RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #8 (Shaquille O'Neal)

[TrueLAfan]

1. Hakeem Olajuwon
2. Kevin Garnett
3. Larry Bird

I’ve said a bit on Hakeem/Garnett; I’ll add that I do agree with the idea that Hakeem is a bit more of a floor raiser, whereas KG is able to provide a wider variety of help/impact (if to a slightly lesser degree). I honestly struggle with ranking them. It may be like many of my rankings—after this project, and reading the well crafted and thoughtful posts of others, I’m inclined to change my mind. But for now, I’m taking Hakeem because of the floor raising/dominance. It seems like peak Hakeem is more likely to put you over the top while KG has the ability to get more teams into the top range. These are not immediately or conclusively quantifiable, which makes them my favorite kind of discussions.

I have Bird over Shaq. I have my reasons, most of which I covered in past analyses (which I’ll revise and repost here). I think Shaq was more singularly dominant at his superpeak, though it’s close. Many people discount (or have forgotten) Shaq’s poor conditioning and laissez-faire effort at times. Ben Taylor and I had a (respectful) disagreement over the impact of this. He felt that it made relatively little difference to Shaq’s teams; I felt—and feel—that the impact of Shaq’s missed games alone would have repercussions that could have been significant. We can’t tell because, in most years that Shaq missed a lot of games, his teams were rarely competing for the championship. (And that alone says something.) In several seasons during Shaq’s peak, his team would have moved up a spot (or more) in conference ranking had Shaq played more or been less disruptive. That can directly affect how a team performs in the playoffs. The 1996 Lakers were a fourth seed—but were two wins from being a second seed. The 1997 Lakers were a third seed , but they were two wins from being the first seed. The 2003 Lakers were one win from moving up to a fourth seed and having HCA in the first round. The 2004 Lakers were a third seed , but they were two wins from being the first seed. In those four years, Shaq missed 83 games—and the Lakers were .727 with him and .542 without. Even if he had missed only 43 games in those four seasons—in other words, played 10 extra games per year—that’s a difference of two wins. That would have radically affected the conference seedings. Enough for the Lakers to win a title on those four years? I don’t know. Certainly you can make an argument that matchups can greatly affect who advances and who doesn’t, and that teams can go on a roll. I’m not going to go *that* far. The missed games were important to the team playoff seedings, and that affects playoff outcomes in ways we can never know. Since the Lakers didn’t win a title in any of those years, *most* changes would be seen as positive, IMO.

When he was on the court, you could count on Larry Bird’s effort. And you couldn't always do that with Shaq. No matter how you rank them in terms of peak and productivity--and it's close--I'll always have a problem with Shaq for this. He had terrible conditioning at times. He wanted to be a rap singer, or a movie star. He took what I like to call "toe vacations." He did that a lot...Shaq has had five seasons where he's played under 2000 minutes, and five others where he played less than 2500. That's 10 out of 17 seasons where he missed around 20-25 games a year on average. A lot of them occurred early in his career, when he should have been at his peak. In his first 13 seasons, Hakeem Olajuwon played less than 2500 minutes once... in 1986, when he played 2467 minutes. Shaq played less than that in five of his first 13 seasons. Compared to Bird—Shaq played only 300 minutes more in his first 14 seasons than Bird did in his 13 season career … and Bird missed virtually an entire season. You could count on Larry Bird.

The sad thing is that, now, I think Shaq understands this. In his final years, he worked at staying in better shape and was more committed to conditioning than he was when he was younger. I wonder if he thinks about the times when he was younger when he was too lazy or too busy with other things to get on a treadmill or bike, or wanted to film a movie, or just didn't want to work on basketball. I bet he does. I know I do.


I said this Hakeem vs. Shaq several years ago; I’ll say it again about Bird and Shaq now. If I was starting a team, I'd take Bird six days a week and twice on Sunday. We can go back and forth about peak, but that's because it's a debatable issue. Commitment is not. I'd want the committed player. I'd want Bird.

[The Master]

Paul Pierce was that guy for the Celtics in 2008, coming with better PPG, ts%, lower TOs and more assists. Also in most difficult moments, Paul Pierce was the guy that showed up more than anyone on the Celtics. I'm not even saying that KG wasnt' the best player on the squad, he was. And on defense he was really important. But we're not comparing him to Paul Pierce for this spot. We're comparing him to Shaquille O'Neal or Hakeem who are tier 1 peak wise. We're comparing him to Magic Johnson who is arguably the offensive GOAT or at least he was tier 1.

Paradoxically, isn't that an argument in favour of Garnett? Magic played for 5-6 years with >20ppg scoring Kareem, Bird played after some time with two allstars fitting his game perfectly and legit depth (at least in starting lineup), Shaq won his all titles with Kobe and Wade (and spent some time with Penny as well) - if you're saying it's a necessity to have Paul Pierce as a closer in your team alongside Garnett, then I'd rather think that scoring is a bit overrated in these discussions, because - with all respect to Pierce - I don't think 30yo Pierce is above average second option in most championship teams, nor he's some historical outlier. Yes, there was Ray Allen as well, but Celtics generally weren't great offensive team nor they have some special depth, yet they won a title (after first two rounds) quite decisively with 32yo Garnett. So maybe some of us judge KG based on sub-optimal conditions he met, and on theoretical situation in which he plays under those circumstances - and not based on optimal conditions most all-time greats play in during big part of their careers, that would make Garnett's scoring limitations not that much relevant?

[Baski]

Wanted to have Bird right behind Magic, but some of the arguments in the #7 thread have convinced me to look at Shaq again.

Shaq has the hardware and accolades, stats, is a better PS performer by far and played great basketball for much longer.
The main thing Bird has going for him is that he was so freaking good at basketball it was weird, and we see how amazing it was at his peak when he won 3 straight MVPs while competing with Magic. But against the individual dominance, team achievements and longevity of Shaq , does that really matter?

He's also the only guy in the top 10 that most people feel "could've done more" and I find that hilarious.
It's still razor thin between Shaq and Bird for me, but the coin has to land on one face no matter what.
Shaq
Bird
Hakeem

[Joao Saraiva]

Paul Pierce was that guy for the Celtics in 2008, coming with better PPG, ts%, lower TOs and more assists. Also in most difficult moments, Paul Pierce was the guy that showed up more than anyone on the Celtics. I'm not even saying that KG wasnt' the best player on the squad, he was. And on defense he was really important. But we're not comparing him to Paul Pierce for this spot. We're comparing him to Shaquille O'Neal or Hakeem who are tier 1 peak wise. We're comparing him to Magic Johnson who is arguably the offensive GOAT or at least he was tier 1.

Paradoxically, isn't that an argument in favour of Garnett? Magic played for 5-6 years with >20ppg scoring Kareem, Bird played after some time with two allstars fitting his game perfectly and legit depth (at least in starting lineup), Shaq won his all titles with Kobe and Wade (and spent some time with Penny as well) - if you're saying it's a necessity to have Paul Pierce as a closer in your team alongside Garnett, then I'd rather think that scoring is a bit overrated in these discussions, because - with all respect to Pierce - I don't think 30yo Pierce is above average second option in most championship teams, nor he's some historical outlier. Yes, there was Ray Allen as well, but Celtics generally weren't great offensive team nor they have some special depth, yet they won a title (after first two rounds) quite decisively with 32yo Garnett. So maybe some of us judge KG based on sub-optimal conditions he met, and on theoretical situation in which he plays under those circumstances - and not based on optimal conditions most all-time greats play in during big part of their careers, that would make Garnett's scoring limitations not that much relevant?

Still had Allen and a very deep squad. But yeah can see that point.

[Odinn21]

Paradoxically, isn't that an argument in favour of Garnett? Magic played for 5-6 years with >20ppg scoring Kareem

Not necessarily. Magic showed much more scoring potential than Garnett ever did. He had a great scoring power, either efficiency or volume, even sometimes both.

When he became the team's halfcourt scoring focus in 1987, he scored 26.2 ppg on .590 ts against the Celtics in the Finals.
Then 21.1 ppg on .676 ts against the Pistons in '88 Finals.
27.3 ppg on .692 ts against the Blazers in '89 first round.
30.2 ppg on .616 ts against the Suns in '90 second round.
25.8 ppg on .688 ts against the Warriors in '91 second round.

Garnett didn't have any playoff series performance to make us talk like that.

[O_6]

One of the most important skills for offensive players in general is passing, and over the years I've learned to appreciate passing ability from Bigs more. This is the main reason why I simply question Hakeem's offensive impact before his Offensive Peak in '93, he was still a dangerous individual scorer but I don't think he provided near the offensive lift of the other guys in the discussion for this spot until '93.

'85-'92: 9.4 AST% --- 13.1 TOV%
'93-'99: 15.9 AST% -- 13.0 TOV%

During his first 8 years in the league, the Rockets only had an above-average offense one time and most years they were well below average. That one time was unsurprisingly in '86 when they made it all the way to the Finals. Now this '86 season was certainly a big moment in Hakeem's career, and him leading the Rockets to the Finals that year really helps round out his career as something more than just '93-'95. The fact that Hakeem was able to be the best player in a series against the '86 Showtime Lakers and upset them is just an incredible accomplishment.

Whenever people say Hakeem and the Rockets would have no chance at beating an MJ-led Bulls team in '94 and '95, I always point out how Hakeem stopped the legendary Showtime Lakers in '86 as a baby. This was a Lakers squad that went to every NBA Finals from '82 to '89 outside of '86, they also won titles in '85/'87/'88 so they were literally right in the middle of their peak as a Dynasty when a Young Hakeem went crazy and dropped 31/11/2/4/2 to eliminate them in 5 games. However, I feel like Ralph Sampson's role on that offense is underappreciated because his raw stats and individual advanced stats are not impressive. One of the big reasons that Twin Towers offense worked so well in '86 is because Sampson was a very good ball-handler/passer for a big and he really had a very good playoff run that season too. As great as Hakeem was, he only had 10 assists in those 5 games vs. the Lakers. It's not surprising that once Sampson's career entered a downward trend that the Rockets' offenses declined despite Hakeem getting better. Hakeem was great on offense in '93-'95 but I just have serious questions about his offensive impact before that, although I do still give him credit for his special scoring skillset allowing him to do well in the playoffs.

Eye test, individual statistics, team-level offensive ratings, On/Off numbers, Impact Metrics... by all these accounts we have confirmation that Shaquille O'Neal had an absolutely MASSIVE offensive footprint throughout his entire career. Him and Dirk seem to be the only Bigs to have comparable offensive value to the great perimeter engines of the last 25 years. Shaq combined this massive impact by being an impossible individual matchup due to his size/footwork inside. Unlike Hakeem, Shaq's passing was very good at an early stage in his career and hit another level in '00 as he hit one of the GOAT Peaks. Nobody in league history was doubled as much as Shaq, his ability to bend the opposing defense is 2nd to none. IMO Shaq is the GOAT Offensive player when it comes to what happens in the middle of a possession when the clock is ticking, the only reason he doesn't have that title is because of what happens when the clock stops AKA Free Throws. He was a 52.7% FT shooter in the regular season, and a 50.4% FT shooter in the playoffs. This was such an enormous flaw in his game, even if he were a mere 60% FT shooter then this flaw isn't quite as significant, but his all-time terrible FT shooting just gave him a glaring Achilles heel to his otherwise dominant offensive game. If the man was simply a bad FT shooter instead of an awful FT shooter, he'd be in the GOAT convo.

Shaq vs. Hakeem is tough but ultimately, I just think Shaq's career Offensive impact is historically unique and was much more consistent than Hakeem's. By the time Hakeem became a great Offensive player, his defense started to slip. The overlap between Hakeem's defense and offense has always been an issue, with only '93 and '94 being years you could say he was truly near his best on both ends of the floor. I believe Hakeem is one of the 5 best defenders ever and possibly #2 after Russell, combined with his beautiful scoring skills it just makes him such a complete player which is why I have him in my Top 10. But Shaq was just such a one of kind monster of an offensive force and good enough on defense as a rim deterrent due to his size (I know he was poor vs. the PnR and was lazy) that I have to give him the edge over Hakeem and everyone else.

I have Bird ahead of Hakeem because of his offensive impact. Whereas I mentioned I have doubts about Hakeem's true offensive impact, especially before his peak, I consider Bird one of the great Offensive players in league history due to the incredible diversity of his skill-set. I think Curry/Reggie/Bird stand above all others when it comes to Off-Ball play, Curry is the GOAT in that category due to his 3pt shooting. But Bird's passing on top of his catch-n-shoot skills while also being a post-up weapon just made him a historically unique and impactful offensive force who opened up the court so much for his teammates because of all the ways he could kill you. Hakeem is in the mix as I mentioned. Kobe/Garnett/Oscar/West are the guys right behind them as of now in an order yet to be determined.

1. Shaq
2. Bird
3. Hakeem

[Ainosterhaspie]

1. Shaq
2. Hakeem
3. Bird

Shaq has decent longevity and was quickly a force in the league rising to a peak that rivals anyone's. His biggest flaw was attitude, descending into beefs with teammates or the organization or not putting in the work to keep himself in top form. I struggle with whether to place him or Hakeem higher, but think he was better sooner and had a longer and higher peak and prime. Bird's longevity holds me back from placing him as high as Shaq or Hakeem.

[limbo]

Okay, got to submit before the window:

1. Kevin Garnett - Still top dog for me. A great case for Top 5 defender of all-time, imo, if we account for the fact that he dominated a more talented/sophisticated era than others candidates (average ORtg from 2008 to 2013 = 107 ORtg; whilst average ORtg from 2000-2004, which was Shaq's defensive peak for example, was 103.6 ORtg). Garnett has a prime that spans across 14 season, from 1999 to 2012 (with change to spare, as 1998 and 2013 to a lesser extent were also solid years). He ranks Top 10 in all-time RS Win Shares, which is another testament that his longevity. There's not many candidates left with so many high level seasons. His peak could also be argued Top 10, imo, and what's even better is, while 2004 clearly being his best season, you could really argue he was a similar level player from 2003 to 2008, with the exception of 2007 where the Wolves were just in complete shambles and it dragged KG down with them (you can put some blame on him as well, i'm fine with that). There's really not many areas you can look at where Garnett doesn't come out at the absolute top of remaining players, outside of team-based accolades, of course... Peak? KG is at the top somewhere. Prime strength/length? KG is at the top somewhere? Defense? KG is at the top. Plus/minus studies? KG is at the top. Advance stats? KG is at the top Versatility? KG is at the top...

2. Hakeem Olajuwon - He's basically what KG is except with more paint-centric impact (offense: better iso post scorer, defense: better rim protector/shot-blocker) and less versatile compared to KG (still versatile compared to other Big man). Also his longevity is worse than Garnett's, not by a whole lot, but enough for it to make a difference when you're talking about similar types of players in the same tier.

3. Dirk Nowitzki - This might seem like a biased pick, and there's definitely room to argue here for guys like Shaq, and maybe Bird and Oscar, but i'm just higher on Dirk's offense (and lower on the other guys defense) here... I think Dirk has a comparable longevity to Shaq, so he doesn't lose much ground for me in that area, and offensively/defensively, he just has less weaknesses than Shaq, which makes me more confident in his ability to perform across a wider array of different landscapes and scenarios. I can concede Shaq peaked higher than Dirk, but i believe that's largely due to a myriad of factors during his peak period that were optimizing Shaq's defensive impact, whilst simultaneously crippling the league in terms of offensive power (which means Shaq's offense was able to be more dominant relative to the average league). I've mentioned in the past that Shaq played in the MJ depression era, chock-full of one-man bands like Iverson's Sixers, McGrady's Magic, Carter's Raptors, Garnett's Wolves, Grant Hill's Pistons, Baron Davis' Hornets, you had Stephon Marbury, Kerry Kittles and Keith Van Horn carrying a Top 10 offense... come on. As i've mentioned in the Garnett write-up above, this was an era where the average ORtg was 103... Dirk wasn't a great defender, i can admit that, but he proved enough times from 2006 to 2011 that if you give him a decent rim-protector like Erick Dampier (which most teams should be able to find in the market...) and one/two other good wing defenders like Josh Howard, you can build a Top 10 defense on a team with Dirk easily. And that's with Jerry Stackhouse and Jason Terry playing a lot of minutes, both largely unimpressive defenders. Unless you put Dirk at Center (which would be a coaching mistake) or play him behind a washed up Dampier or Brandon Bass at C, he's generally not going to be a liability on the defensive end. In an era where elite offensive teams don't play through the post very often and are going to bomb 35 three's per game on you, Shaq is way more likely to be a liability than Dirk will.

[70sFan]

I don't like Shaq's defense either, but he's not bigger liability on defense than Dirk. I don't view either one as defensive liabilities (at least in their primes), but Dirk was never good against P&Rs/switches either and he had less strengths defensively as well.

Basically, I don't see Dirk being more impactful defender than Dirk in any era - even in 2020.

[The Master]

Not necessarily. Magic showed much more scoring potential than Garnett ever did. He had a great scoring power, either efficiency or volume, even sometimes both.

Uhm, I didn't compare Magic to Garnett in context of scoring, but in context of level of talent that all-time great players generally play with. So we're taking for granted that Shaq played with three elite ballhandlers (Penny, Kobe, Wade, and then Nash and LeBron when he was past prime), but at the same time we're holding back from Garnett because he needed ... Paul Pierce as a complementary force. If Paul Pierce-level of player is enough to complement Kevin Garnett's weaknesses, then I'm completely fine with these weaknesses if KG gets as good support as all-time greats on regular basis.

[Doctor MJ]

About Hakeem vs Garnett - I want to add one quick thing. I think that it's absolutely fair to pick KG over him, but sometimes I wonder if people don't judge Garnett and Hakeem only in ideal situation.

We all know that in ideal situation, Garnett is your second option on offense while being by far the best player overall due to his defense, but how often could you expect to have another player at least as good as Garnett on offense on your team? Especially when you take into consideration that Garnett's salary was always massive, it's unlikely to have him consistently in a team with superior (or comparable) offensive player.

Hakeem is similar in that aspect, except that he proved that he could lead solid, but not spectacular teams deep into playoffs without any other player close to him offensively. Sampson, Thorpe, young Cassell, Horry - these players were decent but they weren't close to Hakeem on offense. Only Drexler fits this criteria and I don't think he was better offensively than Hakeem at all in 1995.

I know that we should look at players portability and scalability, but some people act like leading a well-built, but not talented team deep into playoffs doesn't have value. To me it does and it's proven by NBA history - you rarely have elite team behind you, unless you are Shaq.

Hakeem proved that he was superior floor raiser and I'm not convinced that he's much worse in a role of ceiling raiser (if at all?). His defense would always have huge impact (I consider him to be better defensively than KG, although it's arguable), he was versatile enough to fit into different roles on offense as well. Some people question his portability, but look how he adapted to Sampson early on and then look how good his fit with Drexler was. His fit with Barkley wasn't nearly as good, although they still put up historical offensive numbers in 1997, but Barkley isn't the type of player who fit well with other bigs (he had the same problem with Moses).

I think it's important to remember some things here:

1. Much of the argument for Duncan > Garnett was specifically that Garnett was a floor raiser relative to Duncan (who was argued to raise ceilings). "Yeah Garnett's putting up huge on/off numbers, but he has worse teammates so it's easier." As such I don't think it makes a lot of sense to damn Garnett with the notion that he needed extraordinary talent in order to lift his team. He lifted his teams, whether they were good or bad, quite a lot.

2. For those who think "Yeah, but Hakeem was clearly achieving something more in general on offense", I'd remind that all through that early-to-mid '00s run Minnesota had a good offense. For 7 out of 8 years the team's rORtg was >2. By contrast, from '86-87 to '93-94, Houston never had an offense that was >2 rORtg and they were below average in 7 out of those 8 years.

Your teammates matter of course, as we KG advocates have been saying. I'm not saying this collection of stats means Garnett > Hakeem on offense, but to the extent you were thinking that Hakeem was regularly achieving far greater team things on offense than alpha Garnett, think again. This was not remotely so, and while you can argue KG had it better than Olajuwon, nobody should be arguing that Garnett had it particularly good.

3. It has to be emphasized how much of an advantage crescendo-Hakeem had over both most of his contemporaries and Garnett with regard to his coach being ahead of the game relating to what we would now call "bloody obvious use of the 3". In both Hakeem's championship years Houston was first in 3Pr. By contrast, '03-04 Minny was 27th in the league.

Hakeem's offensive peak comes with a team scheme that maximized the space he had to operate. Garnett's came with a scheme that in retrospect should be called "incompetent".

Flip their two experiences around and I doubt you get the idea that Hakeem was a drastically superior offensive alpha compared to KG.

[Owly]

[The 1996 Lakers were a fourth seed—but were two wins from being a second seed.

Years might be off here, 95-96 Lakers did not feature Shaq, and being in the same division as Seattle, would I believe have required 9 more wins to tie Seattle (assuming non of those wins taken from Seattle) or 10 to top them. They would at that point have needed to win the division I believe to get a top 2 seed at that point (and so would have taken 1st). Think maybe you're a year off each time in the 90s.

Chances are in '97 they have to meet a better team like Seattle or Utah anyway. Given the nature of Lakers' losses to the Jazz, it's hard to see HCA making a difference.

Besides which. personally I'm not sure of the utility of measuring Shaq against a hypothetical Shaq. You shouldn't credit (or even can ding him) for games missed (or games forcing you to put in a backup big). But the competition here isn't the platonic ideal of Shaq.

You could count on Larry Bird.

Except ... could you? He got himself injured doing things he arguably or definitely shouldn't have been doing three times. And whilst he and the media liked to play up the workhorse (and it was true to an extent) he reportedly drank a fair amount in his early years (with Robey is one angle on it) and wasn't training/practicing as much in summer as he perhaps claimed (I believe I got this Lee Daniel Levine's book Bird: The Making of an American Sports Legend).

[Odinn21]

Not necessarily. Magic showed much more scoring potential than Garnett ever did. He had a great scoring power, either efficiency or volume, even sometimes both.

Uhm, I didn't compare Magic to Garnett in context of scoring, but in context of level of talent that all-time great players generally play with. So we're taking for granted that Shaq played with three elite ballhandlers (Penny, Kobe, Wade, and then Nash and LeBron when he was past prime), but at the same time we're holding back from Garnett because he needed ... Paul Pierce as a complementary force. If Paul Pierce-level of player is enough to complement Kevin Garnett's weaknesses, then I'm completely fine with these weaknesses if KG gets as good support as all-time greats on regular basis.

Ah, I see.

Though what's holding Garnett back for me is that his inability to rise his scoring in a bad team situation. Magic's scored more when his team was not that good and needed points from him. Similar for O'Neal, Duncan, Olajuwon, etc.
What I mean is something like the difference between Duncan in 2003 and 2007 or James in 2009/2018 and 2013, and then Garnett in 2003/2004 and 2008.

So, you can consider my point as a different direction.

[Gibson22]

counting?

[70sFan]

[
I think it's important to remember some things here:

1. Much of the argument for Duncan > Garnett was specifically that Garnett was a floor raiser relative to Duncan (who was argued to raise ceilings). "Yeah Garnett's putting up huge on/off numbers, but he has worse teammates so it's easier." As such I don't think it makes a lot of sense to damn Garnett with the notion that he needed extraordinary talent in order to lift his team. He lifted his teams, whether they were good or bad, quite a lot.

Of course KG was a floor raiser (and quite good one) on these poor teams, but this is not an argument used in this thread in KG vs Hakeem debate.

Hakeem also played with terrible teams and he lifted them, instead people say that Garnett was more portable and you shouldn't build offense around either, so it makes him better ceilling raiser and better overall. This is where I don't necessarily agree, because Hakeem had more succes with decent, but not very good team.

Both were amazing in terrible situation and both would be amazing in perfect situation, so I pick player who (I believe) was better in decent, but far from perfect situation

2. For those who think "Yeah, but Hakeem was clearly achieving something more in general on offense", I'd remind that all through that early-to-mid '00s run Minnesota had a good offense. For 7 out of 8 years the team's rORtg was >2. By contrast, from '86-87 to '93-94, Houston never had an offense that was >2 rORtg and they were below average in 7 out of those 8 years.

Why do you exclude 1986 team, the only one when Hakeem had any sort of offensive help?

Garnett played in offensive minded teams and until 2005, his teams weren't that terrible - they were good offensively and weak on defense which is visible on their ratings. I mean, Minny never were elite defensively despite having peak KG - does it mean that Hakeem was clearly superior defender as well?

3. It has to be emphasized how much of an advantage crescendo-Hakeem had over both most of his contemporaries and Garnett with regard to his coach being ahead of the game relating to what we would now call "bloody obvious use of the 3". In both Hakeem's championship years Houston was first in 3Pr. By contrast, '03-04 Minny was 27th in the league.

Hakeem's offensive peak comes with a team scheme that maximized the space he had to operate. Garnett's came with a scheme that in retrospect should be called "incompetent".

Houston didn't play that way in 1986 and 1987, but their offense was still quite good. Very good in fact.

Flip their two experiences around and I doubt you get the idea that Hakeem was a drastically superior offensive alpha compared to KG.

I never said he was drastically superior, but he has the edge to me. Say all you want about Houston system, but it won't work with KG in place of Hakeem. At least I don't see it working the same way - Garnett's scoring game wasn't resiliant enough and 1993-94 teams didn't have good scorers around Hakeem. Without Dream's pressure on defense, it would be much harder for them to mantain shooting efficiency.

[limbo]

I don't like Shaq's defense either, but he's not bigger liability on defense than Dirk. I don't view either one as defensive liabilities (at least in their primes), but Dirk was never good against P&Rs/switches either and he had less strengths defensively as well.

Basically, I don't see Dirk being more impactful defender than Dirk in any era - even in 2020.

Dirk had his limitations in terms of foot speed and he could get bullied by stronger more athletic finishers when trying to defend in the paint (which is why he frequently resorted into trying to slap the ball out of their hand rather than challenge them vertically), but his fundamentals defensively were better than Shaq's...

First of all, Shaq lost a lot of value defensively per possession just by being criminally bad at getting back on defense and conceding rim-protection in transition, while Dirk was actually very good in this aspect, in part due to his style offensively being rooted more in outside shooting, which frequently gave him a nice pole position to be one of the first guys back on defense.

Secondly, as much as Dirk's foot speed limited him in defending outside the paint, he was way more consistent in his effort to do so. Shaq didn't even try to defend the pick n roll... He'd just wait at the top of the key while giving the dribbler space to pull up + giving his own man space to pop... Here's an example of this @11:12 in the video:

Watch on YouTube

This was a more viable strategy back in the early 00's, because teams didn't have good/versatile enough Guard + Big combos to exploit this space, but Bibby and Divac still made it work a lot of times vs. LA... Imagine doing this today. It's suicide. Most teams in the NBA now have a better PNR combo than Bibby Divac, and more shooters around them...

Also, here's an example of what Shaq looked like in the PNR defending a guy that could shoot it outside and dribble well enough @ 0:37

Watch on YouTube

Peja just danced him around, passed the ball to Divac in the post in a mismatch, Shaq tried going back inside to help, Peja just springs back to the 3pt line and has enough time to bury it with Shaq being to slow to rotate. The Kings had the most sophisticated offensive sets in the early 00's. They actually had multiple ball-handlers, shooters and Bigs in Divac/Webber that knew how to be useful outside the paint. They lacked just a little bit more talent and luck to defeat the Lakers...

Watch on YouTube

@11:30 - Watch Shaq's pathetic effort on defense here... Come on... You can't tell me this guy tried harder than Dirk defensively... First he's slow to get back... Then he just kind of stands there at the top of the key with no rhyme or reason... Completely OBLIVIOUS to what's going on around him... there's a guy behind him on the 3pt line completely open... there's Webber down low fighting for deep position... the ball swings to the corner and back inside to Webber... Shaq has 3 seconds to read this and react, but he just slowly jogs to the paint... luckily Webber fumbles the catch to give him an extra second but Shaq decides to just swipe at the air and let Webber score... Pathetic.

Shaq would get eaten alive defensively today. There's no room for these types of mistakes against modern offenses. Not getting back in transition, being an awful PNR defender that just sags back constantly, giving the ball-handler and the screener both enough space to shoot, being easily taken of the dribble by Stojakovic, much less guys like Curry, Lillard, Harden, Paul, Doncic and the list goes on... Even the things Shaq is suppose to be elite at, which is rim protection, he just gives up on trying to defend inside shots all too often... He's just lazy dude. The biggest value from Shaq defensively is that he's one of the best driving deterrents ever because he was so massive, he was a one man wall before the rim. He had a high intimidation factor. But teams now play a lot more for outside shots and have found ways to remove these sorts of paint-camping walls outside of the key. Not to mention the perimeter talent levels are all-time high. Mike Bibby was exploiting Shaq's defense in the early 00's... Mike Bibby is a nobody to Curry, Paul, Harden, Lillard, Doncic, LeBron with modern schemes and shooting... Even teams like the Jazz with Rubio, Mitchell and Ingles could work around Shaq's weaknesses now. They have enough resources and know-how.

[Joao Saraiva]

I don't like Shaq's defense either, but he's not bigger liability on defense than Dirk. I don't view either one as defensive liabilities (at least in their primes), but Dirk was never good against P&Rs/switches either and he had less strengths defensively as well.

Basically, I don't see Dirk being more impactful defender than Dirk in any era - even in 2020.

Dirk had his limitations in terms of foot speed and he could get bullied by stronger more athletic finishers when trying to defend in the paint (which is why he frequently resorted into trying to slap the ball out of their hand rather than challenge them vertically), but his fundamentals defensively were better than Shaq's...

First of all, Shaq lost a lot of value defensively per possession just by being criminally bad at getting back on defense and conceding rim-protection in transition, while Dirk was actually very good in this aspect, in part due to his style offensively being rooted more in outside shooting, which frequently gave him a nice pole position to be one of the first guys back on defense.

Secondly, as much as Dirk's foot speed limited him in defending outside the paint, he was way more consistent in his effort to do so. Shaq didn't even try to defend the pick n roll... He'd just wait at the top of the key while giving the dribbler space to pull up + giving his own man space to pop... Here's an example of this @11:12 in the video:

Watch on YouTube

This was a more viable strategy back in the early 00's, because teams didn't have good/versatile enough Guard + Big combos to exploit this space, but Bibby and Divac still made it work a lot of times vs. LA... Imagine doing this today. It's suicide. Most teams in the NBA now have a better PNR combo than Bibby Divac, and more shooters around them...

Also, here's an example of what Shaq looked like in the PNR defending a guy that could shoot it outside and dribble well enough @ 0:37

Watch on YouTube

Peja just danced him around, passed the ball to Divac in the post in a mismatch, Shaq tried going back inside to help, Peja just springs back to the 3pt line and has enough time to bury it with Shaq being to slow to rotate. The Kings had the most sophisticated offensive sets in the early 00's. They actually had multiple ball-handlers, shooters and Bigs in Divac/Webber that knew how to be useful outside the paint. They lacked just a little bit more talent and luck to defeat the Lakers...

Watch on YouTube

@11:30 - Watch Shaq's pathetic effort on defense here... Come on... You can't tell me this guy tried harder than Dirk defensively... First he's slow to get back... Then he just kind of stands there at the top of the key with no rhyme or reason... Completely OBLIVIOUS to what's going on around him... there's a guy behind him on the 3pt line completely open... there's Webber down low fighting for deep position... the ball swings to the corner and back inside to Webber... Shaq has 3 seconds to read this and react, but he just slowly jogs to the paint... luckily Webber fumbles the catch to give him an extra second but Shaq decides to just swipe at the air and let Webber score... Pathetic.

Shaq would get eaten alive defensively today. There's no room for these types of mistakes against modern offenses. Not getting back in transition, being an awful PNR defender that just sags back constantly, giving the ball-handler and the screener both enough space to shoot, being easily taken of the dribble by Stojakovic, much less guys like Curry, Lillard, Harden, Paul, Doncic and the list goes on... Even the things Shaq is suppose to be elite at, which is rim protection, he just gives up on trying to defend inside shots all too often... He's just lazy dude. The biggest value from Shaq defensively is that he's one of the best driving deterrents ever because he was so massive, he was a one man wall before the rim. He had a high intimidation factor. But teams now play a lot more for outside shots and have found ways to remove these sorts of paint-camping walls outside of the key. Not to mention the perimeter talent levels are all-time high. Mike Bibby was exploiting Shaq's defense in the early 00's... Mike Bibby is a nobody to Curry, Paul, Harden, Lillard, Doncic, LeBron with modern schemes and shooting... Even teams like the Jazz with Rubio, Mitchell and Ingles could work around Shaq's weaknesses now. They have enough resources and know-how.

Maybe in today's league you'd see more Orlando Shaq than Lakers' Shaq. He played accordingly to the league he was in. Can't fault him for that. It would be like saying Jerry West couldn't dribble like Allen Iverson... the rules didn't even allow that.

[Joao Saraiva]

Paul Pierce was that guy for the Celtics in 2008, coming with better PPG, ts%, lower TOs and more assists. Also in most difficult moments, Paul Pierce was the guy that showed up more than anyone on the Celtics. I'm not even saying that KG wasnt' the best player on the squad, he was. And on defense he was really important. But we're not comparing him to Paul Pierce for this spot. We're comparing him to Shaquille O'Neal or Hakeem who are tier 1 peak wise. We're comparing him to Magic Johnson who is arguably the offensive GOAT or at least he was tier 1.

Paradoxically, isn't that an argument in favour of Garnett? Magic played for 5-6 years with >20ppg scoring Kareem, Bird played after some time with two allstars fitting his game perfectly and legit depth (at least in starting lineup), Shaq won his all titles with Kobe and Wade (and spent some time with Penny as well) - if you're saying it's a necessity to have Paul Pierce as a closer in your team alongside Garnett, then I'd rather think that scoring is a bit overrated in these discussions, because - with all respect to Pierce - I don't think 30yo Pierce is above average second option in most championship teams, nor he's some historical outlier. Yes, there was Ray Allen as well, but Celtics generally weren't great offensive team nor they have some special depth, yet they won a title (after first two rounds) quite decisively with 32yo Garnett. So maybe some of us judge KG based on sub-optimal conditions he met, and on theoretical situation in which he plays under those circumstances - and not based on optimal conditions most all-time greats play in during big part of their careers, that would make Garnett's scoring limitations not that much relevant?

Well, KG won once and made the finals twice. Shaq was in the finals 6 times and won four of them. The point is still OK, but still, Shaq won way more than Kevin Garnett. Shouldn't we consider that?

Paul Pierce at 30 is much lower than Kobe in 00? Or lower at all? I don't think so.

Then you add Allen, Posey, Tony Allen, Rondo, Cassell... that is a hell of a deep team.

How do you feel about that cast against all the casts Shaq won with?

[limbo]

Maybe in today's league you'd see more Orlando Shaq than Lakers' Shaq. He played accordingly to the league he was in. Can't fault him for that. It would be like saying Jerry West couldn't dribble like Allen Iverson... the rules didn't even allow that.

Orlando Shaq sucked defensively too... which is why teams like the Pacers and the Bulls absolutely destroyed Orlando posting 119 ORtg's against them in the Playoffs.

Also skinny vs. fat Shaq is always a trade off. If you go the skinnier route like in Orlando, you sacrifice inside defensive presence for a bit more mobility, which obviously wasn't working out well for Shaq because his teams were average defensively during the RS and they got destroyed in the Playoffs. So he decided to trade off some of his mobility for mass/strength and be more of a paint-deterrent. That also didn't work because the Jazz kept abusing his lack of mobility now on the defensive end...

The only time it worked out was the post MJ depression era of the slowest pace/ORtg in modern basketball... In that bubble, Shaq thrived on defense.

Maybe i'm just stupid and Shaq was this next level genius that was able to predict the future, or was playing 4D Chess all along, by knowing if he get himself to be much larger in size, the league would adjust to this by trying to counter that by matching up with him inside... when they clearly should've been looking to play opposite of Shaq's strengths which is what teams in the 90's were able to do , and what teams nowadays would have been able to do to an unprecedented level...

Shaq didn't play accordingly to the league. He just played... the league hit a dry spell and Shaq had good enough teams to capitalize on it for a 4-year stretch. Kudos to him, but that doesn't make him better than KG or Dirk in my book, just because those two had less stars align over the course of their careers.

[DQuinn1575]

It's interesting how Magic and Bird were historically viewed as neck and neck by most basketball followers, but recently there seems to be a much clearer separation between them in Magic favor, which seems reasonable based on Magic usually having less hiccups offensively in his prime while being able to close out his career on a far more impressive note, not only by impact but also how he reinvented his game as a more senior player and was still able to be arguably the best offensive player in the league despite moving away from the fast tempo transition spamming he was abusing to historic levels during most of his career.

It's interesting that Magic and Bird are viewed as being neck and neck when at the time they played Bird was considered by far the better player -

MVP - voting by year, Magic's place, Bird's, then Magic's first place votes, then Bird's

1980 0/4 0/15
1981 11/2 0/20
1982 8/2 0/20
1983 3/1 2/1
1984 3/1 5/52
1985 2/1 1/73
1986 3/1 0/73
1987 1/3 65/10
1988 3/2 16/16

Thru 1986 first place votes - 8 total for Magic, Bird 254
1980 Rookie of year voting - 3/63
1980,1981 - Magic not all-nba
1982 - Magic 2nd team all-nba

It shows that people didn't think of them as equals- and remember, Kareem was considered by many as the GOAT. And you can go back the 2 previous years in college, where Bird was first All-American in 78, Magic not an All-American, and 79 where Bird was College Player of the Year - so for 9 years in a row, each and every year (1978-1986) Bird was higher rated than Magic.

The belief was that Bird was the better player thru 1986 - and that in 1987 the Lakers became Magic's team and he won the MVP,
note in 1988 basically viewed as equals, and then Bird went downhill while Magic stayed at that level. The Sporting News polled players for MVP - Magic only won in 87, Barkley and MJ beat him out the other years. Magic may have passed Bird, but MJ passed Magic.

Someone is going to reply that MVP voting is meaningless, whatever, but it usually, and in this case definitely, reflects the thoughts of the day.