Is Shaq top 5 ever? Why, why not?

[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.