Is Shaq top 5 ever? Why, why not?

[QUOTE=plowking]Lets rate David Robinson ahead of Tim Duncan then. It's only fair. He had better statistical seasons then Tim in his prime, so he obviously deserves to be ahead of him. I beleive he had a season where he averaged over 2 steals and 4 blocks per game, which is a very rare feat similar to that of Oscars triple double in terms of comparing it to Shaq.

So should David Robinson be rated above Tim Dunan?[/QUOTE]

No... because Tim's achievements are signficantly more than David's, and David did not actually have much more skill than Tim. Oscar, however, had much more skill than Shaq. He was a complete offensive threat, close to the level of MJ. Shaq has achieved more, but not significantly more than Oscar. You can't overlook the fact that Oscar played on teams with relatively little help for most of his career. Shaq has always had that second fiddle.

[QUOTE=72-10]No... [B]because Tim's achievements are signficantly more than David's[/B], and [B]David did not actually have much more skill than Tim[/B]. Oscar, however, had much more skill than Shaq. He was a complete offensive threat, close to the level of MJ. Shaq has achieved more, but not significantly more than Oscar. You can't overlook the fact that Oscar played on teams with relatively little help for most of his career. Shaq has always had that second fiddle.[/QUOTE]


1. Shaq's are significantly more then Oscars. In fact 3 championships more, amazing finals stats, and 3 finals MVP's is the difference.
2. How can that be determined. David averaged better stats in his career, a better defensive player and was able to drop 71 points against a team. Dropping 71 points? You have to have more then one offensive move to do that.
3. Furthermore, Tim Duncan is also better then Oscar Robertson.

[QUOTE]You can't overlook the fact that Oscar played on teams with relatively little help for most of his career.[/QUOTE]

Neither did David Robinson. And I'd say at 1 MVP and 2 championships as a second fiddle, his career achievements are near Oscar Robertson's.

I won't argue if a person thinks Oscar > Shaq, but saying that Duncan's achievements are much greater than Robinson's, and Shaq's are relatively close to Oscar's seems wrong.

[QUOTE=plowking]1. Shaq's are significantly more then Oscars. In fact 3 championships more, amazing finals stats, and 3 finals MVP's is the difference.[/QUOTE]

And most of that is attributable to Shaq's significantly better supporting cast...

[QUOTE=plowking]2. How can that be determined. David averaged better stats in his career, a better defensive player and was able to drop 71 points against a team. Dropping 71 points? You have to have more then one offensive move to do that.[/QUOTE]

Are you dense? Duncan is the one with better stats, go take a look for yourself, and he also has played most of his career through the slowest paced era in NBA history. This makes Duncan's stats all the more impressive in relation to D-Rob's. Do you even know the story behind the 71 points? It was a deliberate attempt to win a scoring title at the end of the season, and he was fed the ball the whole game. I don't think Duncan could score 71, but I'm sure that he could put in 60 if he had to, like most NBA greats. Robinson didn't show up in the playoffs nearly as much as Duncan has either, be it pulling down 25+ rebounds or blocking key shots, and Duncan's awards and honors are endless. 8 time All-Defensive 1st teamer, and it's an outrage that he didn't win DPOY in his prime. I could go on.


[QUOTE=plowking]3. Furthermore, Tim Duncan is also better then Oscar Robertson.[/QUOTE]

No, he's not.

[QUOTE=72-10]And most of that is attributable to Shaq's significantly better supporting cast...



Are you dense? [B]Duncan is the one with better stats[/B], go take a look for yourself, and he also has played most of his career through the slowest paced era in NBA history. This makes Duncan's stats all the more impressive in relation to D-Rob's. Do you even know the story behind the 71 points? It was a deliberate attempt to win a scoring title at the end of the season, and he was fed the ball the whole game. I don't think Duncan could score 71, but I'm sure that he could put in 60 if he had to, like most NBA greats. Robinson didn't show up in the playoffs nearly as much as Duncan has either, be it pulling down 25+ rebounds or blocking key shots, and Duncan's awards and honors are endless. 8 time All-Defensive 1st teamer, and it's an outrage that he didn't win DPOY in his prime. I could go on.




No, he's not.[/QUOTE]

No, no they're not.

Robinsons highest rebounding season > Duncan's
Robs highest FT% in season > Duncans
Robs FG % > Duncans
Robs 3pt > Duncans
Robs assists > Duncans
Robs steals > Duncans
Robs blocks > Duncans
Robs points > Duncans
Robs best season with least amount of turnovers (while playing over 35mpg) > Duncans

Thats every major statistical category. What more do you want? Furthermore Robinsons best statistical season > Duncans. Furthermore Robinson is probably one of only two players ever to average above 2 steals and 4 blocks in a season.

You also said that Duncan played in a slower era. You are contradicting yourself in terms of Shaq and Oscar then. He wouldn't have been able to achieve that triple double had the game been played at the pace Shaq played. Also if Shaq had played in Oscars day, his stats would be more impressive due to more points and rebounds.

[QUOTE=Collie]Neither did David Robinson. And I'd say at 1 MVP and 2 championships as a second fiddle, his career achievements are near Oscar Robertson's.[/QUOTE]

Robertson is significantly ahead statistically... therein lies the main difference. However, I would have to say that with the likes of Sean Elliot, Dennis Rodman, and Avery Johnson before his "second fiddle" years, Robinson was better off with teammates than Robertson was.

[QUOTE=plowking]You also said that Duncan played in a slower era. You are contradicting yourself in terms of Shaq and Oscar then. He wouldn't have been able to achieve that triple double had the game been played at the pace Shaq played. Also if Shaq had played in Oscars day, his stats would be more impressive due to more points and rebounds.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm not contradicting myself because Robertson is SIGNIFICANTLY better statistically than Shaq, it is an appreciable margin not a small one. You seem like someone who has not seen enough basketball to realize that statistics do not always correlate properly the skills and impact that a player has. I like statistics, but they work better for baseball. I have seen Shaq's entire career and his entire career he has been able to use his size to his advantage much more than any skill he has. You could count the number of shots he's taken outside of 5 feet with your hands.

[QUOTE=plowking]No, no they're not.

Robinsons highest rebounding season > Duncan's
Robs highest FT% in season > Duncans
Robs FG % > Duncans
Robs 3pt > Duncans
Robs assists > Duncans
Robs steals > Duncans
Robs blocks > Duncans
Robs points > Duncans
Robs best season with least amount of turnovers (while playing over 35mpg) > Duncans

Thats every major statistical category. What more do you want? Furthermore Robinsons best statistical season > Duncans. Furthermore Robinson is probably one of only two players ever to average above 2 steals and 4 blocks in a season.[/QUOTE]
:wtf:

Why would I choose a single season when I can compare career averages?:banghead:

Scoring: Duncan
Rebounding: Duncan
Assists: Duncan
Steals: Robinson
Blocked shots: Robinson

and Duncan is way ahead when it comes to PLAYOFFS production.:hammerhead:

I'd rather have Hakeem because:

1. His free throw shooting is 71% for his career (career high 79%) compared to Shaq's career 52%.

2. He's more mobile and a better defensive player and famously shut down opposing centers in the playoffs.

3. They went head to head and we saw what happened (Shaq was more efficient but they effectively canceled each other out).

I'd also rather personally back a player who demonstrates supreme skill and doesn't commit an offensive foul as his go to move. But that's just my view. Shaq's FG% was definitely far more efficient so choosing him over Hakeem is no crime. They're pretty neck and neck IMO.

[QUOTE=72-10]:wtf:

Why would I choose a single season when I can compare career averages?:banghead:

Scoring: Duncan
Rebounding: Duncan
Assists: Duncan
Steals: Robinson
Blocked shots: Robinson

and Duncan is way ahead when it comes to PLAYOFFS production.:hammerhead:[/QUOTE]

You get single seasons as it shows how good they were in their primes. Sure its easy to compare their numbers now when Duncan is still producing his 20 points and 10 rebounds. Wait untill Duncan is 35 and scoring 15 points one season, then 12 the next, then 8 the next. How about taking out those last 3 seasons of Robinson and compare their careers? Its only fair that way. I gaurantee Robinson will be ahead in the majority of the major statistical categories.

Anyone who chooses to analyze a player's legacy or a facet of his game based upon a single season of production rather than his career should not be analyzing a player's legacy period.

[QUOTE=stephanieg]I'd rather have Hakeem because:

1. His free throw shooting is 71% for his career (career high 79%) compared to Shaq's career 52%.

2. He's more mobile and a better defensive player and famously shut down opposing centers in the playoffs.

3. [B]They went head to head and we saw what happened (Shaq was more efficient but they effectively canceled each other out).[/B]

I'd also rather personally back a player who demonstrates supreme skill and doesn't commit an offensive foul as his go to move. But that's just my view. Shaq's FG% was definitely far more efficient so choosing him over Hakeem is no crime. They're pretty neck and neck IMO.[/QUOTE]

A young Shaq vs a prime Hakeem. Yet Shaq was more efficient and just as good as Hakeem in that series. Tells you something about Shaq.

Hakeem was a better defensive player, though this may have been due to a lot of players being scared to drive in the key with Shaq standing there.

[QUOTE=plowking]Tells you something about Shaq.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it tells you that he was more capable of throwing his weight around and bulling his way in the paint for a dunk. It honestly sounds like you did not see much of Shaq's career.

[QUOTE=72-10]Anyone who chooses to analyze a player's legacy or a facet of his game based upon a single season of production rather than his career should not be analyzing a player's legacy period.[/QUOTE]

Read above, how is it fair to analyse their careers in this point in time when one has gone through the process of aging and having 3 seasons of minimum productio, while the other is just now reaching the end of his prime?

You are the one that shouldn't be analyzing careers when you are not making fair assumptions.

I guess Elton Brand is just as good as Robinson now right? Similar career averages, so I guess its got to be right?

Pathetic. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=72-10]Yes, it tells you that he was more capable of throwing his weight around and bulling his way in the paint for a dunk. It honestly sounds like you did not see much of Shaq's career.[/QUOTE]

Read above, you seem to be filled with bright ways of comparing players.

[QUOTE=72-10]Yes, it tells you that he was more capable of throwing his weight around and bulling his way in the paint for a dunk. It honestly sounds like you did not see much of Shaq's career.[/QUOTE]

So your saying Shaq is no where near as dominant or as good a player, despite being able to 3-peat. You cannot be serious.

[QUOTE=plowking]Read above, how is it fair to analyse their careers in this point in time when one has gone through the process of aging and having 3 seasons of minimum productio, while the other is just now reaching the end of his prime?

You are the one that shouldn't be analyzing careers when you are not making fair assumptions.

I guess Elton Brand is just as good as Robinson now right? Similar career averages, so I guess its got to be right?

Pathetic. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Read above, I already pointed out how Duncan has played most of his career through the slowest paced era in history and yet he stills comes out on top, ESPECIALLY in the all-important POSTSEASON. That is certainly a large compensating factor. Duncan's numbers are not final, but a career approach is still much more accurate by this point in his career than trying to compare with single seasons.

[QUOTE=plowking]So your saying Shaq is no where near as dominant or as good a player, despite being able to 3-peat. You cannot be serious.[/QUOTE]

When did I ever say that? Don't put words in my mouth. And who are you comparing him to, Hakeem?

[QUOTE=72-10]Read above, I already pointed out how Duncan has played most of his career through the slowest paced era in history and yet he stills comes out on top, ESPECIALLY in the all-important POSTSEASON. That is certainly a large compensating factor. Duncan's numbers are not final, but a career approach is still much more accurate by this point in his career than trying to compare with single seasons.[/QUOTE]

So that would be Oscars numbers are not that impressive seing as he played in an even faster era, where rebounds were coming down like rain, and points being scored at a far greater rate.

So Shaq would be better off in this era as well, with more rebounds and points. Not to mention FG% due to his size, as he'd be the biggest player ever seen at that time.

[QUOTE=72-10]When did I ever say that? Don't put words in my mouth. And who are you comparing him to, Hakeem?[/QUOTE]

Oscar again.

And it seems as though you're the one that hasn't seen Shaq play in his prime when all you think he did is bully his way in the paint and dunk.

[QUOTE=plowking]So that would be Oscars numbers are not that impressive seing as he played in an even faster era, where rebounds were coming down like rain, and points being scored at a far greater rate.

So Shaq would be better off in this era as well, with more rebounds and points. Not to mention FG% due to his size, as he'd be the biggest player ever seen at that time.[/QUOTE]

You're delving too far into speculation. Shaq's numbers would be inflated but they still would not match up favorably with Oscar's. Oscar's production matches up favorably against almost any player in any era.

[QUOTE=72-10]You're delving too far into speculation. Shaq's numbers would be inflated but they still would not match up favorably with Oscar's. Oscar's production matches up favorably against almost any player in any era.[/QUOTE]

As far as I can see, you are brushing off every single argument. The number difference between Robinson and Duncan would be less then Shaq and Oscar seeing as their is a smaller difference in time between the two. Also the era's in which Duncan and Robinson played were not that different in terms of the pace.

Though if this is the case, are you saying that Kobe's 35.4ppg recently is more impressive then Jordan's 37.1ppg in the 80's?

[QUOTE=plowking]Oscar again.

And it seems as though you're the one that hasn't seen Shaq play in his prime when all you think he did is bully his way in the paint and dunk.[/QUOTE]

You appear to lack reading comprehension. I said he bulled his way in the paint, not bully. And I was not referring to every play or half of the plays. I was referring to the difference in field goal percentages, and the difference largely stems from these plays where he used weight and girth to bull people out of his way, and he had several of those in each game. Shaq is considered almost universally one of the hardest players in history to referee. It's difficult to give him full credit for his achievements when you could make an argument that half of his plays are offensive fouls. Shaq is of course more dominant than Oscar, he has just as much impact in deciding factors in games despite some pitiful shortcomings, but he is not a better player, in fact he is not quite as good of a player. I've seen Shaq's entire career.

[QUOTE=72-10]You appear to lack reading comprehension. I said he bulled his way in the paint, not bully. And I was not referring to every play or half of the plays. I was referring to the difference in field goal percentages, and the difference largely stems from these plays where he used weight and girth to bull people out of his way, and he had several of those in each game. Shaq is considered almost universally one of the hardest players in history to referee. It's difficult to give him full credit for his achievements when you could make an argument that half of his plays are offensive fouls. Shaq is of course more dominant than Oscar, he has just as much impact in deciding factors in games despite some pitiful shortcomings, but he is not a better player, in fact he is not quite as good of a player. I've seen Shaq's entire career.[/QUOTE]

LOL.

There is no need to argue here. Half of his plays are offensive fouls? Obvious agenda against Shaq if you actually believe this to be the case.

Shaq often had 3 players guarding him at one time, I never heard of Oscar ever getting that much attention. This alone shows that Shaq was a more effective, more influential, more dominant and in turn better player the Oscar.

[QUOTE=plowking]This alone shows that Shaq was a more effective, more influential, more dominant [B]and in turn better[/B] player the Oscar.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. You need to go back to Basketball 101 to learn this apparently.

[QUOTE=72-10]Wrong. You need to go back to Basketball 101 to learn this apparently.[/QUOTE]

You'd find that most people agree that Shaq is the better player. His achievements enough show that he was the better player, whether or not he had a better supporting cast.

Shaq can be argued to be in the top five. Although I would personally rank him #6.

But he is without a doubt in the top 8 and that is not arguable. If you don't have him in the top 8 you are just wrong.

[QUOTE]Uhh Bird was in several All-Defensive teams. Drazen was no slouch, and held his own against much more athletically gifted guards. Averaged 1.3 steals per game in 37 mpg with New Jersey.[/QUOTE]

Russell has finished top-10 in assists (more than once) and averaged 20+ ppg in multiple Finals' series (including the 1965 one, when he shot at a Finals' record clip of 70.2% FG). So, if you think Bird and Drazen (especially Drazen, whose 1.3 steals in 37 mpg is nothing to brag about anyway) qualify as good defenders, then Russell also qualifies offensively.

[QUOTE]LOL.

There is no need to argue here. Half of his plays are offensive fouls? Obvious agenda against Shaq if you actually believe this to be the case.

Shaq often had 3 players guarding him at one time, I never heard of Oscar ever getting that much attention. This alone shows that Shaq was a more effective, more influential, more dominant and in turn better player the Oscar.[/QUOTE]

No, it just shows that Shaq was more unstoppable going one-on-one and verifies the rule that centers get more defensive attention. After all, Shaq gets more attention than any guard ever. Doesn't make him greater than any guard ever.

That's despite my ranking Shaq over Oscar during these years.

Not even in my top 15.

Anyone who blatantly "half-a[SIZE="2"]ss[/SIZE]es it" and talks about it with no shame does not deserve to be called great in my book.

[QUOTE=72-10]You appear to lack reading comprehension. I said he bulled his way in the paint, not bully. And I was not referring to every play or half of the plays. I was referring to the difference in field goal percentages, and the difference largely stems from these plays where he used weight and girth to bull people out of his way, and he had several of those in each game. Shaq is considered almost universally one of the hardest players in history to referee. [B]It's difficult to give him full credit for his achievements when you could make an argument that half of his plays are offensive fouls.[/B] Shaq is of course more dominant than Oscar, he has just as much impact in deciding factors in games despite some pitiful shortcomings, but he is not a better player, in fact he is not quite as good of a player. I've seen Shaq's entire career.[/QUOTE]

If thats the case you can also make an argument that there were just as many defensive fouls against Shaq that were never called. Shaq got so beat up but it never seemed to visibly affect him, so he didn't draw even more fouls. If it actually did visibly affect him, I'm sure alot more fouls would've been called in Shaq's favor.

And anyone who thinks Oscar is better due to a "significant statistical advantage" is wrong. 60s were inflated, especially in rebounding. For example, anyone honestly think that Oscar would average 12.5 rpg in a season during Shaq's era like he did in the triple double season? Not a chance. On the other hand, Shaq would've probably average 20+rpg easily in the 60s.

Another thing, which I forgot to mention. Even if you don't adjust for the inflated stats, where is this "significant statistical advantage?" Oscar: 25.7 ppg/7.5 rpg/9.5 apg in 14 seasons, Shaq: 25.2 ppg/11.5 rpg/2.7 apg in 16 seasons. They're just about equal in points, while Shaq has the advantage in rebounds and Oscar has the advantage in assists. Sounds about equal to me.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Russell has finished top-10 in assists (more than once) and averaged [B]20+ ppg in multiple Finals' series [/B](including the 1965 one, when he shot at a Finals' record clip of 70.2% FG). So, if you think Bird and Drazen (especially Drazen, whose 1.3 steals in 37 mpg is nothing to brag about anyway) qualify as good defenders, then Russell also qualifies offensively.[/QUOTE]

In a whole series? Great, I mentioned whole seasons.

Also Drazen isn't mentioned ever in top 10 discussions, thoug you mentioned Magic as well. You do realise Magic has 2spg over his whole career, and that in a season he averaged 3.4spg. Like I said he was brilliant on the offensive end, and was a decent defender.

[QUOTE=Da KO King]Not even in my top 15.

Anyone who blatantly "half-a[SIZE="2"]ss[/SIZE]es it" and talks about it with no shame does not deserve to be called great in my book.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. These things have to be taken into account.

[QUOTE=bleedinpurpleTwo]I agree with this. These things have to be taken into account.[/QUOTE]

Jordan punched a teammate in the face. How many spots does he lose for that? He also has a gambling problem. I put him in my top 50 barely.

Wilt slept with over 20,000 women, and is probably the father of many children who are not able to get by, due to single parenthood. How many spots does he lose?

[QUOTE=Da KO King]Not even in my top 15.

Anyone who blatantly "half-a[SIZE="2"]ss[/SIZE]es it" and talks about it with no shame does not deserve to be called great in my book.[/QUOTE]
How is it relevant how good he could have been? Unless of course the two sentences above have no direct correlation. Even then though, Shaq's accomplished more than enough to warrant a top 15 selection in just about anyone's list.

[QUOTE=bleedinpurpleTwo]I agree with this. These things have to be taken into account.[/QUOTE]

But my point has been that they already have been taken into account since he didn't achieve more as a result, which would've made his ranking higher.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]How is it relevant how good he could have been? Unless of course the two sentences above have no direct correlation. Even then though, Shaq's accomplished more than enough to warrant a top 15 selection in just about anyone's list.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

I know Bird is a legend and all, but why do people act like its not close between Shaq and Larry? Shaq has more titles, more finals MVP's, less MVP's, more all star MVP's, and I think the same number of all NBA team selections.

Where is the great disparity that I am missing here? Someone fill me in? Is it simply because Bird is "the great white saviour"?

72-10,

you really gotta give Shaq more credit.

You know a crazy Shaq stat that can't be put into numbers?

Well his last two season kinda ruined it but up until 2006 or so, you can say that Shaq's team is a legit title contender EVERY YEAR except his rookie year.

Every year of Shaq's career, his team is a top 4 or 5 ish title contender. He has been to what, 9 Conference Finals in his career. So 9 years of his career his team finished in the final four.

And he didn't do this in Bill Russell's era of like 8 team leagues. he was doing this against 26, 28, and 29 other teams throughout his career. He is a winner. I don't have exact numbers but I'm sure his regular season win record is among one of the highest out of any player. Off the top of my head I can only think Bill Russell and Duncan who would have a better win % and/or win-loss record in the regular season IN THEIR CAREER over Shaq. (and i'm only counting 1st or 2nd option, so guys like Kerr wouldn't qualify)

The man's impact on the game was almost inarguably greater than any guard in the history of the league not named Michael and Magic. Oscar Robertson and Jerry West don't stand a chance. How many rings have they won? How many rings have they won as the best guy on their team? (ZERO) Was there ever a time West and Oscar ruled the league the way Shaq ruled it for a three year stretch?

Shaq should be in the argument with LARRY AND MAGIC (check the accomplishments, Shaq rivals both of them easily). Not with guys a level lower like Hakeem and Oscar.

[QUOTE=EricForman]72-10,

you really gotta give Shaq more credit.

You know a crazy Shaq stat that can't be put into numbers?

Well his last two season kinda ruined it but up until 2006 or so, you can say that Shaq's team is a legit title contender EVERY YEAR except his rookie year.

Every year of Shaq's career, his team is a top 4 or 5 ish title contender. He has been to what, 9 Conference Finals in his career. So 9 years of his career his team finished in the final four.

And he didn't do this in Bill Russell's era of like 8 team leagues. he was doing this against 26, 28, and 29 other teams throughout his career. He is a winner. I don't have exact numbers but I'm sure his regular season win record is among one of the highest out of any player. Off the top of my head I can only think Bill Russell and Duncan who would have a better win % and/or win-loss record in the regular season IN THEIR CAREER over Shaq. (and i'm only counting 1st or 2nd option, so guys like Kerr wouldn't qualify)

The man's impact on the game was almost inarguably greater than any guard in the history of the league not named Michael and Magic. Oscar Robertson and Jerry West don't stand a chance. How many rings have they won? How many rings have they won as the best guy on their team? (ZERO)

Shaq should be in the argument with LARRY AND MAGIC (check the accomplishments, Shaq rivals both of them easily). Not with guys a level lower like Hakeem and Oscar.[/QUOTE]

Co-sign.

:cheers: