Does a ring this year really add to Shaq's legacy?

[JordansBulls]

Does a ring this year really add to Shaq's legacy or would it have the same effect as Kareem when he got his 6th ring in 1988 when he was pretty much more of a role player?

[Jimmy76]

to a limited extent yes

i kind of think of it as
ring as the main man
2nd option
3rd option
role player

think of it as a roleplayer ring if the whole career thing is a big deal to you

[tsherkin]

Well, he's certainly a significant contributor.

It's not the same as if he was captaining a team to another title as an MVP contender, of course, but a ring would still add to his legacy, for sure. It'd be #5 for him, which would put him pretty close to Kareem.

[sp6r=underrated]

Among informed people it won't. Let's be clear, The Cavs right now have played significantly worse since the addition of Shaq, whether you look at if from a record perspective or plus/minus or point differential. The Suns have been slightly better since the trade.

[CzBoobie]

Among informed people it won't. Let's be clear, The Cavs right now have played significantly worse since the addition of Shaq, whether you look at if from a record perspective or plus/minus or point differential. The Suns have been slightly better since the trade.

Ask Dwight and Gasol if they would rather play against Shaq or Ben Wallace.

[tsherkin]

Among informed people it won't. Let's be clear, The Cavs right now have played significantly worse since the addition of Shaq, whether you look at if from a record perspective or plus/minus or point differential. The Suns have been slightly better since the trade.

Significantly worse, eh?

So you consider that the team being on pace for 62 or 63 wins "significantly worse" than last year's team? Last year's Cavs won 66 games and outperformed their Pythagorean projection of 65.

Their SRS this year is a little worse than last year, yes, but they're still top 6 on both ends of the floor.

Mind that Shaq has played 40 of their 46 games, during which they've gone 30 and 10. Without him, they've certainly gone 5-1... but they also played the Warriors, Wizards, Pacers, Sixers and Pistons in that stretch. The lone loss was to the Wizards. Their record their is inconsequential, though, because aside from the Jazz, those are all bad teams, with an average of 14.6 wins. Notably, in the loss against the Wizards, Washington was all over the offensive glass, something that doesn't usually happen when Shaq plays.

Are they a little worse than last year?

Yeah, statistically they've dropped off a little at both ends. To be fair, it was going to take time for the team to integrate Shaq and figure out what to do with him and Big Z.

Also, it took Mike Brown 4 years to figure out how to properly use Lebron, so their current success is something of a small miracle.

Shaq's been cool with playing a career-low of 23.1 mpg, though, and he's putting up 18/10 PER36.

It's also true that he's now shooting 54.4% FG... which is good, because October and December were bad months for him. He's shooting over 63% this month, and nearly 58% FT, too. He needed time to find a rhythm himself and he's not exactly on the friendly side of even 35 anymore.

+/- wise, the Cavs are a little worse with Shaq on the floor offensively, over the whole season, but better defensively.

The Cavs are looking pretty good right now.. they've been getting better pretty much all year, and that's a rather terrifying proposition. Did it take some time to gel with Shaq? Absolutely.

Is he starting to fit in especially well right now?

Definitely.

Are the Cavs "significantly worse" than last year?

God no, that's ridiculous. Even on the balance of the whole season, they're nearly as good as they were last year and if January is any indication, they're going to be just fine.

[sp6r=underrated]

Significantly worse, eh?

Yes significantly worse. The difference between a team that's playing 59 win ball is significantly worse than a team playing 65 win ball.

So you consider that the team being on pace for 62 or 63 wins "significantly worse" than last year's team? Last year's Cavs won 66 games and outperformed their Pythagorean projection of 65.

There pythagorean projection for this year is to be a 59 win team.

Their SRS this year is a little worse than last year, yes, but they're still top 6 on both ends of the floor.

If by a little you mean 2 1/2 points isn't a little difference. Its bigger than the gap between the Spurs and the Cavs this year.

Mind that Shaq has played 40 of their 46 games, during which they've gone 30 and 10.

That would be very impressive, if you know the Cavs weren't playing like a 65 win team without him last year.

Without him, they've certainly gone 5-1... but they also played the Warriors, Wizards, Pacers, Sixers and Pistons in that stretch. The lone loss was to the Wizards. Their record their is inconsequential, though, because aside from the Jazz, those are all bad teams, with an average of 14.6 wins. Notably, in the loss against the Wizards, Washington was all over the offensive glass, something that doesn't usually happen when Shaq plays.

I wouldn't put as much stock in the record if the plus/minus didn't also back up all the other evidence (overall record, point differential, schedule adjustments) that there worse off with Shaq. http://www.82games.com/0910/09CLE15.HTM#onoff

Are they a little worse than last year?

So far everything says they are significantly worse off.

Yeah, statistically they've dropped off a little at both ends. To be fair, it was going to take time for the team to integrate Shaq and figure out what to do with him and Big Z.

Its not a little drop off its a seven game drop off. That's a large difference.

Also, it took Mike Brown 4 years to figure out how to properly use Lebron, so their current success is something of a small miracle.

Mike Brown is a very good coach whose teams have always played up to their potential. I'm not buying the excuse of blaming the coach.

Shaq's been cool with playing a career-low of 23.1 mpg, though, and he's putting up 18/10 PER36.

With Shaq the individuals numbers will always be there. He'll be able to score in the low post until he's 50. The question is whether it helps the team. The offense plays far worse with him on the court, so I am quite skeptical.

It's also true that he's now shooting 54.4% FG... which is good, because October and December were bad months for him. He's shooting over 63% this month, and nearly 58% FT, too. He needed time to find a rhythm himself and he's not exactly on the friendly side of even 35 anymore.

The free throw shooting think looks like a hot steak. Shaq hasn't hit 55% since 2003. He will come down again.

I don't think anyone disputes Shaq was once a great player. I have him ranked 7th all time. The question is over the last few years going back to the 06/07 season is whether he still makes a positive contribution to a team.

+/- wise, the Cavs are a little worse with Shaq on the floor offensively, over the whole season, but better defensively.

C'mon tsherkin
Offensively: -9.1
Defensively: +.02

The difference is huge. Now I'm not a big fan of plus minus. It has a lot of flaws. But considering every other piece of evidence points to the Cavs being worse off with Shaq, I think its accurate in this case.

The Cavs are looking pretty good right now.. they've been getting better pretty much all year, and that's a rather terrifying proposition.

The looked even better at this time last year. In January there average margin of victory is still below 5 points.

Did it take some time to gel with Shaq? Absolutely.

At least your acknowledging that they played significantly worse in the beginning of the season.

Is he starting to fit in especially well right now?

There not getting anything close to the results they got last year.

Definitely.

So far I've seen no evidence.

Are the Cavs "significantly worse" than last year?

Based on every metric available the answer is yes.

God no, that's ridiculous. Even on the balance of the whole season, they're nearly as good as they were last year and if January is any indication, they're going to be just fine.

So far you have just presented excuses.

[jaypo]

They're so much worse off than last year, yet they are #1 in the league right now. They swept the defending champions. Shaq is putting up 18/10 per 36. And you're complaining? Shaq may not be the driving force behind this year's title, should they win it. But there's a reason the Cavs are playing tougher defense. There's a reason Lebron and others are shooting their highest 3pt %. Shaq, no matter what you haters say, is still significant.

Let me pose a question to you- what is Andrew Bynum putting up this year? If the Lakers win, will his contribution be "insignificant"? It has never been about the numbers that Shaq puts up. It's the fact that he shoots near 60% from the field, is a presence in the lane that not many people want to challenge, one of the best passing big men in the league, and a force on the block that can put the whole team in foul trouble by himself. We call these things "intangibles".

He may not be putting up 25 and 13, but his contributions come in different ways.

[MSGBallerz]

Seriously. It doesn't matter what he's doing as long as he's winning. some people STILL believe Russel was better than Wilt due to his team winning rings. When you're at the level of these guys, rings mean everything more so than actual ability.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Among informed people it won't. Let's be clear, The Cavs right now have played significantly worse since the addition of Shaq, whether you look at if from a record perspective or plus/minus or point differential. The Suns have been slightly better since the trade.

Significantly worse, eh?

So you consider that the team being on pace for 62 or 63 wins "significantly worse" than last year's team? Last year's Cavs won 66 games and outperformed their Pythagorean projection of 65.

Their SRS this year is a little worse than last year, yes, but they're still top 6 on both ends of the floor.

Mind that Shaq has played 40 of their 46 games, during which they've gone 30 and 10. Without him, they've certainly gone 5-1... but they also played the Warriors, Wizards, Pacers, Sixers and Pistons in that stretch. The lone loss was to the Wizards. Their record their is inconsequential, though, because aside from the Jazz, those are all bad teams, with an average of 14.6 wins. Notably, in the loss against the Wizards, Washington was all over the offensive glass, something that doesn't usually happen when Shaq plays.

Are they a little worse than last year?

Yeah, statistically they've dropped off a little at both ends. To be fair, it was going to take time for the team to integrate Shaq and figure out what to do with him and Big Z.

Also, it took Mike Brown 4 years to figure out how to properly use Lebron, so their current success is something of a small miracle.

Shaq's been cool with playing a career-low of 23.1 mpg, though, and he's putting up 18/10 PER36.

It's also true that he's now shooting 54.4% FG... which is good, because October and December were bad months for him. He's shooting over 63% this month, and nearly 58% FT, too. He needed time to find a rhythm himself and he's not exactly on the friendly side of even 35 anymore.

+/- wise, the Cavs are a little worse with Shaq on the floor offensively, over the whole season, but better defensively.

The Cavs are looking pretty good right now.. they've been getting better pretty much all year, and that's a rather terrifying proposition. Did it take some time to gel with Shaq? Absolutely.

Is he starting to fit in especially well right now?

Definitely.

Are the Cavs "significantly worse" than last year?

God no, that's ridiculous. Even on the balance of the whole season, they're nearly as good as they were last year and if January is any indication, they're going to be just fine.

Good post

[tsherkin]

There pythagorean projection for this year is to be a 59 win team.

*nod*

It is, but pythagorean projections aren't always the same over the course of the season, especially when a team is in the middle of integrating a prominent new player. You may be right in the end, but their winning percentage has been relatively consistent at around .750 this year, putting them on pace for 61 or 62 wins, not 59.

That would be very impressive, if you know the Cavs weren't playing like a 65 win team without him last year.

Again, though, they started off a little rocky, to be sure, and their integrating a new player into the team who doesn't fit in the same way as their 7'3 jump-shooting center did. So naturally there was going to be a period of adjustment. The dividends of this move won't be seen until and unless they play the Magic and/or the Lakers in the playoffs, IMO. One of the biggest factors derailing the Cavs in last year's ECFs was that Dwight Howard ripped them for 25.8 ppg (and that's including a 10-point performance and a 40-point explosion in the elimination game). That isn't nearly as likely to happen with Shaq guarding Howard with his raw size. If Howard was held to even 22 ppg, that series might've gone Cleveland's way, since among their 4 losses were a 1-point loss in game one and a 2-point loss in game 4.

I wouldn't put as much stock in the record if the plus/minus didn't also back up all the other evidence (overall record, point differential, schedule adjustments) that there worse off with Shaq. http://www.82games.com/0910/09CLE15.HTM#onoff

Which is why I brought this up later in my post, to acknowledge that fact. On the balance of the season, the Cavs are marginally better on defense with Shaq and noticeably less effective on O... but that doesn't include a specific look at the most recent sample of games as Shaq's grown more and more comfortable in his role, nor does it speak well to the fact that he was brought in with a rather specific mandate in mind: playoff basketball.

Its not a little drop off its a seven game drop off. That's a large difference.

No, you're looking at the projected Pythagorean result and using that as God's truth, when it's not. It's entirely possible that this will end up being a 3-game drop off if they do nothing but maintain their current winning percentage, and it's also possible that they hit an easy patch in the schedule and match their record from last year. Most of February, for example, is against weak teams, March is a pretty favorable period for them as well.

Mike Brown is a very good coach whose teams have always played up to their potential. I'm not buying the excuse of blaming the coach.

Mike Brown is an excellent defensive coach who does not do an especially canny job of organizing his players offensively. He's an average coach who, like many others before him, did not deserve his DPOY. He's uncreative on offense, but has the fortunate to have the ultimate "Oh screw it, just give it to X" bail-out option.

With Shaq the individuals numbers will always be there. He'll be able to score in the low post until he's 50. The question is whether it helps the team. The offense plays far worse with him on the court, so I am quite skeptical.

And skepticism is a reasonable position to hold until the team proves otherwise, but until the current result changes, you're seeing a minimal difference in their projected record (they overachieved compared to their Pythagorean projection last year too).

The free throw shooting think looks like a hot steak. Shaq hasn't hit 55% since 2003. He will come down again.

And I doubt he shoots 58% on the season either but you're wrong. The last time he shot 55%+ was last season, when he shot 59.5% FT. Before that, 02-03, certainly, and I wouldn't put it past him to shoot 50-53% this year or even worse, but don't forget last season.

The question is over the last few years going back to the 06/07 season is whether he still makes a positive contribution to a team.

If Terry Porter wasn't a (Please Use More Appropriate Word), then yeah, I'd say he has. In Miami, he was injured and the team sucked a lot because Riley dumped the depth of the team after the title. That wasn't really Shaq's fault, though obviously his conduct could have been a little better. In Phoenix, he filled his role as asked and did an excellent job, both under D'Antoni and Gentry. It's not his fault Amare got injured last year, for example.

At least your acknowledging that they played significantly worse in the beginning of the season.

It would be folly to say otherwise. There was always going to be a period of adjustment, and it wasn't an amazing sight at the beginning of the season. It's working fine right now and the schedule for the rest of the season is favorable.

So far you have just presented excuses.

And you've presented +/- and an over-reliance on Pythagorean projected record, so I suppose we're on even ground.

Yeah, the Cavs have an early-season period where they weren't as good as they were last year, which is hurting their overall season metrics.

Over the first 20 games of the season, the Cavs went 15-5, winning by an average margin of 5.9 points per game. Their longest winning streak was 5 games. They had 2 other 3-game streaks and a 4-game streak.

They went 15-5 over their next 20 games, winning by an average margin of 7.15. Their longest winning streak was 7, though they also had a 5-game streak.

They've played 6 games since that time, losing one and winning their last 5. Their average margin of victory in that time has been 3.86.

While it's true that their SRS has dropped off from last season by 2.64 points, they also have a long stretch in the middle of the season where they were doing nearly as well, and it's possible that they'll have yet another stretch coming up.

Through 46 games last year, they were 37-9... the difference in their record is rather unremarkable with that in mind, although perhaps somewhat remarkable for having achieved nearly the same result despite adding Shaq and struggling to incorporate him into the offense.

Yes, over the first 20 games of last season, they won by 14.5 ppg. Then they won by 8.85 over the next 20, and they won the next 6 games by 6.3 ppg.

Are the Cavs doing quite as well as last year? No, they aren't. But they're operating on the same basic plane through the season, the record is nearly identical and the team does appear to be getting more comfortable using Shaq.

You're the pessimist and I'm the optimist here, but to be honest, while they aren't blowing teams out of the water as much as last year, a lot of teams have improved from then to the point where 37-point blowouts aren't likely to happen as often. Ultimately, Shaq isn't impeding the team's ability to win games and as a result, the Cavs have a weapon to use against teams that, in the past, have given them trouble with post threats. He also provides them with a veteran presence who can act as a secondary or tertiary scoring threat that other teams have to account for around the rim, and that means making Lebron's life a little easier in the playoffs.

Something else worth considering is that while the Cavs' offense as a whole isn't quite as good as last year (in fact, noticeably less efficient), Lebron is having the best season of his career and posting a TS 2% higher than his previous career-high, which came last year.

Some of that is from the attention that Shaq is getting from defenses, and from the fact that Shaq remains a willing and capable passing threat.

It also bears mention that Shaq struggled MIGHTILY to find his shot until this month. Having shot the percentages he did even in Miami, you don't expect Shaq to shoot 50-53% FG as he did in November and December.

On limited FGA/g especially, you expect 58-60%+ from Shaq, which is what he's delivering in January. He hasn't shot under 57% FG on a season since the 02-03 season, and that was back when he was still taking 18+ shots a game as a primary scoring threat, so you know that his bounce-back FG% over the rest of this season is very likely to remain quite high, and that it will positively impact the team's offensive efficiency going forward.

You also have to realize that he's shooting 4.4 FTA/g and only shooting 51.4% on those, and that since this is the second-highest FTA/g average on the team, it's going to impact overall offensive efficiency as well, though that won't tell of the advantage you gain from Shaq putting foul trouble pressure on the opposition frontcourt.

Last year, Varejao's 3.1 FTA/g were second behind Lebron... having another guy who can draw fouls (Shaq's drawing at .538 FTA/FGA this year, which is amazing, though not quite as good as he's done in past years since leaving the Lakers) is still incredibly helpful to the team.

It's a context thing; the Cavs have gained a lot from having Shaq, and those benefits continue to grow as he improves his play and as the team gets more comfortable with him.

It's also historically true that Shaq plays his best in the second half of the season and that's as true now as it was when he played for the Magic.

[sp6r=underrated]

I got a work project on so I can't a give a full response and this will be a little disjointed.

1. I was totally in error about the free throw shooting thing and its perfectly fair to point that out. Though I will add before that season he did have a 6 year stretch of epic trouble going back to 06.

2. The Cavs lost to Orlando, IMO, had much more to do with Mo Williams and crew playing like crap than it did with Howard. If those guys played as well as they did in the regular season they would have won the title. Furthermore, Howard's regression this year means its unlikely Howard will do as well even if Shaq doesn't play as well.

3. With regards to Brown, his team's have always played up to their talent level and in many seasons beyond that which is all a coach can do. Whatever his limitations are on the offensive end, in the big picture he's still a good coach

4. The Suns this year are playing just as well as they did they last year and they have replaced Shaq with freaking Channing Frye. Shaq's numbers were amazing last season and he was replaced with essentially a non-descript player in the NBA. The Suns have still suffered no drop off. That leads me to believe his raw numbers overstate his value to a team at this point in his career. Basketball isn't baseball were raw numbers capture everything.

5. On topic, the OP asked does a championship here add to Shaq's legacy. Shaq for me is the number 7 player all time. You really don't move up the list when your already has as Shaq is by winning a championship as a role player, especially when you were added to a team that almost everyone has pegged to win a championship in the next few years.

[tsherkin]

I got a work project on so I can't a give a full response and this will be a little disjointed.

1. I was totally in error about the free throw shooting thing and its perfectly fair to point that out. Though I will add before that season he did have a 6 year stretch of epic trouble going back to 06.

As I said, it's true that he's likely to shoot more in the 50-53% range from the line, or maybe even below 50%. I only wanted to point out that as recently as the previous season, he was at or over 55%.

2. The Cavs lost to Orlando, IMO, had much more to do with Mo Williams and crew playing like crap than it did with Howard. If those guys played as well as they did in the regular season they would have won the title. Furthermore, Howard's regression this year means its unlikely Howard will do as well even if Shaq doesn't play as well.

There were several reasons that the Cavs lost that series, but getting blasted for 26 ppg by a guy who isn't traditionally a volume scorer was one of them. And Shaq tends to play well in the playoffs (series with Phoenix against San Antonio excepted, and obviously he struggled against Dampier in 06, but people tend to forget that in the MIA/DAL series he wasn't asked to be a volume scorer and was still pretty effective at like 15/11).

Howard's regression this year is a product of shooting volume and nothing else; Vince Carter shoots more than did Hedo, Nelson's back to full form, etc, etc. That is literally the only reason he's not scoring like he did last year. He's actually shooting better from the floor and the line but taking 3 fewer shots per game. In the first month or so of the season, he had foul trouble and wasn't playing as many minutes, but now it's just about shooting volume. If the Cavs hadn't added Shaq, Howard would have been all over the offensive glass on them and dunking everything while getting fouled. AGAIN.

He didn't just blow up against Cleveland on isos, he did it mostly on garbage buckets, which will be harder to come by against Shaq.

3. With regards to Brown, his team's have always played up to their talent level and in many seasons beyond that which is all a coach can do. Whatever his limitations are on the offensive end, in the big picture he's still a good coach

Talent will out; like I said, he's always organized a very good defense as a pupil of Popovich, and that's basically covered a lot of the weaknesses of the offense. That, and having the best player in the league scoring 30 ppg and adding 7 apg on excellent efficiency certainly helps.

4. The Suns this year are playing just as well as they did they last year and they have replaced Shaq with freaking Channing Frye. Shaq's numbers were amazing last season and he was replaced with essentially a non-descript player in the NBA. The Suns have still suffered no drop off. That leads me to believe his raw numbers overstate his value to a team at this point in his career. Basketball isn't baseball were raw numbers capture everything.

Steve Nash is playing better, and the Suns are skidding out HARDCORE this year. They won 46 games last year and while it's true that they're on-pace for about 45 this year... they started 14-3 and have since gone 8-18.

That's not "playing just as well as they did last year."

They're the second-worst defense in the league and last year, Amare was injured for half the season... and there's almost no tangible difference in the offense with him as without him, as long as you look at the period last year when Gentry was coaching (because Porter's a (Please Use More Appropriate Word)). Amare played two games under Gentry and then went down for the year but the Suns still averaged 117 ppg without him because of what Shaq did and Gentry's Seven Seconds Or Shaq offense, which was fantastic.

So no, I must respectfully disagree with your analysis of Phoenix. If anything, the fact that they're comparable on defense without Shaq but with Amare (who's a 20 ppg, 60% TS guy who draws a ton of fouls) is a rather remarkable comment upon Shaq's continued ability to be effective. This year, Nash's monstrous season is the big reason, but having Amare back is helping a lot, too.

And they're still WORSE than they were last year, really. If they keep playing as they have over the last 26 games, they're going to end up with 43 wins, which is a rather massive flame-out after the way they began the season.

5. On topic, the OP asked does a championship here add to Shaq's legacy. Shaq for me is the number 7 player all time. You really don't move up the list when your already has as Shaq is by winning a championship as a role player, especially when you were added to a team that almost everyone has pegged to win a championship in the next few years.

The big guns above him are Kareem, Wilt, Magic, Bird, MJ and Russell.

He's not likely to pass a lot of those guys, no, but adding a 5th ring to his resume makes the Shaq/Kareem argument look a little more compelling, since most of Kareem's rings were as second or third man after he was well and done with individual dominance.

I don't really support the idea that Shaq would move up above those guys, except maybe in reference to one or two of them in a discussion of peak, but adding a ring would definitely change Shaq's legacy.

IMO, it adds to it and further entrenches him at his position, elevating him above the others who would contend with him. Hakeem, Dr. J, Moses Malone, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, up-and-comers like Kobe, etc, etc. Rather than moving Shaq up, it keeps others from SURPASSING Shaq without a considerably more interesting resume.

Does that make sense?

[That Nicka]

5. On topic, the OP asked does a championship here add to Shaq's legacy. Shaq for me is the number 7 player all time. You really don't move up the list when your already has as Shaq is by winning a championship as a role player, especially when you were added to a team that almost everyone has pegged to win a championship in the next few years.

this.

[sp6r=underrated]

This is a good discussion so I'm going to blow off work a little and respond some more.

1. My bringing up about the free throws after you pointed out the error was as much to point how I could have made the mistake.

2. Howard's regression this year isn't just about changing player, though it doesn't help that Carter isn't playing nearly as well as expected. He's turning the ball over much more this year than last. FWIW I don't think his passing, which is never a strength, is as good as last year.

3. The Suns are skidding right now, but IMO this could just be a bad stretch.

4. Your point about title solidifying Shaq's legacy makes sense to me in that I understand the argument but I don't agree with it.r

[Westfo3]

Shaq has made the Cavs alot better. Even with West not playing as well as last season the Cavs are still byfar better this year then last.

[USA]

It shouldn't but it will.

[HoopsGuru25]

Shaq has made the Cavs alot better. Even with West not playing as well as last season the Cavs are still byfar better this year then last.

Based on what?

[NO-KG-AI]

Cavs are a better team now because they have a legit low post threat, and Shaq is still one of the best at guarding true, power C's (Dwight)

Stats be damned, they'll be better equipped to play against Boston and Orlando, and they're playing pretty damn good right now, despite injuries and psychos.

[JordansBulls]

Cavs are a better team now because they have a legit low post threat, and Shaq is still one of the best at guarding true, power C's (Dwight)

Stats be damned, they'll be better equipped to play against Boston and Orlando, and they're playing pretty damn good right now, despite injuries and psychos.

The Cavs are better against teams like Orlando and LA, but not better against Teams like Boston and Denver for some reason.