[QUOTE=AllenIverson3]2 ****ing championships dumb****! thats wut he's done![/QUOTE]
ya.......forman, i acually think U dissapered, cuz duncan has been balling ever since d rob retired.....altho i hate d rob's and duncan's guts..
Printable View
[QUOTE=AllenIverson3]2 ****ing championships dumb****! thats wut he's done![/QUOTE]
ya.......forman, i acually think U dissapered, cuz duncan has been balling ever since d rob retired.....altho i hate d rob's and duncan's guts..
[QUOTE=rawimpact]Did shaq hurt you?
i remember when mutumbo came in here crying...[/QUOTE]
No, just putting my opinion on Shaq out there. He's one of the best at his position because of his achievements and production, but I feel there's more to it than that in regards to being in the highest spots.
I take Shaq in his prime over evey single player in history including Jordan/KAJ/Wilt etc. Dude was literally unstopable.:bowdown:
[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]
See thats what I don't get.
People complain about how he got his points. Brute strength, so what? Lebron gets a large number of points like that and no one complains.
Also you say he is ineffective now? He is one of the most efficient players when he is on the court. He is very productive in the 25 minutes he spends on court. You expect him to be scoring 20 and 10 now at his age? What were Wilt and Kareem averaging at this age?
His effectiveness spans to over 14 years of getting at least 20 and 10 each season. Furthermore the greatest finals numbers ever seen.
Implement the hack a Shaq the majority of the time? He is still doing his job, either way, getting other players in foul trouble and the team over the limit. This is the exact reason why Wade got soo many foul shots in the finals against Dallas. They kept fouling him and Wade dropped 40 a night.
Furthermore, he still averaged what, 14 and 8 last year. That is good enough for something like 3rd or 4th best center in the NBA.
[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]
You act like Shaq was completely ineffective on defense. He is the sole reason a lot of teams took jumpshots instead of driving inside looking for a layup. Those who did drive, were forced to change shots mid air. He is one of the most underrated defenders, he was a force inside.
Furthermore Shaq has achievments over some of the players most people consider in the top 5. I think after Shaq retires he will finally get the respect he deserves.
[QUOTE=Psileas]He has a case. He's generally considered top 4-9 among most fans. Too dominant 2000-02 Finals. I usually put him somewhere in #7, a position that would be higher if
1) he wasn't getting injured as much as he did (for a season, I'll take a guy who plays 80 games and is 90% as good as Shaq instead of a 55-60 game Shaq)
2) he had the defensive impact of a guy like Hakeem
3) he won his titles against stronger individual competition.[/QUOTE]
This mirrors my thoughts exactly.
Psileas, who is in your top 5?
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]This mirrors my thoughts exactly.
Psileas, who is in your top 5?[/QUOTE]
1. He only had 3 seasons at LA and Orlando where he played less then 60 games.
2. Half the players in the league were too scared to drive on Shaq, how is the for defensive presence?
3. That is beyond a stupid argument Psileas and you know it. I could say Wilt was only able to win one championship and none in the era where individual competition was at its worst (Wilt in his prime).
[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... ["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."]
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]
Thanks for the MJ quote. I actually feel the same way for the same reasons. I value the versatility that Hakeem brought to the game on both ends of the court. I would choose Hakeem over Shaq too. Hakeem was like a 7"0' Michael Jordan. He filled the stat line every night and his creativity was unmatched by anyone outside of MJ. He was an incredible player.
I could watch Hakeem play basketball all day long.
[B]He is the [U]Greatest Offensively Center Ever[/U] but other than that there have been better Passing Centers, Better Shooting Centers (Mid Range or FT), Better Defensive Centers and Better Rebounding Centers etc
What is this Top 5? Counting MVPs? Titles? :rolleyes: Thats nonsense Shaq should have gotten 3 MVPs in his Career just as Barkley should have gotten 2, Stockton 1 (Malone not hardly 1), Payton 1 etc would that would have but him higher in your All-Time Lists? He is The Greatest Offensive Center Ever and He is a Top 3-4 All Time Greatest Center Regarding MVPs, Titles, Lack of Professionalism? :rolleyes: or whatever nonsense awards the NBA gives out.[/B]
[QUOTE=Sir Charles][: [B]Thats nonsense Shaq should have gotten 3 MVPs in his Career just as Barkley should have gotten 2, Stockton 1 (Malone not hardly 1), Payton 1[/B]out.[/B][/QUOTE]
Fact is that they didnt. Now deal with it.
[QUOTE=plowking][B]Jerry West [/B]- Please. OMG, hes on the NBA logo, who gives a damn?
[B]Oscar Robertson [/B]- Stats. What else has he got? You can't rate him better because of one triple double season he's had. What else does he have over Shaq? MVP's? Championships? Finals MVP's?
[B]Bill Russell[/B]- You have to play both sides of the floor to be considered truely great.
[B]Larry Bird [/B]- [COLOR="Blue"]Sure Larry impacted the game more then Shaq[/COLOR], but does he have more accomplishments? No.
[B]Wilt[/B] - Have you seen him play? No, you've heard about his stats and simply agree with everyone to sound knowledgeable. If he was as dominant as people claim, he would have won more championships, and he would have won them when he was in his prime, not run down and playing with stars.[/QUOTE]
[B][COLOR="blue"]No Larry Bird did not impact the game more[/COLOR]:no: :rolleyes: . Larry Bird was more skilled that is why he is in the top 10 EFF but if you take into account PER which meassure skills fitted into yield per minutes (which obviously takes into account physical attributes-athleticism-stamina etc which Bird did not have much to impact) then how can he have more impact than Bird?[/B]
[B]Shaq had more Impact than Bird and was way more of a Preocupation Singley
Bird had more Skills than Shaq so he could could make others Better through Skills, Court Awareness, Rigth Desicions, Passing Game etc[/B]
[QUOTE=plowking]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.[/QUOTE]
LOL Shaq was asked of his all-time team and he put Hakeem in it.Hakeem is the only Center shaq doesn't bad mounth.He evn bad mounths kareem, but he no the deal with The dream.He can't keep up with him.
[QUOTE]This mirrors my thoughts exactly.
Psileas, who is in your top 5?[/QUOTE]
Wilt-Jordan-Kareem-Russell-Magic, followed by Bird, Shaq, Oscar.
[QUOTE]1. He only had 3 seasons at LA and Orlando where he played less then 60 games.[/QUOTE]
This still makes him the most injury-prone among all players (in their prime, since you only included Orlando-Lakers Shaq) that I rank so high. Even Bird, with all his back issues, rarely missed games in his prime (27 in his first 9 years, to be exact). Magic Johnson, also a player who faced a few injuries here and there, once missed 45 games, but, apart from this, played in 92.8% of his games. Young and prime Shaq played in 85% of his available games. The only player whom I rank even close to Shaq and was as injury-prone is Jerry West, and I rank him below Shaq.
[QUOTE]2. Half the players in the league were too scared to drive on Shaq, how is the for defensive presence?[/QUOTE]
That's the case with big intimidating centers and Shaq was a great intimidator, but that doesn't mean he was a great individual defender. At least, not in the ranks of Hakeem/Mutombo/Robinson/Ben Wallace, just to include the best defenders of his own era.
[QUOTE]3. That is beyond a stupid argument Psileas and you know it. I could say Wilt was only able to win one championship and none in the era where individual competition was at its worst (Wilt in his prime).[/QUOTE]
If you said so,
1) you'd be lying, because Wilt won 2 championships, not 1.
2) with competition at its worst, Wilt still had to face Russell (and the Celtics) for like 15% of his regular season games and for more than 50% of his playoff games year after year, Clyde Lovelette for plenty of games and, by his 3rd year, Walt Bellamy. You can't compare this to facing Ben Wallace and past-prime Robinson as your best competitors (EDIT: yes, I know Robinson had Duncan next to him, but I didn't include him due to the position matter, and even if I did, I'd have to do the same with Lovelette and include Bob Pettit to Wilt's competition, as well).
Actually, regardless of competition, whenever Wilt lost the title, it was [B]always [/B]against the eventual champions (except once).
3) Wilt was still in his prime when he won his first title.
[quote=plowking]I want to know people's opinion on this because a lot of people overlook Shaq and simply think he is a good basketball player due to his size. I mean the guy has:
4 championships
Named ROY (Rookie of Year) (1993)
Named All-NBA First Rookie Team (1993)
Named MVP (Most Valuable Player) NBA Regular Season (2000)
Named All-NBA First Team (1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)
Named All-NBA Second Team (1995, 1999)
Named All-NBA Third Team (1994, 1996, 1997)
Named MVP (Most Valuable Player) NBA Finals (2000, 2001, 2002)
Named All-NBA Second Defensive Team (2000, 2001, 2003)
Named IBM Award (2000, 2001)
Named NBA Top Scorer (1995, 2000)
Named NBA Best Field Goal Percentage (1994, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006)
2 times MVP NBA All-Star (2000, 2004)
Selected 14 times for the NBA All-Star game
3 of the greatest finals performances ever
25.2ppg, 11.5rpg, 2.7apg, 2.5bpg and 58% fg in the regular season.[/quote]
I think we all need to recognize he is a top 3 [B]most dominant[/B] player with Wilt and Jordan.
[QUOTE=Psileas]Wilt-Jordan-Kareem-Russell-Magic, followed by Bird, Shaq, Oscar.
This still makes him the most injury-prone among all players (in their prime, since you only included Orlando-Lakers Shaq) that I rank so high. Even Bird, with all his back issues, rarely missed games in his prime (27 in his first 9 years, to be exact). Magic Johnson, also a player who faced a few injuries here and there, once missed 45 games, but, apart from this, played in 92.8% of his games. Young and prime Shaq played in 85% of his available games. The only player whom I rank even close to Shaq and was as injury-prone is Jerry West, and I rank him below Shaq.
That's the case with big intimidating centers and Shaq was a great intimidator, but that doesn't mean he was a great individual defender. At least, not in the ranks of Hakeem/Mutombo/Robinson/Ben Wallace, just to include the best defenders of his own era.
If you said so,
1) you'd be lying, because Wilt won 2 championships, not 1.
2) with competition at its worst, Wilt still had to face Russell (and the Celtics) for like 15% of his regular season games and for more than 50% of his playoff games year after year, Clyde Lovelette for plenty of games and, by his 3rd year, Walt Bellamy. You can't compare this to facing Ben Wallace and past-prime Robinson as your best competitors (EDIT: yes, I know Robinson had Duncan next to him, but I didn't include him due to the position matter, and even if I did, I'd have to do the same with Lovelette and include Bob Pettit to Wilt's competition, as well).
Actually, regardless of competition, whenever Wilt lost the title, it was [B]always [/B]against the eventual champions (except once).
3) Wilt was still in his prime when he won his first title.[/QUOTE]
Who says shaq was a bad defender??He just can't guard the pick and roll that good.
Wilt is overrated, in his 100-point game, there was nobody above 6'8"
[QUOTE=plowking]See thats what I don't get.
People complain about how he got his points. Brute strength, so what? Lebron gets a large number of points like that and no one complains.[/quote]
I'm not complaining, just listing why I don't feel he's a top 5 player of all time. Do you think Lebron is top 5 all time?
[quote]Also you say he is ineffective now? He is one of the most efficient players when he is on the court. He is very productive in the 25 minutes he spends on court. You expect him to be scoring 20 and 10 now at his age? What were Wilt and Kareem averaging at this age?[/quote]
Yeah, he's efficient with his 14/9 a game. I'm talking about if he's such a great player, then why isn't he more effective when he's in great shape now? Why can't he do more for a team?
KAJ, at 35, was putting up 22/8/3/2 on .588 FG%
Shaq at 35, last year total, put up 14/9/2/1 on .593 FG%
I don't expect Shaq to put up 33/15 ever night, but if he really is as good as people think he is, and better than KAJ, then why, when he's in good shape, can't he be more effective? With that being said, his current production isn't my only point.
[quote]His effectiveness spans to over 14 years of getting at least 20 and 10 each season. Furthermore the greatest finals numbers ever seen.[/quote]
In my mind, it's not enough to be top 5 all time, because it still doesn't make up for his own ego getting in the way of fulfilling his potential.
[quote]Implement the hack a Shaq the majority of the time? He is still doing his job, either way, getting other players in foul trouble and the team over the limit. This is the exact reason why Wade got soo many foul shots in the finals against Dallas. They kept fouling him and Wade dropped 40 a night.[/quote]
I didn't say he's useless, only that for a top 5 player of all time, he should be more productive and have more impact on his team.
[quote]Furthermore, he still averaged what, 14 and 8 last year. That is good enough for something like 3rd or 4th best center in the NBA.[/QUOTE]
14/8 is 3rd best center? Hell, Brad Miller put up 13/10/4 last year and was the west's best shooting center. Does that mean Miller is a top 5 center?
[QUOTE=plowking]You act like Shaq was completely ineffective on defense.[/quote]
That's not what I said. I said he was never the league's elite post defender despite his unmatched size and athleticism.
[quote]He is the sole reason a lot of teams took jumpshots instead of driving inside looking for a layup. Those who did drive, were forced to change shots mid air. He is one of the most underrated defenders, he was a force inside.[/quote]
He wasn't a great individual defender, and his post defense that you describe is mainly on reputation, because perimeter players knew that if they attacked Shaq, they were probably going to get hammered by the 350+lb monster. Shaq was, again, never the elite post defender in the league. That doesn't mean he couldn't change shots or impact the post.
[quote]Furthermore Shaq has achievments over some of the players most people consider in the top 5. I think after Shaq retires he will finally get the respect he deserves.[/QUOTE]
So you feel that there are, at most, only 4 players that have ever lived that could be considered better?
[QUOTE]Wilt is overrated, in his 100-point game, there was nobody above 6'8"[/QUOTE]
Wrong (as if you even searched), Darrall Imhoff was 6'10 and Cleveland Buckner was 6'9.
And if you're trying to judge a Wilt from one game, you'd better leave it.
1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3. Larry Bird/Magic Johnson
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Wilt Chamberlin
[QUOTE=plowking][B]Jerry West [/B]- Please. OMG, hes on the NBA logo, who gives a damn?
[B]Oscar Robertson [/B]- Stats. What else has he got? You can't rate him better because of one triple double season he's had. What else does he have over Shaq? MVP's? Championships? Finals MVP's?
[B]Bill Russell[/B]- You have to play both sides of the floor to be considered truely great.
[B]Larry Bird [/B]- Sure Larry impacted the game more then Shaq,[B] but does he have more accomplishments? No.[/B][B]Wilt[/B] - Have you seen him play? No, you've heard about his stats and simply agree with everyone to sound knowledgeable. If he was as dominant as people claim, he would have won more championships, and he would have won them when he was in his prime, not run down and playing with stars.[/QUOTE]
This is the second time in the thread where you have brought this point of "accomplishments" up between Bird and Shaq and I've got to call you on it. Which I would assume to mean championships as [B]Bird has 3 MVP's [/B]to Shaq's 1. (Though Shaq has 3 Finals MVP's to Bird's 2.)
But the "accomplishments" meaning "championships" argument when comparing Shaq and Bird is absolute B.S. because Bird played in an an absolutely killer era where [B]EVERY[/B] championship team was an all time great team.
3 titles in an era with the early '80's Sixers, Bad Boy Pistons, Showtime Lakers is = or > than 4 against an era with NBA Finals teams like 2000 Pacers, 2001 Sixers, and 2002 Nets and 2006 Mavericks making the Finals.
So Bird's accomplishments match up just fine, while playing fewer seasons.
P.S. I won't go into the fact that you actually said Bill Russell isn't truly great.
You may not think he is top 5 ever and that is fine.
But the guy doesn't have enough fingers for his rings, [B]MEANING 11 [/B], on a team he was the best player on. Please don't insult him by saying he isn't truly great. Especially considering you never saw him play.
Or Wilt and Oscar for that matter.
[QUOTE=BIZARRO]This is the second time in the thread where you have brought this point of "accomplishments" up between Bird and Shaq and I've got to call you on it. Which I would assume to mean championships as [B]Bird has 3 MVP's [/B]to Shaq's 1. (Though Shaq has 3 Finals MVP's to Bird's 2.)
But the "accomplishments" meaning "championships" argument when comparing Shaq and Bird is absolute B.S. because Bird played in an an absolutely killer era where [B]EVERY[/B] championship team was an all time great team.
3 titles in an era with the early '80's Sixers, Bad Boy Pistons, Showtime Lakers is = or > than 4 against an era with NBA Finals teams like 2000 Pacers, 2001 Sixers, and 2002 Nets and 2006 Mavericks making the Finals.
So Bird's accomplishments match up just fine, while playing fewer seasons.
P.S. I won't go into the fact that you actually said Bill Russell isn't truly great.
You may not think he is top 5 ever and that is fine.
But the guy doesn't have enough fingers for his rings, [B]MEANING 11 [/B], on a team he was the best player on. Please don't insult him by saying he isn't truly great. Especially considering you never saw him play.
Or Wilt and Oscar for that matter.[/QUOTE]
I've watched enough of Bill Russel. He is in my top 10, though not top 5.
Furthermore stop bringing up the era in which Bird played in. I can bring up Wilts era and say it was utter trash bar a few great players.
[QUOTE=Showtime]I'm not complaining, just listing why I don't feel he's a top 5 player of all time. Do you think Lebron is top 5 all time?
Yeah, he's efficient with his 14/9 a game. I'm talking about if he's such a great player, then why isn't he more effective when he's in great shape now? Why can't he do more for a team?
KAJ, at 35, was putting up 22/8/3/2 on .588 FG%
Shaq at 35, last year total, put up 14/9/2/1 on .593 FG%
I don't expect Shaq to put up 33/15 ever night, but if he really is as good as people think he is, and better than KAJ, then why, when he's in good shape, can't he be more effective? With that being said, his current production isn't my only point.
In my mind, it's not enough to be top 5 all time, because it still doesn't make up for his own ego getting in the way of fulfilling his potential.
I didn't say he's useless, only that for a top 5 player of all time, he should be more productive and have more impact on his team.
14/8 is 3rd best center? Hell, Brad Miller put up 13/10/4 last year and was the west's best shooting center. Does that mean Miller is a top 5 center?
That's not what I said. I said he was never the league's elite post defender despite his unmatched size and athleticism.
He wasn't a great individual defender, and his post defense that you describe is mainly on reputation, because perimeter players knew that if they attacked Shaq, they were probably going to get hammered by the 350+lb monster. Shaq was, again, never the elite post defender in the league. That doesn't mean he couldn't change shots or impact the post.
So you feel that there are, at most, only 4 players that have ever lived that could be considered better?[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying Lebron is top 5 ever. Are you dense? I said Lebron scores in a similar fashion to Shaq. Brute strength. So I guess Lebron isn't top 5 in the league due to not being as skilled as the other players and not being a great freethrow shooter.
You can be in good shape at 35, though its not the same as in good shape and 25. Shaq still shots 60% from the field. What more do you want him to do? He is 35 and a lot heavier.
So 14 seasons of 20 and 10 is not enough to put you in the top 5. A decade and a half of dominance and always being in the elite group of players and at times the greatest player. Well then, do you consider Wilt better then Shaq? If you do, you are a hypocrite as Wilt had the same longevity as Shaq pretty much.
KAJ was only a double double man for 12 seasons. Less then Shaq and Wilt.
Furthermore all 3 centers have very similar stats over 36 minutes with Shaq being the best scorer and really not too far off on the defensive end with Kareem only averaging .2 blocks more.
Are you saying that Brad Miller impacts the game as much as Shaq?
That's exactly what a good defender is. One that alters shots and movements. Shaq did that. Shaq played lazy D, though it was still good defense and he often led great centers to shoot poor numbers when playing against him.
[QUOTE=juju151111]LOL Shaq was asked of his all-time team and he put Hakeem in it.Hakeem is the only Center shaq doesn't bad mounth.He evn bad mounths kareem, but he no the deal with The dream.He can't keep up with him.[/QUOTE]
He also put Barkley on their ahead of Bird.
I guess Barkley>Bird now?
Also Hakeem> KAJ and Wilt.
[QUOTE=plowking]I've watched enough of Bill Russel. [B]He is in my top 10, though not top 5.[/B]
Furthermore stop bringing up the era in which Bird played in. I can bring up Wilts era and say it was utter trash bar a few great players.[/QUOTE]
And top 10 of all time doesn't make Russell
"truly great"? :confusedshrug:
Secondly, my point about Bird's era is absolutely pertinent. It is harder to go through Doctor, Moses, The Bad Boys, Showtime, etc. than Dirk Nowitzki. :pimp:
[QUOTE=Psileas]Wilt-Jordan-Kareem-Russell-Magic, followed by Bird, Shaq, Oscar.
This still makes him the most injury-prone among all players (in their prime, since you only included Orlando-Lakers Shaq) that I rank so high. Even Bird, with all his back issues, rarely missed games in his prime (27 in his first 9 years, to be exact). Magic Johnson, also a player who faced a few injuries here and there, once missed 45 games, but, apart from this, played in 92.8% of his games. Young and prime Shaq played in 85% of his available games. The only player whom I rank even close to Shaq and was as injury-prone is Jerry West, and I rank him below Shaq.
That's the case with big intimidating centers and Shaq was a great intimidator, but that doesn't mean he was a great individual defender. At least, not in the ranks of Hakeem/Mutombo/Robinson/Ben Wallace, just to include the best defenders of his own era.
If you said so,
1) you'd be lying, because Wilt won 2 championships, not 1.
2) with competition at its worst, Wilt still had to face Russell (and the Celtics) for like 15% of his regular season games and for more than 50% of his playoff games year after year, Clyde Lovelette for plenty of games and, by his 3rd year, Walt Bellamy. You can't compare this to facing Ben Wallace and past-prime Robinson as your best competitors (EDIT: yes, I know Robinson had Duncan next to him, but I didn't include him due to the position matter, and even if I did, I'd have to do the same with Lovelette and include Bob Pettit to Wilt's competition, as well).
Actually, regardless of competition, whenever Wilt lost the title, it was [B]always [/B]against the eventual champions (except once).
3) Wilt was still in his prime when he won his first title.[/QUOTE]
From watching Shaq over his career and his 2.5 blocks over his career tells me that he is a decent, above average defender.
Also you know what I meant about the Wilt thing. I meant win one championship as the main guy, which is all he has. The other one he was not the best player.
You are not dominant if you can't win titles and Wilt couldn't win unless he was on the best team (you said it yourself in another thread).
The fact that you put Wilt over Jordan is an outrage. How so? Jordan has better number, more accomplishments, was a better defender.
Also don't bring up all these names from the 60's and 70's saying they were better then the centers Shaq had to face simply because they are in the hall of fame. A lot of them are there simply for paving the way for basketball. The only center that was better then the competition Shaq had to face was Russel.
I mean centers such as Unseld are considered great from that period of time.
[QUOTE=BIZARRO]And top 10 of all time doesn't make Russell
"truly great"? :confusedshrug:
Secondly, my point about Bird's era is absolutely pertinent. It is harder to go through Doctor, Moses, The Bad Boys, Showtime, etc. than Dirk Nowitzki. :pimp:[/QUOTE]
Who did Wilt have to beat in the NBA finals? An injured Willis Reed?
Well MJ didn't have to face the same sort of competition as Bird either.
[QUOTE=plowking]Who did Wilt have to beat in the NBA finals? An injured Willis Reed?
Well MJ didn't have to face the same sort of competition as Bird either.[/QUOTE]
Wilt had to beat the greatest dynasty in NBA History almost every year.
And you're right MJ didn't face the same sort of competition as Bird either, but he has [B]6 titles as the 1st option[/B]. Whereas Bird and Shaq both have 3.
In truth, I don't measure players just by the "championships" or "MVP's", I do it just by [B]watching them play[/B], and then coming to a conclusion.
You may be right. Shaq at his best may have been better than Bird. Maybe.
But it isn't because of the Miami championship, etc. Or Bird isn't better because of his 3 MVP's. All this helps, but is secondary. It is because one was better by opinion from just watching them over a lot of time. It is only arguable as well if one has seen both play.
However, I would like to point out that it is almost impossible to get a clear truthful opinion of someone we never saw play. And to keep that in mind.
Anyway, IMO there are probably 10-12 players who can make a case for top 5if we include the old timers we didn't see play. And most have good arguments.
Other than MJ, everyone else of the next 10 or so seem pretty close IMO.
[QUOTE=plowking]He also put Barkley on their ahead of Bird.
I guess Barkley>Bird now?
Also Hakeem> KAJ and Wilt.[/QUOTE]
[B]Barkley had way more impact than Bird but Bird was more skilled. They are both Greates [/B]
[QUOTE=BIZARRO]Wilt had to beat the greatest dynasty in NBA History almost every year.
And you're right MJ didn't face the same sort of competition as Bird either, but he has [B]6 titles as the 1st option[/B]. Whereas Bird and Shaq both have 3.
In truth, I don't measure players just by the "championships" or "MVP's", I do it just by [B]watching them play[/B], and then coming to a conclusion.
You may be right. Shaq at his best may have been better than Bird. Maybe.
But it isn't because of the Miami championship, etc. Or Bird isn't better because of his 3 MVP's. All this helps, but is secondary. It is because one was better by opinion from just watching them over a lot of time. It is only arguable as well if one has seen both play.
However, I would like to point out that it is almost impossible to get a clear truthful opinion of someone we never saw play. And to keep that in mind.
Anyway, IMO there are probably 10-12 players who can make a case for top 5if we include the old timers we didn't see play. And most have good arguments.
Other than MJ, everyone else of the next 10 or so seem pretty close IMO.[/QUOTE]
Who would you pick on your team first now knowing the way that each of their careers played out. I'd pick Shaq. Soo many times to the finals and great numbers each time.
I think people are hesitant to put Shaq in their top 5 either due to his attitude or the fact that he is still playing. Once he is said and done, people will realize the greatness that was once infront of them.
[QUOTE=Sir Charles][B]Barkley had way more impact than Bird but Bird was more skilled. They are both Greates [/B][/QUOTE]
Don't kid yourself Sir Charles. Bird impacted the game far more then Barkley.
1. MJ
2. Hakeem
3. Jabbar
4. Bird
5. Magic
Wilt, West, Duncan, Zeke, and then maybe Shaq. I'm probably being too hard on Shaq, but I absolutely hate his "game" and his attitude. Horrible for the game of basketball.
[QUOTE=RonySeikalyFTW]1. MJ
2. Hakeem
3. Jabbar
4. Bird
5. Magic
Wilt, West, Duncan, Zeke, and then maybe Shaq. I'm probably being too hard on Shaq, but I absolutely hate his "game" and his attitude. Horrible for the game of basketball.[/QUOTE]
Hakeem number 2? Are you serious?
Furthermore Duncan ahead of Shaq?
Just explain to me how you came to these conclusions.
Furthermore aren't you a Heat fan like myself. You would have seen Shaq in his first year here still a dominant force, even at his age at the time.
[QUOTE=plowking]Hakeem number 2? Are you serious?
Furthermore Duncan ahead of Shaq?
Just explain to me how you came to these conclusions.
Furthermore aren't you a Heat fan like myself. You would have seen Shaq in his first year here still a dominant force, even at his age at the time.[/QUOTE]
1 -- Jordan
YouTube - Michael Jordan - Stop the Comparisons
I read a book a few years ago, Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball? by Elliott Kalb, that ranked the top 50 players of all time. He had Jordan ranked #3. LOL. Highest career ppg, 5MVPs, 6 championships, 10 time All-NBA First Team, 9 time All-Defensive First Team. But hey, if you're gonna write a book that tells everyone what they already know -- that Jordan is the best player in history without a close second -- you probably aren't going to sell many copies.
If you want to understand Michael Jordan, try to understand domination. If you want to understand domination, here's a snapshot of Jordan dominating one of the top five shooting guards to ever play the game:
YouTube - Michael Jordan vs Clyde Drexler and Portland Trail Blazers
2 -- Hakeem Olajuwon
YouTube - Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwons Greatest Hits
I know this is a controversial choice, I just don't know why. Hakeem, along with Tim Duncan, has to be one of the most underrated and underappreciated legends in the history of sports. He spent the majority of his career dominating the league both offensively AND defensively, a career played during the golden era of juggernaut centers. Hakeem faced them all and defeated them all. In the playoffs, no center has scored at a higher rate. And no center has ever played better D. Olajuwon also had the footwork and moves that most All-Star forwards envy:
"The best footwork I've ever seen from a big man." -- Pete Newell
"Hakeem has five moves then four countermoves, that gives him 20 moves." -- Shaq O'Neal
"Hakeem? You don't solve Hakeem." -- David Robinson
YouTube - Olajuwon dominates Robinson
He was a basketball prodigy, he really didn't have a single weakness. The ONLY player in NBA history to finish a season top 10 in points, rebounds, blocks, and steals. The ONLY player in NBA history to win MVP, Finals MVP, and Defensive Player of the Year in the same season. The fact that no one criticizes Houston for taking Hakeem #1 when Jordan was on the board speaks volumes about The Dream.
3 -- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
After Lew Alcinder's sophomore year at UCLA, the NCAA outlawed dunking. The rule wasn't intended to make Alcinder a better professional player, but it did. He was forced to work on other shots. So Alcinder developed the impossible-to-defend ambidextrous Sky Hook which to this day remains the game's most unstoppable move, a shot that has only ever been blocked by Wilt Chambelain and Hakeem Olajuwon. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar would go on score more career points than anyone before or after him, and win 6 MVPs and 6 championships. He utterly dominated the 70s and won multiple rings in the 80s.
The only knock I have against Jabbar is that he never convincingly overcame a legit challenge from a fellow 7-footer at a time when both centers were in their prime. His Lakers lost to Bill Walton's Trailblazers in 1977. He faced Wilt Chamberlain 27 times, winning 13 times. Through the first 11 games, they played to a virtual standstill. But by their 12th encounter, Wilt was fading into retirement, and Kareem put it on him. In his 1983 autobiography, Kareem wrote:
Toward the end of his career, when he was 36 and I was 25, I had it any way I wanted. The Bucks would play the Lakers at the Forum, and I'd be getting 50 points against him; he'd try the fadeaway, but I'd be there to block it, and he'd storm out to halfcourt. With his career being closed in his face, he must have taken the defeat to heart.
Much like Chamberlain in the 70s, Kareem was the one on the downside of his career when he faced Hakeem Olajuwon in the 1986 Playoffs. And Olajuwon ate his lunch.
Flame away
And Duncan > Shaq for my honest opinion. Shaq is great when everything is going great, but the guy crumbles when faced with adversity.
[QUOTE=RonySeikalyFTW]And Duncan > Shaq for my honest opinion. Shaq is great when everything is going great, but the guy crumbles when faced with adversity.[/QUOTE]
Shaq has better career stats, better playoff stats, is more of an icon then Tim Duncan has ever been, way better finals stats.
[QUOTE]From watching Shaq over his career and his 2.5 blocks over his career tells me that he is a decent, above average defender.[/QUOTE]
Good, I never said that Shaq was a bad or below average defender. But he doesn't enter the territory of the best in their kind, either from his era or, obviously, ever.
[QUOTE]Also you know what I meant about the Wilt thing. I meant win one championship as the main guy, which is all he has. The other one he was not the best player.[/QUOTE]
And I've argued against this. This wasn't a case like Shaq and Wade in 2006.
Care to compare?
West in R.S: 25.8 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 9.7 apg, 47.7% FG, 81.4% FT.
Wilt in R.S: 14.8 ppg, 19.2 rpg, 4.0 apg, 64.9% FG, 51.0% FT.
West has an 11 ppg, 5.7 apg edge, an unknown but obvious edge in steals and shot 30 perc. units better from the line. Wilt has a 15 rpg edge, also an obvious edge in blocks, shot 17.2 perc. units from the line and had a somewhat bigger defensive presence (both great defenders, but the big man affects the defensive game more than the small). That's not a 1-sided comparison at all.
West in PO: 22.9 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 8.9 apg, 37.6% FG, 83% FT.
Wilt in PO: 14.7 ppg, 21.0 rpg, 3.3 apg, 56.3% FG, 49.2% FT.
West's edge in scoring falls to 8.2 ppg, in passing to 3.3. Only the FT advantage grows to 33.8. Wilt's Rebounding advantage grows to 16.1, his FG% to 18.7. Note that this outcome is generous, since in the last 2 rounds, West posted even worse numbers and Wilt even better (winning the F.MVP).
[QUOTE]You are not dominant if you can't win titles and Wilt couldn't win unless he was on the best team (you said it yourself in another thread).[/QUOTE]
What I said myself was that Wilt won the title with 2 of the best teams ever, meaning that they became so in a great degree because of him. The Lakers never during the 60's beat the Celtics and won the title. The Sixers never did, either. You're not among the best teams ever if you don't win the title. Magic played for some of the best teams ever, so did Bird, Jordan, Russell, Kareem. I'll consider this message read, so don't try to misquote me again.
On the other point, do you similarly not consider Jordan, Bird, Magic and Shaq dominant when they didn't win titles?
[QUOTE]The fact that you put Wilt over Jordan is an outrage. How so? Jordan has better number, more accomplishments, was a better defender.[/QUOTE]
More accomplishments is the only thing I'll agree about, not the rest. I won't elaborate more, it's a long discussion and not on topic, anyway.
[QUOTE]Also don't bring up all these names from the 60's and 70's saying they were better then the centers Shaq had to face simply because they are in the hall of fame. A lot of them are there simply for paving the way for basketball. The only center that was better then the competition Shaq had to face was Russel.
I mean centers such as Unseld are considered great from that period of time.[/QUOTE]
Paving the way isn't something that ceases to exist after some some degree of development. Julius Erving paved the way for a new generation of young exciting players, like Jordan and Dominique. Jordan paved the way for the "Jordan-heirs" Kobe, LeBron, Wade, etc. And it plays a major role when it comes to greatness. It means you're ahead of your era. And this topic is about greatness.
The only center better than Shaq's competition (who? Everyone?) was Russell? Who was better than Kareem?
Unseld wasn't considered great just because of his numbers, which weren't impressive in the scoring department. He led his team to the Finals 4 times at an era when there was a new champion every single season. Ben Wallace is considered great for a similar reason.
[QUOTE]Who did Wilt have to beat in the NBA finals? An injured Willis Reed?[/QUOTE]
Willis Reed wasn't injured throughout [B]the whole series[/B]. Actually, in the first 4 games, Reed was much healthier than Wilt, who missed almost the entire regular season because of a serious injury himself. But, of course, no-one remembers this today.
You know who Wilt had to beat:
1964: Prime Russell and a team that had won 6 titles in 7 years.
1967: Prime Thurmond.
1969: Russell and a team that had won 10 titles in 12 years.
1970: Prime Reed and a team still considered by many among the 10 best ever.
1972: The Knicks without Reed. The only time Wilt's individual competition can be described as not so strong. Of course, the Knicks as a team were still pretty strong. After all, they made the Finals without Reed, anyway, beating the Bullets and the Celtics convincingly.
1973: Reed and a team with a total of 5 players which were included in the 50 GOAT.
[QUOTE=Psileas]Good, I never said that Shaq was a bad or below average defender. But he doesn't enter the territory of the best in their kind, either from his era or, obviously, ever.
And I've argued against this. This wasn't a case like Shaq and Wade in 2006.
Care to compare?
West in R.S: 25.8 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 9.7 apg, 47.7% FG, 81.4% FT.
Wilt in R.S: 14.8 ppg, 19.2 rpg, 4.0 apg, 64.9% FG, 51.0% FT.
West has an 11 ppg, 5.7 apg edge, an unknown but obvious edge in steals and shot 30 perc. units better from the line. Wilt has a 15 rpg edge, also an obvious edge in blocks, shot 17.2 perc. units from the line and had a somewhat bigger defensive presence (both great defenders, but the big man affects the defensive game more than the small). That's not a 1-sided comparison at all.
West in PO: 22.9 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 8.9 apg, 37.6% FG, 83% FT.
Wilt in PO: 14.7 ppg, 21.0 rpg, 3.3 apg, 56.3% FG, 49.2% FT.
West's edge in scoring falls to 8.2 ppg, in passing to 3.3. Only the FT advantage grows to 33.8. Wilt's Rebounding advantage grows to 16.1, his FG% to 18.7. Note that this outcome is generous, since in the last 2 rounds, West posted even worse numbers and Wilt even better (winning the F.MVP).
What I said myself was that Wilt won the title with 2 of the best teams ever, meaning that they became so in a great degree because of him. The Lakers never during the 60's beat the Celtics and won the title. The Sixers never did, either. You're not among the best teams ever if you don't win the title. Magic played for some of the best teams ever, so did Bird, Jordan, Russell, Kareem. I'll consider this message read, so don't try to misquote me again.
On the other point, do you similarly not consider Jordan, Bird, Magic and Shaq dominant when they didn't win titles?
More accomplishments is the only thing I'll agree about, not the rest. I won't elaborate more, it's a long discussion and not on topic, anyway.
Paving the way isn't something that ceases to exist after some some degree of development. Julius Erving paved the way for a new generation of young exciting players, like Jordan and Dominique. Jordan paved the way for the "Jordan-heirs" Kobe, LeBron, Wade, etc. And it plays a major role when it comes to greatness. It means you're ahead of your era. And this topic is about greatness.
The only center better than Shaq's competition (who? Everyone?) was Russell? Who was better than Kareem?
Unseld wasn't considered great just because of his numbers, which weren't impressive in the scoring department. He led his team to the Finals 4 times at an era when there was a new champion every single season. Ben Wallace is considered great for a similar reason.
Willis Reed wasn't injured throughout [B]the whole series[/B]. Actually, in the first 4 games, Reed was much healthier than Wilt, who missed almost the entire regular season because of a serious injury himself. But, of course, no-one remembers this today.
You know who Wilt had to beat:
1964: Prime Russell and a team that had won 6 titles in 7 years.
1967: Prime Thurmond.
1969: Russell and a team that had won 10 titles in 12 years.
1970: Prime Reed and a team still considered by many among the 10 best ever.
1972: The Knicks without Reed. The only time Wilt's individual competition can be described as not so strong. Of course, the Knicks as a team were still pretty strong. After all, they made the Finals without Reed, anyway, beating the Bullets and the Celtics convincingly.
1973: Reed and a team with a total of 5 players which were included in the 50 GOAT.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between dominating a game and dominating your era. Shaq, Bird, Jordan all have the team and individual success to show for it. Where as Wilt doesn't. He could take over a game and be dominant in a game, though since he didn't win, he was not dominant in his era. Bill Russell on the other hand.
[QUOTE]There is a difference between dominating a game and dominating your era. Shaq, Bird, Jordan all have the team and individual success to show for it. Where as Wilt doesn't. He could take over a game and be dominant in a game, though since he didn't win, he was not dominant in his era. Bill Russell on the other hand.[/QUOTE]
That's your own definition. No-one from Wilt's era would agree with this, especially as long as Wilt in his first 6-7 seasons never had a team good enough to let him win a title. Still, despite this, he came very close when he brought the Celtics to 7 games in 1962. He also made the Finals in 1964.
Even if you believe so and that Russell dominated his era more, then why don't you put him higher on your al-time lists?
BTW, I can easily argue that if you don't consider Wilt's 2 titles and 6 trips to the Finals being team success but you do consider Bird's 3 titles and 5 trips to the Finals as being, then Wilt's records and 4 MVP's is a sign of individual dominance, whereas Bird's or Shaq's much less records and less MVP's (much less in Shaq's case) isn't...
[QUOTE=plowking]Who would you pick on your team first now knowing the way that each of their careers played out. I'd pick Shaq.[B] Soo many times to the finals[/B] and great numbers each time.
I think people are hesitant to put Shaq in their top 5 either due to his attitude or the fact that he is still playing. Once he is said and done, people will realize the greatness that was once infront of them.[/QUOTE]
Shaq has gone 6 times and Bird 5 in fewer seasons. Once again, their accomplishments are similar.
I'd take Shaq too, because he has been dominant longer because Bird broke down. But if I was going to take a player for the first 8 seasons of their career I would take Bird.
[QUOTE=plowking]There is a difference between dominating a game and dominating your era. Shaq, Bird, Jordan all have the team and individual success to show for it. Where as Wilt doesn't. He could take over a game and be dominant in a game, [B]though since he didn't win, he was not dominant in his era. Bill Russell on the other hand[/B].[/QUOTE]
This is absolute BS. If Wilt and Russell switched teams it would be a completely different story and you know it.
Russell's teams were loaded and you know it. The face that Wilt usually outplayed Russell and took them to the limit so many times shows just how dominant Wilt was.
Listen I am one of the biggest MJ fans and backers of GOAT there is, but as far as dominance goes, NO ONE has ever been more dominant against their competition than Wilt Chamberlain.