[QUOTE=plowking]Why? Can you give me a reason? That's all I'm asking for...[/QUOTE]
I mean u can saying this but thats 100 % not true. Larry Bird is better than Shaquille O'neal
Printable View
[QUOTE=plowking]Why? Can you give me a reason? That's all I'm asking for...[/QUOTE]
I mean u can saying this but thats 100 % not true. Larry Bird is better than Shaquille O'neal
[QUOTE=Rekindled]players better than shaq
JOrdan
Bird
Magic
Wilt
Hakeem(shaq said so )
Kareem
same lvl as shaq
Barkley
pippen
Bill Russel
Pete Maravich
Oscar robertson
Moses Malone
Dr J
David Robinson[/QUOTE]
And I'm the one that's delusional when Shaq is the one getting underrated in these types of threads.
[QUOTE=72-10]Apparently we should measure greatness in the basketball world by using the lack of knowledge of people outside of it as the ruler.:roll:
And you appear to be one of these people who doesn't follow basketball [B]if you do not recognize that Oscar was more impressive statistically than Shaq[/B]. In fact Oscar is among that elite class statistically with Wilt and Michael. It should be self-evident that Oscar had considerably more skill than Shaq. If a point guard can change a game as much as a 7 foot center can, I'm going to give the point guard more credit. He has to work harder to achieve something great.:hammerhead: Oscar has more influence on the game, and has been the standard bearer of the "all-around" player (perhaps Jordan supplanted him).[/QUOTE]
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=Psileas]The same dominance that led him break about a million records and that led a mediocre Warrior team to the 1960 and 1962 ECF, losing to the 60+ win Celtics in 6 and 7 games (losing in the second case to the Celtics by only 2 points in game 7).
1967 is definitely during Wilt's prime. I don't know how you can possibly say that it wasn't. because he didn't win the scoring title? Big deal, he pretty much obliterated boxscores, recording one triple-double after another, won the MVP by a landslide. If that's a "past prime" player, OK...
The 1972 team wasn't as stacked as you think it was. Actually, they were overachivers. They were considered an old team, with Wilt being 35-36, West only a year younger, Elgin Baylor retired and a so-so bench. Among the big weaons, only Goodrich was in his prime. They had already lost to the Bucks in 1971 (though they played without West) and few gave them chances of winning it all. 69 wins? 33 in a row? If you told this to anyone before the start of the season, they'd think you're nuts.
BTW, Wilt was still an MVP contestant, would be a serious DPOY contestant if the award existed and easily won the Finals' MVP. He was still the best player of his team, even past his prime.
[B]Magic and Bird disagree. Oh, and Drazen, too[/B].[/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=plowking]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]
Bird barely made 2 or 3 All-Defensive [B]2nd[/B] teams, and was never close to 1st team status... mediocre on-ball defender, good help defender.
[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.