Is Shaq top 5 ever? Why, why not?

[Psileas]

From watching Shaq over his career and his 2.5 blocks over his career tells me that he is a decent, above average defender.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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?

The fact that you put Wilt over Jordan is an outrage. How so? Jordan has better number, more accomplishments, was a better defender.

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.

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.

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.

Who did Wilt have to beat in the NBA finals? An injured Willis Reed?

Willis Reed wasn't injured throughout the whole series. 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.

[plowking]

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 the whole series. 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.

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.

[Psileas]

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.

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...

[BIZARRO]

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.

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.

[BIZARRO]

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.

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.

[Showtime]

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.

The point I was trying to make is that there's more to being top 5 ever than just being a top player of the times. I don't care about the comparison to Lebron's scoring, because Lebron isn't top 5 all time, so it doesn't matter.

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.

First off, he isn't heavier now than his prime in LA. That's just false. Second, I already said I didn't expect him to put up prime stats, but I expect a top 5 player ever to be more effective than he is right now.

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.

It doesn't outweigh my other issues with him, no.

KAJ was only a double double man for 12 seasons. Less then Shaq and Wilt.

The question wasn't about double doubles; the question was brought up about production in advanced age, where KAJ clearly was better than Shaq now.

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.

I don't care about 36 minute averages if Shaq isn't on the floor for 36 minutes a game. What good is he if he is either unwilling, or unable to play at least 30 minutes a game?

Are you saying that Brad Miller impacts the game as much as Shaq?

You are the one who said a 14/8 center is 3rd or 4th best in the entire league. I was pointing out, from a production standpoint, how wrong that is.

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.

So, pure physical size = great defense?



And one more thing: for all the people who keep throwing out his finals stats with LA, look at the competition. He faced one guy who could have given him trouble in Mutombo. The rest were guys like Smits and Davis, Aaron Williams and Todd MacCulloch. He dominated weaker competition.

[plowking]

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.

All hypotheticals. How do you know?

Sure he could have, but he wasn't in that situation.

Shaq has achieved more in his career, and there is a reason why Wilt dominated his position in games, because the competition is not as good as people make it out to be. All these HOF names mean nothing, when compared to Wilt and Russel.

[plowking]

The point I was trying to make is that there's more to being top 5 ever than just being a top player of the times. I don't care about the comparison to Lebron's scoring, because Lebron isn't top 5 all time, so it doesn't matter.



First off, he isn't heavier now than his prime in LA. That's just false. Second, I already said I didn't expect him to put up prime stats, but I expect a top 5 player ever to be more effective than he is right now.



It doesn't outweigh my other issues with him, no.



The question wasn't about double doubles; the question was brought up about production in advanced age, where KAJ clearly was better than Shaq now.



I don't care about 36 minute averages if Shaq isn't on the floor for 36 minutes a game. What good is he if he is either unwilling, or unable to play at least 30 minutes a game?



You are the one who said a 14/8 center is 3rd or 4th best in the entire league. I was pointing out, from a production standpoint, how wrong that is.



So, pure physical size = great defense?



And one more thing: for all the people who keep throwing out his finals stats with LA, look at the competition. He faced one guy who could have given him trouble in Mutombo. The rest were guys like Smits and Davis, Aaron Williams and Todd MacCulloch. He dominated weaker competition.

So you expect Shaq to play that many minutes at his age with his injury history? Then he gets injured and you blame him for not playing. You are simply creating double standards to suit your rankings. He only recently started playing less then 36 minutes. Garnett only played 32, Tim Duncan plays less then 36 as well. So you can't put them in ahead of Shaq either, seeing as Tim is younger then Shaq and playing less minutes then Shaq did at that age.

He's not heavier then he was in L.A. but he is no where near as fit. He is a lot older. Are you telling me you have more energy when you are 40 and 300lbs or 25 and 340? Please...

Dominated weaker competition? Name me Wilts great competition when he played.

How is Shaq not the 3rd best center in the league? In terms of production and impact? And in the finals there is no center I would take over him bar Yao Ming at the moment. I'd take Shaq over Howard in a finals run.

[plowking]

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...

I put Russell ahead of Wilt on my all time lists most of the time.

So I guess Nash dominated this era more then Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Wade right? I guess Duncan dominated more then Shaq as well right, simply because of 1 more MVP on his resume.

Shaq faced better competition, and had more rules implemented to stop him being as dominant as Wilt was in his era. First of all the goaltending rule, the widening of the key, back to basket.

Then you look over their whole careers and you realize that Shaq had very similar production to Wilt. In some cases better even with all these rules in place.

[VeeCee15]

Shaq is top 2..bottom line. Only behind MJ.

I don't care about Bird or Magic..they haven't done what Shaq did.

[Psileas]

Shaq has achieved more in his career, and there is a reason why Wilt dominated his position in games, because the competition is not as good as people make it out to be. All these HOF names mean nothing, when compared to Wilt and Russel.

Maybe that's a testament of how good Wilt and Russell were? Nah, it can't be, huh?

So I guess Nash dominated this era more then Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Wade right? I guess Duncan dominated more then Shaq as well right, simply because of 1 more MVP on his resume.

And I guess Duncan dominated more then Shaq because he won 1 more championship as the main man, Dave Cowens and Wes Unseld dominated just as much as Kareem in the 70's and Isiah dominated the 80's more than Jordan.

It's evidence that championships by themselves are completely insufficient to explain whether some player dominates his era or not.

Shaq faced better competition

No, he didn't, and it's funny how every time anyone mentions this, I'm the only one who brings up evidence either for or against it. All people do is mention Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, whom Shaq faced around a combined 10 times per season (when he played sufficient games in the season of course) and met them an "astonishing" number of 7 out of the 42 playoff series he's ever played (including only 1 series when all these players were in their primes). Want to add Ben Wallace, Yao, Zo and Mutombo? This adds 5 series more, and still not every series happened when all his opponents were in their primes. How's that anywhere close to Wilt's competition, especially after the early 60's?

and had more rules implemented to stop him being as dominant as Wilt was in his era. First of all the goaltending rule, the widening of the key, back to basket.

First of all, what do you mean with the "back to basket"?
The widening of the key was implemented in 1964 and didn't do much to stop Wilt whenever he decided to score. As for the rest:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:j...lnk&cd=4&gl=gr

1945 Defensive goaltending is banned

1958 Offensive goaltending is banned.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:5...lnk&cd=1&gl=gr

Because of Chamberlain's height and offensive prowess, NCAA administrators instituted several rules changes to limit his impact. The most important new regulation was offensive goaltending. Under the new rules players could no longer guide the ball in or out of the basket by touching it while it was in the space directly above the rim. Other rules prohibited lobbing the ball over the backboard from behind it (so that a teammate could catch and dunk the ball), and taking a running leap from the free-throw line to make a layup during foul shots. Both had been favorite plays of Chamberlain.

They still didn't reduce his impact as much as they'd like to. What's funny is that Wilt was the last and probably the only player who had so many rules altered to reduce his dominance since his NCAA years, another testament of how much ahead of his time and dominant he was. He changed the game so much that the rules implemented to limit him have remained unchanged for 40-50 years of progress. If there had been a player since to dominate the game at an analogous degree, officials would try to do the same. But there's been no need to do so.

Then you look over their whole careers and you realize that Shaq had very similar production to Wilt. In some cases better even with all these rules in place.

I've already shown that Wilt was a greater rebounder, passer and, in his scoring prime, a bigger scorer than Shaq. Plus, it's well-known that he was a better shot-blocker, making All-D 1st teams past his prime. And all this stat dominance is a per minute comparison, where Shaq is supposed to be helped, since he plays less minutes per game and rests more. Hell, Wilt produced an (incomplete, mind you) PER of 31.8 in a gigantic 48.5 minutes of play in 1962. And PER isn't exactly generous with rebounding, one of Wilt's strongest points (neither is it with passing, where Wilt excelled after the early 60's).
Shaq has only had the advantage in FG%, and even here, Wilt's percentage in his high scorin days is still impressive, judging from the number and type of shots he took. Guys like Duncan or Garnett takes only 50-70% as many shots and still don't manage to shoot better.

[Psileas]

Shaq is top 2..bottom line. Only behind MJ.

I don't care about Bird or Magic..they haven't done what Shaq did.

Yeah, Bird didn't win 1 MVP, like Shaq, neither did Magic. Magic also didn't win 4 titles, didn't reach the Finals 6 times, won 3 Finals' MVP's and wasn't something that his position had never seen.

[Showtime]

So you expect Shaq to play that many minutes at his age with his injury history?

No, I expect you to understand that response was in the context of the 36 minute average stat that was brought up. I don't want to hear about a 36 minute stat if he's not on the floor for 36 minutes.

He's not heavier then he was in L.A. but he is no where near as fit. He is a lot older. Are you telling me you have more energy when you are 40 and 300lbs or 25 and 340? Please...

Then why have other players of advanced age proven to be more productive? Like I said, it's not about being one of the best CENTERS to play, it's about being among the 5 BEST TO EVER PLAY THE GAME. Is Shaq a top 5 center? I wouldn't argue with that. Top 5 all time is something I have issue with, and you have yet to address the other points brought up against him. As I have said before, production isn't the only thing I am looking at.

Dominated weaker competition? Name me Wilts great competition when he played.

I never brought up Wilt, so what does he have to do with this? You are totally disregarding the point that Shaq's best finals stats (which are a main point that is always brought up) came against inferior players with the exception of Mutombo.

Wilt was sent home after many playoff series losses to Russell in Boston, won a chip against Thurmond, and lost to Willis Reed and the Knicks in the finals. Shaq got beaten by Dream when he made the finals with Orlando, beat up on weak competition in his LA finals (except Mutombo), and got beaten by the Pistons with Wallace. Both centers got beat by great centers, but that wasn't the point because I never brought up Wilt in this discussion.

How is Shaq not the 3rd best center in the league? In terms of production and impact? And in the finals there is no center I would take over him bar Yao Ming at the moment. I'd take Shaq over Howard in a finals run.

That's your opinion. I don't feel Shaq is a top 3 center because even though he may be efficient, he can only stay on the floor for a limited amount of time, thus decreasing his impact. Also, he's still limited by his FT shooting, but this time, he can't make up for that with his scoring. Basically, his faults are now more exploitable because he can't counter them as much as he could in his prime.

So, limited PT = limited production, still can't shoot FT's which makes him an exploitable liability, and he can't counter that like he used to with production in other areas. He can't take over games, and he is liable at any time to quit on his teammates and take time off because he feels like it.

[juju151111]

All hypotheticals. How do you know?

Sure he could have, but he wasn't in that situation.

Shaq has achieved more in his career, and there is a reason why Wilt dominated his position in games, because the competition is not as good as people make it out to be. All these HOF names mean nothing, when compared to Wilt and Russel.

Wilt was better then russel tho.

[LarryLegend33]

Top 5 ever in order.
1. Jordan
2. Bird
3. Magic
4. Kareem
5. Russell