Misconception about prime Shaquille O'Neal - Overrated as a post-up scorer

[Reggie43]

His first five shots in the video shows the range that he had on those jump hooks. Teams usually had 2 people on him trying to push him away from the paint but he was able to hit those shots consistently regardless of the defense.

[Im Still Ballin]

His first five shots in the video shows the range that he had on those jump hooks. Teams usually had 2 people on him trying to push him away from the paint but he was able to hit those shots consistently regardless of the defense.

And I can find several clips of LeBron hitting mid-range jump shots. Doesn't mean he is or was great at them. Streaky is an apt label.

What are we arguing here?

Shaq's numbers from the restricted area vs. outside it:

1999-2000
Restricted Area: 74.8% FG (763 FGA)
Everywhere Else: 42.7% FG (902 FGA)

2000-2001
Restricted Area: 77.4% FG (654 FGA)
Everywhere Else: 40.0% FG (768 FGA)

2001-2002
Restricted Area: 73.6% FG (662 FGA)
Everywhere Else: 39.7% FG (567 FGA)

[Reggie43]

Those numbers dont tell the whole story. If any other big were defended the way Shaq was in his prime they would have done worse.

[Im Still Ballin]

Those numbers dont tell the whole story. If any other big were defended the way Shaq was in his prime they would have done worse.

Defenses wouldn't, because most others would sink the foul shots.

They defended him with the intent to keep him out of the restricted area. Shaq taking a shot outside of 5 feet was a win for them. His immense value came from his ability to score efficiently and at unmatched volume within 4 feet of the basket. His unparalleled combination of size, strength, and athleticism allowed him to do this.

He had some sauce outside of the restricted area, but it wasn't what made him great.

[Phoenix]

1-8 against Stockton in the playoffs

So MJ shouldn't be ranked higher than anyone he has losing records against in the playoffs then.

0-6 vs Bird
10-12 vs Isiah

[Prometheus]

So MJ shouldn't be ranked higher than anyone he has losing records against in the playoffs then.

0-6 vs Bird
10-12 vs Isiah

Well if we're gonna take it there, let's just say 0-6 vs McHale.

McHale > Jordan

6-0

[Phoenix]

Well if we're gonna take it there, let's just say 0-6 vs McHale.

McHale > Jordan

6-0

0-6 vs Dennis Johnson too. Lets keep this going ,shall we....

[John8204]

So MJ shouldn't be ranked higher than anyone he has losing records against in the playoffs then.

0-6 vs Bird
10-12 vs Isiah

We don't classify MJ as the most dominant player of all-time

[dankok8]

How is Hakeem quite way behind? Peak Hakeem is '93-'95 whilst peak Shaq is '00-'02. Let's look at their playoff contributions.

Shaq '00-'02: 29.9 PPG | 55.2% FG% | 56.2% TS% | 3.0 APG | 29.3 PER

Hakeem '93-'95: 29.8 PPG | 52.4% FG% | 56.8 TS% | 4.4 APG | 26.2 PER

Shaq has an edge here statistically, but I don't think the advantage is that significant. And I'd argue Hakeem actually had the edge when you consider who he went up against. Hakeem was guarded by bigs like Shaq, Ewing, and Robinson. Not to mention he had Rodman guard him sometimes in the series against SA. Shaq was busy thumping on Rik Smits and Todd MacCulloch. Mutombo, Sabonis, and Divac are better than those guys, but they're nothing in comparison to who Hakeem faced.

Also, I'd argue that Kobe was the Lakers' closer in those years in the playoffs and it was really a 1a/1b situation in the clutch. Hakeem had none of that and was money in the biggest moments and most important games.

Kobe came up huge in games 6 and 7 of the WCF in 2000. He also played extremely well in game 3 in the OT where Shaq had fouled out.

Stats can lie. Shaq was considerably superior to Hakeem on the offensive end in factors that don't show up on the stat sheet such as gravity/collapsing defenses, foul pressure on opponents and was a much better passer. Hakeem improved as a passer by the mid 90's but was still just a decent passer and could only occasionally punish double teams.

Hakeem's offensive impact pales in comparison to Shaq's... based on just about any metric out there.

[Phoenix]

We don't classify MJ as the most dominant player of all-time

Nice try but the point still stands. Bringing up the '1-8 vs Stockton' point, like most of your arguments, is dumb at its core. One, because it more reflects that Utah was better than LA at that point and says nothing about who would be better between Stockton and Shaq. Two, Shaq and Stockton played two completely different positions therefore weren't matched up to make a 1:1 comparison. Three, even if you want to boil it down to names you act like Karl Malone, the 97 MVP and 98 runner-up, wasn't on those teams and dropping like 30 and 13 in those matchups to make some assinine point that Shaq is '1-8 against Stockton'.

[John8204]

Well we bring up Stockton because John was literally half of Shaq's size and yet he owned him in the playoffs. The narative on Shaq is that he's a top five all-time Big and the most dominant player ever. Yet that domination translated to on his best night in the playoffs the 83rd best scoring performance. Stockton's numbers have also held up over time, Malone's haven't. Remember Malone was getting those MVP's because he was chasing Kareem but as the years go by Malone isn't a top five PF anymore while Stockton is still a player we can't contextualize because of his insane stats.

But in your eyes winning four rings on three shady playoffs series is TIGHT.

[Phoenix]

Well we bring up Stockton because John was literally half of Shaq's size and yet he owned him in the playoffs. The narative on Shaq is that he's a top five all-time Big and the most dominant player ever. Yet that domination translated to on his best night in the playoffs the 83rd best scoring performance. Stockton's numbers have also held up over time, Malone's haven't. Remember Malone was getting those MVP's because he was chasing Kareem but as the years go by Malone isn't a top five PF anymore while Stockton is still a player we can't contextualize because of his insane stats.

But in your eyes winning four rings on three shady playoffs series is TIGHT.

Do the Lakers win those series if you swapped Stockton with Shaq? No? Ok then. The Jazz owned the Lakers, not Stockton owned Shaq, idiot.

Even with Stockton's 'untouchable' numbers, he was never considered MVP level( never higher than 7th in voting) and he's no more a lock for being considered a top 5 PG than Malone is a top 5 PF. Magic, Curry, Oscar and Isiah are all ranked above him ( rightfully so) and other PGs who've come along since who won't have his numbers but were/are clearly better individual players or at worse par( CP3, Nash, Kidd, Payton, etc). You're quite literally the only person I've ever seen rank Stockton in the top 20.

Malone's numbers hold up fine. He's third all-time in points and other than Lebron passing him( and everybody else up), there's nobody on the horizon that's any threat to knock him out of third place. He was top 10 in MVP voting every year but his rookie season and last year, including 9 top 5 finishes and two wins in 97 and 99. I'm not even a fan of his, but to act like Malone wasn't the main catalyst in this '8-1' record against Shaq, if you want to get into assigning personal credit, over Stockton is sheer idiocy.

[John8204]

Stockton is #3 in VOR Shaq is #18...advanced stats would have given Stockton multiple MVP's but narratives with different generations. Though the fact that you can't make an argument with name calling makes you look small. Also we saw how great teams were when they swapped with Shaq....they lost...a lot.

[Phoenix]

Stockton is #3 in VOR Shaq is #18...advanced stats would have given Stockton multiple MVP's but narratives with different generations. Though the fact that you can't make an argument with name calling makes you look small. Also we saw how great teams were when they swapped with Shaq....they lost...a lot.

Shaq is 5th in PER, Stockton is 40th. Advanced stats can push whatever agenda you want. Shaq started his career in the early 90s, during Stocktons generation, so whatever narrative you claim was back then for MVP applied to both. And Shaq was always ahead of him in the MVP voting from day one, because one was an actual MVP level player....and one wasn't.

I've made plenty of arguments without namecalling, but I have no problem calling dumb dumb when warranted. Don't like it? Go bitch about it on a sweater knitting board.

[Prometheus]

Stats can lie. Shaq was considerably superior to Hakeem on the offensive end in factors that don't show up on the stat sheet such as gravity/collapsing defenses, foul pressure on opponents and was a much better passer. Hakeem improved as a passer by the mid 90's but was still just a decent passer and could only occasionally punish double teams.

Hakeem's offensive impact pales in comparison to Shaq's... based on just about any metric out there.

Highly accurate. Correct in every way.

Hakeem was comfortably superior on defense. But Shaq was equally better on offense.