses, Oscar, West, and Duncan. But as the GOAT shooter he might overtake them with rings, MVP's, and hitting career numbers.

He's 14-15 years into his career and has already outpaced both of them in individual and team accolades. He's also, by your reckoning the 'GOAT' shooter( not something I'm arguing against, to be clear). If you don't already think he warrants ranking over them I doubt another ring or MVP will matter if he's already got more than both combined as of now.


Jerry was in the MVP discussion every year and was always in contention for a title.

Being in the mix of those things more doesn't trump actually winning though. Jerry had 8 top five MVP finishes and never won. Curry has 4 top 5 MVP finishes and won twice. I'm sure Jerry would trade 4 of those top 5 finishes for one MVP.


The second he came into the league he turned the Lakers around and put them in a position to win every year. Oscar was on a bad team and put up constant triple double numbers trying to elevate his team to a win. Once he played out his contract he joined a team and won it all with Kareem.

He was at the tailend of his prime and Alcindor was quite clearly the dominant force for the one title Oscar won. You made a comment about you not falling into nostalgia but I suspect you're an older poster based on your picks, and I would argue nostalgia is a driving force for why you think both Oscar and West warrant being higher. Especially considering your own point that Steph is the GOAT shooter and will go down as significant to the game as they were. Since you're so big on arbitrary criteria, that alone should vault Steph above Oscar/West or at the least it's a conversation worth having.

Jerry and Oscar are career PPG at 7 and 10 with Curry at 19. While stats aren't the end all be all when you are top ten at certain things I think that's important.

What are the contradictions? I think my system allows flexibility because when arguing who is better all-time that's something that I feel is important. You might not be able to get something exact but I'm okay with close. I completely support people having their own opinions...as they should. The difference is as an adult I like to speak to other adults with respect because I wish to respect your opinion.

I already clearly stated a contradiction in your rankings earlier. Refer to post number 45. The logic you apply for Kobe> Shaq based on respective positional rankings doesn't apply in several other cases in your list. At the very least Duncan should be higher than Kobe in your list based on your logic, but he isn't. So by having some flimsy 'system' you give yourself a convenient escape route whenever your logic falls over itself.

John Stockton has two unbreakable career records in assists and steals. He played a 19 year career where he consistently showed up for one franchise. He's likely the best pure point guard to play the game and the only man to break 14 assists per season.

That's great, he had a great career. That doesn't mean he warrants being ranked over Shaq. Hell it doesn't warrant him being ranked over Dirk who won an MVP, a ring, and played his entire 20 year career with one team.Again, if you want to base it on records, Stephs got the 3 point record and going. How much weight do you give that when comparing him against guys like Oscar and West, not much apparently. But Stockton being the career leader in something apparently is a bullet point if the other player is Shaq. Just say you don't like Shaq without all this other fluff, because that's all your posts say.

My biases against Shaq well...he was out of shape would have likely lost 1 on 1 to all the best players of all-time. He also dominated in an era with weaker competition on a team that was built around him after the first team that was built around him failed. Finally he played in an era where the officials were engaging in cheating/gambling and several of Shaq's series are historically questionable compared to every one else.

Why should Shaq be held liable for this, though? And by that reckoning, Kobe played in this same era and yet you don't seem to penalize him for it. Once again, it's very easy to see where your arguing points fall over themselves.

The thing about biases though...mine are based on facts. Perhaps you could call it selective bias...but isn't that the point of this discussion. To see what is valued and what isn't. The problem that I have here is that once again I welcome to hear a different opinion.

Mine aren't? You keep resorting to this 'well it's just my opinion man' BS whenever several people call out the gaps in your arguing points.



Replies bolded.

[WhiteKyrie]

Kobe's been ranked ahead of Shaq since like '09 lol.. He literally won the 2000s decade poll by a landslide and Shaq wasn't even 2nd in it.

KB won 2 as the best player without Shaq while Shaq never won as the guy without KB & has less rings despite ring chasing.

Agreed plus Shaq dominated 7 years of his career in the 90s.

But Kobe’s value to the 2000 ring and then basically two headed alpha in 2001 and 2002, plus his success thereafter, Kobe was most certainly the better basketball player. Shaq had an extremely dominant peak and prime though.

Would’ve been interesting if his cast didn’t crash and burn so hard due to intimidation from Boston in the 2008 Finals, and also if that CP3 to LA trade was never vetoed.

Shameful we never got Kobe vs Bron in the Finals. 2009, 2010, 2011, it was there for the taking. Maybe even 2012 and 2013 if it wasn’t for catastrophic injuries.

[John8204]

Imagine a "grown ass man" typing all that BS just to troll. :lol

You basically removed TWO rings off Shaq's resume. Bet you don't do that with Kobe though. Also ranking off positions is totally fine. I personally dont but know a few people that do. Be consistent with your criteria though. Not... Well, the guy is different because he makes me feel a certain way.

But who am I kidding. This is probably another 3ball alt

Actually I do that with Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe(and Magic) from that era. You claim that I'm "trolling" you do know that a ref was betting on games and the NBA sabotaged an investigation to catch more. Because Tim wasn't just picking and manipulating his games but he was giving accurate information on other games. You combine that with several shady series that seems like selection bias on your part.

One of the reasons why I have Kobe in the top ten though is he beat a super team...Shaq didn't do that. And he lost winnable series against The Pistons and the Rockets.

[RRR3]

Actually I do that with Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe(and Magic) from that era. You claim that I'm "trolling" you do know that a ref was betting on games and the NBA sabotaged an investigation to catch more. Because Tim wasn't just picking and manipulating his games but he was giving accurate information on other games. You combine that with several shady series that seems like selection bias on your part.

One of the reasons why I have Kobe in the top ten though is he beat a super team...Shaq didn't do that. And he lost winnable series against The Pistons and the Rockets.
He lost against the Pistons BECAUSE of Kobe you absolute retard :facepalm

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Actually I do that with Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe(and Magic) from that era. You claim that I'm "trolling" you do know that a ref was betting on games and the NBA sabotaged an investigation to catch more. Because Tim wasn't just picking and manipulating his games but he was giving accurate information on other games. You combine that with several shady series that seems like selection bias on your part.

One of the reasons why I have Kobe in the top ten though is he beat a super team...Shaq didn't do that. And he lost winnable series against The Pistons and the Rockets.

More inconsistency. You're giving Kobe a pass that he shouldn't get.

Cant blame Shaq without blaming Kobe, who by all objective measures, played worse. That ref 'Tim' also officiated games in the 90s. MJ games too. Thoughts? :lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Thread reminds me of those Shaq posts from 3ball

Kobe > Shaq from 2000-2002
Kobe wasnt a sidekick in 2000! He was 1A/1B!!!

:yaohappy:

[John8204]

He's 14-15 years into his career and has already outpaced both of them in individual and team accolades. He's also, by your reckoning the 'GOAT' shooter( not something I'm arguing against, to be clear). If you don't already think he warrants ranking over them I doubt another ring or MVP will matter if he's already got more than both combined as of now.

Being in the mix of those things more doesn't trump actually winning though. Jerry had 8 top five MVP finishes and never won. Curry has 4 top 5 MVP finishes and won twice. I'm sure Jerry would trade 4 of those top 5 finishes for one MVP.



Well both guys are close in my eyes, I disagree with the notion that his end of career doesn't matter. He's got some great accomplishments, and he is the best shooter. But the second best shooter of all-time is likely Pete Maravich, and Pete's not that high on an all-time list. I don't know what Jerry would or would not do, he doesn't have an MVP that is a mark against him. But Jerry was always in the mix and he does have some things over Curry. Jerry led the league in assists, he was all-defensive player 5, he was an all-star every year he played save for his rookie season.

Curry doesn't have 25K points yet, 2 MVP's is good but quite a few guys have that. And the guys that won MVP's in Jerry's era are all-time greats now that the media votes for it the award has become less valuable in my eyes. Once you get that fifth ring your legacy chances a bit.


He was at the tailend of his prime and Alcindor was quite clearly the dominant force for the one title Oscar won. You made a comment about you not falling into nostalgia but I suspect you're an older poster based on your picks, and I would argue nostalgia is a driving force for why you think both Oscar and West warrant being higher. Especially considering your own point that Steph is the GOAT shooter and will go down as significant to the game as they were. Since you're so big on arbitrary criteria, that alone should vault Steph above Oscar/West or at the least it's a conversation worth having.

Great point...Oscar was at the tail end of his career and he won a ring. One of the things I look at when judging point guards is what do they do when they go into a new situation. Oscar won a ring...so did Tiny Archibald and Jason Kidd. Part of why I don't value Kareem is he had that chunk of time between Oscar and Magic when he couldn't win a title.


I already clearly stated a contradiction in your rankings earlier. Refer to post number 45. The logic you apply for Kobe> Shaq based on respective positional rankings doesn't apply in several other cases in your list. At the very least Duncan should be higher than Kobe in your list based on your logic, but he isn't. So by having some flimsy 'system' you give yourself a convenient escape route whenever your logic falls over itself.

I absolutely respect anyone that ranks Duncan over Kobe. Kobe has 30K points, to go along with the five rings. Duncan's teams were also better guys that stuck around and played great ball. I've always said Duncan's Spurs were better than Lebron's Heat. But even Duncan he had that tainted series with Phoenix in the shady ref era, it's not his fault but it is his problem.


That's great, he had a great career. That doesn't mean he warrants being ranked over Shaq. Hell it doesn't warrant him being ranked over Dirk who won an MVP, a ring, and played his entire 20 year career with one team.Again, if you want to base it on records, Stephs got the 3 point record and going. How much weight do you give that when comparing him against guys like Oscar and West, not much apparently. But Stockton being the career leader in something apparently is a bullet point if the other player is Shaq. Just say you don't like Shaq without all this other fluff, because that's all your posts say.

What did Shaq do that was go great? You are right Stockton doesn't have an MVP...personally I think he should have gotten an MVP in the early 90's late 80's and Magic's last two MVP's were a little iffy to me. Stockton was productive, people forget that Shaq had bad seasons and had a long decline. The Jazz were good for a long time and even guys that were 2nd and 3rd options on those teams put up great numbers. You also have a Lebron factor, Lebron, Wilt, Bill, Jordan and Stockton are the guys that going to have those big unbreakable records. Not a big list.



Why should Shaq be held liable for this, though? And by that reckoning, Kobe played in this same era and yet you don't seem to penalize him for it. Once again, it's very easy to see where your arguing points fall over themselves.

Well it's not just Shaq but other players were able to win without the tainted rings. Magic and Duncan both have tainted rings but they were also able to consistently win. Shaq's got three out of four...and this is another issue I have with Shaq. So what I'm hearing from most of you was that Shaq was the most dominant big in the game. Okay well why is he always going to game sevens? He wasn't playing against super teams, Kings, Mavericks, Pistons, Nets, Trailblazers, and Pacers were good teams. Do we focus on that and ignore he got swept by Reggie Miller's Pacers, Hakeem's Rockets, MJ's Bulls, Robinson's Spurs, and Stockton's Jazz. I gloss one or two stuff happens but it's the confluence of getting destroyed by the greats and just eeking out wins against the average that's a factor to me.

[John8204]

He lost against the Pistons BECAUSE of Kobe you absolute retard :facepalm

Oh....was it Kobe's fault he lost to them again when he joined Miami. It's very strange that the most dominant player with this long amazing peak has so many excuses.

[1987_Lakers]

Why even argue with someone who thinks Stockton > Shaq? :lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Why even argue with someone who thinks Stockton > Shaq? :lol

Lol. Didn't even see that, but makes sense and all...given the inconsistency.

Carry on

[John8204]

Why even argue with someone who thinks Stockton > Shaq? :lol

Well it's not like they played against each other 9 times and Shaq has a 1-8 record against the guy.

Must be one of those facts things that Shaq fans love to ignore.

[WhiteKyrie]

Actually I do that with Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe(and Magic) from that era. You claim that I'm "trolling" you do know that a ref was betting on games and the NBA sabotaged an investigation to catch more. Because Tim wasn't just picking and manipulating his games but he was giving accurate information on other games. You combine that with several shady series that seems like selection bias on your part.

One of the reasons why I have Kobe in the top ten though is he beat a super team...Shaq didn't do that. And he lost winnable series against The Pistons and the Rockets.

This is true, Kobe did beat a legit super team in 2010.

The same super team that forced LeBron and Bosh to run to D-Wade for help down in South Beach.

[John8204]

This is true, Kobe did beat a legit super team in 2010.

The same super team that forced LeBron and Bosh to run to D-Wade for help down in South Beach.

Wow I remember that when Lebron went to Miami...didn't he also have a team mate who played with him in Cleveland but he then left and joined that Celtics team,

Was it John Stockton...did John leave his team to join a super team...wait I don't think it was him.

Was it Kobe that joined Lebron for a year and left to play with four Hall of Famers I'm just a retarded troll

It's late I'm going to bed if anyone can remind me of the guy that went to play with Lebron and then left for Boston.

[Axe]

Agreed plus Shaq dominated 7 years of his career in the 90s.

But Kobe’s value to the 2000 ring and then basically two headed alpha in 2001 and 2002, plus his success thereafter, Kobe was most certainly the better basketball player. Shaq had an extremely dominant peak and prime though.

Would’ve been interesting if his cast didn’t crash and burn so hard due to intimidation from Boston in the 2008 Finals, and also if that CP3 to LA trade was never vetoed.

Shameful we never got Kobe vs Bron in the Finals. 2009, 2010, 2011, it was there for the taking. Maybe even 2012 and 2013 if it wasn’t for catastrophic injuries.
:oldlol:

Kobe was very lucky to have played for the lakers by the start of his career, actually.

[Phoenix]

Well both guys are close in my eyes, I disagree with the notion that his end of career doesn't matter. He's got some great accomplishments, and he is the best shooter. But the second best shooter of all-time is likely Pete Maravich, and Pete's not that high on an all-time list. I don't know what Jerry would or would not do, he doesn't have an MVP that is a mark against him. But Jerry was always in the mix and he does have some things over Curry. Jerry led the league in assists, he was all-defensive player 5, he was an all-star every year he played save for his rookie season.

I didn't say the end of his career shouldn't matter. I said in 14-15 seasons he's achieved more already than Oscar and West in terms of rings and MVPs combined, on top of being the GOAT shooter. If that isn't already enough to be considered higher ranked than both, then why would another ring and MVP do it for you?

Curry doesn't have 25K points yet, 2 MVP's is good but quite a few guys have that. And the guys that won MVP's in Jerry's era are all-time greats now that the media votes for it the award has become less valuable in my eyes. Once you get that fifth ring your legacy chances a bit.

Another arbitrary metric. Curry has missed significant enough time to impact his career totals. Obviously since like 2015 he's emerged as one of the greatest scorers over. It's interesting how much you emphasize guys averaging 30ppg yet your number 8 guy on the list, Mikan, never averaged above 28.4. You have Magic 6th and he doesn't even have 20k points, let alone 25k. Curry has 4 rings, 2 MVPs, 1 FMVP, over 20k points, and the 'GOAT' shooter metric. Your own criteria for how you're judging players you rank higher dictates that Curry's ranking in your list is too low.


Great point...Oscar was at the tail end of his career and he won a ring. One of the things I look at when judging point guards is what do they do when they go into a new situation. Oscar won a ring...so did Tiny Archibald and Jason Kidd. Part of why I don't value Kareem is he had that chunk of time between Oscar and Magic when he couldn't win a title.


Yet you have him ranked 5th.

I absolutely respect anyone that ranks Duncan over Kobe. Kobe has 30K points, to go along with the five rings. Duncan's teams were also better guys that stuck around and played great ball. I've always said Duncan's Spurs were better than Lebron's Heat. But even Duncan he had that tainted series with Phoenix in the shady ref era, it's not his fault but it is his problem.

It's only his 'problem' if someone is going to use that to judge his career rankings using something they also admit isn't his fault.


What did Shaq do that was go great? You are right Stockton doesn't have an MVP...personally I think he should have gotten an MVP in the early 90's late 80's and Magic's last two MVP's were a little iffy to me. Stockton was productive, people forget that Shaq had bad seasons and had a long decline. The Jazz were good for a long time and even guys that were 2nd and 3rd options on those teams put up great numbers. You also have a Lebron factor, Lebron, Wilt, Bill, Jordan and Stockton are the guys that going to have those big unbreakable records. Not a big list.

You're aware of what Shaq did in terms of MVPs,rings and FMVPs so I'm not playing that stupid game. You've already given your reasoning for why you don't value his accomplishments so it would be a waste of time regurgitating them here. I'm of the belief that you can only play and beat who is in front of you. People act like 'Shaq only won when the other great centers got old' but seem to forget that Ewing never won a ring, Robinson only won when Duncan took over the team, and Hakeem won against a young Shaq and 'barely' outplayed him. I could just as easily counter that Hakeem didn't have to come across 2000-2002 Shaq when he won his titles, because that version of Shaq is far and away better than 1995 Shaq or anyone else Hakeem faced those years he won.

Well it's not just Shaq but other players were able to win without the tainted rings. Magic and Duncan both have tainted rings but they were also able to consistently win. Shaq's got three out of four...and this is another issue I have with Shaq. So what I'm hearing from most of you was that Shaq was the most dominant big in the game. Okay well why is he always going to game sevens? He wasn't playing against super teams, Kings, Mavericks, Pistons, Nets, Trailblazers, and Pacers were good teams. Do we focus on that and ignore he got swept by Reggie Miller's Pacers, Hakeem's Rockets, MJ's Bulls, Robinson's Spurs, and Stockton's Jazz. I gloss one or two stuff happens but it's the confluence of getting destroyed by the greats and just eeking out wins against the average that's a factor to me.

Again, Kobe won those same 3 rings you say were 'tainted' with Shaq against the same competition but he's in your top ten. If you're going to use the 'tainted rings' argument then Kobe shouldn't be anywhere near your top ten. You are fine saying that someone like Oscar didn't play for great teams in his prime but you put the burden on Shaq to beat superior teams over the first 7 years of his career. Kobe was also on alot of those teams getting swept. 'But he was young', is your reply I bet? Sure, that would be fair context to provide. So then, wasn't Shaq also 'young' facing Hakeem and Jordan when they swept him? You also act like the times Shaq got swept that he wasn't at worst one of the two best players in those series.I would agree that a few of those series he should have been able to squeeze out a few wins but those teams were better than his. The 98 Jazz who swept him were a Jordan clutch miracle away from game 7 on their home floor. The 99 Spurs won the chip. You act like the teams who swept him were scrubs.



Bolded replies

[Phoenix]

More inconsistency. You're giving Kobe a pass that he shouldn't get.

Cant blame Shaq without blaming Kobe, who by all objective measures, played worse. That ref 'Tim' also officiated games in the 90s. MJ games too. Thoughts? :lol

That's where I suspect he's trolling, because there's no way one could watch the 2004 finals and come away thinking the Lakers lost because of Shaq, and Kobe not catching an ounce of accountability.


Oh....was it Kobe's fault he lost to them again when he joined Miami. It's very strange that the most dominant player with this long amazing peak has so many excuses.

Miami was up 3-2 in 2005 when Wade went down with injury in game 6, and rebounded to beat them in 2006. :confusedshrug:


Well it's not like they played against each other 9 times and Shaq has a 1-8 record against the guy.

Must be one of those facts things that Shaq fans love to ignore.


So Karl Malone wasn't in those series? That Jazz team wasn't two games from a title in back to back years?

Must be one of those facts things that Shaq haters love to ignore.


ESPN hired Skip Bayless and Kendrick Perkins to do basketball analysis

Kendrick Perkins wasn't with ESPN when the 2016 list came out.

[ImKobe]

Agreed plus Shaq dominated 7 years of his career in the 90s.

But Kobe’s value to the 2000 ring and then basically two headed alpha in 2001 and 2002, plus his success thereafter, Kobe was most certainly the better basketball player. Shaq had an extremely dominant peak and prime though.

Would’ve been interesting if his cast didn’t crash and burn so hard due to intimidation from Boston in the 2008 Finals, and also if that CP3 to LA trade was never vetoed.

Shameful we never got Kobe vs Bron in the Finals. 2009, 2010, 2011, it was there for the taking. Maybe even 2012 and 2013 if it wasn’t for catastrophic injuries.

Shaq was great in the 90s but kept getting swept out of the Playoffs despite having great rosters before Kobe became a superstar, and they were on the verge of choking a 3 - 1 lead in the WCF before KB and others stepped up in Game 7.

I don't think intimidation was necessarily an issue vs. Boston in 2008, they just didn't have enough guys. Pau was soft in that series but they were missing Bynum & Ariza and they were going up against one of the greatest defenses in NBA history who also happened to have a loaded roster offensively.

We needed Kobe vs. Bron in 2009. The hype was unreal (like Mayweather vs. Pacquiao at the time) and Dwight's bum ass was the only thing standing in the way.

[ArbitraryWater]

Agreed plus Shaq dominated 7 years of his career in the 90s.

But Kobe’s value to the 2000 ring and then basically two headed alpha in 2001 and 2002, plus his success thereafter, Kobe was most certainly the better basketball player. Shaq had an extremely dominant peak and prime though.

Would’ve been interesting if his cast didn’t crash and burn so hard due to intimidation from Boston in the 2008 Finals, and also if that CP3 to LA trade was never vetoed.

Shameful we never got Kobe vs Bron in the Finals. 2009, 2010, 2011, it was there for the taking. Maybe even 2012 and 2013 if it wasn’t for catastrophic injuries.


Youre at it again with your weird comparing metrics.

ike saying Wade > Dirk cause he was individuay better in... 2 series they happened to pay against each other.


How about just comparing Shaq and Kobe as a whoe, their payoffs as a whoe, and subsequenty reaiizing Shaq was better?

[ImKobe]

Youre at it again with your weird comparing metrics.

ike saying Wade > Dirk cause he was individuay better in... 2 series they happened to pay against each other.


How about just comparing Shaq and Kobe as a whoe, their payoffs as a whoe, and subsequenty reaiizing Shaq was better?

One player teamed up with prime Penny, Wade, Nash, Bron

The other stayed in LA the whole time & only had prime Gasol

Tell me who won more rings & made more Finals

That's right.

[ArbitraryWater]

One player teamed up with prime Penny, Wade, Nash, Bron

The other stayed in LA the whole time & only had prime Gasol

Tell me who won more rings & made more Finals

That's right.


Im here to tell you:

None of that shit matters. Thats not how players are evaluated.


Shaq was a better scorer, better rebounder, better defender, longer prime, higher peak, better in the playoffs, much better in the finals. Even created more room for others by being the inside presence he was.

[ImKobe]

Im here to tell you:

None of that shit matters. Thats not how players are evaluated.


Shaq was a better scorer, better rebounder, better defender, longer prime, higher peak, better in the playoffs, much better in the finals. Even created more room for others by being the inside presence he was.

Shaq outside of a couple seasons was a bad defensive player who got exploited in the P&R, he'd get toyed with especially in today's NBA like Jokic. You and other bronie fluffers blame Kobe for '04 Finals and act like Shaq was in his prime when Detroit exploited Shaq all series. You can't say someone's a better scorer without mentioning the massive limitations in his game that made him a liability in crunch time offensively.

And he didn't have a longer prime. KB played about 2 seasons more worth of games for his prime if you go 00-13 vs. 93-05 for Shaq, and that's me being generous to Shaq because if we're being honest then 2003 was the end of his prime and he never regained that form while Kobe was still a top 3-5 player in his 17th season.

[ShawkFactory]

Shaq outside of a couple seasons was a bad defensive player who got exploited in the P&R, he'd get toyed with especially in today's NBA like Jokic. You and other bronie fluffers blame Kobe for '04 Finals and act like Shaq was in his prime when Detroit exploited Shaq all series. You can't say someone's a better scorer without mentioning the massive limitations in his game that made him a liability in crunch time offensively.

And he didn't have a longer prime. KB played about 2 seasons more worth of games for his prime if you go 00-13 vs. 93-05 for Shaq, and that's me being generous to Shaq because if we're being honest then 2003 was the end of his prime and he never regained that form while Kobe was still a top 3-5 player in his 17th season.

Shaq was second in MVP voting in 05 and people still talk about how he should have won that year over Nash. I don’t necessarily agree but it was close.

[ArbitraryWater]

Shaq outside of a couple seasons was a bad defensive player who got exploited in the P&R, he'd get toyed with especially in today's NBA like Jokic. You and other bronie fluffers blame Kobe for '04 Finals and act like Shaq was in his prime when Detroit exploited Shaq all series. You can't say someone's a better scorer without mentioning the massive limitations in his game that made him a liability in crunch time offensively.

And he didn't have a longer prime. KB played about 2 seasons more worth of games for his prime if you go 00-13 vs. 93-05 for Shaq, and that's me being generous to Shaq because if we're being honest then 2003 was the end of his prime and he never regained that form while Kobe was still a top 3-5 player in his 17th season.

Kobe was dogshit in 2011 and 2012, Shaq was much better 2004-2005.

Shaq was a beast for THIRTEEN years.

How many years was Kobe a beast? At best 10.


And we can compare those years too and Shaq is better every time.

Its not close.

[ImKobe]

Shaq was second in MVP voting in 05 and people still talk about how he should have won that year over Nash. I don’t necessarily agree but it was close.

Yeah but it wasn't prime Shaq though, but I did include '05 because that's the last season he averaged 20/10, but '03 was the last time we saw a dominant scoring version of Shaq. '04 he was barely getting 20 and the Pistons single covered him in the Finals with Ben Wallace, a prime Shaq would have annihilated him but he didn't have the stamina.

[ImKobe]

Kobe was dogshit in 2011 and 2012, Shaq was much better 2004-2005.

Shaq was a beast for THIRTEEN years.

How many years was Kobe a beast? At best 10.


And we can compare those years too and Shaq is better every time.

Its not close.

Lol what? KB was still first team All-NBA and played all 82 in 2011 despite playing on one knee and put up 25/5/5 in just 34 mpg on a 2 seed. 2012 he sat out to let KD win the scoring title and still led the Lakers to a #3 seed averaging 28 a game despite losing Phil Jackson and Odom.

KB has more All-NBA 1st teams (11 vs 8) and All-NBA teams in total (15 vs 14) but somehow KB was only good for 10 seasons. Ok lol.

[StrongLurk]

Youre at it again with your weird comparing metrics.

ike saying Wade > Dirk cause he was individuay better in... 2 series they happened to pay against each other.


How about just comparing Shaq and Kobe as a whoe, their payoffs as a whoe, and subsequenty reaiizing Shaq was better?

Dude, I swear I ONLY see Kobe stans doing the weird, very specific comparisons between Shaq and Kobe...like Kobe won 2 without Shaq bbut Shaq only won 1 without Kobe blah blah blah. That kind of logic does not matter.

I agree, how about we compare the WHOLE careers of Kobe and Shaq, not just random parts.

Kobe is ranked above Shaq mostly due to timing and popularity. Kobe gained a huge Lakers following because he was there his whole career. Kobe was more flashy. Kobe was being compared to MJ due to style of play. Kobe also had his prime that extended into the social media era and evolution of NBA viewing until 2013. Shaq's prime was basically over by 2005.

If we want to truly be objective, Shaq and Kobe are on the same "tier" of GOATs. It's hard to rank one above the other because they play completely different positions.

[ImKobe]

Dude, I swear I ONLY see Kobe stans doing the weird, very specific comparisons between Shaq and Kobe...like Kobe won 2 without Shaq bbut Shaq only won 1 without Kobe blah blah blah. That kind of logic does not matter.

I agree, how about we compare the WHOLE careers of Kobe and Shaq, not just random parts.

Kobe is ranked above Shaq mostly due to timing and popularity. Kobe gained a huge Lakers following because he was there his whole career. Kobe was more flashy. Kobe was being compared to MJ due to style of play.

If we want to truly be objective, Shaq and Kobe are on the same "tier" of GOATs. It's hard to rank one above the other because they play completely different positions.

It does not matter?

If Shaq is the better player & has more impact, how does he have less rings?

He played with prime Penny, prime Wade, prime Nash & prime Lebron.. 4 rings & 6 Finals in total.. KB made 3 straight Finals with Pau Gasol lol. KB wasted 3 years of his prime on rebuilding teams lol.

[ShawkFactory]

It does not matter?

If Shaq is the better player & has more impact, how does he have less rings?

He played with prime Penny, prime Wade, prime Nash & prime Lebron.. 4 rings & 6 Finals in total.. KB made 3 straight Finals with Pau Gasol lol. KB wasted 3 years of his prime on rebuilding teams lol.

No not really. Because it completely ignores context.

[1987_Lakers]

Give me Shaq

Here are Kobe's finals stats

2000 - 15.6 ppg | 39 fg%

2001 - 24 ppg | 41.5 fg% | 50 TS%

2002 - 27 ppg | 51 fg% | 62 TS%

2004 - 23 ppg | 38 fg% | 46 TS%

2008 - 26 ppg | 40.1 fg% | 50.5 TS%

2009 - 32 ppg | 43 fg% | 52.5 TS%

2010 - 29 ppg | 40.1 fg% | 52.8 TS%



Here are Kobe's game seven stats.

44.2 MPG

22.2 points

FG 38.9%

FT 67.3%

8 RPG

5 APG

1 SPG

1.3 BPG





Here are Kobe's stats when facing elimination.



22.3 PPG

5.8 RPG


3.5 APG

1.3 SPG

1.3 BPG

on a 50.3 TS

and his teams went 9-10 in those games.

[ImKobe]

No not really. Because it completely ignores context.

What context? That Shaq got swept out of the Playoffs on great teams until Kobe became a superstar? That Shaq joined Wade, Nash & Bron after leaving Kobe and only made 1 more Finals while KB made 3 in a row with Gasol?

[1987_Lakers]

What context? That Shaq got swept out of the Playoffs on great teams until Kobe became a superstar? That Shaq joined Wade, Nash & Bron after leaving Kobe and only made 1 more Finals while KB made 3 in a row with Gasol?

This context


I do believe he sees the other 4 players on that list as ATG 2-way players who could lead their teams to a title. GP lost in 6 games to one of the GOAT teams ever and he played hurt in that series (Karl's dumb ass waited until the series was out of reach to put GP on Jordan) & still played the best 1 on 1 defense on Jordan that we've ever seen. GP was a great offensive player as he was at his prime/peak defensively. I feel like PG peaked on D in 2013/14 and wasn't the same defender after his leg injury, and he only had 1 season as a truly elite offensive player and even then he couldn't make it to the POs without being hurt.

I know he believes he had GOAT 2-way potential but I just find it funny that he's saying all this crap when Kawhi is the best 2-way SF ever when healthy.

That's you in another thread. Shaq lost to that same team without Horace Grant.

Or how about the context of the Kobe's numbers I just posted?

[SouBeachTalents]

What context? That Shaq got swept out of the Playoffs on great teams until Kobe became a superstar? That Shaq joined Wade, Nash & Bron after leaving Kobe and only made 1 more Finals while KB made 3 in a row with Gasol?
What context? You keep bringing up Nash & LeBron like Shaq wasn't in his late 30's when he played for them. I can assure you, late 30's Kobe isn't winning shit with those teams either :lol And if not for Wade's injury in '05 they make b2b Finals, with a real shot at b2b titles.

[Overdrive]

Agreed plus Shaq dominated 7 years of his career in the 90s.

But Kobe’s value to the 2000 ring and then basically two headed alpha in 2001 and 2002, plus his success thereafter, Kobe was most certainly the better basketball player. Shaq had an extremely dominant peak and prime though.

Would’ve been interesting if his cast didn’t crash and burn so hard due to intimidation from Boston in the 2008 Finals, and also if that CP3 to LA trade was never vetoed.

Shameful we never got Kobe vs Bron in the Finals. 2009, 2010, 2011, it was there for the taking. Maybe even 2012 and 2013 if it wasn’t for catastrophic injuries.

Kobe wasn't the better player. You just like the asthetics of his game more. His impact obviously fed off his front courts. The moment his front court wasn't great his individual game led to nothing.

If Kobe was drafted by NJ and let's say they still go for Marbury(so he doesn't rot there alone in this scenario) what do you think Kobe's career would have been? A more durable T-Mac. I doubt he ever wins in this case if he doesn't get traded to a contender.

Yes, he won without Shaq and that always gets brought up, but Kobe's career trajectory was better timed for that. Integral pieces for Kobe's post Shaq success were also directly or indirectly acquired through the Shaq trade and he ran into one of the weakest Finals teams and yet Lakers were a Courtney Lee miss away from a potential open series.

The Magic in 1995 were young and ran into an improved champion. They get the Spurs and beat them is Shaq suddenly a better player than Kobe for you?


Shaq was great in the 90s but kept getting swept out of the Playoffs despite having great rosters before Kobe became a superstar, and they were on the verge of choking a 3 - 1 lead in the WCF before KB and others stepped up in Game 7.

Shaq didn't get swept. The Lakers/Magic were. Would it have made a difference if NY hit those fts(leaving some butterfly effect cases out of this) and the Magic lose 4-1? Would Shaq be a better player? What does it change about his individual play?

If Kobe hits those 3s instead of airballing them. Does this make Shaq a better player? What if NVE stops talking about his holidays on the bench and instead plays like the all star he was that year? Does this make Shaq a better player?

Kobe was great in G7 2000 WCF, but he didn't take over to win them the game. The Blazers stopped hitting open shots for minutes down the stretch in the 4th. Not well defended. Open shots they hit all series. Lakers role players started hitting theirs. That's the story of the game. Rewatch it instead of looking at the statsheet. Coming into the 4th the Lakers were done. Had the Blazers kept playing at an average rate there's no comeback. You might also want to check the 4th quarter stats.

Also Shaq was always double teamed. Regularly triple teamed and at times they put a 4th guy to help at him. Surprise the 2nd best guy on the team goes off?

[ImKobe]

What context? You keep bringing up Nash & LeBron like Shaq wasn't in his late 30's when he played for them. I can assure you, late 30's Kobe isn't winning shit with those teams either :lol And if not for Wade's injury in '05 they make b2b Finals, with a real shot at b2b titles.

Suns were a title contender. They trade Marion for Shaq and go from WCF/WCSF to 1st round loss to missing the POs with him and go back to the WCF the year after they get rid of him.

The guy who made the longevity argument for Shaq overlooks this part. He was in MVP convo at 32/33 due to Miami's success (though Wade was the best player on the team and it clearly showed in the POs where Shaq put up just 19 a game) but his prime ended in '03, which would put him at 31 years old at the time. Shaq didn't take care of his body which is why he fell off and why he only had one Finals & one ring after leaving KB and ring chasing with other ATGs.

I'm fine with the context of him being old but then don't make the longevity argument for him. Him getting swept with Penny was part of his prime. Him getting swept on those Laker teams before Phil & Kobe took over are a part of his prime. He couldn't win without a superstar wing closing out games for him.

[ImKobe]

Kobe wasn't the better player. You just like the asthetics of his game more. His impact obviously fed off his front courts. The moment his front court wasn't great his individual game led to nothing.

If Kobe was drafted by NJ and let's say they still go for Marbury(so he doesn't rot there alone in this scenario) what do you think Kobe's career would have been? A more durable T-Mac. I doubt he ever wins in this case if he doesn't get traded to a contender.

Yes, he won without Shaq and that always gets brought up, but Kobe's career trajectory was better timed for that. Integral pieces for Kobe's post Shaq success were also directly or indirectly acquired through the Shaq trade and he ran into one of the weakest Finals teams and yet Lakers were a Courtney Lee miss away from a potential open series.

The Magic in 1995 were young and ran into an improved champion. They get the Spurs and beat them is Shaq suddenly a better player than Kobe for you?



Shaq didn't get swept. The Lakers/Magic were. Would it have made a difference if NY hit those fts(leaving some butterfly effect cases out of this) and the Magic lose 4-1? Would Shaq be a better player? What does it change about his individual play?

If Kobe hits those 3s instead of airballing them. Does this make Shaq a better player? What if NVE stops talking about his holidays on the bench and instead plays like the all star he was that year? Does this make Shaq a better player?

Kobe was great in G7 2000 WCF, but he didn't take over to win them the game. The Blazers stopped hitting open shots for minutes down the stretch in the 4th. Not well defended. Open shots they hit all series. Lakers role players started hitting theirs. That's the story of the game. Rewatch it instead of looking at the statsheet. Coming into the 4th the Lakers were done. Had the Blazers kept playing at an average rate there's no comeback. You might also want to check the 4th quarter stats.

Also Shaq was always double teamed. Regularly triple teamed and at times they put a 4th guy to help at him. Surprise the 2nd best guy on the team goes off?

If If If... I don't need to play hypotheticals to make my point here. KB had the Lakers among the top seeds in the league with a young Bynum pre-Gasol trade, and Gasol was a nobody before being traded to LA, yet he goes from a nobody who went 0 - 12 in the POs and who was leading his team to 20-30 wins that year to making the Finals with Kobe all in the same season. KB took an injured Lakers team missing Bynum & Ariza to the Finals with Gasol putting on a stinker vs. the Spurs.

KB wasted 3 years of his prime on bad teams but somehow had a much better trajectory? Shaq had Penny a couple years into his career and was contending for titles but got swept in the ECF & the Finals and then went to LA and got swept in B2B years ('98 & '99) before Phil & KB took over. Shaq got swept by Jordan, Hakeem, Karl Malone and TD/Robinson. KB becomes a star & they avoid the 3 - 1 choke vs Portland (Shaq sucks in Game 7) and dominate the Spurs to win 2 more titles in following seasons.

Point is that Shaq NEEDED a superstar wing to win titles because he was a limited offensive player despite all the great numbers. He was a liability at the FT line. He had limited range. He needed someone to run the offense & get him the ball in his spots. Big men who can't run an offense, can't shoot & can't handle the ball are dinosaurs for a reason.

[Overdrive]

If If If... I don't need to play hypotheticals to make my point here. KB had the Lakers among the top seeds in the league with a young Bynum pre-Gasol trade, and Gasol was a nobody before being traded to LA, yet he goes from a nobody who went 0 - 12 in the POs and who was leading his team to 20-30 wins that year to making the Finals with Kobe all in the same season. KB took an injured Lakers team missing Bynum & Ariza to the Finals with Gasol putting on a stinker vs. the Spurs.

KB wasted 3 years of his prime on bad teams but somehow had a much better trajectory? Shaq had Penny a couple years into his career and was contending for titles but got swept in the ECF & the Finals and then went to LA and got swept in B2B years ('98 & '99) before Phil & KB took over. Shaq got swept by Jordan, Hakeem, Karl Malone and TD/Robinson. KB becomes a star & they avoid the 3 - 1 choke vs Portland (Shaq sucks in Game 7) and dominate the Spurs to win 2 more titles in following seasons.

Point is that Shaq NEEDED a superstar wing to win titles because he was a limited offensive player despite all the great numbers. He was a liability at the FT line. He had limited range. He needed someone to run the offense & get him the ball in his spots. Big men who can't run an offense, can't shoot & can't handle the ball are dinosaurs for a reason.

It's not ifs. It just shows that you can't disconnect insividual success from a collective outcome for Shaq. Yet you do for Kobe during his shitteam years. Ironically during that years Kobe threw a playoff G7 on purpose.

Yes, Shaq needed someone to get him the ball, but it's obvious it didn't have to be Kobe. You also completely ignore that that G7 win was completely beyond Kobe's power. The Blazers hit 3 more shots and they win.

Trajectory in the sense that large parts of Kobe's prime happened without Shaq, while Shaq's coincided with Kobe being on the team.

[ImKobe]

It's not ifs. It just shows that you can't disconnect insividual success from a collective outcome for Shaq. Yet you do for Kobe during his shitteam years. Ironically during that years Kobe threw a playoff G7 on purpose.

Yes, Shaq needed someone to get him the ball, but it's obvious it didn't have to be Kobe. You also completely ignore that that G7 win was completely beyond Kobe's power. The Blazers hit 3 more shots and they win.

Trajectory in the sense that large parts of Kobe's prime happened without Shaq, while Shaq's coincided with Kobe being on the team.

He didn't throw. He had 23 I believe in the first half and they were getting the doors blown off them so he tried changing to the strategy of focusing his energy on D and spreading the ball which worked for them earlier in the series but they kept getting destroyed on D so the series was over. KB made it to a Game 7 vs. a title contender while playing with garbage while a prime Shaq gets swept in that same scenario because he can't elevate a garbage roster the same way.

It didn't have to be Kobe but he won 3 straight with KB while he made 1 Finals with Penny (swept), 1 with Wade (won averaging 13 ppg vs Dallas) and completely derailed the Suns when they gave up Marion for him.

Sure, but Kobe was only prime Kobe from '00-'04 so Shaq got to be his own man in all the other years and you know it's bad when a rookie Kobe (who barely got minutes off the bench all season) was asked to make clutch shots vs. Utah when he clearly wasn't ready at 18 lol. That's just the limitations of a player like Shaq and I love the guy for his time in LA, but I'll always ride for KB when people want to compare the two because KB's #1 focus was basketball and he did a lot to improve his game while Shaq coasted off his physical tools & didn't take it seriously enough which ended up ruining a dynasty that could have rivaled the 90s Bulls.

[Overdrive]

He didn't throw. He had 23 I believe in the first half and they were getting the doors blown off them so he tried changing to the strategy of focusing his energy on D and spreading the ball which worked for them earlier in the series but they kept getting destroyed on D so the series was over. KB made it to a Game 7 vs. a title contender while playing with garbage while a prime Shaq gets swept in that same scenario because he can't elevate a garbage roster the same way.

It didn't have to be Kobe but he won 3 straight with KB while he made 1 Finals with Penny (swept), 1 with Wade (won averaging 13 ppg vs Dallas) and completely derailed the Suns when they gave up Marion for him.

Sure, but Kobe was only prime Kobe from '00-'04 so Shaq got to be his own man in all the other years and you know it's bad when a rookie Kobe (who barely got minutes off the bench all season) was asked to make clutch shots vs. Utah when he clearly wasn't ready at 18 lol. That's just the limitations of a player like Shaq and I love the guy for his time in LA, but I'll always ride for KB when people want to compare the two because KB's #1 focus was basketball and he did a lot to improve his game while Shaq coasted off his physical tools & didn't take it seriously enough which ended up ruining a dynasty that could have rivaled the 90s Bulls.

Of course a 36/37 year old Shaq would derail a team that made its success on a run and gun offense.

Of course Shaq was limited as a player and needed perimeter scoring, but Kobe being asked(was he? the Lakers had other shooters) was on Harris at best or Kobe at worst. Kobe himself was limited aswell. It wasn't as glaring for people who enjoy the asthetics of the game but he was boneheaded and often inefficient. You could trap him and still force an ill advised shot out of him.

He hit quite alot, but "the right" play wasn't wired into him. You think impact wise shooting like 20% in such situations is any better than hitting 55% fts? Both were liabilities in their on way while also being great.

Shaq needed a back court to win, Kobe a front court to offset their shortcomings.
But yes, Shaq being lazy and greedy stopped the Lakers from being in contention til 2006 realistically.

[1987_Lakers]

What I find funny is ImKobe said "What context?" after saying Shaq was swept by the Bulls (left out the Horace Grant injury) but in another thread he excuses GP for losing to the same team "He lost to one of the GOAT teams ever and was hurt".

[StrongLurk]

It does not matter?

If Shaq is the better player & has more impact, how does he have less rings?

He played with prime Penny, prime Wade, prime Nash & prime Lebron.. 4 rings & 6 Finals in total.. KB made 3 straight Finals with Pau Gasol lol. KB wasted 3 years of his prime on rebuilding teams lol.

He was out of his prime when he played with Nash and Lebron so that doesn't matter. Shaq was all-nba level basically for the first 12 years of his career.

Why did it take 12 years for Kobe to win a ring as the best player on his team? What took him so long?

[ShawkFactory]

What context? That Shaq got swept out of the Playoffs on great teams until Kobe became a superstar? That Shaq joined Wade, Nash & Bron after leaving Kobe and only made 1 more Finals while KB made 3 in a row with Gasol?

The context that you tend to go deep into when it's your argument and it suits you, but that you completely ignore when it doesn't.

You're over here mentioning Shaq's years in 2009 and 2010. Which is weird because everyone here knows that if they were to mention Kobe in 2012 or 2013 you'd give a detailed post highlighting exactly who was injured on the team and for how many games, who the opponents were in the playoffs, and how great Kobe's averages were from February 26th-April 3rd.

[SouBeachTalents]

The context that you tend to go deep into when it's your argument and it suits you, but that you completely ignore when it doesn't.

You're over here mentioning Shaq's years in 2009 and 2010. Which is weird because everyone here knows that if they were to mention Kobe in 2012 or 2013 you'd give a detailed post highlighting exactly who was injured on the team and for how many games, who the opponents were in the playoffs, and how great Kobe's averages were from February 26th-April 3rd.
:oldlol:

[Axe]

He was out of his prime when he played with Nash and Lebron so that doesn't matter. Shaq was all-nba level basically for the first 12 years of his career.

Why did it take 12 years for Kobe to win a ring as the best player on his team? What took him so long?
Very interesting question.

[ImKobe]

Of course a 36/37 year old Shaq would derail a team that made its success on a run and gun offense.

Of course Shaq was limited as a player and needed perimeter scoring, but Kobe being asked(was he? the Lakers had other shooters) was on Harris at best or Kobe at worst. Kobe himself was limited aswell. It wasn't as glaring for people who enjoy the asthetics of the game but he was boneheaded and often inefficient. You could trap him and still force an ill advised shot out of him.

He hit quite alot, but "the right" play wasn't wired into him. You think impact wise shooting like 20% in such situations is any better than hitting 55% fts? Both were liabilities in their on way while also being great.

Shaq needed a back court to win, Kobe a front court to offset their shortcomings.
But yes, Shaq being lazy and greedy stopped the Lakers from being in contention til 2006 realistically.

KB in the last 5 mins in the 4th with score within 5 was top 5 in scoring and even top 5 in TS% in some of those runs and had a great AST-TO ratio in crunch time but aight lol. Just run with the ESPN stat that only uses 20 whatever shots and ignores FTs or the volume of 3s in those situations.

Last 5 minutes, score within 5 in the 4th

2000 Playoffs

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/clutch-traditional?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&GameSegment=Second+Half&Period=4&TeamID=1610612747

KB 3.5 ppg 50%FG 75%FT/60.76%TS
Shaq 4.0 ppg 71.4%FG 46.2%FT/61.5%TS

2001 Playoffs

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/clutch-traditional?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&GameSegment=Second+Half&Period=4&TeamID=1610612747

KB 3.1 ppg 41.7%FG 84.6%FT/61.12%TS
Shaq 0.9 ppg 37.5%FG 0%FT/31.96%TS

2002 Playoffs

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/clutch-traditional?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&GameSegment=Second+Half&Period=4&TeamID=1610612747

KB 2.8 ppg 39.4%FG 88.9%FT/59.22%TS
Shaq 2.2 ppg 43.5%FG 71.4%FT/55.78%TS

But Kobe was a 20% shooter and not good in crunch time and only made bad decisions lol.. sure.



I do admit creating for your teammates is a huge factor in clutch situations, so I decided to add assists per 36 and turnovers per 36.

"Clutch" is 2 minutes left with margin of 3 in playoffs,

Playoffs:




He is 40/96 in clutch situations.

His free throw shooting is 67/79

His true shooting is 58 %

Assists per 36: 4.3 assists

Turnovers per 36: 1.7 turnovers


Finals: Last 2 minutes, margin of 3.

He is 10/20 in clutch situations

His free throw shooting is 4/5

His true shooting is 56.4%

Assists per 36: 7.5 assists

TO per 36: 1.5 TO


Finals: Last 5 minutes, margin of 5.

Kobe

28/63 in clutch situations in the finals.

46% EFG

53% TS.

Assists per 36: 3.6

TO per 36: 1.08

[John8204]

What context? You keep bringing up Nash & LeBron like Shaq wasn't in his late 30's when he played for them. I can assure you, late 30's Kobe isn't winning shit with those teams either :lol And if not for Wade's injury in '05 they make b2b Finals, with a real shot at b2b titles.

Thought 1 - Shaq was the most dominant player in NBA history
Thought 2 - But Horace Grant and Dwayne Wade's injuries kept him from winning

Shaq fanboys are always making emotional arguements and throwing out excuses. Magic was able to win when it counted without Kareem...that's why Magic is a great and Shaq is a good.



Shaq was a better scorer, better rebounder, better defender, longer prime, higher peak, better in the playoffs, much better in the finals. Even created more room for others by being the inside presence he was.

1. Better Scorer...never had a 30PPG season, couldn't hit free throws, finished behind Kobe on the all-time list
2. Better rebounder...well I would hope a 400lb Center rebounds more than your shooting guard. You'd also think the most dominant player in NBA history could have led the league in rebounds once in his career
3. Longer Prime....I don't think Shaq ever had a "prime" he had good years and bad years pretty much from the start of his career. Shaq only played 70 games three times after his leg break...Kobe did it 9 times.
4. Higher peak....yeah apparently only when his team mates were healthy though
5. Better in the playoffs....except for all the times he got swept it which case it was someone elses fault
6. Better in the finals...unless you count W/L record cause Kobe is 5-2 and Shaq is 4-2 with a 220-200 record vs 216-214 record
7. Now as for defenders...Kobe's one of the greatest SG defenders of all-time...Shaq never made first team and I would remind you he's "the most dominant player of all-time"

[LAL]

Bronsexuals chiming in as usual. The biggest Shaq fans lol.

BuT hOrAcE GrAaAaNt

[Lakers Legend#32]

Everyone's going to sentimentalize Kobe based on how he died.

But Shaq was the real guts of those Lakers teams.

[John8204]

I didn't say the end of his career shouldn't matter. I said in 14-15 seasons he's achieved more already than Oscar and West in terms of rings and MVPs combined, on top of being the GOAT shooter. If that isn't already enough to be considered higher ranked than both, then why would another ring and MVP do it for you?

Well he hasn't achieved certain things which is the point...he still has a career to play. Rings/MVPs/statistic bench marks are important. He might end up overtaking them...he might not.


Another arbitrary metric. Curry has missed significant enough time to impact his career totals. Obviously since like 2015 he's emerged as one of the greatest scorers over. It's interesting how much you emphasize guys averaging 30ppg yet your number 8 guy on the list, Mikan, never averaged above 28.4. You have Magic 6th and he doesn't even have 20k points, let alone 25k. Curry has 4 rings, 2 MVPs, 1 FMVP, over 20k points, and the 'GOAT' shooter metric. Your own criteria for how you're judging players you rank higher dictates that Curry's ranking in your list is too low.

Context...Mikan averaged 28.4 which was the high for the league, he led the NBA/BAA/NBL in scoring for four seasons putting him in the class with Jordan, Durant, Gervin, Iverson, and Wilt. Curry missing time is also kind of an issue the best ability is availability. And hold that against players like Durant, Kwahi and Shaq. Magic not having 20K points is an issue...but he's got 6 rings. I also don't just rank players based on one metric but generation-ally...Curry's moving further away from Durant and Giannis but he's still behind Lebron. He's about the same distance Jordan and Hakeem are. In my opinion.


Yet you have him ranked 5th.

Yup behind Wilt, Larry, Lebron and Jordan and ahead of Bill, Magic and Mikan.


It's only his 'problem' if someone is going to use that to judge his career rankings using something they also admit isn't his fault.

It might not be his fault but it is his problem...Kobe, Duncan, MJ, Magic were all able to win without the shady officiating more than Shaq. We see a lot of excuses about Shaq having injured teammates but I would rather see that that shady calls.


You're aware of what Shaq did in terms of MVPs,rings and FMVPs so I'm not playing that stupid game. You've already given your reasoning for why you don't value his accomplishments so it would be a waste of time regurgitating them here. I'm of the belief that you can only play and beat who is in front of you. People act like 'Shaq only won when the other great centers got old' but seem to forget that Ewing never won a ring, Robinson only won when Duncan took over the team, and Hakeem won against a young Shaq and 'barely' outplayed him. I could just as easily counter that Hakeem didn't have to come across 2000-2002 Shaq when he won his titles, because that version of Shaq is far and away better than 1995 Shaq or anyone else Hakeem faced those years he won.

Hakeem beat the better version of Shaq in my opinion...Shaq was a lot more mobile in Orlando than Los Angeles. And while it's easy to say how would Shaq in 2000 performed against Hakeem...Hakeem beat Robinson, Ewing, and Shaq to win those two titles. All three of which were top 75 all-time players. Hakeem also wasn't swept as often as Shaq was at any point in his career and was better against the great John Stockton and Karl Malone.


Again, Kobe won those same 3 rings you say were 'tainted' with Shaq against the same competition but he's in your top ten. If you're going to use the 'tainted rings' argument then Kobe shouldn't be anywhere near your top ten. You are fine saying that someone like Oscar didn't play for great teams in his prime but you put the burden on Shaq to beat superior teams over the first 7 years of his career. Kobe was also on alot of those teams getting swept. 'But he was young', is your reply I bet? Sure, that would be fair context to provide. So then, wasn't Shaq also 'young' facing Hakeem and Jordan when they swept him? You also act like the times Shaq got swept that he wasn't at worst one of the two best players in those series.I would agree that a few of those series he should have been able to squeeze out a few wins but those teams were better than his. The 98 Jazz who swept him were a Jordan clutch miracle away from game 7 on their home floor. The 99 Spurs won the chip. You act like the teams who swept him were scrubs.

Kobe beat a super team...Shaq never did. Shaq was never on a bad team though...Oscar's best teammate in those first seven seasons was Jerry Lucas. Shaq was playing with all-NBA guys and MVP's and getting swept. It's like you are saying ignore the numbers the guy was dominant...but he's dominant guy that got swept all the time throughout his career. I believe Kobe/Shaq got swept twice...once when Kobe was on the bench and once to Duncan's Spurs.

Kobe is fringe top ten for me...in 10 years he might fall out to newer players. But it doesn't change what Shaq did and what Kobe did. Who are you replacing Kobe/Oscar with in the top ten....Duncan/West/Moses/Hakeem...cool. Curry or Giannis when their career ends maybe.

[HoopsNY]

KB in the last 5 mins in the 4th with score within 5 was top 5 in scoring and even top 5 in TS% in some of those runs and had a great AST-TO ratio in crunch time but aight lol. Just run with the ESPN stat that only uses 20 whatever shots and ignores FTs or the volume of 3s in those situations.

Last 5 minutes, score within 5 in the 4th

2000 Playoffs

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/clutch-traditional?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&GameSegment=Second+Half&Period=4&TeamID=1610612747

KB 3.5 ppg 50%FG 75%FT/60.76%TS
Shaq 4.0 ppg 71.4%FG 46.2%FT/61.5%TS

2001 Playoffs

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/clutch-traditional?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&GameSegment=Second+Half&Period=4&TeamID=1610612747

KB 3.1 ppg 41.7%FG 84.6%FT/61.12%TS
Shaq 0.9 ppg 37.5%FG 0%FT/31.96%TS

2002 Playoffs

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/clutch-traditional?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&GameSegment=Second+Half&Period=4&TeamID=1610612747

KB 2.8 ppg 39.4%FG 88.9%FT/59.22%TS
Shaq 2.2 ppg 43.5%FG 71.4%FT/55.78%TS

But Kobe was a 20% shooter and not good in crunch time and only made bad decisions lol.. sure.

Interesting...how did he do from 2004-2012?

[Cold soul]

Shaq had the higher peak but Kobe had a better longer prime he beats Shaq in longevity too. Kobe had the better more successful career than Shaq who is ranked right behind Kobe in top 10.

[Phoenix]

Well he hasn't achieved certain things which is the point...he still has a career to play. Rings/MVPs/statistic bench marks are important. He might end up overtaking them...he might not.

But he's achieved things or more of things than both of them combined which is the point. You're hilarious. You say rings/MVPs/statistic benchmarks are important. West and Oscar have 2 rings and zero MVPs between them. Curry has 4 rings and 2 MVPs. So if Curry having 4 rings and 2 MVPs isn't enough for you to rank him over Oscar and West then why would winning 5 rings and 3 MVPs do it? He's already lapped them both in 2 of the 3 benchmarks you listed. He's also the career leader in 3s. You give Stockton props for leading alltime in assists and steals. Curry's 3 point record is likely just as unbreakable. Curry has already done more than enough, you've just decided he hasn't cause reasons.

Context...Mikan averaged 28.4 which was the high for the league, he led the NBA/BAA/NBL in scoring for four seasons putting him in the class with Jordan, Durant, Gervin, Iverson, and Wilt. Curry missing time is also kind of an issue the best ability is availability. And hold that against players like Durant, Kwahi and Shaq. Magic not having 20K points is an issue...but he's got 6 rings. I also don't just rank players based on one metric but generation-ally...Curry's moving further away from Durant and Giannis but he's still behind Lebron. He's about the same distance Jordan and Hakeem are. In my opinion.

The context is he didn't average 30ppg. I know that he lead the league in scoring. I bring up the 30ppg mark because that's the benchmark you bring up when it suits you. All of a sudden it doesnt matter. You're full of shit. Mikan also played what, 7 or 8 years? Put him a decade forward and he's in the 60s competing with Russell and Wilt, and probably wins sweet fukk all

Magic has 5 rings, not 6, by the way. And was not the best player for 2/3 of them. Oh what, context no longer applies?

Yup behind Wilt, Larry, Lebron and Jordan and ahead of Bill, Magic and Mikan.

You said earlier you didnt value him. If you've got him ranked 5th all time that's valuing him pretty damn high.



It might not be his fault but it is his problem...Kobe, Duncan, MJ, Magic were all able to win without the shady officiating more than Shaq. We see a lot of excuses about Shaq having injured teammates but I would rather see that that shady calls.

Ok so since you're repeating yourself I'll do the same. It's only his problem when someone uses it as a reason to limit his rankings based on something they also admit isn't his fault. Also, what shady officiating asides from the 2002 Kings series are you referring to?



Hakeem beat the better version of Shaq in my opinion...Shaq was a lot more mobile in Orlando than Los Angeles. And while it's easy to say how would Shaq in 2000 performed against Hakeem...Hakeem beat Robinson, Ewing, and Shaq to win those two titles. All three of which were top 75 all-time players. Hakeem also wasn't swept as often as Shaq was at any point in his career and was better against the great John Stockton and Karl Malone.

Yeah, no. Mobility aside, Shaq was a far more cerebral and experienced player in 2000. Better passer out of double teams, better timing and sense of game management. Skillset was more finely tuned at that point. That's almost like saying 87 Jordan was better than 92 Jordan when the former was a bit more mobile. You'd have to be desperate to hold onto a narrative in order to come up with an opinion that laughable. Yes Hakeem overcame a gauntlet of centers during his titles, and didnt get swept as often as Shaq. He did, however, get knocked out in the first round numerous times leading up to that run.


Kobe beat a super team...Shaq never did. Shaq was never on a bad team though...Oscar's best teammate in those first seven seasons was Jerry Lucas. Shaq was playing with all-NBA guys and MVP's and getting swept. It's like you are saying ignore the numbers the guy was dominant...but he's dominant guy that got swept all the time throughout his career. I believe Kobe/Shaq got swept twice...once when Kobe was on the bench and once to Duncan's Spurs.

What super team? The 2010 Celtics with a past prime/injured KG, Pierce and Allen? The actual 'super' version of that team was in 2008....and Kobe lost to that team. Decidedly.

Oh so now you add the context that Kobe was a bench player in 98. What you're not grasping is those Lakers teams were young and inexperienced. They hadn't figured out how to win yet at that level. The same Jazz that swept the Lakers knocked out the Spurs in 5. Yeah, Shaq could have taken a game off them as well but the point is, that Jazz team punched above their weight in terms of the Xs and Os which can, as we saw, neuter raw talent.

The other times prime Shaq got swept;

1994- against the Pacers. He was the only All-NBA guy. Penny was a rookie.
1995- against a better Rockets team with peak Hakeem, end of prime Drexeler, and a better cast of role players.
1996- to a GOAT level team with a GOAT level player while missing Horace Grant who was major the prior year

There's some more context for you. The only thing there that's really a black mark is he should have been good enough to not get swept by the Pacers. Otherwise, look at the teams that beat them and the context around those victories. Context that you like to either add or ignore at your convenience, it appears. You also seem to pinpoint Shaq as the reason his teams were getting swept and that his teammates/coaching have no accountability to those outcomes.

The overall point is you nitpick the fukk outta Shaqs career, way more than the others. To the point where I'm almost inclined to think you value him higher than you're letting on because of the standards you apply to him. The only player who had a practically flawless career is Bill Russell. You can pick apart just about any other alltime greats career and magnify their shortcomings in the name of creating arguments.

Kobe is fringe top ten for me...in 10 years he might fall out to newer players. But it doesn't change what Shaq did and what Kobe did. Who are you replacing Kobe/Oscar with in the top ten....Duncan/West/Moses/Hakeem...cool. Curry or Giannis when their career ends maybe.

What you rank Kobe is neither here nor there. I'm not even making an argument during this conversation as to who should be ranked higher. That's not the point. There's simply no way that wherever you rank Kobe that Shaq is double-digit spots behind him in the rankings and out of the top 20. You'll have a poster like ImKobe go to war for him all day long and I doubt even he would go that far.



Bolded replies