Is Shaq top 5 ever? Why, why not?

[QUOTE=plowking]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]

I think we already had this discussion. MJ's punching a teammate had no affect on his on-court performance...nor his gambling "problem". According to Kerr, it was not the big deal that everyone made it out to be.

Furthermore for those of you who are saying Shaq is around 6th or 7th on their list, if he won another title, would you consider him better then any of:
Larry
Wilt
Kareem
Magic

[QUOTE=bleedinpurpleTwo]I think we already had this discussion. MJ's punching a teammate had no affect on his on-court performance...nor his gambling "problem". According to Kerr, it was not the big deal that everyone made it out to be.[/QUOTE]


How do you know Shaq's half arseing cost him anything. Rodman went out partying every night and he came to play and averaged amazing numbers. Same with Shaq; he was able to average amazing numbers even without the preperation most players needed.

[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]

My point is, you cherry picked to make your point. Your point was that Russell played only defense, which is just as (in)correct as Bird and Magic playing only offense. Russell was among the best big men passers ever, among the best offensive rebounders ever and raised his scoring in the playoffs, which means that, when needed, he could score. Trying to judge 60's Celtics' players by 20+ ppg seasons, we'd reach to the conclusion that only Sam Jones was a constantly good offensive player, and that's plain wrong.
I'm well aware that Magic was a good stealer and team defender (especially young Magic). I'd put him close to the level of Russell as an offensive player, but not higher.

Shaq is not top 5. His accomplishments, though great, were not as consistently maintained over the length of his career as the Big 6 (MJ, KAJ, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Russell). While at his peak with the Lakers he was a force like none other in history, he came up short numerous times in his early years, and has since had a late career more like Hakeem and Ewing than like Kareem and Russell. He had the potential to be the true MDE but his lack of discipline, his laziness, and his refusal to pay as much attention to the defensive side as he should have, has just kept him out of reach of the first-level greats. I have him somewhere between 7-10, fighting it out with Oscar, Duncan and Hakeem. Not too shabby.

[QUOTE=rs98762001]Shaq is not top 5. His accomplishments, though great, were not as consistently maintained over the length of his career as the Big 6 (MJ, KAJ, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Russell). While at his peak with the Lakers he was a force like none other in history, he came up short numerous times in his early years, and has since had a late career more like Hakeem and Ewing than like Kareem and Russell. He had the potential to be the true MDE but his lack of discipline, his laziness, and his refusal to pay as much attention to the defensive side as he should have, has just kept him out of reach of the first-level greats. I have him somewhere between 7-10, fighting it out with Oscar, Duncan and Hakeem. Not too shabby.[/QUOTE]


Every knock you had on Shaq applies to Wilt to an even greater degree. Shaq's output and accomplishments are more consistent than Wilt's. Wilt came up short a hell lot more often than Shaq too.

[QUOTE]Every knock you had on Shaq applies to Wilt to an even greater degree. Shaq's output and accomplishments are more consistent than Wilt's. Wilt came up short a hell lot more often than Shaq too.[/QUOTE]

What applies to Wilt even more? Lazyness? Refusal to check his defense? How were Shaq's accomplishments more consistent? Wilt was an MVP candidate from day 1 up to his last season, while being close to 37 years old. He made All-D teams up to the same age, as well. Shaq became 36 in 2008 and wasn't even close to matching this. Last season he was a valid MVP candidate was at the age of 33. Last season he made any All-D team was at 33, as well. You can't use the "Shaq didn't get much MVP love" argument, either, because neither did Wilt.

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



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.




No, he's not.[/QUOTE]
yes he is

Not sure where I'd rank him overall, but I don't have him above Hakeem.

We all know Shaq is not one to admit that he's been outdone by an opponent, but this was his exact quote about the 1995 Finals against Hakeem...

[QUOTE]"If I can't beat you, I'll be a man and say I can't beat you. I'm not going to [cry about it] ... I'm the first guy to say that somebody is better than me. I was the first guy to say Hakeem Olajuwon beat me in the [1995] NBA finals. He killed me. He dominated me. I didn't go, 'Oh, he's traveling. They had experience. Wah-wah-wah.' I'm a man. Hakeem Olajuwon dusted my butt."[/QUOTE]

Jordan also chose Hakeem over Shaq...

[QUOTE]"If I had to pick a center, I would take Olajuwon. That leaves out Shaq, Patrick Ewing. It leaves out Wilt Chamberlain. It leaves out a lot of people. And the reason I would take Olajuwon is very simple: he is so versatile because of what he can give you from that position. It's not just his scoring, not just his rebounding or not just his blocked shots. People don't realize he was in the top seven in steals. He always made great decisions on the court. For all facets of the game, I have to give it to him."[/QUOTE]

So whose opinion should I value more? Jordan's, or people on this board that have never even played a game of HORSE with the players in question?

[QUOTE=ClutchCityReturns]


So whose opinion should I value more? Jordan's, or people on this board that have never even played a game of HORSE with the players in question?[/QUOTE]

Or - or - you could just form your own opinion based on watching them play.

Prime Hakeem did not have as much impact on games as prime Shaq, nor do his numbers, accolades, or team success stack up.

[QUOTE]We all know Shaq is not one to admit that he's been outdone by an opponent, but this was his exact quote about the 1995 Finals against Hakeem was "He dusted my butt".[/QUOTE]
The Jordan quote is all fine and dandy, but this one doesn't really hold too much sway. Shaq was in his 3rd year at that point, going up against the 10-11 year veteran in Hakeem. Not really a completely fair comparison. And even then, Shaq more than held his own in that series stat-wise. I can't say I personally watched it, but he averaged 28/13/6/2.5 over the four games. Lots of TO's of course, but even then, I don't think you can call it a domination by Hakeem.

I also doubt young Shaq had anywhere near the ego he has at this point, so that might have a wee bit to do with the quote as well.

[QUOTE=Loki]Or - or - you could just form your own opinion based on watching them play.

Prime Hakeem did not have as much impact on games as prime Shaq, nor do his numbers, accolades, or team success stack up.[/QUOTE]

Or - or - you could realize that my personal opinion, having been a Rockets fan all my life and watching Hakeem's career in person, is a factor in the post that I made. As for the opinions of strangers on a message board? Not so much.

And I disagree that Hakeem's impact on the game wasn't up to par with Shaq. Just because Hakeem wasn't 300lbs+ and every highlight we ever see of him isn't a dunk or a 2ft hook shot, doesn't mean he didn't dominate just the same, and on both ends for that matter. Plus Hakeem was never a liablility at the end of a game because of his inability to hit a damn free throw. And I don't buy the fact that Shaq couldn't shoot them because his hands were too big. Otis Thorpe had the biggest hands I've ever seen on a player, and he shot a decent % for a big man.

Also, Shaq never won a single championship without a star SG next to him, and in fact he got carried to one of his championships by that player. Hakeem won a ring when the second best player on his team was who? Otis Thorpe? Robert Horry?

And don't even bring accolades into the conversation without considering the eras that these guys played in. It's been said a million times, so you should know, Hakeem played (and bested) prime Ewing, prime Robinson, prime Mourning, and prime Mutombo among others. Shaq caught these players at the end of their careers and by the time he had peaked, who was left to face? Who was going to be a threat to All-Star appearances, NBA First Team selections, or the title of "Best Center In The Game?". He got hyped up because every center in the league either sucked, or converted to PF (a revolution of the position that was started by Hakeem Olajuwon). By the time someone came into the league to challenge him (Yao) Shaq was so deified that even when Yao outplayed him people still couldn't admit that he had been surpassed.

Don't get me wrong. Shaq is an amazing force in NBA history and is definitely one of the best to ever play the game, but he can be that without being better than Hakeem Olajuwon.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]The Jordan quote is all fine and dandy, but this one doesn't really hold too much sway. Shaq was in his 3rd year at that point, going up against the 10-11 year veteran in Hakeem. Not really a completely fair comparison. And even then, Shaq more than held his own in that series stat-wise. I can't say I personally watched it, but he averaged 28/13/6/2.5 over the four games. Lots of TO's of course, but even then, I don't think you can call it a domination by Hakeem.

I also doubt young Shaq had anywhere near the ego he has at this point, so that might have a wee bit to do with the quote as well.[/QUOTE]

So what if I had only posted the Jordan quote?

My comment about forming your own opinion based on observation was not directed at you (since I'm sure you saw both Hakeem and Shaq), but at the general line of thinking that goes "look, player/coach X said this, so it must be true, because how can you know more than them!?" That's an appeal to authority, and it's specious. I didn't say your personal opinion was fully informed by such statements, only that it's faulty reasoning to try to point to statements made by others as evidence of anything.

[QUOTE=ClutchCityReturns]So what if I had only posted the Jordan quote?[/QUOTE]
Then ISH would've lost out on the pleasure of watching me completely own and embarrass you.

:D

[QUOTE=ClutchCityReturns]Not sure where I'd rank him overall, but I don't have him above Hakeem.

We all know Shaq is not one to admit that he's been outdone by an opponent, but this was his exact quote about the 1995 Finals against Hakeem...



Jordan also chose Hakeem over Shaq...



So whose opinion should I value more? Jordan's, or people on this board that have never even played a game of HORSE with the players in question?[/QUOTE]

Yer, Shaq said that after Hakeem beat him. Ask him now after 4 championships, I doubt he'll be saying Hakeem is better. :roll:

And I'm guessing that Jordan quote was before Shaq won any of his titles.

if you take a dirt bag garbage team with no help and put any single player from the list on it, are there more than 5 players who would produce more impact on that team than prime shaq?

i say no.

[QUOTE=DCL]if you take a dirt bag garbage team with no help and put any single player from the list on it, are there more than 5 players who would produce more impact on that team than prime shaq?

i say no.[/QUOTE]

But, but, but... Oscar will average a triple double though. :bowdown:


:hammerhead:

Personally yes I do rank Shaq top 5, yes i do. Call me crazy for underrating KAJ, but I just don't see him as the dominant force Shaq was, he just benefited from having unreal longevity. At his peak he was great, but he didn't really win much until Magic joined him in LA.

I only take MJ, Wilt, Bird and Magic over Shaq.

[QUOTE=Loki]Or - or - you could just form your own opinion based on watching them play.

Prime Hakeem did not have as much impact on games as prime Shaq, nor do his numbers, accolades, or team success stack up.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Prime Hakeem was as dominant as Prime Shaq. Hakeem just wasnt at his prime level, especially offensively, for very long. Defensively he can be argued as the best ever though and for as dominant as Shaq is/was you can't say that about him. I'd take Shaq over Hakeem because of sustained offensive dominance but I think Hakeem gets underrated in all time ranking threads.

shaq's my favorite player of all time, i'm gonna be extremely upset the day he retires. i can't imagine the NBA without shaq. but one thing that always bothered me about shaq is the 'what could have been'... imagine shaq with an MJ or kobe work ethic? good god, we would have seen the most dominant athlete of all time, bar none

[QUOTE=hito da god]shaq's my favorite player of all time, i'm gonna be extremely upset the day he retires. i can't imagine the NBA without shaq. but one thing that always bothered me about shaq is the 'what could have been'... imagine shaq with an MJ or kobe work ethic? good god, we would have seen the most dominant athlete of all time, bar none[/QUOTE]

" What if" Muggys Bouges was 6'6 he would be the GOAT

[QUOTE=2LeTTeRS]Personally yes I do rank Shaq top 5, yes i do. Call me crazy for underrating KAJ, but I just don't see him as the dominant force Shaq was, he just benefited from having unreal longevity. At his peak he was great, but he didn't really win much until Magic joined him in LA.
[B][/B]ITs sad when people dont know the history of the game Shaqs is a mini me to Jabbar
I only take MJ, Wilt, Bird and Magic over Shaq.
[B]So Russ leadership in winning 11 titles makes him a bum huh[/B]

I disagree. Prime Hakeem was as dominant as Prime Shaq. Hakeem just wasnt at his prime level, especially offensively, for very long. Defensively he can be argued as the best ever though and for as dominant as Shaq is/was you can't say that about him. I'd take Shaq over Hakeem because of sustained offensive dominance but I think Hakeem gets underrated in all time ranking threads.[/QUOTE]

ITs too hard to say Shaq pass any player that was already a top 5 player the best way to do it is just add to the list Top 10 top 15 top 20 as years go by. By 2020 MJ will get bump off the top 5 list by some little 3rd grader today

[QUOTE=Niquesports]" What if" Muggys Bouges was 6'6 he would be the GOAT[/QUOTE]

You kidding?

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]I think the most compelling argument you can make for him being top 5 is that in his prime, he was surpassed by no one and matched only by MJ, Kareem and Wilt. He's arguably the best finals performer ever as well.

To me, he is top 6 for sure, with Kareem, MJ, Wilt, Magic and Bird.[/QUOTE]

to me, 11 & 4 titles are a huge difference, Shaq had more chance to get the title, like 2004, but he did not success, you should not forgot that his first three titles in LA were based on weak Pacer, and Nets for twice. and lost to Piston.

so, Russ is before shaq.

At his best Shaq was unstoppable, unfortunately, the big man domination of the type he had in 2001 is unique, because a man of that size and mobility cannot withstand the dominance for long...


But in the end Shaq for his whole career, should be tauted as top five for sure.

[QUOTE=Kiddlovesnets]Horry has 7 titles, one more than Jordan...[/QUOTE]

that's the point.

Bird got 3, but competed to strong LA, what does Shaq done? only Portland in WCF made them into trouble, and that's Kobe standed out and saved LA, not Shaq.

[QUOTE=symbol33]
Bird got 3, but competed to strong LA, what does Shaq done? only Portland in WCF made them into trouble, and that's Kobe standed out and saved LA, not Shaq.[/QUOTE]

is english your 4th language? there has to be a reason.

[QUOTE=72-10]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]

imo, TD is absolutely nothing without DR, and if without DR, he could not get the title in 1999 (that shrink season) and NY only had rookie Camby to struggle the other two big guys. not consider 1999, TD did not get any back to back title, with johnson, elit, gino and parker, thinking that he seldom encouraged his teammates at the emergency moment but DR do that. TD was absolutely not a good leader but DR did, so that's Robinson > Tim D

[QUOTE=symbol33]imo, TD is absolutely nothing without DR, [/QUOTE]


Yes. What has Duncan done since DRob retired in 2003? Dude basically disappeared off the face of the earth since then. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=symbol33]imo, TD is absolutely nothing without DR, and if without DR, he could not get the title in 1999 (that shrink season) and NY only had rookie Camby to struggle the other two big guys. not consider 1999, TD did not get any back to back title, with johnson, elit, gino and parker, thinking that he seldom encouraged his teammates at the emergency moment but DR do that. TD was absolutely not a good leader but DR did, so that's Robinson > Tim D[/QUOTE]

Wonder how he got the ring in 03 when DRob was absolutely washed up and averaging 9 points and 8 boards a game. That was basically a 1 man team

"Top 5 ever" begs a discussion regarding careers.

I'm not so sure if he's top 5, on that note.

But as far as actual peak for a season or two? There isn't a single player in league history I'd take over prime Shaq. Not one.

[QUOTE=symbol33]imo, TD is absolutely nothing without DR, and if without DR, he could not get the title in 1999 (that shrink season) and NY only had rookie Camby to struggle the other two big guys. not consider 1999, TD did not get any back to back title, with johnson, elit, gino and parker, thinking that he seldom encouraged his teammates at the emergency moment but DR do that. TD was absolutely not a good leader but DR did, so that's Robinson > Tim D[/QUOTE]
That has to be one of the dumbest thing i've ever read. duncan without Robinson has won a ring, won the MVP, defensive player of the year and he is one of the best players at making his teammates look great. there is no better two way big man in the nba then timmy right now.

[QUOTE=DCL]is english your 4th language? there has to be a reason.[/QUOTE]

yes, english is actually my 4th language. there may be some error in my spelling, but i do think that you know what i am talking about.

[QUOTE=symbol33]that's the point.

Bird got 3, but competed to strong LA, what does Shaq done? only Portland in WCF made them into trouble, and that's Kobe standed out and saved LA, not Shaq.[/QUOTE]

Yes, because Kobe would have been in that position without Shaq right?
1 game saved by Kobe, does not equal anywhere near the copious amount of games Shaq has brought L.A. back.

[QUOTE=symbol33]imo, TD is absolutely nothing without DR, and if without DR, he could not get the title in 1999 (that shrink season) and NY only had rookie Camby to struggle the other two big guys. not consider 1999, TD did not get any back to back title, with johnson, elit, gino and parker, thinking that he seldom encouraged his teammates at the emergency moment but DR do that. TD was absolutely not a good leader but DR did, so that's Robinson > Tim D[/QUOTE]

Camby wasn't a rookie, He went to the Knicks in his third season from Toronto.

On Shaq.... He has the awards and credentials to be considered a top 5 all time, but its very argueable....

Perhaps he is the most dominant player all time...but top 5 best is argueable. however if Shaq had played in the 70s or 80s, when i dont believe the players were as athletic as nowadays, then his stats would be even better.

yeah why not? :banghead:

[QUOTE=EricForman]Yes. What has Duncan done since DRob retired in 2003? Dude basically disappeared off the face of the earth since then. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

2 ****ing championships dumb****! thats wut he's done!

In my opinion, there's more to being top 5 then just achievements. For me, the fact that Shaq took regular season games off because he wasn't dedicated is a big negative. I also think he is very limited as a player. He was never an elite post defender, despite his size and athleticism. He was limited offensively because he was only effective inside 8-10 feet. His offense consisted of establishing position, then making a strong move to the hoop. If he got in foul trouble, he could be rendered ineffective in a game. If the hack-a-shaq was implemented, the majority of the time he could be held in check. To me, these are big issues I have with putting him in top 5.

Also, if he's a top 5 player because of his effectiveness, then why hasn't he been a 20/10 player the past few years? He's been in good shape recently (aside from some injuries), and this year he's in great shape. He quit in Miami because he wasn't winning. He wasn't winning because he can't carry a team anymore if other guys get injured. Why is such a potent, top 5 force, so ineffective right now? Because he's not that good of a player. He was just abusing inferior opponents in his prime with brute force.

[QUOTE=AllenIverson3]Michael Jordan
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Tim Duncan[/QUOTE]


Prime Duncan is no where near shaq's prime

and it's stupid to compare players like this, it should be by position...

[QUOTE=Showtime]In my opinion, there's more to being top 5 then just achievements. For me, the fact that Shaq took regular season games off because he wasn't dedicated is a big negative. I also think he is very limited as a player. He was never an elite post defender, despite his size and athleticism. He was limited offensively because he was only effective inside 8-10 feet. His offense consisted of establishing position, then making a strong move to the hoop. If he got in foul trouble, he could be rendered ineffective in a game. If the hack-a-shaq was implemented, the majority of the time he could be held in check. To me, these are big issues I have with putting him in top 5.

Also, if he's a top 5 player because of his effectiveness, then why hasn't he been a 20/10 player the past few years? He's been in good shape recently (aside from some injuries), and this year he's in great shape. He quit in Miami because he wasn't winning. He wasn't winning because he can't carry a team anymore if other guys get injured. Why is such a potent, top 5 force, so ineffective right now? Because he's not that good of a player. He was just abusing inferior opponents in his prime with brute force.[/QUOTE]

Did shaq hurt you?

i remember when mutumbo came in here crying...