RealGM Top 100 List #7

[An Unbiased Fan]

On what basis then DO you rank Kobe so high in offense and scoring? Number of FG attempts made, an unimpressive fraction of which went in? Scoring at high volume and OK efficiency despite being saddled with useless teammates such as Gasol and Shaq?

I have posted Kobe's PTS% & AST% numbers a few times already. His PTS% are up there with MJ & Shaq, and his AST% is up there with Bird's. Thats freaking huge offensive volume.

In his prime Kobe had a direct hand in around 40-45 pts a game for LA. His teams were always well above league average in ORTG, even when he was surrounded by the Smush Parker, and Kwame Brown's of the World. His career TS% is 56%, which is more than fine considering the huge scoring volume he produces. his skillset is TOp ever behind MJ & Bird.

[An Unbiased Fan]

To Dr Mufasa: Using pure FGA for a (relatively) low foul draw player isn't the most accurate way to measure

It does speak to impact though. As it has been said, Shaq got the opposing team into the penalty earlier, and also put their bigs into foul trouble. That's significant, because if the opposing bigmen has to sit with 2 fouls, that also weakens the opposition's team defense.

This is why I say Shaq as an offensive anchor, was more impactful than Hakeem as a defensive anchor. His offense was super efficient & and had ramifications beyond simply points scored.

[JordansBulls]

Code: Select all

 vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Olajuwon: 4-0 (100%)/  5-2 (71%)
Shaq:     11-3 (79%)/  13-2 (87%)
Duncan:   13-4 (76%)/  8-1 (88.9%)

Hakeem 9-2 = 82%
Shaq 24-5 = 83%
Duncan 21-5 = 81%


Hakeem without HCA

Code: Select all

 
vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Olajuwon: 6-7 (46%)/  1-2 (33%)


thru 1998 (didn't count 1999 for him)


Shaq without HCA

Code: Select all

 
vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Shaq: 8-7 (53%)/  0-0 (0%)


Duncan without HCA

Code: Select all

 
vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Duncan: 5-4 (56%)/  0-0 (0%)


Here is a question for the group, how much does Duncan going down in round 1 as the #1 seed to an 8th seed hurt him here?

[MacGill]

Honestly, I don't really see what so hard to see. This is a guy who managed to get obese while playing professional basketball, and refused to get begin injury recovery during the off-season...and won only 1 MVP during a period where everyone thought he was the best player in the league for many years.

The underachievement is very, clear cut.

I am not saying Shaq did not gain weight, in fact I agreed that he did, but it is when people take things to the extreme on one end without given credit on the other. It's not like Shaq pulled a Shawn Kemp here and again I would not even closely use the word 'obese' with Shaq, even today. A big difference from overweight & obese, although by today's standards most people now fall under that category, which is a whole other subject.
My point was that he came into the league already at 300 pounds, lean and in great shape. For most bigs, they come into the league, get stronger and put on size and Shaq was no different. From 92-03, the years many are using here, I just do not view Shaq as this overweight defensive liability as many are making him out to be especially when being compared to guys 80 pounds lighter.
I can certainly concede that he wasn't as good or as active(as the others mentioned) but I mean again he wasn't a slouch and if he didn't show this prowess till 99-00, maybe he just wasn't that guy in the first place, which is fine.
I just do not agree with the notion that because he gained weight over the years he in fact self destructed his defensive career potential. Especially when people say he never really made that defensive impact from the start of his nba career. If anything this should have hurt him more offensively, which obviously wasn't the case.

I do agree with you about your point around Shaq's injury.

But Hakeem only won one MVP as well and bottom line is Shaq won more titles and final mvps than Hakeem. As lazy as we want to say he was, unhappy or petty, he still managed to win more than any other big not named Russell or KAJ in these conversations and by what people are posting in non-traditional center ways of not being as impactful defensively.

Were I going simply by such metrics, clearly I'd be arguing for Duncan here, right? When I argue for Hakeem, I'm not doing it to find someone other than Shaq to go for, I'm very much lifting Hakeem up beyond his superficial accolades. I'm seeing a guy who at his peak was absolutely amazing on offense and defense, and who had some bad luck teammate-wise.

And let's be clear, Shaq had some fantastic luck with teammates. Penny, then Kobe, then Wade? Has anyone else in history ever had that kind of luck to have 3 such great scoring perimeter players? It was so amazing in fact that some people still think Shaq made those guys even as we see Kobe & Wade dominate just as much without him.

I view it both good and bad. Good because it led to 4 rings, bad simply because no other player played with such dominant wings/forwards while going through their prime. It's just my opinion but I would have loved to see Shaq on a team like the Spurs/10 Mav's, a team simply built around him with great role players/All-Stars but not another dominant superstar. This enters the other reason why I felt this is bad. His winning now goes a little undervalued to some because one makes an argument of having another superstar on the team and not being able to seperate ego's of the two Alpha Males.

Who else had this problem?

That Shaq won only 4 titles with that kind of talent around him, is a bit of a problem when you start using that 4 to belittle Hakeem's 2.

I wouldn't belittle Hakeem on anything. In fact he was a fav of mine growing up for sure and I have a great deal of respect for his career. You made the comment of Shaq only winning out 1 MVP and I made mine, just pure discussion. If anything I think it is Shaq taking the belittling right now.

And when we talk about Shaq's injuries, again where I can see some slight for that, look at other past true 7+ footers who also fell into that category. Yao, Oden, Bynum are recent one's and all players who were heavier than Hakeem (who by the way I am a big fan of) and obviously there bodies failed them at some point. Let's face it, I myself have gained 25 pounds since my prime weight and my knees tell me that everyday

Again: It's not like it's an actual debate whether Shaq was lazy compared to the Kobes & Jordans of the world.

Agreed

When you do things that diminish your capacity, it really doesn't make any sense to say "Well, other people have these problems even though they tried really hard." Shaq doesn't warrant getting that benefit of the doubt, specifically because we know he didn't try very hard.

What I was saying was for a man his size he had great longevity and not every injury could be put on the fact that he gained weight, especially when we have a list of other 7 footers, lighter than Shaq, going down as well. It seems that is what some are trying to present in argument. Maybe it is me, but Shaq wanted to be the best and wanted to be the most dominant ever so wouldn't you be inclined to agree that even Shaq would know being lazy or gaining weight etc would not get him there? So again, while I admit certain parts happened does it not seem like we are overblowing certain aspects of his lazyness, weight and using them to make stronger claims on reasons of his fails?

It's sad for me to see a guy like Wilt put over Shaq (on this board) when all Duncan/Shaq/Hakeem have great arguments only to hear now that the most dominant, best peak player, longevity, and great winner left is being downplayed because of ego, injuries and riff's with players when the other two players being compared to were not dealt the same hand as Shaq in pure size, superstar acquisistion throughout careers, or having other teams exploit your weakness game in and game out (hack-a-Shaq). Yet, with his bad free throw shooting, egotisical ways etc, he still had such a historical career.

So to everyone who excepted him to win 8 titles and make his relations last with Penny/Kobe or Wade and not to weigh 340+ pounds, and focus more on defence, than maybe he did underacheive. From all the information provided in these great threads, if all we have is 'eye test theory' (mainly) from a physical perspective on what we think he should have weighed, looked and made public riffs by another future top 10 superstar that should have went on to win more but didn't. Again maybe he underachieved. I choose to use look what he accompished given all that we've seen and know and that at his peak no one mentioned would have a consistent answer for him offensively or defensively.

We're doing a GOAT list here man. Shaq's not getting compared with scrubs, he's getting compared with the most amazing players of all time. To do this we have to look at this from all sides, and if I think a guy warrants a place a bit further down than you do, it stands to reason I better give some reasons to you for that. This is not some great tragedy of being unappreciative. It's about being analytical rather purely sentimental.

[/quote]

I know what discussion this is and who he is being compared with. I am merely stating some of my own opinions for discussion based off what others have inputted and am in no way being sentimental here. I don't see what is wrong if I am not sold on certain facts as others present them nor I do not attack a poster stating they are wrong here if I do not agree. If it's a discussion and I am shown or proven wrong, great I accept it and will move on, but like some others here, I am not sold here from what has been presented.

[Fencer reregistered]

His career TS% is 56%, which is more than fine considering the huge scoring volume he produces. his skillset is TOp ever behind MJ & Bird.

Whoops. I misread some stats along the way. Sorry. Bird's statistical advantage over Kobe in scoring is less than I thought.

What I don't understand is your fixation on AST%. If somebody has a high AST% and a low number of assists, that just shows that his team overall didn't pass the ball much, right? Why is it to Kobe's credit that he played on what statistically looked like teams of selfish ballhogs, if it's clear that he was the biggest ballhog of all?

[Dr Positivity]

I was never referring to the head to head matchup (where Shaq obviously performed well) but what they did in general. It isn't hard to see Shaq as a little of an underachiever and see Hakeem as maximizing what he got from what I'd consider weak management.

Context of titles is as important as count for me.

To Dr Mufasa: Using pure FGA for a (relatively) low foul draw player isn't the most accurate way to measure

I find Pts vs FGA is usually a good way to quick glance the efficiency of a game, it covers both FG% and FTs quite well.

There's obviously a lot more to a player's impact than FGA vs Pts. Just saying from a purely statistical perspective, half of those games are Hakeem being unguardable and the other half are the Rockets sticking to their plan of feeding him, but having less desirable results

Looking over 95 in particular, I think the purely statistical difference between Hakeem and Drob is overblown the first 4 games. Each of the first 4 games, the FGA difference between Hakeem and Drob is more than the points difference - that would indicate from a scoring perspective, Hakeem was just taking more shots and getting bad results on them. And the series ended up 2-2 with a 1 pt loss and blown lead at home in G1 from 3-1 Spurs. Hakeem kicked his ass in the last 2 games statistically, but not before

[Vinsanity420]

Here is a question for the group, how much does Duncan going down in round 1 as the #1 seed to an 8th seed hurt him here?

There is no group...I think you and AUF are the only ones using that ridiculous criteria.

[OldSchoolNBA]

Looking over 95 in particular, I think the purely statistical difference between Hakeem and Drob is overblown the first 4 games. Each of the first 4 games, the FGA difference between Hakeem and Drob is more than the points difference - that would indicate from a scoring perspective, Hakeem was just taking more shots and getting bad results on them. And the series ended up 2-2 with a 1 pt loss and blown lead at home in G1 from 3-1 Spurs. Hakeem kicked his ass in the last 2 games statistically, but not before

I think you need to consider getting shots up is a skill. Robinson would not score the same amount of point as Hakeem did if he took more shot attempts and I'm not sure if that would be helpful to his team (the two games the Spurs won were also the games where Robinson posted his lowest USG%). He wasn't someone who you could feed the ball and let him dominate because he didn't have a dominant low-post game and he struggled with double teams to a much greater extent than someone like Hakeem and Shaq did since he had more of a face up game which means limited court vision for a center since he can't see all angles on the floor.

[An Unbiased Fan]

His career TS% is 56%, which is more than fine considering the huge scoring volume he produces. his skillset is TOp ever behind MJ & Bird.

Whoops. I misread some stats along the way. Sorry. Bird's statistical advantage over Kobe in scoring is less than I thought.

What I don't understand is your fixation on AST%. If somebody has a high AST% and a low number of assists, that just shows that his team overall didn't pass the ball much, right? Why is it to Kobe's credit that he played on what statistically looked like teams of selfish ballhogs, if it's clear that he was the biggest ballhog of all?

I have to ask, why do you think the Lakers look like a team of selfish ballhogs statistically???

The 00's Lakers are on par with the 80's Celtics when it comes to their rank in assists. LA was Top 10 almost every year, and Top 5 most years in assists.

Kobe's AST% is on par with Bird's AST%. the major difference between the two is that Kobe's PTS% dwarfs Bird's.

[34Dayz]

I think you need to consider getting shots up is a skill.

[Vinsanity420]

The 95 Finals is a microcosm. Everybody focuses on Olajuwon supposedly destroying O'Neal, when in fact the difference was the role players. Anderson/Scott/Grant/bench sucked a collective dick for Orlando, while Houston's supporting cast was generally excellent. That was the biggest difference. Elie, Smith and Horry all deserve to be in the Role Player Hall of Fame.

Nick Anderson especially... if he didn't keep choking consistently it would have been much closer.

I still thought Hakeem outplayed Shaq over the course of the series. Hakeem and Shaq were even in Game 1 before Nick Anderson made some (Please Use More Appropriate Word) plays and choked it away. Game 2 Hakeem legitimately outplayed Shaq in the first half, putting Orlando in a hole, and after that it was a very painful comeback - I didn't think Orlando had a chance to win that game the whole time. Game 3 was even in and ended in like a Horry dagger. Game 4 was lost - Shaq got most of his points after Houston had already taken control in the 4th Q.

Hakeem basically outplayed by Shaq when it most mattered for his team - and that's why he was better, despite what the FG% might say.

[Vinsanity420]

Kobe's AST% is on par with Bird's AST%. the major difference between the two is that Kobe's PTS% dwarfs Bird's.

You're not seriously saying Kobe's passing is comparable to Bird's are you?

[An Unbiased Fan]

Kobe's AST% is on par with Bird's AST%. the major difference between the two is that Kobe's PTS% dwarfs Bird's.

You're not seriously saying Kobe's passing is comparable to Bird's are you?

No, in fact I have already said Bird is the better passer. I'm talking about actual offensive production here.

[34Dayz]

Although Kobe was an amazing offensive player im not sure he was better then Bird in that regard.

[Fencer reregistered]

"Unbiased Fan",

Are you basically suggesting that the only difference between Kobe's and Bird's assists was the overall pace/scoring in their respective eras?

That still wouldn't put Kobe's passing close to a par with Bird's, by the way, but it would make some of what you're saying sound more sensible.

[Die93]

Shaq Hakeem Duncan are better Finals perfomers then Bird,and You could argue Kobe's 2009' Finals Performance is on Par with any of his also.

[An Unbiased Fan]

"Unbiased Fan",

Are you basically suggesting that the only difference between Kobe's and Bird's assists was the overall pace/scoring in their respective eras?

That still wouldn't put Kobe's passing close to a par with Bird's, by the way, but it would make some of what you're saying sound more sensible.

I'm speaking more to their roles, and actual on-court offensive impact.

Kobe had to be put up massive PTS% volume scoring numbers, while at the same time, facilitating elite AST% numbers, within LA's offense. His direct relation to points scored is around 38-45 PPG during his prime.

Now Bird's a better passer, skill-wise. However, his actual utilization of that skill on-court didn't result in a higher assist rate than Kobe. To compare, Magic was putting up 45% AST% numbers in his prime, and Nash was around there too, including 55.8% in 2007.

Bird in his prime had a direct relation to about 40-42 PPG. So in actual on-court offensive impact, Bird didn't outperform Kobe. And both led great offenses. I have both on par with each other offensively.

[RoyceDa59]

Vote: Shaq
Nomination: James

I believe there are only 4 true candidates for the 7th spot and they are Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan and Kobe. I believe Shaq is the most deserving because he was the most feared and most dominant in his prime. All 4 players have very similar resume's in terms of accolades and success on both an individual and team scale, but Shaq is the only one that won back-to-back-to-back finals MVP's. Additionally, I believe Shaq from 1999-2003 had the highest peak and was the most unstoppable of these 4 players.

I mean really, in the end, these 4 players could go in any order and I don't think anyone would raise up too much of a fuss, but I just believe Shaq was the most dominant of the bunch and had the highest peak, with equally strong accolades and longevity.

James is the only player yet to be nominated who was clearly the best player in the league at some point during his career.

[ElGee]

I'm fairly tired of the over-emphasis placed on Finals performances. It's a little too arbitrary to me to receive this much weight.

First of all, sample size is a serious issue...unless people want to be hyper-results oriented, which, again, seems arbitrary.

Second, the team (and their health) around a star do matter here.

Third of all, and more importantly, it's entirely matchup dependent. There were many times during Shaq's runs to the Finals that the de facto Finals were in the West. I thought the 2007 "Finals" occurred between Phoenix and San Antonio.

One has to be awfully careful about judging guys on bigger stages (applies to almost no one, I imagine) and judging guys based on matchup/situation. Part of the reason Shaq's Finals numbers are so juicy are precisely because he played 2 incredibly weak Eastern teams, one of which (Philadelphia) literally resorted to playing a small college lineup at times.

It's fun and dandy to note Finals stats and records, just like Super Bowl records are sexy, but let's keep it in perspective.

[Fencer reregistered]

"Unbiased Fan",

Are you basically suggesting that the only difference between Kobe's and Bird's assists was the overall pace/scoring in their respective eras?

That still wouldn't put Kobe's passing close to a par with Bird's, by the way, but it would make some of what you're saying sound more sensible.

I'm speaking more to their roles, and actual on-court offensive impact.

Kobe had to be put up massive PTS% volume scoring numbers, while at the same time, facilitating elite AST% numbers, within LA's offense. His direct relation to points scored is around 38-45 PPG during his prime.

Now Bird's a better passer, skill-wise. However, his actual utilization of that skill on-court didn't result in a higher assist rate than Kobe. To compare, Magic was putting up 45% AST% numbers in his prime, and Nash was around there too, including 55.8% in 2007.

Bird in his prime had a direct relation to about 40-42 PPG. So in actual on-court offensive impact, Bird didn't outperform Kobe. And both led great offenses. I have both on par with each other offensively.

I don't see where AST% is an indicator of much except a guy's job description.
I don't see where job description is an overwhelming indicator of the quality of a guy's play or performance.

Take some team with a legit swingman, so that we can substitute Bird for Kobe or vice-versa one-for-one without being ridiculous. Put in Bird for Kobe. Bird's team is more likely to score. Why?

* Bird is better without the ball. Hard to dispute that.
* Bird, as you say, has more passing skills. (Lots more, actually.)
* Put the ball in his hands and Bird is better at scoring than Kobe in almost every scenario. (One possible exception -- on the 3-pt line, guarded by somebody really, really big, in which case Kobe can drive around him better than Bird can.)