How is Shaq not at least top 5 all-time?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq is not a better basketball player than:

Magic, Bird, Isiah, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Walt Frazier, Erving or even Kobe in his prime.

Kobe???? Dr. J???? Walt Frazier?????!!!

why? 95% of Shaq's points came from within 5 feet of the basket.

Who cares? If he could get that shot then why not take it? He was able to get that close to the basket often enough to finish top 3 in scoring 10 times. But yeah, it'd be much better to step out to 18 feet and shoot a lower % like Olajuwon, Duncan, Ewing and Robinson.

I'll take a 5 foot shot over an 18 footer any time.

for his size Shaq is/was just an average rebounder.

Who cares about "for his size"? 13-14 rpg is damn good no matter who you are, much less 15+ in back to back title runs. I guess Yao must be trash since he's bigger than Shaq and has never averaged 11.

Shaq became a better passer later in his career but was never spectacular.

Yes he was, he was among the best passing big men in the league. Bill Walton use to praise him for this routinely and compare him to the best passing big men ever, and I'd say Walton knows a thing or two about passing....

if not for a bad job of coaching by Dunleavy in the 4th quarter of the 2000 semis Shaq never sees his 1st ship.

if not for a Kings meltdown at the FT line and a last minute 3 by Horry in game 4 of the 2002 semis Shaq never plays for his 3rd.

Who cares about ifs? You could go down the line and take away numerous titles from a ton of players if we went into "what ifs" like that.

sure Shaq dominated the post in his era but what prime HOF centers was he playing against?

Hmmm. Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo and Tim Duncan(call him a PF or a C, but Shaq played against him all the time).

[Big#50]

Shaq is not a better basketball player than:

Magic, Bird, Isiah, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Walt Frazier, Erving or even Kobe in his prime.

why? 95% of Shaq's points came from within 5 feet of the basket.

for his size Shaq is/was just an average rebounder.

name a memorable game in which Shaq hit the game winning shot.

of all the top 5 centers Shaq is probably the worst defender. has good block numbers but average footwork and recovery.

Shaq became a better passer later in his career but was never spectacular.

if not for a bad job of coaching by Dunleavy in the 4th quarter of the 2000 semis Shaq never sees his 1st ship.

if not for a Kings meltdown at the FT line and a last minute 3 by Horry in game 4 of the 2002 semis Shaq never plays for his 3rd.


sure Shaq dominated the post in his era but what prime HOF centers was he playing against?

Shaq is one the best in terms of offensive dominance and presence but too many holes in his skillset to be considered a top 5 player IMO.

Frazier? You've gone mad.

[Roundball_Rock]

That's the problem with statgeeks, you cannot directly relate statistical ppg to performance. Would you not think Greer stepping up in the playoffs had something to with Wilt's scoring in '67?

You can if there is a a decade and a half worth of a consistent trend. What are your excuses for 60', 61', 62', 63', 64'-66', 68'-73'? Was it just a coincidence that every year his scoring declined in the playoffs? The most "dominant", the most "unstoppable" force year after year declined when it counted (career regular season: 30 ppg on 54% shooting; career playoffs: 22.5 ppg on 46.5% shooting)?

@ the irony of a Wilt fan (at least this is the position of your gimmick) complaining about too much emphasis being placed on stats.

The same prime during which he won 3 consecutive MVP's?

He had a three year prime? You are confusing peak with prime.

Shaq is not a better basketball player than:

Magic, Bird, Isiah, Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Walt Frazier, Erving or even Kobe in his prime.

Would you rather build a team around prime Isiah or Frazier over Shaq?

Regarding luck, that is a factor in all championships so that can't be held against Shaq. What if KG didn't get hurt last year? What if the Cavs shot 2% better in Game 7 of the ECSF? What if the Cheap Shot Rob incident didn't happen in the 07' WCSF? And so on.

sure Shaq dominated the post in his era but what prime HOF centers was he playing against?

Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, Yao, and Mutumbo. The last three are borderline to get into the HOF but if Mourning and Yao had healthy full careers they would have been near locks, or at least likely to get in.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

We must consider that Wilt played 48.5 mpg, no way he does that in the modern era. If a big man plays 40 in the modern era that's rare, hell any star player. Jordan only played about 40 mpg at the most.

Playing at Shaq's pace and minutes, Wilt would have averaged 29.9 ppg, 15.2 rpg, 1.4 apg, 50.6 FG%, 61.2 FT%.

Amazingly despite Shaq playing at such a slower pace and playing 43 more playoff games, Shaq has averaged 25.2 ppg compared to Wilt's 22.5 ppg.

I'm not saying Shaq is better(although I have him ranked slightly higher), but you can definitely make a case for it. But '67 is Wilt's true peak and in the discussion for greatest peak ever along with O'Neal in 2000.

Great posts all around (you too RR). Playoff performances are a huge factor when comparing the two. One went into the tank (respectfully) during the post season; one dominated and exceeded expectations during the post season.

Shaq anchored LA, Miami and Orlando (Miami is debatable) to win their division 9 times, went past the 1st round 13 times, 9 conference finals appearance, 6 NBA finals appearances, 4 NBA titles, 3 finals MVPs. When it comes down to winning, maybe the most important attribute that defines a player, Shaq wins hands down.

For how great Wilt's stats were, he only won 2 titles and 1 Finals MVP, compared to Shaq’s 4 titles and 3 finals MVPs. Wilt was known for choking under pressure/underachieving, especially during pressure-playoff games. On the other hand, Shaq hasn’t been known for any of these (for the most part). Wilt played with some good teams and 8 HoFers over the course of his career, and had a number of opportunities to gain more titles. "The Big Dipper" never had the killer instinct that Shaq had and constantly underachieved (no disrespect of course).

Even though Shaq was a greater winner, some people still say that Chamberlain's stats were so great that he has to be considered the greatest; however, during the early 60s when Chamberlain put up his best numbers, the rules were so different. Besides that playing in the NBA was fairly new to African Americans back then. The first African American had only broken the color barrier in the NBA in in 1950 and even then many potential great players weren't playing in the NBA. I don’t see how Chamberlain can be considered better than Shaq, when Shaq, the most dominant of his era, is a better winner than Chamberlain, the most dominant of his.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I do believe Shaq is a top 2 Center (top 5 player), I can understand how people can make arguments for Kareem and Wilt having better careers than him. However, I believe that Shaq, in his prime from 2000-2002, was the second-greatest player of all time, behind Jordan. During his 3 peat with the Lakers, he was the most dominant force to ever play in the NBA (once again, this is my opinion). He was consistently doubled and triple teamed, yet he could not be stopped.

For his size, Shaq is a one of a kind athlete who is unmatched by any player in any sport. No 7'1 player, who weighs 300+ pounds, has ever had as good footwork, been as powerful, had as good lift, and been able to move as quickly as Shaq has.

[Solid Snake]

How is Shaq not at least top 5 all-time?

His effort and lack of dedication. End of story. Close the book. Go to sleep.

In that order.

[plowking]

His effort and lack of dedication. End of story. Close the book. Go to sleep.

In that order.

So if a player averaged 50ppg and 20rpg for his career, though didn't try his best and put all effort forward, he wouldn't be considered the best ever?

Feck off kent.

[Abraham Lincoln]

You can if there is a a decade and a half worth of a consistent trend. What are your excuses for 60', 61', 62', 63', 64'-66', 68'-73'? Was it just a coincidence that every year his scoring declined in the playoffs? The most "dominant", the most "unstoppable" force year after year declined when it counted (career regular season: 30 ppg on 54% shooting; career playoffs: 22.5 ppg on 46.5% shooting)?

@ the irony of a Wilt fan (at least this is the position of your gimmick) complaining about too much emphasis being placed on stats.

His prime years were not with the Warriors. He was playing for a managment that told him to play a certain way, directly as well as through the owner's several puppet head coaches. He was skinnier & weaker than he was in his Sixer/Laker days. Unlike you, I do not mask my lack of knowledge with stats. You would not think that the playoffs is played with 5 men in a more team oriented system? Just because his ppg were down, you think his performance declined? You fail to factor in his roles during his best years with the Sixers & Lakers. But as a Kobe fan the only aspect of the game that appeases you is statistical ppg. By your standards Iverson is the #2 playoff performer in league history & Bird's performance declined in the '81, '85, & '87 playoffs, while not improving in the '86 playoffs.

He had a three year prime? You are confusing peak with prime.

His best years were not with the Warriors. I will have to quit replying to you until you learn to discuss real basketball in an objective manner & argue for or against a point or topic that is actually relevant. Do not address the wise man until you learn the proper game of basketball and it's history.

[Roundball_Rock]

Great posts all around (you too RR). Playoff performances are a huge factor when comparing the two. One went into the tank (respectfully) during the post season; one dominated and exceeded expectations during the post season.

Shaq anchored LA, Miami and Orlando (Miami is debatable) to win their division 9 times, went past the 1st round 13 times, 9 conference finals appearance, 6 NBA finals appearances, 4 NBA titles, 3 finals MVPs. When it comes down to winning, maybe the most important attribute that defines a player, Shaq wins hands down.

For how great Wilt's stats were, he only won 2 titles and 1 Finals MVP, compared to Shaq’s 4 titles and 3 finals MVPs. Wilt was known for choking under pressure/underachieving, especially during pressure-playoff games. On the other hand, Shaq hasn’t been known for any of these (for the most part). Wilt played with some good teams and 8 HoFers over the course of his career, and had a number of opportunities to gain more titles. "The Big Dipper" never had the killer instinct that Shaq had and constantly underachieved (no disrespect of course).

Even though Shaq was a greater winner, some people still say that Chamberlain's stats were so great that he has to be considered the greatest; however, during the early 60s when Chamberlain put up his best numbers, the rules were so different. Besides that playing in the NBA was fairly new to African Americans back then. The first African American had only broken the color barrier in the NBA in in 1950 and even then many potential great players weren't playing in the NBA. I don’t see how Chamberlain can be considered better than Shaq, when Shaq, the most dominant of his era, is a better winner than Chamberlain, the most dominant of his.

Good post.

Wilt was great but a poster said he couldn't see placing Shaq above him. I think it has been established that their primes are comparable and there are compelling reasons to prefer Shaq over Wilt.

Good point. There were few African American players in the 60's; there were no international players. Shaq's best years came in a decade in which several top teams were led by international players (Phoenix and Dallas) or featured international players in key roles (San Antonio obviously has two*, Portland had Sabonis). Shaq's biggest rival at the center position this decade was a 7'6" foreign player. Shaq produced similar individual stats and more wins despite facing a far deeper talent pool. He played the best of the best from around the globe. Wilt to a large degree only faced the best white Americans.

The 50's and to a lesser extent the 60's are viewed as weaker because of a lack of minority players. My guess is the 70's-90's will be viewed the same way by future generations because of a lack of international players.

His best years were not with the Warriors. I will have to quit replying to you until you learn to discuss real basketball in an objective manner & argue for or against a point or topic that is actually relevant. Do not address the wise man until you learn the proper game of basketball and it's history.

Lectures from a gimmick/sock. Wise man? You can't figure out that I am not a Kobe fan (unless one qualifies as a "fan" if a player is 10-15 among your favorite current players). You can't even figure out that I am not Fatal9 so I wouldn't go around calling myself "wise" if I were you.

Ok. So Wilt's scoring magically declined by 25% in the playoffs and he declined every single year. There is no trend. There is nothing behind it. It just coincidentally happened--every year. Wilt's poor record in game 7's. Again, coincidence. And so on.

Objectivity? From you. I didn't address you. You clicked on my thread. I would be best if you stay out. The thread was doing fine until you began trolling, as usual.


*I don't consider Duncan and international player

[elementally morale]

A simple question cries for a simple answer.

Shaq is not top 5, because there were at least 5 players better than him. Thos 5 players are:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Michael Jordan
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain

Four out of this five I saw play. They were better than Shaq, even if Shaq might have had a higher peak than all, as is said. I'm nopt sure Shaq at his peak was better than Bird or Jordan were at theirs though.

In addition to these 5 players, I can name 3 other players having a case over Shaq:

Russell
Olajuwon
Duncan

That leaves Shaq anywhere between #6 and #9 on the list. I personally put him at #8 (behing Russell and Olajuwon but ahead of Duncan).

You may ask why, and if I can prove it. No, I can't prove it and I don't want to. There is no need to prove an opinion. I saw these guys play (not Wilt and Russell, but the rest), and I can assure anyone that Shaq has not had as good a basketball career as those other players mentioned.

The farthest I can go is say Shaq was a top 5 player if only the absolute primes are concerned. (MJ, Bird and Wilt above, Hakeem arguable, Magic arguable...)

Shaq is easily top 10. And not top 5. No amount of statwhoring will change that.

[Roundball_Rock]

Top 10 players and their scoring in the regular season compared to their playoff scoring

Their career average for the playoffs is listed first.

Jordan 33 49%/30 50%
Hakeem 26 53%/22 51%
Shaq 25 50%/24.5 58%
Kobe 25 45%/25 45.5%
Kareem 24 53%/25 56%
Bird 24 47%/24 50%
Duncan 23 50%/21 51%
Wilt 22.5 46.5%/30 54%
Magic 19.5 51%/19.5 52%

Which one is not like the others wise guy? The discrepancy is even worse if you compare their best seasons. Wilt had several David Robinson-like declines in the playoffs.

[ProfessorMurder]

A simple question cries for a simple answer.

Shaq is not top 5, because there were at least 5 players better than him. Thos 5 players are:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Michael Jordan
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain

Four out of this five I saw play. They were better than Shaq, even if Shaq might have had a higher peak than all, as is said. I'm nopt sure Shaq at his peak was better than Bird or Jordan were at theirs though.

In addition to these 5 players, I can name 3 other players having a case over Shaq:

Russell
Olajuwon
Duncan

That leaves Shaq anywhere between #6 and #9 on the list. I personally put him at #8 (behing Russell and Olajuwon but ahead of Duncan).

You may ask why, and if I can prove it. No, I can't prove it and I don't want to. There is no need to prove an opinion. I saw these guys play (not Wilt and Russell, but the rest), and I can assure anyone that Shaq has not had as good a basketball career as those other players mentioned.

The farthest I can go is say Shaq was a top 5 player if only the absolute primes are concerned. (MJ, Bird and Wilt above, Hakeem arguable, Magic arguable...)

Shaq is easily top 10. And not top 5. No amount of statwhoring will change that.

I agree. Shaq is 6-8 on my list, he really could've been better... Which is ridiculous. If he kept his weight down, stayed in shape, etc. etc.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Shaq is not top 5, because there were at least 5 players better than him. Thos 5 players are:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Michael Jordan
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain

Four out of this five I saw play. They were better than Shaq, even if Shaq might have had a higher peak than all, as is said. I'm nopt sure Shaq at his peak was better than Bird or Jordan were at theirs though.

In addition to these 5 players, I can name 3 other players having a case over Shaq:

Russell
Olajuwon
Duncan

That leaves Shaq anywhere between #6 and #9 on the list. I personally put him at #8 (behing Russell and Olajuwon but ahead of Duncan).

Shaq is easily top 10. And not top 5. No amount of statwhoring will change that.

Shaq versus Hakeem:

Olajuwon: 18 seasons
Career: 21.8 ppg, 51.2 FG%, 11.1 RPG, 2.5 APG 3.1 BPG, 1.7 SPG
Single-season peak: 27.3 PPG, 14 RPG, 4.6 BPG

Only averaged more than 25 points per game in a season four times

Shaq: in his 17th seasons
25.2 PPG , 58.1 FG%, 11.5 RPG, 2.4 BPG, 2.7 APG, .6 SPG
Averaged over 25 points per game 10 times
Single-season peak: 29.7 PPG 3.5 BPG 13.9 RPG

The main difference between the two is that Shaq is a better scorer, while Hakeem is a better defender. However, individual offensive power is more important than individual defensive power. For example, who would you rather have on your team: a great defender like Bruce Bowen (in his prime), or a great offensive player like Tmac (prime)? Team defense, not individual defenders, win you championships, while individual offensive superstars win you championships as well. Now let’s see who’s a better winner.

Hakeem Olajuwon

Won his division 3 times, 7 times past the 1st round of the playoffs, 4 conference finals appearances, 3 NBA finals appearances, 2 NBA titles, 2 Finals MVPs

Shaquille O’Neal

Won his division 9 times, 13 times past the first round of the playoffs, 9 conference finals appearances, 6 NBA finals appearances, 4 NBA titles, 3 finals MVPs. When it comes down to winning, maybe the most important attribute that defines a player, Shaq wins hands down. Keep in mind, if Michael Jordan hadn’t retired in 1993, Olajuwon more than likely wouldn’t have won any titles, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. I don’t understand how anyone can say Olajuwon is better than Shaq when he isn’t nearly as good of a scorer or more importantly a winner. I’m not going to compare the statistics of Shaq vs. Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar because the eras were so different and have been thoroughly discussed in the thread (well, Wilt has at least).

It's not about "statwhoring". His impact, peak, consistency, longevity, etc are that of a top 5 player. I can go on about Russel and Duncan (talked about in the other thread) but that would be meaningless.

[Gifted Mind]

I place Shaquille O'Neal anywhere from 3-7.

[elementally morale]

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

You won't convince me, sorry.

I know Hakeem and Shaq are arguable and the debate can go either way. Hakeem gets my vote and I don't care what stats anyone is going to bring up. I saw all their careers, I can decide for myself. If you have a different opinion, I can live with that.

While I think Ducan and Shaq is also arguable, I have Shaq above Duncan. As for Russell... I can live with not ranking him at all (I'm not old enough to have been able to see him play) but I just can't place him below Shaq. Dude just won way too much for that.

As a matter of fact I don't really get why anyone is not satisfied with a player being a clear cut top 10 player of all time. That's nice, isn't it? Shaq didn't do anything to warrant a top 3 or a GOAT position. Yes, he is up there with some greats.

Second tier to me, one notch below MJ, Bird, Kareem and Magic. (And Wilt and Russell, probably.) That's nothing to be ashamed of though.