Where does Peak Orlando Shaq rank all time?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Robinson before the injury was better than Duncan.

That's very questionable statement, it's definitely not a given.

I rank them in this order
Hakeem, Lakers peak shaq with refs that don't call his offensive fouls, Robinson before the injury, Orkando peak Shaq, Duncan, Ewing, Karl Malone, KG, Dirk, Robinson after the injury

So you pick pre-prime Shaq over Duncan, despite Timmy outplaying Shaq more times than not H2H?

Peak Lakers Shaq would have had a higher peak if he had not lost the mobility of young Shaq.

When Shaq's beef moved at higher speeds he created different problems for the opposition.
But young Shaq committed turnovers by trying to do things he could not do.

Yes, I prefer young Shaq to Duncan.

[falcolombardi]

Robinson before the injury was better than Duncan.

That's very questionable statement, it's definitely not a given.

I rank them in this order
Hakeem, Lakers peak shaq with refs that don't call his offensive fouls, Robinson before the injury, Orkando peak Shaq, Duncan, Ewing, Karl Malone, KG, Dirk, Robinson after the injury

So you pick pre-prime Shaq over Duncan, despite Timmy outplaying Shaq more times than not H2H?

Peak Lakers Shaq would have had a higher peak if he had not lost the mobility of young Shaq.

When Shaq's beef moved at higher speeds he created different problems for the opposition.
But young Shaq committed turnovers by trying to do things he could not do.

Yes, I prefer young Shaq to Duncan.

that honestly seems hard to justify based on actual results

[70sFan]

Robinson before the injury was better than Duncan.

That's very questionable statement, it's definitely not a given.

I rank them in this order
Hakeem, Lakers peak shaq with refs that don't call his offensive fouls, Robinson before the injury, Orkando peak Shaq, Duncan, Ewing, Karl Malone, KG, Dirk, Robinson after the injury

So you pick pre-prime Shaq over Duncan, despite Timmy outplaying Shaq more times than not H2H?

Peak Lakers Shaq would have had a higher peak if he had not lost the mobility of young Shaq.

When Shaq's beef moved at higher speeds he created different problems for the opposition.
But young Shaq committed turnovers by trying to do things he could not do.

Yes, I prefer young Shaq to Duncan.

I struggle to see the reason for that, but feel free to do so.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Best off guards peak play of 1990s Jordan, Ray Allen, Clyde Drexler, Reggie Miller, Mitch Richmond (sometimes small forward) then what? Sprewell (defense)?



Vince Carter (only if I take the 1999-2000 season and call it 1990s and basketball reference calls him a small forward that season.)

[migya]

No, I said Miller gives Duncan far more chances to win the ring than Manu, because his longevity is much better, he played heavier minutes and he was at least comparable peak-wise.

Meanwhile you said that 3rd best SG of the 1990s is worse than maybe 6th best SG of the 2000s.

Reggie's longevity isn't better than Ginobili's and the big difference in playmaking and defense between the two, and the value that had in the Spurs championships, means that the Spurs wouldn't have been as good. I don't think they win any past 2003 as without Ginobili the Spurs just wouldn't have had the playmaking needed, as Parker wasnt much of a passer, and the defense would've suffered so much. Detroit beats then in 2005 without what Ginobili gave. I don't think they get past Phoenix like they barely did as well, the Mavs also.

Reggie was not the 3rd best SG of the 90s. He is so overrated on here it is a joke. Those that watched him play know how limited he was. The guy could shoot but didn't score that well compared to the star SGs of that era, except for a few playoff series, a credit to him. Defense was awful, everything besides shooting. Jordan, Drexler and Richmond were clearly better. Eddie Jones brought more than Reggie and Sprewell had some better seasons also. Reggie had a very good and underrated group of players on his team at that time. The skills they had masked Reggie's weaknesses.

I think many on here would say Ginobili was probably better than most of the 2000s SGs, especially considering all-around play. I think he's overrated as well but he was definitely valuable and stepped up for his team many times.

Manu was relevant player from 2005 to 2015. Reggie was relevant player from 1989 to 2003.

Miller was better scorer than Drexler or Richmond, especially in postseason.

Miller wasn't awful defender. I watched Miller and he's not overrated.

Check the stats, he was worse than both in any measure, prime, peak, career.

[70sFan]

Reggie's longevity isn't better than Ginobili's and the big difference in playmaking and defense between the two, and the value that had in the Spurs championships, means that the Spurs wouldn't have been as good. I don't think they win any past 2003 as without Ginobili the Spurs just wouldn't have had the playmaking needed, as Parker wasnt much of a passer, and the defense would've suffered so much. Detroit beats then in 2005 without what Ginobili gave. I don't think they get past Phoenix like they barely did as well, the Mavs also.

Reggie was not the 3rd best SG of the 90s. He is so overrated on here it is a joke. Those that watched him play know how limited he was. The guy could shoot but didn't score that well compared to the star SGs of that era, except for a few playoff series, a credit to him. Defense was awful, everything besides shooting. Jordan, Drexler and Richmond were clearly better. Eddie Jones brought more than Reggie and Sprewell had some better seasons also. Reggie had a very good and underrated group of players on his team at that time. The skills they had masked Reggie's weaknesses.

I think many on here would say Ginobili was probably better than most of the 2000s SGs, especially considering all-around play. I think he's overrated as well but he was definitely valuable and stepped up for his team many times.

Manu was relevant player from 2005 to 2015. Reggie was relevant player from 1989 to 2003.

Miller was better scorer than Drexler or Richmond, especially in postseason.

Miller wasn't awful defender. I watched Miller and he's not overrated.

Check the stats, he was worse than both in any measure, prime, peak, career.

I checked them very closely 5 years ago and I didn't change my mind.

[Stalwart]

I think were selling Reggie a bit short here. The relative limitations to his game were largely made up for by his IQ, leadership, and team play. There is a reason Reggie's teams were always good despite not having much all star talent. Its because Reggie as the leader played in a way that allowed for team chemistry. He simply knew how to play the game in a way that helped his team more than his individual stats. Plus he was clutch.

He wasn't a great scorer but he was a legitimate one. He could reliably get his own shot most of the time. Averaging 21-24ppg in the low scoring 90s was a big deal.

[70sFan]

I think were selling Reggie a bit short here. The relative limitations to his game were largely made up for by his IQ, leadership, and team play. There is a reason Reggie's teams were always good despite not having much all star talent. Its because Reggie as the leader played in a way that allowed for team chemistry. He simply knew how to play the game in a way that helped his team more than his individual stats. Plus he was clutch.

He wasn't a great scorer but he was a legitimate one. He could reliably get his own shot most of the time. Averaging 21-24ppg in the low scoring 90s was a big deal.

Reggie Miller was a great scorer, period. Here are his averages in the playoffs:

1990-02 Miller: 23.6 ppg on 60.7 TS%
1987-96 Drexler: 22.1 ppg on 53.8 TS%
1989-96 Richmond: 21.2 ppg on 55.7 TS%

He had some insanely good series against top tier defenses like Bulls, Knicks or Hawks as the first option. I really don't understand how people fail to realize how special of an offensive player Miller was.

[Stalwart]

I think were selling Reggie a bit short here. The relative limitations to his game were largely made up for by his IQ, leadership, and team play. There is a reason Reggie's teams were always good despite not having much all star talent. Its because Reggie as the leader played in a way that allowed for team chemistry. He simply knew how to play the game in a way that helped his team more than his individual stats. Plus he was clutch.

He wasn't a great scorer but he was a legitimate one. He could reliably get his own shot most of the time. Averaging 21-24ppg in the low scoring 90s was a big deal.

Reggie Miller was a great scorer, period. Here are his averages in the playoffs:

1990-02 Miller: 23.6 ppg on 60.7 TS%
1987-96 Drexler: 22.1 ppg on 53.8 TS%
1989-96 Richmond: 21.2 ppg on 55.7 TS%

He had some insanely good series against top tier defenses like Bulls, Knicks or Hawks as the first option. I really don't understand how people fail to realize how special of an offensive player Miller was.

Well I wouldn't go so far as to call him a great scorer because I think he is limited in volume. He can get you a nice, efficient 20pts within the flow of an offense pretty much every night out. But what happens when you need him to give you 40? I don't think Reggie can put up big numbers on a consistent basis. Also I think he can be contained much easier than legitimate great scorer should.